"The Writing on the Wall" is managed by a group of friends who believe in social justice, truth, equality and fairness. We also welcome people to write in this Blog for the change of better society.
KS Chong is an insignificant, low-profile retiree. Here he is with a group of friends who are not supporters of any group of people or any political party. They are merely supporters of truth.
Comparison is odious they say, but odious or not we all need some benchmarks to assess ourselves – where we have been, where we are and where we are going.
In this context I would like to compare Ipoh (Perak) with Penang. I know both well – Ipoh my home town and Penang where I have been living the past five years or more.
Lately one hears of so many good things that Penang has embarked on viz the “no plastic bags Tuesday” where supermarkets have partnered city hall to ban the use of plastic bags for one day a week. This is of course the precursor to a total ban on the cursed plastic bags which clog drains, pollute the rivers and are washed up by the waves. This is a bold step that MPPP has taken and it is welcomed by Penang residents.
Penang City Hall has also been very strict regarding the development of hillsides. Many developments have had stop-work orders imposed on them for failing to keep to the rules. This is a recent thing - the enforcement of the rules which the previous government had neglected to do.
And most recently the Penang Government has decided to have an independent panel which will be responsible for appointing local councilors – while they work on getting the relevant legislations for local government elections passed.
These are just three areas which come to mind where Penang seem to be streets ahead of Ipoh (Perak). It would seem that Penangites are a more enlightened lot than Ipohites – or at least the Penang authorities are.
Why can’t Ipoh also have one plastic- bags-free day a week, to begin with. To complement it why can’t MBI embark on a programme of educating Ipohites to recycle and reduce the amount of rubbish? Why not provide compost bins at cost to residents so that much of our rubbish can be turned into fertilizers?
And what about having a similar panel of ‘eminent persons’ to appoint our local councilors? There’s nothing wrong with copying good ideas if we can’t come up with the ideas ourselves.
But the difference between Penang and Ipoh goes deeper than just the different state governments or local authorities. It is fair to say though, even when Perak was run by PR they had no idea of what they were doing most of the time. At least that’s the impression we get – the Larut Hills cable car idea would have been a disaster had it been executed; the bus terminal controversy, the continued blasting of our karst system (without seriously considering alternative methods which are environmentally less damaging). So this is not a case of BN or PR governments; it’s not just politics.
I submit that it is the mentality of Penangites that make Penang so much more enlightened a city than Ipoh. This shows even in the private sector and ngos of the two states. The Penang Heritage Trust has worked assiduously to conserve George Town’s heritage – even before the city was granted UNESCO heritage status. The PHT continues to work hard in encouraging sensitive developments of heritage buildings and sites. The Penang Heritage market which opens every last Sunday of the month went through bad times but because of the perseverance and hard work of the people who run it, it is a success.
The Penang Jazz Festival is now an established event in the tourism calender. It was private money and effort that started it; and this year will be the sixth festival. It was the effort and vision of a few Penangites which kept it going even when they lost money in the first and second year. Today Penang not only has the Jazz Festival but also the World Music Festival – an idea they borrowed from Sarawak’s world famous Rainforest Music Festival.
And what about Art? Besides the State Art Gallery (and Museum), there must be at least eight private galleries which are constantly putting on new shows. Actors have a permanent place of their own in Green Hall where plays are put on for the public.
All these are private efforts by Penangites. It’s not just a matter of the size of the place – KL is much bigger but has no Jazz Festival and I think the jazz scene in Penang is just as lively (and more affordable). Miri is even smaller than Ipoh but it has a Jazz Festival. Kuching has the Rainforest Festival. So it’s not always size – it’s the mentality of the people and the government.
Ipohites don’t seem to be able to do things like the above for themselves – even if on a more modest scale. We don’t even have a State Art Gallery – sad to say Perak artists often have to exhibit in Penang (or KL) because they have no venue in Ipoh.
The quality of life of a city depends so much on what it has to offer its residents – not just in terms of housing, transport etc but also in leisure activities and culture.
The sad part of it is not that there are no enlightened Ipohites; the sad part is that many of them have cracked their heads banging against the brick wall that is the Perak Government. And in many cases, the rich towkays who don’t give a fig about anything that does not bring a monetary return. One home grown Ipoh actor (who has since ‘escaped’ to KL) related how he tried to convince someone with money to help promote some sort of actors’ studio in Ipoh only to be asked what is the bottom line? And we are not talking about people who can’t spare the money. How many Ipoh talents have left town – compared to those Penangites who remain in Penang?
Ipoh is still a beautiful city (despite everything) – its environment is more beautiful than Penang’s. It always gives me a lift when I return and see the hills all around. And inspite of all the publicity about Penang food, I can say that Ipoh food is still the best (and most affordable). But is that enough? Provincial charms can only take us so far but after a while it becomes boring (that even our young ones leave). Unless we change our mentality (both govt and citizens) we will forever remain a backwater.
It helps that Penang is more cosmopolitan and more exposed but that is only one part of it. On the other hand we Ipohites seem to revel in our ‘Ipoh mali’ country bumpkin image. Sad to say, compared to Penang, Ipoh seems to have stagnated in a time warp of the sixties and seventies and any changes that have occurred seem to have been for the worse (there seems to be more kitsch around for a start). Our excuse when things are not done is “it won’t work in Ipoh.” And why not, pray tell? Are Ipohites so inferior to Penangites? It’s as if we are hog bound to our mining roots – of coolies and roughnecks. The hard working, hard-living stock with no appreciation of the nicer things in life – surely we have gone beyond just eking out a living.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
There are not Angels in Politics – Only the lesser of two Devils.
Yin Ee Kiong
Columnist Terence Fernandez of the Sun asked tongue in cheek if it were not better that we stick with the devil we know. He was of course referring to the BN government.
Yes, the PR parties (principally DAP) lied to us about bringing back local government elections.
Yes, they were two-faced about certain issues viz building on hill slopes – criticising the BN government for allowing it when in Opposition but in power they were prepared to play footsie with the developers – they apparently stopped when their dialogue with the developers was exposed.
Yes, the PR government was perceived to be arrogant (espy the DAP Ex-Cos). They mishandled their own members thus providing an opening to BN to grab power.
