Fatal Purity

The sacking of Dr Chua Soi Lek has rocked the MCA to its foundations. Only those directly involved will ever know the compelling reasons for the sacking of the party deputy president.At the same time, there is now a resistance movement brewing within the party to collect signatures to hold an emergency general meeting (EGM) to unseat Ong Tee Keat, the party president, who claims to be under-siege from all sides.

There was much hope when Ong first took over. Of all MCA leaders, Ong is considered honest, trustworthy and a "straight talker". His decision to open the Pandora's Box on the PKFZ scandal earned him even more kudos.It also seemed as though Chua had triumphed over the rampant hypocrisy that surrounded the DVD saga. Having admitted and taken responsibility by resigning from his ministerial position, he had demonstrated accountability. That, he was allowed to stand as a candidate for the party's deputy presidency and won, earned Chua the respect of many.

It was in the same party elections that Ong was elected president.Chua's victory was unexpected and Ong's disapproval about Chua's"adultery" was public knowledge. But, for a while, it seems both men were ready to set aside the past to concentrate on the future.There is little point in describing the step-by-step disintegration oftheir relationship. Suffice to say that both Ong and Chua have madethemselves larger than the party that they are supposed to lead. For Ong, on his "lonely" crusade to shine the light on corruption, nothing other than absolute loyalty is enough.

Not satisfied with wielding the new broom to sweep away the oldnetworks of politics and business interests, Ong now believes that his struggle is one that is "do or die". He even claims that his life andthe safety of his family are on the line.

Ong, a man on a mission

It seems the MCA president is a man on a mission. For him, the new MCA must be free from the "corruption" represented by the PKFZ scandal. With so many MCA appointees involved, it must have been galling for Ong when Chua suggested that he take on Kuala Dimensi CEO on his own.

That may have been the straw that broke the camel's back. As Ong soldiered on, despite pressures from within the party and powerful entrenched interests, Chua (left), his deputy, did not give him full support.

Ong's only bargaining chip was to present a united front: the new MCA was determined not only to disassociate itself from the PKFZ but was willing to let wrong-doers, even if they include party members, face the music.

If BN is ever to regain lost ground in the last general election, it will require the leadership of this new MCA. Ong's decision to inject a moral dimension into the making of a new MCA spooked many. Here, Chua was a real stumbling block. How can the MCA president talk about morality with Chua as his deputy?

Herein, lay the weakness of such a platform to revive MCA's fortunes. To be successful, Ong needs to open the MCA closet and stare into the hollow eyes of many skeletons. He can only hope that after all the rot has been removed, there is enough will left to re-brand the party.

To pursue such a policy Ong required the full support of his party, especially its leadership. With Chua Jui Meng having gone over to Pakatan Rakyat, Ong also knew that the noose around his own neck was drawing tighter. Jui Meng continues to criticize Chua and even casts aspersion on Umno's support for the latter to unseat Ong. Whether or not this is merely speculation or had Umno truly wanted to institute regime change within the MCA, we may never know.

Eliminate "possible challenge"

But, by dragging Umno into the picture the public image of the MCA drops further. Many remembered how the late Ghafar Baba had to intervene in a previous power-struggle in the MCA, solidly increasing Umno's dominant role in the BN. Today, the PM said he will not get involved unless invited to do so. Few will believe he does not have a hand in the current MCA crisis.

Thus, many now interpret rightly or wrongly, that Ong's decision to sack his deputy may be a pre-emptive strike - to eliminate any possible challenge or distraction from the PKFZ scandal.Here, Ong might benefit from hindsight by looking at what happened to another man who was known for being "incorruptible", whose biographer described, as suffering from fatal purity.

Maximilien Robespierre, who presided over the "Terror" during the French Revolution, was a man of utmost morals. He was abstemious and well-mannered, yet, he was so wedded to his principles that he lost sight of the original objectives of the revolution. Instead of giving birth to a new society, his dogmatic and pugnacious insistence that everyone bend to the "Public Will" led to a bloodbath.

Of course, nothing Ong does will lead to anything dramatic. It may not even be of national importance even if the MCA collapsed tomorrow or in 2013. But, this need to bring about a new MCA based on a moral crusade, one where the party's own deputy can be judged twice for the same crime, which may be expedient but will ultimately prove to be fatal.

Ultimately, the nation suffers as the second largest party in the BN continues to crumble.

Politicians & "Doublespeak"

The fight for Permatang Pasir is heating up to unprecedented levels. The heat may not be felt on the ground as much as in cyberspace. This is the new reality of Malaysian politics. For those in urban areas with good access to the Internet, technology has made every by-election a kind of general election.

It has also made whatever politicians say easy to record. This means politicians have to do something which they have never done before (and apparently can never do) - be consistent. On both sides of the political divide, this has resulted in tragic-comedy.

In Malaysia, the task of the politician is very difficult. He/she has to speak to different communities in the most sensational way possible. In Shah Alam, for example, some say that if a certain party comes to power, pork would be sold openly in the streets. They know that this may not be a credible statement but it will at least grab headlines, thus proving their credentials as champions of race and religion.

But when in Bangsar, the same politician can be most civil, drink coffee whilst being interviewed by magazines, chat shows and aspiring movie-makers. Words like accountability, transparency, good governance are used generously.

Those in the blogsphere should not be naïve and expect politicians to be guided by principles, ideology or morals. Politicians are not cynical but they are driven by pragmatism. Politics is about the aspiration to power.

Once in power, like Dr Mahathir Mohamad was for 22 years, then we can see the practical demonstration of beliefs. In the case of Mahathir, it was to push the country forward materially with little regard for institutions or contrary opinion.

For most politicians in Malaysia, the power to put ideas into reality is what drives them. At first, they may have a genuine wish to reform or improve the country, to make things better. But for some, especially those who have held public office for more than a decade, power becomes the end itself.

So, the question of morality or ethics no longer matters. Only their political survival matters, even if they have been president of a political party longer than a quarter of the nation!Ability to bury contradictory facts But like in any human society, there would be anomalies. Tok Guru Nik Aziz Nik Mat is one clear example of a man of convictions, preferring to live modestly and does not get turned on by material things.

But those who doubt that he is a politician will never be able to regain Kelantan for he is capable of doing whatever necessary to remain in power, so long as these acts do not contravene his beliefs.

What makes a convincing politician is the ability to believe in whatever he or she is saying at a particular time to a special group of people. The best way is to reduce very complex situations toeuphemisms, to concentrate on only one aspect and bury contradictory facts under as much bluster and bile as possible.

This was the case with the proposal against building a Hindu temple in Shah Alam. For those who continue to accuse Shah Alam MP Khalid Samad from PAS of being a traitor to race and religion, no Hindu temple should be built in any neighbourhood where Hindus are not in the majority.

Thankfully, we get a better picture of the whole issue when Khalid explained that it was not his decision alone to relocate the temple, that no new temple was being built and that the alternative site was in an industrial park, not suited for women and children. Moreover, the present site would serve three neighbourhoods with 1,000 Hindus.

Khalid's clear-minded explanation does not matter. The political point has been scored. He is betraying the religion because he wants a Hindu temple built in a Muslim-majority neighbourhood. Never mind that if that rule was followed, no temple or church can be built in Shah Alam; which clearly contravenes the Federal Constitution's guarantee of freedom to practice one's religion.

Nonetheless, these novice politicians are well on the way to becoming accomplished practitioners of political double-speak. The best examples of double-speak are often delivered with a grin and a smirk. They contain some grains of credibility, just enough paranoia and clear conviction in the “truth”, at least for the moment.

BN still telling Malays the same thing

At the centre of BN's campaign in cyberspace is the claim that the “Chinese are taking over the country”. This is perhaps the most ingenious way of distracting the Malays from what is actuallyhappening on the ground.

The tactic here relies on the power of memory and some 40 years of conditioning. In the 1960s, most Malays living in urban areas would have experienced the “great” wealth disparity between the middle-class Chinese and their “poor” conditions. Nobody can deny this when Malays collectively owned less than three percent of the national wealth.

In reality, what they were not told was that in the 1960s, owing to colonial policies, the Malays were left out of the commercial economy. This feeling of being "beggars in their own land" continues to be a powerful emotion especially for those above 60 years old. Of course, the electorate was not told that urban poverty was felt by all ethnic groups. If all the Chinese were rich, there would not be pauper hospitals or homes for the destitute.

Now, in 2009, after nearly 52 years of independence and some 40 years of “Ketuanan Melayu” (dating from 1969) plus 22 years of Mahathirism, the BN is still telling the Malays the same thing: “the Chinese are taking over the country”, "pork will be sold openly in the streets of Shah Alam", "Chinese can read Malay but we cannot read Chinese so all Chinese dailies should be translated into Malay", "PAS is a puppet of the DAP", "the Malay leaders of Pakatan are traitors to race and religion", "we are different because MCA, MIC and Gerakan, they know their place".

