Mahathir Ego is unflattering Mahatir's martyrdom washed away by his mistakes from public memory

REFORM ROTTEN POLITICS UMNO’S LATEST PATRONAGE SCANDALS

Any democracy is hobbled without an Opposition. Are we condemned to replicate PAKATAN at the national level — where a government wheezes, gasps and limps triumphantly to the finish line because there is no other horse in the race? This is the fundamental reform India needs, to lead on to better governance The basic reform …Read more

TULUKAN OUTSYED THE BOX THIEVES,PLUNDERERS, ROBBERS THE TIME IS UP FOR TULUKAN MAHATIR AND HIS GANGSTER

Thieves,plunderers, robbers the time is up for you Mahatir and his Gangster. No one goes scot free in this world The story of UMNO’s relationship with big money and private enterprise sits fidgeting between these fragments of reality.  as a co-conspirator in large scale corruption are gradually overwhelming the idea of business as a critical source … Read more

In 1971, the Barisan National coalition launched the New Economic Policy (NEP) as a response to the 1969 race riots. They figured that, since economic inequality between the races was so entrenched that resentment would occur between the impoverished Malays and the wealthier Chinese, (another sterotyp: of course there were rich Malays and poor Chinese), … Read more

TIME IS RUNNING OUT FOR UMNO ALLOW THE POOR MALAY TO DEFINE THEIR FUTURES

READMORE http://taxidriverstreetvoices.blogspot.com/2011/12/umno-ass-reality-curse-of-anwars-sodomy.html

Don’t ever question me! see what my gangsters did to you

In the open letter titled ‘Rule of Law government breaks its promises’, Mat Zain stated there is a public perception that Najib refuses to take action against Gani (right) because the premier feared the AG may expose some so-called secrets with regard to Altantuya Sharibuu or the Scorpene submarines purchase.

 The PR de facto leader told Parliament today the new law regulating public assembly made it more difficult for the federal opposition to hold ceramahs and dialogue sessions.

 Mahatir's martyrdom washed away by his mistakes from public memory. But only great heroes make great mistakes.

Defeat is the distance between a bedtime story and a wake-up call. The former starts with ‘Once upon a time...’ and lulls the voter to sleep. The second is an energiser that addresses a fresh dawn.

Three political parties have become victims of their own success: their narrative has run its course, and they have not been able to find a further chapter to their saga
Power is the glue of politics. That is why a government is expected to be in array and opposition generally in disarray. Ideology is a fickle custodian of unity in an age of convenience. Its absence has eliminated the difference between single-party rule and coalition government. Both are held together by individual or sectarian self-interest, which is why they last. Ideology is a differentiator; it makes a partnership untenable even if the partners consider it sustainable. Sentiment is irrelevant to any political marriage. This is true of all democracies where coalitions become necessary. Politicians live for power; why would they invite a premature death?

There’s very little that’s new from Mahathir Mohamad who, by this time, really needs no introduction at all, so great has his notoriety become in the nation and abroad over the years.

He was more recently in emerging economic power India to advise that great democracy, with a history 8,000 years in the making, to be “less democratic and more dictatorial so that it can be rich like China”. Still, democracy was the best he hastened to add as his Indian listeners glared at him.

He also didn’t mention his own iron-fisted two decades-long rule which has brought Malaysia to a step away from ruin, but more likely than not, they already knew since his racist reputation precedes him whether he chooses to admit it or not.

At 85, Mahathir doesn’t shy away from making a fool of himself with painfully outdated and overemotional rhetoric, generally directed at the Malays, and for a sinister purpose: to get greater Malay support from behind which to camouflage the ruling elite’s continued plunder of the Public Treasury under the guise of bangsa, agama, dan negara, (race, religion and country) and “special privileges”.

God help all those who call themselves Malay if they continue to listen to Mahathir. He has become an embarrassment everywhere except in Zimbabwe, where his close friend Robert Mugabe holds sway.

Mahathir had 22 years as Prime Minister to help make a difference for the better but he messed up. The only ones who benefited were himself, his nominees and his coterie of cronies.

He squatted on everybody including the Malays and especially the minority Chinese and Indians in order to prove that he was “more Malay than the Malay, more Bumiputera than the Bumiputera”.

What’s his excuse now for continuing to preach to the Malays on unity, being calculative, being analytical or anything at all for that matter?

Unity

Unity is a myth. Every community in Malaysia is equally united and equally divided.

The greater the number of organisations representing any group, the better organised and efficient that group at the grassroots level. There’s nothing to prevent the leaders of the various organisations from working together on issues of common interest.

This is not good enough for Mahathir and his kind.

He wants all Malays under one political platform ostensibly to maintain their political power vis-a-vis the others in the country.

