The article by Farish A Noor ( The failure of reformasi thinkers ) and Fathi Aris Omar ( Memurnikan makna, kesedaran berpolitik ) proves to me that the reason why the so-called reformasi movement never really took off in this country is because those who claim that they stand for reforms are in truth o­nly perpetuating immature political thinking.

Farish and Fathi made their names post-1998, when, as Farish rightly pointed out, the mass movement driven by the anger over the treatment of Anwar Ibrahim gave birth to a form of public awareness where nothing became taboo and issues were being discussed openly. As such, if anyone who had 'hijacked' the reformasi movement, these two would probably be the biggest

beneficiaries.

For an 'established' social scientist, Farish displays an almost simplistic understanding of the Malaysian political structure pre-reformasi. He claims that the reformasi movement which was born in 1998 has now been 'hijacked' by the political parties making up the Barisan Alternatif.

But Farish has missed a very important point. The issues brought forth by the reformasi movement were nothing new. Talking about social justice, independence of the judiciary, freedom of the press, human rights and such were not new issues 'suddenly' awakened during reformasi. These issues had been fought for by the opposition political parties (PAS, PRM, DAP) long before Anwar even came to power.

What the Anwar incident, and the mass display of public anger, did was to bring these issues to the forefront of public political discourse. Even within Umno, these grievances had to be discussed and addressed. In the end, however, the BN decided that increased suppression would be the o­nly answer to stem the rising tide of public anger.

The opposition political parties did not 'hijack' the reformasi movement - the movement took up these issues. For the first time, things you would have read o­nly in the Rocket, Suara PRM or Harakah previously were being discussed by the masses at teh tarik stalls, coffee-shops and in buses.

The political parties were in reality merely continuing their struggle that they had long fought for. Of course, the public awareness and the enthusiasm for reformasi played a role in making these 'fringe' parties major players in the political scene, but none of them had actually had to abandon their stated struggle to 'hijack' the reformasi movement - as Farish and Fathi claims.

Farish is quick to put the blame o­n PAS as traditional apologists, conveniently forgetting that PAS' struggle has been long and consistent. In the past, however, they would never have dreamed that o­ne day they would make the breakthrough they did in this country. If the masses decide to throw their support behind PAS, then look no further than Umno's own internal political problems which forced people to look for alternatives.

I may not be a supporter of PAS, but I would never begrudge them of their political right to articulate the voice of their constituents the way they see it - consistent with their stated political aim. At least, I know they have to be accountable for their actions. As a political party, they have to win votes and if they lose the people's faith, then they will be voted out.

The major flaw in Farish and Fathi's arguments lie in their narrow mentality that the reformasi movement equals PAS, Keadilan, PRM and DAP. At least, Farish believes that the mass movement (i.e. reformasi) can somehow be controlled and dictated by the political parties. Hence his statement that "the reformasi movement allowed itself to be hijacked by religious crackpots

and traditional apologists".

But the fact of the matter is, the Barisan Alternatif is a small speck in the universe of reformasi. The BA is powerless, penniless, face intense repression from the ruling power and have a tiny representation in Parliament. To say that they can control reformasi thinking is to overstate their capability and indeed, responsibility.

Another pertinent question that Farish and Fathi need to answer is this: Who is this 'reformasi movement' that they keep criticising? The reformasi movement is guilty of this and that, according to both of them, but who are these guilty people? The masses o­n the streets? The politicians? The voting public? The alternative media? Students?

Farish unkindly refers to Sasterawan Negara Shahnon Ahmad as a wacko, who "got in the act" during the reformasi era and wrote 'Shit'. Farish is guilty of ignoring the fact that Shahnon had written many short stories and books criticising the despotic rule of Dr Mahathir long before 1998. No doubt, Farish would want to blame Shahnon for hijacking and cashing in o­n the reformasi era, but remember that Shahnon's perjuangan (struggle), too, is nothing new. The reformasi movement merely gave him a bigger outlet.

I suspect that in Farish and Fathi's narrow understanding of the reformasi movement, they put the blame squarely o­n the politicians. Politicians and political parties are too wrapped in their political self-interest to see the bigger meaning of the reformasi movement. Again, unfairly, Farish and Fathi place the responsibility of reforming Malaysia's political culture o­n the politicians (and in Fathi's case, solely to the opposition parties).

After all, it's easier to win your argument that way. First, you argue that the reformasi movement is meant to bring positive changes and reform our neo-feudalistic political culture. Then, define the 'reformasi movement' as 'the opposition parties', or at least claim that opposition parties are strong enough to 'hijack' the movement. Finally, claim that reforms have not yet taken place hence opposition parties are to be blamed. Reformasi thinkers (i.e. the 'hacks, wackos and crackpots' in BA) have failed.

As a reformasi supporter, I am honestly not too alarmed by the observed ineffectiveness of the opposition parties. I know they are facing all sorts of constraints, and I know the difficulties in appeasing the complex Malaysian social structure.

But I have never equated the reformasi movement with the opposition parties. Yes, BA embodies some principles of reformasi but the 'reformasi movement' (the birth of a new political consciousness driven by the people) is much, much bigger than that.

To me, it is particularly sad to see two so-called 'intellectuals' who 'got in the act' during reformasi and claimed that they were all for change, suddenly lifting themselves out of that movement to shoot at others. I remember listening to Farish displaying his Anwarista tendencies pre-reformasi and I remember listening to his talks in Europe during the reformasi time. If ever there was anyone who claimed to be a 'reformasi thinker', he was o­ne.

I remember also listening to Farish giving a paper at a forum organised by a government think-tank here in KL where he criticised the human rights record of every country in Asia but kept his silence o­n Dr Mahathir's abuses. Talk about neo-feudalistic political culture.

As for Fathi, if there was a Malay writer whose name is the most closely associated with reformasi, it is his. It is particularly painful (and pathetic) to see such a 'towering figure' in the reformasi circle complain no end about how his voice is not being heard by the BA politicians.

Especially when he himself so obviously has no respect for politicians, or indeed for any form of political structure.

It is easy for Farish and Fathi to criticise political parties - they have no constituents to satisfy, and they can represent the views of a small section of society (Bangsar middle-class and Bangsar working-class respectively) and still get their articles published in malaysiakini . I think this is healthy.

My o­nly real disappointment is that, when they want to talk about the 'failure of reformasi thinkers', they really should talk about the failure of those who claim that they are reformasi thinkers ever since the birth of reformasi. Which means, they should start looking at the mirror for answers.