Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad was supposed to minimise controversies arising out of incorrect decisions. However, they have increased,seems caught in a bit of bind. It is beginning to look like the punter who lost a flutter on the football match and then a fortune on the action replay. Its original mistake was a misconception; its contemporary error is a misperception.the historic flaw is its belief, at some gut level“How blessed fortunate and blessed we are as Malaysians in Malaysia,” he went on, as if he was some kind of M for Mandela, but then reverted to more like M for Machiavelli, Mussolini, Mobutu, Marcos, Mubarak or his old M for mate Mugabe with the remark that “Malaysians will have to get used to the apparent (?!) increase in killings on the streets, as it is the price of more freedom.” M is in danger of subversion by a self-confident,aggressive, articulate, patriotic and well-meaning force, the oligarchy of the successful. It might be a mild exaggeration to suggest that its principal characteristics are aftershave and English.
Letter M means trouble considering the mockery that Mahathir and so many fellow malefactors and malignancies make of it, I’ve lost most of my former empathy with the otherwise harmless, blameless and useful letter M, and taken to seriously considering having it removed from my keyboard.“The price of freedom, of liberalism, of being free to say what you like, the price is people get killed,” he lied in the face of the fact that people all over the world are forever dying for, not of freedom. And that an estimated 50 million died at the hands of the regime run by arguably the 20th century’s most M for murderous enemy of freedom and liberalism, Mao Tse-tung.Lamenting the loss of one of his and his BN accomplices’ most cherished M-docratic powers, indefinite detention of critics and opponents without charge or trial, claimed that “greater civil liberties mean that the authorities can no longer take preventive action to stop such a crime.”Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad finally responded to criticism by Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi that Malaysia would have gone bankrupt had he followed his predecessor’s brand of economics.
KHAIRY JAMALUDDIN will roasts DATUK MUKHRIZ MAHATHIR
There is nothing like soap opera for cleansing emotional bath. A brilliant, contemporary instance is the very British, very 1920, class-skirmish series, Downton Abbey. Name a cliché, and there it is, squeezing one teardrop after another. The lord of the manor is lost between two worlds; the grand dame, his mother, pours scorn on both like Oscar Wilde on steroids. The butler has a heart of gold and purse of copper. One daughter marries an Irish nationalist, who has the temerity not merely to be working class but also Catholic. A second daughter descends further in the social swamp. She becomes a journalist. As the acid-sweet grandmamma notes across the dining table, now that the family includes a country solicitor and car mechanic it was only a matter of time before someone became a journalist.By now it is clear which of the two national parties is pro-reforms. There was a time when UMNO pretended to be that. In fact, so much so that it was called by many to be right-of-center. Over time, what has become clear is that the party is right-of-center only when it comes to regressive … Read more
Why have journalists been in such bad odor with every pillar of any establishment? Because they ask too many questions and never have enough answers? Or is it because they dip their snoot so often into the trough of corruption?
Journalism is possible only in a democracy; anywhere else information is propaganda. But a democratic establishment is no less caustic about this profession than the old order. Editors never seem satisfied with the occasional private dinner or periodic gong handed out by government; they keep probing into the mutually rewarding relationship between wealth and power, to the great distaste of politicians.Their rationale is cogent. There is no democracy without elections. Elections require money. Such cash does not grow luxuriantly on legal trees. This primary lubricant can only be generated by businessmen through deceptive accountancy. The quid pro quo is that such businessmen must be protected and rewarded. Case settled.
This argument is being nourished in drawing rooms across borders as the Indian subcontinent lurches its way towards a mammoth election season. Pakistan’s vote is in May; India, Afghanistan and Maldives will follow, with Bangladesh just a little behind and Nepal in permanent maybemode. Is there any ethical solution to this septic conundrum?
Yes, and it can be found where you least expect it, in the obvious. Polls require money but never as much as the candidate demands. The simple truth is that money cannot buy you the vote, or no government would ever lose. It is axiomatic that those in office will always commandeer a disproportionate share of available liquidity, but if this alone settled the issue then every election would be over before it began.
Voters are very wise; they will accept every little bribe thrown their way, and then vote on the basis of policy, politics and perhaps character. When candidates turn beggars or extortionists, it is not because they want to win, but because they want to knit a fat financial cushion that will comfort their posterior for the foreseeable future. Elections are the appropriate time for accumulation since ‘donations’ have become legitimized during this heartbeat moment in a democracy. The true algebra of spending offers different equations. Losers, driven by anxiety, tend to spend more than winners, all other aspects being equal.
Every election does offer one or two high-profile examples where money has been used to fashion a result, but this requires enormous political muscle and some very careful government engineering. Exceptions prove the rule rather than undermine it. The most dramatic election in Indian history was surely one after Emergency, in 1977. The principal opposition alliance, called Janata Party, had very little money in either north or south India. Janata won every seat in the north, and lost almost every seat in the south. Neither the presence nor absence of money changed the outcome. In the last Tamil Nadu Assembly polls, many DMK enthusiasts believed fervently that Jayalalithaa would be humbled by DMK’s money power. We all know who won.
The electoral excuse for corruption falters on facts. Will this change anything? Probably not. For parties and their candidates, cash collection has become too pleasant a habit. Businessmen might be aware of what is going on, but continue to feed this goose in the belief that it will lay golden eggs very soon. The existing system is their best insurance in an environment where profits can depend on manipulation. This cozy partnership explains why politicians are so desperate to get nominations, even when they are certain that they will lose. They know that whether they become MPs or not, they will always become richer.
The ancient lords, whether in aristocratic Britain or princely India, squeezed their peasants directly and built palaces served by butler and retinue. Their successors are more discreet. They bow before the voter and harass private sector plutocrats. But one thing has not changed. In the end, it is always the people who pay.
The former editor of UMNO daily New Straits Times Kadir Jasin has trained his gun at prime minister Najib Razak’s advisors, accusing them of incompetence and of bleeding public funds by receiving ministerial-level salaries.
Kadir a staunch loyalist of former PM Dr Mahathir Mohamad, compared Najib with his predecessors, saying Najib has more advisors than any of them.
“The many million ringgit question is, who are paying these men and women their minister-level salaries and do they really contribute?” he asked.
With such a big pool of advisors, Kadir said it was not surprising to see “national budget deficits growing bigger” while at the same time the country attracts negative international ratings.
Kadir, a defender of draconian laws, also scolded the advisers saying they had managed to convince Najib to abolish the Internal Security Act (ISA) utilised by the second PM, Tun Abdul Razak Hussein, Najib’s late father.
“I wonder what role the Prime Minister’s advisory committee plays these days since preventive detention laws have all been done away with and as Malaysia becomes increasingly unsafe and unhealthy,” lamented Kadir, attempting to link abolition of draconian laws with the mysterious spike in violent crime.
Kadir also asked if Najib’s advisors were concerned of the looming economic crisis and whether there was a contingency plan prepared.
“Are we not worried? Are we prepared? Do we have a contingency plan?”
Yet to be announced, Datuk Seri Shahrizat Abdul Jalil’s appointment as the prime minister’s adviser on women affairs has raised questions among gender equality activists who fear the role will undermine the authority of the incumbent minister.
Shahrizat’s return to the Cabinet has drawn flak from several women’s rights groups who viewed her role as redundant, and voiced apprehension that she may dish out conflicting advice on programmes initiated under the Ministry of Women, Family and Community Development now helmed by Datuk Rohani Abdul Karim.
Such conflict, they suggested, could disrupt gender advocacy efforts.
“To be honest, if we have a women’s minister, an elected one, I don’t see why we need another,” Maria Chin Abdullah, executive director of Persatuan Kesedaran Komunity Selangor (Empower), told The Malay Mail Online when contacted.
Carving out a special seat on women’s issues just to accommodate Shahrizat was unnecessary, she said, highlighting that the Wanita Umno chief had not given much punch during her three years heading the ministry.
“I think she has done some things during her tenure, but I feel she has not done enough, for example, on the issue of Islamic family law, that till now nothing has been done,” she added.
Chin said there have been numerous amendments to the current laws that women’s groups have been lobbying for, and which appear to have stagnated.
All Women’s Action Society (AWAM) president Ho Yock Lin shared similar views, but expressed concern that Shahrizat’s return might undermine the power of the incumbent women’s minister.
As adviser to the prime minister, Shahrizat will be conferred full ministerial powers.
Picking Shahrizat was a major policy misstep, Ho said, as the prime minister would be signalling his lack of confidence in the existing women’s minister to carry out her job.
“At the same time, if there is a conflict of programmes, who shall the government listen to?” the AWAM president asked.
She said Shahrizat may have done some good during her turn in office, but despite her long tenure she had little to show for it.
It would be more suitable if Shahrizat were appointed Rohani’s adviser, Ho suggested, saying a new leader may revitalise the government’s efforts on women’s rights.
“It is time to for [Shahrizat] to go, time for new people to try [to take the lead],” Ho said.
“If she really wants to, maybe she can be an adviser to the ministry, but not the prime minister.”
Shahrizat’s help, however, may not be welcomed as her successor Rohani has stressed that her predecessor was not appointed to her ministry.
“It’s not adviser to my ministry,” Rohani told reporters on the sidelines of the Women’s Summit 2013 conference on Tuesday.
Women’s Aid Organisation (WAO) executive director Ivy Josiah hoped the news of Shahrizat’s appointment was merely a bad rumour.
Shahrizat, the former Lembah Pantai MP, yesterday confirmed with The Malay Mail that she received her appointment letter last Thursday.
Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak has maintained a resolute silence in confirming Shahrizat’s appointment when asked at a news conference on Monday.
Like Chin and Ho, Josiah said an adviser role was not sensible as it would undermine the status of the women’s ministry which has a large enough machinery to lead on policy and implementation on women’s issues.
“Furthermore if the rumour is true, it will not look good, as perception wise it will appear to be political patronage,” she told The Malay Mail Online in a text message yesterday.
Josiah noted that the appointment in an adviser role would mark Shahrizat’s return to political power, over a year after the Wanita Umno chief lost her Cabinet portfolio at the height of a national cattle-farming scandal.
Shahrizat was the women, family and community development minister from April 10, 2009 to April 8, 2012 and dropped from Cabinet after she lost her senatorship due to allegations of impropriety after her family was implicated in a RM250 million federal loan for a failed national cattle-farming project.
This is the second time Shahrizat will be given a political lifeline after having won a similar reprieve in the aftermath of Election 2008, when she was defeated by newcomer Nurul Izzah Anwar in the contest for the Lembah Pantai federal seat.
The embattled leader will be defending her post in Wanita Umno in the coming party polls and is expected to face a challenge from another ex-minister, the younger Datuk Seri Azalina Othman Said.The solution is to revamp how we fund politics, to mandate transparency and accountability in political expenditure and source of funds, to reform the justice system, so that all cases are settled beyond final appeal in a matter of months, rather than decades as of today. This would rejuvenate the authority and legitimacy of the …Read more
