Cynical use of genuine outrage

Raising their voices: The Zara Qairina advocacy movement is driven by genuine public anger over institutional failures. – Filepic/The Star

“WHAT is the political impact of the Zara Qairina Mahathir case?” is the question I’ve been asked most frequently in the last few days.

It has been 38 days since 13-year-old Zara Qairina’s death on July 17, and the case refuses to be buried. It has taken on a life of its own, with a growing advocacy movement fighting for accountability and justice, while fake news fuels public outrage.

To answer this question, we must analyse the situation on two distinct levels:

> The upcoming Sabah elections, as Zara Qairina died in a religious school in Papar, about an hour’s drive from Kota Kinabalu.

> National politics, focusing on Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s Madani government.

Sabah’s state assembly will automatically dissolve on Nov 11; polls can be called anytime between now and then.

It is not a presidential election. There will be 73 state seats up for grabs. Each seat has its own unique localised issues. I don’t think the rakyat will be voting based only on a single issue like #Justice4Zara. For example, in Moyog, the seat where I vote, one of the issues will be the perennial flooding in this constituency adjacent to Sabah’s capital.

Through my on the ground statewide visits over the last few months to speak to voters, I’ve found that the candidate is more important than his or her party or even the issues. Sabah voters, especially in rural areas, seem to prefer a politician whom they trust will deliver. The word used by a top Sabahan politician in power is “rakyat mahu di santuni” (the people want to be helped; “santuni” is used here in the context of supporting or caring for people in need).

I use the term Santa Claus to describe these politicians. They win or maintain public support by generously giving aid to their constituents. I like to use the jailed Datuk Peter Anthony, who was the Melalap assemblyman before he was found guilty of falsifying documents, as an example. If Peter Anthony can contest his Melalap seat from jail, he will win it, I’d say of the founder of Parti Kesejahteraan Demokratik Masyarakat (KDM). Some call him Robin Hood despite the guilty verdict.

I predict that once the Sabah State Legislative Assembly is dissolved, the Zara Qairina case will be escalated. Politicians and parties will weaponise the teenager’s death to eliminate their political enemies and seize power. They will specifically target a VVIP, propagating the narrative that the case was closed quickly due to his family’s involvement, and will turn the state election into a referendum on him.

Ignorant citizens online – there are some on social media who failed their SPM but can talk like lawyers – and political cybertroopers are perpetuating the impression that a VVIP is involved.

For example, Datuk Ram Singh, who is representing one of the five teenagers accused of bullying Zara Qairina, is rumoured to have been paid by a VVIP. The simplistic argument is that only the rich and powerful can afford such a high-flying lawyer. Ram Singh, however, told the media that he is providing his services pro bono, and his client is not the child of a VVIP.

Ignorant netizens also say the names of the teenagers charged with bullying have not been revealed to protect the identity of VVIP parents. These cleverer- than-lawyers commenters do not seem to know that the law is very clear about protecting the identity of any child charged with a crime: The Child Act 2001 protects all children (victims, witnesses, accused persons) and does not allow the photographs or names of children charged in court to be disclosed to the public in news reports.

The ignorance of netizens who act like seasoned journalists could perhaps be forgiven, especially those who aren’t malicious. But there are political cybertroopers out there bent on framing the case to look like it involves a VVIP. They need the politics of hate so their political masters can regain power in Sabah.

On the national level, those pushing for “Turun Anwar” (Step Down Anwar) are also using the Zara Qairina case to undermine the Prime Minister by targeting two of his PKR ministers: Home Minister Datuk Seri Saifuddin Nasution Ismail and Education Minister Fadhlina Sidek. It is a simple tactic to attack them, as their ministries are currently suffering a trust deficit.

The public has low confidence in their handling of the case. Fadhlina, in particular, is becoming a lightning rod for public anger and criticism over the ministry’s perceived mishandling of the matter.

Do these politicians really care about the death of Zara Qairina? Or are they using the advocacy movement to get back into power?

This question reminds me of the Timah whisky case in 2021, when the brand’s name was criticised for resembling a Muslim name. Do you remember which party politicised it? Most people would say PAS. But it wasn’t. The issue was created by a progressive party, then in Opposition, aiming to put the Islamist party on the defensive as it was part of then prime minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin’s government.

The same with the issue of non-Muslims using the word “Allah”. It was used by a political party to enrage Christians against the government of the day.

The Zara Qairina advocacy movement is driven by genuine public anger over institutional failures. However, politicians are exploiting this outrage, using it as a means to seize power.

Politicians, however, should remember that they were booed when they tried to speak during a #Justice4Zara rally in Kota Kinabalu recently.