"But it was my integrity that was important... It sells for so little, but it's all we have left in this place. It is the very last inch of us. But within that inch we are free... An inch. It's small and it's fragile and it's the only thing in the world worth having. We must never lose it, or sell it, or give it away."
- Valerie
That inch is the final measure of a man or woman. Honour it, and you go to your grave without a single regret; dishonour it, and you risk making everything you've ever done meaningless. Which category are you in?
(Let me say at the outset that I have no interest in pursuing some personal feud with RPK or anyone else. As my father says, friends are friends, business is business. I'm not interested in seeing who can shout the loudest or with the most bravado; only in separating sound and fury from tried and true values.)
Malaysia is home to a great number of politicians, activists and commentators that have ‘switched sides' any number of times.
Examples include Ibrahim Ali, the frog we most like to point to; the three Perak assemblymen who toppled their state government; KS Nallakarupan who went from MIC to PKR to whatever obscure place he is now (not unlike Zaid Ibrahim I suppose).
The record for political promiscuity might be held by Lim Boo Chang who went from Gerakan to MCA to PKR and now wants to go back to Gerakan.
From past observation, I think my conclusion is: the people with the most credibility are the ones who never change sides.
In second place are the ones who change sides only once. Anyone who changes more than that is basically a joke. The question we will all eventually be asked is: which category are you in?
People tend to be unforgiving of flip-flops and people who fail to stay the course. I think individuals like Hasan Ali are currently learning this lesson the hard way.
After all, one cannot credibly implicate a man in a brutal murder one day and the next happily offer him advice on how to reform his party.
We note as well the honey trap comments and subtle instigations by RPK (right) and Zaid which imply that Anwar's homosexuality is a given, and deviously try to shift the currently irrelevant discourse as to whether Malaysia is ready for a gay PM.
The simple test is to see whether someone changes their positions based on principle, or based on expediency - the latter of which comes in many forms: money, power, and perhaps most underrated of all, ego. The former demonstrates itself through consistency, objectivity and genuine independence. Which category are you in?
The Ezam syndrome
There is a phenomenon quite common in Malaysia that I like to describe as the Ezam syndrome.
I believe that aspiring politicians in Malaysia should take great care in pursuing a parallel profession or source of income.
Failure to do so essentially compromises one's own financial independence, and stakes his or her entire relevance on their political career.
The problem with this of course is that should you ever have a political fallout with the powers that be, most people would find themselves pretty much screwed out of options.
A great many who have met such a fate found themselves grasping at straws (BN) to maintain their public relevance and/or their livelihoods.
When people enter this unhappy stage, you'll begin to observe them becoming the epitome of self-contradiction, where everything they once fought for starts coming undone at their own hands.
While they make tire screeching U-turns and reverse all their positions, they'll protest with Mahathiresque reality distortion fields (to borrow from Steve Jobs) that they are in fact sticking to the same principles they have stuck to all along.
It's a sad thing to observe - the lack of anchoring principles as the greats succumb to sacrificing their last inch to stay afloat and relevant.
This phenomenon is observable not only in politicians, alas, but also sometimes in political observers.
RPK has, as he rightly points out, always been critical. I'm just not sure he's always been constructive. People talk of his being bought over, but I wouldn't presume to drawing conclusions without proof.
By my reckoning though, the motivations of his most recent comments seem at best to be fueled by the ego of a man who believes he is always right, a man who likes to be seen as someone who says whatever he damn well pleases, whenever he damn well pleases.
That's great for chest thumping, but I'm uncertain how much it helps the nation.
Notably, not everyone who falls out with their bosses or allies end up this way. PKR itself is a good example of a great many people who have left out of disillusionment with Anwar and the party leadership, but did so relatively gracefully - no tantrums, no trying to wash dirty linen in public.
Names such as Rahman Othman or Marina Yusuff may not mean much (as say, Chandra Muzaffar) to most of us, given how they chose to fade somewhat into obscurity after leaving the party.
They may be out of the limelight now, but if ever they return, I daresay there's a good chance they'll do so with their integrity intact. I can't help thinking though, that the same cannot be said of others. Which category are you in?
Political parties: Warts and all
When I was working for PKR around 2007-2008, I liked to joke about how critics of the party were so angry about what was often misinformation; I always said, if only they really knew all the truths that the party insiders did, then they'd have a lot more to get much, much angrier about.
The odd thing was though, that those insiders - many of them being some of the most honourable, principled people I have every had the privilege to meet - chose to stick with the movement, warts and all.
It doesn't sit easy with me when people with half those principles try to suggest that those who stay on do so out of fanatic devotion to any one person or some misguided loyalty to blind partisanship. I believe they stayed because they kept their focus on the bigger picture.
I know RPK cares little for Anwar, and the way things are run in PKR. That's certainly his right, and if he feels that Anwar's loyal lieutenants should be removed from the party leadership, there's a way for doing so that he may have heard of: it's called elections.
The world looks a little different to people who've actually put themselves out there and contested an election.
We also note with ironic interest RPK's vague comments regarding alleged corruption in Selangor, given that by far the greatest disgruntlement against Khalid Ibrahim's administration (who, I should disclose, I work for), is that Selangor is now run so cleanly that the contracts that used to feed the political machinery and sycophants alike are no longer up for grabs. I guess that's the sort of thing that would frustrate people.
There is an entire universe of things I would really, really like to change within PKR if I could. Not everything RPK says about the party and its internal dynamics is baseless - not by a long shot.
Ideology plays second fiddle to personality in almost every single Malaysian political party, a sad reflection of our political maturity.
Many BN party factions are divided internally along the interests of different sets of cronies, where discernible policy differences are manufactured to be justifications of factional divisions, instead of being the root of them. PKR, DAP and to a slightly lesser extent PAS suffer similar symptoms.
In PKR, alongside some of the most sincere, principled, hardworking people I know, there are fanatic Anwaristas, people out to make a quick buck, and people who just manage to be vexing on an amazing number of levels.
The funny thing though, is that the final nature of any organisation is determined in the end by the people inside it, not the people outside it.
I don't harbour any delusions of grandeur as to how big a role someone like me can play in such an organisation here and now.
I will also freely admit (and borrow from Aragon when I say) that a day may come when the courage of PKR fails, when they forsake friends and break all bonds of fellowship and principle.
On such a day, I too may part ways with the party, but it is not this day.
I know too many people within that do not follow just one man and believe everything he says out of blind, unwavering loyalty.
This is a principle we would do well to follow both in Anwar's case as well as RPKs.
The bigger picture
A lot of people like to say things like: "The voters are saying it. I am telling you what the voters are saying." Quite frankly, I put no stock in the views of armchair critics (much less those who are perpetually overseas) who don't do any scientific study of such things.
One of the few merits of political aspirants is that they are the only ones willing to get into the ring and put their money where their mouth is in finding out exactly what voters are saying.
Some people predict change, others make them - which category are you in?
Democracy is a process that needs to be participated in, not a banner to be waved around while trying to fulfil an agenda by means entirely undemocratic.
If you want to back one person or another, do so by all means - but ultimately, don't be misguided into thinking that there are shortcuts to gaining the support of the majority.
This runs foul of the basic lesson those like RPK himself have tried so hard to instill: that people are not stupid.
Many of us agree on the need for a better Malaysia. Some of us even agree on what that better Malaysia looks like. Agreement on how to get there is even harder to find.
After all the time I've spent observing and working on Malaysian issues, I think my analysis is the same: the biggest bottleneck is political. No nation ruled by the same government for half a century can claim to be healthy. Rot inevitably sets in.
Those who are willing to set aside our ego and see the bigger picture know that our journey is one of many steps - steps that will likely have to be taken in sequence, at least until the day actually comes that Pakatan Rakyat truly abandons all principles.
Political change is far, far from the be all end all. In my ‘spare time', I dream up ideal alternative political systems and structures that address all the evils and shortcomings of a two party system and move power from politicians to people.
But my dreams will not yet help Selvach; they won't prevent another Sarbani or Beng Hock; and they sure won't help Malaysians get the healthcare, education and quality of life that's denied to them by constant plundering and corruption. Not yet, anyway.
What will help them in the near future is a robust two party system; and a two party system does not exist in a nation that has only known one government.
Once we cross that hurdle, I'd bet my bottom dollar that we'll all be back here pressuring the new government to behave the way it's supposed to, or get them voted out like the last one.
So, I figure we can help make that happen, or we can continue to try and sow the seeds of discord, disunity and doubt. Which category are you in?
- Valerie
That inch is the final measure of a man or woman. Honour it, and you go to your grave without a single regret; dishonour it, and you risk making everything you've ever done meaningless. Which category are you in?
(Let me say at the outset that I have no interest in pursuing some personal feud with RPK or anyone else. As my father says, friends are friends, business is business. I'm not interested in seeing who can shout the loudest or with the most bravado; only in separating sound and fury from tried and true values.)
Malaysia is home to a great number of politicians, activists and commentators that have ‘switched sides' any number of times.
Examples include Ibrahim Ali, the frog we most like to point to; the three Perak assemblymen who toppled their state government; KS Nallakarupan who went from MIC to PKR to whatever obscure place he is now (not unlike Zaid Ibrahim I suppose).
The record for political promiscuity might be held by Lim Boo Chang who went from Gerakan to MCA to PKR and now wants to go back to Gerakan.
From past observation, I think my conclusion is: the people with the most credibility are the ones who never change sides.
In second place are the ones who change sides only once. Anyone who changes more than that is basically a joke. The question we will all eventually be asked is: which category are you in?
People tend to be unforgiving of flip-flops and people who fail to stay the course. I think individuals like Hasan Ali are currently learning this lesson the hard way.After all, one cannot credibly implicate a man in a brutal murder one day and the next happily offer him advice on how to reform his party.
We note as well the honey trap comments and subtle instigations by RPK (right) and Zaid which imply that Anwar's homosexuality is a given, and deviously try to shift the currently irrelevant discourse as to whether Malaysia is ready for a gay PM.
The simple test is to see whether someone changes their positions based on principle, or based on expediency - the latter of which comes in many forms: money, power, and perhaps most underrated of all, ego. The former demonstrates itself through consistency, objectivity and genuine independence. Which category are you in?
The Ezam syndrome
There is a phenomenon quite common in Malaysia that I like to describe as the Ezam syndrome.
I believe that aspiring politicians in Malaysia should take great care in pursuing a parallel profession or source of income.
Failure to do so essentially compromises one's own financial independence, and stakes his or her entire relevance on their political career.
The problem with this of course is that should you ever have a political fallout with the powers that be, most people would find themselves pretty much screwed out of options.
A great many who have met such a fate found themselves grasping at straws (BN) to maintain their public relevance and/or their livelihoods.
When people enter this unhappy stage, you'll begin to observe them becoming the epitome of self-contradiction, where everything they once fought for starts coming undone at their own hands.
While they make tire screeching U-turns and reverse all their positions, they'll protest with Mahathiresque reality distortion fields (to borrow from Steve Jobs) that they are in fact sticking to the same principles they have stuck to all along.It's a sad thing to observe - the lack of anchoring principles as the greats succumb to sacrificing their last inch to stay afloat and relevant.
This phenomenon is observable not only in politicians, alas, but also sometimes in political observers.
RPK has, as he rightly points out, always been critical. I'm just not sure he's always been constructive. People talk of his being bought over, but I wouldn't presume to drawing conclusions without proof.
By my reckoning though, the motivations of his most recent comments seem at best to be fueled by the ego of a man who believes he is always right, a man who likes to be seen as someone who says whatever he damn well pleases, whenever he damn well pleases.
That's great for chest thumping, but I'm uncertain how much it helps the nation.
Notably, not everyone who falls out with their bosses or allies end up this way. PKR itself is a good example of a great many people who have left out of disillusionment with Anwar and the party leadership, but did so relatively gracefully - no tantrums, no trying to wash dirty linen in public.
Names such as Rahman Othman or Marina Yusuff may not mean much (as say, Chandra Muzaffar) to most of us, given how they chose to fade somewhat into obscurity after leaving the party.
They may be out of the limelight now, but if ever they return, I daresay there's a good chance they'll do so with their integrity intact. I can't help thinking though, that the same cannot be said of others. Which category are you in?
Political parties: Warts and all
When I was working for PKR around 2007-2008, I liked to joke about how critics of the party were so angry about what was often misinformation; I always said, if only they really knew all the truths that the party insiders did, then they'd have a lot more to get much, much angrier about.
The odd thing was though, that those insiders - many of them being some of the most honourable, principled people I have every had the privilege to meet - chose to stick with the movement, warts and all.
It doesn't sit easy with me when people with half those principles try to suggest that those who stay on do so out of fanatic devotion to any one person or some misguided loyalty to blind partisanship. I believe they stayed because they kept their focus on the bigger picture.
