Is the Ship of State listing to Port?

Friday, 16 December 2016

SHIPWRECK? Between the Scylla of statesmanship
turned sour and the Charybdis of allegations of corruption

and politicisation, the ship of state is f

oundering in troubled waters. But it doesnt have to end in

tears; for those
helmsmen once seemingly committed to sailing perilous
seas under the steam of principle rather than the sails of
pragmatism can still take the rudder before the vessel
founders leagues short of its destination, fathoms
beneath its enterprising potential
I thought the war was over. But military matters are much in
evidence seven years after the last battles last barrage ended
with a bullet-ridden body beside a bloody lagoon.
South of the countrys Chinese border, Captain Haddocks wreak
havoc by assaulting journalists in pursuit of their duty the
journo pursuing his duty, the old sea-dog (in civvies, to boot)
persecuting the journo prosecuting his duty to report on the
alleged deployment of the navy to quell a mutinous strike by port
workers. Then there are those ever menacing military convoys
escorting bigwigs trough the bustle of traffic as if there was a Ben
Hur at the wheel of a chariot on a bad day at the hippodrome!
In the meantime, the defence establishment is sending out what
runs the risk of being interpreted as mixed signals. On the one
hand, while regular divisions seem confined to barracks, shadowy
operatives suspected of having a hand in recent disturbances in
the north point a finger to cover military operations taking place
under the cloak and dagger anonymity of military intelligence.
That oxymoron (military, intelligence, I rest my case)
notwithstanding, the Government is decommissioning the likes of
Raknaarakshaka Lanka and Avant Garde on the grounds that
civilian shipping no longer needs naval security. But on the other,
the State Defence Minister is set on building boats to boost the
prowess of our isle at sea. Dont mention the war! Did so once,
but I think I got away with it?
The occasional atolls like these, which bob about in a state that is

almost becalmed by its burgeoning sense of tranquillity, may be

few and far between. But these might well signal that alls not
well beneath the submarine surface of state security. Not that
there is any danger of war, again or is there? Why else such
sterling security measures for Very Impertinent Persons who
presume on the taxpayers impatience, to protect their sorry
hides from the wrath of a populace grown irate, at the imbalance
between an austerity budget for the masses while the masters
still live and ride in the lap of luxury, safeguarded from critical
engagement by their own paid up military stalwarts? And is there
anything else worthy of assassination in them save some of their
sorry characters, these mandarins being whisked about in their
strident traffic snarl-compounding convoys like it was still 2009?
(It is still war time in some mikados minds, by the looks of it!)
That no less than the Commander-in-Chief of the nations armed
forces has said with conviction that half of all deals done by the
state are corrupt is more than cause for concern. (Read it and
weep, O champions of the so-called Coalition to end Corruption.)
It calls for more critical engagement by civil society in general
and parliamentary oversight committees in particular, on the
political front as much as the law enforcement machinery
embodied in the Attorney-Generals Department.
Who are these corruption-mongers who have managed to get in
their foot in at the door of good governance and greasy palms
on the knob of our incumbent governors? How does the head of
state know that half of all that happens between government
departments and general dogsbodies in trade and commerce is
corrupt?
What does he mean by corrupt A souffl of wasteful
processes? A flan of criminal mismanagement with a pinch of
bureaucratic salt and pepper to appease big business? Or a
smorgasbord of grand larceny with generous lashings of bribery
with nepotism for nuts and cronyism as coffee and chocolates?

Whos pocketing the after-dinner mints? Whose assorted petty

cash accounts is the sorbet of state funding cleansing as an
appetiser for the crimes of the century?
Is any of this tender-minded business the desserts that
democracy thinks is its due for saving the republic from a former
regime which was said and thought to be utterly corrupt then and
deserving of eviction for rank dereliction of duty although not, it
appears, for robbing the nation of its treasures while ridding the
state of its terrors?!
Knot an issue, sir
Dont get your lingerie in a sailors knot. I simply want to know if
what the Opposition alleges is true. That governments may
change, but that political cultures dont. That the incumbent
administration may have undergone a sea-change, but it is not
into something rich and strange, but rather a poorer and less
colourful version of its former self. That it has singularly failed to
rise on the stepping-stones of its dead self to greater and higher
things.
Of course, the Opposition has neither the wit nor the wisdom to
express itself in such philosophical terms. But in the matter of
nautical goings-on in the south recently, it may have a point or
six. That while it was roundly condemned for using the military as
its personal bodyguard when it was in power, the present
government is not above putting the security forces to uses better
reserved for stevedores.
That even in the hands of men about whom it is essayed that the
pen is mightier than the sword, the temptation to deploy muscle
to suppress dissent and dissension is mightiest when those men
are normally meek. That like Sir Lancelot of the Lake, about
whom it was said that he was meek in hall, but mighty in the
field the incumbent administration (like others before it) walks
softly and carries a big stick.

That the iron fist in the velvet glove is no less apparent under the
rule of men entirely great (and do please take that with a pinch of
salt, you land-lubbers) than in the authoritarian antidemocrats
they ousted, time now not out of mind, and then at that, to
everyones good will and pleasure.
Put a sock in it, dears
On behalf of the folks who voted for democratic-republicanism
over a despotic family masquerading as an authoritarian regime,
Id also like to ask where we voters and taxpayers can be said to
stand as far as the defence establishment goes. Can we assume
that it will go the way of all flesh that is to say, towards a seagrave and that demilitarisation and normalisation of civilian
spaces will become the order of the day? Or unseen and
unbeknownst to most and suspected by only less than a paranoid
few, is the phoenix of the military-industrial complex raising its
tyrannical head again this time under the aegis of a new or
more sophisticated regime of oppression and repression?
Could it be that international observers, home-based civil-society
activists, and a few safely (well, maybe not really, any more)
outspoken journalistic critics are right that security matters and
military might are slowly but surely encroaching on equality
before the law, liberty to pursue ones state-endorsed profession,
and fraternity with the forces in maintain the peace and not some
false sense of dtente between an alarmingly jackbooted state
and an increasingly cowed down civil society?
Dont get us wrong. Were not like the Joint Opposition playing
politics with your heartbreaking decisions to pursue plans,
policies, projects, programmes, and all that jazz to which you
were so single-mindedly opposed when you were in the
Opposition.

We understand, we really do, that sovereign states much less

the all-too-transparent governments that run them for the nonce
are bound to bilateral commitments; and much as we lauded your
hearty championing of the national interest then, we lament your
seemingly pusillanimous caving into to globalist and regional
pressures now. Just spare us the propaganda, cant, hype,
hypocrisy, and lying silences. We still love you and are almost
willing to trust you again.
Dont rock the boat yes, you, sir, the smiling assassins who
make flippant apologies in parliament or profound statements
about corruption in public and then despatch your un-uniformed
goons to make short shrift of journalists in pursuit of their duty.
Theyre doing their job with as much passion as you were in
pursuit of your personal ambitions cloaked in the secrecy of
constitutional reform and stealth of consolidating respective party
powers.
Should the ship of state and its escorting flotilla of destroyers,
whether a naval fleet deployed to quell a mutiny or a flag officer
acting like an errant rating list to port any farther, we may have
to abandon a sinking vessel. Which would be a great sea-disaster
for all concerned: since we would be afloat on the high seas sans
safety and security from a state sworn to protect the peoples
sovereignty and you no more than flotsam and jetsam on the
high political seas where fortune favours sailors braving fair winds
and foul.
Posted by Thavam