I hate to make any political interpretations or readings on the decision made by a politician.

To me, political interpretations or readings are subjective and we tend to ignore the objectives of the decision maker.

However, most of the people judge the politician by his or her own political interpretation or reading on the decision made.

Therefore, like it or not, the Prime Minister Mohamad Najib needs to realize that his decision to fill a candidate in Penang’s Penanti State Constituency By-election or not, it will be largely interpret by the people on how well he is capable to manage the UMNO.

At first, Najib was favouring for UMNO to abstain from participating the Penang’s Penanti State Constituency By-election, as he disagree any ‘political-motivated by-election’.

However, his call has been shot down by the UMNO local leaders, as well as from the former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, despite the supports from other component parties within the Barisan Nasional.

As such, does Najib really drive the UMNO, and received full support from the Supreme Council has become a question.

Well, I am not discounting any possibilities for UMNO to win in the Penang’s Penanti State Constituency By-election, nor doubting Najib’s ambitious and political will to bring improvements and changes to the nation.

But, can Najib walk his talk without the supports from UMNO, particularly from the dissenting Supreme Council?

That make me recall what was happened on the former Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi. It shown clearly a Prime Minister is handicapped when he received no supports from UMNO.

And this become the acid-test for Najib: does him dare to against Supreme Council in championing his reforming plan?

Tomorrow, we will see the excuses streaming in from Barisan leaders and supporters. It’s expected, they’ll say. They were seats previously held by Pakatan, they’ll say. Mr. Najib didn’t have enough time for to carry out his reform agenda, they’ll say. They might even say that Barisan picked the wrong candidates.

But the fact of the matter is, in the battle for the two Bukits and one Batang, Pakatan edged out Barisan 2-1. Thus far, the by-election score for the two political coalitions stands at 4-1, with Pakatan winning in Permatang Pauh and Kuala Terengganu previously. Barisan’s loss in Permatang Pauh, like the tsunami of 8 March, was blamed on former prime minister Mr. Abdullah Badawi. Similarly, Barisan’s failure in retaining the Kuala Terengganu seat was also blamed on Mr. Abdullah, as his detractors argued that he picked the wrong candidate. But Mr. Abdullah did not do anything in Bukit Gantang and Bukit Selambau. Yet, as Permatang Pauh and Kuala Terengganu before this, Pakatan won with bigger majorities.

The most crucial of the three simultaneous by-elections was the one held in the Parliamentary seat of Bukit Gantang in Perak. Experts predicted a win for Barisan in Batang Ai and in all likelihood, Pakatan would retain Bukit Selambau. Yet it was at Bukit Gantang that Barisan focused its efforts upon, sensing that they might wrest the seat from PAS.

But they found that the 37 or so percent of non-Malays in Bukit Gantang shunned them. Even with their best efforts, they simply couldn’t win over the non-Malays, who had made up their mind on who to vote for. So they turned to the Malays and launched an onslaught onto Mr. Nizar Jamaludin, the PAS candidate and the Mentri Besar (PR) of Perak.

Their most often used arsenal? The so-called act of treason committed by Mr. Nizar. UMNO played up the derhaka sentiment to the hilt, along with allegations that Mr. Nizar was a DAP puppet and betrayer of the Malays. Political pariahs like Mr. Ezam Mohd Nor  and Mr. Lokman Nor Adam were sent to Bukit Gantang to attack PAS and Nizar. Utusan Malaysia and TV3 did their best to campaign for UMNO. The media, along with some BN-friendly muftis, even created a mini-uproar when a DAP politician quoted verses from the holy Quran. Bukit Gantang even saw the return of former prime minister Tun Mahathir, making his ‘grand’ comeback to UMNO. And the reports coming in from Bukit Gantang was that Mr. Nizar would lose due to a huge swing in Malay votes.

It’s still too early to receive detailed information on the voting patterns in Bukit Gantang. But with Mr. Nizar’s improved majority, it is unlikely that there was any significant swing in the Malay votes. Which means, for all UMNO’s efforts, the Malays of Bukit Gantang were not swayed by the rhetorical volley launched at Mr. Nizar.

But what does the result in Bukit Gantang mean in terms of the Perak political crisis? Pakatan Rakyat had turned the by-election into a referendum on the Perak power grab and Barisan wanted the seat badly as it would effectively ‘legitimize’ the coup d’etat. Of course, after this they would claim that Bukit Gantang is not reflective of the wishes of the people of Perak, but those excuses will sound hollow. Make no mistake, there was only one issue in Bukit Gantang that mattered and it was used by both sides; the Perak political and constitutional crisis. As such, any result is reflective of the people of Bukit Gantang’s opinion on the matter as that is what the discourse had been throughout the campaigning period.

