Rallying the winds of change

“The government is now taking measures to reduce the difficulties that result from rising prices.”
PM Abdullah Ahmad Badawi on his government’s cost-cutting measures to counter a whopping oil price increase announced by none other than himself.

Rising oil prices is a global problem the local man on the street has to come to grasps with. So I shall write this from a completely layman’s point of view. Experts are welcome to share more in the comments section.

Yet it is understandable why the average Joe from oil-exporting Malaysia is finding it hard to comprehend the rationale behind his government’s overnight move to increase petrol prices by more than 40% after months of noncommittal statements regarding the issue.

Simplistically put, a net exporting (exports > imports) country like Malaysia should profit when global oil prices increase. Demand for oil is ever increasing, but the limited supply (that would inevitably run out one day) pushes the value of this prized commodity up.

So, logically speaking, an oil-rich country like Malaysia, which is projected to be a net exporter until 2014, is making more money when prices skyrocket. Why is the country suffering from the “effects of global oil prices” then?

Let’s see what the government has to say for itself. In defense of this unpopular move, Abdullah has said that increasing oil prices burden the government because, in order to have domestic oil prices remain low, it has to hence increase subsidies, which is economically unsound in the longer term. Plainly put, the money for subsidies could be better used.

“Hey, but aren’t we making effing tons more than that just exporting our oil?” Screams the frustrated consumer.

Shockingly, Malaysian national oil company Petronas has washed its hands clean off this issue. Its accounts are not open for public scrutiny. It is categorically irresponsible to the rakyat, and only answerable to its “stakeholders”, which spells, invariably, in the letters of U, M, N, and O.

My comments in the above may sound reckless, I’ll try to put it in a less emotive manner. First, below are excerpts from comments recently made by Petronas President and CEO Mohd Hassan Marican:

Petronas could go bust by 2018 (June 6, 2008)

KUALA LUMPUR: Petronas will go bust within 10 years if all its profits are handed to the Government to continue subsidising fuel, said its president and chief executive officer Tan Sri Hassan Marican.

He warned that many national petroleum companies in the world have ceased to exist or were in financial trouble today because all their profits were taken away from them.

“Petronas has played a major role by giving back a substantial amount of its profits to the Government,” he added.

At the close of its financial year in March last year, the national petroleum company had given the Government RM52.3bil in taxes, royalties and dividends which worked out to be 32% of the Federal Government’s revenue.

“Since the formation of Petronas in 1974 to last year, the company gave the Government RM335.7bil out of a total profit of RM570bil,” Hassan said.

Commenting on the fuel price increase, the Petronas boss said the corporation did not make a sen from the increase.

“All the oil companies get full market price for the petrol and diesel that they sell and the Government pay them the difference from the fixed price. This is where the subsidy comes into play,” he added.

and…

Petronas calls for removal of fuel subsidies (June 10, 2008)

“While the industry is stepping up efforts to bring more energy to the market, much needs to be done on the consumer end to ensure that greater energy efficiency is achieved,” he said at the 13th Asia Oil & Gas Conference yesterday.

“While this is being pursued, nations must also work towards a gradual removal of generous energy subsidies, which cause unmitigated consumption and market distortions that are unmanageable in the long run.”

The dichotomy hence is that Petronas is not the Malaysian government, and vice versa. Petronas is a government linked company, but it is apparently bound to private interest, profits, which sets its role apart from that of the government. They pay the Malaysian government taxes, royalties, dividends, etc. So, that’s the Malaysian government’s oil revenue. So, tell me, who is Petronas answerable to? Frankly, I don’t know, but aren’t Malaysians, each and every one of them stakeholders of Malaysia’s natural resources?

The question thus, is where Petronas’ profits has gone to. Apart from giving back to the government (which the government then uses as subsidies), apart from re-investing in technology, drilling, and exploration, where has its profits gone to? Does the rakyat really have no claim whatsoever to Petronas?

