In a democracy, theoretically the voters are the only real force, on whom the political parties and politicians rely on to vote them into power, which has been why there's been lots of pork barrelling in any run-up to an election.
Pork barrelling is not a haram-ish insulting word to Muslims but an English language political term meaning a politician with public funds undertake projects to benefit only the voters in a location (part of a constituency) he wants support from in an election, when the funds ought to have been used to benefit everyone in his or her constituency.
 |
| Khalid was chosen over Nalla because PKR was afraid of offending PAS |
In Malaysia pork barrelling have usually been done by those on the government side (federal or state, especially the former). Remember the Ijok by-election when Samy Vellu boasted that he succeeded in, words to the effect, compressing 10 years of public work projects into a month's effort in Ijok. The money obviously must have come from projects for other localities. That's pork barrelling.
I recall during my kiddie days, prior to an election, the lanes in my village would be resurfaced and street lamps magically come back to life wakakaka.
While servicing street lamps wouldn't exactly be termed pork barrelling (unless completely new ones were set up as a project) my late mum's favourite reminder to house-visiting politicians would be for the unserviceable street lamp in front of my house to be working again, which usually involved just a change of bulb, but it had to take a pending election for the local BN ADUN to kick some behinds to get that done.
In mature democracy, where there exists a two-party system, like the UK which has Labour and Tory (Conservative), a Third Force would be the Liberal-Democrat, providing a 3rd choice for Britons voting in an election.
In Australia which has a similar political structure to the UK, with Labor and Coalition (Aus' Conservative) as the two main parties, the Greens have emerged in recent years to become the Third Force. Some have mentioned the Social Democrats as an earlier Third Force in Australia but others think not, because that party only existed in the Senate which in terms of real political power didn't count.
Alas, there's no Third Force in Malaysia, at least at federal level. At one stage, some thought Bro Haris Ibrahim & RPK's MCLM was the Third Force. That wasn't so because the function of MCLM then was just to help PKR get some (about 30) vetted candidates least likely to defect. PKR as the political taxi sapu suffered badly from and is still likely to suffer from defections of its politicians.
Much earlier in Malayan political history, just prior to 1969, there were three coalitions (sort of), namely, Perikatan (BN's predecessor comprising UMNO, MCA and MIC), Barisan Socialis or Socialist Front (comprising Parti Rakyat and Labour Party) and a Third Force made up of a loose pact involving Gerakan, DAP, PPP and even (via an understanding) PAS.
The understanding among the loose pact was not to form a three corner fight in any constituency, which with the Socialist Front boycotting the 1969 election, proved to be so successful that Perikatan was demolished in Penang and near demolished in Selangor and Perak. It was the 1st Malaysian tsunami, minus the help of a then non-existent Hindraf or a very young Anwar Ibrahim.
 |
| Gerakan swept MCA out of Penang in 1969 It was swept out by DAP in 2008 |
But even then, we couldn't consider the loose pact of Gerakan, DAP , PPP and PAS as the Third Force because with the Socialist Front boycotting the election, it became the 2nd force, thus we have never enjoyed a Third Force.
Small parties in regional localities like SAPP, SNAP, etc, cannot be considered as a Third Force.
Mind you, in every election we get the usual KKK (konspired kacau-ing kutu) parties or candidates participating under the instructions of (usually) BN to slice off votes from the competition. Currently, the Human Rights Party (HRP) of Uthayakumar is viewed (correctly or otherwise) by Pakatan as an UMNO-sponsored or BN-friendly KKK party to split up the Indian votes, supposedly to disadvantage Pakatan.
HRP will act only as a spoiler party because it won't have a ghost of a chance of winning any seat. Thus many suspect it's out to bugger a 5-year old Pakatan for the sins of a 50-year old UMNO & MIC.
 |
| They sure like to attack 5-year old Pakatan for the 50 year old 'sins' of UMNO & MIC |
I just wonder, hmmm, looking at Gelang Patah's voters racial breakdown where we have 33.85% Malays, 54.29% Chinese, 11.69% Indians and 0.17% Others, whether a KKK 'insertion' can affect Lim Kit Siang's chances there?
If 20% of Malays, 20% of Chinese (c'mon, surely the MCA can at least manage this much) and 10% of Indians (hint, hint, hint, wakakaka) vote for BN, Uncle Lim will be in trouble - oh, how rapt Dr Mahathir will be then, wakakaka.
Let's see what other cockroaches will now emerge to kacau Pakatan.
 |
| wakakaka |
Must be typo error.. u meant 80% Malay, 20% Chinese & 10% vote for BN.
ReplyDeleteEven with this assumption, LKS would still win.
20% of the 33.85% Malays
Delete20% of the 54.29% Chinese, and
10% of the 11.69% Indians
will give BN 50% of the overall votes
beware of all this so called fencesitter n 3rd force, self claim non partisan, n hyper narcissism n egocentric wingnuts.
ReplyDeletewah HY, you've excelled your usual self wakakaka
Deletepray tell u r belong to which group wakaka.
Deletehrp n hindraf not the same right? until today i still dun know who is who, so many leaders, so little grassroots. but i have to respect their democratic spirit, everyone is a leader.
