Looking at all the major issues facing the country today — pig farming in Selangor, matriculation quotas, temples labelled as illegal, halal and non-halal controversies, the Rohingya question, and more — one thing is clear: almost all of these issues are rooted in racial and religious tensions. These tensions dominate social media discourse and create an atmosphere of insecurity and unease. This feeling is felt across the country, but more especially on the western coast of Peninsular Malaysia, where the population is more diverse and plural.

Major parties like DAP and PAS actually gain votes because they cater to their respective voter bases by creating fear of what happens if the other side governs. Using these fears, they both gain votes. That is why elections in Malaysia are about selling the same product to different ethnic groups, using different logic.

The Legacy of Divide and Rule

What Barisan Nasional achieved over the decades was a form of unity built on a divide-and-rule framework. The Malays were taken care of by UMNO, the Indians by MIC, and the Chinese by MCA. This narrative was a direct rejection of the more progressive demands put forward by the AMCJA-PUTERA coalition in the 1947 People’s Constitution, which proposed that all born in Malaya be called “Malays” — without any religious identification. Had that narrative won, we would not be fighting over ethnic-based allocations and quotas today. These were the designs of the British, later continued by the Alliance Party and its successors. Even subsequent coalitions like PN were built to replicate BN by bringing in Gerakan and MIPP.

This race-based political alliance — first under the Alliance, then Barisan Nasional — eventually found its antithesis in the emergence of PAS to counter UMNO, which propagated an Islamic state, and DAP, which championed a “Malaysian Malaysia” concept. Later, PKR came in with a reform agenda, and that narrative of institutional reform, combined with an effective campaign against corruption among the ruling elites, brought about political change. But that change did not last long. It was rolled back under the Sheraton Move, and today we have a government where both opposing parties now work hand in hand in a coalition. When they fight, all the old issues resurface.

Enter Bersama – A New Hope?

Now we have Bersama offering new hope, claiming that PKR and PH have failed to deliver real reform. Malaysian voters get angry quickly and are constantly looking for a new saviour to latch onto to quench their thirst.

Take Mahathir, once known as the “Maha Firaun.” When he retired as Prime Minister, it was celebrated as a victory against dictatorship and draconian rule. Who can forget how he used the ISA, shut down major newspapers, and sacked the Lord President just to stay in power? Yet later, the same people who condemned him hailed him as a democrat when he led the opposition under PH. From zero to hero. Then Mahathir was blamed again during the Sheraton Move. Some said he masterminded the collapse of PH. Now the hero is back to zero.

Anwar replaced him and was seen as the new hope. There was so much hype and hope. But now, even his supporters accuse him of being more draconian than Mahathir — weaponising MACC against his opponents and failing to deal with racial tensions.

So, in this climate of constant change, what kind of policies does the nation actually need?

This is precisely why we need a party that speaks about building a Malaysian nation through a multiracial platform — policies that address the needs of all people, rather than feeding into toxic racialised politics. We need to have proper dialogue to get everyone talking and thinking. We need to build the space and atmosphere for that. Not divide and talk.

We need to tackle climate change, not just hand out aid during floods. We need sound policies on migrant workers and refugees — issues that current political parties refuse to address substantively, as they prefer to use them for local votes while simultaneously demanding more migrant labour to serve corporate interests. Every government when in power kowtows to corporate interests, while having another agenda during the campaign period.

We need to address public transportation and forest management, rather than building more roads to cater for more private cars while selling our cars.

We need to prioritise public healthcare over building more private hospitals to cater for those who can pay. We cannot keep our farmers poor while arguing about food security.

We need progressive taxation and wage policies. Only a progressive bloc can address this and will have the desire to tackle these issues for the many.

A Progressive Bloc Is a Long-Term Project — but It Must Start Now

Many political parties keep saying that if we stop corruption and ensure good governance, everything will be fine. This is naive. The system itself is built on corruption structurally. It is built on divide and rule. It is built on feudal conceptions of how a nation should be governed. It is structured to make the bottom 90% to look for scapegoats.

To fight this — and to address all the issues raised above — we need progressive politics. We need to put things on track, not just offer a new package with new labels. We need participatory spaces where every community in the nation is activated — from kampungs, to housing estates, to towns, to cities. We need allocation based on needs. We need a proper balance between government, GLCs, and privatisation. GLCs should cater for the rakyat as they were originally designed to.

Why Does PSM Stand in Elections?

That is why it is our role to bring together progressive voices and civil society movements to build on these policies. Tying up with MUDA in the upcoming state election and the previous year was a project in progress. Two political parties may not agree on everything, but together we can agree on something and that is the concept of the progressive bloc. We need to progress, and we need to fight conservative and regressive policies.

That is why when people ask PSM: Why do you stand in elections? Why do you want to lose your deposits? Why not just be an NGO? — our answer is simple.

We need to stand to put our policies forward. We need to show that we are talking about systemic change, not just changing leaders or parties. We need to build empowerment at the grassroots; the very work that PSM has consistently done. We need to argue for controversial policies on issues like privatisation of healthcare, Rohingya refugees, the LGBTQ+ community, and other issues that mainstream parties will not touch. That is why our voice is needed.

The Future Belongs to the Many

The future does not belong to a few rich individuals running the country for their own benefit. The future must be built by the many, for the many — with the many involved in running the country. The road will be thorny and long. While it took us ten years to be registered as a political party, and yet it may take us longer to fight for our ideals, it will be a fight worth fighting and worth waiting for.

S. Arutchelvan
Deputy Chairperson
Parti Sosialis Malaysia (PSM)