Mat Sabu - a new Lee Lam Thye?

“I did not join PAS because of its Islamic platform or because I was anti-Umno. It was for want of a better democracy and it is a struggle which my colleagues and I continue until now.”

“Marx said that religion is the opium for the people … (In the past) priests supported cruel tsars, wages were neglected, Christian leaders supported oppressive monarchs, so if they wanted to bring social change (at the time), they have to reject religion."

“Religion is like opium too in Malaysia and in the Arab nations. This view is highly controversial … but I see religion being misused.”

- Mat Sabu in an interview with Malaysiakini

One of my fave Malaysiakini columnists, Sim Kwang Yang (a former DAP MP from Sarawak), wrote an interesting piece in response to Mat Sabu’s tongue-in-cheek suggestion that he would like to stand in the Chinese-majority constituency of Bukit Bintang (BB) – see MKINI Mat Sabu in BB – a mission not impossible?

Electorally, BB is virtually a Chinese fortress, where once Lee Lam Thye (DAP) reigned supreme. Lee L.T was so loved by the BB people that no one, not even Lim Kit Siang, would have dared to challenge him, let alone the silly MCA people. They including Lim KS would have been mercilessly massacred.

Those MCA candidates nominated by their party to stand against him were either unpopular with or unimportant to their party wakakaka. For a MCA bloke to be 'offered' as a sacrificial goat candidate to stand in BB against the invincible Lee L.T was like being handed the poison chalice. They became dispensable cannon fodder.

I believe only once had MCA taken the seat, and then, long after Lee L.T. had retired and only with the 'help' of a court decision a la (at that time, still futuristic) the malodorous Perakian manure.

Sim posed several interesting questions on the election prospects of Mat Sabu in BB. However, I take exception to one of Sim’s statement which unwittingly smacks of UMNO-ism. Sim wrote:

It is a sad reality in Malaysia that in popular politic, voters will support only a candidate from the same race and not from other races.

While Sim and others may find some truth in that, I beg to differ by providing the following evidence:

... that there are numerous non-Chinese DAP MPs such as (in Penang) Karpal Singh, Professor Rama, (in Perak) Kula, Manogaran, (in Selangor) Charles Santiago, Gobind Deo, (in NS) John Fernandez, ...

... and non-Chinese DAP ADUNs (not including a Perak frog), like (in Penang) Professor Rama, Jagdeep Singh, Tanasekharan, R Sanisvara Rayer, (in Perak) A Sivaesan, V Sivakumar. A Sivasubramaniam, (in Selangor) M Manoharan, and (in NS) S Veerapan, K Arumugum, P Gunasekaren ...

... who are in the majority representatives of Chinese-majority constituencies and thus voted into office by them.

Then there was my post about the late D.R. Seenivasagam, better known in his days as the ‘King of Ipoh’, a Chinese-majority city – see Obituary for PPP. Most of his and his brother's supporters were Chinese - just compare or rather contrast the popular standing of the Seenivasagan brothers with that of the politically-pariah status of Kayveas and his current PPP Indian leaders wakakaka.

The above examples offer incontrovertible truth as to why I find exception to Sim's statement that [Chinese] voters will support only a [Chinese] candidate ... and not from other races. The evidence shows otherwise, that they have supported and continue to support political leaders (of any ethnicity including those from UMNO and PAS) who would be fair to their genuine concerns.

OK, now let’s move to my favourite federal constituency of Bukit Bendera in the 2004 general election. Like BB (Bukit Bintang), Bukit Bendera (coincidentally also BB) is a Chinese-majority federal constituency, currently represented by DAP’s Liew Chin Tong.

But the DAP candidate in Bukit Bendera in 2004 was Zulkifli Mohd Noor.

B. Bendera then had the following breakdown of registered voters: 13.82% Malays, 73.97% Chinese and 11.07% Indians, with 1.14% others (presumably Eurasians and Thais?).

Zul won nearly 18000 of the 47000 votes, just a mere 5500 short of becoming the first* DAP Malay MP. Regardless of his loss, his achievement was no mean feat if we look at the above ethnic breakdown.

* correction to my error about DAP's 1st Malay MP - Ahmad Nor was the first DAP MP, He won the federal constituency of Bayan Baru in Penang in the 1990 general election.

Apparently, since 1969, 6 DAP Malay politicians won in elections – of course there was Ahmad Nor in the federal constituency of Bayan Baru, and 5 ADUNs (i) Ibrahim Singgeh; (ii) Haji Hassan bin Haji Ahmad; (iii) Daing Ibrahim Othman; (iv) Mohd Salleh Nakhoda Itam & (v) Fadzlan Yahya.

Even if all 14% Malays in that constituency had turned up to cast their ballots for Zulkifli (which was as likely as war criminal George Bush or Tony Blair winning the Nobel Peace Prize), he wouldn’t get more than 5000 votes. So make a guess as to where the other 13,000 plus votes came from?

Kaytee suspects one of the two reasons why Zulkifli didn’t roam all the way home was that he was a johnny-come-lately in the constituency (rather than a non Chinese). The DAP had failed to prepare him for or introduce him to the voters well ahead.

But despite being parachuted into B. Bendera at the eleventh hour, Zul did remarkably well. It's a pity and to kaytee's immense regrets that he didn't stand again in the same constituency in 2008.

The second reason was that his Gerakan opponent was the once-formidable wakakaka Chia Kwang Chye. The Gerakan was the party favoured by Penang hawkers and small business, and B. Bendera was home to many of them.

Today the DAP brand has high probability of winnability (regardless of the ethnicity of its candidates) because voters have confidence that candidates from the DAP party will look after their interests [as once Gerakan had until it sold its 'soul' to UMNO].

This factor is what wins voters' support, as it once did for D.R Seenivasagam and Lee Lam Thye. And that’s the precise reason a non-Chinese like Karpal Singh has become an iconic institution in Gelugor, not unlike D.R Seenivasagam, the late 'King of Ipoh', and the once equally invincible Lee Lam Thye was in B.B.

Ironically, it was the voters’ perception in 1999 that the DAP had sold out to PAS and its frightening Islamic hudud laws that saw Karpal and Lim Kit Siang losing.

But if the Pakatan Rakyat wishes to venture on a no-ethnicity campaign such as standing Mat Sabu in BB, it has to prepare the voters for it, as should have been the case in Bukit Bendera in 2004.

On his part, Mat Sabu as the new exciting PAS personality, beside the incomparable Nizar Jamaluddin, must strike a balance between PAS' Islamic values and its multi-ethnic multi-cultural credentials.

I suggest that PAS marries the two into an Islamic anti-corruption, pro-justice and pro-welfare policy for all under the current Malaysian civil legislative arrangements, rather than become obsessed with implementing hudud laws per se.

There's no evidence whatsoever that hudud will reduce, let alone eliminate corruption and oppression - for proof, just look at the terrible state of affairs in hudud-governed Pakistan (which even condones 'revenge-rapes'), Bangladesh, Saudi Arabia, Iran and a host of other Islamic nations. Where then is the empirical evidence that hudud is the 'silver bullet' to rid Malaysia of corruption, oppression and injustice?

By contrast, examine and admire the non or minimal corruptibility of the secular governance practised by Scandinavian countries, New Zealand, Australia and our neighbour, Singapore.

Tell me, between having hudud in the midst of continuing injustice, corruption & oppression or a secular governance (but under genuine/sincere Islamic leadership) that doesn't tolerate corruption nor oppression and ensure justice for all, which will meaningfully glorify Allah swt?