In the aftermath of May 5th (part 5) (UPDATED with Chinese Translation)
And that would mean Umno’s days are numbered when more Malays move away from Umno and swing over to PAS and PKR in the spirit of Pakatan Rakyat. And this would happen when the ‘power struggle’ changes from a vertical divide into a horizontal divide (a struggle between the rulers and the ruled — like what is already happening in the recent general election).
THE CORRIDORS OF POWER
Raja Petra Kamarudin
GE13 not a ‘Chinese tsunami’, says Merdeka Center
(The Malaysian Insider) – Election 2013 was not simply a “Chinese tsunami” as it showed a major swing among the multiracial urban and middle-class electorate against Barisan Nasional (BN), independent pollster Merdeka Center said yesterday.
Sinar Harian Online reported Merdeka Center executive director Ibrahim Suffian (picture) today as saying that Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s reading of the May 5 general election as a “Chinese tsunami” was inaccurate as urban Malays had also voted for Pakatan Rakyat (PR).
“There were differences between the low-income and the middle-income areas, as well as between the urban and rural areas,” Ibrahim was quoted as saying.
Analysts have noted that BN’s historic losses in Election 2013 were the result of a middle-class and urban exodus from the coalition that further widened the urban-rural rift in the country.
In their preliminary reading of the vote trend, analysts pointed out that despite the increase in Chinese support for PR, the political tsunami had also swept with it a large number of Malays who form part of the country’s middle- to upper-class electorate.
Ibrahim was also quoted as saying today that several constituencies had shown marginal BN victories that reflected a tight competition between BN and PR.
BN lost the popular vote for the first time since 1969 when it was then the Alliance.
BN also bled an additional seven federal seats to PR in Sunday’s polls. BN and PR won 133 and 89 federal seats respectively.
**************************************************
Why do we call the 1600s uprising in England the English Civil War while we call the 1700s uprising in France the French Revolution? Basically, they were both almost the same but one is called a civil war while the other a revolution.
In England, the fight was between two ruling blocs, a power struggle of sorts, while in France it was between the ruling elite and the ruled. Hence England was divided vertically (so we call it a civil war) while France was divided horizontally (so we call it a revolution). But both countries were still divided nevertheless.
Then, in the 1800s, Europe was again divided. But this time they very cleverly used nationalism (or we can also call it ketuananism, ‘unification’, racism, parochialism, etc.) to divide the people. And that worked even ‘better’ than what happened earlier in the 1600s and 1700s.
Basically, we unite the people by dividing them.
Does this sound contradictory or appear like an oxymoron? No, that is called Machiavellian politics, the best and most effective form of politics because it never fails and always works.
No doubt the 1800s rise of nationalism managed to demolish the very powerful Hapsburg and Holy Roman Empires and helped create Germany and Italy plus many smaller nation-states such as Serbia, Bosnia, Slovenia, Slovakia, Austria, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Albania, Poland, Holland, Switzerland, etc. But that also badly divided Europe. Hence while nationalism may have united the people into nation-states, it also divided the people by race.
So you gain one thing but you lose something else. And, not long after that, in the 1900s, Europe was dragged into two world wars. Hence a good thing such as ‘independence’ and the creation of democratic republics also brought with it a terrible toll in loss of life when racism took over. (Remember what happened in India?)
Hence, when you unite the people according to language and culture, like in Europe in the 1800s, the spectre of racism rears its ugly head.
So, to unite the Chinese or the Malays amongst themselves (or even the Indians and the natives of East Malaysia amongst themselves) racism is the key and racism would also be the end product.
The Chinese are now united. The fact that more than 90% of the Chinese voters voted en bloc for DAP is proof of this. The Malays, however, are not. Umno, PAS and PKR all have to ‘share’ the Malay vote. And that is the main dilemma facing Umno. DAP has more than 90% of the Chinese ‘cake’ while Umno has to share the Malay ‘cake’ with PAS and PKR.
And that would mean Umno’s days are numbered when more Malays move away from Umno and swing over to PAS and PKR in the spirit of Pakatan Rakyat. And this would happen when the ‘power struggle’ changes from a vertical divide into a horizontal divide (a struggle between the rulers and the ruled — like what is already happening in the recent general election).
In West Malaysia, Barisan Nasional is basically just Umno (the rulers). However, Pakatan Rakyat is DAP, PAS and PKR (the ruled). Hence it is three against one: DAP, PAS and PKR versus Umno almost alone. Therefore, without East Malaysia, Barisan Nasional (meaning Umno) is a dead duck.
So that is what they mean by the ‘Chinese Tsunami’. It does not mean only the Chinese voted Pakatan Rakyat while the Malays, Indians and ‘others’ did not. It means Pakatan Rakyat almost has a monopoly of the Chinese vote while the Malay votes are shared by three political parties. Umno has only about half the Malay vote and the other half is shared between PAS and PKR. Umno does not have an almost monopoly of the Malay vote like Pakatan Rakyat has with the Chinese vote.
So the term ‘Chinese Tsunami’ has been misused or misunderstood here. It is not that only the Chinese voted Pakatan Rakyat. It is that Pakatan Rakyat has an almost monopoly of the Chinese vote. And this has frightened the daylights out of Umno.
