MGG Pillai Commentary View

<< Previous || Next >>

Is it UMNO or its leaders who are worried about the divisions, factions and camps within?

THE ACTING UMNO PRESIDENT, Dato' Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, warns party members of a weakened UMNO if it is rend with factions. That can destroy it, and UMNO members must guard against it when they vote their divisional and branch leaders within three weeks of July. But is this true? Yes, and no. He plays with words. What UMNO, as every political party in government and opposition, has are divisions, natural when any group conjoin for a common purpose. Factions cause dissensions within. But divisions become factions when disallowed or restrained from voicing their views.

It takes but a few disparate but unpopular decisions or events to turn divisions into factions. He is right in one sense: the autocratic running of UMNO the past decade and a half, when it descended from a mass movement to a political party, brought the divisions out into the open. Some remain divisions but several have become factions. The line is thin between them. What worries Pak Lah is this danger of the divisions and factions combining against him and his deputy, Dato' Seri Najib Tun Razak in the 23 September UMNO elections.

Their decision to ride rough shod over their opponents, especially for the UMNO president and deputy president, brought the divisions and factions out in the open. UMNO headquarters have decreed Pak Lah and Dato' Seri Najib would not be challenged. But all other elective posts could, and must. This is highly unpopular in UMNO, as they must, by now, have found out. And in railing against factions, he includes the divisions - or as is known here, camps. The camps divide and create conflicts. Or as Pak Lah puts it: "When there are camps, there will be conflicts. When this happens, all members in the division will become involved. There will be trouble and UMNO's unity will be threatened."

This raises questions. Is UMNO so weak that divisions within could break it asunder yet again if they voice their views at the divisional and branch elections? Or would that put the UMNO leaders at risk? When and how do these divisions argue their point of view to the members at large except during an election? Or is Pak Lah suggesting that UMNO exists for its president, and anyone who disagrees ought to leave? Or that UMNO would only tolerate those who support the president?

This belief in a centrally ordained view of the incumbent president is what reduces all political parties in Malaysia to a weak voice of its leader. It does not matter if it is in government or opposition. All but a handful have no principles, and exist for the edification of their leaders. The principles they have are carefully hidden from sight. One can shut one's eyes, when attending a political convention, and could juxtapose it with another, and one uninterested in political minutae would not know the difference. It reminds one of a meeting of undertakers discussing the latest methods of embarming corpses. When dissent is taboo, this is the result.

But conflict is what moves any organisation forward. Feudalism remained long a form of government because the outward confidence and calm of the leaders belied a fierce fight for control hidden from sight. The leaders fought for their rightful place, often losing their heads when they could not. But in the feudalism of UMNO and Malaysian political parties, conflict and challenge is verboten. When fundamental rules change, so would the ideal. A feudal ruler who insists on being one would last only so long as his chiefs do not rebel. For when they do, as now in UMNO and in other political parties, they would get widespread support from the rank and file.

The New Straits Times notes (21 June 2004, p1) two instances when the party was split by factionalism and camps: in 1987 and 1993. It did not, of course mention, that Pak Lah was with the challenger, Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah, in the first, and in the second, with the official candidate, Tun Ghafar Baba, in which the challenger, Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim, won. It came after years of disallowing debate as the then Prime Minister, Tun Mahathir Mohamed, rode rough shod over Malaysia to turn it on its head to force feed it into the industralised age. He failed, and UMNO with it. What is not mentioned is that Pak Lah was with the challenger in 1987, and Dato' Seri Najib was on the point of defecting to the challenger when he decided not to.

But UMNO insists the rules have not changed. To prove it, it wants its two top leaders returned unopposed, even if means breaking the law. It is this behaviour that attracts factions and camps, and when the stakes are so large, the infighting would be the fiercer. Not winning a position in the branch and divisional elections reduces one's chances of furthering oneself in UMNO to almost nil. And since they cannot express their views at other times, the only times they can is at elections. But they come to it with bottled anger and ready to explode.

To this, the UMNO leaders have no answer. So, they cloak themselves in prophylactics, oblivious of the floods, landslides, earthqakes, and revolutions outside the bubble. It is actions like that force these factions and camps out on the streets to argue their case. We have had it once before. And another could not be far off, if the issues that bring these factions and camps into the open are not resolved if not addressed, and the leaders make sure they are properly elected. There is no sign of that. But the two top positions would be almost certainly challenged. That worries the top leaders, not factionalism or camps. For if there is a fight, the factions and the camps would not unite behind the UMNO's preferred leaders. That includes Pak Lah and Dato' Seri Najib.

M.G.G. Pillai
pillai@streamyx.com