Debating Mr. Mallot- 2

Like many others, I watched the news coverage on TV about the demonstrations in Egypt. One of the media coverage is by Bloomberg- Taking Stock. The anchorman appeared disappointed the disturbances in Cairo have nothing to do with USA despite excruciating imputations by several people interviewed, to suggest some links to Israel's interest. If there is a link to Israel, then America can validate a more substantial involvement.

Why would the measure of all things be USA? People are actually surprised that democracy can emerge without American involvement. Most of all Americans. Get real man.

But to everyone's (mostly Americans) surprise, there have been no directions leading to an anti-America movement or a mention about Israel. The only person taking pains to suggest some links with America and Israel is a former Ambassador to Egypt.

What is it about former ambassadors? They have a tour of duty in their respective countries, perhaps taken an affinity and emotional embrace of the countries they served and felt compelled at any time they fancy, to make a more than cursory mention or feel just nostalgic about the places they once played. They felt urged to get involved, perhaps try to impose their values.

How about our Malaysia? Ambassadors and expatriate workers like it here in Malaysia. Perhaps that is why they feel they must get involved. But if they do, then they would have to accept that their views are going to be treated on par with the views of the local. Their views do not necessarily contain undisputed truths. Because views by expatriates are by no means righteous nor are they gospel truths.

Where I once worked in a multinational, I enjoyed taking pot shots at expatriates on cross-postings here. Those coming from western countries get an allowance they euphemistically termed as culture shock allowance. Actually it's just an excuse to get paid and get laid.

Indeed, I relished telling my expatriate friends in that multinational company, they are enjoying the cultural benefits. They get to go to groceries past 6pm (in their countries most shops closed at 6pm), they get to enjoy all kind of delicious foods (have you seen the kwailos tuck into our foods? - it would seem they have never eaten for years); most of all they get to screw our women of various races. So as I often tell these people, you can shove that cultural shock allowance up your alley.

The point is, in general expatriates carry within themselves a condescending attitude- what they say are undisputed facts and truths. Their thinking must be demolished and they must be put in their places.

Here in this region, in particular where Malaysia is concerned, there is also a former ambassador, John Mallot. I wasn't planning to be drawn into a debate on the article written by John Mallot in the Wall Street Journal. It would be pointless to do a point by point rebuttal. That would make Mr Malllot's day. You can be sure; he can come out with extraordinary details to demolish your arguments.

He is at it again, nitpicking at us. Mr. Mallot is a former US ambassador to Malaysia. While Ambassador he saw it fit to engage in political debates with our own politicians. We remember his flare-outs and conflagrations with Dr Mahathir over a number of issues. Mr. Mallot has also been a crusader for what Anwar Ibrahim represents. We are not going to penalize Mr Mallot for making friends with whom he wishes. To each his own, my friend. And I wouldn't go as far as to suggest some sinister motives out of his friendship with Anwar as did our overstaying Goebbels- Rais Yatim.

Let us instead see Mr Mallot as a product of an Imperial America trying to operate in a world, where American influence is no longer of prime relevance. Where could we place Mr. Mallot?

I found an interesting observation in a passage written by Paul Starobin in his book Five Roads to the Future. Mr Starobin sat down with James Schlesinger who served as Director of CIA in the Nixon Administration. Schlesinger conceded that after WW2, we (USA) were the Fairy Godmother for a world on its knees. In a telling elaboration- Schlesinger intimated that this could never be a permanent situation, because the rest of the world, contrary to what many Americans think, does not want to be "like us" …and now the world is going to quite ostensibly pay less attention to what America thinks. Schlesinger is disturbed as what he sees as America's refusal to recognize how things have changed from the past. America is suffering from a form of mental illness.

Place John Mallot now as a person trapped in a make believe world who thinks we Malaysia want to be like America. In that world, America talks down on us- giving us unsolicited advice and pointers on how to run our business. We are actually part of the world that is going to quite ostensibly pay less attention to what America thinks.

That is because Mr. Mallot has offered us half an analysis as argued by Umar Mukhtar. Indeed if we looked at the mirror really hard as suggested by Mr. Mallot, the reflections from America's past, gives Mr Mallot and the US no moral grounds whatsoever to pontificate on such things like race relations, or on more practical things such as handling the economy.

Now Mr. Mallot pontificates about the race relations in Malaysia. He says race relations are worse during Najib's tenure as PM. This has been brought about because the current leadership countenances such divisiveness. The chiefly Malay government discriminates against the non-Malays. The media it controls mocks the non-Malays. Its ministers questioned the loyalty and patriotism of other races. It continues to paint a gloomy picture of Malays being subjugated by china or India. He cites cases of religious intolerance. He cites the case when crosses had to be removed and carols not sung when the PM went visiting churches. Malaysia has to carry out actual reforms says Mallot.

All these translate into economic costs says Mr. Mallot. Because of government's affirmative policies, the economic growth rate is held back whereas it can grow at 8%. Perhaps Mr Mallot would care to identify how many countries in the world grow at 8%. Maybe he can even explain, in countries that are supposedly free from religious and ethnic differences- if they fail to grow by 8% per year, to what is that sluggishness attributed to?

The source of growth namely human capital, which by definition of Mallot, is represented by the many non-Malays are leaving Malaysia because they couldn't see a future for themselves.

You could almost sense that Mr Mallot is disappointed that Malaysia in run by Malays.

How do you explain Mr Mallot?

The only way is to see Mr. Mallot as an unfortunate victim trapped in time within the Pax Americana or American century syndrome. That unfortunate mental incarceration places Mr. Mallot as a crusader proselytizing American values onto his external world. Our only line of defense is to affirm our refusal of becoming stooges of his pontifications. The same mental incarceration sees Mr. Mallot appointing himself judge jury and executor in so far as Malaysian politics is concerned.

Why does Mr Mallot continue running down Malaysia and its leaders? Probably because during his tenure as ambassador, he has found Malaysians not as stupid as he thought they were. Instead he has been made to look stupid so many times that he carries vengeful thoughts about Malaysia. He decries the fact that Malaysians are a patient lot so very unlike testosterone driven Americans. Why can't Malaysians be like "us"? Because, Mr. Mallot, you lived in a make believe still existing American century.

Miss Rosa Parks.

We didn't have a Miss Rosa Parks type of race relations. That makes Malaysia on a higher moral ground than Mallot's America. Not better, but never less morally. The way we handled our race relations may not have been exemplary. 1969 was indeed a black moment in our history. But we have not gone through a more damning period of race relations such as that exemplified by what Miss Rosa Parks had to endure in America's own experience in race relations.

We didn't go through conscious and deliberate racial segregation, we didn't go through a for whites only bus period, or seats for whites first on buses. We didn't have KKK phases. We certainly didn't go through the horrifying pogrom described by Dee Williams in Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee. Can non Malays here in Malaysia point out these events occurring here in Malaysia?

For those not familiar with this name, Rosa Parks symbolized the defiance of African Americans in their struggle against the racism of white America. Regrettably Mr. Mallot appears to conveniently forget America's own history when he chooses to pontificate to us about American values. We know these values are often packaged as universal values, which whether we, the non-Americans like it or not, must be enforced on the uninitiated and unenlightened world.

Tweet

Read more...

Debating Mr. Mallot

Here is a response from a writer who calls himself UMAR MUKHTAR. This is an article in response to the one written by a former US ambassador to Malaysia, John Mallot. I myself am writing a commentary to John Mallot's which I hope to post soon. In the meantime, please read this riposte from one Umar Mukhtar.

JOHN MALLOT'S WSJ ARTICLE: A RESPONSE

 

John Mallot has waded into the debate on Malaysian race relations with half an analysis when obviously a fuller one would have been of greater service to the discourse. Granted, his piece was intended more than anything else to be a critique of Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak's handling of the current situation in the country. However, in doing so, he has highlighted only the non-Malay responses to what is described as Malay racism. This is very misleading and the reason for my saying that he had written only half an analysis of the situation.

A more robust and honest assessment of race relations in Malaysia would take into account the fact that what appears to be Malay racism is in itself a response to non-Malay racism against Malays. Yes, two wrongs do not make a right. But as the Malay saying goes, "It takes both hands to clap". That is to say, Mallot's article runs the risk of completely absolving non-Malays from any responsibility in the racial predicament that the country is in. That is nothing less than avoiding reality and counter-productive to any effort to improve race relations in Malaysia. Malays have their grievances too against the Chinese. The fact that they seldom get aired does not make those grievances any less legitimate or valid.

Education for the very young is one obvious area where racist attitudes can be nipped in the bud. The importance for racial integration to begin at a young age is recognised, so much so that in the 1960s and 70s, the U.S. supreme court sanctioned the forced busing of students in order to break down the racial segregation between white and African-American schools. That was in America. In Malaysia, a different approach towards early education was adopted. In concession to the non-Malays, especially the Chinese, vernacular education was retained as part of the national school system. The liberalism was well-intentioned and in line with the spirit of Malaysia's constitution whereby minority communities are given the right to use and develop their own languages.

In practice, and perhaps this was unforeseen by Malaysia's founding fathers, the national-vernacular dichotomy in the school system has resulted in precisely the kind of early-age racial segregation that the busing laws, upheld by the U.S. supreme court justices, sought to eradicate in America. While desegregation of schools may or may not result in greater racial integration, segregation virtually guarantees that there will be no racial integration.

The racial polarization that we see so shamelessly capitalized on by politicians in Malaysia today is partly, if not wholly, attributable to that segregation in the school system. When you see not a few non-Malays unashamedly, even proudly, declaring that they cannot properly speak Malay, the national language, you can bet your life that these are the ones who graduated from the vernacular schools. This is forty-four years after Malay was declared the national language.

 

The Chinese community jealously guards the existence of the vernacular schools, implicitly reinforcing the message of their racial and cultural separateness and exclusivity but yet insist that they should not be looked at as the 'other' by Malays. For many Malays, including this writer, that smacks of having your cake and eating it too.

Often the excuse given by the Chinese for insisting that their children go to vernacular schools and for more such schools to be built is the poor quality of national schools. Surely the solution is not to build more racially-segregated schools but to join hands with Malays and Indians in insisting and ensuring that the quality of national schools be improved for the benefit of children of all ethnicities. Perhaps that is considered such an outlandishly 'out-of-the-racial box' thinking that I have never heard any Chinese make that call.

 

Any sincere and honest effort to improve race relations has to take cognizance of the fact that racism exists in and racial discrimination is practised, to one extend or another, by all the races in Malaysia.

However, my own honest observation is that the Chinese never want to admit or acknowledge their own racism against Malays or other races.

Official and overt discriminatory policies can easily be criticized as institutionalized racism but covert racial discriminations by their very nature are harder to pinpoint. That does not mean they don't exist or any less invidious than the former.

When a "Mandarin speakers only" requirement is stated in job advertisements, even for jobs which do not conceivably require much language skills, that surely is equivalent to saying "Chinese only". But you will be hard put to find any Chinese who would admit that the practice is racially discriminatory.

When Malaysia's most famous blogger, Raja Petra Kamaruddin, related some years ago in his blog how Chinese businesses ganged up to ensure the failure of his motorcycle dealership, none of his Chinese readers cared to acknowledge that he was the victim of racism. His was probably just the tip of the iceberg of similar cases.

And it's always with a mixture of amusement and sadness when I read the many comments in the internet from non-Malays complaining about the racial policies of the Malaysian government which scarcely conceal their own racism towards Malays in general. If Mr Mallot doubts the truth of what I am saying, he should read the comments that followed the publication of his recent article in Malaysian news portals.

 

To many Malays, given the refusal of non-Malays to even acknowledge their own racism, the prospect of a rollback in whatever few affirmative action policies left on the plate appears to be concessions which are unlikely to be matched in a similar spirit by the Chinese in the spheres that they predominate, namely the commercial and economic.

 

If Najib can be accused of pandering to militant Malay groups, Chinese political leaders in the government and opposition too can be accused of pandering to their racial constituency.

 

In my lifetime, I have yet to hear of any Chinese leader asking that the Chinese to join in and contribute towards the betterment of national schools. I have yet to hear of one calling for Chinese businesses to assist or at least not to gang up against their fellow non-Chinese businesses or to not practice discrimination in their employment policies.

Mallot failed to take into account one side of the equation in his brief exposition of the race relations situation in Malaysia. Hopefully, I have managed to redress that and allow a better understanding of why things are the way they are in Malaysia.

It would have been more gracious of Mallot if he had used his relationship with Malaysians during his tenure as a diplomat to impart his country's experience and firm action with regard to vigilance against the emergence of the evil that is racism, than to make things worse by dogmatically adopting the attitude that sympathizing with the minority makes one righteous.

 

UMAR MUKHTAR

February 10, 2011

Tweet

Read more...

Addendum to Malaysia’s Littoral Combat Ships

From the ever razor-sharp Walla, something which is worth putting up as a full article:-

Defence is where governments must do it right the first time, not try again through bailouts.

The rakyat can't be blamed for being jittery. After all, a whole fleet of skyhawks Mindef had bought seem to have disappeared either in the Arizona desert or over the Bermuda triangle. At least they didn't end up in some LATAM ( Latin American) country like two of our jet engines. And then there's that squadron of f-16's. How did we end up being sold planes without firing codes? And next we have Mikoyans which are now too costly to maintain just after five years. That's after the rakyat came to know about DRB's non-movable personnel carriers. We may have to wait awhile for the next drama on the Eurocopters but then we already have had dessert on our c4-class submarines.

Why can't defence procurements be straightforward, right the first time, and professionally managed end-to-end? Why so messy and mangled one?

Just imagine if there had been an aquatic dispute during the time when those Amin-class vessels would have been direly needed to tilt the outcome, our national diet now might have to be sup buntut with ayam sos merah.

It's also strange. Normally littoral vessels first and then submarines afterwards to extend the range and stealth of those vessels. Instead, the other way round...Do we really have an integrated defense system? What are we saying? We don't even have a flood warning system!

Anyway back to this topic. The underlying message is this:

One, whether black-boxed procurements like Mindef or harmonized expansions like Sime or acquisitions galore like Lotus, Sauber, Agusta, InventqJaya and Felda@USA, the rakyat have concluded this government is incapable of doing things right the first time; in fact its incapability is directly proportional to the size of the procurement or acquisition; meaning the bigger the sum involved, the more incapable of delivering right the first time;

Two, there is absolutely no conscience about opportunity costs, except maybe opportunity for the players;

 

Three, the govt tends to shoot itself first in the foot through its own double-tap cleverness; this double-tap thing is the SOP used in big-ticket items, namely there must be at least two advantages obtained; in this particular case, it is right-to-left hand 'open' tender.

The problem with double-tap methods is that they tend to overtap. They lock up the minds of the buyers.

Mindef gives to Boustead which belongs to LTAT which belongs to Mindef, so you get happy shareholders, happy suppliers, happy users and very happy Bagan Datoh minister. Therefore, suppliers and vendors will be even bolder to markup the price because it is a confirmed kill. Since its hand-holding specifications, the markups are already incorporated into the budget. There will be the customary renego's and they will cut a bit; but the cut bits will be magnified and added to the (a) maintenance, (b) variation orders, and most important of them all, (c) the spare parts.

