Cyrix’s Codex

Fcuk man. While rummaging through my scattershot stuff, I came across a my electorate brochure.

Wanting to be a good Ozzie citizen, I decided that those brochures weren’t meant to be used as origami material So being a good Confucious-educated boy that I am, I proceeded to learn how I can serve my new country.

And almost choked on my Indomie (copyrighted) Mee Goreng in the process.

What the hell! I was living in one of the blue-est of blues Liberal NSW seats around! Soo… painful…. to….. realise….. What happened to Labor here???

Apparently, I live in the Federal Division of Berowra. My Federal MP is that bloody Mr Phillip Ruddock, who’s practically an ancient walking fossil…

The old foggie’s mugshot

Oh yeah, and he’s also the current Australia’s Attorney General (Law Minsiter). Plus that oldie’s been in this seat since 1993 now…

This electorate’s voting stats under the 2-party preferred system is:

Liberal: 62.12%
Labor: 37.84%

Damn…

To rub salt into my wounds, I’ve also just found out that even my State District MP’s a Liberal! He’s a Mr Michael Richardson, member for The Hills (that’s my state district).

The smug dude

The state results:

Liberal: 61.6%
Labor: 38.4%

Freaking almost identical to the federal elections! Labor trounced both times!

Anyway, I shouldn’t be that suprised by the results. The Berowra area is quite an affluent area after all. However, I thought that the increase in the number of migrants of Asian descent here might have given Labor more votes than this, since migrants seem to prefer Labor to Liberal. But I guess this is a good sign after all, as there doesn’t appear to be any ethnicity-based voting going on here. I guess every rich person, irregardless of skin colour, will vote for the party which advocates tax cuts

Apalah this Labor here….

Let me tell you about this nincompoop called Tony Abbot. He’s Australia’s Health Minister and Liberal MP. He’s also another Christian zealot from the Liberal Christian Right.

And above all, he’s the biggest hypocrite I’ve ever seen. I just saw the parliament commitee formed to debate on whether to allow abortion pills to be sold in pharmacies. The funny thing about it was that the MPs there were full of men! I mean, come on lah, isn’t this more of a women thing? Unless they have ovaries as well as sperm, I would suggest that female MPs should instead be sent to represent the parliament in that commitee. I believe that women should be given the choice as to whether the pills should be allowed to be sold to the public, as they would ultimately be the ones who are gonna use it, and thus they should be the ones debating the morality, as well as the safety of the issue. Instead we get a phalanx of Christian Right MPs such as Abbot, and the Family First’s Senator Steven Fielding representing the parliament.

And back to this Abbot bugger. God forbid that he’s also one of those politicos who’s in line for Howard’s throne when he retires. He’s a joke man. While he was in uni, he didn’t seem to mind having unprotected pre-marital sex with his girlfriend. Lol! So much for being one of God’s soldiers!

The recent passing of the VSU laws in the Australian senate here has made me realise something interesting. Nono, its not that Italian pasta sucks (I’ve already found that out recently…), its that the parliamentary systems of both the UK and Malaysia operates based on a ‘winner takes all’ modus operandi. The Senate in both countries are useless, irrelevant things, when you think about it. Heck, I don’t even know how senators are elected in Malaysia! After reading this article on Wikipedia on the UK’s House of Lords, I at least got an idea of how it works there.

Basically, in the UK (and I’m presuming Malaysia works similarly as well, correct me if I’m wrong), senators there are all not elected by the people. They are made up of priests, aristrocrats, judges, and some intellectuals on particular fields. Some posts are passed from father to son (aristocrats), while others are elected by the House. Very weird and uncool…..

So based on this, the UK and Malaysia’s system don’t actually have a true ‘House of Review’ in its Senate to review the legislations passed by the House of Representatives (HoR). Since both Senates can’t block laws (they can only delay them), then what are their use? They seem to be to just be a waste of the taxpayer’s money. The party which won the General Elections in both countries gets to pass whatever they want, without any obstacles. The only obstacle they would face (in this case, only in the UK) is that if they become too arrogant in their usage of their power and piss the voters off, the Opposition party will beat them in the next election.

