China and US, different but similar

The US and China are said to practise very different systems, but only if the details are excluded.

THE world’s two biggest economies exercised the selection of their next leaders just two days apart.

The international media made the usual observation that here were two systems working in ways that could not be more different. That is valid only up to a point, beyond which it only obscures the realities of the US and Chinese systems.

Externally, US democracy is said to offer citizens a choice of government every four years. If an incumbent fails to deliver as promised, voters can vote him out the next time.

China’s one-party system undertakes no regular elections for the public. Every 10 years, the Communist Party meets at a National Congress to identify the country’s next president and prime minister.

The common implication is that while the US system offers freedom of choice, China’s does not. These contrasting stereotypes become fuzzy in practice, however.

The US system sets two presidential terms of four years each as the limit for any individual. If an incumbent opts for re-election, his party is unlikely to entertain any challenger from the party’s ranks.

Thus the party’s candidate is predetermined, beyond the control of even party members. For the other party, some jostling among prospective candidates precedes the eventual candidate, over which ordinary party members may have no choice.

For both parties, money and party machinery (monetised infrastructure) are prerequisites. Any candidate, whether from one of the two main parties or any other, can have no hope of seriously running for the presidency without the vast financial backing required.

That is why in the US and many other Western democratic systems, the choice voters have is only one out of two parties. Third, fourth, fifth and other parties have no real chance, regardless of the value of their policies or the virtues of their candidates.

The supposedly free mainstream news media is also an accessory to this limitation. They give alternative parties scant print space or air time, on the premise that they have little clout, which ensures that they continue to have little clout.

The result is that when either the Republi­can or the Democratic Party wins the presidency, they differ little in the flesh. With hardly any alternative ideas penetrating this political establishment, Republicans and Democrats tend to become more conservative.

As far-right neo-conservatives entered the fray in the 2000 election, both parties moved further to the right. Critics describe the two main parties as merely two wings of the same party, or as being two right wings of the Republican Party.

The US presidency is also the choice of the system rather than of the people. The eventual winner is “elected” by the electoral vote of the Electoral College, rather than the popular vote of ordinary voters.

There are currently only 538 members of the Electoral College who decide on the next president and vice-president out of a choice of two teams. The candidacy that can secure 270 votes wins the White House.

In China, 2,270 delegates of the Communist Party meet at the National Congress every five years to elect the party’s highest decision-making body, the Central Committee (CC). Some 350 members of the CC then decide on the party’s General Secretary and members of the Politburo, Standing Committee and Central Military Commission.

The CC is said to experience high turnovers at election time. In each of the past half-dozen national congresses, more than 60% of committee members have been replaced.

There has also been no shortage of candidates, particularly for this year’s 18th National Congress. It was the first time that nominees for the 2,270 party delegates had been assessed, with candidates continuing to outnumber the available slots.

At this latest National Congress, both a new CC and a new Central Commission for Discipline Inspection were elected. The Communist Party’s Constitution is also being amended, with the main themes being intra-party democracy and fighting corruption.

The governing party’s Standing Committee has also sought the views of other political parties in China on the draft report for the 18th National Congress. President Hu Jintao, as party General Secretary, pledged to strengthen cooperation with the other parties.

Beijing has thus become a magnet for journalists during the week more than for previous National Congresses. More than 1,000 international journalists gained accreditation, with another 400 from Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau.

If more of Beijing’s proceedings were in English, they would enjoy wider global coverage. That day may soon come as China’s prospect grows.

In 1997, China granted the Carter Center in the US the role of observing village-level elections around the country. The next level of governance, the provincial level, has also experimented with elections for the general public, with only the national level still to do so.

Since 2002, the Carter Center has also played a significant part in voter education in China, on issues like improved governance and political reform. In both rural and urban areas, the Carter Center works with China’s Ministry of Civil Affairs and with NGOs
.
Meanwhile during the week’s 18th National Congress in Beijing, a multitude of issues surfaced for the government to consider. Among these are challenges from growing income disparities, corruption, inadequate market access for local businesses, environmental degradation and moral decay from public indifference to private suffering.

As elsewhere, the responsibility of government is to ensure fulfilment of public welfare without neglecting private business needs. Whereas in the US critics of the government accuse Washington of adopting socialist policies, critics of Beijing accuse the government of abandoning them.

The world’s two largest economies are often compared to see how different they are, while neglecting how much they are similar and how exactly they actually differ. Economically they have become so interdependent within a single global system as to become mutually complementary.

By implication, they are also not as different politically as is so often presumed. While classical ideologists may persist, the reality is that the political business of government has largely become managing national economies competently in a single globalised world.

Kenichi Ohmae is wrong; countries are in no danger of being replaced by corporations in the present or the foreseeable future, no matter how much some corporate budgets dwarf some national incomes. Rather, countries will remain unitary entities, albeit essentially as political economies increasingly governed by national economic needs and supranational economic parameters.

A symptom of this is how economic ideo­logies have replaced political ideologies between the world’s leading major powers. The Washington Consensus of supposedly antagonistic public and private sectors is under serious challenge by the Beijing Consensus of a harmonious complementary relationship between state and industry.

The latter model in Asia originated in Japan, and was soon adopted by the Newly Industrialising Economies (NIEs) of Taiwan, Hong Kong, South Korea and Singapore. Now China is the main player of this game, with its size of play earning it the “Beijing Consensus” as the name of the game.

But some of it had already been seen before in Europe, particularly Germany. It had also been evident in the US itself, in a different time and under a different name.

All of which serves to confirm the unitary nature of the global economy, with time, circumstance and level of development being the real differentials.

BEHIND THE HEADLINES By BUNN NAGARA

Related post:

America's problem: Money politics seldom supports reforms

America's problem: Money politics seldom supports reforms

“Money politics” has become even more prominent in the U.S. presidential race this year.

In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court removed the limits on corporate donations to political campaigns and ruled that corporate donations are a protected form of free speech. As a result, this year’s congressional and presidential elections have become the most expensive in U.S. history, with billions of U.S. dollars spent already.

While rich people are throwing loads of money into the presidential election, ordinary Americans are worried about their own financial conditions.

Over the past 20 years, the income of middle-class Americans has been on the decline, and the income gap is becoming increasingly wide.

A poll has found that most Americans believe that too much money has been spent on the elections, and political contributions will only enhance rich people’s influence over the policy-making. No matter who is elected the U.S. president, he is bound to pay more attention to the needs of the rich than those of the poor.

Rich people are enjoying greater influence in politics, while the rights of ordinary voters are being damaged, which runs counter to the U.S. constitutional principle of “political equality.”

The economy is the decisive factor in this year’s presidential election, but the two candidates have mainly attacked each other, and failed to introduce specific plans for solving the country’s economic problems when it comes to debates on economic issues.

The weak U.S. economy is a result of both the global financial crisis that broke out a few years ago and the country’s own political problems. All Americans see on television is the ugly partisan strife and politicians’ lack of courage to carry out reforms.

The U.S. president needs great public support to lead the country out of crisis, and should figure out whether he rules simply for the sake of ruling or acts only after carefully considering the people’s immediate and long-term interests. Americans should remember that money politics seldom support reforms.

Read the Chinese version: “金钱政治”砸不出变革动力; 
Source: People's Daily; Author: Zhong Sheng

Newscribe : get free news in real time  

Will 11.11.11 be lucky for you? Do you have superpowers, politician?

Tweet

Will 11.11.11 be lucky for you?

Will 11.11.11 be lucky for you? It's finally 11.11.11 today! A date that had been widely speculated as being either auspicious or really unlucky. Numerologist Sanjay B Jumaani tells us why this date is such a huge deal, in his own words.

11.11.11 has already put people in a tizzy, from expectant mothers wanting to check if it's an auspicious day to deliver, to many couples wishing to tie the knot. And in fact, the sequence of numbers has also become popular for product or service launches, and other planned events - as the date is easy to remember. Even Hollywood is not far behind - with a film being made on it and even titled, "11/11/11". Closer home, director Imtiaz Ali and Ashtavinayak, the producers of the much awaited Ranbir Kapoor starrer, "Rockstar" have chosen the date, considering it auspicious.

We always discourage expectant mothers to 'choose' the delivery date urging them to leave it to Mother Nature, unless in specific complicated cases where it is compulsory to opt for a C-section. 11/11/11 as a date is particularly special because of the repetitions of No 1, but apart from that, each number or planet has its own beauty and charm, lending us both strengths and weakness. This date is governed by primarily number 2 (1+1=2) Moon, number 9, Mars (Scorpio Ruler) and number 8, Saturn (11+11+2011=8). Let's analyse this...

'It's a moon walk!: People born on the 2, 11, 20 and 29 in any month are termed as number 2 people, ruled by the Moon. Cancerians are also governed by Moon. In fact, the first time man set foot on the Moon, it was a date adding to number 2 (July 20), which was also during the Cancer period when Moon is in full flow. Moon, as one can see is a dreamy, romantic, gentle, but laid-back planet that lends gift of imagination, and creativity, hence, most number 2 people are very gifted and talented. Many songs in Bollywood have been inspired, and pictured on the Moon. Some of the great Bollywood actors of all times are ruled by number 2, such as Amitabh Bachchan - (October 11), Shah Rukh Khan - (November 2), Sanjay Dutt (July 29), Ajay Devgn (April 2).

Also number 2 Moon-ruled Cancerians to have made it big are Priyanka Chopra - (July 18) and Katrina (July 16).

So a person born on such a date would surely have some great talents, but the Moon also has a flip side - it can make a person restless, moody and lack continuity in plans. Moon as we know effects even the vast ocean. The high and low tides in the ocean are due to the phases of the Moon.

A study even revealed that lunatics are most affected during the full moon. Hence, it is also considered inauspicious to start something during such a period. During 11/11/11, the Moon will be on the decline, hence one must not attempt anything important, unless it cannot be helped. As per astrology, it is generally safe to venture out when the Moon is about to grow.

Why men are from Mars: Number 9, Mars - (Scorpio Ruler) is a fiery hot planet. Scorpions or those born on the 9, 18, 27 are hence, usually impulsive, accident prone, stubborn and inflexible.

However, one must not over do red as Mars is fiery, and can make one impulsive, rash. World over, the accident ratio of red cars is the highest amongst all colours. Most countries use red as a signal of warning or to symbolise 'stop' for road signals.

Meet the lord of judgement: 11+11+2011 = 8 which is Saturn (Shani) is known to be the strict Lord of Judgement. So, those born on 8, 17 and 26, along with Aquarians, Librans and Capricorns are influenced by number 8. Saturn may appear to many as harsh, but is actually 'just'. Look at the Libran symbol - the weighing scale - which means balance.

To sum it up 11/11/11, I would say, treat it just like a normal day of the year, and you may not have many problems. You should, however, refrain from using 11/11/11 as an auspicious date even if you may think it is so, because as they say - it can be lucky for some, but not for others. So, better not take a chance.

Newscribe : get free news in real time 

YB a mind reader?

One Man's Meat by PHILIP GOLINGAI

If you are not the Prime Minister or on whispering terms with him, don’t pretend you know when the election will be called.

"Just because you wear a T-shirt with a Superman logo, it does not mean you have superpowers"

EVEN at the eleventh hour, some Malay­sians were still speculating whether something big – other than the once-in-a-lifetime wedding date – would happen on 11.11.11.

Yesterday, my smartphone was bombarded with SMSes asking whether Parliament would be dissolved today.

The spread of such speculation can be blamed on politicians who think they can read the Prime Minister’s mind.

Since speculating on the election date has fevered Malaysians, let me list 11 things po-liticians – to borrow a DAP battle cry in the Sarawak polls – should ubah (change) about themselves.

1) If you are not the Prime Minister or on whispering terms with him, don’t pretend you know when the election will be called.

Yes, it is a powerful feeling to have people lean closer to listen to your theory that it is 11.11.11 because 11 is the PM’s favourite number. But such coffeeshop talk is not good for those planning a life in November.

2) Don’t be a jack-in-a-box politician. 

Just like a certain party president who appeared out of nowhere and was PhotoShopped cycling next to the Prime Minister, there are political unknowns who suddenly pop out like a jack-in-a-box.

On the day Parliament is dissolved, they declare themselves a candidate.

If you want to be a candidate, at least let your presence be felt. Perhaps tweet (ie on the Auditor-General’s Report) or lead a fiery protest against something (ie Elton John’s concert).

3) Don’t be a foul-mouthed politician.

Just because you wear a T-shirt with a Superman logo, it does not mean you have superpowers to abuse your rivals with expletives that will make even Kim Kardashian blush. Win over your voters with a cause.

4) Don’t pull a Carlos Tevez. 

Make sure that you don’t miscalculate and book your holiday on the day Parliament is dissolved. If not, you would end up holidaying in China while your comrades are campaigning.

They would accuse you of behaving like the Manchester City striker who was charged for refusing to play when told to do so by his coach.

Perhaps you should listen to more coffee shop talk on when Parliament will be dissolved.

5) Don’t be a yo-yo politician. 

Meaning: don’t be consistently inconsistent. Don’t say “yes” to hudud today and “no” tomorrow. Chameleons are great for the Animal Planet series but not for Parliament.

6) Stop being a drain-orientated politician.

If you are a politician of a certain status (ie an exco member), don’t proudly tweet that you are solving your constituents’ drainage problem.

Your state has bigger problems than a blocked drain. Leave that to your municipal councillors.

7) Be a frog prince. 

Don’t be a political frog who would jump party the moment you experience a political awakening while sleeping in Parliament.

Surprise your voters so that when they “kiss” ugly you, you turn out to be a frog prince as honourable as Nelson Mandela.

8) If you are not Nelson Mandela, don’t compare yourself to Nelson Mandela. 

There are politicians from both sides of the political spectrum who have shamelessly compared themselves to Mahatma Gandhi, Dalai Lama and Nelson Mandela.

Funny thing is that some of them are more Silvio Berlusconi than Mandela.

9) Quit if you are a has-been politician. 

There’s nothing more dangerous than a politician who is looking at the rear-view mirror of his political career.

A has-been politician might join a “trustworthy” non-governmental organisation and start accusing his party of things (ie corrupt practices) he was blind to when he was in power.

10) Don’t promise to build a bridge even when there’s no river.

That’s all. Oops, only 10 whereas I promised 11. Well, like a politician, I lied.

Malaysian Election Reform: a panel for free and fair polls

Tweet

A panel for free and fair polls

Comment by BARADAN KUPPUSAMY

 For the select committee on electoral reform to be successful, there is a need for all parties to put aside partisan politics and work for what matters most – the best interest of the rakyat.

PAKATAN Rakyat should give a chance for the Parliamentary Select Committee to be formed and do its job of investigating and suggesting changes to the country’s electoral system.

As it is, their MPs have issued numerous statements ranging from outright boycott of the select committee to agreeing to participate but on their own terms.

They want Pakatan leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim to head the panel, increase the number of Pakatan panel members from the current three or, alternatively, not to give independent MPs a place in the committee.

They also want the assurance that Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak will not call for a general election before a full, complete report of the panel is published and the recommendations implemented.
 
Najib has said the reforms could be divided into immediate reforms and long term ones; immediate reforms could be implemented before the next general election.

But he has rejected outright the idea of reform first and a general election later, saying the Government reserves the right to call for a general election at any time.
 
Pakatan Rakyat is due to make known its stand on the matter soon, according to PAS deputy president Mohamed Sabu.

While Pakatan Rakyat decides, Parliament is set to debate a motion on the formation of the select committee on Oct 3, which will also include its terms of reference and possibly the members of the committee.

A parliamentary select committee, as the name suggests, is a committee of the House and tasked to deliberate on matters of concern; in this case, on election and the electoral process and submit a report to Parliament and make recommendations which can lead to changes in the relevant laws.

Select committee members must be MPs and exercise all the powers of Parliament to make inquiries, inspect documents, call experts witnesses and go on road shows around the country for evidence gathering.



They must act in a non-partisan manner as Parliament is supposed to be – that is, to act in the best interest of the rakyat.

That is why a select committee is headed by a minister of the Government of the day which has a majority in the House.

It is the Government that decides that the election system needs reforming and carries out the task of forming the select committee.

It is inappropriate for Pakatan Rakyat to demand that it head the select committee because it is the Government’s right to reserve that position for itself.

This means Anwar cannot be head of the select committee but he can be a member of the panel, if he so chooses.

Besides, such a committee has no place for an NGO leader or a civilian because parliamentary convention allows only MPs to be members of the committee.

But they can be called as experts witnesses to aid the committee in carrying out its duties which, hopefully, is the manner in which Bersih leaders will be engaged.

The Government’s right of way also includes having a majority in the select committee but that majority should be proportionate to its membership in Parliament.

Giving Pakatan Rakyat parties three places in the committee is also fair when the Government only reserves for itself five places, which is quite proportionate to the respective representation of Parlia­ment.

The only issue that Pakatan Rakyat can raise is the allocation of one place to the nine independent MPs who act as a bloc in Parlia­ment.

The independents are not true independents but former PKR MPs who defected and now stand with the Government on any issue in Parliament.

Giving them a place seems unjustified but they, too, might have a cause to present.

The nearest thing we have had to a successful select committee, in recent times, was the 2004 select committee on the Penal Code and Criminal Procedure Code that was headed by Datuk Seri Radzi Sheikh Ahmad.

It heard expert witnesses and made numerous recommendations.

This eventually led to amendments to both codes in 2006 that helped to strengthen the fundamental liberties of arrested persons, among other changes.

This current committee will also see changes to the election rules and process if given a chance to be formed and conduct its work.

Therefore, it is incumbent on the Pakatan Rakyat MPs to set aside partisan politics and work together to ensure that the people get what want – a free and fair election.

Bersih rally awakening the young voters in Malaysian politics; Registration easy & simple

Tweet

Awakening the young voters

ANALYSIS By BARADAN KUPPUSAMY

Pakatan Rakyat is seeking to keep the rally’s momentum going, hoping that it can be sustained until an early general election is held. 

NOW that the Bersih 2.0 rally is over, what’s in store for the divided politics of the nation? It’s a question on the minds of many Malaysians.

The Bersih 2.0 rally was a success by some measure because Pakatan Rakyat supporters braved police restrictions, roadblocks and barbed wire to gather in the city centre calling on the Government to institute electoral reform.

Their eight-point demand included issues that the opposition had been campaigning on for many years, like a clean electoral roll, reforming postal voting and a minimum of 21 days for campaigning.

These are fundamentals of a basic election system in a democratic society and few citizens would find this objectionable.

Saturday’s rally, therefore, had an unprecedented impact on society at large and on the election system, comparable to the March 8 political tsunami.

While Saturday’s rally was smaller in size compared to Bersih’s first rally in November 2007, the effects were the same – the awakening of young people to political action to rally for a basic right in defiance of the police.

In 2007, Bersih had the run of the city with huge numbers converging on the Istana to deliver a memorandum to the King.

Anwar called the 2007 Bersih rally an unqualified success.

Three months later, a general election was called that saw a loose coalition, that later became Pakatan Rakyat, winning five state governments and denying Barisan Nasional a two-thirds majority.

This time, too, Anwar is expecting an early election, probably by the fourth quarter of this year to capitalise on the Bersih 2.0 momentum.

709 pictures of the BERSIH march. Malaysians unite!

https://picasaweb.google.com/104201905154669598873/Bersih2Rally090711?authkey=Gv1sRgCN2Bo8PKqdzNIQ#slideshow/5627287829029822

Voices from Malaysian: 

 Patrick Teoh

Teoh has come a very long way from his days as an announcer on the Rediffusion private radio station before establishing himself as one of the pioneers in mobile discos. In fact, till today people still associate Teoh with his voice though he is also into the arts and theatre.

Watch and listen his Video:


By PR’s reckoning, Bersih 2.0 was a major success and big enough to wipe out the series of by-election losses they suffered in recent months and the spate of defections from PKR to BN.

The internal turmoil caused by PKR’s direct elections that also saw many people disheartened with PKR has also been eclipsed.

PR sought to keep its Bersih 2.0 momentum going by organising a large rally in Penang, a PR state, on Monday that was well-attended.

It is hoping that the momentum would be sustained until an early general election is held.

It needs to step up its criticism of BN, organise more Bersih rallies in other states and perhaps take nationwide action to keep the momentum going.

For this reason alone, it is unlikely that Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak would call an election this year.

He has to put some distance between the Government and the effects of the Bersih 2.0 rally.

Another reason for Najib to delay the general election is the urban voters whose preference is still with the opposition. He has to come up with imaginative programmes to win over the urban voters whose concerns are very different from the rural electorate.

Najib is also due to meet the Pope next week and hopes to establish a diplomatic relationship with the Vatican. He hopes to consolidate the Christian vote, which accounts for about 9% of the 14 million voters.

On another point, Bersih 2.0 leaders like Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan tried hard to convince Malaysians that her organisation was an independent body and was acting independently.

It is, however, abundantly clear that Bersih 2.0 was an opposition affair from start to finish.

The police handling of the Bersih 2.0 rally is also under the spotlight. Although they were heavy-handed, there was a relative absence of violence except for one death of a PKR activist that was attributed to a heart condition.

The low level of violence as a whole also limited the electoral backlash against the Government.

Therefore, it is an opportune time to release all those arrested, including the six leaders of Parti Sosialis Malaysia who have been detained under the Emergency Ordinance for allegedly reviving communism.

The Bersih 2.0 rally did not come anywhere near those in Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen and Syria. But it will probably have an impact in the coming general election.

The rally proved its point that a large number of Malaysians can gather, despite police action, and march peacefully.

But Bersih 2.0 is unlikely to be a game changer in the way the first Bersih rally was.

Registration easy & simple

By SHAHANAAZ HABIB and RASHVINJEET S. BEDI sunday@thestar.com.my

PUTRAJAYA: Voter registration numbers have gone up significantly, thanks to efforts by political parties.
But some 40% of the new voters they have registered turned out to be ineligible.

“Some are dead, underage or already registered voters,” said Election Commission (EC) chairman Tan Sri Abdul Aziz Mohd Yusof.

“We verify with the National Registration Department (NRD) those who are genuine and get rid of the names of those who are not. This makes it tiring because we have to keep checking,” he told The Star.

Despite this, he said, political parties still registered the highest number, bringing in more half of the new eligible voters.

“Compared to universities and NGOs, the voters we get from political parties are a lot more,” he said.
For May alone, 52% of new eligible voters were registered by political parties.

Twenty per cent were registered through post offices and 13% by government departments.

The EC, meanwhile, roped in 10% of the new voters through its counters and outreach programme. Universities and NGOs helped to register 3% and 2% new voters respectively.

Abdul Aziz added that the EC had appointed political parties, NGOs and universities as assistant registrars to help register new voters, paying RM1 for every clean and confirmed new voter these organisations bring in.

“If they register 1,000 new voters and only 600 are genuine, we pay them RM600,” he said. Between 2008 and 2009, there were 10 million registered voters in the country and another 4.3 million eligible voters who were not registered.

This year, the total number of registered voters increased to 12 million and eligible unregistered voters dropped to 3.7 million.

“We have made registration easy and simple. You can go to the post office, youth bodies, universities, colleges, government departments, NGOs and political parties to register,” he added.

Abdul Aziz said the Malaysian EC was the only one in the world that appointed political parties to assist in registering new voters.

He pointed out that it made sense to rope in political parties. “We appoint an average of two assistant registrars for each state seat. And because they have an interest, they work very hard to register new voters.

“When we do the voter registration ourselves, the response is not very good. We go to events like TV3's Jom Heboh to register new voters but it is difficult for people to come forward.

“This has to do with attitude. People ask what benefit they get by registering as voters. Some people do not have the spirit. They ask what happens if they don't register and when they find out no action is taken, they leave it as it is. Only those who really love the country and would like to choose their own leaders would voluntarily go and register as voters.”

Abdul Aziz also advised the people to vote in their current place of residence as this was stipulated in the law. This would also resolve the issue of phantom voters, where voters allegedly stay in a different place from where they cast their vote.

He said people should not feel attachment to their hometown and balik kampung to cast their votes.
“If I stay in Shah Alam, I shouldn't go back to Penang or my hometown to vote,” he said.

He estimated that about 30% to 40% of Malaysians voted in a different place or state than where they lived.

“I have no power to force them to vote where they live. I can only explain and persuade them,” he added.