COMMENT
The sad fact is that Tunku Abdul Aziz Tunku Ibrahim's role in the DAP
was merely window-dressing to project the image of this so-called
‘chauvinistic Chinese party' as a multiracial forward-thinking party. His
dignified pose symbolically completed the racial holy trinity for a
political party so long demonised as ‘racist troublemakers' bent on
destroying the fragile social contract of Malaysia.
He
presented the image of the Malay as urbane and benign so unlike the
confrontational fear-mongering ruffians who have no problem displaying
their butts to make a point only they seem capable of understanding,
which seems to be the norm these days. A Malay willing to work with
other like-minded Malaysians towards a better tomorrow. Exactly which Malay demographic Tunku Aziz was supposed to represent or attract into the DAP fold was never determined. Even
amongst urban Malays, he seemed out of touch with their reality.
Rabble-rousing was never in the Tunku's repertoire, which is exactly
what most Malays (urban or rural) who gravitate to Pakatan Rakyat seem
to relate to.
Unlike say someone like former National Union of
Journalists president Hata Wahari who experienced the regime's wrath in
an up close and personal manner, the Tunku's appointment and presence
seemed like uncomfortable reminder of a bygone political era, steeped in
gentlemanly tradition (which was anything but) whose sole duty was to
comfort the non-Malays in DAP that theirs was a party truly reflective
of the diverse nature of Malaysia. Josh Hong's
adroit piece in
Malaysiakini on
the man is probably the best commentary so far, but for me at least,
there's plenty of blame to go around and nobody comes out of this
looking good.
Heaping scorn on Guan Eng
Much has been made of Tunku Aziz's old-school gentleman demeanour and
he has cultivated an air of weary detachment. His was not the
gutter-level skirmishes that the DAP and Pakatan were embroiled in but
rather his own personal crusade against the establishment was
characterised by the feint and parry engagements carried out mostly in
the propaganda organs of the state. The face of the adversary
which Pakatan and their supporters stared at was not the face that Tunku
Aziz beheld. Most often his utterances of his abhorrence of
governmental malfeasances come off sounding like an exasperated parent
irritated at a wayward child.
Make
no mistake, I think it was a provocative and honourable move on Tunku
Aziz's part to become the very public Malay face of the DAP even if it
was just a symbolic gesture, but the way how he chose to depart from the
DAP makes a mockery of his protestations of honour and dignity. DAP on the other hand is nicely building a track record of public
relations ineptitude and perhaps more distressing (if you are a Pakatan
supporter committed to the ideals DAP claims to represent), a record of
being uncharitable towards dissent from within their own ranks. I
have no problem with Tunku Aziz's stand on the Bersih 3.0 rally. In
fact I know may people who agree with him. I welcome a plurality of
views within a political party or political alliance.
Although I
think that the Tunku's reasoning for objecting to the rally on the
grounds that the Bersih steering committee rejected the government's
offer of holding it at Stadium Merdeka and his views towards street
protests in general are faulty, I don't think (like some Pakatan
representatives and supporters) this is anything that warrants any kind
of censure. As you can tell, I am not a firm believer in toeing the
party line all the time.
However, following the dictates of your
conscience does not mean playing into the hands (willingly or
unwillingly) of those who only harbour malice towards the political
party you have pledge your loyalty to. The honourable, nay
dignified, avenue of expression of his dissent would be the party's own
propaganda organs or failing which the "alternative media", all the
while maintaining a dignified silence when it came to the mainstream
media. This way even though the mainstream media would have
picked up the story, the Tunku's silence (in the manner in which he
chooses to engage with the media) would have been a clear sign of where
his loyalties lay.
Instead by waging his war in the mainstream
press, by announcing his departure from the DAP on ntv7 for instance,
what Tunku Aziz has done is to ensure that whatever dignified exit he
claims to want is mired in the gutter politics and shadow-play drama
which characterises the Malaysian political landscape. By
heaping scorn on DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng, the tone of which is reminiscent of that emanating from
Utusan Malaysia
and its ilk, one can only surmise that Tunku Aziz for whatever reason
is engaging in mischief-making for reasons I'll leave to the conspiracy
theorists to articulate.
DAP fails to play card right
Of course, all this could have been avoided if the DAP played their
cards right. Why they seem so eager to supply their enemies with
ammunition is something which has always amused me. From the
start, they should have just accepted and politely disagreed with Tunku
Aziz's stand on Bersih 3.0. They should have made it clear, especially
when it comes to highly-charged issues such as these, that there is room
for party members to express their dissent.
Understand now, the
avenues these dissenters choose to express their views in is extremely
important and what separates an honourable individual and a suspect one,
is how much thought they have put into how and when they choose to
express their dissent. If the first thing you do is run to the
propaganda organs of your party's rivals, then I question the motives of
your dissent. And even after having announced his resignation
from the party in a rather uncouth manner, the DAP continued to douse
the media bonfire with gasoline by making this rather ridiculous offer
of a think-tank job to Tunku Aziz.
To me, the offer would only
be insulting (in this context) if the person being offered the job had a
principled leg to stand but as is, the offer comes of as politically
naïve or downright repellent, even more so, when the political secretary
to Lim, Zairil Mohd Khir protests that the offer had been
"misconstrued". If the tables were turned and it was Umno doing the
"offering", nobody would give them the benefit of the doubt.
If as Zairil seems to think that Tunku Aziz was a "public intellectual" with a
valuable "global network", then perhaps he should have been handled in a
different way. Perhaps the powers-that-be at the DAP should have made
it clear they welcomed his input even though they sometimes disagreed
with it and his position as senator would be renewed.
If his
position within the party was untenable because of certain of his
ideological stances, offering him a position in a so-called think-tank
most probably aligned with the DAP reeks of the kind of political
back-scratching that Umno is very famous for. In my experience, if a man
is determined to fall on his sword, it is best to stay out of the way
of the blood spatter. The moral of the story here is that the
DAP should apply a little more common sense when dealing with dissent
from within their ranks and they should be thankful of the extreme
partisan nature of this conflict because if voters were not as polarised
as they are now and had a little objectivity to spare, some of the
actions of the DAP would not stand up to scrutiny.
As for Tunku
Abdul Aziz, he doesn't get to play the ‘honourable exit' card. His
actions in the past few days have effectively destroyed whatever bit of
myth-making was due his way.
Henceforth, what will be
disseminated by the bigots who despise DAP is the narrative of how
another Malay intellectual was ejected from the party which does not
tolerate dissent. On the other hand, supporters of DAP will always be
wary of Trojan horses within the Malay ranks of the party. And the show
goes on.
Malaysiakini 
