Hello!
The comments on this profile are unclaimed and thus are unverified.
Do they belong to you? Claim these comments.
johnleemk
Is this you? Claim Profile »
10 months ago
in With Love From New York on quaintly
WTF, they have people in Columbia who know what Malaysia is? Damn it, I chose the wrong Ivy.
1 year ago
in College Admissions Decisions on quaintly
Aiya, stupid Dartmouth...but congrats on your other decisions! :D
1 year ago
in How Barisan National Cheats Their Way To Victory on quaintly
songjun:
Yes, I definitely agree with your point about wanton grumblers who think everything is the government's fault. I have lost count of how many times people have lambasted me as a BN pawn and a self-hating racist because I think vernacular schools are bad for national unity. Likewise, it's hard not to cringe when someone blames the government's bad policies for all inflation.
But having said that, I think you're giving the government's economic policies too much credit. The fact is, prices would be lower if Bernas weren't monopolising the rice industry, and if the government didn't busy itself chasing down restaurateurs who respond to increasing prices of necessities and raise their own prices accordingly. The government can't be blamed for rising world prices, but its own policies are bad no matter what the global economic climate is. Inflation is only one part of the picture, though the opposition is emphasising it for the sake of simplicity.
Macroeconomic figures tell the same story - our growth rate of a little over 6% is in the same league as the Philippines - today in my Southeast Asian history class, my prof showed us graphs compiled by the Economist - our economy's growth rate languishes in the bottom half of Southeast Asia; the top rung is dominated by Singapore, Vietnam, and Laos. We are, if I recall correctly, a bit behind the Philippines and a bit ahead of Indonesia.
Bear in mind that we have petroleum, timber, a strategic location on a major waterway crucial to the world economy, a larger land mass than the UK, a tradition of rule of law and capitalism - Vietnam is still recovering from communism, the Philippines has worse problems with corruption than we do (to look at Filipino politics is to despair, I tell you...) - none of these countries have a good reason to be ahead of us. We're fast becoming the sick man of Asia, because the government persists in protecting its GLCs and cronies form competition, domestic or global.
You also have to bear in mind that this tendency of the businessman to collude and cartelise the market is not new. Adam Smith complained about it, and Milton Friedman lamented it. Yet why have other market economies been more successful? Because instead of legitimising it, they do their best to address it, trying to keep markets open to competition, and refusing to grant special favours to certain firms.
Businessmen and investors have trouble in Malaysia because you have to grease palms to get things done, because you have to do business with the government if you want to succeed, because of an unhelpful bureaucracy that moves slowly in approving unnecessary red tape, because of a partial judiciary more concerned about protecting the interests of government cronies than enforcing contracts - the lists go on and on. What impresses me this election about the opposition is that both the DAP and PKR have recognised this, and outline how they will address these things in their manifestos.
P.S. Should use JSTOR for academic articles lah. A lot easier for me to access them that way. :p
Yes, I definitely agree with your point about wanton grumblers who think everything is the government's fault. I have lost count of how many times people have lambasted me as a BN pawn and a self-hating racist because I think vernacular schools are bad for national unity. Likewise, it's hard not to cringe when someone blames the government's bad policies for all inflation.
But having said that, I think you're giving the government's economic policies too much credit. The fact is, prices would be lower if Bernas weren't monopolising the rice industry, and if the government didn't busy itself chasing down restaurateurs who respond to increasing prices of necessities and raise their own prices accordingly. The government can't be blamed for rising world prices, but its own policies are bad no matter what the global economic climate is. Inflation is only one part of the picture, though the opposition is emphasising it for the sake of simplicity.
Macroeconomic figures tell the same story - our growth rate of a little over 6% is in the same league as the Philippines - today in my Southeast Asian history class, my prof showed us graphs compiled by the Economist - our economy's growth rate languishes in the bottom half of Southeast Asia; the top rung is dominated by Singapore, Vietnam, and Laos. We are, if I recall correctly, a bit behind the Philippines and a bit ahead of Indonesia.
Bear in mind that we have petroleum, timber, a strategic location on a major waterway crucial to the world economy, a larger land mass than the UK, a tradition of rule of law and capitalism - Vietnam is still recovering from communism, the Philippines has worse problems with corruption than we do (to look at Filipino politics is to despair, I tell you...) - none of these countries have a good reason to be ahead of us. We're fast becoming the sick man of Asia, because the government persists in protecting its GLCs and cronies form competition, domestic or global.
You also have to bear in mind that this tendency of the businessman to collude and cartelise the market is not new. Adam Smith complained about it, and Milton Friedman lamented it. Yet why have other market economies been more successful? Because instead of legitimising it, they do their best to address it, trying to keep markets open to competition, and refusing to grant special favours to certain firms.
Businessmen and investors have trouble in Malaysia because you have to grease palms to get things done, because you have to do business with the government if you want to succeed, because of an unhelpful bureaucracy that moves slowly in approving unnecessary red tape, because of a partial judiciary more concerned about protecting the interests of government cronies than enforcing contracts - the lists go on and on. What impresses me this election about the opposition is that both the DAP and PKR have recognised this, and outline how they will address these things in their manifestos.
P.S. Should use JSTOR for academic articles lah. A lot easier for me to access them that way. :p
1 year ago
in How Barisan National Cheats Their Way To Victory on quaintly
yh:
This issue of Anwar's supposed racism was dealt with over three months ago:
http://jelas.info/2007/12/26/samy-anwar-the-kg-...
