Dr Toh Kin Woon concedes that it is difficult to have a single BN party because of parties keen to continue protecting the interests of their own ethnic groups.

These are excerpts from the 90-minute question-and-answer session with the Penang state executive councillor.

Malaysiakini: Do you support a one-party (within BN) system?

Toh: I do and I feel that would be ideal. But I’m not sure if that is achievable now and I’m not sure if that is achievable in the short or medium term given the fact that the main ideological line of parties like Umno, MCA, MIC is essentially pursuing the racial line.

You know the line where they are protecting the interests of their own ethnic groups and within their own groups.

I think by having all the parties to merge into one single party hopefully, the attention would be shifted more to us (Gerakan) rather than race-based politics which is very much now the dominant ideology within the Barisan Nasional (BN).

So if you ask my opinion, I do support that, but I’m not sure if that is achievable as I said even the dominance of race-based politics within the BN is still strong.

If it is not achievable, why mention it at the AGM?

I think it was worth mentioning if that is the ideal you think the BN should evolve towards. You should sound it out first, hopefully some efforts can be taken even now to see how you can evolve towards that.

Of course, whether this would be taken up seriously by the party, I'm not sure. But I hope it will be.

Already there is some response but so far, it has been negative which is to be expected.

But I think there is still a need for the argument in favour of one party. To me it is the one party that is based on non racial ideologies. I think that will be something more politically progressive for the country.

There are really no push factors to get the racially-based parties to evolve into a non-racially based party. They have been winning elections and winning them big. What do you think are the reasons that would compel that it is time to move beyond this?

I think in the BN, there is really no compelling reason except for calls by Gerakan for a Rakyat Malaysia at its recent general assembly.

I think there is a lot of pressure outside BN and I think that is important. Public pressure, civil society pressure and even opposition political pressure - all these account very much for what we are asking for.

There’s an impression that Gerakan has kept quiet about what Umno did in their last AGM.

To a certain extent, yes, I think the popular response at the (Umno) AGM last year was very negative especially among the constituencies we represent. Certainly among the non-Malays, this was seen as a (deplorable) act, a symbol of race-based politics at its worst.

Especially those holding high leadership posts (could not ignore) this. And I think they have to think of ways to remind the other leaders that they should not continue with this very race-based ideological pursuits. One of the suggestions made was that maybe we all dissolve and merge into one party.

Of course, in the process of merging, there has to be rethinking on what exactly should be the common basis for coming together. Even if you say do away with race-based politics, so the next question would be where do we go from there.

Should it be a right-wing party serving the interests of a few or should it be a social democrat party? I think those issues would also have to be trashed out but I think there has got to be a beginning but I’m not sure there is a sustained effort towards that.

This is something that needs to be discussed and delved deeper in the years to come.

In response to your call for a one-party system, MCA and MIC said that minority rights might be sidelined. And (Gerakan vice-president) Dr Teng Hock Nan said Gerakan is a small party. Does that mean Gerakan is too small to affect change in BN?

We have to recognise that the pressure to change should not come from within alone. And the pressure to change coming from within is not very strong to begin with.

What we have to hope for is that there is this mass protest against racism, mass protest against race-based politics and hopefully these people who join in all this protest come from a broad spectrum of all communities. Basically what they want is to do away with that and to have a class-based politics.

For example, given the fact that the country is so divided in terms of wealth distribution, isn’t it time that we should now look at how we can reach out by not focussing on race as a category but as a class.

By now, the lower 40 percent is getting 15 percent of the wealth. Clearly this kind of direction is undesirable. Meanwhile, the upper strata is getting more and if we look at income distribution at the Malay community itself, it shows that it is getting more skewed in favour of the rich.

Now look, this is all very undesirable and all this talk about race is but a tactic, a weapon used by those in power to win support.

They have been successful so far. With the power that they have so far, they basically design the structure so that it benefits the upper strata more than the lower strata. Which is not to say there is no trickling down, there is some trickling down of course, otherwise we cannot explain why the lower strata continues to give support.

