PAS-Umno unity gov't not an option
Sim Kwang Yang Jun 11, 09 4:06pm
A Chinese lady journalist wrote about her puzzlement with PAS in a column in the Chinese language the Oriental Daily.She was at the PAS Muktamar covering the proceedings, watching the gathering of PAS delegates from all corners of the country. What she saw and heard made her shake her head and sigh unhappy sighs.Here was a political party that the Chinese had shied away from for many decades. Finally, during the March 8 general election last year, the Chinese voters had overcome their psychological barrier and voted for this Islamist party en masse.During the by-election in Perak, even the most conservative Chinese villagers hung the PAS flags, to show their displeasure at the BN tactic in changing power in the silver state.Then, during the Muktamar, PAS elites showed the hegemonic sectarian side that they shared with the much vilified Umno!Before entering the meeting venue, lady reporters were told to wear some kind of head gear. They were told to sit separately from their male counterparts inside the meeting hall.Then they heard a call from a delegate to maintain the 30 percent quota for Bumiputra. Worse still, they heard the party president Hadi Awang proposing a unity government with Umno!What is the difference between PAS and Umno, she asked.At the crossroadsThe PAS Muktamar that has just ended has indeed triggered off a tsunami of commentaries. There is a kind of unsaid consensus that the party's highest decision making body is far from conclusive in determining their future direction.It remains stuck at a crossroads.The division between the Ulamas and the professionals among the PAS leadership may be arbitrary and simplistic, but it is useful.If that be the case, then neither side won in the party election.Nasharuddin Mat Isa might have won the race for the post of Deputy President, but that was because his opponents' votes had been split two ways between two other contenders.If one of his two opponents had withdrawn, the results would have been different.Then again, it is hard to put any label on Nasharuddin. As Brigit Welsh wrote in her Malaysiakini article Change for PAS or PAS for change:"More important, labels and outlooks are changing within PAS. Consider the victor in the deputy presidency race, Nasharuddin Mat Isa. Only four years ago, when he was elected in 2005, he was touted as the leader of the ‘progressives'. Today, he was labelled as the defender of the ulama, the voice of conservatism."Nasharuddin's political identity remains unclear, as it is being shaped by forces within the party and the rapidly changing political environment in Malaysia rather than driven by a fixed outlook."Indeed, the overall impression of the latest PAS Muktamar is a party in the process of evolution, stumbling along amidst the changing parameters of a new political reality in Malaysia.You still hear the old conservative voice of the past, in the form of an undebated motion calling for the ban on Sisters in Islam. Sisters in Islam is one of the most respected Islamic NGO in our country, and such a call to ban them is nothing less than barbaric!But the most contentious issue has to be the call by PAS President Hadi Awang - supported by his Deputy Nasharuddin - for continuing talk with Umno.Act of betrayalOf course PAS is free to talk to anybody in a free exchange of views on any subject. But if PAS talks to Umno on the basis of pursuing the "unity of the fellow faithful", then PAS is launched on a journey of no-return towards self-destruction.Worse still, it will lead to the disintegration of the Pakatan Rakyat coalition, and any hope of realising a two coalition system in Malaysia!The other two PR coalition partners, DAP and PKR, are understandably disturbed. When PAS top leaders hold secret talk with their common arch enemy Umno, it is an act of betrayal. There is no other name for it.The idea of PAS holding talks with Umno in secret is a bizarre one, if you know the long and bitter rivalry between these two parties over the past half century. The whole things smacks of backroom horse-trading, short term gain, and narrow sectarian agenda taking centre stage.PAS spiritual leader Datuk Nik Mat Nik Aziz has openly rubbished the idea of such clandestine talks, and so have a number of delegates at the Muktamar. The deputy president, Nasharuddin, rubbished back, saying his spiritual leader was merely voicing his personal opinion.What kind of spiritual leader has Nik Aziz been made out to be?So we return to the question posed by the lady journalist at the beginning of this article. What is the difference between PAS and Umno?Orchestrated speechesIn an Umno general assembly, all the speeches are well orchestrated beforehand. When the Umno youth chief raised his Keris, everyone cheered. Their race-speak and religion-speak has only one voice.In PAS Muktamar, we hear a plurality of voices. Though one delegate spoke in defence of the 30 percent Bumiputra quota, you also have Khalid Samad attacking the idea as an Umno mindset.Delegates spoke openly against the president's proposal for a unity government.Obviously, PAS is much more inclusive and more democratic than Umno. They seem far less ‘monologic' than Umno precisely because they allow