What should change be for?

THIS IS POSTED UNDER OLDBOYS ONLY. DO REPLY UNDER THE SAME CATEGORY. REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS

My reading of the Reluctant Politician messed with me. A little known fact, to me at least, was that Tun Abdul Razak would be one of the few people of the world who actually chose a respected path, rather than become a dictator, even when he had the chance. Rather Gandhi-like. Had he chosen the other path, he would have become a benevolent dictator. Which turns on the next point, that is Tun Dr. Mahathir. With a lot of intellectuals, well-read lot, Tun Dr Mahathir was argued to be closest to a dictator than any of his predecessors. He governed Malaysia for 22 years, thwarting two strong "democratic" challenges in each decade, progressed Malaysia that so much so that today, BMW, and Mercedes, sell their cars by direct corporate presence in Malaysia rather than by main franchisees. That is how advanced Malaysia became under Tun Dr Mahathir.

Argue many, Dato Seri Abdullah Ahmad has not stepped into the shoes of his predecessors, in the various ways of the many expectations. I do not plan to address the allegations and counter-points here. I possess no facts, and merely opinions. Hazarding a guess, many fear that Dato Seri Abdullah will turn into a dictator that they say Tun Mahathir was. One overwhelming argument, in favour of the incumbent, e.g., Tun Dr Mahathir (and of course, Dato Seri Abdullah today) was that life remains predictable - politically, economically and socially - towards decay, for minions: albeit slowly. With a regime change, who knows, chances are things will get worse before they get better (if they ever, that is).

So the clamour in recent times, Malaysians first, Islamic but not theocracy, secular constitution, bloggers, retired journalists, journalists turned politicians, politicians turn bloggers - all want to have some say. Change, change, change. Return, return, return. But what do we return to? What do we change to? Spirit of 57? The simple point is that, we still have the same system which we had in 1957 as we have today. The political who can manipulate fear of the bogeyman wins. It is the same in Malaysia, as much as it is the same in Singapore.

The singular most important similarity which created the "dictatorships" in both Malaysia and Singapore is the fact that both worked on having more money than their opposition. For the argument that in Malaysia, the cronies receive contracts (and in return, fuel the political wheel), it is argued that in Singapore, the incumbent in Singapore worked on bankrupting their opposition.

If we take a step, or may be 5 steps back, we will find that none of the Malaysian Prime Ministers (and that would be true of Lee Kuan Yew and Goh Chok Tong, too) was under-qualified for the post of Prime Minister. Each one of them went through the rigmarole of public service, fairly impeccable public character, majority of them - lawyers, before ascending to high office.They were also members of the largest race in the constituency. Taking this point will mean that if we want to return to the spirit of 57, then the Prime Minister must be a lawyer. That would be the closest to fairplay Prime Minister that this country could get.

Sorry, that was not the point I was trying to make. When we look below them, we will see that many of those who did not ascend to high office, Tengku Razaleigh, Dato Seri Anwar - as well as serving politicians who came up through service of community - e.g. Nazri Aziz, Zahid Hamidi, etc are decent Malaysians to begin with. They are not bad folks, to begin with. But how come, many have strange perception of these people, much like Tun Dr Mahathir's perception of Dato Seri Abdullah?

Perhaps, the simple explanation is that politics is the business of power. (Not only TNB). This point has been espoused by Raja Petra, that this business of power means that 193 (i stand corrected) division leaders are the power brokers who decide who govern Malaysia - which means that the rest of us does not really matter. Perhaps, the political then turn to mass issues, Islamic but not theocracy, Chinese rights are being bandied come election time.

So really, nothing can be achieved by changing the Government.

My wish for Malaysia's 50th independence anniversary is as follows: (Not sure if implemented it could even work, but why not, less qualified, cyber taunting, nepotists have all taken potshots too):

1. That the Election Act be amended and yield as follows:

(a) Political parties come under the purview of the Election Commission. Based on election results and subject to forfeiture of deposits for candidates who failed to grab sufficient minimum votes, political parties are given money based on the number of vote they receive - to run their political organisations. If we take a sum of RM2/- per year (until the next election), my guess is that Barisan Nasional will be able to get for the state seat of Pulai Chondong (and Machang) the sum of 7,000 voters x 2 per pax x 4 years x 2 (parliament and state) = RM112, 000.00 not a bad amount to run their election campaign. It also means that PAS gets RM1680 or so, more.

(b) The point is, for Malaysia, it only costs 10,000,000 (voters) x RM2 x 2 = 40,000,000.00 per annum.

You know the Maths - work it out.

2. The Government must fund, and be the only funder of all sizeable religions. If we rate it at RM10 per believer, we would be able to expect RM240 million to be spent on all faiths per annum. All foreign benevolent donors can donate, but all should come to the government, and the government dispense them in the formula.

3. The Government maintains a contract register. initially on voluntary basis, and eventually on a more dominant basis, so that fair contracts can be registered and administered. Incentives may be given to get registration, punitive for those in flagrant violation. Governments and GLCs may then grant contracts based discriminatingly and allow the non-Malays direct contracts with the government, rather than Ali Baba. Those who do deal fairly with their sub-contractors should then be conclusively blacklisted. All Malaysians can get start up funds to do business overseas (provided they agree to be taxed in Malaysia and the like). A contract register will enable that upright citizens are supported by the Government to do business.

What is the purport of my proposition?

1. With proper funding for political activity, polarisation may be avoided. 2. Believing in the inherent good in man, the majority will not allow polarisation to continue. There will be activity to ensure that the mainstream is heard. Right minded people can start political party. People do not have to be corrupt to lead. Islam, fair in execution, will not disadvantage the non-Muslims. Fair minded majority will ensure this. No bogeyman calls because no outside funding be allowed.

2. Funding for all faiths ensure that faiths will be personal in nature. There will not be competing parties throwing money in purchasing conversions. If people wish to convert, then they can go through due process without without being backed or threatened by power of money.

3. Contract registers reward the upright and honest. We will reduce hoarders. We will also avoid Chinese trampling Chinese. We reward hardwork.

4. With all these, judges will be the fair minded, because under 1 above, your public will be very vigilant.

DO I MAKE SENSE? HALLA KEBALA LA AWO