Nizam Ismail saga – the good, the bad and the ugly

The Good

Such a controversy draws again attention to the age-old debate on the relationship that exists between the State and civil or civic society. AMP occupies a unique place in that it is between . AMP originally started out as a civil society organisation in the 1990s, but morphed into a civic society group after the Collective Leadership Proposal (CLP) debacle of 2000 where the State clamped down on AMP and its members. Yet at the same time, the historical urge to provide intellectual leadership for the community had not gone either, and it peaked once again with the Nizam-against-the-State saga, and AMP caught in between it.

AMP, like many other civic society organisations, receives a bulk of its funding from the Government. This has made a huge difference in the lives of many households, especially those in the lower strata of the community. The alleged threat of withdrawing funds is a serious one because it could impact the relevance of AMP and the work it does for the community. AMP is thus caught between a rock and a hard place. The crux of the matter is this: the State decides on the sort of discourse deemed acceptable in the existing relationship between the State and civil or civic society, and it is accountable for how public funds are used. As noted by the Minister in-charge of Muslim Affairs, Dr Yaacob Ibrahim, the Government considers AMP first and foremost a self-help group like Mendaki in that AMP’s utmost priority should be towards resolving the social and educational issues of the community. Being described as such, money that is given to AMP, similar to other Malay/Muslim Organisations (MMOs), is strictly meant to uplift the community, and not to be used for the purpose of partisan politics [1]. Despite the fact that Nizam has clarified that he was involved in political activities in his personal capacity, and that AMP knew about it, it is telling that it made no difference in the eyes of the Government.

The episode has also generated debate on social media, including from some members of the Malay/Muslim community who are apparently frustrated with the Malay political leadership. This is evident at the ‘Suara Melayu Singapura’ Facebook group where there are calls for the setting up of an independent collective entity to provide an alternative intellectual leadership for the community. Incidentally, Nizam in Urdu/Arabic means ‘a leader of repute’. The litmus test for Nizam, as borne out by this saga, is whether he can provide that independent thought leadership for those who may look to him for intellectual inspiration.

The Bad

It is not far-fetched to suggest that Nizam’s presence at a Workers’ Party (WP) Youth Forum where he shared the same speaking platform with two known card-carrying members of the WP could have been that very proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back. Nizam should have expected something like this to happen not least because according to him, the Government had in the past cut the funding of AMP’s programmes in the wake of the CLP and more recently, the threat of funding cuts were also made in response to ComFor which was perceived to be a threat to the government-sanctioned Community Leadership Forum (CLF) [2]. Nizam thus made a strategic miscalculation: had he been an independent critic of the State by avoiding party-political platforms, and being more circumspect in his postings on the social media, he could well have continued to be a fervent critic while being on the AMP and RIMA Boards. If indeed however Nizam was aware that something like this was bound to happen, and he was merely waiting for it to happen to prove a point, he could well be described as a political opportunist. Indeed, some comments on social media though not in abundance, do believe that Nizam’s decision to ‘go public’ smacks of a self-seeking carpet-bagger.

The reality is that Nizam had a choice in handling the situation in a more tactful manner. He could have sorted out all matters with AMP behind closed doors. He could then have resumed his partisan political activities as an ardent critic of the State. Instead, he decided to go as public as one can imagine, which invariably dragged the good name of AMP, including that of its Chairman, Mr Azmoon Ahmad, through the mud. To be sure, Azmoon, in an interview with the Malay Berita Harian newspaper, gave a glowing tribute to Nizam and his manifold contributions to AMP/RIMA.

The Ugly

The Government could well treat this incident as an isolated case, but it could resort to clamping down further on critics, and in doing so, further narrow the limited space which has  been opening up for domestic political discourse.

MMOs may also undertake an even more cautious approach in appointing members onto their Executive Boards; and so if there is even a slight hint that there may be a member who is a critic of the State, the organisation in question may err on the side of caution.

This incident has shone both a positive and negative light on the Malay/Muslim community. At the positive end, it has shown that there are public intellectuals from a minority ethnic community who are willing to speak out against the State. On the negative side, it may reinforce the perception of some, largely by those outside the community, that the Malay/Muslims are a problematic lot with multiple unresolved issues. It may also reinforce the perception, at least in the eyes of the Government, of the Malay/Muslim community as a whole being unappreciative of what it has done for them. Let us be honest here: MMOs, including AMP, still depend a whole lot on the Government for the funding of their niche programmes. Until and unless the system of ethnic self-help radically alters, or MMOs are able to be financially independent of the State in that they can secure private-sector funding for their activities on a sustainable basis, the truth is that they have to work within the existing system and abide by its rules even if there are those who do not agree with it.

One should also not discount the fact that there are those within the Malay/Muslim community who do not side with Nizam. They may feel that there is still value in working within the system, and not outside of or against it. The caveat here is that while Nizam believes there had been interference by the powers-that-be, the Government has thus far strenuously denied any form of interference in the internal affairs of AMP. This controversial episode shows no sign of stopping, and so, the Sandiwara (drama) continues.

Author’s note:

The rationale for penning down my thoughts is to present a more balanced perspective of this controversy. This article hopes for Singaporeans to make their own informed opinions about this saga. If anything, this incident has given us Singaporeans something important to ruminate over - the relationship between the State and civic or civil society - irrespective of whether you agree, disagree or take a neutral position on this controversy.

---------------------

Notes:

[1]: Yaacob: Pemerintah tidak campur urusan dalaman badan Melayu.

[2]: The Politics of Being Dominant and Dominating.

----------------------