My Facebook newsfeed was invaded with a wave of green things about a week ago. Being an ABU and a staunch supporter of bi-partisanship in Malaysia, I would usually join in the fray. But not this time.
It would seem that anyone who does not agree with the opposition of the Lynas plant will be faced with the wrath of the Malaysiakini, MalaysiaInsider readers and possibly even my own Facebook page readers. So before the readers start penning down their rebuttal on my letter, I would like to begin by saying categorically that I oppose the construction of the Lynas plant. Stop Lynas, Save Malaysia…but from what?
Rare-earths? They are not dangerous by themselves. But they usually appear in compounds which contains Thorium which could be radioactive. So ah ha! We are opposing it because of the dangerous Thorium-232? But how radioactive is it? Does anyone know? Does anyone care? No. Because in Malaysia anything with the tag ‘radioactive’ on it scares the shit out of you. Doesn’t mind the scientific facts now, if it is radioactive it has something to do with cancer. The next thing we know is that if I have a headache, it’s Thorium’s fault. But Thorium half-life is in billions of years and emits the radioactivity in the form of alpha particle, which is only harmful if you ingest, i.e. if you put it in your mouth and swallow it. Under normal circumstances, we won’t even swallow Copper, Lead, Iron or any metal for this matter but for some reason Malaysians are susceptible to swallowing Thorium. Maybe because it looks tasty.
Then comes all the videos that portray the rare-earth processing plant like some sort of nuclear plant, capable of a meltdown like Fukushima or in Chernobyl. I have been with the opposition all this while and I have to say sometimes they oppose for the sake of opposing. All these reminds me of the tea party movement in the USA where they use fear to garner support for their own cause.
All the nuclear scientists, local and abroad, will not convince Malaysians it is safe. Why? Because there are still some scientist and doctors who are sceptical about it. Malaysians say, “better safe than sorry, right?” But you know what? Even global warming has its sceptics. So does that mean it does not exist? Having earning my PhD in Physics I know that in the world of academia, anything goes. It’s almost like Newton’s 3rd law - for every argument there is an equal and opposite argument. But we can only survive and science goes on because we have to believe in our experimental results, and we have to believe in our assumptions, and all these point to the fact that the plant by itself, under normal circumstances, is quite safe.
The hypocrisy of Malaysians is unparallel. When they have low mobile signals, they complain. But when we build a broadcast tower near their house, they also complain. What if I tell you that microwave signals attenuates so rapidly that at approximately 1 m away from the transmitting antenna the signal would have be so low that even your mobile phone will need something called a Low-Noise Amplifier (LNA) to pick up that minute signal. Placing our mobile phones directly next to our ears is probably more dangerous, but for some reasons, we are OK with that. Because, phones are small what, never mind the science!
Would I want the processing plant next to my home? No. Just like I don’t want any factory near my home, I don’t want the processing plane near my home too. All I am saying is that the danger of the plant is, at times, exaggerated. The danger of this processing plant is probably similar to any other factories. In fact, it could be safer. Like I said, Thorium does not cause you any harm unless you ingest it but fortunately it would unusual for Thorium to stay in gaseous form. I can’t say the same for all the harmful chemicals from other factories though. I think the gas will kill you and there is nothing you can stop those gases from coming out of the chimney and drifting with wind, or even dissolve in the rain water.
But I did say I oppose the construction of the Lynas plant, yes? Of course, and here is the real reason. Our government.
No factory is accident-proof. An accident, after all, is defined as an unexpected event. But in a country, where cow-feeding operations can become real estate agency; where jet engines can be lifted from an air base; who is it to say that a rare-earth processing plant cannot become a nuclear catastrophe? The problem is, there is just not sufficient trust in the management of our government agencies for a project like this. While I acknowledge that there are projects that are well-run by our government, but I can also say that about half of them are equally abysmally managed. As the rakyat, can we afford the risk? As the Prime Minister of all Malaysians, should you take the risk?
Not withstanding the fact that Lynas’ handling of the entire project is very shady. It’s not too difficult to build a factory to, say, 90% accident-proof. But beyond that point, the cost would probably increase exponentially. It’s up to the management of the factory to decide how far they will go in making the factory as safe as possible. Given the flawed record of our government, can we trust Lynas and put our safety in their hands? A foreign company with shady records in their own land?
It was aptly pointed out by Zurairi in his MalaysiaInsider article that one last, but important point in opposing the Lynas plant is because of our experience with the Bkt Merah incident. And even more critically, simply because the rakyat does not want it. Whether the rakyat has been misinformed or not, the government, at the end of the day, serves the rakyat. Until trust is regained, I am afraid that this project must be postponed.
So there you go. I oppose the construction of the rare-earth processing plant. Because I don’t believe our government is capable of handling a project of this scale. Not because of the dangers of radioactive Thorium that has been wildly exaggerated. The next time you wear green, try to remember that.
