COMMENT | Ronnie Liu’s piece about the raging storm dividing Pakatan Harapan partisans is interesting, but not in the way people think. When Liu (above) writes that Harapan supporters are divided on the Chinese schools' issue with regard to comments made by Education Minister Maszlee Malik, and then goes on about how the education minister should be a minister of education for “all” Malaysians, he is missing a very important point.

When support is divided, there are generally two broad sides. In this issue, for instance, there are Harapan supporters who value issues regarding Chinese schools and who are offended by the education minister’s remarks, and there are Harapan supporters who support the education minister and have their issue with vernacular schools or place such issues lower down on the scale of priorities.

Liu’s call to the prime minister that Malaysia needs an education minister for “all Malaysians” is the kind of inept politics that he is accusing Maszlee of. How does an education minister for all Malaysians differ from what Maszlee has been doing? Beyond his public gaffes, what is Maslee not doing in terms of policy that reflects a new Malaysia policy shift? Liu does not tell us.

First off, by prioritising one side over the other, in this case those Malaysians who value issues related to Chinese schools, and implying the other side is not part of the Bangsa Malaysia agenda, is self-defeating. Liu makes the same mistake that P Ramasamy made in his criticisms of the education minster: “While P Ramasamy is correct to point out that Maszlee is behaving like an Umno clone, what he fails to highlight is that the entire Harapan government is behaving like the BN regime. This Malay/Chinese narrative is still defined along the same old lines instead of the promised egalitarian policies that Harapan campaigned on.”

Hectoring Maszlee (photo, above) for what he said about the matriculation quotas is only a valid criticism if Liu can demonstrate what the “new Malaysia” agenda is, with regard to education. Can Liu point to any policy decision by Harapan that is egalitarian, merit- or needs-based when it comes to education, that differentiates it from BN policies? If Liu cannot do this, calling for the removal of Maszlee is disingenuous and hypocritical - and which only feeds into the far right narrative that the DAP is pulling the strings in Harapan or is after Malay politicians who are parroting traditional Malay political narratives.

Liu says the Harapan government is attempting to promote Bangsa Malaysia. Fair enough. Please give us policy decisions and initiatives which are the opposite of what BN did when it was in power. Please give us an example of how the Bangsa Malaysia agenda has replaced the so-called power-sharing formula BN shoved down our throats for decades.

What of the Harapan supporters who support Maszlee? Are their views not important? This is what happens when Harapan made a pact with Mahathir and reaffirmed BN era politics with the inclusion of Bersatu into its ranks. You have Umno/BN supporters who believe that Harapan is the new BN and who never subscribed to the Bangsa Malaysia propaganda that the opposition – mainly the DAP – propagated. What about their views? I may not agree with their views, but for non-Malay Harapan politicians to dismiss them, after relying on their support, is a politically dangerous move to make.

As far as they are concerned, someone like Maszlee is articulating the kind of mainstream politics that sustained BN for years before it was bogged down with the corruption scandals of successive Umno potentates. What does this mean? It means for these supporters who were willing to give Harapan a chance, they were signing up for the kind of racial politics that sustained BN all those years and which got wide-ranging support from all the communities.

Instead of recognising the divisions among Harapan supporters and discovering ways to bridge the gap between non-Malay and Malay supporters, Liu merely replays the same talking points that Malay and Chinese politicians have been regurgitating for years. It would have been so much simpler if non-Malay politicians would just state their stand clearly and say they believe that education policies, for instance, should be needs-based, and reject racial quotas outright, instead of contorting themselves and attempting to justify the propaganda of Bangsa Malaysia when the reality in terms of policy is exactly the opposite.

Another way is to concede that the Bangsa Malaysia propaganda is bull manure and acknowledge that Harapan wants to maintain the BN system without the rampant corruption. To some Harapan supporters, this may be anathema, but to others, especially the “conservative” Malay base of Harapan, this may be welcomed.

Targeting Maszlee because some people in Harapan lack the cajones to acknowledge that all those promises Harapan made cannot be fulfilled because these would “spook the Malays”. Targeting a Malay minister using dodgy logic and hypocritical arguments is more damaging politically than not fulfilling promises.

The funny thing is that Harapan can dig itself out of this mess. I am fairly confident that no matter what the DAP does, it will not lose non-Malay support – but then again who knows, maybe the non-Malays are capable of much more in how they hold their elected representatives accountable than what I give them credit for – but Harapan, because of the hypocritical nature of how some non-Malay politicians behave, could weaken the Malay support for Harapan.

