“Simplistic” Ramasamy counters Prof Tajuddin’s “reductionist attempt” to defend PM Anwar

 

MY opinion editorial (Op-Ed) “Anwar, failure as Prime Minister” which was recently published in online publications, including Malaysiakini, solicited mixed reactions. (Editor’s Note: FocusM ran the said opinion editorial with a different headline, “Ramasamy: Sock-gate incident epitomises Anwar’s limited success as Prime Minister”.)

One particular commentator who is none other than the distinguished Prof Mohd Tajuddin Rasdi went to the extent of calling my analysis as simplistic and one-sided.

I was blamed for pointing my fingers at Anwar and not others. I was falsely accused of focussing solely on the sock-gate incident and not others. It was pointed out that the inability to control the events related to the sock-gate incident was not the sole fault of Anwar.

In fact, I should have cast the blame on the religious department, the religious academics, the police and others. The metaphor of family was used by Tajuddin to exonerate Anwar from shouldering the sole blame.

It was normal therefore for Anwar as the head of the family for not having total control of his adult children.

It might be stated at the outset that my criticisms of Anwar were not solely focused for on his action on the sock-gate incident.

In fact, reading of my article would suggest that the state of race and religious relations, the populist approach of Anwar reinforcing the racial and religious divide, the discrimination of the non-Malays and the state of the economy were the reasons given as to why Anwar failed as PM of the country.

Family analogy is erred

It was the inability to manage religious and race relations that could have contributed to the sock-gate incident. The argument that I solely focused on the sock-gate incident is nothing but reductionism.

The sock-gate incident was a mere dependent variable and not the independent variable. It was the nature of the ethnic and religious relationship that eventually gave rise to the sock-gate and the attendant attempts at boycott of KK Super Mart.

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, DPM Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi and Agriculture and Food Security Minister Datuk Seri Mohamad Sabu at a discussion on the Middle East situation recently (Image credit: Anwar’s Facebook)

My reflection on Anwar was not as an individual but the PM of the country. He might depend on the government departments for enforcement of policy decisions but he alone as the PM aided by his cabinet members give policy directions.

The relationship between Anwar as the PM and government departments is not one of family. In families, children might be disobedient to parents but government departments must act on the orders of the PM.

So, the family analogy that seeks to exonerate Anwar is simplistic and crude. I don’t understand how a learned person as Tajuddin could miss the trees for the forests.

Anwar as the PM of the country is totally in-charge of the well-being and welfare of the citizens. Under difficult circumstances, Anwar cannot pass the buck to others and hide his hands behind his back.

Whether Anwar is responsible or not the burden must be borne by him as the PM. There are no two ways about it.

Failure to address des-stabilising issues

Contrary to what was said by Tajuddin, Anwar need not be an authoritarian like twice former PM Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad to control and take charge of events in the country especially if they are threatening to destabilise the country.

The government departments including the police might not have absolute independence in a country like Malaysia of they wait for directions from the government helmed by the PM.

There is no necessity for me to blame others for the state of affairs in the country. As a citizen of this country, I am duty bound to hold the elected leaders responsible if things go wrong in the country, including the PM.

It was not the department heads who promised reforms and changes but it was none other than Anwar. In this respect, Anwar needs to address the woes of the country.

Tajuddin is right in saying that Anwar should be given a chance since he has been in office for slightly more than year. However, if Anwar cannot honestly address the de-stabilising issues in the country in this short period, then what guarantee is there that Anwar will be successful in the remainder of his term.

Tajuddin has all the right defend Anwar but unfortunately such a defence must be based on solid grounds. I am not the sole person claiming that Anwar is failing as the PM but there are many others out there.

Perhaps, Anwar has realised now that it is much easier to promise reforms while he was in the opposition than in power.

To reiterate, I must say that Tajuddin’s reductionist exercise of defending Anwar on the sock-gate incident is a misrepresentation of my broader argument why Anwar has failed as Malaysia’s PM.

Let the readers judge who is simplistic? 

 

Former DAP stalwart and Penang chief minister II Prof Ramasamy Palanisamy is chairman of the United Rights of Malaysian Party (Urimai) interim council.

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

- Focus Malaysia