ANGLING TO CHALLENGE NAJIB FOR THE TOP JOB

ANGLING TO CHALLENGE NAJIB FOR THE TOP JOB

Terence Netto’s COMMENT: UMNO may not do the task of internal reform well, like cutting down on the practice of money politics, but say what you like, it does do internal dissension well.

Just look at how party deputy president Muhyiddin Yassin affects to swim in his leader, Najib Razak‘s slipstream while writing his own personal agendas. Muhyiddin’s reaction to the call by the MCA for a boycott of UMNO-owned paper Utusan Malaysia over the latter’s proposition that Malays rally behind the ’1Melayu, 1Bumi’ policy is a good illustration of the point.

Muhyiddin rapped MCA across the knuckles for calling for the boycott on grounds that sounded vaguely like he believed in freedom of the press and then sidestepped the question of whether he supported or disagreed withUtusan’s ’1Melayu, 1Bumi’ rallying cry.

It was the clearest demonstration in his now delicate, two-year-old, trapeze act wherein he shows tepid support for policy initiatives of his party’s president while leaving himself enough wiggle room to hint he would chart a new course as skipper of the crew.

It is the manoeuvring of a deputy who is mulling a challenge for the top position: the controlled wriggling does not cause too big a ruckus in the party but it sports the unmistakable hallmarks of incipient mutiny.

One supposes there would be no prizes for discerning these signs of a revolt’s incubation in the folds of seemingly minor nuances of policy. After all, UMNO is a six-decade-old party that has weathered several chapters of internecine conflict.

Contestants long seasoned by the party’s intramural feuds would be skilled at the game of playing fast and loose with the pros and cons of still-fluid issues, the better to lever them to expedient advantage later when opportunity for getting up the greasy pole avails.

Once overlooked

Muhyiddin, survivor of the fallout from the Mahathir versus Musa Hitaminternal feud of the mid-1980s and the ructions between Mahathir and Anwar Ibrahim of the late 1990s, is apparently putting to good use the experiential wisdom he gained from those episodes.

In both instances, he initially backed the loser, only to imperceptibly shift course and come out looking none the worse for the wear. In each case, it was a story of plucking survival from the jaws of defeat.

There was reason to believe that when Abdullah Ahmad Badawi became prime minister in 2003, Muhyiddin had the better chance of being named his deputy but Mahathir’s pressure on Abdullah forced the latter’s reluctant selection of Najib for the position.

As things turned out, it was Muhyiddin’s criticism of Abdullah’s protracted timetable for departure from the UMNO presidency that hastened Abdullah’s exit from the post which comes with the premiership of the country.

That criticism was a calculated gamble by Muhyiddin. It paid off and now Muhyiddin is poised to take another gamble by challenging for the top post that will either result in his apotheosis or in his evisceration.

Sheer tenacity

It is one of the ironies of his career that if he makes the move to challenge, he may get the support of the very man – Mahathir – who was supposed to have stalled him before. If that support materialises, it would be one of the more vivid demonstrations of how someone with an outsider’s chance can re-insert himself into the reckoning given sheer tenacity.

Of course, the larger irony inherent in Muhyiddin’s projected rise would be that an UMNO bigwig from Johor is trying to reach the top on a platform that is strident rather than liberal.

From Onn Jaffar through to Dr Ismail Abdul Rahman through to Musa Hitam, contestants for top honours in UMNO had attempted to travel on liberal wings rather than on rabid ones. Muhyiddin would represent a break in this pattern.–www.malaysiakini.com

Only two budget proposals are being ‘taken seriously’ in Washington right now. One adopts the rhetoric of “austerity economics,” that grab-bag of right-wing misconceptions that’s weakened the British economy and wounded its ruling coalition.

Shaheed-e-Azam Bhagat Singh and his comrades believed that the middle class creates revolution when it walks with the poor, but turns into a reactionary force if it chooses to serve the ruling elite. This stands true even today. Both the shades of the middle class are visible in Anna Hazare’s anti-corruption campaign. The countrywide support to Anna’s five-day fast and the events thereafter have shown that much of the strength of the campaign is coming from the middle class and so are the attempts to sabotage it. It reflects the struggle of right and wrong at the national level as well as within an individual. We know the right path but the temptations of power and money are too irresistible. In such a scenario, the Jan Lokpal is not going to make any difference till the middle class conscience is awakened.

