Rise of the Left in Malaysia

June 26, 2008

Photobucket

Where has the Left gone in Malaysian politics?

Such is the demise of the Left in the past 50 years since Independence that it has hardly had any influence in the Malaysian political sphere. Long harassed, intimidated and censored, the establishment has successfully made the words ‘Left’, ’socialist’ and ’social democracy’ taboo words in polite Malaysian society. Ironic, since in the process the Malaysian public has also been made to believe that racism and ethnic chauvinism was ‘fine’, or at least to be left unchallenged and ‘tolerated’.

This sad state of affairs started during the ‘Red Scare’ of the 1940’s which coincided with the rise of the Communist state of the USSR, along with its affiliates in Eastern Europe and China. The response by the then British overlords in containing the Communist insurgency in Malaysia was alarmingly blunt: Blanket suppression of anything which was a few inches to the left of the political spectrum. As such propaganda was used to subvert political freedom and the socialists, social democrats, trade unions as well as student bodies were all accused as being commie sympathizers and dealt with accordingly. The hypocrisy of this situation was increased a further few notches by the fact that the British allowed a healthy labour movement to thrive in their own backyard while not blinking an eye in ruthlessly crushing leftist movements in its various colonial outposts.

Which brings us to the Left in Malaysia today. After being stillborn for, well, its whole life actually, the Left has finally started to see the day of light in this country. On the 8th of May, the social democratic Democratic Action Party (DAP) finally won real power in the form of the government of Penang. Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR), often calling itself a centrist party but with clear left-leaning tendencies won the Selangor government. And the latest political party, Parti Sosialis Malaysia, was finally given permission to be officially formed, with its president, Mohd Nasir Hashim winning a state seat in Selangor while Dr Jeyakumar Devaraj ousted the ‘un-oustable’ Samy Vellu from his Perak parliamentary seat in the last elections.

We should be glad for this development as the Left have a lot to offer to many Malaysians, but especially to the poorer segments of society. The Left is synonymous to the concepts of equality, secularism and multiculturalism. With the rise of the Left, a push for an adequate and responsible minimum wage will obtain much more momentum. I personally disagree with PKR’s RM1500/month minimum as I think it’s too high, but agree more with the MTUC’s figure of about RM900/month. Despite what many neo-liberal economists would have you to believe, studies have shown that countries with the minimum wage do not have significantly higher unemployment rates, provided it is done in a responsible manner.

It is no secret that the conservative government has in the past adopted many of the Left’s ideas on one hand while hypocritically disparaging them on the other. The double-edged sword of the NEP is a form, albeit flawed one, of affirmative action which was another of the Left’s creations. With the death of the ‘old Left’ ala communism and hard socialism and their belief in ‘equality of outcome’, the ‘new Left’ in the form of social democracies have instead rectified this and now champion ‘equality of opportunity’ for all. Following this, they believe that fairness cannot prevail in society if some people are allowed to start much further behind the starting line in life’s race through no fault of their own, such as being born in a poor family or living in rural areas. As such, affirmative action policies seek to rectify these inequalities. The NEP, similar to the black affirmative action policy in the US is, however, flawed because they use race as the selection criteria in who to give assistance to. I am all for an affirmative action policy which is colour-blind and based solely on one’s socio-economic background.

The welfare safety net has also been ridiculously demonised by the establishment for no logical reason. Malaysians who are unemployed due to disability or not through their lack of trying should be assisted by the government financially. I sometimes wonder what those libertarians and conservatives have against a government helping its own people, what with their dogmatic chants for ’small government’. Might as well take that to its logical conclusion and live in an anarchist society where ‘government interference’ is a thing of the past. Then they are free to starve in peace when they fall on hard times.

Another very maligned area at the moment under the current government is the trade union movement. Due to the aforementioned suppression of the authorities on unions, the present union movement is weaker than a keropok. Trade unionism is vital for the preservation of the blue-collar working class as due to their lower skilled status and thus being easier to replace, their only bargaining chip for better pay and working conditions against their employer is through strength in numbers through unionization. Flowing from the general Malaysian public’s aversion to the word ‘leftist’, many also view strikes and demonstrations with fear. This is unfounded as workers have a right as anybody else to safeguard their working conditions. It is indeed laughable to suggest that a low-skilled worker can go into the negotiating room with his employer with any kind of leverage, as what many conservative governments would like for you to believe. A worker has a family to feed too.

Thankfully, things seem to be on the upside now for Malaysia. Hopefully those social democrats elected into public office after the 8th of March elections will continue to push for more social democratic reforms to ensure that Malaysia becomes a fairer, more equitable, and better place to life in.

