Views on morality in politics

Dr Daphne Loke
Saturday, 26 September 2009 14:37

OPINION I have been suppressing the burning urge to write on the Dr Chua Soi Lek issue when his DVD scandal surfaced when the then MCA president was not the current incumbent. When he was recently expelled from the party, the urge almost disappeared.

Until today, one the vernacular newspaper reported that Chua with his wife and his son, now a Member of Parliament, were actively patronizing “buka puasa” parties. This straight away brought to my mind all kinds of questions of morality in politics. The infidelity of Chua who was then a MCA veep was exposed through nationwide circulation of DVDs of him in action.

The purpose of this article is to share my personal evaluation of this incident, based on some world views of morality in politics which crafted my expectations of the politician who would be my representative in government.

Question 1:

For the plot to go into such complexity, I derived the following conclusions:-

1. The infidel act had been going on for a long time. At least, it could not be explained as succumbing to momentary temptation.
2. That the plotters could easily set up the equipment to record the tryst showed that Chua was insensitive to what others think of his extra-marital activities. It was a small town setting and rumours could, or had, spread very quickly to everyone’s knowledge like wild fire.
3. That the same venue and the same room was used for the tryst all the time showed Chua trusted the caretaker of the Rest House. Alternatively, since what he did in the Rest House was already common knowledge, he just wanted the small town to accept his behavior.
4. For the caretaker to turn against Chua could mean that he/she did not share Chua’s ideals and beliefs in extra-marital sex. It was even possible that the caretaker revolted against Chua’s behavior to the extent he volunteered his assistance in the recording.
5. The circulation of the DVDs had gone nationwide and global via the internet. This demonstrated that the mastermind behind the plot wanted the results to be far-reaching, hence to ensure that Chua will not be able to rebound in his political career .

Question 2:

What adjectives should I use to describe this man?

1. Arrogant : He does not care about what others think of his actions – he is indifferent to others’ opinions.
2. Autocratic: He decrees or dictates like a king would and did not expect anyone oppose him.
3. Ambitious: Since the incident happened during the tenure of the previous MCA president, the scheme to bring down Chua must have been the result of long-term observations of his ambition in the party, including serious evaluation of the damage it would bring to the party and the Chinese community.
4. Assertive: He intends to reframe public opinion.
5. Bullying : He would stoop to duress to compel obedience.

Question 3:

Is a wife’s forgiveness of her husband’s infidelity enough to repair his misdeed?

A wife’s duties are many – to her husband, her children, the husband’s ambition and profession, the ambitions and professions of her children, the interests of the members of her husband’s family. Then only comes her own interests – her career, her professions, her ambitions.





Hazel Hawke put up with her husband’s infidelity throughout his tenure as Prime Minister of Australia – “for the sake of the Labour (Party) cause”. She only instituted divorce proceedings after Hawke had stepped down.

On a personal note, I waited for my children to be independent before I commenced divorce proceedings against my husband. And that was after 25 years of marriage.

All this tells on the selfishness of man. If a wife can abide by the social norms befallen upon her why can’t the husband discharge his duties as well. I cannot speak for Chua’s wife, but I can be certain that a feminine human being who does not feel jealous over her man’s infidelity, is not a woman, what more when that man is already her husband.

Question 4:

Does public opinion matter ?

Babara Berlusconi, daughter of the Prime Minister of Italy, commented on her father’s womanizing by saying,

“… public officials cannot afford to differentiate between their public and private spheres”.

She went further to state that,

“Politicians who are called upon to govern well, to make a community prosper, are also required to safeguard the values that it (the community) expresses, possibly elevate them”.

Berlusconi, too, apologized to his wife, and had publicly asked for his wife’s forgiveness as his behavior had “wounded her dignity”. Yet, two years later in 2009, the wife announced intention to divorce the Prime Minister and her reason was , “he would tell me another lie” and “I cannot stop him from making himself ridiculous before the world”. She, too, “had for many years endured his behavior ”.

In the light of such a similar current event where the public figure responsible for breaking public morals is being censured by his wife and his daughter, I seriously wonder how Chua’s wife and his son feel deep inside when they accompanied him at the “buka puasa” parties.

Rest of article can be read here