Will Top Gun be shot down by friendly fire?

I’m going to be unpopular with this one, wakakaka!

TMI - Air force pilot pays the price for speaking up

When Maj Zaidi Ahmad lodged a police report after the indelible ink on his finger washed off only hours after voting in the 13th general election last year, the Royal Malaysian Air Force (RMAF) pilot did not expect to face a court martial and up to at least two years in jail.

He is facing a military court on multiple charges of violating Malaysian Armed Forces Council orders, making statements to the media without the Defence Ministry's authorisation, and sending two text messages which were deemed political in nature.

The 45-year-old jet pilot, who has served the air force for 25 years, was shocked that he has landed in trouble instead of the supplier of the ink and the Election Commission facing the music.

“I knew there would be repercussions but I was surprised that the supplier and EC got away just like that while I am the one in trouble,” Zaidi told The Malaysian Insider in an email interview.

I'm going to look at above from two perspectives, the political and mainly the apolitical military, and will base my reasoning specifically on Major Zaidi's statements as have been reported in the media.

Please note the stress on military as APOLITICAL which means ‘not involved or interested in politics’, the very opposite meaning of ‘being political’.

In a democracy, especially of the Westminster or western type, the civil service and military are strictly apolitical. The individual civil servant (including a policeman) and military personnel may of course vote in a general or state election as his/her due rights as a citizen but may NOT participate actively in politics nor campaign for any political party. I appreciate there have been significant lapses in the observation of this apolitical rule in Malaysia but these don't hide nor diminish the set apolitical ideology especially of our military.

Pranab Mukherjee is the 13th (current) President of India

I am however not very clear whether a civil servant can be a member of a political party of, say, UMNO wakakaka, but a military personnel certainly cannot.

Years ago when I was in Indonesia, my Indonesian friends lamented that their military, unlike Malaysia's, not only wanted to participate in politics but to enjoy a special position in their equivalent of the Dewan Rakyat, like having a reserved un-elected 20% block (one-fifth) of the total parliamentary seats exclusively for military members as nominated by the military authorities. The unusual inclusion of the un-elected military in its ‘parliament’ started with Sukarno and continued with (even enhanced by) Suharto.

One of the arguments I heard from some military officers was that the soldiers were the ones (specifically the Angkatan 45) who fought against the Dutch for independence, therefore the soldiers should have a permanent and significant say in the administration of the nation which they had brought about due to their armed and sacrificial struggles, and not just surrender the entire national decision-making to those civilians who only stood on the side watching their struggles.

While I could understand their argument on the basis of their historical struggle for independence and even sympathize with it, I didn't and still don’t support such an approach because that wouldn't be democracy, as it’s a narrow-minded approach which would/will adversely affect the future of their nation and future Indonesians.

However, in late 2004 the Indon military were finally excluded from participation in politics in a revamp of the nation's political structure.

Now, why should the military in a democracy be apolitical (note not ‘political’)?

Rather than provide a long winded explanation, I suggest we look at our neighbour Thailand where the Army, the real political power in that country, can and has on several occasions deposed elected governments to install one they preferred whenever they had felt like doing so ….. as may possibly happen to sweetie Yingluck’s government.

there's something so yummy about a woman in uniform

Would you like that to happen here?

Surely not! So stop politicizing our armed forces or condoning the political participation of their personnel (regardless of which side of politics they may desire to be aligned to) or making military issues into political ones unless there’s clear cut lawless abuse of any individual. And we’ll come to that shortly.

Back at home but some 45 years ago, immediately after the tragic May 13 riots, it was said that the then-DPM, Tun Razak, (but effectively the PM after elbowing poor Tunku aside) thought of imposing military rule as a means to postpone resumption of parliament.

But fortuitously for all of us, Lt General Hamid, then the Chief of General Staff (CGS), an earlier British-style (and more euphemistic) title for Chief of Army, advised Razak against that, for fear that the military (his military) after having had a taste of ruling the country and the power that went with it, might not want to vacate its position of rule when the time for it to do so, as in the eventual resumption of parliament.

That was an exemplary example of the superior standard a Malaysian military man then possessed, understanding and recognizing the supremacy of civilian rule in a Westminster style democracy, and the military’s need to be completely apolitical.

People like the previous Defence Minister (and current Home Minister) with his lamentable mentality wouldn't be considered fit to serve Lt General Hamid as a batman.

Okay, let’s return to Major Zaidi who was reported by TMI as saying “I knew there would be repercussions but I was surprised that the supplier and EC got away just like that while I am the one in trouble.”

Let’s leave aside for a moment his quite correct observation that ‘the supplier and EC got away just like that’ regarding the highly delible indelible ink, and the serial bullshit that the EC peddled out unashamedly as excuses.

