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)