YOURSAY | 'Implementing even half of its manifesto would be 10 times better than BN.'
Good Governance: Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Abdul Rahman Dahlan once again fails to understand the people's grouses. I don't believe Pakatan Harapan needs to come out with brand new ideas to be competitive, they just need to ensure the implementation of their existing ideas.
The current BN government may not lack of ideas, but when they start off with self-enriching ideas, any implementation is doomed to fail (and a waste money).
So while Harapan's manifesto is not perfect for everyone, I strongly believe by implementing even half of it, Harapan would be 10 times better than the present BN government.
Newday: Rahman Dahlan - even though I haven't had a detailed look at Harapan's manifesto, from the surface it appears to be reasonably well-thought-out and potentially achievable.
You ask how they will find the necessary RM20 billion to replace the income lost if they remove GST? Anyone would think Malaysia has had GST forever, going by your statement, when all it has been is two years.
In that time, we have learnt of massive leakages and wastage from just about every government department, to be topped off by the alleged blatant thievery from 1MDB.
I am no auditor, but my amateur computations from the auditor-general's annual reports and 1MDB indicate that with honest, open, diligent and properly audited systems in government, that RM20 billion should not be an issue to find.
So, out with the quite frankly, really stinky, self-enriching BN, and in with the honest, open and upstanding Harapan. I just hope I would not have to eat my words with Harapan.
Hplooi: Is maintaining a broad-based Goods and Services Tax (GST) a viable option?
Is maintaining silence on the 1MDB heist a viable option? Is maintaining silence on allegedly stolen funds (from 1MDB) now being seized/confiscated by foreign governments a viable option?
Is allowing further diversion of public funds and assets to make up for public funds lost a viable option? Is maintaining the approved permits system (a political-feudal reward system for Umno cronies) a viable option?
Is maintaining a racist apartheid system (e.g. in the educational institutions, armed forces, civil service etc.) a viable option?
Is maintaining the Biro Tatanegara's (BTN) dissemination of racist brainwashing (instead of true nation-building) a viable option? Is constant 'bashing' and demonising of opposition figures a viable option?
Is pushing stupid comments and proposals to citizens a viable option? Is Rahman Dahlan a viable option?
Clever Voter: Rahman is not expected to say positive things about the opposition's manifesto. But the real test is in the details.
BN cannot do any better. Indebtedness, a polarised society, corruption, high costs of living and inefficiency, just to name a few.
Malaysia was once a promising nation, but it was crippled by poor leadership, and a corrupt patronage system. Harapan is worth a try. After all, they cannot be any worse.
Anonymous_1419577444: Someone just wet his pants and has started rambling. But it's perfectly understandable, because Harapan's 100-over page manifesto contain all the things that a responsible federal government should have done.
Vote BN Out: MCA leader Ti Lian Ker, Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng is not so stupid as to be distracted by your party's red herring issue to distract the public away from the real issues, which you have so cowardly chose to remain mute all this while.
You all only stand to earn the Chinese community's disgust, disdain and distrust.
Hplooi: It would be a waste of time 'debating' the MCA and Gerakan clowns. Ti is right, it is not only about tunnel vision:
1. Big-time corruption – the 1MDB scandal, the yacht the Indonesians have seized, the RM400 million the Swiss have seized, a CID chief stuffing cash into his Australian bank account.
2) The gerrymandering and rigging of the electoral system.
3) The further empowering the religious right in the executive arm.
Why are you so insistently pushing only one issue? Remember the last debate with then MCA president Chua Soi Lek? We had a clearly biased moderator, and the crass venality of MCA represented by people like 'Ms Tow Truck'.
Ti and your 'Make-Chinese-Angry' party cannot even get minister Abdul Nazri Aziz to apologise in your good-cop, bad-cop routine.
Vgeorgemy: As the chairperson of the MCA religious harmony bureau, we didn’t expect Ti Lian Ker to accept a false argument of solving alleged corrupt practices through a debate with MCA. It is disgusting and immoral to even agree to such a sandiwara.
What we need is an independent institution to investigate the allegedly fraudulent and the purported malpractices. Under BN, we have not been provided with an independent institution to undertake such a service.
This, though, doesn't mean that the DAP administration is guilty as charged as accused by MCA.
Anonymous_143e8148: MCA is using the Penang tunnel project to divert attention from the scandals of 1MDB, Mara, Felda Global Venture, etc.
If billionaire Robert Kuok had known MCA would descend to be lapdogs of Umno and a betrayer of the Chinese community, maybe he would not have bailed out then president Tan Koon Swan in the 80s with RM20 million.
Prudent: Lim should just ignore Ti. If corruption in the tunnel project is as bad as he alleges, the MACC's head would have had Lim's head long ago.
But so far, investigations have only flushed out another Umno figure and the MACC is doing nothing about it.
Anonymous 273021436761739: It would be fair if you can include 1MDB in the debate as well. You are quiet on 1MDB, but are making tons of noise on this tunnel issue.
The above is a selection of comments posted by Malaysiakini subscribers. Only paying subscribers can post comments. Over the past one year, Malaysiakinians have posted over 100,000 comments. Join the Malaysiakini community and help set the news agenda. Subscribe now.
These comments are compiled to reflect the views of Malaysiakini subscribers on matters of public interest. Malaysiakini does not intend to represent these views as fact.