Mr. Najib, Mr. Zahid Hamidi and Mr. Zambry Abdul Kadir should realize that the Perak coup did not have the consent of the majority of Perakians. This hugely embarassing loss in Perak should be an eye-opener to those concerned and proves once and for all that regardless of what UMNO and Barisan tries to tell us, the current Perak ‘government’ will not be legitimate in eyes of the rakyat. The result of Bukit Gantang is the biggest indicator to UMNO and Barisan Nasional that a there is only one way out of the political impasse in Perak; dissolution of the state assembly.

Are the three by-elections a referendum on Mr. Najib’s premiership? Maybe it’s too early for that. What is clear is that Mr. Najib’s public relations act of freeing the 13 ISA detainees and his new slogan ‘1Malaysia’ did not create the instant impact that he obviously wished for. The rakyat have heard enough talk during Mr. Abdullah’s era and Mr. Najib is leading a country that has become very sceptical, especially to the government. Mr. Najib will not have a honeymoon period.

In terms of Malaysian politics, the results of the by-elections today must be good for the future of a two-party system in Malaysia. Once again, Pakatan has proved that despite it’s so-called differing ideologies, PAS, DAP and PKR can work togather well to achieve a common goal. And with Mr. Nizar, PAS may have found it’s ambassador to the non-Malays, the epitome of the slogan ‘PAS untuk semua‘. Never have we seen DAP members worked this tirelessly for a PAS candidate. Never have we seen non-Malays accept a PAS man so willingly and with such open arms.

Lastly, the by-elections proved once and for all that the Tun has passed his time. His much-publicized campaigning have had little, if any, impact on the voters. He should just retire in peace and leave the nation to the man he claims will take it to greater heights.

Mr. Amin Iskandar, in his blog, has painstakingly replicated the speech by former premier Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohammad in Parliament on 18 January 1993. He was proposing amendments in the Federal Constitution to remove the immunity of the Malay rulers.

I must say that members of his former party would do well to read his speech to understand what it is to be in a system of constitutional monarchy.

Read it here.

Some excerpts from the speech:

Ketika negara menuntut kemerdekaan, pemimpin-pemimpin negara yang telah mendapat kemenangan besar dan sokongan padu dalam Pilihanraya Umum tahun 1955 telah membuat pilihan supaya sistem pemerintahan di negara ini ialah sistem Demokrasi Berparlimen atau `Parliamentary Democracy` dan Raja Berperlembagaan atau `Constitutional Monarchy`.

…

Oleh kerana begitu mudah Raja-Raja menyerahkan Singapura, Pulau Pinang dan Pangkor kepada penjajah dan kemudiannya menyerah pula negeri-negeri Melayu, maka rakyat tidak lagi boleh menerima sistem yang memberi kuasa hanya kepada Raja dan rakyat tidak diberi peranan apa-apa dalam politik negara. Lagi pun selepas Perang Dunia Kedua, Sistem Raja berkuasa penuh sudah menjadi lapok di seluruh dunia. Di merata-rata tempat Sistem Beraja ditamatkan terus. Di mana ia dikekalkan, kuasa Raja dihadkan oleh Perlembagaan atau undang-undang asas negara. Justeru itu, semasa Persekutuan Tanah Melayu menuntut kemerdekaan, pemimpin- pemimpin rakyat telah mengkaji sistem-sistem pemerintahan dengan mengambilkira sejarah negeri-negeri Melayu dan sistem-sistem pemerintahan lain.

…

Oleh itu lahirlah pendapat bahawa Raja perlu diletak di bawah suatu Perlembagaan yang menentukan kedudukan dan peranan Raja. Dengan cara ini Raja tidak lagi boleh bertindak dengan sewenang-wenangnya. Kuasa Raja akan ditentukan oleh Perlembagaan, iaitu undang-undang asas negara. Namun ada Raja yang sanggup menyerahkan negeri sendiri kepada kuasa asing tanpa menghiraukan Perlembagaan.

