Pakatan leaders’ scepticism is well founded based on knowledge/experience on how our political patronage system works.

It always follows a well established system: award a big contract of inflated values, financed from public purse, to connected parties who will skim the extras and make a round tripping back to political patrons.

Such a system has evolved a mechanism of in-built firewalls to absorb the risks of public exposure. GMs, finance officers and consultants at corporate level are the lower tier ‘kaki tangan’ who make out the vouchers, accounting entries, make out the cheques, arrange for bank withdrawals etc. For their “service” they are allowed to profit (miniscule compared to the ‘directing will’) but even then it might be handsome enough for some to fly 100 special guests (business class) to a Medieval castle or a Renaissance villa in Florence, Tuscany in host of their children’s wedding reception!

The ‘directing will’/decision maker will interface with the main political patrons and distribute spoils amongst them depending on importance to the project.

The ones in power are in a political-economic incestuous circle protect themselves against each other by holding each other’s secrets.

Contributing a part of the spoils to one’s political party is an important safeguard – for the party is the mother patron/goose of all affiliated to it, past present and future, so that if anyone is threatened with exposure with withdrawal of political protection, he could counter-threaten to implicate the very party that all affiliated to and depend on it to get largesse and benefit, present and future, will have an interest in not implicating and destroying. This is the insurance of protection. Worse come to worse there’s also excuse that the feelings and pride of the particular party’s constitutency need to be protected. They will feel humiliated if sheninegans of their community leaders are exposed.

The mechanism to protect the system from disintegrating in the face of public exposure also operates on basis of in-built safeguards at enforcement level : selective investigative techniques, presentation of reports from investigating agencies etc. At prosecutorial level there is prosecutorial discretion. Prosecution obviously cannot proceed if there were deliberate omission of investigation or if there were, half baked ones. Even if procecution proceeds, one has discretion to choose under which offence to charge – something that implicates heavy punishment or something a slap on the wrist. Even if a serious charge of (say) murder or homicide charge, what is there to guarantee the prosecution cannot “bungle” when contesting a good defence lawyer that gets the accused an acquittal?

So what we have here is fantastic system that thrives with in built checks and balances and fire walls that keeps it running at transaction and enforcement levels, ever ready to take challenge of managing public perception and damage control in a case of a major public scandal erupting as in this case of PKFZ. Because PKFZ is a scandal of mega financial proportions, the system must rise up to the occasion to manage damage control effectively or else the whole system will be fractured. PKFZ is the test. Here because so much public money will be lost (to be recovered via heavier taxes, whether Real Property Gains Tax or GST) the attention of ordinary men is also attracted (not just the more Opposition leaders and sophisticated Malaysians familiar with how the system – and country- works).

All feel hurt, and like the Romans in the Coliseum braying for blood of those responsible. Their lust for blood (accountability) of not just ikan bilis but sharks must be gratified or else they may put thumbs down on their rulers in next election.

So now the task is to sift amongst all implicated to determine who are to be sacrificed to the mob and who to shield. The weakest in the food chain is served as Hor’Dourves appetizers on the table (like a full course western meal) with a part of the Entree and desserts promised in the weeks to come. Already I am feeling hungry!

It is important we recognise this. The political patronage system has in-built firewalls/checks and balances preserving itself./

At the same time – at governance and constitutional level – we have no in-built firewalls/checks and balances against the abuse or corruption of this political patronage system.

Thats what we’re up against – and thats the irony.