Did our History teachers lie to us?

Did our History teachers lie to us?
28 Sept, 2008

The new generation of Malaysians want a peaceful interpretation of history - one that will not continue to blame this or that group for this or that engineered and well-crafted conflicts seen as factual, objective and official narrations of Malaysian history.

Azly Rahman
http://azlyrahman-illuminations.blogspot.com/

"Man has no nature… what he has is history," writes the Spanish philosopher Ortega y Gassett.

But whose history must man learn? Whose construction of history must we craft as official knowledge? What is the conception of human nature must we hold in writing about history? There are no historical 'facts'. The term itself is an oxymoron and a contradiction. There are only selected memories we pursue out of our ideological biases. Underlying the selection process lie the act of historicising and the base and superstructure that shape the manner history is written. The modern state - the 'necessary evil'- dictates the ideology of historicising; thus the maxim "winners write history, losers write poetry or study anthropology".

In these days, those marginalised by the state-sponsored history will join opposition parties because history is such a powerful and decisive factor in the social reproduction of human beings. The historical-materialistic basis of history predominates; teaching historians what dialectics mean in the march of history. The Japanese revised their history of the Pacific War, the American Indians had intellectuals documenting their rights to the land of the Indian nations, and the occupying forces in Iraq have perhaps completed their version of history of the Iraqi people.

In America, revisionist historians such as Howard Zinn devote their lifetime writing the "people's history" to counter argue the 'historical facts' produced by and about dead white men in American history.

History is memory. And memory can be our biggest liar. This is the greatest challenge we Malaysians must face in the next 50 years if we are to survive as a new 'nation'. The word 'nation' itself is problematic and ever changing - it breeds another dangerous term called 'nationalism.

Who writes Malaysian history?

The intelligentsia of the ruling class who had the means of producing history wrote Malaysian history. Marx was partly correct - the history of any nation is… the history of the ruling class. Those who owns the pen writes and as the hand writes, nothing is erased. The feudal Malay and Javanese kings had their court historians who produced historical 'facts' on batu bersurat (talking stones) on which ideologies were inscribed.

The Hindu kingdoms from antiquity had their Valmiki to write about the story of Prince Rama, and the blind poet Vyasa to narrate the history of the great war of Mahabharatha. The Japanese Shogunate had Lady Murasaki to write the 'Genji Monogatari' (The Tale of Genji), and the Malays had their Tun Sri Lanang to write about the glory of Malay feudalism. The British East India Company probably had a stable of historians, including Stamford Raffles who is said to have "founded Singapore" even though there were already natives living happily under tyrannical traditional rulers. Richard O Winstedt was certainly playing the quadro-hybrid role of historian-apologist-propagandist-Otherist of the dying British Empire.

The Malacca Sultanate too probably had a stable of oral and print historians who craft selected memories for the future generations so that the legacy of the Sultanate would continue; legacies that produce the signs, symbols, signification, and representation of feudalism that have neatly evolve into this cybernetic-neo-corporate-crony-capitalistic-feudalism which legitimises the sustaining of an economic order based on the feudal system of profits through patronage. Tun Sri Lanang was the quintessential historian-apologist-propagandist-Otherist of the dying Malacca Kingdom; one that succumbed to the might of the technologies of guns, guts and glory of the Portugese.

In Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM), this court historian's name is inscribed on its main library. 'Naming' is history's political tool in which inscriptions become institutions that produce and reproduce ideologies. Revise everything if we wish to have a people's history of Malaysia, we must do two things: rewrite history and teach our children multiple perspectives in historicising. After 50 years, the state of Israel is having a problem holding on to Zionist interpretation of history.

What is happening now is a continuing fallout of the dangers of selective historicising, especially when such as history is produced as a biblical truth, grounded in 2,000 years of 'memory' etched in passages of the Old Testament. After 200 years of American Independence, high school textbooks had to be constantly revised to accommodate newer interpretations of multi-culturalism; one that takes into consideration the contributions of groups, peoples, and nations that helped build America. The idea of inclusive historicising guides textbook writers to produce historical 'facts' that speak to the masses more than propagate post-colonial propaganda.