Unfortunately, time is the ultimate enemy of double-speak. What Malaysians experience on the ground is no longer the same as in the 1960s. As one Internet newspaper explained, for the man on the ground living in Permatang Pasir, the politicians “have forsaken” him.

Is it any wonder why Shahrizat Abdul Jalil is talking about broken drains? She also added that the voters know that the state government needs federal support for material progress.

The problem with such a statement is that it reinforces what people already know. Politicians only visit a place like Permatang Pasir when it suits them. Issue veiled threats and, at the same time, offer “opportunities” for progress. In a Malay-majority constituency, some politicians add racial bluster to get extra attention whilst others bring up heaven and hell for added measure.

One does not know how the voters of Permatang Pasir will vote but in cyberspace, all this double-speak provides some comic relief as we think about our collective future and ways to make sure we can make ends meet. Obviously, this bunch does not have the wherewithal to lead us anywhere.

Have we forgotten Malaysia?

With Merdeka Day round the corner, much preparation is being made for fireworks display, speeches being crafted exhorting unity and nice dresses tailored for those who will preside over the national day parade.But the feeling on the ground is, at best, hollow. Many feel Merdeka has less meaning than the politicians would like us to believe. They may exhort us to be '1Malaysia' but words are cheap.

At this time of recession, most Malaysians are worrying how to put food on the table, whilst the political landscape looks increasingly divisive with very little to celebrate.

Perhaps it might help us find our way again if we pondered on the words of Tunku Abdul Rahman.

On Malaysia day, the Tunku said: "We can feel proud indeed of the way we have created Malaysia through friendly argument and compromise. The spirit of co-operation and concord is living proof of the desire we share for a common destiny."

A common destiny is the cornerstone of membership in any country. Perhaps we take citizenship for granted because most of us are born Malaysians. But for those who are hoping to become citizens, membership of a common Malaysian destiny is their principal hope, and rightly so.

Why is inter-ethnic cooperation seen in such negative light in certain quarters? If PAS and DAP can cooperate and reach a satisfactory compromise, it proves the point. There is no need to sell out Islam, or traditional Chinese or Hindu cultures. Umno, MCA and MIC could do the same if they had the will. The old 'divide and rule' recipe.

For most Malaysians, to see political parties that were once at polar opposites sitting down and talking is a good thing. For the Tunku, friendly argument and compromise is "living proof of the desire we share for a common destiny."But for their political opponents, PAS and DAP talking at the same table seems to be anathema. Why do they feel threatened? Perhaps BN is pinning its hopes on that old colonial recipie of "divide and rule."

If Malaysia has evolved its own special political arrangement that involves two sets of inter-ethnic coalitions then Tunku's vision for Malaysia is a success.By now, claims in certain quarters that the Malays would lose power and that "pork would be sold openly in the streets of Shah Alam" is blatant scare-mongering.

In fact, if Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah is correct, these are the cries of a party clutching at straws. Malays will always have a majority, however you divide the votes, especially in the vast rural reas, and their needs will always hold sway.

It is true that some Malaysians have yet to understand the sensitivities of each ethnic or religious group, but we will not get there if politicians refuse to address issues openly.Put nation before narrow interests.

If Umno and BN want to win back the electorate, they must exhibit the wisdom and magnanimity of the Merdeka generation. They must be bold enough to build consensus across the political divide. They must demonstrate a willingness to put nation before narrow sectarian interests.

The government has recently decided that Maths and Science will be taught in Bahasa Malaysia. It should go one step further and broker nationwide consensus on a single school system for the whole country. We cannot keep talking about national unity yet divide our children the moment they enter school.

On the economic front, the government has devised several stimulus packages to help Malaysians cope with the global downturn. In the West, all hopes of a quick recovery are fast evaporating. Will we be able to survive a prolonged recession? It is evident that even when the economy begins to pick up, it will be a long time before it is felt by ordinary people in the form of new jobs. Meanwhile much can be done for those made redundant, by government initiatives inskills-upgrading.

Turning to another deep concern for ordinary people, there seems little positive to say about the much-trumpeted MACC. It might be wise to look at how Hong Kong tackled the problem of systemic corruption, especially within their police force.

The ICAC there went through a baptism of fire when it began its work. We can only hope that the government here has the wisdom to put national interests ahead of party ones. When we see BN parliamentarians exposing themselves to obvious criticism, it is strange that the MACC remains so inactive.

Islam, with its core values of honesty, brotherhood, respect for humanity and custodianship over the environment, could not, and should not be used by anyone for divisive political gains. It is truly sad that one newspaper chose to accuse certain parties of "insulting" Islam, whilst publishing photographs of scantily-clad women on other pages. Such shallow hypocrisy is pathetic.

As we celebrate Merdeka this year, it might be opportune for politicians to think beyond the next general election. The Tunku had a long vision for Malaysia. Our country is to be a model of democracy and ethnic harmony. It was never meant to be a one-party state dominated by one ethnic group.

Rather, Malaysia should be where the "spirit of co-operation and concord is living proof of the desire we share for a common destiny".

MCA Fate Hangs in Balance

The Malaysian Chinese Association, its deputy president rightly points out, is swimming in treacherous waters. There is every danger that it might not survive beyond the next general election. Dissatisfied voters, rightly or wrongly, often take out their frustration during elections by voting for the opposition. The MCA has been at the receiving end and is now reduced to 15 parliamentarians.

Yet, despite this poor performance, the party's number of cabinet positions remained unchanged. Despite the tremendous power of patronage that accompanies ministerial positions, the MCA has found going forward very challenging. In recent party elections, members decided to retire many tired faces.

It also elected a woman vice president, a first in a BN component party. But that AGM did not solve the obvious cracks in the party and the party is still mired in internal squabbles. More critically, there is now a crisis of confidence in its president. In his attempt to cut the Gordian Knot and release the party from the PKFZ scandal, which is daily pulling the MCA into political oblivion, Ong Tee Keat (left) is putting his career on the line.

Rift continues to widen

Dr Chua Soi Lek's recent call for the party to distance itself from the fallout between Ong and Tiong, the Kuala Dimensi CEO, over the PKFZ scandal, is another clear sign that the rift between thepresident and his deputy is widening.Never one for toeing the party line, both Ong and Chua now appear to be larger in stature than the party they represent.

In short, the MCA's fate is now inextricably bound-up with the fates of both these men. Ong has now staked his political reputation on resolving the PKFZ scandal whilst Chua battles hypocrisy andmiddle-class morality over a video-tape scandal that refuses to go away.

To the general public, the PKFZ scandal demonstrates the cosy relationship politicians have with certain corporate figures. Several MCA ministers and party nominees have been implicated. Even if one was to be generous, the scandal puts brings into question the competence and accountability of BN politicians.

The continuing saga of Chua Soi Lek, with the added side-show of a party disciplinary hearing, reveals the toxic levels of skull-duggery in the party.

Allegations that Chua was set-up by party members opposed to him confirm for the public the unsavoury nature of the MCA.These negative perceptions strengthened at precise and almost methodical intervals of more salacious revelations will eventually come back to haunt the party.

Heads on a platter

The Malaysian public, particularly urban voters whom the MCA relies upon, are no longer willing to compromise particularly when public money is involved. Increasingly, in semi-rural areas, morality is also a major vote swinger.

The MCA's current branding as exemplified by its leaders, and, which may not be justified, is: "corrupt", "incompetent" and "immoral".

Now that the PKFZ scandal has grown to such monumental proportions, the public will not accept anything except heads on a platter.If the government is unwilling or unable to make a strong case against those who cheat, the opposition may be given the mandate to do so in the next general election.

The fact remains that the opposition has successfully implanted the idea that BN component parties like the MCA are mere appendages to Umno. Ong is attempting to change that perception by taking a stab at corruption over the PKFZ scandal, which is why his short-sighted decision to accept the use of private-jets whilst performing hisministerial duties have somewhat blunted his sword.

Meanwhile, his deputy Chua,(right )who wants the MCA to distance itself from the tribulations of the party president, has been given the Herculean task of turning the BN into a truly inter-party machine. This is an impossible task not so much because he has to operate in Pakatan-held states but because he will need Umno to treat the MCA and other component parties as equals.

It seems highly unlikely that a fractious MCA can regain the seats lost in the last general election if these internal issues and external challenges remained unsolved. With the MIC probably under the thumb of Samy Vellu till 2015 and Gerakan unable to decide what sort of ideological platform it is fighting for; there is little doubt that the BN is a fragile coalition. So long as the MCA is unable to bring with it a sizeable number of urban voters, its future as a viable political party remains in serious doubt.

