==> Pls visit new site at http://malaysia-today.net/ <==

Only in Malaysia is criticism within the same party or coalition treated as big news. When it happens within PR (comprising PAS, the DAP and PKR) this is seized on and played up by the mainstream media to give an impression that PR is a fragile coalition about to break up soon. 

Kenny Gan, Malaysian Mirror

A reader, Ting Chang Hang after reading my article Can BN stave off Pakatan? has expressed his misgivings on whether Pakatan Rakyat can rule if it is swept to Federal power by an anti-Barisan Nasional tide.

Specifically, his concern is whether PR - whose leaders he says seem to be constantly bickering among themselves - will be worse than the regime it replaces.

His concern is real and deserves to be addressed in detail as they are also shared by many others.

Big brother

First of all, we have been conditioned by the eerie consensus of BN leaders to think that this sort of tight common consensus is the norm. In BN, Umno plays the role of big brother and what Umno does is beyond criticism by the component parties even if they disagree vehemently. And this is why they are now seen as subservient, an image that will be tough change.

For example, when former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad declared Malaysia an Islamic state, where were the voices of the  MCA and MIC? Where were they when Umno courted PAS with Malay unity talks?

Criticising an Umno leader by a minority component party is akin to putting one’s head on the chopping block so they know when to keep their silence as well as when to gush and spew fawning praise.

Even within Umno there is little room for dissent. The Umno president can say or do no wrong to party members. Voices of disagreement or criticism are rare except for former Umno vice-president and current Gua Musang MP Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah and Mahathir, but they are outside the Umno patronage system and have no positions to risk.

So it is that we are conditioned to think that a government must function with all its political leaders in absolute agreement with each other and providing a chorus line to the Prime Minister and any disagreements should be hidden behind closed doors.

But this is not how matured democracies function.

Agreeing to disagree

In Western democracies politicians from the same party often criticise their colleagues or the party chief publicly and this is nothing unusual or even big news. In the US representatives can vote to pass or reject bills according to their conscience and this means voting against their own party if necessary.

This is how matured democracies work and it makes for a more vibrant and people oriented system rather than representatives being forced to toe the party line whether or not they agree with party policies.

Why not keep all disagreements behind closed doors? But democracy like justice does not work in the dark. Airing a contrary view publicly allows for public debate and feedback and ensures that a dissenting view is heard rather than snuffed out in private.

Only in Malaysia is criticism within the same party or coalition treated as big news. When it happens within PR (comprising PAS, the DAP and PKR) this is seized on and played up by the mainstream media to give an impression that PR is a fragile coalition about to break up soon. 

Of course the BN-controlled media are not without their political agenda.

PR is not a copy of BN

To be sure, PR is still a young coalition still groping with setting up channels of internal communication and ways of resolving contentious issues. This is to be expected as they are three disparage parties thrown together by sheer circumstances and forced to govern together.

PR did not even exist before the last general election. This is a fact but it is not a handicap.

There were certainly gripping moments in all Pakatan ruled states when the parties seem to be at each other’s throats but things appear to be settling down, except perhaps in Selangor. Here, whether Hasan Ali (state PAS chief and exco member)  is a sincere maverick or a BN Trojan horse is still a matter of debate in cyberspace.

According to PR, it differs from BN in that it practices true power sharing amomg equal partners. Such a system will naturally be less peaceful than one with a dominant party which acts as the boss. But subservience is how communities represented by minority race-based parties become marginalised.

All things considered, PKR, PAS and DAP have shown remarkable cohesion in working together. Is there anything keeping their marriage intact beyond Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim?

Yes, there is. Common to all of them is their ideology of social justice. This means good and accountable governance, anti-corruption, uplifting the poor of all races, upholding democratic principles and respect for human rights. Even more encouraging is their color-blind approach to governance - so far!

Interestingly, it is the BN component parties that have become unstucked not the Pakatan. There doesn't seem to be anything that holds the BN components together beyond the glue of Federal power.

Race-based parties with each party fighting for their own races have nothing in common. Once Federal power is lost, there is nothing at all to hold the coalition together.

What about PAS?

Much has been said about PAS’ Islamic agenda clashing with DAP’s secular agenda. PAS will always try to advance its Islamic agenda as this is its raison d’etre.

But PAS has a strong sense of social justice which is attractive to many Malaysians including the non-Muslims. The way to accommodate PAS is not to deny it its Islamic agenda but instead to allow the party to express its religious concerns and wish-list. Strictly of course on the understanding that these cannot be implemented at will or without consensus in multi-racial Malaysia. 

Hence jumping on PAS for advocating Hudud law is not the way. It is an idealism which PAS works towards but it is impossible for PAS to implement even if PR wins Federal power as the Islamic party can never get enough seats by itself to change the Constitution.

As a side-note, do you, as a minority, trust DAP and PKR more to defend your religious rights against an aggressive PAS  than the MCA and MIC to defend these same rights against a dominant Umno?

PAS will be committed because it needs PR as much as PR needs it. Without PR, PAS will revert to a localised rural Malay party except in Kelantan and PR needs PAS to battle Umno in the Malay heartlands.

A robust democracy

In retrospect, PR as the Federal government will never be as tightly controlled as BN with nary a dissenting voice but it makes for a more robust and vibrant democracy.

We can remember how an MIC MP was forced to apologise for giving in to his painful conscience and speaking up against the tough action on Hindraf while his colleagues watched in sympathy - silent of course.

Do we want a system where what the Prime Minster wants, the Prime Minister gets? Not daring to disagree can and will result in senseless mega-projects being implemented without any debate. And this has been the hallmark of the BN government. Is this what we deserve?

So disagreements between PR leaders are not to be feared. As long as they can thrash out their differences and come up with a common consensus, such disagreements are a building process and a sign of democracy in action.

But will voters give the chance to a coalition which has never governed before?

Examples in other countries have shown time and again that the answer is yes. If the people are sick enough of a ruling party, they will give even an inexperienced party a chance to govern and make changes. 

After all if the new government doesn’t perform, it can always be voted out. And this certainly applies to PR as well!

Comments (16)