COMMENT | Kedah MB Muhammad Sanusi Md Nor has a way of overexplaining himself. In a strange way, the decision to not renew gaming outlet licences – effectively banning them – became more than just that.

There are three categories of Sanusi’s justifications:

1. Uneasy relationship with the minorities: “I am a Muslim who is prohibited from gambling. In the afterlife I will be asked, ‘What have you done about gambling?’ If I said I didn’t do anything, I will be whacked. While I have power, it’s better I use them.”

2. Trivialising the negative impact: “Many other companies affected by Covid-19 pandemic have ventured into new businesses at their premises, with a furniture shop being turned into an eatery, a barbershop turned into a beauty salon… there are many things [gaming outlets] can do [other than gaming].” Sanusi told gaming outlet operators to be creative to explore new business opportunities.

3. Combative approach to Penang: “If you want to buy, buy in Penang.”

I will look into each of these acts in turn and explain how they originate from a familiar pattern and would likely be predictive of what is to come.

Uneasy relationship with minorities

In any major decision that has a long-tail effect, involving the key stakeholders in the consultation and decision-making process is vital to ensure we build consensus, buy-in, and avoid blindspots. In the gaming issue, the key stakeholder is undoubtedly the minorities; they are the predominant group that will benefit or be harmed.

If there are more than one moral opinion on gambling that could equally be valid, then choosing one moral stance over the other would cause anger. Not taking stock of the moral opinion of the minorities would invite societal backlash who would start seeing the state government as unreasonable and unfair.

It matters not what the decision was; it matters more how it was arrived.

Similar uneasy relationships were displayed by Sanusi’s government with minorities in Kedah, especially with the Indian populous. A few months into his administration, he was accused of racial stereotyping when he called the opposition critics to be “drunk on the toddy of popularity”. Sanusi’s role in the demolition of Hindu temples was also instrumental despite the active protests by political leaders and civil society. At the start of the year, he also declared that Thaipusam would not be marked as a public holiday since there is no celebration anyway.

In all those incidents, Sanusi has been criticised as being disrespectful, unconsultative, and insensitive. And in all those times, he was slow to apologise or to show any remorse. Without a minority party to serve as a counterbalance in his coalition, Sanusi and PAS have no interest to compromise or seek a middle ground.

Pushed by the Malacca state election and the Timah name-change U-turn, Sanusi effectively used the gaming ban as a form of retaliation to reassert PAS’s place as a religious protector.

Trivialisation

Responding to claims that the gaming ban would lead to loss of income and employment for those involved, Sanusi was nonchalant in asking them to do something else. For him, the Covid-19 business transitions, which were often made under desperation and severe cost, were proof that they are not difficult. A furniture shop could be an eatery within days – without any regard for their underlying economics.

Beyond proving the administration’s lack of real-world business understanding or human empathy, Sanusi’s remarks indicate a trivialisation of the hardships employees had to go through. That is why his government did not prepare a backup or mitigation plan to ease the pain. It was a shock Kedah citizens were forced to absorb.

More than a year ago, Sanusi carried the same sense of trivialisation when individuals were dying from Covid-19. When asked whether Kedah had enough containers for the corpses of Covid-19 victims, he said the containers were enough and “whoever who wants to go in, pass us your names.”

A trivialising attitude in a leader is harmful because he will always overestimate the benefits and underestimate the cost of a policy decision. You want a leader with an objective grip on the ground; not make-believe.

Combative approach to Penang

Of all acts, the Penang obsession seems more intractable. It seems unnecessary, but to Sanusi, nothing about his distaste for his successful neighbour is too much. Give any opportunity, he would drag Penang into the mud.

Wan Salim, the mufti of Penang, said that Sanusi’s statement was an insult to all religious institutions in the island that has been tireless in their commitments of upholding Islam’s place in the state. The place of Islam has never been questioned; funding was poured into religious institutions of Penang since 2008 via Majlis Agama Islam Pulau Pinang.

Eight months ago, Sanusi ignited a common crossfire with Penang when he warned the Penang government may have to use muddy water if they refuse to pay raw water charges to Kedah. To reaffirm his commitment to the combat, he said that he “will even go to the edge of the world to fight over this issue.”

The gaming ban itself certainly invites a lot of dissatisfaction. But I could not help but think that it matters more who the decision-maker was and how that decision was made. Known to fire from all directions, Sanusi’s method is often perceived as brash. But they’re fundamentally rooted in a three-act play. The only thing is that it always ends in tragedy.

JAMES CHAI is a political analyst. He also blogs at www.jameschai.com.my and he can be reached at [email protected].

The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of Malaysiakini.