I started this piece by laying out your track record to remind all of us that you have contributed immensely to the nation. However, that one slip, if I may be permitted to call it that, is going to tarnish everything that you have done. Malaysians will never remember the 1,000 good things that you did. They will only remember the one thing that you did, which they do not agree with.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Dear Tunku, in 1998, you helped found Transparency International-Malaysia, the local chapter of Transparency International (TI), and soon after that you were elected the vice chairman of TI’s Board of Directors, a position you held until October 2002.

No one can deny the role you played in fighting corruption and in promoting good governance in the Asia region, including propagating corporate governance, something severely lacking in Malaysia. Being a member of the Kedah Royal Family, that also links you to His Majesty the Agong, although you may be not that closely linked to the ruling family.

You served as a member of the World Bank High Level Advisory Group on Anti-Corruption in the East Asia and Pacific Region, the Asia Pacific Advisory Panel on Good Urban Governance, the Board of the International Institute of Public Ethics, and the United Nations Development Programme Advisory Panel for the 2002 Human Development Report.

From February 2006 to January 2007, you served in New York as special advisor to the Secretary General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan. During your tenure, you set up the UN Ethics Office.

These are certainly most impressive credentials by any standards and it is no wonder that DAP not only wanted you as its member but immediately appointed you as the party Vice Chairman on top of that.

I must admit, though, that I was quite puzzled as to why you decided in 2008 to become politically active. For 14 years you had fought for the same thing that we are fighting for. And, just like many of us, you chose to fight outside the political arena rather than within it. Then you went and became a politician.

Knowing your background and understanding how you think, I suspected that you may not have the political culture required to become a good politician, although how one would define ‘good’ is another matter altogether.

My late father was born in 1925. You were born nine years later in 1934. You studied in England, as did my father. You worked for a British multi-national, as did my father. And both you and my father are not only members of the royal family but are pre-Merdeka Malays — where Malays of that era, especially those from the elite class and products of a British education, were more English than Englishmen.

Hence, while I do not know you that well — I only met you in 2008 — I do know what my father was like and I do understand what made Malays, in particular ‘elite’ Malays of that era, tick. And unless I am terribly wrong, you probably have the same heart and mind as my father. And because of that you are certainly not suited for a career in politics.

Please do not get me wrong, Tunku. My father hated Umno, although almost all his contemporaries joined Umno and became members of the new post-Merdeka government in 1957. There was hardly a single corporate chief, senior civil servant, or political leader of that era who did not know my father. But he refused to join the government either as a civil servant or a politician. He just did not believe in politics.

That did not mean he did not vote though. And he not only voted but he voted opposition as well, Gerakan to be precise. But that was only because Gerakan was then an opposition party and a party of what he regarded as intellectuals from a mixed-racial background.

My father was already 1Malaysia and anti-Umno long before the concept became popular. Unfortunately, my father died in 1971 before he could retire or else I believe he may have even become politically active with the opposition had he lived until retirement age, like you did, Tunku. Sometimes I think it is maybe fortunate that he died in 1971 before he could see Gerakan join Barisan Nasional, which, I am sure, would have broken his heart.

My father was so proud that he voted Gerakan he would tell the whole world that he did so, much to my mother’s horror who would tell him to shush. He had high hopes that the days of racial politics had come to an end and that the future lies with multi-racial parties like Gerakan, which was headed by a whole bunch of intellectuals.

And I suppose that is why I think the way I think and do things that I do. My father’s ‘indoctrination’ had a lasting affect on me and made me into what I am today, whether that is a good or bad I really do not know.

Anyway, what I wanted to say is: knowing my father, and hence knowing you as well — unless I am wrong in my assessment — it may be prudent that you gracefully resign from DAP. Since what you stand for is not quite what DAP also stands for, your graceful exit on the understanding that you have agreed to disagree would mean you can still remain friends although you may not quite share the same views.

I started this piece by laying out your track record to remind all of us that you have contributed immensely to the nation. However, that one slip, if I may be permitted to call it that, is going to tarnish everything that you have done. Malaysians will never remember the 1,000 good things that you did. They will only remember the one thing that you did, which they do not agree with.

