It is in the nature of individuals and groups to compete for dominance, influence and power, and there is no particular reason why politicians of DAP – or for that matter other component parties of PR- will, more than other politicians of (say) the ruling coalition, transcend this quite ordinary human trait.

Before 308, this trait was more subdued because there was less to fight over.

Competition tended to be cooperative (to promote the principles of the respective parties and their common cause to reach Putrajaya) than destructive between contenders.

Now, even if Putrajaya has not been reached, yet it is still different from before. Selangor and Perak over which DAP has strong influence are both rich states. States under our Federal constitution have jurisdiction over land matters : there’s a lot of value in monetary terms in alienation of state land, in mining and logging concessions etc. There are posts in SEDCs, municipal councils, district councils etc with perks and influence. There also some licenses eg District Forest Offices’ licences for logging, licenses for inland riverine fishing and aquaculture. The state municipal councils are responsible for licensing and renewal of licences for pubs, restaurants, entertainment outlets spas, karaoke and KTV lounges.

With power over all these will naturally nurture big ambitions that come with power from one’s own party, one of the ways by which is to control and help form new branches whose members naturally owe allegiance to the politician forming them whose power base within the party then is correspondingly strengthened. Businessmen needing the licences will also give whatever assistance necessary in the politician’s electoral campaign. Tender board and CAT notwithstanding, the practice of recommendation letters persisted when issued under cover of “good faith”.

The challenge for PR’s politicians is to keep a lid on all these ambitions, there is still more incentive to keep such a lid, at least for the time being, to contain within party’s precincts the factionalism in order to preserve the momentum of electoral goodwill of voters fed up with blatant abuses by politicians of the ruling coalition, unimpeded by power for last 40 years….Hence the gag order though Kulasegaran argues that “open discussions of problems within political parties should be allowed to ensure healthy political growth and would enrich the democratic process of the party in the eyes of voters”. But this is no good for image, so the gag, though there is no tinge of inconsistency if the BN were blamed for being not transparent when it imposes its gag order.

Politicians are politicians, whichever side of the divide, their main objective is to persuade – and some say deceive – the people that their interest is being fought for, in order to get their trust and their votes and be vested the power to do what one desires, whether for one’s own or one’s own clique’s interest or the people’s interest or mostly a combination of all. The ruling party controlling the much larger national resources at federal level is all out to dislodge the Opposition from the states to deny its politicians the resources of the state that make the latter stronger by the day threatening to take over at Federal level. It is vry much a competition of resources on winner takes it all basis. People can trust Civil society and NGOs more because these fight for causes and special interest than for power to control these resources. Malaysian civil society and NGOs that support the Opposition to be what it is today will I am sure keep an eye on its politicians’ behaviour if it comes to power. That’s the time BN in the opposition will come out with all the enlightened policies to try convince the people why PR is corrupt and abusive of power and try get Civil society’s support and the cycle turns the opposite way going through the same motions. Thats why Tunku says history will repeat itself…

Typo error – “I argue here that people and citizenry of a new nation cannot be taught to develop ethics if the nation and the Constitution are conceived based on INEQUALITY of men in the first instance”.

For the first idea of equality of men is interwoven with the other idea of equal justice between men!

If there were a legal and constitutional presumption of equality of opportunities amongst citizenry, then a lot of things will ensue from there, for examples, equal respect between men.

Every man, as is natural, has an ambition to do well, get financial rewards, and with it, love and respect from both men and women and so on…but how does he fulfill this ambition and wish?

If it were based on equality between men, it means distribution of rewards and burdens in society will be based on equality of opportunities in which men could realise their ambitions if they do two things : (a) put in an extra effort to win by merits in order to get the rewards and (b) avoid the burden and punishment by not doing anti social and unethical acts. In short, assume personal responsibility to reap rewards or suffer loss and punishment that society distributes.

However once the system of reward and burden is drawn not along these lines (a) and (b) but drawn on race, religion and creed then it breeds a sense of entitlement by the group privileged by race, religion and creed and sense of alienation of the other group excluded.

The first group does not assume responsibility, to get the rewards based on work ethos/ethic and merits but based on status from race, religion and creed. This soon overlaps to status based on political/social power, so that people of right status of social/political power (whether politician of the party in power, the right social status with datukship, the right connections) feel entitled to abuse their positions whilst the second marginalised group has no stake either, thinking that the reason why they continue tolerate being in such inferior position is only to make money by whatever means, the be all and end all (including to adopt the ways and acquire the statuses of the first group wherever possible)……..

Moral and ethical action is one that believes whilst benefiting oneself one harms not others or the interest of the wider group.

I don’t think our system fosters such beliefs at all, indeed quite the opposite.. We see selective application of laws and rules. Everything is unequal drawn, the inequality drawn not on a rational differentia. When people perceive such, the welfare and legitimate interest of others come not to the fore but pushed right to the far background. They start thinking if they don’t selfishly think of their own interest who will think for them when there is no equality or justice in the system? Soon from individuals to generation, the present generation forgets obligations towards the future generation(s) in respect of economic and even living conditions. If there’s money in Petronas or EPF, timber in rain forests, money in smelting metal ores, we take and use them now and don’t care whether next generation inherits a bankrupt nation (when oil is depleted), denuded of forest with polluted and toxic environment.

To fight for rights of its constituency MCA depends on UMNO for permission, at least that’s how it sounds to me per NST report 11th Oct –

(Quote) “Barisan Nasional chairman Datuk Seri Najib Razak yesterday said MCA must be given space to voice the needs and aspirations of the Chinese community. Failure to do so, he said, might cost BN support in the next general election. “The Chinese, especially the young, may not believe you are fighting for their interests at all. ..Unless you give room to MCA to speak out, how can we expect them to deliver in the next general election?” Najib said to thunderous applause from delegates attending MCA’s 57th annual general assembly here. (Unquote)

Why should anyone give such “thunderous applause”?

What does that mean? It does not sound like a permanent right to speak. More like a temporary privilege to do so for limited purpose of the next GE!

Does it mean that after MCA’s candidates win in the GE, UMNO can stop that “space and latitude” to MCA as it has served its purpose?

It looks like whether MCA can talk or cannot talk depends on big brother.

Now how does one convince “the Chinese, especially the young” that MCA is fighting for their interests when it needs (temporary) permission for “space and latitude” to speak in the interest of BN for GE, which is quite different thing apart from speaking in the interest of their inherent rights, per se?