Malaysian Politics: Is the opposition at odds with civil society?


January 9, 2018

Malaysian Politics: Is the opposition at odds with civil society?

by S Thayaparan@www.malaysiakini.com

It does not take a majority to prevail … but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.”
― Samuel Adams

COMMENT | A young reader ended his opening salvo of a lengthy email exchange with – “Sir, you were part of the problem.” I began the first of my responses, with – “Son, I am still part of the problem.” I get that young people are frustrated. They look around and they see old men with their old poisoned dreams leading the charge for a supposedly better future.

Image result for Mahathir in Pakatan Harapan

Dynastic Politics in Malaysia

Amongst other issues, this young man wanted to know if I was familiar with the writings of Hafidz Baharom and his piece – “Don’t vote if they don’t change” – and what I thought about young people not voting, and why it is that the opposition seems to be at war with activists and civil society groups.

Well, as to the first part, I read everything that Hafidz writes. I already made my case as to why I think not voting is not an option. Mind you, I am not saying that Hafidz is wrong; just that I really want to see what happens if Pakatan Harapan takes control of the federal government. Does this sound flippant?

 Crypto-Mahathiristas?

Here is the thing. In all my writings, I have made it clear that I do not think that corruption is the existential threat facing Malaysia. I think extremist Islam is. I want to see if a Harapan-led government with a strong non-Malay/Muslim voice stems the tide of what I believe will eventually destroy this country. That is why I am voting. Others, of course, have different reasons.

As for the opposition seeming to be at war with activists, many people who are involved in “civil society” (honestly, I am not familiar with the current nomenclature) have written to me describing a hostile environment when it comes to activism and oppositional politics. Things have become worse, with the ascension of the former Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad, the bête noire of many activists – for good reason – as the captain leading the charge to oust current UMNO grand poohbah, Najib Razak.

Many long-time activists infused with fresh talent, who assumed that Harapan state governments would be more conducive to change, tell me that most times getting the “meeting” is easier than it is with the BN regime, but actually getting things done, is more or less the same. Often, they are admonished to not “bite the hand that feeds them,” which seems like a common rejoinder these days.

The corrupt Blue Rogues play the race and religion card to create fear for Malay support

There was a time when activism and oppositional politics were not mutually exclusive. There was a time when “civil society” and oppositional personalities worked closely to highlight issues that former minister Zaid Ibrahim termed the “real stuff.” I suppose that is the double-edged sword of civil society making “tremendous progress since 2008” as articulated in the “birds of feather” declaration.

I do not think civil society made tremendous progress. I think the opposition political elite made tremendous progress buttressed by civil society groups, who did not really understand the nature of the beast. There is this assumption that just because the politics of civil society groups and oppositional political parties aligned, there was some sort of understanding. Politicians say a whole lot of horse manure to get elected and count on activists to pass their message, but once elected rely on their bases (partisanship) to stay elected.

Crypto-Mahathiristas?

The rise of a credible opposition and contender to the throne of Putrajaya meant not that issues or principles were taking centre stage but rather the rise of a new cabal of political elites who were just as interested in maintaining power as their political opponents. What made it even more tenuous for civil society types and activists was that the alternative press and social media which was “issue driven” become partisan echo chambers, where party affiliation trumped anything else. In other words, if you are not with us, you are against us.

Many activists are in support of the “birds of feather” declaration. Actually, I know many people who belong to diverse “civil society” groups who support this initiative. Indeed, there is nothing in that declaration that any rational person would disagree with. Yet many opposition supporters write to me asking me to tell these “selfish” people not to rock the boat and destroy Harapan’s chance of removing the corrupt Najib and his cronies from power.

Civil Society activists

I know a few people on that list. I do not say this to name drop, but only that “selfish” is not a term I would use to describe them, ever. Furthermore, many of those groups in that list do far more constructive and productive work than some state administrations and definitely the federal government. To dismiss, mock or vilify what they say, especially if you (like me) have a different view, I would argue is, well – and I really dislike using this word – unpatriotic.

That is the only word I can think of especially when what these folks are reaffirming are democratic and egalitarian principles that would actually save Malaysia. If only political parties, like Hafidz writes, were not “too chickenshit to actually stand for something contrary to public opinion, and would rather coast along for fear of losing their vote base, while trying to convince the conservatives to vote for them.”

Someone asked if I was a “crypto-Mahathirista” since I had penned two pieces, essentially arguing that Harapan should commit to the game they want to play. I write too plainly to be a crypto anything. You can disagree with what I write. You can accuse me of many things but waffling or obscurantism is not on the list. So while I disagree with Suaram adviser Kua Kia Soong, it is not because I think he is wrong but it is because for this election, I am committing to the game that I keep telling Harapan to commit to.

Lastly to answer the question in the title of this piece. It is not that the opposition is at odds with civil society. It is the opposition has become part of the establishment.The establishment is always at odds with civil society.


S THAYAPARAN is Commander (Rtd) of the Royal Malaysian Navy.

Read more at https://www.malaysiakini.com/columns/407723#1JRAw0XpVfA0WeQ7.99

3 thoughts on “Malaysian Politics: Is the opposition at odds with civil society?

  1. //I want to see if a Harapan-led government with a strong non-Malay/Muslim voice stems the tide of what I believe will eventually destroy this country.

    I agree with all that is mentioned by the Commander, except for the above. Not that I see a strong NonBumi voice would destroy or save the nation, I just see the nation would be destroyed, with or without nonBumi voice. Melayu has been killing their own nation, BN or not. Not much Harapan for this generation, and there would no longer the next for many decades to come. I want to be wrong. I really do.

  2. ‘ In all my writings, I have made it clear that I do not think that corruption is the existential threat facing Malaysia. I think extremist Islam is ‘.

    Due to decades of bad and corrupt political leadership and gross mismanagement, extremist Islam has infiltrated all levels of government and society…….lone wolf Malay/Muslim fanatic could be more difficult to identify and more dangerous than Malay/Muslim terrorist.

    Majority of Malays identify themselves as Muslim first.

  3. I just read a commentary by the prolific, if not terrific nor talented TK Chua here:
    http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/opinion/2018/01/09/many-are-capable-to-be-pm-of-malaysia/

    I presume he represents what a civil society yodeler is about? Well, it seems to me that many ‘intellectuals’ or commentators can’t differentiate between plain old politics, emotional hubris and what it takes for good governance. I would always adhere to the old dictum: “The road to perdition is paved with good intentions.”

    What is so ‘brilliant or good’ about the rascals or self-possessed politicos he so blithely refers to? Of course most of them are saintly – simply because they haven’t been put on the hot seat before! Can they decide between what is left, center or right; up or down; strange, bizarre or conventional etc? Do they have what it takes to truly LEAD?

    For all it’s worth, i think most ‘civil society’ leaders should just focus on their areas of interest and jockey the politicos only on that – and not resort to rubbish generalizations which they have no inkling about.

    Governance ain’t about a liberal arts course you can flunk – nor is it a rule of the ignorant majority, but doing or at least being seen to do the ‘Just Right Stuff’, irregardless of populism or self-interest.

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.