Change that does not short-change the nation

By Augustine Anthony

The Prime Minister, Chief Ministers and Menteri Besar(s) are prisoners of our archaic system of governance that will turn even the most honest man into a political beast. How sad, indeed.

The system of governance is akin to a vehicle. If you give Lewis Hamilton a 1965 Morris Minor do not expect him to win the Formula One race against our local hero who sits in the latest McLaren-Mercedes car but I am also mindful of the saying that if you give a trainer a horse he might train it to be a race horse but if he is given a mule, do not expect the coveted Kentucky Derby roses.

The politicians are screaming for change. Echoes of these screams for better race relations, a system free of corruption, a nation nurtured with sound education inculcating a knowledge based society and equal opportunities for all but sensitive enough to the welfare of the poor are some of the tantalizing themes often heard everywhere but a theme devoid of tenacity may never clear the path for a national illumination.

Are all these changes attainable in a system of governance that is weighing down on every good man who occupies the seat of power?

Remember that good men will turn dire in a debilitating system of governance whilst evil lords do not have a choice but to accept and go with the flow in an invigorating atmosphere. As much as the mind cannot exist without the body, the system cannot survive without the people who perpetuate it.

If we want a better place for all in this country then we must understand the evolution of the system that is now in place and which has become unworkable. We must fervently work to re-engineer an effective replacement. The best and the most profitable companies that we know are not what they are because they consist of the most honest people but are companies that have put in place an effective and efficient system that curtails negative elements.

So what can we do?


Return democracy to its true worth in political parties.

Delegative Democracy was a workable concept 30 – 50 years ago when our country was still dependent on agriculture and mining activities as the main sector that propelled growth. Delegates needed to carry the voice of people from isolated agricultural outposts and small towns that mushroomed around the mining areas. Democracy in its true sense can destroy the unattended farm/agricultural land and mining towns that depended on labor intensity, if everyone wanted to voice their intention by journeying to the central decision making conclaves. Thus Delegative Democracy was an effective and cost saving way in which rural populations could still be proud of their participation in our national decision making process in political parties.

But now in a world where business is done at the speed of thought, one wonders why political parties’ structures are still based on delegates baby sitting the voice of people who are party members. Is this fault only with the political parties forming the ruling coalition?

(Democratic system of governance/government had been articulated often by other authors thus there will no need here to repeat that line of discussions.)

Separation of Powers

The concept of separation of powers that we so often romanticize is a myth. It does not exist. Even the British Parliamentary System that placed so much emphasis on this concept only found time to create a greater separation of powers by The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 and with its implementation taking place even as we speak now.

Breathe true Separation of Powers

Allow the Executive, Legislative and Judicial Arm of the State (the term “government” is also used interchangeably here) to be truly independent. Let democracy independently determine the vibrancy of these three arms.

Political parties in our current system create a scheme for the selection of legislators who will in turn decide the head of the Executive who will then recommend the Chief of the Judiciary to the Sovereign of the State. Some of these legislators will then become part of the Executive and maintain a tight grip on Judiciary. In laymen’s term, it is called you scratch my back and I scratch your back and together we scar the people who are already seared in this withering system of governance.

The Federal Constitution

The Federal Constitution is a living thing. Understanding the Federal Constitution is not a mechanical process. It must be a speaking document. As any extraordinary living thing it must glow, grow and age gracefully.

Prime Minister

He must not only be the voice of the people but the conscience of the nation. He cannot be both if he is a precious ornament hewn by a few thousand expert hands who have mastered the art of politics. He must be graced by the people’s spirit. Give more space for people to choose the man who will in turn shoulder the burden of the collective conscience of the nation. In this way the select few thousands cannot hold the honest Prime Minster to ransom and an incompetent Prime Minister cannot dwell in patronage whilst assuming his seat of power.

Remember the Federal Constitution is a living thing. Amend it if possible for direct voting by the people for the office of Prime Minister. If we are afraid of failure, take heart that those who have made no mistakes are those who have tried nothing in their life.

