PRESS RELEASE ( 5 September 2008 )
Dr M and Keng Yaik Should Accept Responsibility for the Mess in UMNO/ BN and Country.
The Prime Minister, Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, has drawn flak since the March upset election which saw the ruling coalition lose its stronghold in Parliament. His position within UMNO and as the country’s chief has become highly uncertain and fragile.
Dissidents in the ruling UMNO have demanded his resignation placing the blame for the shocking defeat solely on the premier’s shoulders. The strongest call comes from former Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad who has made little effort to disguise his displeasure over Abdullah, his chosen successor.
Mahathir is now on the prowl to lobby enough support to oust Abdullah and restore the image of UMNO and BN. Whether booting out Abdullah will solve the problems faced by UMNO remains to be seen. But it is an irony to see Mahathir vow to soldier on to find the crucial solution after having wrecked the image of UMNO during his grip on power.
It is given that Abdullah has not done much about his rhetoric to wipe out corruption and clean up the country’s administration. But his is not an enviable task as Abdullah inherited a corrupt government from his former boss. Mahathir has gained quite a reputation for single-handedly ruining the judiciary, closing an eye on the abuse of power by the police force, domesticating the media, manipulating the electoral system and ignoring rampant corruption and money politics in UMNO and Barisan Nasional.
His 22 years in power was possible with the use of various laws like the Internal Security Act, Sedition Act, Official Secrets Act, Printing Presses and Publications Act and the University and University Colleges Act to curb any form of dissent in the country.
While Mahathir now claims that Abdullah is a liability to UMNO, the origin of his wrath might stem from the Prime Minister’s refusal to carry out Mahathir’s projects or self-styled legacy. The public brawls and insulting remarks started with Abdullah’s reluctance to continue Mahathir’s pet project of building a bridge linking the causeway to Singapore.
Mahathir might feel saddened to see UMNO lose the support it once enjoyed among the people and especially Malays but his hatred for Abdullah comes from seeing his legacy crumble.
In the same light, Gerakan president Dr Lim Keng Yaik’s sudden reprisal of UMNO is amusing. It’s as if Dr Lim just woke up from a deep sleep that lasted years. During his tenure as a minister, never once did he suggest that UMNO must re-brand itself to stay relevant to the people. UMNO’s corrupt leaders and racial politics suited the political aspirations of Dr Lim then. Now he is taking the high moral ground and is subtly threatening to quit the ruling coalition after his party’s humiliating defeat at the general elections.
Whether it is the MCA, MIC or Gerakan, leaders of these respective parties played along to curry favor with the ruling elites within UMNO. But now that Abdullah’s position is shaky and UMNO is losing its lock on power, we see the sudden mushrooming of dissidents within and outside the party.
In reality, all leaders like Dr Mahathir and Dr Lim must share the responsibility for the downfall of UMNO and the ruling coalition government. While Abdullah inherited the rot, Dr Mahathir created and presided over the rot. Dr Lim, meanwhile, was a mute spectator.
.
Charles Santiago
Member of Parliament, Klang
5 September, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Fardinkum ,
these two doctors should go to far away ghettos and run a clinic as locums, as their track record seems to be of ruffians. Hypocrites of par excellence should be awarded to them for their wasteful time in office.
5 September, 2008 at 4:30 pm
WELL SAID . DR.MAHATHIR IS THE CHIEF TRAITOR OF MODERN MALAYSIA. WE ARE FORTUNATE TO REALISE THAT WHILE HE IS STILL ALIVE AND WANT HI TO HEAR THAT HIS MISMANAGEMENT OF NEP,UNITY ABUSE OF POWER IN EVERY ASPECT IS SOMETHING THAT EVERY MALAYSIAN SHOULD KNOW. THANKS FOR THE ENLIGHTMENT…PLEASE DO NOT FORGET OUR ONE TIME HERO – SAMY…. HE IS ANOTHER DISASTER TO OUR NATION.
5 September, 2008 at 4:46 pm
FOLKS, CAN DEMOCRACY ACTUALLY GUARANTEE US FREEDOM???
CAN WE LEARN SOMETHING FROM THE AMERICAN EXPERIENCE ….
read on
————————————————————————————
What’s the Meaning of ‘Freedom’? …. But don’t ask a politician!
by Rep. Ron Paul
“Man is not free unless government is limited. There’s a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts”.
- Ronald Reagan
We’ve all heard the words democracy and freedom used countless times, especially in the context of our invasion of Iraq. They are used interchangeably in modern political discourse, yet their true meanings are very different. George Orwell (picture above right) wrote about “meaningless words” that are endlessly repeated in the political arena. Words like “freedom,” “democracy,” and “justice,” Orwell explained, have been abused so long that their original meanings have been eviscerated. In Orwell’s view, political words are “often used in a consciously dishonest way.” Without precise meanings behind words, politicians and elites can obscure reality and condition people to reflexively associate certain words with positive or negative perceptions. In other words, unpleasant facts can be hidden behind purposely meaningless language.
As a result, Americans have been conditioned to accept the word “democracy” as a synonym for freedom, and thus to believe that democracy is unquestionably good. The problem is that democracy is not freedom. Democracy is simply majoritarianism, which is inherently incompatible with real freedom. Our founding fathers clearly understood this, as evidenced not only by our republican constitutional system, but also by their writings in the Federalist Papers and elsewhere. James Madison cautioned that under a democratic government, “There is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual.” John Adams argued that democracies merely grant revocable rights to citizens depending on the whims of the masses, while a republic exists to secure and protect preexisting rights.
Yet how many Americans know that the word “democracy” is found neither in the Constitution nor the Declaration of Independence, our very founding documents? A truly democratic election in Iraq, without U.S. interference and U.S. puppet candidates, almost certainly would result in the creation of a Shi’ite theocracy. Shi’ite majority rule in Iraq might well mean the complete political, economic, and social subjugation of the minority Kurd and Sunni Arab populations. Such an outcome would be democratic, but would it be free? Would the Kurds and Sunnis consider themselves free? The administration talks about democracy in Iraq, but is it prepared to accept a democratically elected Iraqi government no matter what its attitude toward the U.S. occupation? Hardly. For all our talk about freedom and democracy, the truth is we have no idea whether Iraqis will be free in the future.
They’re certainly not free while a foreign army occupies their country. The real test is not whether Iraq adopts a democratic, pro-Western government, but rather whether ordinary Iraqis can lead their personal, religious, social, and business lives without interference from government. Simply put, freedom is the absence of government coercion. Our Founding Fathers understood this, and created the least coercive government in the history of the world. The Constitution established a very limited, decentralized government to provide national defense and little else. States, not the federal government, were charged with protecting individuals against criminal force and fraud. For the first time, a government was created solely to protect the rights, liberties, and property of its citizens.
Any government coercion beyond that necessary to secure those rights was forbidden, both through the Bill of Rights and the doctrine of strictly enumerated powers. This reflected the founders’ belief that democratic government could be as tyrannical as any King. Few Americans understand that all government action is inherently coercive. If nothing else, government action requires taxes. If taxes were freely paid, they wouldn’t be called taxes, they’d be called donations. If we intend to use the word freedom in an honest way, we should have the simple integrity to give it real meaning: Freedom is living without government coercion. So when a politician talks about freedom for this group or that, ask yourself whether he is advocating more government action or less. The political left equates freedom with liberation from material wants, always via a large and benevolent government that exists to create equality on earth.
To modern liberals, men are free only when the laws of economics and scarcity are suspended, the landlord is rebuffed, the doctor presents no bill, and groceries are given away. But philosopher Ayn Rand (and many others before her) demolished this argument by explaining how such “freedom” for some is possible only when government takes freedoms away from others. In other words, government claims on the lives and property of those who are expected to provide housing, medical care, food, etc. for others are coercive?and thus incompatible with freedom. “Liberalism,” which once stood for civil, political, and economic liberties, has become a synonym for omnipotent coercive government. The political right equates freedom with national greatness brought about through military strength.
Like the left, modern conservatives favor an all-powerful central state? but for militarism, corporatism, and faith-based welfarism. Unlike the Taft-Goldwater conservatives of yesteryear, today’s Republicans are eager to expand government spending, increase the federal police apparatus, and intervene militarily around the world. The last tenuous links between conservatives and support for smaller government have been severed. “Conservatism,” which once meant respect for tradition and distrust of active government, has transformed into big-government utopian grandiosity. Orwell certainly was right about the use of meaningless words in politics. If we hope to remain free, we must cut through the fog and attach concrete meanings to the words politicians use to deceive us.
We must reassert that America is a republic, not a democracy, and remind ourselves that the Constitution places limits on government that no majority can overrule. We must resist any use of the word “freedom” to describe state action. We must reject the current meaningless designations of “liberals” and “conservatives,” in favor of an accurate term for both: statists. Every politician on earth claims to support freedom. The problem is so few of them understand the simple meaning of the word.
Merdeka!!!
5 September, 2008 at 8:46 pm
RIGHTLY SAID YB. A lot of the current problems-corruption, cronism, bribes,cheating,character assasination & jailing of critics and racism and racial polarisation was created by Mahathir -father of corruption & racism.
PM Badawi is a miilion times better than Mahathir in the honourable section but sadly Badawi is a sleeping PM.
The people are sick of racial politics & want CHANGE & an end to Corruption that is bleeding the nation dry.
Malaysia DO NOT & MUST NOT belong to the families of Mahathir,Badawi,Razak but the people.
The PM should not also be the finance Minister as its open to abuse & temptation.
Long Live Keadilan-Pas-Dap !
8 September, 2008 at 9:40 am
Agree with what you have stated. It is a sad state of affairs for all Malaysians everywhere. It is time for change. Like the Americans, this is the year the changes have started for Malaysians. Let us hope that unity for all Malaysians will prevail.
Time to get rid of corruption(as much as possible) and dirty politics.