The immorality of the moral high ground-2

The morality underpinnings of writings regarding Isa's nomination come in various forms. The DAP old warhorse Lim Kit Siang viewed Isa's nomination as a contest between the country's political past and future – between the politics of corruption, injustice and oppression prevalent before March 8, 2008 and the politics of integrity, justice and freedom struggling to be born after the March 8 political tsunami.

Isa is a tainted fellow who has been convicted by the UMNO court as someone who bought votes. Suddenly what UMNO says become binding on self righteous people. That UMNO did not remit its disciplinary board's findings to official authorities such as MACC or even brought them before the courts shall forever remain a sore point. It is, not only for those outside UMNO but within UMNO itself. How do you explain this absent –mindedness on the part of UMNO?

Very likely, the findings of the disciplinary board are meant for internal discipline. The dos and don'ts it listed were meant as club rules and those who violate them, were punished in accordance to forms of punishment provided for. In Isa's case he was punished with the harshest of punishment for a politician- banished from the flock, forced to resign from all official posts. Having served the punishment, we, the moral police now want to step in and punish Isa once again? We took his flesh and now we want his blood too? To make things worse, we do that via the tortured definitions of morality. The depraved past vs. the pristine future, penny wise and pound foolish etc.

The form of punishment given to Isa is nothing other than a version of enforced sabbatical? We are more severe in our judgments- a person who has endured his punishment has no means for salvation. He is a sinner until he dies.

By doing so, what are we doing? We arrogate upon ourselves the status of the morally pristine. We consciously adopt this touch me not status that lends some semblance of religious immunity from the rational investigation normally applied to other sources of authority. The issue is what is the social impact of our 'method'? What are the grounds on which we condemn Isa Samad? The wrongs done by UMNO politicians and the punishments given them are open book see-all. We have evidence, we punish. Only with that evidence to hand can some kind of judgment - moral, political or whatever -be made.

But for those acting as moral gendarme, what do we offer? We offer some vague reference to a higher moral order. We may discover actually the grounds on which we eternally condemn Isa Samad is nothing but just an extension of our private pieties and our own version of moral celibacy. Well intention (conforms to our self interest) but not necessarily good (meant for society) intention. But strangely, in that reservoir of private piety, there isn't room for forgiveness. The punishment given by UMNO D-Board did not mean anything as it does not conform to our OWN private morality standards.

How, can the leaders of our opposition justify not condemning miscreants in their own ranks? The case of Elizabeth Wong is an example- yes we are all appalled at the intrusion of her privacy. But this person is also a contributor to her own misfortune. How can the immorality of her private life exposed, be forgiveable and tolerable because she was a victim? Admitting in private that they are appalled by these activities, while keeping silent in public, makes them complicit in all the excesses. They have a moral responsibility, to come out in the open and say these actions are wrong.

Why do you think the opposition and its supporters and their moral carabinieri restrain themselves? Because to unrestraint themselves would remove the cloak that protects their high moral ground from criticism, and this would make their own positions vulnerable.

So we the moral policemen and gendarmes confer on ourselves the audacity of religious-like built-in immunity from criticism and serious investigation of the grounds of judging Isa Samad. We guard our own private values jealously from open discussion. That's an immunity eerily borrowed from an encompassing immunity encapsulated in the mystical apophatic tradition that nothing can be known about God. In our case, the moral policemen are saying- your lot is to obey our moral precepts, not to question them. Don't question. That's dreadful!

We have to accept them because WE SAY SO without having to justify the grounds on which our judgments are made. How then are we to take the moral basis of judging Isa Samad seriously when we are prevented on knowing the grounds on which you condemn Isa?