Hindraf was supposedly a NGO. %v leaders were detained under ISA. 2 were DAP members (1 was elected as ADUN in Selamgor while still under detention) and 2 joined PKR after their release. UIthayakumar did nto join any party but campaigned against DAP in particular.
DeleteBecause Hindraf was previously banned, Uthayakumar subsequently formed the HRP as a political party. His younger brother Waythamoorthy, who returned recently from safe exile in UK, now leads the "un-banned" Hindraf (still an NGO with political overtones).
For a third force to emerge, there should be a well established two party system. Otherwise in Msia, this so called "third force" are just umbrella, bycycle etc (translated independents or vote spoiler whether by direct or indirect intention).
DeleteMCLM is an interesting case study. As one can see from the last few years, PR has not played a very constructive role as a second party in the evolution of a two-party system. They have remained muted, self engrossed with rhetorics, theocracy and "tokongness". Therefore, some saw RPK's and Harris' MCLM as a voice to keep politicians honest, not as game changers. Even in such a small endevour, that failed miserably.
Now DAP is making a mistake by trying to win Hindraf & the Indians as an after thought. This "big hearted" inclusion is just as political as MCA & MIC. Therefore, as mentioned to HY, same2 lah...
The old Gerakan was more of a semblance of a multiracial option than the new DAP. But back to Third Force. A true Third Force should be multiracial representating the minority/majority, not one particular ethnic group like Hindraf (my definition).
Therefore, a better representation of a Third Force would be PRM or PSM but unfortunately, they cannot be compared to the stature of the Liberal Democrats or Green Party. In view of a hanged parliment, Sabah & Sarawak will play the final say not as a Third Force but more sadly as the bargaining chip. Therefore, MCLM gave a temporary breath of fresh air to keep politicians clean as a small but possible voice of the Rakyat.
However, the approach was all wrong. It is doubtful that Harris ABU or SABM will be the subsitute to an already rojak situation of convulated Malaysian politics.
"For a third force to emerge, there should be a well established two party system.“ - agree
Delete"PR has not played a very constructive role as a second party in the evolution of a two-party system. They have remained muted, self engrossed with rhetorics, theocracy and "tokongness".” – not entirely agree, perhaps you shd define clearly what is constructive role, and substantiate that if being constructive could entice votes, look at taiwan, dpp came to power have much to do with their rhetoric to become independence and segregate their people into pan blue and pan green.
"Now DAP is making a mistake by trying to win Hindraf & the Indians as an after thought. This "big hearted" inclusion is just as political as MCA & MIC.” – It is only a mistake if the entire hindraf demand is illegitimate.
"A true Third Force should be multiracial representating the minority/majority, not one particular ethnic group like Hindraf (my definition).” – not clear where you stand, what you meant by minority/majority?
"Therefore, a better representation of a Third Force would be PRM or PSM but unfortunately…”, - I still think third force have everything to do with people/mass, not a bunch of leader with elite background.
Thus I think your first sentence sum up everything……for a third force to emerge, there should be a well established two party system.
1) Taiwan's DPP had only one message - clear independence from the Mainland and hate for the Kuomintang. However, it only led to a "two party" system rather than a Third Force.
Delete2)PR's lead since 2008 should have been spent showing Malaysians that they are a viable alternative to BN. The ruling of all PR states seems disjointed at best in terms of focus, policy making and uneven growth.
Worst still, in Parliment for key voting issues, PR remains muted or even absent from important votes.
3) In pandering to Hindraf, DAP is losing focus. If it wanted inclusion, they should have done it earlier so that it doesn't look like an after thought and trying to counter "Mr. Nambikai's" overtures. Now they look like children fighting in a school yard to see who is bigger & better.
4) Since a clear two-party system is not present as in more matured democracies, a Third Voice cannot emerge overnight representing the majority although we wished it could. Bersih isn't exactly a united Third Voice either but a movement of general resent towards several key issues.
Therefore, if a Third Force emerges, it has to start small with a minority stake at best.
a short one
Delete1) my point is if dpp taking on a constructive role (b4 came to power), taiwan might still remain as one party system.
2) i think it is very hard to make comparison pertaining to viable, i personally think me n u start a party would still make better progress than bn.
3) sort of agree, but what other option do dap/pr have? british can rule india with less than 1000 man give some hint that some leaders can sell their mother for 50 cents.
4) learn to walk b4 run, let's move toward a 2 party sys first, a third voice / force will emerge when the people want it, rpk is still a boy on issue like democracy and political system.
All the rats as big as cats are coming out of the woodworks.Election time money really talks.Hindraf has long being bought by Umno.Or else how come Warthamoorthy can waltzed his way across the causeway.
ReplyDeleteThese tikus big as cats emerging from the woodworks include those bloggers who have now shown their true colours as the GE nears.
DeleteOne would notice that these bloggers have previously been rather ambiguous or appear to be quite neutral, but now have thrown caution to the wind, blatantly now displaying their newly-bought partisan colour. The power that be must really be desperate, every little bit count; and great wonders can be done with their deep pockets, sapu-ing even these bloggers.
the stupid idnians will go to a kerala indian, who called himself melayu
ReplyDelete