Election 2013: Race contestation at its sharpest / review 1955-69

February 2, 2013 at 6:50 pm 58 comments

There were three federal elections before ‘the’ one on 10 May 1969. They were in 1955, 1959 and 1964, and the contests were about the two major races vying for political power.

1955

Malays enjoyed a disproportionate advantage because many Chinese inhabitants at that time were not citizens and thus ineligible to register as electors.

According to the 1957 census, the population of Malaya was 49.8% Malay and 37.2% Chinese; 1955 itself was not a census year. (Census years were 1957, 1960, 1970, 1980, 1991, 2000, 2010).

The ethnic breakdown of those registered to vote in 1955:

  • 84.2 percent: 1,078,000 Malays
  • 11.2 percent: 143,000 Chinese
  • 3.9 percent: 50,000 Indians
  • 0.7 percent: 9,000 Others

1959

The big edge which the Malays possessed in 1955 was lost after the liberalization of citizenship during Merdeka. Between 1957 and 1959, a total of close to 910,000 non-Malays were enfranchized as citizens — a development which diluted the Malay voting strength although the community was roughly half the population in both the election years.

From being 84.2% of the electorate four years earlier, the Malays – now 57.1% of the electorate – saw the power of their vote drop steeply.

In 1959, there were some 764,000 Chinese voters or 35.6% of the electorate, which was a marked rise from the 11.2% of the previous GE edition.

Chinese in the urban areas voted predominantly for the opposition. The reduction of rural weightage gave another boost to the Chinese electoral strength.

1964

The third general election took place a year after the formation of Malaysia which added more Chinese – Singapore’s. In 1964, following the entry of Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak, the country’s ethnic breakdown settled at an uneasy 46.4 percent Malays and natives, and 42.1 percent Chinese.

Singapore had conducted her elections separately in 1963.

In GE3, Malays were 50.1 percent of the population in relation to being 54.4 percent of the electorate.

Chinese, excluding the Singapore residents, were 36.8 percent of the 1964 Malaysian population.

Three months after the April general election in Malaysia, race riots broke out in Singapore between Malays and Chinese following a Maulidur Rasul procession in July 1964.

1969

By the fourth general election, the advantage of the Malays had levelled off whereas the Chinese voting strength relatively increased.

In 1969, MCA contested 33 seats and lost 20 — a failure rate of 60.6%. In 2008, MCA contested 40 seats and lost 25 — a failure rate of 62.5%.

Therefore, going by ratio, the MCA of 2008 fared worse than the MCA of 1969 at the polling booth.

On May 13, 1969, MCA announced its withdrawal from the Alliance government.

Vis-a-vis the Chinese BN component party, the election of 2013 should not be compared to that of 1969. The comparable poor performance of MCA is rightly between 2008 and 1969.

In 2013, we’re talking Dino World for the MCA.

The 13th general election

There is a ‘Run up to the GE13′ analysis today in the Planet of the Monyets blog. The blogger Raja Monyet did an assessment on the comparative strengths of the political parties, namely DAP, Umno, PAS, MCA, MIC and PKR — listed in descending order according to most progress made since GE12.

I’ve summarized Raja Monyet’s assessment of the DAP below. For his evaluation on the other parties, please read at the source blog.

Raja Monyet wrote:

Click 2x to read

Click 2x to read

Summary of the Raja Monyet appraisal:

DAP is “a Chinese party to the core”.

(A) Support base
  • very strong among Chinese
  • consolidated its appeal to Chinese voters after winning Penang

(B) Tactics and strategy

  • clever, sophisticated campaigns
  • sleek machinery
  • most tactical of all the parties

(C) Party image beyond its diehard followers

  • little progress in attracting non-Chinese supporters
  • DAP = Lim Kit Siang = Chinese chauvinist (in the eyes of the bulk of the Malays)
  • perception corroborated by Tunku Aziz’s departure as well as zilch Malay CEC members
  • kalimah ‘Allah’ drama alienating Malay voters

(D) Forecast performance

  • Will lose significant Malay votes
  • Will win more urban-Chinese seats (both state & Parliament)
  • Will make inroads in Johor, Sabah & Sarawak
  • May lose some mixed seats in Perak & Negri Sembilan

(Monyet King assessment ends, Helen Ang resumes below*)

The Firster myth-making

That race relations in our past were as rosy as they’re portrayed in Yasmin Ahmad’s Petronas National Day TV ads is a myth peddled by the Firsters.

These blinkered Beyond Race opposition supporters have chosen to lay the problem of ethnic tensions alpha and omega at Dr M’s door. It merely smacks of the In-Denial Syndrome that they indulge themselves in.

The two majors races, the Malays and the Chinese, have always struggled for power against each other.

Umno and MCA representing both races respectively had previously managed to contain the tensions. That is until 1969 when it blew over.

Chinese vs Malay, no ifs

The general election scheduled for this year is a definite game changer. DAP will emerge the strongest Pakatan party in its aftermath.

Without doubt, the status quo will remain of Umno as the strongest. The Malay party currently has 77 MPs in our 222-seat Parliament. Its 34.7 percent share of Parliamentarians takes Umno far out in the field.

Post GE13, the scenario will be DAP vs Umno. There are no two ways about this.

DAP is “a Chinese party to the core” in Raja Monyet’s view and his is an opinion shared by many even should the Dapsters most strenuously deny it.

Umno is a Malay party — that’s what its name proclaims unequivocally.

The political equation is unavoidably Chinese vs Malay, head on.

____________________________________________________________

Part 2 will follow with a look at the religious dimension.

* I’ve added the demarcation between Raja Monyet and my opinions, just in case some readers are “easily confused” (updated 10.50pm).

About these ads

Entry filed under: Evangelis. Tags: .

LOL Malaysia’s sexiest man — photos

58 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Forrest Kucing  |  February 2, 2013 at 9:43 pm

    So now an anonymous Raja Monyet is a well-known analyst?
    My Special Branch (SB) sources tell me in Semenanjung that UMNO/MCA is going to lose more seats coming GE13.

    What about UMDECEL’s public forecast…

    ~ Forrest Kucing

    Reply
    • 2. Helen Ang  |  February 2, 2013 at 10:19 pm

      (1) The identity of the said blogger is known, just that he’s not making it widely public. Which is more than I can say for the oppo-supporting, shape-shifting Anons.

      (2) ‘Analyst': He does not claim to be one. I’ve described his views as an analysis. Anything wrong with that?

      (3) “Well-known”: Some writers – through shameless self-publicity – have made themselves known. But that doesn’t automatically confer credibility or intelligence on their writings. I have more than a few names in mind but I shall refrain from mentioning them.

      Agree that attaching a name is good and better, but ideas can nonetheless be evaluated on their own merit. I’d once put up a link in this blog to a PhD holder with credentials of more than 20 years teaching in Universiti Malaya but solely because of his Umno membership, his article was rubbished by some readers. You know the saying “haters will hate”.

