WHAT YOU KNOW OR WHO YOU KNOW

As posted by Dr. Mahathir Mohamad at Che Det on March 24, 2010 2:08 PM

1. We hear a lot about how in Malaysia it is who you know rather than what you know that wins you contracts from the Government.

2. I must admit there is some truth in this. One has to know the background of the bidder before deciding to give the award. If awards are made entirely on the basis of the offer, mistakes can be made also. This is because the bidder can get professionals and others to make "cannot be refused" offer which in the end would prove impossible to carry out.

3. It is true that those tasked with evaluating bids would tend to favour known performers rather than totally unknown strangers. The more they know about the bidders the more would their decisions be influenced. It is indeed "whom" you know and not "what" you know.

4. Decision-makers cannot avoid being lobbied directly or indirectly. In any case no matter who succeeds, there will be unhappiness on the part of the others who fail. And of course the accusation would be made that they fail because they did not know the right people. However if they have a chance to pull strings and influence decision makers they would not hesitate to do so. That they don't like it when others get does not mean they won't like it if they get. As for the critical observers, given the opportunity they would do it too. That is why contracts given by a previous Government would be nullified by an opposition Government so the contractors they know would benefit.

5. People should know that in the private sector "whom you know" is even more decisive than in the Government sector. If we look at the private construction industry which is bigger than in the Government sector, if you don't know the right people you will not get a contract not even a small supply contract. To succeed in the private sector you must not only know what but most certainly you must know whom.

6.I have been asked by foreign gentlemen why is this so common in Malaysia and other developing countries. Isn't this wrong? Shouldn't the best bid win? Whom you know should not influence decisions.

7. Today I am amused by a news report about Ex-Labour Ministers in the United Kingdom being suspended because they offered lobbying service for cash. They can offer this because they know whom to lobby. "Byers, a former Transport Minister, boasted to the undercover journalist he had made a secret deal with Transport Secretary Andrew Adonis over the termination of a rail franchise contract." Everyone denied of course.

8. But in America, the greatest democracy in the history of mankind, Congressional and Senate lobbyists actually set up lobbying firms. Most of the firms' owners had been holding high positions in the previous Governments and they know the staff and the members of the current Government well.

9. They openly offer lobbying service for a fee. If you don't have the money, that is too bad. The moneyed ones can actually cause motions to be put before the congress which could be passed. In fact Government policies in America have been shaped by the rich in Wall Street. I will not say more.

10. Seems like those who take the moral high ground and criticise influence peddling in Malaysia and other developing countries should have a good look at themselves. Pots should not sneer at the blackness of the kettle.

DEMOCRACY

As posted by Dr. Mahathir Mohamad at Che Det on March 21, 2010 5:00 PM

1. Many people think that as soon as you accept democracy, then you will be practising democracy.

2. Unfortunately mere acceptance is not enough. It is not enough because everyone, from the top most person to the ordinary people, be they from a political party or of a nation, can find ways to abuse and frustrate the true democratic process. As a result we see democracies failing to work in most organisations or political parties and in many nations.

3. Basically democracy is about giving power to the majority. It is assumed that the majority knows what is best for the whole. The minority should therefore be prepared to accept the rule of the majority albeit after presenting opposing views and criticisms. The minority must be prepared to wait for the next election in order to make another bid.

4. In a mature democracy almost everyone respects the results of national elections. The majority forms the Government and the minority take their places in the legislature and try their best to influence policies and laws introduced by the majority Government. And so for the four or five years before the next elections, the legislature debates, approves or disapproves the proposals by the Government. But the minority and even the individual legislator may also move proposals or laws although in most instances they will not get through for lack of majority support. Playing their parts, both the majorty and the minority would contribute to the proper workings of a democratic Government.

5. Political parties love democracy as it seems to be fair to everyone. Anyone can bid for any place in the party, including the top most. That is the theory at least.

6. But the reality is that only certain people could aspire to lead because of the support of a substantial number of the members.

7. Ideally in a contest the one with the biggest number of supporters should win. Ideally as with Government the loser and his supporters should accept the decision of the majority.

8. Unfortunately the loser or losers may not want to accept the results. This can ultimately lead to the party being split and weakened.

9. The process may have been very democratic but the objective of choosing a leader by majority vote has not been achieved. The losers must also remember that when they win they same can happen to them. In other words a deocratic contest can only lead to the break-up of the party (I am speaking from experience).

10. I would like to cheer on the candidates who are contesting for any post anywhere through the democratic process. Obviously only one would win. If those who lose cannot accept the decision of the majority of the members, then it is better not to talk about democracy. You really do not know what democracy is about. *

* Of course I am assuming the contest is fair.