“Or maybe, this former Perak Mentri Besar has feelings for Kak Ijat. After all, she is the Malaysian Aishwarya Rai,” Habibah said, referring to the famous Bollywood star.
Shahrizat had at the Wanita congress received what appeared to rapturous support from the women delegates. Certainly, she took care to surround herself with die-hard loyalists who were clearly robotic in their defence of the chief.Critics say if Shahrizat is still unbelieving of her fate, she should look at Rafidah, who was even more powerful owing to her much longer service in Umno. Yet, Rafidah could not hold back the tide and clamoring from the Wanita members.
According to several senior Wanita leaders interviewed by Malaysian Insider, Shahrizat had become a “liability” to Umno and should exit the limelight before the NFC scandal “destroys us all”.
Former Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi says he cannot be held responsible for alleged wrongdoings in respect of the on-going investigations into the National Feedlot Corporation (NFC).
Abdullah, who was Prime Minister since 2004 till early 2009, said the project may have been given out during his time.
“However, so many things have happened between then and now. So I cannot be responsible for what happens after that.
“When they want something, they have an argument, they have a basis why approval could be given. So what happens after that has nothing to do with me,” he added.
Abdullah, who is affectionately referred to as Pak Lah, said this to reporters during his visit to the special media centre prepared for the UMNO annual general assembly.
Asked whether the NFC project was given out by tender or whether there was a bid for it, Abdullah said he had “no comment”.
On whether Wanita chief Shahrizat Abdul Jalil should resign as a result of the NFC fiasco, he said he did not want to answer that as it would be speculative. “It is not fair (to her). Its not her business, it’s her husband’s,” he said.
Deputy Inspector-General of Police Khalid Abu Bakar said today initial investigations revealed no criminal breach of trust elements in police investigations, even though they have yet to interview Shahrizat.
‘Perceptions are dangerous’
Asked about the perception that Shahrizat was involved in the NFC scandal, Abdullah said such perception was a dangerous thing.
“Sometimes, we make a perception as if it is true. I know in politics perception can kill many people.We should not allow ourselves to be influenced by such things and that what we say is only perception, for perception can kill,” he said.
A lot of politicians all over the world, Abdullah said, have had a lot of problems because of perceptions they may have faced. “A lot of them are unnecessary,” he said.
Asked how he felt BN and UMNO would fare in the coming general election, Abdullah said they had to be prepared.
“If we have problems, we have to attend to the problems. If these have surfaced, we must face and resolve them.That is what UMNO has been doing as before and we have to be more efficient in handling these,” he said.
"Hey come on, I didn’t really lie! Just a small holding back of facts about such an innocuous matter. I just wanted to avoid a discussion…that’s hardly a lie!”
And yet you feel betrayed, hurt and upset… Sounds familiar?
“Are you crazy? I am NOT having an affair…we just exchanged a few flirtatious messages…how can that be wrong!”
And yet you feel wronged, betrayed and hurt…
For it is these little lies and betrayals that make a big difference to one’s credibility and to the quality of a relationship, whether personal or professional. The bigger lies that have the potential of blowing up in the face could remain unknown and hidden forever, thus not really causing any harm. The smaller lies that you unthinkingly and carelessly blurt out, not just get caught all the time, but also lay the foundation of how dependable or trustworthy a person or relationship is!
It was Adolf Hitler who coined the expression “Big Lie”, distinguishing it from the small lies. He used the Big Lie as a propaganda technique. As he said inMein Kampf, “… in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods…”
This is the principle adopted today by marketing agencies and propaganda machines when they furnish us with Big Lies on a regular basis with the help of mass media. However, the big lie is not something most of us would be familiar with in our daily lives. Sure, all of us would have indulged in some falsehood or the other sometime in life, but these are the small, everyday lies that either help us through a situation, or may have become a chronic habit!
Some people tell a small lie to avoid confrontation; others do so to avoid hurting someone, or so as not to rock the boat in a relationship. Some may lie to live up to fantasies they have about themselves, such as the size of their bungalow, the make of their car or the wealth they own. Still other chronic liars may have entrapped themselves so much into small lies that their entire life may have become a Big Lie that they have to willynilly live up to now! One wonders how these people feel about themselves. For instance, we have cases of people who have wrongly claimed to be POWs of World War II and spent a lifetime claiming compensation for the same and being finally caught out! Surely what must have started off as a small lie one day for such a person, and took over his entire life slowly, must have throttled him in private? Surely somewhere his conscience would have felt some relief when he was caught and finally could stop lying? A lie is a lie; there are no big or small ones. Similarly, a betrayal is a betrayal; it doesn’t have varying degrees of acceptability!
