ALTRAV- I enjoyed your perspective and always enjoy your stories. I remember you saying that you had an engineering background from memory. Mostly I agreed with where you are coming from and relate to your apparent frustration. Though I often have a subtle view. Not that my validation is a requirement.

Just as some companies need to "be allowed to fail" so do some cultures need to "be allowed to fail". From some perspectives culture is similar to a company with perhaps broader goals.

Belly said- "Thread has been used to promote the usual bigotry".

Not that I'm necessarily concerned with being labelled a bigot- but bigoted is used as a pejorative- but I'm not sure where in the thread anyone has been bigoted. Maybe Belly has detected some subtle form of "DOG WHISTLING"- the left say THE RIGHT IS PARANOID- I'd say everyone in politics is paranoid- I guess the left consider themselves an "absolute good"- so pejoratives just slide straight off- "teflon communists".

Not that Belly always sides with the left- he does make some interesting comments about rugby management

Those that are advantaged by equality legislation are given a reason
to slack off and have their incentives removed.
So as Altrav showed the Malays with their advantage took advantage.

Diversity of ideology is about the only diversity the abc does not champion. They promote diversity of sexual perversion, colour, culture sex as long as its part of Marxist group think.

ALTRAV, Baz-

Hopefully I am able to make a complex topic simple here...

Most business people would say that Malaysia's lazy unproductive Malay's are "bad" compared with the productively "good" Chinese and Indian's. Business people prefer relatively productive people as they maximise productivity and profit.

My understanding is that Malay's are the original inhabitants of Malaysia and the Chinese and Indian's are the imports.

The Malay's perhaps see their cultures heritage "Their Land" being taken from them by the Chinese and the Indian's. Their laziness on the job is a form of tax or rent against "the imports" use of their land. Also perhaps they don't care for the lifestyle of a so called "advanced system".

The Chinese, the Indian's, and the Business people have invested in Malaysia to make a return.

The Government has allowed Chinese, Indian's, Business People into Malaysia for purposes of their own to develop their own power and wealth.

The Government, Chinese, Indians, Business people may argue that without their productivity the Malays would decay and die.

The thing is productivity can always be higher- if people are chained to the wheel then there is no limit. So what is the balance? (Roman Shock Troops) Democracy is a far from perfect solution- and perhaps "Open Borders Democracy" is even worse because it nullifies the power of the people for vested interest.

If a group has a higher vested interest in a project do they have more rights? Does it depend on the relative size of the group? Does it depend on the relative expertise of the group?

Democracy says that the above arguments can be used to convince the population that certain laws are valid, but it is the mandate (loosely the vote) that decides the law.

Few things are absolutely good or bad, especially from all points of view. But still decisiveness is often critical. Libertarian's sometimes appeal to the idea that business people should be able to do what they want and the population can vote with their wallets. What if those wallets are outside of the country- does that mean that it's ok to be influenced by foreign powers.

______

I try to understand the situation in Malaysia because it is here in Australia too.

The SAS can kill a hundred men but does that mean the 10 have greater rights than the 100. Should the productive have greater rights to land (the English Kings of the 1500's seemed to think so when they imported tradespeople and Landed Gentry).

Most Governments take a bet each way on the Open Borders policy- some would call closed borders racist- so maybe they are partially racist. The US says that a government should be "of the people" but how does this work when the makeup of the people changes- different groups have different vested interests. Should we be aiming for stability or some other value.

I believe there is such a thing as cultural ownership of the land. Cultures are autonomous units with their own governing structures, their own land, their own values- their own borders. There are those who would say I am evil because of these beliefs- to me it's a difference of philosophy.

Overall I dislike lazy people but as long as it doesn't interfere with me I'm happy to accept that they can do what they like. Just don't come begging me for money.