Sabah politics has faced another storm with the refusal of the two BN MPs from Sabah to accept a federal appointment in Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi’s embattled cabinet. The reasons given are varied.
One said he could not serve the federal government anymore in his capacity as deputy federal minister while the other one wanted to give a chance to the younger generation to serve. Regardless of how one interprets their intention, it seems obvious that they were not happy that they were getting little ‘patronage awards’ from Umno’s massive electoral gain in Sabah.
Soon after that, it was reported by the press that the Pakatan Rakyat was trying to lure 30 BN MPs (mostly from Sabah) to cross over. At the time of writing, there’s no strong signal yet to indicate the 30 MPs will be crossing the floor.
No matter how one sees the entire scenario, it is simply a case of the such katak from Sabah wanting survive from the very fragile political atmosphere created by Abdullah. In the context of Sabah’s political history, the practice of katak-ing is not a new phenomenon.
In assessing the sincerity of those attempting to katak (jump from on political party to another), the people of Sabah should ask themselves these two critical questions:
i. What’s the purpose of these politicians wanting to crossover? and
ii. Is their dissatisfaction towards Abdullah’s leadership caused by the former’s inability to deal with the Sabah woes or is their action merely for the sake of political survival?
Judging from Sabah’s political history and the practice of katak-ing in the state, crossovers are mainly for political survival and nothing else.
Abdullah is really in the spot over the threats of crossovers. And those wanting to betray BN are ‘clever’ enough to use the threat as a bargaining chip but one not for the people’s interests but for personal gain.
In Sabah, for instance, a few BN leaders have had the temerity to stick their neck out by challenging Abdullah openly. The Sapp president Yong Teck Lee, for instance, gave the ultimatum until August this year for Abdullah to act on the problems plaguing Sabah.
Ironically, these were the same leaders who were in power before but yet dis little, or none at all, to solve the Sabah problems. Perhaps, Abdullah is seen as too diplomatic and lenient of a leader compared to his predecessor Tun Mahathir.
On another different note, Anwar tried to explain the morality of crossover. But the question here is not one of ethics and morality; PKR should ask itself if it could do a better job in Sabah than the ruling BN.
Just before elections, newspapers reports had painted a grim picture of how several PKR leaders were fighting each other to lobby for candidacy. PKR even failed to form a formidable force in Sabah let alone come up with convincing manifestoes.
In Sipitang where I had cast my vote, the same old face standing as the PKR candidate failed to convince me that he is the alternative figure to the BN candidate. If the elections results are any indication, it is clear that the people of Sabah did not want PKR to lead the state.
What the PKR should do is not rush to form the next so-called ‘government-in-waiting’; it should play its role effectively as the leading opposition both at the state and national level. The people want to know how effective Anwar and his PKR people are in championing grassroots’ problems.
Sabahans are tired of seeing their leaders singing the old songs, changing party so many times as well as brandishing their rhetoric but doing nothing constructive and critical to the state’s progress.
While in Peninsular Malaysia, it is usual to see politicians playing to the gallery using ethnic rhetoric to gain mass support. In Sabah, politicians often resort to the issue of state rights to gain attention. So it will not be unusual for all to see Sabah politicians ranting about state rights when they feel they are no longer in power and want to survive politically.
