We put Dr M in power
R AbdullahPublished: Apr 9, 2001 9:42 AM | Updated: Jan 29, 2008 6:21 PM
I am responding to the letter by Steve Chan, [#1]Dr M not majority's leader by choice[/#] (April 6).
How ignorant and misleading can anyone try to be? It is as clear as day that Malaysia practises a Parliamentary system modelled after the British, in which the electorate chooses the party of choice to lead the nation. If Dr Mahathir Mohamad had become a political liability from the start, there had always been the choice of other parties to vote for.
The 1999 general elections provided Malaysians an opportunity to oust Dr M and Barisan Nasional from power. But the majority of non-Malays, perhaps out of xenophobic sentiments toward the Islamic party PAS and total ignorance of PAS' political flexibility (DAP had a hand in playing up the fear among the Chinese despite being in the same coalition) chose to put him back in power.
It is a known fact that Mahathir and BN's victory in the last elections is attributed to non-Malay votes for BN. By reducing Mahathir's electoral support to just Kubang Pasu and Umno, the writer is attempting to do two things:
1) He is trying to displace the responsibility of the non-Malays', mainly Chinese, mistake for voting in Dr M, and instead place them upon two entities that do not have the final determining power in the electoral process; and
2) He is trying to deny historical facts by conjuring an alternative system that is unviable - choosing for a prime minister in the manner of the US electoral voting for a president can lead to worse situations (corrupt practices such as campaigning in the US) and is also quite unnecessary.
We had the chance using the Alternative Front to dislodge Dr M and BN from power, but we blew it, and yes, the person the writer was responding to was right, we are now paying for it.
Had the Chinese and Indians been more knowledgeable about PAS and the electoral process, BA would have at least now been given a chance to form a government. A two-coalition system is healthy. If they cannot perform, then BN would be more cautious in their excesses if they wish to regain power in the next elections.
Please read Rustam A Sani's article not too long ago on the perceived unprincipled nature of the ethnic-Chinese electorate. He stated precisely, the electoral behaviour of Chinese-Malaysians in the last elections. Chinese-Malaysians in general, must initiate a paradigm shift away from commercial concerns and more toward social justice.
I am, however, happy to see that more mature development has taken place among the more educated and open-minded factions in Malaysian society that has enabled a multiethnic coalition to exist in parties such as Keadilan.
Even PAS has now changed to be more accommodating toward women and non-Muslims. I believe they are sincere in making these changes too.
With more character and strength, Malaysian politics hopefully will evolve into what one of our founding fathers Onn Jaafar had aspired it to be way back in the 1940s.
How ignorant and misleading can anyone try to be? It is as clear as day that Malaysia practises a Parliamentary system modelled after the British, in which the electorate chooses the party of choice to lead the nation. If Dr Mahathir Mohamad had become a political liability from the start, there had always been the choice of other parties to vote for.
The 1999 general elections provided Malaysians an opportunity to oust Dr M and Barisan Nasional from power. But the majority of non-Malays, perhaps out of xenophobic sentiments toward the Islamic party PAS and total ignorance of PAS' political flexibility (DAP had a hand in playing up the fear among the Chinese despite being in the same coalition) chose to put him back in power.
It is a known fact that Mahathir and BN's victory in the last elections is attributed to non-Malay votes for BN. By reducing Mahathir's electoral support to just Kubang Pasu and Umno, the writer is attempting to do two things:
1) He is trying to displace the responsibility of the non-Malays', mainly Chinese, mistake for voting in Dr M, and instead place them upon two entities that do not have the final determining power in the electoral process; and
2) He is trying to deny historical facts by conjuring an alternative system that is unviable - choosing for a prime minister in the manner of the US electoral voting for a president can lead to worse situations (corrupt practices such as campaigning in the US) and is also quite unnecessary.
We had the chance using the Alternative Front to dislodge Dr M and BN from power, but we blew it, and yes, the person the writer was responding to was right, we are now paying for it.
Had the Chinese and Indians been more knowledgeable about PAS and the electoral process, BA would have at least now been given a chance to form a government. A two-coalition system is healthy. If they cannot perform, then BN would be more cautious in their excesses if they wish to regain power in the next elections.
Please read Rustam A Sani's article not too long ago on the perceived unprincipled nature of the ethnic-Chinese electorate. He stated precisely, the electoral behaviour of Chinese-Malaysians in the last elections. Chinese-Malaysians in general, must initiate a paradigm shift away from commercial concerns and more toward social justice.
I am, however, happy to see that more mature development has taken place among the more educated and open-minded factions in Malaysian society that has enabled a multiethnic coalition to exist in parties such as Keadilan.
Even PAS has now changed to be more accommodating toward women and non-Muslims. I believe they are sincere in making these changes too.
With more character and strength, Malaysian politics hopefully will evolve into what one of our founding fathers Onn Jaafar had aspired it to be way back in the 1940s.
View Comments0