There is much talk these days of internal strife within Pakatan Rakyat. These talk generally comes from people who does and does not matter. (Lest I upset anybody–put yourself where you think you deserve to be). They make their comments from information based on what crumbs they obtained from government control media, talk in the kedai kopi and hastily scribbled messages over the net (careful here brother and sisters–the SB is looking over your shoulder!) Let us be clear on a few things.
PR is a coalition that celebrates diversity – in religious, racial and political beliefs. What do you expect? We have a past UMNO President that left the party until what he perceived were wrongs was made right. Do you think this past President and the past PM before Najib would ever be able to sit and converse in a civil manner? No they will not be able to. Do you think the past UMNO Ketua Wanita and the current Ketua Wanita would be able to sit and chat over a teh tarik. No they cannot. We are talking about a party established over 50 years ago having problems at the highest level – out in the open for all to see.
Why have there not been problems between UMNO, MIC, and MCA? At least to the naked eye we see no hostility between these parties. I will tell you why. MCA and MIC are without meaningful representations within Barisan. Like sheep they follow the herd. If there dare to dissent they will be sent to the corner complete with a “DUNCE” cap on their head…and then there is detention class if there is more dissent. You have that ridiculous situation of MIC preventing a deserved entry by IPF into Barisan simply because that Samy son of Velu (not MIC per se but Samy Velu in his individual capacity) said “NO”. And he continued to say “NO” until realizing that Pandithan was no longer a threat because he had not too long to live – he then said something to the effect of “Let us bury the hatchet”…yes we will right into your back!
In as far as MCA is concern – they have their hands in the Nation’s pocket as deep as UMNO. Birds of a feather ……need I say more?
In PR they call a durian a durian. Of course it is difficult for PAS to work with DAP. Hell PAS cannot work even with UMNO – their previous partners in the years gone by. PAS are Malays. UMNO are Malays. PAS are Muslims. UMNO are Muslims. So what is the problem? They cannot see eye to eye on too many issues and for these Malays and Muslims to sit together and discuss matters relating to their race and their religion is almost impossible. Not even (as UMNO has so often pleaded) for their own vested interests or Malay unity.
So where does that put DAP and PAS in the scheme of things. Will there ever be consensus on what will arise in the governing of our country? There will be times when there is consensus and times when that is impossible to achieve. What matter, and this have been proven over time, what matters is the willingness to talk to each other openly, agree to disagree and then together with Keadilan – come to a consensus on what needs to be done and what can be done taking into consideration each other’s point of view and the realities of a multi ethnic situation. In as long as they are able to do so – and they have been able to do so – then the goodwill and trust generated through the last election will flow on to the next. What will come after that is for time to tell.
Realistically dissent and disagreement on many issues will from time to time dominate this coalition. At times in the heat of the moment there will be need for our leader to take the wisest course of action – step back and allow for tempers and personalities to cool down – then in a calm and focus manner – sit down to work out what is possible and acceptable to PR and the people.
If we think this through carefully we will need to acknowledge the possibility of disagreement on many issues and make space and functionality adequate to allow for time and common sense to be the decider of any disputes – that agreeing to disagree amongst ourselves should be the solution and not be part of the problem. That we will agree to disagree to ensure that in consultation with each other, we will hope to find solutions to the problems we have and move forward upon settling them
What we need to fear is an attempt by PR leadership / decision-making process to emulate the situation in UMNO/Barisan. That no dissent is good news – until you lose 4 states as Barisan did, until you lose a sitting PM as UMNO has, until you have forces within UMNO that can no longer be silent, then all hell break lose after the fact. It’s to late.
So let there be healthy dissent within the coalition of the willing against a coalition of desperate people. Let us move forward and accept that healthy dissent is good. That strife within Pakatan Rakyat is a given fact of life. Let us agree to disagree and move forward.
PR partners can disagree all they like and and hang their dirty linen out for all and sundry to see. As long as the process ensures the rakyat is the centre of their face-offs, ie., (i) it is transparent and open for us all to see and know the REAL issues, (ii) because they each are pushing each other to serve the interets of the rakyat, and (iii) most important of all, to ALWAYS, ALWAYS consider the needs and interests of ALL MALAYSIANS, not the ketuanan of Melayu over the rest. There is a huge enough base of Malays in PR to be able to force a swing towards all-things Malay. But if that happens then (i) PR will just be another BN where ketuanan Melayu rides roughshod over everyone else (ii) since there’s no longer any real change, any hope for change the non-Malays will gravitate away from the whole idea of a Malaysia for all Malaysians, a people living as one nation – no, not the bullcrap 1UMNO MALAYSIA ala 1NAJIB-MUYIDDIN tango to disaster.
I fully agree with Hussein Hamid that Pakatan Rakyat should agree to disagree.That this line of rational thinking has not been able to take hold since Independence is due to the racial politics.
The cornerstone of the success of PR has to be exercising rational thinking (agree to disagree) and sincerity among the partners. Actually we can’t think of any other better way given the racial and religious diversity of the country.
No two rocks can be the same…yes, debate to agree to disagree…. only be more careful that your political enemies will not be given an opportunity to exploit the situation…nothing cannot be settle amicably…cool heads the way to go.
At least Pakatan are equal partners in the Alliance…not like the coalition, you have an untouchable superior master, kiss on the butt by political beggars of the component parties.
To Agree or Not to Agree, that is the question. You have a joker coming out of the blue and screaming No Beer! No Beer!, how would you want a beer barrel like me to react. We don’t have this problem even in Dubai. Beer was never an issue here in post-war Malaya/Msia. Just because a joker (who behave like a umno trojan) said no beer and we have to sit and act stupid. Its like having a bad apple in a basket left to contaminate the rest of the good apples. Hell NO brother. I say we flush this rotten piece down the deepest cesspoole.
Mr. Lim, that is the most eloquent argument I have heard. PR has great leaders with sharp minds, honed from decades of dealing with unreasonable behavior of BN.
Agreeing to Disagree must be rational and not taken in lock, stock and beer barrel. For example, National issues like language medium in schools, Mat Rempit, Crime prevention, sacking the InGePo-rengeh, extending aids to the poor fishermen, these we can talk, even till the lembu comes home. But when a leather (or is it leader) tries to take away its bosses’ rights in a democratic nation such as ours (is it still?), I say Bulls.
Of course, PR can agree to disagree. It is the details that worry us. They must agree in majors and agree to disagree in minors. Now what is major and what is minor, must be clearly thrashed out behind closed doors. If you cannot agree behind closed doors on the majors ( things that are deemed sacrosanct to your party ), then there can be no coalition, much as we wish to topple BN.
At this point in our history, we need statemen. Someone who can lead and hold us all together.
Agree to disagree is ok BUT do not sabotage or make stupid allegations like what we have been seeing with Wee, Azmin, Johari and all. That is plain stupid.
Why is Udayakumar and the MIC keeping mum when these Indians are offered flats and not double-story houses?
http://streets.nst.com.my/Saturday/Stories/2455309/Article
Now that the world-famous pathologist Dr Khairul Azman from Bolehland has put forward his mind-blogging theory that TBH has in fact committed suicide, a type-written suicide note will be “found” by the macc, the contents of which goes roughly like this:
Dear All,
My good friends from the macc while interrogating me have finally convinced me that I have actually come from the planet Krypton. They have traced my family tree to prove that I am actually the younger brother of Clark Kent who lives in Smallesville, USA. So I am going to fly home after this interview by leaping from the widow….
You can’t force people to agree with each other, that’s never going to happen. If you did somehow manage to make it ‘worth their while’ to always agree, you would be UMNO. How can a minister represent his constituents if he can’t speak his mind? They cannot just be party sheep.
Having said that, LKS often calls for resignations from BN. I’d like to see him apply the same standard to his own party. At very least, conduct a straw poll in a trouble-maker’s constituency to see if he retains the support of the constituents (the prospect should be embarrassing enough, unless they really are Joan of Arc).
Arguing is healthy. Quarreling is not. Some of the arguments have a genuine basis to them, a very few of the quarrels do appear to be just kok fighting. LKS wrote some time ago about disciplinary action – let’s see it in action. The next disappointing idiot that stands up, let’s check with their electors if they really are exercising their mandate or promoting something more selfish.
A healthy discussion will consider the views of all parties, strengthen the common areas of agreement and accept that some differences can be accepted – but without mud-slinging etc.
Otherwise PR will end up like BN where UMNO says “Jump!” and everyone else asks “How high?”
After years, nobody stops to think anymore and you create the master-servant chain.
In order for PR to grow into a meaningful coalition, either in a formal or informal manner, dissent must definitely be allowed. Dissent can bring up weaknesses that can then be corrected or eradicated. Otherwise such weaknesses that have been bottled up may explode at the wrong time and cause PR to disintegrate. Unfortunately behaviour of some prominent PR members is to my mind beyond dissent. Clear examples are Zulkifli Noordin and Wee Choo Keong.
Zulkifli Noordin is an Islamic fanatic who believes that he can say and do anything, even against his own PKR and PR comrades, if at all he is capable of considering them to be comrades, as long as it is in the name of defending Islam. He even condemns other Muslims if their understanding of Islam is different from his own.
Wee Choo Keong has always appeared to me to have a really mean and nasty streak. With him as a friend you do not need enemies. I noticed that when he decides to conduct personal vengeance he does not care if his actions will jeopardize the PR coalition. He perceives his conduct of personal vengeance as an expression of dissent and believes that it is his right and duty to express such dissent.
Agreeing to disagree is not easy because the party had to come to agreement in the first place. Having agreed to disagree, then it would be possible to look into the interests the various parties are trying to protect through taking the positions which the parties concerned could not agree in the first place. There are times when a position taken does more than protecting the interests at stake, and it would be possible to change the position but keeping the interest intact. That is the art of negotiation. For that to happen, the parties should be open to state what the interest are that the parties concerned are out to protect. Unfortunately while the position can change, the interest will not.
Third paragraph, fourth line from the top, the word should be “they” and not “there”, {If [they] there dare to dissent they will be sent to the corner complete…..}
The piece is a little idealistic – talk is easy, doing it is tough. Agree to disagree is acceptable if the parties are not in government. Once they form the government, it would be very difficult. How to we govern a country by parties “who agree to disagree”. Are we going to have “different governments” on different issues or “different governments” in different regions?
Despite the differences in ideologies among the PR coalitions, I think it is time they form a common ground while time is still permissible. What are the principles of forming the common ground? 1. Look for inclusiveness rather than exclusiveness; 2. Avoid intrusiveness; 3. Go for cosmopolitanism and openness; and 4. Embrace internationalism.
I must warn PAS that this is not DAP’s philosophy. This is the universal trend every nation, race and tribe is striving to attain. The opposite would be backwardness, ignorance, exploitation and bigotry. Governments must base on enduring institutions, not personality. Governments must base on the collective will and wisdom of the people; not a body that exercise full power and authority but not elected by the people. PAS should understand what I meant.
One more thing. Right now we see lots of open disagreements and debates within PR. Are these due to the fact that they have nothing much to lose should they get a sack? Once PR forms the government, I think the situation may be different – the tendency to please and not to rock the boat would be there.
Yes, I agree BN components are docile. That is because they have lots to gain personally by being docile, not because they can’t see the wrong being made right. The lure of government positions and perks are real. Only ignorant people think these are unimportant. Otherwise how do we explain only the ex-ministers, ex-MPs, ex-ADUNs and ex-Ketua Bahagian or cawangan of BN are speaking up against BN or joining PRvnow . I must say PR should not feel too happy taking these left-over.
….are speaking up against BN or joining PR now .
In order for PR to grow into a meaningful coalition, either in a formal or informal manner, dissent must definitely be allowed. Dissent can expose weaknesses that can then be either improved or eradicated. Otherwise such weaknesses may explode at the wrong time and cause PR to disintegrate. Unfortunately behaviour of some prominent PR members has gone beyond dissent. Clear examples are Zulkifli Noordin and Wee Choo Keong.
Zulkifli Noordin is an Islamic fanatic who believes that he can say and do anything, even against his PKR or other PR comrades (if at all he is capable of considering them as comrades) as long as it is in the name of defending Islam. He expresses dissent in the form of defending Islam.
Wee Choo Keong has always appeared to me to have a real mean and nasty streak. With him as a friend you do not need enemies. I notice that when he decides to conduct personal vengeance he does not care if his actions will jeopardize the PR coalition. To him unleashing personal vengeance is part and parcel of expressing dissent and it is his right and duty to express dissent.
PR leaders must remember that their main agenda is to topple BN in the interest of the people.Now do they still want to do that ? PR main target is BN not DAP.not PAS and not PKR. Only fools target themselves.My suggestion to PR is,put every disagreements aside,pool all resoures together,aim at BN and make it pretty sure to hit BN down when the moment of war begins.When the war is won,then settle all disputes in the interest of the people and country like true patriots.
There is much talk these days of internal strife within Pakatan Rakyat. These talk generally comes from people who does and does not matter. (Lest I upset anybody–put yourself where you think you deserve to be). They make their comments from information based on what crumbs they obtained from government control media, talk in the kedai kopi and hastily scribbled messages over the net (careful here brother and sisters–the SB is looking over your shoulder!) Let us be clear on a few things.
Now, now, now… the above are sweeping statements that are as bad as those coming out of UMNO. Your half past six article does not talk about PAS holding unity talks with UMNO… a crucial fact. To omit a crucial fact is as good as telling a lie… a lie by omission. Are you denying that PAS never ever negotiate with UMNO on the possibility of returning to BN while still married to PR? We are not blind. When your wife is going out with another man, tell me what that means to your so-called Pakatan Rakyat coalition. Of all the 3 PR members, DAP is still the one that practically never wavers. Anwar Ibrahim is PKR and PKR is Anwar Ibrahim. And Anwar Ibrahim cannot get out of his past… like buying ADUNS.
Come what may, I see the end of UMNO in the 13th General Election. PR will shoot its own foot, yes, but even being unable to run, they will still win because UMNO is going to help them by kicking the ball into their own goalpost yet again. That’s a very stupid statement that anyone can make. You mean UMNO never learn from the lessons of the 12th General Election and is going to repeat the same mistake? Well, look at what they are doing now and tell me. I still have much faith in the RAHMAN Prophesy that predicts an end for UMNO after Najib has fulfilled the prophesy.
What I forsee is an Anwar-led coalition in the mold of UMNO. In other words, they will behave exactly like UMNO. So no difference, right? But we need a two-party system in Malaysia, so different or not different, I will still support an alternative party… definitely not BN.
I hate to say this but toppling BN is the lousiest agenda. Providing the people with an alternative political party that will serve the Rakyat and ensure national growth is what we need.
GE12 was about toppling BN and look what we got? Some really incompetent ADUNs and MPs.
ekompute … I like your outlook about DSAI. Yes, that is what he truly is. Full of BS only. A man who hides and plays behind. Never daring to speak up against what is wring within.
The Thu meeting has taken place. Let’s see its true results, if not, RPK has made it clear, time to give ALL politicians a TIGHT SLAP.
///….Are you denying that PAS never ever negotiate with UMNO on the possibility of returning to BN while still married to PR? We are not blind. When your wife is going out with another man, tell me what that means to your so-called Pakatan Rakyat coalition/// -ekompute posting #18, August 15th, 2009 13:02 .
To extend your analogy: it depends on the power relations between man and flirting wife! If man is self respecting and can stand on his own, it is a development better earlier known than later. He’d say to the unfaithful wife, you can go for good, its good riddance to bad rubbish, and he has regained his freedom to be on his own once again and to even form other better liaisons, if any.
However if this man cannot stay on his own alone – cannot chart his nown destiny – but depends on the wife for his daily sustenance, his well being and future career, then he’d close one eye, forget his pride, suffer taunts, for so long as he needs her more than she needs him…….This is powers relations.
Get the picture?
Hi Jeffrey, I think PR is better off without PAS. PAS is such an unreliable partner that it may just walk out of the coalition anytime.
I think Jeff is old for sure, they way he speaks, definately old la. Also, a lawyer … hahahahaahaha …
ekompute … PAS has a few bad apples, maybe time to can those bad apples?
To agree with one another is a blessing, to differ is natural.
The important thing is to know how to disagree in an elegant way, a family way or a friendly way.
The highest aim is to topple Umnoputras and the Utusans.
If all are comitted to this objective, the rest are secondary.
Remember this parable?
“A number of blind men came to an elephant. Somebody told them that it was an elephant. The blind men asked, ‘What is the elephant like?’ and they began to touch its body. One of them said: ‘It is like a pillar.’ This blind man had only touched its leg. Another man said, ‘The elephant is like a husking basket.’ This person had touched its ears…”