It was Shakespeare who famously posed the question: ‘To be or Not to Be’ through one of many alter egos, in the play called ‘Hamlet’. If I am not mistaken. The original poser was induced, I believe, by a situation of predicament. Recently, I was put in a predicament of my own, hence the convenient title assigned to this article.
The context was on being asked for my opinion on something that was rather important. Actually, that is an understatement. It was, I believe, something really important, bothering on the grave and serious – as it had a bearing on the future and the direction to where the nation was heading to. Herein below is the narration, or rather a story telling, of what happened in this brief exchange which prompted me to ask – should I or should I not answer the question posed to me?
On that Wednesday of November 16 2022, just a few days before the 15th general election (GE15) I was having a conversation on the WhatsApp platform with a well-known local reporter cum newspaper columnist. A prolific writer and a keen political observer at the national level, that is what he is. Well that is, just amongst the many talents that he has. The exchange was on the prognosis of the outcome of the impending general election to be held just a mere two days later. It was akin to guessing the score of a match in the recently concluded World Cup soccer games.
The person at the other end of the virtual line in digital space was one of my schoolmates in Kolej Tun Datuk Tuanku Hj Bujang in Miri, in the late seventies. A prominent personality in his own right. When he posed me the question, I had to take it seriously. I had to think through carefully how I would answer him. My answer would reflect on me. Well, that’s how seriously I take my friends. In particular, someone who is learned and well informed like him. And he has the pen too.
Briefly, he had asked me a rather pointed question, to wit, quote: “Salam, What’s your take. Who will win and form the government?” That kind of took me by surprise, the pointedness of it, I mean. I am not a political observer like him, so why would he ask me, I thought to myself. So, I had to reflect awhile on it, asking myself whether he was asking me a serious question or otherwise? Or was he just trying to make conversation, as the expression goes. Which is which, I wondered.
As I am not a political commentator, let alone being a hardcore analyst of the local politics and the dynamics of power play and inter-actions between the different political parties and platforms, I was understandably cautious. I don’t make statements on the different political positionings in the nation, not publicly anyway, but it doesn’t mean that I don’t follow the developments and/or observe the trends, or the nature of conversations on what happens or is surfacing in the political arena or public space.
It is something that is hard to avoid. It’s all there as being reported in the print media, during casual conversations (which incidentally could turn heated at times) or as occasionally being exchanged in the social media (to which I seldom react). After all its political campaign time. So you can’t escape, even if you tried. No one escapes it. Everyone is caught in the middle of it, some are active participants more so than others.
There are many armchair political critics, commentators or self-proclaimed experts, gurus and self- projected insiders out there. To me, many of them are nothing more than amplifiers or mere conduits who repeat what they have heard or read from elsewhere. Depending on their inclinations, their sources would be from that which they like to hear or read from in the first place.
So, by definition their view is limited, narrow, and partisan, for their sources are one sided. Therefore, it comes as no surprise that there is little or no depth as to what they say or to the general discourse that goes on. Perhaps we have not yet reached that level of thinking and sophistication.
A simile comes to mind here. Well, a gong belts the same sound that the beater intends, with only the intensity of it varying by the amount of exertion that the beater deploys. The harder he beats, the louder the sound. But it’s essentially the same ‘gongy’ sound. The same principle applies to the pace or beat frequency. The intensity follows the ‘speed of the beats’, to signify urgency.
Gongs were instruments of communication in times of lore. Even then, again, it’s the same sound being repeated ad nauseam, varying only in loudness, speed and intensity. In other words, it is just sheer monotony in the final analysis. Contemporary politics can sometimes border on that. Some peoples’ brand of politics, that is. Narrow, noisy, exclusive of others and hardly uplifting to all but their own narrow sense of interests. Maybe, that’s what some interpret or portray as clever communication or political propaganda.
My lesser then keen interestedness on the local scene is, however, off-settled by my interest or attention elsewhere. I guess I am more inclined, and keen, to observe the geopolitical dynamics and power play amongst the super powers and different groupings or alignments of nations which are admittedly more interesting and obviously, in the final analysis, more important.
For what happens at the global and geopolitical level will determine, I believe, what would happen at the national level, globally. And even all the way to the local level. That’s the reality and nature of the game.
Perhaps, growing up reading The Newsweek, The Times magazine and The Plain Truth ‘whetted’ my appetite and sharpened my observation to look at things from this perspective. I don’t know. Somehow the interest is there and has been for a while. By the way, is there a figure of speech which says, “you are what you read?” I think it was the famous wit Oscar Wilde, an avid reader and an excellent classicist, who was said to have made the following statement: “It is what you read when you don’t have to that determines what you will be when you can’t help it.”
Coming back to the story, my reply to the pointed question being asked by my friend was something along this line (quoted in verbatim), “It looks tough for BN for sure. The issues that are topmost in peoples’ minds and are being raised by PH are all a negative to BN. We don’t see any credible or effective counter narrative from BN. The fractured leadership (in BN) at the top doesn’t help things for them. Coupled with the article given above, in the context of geopolitical realities, the coalition (of parties) that best fits the prevailing geopolitical reality will be supported, tacitly or otherwise. I won’t be surprised there will be a flip in Malaya like 2018.”
That was the summary and essence of my response – my reading of the tea leaves, if one wishes to put it that way. Or in the figurative context of the ancient ways of my people deep in the jungles of Borneo, from the readings of the entrails of the freshly slaughtered chicken or the liver of a sacrificial pig. That is, or, more accurately, was, before they converted wholesale to Evangelical Christianity. Good for them, they have moved away from the darkness of the past, a world of omens and superstition, into the light of a new sunshine, one bereft of fear and uncertainty.
Coming back to the article “given above” that I was referring to in my conversation with my elite friend. It was an article written by one Mihar Dias, a copy of which I have sent to my friend earlier. The article went something like this; “Are the Americans Still Aiming for a Regime Change in Malaysia by backing the Opposition like it did in 2018? #GE15 https://newswav.com/A2211_jqRJgH?s=A_1so8vA”.
To my rather curious mind, I thought that the article in question was a clear clue, a modern-day omen, as to what was happening. And as the saying goes, and in hindsight, the rest is history. Yes, when I read that article, I thought it was a sign, something as clear as a neon light shining upon the tenement walls. And coincidentally that was what happened, wasn’t it? I mean, the flip up did happen in the Peninsula, just like in 2018. This time around it is happening again during the GE-15, just as speculated, cleverly or coincidentally, by Dias.
The flip did happen as the majority of the people voted based on their carefully considered judgment and with freedom of choice at the ballot box. To be or not to be, was not just the question for the voters but for me when asked for an opinion on the score card of GE-15. The question of “to be or not to be” for the voters was a tough one to crack for the voters who traditionally voted for Umno. As we know, Umno is no ordinary political party.
After leading a coalition that negotiated Malaysia’s independence from the British in 1957, the party went on to dominate the nation’s politics, winning supermajorities election after election. So who did the flipping, the voters or the party in disarray? To be or not to be?
- The views and opinions in this article are the writer’s own and do not reflect those of the newspaper. The writer’s perspective comes from the angle of wanting to write interesting and serious articles along the line of a good story telling that is worthy of keeping the interest of the serious reader. One who loves reading for the sake of reading. In other words, an attempt at emulating the writings of a serious reporter or contributor of quality, readable articles. At least, that’s the intent and aspiration.
