07 June 2009

Can two-party system be an alternative?

PAS muktamar have decided on their line-up for this season and some unexpected result surfaced.

The earlier speculation that Husam Musa would win the Deputy President post went flat as the delegates decided to retain Nasharuddin Mat Isa as its Deputy with 199 votes majority over him, which many consider as a thumping win for the ulamak group.

PAS party election invited great interest from everybody especially from the public, because PAS now stands as a formidable party of alternative to the ruling BN.

PAS is already standing tall among the rakyat and its influence is far reaching and together with her coalition partners they managed to take executive charge of three states within the peninsular. PKR and DAP now control Selangor and Penang respectively.

PAS has gained the support of the non-Malays as her process of elucidation and revelation of the party’s struggle has slowly and surely made the non-Malays comprehend, appreciate and support their struggles.

With formidable strength that PAS enjoys presently, the party is also giving good favor for UMNO as the party has to move for transformation without which it would continue to wane and diminish its support of the people including its own members.

To the minds of the public presently having a strong national policy by the ruling party, and formidable strength of alternative party would be good for the nation.

BN has been for the past 2 decades ad infinitum taking everything for granted as they were given unanimous support by the people and resulted in PAS and other opposition parties only had splinter representation in the Legislative bodies for decades.

The continuous, unanimous, undivided support and the friendliness of the voting public have obviously been taken as weaknesses by the BN, and more glaring in UMNO.

UMNO leaders had been unable to feel the throb of frustrations among the members as they believed that Malays will never go against their leaders.

BN leaders have lost all moral sanity to the extent that what they do, even though immoral cannot be criticized and they take offense to critics against them.

UMNO leaders at all levels visibly and perceptibly became arrogant thinking that the world is theirs and that created impassiveness with the public who voted them to be in command.

BN leaders were too apprehensive to lend their ears to the ground and leave the people out of all decision they make. To them we should just follow and bow to their wishes and say nothing against.

For many elections in the past BN never failed to exploit racial sentiments by harping on the May 13 1969 incident, obviously to threaten the unhappy voters not to vote for the opposition, thus covering all their roguish acts.

Supporting PAS was like a crime to them as the alleged PAS is an extremist party that would lead the nation to be isolated by the modern world community which is entirely not true.

The media, both the electronic and printed ones, played the sentiment in tandem with the BN, turned and curved with the power of the ruling party and within that media community there were some unambiguous opportunists which we realized only a while after.

Media community in this country who was supposed to be professional were not professional and in our short history we could see some fortunate media men became multi-millionaires through corporate exercise and paper shuffling.

On the contrary the opposition parties had real tough time to get reached to the people and along the way; some of their leaders were arrested and put under solitary detention.

Going to court for fair arbitration was no more an option as the Judiciary too had been adulterated by BN especially by their leaders with high appetite to rule longer than he should be. That is noticeably one of the many reasons why the rakyat resorting to express their disapproval in the ballot boxes.

The Judiciary has long been put under trial and has been very subservient to the Executive ever since 2 decades ago.

The oppositions were just unable to prove of the corrupt practices of the ruling government as these heinous acts were protected by legislated acts like Official Secret Act (OSA) and the Police Act.

BN went on committing the offence without sense of right and wrong until the rakyat came to the fore and protested against the ruling party in the ballot box in March the 8th 2008 and denied the two third majorities which BN have been enjoying morally illegitimate power for past couple of decades.

From then on the status of opposition parties has been glaringly uplifted to the level of Alternative Parties. They are now very much of consequence and BN is not in the position to disagree with that fact any longer.

Ever since this alternative parties which grouped themselves as Pakatan Rakyat has played an alternative role to the BN in all State Legislative Assemblies and Parliament.

Malaysians are now waiting for the beginning of a two-party system which has been practiced by many advance nations.

The two-party system will in parallel bring in good and viable mechanism as check and balance (don’t be mistaken with cheques and balances), for whichever party that rules.

For instance if Pakatan Rakyat is given the mandate in the coming General Election the voters can always deliver their votes back to BN in the following GE if they are not performing as anticipated by the people.

In essence the system would consequentially provide legitimate support to the ruling party rather than securing support through intrigues and manipulations of power.

