Friday, 3 April 2009

Election Goodies at Dawn - For reality, lets WAIT till dusk.

"... the government has decided with immediate effect,
to remove the temporary ban on TWO news publications,
release 13 detainees from ISA detention,
and conduct a comprehensive review of the Internal Security Act. "

-Najib in his maiden speech

But what a 'sec here - Altantuya's Ghost asks what her name has done to deserve being banned. Forgot about that Jibby?
You cannot ban a name Jib - that's outright Bodoh Bin Sombong lah, Joe!!!

The speech - Takes your breath away is it?
No so fast, guys - there'll be more goodies to tempt the electorate and Malaysians into accepting "Mr. Goody-two-shoes" as the PM. Under-DOGs need plenty of brownie points before they start out. This reminds me a lot of the "Bersih, Cekap, Amanah" days of the Proton Car-Tun.

Yes - nothing less will do, considering his and the fat lady's "impeccable reputation and compassionate nature". Next he will probably say they'll get rid of OSA, PPPA, UUCA, Police Act and C4 from the "arsenal" they've hoarded over the years.
He may even say that Zambry the Perak pretender MB, and "that someone" who was caught on tape confessing to attempting to corrupt the courts are dismissed- just as his mentor once did!
Anyways - just two out of five, plus 8 "Islamic Militants" were released, and that is much appreciated (although we don't know what the conditions are). So sad actually - Uthaya, who needs the freedom most, isn't freed.

Seriously - I really think this is a belated April Fool joke he's playing on the Bkt. Selambau guys (and Malaysians at large), just to take some punch out of the Pakatan campagn.
Soon you may see that Ganabathirau & Kengatharan in Bkt Selambau with Semi Value, promising that Uthaya will be next to be out should they vote Umno's lapdog - Ganesan.
This is just "c@&k-teasing" at its best - pending outcome of the elections. This guy is so DESPERATE, he'll probably morph into a godzilla of sorts the moment he sees that the people aren't fooled.
Hope the voters realize that without their anti-BN stance, there would've been no way that these guys would've been released!!

The Car-Tun did once say that a vote for BN means that you want ISA.
So Bkt Selambau voters - remember that a vote for BN is a vote for ISA and to keep Uthaya incarcerated!!!

As of now, we (officially) still need a permit to go for a picnic or throw a party - or else!!
Also, don't forget - Malaysians don't qualify to compete in The World's Funniest Home Videos.
Now Jibby, hand me the very legal video of your swearing in - that may win me a prize!!!

All said and done, considering the stories of Talismans, Bomohs, Mongolian shamans, a recent NST article about Jibby's numerological "lucky No. 11" - I wouldn't place much hope on a party that places premium value on superstitious mindsets. Just take a look at the images above (the numbers- from a "chinese" perspective) and tell me it was just a coincidence .........
So, under the Jibby regime, if you have a question of National security or economy don't wait for Jibby - just ..... ASK YOUR BOMOH!!!


Democracy, Sovereigns and Political Authority

When the body of the people is possessed of the supreme power, it is called a democracy. When the supreme power is lodged in the hands of a part of the people, it is then an aristocracy.

In a democracy the people are in some respects the sovereign, and in others the subject.

There can be no exercise of sovereignty but by their suffrages, which are their own will; now, the sovereign's will is the sovereign himself. The laws, therefore, which establish the right of suffrage are fundamental to this government. .....

The people, in whom the supreme power resides, ought to have the management of everything within their reach: that which exceeds their abilities must be conducted by their ministers.
But they cannot properly be said to have their ministers, without the power of nominating them: it is, therefore, a fundamental maxim in this government, that the people should choose their ministers--that is, their magistrates.
-Montesquieu, Spirit of Laws, bk. 2, CH. 2 (Of the Republican Government, and the Laws in relation to Democracy)

The following is an except from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy -
by Tom Christiano

1.2 Political Authority and Different Kinds of Duties of Obedience

To the extent that a duty of obedience is included in the concept of political authority, there can be different forms of obedience on the part of subjects. This implies a very distinct dimension of political authority. When a political authority issues a command and the subject has a duty to obey, what is the nature of this duty? One might have a duty to obey a command merely because it commands the subject to do something that is just and any alternative action would be unjust. Here the duty to obey would depend on the content of the command. Commands that are unjust or perhaps even commands that require actions that are not exclusively just may not involve duties at all.

The commands of a legitimate political authority are usually thought to involve something more than this. The duty of the subject is grounded not in the content of the command itself but in the nature of the source issuing the command. The duty to obey is then automatically generated when the command is issued by the appropriate authority and when it has the right form and provenance. In this respect, the duty to obey is content independent or independent of the content of the particular command. One must obey because one has been commanded and not because of the particular content of the command. One must do it because one has been told to do it. This kind of duty seems to be the most central kind of duty involved in the duty to obey. It is the idea that one must obey the authority because it is the authority. It does not imply of itself that one owes the duty of obedience to the authority so it does not imply that there is a right to rule on the part of the authority.

Here we must distinguish a duty that is owed to the authority and a duty that is merely the result of the authoritative command. The duty that is owed to the authority is grounded in the fact that the authority possesses a feature that gives it a right to command and that it is in virtue of that right that one owes obedience. The idea is that there is something just in itself that the authority be obeyed.

One other distinction that is worth making in this connection is the distinction between a preemptive duty to obey and a duty that is not preemptive. A preemptive duty is one that replaces other duties. It puts other duties out of play when it comes into play. A preemptive duty is not weighed against other duties that might relate to what one is thinking of doing. Of course, a preemptive duty may not preempt all other considerations, its preemption may operate only with a limited scope and thus preempt only some limited set of considerations.

