Is it wrong to have ambition?

Is the position of PM belongs to UMNO? Can I become PM one day? Is it wrong for Anwar Ibrahim to have ambition? Why can't we have PM from political party other than UMNO? For Malaysian sake, I ask that we think conscientiously and rationally. No more despaire but hope for a better Malaysia. I mean why do we have to think that only UMNO politicians can have ambition and make it a crime for others who have the same thoughts?

Unity is a 'dirty' word

The sad thing about this country is we seem to cannot break away with anything about race. We have recently alot of talks about unity among Malays and later we have MCA talks about Chinese unity, we are going no where. I mean aren't we suppose to be talking about National unity? My good friend, Ashvin has a good analysis on this whole unity thing. I am really fed up and you know what, I think UNITY IS A DIRTY WORD, we should not talk about it anymore but should actually do it and practice it in our policies, daily activities, etc. No more Bumiputra vs non Bumiputra, no more lain-lain, no more Muslim Bumiputra vs Muslim non-Bumiputra, no more quota for university, government positions, etc. Let us have unity without talking about unity, unite the people based on hope and love. Can they understand or not..?

Malay Unity or National Unity by Ashvin Raj
I refer to the Sun report where MCA Youth Chief Datuk Liow Tiong Lai was reported to have declared MCA's support for the UMNO-PAS talks. I find it retrogressive for him to state that MCA takes it with an open mind in an effort to unite the Malay community, and even urged the Chinese community to be united in support of MCA. This gives rise to parochial communal thinking and an old narrow mindset of racial politics.As a Malaysian who believes in a social contract which is enshrined in our Federal Constitution and based on the notion that ‘all Malaysians are created equal’, I am indeed puzzled by his above statement. This is because it gives rises to the implication that Malaysians are still divided along ethnic lines and that communal politics continue to dominate the political scene, rather than National Unity in the first place. The idea of Ketuanan Melayu as espoused by UMNO is going bankrupt, as the recent talks between UMNO and PAS seems to indicate they are desperate enough to go to that extent to salvage their waning support among the Malay electorate and to stem the tide of the Anwar factor. I dare say, if not for the losses suffered by UMNO in the recent March 8 Elections, where they lost 5 states to Pakatan Rakyat, UMNO would not have bothered having secret talks with PAS.Datuk Shahrir Abdul Samad’s caution against turning the dialogue into a racial issue completely misses the point. This is about putting national interest first and not party interest. All Malaysians irrespective of their race are stakeholders in the affairs of our nation, and that nation building should not solely belong to any one particular race or religion. Non-Malays are not foreigners in their own land, but that as a multi-racial nation, we should strive to achieve national unity and economic prosperity for all Malaysians, irrespective of their race, religion, status or political beliefs.All Malaysians of rational minds must make a heart-searching reappraisal as to what they conceive to be Malaysia’s destiny. If it is the common hope that our destiny lies in a multi-racial nation, where there is no discrimination on the grounds of race, then the Malaysian dream of ensuring opportunity and security for all will become a reality, as there will indeed be national unity. However, if there is no agreement on this fundamental issue, where we continue to harp on racial unity talks, instead of national unity, then clearly there is no will or determination to build a multi-racial nation, that is based on one common Malaysian dream or identity – Bangsa Malaysia.

‘It’s the economy, stupid’

Helan Ang has a good take on the debate between Anwar and Shabery. The BN government after 50 years of uninterrupted rule is out of touch with the common people. Their policies are outdated and lacking creativity. Throughout the debate Shabery did not utter a single word on how best to help the poor but he did say, "...rakyat cukup makan", which I think is clearly showing their lack of imagination in setting the policy. Anyway, I am also amazed that after 50 years, the BN government is still stuck at aiming to provide enough food for the people, that I think is very low the standard of Governance.

Anwar's got the pulse on petrol
Helen Ang Jul 17, 08 5:19pm
‘Kita bercakap mudah bila kita di luar tetapi hakikat sebenarnya tak semudah yang dapat dihayati kita dalam keadaan sebenarnya dalam negara kita pada hari ini, tetapi percayalah bila saya katakan tadi, dalam kesusahan yang ada sekarang, rakyat cukup makan.’ (It is easy for us to talk when we’re on the outside but the real situation in our country is not as clear-cut; nonetheless believe me when I said earlier that even in their hardship now, people have enough to eat) – Information Minister Ahmad Shabery Cheek in live debate with Anwar Ibrahim on July 15

Sungai Siput MP – Dr Jeyakumar Devaraj of Parti Sosialis Malaysia – posed a question in Parliament recently on household income. Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Amirsham A Aziz responded with these figures: 8.6 percent of Malaysian families earn less than RM1,000 monthly, almost 30 percent earn between RM1,001 and RM2,000, while about 20 percent are in the RM2,001 to RM3,000 income bracket.

Altogether, two out of five Malaysian households have less than 2k a month to live on and feed their families. During the election, PAS presented its ‘Negara Kebajikan’ manifesto while DAP hammered home a simple message: BN equates ‘Barang Naik’. After the election, BN still did not get it. In an April postmortem, the MCA thinktank – Insap, Institute of Strategic Analysis and Policy Research, produced a ‘re-branding’ report which said, ‘What is painfully apparent is that we (BN, Insap CEO and like-minded) have allowed the opposition to dominate the social justice debate during the elections …’

Insap followed up it’s The Sun article by reiterating that populist thinking is not new ‘because such movements have been repeated in history many times over. Just because it happened in Malaysia it does not mean we have to fear it but to challenge the position taken by the opposition’.

Between the social justice positions taken by Pakatan Rakyat and ridiculed by the powers-that-be and their affiliates, the electorate made its preference known on March 8.
The 100 days after

Anwar in Tuesday’s debate asked why the government broke its pre-election promise not to raise oil prices, the drastic hike a heavy burden on Malaysians.

The concern of the man on the street is not really oil barrels tagged at US dollars in the international market; it’s the essentials at the wet market and sundry shop. Our select politicians are punching their calculators to tabulate billions of ringgit but Pak Long in Batu Rakit and Mak Ngah in Gong Badak are eking out their meagre ringgit to stave off inflation.

We heard Petronas CEO Mohd Hassan Marican on July 15, when releasing Petronas’ first quarter financial report, say that the state oil company paid RM67.6 billion the last financial year in taxes, royalties and dividends to the government. Petronas contributed RM52.3 billion to the federal coffers in the previous financial year.

Such staggering sums, I daresay, will be incomprehensible to 60 percent of Malaysians who are unsure how many zeros follow a billion. Anwar throws a rhetorical question: ‘Why don’t we manage our treasury better to ease the suffering of the people?’ But it’s also a straightforward query that’s uppermost in our minds; can the government give a satisfactory reply?

Anwar suggests as solutions a re-look at the IPPs (independent power producers), wiping out corruption and plugging the leakages. Gas subsidies to the power sector are RM14 billion, including RM8 billion to the IPPs, many of which are owned by companies linked to the politically-connected and wealthiest big business families.

Some schools of thought have made out ‘subsidy’ to be a dirty word or outmoded, for instance Insap’s assertion framed thus: ‘We have in existence an old system from a socialist ideology of using price controls and subsidies to ‘deliver to the poor’.

Capitalists have their ideological bias against subsidies as such but nevertheless practice ‘socialism’ for the rich and market discipline for the poor. Hence, I can well appreciate Anwar for saying, ‘What about infrastructure spending – isn’t that a form of subsidy for companies? But we call that ‘incentives’. On the other hand, aid for the people is called ‘subsidies’, which are given a negative connotation.’

Anwar could be referring to the profligacy of Petronas-funded infrastructure including a Petronas hospital - the Prince Court Medical Centre - reportedly price-tagged at RM544 million and other big ticket items as well as prestige projects.

Economic theories can come across as too abstract and not only that, some experts, for example the one who provided Insap’s analysis in The Sun, are happy to clarify ‘the fact that certain terms and expressions (the writer) used cannot be clear to every reader’. Or in other words, it’s the economy but you, dear reader, are too stupid to understand.

Joe Public unclear on jargon are naturally easier persuaded by our personal experiences, which is, having the rug pulled out from under our feet. The government claims it cannot afford the cost of oil subsidy but after the Abdullah administration’s many flip-flops, the excuse stretches our credulity.

Take the question posed to Shabery: ‘In 2006, when there was a price hike, the government said it would improve public transport. Now they are saying that they are going to use the substantial savings for the benefit of the people. Can we believe that?’

Nope. As for Shabery’s ‘believe me, people have enough to eat’; pray tell, eat what? Cake? What I’ve seen in the rural interior is that people have very little.

Penang for its small size could have had a system as good as Singapore if the authorities had been committed to public transport. As an islander, I can testify firsthand that public transport here sucks. Studies have been carried out which confirm that the bus service is terrible.

Anyway, if the government is sincere, why the removal of the monorail with no options offered for improving the transportation sector, despite plentiful suggestions from Penang’s civil society for cheaper, better public transport than the monorail?

The Abdullah administration claims it wants to discourage cars for the sake of environmental conservation; well, while they’re at it, why don’t they sell me the Brooklyn Bridge (or do I mean Petronas Twin Towers...)

What the government takes away with one hand, it throws back piecemeal with the other after the rakyat revolt. An estimated RM660 million is being returned to motorists in the form of the road tax rebate. The government has said it’ll announce another measure tomorrow to mitigate the effects of the fuel hike. Then next month’s Budget will supposedly unveil a ‘new social safety net’, which would include direct assistance for those most affected by the recent price increases.

Yet on Monday, PM Abdullah Ahmad Badawi admitted that the Consumer Price Index did not reflect true prices on the ground and would need to be reviewed.

Earlier, in February and a month before the country went to the polls, Second Finance Minister Nor Mohamed Yakcop said that inflation rate from 2004 to 2007 was 2.5 percent. Can we credit government pronouncements that do not tally with our lived reality?

Just as the 2.5 percent inflation is suspect, so too is the host of figures bandied about. Opposition leader Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail recounts Minister of Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs Shahrir Abdul Samad saying the oil subsidy was RM56 billion, Nor Yakcop saying RM28 billion, and the government’s own 2007 financial report saying RM12 billion. She estimates it to be closer to RM8-10 billion.

Ours is therefore a government short on credibility and long on irresponsibility. They should have controlled petrol prices instead of allowing the ripple effects from the hike to pitch more Malaysians onto the margins of poverty.

If we added the total cost of Abdullah’s slew of firefighting measures to appease an angry public, it might just turn out that the government could have ended up with a healthier balance sheet if only they’d planned properly to begin with.

Whatever one may think of Anwar, he at least showed empathy for the marginalised whose suffering is aggravated by sharp inflation triggered by the decision to reduce oil subsidy.

The Debate

Before we judge which side won the debate, we have to look at their original objective. For Shabery, the objective is to defend Government's move on fuel rise and to win over the so called independents/sceptics. On this, Shabery failed. Those who are sceptical remain sceptical. And I think he didn't even win over Anwar's sceptics. What he did was just repeating what you can read in the mainstream media, nothing new. Whereas Anwar has done a good job in recommending many measures to justify his proposal, regardless of whether you agree or not. And he was very forward looking compared to Shabery, who kept on looking backward into 30/40 years old stories.

And it has just been confirmed, Anwar was arrested today near his house at about 12.55 noon. Another sad day of Malaysia's fragile democracy. I am convinced that Malaysia would be better off without BN.

Are Malaysians the Willing Executioners of Barisan National ? Part 2

Many of my friends may not agree to my previous notion that linked the ordinary Germans during the Nazi period and Malaysians now. Well, at least 49% of the Malaysian voters are a bit more courageous in saying no to BN as what the last election showed, they said. But, there is one group of Malaysian that nobody would disputes if I were to link them to Germans during the Nazi period. They are the mainstream news media.

Joseph Goebbels , the Nazi propagandist would be proud of what they do for the current ruling party. There is a different between news and propaganda to begin with. If you were to report the news as what it is and analyse an event or policy critically, and will not hesitate to review it if the policy is flaw, then I would say that's news. Furthermore, I think media should not take side politically. The people's interest and truth should always come first. But propaganda is different. If the news/reports are always about the ruling party's interest and would not criticize even if it's flaw and would only report views from the ruling party's officials or politicians, then that is propaganda.

Well, in reality there are no independent media. But that is a okay. Look at the developed nation. I don't think they have true independent newspapers. BUT, they have media (especially those private funded) that are free to align themselves with political interest. I repeat, FREE TO ALIGN THEMSELVES WITH POLITICAL INTEREST. They have newspapers who are aligned with Democrats, with Labour, with Republican, with Conservative, with Liberal Democrat, etc., to name a few. When you allow certain media to support certain political ideas, make sure that other media would not be striped off their right to voice out other political ideas. Because, a nation does not make up of only one political idea. There are many competing ideas that compete to win over people's heart and mind so that one day they can also form the Government to implement their ideas. That ought to be a normal process for a normal country.

Are we a normal country? Some people say, we have press freedom. The media are free to report anything. Yes, we have press who are free to report anything and everything that is positive to the ruling regime but report everything and anything that is negative to the opposition. If this is press freedom, then former Soviet was a democracy. The media are always defending their role by saying that they have the duty to report and disseminate the ruling Government's views and policy. That is good. But not copy and paste. Because Government does not belong to only one political party. It does not even belong to political party. One has to know how to differentiate between the two - political party and Government. You are governing on behalf of the citizen and citizen are tax payer. Every eligible tax payer, pays tax to the government, regardless of what ones political leaning. You may have the right to govern, but it's not exclusive. And please don't treat it as if the country is own your property.

On this fact alone, I am convinced that our Malaysian mainstream media is indeed the BN's willing executioner. Believe me, you would not miss anything without reading and watching the mainstream media. If you read and watch daily you would not gain any insight into the policies and events, but would come out even more confused and might think Nazi was right and Mugabe is lovable and that the West is out to invade Malaysia and all BN politicians are saint and all Pakatan politicians are devil's messengers. The mainstream media has a choice to say no but did not want to say it and willingly being used as a tool to continue helping BN in creating the repressive environment that we are in now.

Are Malaysians the Willing Executioners of Barisan National ?

I have been thinking of the notion that are we, ordinary Malaysians, the willing executioners of the current ruling party of Barisan National's policies? I mean, just look at all the oppresive laws that we have been living with - ISA, OSA, Printing Act, University Act, etc, are ordinary Malaysians deaf and blind to all these laws? Or are we, although well informed of its notoriety still voted for BN to rule this country, not for 5 years but for 5 decades??

It's not my intention to draw similarity in between the two - ordinary Germans during the Nazi period and ordinary Malaysian, but after reading the book, I can't help but believe that we the ordinary Malaysians have indeed knowingly and willingly contributed to the continuation of the oppresive laws by voting BN into power for so long. Nazi in Germany could not possibly carrying out the massive killing of the Jews without the help of the ordinary Germans. Goldhagen argued that these executioners were normal human being who had the capacity to disobeyed orders that he/she deemed morally objectionable and yet would not object to the "duty" entrusted by their superior to kill Jews. As a result, 6 million of the Jews were executed during the Nazi period.

Well, there were a lot of explanation that said,

1) The perpetrators were coerced. They had no choice but to follow orders.

2) They were blind followers of orders.

3) The perpetrators were under tremendous social psychological pressure by their comrades to conform.

4) They were just petty bureaucrats or soulless technocrates who persued their self-interest goal.

5) They could not understand what was the real nature of their "work" because the task was so fragmented.

The explanations can be reconceptualized in terms of their accounts of the actors' capacity for volition: The first explanation (namely coercion) says that the killers could not say "no." The second explanation (obedience) and the third (situational pressure) maintain that Germans were psychologically incapable of saying "no." The fourth explanation (self-interest) contends that Germans had sufficient personal incentives to kill in order not to want to say "no." The fifth explanation (bureaucratic myopia) claims that it never even occurred to the perpetrators that they were engaged in an activity that might make them responsible for saying "no."

Goldhagen tells us that on the contrary to these explanations, the executioners knew very well what was expected of them and they in turn willingly carried out the task. The explanations treat them as if they had been people lacking a moral sense, lacking the ability to make decisions and take stances. They do not conceive of the actors as human agents, as people with wills, but as beings moved solely by external forces. They assume and imply that the mass killing of human beings is fundamentally no different from getting them to do any other unwanted or distasteful task. The author concluded that, " Simply put, the perpetrators, having consulted their own convictions and morality and having judged the mass annihilation of Jews to be right, did not want to say "no"."

On the same token, we may ask ourselves these questions:-

1) Are we coerced to vote for BN? Knowing full well what is BN stand for on issue such as social justice, democracy, transparency, human rights, press freedom, etc. Do we left, by the threat of punishment, with no choice but to vote for BN?

2) Do you think we the Malaysian voters are all stupid followers of orders or authority?

3) Are the Malaysian voters under tremendous pressure to conform by their fellow voters to vote for BN?

4) Do you think the voters are all soulless bureaucrates that were force to vote for their sponsor - BN? Or are we free agent that have career of our own, not neccesary have to succumb to the bureaucratic procedure and pressure?

5) Is the task of voting so fragmented that we cannot comprehend what is the BN's stand on social justice? Are we pretending that the fragmentation, if there is any, of the task that we deny the importance of our own contribution and display responsibity and blame onto others?

Looking from this perspective, do we the ordinary Malaysians have a choice or do we just choose a bad leader and then comforting ourselves that we have little choice. Yes, we do have a choice of not supporting the BN regime. The answer to the above questions is a resounding NO. We are free agents that are perfectly capable of morally siding with those who are for good governance. We must remember that our leaders are a reflection of who we are, what we are and what we want to become as a nation (to borrow from Feroz Qureshi, 7 July, Malaysiakini). Let our conscience be clear on this.

What Obama Overcame

What Barack Obama overcame and achieved was truly remakable. And it has inspired countless of people around the world. His achievement makes me feel ashamed of my own country, which still ruled by the race based political party - National Front. America is not the same country that we thought we knew. It does not matter whether Obama would become President this fall, because American people have already made a mark in the world history and it makes Malaysian ruling racist parties looked like ancient monsters waiting to be sent to Muzium for display.

What He Overcame

By Eugene RobinsonFriday, June 6, 2008

A young, black, first-term senator -- a man whose father was from Kenya, whose mother was from Kansas and whose name sounds as if it might have come from the roster of Guantanamo detainees -- has won a marathon of primaries and caucuses to become the presumptive presidential nominee of the Democratic Party. To reach this point, he had to do more than outduel the party's most powerful and resourceful political machine. He also had to defy, and ultimately defeat, 389 years of history.

It was in 1619 that the first Africans were brought in chains to these shores, landing in Jamestown. That first shipment of "servants" did not include any of Obama's ancestors; it's impossible to say whether some distant progenitor of his wife, Michelle, might have been present at that moment of original sin. Ever since -- through the War of Independence, the abolitionist movement, the Civil War, Reconstruction, Jim Crow, the great migration to Northern cities and the civil rights struggle -- race has been one of the great themes running through our nation's history.

I'm old enough to remember when Americans with skin the color of mine and Obama's had to fight -- and die -- for the right to participate as equals in the life of the nation we helped build. Watching Obama give his speech Tuesday night marking the end of the primary season and the beginning of the general election campaign, I thought back to a time when brave men and women, both black and white, put their lives on the line to ensure that African Americans had the right to vote, let alone run for office -- a time when Democrats in my home state of South Carolina were Dixiecrats, and when the notion that the Democratic Party would someday nominate a black man for president was utterly unimaginable.


Tiresome, isn't it? All this recounting of unpleasant history, I mean. Wouldn't it be great if we could all just move on? Bear with me, though, because this is how we get to the point where, as Obama's young supporters like to chant, "race doesn't matter." No one will be happier than I when we reach that promised land, and we've come so far that at times we can see it, just over the next hill. But we aren't there yet.

This is a passage from an e-mail I received in April from an Obama volunteer in Pennsylvania: "We've been called 'N-lovers,' Obama's been called the 'Anti-Christ,' our signs have been burned in the streets during a parade, our volunteers have been harassed physically, or with racial slurs -- it's been unreal."

Yet the amazing thing isn't that there were instances of overt, old-style racism during this campaign, it's that there were so few. The amazing thing is that so many Americans have been willing to accept -- or, indeed, reject -- Obama based on his qualifications and his ideas, not on his race. I'll never forget visiting Iowa in December and witnessing all-white crowds file into high school gymnasiums to take the measure of a black man -- and, ultimately, decide that he was someone who expressed their hopes and dreams.

When historians and political scientists write books about this extraordinary campaign season, surely they will seek to assess what impact Obama's race had on his prospects. But they will also devote volumes to exploring how he put together a fundraising apparatus that generated undreamed-of amounts of cash, and how his organization drew so many new voters into the process, and how his young supporters made use of social-networking Web sites such as Facebook and MySpace, and how his delegate-counting team managed to consistently outthink and outhustle everyone else. It will be written that Obama's nomination victory owes as much to adroit management as it does to stirring inspiration.

Will Americans take the final step and elect Obama as president? Should they? Is this first-term senator up to the job?

We'll find out soon enough. At the moment, to tell the truth, I don't care. Whether Obama wins or loses, history has been made this year. Maybe there's more to come, maybe not; but already -- after 389 long years -- it's safe to say that this nation will never be the same.

The Conscience of a Malaysian

Ok! Let's not pretend that the title of this blog is original. It's not. Because if you have read Paul Krugman's book - The Conscience of a Liberal, you would know it's from him, the one great Economist who first predicted the Asian Economic Crisis that took place in the 90's. Well I like him simply because "(he is) a lone voice, telling things as they are and debunking Washington policies that are neither compassionate nor conservative." This is what Paul Samuelson description of him.

For Krugman the aim is "to create institutions that will support and sustain a decent society." Yes, creating institutions that support and sustain a decent society. This is my quest. Even though I am lonely but have no fear, tell things as they are and debunking policies that are neither compassionate nor decent. The list goes on and on.

Unlike America, Malaysia does not have a great democratic tradition to start with. I don't feel particularly proud of my Father of Independent. I sometime wonder why our Malaysia soil does not give birth to someone great like Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Benjamin Franklin, Abraham Lincoln, Kennedy, Martin Luther King, etc. Our Malaysian history in particular the political one was all very racist and still is. Well you may say America was once supported slavery. But they were many who fought for emancipation of slavery. And above it all slavery was never written down in their Constitution. That is why many fought for freedom and won because the source of the nation's law is about freedom and respect for human rights. And above it all it's the nation's conscience that won the battle. That deep down in their heart they knew it was morally wrong to continue the rotten institution.

In short for me at least, American history is very inspirational. They have the first President who turned down a thrid term, and even an invitation to become America's emperor. They have presidents who talk about separation of power and about human rights. Well they are not perfect, but at least they recognise this fact and find ways to improve it.

But can we say our nation's history is inspirational? What I see is political propoganda. I studied UMNO, MCA, MIC in the first part of our nation's history, for me they are all racist parties who were and are not there to fight for independence but was given the right on the silver platter. And we have Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tan Cheng Lock and some other politicians. They were hardly inspirational. They merely inherited the right to govern Malaya from the British. They inherited also ISA, Emergency Ordinance, and their racist parties were allowed to flourish. Over the years, they have "improved" the oppressive laws, independent of judiciary in doubts, shunning human rights, racial discrimination flourishing and is allowed in the name of racial equality, we have the press who pretend that we have press freedom and engage in bias reporting on the daily basis, we have political party who rules perpetually as a result of all of these.

Well you could say that we cannot follow America's example because as a nation, Malaysia is still young. We need time, etc. This is bullshit. We have to start now if our conscience is clear that our nation has to become great not merely because of physical development. The physical development is merely play thing of modernity. I would say it's not suppose to be our soul, a nation's soul. Rule of law, respect for human rights, press freedom, independent of judiciary, equality should be our nation's soul. Let our conscience be clear on this.