There is nothing like soap opera for cleansing emotional bath. A brilliant, contemporary instance is the very British, very 1920, class-skirmish series, Downton Abbey. Name a cliché, and there it is, squeezing one teardrop after another. The lord of the manor is lost between two worlds; the grand dame, his mother, pours scorn on both like Oscar Wilde on steroids. The butler has a heart of gold and purse of copper. One daughter marries an Irish nationalist, who has the temerity not merely to be working class but also Catholic. A second daughter descends further in the social swamp. She becomes a journalist. As the acid-sweet grandmamma notes across the dining table, now that the family includes a country solicitor and car mechanic it was only a matter of time before someone became a journalist.
Yes, and it can be found where you least expect it, in the obvious. Polls require money but never as much as the candidate demands. The simple truth is that money cannot buy you the vote, or no government would ever lose. It is axiomatic that those in office will always commandeer a disproportionate share of available liquidity, but if this alone settled the issue then every election would be over before it began.
Anwar seem to think Azmin deserves to be the Selangor MB. But on what basis? The man who helms this most important state in the country must not only be a good administrator, but a good businessman. Khalid Ibrahim has done a sterling job and it is no surprise that Selangorians want him back to finish what he has started.Really? Show evidence. Show us your worth, why you think you are better than Khalid. We have seen none.
On the other hand, Selangorians can round up a dozen reason why Azmin would not get their vote to be MB. For one, the extreme lack of tact in handling the MB issue shows a severe lack of leadership, maturity and lack of values such as humility, foresight and selflessness that we expect from the head of state.
Now, what has Azmin got to bring to the table? What is his experience as compared to Khalid’s? Well, we have not heard any reasons for his desire to be MB except tantrums that the party members had not been consulted and vague allusions to “nepotism” should Khalid continue a second termIt is embarrassing enough for PKR that Selangor after one week has still not settled on its menteri besar, thanks to one individual who sticks out in his party politics like a sore thumb.
After a dramatic general election and PKR-Pakatan’s failure to win the election, owing to a number of factors both outside and within, it seems people like Azmin Ali and his band of supporters still have not learnt the painful lesson.
The road to Putrajaya is long ahead and fraught with difficulties and obstacles. Yet it seems all is forgotten as some people in PKR are only setting their sights on their short term goal – power, as instant gratification.
We have had enough of such leaders in the past, that is why many want BN-Umno out. Azmin, sadly, is following the footsteps of the very leaders Malaysians are sick of seeing and hearing from. If he continues to behave in this way, I have no doubt voters will send him to the dustbins in the next election
He puts his own interest ahead of those of his party, the coalition and the people when just after the GE he makes public statements and holds a press conference that embarrass the opposition. He shows a total lack of respect for the views of his party elders and those of his coalition partners.
Why have journalists been in such bad odor with every pillar of any establishment? Because they ask too many questions and never have enough answers? Or is it because they dip their snoot so often into the trough of corruption?
Journalism is possible only in a democracy; anywhere else information is propaganda. But a democratic establishment is no less caustic about this profession than the old order. Editors never seem satisfied with the occasional private dinner or periodic gong handed out by government; they keep probing into the mutually rewarding relationship between wealth and power, to the great distaste of politicians.
Their rationale is cogent. There is no democracy without elections. Elections require money. Such cash does not grow luxuriantly on legal trees. This primary lubricant can only be generated by businessmen through deceptive accountancy. The quid pro quo is that such businessmen must be protected and rewarded. Case settled.
This argument is being nourished in drawing rooms across borders as the Indian subcontinent lurches its way towards a mammoth election season. Pakistan’s vote is in May; India, Afghanistan and Maldives will follow, with Bangladesh just a little behind and Nepal in permanent maybemode. Is there any ethical solution to this septic conundrum?
Yes, and it can be found where you least expect it, in the obvious. Polls require money but never as much as the candidate demands. The simple truth is that money cannot buy you the vote, or no government would ever lose. It is axiomatic that those in office will always commandeer a disproportionate share of available liquidity, but if this alone settled the issue then every election would be over before it began.
Voters are very wise; they will accept every little bribe thrown their way, and then vote on the basis of policy, politics and perhaps character. When candidates turn beggars or extortionists, it is not because they want to win, but because they want to knit a fat financial cushion that will comfort their posterior for the foreseeable future. Elections are the appropriate time for accumulation since ‘donations’ have become legitimized during this heartbeat moment in a democracy. The true algebra of spending offers different equations. Losers, driven by anxiety, tend to spend more than winners, all other aspects being equal.
Every election does offer one or two high-profile examples where money has been used to fashion a result, but this requires enormous political muscle and some very careful government engineering. Exceptions prove the rule rather than undermine it. The most dramatic election in Indian history was surely one after Emergency, in 1977. The principal opposition alliance, called Janata Party, had very little money in either north or south India. Janata won every seat in the north, and lost almost every seat in the south. Neither the presence nor absence of money changed the outcome. In the last Tamil Nadu Assembly polls, many DMK enthusiasts believed fervently that Jayalalithaa would be humbled by DMK’s money power. We all know who won.
The electoral excuse for corruption falters on facts. Will this change anything? Probably not. For parties and their candidates, cash collection has become too pleasant a habit. Businessmen might be aware of what is going on, but continue to feed this goose in the belief that it will lay golden eggs very soon. The existing system is their best insurance in an environment where profits can depend on manipulation. This cozy partnership explains why politicians are so desperate to get nominations, even when they are certain that they will lose. They know that whether they become MPs or not, they will always become richer.
The ancient lords, whether in aristocratic Britain or princely India, squeezed their peasants directly and built palaces served by butler and retinue. Their successors are more discreet. They bow before the voter and harass private sector plutocrats. But one thing has not changed. In the end, it is always the people who pay.
