What Mahathir's return means for Malaysia

Young voters have high hopes, but can the 92-year-old prime minister deliver change?

KUALA LUMPUR -- The people of Malaysia may have just elected the world's oldest prime minister, but Mahathir Mohamad's path to victory was cleared by fresh-faced politicians like 25-year-old Syed Saddiq Abdul Rahman.

Saddiq, who passed up a post-graduate scholarship to the University of Oxford last year to enter politics, beat a three-term ruling party parliamentarian in the rural seat of Muar in Johor state on his first try running for office.

"The election has proven the people's power to change and lead Malaysia to a better future," he said shortly after his victory.

The "Malaysian tsunami," as some have dubbed the May 9 election, was a resounding rejection of the status quo.

Voters turned out in droves to deliver a shock to the pollsters, investors and political analysts who expected Najib Razak, the scandal-plagued prime minister, to return to office for a second term. Instead, the victory by the 92-year-old Mahathir marked the first time an opposition party had won since Malaysia gained independence from Britain in 1957.

The message from voters was clear: Stop the rot associated with decades of poor governance, corruption and divisive politics. Saddiq and other young candidates had also emphasized pocketbook issues, including unemployment and the high cost of living. These were winning themes with the young: Voters aged 40 and under accounted for 41% of the total.

Both young and old who voted for change are hoping Mahathir's rich experience in politics can restore the country's international reputation and put Malaysia back on track to becoming a developed nation.

The path may not be straightforward for Mahathir and his unproven coalition. Yet in the wake of the election, he has been relishing his newfound role as an agent of change -- an unlikely fit for a man who ruled the country with an iron first for 22 years.

"The enthusiasm was really fantastic," he told supporters and reporters on May 10 after being sworn in. A crowd had gathered outside the state palace to try to catch a glimpse of their second-time prime minister, whose election was seen by many around the world as a repudiation of Southeast Asia's recent drift toward authoritarian politics.

He even made a joking reference to his hard-line reputation by reminding people that his detractors had labelled him a "dictator."

The nickname is no laughing matter, however. Tun M, as Mahathir is called by his supporters, oversaw a period of rapid economic growth and development in Malaysia during his first long stint in office. But Mahathir's tenure was also marked by financial and political upheaval that led to the fall of many of his rivals. Some -- notably Anwar Ibrahim, his protege and potential successor -- were imprisoned on dubious grounds without trial simply for challenging him. Anwar was released from prison on May 16 following a royal pardon initiated by the winning coalition.

Mahathir came out of retirement two years ago to take on Najib, his handpicked successor, whom he accused of destroying the country. Najib, the son of the country's second leader, was tainted by the financial scandal involving state fund 1Malaysia Development Berhad, or 1MDB.

While a triumphant Mahathir said immediately after his election that he wouldn't seek "revenge," his subsequent actions -- barring Najib and his wife from leaving the country and announcing an investigation into the 1MDB scandal -- indicated that action would be taken.

"There are a lot of complaints against [Najib], all of which have to be investigated," Mahathir said. "If some of the complaints are valid, we will have to act quickly because we don't want to be saddled with extradition from other countries."

The resignation of Dzulkifli Ahmad as the head of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission was seen as boosting Mahathir's ability to pursue an investigation into Najib.

"Reshuffle? No reshuffle. It is going to be a new cabinet," Mahathir corrected a reporter. "Yes, certain heads must fall. Some people were betting on a prime minister whom the world condemns."

Ahead of the election, the conventional wisdom held that average Malaysians were unconcerned about the 1MDB scandal, in which Najib was alleged to have received more than $680 million amid a $4.5 billion misappropriation of funds. But the scandal -- along with Najib's anti-fake news law, introduced weeks before the election -- rankled voters like Faiz Aziz, 25, who voted for the opposition. "The results ring with the majority, who clearly want a change of government," he said.

During the campaign, Mahathir positioned his Pakatan Harapan (Alliance of Hope) coalition as the underdog -- a hastily assembled and disparate group lacking financial clout and publicity. But thanks to the effective use of social media, the Alliance of Hope's popularity swelled almost overnight, attracting millions of followers on various platforms.