Don’t confuse winning the social media game as translating to electoral gains. People are not stupid. Non-Malay politicians have to commit to a truly egalitarian agenda or concede that their Bangsa Malaysia propaganda has come back to bite them on their behinds.

I am not trying to be snarky when it comes to Mujahid Yusof Rawa (above), because I think he is desperately attempting to come up with a counter-narrative to the right-wing Islamo-fascist narrative of the likes of Isma.

Here is the thing though. Is “compassionate Islam” something like the rebranding George W Bush attempted to do with mainstream conservatism when his spin-doctors dug up some old conservative literature, of a time when there was intelligent discourse in the conservative intelligentsia in America? The American president attempted (fairly successfully, I might add) to project the conservative ideology as "people friendly" as opposed to the religious nuttery it has become now and was sliding into when he was POTUS.

Why does Islam need a “compassionate” makeover, when its adherents always tell non-believers that their religion is the religion of peace and their god is all compassionate? This is the same contra-indication when they claim there is no compulsion in religion, but a religious bureaucracy enforces dogma in every facet of their lives.

Whom exactly is compassionate Islam supposed to be compassionate towards? For folks who subscribe to the kind of Islam that Isma propagates, the idea of compassion is meaningless. Islam is political power. Nowhere is this more evident in Isma's “Malaysia is an Islamic state” campaign they carried out last year.

As the press duly noted: “A thread on Isma’s Twitter account listed eight items on its agenda, most notably the rejection of Malaysia as a secular country, and to stress that Malaysia is 'Tanah Melayu' or 'land of the Malays' with the Malays its native citizens. In addition, it called for a stronger role for Islamic jurisprudence in the national justice system. Currently, Syariah jurisprudence is under state jurisdiction instead of federal. The campaign urged Malaysians to fight in implementing Islamic obligations in the national context. It also wishes to promote the assimilation of Islam into the Malay culture, among others, in its language, tradition, clothing and food.”

Isma president Aminuddin Yahaya (above), said: “We see these evil attempts still continue, and more dangerously when those who believe in that are among the country’s leadership,” which, considering what he has said about our non-Malay/Muslim attorney-general, is fairly tame.

That is one narrative. What is Mujahid’s counter-narrative? While Isma may take potshots at Harapan as betraying the Islamic cause, it lists the numerous ways in which the Harapan government has been buttressing the Islamic bureaucracy . Here are just two examples. Isma’s homepage carried reports of Mujahid Rawa creating a special bureau to confront the issue of people insulting Islam.

Isma also carried a news report of how Jakim was grateful its budget had been increased.
As far as incorporating Islamic values into mainstream Malaysian policy (a major preoccupation of Isma) is concerned, in the beginning of the year Mujahid Rawa visited Health Minister Dzulkefly Ahmad (below) with an agenda to further incorporate Islamic values into public policy related to healthcare.

“This meeting, among others, discussed issues related to the implementation of the ‘Maqasid Syariah’ agenda in the national administration, particularly in the context and scope of collaboration between MoH (Health Ministry) and PMD (Prime Minister’s Department),” Dzulkefly wrote on Instagram. “Maqasid Syariah” refers to the real purposes of Syariah.”

Does anyone see a counter-narrative here? Isma, on the one hand, is part of the Harapan government's religious initiatives, and on the other, claims the Harapan government is not doing enough to Islamise this country. Meanwhile, the religious czar is talking about creating a counter-narrative, but in terms of policy he is doing exactly what the Islamic right wing wants him to do.

If you are confused, spare a thought for the poor Muslims. What do they make of Mujahid telling them that the Harapan government has stood up against “orthodox” ideas, when he spiels against advocacy rights groups and liberals (who he considers as dangerous as “extremists) and displays the kind of orthodoxy that folks like Isma propagate?

Mujahid claims he wants Muslims to abandon “rigid” thinking, but then why is the Harapan government collaborating with folks like Isma, allowing their ideas to propagate through government programmes? Mujahid claims he wants to stop the backwardness of Muslims in Malaysia, but he offers no evidence that the Harapan regime is committed to enacting progressive policies in Malaysia.

