Honour Among Thieves - The BN's "social contract"

Art Harun has come up with this well written piece debunking the "social contract" as Umno defines it, and the apparent compromise of the "Malays" with the "nons" (which is actually far from the truth).

Good one, Art - more has to be done to discredit the so called "social contract" as per BN's definition.

I used to write a lot on the "social contract" a couple of years ago and was ridiculed for the things I said.

As far as I'm concerned, it was more of a agreement among thieves- Brits included. At least the Brits helped develop a good system which ran on autopilot after "independence" and died for it on the beaches of Normandy on D-Day...

The the BN pirates only sat pretty, hijacked the system and took the credit of "independence" for themselves - while the real fighters were erased from the history books.

I really hope more people will take on the Umno goons and Mahathir cronies on this matter - and Pakatan Rakyat is doing nothing about it!

Bravo!! Keep at it, Art!!

Tuesday, April 20, 2010

The Bastardisation of the "Social Contract" - part 1

In "The Social Contract - correcting the misconceptions", I have sought to explain what the social contract is all about.

I do not want to repeat what I had written before. However, I wish to revisit several salient points about the social contract.

Social contract is a legal theory or concept. It does not exist in reality. It is a branch of legal, social or even political philosophy. This theory seeks to explain or rationalise why we, human beings, would band together and form a State.

It also seeks to rationalise why we would then agree to surrender our liberty, freedom and the ability to do whatever we like to the State when we, the human beings, were all born free and by our nature do not like to be restricted and constrained.

The philosophers surmised that we do so because we by nature are social creatures. We do so because we want to live together as a society. Furthermore, we do so because the State promises us some benefits. In fact we expect the State to give us the benefits that we want. That is why we surrender or agree to surrender some of our freedom, liberty and free will to the State.

That is why, in theory, we do what we do.

However, it is not a one way or unilateral agreement. There is supposed to be an exchange of promises between us, the people, and the State. For example, we promise not to steal and if we steal we promise to abide by the law which would send us to prison. In return, the State promises to protect our property from being stolen by other people.

That is the social contract as a legal theory.

In reality, that social contract does not exist, in writing or otherwise.

Now, the social contract which is so much talked about in Malaysia is a bastardisation of the theory of the social contract. Why do I say so?

It is simple. The theory of social contract postulates an agreement between the people of a State and the State. However the social contract which is so well loved by some people in Malaysia is a supposed agreement between the respective leaders of the three major communities among themselves which happened prior to our independence.

That in itself is the hijacking of the theory of social contract.

Apparently, the three community leaders met to decide the whole future of Malaysia before and after independence. And what they had agreed would bind all of us till kingdom come.

Apparently too, the Malay leader was generous enough to confer citizenship to the non-Malays who were not qualified for citizenship.

The two non-Malay leaders, out of sheer gratitude to the Malays (who were represented by the said Malay leader) for doing so, agreed that the Malays should have "special rights." These special rights were then spelt out in the Federal Constitution.

This brings the oft-repeated argument that the Malays have sacrificed a lot in agreeing to "grant" citizenships to the non-Malays who were otherwise "not qualified" to gain one. Therefore the non-Malays should respect the Malay's special "rights".

Over the years, these special rights were apparently challenged by the non-Malays, and even by some Malays themselves. So, according to some people, this is unacceptable. This is unconstitutional. This constitutes a breach of the so called social contract.

What does history show us about this bastardised version of the social contract?

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd), while debating our Independence Bill reported to the British Parliament:

"There were extreme views on the part of some sections of Malayan* (*I think when he said "Malayan", he was in fact referring to the Malays) opinion which are opposed to any political advance on the part of the Chinese people in Malaya. There were equally strong views held by some of the Chinese population demanding absolute jus soli citizenship for anybody born in the Federation and the complete abolition of any distinction between the races.

The constitutional Commission had to find a solution which would work and which would find general acceptance, and in our view it has fully succeeded in its task. The present Federation Constitution represents a genuine compromise worked out between differing sectors. The citizenship proposals, I believe, are a triumph of good sense and tolerance, amidst widely conflicting views, and I believe that the balance struck between Malay and Chinese has been found to he a wise balance.

There are solid guarantees of fundamental liberties to meet Chinese fears of discrimination, with reasonable arrangements to safeguard the special position of the Malayans without injustice to other races. I am conscious that these two aspects of the settlement arouse particular interest in the House, and I hope that I may be forgiven if I devote a moment or two to those two most important matters.

Now, a word about the balance achieved between the rights of Malays and Chinese. The special position of the Malays was recognised in the original treaties made by His Majesty in previous years, and Her Majesty Queen Victoria and others with the Malay States. It was reaffirmed when these treaties were revised. It was confirmed in the 1948 Agreement, and reference was expressly made to it in the terms of reference of the Reid Commission. So the Malay privilege clauses in the articles of the Constitution do not, in the main, introduce any precedent, but give recognition in the Constitution to the existing situation. Most hon. Members will, I think, know something of what these privileges are

As I said, I believe that a fair balance has been struck between the interests of Malays and Chinese, and I indicated how the special position of Malays enshrined in the new Constitution did not create a precedent because it had been provided for in very many other treaties and arrangements. I was about to say what form these special privileges had taken. In most States in Malaya, there are extensive Malay reservations of land. Elsewhere in States, there are systems of quota for admissions to the public service, a certain proportion having to be Malays. There are quotas for permits or licences to carry on certain businesses. There is preferential treatment for Malays in the granting of scholarships and bursaries and, generally, in education.

The Reid Commission found very little opposition in any quarter in Malaya to the continuance of the present system for a time, and it made certain recommendations which hon. Members will have read. The Alliance Government—this was accepted by the three parties composing the Alliance—wanted a number of changes, which have been made. They relate mostly to quotas in the public service, to permits, scholarships, and land reservations. Very generally, the proposal to review the quotas after fifteen years has been dropped. The responsibility of the High Commissioner is transferred to the Head of State, but—and it is a genuine safeguard for other races—the Head of State will act on the advice of the Cabinet, and the Cabinet is bound to be sensitive to the feeling of public opinion at any time."

Yes, there was indeed a compromise by the various communities. And there was, at the end of the day, "a triumph of good sense and tolerance, amidst widely conflicting views." Meanwhile, "the balance struck between Malay and Chinese has been found to be a wise balance."

It should be noted that the special positions of the Malays had always been recognised by the British from day one. These have been specified in various treatises. And there were recognised in the Federation of Malaya Agreement 1948, an agreement which preceded our independence.

All that the Reid Commission did was to continue to give cognisant to those special positions. There were no new position or right added as part of a compromise. To say therefore that citizenships were offered to the non-Malays in exchange of those special positions were not accurate. That is because those positions were already there and recognised from day one.

It is also wrong for anybody to say that the granting of citizenship to the non-Malays was a sacrifice by the Malays of their "natural claim to the land of Malays ("Tanah Melayu"). That could not be farther from the truth.

That arrangement, from historical evidence, was a "compromise" which was achieved after intense negotiations between the major communities and the Reid Commission. Being a compromise, all parties - not the Malays alone - achieved certain demands while letting go some of their demands.