…

Dalam usaha menentang Malayan Union dan mengembalikan negeri-negeri Melayu dan negeri-negeri Selat kepada `status quo ante` iaitu keadaan sebelum Perang Dunia Kedua, rakyat telah memainkan peranan yang penting walaupun tidak diperuntukkan oleh undang-undang. Adalah jelas kepada rakyat pada masa itu bahawa Raja tanpa sokongan rakyat mudah dikuasai oleh pihak penjajah dan pihak-pihak lain. Justeru itu, rakyat perlu diberi hak dalam politik dan pentadbiran negara. Peranan rakyat mestilah ditentukan oleh undang- undang.

…

Walaupun wakil rakyat bebas bercakap dalam Dewan Rakyat dan Dewan-Dewan Undangan Negeri mengenai apa juga tajuk, tetapi mereka tidak boleh menyentuh diri Raja-Raja kerana sebarang kritikan atau teguran terhadap Raja boleh ditakrif sebagai hasutan dan mereka boleh didakwa di bawah Akta Hasutan. Peruntukan ini adalah hasil pindaan yang dibuat pada tahun 1971. Sebelum ini, teguran terhadap Raja boleh dibuat di dalam dewan. Di Britain dan di negara-negara lain, ahli-ahli Parlimen bebas menegur atau mengkritik Raja. Adalah jelas bahawa menegur dan mengkritik Raja tidak menghapus kedaulatan Raja.

…

Sementara halangan ke atas teguran ini dikatakan akan memelihara kemuliaan Raja, tetapi apabila Raja tidak ditegur, maka ia tidak akan sedar akan kesalahan yang telah dilakukannya. Dengan itu, mungkin lebih banyak kesalahan akan dilakukan dan kesalahan ini mungkin akan menjadi lebih serius. Ini bukan sahaja akan mencemarkan kemuliaan Raja, bahkan juga boleh menimbulkan kebencian rakyat terhadap Raja. Tidaklah benar jika dikatakan larangan terhadap mengkritik Raja akan memelihara kemuliaan Raja. Sebenarnya kemuliaan Raja akan tercemar kerana larangan ini.

…

Dengan kemungkinan Raja menolak nasihat serta bebas daripada teguran dan sebarang tindakan keadilan, maka Raja sebenarnya bukan Raja Berperlembagaan lagi tetapi menjadi Raja mutlak. Sekali lagi Demokrasi Berparlimen tidak wujud kerana tidak ada tindakan undang-undang yang boleh diambil terhadap Raja yang tidak menerima nasihat Kerajaan rakyat dan melakukan kesalahan.

…

Tetapi oleh kerana Akta Hasutan dan larangan terhadap mengkritik Raja, Raja tidak mendengar dan tidak percaya kepada penasihat mereka apabila maklumat disampaikan berkenaan kegelisahan rakyat. Raja dan keluarga-keluarga di-Raja nampaknya berpendapat bahawa semua ini adalah ciptaan penasihat-penasihat Raja untuk menakutkan Baginda atau untuk merebut hak Raja.

…

Dalam keadaan ini Raja bukan sahaja akan meneruskan amalan-amalan yang tidak disenangi atau disukai oleh rakyat tetapi juga akan melakukan perkara-perkara yang lebih dibenci oleh rakyat. Jika trend ini tidak disekat, perasaan rakyat terhadap Raja tentu akan meluap dan menjadi begitu buruk sehingga pada suatu masa nanti rakyat mungkin tidak lagi dapat membendung perasaan mereka. Perasaan yang diluahkan dalam surat-surat kepada akhbar sebenarnya sudah lama wujud.

…

Harus diingat bahawa penghormatan rakyat terhadap Raja tidak boleh ditentukan oleh undang-undang. Dengan izin, `Respect must be earned`. Mengadakan undang-undang yang menakutkan rakyat tidak akan membawa `respect`. Dengan kesedaran Raja boleh dihadapkan ke mahkamah, Raja tentu akan mengelak daripada melakukan perbuatan yang akan menyebabkan rakyat tidak menghormati Raja. Dengan itu, Institusi Beraja akan lebih dihormati dan lebih berkekalan.

…

Ada pihak yang berpendapat bahawa Raja Melayu diperlukan untuk melindungi orang Melayu. Peristiwa Perjanjian MacMichael dan Malayan Union jelas membuktikan bahawa yang sanggup dan mampu melindungi orang Melayu ialah orang Melayu sendiri. Jika tidak kerana mereka bangun dan menentang Malayan Union, hari ini orang Melayu akan menjadi pengemis di negeri sendiri.Percubaan pihak yang cuba menakutkan orang Melayu terhadap pindaan ini adalah kerana mereka ingin menggunakan sentimen kaum untuk kepentingan parti mereka.

