The Ballot Box: The Ultimate Arbiter in a Democracy
April 30, 2011
… Come, my friends,
’Tis not too late to seek a newer world.
Push off, and sitting well in order smite
The sounding furrows; for my purpose holds
To sail beyond the sunset, and the baths
Of all the western stars, until I die.
It may be that the gulfs will wash us down;
It may be we shall touch the Happy Isles,
And see the great Achilles, whom we knew. (56–64)
–Alfred Lord Tennyson, Ulyssess
The Ballot Box: The Ultimate Arbiter in a Democracy
by Terence Netto @www.malaysiakini.com
COMMENT Because the ballot box is the ultimate arbiter of distempers in a democracy, Malaysian voters must be anticipating the next general election – the 13th in their history as an independent country – with unusual keenness.
The fact that the number 13 is freighted with an ominous significance because it connotes a tragic chapter in Malaysian history – the May 13 riots of 1969 – renders added frisson to the anticipation.
The thunderheads that have boiled up on the political horizon to set voters on edge present an idiosyncratic mix of issues of personal sexual morality and ones of grave national import.
Just now an issue concerning the sexual morals of a contender for the prime ministerial position, Anwar Ibrahim, has taken centre stage, to the exasperation of legions of his supporters, not because they do not think that it matters, but because they view the rules for adjudicating it as hopelessly rigged against him.
Also, it is of little help to their serenity that they see at least one of his accusers, in the case of the video allegedly showing him in a transaction with a sex worker, as tainted with same brush that is now being used to blacken Anwar. Few things are as annoying as the pot calling the kettle black. Likewise, few things can be more exasperating that attempts to infer an aspirant’s moral credentials to govern from his or her private sexual morals.
One does not have to subscribe to Plato’s dualism of the mind and body to hold that it’s best to keep the spheres of public and private morality separate, especially private sexual morality. But because to the majority of Malaysians religion is a public matter, these spheres cannot be held to be separate.
No precedent in modern history
No politician has done more in the last four decades in Malaysia to make religion a public matter than Anwar Ibrahim. So there is a rough kind of poetic justice to the travails he has now to endure.
It is hard to find a precedent in modern history for the very public and humiliating trials by innuendo and insinuation he and his family have had to endure – in Sodomy I, Sodomy II and now in the sex video controversy – over the last 13 years.
Perhaps the closest comparison one could find would be the hounding of the American civil rights Martin Luther King Jr by FBI director J Edgar Hoover in the 1960s. Hoover kept up a steady stream of pressure on King and his wife by circulating aural evidence of the civil rights leader’s sexual misdemeanors. But, in the main, that pressure was applied away from the public gaze. Consequently, the psychic hell that King and Loretta had to endure was private.
In contrast, Anwar and family have had to endure very public tribulation which the ordinarily
decent are loath to justify. The fact that elementary standards of due process have been denied him in this odyssey of public humiliation adds to the repugnance felt by the decent over his and his family’s treatment.
That is why at this juncture the 13th general election is being awaited with mustard-keen anticipation.There are issues of grave public moment that should compete for the public attention’s but right now the manufactured sensation of Anwar’s private sexual morality has taken centre stage.
It makes you want to believe in the truth of the concept of the wound and the bow, the literary principle that the psychic wounds one suffers on the way up in life become the bow that launches the effort at grand rectification.
One hopes that would be true about Anwar. He has had to endure much; would that eventual vindication and rectification be proportionate to his travails.
Din,
I always come across this poem by Alfred Lord Tennyson on the Charge of the light brigate. Sometimes I think if PKR should stay in the limelight & let DAP to take lead in certain states. States such as Penang, Sabah Sarawak. Enjoy the poem
looes74 - April 30, 2011 at 11:51 am
The ballot box the ultimate arbiter in Malaysia’s democracy?? Tell me you’re jokin’.
