There is change and there is change

 

By the way, I attended one Umno gathering in PJ back in 2008 and one Umno member stood up to propose that Umno makes peace with Anwar Ibrahim. Almost the entire hall booed him. The 'security guards' then grabbed this chap by the neck, dragged him outside, and kicked the daylights out of him. He was beaten up good and proper.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Let’s not be carried away just because some unknown young politicians wanted to be recognised as candidates for the coming general elections got emotional and raised some issues, which will need the approval of the three component parties in Pakatan Rakyat.

PAS was an unknown party running a backward state and just with the help of DAP and PKR is sitting in the position that they should be grateful for. They have a common leader in Anwar who has gone through trials and tribulations that no other leader has been through. He may not be perfect but the question is who is?

He has held this coalition together that it has become a formidable force that has woken up the political minds of the public. Today, it is where it is because of this one leader. So suddenly there are some ungrateful young politicians who have not made any sacrifices raise issues, which in the first place should not have been raised at all.

Are they for real or Trojan horses put to create a rift within the coalition. We have a long way to go put this country at level and there is much work to be done rather than create a division at this crucial stage. We should be discussing ways to improve the quality, financial, educational aspects of the average Malaysian life. – Comment posted by ‘bobby brown’

**************************************

That was a comment by a reader going by the name of ‘bobby brown’ posted in Malaysia Today. I have only slightly edited the bad grammar but other than that no changes have been made to that comment -- other than the editing of the grammatical mistakes.

That is one example of many similar comments made over the last few days. Even Oon Yeoh said in The Suntoday, “The answer quite simply, is that PAS has a tendency to become too big for its britches. It exhibited such behaviour after the 1999 General Election, where it did quite well, and now it's exhibiting such tendencies again.”

Before I comment on that issue, however, I would like to touch on the following news report: Kota Alam Shah assemblyman M. Manoharan's call to fellow DAP assemblyman Ronnie Liu (DAP-Pandamaran) to resign if he failed to address the condominium project in Batu Caves shows all is not well in Selangor DAP.

I am actually quite surprised that Manoharan wants Ronnie Liu’s head. I thought Pakatan Rakyat said that Barisan Nasional was the one who approved that housing project in Batu Caves. Is Manoharan saying that it was not Barisan Nasional but Pakatan Rakyat that is the culprit -- and Ronnie Liu in particular?

This would mean Manoharan is contradicting what his party said and I was made to understand that DAP does not allow its leaders to contradict their own party -- as the Tunku Aziz Tunku Ibrahim episode has proven. So who approved the Batu Caves project? Barisan Nasional or Pakatan Rakyat? And if it was Barisan Nasional then why must Ronnie Liu resign?

I remember relating a story a couple of years ago about Ronnie Liu, ‘Bangsar’ Bala, my wife Marina, I, and a fifth person, going to Manoharan’s house to meet his wife when he was in Kamunting under ISA detention. The purpose of that visit was to ask Manoharan’s wife to send a message to the five Hindraf ISA detainees that we want them to contest the March 2008 general election.

We suggested that they contest parliament seats because the Indian cause is a national issue and it would be better that the problems facing the Indians be raised in Parliament. Ronnie even indicated that he was prepared to 'vacate' his seat if Manoharan or any of the other four Hindraf detainees wanted that seat.

In other words, Ronnie was prepared to give way to Manoharan if need be. Not many politicians would be prepared to sacrifice their own political career for the benefit of someone else. Ronnie, however, was prepared to do that and that is why I am his loyal friend. He has shown that he is not in politics for personal gain and is prepared to sacrifice himself for the sake of the party.

Anyway, back to the posting by ‘bobby brown’. “We should be discussing ways to improve the quality, financial, educational aspects of the average Malaysian life,” said ‘bobby brown’. I suppose what he means by that statement is we should be focusing on how to make Malaysia a better country.

