“We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.”

In that post, I quoted the genius in the context of our choice of government for Malaysia. At that point, obviously, I only thought of Einstein’s quote in that context.

Now, after a rather long and arduous year, I’ve got a different take on that quote. My new take may reach the same preference in so far as whom we should vote for in the imminent general elections, but it is significantly different insofar as how we should approach the “political” question in Malaysia.

I personally believe that Malaysia, and most Malaysians, have made many wrong decisions in the last 50 years. Indeed, even before independence, we have made substantial errors in judgement. For example, if we had simply chosen to support the more progressive coalition known as Putera-AMCJA to lead Malaya towards independence, Malaysia may not be facing the racial and religious divide that we now face. (For a good documentary on Malaya’s struggle for independence, see 10 tahun sebelum Merdeka.)

Somehow, Malaysia has taken a road that leads further and further into a maze of confusion and conflict. To transcend the confusion and conflict – to have real peace and prosperity, to have a nation whose people feel proud to call it their own, to have a place where we are comfortable to raise our children – we need to have a higher consciousness.

We need to transcend the typical thinking that has prevailed in Malaysia for more than half a century. If it’s politics as usual, at most, Malaysia will only change one government for another, without going very far towards the kind of nation we all want. However, with enlightened politics (and economics), Malaysia can have the rebirth that we are all waiting for.

To be continued…

Basically, I agree that “when we go beyond labels such as ‘secular’ and ‘Islamic’ and connect with the substance of our three principal documents we will discover that there is a degree of congruence between the two positions.” And the three documents that Dr. Chandra is talking about are the Federal Constitution, the Rukunegara and Vision 2020.

Now, my question is, how do we move forward from this apparent impasse? It’s very obvious that the current hooha is created by the Deputy Prime Minister for political reasons. Indeed, it’s so idiotic for him to make such a statement that I won’t even go into the so-called debate.

What I’m interested in is what can we do to solve the real problems that all Malaysians are facing, irrespective of our race, religion or gender. For example, the Wanita MCA chief Datuk Dr Ng Yen Yen, who is a Deputy Minister, has raised the issue of social problems. This is a very real problem faced by the community. Is MCA or Barisan Nasional going to do something about it, or are we happy to just get our names and photos published in the newspapers?

The range of problems that Malaysians face are so wide and varied that it’s sometimes even difficult to find a starting point. Politically, we have mono-ethnic parties that divide us to rule. Legally, we have a supreme law of the land with silly notions of race mixed up with religion. Socially, we have escalating crime rates and, worse still, our youth are being led astray by politicians and their lies.

Sadly, our value system was lost in the midst of all this talk about secularism and spirituality. The situation in Malaysia has become absurd. We have a Deputy Prime Minister that is somehow linked to a murder case, proudly going around announcing that Umno is the conscience of the Malays. We have a police force that is implicated in involvement with triad gangs. We had an anti-corruption agency Director who was allegedly corrupt.

And yet, this government pretends to have legitimacy, and the Rakyat plays along so that their convenient lifestyles are not disturbed. If anything, I find all this media control and realpoliticking to be very disturbing, indeed.

No doubt, this country has a unique history, both in terms of its racial composition and the development of Islam. Nevertheless, if we are serious about transcending this superficial debate and want to reconcile ourselves with the notion of Malaysia, we need to do some profound soul-searching… and perhaps ask, what we can do for our country.

Oddly, whilst reading former President Gorbachev’s speech, I was reminded of how “slow” we are. In his speech, Gorbachev commented about the 5½ decades of Cold War – the confrontation, the hostility, sometimes open, sometimes concealed.

Further on in his speech, Gorbachev said:

“We have already graduated from the primary school of instruction in mutual understanding.”

Well, we’ve had 5 decades of Merdeka… Are we even out of kindergarten yet?

‘Nuff said?