For example, not all non-Malays managed to obtain citizenship. On this, the said Alan Lennox-Boyd explained:

"Under this compromise, anyone who is now a citizen of the Federation or who was born in the Federation and is over 18, or is born there after 31st August next, will have citizenship of the Federation as a right."

There was a balance achieved between the demands of the non-Malays and the absolute birth rights of the Malays. That is why it was called a compromise.

The citizenship was not a gift by the Malays. Nor was it a total surrender by the non-Malays of their minority rights in exchange for citizenship as screamed about by Perkasa, Dr Ridhuan Tee Abdullah and even Tun Dr Mahathir. The special "rights" of the Malays was not a concession by the non-Malays. They had always been there in the first place.

The Constitution was drafted to reflect this harmonious co-existence of all the major races in the then Malaya. It spells out all the rights and positions of the various communities who were expected to lead a peaceful and prosperous co-existence. The Constitution was designed to make the yet unborn Malaysia a fair and progressive country.

As stated by Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas (the MP from Lincoln):

"The test for the Federation will be whether it can become a real nation in other words, whether the Chinese people in Malaya can become full citizens and work with the Malays, the Indians and the Eurasians to make a new nation. I hope that they can."

Have we, as a nation, passed the test?

It is also not out of place to mention here that in drafting the Constitution, the fathers of our independence were astute enough to consider each community's services and contributions to this land. This goes towards achieving the balance which I was referring to earlier. In other words, no one community could claim exclusivity towards the country as it was.

Miss Joan Vickers, the MP for Devonport noted:

"We should remember, in considering these different races, the part that they play. The Malayans are the indigenous people of the country, but we have to remember that had it not been for the Chinese the country would certainly not have been as prosperous as it is today. They opened up jungle roads and worked in the tin mines, and the prosperity of Malaya owes a great deal to the Chinese.

Furthermore, we had the Indians who, in a rather different way, as a result, in the beginning, of a contract system between the Indian Government and the Government of Malaya, have played their part in the prosperity of the country. In a great many cases they did not make Malaya their home and returned to India at the end of their contract.

We also owe a great deal to the Portuguese Eurasians in Malaya. Theirs is a very old community. They still keep something of their mother tongue, and very strongly to their own Roman Catholic religion. They have proved loyal and faithful civil servants in a great many of the States. Generally speaking, whichever State they have resided in, they have taken a leading part and have always been loyal to either the British resident or adviser, or whoever they have been serving.

Finally, I hope that in due course, the Orang Bukit will be able to be brought into the community, because I believe that through living in the deep jungles they have very remote ties with their own country, and they could be a source of trouble. I should like to pay tribute to them for what they did during the very difficult period when the Chinese guerillas were in the jungle, when they gave considerable help in tracking the enemy."

As evident, everyone's contribution was considered. And it was all done in the name of accommodating, to the fullest of possibility, every community's demands, rights and positions. Wherever there was a seeming imbalance, a check and balance mechanism was inbuilt within the Constitution in itself.

To state all the mechanism of check and balance in the Constitution would make this article too long. Suffice if I point out that among others, an independent judiciary (which then includes the right to appeal to the Privy Council), was a part of that mechanism. As stated by the MP for Crosby, Mr Graham Page:

"Finally, I would draw attention to an important safeguard to the minorities. That is in the retention of the jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council."

(Of course, some time ago, someone had to dismantle the Privy Council appeal process and the whole judiciary too leaving the government to lord all over the Judges!)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Social Contracts, Social Betrayals and NEP ....

Where is the Spirit of Merdeka?

The Pirate and "Social Contractor".

The "Social Contract" - A Malaysian "Cold War"?

The "social contract" - A Dead-end Roadmap to Piracy

Licking the Wounds ... of a Blessing in Disguise

What happened in Perak is good. I hope it will teach Pakatan Rakyat that it has to get its act together. ......
A mere car brought the Perak government down. If this is what brought the Perak government down, then it deserves to fall. I can only say that this serves Pakatan Rakyat right. They had it coming. When personal interests and racial issues override everything else, you deserve to fall.
And there are many low quality wakil rakyat still in Pakatan Rakyat .............Next time, get better candidates. Some of the Pakatan Rakyat wakil rakyat are so low standard I would not even trust them to baby-sit my dog.

- RPK

***********************************

So said RPK.
PR had lost their "bearings" when they got more than they could handle in it's infancy.
Well, I actually said the same (not verbatim lah) at while "Fishing", to PatLu, Segar & Viki- I actually said, "I wouldn't feel sorry for them if they lose the Perak Govt - they have forgotten what got them there!" (But I did feel sorry ...)
Still, it was heartbreaking to see the Nizar Govt fall in such a manner - I wouldn't have felt as such, should Pakatan have been ousted through a "No Confidence" motion. To make matters worse, we had to put up with the smug look of Mr. Mongolia at the press conference .....

"Gamuda" or not - this was realpolitik at play (and IMHO, plenty of "Mahathirism" stamped all over it!). Is it any wonder that Mahathir couldn't hide his glee, and as a "statesman", writing on CheDet,
"Lompat masuk (perangkap) boleh tapi lompat keluar tak sah!! He, he, he!".
(reminds me of how some guys write comments on MT, despite the availability of emoticons)
Yes - Anwar was outwitted in his naivity, and suckered in his own game, although with a little difference in style.

Taking the Stephen Kalong Ningkan case into consideration, we all know that Nizar is still the legitimate MB of Perak, the BN style is to use extra-constitutional methods to launch a coup - always has been, and always will be. Just letters don't cut it, when one claims majority - only the assembly decides. The Constitutional Head of state simply carries out the wishes of the people as expressed by the legislature. It would therefore do well for us to disregard the Pakistani academician cum "constitutional spin doctor" - Shad Faruqi, who claims that the Sultan can Hire & Fire at his pleasure like an autocrat.

Let's hope the case will give PR at least, a moral victory - but we all know that Karpal has a recording of a judge who confessed to being advocate of corruption.
So, we shall keep out fingers crossed.

There were many things that were unsatisfactory with the Pakatan electoral pact - but it was a pretty steep learning curve for them to negotiate. The attitudes of the DAP men in the past, isn't relevant as of now, (although RPK did bring it up).
RPK has also resorted to whacking PR now, in frustration - menyampah (or maybe just a bad flu). Whatever his reason may be, he, just as anybody else, is entitled to it.

I share many of the sentiments expressed by RPK - yes, I concurred with RPK on the dissolution idea, and posted something asking Nizar to dissolve the Assembly ASAP in DISSOLVE THE PERAK STATE ASSEMBLY, NIZAR!!!
(sometimes, I too like to be perasan lah -like as if anybody significant is gonna take me seriously!).

However, I'd look at the events that transpired in Perak in a positive light - it is a baptism of fire for Pakatan, and they better learn the taste of defeat fast - and I mean REAL fast. Or else, they will very soon bite the dust elsewhere as well.
It is a price you pay, when you take power for granted - with the presence of turncoats in your midst.
Actually, I'm surprised they lasted so long and it took this long for Najib to make his move ....

