Can G25 be above politics?
To call for moderation and good governance is to make a political statement
T K Chua, Free Malaysia Today
Today’s statement by G25, the group of prominent retired Malay civil servants and scholars, is an interesting read. The group said it wished to remain “non-partisan” and “above politics.” It said it was keen only to focus on governance, the principles of integrity, transparency and accountability, the independence and professionalism of public institutions and moderation in Islam, among other things.
Most of us would agree that these are noble objectives. But can these objectives be achieved by being non-partisan and above politics?
To speak of moderation and good governance is to make a political statement and to be partisan. Moderation is against extremism and parochialism. Good governance and transparency are against corruption, opaqueness and incompetence.
If G25 had asked itself why it was formed in the first place, its present stand for moderation, integrity, strong institutions and good governance would have become clearer. Obviously, it must have realised that our nation has probably taken a wrong turn and has been on the wrong path for some time.
Isn’t extremism a political statement? Aren’t religious bigotries and prejudices intentional and political? Aren’t corruption, opaqueness, abuse of power, erosion of institutional independence manifestations of political manoeuvring and orchestration?
If all these problems are borne out of partisan politicking and methodical consolidation of power, how do the non-partisan and above-politics approach help?
If we stand for something, why pretend otherwise? What is so wrong in taking a partisan stand for moderation? What is so abhorrent in being political to solve political problems?
If G25’s members have talked to the Malay Rulers and past and present political leaders as reported, they must have talked about national issues that have political, social and economic ramifications. They must have talked about reforms and changes, which have implications on the roles of leadership.
How could G25 avoid partisanship and remain apolitical when the issues it is concerned with have much to do with the civil service becoming politicised, some agencies intentionally becoming parochial, and some public institutions or branches of government being seen as taking sides?
