If PAS’s Zulkefly Mohamad Omar stands for symbol of piety/integrity and his oppnent “Good Guilty” for money polkitics/corruption, then the voters in Bagan Pinang have given a resounding 8,013 vote victory for Politics/Corruption as against 2,578 for piety/integrity with majority of 5,435!

Even if it were argued that such a landslide victory for BN signals “loud, clear and unmistakable message to all Malaysians that Umno and BN are totally irredeemable and incapable of internal change and reform”, it begs the question and does not answer WHY in spite of being “irredeemable and incapable of internal change and reform”, the BN’s candidate still gets overwhelming support (instead of given the boot for his tainted past)

So it would seem the loud, clear and unmistakable message is that any fight against corruption can only be effective if the larger community’s and voters’ attitudes are changed to one revulsed with and repulsed by it instead of indulgent or tolerant of it.

Ultimately fighting corruption lies in the people, not so much (on comparative basis) the government.

If rakyat by majority are tolerant of leaders known for money politics and view their guilt as “good guilt” because they distribute some of the spoils back (in a kind of patron-client exchange system) , how does one battle this scourge of corruption?

One has to change the ordinary voters’ attitude, and for that one has to inculcate ethical values, which is uphill, looking at the record of more than 50 years, if rent seeking behaviour and patron client relationship (which by themselves provide the excuses and pretext for corrupt transactions) are otherwise sanctioned and even institutionalised.

Is there nothing else better to blame for PAS vice-president Salahuddin Ayub to attribute the party’s loss to postal votes & “fear-factor” of gangsterism ( The MalaysiaInsider report of 11th Oct )?

Had 100% of total postal votes of 4,604 being given to PAS’s Zulkefly Omar, he would still have lost! Salahuddin admitted. “We are pretty weak in Bagan Pinang. PAS has only around 100 members in Bagan Pinang compared to Umno’s approximately 3,000 members here.”

IF PAS were weak in Bagan Pinang why did PR allot that seat to be again contested by PAS candidate instead of (say) a PKR’s man? How do your power sharing rules work? Just because in previous 2008 GE PAS’s candidate was given the seat to contest, did you have to give it back once again to PAS in this by election – even if in 08 GE, PAS’s candidate lost, and as admitted by Salahuddin PAS had only around 100 members in Bagan Pinang compared to UMNO’s 3000? In 2008 GE, PAS’s candidate lost to UMNO’s Azman by 2,333 votes – what more now, you still field a PAS candidate when facing a more popular local chieftain like Isa?

As expected the 2,834 Indian Malaysian voters holding 20.74% of total votes were pivotal to tip the scale in Bagan Pinang, and all the Indian based/majority parties (whether in or out of BN’s fold) like MIC, Indian Progressive Front (IPF) PPP and the new party Malaysia Makkal Sakti Party (MMSP) threw their support behind BN. Though decades of marginalisation and unequal opportunities were age old grouses against BN, many were likely to suspend rememberance of these grouses when Isa (a natural in connecting with his audience) reminded all of High Chaparral / Kampung Buah Pala and made fresh promises for BN.

Khalid Samad, Shah Alam PAS member of Parliament said Umno would pay a price for the actions of the cow-head protestors. He forgot that some of the cow-head protestors were PAS’s supporters and PAS did not even trenchantly voice its public condemnation of the cow head sacrilege. National issues revolving around Teoh Beng Hock’s and A Kugan’s death or even Isa’s image as icon of money politics/corruption (as highlighted by UMNO stalwarts like TDM & Ku Li) did not make a dent. Bread and butter/development issues based on “what’s in for me?” appear to be given prime weightage. “Good guilt” in good ole entrenched Malaysian feudal culture of patron client relationship triumphs.

The buy-election outcome seems to give inspiration to the other warlords that if he is popular locally for being “good guilty” in giving some portion of spoils of money politics back, he can even dictate to his party’s bosses to give his political career another chance without regrets….

Where then is the incentive for UMNO/BN to reform when their depredations are vindicated/rewarded by victory at the polls?

PR has to go back to drawing board and do some soul searching. As YB Kit has written in earlier threads (‘ Bagan Pinang by-election – a contest between Malaysia’s political past and the future’ or ‘ A vote for Pakatan is a vote against corruption’), what we have here is a vote in acquiescence with corruption of political past, the present that may well extend long into the future. It is argued here that Bagan Pinang by-election is a“no winner” for Umno/BN : if it wins the battle it loses the war in next GE. Are we sure of this? What if many other constitutencies also behave like Bagan Pinang voters in the next GE? UMNO/BN would have found in Isa’s “good guilty” the right formula to stay in power. Reforming and re-inventing will take the form of mere changing from bad guilty (giving nothing back to bribe voters) to “good guilty” of (sharing the spoils/largese).