TR EMERITUS

Summarized from Malaysiakini What would happen if Malaysia, a monarchy nation, returned power to the people, allowing them to choose their prime minister through an electoral process, like in the case of United States President Barack Obama? The likelihood of this happening in Malaysia is virtually nil as this suggestion by Gobind Singh Deo (DAP-Puchong) was turned down by minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Nazri Abdul Aziz, saying that a prime minister is chosen from a party which wins the majority parliamentary seats in the general election. Nazri said the appointment is made by the state leader, the king as enshrined in the Federal Constitution post-independence 51 years ago. "Besides, this is a parliamentary democracy that has been practised in the United Kingdom for hundreds of years," said Nazri. He added that the people were matured enough and "know how to choose the prime minister" by giving a mandate to the party they supported. "The appointment is not made through objective decisions. The existing system we have has ensured the peace and harmony in the country," said Nazri.  Read More →

KUALA LUMPUR: - Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi should be given a role as 'senior minister' after he steps down next month, the same way Singapore appointed Mr Lee Kuan Yew as Minister Mentor, a Malaysian backbencher has suggested. This came as Datuk Seri Abdullah talked about his post-retirement plans, which he said included fishing, gardening and planting trees. Barisan Nasional (BN) lawmaker Mohamad Aziz said the move was apt as Mr Abdullah had done a lot for the people, country and Parliament throughout his career as a leader. 'When the Prime Minister relinquishes his post, he will become an ordinary MP,' he said when debating the motion of thanks on the Malaysian king's address in Parliament on Monday. 'Can we then follow our neighbour and appoint him as senior minister?' Datuk Mohamad said the suggestion was apt as Mr Abdullah's predecessors neither 'relinquished their post midway' nor contested in subsequent elections. Separately, at a function late on Monday, Mr Abdullah promised not to interfere in the next government. Asked whether he would follow former premier Mahathir Mohamad's footsteps and blog, he said: 'I'm not going to blog. But I would love to play more golf and plant vegetables, as well as grow fruit trees.' Tun Dr Mahathir had hand-picked Mr Abdullah to lead the nation after he retired in 2003. But Dr Mahathir has since become Mr Abdullah's fiercest critic. 'I am basically a village boy and I am returning to my old ways,' Mr Abdullah was quoted in the New Straits Times newspaper as saying. 'Whatever I do, I do not want to embarrass the government.' He also reportedly said if he were to take on any international roles, he would first discuss it with his successor, Datuk Seri Najib Razak, who is currently the Deputy Prime Minister. Mr Najib is expected to be sworn in as the next prime minister on March 31. Mr Abdullah will retire four years before his term of office ends, in part to take responsibility for BN's disastrous performance in the March general election last year. Source: Straits Times  Read More →

By Kelvin Tan, Guest Columnist When Minister of State for MICA Mr Lui Tuck Yew lamented in parliament that netizens scantly ‘rebutted’ some of the unhelpful comments made by fellow netizens over the Seng Han Thong incident, he betrayed his lack of understanding of the Internet. If the Internet were a channel for, as well as a repository of, every individual’s innermost feelings and opinions, then Mr Lui’s comments are akin to chastizing individuals for expressing their truest opinions. Perhaps in his universe, only opinions he finds agreeable are allowed. This therefore not only betrays a lack of understanding, but also an undemocratic impulse. It is a symptom of having lived too long in an authoritarian system, and in a position of power at that. As has become a cliché: absolute power corrupts absolutely. But the Internet is a democratic platform. Anyone who has a say in anything, has the means to express it. And in a free society, they should. By its logical extension, one will find a plethora of statements and opinions on the Internet. Some will be downright ludicrous, and some others utterly brilliant, and in between, a whole mix of viewpoints all correct and wrong depending on who is reading them. Who determines what is right or wrong, brilliant or ridiculous, is subjective. This is why democratic processes and democracy itself are such critical institutions for a society to mature and become more intelligent (or, ideally, intellectual). What one utters, especially in public, can be proof of one’s upbringing, education, social background. And netizens’ true opinions can only be a true reflection of themselves as well as their society. If their words and thinking are to be blamed, so should their society, their education system, and the government that wrought about such an outcome. If their words and thinking are deemed infantile, then it is not only themselves to be blamed, for they have been deliberately kept infantile. After all, a submissive and self-censoring populace is always a dream come true for tyrannical regimes. In a way, the collective diversity and ‘quality’ of perspectives in a given society can provide an indication of how mature a society is. For example, how the governments and citizens of the US, the UK, and Australia deal with outrageous claims and perspectives that are abound in their society may be different from how the Singaporean people react to and handle these very situations. The difference might not lie so much as a difference between cultural norms (which in Singapore are usually dubious justifications for government control) as their respective social and intellectual maturity. In any case, the US, the UK, and Australia etc., are far more diverse and complex societies than Singapore will ever pretend to be. This is why socio-political websites like The Online Citizen and the Wayang Party Club inhabit important spaces and fulfil critical roles, not only in cyberspace, but also in Singapore’s society. These websites are foremost a result of the monopoly and restriction of communication channels in mainstream society by the government. They offer alternative, less oft-heard opinions, and they hold out the promise for a freer and more mature society, encouraging frank discussions and the airing of a variety of viewpoints. I personally do not see a difference between a reader of the mainstream press as well as one who visits socio-political websites. Readers can access both resources easily, and more so given that access is free. What will compel them to access them in the first place is more important – that there is something different and something new to be gotten. This is where Wayang Party Club can carve out a niche in cyberspace, and establish itself alongside The Online Citizen as Singapore’s premier sociopolitical website. TOC rests itself on a more conservative alternative platform, and Wayang Party Club positions itself more radically. Just as important as the content it provides would be how Wayang Party Club creates a distinct brand and product that deliver something that TOC (or any other website) cannot. This way, it would also find it easier to recruit like-minded readers to become its regular contributors. Practically speaking, there’ll be few readers who would visit only one website at the exclusion of the other, unless they have personal or ideological objections. But these die-hard oppositionists would number in the minority. The more likely scenario would be that general readers surf between these two sites, resulting in what I hope would be a positive competition between the two. And perhaps, the competition should not just be over readers, but over contributors too. Isn’t this the same logic in the free market? If there is a number one brand, say Coke, there’ll inevitably emerge a number two: Pepsi. If there is Macdonald’s, there’ll appear a Burger King, and so on, to give the forerunner a run for its money. Number ones don’t always remain number ones. Sometimes they take turns with the number twos, sometimes they disappear altogether. And the executives and employees of the respective organizations are frequently former executives and employees of their other competitor. This is the same argument, after all, for a democratic society – that no one institution or political party holds monopoly, and that there is free flow of information and the freedom to debate. This competition can only benefit the end-consumer, or reader, or citizen ultimately.  Read More →