When we need to remove an evil leader

By MT Webmaster Last updated Aug 28, 2015

Even Lim Kit Siang now supports people like Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, the current de facto opposition leader. Dr Mahathir was once the most hated man in Malaysia who DAP wanted arrested and sent to jail. Of course Lim Kit Siang still regards Dr Mahathir as evil. But if they can use Dr Mahathir to oust Umno and Barisan Nasional they will do so.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

A couple of chaps have sent me WhatsApp messages asking all sorts of questions. When I reply they just ask me another question, and another one. It is never ending. Not only is it wasting my time to type on that small mobile-phone keyboard, the very nature of the questions show they lack the basic understanding of what politics is all about.

So maybe I can write an article instead so that these people can better understand what politics is all about. Many post comments and share their views thinking that that is how things should be seen. Well, even though there are courses in Political Science, let me assure you that politics is not a science but an art.

So maybe they should change that course to the Art of Politics instead. I mean, science is precise and follows rules. Art is how you make it out to be. Did Salvador Dali follow any rules? Or did he paint from his mind? And when we look at his paintings can we see inside his mind or does his mind remain a mystery?

Politics is not black and white. Hell, the entire world is not black and white. Even if it were black and white there are still many shades of grey in between. So how do we look at things in terms of just black and white?

The UK Labour Party is currently causing a buzz due to its party elections. The whole country is eagerly waiting for 3rd September when the live debate between the aspirants for party leader is going to be held. This is probably going to be the debate of the year.

One point I am taking special note of is the promise by Jeremy Corbyn that if he wins the party election and if Labour gets to form the next government he is going to apologise for the crime that Britain committed in joining the war against Iraq.

Corbyn talks about how the world was tricked into supporting the war with false allegations that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. In other words, the US lied and the rest of the world believed these lies. And because of that many British soldiers lost their lives and even more lives of Iraqis were sacrificed even up to this very day.

I am a Lib Dem party member. I feel that Labour messed up the British economy real bad and that we are still paying for it until today (and probably for the rest of my life as well). But I support Corbyn and hope that he will win. And if he continues to say and do the right things, I might even join Labour and vote for them in the next general election (if I am still alive in 2020).

So you see, I oppose them on one point but support them on another. And if they do confess that the Allies have committed a serious crime against humanity and apologise for it, I might even find it in my heart to forgive them for messing up the British economy.

But then I am allowing my emotions to get the better of me here. However, is that not how most of us think? We are guided by emotions and sentiments. And while some may view Saddam Hussein as evil who should be removed (and hence what the US did was correct even if they lied to us), I would look at the bigger of the two evils (which is to make millions suffer, until today, just to remove one man from power).

How can we justify one million deaths in the interest of removing one (evil) man from power? And was not Saddam the same man that the US supported when Iraq went to war with Iran (that caused another one million deaths)? But since the US considered Iran a bigger evil, they supported the lesser evil, Saddam, just to get rid of a bigger evil.

That is realpolitik. And that is how politics works.

In the 1960s-1970s, the US supported the most evil and corrupt government in South East Asia, South Vietnam. Around 1.3 million people died in the Vietnam War, 300,000 of them allied soldiers. The Vietnam War veterans became a huge social problem for the US. It was a heavy price to pay for a war that they lost.

How can you justify that high price just to prop up an evil and corrupt government? Should the US not instead have supported North Vietnam and kick the South Vietnamese regime out?

That, of course, is speaking from the point of view of logic, plus maybe principles and morality as well. But this is politics. Politics does not have principles and morals. Politics is about siding with one evil to defeat what you consider an even bigger evil. Do not the Pakatan Rakyat supporters keep saying that they support the lesser of the two evils and to them BN/Umno is the bigger evil?

So the Pakatan Rakyat supporters do admit that there is evil also in the opposition. But it is the lesser of the two evils. And they support the lesser over the bigger. Hence they oppose Umno and Barisan Nasional.

That is well and fine. That is exactly how the game of politics must be played. But then we will need to define the meaning of evil. If the lesser of the two evils is our ‘moral compass’ then we have to agree on what constitutes evil.

To the US, communism is more evil than a corrupt government. So they support South Vietnam against North Vietnam. An Islamic regime is more evil than a dictatorship. So they support Iraq against Iran. Russia is evil. So they support the Taliban against Russia. And so it goes on and on.

There are some ulama’ (religious scholars) who define evil as those who refuse to implement God’s laws (Hudud and/or the Sharia). But then there are others who view Hudud itself as an evil set of laws that must never be allowed in Malaysia. So whose definition do we use in deciding what is evil? You will say we must use your definition of evil and oppose Hudud. But why use your definition? What makes you think that your definition is the only correct definition?

I may apply certain principles in deciding what or whom I support. You may apply another and may even regard my principles as unprincipled. I may say that I support the right of Muslims to leave Islam to become Christians if they so wish. That does not mean I support Christianity. In fact, I regard Christianity as nonsense. But I still support the right of Muslims to become Christians.

Probably 90% of Malays would disagree with me that Muslims should be allowed to become Christians and they will assume that I support Muslims becoming Christians because I support Christianity (some even allege that I have left Islam and am now a Christian). That is looking at things in just black and white.

Lim Kit Siang is a veteran politician who knows how politics should be played. It is the end game that counts. The game plan is just the means to an end. You play the game that will best achieve success in meeting the end game. And that is called politics.

Raja Petra Kamarudin RPK