For most Malaysians of Chinese descent, the MCA is no longer relevant. They share the common problems of urban life with Malaysians of all ethnic backgrounds.

If the MCA wants urban votes, it may eventually have to recognize the reality that whilst racism still has its appeal in rural areas, drawing votes based on blind faith in race-based parties in semi-urban and urban Malaysia is no longer a viable strategy.

BN caught in a time-warp

The Prime Minister has outlined his cabinet's vision for a Malaysia that is to be more united and resilient. He hopes to achieve this by transforming Malaysia into a high income country by increasing productivity through innovation and specialised knowledge.

Thus far, he has yet to reveal how this can be achieved without widening the income gap between ethnic groups and within ethnic groups. To achieve these aims, the government now needs to win hearts and minds. This will not be easy as the BN is caught up in a time-warp.

The question is this: "Can a political arrangement that sprung up in the pre independence struggle still be relevant in 21st century Malaysia?" Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah (left) shed light on the matter, explaining Umno's struggle embodied in Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun Razak and Tun Ismail.

He believes that one can be a Malay and Malaysian nationalist at the same time. Tengku Razaleigh said that these men showed "......how it (the national cause) could be both Malay and Malaysian, nationalist and cosmopolitan, traditional and contemporary, at one and the same time."

Is this the essence of Malaysia? That we need not compromise our ethnic identities to be thoroughly committed to the national cause? Many politicians will find that hard to accept, and opportunists will dismiss it, sticking to simplistic solutions and blaming other ethnic groups for everything.

Tengku Razaleigh admits that what he is advocating for Umno and Malaysia is idealistic. In our current state of affairs we sorely need a confidence-booster. Morale is at a very low point, and we are in danger of losing our self-confidence as a people.

No confidence in the judiciary

Perhaps we cannot be united totally, but we must believe that we share common aims. That sense that we all belong to one nation is unravelling. Our economy is no longer so buoyant with substantial job losses in manufacturing.

The middle-class is saddled with huge housing loans and many are exposed to heavy credit card debt. Unskilled workers are still eking out their living by doing several jobs for very little financial return.

We look at our institutions and shudder. The recent Perak constitutional crisis does not inspire confidence in our judiciary. Judgements that even a layperson can see are full of holes, do not earn respect.

The brutish behaviour of law enforcement officers, the death of a witness after hours of interrogation over RM2,400 defies logic.

The cabinet decision to pull the plug on MACC's 'Selangor' investigations until the dust has settled over Teoh Beng Hock's (right) sudden death is a clear indication that the government is struggling with a mounting public backlash against it.

The great challenge for the BN is how to convince Malaysians to share some common vision. The first thing it has to do is to build up consensus. The days of imposing one's will onto others, even if one is the mighty Utusan, no longer works.

Nowadays even the staunchest Malay nationalist, if he/she thinks, will begin to have doubts. For example, why have a few privileged Malays become so rich, whilst the majority remain so poor?

Successive leaders blame corruption. In a country where most civil servants are paid such low wages, corruption is bound to be high. Any suggestion of giving them more pay tends to be met with bluster and outrage: Are we rewarding people who are corrupt?

Here, we are seeing only half the picture. For every bribe received, there is someone out there giving bribes, and in most cases this is, in truth, a comfortable symbiosis.

Malaysians had such high hopes for the MACC. It was supposed to be our version of the Hong Kong ICAC, which, if Hong Kong movies are to be believed, is fearless and incorruptible.

But the reality is that it was imposed from outside, and took years to build up its reputation. It took a lot of political will and a lot of pain.Unfortunately, political will is in short supply and the pain threshold is particularly low in Malaysia.

Institutional changes too little too late

What I fear most is that the BN actually does not have time. In fact, time has already run out. KPIs, judicial reforms, royal commission recommendations that are not implemented and other necessary institutional changes now all seem too little too late.

The government must realise that if BN is to ensure its political survival, and carry Malaysia forward, it can no longer entrust its future to "BTN-types". These are the people who will use wonderful slogans like "psy-war" to convince the PM that they can help BN to win the next general election.

They will recommend the breaking up of Pakatan in order to hold on to power. The reality is that they will only bring like-minded friends along with them. The majority of Malaysians will find their racist attitudes out-dated and destructive,
and to many Muslims, "un-Islamic".

If Malaysia is to work, we need to evolve a type of leadership that embodies wholesome, inclusive values as Tunku Abdul Rahman (left), Tun Razak and Tun Ismail did.

It remains to be seen if the current PM can be, like the late Tunku, "a prince with the common touch", a man of vision with the courage to stick to clear principles. These were the qualities that any Malaysians would admire.

Once again, Tengku Razaleigh has proved to be a wise statesmen, by providing constructive ideas at this critical juncture in our nation's life. Today, when we need idealism and purpose, and it does not seem to be coming from this government.

Malaysia seems to be in danger of moving down, as quickly as Indonesia is moving up. Should that happen, it would be Malaysians who are sending maids over to Indonesia!

A Royal Commission is now imperative

A young life has been lost. How Teoh Beng Hock plunged to his grizzly death from the same building that houses the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) is still not known.

The MACC insisted that Teoh had been released at 3.45am on that fateful day. Why Teoh chose to remain in the lobby of the MACC and was seen sleeping on one of the sofas at 6am is also a mystery.

If Teoh was not going to be charged, why did he not go home when he had his car parked in the building? Why stayed in the MACC for many hours more?

Perhaps I am ignorant of police procedure but why was Teoh's body, which was discovered at 1.30pm, left in the same spot till 9pm?

Twice I have seen the quick action of the police and ambulance service where bodies of an accidental fall and suicide were removed efficiently within less than two hours.

The death of Teoh has cast a sinister shadow over the MACC. These questions need answers. The Royal Malaysian Police are now investigating Teoh's death. But there is much disquiet in the air.

BN's Khairy Jamalludin is correct when he joined the growing chorus urging the Malaysian government to set up a royal commission to investigate Teoh's death.

The Umno Youth leader said that this was the only way the MACC can clear its name. The Bar Council, opposition leaders and civil society leaders are also saying the same thing.

The MACC, to the layperson, is increasingly seen as a tool used to intimidate opposition politicians. In Teoh's case, it was to investigate the way the Sri Kembangan state assemblyman, his boss, managed his state allocation.

Why is the MACC not swooping into the office of the Port Klang Authority or the super-mansion of former Selangor MB that even Dr Mahathir Mahathir found extravagant and beyond the means of a civil servant, even if he was menteri besar?

Selective persecution

To the man on the street, the impression is that the MACC will zealously go after a sitting Pakatan menteri besar over the alleged donation of cows that were later slaughtered and given out as alms during Awal Muharam but not the former transport ministers who cannot remember or understand what conflict of interests mean!

Forget about the slippery slope, if the BN government does not act quickly to restore confidence in the country's institutions like the MACC, the police and the judiciary, we are definitely going on a downward spiral to a place Malaysians have never been before: becoming a failed state!

Yet, Malaysians must remain calm. For whatever one may say about the BN-led government, the murder of opposition politicians is not something they indulge in. It is not and should not be cast as a culture here.

There may be deaths in police custody. We already have the recommendations of the royal commission set up to investigate the Royal Malaysian Police. The home minister might wish to re-examine some of those recommendations and act on them, and restore public confidence in an institution that has seen us through the communist insurgency and protected Malaysian lives.

The good police officers, many of whom are overworked and risking their lives everyday, deserve better. Someone of the stature of former police chief Hanif Omar should be consulted regarding the restoration of public confidence in the Royal Malaysian Police.

MACC now in the docks

These are emotional times but in a country that believes in the rule of law, the presumption of innocence until proven otherwise is sacrosanct.

The MACC, although not a suspect in the normal legal sense, is now in the docks of the court of public opinion. Malaysian politicians from both sides must demonstrate maturity and give the same benefit of doubt to the MACC.

This is why a royal commission needs to be set up. Deputy Prime Minister Muhiyuddin Yassin should explain why the government does not wish to set it up.

A hardline attitude refusing to acknowledge the reality that public confidence in the MACC and the police are rock bottom will only hurt the government in the long run. Moreover, it will not stop the continuing speculation over Teoh, why he died after a long interrogation at the MACC.

A neutral body with wide-ranging investigative powers and made up of men acceptable to both sides of the political divide should be set up. This royal commission should report directly to the Agong without going through any politician. The report must then be released to the public without going through filters.