However, take note of one thing, if Umno wants to unite the Malays like how DAP has united the Chinese, then Umno has to play the nationalist card like they did in Europe in the 1800s. Then we are going to see the same tragedy that Europe saw in the 1900s (and are still seeing to a certain extent until today).
And not one more thing: another word for nationalism is racism or parochialism.
TO BE CONTINUED
***********************************************
5月5之後（五）
這也表示儅越來越多馬來人轉向伊黨和公正黨時，巫統下臺是指日可待的。而儅‘權力鬥爭’從縱向轉成橫向（即鬥爭變成人民對壘掌權的政府—-在此屆大選我們已經開始看到各端倪了）時，這很可能會發生。
原文：Raja Petra Kamarudin
譯文：方宙
第13屆大選並非是個‘華人海嘯’，默迪卡中心如此表示
(大馬内幕者) – 第13屆大選並非是個‘華人海嘯’，因爲有一些多種族選區與中產階級集中的選區都倒像民聯，獨立民調中心默迪卡中心昨天如此表示 。
（下文省略）
**************************************************
爲什麽我們把1600年的英國起義稱爲‘英國内戰English Civil War’但我們會把1700年的法國起義稱爲‘法國大革命French Revolution’呢? 這兩本質差不多都一樣，但一個稱爲内戰，而另一個革命。
在英國，那場抗爭是兩組權利之間的戰爭，類似于權力之爭，但在法國則是平民與貴族之爭。因此，英國是縱向分離（所以是内戰）而法國是橫向分離（所以是革命）。但無論如何，這兩個國家都作出了分離來開戰。
然後，再1800年間，歐洲再一次分離。但這一次他們用了一個很聰明的詞，叫做民族主義nationalism (或我們可稱爲ketuananism, ‘聯合’, 種族主義, 狹隘主義等) 來分離人民。那比1600和1700的效果還要來得好。
基本上，我們通過分離人民來統一他們。
這聼起來是不是很矛盾呢？不是的，這就是马基亚维利Machiavellian 式政治，史上最好最有效的政治模式，它從來沒有失敗過。
1800年間的民族主義瓦解了強大的哈布斯堡王朝和神圣罗马帝国，使得許多國傢如德國，意大利，塞爾維亞，波黑，斯洛文尼亞，斯洛伐克，奧地利，匈牙利，羅馬尼亞，保加利亞，捷克共和國，阿爾巴尼亞，波蘭，荷蘭，瑞士等得以誕生。但與此同時它也分裂了整個歐洲。所以，雖然說民族主義雖然能把人民團結出來組織國家，但它也能把人民以種族來作出區分。
在你得到某些東西的儅兒你也會失去某些東西。就在那不久后，即1900年間，歐洲被捲入了兩次世界大戰。好事是他們得到了‘獨立’，有許多共和國在此后組成，但壞事是種族主義所導致的人命的傷亡（還記得印度所發生的事情嗎？）。
所以，儅你是通過語言和文化把人民給團結起來時，那正如1800年的歐洲，醜陋的種族主義也會慢慢地擡起頭來。
要把華人或馬來人團結起來（即使是印度人、東馬土著也一樣）種族主義是個關鍵，而種族主義也將是個最終成品。
華人現在團結起來了，多過90%的華族一窩蜂地投個行動黨就是個很好的證據。馬來人則還沒有，巫統，伊黨和公正黨還在瓜分馬來選票。這也是令巫統很糾結的：行動黨擁有90%的‘華人蛋糕’，但巫統必須和伊黨與公正黨‘公司’。
這也表示儅越來越多馬來人轉向伊黨和公正黨時，巫統下臺是指日可待的。而儅‘權力鬥爭’從縱向轉成橫向（即鬥爭變成統治者對壘掌被統治者的鬥爭—-在此屆大選我們已經開始看到各端倪了）時，這很可能會發生。
在西馬，囯陣相等于巫統（統治者）而已，但民聯確是伊黨，行動黨和公正黨（被統治）。所以嚴格來講這是個三對一的戰爭。因此，如果沒有了東馬的話，那囯陣（既是巫統）只是一只軟腳蝦而已。
所以這就是他們口中‘華人海嘯’真正的意思。它不只是代表只有華人投給民聯而馬來人，印度人和其他人按兵不動。它更大指的是民聯幾乎壟斷了華人票但馬來票卻有三個去向。巫統只能掌握一半的馬來票源，而民聯另一半；巫統並沒有絕對地壟斷馬來票，不像民聯已壟斷華人票般。
所以說‘華人海嘯’這個詞在此被誤解了，它並不單單指華人一概投給民聯，它指的是民聯已壟斷了華人票源。而這以把巫統嚇破膽了。
對了，請看清一點，如果巫統想要像行動黨把華人團結起來般地團結馬來人，那巫統就必須像是1800年的歐洲般打出民族主義這張牌。然後，我們就會看到1900年歐洲歷史悲劇重新在馬來西亞上演（其實我們現在還可以看到某程度的悲劇正在歐洲上演著）。
還有一件事情你得看清：民族主義的另一個稱呼是‘種族主義’或‘狹隘主意’。
（敬請期待下一篇文章）