But that is still very undesirable in the long term for sure. I think that’s why the hope for doing away with race-based politics and ultimate evolution to parties without race I think would have to come more from outside that within the BN.

Although Gerakan has made a good start, I am not sure if the voice is strong enough to illicit any positive response given the fact that Umno is so dominant. It’s racial based. Likewise in MCA and MIC too - they're the top three in BN.

Of course, you also have the multi-racial parties in East Malaysia but I don’t know to what extent they would align with this proposal.

Even the reality of the multi-racial parties - Gerakan, DAP or PKR - they are still very much dominated by one race. That itself is still a problem, let alone racially-based parties.

I agree, speaking from BN, as I see it I may be wrong, the roles given to different parties are more or less decided by Umno.

I think the mainstream mass media is reinforcing the negative notion that Gerakan is only claiming to be multi-racial but is basically a Chinese-based party. Of course, at the national level, it plays a secondary role to the MCA.

You can try to speak about Malay poverty, rural poverty, you can talk about estate poverty for example and the issues that cut across racial lines and I’m not sure, the MIC will actually give us much support. I’m not sure the mainstream media will highlight this kind of position that Gerakan has taken.

I think by design, the perception is that you (Gerakan) are actually a Chinese-based party. And if you win, you represent a largely Chinese-based party. Given that racial issues often dominate political discussions, political discourses, Gerakan very often falls back into very race-based lines, despite all its claims to be a multi-ethnic party.

(For example) when you talk about Malay poverty, Umno leaders will feel this is not right for Gerakan to speak up on.

I think this is a major constraint in a multi-racial non-race-based party attempting to move into what basically are not racial issues but what race-based parties regard as their turf or their territory.

I think within Gerakan itself too, there are also many delegates and leaders who are influenced by race-based politics.

In terms of the suggestion of moving into one big party, you’re talking about 25 years time, 50 years time, 100 years time?

I’m not sure about the time span I am talking about. But long-term means in this regard it would seem to me that it’s going to be hell of a long, long time. As you said, if by being seen as the protector of the interests of a particular community and if that community is a dominant community you keep winning, you not only win but you win big, you would arrive at the impression that race politics has a lot of support. So why should we not continue with it.

Somehow, race consciousness has taken such deep roots in the Malaysian political psyche that to uproot it is not an easy task. But one particular institution that supports non-racial line is the trade union movement.

But I think the movement is still very weak, I think the (government) policies were designed that they want unions to be weak.

When you have institutions like that, that has the potential of bringing everybody together, being weak, then clearly there is a lot of work to be done.

You joined Gerakan and became active in politics in 1993 - that was almost 15 years. Now you are at the tail-end of your career. How do you evaluate your years of political activism, you think you have achieved something? Was it worth it?

This is a very difficult question to answer. This question has been asked before. Before I answer your question, let me sort of make some minor corrections.

I become active in politics as far back as 1982. That was in response to the Chinese education movement's exhortation to support its move to put two prominent candidates - Kerk Choo Ting (left) in Kepong and Dr Koh Tsu Koon (right) in Tanjong - because they felt they have to try out this new strategy of putting their supporters within the BN in the hope of changing BN from within, but after a short while some of them have given up on us.

By 1986, after one term, many of them have already switched their support to the opposition. Be that as it may, between 1982 to 1986 we managed to resolve the 3M (mengira, membaca, menulis) issue. If not, it would have affected the characteristics of Chinese schools, because of those of us who managed to join Gerakan, the matter is resolved.

Now in reply to your question - actually when we first joined, there were a few objectives. One was to bring voices of moderation to BN. Already it was quite obvious that race-based politics ruled the day, what with NEP and so forth, but there was a strong belief that people should go in to act as voices of moderation to caution Umno not to go overboard in pursuit of race-based politics.

Secondly, it was also proposed that we should continue to have links with Chinese education. With all other Chinese NGOs and other civil societies, (we were) to keep in touch with them and hear their feedback.