Australia is very different in this aspect. Although it adopted the British Westminster parliamentary system, it also incorporated a US-style Senate here. The Senators here are all elected by the people. No royalty crap for us here! HoR members represents the people, but Senators represent their states. The Senate here have real power to block legislations from the HoR. Furthermore, it’s very rare for the government of the day to have a majority in the Senate, since senators are elected at a different time from the HoR members. Most of the time it’s controlled by the Opposition. This presents a very good check-and-balance mechanism to the government here. Most of the more ‘extreme’ legislations are forced to be watered down by the Opposition in the Senate before allowing it to be passed. In fact, some laws, such as the recent Industrial Relations Reforms (laws making it easier for employers to fire employees) were fanatically opposed by Labor in the Senate for years before the 04 GE.

After the 04 GE, the Liberals won a majority of the Senate seats for the first time in decades. Thus all of John Howard’s pet laws such as the IR Reforms, VSU laws (laws weakening left-wing student unions in unis), and the Anti-Terrorism Act (ISA, Aussie style) were passed without interference. John Howard must be having wet dreams these days…

The Senate here works the same way like the US President’s relationship with the Congress. When the President’s party doesn’t have a majority in Congress, that’s where the headache for him starts

Sure, sometimes the Opposition dominated Senate here can reject legislations just because it can, but most of the time they’re pretty reasonable. So all in all, I think that the Aussie political system is much better than the UK’s or Malaysia’s.

Which reminds me, so how are the senators in Malaysia elected again?

Man of man, I just love Australia’s politics

The VSU bill was finally passed today in the Senate despite rebel Nationals Senator Barnaby Joyce crossing the floor and voting against it. Family First Party’s Steven Fielding saved the day, however, by voting with the government to pass the bill.

And what all this means to me is that I won’t have to pay $200-300/semester anymore beginning from the middle of next year.

Lol, I’ve got another article on theCICAK now

This time, it’s on multiracial parties in Malaysia, entitled: “Invoking the Spirit of Dato Onn Jaafar In Politics”. You can see it here.

Enjoy!

Ahhhh. This post is dedicated to two of my MCA-loving good friends, xhiin and TQJ. Hi xhiin!

Anyway…. A while back, after my friend xhiin got his STPM results back and was applying for a university place, our conversation inexplicably turned towards politics.

Being a DAP supporter, I was just telling him of the party’s virtues, when he started ptui ptui-ing my heros Mr LKS and Karpal Singh, and DAP in general. His rational as to why DAP is unworthy of his affections runs along the lines of: When he was applying for a uni place, MCA was the one which hosted a ‘How To Apply To Ensure You Don’t Get Nothing In M’sia’s Oh So Meritocratic Uni Entrance System’ talk. I believe after the offers were out, it also hosted a ‘Desperado Pleading By Straight A’s Students Preplexed As To Why They Didn’t Even Get A Uni Place’ forum thingy., And apparently, that convinced xhiin that MCA kicks DAP’s ass.

Hmmnn… He has a point I must say. Arranging those talks was really a great PR exercise by MCA for the voters, especially young ones such as my friend there who would be able to vote soon. Very neat trick.

But me? Lol, MCA’s gonna have to try much harder than that!

Why? I’ll tell you why. What has MCA actually accomplish by organising those talks? Advising aspiring uni students like my friend xhiin here on how to ensure that he gets a place. How? By asking students to not be too ambitious with their futures and discourage picking courses like medicine, dentistry, pharmacy, etc. Why? Because due to how the M’sian education system works, those bright, or moderately bright students probably won’t get it.

Am I the only one’s who’s confused here? MCA is a political party in power who forms the government right now. Shouldn’t it have the power to reform the edu system to make it fairer for all those students-whose-parents-aren’t-super-rich-to-send-them-overseas to get into a local uni? Instead, the best MCA seems to be able to come up with is some sort of ‘administrative’ advice to give to those students: “Make sure you write down your courses correctly, don’t forget to write your name and student number, forget med/dent/phar, make sure you post it on time, don’t worry lah, etc”. Wth???

Why is this so? It’s because MCA is a politically impotent force. That’s usually what happens to junior coalition partners, like the Nationals in Australia. M’sia has 219 federal seats, and UMNO has 109 of it. It’s actually just short of 1 more seat in capturing half + 1 of the House of Representative(HoR). Meaning: It only needs 1 more seat to be able to govern M’sia by itself, without both MCA and MIC. MCA and MIC no longer have much power to influence the policy-making of the present BN government.

Instead of thanking MCA for their obvious ‘administrative’ advice, xhiin should start understanding what political parties are actually suppose to do. While MCA were busy reminding xiin to use a black pen to fill his application forms with in those talks, DAP has always fought for a fairer uni entrance system and 1 standard pre-uni exam. If there were 109 DAP or PKR MPs in the HoR, and 110 BN ones, then we would start to see some action in rectifying these issues. BN would then be very anxious to keep their 1 seat advantage to keep itself in govt, and the voters can then demand change in those issues, or threaten to vote DAP or PKR into power in the next elections. This scenario frequently happens in Australia, incidentally.