If ever the MACC starts an academy, the first research thesis it must do is this: THE REAL COST OF SPARE PARTS IN GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENTS.

This is put in caps to signify that people tend to think leakages is just about taking things out of the kitty. No, it is official siphonage through inflated pricings that are tacitly accepted without question at great opportunity cost to the rakyat, if not the original objective of the procurement.

The savings for instance could have been used to buy better sonar or more accurate capitation torpedoes or hardier bulletproof suits for our naval special forces or even an aero-ambulance to ferry dying passengers thrown out of crashed buses on tolled highways.

The same mindset lock by double-tap methods is aggravated by mindset lock that what is entered into a budget must be spent without calculating how savings could have been used in other areas and places. Because people forget where the money comes from. It's not the gomen's; it's the rakyats'.

There is another thing about double-tap methods. They put the buyer under the duress of inflexibility. The specs are like that but does that mean they cannot be something else? Must it be just ship defense from General Electric Boat Division or Marconi? The compulsion to fixate becomes subconscious, persuaded by double tap rationale; it becomes benefiting the parties involved and not the final objective of the acquisition. When secondary objectives supersede primary objectives in double-taps, that's when things go haywire.

Umno has been practising double-taps ever since Gene Kelly double-tapped.

Having said that, i am cognizant that our armed forces must have means to modernize. We can't have our airmen, sailors and soldiers sitting for years on outdated hardware and software. Training and familiarization take time. Confidence must be built. Cutting edges must be sharpened. But at the least do the right thing right the first time.

Which is more than what we can say about how the govt has been managing inventories. You can read in Jane's that news about how a large quantity of firearms were broken into in an army barracks some years back.

But you don't need Janes to read about the theft of ammonium nitrate in Sabah recently. That's the sort of fertilizer used to make the sort of explosives that were used to blow up one Oklahoma federal building.

Comprende', home minister?

Tweet

Read more...

Malaysia’s Littoral Combat Ships.

The defense ministry's allocation of a RM 6 billion budget to build 6 Littoral Combat Ships (LCS) has raised some controversies. The DAP's economic czar, Tony Pua has raised some reservations about the budget allocation. He calls for more transparency and straightforwardness in the defense contracts. The ships will be built by Boustead Naval Shipyard which is a subsidiary of LTAT.

Pua's comments have stirred up a chorus of accusations that MINDEF may be over spending. It has also invited a rebuttal from a writer with a weekly defense journal. A blogger who has a hobby reading up on any military hardware and technology has also responded to Pua's comments.

Pua may have fouled up in his comparisons. But I am ready to concede in this case, facts are not that very important- the meaning and reading into the meaning of the contracts are. Pua's comments were meant to raise awareness about the possibilities of shady deals and deals that will later turned bad.

Consider the record. The ships built by Amin Shah are probably better employed as deep sea  fishing vessels now. We bought submarines that had difficulties in submerging. We have airplanes mothballed in the desert in America. We have had magee mee and screw drivers sold to MINDEF at extortion exorbitantly inflated prices.

So when MINDEF makes public its allocation on any project, any right thinking people will stand up.

So I will not denigrate Pua's concerns too much. It has everything to do with financial discipline and financial good governance.

That aside, my main concern is the RM 6 billion sufficient at all to build 6 LCS such as that commissioned by the US Navy?

Usually in any defense contracts, technical teams from MINDEF will be working closely with contractors. Granted that in itself is no guarantee that ships will be built to specifications. That is also no guarantee that the ships built will be operational even.

The ships infamously built and contracted to Amin Shah have not been operational and have been plagued with all sorts of technical deficiencies. So I wouldn't place too high a premium, even if experts from MINDEF were to sit and hold hands with the contractors. Probably they will do that in karaoke bars and over some beer mugs.

Normally I would relish tearing into the contracts to see whether there are any possibilities of grossly inflated numbers which can only mean one thing:- money and commissions passing hands.

