Pakatan Rakyat is sustainable
August 18, 2009
Is Pakatan Rakyat sustainable?–Listen to Nurul Izzah, Zaid Ibrahim, Tony Pua and Dr. Zulkefly Ahmad. My answer is a resounding YES.–Din Merican
Nurul Izzah Anwar
Dato Zaid Ibrahim–Part 1
Dato Zaid Ibrahim–Part 2
Tony Pua–Part 1
Tony Pua–Part 2
Dr Zulkefly Ahmad-Part 1
Dr. Zulkefly Ahmad–Part 2
Advertisement
OK. This may be some new language only the blog host understands.
Mr Bean - August 18, 2009 at 8:24 am
Good evening, New Yorker Bean,
“Freedom, Democracy and Justice” via “Good Governance”—these are the key words which I think we all can try to understand. For that to happen, we need “change”. So change as opposed to “business as usual” (i.e. corruption and abuse of power) is another important word to remember.
The pillage of our country must stop. Hidup reformasi and long live Che’.—Din Merican
dinobeano - August 18, 2009 at 9:12 am
It begs the question: what is sustainable?
The formula the coalition uses is the same one used by UMNO-BN. In the long run, it is not sustainable. You do not want it to be sustainable. Indeed sustainability is not the objective because the measure of its success as in UMNO-BN is how fast it makes itself irrelevant. The old race-based formula has outlived its usefulness and has long passed the point of diminishing returns and into negative territory. Now to be succeeded by another.
Pakatan is not an experiment with a different formula. It is the same formula running parallel to the first. We are giving race based politics a new lease of life. That’s what we’re doing. But under a different set of leaders.
There will come a time in the future sooner rather than later, when the same forces now working towards the destruction of the race-based formula will work against this new coalition.
My prediction is that Pakatan as we know it today will lose its cohesive whole and is likely to fall apart once that which holds it together is gone. The process of falling apart will begin no sooner than upon the ouster of UMNO-BN from power. Indeed it has begun.
Mr Bean - August 18, 2009 at 10:24 am
You hit the nail on the head, Bean. Race is indeed a lingering issue one which will impact the partnership. I don’t know how this can be resolved without affecting the alliance. I believe Din and the backroom boys are working hard to find amicable solutions. They have to work fast.
Tok Cik - August 18, 2009 at 11:18 am
The solution is quite simple , in my mind . All pakatan has to do is to get DAP , which represents chinese chauvinism in the eyes of the malays and the general public ( even with the likes of Tunku Aziz as a member ) and PAS , which represents Islamic chauvinism in the eyes of the general public , to deregister and become part of Pakatan.
Of course Keadilan too would have to deregister and do the same . That way, what is reflected in Datuk Zaid Ibrahim’s speech before the OXBRIDGE crowd can become the basis and foundation for PAKATAN and gradually the chauvinism as represented by DAP and PAS WILL GRADUALLY DILUTE ITSELF AND MOVE TOWARDS THE FRINGES OF THE MALAYSIAN SOCIETY AS WILL MALAY EXTREMISM .
THIS ALSO MEANS THAT THE MALAYSIAN POLITICAL CENTRE WILL BE MADE UP OF MALAYSIANS AND NOT JUST MALAYS AS WAS DR MAHATHIR’S WISH AND PLAN . MALAYS WISHING FOR THIS , ARE ACTUALLY EXTREMISTS AND SHOULD BE MOVED TO THEIR RIGHTFUL PLACE IN THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM , WHICH IS THE EXTREME RIGHT AND THE EXTREME LEFT.
THERE CANNOT BE A PLACE IN THE MALAYSIAN POLITICAL CENTRE FOR MALAY EXTREMIST AS REPRESENTED BY UMNO. FOR MALAYSIA , THE NATURAL CENTRE IS MALAYSIA AND THE MALAYSIAN.
ANYTHING ELSE IS DOOMED TO FAIL BECAUSE IT IS UNNATURAL AND FAILURE IS ASSURED EVEN IF MR LEE KUAN YEW GOES AROUND THE COUNTRY ENDORSING WHAT IS UNNATURAL .
samad ali pitchey - August 18, 2009 at 1:16 pm
Guys, i’ve a 15min. break before i bust my ass again – so i’ll just deliver this jaded opinion and let you guys hammer it out.
Our nation after all these years, has been divided like no other time, due to divide, rule and appeasement feudalistic mindset.
We remain divided by the constituition, which to the colonial masters at that time thought would be ‘temporary’.
The Jus Soli clause is now seen as a ‘social’ agreement.
Ethnicity is as much ingrained in the nonMalays as much as the Malays – no one can dispute this reality on the ground.
Only, old duckies like us can evolve beyond this because we were ‘lucky’ to grow up in a short period of “enlightenment”.
