Stuff I find on the internets

The future of Najibonomics

via The Malaysian Insider on 2/28/10

MARCH 1 — The more I learn about 1 Malaysia and the Najib Razak administration, the more convinced I am that this is all just another giant farce.

I cannot tell where this perception that Najib is more competent or principled than his predecessor is coming from.

1 Malaysia is all propaganda without results, and the actions of our government show it is more concerned with a good show rather than substance.

Filed under  //   commentary   economy   malaysia  
Posted February 28, 2010
// 0 Comments

Answer: When it's not done by a Muslim

Everyone knows that only Muslims commit terror acts. Everyone else is either disturbed, or paranoid, or needs help. And if you need a sarcasm tag for this you're retarded.

via TransGriot by Monica Roberts on 2/26/10

One of the things I've been pondering since the attack on the building in Austin housing the IRS is this question.

Why is it that when Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan killed 12 of his fellow soldiers and wounded another 31 at Fort Hood back on November 4, the T-word came out with no hesitation and the obligatory slamming of Islam soon followed?

But flip the script and you have a white male burn his house down, leave an anti government manifesto on the Net, and dive bombs a plane into a federal building housing the IRS, or another white male in 1995 instigates the destruction of another federal building in Oklahoma City, the MSM twists itself into a pretzel to avoid calling it a terrorist attack or say it's the work of a lone individual?

To delve further into Bizarro world, the same conservapeeps decrying the foiled Christmas underwear bomber and giving the president 'soft on terris' grief on it are calling this vanilla flavored one a hero.

Hmm.

So when is a terrorist attack NOT a terrorist attack?

Filed under  //   commentary   terror  
Posted February 27, 2010
// 0 Comments

It’s colonialism under another name. Why do we have different states in Malaysia?

The states cannot implement a sales or income tax, so their ability to raise revenue is almost non-existent. They get whatever crumbs the federal government sees fit to toss them; Putrajaya makes a big deal of giving money to the states, as it did this week with Kelantan’s oil royalties, but the fact of the matter is, each state should be entitled to at least a portion of the revenue which accrues from its people. At the moment, Penang and Selangor, the two most prosperous states in our federation, each contributing billions of ringgit to the economy, have annual budgets on the order of a few hundred million — smaller than some of our universities.

Summing up, the states have no power and no money. They have some small freedom to do things, but this is limited by how little funds they have, how obstinate their federal-seconded civil servants are, and how much the federal government feels like overruling them. This is not a tenable constitutional arrangement — not when there is so much diversity in our country, and not when our federal government is so unaccountable.

Having different policies from state to state not only lets each state govern itself according to its own needs, but lets each state learn from the successes and mistakes of others. If Penang’s competency, accountability and transparency policies prove successful — as the Auditor-General’s latest report suggests — then other states will consider following suit. If the policy does not work out and cannot alleviate corruption, then the rakyat of Penang will vote for something better, and the consequences of the mistake are only limited to Penang. With a central government imposing top-down policies, we are completely screwed; the consequences of any mistakes — of which there will definitely be many, in light of how big and diverse our country is — will affect us all, and as we all know, it is difficult to get enough momentum to change the federal government.

Filed under  //   commentary   law   malaysia  
Posted November 7, 2009
// 0 Comments