2 years or not, so what?

Just to make sure that Boring Malaysian Stuff doesn’t denigrate to daily views on political drama back home, I aim to deliver posts on policy instead of politics and will willingly do so from now on, and this will be my last post on something like this.

2 days ago our youngest (and most good-looking) cabinet minister, the nation’s bro, Syed Saddiq set forth a claim on a Facebook post that we ought not to be “obsessed” with “excessive politicking” and that Pakatan Harapan has not officially and explicitly stated that the limit of Tun Dr. Mahathir’s tenure will be 2 years after the coalition won the election. Ironically this statement was fired off as a response towards an attack from veteran politician Syed Husin Ali from PKR to call for an end to inner-coalition politics. Or is it?

To answer that question I hope to deviate from the 2-year term or not fiasco to focus on and summarise the entirety of Syed Husin Ali’s claims and Syed Saddiq’s response below:

Syed Husin Ali:

Mahathir claimed that his current term was established due to absolute necessity and that he would step down before the next election.

Mahathir’s supposed ‘18-hour workdays’ are unproductive as PH and the country is still, and arguably more divided when it comes to unity among diverse groups of people and politics.

Mahathir’s previous term as Prime Minister was also painted with havoc and controversy with regards to disunity, and that Mahathir was a champion for corruption and nepotism.

Syed Saddiq:

PH and its 4 inner mergers have not signed an official agreement for Mahathir to step down in 2 years (May 2020).

Mahathir does not have to be the sole subject of blame for the mistakes and havoc during his previous term (and Anwar should take blame as well since he was Deputy Prime Minister until 1998).

Mahathir has also contributed a great deal towards the nation’s development, namely KLCC, KLIA, and many more iconic Malaysian projects that took the nation’s name to a greater height. Mahathir was also responsible for the increase in work quality of civil servants, and have instilled a working culture (?) that should not be ignored when it comes to critical assessments of his past.

Now I’m not a strong supporter in having Anwar step-up as Prime Minister at all. Since I don’t think it makes a tangible difference worth having a full-fledged argument about. But is there really a point in raising the alleged ‘two-year limit’ as a significant element in your claims in the first place? Note that Syed Husin Ali has mentioned the truth, in which Mahathir plans to retire before the next general election. So what do you aim to achieve by bringing something as divisive as this up? Knowing, with your debating and political expertise that statements as this would obviously raise the attention of netizens and the media, is now the right time to debate whether or not 2-years is the acceptable consensus of all parties?

Then again, who cares if an actual agreement between coalitions were signed or not? If one were to actually care about such an issue then why isn’t this Facebook post declared before the elections? or when we’re starting to hear this ‘rumour’? Why only respond now that another politician from your coalition has vaguely raised points like this? If you’re trying to end irrelevant politicking of this form from what logic is a response like this appropriate?

Deviating yet again from the ‘2-year’ debacle, really, and with this, I would take aim at Syed Husin Ali’s and more importantly Syed Saddiq’s statements on who has caused more unrest within Malaysian society. Wasn’t it already established that past mistakes don’t matter when it comes to the biggest figures in Malaysian politics? Why are you deliberately ignoring your leaders’ decisions to set aside past differences in ideologies and all the inflicted pain to build a new Malaysia and having your apparent ‘arguments’ on Facebook publicised to this degree?

Malaysia’s past is important in any debate, I don’t think anyone should dismiss that, and I understand that a lot of Malaysia’s problems are currently so pertinent because of past policies in the first place. But isn’t it your job as Cabinet Minister to actually investigate problems like these and decide what you’re going to do, moving forward instead of rambling on who should take the ultimate blame for what Malaysia looks like now? Wouldn’t it be better, for a Cabinet Minister of your calibre when it comes to youth empowerment and survival to continue doing what you’re good at instead of focusing on the love-hate relationships of your elders?

I don’t think I need to ask any more questions since I hope you’ve come to the same conclusion as I did, and like many different decisions made by politicians nowadays it boils down to time and time again to the same questions. Why? And what’s the point?

If Syed Saddiq’s true intentions were to express his intention and effort to mitigate the apparent obsession that PKR and other coalition parties possess, then I really don’t see his particular outcry as effective in doing so. Obviously I don’t mean to dismiss his position and who he is as an individual since he has put forth a great deal of development and change towards Malaysia’s policy landscape with regards to Malaysia’s youth. Hopefully, he would be able to pick up on that and direct his attention towards what he is supposed to do instead of participating in useless political arguments of this sort.