Recent events will make Pakatan realize that it isn't worth fighting among themselves, and that there are bigger things to fight over. Having tasted the sweetness of office/power and the bitterness of defeat, it will also make them fight harder & with more strategy in future.
Things may swing in their favour, if they can keep the desire for reform & negative sentiments towards BN burning in the hearts of the electorate.
In short - it may be a blessing in disguise!

While they take a step back to recoup their strategies, lets hope they do not lose sight of the other states in their grasp.
Meanwhile, just get better reps in future lah - in the last elections, many seat would've been won had they even decided to field donkeys!
And a last piece of (unsolicited) advice -
don't let your egos neglect the "Barisan Rakyat's" opinions!!

For what it's worth - all the best Pakatan!
Overall, you were "passable" in my book - The people are still with you.
And to Najib, the "man of the day" - your day of reckoning is yet to come.
Legitimacy doesn't seem to be a priority to you - You seek for glory within Umno, at the expense of the electorate.
Hardball is what you play, hardball is what you'll get from them
- Cheers to you, Najib!

"Transformers" - In search of "Optimus Prime" ....

********************************

********************************

Last Christmas, after a very long time, I watched a movie which I considered "spinal" - it was "Transformers"!! There were two scenes which really caught my attention (other than the fantastic special effects)- the first was that of "Optimus Prime" asking that he be sacrificed so as to destroy "The Cube" and hence, the "deceptacons".
The other was when a harmless cellphone was transformed into a hyper-active & very destructive robot (a "deceptacon") when given an energy pulse from the cube.

Coming to our real world, it would not be too far fetched to imagine what the corrupting power of politics does to seemingly harmless, virtuous and idealistic men, when in power. In Malaysia, we have seen what three decades of the "Mahathirism" energy has done to Barisan Nasional and the country at large.
On the other side of the fence, we have an alliance of the most unlikely partners in PAS and DAP, with PKR as the cementing factor. On either side of PKR, although they march in formation, they appear to be heading in different directions, with very different motives. Depending on the strength of the "pull" on either side, Newton's Laws dictate that it is inevitable that PKR be swayed in either direction, should the pact prevail.

Pas appears to insist on its hardline/dogmatic Islamist stance (despite its apparently "accommodating" politics of late), while its pragmatic partners are more concerned with the socio-economic and political realities. The bottomline in PAS's politics seem to the people, is to be having a greater say in policy matters, without accepting the status quo as it is within the PR. A certain faction appears to be bent on creating discontent within its folds by looking for ghosts under the bed.
They're disturbed & ill at ease with the fact that the other partners have surpassed them in political achievement, despite their weaker "networking" - which makes them vulnerable to "Islamic overtures" from Umno.

First, it was the "muzakarah" by Hadi & Nasha which we all know about, then it is the "hudud" factor. They seem to be bent on creating a Sharia state while hiding their true intentions, with the Pakatan only as temporary allies.
They seem to be oblivious to the fact that they would hold greater sway among the Malays and the non-muslim electorate, should they be more progressive in their ways.

RPK did support Hudud "In principle", and without a doubt, with the impending KT by-elections, they are only using religion to "buy" votes among the conservative Malays of KT.
"In Principle", I too would support Hudud as a deterrant. After all why should a non-muslim complain when there'll be greater job opportunities, when their Muslim brothers walk around handless, right? Moreover, we can expect aspiring hand/ micro-surgeons of Malaysia to get much needed practice in putting hands back on those who win their appeal or at least get some medical tourism from hand/ feet (or other body parts) transplants ..... & Malaysia can be at the cutting edge of medical sciences plenty of hand donors too!

It beats me how they can say that Hudud is fine, as it doesn't affect the non-muslims when it is divisive in nature and destroys the idea of nationhood where the people are meant to live in equality under the same laws.
Hadi likens Hudud to surgery! Discussing Hadi's silly analogy would be an insult to my intelligence - so I shall leave that to the PakCik-MakCiks of Kg Cenereh/ Menjing/ Keruak or wherever, and let it pass (until of course, the day medical sciences classify Muslims differently & devise special surgeries for Muslims only).
In defence of hudud, there was an article on this matter by Zulkifli Sulong in The Malaysian Insider, equating Hudud with circumcision! It was entitled "William Leong antara khatam dan hudud". Are these columnists so brain-dead that they don't see the difference?
Let's forget the fact that Zulkifli Sulong spelt "Khatan" wrong - but to equate & compare the two, is simplistic and myopic at best.
One is a religious ritual/ covenant adopted by the faithful, while the other is a set of laws that prescribe irreversible mutilation as punishment of people declared convicts (which may be out of error, in the corruption prone human judgement), and places a Muslim's testimony above that of non-muslims', in a court of law (even if the Muslim lies).

It isn't that I oppose the spirit of Hudud per se - but I do not understand what is so "unIslamic"/kafir/jahilliyah with common law which has created dynamic societies and defeated outdated societies of the caliphates (other than what they claim the good book says). That too, when many a Caliph/ "Islamic" leadership ascended their "thrones" in less than ethical ways.
Why can't the PAS leadership stop using religion as a divide so as to achieve their ambitions of political power. Are they so bankrupt of ideas, that they have to keep harping on Arabic literature the unethical leaders of medieval times, just because they used sacred literature to justify their ideas?
Do they need to speak in unintelligible Arabic tongues to hoodwink the peasants?
They seem to be so focussed on Arabic culture/ "Islamic" laws and edicts, that they forget about instilling positive "values" through modern, progressive and scientific education.
The negative connotations of their insistence on dogmatic religiosity/ politics, does nothing to increase their stature as leaders who are in touch with the socio-economic realities of the 21st century.
Have they forgotten what "theology" is all about in preaching religious politics, or are they trying hard to be what RPK might've implied?

What is Hudud?

Noun - 1.hudood - Islamic laws stating the limits ordained by Allah and including the deterrent punishments for serious crimes hudud Islamic law, sharia, sharia law, shariah, shariah law - the code of law derived from the Koran and from the teachings and example of Mohammed; "sharia is only applicable to Muslims"; "under Islamic law there is no separation of church and state"

Here is what Aliran wrote in 2002:-

10. Is there a chance that Hudud may overstep the legal rights of non-Muslims?

In all likelihood it will. As Malaysia is a plural society and where the concentration of one ethnic community is not necessarily confined to one region or state there are bound to be clashes and overlaps in application. For example in any crime the victim and perpetrator may be of different religions. If the alleged rapist is a Muslim and the victim is a non-Muslim, there will be the question as to under what law the charge would be brought about. Under Hudud the alleged male perpetrator may stand to gain because of the impossibility of getting the testimonies of four Muslim male witnesses. Under Hudud, Muslims who commit robbery of property that is valueless in Islam e.g. liquor or entertainment equipment will have a chance of escaping any prosecution. In another worst-case scenario, such as in an incident of gang-rapes, where there are multiple perpetrators and victims (comprising Muslims and non-Muslims), eye-witness accounts of the rapes which may be offered by the victims would not be admissible as evidence as they may not be Muslim and male. In all of these hypothetical cases non-Muslims will stand to see justice taken away from them.