I am more interested in the reasoning given by the Minister of Defense. His remarks hardly inspire confidence in our defense capabilities.

Out of the RM 6 billion allocation, 2 billion will be allocated to vendors. The minister says he will monitor to see that vendors are paid. Hello? Are we missing something here? His role is not to oversee that vendors get paid- there will be a committee doing that. Unless the vendors are UMNO contractors mostly from Perak who will be campaigning for Zahid, his primary duty is to see the second generation patrol vessels are built according to technical specifications and will be delivered on time. More important his duty is to ensure there are enough funds to build such an LCS. The US Navy for example is spending around USD600-700 million per vessel.

So in the end, if you under-build, what will the vessels be employed for? To provide escort services for our fishing vessels?

Tweet

Read more...

Adjusting to after-UMNO Malaysian politics

The last article I wrote attracted a wide array of opinions. To me, the diverse opinions show, UMNO matters- whether it's regarded as loathsome or boon.

But to me, it's more important to make UMNO people see things in perspective. The future of Malaysian politics to my mind can be described as a post UMNO politics. UMNO will still matter but it has to come to terms to the reality that it is no longer the unrivaled and absolute voice of Malays in particular and Malaysians in general. It's a political theater where there are several contending parties vying for allegiance of the people to their causes.

The more than 3 million Malay voters who did not vote UMNO in 2008 cannot be all wrong. They didn't come to the position of not wanting UMNO because the opposition made them more aware and conscious. More likely they came to that position as a result of instantaneous voluntary and independent awareness. The opposition better not pat themselves on the back and indulge in an orgy of self-flattery.

So, it will be stupid if the opposition ignores to harness this general disenchantment by offering just some flippant commentaries on current politics. People will look at leadership, policies, intellectual honesty and articulation of your policies. That way I think, the disenchantment will likely remain and can translate into still, a rejection of UMNO.

For UMNO it will be a bigger challenge. It's like the multi-polar world of geo politics. USA is no longer the sole and unrivalled source of but one of several. India and China have become centers of attraction. Even that little dot down south has become a centre of attraction of global convergence.

So, when Dr Mahathir called for a return to UMNO's fundamentals, I am not sure, we can do so in its pure and unadulterated form. Or in the form, I understood to be what he meant. Because in the meantime, since 2008 at least, the external environment has changed.

UMNO must come to terms with the new realities. The new realities mean, UMNO cannot relive history as therapy. It cant live in the past.

Failure to adjust will lead to depression. In 1901, Thomas Mann wrote a novel called Buddenbrooks about a wealthy family that saw its fortunes reduced over 4 generations. But family members lived in a make believe world that their family is still the focus of things. Yet the world around them has changed but the Buddenbrooks insist they are still the middle kingdom. They don't acknowledge that the prestige and power of the family has declined.

In a similar manner, we can describe the current UMNO in that way. They don't acknowledge that the prestige and power of UMNO has declined. This is the biggest mental block UMNO people are saddled with. Yet, I have to state things as they are.

I don't think, to describe my stand as UMNO my party right or wrong is correct. My interest is to see the RIGHT UMNO emerge. By right I mean UMNO that reaches out as a rational organization and a political party of reason. One that attracts people to its cause. And I think UMNO can reconstruct its commitment to Malay interests without hurting the interest of all Malaysians.

Let's tackle the first of UMNO's hot-spots. The severest attack against UMNO has been its advocacy of preferential treatment of Malays. I have stated this on many occasions. We get incensed over the ownership of 30% of the country's wealth yet, we are accommodating about who owns the 70% of the wealth. I am not saying the Malaysian Chinese own the 70%- whoever owns the 70% should be as hot an issue as the Malay attempt to own 30%. It makes practical sense; to alleviate the anguish of over 65% of the population who cannot share the wealth of this country is a just manner.

