https://yawningbread.wordpress.com/2015/08/30/butter-in-the-balance/
As signalled at the top, this essay is actually not about Malaysia. It’s about the coming Singapore elections. Too often, people make a false distinction between “bread and butter” issues and issues like institutional independence and integrity, political openness, checks and balances.
You can’t separate the two. The latter values make for a more transparent and responsive system that self-corrects in a more timely fashion, instead of allowing problems to grow and fester, and then be suppressed by expansive executive power, only to get worse. These values create the space for law and accountable government to flourish. It is worth remembering that even as we speak adoringly of ‘rule of law’, we must first defend the space for law to operate (including the space for evidence to surface).
Consider this: Malaysia’s UMNO-led coalition isn’t as dominant in that country’s political landscape as the PAP is in Singapore’s. UMNO and its Barisan Nasional partners do not even have a two-thirds majority in parliament; BN does not run all the state governments. There is a far more active civil society there than in Singapore. Malaysian sultans are not appointed by the government and have had a history of tension with it. Despite these handicaps, Najib has been able to block investigations, sack those who stood in his way, and issue the most asinine of ‘explanations’. We thus cannot naïvely assume that, should a future scandal brew under the surface in Singapore, where currently the government remains even more dominant than that in Malaysia, truth will out and wrongdoers punished.
A year ago, no one could have imagined the crisis of confidence that has since engulfed Malaysia. The thing about rot is that it can remain invisible for a long time, only to be exposed and turn dangerous very late in the day.
A year ago, my Malaysian friends were making jokes about Rosmah. Najib’s wife was widely ridiculed for her shopping frenzy. Yes, there was excess, there was some corruption, there was some authoritarianism and dirty politics, but life for the average Malaysian was pretty good. Ha ha ha. Let’s have another beer.
Rosmah jokes are not funny anymore. Ordinary people are paying the price for excess. They’ll see it in the shops, on online airfares and vacation prices, maybe in future careers and good jobs as investors take fright.
When candidates in our election speak about the need for checks and balances, let this example show why we need to take the message seriously. But when others around you say a little authoritarianism is good, a bit of dirty politics all in the name of the game, and an overwhelming majority for one party makes for greater efficiency and prosperity – for after all, has not life in Singapore proven to be relatively good? – look soberly north.
As signalled at the top, this essay is actually not about Malaysia. It’s about the coming Singapore elections. Too often, people make a false distinction between “bread and butter” issues and issues like institutional independence and integrity, political openness, checks and balances.
You can’t separate the two. The latter values make for a more transparent and responsive system that self-corrects in a more timely fashion, instead of allowing problems to grow and fester, and then be suppressed by expansive executive power, only to get worse. These values create the space for law and accountable government to flourish. It is worth remembering that even as we speak adoringly of ‘rule of law’, we must first defend the space for law to operate (including the space for evidence to surface).
Consider this: Malaysia’s UMNO-led coalition isn’t as dominant in that country’s political landscape as the PAP is in Singapore’s. UMNO and its Barisan Nasional partners do not even have a two-thirds majority in parliament; BN does not run all the state governments. There is a far more active civil society there than in Singapore. Malaysian sultans are not appointed by the government and have had a history of tension with it. Despite these handicaps, Najib has been able to block investigations, sack those who stood in his way, and issue the most asinine of ‘explanations’. We thus cannot naïvely assume that, should a future scandal brew under the surface in Singapore, where currently the government remains even more dominant than that in Malaysia, truth will out and wrongdoers punished.
A year ago, no one could have imagined the crisis of confidence that has since engulfed Malaysia. The thing about rot is that it can remain invisible for a long time, only to be exposed and turn dangerous very late in the day.
A year ago, my Malaysian friends were making jokes about Rosmah. Najib’s wife was widely ridiculed for her shopping frenzy. Yes, there was excess, there was some corruption, there was some authoritarianism and dirty politics, but life for the average Malaysian was pretty good. Ha ha ha. Let’s have another beer.
Rosmah jokes are not funny anymore. Ordinary people are paying the price for excess. They’ll see it in the shops, on online airfares and vacation prices, maybe in future careers and good jobs as investors take fright.
When candidates in our election speak about the need for checks and balances, let this example show why we need to take the message seriously. But when others around you say a little authoritarianism is good, a bit of dirty politics all in the name of the game, and an overwhelming majority for one party makes for greater efficiency and prosperity – for after all, has not life in Singapore proven to be relatively good? – look soberly north.
