Mustapha Ong's view is typical of those who benefited from the present government and wish that the status quo will continue indefinitely. We are not supposed to question the system as doing so will rock the boat and there will be anarchy.

We have just celebrated the 46th Merdeka Day and as far as the political system is concerned, it is still immature. We have form rather than substance. Concerts were held against the backdrop of our world famous twin towers and the monorail launched to prove to the world how developed we are. Yet, we are told to support the present government to have continued stability.

We should in fact be aiming for smooth transition between change of governments, should the time be ripe, instead of instilling this outdated idea that anarchy will follow. If we think about it, only a sore loser will resort to anarchy to force the situation back into his control. It would be illogical for the winner to cause trouble.

To achieve developed country status, we should aim for a level playing field where the best person or party wins. We should vote for a corruption-free government which is transparent and accountable.

Just days ago, the Perlis Menteri Besar said that nothing has been done in the three PAS constituencies. Only in Malaysia, we have this 'winner takes all' concept whereby only BN representatives are given development funds to dish out, while that allocated for opposition-led constituencies are administered by district officers (DO).

This gives the impression that nothing is done by the opposition and everything is done by the ruling party. It can also serve as punishment for voting for the opposition!

In Batu Gajah, I was told the DAP MP tried to claim a few thousand ringgit without success. Bearing in mind a parliamentary constituency is entitled to RM500,000 in development funds, the DO had a field day spending the money, with the credit going to BN!

Opposition MPs are not allowed in schools yet BN representatives are allowed on prize-giving days to pledge money. Is this progress in political development?

Then we have the Universities and University Colleges Act which stifles all activity and critical thought of tertiary students. Isn't this a step backward? Instead of encouraging leadership development, we seem to prefer compliance.

I know of a student who was short of a few marks to meet a UK university's conditional offer. In rejecting her, she was told that her low marks in Sociology and Economics showed her lacking in essay-writing ability and that she would have trouble even in passing the first year. In her appeal, she attached an article she wrote for a local website, criticising the UUCA in a light-hearted way.

Upon receipt of her appeal with the attachment, the admissions officer gave an unconditional offer, saying that "I enjoyed reading your article enormously and believe that it illustrated both your commitment and ability to studying politics. I am now confident that you will be able to complete the degree."

This basically shows the difference between a developed nation and one which intends to achieve developed nation status by having tallest buildings and compliant people.