Given PKR's 'declared' multi-racialism, there have been rumblings both within and outside the party regarding the choice of fielding Khalid Ibrahim against the BN candidate from MIC.

It is said that there were also resentment by sections of the Indian community when PKR fielded Malay candidates in Lunas and Teluk Kemang during the 2000 by-elections. No less than the then Keadilan deputy president, Chandra Muzaffar, said that following the 'squabble' over the Lunas seat, for example, a serious misperception had developed about Keadilan's commitment to the interests and aspirations of the Indian minority.

In an interview with malaysiakini , PKR vice-president R Sivarasa addresses the issue.

Malaysiakini: While it is not necessary for the party to follow the pattern set by the BN, it is said that the party should provide space for Indian candidates in areas where there are substantial Indian voters. Ijok has a high density of Indian voters. What are your views on this? How can PKR address this issue?

R Sivarasa : I think one has to realise that just mimicking the Barisan distribution of candidates according to race is not, for us, a demonstration of multiracial politics. Because that's an MIC seat, I put an Indian - to me, that's not what multiracialism is about.

We need to understand why that formula is in Barisan. BN's success as a coalition is that it has parceled out its seats, it's a racial formula, and that's what's holding it together. We accept that (is BN's formula).

But for me, and for most people and most Indians, in reality, there is no genuine multiracialism (as a result of the BN formula). There's a sharing of seats, but that's it. It doesn't translate into genuine multiracialism in terms of equality of rights, access to a fair share of the nation's wealth, and all the (other) issues that minorities bring up.

PKR's commitment to multiracialism should be measured primarily by its political positioning. That's the primary indicator. For example, it's a fact that we are clearly committed to affirmative action based on need and not based on race. In other words, poor Chinese, poor Indians, and poor Malays (should) get access to education, housing, etc., on an equal basis. That, for me, is far more meaningful.

There's also the fact that Anwar Ibrahim, as the leader of PKR, speaking on the M Moorthy case, was the only Malay leader in this country who could say something meaningful and constructive on the Moorthy case. He was the only guy who acknowledged there was an injustice to Moorthy's wife, and who proposed a solution - which was that a person like the late Moorthy's wife must have access to justice and that you cannot just shut her out and say there's no jurisdiction.

For me, that is multiracial politics.

The next thing to bear in mind is that electoral considerations are different between by-election scenarios and general election scenarios. That is a fundamental thing to remember. In a by-election - and especially for an opposition party, as we are not in government with a coalition to worry about keeping together. We are just looking at ourselves - the primary consideration is winnability. That is how it has applied. Winnability doesn't mean Indian candidates have no role. It means evaluating all candidates and deciding which candidate has the best prospects of winning that seat.

In a general election, we don't have to mimic the BN formula - speaking of multiracial politics and vision is one thing, but the public will want to see where your Indian candidates are. You must demonstrate Indian candidates as well.

The party has Indian leaders, and it has put forward a sizeable number of Indian candidates in general elections. I don't think Teluk Kemang and Lunas have brought the Indian community to a point where they are alienated from PKR. I don't see that. In the last six to eight months, I have actually seen a strong and active interest from the Indian community in PKR as a platform for them.

I'm not saying that everybody's comfortable with that way of thinking, no. There's a significant number of Indians who will be disappointed with this and who would want for us to put an Indian candidate in, say, Ijok, and that sort of thing.

We don't subscribe to that kind of approach. We can't agree with that. It's as simple as that.

So what you're saying is it's not fair to base the fielding or otherwise of an Indian candidate as the sole determinant of the party's 'commitment' to the Indian community.

In general elections, we are going to make sure that our number of Indian candidates is a fair reflection of multiracial representation. It has to (be a fair reflection). We cannot have just one Indian candidate.

Of course, this is subject to having qualified Indian candidates. We don't just put up Indians for the sake of putting up Indians. Subject to having qualified candidates, we may put six to seven Indian candidates, and perhaps ten or more state-level candidates, at least. Don't forget that (fellow opposition party) DAP is also going to put up Indian candidates in certain places. We have to share it with them.

We also cannot be extremely mathematical about it and, say, you are seven percent of the population, therefore, you have seven percent of the seats. Keadilan doesn't work like that. We may even have ten percent of the seats, although we are only seven percent of the population, because there happened to be more qualified Indian leaders than qualified Chinese leaders. So be it.

But we also cannot get carried away with that and have 30 percent Indians running (for) the seats.

In by-elections, it's about winnability. The impact of a by-election is in winning it.

Winning a by-election, given the current context - we have only one (PKR) seat in Parliament, one state seat in Sarawak, and that's it - is not going to change anything for us. It's not going to make us a state government anywhere, because it's just one state seat.

But winning it in this context is different. It's going to create an impact. Especially if we win in Ijok now, it's going to make a major impact on how BN will look at the next general election. That's the primary consideration. If we're going to go into Ijok, we're going to go all out and who is our best candidate to ensure that win, regardless of what race (the candidate) is. That's the consideration right now. It's not about sending a candidate there, even one who you can objectively assess is going to lose, but he's an Indian, so it's okay.

But some people are saying just that - as long as you're fielding an Indian contesting against another Indian and you lose, it's ok.

Then they don't understand politics. With due respect, they don't understand politics.

