Spoils Of War

(This article first appeared in The Edge in the week of 28th August this year It was my first piece for a column called 'Rule of Law')

Spoils Of War

It feels sometimes that the way things are going political forces are going to rip this country apart. Intent on their respective agendas, for better of for worse, the Barisan Nasional and the Pakatan Rakyat appear to be caught up in a “no quarter” given, fight to the death that is focused more on their survival than it is on our well being. Resources, such as they are, are being deployed more to one end than they are to the more well deserving other.

Sadly, in the Malaysia of now politics is no longer the handmaiden of democracy; it defines it. The campaign being waged around us is about the continued political subjugation of this nation. It is about control. We are not witnesses to a gladiatorial contest for sport; we are the spoils of war.

Though it is a given that in even the more mature democracies the line between government and politics is not always as broad as the ideal requires, that line nonetheless exists if only for the existence of an effective system of checks and balances centered on the separation of powers between the Executive, Legislature and the Judiciary.

The line between government and politics in Malaysia is so blurred that some might describe it as no longer being visible to the naked eye. If there were any doubts about that, it would have been put to rest by any of a number of recent events. The campaign speeches made by the Honourable Prime Minister for the recent parliamentary by-elections in Hulu Selangor and Sibu, the intensified and highly selective policing of free speech, and the resurgence of intolerance against legitimate dissent are instances of what it is that fuels the belief that the Barisan Nasional views itself as the government and vice versa. To criticise one is to condemn the other.

It is crucial for all stakeholders to recognize this as much as it is not in the interests of this nation for this state of affairs to continue. It is equally imperative that we appreciate the reasons for it and commit to addressing matters as they need to be.

We suffer the consequence of several inter-locking processes that were given life during the administration of a Prime Minister who tended to view the ends as justifying the means. I would like focus on one.

Frustrated that an interfering judiciary was impeding his vision, the Mahathir administration moved a constitutional amendment that subjugated the Judiciary to Parliament and showed the Justices that he could remove them if he saw fit. His perception of the role of the Judiciary called more for compliance rather than effectiveness. This was essential to his need for Executive control over the nation.

Perhaps recognizing that it would be impolitic to suspend the Constitution, the Mahathir administration moved amendments to key legislation that would allow for greater central control over matters of free speech and government accountability. These vested subjective discretion over matters exclusively in the Government to the extent that even the courts were precluded from questioning decisions. This allowed for a suppression of civil society and opposition efforts, and in many ways hamstrung the democratic process. This state of affairs in turn allowed the Barisan Nasional to dominate Parliament, the other bastion of check and balance. A docile Judiciary washed its hands of the mounting dilemmas by citing their lack of power. Suggestions that the constitutional and legislative amendments that neutered the Judiciary were unconstitutional were dismissed.

This need for control and the willingness to do what it took ultimately led to the decline of governance in this country. As admitted by Abdullah Badawi during his term the Judiciary was in serious need of reform.

It still is notwithstanding the efforts by our current Chief Justice to increase efficiency within the courts. That is but one heavily nuanced dimension of the issue; the public perception that the Judiciary is not competent and lacking in integrity needs to be directly addressed. Perceptions of bias or extraneous influence cannot simply be brushed aside if the Judiciary is to function as such. Public confidence is as essential to the functioning of this institution as its infrastructure; laws would have no meaning if people reject the validity of the decisions of the courts. And the truth of the matter is that they have been for some time now.

It should not matter that this may be a situation that lends itself to the advantage of the Barisan Nasional. The fact remains that a fundamental feature of our system of governance is skewed. Questions of integrity and competence on the part of the Judiciary go far beyond matters of political significance. They pertain as much to matters of finance and commerce as they do to personal matters and for doing so touch the lives of all Malaysians. Consider the number of Malaysians who suffered by reason of the decision of the Federal Court in Adorna Properties or any number of self-evidently unjust and erroneous decisions of the courts, in some cases the apex court itself.

It is not enough to say “the courts have decided” in the face of decisions that are obviously unsustainable. For us to progress, the standard and quality of justice must be high as it is consistent. This is a feature of the Singaporean judiciary that has reaped much benefit for that nation. In as much as some might say that decisions of those courts involving the Government tend to go one way than the other, their commercial decisions speak for themselves. It is no coincidence that the Privy Council not too long ago adopted the reasoning of a Singapore High Court judge in rejecting a precedent that had held sway for more than a century; it was a matter of planning. From the outset Lee Kuan Yew recognized the importance of a strong legal tradition.