It also actualizes the true supremacy of the people as have been rhetorically been the issue and loudly said in the speeches of the current leaders.

Both parties should eventually go through the General Elections with funds provided by the government like what is practiced in many great democracies of the world.

This is not an idealistic attribute of Democracy; it’s basic.

That is all for now and I may express the expansion of my unassuming opinion on this issue in my next posting if necessary.

Thanks………………………………………………Aspan Alias


gov,retiree said...

That is a very good suggestion. But I am skeptical whether it's accepted by the power house.

Saya Rakyat Malaysia said...

2 party system can be good. But, how can they say they want equalities but what they rant in parliaments are to have more funding for the Chinese Schools? What are so equal about that?

There can't be a 2 party system in Malasia (not yet), until the other party can put their acts together and promised that they will not try to make Malaysia another Singapore.

flyer168 said...

Bro Aspan,

An interesting article on the 2 party syatem.

We have already seen the initial Flaws already....


The Bipartisan Political Monopoly.....

Flaws in the “Two-Party System”

Because they are not readily visible to the public naked eye, a number of flaws in the “system” have gone unnoticed for many years, leaving most folks deceptively complacent, lulled into an ill-informed acquiesence to what they perceive as an otherwise robust and healthy American institution.

Two Parties—One Fiscal Agenda

It is instructive to observe not only the popularized differences between the two parties that control the “system,” but also the historical patterns and deeds in which they participated with remarkable unity. Throughout the many decades of their shared domination of American politics, with respect to monetary and fiscal policy (and its long-term effect on The People and their property), both parties have:

* increased federal taxation (including the constitutionally questionable direct “income tax”)
* increased the size of the federal budget
* increased the size of the federal deficit
* increased the size of the national debt
* abandoned the fiscally responsible practice of using a balanced budget
* played an active role in the increased size of the federal government
* created and expanded federal bureaucracies and police agencies to impose innumerable arbitrary regulations and penalties, thereby hindering private commerce and free enterprise
* engaged heavily in the practice of “pork barrel” (tax-and-spend favoritism) politics, including corporate welfare when and where it suited their agendas (i.e., getting or keeping power)


flyer168 said...



Despite what politicians from either party may say (or have said), neither party, in deed, platform, or policy, has opposed any of the above activities with any compelling measure of consistency or zeal since the late 1800s. At the federal level, both the Democratic and Republican parties have engaged continuously in creating a bloated, power-grabbing “national” government at the direct expense of The People’s liberty and their property (through excessive taxes and confiscatory statutes). For example, both parties either largely supported or acquiesced to:

* the creation of the Federal Reserve system in 1913, in which a private bank cartel was awarded unprecedented (and unconstitutional) control over U.S. monetary and fiscal policy
* the (unconsitutional) outlawing of private ownership and coerced confiscation of gold by president Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933
* the (unconsitutional) severing of U.S. monetary policy from the gold standard by president Richard Nixon in 1971
* the plundering of U.S. citizens’ property through government-induced inflation, directly or indirectly resulting from the systematic implementation of the above three acts

Similarly, presidents of both parties (typically with congressional complicity) have:

* repeatedly used “executive orders” and “emergency powers” to wage costly, unconstitutional, undeclared wars abroad against opponents that posed no direct threat to U.S. security
* given away billions in aid and “loans” to foreign governments, much of which has never benefited the people over whom those governments rule
* incurred ever greater national debt, the liability for which rests only with The People themselves, who, given no say in these actions, were instead “persuaded” to “trust the government”

[By the way, these are historical facts, folks. I know it’s not pretty, but the truth isn’t always a thing of beauty. And remember not to confuse walk with talk: Most politicians will say anything to stay in office (i.e., power). But it’s not their talk that matters as much as their walk (what they’ve actually done).] .....More


flyer168 said...


With a 3rd party system....

A strong third party culture allows major parties to de-emphasize their superficial differences for two reasons.

First, because major parties know they can never out-radical third parties, they have less incentive to try. This allows them to focus on intelligent, moderate solutions to problems.

Second, because there are more than two parties in Congress, it is nearly impossible to frame an issue as 'us versus them,' because there can be multiple opponents.