Mujahid claims that people like the Isma president, whose “ideas” run contrary to what Islam is all about, should be dealt with with debates and dialogue. There has been no such dialogue in the mainstream media organs. Indeed, progressive voices have been shut out from the Islamic discourse and numerous state- sanctioned investigations have been carried out because their ideas run contrary to the ideas of the far right .

You can only hold debates or dialogues if there are competing ideas. Having closed-door sessions and coming out smiling and shaking hands does not demonstrate any kind of consensus building, but is an acknowledgement that the Establishment and pressure groups are on the same page.

I have discussed the problem with Mujahid's moderation: “Therein lies the rub. Mujahid wants an Islam that is convivial and not confrontational. However, when a religion – any religion – is made the religion of the state, it is, by very definition, potentially confrontational. Non-Muslims have to understand then when it comes to Islam in this country, secular rules of engagement do not apply.”

Some people think that I want Mujahid to fail. I sincerely do not want him to fail. My instinct for self-preservation trumps any kind of egotistical desire to be proven right.

COMMENT | The recent comment by Education Minister Maszlee Malik linking the matriculation quota system to job discrimination in the private sector is not only an Umno narrative but also a Pakatan Harapan narrative. Whenever issues like these crop up, Harapan partisans are quick to pounce on personalities instead of questioning the underlying policies of Harapan.

It has been one year of Harapan rule and so far what Harapan has done in terms of policy is to continue the efforts of the previous government in maintaining racial and religious hegemony. Maszlee may be a convenient whipping boy but the reality is that it is Harapan which is aping Umno’s racial and religious narratives.

While P Ramasamy is correct to point out that Maszlee is behaving like an Umno clone, what he fails to highlight is that the entire Harapan government is behaving like the BN regime. This Malay/Chinese narrative is still defined along the same old lines instead of the promised egalitarian policies that Harapan campaigned on. Icerd, the Rome Statute, the backtracking on various social and educational initiatives, the funding of racial and religious propaganda organs, the polemics of Harapan Malay politicians and the silence of their non-Malay counterparts point to a neo-BN reality instead of a “new Malaysia”.

Systemic discrimination in the public and the private sectors is not mutually exclusive. Talking about the discrimination of the quota system and the discrimination in the private sector either overt, or crypto, is not something that can and should be had separately. It is part of the grander, systemic dysfunction brought upon by years of governmental and commercial manipulation. I may not believe in that mythical social contract, but an argument could be made that the social contract of discrimination and racism is a social contract between political and commercial interests.

When Ramasamy asks what is the difference between Maszlee and Umno politicians, what he really should be asking is what is the difference between the racial and religious policies of Umno and Harapan? Is there a difference when it comes to tackling discrimination in the public and private sectors? Ramasamy's question is only credible if there are differences between the two and if there is no difference, then singling out Maszlee for towing familiar Malay narratives is unfair.

When Ramasamy makes the point of the realisation that “some of our ministers, like Maszlee, are no different from the BN era politicians who used race and religion to ensure their political survival", this is unintentionally funny. Why? Because, if anything, non-Malay political operatives have been scrambling to not spook the Malays and are in a state of agitation because their base is wondering when this “new Malaysia” deal will materialise. DAP, for instance, having a closed-door debate is the very definition of not spooking the Malays.

Racial and religious issues are the bread and butter of Malaysian politics. How could it not be? When the religion of the state dominates and democratic norms subverted and we have racial policies favouring the majority community, everything becomes an issue of race and religion. When non-Malay political operatives defend their religious rights or defend the rights as non-Malays, they are using race and religion as political tools because they are the most effective tools when it comes to dismantling hegemonic power structures and policies.

To argue otherwise, to imply that only Umno/BN politicians do this, is merely another red herring that Harapan seems to have an endless supply of. Honestly, when you have a race-based party like Bersatu in the coalition and the pre-election rhetoric of the then Harapan opposition of Mahathir being needed to secure the rural Malay vote, what did people think it meant in terms of Harapan’s policy when it came to racial and religious issues?

And I’m for non-Malay political operatives speaking up for their communities. When non-Malay political operatives like Ramasamy, for instance, challenges Malay orthodoxy when it comes to constitutionally enshrined rights of non-Malays, this is a good thing. It is pointless drawing false equivalencies between non-Malays speaking up for their rights and Malays defending their privileges and it is also pointless claiming that race and religion are not the bread and butter issues of all politicians.

