Categories
Liberty Politics & government

[1804] Of Koh is one of the fathers of doublespeak

In The Malaysian Insider:

KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 11 — Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi has been dubbed the “Father of Democratic Reforms” by Gerakan president Tan Sri Dr Koh Tsu Koon.

In his opening speech this morning at Gerakan’s national delegates conference, Koh said that “as the Prime Minister, Abdullah has initiated reforms for good governance and promoted commitment to integrity. As an advocate for democracy, he has opened up more space for expression to Malaysians.” [Koh dubs Pak Lah ‘Father of Democratic Reforms’. Shannon Teoh. The Malaysian Insider. October 11 2008]

I am wary of doing the same thing.

While it is during the Abdullah administration when the Malaysian society reclaims greater democratic space and effectively larger liberty stolen from it by the state, practically none of it is due to active action by Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi. The greater democracy is made possible through effort of various individuals willing enough to stand up and stare back at the state when the state stares at them.

PM Abdullah has failed to reform anything. Each reform he initiated is going nowhere due to opposition from within his own party.

It took free individuals to push organic reform agendas by pushing the frontier of an illiberal state away from suffocating free individuals. To have PM Abdullah enjoying the appellation denies the real contributors who stand in the front line to contest against an arm of the state, the police which is more interested in suppressing freedom rather than fighting crime.

Having the PM as the “Father of Democratic Reforms” steals the honor from those who actually fought for greater democratic space, those that fought against the PM as well as the relentless machinery of Barisan Nasional. The victory is of individuals too many to list here and not of an ineffective personality as well as the machinery that maintains deep disdain for democratic space.

If there is anybody that deserves that honor, it should be the individuals who fought for it. We do not have a “Father of Democratic Reform”. We instead have “Fathers of Democratic Reform” and the PM is not one of them.

Dr. Koh is committing doublespeak for suggesting the sobriquet for the PM. Would we thank the Nazis for losing World War II? Would we thank PM Abdullah for losing the war in our backyard?

Categories
Economics Liberty Politics & government

[1791] Of popular capitalism is nothing less than a crusade

Margaret Thatcher speaking at the Conservative Party Conference in 1986:

[youtube]kMSGW0otfrs[/youtube]

This Government has rolled back the frontiers of the State, and will roll them back still further.

So popular is our policy that it’s being taken up all over the world.

From France to the Phillipines, from Jamaica to Japan, from Malaysia to Mexico, from Sri Lanka to Singapore, privatisation is on the move, there’s even a special oriental version in China.

The policies we have pioneered are catching on in country after country.

We Conservatives believe in popular capitalism—believe in a property-owning democracy.

And it works!

In Scotland recently, I was present at the sale of the millionth council house: to a lovely family with two children, who can at last call their home their own.

Now let’s go for the second million!

And what’s more, millions have already become shareholders.

And soon there will be opportunities for millions more, in British Gas, British Airways, British Airports and Rolls-Royce.

Who says we’ve run out of steam.

We’re in our prime!

The great political reform of the last century was to enable more and more people to have a vote.

Now the great Tory reform of this century is to enable more and more people to own property.

Popular capitalism is nothing less than a crusade to enfranchise the many in the economic life of the nation.

We Conservatives are returning power to the people.

That is the way to one nation, one people.

Categories
Politics & government

[1786] Of Teresa Kok might as well eat dog food

The United States received tremendous sympathy after the September 11 attack. Yet, not too long after that, the US squandered all the goodwill it enjoyed at a dramatic rate. Teresa Kok is fast repeating that pattern.

These days, it seems the fastest way to gain credibility is to be arrested under the anti-liberty ISA. Once the person is put into the cell under the act, one can be sure of gaining hero status among the civil liberty-conscious members of the society.

Ms. Kok is one of those heroes. Or at this rate, was.

Her first mistake was at a press conference where she claimed to be served with something similar to dog food while under a week-long detention.[0] It was clearly a hyperbole to demonstrate the quality of the food she had to suffer[1] but in politics, especially in the extraordinary environment Malaysia is in, one plays with hyperbole at his or her own peril.

Immediately the government set to investigate the matter, taking the matter too seriously that hilarity ensued.[2] And this comedy, unfortunately for Ms. Kok, is unraveling at her expense.

Utusan Malaysia, the daily which published an article which helped sent Ms. Kok into the altar of heroes, reported Ms. Kok’s hyperbole in a very literal manner.[3] That got Ms. Kok doubly upset.

If V.K. Lingam’s slogan is “looks like me, sounds like me”, then Ms. Kok’s rallying call for the next election could possibly be “looks like dog food, tastes like dog food”.

In response to that literal report, Ms. Kok made a u-turn to her earlier statement, saying that she did not say she was served with something similar to dog food but rather, she was served with something slightly better than dog food. The UMNO-connected TV3 handled the matter in the most elegant way: they aired Ms. Kok’s second statement and then air that statement with the first statement she made earlier.

That juxtaposition does not look good for Ms. Kok because Ms. Kok said exactly as Utusan reported.

At this juncture, odd as it sounds, Ms. Kok should really apologize for the hyperbole she committed before this balloons into a larger comedy which could take Ms. Kok out of the picture if indeed Pakatan Rakyat is forming a new federal government soon.

The second mistake which she committed is arrogance.

In an interview with Guang Ming Daily, she had the audacity to say that “she would then become their boss”, if Pakatan Rakyat rose to power to her interrogators.[4] Not only it was arrogant of her to say a such thing and then made it public, the arrogance is very much premature, even if Pakatan Rakyat is really set for Putrajaya. More menacingly, the idea that Ms. Kok would make a public institution as her private playground does not differentiate Ms. Kok from the incumbent government.

Ms. Kok may do well to stop all the nonsense and concentrate on abolishing the ISA instead. This is an issue larger than her, or dog food. It is the ISA which should be at the center stage and not dog food.

The manner at which the issue is being played out at the moment, it only shows the shallowness of those involved, including Ms. Kok. Worse for Ms. Kok, she is on track to trivialize herself by making “dog food” the highlight of her experience, handing victory to the other side.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

[0] — “The food was similar to dog food, there was one day that I was only given two hard-boiled eggs with gravy and cucumber for my lunch and dinner,”. [Teresa Kok. Accessed September 2008]

[1] — IPOH: Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Senator T. Murugiah was aghast when told yesterday that suspects in police lock-ups were only allocated RM5.80 a day for meals. [RM5.80 for food in lock-ups ‘unreasonable’ . New Straits Times. September 22 2008]

[2] — KLANG: The government will conduct a serious investigation into claims by Seputeh MP Teresa Kok that she was served food that was ”almost like dog food” while detained under the Internal Security Act (ISA). [Govt to investigate Teresa Kok’s ”˜dog food’ claim. Dharmender Singh. The Star. September 22 2008]

[3] — KUALA LUMPUR 21 Sept. – Dakwaan Ahli Parlimen Seputeh, Teresa Kok kononnya makanan yang diberikan kepadanya semasa ditahan di bawah Akta Keselamatan Dalam Negeri (ISA) sama seperti makanan anjing adalah merupakan dakwaan yang tidak benar dan keterlaluan. [Makanan anjing: Bekas tahanan ISA sangkal Teresa Kok. Utusan Malaysia. September 22 2008]

[4] — (Teresa later said she even told the investigating officer that she was sleeping and eating well, and would take care of herself properly. She added that if the Pakatan successfully seizes power, she would then become their boss! She said the officer was dumbfounded upon hearing this.) [Teresa Kok: Not in vain. Dominic Loh. Sinchew. September 22 2008]

Categories
Humor Politics & government

[1785] Of Wolfowitz goes off the chart!

Too funny not to post:

[youtube]_xJF3vabmfs[/youtube]

Hitler is Wolfowitz, the mastermind behind Malaysian politics, the architect of Pakatan Rakyat.

Categories
Politics & government

[1784] Of the process that entails defection

Far too many people are debating the morality of the political defection as advocated by the Pakatan Rakyat. Relentless debates have made the matter clear. The question of who is standing on which side is also easily answerable. The less talked about however is the process that entails the political defection.

How exactly power would change after defection has not been answered in a satisfactorily manner.

That changed today with an article by Malik Imtiaz Sarwar.

He lays six points which need consideration.

First is the requirement for the Prime Minister to command the majority confidence of the Dewan Rakyat.

Second is the two options which the “Prime Minister who no longer commands the confidence of the majority” has: a fresh election or resignation.

Thirdly is the way, or really the lack of rule or precedent, in gauging how much confidence the Prime Minister commands. A vote of confidence is not the only option and the government could resort to filibustering. Also noted is the power of the Agong in resolving the crisis of confidence.

The fourth addresses a situation where the Agong demands a vote of confidence and the responsibility of the Speaker of the Dewan Rakyat to execute the demand.

The fifth point relates to a situation where there is a need to call for a vote but yet, the Parliament is not in session or in sitting. How the Parliament is to be summoned is the central problem, especially so when while the Agong can demand it, the summoning itself is dependent on the advice of the Prime Minister. Without the advice, there can be no sitting and hence, no voting. Malik Imtiaz Sarwar however questions this and opines that the Agong’s responsibility is to ensure that the Prime Minister is he whom commands the confidence of the House while the Speaker is answerable to the Agong.

Sixth is the possibility of the Agong skipping the whole process of voting and simply appoint a new Prime Minister which commands the confidence of the majority.

He ends his thought by, I think, referring to a case which I have pointed out earlier.

On my end, while I am supportive of the defection, I demand that it follows the process which has been laid out. I personally believe that the process is reasonable and rights of those affected by the process must be respected. Adherence to the process is essential if we are sincerely interested in orderly transfer of power.