America was an former colony and a nation in which no group can claim the land as theirs. Perhaps this explained the popular slogan of post-9/11 America which consoles the nation as 'Home of the Brave, Land of the Free'; a slogan that reminds Americans to be 'patriotic' (a foreign word in the American psyche). After 50 years of Merdeka and if we are to survive like the 200-year-old America, we must question authority, including 'authoritative sources' in history. The modern owners of the means of producing history lies in the 'panel of experts' whose consciousness that help them do history is limited to the dictates of the ideology of post-colonial Malaya.

The curriculum in textbooks and teaching manuals are not neutral artifacts; they are political tools for psycho-social reproduction. It must have been difficult for historians of Universiti Putra Malaysia, UKM or even Universiti Malaya to understand the wave of post-structuralism and counter-factual historicism as spectres that are haunting the way we ought to revise history. Old way of looking at events in history and propagating them as truths may no longer work with this generation of Malaysians that are tired of the lies their history teachers told them. The new generation of Malaysians want to read about the sufferings of the peasants under the Malay feudal lords; the dehumanisation of Indian rubber-tappers under the British colonialists; and the hardship of living in slums and dwellings in tin mines.

The new generation of thinking Malaysians - especially in public universities - want to hear what actually happened to the indentured serfs and slaves and hamba sahaya under oppressive systems created by those with knowledge, power, and ideology to oppress others in the name of history. The children of these indentured human servitudes want to know how much of their blood, sweat and tears were used to first build Lisbon, London and Amsterdam and next, Kuala Lumpur, Johor Bahru, Penang and Ipoh. The new generation of Malaysians want a peaceful interpretation of history - one that will not continue to blame this or that group for this or that engineered and well-crafted conflicts seen as factual, objective and official narrations of Malaysian history.

What then must we do?

We ought to be makers of history whose resolve is based on peace. We must approach the writing of history based on the idea that it is capitalism, greed, racism, militarism, colonialism and imperialism that must become the major themes of the study of history. Historians must have a heart for radical humanism in order to guide the nation in examining itself and using history to rehumanise society so that we may not become another Bosnia, Palestine, pre-Columbian America or Tibet. This is our challenge. This is the biggest challenge for our historians - to revise our outdated perspectives that propagate peace and reconciliation.

I revise Gasset's quote to read:

Man may not have nature … and what he has is history, but what nature of man/woman must historians hold in order to provide him/her with a better history?

Malaysia's Leadership A Trinket

Malaysia's Leadership A Trinket
28 Sept, 2008

The latest UMNO shenanigans effectively reduced the party's (and thus the country's) leadership to a Sunday market trinket, to be haggled between a desperate discredited seller trying to get the best possible deal, and a bankrupt buyer who has only his incumbency to offer as currency.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

M. Bakri Musa

Tengku Razaleigh, in referring to the tussle between Abdullah Badawi and Najib Razak, said, "… [W]e are embarrassed at the sight of two grown men playing this endless children's game of 'yours and mine' with the most important responsibility in the land, oblivious of the law, oblivious to the damage they are doing to the nation." The Prince's observation on the damage wrecked on Malaysia is spot on, declaring that Malaysia had been reduced to a banana republic and a laughing stock

What Abdullah and Najib do not realize is that the value of the trinket they are frantically bargaining over keeps dropping. While the two are consumed with striking a deal between them, they fail to notice that Anwar Ibrahim is on the sideline, ready and willing to take over, thus effectively reducing the two protagonists and their trinket to irrelevance.

Meanwhile the important business of running the country is neglected. They have been consumed with lobbying their followers, as well as engaging in hours of "four eyes only" meetings, haggling over when, how, and at what price the trinket would be handed over. They are oblivious to the nation's compounding problems, from the massive public health hazard of contaminated milk products imported from China to the American credit crunch that will soon spread around the world.

It is time to make these two characters irrelevant. It is time to let this desperate drowning duo strangle each other and sink to the bottom of the cesspool they have created for themselves.

Our priority is to make sure that they do not drag the nation down with them. This responsibility falls heavily on those leaders of the opposition, in particular Anwar Ibrahim. He has to be ready to take over and make the necessary preparations now, especially with regards to policies and personnel.

The Price Keeps Dropping

Right after the March 8, 2008 electoral debacle, Abdullah declared that he still had the people's trust. Then with confidence borne out of ignorance a la the village idiot, he asserted that he would serve his full second term. He even intimated that he might lead his coalition to its third electoral victory in 2013!

