New Mandala’s recent post “Crimes against the state: a long lost manuscript” triggered an important question: to whom do we owe our allegiance as citizens – country, the royalty, political party, our race, religion, or individual politicians? The movie Valkyrie (2008) probably answers it best – we owe our allegiance to our country – nothing else and we make decisions on what we think is best for our country – not ourselves, our political party, or our leaders.
This is a question most people in Malaysia don’t really contemplate. The recent by-election saw a disgraced former Chief Minister from Barisan Nasional win with a thumping majority (he was suspended from UMNO for corruption, but in true Malaysian style no charges were brought against him). Voters in the constituency credited Isa for doing a “good job” when he was Chief Minister of the state and therefore felt obliged to vote for him.
What then does one do, if the majority seems to be in favour of a wrong direction for a country? It was a highly civilised Germany that elected Adolf Hitler. How is it that the well educated citizens of Zimbabwe did not foresee what Mugabe would do? Or closer to home – how is it that intelligent Burmans allowed a military junta to destroy such a prosperous country?
Who do we hold responsible when this occurs? Is UMNO responsible for the state that Malaysia is in now? Or are the citizens of Malaysia collectively responsible? After all, have not Malaysians continued to support this party, directly or indirectly. Are we prepared to sacrifice for our country, like Stauffenberg did?
It may be the nature of humans to be selfish in order to survive. However, history tells us, that this selfishness ultimately destroys the very things we hold dear. Malaysians will soon face this reality, if they have not already.
3 responses so far ↓
1 HRK // Nov 5, 2009 at 8:41 pm
Because recently there were quite a few references to Germany, here some more: The former President Heinemann once said: „I don’t love Germany, I love my wife“. I guess, the world would be a better place if instead of „loving“ countries etc. one would rather prefer to love the partner. Or Brecht who wrote: „I pity the country that needs heroes“. One could become intercultural and surreal. Breton, Bunuel etc. showed that pornography are not sexual acts for the public, but public demonstrations of imagined unity, which has no other function then supression like national flags, parades etc. (Does not a flagpole have a phallic connotation? Isn’t there a competition who has the longest pole? Perhaps the surrealist were quite realistic).
Southeast Asian states, like several others, seem to be obsessed with the idea of unity, usually of a unity between the elites and the sub-ordinated, in which the later are supposed not only to follow orders, but even love these elites. The perceived danger appears to be that if these emotional bonds are weakened by critique, unity would collapse. In fact, what might be challenged is not unity, but rather elite dominance.
Fortunately, however, social change works through the non-intended effects of intended actions. Thus, structures evolve through the intentions of the elites to maintain their power and control, which threaten it. Unity based on suppression might thereby either evolve into unity based on participation, or, as the example of Myanmar shows, rapid underdevelopment.
Malaysia is certainly an interesting case in this context. First of all, we should be aware that, even if the democratic procedures in Malaysia leaves a lot to be desried, the opposion is able to challenge political powerholders by applying the formalized, official democratic means!
The only guaranty that a „common good“ is taken into consideration within politics is a wide and open public sphere. This can include NGO, free media etc. but as well, like in the case of Malaysia rapidly spreading rumours that do have an effect on political decision making. The cases cited, where a political leadership evolved that drove or drives the country down the drain, are all characterized by the dissolution of public life. In Germany violence and the alliance of conservatives allowed the rise of Hitler. In Burma we have a similar situation. Fortunately, in Malaysia there is still a lot of resilience, not the least because one „common good“ fully accepted by all is: violence has to be avoided by all means. This is already quite a lot.
2 sam deedes // Nov 6, 2009 at 12:44 am
Reminds me of the quandary facing the occupants of a Nazi occupied village in the war. Does our hero use the opportunity to bump off the evil commandant knowing full well that reprisals will annihilate his fellow villagers?
But is it selfishness here? Sometimes the devil appears to have all the best tunes and there doesn’t seem to be a credible alternative to vote for. In the end there is no substitute for party building and where there is no tradition of this maybe it’s incumbent on mature democracies to respond more vigorously to pleas from the indigenous labour movement for help.
3 Gregore Lopez // Nov 6, 2009 at 1:41 pm
Thank you HRK for your insightful comments. They are very profound.
I’d like to note that the ‘dissolution of public life’ is a real issue – how the judiciary makes monumental decisions against norms, the way the police treats citizens, and how politicians from the ruling party are immune to real demand for change.
Hence the question, how long do we tolerate this?
True, getting involved in public life is a definite response. How far or how involved should we be – a nationwide strike, a million person demonstration?
This is the question I ask – how far will Malaysians go to demand change?
Leave a Comment
Please note: New Mandala encourages vigorous debate. However, for the moment we will only be publishing high-quality comments that make original contributions to discussion. There will, of course, still be space for pithy, humorous, eccentric and cheeky input. Short and sweet will usually trump long and involved. Repetitive ranting, unimaginative point-scoring and idle abuse will not be entertained. Comments which carry a real name are also more likely to be approved. Thank you for your ongoing interest and contributions.