Ends & Means Out of Malaysia's Stalemate

The problem that Malaysia, as a nation (inclusive of politicians, community leaders and institutions), and as individual citizens, face today is a well-known philosophical dilemma between Ends and Means.

Do the Ends justify the Means ? (e.g. the Communists stole from the rich and suppressed the intellectuals in order to have a truly eqalitarian utopia on earth) Or do the Means justify the Ends? (e.g. the capitalist system allows free enterprise for all without any market inteference, resulting in a more prosperous, more vibrant and more democratic society in the end).

Looking at the political and civil problems that has captured Malaysia's media and blogs objectively, we can reframe the issues into the following facts:

1. About half of voting citizens voted for BN.

2. The other half (slightly lower) voted for the Opposition.

3. Both parties do not have a two thirds majority.

4. Both parties are trying to gain more political power. (this is a tactical means to a desired end: Power of the Few or Good for All Malaysians?)

(a) BN by retaking some of the five states it lost through a snap election or a potential cross-over by PAS.

(b) PR by forming the government through cross-overs or a snap election.

5. Both political parties and their leaders represent the interests of their voters with differences in policies, methods, objectives, etc.

6. Both parties and the voting public share one common aim: the harmonious prosperity and progress of Malaysia.

7. Human nature is prone to evil and corruption. Especially those who eventually wield power, whether economic or political.

8. The system of checks and balances is still weak. The judiciary and the media are still not fully independent of the government's influence. (This is a situational environment which is used by manipulative parties to checkmate or gain advantage over their rivals).

Given these facts, let us separate the facts from the value statements with the latter in colour and the facts in black as shown above. The blue statements are the ends (objectives) while the red statement are the means (methods/tactics/strategies).

Politicians often justify unethical methods in favour of idealistic goals

Is the pursuit and successful acquisition of power more important than the way power is obtained? This is similar to ancient histories of generals who assasinate/imprison their Kings in order to sit on the throne. The general justifies to the people that the King was evil and would have ruined the country. Any politican these days would justify their questionable methods of aquiring/maintaining power by saying that it was done for the sake of the "country's security, for unity of race or for the preservation of a multi-racial harmony."

Given that both BN and PR (whose future depends on its leaders) are actively engaged in a power struggle for control of the Government, the best case scenario is for all parties to go back to their foundational values, declare to the voting public what they really represent (Power of the Few or Good for All?). Once the public is confident we have politicans who are at least honest and transparent about their goals and promises for the Rakyat, they can declare a snap election. This is the pre-condition for fair and transparent elections besides having an independent elections commission and an independent press.

The Seven Eleven Test

The test of a good and wise government is to talk to the working young man in the street (e.g. the McDonald's delivery man, the illegal VCD vendor or the Seven Eleven cashier earning RM700 a month). Ask them what is their greatest aspiration in the next five years? If the majority of the young working class say they do not cherish any long-term dreams such as saving enough for a college education or to start a business, then that is a reflection of a mediocre Government and a weak economic system.

Mostly probably, the replies would be: "I am trying to make ends meet." or "I hope the government lowers the price of petrol." or "I hope more people will be willing to work at these low salaries so that they can help me cope with my workload." (One car salesman actually told me: "I can't trust what this government says anymore. They say one thing today, and do the opposite the next day.")

The short-term challenge of any Government that deserves to govern Malaysia for the Good of All Malaysians (a worthy End) is one that can inspire (through ethical and pragmatic policies) its young people (of all races and all economic classes) to cherish and work smart for a viable future (a worthy End).

And that future is neither secular or Islamic. It is neither a PR or BN future. It is neither an Anwar-annointed or Badawi-annointed future. It is a viable future for all Malaysians who can trust the wisdom of their leaders based on the intelligence and fairness of their policies/methods today.

Conclusion: Never trust politicians/religious leaders who advocate or adopt dubious means to achieve a supposedly great objective. The test of the ethics and honesty of politicians is the effectiveness and soundness of their methods. Everyone can have a great vision like Vision 2020 but look how the politicians have clouded that vision with poor policies. That's probably why Obama is considered to be a smarter and more adaptive politician in regards to his Middle East policy compared to McCain or Bush.

Update: One of the latest unsavoury methods of political power-grabbing is the agenda of the talks between PAS-UMNO based on the unity of a certain race. Says TK Tan in this article Signs of Disunity: "Our country continues to be undermined by the self-interests of many. Agents of disunity abound. And very few work for the good of all." I agree that very few politicians work for the good of all, but that is why good politicians who do not appeal to our lowest instincs are a rare and much desired breed in this country today.

Abraham Lincoln's Solution To Malaysia's Crisis

"It is the duty of nations as well as of men to own their dependence upon the overruling power of God; to confess their sins and transgressions in humble sorrow, yet with assured hope that genuine repentance will lead to mercy and pardon; and to recognize the sublime truth, announced in the Holy Scriptures and proven by all history, that those nations are blessed whose God is the Lord.

We know that by His divine law, nations, like individuals, are subjected to punishments and chastisements in this world. May we not justly fear that the awful calamity of political strife which now desolates the land may be a punishment inflicted upon us for our presumptuous sins, to the needful end of our national reformation as a whole people?

We have been the recipients of the choicest bounties of heaven; we have been preserved these many years in peace and prosperity; we have grown in numbers, wealth and power as no other nation has ever grown.

But we have forgotten God. We have forgotten the gracious hand which preserved us in peace and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us, and we have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own. Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the God that made us.

It has seemed to me fit and proper that God should be solemnly, reverently and gratefully acknowledged, as with one heart and one voice, by the whole Malaysian people.

I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of Malaysia, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the 16th September (Malaysia Day) as a day of Thanksgiving and praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the heavens."

Abraham Lincoln - October 3, 1863 (Transposed to Malaysia’s perspective in italics).

Comment: If only our politicians and citizens can rise above the trivialities of today's politics and behold Lincoln's perspective of the nation as an individual, there is still hope for Malaysia. See how Lincoln's speech is as powerful a prayer for the nation as much as it is an appeal to the people of America to truthfully examine themselves before conscience and God.

What We Say In The Court of Public Opinion

Does repeating things often enough make people believe them? This is an interesting topic that Michelle Yoon wrote in her latest post Repeating things often enough. Also, in a recent letter to Malaysiakini, a writer gave reasons for his view why Anwar is not guilty. In my opinion, we need to make a smart distinction between a statement of fact, a statement of view and a question.

For example, if I repeat to myself each day that I am loved by God, I will actually feel the blessings of being loved by God. This is actually a spiritual fact for me while for others it may be just a view. (Try replacing God with a stone or another person, and you'll be disappointed.)

But if I repeat to myself each day that Anwar is being investigated for sodomy as often as I read the papers these days (MSM and government are suffering from Anwar-phobia), it does not make me believe he is guilty or innocent at all.

The more the government tries to implicate him, the more the public will tend to believe otherwise. But for me, what is repeated is a media-bias against Anwar in MSM and a media-bias against the DPM on the Internet. Neither establishes the truth. Even in the questionable "court of public opinion." (How many "witches/sorcerers" were burnt in the Middle Ages by the court of public opinion? How many "communists" were prosecuted in the McCarthy era by the same court?).

What we bloggers should be doing is to repeat reasonable questions in the most objective and creative ways so that the "subject" of our question is willing to engage in a dialogue. But if we prejudge a person as a criminal (like one former PM calling certain Western governments imperial Zionists and genocide murderers) in the international court of public opinion, then that's the end of the dialogue. They won't even bother listening or persuading you against your biases/prejudices.

Postscript: Reading this blog post by Tony Pua on Dr Syed Farid Alatas, I am impressed by the level of maturity and intelligence of many Muslims who can analyse religious issues. Extending the theme of inter-faith dialogue, I think that dialogue across all political and ideological communities will resolve some of the current problems of this nation. For a start, the government should start a meaningful dialogue with its boss - the voting public - even though almost half gave their support to the Opposition.

Strike The Shepherd To Scatter The Sheep!

They say God moves in mysterious ways. And I am certain Malaysia is dear to His heart. So whatever happens in this country, I have faith He can turn the worst crisis into an unmitigated blessing.

In the political dramas that we live in today, the ordinary citizens are just bystanders to the play. The only difference is that this play is for real and our economic and social health will be affected by it, for better or for worse.

I can't imagine the day the nation comes to a standstill just because some powerful politicians are fighting for the premiership. This morning, on my way to work, the traffic almost came to a standstill.

I am no political scientist even though I studied at a world-class political science university. But I have a strange intuition that the winds of change blowing through Malaysia are bigger than just what the naked eye can see. Perhaps, this is why I started this blog in May 2008: To change from being a passive witness of Malaysian politics to be an active citizen.

Now the political strategy of both PR and BN is simply this: Strike the shepherd/leader and then the sheep/followers will surely scatter. Anwar is targeted by his adversaries in the sodomy charge while he himself is attempting a pre-emptive strike against certain leaders in BN way before the next elections.

