Okay, let’s debate

Pak Yeh has thrown me a challenge to debate the issue of the Malaysian Civil Liberties Movement (MCLM). I now accept the challenge and will debate him point-on-point. This is my response to his arguments. I have not amended or edited his piece (grammar and spelling included).


Raja Petra Kamarudin

Is the 3rd Force Relavant .???

from Warong Pak Yeh by pak yeh

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.!!!




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.