Walaupun saya selalu bersetuju bahawa semua orang manusia mestilah belajar bersyukur kepada Tuhan dan juga belajar bersyukur kepada manusia lain apabila kami sudah terhutang budi, tetapi saya berpendapat bahawa mengucapkan kesyukuran kepada seseorang penderma atau pembantu kepada kami bukanlah bermaksud kami haruslah mengekori sesiapa pun dengan secara buta mata atau buta hati.
Kalau terdapat seseorang pemimpin negara sudah diketahui membuat kesalahan besar atau membuat jenayah jahat seperti menyalahgunakan kuasa pemerintah, memakan rasuah atau membunuh orang, maka tindakan wajar dari segi undang-undang mestilah diambil oleh kami walaupun kami tersedar bahawa kami pernah terhutang budi kepada pemimpin negara yang dituduh membuat kesalahan ini. Prinsip-prinsip pemerintahan gunapakai undang-undang ("Rule of Law") haruslah diperkukuhkan walaupun dalam proses untuk memperkukuhkan pelancaran undang-undang, kadang-kadang kami dikehendaki mengambil tindakan tegas ke atas seseorang tertuduh tidak mengira samada tertuduh ini punyai kedudukan politik tinggi atau kedudukan sosial terhormat. Misal kata, kalau seorang pemimpin negara yang kami sudah banyak terhutang budi diketahui oleh kami sudah melanggar undang-undang, maka beliau haruslah diambil tindakan undang-undang seperti dibawa ke hadapan hakim mahkamah untuk menjalankan perbicaraan tanpa prejudis.
Sistem kerajaan kami tidak haruslah memberikan tolerasi yang terlampau baik kepada seseorang pemimpin yang sudah bersalah dari segi undang-undang walaupun pengampunan boleh diberikan daripada pihak individu. Mempertahankan keluhuran Perlembagaan dan Undang-undang adalah lebih penting daripada mempertahankan nilai moral lain seperti sikap mengingati hutang budi.
Jadi kalau kerajaan BN sudah membuat kesalahan besar dari segi undang-undang, kerajaan ini tidak boleh diberikan tolerasi untuk sekalipun dengan secara berleluasa dan tanpa terkawal. Pemimpin kerajaan yang bertanggungjawab ke atas sesuatu kesalahan besar dari segi undang-undang boleh juga didakwa di mahkamah undang-undang tanpa prejudis. Inilah sikap betul yang haruslah dipupuk oleh seseorang manusia yang tahu bersyukur kepada Tuhan dan juga tahu bersyukur kepada manusia lain.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Monday, June 30, 2008
The Social Contract
THE SOCIAL CONTRACT
Posted by Dr. Mahathir Mohamad at June 30, 2008 3:59 PM
1. There has been a lot of talk about a Social Contract in Malaysia.
2. Perhaps it would be useful if we understand this concept a little bit more before we argue about it.
3. If we care to look into the origins of the social contract we will find that it is a European concept enunciated by European philosophers. The most famous is Socrates, the Greek philosopher who was jailed and sentenced to death.
4. He refused to escape and migrate to another Greek city-state because he believed he was bound by a social contract to live by the laws of his state of Athens as he was born and brought up there, benefiting from the aforesaid laws.
5. Before this social contract, men were said to live in a State of Nature, where there was no law to govern the relation between individuals in a small primitive society. The law of the jungle prevailed where might was right.
6. As society grew it became necessary to have laws which govern the behaviour of members of the society. All citizens were committed to respect and submit to the laws. This understanding is in fact a social contract although there was no oral or written undertaking to respect and submit to the laws. This was the view of Socrates. Later philosophers enlarged on this concept but there was never a requirement for a formal contract.
7. The Greeks are said to practise a democratic form of Government. However the citizen who had the right to participate in Government were limited to male adults of sound mind. Women, children, slaves, captives, criminals and foreigners were not accorded the rights of citizens and could not play a part in Government.
8. Much of European civilisation is based on the Greek civilisation. But as society grew bigger, direct participation in Government by the people became impossible.
9. At one stage democracy was abandoned in favour of feudalism in which a monarch ruled by Divine Right. In Asia this had always been the form of Government. Nevertheless the submission of the subjects to the Monarch was also a form of social contract.
