How can Muhyiddin be an “overlooked reformer” when SOSMA, Sedition Act and Prevention of Crimes Act remain untouched on the statute books despite his being Home Minister for 22 months and Prime Minister for 17 months?
How can the Parliament Speaker Azhar Azizan Harun hail Muhyiddin Yassin as an “overlooked reformist” when SOSMA, Sedition Act and the Prevention of Crimes Act remain untouched on the statute books despite his being Minister for 22 months and Prime Minister for 17 months?
Azhar said on Friday at the launch of the book “Muhyiddin Yassin: Leading a Nation in Unprecedented Crisis” by Abdul Mutalib Razak that he could speak from personal experience as among Muhyiddin’s first initiatives as minister was to set up a committee to look into laws that were deemed “unsuitable” such as the Sedition Act, the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act, and the Prevention of Crimes Act.
Azhar was a member of this committee and he said: “The committee met many times, going through every and each detail of the laws and listening to the relevant stakeholders.”
But all these were either wasted efforts or efforts-for-show, as there was no sincerity or commitment by Muhyiddin to abolish the draconian provisions in these laws, particularly with regard to detention without trial.
This point was hammered home last Tuesday when the Dewan Rakyat extended the sunset clause in Subsection 4(5) of the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (Sosma) for another five years, with 111 MPs voted in favour, 88 against while 21 MPs were absent from the sitting.
Even the “overlooked reformer” came to vote for SOSMA’s extension raising the question: What type of a reformer is this?
What was the committee’s recommendation on the five-year extension of SOSMA? Can the Speaker enlighten Malaysians?
In fact, Muhyiddin’s position on SOSMA and the Sheraton Move conspiracy in February 2020 raised the question whether the detention of 12 persons, including two DAP State Assemblymen one in Negri Sembilan and the other in Malacca, for alleged links with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in 2019 was a security or political operation.
For more than two years, there had been no incident to justify the view of any existence of any LTTE network in the country, casting doubt on the veracity of the charges against the 12 persons in 2019.
This is why I had suggested last Wednesday that the Security Parliamentary Select Committee, chaired by the PKR MP for Sungai Patani, Johari Abdul, should investigate into the detention of the 12 persons for alleged links with the LTTE to establish whether it was a security or a political operation.
The Parliamentary Select Committee should hold hearings to investigate into the matter because of the premier role played by the “overlooked reformer, Muhyiddin, who was then the Home Minister, in the subsequent Sheraton Move conspiracy which toppled Pakatan Harapan government and Muhyiddin replaced Mahathir Mohamad as Prime Minister.
Investigation by the Security Parliamentary Select Committee is imperative now that Parliament had voted to extend SOSMA for another five years and Parliament must ensure that there had been no abuse of power in SOSMA implementation in the past.
The Security Parliamentary Select Committee should also hold hearings to investigate into the detention of the then Bersih Chairperson, Maria Chin Abdullah (now PKR MP for Petaling Jaya) in 2016 and detentions of activist Khairuddin Hassan and his lawyer Matthias Chang for their attempts to expose the 1MDB financial scandal, as well as all former SOSMA detainees to establish whether these SOSMA detentions were justified or were abuses of power.
The members of the Security Parliamentary Select Committee are Tajuddin Abdul Rahman (Pasir Salak), Ramli Mohd Nor (Cameron Highlands), Rahim Bakri (Kudat), Wilson Ugak Anak Kumbong (Hulu Rajang), Syed Ibrahim Syed Nor (Ledang), Lim Lip Eng (Kepong) and Mohamad Sabu (Kota Raja).
I said yesterday that among Muhyiddin’s failures as a political leader was his failure to Malaysianise his political thinking to graduate from a “Malay First” to a “Malaysian First” political leader, so that he could be Prime Minister for all Malaysians.
Dr. Mahathir Mohamad started as a “Malay First” leader but he has traversed some distance to be “Malaysian First”, more than Muhyiddin, although he has not reached the stage of “Malaysian First” 100 per cent, as Mahathir is still head of a political party open to Malays only but not to all Malaysians.
The social contract that the nation’s founding fathers agreed upon, and entrenched in the Malaysian Constitution and Rukun Negara, is to create a Malaysian unity based on Malaysia’s plural characteristics - multi-racial, multi-lingual, multi-cultural and multi-religious where all are first class citizens, without any division into first, second or third class citizens.
The nation’s founding fathers also agreed on the fundamental nation-building principles and policies of a plural Malaysia which includes constitutional monarchy, parliamentary democracy, separation of powers, rule of law, good governance, public integrity, meritocracy, Islam as the religion on the country but freedom of religion an d respect for human rights.
The nation’s founding fathers were therefore the first to advocate a “Malaysian First” policy instead of Malay First, Chinese First, Indian First, Kadazan First or Iban First policy.
Is the “overlooked reformer” Muhyiddin prepared to commit himself to this “Malaysian First” policy?
That Malaysia is based on a on a Malaysia First rather than Malay First, Chinese First, Indian First, Kadazan First or Iban First basis is the reason for the provision under the Malaysian Constitution that a Malaysian regardless of race, religion or region, could become Prime Minister of Malaysia.
However, we accept the political reality in Malaysia and I do not see any non-Malay becoming Prime Minister of Malaysia during my lifetime or that of my children.
In the United States, a black man Barack Obama became the President of the United States but it took place some 230 years after the establishment of the United States in 1776.
I hope Malaysia would not need 230 years before a non-Malay can become Prime Minister, but I do not expect a non-Malay to become a Malaysian Prime Minister in the 21st century, but whether there will be a non-Malay Prime Minister in the 22nd or 23rd century will depend on whether the politics of identity will continue to be so primordial and elemental as a political force in the Malaysian political landscape as today.
If the question whether a non-Malay can become Prime Minister of Malaysia is asked 60 years ago, the nation’s founders like Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun Razak, Tun Dr. Ismail, Tun Hussein Onn, Tun Tan Cheng Lock, Tun Tan Siew Sin and Tun V.T. Sambanthan would unhesitatingly answered in the positive as there is no constitutional bar – which was separate from the question of whether it was likely to happen.
But today, there are political leaders who openly say that a non-Malay cannot be a Prime Minister of Malaysia and they were in Muhyiddin’s Cabinet because of the concept of “ketuanan Melayu”, which was popularized in 1986 and after.
There is now a surfeit of fake news in the country.
There is an insidious and dangerous attempt to make the Malays hate and fear the non-Malays on the ground that they want to eliminate the Malay race. Nobody in Malaysia wants to eradicate the Malay race.
As Professor Murad Merican of the Internatiional Institute of Islamic Thought and Civilization said at the recent forum on “Rebranding of Malay Politics”, to be a Malay is seen to be “negative, lazy, corrupt, hypocritical “.
We do not want any Malay, Chinese, Indian, Kadazan or Iban to be associated with such negative traits, but to be associated with “positive, hard-working, incorruptible, just , sincere, honest and the ability to distinguish right from wrong” characteristics.
There is finally the problem of not only the Prime Minister who is a criminal, but the Attorney-General who is also a criminal.
What is the “overlooked reformer” Muhyddin’s position on this, as highlighted by the 100-page Azimah Omar judgement in the former Attorney-General, Mohamad Apandi’s defamation suit against me which was made public last Thursday?