December 31, 2017
2018: Year of Change for Better or Worse?
by Dr. Lim Teck Ghee
As the year comes to an end the latest press statements from two civil society organizations – the National Association of Patriots ( NPA or Persatuan Patriot Kebangsaan) and G25 – provide renewed hope that the struggle for the freedoms and values of a robust democratic system will continue with key stakeholders providing overdue support.
With scandals in his bag, Najib Razak needs to retain power and maintain the status quo. Keep praying Mr. Prime Minister.
For too long most Malaysians – outside the political arena who are well positioned to resist the authoritarian political and religious forces seeking to kill off moderate positions on regressive and illiberal socio-economic policies and programs – have remained quiet.
They have been spectators or have stood outside the political process hoping that the long entrenched ruling government is truly committed to building a cohesive and inclusive nation where no ethic, religious, geographical or class grouping is denied their rightful entitlements. They have also expected the BN to be consistent in pursuing a genuine pluralism that can be the foundation stone for peace and progress in our multi-racial society.
Many among our elite have also remained passive in the belief that opportunistic and repressive, and what constitute the more dangerous and real, not imagined, anti-national forces can be countered by institutional stake players located in the executive and legislative branches; as well as by the other constitutional checks and balances.
That these two organizations – NPA and G25 – whose service and loyalty to the nation is irrefutable and unimpeachable have come out openly on developments which the government is in denial or prefers to draw a curtain of silence over reveals the deep concern and despair of respected armed forces and civil service leaders with current developments; and their lack of faith that the BN leadership is up to the task of steering the nation in the right direction to a better future.
Losers of the NEP and Religious Extremism
The NPA’s subject of concern is the New Economic Policy and its successor policies, and their impact on the ethnic composition of the armed forces. Calling on the government to increase the recruitment of non-Malays by 10 per cent annually, the NPA statement explained that it was giving its views as truthfully as possible on “some of these issues that are ultra-sensitive.”
In its opinion, a policy favoring Malays in promotion and discriminating against non-Malays has made the latter feel demoralized and marginalized. Coupled with an increasing Islamic culture, this has negatively affected esprit-de-corps and comradeship in multi-racial military units.
According to NPA President Brigadier-General (Rtd) Mohd Arshad Raji Arshad these factors have not only affected the military but also the police force and other public service organizations.
3 Penyamun Tarbus with medals
BG Arshad noted that “the problems faced today are an outcome of the policies and decisions of our government of the past few decades … The problem is endemic, a cause-and-effect of the ‘unwritten’ rules and regulations of the past.”
He pointed out that “to solve the problem, we have to first recognize the problem. The intention here is not fault finding, rather to fully comprehend the grievances from the perspectives of the non-Malays, and help those in position make decisions for the betterment of our country.”
A critical but balanced and rationally-based independent position can be similarly seen in the statements of G25 on the socio-economic and religious controversies that have beset the nation in the last few years.
In its statement on the latest controversies relating to the influence of political Islamic ideology in the country and the effort by Malaysian Islamic Research Strategic Institute (Iksim), the government-supported Islamic think-tank, to censure and punish University of Malaya Professor Shad Saleem Faruqi and G25 member, Noor Farida, for their views on religious radicalism, G25 has noted that while it “recognises the fundamental rights of individuals and Islamic activists to advocate their beliefs of political Islam”, government officials and leaders need to reassure the public that the government does not agree with such views as they are contrary to the intent and purpose of the Constitution and the Rukunegara.
To G25, it is “when the government leaders keep silent and pretend not to hear that the public gets worried whether the government is using religion for its own politics. It’s the official silence and apparent acquiescence that make locals and foreigners get the idea there is radicalisation of Islam in Malaysia.”
Standing up for all Malaysians
What is especially encouraging about the statements by these two Malay dominated organizations is not simply the commitment to what G25 describes as a “national ideology of tolerance and respect for the diversity and differences among Malaysians”. It is also their willingness to stand up for the rights and freedoms of “other” Malaysians.
One response by a Patriot member to criticism by the Defence Minister of the press statement of BG Arshad provides comfort that even if 2018 turns out badly for moderate and progressive minded Malaysians on the political and religious front, there will always be our true patriots to fall back upon.
This is what Major Mior Rosli wrote in his reply. It provides such a contrast to the saccharin sweet, vacuous and meaningless New Year messages that will soon flood our print media from the PR offices of the country’s political leaders. His entire note should be required reading for all young Malaysians and those of us who have become cynical about developments in the nation:
“We, the veterans Armed Forces Officers and the ex-senior police officers are the real Patriots. More Patriotic than any of you, “power and kleptocracy” crazy politicians. Don’t ever belittle us. If there is a war to defend the soil, we will be the second or third liners behind the regular forces to defend this country. Please don’t mess us up with your political dreams. (capitals and exclamation marks omitted).”
Din Merican: the Malaysian DJ Blogger 
LONDON – Dispelling anxiety about robots has become a major preoccupation of business apologetics. The commonsense – and far from foolish – view is that the more jobs are automated, the fewer there will be for humans to perform. The headline example is the driverless car. If cars can drive themselves, what will happen to chauffeurs, taxi drivers, and so on?
Economic theory tells us that our worries are groundless. Attaching machines to workers increases their output for each hour they work. They then have an enviable choice: work less for the same wage as before, or work the same number of hours for more pay. And as the cost of existing goods falls, consumers will have more money to spend on more of the same goods or different ones. Either way, there is no reason to expect a net loss of human jobs – or anything but continual improvements in living standards.
History suggests as much. For the last 200 years or so, productivity has been steadily rising, especially in the West. The people who live in the West have chosen both more leisure and higher income. Hours of work in rich countries have halved since 1870, while real per capita income has risen by a factor of five.
How many existing human jobs are actually “at risk” to robots? According to an invaluable report by the McKinsey Global Institute, about 50% of time spent on human work activities in the global economy could theoretically be automated today, though current trends suggest a maximum of 30% by 2030, depending mainly on the speed of adoption of new technology. The report’s midpoint predictions are: Germany, 24%; Japan, 26%; the United States, 23%; China, 16%; India, 9%; and Mexico, 13%. By 2030, MGI estimates, 400-800 million individuals will need to find new occupations, some of which don’t yet exist.
This rate of job displacement is not far out of line with previous periods. One reason why automation is so frightening today is that the future was more unknowable in the past: we lacked the data for alarmist forecasts. The more profound reason is that current automation prospects herald a future in which machines can plausibly replace humans in many spheres of work where it was thought that only we could do the job.
Economists have always believed that previous waves of job destruction led to an equilibrium between supply and demand in the labor market at a higher level of both employment and earnings. But if robots can actually replace, not just displace, humans, it is hard to see an equilibrium point until the human race itself becomes redundant.