Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News
Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News |
- Let’s talk about (halal) sex
- Atrocious defence procurement is microcosm of failing state
- Guan Eng under siege
- Do we care?
- Third-class mentality at work
- Malaysia in the Era of Globalization #86
- A fool’s paradise?
- When barking dogs turn rabid
- Recent events have been illuminating, have they not?
- 2010 national debt at RM407b: what are the implications in layman terms?
- A meaningful gathering for some
- The stupidest comment of ‘em all
- TV profligacy
| Posted: 25 Oct 2011 04:52 PM PDT "When a man reached the highest spiritual level, he can appear in multiple apparitions and have sex with his wives even though they are in separate locations". Personally, I find this frightening. If a man can do this, I would think he has a hantu raya. If my husband, who's supposed to be in Frankfurt, appears in bed with me in KL, I would file for divorce on the spot. I am very scared of hantu. Dina Zaman, The Malaysian Insider Of course this essay would have to be about the Obedient Wives Club. One can't pass up the chance to write about the one very titillating piece of news in the media, though the recent Auditor-General's Report comes close. And that is a painful read. Like many Malaysians, I was flabbergasted and speechless when I read online accounts of the launch of the book titled, "Seks Islam – Perangi Yahudi Untuk Kembalikan Seks Islam Kepada Dunia (Sex in Islam –Wage War Against Jews To Return Islamic Sex To The World)". One, the English titled begged to be deciphered as it made no sense. Two, the title, even when understood, also begged for a suspension of disbelief. They cannot be serious about this: Having kosher sex meant that the Jews would be destroyed? How? What position would help destroy the Zionists for good? The Star quoted Hatijah Aam, "When a man reached the highest spiritual level, he can appear in multiple apparitions and have sex with his wives even though they are in separate locations". Personally, I find this frightening. If a man can do this, I would think he has a hantu raya. If my husband, who's supposed to be in Frankfurt, appears in bed with me in KL, I would file for divorce on the spot. I am very scared of hantu. Feminists, conservatives and righteous men and women condemned the Obedient Wives Club and their book. On Twitter and Facebook, everyone I knew just howled and wet themselves laughing over the latest faux pas. They were crazy, those women. But allow me to put this to you: Their book is no different than the many sex manuals you can get off the Internet. We even have our infamous Permata Yang Hilang and Mona Gersang. What's the big deal? While we deride these women for having the audacity to talk about sex and launch a book on halal sexual positions, you gotta give it to them. These women own their sexuality. The only difference is that these women have sex in a marriage, monogamous or polygamous. "How can women as unattractive as them HAVE sex?" a friend asked. Precisely. These women may not win any modelling contests, but they're having nookie. And there are quite a number of women who are the antithesis of the OWC, who aren't getting any. Any woman, married or single, who hasn't Googled "How To Perform Oral Sex" and "Various Sex Positions" is lying about it. It doesn't matter if she is Muslim, Christian or an atheist. I repeat again. Any woman who hasn't Googled for a sex act is a liar or under-aged. And any woman who does not discuss bedroom secrets with her girlfriends and gay male friends is a freak. Who else will tell you what not to do and what to do, to please yourself and your man? Your parents? The OWC women own their sex lives. Whether they receive pleasure from giving in to their husbands' desire is something we will never know, but they have taken all this into their hands, figuratively. Read women's magazines: The Pursuit of the Elusive Female Orgasm is always a hot topic. Read November's issue of the Malaysian Women's Weekly. There's an article expounding on behaving like a whore in bed, which may save one's marriage. I spoke with two heterosexual male friends about this. One acquiesced to the fact that it was these women's right to have a great sex life. Hooray for them, hijabbed or not.
|
| Atrocious defence procurement is microcosm of failing state Posted: 25 Oct 2011 01:45 PM PDT This means that the Malaysian government is paying Deftech RM7.55 billion (RM29.4 million each), which in turn pays FNSS RM1.7 billion for these 257 vehicles (RM6.6 million each). By Kim Quek How would you feel as a taxpayer if someone tells you that our defence ministry pays RM7.55 billion for some armoured vehicles that are actually worth one quarter of the price? If you really know what RM7.55 billion (or RM 7,550 million) means, you would most probably be stunned and express some kind of incredulity and exclaimed: "Is our government that bad? Are they really so daring?" The answer is yes; and the drama is unfolding right in our parliament, not some anonymous allegations in some websites. Member of parliament Tony Pua asked Defence Minister Zahid Hamidi in parliament why the ministry was paying the exorbitant price of RM7.8 billion for 257 wheeled armoured vehicles, and Zahid's answer was that the ministry had no knowledge of the price of RM7.8 billion as claimed by Tony, as the finalized contract price was RM7.55 billion. Zahid added that he also knew nothing about the deal that enabled the supplier to procure the same armoured vehicles from Turnkey at less than one quarter of the MinDef price. But Zahid's denial fell flat, as Tony pointed out that Zahid himself witnessed the signing of the agreement that sealed the deal in Angara, Turkey in February this year between the Malaysian supplier Deftech and the Turkish defence manufacturer FNSS, which is a joint venture between BAE Systems Inc. of UK and Nurol Holding of Turkey. The deal was reported in a press release dated 3 Jun 2011 in BAE System Inc. website as a USD559 million contract awarded to FNSS for the "design, development and manufacture of 257 DEFTECH AV-8 8x8 wheeled armored vehicles and Integrated Logistics Support for the Malaysian Armed Forces". The vehicle, though tagged 'DEFTECH', is actually a "FNSS-designed PARS 8x8 multi-purpose, multi-mission, wheeled amored vehicle". Atrocious price hike This means that the Malaysian government is paying Deftech RM7.55 billion (RM29.4 million each), which in turn pays FNSS RM1.7 billion for these 257 vehicles (RM6.6 million each). If you as a taxpayer are incensed by this daylight robbery of RM6 billion from the public coffer, wait till you hear of market prices that are even much cheaper than that offered by FNSS. Tony Pua in a statement dated 9 Mar 2011 in his blog reported the following prices for the equivalent armoured vehicles transacted or offered in the market: · The Portuguese Army paid RM4.4 million each for the Pandur II 8x8 armoured vehicles (EUR364 million for 353 units). · The latest version of Pirahan III 8x8 armoured wheeled vehicle developed by the Swiss MOWAG GmBH costs RM3.9 million each (USD1.2 million). With these prices as reference, it is reasonable to expect that, had MinDef