Overcoming The Enemy's Political Tactics Against The Christian Family

The enemy (the principalities that covertly try to manipulate our thoughts) uses the same political tactics that Malaysia’s political parties use in maintaining their stronghold over ignorant, uneducated and emotionally vulnerable citizens.

These are 3 most common tactics used by the enemy in its current attempts to destroy the family and the country:

1. Divide and Rule: By creating division between the spouses, the enemy has gained a foothold. One tactic to create division is for third parties to take sides in any domestic issues, however small or big. Another tactic is to use an imaginary or real scapegoat, someone who can easily be blamed for creating problems. [Racist politicians still feel that the best way to appeal to their own own racial support group is to make the other race look like the external threat to their prosperity and security.]

2. Reality Denial Mentality: By constantly denying the truth about a person or the person’s environment, the enemy uses this tactic to blind the person about the truth and hence prepare the person for a shock when the facts continue to contradict the person’s misleading perception of the truth. [Politicians often exaggerate about the economic outlook, either it is too rosy from the ruling government’s viewpoint or too bleak from the opposition’s viewpoint. Many politicans lie about race-based economic policies that mislead people into thinking that these policies are ethical.]

3. Subvert the Authority of the Father: In the Christian tradition which is supported by Biblical scripture, the father is the servant leader who helps his family to serve God and who makes sacrifices for his family. He is to love his wife as his wife is to submit to him. Changing or distorting this role by giving the wife more grounds to take the lead in family matters of finance, children's upbringing or religious values is against the tradition of the Christian family (unless the husband is a philanderer or unwilling to lead). [Politicians show little respect for the King, the PM and rival MPs, forgetting that these people are annointed by God and elected by the people's votes.]

While both husband and wife are to be willing partners in managing the family’s affairs, neither party should try to go against the will of the other. At the end of any disagreement, there must be a consensus built around mutual respect. The same role model is practised in all other traditions. The enemy tries to destroy the father’s mandate and credibility by whispering lies about the husband and making her question his ability or authority.

These three types of attacks against the Christian marriage and family can be nullified and revoked by spiritual prayer as well as:

(1) Appealing to the reason and good faith of the spouse in seeing that the enemy is the external threat and not the spouse nor the children.

(2) Keeping a healthy perception of the truth of surrounding circumstances and do not be influenced by gossip and wrong attitudes. Fellowship with faith-filled Christian friends.

(3) Ensuring that the whole family continues to read the Bible, pray and worship together so that they understand the way to achieving the family’s aim of health, happiness and prosperity is not through power struggles of right and wrong, not through perfectionism but through humble acceptance to the sovereign will of God in their lives.

Through the daily confession of sins and repenting of unforgiveness to God, each family member will align himself/herself in the proper relationship with God. Unforgiveness over past wrongs is the greatest seed for bitterness and conflict in relationship. Unroot that seed each day with the seed of goodness.

The Shakespearean View of Humanity

We live in interesting times where economic waves, technological waves and political waves change the landscape of our world. However, it is essential for us to step back, each day, from the hustle and bustle of this volatile world and reflect on the nature of our humanity.

The questions which have come up for myself in recent days are as follows:

1. Our trust in man: How much can we put our trust in ourselves, let alone leaders in government, politics or in our religious communities? Do we need others to hold us accountable just as a government needs a judiciary and a viable opposition party for checks and balances?

2. What are our ideals and values ? What do we really stand for and what are we willing to sacrifice our bread and butter for? Do we care for cleanliness, transparency and honesty? Are these values positive externalities which benefit everyone? How realistic are our ideals and are there loopholes for us to make irreparable errors?

3. Where is God in the midst of our lives? Do we put God in the driver's seat or the passenger's seat? Is He a partner writing the book of our destinies or are we dictating to Him what we wish our lives to be?

Now that the nation's eyes are on 16th September or 20th September for a political tsunami, there is the rising concern whether this will be a peaceful or chaotic transfer of power in view of the incumbent government's recent crackdown on certain opposition figures (MP Teresa Kok who was released after one week in jail and blogger Raja Petra).

The answer to this political issue very much depends on how we answer the three questions above.

The poet and playwright William Shakespeare was right in his assessment of man's nature, which is driven by wild storms of greed, lust, hate and fear.

