Allow me to respond to Datuk Rasammah Bhupalan and a couple of others who through Malaysia Today and other websites have chosen to attack certain public positions I have taken in the recent past. My response is categorized under various sub-topics.
Vile, vicious language
Before I examine some of the issues raised by Bhupalan and the others, I must say that I am shocked and saddened by the language used by those who have posted their comments on your website. The language is so vile and vicious, so brutal and barbaric, so coarse and crude, that I find it hard to believe that it could have come from fellow human beings. I have been called ‘pig’ and ‘dog’ and ‘intellectual prostitute’ and cursed to a miserable death by some of your commentators. It is incredible but true that my physical disability has been highlighted to deride and denigrate my person.
How does Bhupalan, a former teacher, feel about such demeaning and degrading language, especially since it is her article that has elicited such mean and nasty responses from readers? How should one view a website that has on countless occasions carried utterly foul and filthy comments about individuals? How can one allow such vulgar perversity to parade as freedom of expression?
Defending the Individual…
If the language of your readers is so depraved and debased is it because they are so passionate about defending a ‘pious and virtuous’ individual whose ‘integrity is impeccable’? After all, wasn’t his integrity on full public display a few days ago when he was asked by the media about the proposal to prohibit elected legislators from crossing the floor? Instead of endorsing the proposal outright as his Opposition colleagues, Lim Kit Siang and Nik Abdul Aziz, have done, he chose to prevaricate. He was not prepared to state unequivocally that crossing the floor or hopping to another party is a violation of the voter’s choice and undermines democracy. Indeed, most people would regard party hopping as immoral behaviour. Why did this individual of ‘impeccable integrity’ fail to adopt an ethical position? Is it because he is allegedly involved in trying to entice legislators from the ruling Barisan Nasional to cross over to his side? Why would he want to do that? Is it because he is in a hurry to become Prime Minister— through whatever means? Why are people suspicious that he is doing things like this? Is it because of his allegedly pivotal role in the massive purchase of Sabah State Assembly legislators in 1994 which led to the collapse of the democratically elected Parti Bersatu Sabah (PBS)?
Is it right to ask these questions — lest we are accused by Bhupalan and others of her ilk of joining “forces to attack the political integrity of Anwar Ibrahim?”
An Act of Injustice
Bhupalan demands to know why I had consented to become a founding member of PKR and its Deputy President in 1999 (not 1997) if I knew that Anwar as a Cabinet Minister had made certain decisions that were antithetical to national unity. Because Anwar was in power and the media was government controlled those of us who were outside the corridors of power were not aware of his exact and precise role in those decisions. For instance, all that we knew was that the ‘Bahasa Melayu’ switch was made by the Cabinet. But we did not know who exactly was responsible for it. Likewise, allegations linking Anwar to comments about temple bells and crosses only surfaced after he was out of government. I must admit that there were also other allegations about his corruption and cronyism which I brought to his notice. He denied them vehemently.
In any case whatever doubts I may have had about him, the moment Anwar was beaten up in jail at the end of September 1998, I came out strongly in his defence. The assault was an insane act of injustice. I was one of the very few academics who campaigned for him throughout the country via a social movement of sorts called ‘Adil’. As a result, I lost my job at the University of Malaya at the end of February 1999.
There was another reason why I stuck my neck out for Anwar. Some of the principal institutions of governance, such as the police, the public prosecutor’s office, and the judiciary were being misused by the powers-that-be in order to destroy Anwar. This had generated a groundswell of concern especially within the Malay community for issues such as judicial independence and police professionalism. As someone who had written and spoken about these issues for a long while, I felt that the time had come for me to take the plunge.
Though I had to pay a huge price, I have never ever regretted standing up for justice in that extraordinary situation that confronted the nation in 1998-99.
Unable to Defend Himself
Bhupalan also accuses me of attacking Anwar when I resigned from PKR “whilst Anwar was languishing (in jail) and unable to defend himself.”
When I withdrew from PKR and party politics at the end of 2001, I merely appealed to Anwar to be “loyal to his conscience”. His minions immediately launched vicious attacks upon me in the reformasi websites. I received some 800 odd e-mails in the course of three weeks assailing me in such a cruel and callous manner. A lot of the e-mails targeted my physical condition and my ethnic origin. It was at that point that I responded to the attacks.
Bhupalan is aware of all this. An ardent PKR supporter, she was distressed that I had quit the party and met me a couple of times. I explained to her in great length that apart from internal party divisions, I was unhappy about money politics in the Likas by-election, the manipulation of communal sentiments in the Lunas by-election and Anwar’s close relationship to certain individuals and think-tanks in Washington who were part of the US’s agenda for global hegemony. I told her that I had conveyed all these and other concerns to Anwar in a 15 page private letter in March 2002.
I am surprised that Bhupalan has forgotten all this. Or is it an induced amnesia which serves her present purpose — of strengthening the chorus of attacks on me?
Dividing the Nation along Ethnic Lines
Of all her attacks on me, the most preposterous is her accusation that I am dividing the nation along racial (ethnic) lines. She does not offer an iota of evidence. Am I dividing the nation along ethnic lines by alerting the public to some of the communal positions that Anwar had adopted in the past compared to the stances he is taking today?
Bhupalan forgets that unlike most other public figures in this country I have never ever hesitated to criticize what I perceive as communal attitudes in whichever community. I have never ever played up to the communal gallery. At the same time, I have done my utmost to promote better relations between Malays and non-Malays by urging both parties to show greater understanding of each other’s fears and demonstrate deeper empathy for each other’s hopes. It is my role as a bridge-builder — widely acknowledged inside and outside the country — that I cherish most.