      In this matter of names and anonymity, if you want to find fault, you will. Like famously, it’s alright with Dapsters that Sakmongkol and Aspan leave Umno to join DAP but it’s not alright that Tunku Aziz leave DAP (without joining any other party). If the opposition does it, Hero. If the establishment does the same, Zero — Tunku Aziz’s complaint (read here).

      (4) It is Monyet King’s analysis. He’s not forcing anyone to agree with him. For example, he also wrote: “LGE is a good man, perhaps a little cocky now compared to before 2008. Regardless whether you like him or not, he is doing a fine job as the CM of Penang and that has won him many admirers.”

      You would have read the above paragraph had you double clicked on the screenshot on this page (see above).

      As to the opinion that “LGE is a good man”, I totally, completely, wholly, entirely disagree. However, (unlike Dapsters) just because I do not share Raja Monyet’s favourable opinion of the Penang CM doesn’t mean that I will rubbish everything else that he writes.

      (To give an obverse example, let’s say someone writes “Mahathir/Najib/Muhyiddin is a good man”. The Abu-ers would go berserk and scream that the prostitute-whore has been paid by Umno to say so.)

      What Raja Monyet has said about LGE is his opinion to which he’s entitled and on which we differ. I can still value the rest of his analysis and I’ve found that he is a blogger with a sharp mind and whole lot of common sense.

      (5) If you had gone to the source blog as I’d recommended, you’d have read Raja Monyet’s parting shot: “This is my assessment. If you like it, fine. If you don’t like it, please go here.”

      Reply
  • 3. shamshul anuar  |  February 2, 2013 at 10:34 pm

    Helen,

    Following is my prediction on the coming election.

    UMNO will earn the lagest share of malay votes. I believe it is going to be better than 2008. UMNO will capture back Kedah, Selangor. The significant increase of voters come from malays who are disillusioned with PAS. And in fact, I am not surprise if Kelantan is captured by UMNO again.

    PKR will be almost wiped out especially in Malay areas. The sentiment on the ground (from my observation) is that even Anwar may not make it this time if he contests in Permatang Pauh.

    But the loser this time will be PAS. Its share of Malay votes I believe will be reduced rather significantly. Just like in 2004.

    DAP holds the Chinese areas although MCA will likely to win more Chinese seats this time. If MCA and Gerakan are aggresive enough , both with the help of UMNO can capture Penang. DAP is still holding the fort in Penang although many chinese are beginning to feel whether it is wise to vote themselves out of govt.

    Reply
    • 4. Helen Ang  |  February 2, 2013 at 10:37 pm

      What are your indications that MCA will win more Chinese seats?

      Reply
      • 5. shamshul anuar  |  February 3, 2013 at 11:31 am

        Helen,

        I believe Chinese as generally as pragmatic. Meaning they eventually will think whether it is wise to vote themselves of the govt of the day.

        My point is that while they seem to have “soft spot” for DAP, they also realise that the sentiment is that the biggest voters block, the Malays have “leaned’ towards UMNO.

        One point of paramount importance is MCA publicly said that it will not accept any ministerial posts should it fares badly in the next election. It is not a threat. rather, it is a friendly reminder that in order to have “chinese face’ in cabinet line up, Chinese needs to support MCA.

        The only worry I have if Najib continues to make the mistakes that all previous UMNO President have made:that is to continue baby sitting MCA by letting MCA contest in Malay areas.

        Who could forget that the reasons behind BN loss in Kuantan, Bandar tun Razak, Teluk kemang, Pasir Panjang, Lunas is a simply glaring fact that the constituents want Malay candidaes. The goodwill is already thinning . all the while it has been a one way traffoic with Malay giving in but not apprec iated by Chinese voters. In Fact, Malays( UMNO) are ridiculed,for such generosity.

        Reply
        • 6. Helen Ang  |  February 3, 2013 at 12:03 pm

          The Chinese will counter that it makes no difference that MCA is in Cabinet or Government because the party no power.

          Reply
          • 7. shamshul anuar  |  February 3, 2013 at 4:40 pm

            Helen ang,

            Actually it is no big deal among Malays or UMNO. Reality is not often very pleasant to many people. As i said earlier as much as some Malays who are vocal want to try a new govt, vast majority of them are actually not ready to dump UMNO that is controlling BN and replace it with PR where there is no Malay party controlling PR.

            Everyone know that MCA needs UMNO more than the other way around. It would not be wrong to say that Malay voters are lifeline of MCA. Without UMNO, MCA would have been relegated to a museum now.

            What i am trying to say is that UMNO or malays have come to conclude that whatever [possible requests that any govt on this planet is able to dish out to Chinese would change the fact UMNO will continued to be looked as “cruel” simply because it is a Malay based party.

            Meaning that in private many UMNO leaders have concluded that so long UMNO refused to “kowtow” to Chinese , then UMNO will be seen as racist.

            MCA is seen as having to ‘kowtow” to UMNO as for decades it have been taking the easy way out not confronting and tell the reality to Chinese. MCA for decade is comfortable winning in Malay majority areas without wanting to work hard to counter DAP in Chinese areas.

            Knowing that media plays a vital part in shaping sentiment, MCA refuses to see that STAR while owned by MCA seems to “love” DAP than its paymaster. Only the current President of MCA fights and become a much hated man among DAP circle for being blunt.

            Only this time I feel MCA will fare a little better than 2008 as i notice Chinese also wants to send message that they should not be left out of govt. And also a message to DAP that it is viewed as invincible as it wants to claim.

            Reply
            • 8. Helen Ang  |  February 3, 2013 at 5:19 pm

              Shamshul,

              To restate our topic of discussion: You believe that MCA will do better in the Chinese seats that it contests.

              This means MCA will get Chinese votes. So my question is why do you think Chinese will give their vote to the MCA candidate rather than the DAP or the PKR Chinese candidate?

              (1) You say that Chinese look at Umno as “cruel”. They also see MCA as having to ‘kowtow” to Umno,

              So why would Chinese vote for a party they’re always calling as Umno’s “running dog”?

              (2) You also say that whatever Umno is willing to dish out to the Chinese (e.g. money for existing Chinese schools, permission to build more Chinese schools), maksudnya sekalipun Umno mengirim hantaran tujuh dulang hati nyamuk, tujuh tempayan airmata anak dara dan menjanjikan jambatan emas dari P. Pinang ke Singapura, namun hati kaum Cina masih tidak mungkin berjaya dilembutkan.

              If so, why would they want to cast their vote for MCA which they’re always saying is anjing kurap waiting to eat the few crumbs thrown at them from the master’s table?

              (3) You also say that Umno is seen as racist by the Chinese because for decades MCA has been taking the easy way out by not confronting the hard facts and telling the reality to the Chinese.