This is why we should not trust in anyone except in God (answer to 1). We should also check that our ideals are based on change in the spiritual man within rather than in the external circumstances (answer to 2). And finally, as the Bible said, put first the Kingdom of God, and all this will be granted to you (answer to 3).

Hamlet's philosophical question "To be or not to be" can be wisely settled by allowing the Holy Spirit to dwell in us and to be Christ-like in all his living fullness. Then, we need not choose whether to remain as our petty selves or be completely a pawn of circumstance. Hamlet was not the average man who could compromise between these two extremes. He was brave enough to see that, in a world where man puts faith in himself, we can either be one type or the other type: A man of action or a man of inaction. And therein lies the tragedy of Hamlet, who decided to "take arms against a sea of troubles" rather than nobly suffering "the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune."

In fact, the greatest freedom is having the freedom of mind to be jolted by the tragic consequences of our sinful human nature, and as a result of this shock to our system, allowing God to mould our hearts and transform us completely.

Hamlet, Prince of Denmark (Act 3, Scene 2):

To be or not to be, that is the question;
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing, end them. To die, to sleep;
No more; and by a sleep to say we end
The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to — 'tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wish'd. To die, to sleep;
To sleep, perchance to dream. Ay, there's the rub,
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come,
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
Must give us pause. There's the respect
That makes calamity of so long life,
For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
Th'oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely (scorn),
The pangs of despised love, the law's delay,
The insolence of office, and the spurns
That patient merit of th'unworthy takes,
When he himself might his quietus make
With a bare bodkin (dagger)? who would fardels (burdens) bear,
To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
But that the dread of something after death,
The undiscovered country from whose bourn
No traveller returns, puzzles the will,
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all,
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought,
And enterprises of great pitch and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry,
And lose the name of action.

The Economic Push For Political Change in Malaysia

Malaysians are more rational than we normally give them credit for. There is a new wave of political change that is sweeping through this country and this change is driven by forces that go beyond the mere frustrations of citizens with corruption and poor governance.

If there is just one powerful idea that has strong economic and social benefits for Malaysia and which has been the key to the electoral success of Pakatan Rakyat, it is the idea of removing racial discrimination in employment and business opportunities for all citizens, regardless of race.

Why is this solution to Malaysia's economic and social problems so powerful, rational and academically justified?

For many Malaysians (see a recent government-commissioned poll), it is almost intuitive and common sense to accept that equal opportunities and market incentives for all will bring more economic prosperity for the country than the costs of carrying out this liberalised policy.

The difference between the situation 5 years ago and today in 2008 is that more and more citizens across the racial and class divides are becoming convinced of this solution. The voting outcomes of the GE of 8 March and the by-election of 26 August in Permatang Pauh testify to this wave of public opinion that is in favour of economic and political change. Intelligent voters have made their voices loud and clear that they want a drastic change in vision for the nation!

With Malaysia becoming a net oil importer by 2014 and the coming global economic storm, how can an outdated economic model like ours continue to thrive? I suppose we can still depend on oil export revenues before it runs out and low value-added manufacturing exports for the next five years. But honestly, what can Malaysia offer to the global economy dominated by new giants such as China, India and Russia? Palm oil and biodiesel?

Rational Racism

For me, as a practising offshore economist, I have found further confirmation of the urgent need for Malaysia to change its race-based politics and race-based economics policies. It was found when I read Tim Harford's book "The Logic of Life." Chapter 6, The Dangers of Rational Racism, in particular, talks about rational racism as found in America.

Supported by class room experiments and statistics, Harford explains that racism practised by American employers in their recuitment process against African Americans is quite rational because it saves employers time and trouble to treat African Americans as "part of a group that's known to be educationally struggling, rather than taking a closer look at their individual qualities."

The interesting part of the chapter that resonates on Malaysia is when he cites the work of University Chicago economist and Nobel laureate Gary Becker, who wrote The Economics of Discrimination. Becker found that while discrimination hurt the incomes of both the employer and unemployed, the extent of economic damage for the country as a whole depended on the size of the minority group relative to the majority group.

In America, 12% of the population consists of African Americans or blacks while the rest are mostly white. Even a moderate amount of discrimination against blacks by white employers diminishes the economic well-being of the blacks while the white majority do not suffer much economic collateral. Competitive pressures could take a long time to favour white employers who are colour blind in their employment practices.