The question therefore is where does that leave us in Malaysia.

MIS

In Defence Of Bangsa Malaysia

In Defence Of Bangsa Malaysia

For many, the date “March 8” will continue to resonate far into the future in as evocative a manner as “May 13”. It was the day that Malaysians reclaimed Malaysia. For the first time in a very long time, they voted on issues. And in ignoring the Barisan Nasional and its artificial divisions, Malaysians ignored race.

Just as May 13 was a display of a vicious racism, March 8 was a concrete display of unity.

We planted a seed that day and that seed has germinated. Discussions about, and more importantly the very public rejoicing in, the pluralism and multi-culturalism that underlie a truly Malaysian national identity are quickly becoming the norm rather than the exception. It would seem that Bangsa Malaysia has come in from the cold and is digging its heels in, strongly intent on staying the course.

Those who lead the way must be congratulated, it does not matter which side they are on or whether they are aligned in any particular way. They lay the foundation for the Malaysia that all of us want to call our home. United, we can start giving thought to what we have been kept from before this: how to harness our collective spirit and passion, our undoubted talent and skill and our unique worldview to take on the world.

At the risk of sounding naïve, I am excited. Very excited.

Which is why I am troubled by what is going on with UMNO. The results of the General Election shocked UMNO into a realization that it needed to reassess itself and its value to Malaysia if it were to remain relevant. And as much as the public posturing of the party could be said to suggest the contrary, subtle and not so subtle indications of a subtle point to a deeper understanding of a need for reform, both internally and as well as externally.

Whatever the motivation, the potential gains for the nation are tremendous. While I remain skeptical about whether the promised reforms will actually happen in the way they should, the traction gained from just a recognition of the need for such as well as what made things go wrong in the first place are invaluable. This recognition underscores the truth that a race based system of politics and its concomitants can only result in declining standards and potential ruin.

UMNO cannot be consigned to irrelevance. The nation needs a strong two-party system for the crucial counter-balance that it ensures and the guarantee it provides that no political party or coalition will take a stranglehold of the nation again. Though prior to March 8th, UMNO hegemony made the prospect remote, the changed political landscape since has brought it within grasp. The mere existence of a strengthened opposition presence in Parliament is not all that is required. For UMNO and the Barisan Nasional to play this very crucial role, reforms must be embraced just as universalism has to be.

The dogfight that is happening within UMNO is however threatening to derail UMNO. While the question of who leads UMNO is an internal matter, the national impact the maneuvering of those concerned makes it a matter of concern for all of us. This is more so where tactical plays involve the inciting of racial and religious sentiments that threaten not only national stability but also Bangsa Malaysia and the promise it holds.

For while to those involved in this macabre political dance, race and religion are merely tools at disposal, the injuries that they could inflict in being misapplied are potentially so serious that the nation may succumb.

Though I am loath to say it, Tun Dr Mahathir has crossed the line. I recognize that he is fully entitled to act in the interests of UMNO. However his invoking of race and his equally dangerous incitement of racial fears directly threaten our existence and our future. His assertion that the Malays will suffer for the fact of non-Malays gaining political power is both unsubstantiated and dangerously misleading. No non-Malay politicians are challenging the status of the Malays. The Federal Constitution guarantees their protected status and there is a glaring absence of any discussion of an amendment to the Constitution. In the same vein, the call for a more equitable method of affirmative action can only be beneficial to the Malay community, a community that, despite the many years of the NEP and its successor policies, many of those under the stewardship of Tun Dr Mahathir himself, is still afflicted by poverty. This sad state of affairs is indisputable and has even prompted calls for reassessment by Malay opinion leaders.

And it goes without saying that a more transparent, accountable and competent government founded on national unity rather than race divisions can only be to the benefit of all. This is what we fought for on March 8th, not just for ourselves but also for our children and their children. It is what we must continue to rally to.

(Malay Mail, 27th May 2008)

MIS

What Gives, Dr M?

Developments within UMNO are intriguing and, much as we would wish for it to be otherwise, have an impact on all of us. The President of UMNO by convention becomes the Prime Minister. UMNO politics also impacts throughout the Barisan Nasional for the opportunities and risks that internal political upheaval presents to coalition members. This has been particularly true in the period after March 8th. The dismal performances of Gerakan, MCA and MIC have been, in part, blamed for the claw-back of political power to the Pakatan Rakyat even as they reconsider their own ideologies and positioning.

