13/01: The ten-year mood swings

Posted By: Raja Petra

The opposition is arrogant. The opposition has a large ego. They think we need them so they can do what they like. It is time they learned that we do not need them but it is they who need us.


They say the economy works in ten-year cycles. I can't remember what happened before Merdeka because I was still too young then, but by the time I went out into the world to make my living in 1974 I became conscious of these economic down-turns. Last year, the world struggled to keep its head above water. The expected crash did not happen only because governments took pains to keep banks and countries from collapsing. It is no secret that when America sneezes, the rest of the world, in particular the developing part of the world, catches a cold. So America needed to be saved just so that the rest of the world could save itself.

China and the Middle Eastern countries in particular had invested a lot in the United States Dollar so they could not afford for the Dollar to crash. It is said that between them they hold an estimated three to five trillion Dollars. So, if the Dollar crashes, they have as much to lose as does the United States. It is therefore prudent to keep the Dollar alive just so that they themselves would not crash alongside a crashing Dollar. This is no charity. They do not have the interest of the United States at heart. It is merely a matter of survival, their own survival, so keeping the Dollar going was to keep themselves safe and a way of preventing their investments from getting wiped out.

But what is the real worth of the United States Dollar? Is the Dollar worth a Dollar? No one knows expect maybe those who walk in the corridors of power in Washington, Beijing, Riyadh, and so on. The rest of us lesser mortals can only hope and pray that what we may be trading in or holding onto by way of the Dollar is worth the paper it is printed on. It is clearly understood that the Dollar, as are all paper money, is merely a promissory note. It is a promise by the issuer of the note that they would pay on demand the figure printed on that paper. But what if they don't? What if they dishonour their promise? There is very little you can do, really, except to 'blacklist' their paper from thereon and refuse to accept it any longer in future. But the damage would have already been done. The three or five trillion Dollars that you hold would be worthless scraps of paper and refusing to further accept that paper would not help you recoup your loses but would instead guarantee that the paper you hold would become like the Japanese 'banana' money, if any of you still remember the Malayan currency of the Second World War.

Anyway, for all intents and purposes, 2007 could be said to be a critical year for the world economy. The only thing is the economy was artificially propped-up so many of us did not realise it. What we saw were just the bells and whistles, which was what we were meant to see. Ten years ago, in 1997, we again suffered an economic downturn -- at least our part of the world did -- due to what is now infamously known as the Asian Financial Crisis. In 1987, ten years before that, again, the entire world went through an economic slump that saw some tycoons suffering jail terms when they attempted to prop up their ailing companies through fair or foul means and many chose the easier foul means alternative. And ten years before that, in the 1970s, yet another economic crisis.

Yes, every ten years expect an economic crash and if the ten-year theory is correct then this year, 2008, we are due for yet another economic downturn. Of course, predictions are just that, predictions, but predictions are based on signs and the signs seem to indicate that we may not be too far off the mark. In fact, as I said, it should have happened last year rather than this year if not for the propping-up by the Chinese and Middle Eastern countries which had more to lose than the Americans if the Dollar collapses. But the economy can still be saved, and if the United States attacks Iran, which many think may happen this year, then we may be seeing better days ahead of us -- at least as far as the economy is concerned though I can't say the same for the Iranians. Yes, wars are good for the economy and an American-Iranian war will see the economy strengthen. But people will have to die, many people of course, so that the capitalists can see a healthy return on their investments.

This ten-year cycle theory holds true for politics as well, at least as far as Malaysia is concerned. Every ten years or so we see a shift in voters' sentiments. Sometimes the shift is large enough to make an impact like in 1969 and 1999. Sometimes it is a minor shift but only because the Malays shift one way with the non-Malays going the opposite direction one election, and then the non-Malays reverse direction with the non-Malays again moving in the opposite direction the following election. Now, if only the Malays and non-Malays both shift the same direction then the election results would have been totally different. But the Malays and non-Malays love playing see-saw. When one goes up the other goes down, and vice versa. Maybe they should start playing swings instead so that both can swing up and down at the same time. But such are the mood swings of the Malays and non-Malays. When one is in the mood, the other is not, and then when the other finally gets into the mood, the mood of the first moves the opposite direction. It's like when tonight your wife has a headache and is not in the mood and tomorrow night when she is in the mood you in turn get a headache. If only you can both get your headaches at the same time so that you can synchronise your moods.

