It was reported in government media (e.g. TV 1 ) that Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim made a 'slip of the tongue' wherein he asked Ijok voters to support Barisan Nasional (Undilah Barisan Nasional). The newscaster then concluded that, deep in his heart, TS Khalid Ibrahim still supports Barisan Nasional.
I would like to say the following:
Please don't believe what the BN Government dished out on State-run TV channels. A friend of mine who attended TS Khalid's speech that night told me that Khalid's speech was taken out of context; it was edited so that what viewers saw and heard was what was aired, i.e. Khalid 'telling' people to vote for BN. It is fairly easy to doctor a speech, by cutting the preceding words and those following "Undilah BN".
Anyway, I am not impressed by the margin obtained by the BN considering the PKR was actually contesting against the BN Government and its machinery. How can a small political party win an election against a government?
Even before the by-election, it could be predicted that the Government will do everything possible to win this contest. No political party stands a chance against the BN Government in a mixed constituency like Ijok.
All the BN big guns were there. Even the PM himself! He's not known to go down to the field in by-elections. But this time he did.
Najib Razak and Samy Value were in Ijok every day. Why did BN party supporters who were not voters come to Ijok on election day? The campaign was over and those who had no business should not come to Ijok. They created a suspicious situation.
With millions of RM's pledged, miles or roads resurfaced, hundreds of potholes covered, and hundreds of faulty lamps repaired, how can BN lose?
PKR's loss does not mean Anwar is written off. Remember, 4000 plus voters still supported PKR compared to 5800 voters supporting BN. That's a very respectable percentage. If Khalid lost his deposit then I would say Anwar has lost the people's support. So, Anwar should not give up. Please continue the struggle, even though it is an uphill task. Why?
Because the BN Government will forever control the TV channels (public or private) and all main stream papers in this country. Opposition parties do not have even one TV channel or a newspaper. The BN Government will never grant a publishing license to an opposition party. It would be suicidal to allow your opponent to possess a lethal weapon like a newspaper or TV channel.
Did anybody watch TV yesterday? It was reporting and analyzing the Ijok election results. Any critical viewer watching the program would think that the channel was a Barisan Nasional channel instead of a public channel supported by the tax-payers. Today I saw a slogan in the LHDN (IRB) office that says "I am proud to be a tax-payer". I would like to add this: "But I am disgusted with what the government does with my tax money!"
(Taken from Raja's Petra Kamaluddin Blog "Malaysia Today".)
Monday, April 30, 2007
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Hishamuddin Assures Ijok Voters
Today’s Utusan Malaysia (April 26, 2007) carried a report of Hishamuddin Hussein, UMNO Youth Chief, assuring Ijok voters of their safety on election day, April 28, 2007. He said they need not fear disturbances from supporters of the opposition parties (PKR, PAS, and DAP).
He did not say whether the disturbances could come from the BN, which is also a possibility!
Hishamuddin said that opposition parties are always ‘acting outside the limits’ (bertindak di luar batasan), creating apprehension among voters, as had happened on nomination day. He was implying that opposition supporters were the ones who started the ruckus on April 19, 2007, even though many eye witnesses saw BN youth as the culprits. Police reports have been made about the commotion, but we may not know of the results of police investigations, if there was one.
BN is one of the parties contesting in the by-election. Why is Hishamuddin acting as if he is the police, assuring the voters of their safety? Shouldn't the police be the ones issuing the statement?
Poor PKR! Their supporters are always blamed for everything that goes wrong at elections and nominations. The BN youths and supporters are always portrayed as law-abiding citizens, although many eye witnesses report how their Oxford trained deputy leader was also responsible for the rising of tension on nomination day.
It is a sad day for Malaysia to have a rising star in UMNO behaving in a way that does not reflect his Oxford educational background. I would have thought that Oxford, being a premier higher education institution in the U.K., would have prepared the Deputy UMNO Youth with the basics of upholding democratic principles and fair play in a civilized society. What a let down!
He did not say whether the disturbances could come from the BN, which is also a possibility!
Hishamuddin said that opposition parties are always ‘acting outside the limits’ (bertindak di luar batasan), creating apprehension among voters, as had happened on nomination day. He was implying that opposition supporters were the ones who started the ruckus on April 19, 2007, even though many eye witnesses saw BN youth as the culprits. Police reports have been made about the commotion, but we may not know of the results of police investigations, if there was one.
BN is one of the parties contesting in the by-election. Why is Hishamuddin acting as if he is the police, assuring the voters of their safety? Shouldn't the police be the ones issuing the statement?
Poor PKR! Their supporters are always blamed for everything that goes wrong at elections and nominations. The BN youths and supporters are always portrayed as law-abiding citizens, although many eye witnesses report how their Oxford trained deputy leader was also responsible for the rising of tension on nomination day.
It is a sad day for Malaysia to have a rising star in UMNO behaving in a way that does not reflect his Oxford educational background. I would have thought that Oxford, being a premier higher education institution in the U.K., would have prepared the Deputy UMNO Youth with the basics of upholding democratic principles and fair play in a civilized society. What a let down!
Zainuddin Mengarah BBC
Dalam Utusan Malaysia hari ini (26 April 2007) saya terbaca satu berita di muka hadapan bertajuk ”Zainuddin bantah BBC tonjol pemimpin ditolak rakyat”. Saya petik bahagian pertama berita itu di bawah:
KUALA LUMPUR 25 April – Menteri Penerangan, Datuk Seri Zainuddin Maidin membantah tindakan British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) memberi tempat kepada pemimpin parti pembangkang yang telah ditolak oleh rakyat Malaysia untuk menyuarakan pandangan mengenai politik dan keadaan semasa di negara ini dalam rancangan televisyen kendaliannya.
Katanya, tindakan BBC itu tidak membantu dalam meningkatkan hubungan antara Britain dan Malaysia, serta tidak menghormati keputusan demokratik rakyat Malaysia yang menolak perjuangan parti pembangkang.
“Adalah wajar kalau diberikan kepada pihak pembangkang yang memang sudah ada tempat dalam politik di Malaysia, tetapi kenapa beri fokus kepada orang yang telah ditolak oleh kerajaan? Apakah tujuan BBC berbuat demikian?” katanya kepada pemberita di Angkasapuri ketika ditanya mengenai hasil lawatan empat harinya ke London dan Paris baru-baru ini.
Bantahan itu telah disampaikan sendiri oleh Zainuddin kepada Rita Hyne, Ketua Editor Bahagian Asia, BBC World, ketika beliau melawat BBC sewaktu mengadakan lawatan kerja di London.
Saya berasa malu bagi pihak rakyat Malaysia kerana seorang Menteri Kerajaan Pusat tidak merasa malu meminta sebuah badan penyiaran bebas bertaraf dunia seperti BBC untuk “tidak memberi tempat kepada pemimpin parti pembangkang yang telah ditolak oleh rakyat ... untuk menyuarakan pandangan mengenai politik dan keadaan semasa di negara ini dalam rancangan televisyen kendaliannya.”
Apakah Zainuddin Maidin sebagai seorang bekas wartawan tidak memahami peranan BBC dalam dunia penyiaran, sebagai badan bebas yang tidak ada kena mengena dengan Kerajaan British, yang kini dipimpin oleh Tony Blair? Sehingga ada kalanya, BBC juga boleh mengkritik Blair, misalnya dalam penglibatan Blair dalam Perang Iraq, yang dipimpin oleh George W Bush, Presiden AS.