Mr Bean - April 30, 2011 at 12:02 pm
Bean,
That’s the ideal way lah Bean. If they do it properly. Anyway, Bean, I know it’s late, do keep you well especially after the operation
looes74 - April 30, 2011 at 12:09 pm
In Malaysia, it’s more like money is the arbiter of everything.
didi - April 30, 2011 at 12:11 pm
The sumpah laknat affair yesterday is the ultimate in what has come to be known as gutter politics ala Malaysia. One does not have to belong to any political party to feel the sense of revulsion and an embarrassment. We have progressed in terms of economic development but have regressed in terms of common decency and public morality.
As Alfred Lord Tennyson says:
“’Tis not too late to seek a newer world.
Push off, and sitting well in order smite
The sounding furrows; for my purpose holds
To sail beyond the sunset, and the baths
Of all the western stars, until I die.”
We seem to ignore the world in our earnest to score brownie points over an articulate political opponent. Are we afraid of Anwar’s ideas like justice, freedom, democracy and governance? We should not. In stead we should take him on,, challenge him, and debunk him if need be, but let us do it with honour and dignity. World opinion matters in an era of globalisation, Youtube and Internet.–Din Merican
dinobeano - April 30, 2011 at 12:23 pm
This is how a rational people challeging politicians. It’s so sad that we never come so close to this
looes74 - April 30, 2011 at 12:31 pm
Mongkut Bean,
Read it carefully. Terence did not say “Malaysian democracy”. We all know that in Malaysia, we have elections, but we are far from being democratic. We have a Constitution, but do we respect it? Your Tok Tam made his Merdeka Pledge on August 31, 1957 that our country will be a sovereign and democratic state, but Malaysia is still a long way from his vision. –Din Merican
dinobeano - April 30, 2011 at 12:31 pm
Tok Tam has been turning in his graves many times over. Today he is more like spinning in his grave.
Mr Bean - April 30, 2011 at 12:45 pm
dinobeano - April 30, 2011 at 12:47 pm
Yesterday marked the day where one could just take an oath and be free of whatever wrongdoings he did. I wonder who started this “sumpah laknat” trend. I really hope Malaysia is not spiraling out of control. The other day Najib dismissed the World Bank report saying it’s not true, yesterday we had Dato Ts taking oath in the mosque and today we had Perkasa telling us that Malays are also migrating overseas because of the racist policies in the private sector. I think I can go crazy reading Malaysian news.
didi - April 30, 2011 at 2:46 pm
Whom the gods would destroy they first make mad. (M. Thompson).
This is a 1875 wisdom saying. It is meant for UMNO which is mad, insane and running amok.
Can UMNO defeat God? It thinks so. Let’s wait and see.
Sam01 - April 30, 2011 at 2:58 pm
Why the hell do we need a judicial system in the country. We may as well close down the AG chambers and the courts.
Just sumpah and you are declared innocent.
Imam Besar Malaysia Najib said so.
Sam01 - April 30, 2011 at 3:00 pm
Sam,
UMNO thinks that it’s God
Didi,
Malaysia has already spiralled out of the control. We must do something before Malaysia is sent to abyss
Bean chai,
You mean those are dead would never dream wake up to save the day
looes74 - April 30, 2011 at 4:49 pm
The sex video thing will backlash UMNO very very badly, just wait and see. I even think it will be the main subject matter used in an internal power struggle – very soon!
Sentinel - April 30, 2011 at 5:05 pm
Anwar Ibrahim knows what is in store for him should he continue his political career for the number one executive post in the country after his sodomy one ‘’Blockbuster’’. He is a fighter (or a moron?) who fights with logic and facts so far. Given Najib or Anwar for me to choose, I go for Anwar anytime. Justice will prevail and good always triumph against evil.
Sheild37xs - April 30, 2011 at 5:09 pm
Sentinel,
Jibby thinks that he can use the sex video to bring PAS back to fold……It might split PAS instead if some clowns decided to do stupid things
Guys & Gals,
Robin Day has said something about ballot box in Uk. To enjoy. You can ask Din who Robin Day is……I don’t know who Robin Day till I watch Yes ministers series
looes74 - April 30, 2011 at 5:11 pm
I think ALL Malaysians feels betrayed and shamed by all these gutter politics going around them. It is so shameful, so unethical, so disgusting, so nauseatic, that I think if Jibby is personally involved, he is really beyond human decency and do not deserve to sit in Putrajaya another minute!