Political parties are suppose to make policies: How schools, unis, the police, economy, etc should be run. They are also suppose to make new laws and legislations. Not going around bringing home girls who’s ran away from their families with their boyfriends. Do you see MCA/MIC/Gerakan/etc doing these policy-thingies right now? Nope.

Instead, parties outside of BN are different. They are not constraint by BN’s whip. For example, DAP or PKR if in power, can instead of just giving useless ceramahs on how not to screw up filling up your uni forms, can actually change the whole uni system to make it fairer and more transparent. See the difference? This is what real political parties are suppose to do.

Today, let’s talk about media bias and censorship in Malaysia, shall we? I know, many Malaysian youths, including myself initially, will have absolutely no inkling what the hell I’m on about. “What media censorship? My The Star/The NST/TV news seems perfectly fine to me. It reports the news, sports and the lifestyle sections pretty well, in fact”

And you know what? Heck I agree with you totally! I feel that the Malaysian newspapers have much more content and is infinitely more interesting than the Australian ones. At least Malaysian newspapers gives us comic strips every day, instead of just once every week in Australia! Plus there’s less rubbish gossip about B-grade actors and actresses in parties there in Malaysia!

So why are irritatng dudes like an old man called Lim Kit Siang, or a deposed ex-DPM called Anwar Ibrahim, or even the ulamas in PAS constantly going on about some boring thing about ‘media bias’ and ‘censorship’? They all should just shut up and enjoy Academi Fantasia, right?

Wrong. Why? Because there is one tremendous shortcoming in the Malaysian newspapers and TV: Political news, government criticisms, and alternative views.

The mass media is a very powerful tool. In fact, I didn’t know just how powerful until I came to Australia.

Coming to Australia for a Malaysian is like escaping a Malaysian-Matrix of sorts. And I think that that’s a very good description of what happens in Malaysia. For a long time in Malaysia, I was brainwashed into believing that BN was the epitome of racial unity, that Dr Mahathir was the best thing to happen to Malaysia since Nasi Lemak, and that Malaysia was a shining example of how a successful multicultural country should be.

How wrong I was.

Bear with me for a while longer and I will try and explain why

Why is the mass media so powerful? Because, we only know as much as what the media shows us. If you don’t know anything about an abuse of power, how can you do anything about it? Similarly, if you are given almost no information of the opposition parties’s alternative ideas on how the country should be run, how can you make an informed choice come voting time? It’s like what Cypher said: Ignorance is bliss.

That’s why the media is so important. It is our conduit to what’s happening in our country. And that’s why every government will try to control and supress it for their benefit, with varying degrees of success. The Malaysian government is an example of one which has meet with extreme success in it’s efforts to do so. The other notable example is Singapore.

Don’t believe me? Then here’s an example: Check out The Star’s online version’s national news section yesterday here. In it, there are 7 articles with political content in them:

1. Najib moved by plight of the poor
2. Town abuzz with talk of two more likely by-elections
3. Outstation Chinese voters to return home
4. UMNO Campaigning despite pain
5. Kok did not break law by showing clip, says Nazri
6. Ka Ting thanks ex-teachers
7. Faster MCA membership approval to draw professionals

Notice that out of the 4 articles on the Kelantan by-elections, the first three are blatantly pro-BN ones. That’s ok, if The Star balances them with a few pro-PAS articles. But where are they? Nada.

No. 5 is alright, but what’s No.’s 6 and 7 about? These 2 are just glorification fluff for the party which owns the paper, MCA. Again, a bit of MCA promotion and articles praising their leaders is fine, provided again that The Star provides some semblance of a counter-balance to them. Where are the articles talking about how Lim Kit Siang is thankful for his teacher’s contributions towards developing his strong sense of social justice, equality and multicultural outlook in life, which lead him to join DAP instead of MCA? Or about Parti Keadilan Rakyat’s (PKR) DPM, Dr Syed Husin Ali’s decision to join PRM instead of UMNO? And why was the Deputy Minister of Internal Security, Noh Omar’s idiotic statement asking foreigners to get out of Malaysia if they don’t like how M’sian police treat them censored out of The Star?

All in all, there were 5 pro-govt, 2 general info, and 0 pro-opposition articles above.

In comparison, let’s now look at the Sydney Morning Herald’s national news section for today here:

1. Immigration Department kept police in dark on atrocities
2. Gerard said no to post
3. Labor MPs welcome latest poll result
4. Govt neglecting farmers: Liberal MP
5. Reduce child poverty levels, says Labor

In you’re interested in knowing more about Australian politics, feel free to check out my excellent description of them here, which I am incidentally quite proud of Took me 2 bloody days to construct it, you know!

Ok now, let’s see what those articles are about. The first article is criticism over the govt’s deportation of a mentally-ill Australian of Phillipino ethnicity. No. 2 is another one criticising the Oz’s Treasurer (Finance Minister)’s appointment of a dogdy tax-evading businessman to the RBA (Bank Negara) board. The third is a pro-opposition one showing that recent polls (where are these in M’sia???) indicate that Labor would win an election if it was held today. No. 4 is on some of the govt’s own MPs criticising their own party for neglecting farmer’s welfare. And the last one is a pro-opposition piece stating Labor’s views on child poverty.

Notice that there is roughly 1 pro-govt, 2 pro-opposition, and 2 articles written by the newspapers themselves criticising some aspects of the govt’s actions. This is how truly balanced news reporting should be.

In Malaysia, apart from only providing some miniscule amount of space for the oppposition to air their views during election time, papers such as The Star and The NST should also constantly seek the views of DAP, PAS and PKR on any hot issue of the day. Things such as the recent police abuse incident (which the Opposition Leader, LKS had a lot to say, judging by his blog, but was given almost no airing by The Star), bank interest rates, the UPM students charged under the UUCA incident, etc.

What happened to Anwar Ibrahim’s visit to Sarawak to help the state opposition there? Or his views on non race-based politics, as stated here? I would be very interested in that. All nada in The Star.

Sure, some people might say that all that is just political gibberish and that we should just be happy with what we’ve been told. But heck, M’sian voters still have the right to know about the views of every political party in M’sia and it is up to them to make their own decisions on those things. After all, The Star doesn’t seem to have a problem writing fluff about Ong Ka Ting or Najib crying in Kelantan. Nobody elected the newspaper’s editors to become the M’sian people’s gatekeeper to information. They should just stick to writing up the facts, all of it. We can decide for ourselves which party is crap and which is doing it’s job, thank you very much.

And by the way, how many times have you seen Lim Kit Siang’s face on national TV? Here in Australia, I constantly get bombarded with the Opposition Leader’s mug shot, along with his Shadow Cabinet Ministers. And that’s how unbiased reporting should be. Most M’sians wouldn’t even recognise M’sia’s Opposition Leader of almost 4 decades!

Remember: “Free your mind” - Neo

I remembered when I was living in Bukit Mertajam, Penang, I frequently visited my uncle’s house. Sometimes there, I see him typing letters with a letter-head of some padi in a triangle. It was only much later in life that I found out what it actually represented, and that my uncle was the secretary of the local Gerakan branch.

Parti Gerakan Rayat Malaysia, better known as Gerakan, is a multiracial political party founded in 1968. It’s current leader is Dr Lim Keng Yaik.

So is Gerakan still relevant? Let’s check out their stats to find out, shall we?

After the 04 General and State Elections:

Federal seats: 10
State seats: 30
Share of votes: 3.7 %

*From The Star, via Wikipedia

I’ve always thought of Gerakan as a centrist, northern version of DAP actually. True, it’s roots wre not grounded in the union movement, and so I’m venturing a guess that it’s early support comes more from the intellectual English-educated middle class of Malaysians of all races, and not the labour unions.

Gerakan used to be an opposition party, but it then decided to join the BN coalition, which I personally feel was a betrayal of Gerakan’s multiracial struggle and principles. It claims to do so because it will make it easier for them to get funding for Penang from the Federal Government, and also to ‘reform BN from within’. But I think it’s quite apparent now that they’ve failed miserably in their second aim. BN’s UMNO, MCA and MIC are still going as strong as ever with their respective race-based policies and outlooks in BN, while Gerakan has been relegated to the role of being MCA-junior. In fact, not too long ago, there was even talk of a possible merger between it and MCA! What a sad fate for a once principled and promising party. I felt that a more principled (although definitely more painful) alliance would be one with DAP, and possibly PRM as well to inject more Malay interest and support for it. This would also preserve their objection towards the racially-divided BN coalition.