I remember in 1968 -- I was 18 then -- when Malaysians went through their first mood swing. Resentment against the government was high and both the Malays and non-Malays voted against the ruling party in the 1969 general election giving the opposition 55% of the votes. No doubt the ruling party still formed the government even though it had just 45% of the votes but it lost many states and ruled without a two-thirds majority. History was almost repeated 30 years later in 1998 but in the 1999 general election the Malays and non-Malays were not as united as in 1969 (though in 1969 the Malays and non-Malays were not really united in that sense but just that both wanted the government out without working in concert to achieve this).

Now, we must remember, 1969 was not long after Merdeka and not long after the ruling party swept almost all the seats in the first parliamentary elections in 1959. Ten years before that the voters gave the ruling party a landslide victory. Ten years later they took it back.

Let us look at the First Parliamentary General Election again. What really happened in that first election in 1959, merely two years after Merdeka? Did the ruling party do that well, only to lose it all again ten years later?

In the First Parliamentary General Election in 1959, the voter turnout was only 73.3% or 1.55 million voters. 600,000 people decided to just stay home and not bother to come out and vote. The Alliance Party, which had won the Municipal Elections four years before that in 1955, managed to garner only 51.8% of the votes. That's right, the Alliance Party won slightly over half the votes in the First Parliamentary General Election. And the Alliance Party was a coalition of three parties -- Umno, MCA and MIC. Therefore Umno, on its own, won less than half the votes.

In terms of seats, though, the Alliance Party won 74 out of the 104 seats or around 71% of the total seats contested. This means they managed to form the government with a comfortable two-thirds majority in spite of winning slightly over half the votes.

Five years on, in the Second Parliamentary General Election in 1964, the voter turnout increased slightly to 78.9%, a 5.6% increase. In this election the Alliance Party garnered 58.5% of the votes, an improvement of 6.7%, more or less corresponding with the increase in voter turnout. The increase in votes which the Alliance Party won can easily be attributed to the increase in the number of registered voters. The number of registered voters had increased by 28% but the Alliance Party saw an increase in votes of 50%. This means the Alliance Party saw a real increase and not just because there were more voters. In short, 500,000 'new' voters came out to vote in the 1964 general election and 80% or 400,000 of these votes went to the Alliance Party -- an impressive performance indeed. The number of seats the Alliance Party won increased to 86%, which more or less gave them a landslide victory.

Five years later, in 1969, the voter turnout dropped back to 73.6%. In this historic election (historic only because of the racial riots that followed) the Alliance Party managed a paltry 44.9% of the votes. Out of the 144 seats contested, the Alliance Party managed only 74 giving them slightly better than half (72 seats is 50%) and FAR SHORT of the two-thirds they needed to form an effective government.

That’s when all hell broke loose -- organised chaos if you wish -- infamously known as the May 13 incident.

The ruling party, by then called Barisan Nasional, performed better during the 1974 general election. They managed to garner 60.7% of the votes. But this is only because the old Alliance Party no longer existed and the new coalition called Barisan Nasional comprised all those opposition parties that, in the election before that, had denied the ruling party its two-thirds majority in Parliament.

In terms of seats it was almost a clean sweep for Barisan Nasional as the opposition managed to win only 19 out of the 144 seats contested. Something must be wrong with the system when the opposition won only 13% of the seats though 40% of the rakyat voted for them. In this election the voter turnout was only 75.1%. Again, 600,000 people did not come out to vote just like in the two elections before that.

The 1978 general election was not any better and was almost a repeat of 1974. Only 75.3% of the voters came out to vote. The ruling party won 57.2% of the votes, but this time their number of seats won dropped to 130. The opposition managed to win 24 seats on the now enlarged total of 154 seats -- a slightly better performance for the opposition.

The 1982 general election was, again, a duplicate of the election before that -- 74.39% voter turnout, 60.54% votes to the ruling party giving them 132 seats, and 22 seats to the opposition, which was almost status quo.