A Prime Minister elected by this direct process should only be given short tenure of office with increased powers to hire and fire any of his appointees (may not necessarily be parliamentarians) with the option of renewing his term with fresh mandate from the people. Technological advancement dictates this condition where the Prime Minister serves a shorter term in office compared to the existing time in office.

The Federal Constitution formulated in 1957 and 1963. If in the 1950’s and 60’s people travelled the whole day to reach their destinations, now it is done in a matter of hours. Communications and documents that took days to reach its recipient are now accessible even before we can complete the phrase “rat in a hat”. So the expectation is reasonable that what took the Prime Minister to achieve in 5 years at the time of Independence can now be achieved in a much shorter time frame.

Further it must be borne in mind that the Barisan Nasional coalition government consisting of various political parties, had survived all these years because UMNO being the dominant party and exerting extreme dominance is able to maintain a stable government despite many competing political parties within this coalition.

However it will be quite a challenge for Pakatan Rakyat being a loose coalition with contradictory ideologies to maintain coalition discipline in the event it is able to garner enough parliamentary seats to form a government. Aspiring parliamentarians from within this loose coalition will scramble for power and prominence, the outcome of which is something predictable in view of the current level of cooperation that we witness in the various state governments under the Pakatan Rakyat coalition.

Finally, if there is a contest for the Prime Minister’s position from within any of these political parties from the Pakatan Rakyat coalition, then expect the coalition cooperation to fizzle out even before take off. The only way out of this stalemate is to come to a consensus that direct electoral mandate will determine the choice of Prime Minister. By this way post election coalition bargaining for ministerial position can be averted if the Prime Minister is elected directly and given the free hand to decide all the Prime Minister’s men.

(This same concept advocated for the Prime Minister should also be extended to The Chief Ministers and Menteri Besar.)

The Speakers of the Houses Of Parliament and State Assembly
The provisions for the appointment and their respective roles in these houses are all spelt out in the Constitution. However for too long the public perception is that the Speaker is a “rubber stamp” and a “yes man” to the government of the day whilst in the conduct of the affairs of the house and its proceedings.

Bring independence to the office of the Speaker that includes its location and staffing. The constitutional provisions provide for a Speaker who is not aligned to any political parties. Would the decision makers have the political will to declare this chair independent of political parties? A truly independent Speaker can be a breath of fresh air in all house proceedings allowing lively debate whilst at the same time maintaining order in the house.

Members Of Parliament

The Federal Court is not the highest decision making entity in our country. The Parliament is. Parliament can veto the decisions of the Federal Court. The irony is while we expect the interpreters of the laws of this country (judges) to have a sound understanding of the law; it is rarely the expectation that the makers of law (parliamentarians/legislators) should have equal competence in at least on the overall apprehension of the policy making process.

It is no excuse to say that the ruling government has more parliamentarians to rush and push through various Bills that is against the aspirations of the nation. A parliamentarian with sound understanding of the overall implication of certain Bills could still articulate them albeit unsuccessfully in parliament but he can always take heart that his argument will be well documented in the Hansard that public can view at any time. A well argued point though unsuccessful could still be brought to the public and be rallied upon.

For example The Malaysian Anti Corruption Commission Act 2009 (Act 694) contains provisions that are likely to give rise to abuses and violation of fundamental liberties of citizens but sadly we do not hear parliamentarians even whispering about it.

It is funny though that some parliamentarians have made a name for themselves by engaging in mostly irrelevant and unnecessary remarks.

Local Government

The clamouring for Local Council elections was after all a lip service. A process that can attain the same result if local council elections are held is available but never explored. The important thing is not about the election for positions in local council but attaining the spirit of Section 10 of the Local Government Act 1976. But sadly political patronage is still the order of the day regardless of political parties.


The biggest asset and the greatest treasure of this nation is its youth. For too long the creative thinking of our youth has been curtailed. The fear translated into legislations that involvement in politics will erode academic achievement of students and youths is as misplaced as the fear that involvement in sports will take away their academic concentration.

