The recent multimillion-dollar bash that was President George W Bush's inauguration did not win many rave reviews. With Americans dying in the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the frolicking in the nation's capital seemed wholly inappropriate.

Worse, this civic celebration degenerated into yet another avenue for corporate lobbying, and for the rich to have easy access to the powerful. It fed on the eroding public trust in its political leaders and institutions.

In contrast, Prime Minster Abdullah Ahmad Badawi's swearing-in ceremony after the Barisan Nasional's landslide electoral victory last March was a picture of probity and restraint. No glittering expensive balls or long drawn-out street parades, only a simple ceremony at the palace. While Malaysia's official transfer of power may be a low-key affair, it has plenty of other events to match the American extravaganza.

Days if not weeks before the event, the Washington elite was consumed with who would get invited where. Thursday, the day of the inauguration, was a complete washout as far as the government was concerned. Similarly with the day after, with officials nursing their collective hangovers. In short, the whole week was functionally a bust in terms of effective government services. The only agencies actually working were those concerned with public safety.

Pressing issues like the rapidly deteriorating war in Iraq or the weakening dollar were conveniently forgotten.

Political corruption

Bush's supporters proudly proclaimed that the entire expense of the celebrations was borne by the private sector through corporate sponsorships. Therein lay the problem. At one level these supporters were oblivious of the indirect costs to the Treasury. Those corporate expenses are tax deductible, meaning, the public is indirectly subsidising them. Then there was the toll of lost productivity of public servants engrossed with the festivities.

The more relevant but ignored issue was that these corporate sponsorships are nothing more than undisguised influence peddling if not outright corruption. Indeed elsewhere they would be so deemed. In America, as long as there are receipts and the exchange of funds done openly, they become legitimate business transactions. No wonder leaders like former Malaysian premier chafed at being lectured by the Americans on the evils of corruption. Dr Mahathir Mohamad was rightly contemptuous of pontificating, for he readily saw through the hypocrisy.

The criticism notwithstanding, there are aspects to the inauguration that I found wholesome. Firstly, every president has seen fit to include a religious component. Bush attended a service at the National Cathedral. America may proudly proclaim its secular status, but that does not stop its leaders from including religious elements in the affairs of state. Prayers are routinely recited when Congress convenes.

Bush's electoral victory was in part attributable to his unabashed deep religious beliefs. He never hesitated in invoking the authority of God, and declaring his abiding faith in an Almighty Being. Substitute Allah for God and Almighty Being, and Bush would sound very much like Tok Guru Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat (photo). Both also claim to have had private communications with God, presumably the same God.

Secondly, the authorities were remarkably tolerant of dissent. Not far from the inauguration stand, many Americans were noisily voicing their disapproval of the president. There were no water cannon directed at them, nor were they arrested under ISA-like laws for 'disrespecting the leaders'. Similarly, the Democrats may have lost the election but that did not stop them from taking part in the ceremonies.

Malaysian version

Before we get smug in criticising the American way, we should first pause and ponder. Yes, Abdullah's swearing in was a humble affair, but Bush's inauguration should rightly be compared to the Agong's installation. It too is full of pomp and ceremony, and very long drawn-out. Government businesses are at a standstill on such occasions. The already congested streets are turned into endless parking lots in order to accommodate the inevitable streams of official motorcades.

While President's Day and Independence Day are celebrated unpretentiously in America (citizens regard them as simply another holiday to be spent on the beaches and ski slopes), in Malaysia royal birthdays and Merdeka Day are gala events. And we have not one but nine such royal birthdays, in addition to that of the four royal-wannabe governors.

While civil awards and presidential citations are handed out in meagre numbers and in simple White House ceremonies, in Malaysia civil awards are dished out by the bucketful. The associated ceremonies too are something to behold, with the palace fully decorated and everybody dressed in their finest ceremonial attire. The government is effectively non-functional on such days.

Malaysians may decry the corporate sponsorships of presidential bashes. But let us not forget who funds the various 'breaking of fast' events in luxury hotels during Ramadan and the lavish 'open houses' during Hari Raya. Thus even religious functions are being subverted by political corruption.

It is hypocritical for Mahathir and others to be contemptuous of American corporate lobbying while at the same time being oblivious of the equally glaring problems of political corruption back home. Simply labeling this as 'money politics' or other such euphemisms does not in any way minimise the corrosive effects of such practices on the integrity of the system.
To love is to stop comparing, goes an observation. As I love both Malaysia and America, I should stop comparing the two.

A dear friend, a Canadian who now calls Malaysia home, once gently reminded me, "We do things differently here!"

Not wrong, not inefficient, just different. Viva le difference! That is an expression of both appreciation and celebration.

The 'we' could refer to Americans, Malaysians or Canadians, and the 'here' could be Washington, DC, Ottawa or Putrajaya.