Demos By Umno Youth And Hindraf Have Nothing In Common?

Hmmm...have you read the recent article from the local rags about the 2006 demonstration by the Umno Youth have nothing in common with the 2007 Hindraf rally Well, there's a little excerpt from an article from Bernama about it that goes a little like this:

(Bernama: Wednesday, December 12, 2007): Demos by Umno Youth and Hindraf have nothing in common.

Attempts by certain people to equate the demonstration by the Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf) with efforts by Umno to stand for the rights of Palestinians are difficult to be accepted because the gap in their struggles is very wide, like between the earth and the sky.

The public may still remember when Umno Youth vice chief Khairy Jamaluddin and 10,000 other Malaysians of various religions stood together in a wave of anger towards the United States (US) for defending Israel that openly murdered the Lebanese and Palestinians.

The rally on July 28 last year in this capital city, initiated by Umno Youth, finally managed to hand over a memorandum to US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who was here for the Asean Regional Forum (ARF) at the Kuala Lumpur Convention Centre, calling for the world power to broker a ceasefire to end the Israeli military campaign.

Fascinating, isn't it? Perhaps later Bernama can teach us - to put it bluntly - to suck eggs as well.



But going to back to the article, while it can be agreed that these two protests - let us not mince semantics and try to differentiate the Umno Youth protest as an 'effort' - are somewhat divergent, it should be understood that the basic principles underlying these two demonstrations do run parallel to one another.

However, before we go on to its similarities, let us first examine the differences between these two protests, if only to while away our time in bemused silence...

1. The organizers of the protests

While the Hindraf demonstration was organized by an NGO of little repute, the Umno Youth protest was staged by a component wing under the ruling coalition, who numbers were added to by other youth sections of Barisan Nasional component parties.

Of course, while this does not automatically imply that the protest staged by Umno Youth was any less - or more, I might add - relevant than the Hindraf rally, it does imply that by Umno Youth protest was afforded a degree of immunity (or should we say impunity).

Indeed, this question is one that is quite salient, as Khairy Jamaluddin himself frankly admitted that he was afforded certain ‘protections’ as the son-in-law of the premier not too long ago. This in turn beggars the question of the degree of hypocrisy on the part of the government to either vindicate or victimize protests protests it endorses to its personal gain.

2. The 'reception' of the police force

While the Hindraf demonstrators were 'tearfully' embraced with violence, the Umno Youth protesters were seen to be handled with velvet gloves, as they were able to force their way - through a cordon of usually baton happy Federal Reserve Unit (FRU) personnel, I might add – to deliver their memorandum with little or no adverse effects.

Again, this alludes that the Umno Youth protesters were afforded certain immunities, especially in light of the following article from the Star:

(The Star, July 29, 2006): When there was no sign of this happening, Khairy together with about 200 supporters pushed their way past the FRU line.

In the commotion, some supporters, including Khairy, fell. Other police personnel moved in to form a human chain in front of the entrance to the convention centre.
Despite this, Khairy and a handful of supporters managed to get through. They squatted outside the entrance for two hours.

The fact that the Umno Youth protesters were able to stage their protest shortly after Friday prayers - squatting (constipation, izzit?) in the middle of Kuala Lumpur unmolested for three hours - does indeed raise more than a few eyebrows, especially when there were sporadic reports of scuffles between Federal Reserve Unit (FRU) personnel and the protesters.

3. The supposed 'support'

While previous reports in 2006 published by the local rags had numbered the Umno Youth protest at around 2,000 protesters, today’s article has exaggerated that figure to 10,000 protesters.

Right. Freud probably could say something about this obtuse form of masculine anxiety, but as we are not psychoanalysts, perhaps it is best if we were to not to dwell on the unfortunate lack of genitalia endowment of certain individuals or parties who are trying to inflate the number of supporters it has been able to garner.

So, penile insecurities apart, the inflation of this number does show some form of duplicity on the part of the ruling coalition, especially when the ‘official’ number of supporters for the Hindraf rally was quite obviously underplayed.