And I would agree with that. However, we must first come to an agreement on the definition of ‘better’. ‘Better’ can mean different things to different people.

For example, a company that was ‘in the red’ last year to the tune of RM250 million can be said to have done better this year when it reduces these loses to just RM150 million. Next year it does even better when the losses get reduced to just RM80 million. By the fifth year it does even better (the best performance in five years) when it breaks even, although it still does not make any money.

So what does ‘better’ mean? And how would we translate that to a better Malaysia?

Does ‘better’ mean there are still blatant and rampant corruption and abuse of power but not as bad as before? Does ‘better’ mean there are still blatant and rampant racism, discrimination and political persecution but not as bad as before? Does ‘better’ mean only 5,000 Malaysians died in traffic accidents this year compared to 6,000 Malaysians the year before? Does ‘better’ mean now only 100 people die in police custody compared to 180 people in the past?

Let me put it another way: does ‘better’ mean now your spouse commits adultery only once a month compared to every week before this? Why should you tolerate your spouse committing adultery even once a year? How can you consider your spouse committing adultery once a month as ‘better’ than once a week?

What is ‘better’ for you may not be ‘better’ for me. If all you mean by ‘better’ is the degree of transgressions, and you are prepared to accept lesser incidences over larger incidences as ‘better’, then we clearly do not share the same ideals. Would someone who murdered just one person be better than someone who murdered ten people? Would not even one murder make that person a murderer? There is no such thing as a ‘worse’ murderer and a ‘better’ murderer. Either way you still hang.

And herein lies the problem. You are looking at how bad Barisan Nasional or Umno are and anything lesser than that you are prepared to compromise and accept.

We all talk about change. We all aspire for change. We all fight for change. But we are yet to agree on that definition of change. And this is why we are always in disagreement. While we agree that change is required, we cannot agree on what is meant by ‘change’.

This next paragraph is aimed at just Muslims so non-Muslims can skip this paragraph if they wish to.

Let’s say that a Muslim never prays or fasts and lives a life of sin that includes drinking, gambling and adultery. Then, one day, this Muslim starts praying once in a while on Fridays and fasts a couple of days a year during the month of Ramadhan. However, this person still drinks, gambles and indulges in adultery. Does this make that person a ‘better ‘ Muslim or is that person still a bad Muslim?

I know the answer to that so no need to reply to my question. In short, there is no such thing as a better Muslim. There are no degrees of Muslims. A Muslim is someone who abides to and follows the rules laid down in Islam. You just cannot be a little bit pregnant.

So what is my interpretation of a better Malaysia? My interpretation of a better Malaysia is a society that can tolerate dissenting or opposing views. And that is my main beef with Barisan Nasional and Umno.

No, my main beef with Barisan Nasional and Umno is not the arrogance, racism, persecution, abuse of power, corruption, violation of fundamental liberties and civil rights, etc., that they perpetuate Those, to me, are merely the symptoms of another disease. Those are not the causes of the disease. Those are signs that there is a disease.

And this ‘disease’ is we do not have freedom of thought, freedom of choice, freedom of opinion, freedom of expression, freedom of information, freedom of the press, freedom of association, and so on. And because of all these lacks of freedoms, we end up with rampant and blatant arrogance, racism, persecution, abuse of power, corruption, violation of fundamental liberties and civil rights, etc.

And this is what many of you do not understand. You look at the symptoms of the disease and you try to cure the symptoms. I look at the cause of the disease and attack the cause of that disease. And if we can eliminate the cause then the symptoms will automatically disappear.

I have written about this next point before but allow me to repeat what I said.

200 years ago, Napoleon Bonaparte attacked the ‘disease’ that was plaguing Europe. Around 35 years after that, society began to change. Then, roughly another 35 years later, the whole of Europe changed and what we see today in Europe is the result of that change.

So Napoleon did not try to cure the symptoms of the disease. He attacked the cause of that disease. In time, changes happened and the symptoms of the disease disappeared.

