Takziah for Anwar, al-fatihah for Nik Aziz

To paraphrase Jon Stewart, if satire is tragedy plus time, I need more time. Therefore, this week’s article is not a satire. Instead, I have taken the liberty of writing an op-ed.

The state of the nation is depressing. Our top opposition leader is jailed, again. A slew of politicians and a cartoonist will be investigated under the Sedition Act for condemning the verdict. The cops are watching our tweets and acting like the Thought Police in Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four. To amplify the dreadful turn of events, at the time of writing, news has just spread that Tok Guru Nik Aziz has passed away.

I am part of the generation that grew up in the post-308 political tsunami. We are the “Ini Kali Lah” generation. Regardless of which side of the political divide we support, we witness the creation of the nation’s first effective two-party system, the opening of political space, activism, discourse and the push for democratisation. We are gradually moving towards a more mature democracy – or so I thought.

Since GE13, we have been moving backwards. The prime minister appears to be reversing his reformist pledges. He not only rolled back the Sedition Act after making a public announcement to repeal it (on live television, mind you), he is expanding its scope! I am very disappointed and can only speculate this is the beginning of his concession to the more extreme elements in the society.

True, dozens are charged under the Sedition Act. It is no accident that they are overwhelmingly opposition politicians. The Sedition Act is too broad and gives complete discretion to the authorities to arrest whenever they deem necessary. Growing intolerance among certain racial and religious groups increasingly threatens to close down the democratic space which we been carving out for the past few years. And now, we see a replay of 1998.

We cannot be neutral in a moving train. Your neutrality and apathy are political. I have seen various reactions to the verdict, from outright disbelief and outrage to apathy, relief and even celebration. The most despicable is those who, on the pretext of neutrality, offer apologetic excuses on behalf of the powerful. If you are willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the powers that be, why do you not extend the same to the accused? Under the facade of objectivity, their inaction is equally driven by personality politics.

The most naive statements are those which ask us to not politicise the case. It has been political from day 1. Anwar is the opposition leader. The political incentives are too high to be discounted by the judges and the public. The more things at stake, the higher the probability of a conspiracy. Since there is a possibility that the evidence is compromised, no direct DNA evidence, no witness, and the huge incentives to be gained from the case, reasonable doubt is cast.

The courts refused to issue a subpoena to the alleged conspirators, putting the defence counsel at a disadvantage from early on. Why did Anwar refuse to give his DNA and sworn testimony? If you are suspicious that the sample collected from PW1 had been tampered with (it was sealed and then opened, ostensibly because the doctor did not label it at first), would you trust the authorities and give your sample too?

Anwar’s sworn testimony would not be meaningful since the court rejected the political conspiracy angle and refused to call the conspirators to court. There was nothing to be gained and Anwar would only expose himself to be cross-examined by Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, a shrewd lawyer no doubt, who would most probably ask Anwar questions to which he already knew the answers (eg. Anwar was in the same building with PW1).

If the case is fought only from one angle (by the investigative officers and judges), and not explored from the conspiracy angle, how can we believe in a fair trial? If it is all deliberately set up, and if we refuse to explore that possibility, then the defence counsel is left with only technicalities. The whole episode is even more deplorable when you realise that the allegation should not even be a criminal offence.

You ask us to not be emotional and leave it, but are you not blinded by your indifference and political bias, too? Various countries including Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, the United States and the European Union have spoken out against the verdict. From western academicians to Islamists, from Dr Tom Pepinsky of Cornell University to Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi of International Union of Muslim Scholars, from Al-Gore to Tariq Ramadan, from the United Nations to the Muslim Brotherhood, everyone is shaming this verdict. Could the whole world be wrong?

And before anyone accuses us of selling out the country’s sovereignty due to the White House petition, if asking for international support for a just cause is considered infringement of sovereignty, I’m pretty sure apartheid South Africa and Israel would agree to that because they too hide behind this flimsy excuse. And if such an act is considered traitorous, would you say the same about those who first invited the British to intervene?

This is not the time for disputing nitty-gritty details. Whatever dispute now would be purely academic. Desmond Tutu said it long ago: “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.”

While we argue, moves have been made to imprison Anwar, clamp down on dissenters and steer the opposition coalition onto a different path than intended. Academic dispute will only bring us so far. Sometimes you have to act with limited information to protect whatever is left, resist oppression and push back. The inspector-general of police vowed to arrest anyone who threatens the order of the day and calls for protests. Since when have our people not been allowed to protest? Malayan Union, anyone? It seems that protest is only allowed when it is agreeable to some people.

For me, the struggle for a better Malaysia has never been about Anwar. But Anwar is a huge part of the struggle. He helped to bring together three distinct parties under one coalition, lead Pakatan Rakyat to two general elections and won 52% of the votes. Reformasi is more than Anwar, but we should not deny that Anwar opened up the space and provided the catalyst for change. Anwar has fought for a long time. What kind of people are we if we abandon him at this juncture?

This should not be taken as blanket support for Pakatan Rakyat. To his supporters and colleagues in PR, know that the rakyat is prepared to give you a chance. But you cannot expect us to vote for you based on this outrage alone. If you don’t even let us know who will be the prime minister and what policies you will implement if/when you become the government, you cannot expect us to be convinced. What if we vote for a secular democratic Malaysia, only to see some PR ministers tabling a motion for hudud? What if we vote for PR but some defect to form a unity government?

Anwar’s search for commonality is his greatest asset. We ought to emulate that search for commonality and what binds us together. I am not speaking just about PR, though they could definitely take the advice and stick to Common Policy Framework and act only when they have consensus. No hudud and no local council election if there is no consensus. There are more urgent and critical issues which they can tackle first. If they keep on pursuing separate interests, the Malay proverb “yang dikejar tak dapat, yang dikendong berciciran” is the inevitable outcome.

To the rest of us, let us not merely romanticise and worship Anwar and Nik Aziz. Let us not build statues, museums, or frame their pictures. Let us be inspired by them in a more meaningful way.

Anwar is the ideal Malaysian politician. Set aside whether we agree or disagree with his antics; there is no denying that he is one of the few, if not the only, Malaysian politician who appeals to and is accepted across all races. We really lack such figures in our politics. A multiracial Malaysia needs a Malaysian politician, not a Malay, Chinese, Indian, Iban, or Kadazan politician. We have enough of that already!

To current and aspiring politicians, I hope you will emulate Anwar’s search for commonality. He can do this only because he has the desire and the knowledge to reach out to all. Read a lot. Be vastly knowledgeable. Get to know the culture, language and aspirations of the Malay, Chinese, Indians, Sabahans, and Sarawakians. Learn everything, from Western philosophy to Islamic history. Anwar can quote verses from the Quran in one moment, and Shakespeare, Amartya Sen and John Rawls in the next. It helps to have an arsenal of knowledge, for the sake of knowledge itself and also so that you can reach out to people with different interests and thinking. Similarly, if you are inspired by Nik Aziz (or even Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad), read a lot and be very knowledgeable. There is no substitute to become great leaders.

As I am writing this, the funeral for Nik Aziz is about to begin. I am a liberal, secularist, and agnostic. We have obvious differences, but that does not diminish my respect for him in the least. We don’t have to agree with someone entirely to respect him/her, or hate the person just because we have different takes on certain issues. When I was doing research on political Islam in Malaysia, I read about Nik Aziz’s life and legacy. There are few, if any, that can match his sincerity and humble lifestyle. While today’s politicians are more keen to expand their wealth, fame, and power, Nik Aziz remained a teacher and lived in a wooden house throughout his illustrious career.

Together with Anwar, Nik Aziz was one of the strongest supporters of Pakatan Rakyat. In 2008 and 2009, when there were talks of a unity government between PAS and Umno, Nik Aziz publicly rebuked the proposal. The former Kelantan menteri besar went as far as to tell the then-deputy president of PAS to “join Umno if he is so eager to work with them“.

Last year during the Selangor menteri besar crisis, he expressed gratitude that Pakatan Rakyat remained together. He was also one of the few who boldly rejected racial politics and Ketuanan Melayu. He would have none of those who practise asabiyah in the name of Malay unity without regard to Islamic values.

In the preface to Dr Mujahid’s latest book, he wrote, “Bangsa ialah ketentuan Allah SWT sejak azali dan tidak ada apa-apa yang dapat dibanggakan dengan bangsa dan darah keturunan. Darah Melayu dan darah Cina serta bangsa-bangsa yang lain sama-sama berwarna merah... Islam mengajar manusia agar tidak berbangga dengan darah keturunan, sebaliknya hendaklah manusia berebut-rebut menjadi insan yang bertaqwa.”

Right before I went out, I watched a short film made by Amir Muhammad, “The Tree”, which features Nik Aziz talking about doing good deeds (pahala). As I walked down the street, I saw a homeless man. I don’t have any change in my wallet, so normally I would just ignore this. But today, I went back, exchanged money and gave something to that man. I may not believe in religion, but today I am inspired to do good by a religious man. That deed does not belong to me. It belongs to him who reminded and inspired me to perform that good deed. Rest in peace, sir.

As for Anwar, he will most probably spend the next three to five years in prison, surrounded by concrete cement, sleep with just a mattress and pillow, and eat and bathe like other prisoners. Anwar, 67 years old, could have chosen an easier path. Most of us would have chickened out. Let us remember February 10, 2015 and do whatever we can to heal the nation. With or without Anwar, the show must go on. Let us not fail Anwar. Let us take over the torch and continue to struggle for a better Malaysia in our own ways. We have only one life. Make it count. – February 14, 2015.

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insider.