Likewise, a theft doesn’t gain any more acceptability if the amount stolen is less. The point is that if you have been able to convince yourself to indulge in what you consider a smaller evil, the bigger one follows in good time. Lying, stealing, cheating is first an act of betrayal to you yourself, then to anyone else. You are the one who draws the lines and defines the limits for yourself and for your relationship. Certainly how true you are to yourself and to your loved one decides the quality and strength of your relationship. At a workshop conducted by Shobhaa De, when she asked a group of women to answer the question, ‘Who am I?’ to the amazement of all one woman stood up and proclaimed, “I am a thief, a cheat and a liar!” Shobhaa goes on to quote the woman, “I cheat on my husband by feigning interest in his conversation at the end of a long day, when all I want to do is put my feet up and relax. I lie to my bosses and pretend to be sick when I want to spend time with my baby daughter. And I call myself a thief for stealing time which does not belong to me to pursue my personal interests during work hours.” The woman is a rare example of transparent honesty, such as most of us would hesitate to admit even to our ownselves! But it is true, isn’t it? At some level, we are all dishonest. Now call this a small dishonesty, or a big one — it is all about how you want to make yourself feel! We all have ways of making ourselves feel good. So, yes of course, these are all small lies.
But, are they really? Why then do you need to tell yourself yet another lie in order to feel better?
The truth is starting to come out. Despite a humungous cover-up by the Umno top echelon involving the police plus a performance worthy of an Oscar, party delegates, especially from the Wanita wing, want their chief Shahrizat Jalil to be gone. If not from the party completely, then at the very least to quit all posts including her Cabinet position.
“Who knows him from Adam?” a delegate was reported as having told theMalaysian Insider in reference to Shahrizat's husband, Salleh Ismail, who was granted the RM250 million NFC cattle-breeding project.
“Come on, they understand. It is your husband, so what do you mean it has nothing to do with you? If you were not a minister do you think your husband would have gotten the project?"
Even Rafidah, who was much more powerful, had to give in
Shahrizat had at the Wanita congress received what appeared to rapturous support from the women delegates. Certainly, she took care to surround herself with die-hard loyalists who were clearly robotic in their defence of the chief.But the fact remains, Shahrizat is just a step from being forced to step down. The corruption allegations over how Salleh and her childer had mismanaged the NFC project, squandering public funds on 2 super-luxury condos in Bangsar, a high-end Mercedes Benz CLS350, residential land in the poshest part of Putrajaya have shocked the nation.
The money was meant to incubate and grow the project, which aims to ensure Malaysians get access to cheap beef. NFC was granted to her family in 2006 by the then-premier Abdullah Badawi, who had a soft spot for her and supported her challenge of past Wanita chief Rafidah Aziz.
Notorious for her stranglehold on the APs business, or authorised permits for importing motor vehicles, Rafidah too finally faced the curtain after the graft allegation swamped all her other achievements as Trade minister and long-time Kuala Kangsar MP.
It was an ignominious exit for Rafidah who had to leave with jeers of Queen APs ringing in her ears. But if it is any consolation to her now, her deputy-turned-challenger Shahrizat too will have to face the same music, only that Shahrizat's song would be titled Queen Cow and Condos.
Disgust and pure ambition
Critics say if Shahrizat is still unbelieving of her fate, she should look at Rafidah, who was even more powerful owing to her much longer service in Umno. Yet, Rafidah could not hold back the tide and clamoring from the Wanita members."It is not just a matter of wanting reform. Many are just disgusted. They thought with Rafidah gone, there won't so much controversy but it appears Shahrizat was a good student. If Wanita could dislodge Rafidah, who fought like a lioness, Shahrizat who is much more 'lembik' (soft) like Badawi will be easy game," PKR vice president Chua Jui Meng told Malaysia Chronicle.
"Bear in mind, a large number of Wanita members will want Shahrziat out and their main motive will be their personal ambition. Yes, political opportunism is everywhere. It is a vicious cycle but this is Umno and while Wanita Umno may be more subtle, it is every bit as ambitious as the male wings."