              Since MCA is not willing to work hard to counter DAP in Chinese areas, then how can the voters in these areas vote MCA? (since they swallow everything that DAP tells them because MCA and its mouthpiece The Star do not do anything to counter DAP)

              (4) CSL is a much hated man in the DAP circles and also among the Chinese who are always calling him (unprintable) names for his habit of being blunt. Likewise any other MCA man who tries to be blunt will be hated by the Chinese who pefer to hear the DAP sweet nothings.

              Since anyone who is forthright with the Chinese are hated by them, and if the MCA candidate is forthright he will be hated by the Chinese voters, then how can MCA win in Chinese areas?

              (5) Your argument: “Only this time I feel MCA will fare a little better than 2008 as i notice Chinese also wants to send message that they should not be left out of govt.”

              But the Chinese absolutely hate the present government! What they really want is not for MCA to sit in 4 not-very-vital Cabinet chairs but they want DAP to take over Putrajaya and form the next government themselves (since like you say, neither PKR nor PAS are in control of Pakatan). So how?

              Reply
        • 9. rakyat  |  February 3, 2013 at 12:14 pm

          SA,

          The ‘threat’ by MCA is based on the assumption that BN will form the next federal government. What if PR is the one that command the majority in the next Parliament session?

          Reply
          • 10. shamshul anuar  |  February 3, 2013 at 4:47 pm

            Rakyat,

            Actually it was not a threat. rather I see it as a friendly reminder. No malice intended.

            What Dr chua is saying is very simple. Meaning it is not going to be pleasant to be supporter of losing team. Or in plain language “be part of the govt” instead of voting yourself out of govt.

            Should PR take over( not that am confident it will win in next election), then PR will rule Malaysia as it deemed fit. For Malays, it is tantamount to having “yahudi” overlording them.

            If that is the situation, it is “gone with the wind” for malays. They will lose political power. Without it, whatever uniques characcters of this land such as “raja raja”, “islam” will soon come to its end.

            Reply
    • 11. grandmarquis  |  February 3, 2013 at 12:40 am

      I totally agree with you except for the fact that MCA will win more chinese seat. In my opinion, MCA will be at its lowest whereas DAP will be strongest as for now, probably 9.5 out of 10 Chinese will vote for DAP For PAS and PKR, be prepare to see their onslaught.

      I believe PAS and PKR can see that it is coming. That’s is why they are working very hard to prepare an excuse before they face the actual consequence. They will blame SPR, pengundi hantu, and for pas they will blame people like Nasha, Harun Din, Hassan Ali for being pro perpaduan.

      Reply
  • 12. Waris Malaya  |  February 2, 2013 at 10:51 pm

    I have to differ with Monyet King on 2nd bullet point under (B).

    My notes indicate DAP do not have the necessary election machinery for a nationwide campaign. Hence the reliance on PAS – more for legwork than brainwork, mind.

    Perhaps I misunderstand the actual meaning of “sleek machinery”.

    Reply
    • 13. Helen Ang  |  February 2, 2013 at 10:59 pm

      Raja Monyet wrote: “Over the past 5 years, DAP has cleverly strategized its campaigns, has a sleek campaign machinery and probably the most tactical of all parties.”

      I really, really, really beg to differ with his take on LGE as a “good man”!

      But his sketch is a good starting point for discussion nonetheless.

      Reply
      • 14. Waris Malaya  |  February 2, 2013 at 11:22 pm

        Then I misunderstood the phrase.

        Agreed that DAP has “sleek machinery” to run a focused campaign. A nationwide election, on the other hand, is a completely different ballgame.

        48,000 DAP members plus assorted sympathizers would not be sufficient for 222 parliament districts and all the DUN seats.

        Reply
        • 15. Helen Ang  |  February 2, 2013 at 11:30 pm

          They had 48,000 members in 2008.

          Today they have 150,000 — you know lah, those newbies jumping on the bandwagon who would not have fit the pre-2008 DAP profile such as Zairil, Ong Kian Ming, Yeo Bee Yin, Datuk Sak, etc.

          Also today the party got oodles of money which they did not have at their disposal in the GEs prior to 2008.

          And they needn’t fan out to 222 constituencies. Strike out K’tan, T’ganu, Perlis, Kedah and Sabah interior.

          Reply
          • 16. Fakin' Fake Calvin  |  February 3, 2013 at 12:54 am

            The thing with DAP is that they will probably keep joint campaigns with their PR counterparts to a minimum. They’ll concentrate their machinery in the seats they’re contesting & disregard the rest. As for East Malaysia, they will only focus on the urban seats & semi urban ones with a majority of the electorate being Chinese.

            With that strategy they will probably cover around 70-80 seats of which probably half are sure winners. If it comes to it, they’ll probably do a Perak over again where the real power lies in their hands.

            At the end of the day, despite their protestations, only those with blinkered eyes can deny DAP was, is & will always be a Chinese centric party.

            Reply
      • 17. Abdul Hamid  |  February 3, 2013 at 11:38 am

        If ‘sleek campaign machinery’ means online portals, fb and English language anglophiles campaign materials, then the targeted audiences they might reach (in my personal kampong-bum analysis) to about 20% or less. Think about it.

        Reply
        • 18. Helen Ang  |  February 3, 2013 at 12:01 pm

          DAP got strong support from Chinese newspapers and very active in Chinese social media.

          Reply
  • 19. mekyam  |  February 3, 2013 at 7:36 am

    *anjuran dan permintaan*

    helen, kalau tak keberatan, boleh tak letak fungsi “like” dan “dislike” utk setiap komen [macam yg dibuat oleh JMD kat blog dia]?

    pengunjung macam saya kekadang sempat baca saja tapi tak sempat nak komen sbb kesuntukan masa.

    jadi kalau dapat sekurang2nya tinggalkan “like” sebagai sokongan utk komen2 yg bernas dan/atau disetujui tidaklah rasa terkilan sangat.

    sebaliknya, “dislike” pulak boleh juga memberi kepuasan melepaskan perasaan seadanya terhadap komen2 yg tak empuk, tak disetujui atau yang terbaca handle pun membuang masa.

    harap anjuran ini dapat pertimbangan.

    apa kata rerakan penggunjung lain?

    Reply
    • 20. Helen Ang  |  February 3, 2013 at 8:49 am

      Hi Mekyam,

      I’ve managed to tweak the settings to show the Twitter and Facebook pick up. See Twitter and Facebook Share icons now.

      However I couldn’t find the field for Like comments. Perhaps JMD or anyone using the same WordPress template as me can help?

      This one that I’m nesting in is rather basic. Other bloggers use more elaborate templates with special features. Din Turtle, for one, has upgraded!

      Reply
  • 21. The International Jew  |  February 3, 2013 at 10:06 am

    Helen good morning. this may be off topic but I have to tell you that your name has been hijacked by the Dapsters to spread nonsense at Stop The Lies.