Sentinel - April 30, 2011 at 5:20 pm
Sentinel,
It’s been my mission to dislodge Jibby ever since he took over the Perak Government. Najib must go. BN must go. Go Now!
looes74 - April 30, 2011 at 5:31 pm
I read in the news about Chinese premier Wen Jiabao’s visit to Indonesia where he visited the Al Azhar Islamic University in Jakarta.
In this university, the students have Chinese language and cultural lessons. And of course, they are Chinese literate too.
I think it is for enriching the perspective of the students. Even, Wen Jiaboa went on stage to sing with some of the students.
Perkasa should flip over and under, if their insistance for 1Malay, and 1Bumiputera makes any sense, after seeing this pictures. Perkasa perhaps should call their Indonesian brethrens, and “scold” them for not conforming to Perkasa’s modus operandi.
Perkasa’s leader was elected on a PAS ticket, and I am pretty sure, PAS has got its political “cross hairs” on him already for next GE.
For PAS, it is an awakening to what the largest Islamic country in the world is doing. PAS has taken the right path in moderating its religious trajectory, by cooperating with PKR and DAP. It is brave enough even though it knows there a possibility of high costs for change.
Now, Najib is calling for PAS to leave the Pakatan pact on the ground of DAP not championing the Islamic cause. This is really funny, because in the pact, that is the job of PAS.
Remember what happened when an imam recited some blessings for Lim Guan Eng not too long ago. Therefore, PAS is there to pursue the islamic cause on behalf of the Pakatan pact.
As of the MCA, I am very surprised at CSL’s call for DAP to stop its racist policies as if DAP ever had racist policies. Maybe he has forgotten what MCA stands for. Or he has a new meaning for MCA. We all don’t know.
CSL’s is now unable to “tango” with foreign dignataries – visibly absent from Wen Jiabao’s pictures in the newspapers, predictably.
The way CSL carries on the affairs of the MCA will lead to disaster for MCA in the coming GE. CSL seem to be confirming and affirming Perkasa’s stand for 1Malay and 1Bumi. This may just pipette some credibility to Perkasa’s fiery crucible. Why would CSL have done that for? Is he saying Perkasa is right now?
And for that Perkasa is further claiming that some Malays are emigrating because of racial policies in the private sector implying the sector is controlled by non-Malays. Did he not read the survey by the World Bank?
The road to the ballot boxes for the 13th GE started with the Sarawak state elections. By the looks of things, the Sarawkians may just decide to put a fire proof door to block any fire coming from the mainland. It means that the parlimentary seats for BN in Sarawak are already shaky.
It is not difficult to forecast that BN reclaiming’s of two-thirds majority in the parliament is now impossible unless something unexpected happens along the way.
Tang Loon Kong - April 30, 2011 at 5:40 pm
Looes74,
Of course I remember the late Sir Robin Day (dec 2000). RIP. He was my kind of a journalistic hero. The Guardian’s Obituary is worth reading as it sums up Sir Robin as a professional and a private person:
“Sir Robin Day, who has died aged 76, was the most outstanding television journalist of his generation. He transformed the television interview, changed the relationship between politicians and television, and strove to assert balance and rationality into the medium’s treatment of current affairs.
Day was the youngest of four children. His father, a Lloyd George Liberal, was on the administrative staff of the Post Office. Robin was educated at Bembridge school, had an uneventful war in the Royal Artillery, became a captain, and went on to St Edmund Hall, Oxford, in 1947 at the age of 24, to read law. He made his mark as a memorable president of the Oxford Union.
After two years at the bar, he decided that the prospect of success was too distant. He spent one year with the British Information Services in the United States, was briefly employed, on a temporary basis, by BBC Radio and, in 1955, joined Independent Television News, at its launch, as one of its new breed of newscasters.