Go before you destroy us all
According to several senior Wanita leaders interviewed by Malaysian Insider, Shahrizat had become a “liability” to Umno and should exit the limelight before the NFC scandal “destroys us all”.“She is using Wanita Umno to protect her but the NFC issue is not a Wanita issue but a personal one involving her and her family. As a Wanita Umno member, I am very disappointed. A lot of us are disappointed... why drag Umno into this issue?” said one woman delegate from Perak.
“Do not forget, the first person to expose the issue about NFC’s weaknesses was the Auditor-General, not the opposition. So why attack the opposition to hide your own weakness?”
On Thursday, Deputy Inspector General of Police Khalid Bakar was flayed for bowing to pressure from the Umno bigwigs for suddenly announcing that a police probe involving 74 witnesses had so far found no trace of criminal breach of trust in NFC.
"This is a transparent attempt by the national police leadership to perform 'damage control' on behalf of the ruling UMNO party. Why issue such a statement when investigations are still continiuing? It makes no sense for the police to state their conclusions before the end of the investigation. And why make such a statement all of a sudden, just as the high profile UMNO AGM gets underway?," PKR vice president N Surendran said in a statement.
"Also surprisingly, the police have confirmed that they have still not recorded any statement from Minister Shahrizat, who is a key figure in NFC controversy. Why are the police avoiding calling in the Minister?"
The latest controversy over India's poverty line proves two things. First, statistical illusions can be spun by presenting numbers in different ways. Second, India suffers from middle-class double standards and denial on poverty.
A media storm has arisen after the Planning Commission's affidavit to the Supreme Court stated what all experts know—India's poverty line is defined as consumption of Rs 32/day per person in urban areas and Rs 26 in rural areas. Outraged TV anchors and middle class viewers asked how on earth people could survive on so little. Reports cited pavement hawkers spending Rs 32/day just on bus tickets.
The Planning Commission was driven on the defensive. One member said poverty was a relative concept and he personally might view Rs 15,000 per month as being in poverty. The Commission clarified that Rs 32 per day would not be the cut-off for benefits like subsidized food—that would be decided by other criteria covering far more people.
Fact: the current poverty line (based on the Tendulkar Committee recommendations ) has actually been re-drawn well above the historical line. Far from fiddling the numbers downward, the new poverty line increased them from 27.5% to 37.2% in 2004-05' translating into an additional 100 million poor.
A poverty line of Rs 32/day may outrage some, but the equivalent old poverty line was barely Rs 24/day. You saw relatively little middle class anger in past decades about that: many were in denial on the width and breadth of poverty.
If consumption of Rs 24/day (at today's prices) was the poverty norm for decades, why does Rs 32/day sound so low today? Mainly because we don't usually think in terms of consumption per day. The average family size in India is five members. Poor people have more children, so an average poor household will have around six members. If six members consume Rs 32/day, it adds up to almost Rs 6,000 per month.
Ifind most people are surprised that Rs 32 per person per day (which looks so low) translates into Rs 6,000 per household per month. They lose their initial sense of outrage' and think Rs 6,000 per month is a reasonable poverty definition.
However, there's more to this than statistical illusion. Foreigners find Rs 6,000 per month scandalously low. Why not our middle class? Answer: they often pay hired help just Rs 4,000-5'000 per month, and complain if servants demand more. Middle class folk don't want to calculate the per capita daily spending of their servant's family. They resent servants constantly wanting more pay, even if this falls short of the very level they find outrageous when specified by the Planning Commission.
This double standard is not restricted to paying servants. When middle class folk go to Dilli Haat to buy a sari, they will beat down the weavers to the lowest price possible. If told that the weaver earns only Rs 4,000 per month, will they change their attitude or agree that they have helped keep the weaver poor? No chance.
Don't be too harsh on the middle class: double standards exist in almost every group of humans. The middle class is correct in blaming poverty mainly on the government. Enormous amounts are allocated to poverty alleviation by politicians shedding crocodile tears for the poor, but the sums are largely wasted or stolen.
The middle class strongly supports poverty alleviation. But it also wants massive subsidies itself, cheap cooking gas and kerosene being obvious examples.