From thereon PAS seemed to be going downhill. The following general election in 1986 was a disaster for PAS when it won only one seat and lost Kelantan to UMNO. Ironically, DAP saw its best ever performance by winning 24 Parliament seats. Barisan Nasional, which got 57.28% of the votes, won 148 seats or 84% out of the total of 177 seats. This was the turning point for both PAS and DAP -- PAS its lowest point and DAP its highest.

One interesting point to note is that the voter turnout in 1986 was the worst in the history of our general elections. Only 69.97% of the voters came out to vote. It was said the low voter turnout was one factor that worked against the opposition. More than 2 million people stayed home in that election.

1990 was the most interesting year. In the general election held that year, the ruling party managed only 53.38% of the votes. Voter turnout was only slightly better at 72.7%. A 'record' 2.2 million people stayed home and did not bother to come out and vote. Considering the ruling party managed only around 3 million votes and the opposition obtained 2.6 million votes (giving the ruling party a mere 400,000 vote majority), the 2.2 million voters who stayed home was quite significant indeed. If 8% more people had come out to vote, and if they had voted for the opposition, the results would have been quite different. Of course, if they had voted for the ruling party instead then it would not have mattered much.

Anyway, DAP lost four seats and managed to retain only 20. PAS & Semangat 46 shared 15 seats between them from a mere one seat the election before that. PBS in Sabah got 14 seats and four independent candidates got in. Out of 180 seats contested, the ruling party still managed to win 127 or 70% of the seats on slightly more than HALF the votes they garnered. Again, this showed, in Malaysian elections, it is SEATS AND NOT VOTES THAT MATTER.

During the 1995 general election, PAS and Semangat 46 got one seat less each and, combined, managed to win only 13 seats. DAP did quite badly at nine seats while PBS got only eight seats this time around. There were nine million registered voters that year but, just like in 1990, more than two million people stayed home. The ruling party garnered 65.2% of the votes and won 162 out of the 192 seats contested giving it 85% of the seats.

In the 1999 general election, Barisan Nasional won 102 or 70.8% of the 144 seats it contested in Peninsular Malaysia. This gave it 4.2% more than what it needed to retain its two-thirds majority in Parliament. With the 46 seats it won in East Malaysia, Barisan Nasional sailed in comfortably with 148 seats, 20 more seats than what was required to maintain its two-thirds majority and 52 more seats than what it need to form the government with a simple majority.

Now, it must be noted that while Barisan Nasional won more than the two-thirds of the seats, it failed to win two-thirds of the votes. Out of a total of about 5.8 million voters in Peninsular Malaysia, Barisan Nasional managed to convince only 3.1 million voters to vote for it while 2.6 million voters voted for the opposition. This came to less than 54% of the total voters who cast their votes -- far short of the two-thirds it needed to legitimately claim that the people support the ruling party.

What is most interesting to note is that only 73% of the voters came out to vote. Perak was the lowest at 66% followed by the Federal Capital at 70%. Why this low turnout?

Thousands of complaints were received that voters who had voted in that same area for the last few elections suddenly found their names missing from the electoral list. Others complained that someone else had voted in their place. When they went to vote they found that their names had been 'cut off' from the register, which means they had already voted. Then there were cases where voters’ names had been transferred to another state so they could not vote as there was no way they could make it across the country in time to vote.

It was estimated that around 80% to 82% of the registered voters would have come out to vote this time around, if they had been allowed to. This would have made it one of the highest ever in Malaysian election history. Many did in fact come out but were sent home disappointed.

If these 7% to 9% had not been denied their right to vote, and if the 680,000 voters who had registered earlier but could not vote were included in the voters’ list, an additional one million people would have voted in the 1999 general election.

According to the Elections Commission, 95% of these 680,000 disenfranchised voters were below the age of 30. The Alternative Front or Barisan Alternatif claimed that more than 70% of these people barred from voting were their supporters. If this were true, then Barisan Nasional would have garnered 3.4 million votes while the opposition would have won 3.2 million. This would have changed the results drastically, probably even giving the opposition an additional 30 to 40 Parliamentary seats. Looking at the wafer-thin wins the Barisan Nasional candidates obtained, this assumption is more than possible.

A couple of years later, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad admitted during the Umno General Assembly that if the 680,000 disenfranchised voters had been allowed to vote, Barisan Nasional would have been kicked out of office.

