WHAT DID YOU SEE AND WHEN DID YOU KNOW IT? UMNO ON THE VERGE OF SELF-DECIMATION?

“In my opinion the last five years, 2008 2o13, have been the least productive and most partisan and uncompromising in MALAYSIAN here.” – both political and media — being a “moderate” or a “centrist” or a “pragmatist” is synonymous with the ability to “get things done.” Yet, according to the SUARA KEADILAN MALAYSIA, this coming election result in “a thinning of pragmatic, centrist veterans in both parties,” It’s the sort of boilerplate quote that’s found in virtually every piece about our current political landscape, a sentiment so common that we barely even notice it anymore. But we should, because it’s also the real problem in a nutshell: the assumption, unexamined and taken as gospel by most of Washington, that the solutions to our major problems are somehow to be magically found by splitting the difference in the middle. It’s the result of an old left-right way of thinking that is increasingly outdated. Arthur Schlesinger, who coined the phrase “the vital center” more than half a century ago to describe the common ground between fascism and communism that the phrase had been reduced to signify nothing more than the “middle of the road.” In fact, many of the problems we’re facing were created by just the sort of bipartisan compromise rhapsodized about by much of the media. For instance, as proof of how much less “moderate” — and thus further away from “solutions” -Obviously, there are many challenges facing our country today, but they are not going to be solved through middle-of-the-road, split-the-difference compromises. That’s how many of the challenges were created, or allowed to grow unfettered, in the first place. Big problems require big solutions. I’m not suggesting that compromise is never needed, but compromise is the final step in a negotiation, not the first one. The first one is for leaders with strong convictions to fight for them
Malaysia do not belong only to UMNO or BN. Stop telling the rakyat what to do with their votes. Stop your warning and threat to us, just deliver and we will decide your future. Stop telling us BN & UMNO are both God’s chosen parties. Stop the plunder and blinding us with your ambiguous talk.Another empty talk void of substance. You keep saying real changes are happening but you don’t even detail what and how you are going to change. What did you do in this AGM to inspire the Rakyat and bring hope? Nothing! Just hot air, slander and telling your troops to love you! You must be so vain…UMNO has been on a slippery slope of corruption, racism, fraud and usury ever since 1988, when UMNO-palsu ousted UMNO-asli and in the process destroying our justice system. As Najib’s term has proved, his talk of change is merely lip service.

The truth is you refuse to change. You can’t because your very existence depends on the way you operate today – through corruption, cronyism, nepotism, deception, lies, plundering…you intend to change. To be fair, ETP is all great but, for this to be sustainable, we need to be inclusive, fair and progressive to ALL Malaysians. No more special status, no more corruption, no more racial politics and no more misuse of religion for political gain. It’s HIGH time for us to back to what’s universally good back to our table i.e. the noble values of being impartial, hardworking, innovative, modern and tolerate with one another. Where are these values when everyday we see politicians segregates people based on gender/race and even corrupt like no day-light? We cannot afford for politicians who benefit the most while the people suffer regardless of what race they’re. This issue of special rights is not only unfair but it’s not sustainable. We need to develop an approach where special help is given to the Malaysians who NEED – period. Who cares what race they are as long as they’re not cronies who use this as a tool for them to benefit even more from their already RICH status due to decades of corruption. Lastly, no we have no issue of vision 2020 and honestly, had the country took the right and fair path 20 years ago, we would have achieved developed status 10 years ago, how about vision 2000 – completed? 

That is what you are..

So who should change Sir? PPP? MCA? MIC?GERAKAN? How to change? What to change? Change to what? I don’t see any for the last 5 days……….. it was just talk, criticize, condemn, curse….. Just like what happened in the past, repeating year after year, after year……….PBS? PBRS?
GIVE BN MORE TIME…. We all have given 55 years to you. What do you give us…? Begging for votes and give you another 55 years…? We had enough… __Stop bashing the opposition the UBAH UBAH UBAH slogan…. You had your JANJI DITEPATI slogan and 1 Malaysia concept…and the opposition seldom bash BN for that. Be fair….!!!__Opposition might be bad, but at least they have proof that whatever implement by BN has backfire. Example, this Felda Global Joint Venture….opposition said it is a bad move, which is true and BN blames them. MAS, Proton…all are using RAKYAT’s money to bail out…in fact they are bankrupt companies. Joint ventures between Air Asia and MAS…what happenned???__BN and PAKATAN maybe telling lies to RAKYAT…but BN is telling more lies and wont listen to Public views. BN is only interested in making money from Rakyat and getting their pockets filled. Examplel AES cameras for traffic is a very good system to avoid accidents and speedings. But BN took it as business and gain profits for themselves. What about APs…? Who is gaining from all this?__Najib, had your opportunity to say and proof what you are going to say during UMNO general assembly. The RAKYAT seems not bitting senseless accusation.Blaming others and merely bashing the opposition is what his leadership is good at. He only hear screaming, accusations and proclamations in the last assembly. We didn’t hear of any strategic change? Why don’t exhibit some real change for starters. We will be quite pleased if you can even solve NFC and PKFZ.

One swallow, famously, does not make a summer, but when an ideological bird peeps out from the bush, it is time to check the thermometer for possible signs of climate change. Nor was this bird plumed in saffron. When more than three decades ago Syed Shahabuddin left a commendable career in the Indian Foreign Service to enter politics, he chose an attire in Islamic green. That hue has not changed. So when he writes a letter to Narendra Modi, the one contemporary politician Muslims love to hate, it is news.

Which is more relevant: the letter, or the controversy that ensued? No-brainer. Protest is a familiar story; the communication is new. In any case, the “clarification” that Shahabuddin issued was about the letterhead, not the letter. He merely acknowledged that he should not have used institutional notepaper; he did not deny the contents.

