Scandal and Malay Politics: A Question of Dignity Against Anwar Ibrahim and Azmin Ali

Political scandal has become very common in a democratic country as political rivals bid to discredit one another. An open and free media allows politicians from different sides to publicize alleged wrongdoings by their opponents. There are different scandals ranging from financial, political to moral scandals. Using dignity as a framework, this paper argues that moral or sex scandals are most effective to defeat a Malay politician in Malaysia because a section of the Malay population looks upon virtuous conduct to evaluate the capability of a leader. Specifically, this paper uses homosexual accusations against Anwar Ibrahim and Azmin Ali to show that this is the type of scandal that is convenient to bring into question their dignity. The paper concludes that after the same tactic is used over the decades, it appears that voters are reaching a saturation point, especially among middle-class Malays.

Homosexuality and Political Scandal Until 1919

Same-sex scandals often had political implications both on a superficial level of political rivalries and the larger level of political ideas. Scandals gain traction when sexual misbehavior becomes a metaphor for larger political misbehavior, for instance, mixing up one’s personal interests with governmental actions. Pre-20th century scandals were different than later ones because the notion of homosexuality as a fixed identity had not emerged. As historians have long shown, in the past same-sex desire was defined in very different ways, and not as a fixed, exclusive sexual orientation. In ancient Greece and Rome, politicians accused enemies of sexually submitting to other men to undercut their claims to citizenship even though it was acceptable for men to sexually dominate male slaves, foreign men, and non-citizen youths. In the early modern period, enemies could accuse politicians, aristocrats, or monarchs of indulging in sex with both men and women. In doing so they undercut the acceptability of a political structure based on dynasties and personal patronage. In the period up to World War I, radicals used same-sex desire not just to challenge individual politicians, but to challenge the militaristic, aristocratic dominance. Same-sex scandals could also justify imperial interventions, or conversely, undercut white pretensions to superiority. By the late 19th century, same-sex scandals also emerged out of larger controversies over police regulation of prostitution. Only at the very end of this period did the sexological notion of the homosexual as a distinct personality emerge as a (minor) factor in political scandals.

4. Sexuality and gender

Is Buddhism more permissive about sex than Christianity? ‘Sexuality and gender’ points out that, contrary to popular belief, Buddhist societies tend to be conservative and even prudish. Marriage is seen as inferior to a life of celibacy. While Buddhism lacks the Christian focus on procreation, classical teachings—reiterated by the Dalai Lama—appear to favour reproductive over non-procreative sexual acts. Homosexuality and transgenderism are not prohibited by Buddhist teachings and are sometimes seen as the result of a past life’s gender asserting itself in the present. Historically, the Buddhist approach to non-standard genders and sexual practices has been one of ‘tolerance yet unacceptance’. Several Buddhist communities and leaders have been associated with sex scandals in recent decades.