I’ve just bought and am reading ‘Nuremberg: Evil on Trial‘, and am finding it a fascinating read. The title of the book gave me pause, as I searched the Humanities section of MPH at City Square. I found myself drawn by the arrayed books on war, but didn’t find out that caught my fancy till I saw James Owen’s book.
The title, as I said, gave me pause: the labeling of the defendants at the Nuremberg trials as “evil” had already condemned them - as they were indeed condemned by the military court fashioned out of the Four Powers. Fascinated, I took the book off the shelf and headed for the counter.
A few hours later and several pages into the bargain and I was struck by the possibility of a similar trial in Malaysia, should the “side of angels” prevail. How would such a trial look like, and what would be on trial? I only have a ‘popular’ conception of the Nuremberg trials - something James Owen’s book looks set to put right - and that conception is that humanity was on trial in Nuremberg.
Not evil, not the Nazi party, but humanity itself - the same humanity that drove men to put 6 million people who were different to death. In contrast, what would a trial of members of Malaysia’s ancien regime look like? What would it stand for? I find myself hard-pressed to come up with a reasonable answer.
I ask myself: what punishments befit men desperate to cling onto power? I mean, beyond the mundane convictions brought against such men for actions driven by ambition. These men were (and, indeed, are) in the position to cajole, deceive and frighten - and they have succeeded, by and large. Ambitions have been sated, appetites have been fulfilled. Isn’t it everybody’s aspiration to fight, win and survive?
The opposition politicians in Malaysia share these same aspirations, don’t they?
The difference, it appears, is one of platforms. The opposition attempts to seize the moral high ground by appealing to justice and a more egalitarian distribution of wealth; the government attempts to do the same by harking back to its ridiculous success. What lies between these two sides? A few good men? One can only hope.
Take the example of Khairy Jamaluddin: a maverick, all bluster, playing the race card and following in the footsteps of hot-heads who have matured into positions of power in the government. He’s been called everything from the devil to a dangerous opportunist, even by myself. Call him Machiavellian, call him a political nobody, but sit back and examine what he has achieved to date - whether on his father-in-law’s ticket or on Hishamuddin’s shoulders.
Now, just as a thought experiment, imagine a young, hot-shot opposition politician in Khairy’s shoes. Would such a politician do the very same things?
I wonder.