Adakah Zainudin berfikir bahawa BBC itu seperti Kementerian Penyiaran yang diketuai oleh beliau sendiri? Iaitu sebuah kementerian yang tugasnya tidak lain daripada menjadi alat propaganda semata-mata? Memanglah menjadi tugas Zainuddin memastikan tidak ada sesuatu kritikan dibuat terhadap kerajaan yang dia menjadi anggota kabinetnya. Tetapi bidangkuasa Zainudin adalah semata-mata terhad kepada media cetak dan elektronik arus perdana di Malaysia sahaja, di mana beliau boleh menganggap dirinya ’raja’ pengawal media arus perdana.
Beliau tidak berkuasa ke atas media alternatif dan juga Internet.
Beliau telah meminta BBC agar jangan lagi memberi ’pentas’ kepada sesiapa ahli politik yang tidak sebulu dengan ahli politik BN yang beliau menjadi anggotanya, lebih-lebih lagi yang ”ditolak oleh rakyat.”
Apakah maksud ”yang ditolak oleh rakyat”? Jika ia bererti ”tidak ada pengikut” langsung, maka tidak ada pemimpin yang ditolak oleh rakyat. Kalaupun pemimpin itu tidak menang dalam pilihan raya, itu bukan alasan bagi Zainudin meminta BBC tidak memberi peluang kepada pemimpin tersebut. Apakah, dalam skima Zainuddin, pandangan minoriti tidak ada tempat langsung di Malaysia ini, yang sedang menuju ke era Wawasan 2020?
Memang diakui, pemimpin parti ”pembangkang” di Malaysia tidak ada tempat dalam media arus perdana. Media tersebut sentiasa memutarbelitakan kenyataan mereka supaya mereka kelihatan seperti ”crook” dalam cerita ”koboi dan Indian”. Hanya media luar negara, yang bertaraf dunia, seperti CNN, BBC dan Aljazeera sahaja yang memberi peluang kepada parti pembangkang.
Adakah Zainuddin merasa cemburu dan tergugugat dengan peluang yang diberikan oleh media antarabangsa kepada pemimpin golongan minoriti untuk menyuarakan pendapat mereka tentang cara pemerintahan di Malaysia?
Nampaknya, Zainuddin ini menentang globalisasi. Mungkinkah dia terpengaruhi dengan konsep ’glokaslisasi’ yang sedang dipopularkan oleh DPM Najib Razak?
Penulis bukan anggota mana-mana parti pembangkang, tetapi sekadar mempertahankan kebebasan media dalam menyatakan kebenaran dan memberi ”equal time” kepada golongan minoriti. Mereka ini juga rakyat yang membayar cukai dan tidak wajar ditindas.
KUALA LUMPUR 25 April – Menteri Penerangan, Datuk Seri Zainuddin Maidin membantah tindakan British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) memberi tempat kepada pemimpin parti pembangkang yang telah ditolak oleh rakyat Malaysia untuk menyuarakan pandangan mengenai politik dan keadaan semasa di negara ini dalam rancangan televisyen kendaliannya.
Katanya, tindakan BBC itu tidak membantu dalam meningkatkan hubungan antara Britain dan Malaysia, serta tidak menghormati keputusan demokratik rakyat Malaysia yang menolak perjuangan parti pembangkang.
“Adalah wajar kalau diberikan kepada pihak pembangkang yang memang sudah ada tempat dalam politik di Malaysia, tetapi kenapa beri fokus kepada orang yang telah ditolak oleh kerajaan? Apakah tujuan BBC berbuat demikian?” katanya kepada pemberita di Angkasapuri ketika ditanya mengenai hasil lawatan empat harinya ke London dan Paris baru-baru ini.
Bantahan itu telah disampaikan sendiri oleh Zainuddin kepada Rita Hyne, Ketua Editor Bahagian Asia, BBC World, ketika beliau melawat BBC sewaktu mengadakan lawatan kerja di London.
Saya berasa malu bagi pihak rakyat Malaysia kerana seorang Menteri Kerajaan Pusat tidak merasa malu meminta sebuah badan penyiaran bebas bertaraf dunia seperti BBC untuk “tidak memberi tempat kepada pemimpin parti pembangkang yang telah ditolak oleh rakyat ... untuk menyuarakan pandangan mengenai politik dan keadaan semasa di negara ini dalam rancangan televisyen kendaliannya.”
Apakah Zainuddin Maidin sebagai seorang bekas wartawan tidak memahami peranan BBC dalam dunia penyiaran, sebagai badan bebas yang tidak ada kena mengena dengan Kerajaan British, yang kini dipimpin oleh Tony Blair? Sehingga ada kalanya, BBC juga boleh mengkritik Blair, misalnya dalam penglibatan Blair dalam Perang Iraq, yang dipimpin oleh George W Bush, Presiden AS.
Adakah Zainudin berfikir bahawa BBC itu seperti Kementerian Penyiaran yang diketuai oleh beliau sendiri? Iaitu sebuah kementerian yang tugasnya tidak lain daripada menjadi alat propaganda semata-mata? Memanglah menjadi tugas Zainuddin memastikan tidak ada sesuatu kritikan dibuat terhadap kerajaan yang dia menjadi anggota kabinetnya. Tetapi bidangkuasa Zainudin adalah semata-mata terhad kepada media cetak dan elektronik arus perdana di Malaysia sahaja, di mana beliau boleh menganggap dirinya ’raja’ pengawal media arus perdana.
Beliau tidak berkuasa ke atas media alternatif dan juga Internet.
Beliau telah meminta BBC agar jangan lagi memberi ’pentas’ kepada sesiapa ahli politik yang tidak sebulu dengan ahli politik BN yang beliau menjadi anggotanya, lebih-lebih lagi yang ”ditolak oleh rakyat.”
Apakah maksud ”yang ditolak oleh rakyat”? Jika ia bererti ”tidak ada pengikut” langsung, maka tidak ada pemimpin yang ditolak oleh rakyat. Kalaupun pemimpin itu tidak menang dalam pilihan raya, itu bukan alasan bagi Zainudin meminta BBC tidak memberi peluang kepada pemimpin tersebut. Apakah, dalam skima Zainuddin, pandangan minoriti tidak ada tempat langsung di Malaysia ini, yang sedang menuju ke era Wawasan 2020?
Memang diakui, pemimpin parti ”pembangkang” di Malaysia tidak ada tempat dalam media arus perdana. Media tersebut sentiasa memutarbelitakan kenyataan mereka supaya mereka kelihatan seperti ”crook” dalam cerita ”koboi dan Indian”. Hanya media luar negara, yang bertaraf dunia, seperti CNN, BBC dan Aljazeera sahaja yang memberi peluang kepada parti pembangkang.
Adakah Zainuddin merasa cemburu dan tergugugat dengan peluang yang diberikan oleh media antarabangsa kepada pemimpin golongan minoriti untuk menyuarakan pendapat mereka tentang cara pemerintahan di Malaysia?
Nampaknya, Zainuddin ini menentang globalisasi. Mungkinkah dia terpengaruhi dengan konsep ’glokaslisasi’ yang sedang dipopularkan oleh DPM Najib Razak?
Penulis bukan anggota mana-mana parti pembangkang, tetapi sekadar mempertahankan kebebasan media dalam menyatakan kebenaran dan memberi ”equal time” kepada golongan minoriti. Mereka ini juga rakyat yang membayar cukai dan tidak wajar ditindas.
Sunday, April 22, 2007
Memancing Undi di Ijok 2007
Apakah tujuan sesebuah parti bertanding dalam pilihan raya? Untuk kalah atau untuk menang? Walaupun ada calon tertentu, seperti calon bebas, mungkin bertanding untuk sekadar hendak ”kacau daun” atau hendak memecahkan undi, namun semua parti politik bertanding untuk menang. Sama ada mereka yakin boleh menang atau tidak, itu persoalan lain. Jikapun mereka rasa tidak boleh menang, mereka akan terus melakukan kempen untuk menarik pengundi mengundi parti mereka.
