by Loh Meng Kow
Zainuddin, the Minister of (dis) Information said the government rejected the concept of democracy promoted by the West, with street demonstrations being part of the democratic process. “Have the countries with frequent street demonstrations managed to achieve the prosperity and stability that we enjoy? Most of these countries are mired in conflicts or chaos,” he stressed.
The Prime minister said that the silent majority had spoken that they were against demonstration. Yes, the people who took part in street demonstrations did not prefer to do it, if they did not consider it important that they took part to call government attention. They demonstrated because that was the only way that attention could be drawn to the wrongs perpetuated by the government. The way to stop demonstrating is to govern with fairness in the interest of the nation, and not in personal interests, so that the citizens do not find the need to demonstrate. The approach adopted in declaring street demonstrations illegal, charging participants for high crimes would see fewer demonstrations. But unless the problems which the people were calling attention are resolved, that resentment would not go away.
Countries that have frequent demonstrations could be divided in two categories. One takes heed of the demonstrations, and so government actions are guided on the path to prosperity and stability. The other tolerated demonstrations but was not prepared to take remedial actions. Malaysia considered itself capable in using bullying tactic to deny demonstration.
The government claims that it practices democracy but it chooses to ignore specific allegations that the current practice of the Election Commission does not ensure free and fair election. The government claims that it had the support of the silent majority, and it had perfected its divide and rule policies where the policies and their implementation served to ensure support of specific section of the population to return them to perpetual rule. Yet, it was afraid of free and fair competition. So it chose to frustrate the march organized by BERSIH. The silent majority would have preferred that the government accede to the request of the BERSIH group, so that there would not be a need for demonstration. But the government chose what it did, and had the audacity to claim that the majority agreed to its action.
The government thought it proper to establish national service to bring youths to three months ‘get-together’, and hopes that they would be unity among them during and after the event. BN government could not be that ignorant not to realize the cause of racial polarization lies not in the lack of contact, but elsewhere. Until the youths do not have to witness unequal opportunity at further educations, and that their parents do not have to pay more for housing to subsidize persons of another community owning similar housing units, and do not have to face a host of institutionalized discriminations under the pretext of NEP, the three-month ‘goodtime’ cannot sooth their sense of unhappiness. The beneficiaries too would find it odd that civility and fairness they learn from books are different from real life. Should the young be taught might is right at the tender age, they would certainly develop the entitlement mentality so that all they need to say is ‘do not make us angry’, and whatever they demanded could be realized. How can there be true unity and solidarity among the races in that environment?
It is uncanny that BN government almost always chose the wrong solutions to problems faced by the nation. Other examples abound. Why does the BN government choose to do the wrong things almost all the time?