by Joshua Wu Kai-Ming | Nov 17, 2014 | Politics
It has now become more and more apparent that PAS and DAP don’t play well together. Ever since the Selangor Menteri Besar imbroglio, blows have been traded repeatedly ad nauseam
Over the past few weeks, the issue on the table has been PAS President, Dato Seri Haji Hadi Awang (HA)’s absence from Pakatan Rakyat (PR) presidential council meetings
In all fairness, HA is an elderly man and is thus more prone to sicknesses. For the sake of the betterment of PR, shouldn’t HA temporarily delegate his ultimate decision-making power to a trusted right hand man? Or at least step down in order that a physically fit person may take the helm
Yes, PAS does send its representatives (namely deputy president Mohamad Sabu and vice-president Datuk Tuan Ibrahim Tuan Man) for PR presidential council meetings. However, if you have been following the recent criticisms by DAP, it centers around HA having veto power and yet being absent from the meetings
Basically, whatever is agreed upon by the PAS representatives in the presidential council meetings may be overruled by HA at the end of the day. Thus, DAP has a valid point when it says that a PR presidential council meeting without HA is akin to PAS being absent
It is clearly undemocratic for a political party leader to have veto power in every matter considering other leaders are also elected by the members of the party. As cliche as it sounds, there is a lot of truth to the saying “power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely” (Lord Acton)
If PAS refuses to sort out the aforementioned issues, PR’s effectiveness as a coalition would undeniably be adversely affected, and PR may need to reconsider its composition. After all, you can’t join the school but refuse to wear the uniform!
Just like when Britain entered the European Union (then known as the European Community) in 1973, it had to subject itself to EU treaties, regulations, directives, and European Court of Justice (ECJ) decisions despite having done things its own way for centuries
A good example of PR’s effectiveness being hindered would be when the PR presidential council accepted the proposal for Datuk Seri Wan Azizah to be nominated as the new Selangor MB, and HA ended up vetoing the decision and nominating candidates of his liking
Another problematic issue is PAS’ continuous insistence on implementing hudud. Prior to the 13th General Election, PAS seemed to have abandoned its hudud agenda by pursuing a benevolent state concept.
Needless to say, the whole “Pas For All” election slogan, gained PAS the votes of many non-muslims who were unsure of PAS yet wanted a regime change. However, after GE 13, PAS reverted back to advocating hudud
Since PAS is seriously considering implementing hudud in Kelantan and has taken many steps to realise it (e.g. a federal-level hudud technical committee, finalising that “trained professionals” will be carrying out the amputations), it is high time for PKR and DAP to consider whether to move on without PAS
PAS’ move may gain support from the more hard line Islamists, but it is sure to cause loss of votes for PR because DAP and PKR will be seen as being inable to influence PAS to abandon its wishes for hudud.
A PR without PAS would most definitely appeal to the more progressive Malaysians. Will we see a PR coalition without PAS/DAP? Or will we see PR end up just like Barisan Alternatif? Or will PR learn how to sort out its differences and work together? Only time will tell
On a side note, if UMNO Kelantan supports PAS’ efforts (which is has in the past), it is time for MCA, MIC, and Gerakan to reconsider its partnership in BN. After all, what’s the point of being in a coalition if your view doesn’t matter?
*This awesome article appeared in The Malay Mail Online, The Malaysian Insider, Malaysiakini, and Free Malaysia Today
by Joshua Wu Kai-Ming | Sep 26, 2014 | Politics
The Selangor Menteri Besar impasse has left a bitter taste in many of our mouths, especially of those in the Pakatan Rakyat (PR) coalition. Inter alia, we have seen bickering, backstabbing, craven acts, and a myriad of volte-face.
It has been an abject past few months to say the least. Even in the aftermath, we have boorish comments (such as Lim Guan Eng labelling the former 4 PAS excos that stood by Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim as “traitors” and PAS Youth saying PAS will one day leave PR) coming from the different PR parties which are supposed to be Malaysia’s hope of one day replacing Barisan Nasional (BN) as the federal government
It’s time that PR stops drying their dirty linen in public. The more insults hurled at one another in public, the less confidence the people have in PR as a whole. A survey by The Malaysian Insider and Merdeka Center indicated that PR may lose Selangor if snap polls were held
PR should learn to settle their differences behind closed doors. They can learn a lot from the constitutional convention of collective ministerial responsibility (a.k.a cabinet collective responsibility) whereby members of the Cabinet must publicly support all governmental decisions made in Cabinet, even if they do not privately agree with them
Basically the PR component parties must maintain a united front and all toe the line. No more puerile statements made in public! Behind the scenes is where discussions are held, ideas are ridiculed, chairs are hurled, name calling is done, etc
PR’s current system of operating on consensus has proven to be greatly flawed in the recently concluded Selangor MB saga. PKR and DAP agreed on only nominating Dr Wan Azizah’s name but PAS had something else in mind.
