Apa lagi Melayu mahu?

ARCHIVES 2013

By MT Webmaster On Jun 12, 2013

The whacking of Najib’s brother is the beginning of an onslaught that we are going to see against Najib. And do not clap and cheer too early. If Najib does fall, and unless someone from Pakatan Rakyat takes over, you may not like the alternative to Najib. You may, not long after that, be reminiscing about the ‘good old days’ when Najib was Prime Minister.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

You should first read this article by Clive Kessler: GE13: What happened? And what now? (Part 1). I find this analysis not only spot on but very interesting by virtue of the fact that I have said the same thing many times prior to the 5th May 2013 general election. And I said this before and not after the general election.

In fact, my two-hour talk in Cambridge earlier this year was about just that: ‘the three Rs’ — Race, Religion and Royalty. I explained what would happen in the general election, as what Clive Kessler talked about in his article. I said that most of the Chinese would vote opposition while the majority of the Malays would vote government. And this would only make racial politics even worse than it already is.

Another interesting news item is: Najib’s brother accused of undermining Umno by backing AirAsia X CEO. And I find this also interesting because about two years ago I held a closed-door ‘briefing’ for some of the members of Friends of Pakatan Rakyat in London to explain why it may not be in the best interest of the nation to get rid of Najib Tun Razak. (But I will talk more about that later).

I have always considered myself a libertarian. My tutor, however, after three months of me submitting my course work and essays, labelled me a relativist. Can I be a relativist-libertarian? If there is no such classification maybe it is time we invented one. But what does a relativist-libertarian actually mean (if there is such a thing)?

I suppose I could sum it up as meaning someone who looks at things in relation to or in comparison to something else and someone who is liberal enough to defend your right to be different even if I do not agree with your stand.

For example I am a royalist and I believe in the monarchy system (or at least in a constitutional monarchy system) but I respect your right to espouse the virtues of a republic without considering you a traitor or accusing you of sedition. But I do not consider it your right to ask that the monarchs be ousted and be put to death. That is sedition. That is a breach of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia and are we not the ones who is asking the government to respect the Constitution?

Another example. I am not a lesbian (hell, I am not even a woman) but I see no wrong if you want to be gay. That is your democratic right and part of your fundamental liberty.

I believe in non-race-base political parties (as opposed to a ‘multi-racial’ party like what most Malaysians talk about — which is still racial in that sense but only that it is multi-racial) but I believe it is the democratic right of Malaysians to have race-base parties like Umno, MCA and MIC (or religion-base parties like PAS).

Let me put it another way. It is your democratic right to be a racist. No one can and should take this right away from you. For that matter, you can even hate dogs, cats, pigs, or whatever, as well. That, too, is your democratic right. But you do not have the right to utter racial slurs. That is a crime — as you do not the right to kick or whip dogs, cats or pigs just because you hate them (which is cruelty to animals).

Am I defending racism? No! I am defending your right to be a racist. Is it not a Christian virtue to hate the sin but love the sinner (or something like that)? Hence hate racism but respect the right of someone to be a racist just as long as that person does not utter a racial slur. Only then do we whack them kau-kau.

Does this sound confusing? It should not if you can look at things from more than one perspective.

Anyway, back to the closed-door ‘briefing’ that I gave some of the members of Friends of Pakatan Rakyat in London, which I spoke about earlier. Most people look at things from only one perspective. And this perspective is: should Barisan Nasional or Pakatan Rakyat be the government? Or, should Najib Tun Razak or Anwar Ibrahim be the Prime Minister?

If you look at it from just one perspective this is how you would look at things. BN or PR? Najib or Anwar?

But that is merely ‘Plan A’. Should we not also have a ‘Plan B’ in case ‘Plan A’ fails? This was the gist of my London briefing to Friends of Pakatan Rakyat. ‘Plan A’ is ideal. We should aim for ‘Plan A’. But we should also have a ‘Plan B’ in case.

And ‘Plan B’ here would be in the event that Pakatan Rakyat fails to take over and Barisan Nasional retains the government, then what type of government do we want and who do we want heading that government? And when we talk about Barisan Nasional we are invariably talking about Umno because Umno is going to most likely emerge dominant since the Chinese are expected to swing to the opposition almost en bloc.

Hence, if Pakatan Rakyat cannot take over and Anwar Ibrahim cannot become Prime Minister, then, like it or not, we shall be lumbered with someone from Umno as Prime Minister.

The question is: who from Umno should be the Prime Minister? Najib has baggage, granted, but then who from Umno does not have baggage — Altantuya Shaariibuu and the Scorpene submarines notwithstanding? As a relativist cum libertarian (or relativist-libertarian) I would, as most Pakatan Rakyat people are fond of saying, look at the lesser of the evils.

Let me put it this way. Barisan Nasional is the government. We have no choice about that. Umno is the dominant partner in the government. We have no choice about that either. But this does not mean Najib must be the Prime Minister. Fortunately, we do have a choice to address that issue (or rather Umno is the one with the choice).

But then what are our priorities? If it is good governance, transparency, accountability, eradication of abuse of power/corruption, and so on, then it does not matter who from Umno becomes Prime Minister because none of that will be achieved under Umno. But if it is to eliminate racism then it will make a difference as to who becomes the Prime Minister.

Okay, back to the news item ‘Najib’s brother accused of undermining Umno by backing AirAsia X CEO’. It is clear that the hawks in Umno want to move more to the right (if I may be permitted to call it that although ‘right’ may not quite be the right classification to use). And Najib is an obstacle to this move (see how they attacked Najib’s brother when he attacked racism). Hence there is going to be a move to oust Najib so that Umno can be more radical and Malay-centric (what I referred to as moving to the right).

Hence, as I said, ideally Pakatan Rakyat should take over. But if that cannot happen and if we have to settle for an Umno-dominated Barisan Nasional for another five years, then it is crucial for the nation (in particular for libertarians like me) that we also become relativists.

Najib is not my best choice. But if we have to settle for Umno then let us have a Prime Minister who is at least attempting to bring Umno from the right to the centre. And a centrist Umno is best for the nation compared to a Malay-centric Umno.

Yes, maybe I am not only a libertarian and relativist. Maybe I am a pragmatist as well. I suppose that is why the Malays preferred the British Colonialists instead of the Japanese Colonialists. Merdeka is better. But if we needed to be colonised then better we have the British than the Japanese, the lesser of the two evils.

And if you had attended the briefing that Khir Toyo organised in Petaling Jaya — where Dr Mahathir spoke — soon after the 2008 general election, you will understand what I am talking about. What was discussed five years ago in 2008 is finally being implemented.