In politics and crisis, image still counts for much

In his book, The Audacity Of Hope, US President Barack Obama disclosed to the public his preference for Dijon mustard. In the book, Obama, who was on the campaign trail, had asked for Dijon mustard at a hamburger restaurant in Illinois.

“When the waitress brought the food I asked her if she had any Dijon mustard. Dan shook his head. ‘He doesn’t want Dijon,’ he insisted, waving the waitress off. ‘Here’ – he shoved a yellow bottle of French’s mustard in my direction – ‘here’s some mustard right here.’ The waitress looked confused. ‘We got Dijon if you want it,’ she said to me. I smiled. ‘That would be great, thanks.’ As the waitress walked away, I leaned over to Dan and whispered that I didn’t think there were any photographers around.” Some years later, his opponents would use that against him when somebody overheard him ordering Dijon mustard to go with his hamburger.

The point of this amusing story is that public figures, wherever they are, must understand the very concept of appropriateness or else they will fall victim to the “gotcha” political police.

Obama’s campaign advisor, Dan, was right on the spot to be watching his back on the campaign trail. Stick to American products instead of that spicy French stuff. This is an election campaign. Perception counts.

Today’s reporters can be unkind, and at times, unkind to the point of being cruel. But why blame the messenger? Like it or not, this kind of thing comes with the territory. A public figure will always have to watch his or her back because once you go public, you put yourself in a position that subjects you to criticism, both fairly and unfairly.

It lets us look at public figures a little differently. That’s why we have political cartoons. Satirical commentary is an important part of our freedom of speech, no matter how unpopular or controversial it may be.

In Thailand, over this past couple of weeks, Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra has come under criticism for showing up in her Burberry boots to observe the floods and evacuated villagers.

Other criticism has fallen on the fact that some of her people put “From Thaksin” labels on goods donated from the general public to the flood victims.

While Obama’s preference for French mustard could have rubbed some Americans up the wrong way – especially given the anti-French sentiment among some Americans after France spoke out against the war in Iraq – it’s understandable that some of the general public in Thailand could easily see Yingluck as being pretentious and out of touch with the flood victims because of her designer boots. Thank heavens for her ruling Pheu Thai Party that Deputy Prime Minister Chalerm Yoobamrung didn’t show up in his pink Bentley and his Versace shirt. Or perhaps he is waiting for Bentley to build a boat.

There is an old saying in Thailand: “Whatever rich people do, it’s never going to be ugly.”

But in the face of this flood disaster, in which so many lives and businesses have been ruined, public figures should display some degree of sense and sensibility.

And while the Yingluck government might survive this deluge and remain intact, the prime minister should know that it’s not just her image that is at stake; it’s Thailand as well.

Nearly three-quarters of a million people are now out of work as a result of the inundation, while seven major industrial estates in the central region have come to a standstill. The “Motown of Asia” has become “Waterworld" overnight. The real challenge for Yingluck and her Cabinet now is whether they can engineer a speedy recovery. She will be judged by her actions, not because of inappropriate fashion items. After all, if sense and sensibility were important issues, the vast majority of these politicians would never have been elected in the first place.