When Rafizi Ramli claimed his former boss Anwar Ibrahim had drifted away from the party's original "reform" agenda, the obvious question is this:
What reforms was he talking about?
Seriously, guys,
List them down.
Because we, and I speak on behalf of myself and my friends, we are not rushing to embrace your new party BERSAMA as the purported latest vehicle for change just like that. Let's go over the items on the list one by one and ask ourselves whether Anwar has really ditched the reforms promised nearly three decades ago or are these reforms underway, perhaps more slowly than some would like?
For nearly three decades, Reformasi has been one of the most powerful words in Malaysian politics. But Anwar Ibrahim has been PM for only 3 years, not 30! Reform is a process, not a destination. Rome was not built in one day.
What exactly is Reformasi?
For those old enough to remember 1998, Reformasi carried different meanings. Some saw it as a struggle against abuse of power. Some saw it as a demand for judicial independence. Others viewed it as a fight for transparency, accountability, civil liberties, and cleaner government.
For younger Malaysians, however, Reformasi often exists more as a story than a lived experience.
I was a toddler when Reformasi was born on Anwar's black eye and trumped-up charges. My generation inherited Reformasi rather than experienced it.
What I know about Reformasi comes from history books, documentaries, newspaper archives, speeches, political debates, and the countless stories told by those who lived through that era.
And perhaps that distance allows a different perspective because when I hear the word Reformasi today, I am less interested in political personalities and more interested in outcomes.
To me, Reformasi should not mean replacing one group of politicians with another.
It should mean creating institutions that remain fair even when our favourite politicians are no longer in power.
It should mean a judiciary that does not bend according to political winds.
It should mean public institutions that belong to citizens rather than parties.
It should mean government agencies that enforce laws consistently, whether the person involved is powerful or ordinary.
It should mean a political culture where criticism is accepted rather than feared.
Most importantly, it should mean reducing the need to place blind faith in individual leaders.
A wise proverb says, "A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in."
That, to me, is Reformasi. Not hero worship. Not endless political branding. Not treating every election as a battle between saints and villains.
Real reform means building systems that outlive the people who create them.
Unfortunately, the word "reform" has been repeated so often over the past three decades that it sometimes feels more like a marketing slogan than a measurable objective.
Everybody supports reform.
Few can clearly define what success would actually look like.
That ambiguity has allowed politicians to claim ownership of Reformasi while their critics accuse them of betraying it.
The result is a political culture increasingly built around perpetual disappointment.
PKR disappointed some reformists.
MUDA disappointed some reformists.
Now BERSAMA is being marketed to many of the same old people.
When I look back at the origins of Reformasi, I do not see a movement that was simply about replacing one politician with another. I see a movement that was fundamentally about limiting power.
It was about ensuring that no Prime Minister, no minister, no political party, and no government institution became so powerful that it could operate without accountability.
At its core, Reformasi was supposed to be about institutions.
That is the Reformasi I understand.
And when I look at Malaysia today, I see many imperfections. I see delays. I see compromises. I see political contradictions.
But I also see reforms that previous generations fought for slowly taking shape.
Parliament is more active than it was decades ago.
Government procurement receives greater scrutiny.
Court decisions are no longer viewed as automatically predictable.
Public institutions face far greater public examination.
And the sitting PM wants to limit his own tenure as PM so that nobody would stay on as PM for decades.
Is everything fixed?
Of course not.
Far from it.
But Reformasi was never going to be a magical moment where somebody waves a wand and thirty years of institutional weaknesses disappear overnight.
Hogwash.
Perhaps the biggest misunderstanding about Reformasi is that many people began treating it like a destination.
I see it differently.
Reformasi is not a place you arrive at.
It is a direction.
It is the constant effort to make institutions stronger than personalities.
That is why I don't buy Rafizi's sudden assertion that his ex-boss has abandoned their party's reform agenda. It is just an excuse to form his own party after losing his No 2 post in PKR.
Before anyone decides to join Rafizi in declaring Reformasi dead, ask this simple question:
If Reformasi was always about institutions rather than individuals, why are so many discussions centred on personalities?
Why are we talking more about politicians than the institutions they were supposed to reform?
As the Malays say, jangan nampak pokok, lupa hutan.
Do not become so focused on the tree that you forget the forest.
The real test of Reformasi was never whether Rafizi succeeds or whether Anwar succeeds or whether Nik Nazmi succeeds.
The real test is whether Malaysian institutions become stronger regardless of who succeeds.
That is the Reformasi I want, Rafizi, the Reformasi that I think my country needs.
Not a Reformasi that depends on heroes but a
Reformasi that survives them.
Comments
Post a Comment