EDDIN KHOO: It appears to be a fractious period for the Pakatan Rakyat, with contradictions in self-political interest and ideology seemingly in collision; the question in many people’s minds is, ‘can the Pakatan Rakyat survive?’ and if so what, in real times, needs to be done, and is already being done, to truly consolidate and harness the alliance beyond mere gesture and rhetoric?

ANWAR IBRAHIM: We acknowledge that the evolution of the Pakatan Rakyat has not been swift in cementing enough of a cohesive force to meet the expectations of the general public. The issue is not whether we have failed, but that we have not yet met, the very high expectations following the last elections.

I do concede that.

We need to do more, our meetings are more regular…Pakatan leaders are meeting almost every week now…and many of the issues affecting the coalition have been acknowledged – indiscipline, the motions by some MP’s, statements by some Exco’s. This has been addressed openly in these meetings. I, of course, have been criticised for often failing to act swiftly, but I think, at this period, both Parti Keadlian Rakyat and the parties in the PR coalition will need to navigate very cautiously in meeting the challenges, which are, to meet the public’s expectations, or to deal with the general negative perception and to ensure that the coalition is harnessed.

I have been discussing these matters privately with Ustad Hadi (Awang) and (Lim) Kit Siang quite a number of times and I have stated we will have to deal with these issues in public, not only in closed meetings.

But while acknowledging that we certainly need to do more, we must also remember that there have been successes. Look at the states we’re working in – I mean, people tend to forget the fact that it is a DAP Chief Minister in Penang, which was certainly unthinkable, particularly among the Malays, over the last many years. But it is working and Guan Eng has done remarkably well in trying to garner support from among the Chinese, Indian and Malays, though I do concede we need to do more to be as effective among the Malays.

Similarly with Khalid (Ibrahim) in Selangor; the fact that you have problems from time to time over the sale of alcohol, the issue of cultural performances – I don’t share the view of the protests, especially the manner in which it was done, and I don’t think the state with all its more open policies should accept or bow down to such demands. But not withstanding that, in terms of governance, transparency, the auditor general’s report and in terms of the deliverance to the public more generally, things are certainly far better when compared to what was done in the past.

If you know the workings, discussions and deliberations in our meetings, both at the levels of the Central Committee and the Political Bureaus, clearly we also expect things to move and change. Even in Selangor, there have been complaints about the slow pace of approvals, say by the Chinese companies, but also the lack of clear, coherent policies to deal with some of the Malay concerns about public housing.

These issues are now being addressed, but how are we able to settle all the problems in one and a half years?

JASON TAN: So in your estimation the public’s perception is just perception and not mirrored in the reality that Pakatan is not able to work together?

AI: The statement ‘not able to work together’ is strong, and that is certainly not the case. When we meet to deliberate on specific issues there is consensus, even with more contentious issues like the sale of alcohol. Yes, there were statements made and these are the kinds of issues that have given credence to the negative perception of the public.

But when it comes to the crunch, a decision was taken and the decision was taken in line with Pakatan policy. The way it was highlighted by the mainstream media, however, is something beyond our control. Our advice then to our people is, knowing that why do you give avenue to the mainstream media to attack you? Now that is something we have to deal with.

If you then say it is ‘fractious’ and seemingly untenable that is not correct since we are able to deal with the issues.

EK: But you have, in the past, offered an apology and more recently Datin Seri Wan Azizah Wan Ismail has admitted that PKR is one of the weaker links in the coalition. Critics point to a lack of party discipline, instances of favouritism, strategic shortcomings such as the recent events affecting state leadership in Sabah, conflict of personalities within the party and a seeming inability to tolerate well-intentioned criticism.

Now that these have become manifest burdens for the party, how do you go about injecting greater party cohesiveness while maintaining enough of a culture of openness to ensure that the party remains vibrant and receptive to change?

AI: I have opted for a more open and tolerant manner in dealing with these issues. I don‘t think we should take disciplinary action every time there is criticism of the party or there is a statement that is contrary to the party line. We’ve been very tolerant…you know that.

Let’s take the example of the two assemblymen in Perak; in hindsight, the best thing to have done was probably to have sacked them immediately. But I thought we’d give them a chance, continue to negotiate with them, see whether they can agree. Well, finally they jumped but we knew of their intentions much earlier.