These parties forming the Government, it stands to reason that upheavals within UMNO translate into possible repercussions for the nation, in perception if not in fact. The Malaysian commercial world appears to have gone into quasi-hibernation mode, adopting a wait and see stance as it attempts to assess the situation and its risks. Malaysians seem to be talking of nothing else but UMNO and what is going to happen.

I am certain that I am stating the obvious, especially for someone like Tun Dr Mahathir. In thay vein, I am equally confident that that these factors would have been taken into consideration as he developed the strategy that is now unfolding. Above all, Dr M, as he come to be known to us, was a master tactician. There is no reason to believe that he has lost the talent.

The aggressive and very public campaign against the Prime Minister prior to the Election, the way in which the campaign was heightened after the Election to leverage off weakening support for Abdullah Badawi caused by the disappointing shock results, the sudden resignation from UMNO and Mukhriz's breaking of ranks within Parliament are all part of the tactical play that is now unfolding. Dr M is playing to a gallery far bigger than merely UMNO. The nation watches, holding its breath, and he knows it. This has opened up another flank of the Prime Minister as he now not only has to ward of internal attacks but has to also to shore up the support of the wider nation, an important factor in his own push to retain his presidency of UMNO.

Some would say that this is masterful. Judging by the comments that have been left at Dr M's blog, he is even more firmly entrenched in the minds of some as the saviour of the nation.

And this is where I am thrown into confusion. What exactly is Dr M unhappy about, what it is that he would have had the Abdullah Badawi do differently? The obvious answer on the lips of those that oppose Abdullah Badawi is that he lost the Elections in part due to his weakness as a leader and in part due to alleged handing over of control to his family. Though Dr M seems to have his sights on something less obvious, something that pre-dates the Election, he is for the moment satisfied with the opportunity the election failure provides to rally support against Abdullah Badawi.

Let us assume for purposes of argument that both the obvious grounds are made out. They do not however in themselves explain why the support of the rakyat shifted in the way it did. They do not go to explaining nor justifying the fact that UMNO had become detached from reality, that UMNO big-wigs had become so arrogant and so drunk with power that they appear to have lost sight of the fact that they were there to serve the party and their constituencies, that race and religion had become so politicised that they threatened to divide the nation, that corruption had become endemic, that systems had either broken down or were close to it to a point where Malaysians no longer had institutions to turn to to solve their problems AND that many Malaysians of all races were suffering from a widening poverty gap, spiraling inflation and a total loss of hope.

And above all, these grounds do not go far in explaining away the very real fact that many, if not all, these and associated problems, had their roots in the Mahathir Administration. Abdullah Badawi inherited the efidice that Mahathir left him as well as a nation that was struggling against a cancer that Dr M had allowed it to be infected with.

That does not absolve Abdullah Badawi of any fault, he appears to have embraced the benefits of a skewed system with gusto and was equally willing to rely on repressive measures that Dr M himself has relied on as thousands of persons who were tear gassed or water cannoned and the HINDRAF 5 would testify to. As some would say, membership has its privileges. Abdullah Badawi however found out that no measure of spin-doctoring and empty rhetoric could hide the fact of his membership of this exclusive club of one.

It was as such only a matter of time before the rakyat got to their tipping points. It was apparent that when Malaysians could no longer hold their heads up high with dignity due to the overwhelming burden of a range of factors, from religion to personal security, economic or otherwise, they would turn away in search of alternatives. This was a road that Dr M had put them on.

I had thought that the only people who could not see this, it would seem, were the leaders within the Barisan Nasional. It would seem I was wrong, Dr M appears to have been, and still is, oblivious to it.

Dr M may wish to remind himself that Abdullah Badawi led the Barisan Nasional to a significant win in the 2004 Elections (I will refrain from calling it a landslide win until we can be assured that the Election was free and fair in all senses of the expression) and that he did so for one primary reason: he promised a substantial reform of the system that Dr M had left behind. Abdullah Badawi's failure this Election was caused by a failure to deliver on the promises he made. Put another way, he failed to overhaul Dr M's system the way he said he would.

Is Dr M saying that he should have? Or perhaps he is saying that he should never have even talked of reforms.

MIS

Of Judges And Contempt

A quotable quote. The excerpt below is from the speech of the then Perdana Menteri, Dato’ Seri Dr Mahathir, on 23rd June 1989 in Parliament when moving the amendment bill that would introduce the now notorious section 8B of the Internal Security Act. This section denies the right to judicial review (except on procedure) and to that end has allowed for arbitrary detention at the discretion of the Home Minister.

Significantly, this amendment was moved after Operasi Lalang during which there were numerous, some successful, high profile applications for judicial review. This included that of Mr Karpal Singh. Some of these decisions led, in part, to the 1988 attack on the judiciary.

The language of the speech is reflective of the views of Dr Mahathir that appeared in the media at the time. One of these articles, an interview that appeared in the 24th November 1986 edition of TIME magazine, is worth reproducing. Dr Mahathir was quoted as saying:

"On the Courts. The judiciary says (to us), `Although you passed a law with a certain thing in mind, we think that your mind is wrong, and we want to give our own interpretation.' If we disagree, the Courts will say, `We will interpret your disagreement'. If we go along, we are going to lose our power of legislation. We know exactly what we want to do, but once we do it, it is interpreted in a different way, and we have no means to reinterpret it our way. If we find out that a Court always throws us out on its own interpretation, if it interprets contrary to why we made the law, then we will have to find a way of producing a law that will have to be interpreted according to our wish."

YB Lim Kit Siang took exception and applied to the High Court for an order of contempt against Dr Mahathir on the basis that the statement, in particular “We will interpret your disagreement”, scandalised the Judiciary by bringing in into disrespect and disrepute. At the High Court, Justice Harun Hashim had this to say:

“The Court should not be over-sensitive to criticism. The impugned statement, read objectively, is not even a criticism of the Court far less scandalising it or a threat to the independence of the judiciary. In essence it is the despair of a Prime Minister on the inadequacies of the law and more particularly the officials whose duties are to translate into law the policies and aims of the administration to ensure a more effective government.”

Eight days later, on 11th December 1986, the then Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the High Court. Tun Salleh Abas, Lord President (as he then was), somewhat prophetically, had this to say:

“…the impugned remarks do not ex necessitate connote, with in the requisite of the strictest burden of proof for proceedings for contempt, an attack on the judiciary in the way suggested by the applicant but rather tend to ventilate, perhaps understandably, the vexation of the executive in not being able to get through some desired objective or end without curial intervention.”

Vexation was a gross understatement. Not too long later, a series of events led to the notorious nation wide ISA crackdown and the sacking of Tun Salleh Abas and two senior supreme court justices. These events would herald the commencement of a new chapter for not only Malaysia but also the Judiciary, one that would culminate in “correct, correct, correct, correct” becoming a favourite ring tone.

This is what Dr Mahathir had to say in Parliament (an excerpt):

“Tujuan utama pindaan-pindaan ini dicadangkan adalah untuk menentukan bahawa perintah tahanan yang dibuat oleh Menteri yang memutuskan bahawa seseorang itu mengancam keselamatan Negara tidak dipersoalkan di mahkamah. Ini adalah kerana kebelakangan ini keputusan Menteri mengeluarkan Perintah Tahanan telah kerapkali dicabar dan dipersoalkan di mahkamah. Sekiranya mahkamah dibiar menggantikan keputusan pihak Kerajaan dengan keputusan mahkamah, ini bermakna seolah-olah tanggungjawab bagi keselamatan negara tidak lagi terletak kepada Kerajaan tetapi sebaliknya telah dipertanggungjawabkan kepada mahkamah, yang sebenarnya bukanlah ahli dan pakar dalam bidang keselamatan. Keputusan-keputusan dan aliran mahkamah di negara-negara asing yang memainkan peranan campurtangan atau, dengan izin, “interventionist” menggantikan keputusan-keputusan mahkamah adalah tidak sesuai diikuti kerana ia bertentangan dengan konsep perasingan kuasa atau dengan izin, “separation of powers” antara eksekutif dan kehakiman yang menjadi pegangan kita di negara ini. Jika mahkamah boleh menukar atau dengan izin “reverse” keputusan eksekutif, maka pihak eksekutif tidak akan dapat membuat apa-apa keputusan kerana khuatir mahkamah akan menukarkan keputusan itu. Dengan itu pihak pemerintah tidak dapat bergerak kerana menunggu keputusan-keputusan mahkamah serta rayuan-rayuan kepada mahkamah yang lebih tinggi.”

***

Everyone, even judges, need to heal from hurt.

It is time to start the process of reconciliation. Apologising to Tun Salleh Abas, Dato' George Seah and the late Tan Sri Wan Sulaiman and to the other judges who were suspended, and their families, is a necessary start to a crucial process.