11. What effect will Hudud have on race relations?

The bleak scenario is that Muslim and non-Muslims will be forcibly divided not just in the cultural and social sense but in a legalistic sense too. A parallel legal system established exclusively for Muslims will lead to the enhancement of structural discrimination, where race and religion (and gender) can be legally invoked to justify unequal treatments and other unfair provisions in society. Eventually it will also lead to a geographical divide between Muslims and non-Muslims where one can expect an exodus of non-Muslims to more “non-Muslim” states or even emigration abroad.

17. What is to be done?

It will be difficult to repeal any law once passed. The strategy of stalling the implementation of Hudud (in the Kelantan case) is only temporary. If PAS manages to win the overwhelming support of the Malay electorate there will be less of a reason to postpone the implementation of the law.

On a long-term basis the struggle to repeal Hudud law must involve the struggle to repeal all draconian and unjust laws, whether passed under religious or secular guises. All laws that violate the principles of human rights and equality must be abolished. The movement to institute human rights is not necessarily western-oriented. It is as much a cultural need to want human dignity to be protected as it is a universal obligation to appreciate the rights of a community to cultural and religious practice. However, ultimately we must recognize that the greatest rights worth defending are rights that are invoked purely on the basis of us being humans. Which means equal treatment, equal access to opportunities and equal dignity for all, regardless of religion, race, class, nationality and gender. The only viable movement in this direction would be to restore our democratic institutions and push for a genuine regime of human rights.

Given the above mentioned scenarios, Hudud is anything but a fair law in a plural society and is divisive in nature - and thus would lead to a sectarian divide and conflict, and the demise of Malaysia as we know it.
IMHO, That can hardly be described as a law that's divine in nature .....
So what exactly is the PAS leadership under the author of "Amanat Hadi" up to, in trying to play up dogma and at the same time denying that it will not affect non-muslims who have an equal (if not more than the newly "Malaysianised") stake in the nation. Are they intent on playing up the delusion of an Islamic Utopia so as to hoodwink those in the dark about their humanity?
Are they trying to replace "Ketuanan Melayu" with "Ketuanan Islam" in a two-tier society?
Are they trying to deceive the non-muslims into believing that they will not be affected by Hudud?
Are they intent on injecting an energy pulse into the Muslim masses, so as to give them the "delusion of power" and have them dance around like the harmless phone which turned into a deadly "deceptacon" (in the movie I mentioned above)?

I appeal to the PAS leadership to refrain from exploitative political tactics using medieval laws & dogma, and transform itself into a pragmatic and progressive political ally in the Pakatan Rakyat for the good of the nation.
For the good of a dynamic and progressive Malaysia, please drop the Hudud & Islamic State rhetoric.
There is nothing but honour in giving up regressive ideas based on medieval laws which may be divine only in part. If it is divine, then IMHO, its divinity stops when references may be from man made texts/literature of the Sunna/ Ijma/ Qiyas, which the different Sunni or Shiite schools of thought may interpret differently. Denying human frailties in interpretations are characteristics of "Godmen Politicians" and would be very unbecoming of true "men of God", whichever school of thought they may belong to.

Let us learn to articulate our ideas well, embrace various philosophies and refrain from the arrogance of claiming to have the monopoly on truth and justice. Let us inculcate positive values/philosophy (which can be Islamic and Universal) into the hearts of people, without having to merge religion/church and state.
There are many things about which PAS needs to "level" with the general public, despite its laudable cooperation in the Pakatan Rakyat. However, for now, should I be a KT voter, come what may, I'd still vote for PAS over any BN candidate, considering the nature of the Umno/BN regime.
To me PAS is still a better bet - at least for now ....

In the words of RPK, "I challenge PAS to prove its critics wrong. Re-endorse the People’s Declaration and prove, once and for all, that a civil society and not the cutting off the hands of thieves is the priority of the party. In response to the move by PAS to, again, endorse the People’s Declaration, the civil society movements, even those whom PAS labels as ‘deviant Muslims’, will go down to the ground to explain the issue to the voters. This, we promise PAS.

I can assure you of one thing. Even those who are not Muslims plus those, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, who are opposed to the setting up of an Islamic State and Hudud will be campaigning for PAS in the Kuala Terengganu by-election. Re-endorse the People’s Declaration and see whether this happens or not."

Wish you all a Very Happy and Prosperous 2009!

====================================

Further Reading:-

• Q & A on the Hudud and Qisas Enactment

• No Holds Barred (RPK)- The hypocrisy in man

• An outline of Hudud, Ta'zir & Qisas

• Hudud

• Islam and Violence in Malaysia
  

Hobbes justifies ISA? Go fly a Kite, Chin Huat!!!

"But why would people want a strong government?
Because we are fundamentally a Hobbesian nation.....
Blaming the BN for the ISA is easy, but such self-righteousness will blind us from acknowledging our own evil taste for authoritarianism."
-Wong Chin Huat, The Nut Graph

The basis of Lockean social contract is the consent of the governed derived from the natural rights.
On this basis, Locke formulated the justification of slavery and conquest in term of response to or retaliation to violation of natural right. This is, however, "but the state of war continued" and therefore all forms of slavery and tyranny are invalid by definition.
It thus follow that there is a moral injunction to rebell against such institutions. As a practical matter, in every society, a part must rule the whole. As the majority is composed of more will and is stronger than the minority, the will of society must be determined by the majority.
This makes liberal democracy a moral imperative of natural law and reason itself.
-Wikipedia

"Society can and does execute its own mandates:
and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle,
it practices a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression,
since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself.”
“The rulers should be identified with the people;
that their interest and will should be the interest and will of the nation.
The nation did not need to be protected against its own will.”
-John Stuart Mill

******************************************

This feeble attempt at a possible satire & sarcasm by Wong Chin Huat of the "Nut" Graph is pretty crappy. It is probably also an attempt at appearing to be "balanced" in favour of the apologists of a "strong government" - by blaming the people for the existence of the ISA.
The people have become the convenient scapegoat this time around.
The perpetrators of the campaign of disinformation, lies, apartheid, polarisation, suspicion, siege-mentality, ignorance, hatred, and violence (by threatening another May 13 on Television, that too!) - are in Wong Chin Huat's opinion, faultless!!!

In an attempt to appear to sound intellectual, this apologist for ISA,- this "political scientist by training and a journalism lecturer by trade, Wong Chin Huat uses the Federal Constitution as his “bible” to fend off the increasingly intolerable evil called “state” - quotes Thomas Hobbes in his article as a defense for ISA!
Is he Nuts or what?
Or maybe he's trying to live up to the name of The Nut Graph?
Maybe the SB didn't pay him a visit - maybe it was just a "macai" of that advocate of a "strong government" who might've met him at the anti ISA vigil last Sunday, where he probably wasn't called to speak ....

First and foremost, Chin Huat - it has never been proven that we need a "musclehead" Government or a circus for a Parliament, which Mahathir happens to propose.
We need good governance with an enlightened leadership - not idiots who resort to brute force when they are challenged intellectually.
Period!