The Malays were united under Umno, and supported by the Barisan Nasional, in the wake of the searing Sino-Malay race riots of Fri May 13, 1969.

What has this so-called unity brought them?

Nothing, as witnessed eventually by the departure of Pas from the BN in the late 1970s when they realised that a handful of Umno leaders were taking the people for a ride at the expense of the nation.

Mahathir pledged after May 13 that the Malays would be somewhere close to the Chinese – in business, wealth, education -- under his hare-brained theories and schemes. They fell for it lock, stock and barrel, allowing Mahathir and his kind, in the process, to laugh all the way to the bank and keep laughing ever since.

Today, it must be admitted that the Malays are still back at Square One, in a Catch 22 situation. The non-Malays, at the same time, have been denied their legitimate aspirations under the Federal Constitution – Article 153, Article 8, Article 3, Article 10, Article 14, among others.

Meanwhile, as many Malays as non-Malays are fleeing the country in record numbers, the former for the first time eclipsing the latter in the numbers entering Australia, for example.

The only thing that the Malays have going for them has been obtained at the expense of the non-Malay communities viz. 90 per cent of those employed in the government sector are Malays, a figure substantially more than their 60 per cent representation in the population.

Article 153 in the Federal Constitution, among others, pledged that only a reasonable proportion of the intake into the civil service would be reserved for the Natives of Sabah and Sarawak, the Orang Asli and the Malays in Peninsular Malaysia.

Both the Natives and the Orang Asli have been left out under Mahathir, and from even before, and after.

Many Malays are university graduates. This is a good thing to happen to any nation. But are we anywhere near the western benchmark of putting 30 per cent of the school population through university?

In any case, the liberalisation and democratisation of higher education on the heels of globalisation has meant that many Malays would graduate anyway, with or without government aid.

Not calculative enough

Mahathir also thinks that the Malays are not calculative enough, a euphemism which takes a pot-shot at the Chinese in business in southeast Asia for their ability to buy at a loss and sell at a profit.

If that’s the case, Mahathir had no business preaching to the Malays about business. In fact, his bakery business, The Loaf, has to yet turn in a profit despite being around for several years. It’s a wonder that his Japanese partner has chosen to still stick around with him instead of fleeing home with his tail between his legs. Those who have patronised The Loaf complain that the prices there are outrageous, a fact admitted by Mahathir himself in several interviews. However, since Mahathir’s cost of production is high, he can’t afford to bring down the prices unless he wants to declare himself bankrupt.

The Loaf is an example of Mahathir having the cheek to preach on something which he doesn’t know anything about.

If Mahathir has been less than calculative, his Malayalee Muslim forefathers in their graves in Kerala – God’s Own Country – in southwest India, by the Arabian Sea, must be turning over in their graves. This community, also known as Kakas and famous for their cendol, rojak and berota – which the Malays call roti canai – are among the most calculative people in India.

Not analytical enough

Mahathir also laments that the Malays are not analytical enough.

This is like hitting below the belt.

No community will be analytical if they are fed with falsehoods and bad propaganda day and night in the mainstream media and persuaded that what they are getting is the Gospel truth.

When needless subjectivity comes in through the door, even the very minimum objectivity that is needed goes out the window.

The best bet for the people sheltering under the umbrella term of Malay is a future away from Mahathir, his poodle Perkasa, and Umno, among others.

The Malays, because of their sheer numbers, will always have a place in the Malaysian sun.

They need not fear being left out even more than they have been up to now.

In fact, the Malays can only do better as a community by making a clean break with their feudal past and their tribal mindset. They need to think through everything and not blindly and mindlessly lap up everything that any Tom, Dick and Harry in Umno or Perkasa tell them.

No one should tell the Malays what to do or what not to do. They are as capable as any community on Mother Earth to solve problems, come hell or high water!

Progressives had some fun last week with Frank Luntz, who told the Republican Governors' Association that he was scared to death of the Occupy movement and recommended language to combat what the movement had achieved. But the progressive critics mostly just laughed, said his language wouldn't work, and assumed that if Luntz was scared, everything was hunky-dory. Just keep on saying the words Luntz doesn't like: capitalism, tax the rich, etc.

It's a trap.

When Luntz says he is "scared to death," he means that the Republicans who hire him are scared to death and he can profit from that fear by offering them new language. Luntz is clever. Yes, Republicans are scared. But there needs to be a serious discussion of both Luntz's remarks and the progressive non-response.

