KAYVEAS SAID NOT ONLY DISCRIMINATION AND PREJUDICE THE SPECIAL PRIVILEGES AND PRIORITISATION AFFORDED TO THE MALAY WILL MARK THE THE END OF BARISAN

Kayveas: Fears of discrimination, prejudice pushing people to Pakatan

PPP was such a strong political party until you took over!
Remember the days of D R or SP? They were the icons of PPP! They were sworn enemies of UMNO and now PPP and UMNO are sleeping together? And the Rakyat had showed its displeasures and they are going to present PPP with a huge “egg” again in PRU 13! Just dissolve PPP, your chance is slim and none!

Kayveas feel discriminated, and preducied by UMNO the bully, but there’s noting , MIC, MCA, Gerakan can do about it. UMNO today is not the UMNO of Merdeka days, and no longer inclusive of other races.

The ugly head of UMNO’s racism has been rearing its head many times recently, and there seem not to be any stop to it. Moreover, it seems the UMNO flavour of ‘Islam’ seems to accept that racism is allowed. For all pious Muslims this is repulsive.This goes to show that PKR are courageous enough to walk the so-called ‘brittle bridge’ for the sake of all malaysians!

Typical of a coalition formed over 50 years that has degenerated to what it is now……no idea, no communication, no moral, no future! Brittle bridge you say ……more like you have a brittle future at least the opposition has a bridge! Man where they find you jokers…….are BN scraping the bottom of the barrel already?Its too late Kayveas..this time MIC..MCA. .will be completely
wiped out just like the PPP and Gerakan…UMNO as in Selangor will fade away…you jokers didnt realise the world changed dramatically with the information age….this is the period when dinosaur parties will become extinct.

More voters are flocking to Pakatan Rakyat (PR) because they are “worried” by perceived discrimination and prejudice under Barisan Nasional (BN) rule, Datuk Seri M. Kayveas said today.

The People’s Progressive Party (PPP) president said anxiety over these issues is eroding support for the ruling BN coalition, of which his party is a junior member.

“There is this extreme anxiety, and worry … that is making their confidence towards Barisan Nasional slip,” Kayveas said while addressing the party’s annual general meeting (AGM) here.

“The Malays are worried that the Umno Malays aren’t being fair in distributing the wealth.

“The Chinese voters feel that they’re marginalised … with [fewer] opportunities in business and education.

“The Indians feel marginalised in all aspects; they feel that they’re poor even in their own country,” he added.

Kayveas said issues related to the Bumiputera status, such as the special privileges and prioritisation afforded to the group, could cause feelings of discrimination and prejudice among the other communities in Malaysia.

“In every assembly we have to recite doa (prayers), this is only for Muslims but how about non-Muslims? For them to sit there and listen (to the prayers), they could say, ‘this is prejudice’,” Kayveas told reporters.

It is obvious by now that UMNO will never change. Judging from the waves of public protests involving multiracial crowds over the last two years, the determination on the part of a significant segment of Malaysian society to exorcise the ghost of May 13 is unambiguous as well as undisputed.

Still, UMNO’s ruling elite, lacking policy imagination and integrity, will do everything to ensure that the country remains haunted by the racial backlash that happened more than four decades ago.

The choice has become much clearer after Shahrizat Abdul Jalil’s scare tactic at the UMNO General Assembly two days ago: vote Barisan Nasional and see one dignity trampled in perpetuity, or opt for the alternative with a view to overhauling and reshaping Malaysia’s political structure.

None of the speeches by UMNO leaders at the assembly has been inspiring. Shahrizat’s shameless reference to the 1969 national tragedy should be condemned by all in no uncertain terms, yet her party colleagues have failed miserably to assure the general public there would be a peaceful transition of power in the event of regime change.

Muhyiddin Yassin’s warning of chaos should Pakatan Rakyat come to power is indicative of the fact that the highest echelons within UMNO may not rule out the possibility of resorting to extra-constitutional measures, while rule by decree is not a fantasy. It happened in May 1969 under Najib Abdul Razak’s father, and it can happen again.

And what is so special about Najib’s ‘apology’ over BN’s past mistakes that it hascaptured the attention of all the propagandists masquerading as ‘senior journalists’, including Tay Tian Yan of Sin Chew Daily?

Let’s put Najib’s sincerity under the closest scrutiny, The following is exactly what the apprentice prime minister who has been dodging his political opponents and the rakyat in public debate actually said:

“Bumi mana tak ditimpa hujan, laut mana tidak bergelora, bahagian dunia manakah yang wujudnya orang, atau pimpinan, atau persyarikatan atau parti yang tidak pernah tersandung atau tersalah. Di atas segalanya, sebagai kepimpinan parti dan kerajaan, kami menyusun jari nan sepuluh memohon maaf atas kekhilafan.”

The keyword here is ‘kekhilafan’, which means ‘kesilapan’ in colloquial Malay, or ‘omission’ in plain English. One Indonesian dictionary defines it as ‘kesilapan yang tidak disengaja’, or ‘unintentional omission’.

Has Najib shown penance?

Now, can one search one’s own heart and say Najib has indeed shown penance for all the transgressions committed by the BN government over the past few decades? Or does one honestly think the wanton use of all the draconian laws – ranging from the Internal Security Act, the Sedition Act to the Emergency Ordinance – has been unintentional? Or the series of misuse of public funds and the inability to weed out corruption are merely an ‘omission’?

