What if the words that shook the media conference had landed just a little softer? What if the thunderous declaration had been tempered into drizzle - still wet, but less damaging?
What if he had said it differently? This is not a plea but a reminder to our politicians who speak out without realising they have shot their feet.
The timing and tone gave off an air of arrogance and superiority. The difference between scandal and salvation lies not just in the facts themselves, but in the phrasing that delivers them.
After Bloomberg’s exposé on MACC chief Azam Baki’s shareholdings 11 days ago, Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim was in his element when asked to comment on the issue.
Quizzed about calls for Azam to be sacked, Anwar retorted with a spirited defence of the MACC chief.
“Why should I sack someone who is doing their job?... Read his (Azam’s) explanation.
“This is a sickness. A person is doing their job, but you insult them. Why? Wrong. Listen to his explanation,” he told the media.
No one insulted Azam. Journalists were merely carrying out their jobs and reporting what they had discovered, which does not amount to an insult. Point to note: The truth always hurts.
Immediately, there was an uproar. The voices from the opposition were understandable, but more vociferous were members and lawmakers from his own party, baying for blood.
Neutral approach could calm the storm
What if Anwar had taken a different approach? Instead of defending Azam, could he not have remained neutral rather than reacting in such a manner?
What if he had said: “I am aware of the allegations made against Azam. Azam has offered an explanation which I have accepted. However, in the interest of transparency, I will be appointing an independent committee comprising two retired judges and the chairperson of the Securities Commission to investigate and submit their findings to the cabinet, which I hope will agree to make it public.”
This would have placated the critics. It would have reassured the public that transparency was not being sacrificed at the altar of loyalty. It would have signalled that accountability is not a concession to the opposition, but a cornerstone of governance.
By offering an independent review, Anwar could have shifted the narrative from defensiveness to decisiveness, from shielding one man to protecting the integrity of the institution itself.
Instead of fueling outrage, he could have calmed it. Instead of appearing dismissive, he could have appeared like a statesperson. And instead of leaving his own party members baying for blood, he could have united them behind a process that promised clarity and fairness.
Anwar’s aides and strategic consultants need to rush to buy copies of Dale Carnegie’s “How to Win Friends and Influence People”. This is a simple issue of dealing with opponents, dissidents within the party, and hordes of supporters who are abandoning the ship.
How tone elevates or erodes discourse
Last November, Anwar was in attack mode when dealing with critics of the Malaysia-US trade deal, who he claimed were criticising without understanding the contents of the document.
Anwar said that making reckless comments without a solid basis or an in-depth understanding of the issue only reflects the low level of political discourse in the country, as well as a lack of knowledge.
“Have you read (the document) or not? Do you understand it? That’s the problem… the level of political debate is poor,” he said.
It is preposterous to believe that MPs debate in the Dewan without reading the relevant documents. To dismiss legitimate questions by waving them away as “low-level political discourse” is not just outrageous - it is an insult to the very institution of Parliament.
Now imagine if Anwar had taken a different line:
“I am aware of the concerns some of you have raised, and I understand your apprehensions. I have asked the investment, trade, and industry minister to address every point raised in the Dewan directly to each of you.”
That single shift - from dismissal to engagement - would have transformed the moment. Instead of appearing defensive, he would have projected confidence. Instead of belittling, he would have elevated the discourse.
And instead of shielding Azam, he would have shown that accountability is not a threat but a strength.
This is the power of words in politics: the difference between shutting down debate and opening it up. One path breeds cynicism, the other builds trust. The tragedy is that leaders often choose the former, mistaking defensiveness for authority. - Mkini
R NADESWARAN is a veteran journalist who strives to uphold the ethos of civil rights leader John Lewis: “When you see something that is not right, not fair, not just, you have to speak up. You have to say something; you have to do something.” Comments: citizen.nades22@gmail.com.
The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of MMKtT.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.