The opposition officially won 42 of the Parliament seats contested. They claim the number should have been between 70 to 80 if the elections had been free and fair. And all they needed was 65 seats to deny Barisan Nasional its two-thirds majority in Parliament.

Then came the 2004 general election, Abdullah Ahmad Badawi's first general election, and the tide turned yet again in favour of the ruling party. Even with just roughly two-thirds of the votes, Barisan Nasional managed to win 92% of the seats, never before achieved in 50 years of election history. Now, what is 2008 going to look like? Well, we have eleven previous general elections to look at so take your pick. But whatever it is, take note that:

1) even with 45% of the votes Barisan Nasional will still form the government;

2) they do not need two-thirds of the votes to win two-thirds of the seats;

3) and finally, in 1959 the ruling party garnered 51.8% of the votes, in 1969, 44.9% of the votes, in 1978 (which should have been held in 1979), 57.2% of the votes, in 1990 (they held elections every four years instead of five during this period so that is why there is an 'extra' two years), 53.38% of the votes, and in 1999, 54% of the votes.

Now, what is 2009, the next ten years (which may be 2008 rather than 2009 if they call an early election) going to look like? We have seen a voters' mood swing every ten years, just like we saw an economic downturn. Can we expect a downturn of the ruling party's performance as well?

Most likely. If the Malays and non-Malays unite under a united opposition we can see a 50-50 split in the votes. Of course, Barisan Nasional will still form the government. But it will be without a two-thirds majority and with the loss of a few states.

Kelantan, Terengganu, Kedah and Perlis may fall. Barisan Nasional may lose its majority in Penang, Perak, Selangor and Sabah. And 80 Members of Parliament will sit in the opposition aisle giving Barisan Nasional a mere 64% of the seats, slightly less than the two-thirds it needs to blatantly amend laws such as the recent one that allowed the Prime Minister to extend the tenure of the Chairman of the Elections Commission without seeking the approval of the Agong.

Yes, let us force the opposition to unite. And if they don't then let us boycott the opposition. Let us show them we mean business. As Lim Kit Siang said, “The people are the boss.” So let us show them that we really are the boss by telling them what we want and by rejecting them if they refuse to listen to the boss. We want 80 opposition members in Parliament. And we will get it even if we have to vote against the opposition or by not coming out to vote just to teach the opposition a lesson and to show them that if we can't have it our way then we do not want it any way.

The opposition is arrogant. The opposition has a large ego. They think we need them so they can do what they like. It is time they learned that we do not need them but it is they who need us. Malaysia Today will soon launch a campaign called ONE OPPOSITION OR NO OPPOSITION. The civil society movements and NGOs will soon launch a PEOPLES' DECLARATION or DEKLARASI RAKYAT. If the ruling party accepts this Declaration we shall support them. Whomsoever accepts it we shall support them, never mind which party they are from. It is time we took back the streets. It is time we took back the ballot box. It is time the Wakil Rakyat learnt the meaning of wakil rakyat. It means we are in charge and they are merely our wakil.

12/01: The law of relativity

Posted By: Raja Petra

Mankind is quick to judge and pass judgement according to their own values and beliefs. They believe that if they believe it is right then it has to be right and if they believe it is wrong then it has to be wrong.


As I write this piece I am sitting in Starbucks at the Pantai Medical Centre awaiting the arrival of my fourth grandchild. He is due any time now and probably by the time you read this I will already be the proud grandfather of my third grandson. This is my 35-year old daughter's third child. She had a daughter and a son about a year apart some five to six years ago. My third grandchild was born in Manchester barely a few months ago so this latest one is going to be almost the same age.

A few hours ago I was at another hospital, the Sunway Specialist Centre. My friend, Adlan Benan Omar, the same age as my daughter, is dying and by the time you read this he would probably be dead. Yes, it has been one heck of a day for me rushing from one hospital to see a dying comrade to another to see my daughter of that same age bringing a fragile little being into this world. Such is life. One goes away and another one comes along. It makes you wonder whether everything is worth the effort when at the end of the day all you get is a hole in the ground and you revert to dust and ashes.