Youths have energy, idealism, boldness and flexibility of thought. Empowering and capacity building must take place at this stage to create a better future. As the political bickering of the “mature” people rages deep into the night, more and more serious crimes are being committed by our youths and this is clear evidence that there is a serious lack of gainful investment in our youths.
Sports/Sporting activities that unite youths under one national banner had been systematically destroyed by selfish politicians at great cost to the nation and its future.


While our local politicians busily bicker in the dishing out of an unholy share of logging compartments as an easy way out to instant riches, do they even bother that the ice sheet in the Arctic is melting ever so rapidly.

“Things could be very bad,” glaciologist Dr Gordon Hamilton tells. “If we don’t start to do something about it now we’ll very quickly reach a tipping point from which there’ll be no return. And the consequences for society as a whole would be catastrophic.” Source CNN – Greenland’s frozen landscape warming up.

But our environment that suffers from the senseless deforestations, the pollution of our watercourse, the large land clearance for mono-crop plantations that deteriorates the quality of our air and much more which are so intertwined with global warming that leads to climate change does not seem to concern many of our politicians. It is important to remind ourselves that climate change is no longer a topic of scientific curiosity and scrutiny. Do political parties invest in educating the aspiring election candidates on the importance of environment? Do the ambitious lawmakers have any basic grounding of how the environment affects almost all things that we do on a daily basis.

The lists of concerns for change are not exhaustive and while we are at it , all these attractive words and phrases such as Inclusive, Blue Print, Road Map, Holistic Approach, Empowerment, Capacity Building means nothing if the leaders are only concerned about giving lip service to all these real anxieties.

In an uncertain political landscape with many politicians consumed by petty squabbles for their personal survival, change that does not short change the nation (which requires certainty of purpose) must never slip out from the thoughts and feelings of honest politicians and leaders.

  1. #1 by Joshua on Saturday, 17 October 2009 - 7:02 pm

    This is relevant.

    Malaysia, a land of growth no more

    by Panglima Garang in Malaysiakini

    When I was at the KLIA airport recently bidding farewell to my family, the lingering thought in my mind was “Am I making a mistake leaving this country?”

    The answer was just another question, “What good is there left in this country?”

    pw: khayyam Bangladesh

  2. #2 by limkamput on Saturday, 17 October 2009 - 9:27 pm

    For country like Malaysia, it is better we go for the “presidential system” of government where the head of government is elected directly. He then chooses his executive branch the members of which need not come from the legislature. This is one way to ensure more profesionalism among the cabinet members. For key appointments to judiciary, it is best the president nominates and the legislature confirms (something similar to the US system). This is one sure way to get a candidate that is neutral and acceptable to both the executive and the legislature.

    Right now although we have the West Minster model, the prime minister is already effectively more powerful than the president under the presidential system. It is odd under the present system where the Prime Minister is also the minister of finance/minister of home affairs when he is elected only by his own party and one parliamentary constituency.

    On decentralisation and giving more autonomy to state governments, we should re-examine the federal and state lists. In addition to more equitable sharing of revenue, some of the important functions like police, education and health care should be put under the state governments. It provides better avenue for competition, innovation and initiative.

    For a country like Malaysia, a national police force is too powerful and overbearing for its own good and may eventually cause problem to the elected government. Break them up and let the police force reports to the respective state governments. Remove the IGP post and those at Bukit Aman and in its place, set up a federal bureau of investigation with restricted jurisdiction and power.

  3. #3 by Taxidriver on Saturday, 17 October 2009 - 10:00 pm

    Dear sir,

    Your views very good to rakyat and nation but not good to UMNOputras. Your suggestions to have PM elected by rakyat they where got want. The present system so far no problem. UMNOputras choose the PM. The PM ‘control’ them. The PM needs their support so they also ‘control the PM. PM mummb mummb, they also mummb mummb lor. Sama sama mummb mummb. You don’t say me I don’t say you. When PM betul-betul kenyang, must make way for new people to mummb mummb. Best system in the world!!

