Mahathir vs. Pak Lah: A Narrative in Three Parts [Part 2]

PART 2: It's Just A Facade

I believe that Mahathir have every right as a citizen of the country to voice his misgivings about certain unfavourable (and unfortunate) turn of events in the country's administration. I also believe that Pak Lah was right in letting Mahathir do so without any restraint.

But I do not believe that Mahathir should be given the widest berth of free speech simply because he is the former Prime Minister or simply as a sign of reciprocity by the current Government towards the elderly stateman.

I think it is disturbing for some people to think that Mahathir should be listened to just because he was once at the top or to show a degree of gratefulness to what he's done for the country.

I think he should be listened - yes - simply because that is his fundamental right as a citizen of this country. Nothing more than that.

In fact, why should the voice of a single person - regardless of the political office he held before - be greater than the combined voices of nearly 20 million other Malaysians?

Aren't the rest of us worth listening to as well? Will the Government stand up and take notice only when someone of eminent rank speak up - and one with palpable sarcasm too?

The Government feels that it is wise to answer Mahathir's questions; I believe it is too. But in the meantime, maybe they should do well to re-examine the reason for doing so too.

After all, one disgruntled voice is easy to answer to, but 20 million disgruntled voices could easily jeopardize one's political shelf life.

One pertinent point that Mahathir made concerns his ex-Cabinet members; since Pak Lah maintained that all of the government's decisions were made collectively - including to scrap the half bridge project - he wondered how could so many ministers made a full U-turn in their stand barely 2 years after they consented to it while he was in power.

He further argued that if the ministers disagree with the half-bridge proposal, then they should have voiced their concerns and ultimately resign their from their posts as a matter of principle.

But then again, this being the Malaysian cabinet and having perfected the art of 'closing one eye' to certain uncomfortable disclosures, it is hardly unexpected to see the ministers to act in such a wishy-washy manner, even if it pertains the well-being of the country and millions of taxpayers money.

One might argue that since Mahathir's time, new information have come to light and thus their decisions have been forced to change or 'adapt' accordingly to the new circumstances. Fair enough.

But don't tell me that all of them could not have foreseen trouble looming ahead if they decided to steamroll this proposal through without due consideration. Are they so afraid of Mahathir's wrath to disagree with him? Is Mahathir so deluded to think that he could not bear to listen to any opposing views towards his decisions?

I think that crux of the matter here is not 'collective responsibility of the cabinet', 'chance re-evaluation of the pros and cons of the matter' or 'unwavering loyalty to the Prime Minister'.

I believe the prime reason for such flip-flop attitude of the ministers towards the half-bridge issue is plain selfishness on their behalf.

The currencies they deal with are not 'personal principles', 'well-being of the people' or 'protecting the country's interests'; they only recognize the means which only serves to prolong their political careers and preserve their political sway upon the people.

In short, they will support any proposals, ideas or opinions that will ensure their political survivability, even if it means going against their own wills and intentions.

Some of them even go as far as to claim Mahathir as being irrelevant, or that Mahathir should stop speaking out or that his time has passed; the very same people who under Mahathir, heaped endless praises and idolation unto him.

Are they doing it to douse the fire of conflict that is threatening to consume them or are they trying to prove their worth in Pak Lah's eyes? You tell me.

There is an English word which perfectly describe such disgraceful behaviour which begins with the letter 'h'. I will give you a hint - it is not honesty.

I guess it is easier for them to do that since they have long lost their moral compass and sold their soul in subservience to their respective political parties - as many previous incidents can attest to.

Besides, isn't it easier to ignore something if you no longer have it with you?