Don’t Be Afraid
1. Fear of Change
2. Mahathir's Economic Follies
3. What Islamic State
4. The Hollowing Out of Morality
Malaysia’s people will face a major test in terms of their quality and courage soon. The choice before the electorate is whether to return to power a tired, self-seeking government led by a self-congratulating modern Caesar and his greedy sycophants and court jesters, or bring into power an untested opposition comprised of parties with sometimes contrasting views and philosophies. This choice will indeed pose a dilemma for many voters who will probably vote with anxiety and uncertainty, whatever the party of their choice. However there are times when the choice is clear, even when the idea of change fills us with trepidation. The society has been crying out for change for a long time but fear and the politics of cynicism have blocked such a transition.
It is quite obvious that even a motley opposition in power will do a better job than the Barisan in many aspects of running the society, from economic management to restoring our moral sensibilities. Our moral sense has been badly battered by the many years of cronyism and more recently by the unprecedented degree of cruelty and callousness on the part of Mahathir and his side-kicks. If I were looking at any other country in the world, with the possible exception of some African states and Burma, where the government has acted so despicably and the people have become so disaffected, I would quite confidently predict that the government would be thrown out of power. However, I sense that this is not the main view among Malaysians and certainly not among the many foreign journalists, who, although apparently despised by the government, have echoed ad nauseam the song of Barisan invincibility. The question, then, is, “How Come”?
There is of course the real possibility of the Mahathir clique further engaging in massive fraud and cheating during the elections. His confident predictions of doing well amidst so much disquiet is a foreboding of how he might turn to rigging the polls to get the desired result. But this is I suspect not the only reason for people thinking that the BN will win the elections. There are many people who are afraid of changing a long- entrenched ruling group because of the historical absence of electoral turnovers. This fact keeps dominant one-party systems in power for a long time. A famous political scientist, writing about Western political systems, once said that political parties that rule for a long time shape a whole epoch and way of thinking in the society. The party’s style, methods, and slogans become part and parcel of society’s mindset. It is psychologically difficult to think of changing a well-ingrained pattern. Even if the party is corrupt, indecent, cruel, and contemptuous of society, as the Mahathir regime has proven itself to be (how twisted can Mahathir and Badawi get when they could not even let Anwar visit his dying brother, who sadly passed away) the people will still find it hard to think of replacing the party. Such statements such as “the devil we know is better than the devil we do not know” testifies to the fear of change of a system that no one really likes. Corrupt dominant parties shape the values in society in a perverse way because they cannot embrace bracing ideas such as democracy, transparency, economic fairness, public spiritedness, and a vibrant civil society. As Tocqueville pointed out, tyranny welcomes and encourages selfishness and egoism. We become cynical, egoistic narrowly calculative, and fearful as we become enmeshed in the corruption around us and in us. And how do we excuse ourselves and our leaders in these circumstances? Well, we act in bad faith and say, “This is politics.”
But must it be like this? No. Let me state that the fear of replacing the dominant party is a subjective fear that may simply be unwarranted in reality. Abused children and wives often find it scary to leave a bad relationship because they are fearful of venturing into something new, although often from a neutral observer’s point of view, their situation will usually improve if they extricate themselves from the abusive relationship. The same psychological trap also shapes the relationship between people and powerholders in bullying one- party regimes. Even if the opposition were perfect, the people would still have great anxiety in changing the existing system, no matter how decrepit, because frightened people have a stake in the familiar, and can only hope secretly that powerholders will become better people after the elections. That is why the little tricks of leaders, like crying over the fate of aids patients, or feigning disgust at money politics, often work because people are clutching at straws hoping that deep down their leader is kind, caring, and moral.
But let me state that while they are genuine psychological fears of change, were change in fact to occur, the result would be far less traumatic than people originally assumed. There are many reasons for this but I will not go into them. We have seen dominant parties and institutions all around us collapse and weaken without too many grave consequences. Despite dire predictions, the weakening of military-rule in Indonesia, Thailand, Philippines, Taiwan, and South Korea, or the withering away of the power of the Congress Party in India, and the PRI in Mexico have not resulted in chaos. There were terrible fears of what might happen to South Africa with the emergence of a democratically-elected ANC just as there were dire predictions of parliamentary chaos when Taiwan became democratic. Major transition points produce much anxiety but the result has almost always been far more positive than everyone believed to be possible. In fact change is often cathartic, and gives the society a new beginning and a new energy. Even parties with minority rule in a democracy can remain relatively stable and free from chaos as we see in Thailand, even as it faces deep economic difficulties.