Berkempen bertujuan menarik pengundi untuk mengundi parti kita, baik parti yang memerintah mahupun parti ”lain”. Saya cuba nak elakkan perkataan ”pembangkang” kerana, setahu saya, dalam amalan demokrasi berparlimen, istilah ’pembangkang’ digunakan dalam sidang parlimen sahaja, di mana ahli-ahli di susun mengikut parti—sama ada parti yang memerintah atau parti ’pembangkang’.
Pada ketika ini satu pilihanraya kecil akan diadakan di kawasan Ijok di negeri Selangor, berikutan kematian ahli Dewan Undangan Negeri, Datuk K. Sivalingam. Parti BN dan PKR sedang ”bergelut” untuk ’merebut’ hati dan minda pengundi Ijok. Perkataan ”memancing undi” digunakan oleh parti ”luar” yang melawan parti penutur. Jika penuturnya orang BN, maka apa sahaja usaha parti lawan akan ditafsirkan usaha ”memancing undi”. Begitu juga sebaliknya.
”Memancing” membawa konotasi yang buruk, jika dikaitkan dengan pilihan raya. Dalam pertuturan seharian, memancing sejenis pekerjaan yang dilakukan oleh nelayan. Bukan-nelayan yang suka memancing menganggapnya sebagai satu hobi atau riadah. Tidak ada konotasi buruk terhadapnya.
Jika tujuan berpolitik ialah untuk memenangi pilihan raya, maka ”memancing undi” memanglah kerja politikus. Hari ini saya terbaca dalam akhbar tuduhan BN kepada PKR bahawa PKR memancing undi di Ijok. Apakah umpan yang digunakan? Sebenarnya PKR bukan sebuah parti yang banyak membawa umpan jika dibandingkan dengan BN. Jika PKR yang tuduh BN memancing undi, ada jugalah kredibilitinya.
BN membawa banyak ”umpan” ke Ijok. Umpan terbesar ialah “janji” pembangunan yang bernilai RM36 juta. Wang siapa? Wang kerajaan (rakyat), bukan wang parti BN. DPM, Najib Razak bertanya, jika Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim menang, adakah Khalid akan membelanjakan wang peribadinya untuk membangunkan Ijok? Saya rasa cakap begini agak kebudak-budakan bagi seorang DPM.
Adakah jika BN menang, calon BN akan menggunakan wang elaun ADUNnya untuk membangunkan Ijok? Saya sendiri pun berasa bodoh menanyakan soalan ini. Mana ada wakil rakyat yang menggunakan wang saku untuk pembangunan kawasannya? Kalau hendak derma untuk kenduri itu mungkin ada; ataupun untuk membayar yuran sekolah seorang dua murid miskin di kawasan sendiri. Tapi untuk membuat jalan dan longkang, saya tak percaya Samy Vellu pun pernah pakai duit sendiri.
Nampaknya di Malaysia ini, jika Ijok dimenangi oleh PKR, segala pembangunan akan dibekukan oleh Kerajaan BN di Ijok. Jalan yang baru diturap itupun agaknya, kalau boleh, mahu dikorek semula supaya ‘padan muka’ pengundi yang tidak “memakan umpan” tadi.
Ternyatalah di Malaysia, pembangunan hanya dilakukan di kawasan yang dimenangi BN sahaja. Kawasan parti pembangkan akan dibiarkan. Betulkah begitu? Tidak betul seratus peratus.
Ijok telah dimenangi oleh BN sejak dari dahulu lagi. Mendiang Datuk Sivalingam khabarnya pernah menjadi ADUN Ijok selama empat penggal! Dia mula menang di Seri Cahaya dalam tahun 1990. Mengapakah kerajaan tidak membangunkan Ijok sebelum pilihan raya kecil ini? Mengapa tunggu wakil rakyat mati baru mahu membawa pembangunan.
Jawapannya mungkin berkait rapat dengan kegigihan ADUNnya melobi kerajaan (negeri dan Pusat). Mungkin Sivalingam tidak begitu berpengaruh di DUN Selangor. Tetapi, bukankah YB itu ahli EXCO Kerajaan Negeri? Mengapa dia tidak berjaya menarik pembangunan ke Ijok selama lebih 10 tahun dia menjadi ADUN Ijok, sejak 1995?
Nampaknya, jika seseorang ADUN gagal membawa pembangunan ke kawasan DUNnya, dia patut letak jawatan segera. Kemudian akan diadakan pilihan raya kecil di kawasan itu. Kerajaan BN terpaksa menjanjikan pembangunan di kawasan itu serta merta untuk ”memancing undi.” Maka dengan perletakan jawatan oleh ADUN itu, berjasalah dia kepada pengundi-pengundi kawasannya.
Tetapi ini memerlukan pengorbanan yang besar—yang tidak ada ADUN sanggup melakukannya. Sebabnya, dia tidak akan dicalonkan lagi dalam pilihan raya kecil itu! Hilanglah kerjaya politiknya. Setiap politikus bertujuan menjadi politikus seumur hidup, atau sampai ke suatu tarikh ia disingkirkan oleh ketuanya, yang mana satu datang dahulu!
OK, adakah pembangunan dinapikan di semua kawasan ’pembangkang’? Jika kawasan itu dikuasai oleh DAP, biasanya kawasan itu kawasan bandar. Contohnya Seputeh yang diwakilii oleh Teresa Kok. Sebab Seputeh adalah kawasan bandar, pembangunan tetap diteruskan. Jalan raya sentiasa diperbaiki, lampu jalan sentiasa bernyala, rumput berpotong, dll. Pendek kata, penduduk Seputeh tidak rugi apa-apa jika diwakili oleh ’pembangkang’. Jadi, mereka terus mengundi DAP. Kawasan bandar susah diabaikan kerana banyak orang-orang 'penting' tinggal di bandar.
Tetapi jika kawasan itu luar bandar, pengundi memang mengundang ’nahas’ jika mengundi pembangkang. (Jangan guna Kelantan, sebab negeri itu terkecuali). Mahu tidak mahu, mesti undi BN jika mahu pembangunan. Contoh terbaik ialah Kubang Pasu. Kawasan ini diwakili oleh Dr Mahathir untuk sekitar 30 tahun; beliau adalah Ketua UMNO Bahagian itu sepanjang tempoh itu.
Banyakkah pembangunan di Kubang Pasu? Memang ada pembangunan di sana, seperti penubuhan UUM, Politeknik, Zon Perdagangan Bebas Bukit Kayu Hitam, Lebuh Raya PLUS, dll. Namun begitu, masih terdapat kampung-kampung yang belum mendapat api dan air. Sebab utama agak saya ialah penduduknya menyokong PAS. Tetapi ini satu ’generalization’ yang mungkin tidak benar; kerana ada juga kampong UMNO yang belum kelihatan begitu membangun. Keseluruhan Kubang Pasu nampak masih ’rural’ (kedesaan).
Jadi, sebagai penganalisis isu-isu sosial-politik, saya terkesan berlaku "diskriminasi ideologi" di Malaysia. Kawasan yang menyokong ’pembangkang’ akan dipinggirkan dari pembangunan, manakala kawasan ’parti kerajaan’ akan mendapat pembangunan – atau janji-janji ke arah itu. Kebanyakan rakyat bukan-Melayu menuduh kerajaan mengamal diskriminasi kaum. Tetapi di sebalik itu, mereka terus menyokong BN, kecuali di kawasan bandar (seperti Seputeh, Bukit Gelugur, Ipoh Timur, Bagan, Tanjung, dll). Jadi, yang menuduh itu hanya golongan minoriti sahaja. Barangkali, cuma bloggers?
Berkempen bertujuan menarik pengundi untuk mengundi parti kita, baik parti yang memerintah mahupun parti ”lain”. Saya cuba nak elakkan perkataan ”pembangkang” kerana, setahu saya, dalam amalan demokrasi berparlimen, istilah ’pembangkang’ digunakan dalam sidang parlimen sahaja, di mana ahli-ahli di susun mengikut parti—sama ada parti yang memerintah atau parti ’pembangkang’.
Pada ketika ini satu pilihanraya kecil akan diadakan di kawasan Ijok di negeri Selangor, berikutan kematian ahli Dewan Undangan Negeri, Datuk K. Sivalingam. Parti BN dan PKR sedang ”bergelut” untuk ’merebut’ hati dan minda pengundi Ijok. Perkataan ”memancing undi” digunakan oleh parti ”luar” yang melawan parti penutur. Jika penuturnya orang BN, maka apa sahaja usaha parti lawan akan ditafsirkan usaha ”memancing undi”. Begitu juga sebaliknya.
”Memancing” membawa konotasi yang buruk, jika dikaitkan dengan pilihan raya. Dalam pertuturan seharian, memancing sejenis pekerjaan yang dilakukan oleh nelayan. Bukan-nelayan yang suka memancing menganggapnya sebagai satu hobi atau riadah. Tidak ada konotasi buruk terhadapnya.
Jika tujuan berpolitik ialah untuk memenangi pilihan raya, maka ”memancing undi” memanglah kerja politikus. Hari ini saya terbaca dalam akhbar tuduhan BN kepada PKR bahawa PKR memancing undi di Ijok. Apakah umpan yang digunakan? Sebenarnya PKR bukan sebuah parti yang banyak membawa umpan jika dibandingkan dengan BN. Jika PKR yang tuduh BN memancing undi, ada jugalah kredibilitinya.
BN membawa banyak ”umpan” ke Ijok. Umpan terbesar ialah “janji” pembangunan yang bernilai RM36 juta. Wang siapa? Wang kerajaan (rakyat), bukan wang parti BN. DPM, Najib Razak bertanya, jika Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim menang, adakah Khalid akan membelanjakan wang peribadinya untuk membangunkan Ijok? Saya rasa cakap begini agak kebudak-budakan bagi seorang DPM.
Adakah jika BN menang, calon BN akan menggunakan wang elaun ADUNnya untuk membangunkan Ijok? Saya sendiri pun berasa bodoh menanyakan soalan ini. Mana ada wakil rakyat yang menggunakan wang saku untuk pembangunan kawasannya? Kalau hendak derma untuk kenduri itu mungkin ada; ataupun untuk membayar yuran sekolah seorang dua murid miskin di kawasan sendiri. Tapi untuk membuat jalan dan longkang, saya tak percaya Samy Vellu pun pernah pakai duit sendiri.
Nampaknya di Malaysia ini, jika Ijok dimenangi oleh PKR, segala pembangunan akan dibekukan oleh Kerajaan BN di Ijok. Jalan yang baru diturap itupun agaknya, kalau boleh, mahu dikorek semula supaya ‘padan muka’ pengundi yang tidak “memakan umpan” tadi.
Ternyatalah di Malaysia, pembangunan hanya dilakukan di kawasan yang dimenangi BN sahaja. Kawasan parti pembangkan akan dibiarkan. Betulkah begitu? Tidak betul seratus peratus.
Ijok telah dimenangi oleh BN sejak dari dahulu lagi. Mendiang Datuk Sivalingam khabarnya pernah menjadi ADUN Ijok selama empat penggal! Dia mula menang di Seri Cahaya dalam tahun 1990. Mengapakah kerajaan tidak membangunkan Ijok sebelum pilihan raya kecil ini? Mengapa tunggu wakil rakyat mati baru mahu membawa pembangunan.
Jawapannya mungkin berkait rapat dengan kegigihan ADUNnya melobi kerajaan (negeri dan Pusat). Mungkin Sivalingam tidak begitu berpengaruh di DUN Selangor. Tetapi, bukankah YB itu ahli EXCO Kerajaan Negeri? Mengapa dia tidak berjaya menarik pembangunan ke Ijok selama lebih 10 tahun dia menjadi ADUN Ijok, sejak 1995?
Nampaknya, jika seseorang ADUN gagal membawa pembangunan ke kawasan DUNnya, dia patut letak jawatan segera. Kemudian akan diadakan pilihan raya kecil di kawasan itu. Kerajaan BN terpaksa menjanjikan pembangunan di kawasan itu serta merta untuk ”memancing undi.” Maka dengan perletakan jawatan oleh ADUN itu, berjasalah dia kepada pengundi-pengundi kawasannya.
Tetapi ini memerlukan pengorbanan yang besar—yang tidak ada ADUN sanggup melakukannya. Sebabnya, dia tidak akan dicalonkan lagi dalam pilihan raya kecil itu! Hilanglah kerjaya politiknya. Setiap politikus bertujuan menjadi politikus seumur hidup, atau sampai ke suatu tarikh ia disingkirkan oleh ketuanya, yang mana satu datang dahulu!
OK, adakah pembangunan dinapikan di semua kawasan ’pembangkang’? Jika kawasan itu dikuasai oleh DAP, biasanya kawasan itu kawasan bandar. Contohnya Seputeh yang diwakilii oleh Teresa Kok. Sebab Seputeh adalah kawasan bandar, pembangunan tetap diteruskan. Jalan raya sentiasa diperbaiki, lampu jalan sentiasa bernyala, rumput berpotong, dll. Pendek kata, penduduk Seputeh tidak rugi apa-apa jika diwakili oleh ’pembangkang’. Jadi, mereka terus mengundi DAP. Kawasan bandar susah diabaikan kerana banyak orang-orang 'penting' tinggal di bandar.
Tetapi jika kawasan itu luar bandar, pengundi memang mengundang ’nahas’ jika mengundi pembangkang. (Jangan guna Kelantan, sebab negeri itu terkecuali). Mahu tidak mahu, mesti undi BN jika mahu pembangunan. Contoh terbaik ialah Kubang Pasu. Kawasan ini diwakili oleh Dr Mahathir untuk sekitar 30 tahun; beliau adalah Ketua UMNO Bahagian itu sepanjang tempoh itu.
Banyakkah pembangunan di Kubang Pasu? Memang ada pembangunan di sana, seperti penubuhan UUM, Politeknik, Zon Perdagangan Bebas Bukit Kayu Hitam, Lebuh Raya PLUS, dll. Namun begitu, masih terdapat kampung-kampung yang belum mendapat api dan air. Sebab utama agak saya ialah penduduknya menyokong PAS. Tetapi ini satu ’generalization’ yang mungkin tidak benar; kerana ada juga kampong UMNO yang belum kelihatan begitu membangun. Keseluruhan Kubang Pasu nampak masih ’rural’ (kedesaan).
Jadi, sebagai penganalisis isu-isu sosial-politik, saya terkesan berlaku "diskriminasi ideologi" di Malaysia. Kawasan yang menyokong ’pembangkang’ akan dipinggirkan dari pembangunan, manakala kawasan ’parti kerajaan’ akan mendapat pembangunan – atau janji-janji ke arah itu. Kebanyakan rakyat bukan-Melayu menuduh kerajaan mengamal diskriminasi kaum. Tetapi di sebalik itu, mereka terus menyokong BN, kecuali di kawasan bandar (seperti Seputeh, Bukit Gelugur, Ipoh Timur, Bagan, Tanjung, dll). Jadi, yang menuduh itu hanya golongan minoriti sahaja. Barangkali, cuma bloggers?
Friday, April 20, 2007
There is more to development than roads and drains, which are most welcome when it rains
The smear campaign has just started! It is the fight for Ijok State Seat in Selangor. The two candidates vying for the seat are not the ones firing the salvos. These are coming from their supporters. BN and the PKR are the two parties in the ring. The do-or-die fight has been dubbed a ‘proxy fight’ between Anwar Ibrahim (former DPM) and Najib Razak (current DPM).
Khir Toyo, the Selangor Menteri Besar (Chief Minister), in true Malay spirit, has declared that fellow-Malay-Muslim, PKR candidate is ‘a jobless lightweight’ compared with the BN candidate, Cikgu Parthiban. He also reminded his audience that Khalid Ibrahim became a successful corporate figure due to assistance from the Barisan government. Khalid was appointed CEO of government-linked company, the Guthrie Group, prior to his retirement. Before that he was CEO of PNB, that agency to assist Malays to acquire shares via unit trusts.
The Malays have a special word for this ‘reminder’, namely, mengungkit from the word ungkit, which does not have an exact equivalent in English. The closest I can think of in English is to remind another person that ‘you are what you are because of my good deed—and don’t you forget that!’
The Selangor MB went on further to say that the PKR candidate did not give back anything to the people of Ijok, such as donations to suraus, mosques, temples, or even Khalid’s own school. Was the MB implying that the MIC candidate did all these?
Yes, political campaigns in Malaysia, especially during by-elections can get very personal and ugly. Every juicy bit of detail about an opponent will be used to bring him or her down. The more you can dig up, the better is for you. People seem to forget a Quranic injunction that prohibits malicious accusations of others.
I will not go as far as to accuse another person, fellow co-religionist, of not doing enough charity, for charity is often best done privately, with as little publicity as possible. In my understanding of Islam, the rewards from Allah are much greater if charity or sadaqah, is given anonymously.
If not given anonymously, then it should not be unduly publicized, because it leads to ‘riak’ (showing-off). This character (sifat) is considered bad (mazmumah). ‘Charity should be given by the right hand without the knowledge of the left-hand’. The purpose of the act is to earn Allah’s pleasure and not to seek publicity and praises.
The practice of displaying oversized, mock cheques at charity events, I believe, is not in accordance with Islamic teaching. I may be wrong here and stand to be corrected by people who are more knowledgeable than me.
The people of Ijok should be happy now that development is being poured into the district by the BN state government. They have to thank the opposition for their good fortune. If there was no contest for the seat, I don’t think they will be promised RM36 million worth of development. Ijok voters, please thank Dr Khir Toyo also for this.
The people of Machap, Melaka, can testify to this observation. Today we read in cyberspace that some good, grateful citizens of Machap have taken up advertising space in a Chinese newspaper to thank the defeated DAP candidate ‘for bringing in development’ to Machap. What an irony, but it’s kind of true! Batu Talam experienced the same thing: development suddenly became a buzzword in that ‘sleepy hollow’ too.
Why does it have to be this way? Why can’t development be spread out more evenly and sincerely all over the country? Why wait for a by-election to bring development? I thought BN is synonymous with development. Now it appears that development is synonymous with by-elections. Why do we have to ‘bribe’ people to vote for us? No wonder it is damn difficult to combat corruption: its definition is too blurred.
The ‘development card’ is over-used in elections, when most of the ‘development’ occurs in large cities like ‘Cooler Lumpour’ (my ‘pet name’ for KL; Cooler Lumpour is cooler when it pours), Ipoh, Penang, JB etc. Development is almost always associated with physical infrastructure only—like roads, highways, airports etc. How about throwing in some human development—like education about the democratic process, press freedom, freedom of information, space for diversity of opinions, civic consciousness etc? There is more to development than roads and drains, which are most welcome when it rains.
Khir Toyo, the Selangor Menteri Besar (Chief Minister), in true Malay spirit, has declared that fellow-Malay-Muslim, PKR candidate is ‘a jobless lightweight’ compared with the BN candidate, Cikgu Parthiban. He also reminded his audience that Khalid Ibrahim became a successful corporate figure due to assistance from the Barisan government. Khalid was appointed CEO of government-linked company, the Guthrie Group, prior to his retirement. Before that he was CEO of PNB, that agency to assist Malays to acquire shares via unit trusts.
The Malays have a special word for this ‘reminder’, namely, mengungkit from the word ungkit, which does not have an exact equivalent in English. The closest I can think of in English is to remind another person that ‘you are what you are because of my good deed—and don’t you forget that!’
The Selangor MB went on further to say that the PKR candidate did not give back anything to the people of Ijok, such as donations to suraus, mosques, temples, or even Khalid’s own school. Was the MB implying that the MIC candidate did all these?
Yes, political campaigns in Malaysia, especially during by-elections can get very personal and ugly. Every juicy bit of detail about an opponent will be used to bring him or her down. The more you can dig up, the better is for you. People seem to forget a Quranic injunction that prohibits malicious accusations of others.
I will not go as far as to accuse another person, fellow co-religionist, of not doing enough charity, for charity is often best done privately, with as little publicity as possible. In my understanding of Islam, the rewards from Allah are much greater if charity or sadaqah, is given anonymously.
If not given anonymously, then it should not be unduly publicized, because it leads to ‘riak’ (showing-off). This character (sifat) is considered bad (mazmumah). ‘Charity should be given by the right hand without the knowledge of the left-hand’. The purpose of the act is to earn Allah’s pleasure and not to seek publicity and praises.
The practice of displaying oversized, mock cheques at charity events, I believe, is not in accordance with Islamic teaching. I may be wrong here and stand to be corrected by people who are more knowledgeable than me.
The people of Ijok should be happy now that development is being poured into the district by the BN state government. They have to thank the opposition for their good fortune. If there was no contest for the seat, I don’t think they will be promised RM36 million worth of development. Ijok voters, please thank Dr Khir Toyo also for this.
The people of Machap, Melaka, can testify to this observation. Today we read in cyberspace that some good, grateful citizens of Machap have taken up advertising space in a Chinese newspaper to thank the defeated DAP candidate ‘for bringing in development’ to Machap. What an irony, but it’s kind of true! Batu Talam experienced the same thing: development suddenly became a buzzword in that ‘sleepy hollow’ too.
Why does it have to be this way? Why can’t development be spread out more evenly and sincerely all over the country? Why wait for a by-election to bring development? I thought BN is synonymous with development. Now it appears that development is synonymous with by-elections. Why do we have to ‘bribe’ people to vote for us? No wonder it is damn difficult to combat corruption: its definition is too blurred.
The ‘development card’ is over-used in elections, when most of the ‘development’ occurs in large cities like ‘Cooler Lumpour’ (my ‘pet name’ for KL; Cooler Lumpour is cooler when it pours), Ipoh, Penang, JB etc. Development is almost always associated with physical infrastructure only—like roads, highways, airports etc. How about throwing in some human development—like education about the democratic process, press freedom, freedom of information, space for diversity of opinions, civic consciousness etc? There is more to development than roads and drains, which are most welcome when it rains.
Vision 2057 Now?
We have not even reached 2010, let alone 2020, and yet the Prime Minister Pak Lah is already looking at 50 years ahead. Bravo Pak Lah! You are such a visionary. It is good to be a visionary. Dr Mahathir, our 4th PM was a visionary when he was PM. After all, didn’t he craft Vision 2020 in 1991? That was 30 years ahead of the target date. Pak Lah, as if to outdo Dr Mahathir, has now come up with ‘Vision 2057.’
For the next 50 years, the PM will be planning for his children, grandchildren and great grandchildren! I say that’s quite an ambition Mr. Prime Minister. I have never come across this kind of long-range planning in development economics textbooks during my university days. So, is Pak Lah thinking of establishing a Badawi dynasty?
