Toeing the Party line – a bona fide Westminster practice

By:  Choo Sing Chye

 Now that lorry loads (1) of diverse commentaries that had been dispensed by various parties  on the subject of ‘toeing the party line’,  it is unfortunate that none of the Barisan  Nasional’s proxy paper and electronic media had given a plausible argument. 

Much to my dismay, being columnists of the mainstream news media,  they are the top of the heap in the realm of  journalism.   As such, their comments on issues or events should manifest as articulated views or opinions.  And all these should be based on extensive observations without wavering away from the hard facts just to make the National Front smelling like roses and the opposition, like a dumpster. 

It is a shame that the gap between views that are expounded by the columnists from the mainstream media and Ah Boh (grandma) who owns the KFC (Kedai-Kopi Fong Cheong) is so narrow that nobody can tell them apart.  

Of all the people like Ah Boh who serves delicious kaya-bread and white coffee with a liberal dose of her morning news could out-argue any politicians from the BN or the editors/columnists  from the mainstream media.    

Sometimes I wonder why Ah Boh’s KFC is jam-pact in the morning without her wiggling her ‘butt’?  Is it because of the Kaya-bread and white coffee?  Perhaps the uncensored and caffeine induced morning news she dishes out every morning before the sun rises with a big ‘bang’  in the East?

Don’t tell me that these columnists from The Star and other mainstream paper do not know about the business  of the Whip or for the matter, Caucus Loyalty?  Please give me a break, don’t write rubbish!

Now let’s get to the gist of the matter, toeing the party line is not unusual but it is an inherent code of conduct  in the British Parliamentary system (Westminster model). It is not a political add-on!

Toeing the party line is a part and parcel of the British Parliamentary system whether we like it or not. 

There are two conventions that the British uses, a) the Whip and, b) Caucus Loyalty.

The Whip is institutionalised and the practice goes back more than 230 years.  It is primarily use to ensure backbenchers’ obedience.   

In his work on Democracy and the Organization of Political Parties, M. Ostrogorski explains that even in the eighteenth century the whips had an important role in distributing political offices.  He refers to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury as the Patronage

Secretary… (2)

The position of the Government Chief Whip has long associations with the office of Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury and to this day this is the official title of the Government Chief Whip…(or at times known as) the Patronage Secretary (who again) had another name - that of "Secretary for Political Jobs." This was in fact his principal business.  "It is rather a roguish office," as Wilberforce remarked in the presence of Steele, just as the latter was about to take up the appointment.  Distributing their allowance among the members of the party, the Patronage Secretary brought them up to the vote like a flock of sheep, goaded them on, and had become their "Whipper-in."  The opposite party had to adopt… (3)

Philip Cowley has reported how the Conservative whips were said to have kept a ‘black book’ recording their backbencher’s misdemeanours and he has also described how whips could also revert to ‘good old-fashioned physical bullying’, and what a Labour whip (referring to the practice on his side of the House) has described as a ‘tradition of brutalism’.  (4)

 

However Rogers and Walters explain that ‘whips also need to be

good personnel managers’, and Cowley has noted that most academic literature on the whips office tends to play down the role of the whip as arm-twister, bully and Machiavelli all rolled into one…stressing instead the more prosaic functions of the whip… (5)

How Whip works :

Every week, whips send out a circular (called 'The Whip') to their MPs or Lords detailing upcoming parliamentary business. Special attention is paid to divisions (where members vote on debates), which are ranked in order of importance by the number of times they are underlined. Important divisions are underlined three times - a 'three-line whip' - and normally apply to major events like the second readings of significant Bills. (6)

Defying a three-line whip is very serious, unbreakable and has occasionally resulted in the whip being withdrawn from an MP or Lord. This means that the Member is effectively expelled from their party (but keeps their seat) and must sit as an independent until the whip is restored. (7)

Critics of parliament were prone to suggest that the Whips exercised a sort of tyranny over private members, and that they had, destroyed the independence of the Commons. (8)

Although, the Whip tends to serve the Front bench, the Front bench itself cannot do or behave whatever way they like.  They too are bound by what the British call - Caucus Loyalty.  This practice has no written rule.  If one breaks with the loyalty of the caucus (Cabinet), one has to resign his ministerial post in a gentlemanly manner – no unfair pot shot.  One fine example is the resignation of  the late Robin Cook from Tony Blair’s cabinet.  His resignation speech was rated as one of the best by the media and his peers. 

His headstone erected in the Grange Edinburgh Cemetery bears the epitaph: "I may not have succeeded in halting the war, but I did secure the right of parliament to decide on war." It is a reference to Cook's strong opposition to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.’  You can find his resignation speech (text): http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/2859431.stm

What is so obviously wrong with these columnists’ arguments is that the  practice of the Whip and Caucus loyalty which characterized the British politics and ours  are not taken into consideration, thus, leaving a big hole in their arguments. 

By bad intentions and most of the time, lack of innate journalistic standard, they argue that the breaking away from the Caucus, especially from the Opposition, as heroic gestures, effectively hiding the fact that the BN itself also practices the same system, even more so, as they are the government of the day.  In fact, the BN Whip is more readily to use the Stick without any qualms when the Carrot is refused.  It is being the nature of practice in our parliamentary system (also the Westminster System) that the Budget tabled by the Minister of Finance must not be defeated  in the House.  If the Budget is defeated in the House, the confidence of the BN is rattled. 

In sum, the first-past-the-post system that we have now is not conducive to the establishment of an independent bloc in Parliament.  Thus,  journalists, politicians and the public who are serious in getting independent minded MPs in parliament should support the Proportional voting system to be instituted.  In this system, seats are allocated to parties or individuals base on the percentage of the votes they get. Moreover every citizen no matter where he or she lives would get one vote and of the same value.   (I have written on this matter here)

References:

1)    The word/idea, ‘loads’ is taken from the Robin Cook’s resignation speech

     http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/2859431.stm

1)     Page 3 - snpc-02809-PDF (WHIP) from the Library of the House of Commons

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/briefings/snpc-02829.pdf

2)    Ibid.

3)     Page 5 - snpc-02809-PDF (WHIP) from the Library of the House of Commons

4)    Ibid.

5)    http://www.parliament.uk/about/mps-and-lords/principal/whips/

6)    Ibid.,

7)    Ibid.

8)    Page 3  - snpc-02809-PDF (WHIP) from the Library of the House of Commons

Bukit Merah

Bersih 3 in Ipoh 

I Have a Dream 

by Martin Luther King, Jr.

In a sense we've come to our nation's capital to cash a CHEQUE. 


When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a PROMISSORY note to which every American was to fall heir. 


This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the "unalienable Rights" of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." 


It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note, insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a BAD CHEQUE, a CHEQUE which has come back marked "insufficient funds."


But we refuse to believe that the Bank of Justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. 


And so, we've come to cash this CHEQUE, a CHEQUE that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice...


There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, "When will you be satisfied?" We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality. We can never be satisfied as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. We cannot be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote. No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until "justice rolls down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream."


(This is not the complete text of the speech, I have chosen only a few paragraphs)

The existence of 42,051 doubtful voters - trivial?

By: Choo Sing Chye

       23 - 4 - 2012

I find it rather perplexing to find BN MPs queuing up in gusto arguing on the side of the Election Commission based merely on flimsy presumptions that it is fair.  Their reasoning does not seem to correlate with the reality on the ground and their mental capacity or intelligence which is indicated in their degrees or PhDs, leaves much to be desired.

How could the Election Commission chairman Tan Sri Abdul Aziz Mohd Yusof Abdul Aziz in a recent press conference assert that the registry is clean even with  the existence of 42,051 “doubtful voters”?   Ridiculously this assertion found endorsement from UMNO and BN.  More disturbing to the common rakyat is that it actually comes from the so-called intellectual elites of UMNO. 

