Najib Arrest Mahathir now and call the election and win GE-13 in a BIG Way

These days it is crystal clear that Malays in Malaysia are gyrating towards wanting change – a change that is being desperately to get rid of mahathir and his perkasaat gang at all cost” strategy. Tun Dr Mahathir Mphamad with his avalanche of threats, warnings and scare-mongering that this nation is busted if the people choose to walk Malays under attack; Islam under siege; mass deception of UMNO members.

Indeed, if one cares to read Utusan Malaysia or Berita Harian, or is so much at a loose end as to tune into RTM TV1 or UMNO-controlled TV3, one would be forgiven for thinking that Malays has never left Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s glory days.For Dr Mahathir, it’s probably status quo. He’s still gnashing his teeth, feeling as though he’s surrounded by dimwits who won’t stop and listen to him. Because if there was one thing Dr Mahathir truly believed, it was that he was always right.

History proved him wrong, though. And it is a tragedy that what should have been a great legacy is tainted by civil rights abuses, rampant corruption, systemic racism and institutionalised government incompetence the RCI reveals but a lot of these things have already been out there except that they are not officially documented,” he said.

Anwar had last year claimed that he was “kept out of the loop” when he was Deputy Prime Minister under Mahathir’s watch.Mahathir himself had dismissed that the RCI would serve no purpose and warned that its outcome, either way, would harm the BN.

Najib safe

The RCI may hurt UMNO and Mahathir, Najib would remain in a comfortable position.

“To a certain extent, Najib is quite safe but the damage to the past leadership will be obvious when the findings come out, that even though it will do some damage to BN in Sabah as the investigation begin, it would not dramatically sway voters as the idea that immigrants were illegally granted citizenship was already public knowledge in Sabah even though there were no official admission.The main backlash, Ong said, would come if Najib succumbs to internal pressure from UMNO against taking any action once the RCI findings are publishe

And Mahathir seems so full of certitude that his excessively long tenure has done more good than bad for the country, conveniently overlooking the culture of fear and political thuggery that he had employed to keep himself in power.
Dr Mahathir Mohamad (left with Mukhriz) has challenged me to prove that he has made seditious comments against the royalty during the Parliamentary debates leading up to the 1993 constitutional amendments on the monarchs’ immunity.

It would have been better for Mahathir to have agreed to be subpoenaed as a witness in my trial. The court would be a better forum to expose Mahathir. However, as I have been challenged, I am prepared to pick up the cudgel.

In tabling the Constitutional (Amendment) Bill, 1993 to set up the Special Court to take away the immunity from legal process of the King and the Rulers, Mahathir, uttered the following, among the many other, seditious remarks during a time when he had no Parliamentary immunity from being charged in court for making those remarks:

“Jika Malaysia ingin menjadi sebuah negara yang mengamalkan Demokrasi Berparlimen dan Raja Berperlembagaan, kekebalan yang diberikan kepada Raja-Raja perlulah dihapuskan. [Tepuk]’ [Hansard 18 January, 1993, page 16]

“Sebenarnya ketiga-tiga Perdana Menteri dahulu, sebagai Penasihat kepada Raja-Raja, telahpun menegur Raja-Raja berkali-kali semasa mereka berkhidmat. Saya tahu teguran ini dibuat kerana perkara ini telah dilaporkan dalam Mesyuarat Jemaah Menteri dan juga Majlis Tertinggi UMNO berkali-kali.

“Allahyarham Tun Hussein Onn semasa menjadi Perdana Menteri pernah dalam ucapan bertulis di suatu Mesyuarat Majlis Raja-Raja, yang dihadiri hanya oleh Duli-Duli Yang Maha Mulia atau wakil-wakil mereka sahaja, menegur dengan kerasnya perbuatan Raja-Raja yang tidak harus dilakukan.

“Tetapi teguran ini tidak berkesan. Pekara-perkara yang disentuh terus dilakukan juga, bahkan ditingkatkan. Apa yang tidak pernah dibuat di zaman British dan pada tahun-tahun awalan Malaysia merdeka, dilakukan dengan semakin ketara da meluas.’ [Hansard, Jan 18, 1993, page 19]…

“Kerajaan memang mendengar dan menyedari akan pandangan dan kemarahan sebilangan rakyat yang mengetahui perbuatan Raja. Demikianlah kemarahan mereka sehingga ada, terutama di kalangan generasi muda, yang menganggap Sistem Beraja sudah ketinggalan zaman.