Any chaos – and this is usually limited in time -- is most often the product of authoritarian actions by elements linked to the besieged ruling power. We saw it with Kopasus in Indonesia when they led the progrom against the Chinese as well as the army-backed militias in East Timor. But notice how quickly the problem faded away as the democratic transition became more certain. In fact, we are prolonging the dangers of violence in society when we keep voting in a power- hungry and corrupt regime. Let me stress again that the fear of change is more a subjective fear than a real fear of things really going wrong. We have become petty and fearful because rule has been based on fear and cynical politics. There is simply no need to continue with this system any more.
In the next installment, I will give more reasons why we can expect improvement in many aspects of society – yes, even the economic aspects -- if a new party came into power in Malaysia. We can even expect PAS to become more restrained with its medieval agenda if the other opposition parties perform well. This reasoning goes against the current grain but it is the Barisan that helps sustain PAS and vice versa.
2. Mahathir’s Economic Follies
One of the great myths being perpetrated by the media, including in the writings of ill-informed foreign journalists, is that Mahathir has brought a great deal of development in Malaysia, converting sleepy villages to modern metropolises. The spineless local media, at his behest, has also portrayed him as the economic saviour of Malaysia during the economic crisis. It is quite fascinating that while many people are angry at Mahathir for his cruelty and nepotistic policies, there is muted criticism of his economic policies, and indeed many of his opponents might secretly think that he is a good economic manager. This perception is shared by many members of the middle class and business groups, who see Mahathir’s low interest rate policy and avoidance of real restructuring as saving their skins.
However, it is important to understand the real facts. A cursory examination of the economic record will surely show that Mahathir’s specific policies over the last 2 decades have been highly questionable, and his recent economic policies, while not turning out as badly as some predicted, has worrisome consequences for the future of the Malaysian economy.
Let us understand a few things first. Given the nature of the modern global economy, any country that is relatively open to trade and investment, and which has a modicum of political stability, will do well economically. In my opinion, it takes a lot of corruption to undo an economy. If not for giving a prominent role to the efficient foreign sector, Mahathir-style cronyism and nepotism would have damaged the economy long ago. It does not require a superhuman to run an economy well. Many argue that while the U.S. economy has performed wonderfully in the last 8 years, this fact has little to do with Clinton’s actions. If America had a supine press, they would hail Clinton as an economic saviour who must never leave office. It is only in third world authoritarian states where the leader takes all the credit for economic success, but of course it is external forces that cause the economy to turn sour. Those evil foreigners! One can argue that Mahathir has provided stability in the country in the past, and this is his main asset. Maybe so, but in the last two years he has been a liability for future stability because he has short-circuited the succession process so vital in producing political stability. Before all his recent talk that he cannot leave office for now because of the crisis, many astute observers had predicted long ago that the man will never go voluntarily. His refusal to let go of the reins of power after 18 years has produced the new divisions in the society, not the behaviour of PAS or the opposition.
Let us return to the basic facts. Malaysia has always been among the economic front-leaders in Asia, going back to the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, decades before Mahathir took over power. In fact he was making a lot of noise then. Many books were written in the early 1970s about Malaysia’s economic success and, yes, for those too young to remember, it was also celebrated as a democratic success of sorts. Our electronics industry had its beginnings not with Mahathir, who would have probably have built a huge building in the shape of a computer, but with the hard-working efforts of Lim Chong Eu and Tan Siew Sin in the early 1970s. Our export-orientation, which is the real basis for our economy, was laid by Malaysia’s capable leaders of the past, starting from the Tengku. It is ironic that these leaders, except for Razak who died too young to know Mahathir’s true colours, came to regret this man becoming prime minister. Unfortunately, those who know very little about Malaysia’s past, including foreign journalists sympathetic to democracy, think Malaysia’s success is due mainly to Mahathir. This is simply wrong.
In fact Mahathir’s policies have been most costly. I do not have to remind you that he was the man behind such enormously wasteful and hugely expensive projects as the Perwaja Steel fiasco, and the non- competitive Proton car project. Thailand now can easily wipe out our car industry if free trade is allowed in Asean. Mahathir was warned about the folly of the car project 15 years ago by local academics but, in his usual arrogant but ill-informed manner, dismissed them as mere theoreticians. Of course he knows everything and is always right. You might think I am exaggerating but Mahathir is a man with archaic ideas, and is not the progressive that he makes himself to be or is made out to be. He deeply believes in huge national projects which many newly independent nations of yesteryear embarked on, and which the Tengku and Tun Tan wisely avoided. Mahathir’s view of development is building visible, prestigious massive projects even if they are of dubious value. He has said that these edifices are meant to boost the Malay and national egos, but it is becoming obvious that Mahathir has a deep ego problem himself, and needs to feel big and powerful, like some big African chief or some Sultan in the grand era of the Melaka Sultanate. What better way to feed his insecurities than to build massive projects that people in the future will remember him by. (By the way, many of the celebrated towns of the world restrict tall, big, long, buildings because they want to enjoy their lived environment better).