The younger generations never had this experience, so even if they say they are non-racial, i would take great caution in believing them.
In order to evolve, beyond this instituitions like BTN, etc must be banned. Meanwhile, no one will expect that the partners in PR to disband and set up a truly multiethnic, multireligious socialist democratic entity.
C u later.
Menyalak-er - August 18, 2009 at 2:28 pm
Mr. Bean’s implied message is that race based politics is bad for the country and bound to fail irrespective of whether it comes from BN or Pakatan. I tend to agree with him fully. Race and religion dominates Malaysian politics. I came across the National Day speech by Singapore’s PM Mr. Lee Hsien Loong where he dealt in detail the subject of race and religion in public sphere – the danger it posed and the possible ways to overcome them. It was candid and insightful. As the society in Malaysia and Singapore is similar in a general sort of way, I thought it will be food for thought for our readers, to give the relevant excerpts from his speech. Here they are:
Four basic rules
WE can never take our racial and religious harmony for granted. We must observe some basic principles to keep it the way it is.
First, all groups have to exercise tolerance and restraint. Christians cannot expect this to be a Christian society, Muslims cannot expect this to be a Muslim society. Ditto the Buddhists, the Hindus and the other groups.
Many faiths share this island. Each has different teachings, different practices.
Rules which only apply to one group cannot become laws which are enforced on everyone. So Muslims don’t drink alcohol but alcohol is not banned. Ditto gambling, which many religions disapprove of, but gambling is not banned. All have to adopt ‘live and let live’ as our principle.
Secondly, we have to keep religion separate from politics. Religion in Singapore cannot be the same as religion in America, or religion in an Islamic country.
Take Iran, an Islamic country. Nearly everybody is Shia Muslim. Recently, they had a presidential election which was fiercely contested between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi, and the outcome was disputed. Both sides invoked Islam. So Mousavi’s supporters had a battle cry – Allahu Akbar (God is Great).
In Singapore, if one group invokes religion this way, other groups are bound to say: ‘I also need powerful support. We’ll also push back invoking our faith.’ One side insists: ‘I’m doing God’s work.’ The other side says: ‘I’m doing my God’s work.’ Both sides say: ‘I cannot compromise. These are absolute imperatives.’ The result will be a clash between different religious groups which will tear us apart. We take this very seriously. The People’s Action Party reminds our candidates, don’t bring all the friends from your own religious group. Don’t mobilise your church or your temple or your mosque to campaign for you. Bring a multi-racial, multi-religious group of supporters. When you are elected, represent the interest of all your constituents, not just your religious group in Parliament. Speak for all your constituents.
Thirdly, the Government has to remain secular. The Government’s authority comes from the people. The laws are passed by Parliament which is elected by the people. They don’t come from a sacred book. The Government has to be neutral, fair. We are not against religion. We uphold sound moral values. We hold the ring so that all groups can practise their faiths freely without colliding. That’s the way Singapore has to be.
You may ask: Does this mean that religious groups have no views, cannot have views on national issues? Or that religious individuals cannot participate in politics? Obviously not.
Religious groups are free to propagate their teachings on social and moral issues. They have done so on the IRs, organ transplants, 377A, homosexuality. And obviously many Christians, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists participate in politics. In Parliament, we have people of all faiths. In the Cabinet too. People who have a religion will often have views which are informed by their religious beliefs. It’s natural because it’s part of you, it’s part of your personality. But you must accept that other groups may have different views informed by different beliefs and you have to accept that and respect that.
The public debate cannot be on whose religion is right and whose religion is wrong. It has to be on secular, rational considerations of public interest – what makes sense for Singapore. The final requirement for us to live peacefully together is to maintain our common space that all Singaporeans share. It has to be neutral and secular because that’s the only way all of us can feel at home in Singapore and at ease.
Common spaces
LET me explain to you with specific examples.
Sharing meals. We have different food requirements. Muslims need halal food. Hindus don’t eat beef. Buddhists sometimes are vegetarian. So if we must serve everybody food which is halal, no beef and vegetarian, I think we will have a problem. We will never eat meals together. So there will be halal food on one side, vegetarian food for those who need it, no beef for those who don’t eat beef.
Let’s share a meal together, acknowledging that we are not the same. Don’t discourage people from interacting. Don’t make it difficult for us to be one people.
Our schools are another example of common space where all races and religions interact. Even in mission schools run by religious groups, the Ministry of Education has set clear rules, so students of all faiths will feel comfortable.
You might ask: Why not allow mission schools to introduce prayers or Bible studies as compulsory parts of the school activity or as part of school assembly? Why not? Then why not let those who are not Christian, or don’t want a Christian environment, go to a government school or go to a Buddhist school? Well, if they do that, we’ll have Christians in Christian schools, Buddhists in Buddhist schools, Muslims in schools with only Muslim children and so on. I think that is not good for Singapore.