Third parties are essential for this change, but changes to the electoral system are necessary to ensure their viability and success.

The United States' plurality, winner-take-all electoral system, which is an uncommon system among modern democracies, marginalizes third parties by encouraging people vote their fears instead of their beliefs. There are plenty of simple options available to fix this. Instant Run-off Voting, or IRV, would allow third parties to be an option for voters by using candidate rankings to allow voters to select they candidates the like the best, not just those they dislike the least.

Each voter ranks all the candidates, and if no candidate's first choice total is greater than 50 percent, the candidate with the fewest first choice votes is dropped from the race, and their ballots' second choice votes are distributed among the remaining candidates.

The process continues until one candidate achieves a true majority or all votes are distributed, at which point the plurality winner is victorious.

So, in the 2000 election, assuming all Nader voters would have selected Gore as second choice, their votes would have been transferred to him, and he would have won the election.

This ranking allows people to vote for third parties they care about without leaving themselves too open to loss, which would increase the number of people voting for third parties, and thus increase the parties' political influence.

Read more: http://voice.paly.net/view_story.php?id=4654#ixzz0HmI6HQXT&C

flyer168 said...


For PR & PAS, this is another success model to Study & Learn from not COPY....

Turkey's Justice and Development Party: A Model for Democratic Islam?
by Thomas Patrick Carroll

In November 2002, Recep Tayyip Erdogan's Justice and Development Party (Adalet ve Kalkinma Partisi, or AKP) captured a majority of parliamentary seats in Turkey's national elections - a political feat that had not been achieved by any party in fifteen years. With a genealogy that clearly places it in the tradition of Turkey's Islamist political trend, the rise of the AKP was at first greeted with trepidation by the country's Kemalist military and political elite.[1]

The AKP's victory also caused concern in the capitals of many of Turkey's Western allies. When Erdogan's political godfather, Necmettin Erbakan, unexpectedly won the premiership in the mid-1990s, he promptly made official state visits to Libya and Iran, then proceeded to lobby vigorously for the establishment of a new Muslim economic bloc.

Erbakan soon alienated the military and was ousted. Since then, conventional wisdom in the West held that an Islamist government would either "succeed" by staying in power and eroding the country's secular political tradition and pro-Western foreign policy, or fail and prompt the military to intervene - either of which would be a setback for Turkish democracy.

However, much to the surprise of its critics, Erdogan's administration has pushed harder (and more successfully) for liberal and democratic reforms than any previous Turkish government. Moreover, it has strengthened Turkey's relations with both Europe and the United States.

The rise of the AKP and its performance in governing Turkey is an encouraging story. Under some circumstances, at least, religious political movements in the Muslim world can take the lead in introducing greater social, political, and economic freedom to their societies.

And in Turkey's case, the evolution of a modernizing Islamist political force was facilitated by external pressures for reform.

If Western governments hope to see this evolution take place across the Middle East, they would do well to study closely what is happening in Ankara.

Meanwhile, Erbakan founded the Welfare Party (Refah Partisi) as a successor to the banned National Salvation. Its political impact was initially modest.

Welfare was disqualified by the junta from participating in the 1983 parliamentary elections. Four years later, it received only 7% of the vote in parliamentary elections, short of the 10% threshold required to win seats.


flyer168 said...



However, Welfare's emphasis on economic fairness, social justice, small business, and a public ethic of common provision began to attract more support as the public grew weary of government incompetence, graft, and political deadlock. Its attempt to bring humane religious traditions to bear on contemporary economic and social problems was not unlike the Christian Socialist Movement in Great Britain, or the 'distributivist' economic philosophy of Catholics like G.K. Chesterton. During the early 1990s, the party became the breeding ground for a new generation of competent and pragmatic activists and began to make inroads into territory traditionally held by the Turkish left, such as the urban lower class. Moreover, Welfare's emphasis on the people's common religious beliefs (rather than nationalism) appealed to Kurds who had grown disillusioned with the radical separatists.

In 1991, Welfare captured 17% of the national vote and sixty-two parliamentary seats. In the 1994 local elections, Welfare candidates for mayor won in 28 out of 76 provincial capitals, including Istanbul and Ankara, with 19% of the popular vote. In the 1995 general elections, Welfare won 158 out of 500 parliamentary seats, giving it a plurality. Erbakan then became prime minister in a coalition government.

