Post-Jumaat Reflections: Understanding Malay Politics Post-Independence

After Friday prayers, many of us reflect on various life issues, and one that often comes up is Malay politics. Deep thinking on this topic is crucial, especially when seeking the best solutions.

To understand Malay politics after independence, one only needs to study Western politics. The political systems planted in Malay society over the past 500 years show many similarities, though the players and the field are different. Today, it’s influenced by certain Jewish mindsets and behaviors mentioned in the Quran not the people themselves, as there are good individuals, but the attitudes and actions.

When Malays condemn, they target people, not behaviors. This is evident in Malay politics, where truth often loses to ignorance, which is celebrated and supported by the masses. What is the proof?

• When falsehood or ignorance wins, it results in destruction.
• When truth, rights, and knowledge prevail, it leads to progress, development, and success.

Every failure has its cause, and every success its outcome. Malay politics is often framed as a struggle, but in reality, it’s just casual discussions without solutions or result-oriented approaches.

When thinking of the Prime Minister (PM) managing public organisations, it’s akin to a CEO managing private organizations. The PM is someone who gets ideas and tasks accomplished through others. This is organisational leadership. If one considers the PM or a CEO as an individual, it’s like comparing apples to pineapples two different fruits. This is a political thinking mindset.

The PM is not the most creative and innovative person in everything within the organization. Often, those around him or his contacts are more knowledgeable, capable, and experienced. He has access to expertise and consultants. Yes, he holds the highest executive power but is checked and controlled by organisational structures, systems, and rules.

Any comment without referring to this context is out of tangent and politically biased.

Malay politics, from a debate standpoint, is no different from the judiciary system but vastly different in terms of judgment and acceptance. Those who think politics is about justice are mistaken. True justice lies in religious faith, though it’s not always upheld in beliefs and practices.

• The government tries to assert that they are right, much like defense lawyers.
• The opposition seeks to prove that the accused is wrong or guilty.

The difference is that the government’s courts adhere to facts and laws, respecting the judge’s decisions. In contrast, the public rejects facts and laws, accepting only their own judgments.

These two sides are in conflict and have vested interests:

1. Leaders are idolized first.
2. Party loyalty comes second.
3. The people’s interest is last.

This has been proven repeatedly in political history, just look at the last five years for clarity.

I belong to the third, minority group:

Accepting facts and respecting laws. Different priorities:

• Malay agenda and public interest goals.
• Organisations, parties, and government are like vehicles and engines of implementation.
• Leaders are drivers, captains, and crew, steering the execution.

Here lies the conflict among these three groups, with clear priority differences in policy. There are also conflicts in approach and implementation due to these differing priorities. Politicians and the public both adhere to promises but differ greatly in approach, actions, and interests.