These three dissimilarities are of course merely the tip of the iceberg. If given sufficient time, it is assured that many of us could all come up with a host of other differences in methodology and mannerisms between these two protests, not the least of which is the burning of a flag of another sovereign nation, and the sheer anger of the Umno Youth protest when contrasted with the entreaties of the Malaysian Indians.

As for the similarities between these two protests, well...

1. The organization of the organizers

There is not much difference between street protests, as they all do run more or less the same rote: get people on the streets, wave banners, shout till you’re hoarse and so forth. Not much difference there, unless you count the Umno Youth protestor’s tendencies to run amok whenever they feel like it without any repercussions.

2. The need for political mileage

Before I go on, please do let me make this stand: the Israeli aggression against Palestine and Palestinians must be fought. Thankfully, many of us are not ignorant of the atrocities committed by the Israeli government which is backed by the United States.

To be honest, if I had known about this protest by the Umno Youths, I too would have taken to the streets in support of this (though if I did stand beside Khairy on any issue I would have required the help of a psychiatrist after that).

However, not all Malaysians are aware of this issue, or its pressing need to be addressed. It has to be admitted that most Chinese and Indian Malaysians are ignorant of the Palestinian struggle, though this is not their fault.

After all, it is a matter of sensitivities, and while many Malay Malaysians have sensitivities that lie in this direction, most Chinese and Indian Malaysians do not. So to say that the protest by the Umno Youth was justifiable merely because it touches on certain matters is - in a country as multiracial as ours - tantamount to crass duplicity, especially when contrasted with the claims that the Hindraf protestors have no justifiable basis to voice their concerns.

3. The basic ideology

That both protests are similar in ideology - to address an injustice that is obvious to its particular creed – is obvious, so to argue over it is again would do no more than quantify the semantics of it all. Both protests were done to highlight an injustice that was perceived by that particular group, the only difference between these two ideologies was that one was internal, and the other external.

Again, I could wax lyrical about the similarities between these two protests, but we will never really get anywhere other than to further divide ourselves to the betterment of others.
So please do allow me to end this on this note: to claim that the Umno Youth protest was more permissible – merely because we sympathize with the plight of the Palestinians - as "the only way to protest against the Israeli aggression" is wrong.

If indeed that this was "the only way to protest against the Israeli aggression", then it must be noted that our government is one that is weak both within and without, and an insult to a nation that once commanded respect - and more than it's fair share of anger - from the international community.

After all, the Umno Youth is component wing under the ruling coalition, and is part and parcel of the government. It is lead by a member of parliament, and has a strong voice within the government and its policies. To add on to that, the rally organizer is the son-in-law of the Premier of the nation, the very Premier who had invited Condoleeza Rice to Malaysia in the first place.

Would it have been so difficult for him to fax the memorandum over to Condoleeza Rice, as Hindraf was ultimately forced to do?

Read more...

Post Hindraf Rally - What now?

I strongly agree with the opinion of this article written by Nuraina A Samad (taken from her blog.)

All said and done, we can now talk about what needs to be done -- post-Hindraf rally.
If we still think that everything in this country is so peachy pink and rosy, then there is something really wrong with us.

On Sunday, I saw unhappiness, anger and desperation walk the streets. I am helpless, I am powerless.

But, let me be clear on one thing though-- I take exception to Uthayakumar's memorandum which, in my humble opinion, is laced with racial overtones and littered with distorted facts, and therefore smacks of blatant racism and bigotry.

His kind of politics will only set us all back, as that of keris-wielding chest thumping ultras in Umno has done. We do not need another racist, another bigot.

His memorandum aside, I see and appreciate the real issue at hand -- the deep sense of being severely marginalised and disenfrachised felt by a sector of Malaysians of Indian origin.
I am so sad that it has come to this state of affairs.

This is not the end of this article. Click here for the whole thing.

Read more...

MPs as RELA Colonels: Feudal Lords in Modern Malaysia?

You know, as much as there are those out there who vehemently detest the government, credit has to be given to the ruling coalition for coming up with some rather 'interesting' suggestions, the most recent of which can be found in today’s Star under the article 'RELA men won’t be armed at immigration depots':

On when MPs would start their duties as Rela Colonels as announced early this year, he [Home Affairs Ministry parliamentary secretary Datuk Paduka Abdul Rahman Ibrahim] said discussions would be held on Dec 17.

