Category: Politics & government

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.

Categories
Politics & government

[1782] Of clowns and doomsayers

Were we in a crisis? Were race relations as bad as the Prime Minister had implied? Did the specter of May 13 loom just beyond the horizon?

I find myself at the top of a hill and ahead I see only green fields as far as the eyes could see. The sky is blue and the breeze is soft. There wais s no wolf and the sheep are safely grazing.

Yet, behind me there is a commotion of the grandest scale. On their soapboxes, the doomsayers preached of an impending disaster that may tear down the towers which we have built. Amid the sordid apocalyptic tales, the doomsayers offered a panacea so conveniently held in their possession. Only they could save us all from the Leviathan.

“To me, to me, rally to me”, they shouted so rude and loudly. The future, according to them, would be haplessly bleak. Dare I ask why?

There beyond is an open plain and an open sky for all. Never was a day tailored so perfectly for victory and there is no better day than today to reach for the sky. It’s perfect and if we miss it now, the next time this moment comes again, we will be laying on our beds waiting for the end to our miserably lives. As the inevitability of death comes upon us, we will look back and wonder why we did not take the leap.

That will not be my fate. My fear of that worthless fate is greater than the stories spewed by the doomsayers. I fear not of the bogeyman outside my window and I fear not the monster under my bed. This is because there are none to fear.

Only fear is holding me — and us — back.

The doomsayers have nothing for us but this illusion of fear. Of disorder. Of death.

The fear, however, is theirs alone and not ours.

They need us to alleviate their fear. They need us to cower in the cold rain so they can live immorally in the warmth.

They want us to bend over and satisfy them. They take pleasure in doing so. We believed them once too many times, holding on to our false prophets’ promises.

No more. No more. Enough seeds of lies have been sowed and enough have been reaped. It is time to till the land, weed out the lies and begin anew for we know they need us and we know we do not need them.

All we need to do is to march forth and leave them behind on their rotten soapboxes half eaten by termites. Leave them be with their foolish blabbering but we shall march forth.

There are only limitless possibilities for us to explore. Or were.

Crisis only hit us when they imposed their crisis on us. Who was it that started shouting, ”Fire!” first?

Why has suddenly trouble in their own camps translated into our trouble?

How did the problematic internal relationship between parties within the Barisan Nasional translate into our problem?

The fate of the Barisan Nasional and the fate of Malaysia should never be the same. The fate of Malaysia must be independent of any political party, be it the Barisan Nasional, Pakatan Rakyat or any other. The fate of the country is far too important to be tied to a political party. For this reason alone, it is crucial to weed out any political party that embeds itself into the state.

Any conflation between the two fates requires urgent erasure and correction. Even the blind differentiate the day from night and why should there be a conflation?

There was a moment of cognitive dissonance for me when a mainstream newspaper paraphrased the Prime Minister: “Race relations not at healthy level.”

Dazed, my question was whose relations, really, are at an unhealthy level here?

I find it hard to believe such statements when I have no problems talking to friends of different backgrounds. I look around and I see no opportunity for a spontaneous riot to take place. People are sharing jokes and laughing and even going as far as ignoring the dull political clowns of this huge distasteful circus.

When the Prime Minister has so little credibility left in him, I prefer to trust my own faculties instead, and my faculties tell me that it is not relations between various races in Malaysia which are at stake. On the contrary, it is the relations between race-based parties of the Barisan Nasional instead. This whole fiasco began in the Barisan Nasional and the adverse effects are shaking its very foundations.

The clowns in the circus were too excited and cracked the tall pillars supporting their tent. When the tent threatened to come down, they wanted us to pay for the repair.

But why should we pay for it?

Let the clowns pay from their own pockets. Unable to humor us with their woefully inadequate sick jokes, they switched their profession and assumed the role of doomsayers, trying to impress upon others that their problem was ours too.

Sick and tired of these old clowns and doomsayers, I turned to Facebook to relieve myself from the filthy lies they tell incessantly. There, one of the status updates: it is high time the insecurities of our politicians be decoupled from the security of the country.

I have had enough of clowns and doomsayers. The green plain awaits me. And you too if you care to join me.

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

A version of this article was published in The Malaysian Insider.

Categories
Politics & government

[1781] Of the battle of credibility

With September 16 passed without a change of government despite the promise of Anwar Ibrahim, members of Barisan Nasional wasted no time to point out how the promise is merely hot air. The Barisan Nasional government still stands on the day after despite Pakatan Rakyat’s threat. In the media aligned to the ruling coalition, there is a clear hint of celebration and contempt against Pakatan Rakyat.

Anwar’s credibility is on the line at the moment and with the influence Barisan Nasional over the mainstream media, it is not hard to encourage the public to question Anwar’s credibility. Anwar has only himself to blame for allowing him to be openly attacked in such manner.

Even the Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi openly challenged Anwar’s reputation. I do not think I have seen the Prime Minister using so harsh a tone one national television. Given the grandfatherly nature of the Prime Minister, I found myself almost at a state of shock watching and listening how the Prime Minister was directly undermining Anwar’s credibility and the words which he used.

The Prime Minister was referring to a letter which Anwar sent to him early. Anwar stated that he mentioned about power transfer and request for refrain from declaring emergency rule but the Prime Minister revealed to the media that Anwar’s statement is untrue.[1]

As the Prime Minister continued speaking, I began to feel how ironic the whole situation is. Here is the Prime Minister and the President of Barisan Nasional, who has repeatedly damaged his own reputation through inconsistent policies and flip-flopping, questioning another person’s credibility.

A colleague shared his opinion with me earlier in the morning at work on how Anwar has more credibility than the Prime Minister. I cannot help but nod in agreement with him. I have no doubt that Anwar’s credibility suffers from his failure to stick to the promise of September 16. Yet, for me personally, Anwar still have more credibility than Prime Minister Abdullah.

After the Prime Minister was no more on the television, I concluded that he should be the last person on television to talk about credibility.

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

[1] — PUTRAJAYA: PKR adviser Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s letter to the Prime Minister only mentioned national security, the leadership and problems on morality and politics and had not touched on the transfer of power to the Opposition. [‘Anwar’s letter didn’t mention transfer of power’. V.P. Sujata. The Star. Accessed September 17 2008]