When sometimes your conscience must be your guide

Would you still argue that I must toe the party line and support the ‘Malay unity’ talks or would you expect me to do the right thing by not supporting my party's stand since I believe that 'Malay unity' is not good for the future of the country when almost 50% of Malaysia's citizens are non-Malays?

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Didn't you yourself pass unflattering and crude remarks about all the other ‘frogs’ who left Pakatan? Why the special treatment for this Tunku fella, like he was God's gift to the DAP? In politics as in team-sports, one has to be a team player and not score own goals. Agree with you though that people out to disagree in a more civilised manner. (A comment by Amaranathan in my article Masyarakat Madani)

*****************************

Somehow readers tend to interpret things in black and white. The world comes in many different colours. Even black and white has grey in between. So why always look at things as if they are either just black or just white? What has happened to the ability of Malaysians to apply critical thinking and the power of reasoning?

If you are not with me then you are against me -- hence I can bomb you to hell. If you are not a Muslim then you are an enemy of Islam -- hence your blood is halal. Those are the same arguments terrorists use to justify the killing of innocent people, women and children included. Even the US applies this ‘logic’. 

Amaranathan, the 'frogs' that you are referring to were elected into office by the people, the rakyat, the voters. They are Wakil Rakyat (Members of Parliament or State Assemblypersons). Hence their loyalty must be to the people in the constituency that elected them into office. Hence, also, if they change sides then they can be chided because they betrayed the voters who voted them into office.

The decent thing to do would be to resign your seat and get a fresh mandate from the voters like what Shahrir Samad did in Johor Bharu decades ago, as I think Pairin Kitingan also did. In fact, the voters voted for Shahrir, again, when the second time he stood as an independent candidate. That means the voters supported his decision of resigning from the party.

Unfortunately, since then they have changed the rules. If you resign your seat you are barred from contesting for five years. So those who resign can no longer go back to the voters to get a fresh mandate. That is why those who resign from the party do not also want to resign their seats.

There should be a new anti-hopping law so that those who resign from the party automatically lose their seats. That would solve all this party hopping. Why are the 222 MPs in Parliament not pursuing this?

Now, Tunku Abdul Aziz Tunku Ibrahim was not voted into office. He is not a Wakil Rakyat. In fact, he was not even elected to his party post. He was appointed. When he realised that the party did not support his stand, Tunku Aziz chose not to seek an extension of his Senatorship since that position is a party appointment and not an elected position.

Would Tunku Aziz have not been extended a second term anyway had he not indicated he is not seeking an extension? I don’t know. Do you? Maybe Lim Guan Eng can enlighten us on this. Till then I reserve judgment because we shall only be guessing.

Yes, now Tunku Aziz has expressed support for Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak. But we must remember that the majority of those who commented in Malaysia Today demanded that he resign from DAP or else DAP should sack him. Well, he did resign. And now he is no longer a member of DAP. Tunku Aziz and DAP have obtained a divorce.

Since Tunku Aziz is no longer a DAP member he is free to do what he wants and say what he wants to say. That is called democracy in case you did not realise it. How does that make him a traitor? He is not a DAP member any longer. He is not betraying DAP.

For that matter, most of you who posted comments in Malaysia Today wanted him to resign so that DAP can be ‘free’ of him. Now DAP is already free of him. And just as DAP is free of him, Tunku Aziz is also free of DAP. And that means, being free, he is free to do what he wants. 

Aspan Alias and Mohd Ariff Sabri Aziz who used to be in Umno and have now joined DAP also whack Umno. Why are these two ex-Umno people who are now DAP members free to whack Umno but Tunku Aziz who is ex-DAP cannot express his views as well? Why is it okay for Aspan Alias and Mohd Ariff Sabri Aziz to whack Umno but Tunku Aziz must shut his mouth and must not talk?

Okay, your next point where you said: In politics as in team-sports, one has to be a team player and not score own goals.

Using your same argument that “one has to be a team player and not score own goals”, let me paint another scenario.

Say, I am a member of PAS and the party makes a decision to sit down with Umno to discuss 'Malay unity'. Also, say, I do not agree to this. But then I am a party member. So what position do I take? Do I take the party position or do I allow my conscience to be my guide?

'Malay unity' with Umno means that the non-Malays would be excluded. That would mean Malay political hegemony or domination while the non-Malays would be sidelined. I feel that this is not fair to the non-Malays.

Would you still argue that I must toe the party line and support the ‘Malay unity’ talks or would you expect me to do the right thing by not supporting my party's stand since I believe that 'Malay unity' is not good for the future of the country when almost 50% of Malaysia's citizens are non-Malays?

So you see, sometimes we need to allow our conscience to guide us and not do the wrong thing while hiding behind 'party stand' and 'toeing the part line'.

Today it may be about whether the party supports street violence and whether we should toe the party line and not speak up since this is the party stand. Tomorrow it could be something else. However, since we have taken a stand that whatever the party decides we must follow even if it is wrong, we may be trapped in our own creation and cannot get out of it. 

Was not 'the party stand' and 'toeing the party line' the reason why no one opposed the Nazi party's 'final solution' on how to rid the world of Jews? They remained silent although in their hearts they did not agree and knew it was wrong (plus you would get sent to the Russian front if you disagreed). 

The issue is, do we allow people to oppose the party’s position or not? If not, then the party constitution should be amended to stipulate that once the party makes a decision no one must say a word against it. Then DAP will be exactly like Saddam Hussein’s Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party in Iraq.

Is that what we are seeking? If so then well and fine. I have no quarrel with that. But make it very clear from the start so that those independent-minded people who join DAP will not make the mistake of thinking that they will be allowed to demonstrate independence, like what happened to Tunku Aziz.

Is this so difficult to understand? And does your argument “Why the special treatment for this Tunku fella, like he was God's gift to the DAP?” therefore apply? This has nothing to do with Tunku Aziz or about him being special or God’s gift, etc. It is about what is DAP’s policy and do those who have just joined DAP or are about to join DAP know that they must clip their tongue once they join DAP?