A People’s Campaign Against Corruption

Veteran journalist, Hussamuddin Yaacub, has launched a people’s campaign to fight corruption in Malaysia. This is the first time that such an initiative has emerged from the citizenry — though specific NGOs have in the past targeted specific aspects of corruption or specific transgressions.

Hussamuddin has always been known and respected as an independent journalist who is not linked to any political party or ideological tendency. His campaign is a response to the perception that corruption has become more pervasive in our society. It highlights the impact of this scourge upon the people and why they should combat it for the sake of the nation and its future.

Called “RasuahBusters”, the campaign will be guided by the Malaysian Constitution, the Rukunegara and the shared values of honesty and integrity embodied in all our religious teachings. A decentralised campaign, all Malaysians are invited to participate in it. They can develop their own initiatives and strategies. The ultimate goal is not only to eliminate corruption but also to create a truly ethical and moral society that we can all be proud of.

In a campaign of this sort a balanced perspective on what we have done so far in combating corruption is important. It is significant that Malaysia was the first country in the Global South to establish a separate agency to fight corruption in 1967 and to formulate specific laws for this purpose. It is also a matter of some pride that one of the earliest scholars in the post-war decades world-wide to focus upon corruption as a blight upon society was Malaysia’s own Syed Hussein Alatas who had authored several books on the subject.

Over the years, a number of Malaysians with power and wealth have been tried and convicted for various forms of corruption. There is also a general awareness of how destructive corruption is. And yet it persists as a social cancer. What explains this?

Among the variety of reasons one can cite is the intertwining of politics and business which began even before Merdeka. Individuals in business funded elections and political party activities. By the early seventies ‘money politics’ became an established practice both in intra-party and inter-party contests with candidates sometimes backed by business people using money lavishly to secure seats and to mobilise support. Money politics ran parallel with bribes offered to decision-makers in the public and private sectors for approval of projects and contracts in a resource-rich, expanding economy with unlimited opportunities for acquisition and accumulation. In this expanding economy neither accountability nor transparency gained much traction. Besides, the ruling-elite buttressed by elements in the

public and private sectors exercised overwhelming political power for most of the six decades it was at the helm. A political culture which frowned upon the interrogation of power exacerbated the situation. The ethos spawned by such a political culture and the structures of authority integral to it created an environment which was conducive to the growth of corruption, especially elite corruption. If anything, an increasingly materialistic, consumer-oriented society with decreasing commitment to ethics and moral principles has made it even more difficult to curb corruption and the conditions that contribute to its spread.

Given these trends and developments over a period of time, Malaysians should not be surprised that corruption has become such a serious ailment in our society. Pious platitudes from the elites including academics and activists will not check the spread of the vice. Even tougher laws may not help especially if it does not lead to a genuine change in human behaviour. In recent years we have also discovered that a change in government is not a guarantee that the new leadership will refrain from corruption and other misdeeds. The real test is when a leader chooses to do what is right even if it undermines his own interests.

If electoral change, laws and persuasion do not lead to a corruption free society, shouldn’t one turn to the people, that is, ask the people to do what they can to usher in a society with a stronger commitment to what is right. Let the people lead the quest for a corruption-free society ! This is perhaps what Hussamuddin is trying to do. He is hoping that popular consciousness, a people’s determination to rid society of the scourge of corruption will hold the key to success. It is true when mass consciousness reaches a critical point no force on earth can stop it from achieving its goal.

Let us therefore support the RasuahBusters with our own energy and efforts so that a corruption free Malaysia becomes a reality!

Dr Chandra Muzaffar has initiated anti-corruption endeavours since the early eighties.

---

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

Winning Votes Through Identity Politics

According to official estimates, Donald J. Trump obtained a little more than 74 million votes in the November 2020 presidential election losing to Joseph Biden who secured a little more than 81 million votes. Biden won by a comfortable margin but Trump also performed remarkably well. What explains his performance? Analysis of his performance may reveal the growing influence of a certain combination of forces that may shape elections in not only the United States but also in other parts of the world in the coming years.

Considering that most of the popular media channels, many established business outfits, professional groups, women’s organisations and youth movements were against Trump, how did he succeed in harnessing so much support? Let us not forget that more than the media and various entities, Trump’s failure to handle the coronavirus epidemic which resulted in tens of thousands of deaths and spiralling infections eroded considerably his support base.