I know I am repeating what I have written many times before. But how do I not keep repeating myself when after saying it so many times you still do not get it?

Even people like Haris Ibrahim (Sam) cannot understand what I am saying. And he is a lawyer, too, mind you. Yet even he cannot understand what I am trying to say. He, too, like many of you, go by the adage that a duck swims, you swim, so you must be a duck. You do not support ABU. So, if you do not support ABU, then you must be supporting Umno.

In the first place, did I ever say I do not support ABU? What I did say is that just shouting ABU is not enough. It has to be more than just that. Kicking out Umno will do no bloody good if the problem is not Umno but the culture that breed organisations like Umno. We can get rid of Umno but that will not get rid of the problem. And the problem is the way we think and do things.

Let me go back to what ‘bobby brown’ and Oon Yeoh commented. One delegate during the PAS general assembly last week said that he felt Tok Guru Abdul Hadi Awang should become the prime minister if Pakatan Rakyat gets to form the next federal government. And then all hell broke loose.

This was the opinion of just ONE delegate from amongst more than one million PAS members. One man from ONE MILLION said this and the party DID NOT adopt that proposal as one of its Resolutions. In other words, PAS allowed that delegate to speak but they did not adopt what he said.

And in spite of that everyone whacks the whole party as if the party had committed a cardinal sin. Are you saying that the party should not have allowed him to speak? Are you saying that they should have switched off the microphone and shout at him to sit down? Are you saying that they should do what MIC does -- get the security guards to drag him outside and beat him up?

By the way, I attended one Umno gathering in PJ back in 2008 and one Umno member stood up to propose that Umno makes peace with Anwar Ibrahim. Almost the entire hall booed him. The 'security guards' then grabbed this chap by the neck, dragged him outside, and kicked the daylights out of him. He was beaten up good and proper.

And that is why we don’t want Umno. They do not respect freedom of thought and freedom of opinion/expression. But then you want PAS to do the same thing. So what ABU are you talking about when you want to be just like Umno?

We have to be better than that. If we are going to be just like Umno then why would the voters want to kick Umno out? We have to make it clear that we will not compromise on violations of our freedom of thought, freedom of choice, freedom of opinion, freedom of expression, freedom of information, freedom of the press, freedom of association, and so on.

Currently, I find that many, if not most, of the opposition leaders and supporters do not respect freedom of thought, freedom of choice, freedom of opinion, freedom of expression, freedom of information, freedom of the press, freedom of association, and so on.

And this is my beef with the ABU-screamers. My interpretation of ABU is CHANGE. Your interpretation of ABU is Anwar Ibrahim and only Anwar Ibrahim must become the prime minister. Even the ‘liberal’ Oon Yeoh thinks like this. Even the ‘liberal’ Oon Yeoh does not tolerate freedom of thought, freedom of choice, freedom of opinion, freedom of expression, freedom of information, freedom of the press, freedom of association, and so on.

So, yes, I support ABU. But my ABU is politik baru, budaya baru, Malaysia baru, Melayu baru, etc. Your ABU is old wine in a new bottle. So you can fight for your ABU your way and I will fight for my ABU my way. You can walk if you want. I will swim. But we are both going the same direction. And just because a duck also swims does not make me a duck -- just like just because a monkey also walks does not make you a monkey. Or does it?

By the way, ‘bobby brown’, PAS is the second largest party in Malaysia in terms of membership. There are more PAS members than DAP and PKR members combined. Pakatan Rakyat needs PAS more than PAS needs Pakatan Rakyat. So stop being pompous and condescending.

“PAS was an unknown party running a backward state and just with the help of DAP and PKR is sitting in the position that they should be grateful for,” konon. You sound just like Umno. This is how Umno normally talks. So what ABU are you talking about when you ape Umno in everything that it does and say?

East Coast Malays will call this gong telajak. Go find out what this means from your Malay friends, if you happen to have any.