Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad claims that he had virtually zero power over the PDRM’s role in Ops Lalang. The then Police Chief quickly defended that claim. The rakyat's question: was Tun Dr Mahathir not sanctioned by the rakyat to protect their interest over any agencry that attempts to impose its powers over them?
And so we are driven to conclude that Malaysia could be a regime.
A particular mainstream newspaper is said to be spewing out all kinds of statements and ‘news’ coverage that hinges on racism and religious dichotomy. But until this day no action can be brought against the paper.
And so our faculty of reason dictates that a regime must be at work.
Prime Minster Najib recently at his party’s event rendered a piercing battle cry when he uttered that there will be “crushed bodies" and "lost lives” if anyone wants to take over Putrajaya. That to the rakyat was short of saying that there will be bloodshed if the voters chose to give their majority votes to the ‘opposition’ parties.
History teaches that only regimes have such a modus operandi.
If a BN loyalist lodges a police report against any ‘opposition’ party loyalist, the authorities from the police all the way to the judiciary will swing into prompt action – and all done in the name of public interest. On the contrary if a member from the ‘opposition’ camp cried foul, he or she would be lucky to see a spark of action or sparkles of justice at the other end of the tunnel.
And our perception again is that this appears like a regime well entrenched.
When the ruling government expects a vote in their favour from the civil servants at the ballot box, it can also be construed as a regime.
As Bertrand Russell held, an “increase of organization ….(brings) into existence new positions of power,” BN by virtue of its long years of staying in power has made it very organised to the point of being a regime.
When you are able to veto changes to the Constitution to suit and serve the political agenda all too often, it is indicative of a regime.
Organizations according to Bertrand Russell “are of two kinds, those which aim at getting something done, and those which aim at preventing something from being done.” When a government seems to be in great hurry to keep as well as introduce more oppressive laws that are claimed to be merely suppressive and for the greater good of citizens’ interest, then there is a regime well rooted as it belongs the latter organization that Russell spoke of.
When leaders start telling the rakyat that they must listen and follow what their leaders are saying if the rakyat do not want to screw up their future – as in the case of the PM’s brief to businessmen, it is clearly indicative that a regime has taken over.
After all, did not the Tun Dr M2 proudly proclaim that Malaysia is a managed democracy? When democracy has to be managed by those you vote to govern, you have a true regime.
When individual leaders or their family member/s takes credit for a job well done instead of thanking the team for a great show, it smells of a regime in power.
The fact is as long as there are beneficiaries in a regime, the resolute will to change remains partly paralyzed.
Regimes survive for as long as economic considerations override human nature. In the case of Egypt’s nationwide protest it was not one of economics but its extremes, namely survival.
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment