The forum organised by Roketkini.com , DAP’s party organ, to commemorate the 39th anniversary of the death of Abdul Razak Hussein two days ago was a bizarre affair.

Granted, Malaysia’s second prime minister is widely credited for his firm leadership and epochal policies that continue to define the Malaysian state today, such as the New Economic Policy (NEP), and the establishment of Majlis Amanah Rakyat (Mara) and Federal Land Development Authority (Felda), which have no doubt successfully narrowed the wealth and educational gaps between the Malays and the non-Malays.

Still, other aspects of his political career remain unexamined in a critical sense.

For one, Razak came to power in the aftermath of the so-called May 13 ethnic clashes in 1969, and the circumstances surrounding his ascension were dubious at best.

The late Tunku Abdul Rahman, in retirement, once implied that his deputy at the time was instrumental in bringing about the tragedy because “he was an ambitious man”.

One is, of course, entitled to be politically ambitious so long as one gains power legitimately. Whether or not Razak did so is an open question simply because the May 13 Incident is still a taboo and anyone who seeks to discuss its before-and-after does so at one’s peril.

Unlike other countries that suffered deadly political disturbances – Taiwan, South Korea, and South Africa, to name but three - the powers-that-be in Malaysia have never allowed a public inquiry into what happened on that fateful day in 1969; they never will.

While I am not drawing the conclusion that Razak indeed played a crucial role in the clashes that eventually led to his premiership, any assessment of his legacies will not be proper or objective so long as the ghost of May 13 lingers in the background.

Nostalgia about the ‘good old days’

More worrying is that Malaysians in general do not look at things from a bigger picture. As the current leadership fails to inspire, many tend to look back on the ‘good old days’ and lament over what-could-have-been, as if the country was indeed democratic and harmonious at one point in time.

And it is often in doing so that Malaysians are ready to shower past leaders with accolades, their human rights violations notwithstanding.

Lest we forget, it was under the Tunku that Utusan Melayu was forcibly taken over to become Umno’s mouthpiece, and the once progressive, left-leaning Malay nationalist newspaper has since morphed into an ultra-racist propaganda tool with ridiculously low credibility, constantly picking on DAP with innuendos.

But Lim Kit Siang, perhaps in his overzealous attempt to appeal to the Umno Malays, has chosen to forgive and forget by reassessing rather enthusiastically Tunku’s leadership .

And it was on Razak’s watch that scores of political dissidents – including Lim Kit Siang, Syed Husin Ali and Anwar Ibrahim –  were placed under the notorious ISA in the 1970s. Lim Kit Siang may argue he was released a month after Razak became prime minister, but there is no dispute that the man had already assumed full executive powers as chairperson of the National Operations Council formed subsequent to May 13, with the Tunku relegated to a ceremonial role as head of government.

This week, DAP has chosen to bury the hatchet by praising Razak to the skies, conveniently forgetting that the dysfunctional regime of Najib Abdul Razak today has its origins in the authoritarian nature of the Tunku and Razak eras.

And Razak’s biggest mistake? Bringing Dr Mahathir Mohamad back into mainstream politics.

Why don’t you celebrate that as well, DAP?

Umno generated myth of the state

There is so much myth manufactured by Umno over the past five decades to create a quasi-totalitarian system, much of it remaining intact despite the political changes since 2008. Is it not pathetic and ironic that even seasoned opposition leaders have succumbed to the myth of the state as concocted by the very agent that has been mercilessly persecuting them?

Razak may indeed have been a great statesman, but his achievements ought to be evaluated alongside the unresolved issues around May 13. So long as this is not possible, any full assessment of his premiership remains premature.

This is not all.

I have always been very sceptical about the so-called moderate voices. While the 25 ‘eminent Malays’ have won praises from many quarters for their public statement urging Najib Abdul Razak to take a stand on the conflict between Islamic and federal laws, a closer look will reveal that what concerns these Malay elites most is nothing but religious fundamentalism that has been quietly but steadily creeping into the public space.

Their worry is a valid one, but has one heard of any grievances from them over the erosion of democratic institutions, the lack of an independent judiciary, police brutality and media control, all of which were aggravated during Mahathir’s reign of terror?

No, never, because these elites are precisely the beneficiaries of Mahathir’s policies and they represent the upper-class Malays who continue to see Mahathir as ‘the best bet’ against Islamic conservatism, not knowing that Islamisation actually began with Mahathir’s endeavor to strengthen the Islamic character of Umno and the government back in the 1980s and 1990s, precisely the reason why Anwar was co-opted into the party in 1982.

Naturally, these moderate Muslims are ill at ease now that their secular, bourgeois lifestyle is severely under threat as the country becomes more oppressive religiously.

But the same ‘moderates’, be they Marina Mahathir, Ismail Merican, or even Zainah Anwar, were tight-lipped over the series of human rights violations under Mahathir’s tyrannical rule. It is just like the Chinese who gave Dr Mahathir a free rein throughout the 1990s to dismantle the judiciary, the press and democratic institutions, as long as the economy was ‘booming’.

It is in this vein that one is yet to hear of Marina Mahathir criticising the much abused NEP, of which her younger siblings are among the most prominent beneficiaries!

Frankly, I was not in the least surprised that Zainah Anwar ( right ) and Ahmad Farouk Musa of the Islamic Renaissance Front met with Dr Mahathir to talk about ‘moderation’, accompanied by none other than Chandra Muzaffar, whose political inclinations are of no fixed abode, although it sounds so much like meeting Lee Kuan Yew for democracy, Xi Jinping for press freedom, or George W Bush for world peace.

Yes, Malaysia is full of political oddities. As far as I can see, we only yearn for a ‘benevolent autocrat’ who can put things in order and clamp down on the extremists; it matters not if we are truly empowered in the political process, hence our habit to reminiscence fondly the years past and even run back to the very authoritarian leader for advice.

Since people are only content with being ‘moderate’, ie. maintaining the status quo without actually being brave enough to dismantle the ruling establishment radically, perhaps we should deserve only this much.

JOSH HONG studied politics at London Metropolitan University and the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London. A keen watcher of domestic and international politics, he longs for a day when Malaysians will learn and master the art of self-mockery, and enjoy life to the full in spite of politicians.