Wan Saiful Wan Jan: We must make reform popular

Excerpt:

"It’s all about changing the climate of opinion to fit your vision because politicians and political parties win or lose based on how popular their ideas are.

JOSEPH Schumpeter, in his book Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, defines democracy as “that institutional arrangement for arriving at political decisions in which individuals acquire the power to decide by means of a competitive struggle for the people’s vote”.

This definition implies that in a democracy there must be competition for votes. This says a lot about the nature of democracy. To win, you must make what you are selling popular. Not necessarily right. But popular.

To see the story of democracy in our country, we need to look back. Since before independence, our society has been divided along communal lines. This was reflected when our political parties were formed. Almost all were communal.

The first president of Umno, Datuk Onn Jaafar, tried to change this. He wanted Umno to open its membership to non-Malays. He embodied the spirit of 1Malaysia before the term was coined.

But he failed and he eventually left Umno. He formed the Independence of Malaya Party and later Parti Negara to pursue his vision for inclusive politics. But, again, he failed.

Onn’s vision was ahead of its time. The public wanted something else, not the good vision that he offered. That is the reality of demo­cracy. Good visions can and do lose the democratic battle if you are un­­able to change the climate of opi­nion to support your vision.

When Tunku Abdul Rahman took over from Onn, he tried to address the communalism by creating the Alliance which eventually became the Barisan Nasional coalition that we have today. Together, they are inclusive but most of the members are still individually communal.

Here we see the Tunku as a sharp politician. He knew that in order to win the democratic contest he must offer voters what they want. They wanted to protect and sustain their ethnic identities through ethnic-based political parties. That was what he gave them.

In this context I would not blame anyone for suggesting that even the Tunku was unable to shift public opinion towards one that upholds equality and one that moves away from narrow ethnic-based communalism. Communal parties continue to grow in our society. Voters seem to want it, and continuously voted for it.

Some parties did try to change the situation. Gerakan and DAP did not set up their parties to be communal.

Nevertheless, when deciding electoral strategies, they too have to think along communal lines. They cannot ignore ethnic distributions when deciding whom to field where."

Rest of article: http://www.thestar.com.my/opinion/columnists/thinking-liberally/2016/11/08/we-must-make-reform-popular-its-all-about-changing-the-climate-of-opinion-to-fit-your-vision-because/

Link

張國榮, 許冠傑 - 沉默是金 Sam Hui, Leslie Cheung

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNRIuaxd1YQ

Link

US Presidential election - Que Sera, Sera

On the eve of the election result, between emails and females,

'Whatever will be, will be' means that the future is up in the air, and whatever is going to happen, is going to happen.

To spice up the dirtiest election in US history, someone designed the following infographic:

and this:

Link

Implications of Idris Jala's ‘The govt does not sack its employees’

If at any time, the government wishes to retrench civil servants, what better reason than sacking those who are charged and convicted of criminal offences? But civil servants are safe for now, because they are one of BN's safe deposits.

Excerpt from The Heat:

"Some teachers molest students and others racially discriminate against innocent children; some civil servants steal public money and others are dead wood at their jobs; some law enforcement officers commit crimes which it is their job to prevent, and the public is left wondering why the government still loves them.

Yet the same government talks of “nation building”. What kind of nation do these people help to build?

IDEAS (Institute for Democracy And Economic Affairs) held a one-day conference on “Nation Building, Unity and the Malaysian Dream: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow”, at the Institut Integriti Malaysia in Bukit Tunku, Kuala Lumpur on Sept 16, 2015.

Some participants raised the issue of racist teachers who are creating disunity by ordering non-Muslim children to have meals in the wash rooms during Ramadan; who tell non-Muslim children they can drink their own urine if the school canteens are closed during the fasting month; who are quick to order non-Malay children to “balik India/balik Cina”; who force Orang Asli children to read the Arabic script and slap them if they can’t.

During the last session titled “The Malaysian Dream: Prospects for the Future”, a member from the floor pointed out that the Malaysian Dream of a united,  developed country would come to naught if racism was not stamped out by taking tough measures.

Racist teachers were doing tremendous damage to efforts of building bridges between the multiracial population as they were turning innocent children, among whom would be future leaders of the country, into racists.

Datuk Seri Idris Jala, CEO of PEMANDU, a speaker on this panel, was asked why such teachers should not sacked. The reply was a firm and curt “the government does not sack its employees”.

This reply speaks volumes and volumes of the state of our civil servants – their inefficiency, corruption, lackadaisical attitude, “ketuanan”ness, immorality, etc.

Contrast this with the case of part-time religious teacher Qatrun Nada Mohd Latfi, who attended a talk given by the opposition in 2012 and was summarily dismissed.

What Idris Jala seems to be saying is that public servants are the government’s fixed deposit in its voter bank. This would also explain the bloated civil service. Be loyal and vote for the BN, and the government will protect you."

Rest of article: http://theheatmalaysia.com/Main/The-govt-does-not-sack-its-employees

YS Chan: Allowing bullies to control taxi points?

It is nice to have someone with first hand experience to tell us this.

Excerpt from his article in The Heat:

"A taxi operator recently declared that drivers of e-hailing services will be barred from picking up passengers at several major hotels and shopping malls in Kuala Lumpur from November.

He planned to bring taxi services at these properties under his control, just as he had done so at Kuala Lumpur City Centre where Suria KLCC is located.

This was after he had secured a sub-contract from another taxi company that has an agreement with a shopping mall for chauffeur-driven limousine services.

If given a free hand, taxi drivers, companies, cooperatives or associations are quick stake territorial claims to monopolise services.

Such exclusivity could easily degenerate to the extent that guests and shoppers using other taxis or e-hailing services may be dropped off on the main road instead of the covered entrance.

Fearing repercussions, the hotel and mall operators named were quick to deny having any agreement or arrangement with this taxi operator, who continues to make waves in the local scene.

There is bound to be confusion when issues are not seen in the right context, more so when matters are further complicated by parties with vested interests."

Rest of his article: http://www.theheatmalaysia.com/Main/Allowing-bullies-to-control-taxi-points

Link