Signal not clear

Personally, I have no problem with either, because not always is democracy or majority voice the best way to solve issues. What if 50.01% of the people want Malaysia to be turned into an Islamic State (the Islamic Kingdom of Malaysia), with the Shariah law of Hudud as the basis of its criminal laws, while 49.99% disagree? Based on a democracy where majority rules, Malaysia would now become an Islamic State even if 49.99% of the people are opposed to it.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

BR1M payout must be orderly: Labuan DAP

(Daily Express) - Labuan DAP Chairman Lau Seng Kiat said the RM500 payment under BR1M 2.0 here should have been done with proper planning so that it could be carried out smoothly and orderly and not with recipients having to wait for hours in a jam-packed venue.

"Recipients of the financial aid deserve more respect.”

“After all what is being given to them comes from taxpayers and due to surplus collection by the Inland Revenue Board (IRB)," he said.

He was commenting on the chaotic situation in the RM500 payout under the scheme at the Multi-Purpose Hall here from 7.30am to 5pm last Friday.

Lau said the announcement made through the print and electronic media about the payment gave no clear details and this led to thousands, who thought that it was the first and final payment under BR1M 2.0, inundating the hall, causing much inconvenience and frustration, especially the elderly and women. According to Lau, he received many complaints about this.

"Many had to make several trips back to the hall thinking that the crowd had shrunk but it was not. Apart from the hall, the road was also lined with cars for about one kilometre long," he said.

He said the local administrators should ensure a better system of distribution of the aid was in place.

"But it does not seem to be the case. For many, the joy of receiving the aid became diluted with anger for having to wait unnecessarily for several hours," he added.

Lau also said that because of the chaos many did not bother to check on their eligibility for the money on that day.

"It would have been better if the distribution of the aid was divided into phases for different groups based on age," he said.

Under BR1M 1.0, some 10,100 here received RM500.

Under the present phase, the figure is expected to be more.

*****************************************

Politicians should be very careful about what they say. And I am talking about politicians from both sides of the political divide. Too many times politicians contradict themselves and also contradict each other, leading to confusion as to what the real issues are and whether they are unanimous on certain ideals and policies or whether they merely agree to disagree.

For example, Barisan Nasional normally insists that you ‘toe the party line’. In other words, MCA, MIC, Gerakan, etc., cannot make a statement contradictory to Barisan Nasional’s ‘common stand’. In the past, some leaders from the non-Umno parties within Barisan Nasional have been suspended (even from Parliament), or disciplinary action has been taken against them, when they make a statement that is perceived as a dissenting stand.

We all know that Barisan Nasional means Umno. Hence Barisan Nasional’s stand can be translated to Umno’s stand. And the non-Umno parties within Barisan Nasional must kowtow to Umno’s stand, which would also be Barisan Nasional’s stand.

In short, in Barisan Nasional, there is no consensus. Umno decides and Barisan Nasional, plus all the members of Barisan Nasional, must comply. And this would mean Barisan Nasional does not act based on democratic principles but rather based on autocracy. And this is certainly another word for dictatorship (I dictate and you follow).

Pakatan Rakyat, however, works -- according to what they tell us -- on consensus. That means all three members -- PKR, DAP and PAS -- must agree to a certain policy before it is adopted. And if it is not unanimously agreed then it is not done.

The essence of a democracy is that the majority rules. However, when it is on a consensus, then the majority’s wishes do not count because it has to be all or nothing.

This, I believe, is one contradiction. Hence it must be made clear whether Pakatan Rakyat works as a democracy (where majority rules) or whether it must be unanimous (which means all or nothing even if the majority wants it).

Malaysians do not yet grasp the fundamentals of a democracy based on majority rule compared to unanimous decision based on all or nothing. Unanimous does not quite translate to democracy because, in this situation, the minority voice has no say.

Personally, I have no problem with either, because not always is democracy or majority voice the best way to solve issues. What if 50.01% of the people want Malaysia to be turned into an Islamic State (the Islamic Kingdom of Malaysia), with the Shariah law of Hudud as the basis of its criminal laws, while 49.99% disagree? Based on a democracy where majority rules, Malaysia would now become an Islamic State even if 49.99% of the people are opposed to it.

Hence, in that kind of situation, maybe a consensus based on unanimous agreement would be better than majority rule. And that is why I said I am okay with either because, depending on the situation, democracy might sometimes work against us.

And then we have the second contradiction. Pakatan Rakyat also says that they always agree to disagree. However, while that is certainly very civilised and mature, where does that place the ‘common platform’? This would give an impression that there are still many areas that PKR, DAP and PAS cannot agree on.

Then what do we do? Do we allow freedom of opinion, freedom of speech, freedom of choice, etc., to prevail and hence allow those Pakatan Rakyat leaders who do not agree with certain policies to express their opinions? If we do then would this not give an impression of disunity? Or do we impose a censorship on all personal opinions and take disciplinary action against those who do not toe the party line? Is this in line with the spirit of democracy?

Now let us look at what the DAP Chairman for Labuan, Lau Seng Kiat, said: “After all what is being given to them comes from taxpayers and due to surplus collection by the Inland Revenue Board (IRB)."

Lau was lamenting about the messy way the money was being paid out. But why that part about “……due to surplus collection by the Inland Revenue Board….”?

Maybe Lau did not realise that this statement of his contradicts other statements made by Pakatan Rakyat leaders that the country is going bankrupt. How can the country be going bankrupt and yet at the same time the IRB has surplus money?

Fortunately for these politicians, most Malaysians have short memories and do not really take too much notice of what politicians say. It not you will find tons of contradictory statements being made by politicians from both sides of the political divide.