WRITTEN BY TAXI2DRIVER
Prime Minister Najib Razak and his administration have been forced to run for cover, trying their best to save his controversial 1 Malaysia slogan from being ridiculed and exposed as a sham, but they may have failed as Malaysians scrutinise the constitutional crisis boiling over in Selangor where the opposition is being publicly bullied into submission by the combined forces of Najib’s Umno party and the Palace.
“Nowhere is it more obvious than in Selangor where Najib and Umno are hiding behind the Sultan who rightfully should be above politics. Here it is crystal clear, despite the doublespeak, 1 Malaysia is nothing but sheer hypocrisy. It is being used to pull wool over the people’s eyes, and by right it should be outlawed because it is subversive propaganda aimed to divide the races – not to unite them,” PKR vice Tian Chua told Malaysia Chronicle.
“As we had feared, 1 Malaysia has gone the way of OneIsrael and OneAustralia. It is now not just a symbol of racial supremacy but also a symbol for corruption by the super-elite who expect the people to respect them without thinking or to judge for themselves. Is this right or wrong? “
Sultan “apolitical”
Indeed the manner in which Najib had marshalled the machinery of his federal government and his Umno party that has ruled Malaysia for 5 decade to ride roughshod over the Pakatan Rakyat Selangor government has been an eye-opener.
Even this morning, at the oath-taking ceremony of Najib’s blue-eyed boy Khusrin Munawi, whose controversial appointment as state secretary has been rejected by Menti Besar Khalid Ibrahim’s administration, the Sultan clearly sided with the powerful prime minister. He endorsed the federal government’s choice without taking into consideration his own state government’s wishes.
The obvious question of “why” is now at the heart of the bitter and escalating row between Khalid, the federal government and the Palace.
Although the Selangor Ruler insisted he was “apolitical”, it would be interesting if a referendum was taken and the people asked if they believed that he was really neutral, or acting on his own, or as most people believe was siding with Umno. It would even be more interesting if the scope of referendum was expanded and the people asked to jot down why they thought the Sultan would want to side Umno?
Nonetheless, due to courtesy and protocol demands, Khalid had no choice but to attend Khusrin’s oath-taking ceremony, but he and his Pakatan team say they are sticking to their pledges to the people. They have announced that they will carry on with all ways and means to dislodge Khusrin, including calling a state assembly sitting to amend laws that would invalidate his appointment.
Who would the people side with?
To counter this, Umno support organs have been busy spreading word that Pakatan’s defiant behaviour showed they were anti-Palace and by extension anti-Malay.
Whether such a premise is logical is moot because Khalid and his team were the people’s choice. Khusrin is not. Even Najib was not elected by the people of Malaysia. He became PM because of an internal Umno power transfer. The Sultan is the Sultan because of birth right.
“This is what happens when the different parties overplay their roles and forget that they are mere cogs in the wheel of life. The super-powerful must remember to be sensitive to the people, who through education can think very well for themselves. Those born into privilege are already blessed by God. For them to come and stand on the side of wrongdoing and corruption in order to amass even greater wealth is to ask for too much,” a political analyst toldMalaysia Chronicle.
The Perak lesson
Indeed, Selangor is the second state in Malaysia where Najib and Umno have used might to steamroll over the opposition. In Perak, they toppled the Pakatan state government with the help of the Perak Sultan and the state secretary there.
Speculation had then been rife that Najib had allocated a huge business deal to the Perak royal family. Just weeks ago, the federal government confirmed a RM36 billion MRT project to MMC-Gamuda without open tender. Gamuda is controlled by the Perak royal family.
Apart from the Selangor Sultan-state secretary crisis, there are several other incidents over which Najib has recently stumbled. During Christmas, he tried to score brownie points by showing that he was not averse to visiting Christians. Unfortunately for him, news leaked out that he had ordered his minders to ensure that his image was protected, and they in turn had ordered Church officials to remove symbols of Christianty such as crosses and crucifixes during his visit.
This was to protect Najib from being photographed with any Christian symbol displayed in the background because to the Umno mindset, such an image would strike at the heart of Najib’s ‘Islam-ness’.
“That is Umno hypocrisy for you. The elite are not really that backward but instead of leading the party forward, they are only too happy keep the mentality of their members in the stone ages. Anything goes as long as they stay in power. They really have no moral authority to lead Malaysia,” Nizar Jamaluddin, the deposed Pakatan Perak chief minister, told Malaysia Chronicle.
Damage control: It’s my fault! An RCI for Beng Hock!
An aide has since emerged to take the blame for Najib’s X’mas fiasco. But it is doubtful if her words will mean anything because at the heart of what ireally rks people and makes them lose trust in Najib and all things Umno is their insistence on cave-man politics. Just like in the episode involving the ‘apolitical’ Selangor Sultan and his preferred state secretary.
And also just like Teoh Beng Hock, the luckless Selangor political aide who died in suspicious circumstances after overnight interrogation by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission, which coincidentally has also previously claimed that it is ‘apolitical’.
On Wednesday, after more than a year of inquiry, an inquest could not decide what caused his death. The Coroner delivered an “open” verdict – the biggest implication of which meant that the police would not have to pursue further investigations.
Amid the ensuing public outcry and if not for the fact that a by-election in Tenang – a constituency with a large Chinese population – loomed, there would probably be zero chances of Najib ordering the Royal Commission of Inquiry that his BN-media have reported he is mulling.
At the core - duplicity and intention to deceive
But of what use is an RCI bound by parameters aimed at protecting wrongdoers just as in the inquest, rather than exposing the culprits, pundits asked.
They pointed to a previous one involving former premier Mahathir Mohamad and lawyer VK Lingam, saying Najib’s judiciary was now so bold-faced they could even dare to allow the findings of an RCI be challenged in court and an application sought to have it overturned.
“This is the duplicity of Najib. It doesn’t cost him anything to call for the RCI. He may tell the MACC not to worry, we cross the bridge when it comes because at the moment we cannot afford to anger the non-Malays as Tenang is too close by,” Gopeng MP Lee Boon Chye told Malaysia Chronicle.
“Same sort of deception going on in Selangor. The Sultan assumes a heavy-hand when he actually has no say over who becomes the state secretary and this has been confirmed by the Chief Secretary. At the same time, Najib sends his Umno NGOs and Utusan poking fire among the Malays. They say things like, Selangor is going to the dogs. It is becoming a colony of China, Pakatan doesn’t respect the Sultan. If Khusrin is ousted, the Malays in Selangor are finished. You see the logic? No, there is no logic because it is pure emotionalism. This is the type of politics being played by Najib and this is the true meaning of his 1 Malaysia. It is really a very dangerous scam.”
This is what Sultan Azlan Shah had to say in his address at the 14th Malaysian Law Conference in
“All countries, including those that are totalitarian regimes, have courts. But as I observed previously, ‘The existence of courts and judges in every ordered society proves nothing; it is their quality, their independence, and their powers that matter’.”
The Sultan observed that “In matters concerning the judiciary, it is the public perception of the judiciary that ultimately matters. A judiciary loses its value and service to the community if there is no public confidence in its decision-making”.
Perak’s Raja Muda, who holds a doctorate in Political Economy and Government from Harvard, echoes his father’s sentiments.
In his keynote address at a National Integrity Day opening, Raja Nazrin said, “Generally, the Rulers act based on the advice by government leaders elected by the people. Nevertheless, the Rulers cannot accede to acts which do not symbolise justice or sanction moves which do not mirror truth.
“The Rulers’ views, observation and counsel in the administrative affairs of the country touching on the question of integrity which encompasses justice, law, judiciary, misappropriation, power abuse, corruption and wealth distribution, are with the desire to strengthening the Government so that it is stable and receives people’s trust.”
During one of the Perak awards ceremony in conjunction with his birthday celebration, Sultan Azlan reinforced the message: “The rulers have a far wider responsibility in ensuring that the spirit of the Constitution, the philosophy behind the written law, and the interest of the country and the people are safeguarded at all times.”
However, the spontaneous admiration and respect for Perak’s royal household came under exceptional pressure when Prime minister Najib Abdul Razak conspired with the state secretary, and successfully ousted Pakatan mentri besar Nizar Jamaluddin.
His Highness’s subjects never fully recovered from that ordeal and amidst the chaotic scenes at the palace and the state secretariat, the public was perhaps scarred forever.
Najib’s greed, had shaped the minds of a younger nation who realise that the trappings of power goes beyond the question of a personal choice or even the question of a popularity contest.
Umno/BN’s interference caused many Perakians to question their sense of duty and tradition and whether they should stray from their previous blind deference of the past.
Private secretary to the Sultan of Selangor, Mohamad Munir Bani, appears intent on playing his role in staging a repeat performance of the Perak debacle, this time in Selangor.
Munir and Najib should desist from including the Sultan of Selangor in any of their tactics to bring down the Selangor government.