conducted an open tender and sealed the deal at arm's length, we could have slashed the purchasing price down to no more than RM4.5 million from the present RM30 million each, bringing the total contract sum to RM1.15 billion instead of RM7.55 billion. This means that the Barisan Nasional government has hiked the price by 6 to 7 times through its defence procurement policy that totally lacks transparency and accountability. Such an astronomical scale of artificial cost inflation is so mind-boggling that it is probably unheard of even in the most corrupt of countries. Outrageous spending spree And this armoured vehicle deal is only one case amidst defence ministry's multi-billion spending spree that saw it splurging on patrol boats and helicopters at equally outrageous prices. For instance, it is purchasing 6 offshore patrol vessels (OPV) from Boustead Naval Shipyard Sdn Bhd at RM1 billion each (total price RM6 billion), which is 5 times what the Royal New Zealand Navy paid for its OPV, procured at only RM210 each (NZ$90 million) from the world renowned BAE Systems, which is the second largest global defence company. Similarly, Malaysia is buying the Eurocopter EC725 helicopters at RM190 million each (RM2.3 billion for 12 units) while Brazil purchased the same helicopters at only RM82 million each. A quick glance at the figures for these 3 contracts alone – armoured vehicles, patrol vessels and helicopters – would indicate that there could have been a total leakage of RM12 billion arising from these dubious MinDef transactions. For this amount, we could have provided low cost housing for a quarter million families, housing more than a million have-nots. That Malaysia's opaque defence procurement is a hive of corruption is well known among international defence executives and documented in a recent exposure from Wikileaks which revealed US Embassy cables during 2004 – 2009 recording conversations with relatives and agents of Malaysia's top politicians including prime minister (Abdullah Badawi) and deputy prime minister (Najib Razak). Besides giving specific instances of corruption, the US cable also alluded to such corruption as a major source of political funds that sustains the local power structure. Unacceptable draining of resources Looking at the larger picture, the leakages of the 3 contracts mentioned above is only a small corner of massive leakages that pervade the entire procurement system of the BN government, as starkly reminded by the freshly released annual report by the Auditor General. Such annual reports, which unfailingly chronicle widespread corruption and management failure (some to unimaginable extremes) serve as regular reminders that we have been stuck with an entrenched system of governance that extensively and continuously drains our reducing resources. But if we were to realize that what the Auditor General reports is only the tip of the iceberg, as he can only cover a small fraction of the sprawling government bodies every year, don't we have reason to be concerned, very concerned? And do we see any remedy through institutional reforms under the present political leadership? From the deteriorating credibility of our institutions and federal leadership, isn't it apparent that the needed remedy is not institutional by political solution. Only through a change of political leadership can we bring sweeping reforms to the country.
|
| Posted: 25 Oct 2011 01:42 PM PDT The attempt to break and destroy Guan Eng and derail his political career via the attack on his family is surely most immoral, and a terrible transgression against normal human propriety, and an assault on and an abuse of the fundamental concept of acceptance and respect for all persons under the universal principles of human, civil and constitutional rights. By Thomas Lee Some uncouth and unethical Barisan Nasional politicians, mostly from Umno, the MCA and Gerakan, have been going on an unrelenting unilateral campaign against the Rakatan Rakyat-led Penang state government by making all sorts of malicious allegations and malevolent accusations to frustrate the smooth running of the state administration under Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng. The most protuberant case is of course the recent disgusting and despicable evil smear campaign against Guan Eng's son led by Bukit Gelugor Umno division chief Novandri Hasan, with the apparent endorsement by the party's youth chief Khairy Jamaluddin, and, horror of horrors, the shameful public questioning by the Umno deputy president Muhyiddin Yassin, who is also the country's deputy prime minister and education minister, on the cast-iron denial by the school principal, the solid rebuttal by the alleged sexual harassment victim, and the firm verification by the Penang state education director that the alleged incident never happened.
|
| Posted: 24 Oct 2011 06:43 PM PDT The RM142 million RazakSAT malfunctioned barely a year after being commissioned, and was woefully inaccurate. Why was it commissioned? Who approved it? Who made a bundle from this project? We will never get answers to this crucial questions and we will never learn? Because the accountability of our politicians and decision makers is zero. Ali Kadir, The Malaysian Insider Some of us sing the Negaraku with gusto, we fly the flag and proclaim ourselves patriots. But do we really care about Malaysia, care enough that we will do more than just sit and shake our heads when something so wrong and unjust and corrupt happens before our eyes. I am referring to the Auditor-General's report for last year and I am not talking about the sanitised version in the mainstream media. Does it bother us that: * the RM142 million RazakSAT malfunctioned barely a year after being commissioned, and was woefully inaccurate. Why was it commissioned? Who approved it? Who made a bundle from this project? We will never get answers to this crucial questions and we will never learn? Because the accountability of our politicians and decision makers is zero. * the Tourism Ministry overpaid RM270 million in advertisements because it chose not to go for open tenders. Guess what, the ministry breached Treasury regulations in doing so. Ng Yen Yen's ministry also paid RM1,950 for a pamphlet rack. This from the same ministry which overpaid for Facebook consultancy and everything else. So brazen is their flouting of regulations, they don't care if they are found out by the Auditor-general or the police or the MACC. Would we tolerate such behaviour in our own companies or families? We would not but yet every year we are informed that the people we put in power are betraying our trust and we reward them with more power. * Not even 1 per cent of computer labs in Sabah completed. Brilliant and the contract was awarded to TimeCom Holdings. I am not aware of any company which can miss its KPI by an ocean. I guess Sabahans are not aware that despite being a fixed deposit state for BN, it is treated this shabbily. This is only a few examples from the Auditor-General's report, there is the usual overspending by ministries and ballooning national debt. But do we care about this mismanagement and misappropriation and corruption and cheating and lying? Or are we just going to say : What can I do?
|
| Posted: 24 Oct 2011 06:21 PM PDT The case of Aziz Bari illustrates how ready Umno is to punish anyone who speaks the truth. It has become normal for Umno to come down hard against those on the side of the truth. But how long does it intend to play bully and silence all voices that call for justice? Jeswan Kaur, Free Malaysia Today The action taken against law scholar Abdul Aziz Bari proves that Malaysia is still home to a third-class mentality. Merely for disagreeing with the Sultan of Selangor on a subject in which he is an expert, the professor riled up politicians from Umno, became a subject of severe attacks by that party's mouthpiece and was eventually suspended and barred from the International Islamic University (UIA), which, in the first place, should have been proud to have such an erudite scholar in its midst. (The suspension has since been lifted.) As if that is not shocking enough, even the police and Malaysian Communication and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) have been roped in to harass Abdul Aziz, as if to prove to the nation that he has indeed committed a most unforgiveable sin in advising the Selangor ruler to adhere more closely to Islamic teachings when issuing decrees. After all, the Sultan is the state's ultimate authority in matters Islamic. It is to the professor's credit that he has found no reason to apologise despite the pressures piled on him. He has maintained that his remarks were not meant as a challenge on the Sultan's authority or dignity but a pointer to the unprecedented nature of the decree and the inconsistency of its contents. The Sultan had said, essentially, that there was evidence of attempts by a local church to proselytise among Muslims but not enough to ensure success in prosecution. However, one should not be too harsh in judging UIAM. Its faux pas may not have been due to stupidity. It was more likely cowardice in the face of pressure from Umno. It has become normal for Umno to come down hard against those on the side of the truth. But how long does it intend to play bully and silence all voices that call for justice? In the professor's case, the police are investigating whether he has violated the Sedition Act. It is obvious to anyone familiar with Malaysian politics that the police are acting at the behest of Umno, a party that probably believes it cannot survive if citizens are allowed to speak their mind.
|
| Malaysia in the Era of Globalization #86 Posted: 24 Oct 2011 11:47 AM PDT By M Bakri Musa
Chapter 10: Freedom, Justice, and the Law Personal Liberty in Malaysia – The Abomination That is the ISATo me the ISA is an abomination. If indeed the Act is for the protection of society, as its supporters suggest, then it has failed miserably. ISA did not prevent the May 1969 tragedy, the 1984 Memali massacre, or more recently, the equally deadly Kampong Medan melee. Surprisingly, the government chose not to use this powerful statute to arrest members of the Al Maunah group involved in the deadly arms heist in 2000 of the army camp in Grik, Perak. Instead the state charged them with waging war against the King. Surely such a crime is the ultimate threat to peace. If there is one situation where the ISA would have been appropriate, this is it. But the government opted for an open trial where its evidence was subjected to cross-examination and public display. There was no indication that the nation's security and safety were compromised by the subsequent open trial. If the Al Maunah members could be apprehended and successfully prosecuted using statutes other than the ISA, I see no compelling reason why those presently detained under the Act could not be treated in a similar manner. If, as has been intimated, the ISA detainees were bent on overthrowing the legally elected government of Malaysia through violent street demonstrations, charge them with inciting a riot. Get the evidences out in the open so the public could scrutinize them. Reveal the evil intent of these perpetrators. ISA is not meant to be a substitute for incompetent prosecutors or inept police investigations. Truth is, the ISA is presently being used not to protect the public but as a crude weapon to coerce the government's increasingly effective critics. Distressingly, the law is also being used to silence political adversaries as well as scholars who dare to voice their dissent. Taking away a citizen's freedom without due process is a serious matter. It is disgraceful to read that in the rounds of arrests in 2001, the honorable home minister (and also deputy prime minister) Abdullah Badawi had delegated such enormous powers to his lowly bureaucrats. I would have thought that as the minister in charge, he would have given such decisions the gravity and solemnity they rightly deserve. To hear him say that he was in effect "out of the loop" is simply unacceptable. Surely he must have had some evidence of the dangers posed by these individuals for him to order their detention. Thus once they were detained, he should be intensely interested in the details of their supposedly treacherous plot. Were there dangerous weapons stashed away, and was this part of a larger conspiracy, possibly with foreign involvement? Had the interrogations revealed a more serious threat, the minister would want that information quickly so appropriate preemptive measures could be taken. By waiting passively for a report from his subordinates, the minister wasted precious time. Besides, to treat such decisions casually goes beyond simple incompetence. It is a flagrant dereliction of ministerial duty, bordering on criminality. Abdullah Badawi's remark reflects, at best, a flippancy that is grossly inappropriate; at worse, a callous and sinister mindset. These are our fellow citizens whose freedoms are being violated. He acts as if such important decisions are not worthy of his personal attention and deliberation. I would have been comforted had Abdullah said that he was indeed following the situation closely and that jailing someone without trial was a decision he took with a heavy heart, but due to the sensitive nature of the investigations, he was unable to divulge the details. I would still oppose his decision but at least I would know that he had discharged his ministerial duty diligently and that he had not used that immense power arbitrarily and capriciously. Or worse, delegated that awesome authority to his underlings. As can be seen with the episode on the senseless beating of Anwar Ibrahim while in police custody, it takes only one overzealous officer to humiliate the entire nation. I expect our government ministers to be chief executives of their agency and be on top of matters under their authority. Abdullah Badawi, if he was truly unaware of the circumstances of the arrests, behaved more like a symbolic sultan rather than as an engaged executive. If this pattern of behavior portends his future performance as prime minister, Malaysians ought to be worried. Like the frightened and weakened nobility at the time of the French Revolution, today's Malaysian political nobles are using the ISA as a carte blanche to browbeat the masses. Malaysians today are in the worst possible position: Having a bad law (ISA) administered by an inept minister. The government had another round of arrests under the ISA of suspected extremist Muslims following the 9-11 attacks. Unlike previous roundups, this time the government was spared any criticism from the West. Indeed Law Minister Rais Yatim, on a visit to Washington, DC, in May 