In less than a week, Zahid Hamidi has traced a revelatory ideological arc in his quest to secure a perch two removes from the Umno No 1 position.
Not since former Kok Lanas MP Abdullah Ahmad suggested in the mid-1980s that Malay political dominance was a foundational pillar of our polity has the arc assayed by Zahid touched off comparable disquiet in the political salons of this country.
The present home minister's gyrations of the last week have issued in the shocked discovery that perhaps what it takes these days to get to the top of the greasy Umno pole compels the aspirant to stake out positions diametrically opposed to aspects of what may be called the centrist consensus that underlies the Federal Constitution.
This consensus is more real than the nebulous "social contract" which has, though much debated, evaded attempts to obtain a consensus as to its relevance and palpability.
By contrast, the consensus that underpins the Federal Constitution has acquired a reality more perceivable because of the constitution's founding on the democratic political philosophies of at least three centuries of constitutional governance that preceded the establishment of our founding document in 1957.
The pillars of this consensus are the secularity of the polity despite the special position accorded Islam; its democratic ethos and the common law basis on which its legislative powers are erected; and the need for state aid to the bumiputera communities to help them up the economic ladder though such assistance ought not to hinder the advancement of other communities.
In one extraordinary and sensational week, emulating the swashbuckling style reminiscent of frontier marshals seeking to lay down the rules in the lawless frontiers of the American west, the current home minister undermined the second pillar of this consensus in a fantastic and shocking manner.
His endorsement of a 'shoot-first and ask questions later' policy for the police force with respect to criminal suspects, and his support for certain unlawful groups the police themselves have branded as sinister, upend the 'rule of law' sinews of our constitutional framework.
Parlance of a bygone era
Though, in response to the intense drumfire of criticism that his views have evoked, he has tried to inject some nuances to pare down the more deleterious aspects of his stance, these attempts at damage control are unconvincing, given the delight he took in claiming the honours ("my law", he has reportedly bragged) for Parliament's recent passage of amendments to the Prevention of Crime Act 1959.
The amendments restore preventive detention for criminal suspects, a retrogressive measure Malaysians were led to think had been permanently jettisoned with the repeal in recent years of a notorious set of laws that included the Internal Security Act, Emergency and Restricted Residence ordinances that have disfigured our democracy for decades.
Furthermore, his admission that the shooting deaths of five suspects in Penang last August was due to police opening fire on their targets upon learning the latter were armed confirms what he had earlier enunciated as police policy: possession of deadly weapons by suspects was suitable cause for lethal police reaction.
No prior warning to suspects need constrain the police force; suspicion of possession of weapons is enough grounds for transgressive action by the force.
Thus Zahid's stance on law and order portrays him, in the parlance of a bygone era, as a "subversive element", heedless of the restraints our common law tradition impose on personnel entrusted with the grave responsibility of maintaining law and order.
The home minister defends his stance by arguing that it is motivated by concern to protect victims of crimes and law enforcers from marauding criminals.
In his scheme of concern, there is no appreciation for the real possibility that suspects can turn out to be victims and enforcers can mutate into exterminators.
In Zahid's Manichean conception of the morality that separates criminal suspects from the good guys of the police force there is no sense of the corruptive effects of unbridled power, a perspective that informs the rule of law tradition.
In self-righteous vein, Zahid sees his position as supportive of what he terms as "universal humanitarian values" and responsive to the moral imperatives of his Maker.
It seems the Almighty is the last refuge of the intellectually challenged in the same way that, as Dr Samuel Johnson observed, patriotism is the last haven of scoundrels.
Not since former Kok Lanas MP Abdullah Ahmad suggested in the mid-1980s that Malay political dominance was a foundational pillar of our polity has the arc assayed by Zahid touched off comparable disquiet in the political salons of this country.
The present home minister's gyrations of the last week have issued in the shocked discovery that perhaps what it takes these days to get to the top of the greasy Umno pole compels the aspirant to stake out positions diametrically opposed to aspects of what may be called the centrist consensus that underlies the Federal Constitution.
This consensus is more real than the nebulous "social contract" which has, though much debated, evaded attempts to obtain a consensus as to its relevance and palpability.By contrast, the consensus that underpins the Federal Constitution has acquired a reality more perceivable because of the constitution's founding on the democratic political philosophies of at least three centuries of constitutional governance that preceded the establishment of our founding document in 1957.
The pillars of this consensus are the secularity of the polity despite the special position accorded Islam; its democratic ethos and the common law basis on which its legislative powers are erected; and the need for state aid to the bumiputera communities to help them up the economic ladder though such assistance ought not to hinder the advancement of other communities.
In one extraordinary and sensational week, emulating the swashbuckling style reminiscent of frontier marshals seeking to lay down the rules in the lawless frontiers of the American west, the current home minister undermined the second pillar of this consensus in a fantastic and shocking manner.
His endorsement of a 'shoot-first and ask questions later' policy for the police force with respect to criminal suspects, and his support for certain unlawful groups the police themselves have branded as sinister, upend the 'rule of law' sinews of our constitutional framework.
Parlance of a bygone era
Though, in response to the intense drumfire of criticism that his views have evoked, he has tried to inject some nuances to pare down the more deleterious aspects of his stance, these attempts at damage control are unconvincing, given the delight he took in claiming the honours ("my law", he has reportedly bragged) for Parliament's recent passage of amendments to the Prevention of Crime Act 1959.
The amendments restore preventive detention for criminal suspects, a retrogressive measure Malaysians were led to think had been permanently jettisoned with the repeal in recent years of a notorious set of laws that included the Internal Security Act, Emergency and Restricted Residence ordinances that have disfigured our democracy for decades.
Furthermore, his admission that the shooting deaths of five suspects in Penang last August was due to police opening fire on their targets upon learning the latter were armed confirms what he had earlier enunciated as police policy: possession of deadly weapons by suspects was suitable cause for lethal police reaction.
No prior warning to suspects need constrain the police force; suspicion of possession of weapons is enough grounds for transgressive action by the force.
Thus Zahid's stance on law and order portrays him, in the parlance of a bygone era, as a "subversive element", heedless of the restraints our common law tradition impose on personnel entrusted with the grave responsibility of maintaining law and order.
The home minister defends his stance by arguing that it is motivated by concern to protect victims of crimes and law enforcers from marauding criminals.
In his scheme of concern, there is no appreciation for the real possibility that suspects can turn out to be victims and enforcers can mutate into exterminators.
In Zahid's Manichean conception of the morality that separates criminal suspects from the good guys of the police force there is no sense of the corruptive effects of unbridled power, a perspective that informs the rule of law tradition.
In self-righteous vein, Zahid sees his position as supportive of what he terms as "universal humanitarian values" and responsive to the moral imperatives of his Maker.
It seems the Almighty is the last refuge of the intellectually challenged in the same way that, as Dr Samuel Johnson observed, patriotism is the last haven of scoundrels.
TERENCE NETTO has been a journalist for close on four decades. He likes the occupation because it puts him in contact with the eminent without being under the necessity to admire them.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.