one hundred flowers to bloom.When that state of affair exists, you have to allow the proposal for talks with Umno to surface, no matter how silly it sounds.As long as the democratic process is in motion within PAS, there will always be the internal checks and balances in the party so that no single unreasonable proposal will come to dominate the party.That is the strength of PAS over Umno in the long run.Frankly, I am sceptical that the whole of PAS would take kindly to this unity talk nonsense. PAS has been betrayed before by Umno when they were in the BN coalition.Fight to the finishTheir massive grass-root members have fought Umno tooth and nail for decades in many fierce and ruthless battles. They have called each other such dirty names that will be etched in stone in our memory. Ideologically, they are poles apart.Eventually, these PAS leaders have to be reminded that they are not so high and mighty after all. They too are held hostage to fortune, as they are beholden not only to their members but to the entire multi-racial Malaysian electorate as well.As a mainstream political party, PAS is also a useful historical instrument for all Malaysians to bring about meaningful democratic change. We do not have to fear PAS.Instead, we should care about them and follow their every move and their future political direction.When some of their leaders seem to have lost sight of our common political objective of reformation, then it is our duty to stand forth and remind them of their duty to the rakyat who have voted them in the March 8 general election last year.Any proposal for a unity government between PAS and Umno is not an option! I repeat, the proposal is a sure road map for the self-destruction of PAS, and an act of treason against the Pakatan Rakyat coalition, and a betrayal against the Malaysian populace who harbour dreams of a better more democratic Malaysia!
SIM KWANG YANG was MP for Bandar Kuching between 1982 and 1995. He can be reached at Kenyalang 578@hotmail.com
Thursday, June 11, 2009
LKY at 85, The fire still burns
A frank discourse by a bumiputra of Malaysia.LEE KUAN YEW : AT 85 , THE FIRE STILL BURNS BY *AHMAD MUSTAPHA *The writer is a nephew of Dr Mahathir.
Singapore's Minister Mentor, Lee Kuan Yew, who was Singapore's founding father, has always been very direct in his comments. This was the man who outsmarted the communists in Singapore (with the innocent help of Malaya then and the willing help of the British) and who later outwitted the British and outpaced Malaysia in all spheres.
Singapore practices corrupt-free meritocracy and Malaysia affirmative action. The former attracted all the best brains and the latter chased out all the brains. The Singapore cabinet consists of dedicated and intelligent technocrats whereas Malaysia has one of the most unwieldy cabinets. Not only that, brain wise it was below par not even good for the kampong.
With that kind of composition, one that is very brainy, naturally Singapore, with no natural resources could outstrip Malaysia in every aspect of development. Malaysia, on the other hand, was too much preoccupied with its Malayness and the illusory 'Ketuanan Melayu' and was also more interested in useless mega iconic development rather than real social and economic development.
Whenever Kuan Yew utters anything that deemed to be a slight on Malaysia, voices were raised admonishing him. Malaysia would never dare to face reality. That Singapore had shown that it could survive was a slap on those who believed that Singapore would fold up once it left Malaysia. Therefore it was natural that these doomsayers would try to rationalise their utterances to be in their favour to combat on whatever Kuan Yew commented. Its political jealousy.
Singapore achieved its development status without any fanfare. But here in Malaysia, a development that was deceptive was proclaimed as having achieved development status. It was trumpeted as an achievement that befits first world status. This was self delusion. Malaysians are led to believe into a make believe world, a dream world. The leaders who themselves tend to believe in their own fabricated world did not realise the people were not taken in by this kind of illusion.
Lee Kuan Yew believed in calling a spade a spade. I was there in Singapore when the People's Action Party won the elections in 1959. He was forthright in his briefing to party members as to what was expected of them and what Singapore would face in the future. Ideologically, I did not agree with him. We in the University of Malaya Socialist Club had a different interpretation of socialist reconstruction. But he was a pragmatist and wanted to bring development and welfare to the Singaporeans. Well! He succeeded.
Malaysia was so much embroiled in racial politics and due to the fear of losing political power, all actions taken by the main party in power was never targeted towards bringing wealth to all. Wealth was distributed to the chosen few only. They were the cronies and the backers of the party leadership to perpetuate their own selfish ends.
Seeing the efficiency and the progress achieved by Singapore caused the Malaysian leadership to suffer from an inferiority complex. That Malaysia should suffer from this complex was of its own making.
