SINCE WHEN IS UNHAPPY AMBIGA OUR PATRON SAINT OF PUBLIC PROTESTS?

Umar Mukhtar

I have refrained from commenting on the current political developments for almost a week now hoping that things will settle down and we can see the wheat from the chaff. Sure enough, as soon as the sackings started, the Malaysian public was asked indirectly to perceive all kinds of conclusions.

It is flattering to know that one’s opinion counts but it is also insulting to be considered a fool and naive as to be willing to consider every bullshit in their portfolio as believable. We know now that there are many sleazy and greedy characters on both sides of the divide. So readers beware. So let’s separate the legitimate from the bull.

First, the Prime Minister is entitled to the privileges of his office – reshuffle his cabinet, sack Deputy Prime Ministers or Ministers, without giving us any explanation, if he doesn’t want to. Just as he did not when appointing them. Dr. Mahathir would have done the same.

It is unnecessarily tough to fight when your wingman paddles his own canoe. The PM will face the political consequences of his actions and deal with it accordingly. It is not our fight as if any of our legitimate rights was trampled on. It is their battle for their truths.

Second, as Chief Executive, he can hire and fire, especially government servants. But because he had fired personalities in sensitive positions, come the allegations by prominent legally-qualified persons in the opposing forces that a particular sacking was unconstitutional and untimely.

But instead of doing anything concrete about that belief like instituting the legal process, the public was first aroused to follow that conclusion. To legally-qualified people like me, I just reach for a copy of the Constitution and checked. Hogwash! What about the lay public? Must they always remain innocent pawns of these political opportunists?

Not enough with that, some bitch published a purported document, now declared a hoax, which intended to persuade the public to conclude foul-play and mala fide on the PM’s part. Whether the PM is capable of doing the suggested act, and whether he had wished to do that, and whether an imminent arrest of the PM was wished and worked on by the sacked person are all conjectures caused by the publication of that fraudulent document.

If that is not an act of enmity by a foreign national, I don’t know what is. Her credibility is limited only to what that is lent by our own nationals who have their own axes to grind but have no guts to act as irresponsibly as she. So she rides their credibility and be naughty in between. The Malaysians who put the bitch up to it is guilty of treason.

Don’t rationalise that a wrongful act is the only choice that we have. Fight our own battles, our way, and keep tree-hugging pretenders out from making a fast buck. She is not worth the attention she is getting. I stopped reading Sarawak Report a long time ago after, by my own conclusion, it is not the righteous organisation it pretends to be, and a hidden agenda that makes it just another mercenary lobby of non-holistic causes was emerging.

Third, and the most distressing, a public protest was called by Ambiga Seenivasam in view of certain unhappiness. It is called Bersih 4. I was there at the inauguration of the organising committee of protest against the apparent unfairness of the election process even before it was called Bersih. It was never intended to mess around with other unhappinesses.

Sure, it can evolve, but please let’s not mix things up to your opportunistic convenience. I do protest the state of our elections but I wouldn’t give two hoots about other things which Ambiga speaks through her ass.

Actually do we need to march and rally each time we are unhappy? I know it is our democratic right and we can do it anytime. But isn’t a bit of discretion due? If a protest march is about marching eight abreast, holding arms signifying solidarity, singing songs or screaming your throat sore and carrying descent placards, along approved routes at designated times so as not to inconvenience others, like how it is intended in matured democracies, it is quite alright.

But as always, hooliganism will break out and lives and limbs threatened. Agent provocateurs  will be blamed for it. Maybe that is true. But it is a measure of the organiser’s ability to organise that it could happen on their watch. Don’t do it if you can’t manage it well. It is not the only tool of democratic discourse. So do it only sparingly as to preserve its impact as a public protest.

Nowadays, everything is mixed up and soon it will degenerate into “we against them” kind of confrontations. Suddenly “Mat Rempits” rule the day, and their agenda about avenging being sold fake phones rule the day. So preserve this right by being clear on your objectives, segregate them intelligently and be reminded that anarchy is not a democratic end.

More often than not, organisers do not express remorse when that happens except for it being an opportunity to blame others. Most of the time they relish it as if that was the whole point of the demonstration. How irresponsible. And the public suffers. The political elites can fight all they want. But do not draw us in by your almost childish antics.