Malaysian Civil Service: Can they think, raise the right issues, and do things right?

May 20, 2016

Malaysian Civil Service: Can they think, raise the right issues, and do things right?

No one of substance in government is bold enough to raise the right issues as most prefer wallowing in self-consolation hoping things will eventually self-correct.

by TK Chua

There is a management thought that says we must be honest and bold enough to raise the right issues or to ask the right questions. If we do not have the right questions, it does not matter much that we have the right answers. Right answers to wrong questions are useless.

1MDB is Malaysia’s Najib-inspired Blue Ocean Strategy Bull

Today, Malaysia is reeling from the reality that no one of any substance in government is bold enough to raise the right issues or ask the right questions as most prefer wallowing in self-consolation, hoping things will eventually self-correct. Rarely do they rock the boat and challenge the established paradigm. Instead, they pretend to support every phoney reform undertaken – from Pemandu, BR1M, BRAM, BROOM, NBOS  Initiatives (watch video above), to GST and all the baloney that takes place in GLCs (e.g. 1MBD).

Malaysia’s Top Civil Servant with his Brains Trust

We know from history it is never easy to reform a system or a country from within. The death of the Qing dynasty and the French Revolution convey the same story – failed reforms.

People in power usually cannot see it or refuse to see it. They become insensitive and insular to the needs of others. Hence, while many in the country are struggling to get by, the ruling elite shamelessly and effortlessly indulge in obscene extravagance even for a simple event like a birthday or wedding celebration. We used to laugh at Marie Antoinette’s infamous “let them eat cake” joke, but I don’t think we have ever learnt anything worthwhile from it.

Why do I say we are addressing the wrong issues? Let me list a few examples:

i. We use the GST to perpetuate our wasteful ways, not instill financial discipline and prudence in the public sector. The GST, therefore, will not solve our fiscal unsustainability problems. It will not help stabilise and strengthen the ringgit. It will only reinforce the government’s spendthrift ways.

ii. Pemandu did not transform the government machinery.Like any bureaucracy, it only added more outfits and programmes to it and drains  our national coffers. Therefore, it will only incur more expenses but with no efficiency gained.

iii. National development is not about issuing bonds or raising debts, setting up giant corporations and listing GLCs that the earlier generations have taken decades to nurture and build. Why are we indulging in buying, investing, selling, restructuring, paying off debts, and renegotiating with “partners” endlessly? Why instead of creating value, are we moving from one protracted problem to another? This is worse than children playing the game of monopoly.

iv. Foreign workers are supposed to come here to supplement our needs, not dictate the “production function” of this country. Now we have Malaysians leaving the country in droves while foreigners are allowed indiscriminate entry. In the process, our value chain goes down the drain and our way of life turns upside down.

v. We keep saying the future of this country is in the hands of the young. But what future have we created for them – an increasing pool of unemployed and unemployable graduates?

vi. We were told to be magnanimous and live in harmony, but every day we are reminded of protests over altars here, tokongs there and the general lack of piousness everywhere. If we are so godly, why are we so filthy and depraved? Why are we experiencing mass food poisoning so often? Why are our children so prone to mass hysteria? Why are our women subjected to snatch theft, attempted rape and rape so often? I know what you are thinking – when compared to other countries, Malaysia is not so bad. Maybe that is why some say we are good in jumping on the spot.

vii. Our idea of multiculturalism is when one marries a spouse of a different race or religion. Our racial tolerance is to adopt a son or daughter from another race or foster a child of another race. Our idea of inclusiveness is to produce a video portraying groups of different racial backgrounds dancing or singing together for a GLC’s advertisement or a national event. However, in our daily life, we don’t care whether our policies are fair and just.

When push comes to shove, we just hoist our flag of race and religious supremacy. We just need to divert blame onto others – and cry out at how others have tried to sabotage and undermine our vital interests; how we must be ever vigilant to keep them in the box.

I think it is enough for now. You may add on to the list if you want.*

*There is no need to add to Mr. Chua’s list. We must take the blame because we continue to allow an incompetent UMNO-BN government led by the corrupt Prime Minister Najib Razak to operate. We are indifferent and do not have the guts to sack the Prime Minister and his cabal who are in charge of our national coffers. To make matters worse, we have  a political opposition which will do the same if they are given the opportunity, that is, they can be equally arrogant and corrupt. We are already a failed state.