Anyway, that is not what I want to discuss today. It's just that I just had to mention them because these two events are going to have a great impact on my life. What I really want to talk about is the issue of right and wrong and our perception of what is right and what is wrong and how right can be wrong and wrong can be right, depending on the time and place and how you were brought up.

The Minister of Health had to resign because he committed a crime. The Minister of Health had to resign because public opinion says he committed a crime and a Minister is subject to public opinion. The Minister of Health had to resign because he was fixed up so that they could pressure him into resigning. The Minister of Health had to resign to save himself the embarrassment of getting sacked, which would have happened had he not resigned. The Minister of Health had to resign because he was ashamed of what he did. The Minister of Health had to resign because he knows it is impossible for him to continue commanding the respect of those under him and this would make him ineffective as a Minister. The Minister of Health had to resign because he was caught committing a crime and anyone unfortunate enough to get caught has to resign. The Minister of Health had to resign so that he could launch a challenge against the MCA leadership and the only way he could do this would be from the 'outside' because if he remained on the 'inside' he would have to 'toe the line' and 'behave himself'.

Which do you think is the real reason for the Minister of Health resigning? Different people would of course have different views as to why he resigned. And your view would all depend on the values you uphold and your perception of what is right and what is wrong. But right and wrong are subject to time and place. At different times and places, right could be wrong and wrong could be right. This is what I would call the law of relativity. Your judgement about what is right and wrong would be in relation to certain criteria and yardsticks.

For example, I am a poor man. I am poor in relation to the wealth that Bill Gates has. And Malaysia Today is making me poorer by the day. But in relation to a Bangladeshi labourer who washes dishes in a Mamak restaurant for a living, I am a rich man. After all, how many Bangladeshi labourers live in a semi-detached house overlooking a golf club? So perception is therefore everything. And this perception can be influenced or clouded by time and place.

There is another thing that influences how you see things. And this would be your own values and beliefs. If you believe that such a thing is right then it would become right, and vice versa. And this belief, again, would be influenced by time and place.

In the pre-Islamic days, women in the Arabian Peninsular were allowed more than one husband. And daughters would be buried alive because women are 'worthless' compared to men. Women are merely 'property' that can be passed down just like sheep and camels. Nevertheless, in spite of women being regarded as property, they could have more than one husband. In Europe, at around that same time, women would be made to wear chastity belts to ensure that they did not indulge in sex with another man. And halfway across the world the women there, 'second-class' people according to Arab standards, could legally enjoy sex with many men.

The same time but in two different places and what was right for one society was very wrong for another. So who are we to judge what is right and what is wrong? Right and wrong all depends on when that particular thing happened and where it happened.

Right and wrong are very much in the mind. It very much depends on how you have been brought up and educated and what your mind has been conditioned to become. And religion of course plays a very big part in all this.

Let us look at another example. Muslims would be very offended if you invite them for dinner and the food is non-halal or there is pork on the table. Even if there is no pork on the table but the kitchen cooks pork they would still feel offended. You have to ensure that the restaurant is totally pork-free and that the food is halal. It is not enough that pork is not on the table.

But Muslims do not feel offended if they invite vegetarians, Hindus or Buddhists for dinner and there is beef on the table. While Muslims may become very violent if you serve them pork, they are cool about serving vegetarians, Hindus and Buddhists, beef. If you point out to them that according to your religious belief beef is not halal, they would just suggest you lay off the beef. They would not apologise and instruct the waiter to remove the beef. They would then continue consuming beef in front of you. Try eating pork in front of them and see how they would react.

To Muslims, it is wrong to serve pork or even have it on the table or cooked in the kitchen. But it is right to serve beef and have it cooked in the kitchen and even eat it in front of you while you look on totally repulsed by the sight. The Muslim view of right and wrong would be what is right and wrong in Islam. What about what is right and wrong in the other religions? Muslims regard only Islam as the true religion and all other religions as false so they will only take what Islam says is right and wrong as the criteria. The right and wrong for the other religions need to be ignored or else you would be regarded as 'practicing' the values of another religion.