Such detachment from reality! It was merely out of courtesy (that is the trademark of our culture), and respect for the highest office of the land that Abdullah was not laughed off the stage. Unfortunately he mistook that as acceptance, if not rousing endorsement, aided by his cronies, advisers, and family members feeding his fantasy. The world knew better.

On the surface Abdullah did seem to have a mandate. After all, his coalition secured a comfortable though not the usual two-third majority in Parliament. On closer scrutiny however, his Barisan coalition barely scrapped through the popular vote, while many of the seats won were only with the slimmest of majority. That election also saw five states, including some of the most developed, repudiating Abdullah's leadership.

When the rumblings of discontent over his leadership became louder, especially after his coalition's thumping at the Permatang Pauh by-election, Abdullah was forced to lower his bid, but just a tad. He now thought he could satisfy his detractors by agreeing to hand over power by June 2010. He set it far enough ahead such that should circumstances shift, he could conveniently change his mind. Abdullah was counting that people would not see through his not-so-sly scheming.

Again, he misjudged the public, and his party's mood.Following a ruckus September 2008 UMNO Supreme Council meeting in which a few finally caught on to the reality and spoke up, albeit tentatively and a little belatedly, Abdullah lowered further his asking price. Now he did not rule out on an earlier transfer, clarifying that the June 2010 date was meant to be the latest when he would quit.

That pacified the dissidents, including the outspoken Muhyiddin Yassin and the hitherto "Iron Lady" Rafidah Aziz. They were an easily-mollified bunch.

Then following the gathering of his clan, and undoubtedly convinced once again by them, Abdullah backtracked. They prevailed upon him that his leadership was worth more and that he should hold out for a better price. That triggered yet another volley of dissatisfaction.

At a special meeting of the Supreme Council last week, presumably to discuss specifically the leadership transition, Abdullah was given an ultimatum. He must decide by October 9, 2008 on whether to defend his leadership. The alternative presumably would be to quit.

To an average observer with a modicum of commonsense, that was just another nice way for the council to say, in the grand Asian tradition of "saving face," that it no longer had confidence in Abdullah. Abdullah however is thick-skulled and a tad slow on the uptake. Besides, another round of meetings with his clan and they would convince him that indeed was not the intent of the council. "Flip-flop" Abdullah listens to whoever has his ear last.

More to the point, that council's decision was meaningless. If Abdullah were to decide not to defend his position at the now-postponed UMNO convention, the country would still be faced with a leadership crisis and uncertainty for the next six months. Everyone would be consumed with positioning themselves. No effective government work would be done as every UMNO politician would be busy politicking.

On the other hand, if he decided to cling on, it would still create a leadership uncertainty, and there would still be heavy intrigue and campaigning. Nothing would have changed. Our nation's business would still be unattended.

Abdullah has again abused our traditional Malay culture of halus, the subtle way. The gullible Muhyiddin went so far as to describe Abdullah's latest "decision" as "magnanimous!" No word from the "Iron Lady." As I said, they are easily satisfied. I wonder how long before UMNO Supreme Council members realize that they had once again been had by him.

As for Najib, he is burdened with his own considerable baggage. He would like that trinket be handed over to him as if it were his due, and without contest, all in the name of party unity of course. Contest means having to scrutinize his record, which is not pretty. In fact it is sordid.

If only there were some jantans in UMNO Supreme Council, they would have long ago given Abdullah an ultimatum. Resign or we push for a "no confidence" vote! That is the only language Abdullah understands: direct and brutal. There cannot be any subtlety or he will pretend to miss it.

It does not take a jantan to do that, only some responsible adults concerned about the lack of leadership and the country being left adrift. Absent that, rest assured that come October 9, Abdullah will again waffle, and UMNO Supreme Council will have to find yet another face-saving device to spare some modicum of respect to someone who clearly no longer deserves any.

I could not care less about those UMNO Supreme Council members except that they are also the leaders of our country. That is the scary part. If they cannot stand up to a limp Abdullah Badawi, how can we expect them to face up to a President Bush, China's Hu, or even Singapore's Lee. That is what terrifies the heck out of me, as it should all Malaysians.