One must bear in mind that  the primary  duty of the Election Commission is to upkeep the electoral roll so that it is clean and free from doubt.  If  elections are refereed based on this doubtful electoral roll then, legitimacy of the newly elected government will be in question.   Should this situation occur, the EC should be brought to task not only by  MPs and SAs  from the government or the opposition, but most importantly from the raykat.    

If the “doubtful”  42,051 voters “manage”  to vote in the 13^th General Elections, it could influence up to 42 parliamentary and state seats with a 1,000 votes majority.  If it is a 300 vote majority, it could influence up to 140 seats.

Thus, we cannot downplay the significant role played by a small number of voters  and  it should not  be taken lightly!  

For an example, in the 1964  British General Elections, “if a total of 350 Labour voters had stayed  home in 5 constituencies (Brighton, Kemptown, Wellingborough, King’s Lynn and Colne Valley) Labour would not have recaptured power after an interval of 13 years in opposition”.  (1)  

The 1750 votes seemed trivial but without them, the Labour would not have been voted into power and perhaps carried out one of the  most important  and enduring new policy that was to  end  Britain’s leading role in the World stage - the British withdrawal from the East of Suez (Persian Gulf, Malaysia and Singapore 1964-1968). Without the 1750 votes the withdrawal would not have happened!

Finally, the Election Commission established under  Article 114 of the Federal Constitution is appointed by the Yang di Pertuan Agong after consultation with the Conference of Rulers.  And in appointing its members the Yang di Pertuan Agong shall have regard to the importance of securing an Election Commission which enjoys public confidence.

The Election Commission is  entrusted with the job of conducting voters registration exercises, redelineation of constituencies exercise and the general elections.  Their duties and responsibilities must be carried out in the true spirit of democracy. 

Since the EC is the sole body responsible for all matters connected with elections, it must be an all ­powerful body which should not bow to the dictates of the Prime Minister or the Executive.  It should, by its actions, show that it is an independent body.

But the manner in which the Election Commission had conducted itself over the years leaves one to wonder whether the Commission enjoys public confidence or regards itself as independent.

1. Malaysian Mirror: http://www.malaysianmirror.com/media-buzz-detail/136-letters-to-the-editor/57458-the-existence-of-42051-doubtful-voters-trivial

2. Harakah : http://en.harakahdaily.net/index.php/articles/analysis-a-opinion/4830-nothing-trivial-about-42000-doubtful-voters.html

3. Malaysia Today :  http://www.malaysia-today.net/mtcolumns/from-around-the-blogs/48844-the-existence-of-42051-doubtful-voters-trivial-

Reference

1) Peter Harris, Foundation of Political Science, Prentice  Hall Simon & Schuster (Asia) Pte. Ltd. (1997)

What Watergate Scandal had in common with Malaysian Politics? - SEX !

By: Choo Sing Chye

For a starter, I hate to admit that Dr. Mahathir is absolutely right when he said that UMNO’s intellectual base is thinning just like the fast receding hairline of Samy Vellu’s. 

Intelligence is never an UMNO’s or BN’s forte.  The persistent call byNallakaruppan and the so-called Anti-Anwar Alliance (AAA) for the impeachment of Anwar by way of  Parliament, is  one good example.   Citing the American example is another.

Clearly, all these actions do not rhyme with a thinking person and human dignity.   The spitefulness of the AAA and their insistence to stand firm on the shaky platform of demeaning allegations, is beyond comprehension.  Because of this, the  Malaysian parliament should be made off-limits to these innuendoes.

Nala and AAA should, instead, rent a seminar room at any hotel just like what Datuk T  did, to spew out their venom.   In this way, the parliament is spared from associating with these characters.  

After all that had happened in the past few weeks, one cannot escape the fact that this episode is beginning to sound like the Watergate scandal. 

Apparently, Watergate scandal is analogous to what is happening right now in Malaysia.  Looking at Sodomy II, Datuk T’s sex tape and Nalla’s accusations of sexual misconduct, one would see the similarity.

Watergate break-in is not about intelligence gathering on the Democrats prior to the presidential elections which the majority  of the people believe – it is all about sex blackmail! 

Now, let me elaborate on the Watergate scandal in a very simplistic form by introducing the cast of characters taken from the book by: Len Colodny and Robert Gettlin, “Silent Coup – The Removal of a President”.   (Page XVIII)

 H. R. "Bob" Haldeman—Nixon's chief of staff during the first term. He pushed for intelligence on the Democrats, but was unaware of Dean's rogue intelligence-gathering that led to the Watergate break-in.

John W. Dean III  -  Nixon’s White House chief legal counsel.   He was the mastermind of the Watergate break-in.  His had  his own intelligence-gathering operation which he used to get dirt  from the call-girl ring that used a phone at  the Watergate Democrat’s HQ.  When this sleaze operation was exposed, he instituted a cover-up.   He lied to President Nixon.   Nixon was unaware of  Dean’s sleaze operation that uses sexual blackmail to eliminate his enemies.  Nixon  thought  Dean was gathering normal intelligence from the Democrat’s HQ. 

Maureen Dean -  Girlfriend and later wife of John W. Dean III.  Her friend Erika "Heidi" Rikan was the prostitution ring’s Madam called Mo.   Maureen’s  friendship with Mo  gave an opportunity to her boyfriend,  Dean, who was looking for sexual dirt on the Demo­crats.  

Cathy Dieter/"Heidi" Rikan - Her sex-for-hire ring was located at theColumbia Plaza apartments next to the Watergate. Known to Phillip Mackin Bailley  by her Dieter alias, she used him to help get clients from Democratic headquarters.

Phillip Mackin Bailley  - Attorney, whose clients included prostitutes. Through a contact, he helped  the local call-girl ring solicit clients from Democratic head­quarters at the Watergate. 

Charles R. Richey - Federal judge. He ordered Phillip Bailley to a mental hospital, gagged all discussion of the case and later sentenced Bailley to five years in prison.

G. Gordon Liddy - White House Plumber and Watergate burglar. Recruited by Dean as Nixon campaign intelligence chief.

E. Howard Hunt - White House Plumber and Watergate bur­glar. He knew the true break-in target and received almost all of the hush money Dean collected during the cover-up. His notebooks implicated Dean in Watergate.

Eugenio Rolando Martinez—Watergate burglar. He knew the true target of the bugging was not Democratic chairman Larry O'Brien's phone, but one elsewhere in the Democratic National Congress (DNC): the phone used to set up dates with call-girls.

Anthony T. Ulasewicz - White House private investigator. Dean used him as another intelligence operative, instructing him to survey the DNC offices, and using him to carry the hush money payments to Hunt.

                 

John N. Mitchell - Attorney General and Nixon's close friend. Dean falsely accused him of devising a cover-up plan involving the CIA. Nixon wrongly believed he had ordered the break-in, and never tried to find the truth.

W. Donald Stewart - Pentagon investigator. He obtained Radford's first confession on the Pentagon spying. Gen. Haig and Buzhardt saw him as a threat, and the White House tried to taint him through a false blackmail charge.

Gen. Alexander M. Haig, Jr.  - Aide to Kissinger and lat­er Nixon's chief of staff. His relationship with Lt. Bob Woodward, who briefed him at the White House, and his links to the Moorer-Radford military spying affair were kept from Nixon.

Bob Woodward - Navy lieutenant and Watergate reporter. As an officer he traveled to the White House and briefed Haig, who later became his key source in Watergate and whom he shielded under the guise of "Deep Throat”.

Richard M. Nixon - Thirty-seventh president of the United States. His secret foreign policy earned him enemies on the political right. He willingly covered up the break-in without getting the facts, and trusted Haig, who betrayed him.

Henry A. Kissinger - National Security Adviser. He and Nixon conducted foreign policy through backchannels, which caused them to become targets of the spying on behalf of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Melvin R. Laird - Secretary of Defense. Cut out by Nixon from most foreign policy decisions, he nonetheless knew about the military's spying on the president and Kissinger. He also knew about Woodward's connection to Haig.

