Political “earthquakes” that realigned M’sian politics (Pt 1) - Liew Chin Tong(FMT)

* What is below is just an article by DAP's Liew Chin Tong - the role and part played by PRM was so much more than mentioned

Political “earthquakes” that realigned M’sian politics (Pt 1)

September 25, 2015 

 

The spectrum of Malaysian politics has experienced three great political earthquakes and the outcome is a change that will never be the same again.

COMMENT

By Liew Chin Tong

In the wake of an earthquake, tectonic plates will shift and realign. It takes time before gradually stabilising. In the process of seismic shifting, instead of hoping for a more stable surface, it would be better to reflect on the possible changes after the earthquake.

The spectrum of Malaysian politics experienced three great political earthquakes that caused shifting and realignment. After each shaking, the scenario that emerged was a previously unthinkable one. Once the tectonic plates shift, the outcome is a change that will never be the same again.

The first pre-Merdeka pan-Malayan General Election in July 1955 saw the success of the Alliance, using the UMNO-MCA-MIC formula.

UMNO’s opponents in that election were Dato’ Onn’s Parti Negara, PAS and left-wing Parti Rakyat.

When Malay left leader Dr Burhanuddin al-Helmy took over the helm of PAS in 1956, there was a certain degree of cooperation among anti-colonial activists, the Islamist movement, the Malay left and state/ regional champions (particularly in Kelantan). As for Chinese politics, the Labour Party was the biggest threat to MCA.

This scenario went on until the 1964 General Election, after which three political earthquakes took place.

In the 1964 General Election, the People’s Action Party (PAP) – led by Lee Kuan Yew – contested several Peninsular Malaysia seats, but were unsuccessful in unseating the existing political groupings. The party only won one seat through Devan Nair.

1969 General Election

The Labour Party boycotted the election on 10 May 1969. Two parties rose up to fill the ensuing political vacuum, namely the newly-formed Democratic Action Party (DAP) and Gerakan – which went on to capture Penang state government under Lim Chong Eu.

This election, and the May 13 incident which took place three days after it, was a political earthquake. The political spectrum realignment in the subsequent 1974 election can be summarised in two points:

Firstly, the demise of left-leaning parties as a Parliamentary movement.

The eventual demise of the left (then popular in the 1960s) could be attributed to:

a) Parti Rakyat and Labour Party’s disagreement on language policy, causing the break up of the Socialist Front;

b) In response to the international climate of the Cold War and Vietnam war, the government cracked down on all left-leaning parties, including the moderate left ones. Virtually all of the Labour Party’s Central Leadership was detained under ISA. As a response, even center-left forces were radicalised and polarised, eventually the Labour Party gave up its parliamentary struggle.

c) Burhanuddin’s long ISA detention, health deterioration upon his release, and eventual demise in 1969. 

Circa 1965, the de facto leader of PAS was in fact Kelantan Menteri Besar Mohd Asri Haji Muda. Asri was also seen as the champion for Kelantanese regional identity, thus began PAS’ estrangement from left-wing and anti-colonial politics.

Secondly, UMNO’s dominance in the model of race politics

After the May 13 incident, the National Operations Council, chaired by Tun Abdul Razak, was formed on 16 May. The incumbent Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman began to lose his grip on power and stepped down in September 1970.

Parliamentary democracy was suspended from between May 13 and when Parliament was reconvened in February 1971.

Tun Abdul Razak introduced the New Economic Policy, adopted the discourse of the left on “equitable distribution” but practiced it in a race-based manner. Razak also courted PAS in the name of “Greater Malay Unity”.

Tun Abdul Razak altered the political spectrum, when he turned the UMNO-MCA-MIC power-sharing model into an UMNO-dominant model. The role of the other Barisan Nasional component parties became a subservient one, this included former Opposition parties PAS, Gerakan, PAP, and others.

1982 PAS internal fight

With PAS being incorporated into a coalition government with the Alliance in 1973 and into the Barisan Nasional framework in 1974, there was no major Malay opposition party. As racial politics reared its head, Parti Rakyat was sidelined.

Although the Malay opposition was by then a spent force, there were still anti-UMNO sentiments among Malays, particularly during the 1973-74 economic crisis triggered by the oil crisis.

Against this backdrop, the Islamic Youth Movement of Malaysia (ABIM) leader Anwar Ibrahim emerged as an important figure in the Malay civil society movement.

PAS was expelled from BN in November 1977 and it suffered great setbacks in the 1978 election, losing most of its seats and conceding the Kelantan State Government.

From the 1978 election to the 1982 election, PAS underwent internal turmoil, but it also attracted several young leaders from ABIM, including its future Presidents Fadzil Noor, and Abdul Hadi Awang.

The shocker of the April 1982 election was UMNO’s high profile new recruit with Islamic credentials, Anwar Ibrahim – who had up until then been tipped for a PAS post. Asri had invited Anwar at least twice to be PAS’ President.

PAS continued to suffer losses in the election and barely retained 5 parliamentary seats.

In response to Anwar’s meteoric rise in UMNO and UMNO’s new Political Islam, PAS sought to reinvent itself. In the October 1982 Muktamar, a group of young Turks overthrew Asri’s leadership.

Thus the era of PAS-UMNO competing to champion Malay issues evolved into a competition to champion Islamic causes.

The domestic Islamic revival movement as well as the 1979 Iranian Revolution were major influences in the fierce clashes that took place post-1982 between UMNO/ Anwar and PAS’ Young Turks (particularly Hadi).

1998 Anwar’s ouster

The period from 1982 to 1998 also saw UMNO’s Team A-Team B split in 1987 and later on, the clash of UMNO Baru under Dr Mahathir and Semangat 46 under Tengku Razaleigh.

The latter was all but wiped out in the 1990 election, and after suffering another crushing defeat in the 1995 election, Semangat 46 was eventually re-absorbed into UMNO in 1996.

In the 1990 election, PAS with the assistance of Semangat 46 recaptured Kelantan, laying the foundation for a more centrist PAS that would appeal to moderate Malay voters as many young and capable activists joined the party.

In the 1990 election, the emergence of Semangat 46 united the two camps among the opposition parties to work together, paving the way for the possibility of an opposition coalition.

However, I do not consider the contribution of Semangat 46 as a political earthquake, because it did not have a lasting impact on the realignment of political forces in Malaysia.

UMNO’s reunification in 1996 was followed by Mahathir’s sacking of then-Deputy Premier Anwar Ibrahim on 2 September 1998, and his eventual arrest on 20 September. The Anwar incident was the catalyst for two historical political spectrum realignments:

First, the formation of Parti Keadilan Nasional (Later PKR)

After his sacking, Anwar declined the invitation to join PAS or Parti Rakyat, instead choosing to set up KeADILan. As a result, there were four main opposition parties instead of the original trio of DAP, PAS and Parti Rakyat. Barisan Alternatif was formed on 24 October 1999 and contested in the 1999 election.

Second, the emergence of the progressive faction in PAS

Before 1998, PAS members were mostly from the four East Coast states, by and large they were from the agriculture/plantation small owners and working class.

After the Anwar incident, Malays from all states in the Peninsular joined PAS in droves, this included the professional classes. Within a year after Anwar’s sacking, PAS membership exploded from 450,000 to 800,000.

One could argue that PAS’ 2015 split is the culmination of 17 years of internal strife and failed accommodation of the “Class of 1998” and the “Class of 1982”. The outcome of the split was two parties: the original PAS and Parti Amanah Negara.

The Anwar Incident was a watershed in Malay politics. Since then, PKR and the PAS progressives premised their struggle on opposing UMNO’s corruption, nepotism, and undemocratic practices. This was clearly a different political orientation than that pursued by the 1982 PAS conservatives and UMNO.

In tracing the timeline of Malaysia’s political spectrum reorganisation, the dominant issues of the period were the death of the left-wing/anti-colonial parliamentary struggle in 1969, to the era of race-based politics, to the 1982 struggle of political Islam, to the Reformasi movement shifting the political struggle to be for all rakyat, to this new political earthquake in 2015. How will the ground shift after the 2015 earthquake?

I will discuss this in the next installment of this series.

Liew Chin Tong is MP for Kluang; DAP Political Education Director; and spokesperson for transport and public works.

With a firm belief in freedom of expression and without prejudice, FMT tries its best to share reliable content from third parties. Such articles are strictly the writer’s personal opinion. FMT does not necessarily endorse the views or opinions given by any third party content provider.

- FMT, 25/9/2015

Rohana Ariffin:- Are we ready for a two-party system?