"As honorary Colonels, MPs can be advisers to Rela teams in their constituencies and aid them in their activities," he added.

Given the fact that RELA is a military organization, and that MPs - irrespective if they are members of the Parliament or not - are civil servants, shouldn't there be at least some question as to the wisdom of elevating mere civilians to the rank of feudal lords?

Not that I am implying that our ruling coalition is interested in creating feudal lords, or reverting to feudal systems. No, no, no...far from it. It must be, after all, admitted that most of our MPs fall far short of the requirements of a Shogans, and RELA members...well, suffice it to say that while there is the slimmest of possibilities that they might become samurai warriors in their next life, chances are higher that they'll probably be reincarnated as MPs first.

However, irregardless of the shortcomings of individual MPs and RELA, the elevation of MPs as RELA Colonels within their constituencies poses a number of serious questions.

1. Can this be construed as a constituency based militia?
2. Can 'advice' from MPs who are RELA Colonels be taken as 'orders'?
3. Can this be seen as a move by the ruling coalition moving to 'secure' individual constituencies?
4. Can this be seen as a move by the ruling coalition to circumvent current legal and judicial system that is being challenged?

I know, I know...conspiracies, conspiracies. But look at it this way, if the figures from Wikipedia are correct - averaging out 494,145 members of RELA between 219 members of Parliament elected from single-member constituencies - then on average, 2,300 members of RELA will come under the purview of each individual MP.

While many would scoff that RELA is a military organisation by the barest of definitions, it's members are still essentially soldiers, albeit badly trained and equipped. And no matter how poor their training is, or how outdated their equipment, members of RELA enjoy a host of 'responsibilities' and 'privileges' beyond that of conventional police and military forces.

Like the 'Fingermen' from the movie V for Vendetta, RELA members are in effect empowered beyond conventional law enforcement, and worse, are not individually accountable for their actions. Under Essential (Ikatan Relawan Rakyat) (Amendment) Regulations 2005, Essential (Pasokan Kawalan) Regulations 1966, and Emergency (Essential Powers) Act 1964, RELA members - in the words of the Malaysian Bar – have the right:

"...to bear and use firearms, stop, search and demand documents, arrest without a warrant, and enter premises without a warrant and all these powers can be exercised (if) the RELA personnel has reasonable belief that any person is a terrorist, undesirable person, illegal immigrant or an occupier..."

Now imagine that kind of authority invested in 2,300 members of RELA - who are essentially soldiers - under one MP.

If that is not an impressive constituency based militia worthy of a feudal lord, I don’t know what is.

And lets not forget that not all militias are created equal. After all, in some constituencies, the number of RELA members may run up to tens of thousands, while in others the numbers may range somewhere in the tens or twenties. Will this imbalance mean that some MPs in some constituencies – possibly even all - will encourage a conscription drive to recruit more and more members for RELA, to enlarge their militias, and become greater feudal lords?
So is this the face of things to come? Will conscripting RELA members become the preference amongst our future feudal lords?

After all, why should MPs bother going through normal channels when they are able to invoke upon the discretionary powers of RELA to enforce whichever lark that takes their fancy? And why should the government be even bothered to hire and train professional policemen when they are able to pay RM 4.00 per hour (to any RELA member out there, I hear McDonalds pays RM5.00 per hour) to a RELA member who only needs 3-14 days training for a cheaper supply of 'law enforcement officials'?

With some work and a lot of luck, the ruling coalition may even get to jettison the tedious micromanagement of constituencies, reverting all of us back to the good 'ol Middle Ages. So instead of wrangling in Parliament, our feudal lords can while away their time by collecting taxes and hanging up 'Most Wanted' posters of prominent opposition leaders, though they'll need to share their ill gotten gains later to the crown...er, I mean government.

Hmmm...say, don't they already do that now?

Read more...

Hindraf: Takde permit, takde jalan

The local rags have really outdone themselves yesterday. In less time that it would take Benito Mussolini to comb his hair, articles with such memorable headlines as ‘Inflammatory entries’, ‘IGP: They'd no intent to give memo’, 'Use existing forums to voice problems', ‘Govt won't allow rally to turn into racial issue’ were printed, bundled and disseminated across the by the NST.

