Thursday, February 18, 2010

When Good Democracy Will Be Poor Governance In Perak

I like analogies involving football. In football, the running criticism of club owners has been on the poor habit of sacking team managers too quickly, sometimes, mere months from taking over the job. The argument for keeping a manager in place for a long period, for good or bad in the short term, but ultimately for long term gain, is backed by the long tenure of many successful managers, such as Alex Ferguson, David Moyes and Arsene Wenger.

The idea of retaining managers for a longer period for long term gain whilst forgiving early hiccups is not unique to football. In major corporations, whilst managers are under pressure to deliver from the moment they enter their new offices, there is some tolerance for error, as one understands the learning curves these managers have to climb. In fact, a more recent trend has been to retain managers longer so they may face the long-term consequences of their actions.

It has also been variously touted since trade began that 'stability of government', a country's 'manager' so to speak, is essential for the nation's economic growth. This is continuously emphasised on development of 'third world' countries. In the 70s and 80s, the stability of government, was seen as a key differentiator between Asian economies and that of Latin America. Why? Well simply put, if the government is unstable, it'll be excessively distracted by survival issues!

Perak needs stability after more than a year of political upheaval in the state. It is not true that without a further demostration of 'democracy' through fresh polls that investors will not find Perak attractive. Democracy in of itself does not attract investors; compare Communist China against Democratic India and you will soon conclude that 'Democracy' is quite irrelevant to investors! If anything, it is the political stability that Democracy usually brings that is the key.

With the courts deciding that the BN Perak Government is legitimately in power, the best thing for the Rakyat would be for DS Dr Zambry and his team to get on with their job. Ironically, if Pakatan is truly Rakyat-friendly, the best way for them to demonstrate this is now is by stopping all their efforts to further destabilise the situation in Perak. With the resultant stability from all parties respecting the court ruling, investors will assess Perak in a more positive light.

I understand that intellectuals have politic leanings too. Sometimes, the leanings are not political but intellectual, and unfortunately just as dogmatic! However, intellectuals should not allow their own opinions, such as that Democracy is the bearer of all things good, get the better of them. Just like any other good thing, like sunlight, medicine or satay, too much of a good thing can be bad. Certainly, too much more Democracy in place of Stability will be bad for Perak now.

With that in mind, DS Dr Zambry should be confident in ignoring the Merdeka Centre poll beyond what it is, a sample of the state of mind of the populace at the time. The Perak government should then just proceed to govern as Democracy and the courts have mandated them to. Then they could focus on what truly matters to the Rakyat... Good Governance. That is what will lead to re-election, not populism...


donplaypuks® said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
donplaypuks® said...

"The Perak government should then just proceed to govern as Democracy and the courts have mandated them to."

How can they when undemocratic means were used to wrest power from the People? They do not know the first thing about democracy. Thuggery and Mafiadom? Maybe!

"No proceedings in the State Assembly SHALL be questioned in any court of law!!"

HRH and our law lords appear to have completely ignored this LAW!!

So Zambry shall be no more than a 1 term wonder!

We are all of 1 race, the Human Race

Akhramsyah Muammar Ubaidah bin Sanusi said...

donplaypuks. What do you think would have happened if they went for a no confidence vote in the assembly instead? With the 3 defections, PR would lose the state and BN would come into power.

What if Nizar decided to dissolve the assembly instead? The Sultan would have said no! As His Highness in all his wisdom as a former Lord President and an expert in constitutional law in particular, would have read any effort to dissolve the assembly as a spurious action.

In the end, Pakatan is not worried about the Rakyat. If they were, they would not be behaving like they were as videos of scenes at the Perak dewan shows clearly. They would not be going out to undermine the status of DS Dr Zambry's team either. They are more worried about power.

We will see if DS Dr Zambry will be a 1 term wonder. Do you really think this will be the case when he proves Nizar wrong and investment pours into the state now that the court has ensured his government's stability? We shall see...

Asri said...

"No proceedings in the State Assembly shall be questioned in any court of law"

Does that not mean only proceedings in the Assembly or anything to do with Assembly even outside the Assembly?

Was not the court case about whether the Sultan had the power to allow the change in MB?

Therefore HRH wasn't actually overruling any decision of the Assembly, but merely reaffirming his right to appoint the MB based on who he thinks had the support of the majority of the Assemblymen.

And the courts too were not challenging any decision of the Assembly, but merely confirming that indeed the Sultan has the authority to appoint (and therefore dismiss) the MB of majority choice/support in the Assembly.

Not a lawyer, but simply pointing out what those words mean.

Tangential Malay Search Results