Archibald Cox - Watergate Special Prosecutor. His inves­tigation targeted the White House Plumbers, which caused Haig to fear disclosure of his role in military spying on the White House. For that reason, Haig helped engineer Cox's firing.

In sum, when one talks about Watergate, one must read this book because it offers a different angle on the issue which is sex and political blackmail.

It’s a good read for Nalla and AAA.






Article appeared in:

http://www.malaysianmirror.com/media-buzz-detail/136-letters-to-the-editor/57239-what-watergate-scandal-had-in-common-with-malaysian-politics-sex-



http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/opinion/2012/04/04/watergate-a-sex-scandal/

Hung Parliament? – Just Rump it, like in Perak.

By: Choo Sing Chye

   

An old satire sketch of the sacking of the Rump Parliament(1)

1)     The Speaker being pull from the Chair.

2)     This House is to let (desecration  of the
         House)

3)     The Owl, a symbol of  Wisdom, wears
        glasses and  holds a candle but still 
        cannot see  (Symbolized the Judiciary).  (2)

I do not know why the National Front’s politicians fear a Hung Parliament?  First, it was Daim and not far behind is our Honourable PM, Najib. 

Now, why in the world does Najib  fear it?   He has the experience of  getting rid of the elected Pakatan Perak State Government and replacing it with a ‘Rump’ of his own.

And believe me, the sacking of the ‘Rump Parliament’  in 1653, bear uncanny resemblance to what happened in 2009 where the  Pakatan Perak State Government was removed unceremoniously.   Just look at the satire sketch above  and the description attached to it and you will see the similarity.

Thus, if a Hung Parliament does happen in the 13^th GE, the choices are plenty, just pick one from the many assorted Parliaments which the  Englishmen had created in the 17^th Century.

In 1624, the English had the Happy Parliament, in 1625, the Useless Parliament, from April to May 1640, the Short Parliament,  the Long Parliament from 1640 to 1648, the Rump Parliament (1649),  and in 1653, the Little (Barebone’s) Parliament. (3)

Now, for the first time in history, Malaysia got a Rump State Assembly in Perak and if  Najib’s transformation is on track, we would  definitely get a Rump Parliament instead of a Hung Parliament.  

 References:

1)     Patrick Watson and Benjamin Barber, The Struggle for Democracy, Lester &  Orpen Dennys Ltd. Toronto, Canada.

2)   ibid.


3)  Google Hung Parliament.

Opinion Polls - measuring shadows cast upon the walls of a cave?

By: Choo Sing Chye

16-3-2012

Leaping from a 59% approval rate to a recent pudgy 69% for our Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak is by no mean a small feat, considering the fact that his administration is mired in controversy after controversy.

Unmistakably our Budget is unbalance, corruption remains unabated, our economy seems to be capitulating to the natural gravitational pull, the talk of bankruptcy is in the air and against this backdrop, we got a 69% approval rating?

Hey, what the heck is going on? Are we talking Machiavellian Economics or French Politics here?

Many do not know that the French are a very idealistic lot, particularly when it comes to politics and money. They literally support both sides of the ideological poles – Left and Right. They will tell you that their Hearts are on the LEFT and their Purses/Wallets, on the RIGHT. (1)   So anything goes in French politics.

But anyway, any survey or polling done (do not care whoever does it) always gives me bad vibes. I mean just imagine by trying to ascertain the state of public opinion by questioning a few i.e. 1,022 respondents against the  huge population of 28 million Malaysians? (2)

How can we contemplate the existence of a vast discrepancy in reality and the poll measured? This problem of measuring opinion existed from the time when the notion of democracy began to flourish in Greece.

Apparently, the answer to this vast difference in reality and the poll measured is best described by the ancient Greek philosophers which they likened it to Plato’s myth of measuring shadows cast upon the walls of the cave. (3)

So for an independent opinion research firm (I mean Independent not profit oriented organisations), the main focus of its questions must be based on morality, wisdom, capability and honesty, not money alone. Therefore, it is imperative to frame questions so that the sampled population is made to focused on these values.

Unfortunately, questions asked can be made in favour of anyone if the researchers are not careful. For an example, I could easily get above 70% approval rate, if I ask this question: “Do you think the Prime Minister’s idea of giving RM500 to the poor is good ?” Well, it is difficult to say “no” to this question of giving money to the poor.

Therefore looking at the 69% approval rate for Najib and the reasons given i.e. the budget and the RM 500 relieve for the poor somehow does not reflect the core values that a Prime Minister should have to govern Malaysia effectively.

In fact, the 69% approval rate does not tell us anything about how good the PM is or how bad he is? It just tell us that the sampled population approved the RM 500 “Bantuan Rakyat 1Malaysia”, and perhaps the budget – this certainly does not correlate with the core values of a good PM.

In short, if a mere RM500 (BR1M) could do wonders to an approval rating, then we must be prepared for a long haul if we want see a better Malaysia in the future!!

Discussion:

I've just visited Malaysian Digest's portal and wish to share their poll with you which says:

Should Anwar Ibrahim be investigated over his alleged ties with Jewish organizations?  Yes or No

Is anything wrong with this poll by Malaysian Digest?

Now, look at the word 'investigated' give an impression that a crime had been committed so if I  choose 'No" is like Anwar is above the law and seems arrogant.

Reference

1) Peter Harris, Foundation of Political Science, Prentice

     Hall Simon & Schuster (Asia) Pte. Ltd. (1997)

2) For technicality aspects of survey/experiment,please read:

     Experimental Methodology* by: Larry B. Christensen

3) Peter Harris, Foundation of Political Science, Prentice

      Hall Simon & Schuster (Asia) Pte. Ltd. (1997)

*Example of the formula   (Experimental Methodology)for randomly selecting subjects from a population, and it’s usefulness in determining how many subjects should be included in the study for achieving a given level of accuracy.

n = x2NP(l - P) + d2(N – 1) + x2P(l - P)

where

n = the required sample size

X2 = the table value of chi-square for 1 degree of freedom at the desired confidence  level (3.89)

N = the population size

P = the population proportion that it is desired to estimate (assumed to be .50 since this would provide the maximum sample size)

d = the degree of accuracy expressed as a proportion (.05)

Open letter to Khairy Jamaluddin - Single Stream Educational System - Is it a wish too far?

By:  Choo Sing Chye 


Your debate with Rafizi Ramli organised by UKEC (United Kingdom EIRE Council of Malaysian Students) was commendable because it had created a less cloudier insight into the young minds of both the opposition and the ruling party.

Apparently, the pain and sufferings of the non-Malays parents  who had sent their children to National Schools (Sekolah Kebangsaan) were not attached to your main arguments. One fact is clear,  National Schools will form the backbone of a Single-Stream Educational System if it is to be implemented.   As a result of this deficiency, your arguments fell into the trappings of a typical ancient Sophist (1)  or should I make it more clearer by using Mahatma Gandhi’s term, ‘clever’ arguments but not necessary wise or true.


From this debate, I wish to offer another side of the Single-Stream Educational System argument and later in another letter, the Shadow Cabinet. 

To you and advocates of  Single-Stream Educational System. 

  

I had invested in your idea 18 years ago when I sent my son and daughters to a National School (Sekolah Kebangsaan) in Ipoh.   


I do not want my son or daughters to be a handicap when mixing with the Malays and the Indians.  We have to face the hard fact of life, when my son and daughters go into our society as an adult, breaking away from our protective yolk, he/she must be by then able to mix around comfortably with the Malays and the Indians.  Most important of all, he/she must know how to treat Malays, Indians and others as brothers and sisters and not just friends.


To begin this letter, my son speaks good Malay and on the first day of school my son was mixing around with the Malays and one Malay boy even had his hand around his shoulder, a sign of close friendship yet to come.   By the second week, he was alone.  I asked him where his Malay friends were, with much hesitation, he pointed his finger to a group of Malay boys playing near the school canteen.  The group was exclusively Malays.   I didn’t pursue the matter further.


Two months later, he was playing with a group of Indians and it carried on for quite some time before he ended up alone again.  The next time I saw him, he was with another few Chinese boys.   I saw their friendship lasted through the whole of his primary school days.  I was disappointed but this did not end here.


The second disappointment came when he was in Standard Three.   I saw him lagging in his studies and I asked him why?   He said that some of his teachers often skipped classes.  I  admonished him angrily not to use this aged-old excuse for not doing well in school.


I wanted to know the truth, I leafed through all his exercise books, to my horror most of his books  remained unmarked and it had already pass the half mark of the year.   I crossed checked with another Malay parent and he confirmed what my son was saying.  He even quipped that some of the teachers disappeared from school during the UMNO conventions. This, I did not share his joke. 


Instead of complaining, my wife and I took over his education and my two daughters.   From that day onwards his studies showed improvements and in the end he scored straight A’s in his UPSR.  


My youngest daughter too is having the same problem.  One morning, while I was  passing her Standard One class, I was dumbfounded to hear her teacher teaching with a kampong slang and not standard Malay.  From her slang, I know she is from Southern Perak (Parit area).  Honestly Khairy, how many Indian and Chinese girls at their first day in school understand this non standard Malay spoken by the teacher?


Anyway, I just smiled at the teacher when she saw me, but in my heart, I couldn’t blame her, I blame the training she had which is being UMNOised rather than Malaysianised. 


Now fast forward to the present, my eldest daughter is in Upper 6,  an unadulterated National School product.  She scored straight A’s in her UPSR, PMR exams and  scored  9 A’s in her SPM.  All these results got her nowhere.


My son is now in Form 5, he scored straight A’s in his UPSR and PMR.  He will be taking his SPM this year. 


For my youngest daughter, she will be doing her first major exam – UPSR.


At this tender age, needless to say that they are faced with the reality of the discriminatory  policies of the BN government which I believe you and Rafizi didn’t articulate well enough.   I will not speculate on why both of you didn’t speak well on this matter.


In my younger days, I too had this bad experience, I remembered very clearly while I was attending Kesusasteraan Melayu class, the Malay teacher referred us, the non-Malays as ‘kawan’ and  Malays as ‘saudara’.  Khairy, don’t you think this guy was promoting Ibrahim Ali’s or Hasan Ali’s brand of Malay brotherhood as opposed to Malaysian brotherhood in a Kebangsaan School? 


The BN had instituted unfair educational policies long before you were born and I was the victim and so were all the non-Malays then.  And now it is my son’s and daughters’ turn to bear the brunt of these unfair policies.   


Khairy, let’s be real, all you can do is talk about it, but you cannot influence the direction of these unfair educational policies even if you do not like it.   The policy of teaching Science and Maths in English is in a mess.  Now it is in a limbo.  The Education Minister, Muhyiddin is of course,  not as bright as you, but definitely a   spark brighter than Ibrahim Ali and Hasan Ali, but the fact is, he does not like you and definitely will not let you touch these unfair policies, even with a 10-foot pole.


Okay Kairy, let’s talk for the sake of talking, if you are arguing for the merits of the Single-Stream School system then be  brave enough to promote the idea of  a fairer Single-Stream system right up to University  and say no to the upper secondary duo-Stream system that we have today!  And don't forget – a fairer distribution of  scholarship!




Reference 


1.    The term Sophist is referred from the book, “An introduction to Political Philosophy,”   A.R.M. Murray, Published by Cohen and West Ltd, London, 1953.


Pg 24 – Sophist or Wise men. Wise men was the original meaning of Sophists but now it usually indicates  someone who is clever and plausible rather than wise and honest.


Please google leading Sophists - Protagoras, Antiphon Callics and  Hrasymachu.
It is quite difficult to find the above mentioned book.