2002, crowed that the US Attorney General was highly supportive of Malaysia's ISA! It took the American embassy in Kuala Lumpur days before it denied such an endorsement. And it was done by a very junior embassy official. Such a low-key response! Malaysian officials who were previously so dismissive of American official and public opinions are now suddenly eagerly lapping up any praise from America! I do not know who are being more hypocritical—the Americans or the Malaysians? Obviously to the Americans, flagrant abuses of basic human rights and due process are fine as long as the targets are presumed enemies of the West. Criticisms of the ISA aside, there are legitimate security issues facing the country that must be addressed. Can this be done adequately without the ISA? Absolutely! The successful prosecution of the Al-Maunah group sans the ISA is one ready example. Granted the police and prosecution had to work hard to prove their case, and well they should. Another argument favored by the Act's apologists is that such laws are needed in a multiracial society to prevent those who would incite racial hatred. This is a valid concern, but it can be addressed using far less draconian measures. America has its "hate crime" laws where if a crime is motivated by racial hatred, it carries a substantially more severe penalty. Further, the victims of such crimes could sue their aggressors for civil damages and or violations of their civil rights, the latter carrying a much stiffer remedy. Similarly there could be "no bail" provision for such crimes. There are several viable options short of the drastic ISA. Another defense of the ISA (and also the prohibition against public protests and rallies) is that Malaysians are fed up with unruly demonstrations and the resulting disruptions to traffic and businesses. Again here there could be provisions whereby those who plan such protests must carry adequate insurance in case of accidents or property damages. Such "event insurances" are common and mandatory in America. Having such insurance as a prerequisite would ensure that the organizers take extraordinary precautions to prevent their demonstrations from getting out of control. If they lose control of their followers they would have to foot a significantly higher premium the next time around. A more problematic contention is this. The ISA has been a major issue in almost all general elections, with the opposition parties advocating its repeal and the ruling party (Barisan Nasional – BN) defending it. Yet BN keeps wining. But it would be a mistake to read much into this beyond saying that the issue does not resonate with the electorate. In truth Malaysians do not support the ISA; they merely tolerate it. Electorates do not consider the ISA reason enough to boot the ruling party out. One of the tragic consequences of the ISA is that its victims are not allowed to contact their families or attorneys. Their families are kept in the dark of where their loved ones are being detained and for how long. Nor are their charges and evidences specified. As has been amply demonstrated by Abdullah Badawi, the current minister in charge, such awesome powers are routinely delegated to minor officials. Apart from its impact on the victims, the Act carries a far greater and deeper chilling effect on all Malaysians. Much like the barbwire fence would be a constant ugly reminder keeping the animals away from the edges for fear from being entangled, Malaysians are forced to behave extra cautiously. Citizens internalize self-censorship and keep to the narrow and safe. Any new initiative is stifled for fear of offending the authorities. New ideas are evaluated not on whether they will work, but how the authorities would perceive them. How many times have one heard officials say, "It's not government policy!" And with that robotic response, everything is settled. Case closed! Everyone is scared of running afoul of those in power. Next: Chilling Effects of Repressive Laws like ISA
|
| Posted: 23 Oct 2011 06:45 PM PDT But how quickly times change. Within a week, even The Star was forced to concede that a number of economists thought the growth forecast of 5 per cent to 5.5 per cent for 2012 was somewhat optimistic, without which premise the entire fiscal deficit reduction claim would appear to be a pipe dream. Kapil Sethi, The Malaysian Insider Spot on! Screamed out page after page in The Star the day after the Budget 2012 announcement by the prime minister. Barisan Nasional was at pains to paint it as a caring budget which emphasised its concern for the underprivileged through a number of cash handouts and maintenance of subsidies across the board. But how quickly times change. Within a week, even The Star was forced to concede that a number of economists thought the growth forecast of 5 per cent to 5.5 per cent for 2012 was somewhat optimistic, without which premise the entire fiscal deficit reduction claim would appear to be a pipe dream. In less than another week, the Malaysian Institute of Economic Research (MIER) revised its growth forecast down to 5 per cent for 2012. The Monetary Authority of Singapore, in an even gloomier tone, said that it expected growth might be below its potential rate of 3 to 5 per cent next year. US unemployment feeding into a probable double-dip recession in its economy and the eurozone crisis has the whole world bracing for a year of desperate belt tightening. Already, volatility in the investment, stock and currency markets has reached such a level that Bank Negara recently reported that foreign investors sold Malaysian equities to the tune of US$439.6 million (RM1.36 billion) in August and September alone. This was reflected in a drop in Malaysian foreign exchange reserves to the tune of US$5.3 billion at the end of September. The ringgit has also been continuously weakening against all major currencies in the same period. At this juncture, it might be wise to ask why the Malaysian government's blithely rosy forecast and expectations for 2012 are at such complete variance with the rest of the world, and what it may mean for the Malaysian consumer in the coming months. In one word — politics. The raison d'être for politicians is to promise a better future to voters. In an election year especially there is undeniable pressure on the ruling coalition to deliver that elusive "feel-good" factor through all the instruments of state at its disposal to win re-election. Having said that, the government and BN are distinct entities. While it is the job of a political coalition to influence voters positively, it should be the job of the government to take a more responsible stand when the future livelihood of its citizens is at stake. A reasonably independent civil service is a prerequisite to reining in the natural propensity of all politicians to spend, spend, spend and leave the consequences to the distant future. When the bureaucracy is supine, the result is a budget like the one recently presented — a free-for-all spending plan with no acknowledgement of the economic realities and forecasts on the ground. Due the perceived unpopularity of the proposed GST and an extremely narrow taxpayer base, simply put the plan to raise revenue seems to be one of cross your fingers and hope for the best. If the US goes into another recession and oil prices plummet, even the current revenue of the government will drop, let alone increase. Whereas on the expenditure side there is a plethora of proposals set to precipitously increase operating costs.
|
| Posted: 23 Oct 2011 06:24 PM PDT They need to remember that the moment a person enters politics, regardless of whether the person wears a military uniform, religious paraphernalia, a doctor's white coat or even a suit and tie, that person is a politician. A politician wants people's support so that he or she will be in power. You can give your trust but don't ever give away your freedom, especially your freedom to remove the politician who you trusted in the first place. Jema Khan, The Malaysian Insider Politicians all over the world claim to be the protectors of their people. They often conjure up various threats to our wellbeing. When we buy into their stories we tend to support them and thus they are able to rule over us. In a democracy this is less of a problem as when we stop believing the politicians' spiel we can always vote them out. But many parts of the world do not have fully functioning democracies and thus we find leaders who, once they have been empowered, do all they can to stay in power and thwart any move to democratise. These autocrats and their sycophants will bark their ideologies to all and sundry. They expect their people to believe their worldview so that they remain in power. Those who oppose them in their own country are often treated harshly so that they would be able inject fear into the society to silence any further dissent. Unfortunately for them, the advent of the Internet has seriously limited their ability to keep their citizens ignorant and quiet for long. Competing views which tend to be more liberal in nature do crop up and challenge the existing order. The so called "Arab Spring", though nascent, has exposed some world leaders to be nothing more than barking dogs. The people in Tunisia and Egypt were a little more fortunate that they were able to remove their barking dogs with less loss of life than in neighbouring Libya. At least Ben Ali and Mubarak knew that the jig was up when their people clearly turned against them. Gaddafi, on the other hand, continued to bark and even turned rabid when his people wanted him gone. Who can forget his famous lines, "my people love me, my people love me all", that was carried on the cable news networks. He was so out of touch with his people and reality that it would have been comical, if not for his attempted massacre of his own people. The hope for those countries that have successfully removed their autocrats is that their people will be freer and be able to put in place a democratic process that cannot be easily undone by any aspiring dictator. The only advice I would give them is that they avoid choosing those politicians who bark the loudest who want to show them to the promise land but take away their freedom. They need to remember that the moment a person enters politics, regardless of whether the person wears a military uniform, religious paraphernalia, a doctor's white coat or even a suit and tie, that person is a politician. A politician wants people's support so that he or she will be in power. You can give your trust but don't ever give away your freedom, especially your freedom to remove the politician who you trusted in the first place. In Malaysia's case, it seems that the people are fairly circumspect of their politicians and that is certainly a sign of our political maturity. The message that the people are sending the politicians is that they prefer a two-party system but both coalitions, as is our case in Malaysia, need to appeal more to the centre. A group called "Himpun" that wanted to gather a million people to support its claim of rising apostasy in Malaysia only managed to get a few thousand people on Saturday to support them. Malaysian Muslims know that there is no threat to Islam in this country. Even when Malay rights group Perkasa wanted to have a counter gathering against election reform group Bersih a few months ago, there was little support. The majority of the Malays feel fairly secure that their interests will not be sidelined regardless of whoever wins the next election. The Malays know that they are the majority and in terms of parliamentary seats they have a disproportionately larger share of the seats because of the rural bias in the seat distribution. Even the hudud issue will not gain much traction among the Malays or Muslims in Malaysia as many know that it would not be practical in our multiracial society. The biggest problem for both Pakatan Rakyat and Barisan Nasional is that they are influenced by a few fringe groups that are clamouring loudly. Both coalitions need to listen to the centre as they are the majority of the voters, though this group tends not to be less vocal. But what is the centre in Malaysia? I will try to define the centre though I realise that I may be biased as I am looking at it through the eyes of a liberal.
|
| Recent events have been illuminating, have they not? Posted: 23 Oct 2011 06:15 PM PDT Now things are different. More and more people are openly questioning what's being done in our names. And yet, whilst as individuals we rejoice in having intelligent children who ask us lots of questions, as a society we seem to think it perfectly acceptable to deny older youngsters from reaching their full potential by learning how to think critically. Farah Fahmy, The Malaysian Insider The suspension of Prof Dr Abdul Aziz Bari last week was disappointing. Universities are supposed to be places where critical thinking is honed. If an academic can be suspended from his post for merely commenting on a matter in which he is an expert, then what hope is there for our students? I learnt a lot of things at university, but not as much, I think, as some of the Japanese students on my course who were genuinely surprised to learn about Japanese atrocities during World War II. It was at university that I started questioning some of the assumptions that I had held about our country and our society. But, you see, I was lucky. I studied abroad and had teachers whose first duty was to broaden the minds of the students they taught. In our country, university students have to abide by the Akta Universiti dan Kolej Universiti (AUKU), which, among other things, forbids students from joining any political parties. Not only that, students are also prohibited from expressing any support or opposition towards any political parties. Strange, isn't it? In our country, the brightest young minds are expressly forbidden from taking part in shaping our society and our future. What a pity. I happen to think that society and by extension, a country, cannot stay static in its views. Once upon a time, our society deferred to those who led us. We didn't question the judgment of our leaders. Those who did were expelled from the club (remember a certain young doctor in the late 1960s?), cast out, for daring to question the status quo. Now things are different. More and more people are openly questioning what's being done in our names. And yet, whilst as individuals we rejoice in having intelligent children who ask us lots of questions, as a society we seem to think it perfectly acceptable to deny older youngsters from reaching their full potential by learning how to think critically. And now this sorry episode of the suspended academic; and for such a silly reason too. What he said was hardly earth-shattering. Then there's Jakim going around saying that many Muslims no longer respect the authority of our Sultans. Lest I be accused of committing lese-majesté, may I respectfully remind Jakim that this is hardly surprising, given the antics of certain members of the royal family in Kelantan, Johor and Negri Sembilan in recent years. Then there's the furore surrounding Lim Guan Eng's son. What a foul taste that has left in my mouth. Whatever the rights or wrongs of the situation, have we forgotten that one is innocent until proven guilty, and to paraphrase a famous saying, the doings of the father should not be visited on the son? This surely is a new low. I thought calling Dr Wan Azizah a "pelacur politik" was bad enough but you could at least argue that as a political figure, she was fair game. Attacking the son of a political opponent? Disgusting. No matter what he did, Lim Guan Eng's son should not have his picture plastered online, and neither should anyone comment on unproven allegations. What's more, the remarks of Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin are at best an embarrassment. He admitted that he did not have any information about the claims, but he couldn't keep his mouth shut, could he? No, he had to weigh in and give his two cents' worth too.
|
| 2010 national debt at RM407b: what are the implications in layman terms? Posted: 23 Oct 2011 05:27 PM PDT Everything in Malaysia will be owned by the foreigners because of the chain-reaction; the banks will be owned by foreigners, thus all those who borrow or depend on the banks; the loans, the business, the business ventures, homes, houses, properties, land and shares (they bought from bank loans) will all be owned by the foreigners. Nawawi Mohamad, The Malaysian Insider The national debt consists of internal debt (owed to lenders within the country) and external debt (owed to foreign lenders). Governments usually borrow by issuing government bonds and securities (IOU documents) and simply borrow directly from local money institutions. Repayments will then be made based on a schedule and periodical timeframe that will determine when the repayment or instalment is due and the quantum plus interest and the promised dividends. As long as the payment schedule is met, everything is fine but when there is a default (the government not able to pay as scheduled) it is the first indication of when the situation is beginning to turn bad. The next step is to re-schedule the payment, make the repayment amount lower by making the period longer and increase the interest which otherwise the lender will not agree. They want more money at the end of it. The whole process is similar to the Ah Long business but with all the formalities and legalities in place. Next, if the situation gets worse, the government has to borrow more money to pay the instalments. The Malay phrase for it is "gali lubang, tutup lubang". This is what in fact is going to happen now. With the ever increasing budget, unmitigated wastages or leakages and slow growth, default in payments to the lenders is imminent. Slow growth means the overall economic activities and productivity is low which in most part is directly influenced by the world economy. Even if I am wrong, why wait until the time comes when the Umno/BN government can do something about it now? The Umno/BN government must start the austerity drive now before it is too late. It must reduce spending now when there is still room to manoeuvre. It is a tactical retreat; not to lose, but a necessary move to win. By the time when Malaysia needs some foreign funds to survive like Greece, it would be too late. By that time there will be mayhem. Everything in Malaysia will be owned by the foreigners because of the chain-reaction; the banks will be owned by foreigners, thus all those who borrow or depend on the banks; the loans, the business, the business ventures, homes, houses, properties, land and shares (they bought from bank loans) will all be owned by the foreigners.
|
| A meaningful gathering for some Posted: 22 Oct 2011 06:46 PM PDT They wanted a million to turn up at the Himpun rally but in the end the 70,000 capacity Stadium Shah Alam was less than a quarter full. In the end, the only "big shot" from Umno who showed up was former Perlis Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Shahidan Kassim and Selangor PAS exco Datuk Hassan Ali, who was one of the speakers at the rally anyway. Others like Pasir Mas MP and Perkasa chief Datuk Ibrahim Ali were spotted. Unlike his usual flamboyant self, he left discreetly without fanfare. By SHAHANAAZ HABIB, The Star BUSINESS student Raihana Samian took a bus at 10pm from Politeknik Kota Baru to come down to Shah Alam for the Himpun rally. Hers was one of three busloads of students from the polytechnic that came to rally against apostasy. "I am a moderate Muslim. I pray five times a day, I fast and try to live my life as a good Muslim," said Raihana.  Small but strong: A segment of the crowd attending the Himpun gathering at Stadium Shah Alam. — AZMAN GHANI / The Star "I was attracted to come here because of the title of the rally: 'Himpunan Sejuta Umat: Selamatkan Aqidah (The Gathering of a Million Muslims: Save our Faith)'." She said their student union representatives gave out pamphlets about the rally and also organised the trip. "But I am not sure if I support the rally or not. I want to see what the speakers say first because religion can be politicised and it shouldn't be," said the 18-year-old when met a couple of hours before the rally. Raihana and the other students from her polytechnic arrived in Shah Alam at 6.30am and were hanging around the stadium grounds and the shopping complex nearby to pass the time before the rally started. Nawal Atikah Mohamad Ishak and Saiyidah Mohd Sanat, however, fully supported the rally and its cause. They also boarded an overnight bus from their university to attend. "I am so excited. This is the first time I am attending such a gathering. I don't need to wait and see as I support the message Himpun is conveying because there is clearly an attempt by Christians to draw Muslims towards their faith. "This is not done blatantly but through a subtle and soft approach where they make Christianity attractive and appealing to the Muslims without the Muslims themselves realising it," said Nawal Atikah, a third-year student in communications engineering at Universiti Malaysia Perlis. At university, she shares a house with two Chinese non-Muslim students. "We get along well and respect each other. We are not allowed to cook in the house so there is no problem with meals. "I am not sure what their religion