I spotted this from a thread in LYN. Check out these reviews of Proton cars by UK-based Top Gear. They seem to really, really hate the brand.
We don’t know what Malaysian motorists did to upset the gods, but it must have been something pretty serious, judging by the punishment they seem to be getting. Still, at least the domestic audience thinks this stuff is the norm – what on earth do they think they’re doing bringing it to the UK? Walk away.
The Economist, one of the most influential and respected news outlets in the world, is well known for its concise and informative writing style. Regular readers however will note that there’s often an element of dry wit as well, and at times even a touch of whimsy.
One recent article presents an excellent example of this sense of humour at work. Inspired by the new president of the Maldives Mohamed Nasheed’s public musing that his country should set aside a portion of its revenues from tourism to buy a new homeland to replace its islands that are expected to be engulfed by rising sea levels, The Economist has extended the idea as a solution for all kinds of problems. Note the following line:
China could stop making aggressive gestures towards Taiwan and buy Malaysia instead. It’s already run by Chinese, so they’d hardly notice the difference.
I would imagine that the Malays would be none too amused to read that but you really have to credit those crazy editors at The Economist for their imagination and creativity in coming up with this wild scheme.
On a whim I googled the phrase “Malaysian libertarians” the other day and was pleasantly surprised to learn that there is indeed a body in Malaysia dedicated to advancing and propagating libertarian thought. The group is called the “Malaysia Think Tank” and seems to be associated in some way with the U.S.-based Cato Institute. The website, WauBebas.org, appears to be the main platform used to disseminate and publish their views.
I’ve signed up for the site and commented on a couple of articles, but things seem pretty quiet over there. I have no illusions about the group having any significant influence over policy or even the public mindset, but it’s heartening nonetheless to read about Malaysian political and social issues written from a libertarian perspective.
In Malaysia, where there is no significant political base familiar with libertarianism, I’ve found it frustrating sometimes when trying to communicate my views. People often miscontrue my opposition to government intervention in a matter as my personal views on the matter. For example, as an individual, I find gambling to be distateful and to bring out the worst in people, and would think less of people if I knew that they indulged in it frequently. But as a libertarian, I would oppose any government sanctioned ban on gambling because I believe it to be a personal choice. This means that libertarians often have conflicting opinions amongst themselves on a wide variety of matters, but what unites them is the belief that government has no business interfering in the private lives of its citizens, so long as they do not harm anyone else.
The famous phrase attributed to Voltaire about defending to the death the right of people to say even the things that you disagree with is widely accepted now, with different caveats depending on where you live in. Libertarians would just like to extend it to include the right of people to live in the way that they please.
This post grew out of comments that I made in a post on Jed Yoong’s blog which linked to another blogger’s post calling for all vernacular Tamil schools in Malaysia to be closed down. I think it’s worth taking the effort to explain that in this context, “vernacular schools” refers solely to primary schools that use Chinese and Tamil as the medium of instruction, while still receiving government funding, as opposed to those that teach using the national language, Bahasa Malaysia the so-called “Sekolah Rendah Jenis Kebangsaan”.
There are a couple of obfuscating factors at work here that needs to be explained. One, the original call to close down Tamil schools cited the generally poor quality of these schools as a primary reason. As Jed Yoong quoted from the original writer of the post, Balan:
One of the contributing factors leading Indian youth to gangsterism and other criminal activities is their inability to excel in education, particularly when they enter secondary school.
The new environment and being not conversant in Bahasa Malaysia which is the medium of teaching in secondary school have resulted in students dropping out after their PMR and SPM.
The reason this happens is the poor quality of Tamil schools in the country. Most of the Tamil schools in the country are poorly managed, lack facilities and are helmed by substandard headmasters and teachers.
This post in an expansion on comments that I made in response to a post by Jed Yoong on her blog. I’ve so far refrained from commenting on the political situation here in Malaysia because I don’t have anything original or new to add to the already deafening cacophony out there and I don’t like to point out the obvious. In many cases, however, when a particular strand of public opinion becomes very shrill and one-sided, I feel a compulsion to throw some cold water on it. Chalk it up to my contrarian nature or maybe it’s just because I despise arguments that leave no room for doubt of any kind.
What’s gotten me riled up is the widely held sentiment that the racist politics of Barisan Nasional ought to be replaced with a multiracial Malaysian Malaysia. Yes, the BN are racists. Big deal, but we’ve known that forever. And again, yes, a multiracial Malaysian Malaysia is a great thing, sure, but playing it up too much edges things too uncomfortably close to nationalism for me and recent anti-immigrant sentiment in Malaysia is already too negative for my tastes. As I noted previously, if racism is bad because it shouldn’t matter what your genetics are, then nationalism ought to be bad as well because it shouldn’t matter where your mother happened to physically be when she went into labour. Am I the only person who finds it ironic that so many Malaysians blame current immigrants from places like Indonesia, Myanmar and the Philippines for their troubles when so many are descended from past immigrants themselves?
Similarly, I’ve read multiple commentators saying to the effect that sports are a great way to unite Malaysians across the racial divide. Does that mean that whichever country is currently playing against our national champion is the enemy? Does that make anyone who supports a non-Malaysian in any sports match against a Malaysian a traitor? Why does it always have to be one group against another group?
I’m also troubled by the assertions of Chinese and Indian Malaysians that they deserve equal rights as Malaysians because of the past contributions of their ancestors in developing the country (with the Chinese being especially fond of pointing out that they were the one who fought off the Japanese). The problem with this is that it assumes that such rights have to be earned as opposed to naturally accruing to anyone who wants to live permanently in the country and implies that new immigrants shouldn’t have those same rights because their ancestors didn’t make similar sacrifices. If it is not morally correct to blame the current generation of Germans, for example, for the actions or even antipathy of their grandfathers during the Holocaust, is it correct to credit a people for the beneficial actions of their ancestors?
The idealogy diametrically opposed to nationalism is of course cosmopolitanism, and the Wikipedia page on it is a worthwhile read.
This is a repost of a thread that I started in the Low Yat forums:
Amidst all of the political mess that’s been going on, I’ve noticed the phrase “four-eyed meeting” being used again and again, especially in The Star.
PUTRAJAYA: Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi had a four-eyed meeting with his deputy Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak for more than four hours to discuss the country’s present political situation, including the Umno transition plan.
KOTA BARU: Terengganu PAS commissioner Datuk Mustafa Ali has mended the rift between him and party spiritual adviser Datuk Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat during a four-eyed meeting at the Mentri Besar’s official residence.
Obviously it means a serious, one-to-one, discussion, but I’ve never seen the phrase used in this way before. A quick Google search indicates that it’s only been used by Malaysians in this way and only fairly recently at that. So, what gives and where did this come from?
Before the elections, I expressed some doubt about the governing experience of the opposition parties, especially the DAP, and unfortunately, it seems that I’m being proved right. The opposition so-called Barisan Rakyat has shown a crack just days after winning historic gains in the election when DAP leader Lim Kit Siang publicly spoke on behalf of the DAP Central Executive Committee to state that they disagreed with the decision of the Regent of Perak Raja Dr Nazrin Shah to appoint Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin of PAS as Menteri Besar of Perak and even called for the DAP to boycott the swearing in ceremony. Their grounds for doing so is that PAS won the fewest number of seats in Perak and that they would be happy to accept either DAP’s or PKR’s candidate for the post instead.
This is a ridiculous stand to take when even Ngeh Koo Ham, the DAP candidate for the post, had already stated that all three candidates from the DAP, PKR and PAS would accept whichever one of them that the Regent picked to be Menteri Besar and that all three parties would cooperate to govern the state properly. It looks like Lim Kit Siang is determined to make a liar out of his Perak state party chief. Predictably, MCA Perak state chief Ong Ka Chuan is trying to widen the crack as much as he can by saying that if DAP allows a PAS member to become Menteri Besar, they would be betraying the trust of the Chinese who voted for them.