"Social contract" as defined by Hobbes is something else, Chin Huat- here in UmnoLand, it is supposed to be what "Umno" wants, as and when it pleases.
In their dictionary, it doesn't have anything to do with the Federal Constitution which might fit Hobbes's definition. It has nothing to do with the "reason" which Thomas Hobbes would advocate in his definition.
Without a doubt - a bad government is better than no government.

But in our case, it isn't about "no government" - we do have alternatives, which certain quarters would not allow. It's about the rulers who perceive political and intellectual adversaries and an enlightened citizenry as enemies! It therefore strives to silence opposition, propagate hate , suspicion and apartheid under the guise of "education" and "benevolence".
To claim that Hobbes would declare our government is "benevolent" is true - probably relative to Stalinist USSR, I suppose.
Votes garnered out of gerrymandering, campaign of lies and ignorance is no measure of the people's desire. That's called "Cheating" on Umno's "level playing field", or the "social contract" as they see it!
So, to say that the people have traded-off their rights for "stability" with ISA, is at best a big lie!
The votes for BN weren't votes for ISA, (although that is what it amounts to in reality) as most people are in the dark where their rights are concerned - or at least are terrified to exercise their rights, lest they lose their small mercies granted by the almighty Goons!

The problem Chin Huat doesn't seem to realize, is the fact that it isn't the people who desire a "strong government" - it is the government that desires it, so that they get do anything they desire (right or wrong) with impunity in the absence of counter-checks.
To make matters worse, we are today left with a shell of a judiciary, and a pathetic parliament, where foul-mouthed idiots masquerade as "leaders" who represent the government (since the time of Mahathir). To make matters worse, the role of the head of state has been reduced to that of a puppet!

They don't like the fact that debates should take place in parliament - under this "strong government" of brutes (with penchant for threatening/stirring up sectarian conflict), it is better done behind closed doors on their own terms.
They rather have a large "coalition" wherein there are second-class allies with whom they can "negotiate" with bullying & corrupting tactics.

With a toothless opposition, the parliament is nothing but a circus ring - what more with a servile media! That is the only reason why we have Speakers who throw out opposition YBs with the flimsiest excuse, while they play the apologist for unthinking liars like Nazri and morons like Tajudin & the infamous Bung!

At the end of the day, the ISA isn't a security law - it is a law that is used to justify repression and oppression (physical, spiritual & intellectual).
It is a law that is used to prop up an intellectually bankrupt government, which is in fact weak in terms of governance & accountability - so that it would appear strong in terms of brute force.

I seriously doubt that this is what Thomas Hobbes would have envisioned for a "Social Contract"- definitely not John Locke or Stuart Mill, anyways ....

======================================

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things.
The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse.
The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself"
-John Stuart Mill

Total Recall - "Trojans" Revisited ....

"Who are the oppressors but the Nobility and Gentry; and who are oppressed, if not the Yeoman, the Farmer, the Tradesman and the Labourer?
... your slavery is their liberty, your poverty is their prosperity; yea, in brief, your honouring of them, dishonoureth the commonality... Unlord those that are lorded by you."
- Ranter Laurence Clarkson, 1647 (p. 81), The Many-Headed Hydra

*****************************************

Lately, as I was going thru the web for some reading material, I found this image of the three legged stool at a DIY blog - and guess what I thought of as I read the author's comment (below)?
It was none other than BN and its "NEP/social contract/Ketuanan Melayu" rhetoric!
"I like the design, but crutches are pretty expensive, so unless you have access to broken ones, it’s a bit prohibitive."

***************************************************

I also stumbled upon reviews of this book which I wish to get soon:

The Many-Headed Hydra is a book which explains how the ruling elites used legitimizing myths based upon metaphors of societal "terror" to manipulate cultural understandings in order to justify repressive violence against culturally defined "punishable categories of people".......

Be that as it may be, what actually plagues the nation now isn't just BN, but also the lack of conscience among politicians - more so, among those who trumpet "religious dogma" and not "values", so as to exploit the masses.

The recent removal of YB Khalid Samad as the PAS Dty. Commisioner from the Selangor line-up spoke volumes about the sincerity of the high profile BN-moles within the PAS hierarchy.
Therefore, calling these currently defensive guys in the leadership, "Trojans", as I did in a post here (it was mainly an interesting discussion on MT - Trojan Horses in the opposition ranks - early this year), wouldn't be too far from the truth.

With the PKR AGM currently afoot, it would be wise for the leadership to bear in mind - that anything which compromises the principles of the desired end result, is morally unsound. The electorate to bear in mind the Achille's Heel of the Pakatan Rakyat coalition, which threatens to derail the process of reform that has begun with 308. Hence, it is imperative that PKR and DAP strengthen their bonds and alliance, and consolidate their position - while not neglecting other partners.
So long as "these elements" do not apologize for the threats that they pose, but remain within the fold, instability and the possibility of derailment cannot be ruled out. These are elements who feel sidelined and apparently do not have not achieved "stature" in national politics befitting their "image", despite their popularity among their faithful. They definitely feel that "smaller" politicians have stolen the limelight which they seek for themselves..... hence the refusal to "play second fiddle" to PKR, but the willingness to be the "expensive crutch" (as in the pic) to Umno's "DIY stool", so as to "hide the shame".

BN/Umno, being masters at what they do, definitely wouldn't mind paying a kings ransom to ascertain their grip on real power, while dishing out peanuts for their "allies". With the might of the instruments of state on its side, let us not be so naive as to believe that Umno doesn't have moles within PAS - they have much more than we may realize, and DSAI knows that quite well.

While I value the electoral partnership that PAS has provided, never for a minute have I been convinced of their sincerity or their intellectual prowess (referring to these "certain individuals").
Although they never expected the electoral "windfall", they did it grudgingly - simply out of their hunger for power - and now their thirst don't seem to be unquenchable! Call me "politically naive" if you like - but I still maintain, that the least trustworthy in a roomfull of politicians, are those who have the need to hide behind the cloak of religion (at least, physically).

Here we have some politicians in "religious" garbs, clamouring for posts and making a pretense of their intellectual credentials, which only impresses the politically illiterate of the nation. They never hesitate to lie to the masses to hide the greed, envy and deceit that they harbour in their hearts.
These are the people who trumpet the virtues of a "theocracy", while they espouse the politics of sectarianism and subjugation.

They are just political wannabes and Umno "drop-outs", who just like their counterparts in Umno/BN, use the platform of democracy, to garner absolute power (but under the cover of religion). They do not care about the economy, democracy, justice or nationhood - they only care for power. These "godmen" would agree to any deal, as long as it can assure them access to power and control. They wouldn't mind being just one of the expensive crutches that would hold up a thoroughly corrupt regime, despite all their religious convictions and psycho-babble.
Their tool is ignorance (of course, once again under cover of religion) among the cloistered and isolated "unreasoning faithful".
Until and unless these guys have had their fill of "power" within the coalition, the danger of BN/Umno rearing it's one of its ugly heads from within would remain.
Just like the mythical Hydra, you can chop it off - but another would grow in its place.