While a variety of factors may have been responsible for the votes that Trump garnered— including his incumbency—certain observers have highlighted his appeal to a huge segment of the majority White population and his economic record as decisive. As he did in his 2016 presidential campaign, Trump successfully projected himself as the defender of the interests of the Whites at a time when demographic changes favouring the Hispanic population on the one hand and Black political empowerment on the other (Obama’s 8 years in the White House as a case in point) were allegedly jeopardising the position of the majority community. Baseless as these allegations were, they were craftily manipulated to the advantage of the fear-mongers.

Fear manipulation by itself would not have worked if Trump had not proven that he could also deliver the goods — even if it was superficial. During his four years as president of the US, it is true that he created jobs for not only the majority but also for the minorities including Blacks, Hispanics and Asians. Businesses at all levels flourished and the economy appeared to be benefitting segments of society.

It is this combination — Trump at the forefront of identity politics and Trump pushing the economy forward that seems to have helped Trump in his electoral campaign. This combination of forces would have ensured his political triumph, some analysts argue, if it had not been for the pandemic.

Within his White constituency, the force that mobilised mass support for Trump came from the Christian Right. The Christian Right comprises diverse elements including Christian Zionists who in recent times have come to view Trump as a divinely chosen leader who will fulfil their ideological mission through Israel. This is why many Christian Zionists blindly endorsed Trump in the November 2020 US Election.

When we turn from the US to India, the world’s largest democracy, the nexus between identity politics and economic achievements becomes even more obvious. In recent elections, the ruling Bharatiyya Janata Party (BJP) which assumed power on its own in 2014 has projected itself as the champion of Hindutva, of Hindu nationalism — a party sworn to protect Hindus against alleged moves by Muslims and other minorities in India to weaken the link between the religion and the Indian polity. In the 2019 General Election, after 5 years in power, its Hindutva credentials even more pronounced, the BJP had a greater grip upon the Hindu vote. Its readiness to erase manifestations of Islam in the public arena from place – names to historical narratives was testimony to its fidelity to the religion.

But the BJP also has a people oriented development agenda. It is committed to not only creating jobs and raising incomes but also to building much needed public facilities. Its claim to have built “a million toilets“ since coming to power in 2014 has had some impact upon popular sentiments. The BJP often talks about its rural transformation programmes and how it has reached out to the urban poor.

The BJP’s identity politics provides psychological support to its development agenda just as its development agenda derives its moral strength from its adherence to identity symbols and forms. However as in the US, the issue is how identity politics tends to encourage exclusive tendencies within the body politic. It strengthens dichotomies and divisions in society. The real challenges facing the people in the economy, in politics and in societal relations are often marginalised as bigotry and prejudice take centre stage. Thus some religious or cultural symbol manipulated by the elite may capture the popular imagination though what requires attention in society may be falling educational standards or universal health care.

Political parties or political leaders who do not want to see the politics of identity expressed through bigotry and communal stances dominate their societies especially if they are multi-ethnic are often in a quandary. How do they defeat such politics while remaining faithful to politics that is inclusive, honest and committed to justice and integrity? There is one thing that they should not do. They should not play the same game of exploiting religious or communal sentiments to gain electoral support. The entire system will sink deeper into the communal cauldron. Neither should the opponents of bigotry and communalism dismiss the impact of these forces as a temporary phenomenon which will disappear in time.

The sane response is to examine in depth the eternal values and principles embodied in the great religious and humanistic philosophies and present their wisdom as an alternative discourse. In other words, what is universal and inclusive, what is just and compassionate in our traditions should be articulated as the real, authentic message of our belief systems. This should be done with courage and integrity whatever the bigots and communalists may say, and however harsh and aggressive their pronouncements and actions may be.

At the same time, those of us who are fighting bigots and communalists with an exclusive agenda should also put forward development policies and programmes that are just, inclusive and humane. In concrete terms, if the former seeks to build colleges it would be primarily to equip the next generation with the character, knowledge and skills that serve the public good rather than strengthen the elite stratum of society. As articulators of an alternative, promoting peace and harmony through shared values and principles that bind diverse communities together would be our cherished goal, not the propagation of attitudes that create barriers among us and sow the seeds of mutual distrust and suspicion. Likewise, those of us who subscribe to an alternative vision of society, will expose the corrupt and the greedy regardless of whether he or she is on our side or not.

If those of us who are opposed to bigotry and communalism possess and practise the right values and principles, it will not be possible for the manipulators of identity politics to spread their influence in society.