Then there was the case of the Kedah Assemblyman (from Lunas, Mohd Radzhi Salleh). We knew of his intentions at that time and I actually agreed with the Menteri Besar to call him and give him clear warning that his actions will not be tolerated. In fact 3 or 4 months before that I had already told the MB that he could drop him as an Exco. So, these are not just my decisions, they are also Pakatan decisions, and we didn’t drop him immediately because that was seen to be too disruptive at that time. Then there was the case of the Klang Assemblyman (Badrul Hisham Abdullah); I had called him up 6-7 months before giving him the final warning.

My thinking was that as a new, young party, we probably needed to allow some time for representatives to get adjusted to the new environment. Because if you take too tough a measure, you are seen to be too authoritarian, but if you take a more conciliatory approach – after all, it is all a democratic process – let them talk but eventually they would toe the line.

Now of the public perception and demand…to suggest even that we are the weaker link…we are not the weaker link but for the instances of these assemblymen jumping ship. Otherwise in some of these states the PR administration has been quite phenomenal. Not only in Selangor, but also in Penang – the position we have taken in dealing with the Malay position while supporting the state government is quite critical, to my mind. It is not a fringe role that (Deputy Chief Minister) Mansor (Othman) and the team are playing.

Then there is the question of how we accommodate our members? Look at our ability to attract new faces…professionals and ex UMNO, MCA and MIC members…into the party – these are major developments. But of course once you take them in there is inevitably also some form of resistance within the party. That happens on the one hand, then there is the need to appeal to the individuals who have just come joined the party to also realise that they have to be accepted, and not simply assume they can play a dominant role, prior to them being accepted by the rank and file of the party.

In the case of Sabah, the situation was clearly different – there was very intense lobbying and selective leakage of information. I have taken the decision not to intervene because it is a very internal issue. Time will tell and clear the air.

I have been consistently against the parochial viewpoint, be it in Sabah or Sarawak. I have been pushing hard for a multi-racial and multi-religious agenda, but that does not mean that just because of the agenda a Chinese must be the leader of PKR in Penang, or a Muslim remain the leader in Sarawak. So now we have Baru Bian – a minority Orang Ulu and a devout Christian, as the leader in Sarawak. And you think that was not an issue? It was an issue! The only difference was that the factions who disagreed did not use some parts of the media to go and attack us on that matter. There was disagreement because this was the first time…a major change in terms of having an Orang Ulu and a Christian…and there was a lot of concern about how we deal with the Malays. There were tough, strong objections but we were able to build this consensus because Granda Aing, the Bidayuh chief there, conceded and said let’s give him a chance.

In the case of Sabah, both Jeffrey (Kitingan) and Tamin (Jaini) had 14 nominations from the division leaders. Now why do I need to display this in public? I don’t need to, because the decision was to submit the names and let the President and party decide, and eventually there was a decision in the presence of all these leaders. We must stop this parochialism, this warlordism, of having people giving ultimatums about who must lead and who must not. Why do I refrain from commenting? Because Jeffery is a very important ally, and a good friend, who has committed himself to helping the party.

How, then, do you explain both men gaining a majority? Well, I then said we will have to deal with the realpolitik, particularly of Sabah. The same individuals signing two memos which were then submitted to us. But in the end my rationale is that leading figures in Sabah and Sarawak must take a more statesman like role in the state, embrace everyone and let the younger force take over, since people also want to see new faces. Sometimes when you have the old established guard, it is very difficult to get new, younger people to project themselves.

Of course we stand to be criticised – I have taken a lot of criticism both within and without, but to suggest that there is a disaster… I don’t share that at all. Well, we’ll see and I believe that finally most of the leaders, including those in Sabah, will agree. Who says that just because you are Ketua Negeri it means you automatically become the CM or MB of a negeri (state)?

JT: That’s where management of the old guard and renewal of the party are concerned. I suppose one of the things needed to renew the party is to manage the expectations of the old guard so that new people can come into the party because they see some sort of possibility of participation. But where the two Perak assemblymen were concerned, don’t you think it would have been better just to discipline them?

