There are so many things wrong with Rafizi’s call to have Anwar answerable to a Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) for the executive’s role in the appointment of top judges, that I am quite certain that in a couple of weeks, like a short rain on a hot day, this entire episode will blow over without leaving any trace in reality.
Even fortune is not smiling on Rafizi.
Just a day after Rafizi and his cohorts held a press conference to demand answers about the dodgy selection of top judges, Trump announced that he’s going to hit Malaysia with a 25 percent tariff starting August 1. Not only has Trump’s announcement dwarfed any attention Rafizi’s call was getting, it’s also made the public disinterested in pressuring Anwar to face scrutiny over judicial appointments—we’d rather he focus on dealing with the looming tariff crisis.
To be brutally honest, the public doesn’t really care about the judiciary, because most of us don’t feel that the affairs of the Federal Court or Court of Appeal have anything to do with our daily lives. If you ask the public what they think about the allegation that Anwar is interfering in the appointment of top judges, I’ll bet my last ringgit that most people will give you a “Pablo Picasso and the moon landing” answer.
For context, when Picasso was asked to comment on the moon landing, he once replied: “I don’t know, I don’t care, it doesn’t concern me.”
I was, as a matter of fact, at the press conference where Rafizi called for Anwar to face a RCI. Though the room was packed with journalists, none seemed particularly interested in what Rafizi and his team had to say. I could count on one hand the number of journalists who even bothered to ask questions during the Q&A. When even journalists—whose job it is to be aware and knowledgeable about the matter that Rafizi and his cohorts were raising—couldn’t feign much interest, what hope is there that the average citizen, who has 101 other things to worry about, will care?
Trump’s tariff, on the other hand, if unmitigated, could cause factories here to shut down and move to low tariff Singapore or the US itself. If the factories go, so do our jobs.
Considering that, voters—who are the only ones with the power to force a RCI to happen—will likely be more interested in wanting Rafizi to be silent so that Anwar can focus in dealing with Trump’s tariff, than wanting Anwar to answer Rafizi’s accusation.
Beyond poor timing, Rafizi’s attempt to make judicial appointments the nation’s top priority is also weighed down by the public perception that he and his cohorts are just playing out a grudge match against Anwar, rather than acting out of genuine concern for justice, reform, the people or the country.
Rafizi, Nik Nazmi, and Wong Chen belong to the losing side of the recent PKR elections concluded in May. I’m not sure about the remaining six MPs backing Rafizi, but if I were a betting person, I’d wager they’re from the same losing camp. Had Rafizi and his team won the PKR elections, would they still be crying foul over judicial appointments? I seriously doubt it—and I’m sure most of the public doubt it too.
Also, if Rafizi wants the public to care about the issue he’s raising, he should speak plainly and directly about what is in his heart and mind, rather than hinting, suggesting, and speaking in overly technical and procedural language, while hoping that we will get what he is implying, without him needing to be daring enough to say it ouly plainly and directly.
Truthfully, I found all the four points that Rafizi and his cohorts raised at the press conference as the reasons why the judiciary’s integrity has been compromised were all pedantic and bureaucratic.
One point was that the government had prior knowledge of the judges’ resignations and should therefore have prepared beforehand their replacements to avoid any vacancies.
Another was that a recent Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) meeting was called without observing the mandatory 10-day notice period.
A third involved a police report made by a judge after a Malaysiakini reporter contacted him for comment. The judge claimed the meeting was confidential and lodged a report—this is how we even found out about it.
The fourth is also about a technical, procedural and technical matter - about how a the nomination for the vacant post if Chief Justice and President of court of appeal had already been finalized previously, but the appointments were not made nevertheless.
While I understand what Rafizi and his cohorts were implying through their four points, what I don't understand is why is it that they merely had to imply it. Why not say it out plainly and directly? What are they afraid of? If they themselves are so afraid , why instigate us to be brave?
With this kind of pedantic, procedural argument, I wish Rafizi and his team the best of luck in trying to get traction outside of Bangsar and Mont Kiara. With this kind of presentation, maybe he will get a chance to appear in CNA or Al Jazeera, but I am quite sure that where it counts - in the hearts and mind of voters - he will not make any impression at all.
Yes, public dissatisfaction with Anwar is high. But just because we’re dissatisfied with him doesn’t mean we’re going to back Rafizi and his cohorts as if they’re our champions.
None of us see Rafizi and his cohorts are highly trustworthy people who have a record doing things as a matter of principle The way we see it, Rafizi and his cohorts are just rebelling against Anwar and PKR because they lost against Anwar and the winning side in PKR, and also because they think they have something to gain by rebelling against Anwar and PKR. What we don’t see is what we have to gain by supporting them.
In fact, we don’t even see what Rafizi and his team are actually contributing to this entire endeavor. All they seem to be doing is offering us “data” and “information” so we’ll rise up and fight—but we can get that information ourselves in seconds with ChatGPT.
What we need to see from them is courage and resolve. If Rafizi and his gang truly believe this issue is the country’s top priority, then the should be the first to act like it. But if you are merely instigating us to act on the issue you are raising, without having the galls to do something yourself, what courage and resolve could you possibly have?
If Rafizi and his cohorts have any interest in seeing what they are doing succeed, they should perhaps start by speaking plainly and boldly about what they have in their heart and mind, not talk in roundabout, technical terms hoping we’ll infer what they mean—and rise up against Anwar and the government—when they themselves don’t dare to do it.
If Rafizi and his cohort—MPs and ex-ministers—don’t have the strength to stand up and take action, why expect us regular people, who don’t have parliamentary privileges or immunity, to do it?
I think Rafizi and his team will fail, no matter how many press conferences or nationwide tours they do—because they’re acting like sheep, hoping that the public will act like lions, but still expecting to be the ones we turn to for leadership.
But if you’re a sheep, why expect your followers to be lions?
And even if we are lions, why would we want a sheep to lead us?
TheRealNehruism (nehru.sathiamoorthy@gmail.com) is a content creator under the Newswav Creator programme, where you get to express yourself, be a citizen journalist, and at the same time monetize your content & reach millions of users on Newswav. Log in to creator.newswav.com and become a Newswav Creator now!
The User Content (as defined on Newswav Terms of Use) above including the views expressed and media (pictures, videos, citations etc) were submitted & posted by the author. Newswav is solely an aggregation platform that hosts the User Content. If you have any questions about the content, copyright or other issues of the work, please contact creator@newswav.com.