Not to be outdone, the Star went the extra mile to add those little touches with ‘Muhyiddin: Other races have poor too’, ‘Cops forced to use tear gas, water cannons’, ‘Change must come from within ourselves’, ‘PM: Police had to take action’, and my personal favorite, ’Ka Ting braves Hindraf crowd to attend function’.

Yes, it must be admitted that MCA president Datuk Seri Ong Ka Ting does indeed posses an fine set of jewels.

Though Datuk Seri Ong Ka Ting should be quite used to dealing with rowdy crowds, given his stints at the Dewan Rakyat, it takes a real man to brave a crowd of 10,000 men and women, regardless if they are made up of Indians, Chinese or Malays…well, maybe if they are made up of Indians.

After all, there could be a cache of todi being secreted in those voluminous orange robes that the protesters were wearing, which could be taken out to be randomly imbibed or thrown at discreet couples holding more than their hands in and around the KLCC area.

What? No orange robes? Well, maybe those caches of todi were hidden anally, like how most politicians are able to hide the truth. After all, where do you think those Molotov cocktails came from? It is not like the Malaysian police were handing out crates of the stuff - or C4 explosives - to random passersby with their blessings.

Really, in light of that revelation, who really cares about the fact that the participants of Hindraf protest have a democratic right to take to the streets of Kuala Lumpur, a democratic right that is enshrined in our Federal Constitution, and strengthened by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the 1993 Vienna Declaration.

Let us not forget the big picture of a peaceful Malaysia where its citizens may enjoy their rights by shutting up and sitting down - and occasionally bending over a cup of todi – while chanting outloud ‘Takde permit, takde jalan’.

Read more...

Proton: Pride Goeth Before A Fall

In newsstands throughout the country, the New Straits Times carried the headlines 'Strong sales, so Proton drops partner option', while The Star went head to head about the same topic with 'Govt: Proton has turned the corner, does not need foreign partner'.

After a year of prolonged - and obviously arduous - discussions, it appears that the state owned Proton Holdings Bhd has decided to rebuff possible alliances with Volkswagen AG and General Motors Corp.

The reason? Proton is getting stronger all by its lonesome, thank you very much (editor: really? some evidence say otherwise) as implied by our most popular of local dailies:

(The Star: Wednesday, November 21,2007): The negotiations for Proton between Khazanah and two major international car manufacturers - Volkswagen and General Motors - have been called off.

Second Finance Minister Tan Sri Nor Mohamed Yakcop said there would be no foreign partner for Proton for the time being as the national car manufacturer was showing signs of a turnaround.

(The NST: Wednesday, November 21, 2007): Proton Holdings has ended all negotiations for a possible tie-up with Germany's Volkswagen AG and the US-based General Motors Corp.

The national carmaker will not be seeking a foreign partner for now, given an improvement in its sales and exports, Khazanah Holdings Bhd, Proton's main shareholder and the investment arm of the government, said in a statement yesterday.

While it cannot be denied that such an overt display of support for the local industry is to be applauded, Bloomberg.com has published a similar story, "Proton Shares Post Record Decline as VW Talks End."

(Bloomberg.com: Wednesday, November 21, 2007): Proton Holdings Bhd, Malaysia's state-owned carmaker, posted a record one-day decline in Kuala Lumpur trading after the government ended alliance talks with Volkswagen AG and General Motors Corp.

Proton slumped 19 percent after Malaysia's state investment unit yesterday said it scrapped a year of talks to give the carmaker more time to reverse five quarters of losses. A strategic alliance can be considered later if necessary", the agency said in a statement.

The Edge Daily had only two days earlier carried the story "Proton to attract attention on imminent VW deal", inferring that the strengthening of Proton's stock was predominantly due to investor interest between Proton and Volkswagen AG:

(The Edge Daily: Monday, November 19, 2007): Proton Holdings Bhd is expected to continue attracting investors’ attention in view of an impending sealing of an agreement with Germany’s carmaker Volkswagen AG (VW).

The stock rose as much as 18 sen last Friday, but eased at the close with an
eight sen gain to RM5, with a total of 2.65 million shares traded.

Researchers and analysts postulate that the decision to shelve a strategic alliance or partnership with an established international company may be detrimental to the long term sustainability of Proton, as shown in the following excerpts from Bloomberg.com's article:

"Proton lacks global competitiveness as it has a poor brand image, has no real global presence to speak of and lacks the necessary technology to compete," Sharifah Farah, an analyst at CIMB Investment Bank Bhd.

"They don't have the resources to make it on their own," said Raymond Tang, who oversees $5.4 billion at CIMB-Principal Asset Management Bhd. in Kuala Lumpur. "The company needs new technology from a partner."

"Although management has done a commendable job at turning around the company, it probably won't be enough," said Vincent Khoo, head of research at Aseambankers Malaysia Bhd. in Kuala Lumpur. Proton still needs a partner, he said.

After the publicised loss of RM500 million incurred by Proton at the end of its financial year on March 31, where the car manufacturer was said by some to be in a "death spiral", detractors are now decrying this decision as a case of "Pride goeth before a fall".

Read more...

I Cannot Tell a Lie

Nearly 300 years ago, a six year old boy was supposed to have uttered the words, "I cannot tell a lie, I cut the tree". His name was George Washington, and he grew up to be an American President.

This tale has been told and retold to underscore two points: firstly, it serves as a reminder to all parents that it is quite unwise to allow children to run amok with sharp axes or hatchets, and secondly, it shows that honesty and integrity are values to be treasured in any person, more so when that person is in a position of social or political importance.

While American historians still argue about the veracity of that tale, we should all feel honored that we ourselves have our own version of this tale, though with a decidedly Malaysian twist.

In recent statements, the Election Commission (EC) chairman Tan Sri Abdul Rashid Abdul Rahman quoted George Washington almost in verbatim, and affirmed the fact that he knew when the next general election would be held:

The Star (Friday, November 16, 2007): Election Commission chairman Tan Sri Abdul Rashid Abdul Rahman has indicated that he knows when the next general election will be called.

"I can’t lie to you that I don’t know when the next general election will be held," he said.

As the position as the EC chairman comes with a certain degree of responsibility, there were many in this fair land who did not doubt that Tan Sri Abdul Rashid Abdul did indeed know the dates. After all, as the EC chairman, his position warrants him to be a man that emphasizes strict adherence to duty and sacrifice.

However, the fact that he had the gumption to publicly announce that he knew the dates for the general dates - when even Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak was in the dark about this issue - raised more than a few curious eyebrows, leading to whispering in dark corners of possible collusion between the ruling coalition and an independent and impartial election commission.

Thanfully, our beloved Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi himself rose to the forefront of this with a none too gentle rebuke to Tan Sri Abdul Rashid Abdul Rahman, and this did much to disabuse many a conspiracist theorist of any possible allegation of collusion:

The Star (Monday, November 19, 2007): Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said the power to dissolve Parliament is exclusively his.

The Prime Minister said it was not possible for Election Commission chairman Tan Sri Abdul Rashid Abdul Rahman to know when the next general election would take place.

"How would he know? I have yet to dissolve Parliament to pave the way for the elections. It's I who will decide when to have Parliament dissolved," he said at a press conference after his visit to the Islamic Civilisation Park in Pulau Wan Man here yesterday.

A day later, Tan Sri Abdul Rashid publicly retractment his admission - though oddly enough this seemed to have only appeared in the Sun - saying that he did not indeed know the dates for the next general election:

The Sun (Tuesday, 20 November 2007): After getting some flak for saying he knows when the next general election will be held, Election Commission chairman Tan Sri Abdul Rashid Abdul Rahman yesterday backtracked and said that he did not know the dates.

He said the EC will only set the election campaign period and polling date after the King has approved the dissolution of Parliament.

"Curiouser and curiouser", as Alice in Wonderland would say.

Indeed, it is quite curious that the EC chairman to have even made that statement in the first place, much less know the dates (if he did indeed know). Had Tan Sri Abdul Rashid deliberately misled the public about this matter, or had the reporters perhaps jumped the gun on this? If the former, then it would not be the first time that his detractors have accused him of this:

The Sun (March 28, 2007): Election Commission (EC) chairman Tan Sri Abdul Rashid Abdul Rahman was criticised today for a recent statement in which he challenged opposition parties to bring him to court if they thought the commission was unfair or not transparent.

The Coalition for Clean and Fair Elections (Bersih) also questioned Abdul Rashid for saying the EC’s role was not to make law.

Repeating earlier calls for Abdul Rashid to resign, coalition spokesman Sivarasa Rasiah described his statement as “misleading” as he had ignored recent developments where the courts had addressed the role of the EC and the process and conduct of elections.

If the latter, then it should be the reporters who should be bent over for misleading the public, and possibly defaming the character of Tan Sri Abdul Rashid. Yes, perhaps this explanation would fit best, since most of us cannot in good conscience say that Tan Sri Abdul Rashid was caught in a lie, any more than I can say that it was our beloved Prime Minister was the one lying.

Or does this misunderstanding - or perhaps a misquote - bode for darker deeds?

Conspiracy theorists in Malaysia are naturally having a field day with this issue - an alleged collusion between an independent and impartial election commission with that of the ruling coalition - especially with the latest news that the tenure for the EC chairman may be extended for another year, as shown below:

The Star (Tuesday, November 20, 2007): Election Commission (EC) chairman Tan Sri Abdul Rashid Abdul Rahman may stay on for another year following the proposed amendment to the Federal Constitution to extend the retirement age of EC members from 65 to 66.

Scheduled to retire on Dec 31 as he reaches 65, Abdul Rashid now has the option of staying on one more year because the bill states that the new age of retirement applies to a member of the EC appointed after the coming into operation of the proposed act.

That this bill is tabled by Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Datuk Seri Nazri Abd Aziz, and that the extension of the tenure of Tan Sri Abdul Rashid into the coming election year requires that our already badly tattered Federal Constitution be amended, is sure to further stoke the flames of conspiracy theorists far and wide.

But as Tan Sri Abdul Rashid so passionately put it, "If they will show me evidence that the commission has rigged elections, then I will – in fact, all members of the commission – will resign" (The Star, Tuesday, November 20 2007), conspiracy theories can only go so far without proof.

I'm not sure George Washington would have approved.

Read more...

9 November 2007 - The Anticipation

Remember, remember the 10th November...

Today is the 9th of November. I expect a sleepless night tonight as I anticipate tomorrow's BERSIH march at Dataran Merdeka at Kuala Lumpur's capital. My significant other got cold feet and was rethinking the genius of attending the march saying that the announcement by the PDRM (there will be arrests) is making him concerned about my safety.

My question is this, Then who's responsibility is it to attend this gathering?

Surely, it's everyone's responsibility. Well, isn't it? Isn't this a sacrifice we all must make? Or should we leave it to the man who has less to lose, to make that sacrifice? Anyway, who's to say which one of us has 'less to lose'? Should we leave it to the office runner who has no dependents? Should we leave it to the bus conductor who has no wife and children? Should we leave it to the executive who does not contribute to the household, therefore deeming him dispensable?

The correct answer: NO.

Next question, Who benefits from this expression of our democratic right?

All of us. We all do. So where is our sacrifice? Is it fair to 'sacrifice' those who we think are 'expendable'? Do we really deserve this benefit if we didn't sacrifice for it in the first place?

Third question, Say, this rally helped in changing Malaysia for the better, wouldn't you want to have a part in it?

Think about it.

Read more...

Is Malaysia just another syarikat swasta?

Recently, i was talking to my good friend Norm about making some money by starting up a business here. We were both at one of the lowest point in our lives then because we were penniless, jobless among other things. Both de-motivated and depressed about our 'nasib' (luck), we barely had enough to pay for our teh tariks. Yes, it was bad.

Here, i have to apologize to all of you because my question to Norm was kinda dumb at this point. I must have been a 'katak bawah tempurung' (frog under a coconut shell - ignorant) to not know the answer to my own question.

