A two-party system

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Is Malaysia ready for a two-party system? Maybe not. But then maybe the more appropriate question would be: can Malaysia afford NOT to have a two-party system? Like it or not, Barisan Nasional (BN) is just too well-entrenched for the smattering of ‘mosquito’ opposition parties to shake it. As Democratic Action Party (DAP) leader Lim Kit Siang likes to say, “The BN hegemony”.

BN has an iron grip on the country and even if the opposition garners 60% of the votes it still cannot knock the ruling party off its perch as 1969 has proven. At worse, the ruling party can still rule with a simple majority. And not having its ‘mandatory’ two-thirds is not a problem unless you want to amend Malaysia’s Constitution and transform Malaysia into an Islamic State. (And we will talk more of this in awhile). Other than that it can be business as usual.


Anwar Ibrahim’s immediate mission and vision is probably to turn Malaysia into a two-party, or rather two-coalition, country — Barisan Nasional on one side and Barisan Alternatif on the other. At least this is what he appears to be doing — correct me if I am wrong. His recent visit to Kelantan where he met Tok Guru Nik Aziz was a tell-tale move. But there seems to be some confusion as to what Anwar and Nik Aziz actually discussed though — or rather the mainstream media intentionally tried to confuse the people by saying that Anwar discussed the possibility of merging Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) with the Islamic party (PAS).

Anyway, if strengthening the opposition coalition and ‘reviving’ Barisan Alternatif is what Anwar aims to do, then this is certainly the right move. But first, Anwar has to consider a name change. Barisan Alternatif (Alternative Front) does not have a nice ring to it. The word ‘alternative’ means ‘me too’; a second run to the real thing. Normally, the alternative is what you go for if you cannot get what you initially wanted. Your ‘alternative’ car is your second car. Your alternative flight is what you take when the flight you wanted is fully booked. And so on and so forth.

The Democratic Party is not the ‘Alternative Republican Party’. The Labour Party is not the ‘Alternative Conservative Party’. Alternative is usually associated with second-best. What we want is to offer Malaysians something better, better than the BN presently in power.

PAS and DAP are at opposite ideological ends. Because of this they cannot see eye-to-eye resulting in DAP leaving the opposition coalition after the Tenth General Election in 1999. Why DAP left is puzzling and its excuse that it left because PAS launched its Islamic State Document (ISD) cannot be easily accepted. So what if PAS launched its ISD? Did PAS threaten to leave when DAP said it is opposed to an Islamic State and wished to maintain the present secular system? PAS is able to respect DAP’s views and ideology and does not demand that DAP drop its ‘no to Islamic State’ stand. Why can’t DAP reciprocate?

DAP says it fears PAS may turn Malaysia into an Islamic State. Is this argument valid? How can PAS turn Malaysia into an Islamic State? In 1999, PAS contested less than one-third of the Parliament seats and won less than half the seats contested. To turn Malaysia into an Islamic State, PAS will need to win not less than two-thirds of the seats. How to win two-thirds when it contests less than one-third — and then wins only half this less than one-third? Is it not absurd, a pie in the sky, mimpi di siang hari (day dreaming), and so on?

There seems to be more than meets the eye on why DAP left the opposition coalition and the ISD does not seem to be that reason. Is it maybe DAP began to realise it was losing its ‘traditional’ Chinese support and that it was beginning to depend on Malay votes to win and it felt threatened? Was it therefore trying to gain back its ‘lost’ Chinese support by demonstrating it was strongly against PAS’ Islamic State and the ISD though it knew fully well PAS’ Islamic State is not going to happen?

Anyway, as for PAS, why in heaven’s name did it launch its ISD when it clearly knows it cannot pull it off? It tried the same after the 1990 election and it failed as the federal government blocked it. And the federal government had warned it would block it again if PAS tried a second time. So why try? Why embark on a mission that was doomed to fail before the word ‘go’? Isn’t this political suicide?

PAS did realise that the ISD was going to invite adverse responses from the non-Muslims. It is not like it did not know. Yet it did it though there was no chance of success. If it had some chance of success then it would have been quite acceptable. But PAS knew it did not. That is the sad part about this whole episode. And DAP immediately grabbed the opportunity to oppose it and look good in the eyes of the non-Muslims.

In short, both PAS and DAP ‘main wayang’ (play acting). Both knew it could never happen but both pursued the issue just to look good. And the result of all this was the disaster of the Eleventh General Election in March 2004. PAS lost Terengganu and almost lost Kelantan while DAP sill did not get back its 24 seats of its heydays.

And, in the process, Parti Keadilan Nasional practically got wiped out.

I suppose, when people say political leaders are bankrupt of ideas this must be what they mean. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. March 2004 was a classic case.

The opposition must realise that it has lost much of its credibility. Anwar Ibrahim is probably the only thing it has going for it at this point of time. And if Anwar is the opposition’s last great hope, then it is indeed in a sorry state of affairs. It will need more than just Anwar to turn its fortunes around. If everything rest entirely on the ‘goodwill’ of Anwar, then the opposition might as well close shop. It is time we put it out of its misery. Sometimes I feel we should punish the opposition just to teach it a lesson by supporting BN. But this would of course be cutting the nose to spite the face and serves no purpose other than to weaken the opposition even further.

Anyway, maybe we can do the next best thing instead of joining BN to punish the opposition. Maybe we can use Malaysia Today to whack the opposition — while whacking the government as well of course. We whack everyone. But let’s whack constructively, not in an immature way through name-calling and slandering. The purpose of criticising is to build, not to demolish. Slandering does not help and we derive no dividends from doing so.

Let’s use Malaysia Today as the opposition’s wakeup call. It is good if we can have a two-party system. But it must be two strong parties, not one strong and one weak one like now. Then we can rotate the government every two or three elections to keep BOTH parties on their toes. No one party must rule forever, however good it may be. We will give the other party a chance to run the country though the present one may prove effective, clean and efficient (do I hear readers falling off their chairs laughing?). Then they can show how they can do even better. Malaysians would certainly benefit from this. Everyone will be falling over each other, trying to outdo each other, just to show they are better. And this will be to our benefit. Everyday will be Christmas.

Sigh…and can pigs fly?