10/15/2015

A Phony Class War in Malaysia

“A silent Civil War fought among unseen Enemies by unthinking Soldiers led by cowardly Leaders with their own vested Agenda hiding in plain sight behind Racial Fire-walls. And where Winning was Never their Mission Goal.”      
Nobody knew when the Malaysian phony class war actually began.  Some said it became public in the 2008 Malaysian General Elections between aspiring but frustrated young Malays and long-suffering frustrated ethnic Chinese and Indian minorities against the rich, powerful Malaysian political and economic elite consisting of the Malay ruling class together with their non-Malay cronies in the Chinese and Indian political parties.  By this time, a mature class-based alliance has already been carefully nurtured and cultivated out of the “Racial Bargain” arrangements of 1948 when Malaya was formed.  
The 1948 Racial Bargain was a compromise agreement among the three major ethnic groups – Malay, Chinese and Indian - when none actually constituted more than 50% of the population. They agreed to a separation of economic and political powers whereby the Malaysian Chinese Association (MCA) and the Malaysian Indian Congress (MIC), representing the Chinese and Indians respectively, would not challenge the political pre-eminence of the United Malays National Organization (UMNO) representing the Malays.  In return, the Chinese and Indians shall be granted cultural and religious freedoms and citizenship rights, as well as enjoy “exclusive” economic dominance.  Politically, they also formed the National Front which to this day has continued to form a coalition-like government ever since.
Conceptually, the “bargain” was full of internal contradictions and unfair to all the Parties concerned. It was not sustainable. The Malay leaders had to depend on Chinese economic wealth to maintain its prestige, ostensible expenses and various outward extravaganzas like palaces, houses, mosques and harems.  The Chinese were in turn generously granted “Datukships” (akin to Malay royal “knighthoods”) as well as bank licenses and various exclusive economic businesses and industries.  
By the early 1960’s prelude to the formation of Malaysia, Malay dominance began to be challenged by many who were parties to the 1948 “bargain” as well as those who were new-comers to Malayan politics eg Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak.  UMNO stalwarts also questioned their “exclusion” from lucrative economic deals, and some Chinese groups began to visibly participate actively in the emergent Malaysian politics.  It was the beginning of the end for the 1948 Racial Bargain.  
Competing, mutually exclusive visions to the “racial bargain” polarised between a “Malaysian Malaysia” where equality and multiracial principles would prevail, and a “Malay Malaysia”, an unequal society with Malay dominance and supremacy.  In 1965, Singapore was expelled from Malaysia for her strong advocacy of a “Malaysian Malaysia”, which was later proven to be a superior political and economic principle when applied in a multi-racial, just and equal “Singaporean Singapore” who had over 75% Chinese population.
In 1967, after a series of racial riots in Singapore and Malaysia, rumored to be instigated by UMNO elements, a State of Emergency was declared to be subsequently followed by a new Malaysian Constitution which enshrined and entrenched Malay dominance and Malay supremacy in all and various economic, social and cultural sectors of Malaysia.  Non-Malay indigeneous tribes were also added to Malays to create a new privileged group known as “Bumiputra” or “Sons of the Soil” which would provide numerical superiority justification for Malay dominance and supremacy  
Political Islam was officially adopted and all critics to the new Malaysian Constitution would also be branded anti-Malay, anti-Islam and anti-Muslim.       
Malaysia thus entered the 1970’s in a golden era for its Malay ruling elites who were now in possession of desirable and lucrative economic licenses to be shared, for a price, with their family members, relatives, cronies, and especially with non-Malay power elite “partners” to create “Ali-Baba” companies, where the Malays (“Ali”) would provide the license and the Chinese (“Baba”) would appoint them on Company Boards with attractive compensation.  The “Baba’s” would of course do all the requisite work. 
The emergent class-based alliance between the Malaysian upper-class power elites composing Malays, Chinese and Indians political, social and industrial leaders would multiply its strength and pervasiveness under Prime Minister Mahathir from and beyond 1981.  For over 22 years under Mahathir’s Administration, Malaysia prospered much with the bulk of its wealth accruing to the political elites of the three major Malay, Chinese and Indian political parties in the ruling United Front coalition. 
Under his leadership, Prime Minister Dr Mahathir’s economic and business agenda has also created a large number of politically connected Bumiputra rent seekers promoting a business system riddled with kickbacks and corruption.  As surely as power would corrupt and absolute power will corrupt absolutely, the “Bumiputra” Malays-first policies began to unpack as they develop complacency, gross mismanagement, discrimination against Malays; giving rise to class and religious divisions among the Malay elites and ordinary Malays.  
The poor economic attainment of many in the privileged Malay majority in Malaysia can now be better understood. Not in racial terms, but in the context of a class structure of social inequality created by their own Malay power and political elites. 
Failed economic policies, corruption, cronyism and class-based institutional practices have locked-in a large proportion of Malaysians in a perpetual low-income-low-productive social stratum which few could escape from.  As the largest racial group, more Malays have suffered despite the numerous pro-Bumiputra and other explicit privileges granted to and for them. 
Rumours will continue to persist of a phony class war in Malaysia in spite of widespread disenchantment with growing income inequality fueled by corruption and cronyism, social and racial discrimination.  The slowly rising middle-class of various ethnic group members also has no stomach for a class war and is even less committed to racial politics.  They instead prefer secular policies not in favour of any racial groups.   
This is understandable as they are quite blinded to the reality of their own political enslavement after more than 50 years of subjugation to the combination of class and racially based political and economic forces.  Such is the Stockholm Syndrome nature in Malaysian race relations. For while they may complain and agitate against the extreme symptoms of her corrupt and racialist political system, the minority ethnic groups (as well as the vast number of poor Malays) seem strangely incapable of comprehending the precise nature of their situation so as to formulate feasible solutions to escape or reform the political-economic and social status quo.     
The REAL Class War in Malaysia shall begin only when a critical mass of “good” Malaysians recover from their “Stockholm Syndrome” which has "brain-washed" them to embrace the false social reality of non-existent Malay privileges and to reject the bogus "fundamental" social principles of Malay “dominance and supremacy”. The only effective and sustainable recovery therapy for a truly prosperous Malaysia is to recognize and embrace the actual social-demographic geo-political realities, and develop the new, necessary capabilities and social institutions to nurse the great country towards the potential road to eventually seize her day of glory and multi-racial acclaims. Basically, nothing short of radical constitutional reforms, perhaps involving revolutionary political re-calibrations with a popular mass movement to dismantle the current man-made class-based Malaysian society would be needed to drive the current “delusional” aspirations of change towards any realistic hope of attainable success.

Safety concerns in India over app taxis

India has taken tough stands on app taxis and is introducing new regulations to control the proliferation of unlicensed app taxis after rape cases appeared in the news. The Indian govt is concerned for the safety of their female passengers.

China too has revised taxi regulations but for different reasons, to regulate the app taxis to protect the traditional taxi trade. Singapore is also sounding out more changes in the pipeline to regulate app taxis to bring them in line to the licenced taxi drivers, in a way to protect the highly regulated but less than satisfactory taxi service.

The advent of app taxis is a natural development and a need for a more efficient service to favour the commuters. More app taxi operators will mean more competition and should also lead to better services, and maybe cheaper as well.

The safety of female passengers is something that is not being raised. Maybe this is the culture of crime free Singapore where passengers being raped by rogue taxi drivers is a rarity. Maybe all the foreigners landed here, and now can also drive app taxis will be more like the decent Singaporeans after drinking our newater.  So rape of female passengers or other crimes would be rare and if happened, acceptable and nothing to worry about.

Just wondering whether this kind of attitude is bravery, daft or cavalier, or I am just being too conservative, paranoid and not up to date with the new mindset, that taking taxis and being raped is part and parcel of life and the female victims must live with it.

Let’s see if the govt will introduce some measures in this line. The need for checks on criminal records and the registering of all taxi drivers could be the ways the govt is keeping tap and keeping crimes by taxi drivers in control. By allowing so much freedom for app taxi drivers to operate, would crimes by these new drivers be an issue or be too small to be significant enough to warrant any measures or concern by the govt?

What do you think?

GE 2015 – A rude awakening for opposition parties

The pathetic performance of the opposition parties in the GE 2015 is a rude awakening of their standings in the eyes of the voters. It is a wake up call for them to relook at themselves, to reflect on what they could have done better or should be doing. Low Thia Khiang must know that he cannot rest on his past laurel that the WP was the opposition party to note. Not a single opposition party in the current political demography stands a chance against the PAP.

Whither the opposition parties? Chee Soon Juan was the first to accept the new reality and to recognise the steps needed to go forward. He has extended his hand to the WP to come together and review what is best for the opposition. Low Thia Khiang and Sylvia Lim must have seen the same picture and must know that going on alone, building on the success of WP, with WP as the anchor party without the rest, will lead to nowhere.

The opposition parties have 4 short years to reflect on what they should do for the next GE. Whatever differences there are, they must not be in the way to commit themselves to become a more united and bigger force to take on the PAP. After this GE fiasco, practically every opposition party is left in the dust with the WP licking its wound and with very little hope of doing better in the future. The prospect of being wiped out is there going forward.

The fiasco also showed up the more credible parties that could stand a chance of moving forward but definitely not alone like in GE2015.  WP and SDP stood up from the rest, and to be generous, SingFirst could also be counted, being a new party, they did just as bad as the rest but a little better. Perhaps these three parties should hold a pow wow session to build a bigger base for a new coalition to fight the next battle. In the process, they could round up the better potentials in the remnant parties and invite them to the coalition or new party.

There is an urgent need to get the act together, to get all the good candidates together to mean business. To put up an opposition party is a very serious business and there is nothing better than to join forces to stand united. No more loose cannons and mavericks standing alone shouting in the wilderness. It would not do. A real, credible and substantial force is needed to win the confidence of the voters if they want to stand a chance in the next GE.

What are you guys waiting for?

10/14/2015

What is so bizarre in court?

The case of Han Hui Hui and his friends being accused of being a public nuisance to a ‘YMCA’s annual carnival Proms @ the Park when some performers who have Down’s syndrome were on stage’ is now in session. According to a Reginald Ang as reported in the Today paper, ‘People with Down’s syndrome are most sensitive to noise…Every segment of our dance is synchronised, but now everyone is doing their own dance, some stuck in their first pose, because they cannot hear the music.’ One also commented that the presence of the protestors was like bringing a coffin to a wedding.

The prosecution is pointing the finger at Han Hui Hui and her protestors for being inconsiderate and disrupted the event of children with Down’s syndrome and causing them great distress. How could the protestors be so unkind and inhuman to do such a thing in the presence of such children? This is one part of the bizarre happenings in Hong Lim.

The other bizarre thing is that why would parents or organizers, with such sensitive children in their care, host the event in the midst of a public protest and think everything will be peaceful? Do they really believe that a public protest and demonstration is a tea party of politeness?

The big question, are the parents and organizers being insensitive and irresponsible to put the children’s safety to unnecessary risk? Did they know that such a protest was taking place? Could they hold their event at another location so that it would not clash with a public protest that would definitely affect their sensitive children? They were very lucky that the protest was not big enough and did not turn violent. What would happen to the safety of their children should the protestors turned into a rioting mob? Does it require any exception foresight or hindsight to think that it was a wrong thing to do? Should they be taking steps to avoid such a confrontation or should it be the duty of the protestors to avoid the sensitive children?

Which is more bizarre, the protestors protesting and disturbing the sensitive children or holding an event for sensitive children beside a public protest? Who was more irresponsible and should shoulder the blame?

What do you think?

Big Fuss over Singapore GE2015 – One Month After


“A Great Victory for Singapore and Democracy”

To insiders who know the people, activists and workings inside the PAP, its organisation, values, activities, unshakeable grass-roots network and governance performance record, the outcome of Singapore General Elections or GE2015 was never in the slightest doubt. Pre-GE2015 pundits had probably created the Big Fuss of uncertainties and predicting disaster for PAP in order to encourage bets to profit themselves. 
    
Many explanations and analysis have been offered for the landslide victory on 11 September 2015 by Singapore’s ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) as if it was like finding water on Mars or discovering how to make gold out of lead.  Never mind that the PAP has always been repeatedly returned to power to form the government with comfortable majorities in Parliament for the past 50 years of Singapore’s existence.   

On an ordinary General Elections day on 11 September 2015, the PAP secured an exceptional 69.9% popular vote share to return to power again. It secured 83 out of 89 parliamentary seats in 29 constituencies, where 15 constituencies gave the PAP more than 70% of their votes. Overall, Singaporeans decisively awarded the PAP with widespread popular vote-swings from the 2011 GE with many from more than 10% to 15%.  Bottom-line, the PAP won almost 10% more votes, from a larger electorate base, from just 60.1% in GE2011. 

Many have pointed to generous SG50 “goodies” distributed by the Government to commemorate the 50th anniversary of Singapore as a major reason for PAP votes.  These may have a little positive effect but could not have been even a decisive factor in GE2015.  After all, the people are accustomed to regular “goodies” by the Government annually even during non-Elections years.   

Some cited the failed strategy by Opposition parties to contest every constituency, and thereby created a “fear” in the minds of the electorate of a “freakish (?)” elections outcome whereby the PAP may not win enough seats to form the next government. This argument is bizarre and absurd because the Opposition parties have adopted similar strategies to contest more than 50% of seats, and repeatedly failed, in previous elections. And if the PAP had indeed been performing sub-par to deserve being replaced, then this “100% contests” strategy would be best for the eventual Opposition alternative government. Unless of course, either the PAP performance was never an electoral issue (why change the government then?) or/and the electorate did not have any confidence in an Opposition alternative government (why vote for the Opposition?).    

Were there no issues worthy of General Elections showdown?  In fact, there were many and plentiful issues to anyone following the web-sites, Blogs and Speakers Corner speeches of the various Opposition parties as well as many armchair-bound commentators over the previous 18+ months.  The issues ranged from emotional CPF withdrawals, high medical costs, immigrant workers, Town Council mis-management, national service, university places and public transport inefficiencies.  These issues were actively argued and engaged in public conversations, public-square, Blog-sites as well as vigorously debated in Parliament.  Alternative solutions were also suggested in the various Manifestos of the Opposition Parties and formed the content of election rally speeches which were also widely published in the local newspapers.  Yet, judging from the final votes on GE Day, the PAP had won over the hearts and minds of the electorates with its narratives, conversations and proposed solutions on all the issues.  And then some.

Perhaps, the respective quality of the Opposition candidates as compared with PAP candidates, were found deficient and sorely wanting in experience and educational qualifications. Actually, the slate of Opposition candidates is about the best ever mustered in any Singapore General Elections. To be fair, just comparing them to the new PAP candidates is sufficient to conclude that they are probably quite evenly matched in their relative lack of political and grassroots experience.  Yet, the new PAP candidates fared generally much better than Opposition candidates from their respective final vote-count.  Individual candidate’s family backgrounds, educational qualifications and their political experience (or lack thereof) did not appear to matter to the electorates.  Sitting PAP candidates did well; the PAP’s overall distributed vote counts attest to and confirm the PAP as indeed and still THE Party of the People”.

The most obvious and true explanation for the landslide GE2015 outcome is the PAP itself.

The untimely demise in March 2015 of Singapore’s Founding Father and First Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew (LKY) brought forth such over-flowing and out-pouring of national grief and gratitude to the one who led the nation from a Third World island state to First World metropolis as he had promised.    

Throughout the National Mourning Week at the end of March 2015, PAP activists discarded their customary “white” attires as they joined common cause with the “People-in-Black” united in the common painful sorrow of the death of the People’s Champion.  The PAP’s Men-in-White (“MIW”) were indistinguishable. Then dressed in common black, the MIW and people entwined in painful grief as they comfort one another to make the transition easier to bear.  The pain grew deep and unbearable as to be intolerable at times during the funeral procession.  Together, they – the Party and the People - were one; united in loss, side-by-side as one people, facing tomorrow as one nation and reaching beyond our grasp towards realizing the fuller vision of the remarkably extraordinary man who took us on the road of no return arriving at the Metropolis as he promised.

That week in March 2015, almost 6 months earlier, was the defining moment for GE2015.  A grateful nation would demonstrate its eternal loyalty to her Founder by re-affirming his Party’s rightful and well-deserving place as the continuing Government by a landslide mandate later the year.  

As a political party founded in 1955 to fight for independence from British colonial rule, the PAP has been in power since self-government in 1959.  Over these 60 years, the PAP has seen the rise and fall of many political parties from Europe, US, Americas, Africa and neighbouring South-East Asian countries.  Far too many political parties who had fought for independence have become victims to its own greed for power and money corruption; and with many others have also suppressed and repressed their own people in order to remain in power undemocratically.  Very few corrupt political leaders actually want to remember that the purpose of forming democratic governments is to create wealth and prosperity for its people with opportunities leading to the greatest benefits for the largest number.     

The landslide victory of GE2015 for the PAP augurs well for Singapore into the future towards SG100, our 100th anniversary in 2065, as we continue to build on what we have been entrusted and bequeathed by LKY – to be One People and One Nation forever.

For the PAP, its transparency and anti-corruption values have created a tremendous social capital deserving of unshakeable public trust, which translated repeatedly into decisive electoral votes in General Elections like GE2015.  



Related: