| ###############################################################
MCA must regain its vision
FOR a long time Barisan Nasional’s communal approach has been translated into policies that have guided the nation’s governance and economic management. As a result, we are now laden with a hotchpotch of economic policies which are obviously in conflict.
We have in existence an old system from a socialist ideology of using price controls and subsidies to “deliver to the poor”. We take a neo-liberalist stand to government-linked companies (GLCs) by providing them with immense and expansive immunity to regulations and real market competition, while the rest of the business community struggles in an unlevel playing field. As a country, we are not sure if we are for “free trade” or “fair trade”. For the man on the street, we have not even decided if the world is flat or not (economically speaking). In essence, we seem to adopt economic models that sound good at that time.
What is painfully apparent is that we have allowed the Opposition to dominate the social justice debate during the elections as if it were the rightful place of socialism or socialist democracy, as they like to be called these days. As if no other political system delivers social justice. Contrary to what many believe, MCA did have a political ideology.
Tun Tan Cheng Lock and the other founding members were landowners and were the elite class of the Chinese community who had steep interests in mining and plantations at that time. Tun H.S. Lee and many of his comrades were aligned to the Kuomintang, which was a liberal conservative party and remains so until today. They had the social responsibility to ensure that the welfare of the workers was looked after, and were keenly aware that the shipment of half a million Chinese would have had an excruciating impact on the economy nationwide affecting farmers, smallholders, wholesalers, shopkeepers, hawkers, petty traders, miners and so forth.
After the 1969 troubles, MCA gathered top Chinese businessmen to help shape the new direction for the party then and, this initiative helped bring back the credibility it lost in the polls. Subsequent MCA presidents had always had a soft spot for the Chinese business interests, even earning its distasteful label of a “towkay party” by the Opposition.
In the midst of the crunching recession of the 80s, MCA favoured a monetarist-Chicago school or, Thatcher-Reagan approach to economic management. MCA knew that a more liberal framework spells better conditions for business. Smaller governments, less government intervention and talk of a free market were inputs for the conceptualisation of Vision 2020. Through significant liberalisation, the Malaysian economy was able to take a ride on the tech boom of the 90s. Of course, the financial crisis came and trading rules were once again changed.
Sure, the neo-liberal or liberal stand worldwide has its critics, as do social welfare states in many countries. Therefore, the question of the “tale of two cities” with the poor getting poorer and the rich getting richer is not the sole domain of Pakatan Rakyat. The democratic debate spectrum is wide enough!
Along the way, MCA lost sight of its political ideology. MCA was reluctant to take on a liberal or conservative school of thought fearing the “Chinese liking for underdogs” or that it would be labelled as “people unfriendly” or simply “a bunch of self-serving friends of towkays”. MCA’s political economic history is also marred by scandals, mismanagement of funds, corporate collapses and other improper dealings. There were also accusations of its silence against injustice for the fear of Umno, etc, all of which we are too familiar with.
Towkay or no towkay image, MCA will still have to deal with the past to move forward, much like Umno has to. As did Parti Keadilan Rakyat, DAP and PAS for that matter after their crushing defeat in 2004. Remnants of history always induce fear. Some are real, others are phobias.
It is unimportant if the social welfare concept sticks with the greater Malaysian population. Such populist ideals are not new. It is also not about being communal based or religion based. A new political language has begun never seen before in this country
.
Whether MCA takes on a right or middle-of-the-road political thinking, it still needs to pivot itself on a clear, credible, solidified platform as the basis of its political cause. Once established, the political language, the arguments and policies will naturally fall in place – be it fighting for more or less economic freedom viz-a-viz the affirmative policy, integrity of institutions, openness to development of vernacular schools, efficiency of welfare systems (as opposed to a welfare state), racial and religious extremism and so forth. Whatever the topic or issue, arguments must be both credible and consistent, founded on a basic set of political principles.
Today, 90-95% of the Chinese population (and they are mostly concentrated in the MCA constituencies) are one way or another tied to the private sector either as employees, professionals, businesses or as petty traders. They all have an interest in economic expansion and prosperity.
Don’t we also need a language of social justice that is distinct from a welfare state?
Fui K. Soong is the chief executive officer of Insap, an MCA think tank. |
Reply
2 Comments
May 2, 2008 at 10:22 am
Saudara, take the lead, make the very first call!
Remember, you are the Chief of Publicity and Publication for the party.
May 9, 2008 at 1:46 am
“whosoever opens his mouth first, be sure of what you intend to say, say it well, mean it well, and stand by it.” from ancient sayings of wisdom