A masterpiece of misguided critique: in defense of Sanusi Nor

The Kedah menteri besar’s pursuit of societal advancement is not intended to intimidate or stifle opposing voices but shows his willingness to engage in constructive dialogue.

M Yusoff, Free Malaysia Today

It is disheartening to witness the egregious misinterpretation of the actions of Kedah menteri besar Sanusi Nor. Terence Netto’s attempt to cast aspersions on the Kedah menteri besar is a prime example of a literary blunder, lacking intellectual depth and resorting to baseless assertions.

Allow me to debunk the fallacies propagated by Netto and, in doing so, reveal the wisdom underlying Sanusi’s actions.

Netto’s opening diatribe seeks to undermine Sanusi’s integrity by characterising his statements as controversial. However, the notion of controversy itself is subjective and beholden to personal biases.

Sanusi’s willingness to dialogue and address pressing issues should be commended, not disparaged. His actions demonstrate a commitment to public service and a genuine concern for the well-being of the people he represents.

To describe Sanusi as “controversy writ large” is a gross exaggeration and a disservice to his leadership. True leaders are unafraid to challenge the status quo and tackle issues that others shy away from. Sanusi’s proactive approach to demolishing illegal temples, for instance, is not an act of hostility but rather a commitment to upholding the rule of law and ensuring the safety and sanctity of public spaces.

It is a testament to his resolute dedication to justice and accountability.

Netto criticizes Sanusi for disallowing a state holiday for a minority religious occasion. However, the duty of a menteri besar extends beyond catering to the demands of specific groups. Sanusi’s responsibility lies in ensuring harmony and unity among the diverse communities he governs.

By prioritising the collective well-being over individual interests, he exhibits a commendable sense of fairness and inclusivity, vital for fostering social cohesion.

The article further attempts to undermine Sanusi’s aspirations by labelling them as redundant and unnecessary. However, innovation and progress are the lifeblood of any society. Sanusi’s pursuit to build a new airport demonstrates his commitment to driving economic growth and enhancing connectivity.

Far from being redundant, this forward-thinking endeavour showcases Sanusi’s vision for a prosperous future, one that transcends the boundaries of political affiliations.

Netto then takes issue with Sanusi’s demands for fair compensation for water usage from a neighbouring state. However, it is only just and equitable that resources are shared in a manner that benefits all parties involved. Sanusi’s actions are motivated by a desire to ensure a sustainable and mutually beneficial relationship, underscoring his astute understanding of diplomacy and the importance of cooperation between states.

In a stunning display of fallacious reasoning, Netto draws an absurd comparison between Sanusi’s claims on Penang and the complex historical dispute between China and Taiwan. Such an analogy is intellectually dishonest and lacks any basis in reality.

Netto’s unfounded assertion that Sanusi is sowing the seeds of extremism is not only misguided but also devoid of any factual basis. Sanusi’s principled stance is not a herald of an “inexorably Islamist future,” as Netto suggests, but rather an embodiment of his unwavering commitment to justice, fairness, and the preservation of cultural heritage.

To cast such a pursuit in a negative light is an injustice to the virtues that Sanusi upholds.

Finally, Netto’s attempt to link Abdul Hadi Awang’s cautionary message to non-Muslims with Sanusi’s actions is a misleading portrayal of their shared political ideology. Sanusi’s advocacy for change is in harmony with Hadi’s cautionary message. Both leaders, united by their commitment to their political party, strive to foster progress and inclusivity.

Sanusi’s pursuit of societal advancement is not intended to intimidate or stifle opposing voices; rather, it exemplifies his willingness to engage in constructive dialogue and cultivate a spirit of harmony among diverse communities.

In conclusion, Netto’s piece is a stark reminder of the dangers of misinterpretation and shallow analysis. We must rise above baseless critiques and embrace a more nuanced understanding of the challenges of today.