Let’s not forget 2014 is not that far away a future. Globally, an oil crisis is impending. Already, a food crisis is looming. What does Abdullah’s administration have in their plans? What does Petronas have in mind?

Malaysia has practically zero plans in store for alternative reproducible energy. Other than pushing the consumers to conserve, we have seen nothing else worthy of note. Lots of rhetoric, no mechanism.

Abdullah has urged Malaysians to “change lifestyles”, and he wants to be seen taking the lead, which is the gist of the opening quote of this post. But really, how much more can be changed?

The rakyat are now taking to the streets. Opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim has promised a “Million Marchers” rally to oppose Abdullah’s decision, and claims September 16th will be the last Malaysians see of this inhumane, corrupt, and unjust government.

Or will we not?

~~~~~

The world closing in
Did you ever think
That we could be so close,like brothers
The future’s in the air
I can feel it everywhere
Blowing with the wind of change

Take me to the magic of the moment
On a glory night
Where the children of tomorrow dream away
In the wind of change

Walking down the street
Distant memories
Are buried in the past forever

Scorpions – Wind of Change

What we know about our judiciary

“An investigation would not reveal anything more than what we already know. In my view, we need to look at restoring the integrity of the judiciary.”
Zaid Ibrahim, De facto Law Minister, on a judge’s revelation *(a must read) of direct executive interference in the judiciary.

After the VK Lingam tape, a High Court judge has now come out into the open about the devious undercurrents maligning the Malaysian judiciary.

Justice Ian Chin’s account of how the government, particularly during the rule of Mahathir Mohamad, pressured judges into siding with state interest is damning in hulk proportions.  He offers, before he sat to hear a petition regarding one constituency’s results of the March 8 elections, that his position of neutrality could be perceived as contentious because of previous run-ins with the ruling Barisan Nasional government.

Among other things, Chin has claimed Mahathir “berated” a couple of his judgments, that he was sent to a  correctional “boot camp” thereafter, and how the “Sword of Damocles” has been dangling over his (and possibly other judges’) neck ever since.

Interestingly, the law minister Zaid Ibrahim has rejected the possibility that Chin’s claims be probed.  Yet, instead of dispelling the contents of Chin’s revelations, he has went on to further confirm and corroborate that, indeed, we have a tainted judiciary.

If an investigation will not reveal “anything more than we already know”, what is it exactly that we already know?  That your government not only fix judges, that they are pressured into worshiping your instructions?

“Another investigation, inquiry or commission will just reveal what we have revealed before. I think we should move on and not waste more (of) taxpayers’ money,” he said.

Move on? How condescending can that be? Is Zaid telling the rakyat to forget about Mahathir, his wrongdoings, and just support Abdullah’s promises, since they don’t like each other anyway?  What sort of reform is this?

For starters perhaps, Zaid and Abdullah can tell us what and where we should be moving on from.  There’s no point preaching a heavenly destination when you cannot admit the dump Malaysian democracy is in right now.

You don’t restore trust by sweeping more crimes under the carpet, and hope we forget.  We never will.

Desperado…

“Indeed based on the arguments of the Commission itself I can say that possibly it was set up in order to find something to pin on me, to drag me to court etc and generally humiliate me.”
Mahathir Mohamad, former Prime Minister of Malaysia for 22 years, responds to the possibility that action could be taken against him for his part in judicial fixing.

I’m generally lost for words.

Tak malukah?

And please, before you flame me for insulting Malaysia’s greatest leader, ever, pay a visit to Antares.

~~~~~

Desperado, why don’t you come to your senses?
You been out ridin’ fences for so long now
Oh, you’re a hard one
I know that you got your reasons
These things that are pleasin’ you
Can hurt you somehow

…

Desperado, oh, you ain’t gettin’ no younger
Your pain and your hunger, they’re drivin’ you home
And freedom, oh freedom well, that’s just some people talkin’
Your prison is walking through this world all alone

Eagles – Desperado

Probe on ‘BMC 4’ frivolous

“Anyone can make up a story.”
Kajang police chief ACP Shakaruddin Che Mood explaining the police’s right to protect itself in reference to the recent case of police violence at Bandar Mahkota Cheras.

