PGRM AS THE 'THIRD FORCE'?

WHAT ARE THE CHOICES? (UPDATED WITH BM TRANSLATION)

Posted by admin
Monday, 02 November 2009 18:32

There are many of us who are disappointed and disillusioned with Pakatan Rakyat. And we would rather die than support Barisan Nasional. But we have nowhere else to go. So we need a new platform. And if Gerakan can be that new platform we would certainly give it a chance.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. That is the problem facing Pakatan Rakyat. You do something you get whacked. You do nothing you also get whacked. That is the dilemma of the opposition.

The main complaint against the opposition is that they don’t rein in the ‘Little Napoleons’, the ‘loose cannons’, the ‘prima donnas’, and whatnot. When the opposition is lax on the ‘frogs’, ‘turncoats’, ‘Trojan Horses’, or those suspected of about to take the leap of unfaith, the opposition is accused of sleeping on the job.

Now the opposition is coming down hard on those viewed as detrimental to the wellbeing of the opposition. And how does the mainstream media respond? The print and electronic media is full of stories about the opposition breaking up.

Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

The opposition has two choices. It can do nothing and give an impression that all is well in the opposition ranks. Or it can do a massive spring-cleaning and weed out those who do more harm than good to the opposition cause. Which would we prefer?

I used the term ‘benevolent dictatorship’ in one previous article. This is probably an oxymoron though. It is as oxymoron as saying military intelligence (can the military ever be intelligent?). Or maybe, as I am so fond of saying, a virgin prostitute. You can’t be both a virgin and a prostitute at the same time. That is what is meant by an oxymoron. So would a benevolent dictatorship qualify as an oxymoron?

A dictatorship is where the rulers rule with a strong hand and without allowing any dissent or opposition. A benevolent dictatorship is one where a strong hand is tempered with justice, fairness and compassion.

It is not easy, of course. And while it may sound ideal in theory, in practice this may be very hard to do.

Nevertheless, order must prevail and when there is a breakdown of order then extreme measures are required. And this is what, I argued in the past, the opposition appears afraid to do.

And what is the result of the opposition’s lack of action? Well, we have people like Hassan Ali, Ibrahim Ali, Zulkifli Nordin and whatnot doing things harmful to the opposition cause. Then we have infighting, inter-party skirmishes and intra-party battles that threaten to bring down the opposition.

So where do we draw the line? Where does freedom of expression end and sabotage begin? What are the limits and tolerances allowed to the opposition representatives? This is certainly subjective because one man’s meat is another man’s poison. Can we allow and tolerate what the west does, such as expressing discontentment by streaking like the legendary Lady Godiva riding her horse stark naked 1,000 years ago?

The main complaint against the opposition is that it is not reining in its ‘problem people’. Soon after the 8 March 2008 general election, Malaysia Today revealed that there are some in PAS who are having secret talks with Umno. Malaysia Today revealed that Umno is trying to bring down the five state governments under Pakatan Rakyat by buying over the opposition representatives. Malaysia Today said that Umno wants the Malays in the opposition to cross over so that Malay political power could be restored.

Umno said that the 8 March 2008 general election was a repetition of the 11 May 1969 general election where the Malays lost their majority in parliament and a few states and therefore a 13 May 1969 ‘solution’ would be required to address the problem. Malaysia Today revealed all this but many pooh-poohed what was revealed and even accused us of trying to use scare tactics by resurrecting the ‘ghost’ of ‘May 13’.

Today, Khalid Samad, the PAS Member of Parliament for Shah Alam, reveals that the meeting PAS had with Umno was held as early as 10 March 2008, two days after the election. And Umno wanted PAS to leave Pakatan Rakyat and team up with Umno to form a ‘Malay’ government so that the Malays can, again, become the majority in the government.

When the proposal for PAS to team up with Umno failed to materialise, Umno went into Plan B, and that is to buy off the Pakatan Rakyat representatives and entice them (or blackmail them) to cross over. The first state to fall would be Perak followed by Selangor and later Kedah. Kelantan and Penang would probably be spared but they would get back these two states in other ways.

