WHAT’S THE POINT IN REMOVING NAJIB FROM OFFICE?

That’s an issue – and an important one – that foreign journalists and analysts, as well as our local liberal reporters choose to ignore. They’re only too happy to badger our government officials over scandals, but won’t ask hard questions of opposition politicians and activists who have anointed themselves the saviors of the nation.

AGENDA DAILY

In Malaysia, we’ve seen for months now a desperate, insipid and repetitive campaign to remove Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak from office. His opponents have organised mass protests, organised press conferences, organised online petitions, signed a bunch of papers, signed a bunch of lawsuit papers – all to no avail.

Notwithstanding the inherent madness in repeatedly banging your head against a wall (which is what this is), there is this massive, elephant-in-the-room question that anti-Najib forces have chronically been unable to answer: What’s the point of removing him from office? Who would you replace him with? What policy changes would you propose?

Three questions, but the latter two are inseparable from the first.

Let’s consider the second question. There’s simply no viable alternative to Najib. Who would it be? Some would propose the former deputy prime minister of Malaysia and now staunch Najib critic, Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin.

But Muhyiddin is a creature of the Umno establishment, which the Opposition regularly accuses of being corrupt to the core, and once declared that he is “Malay first” (as opposed to Malaysian first).

Would someone like that be acceptable to opposition members and activists who regularly trip over themselves to embrace the label “progressive”?

Even if Najib were removed and replaced with another member of Umno (whether Muhyiddin or someone else), how would that change anything? What guarantees that a year from now, or two years, we won’t be back at this very same juncture?

The opposition would be out on the streets via Bersih 9.0 (hey, more sequels than Rocky!) demanding the resignation of the prime minister. Again. Mahathir would be egging them on, depending on whether or not the PM does his bidding. Again.

We’ve seen this movie before – Najib’s predecessor, prime minister Abdullah Badawi, eventually lost his job because of it. Mahathir, the country’s self-admitted ex-dictator, was a key player in that fiasco.

He’s no stranger to ousting prime ministers. So it’s baffling that while Najib’s critics so frequently congratulate themselves for not being fooled by government rhetoric, they would so easily buy into Mahathir’s latest scheme.

For all of Umno’s faults – and they are legion – at least its members recognise the mad nihilism in dumping consecutive prime ministers – especially if the effort is led by a man who seems to have a congenital dislike of PMs other than himself.

Should we allow an ex-dictator to continue to dictate the destiny of the nation? How many prime ministers do we need to go through before markets and investors throttle us for our lunacy?

Just as disturbing is the anti-Najib forces’ deep aversion to concrete policy and actual governance.

Without any hint of irony or self-awareness, they named themselves the #SaveMalaysia coalition and promised national redemption on a revolutionary scale.

Policy proposals

The problem is, if you read the 37-point declaration they signed, you wouldn’t be able to figure how exactly they would get there. It doesn’t say much on exactly what they’d change if Najib goes.

Granted, the declaration did rail against Najib’s GST. But that tax has been credited by everyone from the IMF, to the World Bank, to the credit ratings agencies, for stabilising the nation’s finances and reducing the deficit.

Furthermore, and more importantly, the repeal of laws and policies is surely not a governing plan for a country. The business of government is in proposing and not opposing.

And then you have the usual suspects from the ‘progressive’ NGO crowd, like Maria Chin Abdullah, who have been busy patting themselves on the back for successfully including the mention of “institutional reforms” into the declaration.

So what are these amorphous “institutional reforms”? They were never spelt out in the declaration. If they were, would all the signatories of this much-vaulted Citizens’ Declaration agree to them?

In the end, “institutional reforms” are a bit like “world peace” at a beauty pageant – you say it because it’s easy and the judges like to hear it, but you have no clue what that would look like or how to get there.

This care-free unseriousness on policy extends to Malaysia’s opposition as a whole. Pakatan Harapan, the newly formed opposition coalition, previously said it would unveil a common set of policy proposals in January – then the date was pushed to July.

Considering all this, how is the anti-Najib #SaveMalaysia less empty and conceited than Donald Trump’s#MakeAmericaGreatAgain? Our opposition politicians and activists may be far more genteel, but they are no less fond of Trumpian generalities and promises.

That’s an issue – and an important one – that foreign journalists and analysts, as well as our local liberal reporters choose to ignore. They’re only too happy to badger our government officials over scandals, but won’t ask hard questions of opposition politicians and activists who have anointed themselves the saviors of the nation.

How many journalists have pressed the ebulliently enthusiastic anti-Najib crowd about the post-Najib Malaysia, about what comes after?

No wonder most of the world was surprised by the overwhelming failure of the Arab Spring. Too many journalists were caught up in the revolutionary fervor, elevating anti-regime politicians and activists to democratic saints.

Then, it turns out few were fit or even able to govern. It’s fun sticking it to the Man, until you realise the absence of the Man isn’t necessarily good, it’s often evil and/or chaos.

So what’s the point of removing Najib from office again? The #SaveMalaysia folk may really want to, but they must present a clear and credible alternative.

Otherwise, they’ll continue to remind me of a wonderful quote from Woody Allen’s Vicky Cristina Barcelona. In the movie, Cristina, played by Scarlett Johansson, is asked what she wants in life. She replies, “I don’t know what I want. I only know what I don’t want.”

Now, that’s a brilliant quote about existential ennui. But that’s the last way you want to choose or run a government.

This article first appeared in https://asiancorrespondent.com