Meanwhile Malaysians are reduced to watching the bizarre haggling over an increasingly worthless trinket between their two top but desperate leaders. We all should be embarrassed by that, not just Tengku Razaleigh.

In praise of ... Raja Petra Raja Kamarudin

In praise of ... Raja Petra Raja Kamarudin
29 Sept, 2008

The Guardian, UK: If jailing bloggers has become the latest way repressive regimes cope with the blogosphere, Malaysia has taken this trend one step further this week.

They served their highest-profile anti-government blogger, Raja Petra Raja Kamarudin, with a two-year detention order, removing him from the oversight of the courts.

It is no small source of shame that the law they are using to detain him without charge is a legacy of British colonial rule against the communist insurgency. Raja Petra, who edits the Malaysia Today website, has had several brushes with the law.

He was charged in May this year with sedition for alleging that a senior government minister was linked to the murder of a Mongolian model who was pestering him for money after he ended their affair. After his release on bail, he was detained again under the same draconian Internal Security Act on September 12 for "insulting Islam".

Blogging from his cell, Raja reported that his special branch interrogators admitted they found that none of his articles had insulted Islam. They told him his style of writing was so sophisticated that his readers could possibly misinterpret what he was trying to say.

To anyone outside the Malaysian government it is obvious who this blogger is: a well-informed critic of a corrupt regime. The renewable detention order is a way of putting him beyond the reach of the courts, where the specious actions against him can be exposed for what they are.

As he says himself, "heads they win, tails I lose".

M'sia politics affecting economy

Sep 28, 2008

M'sia politics affecting economy

		Mr Abdullah's 2009 budget offered tax cuts and sweeteners designed to restore support for the beleaguered coalition and spur growth in the face of a global slowdown. -- PHOTO: AFP

KUALA LUMPUR - THE political crisis in Malaysia since March elections that humiliated the ruling coalition has stifled the stock market, deterred foreign investment and crimped growth forecasts.

And economic observers said that with Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi still clinging to power despite mounting calls for a speedy departure, there is no end in sight to the uncertainty.

Mr Abdullah has said he may not seek re-election as ruling party leader in internal polls next year, but the coalition also faces an unprecedented challenge from the opposition, which says it has the numbers to seize power.

The prospect of a messy change of government - the first in the history of Malaysia, which has been ruled by the Barisan Nasional coalition since independence in 1957 - is making investors very nervous.

The Kuala Lumpur Composite Index, which reached an all-time high of 1,524 points in January, dived to 1,157 shortly after the March elections that saw the government lose its two-thirds majority in parliament for the first time.

On September 18, the bourse plunged to a two-year low of 963, and ended last week at 1,020.53, in a malaise worsened by the stream of bad news from Wall Street.

'It has been on a downtrend since the general elections and we expect it to remain so as there are no signs that the political situation is easing,' said Mr Stephen Soo, a senior analyst at local brokerage TA Securities.

He said the political turmoil, combined with the turbulence in the US financial markets, offered 'not much hope' for the market to revive before year-end.

'Investor sentiment is still weak and foreign funds have been pulling out of the market. The political scenario is definitely a deterrent to foreigners.'

Citigroup chief economist for Singapore and Malaysia, Kit Wei Zheng, said the political situation has forced the government to resort to unsustainable policies that could widen the budget deficit.

'When you have an unstable political situation, you are forced to make populist promises needed to secure power,' he said.

Mr Abdullah's 2009 budget offered tax cuts and sweeteners designed to restore support for the beleaguered coalition and spur growth in the face of a global slowdown.

Mr Kit said the premier's flip-flop on petrol prices - with two cuts that partly reversed a deeply unpopular 41 per cent price hike in June - 'is not a good signal to foreign investors'.

'As long as this political situation does not resolve itself, even if there is a global recovery, Malaysia might be passed by in favour of other destinations,' he said.

Despite the gloom, the government's forecasts remain relatively rosy.

Deputy premier Najib Razak, who last week took over the finance portfolio from Mr Abdullah as part of a succession plan, said the government still expected the economy to grow by 5.7 per cent this year.

However, the Malaysian Institute of Economic Research - a government think-tank - has cut its 2008 growth projection to 4.6 per cent, partly due to the domestic political turmoil.