If Barisan Nasional and Umno are sincere, then they should explore the possibility of a unity government. And this is what Malaysia Today proposed early in 2008. But of course many were against this idea and they whacked me good and proper, some even accusing me of ‘selling out’, etc. They of course did not understand what I had in mind or refused to understand.

I was not talking about opposition representatives resigning from PKR, DAP or PAS to join one of the 14 parties in Barisan Nasional. I was not even talking about PKR, DAP and/or PAS joining Barisan Nasional as the 15th, 16th or 17th component member. I was talking about the PKR, DAP and PAS representatives remaining in their respective parties and the three Pakatan Rakyat parties remaining in Pakatan Rakyat but with Pakatan Rakyat and Barisan Nasional sharing power and jointly running this country as two coalitions in partnership.

This has been done in many other countries, even between very diverse parties such as Christian Democrats and Communists coming into ‘partnership’. Some have worked and some have failed when after a while the unity government broke up and they dissolved parliament or the national assembly in favour of fresh elections. So there are no guarantees and it might work or it might not. Nevertheless, we will never know unless we try and if Barisan Nasional is really sincere about ‘reconciliation’ then this is the best alternative to explore rather than trying to buy out each other’s representatives and triggering crossovers.

But it is probably now too late to explore the possibility of a unity government. The unity government was something that might have worked with Abdullah Ahmad Badawi or Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah as Prime Minister. It is not possible with Najib Tun Razak as Prime Minister as then we would be endorsing Najib and would be giving him legitimacy.

Anyhow, much has changed since 8 March 2008. The Perak issue alone makes it impossible to now talk about a unity government. Before Najib took over and before what they did to Perak it would have left the door open. Now the door has been permanently closed and the only alternative would be a total change of government. Barisan Nasional has to be kicked out. There are no two ways about it. Najib is just too sneaky for the opposition to enter into any deal with Barisan Nasional.

Which means all we have left is an alternative government. But can Pakatan Rakyat be that alternative government? Not if they continue the way they are going. Pakatan Rakyat needs to do a massive housecleaning. Again, there are no two ways about it if the opposition wants to continue getting the support of the voters.

So, this, Pakatan Rakyat is doing. And you can’t fry the egg unless you first break the shell. So many shells need to be broken. But the mainstream media is making it appear like the opposition is breaking up. It will certainly break up if nothing is done. But through housecleaning it can only get better and stronger.

I, for one, am not afraid of controversy or turmoil. There is always opportunity in chaos. Di dalam kesempitan ada kesempatan, as the Malays would say. And, as the English would say, we have to bite the bullet. And bite the bullet we shall.

I am prepared to give the opposition another 18 months to show us what it can do. Then, around 18 months from now, Najib would call for fresh elections and we will, again, be going to the polls. So, in early 2011, Malaysians will be able to choose their new government. More than 2,000 Malaysians will be offering themselves as our 800 or so state and federal representatives. We will then assess the situation and decide whom to vote for.

Yes, 18 months more. In 2011, Malaysians will be asked to choose their new federal and state governments. Then we will show the politicians who we want as our government subject to how they conduct themselves over these next 18 months.

I don’t want Barisan Nasional to continue lording over me, as so do many other Malaysians. But can Pakatan Rakyat be entrusted to take over? Let’s see 18 months from now. In the meantime, however, we need a third ‘horse’ to wait in the wings. In case both Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat fail us we will need a third alternative, a third force so to speak.

I am currently looking at Gerakan. Somehow I have a soft spot for Gerakan -- always had since 1968. But I don’t mean the Gerakan in its present form. That is just not acceptable. It has to be a Gerakan that is out of Barisan Nasional, an independent party or third force. It has to be a Gerakan that sheds its Barisan Nasional culture. Many of the ‘old horses’ and tainted leaders have to go. We need a revamped and revitalised Gerakan that offers itself as a true Malaysian party minus the racist and religious platform.

There are many of us who are disappointed and disillusioned with Pakatan Rakyat. And we would rather die than support Barisan Nasional. But we have nowhere else to go. So we need a new platform. And if Gerakan can be that new platform we would certainly give it a chance.

But Gerakan can’t win our support based purely on promises like how we supported Pakatan Rakyat in March 2008, based purely on promises. Gerakan has to start now and show us what it can do and is prepared to do -- today, not far into the future and only if it happens to come into power. Gerakan does not need any learning curve. It has already been the government for almost 40 years so it knows how to govern.

At the moment we have all our eggs in one basket, Pakatan Rakyat. And if that basket breaks we will lose all our eggs. And the eggs in the Barisan Nasional basket are just too rotten to the core. So that is not much of a choice. With a third force we will have more choices.

Is Gerakan truly prepared to become that third force? The ball is at Gerakan’s feet. But no promises! Promises are made to be broken. Show us today, and 18 months from now we, the voters, will tell you if we like what we see. We will tell you if our vote is with a reorganised Pakatan Rakyat or a revamped Parti Gerakan Rakyat that has reinvented itself. Hmm….Parti Gerakan Rakyat. That name goes well with Gerakan Rakyat Bloggers. I like the sound of that.

Sigh….how nice if that actually happens. Maybe I am being too idealistic. Maybe the choices are between a bad Pakatan Rakyat and an even worse Barisan Nasional. And bad is better than worse. What a choice!

Translated into BM at: http://gomalaysian.blogspot.com/2009/11/raja-petra-apakah-pilihan-yang-ada-what.html

A horse must run fast but must not eat hay

by Dr. Hsu Dar Ren

August 10, 2010

AUG 10 — MCA President Chua Soi Lek has suddenly found himself the target of vicious attacks. The attacks from the opposition were expected since Malaysian politics is very much based on partisan lines, but ironically some of the most vicious attacks were from his own partner-in-arms, The Big Brother.

I am not going to go into whether what he said has belittled a certain religion or whether what he said has any merits. But whether what Chua has said was a form of posturing to gain the non-Malay votes or from his heart, I thought in the context of freedom of speech, he should be allowed to voice his opinion, as the head of a component party in BN.

A politician from the Big Brother, an ex-MB, told The Malaysian Insider that Dr Chua’s remarks could cause unrest within the country and disturb the “harmonic balance” created by the ruling BN government. “We do not want to start blaming each other, pointing fingers… this leads to religious arguments. This is dangerous,” he said.

The response is expected, as all this while, component parties are not given much space to express their opinion. Anything that implies certain wrong-doings would incur immediate wrath from members of the Big Brother.

It does not matter whether there is any truth in the opinion expressed, but as long as the person in question dares even to touch their “toes”, aspiring politicians from Big Brother will swarm over him like bees and attack.

This has resulted in component parties being subservient to the Big Brother, and this subservience is one of the main reasons why these component parties suffered such a big defeat in the 308 General election.

As long as this subservience persists, it is difficult to see how these component parties can get back the support they once commanded.

Within these constraints, how do you expect the leaders of the component parties to attract votes? The more backlash they get, the more they will get rejected by the very people that used to form their support base.

When the Alliance was first formed between Umno and MCA in the 50s, both had equal number of representatives in their joint council.

The equal representation has over the years been eroded and after the formation of the BN, the admission of more members into the coalition slowly but surely diluted the powers of other component parties.

Even though the pie has been made bigger and bigger over the years by adding more Parliamentary and state constituencies, the distribution of the pie was made so unequal that soon, except for the biggest component party, others had little say in formulating important policies.

This illusion of having more seats than earlier — but in actual fact less and less say in deciding the policies — was used to pacify party members of the component parties.

Over the years, some of the component parties have also adopted amendments in their party Constitution to concentrate the power in the hands of the elite few at the top.
In all these parties, the central committee members (CCs) are all elected, with only a limited number appointed by the heads of the parties. But over the years, important positions in many parties, like that of Secretary General and Treasurer have become the sole appointments of the party heads.

Many, if not all, of these component parties also formed the so-called management councils; in the case of MCA, it is called Presidential Council, and in other parties, it is called Central Working Committee or some other name. The names may differ but the objective of having these management committes is the same — to concentrate the power in the hands of the heads of the various parties.