Firefox > IE

June 16, 2008

Download Day - English

Best. Browser. Ever.

v3 coming out soon.

Support it.

Photobucket

Movie: Mongol

June 11, 2008


Being a new Sinophile nowadays, gonna try catching this movie soon. Looks good. Fulfills three of my criterias:

1. Is about Chinese/Mongolian history
2. Is an independent film (ie non-Hollywood)
3. Is in Mongolian

On Streams of Socialism

June 9, 2008

Got this great book serendipitously from my uni’s library when I was trying to find a stupid textbook which were listed as ON SHELF. Put books back in the right places, people!

But I digress. Back to the topic.

Photobucket
The Socialsit Tradition
I’ve read a few chapters in it so far. Pity I couldn’t read more of it now since I’ve got f**kin’ exams soon.

As many people should already be aware, all strands of socialism originated from some core beliefs of Karl Marx. But because Marx only extrapolated a skeletal structure of how capitalism can be overthrown and how a socialist society would look like, he left many practical aspects of it to be fleshed out by subsequent socialism theorists.

As a result 4 widely diverging streams have emerged from Marxism.

1. Orthodox School

Karl Kautsky was the leading theorist of this school. This school is the most closely aligned school to traditional Marxism. It believes that socialism was possible only once the capitalist system reached its most advanced stage, exhausts itself, and breaks down on its own accord. He also pressed for a merger of parliamentary democracy and socialism.

2. Reformist-Evolutionary School

This is the school of socialism which I personally support. It was advocated by Eduard Bernstein and laid the foundations for today’s social democratic parties such as the Labor Party, DAP, German Social-Democratic Party (SPD), Swedish Socialist Party (SAP), etc. Bernstein rejected all forms of extra-parliamentary activities such as mass strikes or popular assemblies. He believed that to be a truly democratic socialist society, bourgeois liberal institutions should not be overturned, but instead be inherited and expanded by social democrats to make it fairer to all classes of the masses, but especially towards the working class. Therefore, this school does not believe nor advocate the imminent collapse of capitalism.

3. Bolshevik School

This is possibly the most explosive school of socialism, or ‘hot socialism’. It was formed by Vladimir Lenin and was the first socialist theory to be put into real world practice after his Bolshevik Party overthrew the Russian Provisional Government and assumed power in Russia in 1917. Based on his experience with the past repressive, pro ruling-class government, Lenin was convinced that bourgeois democracy was but a sham, an illusion to further placate the masses. Illusionary because during stable times it would be manipulate by the ruling class to instill in the masses a false sense of participation, fragile because it was not likely to survive the advance stages of imperialism and war.

It was also Lenin who devised the idea of a vanguard party. A vanguard party is a unified, centralised and flexible revolutionary organisation whose purpose was to lead the working class to overthrow the bourgeois state structure. He did not believe in the effectiveness of fragmented parliamentary parties. The pressing agenda under the Bolshevik school was not socialism - that remained in the future, but the seizure of state power in order to establish the preconditions for socialism. On the question of democracy in this model, because the Bolshevik Party represents the historical mission of the workers in their struggle to free themselves from oppression by the bourgeois elites to working class emancipation, Bolshevik power was by definition democratic.

Obviously this was proven to be mistaken. The real world practice of this model showed that the twin desires of power and wealth by top communist leaders has led them to curtail the very masses they initially relied on to assume power. This was made worse by the lack of an effective mechanism by the masses to oust bad leaders, with the only way being intra-party power struggles by other communist elites.

The truest form of real world application of this model could be seen in the former USSR and East Germany. Other variations of this model which incorporated the central concept of a vanguard party can be seen in China, Vietnam, Nepal, Cuba, North Korea.

4. The Radical-Left School

Personally to me, this is the most ludicrous stream of socialism. But it still doesn’t stop the hordes of hippie, far left-wingers from my unis and others to embrace this utopian model of society. It is basically the most radical of socialist streams and its leading philosopher was Rosa Luxemburg. This school rejected the strategic alternatives offered by Kautsky and Bernstein, and these radicals look to spheres of struggle beyond routine party and union activity. Their vision of democracy, consonant with Marx’s theme of proletarian self-emancipation, emphasised local revolutionary forms and processes transcending the limits of the bourgeois state as well as the Leninist system of ‘proletarian democracy’ in Russia. Luxemburg also did not believe in participating in parliamentary processes, since electoral victories would turn out to be hollow (since the bourgeoisie would manipulate the system to defend their interests) and would only help to stablise the faltering capitalist system. She shared Kautsky and Lenin’s predictions of the imminent collapse of capitalism. Basically, she just wants society to regress back into pre-complex societal structures and live in small, communal based organisations.