They don't understand that is best demonstrated in a general election (not in a by-election). I'm not saying you must not show that commitment to the Indian community. You must show that commitment, and we show that in the general election.

On that, we have nothing to worry about. Our track record in the general elections of 1999 and 2004 says we fielded enough Indian candidates. There's no issue there for people to say, Keadilan undermined Indian representation. Nobody can say that, and nobody does say that.

In by-elections, we don't want to lock ourselves into mirroring that BN formula.

So you don't think that - assuming Khalid does win - by choosing Khalid, PKR may make a short-term gain over a long-term loss? That Keadilan is doing it again after Lnnas and Teluk Kemang, putting a Malay candidate in an 'Indian seat'?

I think we've got to step back and see what PKR's long-term political vision is.

Barisan has locked us into false compartments. In politics, that has translated into 'this is a Chinese-MCA seat, that is an Indian-MIC seat'. They're trying to lock us into that compartmentalisation. Of course, some people have been influenced accordingly, so their expectations are there and they think this is how it works.

We are trying to break away from that. That's not easy because some people are going to be unhappy because they expect that formula to be followed. We are not interested in that formula. What I'm trying to say is, we don't buy into the idea that it's a long-term loss.

For us, in the next general election, we will go to the Indian community and we will show that this is a multiracial party, this is our position. We think you should be very happy with that. This is how we have handled certain 'Indian' issues such as Tamil schools, on temple demolitions, this is our position on Moorthy's case, and on R Subashini's case.

If you want Indian leaders, we have in the general election put up so many Indian leaders (to run) in seats. That's what we would rather tell them and show that this is our commitment, not just to the Indian community, but to everybody. We don't just look at the Indians.

We will not move from that (position). We're not going to start compromising that approach.

If people are going to tell us 'you can have all that, BUT, you have to put an Indian in Ijok,' we'll just say no. We're not going to be locked in that position.

What if Khalid does not win? There may be no way to regain the party's credibility as a multiracial party should PKR lose in Ijok.

If we lose badly, then it's going to have repercussions for us as a party. People are going to say PKR is going to go nowhere.

But most peoples' prediction is that this is going to be either a narrow loss or a narrow win.

For me, if (results are) along that basis, it's fine. We look okay both ways. If it's a narrow loss, we have no problems. We can walk with our heads held high, because we came close to winning and we've given BN a run for their money.

If we win, then BN is going to feel the heat, and it's going to have a real impact on them. I'm sure they're not going to rush into a general election very soon.

For the sake of argument, if there was no Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim there, then there is no other Malay candidate. If Khalid was not in PKR, KS Nallakaruppan would be the (PKR) candidate because he is the next best candidate winnability-wise.

The selection of Khalid will bring us closer (to victory).

I don't think we'll lose badly. There is a mood for change. There were also feedback from Indians on the ground that they're quite happy with the candidate being Khalid.

Interestingly, and this might be telling for those people who wanted an Indian candidate, we received feedback earlier that MIC would much rather prefer an Indian candidate from PKR. So you can see, that's our opponent (saying this) and, of course, our opponent would want the less-winnable candidate. There was very clear feedback and they said, 'we'd be very happy if it was an Indian candidate' because in terms of winnability, they'd have an edge.

Now, I think (with Khalid in the running), they're under pressure.

What about people who contend that Khalid would be given have a hard time given he was a former chief executive officer of Guthrie Group Bhd (1995-2003) at the hands of whom workers were dealt a raw deal? Some allege that plantation workers had been evicted from their houses during his tenure in Guthrie.

I don't know the specifics of this, and I haven't heard of (how he fared with the plantation workers and other workers) during his time in Guthrie. To some extent, I"ve heard that he was quite concerned for workers' welfare. In terms of housing (I've heard) that he has organised housing schemes, and so on.

A couple of union people have said that when it comes to negotiations, he was a tough guy to negotiate with, and so on. But you know, he's a CEO of a company...

It's hard to kind of evaluate that. He might have been a tough negotiator, but at the end of the day, did he look after the workers? I believe he has looked after the workers' welfare.

I am sure Khalid would admit that he could have handled these issues better then and that mistakes were made. However, the more important issue is his views now and how he would handle these issues today.

udging from his public statements and speeches since he entered PRK a year ago, he takes a clear stand on distributive justice and equity for all regardless of social background. I believe that we must give people a chance to move on and test them on where they are now. We cannot trap ourselves in someone's past forever there will be no progress then.

You haven't heard that Khalid would be a liability for PKR in Ijok or anything like that?

No. I don't think so.

What about the text-messages making the rounds that Khalid had been unjust and demolished poor housing settlements and Hindu temples around Bukit Jelutong without paying compensation?

I know in Bukit Jelutong there were issues. I was involved in the court case. In the end, the workers got their housing, but it took a court battle, no doubt. Timing-wise, I'm not sure. People forget the timing of these things. They just remember it being Guthrie and that he was CEO of Guthrie.

What do you think of threats of Indian PKR leaders to boycott the whole Ijok thing if Khalid was chosen to contest for PKR?

There was some talk earlier about that, but I think political sense has prevailed. The right thing to do now is to accept the political decision of the party and to work for the good of the party, which is to go down on the ground and campaign for Khalid.

I think everybody is doing just that, even among the group of Indian activists who very much wanted to see Nallakaruppan as the candidate. I think that's a good indication of the developing maturity of the party.