This may all sound unfair to the MACC, the police and the BN government but in the long run, it will improve their credibility. Treating this as just another case may satisfy a small group but it
will not quash the suspicions that ordinary Malaysians harbour in the heart.

Where is all this racism going?

If a political party admits to itself that it is on the wane, that it no longer enjoys control over the middle-ground, that there is solid support for the opposition; it is only logical for that party to find ways to claw back support.

Umno, by its own acknowledgment, the leader of the Barisan Nasional coalition, is now employing a simple strategy to win the support of Malays who are anxious about their future.

The party already enjoys the support of the largely Malay civil service, many of whom see the participation of non-Malays as a possible threat to their "rice-bowl". It must now win over anxious fence-sitters, many of whom feel insecure about 1Malaysia and the ultimate conclusion of such policies: a Malaysia of equal opportunities regardless of "race".

Permatang Pasir, which will be fought over during the holy month of Ramadan, will be held up as a clear indicator that support for the Opposition is on the wane.

The tide, Umno is currently arguing, turned at Manek Urai. It is almost a foregone conclusion that Umno will win the seat, owing to the might of government machinery. It simply has to win otherwise the BN is set on an irreversible course for the dust-bin of history.

BN's victory in Permatang Pasir will also be held up as the beginning of the recovery of the non-Malay parties, particularly the MCA and Gerakan. The Chinese voters have finally returned to the BN, the mainstream press will claim. It is not that they want to vote BN, another newspaper will scream but simply that the Pakatan Rakyat is untenable.

Selangor will then fall with Khir Toyo returning as MB and Malay power restored.

The above is the best-case scenario for the BN. But to achieve such an outcome, Umno knows that it must create a suitable situation to galvanise overwhelming Malay support based on a variety of platforms including religion, ethnic-equality and economic advancement.

It does not matter if the situation feeding Malay anxiety is of its own creation. What matters most in politics is impression, which is best "believed" if it is "felt". Nothing feels more real than fear.

Creating a group fear

Most Malaysians have nothing against one another. Individually human beings can be quite rational. But talk to them when they are in a group and a different voice is heard. By suggesting that the Malays are about to lose political power, anxiety is stimulated.

The next step is to publish a few stories through anonymous blogs. Repeat it often enough and rumours begin to "sound" real. This is because we have been programmed to believe in repeated slogans, especially after 30 years of being bombarded by daily doses of intense advertisements.

The current economic crisis also helps as most people are feeling insecure about their jobs. Put all these different and often unrelated issues together and "group fear" is created.

Legitimacy to "group fear" is added when senior politicians denounce anyone who disagrees as "traitors to the race". At the same time, ministers exhort the people to respect the constitution as though those opposed to them do not and are therefore unpatriotic.

Then say that you will strike at them with the full might of the state and exercise executive powers of arrest and harassment. Finally, blame these "traitors" for "destablising" the country by arguing that if they did not exist, we would not have to do what we are doing in the first place.

Umno and those in-charge of "psychological-warfare" understands how this strategy works because it is as old as the hills. They are adopting it because it always works.

One man, above all else, perfected it. He knew about the attraction of colourful costumes, knew that to get people to follow, one must first create an enemy.

Then to be really effective, one must not only beat but brutally kill any opposition including those manufactured ones. Group fear will do the rest as people take ownership of the killings in the name of "patriotism". Above all, one can take the opportunity to get rid of one's opponents by directing "group fear" against them.

This can happen in a dictatorship, in parliamentary democracy, and in any human society. Perhaps, it will be better to allow the man who perfected this strategy to describe it in his own words:

"Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.

Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

But there are consequences to the strategies of Hermann Goering. For those who are unfamiliar with World War II, Goering was Commander of the German Air Force [and not the Minister of Propaganda for Nazi Germany as published in Malaysiakini]. The consequences for ethnic-based demonising are the same everywhere: human suffering, economic collapse and eventually, a failed state.

The call to arms issued by Umno and its continued insistence that Malay rights will be "protected" begs the question why the Malays need protecting after 52 years of Umno and BN administration.

Creating a smokescreen

This remains the question that it cannot answer without compromising the coalition.

By creating an enemy out of the Opposition, it hopes that the smokescreen of ethnic hate will be so confusing that it need not answer that fundamental question.

This naked appeal to group fear amongst the Malays may yield short term gains and may even win Permatang Pasir for Umno but once the "ethnic hate" genie is out of the bottle, it will be very hard to get it back in.

As Goering said, "the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

What he didn't say was that the fires of hate such a policy created not only led to the death of millions, it destroyed Germany and ultimately unleashed an equally strong reaction from those opposed to Nazi Germany's cause. German cities were bombed with as much unreason.

So win Permatang Pasir if it will restore some confidence in the BN but win it cleanly and on real issues. Otherwise, the seeds of hate sown by politicians will one day grow into demons that will consume us all.

Najib completely off-the mark

Politicians often speak from both sides of their mouths. The PM recently said that it was the religious duty of Muslims to be united. No doubt this is true and there is nothing wrong with Muslims in Malaysia sitting down and discussing important issues that affect that community. Similarly, there is nothing wrong if those who believe in non-racialism to sit down to find ways to unite all Malaysians regardless of race.

The problem is timing. If it is a religious duty, why now and not before?Previously, when Umno controlled a huge majority in parliament, they did not offer to share power with PAS.They even sneered at PKR's sole representative in the 2004 parliament, thinking that party was a bleep and headed for political oblivion.Now, much weakened, Umno is throwing the olive branch at PAS, hoping to snare some sort of positive response.

Similarly, the MCA is also extending a friendly hand to the DAP, which it insists is a Chinese party. But what has been sustaining the DAP throughout the years is its non-sectarian framework.It has allowed Lim Kit Siang to hold his head up when talking about issues of national importance.The PKFZ scandal, which the BN has consigned to the MCA, is one such national issue that is daily sinking the MCA.

In short, why is national unity only possible if Malays, Chinese and Indians came together in their ethnic silos and then be governed by the "social contract" determined by Umno? It just does not make any sense.

By the way, the so-called "social-contract" is not about special privileges but rather built on the ultimate purpose of securing real national unity, where each citizen has an equal chance at life.Alliance leaders like Tan Sri Athi Nahappan understood this very well.It was he who said that non-Malays should not grudge the Malays the opportunity to improve their material well-being.

Walking a tight rope

For the sake of everyone, those Malaysians who began with a lower economic base must be assisted.This is what is meant by having a "1Malaysia" mindset.At no time since independence, at least to my knowledge, has a sitting Malaysian PM, called for the unity of one particular ethnic or religious group.Being PM in a multi-ethnic country is like walking a tight-rope.

As Dr Mahathir once said, it is a balancing act keeping everyone as happy as possible where no one community is more happy than the other.So, how does the PM now expect non-Malays and non-Muslims to feel included if at the core of "1Malaysia" is Malay unity first and foremost.One would like to give the PM the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps, he meant that we should all be united and that was why the olive branch is still extended to PAS.Whilst it may be Najib's (right) religious duty to keep an open mind when it comes to Muslim unity, he should also remember that it is his civic duty, his duty to the country, to unite all Malaysians.

But can a BN PM really achieve this? The BN was a creature of expediency. From the start, it was an expansion of the race-based Alliance.Gerakan and other small non-sectarian political parties that joined it were unusual bedfellows. One can say that the BN is a political hybrid, comprising a mishmash of political ideologies held together by the power of patronage.Without federal or state power, the gel that holds things together comes apart. It is also a framework that makes it necessary for one dominating party, in this case the Umno.

For most of the past three decades, this arrangement has worked well. All political rivalries were internally-solved. With each passing election, Umno's position grew stronger.But this framework also had its weaknesses.One was the creation of intra-party conflicts as politicians battled for positions within each of the component parties.A single political bodyAnd after a long time in power, these political positions became akin to fiefdoms, passed down to those most "loyal" to the party.

In most cases, individuals who got promoted were more loyal to the leader than to the party's principles.Abdullah Badawi is a classic example.What has all this got to do with the PM's call for Muslim unity? It reflects what will happen to PAS if it got into bed with Umno.For now the picture is rosy. There will be ministerial positions and even some long term gains, like certain states which will be allotted to PAS.

The good thing is that we have now the benefit of hindsight. Nearly four decades of BN rule reveals that the model is ultimately unsustainable and whilst component parties may be strong and popular when they enter into BN (if not they would not be welcome), they soon lose their lustre (see MCA, MIC) and their reason for being (PPP, Gerakan).Abdullah Ahmad Badawi has it right when he suggested after the 2008 election results that the BN consider merging and becoming a single political party. Chua Soi Lek has been given the unenviable task of creating more space for component parties to work together in Pakatan-held states.For longer term measures, the BN has to seriously begin functioning more equitably.

