I can’t recall when it was that people began insisting that their politicians be morally upright. Among the qualities required of a politician, no doubt, are a flair for statecraft, an excellent administrator, an inspiring demagogue (we still need these) and the killer instinct (I suppose). But when, “moral”? I suppose PS students will be able to tell me since they should, really, know. I suppose one’s morality - or rather, one’s principles - are the only benchmark a politician requires, for the people. Ineptitude, if not blatant, can always be blamed on someone else. But moral rectitude? Apparently, one’s lack of ethical standards is enough to get one booted out of power.
(I mean, so what if Monica Lewinsky sucked Bill Clinton’s cock (I ask myself)? Here was someone who had enough charm to get bitter enemies to sit across each other - at the same table, no less. Does no one remember the Oslo Accords?)
Now don’t be mistaken; I think adultery really sucks ass (and yes, I’m being judgmental - for all the right reasons), and I think Chua Soi Lek deserves a kick in the balls. But I say let his wife do the kicking. There weren’t any lynch mobs or show trials played out in the alternative media this time, but I’m sure Chua Soi Lek knew the score. The fact that he’s resigned says several things, though:
- People link a morality with aptitude in a politician (a small claim I’m making, but there you go). It doesn’t matter if you can’t run the country, as long as you’re a religious scholar of some sort, you’re ok.
- UMNO’s shit scared of any publicity backlash. Heck, one politician built a multi-million ringgit mansion and got away with it last year. Second day of the new year and Chua Soi Lek resigns; he was either out of luck or didn’t have the right friends.
Go figure.