COMMENT | I woke up this morning, planning to write a little on Budget 2018. As I caught up on the news, I came across the article by Penang Deputy Chief Minister II P Ramasamy on the recent Penang Forum dialogue and went through what I can only describe as a spit-out-your-morning-coffee-in-shock moment.

I had to pinch myself and re-read the article a few times to make sure I hadn’t woken up in an animal farm surrounded by Orwellian pigs.

I have read a number of Ramasamy’s opinion pieces over time, and have even found one or two of them quite informative - his writings and research on the history of the Bujang Valley being an example.

Sadly, such articles were the exception, rather than the norm. More often, alas, he comes across as a hatchet man whose style and spirit probably most closely resembles Utusan Malaysia columnists.

I am certain the Ramasamy would take serious umbrage at such a comparison, but I must say, it is not a comparison I make lightly.

I plan to substantiate it by doing a close reading of his latest article.

‘Unpardonable sins’

Let us start with this section of his article: “A few participants, especially the vocal ones, took exception to those elected representatives who did turn up at the session. They overlooked the key fact that Penang Forum never arranged the date and time of the meeting without even consulting members of the state government.”

(Perhaps an excess of emotion here induced Ramasamy to forget his grammar and produce illogical double negatives.)

Ramasamy (photo) said in his article: “Given the tight work schedule of the elected representatives, many could not turn up. For not turning up, they were ridiculed and one participant even raised his voice saying that they were busy attending Deepavali open houses.

“His message was simply this: why did the representatives miss such an important event by attending non-important events like Deepavali open houses?

“If some members of Penang Forum have no respect for religious and cultural events of Indians, Chinese or Malays, then what higher rights they are talking about?

“Would they say similar things about Chinese or Malay religious or cultural festivals?

“Did their non-presence indicate that they had committed some unpardonable sins?

“Why did the participant single out the Deepavali open houses for insult and ridicule? Thus, for those who missed the session, could it be concluded that they missed out a "once in a lifetime opportunity", so much so that religious events could be disparaged?

“Not only was an Indian religious event disparaged, another participant went to the extent of asking members of the state government to step down if they could not fulfil the wishes of the people.”

Stoking racism out of thin air

This passage, more than anything, brought to mind the Animal Farm scenario, for truly, this deputy chief minister of Penang could not possibly be acting more similarly than his ‘hated’ enemy, Umno.

For decades upon decades, one of the worst wounds Umno has inflicted on Malaysia is to turn everything racial.

Every single problem is couched as some sort of attack or infringement by non-Malays upon Malays.

The real damage done by this type of propaganda is that it infects everyone to think the same way. Sadly, Ramasamy is no exception, having fallen for this racist mindset hook, line and sinker.

Some may think him the antithesis of Umno, as he fights for Indians where Umno fights for Malays.

I think the opposite is true: Ramasamy is exactly like Umno, because he makes even the most mind-bogglingly unrelated things become racial in nature.

Absurd accusations

Saying that the manner in which the dialogue participants joked about how state representatives were too busy attending Deepavali open houses constitutes a cultural/religious belittlement or insensitivity is absolutely absurd.

First of all, I am not sure that there would be anything religious about a Deepavali Open house a week-and-a-half after Deepavali proper.

I’m sure many of us have attended any number of festive open houses organised or attended by politicians. They are very seldom religious, much less “once in a lifetime opportunities” either.

Usually, it’s a happy makan session, with a lot of networking and shaking hands with the crowds. Does a politician truly need to spend four to five hours there? Or could one theoretically make a brief appearance, have some delicious thosai, and then make one’s way to attend a dialogue?

As to: “Would (the dialogue participants) say similar things about Chinese or Malay religious or cultural festivals?”

If by ‘festivals’ Ramasamy means open houses, then the short and sweet answer is a simple ‘Yes’.

I think we know Penang people - especially those who would attend such dialogues - well enough to say with reasonable confidence that they would have made the same ‘too busy attending open houses’ quip a week after Chinese New Year or Hari Raya.

I feel that he who would suggest otherwise is the one that is truly racist, not the other way around.

Such a person has not only been completely bought into the Umno way of thinking, but is actively practising it - worse still, as the deputy chief minister of an opposition-run state.

Ironic irony

At one point in his article, Ramasamy exclaims, ‘What an irony!’