Perhaps that was what Dr Lim Chong Eu had in mind when he discussed the BN proposal with Tun Razak.Both men hoped that through the BN, that elusive Malaysian national unity would be achieved.So, whilst it is not my place to cast a negative light on Muslim unity, it might be good if the PM extended his vision to include the rest of us.

Malaysians must begin to realize that there is nothing wrong in being of a particular ethnic group, religious belief, economic class, educational background and gender.All of these labels help define us. It is only by acknowledging the complexity of Malaysia that we can eventually become more united.

(First Published on 25 June 2009)

United we stand, divided we fall

Yesterday’s Pakatan Rakyat meeting and the collective decision to reject calls for a unity government with the Barisan Nasional (BN) sends a clear signal that the opposition coalition will probably stay the course till the next general election.

This is not completely surprising as the lack of public support for a unity government has been strongly felt. There was also little support for the idea either from within the BN or within Pakatan. In fact, even within Umno and PAS, support was hardly unanimous.

With a comfortable majority in Parliament, there is really very little reason for the BN to even consider a unity government. Although the BN itself has its roots from attempts by Abdul Razak Hussein to heal the wounds of the May 13 race riots, such a platform is not required today in a Malaysia that is politically mature enough to withstand a change in the political equation.

Unity governments are often formed when there is an obvious external threat. In 1963, when the country faced a confrontation with Indonesia over the formation of Malaysia, the Alliance did not see it necessary to form a unity government with the opposition. In fact, riding a tide of anti-Indonesian sentiment and through an efficient campaign whereby the socialist front was painted as ‘red’ communists, the Alliance won a comfortable majority.

Some politicians are trying to paint a picture that the current global economic crisis is a threat. But in the same breath, the BN government is assuring Malaysians that it has the capability to handle the crisis and see us through it.

The BN also said that it pulled out of the Penanti by-election to cool down the political temperature and so that it can concentrate on managing the economy. All these mixed signals came to a head when the prime minister decided to ‘accept’ the olive branch from PAS leaders.

Now that the branch has been withdrawn, we can come to the conclusion that the BN has decided to face the economic crisis without a unity government. Both sides have also expressed their willingness to talk to each other when faced with difficult problems. This is a good sign of a developing political maturity.

Devil’s advocate

Nonetheless, Pakatan must now do its duty in Parliament by being His Majesty’s loyal opposition. It must ready itself to shadow the cabinet as ministers carry out their duties. The PM has set out some very impressive goals for his cabinet and for the nation.

It will not be easy for Malaysia to achieve these goals - of being a more united nation and also of being a high-income economy.

The job of a loyal opposition is to play devil’s advocate. Why, for example, is it desirable for the government to make Malaysia a high-income nation? If it is a service-oriented industry that we want to develop as a new growth engine, what plans have the government made to face the yawning income gap that is the outcome of such an economy? Thus far, no service-oriented high- income nation has been able to develop an equitable society.

More importantly, both sides should pay special attention to our education system. To my mind, all plans designed to make Malaysia into a more knowledge-intensive economy will come to nought if our schools and universities do not become centres for excellence.

How, the opposition must ask, is the government going to improve our schools and universities whilst maintaining the ethnic-based quota system? If that system has weaknesses, the opposition must come up with alternative models.

Some politicians have suggested a single-school system to encourage national unity. The problem is that education has been politicised for so long that anything suggested is immediately viewed with suspicion. This means that we are trapped in a 1960s time-warp, with a 1970s system that is increasingly unable to produce students for the global workplace.

Perhaps, both the BN and Pakatan can jointly tackle the issue of education. A royal commission with wide ranging powers should be appointed to see how the education system can be renovated to meet with national and international challenges.

Knee-jerk reactions to the teaching of English and adhoc projects driven by greed need to stop. Like the schools we build, the future we plan needs a strong foundation if it is not to collapse and bury us.

We do not need unity among political parties but politicians need to be united in thinking about the common good of Malaysia. The crisis is a window of opportunity to put some things right.

If we do not grab the opportunities it presents, we may wake up one day blaming ourselves for our constant and unproductive bickering.

(First Published in Malaysiakini on 23 June 2009)

Change, but on our own terms

In the aftermath of Lee Kuan Yew’s visit, many Malaysians wrote about the ‘missed opportunity’ that Singapore represents. In a nutshell, our pace of development could have been much faster and more comprehensive. We would have become as ‘rich’ as Singapore.

This type of thinking is what gets Awang Selamat of Utusan Malaysia extremely upset. In fact, this type of view does nothing to disabuse Malay Malaysians that non-Malays are hell-bent on turning Malaysia into Singapore, which is essentially a country given up to commercialism.

Of course, Singapore has to be a money-making emporium. It has no natural resources and has to purchase water from Johor, albeit at a much lower rate than Malacca. But that was part of the pact signed by our forefathers.

It is a ‘political contract’, one of the conditions for Singapore leaving Malaysia. It gave Singapore a fighting chance and now that they have succeeded, some Malaysians want us to review the “contract”.

Political contracts aside, many have conveniently forgotten the fact that Singapore took off from a much higher economic and educational base. It was the headquarters of British Southeast Asia and the British Empire was a commercial empire. When the British military left, its companies stayed behind.

In short, Singapore’s pace of development cannot be compared to Malaysia’s, as though both countries began on the same footing just because our currencies were of the same value. We had more natural resources but also a bigger, poorer and less educated population. Moreover, it was the Tunku’s idea that Kuala Lumpur was to be Malaysia’s Washington DC and Singapore was to be ‘New York’.

Considering our rate of development and ability to distribute wealth in a fashion that has not given rise to ethnic clashes, Malaysia has been quite successful. Our failing has more to do with the failure to create a strong sense of national identity.

This is because demographically we inherited a nation where no one ethnic group dominated. Singapore, on the other hand, has an overwhelming Chinese majority.

Our founding leaders wisely decided that national identity should not be ‘forced’ but should be left to develop naturally. It was assumed that with economic parity, the different ethnic groups would have more in common than not. National unity would then be the evolutionary next step.

In fact, that policy continues to be the basis for ‘1Malaysia’. The prime minister explained that the pursuit of national identity is not assimilation. We can see that assimilation does not work. We see this in southern Thailand and southern Philippines.

But for ‘1Malaysia’ to work, we need equality or at least, the government needs to create a sense that Malaysia is moving towards social justice. The PM said that the concept is different from the DAP’s ‘Malaysian Malaysia’, which is assimilation. The problem with this argument is that he is still stuck in the 1960s as he thinks the opposition is the PAP. Perhaps, Lee’s presence rekindled memories.

DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng said that, although the DAP and the PAP share historical roots, the DAP is not the PAP. The DAP has developed in a trajectory shaped by Malaysian politics. In fact, the PAP has been a staunch ally of the Barisan Nasional (BN) and continues to be openly in favour of BN rule.

The reason is that Malaysia has developed ahead of Singapore politically. Malaysians voted for the opposition and the country did not fall apart. We have reached political maturity. The government of the day does not have a two-thirds majority in Parliament but still functions. Lee came, visited state governments in opposition hands, and has returned home.

Forget blind imitation

The lesson from the Singapore experience is pragmatism. When you don’t have enough water, you have to make sacrifices. Malaysia, blessed with natural resources, can afford to be a bit laid back. But time and tide wait for no man. So, as we face the sunset years of low-cost production and a manufacturing economy, the government is exhorting us to think outside the proverbial box.

Let’s look at Singapore's development strategy for the coming decades. After reaching ‘first world’ status, Singapore has been trying hard to move up a notch to become a global city, attractive not only to capital but also talent. This is what was meant by a larger ‘hinterland’.

Singapore is not bent on Asian domination but aspires to be a global player when the world economy recovers. It can only achieve that if it can attract talent to its shores. In its future, it will be cutting-edge technical knowledge that will allow Singapore's industries to remain relevant; its services sought after. In short, it has to move beyond mere efficiency to maintain its standard of living.

Malaysia has yet to achieve ‘first world’ status. Since the government has not abandoned Vision 2020, we can safely assume that we are still headed in that direction through the diversification of our economic platform.

To attract global capital and be more productive, we need to produce more professionals - but not the kind that have passed exams with a string of As but cannot communicate effectively. No more doctoring of marks just to achieve the bell-shaped curve! If our graduates cannot cut it, Malaysia will be left behind.

As the world becomes more competitive, it does not hurt to be linguistically flexible. All Malaysians should at least be bilingual. That is how small nations survive and thrive. Think of Scandinavia and closer to home, Singapore and Hong Kong.