Something New Under the Sun

Recep Tayyip Erdogan came to national prominence in 1994 when he won the race for mayor of Istanbul. Like most of his fellow Welfare mayors around the country, Erdogan earned a reputation for clean, effective, and competent management of the city's affairs. In contrast to Erbakan, he developed a keen understanding of when not to push his agenda. He banned alcohol from municipal establishments, but wisely took no steps to ban drinking in restaurants (as a number of other Welfare mayors attempted to do). After initially endorsing a project to build a large Mosque complex in the heart of the city, he quickly abandoned the idea when his constituents organized protests. Even hardcore Kemalists, who feared that Erdogan and his colleagues were the thin end of the wedge for a more radical Islamist takeover of Turkey's political life, had to admit that Istanbul was well administered.

The AKP in Power

The AKP scored a remarkable landslide victory in the November 2002 parliamentary elections, garnering 34% of the national vote and capturing a commanding 363-seat majority. Aside from the CHP, led by Deniz Baykal, no other party broke through the 10% vote threshold constitutionally required to win a place in the 550-seat Parliament. The AKP's triumph ejected an entire class of established politicians from government. Leading figures who were denied parliamentary seats included former prime ministers Tansu Ciller, who heads the True Path Party (DYP); Mesut Yilmaz, who heads ANAP; and Bulent Ecevit, the head of DSP.


flyer168 said...



Because Erdogan had been banned from political office in 1998, his deputy, Abdullah Gul, initially assumed the premiership. But it was clear from the beginning that Erdogan was calling the shots. In December 2002, US President George W. Bush stunned the Turkish political establishment in Ankara by inviting Erdogan to the White House. "You believe in the Almighty, and I believe in the Almighty. That's why we'll be great partners," the American president is said to have told his counterpart.[6] Proceeding on to Europe, Erdogan received assurances that the EU would commence accession negotiations with Ankara in December 2004 if Turkey undertook sufficient political and economic reforms.

In part because of American and European de facto recognition of Erdogan's authority, the Turkish military accepted the new administration's amendment of the constitution to lift the ban on Erdogan's political activity and holding of a by-election to allow for his entry into parliament (a requirement to be prime minister). In March 2004, Erdogan formally assumed the premiership.

Over the past year and half, the AKP has introduced a remarkable array of political and economic reforms. Most of them, not coincidentally, closely reflect the so-called "Copenhagen criteria" required for Turkish accession to the EU - a consolidated market economy, stable democratic institutions, rule of law, respect for internationally recognized human rights, and protection of minorities. Decades-old restrictions on Kurdish cultural expression have been eased, the death penalty has been revoked, and legislation designed to curtail torture has been passed. The government has abolished the notorious state security courts and removed military representation from the higher education board. The AKP has brought Turkish legislation into conformity with the Copenhagen criteria on a host of other issues, such as press freedom, civilian control of the military, and transparency in public finance.

The AKP has striven to bolster Turkey's relations with the United States and Europe. In sharp contrast to Erbakan, Erdogan has expressed unequivocal opposition to the idea of an Islamic economic bloc.[7] The AKP government was able to deliver complete Turkish and Turkish Cypriot agreement on a United Nations plan to reunify the divided island of Cyprus, thereby alleviating the single greatest source of tension between Turkey and Europe.

Reasons for Hope in the Middle East

Turkey, a country of about 70 million Muslims, most of whom are religious, is ruled today by a conservative party with an Islamic pedigree and a humane, tolerant, and democratic track record. Can we generalize from the AKP's experience? Not without some care. Turkey is quite different from the rest of the Middle East, whether Arab or Persian. What works in Ankara will not necessarily work in Tehran, Damascus or Baghdad. Nonetheless, there are definitely lessons to be learned.

The most important one is that external pressure for political reform can achieve results. Unlike other Muslim countries in the region, Turkey has been cajoled, pressured, and encouraged by the West in its journey toward full and mature democracy. The political and economic conditions attached to Turkish membership in the EU have greatly reinforced domestic pressure for reforms, while Western support for the AKP has clearly bolstered its ability to overcome entrenched bureaucratic and military interests. Secondly, the Turkish experience suggests that Western support for moderate Islamist political parties can strengthen their commitment to political and economic liberalization. If the United States is serious about promoting human rights and democratic values in the Middle East, it should take note of all that Erdogan has accomplished....

