ARTICLE 1 Friday, 02 December 2011 19:30 Are you sure? Is Malaysia still a democracy? Written by Nawawi Mohamad, Malaysia Chronicle
The line separating good and evil passes neither through states nor between political parties either, but straight through the human heart – Alexander Solzhenitsyn To measure success, there has to be a bench mark or a comparison to a similar situation elsewhere; we cannot compare Malaysia with Malaysia, it will prove nothing. However today, Malaysia is at crossroads in almost every aspect of our daily lives and activities; social, religious, economy, education and politics. Which nation should be compared to Malaysia at this point of time as the situation is much worse than that expected? Lest, readers should jump on Singapore – it is in a league in a league of its own. A popular ‘dictatorship’ is indeed a real rarity. So, let’s compare Malaysia with Russia, which has just only experienced democracy in 1990. Russia has also experienced turmoil, upheavals, revolutions and has also been bailed out twice – once by the USA to the tune of about USD1 billion to stabilize the rouble in 1996, and another by the IMF and Japan amounting to USD 22.6 billion in 1998 under President Boris Yeltsin. These bailouts were necessary to prevent the Russian economic meltdown which would have affected the world’s economy. Snap shots of early post perestroika Russia compared with Malaysia today Immediately after communism was rejected by the Russians with the fall and disintegration of the USSR in 1990 under Mikhail Gorbachev with his perestroika, the country turned chaotic without a coherent system of running the country. But it is a norm during the transition period for any mass changes or revolution. Malaysian prime minister Najib Razak too has his own version of change – the Economic Transformation Program. In Gorbachev’s Russia, those in power were the same people from the Communist party but in different clothes. The most peculiar aspect of the Russian problem was the mafiya who got things done for the authorities; in fact they controlled the authorities. They are the big criminals, the ones called vory v zakone – thieves in law! They have their mafiya lieutenants, the brodyagi – pit bulls – to harass any stubborn citizens. Our Polis Di Raja Malaysia and the Malaysian Anti Corruption Commission have apparently been acting that way too. Anyway, the pitbulls and the mafiya had the most advanced weapons, cars and all the good things in life that money could buy. The local government was so corrupt that fake items sold by street vendors were often of better quality then those supplied by government outlets.
By the way, this has some similarity to Najib’s Kedai Rakyat 1Malaysia or KR1M products! Still, capitalism had arrived in Russia, wrapped in hope and glory. At that time though, it didn’t seem as if it had come to save Russia, but to finish it off instead. The word “demokrad” grew to have two meanings; the first was obvious, the second was thief. Russia was then from its own citizens’ point of view the vorovskoi mir – or thieves’ world, and in which runs the krugovye poruki or family circle. This sounds quite familiar to the Shahrizat Jalil-family run NFC in Gemas but more so in terms of what the UMNO-BN government has done with our funds and resources thus far as one big family, helping themselves without being invited and often without permission. With capitalism, more foreigners continued to come to Russia and to be Russian is to be suspicious of foreigners. Look at what has happened in Malaysia – forreign workers fare better than many of the poorer Malaysians! The ordinary Russian citizens lamented, “It is one thing to be poor when you are building something. It is another thing to be poor so that some rich thief can get richer”. Isn’t the situation in Malaysia the same as this? Present day Russia Anyhow, that was before. The present day Russia has been able to get back its greatness, well at least it is much better off anyway, so much so that the Russian president was recently able to tell NATO-US that Russia would boost its strike nuclear capabilities if NATO refuses to cooperate with Moscow in the European missiles defense project. Contrast with Malaysia, who cannot even fire a single missile used by the RMAF fighter jets unless the US gave the password. This fact was admitted to by Mahathir not too long ago. We can’t even control our borders against the tide of illegal immigrants marching in. A report in EUobserver in September this year that Russia is also in a position to help bail out another Eurozone economy. Eurozone member Cyprus is set to join Greece, Ireland and Portugal by seeking external aid to prop up its finances. But unlike the EU and IMF bail-out packages, its loans are to come from Russia with “no strings attached”.
