Najib’s warped understanding of extremism

His attempt at scoring political points at the expense of Ashraf Haziq, who was attacked during the London riots, shows more evidence of his hypocrisy

COMMENT

Can Prime minister Najib Abdul Razak gauge the subtle distinctions (or should I say, ‘the glaring differences’?) between extremists and the excrescence of society?

In a letter to The Times, UK, Najib thanked the British for helping Ashraf Haziq, the Malaysian student who was caught up in the London riots and set upon by thugs, who then robbed him on the pretext of helping him.

Najib said: “Thank you for helping a young Malaysian in his hour of need, and thank you for proving once again, that London is a city where outsiders are welcome but extremists are not”.

According to the official report by Bernama, Najib described the incident as senseless, callous and brutal which had ‘shocked Malaysians to the core’.

He said: “Many of us have spent time in your city and have a great affection for it, but this was a side to London that none of us had seen before and we began to wonder if it had changed, if our memories had become tinted with nostalgia, or even if we were mistaken in the first place.”

He then praised the British for condemning the people who had attacked Ashraf and said: “This wave of anger was followed by a huge outpouring of concern, assistance and support. In an age where some still try to drive wedges between races and religions, the ordinary people of Britain did not hesitate to open their hearts to a young Malaysian Muslim”.

Najib then compared the attack on Ashraf with the fight against extremism and made reference to the speech which he had made at the 65th session at the UN headquarters in New York in September 2010.

In his letter, Najib recalled how he had urged world leaders to fight extremism of all kinds by establishing a global ‘Movement of the Moderates’ whereby the ordinary people of all races, religions and political persuasions were prepared to stand up to the extremists and defend the values they believed in.

He said, “It is those values, an acceptance of others, a strong sense of right and wrong and above all, a rejection of extreme and violent behaviour, that have been defended so vigorously by the people of Britain in recent weeks”.

Last year at the UN, he had said: “We must urgently reclaim the centre and the moral high ground that has been usurped from us. We must choose negotiations over confrontation. We must choose to work together and not against each other. And we must give this effort utmost priority for time is not on our side.”

Politics of distraction

However, Malaysians will also remember that prior to his speech at the UN, he had lectured us about extremism but his message then, was vague and non-committal.

He was afraid to name the extremists in Malaysia and had shown no resolve to punish them either. He was fearful of the political backlash that would ensue if he were to censure the extremists, and he lacked political will to stand behind the people.

He said, we must ‘defend the values we believe in, we must choose negotiations over confrontation and we should work together, not against each other’.

So how does he explain what happened in the run-up to July 9 this year, the day of the Bersih 2.0 rally, when scores of people were arrested, and intimidated?

Can Najib explain why thousands of people, who supported true democracy and clean elections, were set upon by the police, on his orders?

Doesn’t he know that Malaysians have a strong sense of right and wrong and it is Najib’s brand of politics, which encompasses the politics of distraction and the politics of division, which is destroying us?

In reality, whose definition of ‘values’ is he trying to defend? He still has not said why he dodged all attempts to negotiate with the Bersih organisers, for an amicable compromise?

Najib’s most glaring error is to equate the extremists with the scum of society. For someone who has spent a considerable amount of time in the UK, he has a poor understanding of the British psyche.

First. The riots were a result of extreme and opportunistic criminal acts brought about by a breakdown in society where a large percentage of people come from broken homes, where there is a heavy dependence on welfare and state aid, where the young do not value education and where many of its youth are unemployed.

This all sounds familiar and could be applied to Malaysian society.

Second. The British on the whole, are colour blind and would have been repulsed by the shocking treatment that was meted-out to Ashraf, irrespective of his colour or nationality.

Moreover, any British politician or political party which tried to gain political mileage and benefit from the publicity given to Ashraf, as Najib and Umno UK have done, would have received a hammering from the British public.

British premier, David Cameron admitted that Britain had been consumed by “…a major criminal disease that has infected streets and estates across our country”.

He said, “This has been a wake-up call for our country. Social problems that have been festering for decades have exploded in our face,” adding that the emphasis of his goverment would be to tackle broken families, welfare dependence and educational failure.

“Do we have the determination to confront the slow-motion moral collapse that has taken place in parts of our country these past few generations?”

Is Najib prepared to acknowledge and address the issues that Malaysians face? Or is he going to go onto the world arena and present himself as the moderate side of Malaysia but still allow racial segregation to fester, and extremists to thrive, at home?

We are grateful that Najib told the British: “What we have seen is a truly heartening example of the moderates finding their voice, and I want to say, quite simply – thank you”.

In doing so, he has given us more evidence of his hypocrisy and shown that he will go to extreme lengths, to score political points at the expense of a boy who was traumatised and attacked by thugs.

Mariam Mokhtar is a FMT columnist.