JUNE 6 — The penultimate sentence of my article last week was apparently too condensed to be fully understood. What I meant, in reference to political parties’ role in the Perak mentri besar crisis of 2009, was that Barisan Nasional should have taken responsibility for selecting candidates who failed to win seats to enable them to form the state government in the first place, and that Pakatan Rakyat should have taken responsibility for selecting candidates who for whatever reason failed to remain loyal to their coalition. These were the real weaknesses, rather than the subsequent decisions of a former Lord President.
Thus the scrutiny placed upon both candidates in the recently concluded by-election in Teluk Intan was most welcome.
Admittedly media attention of candidates in a lone parliamentary by-election will exceed coverage of budding state assemblymen amidst a general election, but voters’ desire to research candidates’ credentials will only increase, particularly if they felt betrayed in the past. (Meanwhile in the UK a bill was just announced to enable constituents to sack (“recall”) their MPs.)
The voters of Teluk Intan — unlike those of Bukit Gelugor the week before — were fortunate to have the opportunity to choose between two compelling candidates. The positive branding — Dyana Sofya Mohd Daud as earnest and exuberant, Datuk Mah Siew Keong as an honourable local — stuck throughout the campaign. Equally adhesive was the criticism directed at both that they would be mere puppets of political masters to whom they would owe their continued careers.
Neither side satisfactorily dealt with that charge. It is natural that party apparatchiks will want their party to win every election, regardless of their candidate — but the health of our political system depends on the quality of the people in our democratic institutions, of which Parliament is at the heart.
Some people are so fixated on replacing the Executive branch that they forget the need to strengthen the more vital organ. Indeed, even Pakatan supporters have clamoured for more checks and balances in states where that coalition is in control, because some leaders have become too comfortable controlling the reins of power. PKR’s N. Surendran, soon to return to the Dewan Rakyat after a six-month suspension, recently labelled Parliament a wasteful rubber stamp — but there’s no guarantee that situation will change significantly if his coalition leaders control Putrajaya, particularly if those leaders are the same people who determine who gets to run on their party ticket.
That’s why, alongside parliamentary reforms (like our previous suggestions for the Dewan Negara), the quality of candidates is vital — reasonable intelligent people on both sides are likelier to debate in the national interest. It’s this belief that led one Pakatan Rakyat MP to express sadness that Datuk Saifuddin Abdullah lost in Temerloh last year. In that MP’s estimation, the former deputy minister for higher education was preferable to his elected colleague from PAS.
Did the voters of Teluk Intan apply this logic in making their choice last weekend? Judging by the campaign, it seemed many other criteria took precedence. Racial politics still featured centrally despite the candidates’ efforts to raise issues such as cost of living or development projects like a new university (though proposing Unesco Heritage Listing for the Leaning Tower of Teluk Intan was fanciful, to put it mildly, given that the two entire historic cities of Malacca and George Town jointly count as one item on the list). Also in play was what victory would mean for the candidate’s parties: for DAP, a successful recalibration of its racial image; for Gerakan, a triumphant resurgence in relevance. Even inasmuch as candidate’s individual qualities were brought up, there were too many facile references to “good looks” (and in a comic response, “inner beauty”). Unfortunately, much of the media were complicit in this exercise.
Predictably and sadly there were despicable incidents during the campaign — the circulation of false photographs, jeering and other forms of intimidation, defacements of posters — but on the upside, the candidates themselves were exonerated from direct responsibility for the worst of these. Indeed, some of the so-called “support” actually backfired spectacularly.
In the aftermath there has been much analysis of why the votes went the way they did: lower turnout, recent concern over hudud, the local vs outsider factor, masochism, etc. No doubt the strategists on both sides will be extrapolating all sorts of trends to help them prepare for the next battle. But perhaps the most important lesson has already been learnt: in today’s electoral contests, every candidate will need to be a winnable one — and ideally, loyal enough to not defect, but not obsequious to the extent of being labelled a puppet.
I conclude with a word none of the party leaders ever utter: primaries.
*This is the personal opinion of the columnist.