Advice to Pakatan Rakyat: The key to defeating BN is to stand firm on the middle ground of Malaysian society so that the fence-sitters and the politically neutral will share PKR/PAS/DAP's common values: i.e. that the alliance is an ethical party that fights relentlessly against corruption, racism and injustice. PR should never be anti-UMNO but anti-greed for power and money, anti-wastage and anti-injustice.

Frankly, PR needs to rebrand itself into a cohesive coalition rather than remain as a tactical marriage of convenience. PAS chief Nik Aziz said to avoid going to the snake pit. That is sufficient not to be bitten. But PR should start to form the shadow cabinet and implement positive policies that will build up the economies and communities of the five PR states.

PR should also consider plan B in the event DSAI is taken out of the political arena for some reason or other. Could an enigmatic blogger with the stature like RPK fill in the void? He has to be a political visionary, highly intelligent and ethical. On the question of credibility, the source of RPK's SD remains a mystery to the public.

Advice to BN: Reform the government, police and judiciary by implementing a system of meritocracy, which provides incentives to be honest and efficient and disincentives to be corrupt. Is that asking too much? Why can't the lead'ers of BN see that monopolizing the economic pie for the short term will see them end up with a smaller pie to share among the cronies in five years time?

Advice to the Rakyat: Start voicing and supporting the need for a third political party that has the best qualities of PR (their long-term values) and BN (its organisational skills) without any of their weaknesses. This means we need a few good men or women to rise up who will move away from race-based politics and the mentality of birth-right entitlement to a system of value-based politics. A three-party system will reduce the risk of a duopoly party system taking advantage of the Rakyat.

But even if these three protagonists of Malaysian society do nothing but remain status quo, the Rakyat could still be the beneficiary of the stalemate between BN and PR. Each day, (through Parliamentary and recently TV debates) we are learning something new about how the government works and what was only known in the closed corridors of Putrajaya.

Tackling The Real Issues of The Fuel Debate - Malaysiakini

It's a foregone conclusion. Who will be the winner in the 'Great Fuel Debate" between Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim and Information Minister Datuk Ahmad Shaberi Cheek to be held tonight? The winner may be the two debaters as they improve their public standing and the loser will probably be the rakyat for being less enlightened than before.

Amid much hype, my guess is that the TV debate will turn out to be less of an intelligent discussion about oil economics and, instead, be more of an exercise in rhetorical skills among the two suitors of public opinion. However, I may be proven wrong if tonight's debaters address the following issues facing the future of oil in Malaysia and the world:

- Poser 1 to BN: Oil resources are Malaysia's national asset and should be properly managed to take advantage of the rising trend in prices. As such, the government should disclose who are the six option holders and at what fixed prices do they obtain the oil supply from Petronas at below market prices.

- Poser 2 to BN: What is the government's view of global oil prices? Does either debater believe in Peak Oil theory? If oil is heading towards US$200/barrel in the next two to three years (regardless of a possible near term correction), what would be Petronas's reserves and production strategy? The Rakyat should know these issues because every citizen has a stake in the country's resources.

- Poser 3 to BN: The move to raise oil prices is economically sound as it discourages excessive consumption and conserves the nation's long-term resources. However, Malaysians's standard of living has always been reduced by the high cost of owning quality cars as a result of high import duties which were put in place to protect Proton. A move to liberalise the petroleuem market for the government's coffers should be accompanied by a similar move to liberalise the imported car market for consumers.

- Poser 1 to PR: How will PR deal with a ballooning budget deficit problem if petrol continues to be subsidised while spot prices increase? The question of setting petrol prices and subsidies depends very much on whether the country has a budget surplus or deficit rather than whether the country is a net exporter or importer of oil. Msia's petrol prices at current levels of RM2.70 per litre are about 23%-25% below prices in the U.S., which should be considered a benchark for market prices even though the US is a net oil importer. Our retail petrol prices are much higher than net oil exporters such as Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, but these countries are enjoying budget surpluses of 26.2% and 2.4% respectively versus Msia's budget deficit of 3.1%.

- Poser 2 to PR: Any adjustment mechanism for setting retail pump prices should be transparent and market-based, i.e. dependent on international oil prices.

- Poser 3 to PR: If PR is so concerned about the welfare of all Malaysians, why continue to encourage them to consume petrol by lowering petrol prices. Is this wise economics?

- Poser 4 to PR: What are PR's policy proposals to enhance the public transport system and proposals regarding the protected car market?

