Am I wrong or am I the only one who sees that the emperor has no clothes?

Immediately after the General Elections, almost everyone, from senior analysts to the media to most of the populace opined that it produced the most wonderful of results. They were so exuberant in their reaction and so full of conviction that I read and heard nothing else for days. No one seemed to delve beyond the superficial and critically examined what the results truly signified despite the availability of facts to suggest a more cautious reading thereof (for example, see here and here). In fact, I had commented to a friend that “while everyone seems excited and encouraged by the win, no one can put their finger on what is it that they’re excited and encouraged about“. It was all so fuzzy and unclear. It was superficial.

Now, finally, reality hits. And people are starting to realise that what they thought they knew, is not true. And will never be true.

In yesterday’s New Straits Times, Brendan Pereira suggested that the “appointments (of the Cabinet) were not entirely greeted with joy by a public expecting sweeping personnel changes. The disappointed ones wanted more new faces in senior positions, they wanted more old faces put out to pasture; in short, they wanted a complete change.” The source of these expectations was attributed to Abdullah Ahmad Badawi’s “promise to purge the system of its excesses, his desire to bring more transparency to the award of government contracts, his action in tackling corruption and his ability to articulate the concerns of the common man” all voiced since becoming Prime Minister on 31 October 2003.

This interpretation is supported by Chandra Muzaffar who wrote, in the 08 April 2004 issue of the Far Eastern Economic Review, that he had pleaded, prior to the General Elections, for the electorate to give “an overwhelming mandate”, “a huge endorsement” to Abdullah in order to “strengthen Abdullah’s hand in his effort to check a growing tendency to adopt a dogmatic approach to Islam within certain quarters, and, at the same time, enable him to undertake bold reforms aimed at enhancing good governance and public accountability.” Muzaffar claims that his “plea was a reflection of the sentiment of millions of Malaysians”.

In short, in the run up to the General Elections and shortly thereafter, many were happy and willing to believe that “a seismic change to the Cabinet line-up was a certainty on the back of the resounding vote of confidence” given to Abdullah. And many hoped, that among other things, “the overhaul of ministers was to be another sign that the agenda of reform was right on track.” Change, and certain change for the better, was what most Malaysians expected when they voted in favour of the Barisan Nasional, represented in this case by ONE man and one man only.

Well, guess what? We… err.. no, correction: YOU have been duped. Or you were willing to be duped. While no one, in their “right” mind, would question the desirability of the ideals espoused before and after the Elections, it was certainly foolish and foolhardy, given what we know, to think that these ideals would manifest itself, even minimally, in our political system. To do so would suggest either utter ignorance or complicity in a wide-eyed fantasy, neither of which is very complimentary.

Malaysian Realpolitik is now defined by “a deeply entrenched system in which the relationship between power and wealth has become a political culture of sorts.” Let no one deny it. It may not have been so in the beginning. But “the beginning” is now a long time ago. We have had years since in which both politics and money have been conscientiously, and unconscientiously, allowed to flourish in close quarters. It would not now change overnight. Not over one General Elections. And neither will it change over one mandate of five years. It is now an embedded social and political culture. It will take years, and many more mandates before it changes, if it changes. And even then, it will require self-denial on the part of the powerful who each now have vested personal interests in the sustenance of the system as we know it. It is nice to think that individuals have ideals that are greater than the self. It is a pleasant thought. But is it realistic? Furthermore, we are not just talking about changing a painting on the wall. We’re talking about changing a system, a social structure - an organic behemoth that is greater than the sum of us.

What angers me is not so much the conscious self-delusion of the electorate, but that they now choose to “cry wolf” when the announced Cabinet did not meet their wildly unreasonable expectations. It angers me that they would choose to send a soldier into a losing battle and be completely crossed and disappointed when he doesn’t win! My annoyance is compounded when this comes from members of the media and the intelligentsia, from whom I expected better. It is all the more rich considering that they themselves drummed up the electorates’ expectations in the run up to the Elections through their over-the-top commentary echoing, and expounding, on the campaign ideals of Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, only to turn around now and say that wholesale change was never on the cards and could never have been! (apologies to Brendan Pereira who I am paraphrasing but not alluding)

The reality is that a lot of voters believed, and chose to believe, in a fantasy of what was possible in Malaysian politics. That, alas, remains a fantasy, desirable as it may be. But to now claim that you have been shortchanged nevertheless… - that my dear, is rather disingenuous and too much of a theatre even for a drama queen like me. In the end, many of the electorate chose to buy into this mythical dream - now bite into it.

Posted on April 2nd, 2004 by jl
Filed under: My Malaysia