I think people have this shallow minded idea that political leaders can do whatever they wish regardless of existing laws and regulations, and when the civil service stops them citing breaches with these rules, they say its 'deep state'.

You can always railroad these regulations, but then youll end up with yes-men civil servants.

Im not sure that your understanding of a 'deep state' is accurate.

Other people wouldnt agree its deep state if these 'deep state people' are actually chosen by the political leaders themselves.

And neither of the examples you quoted were existing member the the previous regime, nor pushing agenda that is opposed to the current one.

yes, he was a former finance minister - under the same prime minister as it is now. same goes with rafidah aziz.

with regard to his position, they were both given influence by the current prime minister. you don't 'deep state' against the current government, when you are appointed by the current government.

the fact that they do not have a formal position is literally an argument against the definition of deep state, which apply to people in the current structure. you can't be in deep state if you're not even part of the state, you know.

so yeah, i (and it seems its not only just me) really think you should re-examine what the term means.

Lets look at the first para of the link you yourself provided:



"Without reference to the consent of the governed as expressed through the formal political process", i.e. not voted.

So lets apply some logic here: does this apply to people who are directly appointed by a leader who was democratically chosen?

If thats still unclear to you, lets think about ut this way. Daim and rafidah were appointed to their roles as advisors by mahathir, without being elected themselves. Similarly, jared kushner and ivanka trump were also appointed by donald trump, without being elected themselves.

Youre saying that daim and rafidah are 'deep state'. Thats fine. Are you also saying that ivanka trump and her husband are also deep state?

And who else considered watergate as deep state, apart from yourself? As far as i can google, only right-wing media said watergate was deep state, and even then theyre referring to the senate's insistence on nixon's impeachment, rather than nixon's cronies.

On your second point, youre basically saying every political advisor, every party secretary, down to mp research assistants and interns as deep state. A vast majority of people in govt are not elected.

You want to try that definition again?

We're not talking about the size, we're talking about your definition of what constitutes deep state. That zero hedge one in particular was the exact one that mentioned the democrat response to nixon as deep syate, not nixon's own.

Did you actually read the links?

You referred to nixon's plumbers and re-election committee as deep state, when the material you provided infer that it was the senate, calling for his impeachment (i.e. opposing a sitting president), who are deep state.

Basically, the proof you provided literally contradict your own definition. Thats why people are questioning whether you actually understand whats going on.

And asking questions doesnt make me right. Understanding things makes me right.