Nine Ministers' memo to PM: NST's feudalistic view
In the light of Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi’s response to the memorandum sent by nine non-Muslim ministers calling for a review of laws affecting the rights of non-Muslims, the New Straits Times' Brendan Pereira wrote that the ministers’ move was a misstep and not a “mature and measured way” to debate religion and race in the country. His view, in the paper’s “Plain Talk” column on 22 January, has got to take the cake for feudalistic thinking. Of the nine ministers, he wrote:
They knew it would provoke a furore. They have lived long enough in Malaysia and have occupied high office long enough to know that confrontation is as treacherous as going out to sea during the monsoon.
What they grossly underestimated was the power of perception in a country where the house-of-mirrors effect is more powerful than reality.
They also grossly underestimated the opportunity this misplaced act gave those who believe that matters of race and religion are best swept under the carpet and dealt with another day.
What they grossly underestimated was the untenable position such a memorandum would put on people like Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz, who threw convention out the window and spoke on non-Muslim rights in public.
Pereira obviously did not read the memorandum. How then could he presume to know what exactly was in it to say that it did not amount to a “mature and measured” document?
And what was wrong with the nine ministers sending the memo to the PM? They did not tell their supporters and constituents to take to the streets to protest. They did not express their concerns openly through the media, which might have sensationalised the issues. What is so improper about the ministers expressing their views or concerns – views that reflected the concerns of many of their supporters and constituents - in writing to the Prime Minister?
Pereira claimed that even if the nine ministers’ intentions were good, Muslims on the ground might not perceive it the same way. But what about non-Muslims on the ground? His article had nothing to say about how they would see it. Are their views not important?
Pereira's commentary reveals a feudalistic mentality: the PM is always right - in this case, he was right to ignore the nine ministers’ move in the wake of protests from Muslim students and PAS members.
His remarks give us yet another indication of how much he is a “yes man” to the PM. Yet another indication of how much he and the paper he works for are stumbling blocks to a truly democratic Malaysia - one that accommodates different views and approaches (short of violence) to addressing issues.
posted by Media Monitors @ 6:22 PM
6 Comments
6 Comments:
I am no fan of Brendan Pereira, not since his days in the Singapore Straits Times. However, I think he was right in this instance, not only for the reasons he gives, but for other reasons as well.
This was a memoradum to the PM by Ministers, members of the cabinet. Not a memorandum from citizens, not one from backbenchers, but from people in executive power. Secondly, the memorandum or the act of submititng the memorandum was evidently widely publicised, the idea being to let everyone know that they had done so.
What was their purpose in doing so? To signal to the people that they, as ministers, have no access to the PM, the head of the cabinet in which they sit? If so, then why all those lush statements of praise of the PM when they withdrew?
Remember, these are the men who do not tire to sing the praises of Badawi, how approachable he is, and the government -- of which they are a part. Now, suddenly, they have to send him a memo, and they can't go see him quietly to impress on him the necessity for some change? They are not part of the executive branch of government?
But also remember that some of these men were there sitting in the cabinet when the amendment to Art 121 was formulated and passed back in 1988. So they have a collective responsibility for the amendment of Art 121, and cannot now honestly distance themselves from it. They include Samy Vellu and Lim Keng Yaik. But that does not excuse the MCA which was also very much present in the 1988 cabinet and also voted, to a man and woman, in support of the amendment of Art 121!
Finally, remember that these men, with the exception of Maximus Ongkili and Bernard Dompok, and their parties stood behind the castration of the judiciary back in 1988, and now righteously wonder about the gutlessness of the judiciary?
But sadly, as "monitor" exemplifies, their grandstanding -- and that's what it was -- has succeeded in spades in pulling the wool over the eyes of even avid supporters of Aliran.
Philip Khoo has a point about the ministers voting for 121 in 1988 which 'castrated' the judiciary.
Whatever it is worth, the fact that they decided to stand by sections of civil society now when support is much needed is laudable--perception of support by ministers is important for minority voices who felt disowned.
Abu Talib stands in a worse light. He merely shrugged "what to do?" when Suhakam's report and recommendations were not implemented or even read. That he should resign never entered his head--too long in the service of the master does this. Abu Talib has not redeemed himself in the eyes of the public.
To clarify my earlier comment, Abu Talib as Attorney General drafted the amendments to 121 which the 9 ministers voted on. Abu Talib is Suhakam chief. He should not run a third term.
The controversial Memorandum which was handed to PM Abdullah Ahmad Badawi must be admired due to the collective stand taken to make their views felt that had concerned the rights and privilleges of non-muslim in the major muslim Malaysia society. Although subsequently withdrawn, we need to admire their courage to stand out and be heard. Calls made by certain quarters for their resignation was really unwarranted. Deputy Minister M Kayveas being a non-muslim, using this sensitive and controversial agenda, had demanded their resignation for his(Kayveas)own political benefit. What Works Minister Samy Velu described about Kayveas need to be commendated. Kayveas needs to be sacked for his unwarranted outburst. It is also a shame to the People's Progressive Party (PPP) led by Kayveas, majority of the members being non-muslims not been consulted, although PPP is a component party of the Barisan Nasional.
While it is legitimate to argue why these nine ministers could not have raised this very same issue at the cabinet meeting, no one seem to raise the possibility that this was indeed raised and argued at that level but they were out-numbered and out-voted. It is perhaps because this issue did not receive any sympathetic consideration from the other cabinet ministers who are in the majority Muslims that these nine ministers had to write to Abdullah in a confidential manner to re-explain and put forward their views.
Whether they should have let the whole wrld know of what they were doing is another matter altogether.
...BRUTUS
Actually, it was a crying shame that the nine ministers shamelessly withdrew their joint memo to the Prime Minister on a subject that that was of grave concern to the community that they were representing.
In taking this bold step to submit their memo, they were only presenting the worrying concerns of the non-Malays. In so doing they had as a matter of fact truly represented the ground-level views which they are morally obliged to respond to.
When they withdrew this memo because UMNO guys became nasty, they only revealed themselves as a cowardly lot. In all honesty, all of them shouldhave resigned en-blocand forced the issue. Under the circumstance, would Abdullah have merely accepted teir resignation? In such an eventuality, there would have been no Barisan Nasional.
But sadly their selfish interest prevailed and they threw their principles into the dustbin!
Revathy
Post a Comment
<< Home