I salute Pak Lah for his fortitude in proposing this 50-year plan. Of course we should be looking at 50 years from now and imagine what it will be like. Most of us won’t be around then—especially those above 50 now. Even some people below 50 will not be around as they would have died on our highways! Other killers include cancer, heart ailments, etc.
Yes, what will Malaysia be like 50 years from now? What will be Malaysia’s population then? Using compound interest formula, and assuming a constant population growth rate of 2.5% per annum, our population will be about 92.4 million then. Wow! That would be 3.4 times the present population of 26.9 million (March 2007 estimate by Wikepedia). Tun Mahathir would be the happiest man then because his vision of 70 million people would have been overshot by 22.4 million. The Tun would be 132 years old then!
Will we have the natural resources to support this kind of population? Do we still have forests in Malaysia in 2057? That depends on our children and grandchildren who will inherit the earth. Will they conserve our natural resources the way we plan for them? This brings the question of whether it is realistic to make a 50-year plan for the future generation. Who knows what they need when most of us are no longer around? Do we know better than them?
In economic planning, economists seldom go beyond 25 years. Why? It is simply because the “present value” (PV) of a ringgit gets to be so miniscule beyond twenty-five years. Therefore projects are appraised only for a period of no more than 30 years. Beyond that, it does not make much difference to the PV.
More importantly, it is far-fetched to plan for Vision 2057 when we are struggling with Vision 2020. Do we have the pre-conditions to achieve vision 2020? I am not just referring to the physical conditions, but more importantly the human aspects as well. Are we a good model of a democratic country that values differences of opinions, that has religious tolerance, integrity and uphold fair-play in the distribution of justice and wealth?
Should we plan for 2057 when we are still struggling with the fight against corruption within our society? It is doubtful whether we can achieve Vision 2020 at the rate we are progressing in this battle against this scourge of the nation.
How about the dadah (illicit drug) menace? How about the Mat Rempit phenomenon? Are we making good progress in these two areas of social ills to be able to achieve Vision 2020? How can we solve the problem by making them jump at the North Pole?
Selangor is supposed to be a developed state two years ago (2005). Then, how come we suddenly find that Ijok is still backward? So much so, RM36 million has been promised to develop Ijok during this by-election (to be held on April 28).
Dream by all means. But be realistic and let your feet be firmly planted to the ground. We don’t live forever, so let the future generation have a role to shape their future.
For the next 50 years, the PM will be planning for his children, grandchildren and great grandchildren! I say that’s quite an ambition Mr. Prime Minister. I have never come across this kind of long-range planning in development economics textbooks during my university days. So, is Pak Lah thinking of establishing a Badawi dynasty?
I salute Pak Lah for his fortitude in proposing this 50-year plan. Of course we should be looking at 50 years from now and imagine what it will be like. Most of us won’t be around then—especially those above 50 now. Even some people below 50 will not be around as they would have died on our highways! Other killers include cancer, heart ailments, etc.
Yes, what will Malaysia be like 50 years from now? What will be Malaysia’s population then? Using compound interest formula, and assuming a constant population growth rate of 2.5% per annum, our population will be about 92.4 million then. Wow! That would be 3.4 times the present population of 26.9 million (March 2007 estimate by Wikepedia). Tun Mahathir would be the happiest man then because his vision of 70 million people would have been overshot by 22.4 million. The Tun would be 132 years old then!
Will we have the natural resources to support this kind of population? Do we still have forests in Malaysia in 2057? That depends on our children and grandchildren who will inherit the earth. Will they conserve our natural resources the way we plan for them? This brings the question of whether it is realistic to make a 50-year plan for the future generation. Who knows what they need when most of us are no longer around? Do we know better than them?
In economic planning, economists seldom go beyond 25 years. Why? It is simply because the “present value” (PV) of a ringgit gets to be so miniscule beyond twenty-five years. Therefore projects are appraised only for a period of no more than 30 years. Beyond that, it does not make much difference to the PV.
More importantly, it is far-fetched to plan for Vision 2057 when we are struggling with Vision 2020. Do we have the pre-conditions to achieve vision 2020? I am not just referring to the physical conditions, but more importantly the human aspects as well. Are we a good model of a democratic country that values differences of opinions, that has religious tolerance, integrity and uphold fair-play in the distribution of justice and wealth?
Should we plan for 2057 when we are still struggling with the fight against corruption within our society? It is doubtful whether we can achieve Vision 2020 at the rate we are progressing in this battle against this scourge of the nation.
How about the dadah (illicit drug) menace? How about the Mat Rempit phenomenon? Are we making good progress in these two areas of social ills to be able to achieve Vision 2020? How can we solve the problem by making them jump at the North Pole?
Selangor is supposed to be a developed state two years ago (2005). Then, how come we suddenly find that Ijok is still backward? So much so, RM36 million has been promised to develop Ijok during this by-election (to be held on April 28).
Dream by all means. But be realistic and let your feet be firmly planted to the ground. We don’t live forever, so let the future generation have a role to shape their future.
Ijok Oh Ijok! Kenapa kau sibuk?
The Ijok by-election fight is on! The two political parties contesting for the vacant seat are the BN and PKR (KeADILan). Tan Sri Abdul Khalid Ibrahim, MBA (PKR) and Cikgu [Teacher] K. Parthiban, M.Ed. (BN) are contesting for the Ijok seat on April 28, 2007.
‘Dia.mau.kerusi’ is alive in Malaysia!
The most highlighted news today in the local press was the rowdy behavior of supporters of both parties at the nomination centre yesterday. Both sides accused each other of starting the commotion.
Reading how national leaders of both contending parties point fingers at each other remind me of two children having a fight, and each child trying to tell his parent that the other child started it. For example, the Menteri Besar of Selangor said: “I was there and saw the first bottle being thrown. I am sure it came from the Keadilan side” (as quoted by the Sun newspaper today).
The DPM, Najib Razak, who led the BN team at the nomination, said: “the Keadilan supporters seemed aggressive today. I hope that they respect the law...and do not increase tension and conflict.” On the other side, Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail claimed that it was UMNO Youth members who threw the bottle [first].
Hishamuddin Hussein, the UMNO Youth chieftain, said that they (UMNO) always faced this problem when they were up against PKR, and that they didn’t have this problem with other parties. Maybe it’s because of the presence of UMNO Youth Gerak Gempur in Ijok that sparked the commotion. Or didn’t Hisham bring his keris along?
Children, children...please!
By-elections actually reveal leaders’ true colors. We can expect all kinds of dirty linens to be washed in public in the next few days leading up to the Election Day. MIC chieftain, Samy Vellu, had promised to ‘expose’ Tan Sri Khalid’s dark side to the Indian voters in ijok. Apparently, some Indian Malaysians in Ijok are not happy with the PKR candidate’s (a former Guthrie Group CEO) alleged past role in giving an unfair deal to Guthrie’s estate workers, who were mostly Indian Malaysians. Many people believe that Samy Vellu will use this issue to the hilt in a bid to win the seat.
PKR has nothing bad to say about the BN candidate, since he is almost a ‘virgin’ (oops! I mean a bachelor, at 38). The Cikgu is still a novice. But that will not stop PKR from exploiting other issues connected to BN leaders. Predictably, topping the list would be the DPM Najib Razak’s alleged involvement in the Altantuya case, which is now with the courts, and his alleged involvement in the purchase of a Russian ship, for a commission is said to be paid to certain parties. But Najib Razak says he will not use his privileged information to discredit Anwar Ibrahim, PKR advisor, because Mr Anwar has a wife and daughters. Good for you Najib! That’s the way to go. Let’s hope PKR, too, on its part, will be above board. Winning is not every thing, and how you win is also important. We are trying to teach good values to our children, are we not?
