DAP finally got their pillar state of Penang, along with PAS with kelantan as confirmed during GE13, while as expected, BN still has the majority. Selangor is divided among PKR,PAS and DAP.
Most of the urban side has fallen to PR, especially to the DAP. Unfortunately due to the high density of urban residents, the division of the polling area tend to be smaller around urban areas and larger around rural areas. This has caused great discontent among the voters especially when it was apparent that the overall votes for PR is higher than that for BN. While this has shown that BN has greatly lost the majority support of Malaysians, nevertheless, BN still retains the support of rural communities.
Many lament this to be the end of democracy in Malaysia, but the truth is, this is simply the system of democracy at work. Yes, there is a fundamental flaw around the division of polling areas, but that is the system. People not only choose the party they want to represent them, but also the person for their area. You may support that side of the flag, but it does not mean that you may like that person they sent to represent your area. If one only votes for the party, but not the person in question, this is simply a blinded fervour for the party and not in the best interests of the area and the country.
And thus division of polling area is needed. While it has been generally accepted elsewhere in the world that the system works this way, Malaysian voters seem newly aware that this system is in place. Currently there is a great upset among voters, and PR leaders have been using this to their advantage, that this system is unfair. There is also the "Great blackout" incident that has incredulously increased the votes for BN in Bentong and some other areas after a blackout. However, this is not impossible to happen as Lim Kit Siang at Gelang Patah managed to outrun Abdul Ghani within half an hour but the votes just "happened" to increase after the blackout, prompting many to suspect foul play.
Nothing is supposed to be apparent until proven.
One dirty thing in politics is the use of rumors to destroy one's reputation.
Anwar was rumored to be a gay.
Mahathir was rumored to be corrupt.
The polls were rumored to be unfair.
Plenty of things are rumored, but please, keep a cool head and look for evidence. It is already damn hard to look at something subjectively with suspicion in one's mind.
Wednesday, May 8, 2013
Saturday, May 4, 2013
Ubah the people
It is appalling to know that the people around me take "kopi lui" as a "tradition". People complain of corruption but yet they take it as a norm.
There was once when I asked my friend what would he do if he was caught speeding by a traffic police. He replied that he would just stuff money. Then I asked him what he would do if the police refused. He jokingly replied he would add the amount instead. While this is an individual case, ask yourself, what would you do, if you were caught speeding by the police?
Malaysia is a democratic country. We choose our leaders. We are the determining factor whether that guy contesting is going to get into the parliament. However, no matter if we change the government or not, corruption still will exist, as we accept it as a norm. When AES was introduced that could curb corruption as the fines are given by a computer system instead of the human factor, people complain. When there was a case where the police reported a case of under table money after refusing it, people complain.
How can a civil servant do their job when what they do isn't support by the popular masses? The MACC(Malaysian anti corruption commission) is fighting an uphill battle especially without the support and cooperation of the people. It's easy to speculate about how the politicians are corrupt, but the MACC cannot simply execute based on popular opinions. They need facts, and those facts have to be backed up by evidence. SImply advertising how some politician is corrupt is not enough to serve legal justice.
It's even harder to monitor daily corruption, considering that the people take this as a norm. If the police actually refused the bribe, would you praise him for his integrity, or curse his entire generation into hell for letting them punish you for your own mistake?
You are responsible for your own actions, not the government. The government has no right to interfere with your choice, but they could only so much as to punish the perpetrator of crime or try to advise the masses to comply. If you don't want to take responsibility for your actions, why do you expect the government to be superhumans who could?
Ubah. Ubah our mindset before we should even blame others. We are our own man. The government should be the embodiment of the people, not the other way around.
There was once when I asked my friend what would he do if he was caught speeding by a traffic police. He replied that he would just stuff money. Then I asked him what he would do if the police refused. He jokingly replied he would add the amount instead. While this is an individual case, ask yourself, what would you do, if you were caught speeding by the police?
