The Flaws of the Opposition

Nathaniel Tan, January 31, 2008

English, Nat |

You can probably think of a thousand reasons why the Opposition is not perfect. Having the benefit of intimate experience working inside the Opposition, I assure you I can easily think of a thousand more.

The Malaysian intelligentsia has been unforgiving on this front, and that is not entirely unwelcome. I would never want to be part of any movement that was not ready to subject itself to any and all criticism.

The simple question at hand is, what do we do with an imperfect Opposition?

1. We can boycott it and conclude that Malaysian politics is hopeless

This benefits no one more than BN, given the manner in which it has and will continue to allow them to quietly ravage the country with impunity.

In the interests of following an argument to its logical conclusion, let us also examine the scenario that faces those who believe both the Opposition and BN are bereft of all value, but still want to see change.

Two options are available: start their own political party, or take part in an apolitical citizen’s movement.

I am perfectly sympathetic to either, if they can be successful.

This caveat is of course significant. My own analysis, and this is a personal affair which everyone must evaluate for themselves, is that as it stands, neither of these options are as yet on the verge of reaching the critical mass truly necessary the dismount BN and thus affect lasting, meaningful change in Malaysia.

(For the record, I may not be naive enough to believe that removing BN is sufficient to solve all of Malaysia’s problems and affect meaningful change, but again - in my very personal opinion - there will never, ever be meaningful change while a coalition where racial divisiveness and corruption hardwired so thoroughly into its system still rules)

To me, this is an important point. We are perfectly entitled to choose only to involve ourselves with movements that are ‘perfect.’ But does this come at the cost of affecting any real change?

If ten different people start ten different movements, each reflecting only a narrow set of uncompromisable ideals and moving independent of one another in dispersed directions, where does that leave the prospects for unity and change?

This is not to say any of these options do not have their place. The point is that to pursue them independent of other advocates for meaningful change is likely counter-productive.

The line between ideals and the need for meaningful results is ever a painful one that each of us must draw for ourselves. I have drawn mine.

Finally, if there is no hope, why do we stay here? Some are packing, while others seem prevented by inertia to move out, labouring perhaps under the illusion that it will not get worse.

I suppose only time will tell.

2. We can demand a better Opposition.

This is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, but how?

Do we scream and shout and them in our anger? Do we labour to find and pounce upon with glee their every flaw?

I cannot help but recall once again the words of Anton Ego:

In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgement. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face is that, in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism designating it so.

Perhaps a good analogy is that of parent and child. In raising our beloved young, there are some strategies that are effective, and there are some that are not.

The final litmus test is once again, results. Which strategies will actually result in a better brought up child?

Yes, there are differing views on this, but I think we can all agree that constant negativity is bad for human development. It is all in the attitude, and in the sincerity (or lack thereof) of intent.

Of course, Opposition parties are not children (although, given the relative age of some, this may not be an entirely inappropriate analogy), and we can and should expect more from them than we would children.

I submit that the principle holds, however. If we want a better Opposition, then by all means, we should be firm, consistent and have high expectations, but we must also be loving, patient and understanding - just like a good parent.

Ultimately, my advice to a child with bad parents would be to ignore any admonitions that are not informed by love and designed to better his or her life. Life is too short for that sort of thing.

3. We can make a better Opposition.

This is my choice.

Politics is only what we make politics to be. I have always said that if we want a better Malaysia, we have to step up and make a better Malaysia.

Why should an Opposition movement be any different?

Some people are irreconcilably averse to politics, and that is perfectly within their right.

But for the rest, if we are willing to say to citizens that they must do their part, then the principle must be held consistently.

One does not have to agree with everything within a political party to help make it better. I certainly do not hold the same views as all of my fellow party members.

However, if we cannot resolve our differences and come to understandings even within a small group, how can we do so as a nation?

I have seen firsthand that Opposition parties need help. A lot of it.

The only question is who is going to lend it to them? If not you, and those like you, then who? Will we all wait for someone else to do the dirty work? I think we all know what that will result in.

Many seem to know how the Opposition can be better - why not come in, advocate for your changes, and make them a reality?

If we want to see a better Opposition, we have to step up and make a better Opposition.

*

I am of the view that this comes down to what is important to us. How badly we want the things we want, and how much discomfort we are willing to endure to make a better Malaysia.

It’s not a decision I or anyone else can make for you.

Comments