In a recent interview, Kuan Yew said that Malaysia could have done better if only it treated its minority Chinese and Indian population fairly. Instead they were completely marginalised and many of the best brains left the country in drove. He added that Singapore was a standing indictment to what Malaysia could have done differently. He just hit the nail right there on the head.
Malaysia recently celebrated its 50th year of independence with a bagful of uncertainties. The racial divide has become more acute. The number of Malay graduates unemployed is on the increase. And this aspect can be very explosive. But sad to see that no positive actions have been taken to address these social ills.
Various excuses were given by Malaysian leaders why Singapore had far outstripped Malaysia in all aspects of social and economic advancement. Singapore was small, they rationalised and therefore easy to manage. Singapore was not a state but merely an island.
There was one other aspect that Malaysia practises and that is to politicise all aspects of life. All government organs and machinery were 'UMNO-ised'. This was to ensure that the party will remain in power. Thus there was this misconception by the instruments of government as to what national interest is and what UMNO vested interest is.
UMNO vested interest only benefited a few and not the whole nation. But due to the UMNO-isation of the various instruments of government, the country under the present administration had equated UMNO vested interest as being that of national interest. Thus development became an avenue of making money and not for the benefit of the people. The fight against corruption took a back seat. Transparency was put on hold. And the instruments of government took it to be of national interest to cater to the vested interest of UMNO. Enforcement of various enactments and laws was selective. Thus a 'palace' in Kelang, APs cronies and close-one-eye umno MPs could exist without proper procedure. Corruption infested all govt departments, the worse is the police and lately even in the judiciary.
Singapore did not politicise its instruments of government. If ever politicisation took place, it is guided by national interest. To be efficient and to be the best in the region was of paramount importance. Thus all the elements like corruption, lackadaisical attitude towards work and other black elements, which would retard such an aim, were eliminated. Singapore naturally had placed the right priority in it's pursuit to achieve what is best for its people. This is the major difference between these two independent countries.
Malaysia in its various attempts to cover up its failures embarked on several diversions. It wanted its citizens to be proud that the country had the tallest twin-tower in the world, although the structure was designed and built by foreigners. Its now a white-elephant wasting away. It achieved in sending a man into space at an exorbitant price. For what purpose? These are what the Malays of old would say "menang sorak" (hollow victories).
It should be realised that administering a country can be likened to managing a corporate entity. If the management is efficient and dedicated and know what they are doing, the company will prosper. The reverse will be if the management is poor and bad. The company will go bust.
There are five countries around this region. There is Malaysia , and then Indonesia . To the east there is the Philippines and then there is that small enclave called the Sultanate of Brunei . All these four countries have abundance of natural resources but none can lay claim to have used all these resources to benefit the people. Poverty was rampant and independence had not brought in any significant benefits to the people.
But tiny Singapore without any resources at all managed to bring development to its citizens. It had one of the best public MRT transport systems and airlines in the world and it is a very clean city state. Their universities, health care, ports are among the best in the world.
It is impossible to compare what Singapore has achieved to what all these four countries had so far achieved. It was actually poor management and corruption, and nothing more. Everything is done for the vested interest of the few.
Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines and the Sultanate of Brunei need good management teams. They would not be able to do this on their own steam. I would advise that they call on Kuan Yew to show them what good governance is. Why look East to Japan when it is just next door across the causeway.
Singapore's Minister Mentor, Lee Kuan Yew, who was Singapore's founding father, has always been very direct in his comments. This was the man who outsmarted the communists in Singapore (with the innocent help of Malaya then and the willing help of the British) and who later outwitted the British and outpaced Malaysia in all spheres.
Singapore practices corrupt-free meritocracy and Malaysia affirmative action. The former attracted all the best brains and the latter chased out all the brains. The Singapore cabinet consists of dedicated and intelligent technocrats whereas Malaysia has one of the most unwieldy cabinets. Not only that, brain wise it was below par not even good for the kampong.
With that kind of composition, one that is very brainy, naturally Singapore, with no natural resources could outstrip Malaysia in every aspect of development. Malaysia, on the other hand, was too much preoccupied with its Malayness and the illusory 'Ketuanan Melayu' and was also more interested in useless mega iconic development rather than real social and economic development.
Whenever Kuan Yew utters anything that deemed to be a slight on Malaysia, voices were raised admonishing him. Malaysia would never dare to face reality. That Singapore had shown that it could survive was a slap on those who believed that Singapore would fold up once it left Malaysia. Therefore it was natural that these doomsayers would try to rationalise their utterances to be in their favour to combat on whatever Kuan Yew commented. Its political jealousy.
