As campaigning gathered pace in the final days before Malaysia’s general election, the destruction caused by a wave of flash flooding around the country also came to a head, forcing thousands of people to flee their homes.
However, despite some campaigners suspending events with voters due to rising floodwaters ahead of today’s election, being held during monsoon season, the issues of climate change and the environment have been largely absent in the campaigns and speeches of leading candidates.
“Given the impacts of COVID-19 and how small [businesses] were quite badly affected in the past couple of years, people are looking at better social welfare protection systems as a key issue,” said Renard Siew, a climate change adviser at the Kuala Lumpur-based think-tank Centre for Governance and Political Studies.
Environmental concerns “will sit at the bottom of the list” of voters’ priorities, he said.
Like many Southeast Asian nations, Malaysia already suffers regularly from the impacts of extreme weather and rising temperatures — be it air pollution caused by annual forest fires, water shortages, droughts or severe floods.
Last year, flooding in the country that started in mid-December caused nearly US$1.5 billion in losses and displaced more than 120,000 people.
This month, the states of Penang, Perak, Selangor, Melaka, Johor and Kelantan have been hit by flash floods, forcing thousands of people to seek refuge in evacuation centers.
Although faced with increasingly frequent flooding and more extreme weather, the top issues for Malaysian voters are mainly the economy, health and social care, political stability, corruption and the cost of living, environmentalists said.
For Calvin Chan, 26, a resident of Penang island, on the country’s northwest coast, today’s election would be the first time he could vote in a general election — with economic stability and the rising cost of living the big issues for him.
The price of his favorite meal — chicken rice and watermelon juice — is now about 30 percent more than a year ago, he said.
However, Chan knows the damage flooding can cause. During the monsoon season his street usually floods, making it difficult to leave his home, so he wants politicians to address the problem of climate change.
“They talk about floods, but have no solutions,” Chan said. “Green-minded people are considered a minority, but [candidates] should speak about minority topics to capture more votes.”
General elections held during Malaysia’s monsoon season are rare and usually avoided as emergency services are often stretched when handling flood relief efforts.
Flooding could prevent constituents from getting to the polls, as roads become impassable and vehicles or property can be damaged, or if documents required to vote are lost when homes are inundated, Greenpeace Malaysia campaigner Nur Sakeenah Omar said.
Flood victims dealing with property damage or struggling to access food and clean water would be facing more pressing issues than voting, she said.
Before the election, Greenpeace Malaysia conducted a study of members of parliament to learn what they had said in public about climate change and the environment in recent years.
It found that only 8.4 percent of all questions raised in parliament since 2018 contained at least one environment-related keyword.
The term “climate change” — perubahan iklim in Malay — came up in only 55 questions out of 19,401 in parliament during that time, the study found.
When floods were discussed, most Malaysian politicians blamed the problem on rivers and poorly designed or clogged drainage systems coupled with “unexpected heavy rainfall,” without making the link between the intensity of the rains and global warming, Omar said.
“Every sector of the government — including every ministry and every candidate — should be talking about climate change,” she said.
The three major coalitions looking to lead the next government — Barisan Nasional, Pakatan Harapan and Perikatan Nasional — did not respond to requests for comment.
Analysts have said forest loss could be contributing to the worsening floods in Malaysia, where a main driver of deforestation is the clearing of land to grow palm oil.
Data from monitoring service Global Forest Watch shows the country has lost almost a fifth of its primary forest since 2002, although deforestation rates have fallen in recent years as businesses and governments improved their conservation efforts.
Cutting down forests kills trees crucial for absorbing planet-warming carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and also reduces the ability of land to absorb floodwater.
Public knowledge of green issues such as the importance of forests and renewable energy is growing but would not “make a big dent” on voting patterns, said Damien Thanam, president of the non-governmental organization PEKA Malaysia.
While election candidates have not focused heavily on climate change, many of them have made pledges on forest protection and restoration, anti-air pollution and climate change laws, and easing taxes on electric vehicles.
However, with Malaysia among more than 140 nations that agreed to halt and reverse deforestation by 2030 at last year’s COP26 climate summit, firmer action would be needed from the next government, conservationists said.
“Politicians must all act now. There is no time left to waste,” WWF Malaysia conservation director Henry Chan said.
Some climate experts see promise in Malaysia’s young adults, many of whom would be voting for the first time after the voting age was lowered from 21 to 18.
An April survey by youth voting campaign group Undi18 showed that three-quarters of young Malaysians expressed concern about climate change.
“It’s the youths who are organizing climate rallies, demanding world leaders do more to address issues relating to climate change,” Siew said.
The country’s young people should use their vote to safeguard their future from the impacts of rising temperatures and environmental crises, Chan said.
“Speak up,” he said. “Ask candidates what disasters might be brought on by climate change in your constituency in the next 20 to 30 years, and how they will be fixed.”
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS