Sabah Elections: How Would I Vote?

Nomination day has passed and in the Land Below the Wind we once again witness a cacophony of multi-cornered fights. For the second successive election, the broad opposition to BN has failed to reached any meaningful compromise, which is sure to yield a comfortable BN victory even if they are to see a sharp drop in their vote.

Sitting on a couch so far away from home, it can be hard to discern between fact and fallacy. I have asked a number of friends how they would vote and for those opposed to the BN the result is worrying. Pretty much an even split between SAPP, STAR and PR. Should this eventuate across the board we'll see the BN win all 25 parliament and 60 state seats, even with less than 40% of the popular vote. Of course this will not eventuate but nevertheless the 2008 elections highlighted the fact that disunity amongst opposition ranks led to a loss of a number of state and parliament seats (though BN would still have swept to a very comfortable victory indeed). So for those opposed to the BN state and federal governments, disappointment surely awaits.

Frustrated at these happenings, I have been forced to question my belief set and ask myself: how would I vote?

This requires unboxing the generalities and stereotypes of popular feeling (e.g. West Malaysian bastards, Sabah for Sabahans, everything is the fault of KL, Pilaks and Indons etc...) in order to better understand one's stance on these matters. After all, as a Sabahan, even one sitting thousands of miles away from home, I would be kidding myself if I pretended I could be an objective observer.

I think it is important to discern the similarities and differences between the 3 major opposition groupings. First, we have two views of politics. PR and SAPP (much like BN) bring forth the usual orthodoxy of political rules, where parties compete on the basis of policies and make requisite political compromises both within their organisations and with other parties in order to form partial or if possible, total political domination in state assemblies or the federal parliament. This is not to say that nothing is sacrosanct. For example Karpal's 'hudud over my dead body' stance and PAS' 'no worries, we can have hudud over Karpal's dead body' stance do exist. But everything else is up for grabs and the sacrosanct principles can be buried in the background in the meantime whilst short-term targets are met. After all, to quote Keynes, "in the long-run we are all dead." So we'll worry about the long-run later, safe in the knowledge it will always be over the horizon.

Second, we have the 'outcome' or 'principle' driven political organisations, like Waythamoorthy's bastardised Hindraf (for Hindraf it certainly is not) and Jeffrey Kitingan's STAR (Sabah chapter). Machiavellian machinations among these parties are no different from the former but it is driven by their sacrosanct ideologies in the forefront, rather than in the background. Their political life and death centres around their raison d'etre. Waythamoorthy has encapsulated this perfectly by signing his shameful MOU with the very organisation that has done more than anyone else to marginalise the Indian poor of West Malaysia. Jeffrey equally sees no difference between PR and the West Malaysian component parties of BN, calling them both 'Parti Malaya'. For him and STAR it is all about regaining Sabah's rights, and he will do a deal with anyone who can bring forth that raison d'etre, even the very BN that has done more than anyone else in destroying Sabah's rights. For both the former and the latter the means will always justify the ends. For the orthodoxy it is political power; for the idealists it is the achievement of their reason for being. This is a fundamental difference which we must understand.

This then allows us to better grasp the reasons between the failure between STAR and PR and also between STAR and SAPP in reaching a compromise on seat allocations. Discussions must have been absolutely frustrating on both sides, because much like a typical discussion between a man and a woman, both were speaking past each other....For SAPP and PR Sabah's autonomy is a vehicle to power; for STAR it is everything. The latter will not trust the former two organisations because they feel (and in my opinion quite rightly so) that the vehicle carrying Sabah's autonomy can be abandoned by the roadside should a better, shinier model come around. All the promises in the world are meaningless without concrete agreement (though I concede that Waytha's MOU with BN is not-it is simply a memorandum of UNDERSTANDING). From PR's and SAPP's point of view, STAR is being intransigent. What more can they do apart from re-state their repeated promises? After all any agreement they sign can only be carried out should they have the political power post-election to carry out their agreement. Sure they can only give a 99% guarantee as the post-election landscape is uncertain; why can't STAR understand that? Again, how many of you guys and girls have had similar conversations with the opposite sex? I don't think this is any different!

My brickbats are reserved for PR and SAPP failing to reach agreement with each other. But again, after unpacking their raison d'etre perhaps I should not be so critical. They are fighting over the same ground-they shout the same slogans, they are going for the same targets. Theirs is a battle for power, and theirs is an internecine struggle that must first be settled before they can ever train their guns on BN. For them it is a matter of the last man standing. "After we win, we will take on BN one on one." But as neither can land a knock-out blow, we are left with BN just watching in amazement as they punch each other silly and weaken the opposition voice. But my ultimate blame is with PR. SAPP's declaration (I assume they spoke the truth. PR never denied it as far as I am aware) that Sabah based parties should contest the majority of state seats and PR can contest the majority of parliament seats seemed to me the sanest compromise (what to do with STAR is another matter, but they probably would then have ganged up on them). Equally PR's retort that they cannot trust SAPP will not end up backing BN surely has some merit as well, even if that is quite an unlikely outcome. At some point, chances and risks must be taken, and PR has failed that test big time.

In summary, I understand STAR not entering into agreements with both SAPP and PR. And I somewhat, if reluctantly also have gained an understanding into why SAPP and PR cannot come to agreement, though there I find a big failure of leadership within PR for that failure as SAPP came up with a very reasonable proposal.

So how to vote? Australia and Penang give me two examples that I feel can be used by Sabahans opposed to BN rule. In Australia it was (less so now) common for people to vote for one party in the lower house and the other party in the upper house, thus ensuring no one group has too strong a hold on power. Penangites also have a tradition of voting BN at state level to ensure developmental funds while sending Karpal Singh to parliament to scare the shit out of novices in the BN camp.

I suggest a similar tactic here. Vote PR for the parliament to weaken the BN's grip on power (I have no doubt they'll still form govt). If PR somehow wins power, it'll still be a weak govt. In both cases Sabah does become the kingmaker. If BN wins, it is time for Sabah BN leaders to threaten to walk (should have done so loud and clear in 2008) and get back some of our rights. Just some, mind you as these BN leaders lack the leadership to actually properly threaten a walkout and Putrajaya knows it. If PR, then they'll have to concede to our demands for autonomy outright (as they have generally promised), or next time we go back to BN. So they'll be a one term government. Take it or leave it. Why not vote STAR instead if we want autonomy and they could hold the levers of power? Well, here I think I diverge from a lot of you judging by the facebook postings I read about illegal immigrants and the like. Because for me universal human rights trump our parochial rights. That is why I joined the UN in the past, and that is why I am a proud socialist-because I believe in universal human rights. Be you Sabahan, West Malaysian or an illegal immigrant from Sulu.

People like Jeffrey care only for Sabah's rights and he has made it clear that is all that interests him. He has also made it clear he prefers that destroyer of Sarawakian rights Taib Mahmud to remain in power than have a Malayan control Sarawak. I disagree there. I prefer a good, decent leader from Malaya than a bastard from Sabah and/or Sarawak. Jeffrey will sell the rights of West Malaysians down the river to strike a deal with BN for Sabah's rights, much like what Waythamoorthy has now done to all of us with the BN. We must get our rights back, but NOT at any price. A party that thinks there is no difference between BN and PR is too pig-headed for my liking, despite my full and unconditional support for their fight for our rights. STAR has my 100% respect, but my belief-set means I fear they will sell someone else down the river just to regain our rights. So for justice to be served, injustice will be committed elsewhere. That is not how I choose to live my life. There is a world of difference between BN and PR, and if Jeffrey thinks otherwise, he does not have my support at federal level. Subjective I know, but we must all have our beliefs. If you think Sabah's rights trump everything else, then go ahead and give STAR your vote at parliament level.

At state level however, I think STAR should be given the opportunity to govern. If they are going to persuade me they are better than the useless Sabah politicians in the past who only talk about our rights while robbing us (and blaming West Malaysians, Pilaks and Indons...) then they should first walk the walk after having talked the talk. Gain the levers of power, govern responsibly, and show you are better than BN and PR. Then no doubt you'll sweep all the Sabah parliament seats come the next election.

So there you go. Vote PR for parliament and STAR for state seats. Bad luck to SAPP (well not really as I am not voting) but as I see them as being akin to PR I had to choose one and I chose PR.