Something you guys might want to bear in mind: Khairy, Hisham, and Najib have all waved the keris; Najib has threatened to bathe in the blood of Malaysian citizens. Anwar has never done that. He might have been corrupt, but he sure as hell never played the "I'll kill you if I don't get my way" card.
pinkpau:
I'm too scatterbrained, lol. I must do that one of these days.
This issue of Anwar's supposed racism was dealt with over three months ago:
http://jelas.info/2007/12/26/samy-anwar-the-kg-...
Something you guys might want to bear in mind: Khairy, Hisham, and Najib have all waved the keris; Najib has threatened to bathe in the blood of Malaysian citizens. Anwar has never done that. He might have been corrupt, but he sure as hell never played the "I'll kill you if I don't get my way" card.
pinkpau:
I'm too scatterbrained, lol. I must do that one of these days.
1 year ago
in How Barisan National Cheats Their Way To Victory on quaintly
impatient adult:
What in PKR's manifesto is unrealistic? I defy you to read BN's manifesto without saying exactly the same thing. BN makes even more vague promises than the opposition parties; saying you will keep the civil service clean is useless when you have had 50 years to do that, and don't even present a plan to accomplish it. Both opposition parties have outlined how they will raise salaries to reward competent public servants and discipline the incompetent and corrupt ones. If anything, BN has the more impractical and unrealistic manifesto.
songjun:
I share your concerns with all the present political parties, but PKR is moving beyond Anwarism - at one point it was doubtful they would survive Anwar once he retires/dies, but looking at them today, I think they can survive him going. The only issue is that they are a very young party, so whoever succeeds Anwar will himself be very young.
Regarding the economy, my point was not so much about subsidies but price controls and monopolies. The government runs around condemning mamaks who raise the price of teh tarik, threatening them with arrest, while their own monopolies dominate the economy. Rice, for instance, is a Bernas monopoly. The telecom market is carved up amongst a few companies, most with goverment links. We only have two airlines, both run by people with ties to the government. Cable TV? Another monopoly/oligopoly. Plantations? Run by GLCs. Real estate? Developed by GLCs. Everywhere the government's cronies run everything, ensconced in a government-protected bubble from competition.
Your argument about culture is, I think, misplaced. Applying that logic in Japan, Taiwan and South Korea did not bring significant development to the industries where monopolies were protected. Japanese banking is a joke because of the government protectionism there, Korean chaebols had to be significantly restructured post-'97, and Taiwan is booming now only because they brought the free market in. The problem with our economy is that in virtually every sector the government's cronies monopolise it and prevent competition - which is precisely what authoritarian regimes have historically tended to do, thereby retarding economic development.
That is why, of course, both DAP and PKR propose opening up our markets to competition and guaranteeing a low-red tape, business friendly environment. The more people we have competing to provide rice and other basic necessities, the more people we have developing real estate, setting up broadband lines, and so forth, the faster our economy will take off.
What in PKR's manifesto is unrealistic? I defy you to read BN's manifesto without saying exactly the same thing. BN makes even more vague promises than the opposition parties; saying you will keep the civil service clean is useless when you have had 50 years to do that, and don't even present a plan to accomplish it. Both opposition parties have outlined how they will raise salaries to reward competent public servants and discipline the incompetent and corrupt ones. If anything, BN has the more impractical and unrealistic manifesto.
songjun:
I share your concerns with all the present political parties, but PKR is moving beyond Anwarism - at one point it was doubtful they would survive Anwar once he retires/dies, but looking at them today, I think they can survive him going. The only issue is that they are a very young party, so whoever succeeds Anwar will himself be very young.
Regarding the economy, my point was not so much about subsidies but price controls and monopolies. The government runs around condemning mamaks who raise the price of teh tarik, threatening them with arrest, while their own monopolies dominate the economy. Rice, for instance, is a Bernas monopoly. The telecom market is carved up amongst a few companies, most with goverment links. We only have two airlines, both run by people with ties to the government. Cable TV? Another monopoly/oligopoly. Plantations? Run by GLCs. Real estate? Developed by GLCs. Everywhere the government's cronies run everything, ensconced in a government-protected bubble from competition.
Your argument about culture is, I think, misplaced. Applying that logic in Japan, Taiwan and South Korea did not bring significant development to the industries where monopolies were protected. Japanese banking is a joke because of the government protectionism there, Korean chaebols had to be significantly restructured post-'97, and Taiwan is booming now only because they brought the free market in. The problem with our economy is that in virtually every sector the government's cronies monopolise it and prevent competition - which is precisely what authoritarian regimes have historically tended to do, thereby retarding economic development.
That is why, of course, both DAP and PKR propose opening up our markets to competition and guaranteeing a low-red tape, business friendly environment. The more people we have competing to provide rice and other basic necessities, the more people we have developing real estate, setting up broadband lines, and so forth, the faster our economy will take off.
1 year ago
in How Barisan National Cheats Their Way To Victory on quaintly
Oh, and about that video (which I never really cared about in the first place), I can't think of any opposition party which actually lent credence to rumours that Mahathir admitted framing Anwar. I follow several blogs written by candidates for election, as well as other opposition leaders at all levels, and practically all of them haven't even linked to the video, let alone endorsed the conclusion that it proves Mahathir framed Anwar. The Star is setting up a strawman to knock down - some overspeculative bloggers in the vein of Raja Petra have made this claim, but hardly any serious opposition leader actually supports it. Look at Anwar's blog for yourself lah - he himself doesn't even say a thing!
