The Malaysian Insider :: Opinion
The Malaysian Insider :: Opinion |
| A smaller victory for BN, a bigger one for Malaysian democracy Posted: 06 May 2013 06:02 PM PDT
MAY 7 — A system which results in an 80 per cent turnout, where there are no more fixed deposits, where there is a healthy opposition voice in practically all the states and where the popular vote is almost evenly split between the two coalitions is not a sign of a system in distress. Just because change does not happen in a discrete, "Arab Spring"-type of way, but in a slower, more continuous way does not mean that change does not happen at all. It is not necessary for change for a challenger to win an election, only for the will of the people be made clear to the incumbent. Probably for the first in decades, a real democracy has been established in Malaysia. Following on from 2008, the 13th general election has confirmed the emergence of a genuine, broad-based national two-party system that is here to stay. Contrary to popular belief, the Malaysian voter has demonstrated her belief in the democratic process, in change that does not disrupt the very existence of the nation, of punishing those with a racial agenda and rewarding those with a vision. To argue that just because the big winners are Umno and the DAP, that the country is now divided politically on racial lines is simplistic. Many of the wins of both of these parties would not have been possible without multi-racial support. In fact, the disastrous showing by the other race based parties in BN, Perkasa being decimated and the less than satisfactory performance of PAS, points to a popular rejection of religious and racial extremism. If Umno does not recognise this and ups the ante on racial rhetoric even further on the back of its so-called rejection by other races, it risks losing the support of all others except for a diminishing base of racial chauvinists. There are difficult choices to be made by both coalitions on the back of these results. Are they really viable coalitions at all? If BN is now Umno and their east Malaysian partners only, what is their core appeal to voters in the future? What unites Pakatan Rakyat as a viable alternative, given the disparities between the ideologies and the electoral results of its partners? Should Umno and the DAP go it alone nationally, or should they jettison their racial legacy to lead largely secular, truly 1 Malaysia coalitions with competing visions of progress, justice and social harmony? Will true moderation in all things political become the cornerstone of Malaysian democracy? Given the above, in the coming weeks some radical modifications in the nature of Malaysian politics are in the offing. This is true change, visible to the population on how these two coalitions see the future of Malaysia. Even bigger is the impact or reduced individual and party majorities on Malaysian democracy. When politicians need to perform to be re-elected, expect more debates, more arguments and more thought through decisions. When people are involved, outspoken and fearless, expect politicians to behave better. Expect more pressure on the Election Commission for clean and fair elections, more pressure on corruption and more pressure on the judiciary. Gone are the days of gratitude and supermajorities. Those who perform are retained, the others thrown out. A moderate approach that aspires to inclusive economic growth, safety, social cohesion and mutual respect are the new mandate from the people that really matter-the electorate. This is an awkward victory for the prime minister, a straightforward one for the rakyat. From politicians telling the people to "Listen, Listen, Listen", it is finally their turn to do the same. Now and for a long time to come. * This is the personal opinion of the columnist. | |
| Posted: 06 May 2013 05:12 PM PDT
MAY 7 — Every sports fan has witnessed a journalist — TV reporter, newspaper writer or radio commentator — who is more than happy to flaunt his close relationships with star players or big-name managers. It's pretty much seen as a perk of the job — the opportunity to mix and mingle with the stars. Well, I currently have a bit of a personal dilemma that gets to the heart of that topic. One of my daughter's classmates at school happens to be the child of a Barcelona player. For somebody who makes a living from writing about football, in particular Spanish football, in particular FC Barcelona, this obviously presents an interesting opportunity. Put starkly, I am suddenly gifted with a golden chance of cultivating a family friendship with a superstar footballer. Maybe arrange the odd play date; a trip to the park or the beach; perhaps an outing to the cinema. In time, we could develop inter-family relations to the extent that I'm granted an occasional exclusive interview. If I gradually ingratiate myself with dad/player and establish his trust, he might even start to divulge some of the deepest secrets of the dressing room: which players are signing or leaving? Who is injured or fit? What does Lionel Messi really think of Cristiano Ronaldo? For someone in my position, that would be a tremendous competitive advantage. It's cynical, maybe, but being handed such an easy route directly into the heart of FC Barcelona, circumventing the need for press officers and agents, is an opportunity that anybody in my profession would jump at. However, here's the problem. Let's assume I was able to achieve exactly that, using my daughter to wheedle my way into the secret, hidden world of the Barcelona footballer, establishing the trust and confidence of my child's schoolmate's dad to develop a professionally-rewarding personal relationship with one of the team's superstars. And now let's assume he's playing an important game... and he has a shocker. He misses a simple chance to win the game; he commits a terrible error that leads directly to an opposition goal; he launches into a reckless challenge to earn himself a needless red card. Now what do I do? Sitting high up in the press box overlooking the action, I am tasked with writing honestly and objectively about the action that is unfolding beneath: the right thing to do, clearly, would be to call it as I see it and criticise the player — my friend and my child's friend's father — for his poor play. That is what my readers and my employers would rightly expect. But let's take it further. Let's imagine the player finds himself out of favour with the manager or the fans, leading to media speculation that he will be sold. The player wants to stay and win back his place — he'd actually quite like a lucrative new contract — but, secretly, I agree with the manager's assessment that he is surplus to requirements and should be jettisoned. Now what? Do I lie through my teeth (or my fingertips) and write dishonest articles about the merits of the player and his value to the team, simply because I know it's what he would want me to say? Or do I tell the truth — or my version of the truth, at least — and risk destroying my relationship with the player because I've publicly stated he's not good enough? So now my current situation — the opportunity of attempting to develop a relationship — is less straightforward. This is nothing new, of course. Anybody working in the media has to find the right balance between gaining privileged access to the inner circle and maintaining their objective professional integrity. It can become even more difficult for senior, influential journalists to find that balance because they will frequently be tempted, cajoled and gratified by the subjects of their reporting, who are eager to be depicted in a positive light. Indeed, the entire, enormous industry of public relations is essentially based around the simple concept of courting positive coverage by establishing personal relationships. In some areas of society, this doesn't really matter. As a sports writer, for example, it wouldn't really change anybody's life if I claimed a player was on top form even though I knew it wasn't true. It's only football. But elsewhere, particularly in political reporting, it's a far more serious issue. Back in the UK, for example, the relationship between the vast Murdoch media empire (containing various television networks and national newspapers) and the Conservative party is unpleasantly cosy. It's impossible to escape the conclusion that, for many years, the Conservatives have made a series of policy decisions because they know they will receive favourable coverage from Murdoch's media outlets. And likewise, it's no great revelation to suggest that Murdoch's publications and networks are prone to covering news stories in a certain way because they know it's the interpretation that their political allies would prefer to see. This is common practice, absolutely accepted as par for the course. And it's only inevitable that some kind of relationship must exist between journalist and subject, because it can be an invaluable method of uncovering important information that can only be divulged to trusted sources. But too often — far too often, I believe — the line between professional diligence and blatant cronyism is crossed. Perhaps uncharitably, during my 15 years working with and around football journalists, I've often suspected that a fair number of them are more interested in the opportunity of hanging out with the stars than they are in being good reporters; they're keener to attach themselves to fame rather than to write honestly about the famous. Realistically, sports writers don't need relationships with players and managers to write objectively about sport. If you have know your subject, do your research and are given access to watch games, attend press conferences and interview players, you should be able to develop your own informed opinions without needing to ingratiate yourself with players and managers. It makes some difference if your style of reporting is more investigative — digging around to discover exclusive news stories and shocking revelations. For that kind of journalism, contacts and trust are more important. But that world is not for me. I'm happier to stay impartial, protecting my objectivity by keeping my distance and not becoming personally compromised. I will not, therefore, pursue a relationship with my daughter's friend's father. In fact, I'd rather she wasn't even aware that it was a potential issue because she should be able to form and dissolve her own friendships without any pressure from her parents. So I won't be showing her this article, and I certainly won't be asking her to introduce me to her friend's dad. Shame — we might have been invited to some great parties. * This is the personal opinion of the columnist. |
| You are subscribed to email updates from The Malaysian Insider :: Opinion To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
0 ulasan:
Catat Ulasan