Left-leaning Malay nationalist and founder of Parti Rakyat Malaya (PRM), Ahmad Boestamam, had this to say when his beloved comrade, Dr Burhanuddin Ali requested for leave to lead the Parti Se-Islam Malaya (PAS) way back in the 1940s.

"There is nothing wrong in sitting at different places as long as we sit on the same mat (Tidak apa salahnya kita berlain-lain tempat duduk asalkan tikar yang kita duduki itu tikar yang satu juga)."

At that time, Dr Burhanuddin wanted to leave PRM so that he could turn PAS into a progressive Islamic movement with leftist inclinations.

Perhaps, he did not say it in the same vein, but PRM's executive committee member Koh Swee Yong must have intended the same when he told DAP stalwarts recently whom, according to him had failed to persuade their grassroots to accept Barisan Alternatif, to "take it or leave it".

Yet, if one treats this two-year-old partnership, popularly known as BA, like a marriage, one would be inclined to say that "a man does not ask his wife to leave the house no matter how angry he may be with her. Couples may quarrel or tear each other apart but they do not tell the whole world that their marriage is in shambles. Neither do they wash their dirty linen in public."

Koh's disappointment arose when DAP's Wong Ah Peng issued statements to the Chinese press regarding the party's agreement with PAS on seat allocations in Selangor. This was done, said Koh, without consulting PRM or Keadilan.

DAP secretary-general Kerk Kim Hock reacted by questioning PRM's leadership about the validity of Koh's statement. PRM president Syed Husin Ali responded that he was aware of the matter and that the party's executive committee members have the right to issue statements. However, Koh confessed later that he issued the statement in his own personal capacity and as PRM's ex-co member.

Friend or foe

Earlier, sparks flew between the two, when DAP strongman, Teoh Teik Huat decided to throw in the towel and pursue his political ambitions in Keadilan.

Sources said that Teoh had no intention of announcing his resignation to all and sundry. However, while he was in Bangkok, Keadilan's Cheah Kah Peng went to town with the news.

Keadilan's secretary-general Anuar Tahir maintained that the party had not received Teoh's application to join the party. However, party president Wan Azizah Wan Ismail had told reporters following a dinner in Bukit Mertajam, that the application will go through the normal procedure and hence implying that Teoh's application had been received.

That episode annoyed many DAP leaders in Penang, who thought that the dinner was organised to welcome new members to the party. Eventually, its national chairperson, Lim Kit Siang, requested to be relieved from all BA meetings relating to the tiff between the two allies, claiming he wanted to concentrate more on non-inter-party issues.

Later, Penang DAP sought to loosen ties with Keadilan but promised things will return to normal if BA leaders would resolve the nagging issue.

During the crossfire, Penang DAP accused Keadilan of campaigning at its grassroots to lure the former's members away. DAP lamented that 32 ex-members of the Nibong Tebal branch, who were suspended for being involved in the Knock Out Kit Siang campaign in 1995 were invited to join Keadilan.

In the wake of all these happenings, one can tell that there is an obvious lack of commitment to the fundamental agreement which holds the BA together, an agreement which outlines three basic principles; that of preserving unity between partners, discouraging crossovers of controversial figures, and pinching members.

Failing to honour this three-tier commitment will see problems constantly erupting in the wake of by-elections and on the issue of seat allocations. The row between the coalition partners is an indication that the coalition is still in its infancy, fragile and susceptible to exploits by both friend and foe.

Teething problem

An apt example would be to quote DAP's very own words: "Whenever there is a major fight with the BN government, as in the case of the SJKC Damansara school relocation issue, the opportunists in BA will create trouble to weaken the opposition's struggle."

During the Teluk Kemang by-elections, Keadilan members were said to have "pleaded" with DAP to allow them to contest the seat, claiming that it was necessary in order to boost the morale of their party. DAP conceded but when the Lunas by-elections came around, the party decided to put its foot down.

However, Lunas became another subject for controversy when Keadilan leaders chose to "go back on their words" and rejected DAP's choice candidate, S Neelamekan, following a meeting with their grassroots.

When DAP refused to back down, Keadilan members in Kedah became infuriated and threatened to pull out from the coalition if their candidate, Saifuddin Nasution Ismail, was not nominated. They were said to have written letters to BA leaders threatening a boycott which eventually led to Keadilan taking over the seat and sidelining DAP.

Could the teething problem of seat allocations be due to the fact that BA members are young and inexperienced in negotiating such deals?

Could it be that, these leaders come to a meeting, agree on a collective decision, then go back on their word when pressured by their grassroots?

Could it be that both parties do not have control over their grassroots resulting in both leadership having to compete with one another to hold on to their posts?

Check and balance

Observers say that it is acceptable for coalition partners to argue over issues or policy matters but not to squabble over 'organisational' ones, such as seat allocation. It is embarrassing when such squabbles are highlighted by the media.