Are we ready for a two-party system?

16 Jun 09 : 8.00AM

By Rohana Ariffin

Which side of the fence? (Background image by Ariel da Silva Parreira / sxc.hu)

FOR more than 50 years, the Barisan Nasional (BN) has used an array of laws and methods to silence dissent and perpetuate its own vision of reality as the only truth. But in recent years, the scenario has changed. The BN is now being challenged by bloggers and other citizens who are highly critical of the government, even to the extent of dismissing any attempts by the BN to rectify its wrongs.

Trust towards the government is gone, and no one has a definite answer on how to regain this trust. It's like a personal betrayal where your partner or spouse has had an affair: after that, trying to rebuild trust may take ages. Just ask the urban youth — a vast number do not like the government. And these are potential, future voters.

Perhaps the best way out is for the opposition to win in the next general election and form a new government while the BN becomes the opposition, like in two-party systems in some Western countries. But the question is, are we prepared for this? Are Malaysians mature enough to be able to weigh different perspectives? Can we do this without turning irrational and resorting to bashing personalities, issuing religious rulings and threats, or even becoming violent?

The worrying trend in Malaysia now is that we are divided into two main opposing camps. Two big unmoving blocks. Both sides seemed to endorse the view that "if you are not with us, you are against us". This is an archaic view, a carry-over from the politics of the 1960s that if a fence has two sides, you are either on this side or that side. It does not make room for compromise.

Can everyone be bought?

Before 2008, when the BN had almost absolute power, independent candidates for any elections were mainly viewed as irritants and nuisances. People thought they only tended to split the votes because almost all of them obtained negligible votes, and many lost their deposits.

But after the March 2008 elections, especially when Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) and its Pakatan Rakyat (PR) partners led several state governments and became stronger, they too are now highly suspicious of independent candidates. Now, the PR spreads rumours like wildfire that independent candidates are government agents and are paid millions by the BN. The longer the rumour runs, the bigger the sum seems to get.

The rakyat loves this and laps it up as inalienable truth. Yes, for some candidates, these allegations might be true. But we cannot simply generalise. I've got into some heated arguments over this. My opponents contended that if millions were placed before me, what would I do? Would I not be bought if I saw this huge amount in front of my eyes or in my bank account?

Che Guevara (Source: fatamerican.
tv)

So the assumption here is that everyone has a price. I do not agree. What of people who have sacrificed their lives for their beliefs? Take Ernesto Che Guevara, who gave up a ministerial post in Cuba and went back to the jungles of Latin America because he believed in liberating its people.

What of Dr Norman Bethune (1890-1939), a Canadian physician who sacrificed his entire life to serve the people of China during the Sino-Japanese war when he could have made tons of money as a doctor in the West?

Ajahn Brahm (Pic by Linda Molendijk /
bswa.org; source: Wiki commons)

What of Ajahn Brahm, a nuclear scientist from Cambridge who could have led an upper-class life but went on to became a Buddhist monk instead? This was also true of a French Buddhist monk, Matthieu Ricard, who had a doctorate in biology from the prestigious Pasteur Institute, but gave up his material comfort for his ideals.

And there are others who are willing to sacrifice material comfort to stand by their ideals.

It follows that since there are now more political spaces, it makes sense for independent people who are concerned citizens to stand for election. Blogger Raja Petra Kamarudin says he cannot think like a politician because they tend to side with their political parties. He says he is a social activist who wants to be free from political bindings.

Although I do not condone all his views, to some extent, I do agree with him on this one, because independent thinkers could be writers, could be in non-governmental organisations, and should be in politics.

It's black, it's white

Observe what's happening in our Parliament today. When a BN component party suggests a certain policy or law, and it comes to voting time, all MPs vote along their respective party lines.

A similar response can be seen when suggestions and views come from the PR. There is really no independent voting because we hardly have any independent parliamentarians, except Ibrahim Ali and possibly Dr Michael Jeyakumar Devaraj of the Socialist Party of Malaysia, who could be a moderating factor.

The question is, why can't we have more independent candidates in Parliament who will not toe any party line? People who would be able to analyse policies and plans to see if they are for the benefit of the public, based on principles and integrity?

When an independent candidate stands for elections, the majority of our voters prefer to elect the political party and not for the candidate. For example, in the recent Penanti by-election, only 46% went out to vote. Why couldn't those who abstained from voting overlook the fact that although the BN did not field a candidate, there were three independent candidates contesting against PKR?

