Many say that Malaysia is not ready for a third force and that we first need to see the emergence of a two-party system. Now, before we debate this point we need to clarify certain matters and see whether we are on the same wavelength as far as the meaning of these things are concerned.
NO HOLDS BARRED
Raja Petra Kamarudin
Anwar: No reason to entertain "outside parties" and "sore losers": said Malaysia Chronicle. You can read the news item here (http://www.malaysia-chronicle.com/2010/11/anwar-no-reason-to-entertain-outside.html)
There is much talk lately about third force and two-party system. Now we have outside parties and sore losers as well.
I don’t know whether we are on the same wavelength as to what these words and phrases mean. So that we can engage in an intelligent discussion on the matter, I think we must first clear up whether we are of the same mind as to the meaning of all these things.
For example, when you say someone is a fundamentalist, you may actually mean that he or she is an extremist -- whereas to the person in question a fundamentalist is someone who follows the true and fundamental teachings of the religion. Therefore, to the first person, a fundamentalist is a negative thing (something not quite right with that person’s brain) whereas to the second it is positive (they are a purist).
Again, when you say someone is a liberal, to one person it is positive (this person is reasonable and modern thinking) whereas to another person it would be considered as deviant beliefs (not following the teachings too strictly and straying from the correct path).
A non-Muslim would look at a Muslim who drinks wine as good (this means the person is a liberal Muslim) whereas a fellow Muslim would not share that view -- it would be considered bad. So liberal can be both good and bad depending on where you stand.
So, now that we understand how words and phases can be perceived differently by different people, let us get back to the issue.
What would you consider as outside parties? Would Malaysians who voted for a certain political party in the last general election and who would like to see that particular party succeed be considered as outside parties?
What would you consider as sore losers? Would people who are not contesting the party election but would like to see a well-run election because this is the first one-man-one-vote party election in Malaysian history be considered as sore losers?
Okay, the next two issues are feedback I have received. Many say that Malaysia is not ready for a third force and that we first need to see the emergence of a two-party system. Now, before we debate this point we need to clarify certain matters and see whether we are on the same wavelength as far as the meaning of these things are concerned.
What is a third force?
What is a two-party system?
Does Malaysia have a two-party system or two coalitions of 17 parties?
Would a two-coalition system qualify as a two-party system?
Would a third force work opposed to a two-party system?
If so, in what way does a third force work opposed to a two-party system?
Would a third force complement a two-party system?
If so, in what way does a third force complement a two-party system?
Can a two-party system be easier achieved without the presence of a third force?
If so, how can a two-party system be easier achieved without the presence of a third force?
How would the third force hinder the emergence of a two-party system?
How do we achieve a two-party system? How would we do it and what is the formula?