“Tetapi oleh kerana Akta Hasutan dan larangan terhadap mengkritik Raja, Raja tidak mendengar dan tidak percaya kepada Penasihat mereka apabila maklumat disampaikan berkenaan kegelisahan rakyat. Raja dan keluarga Diraja nampaknya berpendapat bahawa semua ini adalah ciptaan Penasihat-penasihat Raja untuk menakutkan Baginda atau untuk merebut hak Raja.

“Dalam keadaan ini, Raja bukan sahaja akan meneruskan amalan-amalan yang tidak disenangi atau disukai oleh rakyat tetapi juga akan melakukan perkara-perkara yang lebih dibenci oleh rakyat. Jika trend ini tidak disekat, perasaan rakyat terhadap Raja tentu akan meluap dan menjadi begitu buruk sehingga pada suatu masa nanti rakyat mungkin tidak lagi dapat membendung perasaan mereka. Perasaan yang diluahkan dalam surat-surat kepada akhbar sebenarnya sudah lama wujud.

“Dengan izin, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, saya ingin membaca petikan daripada satu rencana yang dihantarkan kepada akhbar The Straits Times pada 1946 oleh seorang tokoh Melayu yang terkemuka, apabila British mencadangkan penubuhan Malayan Union. Tokoh ini kemudian memegang jawatan yang tinggi dalam Kerajaan. Rencana in tidak disiarkan oleh akhbar Straits Times tetapi ia disampaikan kepada saya baru-baru ini oleh penulis.

“Penulis ini menyatakan, dengan izin ‘All intelligent Malay leaders ought now seriously to give most profound and careful thought to the question whether the time has not arrived when the Malay Royalty (I mean the Sultan and Raja) should gracefully withdraw themselves altogether.’

“Jika pandangan seperti ini sudah ada pada tahun 1946, apakah ia tidak mungkin wujud semula pada tahun 1993 [Tepuk] jika Raja-Raja tidak dihalang daripada melakukan perbuatan-perbuatan yang tidak diingini?” [Hansard, 18 January, 1993, page 20-22]…

‘Sebelum ini terdapat banyak insiden dimana Raja menganiaya rakyat, Raja menyalahi undang-undang civil dan criminal, Raja menyalahgunakan wang serta harta Kerajaan dan Negara, Raja menekan dan menganiaya pegawai-pegawai’ [Hansard, Jan 18, 1993, page 26]

These are among the passages in Mahathir’s speech as reflected in the Hansard. The passages exude serious and often explosive instances of sedition to which the Attorney-General has chosen to give a blind eye.

I challenge Mahathir to come to court voluntarily at my trial and testify and justify what he uttered in Parliament on January 18, 1993. I hope he will not run away from this challenge.

Let’s consider Mahathir’s legacies: bloated bureaucracy, rising costs of living, overpriced and under-performing ‘national’ cars, chronic budget deficits, rampant corruption, brutal Police force, emasculated press, gutless judiciary, spineless government backbenchers, greedy ministers, his filthy rich sons and cronies… the list goes on.

I am pretty certain middle class Malays who have survived his horrible regime of the 1980s through to 2003 can add much more.So, still better the devil you know?The solution is simple: If Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak wants to create his own political tsunami, reverse the trend set by the Federal Opposition coalition, and earn the respect of the rakyat, he knows what he must do: arrest former premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad for alleged crimes against the Malaysian nation and for abuse of power.

An approaching tsunami may be preceded by a drastic drop in water levels. Many people died in the Indian Ocean tsunami of 2004 when they went to the beach to see the seabed which had been exposed by the retreating ocean. Experts claim that a receding sea would have given five minutes’ warning for people to get to safety.

Najib faces a discontented public and disarray in UMNO, with divided loyalties and duplicity at the highest levels. Pakatan Rakyat and various NGOs have exposed alleged corruption involving many millions upon millions of ringgit, cases of injustice and the children of VVIPs and ministers receiving unfair business advantages. The exposed seabed before the arrival of the tsunami is a metaphor for all these problems.

Najib will have read the Merdeka Centre survey and seen that his approval rating had decreased, albeit by a miniscule amount, to 64 percent last month, but the decline in approval of his party is more worrying.

He would have recalled that in the 2008 general election, then Premier Abdullah Ahmad Badawi had an approval rating of 72 percent, but at the time, BN enjoyed a stronger position than it currently does.

Najib has observed the increasing disregard of the rakyat for his administration and with the drop in popularity of his own party, he has effectively been given his ‘warning’ before the tsunami strikes.

To rescue his own party and redeem respect, Najib has to be courageous. By detaining Mahathir, he would achieve many things people thought him incapable of.

First, with the arrest, Najib would steal the thunder from the Opposition and be able to claim the glory of bringing a much despised man to justice. People are tired of the farcical Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC), which catches the small fry rather than the big fish. Countries like Iceland, Ukraine, South Korea and Israel have tried former  Presidents and Prime Ministers.

Second, and perhaps this is for Najib’s own benefit, he would show the public and especially his detractors in UMNO, that he is no shrinking violet.

It is an established fact that Najib hates controversies. When asked awkward questions during a press conference (PC) – he simply walks away; but governing is not just about PCs. Mahathir keeps his hands clean but with Umno losing ground, Mahathir’s undermining of Najib has escalated, because the Mahathir political dynasty must continue.

Most former Presidents and Prime Ministers stay out of the limelight and are content to do charitable works or earn big bucks on the international lecture circuit. What does that say about our two surviving former PMs? One does not need the money, whilst the other has little to contribute.

Arresting Mahathir would be in the public interest and Najib should take this risk.

Najib’s timidity

So we come the third point. Najib has always promoted the line of moderation but never, it appears, at home. Mahathir endorsed the extremist PERKASA, claimed that BERSIH would topple the government, suggested that BERSIH was a clash between Malays and non-Malays, and said that Chinese voters would be the deciding factor in GE13.

Najib should have publicly told Mahathir that his comments compromise national security, but he didn’t. Mahathir has gone from strength to strength, because Najib was too timid to confront him.

If Mahathir were arrested, it might silence all of Najib’s critics within UMNO or force them into the shadows. They are vocal because they have Mahathir’s backing.

Then comes the fourth point. Over the past three decades, our judiciary, police and civil service have been compromised. Billions of ringgit in illicit funds have allegedly been spirited overseas. In addition, families are divided by the brain drain from Malaysia. Members of Najib’s cabinet and party still follow Mahathir’s divisive policies. Arresting Mahathir will show the people who the real boss is.

There is one final twist, which is Najib’s own insecurity.  Najib entered politics at a tender age of 23 after less than two years at PETRONAS, following his graduation. He is a career politician. How can he empathise with the common man when he has not experienced life outside the corridors of Parliament and of power?

Despite saying that his administration does not practise populist policies, Najib has failed to see the negative public response to his various handouts such as the RM500 of Bantuan Rakyat 1 Malaysia or deals for petty traders and taxi-drivers.

He has tried unconventional methods to gain acceptance – inviting people home to watch football, he’s done the hip-hop thing, gone on Facebook and taken a bus ride in Ipoh, albeit on a luxury coach.

Mahathir is chillingly ruthless, Najib is not. Both are hungry for power but Mahathir is not ashamed to humiliate Najib by undermining his rule. Mahathir is adept at twisting the truth and is not afraid to take charge, to dominate and to control.

Najib is too lazy and would prefer others to do his thinking and controlling for him, as long as he can enjoy the spoils. He should dismiss all his advisers, especially those responsible for the latest humiliating debacle over the Merdeka Day slogan.

Everything to lose

Najib assumed the reins of control at a time when people breathed a sigh of relief at Abdullah’s impotence. Mahathir does not have the self-control to manage his own personality and tends to force himself onto others.

How can Najib even carve out a political legacy for himself when he has promoted the discredited Isa Samad to head FELDA? Even Mahathir had called Isa corrupt! Perhaps, surrounding himself with the tainted might make him look less tarnished.

As we approach GE13, Najib has no one left to ingratiate himself with.  Najib has everything to lose, but Mahathir has not. Now is the time for Najib to turn the tables on his adversary and arrest Mahathir. He must prove his mettle by riding out the tempest of any blackmail attempts. Mahathir’s arrest could also start a domino effect and plug the black hole called PETRONAS.

If he wishes, Najib could also organise a cull of the known Mahathirists in the Judiciary, the Police and the Civil Service. The rakyat who are engrossed in the closing drama of the mighty Mahathir might even overlook some of Najib’s indiscretions.

