The return of Mahathirism

It was reported that some 3,000 Felda settlers were given the ‘honour’ of previewing the controversial film Tanda Putera together with former prime minister Mahathir Mohamad last Monday.

This did not surprise me given that Mahathir is now the de facto commander-in-chief for Umno. But for those who naively believe Najib Abdul Razak to be a sincere leader trying his utmost to reach out to the people regardless of creed, race and religion, they should be rightly concerned that the instruction to show the propagandistic film actually came from the Prime Minister's Office. Yet another proof of Najib's duplicity!

That Mahathir had to be brought back to shore up support among the Felda settlers is a strong indication of Najib’s lack of confidence. It is also plain that the accusation by the National Association of Felda Settlers’ Children (Anak) that Felda is engaged in dodgy land deals is gaining credence.

For all his talk of reform, Najib knows full well that Umno, being a Malay party, is like a leopard that cannot change its spots overnight. It never will unless there is a seismic political change in the country. With the Chinese vote gone and Indian support hanging in the balance, Najib has to ensure Umno remains strong in its traditional constituency. When it comes to this, no-one is better at the job than Mahathir.

But Mahathir is a bane for many non-Malays, and  his racist remarks are most hurtful to those who sincerely regard Malaysia as their only home. When confronted with the home truth of illegal migrants in Sabah, Mahathir sought to divert the issue by blaming Tunku Abdul Rahman for having granted citizenship to up to a million non-Malays at independence.

Recently, he also suggested in a rather malicious manner that people should give Barisan Nasional a two-thirds majority in Parliament so that our constitution could be amended to revoke the citizenship of certain ‘errant’ lawyers such as Ambiga Sreenevasan.

Outrageous his view may have been, it was clearly meant for the conservative segment of the Malay constituency. What makes it interesting to observe is that Mahathir appears to relish playing up the citizenship issue vis-a-vis non-Malays only.

For instance, he has never included Abdul Samad Said in his list of attack despite that the national laureate is a core leader of the Bersih movement, perhaps mindful that doing so would not go down well with the Malay community in view of Pak Samad’s high esteem.

Mahathir is acutely aware of his own mixed heritage, which explains partly why, throughout his six-decades long political career, he would not hesitate to portray himself as a ‘real’ Malay fighter. It is meant to compensate for his inferiority complext no doubt, but one should really question why on earth should one feel inadequate at having Indian blood.

Even with his nemesis Anwar Ibrahim, Mahathir has never questioned his citizenship, labelling the opposition leader as a ‘traitor to the Malays’ or ‘US stooge’ instead.

Heightening the siege mentality

Every time when Mahathir comments on citizenship of non-Malays, he invariably heightens the siege mentality of his intended audience and reinforces the notion that this land belongs first and foremost to Malays. Being a non-Malay seems like an ‘original sin’ and we are only ‘tolerated’ thanks to Umno’s ‘generosity’ and ‘benevolence’.

On revocation of citizenship, Mahathir has been wrong to say the government would need a two-thirds majority. In fact, Chapter II of the current constitution of the federation of Malaysia already provides that one’s citizenship may be terminated if the government is satisfied that one ‘has shown himself by act or speech to be disloyal or disaffected towards the federation’. (Article 25(1)(a)).

In 1961, the Tunku-led government of the then-Malaya revoked the citizenship of Lim Lian Geok, a prominent educationist, under this Article because the latter had been opposed to the education policies at the time. Lim in turn argued that the government ought to list out the allegations of 'disloyalty' and 'disaffection' against him, and fought his case all the way to the Privy Council in London, only to be dismissed.

He died in 1985 a stateless man and the case still represents a major miscarriage of justice in Malaysia.

But Mahathir must be reminded that Malaysia is duty-bound to ensure any termination of citizenship would not result in statelessness, as set out under Article 26B(2) of the constitution. Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights also spells out that ‘everyone has the right to nationality’ and that ‘no-one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality’.

Hence, not only are Mahathir's remarks on Ambiga’s citizenship belittling and irresponsible, they are also against the rule of law.
Now that Najib is counting on this hateful man to revive his dwindling political fortunes, there is a high probability that, should Umno be returned to power with increased support, Mahathirism, too, would make a full comeback. It does send chills down my spine as there is no scenario more nightmarish and catastrophic than this.

JOSH HONG studied politics at London Metropolitan University and the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London. A keen watcher of domestic and international politics, he longs for a day when Malaysians will learn and master the art of self-mockery, and enjoy life to the full in spite of politicians.