I was looking at my water bill. Just staring at it when that stupid stupid question popped out of my silly mouth.

"Eh, our water is run by a private company ah? How come it says here 'sendirian berhad' (private limited)?"

Alamak, I knew it was a dumb question the moment that slimy question hawked itself out.

Norm said;

"Well, in Malaysia, everything is privatized, didn't you know? Water, power even sewerage my friend."

Fuh, i was glad he didn't go into his long speeches about what a badly managed government we have. You see, he tends to get riled up when we talk about these things.

Uh-oh.

"It is my personal belief that if we have more than one privatized service provider, it is fair because the consumer has options to choose from. However, in Malaysia, we give one company, or even worse, one individual the right to monopolize the utilities and infrastructure and get rich at the consumer's expense."

"Example is Puncak Niaga, a water monopoly, that makes one individual, Rozali Ismail, rich and put us consumers at his mercy. In Europe, utility companies like E.ON and others like it exist on a competitive basis unlike here in Malaysia. Malaysia has a one-sided view on privatization and normally the government's view tends to only benefit the cronies who actually get the concessions."

He's started dah...Here we go...

"Power, water and sewerage, highways, fixed line telcos and many more, are privatized monopolies. The reality is: We are being robbed! If everything is being privatized at OUR expense, why do we need a government? It's like we are giving people money to start a business. We should rule ourselves since we're paying for it anyways.

"We're really being short-changed because not only are we paying for everything, we are also told what we can or cannot do by the so-called government. In a true free-market economy, purchasing power rules but in Malaysia the consumers are at the mercy of the government."

Hmmm... interesting isn't it? Firstly, water, power and sewerage are necessities that we as people need. If not, would you drink the water from your local sungai/lombong? Would you really be able to survive with just your lilin or lampu minyak tanah? Most importantly, if you couldn't flush the toilet, where would you do your 'business'? The government should be managing this, not individuals or private companies, in my opinion. They said, "the reason why we privatized is to give better services to the consumers." Huh? What does that say about our government's level of service? Why not just increase the government's level of service?

I then jokingly suggested that we insert ourselves, become cronies and start something (like start a telco..yes,yes i was just dreaming away) so that we can finally pay for our own teh tariks.

"My advice for anyone with money is to venture outside Malaysia. If we had money to run a water, power, telco or even a highway concessionaire, they'll turn us down before we even start by rejecting our license to operate. Remember, ours is a heavily regulated economy.. but they can bend the rules or even close one eye when it comes to their cronies."

Sometimes i wonder why some segments from other races think that malays are 'privileged' because we get to tender for some licenses/contracts. Let me tell you, this ruling only benefits the cronies. The rest of us are in the same boat. We (malays, chinese and indians) should all realize this and demand some form of positive change or at least transparency from our government. None of us are benefiting from this, only 'the cronies' or 'the toilet papers' (used to wipe certain areas).

"For example: DiGi is a reputable telco provider with reputable shareholders from Norwegian Telecom, that had their 3G license rejected 2 years ago because of fear of competition when the market already had 2 major players.

"BUT! National conman Tajuddin Ramli started his cellular company Celcom back in the 80s with no license for the first 5 years and he wasn't shut down! And to make it worse? Celcom was a monopoly until 1995. Where's the logic? PakLah memang najis, but Mahathir made the country the mess it is today."

Do you think he has a point?

It was almost 6 months ago we had this conversation. Now we're both doing better. I've ventured into business, Norm's thinking of migrating somewhere. He thinks this country is beyond repair the way things are unraveling now ...but knowing him, I think he was just depressed.

As for me, I'm still here, trudging along. I have faith in this country. More than that, I have faith in the people. I think if we stick together, we can change things for the better. The hard part is getting off our asses and putting on our shoes. It's the first step that's the hardest. Thing is, never give up and never give in. We Malaysians should know that we deserve better because we do. Don't be intimidated or let our low self esteem trick us into thinking that this is the best we can do.

Let's get off our asses, put on our shoes and join the walk, people..

3pm, Saturday, 10 November 2007
Dataran Merdeka (walk to Istana Negara)
Preferably wear anything yellow.

Read more...