Lim Teck Ghee

Sep 12, 08 3:44pm

By his normally high standards, Kua Kia Soong's opinion piece 'Where are the principled politicians and activists?' is a disappointment. Firstly, he should know that the community of principled politicians and activists - although perhaps not large - is also not homogenous.

It includes idealists and ideologues of many convictions ranging from conservatives to liberals and left-leaning progressives. It also has in its ranks religious activists as well as advocates for a secular country who are concerned that the division between state and religion must be respected and maintained in our multi-religious society.

The great majority in the intelligentsia community - in fact, all Malaysians - have long experienced the intellectual oppression of Barisan Nasional rule.Some have openly deplored the shackles placed on free discourse, and spoken out against the encroachments on our constitutional freedoms, including those relating to the freedom of thought, conscience and religion; freedom of peaceful assembly and association; and freedom of expression and information.

However, many have been deterred by the authoritarian state and have chosen to remain detached or silent. Many too appear to have gone along with what they deem to be an acceptable price for their personal and career advancement.

This is apparent in their support for, or indifference to, discriminatory or repressive action by the state against colleagues and members of the intelligentsia community.

Just as many have given in to the sophisticated mix of carrot and stick employed by the political elite and its supporters who hold leadership positions in the media, universities and other public and private institutions that shape the country's social and intellectual development.

A select few have risen to prominence because of their support for the ruling establishment. These few have been provided with privileged access to the mainstream mass media where they regularly spout "impartial and expert" analysis of political and socio-economic developments.

More critical readers have dismissed their commentaries as self-serving political spin; some have gone further to denounce the commentators for "acting as slick apologists" for the ruling system.

Climate of fear

Today, the intellectual climate of fear, passivity and alienation is slowly dissipating - thanks to the spread of the Internet media, the birth of a fiercely independent web media and blogging community, and public disenchantment with the current government's handling of a wide range of issues, extending from race and religion to matters of political and everyday socio-economic concern.

This widespread disenchantment culminated in the Nov 10 Bersih rally and the watershed Nov 25 Hindraf rally. Other positive factors helping to end the culture of fear have included the key role of the opposition political parties, professional organisations such as the Bar Council, and dissident individuals and civil society organisations who have challenged acts of injustice as well as stood firm against actions and policies perceived to be anti-democratic and against the public interest.

Confirmation of the transformation taking place in our social and political landscape - perhaps proceeding at a slower pace in the intellectual sphere - can be seen in the outcome of the March 8 general elections and the Aug 26 Permatang Pauh by elections.

It is clear that the clock of change in Malaysia cannot be turned back. But it can be slowed down or even temporarily stopped. The question of how the community of principled politicians and activists can help the clock move forward more quickly is a pertinent one.

Many concerned Malaysians - including the intelligentsia - are pondering this difficult question. How can we in our own way contribute to advancing democracy and freedom - a cause long crippled by authoritarian rule, the tight grip exerted by racial and religious politics, and the widespread venality and corruption in many spheres of public life?

Some have moved beyond reflection and are actively engaged in one way or another in the difficult task of transforming our society for the better. They are doing this not so 'visibly' or as 'eloquently' as Kua and Chandra Muzaffar.

Many do it quietly and out of the glare of media or public attention. I urge our two compatriots to be humble and modest and not arrive at the assumption that they are the only principled intellectuals in town just because the actions of others are not visible or apparent to them.

Crossovers

On the issue of the ethics of parliamentary crossovers which Chandra asked  principled activists to take a stand on when he denounced the "despicable politics… of trying to enter Putrajaya through the back door" - a position which Kua appears to agree with - there has been a lively and considerable discussion in the web and blog sites.This open discussion unfortunately has not permeated to the mainstream media for reasons which both "crossover" critics are well aware of.

Kua and Chandra should know too that whatever has appeared in the mainstream media in terms of the ethics, political wisdom or feasibility of parliamentary crossovers has been carefully filtered to ensure that it endorses a continuation of Barisan rule and seeks to de-legitimise or preempt any parliamentary challenge to the government on so-called 'ethical' grounds.In case Kua and Chandra are unaware of this ongoing public discussion, read Malaysiakini readers' response to Chandra's condemnation of a possible crossover - contained in his New Straits Times opinion piece.

Bob Teoh's 'September 16 and the morality of party hopping', which initially appeared in My Sinchew, provides readers with many examples of similar power play including Mahathir Mohamad's denunciation of Tengku Abdul Rahman's leadership following the May 69 racial riots which paved the way for Abdul Razak's accession to power; and PBS's crossover when under Joseph Pairin Kittingan to link up with Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah's Semangat 46 to unseat the ruling coalition.

The article notes that the current terminology used by the media - betrayal, corruption, unconstitutional and unethical - has counted for little in the last 40 years of our political history. His conclusion: "So what's the big deal about party hopping or crossovers, or power grab and the morality of it all?
 
Differing views
 
From this we can see that many have views that differ from Kua and Chandra. Some are more concerned about the issue of electoral integrity and the need to respect the popular mandate, skewed as that mandate may be by widespread electoral gerrymandering. Others are more concerned about the impact of crossovers and defections on political stability.
 
The majority appear to be in support of or are neutral on the issue based on their concern for civil liberties, the constant threat to democracy posed by extremist elements of the ruling government, and the urgency for radical moves to avert a descend into deeper authoritarianism.
 
Should Kua and Chandra want to convince others that there should be only one set of principles for all Malaysians and for all circumstances, it may be necessary for them to enlighten the public on their own principles first and to demonstrate how consistent they have been on the major issues that have arisen over the years - including on the crossover one.Kua's and Chandra's views - and the views of others - are not the final word on the ethics of crossovers. The debate should continue. But is the mainstream media open to balanced coverage and fair representation of all views, including those from supporters of the crossover strategy?
 
Will the New Straits Times, The Star, Berita Harian and Utusan Malaysia permit equal space to dissenting views that point to the hypocrisy of the position held by present the government or will it filter these out and provide only those that serve the government's own ends?

Personality factor