Duh. Who’s making up excuses for whom?

When the police commit a crime (in this case, it’s battery) , who investigates the police? It’s a trick question, really, because the police investigate their very victims instead.

What impartial investigation are you promising when you are already defending the police’ right to defend itself? What sort of findings can we expect from you when the suspects are none other than the victims themselves? And you already think they could be making up stories! What nerve.

Right, anyone can make up a story, even when pictures show otherwise. Welcome to Malaysia.

PS: MCA lawyers are representing the victims, I hope they know their Human Rights 101 :)

As expected, Zaid Ibrahim talks irresponsibly

“If we can look at the government and the laws, by all means do that, study the law – the so called restrictive laws – and make representations to the relevant minister and the government. But what I want to talk to you today is can the press today start looking at itself?”
Zaid Ibrahim, de facto law minister, on why the laws should not be blamed for the press’ irresponsibility.

I shall stop short of saying “I told you so”, but let me just say I wasn’t entirely surprised by Zaid Ibrahim’s stand on the issue of press freedom.

His idea of a responsible free press is a whim trapped in a vacuum devoid of social context. If he was arguing this in an undergraduate paper presentation somewhere far, far away from Malaysia, I’d say it’s fairly acceptable.

But for a cabinet minister, who you’d expect to have a better grasp on the issues and baggage at hand, Zaid Ibrahim’s washing of hands off a shackled press’ dirty underworld means he’s plain irresponsible.

The larger part of his 10 minute speech were rants against the press’ inability to want press freedom badly enough, their culture of feudal kowtowing, and their blaming “so-called restrictive laws” for their every fault. The rest of it were mostly questions directed to the audience (made up mostly of journos) asking them why they can’t perform more responsibly.

Not one word was said about political ownership of the press, not one murmur against deliberate marginalising of opposition voices, and not one whisper on the numerous cases of the various laws being used to clamp down on the press.

In the end, it was all about “self-liberating” oneself not from but within the shackles of the government Zaid represents.

“I’m not here to endorse anything I’ve not read or considered”, said Zaid in opening his speech. Obviously, he hasn’t read a lot, or considered anything more than his political career, ie. promotion, in his own words.

The very fact that our mainstream press are less-inclined when it comes to defending altruistic civil freedoms remains so not because it is intrinsically irresponsible, but more because Zaid’s government is actively ordering it to act so, lest we forget the phone calls editors get once in a while.

And the press acts as if they are intrinsically irresponsible to the people (fourth estate, yadayadayada) because they are responsible to their paychecks, their licenses, and ultimately, their negotiated freedom.

It’s sad, and distressingly so, when someone like Zaid in his position would choose to ignore the very basic and underlying factors when it comes to charting a road map for a more democratic Malaysia. Will he go back to the cabinet and tell them “the truth, of what is right and wrong”, and defend the so called basic principles he supposedly shares with us?

Humbly,
Konsyenz (A Voice Within)

Walking the talk, stopping the walk

“Please take note that we are not gathering at Dataran Merdeka to walk to the NPC.”
Benar Walk organisers on calling off the walk for press freedom.

Fellow friends who believe in a freer media, activists who have long fought against propagandic media, I urge you to, in times when lines are blurred, remember what you stand for.

Malaysia post March 8 is facing various contradictions as far as social change is concerned. Co-optation and accommodation of interests once strange to the powers that be now seem fashionable.

Have we truly won them over? Are they genuinely willing to allow greater civil freedom? Some say these arguments are stagnant, even cynical, remarks of those unable to “give and take” in what they call moments when change is realistic.

I think the road map to press freedom can ill afford more patronage from those who still actively seek to define agendas, barbwire the civil freedoms using terms like ‘responsibility’, or ultimately have more of themselves than the rakyat at heart.

The Benar Walk: Tidak Dibenarkan. (Disallowed)

And we’re still quite glad de facto Law Minister Zaid Ibrahim will deliver a keynote on the occasion. I’m not suggesting the organisers didn’t fight for the Kebenaran to keep walking. I’m suggesting, nonetheless, co-optation and accommodation of civil interests on the part of the powers that be is more often than not reciprocal, with the people’s interest invariably accommodated to (crudely saying) the whims and fancies those wanting to retain power in the state.

Our Law Minister will probably criticise the Printing Presses and Publications Act. He has in the past proposed we do away with it and instead move towards self-regulation (it’s still about regulation). As if the media aren’t already self-censoring.

Will he this Sunday condemn political ownership of the media? Will he talk about the Official Secrets Act? Will he talk about RTM, Bernama, etc? Will it be another freedom-with-responsibility sermon? Will his government ever comprehend the need for a media that is responsible not to their arbitrary powers but to the public?

Wishing I could be there,
Konsyenz (A Voice Within)

UMNO and the politics of crossovers

“When Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi announced that the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) will go through thorough reform, I sense that he is committed in changing things.”
Ezam Mohd Nor, once a blue-eyed boy of leading opposition man Anwar Ibrahim’s, on switching allegiances.

Political crossovers are amongst the most unpopular of moves a politician can make. And more so if your politics is based on loyalty, sacrifice, and – in Ezam Mohd Nor’s case – handcuffs.

This is a man who, fighting his (then) boss’ war, had gone to prison for 26 months. He was a selfless servant who, right after his release, re-dedicated his life to his (then) master’s, saying, “Now that I am free, we can focus on getting Anwar Ibrahim out of prison.”

Ezam was a loyal man. But loyalties change. For Ezam, his loyalty to Anwar and Keadilan expired early 2007.

When he thought he’d lost his master’s favour, Ezam quit in what could have been a case of jealousy overdose. His scathing criticism of Anwar and a perceived vanquisher, Azmin Ali, was one laced with dissatisfaction, contempt, and bitterness.

Asked of his political future then, he had this to say, “If (PM Abdullah’s) secretaries want to talk about politics, I have no problem.”

Reading the writing on the wall, I find it mildly amusing that the man has now chosen to officially crossover.

Which reminds me of what I had in mind when I started writing this. Well, talk has been (since around a week after March 8) that Anwar the de facto Prime Minister-in-waiting is (and some say has succeeded in) tempting Barisan Nasional MPs from Sabah and Sarawak to crossover, effectively digging the grave for UMNO’s 50 years of dominance.

With the significant gains his Pakatan Rakyat Opposition front in the March 8 general elections, Anwar and his potential crossovers are on the brink of opening a new chapter in Malaysian politics. UMNO is apparently at its weakest; infighting aside, its main partners in the Barisan Nasional have all but completely lost the trust of their respective ethnic communities.

In such uncertain times, Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi is in an awkward position. His promises for reform during his first term have proven empty partly because he didn’t need to antagonise close supporters by going “anti-inertia”. But this time around, it’s quite a different ballgame altogether. Reforming the judiciary, ACA, and strengthening other democratic institutions (ie. the notion of a free press) could actually be in line with Abdullah’s political cause.

Political will, that’s the key word. It’s a grey area, really, whether the reforms sought by Abdullah are genuinely bona fide. It will be largely give and take, and at the perceived right moment, too, in terms of using reform to kill off whatever threat Mahathir et al could pose. At a relatively peripheral level, his reforms will undoubtedly pacify more segments of non-partisan public.

Whatever pledges Abdullah has made in the past, they have not arrived quickly enough; will they come fast now? In Ezam, Abdullah would think he has a sound firefighter.

Ezam, I’ll say, is solid stuff as far as fighting corruption is concerned. He co-pioneered Keadilan’s early days, fighting for justice, fighting against corruption, fighting against abuse of political power, etc. And to give credit where credit’s due, he’s said his re-joining of UMNO is not for any position in office. He says he wants to fight corruption, for Abdullah.