'The government has been unable to respond to the economic crisis with even a basic plan of action,' said Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah, a veteran figure in the ruling party and one of Mr Abdullah's most vocal critics.

'Business confidence has plummeted as capital flees the country,' he said in a statement last week.

'Political crises come and go, but the present crisis might well be the beginning of a cascade of failures leading to long-term instability and destruction.' -- AFP

Sunday September 28, 2008 MYT 5:12:27 PM

PKR VP: Fire councillor who accepted sexual favours

By IVAN LOH

(The Star) IPOH: PKR vice-president Dr Lee Boon Chye has urged the Perak government to sack Perak Tengah district councillor Zul Hassan after he had admitted to having accepted sexual favours.

Dr Lee said it was “morally incorrect” for a person who holds public office to be involved in such a scandal.

“When something inappropriate is offered, you should reject it,” he said after opening a blood donation campaign here on Sunday.

He said the state executive council should remove Zul from the Perak Tengah district council as early as the next state exco meeting.

Dr Lee however declined to comment on whether the party itself would take action against Zul, a PKR member.

Zul and businessman Fairul Azrim Ismail had recently lodged a report at the state religious department against Mohammad Imran Abdullah for “encouraging them to commit a sinful act” with a woman from China in Batu Ferringhi, Penang on Aug 14.

Mohamad Imran is the complainant in a corruption case in which Zul and four others are the accused.

Zul had reportedly told pressmen: “What is important is we did not ask for the women. He (Mohammad Imran) supplied them to us.

“If people sedekah (donate), don’t you want to accept it?” he had supposedly said.

Sunday September 28, 2008 MYT 5:44:38 PM

Gerakan mulls quitting Barisan, may join Pakatan

By LISA GOH

(The Star) KUALA LUMPUR: Gerakan is considering the option of leaving Barisan Nasional and joining the Pakatan Rakyat opposition alliance.

Gerakan acting president Tan Sri Dr Koh Tsu Koon said this was among three options for the party - the other two being to either stay with the ruling coalition, or leave and become independent.

“We are not ruling out any possibility at this moment. We have to assess the situation, but we are not closing any doors.

“Neither are we saying we will definitely leave. It’s something we need to assess but we cannot do it based on sentiments alone,” he told reporters after launching the KL-Federal Territory (FT) state delegates conference here on Sunday.

Dr Koh said the party was examining how the political scenario in the country would continue to change, and had been getting feedback from the grassroots.

“If you go on sentiments alone, I would say more than 60% (want us to leave), but we are taking a lot of factors into consideration, and a decision cannot be based just on sentiments.

“It’s a very trying time, and there is need for a lot of rational, objective analysis. It cannot be a straightforward simplistic decision,” he said.

In his opening speech, Dr Koh also announced that he would be contesting for the president’s post in the October party elections.

“I am offering myself for the post, but I also set a timeframe for myself, and it is unlikely that I will go beyond two terms. I would like to have younger and newer leaders to continue the process of political commitment,” he said.

Asked if he would name his deputy, he replied: “We will let the delegates decide.”

He was also asked to comment on some 20 FT Gerakan members who had defected to Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR), including former FT Gerakan information bureau chief Gan Kok Keng and former Setiawangsa Gerakan chief Li Tiam Chai.

“I feel surprised because it was only last week when Li Tiam Chai was with me in a meeting and there were no signs that he was not happy.

“We were talking about how to strengthen the party. So I am surprised but I will continue with the veterans, and new members are committed,” he said.

Dr Koh also commented on the Umno leadership transition, which he hoped would be “smooth and peaceful.”

“Even though the change in Umno leadership is an internal party matter, but we are also concerned because the Umno leader also becomes the leader of Barisan and the Federal Government,” he said.

Earlier this month, Gerakan became embroiled in the controversy over former Bukit Bendera Umno division chief Datuk Ahmad Ismail’s alleged racist remarks in which he purportedly described Malaysian Chinese as “squatters.”

Gerakan leaders had demanded an apology and for action to be taken against the Umno man, who in turn blamed Gerakan for Barisan’s poor showing in the March 8 general election, which saw the state of Penang fall to to the opposition.

The war of words even saw Ahmad’s supporters tearing down a picture of Dr Koh after a press conference.

