Khoo Kay Peng wrote at his blog:
If Dr Mahathir is serious about his current move then why aren’t his family members following him out? [Mukhriz Taking a Hedge. Straight Talk. May 20 2008]
While his entry in general is reasonable, the last paragraph, reproduced here, sounds absolutely odd.
Does the former PM need his family members to follow his footstep in order to be serious? Am I missing something here?
After a relatively disastrous election result in its history, UMNO is in crisis. As its members try to rejuvenate the old lady, strong voices from inside of the party calling for the resignation of various party leaders could be heard. In their eagerness to follow through their loud calls, dissatisfied party members are demanding for a more democratic process to be implemented within the party. Regardless whether the calls are based on sincere belief in democracy, the restoration of democracy in UMNO will strengthen the party.
Many have derived many conclusions from the result of the recent general election. The Malaysian blogosphere has been hailed as the instrument which brought UMNO down to earth. A perceived weak Prime Minister has been thrown into the kitchen sink of conclusions along with the mysterious Fourth Floor team. One grand conclusion involves the transformation of a race-conscious Malaysian society into an issue-based one. There are several other factors which are believed to have caused BN’s less than stellar performance but pundits say this and pundits say that and the sink is overflowing. Now, allow me to add another plate into the sink of punditry.
Voters voted the way they did because they were tired of UMNO and BN leaders in general. If I must find a word to describe why it was so, then arrogance is the word and this arrogance evolved from the confidence built in the 2004 general election. After receiving an overwhelmingly strong mandate in 2004, confidence of the Abdullah administration and its supporters was at an all time high.
In an undemocratic environment which approvals from the top matter more than that of the grassroots, the strong showing of UMNO in 2004 created an atmosphere of invincibility. After all, if undemocratic process prevails in a democratic system, it paints the picture that an undemocratic system is able to produce outcomes endorsed by democratic processes. Somehow, it created an assumption that if the Prime Minister approved a person, so would the grassroots.
As UMNO politicians’ perception of invincibility ballooned, their statements and actions became far removed from concerns of voters. Some of the statements and actions made in response to issues of public concern were so outrageous that the only thing that made it all the more outrageous was how they could say it with a very straight face while real problems raised by voters were dismissed nonchalantly. These politicians had become unaccountable to whom they were supposed to serve.
The situation was ratified on March 8, the day which top-down and organic approaches clashed. Only after it was too late did many incumbents realize that they were not invincible after all and that the Prime Minister could not save them from the guillotine.
The outcome of March 8 would not possible had happened if a more organic approach was taken by UMNO. With democratic processes in place, the more savvy and capable leaders more presentable to the Malaysian voters would face the general election. As the convention goes in democracy, or at least in meritocracy, the cream would rise up to the top.
Furthermore, those closer to the grassroots would know better the sentiment on the ground than those at the top. That itself is the reason why organic politics is better than top-down approach. Undemocratic practices in UMNO however pushed the cream down at the bottom while elevating the unfaltering crust to the top. The Prime Minister was way too detached from the earth, sitting on his throne in the desolated but lavishly decorated Putrajaya. He could not see the graffiti drawn around the Central Market or listened to the talks at various kopitiams across the country.
The weakness of top-down approach was compounded by the fact that Malaysian politics is party-centric and party-centric politics is a fertile ground for generalization. When ministers associated with UMNO repeated outrageous statements over and over again, it reflected badly on his party and it gave the Pakatan Rakyat more ammunition against UMNO. As we saw on March 8, the generalization worked: good representatives like Shahrizat Abdul Jalil were voted out along with those with penchant for insulting statements such as, if I may name a name, Zainuddin Maidin.
Restoration of democracy in UMNO will allow better leaders to rise up to replace the old guards. The change of guards will improve the party image and with infusion of more capable blood, old image will wear out to be replaced with more admirable generalization. The President of UMNO recently wanted the members of UMNO to prove to all Malaysians on how that the party is not arrogant during the 62nd anniversary celebration of the party a number of days earlier. If he made that call in earnest, he should begin with the reintroduction of organic politics in the party.
Finally, as much as I dislike communal politics, I do not believe that race-based politics has met its maker. After all, the question of race could still be heard easily in public domain. A majority of the Malays is still concerned about Malay privileges. Even during the election, the Pakatan Rakyat’s success has much to do with issues surrounding the Indian community. In Perak and Selangor, the issue of race riddled appointment to high public offices. All in all, I believe it may take another election or two to truly prove that our society has truly transcended communal politics.
