Ten thousand idiots and the politics of convenience — Khoo Ying Hooi

The article by Khoo Ying Hooi criticizes the state of Malaysian politics, highlighting the shifting alliances and contradictions among political parties, which often disregard principles in favor of strategic cooperation.

It underscores how political hypocrisy persists as voters, disillusioned by repeated unfulfilled promises and reversals, continue to choose between flawed options.

The piece argues that political leaders exploit voters' reluctance to expect genuine accountability, rendering them less compelled to justify their contradictions.

Ultimately, the article calls for greater transparency and accountability in political actions and alliances.

OCTOBER 23 — “One idiot is one idiot. Two idiots are two idiots. Ten thousand idiots are a political party.”

These days, we have to work increasingly hard to verify what we read on the Internet.

A famous name attached to a quotation is no guarantee that the person actually said it.

So, when I came across the quote, I spent a considerable amount of time trying to trace its origins. I could not establish who first said it in precisely these words.

But I liked its rather wicked observation too much to abandon it. So, a clarification before I proceed.

While the quotation is widely attributed to Franz Kafka on the Internet, there is no reliable evidence that he ever wrote or said it.

The closest documented source appears to be Italian journalist and satirist Leo Longanesi, who wrote in a diary entry dated December 15, 1938 that one fool is one fool, two fools are two fools, but ten thousand fools become a historical force.

The entry was subsequently published in 1947. Somewhere along the way, the historical force became a political party, and Kafka acquired a quotation he may never have uttered.

Imagine this, attach a famous writer’s name to an unverified quotation, and it suddenly acquires intellectual authority.

So, should we attach a political party’s name to an otherwise indefensible position, it could also suddenly acquire legitimacy.

Neither becomes more truthful through the association, but the borrowed authority makes people considerably less interested in asking questions.

Which brings me to Malaysian politics.

There is something accurate about the quote’s observation of collective political behaviour.

When an individual politician abandons a principle, we call it hypocrisy. When an entire party does the same, it suddenly becomes strategic co-operation or some commitment to political stability.

Apparently, nonsense becomes considerably more respectable when practised collectively.

Consider what Malaysians have witnessed since 2018. Barisan Nasional (BN) lost federal power after more than six decades. Pakatan Harapan (PH) celebrated the victory as a historic democratic breakthrough.

Two years later, the government collapsed through political realignments. By 2022, PH and BN were governing together.

The parties that had spent years explaining why the other side could not be trusted suddenly discovered the virtues of co-operation.

Former enemies became partners, previous accusations became inconvenient memories, and everything was justified in the name of political stability.

One could almost admire the efficiency with which political principles were rearranged.

By 2026, this flexibility has become considerably more sophisticated. BN governs with PH federally, with Perikatan Nasional (PN) in Negeri Sembilan, and has negotiated an electoral arrangement with PAS in Melaka.

Political differences can be profound in one state, negotiable in another, and entirely irrelevant in Putrajaya.

At this juncture, in fact, political parties should consider a disclaimer such as this: Principles and alliances may vary according to constituency and electoral circumstances.

Then there is corruption, the one political issue everyone condemns until the conversation becomes normalised.

In January 2026, prosecutors announced that no further action would be taken concerning the 47 charges previously brought against Deputy Prime Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, citing insufficient evidence following further investigations.

The decision does not establish guilt, and due process must be respected. But questions about prosecutorial independence and institutional accountability remain legitimate.

When an Opposition politician faces corruption allegations, politicians and their supporters demand accountability, sometimes even before investigations are completed.

But when someone from their governing coalition faces controversy, they suddenly remind everyone about due process, the presumption of innocence and the need to let institutions do their work.

Of course, those legal principles are essential. What is rather remarkable is how selectively some politicians remember them.

At this juncture, I would hesitate to describe contemporary Malaysian politics as a country of blindly loyal followers. That would be unfair to all voters and would overlook how much political support has changed.

Many Malaysians are increasingly sceptical of political parties. They have watched enough political manoeuvring to know that today’s promises may become tomorrow’s embarrassments.

Some vote because they genuinely believe in a party’s agenda. Others vote because they distrust the alternatives even more.

Some support individual candidates despite reservations about their parties. And there are those who have become so disappointed with the political establishment that they no longer expect much from anyone.

Voting for a party, therefore, does not necessarily mean believing everything its leaders say. Sometimes, it simply means choosing the option one finds least objectionable. This is where Malaysian politics becomes rather absurd.

Political parties continue behaving as though they command unquestioning loyalty, even when voters may be supporting them reluctantly.

A person can criticise a government throughout its term and still vote for it at the next election, not because the government has earned their confidence, but because the alternative seems worse.

Sometimes, I wonder, this is such a convenient situation for politicians. They no longer have to convince voters that they have kept their promises.

They only have to convince enough people that someone else would do a worse job.

And what are voters supposed to do with all those earlier warnings? Apparently, they are often being told, we should just forget them.

Political circumstances have changed, they are told, and mature voters must understand that compromise is necessary.

Compromise is indeed necessary in politics. But surely there should be some distinction between a reasonable compromise and abandoning everything one previously claimed to stand for.

The more troubling development is that Malaysians may be becoming so accustomed to these reversals that they no longer find them particularly surprising.

A politician breaks a promise, a party changes sides, a former enemy becomes a coalition partner, and the response is increasingly predictable: Well, that is politics.

And what a wonderfully useful phrase that has become. That is politics.

Three words that can explain away almost anything without requiring anyone to explain very much at all.

This is precisely why political disappointment can become dangerous.

When voters expect politicians to break their promises, every broken promise becomes less shocking.

When political deals are assumed to be motivated by self-interest, even the most questionable arrangements begin to look ordinary.

Eventually, politicians may no longer need to defend their inconsistencies very convincingly.

They can simply rely on voters being tired of hearing the same explanations. And that is an extraordinary advantage to give those who hold power.

Political parties are entitled to change their positions. Circumstances change, coalition governments require negotiation, and governing is inevitably more complicated than campaigning.

But those changes should come with explanations. If a party once described another as corrupt or unfit to govern, voters are entitled to ask what has changed beyond the opportunity to share power.

If politicians promised institutional reforms before taking office, they should explain what they have delivered and why other commitments remain unfinished.

If they condemned particular practices while in opposition, they should be prepared to explain why those same practices are now acceptable.

These are hardly unreasonable expectations. Yet in Malaysian politics, asking politicians to remember their own promises can sometimes seem more demanding than asking voters to forget them.

As Malaysia approaches another general election, we can expect the familiar speeches about integrity, reform, stability and the dangers posed by political opponents.

There will be new alliances, old accusations and probably a few remarkable reconciliations between politicians who previously insisted they could never work together.

Some of these compromises may be necessary. Some promises may be sincere. But voters should not have to keep forgetting yesterday’s declarations merely to understand today’s political arrangements.

The danger may no longer be that Malaysians believe everything their political leaders tell them.

It may be that many have heard so many promises and witnessed so many reversals that they have stopped expecting politicians to mean what they say.

And that brings us back to the quote. Ten thousand idiots may or may not make a political party. But it does not take ten thousand idiots to keep political hypocrisy alive.

It only takes enough people becoming accustomed to it, until politicians no longer feel compelled to explain their contradictions.

It is especially troubling about a political system in which voters can recognise hypocrisy perfectly well, yet find themselves repeatedly choosing between politicians who practise it.

Sometimes I think that is the cruellest joke of Malaysian politics today.

Politicians no longer need to command our loyalty. They may only need to survive our disappointment, how convenient it is.

* Khoo Ying Hooi, PhD is an associate professor at Universiti Malaya.

** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.

Teen, 13, allegedly knifes 69-year-old man in Kanowit public toilet

Anwar vows Malaysia’s support for peace and stability in southern Thailand

Taiping council denies Osaka zoo elephants abused, says head swaying and musth normal in captivity

1MDB debt in 2026: RM42.5b paid, but RM20.1b still remains

邱英辉的文章批评了马来西亚的政治现状，着重指出各政党之间不断变化的联盟和矛盾，这些政党往往为了战略合作而忽视原则。

这凸显了政治虚伪的持续存在，选民们对一再未能兑现的承诺和政策的反复无常感到失望，继续在有缺陷的选项中做出选择。

文章认为，政治领导人利用选民不愿期望真正问责的心理，使他们更不愿意为自己的自相矛盾之处辩解。

文章最后呼吁在政治行动和联盟中提高透明度和问责制。

10月23日——“一个白痴就是一个白痴，两个白痴就是两个白痴，一万个白痴就成了一个政党。”

如今，我们必须越来越努力地去核实我们在互联网上看到的内容。

名人名言并不一定代表这句话就是出自名人之口。

所以，当我看到这句话时，我花了相当多的时间试图追溯它的出处。但我始终无法确定是谁最先用完全相同的措辞说出这句话的。

但我太喜欢它那略带辛辣的见解了，所以舍不得放弃。因此，在继续之前，我需要先澄清一点。

虽然这句话在互联网上被广泛认为是弗朗茨·卡夫卡所说，但并没有可靠的证据表明他曾经写过或说过这句话。

最接近的有据可查的来源似乎是意大利记者兼讽刺作家利奥·朗加内西，他在 1938 年 12 月 15 日的日记中写道：一个傻瓜是一个傻瓜，两个傻瓜是两个傻瓜，但一万个傻瓜就成了一股历史力量。

该条目随后于 1947 年发表。在某个时刻，历史的力量变成了一个政党，而卡夫卡获得了一句他可能从未说过的话。

试想一下，如果把一位著名作家的名字与一句未经证实的引语联系起来，它就突然获得了学术权威性。

所以，如果我们把一个政党的名字与一个原本站不住脚的立场联系起来，它也可能突然获得合法性。

这种关联并不会让人变得更诚实，但借来的权威却会大大降低人们提出问题的兴趣。

这就引出了马来西亚政治的话题。

这句话对集体政治行为的观察有其准确性。

个别政治人物放弃原则，我们称之为虚伪；而整个政党这样做，却突然变成了战略合作或维护政治稳定的承诺。

显然，当胡言乱语集体流传时，它会变得更加体面。

想想马来西亚自2018年以来所经历的一切。国民阵线（国阵）在执政六十余年后失去了联邦政权。希望联盟（希盟）将这一胜利视为历史性的民主突破。

两年后，由于政治重组，政府垮台。到2022年，希望联盟和国阵联合执政。

多年来一直互相解释为什么不能信任对方的各方，突然发现了合作的好处。

昔日的敌人变成了合作伙伴，过去的指控变成了不愉快的记忆，一切都以政治稳定的名义被合理化。

人们几乎可以赞叹政治原则重组的效率。

到2026年，这种灵活性将变得更加复杂。国阵与希望联盟在联邦层面联合执政，与国民联盟（PN）在森美兰州联合执政，并与伊斯兰党（PAS）在马六甲州达成选举协议。

政治分歧在一个州可能非常深刻，在另一个州可能可以协商，而在布城则完全无关紧要。

事实上，在当前形势下，各政党应该考虑做出如下免责声明：原则和联盟可能会因选区和选举情况而异。

然后是腐败问题，这是每个人都会谴责的政治问题，直到人们开始正常谈论这个问题为止。

2026 年 1 月，检察官宣布，在进一步调查后，由于证据不足，将不再对副总理艾哈迈德·扎希德·哈米迪提出的 47 项指控采取进一步行动。

该决定并不构成有罪判决，正当程序必须得到尊重。但关于检察机关独立性和机构问责制的问题仍然合理。

当反对派政治人物面临腐败指控时，政治人物及其支持者会要求追究责任，有时甚至在调查完成之前就会提出追究责任的要求。

但当他们的执政联盟中的某人面临争议时，他们突然提醒所有人要遵循正当程序、无罪推定以及让机构履行职责的必要性。

当然，这些法律原则至关重要。真正令人惊讶的是，一些政客对这些原则的记忆竟如此片面。

在目前情况下，我不愿将当代马来西亚政治描述为一个盲目忠诚的追随者国家。那样做对所有选民都不公平，也忽略了政治支持体系的巨大变化。

许多马来西亚人对政党越来越持怀疑态度。他们目睹了太多政治权谋，明白今天的承诺可能变成明天的耻辱。

有些人投票是因为他们真心认同某个政党的纲领。另一些人投票是因为他们更加不信任其他选择。

有些人尽管对政党有所保留，仍然支持个别候选人。还有一些人对政治体制感到极度失望，以至于对任何人都不再抱有太大期望。

