The dark side of election handouts

Christmas is here, apparently. Caretaker prime minister Najib Abdul Razak gave out RM 800 fuel cards for cab drivers, caretaker Selangor menteri besar Mohamed Azmin Ali gave out almost RM1 million in ‘cheques’ and goodies, and in Johor, a royal sponsored RM3,000 shopping sprees; and nomination day isn’t even here yet.

This reminds me of a flight of fancy I once had: perhaps we should have a group of individuals running for election on a unique platform – that if anyone from this group wins, they promise to resign their seat at some point, forcing a by-election.

The appeal: we all know that by-elections come with rainfalls of goodies, just like the rainfalls we are seeing right now. Perhaps that’s the single best thing a representative can contribute.

It’s a silly half-joke of an idea, but it really is quite remarkable how big the election-gifting game is, on both sides of the divide.

I certainly don’t begrudge any beneficiaries of this phenomenon their benefits, but there’s no doubt that there is a dark side to all of this.

Violent mobs

In the fuel card giveaway, 30 people were injured as people mobbed the counters trying to claim their card.

“Following this, taxi drivers were seen yelling angry remarks at the police, Spad officials and Rela officers stationed there. An ambulance later arrived at the scene.

“Videos shot by those present showed senior citizens and women falling to the floor and on top of each other as the crowd scrambled for the fuel aid cards.”

How shameful.

Meanwhile, in the aftermath of the impromptu royally-sponsored shopping spree at Aeon Mall Tebrau City in Johor, a picture paints a thousand words.

The horrific mess of tens or hundreds of trolleys filled to the brim with now rotting food, melting ice cream and unidentifiable spilled liquids paint a sad metaphor for our nation.

Not long after, more than a thousand people swarmed Econsave at Pontian because of rumours that a similar giveaway would happen there.

Despite repeated announcements that no such thing would be happening, shoppers filled their trolleys to the brim once again, presumably creating a similar scenario of wastage at the end.

Hypocrisy

These giveaways also expose hypocrisy, as Pakatan Harapan politicians cry bloody murder at ‘vote buying’ by BN while doing the exact same thing themselves.

“Azmin denied that the handouts were due to the upcoming 14th general election on May 9.

“Instead, he said the aid delivered was a regular part of the caretaker Selangor government's responsibilities as a caring administration.

"We are not giving today because of May 9, we give (aid) every week. That is why the (community) chairperson knows to ask for more every week that I am here.

"That is ok, it doesn't go into his pocket. The money is for the rakyat. Today we want to give to mosques, surau, NGOs, youths, students, the sick, the old. This is a compassionate state," he said.

“The crowd responded by chanting "amin" while others clapped and cheered.

"’Amin, amin, amin, don't forget to vote,’ Azmin said to laughs from the audience.”

It takes all of six paragraphs before Azmin contradicts himself entirely – saying that this has nothing to do with the elections, and then exhorting the cheering crowd to vote.

It’s almost as if he was trying to compete with BN not only for votes, but to see who can tell the most incredulous bald-faced lies, and expect people to swallow it hook, line, and sinker.

Feudalism

The idea of giving out cash and goods in exchange for votes is an extension of the concept of feudalism.

In a feudal society, the peasants prop up the rule of the lord, while the lord ostensibly cares for the needs of the peasants.

In a system where votes are counted only once every five years or so, the weeks and months preceding the election are a thousand times more important than any of the months that precede it, because memories are short.

BN has relied for decades on the fact that if you pump the electorate full enough of goodies in the weeks leading up to the election – especially in the constituencies that form BN’s most important vote banks – you’re probably more than 50 percent likely to ensure victory.

Those on the side of Harapan have essentially taken the position that they must play that game as best they can as well, to have any hope of winning in the election.

Alternative models

Is this really the only viable model though?

I propose an alternative. Although I’m sure many will decry it as naive and overly idealistic, I have faith that my fellow Malaysians do not have as short a memory as many think.

I choose to believe that if an individual and his or her organisation chose to serve a community year-long every year, instead of only in the run-up to an election, people will remember.

I choose to believe that small services over a long period of time can trump huge handouts that are made in exchange for votes.

Fleshing this idea out in full requires more space than is available here, but in the long run, I do believe that this is a viable alternative model.

Parachute candidates

This topic is also related to the question of moving candidates around.

The idea above centres on the idea of building up a reputation and record of service over a long period of time. This also applies to incumbent elected representatives.

I noted a recent quote by Dr Boo Cheng Hau, who the DAP wanted to move from his state seat of Skudai to the parliamentary seat of Labis:

"I advised him (Liew Chin Tong) not to waste time. I will not contest in an area where I did not service before just for the sake of contesting."

I’m aware that there are many factors at play in that particular debate, and I don’t know enough about Johor politics to comment on the sincerity and such of all the players involved.

That said, I think that there is merit to Boo’s words. I think that many elected representatives invest a lot into working with their constituents, and that their record of service is the best reason to either elect them again, or to reject them.

Being extremely liberal with moving candidates over great distances indicates that you place very little value in a representative’s service to his or her community, and signals that you do not prioritise or value long-term efforts at building foundations and relationships within local communities.

Never moving candidates at all is, of course, the other extreme that may be quite impractical, but I believe that it should be the exception rather than the rule.

There are some cases that are more logical than others. For instance, it makes eminent sense for a state assemblyperson to contest in the parliamentary constituency in which their state seat was located, as the constituents are the same.

The case of Lembah Pantai may also be reasonable, where Nurul Izzah Anwar is moved to another constituency to make way for Fahmi Fadzil, a new candidate who was her assistant in the constituency for a long time, and presumably has extensive experience working with that community.

Genuine service

The underlying principle and theme here is to think about why we elect people as representatives.

Their party and the context of national politics is obviously a reasonable factor, but perhaps parties are placing excessive importance on this aspect.

Rather than betting on the candidate riding the party symbol to victory, perhaps parties should think about how their party symbol can ride on the reputation and performance of each of their local candidates – not only in election years, but every single day.

Imagine how much could change, if we were to place the focus on the performance and service of each individual elected representative, rather than obsessing continuously over issues like race, generating hate for one’s political opponents, election handouts and so on.

I believe that these shifts in political paradigms are our best bets for genuine, long term reforms that will be the first step to a better Malaysia.

---

NATHANIEL TAN believes that Ahmad Zahid Hamidi’s reasoning that it is best not to vote if you can’t get leave is cowardly. -Mkini