10. Later feudalism was replaced by republicanism i.e. a return to the public of the power of Government.
11. Numerous forms of republics have emerged, each with its own set of laws and rules regarding the government of the country. But whatever may be the form, the laws and the rules, the citizens are bound by them. There would be no written contract but for foreigners to accept the rights of citizenship, there would usually be a formal undertaking to submit to the laws and system of the Government of the country.
12. After becoming citizens their offspring would automatically be regarded as citizens and as citizens they need not swear a formal oath of allegiance to the country. This right is through jus sanguinis i.e. through blood relation.
13. But there can also be citizenship by being born in the country or jus soli. This can be provided for by the laws of the country.
14. But whether citizenship is gained through jus sanguinis or jus soli, the social contract still applies even though there is no formal oath taking.
15. What is clear is that a social contract is a general understanding on the part of a citizen to submit to and obey the laws and the institutions of the country. The social contract governs not just his relation with the country, its Government and its institutions but also his relationship with his fellow citizens.
16. After receiving comments on this I will talk about the Malaysian social contract and its effect on Malaysia.
Posted by Dr. Mahathir Mohamad at June 30, 2008 3:59 PM
1. There has been a lot of talk about a Social Contract in Malaysia.
2. Perhaps it would be useful if we understand this concept a little bit more before we argue about it.
3. If we care to look into the origins of the social contract we will find that it is a European concept enunciated by European philosophers. The most famous is Socrates, the Greek philosopher who was jailed and sentenced to death.
4. He refused to escape and migrate to another Greek city-state because he believed he was bound by a social contract to live by the laws of his state of Athens as he was born and brought up there, benefiting from the aforesaid laws.
5. Before this social contract, men were said to live in a State of Nature, where there was no law to govern the relation between individuals in a small primitive society. The law of the jungle prevailed where might was right.
6. As society grew it became necessary to have laws which govern the behaviour of members of the society. All citizens were committed to respect and submit to the laws. This understanding is in fact a social contract although there was no oral or written undertaking to respect and submit to the laws. This was the view of Socrates. Later philosophers enlarged on this concept but there was never a requirement for a formal contract.
7. The Greeks are said to practise a democratic form of Government. However the citizen who had the right to participate in Government were limited to male adults of sound mind. Women, children, slaves, captives, criminals and foreigners were not accorded the rights of citizens and could not play a part in Government.
8. Much of European civilisation is based on the Greek civilisation. But as society grew bigger, direct participation in Government by the people became impossible.
9. At one stage democracy was abandoned in favour of feudalism in which a monarch ruled by Divine Right. In Asia this had always been the form of Government. Nevertheless the submission of the subjects to the Monarch was also a form of social contract.
10. Later feudalism was replaced by republicanism i.e. a return to the public of the power of Government.
11. Numerous forms of republics have emerged, each with its own set of laws and rules regarding the government of the country. But whatever may be the form, the laws and the rules, the citizens are bound by them. There would be no written contract but for foreigners to accept the rights of citizenship, there would usually be a formal undertaking to submit to the laws and system of the Government of the country.
12. After becoming citizens their offspring would automatically be regarded as citizens and as citizens they need not swear a formal oath of allegiance to the country. This right is through jus sanguinis i.e. through blood relation.
13. But there can also be citizenship by being born in the country or jus soli. This can be provided for by the laws of the country.
14. But whether citizenship is gained through jus sanguinis or jus soli, the social contract still applies even though there is no formal oath taking.
15. What is clear is that a social contract is a general understanding on the part of a citizen to submit to and obey the laws and the institutions of the country. The social contract governs not just his relation with the country, its Government and its institutions but also his relationship with his fellow citizens.
16. After receiving comments on this I will talk about the Malaysian social contract and its effect on Malaysia.
Social Contract - What is really valuable in a society?
By hai on June 30, 2008 6:16 PM
What's really valuable in a society?
We born-and-raised folks can be oblivious to what is best about our culture because it is so normal, as unnoticed as the air. We may not see the good until it is gone, as in the expression, “You don’t miss the water till the well runs dry.”
When we shriek with disgust that poverty, racism, and inequality still exist in our society, we could learned that those disaffections have been tackled more honestly and with better results here and develop to become necessary to have laws which govern the behaviour of members of the society. All citizens were committed to respect and submit to the laws. This understanding is in fact a social contract and moving for a formal contract. A formal contract of a social contract is yet to be further improved to be use of law to achieve equality and could be done better in an admittedly imperfect society.
Political theory relies heavily on the ideas of a social contract and a constitution. A social contract, made famous by the French philosopher Rousseau is an imaginary agreement between people in the state of nature that leads to the establishment of a community or a state. In the state of nature people are free and are not obliged to follow any rules or laws. They are essentially sovereign individuals. But through the social contract they surrender their individual sovereignty to the collective and create the community or the state. This state then acts as an agent of the sovereign people, exercising the sovereignty that has been delegated to it by the people through the social contract in order to realize the wishes of the people enshrined in the objectives of the social contract.
While western political thinkers like Rousseau and Locke have used this idea of an imaginary social contract as a fundamental premise for theorizing the modern state, there are really very few real examples of such an event in human history. In the American history, the Mayflower compact is one example. The writing and signing of the constitution after six months of deliberation in Philadelphia may be considered as another example of a social contract.
The second idea that underpins contemporary political theory is the concept of the constitution. In many ways the constitution is the document that enshrines the conditions of the social contract upon which any society is founded. The writing of a constitution is a very old idea. Aristotle himself had collected over 300 written constitutions in his lifetime.
Muhammad (PBUH) in his great wisdom demonstrated a democratic spirit quite unlike the authoritarian tendencies of many of those who claim to imitate him today. He chose to draw up a historically specific constitution based on the eternal and transcendent principles revealed to him and sought the consent of all who would be affected by its implementation.
In simple terms, we need to establish in society based on a social contract, constitutional in character and the ruler ruled with the explicit written consent of all the citizens of the state. Today we need to draw up our own constitutions, historically and temporally specific to our conditions and based on the eternal and transcendent principles revealed by "true devine research" (however, unwritten/spiritual/imaginary law of the universe/nature/jungle). We can use the "true devine research" as an example of how to develop manuals from principles?
The "true devine research" establish the importance of consent and cooperation for governance. According to this research Muslims and non-Muslims are equal citizens of the state, with identical rights and duties. Communities with different religious orientations enjoy religious autonomy. Which essentially is wider in scope than the modern idea of religious freedom. The "true devine research" establish a pluralistic state -- a community of communities. It promises equal security to all and all are equal in the eyes of the law. The principles of equality, consensual governance and pluralism are beautifully enmeshed in the "true devine research".
It is amazing to see how "true divine research" perfection is so democratic, so tolerant and compassionate against the admittedly society interpretation of the same is so harsh, so authoritarian and so intolerant. We must learn from the principles of "good true devine faith" but also human virtues of mercy, compassion, equality, justice and tolerance.
What's really valuable in a society?
We born-and-raised folks can be oblivious to what is best about our culture because it is so normal, as unnoticed as the air. We may not see the good until it is gone, as in the expression, “You don’t miss the water till the well runs dry.”
When we shriek with disgust that poverty, racism, and inequality still exist in our society, we could learned that those disaffections have been tackled more honestly and with better results here and develop to become necessary to have laws which govern the behaviour of members of the society. All citizens were committed to respect and submit to the laws. This understanding is in fact a social contract and moving for a formal contract. A formal contract of a social contract is yet to be further improved to be use of law to achieve equality and could be done better in an admittedly imperfect society.
Political theory relies heavily on the ideas of a social contract and a constitution. A social contract, made famous by the French philosopher Rousseau is an imaginary agreement between people in the state of nature that leads to the establishment of a community or a state. In the state of nature people are free and are not obliged to follow any rules or laws. They are essentially sovereign individuals. But through the social contract they surrender their individual sovereignty to the collective and create the community or the state. This state then acts as an agent of the sovereign people, exercising the sovereignty that has been delegated to it by the people through the social contract in order to realize the wishes of the people enshrined in the objectives of the social contract.
While western political thinkers like Rousseau and Locke have used this idea of an imaginary social contract as a fundamental premise for theorizing the modern state, there are really very few real examples of such an event in human history. In the American history, the Mayflower compact is one example. The writing and signing of the constitution after six months of deliberation in Philadelphia may be considered as another example of a social contract.
The second idea that underpins contemporary political theory is the concept of the constitution. In many ways the constitution is the document that enshrines the conditions of the social contract upon which any society is founded. The writing of a constitution is a very old idea. Aristotle himself had collected over 300 written constitutions in his lifetime.
Muhammad (PBUH) in his great wisdom demonstrated a democratic spirit quite unlike the authoritarian tendencies of many of those who claim to imitate him today. He chose to draw up a historically specific constitution based on the eternal and transcendent principles revealed to him and sought the consent of all who would be affected by its implementation.
In simple terms, we need to establish in society based on a social contract, constitutional in character and the ruler ruled with the explicit written consent of all the citizens of the state. Today we need to draw up our own constitutions, historically and temporally specific to our conditions and based on the eternal and transcendent principles revealed by "true devine research" (however, unwritten/spiritual/imaginary law of the universe/nature/jungle). We can use the "true devine research" as an example of how to develop manuals from principles?
The "true devine research" establish the importance of consent and cooperation for governance. According to this research Muslims and non-Muslims are equal citizens of the state, with identical rights and duties. Communities with different religious orientations enjoy religious autonomy. Which essentially is wider in scope than the modern idea of religious freedom. The "true devine research" establish a pluralistic state -- a community of communities. It promises equal security to all and all are equal in the eyes of the law. The principles of equality, consensual governance and pluralism are beautifully enmeshed in the "true devine research".
It is amazing to see how "true divine research" perfection is so democratic, so tolerant and compassionate against the admittedly society interpretation of the same is so harsh, so authoritarian and so intolerant. We must learn from the principles of "good true devine faith" but also human virtues of mercy, compassion, equality, justice and tolerance.
Right of Revolution
YABhg Tun Dr. Mahathir,
Please don't forget to include the right of revolution or the right of rebellion as part and parcel of Malaysian Social Contract, which you are going to emanate.
Thank you!
Onlooker
Attached:
Right of revolution
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Redirected from Right of rebellion)
In political philosophy, the right to revolution (or "right of rebellion") is a right variously stated throughout history. Confucian philosopher Mencius' teachings have often been suppressed over the millennia for saying that anytime a ruler did not provide for the needs of the people, they had the right to overthrow him. It is likely that many individuals partaking in revolutionary activity in the course of history have independently believed their actions justified along these lines. In western European history the Monarchomachs articulated the right to revolt in the context of the French Wars of Religion, by Huguenots thinkers who legitimated tyrannicides. It was then taken up by John Locke in Two Treatises of Government as part of his social contract theory. Locke declared that under natural law, all people have the right to life, liberty, and estate; he wrote that under the social contract, the people could instigate a revolution against the government when it acted against the interests of citizens and replace the government with another government in the interests of the citizens. In some cases, Locke deemed revolution an obligation. The right of revolution thus essentially acted as a safeguard against tyranny. This is a concept similar to the right of rebellion exercised by Polish szlachta.
The right of rebellion in history
The right to revolution formed a philosophical defense of the Glorious Revolution, when British Parliament deposed James II of England in 1688 and replaced him with William III of Orange-Nassau. Later, the right to revolution would be cited in the Declaration of Independence of the United States, which echoed many of the ideas on the right to revolution:
We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is in the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.
It was then included in the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen during the French Revolution.
Examples of Constitutions including the right of rebellion
Although many declarations of independence seek legitimacy by appealing to the right of revolution, far fewer constitutions mention this right or guarantee this right to citizens because of the destabilizing effect such a guarantee would likely produce.
New Hampshire's constitution guarantees its citizens the right to rebellion, in Article 10 of the constitution's Bill of Rights:
Whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.
The Kentucky Constitution also guarantees a right of revolution in Section 1 of the Bill of Rights.
All power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their peace, safety, happiness and the protection of property. For the advancement of these ends, they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may deem proper.
Article I, §2 of the Tennessee Constitution states: "That government being instituted for the common benefit, the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind."
North Carolina's constitution of November 21, 1789 also contains in its Declaration of Rights, "3d. That Government ought to be instituted for the common benefit, protection and security of the people; and that the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive to the good and happiness of mankind."
The post-World War II Grundgesetz, the Fundamental Law of the Federal Republic of Germany contains both entrenched, un-amendable clauses protecting human and natural rights, as well as a clause in its Article 20, recognizing the right of the people to resist tyranny, if all other measures have failed.
Please don't forget to include the right of revolution or the right of rebellion as part and parcel of Malaysian Social Contract, which you are going to emanate.
Thank you!