In another shrewd move, Mahathir recruited some of the youngest candidates to ever contest a national election, banking on their fresh appeal and the rise of youth voters. Among them was Yeo Bee Yin, 34, an ethnic Chinese opposition lawmaker who won her first-ever federal election in Bakri, Johor.

"I was overwhelmed with my comfortable 60% winning margin," she said.

A populist agenda?

Mahathir had more of an agenda than merely taking on a tainted successor, however. As he took office, he reaffirmed his commitment to a series of populist economic measures he had outlined during the campaign: overturning an unpopular 6% goods and services tax, restoring fuel subsidies and reviewing big infrastructure contracts, particularly those with Chinese concerns.

Credit rating agencies expressed concern about the proposals. Moody's Investors Service warned on May 14 that such policies would be "credit negative" for the country, adding that there was "little clarity" about the new leader's economic agenda. Fitch Ratings noted that the GST contributed 18% to government coffers in 2017, and replacing it with a narrower sales and services tax could result in a correspondingly higher deficit.

Prominent Malaysian businessmen echoed this sentiment. Munir Majid, chairman of CIMB ASEAN Research Institute and president of the ASEAN Business Club, said there still needs to be more debate about economic policy.

"With respect to the election promise to abolish GST and replace it with a sales and services tax, there is concern that government revenue would fall and that the fiscal deficit would widen from the present 2.8%, whereas the previous government's promise was to bring it down further," he said. "There are also a number of other commitments, such as bringing back fuel subsidies, that would adversely affect the revenue base as well."

The stock market delivered a mixed message when it opened after a two-day post-election holiday, with shares falling at the open but recovering to close slightly higher.

Mahathir's plans to return to the old model known as Malaysia Inc. -- a nationalistic legacy that Najib smashed during his nine years in office -- have only added to questions about his economic plans.

"Actually, the idea of a business-friendly government was mooted long ago when we introduced the Malaysia Inc.," Mahathir said on May 10. "The corporation is intended to build the Malaysian economy with the help of investors from inside and outside the country."

Inspired by a similar model in Japan, the 1980s-era idea favored the privatization of key state agencies with the government holding substantial stakes. Mahathir appointed allies to control and spearhead privatized companies, fueling criticism that he practiced favoritism. This lack of corporate governance contributed to the collapse of some of these companies, including Malaysia Airlines and national carmaker Proton.

Najib dismantled the model, restructuring the shareholdings in these companies by putting sovereign funds in control.

With a fresh mandate, Mahathir seems determined to drive the economy forward. During his first term, Mahathir promoted a plan known as Vision 2020 -- a pledge that Malaysia would join the club of developed countries by 2020. But that vision has become blurry in recent years. Malaysia's gross national income per capita of $9,660 in 2017 was well below the World Bank's threshold of $12,236 to qualify for high-income status.

"Mahathir will need to leave Malaysia in good hands so that the country can finally escape the middle-income trap after three disappointing decades since the Asian financial crisis," noted Alicia Garcia-Herrero of Natixis, an investment bank.

Munir said the government will focus on evaluating state budget and debts, including all major ongoing infrastructure projects. This may prove an obstacle to China's Belt and Road-related investments in the country, notably the 55 billion ringgit ($13.9 billion) East Coast Rail Link. While Najib had promoted ties with China, some Malaysians -- including Mahathir -- have expressed concerns over the debt commitment on the 688km link being built and financed by Chinese companies.

In a move that has raised further worries among regional observers, Mahathir hinted at a more protectionist agenda, saying that while the country welcomes trade and investment with foreign countries, Malaysia will not bow to any external pressure.

"Sanctions by big powers will not influence our policies," he said, apparently referring to U.S. President Donald Trump's punitive tariffs and his recent reversal of the Iran nuclear deal, which lifted sanctions on the Gulf state. "We know the powers of such countries apply sanctions on countries who do not agree with them."

Appointments and ethnicity

One thing on which both critics and supporters agree: The next 100 days will be crucial for Malaysians and foreign investors waiting to see who will head key government posts.

Acknowledging the new government's lack of experience, Mahathir announced the formation of an advisory group made up of former public and corporate figures to assist during the transition period.

