• 
• 
• 

When was the last time we heard a leader - be it national, local, political or corporate - say "I'm sorry, it's my fault", let alone "I screwed up"? Leaders don't admit mistakes. Some think doing so will cost them respect, or even their jobs, while others sincerely believe they should never make them. The "leaders are always right" attitude is most crucial in the political world, where even a minor error can be magnified by the media and your opponents.

It remains to be seen what ramifications await US President Barack Obama's stunning admission that he "screwed up" in selecting some Cabinet members. Of course, that will not amount to anything bigger than an early soft blow in Round One. He is well immuned in the US political system and well protected by his popularity and the honeymoon period. In fact, one may argue that the dramatic admission had more or less to do with the sense of security he has been enjoying. Cynics say they would pay attention only when the likes of George W Bush said something like "I screwed up on Iraq" or if one day Obama himself came out to admit that he was wrong about measures to deal with the badly flawed financial system.

So, it doesn't quite matter that Obama had the courage to utter the three words, when his so-called mistakes were an oversight on tax records of some Cabinet nominees. With Americans fast losing faith in their financial system, he could not afford to have the same resentment prevail in the political sphere. Politics needs popular support if it is to revive a plunging economic formula, and the young new president simply cannot embark on such a momentous agenda with questions of integrity hounding the government from day one.

Yet what many can learn from him came from the rest of his statements. On health secretary nominee Tom Daschle, for example, Obama said although he didn't think the failure to pay taxes was intentional, "it was a serious mistake" all the same. The president said it was very important to his administration to "send a message that there aren't two sets of rules - one for prominent people and one for ordinary folks who have to pay their taxes".

Obama's language was considered striking in part because the man he replaced, George W Bush, famously declined to admit error until his final days as US president. The now-popular statement of Obama somehow overshadowed another commendable act, by Daschle himself. He had withdrawn his nomination to become secretary of health and human services, saying his failure to pay $146,000 (Bt5 million) in back taxes prevented him from operating "with the full faith of Congress and the American people".

Only hours earlier, Nancy Killefer, nominee for deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget and the new post of federal chief performance officer, also dropped out because of unpaid taxes. In contrast to Daschle's amount, Killefer faced a tiny $946 lien in 2005 for failure to pay unemployment-compensation tax on household help.

That is supposed to be the way politics is played. No matter how good or how great you think you are, you bow out when you are caught with something. It doesn't matter if it is an "honest" or "blatant" mistake. If it's an error that will put ordinary folks in trouble, prominent people will also be in trouble if they commit the same error. You don't decry political opponents who found out the "mistakes", or demonise the media for exposing them.

A system that places more importance on principles rather than individuals shall be stronger than vice versa. To people familiar with old-fashioned politics, it's hard to believe that Obama would admit, not once, but several times, that he "screwed up", whereas just a day earlier he had said he was "absolutely" committed to Daschle's confirmation as secretary of health and human services. But for the tiny little thing of tax problems, the doomed nominee would be taking the lead in the president's ambitious plans for the nation's healthcare scheme.

Obama and his nominees, if they were Thai politicians, could have easily chosen to take advantage of his landslide popularity, using it to paper over those "honest mistakes". "Everyone did it, so why can't we?" they would say. Instead of protecting values, they would protect the conditions conducive to their violations. And they would be able to govern the country until others, particularly their enemies, start to think, "If they don't obey the laws and principles, why should we?" And when the whole country lands in a big mess, the same politicians would accuse anyone but themselves of screwing up.