Mahathir deserves immunity
MGG PillaiPublished: Apr 2, 2001 6:50 AM | Updated: Jan 29, 2008 6:21 PM
There is much to commend Dr Mahathir Mohamad for what he did in his 20 years as prime minister. He was an effective voice of the underdogs of the world, held his ground to raise Malaysia's status in the eyes of the world.
There is much to commend Dr Mahathir Mohamad for what he did in his 20 years as prime minister. He was an effective voice of the underdogs of the world, held his ground to raise Malaysia's status in the eyes of the world.
He was accepted as a statesman, scarce as they are in recorded history. He would have been regarded thus if he had retired about five years ago. He is not now. Not since how he humiliated and destroyed his then deputy prime minister, Anwar Ibrahim.
He is viewed now as a petty, vindictive politician few, even those in his Umno party and in his cabinet, listen to. He needs to pay for crowds to prove he is still popular as Malaysia's leader. When he visited Gombak last week, it fell flat even if newspapers crowed about the 10,000 who turned up. Malaysiakini reported that TAR College students were paid RM10 each to turn up, and others said of secondary school students similarly paid ([#1]Students paid RM10 to attend PM's ceramah[/#], March 29).
Why should he when he competes with no one. And the big crowds would prove nothing, and does not reflect his relationship with the ground. That is bad for he wants to upstage the crowds the opposition collects. Instead of reacting to it as a statesman, he descends into petty politics and one-upmanship. That brings about his worst nightmares.
His statements reflect party politicking than national resilience. He views every action of the opposition and those who disagree with him as enemies of the state. They are not; they cannot be. His reason deserts him, and he loses control. He should not.
His past actions catch up with him. It was he who forced through Parliament and Barisan Nasional-controlled state assemblies constitutional amendments to strip the rulers of their immunity. I was against it then, as I am now of moves to make him accountable for acts of omission and commission, as what happened to Suharto of Indonesia and Estrada of the Philippines.
Blame of the blameless
It is the people who put him there and allowed him to do as he liked who should be blamed. He would not have gone as far if he had been checked; now the people want blood but only when they are sure he slips down the greasy pole of power. And overcompensates for their impotence by damning the man.
But he as head of government should have immunity, as the head of state. Political correctness, often decided on the spur of the moment, does not make good sense, once the target of ire disappears. Mahathir surely must realise that now. There cannot also be a system, unfortunately, when the King and sultans are bereft of immunity, but not the prime minister.
So if the rulers are denied immunity, it is difficult for him to have it. He is, in other words, caught in an abyss he created. And insists, as in Umno petty-politicking in Kelantan, that the proposed constitutional amendments to bring the state in line with the centre and the other states, is wrong.
It is important that the head of state and government not look over his or her shoulders before acting in the national interest. This includes acts that could put you and me in jail. In the exercise of power, this is inevitable. But Malaysian courts, in the Anwar trial, insist it cannot be. And this haunts Mahathir.
Yes, long years in power evince misuse. But the state has checks and balances, which in Malaysia was systematically destroyed, with few questioning or challenging it. Like the huge defamation awards in the Malaysian courts now haunt authority when ordinary men or women in the street obtain RM100 million and more in defamation damages from government-controlled bodies, like television stations.
In gridlock and apoplexy
What these ill-thought-out actions cause is a gridlock from which escape is well nigh impossible. Normally sensible people froth in apoplexy when it is suggested that we are demeaned when our head of government or state are brought, like common criminals, into court. BN's, and Umno's, problems worsened in Pahang when the sultan was brought before a special court over a land deal that went sour. The case was dismissed but the bitter after-taste made PAS' entry into the state that much easier.
So it would if the prime minister is made to account for his actions. We must look at a country's history beyond the immediate. What the present situation reveals is that Malaysians sleep-walked through the first half-a-century of its independence, feel guilty about it, and overcompensates. That is wrong. As Mahathir would no doubt agree, he was wrong in the constitutional amendments which took away the rulers' inherent immunities.
When institutions are hacked into irrelevance, the system collapses. Mahathir, in his 20 years in power, has much to answer for that. But he could not have done this without our acquiescence. The rape of the judiciary is well known; that it is now on the path to redemption cannot excuse those judges who by their inaction allowed this to happen. The point about sleep-walking did not affect only one or two sections of society.
Immunity to the head of state and government is too small a price for a nation's well-being. If there must be accounting, it must be of everyone else. The prime minister himself should be immune, but not his family or cabinet: their role as his agents is not the same as the sovereign immunity the PM has for his acts.
One man I respect told me this would redound on the prime minister if it is taken to its logical conclusion. Yes, it would. But that is one Dr Mahathir, and not Prime Minister Mahathir, would have to reflect upon, and expiate as best he can. That becomes then a private tragedy, not a national one. That unfortunately is inevitable.
Spiting the face
I do not accept the argument that an example must be made of, to prevent others from going the same route. This is spurious. Capital punishment has not prevented people from murdering, nor the absence of it ensures fewer murders. More laws does not mean less crime, nor vice versa. It is an inexorable march through life that determines how one man behaves as another would not.
In the march through history, even leaders of utmost probity fall by the wayside; it does not therefore mean everyone of similar character would. If we strengthen our institutions, are less prone to sleep-walking, and act out our assigned democratic roles, it would be curtailed without having to impose the laws.
What happened in Malaysia is one we are all party to, one for which we are as much to blame for. Punishing the prime minister to make him more accountable does not resolve that blight on our national character.
The immunity must be absolute. How it could be enforced is another matter. What makes it difficult is the government's refusal to discuss such matters of importance informally and reach a common agreement to set matters right. This proposal that Mahathir be called to account is directed at him personally. There are other ways to deal with it without mortgaging our national self-respect. That is why it should be taken no further.
He was accepted as a statesman, scarce as they are in recorded history. He would have been regarded thus if he had retired about five years ago. He is not now. Not since how he humiliated and destroyed his then deputy prime minister, Anwar Ibrahim.
He is viewed now as a petty, vindictive politician few, even those in his Umno party and in his cabinet, listen to. He needs to pay for crowds to prove he is still popular as Malaysia's leader. When he visited Gombak last week, it fell flat even if newspapers crowed about the 10,000 who turned up. Malaysiakini reported that TAR College students were paid RM10 each to turn up, and others said of secondary school students similarly paid ([#1]Students paid RM10 to attend PM's ceramah[/#], March 29).
Why should he when he competes with no one. And the big crowds would prove nothing, and does not reflect his relationship with the ground. That is bad for he wants to upstage the crowds the opposition collects. Instead of reacting to it as a statesman, he descends into petty politics and one-upmanship. That brings about his worst nightmares.
His statements reflect party politicking than national resilience. He views every action of the opposition and those who disagree with him as enemies of the state. They are not; they cannot be. His reason deserts him, and he loses control. He should not.
His past actions catch up with him. It was he who forced through Parliament and Barisan Nasional-controlled state assemblies constitutional amendments to strip the rulers of their immunity. I was against it then, as I am now of moves to make him accountable for acts of omission and commission, as what happened to Suharto of Indonesia and Estrada of the Philippines.
Blame of the blameless
It is the people who put him there and allowed him to do as he liked who should be blamed. He would not have gone as far if he had been checked; now the people want blood but only when they are sure he slips down the greasy pole of power. And overcompensates for their impotence by damning the man.
But he as head of government should have immunity, as the head of state. Political correctness, often decided on the spur of the moment, does not make good sense, once the target of ire disappears. Mahathir surely must realise that now. There cannot also be a system, unfortunately, when the King and sultans are bereft of immunity, but not the prime minister.
So if the rulers are denied immunity, it is difficult for him to have it. He is, in other words, caught in an abyss he created. And insists, as in Umno petty-politicking in Kelantan, that the proposed constitutional amendments to bring the state in line with the centre and the other states, is wrong.
It is important that the head of state and government not look over his or her shoulders before acting in the national interest. This includes acts that could put you and me in jail. In the exercise of power, this is inevitable. But Malaysian courts, in the Anwar trial, insist it cannot be. And this haunts Mahathir.
Yes, long years in power evince misuse. But the state has checks and balances, which in Malaysia was systematically destroyed, with few questioning or challenging it. Like the huge defamation awards in the Malaysian courts now haunt authority when ordinary men or women in the street obtain RM100 million and more in defamation damages from government-controlled bodies, like television stations.
In gridlock and apoplexy
What these ill-thought-out actions cause is a gridlock from which escape is well nigh impossible. Normally sensible people froth in apoplexy when it is suggested that we are demeaned when our head of government or state are brought, like common criminals, into court. BN's, and Umno's, problems worsened in Pahang when the sultan was brought before a special court over a land deal that went sour. The case was dismissed but the bitter after-taste made PAS' entry into the state that much easier.
So it would if the prime minister is made to account for his actions. We must look at a country's history beyond the immediate. What the present situation reveals is that Malaysians sleep-walked through the first half-a-century of its independence, feel guilty about it, and overcompensates. That is wrong. As Mahathir would no doubt agree, he was wrong in the constitutional amendments which took away the rulers' inherent immunities.
When institutions are hacked into irrelevance, the system collapses. Mahathir, in his 20 years in power, has much to answer for that. But he could not have done this without our acquiescence. The rape of the judiciary is well known; that it is now on the path to redemption cannot excuse those judges who by their inaction allowed this to happen. The point about sleep-walking did not affect only one or two sections of society.
Immunity to the head of state and government is too small a price for a nation's well-being. If there must be accounting, it must be of everyone else. The prime minister himself should be immune, but not his family or cabinet: their role as his agents is not the same as the sovereign immunity the PM has for his acts.
One man I respect told me this would redound on the prime minister if it is taken to its logical conclusion. Yes, it would. But that is one Dr Mahathir, and not Prime Minister Mahathir, would have to reflect upon, and expiate as best he can. That becomes then a private tragedy, not a national one. That unfortunately is inevitable.
Spiting the face
I do not accept the argument that an example must be made of, to prevent others from going the same route. This is spurious. Capital punishment has not prevented people from murdering, nor the absence of it ensures fewer murders. More laws does not mean less crime, nor vice versa. It is an inexorable march through life that determines how one man behaves as another would not.
In the march through history, even leaders of utmost probity fall by the wayside; it does not therefore mean everyone of similar character would. If we strengthen our institutions, are less prone to sleep-walking, and act out our assigned democratic roles, it would be curtailed without having to impose the laws.
What happened in Malaysia is one we are all party to, one for which we are as much to blame for. Punishing the prime minister to make him more accountable does not resolve that blight on our national character.
The immunity must be absolute. How it could be enforced is another matter. What makes it difficult is the government's refusal to discuss such matters of importance informally and reach a common agreement to set matters right. This proposal that Mahathir be called to account is directed at him personally. There are other ways to deal with it without mortgaging our national self-respect. That is why it should be taken no further.
View Comments0