Judging from the stats above, I would say that Gerakan is still relevant, but only as a state party, and not as a federal one. It (I think) still currently controls my home-state of Penang. But on the federal level, I don’t think they have any influence at all now. The other thing about Gerakan that I am a critical about is it not wanting to run for seats in any other states apart from Penang! This deprives the Malaysians who want a multiracial party to represent them, and who in the end, have to settle for UMNO, MCA or MIC. They also seem to have stagnanted as a party, bereft of any new ideas now. At least DAP is still being vocal about many issues that’s happening in Malaysia right now.

The other thing that I don’t like about Gerakan is it’s (again) failure in preserving its past’s vibrant multiracial make-up. I just took a look at it’s party’s organisation, and it was quite pitiful actually. I only saw 2 non-Chinese members holding national posts, both Indians. In contrast, DAP has 6 non-Chinese holding important national posts in it, with 5 being Indians and 1 being a Malay. I guess Gerakan IS fully on its way towards becoming just another MCA now….

Lastly, this doesn’t really have anything to do with the topic, but I just noticed it. Check out these stats (from the same source as above):

Gerakan:

Federal seats won: 10
National share of votes: 3.7%

DAP:

Federal seats won: 12
National share of votes: 9.9% (!)

Talk about gerrymandering! Here’s a terrific intro on what gerrymandering is, curtesy of The Cicak.

But that’s not the worst. Check out PKR’s:

PKR:

Federal seats won: 1
National share of votes: 8.9% (!!!)

Yeah, yeah, I know I’ve done this before already in my old blog. But hey, what can I say, I like politics So here’s another ‘more comprehensive’ dose of Aussie politics for you lucky folks out there:

Ahhh… Politics. What an interesting field, don’t you think? Depending on its proponents, it can either stink to high heaven, or it can improve the welfare of a country’s people, or particular minority groups that are being unfairly treated.There are many streams of political thoughts, ranging from conservatism, to liberalism, right through to socialism. But here in Australia, there are currently 6 major political parties that are worth talking about.

Before we start, I think I should first explain a bit about the Australian political system to clear up any confusion that may arise while reading this. The Australian political system is fashioned after the British Westminster parliamentary system, in which the leader of the political party which wins the most seats in the House of Representatives (HoR) (Dewan Rakyat/Lower House) becomes the Prime Minister and the leader of the party with the second most seats in the HoR not in coalition with the winner party becomes the Leader of the Opposition. However, there are a few differences between them. The Senate (Dewan Negara/Upper House) and the senators here plays a much more important role because they are not appointed representatives, but are elected directly by the voters as well, similar to the HoR’s MPs. The Senators here represent the states, while the HoR MPs represent the people. Therefore, the Senate is also usually more than just a rubber stamp for legislations wanting to be passed by the government in Australia, as they can easily be blocked by the opposition parties if the government does not have a majority there. It is also compulsory for all citizens aged 18 years or older to vote here.

Another thing to note is that, unlike Malaysia or Britain, which practices the ‘First Past The Post’ voting system, in which voters only choose one candidate, and the candidate with the most number of votes wins, Australia practices the ‘Preferential’ voting system instead. This works as such: Suppose that there are 3 candidates competing in an election, Candidate A, B and C. Voters list their preference in regards to all three of the available candidates by placing the number ‘1′ for their first preference, ‘2′ for their second preference and ‘3′ for their third preference. The voter’s first preferences are distributed amongst the candidates first, and the candidate with the least number of first preferences votes is then eliminated. This candidate’s, let’s say Candidate C’s, votes are then redistributed to either Candidate A or Candidate B, depending on Candidate C’s voter’s second preferences. This goes on until a winner is declared. This system eliminates the problem of a candidate winning by a slim majority (which therefore means that a sizeable minority do not support him/her) and the winner will instead be the candidate which is most accepted by the voters (because he/she has won the most first/second, etc preferences). Comprehendo?

And now here are Oz’s political parties:

Introducing…. in the right-wing corner….. the Liberal Party!!!