Anyway, here’s my not-so-new idea: Gerakan, DAP and Keadilan start talks for a merger. It’s not a new idea in the sense that I’ve already mentioned this many times to friends already, and I’m sure some bright sparks out there have thought of this too (and probably dismissed it as some silly fantasy).

As we all know, one of the biggest problems in Malaysia is our racial divide. Indeed, some would say that’s the source of all our problems (I would beg to differ, but let’s leave that to another day).

The government politicians acknowledge we have a racial problem, and pretend to try and fix it by coming up with all sorts of half-baked ideas like Sekolah Wawasan and National Service. Get real! How can we ever truly be Malaysian and non-racial when the country is ruled by chauvinistic mono-ethnic parties like Umno, MCA and MIC?

I know quite a few people in Gerakan, and somehow they come across as people who genuinely want to fight for the people. Alas, we all know, they are merely the junior partner in the partnership known as Barisan Nasional. And these days, Umno doesn’t even pretend to listen and consider their junior partners’ views anymore…

As for DAP, I probably know even more people there, but they probably secretly hate my guts because I once publicly criticised their great leader. Well, there were regrets but that’s not the issue here.

For me, DAP has done a lot of good in this country but unfortunately there are a couple of things that isn’t so good about it. Hmmm, maybe more than a couple.

Firstly, it has this bad track record of good leaders leaving the party, ostensibly because of disagreements with the leadership. The list: Fan Yew Teng, Lee Lam Thye, Lee Ban Chen, Kua Kia Soong, Wee Choo Keong… and Kerk Kim Hock? Secondly, although they may not intend it to be so, the party is largely seen as a Chinese party. Thirdly, they are an opposition party. Their function and purpose appears to be just that – an opposition party.

Now for the difficult one, Keadilan. What can I say about Keadilan? There’s so much about Keadilan that is just not right at the moment, and I frankly have difficulty even beginning… Nevertheless, I sincerely believe that, if it plays its cards right, it has the potential to galvanise the critical masses for real change in Malaysia.

However, Keadilan’s leaders, including its de facto leader, must realise that winning is going to require much more than personal charm and good press statements. The party needs to be shaped up and in tip-top condition. It’s communication strategies must be clear. The people wants to see a credible party and hear clear policies that will bring the nation forward.

Anyway, I’m getting away from my original point here… These three parties have one thing in common – all of them purport to be non-racial parties that fight for the people and nation.

Now, my question is, if we are all in favour of non-racial politics, if we truly want to serve the people by creating a fair and just nation, and if the people and the nation are more important than our own parties, why aren’t we seriously considering merging ourselves together to form the strongest non-racial political force in the nation?

I have deliberately excluded another “non-racial” party known as PAS for obvious reasons, and I don’t know if I’ve left out some from Sabah and Sarawak.

Now that I think about it, perhaps I should also throw in MDP, PRM and PSM for good measure… But I’m sure the latter two would object based on ideological grounds.

Anyway, I think I’ve made my point…

“He has honour if he holds himself to an ideal of conduct though it is inconvenient, unprofitable, or dangerous to do so.” – Walter Lippmann

Many people, especially politicians, say that the raison d’être of political parties are to win elections and, thereby, win power. Well, that may be true, but I believe we must make a clear and important distinction between a political party’s reason for existence and its ultimate objective. Similarly, we must make the necessary and also important distinction between means and ends.

Here, many would be reminded of the oft-cited Machiavellian adage that says the ends justify the means. I would not be surprised that many politicians subscribe to this point of view, especially in the ranks of Barisan Nasional. However, I am very concerned that some in “opposition” parties may also subscribe to this point of view, albeit not overtly.

Therefore, when it comes to means and ends, I believe there are two precepts that must be kept in mind and, more importantly, practised consistently if we are to effect real reforms in Malaysia (as opposed to cosmetic changes, or simply replacing one administration with another of the same kind).

The first, although not as well known as Machiavelli’s prescription, is a rule or practice that is extremely important if we are to be effective in whatever we are doing; that is, we must always begin with the end in mind.

