Hisham's 'big brother' remark highlights void in ideology

There is a crater in Malaysian politics. This is the gap that exists that ideology is meant to fill.

Scratch a Malaysian politician, and the chances are you will find that aside from being against a whole lot of injustices - which it is easy to be (it's simpler to be against things than for things) - he or she cannot connect the dots to a world-view.

That world-view has to be based on a concept of the human person with consequent sensitivity to the conditions that would help make the person (and nations) flourish, making it incumbent on the proponent to strive in concert with others of like mind to obtain those conditions for human (and national) flourishing.

Just the other day, there was a kerfuffle over Foreign Minister Hishammuddin Hussein's use of the term “big brother” with reference to either his counterpart, Wang Yi, of China or to the Chinese nation.

The incident serves as a good illustration of the point about the general void in ideology in Malaysian politics.

Even if one charitably interprets Hishammuddin's use of the term “big brother” as referring personally to his counterpart Wang Yi - and not to the Chinese nation - it's a stance that leaves a lot to be desired.

Hishammuddin was never in interactive proximity or rapport with Wang Yi such that he could use “big brother” as a descriptor of his ties to his Chinese counterpart.

Hishammuddin goofed badly because the remark could only be taken as an earnest of the foreign minister's desire to dispose of the top diplomat of a big power to be on fraternal terms with Malaysia.

This when that power's powerful navy is cruising around in the South China Sea, building installations on uninhabited islands close to or within the territorial waters of littoral nations, causing a flurry of concern among Asean countries, each of which has claims to landmasses in the area.

That is not all.

There are credible reports China has one million Uighur people in restive Xinjiang province detained in camps to which access is restricted.

Global concern about human rights violations in the province and in the camps is mounting despite strenuous Chinese denials.

Finally, China is not using the leverage it enjoys with Myanmar to steer the military junta which overthrew an elected government in Yangon towards the negotiating table and away from the path of clamping down on widespread protests that have resulted in more than 500 people killed since a military coup on Feb 1.

Hishammuddin's use of the term “big brother” in these circumstances is naive and amateurish.

It smacks of appeasement when what would have been more appropriate was the formal courtesies of diplomatic interaction, unaccompanied by any sign of grovelling.

Hishammuddin's problem is that he hasn't an appreciation of the larger picture; he's out of his league.

A world-view would have furnished him a grasp of the bigger canvas from which he could have derived more sensible bearings by which to proceed at this juncture of the Malaysia-China relationship.

MCA vs DAP

The void in ideology is a distressingly common feature of Malaysian politicians.

It is one reason for the frequency of party hopping, that bane of competitive party politics in the country. Politicians switch parties easily because self-interest and venality rather than personal conviction motivate allegiance.

The ideological void helps explain another troubling feature of Malaysian politics: its practitioners routinely mischaracterise each other.

An example is what Dr Mahathir Mohamad recently said about the MCA - that it was at one time extreme in its views, just as the DAP at times is, added Dr M.

It was no surprise that both MCA and DAP promptly contested this characterisation by someone who is known to give vent to views on weighty matters that are without rigour or accuracy.

To the extent that it could be said the MCA has an ideology, it is to protect the educational and business interests of the Chinese community. The ideological underpinnings of this outlook require the MCA to believe in a smidgin of human rights and capitalism.

The DAP's political stances have more ideological content than the MCA's; but when one scrutinises the basis of its developmental plans for Penang, you wonder if the underpinnings are social democratic, which is the party's inclination, or cronyistic capitalistic.

To characterise any of the abovementioned stances as extremist is to use words that way Humpty Dumpty used them – “A word is anything I say it means.”

The instinct behind this usage is dictatorial and from history, we learn that dictators have little use for ideology. They may begin their careers espousing some beliefs but usually wind up impaled on the contradiction between their beliefs and practices.

Ideology is vitally important for the growth and success of political parties in a democracy.

Generally speaking, among major political parties, Umno has no political ideology because it was formed to defend the interests of the Malay people and from its beginnings did not spend much time mulling the ideological bases of this defence.

This led to easy reliance on race and religion as the props of this defence.

Both are of limited use as props for their susceptibility to subversion by charlatans out to camouflage their motives behind the pieties of race and religion.

All this has led in recent times to Umno's descent into a quagmire of competing interests (mostly of self) that takes care to masquerade as the interests of race and religion.

This self-delusion has now degenerated into a morass in which the party is presently enmeshed. Extrication must be by way of erection of an ideological scaffolding on which ideas and principles are mounted.

For the growth and success of democratic political parties, a sound ideology is as vital as blood plasma is to an individual's health. - Mkini

---

TERENCE NETTO has been a journalist for more than four decades.

The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of MMKtT.