To both debaters, the related key question is what are the economic implications of their petroleum policies (market-based fuel prices versus lower subsidised prices) on the general level of inflation? Anwar has stated his skepticism of the official inflation rate. Lowering petroleum prices may provide some short-term relief to inflation but in the long-term, will the nation have to pay for even higher inflation when the country's budget deficit balloons or we become a net oil importer?

Finally, it would be good if both debaters focus on economics, policy issues, trade offs between short term and long-term priorities and cite academic research/experience from various countries.

Postscript: As expected, the debate was lively and to some extent, a civilised discourse despite some potshots at Anwar's credibility. Even my toddler could predict Anwar will win after watching the first half hour! The quality of economic discussion could be improved as facts and figures were presented without further analysis. Venezuela is facing major economic problems of hyperinflation because of its currency peg, price controls and years of unbridled monetary expansion thanks to high oil revenues and fiscal spending.

Next debate: Tony Pua/Lim Kit Siang versus Tan Sri Nor/Khairil on "What Is Malaysia's True Inflation Rate?" And have it broadcast in English.

Can We Love Our Political Rivals?- Malaysiakini

The question of the day is not who among Anwar, Najib and Badawi will be the best leader for Malaysia as raised in a Malaysiakini letter. Rather, the crucial question today is the quality of intellectual ideas that we raise in the public forum of Parliament, media and blogosphere.

Malaysia's future as a fledgling democracy depends very much on the civility of its politicans, bloggers and citizens in discussing the political differences and resolving the conflicts of interests among its people.

What I refer as civility goes beyond having good manners. Civility means to have the goodwill in accepting other people's differences in opinion/values while at the same time, affirming your strongly-held values. In other words, our ability to agree to disagree in a civilised manner is the mark of a civil, democratic society.

Which is why the ideas presented by Dr Os Guinness in his latest book: "The Case for Civility: And Why Our Future Depends on it" may be just what Malaysians need in this hour of the nation.

Personally, I haven't read it yet but an interview with Dr Os Guinness shows his admiration of William Wilberforce who played a major role in eradicating slavery in Britain:

"There are scores of lessons we can learn from Wilberforce, but take just one: his civility. As a follower of the way of Jesus, he loved his enemies and always refused to demonize them. At one time he was the most vilified man in the world, but while he never minced words in speaking about the evils of slavery, he was always gracious, generous, modest, funny, witty, and genuinely loving toward his enemies. When one of his worst enemies died, he at once saw to it anonymously that his widow was cared for adequately."

Can our politicians and elected representatives regard their political rivals and fellow intellectuals with the same civility as Wilberforce? Between Anwar, Najib and Badawi, I think the latter is the most civil. Yet, he, among the three, is the one who needs most to step up the plate and provide some fresh intellectual solutions to this nation's crisis of ideas.

As for mere citizens like us: Ask not what your politicans can do for you, but ask what you can do for your family, friends and neighbours in this aspect of civility.

A Day for National Reconciliation & Healing

I agree with Farish A Noor's factually accurate article on Malaysia's current politics (A Dead-End To Malaysian Politics?). But surely, he has allowed himself to be dismayed and disillusioned by the frenzied state of politicking.

Looking at our situation closer, I prefer to use the metaphor of the glass of water which Malaysians always thought was drinkable until somebody stirred the water and mud came up clouding up the glass.

All the mudslinging and rumours of corruption/murder/sodomies are to be expected in this Machavielian fight for power among the contenders.

The Rakyat should continue to watch and examine how much our leaders from both BN/PR are genuinely concerned to represent the public's interest. They have failed badly so far, but let us not demonise them to the extent they lose face.

The day will come, sooner this year or later by the next election, when Malaysians will decide whether to throw out the water from the glass and put in fresh water(new government) or sterilise the water so that it is still drinkable.

The last thing I want to do is to sit mournfully in front of the half-full glass and weep. However, Farish has hit the nail on the head with his suggestion for national reconciliation and healing for the whole nation.

A day for national reconcilation can be held on Merdeka day when all citizens and current and past leaders apologise for their mistakes in the past and vow to move on united as a nation. On that day, let us stop the finger pointing and instead point at our own hearts before God or conscience (for non-believers), that we have fallen short of the promise deserving of this great country and will learn to start on a new leaf.

To start with, here are the few things I suggest we ask God to forgive us for:

- To have falsely accused innocent people of crimes and sins they did not commit.

- To be judgmental towards both the guilty and innoncent when we ourselves are also subject to judgment.

- To have willingly voted for governments and parties that have subsequently disappointed us and misrepresented our national or state's interests.

- To have used foul language and become angry with this beautiful and blessed country.