I am sure you are aware of the critical ingredients of growth. These are the real skills of the people, first- rate legal and supervisory institutions that are free from corruption, and policies that promote a dynamic market. Mahathir has done surprisingly little in these areas. Our educational institutions have been deteriorating for a long time. UM was once a first-rate university in Asia but now it is ranked poorly. Mahatir’s solution to real problems has never been to tackle things head on or to improve an existing institution. He much rather build some new fanciful project, such as a new technological university or some smart school, convincing himself and the nation that he is solving a problem at hand. Rather than improve the national school system through purposive steps or boost the salaries of teachers, he would rather use the resources, when he is not building an extravagant palace for himself, to erect some fanciful structure which will probably be impressive architecturally but hardly likely to have top- notch research professors in it. If you want to know how capable a nation is, the first thing is to look closely at the quality of its educational system before you go round looking at its conspicuous buildings. These require no more talent to build than grabbing funds from public milk cows like Petronas. Was Shah Jahan an economic genius? No, he just needed a great talent to bankrupt his state and to be cruel enough to blind his architect (by punching his eyes in prison?) Don’t you think that a Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, or Singapore can easily erect a building that is double the height of the twin towers? Of course they can, but they will probably ask a prior question: Does it make sense?
Let us give Mahathir some plus points. He did do something interesting with regard to the NEP. He can be credited for reducing ethnic conflict in business matters by removing direct competition between the ethnic groups. His privatization programme opened new opportunities for the Malay business class to grow without taking too much away from the Chinese and the foreigners. Hence restrictive regulations over the economy could be eased and the Chinese businessmen in particular became much happier with the regime. Remember how angry they once were. Privatization reduced ethnic conflict but in the usual Mahathir boleh way, it quickly got mired in cronyism and nepotism. The rakyat were ripped off in a vulgar fashion. When we finally add up the bill, it will prove very costly for the society. Mahathir always likes to say that the people who benefited from his privatization efforts were very capable, including his little, greedy brats. How self-serving and shameful! Are there no Malaysians who are willing to assume power without being rip-off artists? For all our outward piousness, are we so materialistic, unprincipled, and cynical of public office?
The so-called capable tycoons whom Mahathir loves so much have to be continually bailed out. Are you confident that the leaky Bank Bumiputera has been fortified for the last time? I would have preferred to see a broader strata of Malays being force-fed with loans and opportunities even if they all failed. It’s just fairer that way. A unacceptable amount of money has been wasted to create third- rate entrepreneurs with their fanciful private jets and helipads. Imagine if the bail-out money over the years had been used for social purposes, build proper universities and schools, preserve the environment, or buy more kidney machines Instead we have one massive bail-out after another. But of course the prime -minister -who -is - never -wrong has a ready-made answer and target – those evil foreigners. But guess who pays for all this greed in one invisible or not so invisible form. Yes, the silent majority – this fascinating concept that self-serving, besieged leaders from Nixon to Mahathir resurrect when the silenced majority start to turn against them.
The brilliant thing about Mahathir’s response to the Asian crisis is that he has avoided causing direct pain to the population by postponing the costs of the bailouts into the future. This makes people think he is a hero. But the bill will come. In the meantime, countries which have undergone some pain and have tried to change their ingrained practices and institutions threaten to emerge more strongly than us in the future. I am fearful how what even more formidable dynamo South Korea will become, and Singapore, once a bit fearful of our off-shore banking sector and the multi-media super corridor, are laughing all the way to the bank. Singapore had less reason to restructure during the crisis but they did so anyway. Result: compare the historical highs in the Singapore and KL stock markets.
Do you know that we were on the top of the scale in Asian development in the 1960s. Countries such as South Korea and Taiwan have by-passed us. Do not be surprised if Thailand, the Philippines and even prostrate Indonesia begin to narrow the gap between themselves and us in the next 5 years. Mahathir tried to save himself in the crisis, not the Malaysian economy.
We can excuse Mahatir for avoiding IMF-type policies if he had seriously embarked on his own fundamental reforms at home. Did he? Of course not. He has not made any hard decisions. Even his apparent attempt at reform in the banking sector was plagued by cronyism and politics. He first favored his clique’s interest, which was to the detriment of self-interested Chinese businessmen, who until then were enamored of Mahathir, because he had coddled them by his monetary policies. But when disillusioned bankers protested, he changed his policies because he needed all the votes he could muster or steal. Let’s look at his economic management. Can you point out where he has undertaken serious reform – whether in money politics, corruption, the judiciary, or in the educational institutions in all his years in power.
I can go on and on as to what a liability Mahathir has been for the economy. Malaysia has done well despite him, not because of him. We may be scarred and cynical , and for this reason vote for the Barisan Nasional. This motivation is more acceptable than voting for Mahathir because we think he has done a good job in the economy. I want to end by saying that any leadership that is less corrupt and more sincere in helping the society will do a better job of running the economy than Mahathir. There are so many decent, caring and smart people in the society who have been sidelined by the undemocratic political process, and who deserve their turn in running society. The economic world is looking for transparency, while the people are looking for a fairer distribution of resources. The future economy demands the highest quality institutions; energetic, thinking, educated citizens; and a globally competitive economy – not some inept economic puppeteer who pulls all the strings in the society. There is nothing in the programme of the BA that would hurt the economy, and I can safely predict that the economy be fairer under them, and will thrive over time. There are some economic oddballs around in the opposition, from old-fashioned socialists to those who are uncomfortable with modernity, but they are in the minority. The alternative parties want to preserve the role of foreign capital, and they do believe fundamentally in capitalism. They merely want to channel the wasted resources of the Mahathir era into more socially useful ends, and create a capitalism with a human face. Even PAS, whose Islamic agenda I find disquieting, is supportive of a socially more responsible capitalism and has done little to alienate existing businessmen in Kelantan.
So do not be afraid to vote opposition if you are concerned about the economy in general. Reform is needed in the Malaysian economy, but the Barisan seems increasingly incapable of delivering it. If the Barisan Alternative does not run the economy more rationally, fairly, and efficiently we have THE OPTION OF CHUCKING THEM OUT IN 5 YEARS.
In the next installment, I will discuss why an opposition government can be stable, and much less Islamic-focussed than most people think. In fact, the future looks to be more Islamic with a Barisan victory.
The Barisan Nasional has lost its way. To secure power, it now relies so unashamedly on scare tactics and instigating the deepest fears of the people. The party can’t even come up with a decent manifesto that can give people an ennobling vision of the future and speak to their aspirations. What a poor exhausted party! Some think that a sign of a deteriorating culture is when people have lost the capacity for shame. What a feast of ironies we are witnessing. A party that once was the self-proclaimed protector of the Malays must now turn desperately to the Chinese for a political bail out. A party that uses Islam for its own purposes must now frighten people about the Islamic state.
In this topsy-turvy theatre of the absurd, we are asked to consider the bigger picture. It must be the most psychedelic kind of art because few can figure out the bigger picture. But we are being told that the issue boils down to a stark choice between some kind of extremist Islamic society and a moderate, essentially secular society, ostensibly tolerant of pluralism in society. With all the scare tactics, and half-truths, the ordinary person can be forgiven for thinking that there is grave danger in voting for the opposition. A vote for DAP is a vote for PAS !
At times like this, we must not get mired in false polarities and look instead at the wider dynamic at work. It is always good to view the world as not static. UMNO is not static, and neither is PAS. I write not to defend PAS but to reject the false picture the Barisan Nasional is projecting of PAS and its allies. I am not drawn to any kind of theocratic state, and would certainly want to watch PAS closely. But what really is the Malaysian situation, and why do I think that the Islamic issue is not an issue for the next 5 years?
First of all why did PAS become so fundamentalist in the last 10-15 years. I remember it more as a party pushing strongly for Malay special rights in the 1960s than as a rigid religious party. Let us examine simple political dynamics. UMNO’s behaviour shapes PAS in a fundamental way. When UMNO pushed Malay special rights in a strong way after 1969, it stole much of PAS's thunder. UMNO also did things to enhance its religious credentials. In doing these, it caused PAS to lose much of the middle ground in the fight for the Malay voter. So what does a party like PAS do under such circumstances? To survive, it must move to secure a committed if somewhat narrow base. As is usually the case with parties pushed out of centrist politics, PAS became rigid ideologically and began to attack the overall political system as it strove to take the moral high ground. There were definite pay-offs for PAS in doing so, which was helped by UMNO becoming increasingly materialistic and crony-based. The more self-seeking UMNO politicians became, the greater the pay-offs to PAS for taking a moral-religious stance. Hence it was able to make a few inroads here and there.
But imagine the scenario where UMNO loses its middle ground. How will PAS behave? Well, if matter acts to fill a vacuum, so do political parties. When Mahathir made his moves against Anwar -- in retrospect, the biggest failure of his political life because he gained a few years in power but squandered his legacy -- he lost the middle ground which UMNO had occupied for so long. I was so sure that even in the economic crisis, UMNO and the Barisan would reign supreme, until he sacked and bullied a key figure who had helped to secure UMNO’s large base. Now PAS and Keadilan see an opportunity to capture more ground than just the narrowly Islamic one. PAS of course needs to keep the religiously-committed on its side, but notice how much it is trying to play down some of its central tenets. PAS is not necessarily being insincere. It is a party trapped between satisfying its hard-core base as well as those party leaders representing the previous orientation, and moving in a more moderate direction to seize the support of many unhappy people.
Now we need to think carefully. Who will moderate PAS – the Barisan or the allies of PAS. Isn’t it plain that UMNO has been trying to match PAS all these years rather than vice versa? The more UMNO is successful, the more PAS becomes radicalized in an Islamic direction. It is the other opposition parties, such as DAP and Keadilan, that are restraining PAS, and showing the way to another kind of politics. The more the other opposition parties obtain the support of the voters, the more moderate PAS will become. For heaven’s sake, if you want to make sure PAS becomes more moderate over time, make sure you support Keadilan and DAP in a strong way. A vote for DAP is not a vote for PAS. It is the very opposite. It is a vote to bring PAS into the mainstream of Malaysian politics, where parties focus on fighting for the middle ground. Pas will not change overnight, but eventually new members and new leaders in Pas will gain advantages from working with moderate multi-racial parties. If you want to keep PAS radical and fundamentalist, you can do no better than vote strongly for the Barisan and reject Keadilan and DAP.
I am no soothsayer, but I am quite sure PAS will become more fundamentalist were Barisan Nasional to win handsomely. And if there is no check on BN’s authoritarianism and corruption, religion will serve further as the language of moral outrage. So please think hard. Do you want to give incentives for the opposition to co-operate or not? Or do you want to kill any future incentive for them to co- operate by voting against them. Let us look further at the whole business of secularism versus Islam that the electorate is being asked to face. I am flabbergasted that even academics who should know better portray Malaysian politics as a simple battle between these two polarities. By what logic can one say that UMNO represents the secular alternative? It patrols religion, enforces religious conformity among the Muslims, and decides what is true Islam and what is not. Remember the earlier national threat before Soros – the Al Arqam movement. It bans other religions from proselytizing among the Muslim community, tried to take away parental control of their children’s religious choices, and has made it difficult for the other religions to obtain sites for religious worship. You tell me what kind of secularism this is. Does the state show neutrality in the face of different religious claims, as the properly secular state does? The answer is no. So why the big fuss among the non-Muslims about PAS being Islamic. If non-Muslims were true liberals, I can understand if they got upset about PAS for controlling religious behaviour AMONG THE MUSLIMS even more than UMNO. But I doubt that this is the reason some non-Malays are petrified over PAS. They are probably more worried about being forced to become Muslim themselves or having to forgo their beer, pork, and occasional flutter. But again, is this a warranted fear.
Let us assume PAS becomes more powerful and fundamentalist. Then what? Look at Islamic history and PAS’ actual behaviour. Islam can be very protective of other religions, and other cultures. Islam gave a lot of protection to the Jews in medieval society. Experts in anthropology tell me that PAS has secured orang asli rights much more strenuously than UMNO ever did. And guess what. PAS approved Chinese and Hindu temples in Kelantan without too much fuss, as opposed to UMNO’s recalcitrance. UMNO and PAS appear to be approaching Islam in different ways – UMNO in a political way and PAS, though not above politics, has a more fundamentalist approach that actually gives more space to other religions. Another irony. I am not particularly keen on either of the two options, but it is simply false to put the matter as a struggle between secular politics and religious extremism. Please ask yourself which group wanted Malaysians to be identified by their religion in their I.C. cards. Let’s look further at the issue of political stability. The Barisan has claimed that it is a tested party while the opposition, having never ruled the country, is untested. This statement is a tautology. You of course have to ask yourself whether the Barisan under Mahathir is the same Barisan as that under Tengku and Tun Razak. Remember all the misgivings the Tengku and Hussein Onn had over Mahathir’s premiership. Read Khoo Boo Teik’s insightful piece in the Asian Wall Street Journal where he points out that the real threat to political stability is not the opposition but the Barisan Nasional itself. UMNO’s perennial factionalism is exacting a cost on the nation. The Barisan Nasional could not even come up with a respectable manifesto. And ask yourself who has been practicing the politics of hate in the last two years. We are encouraged to hate the West as a way to bind us together artificially. We are asked to pour scorn at the opposition trying to get together strongly for the first time. Is this not a wonderful event for the country? Should we not celebrate this new promising factor of cohesion as Malaysians and as nationalists, no matter who wins the elections. How did things get so perverse?
4. The Hollowing-Out of Morality
When the actions, statements, and policies of the leaders are in accord with the moral intuitions and feelings of the people, they (the people) can actively identify with and feel good about the government and the political system. One of the saddest things in Malaysia has been the loss of the moral basis for rule. Of course some people will say that politics is dirty, or if you are a Mahathir you would probably say “You mean the West is all good and moral and we brown skins are all bad.” But the truth is that by any standard, whether third- world or first- world but not perhaps the underworld, democracy and the rule of law have lost their ethical foundations in Malaysia This election is not so much about whether the economy is doing well or not because as I tried to point out before, it is not hard to generate economic growth in Malaysia; any one can do it. It is not even about Islam versus secularism because PAS is going to be limited in implementing a narrow Islamic system anytime soon, and the Barisan is by no stretch of the imagination an avatar of secular politics. This election is about recovering our moral sense and rationality, and making sure the political system is founded anew on firm principles. One way or another, the political system will affect not just your wallet but the quality of your soul. People might seek an outlet in money-making or simply keep quiet because of fear, but they cannot escape the unease in their hearts.
The Constitution has lost its original basis of providing the necessary safeguard for exercising power in acceptable ways. There are many signs of the political system gone astray. George Orwell pointed out in 1984 that authoritarian systems routinely turn things into their opposites; good becomes evil and evil becomes good. People with a social conscience are troublemakers, while sycophants are treasured. The brilliant, socially-dedicated doctor, Dr Jeyakumar Devaraj, must be banished and punished because he cares too much for the poor. Anwar must be destroyed because he began to worry about a cronyism gone mad. Lim Eng Guan had to be imprisoned because he defended a girl whom he believed was a victim of statutory rape. The morally dubious, on the other hand, are great assets, because they can be counted on to support the regime, and if they ever decided to atone for their sins, they can be blackmailed about their past. Another indication of a morally rudderless system is that truth and falsehood do not matter any more. Not Relevant, as one unlearned Judge might say. Azizan can come with the most bizarre twists and turns in his story and still be taken seriously as a witness. Noryahati (sp.?), the alleged plaything of Rahim, can one day say she is a victim of statutory rape and another that she never had any dealings with the man, and in neither instance does the truth matter. The authorities were only concerned with the political threat or benefit of her statements to the leadership. In the last few days leading up to the elections, words said by people and images are spliced and pieced together to create a manipulated reality, again with no regard for the truth; the only important thing for the leaders is that people react, like so many Pavlovian dogs, to the fabricated stimuli with the intended, non-thinking response. For some time, Mahathir knew he had to play very dirty to hold on to the power he coverts so much. So he turned things around and said that the opposition would play dirty. Some people are screaming “lies, lies, lies” but it does not matter as long as lies work. Mahathir creates a virtual reality for us. He threatens disorder and tells us only the Barisan can provide order. He worsened the falling stock and currency markets by his ranting, and then purported to save the economy. Principles lose any meaning, as Jomo found out when he was attacked frivolously for bringing up a serious Constitutional matter that involved denying 700,000 people their right to vote (As an aside, I would have thought that the man who said he would go when no longer wanted would welcome as many people as possible acting as his judges).
How did the political system become like this? The sad truth is that it has been in the making for a long time. One cannot just blame Mahathir alone for what has happened, but Mahathir’s style of rule and ambition worsened the problems of Malaysian politics and has made it the sorry state it is now. Mahathir in effect created a system of personal rule going far beyond what he accused the Tengku of doing. This system is a common occurrence in Africa and to some extent in Asia, but thankfully it is on the wane in our region. In this system, the leader converts all institutions to serve his own political and economic interests. In other words, the media, the judiciary, the police, the Central Bank all come under the direct influence of the top leader, and they cease to act according to their prescribed professional codes. In the more advanced (medical sense of the term) stages of personal rule, nearly all organisations in society are expected to owe their allegiance to the leader. In Malaysia recently, medical and religious organisations joined in the chorus of singing praises to the leader and his party, further helping to spread the culture of sycophancy. Key economic institutions are also part of the setup. Banks, for example, can be pressured to advance a loan to a crony just as they are expected to recall or withdraw the loans of a disloyal person. You can see why this system will infect and slowly destroy any considerations of proper conduct and professional ethics.
To convince you that we are in a system of personal rule, and that this system has many dangers for the society, let me lay out more symptoms of personal rule.
1. The merger of leader and nation
One fascinating dynamic that occurs with personal rule is the fusing of the leader and the nation. The leader is the nation and the nation is the leader. This state of mind occurs as a natural product of the leader not recognising the autonomy of social institutions and the role of civic groups in defining the public good. The public, for the leader, is just a bunch of amorphous people to be controlled, bribed, or punished to serve his purposes, while only the leader is the embodiment of the public interest. Since personal rulers tend to rule for a very long time, and we all know that power is intoxicating, they delude themselves into thinking that they alone can rule. That is why so many countries want to have term limitations on a ruler because they fear the corrupting effect of power, not just in the money sense, but for bringing about dangerous conditions such as megalomania and paranoia.
Mahathir has equated himself with the nation, and since the nation is good, he can only be good. He can act cynically and cruelly and yet feel he is doing the right thing.
Morality, legal processes, and proper procedures are just so many obstacles to realising his will. An attack on the leader is an attack on the nation, and since the nation is good, the attacker must be evil, bad, subversive. That is why Mahathir can be so prickly when people go against him. His anger at the West is mainly due to the fact that their leaders are not so constrained as his silenced majority for criticizing him. Local critics can be sued (what is the going rate now -- $60 million ? – and from a person who said years ago that litigation was a Western evil) or given a black eye in jail. Everywhere in the democratic world, leaders take criticism in stride -- even foreign criticism is no big deal. But an authoritarian, who has merged his persona with the nation, can go berserk, because he is so used to sycophancy and dominance. The whole nation must be mobilized to hate his attackers too. It might seem absurd to many thinking people, but all authoritarians have a penchant for labeling local critics and activists as foreign agents. This is part of the mind set that cannot accept other individuals and groups as legitimate and equally capable of representing the public interest. When I talk to people from the third world, especially if they come from non-democratic countries, I have always been puzzled why they keep referring to the CIA as some kind of lurking danger in their society. My experience in Malaysia until recently thought me to see foreigners and foreign institutions as relatively benign, and not something to obsess about. I worry that Malaysians will begin to develop a siege mentality, become as paranoid as their leader, and compromise our ability to interact with the world in effective ways. It would be a pity if the system of personal rule began to hurt our quest for truth-seeking and rational discourse. Over time, we can become stupid. Certainly, the first step has occurred when the regime treats us as stupid.
2. The nation’s enemies widen
In the system of personal rule, we tend find an ever-expanding circle of enemies of the state. Everyone can become a potential enemy, even people who are decent or erstwhile establishment figures. Personal rule is based on personal obedience and allegiance to the ruler, and this narrow criterion determines who is an enemy and who is not. It is not the wider moral system or legal system which determines who is a threat to the nation. Not relevant. In the 1960s, the communists were the nation’s enemies. At least then, one could argue that many people in the society considered communism as inappropriate, and the methods used by its advocates as illegal. Harsh laws were tolerated because people agreed broadly on the common enemy. Now, the circle of enemies has widened. Many respected people have been locked up, from Muzafar, to Anwar to Lim Eng Guan. These are not subversives but people who represent some of the best qualities of Malaysians. Yet they are dangerous while the most depraved and corrupt are free to roam around to plan their next exploit. When people are turned over and subject to blatant legal extortion, as Nalla was when he was given a choice between saving his life and incriminating a friend, it produces a generalized fear in society. The Nalla case still sends chills up my spine. And sadly there is no shame on the part of the power-holders anymore. Can we the citizens merely say, “It does not involve me. This is politics.” Well if you think like this, let me tell you about an interesting article written once on the effects of repression on Argentinean society during the 1970s. The author used the poignant term “the infantilization of society” to describe how people behaved. In other words adults began to behave like children. People could not express their true feelings, and had to echo whatever the leaders said, lest they be identified as the enemy. People had lost their ability to be human -- to think, see things as they are, and to act accord to their moral feelings. They had to live with intense propaganda which they did not believe but could not reject explicitly either. Society became a bunch of infants. If you want an early second childhood, well, you are in the right place.
