However,
the problem is that the prime minister and his willing enablers in
Harapan are doing everything to reinforce the racial and religious
narratives of the far-right.
Nik Nazmi talks about the balancing
of expectations as if racial and religious preoccupation is going to
make the lives of the majority Malay/Muslim community better.
Indeed,
the Sock-gate fiasco has demonstrated that Umno and, by extension,
Harapan do not care about the economic well-being of Malays as long as
Umno thinks it can get political mileage from playing up this issue.
Fence-sitters
are important as Nik Nazmi correctly points out but, hereās the thing,
fence-sitters want to know if there is a difference between Harapan and
PN especially when it comes to religious discourse.
And
this does not mean what Harapan supporters think it means. Do you know
why Sock-gate was so damaging to Harapan? It is not because the
non-Malay base was clutching its pearls the way how unity government
provocateurs were clutching their pearls.
Winning over fence-sitters
Sock-gate demonstrated the difference in religious moderation between Harapan and PN.
PN
was remarkably quiet about Sock-gate and was willing to give enough
rope for Umno/Harapan to hang itself with. They remained quiet and
disciplined, and even offered a few moderate words to the subject.
While
non-Malay voters are sceptical of PAS/PN, the average fence-sitter
would see how āmoderateā PAS is and would even think this is how a
moderate Malay/Muslim political coalition should behave.
Indeed, for these moderate fence-sitters, Umno/Harapan looked so detrimental to unity and harmony that even the Agong had to step in. So, for the fence-sitters, why not go with PN which does not create issues like this?
Harapan supporters think PN supporters are dumb for some reason. However, when DAP operative Hannah Yeoh claims the opposition plays up
religious issues - when Umno did so, enabled by DAP, which stirred up
religious issues and resulted in domestic terrorist acts - what do you
think these fence-sitters will think?
This is the problem with the
ādonāt spook the Malaysā mantra. PKR is always trying to champion
bumiputera rights as if those rights are in jeopardy. Two years ago,
Terengganu PKR wanted the partyās central command to address the āimbalanceā of awarding digital bank licences.
Terengganu
PKR chief Azan Ismail, hoping the issue will gain traction, said: āWe
urge the finance minister and prime minister to state their stand on
this matter and what will guarantee bumiputera equity ownership.ā
This basically means PKR is attempting to accuse the government of not being Malay uber alles (over all) enough.
Playing the class card
The
Malay vote is all-important, which is why PKR, as a supposedly
multi-racial party, is struggling. Former prime minister (twice) Dr
Mahathir Mohamad has demonised PKR as being unacceptable to the Malay
community because of its multi-racial component.
While PKR may
never play the race card well, they can and should play the class card.
There is a reason why PN/PAS are deathly afraid of the class card.
Anwar is at his best when he is rabble-rousing with the class card and pursues populist narratives like this:
āI want to tell the leaders with the titles of āTunā and āTan Sriā who
are rich - if you really want to save Malays, give them half of your
billions in profits tomorrowā.
It is talk like this which
frightens the more intelligent members of the religious extremist
coalition going up against this coalition government. For instance,
former Bersatu information chief Wan Saiful Wan Jan wanted to know if Anwar was attempting to instigate class warfare.
Wan
Saiful, as part of the Malay political elite, really does not want any
raising of class consciousness among the disenfranchised Malay classes
but has no problem providing them with crumbs from the table through
racial and religious entitlement programmes to keep them dependent and
with a sense of racial and religious superiority.
Yes, going after the big fish when it comes to corruption is good optics, especially for middle-class or urban voters.
However,
tackling corruption in entitlement programmes at the state and federal
levels is more important to the voters that Harapan wants to gain
traction.
This
is because going after bureaucratic malfeasance like this actually
improves their lives because the delivery system is made more efficient.
However,
the government is afraid to seriously address corruption within the
ranks of the civil service because they are afraid they may lose this
vote bank - which they are already losing.
This again is part of
the class conflict which would suit Harapan better than toxic
religiosity that Harapan thinks will gain favour with fence-sitters.
In the end, I believe it would be better if Harapan fails as a reformist government than succeeds as a theocratic state.
Your mileage may vary.