Only a failed people will want the status quo. So, our voters will allow  UMNO-BN to win the forthcoming by-elections in Kuala Kangsar and Sungei Besar like they did in Sarawak recently. We deserve the government we get. –Din Merican

Your Weekend Entertainer–Ricky Nelson

May 29, 2016

Your Weekend Entertainer–Ricky Nelson

I began my journey in search of the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow and found out there was none, but that quest has been worthwhile. Having taken that the first step 7 + decades ago,  I realise at near my journey’s end that that illusive pot of gold is in Aristotle’s idea of a virtuous life.–Din Merican

Dr. Kamsiah and Din Merican take you down memory lane, way back to the late 5os and 6os when Ricky Nelson, the teenage sensation  of that era who burst on the music scene which was dominated by Elvis Presley, Bill Haley and his Comets, Fats Domino, Frankie Avalon, Connie Francis,  Brenda Lee, The Platters,  Cliff Richard, and Beatles. Yes, it was Rock N Roll time.

Ricky Nelson was an early teen idol who had a considerable amount of talent to complement his blue-eyed good looks. On television, he and his older brother David acted out their real-life roles as the sons of Ozzie and Harriet Nelson. As a rock-and-rolling teenager on The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet, Ricky Nelson practically grew up in the nation’s living rooms.

For a period of years, beginning in 1957, each episode would conclude with a song by Ricky Nelson and his band. Many teenagers tuned into the show because of him, and these performances – a harbinger of the kind of impact MTV would have decades later by bringing popular music to TV – helped keep Ozzie and Harriet on the air until 1966.

Nelson was a handsome Fifties teen idol who wore his hair in a fashionable flat-top with a ducktail. For his musical debut, he did an Elvis Presley impersonation on Ozzie and Harriet in order to impress a high-school sweetheart who had a crush on Presley. Thereafter, Nelson became a self-contained rock and roller in his own right. His principal influences were Presley, Carl Perkins and Johnny Cash. On Presley’s side, the feeling was apparently mutual, as he told guitarist James Burton that he never missed an episode.

For his first recording, Nelson cut a double-sided smash: “A Teenager’s Romance” backed with Fats Domino’s “I’m Walkin’.” Both songs made the Top Five shortly after the single’s release in April 1957, instantly launching Nelson’s musical career. He was all of sixteen years old, and this was just the beginning. All totaled, Nelson would score three dozen hits, making him one of the most successfully prolific of all rock and rollers.

Even though his role on TV had been the launch pad, he more than made the grade as a rock and roller. As unlikely as it may seem, he turned out to be the real thing: a mellow-voiced singer/guitarist with an instinctive feel for the country-rooted side of rockabilly. Moreover, he had good taste in musicians, hiring guitarist extraordinaire James Burton as the mainstay of his band. With his arsenal of expert rockabilly licks, Burton brought serious credibility to Nelson’s musical endeavors.

His less frantic brand, more poppy brand of rockabilly went down easily with America’s suburban teenagers. After the success of his first two singles on Verve, Nelson quickly signed to the Imperial label, where his hit streak extended into the early Sixties. In 1958, Nelson reached #1 with “Poor Little Fool” (written by Sharon Sheeley, who was Eddie Cochran’s girlfriend). His discerning taste in material also led him to “Hello Mary Lou” – his signature song, penned by Gene Pitney – and “Travelin’ Man,” both of which topped the charts. During a three-year period from 1957 through 1959, Nelson owned the pop charts, placing 18 songs in the Top 40 for nearly 200 combined weeks.

For his sixth album – Rick is 21, released in 1961 – Nelson dropped the “y” from his name. As the maturing Nelson’s appeal with the teen audience waned, he foundered for direction in the mid-Sixties. However, he got back on track when he turned his attention to a more country-flavored sound toward decade’s end. A well-received performance at Los Angeles’ Troubadour nightclub, yielding the album Rick Nelson in Concert, helped fuel his comeback. One of the first country-minded rockers – he’d cut an album called Bright Lights and Country Music in 1966 – Nelson experienced a creative flowering on such albums as Rick Sings Nelson (1970) and Garden Party(1972).