Liberal Party

Homepage
Year formed: 1945
Party ideology: Conservative, neo-liberal, centre-right wing
Current status: In government, in coalition with the National Party
Factions: Wets (conservatives) and Dries (moderates)
Present leader: John Howard (lawyer by profession) - Prime Minister - from the Wets
Duration of reign (of terror) so far: 1996 - present (won 4 general elections (GE) in a row)
Number of HoR seats won in the 04 GE: 74 out of 150
Number of Senate seats won in the 04 GE: 33 out of 76
Number of states won in the last state elections: 0 out of 8 (no states won)

So what heck does this party stand for anyway?: Socially-conservative, free-market economy, increased deregulation of business and government, anti-worker’s union, old people, more emphasis on Christianity and family values, anti-immigration and multiculturalism, pro-detention centres on obscure islands for illegal immigrants, pro-monarchy, pro-paid places in unis, lower taxation for high income earners, favours big businesses, employers, anti-Aboriginal (orang asli here) reconciliation

In a nutshell: A party for rich, religious, old, white Aussies

My 2 cents worth: To put it bluntly, I have no love for this party. I think my dislike mainly stems from the preception that I get from the leaders of this party that most of they are anti-multiculturalism and overtly favours the rich. Johnny Howard, especially during his early years in opposition has clearly stated his racist nature and dislike for the increase in multiculturalism in Australia in his major parliamentary speeches. There used to be a time where the Liberal Party really lived up to its ‘liberal’ tag, but not anymore. John Howard is a staunch social-conservative, and when he got into power, he has gradually pushed out numerous of his more socially-liberal colleagues, and replaced them with his fellow socially-conservative MPs instead. I also don’t like how the Liberal Party is continously providing exorbitant funding to the already rich private schools here, while not giving enough to public ones. I am also especially against this party’s education policy of increasing the paid uni places in the universities here, as I think that this practice unfairly discriminates against the poor but otherwise capable students who would lose out on a place to those rich brats. Unfortunately, this party had the biggest election win in its history in the 04 GE, due to the present good economic conditions, the interest-rates rise scare tactics that it employed to scare voters off voting for Labor, coupled with a divided Labor opposition headed by its inexperienced leader of only 13 months, Mark Latham.

And now… in the left-wing corner… the ALP!

Australian Labor Party (ALP)

Homepage
Year formed: 1891 (oldest party)
Political ideology: Labour, social democracy, centre-left wing
Factions: Left (socialists) and Right (social democrats)
Current status: In opposition
Present leader: Kim Beazley (politician) - Opposition Leader - from the Right
Duration of reign: Elek pochi (lost 4 successive general elections in a row)
Number of HoR seats won in the 04 GE: 60 out of 150
Number of Senate seats won in the 04 GE: 27 out of 76
Number of states won in the last state elections: 8 out of 8 (all states under Labor)

So what does this party stand for anyway?: More emphasis on secularism, more socially-liberal than the Liberal Party, pro-worker’s unions, favours small and medium businesses, pursuit of a better welfare state, pro-immigration and multiculturalism, higher taxation for high income earners, abolishment of fee-paying un places, more funding for public schools, more hospital subsidies, pro-republic, young people and uni students, pro-Aboriginal reconciliation

In a nutshell: A party for the working-class, young, multicultural Aussies

My 2 cents worth: Ever since setting foot in Australia, I have been attracted to this party. Why? Because of their pro stances towards multiculturalism, immigration, increased funding for public schools and the abolishment of fee-paying university places. I don’t know much about their present leader, Kim Beazley, since he only recently took over from Mark Latham last year. But whatever it is, I never took much stock on just a particular politician, as I prefer to vote (in the next elections anyway) on a party basis. This party was also one of the reasons that I finally settled on choosing social democracy as my present political affliation. To me, the Labor Party’s past track record has also shown that it is much more willing to engage with Asia, instead of constantly kowtowing to the USA and the UK. This can be seen by how its past leaders such as Gough Whitlam, who abolished the White Australia Policy and initiated relations with China, and Paul Keating, who wanted Australia to become a part of Asia. Alas, this party experienced its worst federal election result in the last GE elections. This was due to the government’s effective campaign which potrayed Mark Latham as an inexperienced leader who could wreck the present good economic performance, the aforementioned interest-rates rise scare, and the party’s own internal power-jockeying between first Simon Crean and Beazley, and after that, Crean’s protege Mark Latham and Beazley. This disunity has presented the Liberal Party with much ammunition to attack Labor.

And now, in the ulu and petani corner… I present the National Party!

National Party

Homepage
Year formed: 1922
Political ideology: Conservative, right-wing
Current status: In government, in coalition with the Liberal Party
Present leader: Mark Vaile (kangaroo catcher) - Deputy Prime Minister
Duration of reign: 1996 - present (won 4 GEs in coalition with the Liberal Party)

Number of HoR seats won in the 04 GE: 12 out of 150
Number of Senate seats won in the 04 GE: 5 out of 76
Number of states won in the last state elections: 0 out of 8

So what does this party stand for anyway?: Farmer’s welfare, rural area development and funding

In a nutshell: Farmers and rural areas

My 2 cents worth: The National Party is a declining force. It was never a mainstream party, and it is also gradually losing the votes of its traditional support base, the rural folks, as they are increasingly voting for the Liberal Party instead. This is, IMO, just a fringe or interest group party, and I am kinda indifferent to it, to be honest.

