Is Ambiga right in saying that Anwar is planning to be a dictator?

By admin-s Last updated Jul 31, 2024

I personally believe that Anwar, or whichever prime minister that we will have after Anwar, will have to take the dictatorial route to govern the country at some point, or risk facing the disintegration of the federation.

Nehru Sathiamoorthy

Ambiga Sreenevasan has recently come out to accuse the unity government of being dictatorial.

“Unity government, we can now crown you the most dictatorial government we have ever had. Well done,” she said in a post on X.

She called out the unity government, in response to Putrajaya announcing last week that it would require all social media platforms to be licensed under the CMA 1998 to hold them accountable and curb the rising cases of cybercrimes, particularly sexual crimes against children and online fraud in Malaysia.

In the same post, Ambiga, a former chairman of the electoral watchdog group Bersih, also expressed her disappointment, by stating that she had never expected to see a Pakatan Harapan-led government impose social media licensing laws and retain the Printing Presses and Publications Act after advocating for its abolition.

From her statement, we can perhaps conclude that Ambiga views the PH’s government decision to not only not remove restriction on traditional media, but extend the restrictions to now also include social media platforms, as a sign that the PH led government is desirous of muzzling dissent, in preparation to transform into a dictatorship.

Does Ambiga’s view hold any merit?

Well, to tell you the truth, I have been predicting that Anwar will at some point take the country down the dictatorial route since last year.

The reason I believe this is the case is because the differences that Malaysians have with each other has passed a point where we are able to sit together in an assembly, discuss our affairs in a rational and reasonable manner and come out with an agreement that all of us will honour after it is made.

At the stage that we are in, not only will it be difficult for us or our representatives to enter an assembly in good faith, we are likely to quarrel with each other even if an assembly is convened, and even if we manage to come up with an agreement in such a quarrelsome and fractious assembly, it is doubtful as to whether we will honour the agreement that is made in such an assembly.

A democratic government will inevitably fall when such is the state that its people and representatives are in.

To prevent such a fall, a dictator must emerge when a democratic government fails, and impose his or her will on the population, to condition them to return back to a state where they will be able to convene an assembly in good faith once again and honour whatever agreements or decisions that they make in the assembly.

I actually think that dictatorship might be a practical and realistic way to not only run our society, but many of the societies in Southeast Asia.

I consider leaders like Xi Jinping, Putin and Lee Kuan Yew as dictators, but I don’t see them in a negative light. I actually see them in a positive light.

If the term dictator displeases some of you, then just think of the euphemism authoritarian leader or benevolent despot whenever I use the term dictator.

In essence, whether dictator, authoritarian leader or benevolent despot, what I am referring to is a leader who does not rule with consent of the people, but instead, rules by imposing his or her will on the people.

I think the only way to prevent a nation to fall when its population has become too quarrelsome, to the point that they are not only not able to work together with each other, but are actively attempting to sabotage and cause each other to fail, is institute a dictatorship, that is capable of conditioning the population back to a state where they will be able to to work together with each other once again.

In order for the dictator to have the powers to condition the population, they will have to seize the right to distribute the resources of the country according to their discretion and use the instrument of the state in the manner that they see fit.

Hassan Karim, the MP for Pasir Gudang is of the view that no, it is wrong for Ambiga to accuse the unity government of being dictatorial, but I think all the grounds that he stated to justify his claims are weak.

According to Hassan, the unity government shouldn’t be accused of being dictatorial because Hassan 1) it has never suspended Parliament by declaring an emergency, unlike the Perikatan Nasional government in 2021, 2) when it regularly debates reports issued by the Auditor-General, Public Accounts Committee (PAC), and the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam) in Parliament and 3) when its candidates lost badly in the Sg Bakap by-election three weeks ago.

Hassan’s argument that the unity government is not attempting to be dictatorial because a dictatorial government wouldn’t have allowed its party candidates to lose badly in the Sg Bakap by-elections is weak because the Sg Bakap by election was not a pivotal by-election that affected the balance of power in either the state or federal level. Anwar however, in a move that can only be termed as dictatorial, has already moved to secure his hold of the federal government by pinching 6 rebel MPs from the opposition in a rather shameless manner.

As for his argument that the unity government is not dictatorial because the Auditor-General, Public Accounts Committee (PAC), and the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam) can regularly debate in parliament also is weak, because none of their debates have done anything to shake the foundations of the unity government.

Like Noam Chomsky has observed, “The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum.” For all you know, the unity government might just be keeping debates in the parliament lively, as long as the debates happen within the limits that it has set, simply to delude the people to think democracy is alive and well in the federation.

As for his claim that the unity government is not dictatorial because it is has not suspended the parliament by declaring an emergency, unlike the PN government previously, let us not forget that the PN government was only running on democratic principles, until it faced the threat of losing power. The unity government today might be running on democratic principles for now, because it has not yet faced any significant threat of losing power, but when it does face such a threat, who is to say that the unity government will not come up with a cockamamie reason to suspend the parliament or declare emergency, as the PN government did previously.

In any case, to be a dictator, Anwar, or whichever leader that replaces him, will probably have to concentrate the powers that are spread across various institutions and branches of the government into their hand.

Is the unity government showing any signs that it is attempting to concentrate such powers in its hands? Well, to my view at least, the answer is yes. I don’t think that Zahid Hamidi would have gotten his DNAA or Daim Zainuddin and Mahathir be investigated for corruption if there is no attempt to concentrate power in the hands of the unity government. Like Ambiga said, I also see the attempt to license social media platform as an effort to concentrate powers in the hands of the unity government.

But unlike Ambiga, I don’t have such a negative views about the attempts of the unity government to become more dictatorial.

I sincerely and honestly believe that unless Putrajaya become more authoritarian, the federation of Malaysia might face the risk of disintegration. There is a reason why the Chinese coast guard vessels are testing the territorial waters of Sarawak. If Malaysia was more politically stable, Beijing would likely have not made such a move. If Malaysia was more politically stable, multiple states in the federation would not be openly talking about secession.

Personally, rather than argue against having a dictatorial government, I am more concerned about what sort of dictator that Anwar, or whichever leader that replaces him, will be if they inevitably choose the path of dictatorship for the country, sometime in the not too distant future.

If Anwar or whichever other prime minister that might replace him, is going to be a dictator that is more similar to Lee Kuan Yew or Putin as opposed to Robert Mugabe or Idi Amin, I don’t see why we should not support them as a dictator.

If they turn out to be closer to Idi Amin or Robert Mugabe rather than Lee Kuan Yew or Putin however, then woe to us, for to jump from a failing democracy to a crazed dictatorship, is akin to jumping from the frying pan to the fire. It is , because even if the dictator manages the keep the federation intact, the people are going to put through so much stress, that we might actually prefer the disintegration of the federation.