This doesn't mean that PAS as a whole cannot work with their allies, as there is still a significant voice of "reason" within it's fold, which is unfortunately suppressed due to the lack of progressive politics, democracy and open debate (despite all the show we see). They are however, merely "tolerated" rather than accepted in the hierarchy. When push comes to shove, I seriously doubt that people like Khalid Samad and Husam Musa can withstand the onslought of the "godmen", who hold the minds of the unthinking faithful in a vice grip. It would be best for them to align themselves with PKR, and fight for their values from there.

Considering the frail & aging Nik Aziz, and the culture of "idol-worship" that's prevalent, the salvation of PAS's politics hinges on their "Erdogan-ization" - intellectuals and pragmatic in their fold. The so called "Erdogan Faction" within PAS should be embraced for their pragmatism and intellectual clout, while the heroes of "Amanat Hadi" should be zippered. In the event that the current PAS leadership resorts to Mahathirism (or Khomeini-ism) to suppress them, they would only fade once again into the political oblivion of radicalism, even if they were to ally themselves with Umno.
Considering the circumstances, the scepticism which DAP might harbour with regard to the sincerity of these "trojans" is, I'm certain, shared by PKR and Anwar.

But let's not write them off as yet - there's still hope that PAS will embrace positive values advocated by the intellectuals. There is hope yet, that they would be willing to open the minds of their followers to change, instead of recoiling into "Amanat Hadi"s of the future.
Let's see how they evolve, and what the future holds for them in Pakatan Rakyat ..... or maybe even in Umno!

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Related:
Fearing the 'Trojans' of 916?
The PAS factor - A Viable Alternative?
The PAS "Cooperation" and Vote.
Class Politics - the Other Option?

"Bubble of Hope & Faith" Blues .....

88888888888888888888888888888
"He never chooses an opinion; he just wears whatever happens to be in style."

-Leo Tolstoy

888888888888888888888888888888888

Do not let this Hope & Faith that the people have in democracy through the ballot-box, be just another bubble that needs to burst!
It would be wise for our leaders to start heeding the voice of the people - real soon!! Or else, they risk being the laughing stock of their opponents, and being branded as traitors to the rakyat.
If Faith and Hope in our secular Federal Constitution & Democracy is lost, we are headed down the drain. This reminder would especially significant to the two parties that cater to the "Malay Heartlanders" - not that PKR is absolved of this crime of indifference, anyway.

Issues that have been "staple diet" among the politicians on both sides of the fence lately, has got me wondering if I've just been feeding the "Bubble of Hope".
Our politicians are coming dangerously close to bursting this "bubble", if they do not take the people seriously.
Same goes for the actions of our Men-in-Blue too - the blatant lies that are dished out in the media by some quarters pretty high in the chain of command doesn't do much to enhance their image nor the confidence in the rule of law.

Here we have a State that's politically lost - playing up non-issues like the DAP, Pas in booze sale row, Pak Lah says yoga is ok for Muslims, "Allah", 'Nod not needed for fatwa'.
Umno knows that Yoga won't fill bellies - nor will a ban on candlelight vigils or the pro-ISA demos. They are just concerned with preserving the status quo of absolute executive power and their grubby hands in the cookie jar, thanks to Mahathir. Umno is obsessed with their "transition" and "money politics"/corruption, 'malay rights"/pseudo-NEP, sabotaging "opposition states" and their show of power against peacful and unarmed citizens.

Meanwhile, PAS trying to "exert its influence" in the PR electoral pact. Then we have PAS/ PKR trying to "play it smart" where the anti-ISA vigil issue is concerned - just how many PAS/ PKR MPs have come out in support of civil society movements' against the ISA?
Do they need accolades and glory in order to make themselves felt?
Or is it because, we cannot roll out the red-carpet for them?
Maybe it is because they fear being hauled up by the "men-in-blue" for attending an assembly deemed "illegal" by an unconstitutional law?

At one time, it was PKR that I had this "Hope" in - it is now slowly dissipating.
They seem more obsessed with posturing, and making a pretense of the real issues that plague the nation. I did not see any PAS or PKR politicians taking up issues seriously with the BN/Speaker in the Dewan. Nor have I seen any of them (or their thousands of ardent followers) making their presence felt at any of the Anti ISA vigils.
Then we have our Selangor MB speaking of 15 minute vigils indoors
(I can almost hear echoes of - OMG, WTF!!)!!!!

If he's so concerned about "playing by the rules", what the hell is he doing in the opposition bench? Doesn't he realize that it is these very unconstitutional laws/rules he wishes to subscribe to, that subjugates the people & keeps his opponents in power?
Maybe he just wishes to be what G.B. Shaw would call, "A man of great common sense and good taste - meaning thereby, a man without originality or moral courage".

Of course they are always there to pass comments and press statements for political mileage, though .....
Don't they see that they are being manipulated by their political adversaries, and they are swallowing the bait - hook, line & sinker!!!

And what's with PAS and their issues with alcoholic beverages? Why do they play the Umno-esque "siege-politics"? Aren't there any other issues that they have to fight for? Should corruption and the economy be their priority? Don't they understand that they need to address the "bread & butter" issues?
Don't they know that they have to learn to work with their partners and the electorate, who have given them greater voice?
Is this the "Thanks" we get from a party that's obsessed with "morality"?
Don't they know that too much of a good thing, loses its virtues?
Don't they know that "It's the Economy, Stupid"?

As much as I have had misgivings about DAP and its "confrontational" style of politics in the past, it appears to me now that they seem to be only ones who are actually sincere about fighting for the rights of the people! Probably it doesn't fantasize about being the "dominant" party in a ruling coalition - which is why they do take risks to express themselves in dissent (which incidently, is the true mark of a patriot).
If only DAP could somehow transform itself into a truly multi-racial party by attracting more "people from the heartlands" by speaking their language, and acknowledging that there has to be a more significant presence of Malays in their midst.
Now - is that a "bubble of Hope", or what .....

Ignorance + Freedom = Chaos

RPK recently publish an article on No Holds Barred entitled "Robespierre on freedom of the press" which advocates total, unfettered freedom of the press. This was written in relation to the "criminal defamation" and "sedition" charges the people can be subjected to under the restrictive laws of this country - and as such, in principle, I'm inclined to be in agreement.

However, it is my opinion, that an ignorant society cannot "handle" freedom - it would be akin to setting free a caged animal which is fed its meals, and having lost its survival instincts.
In order for a society to appreciate the value of freedom there first has to be freedom of thought and a liberal education. The education referred to here doesn't refer to the schooling under shackles of restrictive laws that we have in Malaysia. It refers to that which requires students to be exposed to fresh ideas, challenge established norms and debate ideas that are deemed "alien" or even "dangerous". Without the ability of the public to grasp ideas and concepts, they would be prone to irrational emotional outbursts of "flight or fight" response of the mid-brain, as seen at the Bar Council forum (led by the intellectual amoeba - Zul Nordin).