This does not have to be at the expense of the national language. Instead of bickering over the ‘sanctity’ of Bahasa Melayu, have we taken advantage of the new opportunities to make Malay a truly global language?

In fact, with technological developments like Facebook, Twitter and other Internet-related communication tools, the opportunity to make Malay into a global language has presented itself.

But you need to be bilingual to take advantage of this opportunity - how else can you understand the workings of the Internet?

For Malaysia to succeed, our universities must become centres of global excellence. If they receive RM300 million in research grants, we want to know what sort of research is happening. Are there tangible and commercial links with industry? If not, we are just producing engineers for Singapore and other countries with a more sophisticated economic base?

There is a lot to be done and we need not be scared to emulate our neighbours if they have managed to get some things right. But this must never be blind imitation, it has to be change on our own terms.

First published on 16 June 2009

Understanding Malay Rights

Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew and an entourage of young Singaporean ministers visited Malaysia recently. They visited governmental leaders in the BN and PR controlled-states. Malaysians should realize that we are, in some ways, a two party nation.

MCPX

Many saw Lee Kuan Yew's decision to meet PR leaders as meeting the "opposition". The reality
is that he was meeting those in power in selected Malaysian states.

Some are obviously unhappy with this state of affairs. There are a few, working in very high positions, who think that the PR must be stopped from having an equal chance at the next General Elections.

Before we dismiss this group of Malaysians, we must try to understand what drove them to such a conclusion. Ironically, it is what Lee Kuan Yew (left) represents that they fear the most.

It is Lee's intellect, the Singapore success story and his brand of politics.

Most Malaysians, if our political leaders are correct, have forgotten history. A short history lesson is needed if we are to understand this "Malay Rights" mindset.

Singapore was not just a Straits Settlement, like Penang or Malacca, but the very centre of British rule in Malaya.

It had a population overwhelmingly foreign, a big English-educated elite and the economic infrastructure laid down systematically since 1819.

But where was the Malay in all this material progress? Thus from the start, some Malay nationalists associated Singapore with the marginalization of the indigenous people of the Malay Archipelago.

Today, Malaysia has a larger number of people living in its cities than the countryside. In Peninsular Malaysia, what was once British Malaya, the urban concentration is even greater.

This is because in 1957, Malaya was one of the most urbanised Asian countries, second to
Japan. These towns and cities were created by immigrant labour and western capital.

Royal towns replaced

They came to replace the royal towns where power previously resided. This is why the "tree of democracy" is in Ipoh and not Kuala Kangsar.

We also have large English-educated elite in these urban centres.
Although the ethnic composition of this class has diversified to include Malay professionals and senior civil servants, this English-educated group is middle-class and some, like the members of the Sisters-in-Islam, have developed beyond mere middle-class aspirations.

Democracy, civil rights, gender equality, sexual freedom, environmental sustainability, heritage conservation; all these causes resonate most with this group.

Those who are most opposed to them refer to this very diverse and heterogeneous group as the "liberals".

Most progressive societies have a liberal fringe. Tolerance of those liberal-minded people is rewarded with new ways of thinking.

The welfare state, the vote for women, equal pay are just a few of the many fringe ideas that liberals espoused and mainstream society adopted.

But the latest new fangled idea to come out of the liberal fringe of the Malaysian middle-class is ethnic equality. By its very nature, equality in anything is an aspiration that can only be approximately achieved.

So, it is the aim of ethnic equality that this group hopes mainstream society can accept. The problem is that this fringe idea is slowly but surely turning mainstream.

The problem is that the medium for delivery is the Pakatan Rakyat.

What has all this to do with Lee Kuan Yew? In 1963, when Lee led Singapore into Malaysia, the seeds of a meritocratic Malaysia was planted in the 1964 General Elections.

In that year, the PAP, Lee's political party, won only one parliamentary seat - Bangsar. But in 1964, the cities were overwhelmingly non-Malay enclaves.

If all ethnic groups were to be treated as Malaysians, many feared that they would lose their ethnic and cultural identity.

If there had been developing a Malaysian national identity where each community made a strong contribution, then perhaps the nation would have trounced ethnic and cultural exclusion.

But the nation was not even ten years old. So, political analysts often said that Lee's Malaysian Malaysia was an idea that came too early.

Kuan Yew charted Singapore's future

Since 1965, Singapore, which is still ruled by the PAP, developed along the lines Lee Kuan Yew and his colleagues laid out.

The city state is an efficient commercial centre and now a global city, in the sense that it facilitates and concentrates global capital in the region.

Ethnic identities have been re-defined by the state, disciplined and kept in check. Singapore is clean, buses come on time and it is opening up culturally. To many, it is a success story
unparalleled.

But it is also a nightmare for some Malaysians. For the question in 1819, 1964 and today remain the same: Where is the Malay in all of this progress and material success?

Despite all the great strides Singapore has made, many Malaysians still prefer the rough and tumble of our own shores.

Perhaps, we have achieved a certain level of national cohesiveness despite our differences. Most probably, we view Singapore as our "other", what we define ourselves against.

Today, some 45 years after Singapore left the Malaysian Federation, it seems that Malaysia itself is at a crossroads of sorts.

We are an unequal society, with great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few.

The Forbes rich-list belies our national ethos: "to be rich is glorious".

Like everything else, this is a borrowed phrase from Deng Xiao Ping. If this type of development is to be sustainable, both the BN and the PR must answer the central question, which is no longer
where is the Malay but where is the poor Malaysian in all of this?

Granted most Malay Malaysians have just gotten onto the middle-class bandwagon and that per-capita income, Malays still constitute the largest group under the poverty line, one must understand that the community started from a very low base.

Looking around them, with the emphasis on English, the Knowledge economy and the liberalisation of key services sectors, many are genuinely concerned about the future.

These fears are similarly shared by vast numbers of other Malaysians who exist on the edge of middle-class respectability. The greatest mode of progress - education - is not the least inspiring.

What is most demoralizing for the "Malay rights" group is the insensitivity that other Malaysians have towards the plight of the Malays, the indigenous people (even if they are from the Malay
Archipelago), to whom independence meant an opportunity to right the wrongs of colonialism.

Compromise on many fronts

To them, they have compromised on many fronts, extending their language as the national language, their cultural symbols as national ones.

They continue bringing up the "social contract" to remind younger Malaysians about the ethnic bargain that our forefathers entered into and that we, they insist, cannot ignore and must take ownership of.

But what this group has forgotten is that when their Malay forefathers accepted the bargain of non-Malays becoming Malayans and Malaysians, it meant that the nation itself was put onto a multi-ethnic platform.

Subsequent Alliance and Barisan Nasional policies augmented the multicultural nation state, with its tolerance for different schools, languages and traditional arts.

But the underlying cultural infrastructure is Malay, represented by the rulers, Islam as the national religion, Malay as the national language and certain economic privileges for the Malays and then expanded to the bumiputeras.

Why should any right thinking Malaysian object to this arrangement? This is a complex question with may possible reasons.

One answer is the success of the NEP. Because the government actually succeeded in narrowing the economic gap, there is in existence a Malay middle-class.

At the stratosphere of Bangsar Village and KLCC, this Malay middle-class is beginning to make their presence felt.

Unfortunately, many of them are the real beneficiaries of the NEP. There is great distrust of them and their mostly wealthy Chinese friends.

This is all perception and we do not actually know if this is fable or truth. The trouble is that politics is all about perception and today, we are witnessing the beginnings of a class war.

Most Malaysians are in the lower middle-income bracket, earning less than RM 3,000 per-month.

With inflation rising, this majority group is witnessing and feeling their hard-earned savings disappear.

They cannot afford to send their children overseas and they know local universities will not provide the route out of their predicament. In short, they are unhappy.

Bridging the divide

Lee Kuan Yew's visit may not register fully with most Malaysians but it is more symbolic than we care to acknowledge.

At some point in the Singapore story, the government actually delivered. There is now in that country a certain standard of living, opportunities for all those who are hardworking to get ahead.

It is not an equal opportunity society but one day, as being Singaporean becomes a more meaningful label than one's ethnic identity, there is great possibility that Malay might become prime minister.

In Malaysia, the government is trying hard to shore up national identity through its 1Malaysia campaign.

The "Malay Rights" group feel uneasy because of the essential danger of national identity becoming more powerful than ethnic ones. Some might say that they are justified.

Why should we want to become a people without our traditional roots, deracinated beings without any real connection to our inherited cultural identity.

The problem is that whilst we were busy shoring up our ethnic identities, the country moved on and there now exists a global consumerist culture, based much on the street culture of the West.

It is reinforced daily through advertising, which creates desire for more of this global culture.

