Najib S Palace Forays Need To Be Addressed

---

 


Before the late Zimbabwe president Robert Mugabe arrived for a state visit to the United Kingdom in May 1994, the media was on a warpath with the establishment.
While English newspapers generally opposed the visit, the red tops went further to suggest that “the Queen would be shaking hands with a leader whose hands are tainted with the blood of its citizens.” Perhaps, they were speaking the truth because thousands of people died during Mugabe’s brutal regime.
In a country where freedom of expression is revered, criticising or lampooning members of the royal household is fair game. Of late, Prince Andrew and Prince Harry have become targets of the tabloids for what is perceived as their indiscretion and impudence.
However, in this part of the world, the king, the sultans and their immediate families are treated as sacrosanct and cannot be criticised. We have learnt to accept their real or perceived indiscretion.
Some years ago, the grandson of a ruler was beaten to a pulp by the son of another ruler. Police reports and a court case ensued but the media took little notice of it.
Parameters changed with social media
Previously, those who choose to comment on their conduct were labelled as “penderhaka” (treasonous) and often incurred the wrath of citizens. Some have been prosecuted, including even snide remarks said in passing or as satire.
This writer has no intention of being disloyal or to question certain acts of members of the royal household. But as a citizen and a writer, it is his onerous duty to communicate and bring to their attention (and to the public) the rumblings and murmurings on social media which are gaining traction with the people.
Generally, citizens take cognisance of such impertinence and insolence but seldom have they made remarks, except for private exchanges in coffee shops and restaurants. But with the advent of social media, the parameters have been changed. Anyone with a computer or mobile phone can express his or her views on various platforms without incurring any costs.
However, over the past month, netizens have taken to social media to express their views on what they perceive as not acceptable.
A photograph of former prime minister Najib Abdul Razak seated on the high table with the king and the prime minister at a breaking of fast event at the Istana Negara prompted unprecedented comments.
Social media has been buzzing with all kinds of comments from an array of people - mentioning that Najib, who was convicted of stealing from the people and spending it on himself and with his appeal pending - is being accorded special treatment.
‘Committing crime is fine…?’
Even before lawyer Muhammed Rafique Rashid Ali took to social media, several commentators sparked serious discussions on the issue.
On April 21, against the backdrop of a photograph of the buka puasa function at the palace, he remarked: “High table. In front of honorary guests, cabinet members, members of government bodies as well as the judiciary and the legislature. Istana Negara needs to answer as to why such treatment was given to PM6 (Najib).”
With a short video clip of Najib and his wife Rosmah Mansor being sent off at the steps of what appears to be the palace, Rafique asked: “The people are watching. What kind of message are you sending the people? That committing crime is fine as long as they have strong connections?”
Former prime minister Najib Abdul RazakIf one thought that the issue had been forgotten, it was resuscitated on May 5 when another post made its rounds on social media.
In response, one commentator asked: “Personally, I feel insulted. As a citizen, I’m very afraid to break the law. I am not worthy to step within the palace grounds. I do my best for my religion, race and country. But instead, are we, as citizens, slaves?”
Others did not mince their words with diplomatic lingo. In a note to the Communications Department of Istana Negara, one Manan Razali wrote a lengthy appeal on Facebook.
Referring to two principles of the Rukun Negara, Manan remarked: “When the king gives special treatment to a world-renowned criminal, doesn’t it violate the principle of respecting the rule of law? Doesn’t this also have a negative impact on the sovereignty of law in this country?
“In order to clarify the situation and remove the people’s anxiety about this, and so as to preserve the image and prestige of the palace institutions in the eyes of the people that should function as an umbrella to defend the fate of the people, I think it is good and it is reasonable if the palace can issue an official statement so that it can be looked at by all the people.”
Remarks will continue if met with silence
Such remarks and views expressed are a reflection of the pain, anger and anxiety caused to the man in the street that someone, convicted of stealing money from the pension funds of civil servants, is being honoured and entertained at the palace.
Understandably, citizens are restless and a few are agitated. Another wrote: “If this is the attitude of Istana Negara, then where else can the people seek shelter? When the people arise to question the contributions of the royal institution, then it is said that the people are rebelling against the king. But the king’s behaviour that is shown is creating hatred among the people.”
Such remarks will continue to make their rounds and palace officials have to answer the questions posed by the people. Manan’s post asks of this, but there has hardly been a whimper.
I have nothing to add to these questions. Hopefully, some explanation will help address the concern raised by citizens who care and are loyal and owe allegiance to the king and country and want the palace to be seen as a revered institution. - Mkini
R NADESWARAN is a veteran journalist and writes on bread-and-butter issues. Comments: [email protected]
The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of MMKtT.

---