However, Becker points out that in a different racial structure such as South Africa, where the blacks who formed 80% of the population, were ruthlessly discriminated against under the Apartheid regime, the practice of race-based economic policies caused major economic underperformance for the country as a whole.

Now coming back to Malaysia, where the minority group forms a whopping 40% of the population, it is clear that the impact of the removal of race-based economic policies will have tremendous economic benefits for the whole country. Currently, employment policies that maintain certain race-based quotas have interfered with the efficient system of market incentives. Moreover, this inefficiency (or misallocation of human capital) is magnified in non- profit maximising organisations like the civil service and most government-linked companies where the racial profile of employees are disproportionately represented.

Prognosis: There are two types of economic leakages in the Malaysian labour market arising from the current race-based economic policies. First, there is a brain drain of professionals (both non-Malays and Malays) who have left the country to earn higher salaries overseas. Many of these people have either migrated or are permanent residents in their host countries.

Second, there is the economic leakage caused by low morale in the workforce as workers are not motivated to compete with the best and the brightest peers (locally and globally). It also does not help that foreign multinational companies perceive Malaysian workers to have generally suppressed their own productivity through low self-confidence.

Conclusion: Given the challenging economic environment that Malaysia finds itself, I think the time is already overdue for race-based economic policies to be dismantled so that the labour force gets a breath of fresh air and free market incentives are provided for each and everyone to compete with the best brains and the most hard-working peers. (In fact, Becker's hypothesis was that free markets, through the profit maximizing incentive, are the best way to combat racism and bigotry).

Rational racism is no longer rational when the minority group is 40% of the population. The economic wealth generated from meritocratic labour and capital policies will be large enough for all Malaysians to share for many years to come. Not least because foreign investment capital (which seeks the highest returns at the lowest costs) will come to invest in a more vigorous and motivated Malaysian workforce.

P.S. The problem with labour economics is that changes in policies take time to reap positive results in terms of higher productivity and wages. This is why Pakatan Rakyat, which has a mandate to change labour laws, should continue to be a viable alternative government. This will put political pressure on the incumbent policy makers to push through economic reforms or else be replaced by a more efficient government. However, the real pressure for reform is not political but economic as higher inflation of 5-6% in 2009 will reduce the purchasing power of wage earners.

The Next Strategic Move For Pakatan Rakyat

After winning with a crucial two thirds majority of the votes in Permatang Pauh, the next hurdle for Pakatan Rakyat will be the biggest. Anwar should focus on strategy and not be sidetracked by the tactical warfare waged on the sodomy allegations. If Anwar is to engineer a convincing crossover of MPs on 16 Sept, he has to provide a strategic catch: a public ultimatum for Barisan component MPs to either stay put or cross over.

PR should challenge UMNO/BN to review the religious conversion laws, revamp the NEP, eradicate corruption and race-based politics all at one go by a fixed deadline, say 10 September or any date. Once the deadline passes with no change in policies by the incumbent government, this will be a strong signal to the BN component parties, the reformers in UMNO and the rakyat that the leaders of BN have not wakened up to the new political landscape. As such, all BN component parties and UMNO reformists (see Karim Raslan's post-election analysis of the Permatang Pauh tsunami) should leave and form their own independent, multiracial parties or join PR.

This is what I call a moral, ethical cross-over. Even if he has the numbers, Anwar's current tactic of secret negotiations may raise doubts about the integrity of the party hoppers.

However, BN and UMNO will fail even more if they maintain their current policies. Second attempts to bring PAS into its fold will be an old trick that no longer works on the rakyat much less on the rural Malays such as those in Permatang Pauh who voted for real change.

In the meantime, the reformers in Pakatan Rakyat should not sit on their laurels but instead work day and night on hammering out a common platform of policies which enshrine the well-being of all Malaysian families as its guiding principle. This Middle Third Way will be an intelligent compromise between theocratic and socialistic policies on the one hand and the self-serving, oligopolistic policies of BN. If PR does not find a common platform to unify the coalition, then other parties may get a headstart.

Once investors, both foreign and local, see that the economic implications of a family-oriented political agenda is based on sound economic principles, they will be more receptive to the new direction in local politics. Welcome to a new era of free and democratic competition in Malaysian politics!