Until then, race-based politics will continue to be the hallmark of Malaysia. And if UMNO begins to respect organic wishes, it has an opportunity to tread the path which the Phoenix had treaded.
During a visit to Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, on July 17, 1969, Trudeau met with a group of protesting farmers, angry that the federal government was not doing more to market their wheat, to one of whom he responded, “Why should I sell your wheat? It’s your wheat.” [Pierre Trudeau. Wikipedia. Accessed May 14 2008]
How many leaders nowadays have the courage to say such thing?
Stubbornness. Yes. Hillary is one damn stubborn Clinton.
The hazard of appealing to interventionist monarchy has finally reared its head. With Malay nationalists rallying around a monarch, the idea of absolutism is gaining currency in the public sphere. Whether by accident or design, the monarchy institution in Perak and elsewhere in Malaysia are regaining influence that they had in times when divine rights of kings was held supreme. This jeopardizes liberty, or whatever left that we have now.
The episode began with the removal of the director of Perak religious department from office. The Sultan successfully argued that the monarchy alone has the absolute power over the director office, forcing the PAS administration to back off from its intention to exert control over the state religious department. The story does not end with the executive having a black eye however. It really exploded when Karpal Singh of DAP insisted that the Sultan has no power to overturn the decision of the state executive.[1]
Criticism in Malaysia works in a peculiar way. One has to have the same skin color in order to make inter-communal criticism and not possibly suffer the suffocating communal politics. Karpal Singh did not notice this but those in UMNO are aware of it and they wasted no time to shoot him down. With Malay nationalists under post-election siege mentality and lamenting about a so-called divided Malay community, remark by the chairman of DAP was the spark that they needed to rally the Malays around them.
The monarchy institution is closely associated with Malay politics, being the ultimate defender of Malay privileges in the country. Any attack against the institution, especially by non-Malays, is considered by the nationalists as an attack against the Malay itself.
For UMNO, the anger caused by the DAP chairman is an opportunity to rebuild their base by having Malay nationalists firmly behind their back. With a clear external source that is Karpal Singh, attention could be diverted from the trouble plaguing the leadership of UMNO. More importantly, by siding with the monarchy together with the Malay nationalists, the current leadership of UMNO creates a perception of Malay unity under them, seemingly solving the question of divided UMNO.
Regardless the ulterior motive of UMNO, all that dangerous increases the influence of the monarchy in national politics and all must take heed of that.
While the issue at the moment may forward UMNO’s interest, there will be a time for conflicts of interest between the two entities or between the monarchy and the government. Such conflict had occurred in the past under the Mahathir administration.[2][3]
What Mahathir did to the power of the monarchy is a victory to organic politics. He successfully brought the monarchy under the purview of the legal system, giving meaning to the idea that no one is above the law. The former Prime Minister however not only mowed the blades of unwanted tall grasses. The sunflowers and the poppies and the dandelions which took upon itself to decorate the air above the Malaysian field also fell. But this is not about the Mahathir administration. Rather, it is about the sincerity of UMNO. UMNO does this not because they is supporting the monarchy institution per se. Rather, they, particularly the leadership, are doing what it is doing in effort to reverse its bad political fortune.
Regardless, this particular issue and the reactions to its produce a powerful precedent that may grant the Malay monarchy institution immunity from criticism, much at the expense of liberty. With that, it possibly places the monarchy above the Constitution as mere questioning is met with coercion by the state in the name treason.
With monarchs’ powers and actions unquestioned regardless of the constitutionality of it, the route to absolutism is paved. The liberals need to act, and so too the timid Malaysian republicans.
[1] — KUALA LUMPUR, May 8 (Bernama) — Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi has asked Umno secretary-general Datuk Seri Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor to lodge a police report against DAP chairman Karpal Singh over his statement on the powers of the Perak Sultan.
[…]
“It is seditious and seen by the people as ridiculing the Sultan as though the ruler did not know his duty,” he told reporters when asked about Karpal’s controversial statement. [Abdullah Asks Police Report Be Lodged Against Karpal. Bernama. May 8 2008]
[2] — See the 1993 Malaysian constitutional crisis at Wikipedia.
[3] — At a special session of Parliament beginning on Jan. 18, Prime Minister Mahathir bin Mohamad plans to push through constitutional changes ending the sultans’ immunity from prosecution. But the sultans, who are due to meet Mr. Mahathir this Saturday, are resisting. [Royals in Trouble:Malaysia’s Sultans Have a Role. Philip Bowring. International Herald Tribune. January 7 1993]