There was clearly no consensus and the fact that PKR and DAP were so obdurate and kept insisting on having their way shows that the consensus system is more effective theoretically than practically
OMG!’s proposed decision making mechanism will greatly benefit PR. His/her proposal is that each member of the PR triumvirate be allotted votes to decide on matters involving PR according to its representation in Parliament and state assemblies, with 60% allocated to Parliament and 40% to all 13 state assemblies.
“(a) First, the number of Parliament seats is divided: (PAS: DAP: PKR) as (21:38:29) at GE13
(b) The number of state seats is divided similarly as (85:95:48) at GE 13.
Note: In both cases, PKR’s total has been reduced by one state seat and 1 Parliament seat reflecting Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim’s new Independent status.
(c) After applying the 60:40 weightage, we find that the votes, within PR, to be allotted to the 3 members PAS:DAP:PKR, are 29:43:28. Total 100 votes in the new proposed system.
The present, less satisfactory consensus/(agree to disagree) approach could now be replaced by a 2/3 majority vote, i.e., a 2/3 majority of 67 votes means that the decision is adopted by PR and dissenting members must fall in line”
Regarding any decision, the PR parties will meet up, deliberate, and then vote on the issue. The moment a 2/3 majority is achieved, the issue is resolved and every party has to stand firm with it.
This decision-making system that is similar to the “electoral collegial system which governs the US presidential elections based on the results in the various states” would prevent further straining the already strained relationship between PKR, DAP, and PAS
The parties not happy with the votes allotted to them can work harder to win more seats in the 14th General Election in order to increase their say in PR policies & decisions. This proposal appears to be the panacea that PR has been looking for. The idea should be seriously and thoroughly considered!
*This article also appeared in The Malaysian Insider, The Malay Mail Online, and Malaysia Today
by Joshua Wu Kai-Ming | Jun 1, 2014 | Politics
I could not agree more with Member of Parliament (MP) for Teluk Intan, Mah Siew Keong when he said that the future of Malaysian politics is in multi-racial parties instead of single race entities
However, he seems to be preaching to the choir. What he should be doing, is addressing this to his partners in Barisan Nasional (BN). After all, UMNO, MCA and MIC are race based political parties
After 56 years (approaching 57 years of independence), one has to wonder if race based political parties propels the country forward or contributes to the significant division between the many races in Malaysia
Political parties like DAP, PKR, and Gerakan are multi-racial parties which best represent the new generation of Malaysians who see themselves as Malaysians before as Malays, Chinese, Indians, or others.
In the past, Dato Seri Onn bin Ja’afar called for UMNO party membership to be opened to non-malays and for the party to be renamed the United Malayans National Organisation.
However, the idea was shot down by many. He then left UMNO to form the Independence of Malaya Party, and subsequently, Parti Negara
Unfortunately both parties failed to meet it’s potential due to the lack of support by the Malaysians then. But all that happened about 50 years ago! Shouldn’t things have changed for the better?
Aren’t Malaysians generally mature enough to accept the fact that we are all in this together? Regardless of how some of our ancestors came to Malaya, we’re all Malaysians now
We all contribute to the economic well-being of the country by way of spending, investing, paying tax, etc. The time is right to rid ourselves of race-based political parties
Mah needs to have a serious chat with his political buddies in his capacity as president of Gerakan. After all, everyone knows the correct answer to the problem. Being willing to do the right thing and potentially suffering for it is a different story
Multi-racial parties are truly the way forward!
*Also read it at The Malaysian Insider, The Malay Mail Online, and The Malaysian Times
by Joshua Wu Kai-Ming | May 13, 2014 | Misc
A reply to: Only UMNO can stop hudud
Lim Guan Eng slightly erred in saying that ONLY UMNO can stop hudud. As we all know, “a coin has two sides.” Similarly, when looking into the hudud issue, UMNO is only one side of the coin
While it is true that “With 88 MPs in Parliament, UMNO is in the best position to stop PAS’s attempt to implement hudud,” the onus to act isn’t just on the part of UMNO. As a political ally to PAS, DAP should convince PAS to drop the idea of hudud as it is not suitable in our multi-racial and multi-religious nation. The whole problem will be solved if PAS does not table both the Private Members’ Bills
By asking UMNO to act, is DAP absolving itself from all liability? Is DAP implying that it is incapable of pressuring its ally to abandon hudud? These are questions which should linger on our minds
Pakatan Rakyat works on a concept that they will “agree to disagree” especially when it comes to controversial issues. In one sense it is good as the component members of PR wont draw it’s guns and start a friendly fire. But it also leaves a loophole that allows each party to put its own interests above that of the entire coalition
It could potentially be devastating for PR. Imagine if hudud were to be implemented in Kelantan. It would probably cost DAP A LOT of non-muslim votes at GE 14. This is because before GE 13, DAP went around gathering votes for PAS by reassuring the non-muslims that hudud would never be implemented
And in this hypothetical situation, DAP has let down its voters. Hopefully this hypothetical situation does not come to pass. Back to the million dollar question “Who can stop hudud?”, UMNO can. But so can DAP and PKR!