I think you're also assuming way too much - it could very well be a sincere mistake on the part of the bloggers. The only person who has deceived anybody is the fella who edited the video, who is certainly not acting on authority from the opposition leaders. (If he is, the opposition leaders are either way too stupid for not publicising the video, or way too smart for not publicising the video. Unless there is evidence to the contrary, The Star is flat out lying in its claims that the opposition parties have been actually claiming Mahathir said he framed Anwar.)
I think you're also assuming way too much - it could very well be a sincere mistake on the part of the bloggers. The only person who has deceived anybody is the fella who edited the video, who is certainly not acting on authority from the opposition leaders. (If he is, the opposition leaders are either way too stupid for not publicising the video, or way too smart for not publicising the video. Unless there is evidence to the contrary, The Star is flat out lying in its claims that the opposition parties have been actually claiming Mahathir said he framed Anwar.)
1 year ago
in How Barisan National Cheats Their Way To Victory on quaintly
silentobserver:
I understand why you feel this way - until not too long ago I thought the same way. I'm just saying that there's no way any good person can pressure BN from the inside - the vast majority of their candidates will toe the BN line, and so the dissenting minority will be easily crushed. In most other countries, coalition governments experience open dissent and the problem has to be resolved either in Parliament or by meetings between the various component parties. In Malaysia, all dissent is just quashed - even Ministers can't submit a memorandum to the PM about religious freedom. I have lost all faith in any attempt to change BN from the inside, or even moderate their poor governance.
As for those who think the opposition is unqualified to form a government, call me an optimist, but having worked with them, I believe they deserve to form the next government of Malaysia (warning, longass article - longer than Su Ann's I think):
http://www.infernalramblings.com/articles/Malay...
I understand why you feel this way - until not too long ago I thought the same way. I'm just saying that there's no way any good person can pressure BN from the inside - the vast majority of their candidates will toe the BN line, and so the dissenting minority will be easily crushed. In most other countries, coalition governments experience open dissent and the problem has to be resolved either in Parliament or by meetings between the various component parties. In Malaysia, all dissent is just quashed - even Ministers can't submit a memorandum to the PM about religious freedom. I have lost all faith in any attempt to change BN from the inside, or even moderate their poor governance.
As for those who think the opposition is unqualified to form a government, call me an optimist, but having worked with them, I believe they deserve to form the next government of Malaysia (warning, longass article - longer than Su Ann's I think):
http://www.infernalramblings.com/articles/Malay...
1 year ago
in How Barisan National Cheats Their Way To Victory on quaintly
anonymous coward:
You are aware that the NEP doesn't prevent private sector racism, right? It just allows the public sector to practice racism. You also seem blissfully unaware that both the DAP and PKR have concrete and specific proposals (for the love of God, will nobody read their manifestos?) to address poverty and inequality of opportunity, regardless of race.
You are aware that the NEP doesn't prevent private sector racism, right? It just allows the public sector to practice racism. You also seem blissfully unaware that both the DAP and PKR have concrete and specific proposals (for the love of God, will nobody read their manifestos?) to address poverty and inequality of opportunity, regardless of race.
1 year ago
in Come On, Young Malaysians on quaintly
silentobserver:
I agree that BN will win the elections - but again, I don't see the logic in saying "BN will win, so therefore I should vote BN." Voting for the best individual candidate only works in a real two-party system. In an authoritarian "democracy" like Malaysia's, there isn't much choice if we actually want to hold the government accountable - to punish them for their poor governance, we have no choice but to vote against their candidates, regardless of how good their candidates in our constituencies actually are.
I'd also beg to differ on the opposition forming the government - I used to share your skepticism, but I see reason for cautious sentiment now. Many opposition candidates, and the most promising leaders, are technocrats educated at some of the best universities in the world. If you read their manifestos and objectively compare them with BN's, I believe you would find it hard to say that BN is significantly more competent when it comes to governance - if anything, 50 years of power have made them far too complacent.
I agree that BN will win the elections - but again, I don't see the logic in saying "BN will win, so therefore I should vote BN." Voting for the best individual candidate only works in a real two-party system. In an authoritarian "democracy" like Malaysia's, there isn't much choice if we actually want to hold the government accountable - to punish them for their poor governance, we have no choice but to vote against their candidates, regardless of how good their candidates in our constituencies actually are.
I'd also beg to differ on the opposition forming the government - I used to share your skepticism, but I see reason for cautious sentiment now. Many opposition candidates, and the most promising leaders, are technocrats educated at some of the best universities in the world. If you read their manifestos and objectively compare them with BN's, I believe you would find it hard to say that BN is significantly more competent when it comes to governance - if anything, 50 years of power have made them far too complacent.
1 year ago
in How Barisan National Cheats Their Way To Victory on quaintly
umami:
The question is, Have *YOU* read the opposition manifestos, as well as BN's? Compare the two objectively lah. Then come back and talk. The fact is, BN makes as many "empty promises" as the opposition, and they don't have any plan to fulfill them. If you actually bothered to read the opposition manifestos, you would realise that they actually outline how they will govern the country - they make promises, but at least they have an inkling of how they want to go about fulfilling them.
And please lah, if you want to talk about empty promises, it was this stupid BN government that promised to tackle corruption in the last election - and we all know how successful they were. Even communist Vietnam is more successful at addressing corruption than we are.