Mahathir's first appointments, rolled out three days after the election, drew a positive response -- despite some debate over his move to appoint Lim Guan Eng, chief minister of Penang State and secretary-general of the Democratic Action Party, as finance minister.

He is the first ethnic Chinese politician to hold the portfolio in recent decades. The post is one of the most senior cabinet positions and was previously held concurrently by the prime minister, a practice introduced by Mahathir after the Asian financial crisis. Lim's appointment came after an election fought against the backdrop of Malaysia's precarious ethnic and religious mix.

Malaysia's population of nearly 32 million is about two-thirds Malay, 23% Chinese and the rest a mix of Indian and other ethnicities.

"I honestly do not believe Lim Guan Eng's appointment as finance minister would generate friction in the coalition because of his race," said Munir. "Indeed if we want to focus on race, it is an appointment fully supportive of the change the election result reflects: the prime minister should not be the finance minister as well and appointments should be based on competence and experience."

However, the personnel matter that has captivated the public is the future role of Anwar, who was jailed on charges of corruption and sodomy during Mahathir's first term. Anwar's opposition People's Justice Party (PKR) was a key part of the winning coalition, and the prime minister, who has said he would like to serve for a year or two, has indicated he will eventually hand power to his longtime rival. Yet PKR members have already complained about not being consulted over appointments.

During the campaign, Mahathir was seen as a man with nothing to lose and everything to gain in his audacious comeback. Many analysts now see this as the last chance for Mahathir, also known among Malaysians as the "father of modernization," to see through his economic and social reform goals. These were dented in the past in part by an obsession to please the ruling party's core Malay supporters with an affirmative action policy.

Many ethnic Chinese, who felt sidelined by the move, have come to accept the policy, originally meant to eradicate poverty and close the income gap between different ethnic groups.

"Whether one loves or hates Mahathir, he is currently the best option to put Malaysia on the map again, hopefully for the right reasons," said Lim Eng Boon, a businessman in Kuala Lumpur.

Wan Azizah Wan Ismail, Malaysia's new deputy prime minister and wife of Anwar Ibrahim   

CK TAN, Nikkei staff writer, and GWEN ROBINSON, Nikkei Asian Review chief editorMay 16, 2018 14:40 JST

Mahathir win will reverberate far beyond Malaysia

  MAY 11, 2018 BY DINOBEANO

By the early morning of May 10, results from the Election Commission indicated that Malaysia’s opposition coalition had secured enough seats to prevail in the country’s general election, effectively marking the end of the world’s longest continuing ruling coalition, led by scandal-ridden premier Najib Razak, and putting the country’s longest serving leader, Mahathir Mohamad, back into office.

Though an opposition coalition win would no doubt be historic, the election result has also quickly cast the Southeast Asian state into a period of uncertainty and raised questions about not just the transfer of power, but the future direction of its domestic politics and foreign policy.

“...one should not forget that it was Mahathir’s authoritarian rule for over two decades that paved the way for some of the trends the opposition rails against – from the erosion of Malaysia’s institutions to the lack of reforms in decades-old affirmative action policies. These are serious problems that cannot be fixed overnight no matter who is in office, and they are easier to talk about than to actually address.”

The opposition’s tally in the country’s 14th general election is nothing short of historic. Though the ruling coalition, the Barisan Nasional (BN), had seen its support erode over the past decade under Najib – losing its much-prized two-thirds majority in 2008 and then the popular vote in 2013 – most had predicted BN would still nonetheless cling to power in GE-14 by employing its usual bag of political tricks, including gerrymandering and restrictions on the opposition. Instead, by early Thursday morning, results disclosed by the country’s Election Commission showed that the opposition Pakatan Harapan (PH) coalition had surpassed the 112 of the 222 seats required in parliament with 121 seats, giving it an effective simple majority, with BN winning just 79 seats.

The result was above all an indicator of the high degree of frustration among the Malaysian electorate with the status quo. Najib’s declining popularity over the years had come amidst deep discontent – not just about the much-ballyhooed 1MDB scandal, but also policies such as the unpopular goods and services tax (GST) that hurt regular Malaysians.