Left-Back: Liverpool's Achilles Heel

Once again, it was a lucky comeback, and an unlucky Wigan go home pointless. I wonder how much longer we can ride our luck? One thing is for sure, with Chelsea playing us on the weekend it is time to get rid of our slow starts once and for all, for if there has been any more impressive team than them in all of Europe so far this season, I have yet to see them play.

If I were Scolari, I'd be telling Bosingwa to get forward as much as he can to take advantage of the weakness of Dossena/Aurelio. The latter has had time and it is probably fair to call him a failure, but Dossena has just arrived and I will suspend judgement on him till later in the season. Unfortunately, Liverpool do not have other options to utilise in the meantime. Thus far, Rafa has shown that he is aware of his frailties by not playing Dossena in the 'bigger' matches but it's not like Aurelio has cut it against the top sides as well. Teams are scoring from our weak left flank-Middlesbrough, Wigan, Man Utd spring to mind very easily.

This is a major conundrum and I have no suggestions to offer as to how we can fix it up against Chelsea. One thing is for sure, I'll be a religious man for 90 minutes when we visit Stamford Bridge!

Re-Post:Education Black hole in Sabah

From my siter's website: http://dreamyborneo.blog.com/4049746/

Cheated of Future

Last Friday, a news report highlighted by The Breakfast Show on NTV7 caught my eye. The hosts were discussing a story my colleague Julia had written in the NST on the plight of Pilatus Sahajiman and Malccolm Edvin who were "talked out" of sitting for their Year 6 compulsory exams three years ago by their principal. Their parents are now claiming that they were called for a meeting with the principal, who was not named in the report.

The parents say the principal told them the boys were academically weak and that if they sit for the Ujian Penilaian Sekolah Rendah (UPSR), they would pull down the school's performance and "humiliate" the school as well. Pilatus' father accepted what the principal said, thinking that perhaps it was government policy. Pilatus went on to Form 1 but soon lost interest and now does odd jobs cleaning heavy machinery and washing tractors when he should actually be in Form 3. Malccolm has stayed on in school, but his father says the boy has low-self esteem because of what happened three years ago.

The parents have since, with the assistance of Inanam Assemblyman Johnny Goh, filed a complaint with the Sabah Education Department. According to the newspaper report, the department has promised that "investigations are under way."

I sincerely hope the Education Department and its director, who was just last week conferred with the second highest honour by the Head of State, will actually take action and not just offer lip service.

I also hope the department will go to the ground to gather feedback from parents, especially in rural areas, on problems they face in making sure their children get quality education. I remember visiting a rural school in northern Sabah on a Thursday ... and everyone had left for the weekend. It is no wonder that today we see hundreds of children (not immigrants) working at shops, car wash outlets and in restaurants. Two weeks ago, I bought vegetables from a boy opposite the secondary school I attended. The only reason I stopped to buy vege was because I wanted to speak to the boy. He shared that he is 11, from a northern district in Sabah, and doesnt go to school because his family has no money. Then I entered a nearby shop, and saw another boy about 11 as well, carrying a box of sundry items on his tiny frame. A few months back, a colleague and I stopped at a car wash outlet in Ranau, and there were 5 boys there aged 12-13. All of them come from the same village, and say they would rather work because their parents are just too poor.

Is it just poverty that is keeping these children out of school, or are those entrusted with the responsibility of encouraging these potential future leaders to stay in school turning them away? Caring society? I dont think so.

Poverty in Sabah-Re-post of My sister's Blog Article

After years of independence in a country now ranked as developed following the Human Developed Index....

Go to: http://dreamyborneo.blog.com/4039664/ for the original source. I'll re-print it below. Never asked my sister...plagiarism ah?

Remembering Baby Lanora

In January 2008, I visited several villages in northern Sabah with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). Unsealed dusty roads and homes built from plywood and zinc greeted us in Kanibongan, Pitas. I was not shocked as I had seen worse. But I was shocked and sad to the bone when we met a young mother who had to feed her baby with a mixture of rice and water because the family cannot afford to buy milk.

I have no idea how baby Lanora is today, 10 months after our visit. She suffers from epilepsy and though her parents have taken her to see the doctor, travelling to the nearby district hospital is a costly affair and when she has fits in the middle of the night, there is nothing much the family can do. Baby Lanora's story is just one of many in remote parts of Sabah, and I believe in other parts of Borneo too. Her mother, Isrin, is 20 and looks under-nourished, her father John is 50 and she has an older sister aged 5 years who thankfully is healthy. Her step-brother, who is 25 lives with the family in their one room hut is mentally ill. (John's son from his first marriage, his wife has passed away).

I wrote a feature published the same month in the New Sunday Times, titled "Empty Pockets on Rich Soil." How true. Sabah is a rich state, yet we have Baby Lanoras among us. I was told that a Sabah State agency disputed my piece, saying that John was crazy and that is why his family was in that condition. Well, from what I observed, the officers from the government agencies refused to even get near the house, so the question of claiming Baby Lanora's father is mad doesnt even rise.

The fact is: 42 per cent of children in Sabah are living in poverty based on latest findings by the UNDP. In other words, more than 4 in 10 children.

The fact is: The government has "spent" billions of ringgit to help these people. I wonder where the money has gone. Several billions more have been pledged. Either funding is being planned without taking into consideration the needs of poor people (what they need instead of imposing programmes on them), or some people have become very rich.

The question is: When will the talk stop? When will we see action?



Mum Isrin feeding Baby Lanora on 6th Jan 2008 at Kanibongan, Pitas, Sabah.



Isrin, Baby Lanora, John and the baby's older sister at their one-room home

Aaah, The Social Contract Rears Its Ugly Head Again....

Every now and then, the so-called protectors of Malays and Islam, whomever they seem to be (usually UMNO and the Sultans) come out with statements to make those of us who believe in equality shudder in fear. DO NOT QUESTION THE SOCIAL CONTRACT!!!

Well, I have had it....ask Ungku Aziz, what social contract exactly? The one about about safeguarding special Malay rights, the use of the Malay language or the one that says Malays must be privileged in all facets of social, political and economic life that seems to be applicable post-May 13?

People need to understand that the NEP is not the social contract!

Where does the constitution say that a Malay is superior to a non-Malay? Where does it say we must all shut up and bow down to the 'protectors' of the Malays? UMNO certainly is no legal protectors of the Malays. The Sultans are, and my oh my, how wonderfully well have they defended their bangsa and agama...

Under their benevolent watch, we have seen the poor rural Malay villager get next to nothing over the years, but under their watch we have seen the Umnoputeras enrich themselves, gorging from a financial buffet paid for by poor Malays and the pendatangs. Under their watch, we have seen how these Umnoputeras go to Mecca and use the term Haji and yet continue their corrupt behaviour. Not only that, but these male, unelected protectors who find themselves so fortunate to be born into royalty are by and large also living off the largesse of the poor Malays and pendatangs while they 'concern' themselves about their subjects. Not too mention that they are also the protectors of Islam yet how many of them in their private lives choose to freely ignore the tenets of their religion?

The opposition got a bloody nose from them-yesterday the sultans told the opposition that they know who supplies them with their gravy train, and its not Anwar and Co. So much for looking at the royalty for support-for why should these unelected, unaccountable people support democracy and accountability? Why should they dilute their own power? Wake up people!!! Since when, in the history of humanity, have the interests of the people coincided with that of their unelected royalty?

The route to power lies in the hands of the people-March 8 was a powerful lesson for all vested interests. Masses of people voted for the opposition irrespective of race or religion. PAS supporters yelling makkal sakhti and Chinese waving PAS flags. This must have caused massive fear among the vested interests.

What we have seen in the last few months has been the use of the race card to once again divide and rule the populace, but as Permatang Pauh showed, and now BN's concession at Kulim magnifies, it has not worked. The more Teresa Kok is demonised, the more support she garners. The usual weapons have proven impotent in the face of people power.

It was time for the big guns-the sultans!!! Rightfully or wrongly, the much respected sultans. As usual, they have shown that they will act at the behest of those who provide them with their salaries-from the British and now to UMNO, what do they really care for protecting their bangsa and agama? Not too much, I daresay. They can hang their heads in shame in comparison with PAS who, whether I agree with their platform or not, do actually carry out their religious tenets and promote Malay rights as part of universal rights, not as a Machiavellian 'I-win-you-lose' mentality.

If this does not work, then I wonder whether it'll be time for the nuclear weapons-a repeat of May 13 that is. Probably not-a repeat of Operasi Lallang is more likely first.

Sometimes I wonder if I should not go back home. At times like this, I truly appreciate living in a country where I am judged by my character, not my bangsa and agama. All talk of a Bangsa Malaysia is just hot air, till we start treating people as equals and not as first or second class citizens. Part of that process would mean ignoring the sultans as well as UMNO. We've learnt to do the latter; the former however will be much harder to do. Hundreds of years of tradition, culture and brainwashing will ensure that.

True power lies in the hands of the people-do not be distracted by the divide and rule policies of the ruling classes.

Makkal Sakhti people, it should not just be a slogan. It should be practiced.

Aaah, Cricket's Back-Who's The Racist Eh?

India v. Australia - the bitching, the sledging, the controversial umpiring decisions, the racism, and oh yes, a bit of cricket here and there. Summer's back in town innit?

Once again, we should prepare to witnes the Indian's 'we have done no wrong' cricketers in action while the Aussies have no doubt been prepped incessantly to do no sledge, or even give the enemy a funny look....all this cricketing $$$ floating in India you see...maybe we should make sure they win as well....

Inside Cricket had Harbhajan Singh's interview where he proclaimed he is proud to be Punjabi, proud to be Sikh. Accepted at face value by pretty much all and sundry, no one I know claims that to be supremacist or the like. But now imagine if Hayden proclaimed he is proud to be white, proud to be Catholic....

Aaaah, I cannot wait for the first ball to be delivered-bet it'll be a bouncer...let the games begin!!!

My, My, Our Year Is It...?

Coming from two goals down to beat the new powerhouse to be (Man City), and one hears of the 'spirit of Istanbul....' It's a good result, but what can one make of it?

One thing is for sure-bar the MU match, the team has yet to play particularly well, yet has won 5 and drawn 2 matches thus far. A team that can pick up so many points while playing at less than their full capabilities is more than just a lucky team. Class teams do it, and if this carries on, then despite playing at less than its best, the team can probably be deemed a 'class' team rather than being a team with some 'class' players.

Scoring last minute goals a la MU is also telling. The team can heap huge pressure on the opposition, forcing them deeper and deeper into defense and yielding the ball back to players in red jerseys. More often than not, this results in late goals.

The self-belief is there as well now, and there is consistency in the line-up and tactics, though Rafa the Faka did alter it against Man City and it nearly killed us.

I don't know if I care to say 'this is our season' as I gave up on that a few years ago-as well, it is still early days and MU and Arsenal will get over their hiccups while Chelsea look super impressive, despite all their injuries. It is their title to lose, quite frankly. As well, our left-back spot looks so very weak and it is only a matter of time before it is cracked open for good, as Middlesbrough and Man City showed in flashes. A January signing there is imperative.

Has The Fat Spanish Waiter Learnt His Lesson?

A cracking start to Liverpool's season, at least results-wise, if not quite performance-wise. One thing that became clear last season and one which has carried on this season is that Liverpool is well nigh tough to beat. They have now lost only 2 of their last 30 games (to MU & Chelsea) and lost less games than eventual champions MU last season.

This is of course, no reason to cheer, for this does not mean that the team will win anything just yet. Being tough to beat may just indicate a defensive mindset that leads to too many draws, and a serious aversion to risk, catapulting the fear of defeat ahead of the search for glory. Nevertheless, there does seem to be reason for optimism.

First, the central spine of the team is as good as any in the premiership. 4 very good central defenders (Carragher, Agger, Skrtel, Hyppia) and two top notch defensive midfielders (Alonso, Mascherano) ably assiated by two promising youngsters (Lucas, Plessis) even if Lucas is a headless chicken at times. Defensively then, the squad is as well equipped as Chelsea, MU and Arsenal, if not more so. And if one does not concede goals, one always has a chance of winning matches.

Second, which I consider vitally important, the massive rotation seems to have stopped. No more 5 changes a match and no more resting the big name match winners. Gerrard and Torres play pretty much every match, and Agger and Hyppia have to bide their time. Really only Alonso and Mascherano swap around among the big names. Keane starts with Torres, and Riera and Kuyt play out-wide with Arbeloa at right back, while Dossena and Aurelio are battling it out for the left-back slot. So minimal changes. Whether Riera should be selected ahead of Babel/Benayoun, or whether Dossena should be allowed near a red shirt, or whether Pennant should be given a look-in are secondary to the fact that the team now plays with cohesion.

Third, we have depth now, as noted with the central spine of the team. But also up front where once he gets going, Keane will show he knows where the back of the net is. Ngog looks promising and Kuyt can play up-front as well, as can Babel. It's not great, and it is an attack which cannot compete with Arsenal and MU, but one which matches Chelsea for depth. Out-wide, as long as he has the full-backs overlapping our weakness is minimised but even then Pennant can't get a game and Babel makes cameo appearences, while Benayoun continues to flitter in and out of the side.

But they are troubles of course. In the centre of midfield we have only one attack minded player in the indefatigable Steven Gerrard but no one else. Babel can probably fit in there if need be, as can Benayoun (and at a stretch Keane) but really there is no concrete fall-back option. Compare that to Chelsea and Arsenal and the team falls flat.

The full-back positions are the most problematic. Aurelio has never really convinced and Dossena needs to start playing like a defender. Arbeloa I don't mind, but why oh why force Finnan away? Ok, to get Riera in but even then...Deggen I have no idea about, but we'll see when he is fit. The fullbacks do not even begin to approximate the quality possessed by MU, Chelsea and Arsenal.

Still, more reason to be optimistic than not. It's certainly not our year seeing we don't do too well going behind opposing defences and the fullback weakness will eventually come to the fore, but bloody hell, at least the team should be right up there with the best come the end of April!

Anwar's 2nd Wind & The Dictatorship Within UMNO

Is Anwar really bluffing, or is there at least some truth to his bravado? After 16 September he seemed to have had egg on his face. Then there was the 23 September story, Tian Chua's big mouth, & Anwar's declaration that deadlines don't matter. Neither did SAPP join the Pakatan Rakyat preferring to stand as independents. It all seemed like he was finished, but for 3 main developments in the last few days.

1. Badawi's refusal to call Anwar's bluff. This really perplexes me. Why not accede to Anwar's request for an extraordinary parliamentary sitting & destroy Anwar once and for all? The fact that he did not is not for me, proof that he is fed up with Anwar's sandiwara and that he is getting on with the job of governing. Instead it shows to me that he is not 100% sure (though pretty sure probably) that Anwar was talking out of his rear. Why wait till 13 October? Is it so he can launch a counter-attack? If so, then we have to consider the possibility that Anwar's not bluffing, and Badawi feels he needs time to ameliorate the threat.

2. Following on form that, the suspension of UMNO election's in order to pass the throne to Najib only shows that he is trying to nullify instability in UMNO. Nevertheless, all he is doing is increasing instability in UMNO. It looks like he has given up on holding on to power, & by handing it over to Najib can at least strike some back-door deals to keep his and his family's dirty laundry out of the public eye. This may make the anti-Najib, anti-Badawi camps within UMNO more likely to leave should they feel they cannot take over power since the election is postponed. This makes the likelihood of a power transfer more, and not less likely. The winds of change in favour of free speech has taken root across the nation, including within UMNO. Gagging the expression of free speech will only alienate significant chunks of UMNO members.

3. UPKO's ramblings suggest to me that Sabah's BN parties are beginning to make the move leading up to October 13. Whatever the realpolitik of SAPP's decision, it was clearly very popular with the people of Sabah. Given PBS' emasculation and SAPP's popularity, UPKO can either try and claim the support of the KDM people or lose them to SAPP. BN Sabah is hotly divided, which can be seen by Shafie Apdal's role in urging Badawi to go and maintain some stability within UMNO (but which I argue is actually counter-productive to UMNO's stability).

There has been false dawns, but October 13 must be the end of it all. If Anwar cannot get it done then, he must apologise, and Pakatan Rakyat must get back to governing their states, strengthening their 'coalition' & be a responsible opposition. While I still maintain that the political and economic uncertainty is largely due to a lack of governance at the federal level, clearly the opposition has played a role in it as well. Ultimately what we need is functioning governments, federal and state though clearly it is more important federally. Both parties need to start doing that, and soon.

When Do We Abandon Our Principles?

The issue of principles, and holding on to them, is confusing me. I used to think of it as a rather straightforward beast-you have principles and you hold on to them. Simple. Now I wonder how black and white the issue of principles is. One question in particular concerns me-must principles be rules governed, or can principles be discretionary?

I ask because until about 3-4 weeks ago, I held one principle dear-any member of parliament wishing to jump parties should first resign his/her seat. We should not countenance the defection based on the assertion that the original party being represented has changed its tune and no longer represents the electorate. I hold this view as I firmly believe that the majority of people vote for a party and not an individual candidate (in the main).

I abandoned this principle for Anwar's possible (now certainly near impossible) heroic promise to form government based on defections, despite initially being very critical of such a thing. Why? Because:

*IMO, the government had stopped governing. The government's job is to govern, and not just sit there, inert. And IMO, that is exactly what happened. In such a scenario, one cannot claim the right to form government despite winning the election if one then, upon forming government, not actually govern.

*Anwar's promise to hold free and fair elections within 12 months of forming government after fixing up the electoral roles and getting rid of draconian legislation such as the ISA. To me, this was the decisive point that made me support his aim of toppling the government by using 'jumping' parliamentarians. If the government has stopped governing, and he can not only get elections to be held again, but make them 'freer and fairer' then it is worth pursuing especially when:

*The government continued to use state apparatus to suppress the people.

The last of this is the most subjective of all, and where my decision to abandon my principle is at its weakest, and can be safely disregarded. I got ahead of myself there but the arrest of the Sin Chew journalist really got my goat.

But the first two deserve closer scrutiny and can be analysed via two separate prisms:

*Should principles be universally applied (be rules based)? Or,
*Should principles be contextual (discretionary)?

Should principles be universal, then my decision to support the defections is wrong. I cannot abrograte my principle 'just this once.' It is a non-issue. But does this then imply that the world is static, and not dynamic, for why should it be just my principle that is static? In a static world, nothing changes and the principle of not supporting defections will apply as governments govern and express the will of the people. How realistic is that?

If, on the other hand, principles be placed into set contexts, then discretion applies. The principle of not supporting defections applies to situations where governments actually govern and express the wish of the majority of voters. When that does not occur, the principle is untenable. This unfortunately, opens up a can of worms. Who decides that the government is not performing? Who decides that it no longer represents the majority? Are they rules to follow, in which case why am I using rules to apply discretion? Why the hypocracy?

I wonder if economics can help us out here with its concept of 'constrained discretion' with regards to the independence of central banks in setting monetary policy. When monetary policy was in the hands of politicians, we often witnessed opportunistic behaviour close to elections, with adverse long-term consequences for an economy. It was argued that governments with discretion in the use of monetary policy could not be credible, and that it would be better to use rules instead. Central banks were made independent and targets (rules) were set for them to follow. So in Australia, inflation must be contained within a 2-3% band. Failure to do so will result in penalties. Sticking to this, over time, creates credibility.

But there has been an understanding that such rules must be abandoned should the 'landscape' significantly alter. For example, imagine a scenario whereby Australia falls headlong into recession due to a collapse of the Chinese economy but inflation remains high due to cost-push inflation led by high oil and agricultural prices. In this scenario, say that GDP = -3% but inflation = 5%.

Now, the RBA, following its rules would attempt to lower inflation by running contractionary monetary policy. In other words, it would raise interest rates to contain inflation. This would only further prolong the Australian recession. In such an unlikely scenario, we all know that the RBA would be allowed to abandon the band 'just this once' as the rule was set in place to reflect an ideal scenario in a fairly static landscape. When that landscape suddenly shifts, a change in rules, or an abandonment of rules in order to return to the original landscape is pretty much accepted as being valid. The credibility it has built over time would not be compromised when it abandons the rules due to severe unforseen impacts on the Australian economy.

So it is that I return to my conundrum. Can principles be universal? I think only in a static world, or to be clearer, in a world where the paradigm in which the principles were formulated still remain strong. It can change if the paradigm shifts, and there can be times when the principles can be abrograted while we attempt to return the paradigm to its initial starting point. If so, then we should not be fixated with always standing our ground, but neither should we change our point of view willy-nilly. We need credibility in order to be able to ignore our principles in exceptional circumstances and still be taken seriously after the fact. That is 'constrained discretion.'

It still leaves open the question of when, where, how and why the 'exception' occurs though. And that is surely subjective.

I was initially uncomfortable with supporting the possibility of defections but not anymore. Under the circumstances, I thought the situation was 'exceptional' and thought that by supporting a defection-led change of government I would be able to see the landscape change back to a scenario whereby I will once again be able to state my principle of non-defection. It did not occur in any event, and now we'll see if UMNO can reform itself and get on with the job of governing. Till then, I hold dear that I can, and will, continue to support a defection-led change of government that will end the tenure of a non-governing government (should it not start governing) and bring forth 'freer and fairer' elections where the will of the people can be heard louder and clearer.

Or so I tell myself anyway....

Post-BN Malaysia: A Land of Milk and Honey?

If one takes a heroic leap of faith and assumes that within days a new post-BN government will be formed, then innumerable conjectures arise. Allow me to pen a few thoughts of my own on this matter.

*Pakatan Rakyat has promised to hold elections soon after taking over power (6-12 months), at least once it has managed to repeal 'evil' laws such as the Sedition Act and our infamous ISA. Of all PR promises, this is the one I worry about the most-once in power with the help of all the frogs, what on earth would possess Anwar and his people to call snap elections, especially if this means that he, Awang Hadi and Lim Kit Siang have to tell members of their party to not challenge the frogs in their constituencies? Lest we forget, a lot of these frogs will have plenty of skeletons in their closet (well, so does Anwar...). I fail to see why they would jump in the first place if they would have to face re-election very soon after jumping anyway. Better stay with BN and enjoy 5 more years of easy money, swindling the people.

*Forgiving the swindling of the people. These frogs are not jumping out of the goodness of their hearts. It may well be the case that they feel BN will collapse anyway and the early frogs will get whatever it is that frogs eat sans Sabah 1994. First come, first serve. The incentives to jump must be simple-prime among them that the new government turn a blind eye to their past misdeeds. Maybe that is a price worth paying (though I think not) but what worries me more is an implicit understanding that the man with the famous black eye will continue to turn a blind eye for future swindling, especially if it guarantees East M'sian seats. Hopefully PKR won't have to change the design of their logo from an open to a closed eye...

The Machiavellian Anwar is perfectly capable of doing this if it means achieving power-once in power and faced with tough decisions (which he bottled when he was both education & finance minister) and in need of support from MPs he will certainly cut whatever deal is deemed necessary to keep him in power.

*The fracturing of the Pakatan Rakyat. Inasmuch as the PR leadership seem to suggest that theirs is a strong coalition, the proof will be in the pudding. Once the devil is defeated, the common cause (i.e. get rid of the BN government) is also gone. PAS & DAP in particular, will almost certainly come to political blows-the role of PKR will be instrumental here, as will be the hotchpot of East M'sian politicians who seem more likely to be in parties other than these 3 PR parties. In this regard, I hope the new BN opposition is a strong one. If definitely would be if PAS quits in a huff and joins up with them. I will be neither surprised nor dissapointed if that occurs because we need (a) a government that is not too disparate in the policies of their constituent parties (PKR & DAP are closer than PAS in this regard) and (b) a strong, principled party in opposition.

*Citizen dissatisfaction will arise due to a lack of structural change. Promises have been made; how many can be kept? Governing is tough, and compromises will have to be made. As long as the system remains largely unchanged, the people will be dissatisfied. The initial euphoria of new governance, the abolition of draconian legislation etc... will be quickly tempered by everyday realities as the people realise that global economic conditions render the government limited in their response to adverse economic shocks, and that some promises turn out to be 'non-core' promises that can be forgotten or postponed till later (but later, of course never comes...). Yes BN was bad, but apparently a significant amount of poor economic outcomes was due to external, and not internal pressures. And all those promises...well, that was before we knew the true state of our finances/before we knew that syariah courts still override non-Muslim rights/before we knew that secular courts could override syariah courts/before we knew how many dangerous terrorists populated Malaysia/before we knew that our promises on equality actually contravened the constitution...blah, blah, blah...

Abolishing the NEP will dissatisfy some Malays, especially if the MEA takes time to bear fruit, or is poorly implemented.If the MEA is slowly initiated, the non-Malays will complain. Race politics will probably still be important-which one of the 5 DPMs will take over as PM? Will the Malay states still insist that the Menteri Besar be a Malay-Muslim? Will meritocracy be implemented in schools and in the public service (at least to the extent that does not disadvantage agreements made upon the formation of the country)? Will Sabah and Sarawak be allowed to declare that Islam is not their state religion (as in the 20 Points agreement)?

