Emergency and the question of legacy

 

Former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad says he’s not bothered about the kind of legacy he will eventually leave.

In an interview over BFM Radio on Jan 15, he said: “I don’t care about my legacy. I’m quite sure when I’m dead and gone people will run me down and all that. It’s not important, I’ll be dead anyway.”

Mahathir received quite a grilling on the Breakfast Grille programme, where he was even asked point blank if he had stolen government money, and about his relationship with Anwar Ibrahim. Bravo to presenter Noelle Lim and the BFM team.

I want to talk about the question of legacy here.

Mahathir said it would not matter to him what people said about him once he was dead.

The reasoning sounds right, of course, especially if you’re philosophical about it. But Mahathir is a politician through and through, and a crafty strategist at that, so I have doubts when he says he’s not bothered about his legacy.

Every reasonable leader, especially a prime minister, would want to leave behind a good legacy. Every reasonable leader would want to go down in history alongside people such as Tunku Abdul Rahman, Nelson Mandela and Mahatma Gandhi, not be placed on the same list as Hitler and Pol Pot.

Perhaps Mahathir is saying this because some people have already called him a dictator and other names while some others have praised his contribution to the economic growth of the nation.

Perhaps he realises that some people think he is one reason for the current state of political instability and the declaration of emergency.

Every generation judges its leaders; so does history. For instance, we Malaysians have judged, and hold opinions about, all our prime ministers.

I think Tunku Abdul Rahman, Razak Hussein and Hussein Onn have left behind a legacy that their children and grandchildren can be proud of. The legacies of Tan Cheng Lock, Tan Siew Sin and VT Sambanthan continue to inspire. Certainly they all had their faults, but by and large they proved to be leaders one could respect.

In the same vein, I’m sure the question of legacy would play on the mind of Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin, especially now that he has advised the Yang di-Pertuan Agong Sultan Abdullah Sultan Ahmad Shah to proclaim a state of emergency.

Malaysians had been hoping for a New Malaysia but they’ve got a New Emergency instead.

It’s understandable, therefore, that there is much opposition to the emergency, not just from politicians but also from NGOs and individuals worried about possible abuses and Malaysia’s decaying democracy.

The parliamentary opposition and some within Umno see this as an attempt by Muhyiddin to stay in power, as the number of MPs in his stable was slowly slipping away before Jan 12 when the emergency was announced. Umno’s Padang Rengas MP Mohamed Nazri Abdul Aziz, who withdrew support for Muhyiddin on Jan 12, said the nationwide emergency was an indirect admission that the prime minister had lost majority support in Parliament.

One report quoted Annuar Musa, a minister in Muhyiddin’s Cabinet, as saying: “If people ask whether the emergency is to deal with Covid only, to me, that is not accurate.” Annuar, an Umno leader who is seen as a Muhyiddin and Perikatan Nasional supporter, said it was also to do with political stability.

The Malaysian Bar, many NGOs and human rights activists, and even the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam), do not think a state of emergency is necessary to tackle the pandemic. “While most people can understand the need for a targeted movement control order, the government’s request for an emergency declaration appears to be overblown,” the Bar said.

Just yesterday, 10 former Bar Council chairmen said the government had set a dangerous precedent by seeking a proclamation of emergency over a health pandemic.

They argued that the condition for proclaiming an emergency under the Federal Constitution – the existence of a grave emergency which threatened the security, economic life or public order in the country – had not been met.

Also yesterday, opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim gave notice that he’d be challenging the emergency, which he described as an “egregious abuse of power”, in court.

Muhyiddin had earlier assured that the emergency was to arm the government with certain powers to effectively tackle the worsening Covid-19 pandemic. It was not, he said, a military coup and there would be no curfew. He also assured that he would not interfere in the work of the judiciary.

I believe Muhyiddin would want to leave a good legacy as prime minister; to be remembered the way Malaysians remember the Tunku or Razak or Hussein. His actions will be judged not just by Malaysians but by history.

The Palace had earlier issued a statement saying the King had consented to proclaim a state of emergency after consulting with Chief Secretary to the Government Mohd Zuki Ali, Attorney-General Idrus Harun, Armed Forces chief Affendi Buang, IGP Abdul Hamid Bador, Health director-general Dr Noor Hisham Abdullah, and Election Commission chairman Abdul Ghani Salleh.

“This consent also takes into account the personal safety of the people and the interests of the country. It is also based on current Covid-19 statistics, particularly the constraints of logistics facilities according to the states that have been presented during the briefing session,” the statement added.

His Majesty has shown in his actions and words that he cares very much for all Malaysians regardless of race, religion and creed; and friends who were sports reporters previously have told me nice things about him from the time the King was active in sports.

Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the King – under whose name the emergency is being implemented – would have reminded the government to act responsibly. For what happens will impact His Majesty’s legacy too.

We must all remember one universal truth: we judge ourselves by our intentions; others judge us by our actions and their results. - FMT

The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of MMKtT.