What went wrong with the PKR experiment?

Nathaniel Tan, The Ant Daily

PKR has demonstrated its willingness to do anything whatsoever — including destroy Pakatan Rakyat — in order to install Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s wife as the menteri besar of Selangor.

Removing Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim is clearly more important to them than staying united and removing Barisan Nasional and Umno.

There is no doubt that if Anwar was still saying “Khalid is the best!” the way he did for most of the last six years, no one would believe that there was any problem in Selangor that warranted Khalid’s removal, and Pakatan would still be intact and en route to presenting a united front against BN.

Instead, Anwar made the decision to say “Khalid is the worst!”, obviously pressured all his allies to say the same, and worked tirelessly to instigate public sentiment.

The question that perplexes many is: why?

In my opinion, Khalid stands for everything that Malaysian politics today is not.

First and foremost, Khalid’s most prominent belief is that the rakyat’s money must never be used for political purposes.

Politicians in both BN and Pakatan take the opposite stance, which is the root of all major corruption in Malaysia. Government money is spent on big projects awarded to major corporations, which in turn are very well practised in the art of giving kickbacks.

There are elements who want to introduce this culture into Malaysia’s richest state. For six years, Khalid has stood in their way.

Firing Khalid from PKR is only the latest in a long line of efforts to subdue or remove him, and thus remove that obstacle.

Of all Malaysia’s chief executives, Khalid is easily the most anti-feudal.

In feudal politics, leaders “take care” of their political supporters, while those supporters prop up their leaders at all costs; loyalty always comes first, principle always comes second. In short, it is all about individuals.

For Khalid, it is all about institutions that outlast individuals. A simple example is how he treats the civil servants in Selangor.

Many in Pakatan deride civil servants as Umno lackeys that cannot be trusted. Khalid took the opposite approach. He told Selangor’s civil servants: I trust you to do your duty to the state professionally, just as I will do my duty to you professionally.

This attitude and Khalid’s success in strengthening state institutions in Selangor across the board have turned the system of feudalism on its head. Due process and proper procedures are now the order of the day in Selangor, not networks of patronage and corruption.

Another theory as to why Khalid has been killed off in PKR runs parallel to the reason why Anwar was killed off in Umno in 1998 — because he was becoming too popular.

When Khalid decided to contest against Azmin Ali for the PKR deputy president’s post, Anwar felt neither option was palatable, so he sent Datuk Saifuddin Nasution to be the third contender.

To date (in a party election that has taken longer to conclude than the national elections of both India and Indonesia), the results are: Azmin, 21,066 (43%), Khalid, 17,608 (36%), and Saifuddin, 9,944 (20%).

With his own man so far behind, surely Anwar felt his position threatened, and his influence in the party falling to dangerously low levels.

To top it off, a poll conducted some years ago even found Khalid to be more popular among regular voters than Anwar. All these factors created increasing impetus to remove Khalid as a threat to Anwar.

Anwar is likely also using this crisis to kill off some old enemies in PAS. It is no secret that the more conservative elements in PAS have never been comfortable with Anwar, and have often stood in his way of holding absolute sway over all of Pakatan.

Even though the more liberal Erdogan faction is now a majority in PAS’ central committee, PAS members have always believed in a balance of power.

It is becoming increasingly apparent that the Erdogans, with Anwar egging them on, are seeking to exert dominance over the ulamas, and are using this issue as a proxy for their efforts to break this balance of power.

The explanations above seem more convincing than the ones provided by PKR regarding the need to remove Khalid. A major reason for this is that those reasons seem to keep changing, in a glaring display of inconsistency.

At first, it was all about how Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad was on the verge of replacing Datuk Seri Najib Razak with a more hardline Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin, who will eventually make race relations so bad that there will be racial and religious riots. Funny how no one seems to talk about that anymore.

When that reason didn’t resonate with the public, a few months later it became all about Kidex and bibles.

When that didn’t resonate with the public either, a few weeks later it became all about Bank Islam and Tropicana.

I have written previously about why these allegations are baseless but I think the fact alone that these reasons are inconsistent and forever changing is indicative enough that it’s not about issues creating discontent, but discontent creating issues.

The road ahead for Khalid is now an extremely complicated and difficult one. The laws and the political landscape make it less clear now what is the most morally correct thing to do, but if Khalid acts as he has acted throughout his tenure as menteri besar, odds are he will do what is right.

This whole ordeal has been trying for all of us. What it shows about our leaders and the people we have put our faith in is revealing – but only in sad ways.

It is of pivotal importance, however, not to ape those who represent unhealthy trends and elements. Malaysia has had quite enough of politics of hate, and it will be a disservice to all to add fuel to those flames.

Rather, let us take this opportunity to really reflect on what went wrong with the PKR experiment, and how best we can ensure that what replaces it will never suffer from the same problems.