Playing Victim
Is the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Agency (MACC) composed of thugs and gangsters who mentally and emotionally abuse those under its interrogation?
Inasmuch as many today are inclined to think so, I do not. It would take a bunch of imbercilic fools to act that way even when knowing that they are under the constant scrutiny of public eye.
It seems to me strange that the very public which seems to "see through" the "cheap propaganda and publicity stunts" of the ruling government fails to recognise cheap shots of oppositional propaganda when it takes place under its very nose. It allows itself to fall prey to the sympathy campaigns of opposition parties.
I think it is now time for the opposition parties, who have been given the opportunity to form the ruling governments in various states, to begin establishing their own credibility through supreme performance; not by cajoling public sympathy through cheap shots like playing victim in MACC interrogations. Public sympathy can only get you so far, but becoming governments marked by true integrity would give you the moral right to be the governments you claim you can be.
For the record, I am not an avid government supporter - absolutely not!. And inasmuch as I would like to be able to say I'm in support of the opposition parties, I cannot either. For you have yet to prove yourselves. All I have seen from you so far are public demonstrations and riots, falling down and bleeding before the media, and goodness knows what next.
For now, I wouldn't vote the ruling government. Neither would I vote the opposition parties. I just wouldn't vote. Until someone deserves a vote.
Comments (4)
Mr. Sherman,
Somehow, I still cannot agree with your course of (in)action.
By now, with MACC watching them very closely like a hawk, PR reps dare not indulge in corruption.
Think about it. PR reps have to be very clean to avoid serious consequences. If anything, the MACC should investigate Khir Toyo and the likes of him. I think this would be fair (and I know you'd be too.)
Someone still has to run the country and in my books now, PR is the "lesser evil" so to speak. Therefore, sitting on the fence is not an option for me.
If Malaysians were able to tolerate BN for 52 years, we should extend a chance to PR to take federal power at least for a season. If then, they still mess up, I'd agree it's pointless voting for either party-bloc.
(If you're saddened that the PR-administered state governments are not up to par, remember how Gerakan-run Penang had to capitulate and join BN in the 70s?)
Thank you.
From yet another neither-BN-nor-PR supporter.
Posted by EJ | August 15, 2009 10:58 AM
Hi EJ,
Thanks for your note! And your point is well taken.
I'd given thought to this at length and even discussed it with some of my close friends, as to whether the refusal to vote makes one a fence-sitter.
I'm inclined to think that such (in)action is not to be necessarily concluded as fence-sitting. Abstinence from voting is itself a vote cast, either against the electoral system or non-confidence in all parties/candidates standing for election.
I agree that abstinence from voting purely out of nonchalance is irresponsible. But abstinence from voting itself is not to be necessarily construed as disinterest.
Posted by SK sfo | August 16, 2009 7:17 AM
Abstinence from voting in Australia is an offence. Vote an independent if you have the chance, IF you really don't want to vote.
Posted by Collin Michael Nunis | August 24, 2009 4:54 PM
funny thing is Malaysians obviously still CAN 'tolerate BN'...the votes prove it. despite the corruption, despite MACC controversies, despite rioting, somehow BN (which, btw, includes MCA and MIC) stays in power.
as for not voting, yeah, i think it's perfectly fine for Christians to abstain, as long as it's not out of indifference or sheer laziness to register(!).
Posted by alwyn | August 29, 2009 12:11 PM