The right of reply

Enough is enough. People who proclaim to fight for freedom of expression and free media but censors other's legitimate reply based on their whims and fancy, must realise that on the internet, they cannot suppress peoples' legitimate right to reply and express contrarian views. This blog welcomes all views. ~ Ellese

Haris practising censorship


Haris has just published an article by singa terhormat complaining about our bloated civil servant. It supported it’s argument with civil service population ratio and painted we’re the worst country.

I did a google search and found that singa’s facts are wrong. He spun lies and falsehood and pointed that out to haris. I also pointed out despite the criticism of bn, PR stand is not to downsize the civil service ie they are okay with the current state.

I find it strange for the first time, haris practices censorship. Admittedly I was harsh on the author as to me he spread lies and falsehood. I applied the same disdain singa showed to the government in my write. For the purpose of record, I attach herewith my response for all to see. I’m reserving my judgement on haris still. He says he believes in freedom of expression totally. Let’s see whether he is sincere or another typical hypocrite.

Here is my comment. This is the article link…

“Why lah people like to mislead and lie. After the F grade article by singa published by haris I don’t believe any deduction or conclusion as well as the basis of arguments put forth.

True enough. After doing some simple google search memang some people are into spreading lies and falsehood.

Take for example our civil servants of 1.3 million. Ours includes the armies teachers police etc etc. But definition of civil service in other countries do not. The US for example expressly exclude the armies. The uk exlcludes the police armies and all those under NHS. An academic article trying to compare the civil servants said its fraught with difficulty coz of varying definition so it’s not an apple to apple comparison.

Ok tak pa. Perhaps we look at some country more similar to Malaysia. Why not look at Singapore, the epitome of efficiency. Our definition of public servant was derived from our constitution so Singapore may have more similarity. The numbers of Singapore civil servant numbers is not that easy to get. But there’s a study to transform Singapore civil servant in early 2000s. The paper showed Singapore as the most efficient civil service in the world. It has a workforce including teachers and armies like us totalling 114,000. Singapore population then was 3.2 million. What’s the ratio of the most efficient government of the world: about 3.6%.
Now what about now: the figure I got is 124k against a population of 3.8 mil. That’s a percentage of around 3.3%.
[please, when comparing population of Malaysia and Singapore, please don’t follow singapore funny method of including foreigners. We don’t anyway in our 28 mil population.]

So from the above you can surmise that an efficient public servant ratio is 3.3 to 3.6%. Then you realise all other numbers of 1% by singa doesn’t make sense. Tak kan indonesia more efficient than singapore. Singa allege 1% for indonesia. Then tak kan china more efficient than Singapore if we at 4 % are the worst. Then you realise if you include Chinese armies police etc are they not having a worse ratio than us.

Then you realise thats why people don’t compare ratio not because of different methodologies. But it doesn’t say much. If a country spends a lot in education and has a high number of teachers, why is this a bad bloated civil service compared which don’t spend much and has less teachers. That’s why I realise it’s difficult to get academic paper in comparing ratio of civil servant. It’s like kerja bodoh coz it can’t tell much without referencing the outcome.

So at 4.2%, if you compare with the most efficient of say 3.2 to 3.6%, of course were less efficient. But to give an impression like singa did was totally misleading and wrong. Just like his first article he does not have the capacity to question the basis/stats. Incomparable stats put together to give a wrong malicious impression.

I’m quite certain whatever singa writes now are a grade F quality. Wonder where he got his education from? :-). But seriously what’s worse we get so many gullible people believing in illogical falsehood including yours truly haris. All think with Abu this civil servant issue can be resolved. But the funny thing is PR has issued various statements that they won’t downsize our civil service. Go google pas (salehuddin) and pkr response in relation to tony phuas statement on civil service. Dah lupa ke?

May be Salahuddin is the most intelligent PR leader. He knows singa like argument above cannot be justified and thus proclaim PR won’t downsize the civil service. After that tony phua kept quite. May be tony phua also saw the follies of saying our government is bloated and thus now admit he was wrong earlier. Now why is haris and singa going against PR stand?”


8 thoughts on “Haris practising censorship

  1. Dear Sir,

    Monyet King had also pen an article about supposedly bloated Malaysian civil servant.

    Quite a nice read, his summary at the end of the article is scary!

    • Thank you. I had thought as much. Its a very good reference.

      People lie and propagate falsehood sesuka hati. Haris seems not only to be suppressing the truth, but allowed falsehood and lie to spread. I will persist on this.

  2. I now confirm that my second comment which state as a matter of fact and demand the ground for censorship was not published. Later comments by others were published.

  3. Hi Ellese,

    On this account of whether our civil service is bloated or otherwise, I have no alternatives but to disagree.

    I, like you, did put aside Haris Ibrahim much earlier. That was was purely due to the same ranting as you are crying for now. He uploaded one, denied another and uploaded the following. That would have given an unwelcoming thought to readers about me. I felt back stabbed and as usual blasted the daylights of him.

    Despite my outburst, I always knew why. It is called “Strategy”. Any writings that might derail the ultimate objective needs to be ……… And that was what Haris did to me.

