Zan Azlee
The Malaysian Insider
June 07, 2013
JUNE 7 — During the election period last month, I was pretty adamant about wanting to see change, whether it be a change in government, or at least a change in governance.
I had many discussions, conversations and even debates with fellow journalism colleagues, friends and family about this.
One of the conversations I had was about how if the federal government were to change, or even if certain ministers or MPs were to lose, what effect it would have.
One of the first things that came to my mind was that many businessmen who operated because of their “network” in the government would be out of business.
Say, for example, if a local businessman was awarded a project by the local MP because they were friends or acquaintances.
What would happen then if that MP lost during the election and the opposing party took power in that area? Would that local businessman lose business?
A lot of people I spoke to said that Malaysia being Malaysia, then of course that businessman would lose his opportunity to do business.
Obviously, this deduction is based on the assumption that the businessman was awarded projects due to cronyism and not merit.
I stated very strongly that these are the kinds of business operations that we do not need in Malaysia and we should get rid of them.
Can you imagine that some people could actually say to me that we should not try to “kacau periuk nasi orang”, and that these people actually chose the status quo based on this reason?
First of all, businesses like these actually kill off the many who conduct ethical operations. What about their “periuk nasi” then?
And, if there was a proper governance system in place, do you think a change in government would actually affect your “periuk nasi” if you were doing business the right way?
The way I see it is that what we’re lacking is a proper system in place that would safeguard and protect businesses and operations, or “periuk nasi.”
A company’s dealings with the government should not change just because the government representative changes.
They are supposed to deal with the government and not an individual. So a good system would not jeopardise anything if someone new takes over (unless it was unethical deal in the first place, as I had mentioned before).
So it strikes me as unthinkable when people claim that we need to maintain stability with the status quo because the change would be too much of a difference.
These are the same people who would go around uttering things such as “better the devil you know than the devil you don’t.”
I also find it baseless when people say that by voting a new coalition into the government, we would be voting in the inexperience.
And, recently, when Umno’s Datuk Ahmad Maslan promoted the idea that the top two leadership positions in the party should not be contested, I became totally irritated.
Why? Because his reasons were that stability in Umno would mean stability in BN, and stability in BN would mean stability in the stock market.
Now, readers, you tell me if this is a valid and legit enough reason for keeping the country’s top leaders in power?
The way I look at it is that Malaysia is just in desperate need of a change. And that change that we so desperately need is a change from stagnation to progression.
The problem in this country is also Malaysians themselves
You caught Election Commission (EC) cheats, lie, and in indelible ink
We still let them run free of liable of charge
Please learn to standup Malaysians to get your respect for the country
The Project IC in Sabah was already big insult to our reputation and honor of country allow those responsible still being the administrators
Only in Malaysia
No country in this word done such a silly thing granted illegal immigrants rights to vote to protect their government administration
What kind of logic???? WTF?
If u meet the devil you know, just kill him, after all you KNOW he’s the devil (one of whom professes not to know who Uncle Kit is) and send him down to where he belongs – isn’t that a win-win for all? At least he can hang out with Marcos & Gaddafi & Saddam & all his good ol buddies…
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the Public Treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the Public Treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy always followed by dictatorship.
Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question.
You are right. Malaysia cannot progress to become a high income nation with the current corrupt and illegitimate government. Our nation’s debt is worryingly high and I’m sure will become even higher towards the end of BN’s rule in 5 year’s time. Do we need to wait until then to find out how horrible life can be with a runaway inflation and unemployment perpetuated by gross mismanagement of the economy? Nope!
If there is ever a retention of status quo, it should benefit the rakyat and not the regime in power.
We could fell it everywhere. From the service sector to the retail sector to even the manufacturing sector, activities are down by a not insignificant margin. Everyone is complaining except umno.
With nearly 1trillion of our money having been taken out of the country illegally in addition to the burden of the 500billion debt incurred by jibby jib’s government, our nation’s piggy bank is as good as empty.
And worse, we are losing human resources at an incredible rate. Without them the nation would not be able to spin the economic wheel effectively or quickly enough. Umno’s hope of making up the loss by giving citizenship to banglas and sulus will not work.
So yes, we are pretty much stuck and we are still where we were in 1998.
///A lot of people I spoke to said that Malaysia being Malaysia, then of course that businessman would lose his opportunity to do business. Obviously, this deduction is based on the assumption that the businessman was awarded projects due to cronyism and not merit. I stated very strongly that these are the kinds of business operations that we do not need in Malaysia and we should get rid of them./// This is a simplistic & idealistic view. After 50 years – and workings of the patronage system- nearly every significant major business is tied in some ways to patronage and support of UMNO/ruling coalition. Generally speaking, who that is a big successful business man is not some way or other become that way due to help from Govt and politicians and in this general way a crony or deemed crony?
Continuing from post under current moderation: However that this is the case is not a justification or argument that the government ought not to be changed just because many businesses will be down as a result. The destiny of the country is larger than the fate of its businesses. They say the darkest hour is just before dawn! Those businesses that go down will be replaced by some new ones that go up (after the change) and likely also by these new ones soon repeating history to try seek alliance and patronage support from Pakatan ruling coalition (then). But this is different from the simplistic and idealistic position “that these (cronies businesses) are the kinds of business operations that we do not need in Malaysia and we should get rid of them.”