SMUG, THE ‘SAVE MALAYSIA UNITY-GOVERNMENT’

So why give them an easy way out? We want to know their stand. And the only way we can do that would be to allow the Bill to be tabled in Parliament. And if it is defeated we can put this matter to rest once and for all. And if it is not, well, so be it. That is what democracy is about anyway.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Yesterday, veteran DAP politician Lim Kit Siang surprised Malaysians by proposing a new ruling coalition called SMUG, the Save Malaysia Unity-Government. If it happens, this will be the third ruling coalition since Merdeka after the Alliance Party and Barisan Nasional.

I hate to be smug about it, but I will anyway. Back in 2008 I mooted the idea of a new coalition in the form of a unity-government. I did not mean that DAP, PAS and PKR should join Barisan Nasional. Pakatan Rakyat can still remain. But Pakatan Rakyat and Barisan Nasional (like the Conservatives and Lib Dem in the UK) can come together to form a government.

It was just an article but the reaction from the readers was one of outrage so I backed off. Malaysians were not ready for such ideas. In fact, some saw this as an attempt to kill the opposition and for Barisan Nasional to swallow DAP, PKR and PAS. Then, a few months later, what I proposed for Malaysia happened in the UK.

So maybe I can be smug about it and say I was probably ahead of my time.

So Malaysia carried on with its style of politics where the ruling party opposes everything that the opposition does while the opposition opposes everything that the ruling party does. But do we oppose because the idea is bad or because it is our job to oppose the other side for the sake of opposing?

Then I suggested a third force so that we can keep the politicians in check. The third force will keep the politicians honest because the only thing that politicians fear is losing power. They do not even fear God. And the third force can be the kingmaker to decide which side should be allowed to rule.

Again this was condemned as an attempt to hurt the opposition. The third force, the critics said, will be taking votes away from the opposition thus allowing Barisan Nasional to rule. Clearly these people do not understand what a third force means. To them it means three-corner contests in the general elections.

Then we launched the Malaysian Civil Liberties Movement (MCLM) so that we can get people who are not happy with the political environment to participate in the effort to introduce more civil liberties in Malaysia. Malaysians are being denied their right of freewill and we need a movement to get this changed.

However, to achieve this, there must be a political will. Hence we need to send some non-party Malaysians into Parliament (maybe ten or so) who are not party-centric but would vote based on what is best for Malaysians. Currently they will only vote what is best for their party.

This, too, was opposed by the politicians, in particular those from Pakatan Rakyat. They refused to consider fielding candidates who they felt would not have any party loyalty. But that is just it. Not always do those politicians who vote in Parliament do so for the good of Malaysians. They do so for the good of their party. And what is good for their party is not always what is good for Malaysians.

Anyway, since 2010 I decided to abandon all these grand ideas of reforming the way politics is played in Malaysia. It seems politics is still going to be the exclusive domain of politicians and non-politicians are not welcome. Politicians will run the show and non-politicians can stay out other than just vote once every five years.

I then sat down with Anwar Ibrahim to discuss various issues, which I said if not resolved will see the death of Pakatan Rakyat. The Selangor issue was one. The Hudud issue was another. Then we have the ‘agree-to-disagree’ culture of Pakatan Rakyat that is an obstacle to a genuine marriage.

Pakatan Rakyat works on consensus, they claim, and if we can’t reach a consensus we will agree to disagree. What in heaven’s name does that mean? So they can’t reach a consensus on the Selangor MB Crisis and Kajang Move. So they agree to disagree. Does that mean PAS is allowed to disagree, which they did? They also can’t reach a consensus on Hudud. They agree to disagree. Does that mean DAP is allowed to disagree, which they do?

So PAS disagreed with what PKR did in Selangor and DAP disagrees with what PAS is doing in Kelantan. Does the matter end there? Do they then allow the disagreeing party to say its piece and we do it anyway or do we say since we disagree then we need to divorce?

Yes, now can you see why I am smug about SMUG? This is what I have been talking about for the last seven years since 2008. Seven years! You can get a PhD in just five years and I have been at this for seven years. And what I have been saying all along has come home to roost. We are now coming full circle to talk about SMUG, a unity-government between Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat as a means to resolve so many issues.

Actually Lim Kit Siang’s idea is good. It is good because it resolves too very serious threats facing Malaysia, which are race and religious differences. But maybe we should first allow the Sharia Amendment Bill to be brought to Parliament and see what happens.

Many political analysts say the Bill will be defeated. They say PAS will not get the 112 votes it needs to get the Bill passed. Some even say it first requires a constitutional amendment. Whatever it may be, let’s see what happens in Parliament first.

This is crucial because the ‘Save Malaysia Unity-Government’ proposal is in essence going to be an anti-Hudud alliance. It is because of Hudud that Lim Kit Siang is proposing this. And Lim Kit Siang wants to use SMUG as a pre-emptive strike against the Bill. And definitely one of the terms of the formation of SMUG would be that the Sharia Amendment Bill must be blocked or defeated.

But that will never really resolve the issue. We will be going to our graves not knowing how many of the Muslim Members of Parliament will support the Bill had it been allowed. And we will never know whether those Muslim Members of Parliament who actually support Hudud will oppose the Bill because this is what their party wants them to do.

So why give them an easy way out? We want to know their stand. And the only way we can do that would be to allow the Bill to be tabled in Parliament. And if it is defeated we can put this matter to rest once and for all. And if it is not, well, so be it. That is what democracy is about anyway.