…

Dengan tindakan orang Melayu melawan Malayan Union adalah jelas bahawa nasib orang Melayu berada di tangan rakyat Melayu. Keselamatan orang Melayu tidak terjejas dengan Raja Melayu tidak memiliki hak untuk melakukan jenayah. Ada pihak yang berkata dengan penghapusan hak Raja melakukan jenayah, maka orang Melayu tidak akan Melayu lagi atau akan habislah keistimewaan kedudukan orang Melayu. Ini tidaklah benar. Ini adalah fitnah. Yang akan menjamin Melayu terus Melayu dan hak-hak orang Melayu terus terpelihara ialah orang Melayu sendiri. Merekalah melalui wakil-wakil dan Kerajaan yang mereka pilih yang mencipta dan melaksanakan berbagai-bagai rancangan untuk memelihara dan menebus maruah bangsa Melayu.

…

Malangnya, di Malaysia walaupun ada peruntukan bahawa Raja harus bertindak mengikut nasihat Kerajaan, tetapi pihak Raja memegang kepada tafsiran nasihat yang diterima umum — iaitu nasihat boleh diterima atau ditolak. Tafsiran ini adalah salah. Dalam pada itu, ada pula perkara tertentu yang Raja menganggap ianya tidak perlu diberi nasihat. Dengan ini banyaklah perkara yang dilakukan yang bertentangan dengan Kerajaan yang mewakili rakyat.

…

Masalah yang dihadapi hari ini berpunca daripada pendapat bahawa Raja boleh membelakangkan Kerajaan rakyat. Tindakan curang yang berlaku adalah kerana nasihat tidak dihiraukan. Tidak adanya persetujuan terhadap pindaan ini juga berpunca daripada keengganan Raja menerima nasihat.

(emphasis is mine)

I urge you to visit the blog and read the speech in it’s entirety, especially if you’re one of those who are baying for blood against the ‘perderhakas’ in the recent political drama in Perak.

I left my meetings in the European Parliament this afternoon to do a live BBC World TV interview on today’s by-election in Malaysia, which sent the supposedly ‘disgraced’ opposition politician Anwar Ibrahim back into parliament with two-thirds of the vote, on a high turnout. This was not a surprise for anyone who has been following Malaysian politics closely recently, especially in the blogosphere, which has grown phenomenally, ironically partly because of former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohammad’s policy of making Malaysia an ‘intelligent’ nation with a computer literate population.

Anwar Ibrahim had been Dr Mahathir’s chosen successor until a bitter falling out, which culminated in Anwar’s being sent to prison on charges of corruption (later overturned) and sodomy. The elections in March this year were deliberately timed to be just before his period of disqualification from elected office ended, but he got round that by having an arrangement with his wife, who had taken over his seat when he involuntarily left politics and which she recently resigned so he could fight a by-election. The campaign was extremely short, but vigorously fought.

The government coalition and its undercover supporters threw everything at Anwar, including more sodomy charges (seen by most Malaysians as being politically motivated, but which could result in a prison sentence of up to 20 years if proved) and accusations that he is both a Chinese agent and a friend of Israel (politically damaging in a Muslim-majority country). Most of these charges were pure calumny, and the Penang voters who elected him showed what they thought of them. But this certainly won’t be the end of the story, in what has the making of the most radical shake-up in Malaysian politics for half a century — the time that the current ruling coalition has been in power.

Atas undangan klien saya di Malaysia, selama tanggal 27 Juni s/d 1 Juli 2008 saya berkesempatan mengunjungi Kuala Lumpur dan sekitarnya. Tidak saya sia-siakan tentu saja untuk melihat dari dekat menara kembar Petronas Twin Towers. Dengan diantar seorang teman, hari Sabtu siang tanggal 28 Juni 2008 saya menuju ke kawasan menara kembar yang tampak terlihat gagah, megah dan indah, yang menjadi ikon dan kebanggaan negeri jiran.

Maksud hati hendak menjelajah ke atas menara, namun apa daya saya tiba di kompleks Twin Towers saat hari sudah beranjak siang menjelang sore, sehingga saya hanya disambut dengan pemberitahuan bahwa tiket untuk boleh naik ke menara pada hari itu sudah ludes.

