what do opposition parties really offer? nothing?
And the grand answer to that is: “I don’t know”. This afternoon while juggling several assignments, I began wondering about this while reminiscing about some heated arguments I’ve had with Singaporeans over the usefulness of an opposition party in parliament: what really is the use of an opposition party? You know the host of answers to these, which basically boil down to one or more of the following:-
- As a check and balance to Big Brother
- To present an alternative solution to issues
- To represent minority interests (huh.. if at all)
- To present a veneer of the democratic process…
Ok, ignore the last bit, a little uncalled-for, eh? What prompted me to think about this was something I remembered reading: if one were to vote opposition, what would one be voting for? The essential question is: what alternative would one be gunning for? What alternative policies? What alternative ways of running the country?
Because, when discussing that whole Chee Soon Juan (CSJ) fiasco, no one seemed to be asking: what are his policies? What would he do for the economy? What concrete steps will be taken, and what are the consequences?
The same damn question can be asked of opposition politicians in our country. Head to Wikipedia and look up the list of political parties in Malaysia. Or just head here. Now, if you’d like, visit all the entries, and where websites are available, visit each opposition political party’s website.
There’s the DAP website.
There’s the Keadilan website.
There’s the PAS website.
Now for each of the major opposition political party websites, the only one that pretends to give a set of ideals or principles clearly set out is the Keadilan website. We could speculate on the “why”, but as I recall, there was some hoo-haa over Keadilan’s lack of purpose. Maybe this was the reaction.
But what happened to the rest? Just what does DAP stand for? Or PAS? What solutions to our socio-economic situation, concrete solutions, do they propose? Heck, take a look at Keadilan’s core principles: all generalities, but nothing concrete.
2. To promote respect for the system of Constitutional Monarchy, strengthen Parliamentary Democracy and support the rights and power of the people, whilst endeavouring always to improve the nation’s political framework in line with the wishes and interests of the people.
3. To establish and promote the rule of just law, an independent mass media and judiciary, and institutions for security that uphold principles of professionalism.
4. To guarantee freedom of conscience, speech, movement, public assembly and association for all.
Yes, but what are your proposals?
You and I could be fighting for justice and freedom of expression, but both of us could have vastly different policies toward that end. Now imagine if you or I are political parties: if we really did know what we wanted for Malaysia, Malaysians would know what they would be standing for if they voted for either of us. But now? Now I don’t even know what all these opposition parties seem to be saying.
All have vague statements about fighting for justice, freedom and such, all in opposition to the incumbent’s practices. They have let BN define their purpose. Do you understand what I’m saying? It’s like when a person pisses you off: you have just allowed that person to control your emotions, controlled your reaction. That’s what it all is: reactionary.
Vague generalities and nothing concrete. Why is this? Click on DAP’s “The 3rd Vote” link, and you see a long essay-ish something extolling the virtues of democracy — yes, well and good, but what specific policy changes would you enact, or what Bills would you like passed through Parliament, for example, to further that vision?
The whole thing smells like an opposition party appealing to the rakyat to vote them in as an stop-gap measure, and not a full fledged party ready to take on the reigns of government. What confidence can this inspire?
Is this asking too much? Am I being unrealistic? Well, how else are you going to counter the argument that opposition parties don’t have the requisite experience to run any damn thing? Because you and I just know that’s what BN’s going to toss in the collective faces of opposition politicians.
The next most important question that arises, to my mind, is this: what can we do to help concretize these aspirations?


you vote for reason 1. for me it’s not about victory, it’s about letting the government knows that people have choices if they’re unhappy with the way things are. the current government is getting way too arrogant due to the landslide victories. i don’t mind them in power, as long as it doesnt go to their heads.
Comment by kimberlycun — Wednesday, 23 November 2005 @ 8:07 pm
it’s just frustrating because time and again, my conscience tells me to vote opposition for all the reasons above. but the opposition should strive for something more than being merely the pebble that stops a slide downhill. it’s got to mean something, and it’s got to tell people what it means in very real ways.
DAP, for example, fights for democracy and justice. To be honest, if we were to be superficial about it, we in fact do have a democratic process with respect to general elections and such. But just how in the world did BN win a landslide 90+%? It’s just worrying lor: it’s as if people in Malaysia are voting the way they vote in Singapore - the incumbent’s got a proven record and the opposition don’t.
Comment by xpyre — Wednesday, 23 November 2005 @ 8:15 pm
Well the sad thing is that people take things for granted. That’s the problem. We place the importance of elections in the wrong place in where we think its about the party and how well they sell themselves. or how we should elect the opposition because the current government has been in power for far too long or you don’t like who’s in charge.
It isn’t about all that. Democracy in a country is simply standing up for what you believe in. If your district representative says he stands up for a certain policy you agree strongly in…then by all means even if you don’t like the party as a whole, if no one else in your area stands up for those belief you want…then its your prerogative to vote for him.
People whine about how the current government is in power and not doing a thing about things. Well…government reflects the community in which they were elected from, if you don’t like it…ask yourself who put them there in the first place.
Comment by Edrei — Wednesday, 23 November 2005 @ 8:35 pm
if we have to be realistic, pandering to the public has always been an essential ingredient of getting the public behind you. this requirement is old, and understood by athen’s first citizen way back then. There’s nothing wrong with making your party look ’sexy’ to the public, but there must be a modicum of substance there.
True, democracy may just be about standing up for what we believe in, but what happens when someone questions you about the content of your beliefs?
We have a duty to vote if we want to change government; I’ve blogged about it here. But acting without a clarified purpose is just as damaging as not voting, I’m begining to think.
I think we’ve got to understand that it can’t be just about voting in an opposition party to act as a check and balance; we have an idea of what we want, and we really are the decision-makers. If the opposition can’t tell me how they’re going to improve things, I’d rather side with the devil I know rather than the devil I don’t.
I mean, think about it the average Malaysian: a salaried worker earning minimum wage with 2.6 kids to feed, clothe and send to school, a car to pay, a mortgage to service, etc.
What reason does such a person have to potentially jeopardize his already-meager earnings with opposition politicians who can’t seem to tell us where they want to go?
Comment by xpyre — Wednesday, 23 November 2005 @ 8:59 pm
Dear Xpyre, your concerns are valid. Oppositions have been reactionary, only criticize when BN makes mistakes. They failed to present a better alternative in a comprehensive way to illustrate to the citizens the ideal state of good governance. However, it is already in the pipelines to present wholesome policy papers especially on issues close to people’s hearts. It will be featured prominently in the website.
Also, you’ve pointed out that there’s a difference between the core principles, which for some are genaral or even vague, and concrete proposals. Yes. Ideals should be supported by concrete proposals, else they just remain as rhetorics. For Parti Keadilan, the 17 guiding principles are the basis of policy formulation.
I am sure you have heard of some of opposition’s proposals, for example, to limit Premiership to a maximum of two terms, to make Anti-Corruption Agency answerable to the Parliament, to revive Local Council elections so they are no longer insulated from people’s vscrutiny, to provide better public transport by improving the service standard and expanding the network coverage etc.
For everyone’s convenience, we have just uploaded the Alternative Front Joint Manifesto 2004 in the website, in which you might find some concrete proposals.
Thanks for pointing out our shortcomings. Do share with us your ideas and views in the future. Have a nice day.
Comment by Webmaster KR.org — Thursday, 24 November 2005 @ 6:29 am
Dear KR webmaster,
Thanks for your very swift response, and for posting the manifesto up for everyone to see and mull over; I think it will do a lot of good for people who want to think through issues in a constructive and concrete way, especially as this can be done on the net much easier and among young fellas who are usually more politically apathetic.
I’ll update my post with a link to the manifesto. As for the new policy proposals, I look forward, as will other netizens and citizens, to having them posted on your website. I hope the other opposition websites follow suit from your example.
Thanks again!
Comment by xpyre — Thursday, 24 November 2005 @ 7:27 am