Many view DAP's constant disagreement with PAS over issues which threaten to affect the non-Malays' "liberal lifestyle" or Kelantan Menteri Besar Nik Aziz Nik Mat's "gender-bias" views on women as a healthy sign.

Such dispute, no matter how fleeting, gives the impression that there are elements of democracy within the coalition, check and balance. The promise that no one party can dominate the other, especially when it is not in the best interest of the nation.

Indeed, voicing out concerns about ideological issues, even if it meant criticising a partner in coalition, is laudable. Supporters say that BA component parties do not want to puppet the MCA and MIC in the national front. When 'big brother' Umno talks, the other two simply nod and say "yes".

Others say DAP's vocal approach helps moderate within PAS to voice concerns to the top leadership as well. A Malay Keadilan leader was heard saying that the reason why he did not speak out against PAS was that, "If we do so, PAS leaders will turn around and ask. Why are you worried when DAP hasn't said anything yet?"

Perhaps, it is difficult for DAP to honour the first agreement (preserve unity) when other parties let the cat out of the bag first, especially to the press. When PAS and Keadilan do that, it leaves DAP with little choice but to go on the defensive, and vice versa.

There should be some measures to remind impatient members who defy this agreement, that in a coalition as young as BA, 'compromise, sacrifice and love thy neighbour' are very precious values.

However, human nature dictates it unavoidable that in every party there must exist such creatures who defy the order of things for short-term political mileage. Myopia being the excuse for not being able to see the bigger picture.

Party hopping

The malady of crossing over of 'controversial' figures or party hopping will never be resolved until all parties relinquish their authoritarian stance and adopt the attitude that all members in the coalition are comrades, better to shift positions within the fold, than consort with the enemy, which in this case, is the ruling BN party.

However, much as we pledge the rights to freedom of association, a DAP loyalist said, this little piece of action does not help the coalition in the long run. These 'controversial' figures are often disgruntled members who are more interested in gaining political mileage and may lack passion for the bigger cause.

"If they had seen troubled days in DAP, it is a matter of time before they rock the boat in the new party as well. They were our members once upon a time. So, we know how they operate," she said.

"And if it becomes a habit for members to hop from party to party, component parties will one day turn into opponent parties, won't they?" queried the loyalist.

A popular excuse employed by DAP dissidents to justify party hopping is to blame Lim for the misery of his party's dwindling membership. The man is often labelled as autocratic and a 'dictator' for clutching to his position as party leader for such a long time.

This excuse is wearing thin as the same accusation can be hurled at the leadership of other component parties as well. After all, Lim has done his duty as an opposition leader and his contributions shouldn't be dismissed simply because others want to steer the DAP ship but can't find enough reasons for a mutiny to oust the captain.

However, hard as it may, DAP must admit that threatening to boycott, loosening relationships and pulling out from the coalition is almost like contemplating political suicide in the opposition front.

"What if others do the same? What if someday PAS in Kelantan and Terengganu say, 'we would like to pull out of the coalition because we are independent here'?" pondered, a Keadilan member.

The member said: "Let us be honest, PAS does not need Keadilan, DAP or PRM in those two states so why do they need to stay in the coalition?"

Code of conduct

Political activists are puzzled and disheartened at Keadilan's alleged campaign strategy. "Why not lure non-members, fence sitters or bewildered BN supporters? Why choose DAP members?"

"It is simplistic to say that DAP is afraid of losing its grip or power base, especially in Penang, and therefore expresses outrage whenever they get wind of Keadilan's campaign tactics but in politics, there is a code of conduct when one deals with a comrade," explained the activist.

In the politics of politicians, there is a manner in which to persuade one another, they say. To handle each other's feelings, to deal with one another's problems. If the common goal is to preserve unity, a much sought after thing these days, and deny BN a two-third majority, partners in the opposition front must ultimately respect the differences between them.

The front must also never lose focus that the BN is its real enemy, not its comrade, if it wants to achieve its objectives in the coming elections.

Who is the real enemy, who is the comrade and who is the traitor in this tirade of political uncertainties?

Boestamam's reflections is a sharp reminder of how good things can be.

"It would seem that after Dr Burhanuddin became the leader of PAS, we - Dr Burhannuddin and I - seemed like we were separated in our struggles. He worked hard for PAS and I worked hard for PRM. But this separation was in truth a physical separation only - a separation to meet spiritually."

"When we met in the Malaya Parliament - Dr Burhanuddin represented his party and I represented mine - we often discussed matters intimately.

"That is why people who are observant can very quickly ascertain that since Dr Burhanuddin was head of PAS and I was head of PRM, he has never once lambasted me and PRM and I, too, had never lambasted D. Burhanuddin and PAS although at times, our grass roots squabbled."

"To Dr Burhanuddin, I remained as 'our man'."

Note: Ahmad Boestamam's quotes, excerpts from 'Dr Burhanuddin: Putera Setia Melayu Raya' (1972)