BN Propagandist?
While accusing me of dividing Malaysians is an absurd allegation, Bhupalan’s most serious assault on my integrity is her insinuation that I have become a BN propagandist. The BN media it is true had given wide publicity to my remarks about Anwar. Obviously, it was done for their own partisan objective. But it does not make me a BN propagandist for a variety of reasons.
One, my Anwar remarks were made at a forum organized by the Star newspaper where I spoke as an independent analyst who has been studying Malaysian elections since 1974. I have written articles on at least three Malaysian elections in academic journals and was a member of Malaysia’s first ever Election Watch group in 1990.
Two, as I have explained a number of times in recent weeks, the Anwar remarks were not part of some premeditated, planned attack upon the man. It was in answer to a question from the floor that I revealed the lack of consistency in his stance on certain ethnic issues. Based upon my knowledge of his role in domestic and international politics, I then opined that he should not be at the helm of the nation. I was speaking as a political commentator and critic.
Three, in my presentation at the said Star forum which was on the implications of the Election for ethnic and religious ties in the country, I had actually argued that the BN was largely responsible for the deterioration in ethnic relations. Nonetheless, the BN, I pointed out, was the only inter-ethnic political coalition that we had in the country at the moment.
Four, though I have been focusing upon global issues since 1992 through the International Movement for a Just World (JUST) (with the exception of two and a half years in PKR), whenever I have written or spoken about national affairs I have continued to maintain a critical, evaluative approach towards the BN. I challenge any of my accusers who are so fond of making scurrilous allegations against me to produce a single line from any of my writings that show that I have betrayed my earlier position on the ISA, or on democratic freedoms or on equitable distribution of wealth in Malaysia, or on ethnic integration. Because I am concentrating upon global justice, my commitment to justice within Malaysian shores has not diminished one bit.
Five, to my detractors like Datuk Rasammah Bhupalan and her kind, let me also say this. Unlike them, I have turned down titles and important positions of state offered by the BN largely because I value my independence. How many other Malaysians have done this? I don’t own an inch of land or a single share. I have neither mansions nor millions. All that I possess are the condominium I live in, my car — and my library of books.
Six, it is in this regard that I am peeved by the suggestion made by some people (not Bhupalan) that I have become a BN agent because of my professorial appointment at Universiti Sains Malaysia last year. There are professors in Malaysian public universities who continue to play a critical role in Malaysian society. In my case, the right to offer independent views on Malaysian affairs is part of my contract with the university. The university respects my position. My Chair at the University — the Noordin Sopiee Chair in Global Studies—gives me the time and space to do the sort of research and writing that is often not possible when one is also a social activist. I did not seek this university appointment. It was after much persuasion by the university authorities that I accepted it. I was already a full professor 11 years ago at the University of Malaya. Over the years, I have lectured at the world’s leading universities and received academic honors from abroad. So there is no bait or bribe that can tempt me here.
My only link with the government — if one can describe it as such — is through the Institut Integriti Malaysia (IIM). I am one of the four independent members of its Board of Directors and together with my colleagues we have over the last 3 and a half years made a host of proposals on combating corruption, including establishing an independent Anti-Corruption Commission and re-instituting the ‘open tenders system’ for contracts at all levels of government.
A Simple Truth
Instead of labeling me a BN propagandist and tarnishing my reputation, I ask Bhupalan and the others to accept a simple truth. As I had explained in a couple of other earlier media statements, I gave the answer that I did at the Star forum because I had a duty to perform as a responsible citizen. I had to warn the Malaysian public of the danger posed by a politician who driven by the lust for power would do anything to maximize his support. I could see that his rhetoric was beginning to impact upon a significant segment of the non-Malay middle and upper classes who yearn for the ‘Malaysian Malaysia’ type of equality premised upon meritocracy. I knew that neither the politician’s track record nor the realities of the political landscape would allow such a notion of equality to take root immediately. False promises that have significant ethnic implications had to be exposed in the larger interest of inter-ethnic harmony. Because these promises were made in the context of the elections they had to be addressed in the same context. Post-election events have proven that promises such as ‘we will eliminate the NEP’ (in the formal sense the NEP actually ended in 1990) which to most non-Malays means getting rid of the constitutionally entrenched ‘Special Position’ of the Malays and other indigenous communities, are difficult to translate into reality.
There are individuals who argue that there are BN politicians who are also power hungry and make empty promises. They too should have been exposed. The truth is they were already exposed before the election campaign started which is why the majority of analysts were certain that the BN’s 2004 majority would be reduced by a significant margin though I for one did not expect it to lose its two-third majority in Parliament or its control over 4 West Peninsular states. Anwar’s rhetoric and the rhetoric of some other opposition politicians on the other hand have not been subjected to serious scrutiny even by leading NGOs. It has not happened partly because of a certain mystification associated with his prison ordeal and his Islamic persona. And now that Anwar has struck a chord with a segment of the non-Malay population through his espousal of their ethnic aspirations, some of these groups and individuals too have become his unthinking, uncritical devotees.
It is only through serious scrutiny and sincere reflection that a society will be able to develop the moral fibre and the intellectual ballast so essential for the flourishing of a just and civilized order. It is only when there is this inner moral and intellectual strength that Malaysia will be able to curb the influence of political charlatans and chameleons.
25 March 2008