If the Indians demand urgent attention for their plight, the Malays can also say their plight is not completely addressed yet and the Chinese will say they have been footing the bill for too long besides having Chinese poor as well whose desperation is no different from the desperation of the poor Malays or the poor Indians. Racial arguments will never end.
By batsman
No, this is not an opinion piece about natural selection or even survival of the fittest. However, to survive comfortably in Malaysia one has to play politics with good judgment and wisdom.
Human thought is ideal and recognizes few limits but is unnatural. Nature is practicality itself and works only within certain boundaries. For example, all structures constructed by humans work only within limits of load and stress as well as time. Outside these limits, these structures fail or collapse often with disastrous consequences.
Newtonian physics is a great result of human thought, but Newtonian physics (the very laws of physics itself) work only with big bodies. When it comes to the atomic scale, Einstein rules the roost. Newton does not work 100% anymore. But even Einstein fails when it comes to sub-atomic physics and quantum mechanics is king. Inside a black hole, nobody is sure whether any laws of physics work at all.
So it is with human thought – it is idealized and great, but unfortunately it works only within certain limits. Human ego unfortunately knows no limits and goes in stark conflict with nature (as well as with other humans) at most times. This is why the Christians say that pride is the greatest sin – the mother of all sin. I respect this sentiment and faith.
Democracy is a human construct. It works only within certain limits. One of these is sportsmanship and integrity. The other is recognition and acceptance of the balance of power.
In the west, democracy is viable because there are always 2 great opposing powers that keep each other in check. No power dominates for long. Even in ancient Greek democracy. Powerful families checked each other’s power, but democracy is pushed aside during times of war when a dictator is elected or when a powerful man becomes too powerful and elects himself dictator.
In England democracy started as a check on the king’s power by the feudal lords when they forced him to sign the Magna Carta. It continued to develop and the merchant class and nascent bourgeoisie forced the king to set up Parliament as a check on his power to impose taxes on them.
It further developed when the working class grew powerful enough (often with the excuse of offering loyalty in desperate times of war) to challenge the authority of the ruling capitalists and Parliament gradually split into Whigs and Tories and then into Labour and Conservatives.
In the US, the 2 great opposing forces used to be between those who favoured concentration of power (big government) and those who wanted to retain the independence of the states (they fought a vicious civil war on these sentiments alone).
These days the 2 opposing forces can be anything – from placing faith in the productivity and creativity of talented individuals against placing faith in the productivity of the whole people as the basis of the economic welfare of the nation on the one hand to racial / tribal politics where 2 major races or tribes face off against each other on the opposite extreme.
This is where sportsmanship comes in. If human ego is too great and knows no limits, one side has no respect for the other and the dominant side usually uses dirty tricks and all sorts of abuses of power to force submission on the other side. If there is respect and sportsmanship, each is given the chance to rule when one side’s economic and social policies has reached the limits of its validity and applicability.
In a situation where trust is placed upon different sets of people (regardless of race, gender or religion) to apply their economic and social policies to government, there is a greater chance for respect and sportsmanship to flourish. Unfortunately, in racial or tribal politics, there is very little chance of sportsmanship being practiced because of sensitivities and jealousies of race. This is why racial or tribal politics characterize poor, uncivilized and undeveloped nations while the more advanced rich nations practise balance of power based on economic and social policies.
In Hindraf’s case, there is no doubt about its bravery and courage to kick-start the development of Malaysia’s democracy on a better footing. However, obsession in pushing racial politics is a backward step.
For over 50 years, the Malaysian Indians and Chinese voted for the BN. For over 50 years they were marginalized and discriminated against. The Indians especially became so isolated they were placed in desperate straits. So the explosion came. But the explosion was an expression of disgust and sense of betrayal against the BN which they have placed so much faith in. It was an explosion of a slave against a master.
Now that the master has been shocked into some sense of compromise (1Malaysia is a symptom of this atmosphere of tricky compromise), Hindraf senses an opportunity to gain mileage and uses age old racial politics to push this advantage.
Unfortunately racial politics can only push Malaysia backwards, besides being an opportunistic appeal to the master to change his discriminatory ways. It is not a way forward, because if the Indians demand urgent attention for their plight, the Malays can also say their plight is not completely addressed yet and the Chinese will say they have been footing the bill for too long besides having Chinese poor as well whose desperation is no different from the desperation of the poor Malays or the poor Indians. Racial arguments will never end.
Besides, Hindraf’s tactics seem to be an appeal to the master to change his ways, not to change masters. This probably stems from the realization that the Indians are after all a minority and no way can they form one part of the balance of power on their own. It is also a dangerous tactic because if it fails, the only logical path left is the path of violence and terrorism. This Hindraf, true to its Gandhian roots, say is a path they will never follow (provided Hindraf can keep spin-off tendencies in check). So the only path is to succeed in wringing compromises from the old racist master in a non-violent way or fail miserably. There is no other alternative. If it fails miserably, the spin-off tendencies grow in strength and Hindraf would have contributed indirectly to an even more dangerous Malaysia as a place to live in.
However if the democratic principles are to be trusted, there is an alternative path for Hindraf – that is to recognize the balance of power and join with the opposition. After all, the strength of the Indians can be better expressed in the opposition where they can form a bigger percentage (10% of half Malaysia) compared to appealing to UMNO (where they form only 5% of the whole of UMNO dominated Malaysia). The Indians can play politics with judgment and wisdom by changing masters – from a master who discriminated against you for over 50 years and whose rule means you only form 5% of the pressure group in UMNO dominated Malaysia or to cast your lot with a more sympathetic new master where you form a pressure group of 10% of the coalition in a healthy 2 party system.
Of course this tactic logically allows you to cast your lot with UMNO where you also form 10% of the BN, but this assumes that there is a healthy 2 party system in place and not UMNO domination as per past 50 years. Besides, there is still the old dowager MIC to contend with in the BN and you need to kick out this old dowager before you can safely continue to vote for BN for the next 50 years.
However if you are true to your Gandhian roots as you say you are, you will be fighting to change masters in a non-violent way, not appeal to the old one to change his ways. It does not take an Einstein to figure out what to do. heeheehee
By batsman
No, this is not an opinion piece about natural selection or even survival of the fittest. However, to survive comfortably in Malaysia one has to play politics with good judgment and wisdom.
Human thought is ideal and recognizes few limits but is unnatural. Nature is practicality itself and works only within certain boundaries. For example, all structures constructed by humans work only within limits of load and stress as well as time. Outside these limits, these structures fail or collapse often with disastrous consequences.
Newtonian physics is a great result of human thought, but Newtonian physics (the very laws of physics itself) work only with big bodies. When it comes to the atomic scale, Einstein rules the roost. Newton does not work 100% anymore. But even Einstein fails when it comes to sub-atomic physics and quantum mechanics is king. Inside a black hole, nobody is sure whether any laws of physics work at all.
So it is with human thought – it is idealized and great, but unfortunately it works only within certain limits. Human ego unfortunately knows no limits and goes in stark conflict with nature (as well as with other humans) at most times. This is why the Christians say that pride is the greatest sin – the mother of all sin. I respect this sentiment and faith.
Democracy is a human construct. It works only within certain limits. One of these is sportsmanship and integrity. The other is recognition and acceptance of the balance of power.
In the west, democracy is viable because there are always 2 great opposing powers that keep each other in check. No power dominates for long. Even in ancient Greek democracy. Powerful families checked each other’s power, but democracy is pushed aside during times of war when a dictator is elected or when a powerful man becomes too powerful and elects himself dictator.
In England democracy started as a check on the king’s power by the feudal lords when they forced him to sign the Magna Carta. It continued to develop and the merchant class and nascent bourgeoisie forced the king to set up Parliament as a check on his power to impose taxes on them.
It further developed when the working class grew powerful enough (often with the excuse of offering loyalty in desperate times of war) to challenge the authority of the ruling capitalists and Parliament gradually split into Whigs and Tories and then into Labour and Conservatives.
In the US, the 2 great opposing forces used to be between those who favoured concentration of power (big government) and those who wanted to retain the independence of the states (they fought a vicious civil war on these sentiments alone).
These days the 2 opposing forces can be anything – from placing faith in the productivity and creativity of talented individuals against placing faith in the productivity of the whole people as the basis of the economic welfare of the nation on the one hand to racial / tribal politics where 2 major races or tribes face off against each other on the opposite extreme.
This is where sportsmanship comes in. If human ego is too great and knows no limits, one side has no respect for the other and the dominant side usually uses dirty tricks and all sorts of abuses of power to force submission on the other side. If there is respect and sportsmanship, each is given the chance to rule when one side’s economic and social policies has reached the limits of its validity and applicability.
In a situation where trust is placed upon different sets of people (regardless of race, gender or religion) to apply their economic and social policies to government, there is a greater chance for respect and sportsmanship to flourish. Unfortunately, in racial or tribal politics, there is very little chance of sportsmanship being practiced because of sensitivities and jealousies of race. This is why racial or tribal politics characterize poor, uncivilized and undeveloped nations while the more advanced rich nations practise balance of power based on economic and social policies.
In Hindraf’s case, there is no doubt about its bravery and courage to kick-start the development of Malaysia’s democracy on a better footing. However, obsession in pushing racial politics is a backward step.
For over 50 years, the Malaysian Indians and Chinese voted for the BN. For over 50 years they were marginalized and discriminated against. The Indians especially became so isolated they were placed in desperate straits. So the explosion came. But the explosion was an expression of disgust and sense of betrayal against the BN which they have placed so much faith in. It was an explosion of a slave against a master.
Now that the master has been shocked into some sense of compromise (1Malaysia is a symptom of this atmosphere of tricky compromise), Hindraf senses an opportunity to gain mileage and uses age old racial politics to push this advantage.
Unfortunately racial politics can only push Malaysia backwards, besides being an opportunistic appeal to the master to change his discriminatory ways. It is not a way forward, because if the Indians demand urgent attention for their plight, the Malays can also say their plight is not completely addressed yet and the Chinese will say they have been footing the bill for too long besides having Chinese poor as well whose desperation is no different from the desperation of the poor Malays or the poor Indians. Racial arguments will never end.
Besides, Hindraf’s tactics seem to be an appeal to the master to change his ways, not to change masters. This probably stems from the realization that the Indians are after all a minority and no way can they form one part of the balance of power on their own. It is also a dangerous tactic because if it fails, the only logical path left is the path of violence and terrorism. This Hindraf, true to its Gandhian roots, say is a path they will never follow (provided Hindraf can keep spin-off tendencies in check). So the only path is to succeed in wringing compromises from the old racist master in a non-violent way or fail miserably. There is no other alternative. If it fails miserably, the spin-off tendencies grow in strength and Hindraf would have contributed indirectly to an even more dangerous Malaysia as a place to live in.
However if the democratic principles are to be trusted, there is an alternative path for Hindraf – that is to recognize the balance of power and join with the opposition. After all, the strength of the Indians can be better expressed in the opposition where they can form a bigger percentage (10% of half Malaysia) compared to appealing to UMNO (where they form only 5% of the whole of UMNO dominated Malaysia). The Indians can play politics with judgment and wisdom by changing masters – from a master who discriminated against you for over 50 years and whose rule means you only form 5% of the pressure group in UMNO dominated Malaysia or to cast your lot with a more sympathetic new master where you form a pressure group of 10% of the coalition in a healthy 2 party system.
Of course this tactic logically allows you to cast your lot with UMNO where you also form 10% of the BN, but this assumes that there is a healthy 2 party system in place and not UMNO domination as per past 50 years. Besides, there is still the old dowager MIC to contend with in the BN and you need to kick out this old dowager before you can safely continue to vote for BN for the next 50 years.
However if you are true to your Gandhian roots as you say you are, you will be fighting to change masters in a non-violent way, not appeal to the old one to change his ways. It does not take an Einstein to figure out what to do. heeheehee
No comments:
Post a Comment