FAQ (Fucking Answer these Questions)

Some time ago, some shit American band passing off noise as music released an album titled American Idiot. Leaving aside the fact that the band sucked ass (and still does), the title bears relevance to the following rant. The faggots were referring to narrow-minded Americans who were following the government line with regards to the `war on terror' and the supposed need to invade Iraq. Their main point of contention was that these Americans were allowing their government to do their thinking for them, by believing in everything that the government was saying, without bothering to dig deeper into the issue.

"But why is this wrong? Citizens of democratic countries vote to put their governments in power! Isn't the government executing the will of the people, then?"

The answer, however, is a definite no. Regardless of the democratic ideal, governments rarely do anything for the benefit of the people, nor the country. Governments are not one-man shows by the president or prime minister, they too are bound by those who put them in power.

`Those who put them in power'. Many expect that this would mean the citizens who voted for them. The answer however, is `the political party to which they belong'. The head honcho did not get there alone, nor can he run the country alone. He needs his party, hence the party controls him. And when you control the leader of a country - you rule the country.

The government does not work for the people. It works for the party who controls the government. Some would say that the best government is one who does this without letting its citizens on. What this leads to is that if you stop thinking for yourself and let your government think for you, it is tantamount to dictatorship.

Let's look at this country, Malaysia, of which I too, am a citizen. My questions for the rest of you are:
1. What does Merdeka mean to you?
2. What is the purpose of the government's 5-year Economic Plans?
3. Why do we have racial quotas and affirmative action?
4. Why do we have racial violence?
5. Despite the government's best efforts, why are so many of the citizens still entrenched in poverty (currently made worse by the increasing fuel prices)?
6. Where does all the money from the economy go?
7. Why isn't it being put to use resolving the the economic divide and improving education?

I was asked these questions in secondary school, and answered the following:
1. The day Malaysia got its independence from British overlords.
2. To improve the economic situation of the Malays.
3. Because it reflects the racial composition of the country and hence is a fair application to university applications and the economy, among others.
4. Because the races do not understand each other well enough, and the economic situation does not reflect the racial demographics.
5. Because currency speculation, foreign assholes, etc. ruin our economy, making everyone poorer. The government also has not enough money to tackle the problem efficiently.
6 and 7. "Good question."

Note that I was fresh out of secondary school. The realization comes sooner for many people, unfortunately it never comes for many as well. I was quoting exactly what was implied in the texts, what the textbooks wanted me to say, what I was expected to say. Simply put: I was half-brainwashed. How many others have not broken out out of this education-imposed shell and started thinking for themselves?

As for me, I started pondering my answers and eventually revised them:
1. It means nothing to me as long as we are still defined and classified by races. As long as we cannot call ourselves `Malaysian' instead of being either Malay, Chinese or Indian, Merdeka means nothing, because we are still as divided as we ever were under the white man. This was the reason why I began to put `Malaysian' as my race whenever I filled out applications, blacking out the Malay/Chinese/Indian options.
2. To improve the economic situation of the POOR, regardless of race. Why we equate poor to Malay, blame the subtle twisting texts.
3. There is no reason to have them, if we can solve the goddamn economic problem first.
4. Ditto.
5,6 and 7. The money goes into useless megaprojects and into the coffers of the rich and corrupt. Amazing how a government can spend millions building two long phallic towers connected by a mid-air bridge, only for it to be used as office space, while so many of its population struggle under the yoke of poverty. One may suggest that they're overcompensating for something else.

Why isn't it being used to resolve the economic gap and improve education? One hypothesis put forward is as follows: Poor people produce angry people looking for someone to blame. Angry people vote for the government which promises economic reform. Government plays them off someone else by claiming the economic situation is not their fault. Introduces quotas and benefits. Who's going to vote out a government who gives them benefits? Answer to the second part: Educated people ask questions. If the questions are not those that you want them to ask, to the government, it's not worth giving them education.

Education is not what the government gives you, it comes from the conclusions, questions, and opinions that you construct yourself after you've read the textbooks.

I'll leave you all with the final question.

8. Why aren't you asking these questions too?