“Politicians susceptible to public perception ... not rule by fine points of the laws” said Tan Sri Dr. James Masing. (BP 17.06.2011), I cannot disagree any less with the statement. The remark (I assumed) also applies to politicians on both sides of the political divide (BN as well as Oppositions).
QUESTIONS:
(a) Would it make any difference in the manner by which MACC handle the investigation if
the politician (under investigation) is just an ordinary ADUN or MP? I believe that political
positions and political divide are factors which determine the nature of “duty of care
owed” in doing (by act) and/or in not doing (by omission).
(b) Do the teeth of the laws have choices of bite? Perhaps the historical case of the late
Dato’ Harun Idris, the current case of Dato’ Khir Toyo (both politicians were former MB
of Selangor), and the previous case of corruption against Dato’ Seri Annuar Ibrahim
(former DPM) may tell similar or different stories. Had Dato’ Seri Annuar Ibrahim not
“revolted” against Tun Mahathir bin Mohammad, he might have escaped or not even being
investigated. In the case of Watergate Scandal, President Nixon escaped while his aide
became the scapegoat.
(a) Would it make any difference in the manner by which MACC handle the investigation if
the politician (under investigation) is just an ordinary ADUN or MP? I believe that political
positions and political divide are factors which determine the nature of “duty of care
owed” in doing (by act) and/or in not doing (by omission).
(b) Do the teeth of the laws have choices of bite? Perhaps the historical case of the late
Dato’ Harun Idris, the current case of Dato’ Khir Toyo (both politicians were former MB
of Selangor), and the previous case of corruption against Dato’ Seri Annuar Ibrahim
(former DPM) may tell similar or different stories. Had Dato’ Seri Annuar Ibrahim not
“revolted” against Tun Mahathir bin Mohammad, he might have escaped or not even being
investigated. In the case of Watergate Scandal, President Nixon escaped while his aide
became the scapegoat.
Politicians are public political trustees.
But being politicians, they “rule” by political conveniences (saying what they like to get support), and (as said rightly) they are “not rule by fine points of the laws” because accusation in law is subject to evidences. Thus there is always difficulty to distinguish between reality and perception. Perception may not reflect the reality (of any case), while reality (of any case) may not be reflected in the perception.
Therefore, perception can be deceiving (hence misleading). Perception can be shaped through media campaigns to bend and change what is (are) actual true in reality. Creating good image (out of bad performance for example) is about strategic damage control and pursuing "creative accounting" (so to speak in accounting term). Crerating good perception is like in sales and marketing of one-own brands of consumers’ products. Sometimes it is necessaey to hold seasonal cheap and sales to beat competetators' products, and clearance sale to get rid of old stocks.
But being politicians, they “rule” by political conveniences (saying what they like to get support), and (as said rightly) they are “not rule by fine points of the laws” because accusation in law is subject to evidences. Thus there is always difficulty to distinguish between reality and perception. Perception may not reflect the reality (of any case), while reality (of any case) may not be reflected in the perception.
Therefore, perception can be deceiving (hence misleading). Perception can be shaped through media campaigns to bend and change what is (are) actual true in reality. Creating good image (out of bad performance for example) is about strategic damage control and pursuing "creative accounting" (so to speak in accounting term). Crerating good perception is like in sales and marketing of one-own brands of consumers’ products. Sometimes it is necessaey to hold seasonal cheap and sales to beat competetators' products, and clearance sale to get rid of old stocks.
Absolutely correct. The previous candidates who stand on SNAP ticket are perceptively crooked into believing that the party could deliver seat after being rebranded. But in actual fact that were all lies in perception of getting quick cash for the irresponsible cuns
ReplyDeleteHi Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteGood to read your comment.
Again it is about perception over reality.
In Iban there is a saying which sounds like this: TELIH SIGI SEMETING LEBOH KENA GARAM. SAPA KE TELIH TETAP NAT KE SEMETING (= It is painful when wound get in contact with salt. Those who have wounds surely feel the pain), Whether candidates in the election took quick cash for the purpose as you wrote is also a perception.
To me SNAP's participation in the recent state election was not re-branding at all. It is a wrong perception (to me) to think that particpation in the election re-branded SNAP. As I see it SNAP has not re-branded.
Thanks again.
Cheers!!
It may or may not be true that SNAP is or was filled with crooks but undoubtedly, the accusation leveled against SNAP to mecah undi or to split the votes was unbecoming of some people as they themselves have fielded some undesireables of their own. However back to the perception issue,it is undeniable that the internet has become a powerful to to spread lies as well as truths,however which is being spun is up to the viewer to decide. It is indeed wrong for party political vehicle to induce or plant the ideas that if u are not with us then you are against us. Voters are supposed to be fench sitters per se,n it is the job of the incumbents or aspirants to convince them that they are the onr bringing benefit to his or her constituents, issues regardless may be harped to entice the voters n often we read reports from both sides n their attempt to discredit one another. Sadly when some issues plays struck a sensitive chord in us we are inclined to believe as we have already such prejudices against a faction or certain someone here in lies the danger, because when a lie is being spun an a certain prejudice or inclination towards a party's agenda would often blind the person to the lies spun and they accept it as the absolute gospel truth,blinding them of a possibly that it could be a lie, SNAP isn't made out of a 100% angel which shines divine light out of their orifices n neither is the other party bn,or or otherwise. There a few not all but still few good people in them. I do however want SNAP to completely change its leadership if it wishes to be taken seriously, it is a party Sarawakians can call its own but at the rate they are going,without taking positive chlange seriously,I might as well buy them a spade to dig their own political grave, this are just my 2 cents and I do not intend to aggravate anyone with these comments. Do not be so quick so say other parties are the tight choice, I and I'm sure many ither would not want to see.Sarawak's rights n privileges bring eroded further,stop questioning our immigration powers and yes it has been wielded as a political tool or weapon but it is the last boundary/protection of Sarawak's sovereignty,do not argue the fact tgat it is obsolete;if it us then the Malaysia agreement is also made obsolete. If any Sarawaian agrees to the erosion of these immigration rights then I say shame on you;if any other says the same thing I would want you to see the 18 points agreement n what was given as one of the pre requisite into sarawak agreeing into the partnership of the federation of Malaysia.
ReplyDeleteI reckon more should be said about political 're-braining' rather than 're-branding'. We are all entitled to perceive things at levels we are most comfortable with/at-such are opinions and thoughts that are not exclusive EXCEPT to the bearer of the experience himself. "perception vs reality", all are in it to win it!...and 'it' is very 'subjective' I must say...
ReplyDeleteCheers!