Not about better leaders, it’s about leadership

The ‘Allah’ case had its root in the Abdullah years when then home minister Tan Sri Syed Hamid Albar decided that the Catholic Herald should be banned from the word ‘Allah’ that has been in use by Christians in Sabah and Sarawak for more than 100 years. – The Malaysian Insider file pic, August 1, 2014.

Better end this discussion before it even gets traction. As an academic exercise, it is about as useful as debating the relative merits of Perkasa and Isma: a whole lot of bluster about two equally defective groups.

We are referring to this talk that Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi was a better leader than Datuk Seri Najib Razak.

This discussion has been making the rounds in the last 12 months, aided and abetted by Najib's dismal performance as the country's sixth prime minister and his penchant for allowing racial and religious tension to reach unprecedented levels.

At the launch of a book on the Abdullah years in Penang on Wednesday, DAP's Liew Chin Tong and former minister Datuk Zaid Ibrahim both gave Abdullah higher marks than his predecessor.

Liew said that Abdullah was a sincere leader who had a clear agenda on how the country could improve and move forward. He was also "quite democratic". In contrast, Najib was a manager instead of a leader.

Zaid, the de facto law minister in Abdullah's cabinet for a short while, said: "Abdullah is better not because he was more democratic but because there was no hatred. He would not tolerate any form of hatred."

Let's take what Liew said about Abdullah. He had a clear agenda on how the country could move forward.

Now what is the value of a vision that remains just that – a vision. Abdullah's way forward of good governance, fighting corruption and his reform agenda came unstuck after a year in office.

And there were two main reasons for his inertia for real change: serious push back from Umno warlords and the congenital disease of putting Umno before Malaysia.

These two twin terrors allied with a penchant for not wanting to make a principled stand on major issues are what ails the Najib administration. 

Perhaps one concession to Abdullah is that he relied mainly on one set of advisers – the Fourth Floor boys and his children – while Najib believes that the more the merrier and it does seem that there are more consultants working for the Malaysian government than any other government on the planet.

Abdullah's supporters like to call him democratic and say that he opened up space for more discourse. Perhaps. But with the onset of the Internet, could he have done any differently? Don't think so.

Malaysians tend to forget that some of the nastiness that we witness now has its genesis during Abdullah's years. 

For example, who was the home minister who decided to poke the hornet's nest and disallow the Catholic Herald from using the word “Allah” – a word Christians in Sabah and Sarawak had been using for more than 100 years? Tan Sri Syed Hamid Albar.

Who was his prime minister? Abdullah.

Did the PM of "all Malaysians" check the overzealous home minister? No. 

Did the PM of "all Malaysians" speak up on the rights of Sabahans and Sarawakians? No.

Since taking over as the PM in April 2009, Najib has employed a similar strategy on the “Allah” issue and other contentious religious flash points: stay silent on the sidelines with the hope that the combustible problems facing Malaysia will go away, somehow.

And on the rare occasion when he does say something, his views are overshadowed by state religious authorities, his party men or the loudhailer champions from Perkasa and Isma.

Let's move on. Remember the body snatching incidents of weeks ago that culminated with the body of a Malaysian Chinese being taken by Islamic religious authorities in Penang. Well, this body snatching didn't just happen overnight.

The big case that highlighted this phenomenon happened during Abdullah's time and it involved the body of Everest conqueror, M. Moorthy.

His family wanted to bury him according to Hindu rites but Islamic authorities argued that he had converted to Islam while in the army and, therefore, had to be buried as a Muslim.

A standoff took place, with his wife arguing that there was no evidence that Moorthy had converted. He was finally buried as a Muslim but there has been no resolution to the issue of body snatching.

Neither Abdullah nor Najib has been prepared to state clearly the government's position on this matter or press home reforming the process in the area of conversions.

The result: body snatching is still taking place across Malaysia.

Zaid makes a valid point when he states that Najib has allowed hate rhetoric to take root in Malaysia. The current government is happy to perpetuate the myth that Malays and Islam are under siege in Malaysia and more than willing to allow Perkasa and Isma to inject spite into this debate.

Why? Because the Umno government is operating under the belief that this agenda will help unite the Malays and keep the incumbents in Putrajaya in power.

In all likelihood, Abdullah would not have given Datuk Ibrahim Ali a carte blanche to become the voice of the Malays.

After all, he did drop him as a candidate for the 2004 general election. It is also inconceivable that Abdullah would have allowed the likes of Isma to receive government funding.

But we are quick to forget that Abdullah had a soft spot for suspect Umno warlords like Datuk Zakaria Deros and that this "Malays under siege" and "kaum pendatang" rhetoric started after the 2008 elections when Abdullah was in charge.

Yes, he did punish Datuk Ahmad Ismail for baiting the Chinese during the Permatang Pauh by-election but this was a Band-Aid solution to an open and festering wound called worsening racial and religious strife. 

By the time Abdullah passed the baton to Najib, the mood in Umno towards any reform had dissipated and Abdullah's way forward had been consigned to history.

Even Islam Hadhari is now a footnote in history, as much as 1Malaysia is, too.

Abdullah missed a historic opportunity to change the course for Malaysia and squandered his gigantic mandate from Malaysian voters in 2004.

In the last two years of his premiership, he was just limping along, giving good sound bites but little else. Upper most on his mind was the welfare and survival of Umno.

Najib has been on a similar course. Umno first and everyone else take a number. It is a measure of how deprived Malaysia has been of leadership that when we discuss Abdullah and Najib, we try our utmost to dress up their minor merits as accomplishments.

Did Abdullah have a vision? Yes. Did he do a good job as the PM? No.

Does Najib have a vision for Malaysia? Yes. Has he done a good job as PM so far? No.

Sometime later this year, or in early 2015, there will be an authorised biography of Abdullah.

A significant chunk of the book will be devoted to the Abdullah years, the time between November 2003 and March 2009 when he was the fifth prime minister.

The release will surely start another round of discussion on whether Abdullah was a better leader than Najib.

Spare us, please. It should always be about leadership, not leaders.

- TMI