    Give Lewis Hamilton a 1965 Morris Minor, of course he cannot win. But if give to any UMNOputra the same Morris Minor, he can become champion. UMNOputra can change the racing rules, regulations and come up with their very own interpretations like last is first and first is last. Or you orledi forgot “good guilty and bad guilty”? ….. And, please sir, show us a spotless leopard next time before you write another like this one.

  4. #4 by ringthetill on Saturday, 17 October 2009 - 11:57 pm

    We must be able to embrace change to stay relevant. However, any desire for change must be based on sound reasoning and sincerity for the wider good, otherwise it will bring even greater badness. In Malay wisdom it says the ‘niat’ must be ‘ikhlas’.

  5. #5 by monsterballssgoh on Sunday, 18 October 2009 - 12:59 am

    This is the same stunt to send a man into space and make young Malaysians excited and love UMNO.
    Are we really in the space age under UMNO?
    Formula 1 is another stunt to trap young voters..from age 18 to 30.
    My programmer was impressed with UMNO changes for the better,
    I just asked him…is UMNO corrupted…….and he said yes.
    I said…think of the country and people and vote against corruptions that suck us high and dry.
    I know…he never depended on UMNO…as most Malaysian Chinese are on their own…..small businesses…selling services.working day and nigh…15 hours per day. They know.Malays cannot compete with them….because UMNO trained them to be lazy and contented…..just talk alot of hypocritical inspiring speeches…that they will not deliver…but love to sit and enjoy their stolen wealth…buy lots of properties overseas….send all their children to best universities in the world…and travel with whole family…..first class….this and that.
    He understood and promised to vote for change in government.
    Instead of charging his usual RM60-RM100 fee……depending on his required services…he said…this round is free…for what I have told him.
    He has to come I lost my “monsterball” password…….hahahahahaha

  6. #6 by pwcheng on Sunday, 18 October 2009 - 1:55 am

    Honestly I had never heard them screaming for a system free of corruption. That is one thing they had never mention that it is haram and the best they can do is to whisper about it.

  7. #7 by Jeffrey on Sunday, 18 October 2009 - 2:06 am

    The Writer describes ours an “archaic system of governance”. He highlights a few areas: delegative democracy (where delegates instead of rakyat determine/vote in leaders like the PM, party leaders); lack of observance of separation of powers where powerful Executive determines who controls Legislaure and with referee (Speakers of both Houses Of Parliament and State Assembly) siding the incumbent ruling party); political appointment of local councillors under section 10 of Local Government Act 1976 etc. The Writer advocates “change”. Such a change will involve fundamental change of our constitution and its framework. It will also involve socio/economic change of how to redirect youth’s pursuits from ‘lepak’ or mat rempits’ racing to sport activities or corporate business towards conservancy and environment…

    Ok these are fine idealistic suggestions. The Writer is afterall an experienced member of the Malaysian Bar, noted for his enthusiasm, idealism and commitment to legal aid and human rights issues but on the practical side – to whom exactly does the Writer address these issues he raised for undertaking the burden of change?

    Are they directed at (1) the politicians in the ruling coalition (BN), (2) the Opposition (PR) or (3) the people in general ie ourselves or (4) everyone? Lets address each in turn and evaluate the prospects of change from practical standpoint.

    1. If they are directed at BN’s politicians, it may be asked, why would they want to change when status quo protects their vested interests?

    2. If they are directed at Opposition (PR)’s politicians, there are 2 problems, first, unless they could win GE and form federal govt, have they any power to effect such sweeping change, and secondly even if they could win election and form the government, would they have the “coalition discipline” to effect such fundamental change of this “archaic system of governance” when PR, according to the Writer, is “a loose coalition with contradictory ideologies” facing prospect that “aspiring parliamentarians from within this loose coalition will scramble for power and prominence, the outcome of which is something predictable in view of the current level of cooperation that we witness in the various state governments under the Pakatan Rakyat coalition”????

    3. If they are directed at the people in general ie ourselves, how many of us know enough of provisions of the Federal Constitution or Montesquieu’s principle of separation of power or section 10 of Local Government Act 1976 or UK’s Constitutional Reform Act 2005 to have an informed opinion much less a passion to change these? Would not many of us like the voters/electors in recent Bagan Pinang Buy-Election be more bothered about local and less brain straining issues such as how much donations to schools/bridges, rice cookers??? Though we have a reasonably high level of literacy in terms of schooling, what quality of education are we getting? Many of us are still struggling to have a working knowledge of international linqua franca (English) to get by in our daily work.

    4. If they are directed at everyone (politicians, voters, rakyat, businessmen etc) then its as good as being directed at no one in particular to do anything.

    Ideas are always good and easy to suggest but what practical suggestions does one have to make a solid concrete bridge to cross a chasm filled with boulders and rapids from this side a jungle of “archaic system of governance” to the other side of sunlit uplands of enlightened democratic governance???

  8. #8 by Jeffrey on Sunday, 18 October 2009 - 2:50 am

    If suggestions are directed at everyone (politicians, voters, rakyat, businessmen etc) – and no one in particular, then we have a problem of “diffusion of responsibility” ie no one taking particular responsibility to do the needful, stemming from the expectation that someone else, more qualified or better than them, will do it.

    “Diffusion of responsibility” is a social/psycholgical phenomenon described by Wikipedia here –

    Now there is a common cited quote attributed to Edmund Burke – “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing”.

    Now who specifically are the ‘good’ men here who are expected to do something tgo help change by bring message to the multitudes?

    I assume that “to do something” here means to educate the masses and multitudes on the right ideas of what is proper governance as distinguished from “archaic system of governance”.

    This further assumes that changing the mindsets of the masses of ordinary Malaysians is the main starting point for any change, if it were to come – because it is the ordinary men who cast the votes, take to the streets to pressure politicians to change from worse to better governance…..

    So who are these ‘good’ men here in our society and country who are expected to do something and bring the message to the multitudes and how do they do it?

    Are they politicians like Kit, or civil society activists, academics, intellectuals, socio political writers and bloggists, on line journalists like the writer himself???

    Shall we pin the responsibility to these classes of people to avert the ‘Diffusion of responsibility’ syndrome?

    If so how effective are the means or language of these classes in communicating the message?

    Here’s another problem relating to the type of message.

    Talking about civil society activists, academics, intellectuals, socio political writers and bloggists (which are probably 5% or less of the population), there is probably a much stronger competition for the discourse space emanating from many of these of self styled ‘civil society activists, academics, intellectuals’ of maktab schooling and, for higher education, trained in the madrasahs of Middle East who don’t need to know a word of English but just a smattering of Arabic and yet have greater reach to the masses in rural areas by their positions as teachers, civil service bureaucrats, politicians etc.

    Believe me they are not going to teach masses about good governance in the sense the Writer means it or the UK’s Constitutional Reform Act 2005 based on Montesquieu’s principle of separation of power or section 10 of Local Government Act 1976 etc….

  9. #9 by Make A Difference on Sunday, 18 October 2009 - 7:51 am

    Jeffrey, to be fair to the writer. Yes good ideas may be easy to suggest but so are criticisms. A good idea is still a good thing, it is far better than no ideas at all. A good idea can form the yardstick by which we measure the implimentation of practicalities. Good idea providers and critics combined plant the seed of change for if we do not even have the desire to change then we have no hope.

  10. #10 by Jeffrey on Sunday, 18 October 2009 - 9:18 am

    ///Yes good ideas may be easy to suggest but so are criticisms. A good idea is still a good thing, it is far better than no ideas at all. A good idea can form the yardstick by which we measure the implimentation of practicalities./// – Make A Difference on Sunday, 18 October 2009 – 7:51 am

    Not disagreeing on that. Lets see how this applies.

    Datuk Seri Najib Razak in his speech to recent concluded UMNO General Assembly said: “Umno is at a crossroad where its aspirations should match that of the majority of the rakyat….Constituencies like Bagan Pinang that has a good mix of races, Umno should be accepted as a party that is going to fight for all – regardless of race. History has shown that the Malays have tended to be inclusive and have embraced people of other races openly” .

