Perak Casualties

Here’s something I wrote a few days ago and submitted for publication. Doesn’t seem likely to happen, but that’s ok.

A hard battle was fought this last week in the state of Perak.

In all battles, there are casualties. In this northern state, those casualties include the legitimacy of defections, Malaysian constitutional monarchy, and Barisan Nasional.

Gleeful cries of “Get a taste of your own medicine Anwar!” have rung loud and clear this last week.

This is not a particularly unfair criticism, and one Pakatan Rakyat need not feel shame facing, the subtle differences aside. The entire episode may have impressed an appreciation among Pakatan supporters for the necessity of going back to the polls, even in the event of crossovers – an appreciation that may not have been as prevalent before.

Derhaka and Ingkar

As the conflict continues over the coming days and weeks, we can certainly expect Umno to make a big issue out of the matter of derhaka and ingkar – defiance to the royal house.

The sensitivity that envelopes the issue of the royalty stems from its perceived role as defender of Malay sovereignty.

If we take sovereignty to mean the sacrosanct ability to determine one’s own fate within one’s borders, the question that must be asked in Perak however, is whether Malay – or for that matter Malaysian, as these two are not mutually exclusive– sovereignty has indeed been upheld and protected?

If so, why was tear gas fired into a mosque compound and defenceless women almost crushed by FRU shields last Friday?

The protestors that marched from the mosque to the palace were not seeking to petition the Sultan to restore Pakatan to power – their only request was to have fair elections, and uphold the democratic rights of the rakyat.

The Sultan of Perak was faced with three individuals whose continued status as assemblymen was at best legally ambiguous and whose defections occurred in a manner that cannot help but be regarded as suspicious by the public, as well as a host of legal uncertainties regarding the Sultan’s power to remove a Menteri Besar from office without first obtaining a vote of no confidence in the state assembly.

Under these circumstances, choosing to maintain Pakatan or install Umno are both contentious decisions that may not hold up to public scrutiny.

As has been stated repeatedly, the safest and only morally irreproachable path for the Sultan is of course to dissolve the state assembly and turn the onus back on to the people.

Unlike giving power to either side, such a move would be the perfect example of a constitutional monarch fulfilling his role in a manner consistent with the highest traditions of royalty by arbitrating between conflicting political parties and paving way for true democracy to take its course.

The decision of the Sultan not to dissolve the assembly puts many Malaysians in a truly awkward position. Few would choose to cast any aspersions on an ancient and time honoured institution.

However, history tells us that much as we may esteem monarchs, the line between absolute and constitutional monarchy is clear cut. Either a monarch is infallible, or his actions are subject to the law, moral reasoning, the voice of the majority and the purview of God; even for Malaysia, Malay and otherwise, there are some powers and principles higher than that of any one man.

The ancient Malay proverb “Raja adil raja disembah, raja zalim raja disanggah” (Just kings are revered; evil kings are fought) shows that a tradition of a monarchy that is held to higher principles of justice and morality has roots that go back before the rise of republicanism in Europe.

It appears that it is this backdrop against which the Sultan’s actions will be judged by the people. As of yet, it is altogether difficult to understand why a simple request that would give any incoming government in Perak the only legitimate mandate that can be morally and politically justified was rejected out of hand.

Sadly, the reputation that the Perak royal house has built for eloquence and dignity will now be subject to all manner of aspersions and doubt. Such a reputation takes generations to build, and contrary perhaps to the Umno style of thinking, cannot be repaired with any amount of money.

Along with this run of political defections, all of Malaysia must also now wonder: does every man have his price?

The price Umno pays

Umno has taken a great political gambit here. Its strategy under Najib appears to be one where the ends justify the means, and no means are too costly to achieve the ends in question.

Acting from the corner into which he was forced after Kuala Terengganu and Bota, Najib’s desperation may exact on him and his party the greatest of political prices in the long run.

All manner of imperfections dog this takeover – a lack of ethnically proportionate representation, defections with a suspected financial rather than ideological basis, police brutality right from the get go, and so on.

The siege of the mosque in Kuala Kangsar lays waste to any notion that Umno is the sole defender of all things Muslim, Malay and Malaysian. To be responsible for such an attack on citizens will have repercussions that will not soon be forgot.

Worst of these however, is the fact that they are taking power in a state that is easily perceived to be considerably pro-Pakatan in the current political mood. There are few greater sins in politics than to usurp the democratic right of a people and impose illegitimate rule upon them.

The numbers demonstrate this. A total of ten of the seats won by Umno in the last general election were won with a margin of less than one thousand votes. Of the ten, six were won with less than five hundred votes. The total voting majority in the state was approximately forty thousand, from a total pool of about eight hundred thousand voters.

Even if one were to reject the results of Permatang Pauh and Kuala Terengganu and insist that Perak somehow bucks the trend, surely the numbers from the last general election alone along with the current controversies with the defections would suggest that a new government in Perak would need a fresh electoral mandate to have the faintest claim to legitimacy.

Ignoring this fact is quite simply political suicide for BN. It may take years to realise, but if this is the note on which Najib intends to start his premiership, he will only score points within his dwindling Umno base and demonstrate complete ignorance of the message that voters have been consistently sending since March 2008 – Malaysians want change for the better, not more of the same.

As it stands, this ignorance and the Pyrrhic victory it won will likely be the nail in the coffin of money politics, disregard for the will of the people, and ultimately, of Barisan Nasional.

The path ahead

Pakatan does not have an easy task ahead. Legal battles will drag on in courts not known for their impartiality, and the BN owned media will have a field day glorifying Najib and “protecting” the Sultan.

They will not be without recourse however. Grassroots activism have overcome both such setbacks and more; mass mobilisations, strikes, and forcing more by-elections are only a few of the tactics available to Pakatan to channel what will be a sea of discontent arising from this crisis.

The voice of the majority and the will of the people cannot help but prevail against any usurpation. As the rakyat steels itself for this long and trying marathon, they will draw the strength and fortitude required for the race in knowing that they are on the right side of history.