Organised Chaos v3.0

Political scandals are nothing new, whether they involve sex or not. Wikipedia has a list of British political scandals throughout the 20th century, and American political scandals from the 19th century. No doubt, those in political office have been embroiled in scandal well before that too. So really, Chua Soi Lek’s sex dvd is just a tiny notch on a very, very old bedpost, if you think about it. He is not the first Malaysian politician to be involved - think Rahim Tamby Chik, for starters - although Chua may well be the first to admit to it.

So, is Chua a gentleman to stand up and admit his faults? In the bigger picture of Malaysia politics, where open secrets of the sordid and less than kosher lifestyles of the rich and famous are conveniently ignored, a confession is perhaps a gust of fresh air. Although if any of us are waiting with baited breath for other confessions should not really give up their dayjobs. But the reasons behind his confession is rather interesting. To quote the man himself:

“Well, after I made the confession, I hoped Malaysians would be able to accept my apology. But unfortunately, based on the feedback that I have received, I observed that Malaysians were unable to do that,” he a told a press conference yesterday. ”

The Star, 3 Jan 2008

Did Chua, a married man, seriously believe that admission on his part that he was involved in a sex DVD, and a subsequent apology, would be enough to keep him in office? He went on to attack the ‘holier-than-thou’ attitude of Malaysians, calling everyone ulamas. I don’t quite get this, because in what moral code would an extra-marital affair be accepted? Does the average man on the street actually condone such behaviour, regardless of colour, creed and belief? The fact that he expected Malaysians to forgive him suggests he has quite low expectations of our moral standards. Perhaps that page out of the Clinton notebook was too quickly taken out.

Which begets the question, how high a pedestal should we raise our leaders on? Would it be okay for him to conduct misdemeanours in his own time, as long as he delivers on his official duties? Or do we expect exemplary behaviour of those who lead us, from all aspects of life?

Although perhaps Chua does have a point. As if everyone else in the Cabinet is flawless. In the ways that we demand exemplary behaviour of those in office or in positions of political power, we go the extra mile and choose to ignore the transgressions of those we call YB, Dato’ or Tan Sri. For as long as there is no outright confession, and for as long as denial is continously made, we will turn a blind eye. There is almost blatant worship of political leaders - and in some cases, royalty - to the point where nothing they do is ever wrong; as if they are answerable to a totally different moral code against which we judge others around us. In the first place, who are we to judge, and if we can choose not to judge politicians, why can’t that be applied to all? A case of needing to channel excess judgementalism, perhaps?

This entry is incoherent, because at this point in time my whole life is incoherent, and I lack the mental faculties for rigorous analysis. I apologise for that. But I will leave you with this: Mohamad Mohamad Taib, Rahim Tamby Chik, Zakaria Deros. Where do you stand?