Dr Chandra Muzaffar is the president of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST).

---

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

Leadership Manoeuvres: The Real Reason

Why is it that in spite of increasing Covid 19 infections, rising fatalities, massive floods in a number of states and serious economic challenges, some politicians are still indulging in political machinations and manipulations? His Majesty the Yang Di Pertuan Agong and a number of Rulers have strongly advised politicians against indulging in political manoeuvres at a time like this. Together with the rakyat, they have pleaded with the politicians to refrain from politicking and concentrate instead upon taming the pandemic and overcoming our economic woes. Their plea has fallen upon deaf ears.

Are some politicians determined to pursue their agenda of replacing the Muhyuddin Yassin government because they are convinced that it is “illegitimate”? The current government was installed in March 2020 in accordance with constitutional procedures and practices in the wake of the resignation of then Prime Minister Tun Mahathir Mohamad. This has happened before at the state level, in Trengganu in 1961, Sabah 1994 and Perak 2009. In fact the Barisan Nasional itself emerged in the early seventies as a result of defections and cross-overs and became the new inter-party coalition in power.

Perhaps we should have a law at federal and state levels against defections in the legislatures which some of us have advocated since the early eighties. It should be based upon the principle that an elected legislator who is no longer capable of representing his constituents should return his mandate to the voters. Unfortunately, many of those who are pushing for the ouster of the present Prime Minister are not keen on the introduction of such legislation. They want to continue to encourage defections if it serves their narrow interests.

Are those seeking the Prime Minister’s removal doing so because they are convinced that he is incompetent? After almost a year of the Coronavirus crisis, it is obvious to most observers that Malaysia has performed relatively well under his leadership, compared to many other countries. The political leadership reinforced by a core in the civil service and the national health services have displayed a deep sense of responsibility in executing their tasks in a calm and organised manner. The delivery of economic assistance to the vulnerable and their carefully planned approach to the imminent distribution of vaccines to the people bear testimony to this.

The real reason why there are attempts to oust the Prime Minister is linked to the thinly veiled interests of a handful of politicians. There are individuals in parliament part of the largest component party in the ruling coalition , allegedly involved in corruption whose court trials may result in their incarceration —- incarcerations which they hope some other leader at the helm of the nation would be able to help them avert. And there are leaders who for decades have sought the Prime Ministership who may be prepared to play footsie with those individuals trying to stay out of jail. Apart from this unholy alliance, there is also another veteran Member of Parliament who feels that it is his ‘royal right’ to be Prime Minister. He is joined by another veteran who was Prime Minister for a total of 24 years and remains convinced that no else can do the job and for that reason wants to return to power!

This coterie of leaders driven by differing motives are united in their common goal of easing out the incumbent through multiple manoeuvres though they have yet to reach consensus on who should replace Muhyuddin. Given the numbers game in elite politics, the weakness of institutions that can check unscrupulous political behaviour, and the absence of a strong commitment within the populace to principles in politics, those who are seeking the Prime Minister’s ouster may even succeed. For those of us who are not prepared to put aside ethical concerns in politics and public life and realise the importance of a national leadership that is completely devoted to overcoming the pandemic and ensuring an effective economic recovery over the next two years, the politics of ousters should stop immediately. It is In this regard that the following three point proposal is being presented.

One, this is the time for the Conference of Rulers as a crucial instrument of governance to play its rightful role. The Conference which has been described as the fourth arm of governance in our system — the other three being the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary — should not only implore all political actors to desist from politicking but also warn them that they cannot create political uncertainty and foment discord and friction without facing the full force of the law. They should understand that the nation is in crisis and those who are hell-bent on pursuing their own nefarious, self-serving agendas will be made to pay the price.

Two, the Conference of Rulers should also advise the Executive to establish mechanisms at the Federal and State levels which will enable the Opposition also to contribute to, and participate in, the decision-making process vis-à-vis our twin health and economic crises. The Opposition’s role should not be a mere tokenism. An active role for opposition parties will go a long way towards diluting the adversarial atmosphere that prevails at the moment.

Three, though the government – opposition mechanism proposed here will concentrate upon our twin crises, it could also be utilised to formulate measures directed towards improving governance as a whole. The idea of a genuinely independent Ombudsman first articulated in the seventies would be something worth pursuing.

We are at a critical juncture. If our leaders remain obsessed with the politics of power and position, we would be hastening our own destruction. We are reaching the brink.

Let us pull back— before it is too late.