It is timely now that Malaysians listen to the candidate and his or her written manifesto, and if he or she wins, ensure that his or her promise is kept. Similarly, candidates from political parties shouldn't compromise their promises to abide by their main party's plans and policies.

When a person becomes an independent candidate either in the state assembly or Parliament, there is a real danger that much inducement will be offered either by the BN or the PR, or both. Hence, such temptations will become the biggest test for an independent candidate, a pull between one's conscience and idealism on one hand and on the other, material comfort and greed.

Voters during the Penanti by-election. But where were the rest of them?

Jeopardising Pakatan Rakyat?

The other heated argument that I got into is, why must we jeopardise the attempts of the PR to overthrow the BN? When I argued that a third voice and a conscience must always be present in any political process, my opponent dismissed it as irrelevant.

Have you come across people in this country who scream and shout for democracy but cannot tolerate someone else's differing viewpoint? Have you come across advocates of democracy in the public sphere who cannot practise it in their daily lives and in the domestic sphere? This is something I fear is happening to proponents of an absolute two-party system who cannot see the value of other independent voices.

However, people should not be cowed into accepting the majority's point of view because the majority is not always right. Given some education and experience, people should have the freedom to practise what they believe, state their opinions, learn to accept differences in opinion, and accept responsibility for their beliefs and actions.

After all, this is what democracy is all about — an inalienable right for everyone, immaterial of their gender, ethnicity and age, to express and act freely but responsibly.

---

Rohana Ariffin is a trained sociologist and has served for more than two decades at Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang. She teaches industrial relations and gender research. She is currently vice-president of Parti Rakyat Malaysia.

Source: The Nut Graph

IKTIBAR DARI KRISIS POLITIK DI PERAK - Hassan Karim

IKTIBAR DARI KRISIS POLITIK DI PERAK

Oleh Hassan Karim

Di sebalik keadaan politik yang terumbang ambing di Perak, seakan mainan yo-yo atau roller coaster, di mana sah atau tidak Menteri Besar (MB) ditentukan oleh mahkamah, saya dapati banyak perkara yang positif dapat diambil sebagai iktibar atau pengajaran dari apa yang telah berlaku.

Pertama, krisis politik di negeri yang pernah kaya dengan bijih timah itu berjalan agak terkawal dan tidak menjadi liar yang boleh membawa ke arah keganasaan seperti di sesetengah negara lain. Masing-masing pihak sama ada Barisan Nasional (BN) ataupun Pakatan Rakyat (PR) memilih mahkamah sebagai saluran untuk menuntut hak atau keadilan bagi pihak yang terkilan. Ini sebenarnya petanda baik bagi sesebuah masyarakat sivil. Walau apapun dikatakan orang tentang sistem kehakiman di Malaysia, tetapi apabila berlaku ketegangan ataupun kebuntuan seperti yang terjadi di Perak itu, mahkamah menjadi tempat rujukan mereka. Justeru itu ia mempekuatkan lagi hujah kita bahawa amat penting institusi kehakiman di negara kita ini diperlihara kebebasan dan kewibawaannya.

Kedua, apabila kemudiannya jelas kelihatan bahawa mahkamah yang diharapkan untuk menyelesaikan masalah atau kemelut di Perak itu gagal dalam membantu membawa kestabilan politik apatah lagi merungkai kemelut yang ada, maka semakin kuat kita berhujah bahawa seeloknya kuasa bagi menentukan legitimasi atau keesahan sesebuah kerajaan atau seseorang Menteri Besar itu dikembalikan kepada rakyat untuk menentukannya, bukannya pada para hakim. Justeru itu mandat bagi sesebuah kerajaan yang memerintah mesti datang dari rakyat. Jadi adalah lojik jika kebuntuan di Perak sekarang ini diselesaikan dengan pembubaran Dewan Undangan Negeri (DUN) yang ada sekarang untuk membolehkan satu pilihanraya di adakan bagi seluruh Perak. Biar mandat baru ditentukan oleh rakyat.