AI: In hindsight you may well be right, but at that time I thought that these were party stalwarts, who had been there from the beginning, and they came to me and said that their fear was that they would be imprisoned. I then asked Datuk Seri Nizar if he thought they were compromised at all by corruption and Nizar was adamant that he would defend them, that they were not in any way tarnished and that this was all a trap by the ruling establishment since both of them had nothing to do with the particular project. I then agreed and asked him what the view of the legal advisor was. I checked all of this before I came out publicly to defend them.

But these guys were of course vulnerable and very fearful. They came to my house and confessed that they simply couldn’t take the pressure and were not prepared to go to jail. They believed that once a charge had been proffered, the likelihood would be that they would be jailed. They become more fearful and we began to receive signals back and forth. But we can’t just act on rumours and the suspicion that they would jump.

Unlike the case in Klang where we came out much earlier with a statement and show cause letter, and only after he received the show cause letter did he jump.

EK: Much has to be done then in ensuring that the quality of elected representatives next time round is a lot more credible…

AI: That we have accepted and I have said numerous times that in 2008 we had difficulty getting credible candidates. I can’t absolve myself entirely of the blame, but I was more in charge of the selection of parliamentary candidates; the state representatives were decided by state leaders, but still I do take responsibility.

At the time, even in Penang, it was difficult to persuade qualified professionals to come in, they were not prepared. Of course they talked about it, became very critical, they even had the courage to speak up but to actually take that risk and enter, that was difficult.

Now things have changed and I don’t think it’s going to be an issue any longer because the number of professionals and qualified candidates coming from every division has risen in number so we can select in the process.

And at last night’s convention (in Penang) I gave a clear warning that there is no certainty that incumbents will remain if they do not perform.

EK: As problems in the coalition mount, you, personally, are being blamed for failures, just as you, personally, were lauded for the successes of March 2008. Criticism has focused on your ambition to be Prime Minister, on your lack of resolve in dealing with discord within the Pakatan coalition, on your political naivete’, even on the fact that you travel too much.

How would you wish to set the record straight?

AI: I think if you are a democrat, believe in free speech and freedom of expression, you have to accept that there will be such views expressed, and you have to be humble enough to concede that certain things have to be probably done differently. An example of this would be how we could have acted swiftly against undisciplined party leaders, because once we have been tolerant for this long we begin to see, for example, statements coming out from Sabah without regard for party discipline and constitution, and we can’t act now unless we come out adopting a very stern position and issuing a stern warning.

And my statement last night, although quite well received, also gave rise to questions – ‘do you mean to say leaders cannot be criticised?’ My reply was that there is a difference between legitimate criticism within forums, and even criticism of leaders, and things that sabotage and run contrary to the party’s policies and agenda – the multi-racial and multi-religious agenda, for example, or whether it is ‘justice for all’ or only the Malay agenda, Ketuanan Rakyat or Ketuanan Melayu. These issues should not be there and if there are those who continue to persist, then of course, they have chosen the wrong party. That has been clarified as far as I am concerned.

EK: It appears that you have to intervene in any single issue?

AI: When it becomes a problem then it comes back to me, which is quite unfortunate, because in decisions involving state leadership, I can’t say I don’t have a say, but certainly in some decisions other leaders have their own views too, and we have gone along with them. Some are very controversial, putting Saifuddin (Nasution) back to Kelantan, for example, when he was also National Director of Elections. There were concerns because we wanted to ensure that our representation in Kelantan was more effective.

But the point I want to make is, after 11 and 12 years the party must move on and must be prepared to inject new blood. Once you do that there is bound to be resistance, particularly if the old guard have some influence over money and connections with a few bloggers. Then, as far as they are concerned, the party can only take a certain line or position.

To suggest, just because I choose a Muslim to represent Sabah, that I am anti-Christian is clearly absurd. I went ahead and took a major risk, affecting even my own Malay constituency…and don’t tell me the Penang Malays are not aware of what happened in Sarawak…when I appointed Baru Bian, for example. These are things to consider…

But otherwise I think we simply have to move on, to inject new blood but again not at the expense of the old because the old too have their role to play, but it is easier said than done, there will be resistance, there will be problems. In so far as PKR is concerned we will have to show that we are gaining strength and support…and we actually have.

JT: So you do believe that from where you sit the public perception is still that of a Pakatan as a vibrant, viable coalition, and that it’s just a problem of management?

AI: The public are critical actually because they don’t want such negative noise.