In November, Reuters reported that Russia led a second USD 440 million bailout fund for Belarus part of a USD 3.0 billion package. Malaysia, on the other hand, may soon also be on the list of those who need bailing out. But by whom, is the question? The IMF? Won’t it impose the strictest conditions with so many strings attached? Russia has also been able to tap its natural resources for development and its oil and gas are being supplied to almost all of the east European countries and many other natural resources are still waiting to be tapped. As for Malaysia’s own natural resources – well, put it this way. We can’t even get some decent discount although the country is a net exporter of oil! Russia’s business entrepreneurs have succeeded as if capitalism was all along in their DNA. Even in the space industry, Russia has managed to stay firm while the USA has scrapped its space shuttle program. The Russian spacecraft Soyuz is the only vehicle that is available to serve the international space station now. For Malaysia the UMNOputera millionaires have all gone bankrupt. Russians have been indoctrinated not to believe in God and religion; it was opium. But now the Russian Orthodox Church has long been recognized by the state – even Vladimir Putin attends the services. Other religions are thriving and are being tolerated by the state, and of course there are restrictions but this not unexpected in Russia. While it is on the right footing to be a world economic force, Russia is in the BRIC group of countries. It is still cautious of foreigners due to security, financial espionage and various reasons to ensure its success. Whereas on the Malaysian end, the people seem to have briefly lost their their way due to religious intolerance. Russia moves forward on democracy, Malaysia goes backwards On the whole, Russia is now giving their citizens more freedom. Although the process has been slow, it has been consistent and there seems to be no turning back. Compare against Malaysia, which still uses the ISA despite Najib promising to repeal the archaic law. So which is the more democratic or sincere state no? Russia or Malaysia? One has gone through major upheaval but survived and is not better than before. As for the second – which is Malaysia – the ruling elite have had their way for more than 5 decades. The people go to the ballot boxes and on the surface, democracy flourishes but in reality this is backsliding. In 20 years, Russia has been able to grow and expand its democracy. In 54 years, Malaysians are still chasing their own tails and walking backwards in response to the negative tempo hammered out by the ruling elite in Najib’s ruling party, Umno. Not to be facetious, but what does this say about Najib and Putin, or would a more meaningful reflection be – his party Umno and the KGB. Malaysia Chronicle
[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]
Nawawi Mohamad, endorse :
1) Freedom from Apartheid/Fascism
2) Freedom from Religious-Persecution/Religious-Supremacy.
3) Equality for all ethnicities and faiths in all aspects of policy, Law and Constitution.
And Malaysia will become a real democracy. BTW mob-rule is not democracy either so make space for all and sundry appropriate to location etc.. End forced military conscriptions, unconstitutional Vehicular AP, section 377B, denial of right of non-Muslims to access gambling venues other than 4D, and denial of non-Muslims the right to a legalized adult industry services industry. If the various items above will be promised by Nawawi in his independent MP’s campaign, many Malaysians would consider him a true democrat and potential PM material. Malaysia would be well loved by the world insteda of being a pariah as of now. read the comments on the below link for an idea of what is TRUE democracy and what is Mob-rule by majority : Dear Hisham, let’s compare shooting stats with Eng & Wales – 30/11/2010 http://www.lawyersforliberty.org/2010/11/dear-hisham-lets-compare-shooting-stats-with-eng-wales/
ARTICLE 2 Australia’s ruling party backs gay marriage Sapa-AFP | 03 December, 2011 09:18 Models kiss the hands of a man dressed in drag as they display wedding dresses and suits during a same-sex wedding dress fashion show in Buenos Aires, November 17, 2011.
