I wish to debate with RPK/MCLM/Malaysia-Today/anybody, on the relevance of the 3rd Force.!!!
My opinions are as follows..
I do not think that it is the right time for a 3rd Force yet.!!!
This is because ..
We have not evolved into a two party system yet,because,..
UMNO/BN is still a monopoly in Malaysian politics (one party politics by hook or by crook).Thus the need to break the monopoly first, by voting in an alternative party, i.e. a second party such as Pakatan Rakyat, to take over the government.
If Pakatan Rakyat had ruled and proven themselves capable and truely Democratic, then the 3rd Force is not relevant.
If Pakatan rakyat had ruled and proven themselves samiliar or worse than UMNO/BN, then and,then only is a 3rd Force or 3rd alternative party needed.
A 3rd Force is releven only when the two parties had each ruled the country but due to similiarities in vision and mission,it appears that the people are voting in the same party or people.
When corruption creeps into the two party system,both parties takes on similiar vision and missione in economics and politics ,most noticeable of which is serving their Evil Puppet Masters, one that exploits the people and enriches the ruling class.
Britain and America are good examples of two party political system that had become as one due to similiar economic and political vision and mission due to having the same Puppet Masters controlling them.
MCLMs involvement as a 3rd force might jeapodise the evolution of a "truely working two party system",especially if there is a three cornered fight in the coming elections.!!!
Our priority is to establist a two party system that works first.!!!
Thus my reasons for saying that the 3rd Force is no relevant yet.!!!
The due process of evolution from a "one party political systen" into a"working two party system" is most critical for the gradual improvement of our political system in Malaysia.!!!
I therefore advice the MCLM to not involve themselves in in future elections yet.!!!
=======================================================================
This is Raja Petra Kamaruddins reply,...
Your arguments are almost the same as what Datuk Zaid Ibrahim said in September last year. You, just like Datuk Zaid, argue that we must first make sure that Malaysia sees a two-party system before we talk about a third force.
I have asked this question many times before: how do we make sure that this happens? You, just like many people, talk about what we must see happen. However, just like many people, you have not offered solutions on how we can make sure that this happens.
Okay, we hear what you want to see happen: the emergence of a two-party system. Can you now tell us how you propose this happens?
I know what you will say, as most will say -- and that is we make sure this will happen by making sure that there are no three-corner fights and only straight fights between Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat.
How are you going to make sure that there are no three-corner (or four-corner or more) fights? In the 1999, 2004 and 2008 general elections there were many three-corner fights. In the recent Sabah by-election there was a three-corner fight. And it was not because of MCLM.
Sometimes the three-corner fights are triggered by frustrated BN or PR members who were not chosen to contest the election. So they resign from their party and contest as independent candidates. Sometimes the candidates are party candidates.
How do you stop three-corner fights when the Federal Constitution allows anyone to contest and the candidates are regarded as individuals and not party candidates? In fact, legally, it is not parties but individuals who contest the election.
Now, on the issue of a two-party system, Malaysia does not have a two-party system. It has more than 20 parties, 17 of which are in two coalitions, Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat.
If we want to see a two-party system then Pakatan Rakyat must take the lead by closing down PAS, DAP and PKR and the members of these three parties join just one party. Maybe that one party can be called Pakatan Rakyat. But then Pakatan Rakyat must be legally registered.
So we will then have one opposition party as opposed to three in Pakatan Rakyat and another five or six not in either Pakatan Rakyat or Barisan Nasiional. Will PRM, PSM, KITA and those opposition parties in Sabah and Sarawak also agree to close down and its members join the newly registered opposition party, Pakatan Rakyat?
Then the 14 parties in Barisan Nasional will also have to close down and the members of Umno, MCA, MIC, Gerakan, PPP and the 9 Sabah and Sarawak parties will all have to join Barisan Nasional as direct members.
How can we talk about a two-party system when we have more than 20 parties and all refuse to merge into one party or into two-parties? Can you see DAP and PAS closing down and the DAP and PAS members all joining one party? Let’s start from there. PKR will also have to do the same as would PSM, PRM, KITA, etc.