What is most important is that the party leadership of Keadilan – and the Pakatan leadership – speaks in one voice. And thus far I have to say we have been consistent…we have certainly been far better than the BN.

The rank and file, however, sometimes they say things… And what do you do every time there are such explosions? The party has to discipline them. Should we sack or remove them? I am not particularly keen on sacking because we also have to allow for people in the various constituencies to feel and express themselves. That is fine as long as they eventually toe the line. We have to advise them on that. But if, for example, the statements coming from myself, Kit Siang, or Ustad Hadi, were contradictory, now that would be something to really worry about.

But that is not the case.

EK: Let’s focus on the political context as it is now.

There was once a middle ground commanded by you that now appears to be taken over, not even by the BN, but by Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak personally. Domestically, and internationally, he is being lauded for taking serious steps in liberalizing the Malaysian economy. He is viewed as conciliatory and serious in his efforts at achieving a 1 Malaysia, and his ratings are on the rise. There is a view now that you and the Pakatan coalition may have underestimated him.

Would you agree with that?

AI: I don’t believe we underestimated him; we monitor these developments very closely and do acknowledge that some of his public pronouncements are generally positive. In fact, there were several financial analysts who were telling me that they have adopted a part of our agenda, notwithstanding that these are regarded to be positive.

He has avoided saying anything that might be deemed contentious, and has taken a very populist line. But so did Mahathir in 1981 and Abdullah in 2004. The difference being that they (Mahathir and Abdullah) had the whole BN machinery with them while Najib only has himself. While his pronouncements may be well received, when it comes to enforcement and execution of policies it is there are clear contradictions – while he talks about 1 Malaysia, the judiciary, the police or the MACC, it is all far worse than before.

It is just a matter of time. I don’t think it will take years, just months, for people to then start looking at things.

The strategy that (Datuk Seri) Najib has opted for to present himself in a more conciliatory tone, be very tolerant, accommodative and announce whatever popular policies that need to be articulated but leave the rest of the work to the other institutions. So for the first few weeks or months, people can be lulled but once they start looking – at the programmes, leakages, endemic corruption, high instances of crime, the judiciary, the public will see it is certainly not commensurate with the lofty platitudes.

In politics, governance or in any battle, you should never underestimate your enemy or foe, and I don’t…

So he has employed the international public relations company – APCO. He has managed to persuade his defence minister to meet with Ehud Barak, to then present to the international Western powers that he is very tolerant, but at the same time, proceeding with the campaign that Anwar is a lackey of the Chinese and Jews. But are people so gullible? Yes, at times; but so plainly stupid as not to be able to understand? I don’t believe so. What really is the difference between now and before? The pious platitudes continue; after every PM the same thing, but has anything changed? No.

Also, the difference now as compared to the time of Mahathir and Abdullah, both of whom had personal appeal at that time, but with the entire BN machinery behind them. Now Najib has this personal appeal temporarily, but it is without the machinery, and that will not last.

JT: So you think public perception now which appears to favour Najib will then shift again…

AI: Well, I’m not sure about the public perception… But for Bagan Pinang, which should not be used as the main criteria… I don’t believe it can last.

His is a two pronged strategy – one, to present the public persona of someone who is very reform minded but then to also use the media – the UMNO and BN media in particular – and instruments of government – the police and the MACC – to go after the opposition. I think in the first few months the opposition seemed slightly fractured but I think we have already gone to surgery, repaired, and think we are now ready for battle.

I, in fact, launched that last night in Penang, and I think this meeting of the PR (in December) is critical because now rather than being just defensive, we have to move on.

Look at the reply given on the V.K Lingam case? Has anything changed? Nothing has changed! And you mean to say people have forgotten this? No. What was the initial statement? Yes, we will punish the corrupt irrespective of who they are. Then the V.K Lingam case pops up and it is covered up again.

So it’s just a matter of time… I believe in a matter of weeks, things will change.

EK: It appears that trust in the Pakatan coalition took a serious hammering when it was revealed that partners – and leading figures at that – in your coalition were making deals with the BN just the day after their best electoral showing in history, demonstrating contempt for the mandate given to them by the voters.

From an observation of the political tone at present it would seem that the people now have little time for the ‘politics of hope’ and demand, instead, delivery. In this, there appears to be a growing sense that, again, not the BN, but Datuk Seri Najib can deliver and you can’t.