Argentine designers and wedding planners organized what they claim is the first gay wedding dress fashion show in the world after recent boom in same-sex nuptials since gay marriage was legalized last year in Argentina. Australia’s ruling Labor Party has voted in favour of gay marriage, despite Prime Minister Julia Gillard being an outspoken against gay marriage. Australia’s ruling Labor Party on Saturday voted to support gay marriage and to allow lawmakers a conscience vote on the issue should a same-sex marriage bill be brought to parliament. After passionate and emotional debate at the party national conference in Sydney, delegates agreed to change their platform in favour of marriage equality for gay couples. Prime Minister Julia Gillard opposes gay marriage and had called for the party to accept a conscience vote on the issue if a private member’s bill was brought to parliament so MPs are not obliged to vote on the party line. Her proposal was accepted by a vote of 208 to 184. The vote to change the platform to support gay marriage was accepted on voices. Gillard said the conscience vote was “the right decision”. “I wanted to have a conscience vote and we will,” she told reporters. Marriage is mandated by federal legislation in Australia and under the Marriage Act is deemed to be between a man and a woman. However, same-sex couples have equal rights to heterosexual couples in areas such as pension schemes and medical benefits. In opening the debate, Gillard had called for respectful discussion. “We will have this debate in a climate and atmosphere of respect,” she said. Gillard has long argued that she believes that marriage is between a man and a woman and has said her government will not seek to change the Marriage Act. But the issue was repeatedly raised during the 2010 election and many within Labor have pushed for the party to change its platform. “Gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and intersex Australians are part of our community,” said Andrew Barr, who moved that Labor endorse gay marriage. “We’re not nameless, faceless people who live on the margins of society. “We deserve the respect and the dignity afforded to others. We deserve equality.”
[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]
Not educated enough or too educated to see this? This ruling is simply mob rule too. For example, in the 208 constituencies for gay marriage, they can permit gay marriage. In the 184 constituencies against, they can forbit gay marriage. This way EVERYONE gets to be happy instead of 184 unhappy constituencies. It isn’t all or nothing, it can be to each constituency his own. Above form of lack of constituency diversication ends up bullies by sheer numbers instead of having concessions for preference on all sides. This way the fundo types can live in a gay marriage forbidding neighbourhood, while the libertarian/atheistic types can live in a gay marriage allowing neighbourhood. Whats with the hegelian eclectic and the complete capitulation and silence of the 184 on this mode of thought? Fight for a common sense solution as above suggested and everyone would have their own constituency, or at least be able to move to one, perhaps in a property exchange format overseen by the government. There could be one for Hudud (Burkha wearing, alcohol and pork forbidding, limb hacking types), one for Luddites (anti-technology Mennonite types), one for clean living Nudists (i.e. they don’t run around having sex while naked but just happen to prefer being naked all the time), one for organics drugs bars, another for CLOTHED ONLY type of Red Light District goers (VIP type clubs etc), another for non-clothed type of Red Light District goers (sub-culture oriented), there could be another constituency for ‘anything goes’ (this probably would have the most tolerant people and see the best leaders from), one for open carrying of guns all the way up to bazookas (misfire such heavy weapons and the deaths, damages and jail terms would likely bury the offender – teaches caution and control IMHO) . . .
Each unique constituency should be of a size that represents the size of the demographic, and each could live in a way that makes their hated group able to live a life they want to even as they bitterly cling on to, as Obama said, – ‘Guns and Religion’. I’d advocate against my own preferences that the 184 ‘against gay marriage’ constituencies above be allowed to forbid gay marriage (or at least 50% of the ‘against’ bunch – which means 82 constituencies reserve the right to forbid gay marriage), even though the 208 constituencies who allow it are a majority. This suggestion is truly democratic (Representative Democracy) and not mob-rule based (Majority Based). Am with Prime Minister Julia Gillard for her 184 ‘against’ constituencies to forbid AND also for the 208 ‘for’ constituencies. WHY NOT BOTH? Why so unsophisticated or one track minded? In fact at least 1 of EVERY TYPE of constituency should be permitted in EVERY truly modern country. “ALL deserve the respect and the dignity afforded to others. ALL deserve equality.” That goes double when considering Malaysia’s BUMIPUTRA APARTHEID . . . would PM Julia Gillard send a stern missive to the UN and perhaps a courtesy call to PM Najib, also Malaysia’s ‘leaders’ on all the apartheid against minorities AND oppressive application of religion on Muslims especially?