ITN made him. It gave him, by his own account, his happiest four years in television – though he was not an instant success. It was originally felt that he was too unsympathetic and harsh in manner, but this view changed as he developed an entirely new style of interviewing.
In the pre-Day era, television interviews were almost always respectful, generally dull and stiff, often insipid. Day asked the direct question pointed like a dagger at the jugular. The turning point in his career was an interview with Sir Kenneth Clark, then chairman of Independent Television, at a time when proposals were mooted to cut ITN’s airtime and money. Day asked him questions about the station’s future which dumbfounded colleagues and critics by their directness. It was unprecedented that the person in ultimate charge should be questioned about his responsibilities by one of his own employees – and the impact was dramatic.
There followed a number of historic interviews which established Day’s reputation: with Egypt’s President Nasser after the 1956 Suez crisis, when Day sought to pin him down on whether he accepted the existence of the state of Israel; with ex-President Truman – “Mr President, do you regret having authorised the dropping of the atomic bomb?”; and, notably, with Prime Minister Harold Macmillan in 1958, in what the Daily Express called “the most vigorous cross-examination a prime minister has been subjected to in public”.
This interview turned Macmillan into a television personality, and was probably the first time that television became a serious part of the political process. Day also made parliament come alive with his unscripted reports of the heated debates during the Suez debacle.
In 1959, Day moved to the BBC and Panorama, then the most prestigious current affairs programme. The corporation never really made the best use of his talents, except at elections and, eventually, on Question Time, between 1979 and 1989. The fashion turned against “talking heads” and “government by debate”, with which he, above all others, was identified. He was gradually sidelined, as a chairman figure who simply opened and closed programmes. He described his pre-Question Time period as “10 years in the wilderness”. There was even a spell of nearly two years when he did not appear at all.
In the early-1970s, Day became more deeply involved in radio, where he proved an innovator with It’s Your Line, from 1970 to 1976. This was a national phone-in programme that enabled ordinary people, for the first time, to put questions directly to the prime minister and other politicians (it later spawned Election Call).
He also presented The World At One, from 1979 to 1987, but never felt that radio was his metier. He was not at his best reading from a script, and it is significant that, in his memoirs, he dismisses his eight-year contribution to the programme with a single sentence.
General elections, however, were the time when all the grand inquisitor’s talents as cross-examiner came on full display, when the televsion public saw “the scowling, frowning, glowering” Robin Day “with those cruel glasses” (Frankie Howard’s description), as well as the relieving shafts of humour.
His most satisfying role in television came with Question Time. At last, he was given his own show, with an audience – which he had long asked for – albeit late at night, as a temporary, six- month “filler” and mainly as a way of giving him something to do. Its success in becoming, under his chairmanship, the most popular and effective current affairs programme on television reveals a great deal about his talents.
Why did Robin Day become a national institution, one of the most immediately recognised people in the land, outshining in reputation and respect other television stars whose shows commanded far larger audience figures, and, as he much resented, far higher salaries?
It was because he had a unique combination of qualities. He was a very big personality in the true sense, with immense authority. He was extraordinarily witty. A collection of good Day jokes would fill a minor anthology. Question Time also brought out his charm and showmanship. He was inordinately proud of his music-hall gifts, and would insist on showing visitors to his flat videos of his appearances on the Morecambe And Wise Christmas shows and (especially) his Flanagan and Allen rendering of Underneath The Arches on the Des O’Connor show, in which he outstarred and outsang O’Connor. But, above all, he was one of the most well-informed, widely read and serious political figures in public life.
Day imbibed politics almost with his mother’s milk. His father brought him up to revere parliament and great parliamentarians. As a nine-year-old, he was taken to hear Churchill speak, in the rain. Respect for parliament and the traditional institutions of British life, such as the monarchy and the legal profession, was at the heart of his philosophy all his life.
It might be said that his interests were somewhat conventional and narrow. He was almost fixated by parliament, and seemed to think that if someone had made a great parliamentary speech, they had won a great battle, when, in fact, it was events outside parliament that were transforming British politics. His world was one of party politics and current events, rather than long-term trends. He was not particularly interested in industrial affairs or economics, or developments in European countries.