Would you agree with such an assessment?

JT: And there is the compounded fact that, following these clandestine negotiations, perhaps the public no longer see a difference between PR and BN?

AI: Clearly there were some elements within PAS that have now publicly acknowledged the fact that they were having secret negotiations with UMNO after the March 08 elections. I am not here to defend these excesses but I was in communication with Ustad Hadi when I heard this, and when it came to the crunch I said this, “we are nominating Khalid (Ibrahim) as the MB, and he, without hesitation, said, ‘Anwar, my commitment stands’.” I replied that is that was the case he would have to fax a letter confirming that immediately. So while there were these smaller minority factions trying to manoeuvre, it was not the party’s position.

Then there was a discussion about this so-called unity government.

I was not supportive, and am in fact opposed to this line of a ‘Malay unity government’ because it runs contrary to what we have expounded all these years. But their rationale was that there was a strong feeling of insecurity among the Malays because some of the Chinese were becoming too vocal and demanding, and they believed it would steer away from what they considered ‘the social contract’ in this country. But here again, when the matter was brought up for further deliberations within the Pakatan Rakyat, Hadi himself said that if this is the position we are taking then it is no longer relevant to talk about the line with UMNO.

So I think to use this episode against the PR is not fair because it is a position taken only by a minority faction within PAS, that is now past.

JT: But it was serious enough for them to pursue with it, and serious enough for Nik Aziz to call an EGM…

EK: And of course, the negotiators were prominent personalities, not just state assemblymen from a little place…

AI: Yes, yes! And (Tuan Guru) Nik Aziz has taken a very clear position. He asked me, for example, whether I had any grounds to believe there was a betrayal, on the part of any one of the partners – PAS, Keadilan or DAP – whether the DAP had worked relentlessly to support our candidates, not just in the elections of March 08 but in all the subsequent by elections.

I assured him that though we might have skirmishes on the ground sometime, the commitment of the party and its leaders, and the support shown in these by-elections was remarkable. And so he took that position, very clearly, and as a religious scholar, that this is the position that we must have in order to honour the contract. That has, in a way, helped to cement relations further, but should PR be punished because of such instances? I would say it’s not fair to punish the PR in its entirety because we remain consistent in our agenda and have never shirked from that.

I am not saying there were not attempts earlier… even when I was released there was talk that there was a possibility that Anwar was negotiating or meeting up with, or rejoining UMNO, but I said consistently that my position stands, and so it is with PAS. That episode is now over and it is a major lesson for us, but of course it has since been highlighted by the UMNO media that there is further dissension within PAS and that is affecting the PR. If the people eventually say they want to give (Datuk Seri) Najib a chance, and he can deliver, then ‘ok’. That is why we have always taken the position that if there are positive developments and policies, whether under the government of Abdullah or now Najib, we will endorse.

But here we are talking mainly about the failure to redeem and strengthen the institutions of governance; that nothing has been done – look at the judiciary, police, enforcement agencies…there has been nothing.

Even economic policies – other than Iskandar and a few adjustments here and there, there is no real preparedness to undertake a reform program, it is just couched and crafted in a more palatable manner. They say they can deliver; I have strong reasons to doubt that, but whether the people will now give him the slight edge temporarily, perhaps. Because there is this huge propaganda machinery behind him and unlike Abdullah Najib has vast, unlimited resources at his, and the party’s, disposal.

JT: But resources aside, you’re talking about institutional reform; how prepared is Pakatan to take over and conduct that reform compared to BN?

AI: We came in on that agenda and I reiterate there is no turning back…

JT: Can you deliver?

AI: Well, we have to deliver!

What is so difficult in ensuring a judiciary that is independent, a police force that is more professional and credible? What is the problem weeding out corrupt leaders and getting more credible people in leadership? What is the problem in having an AG that is professional? What is the problem of shifting economic policies since we have done it previously? I am Malay and I still believe that my political future rests on having substantial Malay support, but I still have to articulate the position of a New Economic Agenda that shifts from the NEP as a policy…as a clear policy…that is not done at the expense of the poor, the majority of the Malays and indigenous people.

I think if this is clearly explained, there would be no problem in shifting the direction.