Onlooker
Attached:
Right of revolution
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Redirected from Right of rebellion)
In political philosophy, the right to revolution (or "right of rebellion") is a right variously stated throughout history. Confucian philosopher Mencius' teachings have often been suppressed over the millennia for saying that anytime a ruler did not provide for the needs of the people, they had the right to overthrow him. It is likely that many individuals partaking in revolutionary activity in the course of history have independently believed their actions justified along these lines. In western European history the Monarchomachs articulated the right to revolt in the context of the French Wars of Religion, by Huguenots thinkers who legitimated tyrannicides. It was then taken up by John Locke in Two Treatises of Government as part of his social contract theory. Locke declared that under natural law, all people have the right to life, liberty, and estate; he wrote that under the social contract, the people could instigate a revolution against the government when it acted against the interests of citizens and replace the government with another government in the interests of the citizens. In some cases, Locke deemed revolution an obligation. The right of revolution thus essentially acted as a safeguard against tyranny. This is a concept similar to the right of rebellion exercised by Polish szlachta.
The right of rebellion in history
The right to revolution formed a philosophical defense of the Glorious Revolution, when British Parliament deposed James II of England in 1688 and replaced him with William III of Orange-Nassau. Later, the right to revolution would be cited in the Declaration of Independence of the United States, which echoed many of the ideas on the right to revolution:
We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is in the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.
It was then included in the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen during the French Revolution.
Examples of Constitutions including the right of rebellion
Although many declarations of independence seek legitimacy by appealing to the right of revolution, far fewer constitutions mention this right or guarantee this right to citizens because of the destabilizing effect such a guarantee would likely produce.
New Hampshire's constitution guarantees its citizens the right to rebellion, in Article 10 of the constitution's Bill of Rights:
Whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.
The Kentucky Constitution also guarantees a right of revolution in Section 1 of the Bill of Rights.
All power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their peace, safety, happiness and the protection of property. For the advancement of these ends, they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may deem proper.
Article I, §2 of the Tennessee Constitution states: "That government being instituted for the common benefit, the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind."
North Carolina's constitution of November 21, 1789 also contains in its Declaration of Rights, "3d. That Government ought to be instituted for the common benefit, protection and security of the people; and that the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive to the good and happiness of mankind."
The post-World War II Grundgesetz, the Fundamental Law of the Federal Republic of Germany contains both entrenched, un-amendable clauses protecting human and natural rights, as well as a clause in its Article 20, recognizing the right of the people to resist tyranny, if all other measures have failed.
Friday, June 27, 2008
'Is it time now to totally quit politics?'
Onlooker said...
YABhg Tun Dr. Mahathir,
You have been critizing Pak Lah all this while without giving a second thought on others for a few minutes.
Perhaps you should ask yourself now these questions and try to live out a much more meaningful life, 'What am I going to do to resolve all this political mess and to restore party unity to BN if I were to be the PM again?'
' Why do all my friends and relatives have to suffer so much financially simply because Pak Lah has deviated from the original plans of government development spending which I designed when I was still a PM? Why are there so much heavy burden of dependency being laid down upon me by my friends and relatives? Do I have to carry all this burden until the last day of my life in this world? Isn't it now a good chance for me to put my hands off the political issues and let my friends and relatives to work their own way out from the financial predicaments so that they can achieve a true personal independence for living out their own worthy life?'
'Shouldn't I spend much more time playing with my cute cute grandsons and sweet sweet granddaughters so that I can quietly enjoy the happy family life together with my lovely wife and lively grandchildren and let me forget about who should best suitably be the replacement for Pak Lah?'
'Will I bet on a wrong horse again if I continually insist that Najib should take over Pak Lah immediately as the PM? How am I going to maintain my personal integrity in the eyes of the public in the event that if I continue to fan up Najib and then Najib has to be proven guilty sometimes and somedays in the future?'
'Do I impede Mukhriz's personal growth in his life when I keep Mukhriz living in my shadow by overshadowing him in his own political campaign? Should I leave Mukhriz alone and let him stretch himself all out with his own effort and own political talent? Am I an over-enthusiastic father to Mukhriz?'
'Do I forget that I should help my wife to do the dish wash after the house dinner this evening? Oh, dear wife!'
June 22, 2008 12:46 AM
YABhg Tun Dr. Mahathir,
You have been critizing Pak Lah all this while without giving a second thought on others for a few minutes.
Perhaps you should ask yourself now these questions and try to live out a much more meaningful life, 'What am I going to do to resolve all this political mess and to restore party unity to BN if I were to be the PM again?'
' Why do all my friends and relatives have to suffer so much financially simply because Pak Lah has deviated from the original plans of government development spending which I designed when I was still a PM? Why are there so much heavy burden of dependency being laid down upon me by my friends and relatives? Do I have to carry all this burden until the last day of my life in this world? Isn't it now a good chance for me to put my hands off the political issues and let my friends and relatives to work their own way out from the financial predicaments so that they can achieve a true personal independence for living out their own worthy life?'
'Shouldn't I spend much more time playing with my cute cute grandsons and sweet sweet granddaughters so that I can quietly enjoy the happy family life together with my lovely wife and lively grandchildren and let me forget about who should best suitably be the replacement for Pak Lah?'
'Will I bet on a wrong horse again if I continually insist that Najib should take over Pak Lah immediately as the PM? How am I going to maintain my personal integrity in the eyes of the public in the event that if I continue to fan up Najib and then Najib has to be proven guilty sometimes and somedays in the future?'
'Do I impede Mukhriz's personal growth in his life when I keep Mukhriz living in my shadow by overshadowing him in his own political campaign? Should I leave Mukhriz alone and let him stretch himself all out with his own effort and own political talent? Am I an over-enthusiastic father to Mukhriz?'
'Do I forget that I should help my wife to do the dish wash after the house dinner this evening? Oh, dear wife!'
June 22, 2008 12:46 AM
Thursday, June 26, 2008
The Political Legitimacy to Reject a Leader
YABhg Tun Dr. Mahathir,
I noticed that you had uttered a lot of grievances hinting Dato Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi as the sole culprit for all government faults which had been found by you. If you had really been annoyed so much by the PM who was implicitly described by you as the most disobedient and most treacherous man whom you had ever met in your life, then why didn't you try to persuade your beloved son, Dato Mukhriz Mahathir, to table a motion of no confidence against Dato Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi in the Parliament?
If you yourself as the honourable and the respectful father of Dato Mukhriz does not even stand in the position to be able to convince your beloved son to make the first move of checkmate against Dato Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi in Parliament, then I do not see what kind of political legitimacy you still possess now which enables you to justify all your incompetency accusations made against Dato Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi in relation to his functioning in the capacity of the Prime Minister.
I noticed that you made a lot of non-performance complaints against Dato Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi. However, I have yet to hear from you the strong and concrete evidences which you may present for the purpose of supporting your complaints. No doubt Abdullah's government has raised up the fuel cost to a certain extent that may not be sustainable for many underprivileged individuals and families. However, many of us are yet to see what kind of graces Abdullah's government is going to provide in order to help the needies for overcoming the economic hardship. I do not know why you have to start an attack on Abdullah's government so hastily before even getting to know about the time-lagged effect of the fuel price hike decision.
We needed a price reform in the fuel cost structure before the government finances had really run into insolvent situation. It is deemed that a fuel cost hike might help to curb the uncontrollable waste on the fuel consumption that already happened in the past when the fuel cost had to be heavily and irrationally subsidised by the government.
During your tenure of the PM, the Crude might have gone up to the maximum of only USD33 per barrel. However, the current Crude price is about USD140 per barrel. If you keep insistence on the viability and sustainability of the government's conventional fuel subsidy policy even in the midst of heightened Crude price, then you are indeed asking Abdullah's government to take the high risk of possibly running into a financial bankrupt situation when the Crude commodity is exposing itself to the unpredictable high speculative risk of upward trendiness.
Tun, I understand that during your tenure as the PM, you yourself had already gained several bad experiences from losing huge money of the government in some speculative games. I hope you are not forgetting about the story of market collapse which happened in early 1980s in relation to tin ore trade in London and which you had detrimentally gotten involved as the manager of a Cartel organisation consisting of members from tin producing countries such as Bolivia, Thailand and Malaysia. I hope you are also not forgetting that you have already lost multi-billion dollars of the people's wealth in your vain effort to support the currency value of Ringgit against the US dollar during the currency attack in 1997-1998.
Your past failure in overcoming the financial fallout during a speculative attack have clearly shown that you are not a competent manager who can grasp a good fist fighting as the capable big boxer in the platform of commodity trading. Therefore, all your comments on the government's recent decision of fuel subsidy removal must be studied carefully with some reservation before the truthfulness of your comments can be taken for granted since you are not an infallible God.
Tun's past performance in the financial mismanagement and the ignorance in using the hedge fund instrument in order to cover the high financial risk exposure has also proven that Tun is just another layman in financial market who has yet to learn how to cut loss during a stressful financial exposure situation.
Knowing about your own weaknesses, I sincerely hope that Tun will learn to be much more humble and learn to be much more forgiving when doing an evaluation on the performance of Abdullah's government. In politics, it is totally absurd for us to always think too highly of our self-worth and incline to believe that we ourselves always sit in the peak of social norm and quality standard therefore it is justifiable for us to commence a character assassination on our political opponent. It is always fruitful for us to remind ourselves that other people may have much better knowledge about something than we ourselves therefore it is worthwhile giving a chance and a reasonable time frame for someone else to perform before we really jump into the conclusion that this person has to be outrightly rejected or overthrown because of sheer folly out of incompetency!
I noticed that you had uttered a lot of grievances hinting Dato Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi as the sole culprit for all government faults which had been found by you. If you had really been annoyed so much by the PM who was implicitly described by you as the most disobedient and most treacherous man whom you had ever met in your life, then why didn't you try to persuade your beloved son, Dato Mukhriz Mahathir, to table a motion of no confidence against Dato Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi in the Parliament?
If you yourself as the honourable and the respectful father of Dato Mukhriz does not even stand in the position to be able to convince your beloved son to make the first move of checkmate against Dato Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi in Parliament, then I do not see what kind of political legitimacy you still possess now which enables you to justify all your incompetency accusations made against Dato Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi in relation to his functioning in the capacity of the Prime Minister.
I noticed that you made a lot of non-performance complaints against Dato Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi. However, I have yet to hear from you the strong and concrete evidences which you may present for the purpose of supporting your complaints. No doubt Abdullah's government has raised up the fuel cost to a certain extent that may not be sustainable for many underprivileged individuals and families. However, many of us are yet to see what kind of graces Abdullah's government is going to provide in order to help the needies for overcoming the economic hardship. I do not know why you have to start an attack on Abdullah's government so hastily before even getting to know about the time-lagged effect of the fuel price hike decision.
We needed a price reform in the fuel cost structure before the government finances had really run into insolvent situation. It is deemed that a fuel cost hike might help to curb the uncontrollable waste on the fuel consumption that already happened in the past when the fuel cost had to be heavily and irrationally subsidised by the government.
During your tenure of the PM, the Crude might have gone up to the maximum of only USD33 per barrel. However, the current Crude price is about USD140 per barrel. If you keep insistence on the viability and sustainability of the government's conventional fuel subsidy policy even in the midst of heightened Crude price, then you are indeed asking Abdullah's government to take the high risk of possibly running into a financial bankrupt situation when the Crude commodity is exposing itself to the unpredictable high speculative risk of upward trendiness.
Tun, I understand that during your tenure as the PM, you yourself had already gained several bad experiences from losing huge money of the government in some speculative games. I hope you are not forgetting about the story of market collapse which happened in early 1980s in relation to tin ore trade in London and which you had detrimentally gotten involved as the manager of a Cartel organisation consisting of members from tin producing countries such as Bolivia, Thailand and Malaysia. I hope you are also not forgetting that you have already lost multi-billion dollars of the people's wealth in your vain effort to support the currency value of Ringgit against the US dollar during the currency attack in 1997-1998.
Your past failure in overcoming the financial fallout during a speculative attack have clearly shown that you are not a competent manager who can grasp a good fist fighting as the capable big boxer in the platform of commodity trading. Therefore, all your comments on the government's recent decision of fuel subsidy removal must be studied carefully with some reservation before the truthfulness of your comments can be taken for granted since you are not an infallible God.
Tun's past performance in the financial mismanagement and the ignorance in using the hedge fund instrument in order to cover the high financial risk exposure has also proven that Tun is just another layman in financial market who has yet to learn how to cut loss during a stressful financial exposure situation.
Knowing about your own weaknesses, I sincerely hope that Tun will learn to be much more humble and learn to be much more forgiving when doing an evaluation on the performance of Abdullah's government. In politics, it is totally absurd for us to always think too highly of our self-worth and incline to believe that we ourselves always sit in the peak of social norm and quality standard therefore it is justifiable for us to commence a character assassination on our political opponent. It is always fruitful for us to remind ourselves that other people may have much better knowledge about something than we ourselves therefore it is worthwhile giving a chance and a reasonable time frame for someone else to perform before we really jump into the conclusion that this person has to be outrightly rejected or overthrown because of sheer folly out of incompetency!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)