SUNDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2011
Democracy won but the Malays lost Saving Our True Democracy for all Malaysians
There is a tendency to soften the facts that face this country. So when a government official says that Malaysia could be bankrupt if profligate spending is not curbed, he is “corrected” immediately.
And when the World Bank paints a dire situation of the brain drain, the government says no such thing. And when Malaysia drops a few notches down the corruption index, the apologists at Pemandu get to work.
Basically, everyone is downplaying the real situation. In similar vein, the Umno MP Nur Jazlan Mohamed talks about his party being at the crossroads. I have to disagree with his conclusion though I agree with many of the points he raised about his anaemic party.
He noted that there was little substance or enlightenment during the party’s assembly and instead of discussing real reasons why Malay support for Umno has dwindled, party delegates were more interested in blaming others.
If someone or an organisation is at the crossroads, the main assumption is that the individual or organisation realises that things cannot go on like business as usual. There is introspection, examination of conscience and honest appraisal of how things are and the way forward.
There has been no such ethos in Umno for more than two decades. The party is about the rich getting richer and power grabbing. To borrow a phrase currently in vogue in Russia, it has become a party of scoundrels and thieves.
The crossroads were passed a long time ago. They were passed during the Mahathir era when joining Umno became a passport to enrich oneself and amass government largesse. They were passed during the Abdullah era when the party president crouched and shrank from the challenge of reforming the country and its institutions in the face of backlash from Umno.
Malaysia has gone even deeper into the backwaters during the Najib years where Umno has adopted and embraced the most right wing voices in the country.
Let’s not kid ourselves. Umno is not at the crossroads; it has regressed much further. And that lot we saw at the party assembly don’t look capable of doing much, let alone reforming themselves.
This time it’s real. Ordinary Malays are disputing Umno’s empty claims of fighting for the interest of Malays. And Umno people realise this. This is what Umno fears most, when Malays themselves start disputing what Umno says and does.
The facts are these: the people who are ripping off Malays are the Umno elites. Since Dr Mahathir took over, Umno has evolved into a company doing a gigantic Ponzi scheme. The elite, the Umno chieftains, their families and cronies have been ripping the Malays.
Who threatened the royal houses? Umno did, during the constitutional crisis years. Umno leaders were the ones who proposed to tie up royal members on trees and let the fire ants sting them. Umno was behind the exposure of scandalous behaviour of members of the royal family.
It wasn’t the Chinese who so much as besmirched the reputation of Malay rulers. I have said it before: The entrepreneurial Chinese would want to befriend the royalty so that, through the royal houses, they can corner more businesses.
How can a numerically smaller group dominate a larger group? How can DAP convert Muslims to Christianity when the majority of DAP members are themselves not Christians?
The only way Malays lose everything, is the result of the rot in Umno. And Umno, says Dr Mahathir, is rotten to the core. It’s rotten as a result of endemic corruption. We now speak of billions and not a few hundred thousand being ripped off.
How does Umno rally Malays into its fraternity? By preying on irrational prejudices, fear and probably some bad personal experience. This is the only way Umno can rally the Malays.
It’s a reaction that reflects the fear and paranoia that is enveloping Umno now. It hasn’t got any big ideas or visionary elements to bind the beliefs of Malays anymore. So, it’s only way out is to sound and represent itself as the uncompromising champion of Malay extremism.
That approach will fail simply because extremism and the patriotism promoted by Umno are seen as measures by leaders to preserve themselves.
“Patriotism in its simplest, clearest and most indubitable signification is nothing else but a means of obtaining for the rulers their ambitions and covetous desires, and for the ruled the abdication of human dignity, reason, conscience, and a slavish enthrallment to those in power.”
Leo Tolstoy said that a long time ago. — sakmongkol.blogspot.com
The 2011 UMNO General Assembly has come and gone, leaving little impact on the Malaysian political scene except that we know now what the party's strategy going into the 13th General Election will be.
The UMNO game plan will be positioned on race and religion, and make no mistake it will also be one played out to the very end by a coalition desperate to stay in power.
The dominant and the submissive
The stance taken by UMNO is interesting, as it has been endorsed by both deputy UMNO president Muhyiddin Yassin and president Najib Razak.
The fact that Najib has given up on his multiracial 1Malaysia concept is an indication of how great a store UMNO places on race championing to win the GE-13.
Some in UMNO say it is also because of the personalities involved. Muhyiddin has a dominant character while Najib is submissive. This is prime basis for what psychology terms as transference.
