AirAsia, Datuk & me

Datuks who behave high-handedly should be stripped of their titles
Shamsul Akmar

Aug 30: THREE men, two of whom were identified as Datuks and another as a
bodyguard, verbally and physically abused an AirAsia employee last week.

The two Datuks were reportedly upset with the treatment they received or did
not get from the AirAsia employee when they wanted to check in for a flight
to Penang.

The employee, who was slapped and kicked by one of the Datuks and the
bodyguard, lodged a police report.

The matter seemed to be headed for an amicable end when the two Datuks met
the airline staff at the police station the next day.

According to the employee, Azman Zanoo, he met the two Datuks after news of
the assault appeared in the New Straits Times.

Following that, after much discussion, Azman decided to withdraw the report.

He said he would write to the deputy public prosecutor to request for the
report to be withdrawn.

Emotional outbursts and assaults are pretty common but what made the news of
the assault front-page news of the NST was the fact that the incident
involved two Datuks.

Sources revealed that Azman was prepared to withdraw his report after the
two Datuks apologised to him for their unbecoming behaviour.

Whether Azman was compensated or otherwise, no one is telling.

However, much as Azman may seem forgiving, the fact remained, such behaviour
from the two Datuks should not be something that should have been easily
forgiven.

In fact, they seemed remorseful for what they did only after the story
appeared in the NST.

The question is how could two, not one, Datuks lose their temper and to
demean someone who is of "lesser" standing.

Their action smacked of behaviour prevalent during an era when aristocrats
and royalty had complete say and right over the working class.

But Malaysia has, since Independence, grown from strength to strength in
terms of dealing with class conflicts.

The 1993 constitutional crisis which was sparked off by the slapping of a
commoner by a Ruler saw public outrage towards excesses of the Malay
monarchs.

It saw the setting up of a special court to try rulers who committed
criminal acts and intimidation.

The incident made Malaysians realise that they are, by and large, protected,
even from the monarchs. Since then, there were not much report of excesses
among the monarchs.

The monarchs too seem to have learnt that much as Malaysians may still want
them to continue to be the symbol of the nation, the citizenry is not
prepared to take their abuses.

It has now become a two-way thing, a relationship of mutual respect. In
short, the citizenry enjoys seeing the regality of the monarchs as symbols
of their nation and they want it to remain that way.

If the Rulers are not careful, it may spell the beginning of the end of the
monarchy in Malaysia.

While the monarchs and their families are observing the constitutional
requirements, the two Datuks came along.

There have been other Datuks and titled dignitaries who had committed
misdemeanours. Some were involved in corrupt practices, misappropriation and
other offences.

However, when it comes to beating up others, much as the common folk were
also guilty of committing them, it gives a different turn when committed by
Datuks and other dignitaries.

To some, it is a reflection of how elitists feel that they can throw their
weight around.

For others, they may feel that the common people are for them to demean and
abuse.

Such thoughts cannot be dismissed and will continue to exist.

But what will be worse is when the common folk start to feel that there is
nothing they can do to protect themselves if they have been abused by the
elites.

Datuks and others who had been conferred titles are expected to be exemplary
and there are many who do become models for society.

However, due to the excessive numbers of Datuks in the country, the
oft-repeated remark - "throw a stone in a Malaysian crowd, chances are a
Datuk will be hit" - reflect the high number of such title holders.

For one, it takes away the quality of the honorific. Secondly, such titles
seem to be given to just about anyone who has access either to the political
elites or the monarchs.

Given the fact that each State, be it that with a monarch or a governor,
besides the King, has its own investiture ceremonies, imagine the number of
Datuks that is annually produced in Malaysia.

With so many Datuks walking around, it is only to be expected that there are
bound to be those who may feel that the title will give them the right to
behave like in the olden days Dukes and Lords who had total right over their
subjects.

Such Datuks should be stripped of their titles and subjected to the full
force of the law.

After all, that should be the case since the Datukship carries a bigger
moral responsibility as opposed to the ordinary citizens.

Then, probably, not many would be so keen to obtain the Datukship, to the
extent of lobbying for it and in some cases, of even being prepared to
purchase it.

Apart from giving other bona fide and exemplary ones a bad name, the nation
suffers from a Datuk glut.

From this glut, emerged those who are still shackled in the pre-Independence
mindset, thinking that their titles give them power over others.

And sadly, such Datuks can still strut around in independent Malaysia.

------------------------------------------------------------------
The Berita Malaysia / bmalaysia mailing lists