Ini dia Malaysia! No matter how corrupted, we will vote for our government ... because there is a chance ...
There is a chance that BN will stop all the corruption There is a chance that without UMNO, Malays will lose their place There is a chance that without MCA, Chinese will lose whatever is left of their rights There is a chance that PAS will introduce extreme Islamic laws There is a chance that Pakatan will be unable to govern Malaysia if they reach Putrajaya There is a chance ...
There is a chance that BN will end the NEP when the Malays are rich enough... There is a chance that BN will give equality to all Malaysians given long enough time... There is a chance that if the non-Malays stop learning Chinese, the Malays will accept us better. And there is a chance that one day they will stop calling us "pendatang" There is a chance...
There is a chance when ISA will no longer be there, when all of us are equally rich, and where finally there is meritocracy all over.
For 60 years BN has cheated us, but there is a chance they will not do it anymore. There is a chance, they changed. There is a chance, they will change.
Because of chance and fear or change, we choose BN. Because there is a chance things will get better and not worse.
Martin Luther King has a dream. But in Malaysia, we do not dream. Instead, we give chance...
Recently, various Malaysian Islamic Organisations called to reject religious pluralism. That is to say that not all religions are equal - and Islam is the supreme religion.
Some suggested that Muslims should stop attending other religion's celebrations citing that this will threaten Islam as the supreme religion in Malaysia. But is this isolation and narrow-mindedness the threat to Islam or is it the willingness to share each other's joy the threat?
Some even suggested that Islam should stop having inter-faith discussions/forums as these are seen to put Islam on equal ground with other religion on the talking table. So now refusing to talk on equal grounds will make Islam great and supreme? I doubt that is what Prophet Muhammad had in his mind but I'm open to any Muslim reading this blog to correct me...
A lot of these religious scholars, Islam or Christian alike, read too much Quran or Bible that they need some time-off and read "common sense" and "logical thinking" in their spare time instead.
"It's true that in believing one's faith, one has to feel that his/her faith is superior compared to others. But that does not mean that other faiths should not be respected or be given equal treatment under the law. There's a difference between wanting your own faith to be strong, and wanting other faiths to be weak." -sL Dec 2010
Malay Supremacy is changing faster than I can write. Just a day after I wrote my post about it here, UMNO & Co. change their views again.
First, they claim there is no such thing as the Malay Supremacy, then they say actually there is and it is enshrined in the constitution, now they say it's actually about the King or our Supreme leader, not about the Malay race. Why is this term so damn confusing?
So Malay Supremacy is now about the special position of the King and not the race. Only the King is special right? No race is special? So does that mean under the King, every Malaysian regardless of the race is equal then? Yay!!! PERKASA then can you stop whining a? Because King is Tuan, and all of us (the rest) - Malay, Chinese, Indian or "lain-lain" underneath the Tuan would be equal la? yes? No a?
Dammit, Malay Supremacy is easy to understand la. But some people just like to beat around the bush. They want everything for themselves - the political power, the economy pie, etc. BUT, they don't want to sound too selfish yea, and that is why the confusion la. Malay Supremacy or Malay privileges or Malay Special Rights or Ketuanan Melayu, whatever you want to call them, they are what they are - ploys to make a particular race better at the expense of others.
Please la, if you have the balls to demand, then have the balls to admit it.
And suddenly they are claiming that there is no such thing as "Malay Supremacy". Huh? Equality for Malaysians finally? Guess again.
A week ago, Dr. Wan Azizah said that Malaysians should reject "Ketuanan Melayu" (Malay Supremacy) and instead embrace "Ketuanan Rakyat"; and within 24 hours UMNO & Co. lambasted her for politicising the issue. They claim that there was never a need for the Ketuanan Melayu, it never existed and neither did the constitution ever mention this concept. Huh? Huh? They, claim that what was mentioned in the constitution is the Malay Special Privileges, not the Malay Supremacy. Hang on a minute... Wasn't "Ketuanan Melayu" published on Utusan Melayu's headline countless of time and that if any of us - the non-Malay challenges this we shall be skinned alive and fed to the fishes in the South-China Sea?
Oh, now it's more trendy to say "Malay privileges" instead? I don't give a damn what you call it. But, we the non-Malays know what it is. It's the quota you set for our University education, it's the quota you set for our scholarship, it's the discount you give to Malays for purchasing house, it's the promotion that was denied merely because of our skin colour, it's the open tender that could only be given to a particular race, it is the requirement that every listed company has to have a certain amount of the indigenous race; it is the excuse that you make to benefit your cronies, to enrich your own little circle of friends, to build multi-million dollar house in Selangor (read Khir Toyo) or to own a multi-million dollar house in central London (read Taib); and it is also the countless threats of May 13, and "know-your-place" assertion and also the infamous "go back to China/India" insults.