In other words, no matter what journey we intend to embark on, we must be clear as to where the destination is. Regardless of whether it is a business venture, an academic pursuit or a social activity, I think it is quite plain how important such a precept is. Thus, in the critical endeavour of politics, I would argue that it is of utmost importance that we are all very clear as to what our ultimate ends are.

At the risk of stating the obvious and oversimplifying matters, I would say that the ultimate ends of political parties – at least all progressive ones – should be to achieve social justice and create a civil society for the benefit of all, irrespective of sex, race, religion, class or political opinion.

Thus stated, the ultimate ends and the raison d’être of political parties are not in conflict. However, it must be clear to those practising the art and science of politics, which are means, and which are ends.

It goes without saying that to achieve social justice and to create a civil society for all of us to live in, a political party must have the power to do so. And that, in a democratic state, would usually entail contesting in elections and winning the majority of seats in the legislature to not only effectively steer the legislative process but also form the government of the day.

And thus a political party that becomes the government of the country would have the necessary power to implement its policies to engender social justice and establish a civil society.

However, it ought to be clear that to win elections, to become the government of the day and gain political power are only means to the greater ends of achieving social justice and creating a civil society.

What really concerns me is the way so many politicians focus on the means with little or no attention paid to the ends. Some may argue there is no necessity to state the obvious, and that the party that has won power would thereafter do the necessary to achieve its rarely stated ends.

However, this reminds me of the unwritten promise of authoritarian regimes to give freedom to the people and install democracy in the country after it has achieved development and delivered economic prosperity.

As we all know, few governments have fulfilled these kinds of promises, either because most authoritarian regimes have failed to develop the country effectively, or that they have done so but then decided to cling on to power and reap the benefits of economic development. Therefore, there have been very few voluntary transitions from authoritarian regimes to democratically (in the true sense of the word) elected governments.

This begs the question of whether a party that seems bent on winning power through elections by any means will have the political will to carry out its “understated” objectives after it gains that power.

Further along these lines, the second related precept was expressed by Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, better known as Mahatma Gandhi. In those days when he led the non-violent independence struggle against the British, one rule that he rigorously applied was that the means and ends must be the same.

So, if our ends are achieving social justice and creating a civil society, our means must be both just and civil. Or if we our objective is to establish a state administration based on the values of integrity, wisdom and compassion, then our actions toward that end must be based on the values of integrity, wisdom and compassion.

This precept is not just a matter of principle. As a matter of logic, it is simply not possible to uphold the truth if we pursue that end by deceptive means. Similarly, we cannot achieve social justice by resorting to unjust strategies.

Before I go on, it should be noted that the neat little package called Social Justice contains many things, including freedom, equality, unity, democracy, equity and human dignity. Thus, if social justice is an end that we pursue, then whatever we do must also reflect the essential elements of social justice.

When I decided to enter the political arena, I was very conscious of what politics meant for me. Primarily, it was about formulating and implementing policies for the benefit of the people; election to office was, and still is, a secondary consideration.

I believe that it is incumbent upon political leaders to develop and equip themselves with not only leadership skills but also a clear vision of how a civil and just society should look like. Similarly, it is the duty of “opposition” political parties – a duty owed to the people – to develop a clear set of policies for the nation and present a credible and viable alternative to the people.

If political leaders fail to realise this, then we should not even be talking about winning elections. Although it may be the norm for Umno-BN to win elections through election strategies rather than policies or principles, I believe that the opposition should be winning through the people’s confidence in us based on our policies and principles. We should win by having proven through our track record that no matter what happens we stay true to the people and to our principles.

For if we merely win through short-term election strategies, with little or no concern for the ultimate objectives that benefit the people, aren’t we simply replacing one government with another of the same kind, albeit of another flavour.

So, in the end, if politics only means Realpolitik, then I do not wish to be a part of it – for I am not interested in the business of horse trading alone. I am in politics for justice and the people.