DZOF AZMI
The manifestos by Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat for this election are surprisingly similar, so what’s different between the two coalitions?
Recently, representatives from Pakatan Rakyat roundly criticised Barisan Nasional – for agreeing with them. In particular, they said that the recently unveiled Barisan Nasional manifesto was a “copy” of Pakatan Rakyat’s ideas.
When you read the two manifestos, it may surprise you how similar they are.
For example, both parties say they will improve the country’s economy. The PR manifesto target is for every Malaysian household to earn a minimum monthly take-home income of RM4,000 (or RM48,000 per year) by 2018. On the other hand, BN’s target is for the per capita income to be RM45,000 by 2020.
Now, it’s tough to say if they are the same thing, as we’re comparing apples to apples packed and defined in different ways, but I think they seem to be in about the same ball park.
However, they are both also silent about how to manage the issue of the widening gap between the rich and not-so-rich, which will worsen if the country’s new high-value jobs cannot be taken advantage of by everyone (as is happening in Singapore).
It is implied that subsidy and welfare programmes may ease such a transition, and both have a specific line of items offering low-cost housing and reducing the cost of cars. But neither party mentions how they plan to mitigate the wastage and inefficiencies that occur as a result of things being artificially cheap (Malaysians, for example, would probably carpool more often – and use less petrol as a whole – if the petrol was not subsidised).
Both are also trying to appeal to the growing middle class by talking about broadening the tax base, effectively reducing income tax rates for those with above-average salaries. Unsurprisingly, neither party highlights that, by definition, broadening the base means that more people will pay tax, meaning that there will probably be tax increases for segments of the population.
Both parties also want education to be more accessible and improve the quality of technical and vocational training. For tertiary education, BN says they will give more scholarships on merit, whereas Pakatan will effectively give scholarships to all students who are good enough to get into public universities.
But both are silent about the current ongoing issue of top Malaysian students being poached by neighbouring countries after they graduate, thus giving rise to a situation where Malaysia is effectively paying to train workers of other nations.
Both parties’ efforts to get more Malaysian women into the workplace (especially in high-level positions) will also help contribute to the economy. However, it will have to be done in such a way that women don’t feel they have to choose between family or the workplace, as the reason why many women leave work to raise their family are cultural or religious in nature, and it may be a sensitive matter.
Both parties say that Islam will be respected as the official religion of the country, while allowing freedom of religion and its practice. Yet, nobody is addressing the very real situation of two citizens being subjected to different laws, and what would happen if there was an overlap in implementation between syariah and federal laws and the Federal Constitution?
I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that the manifestos are shiny brochures that highlight the benefits while conveniently ignoring the pitfalls, but it is exasperating that two sides agree so much to the point that they chose not to address the same issues. It means making a choice based purely on the manifestos a difficult one.
There are differences, but except for one, they are either minor in nature or they involve the position of Sabah and Sarawak with respect to the administration of authority from Putrajaya – a topic I know little about. The one major difference is a natural result of one of the parties being the incumbent, whereas the other is seeking to wrest the throne.
Barisan Nasional highlights their achievements, especially over the last five years, as evidence of their ability to govern. It shouldn’t surprise anybody at all that almost all the points presented in the manifesto are extensions of existing national policies (which muddies the accusations over who copied which manifesto).
On the other hand, Pakatan Rakyat says that “economic potential is being hampered by the interests of the power elite and their cronies” and there is a need to reform institutions.
In short, both parties seem to want to implement the same policies, it’s just that one says they’re already doing a good job, and the other one disagrees.
At this point I ask you to bear with me as I repeat what has been said several times in this column already this year: If we vote for good men, regardless of the party they represent, then we will get a good government.
After all, if there is so little difference between the manifestos, then at least you should make sure that the people who get in know what they’re doing, either as an implementer, or as a check and balance to ensure quality.
You agree what the problems are; now get out there and solve them.
> Logic is the antithesis of emotion but mathematician-turned-scriptwriter Dzof Azmi’s theory is that people need both to make sense of life’s vagaries and contradictions. Speak to him at star2@thestar.com.my.
No comments:
Post a Comment