JT: It’s a question of management that is then also related to reform within PR and PKR itself. The critic would then contend – if you can’t even manage your own party, how are you going to control the Federal Government?

AI: It is a very strong statement to say that we are not able to manage ourselves. The party is a decade old, it’s grown phenomenally and yes we have some problems with discipline but why target Pakatan alone? UMNO presidents have come and gone – Tengku Abdul Rahman left UMNO, Tun Hussein Onn left UMNO, many other leaders have left UMNO, including UMNO presidents; two PAS Presidents left PAS…at least in Parti Keadilan Rakyat the President has not left!

But am I giving excuses? No. I am just stating the fact that this is a protracted battle; it is about being under siege all the time, becoming poorer, it is a very dangerous line to take – people either survive or go to jail. It is something I, and many others, have to endure. Some have the strength to stay on and some don’t.

Why was I not so hard against the two Perak Exco in Perak? Were they wrong? Yes. Were they treacherous in their actions? Yes. But their choice was either to join UMNO or go to jail – that was in their minds. Can they be excused? No. But do I have the heart to go and condemn them? Well, I did in terms of their actions but I avoided a personal, vicious attack against them. These are inexcusable actions but if you put them in this position, any person…I mean this system, this corrupt, repressive system, it is not whether you keep a job or you leave, it is a choice of going to jail or supporting them.

That is the perception – I have seen some of the bloggers say ‘why is Anwar enjoying a stint overseas?’ ‘Why is he now less rancorous in his exchange?’ Is it because he fears for the case? My reply is, my international networking is important. I was in Cairo for the International Conference of Liberal International, which is a very important conference, to present a Muslim viewpoint to the liberals in the world who had chosen Cairo of all places to talk about liberal ideas.

Why was I in Bombay? This was a major conference on Islam and peace. And these travels are just for one day – one day in Cairo, one day in Bombay, otherwise I am here in parliament and anyone looking at my schedule will know I sometimes travel the entire country in two weeks…

EK: The administration of Pakatan states has not been without its successes – Penang was recently lauded by the Auditor-General’s report for its fiscal prudence. Penang, Selangor and Perak, while it was governed by the Pakatan, saw an increase in FDI. Yet, even your successes appear to be undermined by individuals within your own coalition. As the Menteri Besar of Selangor’s approval ratings rose, he was dragged into a broil on the sale of alcohol in that state.

It could be said that if March 08 has proved anything at all, it is that the citizenry have far superseded their politicians in terms of political maturity.

How would you respond to that remark? Is that a good thing?

AI: Well, it is certainly a good thing, but here too it is not really a matter of the public superseding the politicians, but their expectations and the assumption that everything is equal and that there is a level playing field. If it is within the BN experience, my past experience let’s say, that case of the sale of alcohol, it would be a minor matter and we would have immediately erased it and it would be covered. But in the case of the PR, where the media is so visibly hostile and federal agencies are there to block every single move, it is not as simple. To appoint a state religious department head in Penang, for example, after almost 2 years we are still not able to do that.

What then of the allocation of funds? The Syariah court? With regards my case, even after one year, they have refused to take it up, but cases are taken up promptly with Kartini, Asri… So there are great contradictions and huge hypocrisy.

JT: This is an introspective and personal question – do you think you would make a better PM now than if you had inherited the position all those years ago?

AI: I have no regrets and I think the Lord, in all His divine wisdom, has probably planned as such. It is probably better because, had I become PM under that establishment, and we are talking about a system that is patently corrupt and getting worse, decadent…

JT: But didn’t you realise it at that time?

AI: I realised it but there was lots of resistance, to my plans for strong anti-corruption legislation, and some of my statements ran contrary to many of the practices at that time. From something as minor as my dispute with Samy Vellu on his “act of God” remark where I responded, “yes, always blame God” to the issue of judiciary; I remember speaking at a gathering once where Eusoff Chin walked out and refused to attend my tea reception because I had quoted a popular saying of the time that “sometimes you don’t need to know the law, you just need to know the judge”.

These were instances, but of course I still would have functioned within that system, probably half the cabinet would be the same faces and so I think it is certainly a better option now because it is a clean slate and the country after half a century really needs this change…

JT: And you still wish to become PM?

AI: That would be left to the Malaysians to decide (laughs).