Seorang petugas menyarankan agar besok pagi jam 08:30 mengambil tiket dulu. First come first serve dan tidak bisa mengambil sehari sebelumnya. Kata petugas itu pula, setelah mengambil tiket kemudian mulai jam 09:30 secara bergiliran setiap 40 orang akan dipersilakan naik ke menara, dan seterusnya hingga jam 19:00 malam. Mengingat keterbatasan waktu saya sementara masih ada agenda lain (ya agenda jalan-jalan juga…..), terpaksa saya simpan saja keinginan untuk bisa naik ke menara menikmati pemandangan kota Kuala Lumpur dari ketinggian.

Menara kembar setinggi 452 meter yang terdiri dari 88 tingkat dan di tengahnya terdapat jembatan angkasa (skybridge) yang menghubungkan kedua menara pada ketinggian 170 m, akhirnya hanya bisa saya nikmati dari seputaran kawasan bawahnya saja. Menara ini secara resmi mulai dibuka pada tanggal 31 Agustus 1999 dan peresmiannya dilakukan oleh Dr. Mahathir Mohammad.

Menara kembar yang berdiri di atas area seluas 39,5 hektar, di lantai bawahnya dilengkapi kompleks pertokoan, di seputar depan dan belakangnya membentang halaman luas, keberadaannya dikelilingi oleh bangunan-bangunan yang juga tinggi, kiranya memang menjadi sebuah tempat yang sebaiknya jangan dilewatkan ketika bekunjung ke Kuala Lumpur.

Si kembar yang sungguh tampak gagah, megah dan indah. Pantaslah kalau saudara serumpun Malaysia begitu bangga akan keberadaan menara ini. Masyarakat Malaysia pada khususnya dan pengunjung pada umumnya cukup dimanjakan dengan tanpa perlu membayar biaya sepeserpun untuk bisa naik ke menara ini, alias free of charge. Cukup kalau mau bersabar mengantri. Padahal menara-menara tinggi di negara manapun setahu saya selalu menarik bayaran kalau ada yang mau naik.

Dan, masyarakat Malaysia pun dengan bangga berseru : Satu warisan. Satu matlamat ….. One Legacy. One Destiny …..

Yogyakarta, 8 Juli 2008
Yusuf Iskandar

“I am not acting on any pressure. I am doing this because Umno under Abdullah has forgotten its roots, its struggle for the party – for the Malays and for the nation.”
(Mahathir Mohammad, May 27, 2008)

Racial politics, racial discrimination, exclusively race based policies, and UMNO have one thing in common. They are racist in nature, and there are no two ways around that.

But when racists attempt to outrace one another, the subtle nuances within racism become more pronounced. Yet it’s in its more nuanced form that racism is truly more dangerous to society.

Before Abdullah Ahmad Badawi and his predecessor Mahathir Mohammad lost mutual favours, racism was quite simply defined as them and UMNO for the Malays against the non-Malays. It looked more or less monolithic – the fight for Ketuanan Melayu (Malay Supremacy) – and too strong to be challenged from the outside.

The idea was always that throughout history, only crises in UMNO would lead to gains for their (relatively more) multiracial opposition. Nothing else would challenge the UMNO hegemony other than those of the cracks created by diverging interests within the dominant party.

It’s during times of hegemonic crises like those we’ve seen in UMNO (in 1969, 1987, 1998) and the one of enormous proportions we see now that opportunities for change arise. The dialectical process of social change cannot be more obvious in Malaysia today where we see contradictions within the dominant racial ideology leading to a struggle against its antithesis – genuine multiracialism. What synthesis will be born from this clash of ideas? We shall see.

Interestingly to be considered, and perhaps of equal significance at this moment, are the micro dialectics going on within UMNO thesis. Of course, some would claim this is the key dialectical development in Malaysia today. But to situate the UMNO crisis as the major contradiction of Malaysian society today will be to go against the believe in true social change where subordinate classes (though racial in this case) successfully struggle and create a (racially) classless society.