    Helen Ang Abdullah says:

    February 3 2013 at 9.30am

    No one can claim to be more successful than the shamed old scumbag Dungu aziz when it comes to mole in the party.
    Praying for the earliest demise of this social scum 5 times a day.

    here’s the link http://stopthelies.my/?p=2426#comments

    Reply
    • 22. Helen Ang  |  February 3, 2013 at 10:51 am

      Thanks

      Reply
    • 23. The Real Rakyat  |  February 3, 2013 at 1:50 pm

      yup i noticed tat too!! Your name kena hijack

      Reply
      • 24. Helen Ang  |  February 3, 2013 at 1:53 pm

        Thanks, noted.

        Reply
        • 25. msleepyhead  |  February 3, 2013 at 9:47 pm

          wah, you famous liao.

          my nom de guerre (cheyh cam sak ak47 pulak) got hijacked too back in the days in DM comments.

          what a flattery.

          Reply
          • 26. Helen Ang  |  February 3, 2013 at 9:50 pm

            What does ‘DM’ stand for?

            Reply
  • 27. i hate n'sync  |  February 3, 2013 at 2:19 pm

    Dear Helen,

    I think there is a temptation to see it as a Sino-Malay election, but as I’ve said earlier, I think that’s largely irrelevant. There has been attempts in past elections to cast the GE results in such ethnic polarization. Truth is, DAP cannot win anything substantial without PKR and PAS (i.e. the Malay votes). If polarization does happen, I think there is no way Chinese votes can steal the prize, just looking at the numbers alone. Chinese votes cannot stand on its own, not even with the other non-Malay votes – that’s a reality.

    This is the balance some have been seeking for decades, a split Malay vote with non-Malays skewing the results. There are Malays who think this is bad news, but look at the rent-seeking economy and enriching of the elites during the 2/3 majority eras. Look at the kinds of laws and amendments to the Constitution during that period. From 1969 till the early 2000s, three decades of authoritarian government has created a lot of damages, despite the economic progress we have gained.

    I am more inclined to suggest that the days of strong governments are over. I tend to hope that it will be a see-saw of political check and balances, and this will lead to a crumbling of the old equations and rise of new political parties (and power structures). Don’t you think it is curious? Only once in a blue moon in Malaysia we get new political parties (with national aspirations) like Semangat 46, PKR and KITA. We now have the royals asserting their powers, minority religion and ethnic groups rebelling against old edicts and conventions, syariah and civil laws at odds with one another, and the States are now punching their weight with the Federal government. Civil societies are on the rise and the political elites, as well as their business cronies, need to adjust quickly because the old wayang is getting stale.

    The masses must realize the danger of new situations, and the least important of them all is whether the GE will be a Sino-Malay affair. The truth is that I see a lot of new elements at play, and I want to see how they will all play out come this GE and post it – whatever the outcome may be.

    Reply
    • 28. Helen Ang  |  February 3, 2013 at 2:42 pm

      The May 1969 outcome killed the Alliance. I think GE13 may do the same to the BN in the peninsula following losses by MCA & Gerakan (am not sure about MIC).

      Doubtless the MCA and Umno working relationship has had its downs but how can the DAP and PAS r/s be viable with both their religious bent?

      Reply
    • 29. jonnymalaya  |  February 4, 2013 at 12:19 am

      IHNS,

      Like you said, the BN is trying to paint our nation’s political scenario into a simple Malay vs. Chinese issue, totally ignoring the different group dynamics amongst various ethnic groups. But BN’s main parties have race supremacism and ethnic championship as its ideologies. Race based parties always try to promote a we-vs-them binary thinking to gather support & scare their potential voters from the same ethnic grouping.

      I wouldn’t say a goverment with over 66% of votes will be a strong government. Pak Lah led BN to its best electorial performance in 2004, yet he failed to carry out many of the reforms he promised. Supermajorities tend to lead to winners becoming complacent & repressive.

      I agree that it will be unlikely for any political party or coalition to get over 2/3-rds in future. This should be the way, as it will prevent any one group from doing as they please

      Reply
  • 30. JIWA HAMBA  |  February 3, 2013 at 9:21 pm

    Reblogged this on jiwa_hamba.

    Reply
  • 31. shamshul anuar  |  February 3, 2013 at 10:47 pm

    Helen,

    What I am saying is that MCA must be willing to do the unpleasant job of telling Chinese straight to their faces that no way they alone( chinese) can dictate the political arena. MCA needs to engage to the Chinese by telling them the simple truth; that the “supremo” tag often associated to UMNO is simply due to it having the largest share of Malay votes and nothing less.

    They( the Chinese) of course do have some influence in politics. But like any other communities, there is a limit to their influences. There is nothing to be embarassed with partnership with UMNO. I un derstand MCA may not want to upset the Chinese by telling what the malays generally feel about them. But telling the truth will simplify everything.

    If you read my response you would notice that I never deny sizable chunk of Chinese are with DAP. what I said is that I predict that MCA will fare a little bit better this time. Not because Chinese loves MCA. rather, I believe they also want to have “chinese face” in cabinet.

    Just as UMNO also needs Chinese support, the otherway is much more relevant. The Chinese may not like to be in position where Malays generally with UMNO while they lock with DAP.

    It is not wishful thinking only. The last few by elections in Malay majority areas were won by UMNO. A manifestation of its influence among Malays despite its wart and all. UMNO of course has its fair share of weaknesses. But its supreme position within Malay community is unchallenged as at today. something that even many of my friends do not realise as they tend to base their assumption after reading from media that are ever hostile towards UMNO.

    Reply
    • 32. Helen Ang  |  February 3, 2013 at 11:07 pm

      Shamshul,

      (1) re: “The Chinese may not like to be in position where Malays generally with UMNO while they lock with DAP.”

      The split above is the bottomline of this article, i.e. DAP-Chinese vs Umno-Malay.

      Malangnya peringatan ini ibarat mencurah air ke atas daun keladi. Which I interpret as meaning if you (or me or anyone) were to try telling some of the Chinese that they may not find the situation to their liking, the chauvinist Cinapek bloggers among them will run down the street screaming profanities and curses.

      The actual vote count will enlighten us as to the real sentiments of the various races. Not long now …

      (2) re: “MCA needs to engage to the Chinese by telling them the simple truth”.

      They could. And the party can actually use its media group which reaches an audience of 5.63 million.

      If you have Twitter, you could help by tweeting the question as to why The Star instead of telling what’s necessary is instead daily stroking the ego of the evangelistas.

      (3) re: ” media that are ever hostile towards UMNO”.

      Methinks The Star is one of them.

      Reply
    • 33. i hate n'sync  |  February 3, 2013 at 11:46 pm

      Dear Shamsul,

      I think the statement that UMNO’s “supreme position” within the Malay community is unchallenged “as at today” is a tad off. I think UMNO, in post 1969 and 1988 days, no longer enjoyed the dominance it once had. We have a sizeable and very committed PAS members, and whatever the Islamic party could not attract, some “intellectual” residues found a home in PKR.

      UMNO, like MCA, is trying to attract quality (and idealistic) material to fill its ranks, although I think the latter is having a bigger problem.