    So ought not we to use and apply this same standard – ie a good idea is still a good thing, it is far better than no ideas at all. A good idea can form the yardstick by which we measure the implimentation of practicalities – to now give conditional praise & cheers to Najib for his call for UMNO’s constitutional reform as well as change of stance to fight for interest of all Malaysians instead of just Malaysian Malays?

    The good of the second 1M call is, on face value good, though sincerity is still subject to proof by deeds in time to come.

    As regards the other of his call for UMNO constitutional reforms (abolishing the quota system for its party polls, widening voting base on party president/party officials to all 2500 delegates), such a call, besides being more reflective of the grassroots’ aspirations, also makes the point that money politics will be harder to practise (since its more difficult and expensive to bribe thousands of delegates than a coterie of warlords). Isn’t this (opening of voting base) in the direction of breaking “delegate democracy” which may one day lead to even people voting the leader directly?

    Now it may be argued that this call again is political sloganism or political opportunism – that its insincere, and even if sincere is not destined to be translated into deeds because of ultra-rightist/racist attitutudes of many a party’s warlords if not members who will not (beyond outward acquiescence) accept much less support their president’s call, and they would frustrate, oppose or thwart the call for reform for the better in same manner they did to Najib’s predecessor in office.

    However Najib is not Pak Lah. Also he realises the survival of BN itself and his own personal survival in power depends on not just Malay support but support of all races (as Bagan Pinang showed). So isn’t there a chance that he meant serious in his call for UMNO to be inclusivist (esp at this juncture when BN component parties like MCA which is supposed to deliver Chinese votes is itself in the tethers of collapse due to split in the middle and MIC/Gerakan, well they’re irrelevant, and Najib had to bring in new Makkal Sakhti party – not yet in BN’s fold to campaign for Indian votes)?

    By this Make A Difference’s standard – ie a good idea is still a good thing, it is far better than no ideas at all. A good idea can form the yardstick by which we measure the implimentation of practicalities – should we not support Najib’s call as well?

  11. #11 by veddy.lum74 on Sunday, 18 October 2009 - 11:00 am

    they are the master of politic!

    they politicised everything!

    you see,our local football,million of funds ,both public n private money pouring into the ‘board of directors’,but most of the players are short-paid of their salaries,and today,we cant even face team from laos and burma!(i think kemboja can also beat us without goalkeeper :-) )

    and Ghana,a very poor country,can capture the youth-under-20-worldcup,ask KJ what happen to our football,is it that money can solve the future of our once most favourable sport in this Bolehland?

  12. #12 by limkamput on Sunday, 18 October 2009 - 11:45 am

    Jeffrey, Augustine’s piece, if not directed at anyone in particular, could at least create some awareness among Malaysians. I am no politician, so I think it is ok for me to say this: I think many Malaysians, included the educated ones, are ignorant, stupid and selfish. They have no notion how an effective and caring government could change their life as well as their children’s. Hence the constant oscillation from one party to another, from one ideology to another, all depending who can bullsh!t them better.

    I don’t know, a reform compelled by the need to survive is never a real reform out from the heart. It is at most done grudgingly to buy time. If UMNO thinks of Malaysians, if UMNO has the heart for all Malaysians, the so-called reforms presently being tossed about should have been done years ago. Reforms have to be “forced on” and for this to happen, there must be awareness among the people and good men and women must have the means to convey and disseminate ideas, information and alternative policies.

    Most of us here think that systems and institutions of government are important and a prerequisite to good governance. But if you read Lee Kuan Yew’s memoir, he think good men and women are more important. If we have lousy characters, no matter how good the systems and institutions, they will be eventually subverted and destroyed. On the other hand, there are arguments that with robust systems and institutions, even evil men and women will be compelled to do good.

    The answer probably lies in between – we need to have good people and we need robust systems and institutions.

    Do we have good people in politics now? Do they have the right motivation? What are their primary objectives to get involved in politics? If I say many Malaysian politicians are scumbags, I think many would agree with me. Now, the question we need answer is why good people hardly get involved in politics when politics (and from which government and governance depend on) plays such a pivotal role in the life of most people. How do we get people with immaculate character to join politics and survive? I would love to hear some ideas on this.

