Source: Hafidz Baharom, The Malaysian Insider
NOV 25— I think by now I’ve dispelled the myth posted by Malaysia Today comments which label me as an Umno supporter. Heck, some of them actually leaked into my past articles, much to the laughter of fellow writer Zaidel Baharuddin.
If there’s one thing for sure to label me with, you could call me a lalang. I don’t guarantee nor swear my loyalty to any political party particularly since they themselves can’t even keep to their charters and memorandums, sans DAP of course.
I would support the PSM, but there’s something about me being a royalist and pro-ISA amendment in the past (now anti-ISA after the bungling Home Ministry online poll scandal) that irks them.
Anyway, let us move on.
I don’t support a two-party system. Let’s face it. Even if we had two parties, we’d be seeing schizophrenic identical twins arguing with one another about who could run the nation better, when neither in fact seems qualified to do so without multiple oversight from independent fronts.
Nothing personal against the Opposition and government MPs I know, but you all know this much is true.
I would, however, support a system of coalitions as we have now. If one has a problem on an ideological level with a certain coalition, they can leave, as seen by SAPP leaving BN in 2008 to become an independent voice.
Similarly, I don’t see Pakatan Rakyat being a full coalition seeing as how their ideologies are honestly too different to be gelled into one. Also, the parties themselves don’t even work as a coalition even when they do mention it as such.
For example, go to each of the coalition members’ website. Please note which one actually has an alternate budget published online for next year (congratulations DAP); when in fact it should have been a group effort by all three parties.
Reading through DAP and PKR’s vision and mission online, sure. These two do gel with one another. I can’t find PAS online having similar workings. Looking through the Umno, MIC and MCA websites, their constitutions are all similar, thus it looks as though it is true, perhaps a coalition such as BN does have its advantages after 52 years of running the nation.
Similarly, what about the other parties in Malaysia? We also have a few more political parties available in Malaysia, Parti Sosialis Malaysia, Parti Makkal Shakti and Parti Rakyat Malaysia, to name a few.
I’m pretty sure they are independent insofar as not being in either coalition, thus forming the third so-called independent coalition that swings and criticises both sides. And watching their sole representative in Parliament, Dr Jeyakumar Devaraj, he seems to be the most civil person caught between both sides.
A coalition and alliance of parties to form a government is the only way to go. However, this will also be troublesome should a government be one of a minority, meaning that if a group with a substantial number of MPs should choose to leave, we’d be looking at another general election.
This keeps a government in check, especially since it has multiple quarters to please.
The problem with this system is that we are seeing a silencing of any talk over negotiations in leaving or forming an alliance or coalition. None was more so highlighted in the past year than the issue with MCA’s Datuk Seri Ong Tee Kiat posting a question on whether MCA should leave BN, and whether PAS should talk to Umno for the betterment of the Malays.
My reaction to both was of, course, that they both should go for it. From the past general election, we saw that the non-Malay majority had gotten sick of both MCA and MIC constantly kowtowing to the will of Umno, thus the success of the “ABU” (asalkan bukan Umno) campaign.
MCA should have left Barisan Nasional if the alliance was no longer favourable to them. Similarly, PAS, with its pro-Muslim wife divorcing welfare/salvation agenda, could have gone and form an alliance with Umno.
They may be criticised, ridiculed and perhaps even split a political party, but in the end, it is up to the political party’s leadership to decide which coalition is in line to further their individual mission and vision.
A two-party system cannot afford any of these liberties, which is why it is not a viable system to promote.
Not when you have infighting among coalition members over trivial issues such as setting up a committee to promote transparency, an MP going about promoting the prohibition of alcohol sales or even a religious party in your coalition asking for an investigation into an NGO, which was criticised by members of the party themselves.
Until a coalition can trust each other to allow one MP to shadow a single minister, then I think all this talk of forming an “official” coalition is lacking trust and unity altogether.
Hafidz Baharom is a social observer who has rankled more than a few feathers. He has written for a number of publications, and is always looking to stir up discussions on things which need to be said.