What did he say? “Muslim voters see some signs of change in your attitude,” Shahabuddin wrote to Modi, noting the special attention that Modi had been paying to Muslim voters on the eve of the Gujarat assembly polls. Then followed a 10-point demarche demanding apology, compensation and justice as the last mile towards absolution.

Two significant points emerge. A recognised leader from the radical spectrum of Indian Muslim politics has publicly accepted, for the first time, that Modi is stretching a hand towards Muslims instead of giving them the finger. The demarche confirms that as far as Shahabuddin is concerned the relationship with Modi has moved from non-negotiable to negotiable.

Sir James Bevan, the British high commissioner who called on Modi in October to signal a truce after a decade of hostility, should be pleased. This is precisely what he was trying to suggest.

Why is Modi’s reach slowly seeping into demographic regions once considered beyond the pale? He has three assets that cut across traditional political parameters. He is synonymous with decisive governance at a time when people are tired of dither and confusion. Indian voters want soft power in Bollywood, not Delhi. (If Mrs Indira Gandhi were seeking re-election today, she would win 400 seats.) Second, Modi is not tainted by accusations of personal corruption despite his excellent working equation with industrialists. Third, the young believe that he will give them jobs. Shahabuddin ends his letter with mention of development, education and employment for Muslims.

Why is he writing to Modi about employment rather than to Dr Manmohan Singh? Muslims helped elect Dr Singh, not Modi. But they have waited eight years for Congress to deliver on jobs and got nothing apart from that meaningless promise of reservations which was such a staple of election speeches written for Rahul Gandhi during this year’s UP campaign. The percentage of Muslims employed by the Gujarat government, in contrast, is close to the population share of the community in the state. There are, in addition, private sector jobs to choose from. Gujarat also has more Muslim constables in police stations than any other state. This is the kind of decision which boosts confidence; and no one needs reassurance more than Muslims in Gujarat who went through hell ten years ago.

Were it not for those riots, Shahabuddin just might have urged Muslims to vote for Modi by this time. The riots remain Modi’s Achilles’ heel, and he recognises this dangerous vulnerability. India wants a leader who can deliver jobs, price stability and 10% growth, but none of these is possible without social peace. As long as Modi cannot convince Muslims that they will be safe under his watch, he will only be a claimant to the throne, not an occupant. His task is set.

Is it impossible? Congress ruled Delhi in 1984 when police looked the other way while around 5,000 Sikhs were massacred by mobs in the capital. The count across the country was much higher. Congress leaders who led the mobs and held back the police were rewarded with high office, which continues to this day; and Delhi’s magnificent police still cannot frame a convincing case to send Sajjan Kumar to jail. In comparison, the judicial process in Gujarat has sent some of the guilty to prison. But Sikhs have moved on.

As the proverb about the swallow indicates, nature is a cycle of seasons. Political nature is seasonal as well. In 1992, 20 years ago this week, Muslim anger soared when Congress slept while the Babri mosque was being demolished, and snored through the subsequent riots. In 2004, Muslims mobilised to ensure a Congress victory; and gave it a second chance in 2009. Today’s mood seems more reminiscent of 1967, when Muslims spurned Congress and shifted to third parties even though there was no clear alternative anchor.

Any thaw demands the sunshine of spring. There is certainly a spring in Modi’s step, but he needs much more warmth to melt the Muslim mood.

Controversies over tweets and Facebook posts are nothing new. It’s been there for over a decade, ever since the advent of web 2.0 that gave us tools to publish, broadcast and telecast whatever we wanted to tell the world. Earlier, controversies were around blog posts. There have been numerous cases of netizens losing jobs, being served legal notice for defamation, threatened, forced to take down posts etc.

Information — an objective statement of fact or a biased personal view — exists either in the private or public domain. When only known number of people are aware of what is said or discussed, then that is in the private domain. For example, letters, phone calls, emails, SMSs etc between two people or amongst a group of people. But, when communication happens amongst countless number of people, it is in the public domain. And that’s where all the problems lie.

Earlier, defamation and libel cases were only related to what was published in books, magazines or newspapers or what was broadcast on radio or telecast on television. Most of the communication then was in the private domain. But today, arguably, we spend a lot of time talking to the world at large — uploading status messages and comments, besides pictures and videos. Perhaps what is forgotten in the process is, there is a huge number of people — most of them strangers, unlike in the private domain — reading and listening to what is being said.

There is an old adage: “My freedom ends where your freedom begins”. This makes eminent sense when two people communicate with each other, or in such private-domain interactions, where “I” and “you” are known entities. But does this adage hold good in today’s changed communication paradigm?

Facebook has come to symbolize the new communication structure — a lot of supposedly private and personal information and views are broadcast, knowingly or unknowingly, to the whole world in the public domain. The virtually unbridled freedom of expression that everyone has to express their views has forced us to adopt a new way to tackle the torrent of comments.

Facebook is also about a new freedom of choice — where you choose to ignore. When friend requests from people  you aren’t quite bothered about come, ignore. If for some reason, you are compelled to add them, then make list of people you want to follow, and ignore the rest. There is the ‘hide’ option, where you can choose not to see the types of posts you don’t like. You can customize the news feed option: choose to ignore what you don’t like.

Where is the compulsion to read and react to everything in the public domain? Ignore. Just as I may not make favourable comments always, why should I make unfavourable comments whenever I see something I don’t like? Ignore.

Inundated with so much information in the public domain, the freedom of choice that I seem to exercise nowadays is to ignore. There may be limits to freedom to my expression; but thankfully, no one has curtailed my freedom to ignore. That’s an absolute freedom I enjoy.