Can you see Umno closing down and the three million Malay members joining a non-Malay party together with ex-members of MCA, MIC, Gerakan, PPP, etc?
So you say let’s talk about a third force only after we see a two-party system. I say we can’t talk about a third force after we see the emergence of a two-party system because it is like saying we shall talk about it only after the sun rises from the west and sets in the east. It is something that will never happen. So does this mean we therefore never talk about it till the end of time?
You say we talk about the third force only after Pakatan Rakyat comes to power. But you have not explained how Pakatan Rakyat can come to power. What is the formula for Pakatan Rakyat to come to power? If making sure that there are only straight fights and no three-corner fights is the solution for Pakatan Rakyat to come to power then why have they not come to power before this?
In many seats that saw straight fights, Barisan Nasional won and Pakatan Rakyat lost. If straight fights are all it needs for Pakatan Rakyat to win then why did it not win? Why did it still lose?
This means it requires more than just straight fights for Pakatan Rakyat to win. Can you tell me then what Pakatan Rakyat needs to do to win? You have not said so. And MLCM is telling Pakatan Rakyat what it needs to do to increase its chances of winning. And MCLM is also trying to contribute to that effort. This is more than what you are doing other than telling us what we don’t need but not telling us what we need.
You are saying that our priority is first to establish a two-party system that works. I say you can’t even establish a two-party system, let alone one that works. Anyhow, how do we establish a two-party system that works when we don’t, at the very beginning, establish the principles of what works and what does not work?
That is what MCLM is trying to do. We want to establish the standards for the government. We want to establish guidelines on what we consider a working government and what we consider a failed government. You say you want a working government. But you do not even know what works and how to make sure it works. MCLM takes that extra step in trying to talk to the political parties as to how the country should be run and what type of government we want.
You used Britain as an example. And as you rightly pointed out, Britain’s political parties do not differ much in ideology. And you say that only when the different parties in Malaysia do not differ in ideology, like in Britain, can we consider a third force.
British voters vote based on the performance of the government. Malaysian voters vote based on race, religion, language, vernacular schools, mother-tongue education, and so on. Malaysians do not vote based on performance, abuse of power, wrongdoing, corruption, the economy and other more important issues that the British voters look at.
Will Malaysia ever see this happen? Malaysia’s political parties are a world apart in ideology. So people vote based on emotions and sentiments and not on whether the government is doing a good job.
So how will Malaysia ever attain the level of Britain when the criteria of how you choose a government in Malaysia is not the same as how they do so in Britain? Your argument, therefore, is flawed.
You argue that when Malaysia is the same as Britain only then can we consider a third force. I say that we need a third force to ensure that Malaysian politics reaches the maturity level of that in Britain. It is not something we do only after we reach that level. It is something we do to make sure we reach that level.
So, as you can see, your points are all empty rhetoric and void of substance. Anyone can say what you are saying if you do not need to back what you say with hard facts. You offered no facts. You offered no solutions. You have no plan. You are someone who sits and says he wishes he could become rich by winning a lottery but have never bought a lottery in his entire life. This is daydreaming or angan-angan.
=========================================================
Pak Yehs response.
I thank you for your response to debate.
RPK said :
You argue that when Malaysia is the same as Britain only then can we consider a third force. I say that we need a third force to ensure that Malaysian politics reaches the maturity level of that in Britain. It is not something we do only after we reach that level. It is something we do to make sure we reach that level.
Pak Yehs reply :
In the Quran there is a verse that says that Allah has created all things in pairs.
In Politics there is only two factions, the antagonist and the protagonist, the good versus the bad,the left vesus the right.The third party is often refered to by Allah as the hipocrits who are a mixture of both.Marxist would define it further by calling it the class struggle between the bogoise/haves/rich/kings and the prolitariat/have nots/poor/slaves.
Since Social Scientist and Allah Himself says there is ony two groups, in which group do you belong. A third group does not exist. Ypu have to join either one to play an antagonst or a protagonist, a ying or a yang in this world abides by the Tao philosophy.