- To have said terrible, sarcastic and condemnatory words about Malaysia as if Malaysia is equal to the government and its peoples. (Malaysia is the land and much more)

- To have offended the faiths of our fellow citizens and of other nationalities (including derogatory comments about Jews, Arabs, Americans, Zimbabweans, etc)

- To have given up all hope in our country just because of the weaknesses of our elected leaders.

- To have written statutory declarations that are not based on the truth.

- To have failed to protect the weak, impoverished, oppressed and not upheld justice for the victims of murders and crimes.

- To have engaged in politicking just to gain some political advantage.

- To have misrepresented the interests and the future of our children and our children's children by fooling ourselves about entitlements based on race when the world economy has already moved beyond such primitive systems.

These are my items for asking the nation and God to forgive us and repent for the wrongful words/deeds we have done to Malaysia. This country needs some hearfelt prayers and true respite beyond just waving of flags, making empty speeches and going about our own ways on Merdeka Day.

(Postscript: If neither BN nor PR can agree on holding the day of national reconciliation, then either one can go ahead unilaterally and invite all citizens to gather on a non-partisan basis).

Ethics Without Religion Is Possible- Malaysiakini

Once a while I come across an interesting article that appears to be academic but actually has many serious implications. A recent Malaysiakini article written by Sim Kwang Yang suggests that it is futile to ask whether ethics without religion is possible because believers and atheists will not come to any agreement or common ground. I think otherwise.

In the present state of polarised ideologies throughout the world, the question of whether ethics is possible without religion needs to be asked in a different and more subtle way. The right question to ask is whether it is possible to act ethically without belief in God. And my answer is definitely yes.

An ethical act is a humane act of kindness, of giving up your own interest in favour of the interest of others. And this understanding that human beings have a common need for goodness, however ambiguously defined it may be, is actually the foundation of most civilised societies in both the West and the East.

Even many people who do not believe in God are prepared to sacrifice their energy and time for an ethical principle such as working against injustice towards the poor, the persecuted or the oppressed. So does that mean that such free-thinkers/atheists have no ethical values just because they do not believe in God?

I myself am a Christian and I can see the dangers Malaysian society is presently facing with regards to religious freedom as enshrined by the constitution on the one hand and religious extremism as espoused by people who wish to integrate civil laws with religious laws on the other hand.

When religious extremists perceive that secular laws are laws that are meant to govern the ungodly, then they will deduce that it is justifiable to supplant secular laws with their religious laws. Whether or not their religion encourages them to impose religious laws on everyone is besides the point. One of the reasons why the Taliban became powerful in Afghanistan was because they saw the degraded and meaningless aspects of Western society and equated that with the failure of secular society.

As Mr Sim rightly points out, the mark of Christian faith is that it is subject to our free will as God does not impose Himself on us just like a parent who does not demand the love of his children. Love is a gift and should never be legislated. Let us live in a secular society with secular laws that protects the rights of all citizens and yet at the same time, respect the rights of every citizen to pursue their own faiths.

Malaysia's Future & The Half Glass Metaphor

If you ask the typical Malaysian on the street today to describe his/her feelings about the future of the country in terms of the half-empty/half full glass metaphor, what do you think would be the most common response?

One online news article seem to capture the mood of the public by suggesting that the current political turmoil has badly affected our sense of confidence as a nation. Perhaps we need to win a regional sports tournament like the way the Spainish were united by the European Cup victory.

The truth is that Malaysia did win a victory that was greater than any sports event. And that was the resurgence of confidence in the power of the ballot box to decide our country's future at the 12th GE on 8th March 2008.

Rather than asking whether the glass is half empty or half full, the important question is whether we wish to keep the same old water in the glass or throw it out to replace with clean water. All the revelations that we see are like the soil that is stirred at the bottom of the glass, clouding everything. Is it still clean enough to drink or should we wait for the dust to settle?

Much depends on the current state of politicking among the leaders from both sides of the House. When will the politicians start to discuss and intellectually debate on real policy issues gripping the world today rather than slinging mud on each others characters and reputations?

The lack of intellectual honesty in dealing with today's problems cannot be solved by either silence, noise or dramatic acts of political change. The PM should regain the people's trust in the government by showing them the trade-off between short-term policy effects and long-term policy gains.

Datuk Anwar Ibrahim seems to have a good view of the long-term prosperity of the country with the right recipe of policies but he fell short of the short-term policy intitiatives by promising lower fuel prices. That is probably better than the flip flop situation of BN leaders having to act each day to make short-term gains for the sake of their political survival.