Gradually, his private views became more and more conservative, at times rather narrowly nationalist, although he did not allow his personal prejudices to show in public or influence his professional performances. But, within the boundaries of his particular interests, he applied his formidable powers of argument and his extensive knowledge to devastating effect, in private as well as public.
He believed passionately in “government by debate” and in the need for television to balance pictures of current events with reasoned analysis. Otherwise, the powerful visual impact of television would distort and trivialise. He was equally dedicated to the principle that the interviewer had a duty to be well-informed.
Many observers commented on his careful preparation; few realised just how assiduous he was. He would read every current biography and autobiography, and nearly every government white paper. Without research assistants to supply him with background briefings, he would generally be better informed than the many cabinet ministers he interviewed. No wonder prime ministers treated him as their equal, and lesser mortals on the political scene regarded him with awe.
Day’s contribution to British public life was not confined to the media. For 25 years he campaigned tirelessly, and eventually successfully, for the televising of parliament – not in the interests of television, but of parliament itself. He claimed that he was the first to present the detailed arguments in favour, in a Hansard Society paper in 1963.
He also played a major part in the establishment of the national lottery. When the Rothschild Commission on Gambling was set up in 1979, he wrote a letter arguing in detail for the kind of lottery we have today. Lord Rothschild wrote back questioning his arguments. Day replied refuting all criticisms; his arguments prevailed and the eventual report recommended the scheme Day had originally proposed. He followed up with endless letters to successive ministers with relevant responsibilities.
In his private life, Day had two personalities. To those who did not know him, he could, at times, appear aggressive and insensitive, seemingly interested only in those who were important because of their fame, public success or wealth. He sometimes found it difficult to talk naturally to intelligent women. He might, to some, have seemed the quintessential member of the all-male Garrick club, one of his favourite haunts.
To those who knew him well, however, he was the most stimulating, amusing, convivial and warmest of companions. He was one of those rare people who was genuinely loved by his friends. He was prepared to take infinite pains on their behalf. He was also surprisingly modest; despite his obvious success in public life, he frequently talked of his career as a relative failure, because he had not achieved anything solid.
He regretted that he had never entered parliament – although he ran as a Liberal at Hereford in 1959 – and contributed to the real world of politics, instead of playing a secondary role through television. He thrived on his public fame and was proud to be the first television star to be knighted, but privately seemed to feel that his achievements did not compare with those of others who had made their mark in the more traditional professions, especially the law, or by writing learned books.
In 1965, he married Katherine Ainslie, an Australian law don at St Anne’s College, Oxford, and had two sons. The marriage was dissolved in 1986. One of the tragedies of his life was that his elder son never fully recovered from the effects of multiple skull fractures he sustained in a childhood fall.
Some years ago, Day had a coronary bypass, and he suffered from breathing problems that were often evident when he was on the air. He had always fought against a tendency to put on weight. As an undergraduate, he weighed 17 stone, and claimed that, in the course of his life, he had succeeded in losing more weight than any other person.
He is survived by his two sons. Robin Day, broadcaster and journalist, born October 24 1923; died August 6 2000.”
dinobeano - April 30, 2011 at 6:15 pm
Din,
Don’t forget Bob Mckenzie, the canadian born with his swingnometer. Okie lah, I am not that old enough to know Bob Mckenzie but after watching series such as Yes Ministers/Prime Ministers, I came to know this true gentleman. Again I felt that I was born in the wrong era. Never mind, I got Tony Blair era to cherish when I first voted in UK…..Hehehe
Din,
Enjoy!
looes74 - April 30, 2011 at 6:30 pm
On the sumpah laknat, I have this say. While the world was watching the royal wedding, we in Malaysia were watching a sex video, courtesy of Datuk T. Dr Mahathir Mohamad must be very happy with what is happening in this country because he started it all.
cannon - April 30, 2011 at 7:27 pm
There is no more decency to talk about for those involved directly or indirectly in the shooting, showing, distribution and ‘sumpah laknat’ in respect of this video. Prime Minister Najib who took the same oath (sumpah laknat) in Permatang Pauh in 2008–on a different matter– cannot now criticise this scumbag Eskay.