He had formed the Stone Canyon Band, whose mellow, California-based country-rock sound anticipated the laid-back likes of the Eagles and Linda Ronstadt. One of his band members, in fact, was bassist Randy Meisner, a founding member of Poco who’d later find fame with the Eagles. During this era, Nelson had a minor hit with his easygoing remake of Bob Dylan’s “She Belongs to Me.” All the while, he resisted the idea of becoming a nostalgia act, pointedly addressing the issue in “Garden Party.” Based on his experience appearing on a bill of oldies acts at Madison Square Garden, the song became one of the biggest hits of his career reaching #6 in October 1972. Somewhat ironically, early rockers Chuck Berry and Elvis Presley were also in the Top Ten at the same time.

Although Nelson stopped having hits, in the Seventies, he remained a hard-working musician who performed up to 200 dates a year. The decade wasn’t entirely kind to him, as personal problems (including a cocaine addiction) began to mount as his popularity waned. His life ended tragically in 1985 when his tour plane caught fire and crashed near a highway in DeKalb, Texas, killing him and six others.


Let us remember this unique talent and acknowledge his contributions to American music and for Din’s generation, Ricky Nelson will  bring back thoughts of the golden era when life was pretty simple. It was a time when our elders were working hard  to recover from the ravages of  the Second World War and the Japanese Occupation of Malaya (Malaysia in 1963).–Dr.Kamsiah and Din Merican

Malaysia: For Citizens’ Declaration and Why

May 28, 2016

Malaysia: For Citizens’ Declaration and Why

by P Gunasegaram

“All of us who are concerned for peace and triumph of reason and justice must be keenly aware how small an influence reason and honest good will exert upon events in the political field”–Albert Einstein.

QUESTION TIME | The Citizens’ Declaration is a document that was drawn up by citizens concerned over Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak’s role as leader of the country. It originates more from Bersih and other civil groups than former Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad.

The key question is whether Najib should continue to be Prime minister given the current situation, especially with respect to rogue strategic development company 1Malaysia Development Bhd or 1MDB and RM4.2 billion in donations that went into Najib’s bank accounts.

When I first read the Citizens’ Declaration, which basically urges the removal of the current Prime Minister through legal means, I found that I did not agree with everything it said, especially with respect to the imposition of the Goods and Services Tax or GST. But how could a document, which was drafted by a few, can acquire universal acceptance?

There were two things that mattered to be me more. Was I in basic agreement with the tone, tenor and key points of the declarations? I was.

Second, as a journalist and writer, does signing it compromise my independence? Perhaps but not much if I take extra care about being fair and balanced nevertheless. We are citizens too and we should exercise our rights, like voting and signing the declaration if we substantially agree with it.

The declaration neither legitimises Mahathir nor does it mean that he becomes the leader of the movement. But if Mahathir wants to support that document and if former finance minister and close Mahathir associate Daim Zainuddin wants to, let them. They have their rights as citizens.

Jailed former opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim’s characterisation of the document as Mahathir’s and his warnings to fellow opposition leaders to be careful about working with Mahathir and Daim in a letter over this is terribly unfortunate. It undermines the efforts of concerned citizens to try and remove what they consider to be an unsuitable Prime Minister from his position. Many will now not sign because of Anwar’s position.

Says Anwar: “Essentially it remains Tun M’s document, defective and incoherent when viewed in the context of reform. Its only focus is the removal of Najib as PM due to the 1MDB fiasco. This is obviously a departure from the raison d’etre of our struggle: for freedom and justice, rule of law, combating abuse of power and corruption, and distributive justice!”

Institutional reforms

The irony is that the declaration covers some similar ground. What is it that the Citizens’ Declaration says? One may or may not agree with all parts of the preamble, have issues with how accurate and correct they are and whether there is room for disagreement over some of the issues such as GST.

But the key part and what it urges are contained in clauses 36 and 37. Clause 36 reads:

For all these reasons, we, the undersigned citizens of Malaysia agree and support:

a) The removal of Najib as PM of Malaysia through non-violent and legally permissible means.

b) The removal of all those who have acted in concert with him.

c) A repeal of all recent laws and agreements that violate the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Federal Constitution and undermine policy choices.

d) A restoration of the integrity of the institutions that have been undermined, such as the Police, the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC), Bank Negara and the Public Accounts Committee (PAC).

Clause 37 reads: We call upon all Malaysians, irrespective of race, religion, political affiliation, creed or parties, young and old to join us in saving Malaysia from the government headed by Najib, to pave the way for much-needed democratic and institutional reforms, and to restore the important principle of the separation of powers among the executive, legislature and judiciary which will ensure the independence, credibility, professionalism and integrity of our national institutions.

It is because of these two clauses and that I agree with them that I signed the declaration. I honestly believe that they are legitimate demands. Although I don’t believe that they of themselves will directly result in the Prime Minister stepping down, over one million people stepping up to put their names for the document is a telling message that cannot be totally ignored.

To not support, withdraw support or become less associated with it because Mahathir is involved or appears to be taking credit for it or is closely associated with it is wrong. If you believe what the declaration calls for, sign it. Nothing else is of real consequence.

This is not the first time that citizen’s efforts are being politicised. It happened during the Bersih-driven demonstrations for electoral reforms when opposition figures pushed themselves to the forefront ahead of the key organisers. In this latest case, those with their own political axes to grind – Mahathir, Anwar, the ruling party and the opposition – have their own take on things. They are entitled to them.

But what does PKR and Pakatan Harapan hope to gain by distancing themselves from a citizen’s initiative that is calling for the legal removal of the prime minister, the same thing that PKR and Harapan partners have been calling for? Is it not rather short-sighted and strategically inconsistent to not sign the declaration or support it or distance yourself from it just because Mahathir and Daim Zainuddin support it?

Removing a Corrupt Prime Minister

While Mahathir may have his own political motives for supporting the declaration, he does not allude to them in public or make his strategic thoughts publicly known. All he wants – or seems to want – is to remove a corrupt Prime Minister.

Yes, if he had not removed the checks and balances on the executive and introduced draconian measures to consolidate his own power and showed how it can be done, all this would not have happened now. Indeed he was responsible too for the current state we are in.

When UMNO was declared illegal in 1987, Mahathir formed a new party, UMNO Baru, and kept all his opponents out. He emasculated the judiciary and made it impotent as a check and balance against executive abuse. He repeatedly used the two-thirds majority in the legislature to make many constitutional changes, removing safeguards for abuses. The legislature did not balance the executive but instead served as a rubber stamp for Mahathir’s measures.

He cultivated patronage and corruption and privatised large chunks of profitable government businesses, in some cases under iron-clad guarantees and purchase agreements, to cronies. He allowed corruption to grow and flourish and did little about it because it suited his own purposes. He was an example to Najib, of what Najib could get away with if he had the levers of power and exercised them accordingly.

Yes, Mahathir has ulterior motives in wanting Najib out. With Najib in power, the opposition has better chances of victory. And if the opposition comes to power, there are lots that will come into the open, and Mahathir has a lot to hide. It is in Mahathir’s interest to knock Najib off the Umno president’s post – before the next general elections.

But all that is beside the point – it’s not as if Malaysians don’t know. They do but they recognise that Mahathir’s voice, for better or worse, is a strong one which still resonates with many Malaysians.

Mahathir was a bad prime minister because of all this and much more but Najib is worse. Getting as much as RM4.2 billion into his bank accounts must be a “no!” for any leader anywhere. It has not even been established that it is a donation as Najib claims. And there are links between that donation and 1MDB, the most mismanaged Malaysian government company of all time.

Why would any opposition party want to distance itself from a primarily citizen’s initiative calling for the legal ouster of the prime minister under whose watch all these happened just because Mahathir supports it? What kind of a strategy is that?

This must rank, together with Anwar’s infamous announcement post the 2008 elections that the opposition will gain power through crossovers from BN, as one of the low points in Anwar’s announced strategies. It’s also why the public has trouble trusting politicians because power is the ultimate aim no matter the lip service towards justice, goodness and truth.

Perhaps it is just as well – such a move by the opposition to distance itself from the Citizens’ Declaration may paradoxically give it more credibility, Mahathir notwithstanding given that he is a political opportunist par excellence who has taken his chances far better than Anwar has.


Hududisation of Malaysia

May 28, 2o16

Hududisation of Malaysia: What Najib Razak would do for political survival

by John Berthelsen

Public Caning under Hudud

After being dormant for more than a year, the issue of hudud – harsh seventh-century Islamic law prescribing the amputation of limbs for theft and stoning of adulterers – has suddenly come alive in Malaysia again.

The government appears to be fully behind the move, although debate has now been postponed until October. The move has raised deep concern among civil societies and human rights organizations and, according to some critics, could threaten the country’s standing with the international business community.

 Nonetheless, on May 26, the final day of the current parliamentary session, Azalina Othman Said, a minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, suddenly tabled a motion to fast-track amendments that would allow the nominally opposition Parti Islam se-Malaysia, or PAS, to implement the criminal code in the east coast state of Kelantan, the only state PAS controls.

The Halal Entertainers

One source in Kuala Lumpur suggested the move was a strategy on the part of Prime Minister Najib Razak, whose United Malays National Organization faces two imminent by-elections forced by the death of two high-ranking UMNO officials in a helicopter crash last month while campaigning in Sarawak state elections. The two by-elections are in the state of Selangor.

“Now that Najib has messed up the economy he is so desperate to win these coming two by-elections that he is using religion knowing very well Malays would be hard pressed to vote against hudud,” the source told Asia Sentinel. He called the bill “the ‘Talibanization’ of Malaysia.

UMNO’s Peity–The Sheer Hypocrisy of it all

The measure, a so-called private member’s bill by PAS President Hadi Awang, had been languishing for months before Azalina’s decision to move the measure, an extremely unusual action. It appears to be unheard of for the government to back an opposition party’s bill. It is even unsure whether the bill, if passed, would be legal under Malaysia’s federal Constitution.

The action runs directly counter to Najib’s characterization of his country as a moderate Muslim society in international forums and before the United Nations.

The Most Corrupt Prime Minister of Malaysia

However, Najib and UMNO are caught in an enormous scandal that threatens the government’s legitimacy and stretches across at least seven international jurisdictions. Earlier this week, Singaporean authorities shut BSI Bank Ltd., the  Singapore-based arm of the Swiss BSI SA in what Singapore Monetary Authority Managing Director Ravi Menon called “the worst case of control lapses and gross misconduct that we have seen in the Singapore financial center.”

BSI handled a major chunk of the business for 1Malaysia Development Bhd., the scandal-wracked state-backed development fund that appears to have lost billions of dollars to theft and mismanagement. It has been called one of the biggest money-laundering cases in history, with authorities in the US, Abu Dhabi, Luxembourg, Hong Kong and other jurisdictions in addition to Switzerland and Singapore pursuing cases against the fund. Authorities are also seeking to find out the origin and disposal of an estimated US$1 billion that flowed into and out of Najib’s own accounts in 2013.

Former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, Najib’s most persistent domestic foe, has accused Najib of signing off on the hudud law in an effort to split an already-weakened opposition by getting PAS’s support in exchange for the law in order to protect himself in the scandal.

In an interview with The Australian, Mahathir said Najib is so desperate to cling to power that he is willing to sign off on the harsh Islamic law in exchange for PAS’s support.

“He’s prepared to support these so-called Hudud laws where you decapitate people, chop off their hands, stone them to death,” Mahathir was quoted as saying. “He doesn’t care what he does or what his policy is as long as he gets support. And he wants the support of the opposition PAS. The leader of PAS is talking to him.”

Deputy Prime Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi insisted to reporters that the bill would only apply to Muslims in Kelantan. But critics are worried that implementation in Kelantan would let the evil genie out of the bottle. With a rising crime rate and concerns especially over violent street crime, the issue has caught fire with the wider public and threatened to bring it to a national level. The independent Merdeka Center, which samples public opinion, found last year that 73 percent of Malay Muslims supported the Islamic law in principle, up from only 47 percent in November of 2013.

One UMNO source told Asia Sentinel there is a danger that once implemented in Kelantan, the rural northern tier of states that abut the Thai border including Perlis, Kedah and Terengganu. There is even rising sympathy in the moderate urban state of Selangor, the source said.

However, it has horrified the 35 percent of other races that make up the country’s polyglot population of 30.7 million as well as moderate city-dwelling Malays. In particular the Chinese, who make up about 20 percent of the population and the bulk of the political opposition, view it as a powder keg.

PAS has been pushing for hudud in Kelantan for decades. But over the past couple of years, as the opposition headed by now-imprisoned leader Anwar Ibrahim gained popularity, sources in Kuala Lumpur have said, Najib saw a behind-the-scenes embrace of hudud as a way to split PAS off from the Chinese-dominated Democratic Action Party and Anwar’s own Parti Keadilan Rakyat. The Barisan’s own minority-dominated component parties including the Malaysian Chinese Association, Gerakan and the Malaysian Indian Congress have also opposed implementation.

Today, however, the reasoning in Najib’s camp seems to be that with ethnic Malays making up at least 60 percent of the population, they can ignore the minorities.

With Parliament closing, the bill requires further debate before it would become law. It remains unknown if Najib and his forces would actually inflict the law on the population.

Under its provisions, hudud would impose age-old punishments for certain classes of crimes under Shariah law including theft, sex out of wedlock, consumption of liquor and drugs and apostasy. There appear to be no punishments for corporate crime, which is rife in Malaysia.

But, as Mahathir said when the issue arose in 2014, “There are Muslims and non-Muslims in our country. If a Muslim steals, his hand will be chopped off but when a non-Muslim steals, he goes to jail. Is that justice or not?”

As Mahathir has said, although the law would apply only to Muslims, it sets up the specter of a dual class of punishments, with a Chinese, Indian or other minority facing perhaps two months in jail for theft, for instance, and a Malay facing the prospect of losing his hand. Adultery in Malaysia is rarely punished today for any of the races and although it is not talked about, it is rampant among the leaders of UMNO.

Malaysia’s Travel Ban

May 27, 2016

Malaysia’s Travel Ban: Administrative Stupidity or Political Insecurity?

by Azmi Sharom

BOY, was I worried last week. This paper reported that the Immigration Department was going to bar those who disparaged or ridiculed the Government from traveling abroad.

And those who did so overseas would be barred from traveling upon their return home. For up to three years!

Crikey. This was most concerning. In my job I speak about laws and government policies all the time; at home and abroad.We, lecturers, go to seminars and conferences and we discuss ideas.

So, even if I take special care to say only the sweetest things about the Government, I could still be faced with questions like “Why is your government-owned strategic development company facing so much trouble?”.

What a conundrum. Do I spout some inanity (“err … that is a good question, Malaysia is truly Asia. Thank you.”) or give my opinion and risk being unable to eat authentic Nasi Gudeg for three years?

I suppose I could say something brilliant like “Look, is that an ostrich in the aisle?”, and then make my escape. And furthermore, The Star reported that these disparaging comments can be done in any manner. Good lord, does that include private conversations?

What if I am in a café in Madrid and my Spanish host asks me, “Señor Azmi, why does your Government prevent people from going overseas to get human rights awards?”

What do I say then? “Manuel, I am Malaysian, I cannot answer your question. Please pass the paella.”

Then fortunately, the Deputy Minister of Home Affairs comes swooping in and says that there will be no ban on travelling for critics of the Government.

Phew, that’s a relief then. I guess those guys in the Immigration Department just got together and decided amongst themselves to make up this policy.

I did not realise that government agencies had so much autonomy that they could make far-reaching unconstitutional, anti-human rights-type decisions without the OK from the minister or his faithful deputy.

Just shows what I know.

But then the Deputy Minister goes on to say that the ban only applies to those who are a threat to national security and who have violated the Constitution.So I guess Maria Chin is a national security threat and habitual violator of the Constitution then.

It is as though the Constitution is a high-born Roman lady in danger of being attacked by a ravaging Visigoth.How can a private citizen violate the Constitution?

Hey, we are not the ones who make laws that blatantly go against the Fundamental Liberties listed in Part 2 of the Constitution. We are not the ones who say that this is an Islamic state when the Constitution says no such thing.

We are not the ones who obtusely say that there is no separation of powers because the Constitution does not use the term “separation of powers” (even though the executive, legislature and judiciary are each given separate chapters and have clearly defined powers).

It is virtually impossible for a private citizen to violate the Constitution.Short of perhaps companies that treat their workers like slaves or practise gender bias.

So the idea that citizens who violate the Constitution can have their passports taken away is laughable.It’s as though by throwing big words into the mix, this ludicrous and unlawful attack on our freedom of movement is all hunky dory.

Really, all this business about keeping us stuck at home is ridiculous.Do we need to go overseas to belittle the Government when their actions can be spread far and wide via existing technology? Why worry about citizens belittling or disparaging them abroad when they do it so well by themselves?