Nevertheless, let’s zoom in on the micro crisis in UMNO. It’s Mahathir the predecessor versus Abdullah the successor. Having endured a falling out for two years now since the infamous crooked bridge issue (when Mahathir accused Abdullah of selling out the country to neighbours Singapore), the gap between these two old men cannot be wider today after Abdullah’s disastrous showing in the recent general elections. Abdullah is of the view it is because of elements of sabotage that his Barisan Nasional ruling coalition failed to retain two-thirds in Parliament and lost a further four states to the Pakatan Rakyat (People’s Alliance). Whereas for Mahathir, Abdullah has been simply inept at the job – accusing him of leaving key decisions to purportedly young advisers, in particular his son-in-law Khairy Jamaluddin, who have no intention on upholding Mahathir’s interest in affairs. Before the elections, Mahathir even went as far as to ask Malaysians to “vote not only with party loyalty” stressing the need for a strong opposition and for “good people setting up a good government”. (For context, see Malaysiakini here)

On the back of the Lingam tape royal commission report implicating Mahathir in judicial fixing – with Abdullah holding advantage in terms of deciding whether anyone gets prosecuted for the case – Mahathir has quit UMNO, requested MPs to follow suit, and put the condition that unless Abdullah resigns, none shall return. Not known to be a pacifier, Mahathir has quickly gone on the offensive, burning his bridges before he could persuade any UMNO lawmakers to join him. Abdullah has quickly solidified ranks within the party, repositioning Mahathir as external to UMNO by claiming members who love the the party will not leave. Mahathir’s son Mukhriz, who is a newly elected UMNO MP, called upon Abdullah to resign but stopped short of quitting from the party himself.

With Mahathir now an UMNO outcast (not one elected legislator has responded to his clarion call), there’s only one logical move for him to take, and which is the one he’s taken. To cast doubt on Abdullah’s leadership, Mahathir is now taking racism one step towards the extreme right. To win over popular support, Mahathir is doing all he can to incite racial emotions by claiming legitimacy to be the de facto champion of (exclusive) Malay rights. His argument against the Abdullah led government is one about issues surrounding eroding Malay supremacy. His branding of other races as becoming “extremist” with their demands because of a weak government has surely antagonised perhaps even the most sympathetic of those amongst minority communities. Mahathir now becomes a mutual foe of those who voted on March 8 against racial and corrupt politics. He now effectively represents both corruption and racism.

Abdullah, on the other hand, has been relatively silent (as usual) on the controversy, calling for calm and support for his governance, promising reform (again), and probably promising more carrots in exchange for loyalty. He still holds the ‘correct, correct, correct’ card that could easily ‘pom, pom, pom’ Mahathir into oblivion. With Tengku Adnan, Vincent Tan, and gang probably having bad dreams of VK Lingam every night now, Abdullah knows time is on his side as far as Mahathir’s implication in this case is concerned. He just needs to wait for the right moment, the moment when Mahathir truly loses control, when he unleashes the Attorney General.

Abdullah’s handling of Mahathir is thus smarter than Mahathir’s of his deputy when he was still in power in 1998. Anwar Ibrahim’s sacking, arrest, and conviction under trumped up charges back then sparked protests that brought together thousands in numbers calling for reformation. Yesterday, Mahathir post-UMNO was greeted by a meager crowd of 300 at the airport where he arrived from an overseas trip. In contrast, Abdullah’s arrival later that night was reported to have drawn around 5,000 people.

Perhaps, it is Abdullah’s perceived gentlemanliness working wonders again. His non-antagonistic approach toward Mahathir apparently isn’t making him too many new enemies. But is Abdullah any less a racist than Mahathir has shown himself to be?

Of the long list things Abdullah has not yet accomplished (apart from crooked bridges that is), he still has yet to distance himself from the racial stance Mahathir is taking. It should also be noted that in spite of all the signs (March 8 being one) Abdullah has received, he has yet to implement any genuine reform to any level of his supposed democratic rule. Abdullah is in fact retaining his legitimacy as UMNO leader, one who will continually strive for Malay supremacy, racial politics, and feudally derived popular support.

In terms of how this crisis will turn out, the Mahathir et al versus Abdullah led UMNO end-game looks destined to be one which pits Malays against Malays. Will racist ideology prevail? Or will Abdullah’s inertia actually swing Malays further away from the inanities of racism? We shall see.

Lurking around the corner beyond this UMNO crisis is a man defeated in the last one some 10 years ago. Whereas Anwar Ibrahim’s challenge of the dominant leadership back then saw Mahathir solidify his iron-fist rule of Malaysia, he today represents the brightest antithesis to UMNO’s archaic racism. Unlike the previous crises of 69, 87, and 98 when there did not exist a viable alternative to UMNO, Anwar’s Keadilan and the Pakatan Rakyat he helped bring together now offer a refreshing new outlook for Malaysians regardless of race. Non-Malays who are increasingly alienated by Mahathir’s racist struggle against Abdullah will ultimately opt for Anwar. Throw Nik Aziz into the equation anytime, Ketuanan Mahathir or Abdullah will pale against Ketuanan Rakyat.