Malaysia is a democratic country. We choose our leaders. We are the determining factor whether that guy contesting is going to get into the parliament. However, no matter if we change the government or not, corruption still will exist, as we accept it as a norm. When AES was introduced that could curb corruption as the fines are given by a computer system instead of the human factor, people complain. When there was a case where the police reported a case of under table money after refusing it, people complain.
How can a civil servant do their job when what they do isn't support by the popular masses? The MACC(Malaysian anti corruption commission) is fighting an uphill battle especially without the support and cooperation of the people. It's easy to speculate about how the politicians are corrupt, but the MACC cannot simply execute based on popular opinions. They need facts, and those facts have to be backed up by evidence. SImply advertising how some politician is corrupt is not enough to serve legal justice.
It's even harder to monitor daily corruption, considering that the people take this as a norm. If the police actually refused the bribe, would you praise him for his integrity, or curse his entire generation into hell for letting them punish you for your own mistake?
You are responsible for your own actions, not the government. The government has no right to interfere with your choice, but they could only so much as to punish the perpetrator of crime or try to advise the masses to comply. If you don't want to take responsibility for your actions, why do you expect the government to be superhumans who could?
Ubah. Ubah our mindset before we should even blame others. We are our own man. The government should be the embodiment of the people, not the other way around.
Pillar of strength
Once again, my tone is that of one who dislikes both sides.
The temporary incident that had led DAP into a momentary hiatus has shown how PR would operate in the case where DAP has lost power.
DAP would contest under the PAS flag and the PKR in Peninsular and West Malaysia respectively.
Has one ever wondered why DAP and PKR have to team up the time bomb, PAS in their coalition?
This is a matter of political reality, as both DAP and PKR lack one thing that both BN and PAS have in their possession, and that is a stable "pillar state", where their power are mostly permanently stable.
PAS knows this.
BN knows this.
Being a new party who has stepped up to rival BN in power under the leadership of Anwar Ibrahim, PKR lacks the administration background and reputation, while DAP is a nearly chinese dominated party, which lacks the social and racial cohesion of the PKR. Their coalition manage to cover some of their holes, but they still lack stability.
And that's where PAS comes in. Having "pillar states", PAS has welded itself into the Malaysian background with its insistence for hudud laws and an Islamic government.
In the PR coalition, PAS holds the true power, however, it severely lacks support from chinese and indian factions due to it's hardcore nature. The coalition of the three parties seems like a perfect team.
The real problem is knowing that PAS holds the true power in the coalition. While they advocate the "PAS for all" propaganda, their leaders are known for making statements that they will never back down from their stand to implement hudud.
What the DAP and PKR needs is their own pillar states so that they do not require back up from PAS, but before that, it seems that they will have to contend with giving PAS more power as it goes into the GE13 as the people will be voting for their party of choice tomorrow. Once PAS has cemented itself into the power seat, it would not give a damn to the other parties as it could have easily run the country Indonesia-style.
That is the real problem for PR. Without an equal standing, the strongest party will dominate the entire coalition.
It's just like how UMNO teamed up with MCA and MIC during the early days of independence. And look at them now. Enough said.
Then, PAS was still inside BN. However, as time went and UMNO going from extreme to central, PAS remained hardcore and was booted out. However, it's like a deja vu as PAS forms it's own coalition rivalling BN now.
Once again, I stress that DAP and PKR have to have their own stable "pillar states" if they are to stand equal to PAS in PR, even if I don't really give a damn to PKR.
The temporary incident that had led DAP into a momentary hiatus has shown how PR would operate in the case where DAP has lost power.
DAP would contest under the PAS flag and the PKR in Peninsular and West Malaysia respectively.
Has one ever wondered why DAP and PKR have to team up the time bomb, PAS in their coalition?
This is a matter of political reality, as both DAP and PKR lack one thing that both BN and PAS have in their possession, and that is a stable "pillar state", where their power are mostly permanently stable.
PAS knows this.
BN knows this.
Being a new party who has stepped up to rival BN in power under the leadership of Anwar Ibrahim, PKR lacks the administration background and reputation, while DAP is a nearly chinese dominated party, which lacks the social and racial cohesion of the PKR. Their coalition manage to cover some of their holes, but they still lack stability.