Next up, the oh-so-rightous little party that could, The Democrats!!

Australian Democrats

Homepage
Year formed: 1977
Political ideology: Social liberal, centrist
Current status: In opposition
Present leader: Lyn Allison (politician)
Duration of reign: Elek pochi (never won a HoR seat so far)
Number of HoR seats won in the 04 GE: 0 out of 150
Number of Senate seats won in the 04 GE: 4 out of 76
Number of states won in the last state elections: 0 out of 8

So what does this party stand for anyway?: To provide an alternative to the Liberal-Labor choice, to provide a check and balance to the 2 major parties, young and idealistic people, Aboriginal rights, pro-abolishing fee-paying uni places, anti-mandatory detention of illegal immigrants on obscure islands-prisons

In a nutshell: ‘Ex’-powerbroker between the 2 major parties, idealistic, young people, anti-establishment people

My 2 cents worth: This party was formed by a splinter group of MPs from the Liberal Party in the late 70s, with the war cry of ‘Keeping The Bastards Honest’ (gotta love that motto huh? with the ‘Bastards’ referring to politicians from the 2 major parties). It is one of the few major parties in Australian politics that allows its MPs the freedom to ‘cross the floor’, or vote against the party’s wishes based on the individual MP’s conscience on particular issues, thus making it one of the most democratic and free parties around. During a decade before the 04 GE, the Democrats held the balance of power in the Senate with 8 seats, and thus making it the kingmaker between Liberal-National and Labor. This was because Liberal-National (the government) did not have the majority in the Senate to pass their policies, and needed the vote of the Democrats senators to do so, while Labor (in opposition) also needed the Democrats to block them. Thus, both parties had to kowtow to the Democrats and amend their policies to suit the Democrat’s stance on various issues. However, the Democrats suffered heavy losses in the recent 04 GE, where their senate seats where cut down from 8 to 4. This was due to the poor leadership of their previous leader, Andrew Bartlett and his drunken antics, and a general swing by voters who wanted an alternative from the Democrats to The Greens. I personally would give my second preference to The Democrats, as I think they’re a kinda cool party and I support many of their policies. I also prefer them to be the kingmakers, as I think their policies are more pragmatic, realistic and ‘useful’ compared to The Greens or, even worse, the Family First Party. Unfortunately, they lost their previous kingmaking powers in the 04 GE with the rise of The Greens, and the suprise win of the Family First Party in the Senate.

And now presenting… the tree-hugging, whale-loving, hippy-ish Greens!!

The Greens

Homepage
Year formed: 1992
Political ideology: Green politics, left-wing
Current status: In opposition
Present leader: Dr. Bob Brown (doctor), openly gay
Duration of reign: Elek pochi (never won a HoR seat so far)
Number of HoR seats won in the 04 GE: 0 out of 150
Number of Senate seats won in the 04 GE: 4 out of 76
Number of states won in the last state elections: 0 out of 8

So what does this party stand for anyway?: Saving the Tasmanian forest, global warming, anti-Iraq war, anti-US Free Trade Agreement, public health, free uni education

In a nutshell: Activists, nature lovers, young people

My 2 cents worth: The Greens was formed at a time when Australians were becoming more aware about the dangers of global warming and deforestation as a result of rapid industrialisation around the world, and especially in Australia. This, along with the voter’s dissatisfaction with The Democrat’s performance, has resulted in The Greens increasing their Senate seats from 2 to 4 in the recent 04 GE. Many people see it as a kind of hippy party, dedicated to free uni education and the environment (which isn’t nessasary a bad thing, btw). It is also the leading advocate for gay and lesbian rights in Australia, as its leader, Dr. Bob Brown, has publicly declared that he’s gay, and not afraid to tell people about it. Apart from fiercely championing for liberal social values and the protection of the environment, The Greens seem to fall short on the economic aspect. They do not have a cohesive set of ideas on how to run the economy, and some of their policies also seem to be in conflict with each other. They have been criticized for trying to be a party for all groups. I am a bit wary of The Greens getting too much power to influence government and Labor’s policy, as I tend to think they are not a very ‘realist’ kind of party. I mean, saving the trees and all is pretty cool, but shouldn’t we be more interested in whether we’ll still be able to get employed when we graduate or whether we can still afford to buy our first house in the future? Thankfully, The Green’s (along with The Democrat’s) hopes of becoming the kingmaker in policy decisions were thwarted by the unexpected win of the Family First Party.

