Being the Mr. Clean that I am, I have not even begun to fight
Only my underlings were uttering mayhem,
using their Islamic might
However, since you brought it up,
I have to sing myself some praise
Of all my glorious achievements
despite 5 years of malaise
So:
I, Abdullah Ahmad Badawi ,
vow to tackle crime and your corruption fears
All these difficult tasks will only take only 30 years
You might feel that you have heard these promises before
Then you are wrong, those were just my initial snores
The past 5 years were just my honeymoon
To help me perfect my art of sleeping in a cocoon
Trust me, elect me and give me 5 years more
For the next 39 years, I have grandiose plans galore
Now folks we, in the Government, take inflation seriously
That’s why we inflated the prices of essentials professionally
Look, we too are doing our bit to aid in your sacrifice
Look how Najib, Khairy, Semi-value all became extremely nice
We need to raise your tolls, petrol, cooking oil and flour
Driving, fried foods are unhealthy and roti canai sours
Remember even us rich have to pay more for our food and play
So just tighten your belts and be holy,
learn to pray
In 30 years, we will flood the market with cheap basic food
Meanwhile, be patient, we will struggle to the last drop of your blood
My words are your bond, in 30 years, my promises
I will keep Please be patient work hard while
I catch some sleep
Fear not folks, elect me
and I can give you long term visions
30 year from now, I will surely come out with some solutions
For UMNO's long term thinking ,
please pay us in cash today 50 years from now,
UMNO and I will make you all semua-nya OK
Vow by Abdullah Ahmad Badawi
Prime Minister of Malaysia
Well-known as SLEEPING PRIME MINISTER
Friday, January 25, 2008
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Malaysia Is A Failed State
Over the last decade or so, since the Reformasi 'explosion' of 1998, I had read many Western journalists's articles who passed this way in search of a story. Most of them wrote about the goings-on in the local scene, in particular in relation to the opposition. Some imagine themselves as experts or authorities on human rights issues and of course countries like Malaysia are way at the bottom of their list of countries guilty of human rights abuses.
I actually get damn irritated when I read these Western thinking , those who imagine themselves as experts or authorities on matters concerning human rights. They are very patronising and speak with a high-and-mighty, holier-than-thou tone of voice. They always say they want to 'interview' me to get my views and thoughts on various issues. But when we meet it ends up with them lecturing me on what is wrong with this country and what 'people like us' should do to correct this sorry state of affairs.
Hey, you want my views, I will give it to you. I did not ask to meet you. You asked to meet me. But if you are meeting me to give me your views and to tell me what is wrong with this country and what 'we' should do about it, then I do not need to meet you. I have just too much work to do and am too busy to waste my valuable time to hear a sermon from people who think they are right because of the colour of their skin and we are wrong also for the same reason.
Yes, that's right, these Westerners harbour this impression that because they are Westerners they must be right and because we are Asians then we must be wrong. White is right (and some say might is also right), so we non-whites must sit through an hour of an 'interview' getting lectured on the Western perception of right and wrong. And they show this 'we know what we are talking about' streak in the way they write and talk. And they don't talk to you. They talk down at you.
If I were to write an article that the Jews are the cause of the Middle East crisis and it is because of their Zionist policy and their illegal occupation of Arab land that there is so much strife and killing I would be whacked to kingdom come. If I were to write that the so-called Holocaust did not happen and there is no evidence it did happen they would probably send a hit squad to bump me off. Running down the Jews is a no-no and no white-skin journalist would allow you to do this.
If I were to whack Islamic countries or Asian dictators, I would be viewed as a great person. And if I who whacks Islamic countries or Asian dictators am a Muslim on top of that, then I would be hailed as a great liberal Muslim or Asian. Westerners just love Muslims or Asians who whack their own kind. This sort of gives them the feeling that they are certainly right if the Muslims or Asians agree with what they have to say.
Sure, most Asian, African, Latin American and African countries are failed states. Not all failed states are Muslim countries of course but all Muslim countries are certainly failed states. And these countries deserve getting whacked. But who is the cause of this? These Western journalists who whack countries like Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, etc., seem to overlook one thing. Many of these countries would not even exist if not for the Western powers. The Western powers created many of these countries after the two 'great' wars. And many of these failed states and dictatorships would have fallen a long time ago if not for the fact that the Western powers propped them up for their own self-interest.
Iran, for example, is not a failed state because it is non-white or because it is an Islamic country. It is a failed state because the West propped it up and closed its eyes to the human rights abuses under the Shah. Iran served the interest of the West so the West ignored the rampant and blatant human rights abuses and pretended it did not exist. Iraq was the same case. Whatever Saddam Hussein did was not something he did when he was opposed to the West but long before that while he still served the interest of the West. But the West closed its eyes to all this and pretended nothing was happening because Iraq was useful to Western interests.
Closer to home, Vietnam, Korea, Pakistan, Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, etc., were all also led by dictators who not only had no respect for human rights but did not even understand the meaning of the term. So the dictators of Vietnam, Korea, Pakistan, Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, etc., were also tolerated and supported. Only when they could no longer serve the interest of the West were they condemned and allowed to fall in favour of 'popular peoples' movements'.
The West is a hypocrite. The West created all these monsters, these failed states. And those from the West now come here to preach to us about what is good and what is bad and about how bad Malaysia is. And we have to sit through hours of 'interviews' listening to them go on about what 'we' should be doing to correct this.
Do they not realise that their governments created these monsters? Do they not realise that many of these monsters did not exist until their governments carved out new countries from the spoils of the two 'great' wars and which they divided amongst them to serve as their colonies? Do they not realise that their governments propped up all these failed states because the dictators running these failed states served the interest of the West? Who are they to tell us what is right and what is wrong and what we should do about it? Why did they not scream, rant and rave 50 or 60 years ago before these failed states became failed states and before the dictators running these failed states had exterminated millions of their own citizens as well as citizens of their neighbouring countries?
It is now three generations or more since many of these failed states were created. Today, the grandchildren are condemning the failed states which were created by their grandfathers and which were propped up by their fathers. These present day Western journalists somehow feel they have earned the right to criticise countries like Malaysia and sermon us as to what we should be doing. And they adopt this high-and-mighty, holier-than-thou tone of voice when lecturing us.
Many do not really understand the term 'failed state' so I have extracted below what Weber and Wikipedia have to say on the matter. You will notice that Malaysia certainly fits the bill of a failed state as evident in the parts we have highlighted in bold. Yes, Malaysia is, by 'Western' standards, a failed state, and I do not quite disagree with their prognosis. My only beef is that countries like Malaysia became failed states because the West allowed them to become so and because they served the interest of the West to become so. Failed states need to be propped up so the West would be required to do this propping up. In this way failed states would continue to be beholden to the West. It is only when they no longer serve the interest of the West would failed states be allowed to fall at the detriment of the population as what we have seen in many countries where the dictators finally fell only to bring the country out of the frying pan and into the fire.
What is a failed state and how would we recognise one?
There are several indicators of a failed state. The declaration that a state has 'failed' is generally controversial since, when made authoritatively, this assessment may carry significant geopolitical consequences.
Indicators include:
a state whose central government is so weak or ineffective that it has little practical control over much of its territory (the level of control required to avoid being considered a failed state varies considerably amongst authorities),
legitimate authority to make collective decisions has been eroded,
reasonable public services can not be provided,
widespread corruption and criminality,
refugees and involuntary movement of populations,
sharp economic decline, failed interaction with other states.
A state could be said to 'succeed' if it maintains a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force within its borders. When this is broken (e.g., through the dominant presence of warlords, militias, or terrorism), the very existence of the state becomes dubious, and the state becomes a failed state. The difficulty of determining whether a government maintains 'a monopoly on the legitimate use of force' (which includes the problems of the definition of 'legitimate') means it is not clear precisely when a state can be said to have 'failed'. This problem of legitimacy can be solved by understanding what Weber intended by it. Weber clearly explains that only the state has the means of production necessary for physical violence (politics as vocation). This means that the state does not require legitimacy for achieving monopoly on the means of violence (de facto) but will need one if it needs to use it (de jure).
The term is also used in the sense of a state that has been rendered ineffective (i.e., has nominal military/police control over its territory only in the sense of having no armed opposition groups directly challenging state authority; in short, the 'no news is good news' approach) and is not able to enforce its laws uniformly because of high crime rates, extreme political corruption, an extensive informal market, impenetrable bureaucracy, judicial ineffectiveness, military interference in politics, cultural situations in which traditional leaders wield more power than the state over a certain area but do not compete with the state, or a number of other factors.
Indicators of state vulnerability
The index's ranks are based on twelve indicators of state vulnerability - four social, two economic and six political. The indicators are not designed to forecast when states may experience violence or collapse. Instead, they are meant to measure a state's vulnerability to collapse or conflict.
Social indicators
1. Demographic pressures: including the pressures deriving from high population density relative to food supply and other life-sustaining resources. The pressure from a population's settlement patterns and physical settings, including border disputes, ownership or occupancy of land, access to transportation outlets, control of religious or historical sites, and proximity to environmental hazards.
2. Massive movement of refugees and internally displaced peoples: forced uprooting of large communities as a result of random or targeted violence and/or repression, causing food shortages, disease, lack of clean water, land competition, and turmoil that can spiral into larger humanitarian and security problems, both within and between countries.
3. Legacy of vengeance-seeking group grievance: based on recent or past injustices, which could date back centuries. Including atrocities committed with impunity against communal groups and/or specific groups singled out by state authorities, or by dominant groups, for persecution or repression. Institutionalized political exclusion. Public scapegoating of groups believed to have acquired wealth, status or power as evidenced in the emergence of 'hate' radio, pamphleteering and stereotypical or nationalistic political rhetoric.
4. Chronic and sustained human flight: both the 'brain drain' of professionals, intellectuals and political dissidents and voluntary emigration of 'the middle class'. Growth of exile/expat communities are also used as part of this indicator.
Economic indicators
5. Uneven economic development along group lines: determined by group-based inequality, or perceived inequality, in education, jobs, and economic status. Also measured by group-based poverty levels, infant mortality rates, education levels.
6. Sharp and/or severe economic decline: measured by a progressive economic decline of the society as a whole (using: per capita income, GNP, debt, child mortality rates, poverty levels, business failures.) A sudden drop in commodity prices, trade revenue, foreign investment or debt payments. Collapse or devaluation of the national currency and a growth of hidden economies, including the drug trade, smuggling, and capital flight. Failure of the state to pay salaries of government employees and armed forces or to meet other financial obligations to its citizens, such as pension payments.
Political Indicators
7. Criminalization and/or delegitimisation of the state: endemic corruption or profiteering by ruling elites and resistance to transparency, accountability and political representation. Includes any widespread loss of popular confidence in state institutions and processes.
8. Progressive deterioration of public services: a disappearance of basic state functions that serve the people, including failure to protect citizens from terrorism and violence and to provide essential services, such as health, education, sanitation, public transportation. Also using the state apparatus for agencies that serve the ruling elites, such as the security forces, presidential staff, central bank, diplomatic service, customs and collection agencies.
9. Widespread violation of human rights: an emergence of authoritarian, dictatorial or military rule in which constitutional and democratic institutions and processes are suspended or manipulated. Outbreaks of politically inspired (as opposed to criminal) violence against innocent civilians. A rising number of political prisoners or dissidents who are denied due process consistent with international norms and practices. Any widespread abuse of legal, political and social rights, including those of individuals, groups or cultural institutions (e.g., harassment of the press, politicisation of the judiciary, internal use of military for political ends, public repression of political opponents, religious or cultural persecution.)
10. Security apparatus as ‘state within a state’: an emergence of elite or praetorian guards that operate with impunity. Emergence of state-sponsored or state-supported private militias that terrorize political opponents, suspected 'enemies', or civilians seen to be sympathetic to the opposition. An 'army within an army' that serves the interests of the dominant military or political clique. Emergence of rival militias, guerilla forces or private armies in an armed struggle or protracted violent campaigns against state security forces.
11. Rise of factionalised elites: a fragmentation of ruling elites and state institutions along group lines. Any use of nationalistic political rhetoric by ruling elites, often in terms of communal irredentism or of communal solidarity (e.g., 'ethnic cleansing' or 'defending the faith'.)
12. Intervention of other states or external factors: military or Para-military engagement in the internal affairs of the state at risk by outside armies, states, identity groups or entities that affect the internal balance of power or resolution of the conflict. Intervention by donors, especially if there is a tendency towards over-dependence on foreign aid or peacekeeping missions.
I actually get damn irritated when I read these Western thinking , those who imagine themselves as experts or authorities on matters concerning human rights. They are very patronising and speak with a high-and-mighty, holier-than-thou tone of voice. They always say they want to 'interview' me to get my views and thoughts on various issues. But when we meet it ends up with them lecturing me on what is wrong with this country and what 'people like us' should do to correct this sorry state of affairs.
Hey, you want my views, I will give it to you. I did not ask to meet you. You asked to meet me. But if you are meeting me to give me your views and to tell me what is wrong with this country and what 'we' should do about it, then I do not need to meet you. I have just too much work to do and am too busy to waste my valuable time to hear a sermon from people who think they are right because of the colour of their skin and we are wrong also for the same reason.
Yes, that's right, these Westerners harbour this impression that because they are Westerners they must be right and because we are Asians then we must be wrong. White is right (and some say might is also right), so we non-whites must sit through an hour of an 'interview' getting lectured on the Western perception of right and wrong. And they show this 'we know what we are talking about' streak in the way they write and talk. And they don't talk to you. They talk down at you.
If I were to write an article that the Jews are the cause of the Middle East crisis and it is because of their Zionist policy and their illegal occupation of Arab land that there is so much strife and killing I would be whacked to kingdom come. If I were to write that the so-called Holocaust did not happen and there is no evidence it did happen they would probably send a hit squad to bump me off. Running down the Jews is a no-no and no white-skin journalist would allow you to do this.
If I were to whack Islamic countries or Asian dictators, I would be viewed as a great person. And if I who whacks Islamic countries or Asian dictators am a Muslim on top of that, then I would be hailed as a great liberal Muslim or Asian. Westerners just love Muslims or Asians who whack their own kind. This sort of gives them the feeling that they are certainly right if the Muslims or Asians agree with what they have to say.
Sure, most Asian, African, Latin American and African countries are failed states. Not all failed states are Muslim countries of course but all Muslim countries are certainly failed states. And these countries deserve getting whacked. But who is the cause of this? These Western journalists who whack countries like Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, etc., seem to overlook one thing. Many of these countries would not even exist if not for the Western powers. The Western powers created many of these countries after the two 'great' wars. And many of these failed states and dictatorships would have fallen a long time ago if not for the fact that the Western powers propped them up for their own self-interest.
Iran, for example, is not a failed state because it is non-white or because it is an Islamic country. It is a failed state because the West propped it up and closed its eyes to the human rights abuses under the Shah. Iran served the interest of the West so the West ignored the rampant and blatant human rights abuses and pretended it did not exist. Iraq was the same case. Whatever Saddam Hussein did was not something he did when he was opposed to the West but long before that while he still served the interest of the West. But the West closed its eyes to all this and pretended nothing was happening because Iraq was useful to Western interests.
Closer to home, Vietnam, Korea, Pakistan, Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, etc., were all also led by dictators who not only had no respect for human rights but did not even understand the meaning of the term. So the dictators of Vietnam, Korea, Pakistan, Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, etc., were also tolerated and supported. Only when they could no longer serve the interest of the West were they condemned and allowed to fall in favour of 'popular peoples' movements'.
The West is a hypocrite. The West created all these monsters, these failed states. And those from the West now come here to preach to us about what is good and what is bad and about how bad Malaysia is. And we have to sit through hours of 'interviews' listening to them go on about what 'we' should be doing to correct this.
Do they not realise that their governments created these monsters? Do they not realise that many of these monsters did not exist until their governments carved out new countries from the spoils of the two 'great' wars and which they divided amongst them to serve as their colonies? Do they not realise that their governments propped up all these failed states because the dictators running these failed states served the interest of the West? Who are they to tell us what is right and what is wrong and what we should do about it? Why did they not scream, rant and rave 50 or 60 years ago before these failed states became failed states and before the dictators running these failed states had exterminated millions of their own citizens as well as citizens of their neighbouring countries?
It is now three generations or more since many of these failed states were created. Today, the grandchildren are condemning the failed states which were created by their grandfathers and which were propped up by their fathers. These present day Western journalists somehow feel they have earned the right to criticise countries like Malaysia and sermon us as to what we should be doing. And they adopt this high-and-mighty, holier-than-thou tone of voice when lecturing us.
Many do not really understand the term 'failed state' so I have extracted below what Weber and Wikipedia have to say on the matter. You will notice that Malaysia certainly fits the bill of a failed state as evident in the parts we have highlighted in bold. Yes, Malaysia is, by 'Western' standards, a failed state, and I do not quite disagree with their prognosis. My only beef is that countries like Malaysia became failed states because the West allowed them to become so and because they served the interest of the West to become so. Failed states need to be propped up so the West would be required to do this propping up. In this way failed states would continue to be beholden to the West. It is only when they no longer serve the interest of the West would failed states be allowed to fall at the detriment of the population as what we have seen in many countries where the dictators finally fell only to bring the country out of the frying pan and into the fire.
What is a failed state and how would we recognise one?
There are several indicators of a failed state. The declaration that a state has 'failed' is generally controversial since, when made authoritatively, this assessment may carry significant geopolitical consequences.
Indicators include:
a state whose central government is so weak or ineffective that it has little practical control over much of its territory (the level of control required to avoid being considered a failed state varies considerably amongst authorities),
legitimate authority to make collective decisions has been eroded,
reasonable public services can not be provided,
widespread corruption and criminality,
refugees and involuntary movement of populations,
sharp economic decline, failed interaction with other states.
A state could be said to 'succeed' if it maintains a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force within its borders. When this is broken (e.g., through the dominant presence of warlords, militias, or terrorism), the very existence of the state becomes dubious, and the state becomes a failed state. The difficulty of determining whether a government maintains 'a monopoly on the legitimate use of force' (which includes the problems of the definition of 'legitimate') means it is not clear precisely when a state can be said to have 'failed'. This problem of legitimacy can be solved by understanding what Weber intended by it. Weber clearly explains that only the state has the means of production necessary for physical violence (politics as vocation). This means that the state does not require legitimacy for achieving monopoly on the means of violence (de facto) but will need one if it needs to use it (de jure).
The term is also used in the sense of a state that has been rendered ineffective (i.e., has nominal military/police control over its territory only in the sense of having no armed opposition groups directly challenging state authority; in short, the 'no news is good news' approach) and is not able to enforce its laws uniformly because of high crime rates, extreme political corruption, an extensive informal market, impenetrable bureaucracy, judicial ineffectiveness, military interference in politics, cultural situations in which traditional leaders wield more power than the state over a certain area but do not compete with the state, or a number of other factors.
Indicators of state vulnerability
The index's ranks are based on twelve indicators of state vulnerability - four social, two economic and six political. The indicators are not designed to forecast when states may experience violence or collapse. Instead, they are meant to measure a state's vulnerability to collapse or conflict.
Social indicators
1. Demographic pressures: including the pressures deriving from high population density relative to food supply and other life-sustaining resources. The pressure from a population's settlement patterns and physical settings, including border disputes, ownership or occupancy of land, access to transportation outlets, control of religious or historical sites, and proximity to environmental hazards.
2. Massive movement of refugees and internally displaced peoples: forced uprooting of large communities as a result of random or targeted violence and/or repression, causing food shortages, disease, lack of clean water, land competition, and turmoil that can spiral into larger humanitarian and security problems, both within and between countries.
3. Legacy of vengeance-seeking group grievance: based on recent or past injustices, which could date back centuries. Including atrocities committed with impunity against communal groups and/or specific groups singled out by state authorities, or by dominant groups, for persecution or repression. Institutionalized political exclusion. Public scapegoating of groups believed to have acquired wealth, status or power as evidenced in the emergence of 'hate' radio, pamphleteering and stereotypical or nationalistic political rhetoric.
4. Chronic and sustained human flight: both the 'brain drain' of professionals, intellectuals and political dissidents and voluntary emigration of 'the middle class'. Growth of exile/expat communities are also used as part of this indicator.
Economic indicators
5. Uneven economic development along group lines: determined by group-based inequality, or perceived inequality, in education, jobs, and economic status. Also measured by group-based poverty levels, infant mortality rates, education levels.
6. Sharp and/or severe economic decline: measured by a progressive economic decline of the society as a whole (using: per capita income, GNP, debt, child mortality rates, poverty levels, business failures.) A sudden drop in commodity prices, trade revenue, foreign investment or debt payments. Collapse or devaluation of the national currency and a growth of hidden economies, including the drug trade, smuggling, and capital flight. Failure of the state to pay salaries of government employees and armed forces or to meet other financial obligations to its citizens, such as pension payments.
Political Indicators
7. Criminalization and/or delegitimisation of the state: endemic corruption or profiteering by ruling elites and resistance to transparency, accountability and political representation. Includes any widespread loss of popular confidence in state institutions and processes.
8. Progressive deterioration of public services: a disappearance of basic state functions that serve the people, including failure to protect citizens from terrorism and violence and to provide essential services, such as health, education, sanitation, public transportation. Also using the state apparatus for agencies that serve the ruling elites, such as the security forces, presidential staff, central bank, diplomatic service, customs and collection agencies.
9. Widespread violation of human rights: an emergence of authoritarian, dictatorial or military rule in which constitutional and democratic institutions and processes are suspended or manipulated. Outbreaks of politically inspired (as opposed to criminal) violence against innocent civilians. A rising number of political prisoners or dissidents who are denied due process consistent with international norms and practices. Any widespread abuse of legal, political and social rights, including those of individuals, groups or cultural institutions (e.g., harassment of the press, politicisation of the judiciary, internal use of military for political ends, public repression of political opponents, religious or cultural persecution.)
10. Security apparatus as ‘state within a state’: an emergence of elite or praetorian guards that operate with impunity. Emergence of state-sponsored or state-supported private militias that terrorize political opponents, suspected 'enemies', or civilians seen to be sympathetic to the opposition. An 'army within an army' that serves the interests of the dominant military or political clique. Emergence of rival militias, guerilla forces or private armies in an armed struggle or protracted violent campaigns against state security forces.
11. Rise of factionalised elites: a fragmentation of ruling elites and state institutions along group lines. Any use of nationalistic political rhetoric by ruling elites, often in terms of communal irredentism or of communal solidarity (e.g., 'ethnic cleansing' or 'defending the faith'.)
12. Intervention of other states or external factors: military or Para-military engagement in the internal affairs of the state at risk by outside armies, states, identity groups or entities that affect the internal balance of power or resolution of the conflict. Intervention by donors, especially if there is a tendency towards over-dependence on foreign aid or peacekeeping missions.
Sunday, January 20, 2008
The extinction of the Umno Warlords and the Little Napoleons
We need a leadership change, said Shahrir Samad, the then Chairman of the Parliament Backbenchers' Club, popularly known as BBC. You could almost hear a pin drop in the conspicuous silence, a predictable response to what most would regard as a 'bombshell' in the days when dissent was perceived as tantamount to insulting the very Prophet himself. Shahrir allowed his matter-of-fact statement to sink in as he slowly and deliberately glanced across the length and breadth of the room before he broke the silence with his follow-through declaration.
Mahathir has to go, and it should not be Anwar Ibrahim who takes over, Shahrir added while giving me a piercing stare as if to sink home the point that the part about Anwar was meant specifically for me, the man who carried the title of Director of the Free Anwar Campaign. It should not even be you or I who takes over, Shahrir clarified further to make it clear to all and sundry that his point about Anwar was not personal in nature but based on principles, though I certainly harboured no ambitions to take over the running of this country.
The people who should be taking over the running of this country has to be the next generation, those under 40, argued Shahrir. This country belongs to the next generation. Our days are gone. We need young blood with fresh ideas, Shahrir explained in the event there were still some who were wondering why our generation was over-the-hill and why the need for this country to be handed over to our children.
Look at Singapore. They are successful because the older generation does not cling to power but the young are groomed to take over. Malaysia has to emulate Singapore, Shahrir ended his declaration with what could be considered as blasphemy.
That was six years or so ago, the era when Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad was still the Prime Minister. And it was not wise in those days to compare Malaysia to Singapore. What is good for Singapore may also be what is good for Malaysia. But one must never say this. But then Shahrir is never one to follow convention. In fact, the more Mahahir does not like Malaysia to be compared to Singapore the more Shahrir would say it, as if he is purposely trying to needle Mahathir in an attempt to rub him the wrong way.
It is no secret that Shahrir's pet hate is Mahahir while the man he hates the most after Mahathir is Anwar Ibrahim. No wonder he feels Malaysia has no place for either Mahathir or Anwar. But he did qualify by saying that it should not be he or we who takes over either. It should be the next generation, those below 40.
Six years or more have since gone by and what Shahrir said is now all water under the bridge. Mahathir has since left the scene but it is still the older generation that is running this country. The younger generation, those below 40, are not yet holding the reins of power as per Shahrir's prognosis. Those running this country are still those from that generation which Shahrir said has to go. Yes, that may be so, they may not yet be in the driver's seat, but they are certainly walking in the corridors of power and are instrumental in charting this country's destiny.
Many hate current Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi because he is not capable of running the country with an iron fist the way Mahathir was able to. But then, when Mahathir was running this country, they hated him for that very same reason, because he was running it with an iron first. They felt that Mahathir should delegate more and not decide single-handedly everything down to what tree should be planted and where it should be planted.
Yes, when Mahathir first took over as Prime Minister, he took the Federal Territory Minister and the Lord Mayor of Kuala Lumpur, together with the City Hall officers, on a bus ride around the city one Sunday so that he can brief them on how the landscaping should be done. He told them which tree should be chopped down and where the new ones should be planted and in which location there was a need for flowers. When they renovated the Subang Airport he personally supervised the work and even decided on the colour of the check-in counters. Mahathir was engineer, architect, interior designer and town planner all in one. And in spite of that heavy workload, he read every scrap of paper and every report before all the meetings and nothing got by him unnoticed.
Then we have Abdullah and he reads nothing and is not able to get through half a page of an A4 document without losing concentration while struggling to not fall asleep. Abdullah is the exact opposite of Mahathir. And while Mahathir had his hands on the pulse of even the minutest details, Abdullah allows the country to operate on autopilot. No, the country is not being run by the older generation. As what Shahrir wanted, the country is being run by the next generation, the under-40s age group. Shahrir got his wish after all. The only difference is that the next generation, the under-40s, is not sitting on the throne. But it is certainly the power behind the throne. While it appears like the older generation is running this country, the truth is those under-40s, the next generation, is walking in the corridors of power and decides what happens to this country leaving Abdullah free to embark on his overseas jaunts every two weeks or so.
It is not known when the next general election will be called. Some say it will be 15 March 2008. Some say earlier. And some say Abdullah will allow his term to run until the last day, which is 21 March 2009. Whatever it may be, one thing is clear, 60% of the candidates will be new faces. And many will be from the next generation, the under 40s age group. The days of the Umno Warlords will soon be a thing of the past. People like the Menteris Besar of Perlis, Perak, Johor and Pahang and the Chief Ministers of Melaka, Sabah and Sarawak will have to make way for new and younger faces. Many members of the Cabinet, in particular those carrying baggage, will be dropped. And these changes will also affect the component members of the Barisan Nasional ruling coalition.
Umno's as well as Barisan Nasional's problem is that the warlords call the shots. As strong-minded as Mahathir may have been, he could not ignore the warlords. And Abdullah suffered the same thing when he took over, which is why he did not dare drop any of the old faces and was forced to retain what could be perceived as Mahathir's legacy. Mahahir was powerless in spite of being accused of running this country with an iron fist. Abdullah, a lesser man that Mahathir, would certainly not be able to discard the warlords even if his life depended on it.
But it is not Abdullah who is determining who gets dropped and which new faces and young blood replaces them. That is the job of his team of advisors on the fourth floor who owe their allegiance to Khairy Jamaluddin. These are those who now walk in the corridors of power and who are charting this country's direction. Notable amongst them are the likes of Zaki Azmi, Omar Ong, Norza Zakaria and the aggressive team of yuppies who are determined to shed the old ways and emulate how Singapore brought that tiny Island State onto the world stage.
Zaki and Omar come from what could be said to be illustrious families. Their fathers were already big names even as they were still learning how to walk. Even their boss, Khairy, can be considered as from an elite family since his father was a diplomat. Khairy, in fact, spent most of his youth in elite international schools and grew up amongst the selected few. Norza, however, is another kettle of fish. He hails from a humble background, the son of a schoolteacher, and in a feudal system where you have to be somebody to become somebody, Norza can be said to be an exception amongst the lot.
Malays in general and Umno in particualr still subscribe to the feudal system. Most come up through family connections. Mahathir is probably amongst the rare breed who was from a 'nobody' background and that is why many looked at him with awe. In a system where you must have been born from or at the very least marry into the right family, moving up on your own steam is not an easy option.
Mahathir, however, is not exactly a nobody. Siti Hasmah is from an established family as was the late Endon. Therefore, as much as we might pass off both Mahathir's and Abdullah's fathers as simple schoolteachers, their wives were from established families. So Mahathir and Abdullah both had the advantage of their wives' connections to get a head-start in life. And the same can also be said about Khairy who probably would still have made it but certainly at a much slower pace if not for the fact that he is married to the Prime Minister's daughter.
Khairy and his team of fourth floor boys, all under-40 yuppies, have big plans for the future. And they are not about to allow anyone to stand in their way. But they must first send all the warlords into retirement. And this will be done come the next election when the old faces will be dropped in favour of fresh faces. It is not just that these faces are new though. They will also be aggressive and professional yuppies who know what they want and know how to get it.
Norza, as an example, may be the offspring of a simple kampong schoolteacher. But he has left the kampong behind him and has moved on. For some, you can take the boy out of the kampong but you can't take the kampong out of the boy. And kampong politics is the politics of warlords and patronage. The young kowtow to the elders and treat the elders like demigods. However, this is not the lifestyle of the fourth floor boys who walk in the corridors of power. Theirs is a lifestyle of survival of the fittest and where meritocracy reigns supreme. It will be very difficult for the old warlords to fathom all this but, like it or not, their days are numbered. This may be six years too late as far as Shahrir is concerned but they do say better late than never.
Yes, Malaysia is about to see changes. The Shahidans, Anuars, Tajols, Adnans, Rahims, Musas, Tengku Adnans, and many of those remnants of the Mahathir era will go the way of the Megat Junids, Sanusis and Khalils who were sent out to pasture not that long ago. Even the likes of Ku Li and Rais and those viewed as still having some political clout face the prospect of being sent into retirement. Soon, Malaysia will be led by those who wish to claim their inheritance by force and not wait for it to be handed to them when the old folks get tired of public life or, by divine intervention, die off.
These people know what life is all about. They know what they want from life. And they are not scared of grabbing what they want without waiting for it to be served like the old ways of the old days. They live well, they eat well, they dress well, and they know the power of money and what money can do for you. They also know that only through the attainment of power can you realise your dreams.
These yuppies have plans for this country. They know what needs to be done. And they know that mere cosmetic changes are not enough; you need to push for a paradigm shift. And, in this paradigm shift, old ways need to be discarded. And, in this paradigm shift, the Old Guard too needs to be discarded. Invariably, from the ashes of these Old Guards will rise the Young Turks, those from the fourth floor, the yuppies who walk through the corridors of power and who are extremely in a hurry and have no patience to tolerate the old ways or kowtow to those tired old men and women who jealously guard their turf in a feeble attempt to prop up the crumbling empires of the Little Napoleons and Umno Warlords who no longer have a place in a globalised, borderless world.
Mahathir has to go, and it should not be Anwar Ibrahim who takes over, Shahrir added while giving me a piercing stare as if to sink home the point that the part about Anwar was meant specifically for me, the man who carried the title of Director of the Free Anwar Campaign. It should not even be you or I who takes over, Shahrir clarified further to make it clear to all and sundry that his point about Anwar was not personal in nature but based on principles, though I certainly harboured no ambitions to take over the running of this country.
The people who should be taking over the running of this country has to be the next generation, those under 40, argued Shahrir. This country belongs to the next generation. Our days are gone. We need young blood with fresh ideas, Shahrir explained in the event there were still some who were wondering why our generation was over-the-hill and why the need for this country to be handed over to our children.
Look at Singapore. They are successful because the older generation does not cling to power but the young are groomed to take over. Malaysia has to emulate Singapore, Shahrir ended his declaration with what could be considered as blasphemy.
That was six years or so ago, the era when Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad was still the Prime Minister. And it was not wise in those days to compare Malaysia to Singapore. What is good for Singapore may also be what is good for Malaysia. But one must never say this. But then Shahrir is never one to follow convention. In fact, the more Mahahir does not like Malaysia to be compared to Singapore the more Shahrir would say it, as if he is purposely trying to needle Mahathir in an attempt to rub him the wrong way.
It is no secret that Shahrir's pet hate is Mahahir while the man he hates the most after Mahathir is Anwar Ibrahim. No wonder he feels Malaysia has no place for either Mahathir or Anwar. But he did qualify by saying that it should not be he or we who takes over either. It should be the next generation, those below 40.
Six years or more have since gone by and what Shahrir said is now all water under the bridge. Mahathir has since left the scene but it is still the older generation that is running this country. The younger generation, those below 40, are not yet holding the reins of power as per Shahrir's prognosis. Those running this country are still those from that generation which Shahrir said has to go. Yes, that may be so, they may not yet be in the driver's seat, but they are certainly walking in the corridors of power and are instrumental in charting this country's destiny.
Many hate current Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi because he is not capable of running the country with an iron fist the way Mahathir was able to. But then, when Mahathir was running this country, they hated him for that very same reason, because he was running it with an iron first. They felt that Mahathir should delegate more and not decide single-handedly everything down to what tree should be planted and where it should be planted.
Yes, when Mahathir first took over as Prime Minister, he took the Federal Territory Minister and the Lord Mayor of Kuala Lumpur, together with the City Hall officers, on a bus ride around the city one Sunday so that he can brief them on how the landscaping should be done. He told them which tree should be chopped down and where the new ones should be planted and in which location there was a need for flowers. When they renovated the Subang Airport he personally supervised the work and even decided on the colour of the check-in counters. Mahathir was engineer, architect, interior designer and town planner all in one. And in spite of that heavy workload, he read every scrap of paper and every report before all the meetings and nothing got by him unnoticed.
Then we have Abdullah and he reads nothing and is not able to get through half a page of an A4 document without losing concentration while struggling to not fall asleep. Abdullah is the exact opposite of Mahathir. And while Mahathir had his hands on the pulse of even the minutest details, Abdullah allows the country to operate on autopilot. No, the country is not being run by the older generation. As what Shahrir wanted, the country is being run by the next generation, the under-40s age group. Shahrir got his wish after all. The only difference is that the next generation, the under-40s, is not sitting on the throne. But it is certainly the power behind the throne. While it appears like the older generation is running this country, the truth is those under-40s, the next generation, is walking in the corridors of power and decides what happens to this country leaving Abdullah free to embark on his overseas jaunts every two weeks or so.
It is not known when the next general election will be called. Some say it will be 15 March 2008. Some say earlier. And some say Abdullah will allow his term to run until the last day, which is 21 March 2009. Whatever it may be, one thing is clear, 60% of the candidates will be new faces. And many will be from the next generation, the under 40s age group. The days of the Umno Warlords will soon be a thing of the past. People like the Menteris Besar of Perlis, Perak, Johor and Pahang and the Chief Ministers of Melaka, Sabah and Sarawak will have to make way for new and younger faces. Many members of the Cabinet, in particular those carrying baggage, will be dropped. And these changes will also affect the component members of the Barisan Nasional ruling coalition.
Umno's as well as Barisan Nasional's problem is that the warlords call the shots. As strong-minded as Mahathir may have been, he could not ignore the warlords. And Abdullah suffered the same thing when he took over, which is why he did not dare drop any of the old faces and was forced to retain what could be perceived as Mahathir's legacy. Mahahir was powerless in spite of being accused of running this country with an iron fist. Abdullah, a lesser man that Mahathir, would certainly not be able to discard the warlords even if his life depended on it.
But it is not Abdullah who is determining who gets dropped and which new faces and young blood replaces them. That is the job of his team of advisors on the fourth floor who owe their allegiance to Khairy Jamaluddin. These are those who now walk in the corridors of power and who are charting this country's direction. Notable amongst them are the likes of Zaki Azmi, Omar Ong, Norza Zakaria and the aggressive team of yuppies who are determined to shed the old ways and emulate how Singapore brought that tiny Island State onto the world stage.
Zaki and Omar come from what could be said to be illustrious families. Their fathers were already big names even as they were still learning how to walk. Even their boss, Khairy, can be considered as from an elite family since his father was a diplomat. Khairy, in fact, spent most of his youth in elite international schools and grew up amongst the selected few. Norza, however, is another kettle of fish. He hails from a humble background, the son of a schoolteacher, and in a feudal system where you have to be somebody to become somebody, Norza can be said to be an exception amongst the lot.
Malays in general and Umno in particualr still subscribe to the feudal system. Most come up through family connections. Mahathir is probably amongst the rare breed who was from a 'nobody' background and that is why many looked at him with awe. In a system where you must have been born from or at the very least marry into the right family, moving up on your own steam is not an easy option.
Mahathir, however, is not exactly a nobody. Siti Hasmah is from an established family as was the late Endon. Therefore, as much as we might pass off both Mahathir's and Abdullah's fathers as simple schoolteachers, their wives were from established families. So Mahathir and Abdullah both had the advantage of their wives' connections to get a head-start in life. And the same can also be said about Khairy who probably would still have made it but certainly at a much slower pace if not for the fact that he is married to the Prime Minister's daughter.
Khairy and his team of fourth floor boys, all under-40 yuppies, have big plans for the future. And they are not about to allow anyone to stand in their way. But they must first send all the warlords into retirement. And this will be done come the next election when the old faces will be dropped in favour of fresh faces. It is not just that these faces are new though. They will also be aggressive and professional yuppies who know what they want and know how to get it.
Norza, as an example, may be the offspring of a simple kampong schoolteacher. But he has left the kampong behind him and has moved on. For some, you can take the boy out of the kampong but you can't take the kampong out of the boy. And kampong politics is the politics of warlords and patronage. The young kowtow to the elders and treat the elders like demigods. However, this is not the lifestyle of the fourth floor boys who walk in the corridors of power. Theirs is a lifestyle of survival of the fittest and where meritocracy reigns supreme. It will be very difficult for the old warlords to fathom all this but, like it or not, their days are numbered. This may be six years too late as far as Shahrir is concerned but they do say better late than never.
Yes, Malaysia is about to see changes. The Shahidans, Anuars, Tajols, Adnans, Rahims, Musas, Tengku Adnans, and many of those remnants of the Mahathir era will go the way of the Megat Junids, Sanusis and Khalils who were sent out to pasture not that long ago. Even the likes of Ku Li and Rais and those viewed as still having some political clout face the prospect of being sent into retirement. Soon, Malaysia will be led by those who wish to claim their inheritance by force and not wait for it to be handed to them when the old folks get tired of public life or, by divine intervention, die off.
These people know what life is all about. They know what they want from life. And they are not scared of grabbing what they want without waiting for it to be served like the old ways of the old days. They live well, they eat well, they dress well, and they know the power of money and what money can do for you. They also know that only through the attainment of power can you realise your dreams.
These yuppies have plans for this country. They know what needs to be done. And they know that mere cosmetic changes are not enough; you need to push for a paradigm shift. And, in this paradigm shift, old ways need to be discarded. And, in this paradigm shift, the Old Guard too needs to be discarded. Invariably, from the ashes of these Old Guards will rise the Young Turks, those from the fourth floor, the yuppies who walk through the corridors of power and who are extremely in a hurry and have no patience to tolerate the old ways or kowtow to those tired old men and women who jealously guard their turf in a feeble attempt to prop up the crumbling empires of the Little Napoleons and Umno Warlords who no longer have a place in a globalised, borderless world.
Warlords and heavyweights
I have said this before and I will say it again. Sex and politics are the two top sellers. If you talk about these you can't go wrong; your newspaper will surely sell. And if it is a combination of both, sex scandals involving politicians, that is even better. It sells even more and you can safely double your printing order as you can be assured of selling every copy printed.
Incidences of sex scandals involving senior politicians are not something new of course. We have been seeing these pop up from time to time since Merdeka and they will surely keep popping up until long after we are gone. Of course, much of these so-called scandals were mere talk and whispers. As much as they may have made interesting reading, you really could not prove them. That was until quite very recently.
Malaysia was recently entertained by the revelation of a DVD of the Health Minister literally caught with his pants down. I use the word entertained because most were amused rather than shocked at the on-camera revelation of the indiscretion of the Minister who just days before that had propagated safe sex but did not see the need for himself to do the same. Safe sex of course not only involves the usage of condoms but also making sure you do not get caught, especially on camera, and the Health Minister failed in both aspects.
That is the level of Malaysia's moral outrage. No one took to the streets to demonstrate their disgust or displeasure. Yes, there certainly were people running around all over the place, no doubt of that, but they were scrambling helter-skelter to try to get their hands on a copy of the DVD so that they could do some 'academic research' and establish that the DVD indeed features the Minister of Health and not his look-alike or brother.
It was actually a very well-organised and well-coordinated distribution campaign. Teams of distributors went from town to town in Johor to distribute the DVDs to every house and public place. Thousands upon thousands were dished out and no one can claim they did not receive a copy of the DVD. The huge manpower resources and substantial amount of finance required to embark on such an operation could only mean that big bucks were involved here. And it could only have been financed by those with deep pockets.
Chua Soi Lek is of course not quite unknown as a ladies' man. He would in fact brag that he is 'famous' as a Casanova and would tell his peers 'everyone knows I am a womaniser'. As much as one may frown upon such behaviour, at least he was honest about what he is and did not try to hide behind the mask of Islam Hadhari while leading the lifestyle of Paris Hilton.
Woe to any woman who caught Soi Lek's eyes. He would immediately task his bouncers with the job of propositioning her and negotiate whether she is 'for sale'. He did not care whether he was in the presence of strangers or someone whom he might have just met barely minutes ago. Many would relate how they were shocked when Soi Lek whispered in their ear as to whether that woman sitting at the next table or walking by was 'hot' and sleeps around. One man even told Soi Lek to his face that he was shocked and Soi Lek responded with a smile as if the statement was meant as a compliment.
The DVD making its rounds all over the country is not new. It was taken two years ago. As Soi Lek himself admitted, his only mistake was to frequent the same hotel and the same room each time he rendezvoused with his 'partner' and this allowed his enemies to place five cameras all over the room to record the goings-on. Soi Lek does not think he made any other mistake other than that.
But why did they want to record what, as Soi Lek said, is his private affair? Quite simple, really. They wanted to keep that recording as an insurance policy in the event they needed to get rid of him in an opportune time. It is no secret that Soi Lek is very popular amongst the grass-root. His performance in the 2004 elections was much improved over the 1999 elections and his majority can be regarded as very impressive. He speaks well -- in Mandarin, English as well as Bahasa Malaysia -- and is a powerful orator. He is everything that one looks for in a national leader. And he openly declared that the MCA leadership is weak and is due for a change -- meaning he should take over the leadership of MCA.
When the MCA President asked Soi Lek to appoint certain people aligned to the former in some of the local councils, the latter replied that the President should just concentrate on national matters and stay out of Johor State matters. It was Soi Lek's way of telling the President to go jump in the lake. Soi Lek did not hide the fact that he had only contempt for the President and at the next party election scheduled after the coming general election he was going to make a bid for the Presidency of the party.
But the President had other plans. He wanted his brother to replace him as President. So they had no choice, therefore, but to get rid of Soi Lek. And they did this by cashing in the insurance policy they acquired two years ago.
Once this DVD hits the national scene, Soi Lek would have no choice but to resign his party and government posts. And once he no longer holds any post either in the party or the government it would be very difficult for him to even keep his division post, no need to even talk about making a bid for the Presidency. Invariably, he would also have to be dropped as a candidate in the general election thereby sealing his fate once and for all.
While all this was going on though, while Soi Lek was set up to be sent into permanent retirement, not many noticed the outburst by the Umno Secretary-General who said that Shahidan Kassim, the Menteri Besar of Perlis, should go. No doubt the excitement of the Soi Lek DVD overshadowed this episode and not many took much notice of the Sec-Gen's outburst. This outburst, however, was not a mere outburst but a cry of frustration by the Sec-Gen who was so depressed that the Umno President a la Prime Minister failed to act on a certain matter that places the Soi Lek DVD scandal way at the bottom of the serious matters scale.
Earlier, the Sec-Gen had brought a Thai girl together with the brother of a certain state Ruler, who was also a Wakil Rakyat, to meet the Prime Minister. A lady doctor was also in the delegation. The girl then testified that Shahidan had made her pregnant and then arranged for her to have an abortion. The lady doctor confirmed that this was so and that she had performed the abortion. Abdullah Ahmad Badawi appeared perturbed and asked the Wakil Rakyat whether his brother, the Ruler, knew about this matter. The Wakil Rakyat replied that the Ruler has all the facts and is fully aware of the matter.
The Sec-Gen then told Abdullah that this was not the only girl whom Shahidan had made pregnant. He personally knows of three such cases and has heard that there are many more. The Sec-Gen added that Shahidan's sexual trysts are perpetrated in the country home of another Minister from Perlis, Azmi Khalid, and sometimes in the office of the Menteri Besar, in the surau or prayer-room of the Menteri Besar's office to be exact.
Abdullah took all this in with a troubled look on his face and promised to do something about it. He then referred the matter to his son-in-law who replied that Shahidan is their strongest and most loyal ally. He, in fact, was instrumental in blocking Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad from entering Perlis. They just can't afford to sack Shahidan. If they do, then the opposition would have a better chance of taking over the state as Shahidan and his team of gangsters is the only thing they have to keep Mahathir and the opposition out of the state. For purposes of political expediency, Shahidan has to be retained.
So Abdullah did nothing and this was what upset the Umno Sec-Gen. Instead, Shahidan, dropped both the Sec-Gen and Azmi from the candidates' list. Abdullah can't afford to lose Shahidan but he can afford to replace the Sec-Gen and Azmi. Perlis has only three Parliament seats and there are many others waiting in the wings to take over as Members of Parliament. But there is only one gangster who can mobilise an 'army' of bouncers to keep the state under a short leash.
Like it or not, Umno is still a party of warlords. And these warlords are those who keep the Umno President in office. And he who is Umno President is also the Prime Minister. You do not replace warlords. You do not sack warlords. Instead, warlords will sack you and replace you with someone else. That has always been how Umno operates and that will always be how it is for a long, long time to come.
It is said that Pakistan is run by just 100 families. It is said that the United States is also the same. In Malaysia, 191 people call the shots and these 191 are the Umno division chiefs.
The 191 Umno division chiefs pick the 2,000 or so delegates to the Umno general assembly. Then the 2,000 or so delegates decide who gets to become President and Deputy President depending on the choice of the 191 division chiefs. In fact, in the first place, the 191 division chiefs decide whether there will be a contest for the Presidency and Deputy Presidency or whether there should be no contest. If the 191 division chiefs decide that there should be no contest and the President and Deputy President should be allowed to continue indefinitely then this should be what happens. And these 191 division chiefs also sit in the Supreme Council and Cabinet where the policies are made and which cannot be challenged in any court of law.
Most of the 191 Umno warlords or division chiefs do not think Abdullah is capable. They think he is the worst Prime Minister Malaysia ever had. Many, which holds true for most Malaysians as well, look back on the good old days of Mahathir. They in fact would not mind if Mahathir came back as Prime Minister in spite of the fact when he was in office they rated him the worst Prime Minister Malaysia ever had. But these 191 Umno warlords, or 190 if you exclude Abdullah, realise that a Prime Minister of the likes of Abdullah is better to have around than the likes of Mahathir. Abdullah never makes any decisions. In fact, he is so scared of making decisions and would fall back on his son-in-law for advice and would follow whatever advice the latter may offer.
The son-in-law knows he is not popular. Harbouring ambitions of becoming Prime Minister at age 40 is a pie in the sky and extremely risky to boot. Whether he can even win the post of Umno Youth leader or, later, become one of the Vice Presidents is stretching the imagination. In Umno, as in most political parties, you need grass-root support. And if you do not have this grass-root support then you need to ride on those who do, and in this case it would be the 191 Umno division chiefs.
Sure, the Umno division chiefs may be scum of the earth and slime-balls. Most warlords are anyway in almost all the countries where warlords call the shots. But it is because they are scum of the earth and slime-balls that they are where they are; meaning Umno division chiefs. So you need to work with these people. You need to get their support. And you do not worry about morals and ethics because warlords do not have any. What they have is power and the strength to mobilise the grass-root. And that is how you become Umno President and Prime Minister, by mobilising grass-root support.
Sex scandals will not sway the voters. Corruption will not sway the voters. Heck, even murder does not seem to sway the voters. If it did then Barisan Nasional would have been out of office a long time ago. Musa Aman, the Chief Minister of Sabah, was worth RM300 million barely a few years ago when he took over the running of the state. Today, in a few short years, he is worth RM1 billion. How he acquired RM300 million on taking office and how it grew to RM1 billion in a few short years has already been discussed at great length, so we need not go into all that again. But the voters will not kick Musa Aman out. So Abdullah need not kick him out either. After all, he has given Abdullah's family plenty of money and even underwrote the entire cost of the late Endon's medical expenses in the US plus Khairy's cost to acquire shares in ECM Libra.
There are only two things that worry Abdullah. First would be an internal rebellion and conflict within Umno. But if you leave the warlords alone and close your eyes to their sex scandals and corruption you need not worry that they will turn on you. Second, of course, would be that the voters kick you out. But with the opposition so weak and fragmented and making conflicting statements there is no danger that the opposition can garner enough support to kick out the ruling party.
Abdullah would best leave things as they are. The next general election could be as soon as before Chinese New Year about a month from today. This means within a fortnight or so Parliament would probably be dissolved. With less than a month to go why the need to rock the boat?
The outcome of the general election hinges on the Elections Commission. Considering the first-past-the-post system that Malaysia practices, it is not votes but seats that determine who gets to form the government. The opposition is expected to garner at least 40% of the votes. Based on a voter turnout of roughly eight million, this would give the opposition 3.2 million votes. That would mean 4.8 million votes will go to the 14-member ruling coalition, Barisan Nasional, giving it a majority of only 1.6 million votes. But that is all it needs to come back to power with a comfortable two-thirds majority. And the warlords and power-brokers will remain in office and will continue serving Abdullah as long as he continues serving them. That is how it works in a 'you scratch my back, I scratch yours' culture which has become not only Umno's culture but Malaysian culture at large.
The Elections Commission Chairman's term of office has actually expired. But Abdullah did not request the Agong's consent in extending it lest His Majesty says no like he did in the case of the Chief Justice. Abdullah knew he faced a great risk by requesting the Agong's consent. So, instead, he went before Parliament and amended the law which will now allow the Prime Minister to extend the tenure of the Elections Commission Chairman without requiring the consent of the Agong.
Then a stack of papers which required the Agong's signature were presented before His Majesty. Amongst that of course was the amendment bill whereby the Elections Commission Chairman can be extended a year beyond retirement without requiring the consent of the Agong. The Agong can now be by-passed and ignored and there is nothing His Majesty can do about it. It was now legal to bypass the Agong and illegal for the Agong to block the move. Any move by the Agong would be seen as unreasonable and unconstitutional so the best His Majesty could do was just sign the papers and not make any noise. Doing otherwise might work against His Majesty and the very institution of the Monarchy itself.
Abdullah is not really as stupid as he looks after all. He of course goes around creating that impression as a fall-back so that, at worse, you can just accuse him of being stupid but never of being devious, manipulative or exploitive. The Elections Commission Chairman has made it very clear, without holding back his punches, that his job is to ensure that the Malays will not lose political domination. He is not apologetic or evasive about this. He says this openly to anyone who cares to listen. Since the Malays have lost economic domination to the Chinese and the Chinese now practically control the entire economy, what is wrong with the Malays, in turn, having political domination?
That argument makes everything legitimate and noble. No one can fault you for 'maintaining stability' and ensuring that the 'delicate racial balance' is not shattered by race riots in the event the Malays lose political domination after losing economic domination to the Chinese. This is the only way, argues the Elections Commission Chairman, to guarantee that the Malays and Chinese will not go for each others throats, or rather the Malays will not go for the Chinese throats that will see Malaysia explode into another May 13, as how the government is so fond of reminding us.
The Chinese are blatantly reminded that they can retain economic domination as long as the Malays retain political domination. But if the Malays suffer the loss of political domination, then the Chinese would no longer enjoy economic domination. And if Malaysia were to erupt into civil war with the Malays on one side and the Chinese on the other, and of course the security forces being all Malay would certainly be on the side of the Malays, the economy would collapse bringing down Chinese economic domination together with it.
So 'Chinese' seats are large with more than 100,000 voters while 'Malay' seats are as small as 5,000 voters. This way the opposition can win 40% of the votes but not 40% of the seats. And even if the opposition wins 45% of the votes, leaving the ruling coalition 55%, like what happened in 1999, the ruling coalition would still retain power with a comfortable two-thirds majority.
But this would be true only if the opposition voters are Chinese while the ruling party voters are Malay. The opposition has always been perceived as Chinese while the government has always been perceived as Malay. It has always been them and us, Chinese being 'them' and Malays being 'us'. This was how it was since Merdeka 50 years ago. But would this still apply if the Malays, Chinese and Indians unite under the opposition banner and the opposition is no longer race-based but a multi-racial front?
Yes, this is the new scenario emerging in Malaysian politics. No longer is the opposition based on race with the Chinese as the opposition and the Malays as the government supporters. Now it is justice opposed to injustice with both sides seeing equal support from all the races. There are as many angry Chinese and Indians are there are Malays.
There have of course been exceptions to this rule. In 1999, the Malays swung to the opposition while the Chinese stood by the government. But that was not enough. Though the Malay heartland fell to the opposition, the ruling party still managed to retain most states and its two-thirds majority in Parliament as well. Only in 1969 when the Malays and Chinese were both united against the government did the ruling party almost collapse. So it has to be another 1969, not enough just another 1999. But 1969 also brings back other painful memories which the Chinese would not want to see repeated. So will the Chinese dare do another 1969 by uniting with the Malays to deny the ruling coalition its two-thirds majority in Parliament?
Many Chinese feel that the 1969 election result can be repeated without the repeat of the 1969 election aftermath. The Malays of today are not the Malays of 40 years ago, as is also true of the Chinese. Even the Indians of today are not like the Indians of 40 years ago as the recent HINDRAF episode has proven. The Malays, Chinese and Indians are ready to unite, united against the ruling coalition. The BERSIH and HINDRAF events of November 2007 have proven this. As much as the government tried to stoke the anti-Indian fire and get the Malays to rise in anger against the Indians, it did not happen. Many Malays, in fact, support HINDRAF, as do many Chinese support BERSIH.
This is what worries the government. If the races can't be separated by communal interests this does not augur well for the government. They need the different races to be on the brink of civil war without actually going to war. It should be much sabre-rattling and rhetoric without any blows actually being traded. But if the different races lock arms and call one another brother, then this will spell the end of the divide-and-rule strategy.
But the problem is not the different races. The Malays, Chinese and Indians are ready to stand shoulder-to-shoulder. It is the political parties which are the stumbling block to opposition unity. Even after one year they still can't agree on the seat distribution. The next general election could be as soon as one month away but the three opposition parties still can't resolve their many differences. The squabble over seats is just one of the issues, though maybe one of the more important ones. They also refuse to agree to a joint or common election manifesto, each preferring to come out with their own individual manifesto.
It appears like the opposition is the worst enemy of the opposition. The ruling party does not really have to try too hard to defeat the opposition. The opposition is doing that very well by themselves. PAS has its own agenda. DAP has its own agenda. PKR too has it own agenda. And each of them are only interested in their own agenda, not in the opposition agenda. They all want safe seats so that they can be assured of a win even though the rest will not. So the big guns choose the plum seats and fight with each other across parties and within parties for these safe seats, leaving the others to their own devices, to sink or swim as the case may be.
The opposition leaders are also human and, as is common to most humans, they are all very selfish. They do not care about the party. They especially do not care about the opposition coalition. They just want a good seat which they can be assured of winning. PAS, DAP and PKR will not compromise on seats. Each wants the good seats and each will not allow the other these seats. And they will keep these seats for themselves. And the newcomers and not so heavyweights will be given the high risk seats which are assured of falling to the ruling coalition. These are not candidates. These are sacrificial lambs. And the job of sacrificial lambs is to get slaughtered.
The heavyweights should actually be sent to contest in the tough seats. After all, they have been in office many elections and are already well-known. It is time they moved up in the world and prove that they are really good by contesting in the tough seats -- and win, of course -- while allowing the new faces to contest in the safer seats where voters will vote along party lines rather than based on personalities. Those who have been winning in safe seats at least two elections in a row must be sent to battle it out in tougher areas. Let those guaranteed seats be given to newcomers who need all the help they can get. If not we will have the same people in office for generations while no new blood can be groomed to eventually take over the leadership of the party.
Actually, the attitude of the opposition is no different from that of the ruling coalition. The only small difference is that the opposition is not in power, yet. It makes one wonder whether if the opposition comes to power things would be different. From the way they are conducting themselves now this does not appear to be so. The opposition heavyweights are as selfish as the Umno warlords. What we accuse the Umno warlords of we can say the same about the opposition heavyweights. It is frightening to think that changing the government may merely tantamount to out of the frying pan and into the fire.
The opposition can of course prove us wrong. They can sit down and settle the seat allocation issue. They can agree on a joint or common election manifesto. They can offer us just one party to choose from instead of currently three parties with three different election manifestos. And if they do that we might just consider coming out to vote on Polling Day instead of staying home to watch television. And who knows, we might even vote opposition again. If not, then I will have better things to do on Polling Day instead of wasting my vote on a lost cause.
Incidences of sex scandals involving senior politicians are not something new of course. We have been seeing these pop up from time to time since Merdeka and they will surely keep popping up until long after we are gone. Of course, much of these so-called scandals were mere talk and whispers. As much as they may have made interesting reading, you really could not prove them. That was until quite very recently.
Malaysia was recently entertained by the revelation of a DVD of the Health Minister literally caught with his pants down. I use the word entertained because most were amused rather than shocked at the on-camera revelation of the indiscretion of the Minister who just days before that had propagated safe sex but did not see the need for himself to do the same. Safe sex of course not only involves the usage of condoms but also making sure you do not get caught, especially on camera, and the Health Minister failed in both aspects.
That is the level of Malaysia's moral outrage. No one took to the streets to demonstrate their disgust or displeasure. Yes, there certainly were people running around all over the place, no doubt of that, but they were scrambling helter-skelter to try to get their hands on a copy of the DVD so that they could do some 'academic research' and establish that the DVD indeed features the Minister of Health and not his look-alike or brother.
It was actually a very well-organised and well-coordinated distribution campaign. Teams of distributors went from town to town in Johor to distribute the DVDs to every house and public place. Thousands upon thousands were dished out and no one can claim they did not receive a copy of the DVD. The huge manpower resources and substantial amount of finance required to embark on such an operation could only mean that big bucks were involved here. And it could only have been financed by those with deep pockets.
Chua Soi Lek is of course not quite unknown as a ladies' man. He would in fact brag that he is 'famous' as a Casanova and would tell his peers 'everyone knows I am a womaniser'. As much as one may frown upon such behaviour, at least he was honest about what he is and did not try to hide behind the mask of Islam Hadhari while leading the lifestyle of Paris Hilton.
Woe to any woman who caught Soi Lek's eyes. He would immediately task his bouncers with the job of propositioning her and negotiate whether she is 'for sale'. He did not care whether he was in the presence of strangers or someone whom he might have just met barely minutes ago. Many would relate how they were shocked when Soi Lek whispered in their ear as to whether that woman sitting at the next table or walking by was 'hot' and sleeps around. One man even told Soi Lek to his face that he was shocked and Soi Lek responded with a smile as if the statement was meant as a compliment.
The DVD making its rounds all over the country is not new. It was taken two years ago. As Soi Lek himself admitted, his only mistake was to frequent the same hotel and the same room each time he rendezvoused with his 'partner' and this allowed his enemies to place five cameras all over the room to record the goings-on. Soi Lek does not think he made any other mistake other than that.
But why did they want to record what, as Soi Lek said, is his private affair? Quite simple, really. They wanted to keep that recording as an insurance policy in the event they needed to get rid of him in an opportune time. It is no secret that Soi Lek is very popular amongst the grass-root. His performance in the 2004 elections was much improved over the 1999 elections and his majority can be regarded as very impressive. He speaks well -- in Mandarin, English as well as Bahasa Malaysia -- and is a powerful orator. He is everything that one looks for in a national leader. And he openly declared that the MCA leadership is weak and is due for a change -- meaning he should take over the leadership of MCA.
When the MCA President asked Soi Lek to appoint certain people aligned to the former in some of the local councils, the latter replied that the President should just concentrate on national matters and stay out of Johor State matters. It was Soi Lek's way of telling the President to go jump in the lake. Soi Lek did not hide the fact that he had only contempt for the President and at the next party election scheduled after the coming general election he was going to make a bid for the Presidency of the party.
But the President had other plans. He wanted his brother to replace him as President. So they had no choice, therefore, but to get rid of Soi Lek. And they did this by cashing in the insurance policy they acquired two years ago.
Once this DVD hits the national scene, Soi Lek would have no choice but to resign his party and government posts. And once he no longer holds any post either in the party or the government it would be very difficult for him to even keep his division post, no need to even talk about making a bid for the Presidency. Invariably, he would also have to be dropped as a candidate in the general election thereby sealing his fate once and for all.
While all this was going on though, while Soi Lek was set up to be sent into permanent retirement, not many noticed the outburst by the Umno Secretary-General who said that Shahidan Kassim, the Menteri Besar of Perlis, should go. No doubt the excitement of the Soi Lek DVD overshadowed this episode and not many took much notice of the Sec-Gen's outburst. This outburst, however, was not a mere outburst but a cry of frustration by the Sec-Gen who was so depressed that the Umno President a la Prime Minister failed to act on a certain matter that places the Soi Lek DVD scandal way at the bottom of the serious matters scale.
Earlier, the Sec-Gen had brought a Thai girl together with the brother of a certain state Ruler, who was also a Wakil Rakyat, to meet the Prime Minister. A lady doctor was also in the delegation. The girl then testified that Shahidan had made her pregnant and then arranged for her to have an abortion. The lady doctor confirmed that this was so and that she had performed the abortion. Abdullah Ahmad Badawi appeared perturbed and asked the Wakil Rakyat whether his brother, the Ruler, knew about this matter. The Wakil Rakyat replied that the Ruler has all the facts and is fully aware of the matter.
The Sec-Gen then told Abdullah that this was not the only girl whom Shahidan had made pregnant. He personally knows of three such cases and has heard that there are many more. The Sec-Gen added that Shahidan's sexual trysts are perpetrated in the country home of another Minister from Perlis, Azmi Khalid, and sometimes in the office of the Menteri Besar, in the surau or prayer-room of the Menteri Besar's office to be exact.
Abdullah took all this in with a troubled look on his face and promised to do something about it. He then referred the matter to his son-in-law who replied that Shahidan is their strongest and most loyal ally. He, in fact, was instrumental in blocking Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad from entering Perlis. They just can't afford to sack Shahidan. If they do, then the opposition would have a better chance of taking over the state as Shahidan and his team of gangsters is the only thing they have to keep Mahathir and the opposition out of the state. For purposes of political expediency, Shahidan has to be retained.
So Abdullah did nothing and this was what upset the Umno Sec-Gen. Instead, Shahidan, dropped both the Sec-Gen and Azmi from the candidates' list. Abdullah can't afford to lose Shahidan but he can afford to replace the Sec-Gen and Azmi. Perlis has only three Parliament seats and there are many others waiting in the wings to take over as Members of Parliament. But there is only one gangster who can mobilise an 'army' of bouncers to keep the state under a short leash.
Like it or not, Umno is still a party of warlords. And these warlords are those who keep the Umno President in office. And he who is Umno President is also the Prime Minister. You do not replace warlords. You do not sack warlords. Instead, warlords will sack you and replace you with someone else. That has always been how Umno operates and that will always be how it is for a long, long time to come.
It is said that Pakistan is run by just 100 families. It is said that the United States is also the same. In Malaysia, 191 people call the shots and these 191 are the Umno division chiefs.
The 191 Umno division chiefs pick the 2,000 or so delegates to the Umno general assembly. Then the 2,000 or so delegates decide who gets to become President and Deputy President depending on the choice of the 191 division chiefs. In fact, in the first place, the 191 division chiefs decide whether there will be a contest for the Presidency and Deputy Presidency or whether there should be no contest. If the 191 division chiefs decide that there should be no contest and the President and Deputy President should be allowed to continue indefinitely then this should be what happens. And these 191 division chiefs also sit in the Supreme Council and Cabinet where the policies are made and which cannot be challenged in any court of law.
Most of the 191 Umno warlords or division chiefs do not think Abdullah is capable. They think he is the worst Prime Minister Malaysia ever had. Many, which holds true for most Malaysians as well, look back on the good old days of Mahathir. They in fact would not mind if Mahathir came back as Prime Minister in spite of the fact when he was in office they rated him the worst Prime Minister Malaysia ever had. But these 191 Umno warlords, or 190 if you exclude Abdullah, realise that a Prime Minister of the likes of Abdullah is better to have around than the likes of Mahathir. Abdullah never makes any decisions. In fact, he is so scared of making decisions and would fall back on his son-in-law for advice and would follow whatever advice the latter may offer.
The son-in-law knows he is not popular. Harbouring ambitions of becoming Prime Minister at age 40 is a pie in the sky and extremely risky to boot. Whether he can even win the post of Umno Youth leader or, later, become one of the Vice Presidents is stretching the imagination. In Umno, as in most political parties, you need grass-root support. And if you do not have this grass-root support then you need to ride on those who do, and in this case it would be the 191 Umno division chiefs.
Sure, the Umno division chiefs may be scum of the earth and slime-balls. Most warlords are anyway in almost all the countries where warlords call the shots. But it is because they are scum of the earth and slime-balls that they are where they are; meaning Umno division chiefs. So you need to work with these people. You need to get their support. And you do not worry about morals and ethics because warlords do not have any. What they have is power and the strength to mobilise the grass-root. And that is how you become Umno President and Prime Minister, by mobilising grass-root support.
Sex scandals will not sway the voters. Corruption will not sway the voters. Heck, even murder does not seem to sway the voters. If it did then Barisan Nasional would have been out of office a long time ago. Musa Aman, the Chief Minister of Sabah, was worth RM300 million barely a few years ago when he took over the running of the state. Today, in a few short years, he is worth RM1 billion. How he acquired RM300 million on taking office and how it grew to RM1 billion in a few short years has already been discussed at great length, so we need not go into all that again. But the voters will not kick Musa Aman out. So Abdullah need not kick him out either. After all, he has given Abdullah's family plenty of money and even underwrote the entire cost of the late Endon's medical expenses in the US plus Khairy's cost to acquire shares in ECM Libra.
There are only two things that worry Abdullah. First would be an internal rebellion and conflict within Umno. But if you leave the warlords alone and close your eyes to their sex scandals and corruption you need not worry that they will turn on you. Second, of course, would be that the voters kick you out. But with the opposition so weak and fragmented and making conflicting statements there is no danger that the opposition can garner enough support to kick out the ruling party.
Abdullah would best leave things as they are. The next general election could be as soon as before Chinese New Year about a month from today. This means within a fortnight or so Parliament would probably be dissolved. With less than a month to go why the need to rock the boat?
The outcome of the general election hinges on the Elections Commission. Considering the first-past-the-post system that Malaysia practices, it is not votes but seats that determine who gets to form the government. The opposition is expected to garner at least 40% of the votes. Based on a voter turnout of roughly eight million, this would give the opposition 3.2 million votes. That would mean 4.8 million votes will go to the 14-member ruling coalition, Barisan Nasional, giving it a majority of only 1.6 million votes. But that is all it needs to come back to power with a comfortable two-thirds majority. And the warlords and power-brokers will remain in office and will continue serving Abdullah as long as he continues serving them. That is how it works in a 'you scratch my back, I scratch yours' culture which has become not only Umno's culture but Malaysian culture at large.
The Elections Commission Chairman's term of office has actually expired. But Abdullah did not request the Agong's consent in extending it lest His Majesty says no like he did in the case of the Chief Justice. Abdullah knew he faced a great risk by requesting the Agong's consent. So, instead, he went before Parliament and amended the law which will now allow the Prime Minister to extend the tenure of the Elections Commission Chairman without requiring the consent of the Agong.
Then a stack of papers which required the Agong's signature were presented before His Majesty. Amongst that of course was the amendment bill whereby the Elections Commission Chairman can be extended a year beyond retirement without requiring the consent of the Agong. The Agong can now be by-passed and ignored and there is nothing His Majesty can do about it. It was now legal to bypass the Agong and illegal for the Agong to block the move. Any move by the Agong would be seen as unreasonable and unconstitutional so the best His Majesty could do was just sign the papers and not make any noise. Doing otherwise might work against His Majesty and the very institution of the Monarchy itself.
Abdullah is not really as stupid as he looks after all. He of course goes around creating that impression as a fall-back so that, at worse, you can just accuse him of being stupid but never of being devious, manipulative or exploitive. The Elections Commission Chairman has made it very clear, without holding back his punches, that his job is to ensure that the Malays will not lose political domination. He is not apologetic or evasive about this. He says this openly to anyone who cares to listen. Since the Malays have lost economic domination to the Chinese and the Chinese now practically control the entire economy, what is wrong with the Malays, in turn, having political domination?
That argument makes everything legitimate and noble. No one can fault you for 'maintaining stability' and ensuring that the 'delicate racial balance' is not shattered by race riots in the event the Malays lose political domination after losing economic domination to the Chinese. This is the only way, argues the Elections Commission Chairman, to guarantee that the Malays and Chinese will not go for each others throats, or rather the Malays will not go for the Chinese throats that will see Malaysia explode into another May 13, as how the government is so fond of reminding us.
The Chinese are blatantly reminded that they can retain economic domination as long as the Malays retain political domination. But if the Malays suffer the loss of political domination, then the Chinese would no longer enjoy economic domination. And if Malaysia were to erupt into civil war with the Malays on one side and the Chinese on the other, and of course the security forces being all Malay would certainly be on the side of the Malays, the economy would collapse bringing down Chinese economic domination together with it.
So 'Chinese' seats are large with more than 100,000 voters while 'Malay' seats are as small as 5,000 voters. This way the opposition can win 40% of the votes but not 40% of the seats. And even if the opposition wins 45% of the votes, leaving the ruling coalition 55%, like what happened in 1999, the ruling coalition would still retain power with a comfortable two-thirds majority.
But this would be true only if the opposition voters are Chinese while the ruling party voters are Malay. The opposition has always been perceived as Chinese while the government has always been perceived as Malay. It has always been them and us, Chinese being 'them' and Malays being 'us'. This was how it was since Merdeka 50 years ago. But would this still apply if the Malays, Chinese and Indians unite under the opposition banner and the opposition is no longer race-based but a multi-racial front?
Yes, this is the new scenario emerging in Malaysian politics. No longer is the opposition based on race with the Chinese as the opposition and the Malays as the government supporters. Now it is justice opposed to injustice with both sides seeing equal support from all the races. There are as many angry Chinese and Indians are there are Malays.
There have of course been exceptions to this rule. In 1999, the Malays swung to the opposition while the Chinese stood by the government. But that was not enough. Though the Malay heartland fell to the opposition, the ruling party still managed to retain most states and its two-thirds majority in Parliament as well. Only in 1969 when the Malays and Chinese were both united against the government did the ruling party almost collapse. So it has to be another 1969, not enough just another 1999. But 1969 also brings back other painful memories which the Chinese would not want to see repeated. So will the Chinese dare do another 1969 by uniting with the Malays to deny the ruling coalition its two-thirds majority in Parliament?
Many Chinese feel that the 1969 election result can be repeated without the repeat of the 1969 election aftermath. The Malays of today are not the Malays of 40 years ago, as is also true of the Chinese. Even the Indians of today are not like the Indians of 40 years ago as the recent HINDRAF episode has proven. The Malays, Chinese and Indians are ready to unite, united against the ruling coalition. The BERSIH and HINDRAF events of November 2007 have proven this. As much as the government tried to stoke the anti-Indian fire and get the Malays to rise in anger against the Indians, it did not happen. Many Malays, in fact, support HINDRAF, as do many Chinese support BERSIH.
This is what worries the government. If the races can't be separated by communal interests this does not augur well for the government. They need the different races to be on the brink of civil war without actually going to war. It should be much sabre-rattling and rhetoric without any blows actually being traded. But if the different races lock arms and call one another brother, then this will spell the end of the divide-and-rule strategy.
But the problem is not the different races. The Malays, Chinese and Indians are ready to stand shoulder-to-shoulder. It is the political parties which are the stumbling block to opposition unity. Even after one year they still can't agree on the seat distribution. The next general election could be as soon as one month away but the three opposition parties still can't resolve their many differences. The squabble over seats is just one of the issues, though maybe one of the more important ones. They also refuse to agree to a joint or common election manifesto, each preferring to come out with their own individual manifesto.
It appears like the opposition is the worst enemy of the opposition. The ruling party does not really have to try too hard to defeat the opposition. The opposition is doing that very well by themselves. PAS has its own agenda. DAP has its own agenda. PKR too has it own agenda. And each of them are only interested in their own agenda, not in the opposition agenda. They all want safe seats so that they can be assured of a win even though the rest will not. So the big guns choose the plum seats and fight with each other across parties and within parties for these safe seats, leaving the others to their own devices, to sink or swim as the case may be.
The opposition leaders are also human and, as is common to most humans, they are all very selfish. They do not care about the party. They especially do not care about the opposition coalition. They just want a good seat which they can be assured of winning. PAS, DAP and PKR will not compromise on seats. Each wants the good seats and each will not allow the other these seats. And they will keep these seats for themselves. And the newcomers and not so heavyweights will be given the high risk seats which are assured of falling to the ruling coalition. These are not candidates. These are sacrificial lambs. And the job of sacrificial lambs is to get slaughtered.
The heavyweights should actually be sent to contest in the tough seats. After all, they have been in office many elections and are already well-known. It is time they moved up in the world and prove that they are really good by contesting in the tough seats -- and win, of course -- while allowing the new faces to contest in the safer seats where voters will vote along party lines rather than based on personalities. Those who have been winning in safe seats at least two elections in a row must be sent to battle it out in tougher areas. Let those guaranteed seats be given to newcomers who need all the help they can get. If not we will have the same people in office for generations while no new blood can be groomed to eventually take over the leadership of the party.
Actually, the attitude of the opposition is no different from that of the ruling coalition. The only small difference is that the opposition is not in power, yet. It makes one wonder whether if the opposition comes to power things would be different. From the way they are conducting themselves now this does not appear to be so. The opposition heavyweights are as selfish as the Umno warlords. What we accuse the Umno warlords of we can say the same about the opposition heavyweights. It is frightening to think that changing the government may merely tantamount to out of the frying pan and into the fire.
The opposition can of course prove us wrong. They can sit down and settle the seat allocation issue. They can agree on a joint or common election manifesto. They can offer us just one party to choose from instead of currently three parties with three different election manifestos. And if they do that we might just consider coming out to vote on Polling Day instead of staying home to watch television. And who knows, we might even vote opposition again. If not, then I will have better things to do on Polling Day instead of wasting my vote on a lost cause.
Friday, January 18, 2008
Constitution and Malay Rights
The recent HINDRAF demonstrations against racial marginalization of Indian Malaysians have again brought into focus the issue of Malay “privileges” as provided for under the Constitution. Judging from public utterances in the press and websites, there seem to be continuing wide-spread ignorance, misrepresentation and misunderstanding of what our Constitution precisely provides on this issue.
The center of controversy is Article 153 of the Constitution which provides for what is popularly known as Malay “privileges”. Due to misrepresentation by UMNO in the past, many have come to identify Article 153 – and even the entire Constitution – as racially discriminatory. This is not so. In spite numerous constitutional amendments, the egalitarian spirit of our Constitution in respect of racial equality remains largely intact. Public misunderstanding is attributed to UMNO hijacking Article 153 to practice unbridled racial discrimination for self-enrichment in the past few decades.
Due to the heightening racial tensions caused by UMNO’s retrogressive move to intensify its racial agenda under the NEP (New Economic Policy) and brewing racial discontent by HINDRAF, it is imperative and urgent that the truth be known with regards to the true legal standing of the various races as provided for in our Constitution - the legal foundation upon which this nation is built. For this reason, I am reproducing as follows the main part of an article I wrote three years ago (see note below), which analysed and clarified these controversial issues.
(commencement of previous article) Forty seven years after Independence, racial issues continued to monopolise national politics, and championing Malay rights remains the single dominant ideology of UMNO - the only ruling power that this nation has known since
Independence. Thousands of speeches have been made championing this Malay cause, using various terminologies such as Malay “special rights”, Malay “special privileges” or simply Malay “rights”, often invoking the nation’s Constitution as the legal back-up. But, of the many politicians who have used these terminologies, how many have read through the Constitution to find out what these “rights” really are? Very few, I am afraid.
Our Constitution is printed in a small booklet titled “Federal Constitution” that can be bought for RM10 in the book shops. Buy one copy and read through to find out what it says about these “rights”. After all, these issues - more than any others - have dominated our lives, and all citizens should know what these rights truly are as spelled out in our Constitution.
If you have read through the Constitution to look for an answer to these Malay “rights”, perhaps the first thing that has struck you is that, familiar terminologies such as Malay “special rights”, Malay “special privileges” or Malay “rights” are no where to be found in the Constitution. Instead, we only find the term “the special position of the Malays”, which appears twice, in Clause (1) and Clause (2) of Article 153, which is titled “Reservation of quotas in respect of services, permits, etc, for Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak”.
(The words “natives of Sabah and Sarawak” were only incorporated into the Constitution upon the formation of Malaysia in 1963, during which Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore were merged with Malaya to form Malaysia. In this article, these words will not be repeated after the word “Malay” when I quote from the Constitution, for abbreviation purpose).
Anyone who has read through Article 153 might be surprised to discover that the provisions favouring Malays are in fact quite moderate, and certainly no way as stretched out in intensity and scope as our politicians would want us to believe. Similarly, those provisions protecting the non-Malays as a counter-balance to the special position of the Malays under the same Article 153 are also surprisingly quite well conceived and fair. In fact, when read in conjunction with Article 8 (Equality) and Article 136 (Impartial treatment of Federal employees), Article 153 cannot be construed as having significantly violated the egalitarian principles of our Constitution, contrary to common perception.
Since the egalitarian nature of our Constitution is largely intact, in spite of the presence of Article 153, then why should it have acquired such an adverse reputation as the legal root of all kinds of racial inequalities in this country?
Answer: the fault is not with our Constitution, but with our politicians twisting, misinterpreting and abusing it.
ARTICLE 153
It is perhaps high time we get to the bottom of Article 153.
Clause (1) of Article 153 states: “It shall be the responsibility of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to safeguard the special position of the Malays and the legitimate interests of other communities in accordance with the provisions of this Article”.
So, the first understanding that we must have on Article 153 is that it is meant to protect the interests of not only the Malays, but also those of the non-Malays.
Next, note the deliberate use of the words “safeguard” and “special position” (instead of “special rights” or “special privileges”). The choice of these words must be understood in the historical context of the drafting of this Constitution half a century ago when Malays were economically and educationally backward in relation to other races. It was thought fit and proper then that there must be “safeguards” to protect the Malays from being swarmed over by other races.
Hence, the creation of the “special position” of the Malays, which was obviously intended for defensive purpose: to protect for survival. The meticulous avoidance of using words like “rights” and “privileges”, and the choice of the word “safeguard” were clearly calculated to reflect its defensive nature. Under that historical context, the provision of the special position of the Malays in the Constitution certainly could not be interpreted to mean the endowment of racial privileges to create a privileged class of citizenship. If it were otherwise, this country would have been turned into a racist and feudal state right from day one of our Independence.
Clause (2) says that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall safeguard the special position of the Malays by reserving positions “of such proportion as he may deem reasonable” in a) the public service b) educational facilities and c) business licenses.
Clauses (3) & (6) say that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong may, for purpose of fulfilling Clause (2), give general directions to the relevant authorities, which shall then duly comply.
There is a separate clause covering the allocation of seats in tertiary education – Clause (8A). It says that where there are insufficient places for any particular course of study, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong may give directions for the “reservation of such proportion of such places for Malays as the Yang di-Pertuan Agong may deem reasonable; and the authority shall duly comply with the directions.”
As for the protection of non-Malays against possible encroachment of their existing interests, there are several provisions under different clauses in this Article, prohibiting the deprivation of the existing facilities enjoyed by them, whether in public service, education or trading licenses. Of these protective clauses, Clauses (5) and (9) are particularly significant.
Clause (5) consists of one sentence, which reads: “This Article does not derogate from the provisions of Article 136”.
Article 136 also consists of one sentence, which reads: “All persons of whatever race in the same grade in the service of the Federation shall, subject to the terms and conditions of their employment, be treated impartially.”
Clause (9) consists of one sentence, which reads: “Nothing in this Article shall empower Parliament to restrict business or trade solely for the purpose of reservations for Malays.”
ARTICLE 8
Reading Article 153 will not be complete without reading Article 8 (Equality). I will quote the more significant Clauses (1) and (2) of this Article in full, as follows:
Clause (1) of Article 8 states: “All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law.”
Clause (2) states: “Except as expressly authorized by this Constitution, there shall be no discrimination against citizens on the ground only of religion, race, descent or place of birth in any law or in the appointment to any office or employment under a public authority or in the administration of any law relating to the acquisition, holding or disposition of property or the establishing or carrying on of any trade, business, profession, vocation or employment.”
After reading through these Articles of the Constitution, we are able to draw the following conclusions:
1. The present clamour for Malay “special rights” as sacrosanct racial privileges of a privileged race, especially under the ideological ambit of Ketuanan Melayu (Malay the master race), is in conflict with the letters and spirit of the Constitution.
2. The special position of the Malays as prescribed under Article 153 of the Constitution is limited in scope to only the reservation of reasonable quotas in these 3 sectors: public services, educational places and business licenses. Hence, the present rampant racial discriminations practiced on almost every facet of our national life are mostly violations of the Constitution. Examples of these violations are:
a) Racial discrimination in the appointment and promotion of employees in publicly funded bodies, resulting in these becoming almost mono-raced bodies (particular so in their top strata). These bodies include: the civil service, police, army and various semi and quasi government agencies.
b) Barring of non-Malays from tenders and contracts controlled directly or indirectly by the government.
c) Imposition of compulsory price discounts and quotas in favour of Malays in housing projects.
d) Imposition of compulsory share quota for Malays in non-Malay companies.
e) Blanket barring of non-Malays to publicly funded academic institutions.
f) Completely lop-sided allocation of scholarships and seats of learning in clearly unreasonable proportions that reflect racial discriminations.
3) Our Constitution provides for only one class of citizenship and all citizens are equal before the law. The presence of Article 153 does not alter this fact, as it is meant only to protect the Malays from being “squeezed” by other races by allowing the reservation of reasonable quotas on certain sectors of national life. However, this Constitution has now been hijacked through decades of hegemony of political power by UMNO to result in the virtual monopoly of the public sector by a single race. The ensuing racism, corruption and corrosion of integrity of our democratic institutions have brought serious retrogression to our nation-building process in terms of national unity, discipline, morality and competitiveness of our people.
At this critical juncture, when nations in this region and around the world are urgently restructuring and shaping up to cope with globalization, our nation stagnates in a cesspool that has been created through decades of misrule. Unless urgent reforms are carried out, beginning with the dismantling of the anachronistic racial edifice, we are in for serious troubles in the days ahead.
The center of controversy is Article 153 of the Constitution which provides for what is popularly known as Malay “privileges”. Due to misrepresentation by UMNO in the past, many have come to identify Article 153 – and even the entire Constitution – as racially discriminatory. This is not so. In spite numerous constitutional amendments, the egalitarian spirit of our Constitution in respect of racial equality remains largely intact. Public misunderstanding is attributed to UMNO hijacking Article 153 to practice unbridled racial discrimination for self-enrichment in the past few decades.
Due to the heightening racial tensions caused by UMNO’s retrogressive move to intensify its racial agenda under the NEP (New Economic Policy) and brewing racial discontent by HINDRAF, it is imperative and urgent that the truth be known with regards to the true legal standing of the various races as provided for in our Constitution - the legal foundation upon which this nation is built. For this reason, I am reproducing as follows the main part of an article I wrote three years ago (see note below), which analysed and clarified these controversial issues.
(commencement of previous article) Forty seven years after Independence, racial issues continued to monopolise national politics, and championing Malay rights remains the single dominant ideology of UMNO - the only ruling power that this nation has known since
Independence. Thousands of speeches have been made championing this Malay cause, using various terminologies such as Malay “special rights”, Malay “special privileges” or simply Malay “rights”, often invoking the nation’s Constitution as the legal back-up. But, of the many politicians who have used these terminologies, how many have read through the Constitution to find out what these “rights” really are? Very few, I am afraid.
Our Constitution is printed in a small booklet titled “Federal Constitution” that can be bought for RM10 in the book shops. Buy one copy and read through to find out what it says about these “rights”. After all, these issues - more than any others - have dominated our lives, and all citizens should know what these rights truly are as spelled out in our Constitution.
If you have read through the Constitution to look for an answer to these Malay “rights”, perhaps the first thing that has struck you is that, familiar terminologies such as Malay “special rights”, Malay “special privileges” or Malay “rights” are no where to be found in the Constitution. Instead, we only find the term “the special position of the Malays”, which appears twice, in Clause (1) and Clause (2) of Article 153, which is titled “Reservation of quotas in respect of services, permits, etc, for Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak”.
(The words “natives of Sabah and Sarawak” were only incorporated into the Constitution upon the formation of Malaysia in 1963, during which Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore were merged with Malaya to form Malaysia. In this article, these words will not be repeated after the word “Malay” when I quote from the Constitution, for abbreviation purpose).
Anyone who has read through Article 153 might be surprised to discover that the provisions favouring Malays are in fact quite moderate, and certainly no way as stretched out in intensity and scope as our politicians would want us to believe. Similarly, those provisions protecting the non-Malays as a counter-balance to the special position of the Malays under the same Article 153 are also surprisingly quite well conceived and fair. In fact, when read in conjunction with Article 8 (Equality) and Article 136 (Impartial treatment of Federal employees), Article 153 cannot be construed as having significantly violated the egalitarian principles of our Constitution, contrary to common perception.
Since the egalitarian nature of our Constitution is largely intact, in spite of the presence of Article 153, then why should it have acquired such an adverse reputation as the legal root of all kinds of racial inequalities in this country?
Answer: the fault is not with our Constitution, but with our politicians twisting, misinterpreting and abusing it.
ARTICLE 153
It is perhaps high time we get to the bottom of Article 153.
Clause (1) of Article 153 states: “It shall be the responsibility of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to safeguard the special position of the Malays and the legitimate interests of other communities in accordance with the provisions of this Article”.
So, the first understanding that we must have on Article 153 is that it is meant to protect the interests of not only the Malays, but also those of the non-Malays.
Next, note the deliberate use of the words “safeguard” and “special position” (instead of “special rights” or “special privileges”). The choice of these words must be understood in the historical context of the drafting of this Constitution half a century ago when Malays were economically and educationally backward in relation to other races. It was thought fit and proper then that there must be “safeguards” to protect the Malays from being swarmed over by other races.
Hence, the creation of the “special position” of the Malays, which was obviously intended for defensive purpose: to protect for survival. The meticulous avoidance of using words like “rights” and “privileges”, and the choice of the word “safeguard” were clearly calculated to reflect its defensive nature. Under that historical context, the provision of the special position of the Malays in the Constitution certainly could not be interpreted to mean the endowment of racial privileges to create a privileged class of citizenship. If it were otherwise, this country would have been turned into a racist and feudal state right from day one of our Independence.
Clause (2) says that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall safeguard the special position of the Malays by reserving positions “of such proportion as he may deem reasonable” in a) the public service b) educational facilities and c) business licenses.
Clauses (3) & (6) say that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong may, for purpose of fulfilling Clause (2), give general directions to the relevant authorities, which shall then duly comply.
There is a separate clause covering the allocation of seats in tertiary education – Clause (8A). It says that where there are insufficient places for any particular course of study, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong may give directions for the “reservation of such proportion of such places for Malays as the Yang di-Pertuan Agong may deem reasonable; and the authority shall duly comply with the directions.”
As for the protection of non-Malays against possible encroachment of their existing interests, there are several provisions under different clauses in this Article, prohibiting the deprivation of the existing facilities enjoyed by them, whether in public service, education or trading licenses. Of these protective clauses, Clauses (5) and (9) are particularly significant.
Clause (5) consists of one sentence, which reads: “This Article does not derogate from the provisions of Article 136”.
Article 136 also consists of one sentence, which reads: “All persons of whatever race in the same grade in the service of the Federation shall, subject to the terms and conditions of their employment, be treated impartially.”
Clause (9) consists of one sentence, which reads: “Nothing in this Article shall empower Parliament to restrict business or trade solely for the purpose of reservations for Malays.”
ARTICLE 8
Reading Article 153 will not be complete without reading Article 8 (Equality). I will quote the more significant Clauses (1) and (2) of this Article in full, as follows:
Clause (1) of Article 8 states: “All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law.”
Clause (2) states: “Except as expressly authorized by this Constitution, there shall be no discrimination against citizens on the ground only of religion, race, descent or place of birth in any law or in the appointment to any office or employment under a public authority or in the administration of any law relating to the acquisition, holding or disposition of property or the establishing or carrying on of any trade, business, profession, vocation or employment.”
After reading through these Articles of the Constitution, we are able to draw the following conclusions:
1. The present clamour for Malay “special rights” as sacrosanct racial privileges of a privileged race, especially under the ideological ambit of Ketuanan Melayu (Malay the master race), is in conflict with the letters and spirit of the Constitution.
2. The special position of the Malays as prescribed under Article 153 of the Constitution is limited in scope to only the reservation of reasonable quotas in these 3 sectors: public services, educational places and business licenses. Hence, the present rampant racial discriminations practiced on almost every facet of our national life are mostly violations of the Constitution. Examples of these violations are:
a) Racial discrimination in the appointment and promotion of employees in publicly funded bodies, resulting in these becoming almost mono-raced bodies (particular so in their top strata). These bodies include: the civil service, police, army and various semi and quasi government agencies.
b) Barring of non-Malays from tenders and contracts controlled directly or indirectly by the government.
c) Imposition of compulsory price discounts and quotas in favour of Malays in housing projects.
d) Imposition of compulsory share quota for Malays in non-Malay companies.
e) Blanket barring of non-Malays to publicly funded academic institutions.
f) Completely lop-sided allocation of scholarships and seats of learning in clearly unreasonable proportions that reflect racial discriminations.
3) Our Constitution provides for only one class of citizenship and all citizens are equal before the law. The presence of Article 153 does not alter this fact, as it is meant only to protect the Malays from being “squeezed” by other races by allowing the reservation of reasonable quotas on certain sectors of national life. However, this Constitution has now been hijacked through decades of hegemony of political power by UMNO to result in the virtual monopoly of the public sector by a single race. The ensuing racism, corruption and corrosion of integrity of our democratic institutions have brought serious retrogression to our nation-building process in terms of national unity, discipline, morality and competitiveness of our people.
At this critical juncture, when nations in this region and around the world are urgently restructuring and shaping up to cope with globalization, our nation stagnates in a cesspool that has been created through decades of misrule. Unless urgent reforms are carried out, beginning with the dismantling of the anachronistic racial edifice, we are in for serious troubles in the days ahead.
What does Israel really want?
We all have seen atrocities committed by the Israelis on the Palestinians for more than sixty years now. And we have also seen how America and the United Nations have been closing both eyes to them. The first question, which I would like the Organisation of Islamic Countries (OIC) to ask America and the Israelis is: What does Israel really want? Is it lasting peace for the Jews or just Palestinian and Arab land? Or if they want to dominate the whole of the Middle East?
What?
And for that matter, does the American public, including the Jewish-Americans and their political leaders, too, know what does the Zionist leaders of Israel really want, so that they will not go on supporting them blindly, to the detriment of their own interests and that of the rest of the world? If they want to be America’s strongest ally in the Middle East, they have got it. But is it good for both America and Israel that this is so?
OIC leaders must drive the point to the American leaders that the strong ties that the country has with Israel has not produced much good to their own stability. America had to forgo their own basic liberties and go against their own Constitution and international law to allow Israeli transgression on the Palestinians.
If indeed America truly wants a better ally in the Middle East, they are the Arabs including the Palestinians and no others. America must be told that the Cold War had ended and they do not have to have presence to check the Soviet Union which is now defunct. They can start to establish more cordial ties with the Arab countries like civilized people instead of continuing to strangle them and get one or two confused Arab country to counter check their position there. America must also be told again and again that it is Arab OIL that is what moves the American economy, not support from the Jews in Israel or America.
Many elder Americans will still remember how the Jews in America was called, ‘Jew Boy’ when they first started to infiltrate the country; and they were despised upon by the Anglo-Saxons. On the other hand, the handouts to Israel that comes from the American taxpayers are what are bankrupting the American economy.
Another point that the OIC leaders ought to point to the Americans is that there are only 12 million Jews in the world, most of who are in America with a smaller number in Israel. This is against the 1.5 billion Muslims who are in the 57 Muslim countries with a sizeable number in all other countries. It won’t be long before the Muslim population in America overtakes the Jewish population. And if the Zionists think they can export Zionism, they are wrong. Zionism is not a religion; it is just a political belief. The world has already decided on which political believes they want to embrace -- either Islamic democracy or western democracy. More and more are choosing the former, as the later had shown its true colours in its persecution of Muslims and more Muslims.
Islamic democracy brings with it the Islamic system including the Islamic banking system which is spreading widely throughout the world and it has also been embraced by western democratic countries including Singapore. There can never be a Zionist banking system.
As it is there are more mosques in America than Jewish house of prayers called synagogues. Whereas the mosques are well attended by Muslims, the synagogues are not. All of these synagogues were built after the Second World War with no new ones being built. Many church buildings had been converted to discos and even mosques. If America is really trying to seek permanent peace in the world particularly the Middle East, they have to start reassessing their position vis-à-vis Israel and the Palestine.
The Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims are better allies of America than America had ever acknowledged.
If political solution cannot be taken by the Americans, than the solution will come with the population boom of Muslims in America whose population will become as large as the Jewish population in forty years' time.
America has been making a big mistake by not acknowledging this fact. On the other hand, by cohabiting with Israel, America suffers.
America does not need Israel because Israel has not given America peace in all the time the country began to exist from 1948, in a land that was forcefully carved out of Palestine by the imperialists. Or do the Israeli Zionist leaders want to convert everybody in the Middle East and the world into Judaism? I doubt this can be achieved. Worse, the number of people who believe in Judaism as a religion is shrinking in size, even in America and amongst the Israelis, too. God has a way of punishing the Jews by not allowing them to procreate and spread their religion.
Imagine Judaism came before Christianity and Islam. But despite that only Christianity and Islam have grown by leaps and bounds and became a multiracial religion, whereas Judaism is strictly for the small number of Jews, and represent a fraction of the population of the world.
Even amongst the Jews in Israel and America there are groups who are opposed to the creation of the Zionist state of Israel. (Please visit: www.nkusa.org to know more about them and their hatred of the Israeli state and their Zionist leaders) And these are not ordinary Jews, but the orthodox that subscribes to the true teachings of the Jewish holy book called the Torah and Talmud. They showed their full support to the Iranian president when he visited Columbia late last year to give a speech. Whereas, the Israeli leaders do subscribe to their Zionist ideology that runs counter to the aspirations of the Children of Israel.
This ideology was created by wealthy European and American Jews who seek to find a state for it’s people so that all the Jews could return to their ‘homeland’ based on their wrong interpretation of the Torah, the Jewish holy book which the Muslims call Al-Taurah. Ironically, this plan fails. After more than sixty years, not many Jews from Europe and America have returned even despite the introduction of the Law of the Return that in effect allow any Jew from acquiring Israeli citizenship on his or her return to Israel, including those who are willing to convert to the religion.
On the other hand, Palestinians who were born in what is now Israel are forbidden to return to their ancestral land; or if they marry Arabs who are Israeli citizens, they will not be given Israeli citizenship.
The Arab population in Israel is expanding fast, whereas the Jewish population is shrinking. This is another proof that the creation of the state of Israel is not popular even amongst the international Jews, because they know the state cannot offer then happiness or permanent peace, but despair.
Many of the Jews who live outside of Israel may support the creation of the state financially and morally, but none are willing to take up Israeli citizenship, because they know that such a status will render them as pariahs in the world. They can never go anywhere in the world using Israeli passport, so they would rather remain where they are in Europe or America. So, what is baffling me is: What is the true goal of Israel in wanting to grab more Palestinian land and the Holy Sanctuary called Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, otherwise known to the Muslims as Baitulmukaddis?
Killing Palestinians, demolishing their homes and grabbing their land can make the Zionist leaders, especially Ariel Sharon and his ilk score points, but it will also make them despicable and increase the hatred of all the Jews who are already living in misery in Israel, from the handout from Uncle Sam. Even if they have managed to grab all Palestinian land and the mosque, I doubt it if the Israelis can live in permanent peace.
They have to acknowledge that the Arab world is too large; and they are all around Israel. So, there is no point for the Israeli leaders to pretend that they a powerful force, just because they possess nuclear arms and are supported by America. Israel and America must stop thinking that the whole world must live with them. It’s them who should start to think on how to live with the rest of the world.
The Zionist claim to follow to the letter what is written in their Torah, that says that they should create a land for themselves called Israel. They say they follow the Torah. But the Torah also says that the Jews are not to have their own state and they ought to live amongst the Arabs and Muslims, as what the Naturei Karta Orthodox Jews insist all the time.
What?
And for that matter, does the American public, including the Jewish-Americans and their political leaders, too, know what does the Zionist leaders of Israel really want, so that they will not go on supporting them blindly, to the detriment of their own interests and that of the rest of the world? If they want to be America’s strongest ally in the Middle East, they have got it. But is it good for both America and Israel that this is so?
OIC leaders must drive the point to the American leaders that the strong ties that the country has with Israel has not produced much good to their own stability. America had to forgo their own basic liberties and go against their own Constitution and international law to allow Israeli transgression on the Palestinians.
If indeed America truly wants a better ally in the Middle East, they are the Arabs including the Palestinians and no others. America must be told that the Cold War had ended and they do not have to have presence to check the Soviet Union which is now defunct. They can start to establish more cordial ties with the Arab countries like civilized people instead of continuing to strangle them and get one or two confused Arab country to counter check their position there. America must also be told again and again that it is Arab OIL that is what moves the American economy, not support from the Jews in Israel or America.
Many elder Americans will still remember how the Jews in America was called, ‘Jew Boy’ when they first started to infiltrate the country; and they were despised upon by the Anglo-Saxons. On the other hand, the handouts to Israel that comes from the American taxpayers are what are bankrupting the American economy.
Another point that the OIC leaders ought to point to the Americans is that there are only 12 million Jews in the world, most of who are in America with a smaller number in Israel. This is against the 1.5 billion Muslims who are in the 57 Muslim countries with a sizeable number in all other countries. It won’t be long before the Muslim population in America overtakes the Jewish population. And if the Zionists think they can export Zionism, they are wrong. Zionism is not a religion; it is just a political belief. The world has already decided on which political believes they want to embrace -- either Islamic democracy or western democracy. More and more are choosing the former, as the later had shown its true colours in its persecution of Muslims and more Muslims.
Islamic democracy brings with it the Islamic system including the Islamic banking system which is spreading widely throughout the world and it has also been embraced by western democratic countries including Singapore. There can never be a Zionist banking system.
As it is there are more mosques in America than Jewish house of prayers called synagogues. Whereas the mosques are well attended by Muslims, the synagogues are not. All of these synagogues were built after the Second World War with no new ones being built. Many church buildings had been converted to discos and even mosques. If America is really trying to seek permanent peace in the world particularly the Middle East, they have to start reassessing their position vis-à-vis Israel and the Palestine.
The Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims are better allies of America than America had ever acknowledged.
If political solution cannot be taken by the Americans, than the solution will come with the population boom of Muslims in America whose population will become as large as the Jewish population in forty years' time.
America has been making a big mistake by not acknowledging this fact. On the other hand, by cohabiting with Israel, America suffers.
America does not need Israel because Israel has not given America peace in all the time the country began to exist from 1948, in a land that was forcefully carved out of Palestine by the imperialists. Or do the Israeli Zionist leaders want to convert everybody in the Middle East and the world into Judaism? I doubt this can be achieved. Worse, the number of people who believe in Judaism as a religion is shrinking in size, even in America and amongst the Israelis, too. God has a way of punishing the Jews by not allowing them to procreate and spread their religion.
Imagine Judaism came before Christianity and Islam. But despite that only Christianity and Islam have grown by leaps and bounds and became a multiracial religion, whereas Judaism is strictly for the small number of Jews, and represent a fraction of the population of the world.
Even amongst the Jews in Israel and America there are groups who are opposed to the creation of the Zionist state of Israel. (Please visit: www.nkusa.org to know more about them and their hatred of the Israeli state and their Zionist leaders) And these are not ordinary Jews, but the orthodox that subscribes to the true teachings of the Jewish holy book called the Torah and Talmud. They showed their full support to the Iranian president when he visited Columbia late last year to give a speech. Whereas, the Israeli leaders do subscribe to their Zionist ideology that runs counter to the aspirations of the Children of Israel.
This ideology was created by wealthy European and American Jews who seek to find a state for it’s people so that all the Jews could return to their ‘homeland’ based on their wrong interpretation of the Torah, the Jewish holy book which the Muslims call Al-Taurah. Ironically, this plan fails. After more than sixty years, not many Jews from Europe and America have returned even despite the introduction of the Law of the Return that in effect allow any Jew from acquiring Israeli citizenship on his or her return to Israel, including those who are willing to convert to the religion.
On the other hand, Palestinians who were born in what is now Israel are forbidden to return to their ancestral land; or if they marry Arabs who are Israeli citizens, they will not be given Israeli citizenship.
The Arab population in Israel is expanding fast, whereas the Jewish population is shrinking. This is another proof that the creation of the state of Israel is not popular even amongst the international Jews, because they know the state cannot offer then happiness or permanent peace, but despair.
Many of the Jews who live outside of Israel may support the creation of the state financially and morally, but none are willing to take up Israeli citizenship, because they know that such a status will render them as pariahs in the world. They can never go anywhere in the world using Israeli passport, so they would rather remain where they are in Europe or America. So, what is baffling me is: What is the true goal of Israel in wanting to grab more Palestinian land and the Holy Sanctuary called Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, otherwise known to the Muslims as Baitulmukaddis?
Killing Palestinians, demolishing their homes and grabbing their land can make the Zionist leaders, especially Ariel Sharon and his ilk score points, but it will also make them despicable and increase the hatred of all the Jews who are already living in misery in Israel, from the handout from Uncle Sam. Even if they have managed to grab all Palestinian land and the mosque, I doubt it if the Israelis can live in permanent peace.
They have to acknowledge that the Arab world is too large; and they are all around Israel. So, there is no point for the Israeli leaders to pretend that they a powerful force, just because they possess nuclear arms and are supported by America. Israel and America must stop thinking that the whole world must live with them. It’s them who should start to think on how to live with the rest of the world.
The Zionist claim to follow to the letter what is written in their Torah, that says that they should create a land for themselves called Israel. They say they follow the Torah. But the Torah also says that the Jews are not to have their own state and they ought to live amongst the Arabs and Muslims, as what the Naturei Karta Orthodox Jews insist all the time.
Malaysia in reverse gear: Proton to make Kereta Lembu
Its time for our leaders to become readers. But sadly it is not part of the budaya for our people to read books, especially in the English language. Kalau baca pun, its ghost stories, buku agama, Mangga magazine, Utusan Malaysia, Berita Harian and Harakah – stuff that can make you brain-dead.
Our leaders should read real books. To make it easy for them our leaders can start reading books that are more than 20 years old. Then maybe after that they can progress to more contemporary and modern books. One 28 year old book that I strongly recommend is Michael E. Porter’s book on Competitive Strategy (1980). Another good book that Porter wrote 23 years ago is Competitive Advantage (1985). In these two books Porter explains why the Italians are so good at design, at making leather shoes and belts, racing cars and so on. Each country or community has certain competitive advantages. We should be aware of these advantages and how to formulate competitive strategies.
Porter’s books are not pie in the sky speculations but observations of reality. To ignore reality is to be bodoh. If we choose to ignore reality then surely it is bodoh sombong.
Which brings us to today’s topic. A businessman was saying recently that it is difficult to buy small diesel lorries. The choices are getting limited. There are tens if not hundreds of diesel lorries available in the market worldwide but in Malaysia the choices available are narrowing. There is a simple reason for this.
Diesel technology has now evolved very quickly. Diesel is now being developed as the ‘clean and green fuel’ of the future. This is largely due to technological advancement in diesel refining which produces a much cleaner fuel with much lesser impurities. As a result of this cleaner diesel two things have happened. Many countries (including India, Singapore, Thailand, etc.) plus of course the US, Europe, Japan and Korea have made it mandatory that only the new cleaner diesel be sold in their countries. This reduces carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. But Malaysia still sells the old ‘dirtier’ diesel fuel.
Secondly, based on this high-tech diesel fuels, more efficient diesel engines have been developed especially by the Germans. Volkswagen, Mercedes Benz and Audi of Germany are leading the charge in newer, more efficient, cleaner diesel engines. The sad news is, none of these engines can run well on the old diesel fuel that is sold in Malaysia. New diesel truck engines are also being made to use the new diesel fuel only. They cannot run well on the old diesel. That is why the choice of diesel trucks is narrowing in Malaysia because we are still using the old diesel fuel.
Newer ‘common rail’ fuel injection engines are getting common. Fuel is pumped into a solid tube or 'common rail' which is located above the cylinders. The fuel in the tube is kept at a constant high pressure and is then injected directly into the cylinder through electronic timing. Because of the cleaner fuel, the fuel injector nozzle can be made very fine to achieve better efficiency. But if you use the older, dirtier diesel fuel that we have in Malaysia then these nozzles can clog up. That is why people who buy the new Mercedes Benz diesel cars (including the new luxury R series) will face engine problems. These cars 'choke' on the old diesel.
We need to change to the newer diesel yesterday. All diesel cars and trucks, including old ones, can use the new diesel without any problem. But the new diesel engines cannot use the old diesel fuel.
Now lets get back to Michael Porter and competitive advantage in the motor industry. India has produced the Tata Nano, a 54 miles per gallon five seater car priced at RM8,500. Today we read that Volkswagen has developed a new technology called Bluemotion to meet new EU emissions requirements and higher fuel costs. Bluemotion combines engine design, body shape and low kerb weight to give better fuel efficiency. Now hold on to your seats. The new VW Polo 1.4 litre three cylinder TDI diesel engine car already gives 74.3 miles per gallon (mpg). The VW Golf 1.6 litre diesel already gives 62.8 mpg and the Passat 2.0 litre diesel gives 55.3 mpg.
These are fantastic numbers. We must understand that these advances are possible because of new technologies in composite materials, rubber technologies, light weight metals and engine design. Even the Tata Nano is made of light-weight composite materials developed by high-tech firms in India. So gone are the days when car manufacturers closely guarded engines and body designs. Nowadays car makers also invest in electronics, engine computers, composite materials and light weight metals. These are their competitive advantages to reduce weight and meet stricter emissions requirements and neutralize ever higher fuel costs.
Now lets look at some more numbers. By 2012, the EU’s emissions standards require a 2.0 litre car weighing up to 1400 kg to produce not more than 130gm of CO2 / km. The new 2.0 litre VW Passat at 1348 kg only produces 136 gm of CO2 per km. The 74.3 mpg VW Polo produces 102 gm of CO2 / km. They have beaten EU standards five years ahead of schedule.
Soon Fiat, Alfa Romeo, Citroen, Renault, Peugeot, Volvo, Skoda, Jaguar, Toyota, Honda, Kia, Hyundai, Ford, GM and every other car maker who wants to sell cars in Europe will be following suit. Where does Proton fit into all this ? Well Proton can export their cars to Zimbabwe, the Islamic car to Iran and other such bodoh sombong options.
This takes us back to competitive advantage. You must develop your competitive advantage. Proton’s competitive advantage is very simple. The gomen will raise the trade barriers higher and higher to protect Proton. Imported cars like the 73 mpg VW Polo wondermobile will be taxed to the sky. Then we cannot drive it anyway because our diesel is 'dirty'. Bodoh sombong Malaysians will have no choice except buy Proton. This is Proton’s competitive advantage and their competitive strategy.
If VW develops a 73 mpg car, Proton will just run to the Gomen and cry ‘Boo hoo, boo hoo hoo their car gives 73 mpg. Raise the duties, raise the duties’. And this is what the Gomen will do. It will also preserve the status quo in the AP sweepstakes. The Menteri MITI and in-laws plus all the other hangers on and cronies will still get to ‘shop at Naza’.
According to the AFTA agreement which we signed, by 2003 we could only impose 5% tax on cars made within Asean and APs should not be required. But Malaysia has delayed this under CEPT (Common Effective Preferential Tariff). So the car dealers can tell you today, five years later that when they import Nissans and Toyotas from Thailand, the Customs still asks for APs. They also have to pay import duties. You can get the APs from the MITI Minister’s in laws. Other cronies may also have APs.
The Asean countries have agreed that by 2010 even the CEPT must go but that is not likely for Malaysia. Why? Because Proton is in no position to develop composite technologies for automobiles (or much else). That by itself is a multi billion Ringgit investment. Also Proton does not have Tun Dr Mahathir who read all the books and scientific journals and knew exactly what to do (well technically). Minus Dr Mahathir, maybe Proton will still make the cleanest and greenest car of all time – a kereta lembu = a cow car .
Proton is bungling along. They burned a chance at a merger with VW. Just how bodoh sombong can you get? How many times in Malay history since Hang Tuah do you get an offer for marriage from a major world class German car maker? Kenapa lah bodoh sangat? On the one hand we open ‘Iskandar’ for colonization by foreigners from Singapore but on the other hand we do not want to lose a ‘strategic asset’ to foreigners from VW? If Proton becomes a rust bucket, will it still be considered a ‘strategic asset’?
APs, trade barriers, duty protection, high import taxes etc will nail the fate of our country. Proton cannot compete in the face of such rapid and super charged advances in automotive technology outside the country. The Audi Q7 has a radar that will soon become standard fixture in European cars. GPS is already a standard feature in most European cars. Automotive Speed Reduction or ASR (which saves human lives) first appeared in high end German cars a dozen years ago. Now they are quite standard features even in low end Toyota Corrollas, Toyota Vios and Korean cars too. But even our ‘premium’ Proton Perdana does not have ASR. Proton does not even provide air bags in all its models.
As you are reading this the Europeans, Japanese and Koreans are making even more advances in their automotive engineering. But Proton will never develop the ancillary technologies needed to make a 74 miles per gallon car. Oil prices will go past USD100 per barrel. Petrol subsidies will cost more and more taxpayers money. Our bodoh sombong Finance Minister 2 has said that this year tax payers need only fork out RM35 billion in oil subsidies. This is also part of Proton’s competitive advantage. Get the taxpayers to pay higher oil subsidies so that Proton can make and sell outdated, inefficient and Flintstone type automobiles. If we can drive 74 mpg cars, we may not need so much oil subsidies. But if you want a 74 mpg car from Proton well they can make you a kereta lembu. And if you want Automatic Speed Reduction you can squeeze the lembu’s kohones.
Our leaders should read real books. To make it easy for them our leaders can start reading books that are more than 20 years old. Then maybe after that they can progress to more contemporary and modern books. One 28 year old book that I strongly recommend is Michael E. Porter’s book on Competitive Strategy (1980). Another good book that Porter wrote 23 years ago is Competitive Advantage (1985). In these two books Porter explains why the Italians are so good at design, at making leather shoes and belts, racing cars and so on. Each country or community has certain competitive advantages. We should be aware of these advantages and how to formulate competitive strategies.
Porter’s books are not pie in the sky speculations but observations of reality. To ignore reality is to be bodoh. If we choose to ignore reality then surely it is bodoh sombong.
Which brings us to today’s topic. A businessman was saying recently that it is difficult to buy small diesel lorries. The choices are getting limited. There are tens if not hundreds of diesel lorries available in the market worldwide but in Malaysia the choices available are narrowing. There is a simple reason for this.
Diesel technology has now evolved very quickly. Diesel is now being developed as the ‘clean and green fuel’ of the future. This is largely due to technological advancement in diesel refining which produces a much cleaner fuel with much lesser impurities. As a result of this cleaner diesel two things have happened. Many countries (including India, Singapore, Thailand, etc.) plus of course the US, Europe, Japan and Korea have made it mandatory that only the new cleaner diesel be sold in their countries. This reduces carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. But Malaysia still sells the old ‘dirtier’ diesel fuel.
Secondly, based on this high-tech diesel fuels, more efficient diesel engines have been developed especially by the Germans. Volkswagen, Mercedes Benz and Audi of Germany are leading the charge in newer, more efficient, cleaner diesel engines. The sad news is, none of these engines can run well on the old diesel fuel that is sold in Malaysia. New diesel truck engines are also being made to use the new diesel fuel only. They cannot run well on the old diesel. That is why the choice of diesel trucks is narrowing in Malaysia because we are still using the old diesel fuel.
Newer ‘common rail’ fuel injection engines are getting common. Fuel is pumped into a solid tube or 'common rail' which is located above the cylinders. The fuel in the tube is kept at a constant high pressure and is then injected directly into the cylinder through electronic timing. Because of the cleaner fuel, the fuel injector nozzle can be made very fine to achieve better efficiency. But if you use the older, dirtier diesel fuel that we have in Malaysia then these nozzles can clog up. That is why people who buy the new Mercedes Benz diesel cars (including the new luxury R series) will face engine problems. These cars 'choke' on the old diesel.
We need to change to the newer diesel yesterday. All diesel cars and trucks, including old ones, can use the new diesel without any problem. But the new diesel engines cannot use the old diesel fuel.
Now lets get back to Michael Porter and competitive advantage in the motor industry. India has produced the Tata Nano, a 54 miles per gallon five seater car priced at RM8,500. Today we read that Volkswagen has developed a new technology called Bluemotion to meet new EU emissions requirements and higher fuel costs. Bluemotion combines engine design, body shape and low kerb weight to give better fuel efficiency. Now hold on to your seats. The new VW Polo 1.4 litre three cylinder TDI diesel engine car already gives 74.3 miles per gallon (mpg). The VW Golf 1.6 litre diesel already gives 62.8 mpg and the Passat 2.0 litre diesel gives 55.3 mpg.
These are fantastic numbers. We must understand that these advances are possible because of new technologies in composite materials, rubber technologies, light weight metals and engine design. Even the Tata Nano is made of light-weight composite materials developed by high-tech firms in India. So gone are the days when car manufacturers closely guarded engines and body designs. Nowadays car makers also invest in electronics, engine computers, composite materials and light weight metals. These are their competitive advantages to reduce weight and meet stricter emissions requirements and neutralize ever higher fuel costs.
Now lets look at some more numbers. By 2012, the EU’s emissions standards require a 2.0 litre car weighing up to 1400 kg to produce not more than 130gm of CO2 / km. The new 2.0 litre VW Passat at 1348 kg only produces 136 gm of CO2 per km. The 74.3 mpg VW Polo produces 102 gm of CO2 / km. They have beaten EU standards five years ahead of schedule.
Soon Fiat, Alfa Romeo, Citroen, Renault, Peugeot, Volvo, Skoda, Jaguar, Toyota, Honda, Kia, Hyundai, Ford, GM and every other car maker who wants to sell cars in Europe will be following suit. Where does Proton fit into all this ? Well Proton can export their cars to Zimbabwe, the Islamic car to Iran and other such bodoh sombong options.
This takes us back to competitive advantage. You must develop your competitive advantage. Proton’s competitive advantage is very simple. The gomen will raise the trade barriers higher and higher to protect Proton. Imported cars like the 73 mpg VW Polo wondermobile will be taxed to the sky. Then we cannot drive it anyway because our diesel is 'dirty'. Bodoh sombong Malaysians will have no choice except buy Proton. This is Proton’s competitive advantage and their competitive strategy.
If VW develops a 73 mpg car, Proton will just run to the Gomen and cry ‘Boo hoo, boo hoo hoo their car gives 73 mpg. Raise the duties, raise the duties’. And this is what the Gomen will do. It will also preserve the status quo in the AP sweepstakes. The Menteri MITI and in-laws plus all the other hangers on and cronies will still get to ‘shop at Naza’.
According to the AFTA agreement which we signed, by 2003 we could only impose 5% tax on cars made within Asean and APs should not be required. But Malaysia has delayed this under CEPT (Common Effective Preferential Tariff). So the car dealers can tell you today, five years later that when they import Nissans and Toyotas from Thailand, the Customs still asks for APs. They also have to pay import duties. You can get the APs from the MITI Minister’s in laws. Other cronies may also have APs.
The Asean countries have agreed that by 2010 even the CEPT must go but that is not likely for Malaysia. Why? Because Proton is in no position to develop composite technologies for automobiles (or much else). That by itself is a multi billion Ringgit investment. Also Proton does not have Tun Dr Mahathir who read all the books and scientific journals and knew exactly what to do (well technically). Minus Dr Mahathir, maybe Proton will still make the cleanest and greenest car of all time – a kereta lembu = a cow car .
Proton is bungling along. They burned a chance at a merger with VW. Just how bodoh sombong can you get? How many times in Malay history since Hang Tuah do you get an offer for marriage from a major world class German car maker? Kenapa lah bodoh sangat? On the one hand we open ‘Iskandar’ for colonization by foreigners from Singapore but on the other hand we do not want to lose a ‘strategic asset’ to foreigners from VW? If Proton becomes a rust bucket, will it still be considered a ‘strategic asset’?
APs, trade barriers, duty protection, high import taxes etc will nail the fate of our country. Proton cannot compete in the face of such rapid and super charged advances in automotive technology outside the country. The Audi Q7 has a radar that will soon become standard fixture in European cars. GPS is already a standard feature in most European cars. Automotive Speed Reduction or ASR (which saves human lives) first appeared in high end German cars a dozen years ago. Now they are quite standard features even in low end Toyota Corrollas, Toyota Vios and Korean cars too. But even our ‘premium’ Proton Perdana does not have ASR. Proton does not even provide air bags in all its models.
As you are reading this the Europeans, Japanese and Koreans are making even more advances in their automotive engineering. But Proton will never develop the ancillary technologies needed to make a 74 miles per gallon car. Oil prices will go past USD100 per barrel. Petrol subsidies will cost more and more taxpayers money. Our bodoh sombong Finance Minister 2 has said that this year tax payers need only fork out RM35 billion in oil subsidies. This is also part of Proton’s competitive advantage. Get the taxpayers to pay higher oil subsidies so that Proton can make and sell outdated, inefficient and Flintstone type automobiles. If we can drive 74 mpg cars, we may not need so much oil subsidies. But if you want a 74 mpg car from Proton well they can make you a kereta lembu. And if you want Automatic Speed Reduction you can squeeze the lembu’s kohones.
10 Year Mood Swing
They say the economy works in ten-year cycles. I can't remember what happened before Merdeka because I was not born yet then, but by the time my late father went out into the world to make my living in 1978 he became conscious of these economic down-turns. Last year, the world struggled to keep its head above water. The expected crash did not happen only because governments took pains to keep banks and countries from collapsing. It is no secret that when America sneezes, the rest of the world, in particular the developing part of the world, catches a cold. So America needed to be saved just so that the rest of the world could save itself.
China and the Middle Eastern countries in particular had invested a lot in the United States Dollar so they could not afford for the Dollar to crash. It is said that between them they hold an estimated three to five trillion Dollars. So, if the Dollar crashes, they have as much to lose as does the United States. It is therefore prudent to keep the Dollar alive just so that they themselves would not crash alongside a crashing Dollar. This is no charity. They do not have the interest of the United States at heart. It is merely a matter of survival, their own survival, so keeping the Dollar going was to keep themselves safe and a way of preventing their investments from getting wiped out.
But what is the real worth of the United States Dollar? Is the Dollar worth a Dollar? No one knows expect maybe those who walk in the corridors of power in Washington, Beijing, Riyadh, and so on. The rest of us lesser mortals can only hope and pray that what we may be trading in or holding onto by way of the Dollar is worth the paper it is printed on. It is clearly understood that the Dollar, as are all paper money, is merely a promissory note. It is a promise by the issuer of the note that they would pay on demand the figure printed on that paper. But what if they don't? What if they dishonour their promise? There is very little you can do, really, except to 'blacklist' their paper from thereon and refuse to accept it any longer in future. But the damage would have already been done. The three or five trillion Dollars that you hold would be worthless scraps of paper and refusing to further accept that paper would not help you recoup your loses but would instead guarantee that the paper you hold would become like the Japanese 'banana' money, if any of you still remember the Malayan currency of the Second World War.
Anyway, for all intents and purposes, 2007 could be said to be a critical year for the world economy. The only thing is the economy was artificially propped-up so many of us did not realise it. What we saw were just the bells and whistles, which was what we were meant to see. Ten years ago, in 1997, we again suffered an economic downturn -- at least our part of the world did -- due to what is now infamously known as the Asian Financial Crisis. In 1987, ten years before that, again, the entire world went through an economic slump that saw some tycoons suffering jail terms when they attempted to prop up their ailing companies through fair or foul means and many chose the easier foul means alternative. And ten years before that, in the 1970s, yet another economic crisis.
Yes, every ten years expect an economic crash and if the ten-year theory is correct then this year, 2008, we are due for yet another economic downturn. Of course, predictions are just that, predictions, but predictions are based on signs and the signs seem to indicate that we may not be too far off the mark. In fact, as I said, it should have happened last year rather than this year if not for the propping-up by the Chinese and Middle Eastern countries which had more to lose than the Americans if the Dollar collapses. But the economy can still be saved, and if the United States attacks Iran, which many think may happen this year, then we may be seeing better days ahead of us -- at least as far as the economy is concerned though I can't say the same for the Iranians. Yes, wars are good for the economy and an American-Iranian war will see the economy strengthen. But people will have to die, many people of course, so that the capitalists can see a healthy return on their investments.
This ten-year cycle theory holds true for politics as well, at least as far as Malaysia is concerned. Every ten years or so we see a shift in voters' sentiments. Sometimes the shift is large enough to make an impact like in 1969 and 1999. Sometimes it is a minor shift but only because the Malays shift one way with the non-Malays going the opposite direction one election, and then the non-Malays reverse direction with the non-Malays again moving in the opposite direction the following election. Now, if only the Malays and non-Malays both shift the same direction then the election results would have been totally different. But the Malays and non-Malays love playing see-saw. When one goes up the other goes down, and vice versa. Maybe they should start playing swings instead so that both can swing up and down at the same time. But such are the mood swings of the Malays and non-Malays. When one is in the mood, the other is not, and then when the other finally gets into the mood, the mood of the first moves the opposite direction. It's like when tonight your wife has a headache and is not in the mood and tomorrow night when she is in the mood you in turn get a headache. If only you can both get your headaches at the same time so that you can synchronise your moods.
In 1968 , when Malaysians went through their first mood swing. Resentment against the government was high and both the Malays and non-Malays voted against the ruling party in the 1969 general election giving the opposition 55% of the votes. No doubt the ruling party still formed the government even though it had just 45% of the votes but it lost many states and ruled without a two-thirds majority. History was almost repeated 30 years later in 1998 but in the 1999 general election the Malays and non-Malays were not as united as in 1969 (though in 1969 the Malays and non-Malays were not really united in that sense but just that both wanted the government out without working in concert to achieve this).
Now, we must remember, 1969 was not long after Merdeka and not long after the ruling party swept almost all the seats in the first parliamentary elections in 1959. Ten years before that the voters gave the ruling party a landslide victory. Ten years later they took it back.
Let us look at the First Parliamentary General Election again. What really happened in that first election in 1959, merely two years after Merdeka? Did the ruling party do that well, only to lose it all again ten years later?
In the First Parliamentary General Election in 1959, the voter turnout was only 73.3% or 1.55 million voters. 600,000 people decided to just stay home and not bother to come out and vote. The Alliance Party, which had won the Municipal Elections four years before that in 1955, managed to garner only 51.8% of the votes. That's right, the Alliance Party won slightly over half the votes in the First Parliamentary General Election. And the Alliance Party was a coalition of three parties -- Umno, MCA and MIC. Therefore Umno, on its own, won less than half the votes.
In terms of seats, though, the Alliance Party won 74 out of the 104 seats or around 71% of the total seats contested. This means they managed to form the government with a comfortable two-thirds majority in spite of winning slightly over half the votes.
Five years on, in the Second Parliamentary General Election in 1964, the voter turnout increased slightly to 78.9%, a 5.6% increase. In this election the Alliance Party garnered 58.5% of the votes, an improvement of 6.7%, more or less corresponding with the increase in voter turnout. The increase in votes which the Alliance Party won can easily be attributed to the increase in the number of registered voters. The number of registered voters had increased by 28% but the Alliance Party saw an increase in votes of 50%. This means the Alliance Party saw a real increase and not just because there were more voters. In short, 500,000 'new' voters came out to vote in the 1964 general election and 80% or 400,000 of these votes went to the Alliance Party -- an impressive performance indeed. The number of seats the Alliance Party won increased to 86%, which more or less gave them a landslide victory.
Five years later, in 1969, the voter turnout dropped back to 73.6%. In this historic election (historic only because of the racial riots that followed) the Alliance Party managed a paltry 44.9% of the votes. Out of the 144 seats contested, the Alliance Party managed only 74 giving them slightly better than half (72 seats is 50%) and FAR SHORT of the two-thirds they needed to form an effective government.
That’s when all hell broke loose -- organised chaos if you wish -- infamously known as the May 13 incident.
The ruling party, by then called Barisan Nasional, performed better during the 1974 general election. They managed to garner 60.7% of the votes. But this is only because the old Alliance Party no longer existed and the new coalition called Barisan Nasional comprised all those opposition parties that, in the election before that, had denied the ruling party its two-thirds majority in Parliament.
In terms of seats it was almost a clean sweep for Barisan Nasional as the opposition managed to win only 19 out of the 144 seats contested. Something must be wrong with the system when the opposition won only 13% of the seats though 40% of the rakyat voted for them. In this election the voter turnout was only 75.1%. Again, 600,000 people did not come out to vote just like in the two elections before that.
The 1978 general election was not any better and was almost a repeat of 1974. Only 75.3% of the voters came out to vote. The ruling party won 57.2% of the votes, but this time their number of seats won dropped to 130. The opposition managed to win 24 seats on the now enlarged total of 154 seats -- a slightly better performance for the opposition.
The 1982 general election was, again, a duplicate of the election before that -- 74.39% voter turnout, 60.54% votes to the ruling party giving them 132 seats, and 22 seats to the opposition, which was almost status quo.
From thereon PAS seemed to be going downhill. The following general election in 1986 was a disaster for PAS when it won only one seat and lost Kelantan to UMNO. Ironically, DAP saw its best ever performance by winning 24 Parliament seats. Barisan Nasional, which got 57.28% of the votes, won 148 seats or 84% out of the total of 177 seats. This was the turning point for both PAS and DAP -- PAS its lowest point and DAP its highest.
One interesting point to note is that the voter turnout in 1986 was the worst in the history of our general elections. Only 69.97% of the voters came out to vote. It was said the low voter turnout was one factor that worked against the opposition. More than 2 million people stayed home in that election.
1990 was the most interesting year. In the general election held that year, the ruling party managed only 53.38% of the votes. Voter turnout was only slightly better at 72.7%. A 'record' 2.2 million people stayed home and did not bother to come out and vote. Considering the ruling party managed only around 3 million votes and the opposition obtained 2.6 million votes (giving the ruling party a mere 400,000 vote majority), the 2.2 million voters who stayed home was quite significant indeed. If 8% more people had come out to vote, and if they had voted for the opposition, the results would have been quite different. Of course, if they had voted for the ruling party instead then it would not have mattered much.
Anyway, DAP lost four seats and managed to retain only 20. PAS & Semangat 46 shared 15 seats between them from a mere one seat the election before that. PBS in Sabah got 14 seats and four independent candidates got in. Out of 180 seats contested, the ruling party still managed to win 127 or 70% of the seats on slightly more than HALF the votes they garnered. Again, this showed, in Malaysian elections, it is SEATS AND NOT VOTES THAT MATTER.
During the 1995 general election, PAS and Semangat 46 got one seat less each and, combined, managed to win only 13 seats. DAP did quite badly at nine seats while PBS got only eight seats this time around. There were nine million registered voters that year but, just like in 1990, more than two million people stayed home. The ruling party garnered 65.2% of the votes and won 162 out of the 192 seats contested giving it 85% of the seats.
In the 1999 general election, Barisan Nasional won 102 or 70.8% of the 144 seats it contested in Peninsular Malaysia. This gave it 4.2% more than what it needed to retain its two-thirds majority in Parliament. With the 46 seats it won in East Malaysia, Barisan Nasional sailed in comfortably with 148 seats, 20 more seats than what was required to maintain its two-thirds majority and 52 more seats than what it need to form the government with a simple majority.
Now, it must be noted that while Barisan Nasional won more than the two-thirds of the seats, it failed to win two-thirds of the votes. Out of a total of about 5.8 million voters in Peninsular Malaysia, Barisan Nasional managed to convince only 3.1 million voters to vote for it while 2.6 million voters voted for the opposition. This came to less than 54% of the total voters who cast their votes -- far short of the two-thirds it needed to legitimately claim that the people support the ruling party.
What is most interesting to note is that only 73% of the voters came out to vote. Perak was the lowest at 66% followed by the Federal Capital at 70%. Why this low turnout?
Thousands of complaints were received that voters who had voted in that same area for the last few elections suddenly found their names missing from the electoral list. Others complained that someone else had voted in their place. When they went to vote they found that their names had been 'cut off' from the register, which means they had already voted. Then there were cases where voters’ names had been transferred to another state so they could not vote as there was no way they could make it across the country in time to vote.
It was estimated that around 80% to 82% of the registered voters would have come out to vote this time around, if they had been allowed to. This would have made it one of the highest ever in Malaysian election history. Many did in fact come out but were sent home disappointed.
If these 7% to 9% had not been denied their right to vote, and if the 680,000 voters who had registered earlier but could not vote were included in the voters’ list, an additional one million people would have voted in the 1999 general election.
According to the Elections Commission, 95% of these 680,000 disenfranchised voters were below the age of 30. The Alternative Front or Barisan Alternatif claimed that more than 70% of these people barred from voting were their supporters. If this were true, then Barisan Nasional would have garnered 3.4 million votes while the opposition would have won 3.2 million. This would have changed the results drastically, probably even giving the opposition an additional 30 to 40 Parliamentary seats. Looking at the wafer-thin wins the Barisan Nasional candidates obtained, this assumption is more than possible.
A couple of years later, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad admitted during the Umno General Assembly that if the 680,000 disenfranchised voters had been allowed to vote, Barisan Nasional would have been kicked out of office.
The opposition officially won 42 of the Parliament seats contested. They claim the number should have been between 70 to 80 if the elections had been free and fair. And all they needed was 65 seats to deny Barisan Nasional its two-thirds majority in Parliament.
Then came the 2004 general election, Abdullah Ahmad Badawi's first general election, and the tide turned yet again in favour of the ruling party. Even with just roughly two-thirds of the votes, Barisan Nasional managed to win 92% of the seats, never before achieved in 50 years of election history. Now, what is 2008 going to look like?
Well, we have eleven previous general elections to look at so take your pick. But whatever it is, take note that:
1) even with 45% of the votes Barisan Nasional will still form the government;
2) they do not need two-thirds of the votes to win two-thirds of the seats;
3) and finally, in 1959 the ruling party garnered 51.8% of the votes, in 1969, 44.9% of the votes, in 1978 (which should have been held in 1979), 57.2% of the votes, in 1990 (they held elections every four years instead of five during this period so that is why there is an 'extra' two years), 53.38% of the votes, and in 1999, 54% of the votes.
Now, what is 2009, the next ten years (which may be 2008 rather than 2009 if they call an early election) going to look like? We have seen a voters' mood swing every ten years, just like we saw an economic downturn. Can we expect a downturn of the ruling party's performance as well?
Most likely. If the Malays and non-Malays unite under a united opposition we can see a 50-50 split in the votes. Of course, Barisan Nasional will still form the government. But it will be without a two-thirds majority and with the loss of a few states.
Kelantan, Terengganu, Kedah and Perlis may fall. Barisan Nasional may lose its majority in Penang, Perak, Selangor and Sabah. And 80 Members of Parliament will sit in the opposition aisle giving Barisan Nasional a mere 64% of the seats, slightly less than the two-thirds it needs to blatantly amend laws such as the recent one that allowed the Prime Minister to extend the tenure of the Chairman of the Elections Commission without seeking the approval of the Agong.
Yes, let us force the opposition to unite. And if they don't then let us boycott the opposition. Let us show them we mean business. As Lim Kit Siang said, “The people are the boss.” So let us show them that we really are the boss by telling them what we want and by rejecting them if they refuse to listen to the boss. We want 80 opposition members in Parliament. And we will get it even if we have to vote against the opposition or by not coming out to vote just to teach the opposition a lesson and to show them that if we can't have it our way then we do not want it any way.
The opposition is arrogant. The opposition has a large ego. They think we need them so they can do what they like. It is time they learned that we do not need them but it is they who need us. Malaysia Today will soon launch a campaign called ONE OPPOSITION OR NO OPPOSITION. The civil society movements and NGOs will soon launch a PEOPLES' DECLARATION or DEKLARASI RAKYAT. If the ruling party accepts this Declaration we shall support them. Whomsoever accepts it we shall support them, never mind which party they are from. It is time we took back the streets. It is time we took back the ballot box. It is time the Wakil Rakyat learnt the meaning of wakil rakyat. It means we are in charge and they are merely our wakil.
China and the Middle Eastern countries in particular had invested a lot in the United States Dollar so they could not afford for the Dollar to crash. It is said that between them they hold an estimated three to five trillion Dollars. So, if the Dollar crashes, they have as much to lose as does the United States. It is therefore prudent to keep the Dollar alive just so that they themselves would not crash alongside a crashing Dollar. This is no charity. They do not have the interest of the United States at heart. It is merely a matter of survival, their own survival, so keeping the Dollar going was to keep themselves safe and a way of preventing their investments from getting wiped out.
But what is the real worth of the United States Dollar? Is the Dollar worth a Dollar? No one knows expect maybe those who walk in the corridors of power in Washington, Beijing, Riyadh, and so on. The rest of us lesser mortals can only hope and pray that what we may be trading in or holding onto by way of the Dollar is worth the paper it is printed on. It is clearly understood that the Dollar, as are all paper money, is merely a promissory note. It is a promise by the issuer of the note that they would pay on demand the figure printed on that paper. But what if they don't? What if they dishonour their promise? There is very little you can do, really, except to 'blacklist' their paper from thereon and refuse to accept it any longer in future. But the damage would have already been done. The three or five trillion Dollars that you hold would be worthless scraps of paper and refusing to further accept that paper would not help you recoup your loses but would instead guarantee that the paper you hold would become like the Japanese 'banana' money, if any of you still remember the Malayan currency of the Second World War.
Anyway, for all intents and purposes, 2007 could be said to be a critical year for the world economy. The only thing is the economy was artificially propped-up so many of us did not realise it. What we saw were just the bells and whistles, which was what we were meant to see. Ten years ago, in 1997, we again suffered an economic downturn -- at least our part of the world did -- due to what is now infamously known as the Asian Financial Crisis. In 1987, ten years before that, again, the entire world went through an economic slump that saw some tycoons suffering jail terms when they attempted to prop up their ailing companies through fair or foul means and many chose the easier foul means alternative. And ten years before that, in the 1970s, yet another economic crisis.
Yes, every ten years expect an economic crash and if the ten-year theory is correct then this year, 2008, we are due for yet another economic downturn. Of course, predictions are just that, predictions, but predictions are based on signs and the signs seem to indicate that we may not be too far off the mark. In fact, as I said, it should have happened last year rather than this year if not for the propping-up by the Chinese and Middle Eastern countries which had more to lose than the Americans if the Dollar collapses. But the economy can still be saved, and if the United States attacks Iran, which many think may happen this year, then we may be seeing better days ahead of us -- at least as far as the economy is concerned though I can't say the same for the Iranians. Yes, wars are good for the economy and an American-Iranian war will see the economy strengthen. But people will have to die, many people of course, so that the capitalists can see a healthy return on their investments.
This ten-year cycle theory holds true for politics as well, at least as far as Malaysia is concerned. Every ten years or so we see a shift in voters' sentiments. Sometimes the shift is large enough to make an impact like in 1969 and 1999. Sometimes it is a minor shift but only because the Malays shift one way with the non-Malays going the opposite direction one election, and then the non-Malays reverse direction with the non-Malays again moving in the opposite direction the following election. Now, if only the Malays and non-Malays both shift the same direction then the election results would have been totally different. But the Malays and non-Malays love playing see-saw. When one goes up the other goes down, and vice versa. Maybe they should start playing swings instead so that both can swing up and down at the same time. But such are the mood swings of the Malays and non-Malays. When one is in the mood, the other is not, and then when the other finally gets into the mood, the mood of the first moves the opposite direction. It's like when tonight your wife has a headache and is not in the mood and tomorrow night when she is in the mood you in turn get a headache. If only you can both get your headaches at the same time so that you can synchronise your moods.
In 1968 , when Malaysians went through their first mood swing. Resentment against the government was high and both the Malays and non-Malays voted against the ruling party in the 1969 general election giving the opposition 55% of the votes. No doubt the ruling party still formed the government even though it had just 45% of the votes but it lost many states and ruled without a two-thirds majority. History was almost repeated 30 years later in 1998 but in the 1999 general election the Malays and non-Malays were not as united as in 1969 (though in 1969 the Malays and non-Malays were not really united in that sense but just that both wanted the government out without working in concert to achieve this).
Now, we must remember, 1969 was not long after Merdeka and not long after the ruling party swept almost all the seats in the first parliamentary elections in 1959. Ten years before that the voters gave the ruling party a landslide victory. Ten years later they took it back.
Let us look at the First Parliamentary General Election again. What really happened in that first election in 1959, merely two years after Merdeka? Did the ruling party do that well, only to lose it all again ten years later?
In the First Parliamentary General Election in 1959, the voter turnout was only 73.3% or 1.55 million voters. 600,000 people decided to just stay home and not bother to come out and vote. The Alliance Party, which had won the Municipal Elections four years before that in 1955, managed to garner only 51.8% of the votes. That's right, the Alliance Party won slightly over half the votes in the First Parliamentary General Election. And the Alliance Party was a coalition of three parties -- Umno, MCA and MIC. Therefore Umno, on its own, won less than half the votes.
In terms of seats, though, the Alliance Party won 74 out of the 104 seats or around 71% of the total seats contested. This means they managed to form the government with a comfortable two-thirds majority in spite of winning slightly over half the votes.
Five years on, in the Second Parliamentary General Election in 1964, the voter turnout increased slightly to 78.9%, a 5.6% increase. In this election the Alliance Party garnered 58.5% of the votes, an improvement of 6.7%, more or less corresponding with the increase in voter turnout. The increase in votes which the Alliance Party won can easily be attributed to the increase in the number of registered voters. The number of registered voters had increased by 28% but the Alliance Party saw an increase in votes of 50%. This means the Alliance Party saw a real increase and not just because there were more voters. In short, 500,000 'new' voters came out to vote in the 1964 general election and 80% or 400,000 of these votes went to the Alliance Party -- an impressive performance indeed. The number of seats the Alliance Party won increased to 86%, which more or less gave them a landslide victory.
Five years later, in 1969, the voter turnout dropped back to 73.6%. In this historic election (historic only because of the racial riots that followed) the Alliance Party managed a paltry 44.9% of the votes. Out of the 144 seats contested, the Alliance Party managed only 74 giving them slightly better than half (72 seats is 50%) and FAR SHORT of the two-thirds they needed to form an effective government.
That’s when all hell broke loose -- organised chaos if you wish -- infamously known as the May 13 incident.
The ruling party, by then called Barisan Nasional, performed better during the 1974 general election. They managed to garner 60.7% of the votes. But this is only because the old Alliance Party no longer existed and the new coalition called Barisan Nasional comprised all those opposition parties that, in the election before that, had denied the ruling party its two-thirds majority in Parliament.
In terms of seats it was almost a clean sweep for Barisan Nasional as the opposition managed to win only 19 out of the 144 seats contested. Something must be wrong with the system when the opposition won only 13% of the seats though 40% of the rakyat voted for them. In this election the voter turnout was only 75.1%. Again, 600,000 people did not come out to vote just like in the two elections before that.
The 1978 general election was not any better and was almost a repeat of 1974. Only 75.3% of the voters came out to vote. The ruling party won 57.2% of the votes, but this time their number of seats won dropped to 130. The opposition managed to win 24 seats on the now enlarged total of 154 seats -- a slightly better performance for the opposition.
The 1982 general election was, again, a duplicate of the election before that -- 74.39% voter turnout, 60.54% votes to the ruling party giving them 132 seats, and 22 seats to the opposition, which was almost status quo.
From thereon PAS seemed to be going downhill. The following general election in 1986 was a disaster for PAS when it won only one seat and lost Kelantan to UMNO. Ironically, DAP saw its best ever performance by winning 24 Parliament seats. Barisan Nasional, which got 57.28% of the votes, won 148 seats or 84% out of the total of 177 seats. This was the turning point for both PAS and DAP -- PAS its lowest point and DAP its highest.
One interesting point to note is that the voter turnout in 1986 was the worst in the history of our general elections. Only 69.97% of the voters came out to vote. It was said the low voter turnout was one factor that worked against the opposition. More than 2 million people stayed home in that election.
1990 was the most interesting year. In the general election held that year, the ruling party managed only 53.38% of the votes. Voter turnout was only slightly better at 72.7%. A 'record' 2.2 million people stayed home and did not bother to come out and vote. Considering the ruling party managed only around 3 million votes and the opposition obtained 2.6 million votes (giving the ruling party a mere 400,000 vote majority), the 2.2 million voters who stayed home was quite significant indeed. If 8% more people had come out to vote, and if they had voted for the opposition, the results would have been quite different. Of course, if they had voted for the ruling party instead then it would not have mattered much.
Anyway, DAP lost four seats and managed to retain only 20. PAS & Semangat 46 shared 15 seats between them from a mere one seat the election before that. PBS in Sabah got 14 seats and four independent candidates got in. Out of 180 seats contested, the ruling party still managed to win 127 or 70% of the seats on slightly more than HALF the votes they garnered. Again, this showed, in Malaysian elections, it is SEATS AND NOT VOTES THAT MATTER.
During the 1995 general election, PAS and Semangat 46 got one seat less each and, combined, managed to win only 13 seats. DAP did quite badly at nine seats while PBS got only eight seats this time around. There were nine million registered voters that year but, just like in 1990, more than two million people stayed home. The ruling party garnered 65.2% of the votes and won 162 out of the 192 seats contested giving it 85% of the seats.
In the 1999 general election, Barisan Nasional won 102 or 70.8% of the 144 seats it contested in Peninsular Malaysia. This gave it 4.2% more than what it needed to retain its two-thirds majority in Parliament. With the 46 seats it won in East Malaysia, Barisan Nasional sailed in comfortably with 148 seats, 20 more seats than what was required to maintain its two-thirds majority and 52 more seats than what it need to form the government with a simple majority.
Now, it must be noted that while Barisan Nasional won more than the two-thirds of the seats, it failed to win two-thirds of the votes. Out of a total of about 5.8 million voters in Peninsular Malaysia, Barisan Nasional managed to convince only 3.1 million voters to vote for it while 2.6 million voters voted for the opposition. This came to less than 54% of the total voters who cast their votes -- far short of the two-thirds it needed to legitimately claim that the people support the ruling party.
What is most interesting to note is that only 73% of the voters came out to vote. Perak was the lowest at 66% followed by the Federal Capital at 70%. Why this low turnout?
Thousands of complaints were received that voters who had voted in that same area for the last few elections suddenly found their names missing from the electoral list. Others complained that someone else had voted in their place. When they went to vote they found that their names had been 'cut off' from the register, which means they had already voted. Then there were cases where voters’ names had been transferred to another state so they could not vote as there was no way they could make it across the country in time to vote.
It was estimated that around 80% to 82% of the registered voters would have come out to vote this time around, if they had been allowed to. This would have made it one of the highest ever in Malaysian election history. Many did in fact come out but were sent home disappointed.
If these 7% to 9% had not been denied their right to vote, and if the 680,000 voters who had registered earlier but could not vote were included in the voters’ list, an additional one million people would have voted in the 1999 general election.
According to the Elections Commission, 95% of these 680,000 disenfranchised voters were below the age of 30. The Alternative Front or Barisan Alternatif claimed that more than 70% of these people barred from voting were their supporters. If this were true, then Barisan Nasional would have garnered 3.4 million votes while the opposition would have won 3.2 million. This would have changed the results drastically, probably even giving the opposition an additional 30 to 40 Parliamentary seats. Looking at the wafer-thin wins the Barisan Nasional candidates obtained, this assumption is more than possible.
A couple of years later, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad admitted during the Umno General Assembly that if the 680,000 disenfranchised voters had been allowed to vote, Barisan Nasional would have been kicked out of office.
The opposition officially won 42 of the Parliament seats contested. They claim the number should have been between 70 to 80 if the elections had been free and fair. And all they needed was 65 seats to deny Barisan Nasional its two-thirds majority in Parliament.
Then came the 2004 general election, Abdullah Ahmad Badawi's first general election, and the tide turned yet again in favour of the ruling party. Even with just roughly two-thirds of the votes, Barisan Nasional managed to win 92% of the seats, never before achieved in 50 years of election history. Now, what is 2008 going to look like?
Well, we have eleven previous general elections to look at so take your pick. But whatever it is, take note that:
1) even with 45% of the votes Barisan Nasional will still form the government;
2) they do not need two-thirds of the votes to win two-thirds of the seats;
3) and finally, in 1959 the ruling party garnered 51.8% of the votes, in 1969, 44.9% of the votes, in 1978 (which should have been held in 1979), 57.2% of the votes, in 1990 (they held elections every four years instead of five during this period so that is why there is an 'extra' two years), 53.38% of the votes, and in 1999, 54% of the votes.
Now, what is 2009, the next ten years (which may be 2008 rather than 2009 if they call an early election) going to look like? We have seen a voters' mood swing every ten years, just like we saw an economic downturn. Can we expect a downturn of the ruling party's performance as well?
Most likely. If the Malays and non-Malays unite under a united opposition we can see a 50-50 split in the votes. Of course, Barisan Nasional will still form the government. But it will be without a two-thirds majority and with the loss of a few states.
Kelantan, Terengganu, Kedah and Perlis may fall. Barisan Nasional may lose its majority in Penang, Perak, Selangor and Sabah. And 80 Members of Parliament will sit in the opposition aisle giving Barisan Nasional a mere 64% of the seats, slightly less than the two-thirds it needs to blatantly amend laws such as the recent one that allowed the Prime Minister to extend the tenure of the Chairman of the Elections Commission without seeking the approval of the Agong.
Yes, let us force the opposition to unite. And if they don't then let us boycott the opposition. Let us show them we mean business. As Lim Kit Siang said, “The people are the boss.” So let us show them that we really are the boss by telling them what we want and by rejecting them if they refuse to listen to the boss. We want 80 opposition members in Parliament. And we will get it even if we have to vote against the opposition or by not coming out to vote just to teach the opposition a lesson and to show them that if we can't have it our way then we do not want it any way.
The opposition is arrogant. The opposition has a large ego. They think we need them so they can do what they like. It is time they learned that we do not need them but it is they who need us. Malaysia Today will soon launch a campaign called ONE OPPOSITION OR NO OPPOSITION. The civil society movements and NGOs will soon launch a PEOPLES' DECLARATION or DEKLARASI RAKYAT. If the ruling party accepts this Declaration we shall support them. Whomsoever accepts it we shall support them, never mind which party they are from. It is time we took back the streets. It is time we took back the ballot box. It is time the Wakil Rakyat learnt the meaning of wakil rakyat. It means we are in charge and they are merely our wakil.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