Singapore achieved its development status without any fanfare. But here in Malaysia, a development that was deceptive was proclaimed as having achieved development status. It was trumpeted as an achievement that befits first world status. This was self delusion. Malaysians are led to believe into a make believe world, a dream world. The leaders who themselves tend to believe in their own fabricated world did not realise the people were not taken in by this kind of illusion.
Lee Kuan Yew believed in calling a spade a spade. I was there in Singapore when the People's Action Party won the elections in 1959. He was forthright in his briefing to party members as to what was expected of them and what Singapore would face in the future. Ideologically, I did not agree with him. We in the University of Malaya Socialist Club had a different interpretation of socialist reconstruction. But he was a pragmatist and wanted to bring development and welfare to the Singaporeans. Well! He succeeded.
Malaysia was so much embroiled in racial politics and due to the fear of losing political power, all actions taken by the main party in power was never targeted towards bringing wealth to all. Wealth was distributed to the chosen few only. They were the cronies and the backers of the party leadership to perpetuate their own selfish ends.
Seeing the efficiency and the progress achieved by Singapore caused the Malaysian leadership to suffer from an inferiority complex. That Malaysia should suffer from this complex was of its own making.
In a recent interview, Kuan Yew said that Malaysia could have done better if only it treated its minority Chinese and Indian population fairly. Instead they were completely marginalised and many of the best brains left the country in drove. He added that Singapore was a standing indictment to what Malaysia could have done differently. He just hit the nail right there on the head.
Malaysia recently celebrated its 50th year of independence with a bagful of uncertainties. The racial divide has become more acute. The number of Malay graduates unemployed is on the increase. And this aspect can be very explosive. But sad to see that no positive actions have been taken to address these social ills.
Various excuses were given by Malaysian leaders why Singapore had far outstripped Malaysia in all aspects of social and economic advancement. Singapore was small, they rationalised and therefore easy to manage. Singapore was not a state but merely an island.
There was one other aspect that Malaysia practises and that is to politicise all aspects of life. All government organs and machinery were 'UMNO-ised'. This was to ensure that the party will remain in power. Thus there was this misconception by the instruments of government as to what national interest is and what UMNO vested interest is.
UMNO vested interest only benefited a few and not the whole nation. But due to the UMNO-isation of the various instruments of government, the country under the present administration had equated UMNO vested interest as being that of national interest. Thus development became an avenue of making money and not for the benefit of the people. The fight against corruption took a back seat. Transparency was put on hold. And the instruments of government took it to be of national interest to cater to the vested interest of UMNO. Enforcement of various enactments and laws was selective. Thus a 'palace' in Kelang, APs cronies and close-one-eye umno MPs could exist without proper procedure. Corruption infested all govt departments, the worse is the police and lately even in the judiciary.
Singapore did not politicise its instruments of government. If ever politicisation took place, it is guided by national interest. To be efficient and to be the best in the region was of paramount importance. Thus all the elements like corruption, lackadaisical attitude towards work and other black elements, which would retard such an aim, were eliminated. Singapore naturally had placed the right priority in it's pursuit to achieve what is best for its people. This is the major difference between these two independent countries.
Malaysia in its various attempts to cover up its failures embarked on several diversions. It wanted its citizens to be proud that the country had the tallest twin-tower in the world, although the structure was designed and built by foreigners. Its now a white-elephant wasting away. It achieved in sending a man into space at an exorbitant price. For what purpose? These are what the Malays of old would say "menang sorak" (hollow victories).
It should be realised that administering a country can be likened to managing a corporate entity. If the management is efficient and dedicated and know what they are doing, the company will prosper. The reverse will be if the management is poor and bad. The company will go bust.
There are five countries around this region. There is Malaysia , and then Indonesia . To the east there is the Philippines and then there is that small enclave called the Sultanate of Brunei . All these four countries have abundance of natural resources but none can lay claim to have used all these resources to benefit the people. Poverty was rampant and independence had not brought in any significant benefits to the people.
But tiny Singapore without any resources at all managed to bring development to its citizens. It had one of the best public MRT transport systems and airlines in the world and it is a very clean city state. Their universities, health care, ports are among the best in the world.
It is impossible to compare what Singapore has achieved to what all these four countries had so far achieved. It was actually poor management and corruption, and nothing more. Everything is done for the vested interest of the few.
Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines and the Sultanate of Brunei need good management teams. They would not be able to do this on their own steam. I would advise that they call on Kuan Yew to show them what good governance is. Why look East to Japan when it is just next door across the causeway.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)