And last but not least, in the far-right wing corner… the newest kid on the block, the Family First Party!

Family First Party

Homepage
Year formed: 2002
Political ideology: Christian-influenced conservatism
Current status: In opposition, but pro-Liberal Party (government sympathiser)
Present leader: Steve Fielding (sole senator in the Senate)
Duration of reign: Elek pochi (first senator elected in the Senate in the 04 GE)
Number of HoR seats won in the 04 GE: 0 out of 150
Number of Senate seats won in the 04 GE: 1 out of 76
Number of states won in the last state elections: 0 out of 8

So what does this party stand for anyway?: Christianity, family values

In a nutshell: God

My 2 cents worth: Family First burst onto the Australian federal political scene in the 04 GE. Some comentators have said that there is a possiblity that Australian voters did not know much about this party but gave them their second or third preferences anyway because they had a family. Because it freakishly won it’s first senate seat, and both The Democrats and The Greens won 4 seats each thus cancelling each other out in terms of kingmaking powers, the Family First Party (FFP) suprisingly found themselves in the envious position of being a kingmaker. Because of the Liberal Party’s conservative stance, it was assumed that the FFP would be a natural ally to it, and this was proven true when the FFP decided to support the government in passing its policies through the Senate, thus giving the government a working majority of 1 seat (33 (LP) + 5 (NP) + 1 (FFP) = 39) more than the 38 seats (which is half of the Senate). In return, the FFP has ensured that Christianity will play a more major role in the government’s policy implementation, and bringing the government even more towards the right.

In conclusion:

Australia has a very robust political system, for a relatively young one. Throughout its history, federal power has always been won through a majority in the HoR alternately between the Labor Party and the Liberal-National Party coalition. However, even though these three parties are the only ones that are capable of winning seats in the HoR, the Senate presents an altogether different story. Minor parties such as The Democrats and The Greens have historically had much more success in getting elected to the Senate, and the public uses them as checks to the 2 juggernaut parties. Thus, even though they may be small, minor parties such as them have had a substantial impact in Australia’s political scene. I personally am quite content with Australia’s present political scene as I am of the opinion that it caters to a wide range of different political ideologies that the average Australian can subscribe to and identify with. The Australian voters are also quite an intelligent bunch. They try to avoid giving the government a majority in the Senate to preserve their right to object to any dubious government policies, and they also play the state governments against the federal government. This can most clearly be seen in how all 8 of Australia’s states are under Labor, even though Liberal forms the federal government. Again, this is to curb any abuse of power or corruption by both parties by constantly keeping them on their toes with the threat of swinging to the alternative parties anytime the voters feel suitably discontent about a particular issue or service from a party. However, after the 04 GE, the voters have given the Liberal-National Party coalition unprecedented control of both the HoR and the Senate, with a total of 74 + 12 = 86 (over the 76 seats needed to obtain a majority) HoR seats and 33 + 5 + 1 (support from the Family First Party’s sole senator) = 39 (equal to the 39 seats needed to obtain a majority) which means that the opposition parties can no longer block any government laws and legislations. This means that the current Liberal Party MPs are one of the most powerful in Australian political history. Overall, the Australian political scene is a stable and vibrant one, and this bodes well for the future of Australia’s democracy.

So now, after all that, which party do you support?

I came across this poignant poem while looking through the papers yesterday. It was written by Pastor Martin Niemoller, who was imprisoned by the Nazis during those insane times. I feel that it also aptly describes the situation in Malaysia right now (all it needs is a few change of words), and it should be addressed to all the young politically-indifferent Malaysians out there:

First they came for the communists,
I did not speak out
because I was not a communist.
When they came for the social democrats,
I did not speak out
because I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists
I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews
I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew;
And when they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out

Here’s the Malaysian version that I came up with:

First they came for the opposition members,
I did not speak out
because I was not an opposition member.
When they came for the activists,
I did not speak out
because I was not an activist.
When they came for the journalists
I did not speak out
because I was not a journalist.
When they came for the university students
I did not speak out
because I was not a university student;
And when they came for me,
there was no one left to speak up for me