Both PM Najib Tun Razak (NTR) and Raja Petra Kamaruddin (RPK) are in Australia at about the same time, and what a coincidence. RPK when asked says that it is not him who is following NTR, but he thinks it is NTR who is following him.
NTR mission is to try to lobby for Australian government’s support for an improved bilateral relations and partnership, and from what was reported, NTR has to some extend achieved that mission. Australian PM Julia Gillard is reported to have remarked that, “The PM (Najib) with me now is a friend of Australia and a leader in the region” and went further to say that, “I salute your (Najib) leadership of the Global Movement of the Moderates”.
RPK on the other hand is on a round of talk to students, interviews and meetings with likeminded Malaysians and the people of Australia, to present to them his perspective and views of the political landscape in Malaysia, as well as issues that has caused concern among Malaysians, that to his mind, has impacted the country’s image abroad.
While NTR’s visit to Australia has received wide media coverage by the mainstream media (MSM), RPK’s trip gets no media coverage at all by the MSM, except the blogs. It is interesting to listen to the discourse that RPK had with Malaysians (and some foreigners, I suppose) at the Australian National University posted in Malaysian Today, and in particular at how he articulates issue relating to Malaysian politics and other issues of concern to Malaysians.
One may be quick to denounce him as being anti establishment for his critical views, but one must also understand that he is an activist, and what do you expect him to do or say? I think, RPK has been quite balance in his views, and anyway it is up to the people to weight for themselves whether RPK’s argument makes sense or otherwise. The point I am trying to bring out here is that not all critical views are meaningless and absurd. Critical views have its positive side as well in that it can act as ‘check and balance’ and sometimes even act as inputs to change.
It was only recently at a wedding that someone told me that I am anti establishment. I was shocked and I quickly responded by saying that I am not. I told him that I am neither pro nor anti establishment, but I am merely trying to cast my personal critical views. I am pleased that the person seated next to me supported by argument and that boasted at bit of my confidence and morale.
You see, in the military officers are taught to be critical and analytical in their thinking (CAT) because it is through CAT that wars can be won. The evolution of strategies and tactics are as a result of CAT, and stereotypes will certainly find themselves sidelined in any intellectual discourse over strategies and tactics. At Staff College, the ‘Appreciation of the Situation’ (I do not know what it is termed now) that students write is CAT and similarly, the follow up discussions in the model room and outdoor tactical exercises. Even in their daily meetings, CAT is put to practice as a means of soliciting ideas and by doing so; can they be prejudged as being anti establishment? I don’t think so?
It was also reported that RPK was to be invited to a tea function where NTR was to attend. However, RPK was said to have turned down the invitation. I thought RPK should have accepted the invitation as this would possibly give him a ‘once in a life time’ opportunity to speak directly to NTR. And furthermore, RPK does not have to worry about being surrounded by the police or bodyguards ready to pounce on him the moment he opens his mouth. Similarly, I do not think NTR would be too pleased either to have PKR invited because the latter might be a cause of embarrassment.
I am just wondering………..between NTR and RPK, who do you think appealed most to the Australian?
CRUSADE AGAINST CORRUPTION