Rulers need their subjects too and it would be unfortunate if Najib succeeded in driving a wedge between the royal household and its civilians.
Only one person has the key to unlock this impasse, but he is supposed to be above politics.
Najib’s obstinacy might perhaps be remembered in the future as a staging post for casting doubt on many of the things that we hold dear.
UPDATED As widely feared, Prime Minister Najib Razak wriggled out of forming a full-scale Royal Commission of Inquiry into the death of Selangor political aide Teoh Beng Hock, choosing to pass the buck to the Attorney-General whom he claimed was dissatisfied with the outcome of the recent inquest and would press for a review of the open verdict that had been delivered by the Coroner.
“This is outrageous. Najib even has the cheek to say he is keeping his promise and then deflect attention to the AG. It is obviously not acceptable. The AG can file for any number of applications for review of the inquest outcome, but the courts can reject each and very one. What will Najib do then?” PKR vice president Tian Chua told Malaysia Chronicle.
On Friday, perhaps unaware of the feeling on the ground or perhaps he wanted to show the hawks in his Umno party that he could play hardball, Najib announced that an RCI would beestablished. But its scope would be limited to investigating the procedures of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission and whether the agency, which falls under his direct purview, had violated human rights when it interrogated beng Hock.
“As I promised in July 17, 2009 to set up the RCI. The terms of reference of RCI will be specific – to investigate MACC’s investigation procedures and whether it had violated human rights,” Najib told a press conference in Putrajaya.
Washout and shame
After more than a year of inquiry and hearings, the Coroner had on Wednesday declared Beng Hock did not commit suicide as the MACC had claimed. However, the Coroner also took care to clear the MACC by ruling that it was not homicide either. The major implication of such a verdict is that the police would not need to investigate the MACC officials involved for murder.
Teoh, a 30-year old former journalist, was found on the 5th floor podium of the Selangor MACC headquarters in Shah Alam. He had gone there to be interviewed as a witness into graft allegations that he boss, Seri Kembangan assemblyman Ean Yong, and several other Pakatan Rakyat leaders in the Selangor state government were involved in corruption.
After overnight interrorgation, his body was found in a suspicious state and on the very day that he was due to register his marriage with his fiancee, with whom he was expecting their first child who has since been born.
Yet the MACC insisted it was suicide. Most Malaysians believe Beng Hock was murdered as a result of rough interrogation methods used to extract a false confession from him to implicate his bosses and thereby topple Mentri Besar Khalid Ibrahim’s state government. Top officials at the Selangor MACC have been accused of having conspired with state Umno leaders.
“Real washout and shame. Najib announces RCI, not into cause of Teoh Beng Hock’s mysterious death at MACC headquarters but MACC investigation procedures. No good,” DAP adviser Lim Kit Siang, who had warned that this would happen, said on Twitter.
BN components help sweep the “murder” under the carpet
The Bar Council has also slammed Coroner Azmil Muntapha’s verdict, saying it made the entire inquest “meaningless”. But Beng Hock is not the only such case of blatant disregard of the law by the police and the courts in Malaysian. Just months ago, a similar open verdict was passed by another Coroner into the custodial death of R Gunasegaran, although there had been eye-witnesses who saw policemen beating Guna unconscious.
“So sad to say, this is the justice system in Malaysia. We can no longer depend on the BN, the courts or the police. Malaysians have to depend on themselves. In Tenang, I urge the voters there to listen to the voice of their conscience and vote out the BN. Show Umno and Najib that such lawlessness will not be tolerated by a modern and civil society,” Taiping MP Nga Kor Ming told Malaysia Chronicle.
Meanwhile, MCA chief Chua Soi Lek and Minister in the PM’s Department Nazri Aziz have warned Malaysians to remain calm and accept the outcome. Soi Lek even said that to “politicise” the verdict would only prolong the family’s pain.
Like Beng Hock’s family, Malaysians especially the Chinese community, have rebuked him for his “rubbish advice”. When Beng Hock died, the MCA and other BN leaders had riushed to show their sympathy and promised “justice” for him and his family. But with Najib’s latest pronouncement, Gerakan, MIC and MCA can be expected to change their tune and help sweep what many believe is a “murder” under the carpet.
“If PM said that RCI would investigate Teoh Beng Hock’s case today, Dr Chua Soi Lek would say MCA fully supported it even before the MCA central committee meeting next week,” Selangor DAP leader Teng Chang Khim said on Twitter.
“We demanded RCI on death of Teoh Beng Hock but BN determined to cover up his death with another RCI on investigation procedures!” said Bukit Lanjan assemblywoman and state executive councilor Elizabeth Wong.