Ultimately, the "Malay Rights" group will have to be understood in the context of "where is the Malay in all this global culture"?

Where is the Malay in all this Malaysia? Can one blame them for feeling marginal and angry?

But they should direct their anger not at the non-Malays for we may be part of the evolving multicultural globalization but we are just as limited as they are when combating this materialist and consumerist culture. Non-Malays are not the problem but we can be part of the solution.

UMNO dying to talk to PAS

MCA Wanita chief Chew Mei Fun has been quoted as saying that PAS is bent on turning Malaysia into a theocratic state. She likened PAS coming to power as a first step towards the ‘Talibanisation of Malaysia’.

This was in reference to her unhappiness that some PAS members felt that female journalists covering the recently concluded PAS muktamar (annual assembly) were not properly ‘covered up’.

Is PAS that much a threat to multi-cultural Malaysia? The mainstream media has gone to great lengths to demonstrate how ‘liberal’ elements in the party were defeated by the conservative ulama wing.

This, according to several prominent analysts, is the maximum limit of PAS-PKR-DAP cooperation in Pakatan Rakyat.

It seems that the re-election of Nashruddin Md Isa as deputy president is also a clear sign that PAS-Umno talks can now continue.

In fact, several Umno leaders, including its Youth chief, said that bilateral talks between the two Malay-Muslim parties can now continue in the clear light of day.

Chew however said PAS must be stopped from coming to power at any cost. Most probably this is her personal view. One cannot imagine the MCA telling Umno it cannot continue talking to PAS because Chew thinks that PAS equals the Taliban.

It is ironic that the Wanita MCA chief has resorted to such rhetoric especially towards a party that is more popular among Chinese voters than even the MCA. Perhaps, this is one way the MCA can win back lost votes.

It seems that in a tolerant multi-racial society, it is okay to liken a legitimate Malaysian political party to terrorists, extremists and the regime responsible for blowing up the Bamiyan Buddha statues in Afghanistan.

No wonder PAS feels itself misunderstood. In its history, PAS has never once said that it was going to bathe the streets of Kuala Lumpur in Chinese blood.

Even when it came to power in Kelantan, it did not stop the Chinese from eating pork or drinking liquour. It only requested that these activities be confined to their proper places. Incidentally, this is also happening in most shopping complexes in states ruled by BN. We have to go to designated places to buy pork and spirits.

Like all other political parties, PAS has come a long way from its stronghold in the Malay majority east coast states to establishing branches in the more multi-ethnic west coast.

It is even going to Sarawak, promising to work closely with its political partners to make an impact in that state.

The party has never resorted to extra-constitutional means to promote its agenda. It has repeatedly said that it wants to establish an Islamic state but only if it can command two-thirds support in Parliament.

Impact of merger

Umno, on the other hand, clearly represents Malay hegemony. Its mouthpiece in the mainstream press tells non-Malays that we should be grateful for our citizenship, that we must know our limits and that any demand for equality is seditious.

Yet, on the same page, it tells us that we must all be ‘1Malaysia’, that ethnic groups must go beyond tolerance to establish genuine friendships.

But, we must not forget that we are not bumiputera, that we are living in this country on the generosity of the Malays and that we must never hope that citizenship means equal rights. No wonder the non-Umno component parties in the BN are a confused lot.

PAS’ agenda is clearly Islamic and its ideology is prophetic. It believes that eventually, everyone will see that Islam is the true religion and that it is only a matter of time before an Islamic state
will come into being. This type of ideology is not attractive to everyone, especially those of us who are non-Muslims.

But at the core of their struggle is social justice, economic sustainability and, in some circles, a people-oriented welfare state. With such an agenda, PAS will be very reluctant to join hands with Umno, which is bent on a unity government to preserve its own dominant role in the Malay-Muslim community.

In short, we have two parties with very different agendas. In fact, Umno has more in common with the MCA than it does with PAS. In a multi-ethnic context, the Umno ideology, which is materialist and race-based, has been widely popular especially in a developing context because its leaders were genuinely secularists.

Abdul Razak Hussein believed in big government and his policies were socialist in nature. Dr Mahathir Mohamad favoured the rational development theory, allowing market forces a freer hand in determining the country’s destiny.

From 1970 to 1996, Malaysia enjoyed big growth spurts, creating a consumerist and property-owning society.

But it was also a very unequal society and materialism created large-scale dissatisfaction, which some people like to say is the missing ‘spiritual’ aspect of development. Hence PAS’ (and the opposition's) growing popularity based on its message of people-oriented welfare, social justice and non-racialism.

Umno sees PKR as its true enemy

The main question is whether an Umno-PAS union at this point will help solidify Umno’s position or encourage greater hardline policies on Islamic religious matters.

In the event of a dispute between Muslims and non-Muslims, when Umno had an overwhelming majority in Parliament, it seems that the civil courts have abdicated in favour of the Syariah Court.

islamic stateIt was Umno that unilaterally declared Malaysia as an ‘Islamic state’ with the blessings of the MCA.

PAS has repeatedly said that it wants to see justice done. It has not yet had a chance to come up with a just solution for religious disputes.

It would be desirable if Muslims all get together to sort things out, but the objective must always be to give justice and not to shore up one's fading political fortunes.

For the rest of us, we must watch this space carefully. Umno is dying to talk to PAS. They will even offer Perak to PAS and quite possibly even Selangor. But this means that Umno has decided that PKR is their one true enemy and that PKR Malays must be stopped at all costs.

But there is no such thing as a free lunch. Newly-elected PAS leaders will have to remember all the scandals, corruption and abuse of power that they accused Umno of doing.

But if it is just to talk about Muslim issues, PAS and all other Muslims should participate actively. At this point, I have more faith in PAS with its brand of social justice than the government we have today.

As for Chew, she can recommend to the MCA to be extra-vigilant when PAS actually resumes talks with Umno. She can study PAS’ ideology and based on her vast experience in politics, make a truthful assessment about the party.

It would be more helpful if she can explain to all Malaysians why PAS will be bad for the country. Scare tactics will not be as effective as it was in the past. After the PKFZ, it might be more advisable for her to explain why Malaysians should trust her party more than PAS.

(First Published on 9 June 2009)

Breaking up is Hard to Do

Gerakan, the party of Lim Chong Eu and Lim Keng Yaik, is going through a rough patch. It has been some 14 months since the last general elections but party reforms have yet to bear any tangible results.

MCPX

In terms of governmental influence, Gerakan has a full minister and two deputy ministers. Its president, the low-key and ever diligent Dr Koh Tsu Koon, is in charge of national unity.

He is also monitoring ministerial performance through the setting-up of key performance indicators (KPIs).

This appointment, whilst attracting much criticism from detractors, is seen as a lifeline for Gerakan to exert some influence over national politics.

It is still too early to tell if this strategy – of the president having a ministerial position – will help Gerakan gain lost ground after the last general elections.

At this point anyway, most people still remember Koh’s announcement that he would not become a minister by way of the senate. Few people, except perhaps Gerakan members themselves, have cheered him on when he assumed his ministerial position.

There are three main problems that is plaguing Gerakan.

Firstly, the party is suffering from an image problem. The urban electorate still see the party as an appendage of the race-based parties of Umno, MCA and MIC.

Koh’s consensual style, which the BN thinks will help calm ruffled feathers, is not helping much in the party’s efforts to re-build its public image.

A more vocal posture needed

Both Chong Eu (left) and Keng Yaik (below) had an air of the rebel about them. A rebel, by the looks of Koh’s political career path, he certainly is not. Koh needs to chart a credible, independent and more vocal posture.

The second problem is that Gerakan is still trying hard to carve out a role for itself in national politics post-Penang. For nearly 40 years, from 1969 to 2008, Gerakan was “in-charge” of Penang.

Control of this largely non-Malay state, with its vibrant manufacturing-based economy, gave it an edge over its non-Umno rivals within the BN. Other than Umno, it was the only BN component party that held the reins of government.

In fact, the political reputation of the party as innovative, clean and efficient was built mostly on Penang’s success.

The loss of Penang may be a problem but the process of losing that state is even more demoralising for the party, for this was not just losing by a seat but a clear and decisive “wipe-out”.

To date, few Penangites regret voting the way they did. Gerakan’s chances of single-handedly winning back the state is almost nil.

Dr Teng Hock Nan’s stewardship of Gerakan in Penang will be crucial for reform efforts. But so far, he has been less than sterling.

Calls to take the Pakatan state government to task on the tennis affair and more recently, his humanitarian appeal for Chin Peng’s return have not earned Gerakan any positive points.

There are also very wide rifts between Gerakan and Umno in Penang that Teng needs to close.

