Pakatan Rakyat (PR) may have finally broken into the fortress of Barisan Nasional (BN) Sarawak last night, and while PKR has declared a moral victory for the pact, its success is really DAP’s to celebrate.
When polls closed yesterday, it was announced that DAP had triumphed in all but three of the 15 state seats it had contested, a breakthrough for the party, which has been working the ground in
Sarawak since 1978.
It even trounced BN giant Tan Sri George Chan Hong Nam, a six-term incumbent for Piasau who was also the deputy chief minister and president of the Sarawak United People’s Party (SUPP), the oldest political organisation in Sarawak.
PKR, however, was slaughtered in 46 of the 49 seats, winning in just three constituencies. Even then, its victory in Batu Lintang, a DAP seat in 2006, was likely due to the spillover effect from DAP’s massive voter support in the neighbouring constituencies of Pending, Padungan and Kota Sentosa.
There are several reasons that could explain the inconsistent performances between PKR and DAP: DAP’s early preparation for the polls, PKR’s disorganised and ill-prepared election machinery, limited resources, the fact that PKR has only been in Sarawak for just over 10 years, money politics, and voter dynamics.
Disgruntled PKR members have already blamed BN for allegedly buying support and rigging the voting process, and while this had likely contributed greatly, one significant factor behind the opposition party’s loss could very well also be its poor preparation, and lack of groundwork before the polls.
As such, one crucial lesson that PKR will take away is in the importance of early preparation and the need for better organisation among its branch members, party leaders and campaign workers.
Unlike the DAP, which had begun laying out its plans as early as July last year, PKR was still haggling over seat distribution until the final hours before nomination day.
Even its Sarawak election director, Azmin Ali, admitted to The Malaysian Insider today that the party had been ill-prepared, especially since it was up against BN’s massive machinery and limitless resources.
“I must admit I accept the fact that our machinery was not that well organised. It was not strong enough,” he said.
“I urge the members to move on and we must have this capacity in the future to train our members ahead in order to strengthen our machinery.”
He revealed that PKR had only begun to get down to serious work about three months before nomination day on April 6.
DAP began discussing its campaign theme and strategies in July last year, and held training sessions for its team workers more than six months before the polls.
“We started talking about our mascot way back . . . don’t forget, you have to order the product, find the cheapest vendor and the best quality,” said DAP’s campaign director, Tony Pua.
The party’s famous “Ubah” mascot, a stuffed hornbill doll, had to be ordered from China, and was the result of many discussions, consultations and design changes.
The party had also prepared separate teams for presentation, packaging, strategy analyses and others to help work the ground during the 10-day campaign period. The teams underwent training
and monthly briefings.
At campaign kick-off, the party sent more than 250 workers in one city alone, to help in its daily operations.
Preparedness aside, PKR’s losses could also be due to the large number of seats that it fielded candidates. This spread the party’s limited resources thinner.
While DAP fielded 15 candidates, PKR contested in 49 constituencies, and PAS in five.
Azmin said PKR had “no choice” but to field candidates in all seats, in order to ensure that there would be no walkover victories for the BN.
He insisted that the large number was not a reflection of PKR’s overconfidence and greed, despite reports of how PKR had crossed swords with DAP and its former opposition ally Sarawak National Party (SNAP) over which party would get the lion’s share of seats.
“You must understand that it is not fair to put the blame on PKR for contesting too many seats. It is not our choice,” he said.
With DAP snapping up the urban Chinese-majority sets and PAS the Malay-Muslim seats, PKR was left with the bulk of the Dayak-majority seats, most of which were BN strongholds. “If you ask me, I would rather have contested in just 15 or 20 seats as we have limited resources,” he said.
Another likely factor behind PKR’s loss is that the party is considerably new, having only spread its wings across the South China Sea into Sarawak for a little over 10 years.
“We were here only 10 years ago . . . we contested first in 2001 and I think we are relatively still new,” said Azmin.
“But we made a positive impact in the rural areas. Now, the people know PKR much better and it is a good sign.”
Pua agreed that DAP’s 32-year presence in Sarawak had likely contributed to the party’s performance. “We have been around, our proven track records, the performances of our assemblymen . . . all these factors help a lot,” he said.
“It is the fact that the people have seen us work and voice out their grouses . . . it helps us gain the trust of the electorate.”
He agreed that PKR was still considered relatively new to Sarawakians. For that reason, the community could have been suspicious of the peninsula-based party.
“Could be two ways . . . the people do not know them, and also in terms of their organisation for the campaign,” said Pua. “Perhaps the organisation is not yet mature enough and people do not know them enough.”
One thing is clear. Sarawakians have begun to warm up to West Malaysian politics, and no longer reject leaders from the across the South China Sea.
From the voting pattern, PR as a pact had managed to reduce BN’s popular vote from 63 per cent in 2006 to 55 per cent last night, while it garnered 45 per cent of the vote.
SNAP, despite its earlier boast that Sarawakians preferred a local opposition party rather than one from the peninsula, lost in all the 26 seats it contested against PKR.
Its candidates lost their deposits in 25 seats — a slap on the face for the 40-year-old opposition party.
“The sentiment that peninsular parties are not relevant in Sarawak is not true any longer,” said Azmin. “The Sarawakians do not rely on this talk. Look at how badly SNAP lost. Sarawakians reject this parochial attitude . . . they see the bigger picture and it is a two-party system — between PR and BN.”
PR’s 8 per cent increase in popular vote clearly shows that Sarawakians in general, even those within the rural communities, are slowly beginning to accept the pact’s message of change.
True, despite riding on the growing anti-Taib sentiment, PR still failed to deny BN its two-thirds majority, but it reduced many vote margins, which contributed to its 45 per cent popular vote.
PKR also chalked a significant win in Krian, when its candidate, newcomer businessman Ali Biju, toppled Datuk Peter Nyarok Entrie, a political stalwart who was an assistant state minister and the deputy president of the Sarawak Progressive Democratic Party (SPDP), with a 2,090-vote majority.
Ali’s success was largely due to his early preparation and the months of groundwork.
As such, PKR has chosen not to cry over its massive losses but celebrate its small wins, believing that it would soon translate into a bigger victory in the future.
“We may have lost but I am not worried about that,” said Azmin. “This is a new beginning. People now understand that we are here to stay. We are not a hit-and-run party, we are here to protect the interests of the people of Sarawak.”
comments
It is remarkable that the PKR candidate for Krian won with such a large majority despite BN's superior machinery, money politics, and the fact that he was representing PKR, a relatively new party to Sarawakians. It is attributed to his hard work on the ground during the past year.
PKR should get their future candidates to do the same thing, especially in preparation for the coming GE. PR Sarawak should have a common mascot and common manifesto.
The state election could be like PKR's Ijok by-election. They should learn from their shortcomings and prepare now for the all important GE13.
Choose candidates years early and let them do the groundwork as early as possible. You will see the difference! Don't choose candidates that are having huge loans, most probably will switch side when lured with money.