Let’s examine his “I knew there would be repercussions” vis-a-vis violating Malaysian Armed Forces Council Instructions or Orders, such as making statements to the media without the Defence Ministry's authorization, and sending two text messages which were deemed political in nature.

Which military officer, past and present, dares to say he/she isn't/wasn't aware of firstly, the apolitical requirements demanded of a military officer, and secondly, the Armed Forces Council Instructions (AFCI), specifically about making unauthorized statements to the media or making political statements (or messages by whichever media means)?

In fact, Major Zaidi himself hasn't denied so, as may be seen by his own admission that his actions would bring about ‘repercussions’.

This means he knew what would be in store for him for his unauthorized actions. It was only his expectations that he won’t be treated so severely (eg. being subjected to a court martial).

Maybe he had expected just a reprimand and a light tap on his wrist for being ‘naughty’ or at worst, a loss in seniority, which by itself is a severe career-affecting punishment. Well, with the advantage of hindsight we could say his expectations were wrong!

So knowing he would face 'repercussions', he now claims he has been shocked with the court martial charges? But then, whatever his expectations or unrealistic hopes might have been, surely as a military man, hadn't he considered that a court martial could be a possibility for those actions he undertook which allegedly have been against AFCI?

Is he arguing he should be exempted because the EC didn't face any punishment?

Maybe he is, who knows?

But then, unlike him a military officer, the EC isn't a military organization, and wasn't/isn't subordinated to the AFCI, nor is it prevented from making statements to the press.

Yes, the failure of the EC's so-called indelible ink has been a black mark on its performance, but OTOH the alleged failure of Major Zaidi as a military man to observe the AFCI, only if proven in the court martial, would have been a direct breach/violation of clearly defined military conduct and discipline.

Some peculiarities in the military may be seen in its laws on ‘desertion’. A military deserter if so found guilty (of desertion) by a court martial can go to prison on long sentences, unlike a civilian ‘deserter’ from his/her job who would get either the sack or be sued for breach of working contract [and if unable to pay up, presumably to declare bankrupt and no imprisonment will be involved].

Another extreme form of military law relates to both cowardice and refusal to obey operational orders during wartime in the field, where the offender may even be summarily executed by the officer in charge.

Hence a military person is subjected to laws and disciplines very unlike those normally for civilians. Thus we should be aware of this, and be less emotional or political, and not automatically accuse the military authorities for being politically vindictive in charging Major Zaidi for allegedly violating AFCI in making alleged unauthorized media statements or sending messages via sms allegedly of a political nature.

The AFCI have been in existence for years since the early days of the Armed Forces, and there have been personnel before Major Zaidi who were charged for violating some of those Instructions. So is Major Zaidi been vindictively charged under some recently created* military laws and rules specifically for a supposedly political-malicious purpose?

* there is irony in this phrase 'recently created' as we'll discover when we come soon to the PKR-linked NGO Pahlawan.

Additionally, Major Zaidi has only been charged and yet to be found guilty. The laws say an accused is deemed to be innocent until proven guilty. It may well be that the court martial may eventually find him not guilty of most if not all of the charges. Let's hope for that!

Now, why have I been prepared to be highly unpopular with this posting wakakaka, which you may observe hasn't been all that sympathetic with Major Zaidi, not that I dare claim he'll be found guilty of all charges. As a matter of fact, I don't know, for example, what he sent in his sms other than what I've read in the news, let alone what will be the outcome of his court martial!

As stated 2 paragraphs above, he has only been charged and yet to be found guilty, and it may well be that the court martial may eventually find him not guilty of most if not all of the charges.

I'm only posting this against the increasing politicization of the issue which I fear may prove to be counter productive to Major Zaidi in the current major challenge he's now facing.

In recent years, there has arisen an unhealthy political doctrine of ‘either you’re with us or against us’ within Pakatan as well as BN (both politicians and supporters), where the actions of one would be attacked regardless of their correctness or value for the nation and variations of this - read my previous post Faustian-ish?

I don't like this one wee bit and will speak out against the lamentable blind-as-bat Myrmidon-istic Bush-ism our politics have been dastardly infected with!

I would venture to say Major Zaidi might have been a wee naive to believe he would just get a light tap on his wrist for his alleged un-military and alleged political actions just because he saw the EC was not punished for its pissed poor performance regarding the ink in the last general elections. He has wrongly compared his military apple-ness to the EC's civilian orangey status.

IMHO, I reckon the best defence he can rely upon is to prove that his sms messages were NOT political in nature, and that's something he has to do since he is a military officer and there's no excuse for being political.