They won’t of course, but it would at least buy Najib more time. Then, he might want to consider Pehin Sri Abdul Taib Mahmud in Sarawak. Hungarian humorist George Mikes once wrote that everyone in the world was actually a Hungarian, except that they didn’t know it. If one substitutes the word ‘politician’ for ‘Hungarian’ the writer’s remark might well apply to the UMNO, at least in the Malay was felt by many that UMNO the foundation build a more durable edifice of equitable growth. Look at it any way you like, but everyone engaged in political life ends up entangled in the coils of party politics.Can an election ever throw up the right candidate? Or to put it more moderately, is an election the mechanism best suited to throw up representatives that will strive to work for their constituents and attempt to better their life? Are there in-built into the electoral process, a set of imperatives that help pre-determine one kind of outcome, irrespective of the quality of the candidates? It seems like very long ago that the need the support of all party members that the upcoming 13th general election would determine Umno survival.
He also reminded them to learn from the experience of losing five states in the 2008 general election and not to repeat those actions that caused the loss. came back to power on the back of a lot of goodwill and with a lot of expectations.

Increasingly, it would seem that what it takes to win an election is not only very different from what it takes to govern, but might well be at odds with the idea of providing governance. The privileging of representativeness in our democracy, with an emphasis onrace and religion, has meant that electable candidates are chosen with a view to who has the biggest electoral draw in terms representing the interests of a community rather than select those that have a view on issues of policy or administration. At one level, democracy does not require its practitioners to come equipped with a track record, and representativeness is perhaps the most vital element in the idea of democracy, but over a period of time, what representativeness has come to mean identity rather than action; the leader resembles his or her constituents, speaks for them and on the occasion that he or she acts on their behalf, it is often through the same narrow lens of community. Under these circumstances, the election abets the process of weeding out those that see their role in more secular terms, and focuses its attention narrowly on those with more sectarian agendas.

In this dispensation, those who see themselves as being responsible for winning elections have chosen not to involve themselves in the exercise of the mandate they have received, leaving it to a set of people who do not have a mass base and do not feel the compulsions of retaining power. Their power is artificially derived from within the party and their concern is thus largely internal. The arrogance that we see often in the way their spokespersons come across is not the arrogance of power, but the smugness of patronage untethered to any accompanying responsibility. Without any meaningful hierarchy in the administration capable of taking punitive action, and with little accountability to the power they possess, ministers are able to set personal agendas and build and defend territories.

We, the people, are an eternal stalemate. We love confrontation and hate cooperation. Can’t we all just get along? Where would the fun be in that? Why would we watch? Why would we care? We’d much rather argue, and disagree, and scream at each other. It’s what makes this country great. Compromise is for wussies. We  can inherited a two party system, and were going to stick with it, as long as we never find out which side is right.
Najib appeal already four years (since the last general election)… there should be no more problems, the factors that work against the umno have been gaining strength as well. For the first time ever, it does look very possible that umnowill be voted out. no more finger pointing.enough is enough. Time to close ranks. Too much already been said, until foaming at the mouth.reminded party members that the upcoming 13th general election would determine Umno and Barisan Nasional’s (BN) survival.reminded them to learn from the experience of losing five states in the 2008 general election and not to repeat those actions that caused the loss.This sense of alienation has not diminished in the intervening years. On the contrary, more groups are showing open dissent againstUMNO