I know RPK cares little for Anwar, and the way things are run in PKR. That's certainly his right, and if he feels that Anwar's loyal lieutenants should be removed from the party leadership, there's a way for doing so that he may have heard of: it's called elections.
The world looks a little different to people who've actually put themselves out there and contested an election.
We also note with ironic interest RPK's vague comments regarding alleged corruption in Selangor, given that by far the greatest disgruntlement against Khalid Ibrahim's administration (who, I should disclose, I work for), is that Selangor is now run so cleanly that the contracts that used to feed the political machinery and sycophants alike are no longer up for grabs. I guess that's the sort of thing that would frustrate people.There is an entire universe of things I would really, really like to change within PKR if I could. Not everything RPK says about the party and its internal dynamics is baseless - not by a long shot.
Ideology plays second fiddle to personality in almost every single Malaysian political party, a sad reflection of our political maturity.
Many BN party factions are divided internally along the interests of different sets of cronies, where discernible policy differences are manufactured to be justifications of factional divisions, instead of being the root of them. PKR, DAP and to a slightly lesser extent PAS suffer similar symptoms.
In PKR, alongside some of the most sincere, principled, hardworking people I know, there are fanatic Anwaristas, people out to make a quick buck, and people who just manage to be vexing on an amazing number of levels.
The funny thing though, is that the final nature of any organisation is determined in the end by the people inside it, not the people outside it.
I don't harbour any delusions of grandeur as to how big a role someone like me can play in such an organisation here and now.
I will also freely admit (and borrow from Aragon when I say) that a day may come when the courage of PKR fails, when they forsake friends and break all bonds of fellowship and principle.
On such a day, I too may part ways with the party, but it is not this day.
I know too many people within that do not follow just one man and believe everything he says out of blind, unwavering loyalty.
This is a principle we would do well to follow both in Anwar's case as well as RPKs.
The bigger picture
A lot of people like to say things like: "The voters are saying it. I am telling you what the voters are saying." Quite frankly, I put no stock in the views of armchair critics (much less those who are perpetually overseas) who don't do any scientific study of such things.
One of the few merits of political aspirants is that they are the only ones willing to get into the ring and put their money where their mouth is in finding out exactly what voters are saying.
Some people predict change, others make them - which category are you in?
Democracy is a process that needs to be participated in, not a banner to be waved around while trying to fulfil an agenda by means entirely undemocratic.
If you want to back one person or another, do so by all means - but ultimately, don't be misguided into thinking that there are shortcuts to gaining the support of the majority.
This runs foul of the basic lesson those like RPK himself have tried so hard to instill: that people are not stupid.
Many of us agree on the need for a better Malaysia. Some of us even agree on what that better Malaysia looks like. Agreement on how to get there is even harder to find.
After all the time I've spent observing and working on Malaysian issues, I think my analysis is the same: the biggest bottleneck is political. No nation ruled by the same government for half a century can claim to be healthy. Rot inevitably sets in.Those who are willing to set aside our ego and see the bigger picture know that our journey is one of many steps - steps that will likely have to be taken in sequence, at least until the day actually comes that Pakatan Rakyat truly abandons all principles.
Political change is far, far from the be all end all. In my ‘spare time', I dream up ideal alternative political systems and structures that address all the evils and shortcomings of a two party system and move power from politicians to people.
But my dreams will not yet help Selvach; they won't prevent another Sarbani or Beng Hock; and they sure won't help Malaysians get the healthcare, education and quality of life that's denied to them by constant plundering and corruption. Not yet, anyway.
What will help them in the near future is a robust two party system; and a two party system does not exist in a nation that has only known one government.
Once we cross that hurdle, I'd bet my bottom dollar that we'll all be back here pressuring the new government to behave the way it's supposed to, or get them voted out like the last one.
So, I figure we can help make that happen, or we can continue to try and sow the seeds of discord, disunity and doubt. Which category are you in?
NATHANIEL TAN believes this world is full of people, he was born to love them all. He blogs at www.jelas.info and tweets @NatAsasi"
Dear Nathaniel,
ReplyDeleteYou, alone, may not be able to stop the senseless injustices inflicted by the present regime but the brave and wise thoughts you share with others will be seeds that can be sown, to be proven to be efficacious, hopefully in the near future.
Rest be assured that the likes of you will help to make the world a better place. Have faith and God bless.