Unfortunately, this value system and the yardstick adopted to gauge right from wrong make Muslims very selfish. They only worry about what is right and wrong from the Islamic perspective while totally ignoring what may be allowed or taboo for the other religions. They would not bother to find out the religious persuasions of their dinner guests or ensure that the right menu is prepared in compliance to that particular religious belief. But they expect you to know that they are Muslims and that Islam forbids pork. And it is your duty to ensure that the restaurant is totally halal and that not only there is no pork cooked or served anywhere in the restaurant but that the beef and other livestock have been properly slaughtered the correct Islamic way.

Mankind is quick to judge and pass judgement according to their own values and beliefs. They believe that if they believe it is right then it has to be right and if they believe it is wrong then it has to be wrong. And they will use the present time and place and according to how they have been brought up and educated into believing as the criteria.

In the days before the French Revolution, cat burning was a popular form of entertainment. Cats would be rounded up and placed in a cage and then lowered slowly into an open fire. The cats would scream with pain, and as they burned the spectators would clap and squeal with delight. Yes, this was a very popular form of entertainment in France in the days before cable TV, the internet, computer games and the like.

There is of course nothing wrong with that form of entertainment. This is not considered cruelty to animals. Yes, there is nothing wrong and it is not cruel against the backdrop of France 500 years ago. Try doing that in Paris today and see what happens. Therefore, what was right 500 years ago in France is wrong today. And 500 years ago even the 'primitive' and 'backward' Malays in this country would not burn alive hundreds of cats for entertainment. It was wrong for Malays to subject cats to what today would be regarded as cruelty even 500 years ago when it was fashionable in France and a very popular form of entertainment. Right and wrong therefore depends on who you are, where you are, and at what point of time or when you are considering all this.

Now let us look at religion. Every religion, not only Islam, says it is right and that all the other religions are wrong. But which one is the really right religion? Do you know? Of course you do know. And your answer would be: the right religion is the religion you were born into and which you were brought up in and taught to believe in. All the others are wrong.

But how can you be sure of this? Is it because you have been brainwashed and indoctrinated so? Okay, what if you were born into a Muslim family instead of a Christian family? Would you still say that Jesus was the last Prophet and that Muhammad was a fake? You were taught your entire life that Islam is the true religion and all other religions are false. Your entire family is Muslim and you have been taught to believe that if you do not believe in Islam you will be sent to hell where you will remain forever. How would you not believe this is so?

Right and wrong all depend on how you were born. If you were born in Sweden to a Christian family then your beliefs would be moulded along that society's value system. And if you were born in Saudi Arabia to a Wahabbi family then your beliefs would be moulded along that society's value system. In both situations you would believe you are right. And in both situations you could actually be wrong.

How could both be right? One has to be right and the other wrong. But the right and wrong would all depend on which family you were born into. So right could be wrong and wrong could be right according to who you are in terms of time, race and religious beliefs. Therefore, since right and wrong are not static but would change according to which family you were born into and at which point of time, then there cannot be any right and wrong. Right and wrong do not exist. Right and wrong are merely how you perceive things and perceptions -- since they are influenced by time, place, upbringing, etc. -- are not real.

But mankind will not accept this. No one would declare that the religion they believe in is wrong while the religion they do not believe in is right. Right is always what you believe in and wrong would be all which is opposed to what you believe in. That is the value system you will uphold.

But how do you even know in the first place that there is such a thing called religion and that it came from God? You don't. You only have faith. And you will allow your faith to decide your beliefs. This is what you have been taught and what those who have taught you have been taught before that. So it is a hand-me-down 'knowledge' that cannot be proven but must be believed only because those before you have believed the same.

If I tell you that God listens to my prayers every night you would believe this because you believe the same thing. In fact, billions of people believe this same thing so as long as this belief is shared by the majority then it must be right. But if I tell you that God talks to me through my notebook computer and He leaves me messages on my word processor you would not believe me mainly because no one else believes the same thing. Your beliefs and your perception of right and wrong therefore is based on majority view. As long as the majority thinks the same then this is correct. It is wrong only when it goes against the majority view. Cat burning, if made into an international event, would be right only if many think so, as was so in France 500 years ago. Would you think that boxing is an acceptable sport if 99% of the world condemned it? If boxing is acceptable why not duels with pistols?

You may think this statement is ridiculous. Well, it would not be considered ridiculous during the time of the Romans when gladiators battled to the death in the Coliseum. It may be wrong today but it was very right then. And as recent as 150 years ago witches were burned alive at the stake in 'modern' Europe and America. An estimated 20,000-50,000 witches were burned alive over 300 years or so and it was very much right then and sanctioned, in fact encouraged, by the church. It is only wrong to burn witches today.

So right is wrong and wrong is right depending on who you are, where you were born, and when you were born. Your values are your values and it does not mean that they are right values. It just means that they are your perception of what are right values. So keep your values to yourself. Do not impose your values on me. And 200 years ago the Minister of Health would be allowed hundreds of mistresses in keeping with his status as a Minister of the Ruler. And he would not have to resign. But for plotting the downfall of his boss he would not just be fixed up and forced to resign but his head would be spiked on a stake outside the city gates.

10/01: Jetstar Asia eligible to fly Singapore-Malaysia route

(Channel NewsAsia) - SINGAPORE: Jetstar Asia is in the clear to fly the Singapore-Malaysia route.

In a tale of twists and turns, reports from Malaysia on Tuesday said it may not be allowed to fly the route because of a clause in the Malaysia-Australia aviation agreement.

The Malaysian Transport Ministry clarified on Wednesday that although it has some Australian backing, the carrier can fly the route as its majority investors are from Singapore and it is a Singaporean airline.

It also noted that the carrier is a separate entity from Jetstar Australia, which is owned by Qantas.

Singapore's Transport Minister Raymond Lim, said: "I am not sure if the report was referring to Jetstar or Jetstar Asia. Jetstar Asia is a Singapore carrier and is entitled to air rights from Singapore. My understanding is that Jetstar Asia has received approval from the KL authorities in this matter."

Chong Phit Lian, CEO of Jetstar Asia, said: "I can't say for sure what is happening on the other side but we know Jetstar Asia operates under the Singapore AOC and we have been given the rights – we'll definitely fly from 1 February."

10/01: The Pirate and "Social Contractor".

Tsze-Kung asked, saying, 'Is there one word which may serve as a rule of practice for all one's life?"
The Master said, "Is not Reciprocity such a word? What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others."
-Confucius (551 BC - 479 BC)

Bodohland is the land of contractors, for the contractors, by the contractors.
Mind you, just like all humans, they are all very social animals.
With great pride, we give you The Social Contractor - who "abides" by the "social contract" laid down by himself, even if the goalposts keep shifting on the "level playing field".
For a start, do the "Social Contractor" in Bodohland understand what this word "Reciprocity" means at all?
Maybe they do - and their definition would most probably go like this :-

1. I'm the boss aka "Tuan" - and I decide on everything, I'm always the best and always "Korrect".
2. We have a contract and I get all contracts - for all time. Do not question it. Especially that of Petronaz.
3. This is my land, and - even if I sold it to you when it was worthless.
4. Be thankful for that - and as a reward for my acceptance of your money, you have to serve me.
5. I reserve the right to abrogate all earlier contracts and rights that might have been favourable to you, even if it doesn't favour me in the long run.
6. However, should 'my people' object or my pockets run dry, you should be willing to pay me damages - happily.
7. Once you've built something of value, I may exercise my right to acquire it at par value.
8. If I run out of cash, You have to buy it out at 10 times the market value to make me happy- lest I unleash Mr. Chris and Mr. ISA, whom I nurture to "protect" you.
9. In return, I shall give ("sub") you more contracts that are in my name, for which you shall pay me royalties.
10. If you have a problem, refer to articles 1, 2 and 3, or you "boleh keluar/ balik negeri".
(Please refer to your local contractor for further details/ the fine print)

This is very fair contract, from the perspective of the contractor - doesn't matter which color or creed or party he belongs to. For further reading, please go to "Warlords and heavyweights: two peas in a pod"

In short, whatever the contract may say, (just as in the democratic elections of Bolehland), the unwritten mantra, "the Pirate's" greatest commandment is - "I win". All other things have to work around this one infallible Law, or else the contract would be in jeopardy.

All you Bodohlander dissenters, will be given some peanuts to munch on (much like monkeys), should you agree to dance to this music. The social contractor would be eternally grateful to you for playing the game and letting them win on their own terms. The Lead Monkeys will be given a real fat peanut contract. The commoners (non-contractors) will be given their chance to gloat about the peanuts.

One thing is for sure - The Social Contractor (according to some people) wouldn't accept anything other than the above, just as they wouldn't accept "Allah" as the Arabic word for God.
In fact Arabic which has now been hijacked (and pirated), comes under the jurisdiction of the ministry of internal security (I think) - acquired under the spirit of "the contract" (refer item no.7, above).
No amount of debate and logic can change their silly mind on this matter - Allah is only meant for Malay speaking Muslims in this land of Social Contractors.
[On behalf of all thinking people, my humble apologies to all Arab linguists for the piracy. If you have questions, please refer to items 1,2, and 3 in the contract].

The beauty about the Social Contractor is - he/ she has innate ability to deny him/herself and the followers, the truth about anything and everything.
The social contractor of today however isn't the same as those of yesteryears.These days, they come in all colors, shapes, sizes and mental capacity.
The most popular among them have fetishes for the long metallic objects, "beruks", "terowongs" that are "bocor", tolls, Corridors, C4 explosives, "wayar putus", fights with the fairer sex (in and out of parliament or hotel rooms), nasi kandar, PKFZs, OPVs, Petronaz ..... and the list goes on.

The "chosen ones" have always got to be made to feel like bosses, despite being willing slaves, and being fed peanuts by the contractors. This has to be done by depriving their nemesis - the commoner "non-chosen ones" - of equal opportunities or rewards for their efforts in nation building.
These "nons" (as opposed to the "Social contractor Nons") need to be deprived of opportunities so as to make them more resilient during economic hardship, so as to be able to feed the contractors.
If things were to go wrong, social contractor has to be absolved of all sins. Contractors must always have a spin to dump the blame on somebody else, preferably those "Nons" of Chinese, Indian or Hebrew descent. To make things easy, the contractor just has to lump them all together and refer to the "little red dot" down south. The free pirate's media has to be just that - but only as the mouthpiece of the contractor, to get the above mentioned message to the "ignorant Nons".

Of course when all fails and people object, they always have the options of either gagging the "Nons", spraying chemicals and gassing the dissenters, or putting the fear of god in them through this guy called ISA.

ISA has been quite efficient since the days of the white man, when he thought us "Asian Values" of submission, in the face of daylight robbery.
ISA has been the cornerstone of the "volatile stability", provided to all of us by the Social Contractor. He was instrumental in neutralizing and demonizing all "undesirable elements" who might've posed a threat to the Contractor's grip on Contracts (aka Power).

Whatever said and done, the Social Contractor/ Pirate par excellence in the last 50 yrs, is none other than the cross-causeway/border chameleon, Mr. Mahatheeran himself.
He single handedly (with the help of some low-profile philanthropist tycoon sponsors, of course) brought us out of the dark recesses of the third-world, into the showcases of the despotic third-world, all via "negotiated contracts".
He gave new meaning to the word "Contract" and "Correct".
He gave new meaning to the words "Justice", "Law", "Order", "Freedom", "Merit" and "Boleh" (not to mention, "BODOH").

To justify his greatness, he put a sleepy fall guy in his place, to take all the "punches" coming from his downliners and "Nons" while they party- and I'm pretty sure that was part of the Contract.
Hey, who's complaining - I wouldn't mind taking a few "punches" (not the kind that would give me "black eye") myself, if I could sleep peacefully in the corridors, make my bucks and live a jet-set (or "yacht-set", as the case may be) life!
Hell man - I know of people who'd kill for such a negotiated contract!
[Mona Affendy did it for sure ....... and I still wonder if she actually did get away with it, is alive and kicking, like some of her clients - although some kicked the bucket].

All the Contractor needs these days to escape the scrutiny of Bodohlanders and be regarded as a hero, is a piece of tin badge, a piece of paper with a signature and be called a Tune, Granpa (or something like that).
And guess what - the simpletons of Bodohland would drool and go ga-ga over him, in this third-world feudal backwater.
In fact, the people would even bend over (backwards and/or forwards) to pleasure him and his band of contractors!

Such is the state of this beautiful land of Pirates from time immemorial.

Praise the Lord. Hallelujah!
(which means "ALLAHU", according to Deedat, the famous showman/ Godman).