Unless the system changes we have to speak up when racial and religious supremacy rears its ugly head and we have to think along racial and religious lines because not to do so would lead us to a theocratic state. We already live in an ethno-supremacist state.

Of course, there is a way to weaken the racial and religious narratives of this country and differentiating the Harapan regime from the previous Umno regime. This entails not only introducing anti-discrimination laws which apply to the public and private sector but also dismantling institutions, including political parties, which are race-based.

But is this really something the Harapan government is interested in? Ramasamy points to the discrimination faced by the Indians in the private sector and the monopolisation of bumiputera in the public sector and asks what the government is doing about that. This is a good question but why single out Maszlee? Why not single out the whole government bureaucracy which seems to be there not to challenge mainstream Malay political orthodoxy but to reinforce it.

See, this is why the Harapan regime abandoning something like Icerd was the height of mendacity. Icerd provided the framework when it came to formulating policy for the public and private sectors. When I wrote this, “The central theme of Icerd is eliminating all forms of racism and discrimination and while the legalese of this convention is contextualised in support of certain race-based agendas, at the heart of it, what its proponents hoped Icerd would do is put us on the road towards reforming a system which is mired in the kind of racism and bigotry detrimental to social and economic cohesion.” It was written to remind Malaysians that there is politics beyond race and religion. We must take the first tentative steps.

(Muhyiddin did not mention the date specifically, but Utusan Malaysia inserted May 13, 1969, to his quote in parentheses.)

COMMENT | Despite whatever misgivings I have about the man, I am on record as saying that Anwar Ibrahim has a legitimate claim to the crown of Putrajaya. Malaysians owe a debt to Anwar Ibrahim: “While the various alliances were flawed, what Anwar managed to do was demonstrate that people working together, even if in a compromised fashion, could wreak havoc on the Umno hegemon. This should not only count for something, it means that the "hope" people have sprung from the post-Umno moves he made.”

The statement by a PAS bigwig of people rejecting a “convict” as prime minister really sticks in my craw. Anwar was a political prisoner because the current prime minister and Umno (when he was leading it) put Anwar behind bars and did it in the most sordid way, thereby sealing his fate with a certain section of the majority Malay electorate. Mahathir’s bogus trial of Anwar was a slow acting poison that has forever crippled Anwar’s political career.

Statement

Post-May 9, Anwar and his faction have had to deal with not only the internal schisms in PKR, but also the machinations of various factions within Bersatu and Umno, who are loyal to Mahathir. While Anwar and Mahathir have made many public appearances suggesting that all is kosher, the reality of Malay politics demands that we be sceptical of the proposed handover of power.

Complicating matters is the different styles of leadership of the two men. Mahathir, the strongman who has publicly claimed that it is not important if Harapan is not popular, reminding the civil service to remain neutral, and picking fights with the Royalty, as opposed to the PM-designate who, by circumstances of his incarceration and propaganda, has always had to be on the defensive when it comes to his Malay/Muslim bona fides.

While Anwar has backed Mahathir, the reality is for most Harapan supporters, Mahathir seems to be the man willing to take on the opposition and slay Malay sacred cows, even though he has been backpedalling on a whole range of issues.

When people see the spectre of ketuanism and when they see Mahathir as the only politician not mincing his words against his opponents, there is an emotional reaction. People want to believe he is capable of ending the systemic injustices in this country, even though he was the main architect of the kleptocracy Najib took control of. Anwar, meanwhile, seems incapable of asserting any kind of agenda, beyond reminding everyone that his reformasi days are not over. His faction seems to be on the losing end of PKR politics, and his once charismatic personality seems ineffectual in the post-May 9 world of Mahathir-dominated polemics.

Harapan political operatives – publicly – talk about handing over power to Anwar, but is it tactically sound to make way for Anwar in Harapan? Should Mahathir serve a full term and then let Anwar have a go at leading Harapan in the next general election? PAS people, who still talk to me, tell me Anwar presents a unique opportunity for them. If Mahathir reneges on his deal and Anwar accepts it, then this will further diminish the Malay leadership of Harapan and deepen divisions. If Anwar becomes prime minister, then they will have a field day, mocking the "convict" as someone incapable of leading a Muslim nation, who is only there because of Chinese (DAP) machinations.

Lim Kit Siang (photo) making a bet that Mahathir will hand over power to Anwar, may seem like good public relations, but if Mahathir does not hand over power, or some sort of deal is reached to extend Mahathir's reign, this would further complicate the political terrain on which Harapan has been losing ground. I was never in favour of this “interim” PM nonsense.

