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