The question is, Have *YOU* read the opposition manifestos, as well as BN's? Compare the two objectively lah. Then come back and talk. The fact is, BN makes as many "empty promises" as the opposition, and they don't have any plan to fulfill them. If you actually bothered to read the opposition manifestos, you would realise that they actually outline how they will govern the country - they make promises, but at least they have an inkling of how they want to go about fulfilling them.
And please lah, if you want to talk about empty promises, it was this stupid BN government that promised to tackle corruption in the last election - and we all know how successful they were. Even communist Vietnam is more successful at addressing corruption than we are.
1 year ago
in How Barisan National Cheats Their Way To Victory on quaintly
pinkpau:
Burma is an international pariah and its own people don't support the government. WE'RE DOING SO WELL AREN'T WE??? Really, every year it gets worse. When we're the worst country in all international rankings, BN will probably be saying "We are the best country in the category of 'Countries that are worst in the world'".
davidlian:
*facepalm*
Um...you do realise that the DAP released an alternative budget, and that PKR has a relatively detailed manifesto? And if you want to be fair lah, compare these manifestos with BN's. BN makes as many vague promises as the opposition, if not more - and BN doesn't even explain how they'll achieve these things. If you read the PKR and DAP manifestos you'll find they've generally thought many of their policies through.
I'm not a fan of the "subsidise the hell out of petrol" idea, but that's just one of many proposals they bring up - and most of the rest are extremely sound. If you want to see true incompetence and lack of ideas, look no further than an LSE-educated Minister who doesn't even know how much his own ministry spends, how to perform basic arithmetic, let alone his own government's policies, and yet feels free to criticise others' ideas without doing any thinking:
http://www.infernalramblings.com/articles/Malay...
Burma is an international pariah and its own people don't support the government. WE'RE DOING SO WELL AREN'T WE??? Really, every year it gets worse. When we're the worst country in all international rankings, BN will probably be saying "We are the best country in the category of 'Countries that are worst in the world'".
davidlian:
*facepalm*
Um...you do realise that the DAP released an alternative budget, and that PKR has a relatively detailed manifesto? And if you want to be fair lah, compare these manifestos with BN's. BN makes as many vague promises as the opposition, if not more - and BN doesn't even explain how they'll achieve these things. If you read the PKR and DAP manifestos you'll find they've generally thought many of their policies through.
I'm not a fan of the "subsidise the hell out of petrol" idea, but that's just one of many proposals they bring up - and most of the rest are extremely sound. If you want to see true incompetence and lack of ideas, look no further than an LSE-educated Minister who doesn't even know how much his own ministry spends, how to perform basic arithmetic, let alone his own government's policies, and yet feels free to criticise others' ideas without doing any thinking:
http://www.infernalramblings.com/articles/Malay...
1 year ago
in How Barisan National Cheats Their Way To Victory on quaintly
These underhanded tactics really call to mind the situation in Suharto's Indonesia or Marcos's Philippines. I'm taking a class on Southeast Asian history now, and I tell you, it is shit scary how much we resemble these countries in the 70s or thereabouts. Political prisoners, crack downs on public demonstrations, massive corruption, government domination of the economy stifling private enterprise (except for the government's cronies), practically rigged elections. Hell, even commie Vietnam is more democratic than us in some ways - you can actually have public demonstrations, and the government takes corruption seriously enough to sack high-ranking public officials.
I'm probably gonna write more about comparisons between us and our Southeast Asian peers, but for now if anyone's interested, I have something on how we resemble Indonesia under Suharto:
http://www.infernalramblings.com/articles/Malay...
I'm probably gonna write more about comparisons between us and our Southeast Asian peers, but for now if anyone's interested, I have something on how we resemble Indonesia under Suharto:
http://www.infernalramblings.com/articles/Malay...
1 year ago
in Come On, Young Malaysians on quaintly
silentobserver:
So let me boil this down to a simple couple of sentences: if the government fails, we should give them another chance. Rinse and repeat for the next five hundred years. Am I the only one who sees a problem with this logic?
Sure, it is a waste of time if we keep electing impotent governments. But I say it is a bigger waste of time to elect the same impotent incumbent government, rather than trying to elect potential alternatives which could easily be good or bad. With BN, we have an expected value of 100% corruption and racism. With the opposition, the expected value is definitely not 100%, which in itself makes the only reasonable choice the opposition.
I agree that dissenters within the government aren't given enough credit. The problem with the seductive "change from within" argument is that BN doesn't want to change. That's why they give these dissenters the boot in the first place. They send their dissenters to compete against opposition candidates in tough constituencies - if the dissenters win, BN has a huge majority in Parliament to force them to STFU. If the dissenters lose, then we have an equally worthy set of dissenters from the opposition who won't STFU.
When the whole system itself is designed to fight change - when it is drawn up on a fundamentally wrong basis - there is no point in trying to "change from within". The system itself has to be reformed. You can't eradicate racial politics by playing racial politics, but that's what you have to do to rise to the top in BN. Gerakan tried to do this, and instead BN has changed Gerakan. From the only true multiracial party in the country in 1969, thrashing both UMNO and MCA candidates, they have become an entirely Chinese party this election.
So let me boil this down to a simple couple of sentences: if the government fails, we should give them another chance. Rinse and repeat for the next five hundred years. Am I the only one who sees a problem with this logic?
Sure, it is a waste of time if we keep electing impotent governments. But I say it is a bigger waste of time to elect the same impotent incumbent government, rather than trying to elect potential alternatives which could easily be good or bad. With BN, we have an expected value of 100% corruption and racism. With the opposition, the expected value is definitely not 100%, which in itself makes the only reasonable choice the opposition.
I agree that dissenters within the government aren't given enough credit. The problem with the seductive "change from within" argument is that BN doesn't want to change. That's why they give these dissenters the boot in the first place. They send their dissenters to compete against opposition candidates in tough constituencies - if the dissenters win, BN has a huge majority in Parliament to force them to STFU. If the dissenters lose, then we have an equally worthy set of dissenters from the opposition who won't STFU.
When the whole system itself is designed to fight change - when it is drawn up on a fundamentally wrong basis - there is no point in trying to "change from within". The system itself has to be reformed. You can't eradicate racial politics by playing racial politics, but that's what you have to do to rise to the top in BN. Gerakan tried to do this, and instead BN has changed Gerakan. From the only true multiracial party in the country in 1969, thrashing both UMNO and MCA candidates, they have become an entirely Chinese party this election.
1 year ago
in Come On, Young Malaysians on quaintly
(That should be "hit us so hard compared to the rest of the world.")
anonymous coward:
I think most of us support PAS either because we recognise that unlike BN, they will have no choice but to engage in dialogue with the other parties in Parliament. UMNO in BN rides roughshod over everyone else. There are checks even within the opposition. Realistically speaking, neither the DAP nor PAS can ever form the government, unless one or both radically alter the base of their party - the DAP seems to be slowly moving there, and PAS has also been taking small steps to moderate their previously radical stances.
Regarding the NEP, if PKR doesn't end the NEP, vote them out la! Why is it so hard to do that? If PKR doesn't do it, we are still the same as we would be under BN, no? We have nothing to lose by voting for a party that at least acknowledges the NEP has failed, rather than voting for Barisan "NEP has failed, so we must extend it indefinitely" Nasional.
Hisham may have been mocked for his keris-waving, but the fact is, he's not alone. Many grassroots leaders support this kind of radical behaviour. It wasn't for nothing that Najib threatened to bathe his keris in Chinese blood 20 years ago, or that so many delegates have consistently stood up at the UMNO AGMs over the years to lambaste the non-Malays and make violent threats against them. I personally know people in UMNO Youth who aren't like this, but I strongly suspect they are not representative of the true face of UMNO or BN.
silentobserver:
Under other circumstances I would definitely agree. In this case, I cannot. With its constantly unshakeable majorities in Parliament over the years, BN has gotten complacent. It sees no need to tolerate dissenting views. I can reel off a list of good men and women in BN, from all races and parties, who have been stymied by BN's refusal to let them vote their conscience. Shahrir Abdul Samad, Zaid Ibrahim, S. Sothinathan, Lim Keng Yaik - all have paid the price for refusing to toe the party line.
I like good MPs as much as the next guy. But as long as bad guys in BN force these good MPs to vote against what they feel is right, I cannot support any BN candidate.
anonymous coward:
I think most of us support PAS either because we recognise that unlike BN, they will have no choice but to engage in dialogue with the other parties in Parliament. UMNO in BN rides roughshod over everyone else. There are checks even within the opposition. Realistically speaking, neither the DAP nor PAS can ever form the government, unless one or both radically alter the base of their party - the DAP seems to be slowly moving there, and PAS has also been taking small steps to moderate their previously radical stances.
Regarding the NEP, if PKR doesn't end the NEP, vote them out la! Why is it so hard to do that? If PKR doesn't do it, we are still the same as we would be under BN, no? We have nothing to lose by voting for a party that at least acknowledges the NEP has failed, rather than voting for Barisan "NEP has failed, so we must extend it indefinitely" Nasional.
Hisham may have been mocked for his keris-waving, but the fact is, he's not alone. Many grassroots leaders support this kind of radical behaviour. It wasn't for nothing that Najib threatened to bathe his keris in Chinese blood 20 years ago, or that so many delegates have consistently stood up at the UMNO AGMs over the years to lambaste the non-Malays and make violent threats against them. I personally know people in UMNO Youth who aren't like this, but I strongly suspect they are not representative of the true face of UMNO or BN.
silentobserver:
Under other circumstances I would definitely agree. In this case, I cannot. With its constantly unshakeable majorities in Parliament over the years, BN has gotten complacent. It sees no need to tolerate dissenting views. I can reel off a list of good men and women in BN, from all races and parties, who have been stymied by BN's refusal to let them vote their conscience. Shahrir Abdul Samad, Zaid Ibrahim, S. Sothinathan, Lim Keng Yaik - all have paid the price for refusing to toe the party line.
I like good MPs as much as the next guy. But as long as bad guys in BN force these good MPs to vote against what they feel is right, I cannot support any BN candidate.
1 year ago
in Come On, Young Malaysians on quaintly
songjun:
Actually PKR has correctly identified the reason why we have been especially hit hard by inflation. If you read their manifesto, they point out that price controls and quotas on how much you can buy (WTF la, can only buy one bag of sugar at the supermarket during festive season) have made the problem worser by disincentivising firms to continue supplying basic necessities, and also by discouraging competing firms from entering the market to drive down prices. PKR's recognised that the fault lies precisely in BN's misguided attempts to control prices.
Having said that, they are still stuck on subsidising petrol, unlike the DAP which has moved on. But both parties in their alternative budget/economic agenda have correctly pointed out the root source of why inflation has hit us so hard.
Actually PKR has correctly identified the reason why we have been especially hit hard by inflation. If you read their manifesto, they point out that price controls and quotas on how much you can buy (WTF la, can only buy one bag of sugar at the supermarket during festive season) have made the problem worser by disincentivising firms to continue supplying basic necessities, and also by discouraging competing firms from entering the market to drive down prices. PKR's recognised that the fault lies precisely in BN's misguided attempts to control prices.
Having said that, they are still stuck on subsidising petrol, unlike the DAP which has moved on. But both parties in their alternative budget/economic agenda have correctly pointed out the root source of why inflation has hit us so hard.
1 year ago
in Come On, Young Malaysians on quaintly
vincent:
Democracy means freedom of speech. If you vote for stupid candidates for stupid reasons, you get called a moron by any reasonable person who isn't nice enough to be dishonest. You have the right to vote, just as you have the right to own property, the right to freedom of movement, and so forth. If you exercise those rights in a way that other people don't like, they have a right to call you on it - just not to obstruct you from doing so. As long as those calling others "morons" don't prevent them from voting, I don't see anything wrong with it.
Fu Han:
To be fair, practically all UWC students and grads I've talked to consider the Singaporean UWC (where Khairy graduated) a pariah because it lets anyone in as long as they pay enough.
su ann:
Eh, speaking of Malaysian history ah...I'm taking an SE Asian history course this term and my prof crammed like all the important points from our Form 2 syllabus (Perjanjian Pangkor, residents, the Straits Settlements and Federated/Unfederated Malay states, indentured Chinese/Indian labour, segregation, etc.) into an hour-long lecture. Damn memalukan...it makes you realise how much useless shit they've crammed into the curriculum to focus us on memorising bullshit rather than actually thinking about the issues.
Democracy means freedom of speech. If you vote for stupid candidates for stupid reasons, you get called a moron by any reasonable person who isn't nice enough to be dishonest. You have the right to vote, just as you have the right to own property, the right to freedom of movement, and so forth. If you exercise those rights in a way that other people don't like, they have a right to call you on it - just not to obstruct you from doing so. As long as those calling others "morons" don't prevent them from voting, I don't see anything wrong with it.
Fu Han:
To be fair, practically all UWC students and grads I've talked to consider the Singaporean UWC (where Khairy graduated) a pariah because it lets anyone in as long as they pay enough.
su ann:
Eh, speaking of Malaysian history ah...I'm taking an SE Asian history course this term and my prof crammed like all the important points from our Form 2 syllabus (Perjanjian Pangkor, residents, the Straits Settlements and Federated/Unfederated Malay states, indentured Chinese/Indian labour, segregation, etc.) into an hour-long lecture. Damn memalukan...it makes you realise how much useless shit they've crammed into the curriculum to focus us on memorising bullshit rather than actually thinking about the issues.
1 year ago
in Volcker Backs Obama -- Political Wire on Political Wire
I think retired chairs of the Fed shouldn't be expected to remain non-political or non-partisan.
1 reply
1 year ago
in Bersih Cekap Amanah Or Something Like That Lah on quaintly
I surprisingly have not had much experience with Malaysian cops - most of what I know is hearsay. With cabbies though, I'm so used to rigged meters - I don't think I've ever sat in a Malaysian taxi that doesn't have a rigged meter. After a friend (who was on holiday from studying in Singapore) bitched about being fleeced, I did a bit of simple arithmetic and was horrified to find how much money I've been giving up to corrupt cabbies.
1 year ago
in College Woes on quaintly
Well, my NZ friend never finished his A2, because their course is structured a bit differently.
anonymouscleaner has good advice - though Dartmouth can't really offer you the city campus experience (unlike most of the other Ivies). The nearest thing to a city is West Lebanon, which is a five minute drive away; if you want a proper city, you have to take a 2-hour bus ride to Boston. (Though I suppose you know all that already.)
P.S. If you want to be a corporate/I-banking whore, Dartmouth is perfect. You're virtually guaranteed a job - the companies drive up here to pimp you. Though I suppose you know this as well. I keep forgetting it was Eng Han who sold you on Dartmouth.
anonymouscleaner has good advice - though Dartmouth can't really offer you the city campus experience (unlike most of the other Ivies). The nearest thing to a city is West Lebanon, which is a five minute drive away; if you want a proper city, you have to take a 2-hour bus ride to Boston. (Though I suppose you know all that already.)
P.S. If you want to be a corporate/I-banking whore, Dartmouth is perfect. You're virtually guaranteed a job - the companies drive up here to pimp you. Though I suppose you know this as well. I keep forgetting it was Eng Han who sold you on Dartmouth.
1 year ago
in College Woes on quaintly
I'm being a whore for Dartmouth here, but I think you might have a somewhat reasonable chance here. The fellow who said that these universities look for any reason to reject you hit the head on the nail, but I've found a lot of people at Dartmouth (especially internationals) who didn't exactly do the traditional thing (one guy from New Zealand applied despite knowing if he got in, he wouldn't be able to finish his A-Levels, and got in).
Of course the admissions process is a lot more complicated than that, and for all I know it just happens that unusual people apply more to Dartmouth than other places. (I would say it's one of the more unique schools in the Ivy League...)
To whoever was worrying about the peer rec, it's fine. They don't weight it heavily. From what I understand, the only thing that would jeopardise your friend's app is if you, for instance, mention that she cheated on an exam, or otherwise bring up some major problem. In rare cases a peer rec may make the difference, but I wouldn't worry about it.
Of course the admissions process is a lot more complicated than that, and for all I know it just happens that unusual people apply more to Dartmouth than other places. (I would say it's one of the more unique schools in the Ivy League...)