These management councils consist of members appointed by the heads of the parties, either directly or indirectly. Over the years, the management councils have become more and more powerful, and in most cases, they have become the de facto decision-making bodies, usurping the power of the Central Committees.

Even in the Central Committees which are supposedly elected by national delegates in party elections, the elected members’ say is diluted by that of appointed members, including VPs, Sec-Gens, Treasurers or just ordinary CC members. Those appointed invariably are aligned to the respective heads of the parties.

By doing so, the power in each individual component party became concentrated in the hands of the heads, and grassroots influence has actually been eroded and declined over the years.

When the various heads become so powerful and entrenched in their own parties, they are invariably given government positions and with that, the trappings of power which can be very addictive.

Many of them toe the line in order not to rock their own positions which, in the Malaysian context, often meant not only power but wealth as well.

They in turn dispense goodies within their own parties. Ascendancy within the parties does not depend on merit but rather on how obedient a particular member is.

Eunuch politics was used to kill off those with ideals but who were not particularly subservient. Slowly, within these parties, a culture of “not rocking the boat” slowly takes root.

All these run counter to the principles of democracy. Once absolute power is concentrated in the elite few, the rot started to set in.

This has resulted in the tsunami of 308. After the tsunami, reforms were promised but whatever changes made has been merely cosmetic.

Within BN itself, there must be more tolerance towards criticism from members of the component parties.

Good medicine is often bitter and hard to swallow, but to get well, even bitter medicine must be swallowed. There must not be a knee jerk reaction if leaders of the component parties voice out or point out certain deficiencies.

There must be more consultation and discussion on national policies; these should be undertaken by the whole BN and not by just the dominant party alone.

Within each component party, changes must be adopted to make the parties more democratic. Elected members should be given more say. State leadership should be elected.

By being more democratic, the people’s voices will be heard louder and changes can be tailor made to the aspirations and needs of the people.

We are now living in a different era, people’s expectations are very different from the days of our fathers. The people on the street know about this but unfortunately certain politicians are still living in the era of the past!

The situation now seems to be: on the one hand, component parties are being pushed to get votes, on the other hand, they are attacked whenever they express an opinion that may not suit the ears of members of the Big Brother.

It reminds me of a Chinese saying: A horse must run fast and steady, but at the same time, it must not eat hay!

As is often mentioned and repeated, it is either change or be changed and time is really running out this time!

* The views expressed here are the personal opinion of the columnist.

Source:http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/opinion/article/a-horse-must-run-fast-but-must-not-eat-hay/

CWC - ALL THE PRESIDENT’S MEN

gG believes that one of the major root causes of Gerakan’s weaknesses lies in core of the Party i.e the Central Working Committee (CWC).

Through the years and as far back as in the 90’s, the party Constitution has been refashioned and amended. The primary motive of this exercise is to centralize power into the hands of a very few top leaders and their men in CWC.

The constitutional function of the CWC is “for the purpose of carrying out routine administration and for dealing with emergencies or urgent matters” (see Article 37.1 of the Party’s Constitution).

This makes sense as it is not possible for all the members of the CC to meet to carry out routine administration or emergencies or urgent matters. But surely and sensibly, the powers of the CWC must be confined to such situations only. In any other situation the CC should be given the power to act.

Why?

Because CC consists of decision makers who are elected by the delegates in a NDC. On the other hand, the members of the CWC comprise the President, who then appoints “as members the Deputy President, the Secretary General, the National Treasurer and such other members not exceeding 10 in number as he may deem fit” (see Article 37.1 of the Party’s Constitution).

And under the Party’s Constitution, the Secretary General and the National Treasurer are appointed by the President, albeit with the concurrence of the CC. Further, under the Party’s Constitution, the 10 other members of the CWC need not be members of the CC.

It is interesting to note that the Party’s Constitution in 1992 stated differently, in that,
a) the members of the CWC shall comprise the President, the Deputy President, the Secretary General, the National Treasurer and such other members of the Central Committee not exceeding 10 in number as the President may appoint. (see Article 66(a) of the 1992 Party’s Constitution),
b) the Secretary General and the National Treasurer are elected at the NDC (see Article 65(iv) and (v) of the 1992 Party’s Constitution).