The trouble with you, Tunku, is that you think like an Englishman. Hence, if it is not cricket, as they say in England, you will speak your mind. But in politics you can’t do that. You need to toe the party line. You have to do what is good for the party. And if you can’t do this then you have no business being in the party.

I trust what I say will be taken in the spirit it has been said. I certainly mean no disrespect. The fact that I have drawn parallels between you and my father demonstrates the tremendous respect I have for you. It is just that the longer you remain in DAP the more they will demonise you. And for someone who has done so much for the nation you really do not deserve the things they are saying about you or what they are doing to you.

I do hope we can one day meet again, maybe here in the UK, where we can shoot the breeze and talk about the good old days when Malays and Malaysians in general were decent human beings who put the nation above self-interest.

Till we next meet, Tunku, may salam to you and the family.

And what is the will of the people? The people want free, fair and clean elections. Only through a free, fair and clean election will the country see changes. But how do you see a free, fair and clean election if there is no change? And how would you see change if there are no free, fair and clean elections? That is what is called a Catch 22 situation. You need change to see the elections that you want. But you will never see change unless the election system first changes.

From THE CORRIDORS OF POWER
By Raja Petra Kamarudin

Now that Bersih 3.0 is over and the euphoria has subsided a bit, maybe we can get back down to ‘normal’ business. But then what would we regard as normal in the context of Malaysia? I suppose there is nothing that can be considered normal when it comes to Malaysia. After all, Malaysia is not a normal country so the definition of normal would not apply here.

How can Malaysia be regarded as normal when the government shouts One-Malaysia but Malaysia is not one. Malaysia is a country of four classes of people. At the top echelon is the Umnoputra, the ruling elite. Next comes the Rajaputra, the members of Malaysia’s Royal Family that can literally get away with murder. Then we have the Bumiputera or sons-of-the-soil, the race that receives preferential treatment. Finally, at the bottom of the list is what we call the non-Bumiputera, those whose ancestors came from India or China 500 years or so ago and became Malaysian citizens in 1957.

Yes, some Malaysians are 20 generation citizens but they are still considered ‘immigrants’ while others who are second generation citizens can go on to become the Prime Minister of Malaysia. If that can’t be considered abnormal then I do not know what can.

Would the word ‘normal’, therefore, apply to Malaysia? Malaysia is a secular nation with Parliamentary elections and a Constitutional Monarchy. Absolutism was abolished when the Straits Settlements, Federated Malay States and Unfederated Malay States were abolished and merged into the Federation of Malaya when independence or Merdeka was granted by the British in 1957. Yet you can get punished under Malaysia’s Sedition Act if you criticise the Crown just like during the time of Henry VIII or Elizabeth I hundreds of years ago in England when the Monarch was ‘appointed by God’ and absolutism ruled the realm.

Malaysia is certainly a contradiction of the highest degree. And only in secular Malaysia can God’s law be imposed on Muslims and punishment meted out for crimes against God like just like during the time of Henry VIII or Elizabeth I hundreds of years ago in England when the Monarch was appointed by God and absolutism ruled the realm.

Hence, what is normal? Normal is what the ruling elite says is normal. And one man’s meat is another man’s poison.

Malaysians are faced with a Catch 22 situation. And if you do not understand what Catch 22 means then go look it up. We need to see major reforms in Malaysia. Malaysia is still living in the past. As the ex-Prime Minister Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said, Malaysia is a country with first-world infrastructure but third-world mentality.

This is actually very true. If you were to read the comments in Malaysia Today made by so-called ‘progressive’ Malaysians you can see that these are comments by people with a third-world mentality. Right can be wrong and wrong can be right as long as it suits their agenda. They would readily apply the rule of the ends justifying the means when it is in their favour and oppose this concept when it works against them. The Malays call this ‘matlamat menghalalkan cara’.

Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak understands and appreciates this. After all, he is very westernised in his thinking, as is his entire family. But understanding and appreciating it is one thing. Whether he can do anything about the matter is another thing altogether.