To whoever was worrying about the peer rec, it's fine. They don't weight it heavily. From what I understand, the only thing that would jeopardise your friend's app is if you, for instance, mention that she cheated on an exam, or otherwise bring up some major problem. In rare cases a peer rec may make the difference, but I wouldn't worry about it.
1 year ago
in We Know What We Want on quaintly
To clarify, there are only three political actions the Agong may take without following the advice of the PM/Cabinet: choosing a new Prime Minister, accepting or rejecting the Prime Minister's request to dissolve Parliament, and calling a meeting of the Conference of Rulers concerned solely with the rights and privileges of the rulers.
All other political actions, including the appointment of election commissioners, are subject to the advice of the PM/Cabinet. It's in the Constitution.
I think the rally was a great idea, and wish I could have gone. However, I would have much preferred it if we marched on Parliament or the courts - two institutions which would have the actual power to effect change if they only asserted themselves. These institutions are cowed by the executive, but if the rakyat show that they want change, then we will put our elected representatives and our judiciary in a tight spot and force them to choose which master they will serve - the executive, or the people.
All other political actions, including the appointment of election commissioners, are subject to the advice of the PM/Cabinet. It's in the Constitution.
I think the rally was a great idea, and wish I could have gone. However, I would have much preferred it if we marched on Parliament or the courts - two institutions which would have the actual power to effect change if they only asserted themselves. These institutions are cowed by the executive, but if the rakyat show that they want change, then we will put our elected representatives and our judiciary in a tight spot and force them to choose which master they will serve - the executive, or the people.
1 year ago
in Not So Happy Merdeka on quaintly
Michael:
Solutions are something I've devoted a lot of thought to, but solutions to complex problems are not simple - definitely not simple enough to be encapsulated in a blog comment. But if you would like some, I cannot recommend Dr. Bakri Musa's The Malay Dilemma Revisited more highly. I think he has more solutions than all of the opposition leaders put together.
I think all of you are reading far too much into what I've said. I'm not defending the view that all our problems must and can be solved straight away; I'm saying we have to acknowledge that the problems are there, and not dismiss them thinking they will go away in time, or that by simply voting for this ruling regime, everything will be fine.
The opposition is far from perfect, and I'm not huge fans of theirs, but their niat, as the Malays would say, is at least in the right place, as opposed to the present regime's niat. The more you study Malaysian history (and not the whitewashed version given in schools - but having said that, avoid a lot of the opposition's tripe as well), the more you realise that nothing has changed - that the same complaints we have today were being made three or four decades ago, with nothing being done.
But at the same time, historical parallels ought to be drawn correctly. Songjun's arguments are baffling - what does economic growth have to do with whether or not Malaysian citizens deserve freedom of speech? And mind you, at independence, if we want to draw absolute historical parallels with the United States, the Americans had freedom of speech and even the freedom to bear arms!
I find this line of argument a bit silly anyway - historical parallels should be supporting evidence, not the main proof. "It has never been done before" is a very poor main argument. If songjun thinks certain things are unrealistic and unachievable within a certain time frame, he should point them out and explain why - not make vague references to history, wave his hands, and insist that therefore this can never be accomplished within a certain time frame.
Solutions are something I've devoted a lot of thought to, but solutions to complex problems are not simple - definitely not simple enough to be encapsulated in a blog comment. But if you would like some, I cannot recommend Dr. Bakri Musa's The Malay Dilemma Revisited more highly. I think he has more solutions than all of the opposition leaders put together.
I think all of you are reading far too much into what I've said. I'm not defending the view that all our problems must and can be solved straight away; I'm saying we have to acknowledge that the problems are there, and not dismiss them thinking they will go away in time, or that by simply voting for this ruling regime, everything will be fine.
The opposition is far from perfect, and I'm not huge fans of theirs, but their niat, as the Malays would say, is at least in the right place, as opposed to the present regime's niat. The more you study Malaysian history (and not the whitewashed version given in schools - but having said that, avoid a lot of the opposition's tripe as well), the more you realise that nothing has changed - that the same complaints we have today were being made three or four decades ago, with nothing being done.
But at the same time, historical parallels ought to be drawn correctly. Songjun's arguments are baffling - what does economic growth have to do with whether or not Malaysian citizens deserve freedom of speech? And mind you, at independence, if we want to draw absolute historical parallels with the United States, the Americans had freedom of speech and even the freedom to bear arms!
I find this line of argument a bit silly anyway - historical parallels should be supporting evidence, not the main proof. "It has never been done before" is a very poor main argument. If songjun thinks certain things are unrealistic and unachievable within a certain time frame, he should point them out and explain why - not make vague references to history, wave his hands, and insist that therefore this can never be accomplished within a certain time frame.
1 year ago
in Not So Happy Merdeka on quaintly
songjun:
Granted, we have not had the same amount of time to develop ourselves as a nation as the US or UK. But you are also cherrypicking examples; why not compare ourselves to Singapore, with a similar history but also without a real national identity until about 40 or so years ago? Why not compare ourselves to Taiwan, which was a quiet backwater until Chiang Kai-Shek and his cronies fled across the straits? Or Israel, which only became a nation state 60 years ago? You might argue these countries have a long civilisational history, but doesn't our country have three of the grandest civilisations on record - India, China and Melaka?
