Zan Azlee The Malaysian Insider June 07, 2013
JUNE 7 — During the election period last month, I was pretty adamant about wanting to see change, whether it be a change in government, or at least a change in governance.
I had many discussions, conversations and even debates with fellow journalism colleagues, friends and family about this.
One of the conversations I had was about how if the federal government were to change, or even if certain ministers or MPs were to lose, what effect it would have.
One of the first things that came to my mind was that many businessmen who operated because of their “network” in the government would be out of business.
Say, for example, if a local businessman was awarded a project by the local MP because they were friends or acquaintances.
What would happen then if that MP lost during the election and the opposing party took power in that area? Would that local businessman lose business?
A lot of people I spoke to said that Malaysia being Malaysia, then of course that businessman would lose his opportunity to do business.
Obviously, this deduction is based on the assumption that the businessman was awarded projects due to cronyism and not merit.
I stated very strongly that these are the kinds of business operations that we do not need in Malaysia and we should get rid of them.
Can you imagine that some people could actually say to me that we should not try to “kacau periuk nasi orang”, and that these people actually chose the status quo based on this reason?
First of all, businesses like these actually kill off the many who conduct ethical operations. What about their “periuk nasi” then?
And, if there was a proper governance system in place, do you think a change in government would actually affect your “periuk nasi” if you were doing business the right way?
The way I see it is that what we’re lacking is a proper system in place that would safeguard and protect businesses and operations, or “periuk nasi.”
A company’s dealings with the government should not change just because the government representative changes.
They are supposed to deal with the government and not an individual. So a good system would not jeopardise anything if someone new takes over (unless it was unethical deal in the first place, as I had mentioned before).
So it strikes me as unthinkable when people claim that we need to maintain stability with the status quo because the change would be too much of a difference.
These are the same people who would go around uttering things such as “better the devil you know than the devil you don’t.”
I also find it baseless when people say that by voting a new coalition into the government, we would be voting in the inexperience.
And, recently, when Umno’s Datuk Ahmad Maslan promoted the idea that the top two leadership positions in the party should not be contested, I became totally irritated.
Why? Because his reasons were that stability in Umno would mean stability in BN, and stability in BN would mean stability in the stock market.
Now, readers, you tell me if this is a valid and legit enough reason for keeping the country’s top leaders in power?
The way I look at it is that Malaysia is just in desperate need of a change. And that change that we so desperately need is a change from stagnation to progression.