Betul Pun!

Perkara inilah juga yang saya bangkitkan dan bisingkan di dalam blog sebelum PRU13
How DAP hurt Pakatan’s chances

FMT Staff | June 6, 2013

This is the last article in a three-part series analysing the reasons for the opposition bloc’s failure to capture Putrajaya.

Pemegang watak utama

ANALYSIS: Pakatan Rakyat would have won more rural seats in the recent general election if DAP had played ball on issues that are dear to the Malays.

Its intransigence with regard to the hudud and “Allah” issues practically ensured that rural voters would vote Umno against the Malay candidates fielded by PAS and PKR.

The two predominantly Malay parties suffered heavy defeats in rural and semi-rural areas, especially in Johor, Malacca, Negeri Sembilan and Pahang. Indeed, their overall performance in Malay-majority areas last May 5 was worse than their 2008 showing if one were to take Kedah, Kelantan and Terengganu out of the reckoning.

Initial analyses of the results by PAS offices in the affected constituencies indicated that rural Malays were generally influenced by the Umno propaganda about DAP calling the shots in Pakatan even in matters of Malay and Muslim interest.

In a statement that was particularly devastating to Pakatan’s hope of increasing its Malay support, DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng declared in his 2012 Christmas Day message that his party was against giving Muslims the exclusive right to use “Allah” as the name of God.

Subsequently, PAS leaders Abdul Hadi Awang and Nik Abdul Aziz Mat announced that their party would not oppose the use of “Allah” by non-Muslims although they cautioned against its misuse.

This turned out to be a virtual signal for Umno to begin a relentless campaign through the mainstream media to portray PAS as a tool of the predominantly Chinese party.

To their credit, Hadi and other PAS leaders tried to back their stand by quoting verses from the Quran. But the damage had been done and there was no way that Pakatan could match Umno’s media reach among rural folk.

Lim’s statement gave the impression—even among Pakatan activists and supporters—that DAP was not bothered about voting support from the Malays and did not care about a possible Muslim backlash.

It is not difficult to see why. DAP’s candidates were contesting in Chinese-majority constituencies. Malay votes did not matter to the party.
It should not surprise any observer that PAS won one only seat in Penang—Permatang Pasir, the same state seat that it won in 2008. That win could also be attributed to the constituency’s location within Permatang Pauh, one of the strongest PKR fortresses in the country.

Hollow claim

Lim claims to be chief minister to every race in Penang, but that claim sounds hollow in the light of PAS’ failure to make inroads in Malay-majority areas in the state. In fact, Seberang Jaya, which is also within Permatang Pauh, was the only Malay seat that Pakatan added over its 2008 victories.

DAP chairman Karpal Singh must also take some blame with his insistence that PAS should declare that it would not introduce the hudud provisions of Islamic law if Pakatan were to take over Putrajaya. He harped on this even during the official election campaign period.

One could question Karpal’s political wisdom in his treatment of the hudud issue in light of its recent loss of traction among non-Muslim Pakatan supporters.

Putting aside Kedah, where the PAS-controlled government failed to establish a good track record, PAS candidates received solid support from Chinese voters, including in those rural constituencies where the community was in the majority.

If hudud really was an issue for the Chinese, they would have rejected all PAS candidates.

Chinese voters as a group tend to be more realistic than emotional in their voting choices compared to other Malaysians. They know that PAS could not amend the Federal Constitution without support from DAP and PKR. They are more interested in electing a government that respects democratic principles and values and has the determination to fight corruption, reduce the crime rate and open up educational opportunities.

DAP definitely has a long way to go to dispel the notion, especially among rural Malays and even a significant portion of Indians, that it caters primarily to Chinese interests.

For example, it needs to explain why it delayed announcing the candidature of M Manogaran and S Ramakrishnan for the parliamentary seats of Cameron Highlands and Labis. Both lost in their contests because they had too little time to prepare their campaigns. In the case of Ramakrishnan, he knew he was a parliamentary candidate only on the eve of nomination day.

By contrast, Lim Kit Siang’s candidacy for Gelang Patah was announced 22 days before nomination day. Teo Nie Ching and Liew Ching Tong were announced as candidates for Kulai and Kluang four days before nomination day.

Kit Siang, Teo and Liew received extensive backing from DAP’s campaign machinery, but the same assistance was not given to Ramakrishnan in Labis. This made little sense because Chinese voters were more predominant in Gelang Patah, Kulai and Kluang than in Labis.

Knowing that 50% of Indian support had returned to BN long before the 13th general election and that Umno’s campaign among rural Malays was relentless, DAP must explain why it made so little effort to disprove the allegation that it was nothing more than a party for the Chinese.