P.S. Here is a hint of the five issues that are highly valued among Malaysians :

(1) The family;

(2) The hopes of young people;

(3) An environment of tolerant religious worship based on the free will of the individual;

(4) Long lasting economic prosperity and equal opportunities for all and

(5) Truthfullness and accountability.

If you can't expect your government to tell you the truth at all times, how can you expect your child to grow to be a truthful person?

Russia's Military Intentions & The Kings of The East

Russia's rapid invasion of Georgia on 8 August and subsequent ceasefire brokered by the French President has been commented on briefly by the Malaysian media. But there are worrying signs of a bigger war ahead which has implications on Malaysia's political trends.

I think the one sided "war" reflects more than an issue of national sovereignty versus independence in Central Asia, it marks the coming of the kings of the East, namely the new Russsian Tzar Vladimir Putin and his secret alliance with Eastern and Middle Easter nations. While the whole world was watching the Beijing Olympics, America and NATO was caught surprised by this war breaking out just before the majestic opening ceremony.

When I saw the Russian tanks roll into Georgia on CNN, the questions on my mind were: "Is this the Ezekial war?", "Will there be a third world war in the next five to ten years?"

In the book of Daniel in the bible, there is a prophecy about a future war between the King of the North and the King of the South. Many bible students have tried to identify who are these two warring nations.

Given present circumstances, I think the next geopolitical war could be between an American-NATO alliance versus a Russian-Chinese-Iran alliance sparked by an oil and food crisis. It has the makings of the the beginning of WWIII. Russia and China are building up their military capabilities to challenge America's military dominance of the world.

In Ezekial 38, the prophet Ezekial speaks about a war that is started by the invasion by Gog and Magog (Russia and another country/alliance of nations) of Israel from the north.

I think the invader/aggressor in the Ezekial war will be punished with defeat or neutralised. Consequently, the outcome could be a severe weakening of military resources on both sides. As both the U.S. and Russia become weak and the world is disillusioned by war, a new global body will emerge, perhaps a form of one world government comprising 10 national groupings. A world leader who appears to be a peacemaker will lead this government and then, after three and half years of ensuring peace in the Middle East, he will show his true colours and launch a final assault against Jerusalem.

The good news is: people throughout the world are finding spiritual salvation from accepting Jesus in their lives even in Iran, Palestine and Israel. The hatred of nations against one small nation's right to coexist with others will finally bring God into the battle.

Two questions:

1. How will Malaysia play a role in the current geopolitics of a new cold war between Russia and America? If either Anwar, Najib or Badawi compete among themselves to take a more prominent stand for or against Russia's new military aggression, then we can see where the nation is heading in the endtimes.

2. Similarly for U.S. politics, Barack Obama may have to prove to the world and the U.S. public that he is a strong global leader who can stand up to Putin. If not, John Mc Cain is the only hope for the world in a new cold war. This new cold war may be more devastating as it appears not to be between just Russia and America but between a coalition of nations. And, I believe, oil will be a key element in the coming conflict.

The Paradox of Intellectual Honesty

The ability to consider dispassionately two opposite ideas is a sign of intellectual maturity and honesty. Far be it for a sound-thinking rational person to have no passion about anything. But it is essential for him,/her, when faced with two opposite ideas, two contrasting choices, to consider everything with a cool head and a warm heart.

Aristotle wrote: "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

Our country is at a crossroads whereby Malaysians, both in Permatang Pauh and the rest of the rakyat, need to seriously consider several choices that will affect our futures for the next decades. The window of opportunity is very narrow and it is now open thanks to the dramatic shift in the political landscape.

The two issues which we, Malaysians of all races and faiths, need to address are:

(1) What are the real choices we face?

For the voters in Permatang Pauh, is it Anwar versus Arif Shah? Is it Pakatan Rakyat versus Barisan Nasional? Or are the choices facing both citizens and political leaders more complex in Malaysia's multi-cultural and multi-religious dynamics?

For all Malaysians,who may be facing a possible snap election, the choices appear to be between choosing an outright change in government to clean up and reform the entire executive or maintaining the current status quo, which is mired in a stalemate.

In fact, there are two opposing political ideas which Malaysians are struggling with: individualism, which promotes the liberal interest of the individual over the state and statism, which promotes the interest and power of the state over the individual. There is in fact, a third middle way, which is distributism.

According to Wikipedia, "distributism distinguishes itself by its distribution of property. Distributism holds that, while socialism allows no individuals to own productive property (it all being under state, community, or workers' control), and capitalism allows only a few to own it, distributism itself seeks to ensure that most people will become owners of productive property."

(2) How do we make the right choice?

In other words, do we make choices emotionally because we are wired to be communal and will put the interest of our race and religion first? Or should we make decisions with a cool head and a warm heart? Having a warm heart is not a problem for most Malaysians because we are known to be one of the most hospitable, gentle and peace-loving peoples (notwithstanding our bad behaviour behind the wheel).

However, Malaysians are not so blessed with cool heads because they tend to allow their emotions and their cultural habits to colour their thinking and actions. Examples of losing our cool and sanity are the recent protests at the Bar Council forum and emotional reactions to racial issues.

From an intellectual perspective, the two opposing ideas which we need to consider are: on the one hand, a race-based political structure that could lead to further polarisation of Malaysian society but has ruled the country for the past four decades. BN has both elements of statism (where the state interferes with the market economy) and individualistic capitalism (where capital and power is vested by a privileged few).

On the other hand, Pakatan Rakyat offers the alternative political structure of non-racial politics with priority given to the underprivileged and the lower classes who have been left behind by the country's inefficient education system. However, this party also has elements of statism (to the extent the DAP is socialistic and PAS is in favour of a religious state) while promoting democratic rights for all citizens.

The paradox of intellectual honesty is that even the most rational, most sensible political choice should be considered with skepticism because human nature is weak and vulnerable to errors of judgment. Is there a middle way offered by the political philosophy of distributism which enshrines the interests of the family unit rather than the state or the individual?

Politicians should realise that, unless and until there is a middle way which appeals to the common interests and values of all party members, the two main political parties will be inherently unstable. Each faction will be holding on loosely to the coalition for the sake of political expediency and not for a foundational common interest.

As citizens, we must always keep in mind that we are not choosing between good and evil but between two differing types of government and political values. Let us not fall into a moral and intellectual error by choosing to please either our emotions or our reason. Right decisions are invariably made by listening to the voices of the conscience and the reasoning mind.

Powerful Prayers Can Swing The Permatang Pauh Election

There are three types of voters that will swing the vote in three different ways at the three-cornered election battle in Permatang Pauh on 26th August 2008.

1. Those who wish to see the right leader for their state and country, regardless of race/religion.

2. Those who wish to keep the status quo in the country and maintain the current Federal government with some slight reforms.

3. Those who have little care for the country's political future and who are most vulnerable to "bribes" and short-term incentives to vote for a particular candidate/party.

The whole nation (as well as foreign nationals concerned about Malaysia's future) can take part in the PP election indirectly by praying to God that the PP election will be fair and that the voters will be of the first category.

If all sincere Christians, Muslims, Buddhists and Hindus (all over the world) were all to pray to God in their own ways for a fair and just election, and for the voters to choose the right leader in Permatang Pauh, then this act will be more powerful than all the sms, all the rallies, all the blogs, all the money that can be used to persuade the voters.

Malaysia needs a real change of leadership. Either the current leaders change their attitudes and value systems (which seems unlikely given recent events and policy errors), or the government has to change.

The Permatang Pauh election will be the second major test of Pakatan Rakyat and Anwar Ibrahim's political and moral credibility after their relative victories in the 8 March election.

Solzhenitsyn: The Battle of Good and Evil Over Nations

When I was in my teens, I read two Russian writers whose works came often to mind through my later years: Fyodor Dostoevsky (1821-1881) and Aleksander Solzhenitsyn (11 December 1918 - 3 August 2008).

I was more interested in Dostoevsky's dramatic inner study of the human soul: the psyche of the criminal, the petty thief, the man caught in the midst of political chaos. Solzhenitsyn was harder to read as his realistic accounts were based on personal experience of imprisonment and exile.

What would this great writer, who outlived the Soviet dictatorship and passed away on 3rd August 2008, have said about Malaysia's current state? Never be overconfident in your trust in man. There are no such steroetypes as good people on one side and evil people on the other side as painted by comic books and some local political blogs. The individual human soul is the battleground of good and evil.

Read this excerpt of his most famous book:

"So let the reader who expects this book to be a political expose slam its covers shut right now. If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?

During the life of any heart this line keeps changing place; sometimes it is squeezed one way by exuberant evil and sometimes it shifts to allow enough space for good to flourish. One and the same human being is, at various ages, under various circumstances, a totally different human being. At times he is close to being a devil, at times to sainthood. But his name we ascribe the whole lot, good and evil.

Socrates taught us: Know thyself!

Confronted by the pit into which we are about to toss those who have done us harm, we halt, stricken dumb: it is after all only because of the way things worked out that they were the executioners and we weren't."

- The Gulag Archipelago (1973) [p. 169]

The political instability we see today in Malaysia is not a fight between good people and evil people. Rather, it should be seen as a struggle between leaders who wish to be perceived as good and who will paint their rivals as evil.

So who is fooling the Rakyat? Don't we all know that both good and evil has a stake in every person? With the resources of the Internet and books written by people like Solzhenitsyn, the enlightended Rakyat is wise enough to see through these political games and demand capable governance from their elected leaders.

Coincidentally, many of Solzhenitsyn's views on the life of nations are reflected in my thoughts about Malaysia in this blog. Just as Russia needed to repent for the crimes of the Soviet era, Malaysia needs to repent for "the sins of the fathers" that are visited on the children. Instead of pointing fingers at our leaders who do not hold the keys to the nation's salvation, we should be willing to make a frank assessment of our own vices and sins and make penitence for them as one nation.

In other words, the way forward for Malaysia (apart from the neccesary though overplayed reforms of democratic institutions) lies not in political action but in a quiet moral revolution. And this moral revolution can only start when we first acknowledge that the priorities of our lives, in the past five decades, based on pursuing self-centred material well-being and race-based priorities have made a desert out of our spiritual lives. While most Malaysians may consider themselves a religious lot, many are far from accepting personal responsibility for the sins of the nation (like bureaucrats, they will say: "my conscience is clear and my hands are clean.")

Some religious ideologues of this country mistakenly believe the way to make people become good and turn them from evil is to establish religious rules of law as santified by the state. This is what Solzhenitsyn had to say about the foolishness of imposing morality by legal or political means:

"After the Western ideal of unlimited freedom, after the Marxist concept of freedom as acceptance of the yoke of necessity- here is the true Christian definition of freedom. Freedom is self-restriction! Restriction of the self for the sake of others"

- From Under the Rubble (1981) [p. 136]

This moral freedom is a fundamental truth for all religions and not only for Christians. In God's eyes, a moral person is one who is willing to restrict/forfeit his own needs out of love for others. He is not doing good for the sake of some heavenly reward or to accumulate some points in a universal scorecard.

As a nation, when will Malaysia know her true destiny in the family of nations? Can she solve her political problems by recognising them as spiritual problems? Only then will we see that the right solution is not a political one but a true intellectual and spiritual examination of the past, the present and the future.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Postscript: A Merdeka Day Prayer, written by Elaine Yeoh as a letter to Malaysiakini, also calls out for national repentance.

Will the Real Malaysian Flag Be Raised?

If celebrating Merdeka Day is a question of whether to fly the flag, or not, whether to fly it right side up or upside down, then it is just political posturing. Read Susan Loone's blog on this issue, Raising The Malaysian Flag or not?

As several bloggers have said before, the Malaysian flag does not represent the government but the country and its people. What is more meaningful is for both the PM and the defacto head of the Opposition to proclaim a national day of repentance either on Merdeka or Sept 16 Malaysia Day.

You may ask: Why should we innocent citizens repent when we have done no wrong to the country?

Not responsible for the state of the country? Really? Who abstained from voting for the past two decades to allow for a one-party monopoly? Who continued to support the compliant newspapers?

Lastly, who cursed Malaysia the blessed country by equating the government with the country, saying things like Malaysia is going down the drain or we are the Zimbabwe of SEA?

We can do what we want with the flag or any symbol, but our words of mockery and curses on Malaysia may one day come true.

What this nation needs on Merdeka Day is a time of reflection about the future of Malaysia in ten years time (2018). The world would have changed tremendously: China will be a bigger economic and political force. It may have become a democratic country and will, instead of supporting despotic and undemocratic regimes as it is currently doing, China may be a force for good in Asia. By then, will Malaysia be prepared for the political tsunami coming from outside?

Let us reflect in our hearts what we truly want for our children in this country and be humble enough to learn from other more successful countries.

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.