      While your interpretation that the Chinese needs UMNO support more, I believe the Chinese just need the support of whatever Malay-majority party that is sympathetic to its concerns. That’s just basic maths. UMNO could not afford to be seen pandering to non-Malay needs, that much is certain and that’s why Perkasa is needed. UMNO’s unchecked dominance in BN is also its own undoing. UMNO cannot imagine another strong Malay-based coalition party joining its ranks because it has been doing that to dilute the voice of the minority parties to keep them in check.

      Any meaningful change to BN must come from UMNO itself, but non-Malays cannot force the change via MCA or MIC unless BN’s multicoalition partners re-work the way our race-based politics are functioning.

      Reply
    • 34. jonnymalaya  |  February 4, 2013 at 12:34 am

      Shamshul,

      How do you expect other races (not just Chinese) to listen to their respective ethnic parties in BN, when UMNO & its cohorts keep making self-centered racial & religious statements & actions, and drag the other parties around as it likes?

      At least within Pakatan there is more so equal balance amongst the member parties.

      Reply
      • 35. shamshul anuar  |  February 4, 2013 at 8:42 am

        Johhnymalaya,

        Examples of self centered racial and religious statements as per your allegation?

        Are you aware that for decades UMNO had been vilified by PAS for alliance with MCA and MIC?

        Reply
        • 36. jonnymalaya  |  February 4, 2013 at 12:03 pm

          Just look at Ibrahim Ali, Mahathir, and Muhiyiddin’s antics in the last year or so. Najib preaches 1Malaysia while his lieutenants scream out that other races are conspiring to overthrow the Malays, despite the large prescence of Malay elected representatives in Pakatan itself. We also have UMNO’s organ Utusan coming out with racially & religiously provocative news that have been mostly made up. Thats why they’ve been losing in court lately…

          Reply
          • 37. shamshul anuar  |  February 4, 2013 at 7:47 pm

            JohnnyMalaya,

            Mahathir’s antics? Such as?

            Ibrahim ali does not represent UMNO. Why he is mocked when Suqiu and Dong Zong are considered as more racist from Malay viewpoint.

            Is it wrong for any Malay leader to speak about Malay interests. which part of muhyiddin’s statement that show he is racist? That he said he is Malay first. What is wrong about that. Since when Malays think Kit siang as Malaysian first, Chinese second? In fact malays believe that Kit siang is anti malay first.

            Which part of utusan that is racist. i read utusan everyday. and i vouch that it is not racist.

            The bottom line is that if UMNO (meaning Malays) are racist, Kit Siang and entire family would have been dead by now. And do tell me what UMNO can do to the Chinese at its strongest time.

            Reply
  • 38. jonnymalaya  |  February 4, 2013 at 1:02 am

    Helen,

    Your analysis of the 1955, 1959 and 1964 is deeply flawed as it tries to turn the results into a simplistic Chinese vs. Malay thing (as usual with Helen Ang)…

    1959:

    Party & Seats won
    Alliance Party 74
    Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party 13
    Malayan People’s Socialist Front 8
    People’s Progressive Party 4
    Parti Negara 1
    Malayan Party 1
    Independents 3

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malayan_general_election,_1959

    Note that PAS gained 12 seats & over 20% of the popular vote. Thats a major gain compared to just 1 seat back in 1955, even if you consider the total of parliament seats was doubled. At that time, you’d be hard pressed to find a Chinese who would vote PAS.

    The SF & PPP had significant support from working class voters of Indian, Chinese, and even Malay race.

    1964:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysian_general_election,_1964

    The Alliance actually won more seats this time. The Malay-Muslim PAS still remains the largest opposition party in Parliament

    Reply
    • 39. Helen Ang  |  February 4, 2013 at 5:28 am

      (1) Do not forget the genesis of PAS-PIS-PUS. It was the ulama breakaway faction of Umno. They rejected the decision of Tunku’s Umno to work together with MCA which represented the Chinese.

      (2) The votes that PAS (PMIP) got in 1959 represented the voice of those rural Malays who were against the loosening of citizenship by the overly ‘liberal’ Umno. Liberal Umno in PAS eyes then was epitomized by “playboy” Tunku who was not a PAS-type posterboy (I don’t want to list the rest of Tunku’s reputed ‘sinful’ habits).

      Same worldview as the party’s Amanat Hadi era calling Umno “kafir” for working with the non-Muslim partners in the Alliance-BN.

      (3) Yes, PAS won that number of seats in 1959 but those seats were won in Kelantan and T’ganu – two states with an overwhelming Malay majority (as they still are today).

      Agree that PAS was successful in 1959. In fact, it captured both the East Coast states (consistent with PAS’s track record of ruling Kelantan).

      Votes cast for PAS were for Malays by Malays. You yourself made this remark above — “At that time, you’d be hard pressed to find a Chinese who would vote PAS.” If in 1959, the opposition Malays chose PAS, and the Chinese refused to vote PAS, doesn’t it reflect a racial cleavage?

      What you quoted – “hard pressed to find a Chinese who would vote PAS” – actually supports my reading of a longstanding and deep distrust between the two races rather than the Beyond Race myth that you oppo/SABM people are fond of peddling.

      The successful run by PAS in the 1959 election derived from sifat perkauman Melayu yang menebal.

      (4) The 1959 election results did NOT reflect any sustained trend of multi-cultural parties enjoying success in our political landscape.

      e.g. You cite the Socialist Front (SF) getting Chinese, Indian (and some Malay) support.

      Well, if the SF’s multi-cultural formula was the one that had the most appeal to the Malaysian public, then SF would have prevailed to go on to become the strongest – or at least a strong – party right up to this day, wouldn’ it? Yet the SF is dead.

      Instead it is the mono-racial Umno which has withstood the test of time, and the Alliance communal formula which won election after election.

      (5) And if the bulk of the Malays/Chinese had ever been adequately multi-racial in outlook, they would have voted Onn Jaafar’s IMP (which by 1959 had dissolved due to lack of support). The rejection of Onn Jaafar – who led Parti Negara in 1959 – was equivalent to the rejection of his pioneering of multi-cultural parties.

      Do please remember that Onn Jaafar was the visionary who in the early 1950s had wanted to open Umno’s doors to all, and change the party name to the United “Malayan” National Party.

      He was far, far ahead of his time. He walked his talk and walked out of Umno when his multi-racial vision was rejected by Umno members.

      (6) Onn Jaafar is arguably our country’s greatest statesman.

      He proceeded to establish the MULTI-RACIAL IMP, and later Parti Negara after IMP’s dismal flop. Onn Jaafar – this Towering Malayan – was thoroughly rejected by the communal-minded 1950s voters who stuck with the consociationalism format, i.e. the formula of Umno representing Malays, MCA Chinese and MIC Indians.

      The very results you cite of PAS’s success in the 1959 election points to the thickness of Malay insularity in the two most Melayu-populated states of Kelantan and T’ganu.

      (7) In 1959, it was Umno that was able to forge a working relationship with the other races.

