Dr Farishs diagnosis was correct
JeffreyPublished: Mar 20, 2001 8:08 AM | Updated: Jan 29, 2008 6:21 PM
Dr Mazeni Alwi in [#1]Handsome or not Ezam deserves credit[/#] (March 17) said that Malaysia was sinking under debt and that corporate corruption had eaten into its body politics. As a clinician, he would "make a 'provisional diagnosis' to base treatment on and modify our views when laboratory results become available or the disease makes itself more recognisable." Meanwhile "the chosen provisional diagnosis may be right or it may be wrong. Applying this to our national politics, I have no hesitation in nailing my colours on the BA mast".
The writer was of the view that fellow columnist, Dr Farish Noor ("reviewer") in [#2]Ezam and the spell of the great handsome boss[/#], denigrated and belittled Ezam and the reformasi movement in when reviewing Rozaid Abdul Rahman's book Di Sini Aku Berdiri.
With all due respect to the writer, he had, in the use of a clinical analogy confused diagnosis from disease, and disease from treatment. Barisan Alterntif (BA) on which he nailed his colours, is not a provisional diagnosis - I believed he meant it as provisional treatment of the disease of endemic debt and corporate corruption in the body politic.
It was the reviewer, Farish, who far from making any personal denigration of Ezam, made the correct diagnosis of the disease when he commented in his article that "Malay politics has always been dictated by the culture of the feudal court, and this is painfully evident in the way that the Umno party works. Sadly, those who claim to want to reform this system seem to end up playing the same game themselves and in the end become the very thing they want to eradicate."
(I only wish to add here the qualification that relics of feudal political culture not only pervade Malay political culture but in varying degrees the political cultures of many Asian societies, and it is not something our society can so easily rid off in a span of a mere 43 years since independence.)
What the reviewer meant here was the tendency (as in Barisan Nasional) towards hero worship and personality cult in the absence of "elaboration on matters of policy and praxis" on the part of reformasi followers as Rozaid's book evinces.
One of the principal characteristics of feudal culture is the followers' blind loyalty to their leaders in exchange for the leaders' protection and distribution of largesse and patronage to the followers.
Whereas in the times of the Rajas, the largesse and patronage were probably lands, nowadays, in the modern context, they would be corporate stakes and bailouts. The form of exchange may have changed but not the quid pro quo substance of it.
All these lead to the speculation that change of government may not lead to change of policies or "treatment of the disease".
For politics is an exercise of power by rulers over the ruled. And rulers cannot continue to exercise power to rule if they do not give their supporters largesse and patronage that they expect especially when their expectations are further raised by the constitutionally entrenched bumiputra privileges buttressed by what Prof P Ramasamy described in his article as the "Malay hegemonic state" ([#3]Diabolical game of the Malay hegemonic state[/#], Feb 28).
The Anwar camp initially split from the establishment not because establishment was enmeshed in cronyism and corporate bailouts per se. (After all he was part of the establishment for 18 years and did not complain then.)
They split because in the wake of the Asian Currency crisis, the largesse and patronage were insufficient for their entitlement to a "fair distribution" of these. So the rush to take over the reins of power that led to power struggle and, apart from the irrelevant issue of whether sodomy charge was true or false, the rest, as we know, is history.
To be sure, the aftermath of political conflict has awakened the people's consciousness of the evils of money politics, corporate bailouts and lack of corporate governance and transparency. (Interestingly, both sides across the political divide will publicly condemn these practices.)
But there can be no real and sincere "treatment of the disease" by a mere change of government if feudal practices (the part on blind personal loyalty to leaders rather than institutions) remain pervasive in our political culture as "diagnosed" by Farish amongst BA's followers and leaders.
So far have they shown, by their actions, to be different? (The only difference is that the followers are more ready to take to street demonstrations in the name of freedom of assembly in total disregard for public order, traffic problems caused and the dangers of conflict escalation when protestors and riot police confront.) The part on expecting largesse and patronage from leaders when they are assisted to attain power is yet untested!
Though another contributor, Steve Oh, in [#4]Knocking on democracy's door[/#] (March 16), is a staunch believer that Anwar is a maligned victim of conspiracy (a belief, no doubt, that from his distance, is more influenced by foreign reports, Amnesty International and the US State Department than local perceptions), even he too expressed scepticism when he asked rhetorically: "But do the oppositionists have what it takes to take over and make the critical difference?
How different are they from those they want to replace? How far can the protest bus run on the fuel of one angry case of injustice?" He concluded then that "The door to true democracy will only open if people knock".
Knocking here does not necessarily mean clamoring in the streets. It means a change of mindsets to rid of vestiges of feudal political culture that breed cronyism and political and corporate patronage without which the treatment by a change of government will not necessarily remove the very disease that gives the impetus to call for that change.
In passing, I also find that it is not necessarily true the perception commonly held by official circles that malaysiakini publishes at all times anti-establishment and government's positions for the sake of it.
More often than not, I find that some of malaysiakini's feature and letter writers (including those mentioned), when engaged in political discourses, do exhibit a high degree of impartiality and objectivity whether criticising the government or the oppositionists alike, which is as it should be to improve the quality of public discourses with the longer term view of deepening the maturity and bettering the society and the country that we love and call our own.
The writer was of the view that fellow columnist, Dr Farish Noor ("reviewer") in [#2]Ezam and the spell of the great handsome boss[/#], denigrated and belittled Ezam and the reformasi movement in when reviewing Rozaid Abdul Rahman's book Di Sini Aku Berdiri.
With all due respect to the writer, he had, in the use of a clinical analogy confused diagnosis from disease, and disease from treatment. Barisan Alterntif (BA) on which he nailed his colours, is not a provisional diagnosis - I believed he meant it as provisional treatment of the disease of endemic debt and corporate corruption in the body politic.
It was the reviewer, Farish, who far from making any personal denigration of Ezam, made the correct diagnosis of the disease when he commented in his article that "Malay politics has always been dictated by the culture of the feudal court, and this is painfully evident in the way that the Umno party works. Sadly, those who claim to want to reform this system seem to end up playing the same game themselves and in the end become the very thing they want to eradicate."
(I only wish to add here the qualification that relics of feudal political culture not only pervade Malay political culture but in varying degrees the political cultures of many Asian societies, and it is not something our society can so easily rid off in a span of a mere 43 years since independence.)
What the reviewer meant here was the tendency (as in Barisan Nasional) towards hero worship and personality cult in the absence of "elaboration on matters of policy and praxis" on the part of reformasi followers as Rozaid's book evinces.
One of the principal characteristics of feudal culture is the followers' blind loyalty to their leaders in exchange for the leaders' protection and distribution of largesse and patronage to the followers.
Whereas in the times of the Rajas, the largesse and patronage were probably lands, nowadays, in the modern context, they would be corporate stakes and bailouts. The form of exchange may have changed but not the quid pro quo substance of it.
All these lead to the speculation that change of government may not lead to change of policies or "treatment of the disease".
For politics is an exercise of power by rulers over the ruled. And rulers cannot continue to exercise power to rule if they do not give their supporters largesse and patronage that they expect especially when their expectations are further raised by the constitutionally entrenched bumiputra privileges buttressed by what Prof P Ramasamy described in his article as the "Malay hegemonic state" ([#3]Diabolical game of the Malay hegemonic state[/#], Feb 28).
The Anwar camp initially split from the establishment not because establishment was enmeshed in cronyism and corporate bailouts per se. (After all he was part of the establishment for 18 years and did not complain then.)
They split because in the wake of the Asian Currency crisis, the largesse and patronage were insufficient for their entitlement to a "fair distribution" of these. So the rush to take over the reins of power that led to power struggle and, apart from the irrelevant issue of whether sodomy charge was true or false, the rest, as we know, is history.
To be sure, the aftermath of political conflict has awakened the people's consciousness of the evils of money politics, corporate bailouts and lack of corporate governance and transparency. (Interestingly, both sides across the political divide will publicly condemn these practices.)
But there can be no real and sincere "treatment of the disease" by a mere change of government if feudal practices (the part on blind personal loyalty to leaders rather than institutions) remain pervasive in our political culture as "diagnosed" by Farish amongst BA's followers and leaders.
So far have they shown, by their actions, to be different? (The only difference is that the followers are more ready to take to street demonstrations in the name of freedom of assembly in total disregard for public order, traffic problems caused and the dangers of conflict escalation when protestors and riot police confront.) The part on expecting largesse and patronage from leaders when they are assisted to attain power is yet untested!
Though another contributor, Steve Oh, in [#4]Knocking on democracy's door[/#] (March 16), is a staunch believer that Anwar is a maligned victim of conspiracy (a belief, no doubt, that from his distance, is more influenced by foreign reports, Amnesty International and the US State Department than local perceptions), even he too expressed scepticism when he asked rhetorically: "But do the oppositionists have what it takes to take over and make the critical difference?
How different are they from those they want to replace? How far can the protest bus run on the fuel of one angry case of injustice?" He concluded then that "The door to true democracy will only open if people knock".
Knocking here does not necessarily mean clamoring in the streets. It means a change of mindsets to rid of vestiges of feudal political culture that breed cronyism and political and corporate patronage without which the treatment by a change of government will not necessarily remove the very disease that gives the impetus to call for that change.
In passing, I also find that it is not necessarily true the perception commonly held by official circles that malaysiakini publishes at all times anti-establishment and government's positions for the sake of it.
More often than not, I find that some of malaysiakini's feature and letter writers (including those mentioned), when engaged in political discourses, do exhibit a high degree of impartiality and objectivity whether criticising the government or the oppositionists alike, which is as it should be to improve the quality of public discourses with the longer term view of deepening the maturity and bettering the society and the country that we love and call our own.
View Comments0