    But being a person of ego, I just walked away and you could have done the same. Don’t tell me I didn’t tell you so. I did that much earlier.

    Coming back to our perceived bloated civil service, my approach would be much different than that of Singa Terhormat. Instead of claiming 4.2%, I would put the figure at 7%. Why and how I arrived at that figure?

    Consider the following;

    Apart from The Inland Revenue Department, all agencies under our civil service are there to mostly serve the Malay community. When non-malays are in need of educational assistance, the government will advise them to refer to MIC, MCA and so forth.

    When The non-malays are searching for business opportunities, again the government will coolly claim to have provided such availabilities through etnic based political parties and will advice them to to refer back to MIC, MCA and again so forth.

    Even in the instance of Medical services, non-malays will go crying to the respective race based political parties for assistance.

    So Ellese, whom does the civil service personal serve, if not the Malays.

    On that account, 1.3 million civil servants serve only 60 per cent of Malaysians. That is how I arrived at 7%.

    Time to change Ellese. Malaysia is such a wonderful country. I would not trade for another and I am sure you will feel likewise.

    Just look at our Judiciary, Corruption at Ministerial level ( read about BousteadGate lately ?) , Election Commision rendevous…………

    Come on Ellese, please love Malaysia more than other and you will come to your senses.

    • Thanks Azman.

      I’m unclear where you’re headed to. I think the exercise in comparing civil service size with other country is an exercise in futility. As pointed out by monyet king developed countries have higher ratio. The question is so what? It doesn’t say much.

      Main question is deliverability. I’ve written before that in order to cut down corruption, you improve the delivery. Less bureaucracy less corruption. That’s why pemudah is welcomed to me. Our passport process is chief example. No room to pay under the counter coz its efficient.

      So back to the civil service argument, I will disagree with you that they service only Malay. You go to hospitals, you go to passport counters, you go to jpj, you go to fire department, etc etc they serve non Malays as well. I think you’re making a sweeping statement without basis. I’ve dealt with the government and so did my other non malay colleagues and I tell you depa layan semua.

      Seriously I don’t see where you’re going.

      All I can agree is in government servants there are more Malays than non Malays. Other than that including your 7% does not appear to me to be supportable to develop any effective hypothesis to change the civil service.

    • On haris, thanks for the advice. I’m not done yet and will persist even though I’m alone and not supported. I know you’re pessimistic, but to me it’s imperative that they see contrarian views. They may dislike or hate me, but I need them to be critical rather than following blindly. thanks for the advice again n you can tell me I told you so banyak kali pun tak pa. My problem with haris is that he purposely delay publishing my rebuttals. A few are pending and he releases it when it suits him.

  4. Ellese,

    I don’t think Haris and me can get along, but we share the same ideal, ie Anything But BN.

    As such, it is imperative for me to set aside personal feelings for the interest of our country’s future. What Haris does is very simple, garner support for an alternative government, for the one we have today has mortgage all values needed of leaders.

    The rakyat like me can’t digest anymore. Day in day out, unanswered scandals boil out. No acceptable and belieaveble replies are forthcoming.

    I am not ashamed to claim that I used to be an hardcore BN guy. No friends of mine could rebuke me or even win a nasi lemak stall debate.

    But today I am a turncoat ! And I am glad I became one. Better late than never.

    Come with us Ellese. Talk to us. Walk with us. And than you will understand why and what the country has been missing.

    I am damn bloody sure that if a foreign troops were to land on our shores, you would be one of the first to volunteer to fight along with our army in getting rid of them, and probably even sacrificing your life. That is how much I believe you love this nation of ours.

    But right now, all we are asking is to save this land called Persekutuan Tanah Melayu from vultures.

    We need to leave behind something for children as well Ellese.

    • Thank you Azman. I don’t necessarily agree with you.

      I see both BN and PR as the same. They have similar systemic problems. I don’t agree that PR will bring better future to Malaysia.

      I think pr has moved in a wrong way. The approach of hate politics without more in my mind will be deleterious to our nation. When Pak lah was overwhelmingly supported because people think he is of repute and because people hate Mahathir, I told people that this is wrong and the basis of supporting our leaders are flawed.

      Similarly here. Pr is only defined as a rejection of UMNO and not of what it stands. Pr must do much more than practising politics of hatred. Tell us what they want to do. Articulate stands and issues. Then show us the action to support it. But there’s been too many issues from lynas, to pengerang, to deficit budget to toll highway takeover to selangor water etc etc that shows they’re merely interested in politics to the detriment of rakyat. They have been playing on hate game to deceive the real issue. I can’t accept this.

      I cannot thus accept your proposition that because one is flawed you must accept the other. Everyone has strength and weaknesses. However you dislike UMNO and bn, they have delivered us over the years the most important criteria of modern leadership: the ability to improve our quality of life. (We can argue this objectively with stats). There are many many flaws in bn but pr has not convinced many with their incoherent or rather absent policies. Our nation and children’s stake is at hand and we must exercise wisdom in this non perfect world.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s