What has been learned from the brain and cognitive sciences is that words are defined by fixed frames we use in thinking, frames come in hierarchical systems, and political frames are defined in moral terms, where "morality" is very different for conservatives and progressives. What lies behind the Occupy movement is a moral view of democracy: Democracy is about citizens caring about each other and acting responsibly both socially and personally. This requires a robust public empowering and protecting everyone equally. Both private success and personal freedom depend on such a public. Every critique and proposal of the Occupy movement fits this moral view, which happens to be the progressive moral view.

What the Occupy movement can't stand is the opposite "moral" view, that democracy provides the freedom to seek one's self-interest and ignore what is good for other Americans and others in the world. That view lies behind the Wall Street ethic of the Greedy Market, as opposed to a Market for All, a market that should maximize the well-being of most Americans. This view leads to a hierarchical view of society, where success is always deserved and lack of success is moral failure. The rich are the moral, and they not only deserve their wealth, they also deserve the power it brings. This is the view that Luntz is defending.

Referring to the rich as "hardworking taxpayers" ignores the fact that a great percentage of the rich do not get their wealth from making things, but rather from investments in other people's labor, and that most of the 1% are managers, not people who make things or directly provide services. The hardworking taxpayers are the 99%. That is not the frame that Luntz wants activated.

But Luntz is not just addressing his remarks to Republicans. He is also looking to take Democrats for suckers. How? By choosing his frames carefully, and getting Democrats to do the opposite of what he tells Republicans. There is a basic truth about framing. If you accept the other guy's frame, you lose.

Take "capitalism." It arises these days in socialist discourse, and is seen as the opposite of socialism. To attack "capitalism" in this frame is to accept "socialism." Conservatives are trying to cast progressives, who mostly have businesses or work for businesses or are looking for good business jobs, as socialists. If you take the Luntz bait, you will be sucked into sounding like a socialist. Whatever one thinks of socialism, most Americans falsely identify it with communism, and will reject it out of hand.

Luntz would love to get Democrats using the word "tax" in the conservative sense of taking money from the pockets of hardworking folks and wasting it on people who don't deserve it. Luntz doesn't want Democrats pointing out how private success depends on public investment -- in infrastructure, education, health, transportation, research, economic stability, protections of all sorts, and so on. He doesn't want progressives talking about "revenue" which is defined in a business frame to mean money needed for any institution to function and flourish. He doesn't want Democrats talking about the rich paying their fair share for the massive amount they have gotten from prior investments in a robust public. Luntz would love to lure progressives into talking about government "spending" rather than investments in education, health, and infrastructure that will benefit most Americans.

He doesn't want progressives pointing out that corporations govern our lives far more than any government does -- and for their profit, not ours. He doesn't want any discussion of corporate waste, or military waste, which is huge.

Luntz would love to have Democrats talking about "entrepreneurs," which evokes a Republican view of the market as a tool for self-interest. His proposal to discuss "job creators" instead hides the fact that the business community has not been hiring despite record profits. He certainly does not want discussion of outsourcing and minimizing pay for work, which leads corporations to eliminate or downgrade jobs and hence keep wages low when profits are high.

Hidden behind his proposal to substitute "careers" for "jobs" is his attempt to appeal to young people just out of college and grad school who expect more -- a profession -- not just a mere "job." But of course, corporations are downgrading positions away from professional careers and more toward interchangeable McJobs requiring minimal ability and with minimal pay and benefits.

Luntz is right about not saying "sacrifice." He is right that most Americans are already hurting more than enough. They want a viable present and a future for themselves and their children and grandchildren. He is right to suggest "talking about how 'we're all in this together.' We either succeed together or we fail together." But that is the opposite of conservative morality. It is the progressive view of a moral democracy that all of Luntz's conservative framings contradict. It is an attempt at co-opting the progressive moral system, because the Occupy movement is showing that it is an idea of democracy that makes sense to most Americans. And it is an attempt to take Obama's strongest moral appeal away from him.

Unfortunately, Luntz is still ahead of most progressives responding to him. Progressives need to learn how framing works. Bashing Luntz, bashing Fox News, bashing the right-wing pundits and leaders using their frames and arguing against their positions just keeps their frames in play.

Progressives have a basic morality, which is largely unspoken. It has to be spoken, over and over, in every corner of our country. Progressives need to be both thinking and talking about their view of a moral democracy, about how a robust public is necessary for private success, about all that the public gives us, about the benefits of health, about a Market for All not a Greed Market, about regulation as protection, about revenue and investment, about corporations that keep wages low when profits are high, about how most of the rich earn a lot of their money without making anything or serving anyone, about how corporations govern your life for their profit not yours, about real food, about corporate and military waste, about the moral and social role of unions, about how global warming causes the increasingly monstrous effects of weather disasters, about how to save and preserve nature.

Progressives have magnificent stories of their own to tell. They need to be telling them nonstop.

Let's lure the right into using OUR frames in public discourse.