Does this mean India's progress in the last two decades has been illusory? Not at all. The poverty ratio did not change between independence and 1977-78' although the population doubled. So, the total number of poor people doubled in the heyday of Indian socialism (many young socialists are in denial about this). Fortunately economic liberalization, starting in the 1980s and accelerating in the 1990s, stoked faster GDP growth and started reducing poverty.
India will probably exceed the UN Millennium Development Goal of halving poverty between 1990 and 2015. Even so, India will be a poor country for a long time. Forget statistics —just see the horrific workers' hovels at construction sites. Workers nevertheless come because rural conditions are even worse.
The middle class has done a yeoman job crusading against corruption, which hits all classes. However, its main anger is about big political corruption. The poor are hit more by low-level corruption and pathetic government services. The middle class has stopped using government schools and other services. So, these topics attract less middle class anger—and TV ratings— than Big Corruption. We need more anger against lousy, corrupt government services.
A media storm has arisen after the Planning Commission's affidavit to the Supreme Court stated what all experts know—India's poverty line is defined as consumption of Rs 32/day per person in urban areas and Rs 26 in rural areas. Outraged TV anchors and middle class viewers asked how on earth people could survive on so little. Reports cited pavement hawkers spending Rs 32/day just on bus tickets.
The Planning Commission was driven on the defensive. One member said poverty was a relative concept and he personally might view Rs 15,000 per month as being in poverty. The Commission clarified that Rs 32 per day would not be the cut-off for benefits like subsidized food—that would be decided by other criteria covering far more people.
Fact: the current poverty line (based on the Tendulkar Committee recommendations ) has actually been re-drawn well above the historical line. Far from fiddling the numbers downward, the new poverty line increased them from 27.5% to 37.2% in 2004-05' translating into an additional 100 million poor.
A poverty line of Rs 32/day may outrage some, but the equivalent old poverty line was barely Rs 24/day. You saw relatively little middle class anger in past decades about that: many were in denial on the width and breadth of poverty.
If consumption of Rs 24/day (at today's prices) was the poverty norm for decades, why does Rs 32/day sound so low today? Mainly because we don't usually think in terms of consumption per day. The average family size in India is five members. Poor people have more children, so an average poor household will have around six members. If six members consume Rs 32/day, it adds up to almost Rs 6,000 per month.
Ifind most people are surprised that Rs 32 per person per day (which looks so low) translates into Rs 6,000 per household per month. They lose their initial sense of outrage' and think Rs 6,000 per month is a reasonable poverty definition.
However, there's more to this than statistical illusion. Foreigners find Rs 6,000 per month scandalously low. Why not our middle class? Answer: they often pay hired help just Rs 4,000-5'000 per month, and complain if servants demand more. Middle class folk don't want to calculate the per capita daily spending of their servant's family. They resent servants constantly wanting more pay, even if this falls short of the very level they find outrageous when specified by the Planning Commission.
This double standard is not restricted to paying servants. When middle class folk go to Dilli Haat to buy a sari, they will beat down the weavers to the lowest price possible. If told that the weaver earns only Rs 4,000 per month, will they change their attitude or agree that they have helped keep the weaver poor? No chance.
Don't be too harsh on the middle class: double standards exist in almost every group of humans. The middle class is correct in blaming poverty mainly on the government. Enormous amounts are allocated to poverty alleviation by politicians shedding crocodile tears for the poor, but the sums are largely wasted or stolen.
The middle class strongly supports poverty alleviation. But it also wants massive subsidies itself, cheap cooking gas and kerosene being obvious examples.
Does this mean India's progress in the last two decades has been illusory? Not at all. The poverty ratio did not change between independence and 1977-78' although the population doubled. So, the total number of poor people doubled in the heyday of Indian socialism (many young socialists are in denial about this). Fortunately economic liberalization, starting in the 1980s and accelerating in the 1990s, stoked faster GDP growth and started reducing poverty.
India will probably exceed the UN Millennium Development Goal of halving poverty between 1990 and 2015. Even so, India will be a poor country for a long time. Forget statistics —just see the horrific workers' hovels at construction sites. Workers nevertheless come because rural conditions are even worse.
The middle class has done a yeoman job crusading against corruption, which hits all classes. However, its main anger is about big political corruption. The poor are hit more by low-level corruption and pathetic government services. The middle class has stopped using government schools and other services. So, these topics attract less middle class anger—and TV ratings— than Big Corruption. We need more anger against lousy, corrupt government services.
No comments:
Post a Comment