Had this liberal education been prevalent in Malaysia, RPK's writings would never have been considered "dangerous" by our political elite, and BN with its intellectually bankrupt political ideologues would long ago have been history. The ignorance we see among our "educated" graduates is an essential element, that ensures the perpetuation of the rule by these pirates who plunder the nation. It is the one reason we have institutions like BTN and religious enforcement bodies- to ensure that the minds remain in bondage - it will ensure that the people live in fear of the very freedom they seek and demand a "strong government" to keep them on a leash.
It is the stuff which, as Imran Imtiaz calls them - "benevolent authoritarians"(aka dictators) , dream of.

It was keeping these things in mind, that the following (minimally edited) comment was put up in the comments section on No Holds Barred ....

Robespierre did say all those things about freedom - however, without a rational people and sound philosophy to back it up, the french revolution resulted in plenty of bloodletting (which ended in his own).

What I write now is a generalisation of Malays indebted to Umno out of ignorance. The reason for this is simply becos Umno rules, and Malays form the majority. This isn't meant to be a racist tirade - I know of many good Malays who want change.
However it also applies to many in other communities.

Anyway- as you said Pete, it's about the money.
The sad part of it all is - the Malays think it's about Ketuanan Melayu, and insist on giving their support to Umno.
They do it even if it means surrendering their liberty and remaining in shackles - mind, heart & soul. They don't seem to care if religion is just a tool to promote fascism.
I remember clearly, one comment in this column (some time last year), stating that they don't mind living in the jungles, as long as they feel they are in control.

Liberty, freedom, economy, education, integrity, nationhood etc, etc don't seem to matter to them at all. These higher ideals are foriegn, greek, kafir to them. They just need their "opium" - religion, and ego.
They don't mind living in "denial" - like how some claim that "Tanah Melayu was never really colonised - only took advise from Brits". It is the same thing that goes on in their minds where Umno is concerned - and as a result they fear living without their (psychological) colonial masters.

What matters to them today is, that they get their pittance and feel they are bosses, while gawking with empty pride at the high and mighty god-like "cemerlang & gemilang" Malay elite, or the concrete structures that apparently depict their progress.
What matters is they have handicaps over (who they believe are) "pendatangs/kafirs", provided for them by their political masters.
What matters is they have the ability to spite & sneer at those they are made to perceive as foreigners.
They just want to go on "living" the way Umno (thru BTN) has taught them - living on the empty pride that they are masters of the land, while begging for handouts (coming from taxpayers) and envying the success of others.

Even if there were to be a change of govt, there will be a lot of discontent among the Malays, should they not understand the reality they are faced with - and this would create a lot of instability.
In a nation of easily hoodwinked, unthinking, gullible masses, and impotent instruments of state created by authoritarian rule, it is something that's sure to happen. It would create chaos in the delivery system that has for ages been infiltrated & controlled by Umno - and they know how to play the game of sabotage.
That is why TDM boldly says that race-based politics is still relevant. He knows that many (rich & poor) are paralysed without it. He knows that the independence we celebrate is actually hogwash. What we have today is a people who gladly enslave themselves to the elite, for the privilege of crumbs - the sellout of Mahathir for RM200 is one good case.

A free media would definitely help alleviate this situation - however in the current situation, I guess there should be controls in content, where one shouldn't use the liberty to subvert it (just like some politicians who use democracy to impose religiosity that curtails it). This ignorant public, is an excuse which authoritarian govts use to suppress freedom - and it can only be done by emasculating the other pillars of state with popular support (as TDM had done).

The only way out of this predicament is through education - until and unless the system roots for meritocracy (with need-based affirmative action), things will not change. Students today are taught to fear the unknown & feel insecure without their privileges. The students of today hold the future in their hands. It is they who need to awaken and rage against the system.
UUCA together with the ISA, needs to be repealed. Abolishing the ISA alone won't unshackle their minds or cut out the rot.

With a liberal education and healthy debate, BN would long ago have been history - which is why BN ensures "indoctrination of the educated".
This would encourage people to think about and accept philosophically sound ideas from various schools of thought - instead of seeking solutions and a safety net in race-politics, privileges, religiosity and mindless "God-talk".

Only then can the idea of freedom & Malaysians as one people take root.

**********************************

PS
"Ty" has correctly suggested the words "Critical Pedagogy". Here are some links ....
Further Reading:-
Critical pedagogy
What is Critical Pedagogy?
What is Critical Pedagogy?

National Leadership Umno Internal Affair??

"I believe not only is the public interested in such debates but people also want to know what their leaders' stands, ideas and abilities are."
Khairy said: “I just want to know the time, date and venue and I’ll come.”
Dr Khir agreed to the debate on Sunday.

“Contesting for posts in a party is an internal matter.
This is like a family contest, therefore it is not necessary to draw external attention.
“Furthermore a public debate will only undermine efforts to strengthen the party especially if the issues brought up are sensationalised by the Opposition,’’ he said.
- Mukhriz
*********************************************

Never mind that all of them are filthy rich - None of the personalities above are people I'd look to for leadership under any circumstance. Their spineless nature and what they have done (not done, too) in their roles thus far is good enough a reason.
That's just me, okay.
This is because I would like to see a man who can articulate his thoughts well. The mind of one I'd choose would figure a great deal in the equation of "trust".

In Umno though, it's a different story - In Umno, it's a "incestuous affair", wherein patronage carries greater weight than intellectual acumen. Even if one is a retard or the least born in a family of political bigwigs with plenty of "goodies to throw around", he's assured of the pie that mama bakes.
Even if some may deny that it hasn't already been so for the last 50 yrs, at least in the near future, we're assured of this - what more when a nominee boldly claims that he shouldn't speak in public, lest "the opposition" debates it.

Mukhriz has stated that it isn't necessary for the public - all Malaysians - to hear him speak his mind in an open debate.
According to him, the leadership is a "family matter" .... sort of like the "negotiated tender" which should come under OSA, I suppose.
Yes - that's the future of Umno's reform and leadership of the nation.
It's a "family matter" - others shouldn't get to see the soiled linen or the by-productsof this incestuous orgy (even if they know of it). A little bit of idol-worship propaganda, assisted by the servile media and membership of this club usually solves all this nuisance called perception
The citizens don't need to hear him say anything. After all he cannot afford to be thought of as a bumbling fool who says that one can be arrested under ISA for "personal protection/safety", right?

The people shouldn't know that their leaders are mongoloids, retards or a loose cannon.
Maybe all Mukhriz needs to do to show his leadership skills, is just grin and walk around in a "daddy's boy" outfit. That would be good enough for the Umno Youth to shout out "Hidup whatever!" and carry him on their shoulder as the victor in the coming "family" elections.

There is also another argument presented by some other Umno-ites - there is a danger that the delegates would choose the best orator and not the best leader!!
To those who believe this, might I suggest that they dress themselves in bedsheets like the KKK or in hoods like the "Jihadis"- after all, the delegates may elect the most well dressed, the handsome, the ugliest, fattest, baldest or whatever else!
There is a real danger of this happening too, you see ... and I dread to think what else would come out of their puny minds, to make Malaysia look worse than it already does with Hamid Albar.

