Where are our statesmen?

NOW 19 months after a new government began leading the country, the euphoria of a new Malaysia touted by the Pakatan Harapan government is slowly slipping away. The rising cost of living, protracted unemployment and underemployment, and Pakatan’s unfulfilled promises are some of the reasons that contribute to the public’s growing disgruntlement.

While it is indeed true that some promises require more time and coordinated efforts to be fulfilled, there are others that Pakatan has disregarded, such as the failure to shut down the Lynas rare earth plant, the failure to recognise the Unified Examination Certificate and the failure to grant the 20% oil royalty to Sabah and Sarawak.

Unlike their sharp criticisms against the former Barisan Nasional government when they were in the Opposition, the component parties within Pakatan are more restrained in their criticisms against government policies now. Although this is inevitable given that they are now part of the government, yet the deafening silence in speaking up on issues that matter betrays the ideals that they championed. As such, one cannot help but to wonder if these new political holders are more interested in maintaining their position of power or in realising the Pakatan manifesto.

Conversely, the Opposition bloc led by Barisan is doing what the Opposition should do: to play the role of checks and balances and to find allies in preparation for the next general election.

Politicians will always operate on the premise that changes in policies can only be made when they are in power. It is such a premise that led Umno and PAS to join hands and campaign on the concept of Muafakat Nasional (National Consensus). Although the two parties have steered clear from rallying people using race and religion and have chosen to promote moderation and multiculturalism, it remains to be seen whether this pact will harden racial polarisation in Malaysia. This is because these two parties still have a long way to go in rebranding their image. It is also hard to deny that the coming together of these two parties is meant to consolidate Malay votes first and advocating for moderation and national consensus second.

As Malaysia marches into the next decade, it seems that much has changed but much has also remained the same. Both Pakatan and Barisan are aware that no coalition can form the federal government with support from only one particular ethnic group. More likely than not, while the component parties of Pakatan will continue to appeal to multiracial and urban voters, Barisan will continue to court support by focusing on a parochial agenda. In essence, the country will still be mired by racial polarisation and the competition between the left and the right.

The paradox is that it is this very chorus of discordant voices and the divisions between Pakatan and Barisan that are important factors in Malaysian politics. The country needs moderate voices to drown out the conservative ones, yet must allow the conservative ones to air their grievances at the same time.

The country needs idealists to criticise the realists, but also requires the realists to make unpopular but feasible policies. As the various component parties in Pakatan help articulate the aspirations of the urban, liberal constituents, the country also needs Barisan to defend the parochial interests of conservative constituents. As counter intuitive as it may be, it is such divisions that have helped maintain the political equilibrium in Malaysia. And to dismiss any of these demands is against the principle of democracy.

Even so, power holders have to be responsible moderators of society. The government needs to give space for contention without allowing tension to boil over into violence. Beyond listening, the government needs to make meaningful, measured concessions on issues that matter. Importantly, it is critical to condemn and take action against those who violate societal norms with words or actions.

Conversely, Opposition parties need to be responsible about issues that they choose to exploit. They should always exercise prudence even as they attack the government. In short, neither party should twist and turn facts to obfuscate the public for its own political gain. Yet the perennial tragedy of politicians is that many are more interested in sustaining their political power rather than doing what is right. To some, short term gains tend to be prized over long term changes. This explains why political decisions based on popular demands are more likely to be made than those that have a lasting impact.

And many forget that there is a relation between keeping a promise and becoming more of a statesman. Even as political power is necessary in politics, it should be exercised by men and women who possess prudence and charity. Unfortunately, many politicians are more interested in being mere politicians rather than statesmen.

CHOONG PUI YEE Head of Research Institute of Strategic Analysis and Policy Research