In the aftermath of May 5th (part 5)

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