The articles by Josh Hong (' MCA + Gerakan = Chinese unity? ') and Lee Ban Chen (' Gimik politik party perkauman ') on the MCA-Gerakan proposed merger offer very little useful analysis on the viability of the political project.

The conclusions on both articles were based on more or less similar assumptions, interpretations and analytical foundation, employing an overdose of metaphors, anecdotes, emotive language, irony and unhelpful analogy (especially Hong's). My intention here is to challenge some of their key assumptions and observations with the purpose of saving the debate from rigidity and to broaden the discourse.

First, the articles argue that the proposed merger is a political gimmick employed by both MCA and Gerakan to tempt and appease the Chinese community with the possibility of a "grand Chinese unity" in order to win over their votes in the coming general election.

While a merger is possibly a political move to gain the community's support, could it be considered a ploy? If it is a ploy, then it is not a wise political strategy for both the parties because obviously the community would not fall for the same bluff over and over, assuming that members of the community are rational beings. Moreover, the current political climate does not pose as much a threat as it did in 1999, so as to justify such a desperate move for survival. There is reasonable doubt whether the 'grand unity' idea is sustainable and attractive enough to shift the Chinese ground in the direction of MCA and Gerakan.

In terms of political preferences, there are some obvious plurality in the community. Specific issues such as economic opportunities, employment and social freedom influence their voting decision more than say racial unity. On the other hand, there are also voices within the community want the opposite: that unity is desirable and should be more inclusive. Therefore, the argument for a 'grand Chinese unity' falls short against these realities.

Lee's 'balance of power' argument in his article is essentially a classical realist political proposition, which is not only inadequate in explaining and interpreting our current local political system, but is also problematic and flawed. In realist terms, 'balance of power' works in an anarchic system as a tool to enforce conformity and to constraint the behaviour of its actors.

Based on this assumption, Lee is suggesting that the BN political model is an anarchic one. Hence, political actors are conscious of their relative strength, advantage or disadvantage and are prone to act accordingly to create a balance of power in the system if a clear hegemon appears, in this case Umno. This, according to him, explains the intention of the MCA-Gerakan proposed merger.

I shall prove Lee's fallacy based on two points:

First, the relationship between the 14 BN component parties has moved beyond the system level into a norm-governed form. It has transformed from a functional alliance to an association bounded by a common set of rules (BN supreme council regulations) and share in the working of common institutions (joint governance). The association is also conscious of certain common interests and common values manifested through its joint policies and political actions. This proves that BN is not as 'value-free' and 'anarchic' as Lee would like us to believe.

Secondly, the idea of Umno as a hegemon in BN is in doubt especially in the wake of the serious political challenge from PAS, which undermines its support base with its Malay constituents. It is a mistake to assume that PAS' influence is because of the Anwar Ibrahim issue - this supposedly strikes at the core of the Malay heartland. The PAS challenge is fuelled more by ideology, especially religion, than Anwar's personality.

Hence, even if Umno is a hegemonic power, distortion over its position shows that such strength in BN is only assessed as a long-term phenomenon. More than anything, Umno needs the support of both MCA and Gerakan. This relationship is mutually constitutive and reciprocal because Umno is the majority coalition partner. Consequently, Lee's argument that the proposed merger is to balance off the power equation in BN, is difficult to sustain.

Lee's critique also points to the ideological differences between MCA and Gerakan as the main obstacles in the project. I argue that the 'ideological differences' reflect the membership that make up MCA and Gerakan. Lee's 'race-centric' definition of what constitutes ideology is too narrow which only weakens his assumption and analysis. Using race as the sole basis of ideology is also pathetically racist.

In accordance to proper political analysis and theorising, both MCA and Gerakan share ideological similarities in a lot of ways. Both are committed to the shared values of BN which are inherently supportive of constitutional democracy, liberal market economy and pluralistic social policy.

It is also not true that MCA leaders, especially those holding government positions, serve the Chinese community exclusively. Portfolios such as primary industries, transportation, human resource, local government or health transcend all races or beliefs.

However, it must be noted that discussion on the proposed merger cannot avoid bringing up this issue of membership, either mono-ethnic or multi-ethnic. Whether it alone is a deal breaker or not, there has not been any negative reaction from MCA over Gerakan's announcement that it was putting together a 'not so ethnically pure' committee to discuss the proposed merger.

If Gerakan stands firm on its principle and is prepared to convince MCA into accepting its practice of non-racialism, this project should be encouraged and supported as a step in the right direction.

Critics should hold their judgment until the verdict is apparent and uncontestable. Any premature reaction by the so-called proponents of multiracialism may actually be counter-productive to any initiative of creating more flexible, progressive, inclusive and responsive political system.

In sum, a political discourse or debate should not be placed in a straightjacket by commentators and analysts who are not employing careful argumentation, systematic use of evidence, non-emotive language and explicit methodology.