    When we have successions of lousy people in power and in government, the systems and institutions of government, no matter how tenacious and robust, will be eroded over time. The solution is never easy, but there is no harm discussing.

  13. #13 by Make A Difference on Sunday, 18 October 2009 - 3:51 pm

    Jeffrey, yes we should support Najib’s call if we are to be consistent in our belief. However, any support will quickly evaporate if he does or say anything that is contrary to his call. As you have indicated, he has the idea but he probably does not have the will to carry out his idea as his grass root support does not agree with his idea. He should not promote a good idea when he knows that he does not have the will to see it through. He has already demonstrated so many times that he is not practicing what he is preaching, for whatever reason.

  14. #14 by johnnypok on Sunday, 18 October 2009 - 9:35 pm

    In 10 to 20 years time, most of the older UMNO leaders will no longer be around to protect the interest of the young but weak and lazy Malays.
    The Malaysian economy is bound to collapse under the weight of the existing policies, and the Malays will face a real-life dilemma. They will realize too late that NEP is worst than consuming drugs.
    Their future generations will end up like the South Africans.
    Malaya will become a colony of Indonesia, while Sabah becomes a part of the Philippines.
    Sarawak, Singapore and Brunei unite to form a new nation, and use English as the official language.
    United States of Singapore

  15. #15 by monsterball on Monday, 19 October 2009 - 7:44 am

    You do have an interesting dream…johnnypok.
    So to prevent it to happen…vote UMNO quickly and let someone try to save us. Is that not the best solution?
    Anyway..we deserve to be what we are…as Malaysia have so many racists who have accepted their Savior…..and that’s most sinful…to produce so many half pass sixes from their own race…with not one bit of regrets.
    Have you ever hear any UMNO crook commit hari kiri……feeling shameful?
    Everyone …….past and present crooks are all behaving……champions of one race….so proud…with false title and filthy rich lifestyles.
    UMNO do feel they own Malaysia and use our do as they like.
    Voters are made suckers..yet so many still do not know.

  16. #16 by Hugos on Monday, 19 October 2009 - 8:23 am

    “For a country like Malaysia, a national police force is too powerful and overbearing for its own good and may eventually cause problem to the elected government. Break them up and let the police force reports to the respective state governments. Remove the IGP post and those at Bukit Aman and in its place, set up a federal bureau of investigation with restricted jurisdiction and power.”>>>limkamput

    Why am I not surprised that this came from somebody who thinks Westminster are two words and not one??

    Although Malaysia has a two-tier system, it is not a true federation of states. The states do not have their own state police, state courts (including State Supreme Courts), national guards etc. as in the case of the U.S. In the case of the U.S. residents are subject to both state and federal income taxes. In the case of Malaysia, the states cannot even collect their own state income tax. The states in Malaysia do not have their own independent sources of revenue upon which they could depend to finance their state budgets.

    Westminster or U.S Presidential system doesn’t matter. It is based on the same principles and is supposed to work just the same. Judiciary the third pillar of government is supposed to be independent in both systems. Both systems are based on the rule of law. We have all the laws we need but we are just not administering it properly and in many cases not enforcing them.

    In the case of Malaysia, “national police force too overbearing and too powerful” and so “break up the police” and “remove the IGP”? How stupid is that?? The U.S. has a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) because there are state and there are federal offences.

  17. #17 by taiking on Monday, 19 October 2009 - 8:47 am

    I hope someone can substantiate my number. I was told only 20% (or so) of malay undergrads in the country are male. The rest are female. If that is true then where are they, those male-malay youths? Rempiting and snatch-thieving on the street? Years ago the problem had already manifested in the form of aimless lepaking about. Several billions later (I suspect for no one would know the actual amount expended on all those the rakan muda projects and activities) spent on arresting the problem, lepaking culture has now morphed into rempiting/snatch-thieving menace. At least, then the lepaking was more a nuisance and an eye-sore then a menace to society.

You must be logged in to post a comment.