So let’s lay off Ezam, he has his petty personal political future to strive for. He’s good as far as fighting corruption is concerned. Yes, yes, but he’s fighting for the wrong side, some say. But has he ever represented non-racism?

I might be mistaken, but if the man thinks he’s fighting for the right issues, let him fight it anywhere he thinks fit and wish him the best. There are larger issues multiracial Malaysia will face in the not-so-distant future that this anti-corruption guy won’t come to grasps with at the moment. So, forgive him.

Ezam, though he’s not elected, can be seen as a crossover, nonetheless. Ezam’s rejoining UMNO is effectively symbolic of completely rejecting Keadilan, Pakatan Rakyat, and true multiracial change. And it will be principally similar to what Anwar has in his mind regarding his side of crossovers. So, whilst Abdullah and gang have painted this whole hopping as democratically unacceptable, we see him redefining neutrality in the case of Ezam’s crossing to his side.

Neutrality has for so many times been defined by the ruling powers that be (as has been the case in Terengganu, civil rights, religious freedom, etc), it’s bemusing how Anwar’s critics still find it so difficult to reconcile with the fact that genuine change will not come from within UMNO, not Mahathir, not even reform-minded Abdullah.

On a personal level, I’m rooting for real, sincere change for Malaysians everywhere. And by that, I sincerely hope Sabah and Sarawak go beyond RM20 vote buying, fat feudal projects that won’t last forever, or the idea that only BN can rule. We, you, all Malaysians deserve better than UMNO, Abdullah, or Mahathir.

Crossovers happen in politics. Voters crossover, politicians definitely crossover, but what must stay constant is the realisation of a better, multiracial, democratic, free Malaysia. Let not the posts be shifted anymore.

Humbly,
Konsyenz (A Voice Within)

The ‘Grand Saga’ of police violence

“He asked for it. He ran over a policeman and he got what he deserved.”
A high-ranking police officer at the Great Barricade of Bandar Mahkota Cheras where 21-year-old Chang Jiun Haur got beat up by 20 FRU riot policemen.

No one, not one Malaysian would ask for a beating like the one Chang Jiun Haur received for allegedly running over a policeman’s baton. Go read for yourself, the bloody details are at Malaysiakini.

Where’s the common sense? Grand Saga, the Cheras-Kajang highway operator, barricades an open access road that connects Bandar Mahkota Cheras to the highway, forcing residents to take a 6km long detour and pay an extra 90sen for every trip. How’s that?

Residents unite to tear down the illegal barrier, but police spray them with tear gas, arrest them, beat them up, and side with Grand Saga. Next, thugs appear out of nowhere (Grand Saga executive director Zainal Abidin Ali issues a statement denying involvement with the thugs) and beat residents up, up to 10 are alleged to be seriously injured. Zainal Abidin Ali is a former Dang Wangi police chief. How’s that? Any wonder why the police are helping his company beating the poor residents up?

Last night, Chang Jiun Haur who visits the site of the Great Barricade on his way home with a few friends gets bashed, for allegedly TRYING to run over a policeman. The said policeman has only a broken baton to show.

Chang Jiun Haur has everything you can see in the picture above.

Mahathir, Abdullah, and racism.

“I am not acting on any pressure. I am doing this because Umno under Abdullah has forgotten its roots, its struggle for the party – for the Malays and for the nation.”
(Mahathir Mohammad, May 27, 2008)

Racial politics, racial discrimination, exclusively race based policies, and UMNO have one thing in common. They are racist in nature, and there are no two ways around that.

But when racists attempt to outrace one another, the subtle nuances within racism become more pronounced. Yet it’s in its more nuanced form that racism is truly more dangerous to society.

Before Abdullah Ahmad Badawi and his predecessor Mahathir Mohammad lost mutual favours, racism was quite simply defined as them and UMNO for the Malays against the non-Malays. It looked more or less monolithic – the fight for Ketuanan Melayu (Malay Supremacy) – and too strong to be challenged from the outside.

The idea was always that throughout history, only crises in UMNO would lead to gains for their (relatively more) multiracial opposition. Nothing else would challenge the UMNO hegemony other than those of the cracks created by diverging interests within the dominant party.

It’s during times of hegemonic crises like those we’ve seen in UMNO (in 1969, 1987, 1998) and the one of enormous proportions we see now that opportunities for change arise. The dialectical process of social change cannot be more obvious in Malaysia today where we see contradictions within the dominant racial ideology leading to a struggle against its antithesis – genuine multiracialism. What synthesis will be born from this clash of ideas? We shall see.

Interestingly to be considered, and perhaps of equal significance at this moment, are the micro dialectics going on within UMNO thesis. Of course, some would claim this is the key dialectical development in Malaysia today. But to situate the UMNO crisis as the major contradiction of Malaysian society today will be to go against the believe in true social change where subordinate classes (though racial in this case) successfully struggle and create a (racially) classless society.

Nevertheless, let’s zoom in on the micro crisis in UMNO. It’s Mahathir the predecessor versus Abdullah the successor. Having endured a falling out for two years now since the infamous crooked bridge issue (when Mahathir accused Abdullah of selling out the country to neighbours Singapore), the gap between these two old men cannot be wider today after Abdullah’s disastrous showing in the recent general elections. Abdullah is of the view it is because of elements of sabotage that his Barisan Nasional ruling coalition failed to retain two-thirds in Parliament and lost a further four states to the Pakatan Rakyat (People’s Alliance). Whereas for Mahathir, Abdullah has been simply inept at the job – accusing him of leaving key decisions to purportedly young advisers, in particular his son-in-law Khairy Jamaluddin, who have no intention on upholding Mahathir’s interest in affairs. Before the elections, Mahathir even went as far as to ask Malaysians to “vote not only with party loyalty” stressing the need for a strong opposition and for “good people setting up a good government”. (For context, see Malaysiakini here)

On the back of the Lingam tape royal commission report implicating Mahathir in judicial fixing – with Abdullah holding advantage in terms of deciding whether anyone gets prosecuted for the case – Mahathir has quit UMNO, requested MPs to follow suit, and put the condition that unless Abdullah resigns, none shall return. Not known to be a pacifier, Mahathir has quickly gone on the offensive, burning his bridges before he could persuade any UMNO lawmakers to join him. Abdullah has quickly solidified ranks within the party, repositioning Mahathir as external to UMNO by claiming members who love the the party will not leave. Mahathir’s son Mukhriz, who is a newly elected UMNO MP, called upon Abdullah to resign but stopped short of quitting from the party himself.

With Mahathir now an UMNO outcast (not one elected legislator has responded to his clarion call), there’s only one logical move for him to take, and which is the one he’s taken. To cast doubt on Abdullah’s leadership, Mahathir is now taking racism one step towards the extreme right. To win over popular support, Mahathir is doing all he can to incite racial emotions by claiming legitimacy to be the de facto champion of (exclusive) Malay rights. His argument against the Abdullah led government is one about issues surrounding eroding Malay supremacy. His branding of other races as becoming “extremist” with their demands because of a weak government has surely antagonised perhaps even the most sympathetic of those amongst minority communities. Mahathir now becomes a mutual foe of those who voted on March 8 against racial and corrupt politics. He now effectively represents both corruption and racism.

Abdullah, on the other hand, has been relatively silent (as usual) on the controversy, calling for calm and support for his governance, promising reform (again), and probably promising more carrots in exchange for loyalty. He still holds the ‘correct, correct, correct’ card that could easily ‘pom, pom, pom’ Mahathir into oblivion. With Tengku Adnan, Vincent Tan, and gang probably having bad dreams of VK Lingam every night now, Abdullah knows time is on his side as far as Mahathir’s implication in this case is concerned. He just needs to wait for the right moment, the moment when Mahathir truly loses control, when he unleashes the Attorney General.

Abdullah’s handling of Mahathir is thus smarter than Mahathir’s of his deputy when he was still in power in 1998. Anwar Ibrahim’s sacking, arrest, and conviction under trumped up charges back then sparked protests that brought together thousands in numbers calling for reformation. Yesterday, Mahathir post-UMNO was greeted by a meager crowd of 300 at the airport where he arrived from an overseas trip. In contrast, Abdullah’s arrival later that night was reported to have drawn around 5,000 people.

Perhaps, it is Abdullah’s perceived gentlemanliness working wonders again. His non-antagonistic approach toward Mahathir apparently isn’t making him too many new enemies. But is Abdullah any less a racist than Mahathir has shown himself to be?

Of the long list things Abdullah has not yet accomplished (apart from crooked bridges that is), he still has yet to distance himself from the racial stance Mahathir is taking. It should also be noted that in spite of all the signs (March 8 being one) Abdullah has received, he has yet to implement any genuine reform to any level of his supposed democratic rule. Abdullah is in fact retaining his legitimacy as UMNO leader, one who will continually strive for Malay supremacy, racial politics, and feudally derived popular support.

In terms of how this crisis will turn out, the Mahathir et al versus Abdullah led UMNO end-game looks destined to be one which pits Malays against Malays. Will racist ideology prevail? Or will Abdullah’s inertia actually swing Malays further away from the inanities of racism? We shall see.

Lurking around the corner beyond this UMNO crisis is a man defeated in the last one some 10 years ago. Whereas Anwar Ibrahim’s challenge of the dominant leadership back then saw Mahathir solidify his iron-fist rule of Malaysia, he today represents the brightest antithesis to UMNO’s archaic racism. Unlike the previous crises of 69, 87, and 98 when there did not exist a viable alternative to UMNO, Anwar’s Keadilan and the Pakatan Rakyat he helped bring together now offer a refreshing new outlook for Malaysians regardless of race. Non-Malays who are increasingly alienated by Mahathir’s racist struggle against Abdullah will ultimately opt for Anwar. Throw Nik Aziz into the equation anytime, Ketuanan Mahathir or Abdullah will pale against Ketuanan Rakyat.

Can genuine multiracialism, one that celebrates honest and open democracy, be facilitated in the near future? Will it be Mahathir, Abdullah, or Anwar?

Looking forward to your replies.

Humbly,
Konsyenz (A Voice Within)

Finding that voice of reason in unreasonable times

People write for all sorts of reasons. Some write to express. Some write for fame. Some write for wealth. Some write for the fun of it. Some write for love. Some write for the sake of a nation. Some write to destroy, flame – and sometimes with perceived good reasons. Some write for life. Some write before death, to explain. Everyone who writes write for something.

I write with a simple reason, too, in search of a voice of reason in crazy times. My country, Malaysia, is going through uncertain times. Her Prime Minister has been (for a while now) and still is facing a leadership crisis of sorts. His Opposition have grown considerably in numerical terms. The news exults a degree of journalistic objectivity not quite seen before. And we hence know the lines are blurred, sides are not clear, which thus translates into the coming of a struggle between reason and her foes.

With trepidation, I write seeking some sort of rationale toward paving new futures for my people, Malaysians. It will be hard for the cynics of new Malaysia to imagine fresh scenarios for Malaysian society, for marginalised communities, or for genuine multiracialism to break through.

Who I am at this point wouldn’t matter. It’ll suffice to say I’m a Malaysian who seeks a better tomorrow for my fellow people. My humble hope will be that you, the reader, will strive together in the uncertain times to come, to seek that voice within yourself – your reason.

~~~~~

I’m not a perfect person
There’s many things I wish I didn’t do
But I continue learning
I never meant to do those things to you
And so I have to say before I go
That I just want you to know

I found a reason for me
To change who I used to be
A reason to start over new
And the reason is you

Hoobastank – The Reason