The Umno Supreme Council subsequently suspended Ahmad from his party posts for three years, although he remains a member. No further action was taken against him.

Doctor's dilemma

Doctor's dilemma
Sep 28, 2008
The Straits Times

I was stunned when the patient calmly told me: 'They said that I have no cancer." Mr Didik had been on palliative chemotherapy for several weeks for metastatic pancreatic cancer when all of a sudden his son asked that the pathology material, medical reports and radiology films be sent to one of the top cancer centres in America.

After a week of thorough review, the American doctors had concluded that there was no cancer.

The earlier diagnosis had been made in Singapore, when Mr Didik underwent surgery for what appeared to be localised cancer of the pancreas. At the time of surgery, we saw that he had multiple nodules on the surface of the liver. These were not seen in the pre-operative computed tomogram (CT) scans.

One of the nodules was taken for a biopsy and confirmed on frozen section (this refers to rapid microscopic diagnosis of the specimen) to contain cancer. As this meant that the cancer had metastasised to the liver, the planned re-section of the pancreatic mass was abandoned. I was then called in to discuss the role of palliative chemotherapy.

As this was stage four - or end-stage - cancer, the goal of the treatment was to try and kill the cancer cells, control the disease and, hopefully, allow him to live longer. After careful discussion, Mr Didik started on chemotherapy. He was tolerating treatment well when this bombshell was dropped on me.

If the pathologists from America were right, Mr Didik did not have cancer. This meant that I was giving him chemotherapy that was unnecessary and potentially harmful to his well-being!

Mr Didik is 59 and owns a wig factory in Indonesia. We have a good relationship and he had given me one of his specimens for the lab.

As I sat there looking at a seemingly perfectly healthy man, three concerns came to my mind.

The first was whether or not Mr Didik had cancer. In his presence, I called up the pathologist who had done the earlier diagnosis in Singapore to request an urgent review of the case. To my horror, he told me the entire specimen (it was a very small biopsy), including the pathology blocks and slides, had been sent to the American centre for review. There was no remaining tissue for us to study or to send elsewhere for another independent review.

When we contacted the American pathologist, he declined to release the specimen as he needed to retain the tissue in the event that he needed to defend his position. There was not enough tissue for two sets of slides.

My second concern was whether we should push on with the treatment or abort it. As there was now doubt cast on the diagnosis, I suggested we stop the treatment till we were sure. To my surprise, Mr Didik wanted to carry on and was determined to complete the six months of chemotherapy as planned.

His logic was that he was tolerating treatment well and that one of the cancer markers, elevated at diagnosis, was gradually coming down with treatment.

What if he really had cancer? His concern - a sensible one - was whether stopping chemotherapy would increase the risk of drug resistance and compromise his survival.

The third issue was whether he was going to sue us if there was indeed a misdiagnosis. At that time, I really didn't know how (or dare) to ask him if he planned to take legal action or file a formal complaint against us. After all, we gave him chemotherapy when he apparently did not have cancer.

The 2007 annual report from Singapore Medical Council (SMC) has just been released. The number of complaints per 1,000 doctors has risen from 11.6 in 1997 to 15.6 last year. In total, there were 115 complaints received last year, an increase of 42 per cent compared to 2006.

Our society is becoming more litigious. Siblings are suing each other, as are children and parents. Patients are suing doctors.

For me, the practice of medicine is as much an art as it is a science. Each day, doctors make judgment calls on how best to care for their patients. They combine medical knowledge and experience with perspicacity in deciding what is best for each patient.

If Mr Didik had decided to lodge a complaint, it would have been difficult for us to defend ourselves at that time.

He completed his chemotherapy and remained well for a while. About a year later, his cancer markers started rising and there was radiological evidence of cancer progression. After an overseas review in Europe that confirmed that he had metastatic pancreatic cancer, he is again on palliative chemotherapy and responding well to treatment.

One day, I found the courage to ask him why he never complained or sought legal redress for the alleged wrong diagnosis. He replied: 'What for? All of you are trying your best to help me. If there was a mistake, it was not intentional."

He is a truly magnanimous man. I wonder if he told the American doctors that they were wrong.

Dr Ang Peng Tiam
angpt@parkwaycancercentre.com

- Dr Ang, the medical director of Parkway Cancer Centre, has been treating cancer patients for nearly 20 years. In 1996, he was awarded Singapore's National Science Award for his outstanding contributions to medical research.

