How a politician talks to constituents depends on what he thinks is the mental & emotional set up of his constituents. After all he is saying things to garner votes. When he keeps harping on his party doling out aid and development programmes for which the constituents should be ‘grateful’ and reciprocate with votes he probably has profiled constituents as respectful of social and political hierarchies and authority, have accepted their position as servants rather than masters of the state and therefore will be grateful for whatever their political leaders, considered as rulers, dole out to them as part of the patronage in return for loyalty equation. If on the contrary he profiles his constituents as educated, sophisticated and of the mindset viewing high political office as a privilege (not right) derived from peoples consent to hold that office, and that office is one of trusteeship for the benefit of the people, than politicians are not rulers but public servants. When they are doling out aid and development, taken anyway from people’s money, they are merely doing their duty for which there’s nothing for the recipients to feel particularly grateful about, if its done, and if were not done, the politicians should apologise to lessen the risk of being expected to resign and or be removed for failing the duty. So what a politician says – ask for gratitude or apologise reflects what he thinks of the mindset or maturity of the audience he addresses, whether or not that thinking is accurate.

“…as a token of appreciation we would like to provide…a life time free accommodation and meal pension benefit in our 6 stars luxury resort of 1Malaysia Sungai Buloh Prison!…”. With respect, this may not be constructive talk by Opposition or its supporters – ironically, by reason of corruption being pervasive, institutionalized & systemic here involving not just specific identifiable individuals but large sections of elites both political corporate and bureaucracy and their supporters…Rakyat deserve and want an orderly regime change when the time is right and prerequisites present. This is a condition precedent if we were to move forward as a nation against a backdrop of economic challenges abound.. If that were the position a loyal opposition – and its supporters- would want an electoral victory involving a peaceful transition of power. If that were desired and were to happen -if it ever happens, which is by itself hard enough- people supporting regime change should eschew from issuing threats of reprisals in the name of seeking accountability.

Judging from the political rhetoric from both sides of the political divide, it appears, sadly, that regime change or no regime change, there is no difference in terms of this country being unable (in any foreseeable future) to transcend and rise above the politics and politisation of Race & Religion along Ketuanan Lines.

For examples: when PM Najib calls for meritocracy over the weekend, which by all reasonable intent and purposes of liberalizing the economy will imply meritocracy for all Malaysians together with foreign investors, there will be people like Mukhriz Mahathir who construe qualify and interpret it to mean Meritocracy between Bumis (ie finding the best Malays) but not in context of deconstructing or abolishing pro-Bumiputera policies despite liberalising the economy (see Malaysian Insider). On the Opposition side, it is no better – “PAS Youth has gone ahead of its central leadership to declare its support for Himpunan Sejuta Umat Himpun a gathering of a million Muslims across the political divide to rally against proselytisation by Christians here” – Malaysian insider’s report By G. Manimaran October 18, 2011