      In 1959, the idea of sleeping in the same bed as the Chinese was as alien to PAS as the same idea was in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s and 1990s.

      The opposition electoral pact of 2008 is something new in that it didn’t break up when previous loose understandings (made during Kuli’s S46 days) couldn’t withstand the communal backlash. Yup, have you already forgotten that the Chinese backlashed against DAP for working with PAS? (albeit not directly but through S46 as the intermediary) after they were spooked by Islamic State.

      (8) My analysis is not “deeply flawed” as you allege. My analysis is what the facts say.

      SABM-ers/Firsters, on the other hand, never let facts get in the way of their pet prejudice,

      for example in demonizing as “racist devils” Umno the very party that facilitated the granting of citizenship to Chinese (and Indians) and thereby diluting Malay voting power from 84.2 percent in 1955 to 57.1 percent in 1959.

      Would an inherently “Nazi racist” (as accused by Firsters) party commit harakiri by drastically reducing the strength of its own voter base by 27 percent?

      (9) Turn the tables and say that Penang has 84.2 percent Chinese voters. Would DAP permit the mass influx of Malays to the island, which within two short years, reduced the Chinese electorate to 57.1 percent while allowing a corresponding and inverse spike with regard to Malay voters?

      My analysis is not “deeply flawed”. Instead, it is your understanding of history which is very shallow. The race dichotomy is exactly what the election results reveal and not something I made up.

      (10) Lain kali baca dan fahami lah sejarah dahulu sebelum anda buat hentam keromo yang kononnya Helen “tries to turn the results into a simplistic Chinese vs. Malay thing (as usual with Helen Ang)”.

      More usual with Dapsters lah.

      Reply
      • 40. jonnymalaya  |  February 4, 2013 at 11:49 am

        1) Again you miss the point and go about tossing red herrings labelling people ‘Dapsters’. You’re no different (even worse) than those people on the other side you claim of always looking out for ‘BN cybertroopers’.

        In your article above, you claim the inclusion of Chinese voters diluted Malay voting power, as if both ethnic groups move en masse as one political bloc. The presence of PAS vs. UMNO disproves this. The Malay vote was actually split into several groups; UMNO, PAS, and SF with a significant share.

        >>Votes cast for PAS were for Malays by Malays. You yourself made this remark above — “At that time, you’d be hard pressed to find a Chinese who would vote PAS.” If in 1959, the opposition Malays chose PAS, and the Chinese refused to vote PAS, doesn’t it reflect a racial cleavage?

        You forget that UMNO also won seats, showing that the ethnic groups don’t just vote for one party. Even the Chinese vote was divided between MCA (rich businessmen & middle class) vs. the left-leaning parties (working & poor class)

        >>(5) And if the bulk of the Malays/Chinese had ever been adequately multi-racial in outlook, they would have voted Onn Jaafar’s IMP

        You fail to include the Socialist groups, which you mention earlier but later forget.

        2) Regarding the Socialist Front, once again Helen fails to see the facts behind its decline.

        “However, with the onset of the Indonesia-Malaysia Confrontation in 1962, opposition to the new federation came to be seen as being pro-Indonesia and anti national. This caused significant rifts among the Opposition parties. Many party leaders were also arrested and incarcerated including Boestamam, Ishak Muhammad and Aziz Ishak under the Internal Security Act (ISA). These factors cost the SF significant losses in the 1964 general election where PR and the NCP failed to gain any seats at all and the LPM lost significant number of seats.[15]

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parti_Rakyat_Malaysia#Persecution

        So it appears that Helen herself is not doing her homework properly.

        Reply
        • 41. Helen Ang  |  February 4, 2013 at 12:37 pm

          (1) What you call my red herring is the oblique observation that Dapsters see the election (GE13) “simplistically” (echo your word) as Good versus Evil, and hence all their name-calling of Dr M as “the devil”, “evil” Umno as “Scumno”, “Dumno” and their rest of their stock vocabulary.

          (2) PAS was formally registered in 1955 to enable them to contest the first federal election. From one seat in 1955, the PAS haul leaped to 13 seats in 1959.

          The precipitating factor for the 1959 jump in PAS popularity is, in part, the Malay dissatisfaction with the Alliance accommodation of MCA and MIC (1952++). In those days and for a time thereafter, PAS was more race nationalist in its ideology than was Umno. Today PAS remains the more ideological party of the two.

          In fact, PAS back then was viewed as the extreme fringe (breakaway from Umno, like Perkasa today) which could not menyesuaikan diri within the moderate middle – since during that era we had close to half the population being non-Malay.

          Hence the racial dichotomy in our national political consciousness has always been there and has consistently been a factor in our elections. There has never been a “race-blind” election and neither will GE13 deviate from this trend.

          In fact, Dr Lim Chong Eu also left MCA. He won the party presidency in March 1958 and resigned in July 1959 over the seat quota (meaning race quota) haggling with Tunku.

          (3) The Chinese of 1959 in the urban areas voted for the Chinese opposition candidates. Same pattern of predicament, then and now, that has plagues MCA.

          Two salient facts:

          (a) The opposition-supporting Chinese were dissatisfied with the Alliance, again same ‘old’ reason that Umno was too much the taiko. Even Chong Eu was dissatisfied. He left MCA and went on to form opposition party which won handsomely in the 1969 election.

          (b) The miracle of Umno is that the party has managed to persuade Malays to vote the Dacing brand all this while even when the BN candidate was non-Malay. This tradition however may be broken in GE13.

          (4) re: “You forget that UMNO also won seats”

          Of course lah Umno won seats. It has been the biggest party in Malaysia since Day 1 when we started having elections.

          (5) The appeal of socialism is in decline and PSM an anachronism. As for the fate of socialism’s more radical cousin communism, we’ve already seen in the collapse of the Berlin Wall.

          Onn Jaafar’s IMP would have been the prototype democratic multiracial party which the Firsters are singing hymns of worship to today.

          The leaders of the multiracial parties today – Anwar and Tokong – do not compare with Datuk Onn’s little finger.

          If only the pygmies around Onn then had been able to appreciate his vision, the elusive multiracial party based on merit (which DAP is not despite its masuk bakul angkat sendiri) would have been realised instead of remaining the Holy Grail that DAP is selling.

          The fact that Onn Jaafar’s multiracial party, under the leadership of a politician with true integrity, did not manage lift-off is a testament to the communal thinking of the Malays and Chinese in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s and today.

          Those are facts. Race affiliation is the consistent pattern in our politics. Fact again. How many people here believe that DAP is truly beyond race?

          (6) re: “it appears that Helen herself is not doing her homework properly”. Aiyah, don’t teach your grandmother how to suck eggs lah.

          Reply
          • 42. jonnymalaya  |  February 4, 2013 at 1:23 pm

            >> (b) The miracle of Umno is that the party has managed to persuade Malays to vote the Dacing brand all this while even when the BN candidate was non-Malay. This tradition however may be broken in GE13.