*It's the economy stupid!!! BN collapsed because post-1997 crisis it never quite managed to get to grips with a post-strong economic growth situation. There was not enough money left to share among the umnoputeras, everyday bumiputeras and everyday non-bumiputeras. The pie shrunk and this caused dissatisfaction. All the window dressing in the world (e.g. feelgood measures like abolishing the ISA) will not paper over the cracks of a weaker than usual economy that fails to uplift the standard of EVERYONE in the country. Yet if increasing growth means abandoning the precepts of the NEP too quickly without adequate reassurances or compensation (which seems quite likely) Malay support will quickly diminish (I am too realistic to believe that racial politics will disappear overnight). Let us not forget that it is they who will be sacrificing for the greater good-it is not easy to give up privileges and I often wonder if other groups would be generous enough to concede the same privileges as the Malays now seem wont to do.

*The citizenry must keep fighting for freedom and justice. Pakatan Rakyat is just a vehicle to achieve us these goals. Power corrupts and we must keep guarding our freedoms jealously. Very many will feel the job is done when Anwar takes the oath of office-we must not be so idealistic. The battle for freedom, accountability and justice must continues irrespective of who is in charge, especially when the system will remain largely unchanged.

So....not so rosy a picture I'm afraid, once all the bluster and initial optimism disappears. But at least the fascist dogs are gone (for now anyway)....

Topple This Disgraceful Government!

There comes a time when decisions have to be made and set in stone; when battle lines are drawn. Today (or last night rather) such lines have been drawn. Malaysia's version of the phoney war is over; and the fascists in charge of the government have launched their blitzkrieg. They must be opposed, but opposed peacefully. Violent protests will only play into their hands, and they have shown in the past their predilection to resort to violence. A violent opposition cannot win.

It is time for people like myself, forever suspicious and half-hearted towards Anwar Ibrahim and certain other members of the Pakatan Rakyat to link up with them in broad opposition to the bastardisation of Malaysia. This is no time for what now seem like petty squabbles or insignificant distractions. The enemy is clear-it is the fascist, racist, morally and ethically corrupt UMNO. This party must be distinguished from the face of the planet in its current form. I fail to see how even moderates like Tengku Razaleigh can now save UMNO from itself.

The sheer abuse of the New Economic Policy to enrich the umnoputeras, and the zeal to which they will defend their cash cow means this is now a battle to the bitter end. They have dug in to battle-our response should not be to flee. Stand our ground. Of course we must choose our battles wisely, but sometimes battles choose us. If we run we lose our freedoms. The country will become even more beholden to these fascist dogs; this country will be ruined.

Remember the stirring words of (Mexican freedom fighter) Emiliano Zapata: 'It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees.'

In such troubling times-such quotes come to life. Oppose UMNO, oppose the fascist dogs, and in the aftermath of our success, do not seek revenge. 'Forgive, but do not forget.' If we fail to do the former, we'll end up like them. If we fail to do the latter, we are consigned to repeating history.

Remember, this is no time to be Malay, Chinese Indian, Sabahan or Sarawakian. That is exactly what these fascist dogs want us to feel. This is time to save Malaysia.

Of Nations, States, nation-States & the Malaysian 'Nations-Nonstate'

The world comprises of many more nations than states. This distinction deserves some definitional context. Nations (to me) are a group that share an affinity to the exclusion of others that can be clearly articulated. Thus for example, we have the Navajo nation, the Basque nation, the Orang Asli nation etc...These nations may well be found within state borders (e.g. Navajos in the USA), across borders (e.g. Kurds in Turkey, Syria, Iran and Iraq), or at a stretch perhaps as a diaspora across the world (e.g. the Romas of Europe, but what about the Chinese of South East Asia?). What sets nations apart from states is that nations lack sovereignty.

States, on the other hand, fit into the Westphalian mould. States are sovereign. States have borders, enforceable rules, and are fully fledged member of the international community. If you're in the UN you're a state. Kosovo and Taiwan are not states by this definition.

Nation-states are what we call most independent countries. It tends to suggest a level of homogeneity within borders of states. During the Westphalian era that created the modern day 'nation-state' most states were largely homogenous. The French lived in the state of France for example. Now of course, most developed countries are states with many nations (i.e. ethnicities) but the majority culture still remain in place as the backbone of the state.

In the de-colonised world however, the creation of artificial borders coupled with colonial interest led migration ended, post-colonisation, to the creation of the idea that a new nation-state had to be created where no one 'nation' had a long history with other 'nations.' This was not an issue for the homogenous nations of Japan and the two Koreas, but it was an issue for the Singapores and South Africas of this world. The politicians had to ponder how to get the citizens to think as 'citizens of the state' as opposed to 'members of a nation.'

Of course both are not mutually exclusive of the other, but the idea that one had to give up a certain amount of one's 'nationhood' in order to embrace one's 'statehood' did not come easy. In some cases, a happy medium has been found. The citizens of Singapore are happy to be both Singaporeans and a 'nation'-both can co-exist peacefully enough. In other situations, it is not so easy. Thailand and Indonesia attempted to assimilate the Chinese; Idi Amin in Uganda simply threw the Indians out. Both the former and latter are now less driven by the need to create a 'nation-state.' The sands of time have seen to that.

I wonder where Malaysia lies in all this. It seems to me that Malaysia, with its non-assimilation policy quickly did create a 'nation-state.' One was allowed to be both a citizen of the state and a citizen of a 'nation' (where the nation is anything that forms racial, geographic, religious and cultural affinities). Nevertheless, post-1969, we have slowly seen the disenfranchisement of the non-Malay Muslims from the state apparatus. This has created a schism between certain 'nations' and the state. As well, the nation-state is weakened even within the Malay Muslim group, as this group (as I so simplistically put it) is actually made up of many smaller groups. The more religious grouping also considers its 'nation' (Islam) to be ahead in importance to its state.

It is one thing to categorically posit that one must place the 'state' ahead of one's 'nation.' One must disavow such simplistic understandings of the world, and indeed the mechanisms of the human's brain to handle such inner contradictions. Nevertheless, when the mass of the citizenry begin to elevate their 'nation' further and further in importance relative to their 'state' we may well end up with a failed state (pessimistic view), or more likely a nonstate full of nations.

It seems to me that the concept of being Malaysian has been heavily diluted-we are now Malays, Muslims, Malay-Muslims, Indians, Chinese, Bumiputeras, Secularists, Capitalists, Socialists etc. far earlier than we are Malaysian. In this situation, does the state truly exist anymore? In a realist/rationalist context, clearly it does as Malaysia remains a sovereign state, but such perspectives ignore domestic considerations. Domestically, the state is withering away, creating gaps for various 'nations' to stake a claim for their sovereignty.

Where this takes us, only time will tell. The concept of the 'nation-state' is an enduring concept and I doubt we'll see the demise of the Malaysian state as such, at least as long as the varius 'nations' that make up the sum of the state agree to a new 'state' that enfranchisement all the 'nations' together. Otherwise, Malaysia will be a state only by orthodox definition; but a nonstate by the exclusivity of the 'nations' within it.

Kosovo Comes Home to Roost

I noted months ago that the West's hypocrisy over Kosovo will lead to trouble, and so it is that we see a battle developing between Georgia and Russia. Russia's response to Georgia's wish for re-unification with South Ossetia (and ultimately Abkhazia) cannot be separated from the Kosovo issue. Yet neither protagonists, or the EU or the USA dare mention the word Kosovo. The hypocrisy of all parties is breathtaking.

I take the view that it is better to co-exist than to separate into different states, but if one is to be subjugated as a 2nd class citizen, then I sympathise with the route to separation (if I don't necessarily agree it should occur except as a last resort).

Kosovars are adamant they want nothing to do with Serbia-the West agrees and agrees to independence much to Serbian and Russian annoyance. Russia warned of 'repercussions.' But this western stance was not uniform. First, the west noted that this was a 'one-off.' Why? Because the primacy of the nation-state; the sovereignty of a nation-state is sacrosant in the Westpahlian world order in which we still live, depsite the ravages of globalisation to such sovereignty. Second, the western response was not uniform-nation states with separatist issues such as Spain and Turkey did not recognise Kosovo. For Turks this must be particularly galling, being unable to recognise their cultural allies for obvious domestic political reasons.

