Thursday, February 21, 2008

Election 2008 : Party First or Candidate First ?

I posted a comment in Rocky's Bru : Zaid dropped entry and this is an extract of his writing:

"Zaid Ibrahim. This is one politician who can count on bloggers' support wherever he decides to contest on whichever political party's ticket. Now that Umno has dropped Zaid from the BN's list of candidates, we must wonder about the possibilities.The Kota Bharu MP said he did not know why he was dropped. Well, Zahid, you are too clever, maverick, too successful, and sometimes a little brash with your comments against the people up there. Any of these reasons would have justified dropping him from the line-up.

Whoever Umno puts in Zaid's place better pray that he does not lose too badly to Pas ...

My previous postings on Zaid,

According to a letter titled We want more of Zaid Ibrahim published in Malaysiakini, the letter writer claimed that Zaid had mentioned about certain politicians taking the easy way out to reach popularity by instigating racial and religious issues.

In my opinion, it is not hard to guess for Malaysians to guess which group of people he is referring to. One wonders whether it has anything to do with a certain keris waver from UMNO.

A member of a component party (ChnLady) in the coalition read my comments in Rocky's Bru post and mailed me with a relational question.

From ChnLady to Sagaladoola
Feb 17, 2008 11:37 AM (4 days ago)

Would you encourage voters to not vote for a BN candidate just to spite BN? What if BN put up a candidate like Zaid Ibrahim (if he was running)?


From Sagaladoola to ChnLady
Feb 17, 2008 7:40 PM (4 days ago)

I think there is no point of talking about him, right? Zaid Ibrahim was removed, am I right?

Besides looking at the candidate's capability, whether the party is able to produce what is required for the public does matter as a priority sometimes.

Let's consider this Zaid Ibrahim I am about to mention is from another political party called XXN and not BN.

For instance, if a leading party plays communal politics (i.e. threats etc.) and a component party subordinates itself without requesting for an apology, I think it will be no use if that particular person who can speak up like Zaid Ibrahim is in the component party.

He would have to toe the party line. He could have possibly be removed if he chose to speak up. He would have to subordinate himself.

Another example would be, if let's say a possible capable person like Zaid is clean but he chose to speak up against a leading/component parties on corruption etc. Eventually, he may be penalised and have to toe the party line. At the end of the day, he could have chosen to keep quiet to save his ass.

Another question to ask is, if this Zaid wanted to help clean up the nation, why would he choose to stay in a party where there is a system that allows corruption or play communal politics with more than 90% of the members supporting the system and the party?

That brings about the question of sincerity. What is the intention of a temporary screaming against the top people. Is it actually to garner votes from his constituency?

Finally, all in all, these people would be removed eventually because birds of a feather flock together. If you are not of A FEATHER, you are a goner. So, either way, it is not good for the public. Either that person is INSINCERE or BIRDS OF A FEATHER (same type of people)

I am just saying all of these as examples to illustrate my points. I am not sure whether you are able to map the non-reality examples to realistic situations but I do hope you can catch the examles. The principles and concept of the party does matter and it will conclusively map to the actions of the party's candidates.

Coming from an utilitarian approach, I am willing to sacrifice a person like Zaid Ibrahim in my constituency and give another chance for another party. This candidate may be too risky to support and as an overall is not beneficial to Malaysia.

When people vote against a candidate, it is not to so-called intentionally making a "spite" on a party. They do think of the overall picture. They do think of Malaysia as a whole and their own rights when they choose.

People of the past generations (those born in the 60s and before that) may not think of the big picture on the validity of the party but people of this generation knows how to use their vote.

[ Sagaladoola: 3 paragraphs were removed from here. They consist of criticism to certain individuals in the party of ChnLady. Let's not deviate from the original intention of deciphering the title of this post "Candidate First or Party First?" ]

One more point to note, people these days find it easier to accept a stupid person than an arrogant-and-stupid person. Not to mention, those who does not sincerely apologise on mistakes = arrogant as well. And then there are those, who "dare" people to do something onto them if they do not apologise even though they are in the wrong. I am saying this in general.

Simple answer : No Reform = No Vote.

P.S. You should know that I took some good amount of time to write this piece so that you can reflect. If you choose to do something out of the ordinary to me, I will tell you I am defenseless. I am speaking in fear but I do know that I have to speak. Malaysia is my homeland. I hope that Malays, Chinese, Indians etc. can live in a tolerant way. I have friends from many walks of races and religions.


Now, that was my reply. To top it off, most of the time I would place party as a priority. Then, I would look at the candidate. If he/she is "not bad, not necessarily excellent" according to my perspective, I will vote for him/her. If the candidate is really "undeniably bad", then I would probably look for other candidates from other contesting parties.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Ooooh.... how did the Chnlady respond?