He may be a more vocal and assertive personality when compared with Koh but his track record in the previous government leaves him open to criticisms. Then there is the MCA, eager for a leadership position in Penang at the expense of Gerakan.

Pakatan likely to hold on to Penang in 2013

Penang Umno is still unhappy over its secondary role to Gerakan despite it consistently winning most of its allotted seats. Gerakan’s inability to galvanise the BN through the leadership of Koh will almost guarantee a Pakatan victory in 2013.

Without Penang, Gerakan has been forced to re-examine its party ideology, which is inherently non-sectarian and therefore a source of its third problem. How can the party ignore developments on the ground calling for an end to race-based policies?

Many of Pakatan’s goals, including means-tested and merit-based economic policies, were championed by Gerakan in the late 1960s.

Gerakan used to call itself the “conscience of the BN”. It was the party that asked difficult questions and temper the race-based policies that the coalition promoted to secure equitable development and nation-building.

That Malaysia is only partially successful in this area speaks volumes for Gerakan’s inability to influence governmental policies. The party may have the right values but these are not shared even within the BN.

Today, Gerakan is in the strange position of having to reach back into its past to be relevant again. Koh has been made minister in charge of national unity and this in the midst of the shared aspirations for '1Malaysia' where Malaysians are all equal.

It should be a good opportunity for Gerakan to lead in this programme. The only problem is that not every BN component party agrees or share the same interpretation of 1Malaysia.

Playing second-fiddle to Umno

In short, Gerakan like the PPP are going through a rough patch because both non-sectarian parties find themselves anomalies in a race-based coalition. Gerakan’s political role was shaped by a strong BN and a weak non-sectarian opposition.

Now that the political ground has become more even, supporters of non-sectarian politics have new champions in Pakatan Rakyat. Is the role of Gerakan and PPP been played out?

What is surprising is that Gerakan leaders have taken so long to act. Koh has yet to state publicly what sort of role Gerakan will have in the new political landscape.

Playing second-fiddle to Umno will not win back lost ground. Trying to be broker between non-sectarian interests and the race-based parties is not viable especially when the party simply does not command the votes.

Gerakan’s inability to swing non-Malay voters to the BN in Bukit Gantang, a seat it used to win, is evidence of its diminishing role.

Perhaps, Koh has a new game plan for the party. If he has, he is keeping things close to his chest. It would be simplistic to expect these smaller but important non-sectarian parties to leave the BN.

What role would they have as a 'third force'? In today’s political scenario, third parties like independent candidates, have little chance of winning elections.

Whatever new strategy Gerakan may have for itself, it must put into effect sooner rather than later. One way to become a viable political party again is to stick to its guns when it comes to governmental decisions it does not agree with.

The BN government in Perak, the unfolding PKFZ scandal, the on-going revisiting of the ISA, rising crime, corruption in the police force, and the shaping of new economic strategies for Malaysia; all are opportunities for Gerakan to provide thought leadership.

A ministerial position may be a much needed lifeline but it can be a liability soon enough if the KPIs are not met, national unity becomes more elusive with the radicalisation of race-based parties and Gerakan’s inability to find new ways of thinking that will once again return it to its fundamental non-sectarian values.

As things stand today, support for the party is quickly diminishing. Image problems and the loss of Penang aside, Gerakan’s hope for recovery lie with its ability to embrace and advocate its founding values.

But if the BN does not move in the same direction, it may find itself a party with the right values but in the wrong coalition.

(First published on 6 June 2009)

A bad gov't is more fearsome than a tiger

In one of his travels, Confucius, the sage of China, and his disciples

MCPX

came across a woman weeping by a freshly covered grave.

Confucius asked one of his disciples to find out why the woman was crying so bitterly. She explained that the grave belonged to her son.

A tiger had killed him and she believed it was the same tiger that took the life of his father, her husband.

The disciple asked why she still lived in the village, why not move away. She said that although there were tigers in the area, she continued living there because the government was good and fair.

Confucius, upon learning the reason, turned to his other disciples and explained that a bad government is even more fearsome than a man-eating tiger.

Malaysians must be wondering when our government became more fearsome than a man-eating tiger. The answer is that it took many years and the process very slow. We have been dying a death of a thousand cuts.

In layman's terms, we have been living in a country whose institutions have been dismantled by mediocrity, mendacity and moral decay.

This is why staunch secularists, the Chinese voters, are willing to
vote for PAS.

That Islamic party is at least morally incorruptible.

Barring any unforeseen circumstances, PAS will replace Umno in the
next general election as the majority Muslim-Malay party.

MCA's PKFZ scandal

How did the MCA, the party of Tan Cheng Lock and Tan Siew Sin, become a party now associated with the PKFZ scandal? It is true that the MCA was always associated with the ‘towkays'.

Many of its founding members were wealthy capitalists. But this was also the party that believed in moderation, ethnic-cooperation and putting nation above narrow ethnic interests.

Tan Siew Sin's stewardship of the finance ministry established the strong fiscal and banking fundamentals that established the ringgit as a stable foreign exchange currency.

Today, several MCA leaders have been linked to the PKFZ scandal.

To his credit, Ong Tee Keat has forced the matter into the public realm. It remains to be seen if the party can survive the fallout that must now take place if Ong's revelation is to have any impact.

After all, the PKFZ project, if the time-line submitted by PriceWaterhousecoopers in their report is correct, spans the stewardship of three MCA Ministers of Transport.

Incidentally, these ministers were also MCA presidents and a deputy president. Moreover, it was the Transport Ministry that stood surety for the bonds issued. Will they be asked to explain why these irregularities happened under their watch?

The problem with electoral democracy is that political parties like the MCA needs to win seats.

The MCA never had absolute support from the Chinese.

From the very start, it has had to fend off the Labour Party, the Socialist Front, the People's Action Party, Gerakan and now, the DAP and PKR.

The MCA always had to face the demands of a middle-class electorate, one that is already suspicious of its pro-business stance.

With Port Klang, these suspicions are now confirmed. There was little choice for Ong to come clean. The MCA will have to face the wrath of the public because it has lost its credibility with the urban electorate.

Any other decision would have sealed the fate of his party and, possibly, of himself.

Presumably, Ong Tee Keat, in his brash almost maverick-style, hopes to win back Chinese support ahead of the next general election through this revelation.

Najib's visit to communist state

Other BN leaders, like the PM is also working very hard to do the same. Najib is making much of his impending visit to China and, for the first time, a Chinese Malaysian may be appointed the Malaysian ambassador to that country.

Dr Teng Hock Nan, Gerakan leader in Penang, pleaded for Chin Peng's (right) return to Malaysia on humanitarian grounds.

The octogenarian was the leader of the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) that launched a guerrilla warfare against British Malaya and Malaysia from 1948 till 1989.

Not surprisingly, calls for the government to allow him to come back to Malaysia went down badly with the victims of the emergency.

Teng quickly said that he was quoted out of context.

Information Minister Rais Yatim said that there was no place for communists in this country. Yet, the PM is leading the biggest delegation to communist China.

We can only assume that there is some room for communist cash and investments here.

The PKFZ revelation is therefore another people-friendly gesture. This is the government coming clean. The problem is that these actions are building up great expectations.

The PKFZ revelation is also an indicator that this is a government that does not tolerate negligence and conflict of interest.

As we are not allowed to draw any concluding remarks from the report, it would be best to say that the government feels strongly enough to suggest that something is not right about the project.

The decision to hand over the report to the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) means that the problems require scrutiny from an anti-corruption standpoint.

In short, we should expect to see some action.

And the answer is...

Just before the PKFZ report was handed over to the MACC (right), Malaysians were treated to the annual demonstration of unhappiness over governmental scholarships.

There were those who were unhappy that apparently only 20 percent of these scholarships were given out based strictly on academic merit.

There were also those who said that this should not change as scholarships are part of Malay rights. The MCA and Gerakan, either kept quiet or beat the meritocratic drum.

The Education Mininster then decided that students should be limited to ten subjects in the next Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia exams.

This led to a plea from Samy Vellu that such a limit would discourage Tamils from taking an extra subject in Tamil language or literature.

Once again, we are trapped by the narrow ethnic politics of the Barisan Nasional (BN).

There can be no solution because none of these parties are willing to find long-term and truly national solutions.

When did our government become more fearsome than tigers? This was the question asked at the beginning of this article.

The answer is simple. It was when politicians began to champion narrow ethnic issues, poisoning the well with their bile and bitterness.

It was when government forgot the people and the nation. But let us not simply leave the village, let us see if the likes of Ong Tee Keat can slay the PKFZ tiger and whether Muhyiddin Yassin can change the ethnic mindsets of Malaysian educationists.

First published on Jun 1, 09 2:18pm