UMNO and NFC: Rushing Rich

In this posting I just wish to note some recent development in the National Feedlot Corporation saga, which conjures a worrying picture beyond the immediate issues at hand.

There had been news circulating that a Singapore company is suing outfits and executives associated with the NFC for huge arrears in rentals. Entire floor of prime business premise had been leased in Singapore and yet left idle. If I am not mistaken the premise is said to carry a monthly rental of RM 22 million. If my memory is correct and the fact is accurate, I don't think the soft goverment loan of RM250 is going to last very long, given  such callous management style.

A few days ago I read a statement by the Chairman of the Parliamentry Financial Committee that NFC had failed to serve its first instalment for the RM250 million, due after three years from the date of its granting. This if of course worrying. Would this be just another case fitting the general pattern of abuses and corruption in Malaysia where loans are simply taken and never revoverable for many many 'reasons', ranging from bancruptcy, poor management, write-offs, to crisis requiring bail outs and many other forms of ' unforseen circumstances'. This is particularly worrying considering NFC had failed in its very first instalment of the payment, which could raise the question whether NFC's had ever intended to repay the loan of RM250 million in the first place.

In the meantime the Secretary General of UMNO had made a statement a few days ago that there is no need to pressure the Wanita UMNO Leader to quit her party position because she was elected to the position. I don't wish to question the party position on whether the Wanita Chief should or should not quit her position, as I understand internal politcs and calculations can be quite complicated. However the Secretaray General's statement and its implications is of another matter altogether. What if the demand for her to quit comes from those who elected her in the first place? Don't they have the right to review their mandate in the light of changing situation? Is anyone for that matter beyond review and accountability 'once elected'? Shoudn't any party be sensitive to the question of the integrity or performance of its office bearer's 'once elected'?

Looking beyond the specific case of NFC, one the major problems facing our nation is that there are too many people always in a haste to be rich, in lieu of hard work and toil. This is in contraventon to the natural law that rewards is always in return for work. Hence there is always many people dreaming of a life of ease and plenty, counting on networks, cronyism, nepotism, political influence, power, patronage and almost everything else besides honest work or toil. Those involved in this manner often forget or choose to forget that whatever is begotten in this manner is always at the expense of others who had done honest work and toil, yet being denied of the fruits of their labour and striving. An obvious example would be how tax payers money are being squandered ever so easily by those rushing rich!  

UMNO, DAP, PKR and Corruption: Principle or Ploy?

 

We have heard the announcement concerning Sharizat’s intention to step down from her cabinet post next month, in sync with the term of her senatorship, over the affairs of the NFL. Her announcement came at the time when the chief executive of NFL, Salleh Ismail, her husband was being charged in court for criminal breach of trust and misuse of public fund in connection with the RM250million loan from the government.

The announcement had solicited various responses from political parties, as expected along very partisan lines. I should like to share some of my own responses in reading them.

Shahrizats’s own statements and action raised some nagging questions. Why step down now, after months of tenacious defense of herself, as well as NFC? We still remember her dramatic antics at the UMNO Assemby , taking on the opposition, her denouncers, with rolled up sleeves and fist clenched. Her defense then was that she was not involved in any way with NFC, she just happened to be married to the chief executive. Why step down then if you are not involved in any way? It is hard for the public to believe though she is not involved in any way with development in the NFC, as her husband and children are directors in the company, drawing huge salaries and perks. Of course ‘involvement’ here does not refer merely to tangible legal evidence but signifies wider notion of ‘interests’ in the way of ‘family matters’.

What has been UMNO’s reaction to the announcement? Generally quiet among the top brass but some had felt compelled to comment I think. The home minister had said he respected Shahrizat’s decision and admired her for it, and urged her to continue to lead the party women’s wing. What sort of a statement is this? It sounded as if this is a purely personal matter which does not involve the public and the nation. It sounds like a company manager counseling a staff intending to resign over her domestic problems, but still needing her services to the company. There are other statements from UMNO leaders making a ‘martyr’ out of Sharizat over her decision. One leader praised her for her ‘courage’, another for her ‘sacrifice’. What ‘courage’ and what ‘sacrifice’? The Prime Minister expressed 'gratitude' for her decision. Why? Is UMNO anxious to stop the inquiry at her level and not higher up the accountability chain?

In my opinion UMNO should indicate, by statement as well as gesture, its stand on corruption. If it fails to do so, it will lose lots of credibility to the opposition and in the eyes of the public. For the sake of its moral and political standing it should send clear unambiguous signals that it abhors corruption. It doesn’t have to apologise profusely or romanticise members entangled in scandals. It conveys very unflattering image of itself in doing so.

I scanned the news to make more sense of this. I read of  the following elaboration. She is courageous in making the sacrifice in the interest of the party, so as not to compromise the party in the coming election. What banality! Shouldn’t the issue be either she is blameworthy in some way or innocent of corruption or vested interests?. If she is blameworthy, the party should accept her stepping down, otherwise the party should insist on her staying as a matter of principle. Why this strange way of bestowing ‘martyrdom’ on her? Doesn't the credibility of leaders matter at all for the party? It suggests both banality and moral insensitivity, despite the pretension. There is also the response that opposition leaders should emulate her noble gesture and step down. Surely this is a rather immature political maneuvering . A better response would be to focus on the issue and then only proscribe it for all, including the opposition. To do otherwise looks like a glaring ploy to deflect and deflate the issue.

There is also the party response in thanking her for continuing with her party positions. There's much accolades on her dynamism as party leader. There is no consideration whatsoever for the issue at hand. I am not suggesting for a moment that the party abandons her or demands that she quit her party position as well. What I find disturbing is the lack of consideration for ethical or moral integrity altogether. Shouldn't there be deliberation at least on her blameworthiness or otherwise on this score before 'thanking' her for continuing?Or shouldn't it be deliberated if she might be a liability for the election if she continue to lead? 

The DAP, PKR and PAS should be credited with its various exposures concerning corruption. They had proved themselves effective in bringing down several UMNO and BN leaders over wrongdoings. They could be a formidable force in cleaning up the nation and its leadership mettle. While crediting them, I should state that they could be even more formidable if they combine militancy against wrongdoings with general or universal moral indignation. What the public finds disappointing is when they seem to be ever vigilant and tenacious when it concerns UMNO or BN leaders, but turn equally militant or banal in their denial, defense and dismissal when it concerns one of their own. Concerning this we have more than ample examples to go by.

The question then is this: For our political parties is the issue of corruption a matter of principle, or is it a convenient weapon to bring down the enemy? It has its uses in case of the later, but it would bless the nation much more if our political parties cultivate a genuine moral indignation against this scourge of corruption beyond partisanship.

Sacralising the Secular? Secularising the Sacred?

Within the short termed objective of the election, members of Pakatan had indicated preparedness to compromise their generally known stand on religion and secular politics. PAS had ‘shed’ its long standing cause to champion an Islamic state, much to the disquiet of significant portion of its traditional supporters, who see it as ‘betrayal’. PKR had tried its best to project an open attitude to the question of religion, as indicated in its support of ‘Allah’ in Bible issue. Yet it is well known that internally its leader Anwar Ibrahim still leverages heavily on his supporters of the ‘ABIM’ mould, whose worldview and intellectual makeup are still essentially of their youthful Islamic ‘dakwah’ days.

After all Anwar still carries with him the appellate ' firebrand of Islamic youth movement' , among others like ‘reformist’, ‘champion of democracy’ and ' defender of human rights' . Indeed if we examine clearly the utterances and thinking of his Malay Muslim supporters within PKR, they reflect strong deeply rooted continuities with ABIM. In fact this is true of Anwar Ibrahim himself.

What of the other segment of party supporters? We all know PKR has strong symbiosis with Hindraf, which of course bases its identity and cause with Hinduism. One of its central motif of political agitation had been the demolition of Hindu temples and the alleged discrimination against Hindus by the present regime.

As for the DAP, there is growing disquiet on the growing influence of Evangelist thinking within the party. In fact Helen Ang would argue that evangelists had ‘taken over’ the party. Leaving this aside, there seems to be now a joining of issues between the DAP and the Church, of course to their denial. For example there was the issue of ‘Allah’ in the Bible, the printing of the Bible in Malay, and more recently the issue of Article 152 of the Constitution and the innuendos of ‘ bullying’ on the part BN against non-Malays and non-Muslims.

Recently there were some issues over the handling of religion in the state of Selangor, culminating in the sacking of the state councilor in charge of Islamic Affairs, Hasan Ali, both from the state portfolio and PAS. After much vacillation, the portfolio had been taken over by Chief Minister Khalid.

Much heat had been generated in this episode and it is most instructive for Malaysians. Hasan Ali saw it as PAS abdication of its proper mission, that of championing Islam. We can deduce from this that he defined his task of state councilor as theological and not secular or administrative,  charged with managing religious sensitivities within the pluralistic and secular realities of the state. The secular and political interpretation of the counselor’s portfolio  is represented by the assumption of the duties by the Chief Minister. At the bottom of this conflict is the raging tension between religion and secularism, which is of the greatest threat to Pakatan unity.

The tension between religion and secularism is reflected in the objection or opposition leveled at Khalid. Many PAS hardliners had expressed serious doubt whether Khalid can lead the Friday prayer or recite the Quran competently. In short his theological credentials or general ‘piety’ had been called into question. Some elements in PAS had already denounced him as not of ‘the ulamak’ category, which within the epistemology of PAS mean many things, including unfit for leadership!

The significance of the issue is by no means confined to this single episode. It touches on the raw nerves of Pakatan in general . Contrary to their public stance of compromising on issues of religion,  for the sake of the coalition and the ballot box, they all know otherwise. All of them know that religion is still a potent force to be tapped politically.

PAS knows only too well that ‘Islam’ and ‘agama’ is its political lifeline. Its leader Nik Aziz continues to campaign on that theme. Persistent motifs include ‘PAS is Islam’, ‘Pas is religion (agama)’ and ‘UMNO rejects Islam ’. Anwar Ibrahim continues to project the image of the theologian, the authority on Islam and its champion. This is of course before selective audience. On the side he would of course encourage Hindraf to be more militant in its agitation against BN for its alleged discrimination against Hindus and their rights (even accusing BN of genocide). Judging by the heat generated over Church related issues, it is reasonable to infer that the DAP is developing some taste for ‘religious’ based issues and sees its political punch in whipping emotion. Lim Guan Eng and some DAP leaders had  even learned to tap Islamic anecdotes and historical lessons for their politics, albeit artificially and rather unconvincingly.

Over such development, it is interesting to ponder and reflect. Will the Pakatan be able to manage the tension and delicate balance between theology and secularism in the long run? Will it be able to invoke religion  to pitch level, then rein it in with its secularism and pragmatism? Can it temper religious fanaticism to appease its secular support base without domesticating it too much, taking out the political sting ? Can PAS risk its traditional support based on Islam for the sake of pleasing its coalition partners?

In the meantime, the BN is hitting back, not ‘theology for theology’, but by denting the pious  images of opposition leaders. This is done basically by dousing their ideallic representations with counter images of decadence, in fact very sensate life style. It is BN's way of  subjecting the opposition to the scrutiny of their own standards, values and pronouncements

There is a more fundamental questions before Malaysians. Given present development, will future conflicts in Malaysia be along religious lines? Between Islam, Christianity, Hinduism in various allignments and configurations?

Anwar Ibrahim Case: Making An Appeal Unappealing

When the popular movement broke into celebration over the acquittal of Anwar, one can still feel an undercurrent of apprehension in Anwar and the leadership of the opposition, whether the whole thing is over, finally and absolutely. The defense, as well as the opposition, has not quite rested, even with the acquittal.

Almost immediately upon the acquittal, Karpal Singh, lead counsel, called upon the AG not to file an appeal. This was shortly followed by the Bar Council of Malaysia recommending the AG not to file an appeal, a move seen by many as going against the grain of professional ethics or impartiality, indeed against the principle of justice itself.

Right from the beginning the opposition stubbornly clung to the ‘conspiracy theory’, refusing to draw the line between legal and the political. To the opposition, the trial of Anwar is a trial against the opposition. The acquittal was greeted with a triumphant mood signifying a victory for the opposition and a disgrace for UMNO. All indications point this way, the banners, the chanting, the celebrative congratulatory messages among opposition supporters. It was as if the opposition had won the election and UMNO had been vanquished.

The point is the trial was never perceived and projected by the opposition as the trial of an individual, not even as leader of the opposition, but as the trial of the opposition itself. It was consistently billed as ‘ opposition versus state’, only that it was personified as ‘Anwar versus Najib the Prime Minister’.

Immediately after his acquittal, Anwar was interviewed by Al Jazeera outside the court complex, amidst a jubilant crowd of supporters. He was asked if his acquittal had somewhat given a lie to the conspiracy theory, he responded in the negative. After railing against aspects of the trial, he said it is to be seen if the judiciary is really independent, almost as if anticipating an appeal. He was not yet willing to put to rest the charge of conspiracy.  

As the deadline for the AG to file an appeal draws near, Lim Kit Siang called upon the AG not to appeal, in an intonation characteristic of political intimidation. He said an appeal would destroy whatever ‘little faith’ the public has in the independence of the judiciary. Such statement clearly reflects the political framing of the trial beyond the legal.

Hours ago I read the AG has filed an appeal (according to the media). The defense has already responded I think. Sankara Nair is quick to frame the AG's move as 'persecution' rather than 'prosecution' of a political leader.

Clearly, even as the AG contemplates his move whether to appeal, the defense and the opposition had already launched its defense. By all indications we know in which direction this will take.  An appeal had been anticipated right from the point of acquittal and preemptive move had been taken to make it appear unsavory and unappealing to the public. If this is something to go by, clearly the trial is going to be conducted well beyond the court and the legal. Perhaps the opposition will fight it more in the political arena, both local and international, in the street, the media, through the embassies and the foreign press.          

Anwar Ibrahim vs Saiful: Victor's justice?

We know of the verdict in favour of Anwar Ibrahim. We read how it brought tears of joy to many, to close family members, followers, party supporters, sympathetic members of the public, and those with political interests in the turn of events.

Fanatical supporters danced in the street, like an intoxicated mob (of power), chanted ‘we shall conquer Putrajaya!,’ , ‘ go die UMNO’(mampus UMNO)

Foreign press and media, completely sold and bought into the cliches of the Anwar’s saga, of near template-like motifs of a former Deputy Prime Minister being victimized by the evil machination of a ruling party, bent on clinging to power (dubbed as the theory of conspiracy); the formerly brilliant Minister of Finance, the man who headed the wave of reforms and democracy in Malaysia, once charged and convicted, vindicated by an overturn of conviction by the court (often not mentioning it was on technicality), went to town toasting the ‘justice had been served ‘ theme of a happy ending.

And yet if we look at the whole coverage of ‘the saga’ more objectively, beyond partisanship, we have a sense of gross one -sidedness, a skewed picture of the whole. Perhaps foreign (international?) press coverage of the episode would go into history as one of the major chapters of ideological distortion and falsification ever committed by the press (ironically all in the name of freedom of the press and democracy!)

I give a few illustrations to convey the point. While exaggerating  the heroic picture of an ‘ex DPM and Minister of Finance battling UMNO', it was almost never mentioned that he was DPM and Minister of Finance within the UMNO setup nevertheless, and was very much true to the UMNO ethos then. Anwar is constantly drummed up as the beacon of reforms and democracy, but it is rarely mentioned it was an overnight metamorphosis from ‘UMNO' to 'Reformasi’ for Anwar, immediately after his sacking from UMNO, and at a rather late stage in his life (in terms of ideological evolution)

Saiful must be one of the loneliest human being on earth right now. He started as an underdog in the opening of the case, was an underdog during its course (in the sense all publicity and media coverage were generally devoted to Anwar’s politically charged defense and ‘antics’), and ended up perhaps worse than underdog. After the verdict, abuses and profanities had been hurled at him. The youth leader of PKR demanded Saiful be charged and sentenced under the syariah court for 'slandering' Anwar. Not much international coverage was accorded to Saiful's response to the verdict (have you seen his statement?) He was  only supported by the solitary figure of his devoted father who swore to stand by his son.

 In the meantime the influential Bar Council of Malaysia had issued a statement recommending the Attorney General not to file an appeal against the verdict. Saiful’s father had issued a simple statement that in doing so  the Bar Council is denying Saiful justice and due process of law, perhaps because Saiful is a small man, a non VIPand a non politician of no consequence(have you seen his statement?)

Perhaps this could be a reason why Saiful insisted on seeing PM Najib before deciding to file the case ( the occassion of which was exploited to the hilt by the defense in alleging  the conspiracy theory) Perhaps  the reason too why he hesitated and vacillated before deciding (which worked against him in the DNA evidence due to the time lag). He must have had a daunting sense of taking on a powerful, skillful and shrewd politician. Just a small man looking for support in confronting  an awesome public figure with a powerful political machinery, both local and international.

So what’s next? Had history been finally sealed on this infamous case? Is it just a turn in a yet long winding road, a continuing saga the ending of which is yet to be written (who writes it? Historians, UMNO, Pakatan, the foreign press?) Meanwhile I hear ‘joy flooded the Tweeters’ over the verdict. PAS goes on chanting ‘Putrajaya we shall conquer’. When a TV3 newsreader slipped in referring to 'Anwar'  (instead of Prime Minister Najib) visiting Johannesburg , Anwar was fast to quip in public ‘she knows, except she is mentioning it a bit early…would like to meet her’, greeted by the laughter of an adulating crowd!

Certainly for now everything seems to be going the way of Anwar and his powerful supporters, local and abroad. Saiful and his devoted father would have to endure the rough edges of victor’s justice, for now?

     

Anwar Ibrahim verdict: Justice or conspiracy, or both?

Congratulations to Anwar Ibrahim and his defence team.  As we all know the court had returned a 'not guilty' verdict on the case, which must have surprised many, most of all I feel the Pakatan.

The opposition, the Pakatan, had braced itself for a 'guilty' verdict. All the posters reflected that, playing on the main theme of 'reject the lies, slander' and ' resist conspiracy'. Besides the posters, the stancing around 'the number game' (which normally suggests just a show of strength) of mobilising 100,000 for the verdict also indicated gloom anticipating an unfavourable verdict.

The actions of Anwar Ibrahim themselves seemed to expect an unfavourable outcome. His public statements, confined to the antithesis of ' not guilty' and ' conspiracy', placed greater possiblity on the later. There was much talk of 'never fleeing', ' possibility of accident', 'shot',  ' whether I am in or out of prison' and the like.

On the whole, given their determinism of either 'not guilty' or 'conspiracy', how would the Pakatan interprete the 'not guilty' verdict?Will it say that our judiciary is one with integrity? After all Anwar himself had responded with a 'justice had been served' statement. Given the verdict, will the Pakatan now accord a modicum of respect for our judiciary and other vital institutions?

Concerning UMNO, is the Pakatan capable of saying this case shows the inadequacy of the conspiracy theory, or will it simply say with an even greater tenacity that UMNO's idiocy pervades all areas, even that of conspiracy.

KEMPEN 901: HUKUM HAKIM MAKI MAHKAMAH

Dua hari yang lepas, Pakatan mengadakan satu kenyataan media yang amat menyedehkan mereka yang cintakan demokrasi dan keluhuran undang undang negara kita. Kenyataan Azmin Ali, Timbalan Presiden PKR, sebagai jurucakap kumpulan, dengan lantang dan cabul menolak prinsip kebebasan kehakiman , sambil mengugut dan mengancam mahkamah menjalankan tugas tugasnya ‘tanpa takut dan memihak’. Beliau mengugut akan menurunkan 100,000 penyokong Kempen ‘Bebaskan Anwar 901’ pada hari  Isnin ini, yakni hari mahkamah memutuskan kes Anwar Ibrahim.

Dalam video kenyataan media itu, Azmin Ali menegaskan butir butir berikut:

 Pertamanya perbicaraan kes liwat berkenaan didakwa ‘bermotif politik’ yang ‘berniat jahat’ untuk menjatuhkan Anwar Ibrahim. Jelas ini merupakan satu kenyataan yang terlalu umum yang sendiri ‘bermotif politik’ yang mungkin ‘berniat jahat’. Saya kira dalam politik setiap pihak ada kepentingan melihat lawannya jatuh. Dalam pengertian yang seumum ini, setiap gerakan Pakatan untuk menjatuhkan UMNO dan Barisan juga boleh kita anggap ‘bermotif politik’ serta ‘berniat jahat’. Tapi kenyataan umum seumpama ini tidak mempunyai kaitan langsung dengan ‘fakta’ dan ‘ hukum’ dalam kes.

Kedua, Azmin menuduh perbicaraan sebagai rencana kepimpinan UMNO menghalang Anwar Ibrahim menjadi perdana menteri. Bersabit ini semua orang yang berlaku adil dan bersikap terbuka tahu ini merupakan satu dakwaan yang kurang matang. Mereka tahu perjalanan undang undang atau ‘ due process of law’ itu ada prinsip prinsip, prosedur, dan kesatuannya tersendiri. Ianya bukan dapat diatur dengan sewenang wenang mengikut ‘rencana’ mana mana parti, baik UMNO atau Pakatan sekali pun. Justeru kenyataan  umum sedemikian itu yang sebenarnya ‘bermotif politik’ dengan niat  yang agak menyangsikan. Cuma sekadar menyauk dan memalit pihak pihak lain dengan kes untuk tujuan politik.

Ketiga, Azmin Ali memberi 'amaran keras'  sekiranya ada ‘konspirasi’ memenjara Anwar Ibrahim pada hari Isnin ini, mereka akan bangkit merobohkan tembuk kezaliman UMNO. Wow! Jelas sekali disini terdapat ‘motif politik’ dengan ‘niat jahat’. Mengikut pilihan dan susunan kata kata, sekiranya mahkamah mendapati Anwar bersalah, keputusan itu sudah sediakala dicap ‘konspirasi’ yang didalangi UMNO! 

Mengikut kenyataan, Kempen 901 akan menolak keputusan Anwar bersalah, dan menerima hanya keputusan Anwar tidak bersalah. Maknanya hakim sudah sediakala dituntun,digiring, diugut dan diberi ‘amaran keras’ kearah sesuatu keputusan yang dituntut.

Keempat, Azmin, mewakili Pakatan,  ‘melantik’ dan ‘ mengisytiharkan’ Anwar Ibrahim sebagai perdana menteri yang ke 7. Ini agak janggal, memandangkan keadaan dan konteks kenyataan media. Adakah terserah kepada Pakatan untuk melantik perdana menteri dan bukan pengundi? Tambahan, apa kena mengena dengan pengadilan mahkamah kelak? Kenyataan ini dapat kita fahami hanya dengan membaca ‘motif politik’ dan ‘ niat’ yang mencurigakan.

 Mungkin PKR kini sedang cuba menerapkan prinsip prinsip shi'ah ke politik Malaysia, di mana kumpulan menentukan imamnya sendiri dan bermati matian mempertahankannya? Lebih lebih lagi memandangkan akhir akhir ini banyak gelaran yang telah dikurniakan kepada Anwar, termasuk 'imam besar silat gayung'  dan 'Imam Mahdi'? (yang amat berpengaruh dalam kepercayaan shi'ah)Secara ini  orang ramai dikondisi berfikir yang 'dizalimi' mahkamah kelak adalah 'perdana menteri ke 7', mengikut 'rencana UMNO' dan 'perdana menteri yang bertahan'. 

Pada keseluruhanya kenyataan Pakatan yang disampaikan Azmin Ali menerusi video yang tersebar luas itu tidak dapat menaikkan martabat dan perwajahan Pakatan dan Kempen 901. Niat politiknya amat menonjol dan mungkin mengaibkan. Kenyataan media ini bukan sahaja melanggar undang undang tetapi juga kesusilaan kita, sediakala menghukum hakim (sebelum hari keputusan lagi), menyeranah, mentohmah mahkamah , sambil mengugut menurunkan 100,000 penyokong buat mencabar prinsip keluhuran undang undang.

Dalam keseluruhan kenyataannya, Azmin Ali tepat hanya dalam satu hal, yakni keputusan mahkamah tidak hanya menyentuh ‘batang tubuh Anwar’ tetapi melibatkan orang ramai. Kami setuju walaupun kes ini melibatkan ‘batang tubuh’ Anwar, ia jauh lebih dari itu! 

 Dr Rani sebagai wakil Pas mengingatkan semua penyokong PAS, PKR dan DAP jangan membawa 'senjata tajam'. Mungkin 'senjata tumpul' boleh dibawa?   

Demonstrasi UPSI: Mahasiswa bebas atau terbabas?

Pada fajar tahun baru 2012, segerombolan mahasiswa mahasiswi berusaha ‘menaklok’ UPSI dengan kekerasan. Saya katakan dengan ‘kekerasan’kerana terdapat unsur unsur paksaan, desakan, tuntutan, kedegilan, yang kesemuanya menunjukan gejala gejala mengganas dan rusuhan. Apatah lagi dengan bibit bibit terpekik, terlolong,mendabik dada, menguji ketabahan pihak polis.

Kesemuanya sejajar dengan gaya ‘politik baru’ yang dicorak oleh pihak pembangkang. Sesunggohnya kebuasan yang merasuk sekumpulan mahasiswa mahasiswi di kampus kampus akhir akhir ini mencerminkan ‘angin perubahan’ dengan ‘trademark’ berikut: tuntutan, desakan, jalanan, tentangan,hasutan, tanpa arah dan persoalan pokok yang jelas dan rasional. Yang penting bukan persoalan, tetapi tangkal ‘lawan tetap lawan’. Persoalan tak penting, asalkan menimbulkan ketegangan dan keghairahan menggila.

Sebenarnya apakan ‘kebebasan akademik’? Kebebasan yang dimaksudkan adalah kebebasan mengasah otak, belajar, meluaskan ufuk pemikiran dan wawasan, tanpa berperangsaka, tanpa di pengaruhi politik memihak dan berkepentingan mana mana pihak. Idealismenya itu ialah melengkapkan diri untuk memberi kepimpinan kepada masyarakat kelak. Ditinjau dari segi ini, tidak mengira batasan AUKU, mahasiswa mahasiswi maseh banyak ruang untuk mendidik dan meluaskan ufuk idea idea mereka.

 Selalunya mahasiswa mahasiswi jalanan, tiduran (atas jalan), pekikan, lebih mempertikaikan batasan atau sempadan, tapi selalunya tidak sepenuhnya, malah sedikit pun, mengguna ruang yang maseh diberi. Sebenarnya undang undang dan akta akta berkenaan adalah bertujuan menjamin kebebasan akademik sebenarnya, yang justeru perlu ditentukan batasan dan sempadannya. Mahasiswa jalanan dapat diibaratkan pemain bola sepak yang tidak bermain dipadang tetapi menghabiskan masa dan tenaga membantah sempadan padang dan peraturan permainan. Yang lucu mereka menumpukan masa dan tenaga menuntut dimansuhkan peraturan permainan, agar mereka ‘bebas’ bermain!

Dinilai dari segi ‘kebebasan akademik’ tulen, mahasiswa mahasiswi jalanan ini  sudah jauh terpesong dan songsang. Kalau kita amati tindak tanduk dan perilaku mereka, kita lihat ciri ciri berikut: a)mereka mengaku sohor, tetapi sebenarnya tohor, b) konon mahu ‘membebas’ tetapi mereka sendiri terbabas dari landasan kebebasan akademik, c) menganggap diri ‘bebas’ tetapi sebenarnya kebas minda dan jiwa, dibelenggui, ditandu pihak pihak berkepentingan, d) mahu memupuk mahasiswa mahasiswi jalanan yang ‘bebas’, umpama lalang yang patut ditebas demi keutuhan kampus dan kebebasannya.

Saya harap 'mahasiswa bebas' memandu 'mahasiswa terbabas' ini pulang ke pangkal jalan!      

Judging the Judge, Courting the Kangaroos

There is a sense of impending chaos leading up to 9 January 2012. There is tension in the air, so thick one can actually slice it with a knife. Is it the calm before the storm? Why and who or which group is behind it?

Recently a group of university students went on a rampage, protesting against the AUKU, so it seemed. A closer examination however shows the action to be directed to UMNO, as symbolised by the act of contemptuously lowering UMNO's flags carrying the images of its leaders, replacing them with the students own. Video clippings of the students protesting showed excessive defiance, more abuse of UMNO than the issue of AUKU as such. This suggests UMNO is the target, AUKU merely the camouflage. The student protest seemed an act of conditioning public sentiment, a prelude for the real thing. What's the real intent behind the pretext? Could it be related to other development, a bigger picture or scheme of things?

At the conclusion of his trial, Anwar Ibrahim was asked by the press as to his chances of a favourable verdict. He gave an interesting reply to the following effect: If the judge goes by the facts and the law, he has no option but to acquit, unless he wants to take instruction from higher up...then we will deal with it politically later. Such statement has the consequence of putting the judge on trial, judging him. The logic runs: if the judge acquits, a pat on the back for applying the law, while a conviction can only evidence puppet of a judge  colluding with UMNO. Putting it differently, the ambit of the law runs only in acquittal, while a conviction lies outside or runs counter to it. A tough call indeed for the judge. 

In the meantime, about a month ago, at the PKR party convention, the youth leader had vouched should they be pushed to the corner ( alluding to an unfavourable judgment in the trial), they would topple the government from the street. The same group had a few days ago launched a 'Free Anwar' movement (901) The Deputy President of PKR, Azmin Ali likewise had separately vouched to break prison wall and free Anwar if convicted. Incidentally, the student protest and demands over AUKU exploded a few days after the conclusion of the trial, led by university students closely linked to Anwar Ibrahim, according to recent media disclosures.

It seems the ' Free Anwar Movement' has for its rallying call the slogan ' Rakyat Hakim Negara'. Of course this has been politically crafted for the maximum effect of undermining the government (taken as synonym with UMNO)  and the law. The term 'hakim negara' signifies both the Attorney General, as well as 'judge the nation'. Hence the slogan cuts both ways, either ' Rakyat the Attorney General' or ' Rakyat Judge the Nation'. All of which has the import, in the event of a conviction, 'the people reject the law', 'the people judge instead'. There is this simple deterministic formula: acquittal means the working of the law, conviction means the evil machination of UMNO!

Well, there had been much aspersions against our vital institutions, the judiciary and the court included. The 'yellow shirts' had always denounced our court as 'kangaroo court'. Now the question is who is the one undermining the rule of law, judging the judge and mobilizing kangaroos to subvert and cower the court or the law?

I have a foreboding feeling, there will be many protests and street walking leading up to judgement day, on many seemingly unrelated issues, all of which are however united in demonising UMNO. I am sure the public  is not so credulous or gullible as not to see where all of this is heading!  

The Fool's Election Manifesto: We Are Wiser Now!

I am deeply concerned, so should you! The nation is in crisis. The ballot box had been transformed into feedlots. Everyone had been told they can now fly kite. Vital institutions such as the court, Parliament and house of worship had been violated by street walkers, soliciting and touting support. Vulgar banners replaced good manners. Speeches and statements of leaders no longer moral, merely preaching and screeching. Truth become excuse, muse, crafted to confuse. Ideals become idle talks. In public life there is no conviction, only misdeeds worthy of conviction. Not many leaders amidst the political divides, only office holders on the leash, manipulating and manipulated. The insane posing as saints, playing ascetics with antics. Lying about laying (in bed) has consumed and wasted national energy , both accused and accuser. What is to become of us! There is no more clean, serious, purposeful politics, there is only poly-ticks ( involving an infinite varieties of opportunists, materially, spiritually, sensually, or whatever)

We need genuine options, a new vision. Transformation has not penetrated enough into our crisis,what more resolving it. Reformation has been wanting too. Both Transformasi  and Reformasii  are indeed an integral part of our crisis. I shall not detail specific issues here, as this manifesto is not meant to be a comprehensive political critique of political parties, but merely to outline a new vision for our nation. Suffice to say that they are both locked in a deadly power struggle, driven by the will to power, which is not our game. We are about setting the nation on a new foundation, new chapter, new direction, new consciousness and conscience!

Given the depth of our crisis, we cannot be content with TRANSFORMATION or REFORMATION, since both confine themselves only to repairs and patchwork of existing conditions. We need to work on basic principles and values, we need to rebuild our future bottom up, from the ground. We need to rehabilitate our wounded and compromised institutions. We need to heal our spirit and material conditions. It is basic reconstruction that is needed. We need to erect, brick by brick, fibre by fibre, a better future. We need ERECTION!

Part of this vision is our quest for truth, not power. We demand leaders who do not balk in the face of it. They boast of courage in exposing falsehood and baring the truth. We resist leaders who excel only in deceptions, spins and cover ups. We expect and respect leaders who crusade the naked truth, in full revelation, no frills and smoke screens. They are uncompromising in stripping the truth off falsehood, shedding externals,going to the essence.We demand militant FLASHERS!

Our vision  resents deeply the inefficiency and red tape bogging down development. We oppose leaders who are fast in the mouth but drag their feet in moving things. We abhor the *ucker sort of leader  whose expertise is only in messing  things up. Neither do we need suckers.  We demand dynamic leaders who are capable of ridding dead woods and motivating lethargic politicians and public servants.They excel in shaking things up, bucking up our civic life. We don't want shirkers, what we need are committed SHAKERS. We rejcct leaders who suck up, and elect only those who BUCK UP!

Going by our vision, we are deeply concerned at the deterioration of morality and integrity in public life. The rate at which public morality and integrity is being eroded and subverted is phenomenal and epoch making . Instead of leaders on both sides of political divide living by those values and code of conduct, those very values had been relativised and undermined to accommodate their misdeeds or misconduct. Consequentially, the line between right and wrong had been blurred. In the ensuing moral crisis, right is denounced while wrong assumes the garb of truth. Immorality has become the norm while integrity and principles reduced to the status of the abnormal, the deviant. Unscrupulous leaders are fast winning converts and gaining the moral ground,  becoming the dominant influence. In such situation, we need courageous leaders who dare sail against the current. Yes, we need PERVERTS!

Our vision requires leaders who are free from our major moral afflictions. You name it, we have such afflictions. One major affliction is schizophrenia, leaders with split personality. There are too many examples to fit into a political manifesto. We have leaders who are paranoiac over conspiracies at home but work tirelessly in spawning conspiracies abroad. There are those who chant the slogan of freedom and autonomy at home, but invite foreign domination and interference in our domestic affairs. There are many among our leaders and activists who confuse the cause of freedom with that of free condom. And then there are those habitual kleptomaniacs plundering public funds. There are those mega shopaholics of epic proportion, maybe of ill- gotten wealth. We need leaders capable of counselling and rehabilitating such lost souls. In order to heal our wounds, restore our spiritual values and mental health, we need leaders with certain expertise, THE-RAPISTS!

Let our petty  politicians jostle and squabble over Putrajaya,  the seat of power. On our part we shall reclaim our countrysides, our cities and our vital institutions. We shall restore decency and conscience in our politics and civic life. We shall erect and reconstruct a new foundation for our nation . As an option to Transformation and  Reformation, we humbly  offer a new vision, Erection!

Fool's guide to instant politics: Election Survival Kit

The various 'perhimpunan agung' of recent dates (or should I say ' perhimpunan gaung' by virtue of the great echo and noises generated?) are over, be it PKR Johor skid, or UMNO's KL bonanza. While the one sent delegates into enemy's traditional stronghold, the other invited and entertained delegates to the capital for, politicking, as well as for the usual 'distractions' and' indulgences' of the city, a change from the province. But both lived up to the 'gaung' aspect, by way of fiery, theatrical and millennial packaging of speeches.

Judging by the tempo and temper of both, they were bracing for the major cockfight around the corner ( I am serious in my term 'cockfight', for it represents accurately the essence of election in this country, where it is mainly a question of winning or losing, never mind the issues)

One thing is clear, the war drums had been commanded and judging by post-gaung events, preparations for the election had been intensified or put on the highest alert to 'war'. The clear signs are there: the quarrels over candidature and seat allocation, and the intensification of mud slinging between parties as well as internally, and the intensification of servility, cringing and pledging of loyalty to the 'great leader', 'supremo', 'the sheikhul' the king maker, who decide which cock to feature in the pits.

In such moments, I truly feel sorry for the innocent clueless uninitiated, dreaming of becoming politicians, who stand absolutely no chance against the adept, the 'old hand', the invincible 'veteran', the well connected, those boasting of 'pedigree', or simply 'polticians'. So to even things up somewhat, I decided to share some of my scanty notes on politics, that they may fare better than me ( my notes are yellow (papers) due to the years, never succeeding even to nudge me into 'politics')

If you hope to be a candidate in the coming election or cockfight, which is around the corner, learn the following principles mighty fast. Your 'political' survival may depend on this.

Don't try to learn or deepen your grasp of politics and politicking. Above all else, politics is 'play', a 'play acting'. Pick up tips on theatre art or acting. Before you can dream of being a politician, you must brace up your acting. For instance you must know how to 'dress'. Actually it is not 'dress' , but more familiarising yourself with the art of 'costume'. For the Malay audience of a perhimpunan gaung, with a strong nationalistic and religious bent, dawn the bajung kurung and the tall deep songkok. For court sessions, with the more westernised audience, international media, dawn the stylish and posh western suit, saving the more flamboyant and striking graphic or batik wear for evening 'indulgences' or 'escapades'. Learn to pitch your 'scripts' and ' delivery' to the right crowd or audience. It is not about being 'sincere', 'being who you are', ' to be of 'conviction', it is really getting into role playing, into the script ' convincingly', to the point that the audience forget they are watching a play acting.

Those who miss this point, are usually confused as to Malaysian politics. They lament the inconsistency of principles, the lack of unity of vision and the almost schizhoprenic nature of our politicians. They are confused or disappointed because of their wrong expectation. They are looking for a 'leader' of a politician when there is none really, for most of our politicians are merely actors reading different scripts, on different stages, in different theatres, before different audiences. I am not here referring to contextualisation of speeches, with same principles or values of a leader with an integrated personality, which is of course necessary or unavoidable in politics.

For heaven sake, don't be stiff! Learn how to use you body language. Use you hand gestures. Watch the master actor-cum-politicians. Practice on that sharp downward double thrust of the elbows, followed by the double clenching fist, give it several shakes or twang reflecting intensity, and with boisterous voice and extreme emotionalism say your script, ala Hitler, or Soekarno.

Learn the proper diction and the voice control. Know when to go soft and seductive, boisterous and commanding, secretive and slimy, glib and gossipy. But above all never, never neglect to cultivate the deadly 'nasal'. This is particularly potent and hypnotising. Pick up some points from yoga manuals on breathing control and practise. You must be able to switch from normal to 'nasal' at will. The 'nasal' represents many things, among others learning, profundity, depth, piety, saintliness, eroticism, exoticism. Based on my observations of our actor-cum-politicians, including the most adept, I recommend that the nasal be reserved for the fatal blow, involving key words like ' corruption', 'cronyism', 'akhlak', or arabic based etymology with roots in Islamic history. All in all the 'nasal' works wonders for your political 'telo' or 'lingo'.

And lastly, don't learn only from dictators, great leaders and orators, learn from fine actors too.! If you study closely many of our prominent leaders, they incorporate many elements from no less than characters played by the late P.Ramlee himself. Pick old videos, whether of UMNO days or post-UMNO era, note the smug, the rolling of the eyes, the hand gesture, the disguised naughty eroticism, the 'boyish', 'cutish' 'shy' quality (malu-malu kucing), faked humility, feigned lurking behind flamboyance and craftiness. Learn to use smattering of dialects or multilingual expressions, which is nothing more than popular racial stereotypes really, for effects. The late P.Ramlee was a master at this. He could swith smatterings from Javanese, Arabic, English, Tamil, Chinese, German and many more, in slang in not the actual language. In this respect observe and learn how a prominent contemporary opposition politician avail himself of bollywood materials and javanese. Don't forget also that P.Ramlee was himself a great 'nasalist', who used it deadly for effects. 

In tight corners learn how to take the fight to the street. Learn how to roll up your sleeves in public to indicate readiness to brawl . It is a refined art. The rolling of street brawlers is quite different from that motivated by fashion style. There must be strength to it, with clenched fist packing mighty punches. This seemed to be very effective for ladies and lady audience, as evident in the last perhimpunan gaung Wanita UMNO when it worked a frenzy. It was most effective in hand-offs and in deflecting issues at hand. 

Always takes lesson from history. Take the example of PKR AMK during the last perhimpunan gaung ( or was it AMUK?) The youth leader has learned well from his French history perhaps, that bit on the storming of the Bastille. In high drama, he solemnly vouched to break prison wall or topple the goverment from the street if they have to! ( is this constitutional or in accordance with the law?)

And by the way, if ever you are caught with your pants down (metaphorically or otherwise) in any compromising situation, deny, deny and deny to the hilt.  If confronted by strong evidences, deny that you were' you', attributing the act to a double acting as' you', put up to it by others. To pull this off successfully, your acting as you will have to be better than the double playing' you', for in all probability the double would be a splitting image of you.   

I have to stop now. My warranty ends here. This manual is only for aspiring members of parliament.I hope these notes are of some help to you. Those aspiring for more, perhaps an MB or PM, are well advised to learn or understudy elsewhere. Anyway, good luck in the coming general election, or shall I say the cockfight!

P.s I am posting this unedited in view of the fact that the election in around the corner, hence time is of the essence!I  absolve myself of liability over any loss of deposit for the advice tendered in this manual.

Peaceful Assembly Bill 2011: The Rule of Law or the Rise of Mob Rule?

Parliament is deliberating on the Peaceful Assembly Bill, the essence of which is what is best for the nation in terms of balancing freedom of expression with regulating anarchic tendencies in the garb of it. As predictable, the opposition and anti-establishment elements have gone to town to oppose the proposed law, which recommends in principle that demonstration and assemblies be better regulated and channeled with the view of ensuring public order.

What is the bone of contention between the opposition and the legislators behind the move? Again as predictable anti-establishment elements wish to preserve the anarchic and emotive elements, while the advocates work towards neutralising them. The opposition rejects the proposal to ban street demonstration, to restrict assemblies to specific and confined avenues such as the stadium, and the stipulation of longer notice of intention and application to the authority. Those advocating the change in the law of course insist on those very things.

If the public chose to be partisan over the issue, it is clear how the alignment would polarise or gravitate.Basically the PR elements would oppose the proposed change, seeing it as 'draconian', out to neutralise their basic weapon or modus operandi, while BN elements would be in vehement support, seeing it as 'disarming' or putting the straight jacket on the opposition.

But then this is a serious issue involving public order, security and perhaps the very survival of our democracy. I propose we the public look beyond partisanship and the 'prankish' stances of both political divides.

The fact is that our democracy depends on public order and the rule of law.In our history in sombre moments, we admit our democracy cannot be of the puristic western type which can afford greater leeway to racial and ethnic sensitivities. Our democracy cannot!

Reflect upon our dark moments in history of ethnic relations, and you would know what I mean. Yes, some will be accusing me of raising the dark spectre of racial riots. But no, this is not 'raising the scare', 'the spectre of bloodshed' for ideological reasons, but facing history in its cold brute facts and learning instructively from it. We imperil our democracy in failing to distinguish between these different approaches to history. Machiavellian abuse of history should be distinguished from sincere learning from it.

Which brings to mind the recent scathing but historically accurate attack on the DAP and its leadership in Parliament by YB Zulkifli Nordin. Actually far worse abuses had been hurled at the Malays, besides those cited by YB Zulkifli Nordin, which had been left out perhaps due to sensitivities. There were abuses even to the effect of  compelling the Malays and Muslims to consume pork during the heated campaign of 1969. Incidentally, the remarks of YB Zulkifli Nordin should be taken together with his blog recounting his PKR or youth movement days as able lieutenant to Anwar Ibrahim. In the language of a direct participant and eye witness, he recounted the planning and deliberations that transpired in organising a street demonstration (peppered by emphatic 'I was there' ) . By his account, it was planned by the organisers which street to block, where to congregate in case of police action, at what stage cars were to be torched for maximum effect! These are disclosures not to be taken lightly.

Actually street demonstration is by nature violent. There is no such thing as ' peaceful' street demonstration. In this matter, it would be foolish for us to go by the pledge or pronouncement of organisers themselves. No sponsors or organisers of street demonstration would ever say they wish to organise a violent or anarchic one. It is axiomatic that all would say their intention is 'peaceful demonstration' in the name of 'freedom of expression' and 'democracy'.

A close examination of the structure and contents of street demonstration shows the following elements, regardless of the pronouncement of sponsors: a) defiance towards the law and authority, b) militancy and aggression in its style of political mobilisation, c) limited room for  genuine dialogue or reasoning, despite its surface appearance to the contrary, d) confrontational and antagonistic towards authority and other views e) heavy reliance on sensationalism or emotionalism, f)) anarchic psychology of the mob, g) authoritarian and oppressive towards the public in the sense of an 'imposition', 'loud', ' indoctrinating', and 'forced down their throat' , h) nihilistic, relativistic and Machiavellian contesting of social norms and limits, i) highly propagandist and manipulative of public opinion and mass medias, k) show of strength, brute power through sheer numbers, l) highly provocative (towards the law and authority), with latent intention of sparking conflict, m) dangerous play of bravado and populist 'heroism', secretly wishing for an iconic 'martyrdom', to be manipulated for escalating open violence, n) and many others.

 All of which enable me to say indeed street demonstration is by nature and structure a violent process. Of course I say so with the caveat that street demonstration is to be distinguished from the 'Salt March' or 'Spinning Wheel Movement' of Ghandi or  'We Shall Overcome' of Martin Luther King. These pacifist and civil right protests are by content and structure a different phenomenon altogether. They have nothing to do with the 'street demonstration' of Adolf Hitler towards seizing power, and its  variations we are witnessing in many Southeast Asia countries. .

Setting aside partisanship, I wonder just what are we witnessing before us? Where do we stand? How do we best preserve our democracy? How do we build a nation? What do we want really, transcending partisanship, populist tendencies, abstract liberalism and 'human right', bourgeoisie rhetoric, dangerous and convenient Machiavellian politics and uncritical personality cult? Of course by the' rule of law' we do not mean either a rubber ruler, pliable and malliable to vested interests. Such abuses should not be admitted into the conception of 'rule of law', nor compounded with it.

What is our choice effectively speaking, one we are willing to back morally or politically. The rule of law or mob rule?

Why the public lost: ‘shifting goalposts’ and ‘good intention’ of bad goalkeepers

A few days ago Datuk Seri Azmi Khalid the Chairman of PAC, perhaps the most powerful parliamentary committee, charged with overseeing government spending, gave a press conference in connection with the National Feedlot Corporation  (NFC) debacle. On specific issues pertaining to NFC, he explained that so far the committee had invited only the Ministry of Agriculture. As he would be meeting the Ministry of Finance and NFC in January 2012, he refrained from commenting on the specific issues of NFC until then. On this front, fair enough.

However, while not commenting much on NFC, he said many other interesting things on the state of our government spending. He spoke of recurring patterns of poor management, bad planning and cripling delays in all ministries, departments, affecting not just NFC but ‘many many’ other projects across the board. His intonation is interesting enough, as well as his line of reasoning. I find it interesting to reflect upon as a discourse.  While lashing out at the general pattern of mismanagement and bad planning, he sounded almost like softening the gravity of the individual case of NFC by pleading a general malady affecting many, if not all ministries and government departments. In other words, thus run his line of reasoning: ‘do not single out NFC as bad, for generally they are all bad’. Since they are all bad, NFC is not that bad after all since it conforms to the general and recurring pattern! Hence it is all quite normal really, in ‘the nature of things’.

From this line of reduction, converting the individual case of NFC into the general, Datuk Seri Azmi Khalid then launched into denouncing the general malady, pledging to look into the problem, for the reason the public has had enough of the spinning and the twisting, so much so they do not believe the government even when it is telling the truth! This line of reasoning in a way conditions the ground for more spinning and twisting, implicitly suggesting that even as ministries and government department spin and manoeuvre in tight corners, they could well be telling the truth It is only public disgust and exasperation that’s blinding them from seeing truth! After morphing the individual case into the general, the gravity of the general is then ‘sanitize’ by insisting a ‘relook’ into the way the government manages and spends fund. In this manner, ‘action’ is seen or felt to be taken towards redressing the general problem of mismanagement, bad planning and paralysing delays affecting many projects.

While steps are being taken to ‘relook’ into the problem , the current mismanagement and misspending are absolved by Datuk Seri Azmi Khalid’s emphatic statement  that ‘all done with good intention’. In other words the mismanagement, misspending and bad planning are all the doings of honest but alas incompetent idiots. Well it all sounds like a fatal combination for the nation. On the one hand we have  'honest' idiots running ministries and the public sector, on the other hand we have dishonest clever people plundering the nation. Given this scenario can our nation survive in the long run! Nevertheless it explains a lot. It explains why public fund is readily depleted and wasted by the billions, while financial wizards, great industrialists and entrepreneurs seem always to end up with great fortunes. Perhaps there is much truth in Mahatma Gandhi's saying: 'Behind any great fortune there is always a crime'. Excuse me.. perhaps I should say: 'Behind any great fortune there is always an honest idiot'!

The kind of ‘delay’ Datuk Seri Azmi speaks of is not of the usual kind. Ordinarily what we understand by 'delay' is the kind that holds things up, hampers development or progress of a whole process. The kind of ‘delay’ he speaks of is of a special kind. It holds things up only partially, while expediting other elements in the same process or transaction. He gives an example, reflective  he said of a general pattern! In the case of the NFC, all the money for the project had been withdrawn by 2009, but due to ‘delay’ the contract or agreement was signed only in 2010. There you have it! In this form of ‘delay’ it expedited  payment and withdrawal, completed even before the agreement. Simultaneously the ‘delay’ holds up the agreement, effecting 'spedious' payment.

This peculiar form of ‘delay’, which upsets the normal sequence of agreement and payment, gives rise to an associated malady. Datuk Seri Azmi refered to the problem of ‘shifting goalpost’. He explains the problem as one in which obligations and things to be done keep changing. If before the deal was to do such and such, in the end they become different things altogether! Wow…this is dead serious for the nation. Small wonder why many mega projects went haywire and down the drain. It explains the ‘blunders’, ‘bad planning’ and the whole complex of ‘bad management’, ‘misspending’, or ‘non- deliveries’. Once payment had been secured prior to agreement, of course obligations and accountability would be weakened or subjected to renegotiation. Hence the ‘shifting goalpost’ and ‘changing targets’ lamented by the Chairman of PAC.

Given the vicious cycle of ‘shifting goalposts’, where honest idiots are confronted  by clever crooks, can the public ever win? A small comfort though to learn that the problem is being ‘relooked’ into by PAC!

     

The Confession in the Charge of Conspiracy

Let’s face it. Many of us are very gullible when leaders defend their interests by charging ‘conspiracy’ on the part of others. This phenomenon says many things. For one it shows we are becoming more suspicious of the conduct and thinking of our leaders.  We are also growing more cynical and skeptical of politics and public life. In everyday expressions, we feel ‘pissed off’, ‘fed up’, ‘disgusted’, ‘disillusioned’ over their antics and pronouncements. In many ways this is healthy, in the sense we are now more predisposed to be critical, cautious and discriminating in our public or civic life. We are no longer that credulous or naive as to accept everything at face value in our relations with leaders. We tend now to examine their doings and views from more angles, for hidden motifs or vested interests lurking under or behind their stance.

But then, many of us tend to fall into another form of credulity or gullibility under the very same charges of conspiracy kicked up as a smoke screen by our leaders or public figures. In   short we are no less naive, credulous or gullible than before, only that our taste and menu has changed somewhat. Errant and incorrigible leaders has now smart up to our blind spots or rather soft spot for conspiracy theories. Hence in our politics and civic life, ‘conspiracy’ has grown to be the first weapon of choice in the arsenal of leaders in crisis.

This is by no means confined to particular parties, organizations or affiliations. The utility of conspiracy theory has not been missed by any groupings worth their salt. The potency of the conspiracy theory is availed of by the ruling party, as well as the opposition. Just for example, at the very beginning of the National Feedlot Corporation issue, the Minister at the center of the issue proclaimed this is a move ‘ out to destroy Wanita UMNO’ . This is quickly chorused and echoed by many. This pattern represents many of the responses of the ruling party to scores of other issues as well.

As for the opposition, we know they thrive on it. In fact Anwar Ibrahim built a whole personal platform on this charge of conspiracy. Very early in the beginning of the sodomy case, when his supporters were earnestly defending him along legalistic and logical grounds, he had expressed the view that the charge of sodomy ‘is politically motivated and hence must be fought politically’. In gist, he attributed it all to ‘conspiracy’ as genesis as well as his defense to it.

While we are more than aware of the currency or prevalence of ‘conspiracy’ as a tendency, we need to understand it’s psychological, moral and political effects on us in a more in depth manner. Otherwise we would be deluded and made prey of, all the while thinking  we are being ‘critical’, ‘ aware’, ‘discriminating’, ‘conscious’, ‘politically matured’, ‘ liberated’, ‘emancipated’, ‘just’ and the like.

 ‘Conspiracy’ as technique or political tactic works in the following way, with its corollary effects: 

 a) It deflects from issues at hand. Hence in the case of the National Feedlot Corporation, it serves its cause to deflect public gaze by pointing to the machination of others out to destroy or undermine Wanita UMNO. This deflective function explains too why Anwar Ibrahim has not sued over his sex video, challenged the authenticity of the video, has not been forthcoming with DNA samples, has avoided the ritual of religious oath and the like, all of which are directly connected with the issue. On the contrary, he has been most vociferous in denouncing ‘conspiracy’ out to destroy his political career. Maximum deflection is usually accomplished by errant leaders by identifying their personal self with bigger cause or mission. Thus an individual problem becomes the fate of  ' Wanita UMNO' or a leader with personal issues becomes 'the survival of the opposition' or ' the very embodiment of opposition cause' .  

 b) the conspiracy theory is most effective in dividing people over issues, making for partisanship
and sectarian views. Once unfolded, the theory begins to influence people to gravitate around partisanship, regardless of the issues at hand. Hence people begin to collude and conspire themselves to divert, deflect, to cover up the real issue at hand, be it corruption or sexual videos and the like. This explains the gross and jarring inconsistencies and contradictions in our political life. Parties or groups which are normally fast in denouncing the corruption of adversaries all of a sudden become vehement protectors and apologists of corrupt parties. Likewise, groups and public members who are never wanting in censuring leaders for sexual misconduct overnight turn into apologists for promiscuity. This is particular schizophrenic when it comes to generally orthodox PAS , with its rather stringent sexual mores, ever zealous over khalwat (close proximity), adultery, or sexual segregation.  Only the theory of conspiracy could explain and reconcile Nik Aziz’s views that beautiful women should not be allowed to work with his view that those who oppose Anwar Ibrahim (in the heat the sex video controversy) can never go to paradise!

c)  the conspiracy theory also acts in a devious manner to relativise our values or to blur our sense of right and wrong, that is to compromise our principles. Because the theory deflects from issues, and divide us along partisanship regardless of issues, it forces us to compromise our principles and values too in the process. In this regards, even as we try to infuse public life with higher morality or conscience, under the spell of conspiracy theory, unknowingly we conclude with errand leaders in making our politics and civic life unscrupulous or immoral. Deluded by conspiracy theory, we collude or conspire along with errant leaders,

 d) conspiracy theory develops a form of ‘false consciousness’ among the public duped in its sway. It undermines proper appreciation and understanding of the real issues and in this manner prevents them from the right course of action in politics, be it pertaining to ‘ reformasi’ or ‘transformasi’ .

As stated above we need to understand the working of the theory of conspiracy frequently resorted to by leaders in crisis situation. It is very useful for them whenever cornered or held to account. As we outlined, the theory of conspiracy deflects from real issues, it divides people into partisanship or sectarianism away from moral principles, it compromises public conscience or relativise it, and it clouds public understanding of the real issues or situation. While the theory of conspiracy effects all the above, if we examine our errant leaders closely, we can infer their confession of sort in their very theory of conspiracy. As they deflect, we know what they are really hiding. As they divide, we know what public opinion they fear. As they relativise values and principles, we know what principle they fear the public would judge them by. As they whip up smoke screen  to confuse and cloud understanding, we know what they fear the public understand.

 In  other words, it may serve their cause in the short term to resort to conspiracy charges. Unknowing to them though, as they do so, they may be signing their very own confession. As they try to cover their tracks, they leave even more telling signs!

The Creative Corrupt

I have always been impressed by the fact that there are levels of corruption as indicated by its degree of ‘sophistication’. It ranges from the cheap direct ‘give’ and ‘take’ at face to face level, say at the counters of immigration, custom, utilities board, land office, licensing authorities or at traffic checkpoints and the like, to the super efficient and sophisticated corporate wizardry, capable of transforming billions from one form to another, from cattle to condos , from one airline to another, from agricultural to premium freehold land bank, from Malay reserve to freehold, from worthless shares at one point to those rocketing through the price ceiling. All it takes really is just a matter of ‘swapping’, ‘conversion’, ‘ reinvesting idle capital’, ‘rebranding’, ‘repackaging’, ‘rezoning’, and all manner of ‘tricks of the trade’, ‘ professionalism’, ‘ legal advice’, and of course ‘ vision’, ‘flair’, ‘entrepreneurship’.

At the highest or sophisticated level, corruption is hardly that, because it assumes the garb of legality. It achieves the perfect combination of abuse, opportunism, indecency, vulgarism with invulnerability against the law. At this level, corruption can even be transformed into saga of success, epitome of financial wizardry, the acts and doing of capitalist prophets. Failing banks can be turned around into the most dominant or premier bank, due to brilliant ‘merger’, ‘take over’ and ‘corporate make over’, ‘bail out’. At this level, great bankers, industrialists are mythologize as Midas whose touch can only turn ugly duckling corporations into gold. With their touch, or  the mere grace of their name, boasting of great parentage or siblings, penny shares become punters favorite overnight, appreciating five times or more with the batting of an eye.

If you study and reflect on all the happenings of sophisticated and legal form of corruption, which we cannot even call it by its name due to its legal guise and seamless metamorphosis, we are bound to acknowledge one truth, that is its perpetrators and practitioners are creative people with a special bend of mind. Study this scourge hitting our nation closely and you will be amazed at the spinning, wheeling and dealing going on. As some sociologist had observed corruption ‘greases’ things. It makes things moves smoothly in a devious way. For example, a hypothetical corporation, let’s say ‘National Fed A Lot Corporation’ or ‘ Anyone Can Fly With Easy Subsidy’ , can justify its purchase of premium real estate, or share swap, in terms of 'sound investments' with figures to boot, under dubious circumstances. When pressed for an explanation our hypothetical company is not obliged to divulge all the complex of vested interests involved in this transaction, the various kickbacks, the commissions, the profits, the trade offs, and the like, suffice with a mere ‘ sound investment’.

To handle corruption effectively, we need a higher level of public morality and a higher level of legal standards pertaining to corruption. We need this because vested interests would always work towards a low standard of legality that they can easily outwit or slither out of. We need to be as creative morally and legally as the creative corrupt in our midst!

National Feedlot Corporation: Meditation on the Cow

When it comes to leadership, the standard for integrity in office or governance should go beyond quibbles over legality. This is because everyone knows there can be many phenomena which may pass for 'legal' which nevertheless violate or at least compromise the principle of integrity in office. This is usually the case in the issue of cronyism. Usually practitioners are intelligent enough to 'fix' things in such a manner to satisfy legality, yet accommodating of vested or conflicting interests. In Malaysia there are only too many of such examples, which is a major bane for our nation. The basic issue is just where do we fix the standards for integrity in office, good governance or scrupulous leadership? If we just reflect on all our past issues involving fiscal policies, developmental planning or the implementation of mega projects, there is always this problem of 'legal vested interests' costing the public.

We will also note that whenever we have a relatively clean government in the world, it will be one which is prepared to set the standards of integrity in office higher and beyond minimal 'legality', into scruples and old fashioned morality or honesty. We will also note that in any major case of corruption in court, the defence will invariably be that of 'legal though interested',therefore 'not quite corrupt'. That is is why a good government will set its standards at the legal-moral level, stretching the limit of the law towards this end. On the other hand, a less principled government or leadership would instead use the 'legal' argument narrowly as to exclude all considerations of scruples, morality and decency. That is why at the end of the day, morality and decency should guide politics (tempered by the law of course!). Otherwise, many of the issues of 'corruption' or 'cronyism' could be a subject of polemics till the cows come home!

A capable and principled government should reflect serious commitment to weed out corruption and vested interests, regardless of party affiliation or partisanship. Without such resolve, a government would soon be riddled with corruption, for the simple reason that those of its inner circle would feel secure from action, on the understanding that only outsiders risk it. Also, corruption then becomes a sort of privilege for the ruling group. This is far from saying that a change of government necessarily ends this problem. The weakness would continue even with a change of government, as the incoming ruling group would simply avail itself of ' the privilege'. In fact, an opposition would always decry the 'corruption' of ruling group usually because it relishes its 'privelege' and opportunities for corruption. This is why a good government, or one which endeavour to go down in history as one, would combat corruption seriously, taking the bull by its horn! It aims directly for a bull's eye, instead of making excuses and side stepping into many irrelevant issues, or bull...!

An honest and people-oriented government would think of the national good and the interests of the citizens in general.The prime motivation in politics is not personal interests or gains. It doesn't see the nation as a cow to be milked dry. It would endeavour to secure and advance national interests , never to plunder or blunder deliberately for gains, exposing the nation to ruination as would a cow in a china shop!

The very little that I read of the Auditor's-Report, is already too much by way of dubious practices and abuses. It sets me wondering would there by any measure of the proverbial 'heads shall roll', or merely the usual 'let the good times roll'! Holy cow!!

Seksualiti Merdeka 2011: The Thrill in the Drill

The public outcry on both sides, whether in support or opposition to Seksualiti Merdeka 2011, has been at cross-purpose to each other. In this respect, the issue has given rise to an atmosphere of exasperation to partisans and 'confusion' to members of the public. Those who object or criticise, see Seksualiti Merdeka 2011 as advocating 'free sex' in the form of LGBT. They see the event as a threat to the norms or values of the majority. They question the right of the sponsors and advocates to 'freedom of expressions' and 'human rights' in championing their cause, explicitly or latently. On the other hand the supporters or sympathisers of Seksualiti Merdeka 2011 seem to compound many issues in their stand, thereby creating a general mood of ' unsaid things' , 'latent support', or even 'streaks of opportunism' among them. The basic approach is essentially ' we like it, minus the liability', a kind of ' expediency or convenience ' if you like.  

The stand of PAS, PKR or PR in general is interesting to ponder. Although giving a semblance of non-committal stand on the issue directly championed by Seksualiti Merdeka, their stance clearly reflects the modus operandi of PAS, PKR and PR. On the whole they like the idea of street demonstration, the exercise in mobilizing, the networking, the organizing, the populistic stancing, the whetting of defiance, the conditioning of international opinion, cultivation of anarchic and anti-establishment psychology, and the subtle undermining of the legitimacy of authority and the establishment. Seeing street demonstration as a basic principle to its modus operandi, the opposition strives for its maintenance or preservation.

While keeping the practice of street demonstration alive and  intact, PKR, PR and PR carefully dissociates themselves from the issue of LGBT as such . This is carefully done in several ways.One way is to avoid official statement on the issue of LGBT directly. So as not to appear too glaring, members are allowed to speak up ' as individuals'. If pushed to the wall in making an official stand, they would sidestep into general diffused and abstract issues like 'human rights', 'freedom of expression', 'freedom from persecution', and of course the usual ' draconian establishment', ' authoritarian police' and 'protection of minority rights'.

In opposition to what PAS, PKR and PR see as 'heavy-handedness' or 'intolerance' of the authority, they advocate a general approach of 'social education', ' dialogue', 'forum', 'engagement' or ' moral persuasion' towards LGBT. While such approaches have their objective values, coming from PAS, PKR and PR they represent a glaring departure, even a stark contradiction to their general political disposition. All of a sudden we note the generally orthodox PAS and segments of PKR, noted for their preoccupation with attire, rituals , 'westernisation', sexual segregation and the like, prescribing rather unconvincingly the 'social education' approach or 'tolerance' towards alternative sexual mores or norms. The jarring contradiction suggests political expediency rather than political conviction or principle.

Although the opposition has 'dissociated' itself from LGBT as an issue, it has has vested interests in the polemics over the Seksualiti Merdeka 2011 event, politically speaking. The General Election is around the corner. It is clear that sex videos of wayward leaders would be one of the major arsenal of adversaries. If such videos promise to be a major political liability to the opposition, it would serve their cause to tamper sexual norm or values of society. If the paradigm of public sexual norm or values could be conditioned somewhat towards greater 'liberality' or 'permissiveness', then the errant sexual conduct of key oppositional leaders could be made more acceptable or palatable. In this way it is hoped  the public would be more accommodating, ' forgiving', 'understanding' of deviant leaders. Shifting the paradigm of sexual mores and values, or at least relativising it, would be an imperative of 'damage control' in the face of serial exposure of leaders in the mass media.

As evident in the Sensualiti Merdeka 2011 issue, the opposition is not really interested in the issues as such when it comes to street demonstration. It merely wants to ride the practice of street demonstration to its full advantages. Hence the public can expect the practice of street demonstration to continue or intensify. From the perspective of the opposition, street demonstration is to be eventually transformed into an opposition tradition. This explains why the practice is of increasing frequency, assuming a serial nature. It explains too why leadership and sponsorship is always the same for several incidents. As far as I can see, the interests is to move politics from parliament, the mass media, into the street. To shift politics from discussion and dialogue to 'direct action', regardless of what sponsors claim or declare to the contrary. Who knows, one day Malaysia can go the way of 'people's power' in the Middle East. Until then, never mind the issues. What matters is the drill must go on, the thrill must be whetted. To be prepared for any eventuality, 'the thrill of the drill' must be sustained at all cost!

The Fool's Guide To Public Finance and Avoidance of Bankruptcy

Having read the horrors in the Auditor-General's Report and Minister Idris Jala's speech on finance and bankruptcy, I feel a huge gap in my grasp of financial matters. It is my impression that keeping and managing money is by no means matter. It is elusive, slippery and can simply evaporate or disappear into thin air. It is very vulnerable to plundering and blundering. It is very amenable to sleight -of- hand, falling readily into the pocket, easily concealed up the sleeve, or made a subject of illusion.

Just to help my own understanding of the mystical subject of finance, I decided to make some notes of my own, sharing them with those equally perplexed.

Firstly, there is the concept of 'operating cost'. This should normally refer to the regular or recurring cost of keeping things running, such as salaries and other overheads. Normally 'operating cost' should exclude subsidies, unless subsidies is part of your operational calculation, like for instance for winning votes, in the case of which subsidies is certainly part of 'operational cost'. In any case I think we need to distinguish 'operating cost' from 'operation cost'. 'Operation cost' is the huge burden of correcting, restoring, salvaging, bailing after the plundering and blunderings that we read of. If you like, 'operation cost' is analogous to the cost of restoring our health, say for instance after we go for a heart bypass. Putting it simply , 'operation cost' is the expenses of cleaning up the mess left by someone, which nevertheless continue to drain even more public funds. To recapitulate: We need to distinguish 'operational cost' from ' operation cost' .

I always note that 'subsidy' seems to be a dirty word for many leaders and some diehard of bourgeoisie thinking, normally of those in the private sector. It is taken to signify ' reliance', 'dependence', 'fatalism' of the lower classes, commonly designated as ' subsidy mentality' or 'crutch mentality' by the more affluent. The truth is all classes are usually the beneficiaries of 'subsidy' in one form or another as reflected in the economic or financial policies. Only the form and terminology differs. For the affluent', we don' t call it 'subsidy' but 'perks', 'tax reliefs', 'infrastructural developmental cost' , 'incentives', various form be of licenses like 'AP's', and many more.

Actually 'subsidy' can be either constructive or parasitic. Subsidies in the right places could be a vital developmental tool, like the encouragement of education or development of skills. Subsidy can be a vital mechanic of social and economic equality, and a dispenser of social justice. But there is the other kind of subsidy, which is parasitic in nature, which lives off public fund without accruing much benefits for national development. This can take many forms, wether we call it 'subsidy' or by any other term. Nevertheless subsidy of this kind acts as a drain of public fund. This phenomenon is best categorised as 'subsides', as it merely eats into public fund, depleting it.. To recapitulate: we need to distinguish clearly between ' subsidies' and 'subsides'.

I always have problems with this term ' investment', as in the case someone saying 'investment' must be prioritised over all else. As I understand, 'investment' is putting money to good use, accruing many other benefits, financially or otherwise. 'Investment' is foregoing present use of capital for long term profits or benefits. Within our context, normally 'investment' refers to huge projects costing billions, or big businesses and the like. But for some strange reasons, our 'investments' seems to  mean many other things, essentially plundering and disguised blunderings. Public funds seems to have vanished with no benefits accruing, for example a highway project costing billions which is unfit for public use. To make sense of this, even if it is only for myself, I would called such spending ' investiture', because it merely allows some to wax riches, often instantaneously without accountability. To recapitulate: we need to distinguish clearly between 'investment' and 'investiture'.

And then we have this dumbfounding subject of 'loan'. Now 'loan' to my understanding means the money the government needs to 'borrow' to run the country and finance its development. In this respect I do see the need to 'borrow' or take a 'loan'. If well managed, it can certainly be an important factor for our national well being. However, now I read our 'loan' has significantly escalated, jumping by 12.3 percent from the previous year to RM407 billion. With the horrors of the Auditor-General's Report still fresh  in mind, I realise something must be wrong with my earlier understanding of 'loan'. 'Loan' seems to be something dangerous, threatening of bankruptcy. For greater clarity , I would call this ever escalating and threatening factor not 'loan' but 'moan'. We should be worrying now that our 'moan' has greatly skyrocketed. As a corollary, we should not speak now of 'borrow' but 'sorrow', allowing for the verb form as in ' googling' or ' fingering'. In short our leaders and bureaucrats should stop 'sorrowing' more and more 'moan', bringing us to the brink of bankruptcy!To recapitulate: we need to distinguish between 'loan' and 'moan', between 'borrow' and 'sorrow'. 

I hope to share my personal notes with those equally lost in comprehending recent issues and development in public finance, who are nevertheless anxious over the prospect of our nation falling prey to bankruptcy. Admittedly the notes are too rudimentary or crude for government leaders and top civil servants holding the rein of public finance or the national economy in their hand, vowing 'never to let this (bankruptcy) to happen' -Minister', to cite Minister Idris Jala.