In The Psychology of Transference, Carl Jung states that both participants would typically experience a variety of opposites, that in love and in psychological growth, the key to success is the ability to endure the tension of the opposites without abandoning the process, and that this is the tension allows one to grow and to transform. In lay man’s terms it means that the emotions and feelings and thoughts of two opposite characters can transfer across, leaving one party to “take on” the nuances of the other.
It was in March 2010 that Muhyiddin Yassin made the famous assertion that he was “Malay first, and Malaysian second” and this was made at a time when Najib was feverishly touting his 1Malaysia slogan across the country. The “Malay first” claim is in direct contradiction to 1Malaysia and a gauntlet deliberately thrown down by Muhyiddin.
Throughout the next two years of the Najib administration, promoters of these two 'opposite' slogans have been fighting among themselves within UMNO. However, ultimately, the stronger character has to win out and subjugate the lesser character. In UMNO, this became the case and Muhyiddin was the victor.
UMNO Baru not the real UMNO of the independence days
Muhyiddin’s “Malay First” claim struck a chord with the right-wing conservatives in UMNO, who form the base or the core of the party. Remember, the UMNO of today is not the UMNO that fought for the independence of Malaya. The UMNO that Najib is now president of, is the UMNO that was reinstated by Mahathir Mohamad after the party's internal crisis of 1988. In fact, the current UMNO is technically called UMNO Baru.
This new UMNO is modelled after the wishes and aspirations of its founding president Mahathir Mohamad and is by default ultra-Malay in characteristics, just like Mahathir despite his mixed origins. Sadly, Muhyiddin has also decided to attach himself to this 'ultra' trait.
As such, when Najib introduced 1Malaysia, it was with a fake smile that UMNO accepted this slogan. An internal struggle soon began, with Muhyiddin already confident he would surely win the day with the UMNO right-wing on his side.
Without a core to hold onto, the flip-flopping Najib was forced to give in, losing huge credibility with the nation and in his own party. Many say Najib was also afraid of Mahathir, a well-known Malay extremist. But Najaib failed to correctly gauge if Malaysians and Malays themselves wanted to be government by Mahathir anymore.
Now aged 85, Mahathir is arguably the most detested leader in the country, blamed for the massive corruption, the government-knows-best arrogance, and the serious racial and religious polarization in Malaysia.
Dr M's long-boat to extremism
The 'civil war' within UMNO also explains the creation of ultra groups like Perkasa to further pressure Najib. Perkasa, whose patron is Mahathir, has played the race and religious card with impunity since its formation in early 2010.
At that time, Najib foolishly thought he could stradlle two 'sampans' or boats simultaneously. It didn't occur to him that such 'politics' was actually unethical and immoral and would be rejected by the people. Still, Najib thought he could do it but in the end, he was forced to board Mahathir's long-boat to extremism.
And the events of 2011 have shown the contradictory nature of UMNO. The principles of moderation that Najib promised at the UN and repeated at the Vatican was countered by the JAIS church raid. The call to move from tolerance to into acceptance of differences was countered by the call to defend Malay rights and privileges by the likes of Perkasa and Pekida.
At every step of the way, Najib found himself thwarted and outsmarted. By the time the 2011 UMNO General Assembly took place earlier this month, Najib knew he had to give in totally or be ousted on the spot by wills a 1,000 times stronger than his.
A weak leader
This was also how the mind-set of Muhyiddin Yassin was 'transferred' to Najib Razak and this was also what set the tone of of the UMNO assembly and how the party would fight GE13.
That's right. Najib failed to show the way forward. He had no place to lead Malaysians to except for the backward journey that the UMNO right-wing is insistent on following. A road that will surely run Malaysia aground.
The Shahrizat Jalil-NFC RM250mil financial debacle is another minefield for Najib. There are many hands involved in stirring up this scandal, with factions aligned to all three top leaders - Mahathir, Abdullah Badawi and Najib himself - involved.
For now, it may seem like a long drawn-out ping pong game is being played between Najib and Muhyiddin. But this is merely a delayed telecast. The results are already out. Whichever ball is served, 'spin' ball or 'screw' ball, Najib won't be able to return the shot. He has already lost the game. It is Muhyiddin or as many fear, Mahathir, who has 'transferred' his dominant personality onto Najib's.
Malaysia's 6th prime minister - Najib Razak - is now a mere whimper, a shadow leader reliant on the moves and decisions of others in the party. And for this, he has no one to blame but himself for not having the courage to stand up for his country.