Dr Chandra Muzaffar has been writing on Malaysian politics since the early seventies.

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

Déjà Vu in France: Change Attitudes

As events unfold in France centring around Islamophobia, there is a feeling of déjà vu. We have witnessed a few times before this sequence of events. There is some provocation or other targeting the Prophet Muhammad initiated by a non-Muslim group or institution.

Predictably, Muslims react. In the midst of demonstrations and rallies, an act of violence occurs perpetrated by an offended Muslim and/or his co-religionists. The violent act leads to further demonization of Muslims in the media which by this time is in a frenzy. Feeling targeted, some Muslim groups escalate their emotional response, sometimes causing more deaths to occur of both Muslims and non-Muslims even in countries far away from the place where the provocation first occurred. One also hears of calls to boycott goods produced in the country where it all started.

On this occasion too it was French president Emmanuel Macron’s vigorous assertion that cartoons of the Prophet produced by the satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo , in January 2015 and republished since represented freedom of speech that angered a lot of Muslims in France and elsewhere, though some other remarks he had made recently about ‘Islam being in crisis’ and ‘Islamic separatism’ had also annoyed some people. However, it was the beheading of a French schoolteacher who had shown the cartoons in a class discussion on freedom of speech by a Muslim youth of Chechen origin that provoked not only Macron but also other leaders and a huge segment of French society to react with hostility towards Muslims and even Islam. It should be emphasised that almost all major Muslim leaders and organisations in France also condemned the beheading. So did many Muslims in other parts of the world.

It is not enough just to denounce an ugly, insane murder of this sort. Not many Muslim theologians have argued publicly that resorting to mindless violence to express one’s anger over a caricature of the Prophet is an affront to the blessed memory of God’s Messenger. For even when he was physically abused in both Mecca and Medina, Prophet Muhammad did not retaliate with violence against his adversaries. He continued with his mission of preaching justice and mercy with kindness and dignity. It is such an attitude that should be nurtured and nourished in the Muslim world today especially by those who command religious authority and political influence among the masses.

If a change in approach is necessary among some Muslims, French society as a whole should also re-appraise its understanding of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech should never ever glorify the freedom to insult, to mock, to humiliate another person or community or civilisation. Respect for the feelings and sentiments of the religious other should be integral to one’s belief system, whether it is secular or not. Just because the French State and much of French society have marginalised religion, it does not follow that it should also show utter contempt for a Muslim’s love and reverence for his/her Prophet especially when 6 million French citizens profess the Islamic faith.

Indeed, respecting and understanding the sentiments and values that constitute faith and belief has become crucial in a globalised world where at least 80 % of its inhabitants are linked in one way or another to some religion or other. We cannot claim to be champions of democracy and yet ignore, or worse, denigrate what is precious to the majority of the human family. This does not mean that we should slavishly accept mass attitudes towards a particular faith. Reforms should continue to be pursued within each religious tradition but it should not undermine respect for the foundations of that faith.

French leaders and elites who regard freedom of speech or expression as the defining attribute of their national identity, should also concede that there have been a lot of inconsistencies in their stances. A French comedian, Dieudenne, has been convicted in Court eight times for allegedly upsetting “Jewish sentiment” and is prohibited from performing in many venues. A cartoonist with Charlie Hebdo was fired for alleged “anti-Semitism.” There is also the case of a writer, Robert Faurisson in the sixties who was fined in Court and lost his job for questioning the conventional holocaust narrative. Many years later, the French intellectual Roger Garaudy was also convicted for attempting to re-interpret certain aspects of the holocaust.

The hypocrisy of the French State goes beyond convictions in Court. While officials are rightfully aghast at the violence committed by individuals, France has a long history of perpetrating brutal massacres and genocides against Muslims and others. The millions of Algerians, Tunisians and Moroccans who died in the course of the French colonisation of these countries bear tragic testimony to this truth. Vietnam and the rest of Indo-China reinforce this cruel and callous record. Even in contemporary times, the French State has had no qualms about embarking upon military operations from Afghanistan and Cote d’ Ivore to Libya and North Mali which serve its own interests of dominance and control rather than the needs of the people in these lands.

Honest reflections upon its own misdeeds past and present are what we expect of the French state and society in 2020. There is no need to pontificate to others. This is what we would like to see all colonial powers of yesteryear do — partly because neo-colonialism is very much alive today.

Dr Chandra Muzaffar is the president of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST)