Since I started to get more active in politics, many people around me start asking me many questions and one of the most interesting one is this: "isn't it too risky to vote for Pakatan Rakyat (PR) to Putrajaya?"
Why is it interesting? Because risk, unlike what everyone perceives, is not an adjective to trained engineers like me. When it comes to risk, we want to know how much risk? When it comes to making a decision that associated with risk, we want to know which option offers a lower risk. There is one exercise, like it or not, that engineers always have to do before running any operation called Risk Assessment Analysis. In this assessment, we define and quantify risk.
Risk = severity of a particular hazard x likelihood of this happen
Hazard is anything that will bring harm to the stakeholders, either the people or the environment.
The basic assumption of the proposition that says that it's too risky to vote for PR is that it's less risky to vote for BN. Let's now compare the risk between the 2 options.
For example, corruption is the hazard to the country and will severely damage our country economy. Since the severity of the hazard (corruption) is the same regardless of who is committing it, we can only compare the likelihood that corruption will happen in BN and PR. Looking at the track record, the answer is clear, politicians in BN are more likely to be involved in dodgy dealings than that of PR, therefore in term of risk arising from corruption, it's riskier voting for BN than PR.
The same goes to the risk arising from the hazard of mismanagement/inefficiency. Some people may think that PR government has too little experience to govern, is this argument based on feeling or facts in term of risk? Let's have a look.
PR-led Penang, Selangor and Kedah are among the top 5 states that attract the highest foreign direct investment. Firms make decision that maximize their profit and therefore will choose the best place to allocate their limited resources to ensure good return of investment. When it comes to investment risk, every judgement is made based on calculated risk. Apparently, foreign firms deem that it's less risky to invest in PR-led states than BN-led states. This speaks VOLUME. If it's risky, why firms prefer to invest in PR-led states?
Why then are there still so many people who think that voting for PR is risky? The answer is fear. Instilling fear is the tactic that has been used again and again by the BN coalition to convince people 'better not to change, otherwise ........' They are trying to paint hypothetical, vastly untrue consequences of change that make people fearful of change.
However, let me remind them of this: -
"Power is of two kinds. One is obtained by the fear of punishment and the other by acts of love. Power based on love is a thousand times more effective and permanent then than the one derived from fear of punishment."
- Mahatma Gandhi -
For a while, people may be 'fooled', but eventually, the temporary power gained by fear will evaporate. Hopefully, this very time is near, and it's the 13th General Election of Malaysia.
There are risks both to the change and no-change. Both are 'risk'y. But as I've explained, voting for Pakatan Rakyat is the less risky than Barisan Nasional. So wise voter, make your choice, vote for change, vote for a better Malaysia.