Your "don't worry be happy" stance is not ultimately reasonable because you are comparing apples and oranges. The Americans had 300 years less worth of experience to learn from than we did at independence. You can't expect our country to have a similar growth and maturing curve as they did. There is every reason to expect us to better them because we have 300 years more of history to learn from; 300 years worth of mistakes not to make because other countries have already made them.
Mistakes will be made; we're only human. I'm not expecting us to be the ideal or perfect state. But as I said, how can you justify a government whose second-highest leader thought nothing of threatening to bathe his keris in the blood of Malaysian citizens, and a government led by a party which threatened violence live on national television last year if they didn't get their way? You might say we've gotten as far in fifty years as the Americans did in a hundred, but that would completely ignore the fact that humanity has moved on two centuries. We no longer indulge so easily in genocide and murder of our own citizens.
The fact that you justify the ruling regime's presence with a "don't worry be happy" perspective only indicates you have cherrypicked historical examples. We should not be looking backward; we should be looking forward. We should not be comparing apples and oranges; we should look at countries which have gained independence at similar times, and take into account different historical backdrops.
Granted, we have not had the same amount of time to develop ourselves as a nation as the US or UK. But you are also cherrypicking examples; why not compare ourselves to Singapore, with a similar history but also without a real national identity until about 40 or so years ago? Why not compare ourselves to Taiwan, which was a quiet backwater until Chiang Kai-Shek and his cronies fled across the straits? Or Israel, which only became a nation state 60 years ago? You might argue these countries have a long civilisational history, but doesn't our country have three of the grandest civilisations on record - India, China and Melaka?
Your "don't worry be happy" stance is not ultimately reasonable because you are comparing apples and oranges. The Americans had 300 years less worth of experience to learn from than we did at independence. You can't expect our country to have a similar growth and maturing curve as they did. There is every reason to expect us to better them because we have 300 years more of history to learn from; 300 years worth of mistakes not to make because other countries have already made them.
Mistakes will be made; we're only human. I'm not expecting us to be the ideal or perfect state. But as I said, how can you justify a government whose second-highest leader thought nothing of threatening to bathe his keris in the blood of Malaysian citizens, and a government led by a party which threatened violence live on national television last year if they didn't get their way? You might say we've gotten as far in fifty years as the Americans did in a hundred, but that would completely ignore the fact that humanity has moved on two centuries. We no longer indulge so easily in genocide and murder of our own citizens.
The fact that you justify the ruling regime's presence with a "don't worry be happy" perspective only indicates you have cherrypicked historical examples. We should not be looking backward; we should be looking forward. We should not be comparing apples and oranges; we should look at countries which have gained independence at similar times, and take into account different historical backdrops.
1 year ago
in Not So Happy Merdeka on quaintly
songjun:
I suspect we agree as much as we disagree - you are absolutely right that the non-Malays are at fault for causing racial polarisation, almost as much as the Malays. If you read my website, you would know that I complain about non-Malay racism almost as much as I do about Malay racism - I find a lot of people's complaints about racism insincere. The Malays complain they are discriminated against economically, so their solution is to discriminate against others politically. The non-Malays complain they are discriminated against politically, but don't see that they need to right the wrong that has been done to the Malays.
I don't see why you keep bringing up examples of imperfection with other countries. Where did I ever say that other countries are perfect, or that they don't have the same problems as we do? The thing you are lacking here is a sense of perspective - they have the same problems, but *not* on the same scale. In the US, they have plenty of corrupt scandals, but proportionally, I would say Malaysia has more. Open the pages of theSun and you can see for yourself that virtually everyday a new corruption scandal breaks.
You also seem to have forgotten something - my point is that even though the blacks were second-class citizens for almost a century in the US, they were NEVER forced to go back to Africa. Those who wanted to were sent to Liberia, but those who didn't were allowed to stay, albeit as second-class citizens. Today, discrimination persists, but they are still never threatened by their leaders with genocide or with deportation.
Here, if the non-Malays something, is "balik tongsan" this, "gunakan keris" that. Are you seriously justifying comments like Najib's, about how he would bathe his keris in Chinese blood?
I suspect we agree as much as we disagree - you are absolutely right that the non-Malays are at fault for causing racial polarisation, almost as much as the Malays. If you read my website, you would know that I complain about non-Malay racism almost as much as I do about Malay racism - I find a lot of people's complaints about racism insincere. The Malays complain they are discriminated against economically, so their solution is to discriminate against others politically. The non-Malays complain they are discriminated against politically, but don't see that they need to right the wrong that has been done to the Malays.
I don't see why you keep bringing up examples of imperfection with other countries. Where did I ever say that other countries are perfect, or that they don't have the same problems as we do? The thing you are lacking here is a sense of perspective - they have the same problems, but *not* on the same scale. In the US, they have plenty of corrupt scandals, but proportionally, I would say Malaysia has more. Open the pages of theSun and you can see for yourself that virtually everyday a new corruption scandal breaks.
You also seem to have forgotten something - my point is that even though the blacks were second-class citizens for almost a century in the US, they were NEVER forced to go back to Africa. Those who wanted to were sent to Liberia, but those who didn't were allowed to stay, albeit as second-class citizens. Today, discrimination persists, but they are still never threatened by their leaders with genocide or with deportation.
Here, if the non-Malays something, is "balik tongsan" this, "gunakan keris" that. Are you seriously justifying comments like Najib's, about how he would bathe his keris in Chinese blood?
I'm more curious about the impact of this all though. From a purely academic stand-point, I have no idea what impact this will have. Senator Kennedy, okay, easy. How do you rate somebody like Volcker though?