Najib to Sibu voters: Let's make a deal

Gambling: A Tragedy for the Nation

 

Gambling is a vice.  Period.

Nobody will disagree with the statement.  Every religion forbids it.  Even the atheists and the agnostics say it is what it is: a sin.

Gambling serves no other purpose than it recognises the sole virtue of Robin Hood, but in a much more sinister manner.  It transfers wealth from one party to another with zero net sum.

Gambling does not help the economy of a nation, for the very reason stated above:  it is a zero-sum game.  It robs one, often the poor,  in order order to enrich another, often the richer.  It does not stimulate the economy, does not bring new investments from abroad, much as it gets a significant portion of the society so tremendously excited.

 In fact, the economy may contract due to gambling, as resources supposed to be directed to the productive sector are sapped into financing the insatiable desire to dream wild dreams. Indeed gambling encourages the citizens of a nation to dream.  Dream to become instantly rich.  In the rare event that one becomes rich through gambling, the wealth would undoubtedly be unsustainable.  Vain, utterly vain dreams.

Gambling is an act of oppression.  That it exploits probability theory leads to robbing the poor, for they have restricted funds, so are restricted in their bettings, to pay the rich, for the latter can afford the bigger bets.

Furthermore, the operator of a gambling regime gets to dictate all the terms.  As in insurance, the operator never incurs loss, subsequently always retains the right to laugh his way to the bank.  In contrast to insurers, the gambling masters never incur risk; they manipulate risks directed to the clients.

It is the masses who stand to lose.  It is the hard-earned money of the masses that gets accummulated into huge sums from which are disbursed prizes, with yet much more reserved as the operator's own coffer.  The government then hopes to dig into this reserve to secure its share, in the name of 'sin tax'.  Shame on both.

Further darkening the whole thing, out of the masses, it is the wretched poor, unable to better their lives through any other means, who succumb to gambling.  'Maybe, just maybe, it is my luck today ...' one of them is bound to say.

That's the tragedy.

Family breaks down - when much-needed and so-scarce funds are being diverted to gambling - to serve the dreaming instinct of man.  Crime rate is bound to rise, as the same people feel they never seem to win, as they may want to vent their anger, or seek to self-compensate for losses.

What a road to take - leading to tragedies and horrors and crimes ...  One never can fathom the will of this government in leading the nation - down the sadistic path.

Politics 101: 'First Past the Post' Electoral System

‘First past the post’ describes the Malaysian electoral system. In each constituency, the candidate with the most number of votes in an election wins a seat in the Parliament, or the legislative assembly in a state election. The leader of the party which wins the highest number or seats, rather than the party with the highest percentage of the overall vote, is asked to form the government.

How is this possible?  The following situation explains the arithmetics.

Consider a nation in which there are only 3 constituencies, P1, P2, P3, where two political parties, A and B, are contesting.  Supppose further that each constituency has 10 voters who always come out to vote in earnest.


In the ensuing election, Party A gets 6 votes each in P1 and P2, but gets no vote whatsoever in P3.  On the other hand, Party B secures 4 votes each in P1 and P2, as well as sweeps all the 10 votes in P3. 

Altogether Party A gets only 12 votes, or 40%, whereas Party B gets 18 votes, or 60%, leading to Party B getting an overall majority of 6 votes, or 20%.


In the system, Party A is declared the winner in the election since it secures the most number of votes in each of two (out of three) constituencies, so that it secures 2 seats in a parliament of three, two-third majority at that!


Although Party A does not enjoy the overall majority, it nevertheless wins, while Party B with the overall majority still loses.


It is not hard to invent a scenario in which a party has an even bigger overall majority but still loses.  Imagine the same situation in which everything remains unchanged except that constituency P3 has 100 votes and Party B secures all.  Now Party B still loses although it garners 108 votes against 12 votes which Party B gets.  The situation, albeit a bit exaggerated, and hence improbable, is nevertheless always a possibility, as Sherlock Holmes would surely agree.

As Walter Cronkite used to say in signing off his news program, that’s the way it is.

Parlimen Tergantung di UK

Setelah hampir semua 650 kerusi diisytiharkan, Parti Konservatif memperolehi 306 kerusi, Parti Buruh 258, manakala Parti Liberal Demokrat mendapat 57 kerusi. (Satu kerusi yang belum diisytiharkan melibatkan seorang calon meninggal dunia dan tarikh mengundi pada 27 Mei. )  Pilihanraya itu menghasilkan parlimen tergantung.  Kali terakhir keadaan seperti itu berlaku di UK ialah tahun 1974.


Untuk memperolehi majoriti mutlak sesebuah parti perlu menang 326 kerusi, iaitu 1 lebih daripada seperdua jumlah 650 kerusi.  Walaupun Konservatif mendapat kerusi terbanyak, namun ia gagal mendapatkan majoriti mutlak.  Oleh kerana Parti Buruh yang sedang memerintah tidak mengaku kalah, ia akan diberi peluang untuk menubuhkan kerajaan melalui gabungan dengan parti-parti kecil. Jika digabung dengan  Lib Dem, Buruh masih kekurangan 11 kerusi untuk mencapai majoriti. Oleh itu Buruh perlu mendapatkan sokongan parti-parti kecil yang lain. Keadaan tidak kelihatan selesa bagi Buruh kerana taburan kerusi yang lain adalah seperti berikut:  Scottish National Party 6, Plaid Cymru 3, parti-parti kecil yang lain 19.
,.
Sekiranya Buruh gagal untuk membentuk kerajaan atau undi tidak percaya dibawa di Parlimen, maka Parti Konservatif boleh mengambil alih dengan satu daripada dua cara.


Cara pertama ialah bergabung dengan parti lain untuk menerbitkan majoriti mutlak.  Parti Konservatif ada beberapa pilihan.  Yang paling menarik ialah menawarkan kepada Lib Dem yang mempunyai 57 kerusi untuk bergabung supaya jumlah kerusi ialah 362, iaitu dengan majoriti yang cukup selesa.  Oleh kerana Lib Dem lemah berbanding Konservatif, maka Konservatif mempunyai kelebihan dari segi pembuatan keputusan dalam kerajaan campuran yang bakal dibentuk.  Pemimpin Konservatif David Cameron telah pun membuat tawaran itu kepada Lib Dem.


Cara kedua ialah dengan Parti Konservatif membentuk kerajaan minoriti; ia boleh memerintah kerana telah memperolehi kerusi terbanyak antara parti-parti yang ada.  Namun begitu, kesukaran mungkin dihadapi di Parlimen dalam meluluskan rang undang-undang.


Satucara lain ialah mengadakan pilihanraya baru - jika kemelut politik berpanjangan dan tidak dapat diselesaikan.


Tunggu dan lihat ,,,

Apa yang sedang berlaku di Britain?

Mungkin kesibukan kita - rakyat Malaysia - dengan isu tanah air, seperti PRK Hulu Selangor, remaja tertembak mati oleh Polis, dan kes Blok L dan M yang diserah ke Brunei, mengeringkan stamina kita untuk melihat melampaui ufuk bumi Malaysia.  Namun, di luar sana banyak peristiwa sedang berlaku yang boleh dijadikan pengajaran untuk kita semua.  Sejarah sedang dicipta, sebelum ini di Amerika Syarikat, dengan pemilihan warga kulit berwarna sebagai Presiden, dan kini di Britain ...
1.  Sebagai bekas tanah jajah Britain, Malaysia dan Britain ada kesamaannya.
2.  Sistem politik Malaysia diubahsuai daripada sistem Westminster Britain semasa Tanah Melayu mencapai kemerdekaan, tetapi kesamaannya berakhir di situ.
3.  Walaupun sistem pilihanrayanya sama seperti Malaysia, iaitu sistem 'first-past-the-post'  (bukan 'proportional reperesentation' seperti yang diamalkan di Indonesia), Britain berjaya mengamalkan sistem dua-parti, seperti juga AS.
4.  Dengan wujudnya dua parti yang hampir sama kuat, proses 'checks-and-balances' berlaku.  Parti yang sedang memerintah sentiasa diawasi dalam tindak tanduknya oleh parti pembangkang.  'Question Time', dengan Perdana Menterinya diserang bertalu-talu, di House of Commons menjadi tontonan rakyat Britain.
5.  Di Malaysia, parti kedua yang kuat, tidak ada.  Walaupun Pakatan Rakyat cuba diwujudkan sebagai parti alternatif kepada BN sejak Mac 2008, namun ia belum cukup kuat dan sentiasa tergugat dari segi kewujudannya.
6.  Yang jelas sebelum 2008 Malaysia mengamalkan sistem satu-parti.  Kemunculan parti yang kuat 'diuruskan' dengan penelanannya ke dalam BN yang perkasa itu, seperti yang disaksikan besar-besaran pasca PRU 1969.
7.  Di Britain, sistem dua-parti hidup dengan subur sekali, dengan Parti Buruh dan Konservatif menerajui kerajaan silih berganti.
8.  Walaupun wujud parti ketiga, iaitu Liberal, di Britain, ia tidak pernah dilihat sebagai menggugat status quo, malah ia dianggap persis parti nyamuk.
9.  Kini semuanya kelihatan akan berubah.  Yang menjadi pencetus kepada perubahan itu ialah siri debat television tiga pemimpin parti, PM Gordon Brown, 59 tahun, (Buruh), David Cameron 43 (Konservatif), dan Nick Clegg 43 (Liberal), yang diadakan menjelang pilihanraya umum pada 6 Mei 2010.
10. Prestasi Clegg sungguh menyinar, melebihi Cameron yang tidak kurang karismanya, dan mengalahkan Brown yang tercalar kewibawaannya dengan ungkapan 'bigoted' terhadap seorang wanita Buruh (di hadapan mikrofon yang belum ditutup tanpa disedarinya). 
11. Bila tiba 6 Mei, kita mungkin menyaksikan penghuni baru di 10 Downing Street, atau setidak-tidaknya Parti Liberal meragut kerusi yang banyak, sekaligus mentransformasikan politik Britain kepada sistem 3-parti.
12. Apa yang ditakuti ialah pilihanraya 6 Mei bakal melahirkan parlimen tergantung.