|
|||||||||||||||
|
The Pak Lah factor The BN’s PR boys promoted a carefully constructed ‘brand’ image of Abdullah Badawi
Please support our work by buying a copy of our print publication, Aliran Monthly, from your nearest news-stand. Better still take out a subscription now. We also welcome donations.
On the other hand, the Anwar factor that defined the 1999 election was all but gone this time around. Only Anwar Ibrahim’s wife managed to save Keadilan from being totally wiped out at the polls by retaining the parliamentary seat of Permatang Pauh with a slim 590-vote majority. The Pak Lah "brand" Several reasons led to Keadilan’s thrashing at the polls. Some stemmed from within the party as well as its relationship with opposition parties. Of course, the election was also contested in a highly unlevel playing field that favoured Abdullah’s BN. But there was yet another major reason. This was the rise of the Pak Lah factor. It is a product of a carefully constructed image of Abdullah himself - or branding, in the parlance of global capitalism today. Before taking over from Mahathir Mohamad as the fifth prime minister, Abdullah was largely a mystery. Many wondered whether he would have anything to bring to the table as premier and speculated that he would stay with the status quo Mahathir left behind. But soon after Mahathir left the scene, Abdullah began to project an image of a decent, sincere, non-confrontational gentleman. He presented a “clean” image of himself. It helped that he has a soft, shy smile to get people to feel an instant camaraderie with him. All these attributes were nicely suggested by his moniker, Pak Lah. The BN-connected or -owned mainstream media and the advertising agencies presented Abdullah in different ways to appeal to the old and the young. Parents and grandparents must have been touched by images of him full of love and respect for his mother before and at her death. In particular, the moving picture of him kneeling before her and gently kissing her hand while she was still alive must have been etched deeply in their hearts. The public was again reminded of it by a TV commercial shown three days before polling day. It presented black-and-white videos of him while a letter was read and ended with the line, “Vote for Malaysia”. The "cool" guy Abdullah also projected himself as relaxed and accessible to the youth, especially young urban professionals, who wanted to have their views respected rather than brushed aside by elders. This was best captured when Abdullah appeared on radio, fielding questions not just from call-in listeners but the young deejays as well. The mainstream media relished showing how much he enjoyed the whole thing as he alternated between cheerful laughter and serious contemplation. Like Bill Clinton who campaigned twice successfully for the US Presidency, Abdullah showed he could relate and just “chill”. He was “cool”. So different from Mahathir, whose approach to the youth was more of an authoritarian dad telling the young to study or work hard so that they could be a successful contributor to his Malaysia Inc. one day. Until then, it was ‘father knows best’. Anwar also has his appeal with the youth but in a way that was not entirely of his own choosing. When he was sacked, dramatically arrested, beaten up by the chief of police while in jail, found guilty of trumped-up charges, many young people felt as though their own ideals were assaulted by the injustice done to him. They tried to respond by peacefully taking to the streets in protest, but they also felt frustrated by the many laws and restrictions cutting off their voice and action. Anwar’s youths have a serious sense of mission, to fight for justice and fairness and set Anwar free again. And so, Abdullah is able to project something not seen since arguably Mahathir became prime minister in 1981. He is gentle where Mahathir was abrasive. He is “cool” where the sacked and jailed Anwar is (understandably) incensed. His gentle demeanour and soft, shy smile drew many, in particular the Malays in the heartland, to look forward to his soothing style of leadership. The BN thus used Abdullah as their best weapon in their election campaign—their charm offensive with pictures only of him in posters and advertisements. Abdullah also distanced himself from Mahathir and did not seek him out even to pose for pictures for the media when campaigning in Mahathir’s home state of Kedah. Many who had problems with the BN government confessed to being fine with Abdullah. And members of the opposition refrained from targeting their criticism at him, except PAS President Hadi Awang, who accused him of lacking Islamic credentials. Tantalising initiatives But the Pak Lah factor is not all image. It is also grounded in the form of a few carefully considered “initiatives” that tantalised and even shocked the public. Abdullah’s cancellation of the double track rail project, one of several of Mahathir’s pet mega-projects, surprised those who thought he would merely be Mahathir’s double. The local and foreign media quickly opined that he did not share Mahathir’s penchant for mega-projects. Abdullah stoked that idea by talking about projects for smaller business instead of Mahathir’s millionaires. Abdullah was quick to signal his interest in upgrading the agricultural sector, something not part of Mahathir’s focus, in order to make it more globally competitive. This also allowed him to say he was concerned with helping the rural poor. Anwar used to find ways here and there within Mahathir’s industrialization program to address the rural poor. But Abdullah holds out the promise of a greater ability and commitment to do more. Abdullah also presented himself as deeply religious. He is for a moderate, progressive Islam and seemed turned off by shouting matches with PAS leaders to see whose views UMNO’s or PAS’ offered a truer Islam. Or who could more quickly turn the country into an Islamic state. This was unlike Mahathir, who tried to outdo PAS by once declaring Malaysia was already an Islamic state under his BN government. Thus when Abdullah was slammed by Hadi for lacking Islamic credentials, he refused to respond to what he called character assassination. More initiatives Yet another of Abdullah’s “initiatives” was the way he engaged with Singapore leaders, bearing in mind the relationship between the two countries has been fraught with contentious issues. So far, the cordial meetings between them have been so different from the acrimonious ones during Mahathir’s time.
Two more of Abdullah’s “initiatives” were even more tantalising. Apparently concerned with the perennial public perception of the police as inept and mired in bribery and corruption, he set up a Royal Commission to look into the force. The inclusion in the commission of former head of the Malaysian judiciary Lord President Salleh Abas, who was dismissed under Mahathir’s premiership, took many by surprise. Perhaps an honest evaluation of the police is on the horizon. Abdullah’s most tantalizing “initiative” was when the Anti-Corruption Agency arrested and charged a couple of high profile individuals for corruption. The arrest of Eric Chia, an industrialist under the Mahathir administration who used to be close to Mahathir, shocked many and made them stand up and cheer. This was followed by the arrest of Land and Co-operative Development Minister Kasitah Gaddam. Unlike in the past decade or more, Malaysians began to entertain the idea that corruption in high places could be combated. Opposition parties like Keadilan were quick to say the arrests, while welcome, were overdue as they had long slammed the Mahathir administration for rampant corruption. They also wondered whether the arrests were a political gimmick to win votes at the election. Still, it couldn’t be denied the arrests took the wind out of the opposition, especially Keadilan, which is rooted partly in fighting corruption. It certainly was not easy for the opposition to raise the corruption issue in their election campaign. Soft-sell The “initiatives” and the careful image construction of Abdullah’s character, demeanour and style of leadership are what constitute the Pak Lah factor. It allowed Abdullah to be seen as different from Mahathir and Anwar. While he respected, if not admired, Mahathir for his accomplishments, he also showed he was his own man with his own agenda. He co-opted major issues of Anwar’s or Keadilan’s concerns for the rural poor and corruption and promised to work on them without Reformasi’s indignation. The Pak Lah factor has allowed Abdullah to carve out his own political space for his leadership and agenda. The pliant mainstream media repeatedly illustrated, sharpened and projected the Pak Lah factor and whipped it into a palpable sentiment pervading the Malaysian consciousness. Advertising agencies were also engaged by the BN to offer a new way of selling in Malaysian politics. They used the “soft” sell to remind the public subtly of the Pak Lah factor and invite them to be a part of the future that Abdullah had in mind for Malaysia. All that was best seen in the “Vote for Malaysia” TV commercial, aired three days before polling day as though to recap the Pak Lah factor for the public. It shows Abdullah looking pensive as if he is hoping he can get the rakyat’s support to do the things he would like to do as prime minister. And the things are not about mega-projects. Rather, they focus on helping the poor and the down-and-out folk. Attack ads However, two issues are important to consider when dealing with any constructed images. One, an image needs to be protected from any “oddities” or contradictions that may cast a different light on it and undercut its appeal. The other is what is excluded from the image can be revealing as well. Regarding the “oddities” to the Pak Lah factor, a couple of them already surfaced even though the mainstream media tried to nip them in the bud through their coverage or lack of it. When Abdullah said he refused to respond to Hadi’s criticism that he lacked Islamic credentials, he also told BN leaders to refrain from personal attacks. But during the election campaign, several BN ads in The Star and Chinese dailies attacked DAP’s Lim Kit Siang and Karpal Singh. They deceptively suggested that both agreed with the intolerant Islam practised by PAS. Although the DAP merged with PAS, Keadilan and PRM to form Barisan Alternatif for the 1999 election, the ads left out the fact that the DAP left the BA soon afterwards because they disagreed with PAS. They also ignored Hadi’s attack of Lim and Karpal as “expired medicine” before nomination day for the 2004 election and Lim’s rebuttal that Hadi was living in Malaysia not the Middle East. Even Gerakan’s Koh Tsu Koon disassociated himself and his party from the attack ads. BN insiders said that the “soft” ads like the “Vote for Malaysia” commercial were the only ones to come out of the BN chairman’s office. And different ads were used to target different groups of voters. Presumably, then, MCA was responsible for the attack ads. Did not this contradict Abdullah telling BN leaders to refrain from personal attacks? How will he handle this kind of contradiction from within his BN in the future given his apparent gentle, non-confrontational image? And, with the different ads used to target different voters, does this mean Abdullah will make different promises to different people? Does this not reduce the Pak Lah factor to mere rhetoric? Disdain for democracy Another “oddity” surfaced a few hours before campaigning ended at midnight on 20 March. In response to a question from a journalist, Abdullah said the country without any opposition parties would not miss out on anything. He believed there would still be a democracy if no opposition served as elected representatives because the rakyat could act as the BN government’s check and balance. TV3 in its midnight bulletin that same night reported it. Neither the New Straits Times nor The Star reported it the next day, however. And that was the end of the issue. Curious that both papers ignored the story as they had covered whatever Abdullah had to say, sometimes ad nauseam. Could it be that Abdullah showed a lack of understanding of democracy that checks and balances to the ruling party from the opposition are not the same as feedback from the rakyat? It appeared his distaste for confrontation that led him to dismiss the opposition as redundant revealed a discrepancy between the Pak Lah factor and what democracy is about. This brings up the other issue concerning any constructed images. As much as an image shows what is in the spotlight, it is also revealing in terms of whatever has been excluded from it. What has been conspicuously excluded from the Pak Lah factor are any interests in enhancing democratic aspirations and institutions and in promoting a sense of fair play. Abdullah is silent on how his moderate, progressive Islam squares with repressive laws such as the Internal Security Act, which allows for detention without trial. Is it progressive and moderate to fight extremism with another form of extremism that denies a person due process of the law? Much has being written about the lack of an independent judiciary due to the dominance of the Prime Minister’s office under Mahathir. Again, Abdullah has hardly anything to say to that. The one small exception was when he said justice was served when the Court of Appeal, after a long delay, made its decision to dismiss Anwar Ibrahim’s application for bail. All this in the face of at least a couple of irregularities that called into question the due process of the law that Anwar received. The three judges did not offer any rationale in court for dismissing Anwar’s application. They also blamed Anwar for not turning in an affidavit when even the prosecutors believed he did. Unlevel playing field The “clean” image of Abdullah also did not square with his lack of fair play. He and his BN had no qualms abusing government resources and facilities for their election campaigning. He did not appreciate that once parliament was dissolved, his BN party was just one among other political parties contending for votes in the election. The BN’s incumbency did not mean they were still the government because there was a caretaker government in its place. RTM, which is state property funded with tax money, has been used by the BN as though it owns it. TV1 and TV2 became the mouthpieces of the BN. Three days before nomination day, TV1 ran the same clip, “Bersama Pak Lah” (Together with Pak Lah), as a news item in its English news at 6 pm for three straight days. Opposition parties, if presented at all, were shown only in connection with something negative. Throughout the election campaign, Abdullah and his BN offered projects or programmes to the people, e.g. opening community centres and giving out land or home-ownership titles. These forms of vote buying unethically favoured the incumbent BN but Abdullah shamelessly took advantage of them. Abdullah and his BN also had the Election Commission serve their needs instead of respecting its independent role of ensuring the election was conducted fairly. For instance, although the EC should be the one to decide on the nomination and polling schedule, the BN government, according to Malaysiakini, decided on it instead. Authoritarian rule True, Abdullah is not the first to show a lack of interest in fair play and in enhancing democratic aspirations and institutions. Mahathir arguably had even less interest in them. But the fact that the Pak Lah factor excluded any of these interests suggests Abdullah’s regime is pretty much in keeping with the authoritarian rule of the Mahathir regime. But for now, about 63 per cent of the people who voted for Abdullah and his BN liked his Pak Lah image. They were also tantalized by his initiatives. But the initiatives remain promises at this point. It is time for Abdullah to walk the talk in his Pak Lah factor. And so, can he really stay away from Mahathir’s mega-projects? How well can he “revolutionize” the agricultural economy and improve the lives of the rural poor? Can the acrimonious relationship between Malaysia and Singapore of the past two decades be smoothed out? What will become of the investigation into bribery and corruption in the police force? Is he able to champion his moderate, progressive Islam without curtailing freedom and due process of the law? Last but not least, is Abdullah serious about fighting corruption, especially in high places? After the arrests of Chia and Kasitah, Rais Yatim said the ACA had 18 more names–including those in high places—to be investigated for corruption. What will become of these investigations?
Now e-mail us and tell us what you think. Your comments might be published in the Letters section of our print magazine, Aliran Monthly. Alternatively, post your comments to the message board. | |||||||||||||||
What has been conspicuously excluded from the Pak Lah factor are any interests in enhancing democratic aspirations and institutions and in promoting a sense of fair play.