Therefore, we have rules to keep all our schools secular and the religious groups understand and accept this.
For example, St Joseph’s Institution is a Catholic brother school but it has many non-Catholic students, including quite a number of Malay students. The Josephian of the Year in 2003 was a Malay student – Salman Mohamed Khair.
He told Berita Harian that initially his family was somewhat worried about admitting him to a Catholic school. He himself was afraid because he didn’t know what to expect. But he still went because of SJI’s good record. He said: ‘Now I feel fortunate to be in SJI. Although I was educated in a Catholic environment, religion never became an issue.’
Indeed that’s how it should work. I know it works because I understand that Malay students in SJI often attend Friday prayers at Baalwie Mosque nearby, still wearing their school uniforms. SJI thinks it’s fine, the mosque thinks it’s fine, the students think it’s fine, and I think it’s fine too. That’s the way it should be.
Another example of common space – work. The office environment should be one which all groups feel comfortable with. Staff have to be confident that they will get equal treatment even if they belong to a different faith from their managers – especially in government departments, but in the private sector too.
I think it can be done because even religious community service organisations often have people who don’t belong to that religion working comfortably and happily together. This is one very important aspect of our meritocratic society.
Thus we maintain these principles: exercise tolerance, keep religion separate from politics, keep a secular government, maintain our common space. This is the only way all groups can live in peace and harmony in Singapore.
K Das - August 18, 2009 at 3:00 pm
“I believe Din and the backroom boys are working hard to find amicable solutions. They have to work fast.” Tok Cik
Yes, we can only provide the nuts, screws and bolts and the manpower. So long as we don’t ourselves get nutty, screw and then bolt. It is up to people like Anwar Ibrahim and Din Merican to make something out of it. If they fail, we fail. The country fails.
Through an accident of history a charismatic leader named Anwar anak Pak Ibrahim finds himself riding the wave of a kind of nationalism not quite Malaysian, not quiet Malay. It is irrelevant what puts the surfer to sea on that cloudy day under stormy weather. He may do it for sheer love of surfing or he may be doing it to get back at those who say he cannot surf or has in the past surfed too far out and away from the shore into the open sea. We are not interested in his skills as a surfer but we are interested where he is taking us with his surfing.
So let’s go surfing with the Beach Boys, guys. Let Tok Cik lead the way. Menyalak-er, don’t forget to bring your multi-colored vibrators. We cannot disappoint the ladies.
http://www.mixx.com/videos/6240205/youtube_beach_boys_good_vibrations
Mr Bean - August 18, 2009 at 6:17 pm
K.Das : Interesting comments on Singapore’s approach. They can all be summed up by just four words LIVE AND LET LIVE which ought to be the driving force of our society. I do not know exactly how religion got entangled into our politics but it will be a long, long time before we can get our act together as a nation. In the meantime we shall just have to keep our nerve…
Isa Manteqi - August 18, 2009 at 9:54 pm
The real question is not whether PR is sustainable but whether some of its zealots can see the bigger picture and try the give-and-take attitude to problems instead of constantly throwing spanners into the works.
I still say the top tier have not done their homework properly and are lacking basic management skills. They are on a certain winner and do not seem to know it.
Isa Manteqi - August 18, 2009 at 10:04 pm
“I do not know exactly how religion got entangled into our politics but it will be a long, long time before …” Isa Manteqi
The door was left open by Article 3(1) Federal Constitution 1957.
It was left opened unwittingly because it is my contention that the intention was never for religion (read: Islam) to play such a pervasive role in our lives. It was not meant to intrude into various aspects of our lives, Muslims and non-Muslims, to the extent that it has.
As in all floodgates once opened it will change the landscape forever – and it has.
Mr Bean - August 18, 2009 at 11:37 pm
“Islam has no heretics – only the Christians with their creeds and doctrines do.” Someone once told me.
I then wondered what was Mu’min, Fajir, Fasiq, Munafiq, Kafir and Murtad mean… but of course, being a ‘good’ Malaysian, i didn’t think it was ‘nice’ to point out these petty things.
This type of religiosity is a universal phenomenon of religions, and certainly not confined to Islam nor to the monotheistic religions. ‘Atheists’ too are susceptible to this “Cogito ergo cum” and anyone who says so otherwise – is bound for “atheist hell”.
In order to evolve, the duty of our nation’s leaders is to deal with it holistically and not in dribs ‘n drabs (like gonorrhoea).
I can’t see anyone in the near horizon who can do just that, so i guess we’ve got to confine ourselves to reality – and hope that whoever tries tackles it will not end up gored to kingdom come.
Menyalak-er - August 19, 2009 at 1:25 am
What has STD gotta do with religion? What have you been smokin’ Menyalak-er?? Whatever it is, I want some.
Mr Bean - August 19, 2009 at 2:20 am