Hazman Aziz

If the Americans are busy with the US Presidential Election 2008, our neighbour, Malaysia are busy with their election 2008. In Singapore, People Action Party (PAP) occupies 95% of the seats, while in Malaysia, Barisan National occupies 95% of their parliment seats. Barisan Nasional (National Front or BN) is a major political coalition in Malaysia, and made up of these parties as of December 2003,

• United Malays National Organization (UMNO)
• Malaysian Chinese Association (MCA)
• Malaysian Indian Congress (MIC)
• Gerakan Rakyat Malaysia (Malaysian People’s Movement)
• People’s Progressive Party (PPP)
• Parti Pesaka Bumiputera Bersatu
• Sarawak United People’s Party
• Sabah Progressive Party(SAPP)
• Parti Bersatu Sabah
• Liberal Democratic Party
• Parti Bersatu Rakyat Sabah
• United Pasokmomogun Kadazandusun Murut Organisation
• Sarawak Progressive Democratic Party

Barisan Nasional even have a song dedicated to their party, title Barisan Nasional. So, I have compiled a list of video that is stream on YouTube on the participating Parties for the Malaysian 2008 Elections. 

An arctile that wrote by my friend, Mosman Ismail (University of Wollongong) in 2004 about e-Goverment.

Topic:
“E-government and e-democracy are not the same thing, and that measures by governments to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of their existing operations through online service delivery are by no means synonymous with measures to broaden the scope for public participation in policy processes and political life.” (Flew, Terry. “Cyberpolitics and Globalization.” New Media: An Introduction. London: Oxford University Press, 2002.)

Abstract:
Electronic-government and electronic-democracy – Are they one and the same? Is e-government subsumed under the wider umbrella of e-democracy, or is it the other way round? Do either substantially strengthen the traditional notion of democracy, as many academic scholars and political pundits predicted? In an age of rapid socio-technological change, these are some questions whose answers are hard to pin down. To explore the impact of the Internet, Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) and computer-mediated communications (CMC) on politics and government, and the extent these technologies promote or impede the democratic process, there is a need to make a clear demarcation “between the public sphere (the patterns of public exchanges on all matters of social interest) and the policy sphere (those exchanges that are pertinent to formal political decisions)” (Bennett & Entman 19); to understand the four categories based on the participants involved in e-government: Government-to-Government, Government-to-Business, Government-to-Citizen, and Citizen-to-Citizen (Pons 32); and to distinguish between the three models of democracy: consumer (or information or thin) democracy, populist (or quick) democracy, and strong (discussion) democracy (Flew 186-187; Gronlund 95). Deeply embedded within the arguments over these impacts are the inherently-flawed theoretical themes such as technological determinism and the notion of e-government and e-democracy as technological fixes for the current worldwide decline in democracy.

His Bibliography:

• Anonymous. “E-Gov Slowly Gaining Acceptance, But Must Mature.” Information Management Journal 38 4 (2004): 16.
• Anonymous. “E-Government Around the World.” Information Management Journal 38 1 (2004): 12.
• Banerjee, Indrajit, and Benjamin Yeo. Internet and Democracy in Singapore: A Critical Appraisal. Indrajit Banerjee, ed. Rhetoric and Reality: The Internet Challenge for Democracy in Asia. Singapore: Eastern Universities Press, 2003. 259-287.
• Bennett, Lance W., & Entman, Robert M. Eds. Mediated Politics: Communication in the Future of Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
• Bijke, Wiebe E. “Sociohistorical Technology Studies.” Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Ed.
• Sheila Jasanoff, Gerald E. Markle, James C. Petersen, and Trevor Pinch. London: Sage Publications, 1995. 229 -256.
• Clark, Eugene. “Managing the Transformation to E-Government: An Australian Perspective.” Thunderbird International Business Review 45 4 (2003): 377-395.
• Flew, Terry. “Cyberpolitics and Globalization.” New Media: An Introduction. London: Oxford University Press, 2002.
• Gibson, Rachel, Paul Nixon, and Stephen Ward. Eds. Political Parties and the Internet: Net Gain? London: Routledge, 2003.
• Gronlund, Ake. E-Democracy: In Search of Tools and Methods for Effective Participation. Journal of Multicriteria Decision Analysis 12 2-3 (2003): 93-100.
• Heineman, Robert A. Political Science: An Introduction. New York: McGraw-Hill Companies, 1996.
• Lyon, Jeff, and Peter Gorner. Altered Fates: Gene Therapy and the Retooling of Human Life. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1996.
• McCullagh, Karen. “E-Democracy: Potential for Political Revolution.” International Journal of Law and Information Technology 11 2 (2003): 149-161.
• Pons, Alexander. “E-Government For Arab Countries.” Journal of Global Information Technology Management 7 1 (2004): 30-44.
• Prattipati, Satya N. “Adoption of E-Governance: Differences Between Countries in the Use of Online Government Services.” Journal of American Academy of Business 3 ½ (2003): 386-391.
• Rananand, Pirongrong Ramasoota. Internet and Democracy in Thailand.
• Indrajit Banerjee, ed. Rhetoric and Reality: The Internet Challenge for Democracy in Asia. Singapore: Eastern Universities Press, 2003. 288-317.
• Surratt, Carla G. The Internet and Social Change. Jefferson: McFarland and Company, 2001.
• West, Darrell M. E-Government and the Transformation of Service Delivery and Citizen Attitudes. Public Administration Review 64 1 (2004): 15-27.
• Walton, Marsha. “Voting Methods Under Close Watch: Electronic Voting Gets Mixed Reviews.” CNN.com. Updated 26 Oct 2004. Accessed 26 Oct 2004

Possibly Related Posts:

• The Handbook of Online China
• A Librarian, A Soldier & A Son
• New Plugins Highlights
• Release, Relieve, Relive
• Empire of Faith - Islam