GE13: Of Two parties system and One Country, two Systems

COMMENT - With general elections around the corner, it is timely for us to re-look at this concept of "two parties system" that some Malaysians seem to tout as the future of Malaysia.

Some people said Malaysia should imitate the American "two-party system".

To put the record straight, very few countries in the world have a two-party system. Even the USA is actually a "two-parties, one system".

Whether it is the Republican or the Democrat occupying the White House or in control of any state or the Congress or the Senate, the system does not change. Come what may, America remains a capitalist country controlled by the military-industrial complex which, some allege, is the apex of Jewish power. Its vested interests never lose out whatever the outcome of electoral contests.

One obvious vested interest is the National Rifle Association that makes sure Americans have the right to own guns - even after Ronald Reagan and other sitting Presidents have been shot at. And many school children shot dead in recent years.

Political changes did not bring change to the people or the American system. US foreign and economic policies do not change with governments. The only noticeable change is gay rights and same-sex marriage! But at least, the US has two main political parties, the Republican and the Democrat.

Can we say the same about Malaysia? Do we have two parties on each side of the political spectrum? Let's now look at our situation.

On one side is BN-UMNO whose monopoly of political power ever since 1974 has been rightly broken by the 2008 electoral tsunami. Prior to 1974, Malaysia was ruled by the 3-party (UMNO-MCA-MIC)  Alliance and other regional parties like PAS in Kelantan, Gerakan in Penang, PPP in Perak and a variety of parties in Sabah and Sarawak.

On the other side, the main national opposition parties have always been the Islamic PAS and the Socialist DAP. Yes, Socialist DAP. Because DAP remains a member of Socialist International and its youth wing, DAPSY stand for DAP Socialist Youth.

As for PAS, its core objective is the establishment of an Islamic State based not on the man-made Constitution but on the shariah. Make no mistake about it, there can be no compromise on PAS's ultimate objective.

Anything that suggests the contrary is a lie for political convenience. PAS decisions are made not by its Supreme Council but by its Ulama Council. One need not say more.

The "opposition" State governments in Perak, Penang and Selangor are called Pakatan states. But Kelantan, long ruled by PAS, and now Kedah do not style itself as Pakatan. They are known as simply PAS states where the syariah is increasingly being enforced on all people, both Muslims and non-Muslims alike. And there is nothing that DAP or PKR can or will do about it.

Below, I shall show why Pakatan (PR) cannot be part of a so-called "two party system". Further down, we shall see how a multi-party system will benefit Sabah as compared to the "two party system".

For a start, PR is not a political party. PR has no constitution, no legal status, no head office, no central or state committees. It has no divisional committees and no branches. Instead, it has only one a common electoral objective - to win elections.

PAS and DAP have steadfastly refused to adopt a new common symbol for the Pakatan alliance, preferring their own moon and rocket. If PAS and DAP were to agree to a common symbol, it means that they will have to submit the final choice of candidates and constituencies to PKR de facto leader Anwar Ibrahim, much like how component parties of BN have surrendered their power of candidacy to the UMNO President who wields his power as BN Chairman.

It is glaring that Pakatan parties PKR and PAS contest each other in 7 constituencies, including at Labuan. This is impossible in a 2 parties system. By contesting each other PAS, PKR and DAP have effectively killed the Pakatan concept even before the General elections.

DAP-linked analysts have labelled PKR as the weakest link among the 3 -PR parties, suggesting that DAP and PAS are much stronger than PKR. Well, without Anwar and PKR, there is no PR. Therefore, Anwar/PKR is not the weakest link. In fact, Anwar/PKR is the only link. With Anwar being so vulnerable to personal issues, it is probable that Anwar will fulfil his promise to leave the political scene if he fails to become PM at this final attempt.

The consequence is that Pakatan will fall apart because there is nobody of sufficient persuasive power to pull the Islamist PAS and the secular DAP together. As for PKR, without Anwar, it will simply fall apart like a pack of cards.

Whereas BN stands for Malay supremacy, Pakatan has no common ideology. Pakatan is devoid of core beliefs. PR is a record of unceasing shifting of policies. The Penang 10-Point Declaration, the Shah Alam Declaration, then the Buku Jingga (of different varieties) and finally the Manifesto (which was later admitted to have carelessly omitted 20% oil royalties for Trengganu and Kelantan; and forgot about Indian issues).  Which is which?

Fresh in the people's mind is now the Lynas rare earth plant in Pahang. From burning it to shutting it down if Pakatan were to gain federal power, Anwar has shifted Pakatan policy to "fast track review" and "to allow if proven safe". Not surprisingly, Anwar was speaking to the Sydney Morning Herald on Feb. 13 that Anwar shifted its stand on Lynas, an Australia company.

In all probability, DAP will keep its unbroken record of dumping pre-election pacts after general elections. Remember how DAP ditched Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah's Gagasan Rakyat after the 1990 general elections? And how DAP unilaterally withdrew from the Barisan Alternatif after its dismal performance in 1999 when even Lim Kit Siang and Karpal Singh lost their seats? How can DAP guarantee that it will remain with Pakatan Rakyat after the general elections?

DAP is uneasy with how their "UBAH" war cry has been submerged by the "TUKAR" slogan from PKR. Ubah like in Ubahsuai means only to "adjust" or "repair" but not to change. So, PKR prefers TUKAR to ubah. As for PAS, they feel comfortable with their "Islam for All" (read: non-Muslims too). All these tell us that Pakatan is only an election pact with wildly divergent ideologies. PR is not a party in any sense of the word.

Let's not be blind to other equally successful political systems in the world. For instance, Singapore is a one-party system. Brunei is a no party system. China is a one-party rule. Mutli-party systems like Thailand, Indonesia (many parties), Korea, India, Brazil and much of Europe are generally successful with their checks and balances. India and Indonesia, two sprawling nations, have successfully accommodated regional parties in the governance of the country. Australia has a stable minority government that depend on three independent MPs for its simple majority in Parliament.

The United Kingdom, with its mother of Parliaments, today has done away with the so-called two party system of Labour versus Conservative. The British government consists of the Conservative and Liberals.

The opposition is Labour. Scotland has its own Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP) government to the exclusion of British parties like Labour, Liberal and Conservative since the SNP holds a majority in the Scottish Parliament. Northern Ireland, similarly, is governed by local parties without participation from British mainland (like our Malaya) parties.

This progressive system has worked well because it accommodates local and regional interests without having to be subservient to the "one size fits all" of national party system.

It is the intention of our founding fathers that the Malaysian federation consist of the Malay states (Negeri Tanah Melayu) in Malaya and the autonomous states of Sabah and Sarawak.  Sabah and Sarawak has no historical association prior to the British colonization of the South-East Asian region.  It was after the British occupied these territories that relations started to come about.

When the British withdraw from the colonies and grant their independence, it became a convenient idea at that time to merge these former British colonies into one bigger entity so as to strengthen its territorial integrity against would be neighbouring belligerent nations such as Indonesia and Philippine.

So it came about that a Federation of independent nations would pull its resources together to form one larger block for the larger interest of maintaining security and economic cooperation.  Thus the Federation of Malaysia was formed in 1963 consisting of the independent states of Sabah, Sarawak, Singapore and Malaya (also known as the Malaya Federation).

Based on the intention and the historical context of the Federation of Malaysia Agreement, it is clear that there must be mutually agreed conditions to honour, recognize and respect the independent integrity of all partner states.  These meant that Malaya must honour and respect the expressed Agreement regarding the basis of autonomy for Sabah and Sarawak.  Although, the Malaysian Federation Agreement implied a strong bond among the four national partners that is unbreakable, it also guarantees a clear boundary when it comes to each partner nation's level of autonomy in governance. So Malaysia must abide by a one country two system form of governmental administrative system, where autonomy for both Sabah and Sarawak must be fully recognized, honoured and respected until perpetuity.

Wilfred Gaban
President of Kadu Foundation – an NGO for the betterment and well beings of the Momogun people.