So you claim, that you never wanted to create a Master and Slave relationship between Malaysians, but yet you remind us every other week to be grateful of our "jus soli" citizenship and our "social contract". And at the very instant we try to move our lips to speak out against this policies, we will be punish. I ask you sincerely, if not for the internet, will we ever have the chance to speak? I sincerely ask for your opinion that if this sentence sounds like what a Master would say to the Slave, "Kalau tak suka, keluar Malaysia"? Has the person who uttered such vile statements been reprimanded? No. But if anything would happen to him, I'm betting that he will be transferred to another state - it's currently the most popular "punishment" a racist can get in Malaysia.
But even this is not the latest trend. The latest trend is to say that Malaysia has been in harmony for decades now. So why bring in new terms like the Malay Supremacy into the "game"? Let's maintain the status quo which has made Malaysian happy. Seriously, dude, is Malay Supremacy the status quo which Malaysians have lived upon harmoniously for the past decades, or is it so because certain quarters have been asked to shut up on this issue or face the music? The so-called status quo, I'm guessing, was established in 1969 after the NEP where the so-called wealthier race agreed to compromise to help the weak and the poor, and more importantly to restructure the society's wealth distribution. But let's be frank, are we helping the poor or just helping the Malays? How many national policies are based on income and how many are based on race alone. You know best. Now you can't be doing that forever and claim for status quo, can you? Are the so-called wealthier race forever wealthy and are they suppose to be compromising forever? This is beginning to look like a Master and Slave relationship again!
I can't believe Dr. M said this - meritocrats are racist? Meritocrats are people who make decisions solely based on results, racist are people who make decisions solely based on race. Now, unless by merit means by exclusion of certain race naturally, meritocrats are not racist!
First Perkasa, then the headmistress in Johor, and now Chedet. Everyone seems to be jumping onto the bandwagon to label others as racist. "You're racist!", "No, if you label me as racist, YOU are the racist!" So is Perkasa being racist? Or are we racist by labeling them as racist? Are the proponents of Malay supremacy racist or are the people against such idea a racist. This is all so confusing.
But look, although I would like to have an equal, meritocracy-based Malaysian society, I can understand why some Malays want to support the NEP and the Malay-Special-Rights policy.
However, there is a difference between wanting your own race to be strong, to wanting other races to get out of the country; there's a difference between wanting Islam to be the official religion, to preventing other religion of their own freedom; there's a difference between wanting people to join Islam because of the faith, to preventing Muslims from leaving the religion by law. You can make A > B by either reducing B or by improving A. So if the Malays want to be A and want A > B , by all means. But do so by improving A, not by killing off B.
Wanting A to be better than B by virtue of all B either dying or leaving the country, is that not racist? If Malaysia really wants to be 1 Malaysia, then the government must give a firm stand on what is true racist and what is not. The government can make us understand why they need NEP so that the economy is "fairer". But do not try to make us understand why asking us to leave is not a racist remark.
Years of debate training taught me one thing: you can trap your opponents by asking the right question. For example, if I asked, "Would you prefer your country to go bankrupt or for your subsidies to cut?" The reasonable answer is rather obvious for if I said I would rather the country to go bankrupt I will look like a selfish bastard. But this was exactly the question that our minister, Idris Jala and PM, Najib posed to Malaysians a week ago. They asked us to choose between being a selfish bastard or a "noble" countrymen.
But if I rephrase the question into, "Would you rather have your subsidies cut, or to stop the corruption and wasteful government spending in order to save the country from bankrupt?" Then suddenly we are not so sure anymore that refusing subsidies cut is a selfish thing to do.
Any successful businessman will tell you that "you reap profit, not by saving money but by investing it!" What good is it if we are able to save all the money in the world if they are not meant for investing into a better future? Then perhaps this is a good time to reflect on our major government spending spree and see how the ROI (return on investment) looks like. From the Multimedia Super Corridor, Sepang Formula 1 Circuit, Bakun Hyrdo Dam, to the hundreds of low-cost housing development areas...how many of these actually reaped concrete returns to the people of Malaysia? As if to add salt to the wound, recently we purchased state-of-the-art submarines that cannot submerge (and once submerged would never emerged) and 257 armoured vehicles at RM31 million each. What is the ROI for these?
And to my shocking, I stumbled onto a 2005 Nature journal paper titled, "Malaysian biotechnology: The valley of ghost" which claimed that the government had spent USD160 million on building a biotechnology hub in Malaysia but it failed, miserably. Although I understand that the building of this hub is still "work-in-progress", how would any world-class bio-technology researcher want to work in Malaysia after this revelation by Nature, one of the most influential journal paper in the world? What is the ROI for this?
Would the subsidy cut succeed in saving Malaysia from bankruptcy if implemented as a stand-alone policy? The answer is a straight NO. In the recent sub-prime financial crisis, many countries in the west have a bail-out plan, tighten loan requirements and also have the subsidies/welfare cut. But they knew that this was just a temporary mitigation plan. Their long term strategy was to restructure the way banks work. So do we have a similar long term strategy? Or is cutting the subsidies our "long term" strategy?
Let there be no doubt that we, the Malaysians, have been enjoying a whole range of subsidies since we were born. And I totally agree with Idris Jala that Malaysians are one of the most heavily subsidised citizens in the world. But the question that goes begging here would be: where did we go wrong? Was it the 1997 Asian financial crisis? Was it the 2001 burst of the IT bubble? Was it the recent sub-prime financial crisis? Could the government be giving a false impression to us for past decades by keeping the subsidies high, the inflation low and fueling the economy with debts? It is not possible that the years of economic boom under the leadership of Dr. M is just a mirage after all?
BN knows very well that they cannot do a drastic subsidy cut. It will increase the inflation that will kill off the economy and as well as any chance they have in the next general election to re-gain the two-third majority. So they may just keep the subsidies. Here comes the scary part: Would the government continue to drive the economy with the current failed strategy despite knowing that Malaysia will go bankrupt? And mind you that when we say the country goes bankrupt it doesn't mean everyone becomes dirt poor, but only the middle working class like you and me. I personally believe that BN will continue with the "bankrupt strategy" because (1) BN ministers have abundance of wealth far beyond the reach of middle working class like you and me; (2) most of them own a 'backup' property in Australia.
I have absolutely no grudge in paying more taxes and in accepting the reduced subsidies from the government, provided that I know the money that I help saved is well spent. But not only is my confidence in the government policy so lacking, so is the general public's. There is no way a subsidy cut is going to work, not if the government first show their commitment in combating corruption and wasteful spending. And no, I'm not talking about the MACC actions on corruptions amounting to only few thousand ringgits. We wouldn't be bankrupting with that amount of corruption.
Gordon Brown was caught last week calling a retiree a bigot behind her back. Though the Labour had since lost the GE, it has still garnered quite a lot of votes. It seems like the people of U.K. are more concerned about the policies of the parties, rather than the morals of the party leaders. But how could they believe the policies of a leader who is capable of such backstabs? On that particular day, Gordon Brown was all smiles as he campaigns for Labour Party. He spoke to the woman, held her hand. But after that brief meeting, he forgot to turn the microphone off. So the entire conversation where he call this woman a bigot was recorded. He also said that the meeting was ridiculous. Why would the Brits trust a PM who backstabs?
And after losing more than 90 seats, he is still not surrendering his post as the PM. While I find it hard to believe this is happening in the land of 'gentleman', there is something Malaysians can learn.
The conservatives and the lib dems are talking today for a possible coalition. They accept that since no one has the majority, they would have to form at least a loose coalition and then TABLE A VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE in the next parliamentary session in order to remove Gordon Brown from his post. And the Queen of England has cancelled all her appointments while waiting for the outcome of the negotiations before meeting with the leaders of the party. This is what is reported in the news.
Now, wait a minute!!! Isn't this very similar to the Perak 'crisis' a year ago??? But did UMNO table a vote of no confidence? Or was the speaker and Chief Minister forcefully removed from position? Was our 'King' as 'gracious' as the Queen of England? Or did he take things into his own hands and 'sacked' the Chief Minister immmediately?
We inherited the Parliamentary Democracy from England, but we did not inherit their common sense. And now to add further insult to this crooked common sense, Hee Yit Foong was given Datukship (Knighthood, in England). Such a salutation is only given to people who has significant contribution to the society and country. So what does this Datukship acknowledge? That when she jumped ship from DAP to pro-BN it is a SIGNIFICANT contribution towards the country?
Stop blaming the "buy-election", start thinking of how to win a "buy-election" i.e. accept that vote buying happens, but think how PR's gonna outsmart BN in this aspect. Obviously, PR cannot "outbuy" BN.
When Samy Velu quits MIC, a significant portion of votes will go back to BN. Although this seems impossible now, I'm betting that Najib will force Sammy to quit just a few months prior to the next general election. Pakatan MUST think ahead and counter this threat before it happens!
Prologue "Vote for change", "Give us a chance", "We have changed". Before the 308 political tsunami, I would have not believe these are the words BN is telling us, the rakyat. Yet it is true, these slogans seems synonymous with BN in recent days. But it was Pakatan who had first talk about "change" that helped created the political tsunami in the last general election. BN hijacked Pakatan's idea, disguised it as 1Malaysia and turned it around into a weapon against Pakatan. No doubt that the millions spent on APCO is at work here, and working so well - money well spent!
Pakatan needs to react, especially in the face of the recent defeat at Hulu Selangor. Stop giving excuses. What was so appalling during this by-election was not the "dirty tricks" by BN but that Pakatan seems to be scrambling all over the place trying to react to a well-coordinated attack by BN. Pakatan was throwing arguments all over the place without a central theme. Meanwhile, BN had all their arguments well connected and channelled through the same theme - "we've changed" and "1Malaysia". Pakatan still reacts ONLY as an opposition party and resort to attacking BN on corruption which plays in very well with BN's theme that they are now a "changed person". Furthermore, Pakatan's campaign is lacking in giving rakyat a clear vision of Malaysia under its rule. This is well echoed by my friend, Onion, here which she asks "Where is PR leading us to?". People want Malaysia to be more than just free of corruption, people want a vision for Malaysia!
On the eve of the by-election, I was fueled with this anger that I wanted to write this love-hate letter to PR. How could they have not seen this coming? I wanted to write a hate letter to Pakatan for its growing failure to counter the BN's campaign of "we've changed" and "give us a chance". I wanted to write this letter to Tony Pua of DAP and cc my DAP friends, which include Serdang MP Teo Nie Ching. However, I chickened out the last minute. They are so many brilliant politicians in Pakatan that I refuse to believe that they have not thought of what I wrote below. Still, I'm itching to publish my love-hate letter. So, here it is below, the email that never got out. My love-hate letter to Pakatan Rakyat.
Re: Some suggestions for organising arguments during election campaigns
Dear Tony,
Sorry for the rather lengthy email, but do bear with me.
I am a Pakatan supporter. I am following closely the recent by-election in Hulu Selangor. Since at the moment I am in the UK, I am only following this by-election by comparing news report from thestar.com, Malaysia-today, Malaysiakini, MerdekaReview and MalaysiaInsider. From what I read, I was disappointed by the campaigning efforts done by the Pakatan in this by-election. It wasn't because the lack of organization of talks and banners. That, I believe you'd know much more than me. But the organisation of arguments to counter BN's accusations and campaigning was really mediocre at best. It wasn't because there was a lack of brawn, but I reckon it was the lack of brain. To be more specific, the overall impression of Pakatan in this by-election was that it lacked focus and that every argument Pakatan had thought of, BN was up for it.
I might be a bit naive, and might not have interpreted the actual situation correctly since I'm only following the by-election remotely. But I'd like to present some of my ideas on how Pakatan should "arrange" their arguments in an election campaign, in which if you think what I said is useful then use it. Otherwise, just ignore. After all, I am only trying to help and what I might said might have already been done.
I was trained as a debater for many years and then coached for many more. So what I say here, will definitely resonant with the people which I have put in the cc list (Teo Nie Ching, Serdang MP; Chow Yu Hui, DAP strongman in Bentong; and Snowpiano) whom you know and whom I have worked with countless time over many national and international debate competitions. And as I said, I'm fully aware that the real "war" out there can be vastly different from a debate competition. Still, I think there are similarities. Here, I list down 4 important elements and I hope it could be of use:
1. A central theme In the weeks before US declared war on Iraq, the American President, Secretary of state and all other members of the White house always begin and end their speech with "let there be no doubt..." to tell the audience there was no doubt about the threat of Iraq's WMD. This is an example of using a central theme. In a debate competition, we speak for almost an hour. In a by-election, the candidates speak for even longer. But the audience have very limited memory. For countless and countless of minutes, the audience will only remember, at most 1-3 sentence. What this 1-3 sentence that the audience take back from the ceramah is important. And if we emphasize too many things, focus will be lost. This 1-3 sentence that will remain in the audience mind long after the ceramah ends is our central theme, this is where arguments stem out from and eventually get channelled back into.
In the recent by-election, Pakatan seems to be saying a lot. Yet, it is difficult to identify what is the point-of-the-day. If I would want to pin-point one, it would be that BN is corrupted. This theme is fine and had work in the past. However, the theme by itself must be able to anticipate and counter whatever BN's rebuttal could be. BN has been saying this for a long time now, "We're changing under the new leadership. We're more open and less corrupted. We're changing." Therefore, by saying that BN is corrupted is only playing into BN's game because they would just say, "yes, maybe we are corrupted in the past, but that is changing under Najib's rule".
Pakatan needs a stronger theme. E.g. "Corruption before, during and after...". This would place Pakatan in a more comfortable position to defend against BN's banner like "Kita mampu berubah" because a lot of the corruption actually happened after Najib took over or when Najib was the M.O.D. Yes, it could be true that even without such a theme, Pakatan would be able to counter BN's call that they have changed. But the essence of the point here is that the audience have short-term memories and cannot remember everything everyone had said. At the end of the day, they just remember the themes from BN and Pakatan. If BN's is "we can change, we have changed", while Pakatan's is "They are corrupted", the audience may be just swayed into giving BN a chance.
Another feature of a good theme is that it must be on the attack, not on the defence. For example, by saying that "Pakatan is for justice" is on the defence. Why? Because this slogan is open for BN MPs to open their salvo and slander all they want during their ceramah to say that Pakatan is not really for justice but are really for ...something else. But if we can have a slogan such as "We vote for more than just money" would then, I believe, put BN on the defence. The former allows ample space for BN to redefine 'justice' into something that fit into their model, whereas in the latter case BN is forced into explaining what they are doing is more than just about money. There's a lot which we could say from this slogan, e.g. "BN is only for money", "development and making ppl rich is important, but not through corrupted means", "money is important, but with BN money is only with the cronies", etc. This slogan would reminiscent with "a corrupted BN" yet at the same time say that Pakatan is also for development, but much more...
With a good central theme and slogan, we could channel all our individual arguments against BN into one unified "big argument". Whether, it is the VK Lingam case, the submarine that doesn't submerge, or PKFZ scandal, etc. Obviously, with more brain-storming, better themes and slogans can emerged. The important thing I want to emphasize here is that there must a be a central theme that links all the smaller issues mentioned in all the ceramahs, otherwise they become lost in a goo of arguments. And that this central theme, must not only be representative of what Pakatan fights for, but must also counter what BN would try to represent.
Lastly, but not the least, themes used by Pakatan had always been about portraying BN as corrupted. But it has never been about the vision of what Malaysia would be with Pakatan's rule. It's time for Pakatan to stop campaigning as merely opposition, but also as a viable government that would bring Malaysia to greater heights. What would Malaysia look like if Pakatan takes over Putrajaya? Obviously, by declaring that it will be a "Fair and Just Malaysia" will not be sufficient. It's a bit too cliche! I admit it's not easy to come out with such a very good slogan and I admit that 1Malaysia is a pretty darn good slogan that connects with every race and every issue that Malaysians face. So Pakatan should think of something better, maybe something like "More than just development for Malaysia" to reiterate that Pakatan will not only bring developement, but much more than that, i.e. for all people and through proper means. My fellow friend, Onion, had write something similar about this here(this last paragraph was added in after the by-election).
2. Do not try to portray Pakatan as perfect angel, and BN as a perfect devil. Leave some space for both Pakatan and BN. Praise BN occasionally and condemn Pakatan occasionally. It is more convincing playing to be imperfect.
Pakatan always try to be perfect in the eyes of the audience, whereas sometimes it is better just to admit some of the accusations that BN hurled at Pakatan. E.g. Pakatan have disagreements, but at least Pakatan say it out in the open and agree to what we disagree. And yet, Pakatan still have many more in common.
Pakatan may not have made every poor soul in Selangor to be rich in 2 years, so obviously someone may feel that the Selangor govt. had not do anything. But Pakatan govt. is doing that bit by bit in this 2 years. Pakatan had definitely done more to many ppl in the past 2 years than what BN had for 50 years.
BN is not all evil, they did build a few Chinese schools. but they demolished more. BN did help some poor Malays, but help their own cronies even more. For every MYR 1.00 to the poor, MYR1,000,000.00 goes to the crony.
Also praise that not everyone in BN is an evil. There are some good people, but there are too little and insignificant that when it comes to big decision, they don't matter. Conversely, they are still some rotten tomatoes in Pakatan but there are insignificant and when it comes to the big decision, the highest leaders always agree to the right decisions. Besides, these rotten tomatoes are jumping ship to the other side of aisle, rejoining the original rotten tomatoes.
This is a bit like Tai-Chi. You take the negative energy hurled at you by your opponents and turn them around into a positive energy.
3. Help the audience differentiate fact from fiction Whether or not Malaysia is a Muslim state, is being debated. But BN govt gave away gambling and liquour license is a fact.
Whether Anwar 'liwat' Saiful or not, is still under trial. But Chua Soi Lek's rock hard evidence of affair and oral sex is not even charged.
Tell the audience, maybe there are somethings that cannot be proven at the end of the day even with all the cirumstantial evidence.But those that have been proven with clear cut evidence, all points to BN as being evil, yet nothing has been done. Draw parallels between accusation from BN which in most cases are yet to be proven with the accusation with PR where it has been proven beyond doubt.
Tell the audience it's ok if you do not believe everything I said, but at least there are some evidence that prove BN's corruption are beyond any doubt. Agree with the audience that no matter how much we try to defend Anwar's case, BN will have something new to say. At the end of the day, there may still be some doubts. But Chua Soi Lek 's involvement in an affair and oral sex was proven beyond doubt. Absolutely no room for doubts on that, and yet he was getting off scot free? This is, in a certain degree, playing as I mentioned in (2) i.e. playing to be imperfect.
4. Anticipation We can never anticipate 100% what BN would say. But we could safely anticipate most of their main arguments. Our campaign must be such that we force BN into a corner, into saying only the things we want and nothing more than that.
We must speak on their behalf before they do. For example, they are likely to attack Pakatan saying that Pakatan is in a mess - each party has different ideology, MPs are leaving and they are bickering in the public. But Pakatan could say that, "yes we have disagreements. but we voice them out in open, and agree to what we disagree. Even so, we have far more agreements than disagreements. This in contrast with a "hand-kissing" Kamalanathan that says "botol" to every single UMNO request. In order to force them into a corner, these "anticipations" have to be said before they actually occured, i.e. Pakatan must be brave enough to say "yes we have disagreements, but ..." before UMNO starts firing at Pakatan saying, "they always have disagreement". It is only through this way that we may force UMNO into a position we want them to.
Conclusion: To be fair, Pakatan has been doing most of this all this while. But I am not sure whether it is being done in a conscious way or unconscious way. Even so, I think the message can be clearer e.g. there is usually very little emphasis on playing imperfect. (point no.2). If I were the lead campaigner for Pakatan in H.S., I would judge myself whether the rakyat had received the following messages in a very clear and loud manner:
1. Vote for more than just development.
2. 50 years on and every 4 years they still ask for a chance? Why believe when they've been lying for so many years?
3. Support Malay rights - but Malay rights through corruption and dirty means? No thanks.
4. We have disagreements and we believe that this is better than kissing hand and kowtow to the "Big Brother UMNO".
Best regards, Chin, Shin Liang
I end this post with a powerful speech about 尊严 from DSAI.
I just watched the first ever British live debate among the British PM candidates. It was disappointing. It was nothing like the US Presidential debate.
It was more like a Q&A session. Yet, neither of them answered the question directly, e.g. when asked about how to improve the economy all of them started to take turns in throwing slogans like "fair", "reducing deficit", "cut tax", etc. But why is one better than the other? Why is it fair? How can it be fairer? Why tax cut works better than tax increments? Nothing said.
They kept on harping on what they will do without providing a concrete solution, e.g. on the immigrant issue G. Brown says that he introduced the point system and D. Cameron said that he wants to implement a cap. But the immigrant problem in the UK has, in my humble opinion, very little do with the immigration policy. It has nothing to do with the immigrants. It is because the UK skilled work force is in a decline, the education system is failing and UK is attracting the wrong type of people into the country. There are a lot of capable people, all looking to work in UK but very frequent denied entry. Yet, people who are coming to UK without a degree ended up working in restaurants are in abundant.
I would have expected D. Cameron or N. Clegg to say something like, "I have tried to do this and that to improve economy and reduce crime rate as an MP in the Parliament but many of my attempt failed because of opposition from the Labour Government". But nothing like that happened. There was no spark, no humour, no feud.
When it comes to election, nothing beats Malaysia. Back at home, Hulu Selangor is having an election too. Somehow I have got a bad feeling that the people would vote for "change" (Pakatan held the seat until the death of the MP a month ago) and Pakatan will lose this battle that they could not afford to.
"Jangan cabar Islam!" "Jangan cabar toleransi kami!" They do not agree to setting up of the inter-faith committee. They do not believe they need to talk to other religions. They believe that the way Islam can be great is for the rest to shut up. They believe that to make the rest to shut up is by making threats. They believe by talking to other religious leaders, it makes Islam less equal. They do not believe all religions are meant to be good, and that mankind are equal. That's who they are. They call themselves Muslims.
But are they?
If that's what they think Islam is about and they think they are doing Islam a favor, go ahead. Good luck to them during akhirat.
I have not read the Quran and neither do I know too much about Islam. But if Muslims believe that talking to other religious leaders makes Islam less equal, then I'm not a bit interested in this religion.
But this is not Islam. It's Islam in Malaysia.
I'm just glad that the Muslims I know are unlike them. They are the pretenders. But yet, their numbers are significant enough in Malaysia to have a political impact. That's what make me sad.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Written after reading that some Muslims in Malaysia staged a protest against the forming of inter-faith committeeand our DPM tried to please these people by saying the inter-faith committee is 'small fry'
There is no contradiction trying to be a Malay and a Malaysian at the same time; or try to fight for both the Malays and Malaysians' welfare at the same time. But that was not what the DAP stalwart, Lim Kit Siang, asked. He asked, which do you place first?
LKS did not ask Muhyiddin to choose between the two. He can be both a Malay and a Malaysian; and can fight for the interest of both Malays and Malaysians. The essence of the question is, when these two have a conflicting interest, who would you place first?
Of course, there's nothing wrong in fighting for his own race, but does his race's welfare comes before the general Malaysian? Muhyiddin believes so. And to place one's own race above everything else is, simply said, a racist.
And if this does not contradict with 1Malaysia, then there's only 1 logical explanation left - that 1Malaysia is a one single united Malaysia for Malays.
And since Najib defended Muhyiddin on this statement, he must have believed Muhyiddin's interpretation on 1Malaysia too. Maybe, Najib places Malay first too. But then again, who doesn't in UMNO?