            Not really. If UMNO had always enjoyed solid support from Malays, it will not have serious contenders from PAS, and now also Keadilan. It tries to out-Islamize PAS. It depended on the non Malay votes in mixed areas to tip the votes in its favor from a 50-50 chance.

            In 1999, it was mostly non Malay votes that saved Mahathir’s ass from a further trashing from PAS and the newly formed Keadilan. In 2004, the promise of much-needed reform by Pak Lah saw the best electoral performance by the BN. Non Malays pitched in their support & votes for BN. Meanwhile, Kelantan still remained under PAS.

            My point is that contrary to your idea that Malay voting power was diluted, the two sets of ethnic groups have always had factions within. It was not a simplistic Alliance = Malay support, Opposition = Chinese support

            Reply
            • 43. Helen Ang  |  February 4, 2013 at 1:45 pm

              In 1955, Malays comprised 84.2% of the voters. They gave the Alliance 51 out of the 52 seats up for grabs in the first GE. PAS won 1 seat. Onn Jaafar’s multiracial party failed to win any.

              The Malay votes in 1955 were not split. The majority of the voters (84%) were Malays and Umno won big – made almost a clean sweep of all the seats.

              In 1958, the Alliance govt allowed 822,567 non-Malays to become citizens. Many Malays were unhappy. In the election held a year later, PAS won 13 seats.

              Malaysians vote along racial lines.

              In the seats that PAS won in Kelantan and T’ganu (1959), the contending candidates were PAS Malay vs Umno Malay. The demography of both East Coast states preclude Chinese candidates. Same situation still holds today except for maybe one seat in Chinatown (Kuala Terengganu town) might be given to MCA to contest.

              It is true that Malays have voted opposition but our voting pattern by race is not denied or negated when Malays vote opposition. When they voted opposition, they still voted for a Malay candidate (i.e. PAS or later S46).

              You can only say that race didn’t count if in a Malay-majority area, the voters chose a DAP Chinese candidate over an Umno man.

              However when the Malays in Kelantan and Terengganu gave their states to PAS, it was also in part an expression of their displeasure at the “kafir” Umno deciding to work with the kafir MCA and MIC, and allowing Tanah Malay where inhabitants were subjects of the Malay Raja-Raja to suddenly become a multiracial country where non-Malays enjoyed equal voting rights now that they are citizens.

              As an example, Brunei had chosen not to liberalize citizenship for her Chinese.

              States do make race policies. Australia had once adopted a White Australia immigration intake.

              Reply
          • 44. jonnymalaya  |  February 4, 2013 at 2:32 pm

            Well, your first 6 paragraphs disprove your original point that…

            “The big edge which the Malays possessed in 1955 was lost after the liberalization of citizenship during Merdeka. Between 1957 and 1959, a total of close to 910,000 non-Malays were enfranchized as citizens — a development which diluted the Malay voting strength although the community was roughly half the population in both the election years.
            From being 84.2% of the electorate four years earlier, the Malays – now 57.1% of the electorate – saw the power of their vote drop steeply.

            What actually happened was that there emerged at least three groups within the Malay voter demographic… one for Alliance, the other for PAS, with the rest supporting the left wing parties. If they moved en bloc, then it would be a supermajority supporting either Alliance or PAS.

            As for 1955, the other parties weren’t very strong yet. PAS was only recently formed. The Alliance (UMNO, MCA, MIC) was seen as the ones leading the road to Merdeka & would have the support of the voters. If Malay voters vote en bloc as you said, they would have chosen a Malay candidate instead of an Alliance-MCA or MIC candidate.

            >> You can only say that race didn’t count if in a Malay-majority area, the voters chose a DAP Chinese candidate over an Umno man.

            And what about the many cases where MCA, MIC, PPP, etc. candidates were chosen over the Malay PAS contender?

            Reply
            • 45. Helen Ang  |  February 4, 2013 at 2:44 pm

              Helen: You can only say that race didn’t count if in a Malay-majority area, the voters chose a DAP Chinese candidate over an Umno man.

              Jonny: And what about the many cases where MCA, MIC, PPP, etc. candidates were chosen over the Malay PAS contender?

              Helen: Hahaha.

              So now you’re admitting that Umno Malays have always been able to cross racial lines and vote Chinese and Indian BN candidates.

              Since the DAP Firsters and Anak Bangsar Malaysians are the ones preaching ad nauseum that they belong to the Colour Blind Brotherhood, they should rightly display a higher standard that the “Scumnos”.

              They mock Umno for not having any Chinese members (this is “racist” they say) and they mock MCA for not having any Indian members and MIC vice versa (all “racists”, they say).

              Jadi ada cakap serupa bikin tak?

              After the Majlis Syura decision on kalimah Allah, the Dapsters have decided that while they remain loyal to Pakatan, they will nonetheless refuse to vote for PAS.

              In BN terms, it would have been that Malays refuse to vote for other candidates from the coalition’s component parties except those representing their own party Umno.

              But you admit that there are “many cases where MCA, MIC, PPP, etc. candidates were chosen over the Malay PAS contender”. ROTFL.

              Reply
            • 46. Helen Ang  |  February 4, 2013 at 3:04 pm

              In simple terms, the dilution from 84% to 57% reduced the power of the Malay voice in decision-making.

              When the Alliance relationship was at its warmest, Umno did jaga hati bini-bini dia. Bini tua is of course MCA lah. Meaning that Umno did not take full advantage to bulldoze due to sikap bertolak-ansur.

              If however the Malays had retained electoral strength at 84%, they would be able to unilaterally make any populist decision favouring Malays or Muslims to the detriment of the other minority races. Legitimately through the working of democracy of the majority number.

              Another point should also be made clear

              The one million figure bandied refers to non-Malays who became citizens through REGISTRATION.

              They do not refer to Chinese who automatically became citizens BY OPERATION OF LAW (these two are different processes),

              Penang and Malacca Chinese fall in the category of citizens by operation of law as British subjects.

              One excuse that Firsters like to trot out is that some Chinese have been here from generations, far longer than Dr M’s forebears and since the days of Princess Hang Li Po.

              True. The Babas and Nyonyas are Malaccans and Penangites. They’re not among the “one million”. The 11.2 percent or 143,000 Chinese eligible to vote in 1955 would have been the Tan Cheng Lock types (he was a Malacca Baba) and qualifying for the description “family been living in Malaya hundreds of years”.

              Hence the Dapster allegation that the one million fully deserved their citizenship because they’re really Chinese who had been living here many generations is merely a piece of spin (same like their spin that the Malay bible has been in use over 400 years).

              Reply
            • 47. Helen Ang  |  February 4, 2013 at 9:39 pm

              re: “As for 1955, the other parties weren’t very strong yet. PAS was only recently formed.”

              I wrote that PAS was registered in 1955 to be eligible to contest in the election. The party had its origins in Hizbul Muslimin in 1948.

