AT the PKR’s 25th anniversary convention in Shah Alam yesterday (April 21), the party’s president and Prime Minister (PM) Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim turned to the French Revolution to justify that reforms cannot be rushed through in Malaysia.
This was not the first time he had referred to the French Revolution. He had used this example in earlier occasions to circumvent the issue of the absence of reforms in the country.
Recall that the Pakatan Harapan (PH)-led coalition came to power on the basis of the needs for reforms. PKR was propelled to the national stage given the country needs far-reaching reforms.
Here we are talking about reforms and not revolution. I don’t understand why Anwar is confusing reforms with revolution and what is the relevance of the 18th century French Revolution to the Malaysian context.
I agree with not just Anwar’s but many others who have lamented about not just the French Revolution but revolutions in Russia, the US, China and other countries which caused untold deaths and sufferings.
PKR which became part of the PH coalition never had the revolutionary agenda. It was essentially an agenda for reforms. Such an agenda was in the context of the political administration of Barisan Nasional (BN) where corruption, favouritism, mismanagement and others reared their ugly heads.
Why spotlight on French Revolution?
Without the incarceration of Anwar for certain crimes, the call for reforms would not have gained momentum. It was just a matter of time before PKR became synonymous with the struggle for reforms.
Predicated on reforms were the sub-agenda of the removal of the twice former PM Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad and the installation of Anwar as the PM.
Generally, reforms were welcomed by Malaysians as the country needed them. Dr Mahathir became the symbol of the opposition generated by the reform movement. Anwar as the head of the reform movement wanted reforms not revolution.
If there had been calls for more extreme political actions, the reform movement would have collapsed. I therefore see no relevance as to why Anwar must defend the lack of reforms to the excesses committed by the French Revolution.
Reforms might be slow and not to the expectations of the public but this needs to be explained by Anwar and others. But why bring in the French Revolution?
Anwar should have compared the reform movement in the country to other reform movements in the world. This is something acceptable from a rational and logical point of view.
Perhaps, Anwar should have been honest in revealing why reforms are not on the agenda of the government. Could this be related to the fact that political survival seems to be the order of the day?
Reforms means the government is going beyond the racial and religious divide as the prime source of divisiveness in the country. But Anwar cannot do this simply because his political survival is based on reinforcing the present existing divisions.
With UMNO in the government, whatever pretensions about reforms have vanished in the thin air. Some analysts are saying that the reform government has been hijacked by UMNO.
If this is true, then Anwar has a big problem to deal with. Rather than reading fictional novels, Anwar – if he has the time – should read Crane Briton’s classic book Anatomy of Revolution which was published in 1938. – April 22, 2024
Former DAP stalwart and Penang chief minister II Prof Ramasamy Palanisamy is chairman of the United Rights of Malaysian Party (Urimai) interim council.
The views expressed are solely of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Focus Malaysia.
Main image credit: Pinterest