Read More...http://www.meib.org/articles/0407_t1.htm

Aspan Alias said...

Saya Rakyat Malaysia,

I am delighted that you responded to my crude and plain idea that I have put in writing.

I admit that your concern is very relevant and should be appreciated.

Honestly as I have rightly or wrongly said this is just a very plain suggestion and idea. Even if this is to be practiced, this idea, I am sure would be just at embryonic stage.

Before anything set in motion for the two-party system there ought to be soul-searched as to the consequence to our political ambiance as we are in the search for harmonious lives of Malaysians.

Reading through the expression and writings in the hypersphere it is disheartening.

All races should be able to co-exist as anything less than this would be harmful.

Anyway, I hope Saya Rakyat Malaysia will just keep the idea as an optional suggestion and if there is any slight chance of it being accepted, you may play a role to see the implementation go well.

Thanks bro.

roland said...

your thoughts are well published and relayed. it is a definitely good for thoughts.
i propose you elaborate your idea so that it sparks and kindle the initial interest for the public to ponder.
it may happen but time will be the essence.
nothing is impossible as minds of human beings always work for a change.
thank you.

Anonymous said...

Aspan Alias, you are annoying people in power.

flyer168 said...


Malaysia badly needs “Role Model” MATURED, EDUCATED, INTELLIGENT, ESTABLISHED Leaders & Politicians of HONOUR with Calibre & Tolerance without Fear or Favour on Both sides of the Political Divide.

Further, this nation Desperately needs Intelligent, Time Proven Pragmatic Successful modelled, Politiical, Legal, Financial, Economic & Social “SOLUTIONS” on BOTH sides of the Political Divide NOW , to mitigate the IMPENDING Political & Financial fallout.

Since 31 August 1957, our Bapa Malaysia Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra & his 1st Malaysian cabinet of HONOURABLE, ESTABLISHED TRUE TUANS administered the system of Wesminster style Democracy & with the Rule of Law respecting our National & State Constitution successfully.

Let us ALL also learn that Tunku & his Malaysian cabinet of MATURED, EDUCATED, INTELLIGENT, HONOURABLE & ESTABLISHED TRUE TUANS, EARNED the RESPECT, TRUST & SUPPORT of ALL the Malayan citizens.

It was in 1969 when our Bapa Malaysia Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra was "Betrayed" by his Deputy (with the Elite Ultra Group) thereafter, the system of Wesminster style Democracy & with the Rule of Law respecting our National & State Constitution was "Hijacked" & turned into the "Ketuanan UMNO Ideology".

In 2009 we are witnessing that "Ketuanan UMNO Ideology" going "Horribly Wrong" with Denials, Intimidations, Threats, etc convoluting it into "Gutter Politics & Law of the Jungle".

The PRESENT LEADERS on BOTH sides of the Political Divide are "Trapped" in their "OWN QUAGMIRE" with no Win-Win SOLUTIONS....

Malaysia NEEDS NEW LEADERS with Political MATURITY to ACHIEVE its Financial, Economic & Social CONSOLIDATION & STABILISATION.

Until such times Malaysia can IDENTIFY “Role Model” MATURED, EDUCATED, INTELLIGENT, ESTABLISHED Leaders & Politicians of HONOUR with Calibre & Tolerance without Fear or Favour,

Malaysia CANNOT even THINK of having a 2 or 3 PARTY Political System of Government to mitigate the IMPENDING Political & Financial fallout.


Anonymous said...

I really like when people are expressing their opinion and thought. So I like the way you are writing

Anonymous said...

I am not going to be original this time, so all I am going to say that your blog rocks, sad that I don't have suck a writing skills

Anonymous said...

The cords come in helpful because you can wrap the cord about your pull up bar and bit by bit start constructing your back muscle tissues up.

my homepage ... Full Statement

Anonymous said...

With this case, you have to utilize precisely the same rule
to ensure you are able to get the correct solution.

my homepage: More hints