An example of a preemptive duty is the case of a promissory obligation. If I have agreed to do something for you and I suddenly see some pleasurable alternative to fulfilling my obligation, most people would think that I ought to exclude the consideration of pleasure altogether from my deliberations even though the pleasure would be a consideration had I made no promise. It is simply not something that I can legitimately weigh in the balance against the promissory obligation. So if an authority issues a command and the duty to obey is a preemptive duty, then the subject does not weigh the other duties that might otherwise apply to him in the balance with the preemptive duty. The preemptive duty simply excludes the other duties. By contrast, if a duty is not preemptive, then when it comes time to comply with it, one must balance it with other duties that weigh for and against acting in accord with the duty.

Most think that the duties associated with authority are content independent in the sense that one must do what one is told even if one is skeptical about the merits of the command. There is some skepticism, however, about the claim that legitimate political authorities impose preemptive duties on subjects. These people have questioned the rationality of preemptive duties or reasons for action. Surely, there are times when what appear to be preempted considerations all add up to a consideration that outweighs the preempting consideration. How can this be understood on the preemption model? Some have argued that authoritative commands simply give especially weighty content independent duties, which can be balanced against other duties (Shapiro 2002). The discussion of instrumentalism will say a bit more about these criticisms below.

The most demanding notion of authority is the idea of a political authority that has a right to rule that correlates with a duty to obey that is owed to the authority and that is a content independent and preemptive duty.

(for more, click here)

BN, take note - HINDRAF is with PAKATAN!!


1. HINDRAF acknowledges that our grass root supporters are disappointed that the Bukit Selambau seat was not offered to any of the 5 short listed candidates (two of whom were HINDRAF coordinators and remaining 3 were reputable KEADILAN local leaders) and urge our supporters to remain focussed and calm.

2. I had spoken to HINDRAF National Coordinator RS Tanendran and he confirms that most of his statements had been taken out of context and manipulated by the government run media to portray that HINDRAF does not support PAKATAN to create confusion and anxiety amongst supporters.

3.The discretion of candidate selection in Bukit Selambau was within the prerogative of Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim along with the other leaders of the PAKATAN coalition. However we hope in future there would be some level of consultation with HINDRAF to avoid any unwarranted confusion.

4.Our mutual “Political Enemy” would be no other than the BN imperialist government. Our goal is to create awareness of the depleted state of her subject, to stay focussed by initiating actions by working together hand in hand in fairness to ensure we successfully get rid of our “common enemy” in the next elections. After 50 years HINDRAF created the awareness that changed the mindset of 80% traditional Indian BN voters who had always been loyal to BN.

5. It is time all Pakatan leaders - Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim, Mr.Lim Kit Siang and Dato Seri Haji Hadi Awang realise that the current Political climate has to be maximised. If we fail to work and act together to get rid of BN in the next GE (2012) then the hope of opposition ever taking over the reign of the Country will die permanently and I honestly envisage the crack and crumble of PAKATAN from then on.

6. I had the opportunity to discuss pertinent questions raised by grass root supporters of HINDRAF with Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim and we had come to an understanding that matters affecting the Indian community would be further discussed and resolved at a later date with leaders of all 3 PAKATAN coalition.

7.The Indian voters in Bukit Gantang and Bukit Selambau are aware of the predicament of the society and are now politically mature thus they could not be fooled by BN and their “peanuts” often thrown during elections.

8.HINDRAF reiterates its commitment to campaign and support PAKATAN candidates in both Bukit Gantang and Bukit Selambau.

P.Waytha Moorthy
Hindraf- Chairman

"Malaysian Heart" Replies:

Dear Cruzeiro,

Reading your comments I am struck by the fact that I would agree wholeheartedly with almost every point that you have made.

Yes, there is still sympathy amongst Malaysians and within PR for Hindraf’s plight; (I believe this is because there are no basic contradictions between both sets of goals)

Yes, they are poor at selling themselves, lack savvy & don’t communicate well, and this (and their methods) have turned many away from them; (50 years of oppressive conditioning has certainly left its mark)

Yes, they have a sectarian perspective (although their beliefs do not require the denial of the rights of others);

Yes, they are not cohesive, & lack leadership (most are locked up anyway);

Yes, there are some of their “leaders” with selfish personal interests;

This brings us to the question: What can we do about this?

The way I see it, there are 2 approaches we can take:

A) We give up on hindraf & their supporters, repudiate their struggle, tell them that we cannot work with them & that they are on their own

B) We engage them, establish what exactly they want, show them that fundamentally we want the same thing, listen to their fears & concerns (and they have raised some pertinent ones about PR), gradually raise their consciousness about the new political environment in Malaysia, and they themselves will expose & expel the mercenaries & cheats amongst them.

Option A would be undesirable because:
oIt’s unfair – we would be tarring all hindraf supporters with the same stereotype brush
oWe would strengthening our old enemy, and creating a new one, something that we do not need right now

Option B would have the following good points:
o We would be true to our own values of fighting for the weak, the oppressed, the marginalized (even if they themselves don’t realize it)
o We would be developing the wonderful but rare quality in any party of being able to accept criticism & work with diverse partners on common issues
o We would be responsive, transparent & respectful of our constituents, something BN never got around to doing

Is option B a pipedream? I don’t think so. But I have no illusions that it will be easy either. For one thing, the atmosphere is already charged with denunciation & counter denunciation, insult & counter insult. Both sides are standing behind their respective battle lines & shouting at each other through megaphones. If we are to get anywhere together, first we will have to stop the shouting & start respecting each other again, & with that noble aim in mind, let us be the first to extend our open hands in friendship.

Malaysian Heart