====================================================
RPK said :
So, as you can see, your points are all empty rhetoric and void of substance. Anyone can say what you are saying if you do not need to back what you say with hard facts. You offered no facts. You offered no solutions. You have no plan. You are someone who sits and says he wishes he could become rich by winning a lottery but have never bought a lottery in his entire life. This is daydreaming or angan-angan.
=================================================================
Pak Yehs reply:
The debate/ball game is just about to start, yet you have claimed yourself as winner.???
Cool it man.!!! Allow me to debate your points first.!!!
If you really desperate to win, better I dont need to play the game/debate with you hah???.
And dear respected RPK,.. No need to personal attack me by saying my grammar is bad and that I am a dreamer/angan2. There is nothing wrong with dreaming/angan2. Those who dare dream big dreams are the successful ones.History will tell you this.
Dont tell me you do not dream too.???
Maybe we should not care who wins, as long as the truth comes out the winner.!!!
=======================================================
RPK said :
Your arguments are almost the same as what Datuk Zaid Ibrahim said in September last year. You, just like Datuk Zaid, argue that we must first make sure that Malaysia sees a two-party system before we talk about a third force.
I have asked this question many times before: how do we make sure that this happens? You, just like many people, talk about what we must see happen. However, just like many people, you have not offered solutions on how we can make sure that this happens.
=================================================================
Pak Yehs reply:
Do you not see that the many parties are really divided into two parties(Pakatan Rakyat and Barisan National) now???..
The divide is by natural selection ("birds of a feather flock together"), "good versus evil","left ekonomics versus right economics", antagonist versus protagonist.???
It is Allahs will to divide people into the good versus the bad.!!!
You, Mr RPK have to choose which side you are with. You have to decide which party is good and which party is bad, and join or support it.!!!
By you, Mr RPK attacking the good side.like your article saying PKR is worst than UMNO is like someone who does not know who his enemy is. I put in a comment saying that you were talking through your bum/asshole.
You cannot beat up your friends like that.IIt just shows that you could have been paid by UMNO/BN.!!!
The Quran says that if you are not with the good, you are witj the bad, and if you are not with either one than you are the mushrik/hipocrits.!!!
My debate here is enough to burn your ass, but it is through your own foolishness.
You have a confloct of interest between the forces of good (Pakatan Rakyat) and the forces of bad (barisan National).
So Mr RPK are you with the antagonist or are you with the protagonist.??? Are you with the "Forces of Good" or are you with the "Forces of Evil".???
Your actions of late confused the rakyat and the forces of good.
I do hope you have not been bought by Sanusi and Mamak Kutty to be a spoiler and fallen to the dark side.???.
As for more than three or more cornered fights in elections, it is still a fight between the goog and the bad. There are only two side of a coin/of life, the good side and the bad side.!!!
Birds of a feather flock together.!!!
Please be cool (peace) brother.!!!
Its only a debate. No hard feelong.!
I respect you very much brother. I even wrote a pantun.. "Pantun:RPK 4 PM" on my blog. But it is a brothers right to debate and hopefully be guided to the straight path.!!!
Salam Alaikum.
==========================================================================
RPKs reply.
Raja Petra Kamarudin
Pak Yeh has responded to my reply to him, which you can read below (I have not edited anything, not even the typos). I would now like to reply to some of the points he raised, which are as follows:
On that there should only be a pair, two sides to a coin, good and bad, black and white, left and right, ying and yang, and so on (as ordained by God and mentioned in the Quran, as you said), I would have to disagree with you -- especially on your argument that any third choice or third alternative is a hypocrite or munafiq (which you also say is what God has ordained).
Life is not just about black and white. There are also various shades of grey (a blend of black and white) plus yellow, blue, green, red, etc. Life is also not just about left and right. There is also the centre. And you certainly can’t simplify things by lumping people into two groups and that if you do not subscribe to any one of the two groups then you are a hypocrite.
And just because I do not agree with you absolutely, 100%, you accuse me of selling out or of being bought. Pakatan Rakyat supporters should stop this “either you are with me or you are against me” attitude (and that if you are not with me then you have been bought).
This is what President Bush used to say. Either you are pro-America or you are an enemy of America -- and therefore if you are not pro-America then the US has every right to attack your country.
I did not support America’s and its Allies’ invasion of Iraq. But this does not mean I am pro-Saddam Hussein either.
I was opposed to what Saddam did to his people. Saddam’s regime was brutal and the Iraqis were subjected to atrocities that make the Umno regime look like Angels of God by comparison. And the nine-year Iran-Iraq war saw one million Muslims die at the hands of fellow Muslims. How can I be pro-Saddam with that track record?
But then I also do not agree that the US and its Allies invade Iraq. This too brought a lot of suffering to the Iraqis. Can two wrongs make a right? Can we justify removing a brutal dictator just to continue the suffering of Iraqis where millions more die in the post-Saddam era?
So you see, in the Saddam issue, I do not take either side -- not Saddam’s side nor the US side. Both Saddam and the Iraq invasion were bad for Iraqis. So, since I do not support Saddam or the US invasion of Iraq to remove Saddam, does that mean I am a hypocrite, as you say?
But that is how President Bush sees it -- either you support the US or else you are an enemy of the US. And that is also your argument -- either you support Saddam or you support the US and if you do not support both sides then you are a hypocrite.
Was there a third solution available to solve the Iraq issue? Could the solutions be more than just two -- “either let Saddam continue to rule or let the US invade Iraq”?
What happened to the rest of the Muslim countries? Why did they just sit and do nothing? They knew what was happening in Iraq. They knew about the death toll of the nine-year Iran-Iraq war. They knew about the great loss of life and property due to the Kuwait invasion. Yet, the other Muslim countries did nothing.
Could it be then that Saddam could not have done what he did and the US also could not have done what it did if the Muslim countries had done something? So could it be that the Muslim countries are to be blamed for allowing Saddam to do what he did and then for allowing the US to invade Iraq?
In fact, all those countries that bought Iraq’s oil (and therefore allowed Saddam to continue ruling the country) and those Muslim countries that allowed the US to use their soil to launch the attack on Iraq are the culprits. If the western countries (or China) had boycotted Iraq’s oil (thereby putting pressure on Saddam) and if the Muslim countries had refused to allow their countries to be the base for attacking Iraq then millions of lives would have been saved.
So you see, I am talking about a third alternative here. I am talking about solving the problem of Iraq by not creating a bigger problem to solve a problem. If we limit everything to just two options without looking at a third option then that is what we get.
Okay, maybe the Malaysian political scenario is not quite the Saddam or Iraqi invasion type of situation. But I just want to demonstrate that your argument of there being only two sides to everything and that if you refuse to support both sides then you are a hypocrite because there is no third alternative (as ordained by God) is flawed.
Back in the old days, whoever did not support American Capitalism was considered a Communist (remember the McCarthy era?). And in the Communist countries, whoever did not support Communism was a Capitalist Pig. In those days it was just a choice of two and if you did not support one side then you are regarded as the enemy because then it must be because you support the other side.
But then both Communism and Capitalism are bad for the people or rakyat. Under Communism you become slaves of the state and under Capitalism you become economic slaves. Under both systems the rakyat become slaves.
So can’t we reject both and look at a third alternative, which is more ‘people friendly’? Why must we be the enemy or a hypocrite just because we reject both on grounds that both are not beneficial to the rakyat?
The issue is not whether we should or should not look at the third alternative. The issue is how better is this third alternative. Is it an improvement to the two main choices or is it worse? Would a third alternative work better than the two that we already have? This is how we should look at things.
The third alternative may not necessarily be better. Maybe the two choices we already have are the best. But how would we know unless we explore and consider?
It is when we close our minds to alternatives that we do not progress. In the old days we either walked or rode an animal (horse, elephant, camel, etc.) Those were the two alternatives. Then along came the motorcar and we now have a third mode of travelling. There are times when walking is better though (healthier) and there are times when it is fun to ride a horse. But does the third choice of the motorcar make us hypocrites?
How do we equate this third choice to the political situation? Actually, I don’t know how this third choice or ‘third force’ came about. Somehow the government-controlled mainstream media kept referring to the MCLM as the third force even though we did not say we are the third force. And then the opposition supporters started jumping onto the bandwagon and started whacking the daylights out of us.
Anyway, since the third force issue will not go away I suppose we shall have to just make the best of the situation. And that is why we launched the rakyat as the third force campaign. Since everyone insists that the third force is for real we might as well make the rakyat that third force.
And what do we mean when we say the rakyat is the third force? Simple, we go back to the rakyat and ask them whom they would like as their wakil rakyat. They are, after all, called wakil rakyat, so we might as well ask the rakyat whom they would like as their wakil.
Currently, the rakyat have no say in the choice of candidates. Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Raktyat decide whom to field in the elections and the rakyat are told to choose one or the other. So you close your eyes as to who the candidates are. You just look at the party symbol and vote for whoever it may be even if you don’t like the candidate.
Is it so wrong to tell the two coalitions that the rakyat would like some say in the choice of candidates? I said ‘some say’. I did not say ‘total say’. Out of almost 800 candidates to be fielded in the general election, MCLM wants to propose, at the most, 20 or 30. So far only four names have been announced. In the end it could be 10, or 15; it may not even be 30.
Note I said that MCLM is proposing SOME names. Even if it is 20 or 30 names it is still only 3% or so of the total number of candidates. And MCLM is proposing to offer these candidates to Pakatan Rakyat.
So where did this talk of third force and three-corner fights come from? That, I would like to know. And why are we arguing about something that is not even on the agenda of MCLM? We are arguing about something that is not even on the cards. It is like arguing about whether Malaysia should join the European Union and we start getting all excited when the government never even thought of that idea and even if it did we are not in Europe and would not qualify to be a member of the EU.
Now do you understand why I am very brutal in my comments and responses? I am being made to defend MCLM against trumped up charges and fabricated allegations. And it is taking up so much of my time, which could have been put to better use than debating non-starter issues.
==========================================================
Pak Yehs reply :
Your example of America,Sadam and a third Force is an attempt to bullshit your way and not debate the real issue.!!!
America and Sadam is a war issue.
The debate is about a Democratic two party system and whether a 3rd force is relevant or not in Malaysia.!!!
So En.RPK,stay focused and stop gerrymeandearing with unrelated stories of Iraq war and multiple choices.!!!
We have debated earliar and you agreed that historically in Britain and America a 3rd Force/Party is only makes its debut when both the 1st and 2nd party becomes as one, by having the same vision and mission. The fight/elections then will be a three conered fight all the way but because it is planned to be a fight between the 3rd party/Force and the comined Forces of party no 1 and party no 2.
Malaysia does not have this situation yet. Our situation is stage two,ie to allow the second party to govern first.
And so like I debated before, the 3rd Force is not relevant yet.!!! It will be relevant when the second party (Pakatan Rakyat have ruled and proven themselves no different than Barisan National.
I am not debating the relevance of MCLM. MCLM is a pressure group and it is not a 3rd Force.A 3rd Force does not exist yet.
Even if MCLM is a registered political party, it is not the 3rd Force, because the 2nd Force need to be in power first. The 3rd force a a 3rd stage evolution of Democratic party political systems.!!!
In planning an winning strategy to remove the 1st party UMNO/BN, there must be a united one party or one coalition party. A divided coalition party with indipendents will not stand a chance.!!!
Your logic that an independant is better because they will serve the rakyat better than a party Candidate is a vanity and has no proofs.In the past many Indipendants all join the winning party when offered something. I bet if MCLM candidates are offered RM25 million, all of them will lompat katak too.!!!
Now do you agree or not.???
Now do you agree with me or not.???
Similiarly the other examples about multiple choices in life. You are not debating the real issue. You are digresing prom the real issue.
America and Sadam is two
The real issue is about two party political systems and whether or not a 3rd party is relevant.
Firstly it is not a political issue in the context debated.
Secondly it is a war issue.