Can genuine multiracialism, one that celebrates honest and open democracy, be facilitated in the near future? Will it be Mahathir, Abdullah, or Anwar?

Looking forward to your replies.

Humbly,
Konsyenz (A Voice Within)

Isnin lepas saya baru saja sampai di Yogyakarta untuk sebuah jemputan pemerintah daerah di sana. Saya dibuat terkejut menakala mendapati SMS dari Kuala Lumpur bahawa Tun Mahathir sudah maklumkan beliau berhenti dari UMNO. Pastinya ini akan menjadi hal yang sangat pelik bagi peta politik di Malaysia, dan terutamanya bagi PM Dato Seri Abdullah Badawi.

Belum lagi habis hairan saya, petang itu juga di tv saya tengok ada wawancara eksklusif TV Indonesia bersama Tun Mahathir di Kuala lumpur. Hebat. Begitu cepatnya bola salju politik itu menggelinding. Memang, media di Indonesia selalunya menjadi media yang lebih cepat menyiar hal-hal yang berhubung dengan yang menentang kerajaan. Media di Indonesia juga lebih cepat dari media di Malaysia dalam memberitakan apa, siapa dan mengapa para pembangkang di Malaysia. Kerananya wajar jika Anwar Ibrahim, Tun Mahathir, dan pemimpin lain lebih popular di sini ketimbang di Malaysia.

Harus diakui, Media di Malaysia memang tak sebebas media di Indonesia selepas reformasi. Media di Malaysia masih lagi under control kerajaan. Press freedom memang belum lagi berlaku sepenuhnya di Malaysia. Tapi itu juga berlaku sejak Tun Mahathir masih berkuasa, juga ketika Anwar Ibrahim masih Timbalan Perdana Menteri. Jadi itu, tentunya, bukan saja kesilapan Pak Lah.

Dalam pandangan saya, selama saya mengamati hubungan kedua-dua negara, Malaysia-Indonesia, para pemimpin parti pembangkang atau sesiapapun yang berseberangan pandangan dengan kerajaan, selalu memilih menggunakan media di Indonesia sebagai media politik mereka.

Kerananya media di Indonesia, juga tv, memperoleh akses luas kepada tokoh-tokoh itu. Ketika Bekas PM Anwar Ibrahim dipenjarakan oleh pemerintahan Tun Mahathir, Majalah TEMPO dapat dengan bebas memperoleh wawancara eksklusif melalui surat yang dihantar terus ke dalam penjara. Media di Indonesia juga mendapat akses luar biasa bebas dengan isteri dan anak-anak Anwar Ibrahim.

Ketika pula Tun Mahathir berbeza pandangan mengenai pelbagai hal dengan Perdana Menteri, beliau juga memberika akses yang mudah dan luas bagi media di Indonesia untuk melalukan wawancara secara eksklusif bagi memaklumkan pandangan-pandangan beliau kepada dunia dan, tentu saja, kepada rakyat Malaysia. Salah satu wawancaranya ada di laman lain blog ini; “Saya dilarang bicara di UMNO.”

Maka tak hairan bila dalam sedikit masa saja, selepas Tun Mahathir memaklumkan bahawa beliau mundur dari UMNO, TV di Indonesia sudah pula menyiar wawancara eksklusif bersama Tun Mahathir.

Bagaimana dengan Pak Lah? Perlukah beliau juga memanfaatkan media di luar negara seperti tokoh pemimpin yang lain? Semua pastinya terpulang kepada beliau, kerana sebenarnya kerajaan sudah mempunyai banyak media untuk menyuarakan kepentingan kerajaan. Tetapi harus pula diingat, terlalu mengguna media kebangsaan sebagai media pemerintah akan membuka peluang bagi rakyat mencari media alternatif. Internet adalah salah satu media alternatif yang tak boleh tersilap dimanfaatkan.

Media di Indonesia sentiasa akan membagi peluang luas pagi para pembangkang ataupun pemimpin yang berbeza pandangan dengan kerjaaan. Kerana itulah berita. Berita yang menarik bagi audience adalah berita yang mengandungi kontoversi. Bukan semata maklumat kerajaan.

Itu juga berlaku di Indonesia.