The Datuk T trio (Rahim, Eskay and Shuib Lajim) have admitted responsibility for this porn video, which is against existing laws; yet they have the protection of the Police and authorities (in particular the Islamic authorities) all the way to this ‘sumpah laknat’. Instead of detaining and charging them for the offences under criminal and syariah laws, they are free to continue to embarrass the country and insult us.
What we rakyat deduce from this is that all institutions involved are here to serve Umno, not Malaysia and rakyat at large. Dr Mahathir is culpable. If Umno thinks it can help in swinging votes from Pakatan Rakyat to Umno/BN, they are definitely wrong. The reverse is more likely come GE13.
Gobala - April 30, 2011 at 7:35 pm
Tang Loong Kong, if you are familiar with Jakarta, there is a huge prominent campus located right in Jakarta Pusat – its the Indonesian Catholic University! You think that will survive in Kuala Lumpur pusat?
Sentinel - April 30, 2011 at 8:27 pm
Old Netto – after all the chastisement he received at the hands of readers on this blog some time ago – tends today to titter still on the brink when it comes to the choice of literary style to use when writing on politics. He has apparently retreated from the profuse use of a literary style reminiscent of the Elizabethan era than the matter-of-fact style more suited to the understanding and the unravelling of the apparent intricacies of the complex political process. His readers cannot be sure if the aim is not to demonstrate his control of the English language or his professed knowledge of political science and the political process.
I would rather prefer to read his writings on the exploits of Sir Lancelot, his handling of Lady Guinevere, how Sir Lancelot cometh and licketh only to be found speechless by King Arthur on his return from the Crusades fighting the infidels.
Mr Bean - April 30, 2011 at 9:05 pm
Dr. CSL and our PM is hoping to get the Malaysians of Chinese descent to vote for the MCA in order to get “representation in the government”.
The questions I am posing are :
1. Why is BN so arrogant as to assume that after GE13, BN is going to form the government? All Malaysians should work together to ensure that this kind of racist politics is eliminated from the Malaysian Malaysia political arena;
2. What has MCA done for the Malaysian public to justify keeping them on the public payroll?
3. Even Perkasa has come out with a statement to say that even Malays are migrating. Is it because they want to live in a meritocracy and be proud that they have earned their strips;
4. What have the MCA “ministers” done for the Malaysians except to create monsters such as PKFZ, the screwed up education system and the Ali Baba business entities.
Malaysians of all races, should unite to throw out these clowns, to avoid suffering for the next 5 years.
Jeffrey Lim - April 30, 2011 at 11:28 pm
The STAR paper on the day of the China Premier visit to Malaysia had on it`s FIRST page only a half page coverage. The other half page for Datuk Anwar Ibrahim. What kind of news reporting is same. At all costs must blacken DSAI. STAR belong to MCA or UMNO ?
That the Datuk T gang had bullet proof vests and Police escort to the mosque for the Sumpah Laknat clearly indicates BN/Government involvement. What is Jibby saying no Government involvement. Are we that stupid and DUMB. All MSM TV channels showing part of the video clip during Prime time, for Children to watch ?
This Government of the day should change their act if they are to be relevant. Attend to Good Governance, reduce prices, be honest with the People and above all eradicate the rampant corruption in its midst to get people support. Even if DSAI had committed the said indiscretions , he still have my support due to the nonsense of the Government, media and Datul T antics. Sick and tired of this episodes.
The actions of the Datuk T and its support from MSM, Government, BN is so sick that it has started to stink throughout Malaysia.
Sick Malaysians.
Joe A - May 1, 2011 at 12:35 am
Today we have Najib threatening the Chinese community that in order for them to get representation in the government they should choose MCA. What the hell is that all about? If Najib wants to set up a country like China, he should just say it upfront. No need to be telling people how Malaysia is democratic and all that. I can’t imagine Obama threatening people to vote for him.
didi - May 1, 2011 at 1:53 am