Pakatan under Mahathir becoming like UMNO
KTemoc Konsiders
Let’s not become the very thing we’ve sworn to destroy
It feels like people in our industry have been talking about little else beyond Latheefa Koya for about an entire week now.
The topic is so hot probably because of how it relates to the biggest meta question in Malaysian politics: who will succeed Dr Mahathir Mohamad as prime minister?
Latheefa is seen to be associated with the faction of PKR deputy president Mohamed Azmin Ali, who some say Daim Zainuddin wants to be the next PM instead of Anwar Ibrahim. This association is probably fuelled by Latheefa’s constant attacks on Anwar and all those in his camp over the past few years.
Today, we see even more clearly how the aftermath following Latheefa’s appointment as Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission chief has brought to the fore several divisive fault lines in Malaysian politics and civil society.
For the latter, especially, this controversy may be an occasion for some soul-searching.
The highly respected G25 released a statement on the appointment, essentially arguing that, yes, the process was flawed and not ideal, but should be welcomed and celebrated because it “should be seen as an exceptional circumstance”.
The group also stated that the appointment was justified because “after all, these are a means to an end” – “matlamat halalkan cara”, in other words.
Perhaps it is just me, but aren’t these exactly the type of arguments that almost invariably begin a slide down a slippery slope?
The message here seems to be, we believe in principles and institutional reform, but we can overlook these things – and vigorously justify doing so – as long as people we like are placed in positions of power.
It was also argued that the post needed to be filled immediately, as if the former chief commissioner had suddenly resigned and left MACC in the lurch.
Given the optics, I think the public can be forgiven for thinking that it was Latheefa’s appointment that prompted the timing of her predecessor’s resignation, and not the other way around.
Who determines who is morally upright?
G25, though agreeing that the appointment process was flawed, said we must “see the bigger picture” because Latheefa is a “morally upright” person who will enforce the law fairly, “irrespective of her previous political inclinations”.
It doesn’t seem likely that the group would be as forgiving of “previous political inclinations” if, say, Najib Razak had appointed, say, Muhammad Shafee Abdullah as MACC chief. Perhaps, G25 would argue it was because Shafee was not a “morally upright” person.
Without institutional safeguards and transparent due process, however, it seems like we are being asked to take the word of 25 people – who no doubt have sterling reputations – in believing who is “morally upright” enough for public office.
Another oft-repeated argument is that Latheefa’s appointment was 100% legal, and 100% within the purview of the law. I agree completely.
I also agree that every police investigation under the Sedition Act since the 14th general election is 100% legal and 100% within the purview of the law. Does that make it right?
I think Malaysian civil society, more than most, has traditionally had strong views regarding how unjust laws and legal technicalities are poor defences for wrongdoing.
As a politician, Lim Kit Siang opined that the move to appoint Latheefa was legally correct, but politically wrong. Would civil society not have a similar responsibility to have consistent views regarding what is ethically right or wrong?