But I wonder how he is going to circumvent his alleged unauthorized statements to the media which he allegedly made publicly in front of a police station after he lodged his complaint about the delibility of the indelible EC ink.

I suspect he might have gotten away with only making the police report about the EC ink and NOT the unauthorized media statements. IMHO, the latter might have been too much of an in-your-face two-fingers salute to the military authorities.

I also don’t believe it’s helpful to Major Zaidi’s cause for the PKR-linked NGO Pahlawan to make too much noise in his defence, and unwittingly turning his case into one where he may be unfortunately identified with one side of politics, when he has already claimed he isn't aligned to any side other than that of Allah swt.

And I am amazed that Pahlawan could bring itself to say that ‘it found it illogical that the army had used a 40-year-old military law to fault the pilot for his police report’.

How recent must a law be to be referred to? 39 years or less? Is there such a rule? Then if Pahlawan considers 40 years would be too old for a law to be used, perhaps all our civil laws should not be ever used again and be thrown out of the window [no doubt much to the delight of pro-hudud supporters, wakakaka].

As to be expected, the politicians are now swarming over the issue with their anti-government motive and thus by default, pro Major Zaidi - later in this post we shall see a different example, wakakaka.

Anwar Ibrahim has said (fz.com report) Pakatan must stand by and defend Major Zaidi where his case will be discussed at a Pakatan leadership council meeting soon, while Lim Kit Siang has been reported by TMI as follows:

Lim said when Zaidi lodged a police report over the indelible ink fiasco, he was acting in his capacity as a Malaysian voter and citizen.

"He was not lodging a police report in his capacity as a RMAF pilot," Lim pointed out.

"Which has the higher calling, loyalty to the Federal Constitution or to the bureaucratic rules and regulations of the military services?"

Much as I respect and adore Uncle Lim, I'm compelled to say he has been wrong in above statements. IMHO, Major Zaidi has not only lodged his police report as a citizen-voter but also issued statements to the media in front of the police station (self admitted) and sent sms messages allegedly of a political nature (yet to be proven).

In fact Major Zaidi himself admitted he made those statements in his professional capacity, stating (see TMI report):

"To me, it is haram (illegal) for a Muslim to be an accomplice in cheating. What more if it involves something as important as an election to choose the country’s top leaders."

"As a civil servant whose salary comes from taxpayers' money, I have a duty to inform the people of the truth, which is that the indelible ink is actually delible," he said.

OK, he is technically a military personnel but we accept his 'civil servant' means the same. But effectively he has declared he made the police report as a RMAF officer (or 'civil servant').

But I'll not discuss here whether he has been right to believe it was his duty as a 'civil servant' (RMAF officer) to inform the people of the truth of the delibility of the EC ink. 

"I am not aligned to any political party. I'm only aligned to the truth."

His wife Shafinah Abdul Hamid and a RMAF technician had also lodged police reports over the indelible ink along with Zaidi.

"Like I said, as a Muslim, I should speak the truth even if I face action (from my superiors). The punishment in the afterlife will be worse if I had lied compared with any punishment in this world.”

Aren't those the statements of a RMAF officer?

Note that the military has NOT charged his wife Shafinah, also a RMAF personnel, for lodging a police report. As I mentioned earlier, I suspect that is because she didn't make any statement to the media.

And incidentally, Uncle Lim, those so-called 'bureaucratic rules and regulations of the military services' are part and parcel of the Laws of Malaysia and thus part of the Federal Constitution. They do NOT exist in isolation. Please do not insult the military institutions including its military laws. They're there for a good reason, as they are too in the armed forces of many western democracies like Britain, Australia, NZ, etc.

I urge Pakatan politicians not to make matters worse for Major Zaidi, nor to unfairly insult our armed forces.

To end this somewhat unhappy post, I like to remind everyone of an event about 10 years ago on (as best as I can recall) 04 April 2004 where Pakatan or its component parties' reactions were then completely different.

Then, General Abdullah Ahmad as Chief of the RMAF was retiring from the air force. On his last day in service, in a farewell speech at (I think) RMAF Kinrara, with all of his being virtually a civilian with perhaps just a symbolic toe left inside of the RMAF door, he said words which effectively encourage the airmen to vote BN which he said was his preferred political party.

He was loudly and resoundingly condemned by the opposition for violating public service codes for taking a political stand. And mind you, that was a man who was then virtually 99.9% civilian in status.

I wonder whether those who now support Major Zaidi (100% military man) in his alleged violation of the Armed Forces Council Instructions on an issue (EC ink), which through no fault of his was already heavily imbued with political overtones, have forgotten that incident, or have now regretted making those condemnations against General Abdullah Ahmad (then 99.9% civilian)?