I suppose this is the most interesting by-election since Lunas, in which the BN lost to PKR in a most “bloody” (figuratively, la!) fight of the millennium. Who will win the Ijok contest? Let the voters decide. But both sides should fight it out in a gentlemanly way. Please don’t use dirty tactics and bribery to win. There are many forms of bribery, some appear to be legal, but they are immoral. Doesn’t morality mean anything anymore in this country of ours? So, please do not make promises you cannot fulfill. No party should be allowed to use government property to campaign – just stick to your party resources to win. BN, please fight like a gentleman.
What do I, as an observer, see during by-elections? To tell you frankly, I think we are a late developer to democracy. After 50 years, we have not matured yet when it comes to politics and contests for seats. Every contest must appear like a do-or-die undertaking. Like two dogs fighting for a piece of bone.
Why? Why can’t we be like developed countries? Most of our leaders were trained in these advanced countries. Why don’t they bring some of their overseas experience to our politics? Like not hitting your opponents ‘below the belt’ and keeping out personal attacks. Keep to the issues that concern the rakyat, like high costs of living, corruption, shoddy workmanship of government contractors, etc. But of course, it takes two to tango, or two hands to clap.
The BN, being the incumbent, sees the Ijok seat as their birth right, and must win it back by hook or crook. But it can afford to lose Ijok without losing power in the State assembly. However, losing Ijok spells a bad omen for the party, as Ijok is an indicator for performance in the general election (GE). Results in Ijok will be used by both sides of the political divide to make projections or extrapolations for the GE. Well, let us pray that no untoward incidents will happen during the campaign period. It will be like we hope if both sides observe the law and keep their cool.
‘Dia.mau.kerusi’ is alive in Malaysia!
The most highlighted news today in the local press was the rowdy behavior of supporters of both parties at the nomination centre yesterday. Both sides accused each other of starting the commotion.
Reading how national leaders of both contending parties point fingers at each other remind me of two children having a fight, and each child trying to tell his parent that the other child started it. For example, the Menteri Besar of Selangor said: “I was there and saw the first bottle being thrown. I am sure it came from the Keadilan side” (as quoted by the Sun newspaper today).
The DPM, Najib Razak, who led the BN team at the nomination, said: “the Keadilan supporters seemed aggressive today. I hope that they respect the law...and do not increase tension and conflict.” On the other side, Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail claimed that it was UMNO Youth members who threw the bottle [first].
Hishamuddin Hussein, the UMNO Youth chieftain, said that they (UMNO) always faced this problem when they were up against PKR, and that they didn’t have this problem with other parties. Maybe it’s because of the presence of UMNO Youth Gerak Gempur in Ijok that sparked the commotion. Or didn’t Hisham bring his keris along?
Children, children...please!
By-elections actually reveal leaders’ true colors. We can expect all kinds of dirty linens to be washed in public in the next few days leading up to the Election Day. MIC chieftain, Samy Vellu, had promised to ‘expose’ Tan Sri Khalid’s dark side to the Indian voters in ijok. Apparently, some Indian Malaysians in Ijok are not happy with the PKR candidate’s (a former Guthrie Group CEO) alleged past role in giving an unfair deal to Guthrie’s estate workers, who were mostly Indian Malaysians. Many people believe that Samy Vellu will use this issue to the hilt in a bid to win the seat.
PKR has nothing bad to say about the BN candidate, since he is almost a ‘virgin’ (oops! I mean a bachelor, at 38). The Cikgu is still a novice. But that will not stop PKR from exploiting other issues connected to BN leaders. Predictably, topping the list would be the DPM Najib Razak’s alleged involvement in the Altantuya case, which is now with the courts, and his alleged involvement in the purchase of a Russian ship, for a commission is said to be paid to certain parties. But Najib Razak says he will not use his privileged information to discredit Anwar Ibrahim, PKR advisor, because Mr Anwar has a wife and daughters. Good for you Najib! That’s the way to go. Let’s hope PKR, too, on its part, will be above board. Winning is not every thing, and how you win is also important. We are trying to teach good values to our children, are we not?
I suppose this is the most interesting by-election since Lunas, in which the BN lost to PKR in a most “bloody” (figuratively, la!) fight of the millennium. Who will win the Ijok contest? Let the voters decide. But both sides should fight it out in a gentlemanly way. Please don’t use dirty tactics and bribery to win. There are many forms of bribery, some appear to be legal, but they are immoral. Doesn’t morality mean anything anymore in this country of ours? So, please do not make promises you cannot fulfill. No party should be allowed to use government property to campaign – just stick to your party resources to win. BN, please fight like a gentleman.
What do I, as an observer, see during by-elections? To tell you frankly, I think we are a late developer to democracy. After 50 years, we have not matured yet when it comes to politics and contests for seats. Every contest must appear like a do-or-die undertaking. Like two dogs fighting for a piece of bone.
Why? Why can’t we be like developed countries? Most of our leaders were trained in these advanced countries. Why don’t they bring some of their overseas experience to our politics? Like not hitting your opponents ‘below the belt’ and keeping out personal attacks. Keep to the issues that concern the rakyat, like high costs of living, corruption, shoddy workmanship of government contractors, etc. But of course, it takes two to tango, or two hands to clap.
The BN, being the incumbent, sees the Ijok seat as their birth right, and must win it back by hook or crook. But it can afford to lose Ijok without losing power in the State assembly. However, losing Ijok spells a bad omen for the party, as Ijok is an indicator for performance in the general election (GE). Results in Ijok will be used by both sides of the political divide to make projections or extrapolations for the GE. Well, let us pray that no untoward incidents will happen during the campaign period. It will be like we hope if both sides observe the law and keep their cool.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
NO NEED TO FOLLOW THE BN WAY...
This is the season for by-elections. In a space of less than six months we are seeing three by-elections—Batu Talam (Pahang state), Machap (Melaka) and now Ijok (Selangor). All three are brought about by the untimely demise of the state assemblymen of these respective state constituencies. Now all eyes are focused on Ijok, in Berjuntai Bestari (formerly as Batang Berjuntai—never mind the reason behind the name change!)
As usual in any by-election, stiff lobbying will take place within all political parties vying for the vacant seat. The BN, being the incumbent holder of the seat and the state government, was the first to announce its candidate, in this case, K. Parthiban, 38, an MIC member and a teacher. The opposition comes from Parti Keadilan Rakyat, whose candidate is Tan Sri Abdul Khalid Ibrahim, 61, a corporate figure who is also their Treasurer.
The Menteri Besar of Selangor has already promised to pump in RM36 million to develop Ijok—a huge sum considering the small size of the constituency. For ordinary people, whose primary need is for good infrastructure, the RM36 million promised would be the best thing that can happen to their ‘sleepy hollow’ like Ijok.
The opposition is crying foul over the promise, because it perceives this to be a corrupt practice in elections (buying votes in a ‘buy’-election?) The fact is that, this sort of behavior has been going on for over half a century in Malaysia—since the country’s independence in 1957. With such a promise, there can be no doubt that BN will be returned handsomely in this by-election.
Who says there has to be a level playing field in any contest? This world subscribes to the notion that “might is right.” Whoever is in power will use it to perpetuate his or her power. The age of chivalry is gone. After all, even the PM is selected by the outgoing PM, and not by his party members.
In today’ NST, the DPM Najib Razak criticized PKR’s decision to field Khalid Ibrahim, a Malay, in a constituency with the largest Indian electorate in the country. He says that the PKR should follow the BN way by fielding another Indian PKR member to fight against the MIC candidate.
Najib Razak seemed to fail to understand that the purpose of a political party in a by-election (or any election for that matter) is to win. Any party will do whatever it takes to win an election. The BN has the luxury of fielding an Indian candidate because it is already in power. Even if it loses Ijok, it will remain the state government. The PKR does not have this luxury. It has to strategize in order to make the greatest impact on the electorate. It does not have to follow the BN way in selecting its candidate.
