Kua Kia Soong
Commentator Tajuddin Rasdi’s suggestion that a “third force” should be led by Khairy Jamaluddin and Ong Kian Ming is deeply unconvincing.
It is not because either individual lacks intelligence or visibility, but because the proposal fails at the most basic political level. It does not demonstrate how this so-called third force would represent a decisive rupture from the Pakatan Harapan–Barisan Nasional (PH–BN) ‘unity government’ it claims to transcend.
A third force, by definition, must be more than a reshuffling of familiar elites. It must embody a clear ideological break and a new social base. It needs a programme that confronts the structural causes of inequality, corruption and authoritarian governance.
Tajuddin offers none of this. Instead, he offers personalities without politics.
- Sign up for Aliran's free daily email updates or weekly newsletters or both
- Make a one-off donation to Persatuan Aliran Kesedaran Negara (ALIRAN), Maybank a/c 507246118995 or CIMB a/c 8004240948
- Make a pledge or schedule an auto donation to Aliran every month or every quarter
- Become an Aliran member
Recent international developments make this absence even more glaring. In New York City, Zohran Mamdani – a young, openly democratic socialist – has demonstrated what genuinely new politics can look like.
His rise was not built on technocratic polish or elite recycling, but on an unapologetic socialist programme rooted in housing justice, public transport, labour rights and anti-imperialism.
Mamdani’s example shows that youth and freshness in politics come not from age alone, but from ideological clarity and moral courage.
Khairy – modern image, old politics
Has Khairy ever jettisoned race and religion as organising principles of Malaysian politics, as Tajuddin seems to suggest? The answer is plainly no.
Khairy’s political career was forged in Umno, an ethno-nationalist party whose legitimacy rests on Malay supremacy, patronage and selective moralism rooted in religious conservatism.
While Khairy presents himself as ‘moderate’ and ‘progressive’, moderation within an ethno-religious framework is not the same as rejecting it. At no point has he fundamentally challenged bumiputra capitalism, racialised policymaking or the instrumentalisation of Islam for political power.
Contrast this with Mamdani, who has confronted identity politics of a different sort in the United States. He has refused to bow to religious or ethnic lobbies when they conflict with universal principles of justice.
His willingness to challenge powerful interests on Palestine, housing and policing illustrates what it means to place class politics and human rights above communal calculations.
A ‘third force’ led by Khairy would therefore not dismantle race-based politics. It would merely manage it more efficiently, more politely and more palatably to the urban middle class. That is not transformation. It is rebranding.
Ong – reformist rhetoric, elite accommodation
Ong’s inclusion raises a different but equally troubling question.
Apart from his socioeconomic policies, what is his commitment to democracy and justice when he is prepared to entertain a so-called ‘political reset’ that would pardon politicians charged with corruption?
Democracy without accountability is hollow. Justice that can be bargained away for political stability is not justice at all.
The idea of wiping the slate clean for corrupt elites in the name of ‘resetting’ politics reveals a ‘reformist’ mindset that prioritises elite consensus over the rule of law. It also prioritises elite consensus over the moral outrage of ordinary people who have paid the price for decades of kleptocracy.
Here again, Mamdani offers a stark counterpoint. His politics rest on the premise that democracy must be deepened, not diluted. This needs to be done by confronting corporate power, landlordism and police overreach – not by bargaining with them.
For Mamdani, justice is not an obstacle to stability. It is its foundation.
If corruption can be forgiven for the sake of political expediency, then Reformasi itself is rendered meaningless.
Ong’s position suggests continuity with PH’s broader failure: condemning corruption rhetorically while accommodating it in practice.
No ideological break
The most glaring omission in Tajuddin’s proposal is the absence of any serious discussion of political economy.
How would a Khairy–Ong ‘third force’ differ from the PH–BN government on wages, ownership, labour rights, privatisation or wealth redistribution?
Silence on these questions is not accidental. It reflects a shared acceptance of neoliberal capitalism as the unquestioned horizon of policy.
Mamdani’s success punctures the myth that neoliberalism is inevitable. In one of the world’s most capitalist cities, he has made public ownership, universal services and class-based politics electorally viable.
His campaign shows that socialist ideas, when rooted in everyday struggles, can mobilise working people rather than alienate them.
Malaysia does not suffer from a lack of clever managers. It suffers from a system designed to enrich the few while disciplining the many.
Without confronting neoliberalism, any ‘third force’ will simply reproduce the same inequalities with different faces.
A real third force
If a third force is to have meaning, it must begin with a clear ideological commitment: democratic socialism.
Malaysia stands at a crossroads. Decades of neoliberal policies, ethnic politicking and empty reformist promises have left the working class, the low-income group and even the precarious middle-income group behind.
The failure of Western neoliberalism is now undeniable, while China’s socialist path – lifting 800 million out of poverty and building world-class infrastructure -demonstrates that alternatives exist.
A genuine third force must therefore commit to:
- Public ownership of key industries such as energy, transport and healthcare
- Strong labour protections, living wages and the right to organise
- Progressive taxation, wealth taxes and redistribution
- Price controls and subsidies on essential goods
- State-led industrial policy and workers’ cooperatives.
Compromise has betrayed Reformasi
Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim’s ‘unity government’ has shown the limits of liberal reformism within capitalism.
Race-based politics remain intact. Corruption prosecutions appear selective. Poverty is addressed through short-term cash handouts rather than structural reform. The promise of Reformasi has been diluted into managerial governance.
Mamdani’s rise underscores that this trajectory is not inevitable. Even within liberal democracies, voters can be mobilised around transformative politics when leaders are willing to tell uncomfortable truths and challenge entrenched power.
A third force that does not break with ethno-religious politics, elite impunity and neoliberal capitalism is no third force at all. It is merely a softer continuation of the same failed order.
Mamdani’s emergence as a democratic socialist leader shows what genuinely new politics looks like: principled, courageous and rooted in the material needs of ordinary people.
If Malaysia is serious about renewal, it must look beyond recycled elites and technocratic reformism. It must look toward a socialist alternative that serves the many, not the few.
Dr Kua Kia Soong, a former MP, is the director of the human rights group Suaram.
AGENDA RAKYAT - Lima perkara utama
- Tegakkan maruah serta kualiti kehidupan rakyat
- Galakkan pembangunan saksama, lestari serta tangani krisis alam sekitar
- Raikan kerencaman dan keterangkuman
- Selamatkan demokrasi dan angkatkan keluhuran undang-undang
- Lawan rasuah dan kronisme