The Constitution of this country has served us well, but when the Supreme Court says that attempts by the federal government and states to impose reasonable restrictions on campaign ads are unconstitutional, our democracy is in grave danger. That is why I have introduced a resolution in the Senate calling for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
I did not do this lightly. In fact, I had never done it before. The U.S. constitution is an extraordinary document. In my view, it should not be amended often. In light of the Supreme Court's infamous 5-to-4 decision in the Citizens United case, however, I saw no alternative.
I strongly disagree with the ruling. In my view, a corporation is not a person. A corporation does not have First Amendment rights to spend as much money as it wants, without disclosure, on a political campaign. Corporations should not be able to go into their treasuries and spend millions and millions of dollars on a campaign in order to buy elections.
The ruling has radically changed the nature of our democracy. It has further tilted the balance of the power toward the rich and the powerful at a time when the wealthiest people in this country already never had it so good. History will record that the Citizens United decision is one of the worst in the history of our country.
At a time when corporations have more than $2 trillion in cash in their bank accounts and are making record-breaking profits, the American people should be concerned when the Supreme Court says that these corporations have a constitutionally-protected right to spend shareholders' money to dominate an election as if they were real, live persons. If we do not reverse this decision, there will be no end to the impact that corporate interests can have on our campaigns and our democracy.
According to an Oct. 10, 2011, article in Politico, "the billionaire industrialist brothers David and Charles Koch plan to steer more than $200 million -- potentially much more -- to conservative groups ahead of Election Day 2012." Others are doing the same thing.
Does anybody really believe that that is what American democracy is supposed to be about?
Think about the consequences in Congress. When an issue comes up that impacts Wall Street, like breaking up huge banks, what will senators be thinking about when they decide how to vote? Every member of the Senate, every member of the House, in the back of their minds will be asking this: If I cast a vote this way, if I take on some big-money interest, am I going to be punished? Will a huge amount of money be unleashed in my state?
It's not just taking on Wall Street. Maybe it's taking on the drug companies. Maybe it's taking on the private insurance companies. Maybe it's taking on the military-industrial complex. Whatever powerful and wealthy special interests members of Congress are prepared to take on -- on behalf of the interest of the middle class and working families of this country -- they will know in the back of their mind that there may be a flood of money coming in to their state. They're going to think twice about how to cast that vote.
When the Supreme Court says that for purposes of the First Amendment, corporations are people, that writing checks from the company's bank account is constitutionally-protected speech and that attempts by the federal government and states to impose reasonable restrictions on campaign ads are unconstitutional, when that occurs, our democracy is in grave danger.
I am a proud sponsor of a number of bills that would respond to Citizens United and begin to get a handle on the problem. But more needs to be done, something more fundamental and indisputable, something that cannot be turned on its head by a Supreme Court decision. That is why I proposed the constitutional amendment in the Senate as a companion measure to an amendment proposed in the House of Representatives by Congressman Ted Deutch.
We have got to send a constitutional amendment to the states that says simply and straightforwardly what everyone - except five members of the United States Supreme Court - understands: Corporations are not people with equal constitutional rights. Corporations are subject to regulation by the people. Corporations may not make campaign contributions -- the law of the land for the last century. And Congress and states have the power to regulate campaign finances
The past two weeks witnessed a remarkable spectacle in which India’s democracy won but India’s people lost. On November 24, the government announced a bold reform to allow 51% foreign stake in retail. It triggered off a storm of protest across the political spectrum, and eventually forced the government to back down and suspend the reform. During the entire debate, no one asked why China and dozens of countries welcome foreign investment in retail. The defeat of the government means that Indian consumers have lost a chance for lower prices, India’s farmers have lost the prospect of higher returns, a third to half of India’s food will continue to rot, and millions of unemployed rural youth have been denied jobs and careers in the modern economy. It is also a severe blow to the future of reforms in India.
It does seem odd that democracy should win and people lose. But democracy’s great flaw is that it is easily captured by vested interests. In the 1980s, labour unions captured it to ban computers in government offices, banks and insurance companies. Today the powerful kirana trade has succeeded by funding opposition to a policy that was patently in the nation’s interest. The kirana lobby created an atmosphere of fear. The same fears were expressed during the 1991 reforms. If the government had given in then, India would not have lifted 200 million people out of poverty; not raised 300 million into the middle class and not made India the second fastest growing major economy.
Indians today are victims of the primitive “mandi system” which escalates food prices by 1:2:3:4, resulting in the world’s highest gap between the price a housewife pays and what the farmer receives. What a farmer sells for 1 is sold at the mandi for 2, which becomes 3 at the kirana store and 4 to the consumer. When you pay Rs 20 per kilo for tomatoes, the farmer gets only Rs 5. As tomatoes travel from the farm to the mandi to the bania, each middleman gets his cut. The price spread varies by commodity and season, but studies show that the gap is less in countries with modern retail. This is because large foreign retailers usually buy directly from farmers without middlemen. Thus, they can pay Rs 8-10 to farmers for the same tomatoes and sell them for Rs 15-17 to consumers, and still make a profit. Some middlemen will lose out but P Chengal Reddy, secretary-general of Consortium of Indian Farmers Associations says, "India has 60 crore farmers, 120 crore consumers and half a crore traders. Obviously, government should support farmers and consumers. FDI in retail will bring down inflation.”
It will also save food from rotting. Global retailers have perfected a cold distribution system. By investing in thousands of cold storages and air-conditioned trucks, they will reduce farm wastage, and bring a revolution in transport, warehousing, and logistics, as they have done in major countries like Argentina, Brazil, Chile, China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Russia, and Thailand, which have allowed 100% FDI in multi-brand retail since the 1990s.
In none of these countries have small stores been wiped out; nor are there complaints of predatory pricing by supermarkets—the two fears expressed in the past two weeks. According to a recent study, small outlets have grown by 600,000 in China since 2004. “In Indonesia, after ten years of opening FDI in multi-brand retail, 90% of the business remains with small traders, while employment in the retail and wholesale sectors grew from 28 million to 54 million from 1992 to 2001”. Kirana stores continue to succeed because they offer personalized service, give credit and deliver to the house.
This issue goes beyond shops and supply chains to whether India’s democracy can throw up the sort of leaders who can reach out and persuade opponents about much needed reforms. This was a test for the Prime Minister. He made a bold decision to usher in a retail revolution. He gave a choice to the states to opt out of the reform. He may have failed this time but if he is courageous he will persist and win the next time because he is doing the right thing for the nation
It does seem odd that democracy should win and people lose. But democracy’s great flaw is that it is easily captured by vested interests. In the 1980s, labour unions captured it to ban computers in government offices, banks and insurance companies. Today the powerful kirana trade has succeeded by funding opposition to a policy that was patently in the nation’s interest. The kirana lobby created an atmosphere of fear. The same fears were expressed during the 1991 reforms. If the government had given in then, India would not have lifted 200 million people out of poverty; not raised 300 million into the middle class and not made India the second fastest growing major economy.
Indians today are victims of the primitive “mandi system” which escalates food prices by 1:2:3:4, resulting in the world’s highest gap between the price a housewife pays and what the farmer receives. What a farmer sells for 1 is sold at the mandi for 2, which becomes 3 at the kirana store and 4 to the consumer. When you pay Rs 20 per kilo for tomatoes, the farmer gets only Rs 5. As tomatoes travel from the farm to the mandi to the bania, each middleman gets his cut. The price spread varies by commodity and season, but studies show that the gap is less in countries with modern retail. This is because large foreign retailers usually buy directly from farmers without middlemen. Thus, they can pay Rs 8-10 to farmers for the same tomatoes and sell them for Rs 15-17 to consumers, and still make a profit. Some middlemen will lose out but P Chengal Reddy, secretary-general of Consortium of Indian Farmers Associations says, "India has 60 crore farmers, 120 crore consumers and half a crore traders. Obviously, government should support farmers and consumers. FDI in retail will bring down inflation.”
It will also save food from rotting. Global retailers have perfected a cold distribution system. By investing in thousands of cold storages and air-conditioned trucks, they will reduce farm wastage, and bring a revolution in transport, warehousing, and logistics, as they have done in major countries like Argentina, Brazil, Chile, China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Russia, and Thailand, which have allowed 100% FDI in multi-brand retail since the 1990s.
In none of these countries have small stores been wiped out; nor are there complaints of predatory pricing by supermarkets—the two fears expressed in the past two weeks. According to a recent study, small outlets have grown by 600,000 in China since 2004. “In Indonesia, after ten years of opening FDI in multi-brand retail, 90% of the business remains with small traders, while employment in the retail and wholesale sectors grew from 28 million to 54 million from 1992 to 2001”. Kirana stores continue to succeed because they offer personalized service, give credit and deliver to the house.
This issue goes beyond shops and supply chains to whether India’s democracy can throw up the sort of leaders who can reach out and persuade opponents about much needed reforms. This was a test for the Prime Minister. He made a bold decision to usher in a retail revolution. He gave a choice to the states to opt out of the reform. He may have failed this time but if he is courageous he will persist and win the next time because he is doing the right thing for the nation
No comments:
Post a Comment