A useless leader
It is telling that just a day ago, Beng Hock’s sister Lee Lan expressed deep concern over the RCI.
“I’m worried that if the PM announces the RCI without talking to us first, it’s just going to be like the inquest. We won’t get the answer,” Malaysian Insider reported her as saying. “I’m worried because people have been telling me that the RCI will just investigate the procedures by the MACC. That’s not the one that we want.”
“What can we say? Najib is such a useless leader. We have given up on him. We just have to fight on,” Ronnie Klassen, a Sabah PKR leader who has been following case closely, told Malaysia Chronicle.
So diversity of opinion is as democratic as going by the majority opinion. There would be, in this diversity , opinion that goes against the majority. So, dissent is also part of democracy. Why, then, treat dissent as something fundamentally dangerous, as seditious?
If the dissenting opinion is directed at inciting violence, then alone does it amount to sedition, the Supreme Court has clarified.
This calls for qualification. In every nook and corner of India, some priest or preacher routinely extols verses from the Bhagavad Gita, in which none other than Lord Krishna urges Arjuna to perform violence in pursuit of dharma. Should this call to violence invite the wrath of the state?
That the charges against Binayak Sen and two others are specious, the conviction based on flimsy evidence and employing jurisprudence that places the onus of proof on the accused, has already been written. Dr Sen has denounced violence and publicly described the Maoist path as invalid and unsustainable . For him to be treated as he has been is clearly and emphatically wrong. But leave him aside. How should the state treat a Maoist sympathiser, one who does not take part in or abets any violent activity, but articulates empathy with the Maoist cause?
The Maoists ambush security personnel, derail trains and also perform horrific acts such as gouging out eyes and slitting the throats of prisoners. They are, indeed, waging war against the state, against constitutional government, against democracy. Kind words and persuasion will not disarm or disband the Maoists. They will have to be put down by force. But what of the tribal and rural folk who support them, of artistes and intellectuals in towns who fit the description ‘fellow travellers’ ? Where do we locate them in the context of democracy?
The first thing to appreciate about democracy is that it is not a static absolute. No society anywhere in the world is a perfect democracy . All societies constantly try to evolve to be more democratic. In India, we have just about climbed down from the trees.
America’s Declaration of Independence in 1776, the French revolutionaries’ Rights of Man proclaimed ideals that remain to be realised . Only the civil rights movement saw democratic rights filter down to people of colour in the US in the 1960s.
The foremost demand of the revolutions that convulsed Europe mid-19 th century was universal adult franchise. When it was granted, it meant that propertied men could vote. Only in early 20th century did women and all citizens regardless of property have the right of franchise. Yet, Indians got the vote when India got Independence, regardless of whether they had raised a slogan for freedom.
Yet democracy had little meaning in large swathes of India, where extremely unequal distribution of assets and social power made a mockery of the Republic’s promise to remove poverty and ignorance and disease and inequality of opportunity.
Land reforms and gradual diversification of the economic structure have reduced poverty over time. Political mobilisation of subaltern groups has given large numbers voice and agency. Yet, sizeable sections of Indians have been left completely shortchanged by the progress their compatriots have made. They remain economically, socially and, often enough, sexually exploited.
Members of India’s aboriginal tribes belong to this category , for the most part. And they have been mobilised by the Maoists, citing not just failure of the state to protect them from oppression but also the state’s role as primary oppressor , usurping their land and restricting their means of livelihood.
In a country like India, the agencies of the state have the responsibility to not just transact in accordance with the letter of the law, but also to act to advance democracy. All those who fail to act to secure movement towards the democratic ideals of the Constitution are, in reality, enemies of the people, and of the state, if the state is truly of, for and by the people.
Maoist fellow-travellers perform several useful functions. They constantly remind the powers that be that democracy is still in a state of becoming. They act as a bridge to the people mobilised by the Maoists and to the Maoists themselves. The aim of the state should be to resolve conflict, not wreak vengeance. So, the option of a negotiated settlement is always open for the state, should the Maoists give up violence.
Rural violence can only cease when rural India’s huge inequality is addressed through redemptive growth and redistribution. Once the state shows seriousness of intent to achieve this, most Maoist followers would be willing to forswear violence. So, hopefully, would Maoist leaders. The only way to reach out to them is through Maoist fellow travellers . To quash them out of existence is to both deprive the system of vigilance and cleave a chasm of alienation between the state and the oppressed that can be bridged only by bloodshed.
No comments:
Post a Comment