Or the shocking murder of Altantuya Shaariibuu was simply a negligence on the part of the two ‘accused’, a case in which no motive was found for the killing? Or time and again firing teargas into peaceful crowds was just a ‘mistake’?

Furthermore, when Najib asked ‘in which corner of the world is there a leader or a party which has never made a mistake’, he was practically behaving like Jackie Chan. When Chan’s mistress went public with his extra-marital affair more than ten years ago, the movie star ‘apologised’ by arguing that he had just ‘misbehaved’ as any other man in the world would.

Can one take it as a heartfelt apology?

As UMNO’s arrogance and obstinacy are laid bare, the emperor is proven naked again. Portraying Najib as a reformist, as many ‘senior journalists’ have been doing, is a futile attempt, for a real leader must be bold enough to do the impossible, including confronting the conservative forces within the party. Najib has been given more than three years to prove his calibre, but has failed to rise to the challenge at every opportunity.

One may ask: would the alternative be any better given that PAS is bent on implementing its idea of an Islamic state? The fact is, Malaysia’s public institutions – be it Parliament, the Judiciary, the Police Force or the Public service – have been turned into serving only UMNO’s interests. The Malay party could not have maintained its rule for so many years without having first subjugated all these institutions.

The next general election represents a golden opportunity for Malaysians to put the country back on the right track; it is also a chance for us to restore the original spirits of the Malaysian federation by introducing an electoral reform that could ensure no one political party is dominant and also giving powers back to the various federal states, especially Sabah and Sarawak that have been reduced to nothing more than colonies.

To achieve all these noble goals, one must first and foremost stop whining but be courageous enough to get rid of UMNO. Anything short of that would only turn out to be a self-fulfiling prophecy: A centenary of UMNO’s rule.

Washington, DC, can be a strange place. It’s a city where experience is considered paramount – even if that experience sometimes consists of screaming “Remember The Maine” just before an ill-fated march into Iraq, or picking perhaps the single dumbest person this side of the aurora borealis to be your vice-presidential nominee.

Hence, even after these most impressive achievements, somehow what John McCain says still matters so darn much that the networks fluff the sofa pillows just to his liking each week, as he occupies a Green Room near you for his regular Sunday-morning-media genuflection.

It’s in this atmosphere that we’re now forced to confront a band of enormously wealthy people who’ve benefitted from – or bestowed upon others - large financial bailouts and ill-considered taxcuts who like lecturing Americans living on earned benefits about “shared sacrifice”. As in, you give up a meal each day, and I’ll give up a pair of yacht shoes! Deal?

It is this truth that often goes unreported during discussions of our so-called “fiscal cliff” (besmirching my good name, I might add), a supposed doomsday scenario where the economy will turn into some sort of a combination of the prom scene from Carrie and Fox News’ “1/2 Hour News Hour”, if we don’t all sing kumbaya by year’s end.

Or in the words of the great Peter Venkman “human sacrifice! Dogs and cats, living together! Mass hysteria!”

Meanwhile, back in reality-land, we’re reminded that how people talk about the economy often leads to this madness. As cognitive linguist Anat Shenker outlines in her enormously insightful book, Don’t Buy It: The Trouble With Talking Nonsense About The Economy, the economy isn’t a living, breathing thing. It can’t be hurt. In fact, as Shenker says, the problem is that the debate is still often about “who loves the economy more, when it should be about people”.

Because, you see, people are actually hurt by layoffs, lack of health insurance and the austerity-police, or those plutocrats who’d consider it unclean to fly coach.Consider former Senator Alan Simpson and Wall Street Democrat Erskine Bowles, the travelling clown show of austerity. They wander the land preaching cuts to Social Security and Medicare, netting $40,000 per speech to do it. Or, three years of Social Security benefits. Oh self-awareness – where art thou?

Thankfully, there is reason for optimism, as a number of groups with whom I’ve worked closely, such as Social Security Works and USAction, have led a grassroots effort to point out who’s leading the charge to starve grandma – while wearing their finest Italian suits.

One corporate-funded think-tank, Third Way, has gone so far as to release polling where they whispered the answers they sought from participants. Funny then, that their results don’t line up with numerous surveys nationally and in swing states that show roughly nine in 10 respondents don’t want their Social Security or Medicare cut in any way. Alex Lawson, Executive Director of Social Security Works, recently tried to explain this to Third Way spokes-babbler Jim Kessler, during something meant to be a “debate”.

Polling by USAction also shows what you already knew, that Americans who re-elected President Barack Obama and voted for Democrats to pick up seats in Congress support one of the President’s key positions – allowing tax rates to go back up on the top 2 per cent of income earners, or in monocle-speak, “shared sacrifice”. As Alan Charney, USAction programme director, told me, “Obama won this election on the narrative of raising taxes on the wealthy. It’s a sea change from the last 30 years. And it’s a mandate.”

Of course, it’s not like the wealthiest among us have benefitted from this country (we built that, man!). Well, except for our roads. And our public universities. And that’s right, contract enforcement by the courts. And… I could go on, but then I’d have to steal the entire routine from The Life of Brian.

It seems the President is paying close attention to all this, with his much tougher bargaining stance so far, which is heartening. After all, Obama won “political capital”, as George W Bush put it in 2004, even though our current president prevailed in 2012 by over a million more votes than Bush did in his re-election (and by nearly 50 more electoral votes).

So when it comes to working with those who’d further enrich the jet-owning class, while cutting earned benefits for the middle-class (and below), please Mr President, listen to Mr Bush’s advice, just this once: ”Fool me once, shame on – shame on you. Fool me – you can’t get fooled again.”