Yes, Najib knows what needs to be done. And he realises that if he does not do what needs to be done then Umno and Barisan Nasional are at the end of their days. But he is not at liberty to do the right thing. And he is not at liberty because he is not really the Prime Minister. He is merely a de facto Prime Minister. But then was this not the dilemma faced by many leaders over the last 200 years since the late 1700s who had to allow circumstances to dictate what they do and paid a heavy price for resisting the will of the people?

And what is the will of the people? The people want free, fair and clean elections. Only through a free, fair and clean election will the country see changes. But how do you see a free, fair and clean election if there is no change? And how would you see change if there are no free, fair and clean elections? That is what is called a Catch 22 situation. You need change to see the elections that you want. But you will never see change unless the election system first changes.

It is almost like a chicken and the egg situation. Which comes first, the chicken or the egg? Which comes first, changes or free, fair and clean elections? Without changes there will not be any free, fair and clean elections and without free, fair and clean elections there will never be change.

And this is not the dilemma facing just Malaysians but also Najib’s dilemma as well. Najib is not stupid. After all, he studied in England. He knows the history of the Congress of Vienna of 1815. The Congress of Vienna was a move to defend the rule of absolutism and to deny the people democracy and self-rule. But that same Congress accelerated the downfall of absolutism and triggered the revolutions of the 1840s and the creation of republics all over Europe during the second half of the 1800s.

Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat its mistakes. Najib knows this. But can you change the course of history? They thought they could, 200 years ago in Europe. But history has shown us that you can’t. Ultimately, the people’s will decides the course of history. And, today, Malaysia is where Europe was 200 years ago.

And that is how I see Bersih 1.0, Bersih 2.0 and Bersih 3.0 last weekend. I will stop here for now while you digest what I have just said. But I am certainly far from finished. So stay tuned where I will take you through the second and maybe third parts of this analysis. In Oxford they only allow you 1,000 words for your essay and my essay has already exceeded this word limit by almost 50 words.

(Malaysian Digest) – PKR de facto leader and deputy president were castigated in a media conference by reporters from various news portals and newspapers as the pair faced accusations of being the culprits responsible for inciting protesters to invade the barricaded Dataran Merdeka during last weekend’s Bersih 3.0 rally.
Both Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim and Azmin Ali found themselves on the defense during in yesterday’s press conference at the party headquarters, deflecting onslaughts from distraught journalists from both pro-government media as well as those known to have leaning towards the Opposition.

In the wake of yesterday’s heated media conference, Utusan Malaysia ran a story today titled ‘Pembohongan Anwar, Azmin ‘dilondeh’ wartawan’ (Anwar, Azmin’s lies exposed by reporters) where it recounted a Malaysian Digest reporter confronting Anwar at the press conference by saying that he had clearly heard what Anwar had told the protesters during Saturday’s ‘Duduk Bantah’ rally.

“I was near you and I clearly heard you say to the protesters that ‘You can enter Dataran Merdaka… You can enter…’” Malaysian Digest’s Shaik Mohamad Amin Shaik Alaudin told Anwar during the onslaught of criticisms from journalists.

Visibly upset by Shaik Mohamad Amin’s comment, Anwar and Azmin then resorted to accusing Malaysian Digest as well as other media representatives incluing Agenda Daily and The Mole of being “Umno media”.

When pressed further, Anwar tried to divert attention by highlighting that the rally’s ‘300,000’ turnout is of more importance than the issue of protesters breaking through the police barricades which resulted in a riot, marring the demonstration which was planned as a peaceful sit-in.

However, Anwar was confronted once again when a Bersih 3.0 protester, Benjy Lim (left), suddenly came up and accused the Opposition leader of being responsible for causing the chaos.

Lim said Anwar’s purported action of inciting protesters had caused people to be exposed to danger where lives were at risk.

“I know how the police operate in this country because I was not born yesterday. The riot happened because the Opposition started it,” said Lim, who had refused to accept Anwar’s explanation that the police were the ones to blame.

Upon failing to give an objective explanation to Lim’s accusation, Anwar then promised to ‘entertain’ Lim in a separate session as the conference was exclusively for the media.