Obviously, we have not succeeded in moderating the policies given the fact that the statements and in some of the instances taken by some of the leaders have gotten more aggressive. We can’t say that we have succeeded in that regards.

You are governed by a certain framework - it’s called the BN framework. So the space is quite restricted. You either work within that space and try to moderate things or if that is not sufficient you try to enlarge that space. But few would want to do that.

Speaking for myself, I have tried to use whatever influence that I have to work with like NGO groups in Penang to see what I could do to help them and to work with them.

I would like to think that some small achievements have been attained. I think in education which I am supposed to be looking after in Penang, we have promoted arts and education.

We have this bureau to help children with learning difficulties like dyslexia where we have actually mobilised some resources from the private sector too. We have also worked with groups promoting Chinese education and Tamil education.

Now that is all I dare say I have done. I dare not say this is a very good record that would be attractive enough to entice others to come in but I basically feel that it is important to continue that linkage to actually utilise the resources that I have to influence some of these groups. I think something has been achieved although it is nothing much to shout about

What would you tell someone, who might be a bit younger, who wants to join politics to bring about change. Would you say - join Gerakan or join the opposition?

Maybe I would not answer this question directly. But I think given the status of Malaysia today that we need a very strong civil society. I believe in the institutionalisation of dissent. I think of the key factors if you think about progress in any society that you have people who keep on being critical but at the same they are constructive.

They take up cases of corruption, they leak out abuse of power, misuse of funds and et cetera. And I think it is true when people are there and they are people who play a very important role in affecting changes, whoever becomes the ruling party.

Whichever party becomes the ruling party, there is always a need for a very strong civil society or a strong opposition voice for checks and balances. It is so important for key institutions of parliamentary democracy to be strengthened and not be emasculated of its essence.

So this my way of answering the question. I don’t think I would answer the question directly but I think the implications are clear.

I could sense a sense of helplessness that you have not been able to achieve what you set out to do. Is that true?

Let’s put it this way. I would love to have accomplished more. But I think whatever we have achieved is certaintly not as much as we would like to.

You have been seen as a moderate in the party. You have taken a strong stand on issues like ISA, which others might see as rocking the boat. Do you get pressure from your own party and colleagues?

I will be fair to my party. It wasn’t to the extend that people expect. It wasn’t as if I was hauled up and said you either withdraw or stop making any such statements otherwise we will sack you.

I don’t think there has been any such warning. To be fair to them, at the worst it was just a warning that the party has taken a stand and it is expected that everybody in the party should toe the line.

I don’t think there has been such a particular warning to me.

You mentioned early on you think you could have more done on. What else have you to say, looking back at your 15 years of active involvement in politics?

No regrets, of course. But what I’m trying to say that is that if you want to affect changes it’s not something an individual can do. Let’s put it this way. You are talking about a mammoth political structure. I think it would be a Don Quixote to think you could go in, barge in there and say I want to effect this change and that change.

I think you need to have a big force, you must have alliances. If I can form an alliance from within, then that’s fine and that has got to be done if you ask me. That force has to be linked to other like-minded forces.

But there’s no way to think that you can affect change as an individual. You’re talking about such a mammoth political structure with its own framework and value system that is so firmly entrenched and unlikely to change.

So do you think you have failed? Have you sacrified any of your ideals along the way?

That’s for others to assess, not me. I think the mere fact that I joined BN to some would be a sell-out already (laughs). But it’s not easy to stick firmly to what you believe in because as I said when you try to articulate what you believe ought to be common political values, nevermind whether you are in the BN or the opposition, that is already of value to the system.

Do you think you have failed?

In that sense, yes. If I declare I would like the country to be more open and democratic, I don’t think I have succeeded. If I want the BN to be a non-corruptible party, how would I say I have succeeded. An individual cannot achieve that, we need a force.

Of course, we try to remember what we stood for and we try to stand by our principles, but there are difficulities, I must tell you. It’s not easy.


Tough to change BN, says Gerakan leader

Tomorrow: Succession in Gerakan and the coming general elections