MIS

At Face Value

I was in Perth recently and someone I met asked what I thought Tun Mahathir was up to.

This was shortly after Tun gave testimony at the Royal Commission hearing on the Lingam Video scandal. Tun had, in effect, stated that he had chosen the judges as he, and not necessarily the Chief Justice, thought fit. In doing so, he admitted that he had taken into consideration suggestions made by persons other than the Chief Justice and such suggestions could have come from persons like Tan Sri Vincent Tan. This was quite a staggering admission. It meant that everything the Bar had ever said about the appointment of judges on subjective considerations was true. It meant that the judges who were appointed or promoted were not necessarily the best persons for either.

But then, virtually in the same breath, as part of a continuing campaign against the Abdullah Badawi Administration, Tun Mahathir has leveled charges of diverse nature, from money politics to election rigging to intolerance and an undermining of Malaysia.

I am not surprised that the person I was speaking to was wondering what was prompting all of this. Being an observer from afar, he had the benefit of an objective perspective that those of us who are in the thick of things tend to lose. And after all, looking at the bigger picture, Tun Mahathir appears to have forgotten that he had put in place the foundations for many of the things that are wrong with our country at the moment.

Think about it. Tun Mahathir apparently recently suggested that the government speak to the HINDRAF leaders rather than detain them under the Internal Security Act. I find this incredible considering the way in which Tun Mahathir used the ISA for his own political ends. Those of us who remember still shudder at the mention of Operasi Lalang. And how do we ignore the initial detention of Anwar Ibrahim under the ISA? In using the ISA in this way, Tun Mahathir set a precedent for those of like mind to follow. And it appears that there are those who are of like mind.

Tun Mahathir also, in effect, dismantled the systems of checks and balances that the founders of the Constitution felt essential for democracy. He notoriously had Tun Salleh Abas and two other supreme court justices removed from office in what to date remain controversial proceedings. In doing so, he began the process of suborning the Judiciary, a process that he completed by having the constitution amended to give Parliament the power to vest, and as such remove, the jurisdiction of the Courts. That paved the way for Executive immunity and arbitrariness beyond review. More significantly, it set the foundation for a system of patronage that the Judiciary apparently still subscribes to. I know of no other way to explain the recent declaration by the Federal Court that the separation of powers has no place in the Malaysian legal system.

Tun Mahathir rendered the Judiciary virtually ineffective against Executive arbitrariness, a legacy that many a Malaysian still suffers under. This is borne out by the fact that despite having the necessary expertise, manpower and equipment to deal with the key problems this country faces, these problems have not only persisted but have become more endemic. Take corruption for example. Surely, the ACA could do more. The revelation during the ongoing Royal Commission hearings that the ACA did nothing despite having proof of judicial impropriety because there were too many persons of influence involved is shocking, not only for the fact of the ACA having done so but for the apparent complicity of the Mahathir government. These are matters that Tun Mahathir cannot deny knowledge off, all things considered.

And could civil society complain? Leave aside the chilling effect of the ISA and consider instead the more fundamental question of how it is civil society was to get access to information on crucial matters. The systems that Tun Mahathir employed did not lend themselves to transparency nor accountability. What little information that could leak out was classified as Official Secrets under a law that Tun Mahathir had caused to be amended to ensure that the loop-holes were plugged. Media was put under the thumb of Government through tightened up media laws like the Printing Presses and Publications Act. Those few who were brave enough to try and defy media bans were prosecuted with gusto. Lim Guan Eng, Irene Fernandez are Malaysian heroes for the fact of their convictions for nothing more than attempting to bring to light issues that were crucial to the workings of democracy in this country. These laws, and the willingness to use them, still plague us.

Tun Mahathir also ramped up the Islamization process, and in doing so, put in place the kind of insensitivity that has led to the heightened ethnic tensions we are facing at the moment. This has further been driven by a supremacist mindset put in place through a mismanagement of affirmative action policies that have, instead of shaping a world class Malaysian society, led to the entrenching of a third world classist and racialist mentality that the Government continues to hide behind its boasts of a first world infrastructure. This mismanagement continues to plague Malays as much as Malaysians of other ethnic communities, in many ways allowing for the perpetuation of the problems the policies were intended to address in the first place. The exclusive club of elites that Tun Mahathir’s brand of economics created continues to be as exclusive as ever, contacts and riches being the only qualifications for admission. The widening poverty gap has left more and more on the outside, even as they are told that the policies are in actual fact aimed at helping them.

And of course we should not overlook Tun Mahathir’s reworking of the UMNO constitution to allow for non reviewable entrenching of leadership not only of the party but also, in effect, by reason of the nature of the power sharing arrangement within the Barisan Nasional, of the nation. What UMNO wants becomes a reality. And whoever is at the top of UMNO decides what UMNO wants. Tun Mahathir allowed reform and progress to be held to ransom by politics.

They still are, the politicized system a juggernaut that Malaysians desperate to institute reform measures in the face of mounting global competition and a wanton, uncaring depletion of national resources, from oil to state funds, are confronted by. This system, having allowed politics to be prioritized above all other considerations, has seriously undermined any genuine and comprehensive efforts to address wrongs effectively and efficiently. It has further allowed for a demonizing of those who have had to pit themselves against the system in their wish for a better Malaysia. It has also engendered a recklessness on the part of the Executive that is deeply worrying, not least for the emphasis it has placed on individuals and their vested interests.

I could go on but I think we all know the story. So, as much as there may be substance to some of the criticism of the current administration, the truth is that the current administration inherited the structure, the apparatus and the problems they created from Tun Mahathir. I cannot help but wonder whether it is timely for Tun Mahathir to admit the mistakes he made and point the way, objectively and constructively, the way forward for the nation.

If there is any blame on the part of the Adbullah Badawi Administration, it is its apparent willingness to take on, even embrace enthusiastically, the legacy that was left to it by the Mahathir Administration. The question that should be posed to the Abdullah Administration, and must be answered, is what has it done to address the very serious problems it inherited. Looking at the landscape, this is the question that will be at the core of the next General Elections and rightly so, in my view.

It sometimes seem that such steps as have been taken by the current administration are negligible in the face of the pressing need for major institutional reform. The nation needs a decisiveness and a firmness of vision that we are regrettably not seeing enough of. And for all of this and more, one cannot be faulted for concluding that the current administration is content with leaving things as they are.

And as for Tun Mahathir, as my Australian friend put it, what exactly is he up to.

Respectfully, the positions he has taken recently smacks of a political positioning. The criticisms leveled only rarely come across as the constructive and objective views of an elder statesman. The political nature of his criticism is curious for, at face value, one would have expected Tun Mahathir Mohamad to withdraw from politics when he stepped down as Prime Minister.

The decision to step down appears to have been a considered one. At the time, he was in relatively good health, was under no apparent pressure from UMNO to retire nor was the state of play in the wider context such that his resignation was required. It appears that Tun Mahathir had come to a view that the decision to hand over the reigns could not be deferred anymore. I would like to think that he believed that taking the decision then, rather than later, would allow him to assist in the transition process so that the hand over was smooth and did not impact on the nation’s interests.

As things eventuated, the transition did proceed smoothly and Tun Mahathir gracefully withdrew to the role of elder statesman. This was a role he was, and is, eminently suited for, the breadth of his experience being an invaluable resource on how to govern the nation and, perhaps more significantly, how not to.

His having retired left no reason for Tun Mahathir to involve himself in party politics. Such continued involvement would only be necessary if Tun Mahathir found it necessary to rely on the politics of his party as a means to a political end. His decision to retire as Prime Minister would seemingly have rendered the question of a political end wholly irrelevant. Moreover, the role of elder statesman would demand of him a detachment from political interests, not least for the fact that the most effective elder statesmen are those that are perceived as being objective, non-partisan and having no vested interest.

Seen from this perspective, the expectation that Tun Mahathir would withdraw from politics was the only reasonable one to have in the circumstances.

So, why the political positioning then? The situation is such that one possible inference is that he may be fronting for those who do not wish to fight their own political fights directly, preferring instead to stay in the shadows. If this is the case, and I am hoping it is not, it does not bode well. It marks a perpetuation of the systems of patronage that Mahathir allowed for, systems that have self-evidently led to the erosion of all the things that we value as Malaysians. If in fact there are those who wish to challenge Abdullah Badawi, then let them do so openly. I for one believe that challenges are good as it is only in the clash of ideas and opinions that we see the synthesis of true democratic value.

There may be other inferences that can be drawn. Mahathir is after all a true and true politician and that is something that does not fade away. However, even if untrue, Tun Mahathir should be concerned at possibility of his being seen as political. This is an impression that undermines Tun Mahathir’s stature and his value as an elder statesman. A perception of his being partisan would result in his opinions being seen as subjective, to be viewed with caution and perhaps even ignored. This would be a real loss for Malaysia.

MIS