is but if they are Christians and put up a cross in their room by their bed, I wouldn't have a problem with that because it's their personal right and space as long as they don't impinge on my right to practise my faith." Her coursemate Saiyidah said Islam should not just be lip service. "I feel our rights should not be sidelined. Right now, the voices speaking out on Islam are coming from those only in power. Those without power seem to have no voice. I want someone to speak for us all." Islam is not about women staying in the kitchen or in the background, said Saiyidah. She feels that if true Islam was practised, then Muslim women would not face problems with regards to divorce or getting maintenance for their child from the father because all Muslims, men included, would behave in a just and fair manner and bear their responsibility. "I came because I am looking for answers and I hope I will find some here today," she said. The Himpun rally was organised by a group of Muslim NGOs in response to claims that the Damansara Utama Methodist Church (DUMC) had tried to proselytise Muslims by inviting them to a Thanksgiving dinner on Aug 3. Officials from the Selangor Islamic Religious Department (Jais) raided the church while the dinner was going on, took down the names of the Muslims there and made them go for religious counselling. At all times these Muslims denied that the church was preaching or trying to convert them. The church too denied it was doing such a thing. When Jais came out with its report on the raid, the ruler of Selangor, Sultan Sharafuddin Idris Shah, said there was evidence of proselytisation by non-Muslims at the DUMC function but that it was insufficient for legal action. The Himpun rally was organised by Muslim NGOs to show their firm stand against apostasy and to put a stop to any attempt to proselytise Muslims. They wanted a million to turn up and were confident that at least 100,000 would show. They had a Facebook page and support from the Umno-owned Utusan Malaysia. The newspaper had frontpaged the rally yesterday with the headline "Unite to Defend Islam" and urged Muslims to attend. In the stadium, supporters put up posters in Malay saying "Do not Jeopardise the Status of Muslims", "No Compromise in Defending the Faith" and "Say No to Apostasy", among others. Expecting a massive crowd, a number of restaurants and enterprising young people took the opportunity to set up stalls selling nasi lemak, nasi ayam, noodles, drinks, burgers, and snacks in the stadium grounds. But in the end, only about 5,000 people showed up. The rally was supposed to start at 2pm but it only got under way an hour-and-a-half later when it was evident that the much anticipated crowds were not going to show. It was declared as apolitical so Malay-based political parties like Umno and PAS said their members could attend in their personal capacity if they wished to so long as they did not wear any party T-shirts or attire that had their party logo, flags, stickers or banners. In the end, the only "big shot" from Umno who showed up was former Perlis Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Shahidan Kassim and Selangor PAS exco Datuk Hassan Ali, who was one of the speakers at the rally anyway. Others like Pasir Mas MP and Perkasa chief Datuk Ibrahim Ali were spotted. Unlike his usual flamboyant self, he left discreetly without fanfare. A number of speakers including Perak Mufti Tan Sri Harussani Zakaria spoke about the challenges confronting Muslims here, such as apostasy and proselytisation which they say is on the increase. UiTM's former vice-chancellor Tan Sri Ibrahim Abu Shah said attempts to proselytise Muslims are being done because the Malays are no longer united even though their religion is being threatened. A number of speakers also emphasised that the rally is not against non-Muslims or being confrontational towards other races but it is about Muslims coming together to protect their faith. Himpun also adopted a 10-point declaration. One of the main points is to demand that the government have firm preventive laws to safeguard the sanctity of Islam and draft a new special law against apostasy and proselytisation. It said this was needed in view of the government's efforts to abolish the Internal Security Act (ISA). Even though the rally started late, it ended on time at 6pm. At the press conference, the Himpun co-chairperson Mohd Azmi Abdul Hamid said he saw the rally as a "huge success" because it discussed important matters in a calm, peaceful and disciplined manner. "We are not doing this with any feeling of animosity. We are not intruding or violating or transgressing the rights of non-Muslims. "We just want to remind non-Muslims that our rights can't be violated and have to be respected." On the poor turnout, he said, Himpun was not disappointed at the numbers. "When we say a million, some of the NGOs had vowed that they would come with 100,000 (total). "They came with this number and we are fine with it. We are not complaining nor are concerned about it because the number may be small but the spirit is the same," he said. He added that the declaration would be sent to the Keeper of the Royal Seal and the Malay Rulers. Himpun would then take their message down to the states and districts. "Yes, there will be a roadshow. Whether there's a road or not, the show will be there," he said.
|
| The stupidest comment of ‘em all Posted: 22 Oct 2011 12:22 AM PDT
Either Muhyiddin cannot read or he is not so intelligent to understand what the media have been reporting during the last few days. Not only has the principal of the school where the alleged incident was said to have committed come out to refute the lies by the Umno bloggers, but the so-called victim whose photograph was used by the unethical and uncouth Umno people has also issued a strong statement refuting their wicked lies. Comment by Thomas Lee Seng Hock I am simply amazed and stunned that a person of Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin's status can come out with such a stupid comment on the case of Lim Guan Eng's son. The Deputy Prime Minister cum Education Minister (sic) has remarked that Guan Eng's denial of the sexual harassment claims against his son was "inadequate". Muhyiddin told the media on Saturday 22 October 2011 that if the Penang chief minister "thinks it is important to correct the information, then he has to come up with a strong statement; mere denial is not enough." Either Muhyiddin cannot read or he is not so intelligent to understand what the media have been reporting during the last few days. Not only has the principal of the school where the alleged incident was said to have committed come out to refute the lies by the Umno bloggers, but the so-called victim whose photograph was used by the unethical and uncouth Umno people has also issued a strong statement refuting their wicked lies. What "strong statement" does the deputy prime minister and Umno deputy president expect Guan Eng to out with to counter the evil personal assault against his son? Any simple person with just simple common sense will know that the whole mischievous fiasco was fabricated with the deceitful intent of sabotaging the political achievements of Guan Eng, especially so after the strong denial by the school principal and the firm refutation by the young lady named in the false accusation. The most crude and crummy statement by the deputy prime minister is surely a very sad reflection of the quality of our federal leaders, whose intelligence is generally found wanting. How can we achieve the status of a developed nation and high-performance citizenry when our deputy prime minister, who is also the education minister, is a person of such irrational and irresponsible character? Muhyiddin's performance as education minister has been the subject of contemptuous ridicule and derision among the educated class and intelligentsia of the nation, especially his inconsistent and fickle policy on the use of the English language in the teaching of science and mathematics. His constant changing merry-go-round manaeuvre of the schooling system is confusing not only the students, but the teachers and parents, too. Evaluating his comment on the case of Guan Eng's son objectively will lead us to the conclusion that Muhyiddin is certainly not fit to be a government leader, and it is surely horrifying to think that he may even become the prime minister one day! If we entrust the nation into the hand of such people, who lack the character, wisdom, intelligence, credibility, and integrity, then woes betide us. And while I am on this issue of Guan Eng's son, I want to say that the silence on the part of the prime minister and leaders of the Barisan Nasional component parties like the MCA and MIC is surely deafening. The whole fiasco should be publicly censured and condemned by all right-thinking and righteous persons, but the Umno president is apparently condoning the dastardly diabolical smear campaign against Guan Eng and his son by keeping quiet. Any real and credible stateman would take a firm stand against such disgusting evil action on the part of the Umno bloggers, and express real strong revulsion and profound indignation on the matter. But not the Umno president or any of the Barisan Nasional component party leaders. So sad that these are the people on whom the destiny of the nation is dependent on now. Hence, I believe it is time that all true and patriotic Malaysians who love the country and call Malaysia their home should unite at the ballot box to create a political revolution to bring about a real transformation to the life and thoughts of the nation and its people. This has nothing to do with racial affiliation or religion affinity, but simply the coming together of all peace-loving Malaysians to bring about the installation of a competent, accountable and transparent (CAT) federal government comprising aficionado leaders who are morally righteous, truthful, honest, credible, incorruptible, and people-centric. The fate of our nation lies in our hands, in how we vote at the next general election. We either break the long-time bondage of being under a crooked and corrupt regime, or we bring in a new era of transformed and transfigured people=centric administration operating on the profound democratic principle of government of the people, by the people, for the people.
|
| Posted: 21 Oct 2011 11:19 AM PDT By P Gunasegaram, The Star Increased distribution channels for home TV may well result in a proliferation of offerings to Malaysian viewers. But then again will it? MUCH is happening at television these days. We now have high definition (HD) with crystal clear images on satellite TV and if the government undertakes a RM2bil programme to digitalise terrestrial TV, you may get HD over the air too. We already have TV over the Internet in addition to the traditional terrestrial and satellite channels, leaving only cable yet to be developed as a major distribution channel. But, the latest news is that we may also be plugged in via cable with a company already having obtained rights to that and recruiting heavily so as to be able to start services not too long from now. Is that a good thing for Malaysians? Will we get more choice and be spoilt silly by a plethora of channels offering anything and everything under the sun barring pornography using all four main distribution channels? Depends. It's a question of whether the new entrants have deep pockets, a good business plan, a long-term strategy, and great execution to eventually make their ventures profitable. Basically, at the moment, the terrestrial stations such as TV3, TV1, TV2, NTV7 etc and the sole satellite TV provider, Astro, have the market more or less sewn up. While terrestrial TV is free and depends totally on advertising revenue, Astro still depends mainly on subscription from its over one million subscribers although its advertising revenue is increasing. Now Internet Protocol TV or IPTV threatens to change the name of the game by offering channels at quite low cost. The main players appear to be TM with its Hypp TV offered with its Unifi broadband service, Maxis and Astro. The new buzzword with the advent of high-speed broadband or HSBB is triple play – voice (phone), Internet and video (TV). TM is offering that with its Unifi while Maxis which has access to some of TM's rollout of HSBB is looking to its own triple play offering. Astro, keen to defend its pay TV market share, is also offering it's Beyond service on Internet. The field is decidedly getting crowded but the vital keys to success are two – delivery and programming. TM's Unifi service forces IPTV upon the subscriber – they say its free and they cannot detach it from the Unifi service, much like you have to take Streamyx together with the fixed line even if you don't want it. Why that has to be so, I don't understand. The take up for TM's Hypp TV will depend on the Unifi rollout which still seems to be slow and which some subscribers are not keen on because of installation, which requires in some cases hacking walls and digging up gardens. Still whether people will watch Hypp TV or not will depend on programming – if it is good they will watch it but if it is not, they won't. Good programming costs money, eventually, lots of it if you want to, say, have a hundred channels or more like Astro. That means you have to charge for it and quite a bit at that. It's going to be pretty difficult to go against Astro which has major programming and slots already sewn up and a strong revenue base. What would induce Astro subscribers to go somewhere else? Only one thing: Better programming at lower costs. That's going to take quite a bit of doing – a very long gestation period, plenty of unremitting investment, great execution and an excellent delivery system. It's not impossible but it's going to be very difficult. Incidentally it took Astro 10 years to break even. And we are not even talking about cable TV yet and the costs of pulling cables into the homes! Meantime, if you could send digital terrestrial signals with that RM2bil plan we talked about earlier, that might see a revival of the free TV stations who will depend on advertising revenue to make their money. What would I do meantime? I am not holding my breath for TV channels. Besides, I am not a great TV fan. I just hope I can hook up to Unifi without major renovation to my house and digging up my garden yet again, and without the bother of TV and phone. I have a very much under-utilised Astro Beyond service which is more than adequate for all my TV viewing and radio channels too. And I have a mobile phone and can use Skype for my overseas calls. And I can get programming on the Internet. I don't want or need triple play. I just want and need single play – just get me on the Net with plenty of speed to surf, watch and download. But the trouble is no one will give me that alone. And I am sure there are others like me out there. And if there is a need, there is a market, no? Hello, anybody out there? |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
0 ulasan:
Catat Ulasan