DR Afif Bahardin, a Penang state executive councillor who is also the state assembly member for Seberang Jaya, claims that polling sentiments do not determine decision-making by the exco. (Aliran, October 14, 2019)

Before the ink had dried, Pengkalan Kota assemblyman Daniel Gooi squarely disproved this lie when he told Penangites that ‘the state government was committed to sustainable development, especially in building a feasible and lasting transport infrastructure, “as it could see them being voted out in the next general election… unlike individuals representing Penang Forum, who are not accountable and will not get voted out even when there is no development happening in Penang.” (FMT, October 27, 2019)

Gooi has bluntly made it abundantly clear that the Penang South Reclamation and other mega-projects costing a whopping RM46 billion are for the purpose of the state government getting re-elected at the next election. His words are not ambiguous. 

Will Dr Afif now hang his head in shame for having lied? Actually, if he has any “maruah”, he should resign! Oops, sorry, I forgot that there is such a thing as shariah compliant lying!

Dr Afif Bahardin had taken offence at my analogy that the state executive council is like the board of directors of a private company, elected by its shareholders (the voters) and subject to be replaced by the shareholders if their performance is not in the interests of the company (the state) and the shareholders.  This was in reply to my article “A former fisherman advising other fishermen to follow him…” published in Aliran on October 15, 2019.

This only shows how some politicians, upon sitting in the chairs of government, get big-headed and justify their policies and decisions as being “in the best interests of the public”.

With such talk, the few politicians in power (just a few of them make up the “government”) are unashamedly telling the huge majority of ordinary people that upon being elected and put in government chairs, they have suddenly acquired a level of thinking, intelligence and foresight that makes them infallible beings unlike the voters and members of civil society, and so no one should question them. This stems from an attitude of arrogance that “we hold power and will do as we wish, what can you do to stop us”?

Stubbornly refusing to practise the very CAT (competency, accountability and transparency) policy that they themselves created is thus an abuse of power. Looks like CAT was a deliberate ploy to fool the silent majority of unquestioning people while doing just the opposite when dealing with the vocal, questioning minority in civil society. After all, what matters are the votes of the majority – simple, unquestioning minds that blindly support, even hero-worship, the smooth-talking politicians.   

And this bring us to the question of morals and ethics. Are politicians telling us that morals and ethics have no place in matters of state administration?

*Ravinder Singh reads The Malaysian Insight.