The PKR wants to repeat its success in Lunas (Kedah) by-election. The PKR needs to win the Ijok election because it will be a good barometer for the coming general election. It cannot afford to gamble in the choice of candidate just to prove it is a multiracial party. Perhaps in the general election it can adopt a more liberal attitude in the allocation of seats to satisfy all its members, but not in a by-election. Since Ijok is a Malay majority district, Khalid Ibrahim is a candidate sent by heaven! He is a local-born, a successful Malay corporate figure and Malays can easily identify him as the man responsible for the success of Amanah Saham Bumiputra. The people of ijok should give this man a chance to serve in the Selangor State assembly. It is time we have some dissent in the assembly which is now filled with all “yes-man”. After all, isn’t this what Najib wanted when he suggested that the education system should be revamped to eliminate rote learning. If we want to encourage healthy discussion by tolerating dissent, then it is time to put Khalid Ibrahim in the Selangor State assembly. The state will only benefit from his presence.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
We don't need new curriculum....but
Today we read in the mainstream media (NST, STAR, etc) that the Malaysian DPM, Najib Razak, has suggested that the education curriculum be revamped. He said that rote learning must be replaced so that Malaysians of the future can be more creative and be able to think for themselves--or something to that effect. Prof Khoo Khay Kim of University Malaya and Tengku Shamsul Bahrain President of Nilai College were quoted as quickly supporting the idea.
To me there is nothing wrong with the present curriculum in our schools. There is no urgency to effect drastic changes to the curriculum. After all, the curriculum is the body of knowledge that we want to impart to the younger generation. We cannot escape from giving our children a set of knowledge--i.e. content of the curriculum.
The problem with our education system is that we do not know how to cultivate the minds of our children--to think independently and to participate in classroom discussions. Our teachers generally do not encourage questions from their pupils, for fear they cannot provide the answers. If this happens, these teachers think that they would lose face.
A teacher could always tell her (or his) pupils this: “Now, Ali, that is a very interesting question. Does anybody know the answer?” In all likelihood, someone in the class may have the answer. If not, and if the teacher is also not able to give the answer, she could say: “I do not have the answer right now, but I know how to search for it. Can you give me until tomorrow to give you the answer?” This is one way to avoid embarrassment, or get out of a difficult situation. It’s not that difficult, is it?
This sort of culture (not questioning your superiors) permeates in the Malaysian society. We see it in politics. Followers are not supposed to question the leader's decision.
For example, backbenchers (YB’s) are not allowed to ask ‘sensitive’ questions to the ministers. These YB’s are, supposedly, the representatives of the rakyat--yet they cannot raise issues that concern the rakyat.
UMNO has even “banned” contest for the top posts, because a contest means questioning the wisdom of the incumbent leader, who should be given free passage to lead, until he gets burnt out!
Therefore, it is widely perceived that 'wakil rakyats' are actually 'wakil pemimpin parti' (party leaders' reps). Take the case of Ijok by-election, and look at the way Works Minister Samy Vellu (cum MIC chieftain) selected HIS representative to contest in this by-election. His 'arrogance' has led to the resignation of the Kuala Selangor MIC chief P. Thirumoorthy--or was Thirumoorthy given the sack by Samy Vellu? I think it is the latter! The BN way of selecting the wakil rakyat is not "bottom-up" but mostly “top-down”. This same culture is slowly being adopted by non-BN parties. A mixture of bottom-up and top-down would have been more acceptable.
So, coming back to Najib's idea (actually he is not the first guy to suggest this, and I don't think he should be given the credit for mooting it), I believe that the present curriculum (Knowledge content) is alright. What is needed is that the teaching method should be revamped.
It is not that teachers have not been exposed to the most modern teaching methods in their training. The problem lies with the teachers trying to minimize work and to do what is the easiest. Some don’t even teach, but sit at their desks and tell their pupils to “use their time profitably”. It happened 40 years ago and it happens even today.
We should now be looking at how teachers should conduct their classes in a more congenial way so as to promote thinking. This is the new challenge—not to simply change the curriculum content. That would be too superficial and not hitting the nail on the head. Revamp the philosophy and practice of teaching itself.
Change the format of the delivery of the subjects taught. Have smaller classes and institute round-table discussions in the classroom. Make teachers more effective facilitators, and let the children learn through their own discoveries.
Have more group projects and make sure that the groups are mixed ethnically. Make them write reports and let them present their findings. Allow others to question the findings and let the presenters know that they have to be accountable for those findings. Detect plagiarism early so that this disease does not become contagious in society.
To me there is nothing wrong with the present curriculum in our schools. There is no urgency to effect drastic changes to the curriculum. After all, the curriculum is the body of knowledge that we want to impart to the younger generation. We cannot escape from giving our children a set of knowledge--i.e. content of the curriculum.
The problem with our education system is that we do not know how to cultivate the minds of our children--to think independently and to participate in classroom discussions. Our teachers generally do not encourage questions from their pupils, for fear they cannot provide the answers. If this happens, these teachers think that they would lose face.
A teacher could always tell her (or his) pupils this: “Now, Ali, that is a very interesting question. Does anybody know the answer?” In all likelihood, someone in the class may have the answer. If not, and if the teacher is also not able to give the answer, she could say: “I do not have the answer right now, but I know how to search for it. Can you give me until tomorrow to give you the answer?” This is one way to avoid embarrassment, or get out of a difficult situation. It’s not that difficult, is it?
This sort of culture (not questioning your superiors) permeates in the Malaysian society. We see it in politics. Followers are not supposed to question the leader's decision.
For example, backbenchers (YB’s) are not allowed to ask ‘sensitive’ questions to the ministers. These YB’s are, supposedly, the representatives of the rakyat--yet they cannot raise issues that concern the rakyat.
UMNO has even “banned” contest for the top posts, because a contest means questioning the wisdom of the incumbent leader, who should be given free passage to lead, until he gets burnt out!
Therefore, it is widely perceived that 'wakil rakyats' are actually 'wakil pemimpin parti' (party leaders' reps). Take the case of Ijok by-election, and look at the way Works Minister Samy Vellu (cum MIC chieftain) selected HIS representative to contest in this by-election. His 'arrogance' has led to the resignation of the Kuala Selangor MIC chief P. Thirumoorthy--or was Thirumoorthy given the sack by Samy Vellu? I think it is the latter! The BN way of selecting the wakil rakyat is not "bottom-up" but mostly “top-down”. This same culture is slowly being adopted by non-BN parties. A mixture of bottom-up and top-down would have been more acceptable.
So, coming back to Najib's idea (actually he is not the first guy to suggest this, and I don't think he should be given the credit for mooting it), I believe that the present curriculum (Knowledge content) is alright. What is needed is that the teaching method should be revamped.
It is not that teachers have not been exposed to the most modern teaching methods in their training. The problem lies with the teachers trying to minimize work and to do what is the easiest. Some don’t even teach, but sit at their desks and tell their pupils to “use their time profitably”. It happened 40 years ago and it happens even today.
We should now be looking at how teachers should conduct their classes in a more congenial way so as to promote thinking. This is the new challenge—not to simply change the curriculum content. That would be too superficial and not hitting the nail on the head. Revamp the philosophy and practice of teaching itself.
Change the format of the delivery of the subjects taught. Have smaller classes and institute round-table discussions in the classroom. Make teachers more effective facilitators, and let the children learn through their own discoveries.
Have more group projects and make sure that the groups are mixed ethnically. Make them write reports and let them present their findings. Allow others to question the findings and let the presenters know that they have to be accountable for those findings. Detect plagiarism early so that this disease does not become contagious in society.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)