I did not hear those countries who fought for their freedoms necessarily cheer Kosovan freedom-Georgia was quiet was it not, lest South Ossetians and Abkhazians get ideas above their stations.

I have often wondered about the hypocrisy of nations; in particular how quick the European colonialists were to re-occupy Asia and Africa Post-WWII. Did the yolk of foreign occupation not teach them anything?

So it is that I have precious little sympathy for the Georgian government which for all its talk of freedom wishes to subjugate the people of South Ossetia and Abkhazia into Georgia. If I am not mistaken these areas are undisputed Georgian territories by international law, but it is inhabited by people who wish to have nothing to do with Georgia. Surely what is good for the goose is also good for the gander? It may well be the case that Russia was simply waiting for a reason to avenge the Kosovo debacle and bloody NATO's nose in the Caucasus but Georgia's headlong fall into Russia's well-crafted plan was obvious quite some time ago. The strategic miscalculation of the Georgian government was massive. Just what were they thinking? That the US and NATO would back them? That Russia would do nothing to retaliate in what they consider to be their backyard (nevermind international law-it is power I am talking about here).

Russia has not mentioned Kosovo as it deems that nation-state sovereignty cannot be compromised-in this manner it cannot claim South Ossetia and Abkhazia, and I fail to see how it can recognise their independence without Georgia agreeing to it (though they just might). Most likely they will remain de facto autonomous regions of RUSSIA, NOT GEORGIA (as they have been for years now). Any chance of reunification left with Georgia's attack on South Ossetia much as the Argentina's attack on the Falklands means reunification there will never occur either.

Russia means business behaving like Hitler in the 1930s while the west dithers. Not that Georgia deserves much sympathy by their actions.

So back to Kosovo-questions will be asked why South Ossetia and Abkhazia cannot be independent seeing that Georgia attacked South Ossetia. Parallels to Serbia's attack on Kosovo. Yes, why not?

Answers on a postcard please.

The Spectre of Malay-Muslim Fascism in Malaysia

Every so often, whenever I feel positive about Malaysian politics, I'm soon brought back to earth, ususally by non other than my favorite sub-human species; the Malay-Muslim fascist.

First, let's be clear: I'm not talking about all Malays, Muslims or in this specific case, Malay-Muslims. I'm talking about a sub-sample of them who have a vile and narrow view of the world. A view whereby they sit proudly up top, subjugating others with their vision of what is right and what is wrong. Their world is not one where contrary opinions can be freely heard; their world is one where only their view can be heard. It is inherently anti-democratic.

PAS itself is not immune to this spectre-claims that it is a Muslim party can surely now be blown clear out of the water. Make no mistake, Islam is only part of its agenda. Its on-going discussions with UMNO make clear that Malay unity is also paramount to its interests. Just which part of Islam places one race on a higher pedestal over others I cannot find-probably because it does not exist. Perhaps I am being harsh on PAS; perhaps it is just engaging in realpolitik in order to remind PKR and DAP not to forget them, but the damage has been done. When next will non-Muslims or non-Malays vote for PAS again? When PAS decides to talk with the Malay-Muslim fascists in UMNO, it has bitten off more than it can chew. PAS must decide if it is a Muslim or a Malay party; it cannot be a Malay-Muslim party if it thinks itself an Islamic party. The religion does not allow for racial discrimination.

The uneasy mix of Malay nationalism couched in terms of religion can also be seen by the behaviour of the protestors against the Bar Council meeting about the uneasy meeting together of secular and syariah laws. The bar council were denounced as questioning the supremacy of Islam in Malaysia-make no mistake, while some protestors were indeed angry about what they perceived (rightly or wrongly) as a slight to the religion, they were plenty there mixing the notion of Malay supremacy with Islam. That is why plenty of racial slights against the Chinese and Indians were uttered-this was not simply an issue of religion; race also had a lot to do with it. In other words: anti-Islam = anti-Malay.

Now UiTM students are angry that the MB of Selangor proposes that 10 (just ten...) percent of spots at the university be allocated to non-bumiputeras, when a good third (if not more) of the population is made up of non-bumiputeras (the bulk of which are BORN and BRED in MALAYSIA but are apparently not 'sons and daughters of the soil...'). Apparently this university is not theirs. So who are the 'owners' of this university (one where I believe foreign students are present, just not non-bumiputera Malaysians....)? Surely the 'taxpayers' own it? And these taxpayers consist of non-bumiputeras, not just bumiputeras. In fact non-bumiputeras tax payment is greater than that of the bumipuetras. But they cannot share in UiTM-it is only for a select few-selected on the basis of race (and let's not kid ourselves, religion). Neither should we pretend for a second that this notion of a bumiputera university has anything to do with non-Muslim bumiputeras. Perish the thought. No, they are even worse than the second class non-bumiputeras. They are traitors. Sure, the odd non-Muslim bumiputera is paraded around here and there, now and then, just for show. No, the protests against Khalid Ibrahim is led by certain sections of Malay-Muslims who continue to preach their apartheid view of the world.

If he were alive I wonder how Edward Said would view this. He argued that Palestinians and Israelis should co-exist in a nation where diversity can still be valued; one where we can vive le difference (if you pardon my dodgy French). He said what we should avoid is a separation of peoples (i.e. a two-state solution) or one where we have one state with first and second class citizens, like in present day Israel).

I wonder where he thinks Malaysia is today. To a certain extent there is no doubt we co-exist and live and let live. We co-exist peacefully enough, but I fear that space of 'freedom and tolerance' is being steadily eroded by the inexorable hold on power of the Malay-Muslim fascists. The shocking election result only served to generate optimism among fair-minded Malaysians, one now being steadily eroded by the Malay-Muslim fascists' counter-attack, led also by certain quarters among the Pakatan Rakyat.

The parallels between Israel and Malaysia are frightening. How many countries define race in their constitution? I know of three: Apartheid South Africa, Israel and Malaysia. And in the last two, the concept of race and religion intermesh spectacularly. Is a Jew a race of a person of Jewish faith? Apparently it is both. Once I embrace Judaism, I can move to Israel as a Jew. In Malaysia a Malay is a Muslim, and thus we have the concept of a Malay-Muslim; no separation there. Thus, to push for Islamic rights is tantamount to pushing for Malay rights. This is why some people embrace Islam-in order to be seen as being a 'Malay' for once you're a Malay, the doors of wealth and opportunity await you if you're lucky enough to be a 'chosen' Malay (and to hell to all those working hard in the paddy fields or fishing boats in the villages). But one still has to be seen as becoming 'Malay.' A Chinese-Muslim convert who continues to speak Chinese, keep a Chinese name and wear traditional Chinese styled clothes can be Muslim but not Malay. That's obvious-but all those Pakistanis who in next to no time have become 'Malay' and obtained bumiputera status is frightening indeed.

It is unfortunately the second of Said's observations that is becoming the new Malaysian reality. An Israeli-Arab is a 2nd class citizen excluded from certain national institutions. A non-bumiputera Malaysian faces the same barriers (only thing being that the Malay-Muslim fascist has to allow some non-Muslim bumiputeras to share in the spoils to keep up appearances). A newly arrived Jew to Israel (even a recent convert) can share in these institutions; as can recently arrived Muslims in Malaysia once they 'Malay-ise' themselves (like the Pakistanis). Hence Khir Toyo being a former MB with a recent family background from Java (I believe, could be wrong). Hence Mahathir becoming PM for so many years despite his father being from India! Why, because their religion was only part of the story-they also had to become Malay, and this they managed to do.

If indeed, Islam is what is being fought for, then why is it so difficult for Chinese-Muslims to get mosques built to proselytise in Chinese? Why are certain sections of Indian-Muslims fighting to be given bumiputera status? Because while Islam may well be a pre-condition for attaining power and domination over others, it is on its own, an insufficient condition. More to the point, one must also be seen as being a Malay (which automatically confers Islam). Thus we have the Malay-Muslim being; not quite a race, not quite a religion but a mismash of sorts, exactly like the Israeli Jew.

Israel and Malaysia are one and the same. 2 Nations ruled with a concept of a racial-religious supremacy which allows for the subjugation and the closing of 'space' of those who do not 'belong'. An enfranchisement of some at the expense (disenfranchisement) of others written in law, or if silent in law, carried out in practice by various means, be it power persuasion, fear or sheer brute force (the last specifically an Israeli tool, but one which may be unleashed in Malaysia, as on May 13 1969).

The power of the Malay-Muslim fascist is strong, and can only be broken by the opposition of other Malay-Muslims with help from non-Malay-Muslims, and non-Muslims together. This is where I am somewhat optimistic. Malays are human beings like everyone else. As a group who in Malaysia are politically privileged, we should not expect them to simply give up their privileges. Who among us will freely give up power? That is why the Malay-Muslim fascist is powerful-he feeds on the fears of this loss of privilege. Nevertheless, I am confident that the majority of Malays will eventually see that their interests are best served by fighting these Malay-Muslim fascists and aligning theselves with forces that believe in the equality of humanity irrespective of race and religion. It won't happen anytime soon, that is for sure. But the longer we wait, the worse the eventual outcome for this country for if we continue down this path, I foresee the a significant fall in social relations and a fracturing of the country with negative social and economic repercussions-and how is that beneficial to the Malay-Muslim?

On What Basis Should We Respect the Monarchy?

Bloggers like Raja Petra Kamaruddin seem to think that the DAP is being disrespectful to the various monarchies-that they are stuck with a vision of Chinese chauvinism, even if this is due to some of them stating they will not wear a songkok when in parliament. But why should we show respect to the monarchies of Malaysia?

1. Because the Sultans are head of states?
In this scenario we are hence respecting the office of the sultan on the basis that the sultan of a state is the head of state. Granted, but then let any show of disrespect be argued as being against the state and not the royal family, as after all the sultan is representing the state, and is not the state. As well, this is an office that many have no chance of achieving. Not just if you are female or non-Muslim, but because of your birth right. Not much of a legitimate office, in my eyes.

2. Because he is the Sultan
On this one, I vehemently disagree. On what basis should we show respect to a person, who due to their good fortune find themselves BORN into a family of privilege supported by taxpayers money? I will respect someone who deserves respect for their character and what they have achieved, not by their titles and family connections. Sure, some sultans are very capable people who have done a lot to help those less fortunate-I respect them, but not their unelected office. Gautama Bhuddha left his royal family did he not? Edward VIII abdicated so he could marry an American divorcee. They pursued their interests and gave up unelected, privileged office - that in my opinion, deserves RESPECT! If I have to meet the Sultan of Johore, rest assured I will not go on the basis that I have no respect for his past actions. Songkok or no songkok.

3. Due to Culture and History
We do not live in a time vacuum, so fair enough that most people show reverence to offices that stand the test of time. But time moves on; democracy has been embraced. Do these offices remain unadulterated? Believe it or not, there are some among us, including those in the DAP who believe we are all created equal. We should then show respect to someone who gained office due to birthright?! I think not, but we must be conscious of tradition-sometimes we think too much. Respecting culture that does not impinge on our fundamental human rights might just be something we have to swallow. The palace protocols have been in place for long before us, and will probably remain long after we are gone. For better or for worse. But traditions evolve over time, and maybe this will happen in this situation as well. In the meantime sit tight and I think, accept it with misgivings.

At the end of the day, irrespective of what anyone of us think, people do ultimately respect those who deserve respect. The Sultan of Perak is hugely respected; I suspect the Sultan of Johore is hugely feared. any member of the DAP who is behaving in a 'chinese chauvinistic' manner is an idiotic bigot-if they do not want to wear a songkok when meeting the Sultan because that is being 'Malay' or 'Islamic' then there are a right-royal jackass. But if it is due to them feeling that it is a question of equality, then I respect that, and I agree with that, for I feel that as well.

But are these people in DAP missing the point? Surely the songkok issue is neither about Malayness or Islam, or even equality. Surely it is about culture and history. It is done because that is how it has always been done-does not make it right but it is an issue of protocol. If it is just protocol, then WHO CARES? Agassi boycotted Wimbledon for 4 years because he felt their 'white-only' dress code was silly, but is that discriminatory? No, it is a silly rule, but it is their silly rule-if we want to play at Wimbledon, we have to follow their silly rules. Agassi soon realised that.

The songkok rule is an accident of culture and history-it is no more than that. People need to get over it. The world is full of symbolisms that have lost all their original meanings. It just is-as long as it does not impinge upon our civil right or fundamental human rights-WHO CARES?

However, I understand though that some foreign dignitaries do not wear the songkok when granted audiences with the sultans; if so there is no brouhaha-if what is good for the goose is also good for the gander, then surely it is either compulsory or not compulsory? We can't then have our own cake and eat it too. When people meet the British queen, some follow the traditional protocol. Others do not bow or curtsie however, and that is accepted. It seems that is also accepted in Malaysia but only if you are a foreign dignitary. And that is inconsistent....

The Monarchial Conundrum

It happened in Perlis, Perak (a much different scenario thrown at him admittedly), Selangor and now has reached a crescendo in Terengganu-the meddling of royal families (in states with Sultans) in the composition of state parliaments, especially the appointments of the Menteri Besar/Chief Ministers is a sign of the weakening stability in Malaysian politics. They may well see themselves as guardians of stability, but no one voted them into office!

The situation regarding the role of the Sultans in appointing and meddling into parliamentary appointments must be reviewed and clarified. First, it is clearly not enough for us to expect that (unelected) Sultans will act in within the spirit of the constitution in appointing CMs and meddling in the composition of state cabinets. Clearly, it is time to spell out exactly what they CAN and CANNOT do.

Second, the archaic rules that state that the Sultans are the head of Islam at state level and that the CM advises them on religious matters means that the CM must be Muslim needs to be looked into. I am no expert on Islamic affairs but I assume this is a point that is more historical/cultural than Islamic. After all, should the 'head' of Islam at state level not be a learned Muslim? Should there even be a head? The Catholics and Shia Muslims have a hierarchy, but I'm not convinced Sunni Muslims do, or do they (I don't know)?

Nevertheless, I doubt this will ever change (Sultans being the head of Islam), but surely the notion that the CM must be Muslim in order to advise the Sultan on Islamic matters can and must be challenged. If the Sultan is the head of Islam at state level, then why is he taking advise on Islamic matters from the CM, unless it is clear that he is no Islamic expert? Neither is it clear that the CM will be an Islamic expert-hence it is clear that the CM is actually receiving advise from an Islamic 'expert' (however defined). It is this 'expert' who should be advising the Sultans directly-either in a cabinet capacity (Minister for Islamic Affairs) or non-political office (State Mufti).

Let the CM be the best person for the job-do not let the position be restricted only to Muslims-at this juncture, the various state constitutions do seem to allow the Sultans to exercise discretion on this matter-once again, this should be taken out of their hands. Let the constitutional monarchs be beholden to the people, and not vice-versa. If they do indeed want to influence policy, I suggest they run for political office like everyone else.

The Counter-Revolution Begins!

The Sultan of Perak appoints a PAS man to be Menteri Besar of Perak-they have 6 seats, PKR 7 and DAP 18! Admittedly it was always going to be safe to appoint a Malay Muslim and all 3 parties did agree to abide by his decision but surely this was just talk-surely everyone thought the MB would come from PKR, a coalition partner of DAP and PAS. DAP & PAS do not actually form part of a coalition. What is the Sultan up to? Is he playing politics and purposely wants to weaken the new state government, or has he just made a mistake? The mistake was PKR & DAP agreeing to abide by his decision-they should have just decided among themselves to get a PKR MB. They have been outmanouvred-at least Perak DAP did not boycott the swearing-in (or we'll see - it's in a few hours) as Lim Kit Siang has demanded. Already MCA is making noises, saying the electorate has been cheated-it is hard to argue with them-voters who voted for DAP & PKR certainly would not have favoured a PAS MB.

Now Badawi has told Lim Guan Eng (CM of Penang) not to play with fire by abandoning the New Economic Policy (NEP); unbelievably for me, PAS has now stated it would like to see the 'positive' aspects of the NEP kept-just what does business does an Islamic party have supporting race-base economic models? Is it not haram?

Early days but the hard yards start now-Perak is a big problem, and the NEP issue must be led by PKR. DAP needs to take a back seat here. Realpolitik must take its course. I strongly believe in affirmative action-but let it be based on wealth-if indeed all bumiputeras are poor and all non-bumiputeras are not, then there's no need for the former to be worried-speaking of which, plenty bumiputeras voted for the PKR which would do away with the NEP anyway (or so they say)....interesting days ahead!

Malaysia's Election-Surveying the Aftermath

Well, well, well, who would have thought it? Not in my wildest dreams that is for sure. Lots of thoughts are swirling in my mind, stopping me from doing any work, so I thought I better get some off my chest (or mind as it may be).

1. Is this the start of a genuine opposition at a national level?

Not since the Barisan Sosialis has there been a concerted national level opposition, and even then it did not include the depth and breadth of this one. But is it sustainable? In a sense, yes, because Pandora's Box has been unleashed. A psychological barrier (the 2/3rds majority and fall of key states) has been breached. As well. PKR has successfully established itself as a bulwark between PAS and DAP, a conundrum for the opposition since the days of Semangat 46. But perhaps more importantly, the opposition now has the resources of state across the western coast of Peninsular Malaysia, including the rich, educated and industrialised states of Selangor, Perak and Penang. State authority can act as a bulwark against the federal government, as PAS in Kelantan and PBS in Sabah showed. PAS has yet to be defeated since re-attaining power, and contrary to historical revisionism, PBS never lost to the BN in all the elections between 1985-94, and were undone only by the katak phenomenon.

2. Can the opposition govern effectively in their states?

Ultimately, this issue will decide if the first issue occurs. I am optimistic, if only because the opposition is well aware of their golden opportunity. As well, they have, in their desperation to being elected, gone to the masses as never before via the internet no less, and hence are going to be held to account by the people. If they fail, the people will probably despondently return to the devil they already know. PKR is essential in this process, being the bulwark of DAP-PAS antagonisms. Realpolitik has already set in, which is no bad thing in itself in establishing themselves. As I understand it, the Menteri Besar of Selangor will be a Malay, while the PAS Menteri Besar of Kedah has stated that while they will look at Kelantan, they will chart their own course. In the former DAP is being sensible, and in the latter PAS is being realistic. All of PKR, DAP and PAS understand full-well that they require each other's support base.

3. What will UMNO do?

For one thing let's not forget who won the election. It only seems like a defeat, but will become one if they don't shake themselves off the ground. Parallels with India and Japan are striking-in both cases the Congress and LDP ruled unchallenged for a long time, then grew complacent and the opposition made headway-in both cases both parties did not respond well and eventually lost office. However, a combination of re-generation and failure of the new governments have brought tham back into power. Which way UMNO goes depends on how they respond. In this sense, if Badawi remains PM only till the next UMNO election, the change and regeneration may well be orderly-otherwise there will be political bloodshed. In any case, I have always found UMNO a pragmatic organisation-watch them backtrack from their increasingly extreme form of Malay nationalism (Hishamuddin-put that keris down, my man!)

4. What will MCA and MIC do?

God knows-but their policy of acquiescense of UMNO's Malay nationalist agenda has cost them dear. MIC for one, seems doomed, if only because Samy Vellu's dictatorial regime destroyed the party's dynamics to serve his whims and fancies. MCA is a good welfare organisation-perhaps it should become an NGO!

5. Will Sabah & Sarawak finally get their due?

The dynamics of politics in East M'sia is vastly different than on the peninsular, and I won't go into it here but years of imperialism forced upon Sabah in particular by federal authorities can now be halted-KL needs us, but will our politicians have the guts to demand power? I find the Sarawak politicians very savvy-my problem lies with the decision makers in Sabah BN-will they have the guts to fight for our rights and re-introduce the 20 Points? I doubt it.

6. Is this the first election in the world to be decided by the internet?

There will be many Ph.Ds written on this topic, and Malaysia will, in many cases, be a case study. The opposition swooped on this media like never before, and totally outmanouvred the government; ironic when one considers how the government championed the internet. Careful what you wish for boys!

Subsidising Fuel-Anwar's Weapon of Choice?

So Anwar Ibrahim chooses to make clear to the masses that he cares about them-that should PKR form government, the price of fuel will go down. Is it feasible, irresponsible, responsible, populist, or something else altogether?

For those not in the know the price of fuel in Malaysia is fixed and subsidised by the federal government. Malaysia is both an importer and exporter of oil with the flagship PETRONAS being the government-linked company (GLC) that holds most oil concessions. The increase in world oil prices has seen the Malaysian government progressively reduce the subsidy, arguing that maintaining the subsidy will ultimately bankrupt its financial resources-a fine argument economically. The government also argues that the opposition's promise to increase the subsidy is both economically irresponsible and unsustainable. Anwar begs to differ.

Anwar makes the point that during his tenure as Finance Minister (1991-98) the price of oil was RM1.10 in Peninsular Malaysia, and when he raised it by 3c the public's unease saw him backtrack. He says it is possible to reduce the price of fuel in Malaysia for the following reasons:

*Malaysia is an oil exporting country hence we need not be pressured by world prices. Comparing our fuel price to Singapore is misleading as Singapore has no access to domestic fuel. Instead, we should compare our prices to other oil producing nations.

*We can bastardise PETRONAS-he says that when he was FM, PETRONAS was making RM25bil in profit, and it is now making RM80bil. Just remove some of that, thank you very much, to subsidise the price of fuel.

He makes both good and poor points, befitting his populist rhetoric. The question is can Anwar have his own cake and eat it too? First, from an Economics point-of-view, subsidising a product is inefficient as we consume too much of it, so in this case we probably use to much fuel, and too little non-petroleum sources of energy. On the other hand, international relations theory can argue that efficiency should not be the end all of a nation but the welfare of its citizens should be maximised. But is subsidising fuel really maximising the welfare of the people? The rich can afford to pay more, so should the price be the same for all Malaysians? Would a price-dicrimination system not be a better outcome, both in terms of welfare and efficiency?

After all, comparing our prices to other oil-exporting countries renders his argument inconclusive. The Middle Eastern nations subsidise fuel even more, it is true, but they are also using the money to build infrastructure and are investing
in the future. Our oil-revenue is less; should we blow it all on a subsidy? As well, countries like Norway actually have among the highest fuel prices in the world despite having huge reserves-this is important, as they are using the revenue to invest in the country's future. Anwar needs to think about this.

If Anwar got his way, he will dip into PETRONAS' funds (as the present government does anyway for its own irresponsible purposes) and use it to subsidise the price of fuel further. Is this irresponsible? In the sense that PETRONAS' largesse could be bastardised for more productive purposes (building hospitals, schools etc) yes it is irresponsible. From a populist stand-point however, it is perfectly rational as it builds his power base while making the people think that the government can deal with issues like globalisation that the present-day government argues it cannot do much about. It creates calm, and some degree of certainty, and puts confidence back in the nation-state in the eyes of the people. And at the end of the day, lower fuel reduces the cost of living, and helps everyone, but especially the poor. This should never be discounted, even if it is just short-term relief.

I don't for one second believe Anwar actually believes that this is the right thing to do, but in the system we live in, it seems that changes can really only be brought about from the seat of power. If that means bribing voters in order to get power then so be it. Anwar is neither the first nor the last politician to attempt such a move. In Australai's recent election, both parties tried hard to bribe and counter-bribe voters to the extent that the present government is doing all it can to fight inflation while introducing $30bil in tax-cuts come 1 July. But if the price of getting into power means doing some silly things, then so be it-after all, more pertinent and fundamental changes can be made while disbursing the necessary bribes to the public.

Anwar likes -to portray himself as the 'special one'; the Jose Mourinho of politics. He is a democrat, a socialist, a tolerant Islamist, all roled into one-pity he forgets to mention that he is also a hypocrite (witness his very significant role in cheating the Sabah electorate in 1994). He speaks good things-all politicians do, but be wary, for he cares only about power. The reason he speaks in small ceramahs across Malaysia rather than from the pulpit of the Prime Minister's office is that he was too impatient to wait his turn. He mis-calculated, took on Mahathir and lost.

Anwar was poorly treated, and we should all fight to clear his name once and for all, but until he himself publicly tells us what he was doing as part of Mahathir's cabal for 17 years when statements about democracy were somehow absent leaves a hole in his feelgood story. Only one thing has been consistent throughout, and that has been his undying urge to hold sway across the country. Even at the cost of making irresponsible decisions about the price of fuel, for the fuel that drives him is not oil, but power....

Nevertheless, I may be too cycnical-perhaps he does care about the citizens of the country; perhaps he does believe that increasing the subsidy is the right thing to do, but then the billions he takes from PETRONAS to burn fuel takes away the billions that he could use for schools and hospitals. Perhaps that is the argument he should be making, but he knows now what it takes to get to power, and I for one do not blame him. If I were walking in his shoes, I'd like to think I would be more principled, but I think in the cold, hard reality of politics, I'll be at a ceramah too, preaching the benefits of increasing fuel subsidies...