As I wrote here: “The opposition is not offering any visionary ideas; merely apocalyptic ones. Maybe this has something to do with the religious overtones of the opposition, but at this point, it really does not matter. Choices have been made. Compromises struck and the most important thing the opposition should do is commit to the game they have chosen to play.”

All this "interim" nonsense does is create more tension for the Establishment. It allows the Malay opposition a talking point and deepens divisions within the Malay power structures in Harapan. This guessing game of whether the old maverick will relinquish power also adds another level of intrigue for Harapan supporters, which blinds them to the obvious failings of their chosen government.

Mahathir’s Bersatu is evidence of how a power group which cannot legitimately claim to represent its base – Malay – operates by establishing itself as the prime mover in Harapan, where its allies (DAP and PKR), both with larger representation, have to acquiescence to Bersatu. Will anyone trust Bersatu if there was no Mahathir? Besides, Anwar will not gain any legitimacy if he merely accepts the reins of power from Mahathir. While many argue that PKR is the weakest link in Harapan, it does command a majority of seats, while Bersatu is probably worried about how it will fare in an Anwar stewardship. The perception fanned by the far right is that Anwar did not fight for his position, but it was handed to him, with Chinese connivance, courtesy of the DAP. Kit Siang's wager merely adds to this perception.

Mahathir needs to serve his full term and then step down, and allow Anwar to lead the charge in the next general election. If Harapan manages to stabilise the economy and carry out reforms, which Anwar used as the basis for his reformasi movement, then no matter what percentage of the Malay vote keeps Harapan in power, Anwar can make the claim that he is the legitimate democratic heir to the throne in Putrajaya

At the moment, as Terrence Gomez rightly pointed out, the culture of patronage is still pervasive in New Malaysia. This has deeper implications than merely cronyism and corruption. The politics of patronage and Malay political factionalism are not mutually exclusive. There is a reason why moves are made to consolidate corporate and political power in various Malay power structures. This was one of the major points of reform that, in the early days, Anwar was pushing for.

Ultimately what is more important is if Anwar demonstrates that he can make his move to the big seat on his own, instead of relying on a handover. If Anwar is given power by Mahathir, the Malay far right will claim he needs the Chinese DAP to get power and hence he is their puppet. This would mean that Anwar will always have to prove his Malay/Muslim credentials and we all know how this works, in New Malaysia, right? Anwar has to lead and win a general election on his own if ever he is to be a threat to the extremist forces in this country. If there is a handover, Harapan will spend all its time justifying this move, instead of embarking on reforms.

COMMENT | Whenever Pakatan Harapan gets flak for its backpedalling, the response from its political operatives and propagandists is to plead for more time. This is a rather juvenile response from 'New Malaysia' politicians because time is limited in a democracy while fortunes and consequences change - sometimes overnight - in politics. The reality is that Harapan has five years until the next elections to demonstrate that they can manipulate the system to their advantage and leverage that for another term. This is the realpolitik of it.

Asking for more time is "the dog ate my homework" of excuses especially since before the election, Harapan positioned itself as the magic bullet that could “save Malaysia”. Recent public statements from the Harapan elite that the reason why they cannot fulfil certain promises is because it costs money as the former government left them with debt is a lie. They are systemic changes they can make which would cost them very little but it would not be politically expedient to do so.

Harapan and its partners should cease attempting to gaslight its base and wallow in propagandists' responses to criticisms. The most recent example is the DAP response to my column questioning the party's attempts to find a “middle ground” with someone with extremist views. This is not what 'New Malaysia' needs.

Muhammad Shakir Ameer (above), DAP’s national vice-chief, in responding to my piece questioning the value of the party’s possible friendship with Perlis mufti Mohd Asri Zainul Abidin, claimed that my piece (and others who questioned such a move) was based on “the desire to be confrontational, without making the effort to take the middle ground to make peace and avoid prolonged animosity".

This is exactly why most people – except die-hard Harapan supporters and certainly not the base that Harapan thinks it needs to remain in power – are sceptical of DAP and Harapan. First off,  the DAP accusing others of being "confrontational", considering the rhetoric of the DAP when it comes to labelling personalities as "extremist", is predictably hypocritical. Secondly, when the DAP has a closed-door meeting because it does not want the views of its members to become public, there is really no point in claiming that the DAP wants constructive dialogue. The DAP, like any other political party, wants to control the narrative.