Yes, there’s this expose of the Alam Flora scandal where the PR government in Selangor has allegedly panned for bribes to fund their parties.
These are quite impressive ‘achievements’ in such a short time.
Yet these are nothing compared to BN’s record on graft, human rights abuse, gross inefficiency and negligence.
It has been estimated that BN has cost the country 100 billion ringgit through its inefficiencies or outright corruption.
1.Bank Bumiputra, Perwaja Steel, PKFZ comes easily to mind.
2.What about ‘scams’ like the ‘security seals’ – holograms which even France (the source of these stickers) do not use because they do not give the security required to outsmart counterfeiters. Things like that are just a means to make money for some cronies.
3. What about the uneven contract on the toll roads, how much longer have we to pay to fatten their cronies?
4. The gross mismanagement of the education loans fund where millions have been lost because borrowers would not repay their loans. It’s only lately that the government is trying to recover their money.
5. Operation Lalang – where opposition politicians and activists were jailed under the ISA.
6. Turning the country into a Semi-Police State – where peaceful protests are not allowed and where wearing black or holding candlelit vigils is an offence.
Yet the long arm of the law is not applied unbiasly – BN (espy UMNO) can get away with murder so to speak.
7. The AP Licence scandal where those with connections become instant billionaires on the basis of being given large numbers of APs – and not because of their business acumen.
8. The scandal of giving away RM400 million in commission to a crony for the purchase of submarines . Apparently the BN government sees no conflict of interest when a close confidante of the Minister of Defence was paid this commission.
9. The scandal of a BN Menteri Besar taking his family on a tour of the various theme parks (Disney Land etc) on taxpayers’ money.
10. The suspicion on the Prime Minister’s involvement in the murder of a Mongolian woman which won’t go away. Even as recent as his visit to China Najib was asked about it. Yet he has done little to clear himself. If he were a private individual then one can consider a private affair – however much suspicion there may be – but as the Prime Minister of our country he has a duty not to tarnish the reputation of the country by the suspicions that follow him around.
One can go on and on about the ‘sins’ of BN but the above examples should suffice.
Malaysians must realise that the one constant about most politicians is their dishonesty and hypocrisy. I say ‘most’ and not ‘all’ because we used to have good, honest politicians like Hussein Onn, Tun Dr Ismail and Dr Tan Chee Khoon. Alas it would seem that they are an extinct specie.
I cannot name one politician today that I would confidently buy a second hand car from.
Dr Mahathir himself has admitted to as much when he said in his blog that politicians do not always tell the truth.
“It’s all very well for you sitting in your armchair to criticise” they would protest, “but do you know the pressure I am under?”
If they have not spoken out against the corruption and human rights abuse, etc of their party it is because of the pressures of party loyalty and discipline. What about their loyalty to joe-public? Well joe-public only matters once in five years. What about their loyalty to the truth – to themselves?
What happened to good old fashion moral courage which keeps us from compromising our principles? Apparently politicians discard them the minute they get elected.
Naturally one should not expect any self-respecting politician to take all this lying down.
Don’t just criticise, join in they say. Get into politics. The implication is that if you are not prepared to get dirty don’t criticise. If you can’t do better; ‘shut up’.
Using the same argument, if you can’t cook you cannot comment on the food, or if you have not written a book you cannot be a book critic. This is the kind of argument one would expect from politicians – catchy but hollow.
Anyone who aspires to public office or who put his work into the public domain is open to criticism. Anyone who is paid by the taxpayers should expect criticisms by their paymasters.
When all else fails, politicians are fond of saying History will vindicate me. So we have to wait till history is written before we know if what is done has been for the better? In the meantime, we should not criticise them. Hitler, Pol Pot, Pinochet used the same script I bet. How many knaves and fools has history vindicated I wonder.
Ordinary people are tired of hearing half- truths and downright lies or else truths with a spin to it which makes it wobble so much it confuses.
We want relief from incessant obfuscations and prevarications.
Just tell us the truth and let us decide what is good for ourselves. (And oh yes that’s another thing, politicians always know what is best for us!).
Yet knowing all this, there are still people who either because of their naivety or because they are so angry with BN that they will unreservedly throw in their lot with PR. Some to the extent of giving a few hundred thousand dollars to the Opposition. Of course millions must have been given to BN over fifty one years in power.
There are no angels in politics – it’s a case of the lesser of two evils. At this point, BN is definitely the bigger devil.
Malaysians must learn to take care of themselves – never trusting one or the other party completely. The best insurance we can have is to support ngos which are non-party political. We have all to become ‘activists’ in our own way and within our capacity – to believe in the Power of One. Every individual can make a difference. We can protest against policies which do not benefit us, not just at the polls but in our daily dealings e.g. by writing to the press, speaking to our state assemblymen and MPs (they are paid by you and therefore are your employees in a manner of speaking). We must not allow them to tell us what is good for us – let us tell them what we want and what we think is good for us! And for those who have a lot of money to give to political parties – it is better if they give their money to ngos – at least you know what they stand for.
MCA will pay and they will pay dearly Richard Teo | Jun 15, 09 4:49pm
One of life's greatest irony is that there are always signs to tell you whether you are on the right path or not. The only problem is whether one is prepared to grasp the telltale signs and make the change. MCPX
Ong Tee Keat's blog seeking an opinion poll whether the party should pull out of the Barisan Nasional confirmed what has already been public knowledge in that the Chinese have had enough of Umno and BN.
According to the poll, 1,908 (75.7%) respondents wanted the party to pull out of the coalition whilst 612 said ‘no'.
Now that the survey has indicated the majority wish of the Chinese people, the only question that remains is what would the leadership of MCA decide to do?
With four ministerial posts and none deputy ministers posts at stake, can the MCA leaders sacrifice their own positions and interest for once and look at the larger interest of the Chinese community?
Not an easy decision when one is comfortably ensconced in a minister's post with all the perks and privileges accorded to it.
Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak is quite confident that MCA will not abandon the BN ship because history has always shown that personal interest and position have always remained paramount for the MCA leadership.
It is not easy to make the change when so much reward and positions are at stake. Past experience has also shown that MCA leaders have never paid any premium to the larger interest of the Chinese community.
As long as MCA leaders are adequately rewarded with titles and positions, Umno can always ride roughshod over MCA and Chinese interests.
But this time the writing is on the wall. The demise of MCA, MIC, Gerakan and most, if not all, of the BN component parties will be inevitable when the 13th general election takes place four years from now.
Because of self-interest, it is unlikely that any of these BN leaders will change their present allegiance to BN or to Umno. Even if they change now, there is no guarantee that that the people will embrace them immediately.
Fifty years of their loyalty to the BN philosophy is unlikely to change overnight. More specifically, the question would be what's in it for MCA? MCA surely would not make the change and cast away their loyalty to BN without getting anything in return.
In fact, the signs were already there with the March 8, 2008 election. All the 15 Parliament seats that MCA won were in areas with a Malay majority. That means MCA MPs won not with Chinese support but with Malay support.
If that is not a sign that the Chinese have not already abandoned MCA, then I dont know what other sign you need to have.
By the next election, when Malay support is given to PKR and PAS, MCA candidates will be left floundering and will be annihilated politically. That same logic applies to Gerakan and MIC candidates who will be looking for Malay support in areas contested by their members.
The survey done in Ong Tee Keat's blog merely serves to confirm that the days MCA continues to be part of the government in BN are numbered.
Postcards from a Foreign Country consists of ten stories told with great humour by a master craftsman . If read by a Malaysian youth of 20 at this turbulent time, it would indeed be very foreign as suggested by the title of this book. The stories happened at a time when there was no distinction of race and religion. There was nothing to separate them as Bumiputras and non-bumiputras. People lived in harmony, respecting one another's religion and way of life and they were unpolluted and happy. It was at this time when we achieved independence. Things began to change. The British were leaving..., they were selling their properties to the locals...The taste of sudden change of political power. This was the beginning of a time of change in Crony Capitalism...many people made a lot of money. Now the culture has changed, everything has changed, the so-called leaders are unscrupulous. The life of the stories told in Yin Ee Kiong's Postcards from a Foreign Country was no longer in existence. This is the book that should be read by all Malaysians. The readers will enjoy reading the stories that could not be read nowadays. The stories told remind us "those were the days" that we are still fond of.
Postcards From a Foreign Country by Yin
ISBN: 9780975164655 Price: RM30.00 Fiction - East West PublishingPtyLtd (Australia) Paperback, 235pp Sold at all MPH & Popular Book Stores
“The past is a foreign country. They do things differently there.” Hartley.
Remarks by S.H.Lim These sepia vignettes tell of a time when life was less complicated. It was a time of greater racial mixing. And by and large the different races got on well together. It was also a time when people spoke more openly and honestly – exposing their bigotry and prejudices. Racial taunts were given and taken with good humour and never in earnest. “Political Correctness” was not a term to hide behind. It was a term that had not yet been coined.
Despite all this the communities survived the rough and tumble of living with people of different backgrounds, race and religion and came out the better for it.
Nevertheless, it was a time of change. The old order made way for the new. The British were on their way out; the country had just gained independence. In the process, the lives of many were affected. The colonisers and the colonised were forced to come to terms with their new relationship. Similarly the citizens of this new country had to adjust to the new reality and their relationship with each other.
“Postcards . . .” allows us a peek into the lives and times of both the expatriates and locals living during that time and their relationship with each other. It tells of the social mores and restrictions, prejudices and values of a time past when things were done differently. In many ways it was a foreign country.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Thank you very much. Good afternoon. I am honored to be in the timeless city of Cairo, and to be hosted by two remarkable institutions. For over a thousand years, Al-Azhar has stood as a beacon of Islamic learning; and for over a century, Cairo University has been a source of Egypt's advancement. And together, you represent the harmony between tradition and progress. I'm grateful for your hospitality, and the hospitality of the people of Egypt. And I'm also proud to carry with me the goodwill of the American people, and a greeting of peace from Muslim communities in my country: Assalaamu alaykum. (Applause.)
We meet at a time of great tension between the United States and Muslims around the world -- tension rooted in historical forces that go beyond any current policy debate. The relationship between Islam and the West includes centuries of coexistence and cooperation, but also conflict and religious wars. More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations. Moreover, the sweeping change brought by modernity and globalization led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam.
Violent extremists have exploited these tensions in a small but potent minority of Muslims. The attacks of September 11, 2001 and the continued efforts of these extremists to engage in violence against civilians has led some in my country to view Islam as inevitably hostile not only to America and Western countries, but also to human rights. All this has bred more fear and more mistrust.
So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, those who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity. And this cycle of suspicion and discord must end.
I've come here to Cairo to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based on mutual interest and mutual respect, and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles -- principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.
I do so recognizing that change cannot happen overnight. I know there's been a lot of publicity about this speech, but no single speech can eradicate years of mistrust, nor can I answer in the time that I have this afternoon all the complex questions that brought us to this point. But I am convinced that in order to move forward, we must say openly to each other the things we hold in our hearts and that too often are said only behind closed doors. There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other; to learn from each other; to respect one another; and to seek common ground. As the Holy Koran tells us, "Be conscious of God and speak always the truth." (Applause.) That is what I will try to do today -- to speak the truth as best I can, humbled by the task before us, and firm in my belief that the interests we share as human beings are far more powerful than the forces that drive us apart.
Now part of this conviction is rooted in my own experience. I'm a Christian, but my father came from a Kenyan family that includes generations of Muslims. As a boy, I spent several years in Indonesia and heard the call of the azaan at the break of dawn and at the fall of dusk. As a young man, I worked in Chicago communities where many found dignity and peace in their Muslim faith.
As a student of history, I also know civilization's debt to Islam. It was Islam -- at places like Al-Azhar -- that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe's Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities -- (applause) -- it was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality. (Applause.)
I also know that Islam has always been a part of America's story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second President, John Adams, wrote, "The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims." And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States. They have fought in our wars, they have served in our government, they have stood for civil rights, they have started businesses, they have taught at our universities, they've excelled in our sports arenas, they've won Nobel Prizes, built our tallest building, and lit the Olympic Torch. And when the first Muslim American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers -- Thomas Jefferson -- kept in his personal library. (Applause.)
So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn't. And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear. (Applause.)