At least one among the candidates knew that he needed to rearrange his face to qualify as a "youth" candidate and the other knows that he's screwed (which explains his current "liberalist" politics) .....
Maybe, if Mukhriz has it his way, they would all be silent at all times, unless handed a script by the real players.
I wonder what the grand ol' man of Umno thinks about this Umno's evolution.
Being an Umno "family affair", I guess he believes it's all going according to plan ....

Strong Government, or Good Governance?

*********************************************

"A weak Government would not be able to deal with the quarrelling between the races, which is the natural tendency of most multiracial societies. Indeed in some multiracial countries violence and fighting are common. Witness the countries around us."
- Dr. Mahathir, CheDet.com

"You definitely wouldn't desire a harmonious state, where the government is controlled by the people who are confident of themselves.
In fact, you would prefer "strong government" that requires repressive laws to control an irrational and emotional people prone to "perceived insecurities", as a result of "fear mongering"."
- Reply to TDM's Criticism on CheDet.com

************************************************

Dear Tun,
Once again you speak of a “strong Government”, which you believe in.
Accordingly, I would like to comment on it, just as I did previously (even if you don't read it).

As you can see, from the comments on MT, there aren't many who would oppose the idea of a strong Govt for the sake of stability. (The comments on CheDet.com however, would of course would shower you with accolades even if you said that the tooth fairy exists)
While everybody in his right mind would love a “strong government” that provides proper leadership with sound judgment, not many will agree with your definition of a strong government.
There is a flaw in your argument, dear sir..... as flawed as the “strong opposition” in your previous entry on this matter.

You claim that “In a single ethnic country it does not matter if the Government is weak because...” does not hold water – would you say that of the many third world/ 'Islamic' despotic regimes or countries like Italy?
Probably not.
How about India?
It is a sub-continent, with in actual fact, many races/ “nationalities”/ religions to begin with.
It embraces pluralism and practices a secular constitution. Governance is complicated, but is a challenge which politicians have risen to.
Its successive governments have been “weak” (as per your definition), but have had sterling economic performance since they opted for it, as opposed to the “strong governments” of semi-fascist, isolationist Indira Gandhi's Congress rule which was impoverished, had a government controlled economy, an enslaved media & civil service, suffered economic malaise, endemic corruption and frequent unreported conflicts.
With this “weak government” with and a liberalized economy though, private enterprise is healthy, the economy is resilient, the country is in relative peace and the living standards have dramatically improved.

From the article you wrote, it appeared to me that what you advocate is a “powerful government” with "strong arm leadership", and not exactly a “strong government”.
A "powerful government" is able to keep the peace with “strong arm tactics” like barbaric laws and subservients instruments of state, while a truly “strong government” is able to convince the electorate of their credibility despite not having a majority.
A strong government is one that would dare to transcend partisan politics in order to safeguard the rule of law - whereas, a government that that demands power to rule, would seek to rule by intimidation.
While they can be both (powerful & strong or vice versa), they are rarely so, dear Tun.
You cannot always equate the two.
Likewise a strong leadership does not necessarily translate into good governance.

If you were to look at our politics (your politics, actually), the definition of a strong govt is "strong arm Govt" as a result of the state sanctioned corruption that's required, in order to perpetuate the agenda of greed. It means unquestioning obedience - right or wrong.
The 58% majority would be considered a "landslide", in a healthy democracy with strong institutions of state that provide adequate checks & balances. This however, is not be in a state run under the ideology of "Ketuanan Melayu" using NEP as a pretext for robbing the nation's wealth, where the subversion of the rule of law is a prerequisite for being a strong Govt (as under your rule). It is for this very reason that “powerful governments" have high stakes in the economy/ “private enterprise”.

This government (you propose and we had) has been inextricably linked to, and controls all sectors of the economy and institutions. As such, it is vulnerable when the economy suffers due to external influences. The economy/people would also suffer when the government has poor leadership, when the pie shrinks or there is a prospect of change in government. This is far from what one might call a “strong government” - the evidence can be seen from the economy of the Suharto regime or even Zimbabwe, for that matter.
Such a govt can never withstand the ideological onslaught of any right thinking people - and hence would resort to strong arm tactics to bully them into submission (read RPK/Hindraf/ISA). The other option would be to warn the people not to speak of "sensitive issues" and stifle the media.

It is what we have seen successive governments under BN do to opposition controlled states, civil rights leaders, academics or political dissenters. In the Umno leadership, due to lack of ideas & principles, it is imperative that they propagate a racist siege mentality, so as to shore up 'credibility' that rides on fascistic ideas of a "strong government".

That, dear Tun, is your idea of a strong govt - a govt that has the ability to hold the state at ransom - subvert the economy, the institutions of state, the constitution, disregard human rights and destroy the rule of law. A govt that dictates to an economically enslaved citizenry under the guise of democracy. The reason for this is simple - the Umno/ BN regime is philosophically/ideologically bankrupt, and would resort to anything (from religion to subversion) to maintain its grip on power and its "right to rule".
Umno doesn't see the need to be accountable or articulate in the actions or ideas. It therefore is unable to communicate coherently enough to convince its "opponents" of its ideas of nationhood. The objective & incentive here is only one thing - the freedom to squander the wealth of the nation (legally) created by the people, and not the well-being of a nation.

What you speak of Tun isn't exactly democracy - you speak of a "benevolent dictatorship" that dictates terms to the subservient people it professes to serve.
What you don't seem to advocate is a govt that is strong on principles of justice and rule of law. Nor do you advocate strong institutions of state that provide alternatives to the politicians who rape the land.
Even pirates can set up strong governments, so as to impose their will upon others with scant regard for intellect, truth and justice. For this, all you need are unreasoning automatons who'd would shudder at the thought of questioning the decision of the “leadership”.
That I presume, might characterise what you advocate in a “strong government”.

A strong government does not stifle voices of democracy.
True strength, dear Tun, comes from intellectual prowess and excellence- not the barrel of a gun. A strong government is one that's secure in its national ideology/ agenda, and is able to tolerate dissent, debate ideas and open to change and progress. It wouldn't propagate a siege mindset nor resort to threats - open or subtle.
It would not resort to punishing voters who exercise their democratic rights, does not “steal” elections, or punish “opposition” ruled states. It doesn't resort to gerrymandering either. It would graciously relinquish power should it lose in elections and is confident that the nation as a whole wouldn't suffer.

A strong and ethical government dissociates itself from excessive involvement in business interests, lest it breeds corruption and greed. It is paramount that it has a pool of intellectuals who can guide a state through challenges of the future, as opposed to the current crop of Umno leadership. While you admit that “a powerful Government, if it is incompetent and badly led would not manage to govern a multiracial country well”, you deny the fact that it is the bigotry, religious chauvinism and racism which the Umno/ BN regime practices, is what creates the need for a “strong government” you seek. Nothing else.

Dear Tun,
Your line of reasoning is deeply flawed, dear Sir.
What we need isn't a "strong government", but "Good Governance" - and it isn't about race or religion.
It's about an electorate having options to governments.
It's about good education in humanities. It's about building trust, and not suspicion, fear of dispossession or a siege mentality among an insecure electorate.

It's about confidence building, dear Sir - not fear mongering, or stifling dissent.