UMNO and PAS would meet next week
for talks on Malay unity. Coincidentally, after stonewalling
Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim's request for a German endoscopic specialist
to examine, he is suddenly told he could "on compassionate grounds".
The stumbling block in any serious talks about Malay unity is the
treatment UMNO and the government metes out to the expelled and
dismissed former deputy prime minister. The Prime Minister,
in private, does not regard the National Justice Party (KeADILan)
as a genuine Malay party, since it welcomes non-Malays into its
fold. In any case, he does not want KeADILan around;
certainly not its icon, whose political stature increases with every
day he spends in prison.
Dato' Seri Anwar's request is
allowed to lend respectability to the talks. But the conditions
it imposes
is inexplicable. The Hospital
Kuala Lumpur director, Dr Abdul Razak Kechik, puts five conditions:
that the German specialist come within 14 days, that Dato' Seri
Anwar pays for the treatment and operation at the hospital, that
he meets all expenses himself, that he is solely responsible for
anything that may go wrong, that HKL specialist will witness all
procedures undertaken. When you undergo treatment in the
Hospital Kuala Lumpur, you sign away your rights to protest if
it goes wrong. That is always the practice. Indeed,
so are the others. But when then is it necessary to insist
that the specialist must come within a fortnight? What happens
if the man cannot make it? Would then the "compassionate
grounds" go out the window when, for argument's sake, he says
he is not free for a month? It is safe to assume Dato' Seri
Anwar is not his only client, and he has commitments in Germany
that must be met. So, why this pressure?
One reason why permission is
granted now is to make the Malay Unity talks not stumble over
how he is treated. But it would not. Dato' Seri Anwar
had fought a long battle with the authorities for the right to
have a specialist of his choice. There was no suggestion
that no one but he would pay for him to come. But the government
had refused. Indeed, plans are afoot for him to be sent
back to Sungei
Buloh prison from his present
ward at the Hospital Kuala Lumpur. Suggestions that he was
faking his illness was made. Dato' Abdul Razak would have
agreed to have him returned to his cell despite the extreme pain
he is subjected to. Why did the good doctor agree to have
him sent back for what he now says he cannot be on compassionate
grounds?
But he gets the medical treatment
he seeks, but no thanks to the hospital and government authorities.
It is this UMNO attempt to recover lost Malay ground that ensures
he wins a small victory. But that alone would not save UMNO
and the UMNO-PAS talks. The Prime Minister's belief in excluding
KeADILan from the talks under any circumstances -- after KeADILan
refused to take part -- throws a racial exclusiveness into the
talks that could redound on PAS. PAS gamely tells the world
it would widen the scope of the talks, but can it? It does
not have the wherewithal to control the talks, and it is the UMNO
worldview that would get an airing. Already, it has sent
shivers down the spine
of the fledgling opposition front,
especially with suggestions that many in PAS, while committed
to having Dato' Seri Anwar released from prison nevertheless is
worried about what he represents when he is free. In other
words, the fear remains that Dato' Seri Anwar could be persuaded
to return to UMNO and be its next leader. It seems far-fetched
now but both UMNO and PAS would not want it: UMNO because
Anwar returning could sideline its current leaders, and PAS because
Anwar could keep them even longer in the Opposition.
UMNO's call for Malay unity
in a multiracial Malaysia links it to Pauline Hanson's One Nation
Party in Queensland. It seeks through this Malay unity talks
a racial exclusivity that One Nation Party wants in Australia.
The circumstances are different, the worldviews dissimilar but
the aim is the same. The bottom line for both views is to
discard the foreigner in their midst. It is an argument
similar to those opposed to universal human rights: there
is little difference between the worldview of the Talibans who
stone a mother of seven to death for adultery before an ecstatic
crowd of men and children, and Florida frying condemned men in
a faulty electric chair: both defend their position by demanding
that they be left alone to do what they must, that universal rules
should not apply to them. There is a world of difference
between the Taliban and Florida, but the principle is the same.
As it is between UMNO and One Nation.
M.G.G. Pillai
pillai@mgg.pc.my
|