A corollary to the widening circle of enemies, is the constricting circle of well- rewarded friends around the leader. When the leader does not have public acclaim, he needs his court jesters to prop him up. Ling Liong Sik tells us that we must clone a thousand Mahathirs. Imagine a thousand mini-Mahathirs running around. Watch out Austin Powers, Soros, Al Gore, and IMF. One of Mahathir’s son has said that his father has done so much for the country he ought to deserve more rewards. And Badawi tells us what a good listener Mahathir is. He listens to good ideas but gets bored with uninteresting ideas. I wonder how Mahathir responded to the cloning idea? On the international stage, our close friends will increasingly be authoritarian countries such as Burma, China, Zimbabwe, and Cuba, and other societies too polite to mention the leader’s blemishes openly. We look set to collide not just with Western countries, but also the increasingly democratic countries in Asia. What a reversal of history – a once amiable nation now becoming a little attack dog.
3. Flirting with the Occult
When all morality is deplete, do not be surprised if leaders turn to the occult for guidance. Powerful leaders do not feel constrained by any legal principle or moral framework, although they might go through religious rituals in a perfunctory manner. A leader not restrained by society or its tacit moral intuitions will feel like a mini-God. In so many places, they have turned to the occult for guidance. Remember Ne Win, the butcher of Burma, who took his country down the tubes, and massacred so many young, idealistic students who wished to see more democracy in their country. This man turned to numerology to guide him in his actions, including the most propitious dates to declare martial law, mow down students and so on. There is something about power that makes it gravitate toward the occult. I have been amused but concerned to read that Mahatir might be flirting with numerology. If true, it fits with what I have been saying about the psychological dynamics of personal rule. Ne Win’s magical number was 9 but apparently Mahathir’s is 2. Anwar was sacked on Sept 2 ( 9+2=11 = 1+1=2); he was arrested on Sept 20 (9+2+0=11=1+1=2); the election nomination date was Nov 20 (2+0=2), and elections will be held on the 29th (2+9=11=1+1= you figure!). This is most intriguing, and if true, it gives one more indication that the leader is more concerned to consult the occult than the people in running society. Perhaps Mahathir should bring in a feng shui expert as a minister without portfolio in the next government, which he is likely to form because I am sure the cosmos will provide enough phantom votes for him.
.
Our cognitive capacities and moral sensibilities have been battered in the last few years. Good has become evil and evil has become good. Truth has become lfalsehood and and falsehood has become truth. You might think this is all temporary, and after the elections, things can return to normal. We can then regain our morality and rationality.
Be aware that the unprecedented events of the last 2 years will make it very hard to return to the status quo ante. If UMNO were a pluralistic organisation with many differing views, I would be more optimistic about change coming from within. Mahathir has removed, following the logic personal rule, any alternative power centre within UMNO. Mahathir has no choice but to cultivate yes man and economic rip- off artists who are unlikely to withstand the test of close scrutiny on their worth (moral not financial). How could the present leaders ever tolerate a more open political system. So much dirt has been revealed in public during the last year and a half, and there remain so many unanswered questions, that the party cannot allow a more truthful society to emerge. So many people of dubious morality need to be protected. All indications are the system will have to remain authoritarian long after the elections. The media, which has disgusted so many people, cannot fundamentally change. Which authoritarian leader would want to straighten out the judiciary, and put in place the quality of judges that were under Tun Suffian. In systems like this, change appears only possible with a clear win for the opposition.
No matter what you thought of Anwar before, his experience in prison would have made him a better man, if you did not think him so before. Think of all the imprisoned leaders of the past, from Gandhi, Nehru, Mandela to Kim Dae Jung, who came to power and provided a new beginning for their societies. Malaysia has a great opportunity to start again. For those of you who consider money a foremost human quest, there is no reason why a new government cannot generate a good rate of economic growth. Islam is a red herring, and any untoward movement toward medieval Islam can be reversed in the future. The risk of things going wrong are small. The social energy that will be released by a change of government will be good for society in the long-run. Both the Barisan Nasional and the archaic leaders of PAS fear this change. If the non-Malays in particular vote strongly for DAP and Keadilan, you will help eliminate a system that is hollowing out morally.
RESPECT YOURSELF AND MAKE THE COUNTRY DECENT AGAIN ALL THE BEST TO MALAYSIA