This story was first published in Mind Your Body, The Straits Times, on Sept 25, 2008.

The "Bangsawan" Candidate

The "Bangsawan" Candidate

28 Sept, 2008

As the turmoil of Malaysian politics continues unabated, it seems quite likely that the leadership of Umno (and possibly the Premiership) will fall to the hands of Najib Razak. What can we expect from a administration led by this son of our second Prime Minister, Tun Abdul Razak?

One important thing to note in any discussion of the directions of a Najib premiership is the fact that he, like his cousin Hishamuddin Hussein 'bangsawan' (or aristocratic) politicians. To outsiders it would appear that their rise through Umno has been charmed and unobstructed. The reality, however, is that their rise to power is due as much to their own deft management of party politics as it is to their familial connections and wealth.

At their best, they can be the most racially inclusive of figures: cosmopolitan, urbane and well-educated. On the other hand, the 'bangsawan' candidates can be deeply conservative and resistant, if not openly hostile to change. This may have to change however, for Najib's reluctance to endorse and promote the civil liberties reform agenda is actually undermining his own career.

"Pursuing these will be the first step of Barisan/Umno's comeback trail, while seeking status quo will be yet another nail in its coffin."

Consider the potential power bases his refusals are costing him. As an educated and modern politician, Najib's natural supporters should be the very middle-class Malaysians that are his fiercest critics. Many of them have not forgotten the contributions of his father, and some even project onto him the best qualities of Razak, forgetting in turn that even the elder statesman had his flaws.

As it were, Umno's utilization of racialist politics have sent countless of votes that ought to have gone their way to the other side. Educated, talented young Malays are avoiding politics like the plague, robbing the party of a talented cadre that can discard the outmoded ways and bring the party forward.

A lot of the blame and disappointment of this has been laid, unfairly or not, on the doors of 'bangsawan' politicians like Najib. One does, after all, have the right to expect more from such people. The principle of noblesse oblige means that great privilege comes with great duty and even greater standards.

This is not to say that Najib does not have strengths of his own, however. There's no doubt that Najib is one of our smartest politicians. He's extremely well-read and possesses a rigorous mind. His unflappable disposition is well suited to the demands of governance.

He presides over meetings effortlessly, can summarize discussions succinctly and understands the importance of prioritizing issues. In technocratic terms, he far outstrips his rivals both in and outside the Government. Although of course, critics again see this as a reflection of Umno's own lack of human capital rather than any intrinsic brilliance on his part.

We should not underestimate Najib's ability to spring surprises, however. His apology to the Indian community over the demolition of Hindu temples in Selangor (which sparked the Hindraf movement), was a break from the arrogance of Umno's leadership on this issue- although of course this did nothing to prevent that community's swing against Barisan.

One gets a sense that it is his innate conservatism that is preventing him from pushing forward much-needed reforms, reforms that will swing public support back to Umno/Barisan and the lack of which is costing the coalition. For all of his family connections and much-vaunted capabilities, neither of these will turn back the clock nor negate the need for substantive change in Malaysia.

Also, the controversies surrounding the Altantuya murder case are not going to go away and will blot the legitimacy of his potential term in office dearly. What Najib must come to terms with is the fact that the people of Malaysia, with sole exception of Umno loyalists look upon him with a jaundiced eye because they don't trust the institutions of state.

Championing the reform agenda, as well as accountability and transparency- what more now that he is Finance Minister, will assuage the many reservations against him. The lists of initiatives are obvious: cleaning up the courts, enhancing the professionalization the police force and freeing up the media and so much more.

Pursuing these will be the first step of Barisan/Umno's comeback trail, while seeking status quo will be yet another nail in its coffin. Najib and his advisors need to realize that the weakened institutions of state in Malaysia as well as their continued enervation only plays into the hands of Anwar Ibrahim and the Pakatan Rakyat.

It is pointless, as I said earlier, to view Najib as anything but an aristocratic politician. But adopting a people-centred approach to governance, if he is granted that mantle, will ensure that he will be a successful one. (By KARIM RASLAN/ MySinchew)

( The opinions expressed by the writer do not necessarily reflect those of MySinchew )