But that same principle must apply to Muslim perceptions of America. (Applause.) Just as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire. The United States has been one of the greatest sources of progress that the world has ever known. We were born out of revolution against an empire. We were founded upon the ideal that all are created equal, and we have shed blood and struggled for centuries to give meaning to those words -- within our borders, and around the world. We are shaped by every culture, drawn from every end of the Earth, and dedicated to a simple concept: E pluribus unum -- "Out of many, one."
Now, much has been made of the fact that an African American with the name Barack Hussein Obama could be elected President. (Applause.) But my personal story is not so unique. The dream of opportunity for all people has not come true for everyone in America, but its promise exists for all who come to our shores -- and that includes nearly 7 million American Muslims in our country today who, by the way, enjoy incomes and educational levels that are higher than the American average. (Applause.)
Moreover, freedom in America is indivisible from the freedom to practice one's religion. That is why there is a mosque in every state in our union, and over 1,200 mosques within our borders. That's why the United States government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab and to punish those who would deny it. (Applause.)
So let there be no doubt: Islam is a part of America. And I believe that America holds within her the truth that regardless of race, religion, or station in life, all of us share common aspirations -- to live in peace and security; to get an education and to work with dignity; to love our families, our communities, and our God. These things we share. This is the hope of all humanity.
Of course, recognizing our common humanity is only the beginning of our task. Words alone cannot meet the needs of our people. These needs will be met only if we act boldly in the years ahead; and if we understand that the challenges we face are shared, and our failure to meet them will hurt us all.
For we have learned from recent experience that when a financial system weakens in one country, prosperity is hurt everywhere. When a new flu infects one human being, all are at risk. When one nation pursues a nuclear weapon, the risk of nuclear attack rises for all nations. When violent extremists operate in one stretch of mountains, people are endangered across an ocean. When innocents in Bosnia and Darfur are slaughtered, that is a stain on our collective conscience. (Applause.) That is what it means to share this world in the 21st century. That is the responsibility we have to one another as human beings.
And this is a difficult responsibility to embrace. For human history has often been a record of nations and tribes -- and, yes, religions -- subjugating one another in pursuit of their own interests. Yet in this new age, such attitudes are self-defeating. Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. So whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners to it. Our problems must be dealt with through partnership; our progress must be shared. (Applause.)
Now, that does not mean we should ignore sources of tension. Indeed, it suggests the opposite: We must face these tensions squarely. And so in that spirit, let me speak as clearly and as plainly as I can about some specific issues that I believe we must finally confront together.
The first issue that we have to confront is violent extremism in all of its forms.
In Ankara, I made clear that America is not -- and never will be -- at war with Islam. (Applause.) We will, however, relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security -- because we reject the same thing that people of all faiths reject: the killing of innocent men, women, and children. And it is my first duty as President to protect the American people.
The situation in Afghanistan demonstrates America's goals, and our need to work together. Over seven years ago, the United States pursued al Qaeda and the Taliban with broad international support. We did not go by choice; we went because of necessity. I'm aware that there's still some who would question or even justify the events of 9/11. But let us be clear: Al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 people on that day. The victims were innocent men, women and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody. And yet al Qaeda chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach. These are not opinions to be debated; these are facts to be dealt with.
Now, make no mistake: We do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan. We see no military -- we seek no military bases there. It is agonizing for America to lose our young men and women. It is costly and politically difficult to continue this conflict. We would gladly bring every single one of our troops home if we could be confident that there were not violent extremists in Afghanistan and now Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can. But that is not yet the case.
And that's why we're partnering with a coalition of 46 countries. And despite the costs involved, America's commitment will not weaken. Indeed, none of us should tolerate these extremists. They have killed in many countries. They have killed people of different faiths -- but more than any other, they have killed Muslims. Their actions are irreconcilable with the rights of human beings, the progress of nations, and with Islam. The Holy Koran teaches that whoever kills an innocent is as -- it is as if he has killed all mankind. (Applause.) And the Holy Koran also says whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind. (Applause.) The enduring faith of over a billion people is so much bigger than the narrow hatred of a few. Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism -- it is an important part of promoting peace.
Now, we also know that military power alone is not going to solve the problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan. That's why we plan to invest $1.5 billion each year over the next five years to partner with Pakistanis to build schools and hospitals, roads and businesses, and hundreds of millions to help those who've been displaced. That's why we are providing more than $2.8 billion to help Afghans develop their economy and deliver services that people depend on.
Let me also address the issue of Iraq. Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world. Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible. (Applause.) Indeed, we can recall the words of Thomas Jefferson, who said: "I hope that our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us that the less we use our power the greater it will be."
Today, America has a dual responsibility: to help Iraq forge a better future -- and to leave Iraq to Iraqis. And I have made it clear to the Iraqi people -- (applause) -- I have made it clear to the Iraqi people that we pursue no bases, and no claim on their territory or resources. Iraq's sovereignty is its own. And that's why I ordered the removal of our combat brigades by next August. That is why we will honor our agreement with Iraq's democratically elected government to remove combat troops from Iraqi cities by July, and to remove all of our troops from Iraq by 2012. (Applause.) We will help Iraq train its security forces and develop its economy. But we will support a secure and united Iraq as a partner, and never as a patron.
And finally, just as America can never tolerate violence by extremists, we must never alter or forget our principles. Nine-eleven was an enormous trauma to our country. The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable, but in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our traditions and our ideals. We are taking concrete actions to change course. I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States, and I have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year. (Applause.)
So America will defend itself, respectful of the sovereignty of nations and the rule of law. And we will do so in partnership with Muslim communities which are also threatened. The sooner the extremists are isolated and unwelcome in Muslim communities, the sooner we will all be safer.
The second major source of tension that we need to discuss is the situation between Israelis, Palestinians and the Arab world.
America's strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable. It is based upon cultural and historical ties, and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.
Around the world, the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries, and anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust. Tomorrow, I will visit Buchenwald, which was part of a network of camps where Jews were enslaved, tortured, shot and gassed to death by the Third Reich. Six million Jews were killed -- more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless, it is ignorant, and it is hateful. Threatening Israel with destruction -- or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews -- is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve.
On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people -- Muslims and Christians -- have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than 60 years they've endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations -- large and small -- that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: The situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. And America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own. (Applause.)
For decades then, there has been a stalemate: two peoples with legitimate aspirations, each with a painful history that makes compromise elusive. It's easy to point fingers -- for Palestinians to point to the displacement brought about by Israel's founding, and for Israelis to point to the constant hostility and attacks throughout its history from within its borders as well as beyond. But if we see this conflict only from one side or the other, then we will be blind to the truth: The only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security. (Applause.)
That is in Israel's interest, Palestine's interest, America's interest, and the world's interest. And that is why I intend to personally pursue this outcome with all the patience and dedication that the task requires. (Applause.) The obligations -- the obligations that the parties have agreed to under the road map are clear. For peace to come, it is time for them -- and all of us -- to live up to our responsibilities.
Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and it does not succeed. For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America's founding. This same story can be told by people from South Africa to South Asia; from Eastern Europe to Indonesia. It's a story with a simple truth: that violence is a dead end. It is a sign neither of courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That's not how moral authority is claimed; that's how it is surrendered.
Now is the time for Palestinians to focus on what they can build. The Palestinian Authority must develop its capacity to govern, with institutions that serve the needs of its people. Hamas does have support among some Palestinians, but they also have to recognize they have responsibilities. To play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, to unify the Palestinian people, Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, recognize Israel's right to exist.
At the same time, Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel's right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine's. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. (Applause.) This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop. (Applause.)
And Israel must also live up to its obligation to ensure that Palestinians can live and work and develop their society. Just as it devastates Palestinian families, the continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza does not serve Israel's security; neither does the continuing lack of opportunity in the West Bank. Progress in the daily lives of the Palestinian people must be a critical part of a road to peace, and Israel must take concrete steps to enable such progress.
And finally, the Arab states must recognize that the Arab Peace Initiative was an important beginning, but not the end of their responsibilities. The Arab-Israeli conflict should no longer be used to distract the people of Arab nations from other problems. Instead, it must be a cause for action to help the Palestinian people develop the institutions that will sustain their state, to recognize Israel's legitimacy, and to choose progress over a self-defeating focus on the past.
America will align our policies with those who pursue peace, and we will say in public what we say in private to Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs. (Applause.) We cannot impose peace. But privately, many Muslims recognize that Israel will not go away. Likewise, many Israelis recognize the need for a Palestinian state. It is time for us to act on what everyone knows to be true.
Too many tears have been shed. Too much blood has been shed. All of us have a responsibility to work for the day when the mothers of Israelis and Palestinians can see their children grow up without fear; when the Holy Land of the three great faiths is the place of peace that God intended it to be; when Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as in the story of Isra -- (applause) -- as in the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed, peace be upon them, joined in prayer. (Applause.)
The third source of tension is our shared interest in the rights and responsibilities of nations on nuclear weapons.
This issue has been a source of tension between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran. For many years, Iran has defined itself in part by its opposition to my country, and there is in fact a tumultuous history between us. In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government. Since the Islamic Revolution, Iran has played a role in acts of hostage-taking and violence against U.S. troops and civilians. This history is well known. Rather than remain trapped in the past, I've made it clear to Iran's leaders and people that my country is prepared to move forward. The question now is not what Iran is against, but rather what future it wants to build.
I recognize it will be hard to overcome decades of mistrust, but we will proceed with courage, rectitude, and resolve. There will be many issues to discuss between our two countries, and we are willing to move forward without preconditions on the basis of mutual respect. But it is clear to all concerned that when it comes to nuclear weapons, we have reached a decisive point. This is not simply about America's interests. It's about preventing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that could lead this region and the world down a hugely dangerous path.
I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not. No single nation should pick and choose which nation holds nuclear weapons. And that's why I strongly reaffirmed America's commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons. (Applause.) And any nation -- including Iran -- should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That commitment is at the core of the treaty, and it must be kept for all who fully abide by it. And I'm hopeful that all countries in the region can share in this goal.
The fourth issue that I will address is democracy. (Applause.)
I know -- I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years, and much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear: No system of government can or should be imposed by one nation by any other.
That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people. Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people. America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election. But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. These are not just American ideas; they are human rights. And that is why we will support them everywhere. (Applause.)
Now, there is no straight line to realize this promise. But this much is clear: Governments that protect these rights are ultimately more stable, successful and secure. Suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard around the world, even if we disagree with them. And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments -- provided they govern with respect for all their people.
This last point is important because there are some who advocate for democracy only when they're out of power; once in power, they are ruthless in suppressing the rights of others. (Applause.) So no matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who would hold power: You must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party. Without these ingredients, elections alone do not make true democracy.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Barack Obama, we love you!
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Thank you. (Applause.) The fifth issue that we must address together is religious freedom.
Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance. We see it in the history of Andalusia and Cordoba during the Inquisition. I saw it firsthand as a child in Indonesia, where devout Christians worshiped freely in an overwhelmingly Muslim country. That is the spirit we need today. People in every country should be free to choose and live their faith based upon the persuasion of the mind and the heart and the soul. This tolerance is essential for religion to thrive, but it's being challenged in many different ways.
Among some Muslims, there's a disturbing tendency to measure one's own faith by the rejection of somebody else's faith. The richness of religious diversity must be upheld -- whether it is for Maronites in Lebanon or the Copts in Egypt. (Applause.) And if we are being honest, fault lines must be closed among Muslims, as well, as the divisions between Sunni and Shia have led to tragic violence, particularly in Iraq.
Freedom of religion is central to the ability of peoples to live together. We must always examine the ways in which we protect it. For instance, in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation. That's why I'm committed to working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat.
Likewise, it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit -- for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear. We can't disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretence of liberalism.
In fact, faith should bring us together. And that's why we're forging service projects in America to bring together Christians, Muslims, and Jews. That's why we welcome efforts like Saudi Arabian King Abdullah's interfaith dialogue and Turkey's leadership in the Alliance of Civilizations. Around the world, we can turn dialogue into interfaith service, so bridges between peoples lead to action -- whether it is combating malaria in Africa, or providing relief after a natural disaster.
The sixth issue -- the sixth issue that I want to address is women's rights. (Applause.) I know –- I know -- and you can tell from this audience, that there is a healthy debate about this issue. I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal, but I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality. (Applause.) And it is no coincidence that countries where women are well educated are far more likely to be prosperous.
Now, let me be clear: Issues of women's equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam. In Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, we've seen Muslim-majority countries elect a woman to lead. Meanwhile, the struggle for women's equality continues in many aspects of American life, and in countries around the world.
I am convinced that our daughters can contribute just as much to society as our sons. (Applause.) Our common prosperity will be advanced by allowing all humanity -- men and women -- to reach their full potential. I do not believe that women must make the same choices as men in order to be equal, and I respect those women who choose to live their lives in traditional roles. But it should be their choice. And that is why the United States will partner with any Muslim-majority country to support expanded literacy for girls, and to help young women pursue employment through micro-financing that helps people live their dreams. (Applause.)
Finally, I want to discuss economic development and opportunity.
I know that for many, the face of globalization is contradictory. The Internet and television can bring knowledge and information, but also offensive sexuality and mindless violence into the home. Trade can bring new wealth and opportunities, but also huge disruptions and change in communities. In all nations -- including America -- this change can bring fear. Fear that because of modernity we lose control over our economic choices, our politics, and most importantly our identities -- those things we most cherish about our communities, our families, our traditions, and our faith.
But I also know that human progress cannot be denied. There need not be contradictions between development and tradition. Countries like Japan and South Korea grew their economies enormously while maintaining distinct cultures. The same is true for the astonishing progress within Muslim-majority countries from Kuala Lumpur to Dubai. In ancient times and in our times, Muslim communities have been at the forefront of innovation and education.
And this is important because no development strategy can be based only upon what comes out of the ground, nor can it be sustained while young people are out of work. Many Gulf states have enjoyed great wealth as a consequence of oil, and some are beginning to focus it on broader development. But all of us must recognize that education and innovation will be the currency of the 21st century -- (applause) -- and in too many Muslim communities, there remains underinvestment in these areas. I'm emphasizing such investment within my own country. And while America in the past has focused on oil and gas when it comes to this part of the world, we now seek a broader engagement.
On education, we will expand exchange programs, and increase scholarships, like the one that brought my father to America. (Applause.) At the same time, we will encourage more Americans to study in Muslim communities. And we will match promising Muslim students with internships in America; invest in online learning for teachers and children around the world; and create a new online network, so a young person in Kansas can communicate instantly with a young person in Cairo.
On economic development, we will create a new corps of business volunteers to partner with counterparts in Muslim-majority countries. And I will host a Summit on Entrepreneurship this year to identify how we can deepen ties between business leaders, foundations and social entrepreneurs in the United States and Muslim communities around the world.
On science and technology, we will launch a new fund to support technological development in Muslim-majority countries, and to help transfer ideas to the marketplace so they can create more jobs. We'll open centers of scientific excellence in Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia, and appoint new science envoys to collaborate on programs that develop new sources of energy, create green jobs, digitize records, clean water, grow new crops. Today I'm announcing a new global effort with the Organization of the Islamic Conference to eradicate polio. And we will also expand partnerships with Muslim communities to promote child and maternal health.
All these things must be done in partnership. Americans are ready to join with citizens and governments; community organizations, religious leaders, and businesses in Muslim communities around the world to help our people pursue a better life.
The issues that I have described will not be easy to address. But we have a responsibility to join together on behalf of the world that we seek -- a world where extremists no longer threaten our people, and American troops have come home; a world where Israelis and Palestinians are each secure in a state of their own, and nuclear energy is used for peaceful purposes; a world where governments serve their citizens, and the rights of all God's children are respected. Those are mutual interests. That is the world we seek. But we can only achieve it together.
I know there are many -- Muslim and non-Muslim -- who question whether we can forge this new beginning. Some are eager to stoke the flames of division, and to stand in the way of progress. Some suggest that it isn't worth the effort -- that we are fated to disagree, and civilizations are doomed to clash. Many more are simply skeptical that real change can occur. There's so much fear, so much mistrust that has built up over the years. But if we choose to be bound by the past, we will never move forward. And I want to particularly say this to young people of every faith, in every country -- you, more than anyone, have the ability to reimagine the world, to remake this world.
All of us share this world for but a brief moment in time. The question is whether we spend that time focused on what pushes us apart, or whether we commit ourselves to an effort -- a sustained effort -- to find common ground, to focus on the future we seek for our children, and to respect the dignity of all human beings.
It's easier to start wars than to end them. It's easier to blame others than to look inward. It's easier to see what is different about someone than to find the things we share. But we should choose the right path, not just the easy path. There's one rule that lies at the heart of every religion -- that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. (Applause.) This truth transcends nations and peoples -- a belief that isn't new; that isn't black or white or brown; that isn't Christian or Muslim or Jew. It's a belief that pulsed in the cradle of civilization, and that still beats in the hearts of billions around the world. It's a faith in other people, and it's what brought me here today.
We have the power to make the world we seek, but only if we have the courage to make a new beginning, keeping in mind what has been written.
The Holy Koran tells us: "O mankind! We have created you male and a female; and we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another."
The Talmud tells us: "The whole of the Torah is for the purpose of promoting peace."
The Holy Bible tells us: "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God." (Applause.)
The people of the world can live together in peace. We know that is God's vision. Now that must be our work here on Earth.
Thank you. And may God's peace be upon you. Thank you very much. Thank you. (Applause.)
One is appalled to read in the newspapers about brilliant students being denied places and scholarships to pursue tertiary education in universities of their choice.
Discriminatory policiesresult inthe best of our brains seeking greener pastures elsewhere where fairer educational opportunities and financial aid packages are made available to them, and we end up losers. Discrimination is a myth of an era long gone.
The authorities should run a check on how many students in universities abroad are Malaysians rejected by our local education system.
Many, over the years, have spoken about the pernicious effects of brain drain.Much criticism has been heard to describe the debilitating effects of this problem. However, not enough has been done to reverse it and so the hemorrhage continues.
When fairness of a level playing field is taken away migration is one of the many alternatives.
Brain drain has major implications for development of the country in the long run. Accumulation of huge deficits in manpower could lead to colossal loss in terms of earning power and quality of life in our country. If the problem is not addressed it will lead to the stalling of government efforts to develop the country.
These academic superstars should be given encouragement and incentives to stay rooted in this country
There should be a policy initiative that transcends political and racial persuasions to attract bright individuals whose talents, when honed, can be placed at the disposal of all our people and that of national development.
Our country, the producer of brilliant minds, will not long survive if we do not redirect the resources of our high achievers homewards.
While browsing the net, I came across this article, written by a young Malaysian studying in the USA. Here I would like to share it with the readers of "The Writing on the Wall." His story also tells why so many have migrated from Malaysia. Sold out at the altar of 'Malay unity' By John Lee
I was not planning to write about Malay unity this week, but after a little talk I just had with my father, I've decided it's imperative to underscore yet again the very real effect so-called 'Malay unity' has on Malaysian society. Malay unity as it is presently understood is fundamentally undemocratic, and fundamentally a threat to Malaysian unity. The notion that it is not just okay but morally right to prefer one Malaysian over another because of his or her racial identity undermines everything that the concept of a Malaysian stands for; it justifies racism, communalism and separatism.
In the first place, I cannot see why anyone would believe that the Malay community or Malays as individuals stand to gain from uniting behind one political party or one ideology. Malays are not a single-minded, homogeneous lot, any more than the Chinese or Indians are. To ask a Malay to subjugate his own individual beliefs to the tyranny of the Malay majority is ridiculous, and completely undermines the democratic right of individual Malaysians, Malay or not, to freedom of thought and expression.
If a few Malay strongmen believe they can really subjugate their fellow Malays and fellow Malaysians to the yoke of one single ideology, one single belief system, they will have to face the consequences sooner or later. We know what single-party and single-ideology countries turn out like; even the few successes like China are forced to tolerate differing viewpoints, if not differing political parties. You cannot force a man to believe something he does not have his heart in; there is no reason to think a Malay will stop thinking and stop believing in something simply for the sake of 'Malay unity'. But enough of this focus on the Malays; this is just one side of the delicate equation as far as national unity and social cohesion are concerned. I want to relate something personal, something that affects untold numbers of Malaysian families, including my own. Many Malays often wonder why non-Malays are so reluctant to offer this country their loyalty; hardly any are ever actually serious in their wonderment.
My mother is not a Malaysian. She is a Filipino, although with a partial Chinese heritage. My parents met while they were pursuing their post-graduate studies in Thailand . They tied the knot two decades ago; they have brought into the world and raised four children, all of them Malaysian citizens. Over a decade ago, my parents made the conscious decision to bring their three children back to Malaysia , and have their fourth born there, because they wanted us to know our roots. My mother has lived in this country for 12 years, and spent close to 19 years of her life raising Malaysian citizens; she has learnt the national language, made Malaysian friends, and settled herself here. If this is not the loyalty asked of Malaysian citizens, I don't know what loyalty you expect from us. For the past 12 years, my family has made an annual pilgrimage to the Immigration Department, because my mother is not entitled to reside in Malaysia . Every year, my parents swear before a Commissioner of Oaths that they are still legally married, and on this basis, they renew my mother's 'social visit pass' at the Immigration Department. A social visit pass, for the mother of four Malaysian citizens, the daughter-in-law of another two Malaysians, the wife of yet another Malaysian, and friend of many more! A long, long time ago - so long I cannot remember, but about a decade or so - my mother applied to the Immigration Department for a permanent resident visa. My parents personally put all the necessary paperwork together, and my mother invested a lot of her time - time which could have been spent looking after her four young Malaysian children, or contributing to the Malaysian economy - in learning the Malay language. To this date, the Immigration Department has never even acknowledged receipt of her application. My parents initially followed up on the application, but were told by the officers to await an official letter from the Department. They waited. And waited. Ten years on, they are still waiting. Last year, my mother applied for a Canadian tourist visa. The process went without a hitch, until we came to picking up her passport. A Canadian embassy officer appeared and enquired about her 'social visit pass'. My mother confirmed that yes, in spite of everything, this wife and mother of Malaysians has yet to be allowed to stay in Malaysia . The officer shrugged his shoulders, as if he were used to seeing this sort of thing, and replied, 'Okay, just checking!' On the drive home, my father reflected on the ludicrousness of it all. If he were to die, if they were to be divorced, my mother would have no right to stay in Malaysia , no right to be the mother of Malaysians. A decade on, my family was still waiting. Fed up with it all, my father decided that if his wife could not have a home here, he would make sure she and our family could have a home elsewhere. Two years ago, he applied for permanent residency in New Zealand . Today, before any of us have even set foot in New Zealand , the Kiwi government has welcomed us and given us the right to stay and reside in New Zealand for as long as we like, without any preconditions. We have no prior ties to New Zealand , and they welcome us with open arms; my mother has a rich 20-year history with Malaysia , and to this day, her request to stay here has yet to even be acknowledged.
This story is alas far too common; years ago, my father was warned by an acquaintance that his wife had waited in vain for 10 years for her permanent residency to come through. Earlier yesterday, he decided to check with the Immigration Department, just to see if they had ever done anything about my mother's application. He got the same brush-off of a reply: 'Tunggu suratlah!' As he left the office, he overheard a Mat Salleh woman berating a young officer, in fluent Malay: 'My husband is dead already, what should I do now? I have been living in this country longer than you have been alive!' Not far off, an Indonesian construction worker was conspicuously brandishing his approved application for a work permit, entitling him to reside here. This sort of thing is no bureaucratic accident; this is intentional racism. This is the product of 'Malay unity'. What good is this talk of how Pak Lah is selling us out to the Singaporeans by giving them cheap sand, when right under our noses, the government is selling our citizenship birthrights out to any old Indonesian, while denying Malaysians the right to live in peace with their spouses, their families? When you endorse this idea that the end of Malay unity justifies the means, this is the result. I don't begrudge legal Indonesian immigrants their right to live and work here; they are doing a job nobody else wants to, and they are often unfairly scapegoated by a Malaysian society not willing to examine its own fractures and divisions. But I have lived for years with the shame of being a citizen whose own country will not even let his mother stay, in spite of everything she has done for her Malaysian family. It's easy to mock people like us for saying things like 'I will never die for this country'; it's hard to accept that this country has never given people like us a reason to die for it. When my family migrates to New Zealand , they will not be looking back wistfully; they will be looking forward to a future where my mother is not forever in legal jeopardy, forever at risk of separation from us. The last thing on their minds will be a country obsessed with small-minded 'Malay unity', obsessed with worshipping its keris-waving heroes while ignoring the countless non-Malays who gave their lives in apparent vain for a country which will not recognise the ideal behind their sacrifice.
(John Lee is a second-year student of economics at Dartmouth College in the United States .. He has been thinking aloud since 2005 ...)
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Crony Capitalism Yin Ee Kiong
The BN constantly reminds us that the government’s priority is to look after the rakyat – especially the lower income. However this is not borne out by its policies. Malaysians have long learned to treat such claims as mere rhetoric.
The current economic downturn may have necessitated the cut in subsidies on essential items like sugar and flour but surely such a cut will affect the lower income much more than the middle class or the rich. A more sensible approach would have been to provide the lower income with a cushion e.g. food stamps (for the items where subsidies have been withdrawn) to soften the inevitable rise in their food expenditure. It would be throwing the baby out with the bath water if subsidies – which have its merits - were just removed without some sort of replacement to lessen the hardship on the poor.
The capitalist system is perhaps the most efficient form of economic management. As Adam Smith opined: “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer or the baker, that we can expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.” Put simply: In order to be successful companies must provide the best service or product at the best price in order to survive. This ultimately benefits the consumers. This is the genius of capitalism as described by Adam Smith over two hundred years ago – “Let man seek his own advantage, sometimes he will flourish, sometimes he will flounder. But always, the process of innovation and failure will reward the common good.”
Capitalism has since undergone changes – mostly to create an even playing field for all players and to ensure that there is no price fixing by cartels. Genuine competition ultimately ensures that resources are used efficiently to deliver the best products at the lowest price.
It’s alright to apply market forces to our economy if that is the government’s intention. But it must be the real McCoy not the ersatz version as practised in Malaysia. Smith would be at a loss for words to describe what we have. It’s called CRONY Capitalism Mr Smith! A form of capitalism where so many sacrifice so much for so few. Where wealth is distributed upwards - the poor supporting the rich.
Every step of the way the rakyat has to pay ‘tax’ to the cronies of the BN Government:
We take our cars to be tested for road worthiness and there is only one source. In many countries you can take your car to any certified garage of your choice.
Why are flour mills and sugar distributors confined only to a select few?
Why must rice come only from Bernas?
Why is there only one company which can distribute medicine to government hospitals and pharmacies?
Why are ‘security seals’ a monopoly? While ‘security seals’ reduce counterfeiting they also raise the cost of these items to the public. Imagine the billions the lucky crony makes by just providing the ‘seals’ which cost very little but add to the final cost of the item. Manufacturers and suppliers do not complain because the cost is passed on to the consumers. In fact unscrupulous manufacturers and distributors welcome the opportunity to add to their profit margin. Just to take one example: Betaton used to be packed in boxes of 500 units but now because of the government’s policy they are packed in boxes of 60 units. This increases the profit of the crony who provides the ‘seals’ but also increase the profit of the manufacturer/supplier. The only loser is the consumer because the unit cost has increased from 24 sen to 35 sen.
Whether it is the road tolls or power supply, sewage and water service, or the supply of uniforms to the National Service Programme, or tender for infrastructure works, or just everyday consumer items, when there is no open competition, everyone pays more. Bad policies and mismanagement ultimately impacts on the rakyat – especially the poor.
It is one thing for the government to make honest mistakes, another to deliberately formulate policies and make decisions which enrich a few. 3/6/09
The Strong Arm of the Law – Who does it Serve? Yin Ee Kiong
In his talk “Nation Before Self” Dato Seri Yuen Yuet Leng spoke about the ‘professionalism’ of the police force during his time. He spoke of a police force which did its duty without fear or favour – irrespective of race, creed or political colouring. He mentioned his boss Haniff (the IGP) who would rather resign than bow to political pressures.
That was another era when even the fiercest critic of the force had at least a modicum of respect for the uniform.
No more! It would be a fair observation that Malaysians do not hold the police in high regard today. And this is of it’s (the police’s) own doing.
The perception of the police today is that it is malleable, bending to political pressures rather than applying the law impartially. It is on record that strict rules are applied (often brutally) to anti government protests even when they are peaceful. Women and children amongst the protesters are showered with chemical laced water cannons. The FRU charge and beat up peaceful protesters who offer no resistance. Even the simple act of holding a candlelit vigil or asking people to wear black can result in arrests (under what law?). Statements or comments made by Opposition politicians are scrutinised for treason or sedition and arrests made on the merest hint of either.
Yet the police do nothing when the same is done by the ruling party. Khairy had led a protest against Condelleza Rice without police permit. Ahmad Ismail has made racist statements in Penang. UMNO Youth had protested in front of the Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall and threatened to burn it down. An unruly crowd had gathered outside the Cititel Hotel Penang to protest against a legitimate meeting on Article 11 inside the hotel. Instead of arresting the protesters the police demanded that the meeting be ended. And to top it all the police did nothing when Najib raised his kris and promised to bathe it in Chinese blood at an UMNO gathering in 1988 – nothing was done.
How many deaths are there in police custody? How many of those who are arrested under the ISA are really threats to the security of the nation – rather than embarrassments to the government? Was the arrest of the journalist who reported what was said really seditious or was it the source of the statement? Why arrest the messenger and not the source? Our police seem to operate on the basis of arrest first, investigate later – the ISA and other laws have been used as the easy way out of good police work.
Our society’s freedom in the final analysis depends on the measure of our police force’s accountability to the public it serves. Yet our police have blatantly opposed the previous prime minister’s proposal for the IPCMC. Is the tail wagging the dog? In the end it’s a case of one scratching the other’s back. It serves BN to give the police a long leash. In return the police turns a blind eye to BN's shenanigans.
There is such a fear injected into our national psyche by some politicians. Racial and civil disorder is used to justify bullying, violation of our civil rights and police brutality. May 13 was once a powerful weapon used by the government to quell public discontent. The election of March 2008 showed that it has lost its potency.
Our police force is politicised when it is used to evict a Speaker of a State Assembly or to shut out one set of politicians in favour of another. In that ugly and shameful episode, they are not the only guilty ones - the civil servants were just as much to blame.
Will we ever see professionalism return to our police force that Yuen so fondly recollects?