因此，投票给某个政党并不一定意味着要相信其领导人所说的一切。有时，这仅仅意味着选择一个自己觉得最不反感的选项。马来西亚政治的荒谬之处就在于此。

政党依然表现得好像他们拥有绝对的忠诚，即使选民可能并不情愿支持他们。

一个人可以在政府执政期间一直批评它，但在下次选举中仍然会投票给它，这并不是因为政府赢得了他们的信任，而是因为其他选择似乎更糟。

有时候我会想，这对政客来说真是太方便了。他们再也不用费尽心思说服选民他们兑现了承诺。

他们只需要说服足够多的人，其他人会做得更糟。

那么，选民们应该如何看待之前的所有警告呢？显然，他们经常被告知，我们应该把它们忘掉。

他们被告知，政治形势已经改变，成熟的选民必须明白妥协是必要的。

政治中妥协固然必要。但合理的妥协与放弃自己先前宣称坚持的一切之间，肯定应该有所区别。

更令人担忧的是，马来西亚人可能已经习惯了这些逆转，以至于他们不再觉得这些逆转特别令人惊讶。

政治家违背承诺，政党改变立场，昔日敌人成为联盟伙伴，而人们的反应越来越可预测：这就是政治。

这句话如今竟成了多么妙用之词啊！这就是政治。

三个字就能解释几乎任何事情，而且无需任何人过多解释。

这就是为什么政治上的失望会变得危险。

当选民对政治人物违背承诺习以为常时，每一次违背承诺都会变得不那么令人震惊。

当人们假定政治交易的动机是出于自身利益时，即使是最可疑的安排也会显得很正常。

最终，政治人物可能不再需要非常令人信服地为自己的前后矛盾之处辩护。

他们完全可以指望选民们已经厌倦了听到同样的解释。而这对于掌权者来说，无疑是一项巨大的优势。

政党有权改变立场。形势瞬息万变，联合政府需要协商，而执政必然比竞选复杂得多。

但这些变化应该有解释。如果一个政党曾经指责另一个政党腐败或不适合执政，选民有权询问除了有机会分享权力之外，还有哪些方面发生了变化。

如果政治人物在就职前承诺进行体制改革，他们应该解释他们已经完成了哪些改革，以及为什么其他承诺尚未完成。

如果他们在反对派时期谴责过某些做法，那么他们就应该准备好解释为什么这些做法现在可以被接受。

这些期望并非不合理。然而在马来西亚政坛，要求政治人物记住自己的承诺，有时似乎比要求选民忘记这些承诺更难。

随着马来西亚即将迎来又一次大选，我们可以预料到会听到一些熟悉的演讲，内容涉及诚信、改革、稳定以及政治对手构成的危险。

将会有新的联盟，旧的指责，以及一些此前坚称永远不可能合作的政治家之间令人瞩目的和解。

有些妥协或许是必要的，有些承诺或许是真诚的。但选民不应该仅仅为了理解今天的政治格局，就不得不忘记昨天的宣言。

危险或许不再在于马来西亚人轻信政治领导人所说的一切。

或许是因为很多人听过太多承诺，也目睹过太多背叛，所以不再指望政客们会言出必行。

这就引出了那句名言：一万个傻瓜或许能组成一个政党，或许不能。但要让政治虚伪继续存在，并不需要一万个傻瓜。

只要有足够多的人习惯了这种做法，政客们就不再觉得有必要解释他们的矛盾之处了。

尤其令人担忧的是，在一个政治体制中，选民们明明能够完全识别虚伪，却仍然发现自己一次又一次地在那些践行虚伪的政客之间做出选择。

有时我觉得这是当今马来西亚政坛最残酷的笑话。

政客们不再需要赢得我们的忠诚。他们或许只需要熬过我们的失望，这多么方便啊。

* Khoo Ying Hooi 博士是马来亚大学副教授。

**本文仅代表作者或刊物个人观点，并不一定代表《马来邮报》的立场。

据称，一名13岁少年在卡诺维特公共厕所用刀刺伤了一名69岁男子。

安华誓言马来西亚支持泰国南部的和平与稳定。

太平市议会否认大阪动物园虐待大象，称摇头和发情在圈养环境下属于正常现象

1MDB 2026年债务：已偿还425亿令吉，但仍有201亿令吉未偿付。