I could not agree more. The following quotes, which we shall examine in some detail, are accusations Ramasamy makes that in fact describe to a T himself as well as the government he represents.

“The voices of sanity and objectivity were completely lost in a session that was meant to search for answers about flood and landslides in Penang.

“However, sad to say, a few participants, especially those who were loud and boisterous, hijacked the session that wittingly or unwittingly served the interests of those on the other side of the political divide.

“What an irony! A small group calling themselves as Penang Forum adopting ‘we know the best approach’ and passing judgments on others, especially on members of the state government.

“What superior knowledge do these members have in adopting a ‘we know it all’ approach?”

For my money, it is Ramasamy’s entire tone and language in his article that reveal an individual who is devoid of sanity and objectivity, completely lost, loud and boisterous, unwittingly serving the interests of those on the other side of the political divide (as demonstrated above), as well as adopting a ‘we know best approach’ and passing judgment towards concerned members of the public.

A sinister political agenda?

Ramasamy continues: “The Penang government is open to criticisms on its policies in relation to flood mitigation and on hillside developments.

“But what we find not acceptable is the move by some members of Penang Forum to suggest the replacement of the government.

“Clearly, some of those who attended the dialogue session came with a sinister political agenda.

“They wanted to use and manipulate the recent landslide to create doubts about the sincerity of the state government in addressing floods and landslides.

“I hope these leaders of civil society do not delude themselves into thinking that they were acting on behest of the vast majority.

“I think that irrational, illogical and delusional thinking might have got into their heads to the extent that they believe they were on a righteous course to save the people of Penang from the ‘irresponsible’ Penang government.

“What is surprising is the fact that these ‘piped pipers’ are totally oblivious to ‘sins’ committed by the former state government - and yet willing to join forces with them to undermine the popularly-elected state government.”

Double standards

I’d be willing to wager that most of the participants at the dialogue session would not vote for, say, Barisan Nasional to replace the current state government.

But you know what? What if they did? Would wanting such a change in government be a sinister political agenda?

If that’s the case, then I suppose DAP and its allies also have a ‘sinister political agenda’ to replace the BN at the federal level.

Or does Ramasamy suggest that an agenda to replace an existing government is ‘sinister’ and ‘unacceptable’ if that government is yourself, but noble and acceptable if that government is your political opponent?

Nowhere did I read statements from the dialogue indicating that people there deludedly believed themselves to be acting on (I believe ‘at’ is preferable) the behest of the vast majority.

Sadly, I cannot say the same for Ramasamy, who implies that he and his oh-so-popularly-elected-government must be above blame simply because a lot of people voted for them in the last two elections.

How people voted in the last election is in no way whatsoever some sort of endorsement or absolution for what a government is doing in the here and now. A history professor might be expected to know that time travel has not been invented, nor that the process of cause and effect have been reversed.

I would imagine as well, that when people did vote for the current Penang government, they did so with the expectation that, nine years later, the said state government would not still be childishly going on about the “sins of the former state government”.

(If I might also humbly point out, as an aside, it is the ‘pied’ piper, not the ‘piped piper’.)

Focus on lives lost, not ‘embarrassment’

Ramasamy says early on in his article: “The reception that was given to Umno representatives clearly indicated that some participants at the dialogue session were more keen to strike an accord with them to embarrass that Penang government.”

Eleven people died; 11 lives were lost, 11 sons, brothers, husbands or fathers gone forever - and you want to talk about ‘embarrassing’ the Penang government?

Some 700 words, spent attacking civil society, creating racial undertones out of thin air, and expounding no end of ‘if you’re not with us, you’re against us’ thinking, and not a single word of empathy about the loss of lives or the efforts to be taken to prevent recurrences.

Is this what has become of the Penang state government - an endless tirade by both the chief minister and his deputy against civil society alongside thug-like black or white thinking?

Perhaps the likes of Yap Soo Huey or Teh Yee Cheu would be better suited as leaders. The latter has spoken up consistently, based on principles instead of toeing the party line, while the former was the only DAP representative brave enough to face the forum that day (I suppose she did not have any open houses scheduled or chose to prioritise wisely).

If individuals like these do not rise to the top, perhaps it is because the top of both dominant political coalitions have more in common with each other, than they do with the bottom of either.

NATHANIEL TAN was mildly amused to have come across this article.

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