And we have to accept this. No one group acquires eminence without economic might. The Malays are asking for a portion of the economic cake to validate its eminence. The way they achieve that may be contentious and maybe at times unconscionable. I don't expect the champions of the Malay cause in this department to be apologetic. If Malays don't acquire economic might, the whole country can explode. It's that simple a proposition.

Even if we accept the necessity of re- structuring the wealth of this country along affirmative lines, it will not be a tenable position to take over the long run. It has to be dismantled at one point in time.

Unless it's etched in stone, the insistence of mandating a 30% ownership will lose ground against normal course of economic development. People become more competitive, the economy becomes more open, that the only way to prosper, will be to link to the external world. The open market is unforgiving to any abnormalities such as insisting on a 30% monopoly which I think is an abnormality.

Having a 30% requirement is essentially isolationist by nature. You can't insulate yourself behind a facade of legislative device because doing so, locks you out from mainstream economics. Sooner or later, whether the Malays like it or not, the normal course of economic development, presses you to adapt to external environment.

The more that 3 million Malay voters who rejected UMNO maybe the critical mass that no longer clings to that legislative device that isolates the Malay. They may represent the new Malay with the new mindset willing to compete and confident of their abilities. Unless UMNO reaches out to them, offering respectable avenues for self-expression in politics and economics, UMNO will never get them back.

In politics, the freedom to differ, i.e. being free to differ without being persecuted. UMNO must realize that more and more Malays want to be treated as thinking adults rather than mere digits in a guarded ward. In economics, the freedom to compete on an even playing filed and wanting to see vestiges of cronyism, clique-ish control of the economy wiped out.

Tweet

Read more...

Its UMNO, not PKR or PAS

 

The former UMNO president said the party struggle now was only about contracts, APs and licenses. He stressed that the party must return to its roots and help unite a divided Malay community.

 

"We can unite the Malays if we are willing to work hard and explain that UMNO's struggle is for religion, race and country," he told the audience during a talk on "Malay race and the future" at the Tun Hussein Onn Memorial here.

 

Finally it has to come out. Dr Mahathir is saying something that I have also been writing about. His voice is of course louder and more impactful. Mine is the voice of an interested observer and also a stakeholder in UMNO's future.

The problem is with UMNO. It's a party for contracts and APs. In other words, self-interests override everything else. It's a party that has lost its bearings. It has dislodged itself from the founding principles- to struggle and push the agenda for race, country and religion. Two, not only it has lost bearings on these founding principles, UMNO hasn't been successful in re casting the principles with the new realities. UMNO has to contend with other stakeholders in this country. These stakeholders have become emboldened partly because they dominate the economy (the Chinese) and because of a more assertive leadership as in the case of the Malaysian Indians. UMNO degenerates because it can't offer competent leadership to contend with these groups. Three, UMNO has retreated from its role as the principled and steadfast spokesman for Malay interests.

In a nutshell, the present UMNO has failed to distinguish itself in a positive way from the rest of the pack. Hence for example, a small but vociferous pressure group such as Perkasa can rattle UMNO. Other NGOs have proven to be persuasive enough to steal the thunder from UMNO in a number of issues such as fighting corruption, abuse of power, decadence of its leaders. UMNO hasn't been nimble enough to seize the initiative in dominating the alternative media. The media companies that it owns have lost credibility not because they churned out untruths, but because they have not been able to win people over to their causes.

Devoid of an appreciation and understanding of its principles, it has spawned a different breed of leadership. On the whole, the leadership is one that's more interested in harnessing the trappings pf power instead of applying that power for the greater good. Hence there is a continuous mad scramble for positions in UMNO.

But UMNO can't attribute its shortcomings to others. UMNO's problems must be sorted out by UMNO people.

Dr Mahathir's recent statements must also be viewed as open criticisms on the leadership of DS Najib. Lee Kuan Yew's characterization of Najib as a rational leader and the attributes that qualify Najib as a rational leader is not exactly placing Najib in a strong position to galvanize the Malay ground. Indeed it can serve to alienate Najib further as he will be seen, as part of the make-up of the rational leader, to compromise many things of interest to the Malays.

I differ slightly as to the causes of the waning influence of UMNO. Dr Mahathir and many other UMNO leaders are not able any longer, to lay claim that UMNO is the absolute and undisputed voice of Malays. As I have written many times, the wisdom of the many and in this case the majority of Malays can't be wrong. Out of the 5.7 million Malay votes in 2008, UMNO got about 2 million votes. Its own members were not convinced of the UMNO leadership.

First we put our own house in order. Second, we reach out directly to the majority of people. We cannot wish PKR or PAS to fade away being our competitors for the Malay ground. UMNO has to offer credible and competent leadership, sound policies, communicate them and win people over to UMNO's cause. UMNO has to distinguish itself from these two in more positive ways.

Tweet

Read more...

UMNO and its Rational Leader-2

The truth about journalists and NST.

Journalists have always prided themselves as the self-appointed spokesperson as what should be 'news' to the public. They basically have a high opinion of and about themselves believing, they are the only people, with the right to write about anything.

This was only true before the age of the internet and the rise of the citizen journalists. Now anyone with access to the internet can rival the self-appointed spokesperson to offer analyses, news and information. Most important, the public acquires the right of reply. This has been the single most important tool of empowerment which at once renders traditional journalists quacking in their boots.

Why is that so? Well, LKY puts it again:

Once you have the right of reply. Then the journalists no longer appear so clever. If they write something and the other side cannot reply, they sound very clever. But when the write and they get rebutted in a succinct and acerbic manners, then they look very small.

And we have been wondering why circulation of mainstream newspapers minus those that hawk sensational news about sex, scandals, murder and those kind of things, diminish. It's because now, suddenly journalists can appear stupid when the public has the right of reply. Nobody wants to appear stupid most of all journalists who grew up with this notion; they and they alone can pontificate about things.

It's like, suddenly their positions as the sole purveyor of what's newsworthy to the public is shattered. Their gut reaction is to flail out against anyone who can challenge their once impenetrable monopoly. Once their shallowness is exposed, everyone can realize, after all, they are just paper tigers.

There's more. I think those important people in NST in particular should comment on what LKY said about them. On page 88 of Hard Truths:-

You look at what happened to NST and at the ST. one has lost credibility, one has not. Whatever they say about the ST, why are people from all over the world looking at it? Because it's credible… we are not propagating untruths.

The gravest mistake is to assume the reading public is composed of dullards. They think they can slash and burn, carry out selective misinformation.

So I come back to this widely headlined- LKY says Najib is a rational leader. How so? You see any Malaysian patriotic enough will realize that this statement is both a compliment (maybe) and an imperative ( LKY telling Najib) about becoming rational.

You see, in order for Najib to qualify as a rational leader- Najib, must in LKY's understanding, reorganize the basis on which  Malaysia operates.

Number 1: Malaysia has to get rid of its Malay ultra-Malaysia. If he does that , Najib is a rational leader.

Number two: Malaysia must follow the Singapore way- get rid of its envy and pangs of separation.

Najib is rational if he can abandon this notion of a social balance that insists that Malays be on top.

How is Singapore organized according to Lee Kuan Yew? It's a multiracial, meritocracy with a balance between the races, social and economic classes. Of course the Chinese dominate but this LKY justifies by imputing the Chinese are superior in so many ways.

Najib is rational because he wants to work with Singapore, wants to cooperate with Singapore. The two countries do not have to live one another, but work together on convergent interests. That's how, according to LKY, rational and pragmatic countries work.

These things, the journalist never tell us. So when the blared about Najib being rational, they didn't elaborate.

Because in order for Najib to become rational, that would pit him against the prejudices that UMNO people have and

DS Najib will of course square off against the most recent Dr Mahathir's insistence that Malaysia is Tanah Melayu and UMNO is nothing but a party of contracts.

Tweet

Read more...