GE-14 saw huge rallies for the Pakatan Harapan (PH) opposition alliance during the election campaign, significant turnout by Malaysians, and record losses by BN in terms of parliamentary seats. The demand for change in Malaysia was clear for all to see.

Yet while the opposition victory might mark the end of a historic election race, it also represents the start of an age of uncertainty for the Southeast Asian state. Given the unprecedented nature of the opposition’s tally, the immediate focus was around whether or not there would be a peaceful transfer of power that would see Mahathir sworn into office again as Prime Minister and Wan Azizah, the wife of his former deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim who he once deposed and is now behind bars, will be sworn in as Deputy Prime Minister.Whether or not this in fact occurs still remains to be seen.

During Najib’s first press conference since his party’s defeat on Thursday morning, he stopped short of conceding power, noting that no single party had received a simple majority – if the 121 seats are to be broken down by the 104 seats contested under the PKR logo along with 9 seats for the Democratic Action Party and 8 seats for Parti Warisan Sabah –  and that the King would have to determine who the next premier would be.

“…the deeper concerns lie in how the electoral outcome is likely to affect Malaysian domestic politics and foreign policy. As of now, things still look quite unclear on both fronts.”

Meanwhile, Mahathir’s swearing in, initially said to be set for Thursday, was delayed. The added period of uncertainty had the effect of feeding into rumors that BN may not accept an opposition win and raising concerns about the potential outbreak of violence.

Even if a peaceful transfer of power does occur, the deeper concerns lie in how the electoral outcome is likely to affect Malaysian domestic politics and foreign policy. As of now, things still look quite unclear on both fronts.

Domestically, the election campaign ahead of polls was dominated by a focus on personality attacks and cosmetic promises rather than substance, in spite of the fact that the country’s true challenges are structural and transcend party or person.

Amid the vilification of Najib, for instance, one should not forget that it was Mahathir’s authoritarian rule for over two decades that paved the way for some of the trends the opposition rails against – from the erosion of Malaysia’s institutions to the lack of reforms in decades-old affirmative action policies. These are serious problems that cannot be fixed overnight no matter who is in office, and they are easier to talk about than to actually address.

It would also be a mistake to conflate a historic electoral victory with sustained political dominance should the opposition go on to govern. As remarkable a triumph as the Malaysian opposition’s is, the fact is that it took a slow accumulation of several developments – including the deepening 1MDB scandal surrounding Najib, Mahathir’s unlikely re-emergence in Malaysian politics, and deep frustrations that translated into record turnout – to get to this historic outcome. Sustaining that kind of momentum will not be an easy task, particularly if and when the opposition transitions from campaigning to governing – with Mahathir claiming he will eventually step aside – and supporters of the defeated ruling coalition begin realigning post-Najib using their deep patronage networks and other levers of influence. The pendulum could well swing back in the direction of continuity after sudden change.

Things are equally unclear on the foreign policy side as well. Beyond shallow slogans and cheap talk from the two sides – from Mahathir’s promises to restrict Chinese investments to Najib’s self-congratulatory note on the relatively good state of Malaysia-Singapore relations – there was little substantive debate about the structural problems have eroded the exercise of Malaysian foreign policy and constrained the country’s maneuverability. These include a meager defense budget that limits Malaysia from addressing growing security threats to a more divided country that dilutes the support needed for the country to wage an effective foreign policy and preserve its sovereignty from outside threats from state and  non state actors.

“The immediate headlines so far have focused on the Malaysian opposition’s historic election tally, and deservedly so. But as the days and months progress, it will be equally important to pay attention to the country’s new period of uncertainty and what that means for how it conducts itself at home and abroad.”

Some might turn to Mahathir’s foreign policy record for a guide as to what might play out should the opposition indeed take the reins. But it has been a decade-and-a-half since he was in power, and the domestic, regional, and global realities that Malaysia confronts have changed significantly. It is also still unclear how the management of foreign relations will work under the opposition’s tenure, as well as the extent to which mulled changes will actually find their way through bureaucracies into implementation. For these reasons among others, doomsday scenarios, whether with respect to neighboring states like Singapore or major powers like the United States and China, are less likely to play out than subtler re-calibrations in the country’s key relationships.

The immediate headlines so far have focused on the Malaysian opposition’s historic election tally, and deservedly so. But as the days and months progress, it will be equally important to pay attention to the country’s new period of uncertainty and what that means for how it conducts itself at home and abroad

Why a multiparty system trumps a single multiracial party

By Elijah Hee

FMT

Referring to the article “Ditch race-based coalitions for a single multi-racial party” by Kenneth Lee on May 15, 2018, while he made a good point that a race-based coalition with component parties like Barisan Nasional (BN) and the defunct Pakatan Rakyat would be a recipe for disaster, I doubt if his suggestion for the current ruling Pakatan Harapan (PH) to transform into a single multi-racial party, which he proposed be called “Parti Harapan Malaysia”, would be realistic and good for the nation in the long run.

While many have called for a “two-party system”, or what the ethnic Chinese call a “two-coalition system”, such a system has revealed to have its setbacks in countries like the United States. Therefore, I favour a “multi-party system” instead.

First of all, we must realise that whether in BN or PH, component parties have their own histories and ideologies or principles, therefore they exist as separated parties for a reason.

While Umno, MCA and MIC in BN were the original founding parties of the Perikatan (the predecessor of BN) as communal parties addressing their respective ethnic groups, some component parties like Gerakan, MyPPP (formerly PPP), Parti Bersatu Sabah (PBS) and Sarawak United People’s Party (SUPP) emerged as multiracial parties on their own, and joined BN at a later stage.

On the other hand, the four component parties in PH are considerably different, While Keadilan is a rather catch-all party with members ranging from centre-left to centre-right, DAP is in principle a social democratic and democratic socialist party (which explains why their youth wing is called DAPSY – DAP Socialist Youth).

Amanah is a moderate Islamist party being a splinter party of the hardline conservative Islamist PAS, and Parti Pribumi Bersatu Malaysia (PPBM), where the new Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad comes from, is a Malay nationalist party (note that it is a splinter party of Umno) with a slightly more progressive approach than Umno i.e. PPBM accepts non-pribumi as associate members who have no voting rights in the party, though they may hold any position in the party.

Unrealistic for BN and PH to be single parties

Therefore I find it unrealistic to demand both BN and PH transform into a single party, not only due to the differences among the component parties, but also their own political interests as well.

We cannot hope to model on the two-party system in the US, since both the Democratic Party and Republican Party did not emerge from such complicated backgrounds.

After all, even such a two-party system is no guarantee in eradicating racism, since racism is still rampant in certain parts of the US, especially in the Deep South which has been the voters base of the Republicans since 1964 due to the “Southern Strategy” employed by then-presidential candidate Barry Goldwater. Since then certain politicians such as Donald Trump used racism as their platform.

While it is convenient to say that moving towards a two-party system similar to the US will eliminate the complications that arise from the component parties, I find that it would be suffocating different views and ideologies as well.

Either both parties will look “too similar” to each other and shun minorities, or both parties will get polarised as in the US in recent years.

The First-Past-The-Post electoral system

In the Malaysian context, while Parti Sosialis Malaysia (PSM), being a former long-time informal ally of Keadilan, has been ardently fighting for the working class, which in turn inspired Pakatan Rakyat and later PH, they fell victim to the First-Past-The-Post (FPTP) electoral system which indirectly encourages “tactical voting” where voters simply vote for another party with a better chance of winning.

As a result, Dr Michael Jeyakumar Devaraj lost his Sungai Siput seat in the recent general election, after winning twice under the Keadilan banner previously (due to the informal alliance between the parties, as mentioned above).

This also explains why in the US, “progressives”, “social democrats” or “democratic socialists” such as Bernie Sanders resorted to using the Democratic Party as their platform, since they would stand no chance of winning if they simply ran as an independent or third-party candidate against the two major parties.

The FPTP electoral system, together with a two-party system, tends to be killing the voter turnout rate as well, since voters may feel that there is no effective or formidable party that genuinely represents their views.

The turnout rate for the two latest GEs exceeded 80% simply because there was a wind for change blowing – people came out to vote in hopes of replacing the BN government with a new government.

But once our country eventually settles down with a two-party system, the turnout rate will most likely drop to somewhere between 60% to 70% as in the UK, or worse, between 55% to 60% as in the US presidential elections, and not to mention that there are eligible citizens who are not registered to vote.

We cannot conveniently bash those who do not come out to vote, and those who deliberately cast a “rejected vote” (usually referred to as a “spoilt vote”), since they feel that no party or candidate truly represents them, so to them either party makes no difference.

The FPTP system does not guarantee that the number of seats will accurately reflect the support of the respective parties, even without gerrymandering and malapportionment.

Assuming that there is a three-corner fight in all constituencies, it would be theoretically possible for a party to win all constituencies with a mere 34% of votes each.

In the UK, up to 2010, while the Liberal Democrats were able to command a considerable amount of support at around a quarter, they were only able to win less than 10% of the seats, as many of their votes were “wasted” in seats that they lost to the Conservative Party and Labour Party.

After all, since 1935 no party in the UK ever obtained more than 50% of the popular votes, yet either Conservative or Labour would win the majority of seats (except on the occasions of a “hung parliament” in February 1974 and 2010).

Why the two-party system is not a good idea

And the worst case scenario – a two-party system may end up as a choice between “two rotten apples”. This is because the two major parties are likely to take their support for granted, therefore lacking “innovation” and neglecting new or minority ideas that may improve the party.

This was so in the 2016 US Presidential Election where voters were effectively left to choose between the almost equally controversial Democratic Hillary Clinton and Republican Donald Trump, since other candidates like Jill Stein from the Green Party and Gary Johnson from the Libertarian Party would have no chance of winning at all.

Supporters of Bernie Sanders were split between voting Hillary Clinton (which would be a form of tactical voting) or voting Jill Stein (who is ideologically close to Sanders).

After all, we also need to realise that the situation in Malaysia and the US are different, as the parties in the US do not maintain a very strict and “disciplined” membership.

Basically, anyone wanting to run for public office would contest in the primaries to win party grassroots support before being able to represent the party in the election, which explains why Donald Trump was able to overcome his rifts with party leaders and fellow Republican politicians and ultimately emerged victorious (it was notable that several prominent Republicans including John McCain, Mitt Romney, John Kasich, George HW Bush and George W Bush were openly against Trump during the presidential election).

If US parties had a strict party membership as in Malaysia, Donald Trump and those found joining racist organisations such as KKK would have been expelled by the Republican Party!

Yet this is not the case over there, as party membership is rather on a “self-identification” basis. Besides that, it was also notable that in the 2008 Presidential Election, Donald Trump who was a Democrat back then, had openly endorsed Republican John McCain against Democrat Barack Obama – such a situation in Malaysia would get Trump expelled by the party.

Whereas in Malaysia, election candidates are selected by the respective party leadership. As such, grassroots support, hard work, experience and qualification are no guarantee to candidacy.

Political interests and factionalism tend to be taken into account, which probably explains why several incumbent legislators such as Gan Pei Nei (Keadilan), N Surendran (Keadilan), Datuk Dr Tan Kee Kwong (Keadilan) and Cheong Chee Khing (DAP) got axed from candidacy.

After all, over the years there were also prominent political leaders in Malaysia who fell victim to factionalism and infightings, up to the extent that they either quit the party or got expelled, and very few were able to establish a successful political career later on, namely Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, Tun Dr Mahathir, Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin and Datuk Seri Shafie Apdal who are successful in Keadilan, PPBM and Warisan.

Others such as Tan Sri Mohd Asri Muda and Wee Choo Keong, who have respectively left PAS and DAP, failed to establish successful careers in their venture of establishing Hizbul Muslimin (HAMIM) and the Malaysian Democratic Party (MDP).

Barisan Jemaah Islamiah (BERJASA), another PAS splinter party, also fell into near-obscurity, despite two occasions of alliance with PAS later on.

And not to forget Malacca DAP leaders such as Sim Tong Him and Goh Leong San, who after leading Malacca DAP for long, eventually quit the party after infighting with those aligned to Secretary-General Lim Guan Eng.

