Is Akmal Important Or Just Convenient

---

 
THE recent flag controversy has once again thrown Malaysia’s politics into a familiar loop of heated debates over patriotism, race, and identity.
This time, it centred on an error involving the Jalur Gemilang that quickly turned into a national talking point. Instead of being handled quietly, it became headline news and a rallying issue for certain political actors.
It is not unusual for political figures to seize on symbolic issues, but what is striking here is how fast it escalated and how much airtime it consumed.
At the centre is a politician who has been making headlines for what many see as the wrong reasons, not for policy achievements, legislative reforms, or community building, but for a series of confrontations that tap into ethnic sensitivities and patriotic sentiment.
The episode raises a bigger question: Is this really about one person’s importance, or is he simply a convenient figure in a political culture that thrives on identity-based issues?
Patriotism as political performance
(Image: Bernama)National symbols like the flag are meant to bring people together. They are markers of shared belonging and collective pride.
Yet in recent years, they have been repeatedly drawn into political skirmishes. What could have been an honest mistake addressed through dialogue became a public spectacle.
Civil society groups have voiced concern that such approaches encourage a culture of fear, where ordinary people become cautious about participating in national traditions for fear of being publicly shamed or accused of disloyalty.
It is telling when some Malaysians say they now think twice before flying the Jalur Gemilang outside their homes, not because they do not love the country, but because they worry about being singled out over minor errors in display.
This is not the healthy, confident patriotism that nation-building requires. It is a form of patriotism performed for the benefit of political positioning, where the emphasis is on catching mistakes rather than fostering pride.
When political figures use symbolic incidents as platforms to portray themselves as defenders of the nation, the meaning of those symbols begins to shift.
They become props in a contest for visibility and relevance, rather than shared cultural assets that belong to all. And these performances often come at a cost. They can consume disproportionate public attention and push more pressing matters to the sidelines.
It is far easier to rally crowds and dominate headlines over a flag controversy than it is to resolve long-standing issues such as rising living costs, education reforms, or institutional accountability.
But while the political rewards for symbolic battles can be immediate, the dividends for society are far less certain.
The conservative turn and its implications
The flag incident also reflects a broader trend in Malaysian politics, a turn toward more conservative, identity-driven narratives.
In recent years, parties and movements that emphasise ethnic and religious identity have been able to mobilize strong support by presenting themselves as protectors of a particular community or moral order.
In this climate, small symbolic disputes can be transformed into major political events.
The appeal is straightforward: such disputes are easy to frame in black-and-white terms, they play well on social media, and they can be used to rally a loyal base without the complexities of policy debate.
The problem is that this style of politics often sidelines the real, structural challenges Malaysia faces.
When political energy is spent on defending symbols from perceived threats, there is less room to address the economy, governance reforms, environmental issues, or the widening inequalities between regions and communities.
(Image: Bernama)This approach also risks deepening social divides. Civil society groups have long warned that identity-based confrontation undermines trust between communities and makes it harder to build inclusive narratives.
When the definition of patriotism becomes tied to flawless displays of national symbols, it narrows the scope of belonging. It implicitly suggests that only those who conform to a certain way of demonstrating loyalty are truly Malaysian.
This is where the focus on one politician misses the point. It is not about his personal influence. The more important question is why the political environment rewards this kind of behavior.
If it were not him, there would likely be someone else stepping into the same role, using similar tactics to gain attention.
The structure of incentives in Malaysian politics, where visibility, controversy, and symbolic positioning can be more valuable than substantive policy work, ensures that such performances will continue.
As long as our politics continues to value identity signaling over inclusive nation-building, there will always be another “Akmal” ready to step into the spotlight.
Moving beyond the distraction
The flag controversy is therefore not just a story about one individual. It is a window into a political culture that places identity and symbolism at the heart of the public stage, often at the expense of unity and progress.
Debating whether Akmal is important or merely convenient risks falling into the same trap of personalizing the issue. The more we centre the discussion on him, the more we validate the very dynamic we should be questioning.
The real task is to understand how and why Malaysian politics keeps getting pulled into cycles of symbolic confrontation, and what it would take to break that cycle.
Symbols like the Jalur Gemilang should unite, not divide. They should be touchpoints of pride, not triggers for public shaming or political theatre.
If they are allowed to be used as partisan tools, their unifying power weakens. Instead of being reminders of our shared history and aspirations, they become markers of political loyalty, subject to policing and exclusion.
If Malaysia is to move forward, it will require a shift in political incentives and public priorities. We need to create a climate where leaders are rewarded for solving problems, not just for winning symbolic battles.
That means the public, the media, and political institutions all have a role in refusing to be distracted by performative patriotism and instead keeping the focus on policies, reforms, and inclusive governance.
It also means reclaiming national symbols from political ownership. Patriotism should be rooted in actions that strengthen the nation, from protecting the environment to improving public services, not in orchestrated outrage over minor mistakes.
Only then can our symbols truly represent all Malaysians, regardless of race, religion, or political leaning.
Stop making it about him

Ultimately, this is why the question “Is Akmal important, or just convenient?” is less about him and more about us. He may be the face of this controversy, but he is not the cause of the conditions that make such controversies so effective.
As long as our politics continues to value identity signaling over inclusive nation-building, there will always be another “Akmal” ready to step into the spotlight.
We should not be debating his significance as if the answer will change the course of the country. The real debate should be about the system that enables this kind of politics to thrive.
The more attention we give to personalities, the more we feed into the spectacle that keeps us distracted from real solutions.
If we are serious about building a stronger, more inclusive Malaysia, we must resist the temptation to engage in personality-driven debates and instead focus on dismantling the incentives that make such moments politically profitable.
That means moving past performative patriotism, challenging identity-based distraction, and insisting that our national conversation returns to what truly matters, the work of building a just, united, and forward-looking nation. 
Khoo Ying Hooi is an Associate Professor of International Relations and Human Rights at Universiti Malaya. This opinion editorial first appeared in MySinchew which is the English version of the Sin Chew Daily’s news portal.

The views expressed are solely of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of MMKtT. 
- Focus Malaysia.

---