Harapan’s religious czar Mujahid Yusof Rawa has claimed that he doesn’t consider "liberals" less dangerous than "extremists". So how can the DAP - which has been aligned with Amanah since its inception - talk about the middle ground when neither the DAP nor its coalition partners make any attempt to define the middle ground beyond making false equivalencies between the people opposing religious extremism and the religious extremists.

Ameer, who does not really address the points in my piece on the move by DAP to engage with someone like the Perlis mufti, is like Harapan which chooses to use red herrings in an attempt to deflect from their blunders. To be clear, Ameer, the reason why people like me reject extremism and extreme ideas is because it impacts our economic and social security.

The Harapan grand poobah warns of race-baiting robbers attempting to derail the Harapan reform agenda. Anwar Ibrahim, the prime minister-designate, warns that racial tension could derail the reform agenda. The rhetoric of both appeals to Anwar’s “urban elites” but does that rhetoric translate into real reform?

Some people dismiss comments made by the prime minister and the soon-to-be prime minister as empty rhetoric especially when the former goes on about a needs-based approach to entitlement programmes but I think they are missing the point.

Malay power structures have for decades known that racial and religious politics were economically unfeasible. They understood that by denying Malaysians their economic potential, they were weakening the economy. I suspect that part of this is why there is a reluctance to make public the findings of the Council of Eminent Persons report. However, Malay power structures have lacked the scrotal fortitude to do anything about it. What they do is come up with deflections and talk about that mythical "middle ground" when it comes to extreme religious and racial ideas as if mainstream Malaysian politics starts from the centre.

Look, over the years Umno people including Najib Abdul Razak attempted to reverse the policies that favour the majority because they knew – everyone knew – that it was bad for the economy and would only get worse in a fast-changing geopolitical landscape. When Mahathir Mohamad talks about not giving out handouts and upgrading skills, he is admitting that the current disproportionate system has handicapped not only the Malay majority but Malaysia as well.

I sincerely believe that there are political operatives within the Harapan coalition who want to change Malaysia for the better and this includes political operatives from Bersatu, but unfortunately there are too many political operatives and supporters of Harapan who believe that the old paradigm works and they support the gaslighting that Harapan propagandists engage in in support of the old paradigm.

There are good policy decisions that Harapan has made when it demonstrates it has the political will. The recent decision by the political apparatus and the security apparatus to implement the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC) is a shining moment for Harapan. Harapan is capable of so much more. So the question is not if people should give Harapan more time but rather that Harapan has a limited amount of time to carry out the agenda they claim they want.

COMMENT | Bukit Gelugor parliamentarian Ramkarpal Singh is correct. If Pakatan Harapan discovers its cojones and sets up the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC), this will go down as one of its greatest achievements, which frankly speaking is something the Harapan regime needs. People like to concentrate on the cops who are attempting to block this move but what the Wang Kelian hearings have shown us is that police corruption and political complicity go hand in hand.

Muhammad Zamri Vinoth Kalimuthu

Malaysiakini : “People who change their religion should face the death penalty.” - Zakir Naik

These slimy creatures undermined our secular status with the first attacks on Christians - SO DO NOT ever Forget

COMMENT | The difference between Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad and prime minister-in-waiting Anwar Ibrahim when it comes to dealing with the Malays is not ideological but rhetorical. While the old maverick is wont to lecture and bemoan specific traits of his “people” – while blowing the dog whistle when it comes to the non-Malays – Anwar Ibrahim likes to find scapegoats in his quest to project some sort of leadership quality.

Despite the differences in rhetoric, both carry out racial policies which are detrimental to the Malay community. Anwar’s latest tirade when it comes to the plight of the “rural Malays” is to blame the “urban elites” for distracting from the economic woes of the rural Malay communities. There is an element in the Malay political elite of PKR who seem to think that their perceived lack of “Malayness” is brought upon by egalitarian ideas that emanate from the urban and semi-urban centres, which is dominated by non-Malay concerns.

Anwar’s “don’t spook the Malays” narrative is a projection about the perceived lack of (rural) Malay support of the progressive Malay faction of PKR, which ironically is the panacea for the lopsided policies that have been detrimental to the Malay polity. Young Malay leaders, some of who have jumped on the bandwagon, citing “ultra-liberal Malays” and other such nonsense, are merely reacting to the right-wing elements in PKR and from Bersatu, who are jostling for power in this post-May 9 reality.

Anwar’s scapegoating of the “urban elites” is just another narrative employed by Malay political powerbrokers to deflect from the reality that policies meant to favour the dominant Malay polity have been an abject failure. Or rather, the short-term gains of such policies have come back to bite the behinds of Malay power structures bereft and fearful of progressive ideas that could change the political and social landscape of the Malay polity.

When Anwar Ibrahim says something like this: “…at times, the elite seems to ignore these real problems. I’ve not heard them talking about… poverty, inequality...”, the question becomes, where has he been? Not only have the urban elites been talking about poverty and equality but these same urban elites were suckered into believing that only the current prime minister has the “trust” of the rural Malays, which is why they embraced his political comeback and anointed him the Grand Poohbah of Harapan.
It was Anwar Ibrahim who was viewed as not up to the task of corralling the rural Malays to the Harapan banner, even though he has spent an inordinate amount of time and political capital to try forge a relationship with this demographic.

People obsessed with meritocracy

Furthermore, when Anwar Ibrahim claims that people are obsessed with meritocracy, and uses “somebody from the Dayak tribe” as an example of why affirmative action is needed, this is not only mendacious, but I would say vile.

First off, children from tribes in Sarawak would be more vulnerable to unilateral conversion rather than the inequalities of the bureaucracies when it comes to preserving their special rights. Secondly, what about the poor non-Malay kid who managed to score the required nine As but is marginalised from the system because hundreds of Malay students who do not qualify get to participate in the system, merely because of race? What about the children of privileged Malays who use the system at the expense of disenfranchised Malays?

Anwar claims that the urban elites are cut off from rural bread and butter issues but the reality is that the urban elites are obsessed with bread and butter issues of the whole country. Economic bread and butter issues are the catalyst from aberrant political upheavals and when you are the minority (especially when it comes to progressive politics), you understand that while you may be hurting in a bad economy, the people who could do the most damage to your economic and social stability are the disenfranchised who wield lopsided political power, through their votes.

Why do you think non-Malays – specifically the Chinese community – are scapegoated as an economic threat to the Malay community? Because it is easier to blame a community for bad policy decisions than to reverse course and attempt policies which would not be politically attractive in the short term, but specifically in this context because Harapan does not want to do the hard work of using its apparatus for messaging and shifting public opinion.

And it is bizarre. Anwar claims that the rural communities want to be reassured that the Malay language and their special rights are preserved and that they are afraid of certain government policies, which they view as threats to those issues. Really? When Anwar says that there is no harm when it comes to mastering the Malay language, where exactly was anyone posing a threat to the language?

Cause of the plight of the rural Malays

Has this got anything to do with the UEC demand from the Chinese community? Is Bahasa Melayu under threat because of the refusal to recognise the UEC? Then just come out and say it. Look, the reason why the rural Malay communities are in the situation they are in is because, for decades, successive Umno regimes deprived them of the opportunities and advantages that urban people have.

They did this because they wanted a convenient rural vote bank, which they could use as a potent weapon, in terms of votes and narratives against the non-Malay communities, who were not dependent on government handouts but who were thriving.

That's God’s honest truth. It is pointless for Anwar Ibrahim to lecture urban elites into going down into rural areas and doing charitable work because the onus is on the government, both state and federal, to ensure egalitarian programmes which would help all marginalised communities, instead of expecting more handouts from privileged urban people – who, let’s face it, are struggling with economic issues of their own. Does Anwar really think that all people who make their homes in urban centres are “rich”?

Besides privileged urbanites, who are so inclined have their hands looking full as against the disenfranchised in the urban areas, mucking about in the rural heartlands presents social and public relations problems of their own. What the Malay political apparatus should be doing is defunding those “Malays” institutions that are leaching money from public coffers, which could be put to better use instead of the indoctrination and subservience, which is the desiderata of mainstream Malay politics and the function of those institutions.

Then, of course, there are the Malay plutocrats who are engaged in larcenous behaviour when it comes to Malay entitlements – and looting, when it comes to Malay-Muslim fundings. In the end, Anwar’s folly is the willful denial that policies meant to empower the Malays are, in reality, predatory policies which disenfranchise the greater Malay community and from which the fallout is the racial and religious divisions in this country.