Winning elections requires a peculiar kind of race and community arithmetic, multiplied by financial resources and propped up by on-ground muscle. The reason why the incidence of criminality in politics has been such a visible presence is partly due to the fact there are great similarities between the two skill sets. It is easier for a local tough to become a politician than it is for a local schoolteacher, to use a crude stereotype, not only because it easier for the former to mobilise resources and numbers far more easily but also because the electorate sees more advantages in being represented by someone who can thump the table on their behalf rather than someone who is not seen to have a realistic chance of winning.
don’t want to see anymore politics of playing one against another and no more factions in the party, any more sulking and back-stabbing in the election campaign.The seductive lure of politics is based on power, said to be the most potent of all aphrodisiacs. Social activists and other public figures can command faithful followings and can hope to influence the course of events, but they cannot hope to control them. Control of what is to be and what is not to be comes only with power, the unavoidable path to which is politics. It has been said that if you scratch any public figure you will discover a politician lurking within. A variety of people who work for ‘good causes’ – be it environmentalism or the protection of human rights – secretly, or sometimes not so secretly, envy politicians, who can get things done which the moral crusader can only talk about. Like so many other professedly non-political personalities in the past – from godmen to movie stars, sportspeople to writers and poets – Anna and Ramdev seem to have learnt this lesson, even though belatedly. But as they say, better late than never.The prospect of winnability makes unsuitable choices rational, for it is seen to be smarter to align with those that could win rather than root for those that might act on one’s behalf much more usefully if elected, but are seen with little real chance of doing so. Money is the other reason why only those that already have the ability or are able to generate it, are found suitable to be offered as candidates. The political system wards off change at the point of entry itself, by making the entry level conditions unsuitable for anyone but those that toe the existing line and play by the rules already laid down. The election requires that a large number of people exercise their preference for one candidate over the others on the basis of some knowledge and familiarity with the individual’s previous track record, the party that he or she represents, the promises made, and the overall feeling of empathy and trust generated by the individual. Given the sizes of constituencies and the scale of the geographies involved, it is difficult for someone who is already not a visible presence in at least part of the constituency to mobilise adequate support. Chances are that the choices will veer towards those that already enjoy a measure of prominence and power in the area-If all the party members support the candidates chosen, it will be impossible for us to lose in the elections
Moderates. What the hell happened to you? Where’d you go in all of this? What are you, afraidto be reasonable? The middle of the road has never been so narrow. Everyone’s loveable politically incorrect uncle is now just politically incorrect. From watching too much news. No one wants their politics in moderation. They want it full-on, fast and furious, loud and obnoxious, righteous and so effing wrong. So, how do you approve of something that doesn’t exist?
The prime minister said as an experienced and mature party, Umno should be able to resolve all its problems. the party wants winnable candidates, all (aspirants) will claim they are winnable candidates but actually, only half of them can win.UMNO strategists, using the party-controlled newspaper, Utusan Malaysia, and the affiliated right-wing group Perkasa, are working overtime to stop the dwindling of their Malay support base, and are doing all they can to portray the party as a fiercer ethnic champion than opposition Malay parties and leaders. So far, this seems to be alienating more middle-ground voters.Across the board at the moment, what Malaysians seem to be seeking is greater economic equality as well as an open and clean government. And yet, Prime Minister Mr. Najib Razak continues with micro-level vote-buying measures such as giving cash handouts to strategic groups at a time when the country is in great need of macro-level reforms.
The long years in power has also seen the BN generate its own worst enemies. Many leaders in the opposition were formerly from the ruling coalition, including former Deputy Prime Minister Mr. Anwar Ibrahim. Their experience in government has been serving as a much-needed reassurance to voters that the opposition is ready to exercise power efficiently, while their personal networks within the system has brought valuable information and understanding of the system that had previously eluded the opposition.The underlying assumption of elections is that every individual takes a personal decision, on the basis of the inputs received, to choose the person deemed suitable to represent his or her interests. The truth is in the Indian social construct, the individual does not necessarily act as a singular entity and is often inclined to act as part of a larger collective. This is true not only of elections, but of many other walks of life. The election is in some ways almost asking for people to find their own appropriate collective and to cobble together enough numbers so as to increase the bargaining power at their disposal. It is rational to do so, for otherwise every individual feels virtually no ability to influence the outcome. The middle class distrust of politicians is in part a sense of frustration with the electoral process. Part of the reason why visible outrage does not automatically translate into higher voting percentages is because the idea is laced with a sense of presumptive futility. It is also the reason why movements like the one led by Anna Hazare get traction; the apolitical nature of the struggle is found valuable. The disenchantment with the movement is in part due to its involvement in electoral politics; the paradox being that the impetus for change cannot succeed unless it becomes a variable in the elections but the very act of getting involved with anything to do with elections is seen as an act of contamination. Electoral reforms will help. But too much has to change before reforms by themselves can be effective. As a structure, elections cannot create intent; that must exist in the system. Without intent, the structure merely re-inforces and perhaps amplifies all that is already wrong. Even when elections are not rigged, in some ways they always are. If not by design, then by definition.

Previous opposition coalitions (in 1990 and 1999) were hastily formed during election time and they easily collapsed soon after. An alternative coalition that has been tested for more than four years, with that has gained substantial administrative experience in governing four out of 13 states is in itself a novel – and critical – factor.

While all the built-in advantages that favour BN in an election have not disappeared and those that remain will be put to full use in the electoral contest that is to come, the factors that work against the umno have been gaining strength as well. For the first time ever, it does look very possible that the old government will be voted out.
research has shown that it would encourage up to 33% of non-voters to use their vote. We feel it is important that our democracy allows people to positively vote where they feel there is not a wide enough choice of local candidate or those on the ballot paper all appear to be .Defeat is the distance between a bedtime story and a wake-up call. The former starts with ‘Once upon a time…’ and lulls the voter to sleep. The second is an energiser that addresses a fresh dawn.political parties have become victims of their own success: their narrative has run its course, and they have not been able to find a further chapter to their saga In electoral science, statistics are illustrative, interpretation is critical and everything is fluid. Politics is evolutionary, and evolution – even Darwin’s – is a theory, not a fact. No election is an echo of the past, let alone a mirror of the future.
The statistics of last general elections do not justify the self-evident depression that has overtaken The shock is that UMNO could not read the internal map of every constituency as well once it did. UMNO confidence lies in its brilliant management of the most important gene in democracy’s biology. It consolidated its vote,It may be difficult to deal with defeat, but the regret of a drowned dream is quickly overtaken by the compulsions of survival Umno must show that it is able to innovate at the local level.  An invention awaits the next genius: a camera that can photograph the mind. Television politics has become a screaming contest between politicians, perhaps because the camera has lost the art of stimulation. Since there is no hope of getting a different kind of politician, we need a different sort of camera. It will chase the mind for news.“Politics today is all about thoughts as besides having reacted swiftly and strategising, the people want to see its way of thinking as we are dealing with educated people and professionals who are exposed to all kinds of information. It is therefore utterly mystifying as to what has happened in recent memory has been under siege in such a relentless manner, and none has responded with such transparent clumsiness. What makes it particularly interesting is that the problems have come not from outside, but from within the administration first created problems for itself which it then magnified by its own mishandling. To top it all, it added to these formidable problems by making a spectacle out of the disagreements between its senior ministers and fashioning a poorly-scripted and unconvincingly-enacted compromise.

It is clear that something fundamental has gone wrong, which makes the government incapable of dealing with complex issues meaningfully. It has been pointed out by several commentators that the deep design flaw in the model of governance used by this regime — the separation of power between the party and the government — is coming to the fore and playing itself out. The Prime Minister lacks authority without which he has no control over his ministers, who do pretty much as they please. As a result, the administration lacks a clear leadership structure and functions as a confused babble of vested interests, egos and animosities. There is much truth in this view, but the leadership model adopted creates an even deeper and more intractable problem.

In a democracy what makes an administration responsive to the needs of the people has much to do with the institution of power. Politicians turn into rulers, but only when they are given the power to do so by the electorate. Power has many problems associated with it and we are all only too familiar with the distortions that power can bring, but at its heart it is a self-regulating mechanism that acts as a surrogate for the will of the people and keeps politicians on a leash. Getting power requires a demonstration of concern for one’s constituency and whatever form that concern takes, it still ensures that there is a link between the rulers and the ruled, which when ignored can lead to the loss of power. Power provides a form of homeostatic calibration; it can be heady and sobering, energizing and frustrating. Its pursuit and exercise makes one act differently at different times — it adds shades of compromise when needed, provokes insincere contrition on occasions and once in a while compels deep introspection. It makes people fly briefly and fall spectacularly, stand firm and bend ingloriously. It is a hot, fluid vital force that is deeply responsive to the source that enables it. Power might magnify one’s sense of self for a while, but eventually it acts as a compass that helps ground one’s actions to something real.

The problem with the Congress today is that its administration has become divorced from the mechanism of power. When power comes from a clearly identified source and when its continuance is dependent on how well it serves the interests of those that elected him or her, there is always a need for the elected to keep the interests of their constituencies in mind. In the way the present government is constructed, governance has been detached from politics; real electorally-enabled power has been sucked out and retained with the family, which uses it selectively. What remains is administrative power shorn of political purpose which in turn becomes the discretionary property of individual the family performed both the administrative and political functions and was thus capable, in theory, of trading off needs of one against another when called upon to do so.
The internal reading of the victory in the last two elections has legitimized the divorce of politics from governance. The belief that the constituency that wins elections can be managed largely outside the government, with the help of bodies like the MACC, makes it possible for the party leadership to take only occasional interest in the larger act of governance.
What the umno is effectively doing is to devalue power and in doing so, is perhaps gradually dismantling institutions that make democracy work. The problem is not the weakness of the Prime Minister alone, but the draining of the vital force that keeps governments on their toes and makes them answerable, however imperfectly, to the people who bring them to power. The problem with this government is not too much politics, but too little.
This is the challenge for Umno.”Winning the young minds And while it could be a ton of fun to mock our chosen leaders and their never ending game of gridlock, I think this begs, on both its knees, another question. What does that say about us as an electorate? What is our approval rating? What is your approval rating?