Whereas in the US, it would have been considerably easier for these politicians to “fight back” without quitting the party.

Therefore, in the long run, I am of the opinion that demanding PH and even BN to transform into a single multi-racial party is not the way, but we should promote a multi-party system instead.

Benefits of a multi-party system

This can be done by changing the electoral system into one which would eliminate “tactical voting”.

Political analyst Dr Wong Chin Huat has been calling for a mixed-member proportional system as in Germany, where about half of the seats are being reserved for constituencies, and the overall seat allocation would still be based on the party votes.

In such a system, each voter would actually have two votes for a legislature – one for party and one for constituency candidate.

Other than that, the Alternative Voting as in Australia may be considered as well, where voters would need to rank candidates in their constituencies, so that in case no candidate obtains more than 50% of the votes, the one with the least number of votes would be eliminated and have their votes transferred to the voters’ “second choice” candidate. This is to ensure that the ultimate winner truly represents the majority voice of the constituency.

Regardless of the two proposed electoral systems above, it would eliminate tactical voting, where voters would go ahead with voting for their favourite party or candidate, without fear of “wasting their votes” and losing out to the major parties.

After all, if no party wins more than 50% of the seats, either major party would need to form a coalition government with a minor party which ideology is considerably similar.

As a result, in Germany the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) together with their permanent ally Christian Social Union (CSU) would usually partner with the Free Democratic Party (FDP), while the Social Democratic Party (SPD) would usually partner with the Green Party.

If such a situation occurs in Malaysia, and Keadilan becomes the largest party in Parliament, they may conveniently attempt to form a coalition government with DAP, Amanah, PSM, Gerakan, Warisan, PBS, SUPP, or so on, since they are not very much different in ideology.

After all, a multi-party system also allows parties to put more effort in promoting their ideologies, instead of trying to entice voters up to the point of forgetting their own principles.

The Malaysian political climate had forced DAP to tone down their social democratic and democratic socialist appearance, in fear of being labelled as “Communist”. DAP’s long-time “Chinese dominance” makes their efforts in reaching out to the Malays difficult as well.

On the other hand, Keadilan is also facing difficulties reaching out to the Chinese community, and in terms of party membership, there are over twice more Indians than Chinese.

This explains why Barisan Alternatif, Pakatan Rakyat and now PH have been roughly similar to the race-based model of BN, where DAP would always be the de facto “MCA” in the coalition.

While Amanah opens its membership to all citizens regardless of ethnicity and religion, they are still very heavily Malay-dominated, and they still have a long way to go before they may successfully emulate the success of the National Awakening Party in Indonesia.

With a competitive multi-party system, even Keadilan, DAP and Amanah may break permanent ties and compete against each other in reaching out to different ethnic groups, while preparing to form a coalition government after election.

Therefore, instead of a single multi-racial party, why not go for a multi-party system in the future?

Elijah Hee is an FMT reader.

New malaysia, Old Prime Minister

What a week
what a year
what a country
and what a Man - Tun Mahathir 93 years old.

This must be the proudest moment of our life, we brought down a Party that rules Malaysia for 60 years. All this time along , BN won majority seats in Parliment but in  GE 2018 , they lost big time to Pakatan Harapan ( HOPE) . 
Results disclosed by the country’s Election Commission showed that the opposition Pakatan Harapan (PH) coalition had surpassed the 112 of the 222 seats required in parliament with 121 seats, giving it an effective simple majority, with BN winning just 79 seats.

D facto here is Mahathir. His name alone used to bring a shiver to the oppositions, now he is their mentor, like Moses brought the Jews cross the dead sea. Anwar was the man initiate the fire in youth through his reformasi , but Mahathir turns it into real success. 

While Anwar was a fighter, turn ice into fire but Mahathir is a political master, turn something impossible into reality. Who would ever have the slightest idea that one day all the man he put in prison will choose him again to be their boss, Mat Sabu, Lim Guen Eng, Lim Kit Siang and especially Anwar Ibrahim.

This man is only one in 6 billion. 

Wellcome to New Malaysia -  I am proud to introduce our Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohammad.