DPM Muhyiddin’s promises to build a bridge for Manek Urai had attracted criticisms of bribing voters from the Pakatan Rakyat. The criticism is understandable -since Pakatan parties are not in similar position to tap into Federal Fund to carry out public work projects. In this sense the promise is not fair to all parties. This however is a different point from the Pakatan’s criticism ie that the promise is a form of bribery for the voters. The difference is interesting enough for stretching out the different implications!
If it were seen as an unfair election practice the Pakatan could spell out the selectivity of BN in making public work allocations. It is selective in terms of location and time-in both cases the allocation was made simply because of the election-nothing else. So the other less appealing side to this is: you will be neglected for the rest of the time! Another way where it is seen as unfair is: if there were an alternation of power at Federal level then the issue of making promises from Federal coffer could be done from both/all sides! But there has never been 1 for over half a century in this country!
If the view is that the promise is a form of vote buying the implications, among others, is that no side can make promises which tap into public coffers, whether federal or state. So:could both sides keep to this rule?
Perhaps some bi-partisan agreement on this issue could save some arguments for the voters and allow voters to focus better on state policies in this election!