Former Bangi MP Ong Kian Ming’s claim that Pakatan Harapan indirectly benefited from identity politics creates a false equivalence between PH’s Malaysian campaign and the openly race based mobilisation employed by BN and PN.
Saying that PH benefited from racial politics is like saying baldness is a hairstyle. It confuses a political outcome with a deliberate political strategy.
PH has never campaigned by asking one race to unite against another. We have never told Chinese voters that their interests can only be protected by defeating the Malays, nor have we told Indian voters that another community poses a threat to them.
PH’s central message has always been that Malaysians, regardless of race or religion, must unite to defend good governance, moderation, economic justice and democratic institutions.
Strong support from a particular community does not automatically make a party’s campaign racial. What matters is how that support was obtained and what messages were used to mobilise voters.
BN-PN, in contrast, repeatedly used DAP as a target, a threat and a political punching bag to frighten Malay voters. DAP was blamed for issue after issue, while Malay voters were urged to consolidate their political power to protect their rights and interests from an implied enemy.
There is a fundamental difference between calling on Malaysians to reject extremism and telling members of a particular race that they must consolidate their political power to protect themselves from other communities.
Warning voters about religious extremism or policies that may undermine Malaysia’s multicultural character is not the same as mobilising voters solely on the basis of racial solidarity. One is a debate about the direction and values of the country. The other defines political competition primarily through racial identity.
PH contests elections under a common multiracial platform. Our candidates appeal to Malay, Chinese, Indian, Orang Asli, Sabah and Sarawak voters as Malaysians. Our policies on wages, healthcare, education, housing, public transport and institutional reform are intended to benefit all communities.
It is therefore inaccurate to claim that the two approaches carry the same underlying message.
PH does not seek Chinese unity, Indian unity or Malay unity against anyone. We seek Malaysian unity around a government that is competent, fair and accountable.
The lesson from Negeri Sembilan should not be that PH must imitate BN and PN by becoming more racial. The lesson is that PH must make its Malaysian message clearer, stronger and more relevant to the daily lives of every community.
Malaysia will not move forward by dividing its citizens into competing racial blocs. The future lies in persuading Malaysians that their interests are better protected when every community advances together.