The 1992 Party’s Constitution was amended in the 90’s and in the 1998 version of the Party’s Constitution, the Secretary General and the National Treasurer were no longer elected at the NDC- they were appointed as in the present version. And the composition of the other 10 members of the CWC need not be from the CC; they can be just ordinary members as in the present version. This is the structure inherited by the present leadership.

In effect, besides the Deputy President and President, all the other CWC members are directly appointed by the President, who need not be CC members but mere ordinary members without any mandate. And if they are appointed by the President who do they owe their allegiance to? In all likelihood, they will owe their allegiance to the President. Thus the control of the President is complete.

Unfortunately the powers of the CWC are not confined to “carrying out routine administration and for dealing with emergencies or urgent matters” as provided in the Party’s Constitution. The amended Constitution also says:
a) The CWC shall have the final decision in the choice of all candidates for local, state or national election (see Articles 65 & 66 of the Party’s Constitution). Why not the CC? How can the choice of the candidate be “for the purpose of carrying out routine administration and for dealing with emergencies or urgent matters”? is of the view that by giving such power to the CWC (read: the President) it not only stifles the democratic participation of the greater number of the Party members who are represented through their elected CC, but also encourages the promotion of the politics of patronage.
b) On the issue of ‘deprivation of membership’, the final decision rests with the CWC (Article 16.1 of the Party’s Constitution) and its decision “shall be final” (Article 16.3).
c) On the issue of the suspension of a member, the CWC can suspend the member for 6 months pending an investigation, and the suspension will continue past the 6 months (and in theory, indefinitely) if the investigation is incomplete (Article 17.1).
d) On the issue of spending, Article 84.3 states that “no expenditure exceeding RM5,000 at any one time shall be incurred without the prior sanction of the CWC”.
e) On the issue of fund raising, “the prior written sanction of the CWC” must first be obtained before anyone can embark on fund raising.

The undemocratic practice of selection of CWC members has turned Gerakan into a private enterprise of the elite few. The life lines of the organization – money, power and position are in the firm grip of the masters. They jealously guard the right to control the finance, the selection of candidates for the General Elections, appointment of government and party positions.

CWC has totally hijacked the role of Central Committee and NDC. One must not forget that the CC and NDC are democratic institutions of the party and therefore must be the rightful bodies in which major party decisions are made. Many at the CC members may still hold on to their political ideals, or objective enough to see the wrongs in the party; but they are out numbered, bypassed or lack the support to do anything to improve the Party.

And it is not just the CC that has been bypassed. There is a growing perception and complaint that the opinions of state and division leaders as well as grassroots leaders do not matter anymore. At no moment these top leaders in the CWC bother to listen or consult the grassroots leaders who in their mind do not exist except during party elections. The top leaders of CWC have absolutely no respect for the elected officers and delegates. They carry out “power horse trading” and make important decisions including leadership change all by themselves and behind closed doors. The party has become the private property of a few and there is total breakdown in the practice of democracy within the Party.

The skillful “barter trading” of power internally and behind-the-scene liaison with the UMNO bosses are the actual source of their power. After securing so much influence and power, the CWC and its masters no longer see the need to be accountable to the general members. Their political lines become so far detached from the want of the members; their political positions are totally disconnected from the needs of the rakyat.

gG believes that there is a pressing need for the Party to democratize and to reform. To stop the rot in the very core of the party, we must put an end to the culture of patronage, factionalism and undemocratic practices. At the grassroots level, we must join forces to demand for a party leadership that truly practises the principles of democracy. We want a leadership which is mindful that they are elected by the members and for the members. Power should be returned to the members.

gG calls for the review of the powers of the Central Working Committee (CWC) and transferring more power to the Central Committee (CC). This has to be done quickly to re-energise the CC and to restore the CC to its rightful role as “the CENTRAL COMMITTEE of the Party” leading the Party. No reform, however right, can be implemented effectively if there is no rejuvenation and transformation in the CC rightful function.

Gerakkanlah Gerakan
gerakan3g@yahoo.com