And that's where PAS comes in. Having "pillar states", PAS has welded itself into the Malaysian background with its insistence for hudud laws and an Islamic government.
In the PR coalition, PAS holds the true power, however, it severely lacks support from chinese and indian factions due to it's hardcore nature. The coalition of the three parties seems like a perfect team.
The real problem is knowing that PAS holds the true power in the coalition. While they advocate the "PAS for all" propaganda, their leaders are known for making statements that they will never back down from their stand to implement hudud.
What the DAP and PKR needs is their own pillar states so that they do not require back up from PAS, but before that, it seems that they will have to contend with giving PAS more power as it goes into the GE13 as the people will be voting for their party of choice tomorrow. Once PAS has cemented itself into the power seat, it would not give a damn to the other parties as it could have easily run the country Indonesia-style.
That is the real problem for PR. Without an equal standing, the strongest party will dominate the entire coalition.
It's just like how UMNO teamed up with MCA and MIC during the early days of independence. And look at them now. Enough said.
Then, PAS was still inside BN. However, as time went and UMNO going from extreme to central, PAS remained hardcore and was booted out. However, it's like a deja vu as PAS forms it's own coalition rivalling BN now.
Once again, I stress that DAP and PKR have to have their own stable "pillar states" if they are to stand equal to PAS in PR, even if I don't really give a damn to PKR.
Seriously? That track record and you'll going with it?
This is a link to a advertisment criticising the economy led under the Malaysian BN government. It maybe a little late to post this since the GE13 is tomorrow, but some things have to pointed out for future reference.
I
should take note that I'm no supporter of any of the both political
groups. The advertisements from BN incite enough emotions but the
real problem is that people get emotional and fail to see that they
are also being misled from the other side.
Note: there might be some discrepancies in the post below and the advertisement. Read the wikipedia article and watch the video first.
Note: there might be some discrepancies in the post below and the advertisement. Read the wikipedia article and watch the video first.
In this
video, there is a comparison of the Malaysian economy from Anwar's
time as the finance minister and Najib's time. I would like to point
out that that was Dr Mahathir's time as Prime Minister and his
various programs has led the country to move towards
industrialization and modernization and thus our economy was booming.
However, the 1997 financial crisis led to a serious rethinking of
Anwar Ibrahim's ability to lead the economy of the country.
“The
financial crisis threatened to devastate Malaysia. The value of
the ringgit plummeted
due to currency speculation, foreign investment fled, and the main
stock exchange index fell by over 75 per cent. At the urging of
the International
Monetary Fund (IMF),
the government cut government spending and raised interest rates,
which only served to exacerbate the economic situation. In 1998,
Mahathir reversed this policy course in defiance of the IMF and his
own deputy, Anwar. He increased government spending and fixed the
ringgit to the US dollar. The result confounded his international
critics and the IMF. Malaysia recovered from the crisis faster than
its Southeast Asian neighbours. In the domestic sphere, it was a
political triumph. Amidst the economic events of 1998, Mahathir had
sacked Anwar as Finance Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, and he
could now claim to have rescued the economy in spite of Anwar's
policies.[63]
“
During
the 1997 crisis, Thailand was attacked before Indonesia. Both the
Baht and Rupiah slumped and both countries opted to adopt the IMF
reforms and economy packages. In the end, both countries had to repay
debts and the countries fell into deep recession as it struggles to
repay the debts to the IMF.
After Thailand and Indonesia, Malaysia was hit next. Anwar opted to follow the economy reforms of the IMF and use their bailout packages. As history and the quote from wikipedia above has shown, such a measure only increased the seriousness of the situation.
“The year 1997 saw drastic changes in Malaysia. There was speculative short-selling of the Malaysian currency, the ringgit. Foreign direct investment fell at an alarming rate and, as capital flowed out of the country, the value of the ringgit dropped from MYR 2.50 per USD to, at one point, MYR 4.80 per USD. “
What
Mahathir did next literally saved the rest of South East Asia from
the speculators who attacked Thailand's, Indonesia's and Malaysia's
currency.
Instead
of continuing using the advice from IMF, Mahathir ripped down the
reforms and instead initiated a economy lockdown to secure the
Malaysian economy. Foreign Malaysian money was freezed and government
spending was increased. Amazingly this measure managed to stop the
economy slump and Malaysia's economy bounced back faster than most of
the other countries, surprising the IMF and other western countries.
However, by 2008, the global credit crunch hit again and even though
the Malaysian economy managed to remain relatively stable, the
current economy has not been able return the pre-1997 highs.
The lockdown measure proved successful. Speculators could not attack the currencies of other ASEAN countries as they would lose money once the country locked down after they attacked. Their method of “selling short” depended on foreign money being available.
Now, imagine if Mahathir had opted to follow the advice of Anwar and Anwar's American aides to give in to the IMF and follow behind Thailand and Indonesia, imagine our current situation.
The video has compared our economy to that of Vietnam. Note that Vietnam was not attacked directly during the 1997 crisis. Not even Singapore was attacked directly. Not only that, they have compared the economy during Anwar's time and now, when Anwar was sacked before he could do real damage to the economy due to his short-sightedness.
The lockdown measure proved successful. Speculators could not attack the currencies of other ASEAN countries as they would lose money once the country locked down after they attacked. Their method of “selling short” depended on foreign money being available.
Now, imagine if Mahathir had opted to follow the advice of Anwar and Anwar's American aides to give in to the IMF and follow behind Thailand and Indonesia, imagine our current situation.
The video has compared our economy to that of Vietnam. Note that Vietnam was not attacked directly during the 1997 crisis. Not even Singapore was attacked directly. Not only that, they have compared the economy during Anwar's time and now, when Anwar was sacked before he could do real damage to the economy due to his short-sightedness.
And
yet, none of the younger generation remembers this part of history
when our country triumphed against western powers who threatened to
hold us as slaves to debt of the IMF.
With
this track record, I simply cannot bring myself to like him, or trust
his leadership, even though I dislike the other side too. I have
heard my friends saying that my various reasons for hating both sides
simply show that I will not care to vote. I agree with that
statement.
Between the devil and the sea, as they always say.
Between the devil and the sea, as they always say.
Saturday, September 15, 2012
Darkness seized the sky,
And iridescent tears fell,
Never such vigour.
Strange how people see rain. Tears of the angels, people used to say, referring to heavenly sanctuary above the skies, where amazing angels and archangels dwell in eternity.
Have we got to get used to the darkness that accompanies the rain that we are shocked at the sight of the sun hanging overhead while we scamper, feeling wet drops on our skin?
Such is the pitiful state of freedom and democracy.
While we relish the power it provides us, whether in the power of making individual choices, or that you are free to move around to wherever you wish, and that you can say what ever you want, we often forget what we got used to: restrictions. We got to know it when we were young, when we were unable to pass judgement rationally, restrictions help us define our judgement,showing what is wrong and what is right.
What about know?
Are we so used to the darkness that envelope us that we often forget it has always been there? We see people voicing off opinions without giving it a second thought, then defending it with vigor that even the idea was wrong, they would rather be blinded to it instead. But who are you and I to pass judgement on others? Maybe they were right, and that we were ignorant.
We see youngsters rising in violent protests that sacrificed innocent lives.
We see politicians willingly send their young men to war in spite of knowing that a war on the defensive is nearly always a losing war.
We see people harbouring strange accusations against people of other religions in spite of not an inkling of the religion.
Let the darkness spread.
And iridescent tears fell,
Never such vigour.
Strange how people see rain. Tears of the angels, people used to say, referring to heavenly sanctuary above the skies, where amazing angels and archangels dwell in eternity.
Have we got to get used to the darkness that accompanies the rain that we are shocked at the sight of the sun hanging overhead while we scamper, feeling wet drops on our skin?
Such is the pitiful state of freedom and democracy.
While we relish the power it provides us, whether in the power of making individual choices, or that you are free to move around to wherever you wish, and that you can say what ever you want, we often forget what we got used to: restrictions. We got to know it when we were young, when we were unable to pass judgement rationally, restrictions help us define our judgement,showing what is wrong and what is right.
What about know?
Are we so used to the darkness that envelope us that we often forget it has always been there? We see people voicing off opinions without giving it a second thought, then defending it with vigor that even the idea was wrong, they would rather be blinded to it instead. But who are you and I to pass judgement on others? Maybe they were right, and that we were ignorant.
We see youngsters rising in violent protests that sacrificed innocent lives.
We see politicians willingly send their young men to war in spite of knowing that a war on the defensive is nearly always a losing war.
We see people harbouring strange accusations against people of other religions in spite of not an inkling of the religion.
Let the darkness spread.
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
"It's just an opinion of mine~~"
Seriously, ask yourself this. Have you ever heard of the phrase, "in my opinion,...","it's just what I'm thinking..." or something like this? What exactly is the purpose of stating that the following speech or thought is just something personal?
By stating his or her stand, that it is all simply a personal thought, the person carries the burden of responsibility of the speech. Listeners might feel safe; they are simply listeners, anything crazy he or she said is just them. On the other hand, any glory taken by the speech is only for the speaker and nobody else is supposed to take credit for it. This seems to be a self sacrificing way that guards everybody's interests. It's a win-win situation: you get to listen and comment on what he or she says without offending others and the speaker gets to express him or herself.
Now look deeper. Why is the phrase truly needed? If it's spoken by someone neutral or of higher status, the accentuation actually would awaken a hidden instinct to hear and have higher recognition of the speech. Humans are a social pack; we would rather follow the crowd than go against it. Unless you have a streak for going against the norm, the phrase would actually press you to believing the speech. On the other hand, if the speaker is deemed inferior to the listener, the accentuation would rather have a negative effect on the speech instead! Notice the effect of the phrase on the listeners: you will notice the subtle change of body language and then there's where you step in and resume listening, without the subtle psychological compulsion to adhere to the speech.
We control our minds, not the other way around.
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Group or Individual
Anyone on this site
Just last week, my class done a biology experiment on the substances on food. When I was about to submit my paper(actually it was more like a handout, but for convenience...), Mr. Bio asked me if I represented an individual or a group. That got me enlightened.
Think about it. Would you rather work for a better group or for a better individual. While you might say, to work for a better individual is for a better group, how many of us automatically knows that and actually would want to that. Of course, most of us want to do that, in fact, I agree with working for better individual is working for a better group. However, would you rather have several individuals in a group, or a single working force, self complementing, working seamlessly for the better good? Thus lies the paradox underneath, should a superior individual attempt to teach a comparatively inferior individual to better the other? Of course he should, at fist glance, as it complements moral ethics. But then again, if the former teaches the latter, wouldn't it cause the former to lose out competitively? This realization isn't really "moral" but once again, what is moral anyways? At last, should we work for the group or for the individual? The group, I say, because I ain't perfect, and so are you, and we need others to correct ourselves.
Just last week, my class done a biology experiment on the substances on food. When I was about to submit my paper(actually it was more like a handout, but for convenience...), Mr. Bio asked me if I represented an individual or a group. That got me enlightened.
Think about it. Would you rather work for a better group or for a better individual. While you might say, to work for a better individual is for a better group, how many of us automatically knows that and actually would want to that. Of course, most of us want to do that, in fact, I agree with working for better individual is working for a better group. However, would you rather have several individuals in a group, or a single working force, self complementing, working seamlessly for the better good? Thus lies the paradox underneath, should a superior individual attempt to teach a comparatively inferior individual to better the other? Of course he should, at fist glance, as it complements moral ethics. But then again, if the former teaches the latter, wouldn't it cause the former to lose out competitively? This realization isn't really "moral" but once again, what is moral anyways? At last, should we work for the group or for the individual? The group, I say, because I ain't perfect, and so are you, and we need others to correct ourselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)