This is not the first time that our government had done that - the teaching of science and math in English, the "Allah" issue are just some, and now GST. The government goes in full force and then pulls out full force, completely obeying Netwon's 3rd law of motion.
Chronicle of events: 1. announce that GST shall be implemented 2. Then, announce that GST shall be delayed 3. And finally, announce that rakyat's opinion will be taken into account
Isn't the right order the other way round? I am not an expert on policy-making, but I doubt that the above is the correct order for making a good policy.
I'm not an economist and I would not like to debate about the feasibility of GST here. But I'm flabbergasted by the flip-flopping attitude of the government. What good is the government, other than pulling off public relations stunts like 1Malaysia and the impromptu visit to UKM?
The only reason I can think of why the government would implement a policy in the wrong order, other than incompetence of course, is that because they are testing the water, so to speak. By first announcing it and then observe the reactions. But that is not the way for policy-making at the highest level.
First of all, there is a better way to do this 'survey'. There is no need to test water by creating this first wave of 'fear' and spark needless debates among the public. Most importantly, the implementation of GST must be due to the need of the country, and therefore the test for this policy should be whether it will rake-in more revenue for the government and stimulate economy rather than the rakyat's reaction, for there is no sensible citizen in the world would rejoice when the government implements additional tax.
What further appalled me is that the ruling coalition said that the decision to delay has nothing to do with the opposition. However, from the beginning, this idea was the ruling coalition's and there was no objection whatsoever from anyone on that side of the aisle. The only voice shouting against it came from the opposition. Now that the government had decided to delay the implementation of GST it could only mean two things. Either they did not do their homework, or the opposition did their job. C'mon BN, at least have the balls to admit that!
So it could not have been because BN suddenly realised he needed to listen to rakyat. BN never listened when it comes to ISA, NEP and a multitude of national issues. And if BN did, it would have listened to the rakyat first before announcing the implementation of GST, not the other way round. Or maybe this is just another public relations stunt?
In counter-clockwise starting from the lower-left quadrant:
Abduallah Badawi. He is our former Prime Minister. Can't exactly say he was doing a lot of good. I mean after all, he detained a few people under ISA and did not achieve much in curbing corruption. But I guess we can all agree that he is unconscious most of the time in the Parliament. Besides, although he didn't mean to, his lack of leadership had allow the opposition to an unprecedented win in the last election and give a glimmer hope to equality and democracy.
By stating his intention to stay for another term, Samy Vellu has achieved the Malaysian Guinness Book of Records for the longest serving MP. He thought it was a good deal. But we all know that the longer he decides to stay, the longer the vote from the Indian community will stay away from BN. Again, this enhances the chance for the opposition to win in coming elections and thus he is a major contribution to equality and democracy, in an unconscious way.
Nasir Safar had make headlines recently for his remarks that Indians are beggars and Chinese are prostitutes. I think he sincerely believed in that. He also believe that Malaysia belongs to only the Malays and no one else. And most importantly, like many other members of Parti Cinta Malaysia he believes that what he believes in is noble. These people believe in evil things, without knowing that they are evil.
Ong Tee Keat is evil alright. Look at how he tried to depose CSL (not me, although we have the same initials) and then now Liow Tiong Lai. But he probably isn't the brightest person around. 2 years in helm, MCA has now almost become irrelevant. I seriously do not see why any Chinese would want to vote for MCA these days.
Dr. M is probably the person I respect most. He is cunning, he is intelligent, he can articulate and he is one helluva speaker. For that, how can I not put him at the top of the awareness axis? But despite the development he had brought to Malaysia, I probably do not agree with everything he had done. If we were to list down his faults, from the judiciary crisis to Ops Lalang, etc, it'd probably matched his achievements.
Our current Prime Minister is cunning alright. The Perak coup, liwat version 2, Altantuya, etc, just to name a few examples to show how good he is...unfortunately for all the wrong reasons. I mean, if you go according to the above order what you get is power grab, rape and kill. He's got a hand in all of it. How can he not be on the 'Eastern hemisphere' of the quadrant diagram? But Dr. M came up with liwat version 1. It wasn't very original of him to think of an EXACT excuse to get rid of Anwar. For that, he ranks lower in the 'awareness' scale.
Right at the top-right corner is...ta ta ta ta!! Utusan Melayu!!! I've had enough of this BN-controlled press. They've been fanning racial remarks over and over again like law never existed. Pity, those non-Malay who doesn't read Utusan because you missed the part where they call you pigs, dogs, and cockroaches. Pity, those Malay who can only read Utusan because their brain is probably washed so cleaned that all they can shout is 'Tuan' and 'Melayu'. And also 'social contract'. Even our Prime minister tries to be candid about these issues in public, but noooooo... Utusan Melayu never worries about being candid. And they never worry about being charged in court too.
In the top-left quadrant is someone who is consciously doing good in BN. That person would be.... Errr... would be.... Errr ...