The importance of the middle class can be understood through history. It mainly led the Indian freedom struggle. Many sacrificed their lives for freedom. But at the same time a section remained servile to the colonial rulers and was responsible for corrupting the system after Independence. The ugly face of the middle class was also seen in the country’s partition. The thinktank of the Muslim League and the Hindu Mahasabha also came from the middle class, which eventually succeeded in dividing India. Post-independence, those who fought for the freedom kept the social conscience alive and public probity a matter of pride till Lal Bahadur Shastri became the prime minister. But, after his death and with the rise of “Indira” Congress, honesty started losing relevance in society.

Jayaprakash Narain’s Sampoorna Kranti movement, in which the middle class played an important role, was successful in overthrowing a “corrupt” Congress regime in 1977. But the leaders on whom JP relied also turned out to be corrupt. The Congress was back in power. Gradually, five deadly Cs — corruption, casteism, communalism, criminalisation and commercialisation — took India into their stranglehold, particularly after 1990s’ economic reforms. The opposition parties also participated in loot when elected to power leading to formation of the public perception “sub chor hain”. But still the country witnessed many movements in different parts against corruption, land acquisitions, discrimination, and injustice. Most of them are led by middle class activists but participation of the middle class in general is very little.

The middle class is an important link in the chain of corruption. It is the beneficiary as well as the victim of the corruption, be it social, economic or intellectual. The stand of the middle class on corruption is also ambivalent. “Corruption is OK till it doesn’t pinch me”. A majority of politicians, bureaucrats, corporate managers, activists, journalists and other professionals come from the middle class. But very few stick to honesty. A majority compromise with values and ethics as money has become the only motive of life no matter how it comes. The “talent” prefers plush jobs over defence services. Corruption has also seeped into the forces. Everything is on sale and character is the cheapest of all. Opportunism and sycophancy are considered virtues; integrity has become a rare commodity and morality is ridiculed.

Under these circumstances, a change can come only when the middle class decides to change itself and takes centre stage of the ant-corruption tirade. A glimpse of it was seen in Anna’s campaign. While people from all walks of life took part in the five-day agitation, major thrust came from the participation of urban middle class, particularly the English-speaking, which mostly remains insensitive to the plight of others and always looks for a Gandhi, a Bhagat Singh or a Jayaprakash Narayan to fight the battle on its behalf. It also keeps away from voting in elections. But in this case, a section of the urban middle class came out on the streets perhaps because of the “suffocating” atmosphere created in the country by a series of scams in the past couple of years coupled with price rise and growing social and economic insecurity.

The participation of the urban middle class in Anna’s campaign caught the fancy of the media. The media hype mobilised thousands in just five days, forcing the government to accept the demand of redrafting the Jan Lokpal Bill, which some believe, if enacted, will curb corruption by punishing the corrupt. Significantly, many who took part in the agitation did not even know about Anna, his life and works. The question is what made Anna’s voice stronger and louder than the media, intellectuals and civil society who have been regularly writing, speaking and agitating against the corrupt system for long? The answer seems to be that the 73-year-old man pricked the conscience of the people with his moral strength acquired through selfless work done in Maharashtra for over 30 years. The politicians had nothing to confront Anna.

It will be too early to equate Anna with Gandhi and JP but he has been able to create a positive atmosphere against corruption. The middle class participation is an encouraging sign. In the past 12 years, the middle class (as a reactionary force) was out on the streets during protests against OBC reservation and Ram temple campaign. But this time it was out for a cause which concerns all. However, the greatest threat to the anti-corruption campaign is also from the middle class. There were many dubious faces in the crowd which assembled in support of Anna. Those likely to be hit by the Lokpal are trying to sabotage the campaign. A section of the media is playing dirty by projecting “disunity” in the campaign. It is also busy debating “Gandhi’s sexual preferences” instead of building pressure on corruption