Umno's scapegoats aplenty

I argued before the last general election that increased support for Umno would only result in a more vengeful and arbitrary government that would hark back to the dark days of Mahathirism. No sooner have I been proven right.

Granted, what the Alvivi duo had done was sheer stupidity and deserved to be condemned in no uncertain terms. But their exhibitionist publicity stunt - outrageous it certainly was - was no more harmful than the racist remarks uttered by the likes of Mahathir Mohamad, Ibrahim Ali and Zulkifli Noordin. Would the authorities go after any of them too? Obviously not.

For all my detestation of racism, I cannot bring myself to endorse any legal action against the racist bigots based on what they have said. Debate and public discourse are both vital ingredients in a democracy, and function as a catalyst for social enlightenment. Hence, it is one’s democratic right to be morally obtuse.

My disdain of Mahathir derives not so much from his divisive, racist and moronic views, but from his wanton resort to tyrannical means in clamping down on public dissent while he enjoyed the excessive powers of churning out one irresponsible statement after another over 22 years.

Acutely aware of the widespread public resentment towards the Barisan Nasional’s misuse of draconian laws and abuse of power, Najib Abdul Razak had no option but to work strenuously to portray himself as a reformist. When political lip service failed to yield the intended outcomes, Najib opted for the abolition of the heavily-criticised Internal Security Act (ISA) and the Emergency Ordinance (EO) in 2011.

Dishing out goodies might help shore up support among the rural voters, but it fell terribly short of winning the hearts and minds of urban and semi-rural Malaysians who turned out to have become far more civic-minded and politically aware after March 2008. Najib and his so-called think-tanks must have hoped that their electoral chances would have significantly improved by a veneer of reformism through the eventual repeal of the two anachronistic pieces of legislation.

They could not have been more wrong. The results of GE13 reveal unambiguously a deep rural-urban divide, notwithstanding the effort by Najib and his cohorts to interpret the aftermath otherwise. Najib is surely furious that Chinese Malaysians have deserted his coalition en masse, and is most probably also despondent at the fact that his ‘political goodwill’ was not reciprocated by urban voters.

With the upcoming Umno party elections - which scholars RS Milne and Diane Mauzy consider as ‘the real elections’ in Malaysia - presenting further challenges and his position being far from secure, Najib again appears to be holding the cards close to his chest as the country is bogged down in incessant religious and racial disputes.

But one thing remains constant - Malaysian society and the opposition are turend into a scapegoat whenever competition in Umno elections becomes stiff.

Be it the Alvivi incident, the threat by Umno-linked clowns to burn the Bible, the ‘changing room canteen’ fiasco, the review of the allegedly pro-communist movie The New Village, or the arrest of Maznah Mohd. Yusof, a Muslim dog trainer, Najib has remained persistently silent as the calls by the conservative forces to reinstate the ISA and the EO are heard louder by the day.

It is more than obvious that, instead of providing a public platform for rational voices to prevail, Najib has continued to acquiesce in all the extreme demands since he cannot afford to be perceived as ‘caving in’ to those who are ‘undermining’ the position of Islam and the Malays. After all, Umno paramountcy dictates that one risks losing one’s hard-fought gains by showing moral leadership.

Heightening the sense of insecurity

Fortunately for him, Najib did not actually do away with the equally oppressive Sedition Act despite having promised to do so, which has become useful for Umno to crack down on its opponents now that the ISA and EO are gone. The on-going persecution of Shiite Muslims is aimed at driving a wedge between the conservative and the liberal camps within PAS, as well as at heightening the sense of insecurity among the Muslims as a whole.

Coming on the heels of a series of public shootings that killed several individuals including a prominent banker, Najib posted a message on his Facebook stating that “it is up to the police to ask from the government what they require and will (sic) give them what is needed to raise the effectiveness of the force in fighting serious crime”.

I can hardly believe it. Najib is practically telling the public his hands are tied even as PM and he is beholden to the police force, which is now a state within a state. Confronted with rising crime rates, both the home minister and the police have been warning the general public not to place the blame on the force.

Choosing to look the other way over the fact that much of our police force is not directed at crime-busting but suppressing dissent, they are building up a case for a replacement law that would be as repressive as its predecessors, if not more.

Hence, all the shambles that Malaysians are witnessing now has happened for a reason, which is to create an atmosphere of fear and anxiety so that the weak-minded could be frightened into thinking that Orwellian state - once thoroughly imposed by Mahathir - represented still an ideal solution to managing a multi-ethnic country.

But arbitrary laws only give fetters to the powerless and privileges to the powerful in Malaysia, while severely inhibiting Malaysians’ ability to discover and embrace natural freedom. As French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau argues, man is endowed with the intellect and reason to acquieisce in or resist arbitrary control, and “it is above all in the consciousness of this freedom that the spirituality of his soul is shown”.

There is no denying that, as human beings, we can be offended, hurt or angered, but the state has no business in regulating how one should respond to these feelings. How different are we from the beast in a bullfight if we are so incapable of taking charge of how we should express our thoughts and sentiments but leave it to the state, especially one that is intellectually vacuous, morally bankrupt and politically preposterous?

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.