              You can read Syed Akbar Ali @ http://syedsoutsidethebox.blogspot.com/2013/02/pas-hillybillies-versus-new-village-pro.html

              Reply
          • 48. jonnymalaya  |  February 4, 2013 at 2:35 pm

            I would also like to point out that Australia today has moved beyond its White Australia policy to a more multicultural outlook.

            Reply
          • 49. Atas Pagar  |  February 4, 2013 at 3:19 pm

            Yes “sekali air bah sekali pantai berubah”; what happened to GOP will also befall the Australian whites. So can we say the reactionary “movement” made by them as observed by you has nothing to do with humanity but more for saving their days?

            Reply
          • 50. jonnymalaya  |  February 4, 2013 at 4:31 pm

            >> After the Majlis Syura decision on kalimah Allah, the Dapsters have decided that while they remain loyal to Pakatan, they will nonetheless refuse to vote for PAS.

            But aren’t you claiming that the Dapsters have been going on a ABU/ABCD stance to the point of rejecting MCA & MIC?

            Ha, gotcha!

            >> If however the Malays had been retained electoral strength at 84%, they would be able to unilaterally make any populist decision favouring Malays or Muslims to the detriment of the other minority races. Legitimately through the working of democracy of the majority number.

            If. But that still doesn’t rule out the possibility of vote splitting due to factionalism or new parties springing up. We would not also have Sabah & Sarawak (and Singapore) joining the Federation, and today, it would be just Malaya.

            >> One excuse that Firsters like to trot out is that some Chinese have been here from generations, far longer than Dr M’s forebears and since the days of Princess Hang Li Po
            >> True. The Babas and Nyonyas are Malaccans and Penangites. They’re not among the “one million”. The 11.2 percent or 143,000 Chinese eligible to vote in 1955 would have been the Tan Cheng Lock types (he was a Malacca Baba) and qualifying for the description “family been living in Malaya hundreds of years”.

            And many of these non-Peranakans came over in 1800 to early 20th century, around the same time or earlier than Madey’s dad.

            >> Hence the Dapster allegation that the one million fully deserved their citizenship because they’re really Chinese who had been living here many generations is merely a piece of spin (same like their spin that the Malay bible has been in use over 400 years).

            Living here many generations. Yup. 1800s to 1950s. Nearly a century. How many generations is that already?

            Even then, a Peranakan Chinese would be told by an Umno/Perhasa fanboi to go back to China, even though his ancestors came down in 1500s, while the Perkasa fanboi’s ancestors came from Riau in 1900.

            Reply
            • 51. Helen Ang  |  February 4, 2013 at 4:45 pm

              (1) When ABU-ers refuse to vote for PAS, their vote does not necessarily go to Umno or to MCA/MIC.

              (2) For non-Penangite and Malaccan Chinese, the citizenship terms are here. How many would have qualified?

              (3) And did you know that in the 1940s the Chinese here were more interested in China events (WWII) than they were in local developments?

              (4) The Malayan Union, which the Malays opposed, was good for the Chinese. So logically if the Chinese were interested in Malayan citizenship, they should have backed the MU to the hilt so that the easy terms stayed instead of allowing the Malay 1946 protests to succeed and thus having MU replaced with the more stringent citizenship requirements of the 1948 Persekutuan Tanah Melayu agreement.

              Reply
          • 52. jonnymalaya  |  February 4, 2013 at 6:03 pm

            “Layak melalui permohonan (through registration):

            (a) la telah diperanakkan dan telah tinggal dalam mana-mana negeri-negeri dalam Persekutuan selama 8 daripada 12 tahun terdahulu daripada permintaannya”

            Most Chinese & Indians in Malaya by 1955 would already have been born on Malayan soil. Their parents too. Those from the 1st Gen would get it if they have a sufficient understanding of English OR Malay, and a good record.

            When Malayan Union was being proposed, despite being an equal number the Indians & Chinese did not press forward to support it. If they weren’t interested in citizenship, they wouldn’t have applied or even accepted it first place.

            Reply
            • 53. Helen Ang  |  February 4, 2013 at 9:10 pm

              If the Chinese were interested in citizenship, the door was thrown wide open in 1946 via Malayan Union (to which the Malays objected).

              If they had been interested to apply at anytime prior to Merdeka, we would not have gotten the in-bulk 823,000 applications processed in 1958 as the stream of applicants would have steadily been applying each year instead of “at the last minute” when the crunch came in 1957 and they were forced to make a choice.

              As to whether they would have passed the processing under “normal” circumstances, as compared to the special circumstances of Merdeka 1957 (the 823,000 approved in 1958), would be the terms of the RCI mooted by Dr M.

              You may conjecture that they would have been able pass, I may conjecture that they wouldn’t but we’re both speculating. Some kind of formal inquiry can better determine.

              Reply
              • 54. Helen Ang  |  February 4, 2013 at 9:13 pm

                P.S. I’m not supporting Dr M’s RCI. I’m just discussing this in the context of Jonnymalaya’s argument that it would have been a breeze for Chinese to qualify as registered citizens between 1948 and 1957 if they had applied.

                Reply
  • 55. Atas Pagar  |  February 4, 2013 at 5:13 pm

    If there is splitting of votes amongst the majority, it is a norm and if there is any consequence to it, it is most likely benign.

    In contrast if 80-90% of the minority votes are to go to the candidates from the minority faction, it just show how smart the minority is; and only the liberal majority will allow that to happen.

    Reply
  • 56. shamshul anuar  |  February 4, 2013 at 7:54 pm

    JohhnyMalaya,

    Nope. even in 1999 when UMNO was considerably weaken due to anwar’s sacking, UMNO still manages to get the lion share of malay votes.

    It still managed to win in Malay majority areas comfortably. Here I even disagree with Dr mahathir that Chinese votes saves BN. even at that time, approximately half of Chinese votes still went to DAP.

    No doubt BN’s chinese votes is considerable then. Not because they love Dr mahathir. rather, they may not want to experience what Indonesian chinese faced after the downfall of Suharto.

    Reply
    • 57. jonnymalaya  |  February 5, 2013 at 9:58 am

      But even in 1980s to 1990s, and 2004 the non Malay votes also went to BN. Without that, BN wouldn’t have the 2/3-rds it once enjoyed.

      In the past 20 years, it was only Kelantan & Trengganu (Malay states) that have fallen to non BN hands…

      Reply
      • 58. shamshul anuar  |  February 5, 2013 at 12:51 pm

        johhnymalaya,

        Nobody is denying that sizable Chinese population also votes for BN.

        Reply

Dijemput memberi komen anda

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


My blog, my like

Helen Ang

Smell the flowers

Recent Posts

CLICK ON IMAGE TO READ

Look who got TS Muhyiddin's autograph

'Apo Kono ei Jang' in Sarah's blog

'5 Maps that will help you understand the MH17 crash' in Alizul's blog

Pengunjung

  • 4,592,584 hits

Kalender

February 2013
M T W T F S S
« Jan   Mar »
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728  

Archives

Feeds


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 332 other followers

%d bloggers like this: