The Importance Of Being Shahrir

I don't usually like to comment on current issues in the press. But I'm making an exception this time - because the current issue is Datuk Shahrir Samad.

To those not well-versed with the political scene - Datuk Shahrir Samad is the Member of Parliament for Johor Bahru. Just like some of the other UMNO greats like Tun Dr. Mahathir, Tengku Razaleigh, Tan Sri Musa Hitam, etc., his rise in politics began in the Tun Razak era, starting out as a young political secretary to Tun Razak in UMNO, back in the 1970's.

He was a member of the Cabinet in the Mahathir era and during the Team A and Team B split in UMNO, he left UMNO as an independent candidate and and eventually joined up with the Tengku Razaleigh-led Opposition party, Semangat 46. And as Semangat 46 rejoined UMNO, Shahrir returned to UMNO with it.

In the last general election, he won with one of the biggest majorities in Barisan Nasional - with about a 50,000 votes majority. The man is undoubtedly popular with the people, though not necessarily within UMNO.

His attempt at running for one of the UMNO Vice President's post recently, came to nought when he only ended up in the 8th (or wasy it 9th?) position, amongst the contestants.

Even the quiet and unassuming Datuk Mustapa Mohamad did better with a 4th placing, even without offering bundles of cash in envelopes, that was mysteriously going around.

(Although the removal of Tan Sri Isa Samad recently, may give a hint as to where one of the sources of cash, came from)

Unlike most UMNO leaders - Shahrir has never been afraid of being an individual and of speaking his mind. Time and time again - he's always been the lone sensible voice, when everyone else chooses to echo the sentiments of party leaders.

He's known for his strong integrity and his reformist streak - his impatience shows at things which don't seem to change or reform, fast enough.

As an individual politician, Shahrir's got all the qualities of a statesman - one which many in the younger generation, could look up to. As an UMNO member, however - he's not only a misfit but he is also perceived to be a liability.

************************************************************

Many people perceived that Shahrir made an emotional response, (by resigning from his post as Chairman of the Barisan Backbenchers Club) to the lack of support from Barisan MPs in his support of the Opposition's motion, to refer a Barisan MP to the Rights and Privileges Committee, for perceived "undue influence" on a civil servant.

Personally, I don't think so. Shahrir's a seasoned and experienced politician. He's been been in politics for the last 40 years - he knows how the game is played.

I think there's much more to this, than meets the eye.

The MP who was alleged to have put "undue influence" on the civil servant is the Member of Parliament for Jasin - Datuk Mohd Said Yusof - who had asked the Melaka Customs Director, Md. Hashim Pardi to "close one eye" and not seize a consignment of illegal sawn timber and instead to fine/compound the company by RM500, instead.

Datuk Mohd Said, in his own defence, said he was not abusing his power, but was doing his bit for "a Bumiputera company in trouble".

(One wonders whether he was implying that it should be considered an abuse of power, if he was helping a NON-Bumiputra company).

(Those who had watched the UMNO General Assembly would remember that Datuk Mohd Said was the fellow who had asked Datuk Seri Rafidah Aziz, to give each UMNO branch, one AP each - as a form of "distribution of wealth". Aiyo,...)


If we're honest to ourselves, things like these happen all the time.

Not only MPs do this, Ministers do this, too. And some political and business people, append letters of support from the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister or ask the people in the Economic Planning Unit (EPU) or the Ministry of Finance (MOF). It's not correct, but Datuk Mohd Said is certainly no trail-blazer in this area.

But the issue here is not whether things like these happen or whether they are wrong. It does happen and it is wrong (unless you're trying to avert corruption or abuse in the civil service).

The issue here is whether Shahrir knew what he was doing when he supported Lim Kit Siang's motion and expected others in Barisan to support the motion.

Not that the behaviour of MPs will change because of this event. They will still toe the party line. As Pak Lah said it: "Even respecting party directive is an issue of principle". So as far as the MPs are concerned - they didn't know do anything wrong, according to the party.

(Even though there are examples of severe punishment in the past, for Barisan MP's who cross the party line - ask the 2 MCA Assemblyman who abstained on the Outer Ring Road issue in Penang and Datuk S. Sothinathan of MIC, who fought for the interest of Indian students, in the Crimea State University issue)

There is almost no UMNO politician (at least, in recent time) that has dared cross the party line and gone against the party rules and whip.

(There were 2 MPs Datuk Bung Moktar Radin of Kinabatangan and Datuk Mohamad Aziz of Sri Gading on the Opposition motion to refer Datuk Seri Rafidah Aziz to the Rights and Privileges Committee, on the AP issue. And only Dato' Mohd Aziz is from UMNO Johor *(correction credit is due to comment by Babe))

That makes Shahrir the second, perhaps in a long time. He's breached party discipline (and he was well aware of that) and he expected others to jump in with him - in a feudal party, where NO ONE has crossed the party line and stand. (A natural by-product of Parliament being the Cabinet's rubber stamp, in the Mahathir era)

Does that sound logical to you? I don't think so.


***************************************************************

Okay. Here's an alternative explanation. And I'm inviting you to consider its plausibility.

Yes, principle had something to do with Shahrir's resignation. He felt that on issues of principle and integrity, people should not vote on party lines. That's fair enough - and he walked the talk on that one. He supported the motion and he resigned, when he knowingly breached the party directive.

But more so, the public "impact" (and publicity) of the resignation was intentional. Because Shahrir's target were not parliamentarians - it was people outside of Parliament. People like YOU and ME.

People who elected these representatives and who decide that we should give them an allowance on taxpayer's money, for them to talk about "gatal" divorcees, the uniform of MAS stewardesses and to act like children and call each other, by names of animals.

I think Shahrir's intended message is this: The people you have elected (as MPs), based perhaps, more on party choice, rather than preference for the individual candidate - cannot do the right things in Parliament, if we, the citizens - do not keep an eye on the antics of our parliamentarians.

And to remind them to toe the real line - not just the party line - but the line of the public's trust. And to question them, if they have gone silent on abuses and they're covering up for one of their own.

Yes, he's resigned. Yes, he'll probably be disciplined (or at least, warned) by UMNO. And the good thing is, the Abdullah administration is considering imposing a code of ethics on MPs, on dealing with civil servants. On Shahrir's suggestion, of course.

(It is conceivable that something like this would have been supported by the Government, even if Shahrir had suggested it, in his capacity as Backbenchers Club Chairman. Which makes the resignation illogical, based on that reason)


One wonders how effective this would be, when the party line forbids you from supporting an Opposition motion, no matter how correct. And even more, when Barisan MPs themselves, refuse to expose the corruption of others, within their own party in Parliament. We cannot always rely on Shahrir Samad, to be the lone voice in stretching the party limits of what's challengeable.

But as I said - the intended effect by Shahrir, was probably meant for the public. For them to sit up, take note and to feel threatened that the people's interests are not being represented, by their representatives in Parliament, even on issues of abuse of power and when it involves principle and integrity.

Would it work? Would Shahrir's "hara-kiri" be worth it? Would anything change? (I mean, aside from extending his own personal credibility)

To improvise on a famous Tun Mahathir line - only if "Malaysia tidak mudah lupa". And take action on it - by voicing our displeasure that the people's interest have been taken for granted and overridden by narrow party interests.

We deserve the leaders that we elect. And we deserve the wrong done to us, if we blatantly refuse to do anything, to correct it.

It's time for us to get into Parliament - through our votes and our voice from the outside.