Of Syed Saddiq, hate, and consistency

THIS article is neither very strongly pro-Syed Saddiq, nor is it very strongly anti-Syed Saddiq.

I guess that will instantly put off many readers, which I suppose is partly what the article is going to be about.

I was a little surprised and disheartened to see the vitriol and glee with which many netizens seem to have “welcomed” the sentence involving not only jail time, but caning last week.

Some seemed to be practically laughing and rubbing their hands with joy at the prospect of this young man being subject to physical abuse.

Muar MP Syed Saddiq Syed Abdul Rahman has been an absolute magnet for all kinds of hate and derision. This was true even before he withdrew support for the current government, and became tenfold worse after that withdrawal of support.

I’ve seen many people in Pakatan Harapan, some of them old friends, attack Syed Saddiq with the kind of intense hate and anger, that they previously used to only target Barisan Nasional.

The tone and words used remind me of what fellow columnist Philip Golingai memorably described to me as the politics of hate.

It’s quite saddening. I understand the need for political conflict. I understand that sometimes allies become opponents. But I cannot say I truly understand any real need for us to descend into such orgies of hate – to the point of even taking delight in the inflicting of physical pain.

I imagine Syed Saddiq has made some mistakes, maybe even done some bad things in his life, like any of the rest of us. But has he done anything to deserve this kind of treatment? I barely see rapists or murderers being hated on so much.

Speaking of Syed Saddiq’s mistakes, it may be worth examining more closely some of the details involved in the case.

(For one, investigations against the lawmaker began in June 2020 after a police report was lodged, and he was charged in 2021 – when the Perikatan Nasional government was in power.)

There was a very helpful thread by lawyer Goh Cia Yee which offered a brief and readable summary of the charges which Syed Saddiq was convicted on: https://twitter.com/gohciayee/status/1722515665666646359

One interesting takeaway from this thread was that Syed Saddiq was convicted of aiding and abetting another individual in criminal breach of trust, but that individual himself was never charged.

Surely this is somewhat irregular? It’s like charging someone for assisting in a robbery, but not charging the robber himself.

The wider question of course is whether there is selective persecution involved, and the even wider question is some may be tempted to ask is: is the judiciary acting completely independently?

It is obviously not within the scope of this article to answer these questions conclusively.

We can however point out here that the Syed Saddiq case will undoubtedly raise many questions and points to ponder.

The most obvious comparisons are the recent high-profiled corruption cases which were discharged.

My impression is that many of these cases involve the various many ways that money is moved around in politics, by politicians.

If I had to hazard a guess, I would say a very large number of politicians move money around in ways that would confuse a layman, and would provide a lot of material for speculation by lawyers regarding legality.

Needless to say, some of these politicians are investigated, charged, and convicted; some go through only some of the above; and some never experience any of the above.

Some are convicted with very light sentences, while others get caned.

Let us consider a hypothetical situation where every politician that supports the government seem to escape conviction, whereas every politician that does not support the government is convicted.

Even in this hypothetical situation, a truly objective analysis must admit that this alone does not ‘prove’ that the government is ‘interfering’ or directly or indirectly influencing the judiciary. We must admit the possibility that maybe every anti-government politician is simply corrupt, and every pro-government politician is clean.

This is, on the one hand, technically a possibility that any objective person must admit.

On the other hand, we would do well to consider what public perception on a situation like this would be.

If the vast majority of pro-government politicians somehow escape conviction, while the vast majority of anti-government politicians seem to get convicted, then anyone who like me works in the field of managing public perception must surely conclude that at the very, very least, a large number of eyebrows are going to be raised.

And of course, we should be able to give credit where it is due with regards to Syed Saddiq’s decision to step down as President of Muda.

While this was much easier for him to do than for other presidents of other political parties (because of the difference in the amount of power and resources those different presidents wield), this is nonetheless an unprecedented and morally laudable step.

Did Syed Saddiq commit a crime?

This is a question that only legal experts can answer. I most certainly do not fall into that category.

Did Syed Saddiq get the “justice” he deserved?

In the court of public opinion (or at least the court of public opinion that is not overly coloured by political tribalism), Syed Saddiq’s fate will be invariably compared to his peers – in this case, this means other politicians who have what might be considered questionable dealings where the movement of money was concerned.

One key question now for the government may be how to address public sentiment that Syed Saddiq was targeted, bullied, and convicted merely because he had withdrawn his support for the government.

NATHANIEL TAN is strategic communications consultant. He can be reached at [e-mail]. The views expressed here are solely his own.