Saya percaya, pemerintah mandatnya mesti datang dari rakyat. Menteri Besar yang memimpin mesti dikelilingi oleh rakyat dengan selesa bukannya dikelilingi oleh anggota polis untuk terus berkuasa. Kerajaan yang sah tidak memerlukan dokongan dan sokongan polis untuk menjaga bangunan-bangunan kerajaan atau keselamatan para pemimpinnya. Jika sesebuah kerajaan terpaksa bergantung kepada sokongan polis itu bermakna kerajaan polis bukannya kerajaan awam yang direstui rakyat.

Ketiga, krisis di Perak ini menjelaskan lagi satu hakikat bahawa raja-raja Melayu adalah raja berperlembagaan bukannya raja mutlak. Kini kuasa raja untuk melantik atau menurunkan seseorang Menteri Besar boleh dirujuk ke mahkamah untuk semakan kehakiman (Judicial Review). Ramai para pendukung sistem feudal marah-marah dan bersedih tentang hakikat ini. Tetapi bagi kita yang memandang ke depan dan mahu mara menjadi masyarakat yang demokratik dan progresif maka adalah sehat untuk melihat bahawa hakikatnya kini kuasa raja-raja adalah dihadkan oleh perlembagaan negeri masing-masing dan juga Perlembagaan Persekutuan. Amat perlu raja-raja di Malaysia memahami bahawa mereka terpaksa berkongsi kuasa dengan Dewan Undangan Negeri atau Parlimen yang para anggotanya dipilih oleh rakyat melalui undi di dalam pilihanraya yang bebas. Sangat cantik apabila membaca hujahan seorang hakim Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya baru-baru ini bahawa seseorang Menteri Besar apabila telah dilantik oleh Sultan, maka Menteri Besar itu bertanggungjawab terus kepada Dewan Undangan Negeri bukannya kepada Sultan. Ini sesuatu yang positif dalam sistem demokrasi yang berasaskan kuasa datang dari rakyat dan ditempatkan di dalam Dewan Undangan Negeri ataupun Parlimen jika di peringkat Persekutuan.

Keempat, krisis politik di Perak tidak diselesaikan di atas jalanraya. Sepatutnya ia diselesaikan di dalam Dewan Undangan Negeri. Tetapi pihak-pihak yang terlibat seperti dikatakan awal tadi memilih mahkamah untuk menjadi medan mereka berjuang bagi merebut semula kuasa. Yang mendapat rahmat dalam perkara ini ialah undang-undang perlembagaan Malaysia akan diperkayakan dengan pelbagai penghakiman berkisar isu krisis perlembagaan di Perak sekarang ini. Hakim-hakim di mahkamah sekarang terpaksa bekerja keras untuk mentafsirkan undang-undang kerana para politikus yang terlibat telah menguji setiap sudut dan batas perlembagaan negeri Perak dan Persekutuan.

Kelima, dapat dilihat bahawa ternyata peranan polis dan pentadbiran awam di Perak sepanjang krisis ini berlaku tidak begitu menyenangkan hati. Polis dan perkhidmatan awam sepatutnya bersikap bebas dan berkecuali ataupun neutral. Tetapi kelihatan Polis dan perkhidmatan awam begitu condong dan memihak kepada BN. Hal tidak sihat ini telah ditegur oleh Suhakam. Polis dan perkhidmatan awam sepatutnya kekal berkecuali. Tampuk kerajaan yang dikuasai oleh parti-parti politik sebenarnya boleh bertukar ganti. Misalnya di Perak selama ini dikuasai oleh BN dan mulai Mac 2008 bertukar kepada PR. Polis dan perkhidmatan awam yang telah sekian lama duduk di bawah pemerintahan BN mungkin agak sukar untuk menerima hakikat bahawa PR kini yang berkuasa. Jadi apabila berlaku krisis di mana BN dapat merampas kuasa maka ternyata Polis dan Perkhidmatan awam kelihatan begitu ghairah untuk menyebelahi BN. Ini tidak kena. Polis dan perkhidmatan awam tidak ada kuasa untuk mengembalikan BN kepada tampuk kuasa. Yang ada kuasa untuk berbuat demikian ialah rakyat atau lebih tepat lagi iaitu para pengundi. Sebab itu pentingnya pilihanraya yang baru diadakan di Perak. Jika BN menang dalam pilihanraya akan datang di Perak ini, tentu sahaja ia kembali berkuasa dengan cara yang sah dan mulia, tetapi tidak seperti sekarang yang kelihatan seperti coup d’etat.