Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News
Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News |
- Can there be a SPM trial exam question: Is it appropriate for police to use tear gas, water ...
- Pakatan, where will the money come from?
- 10 Big Questions To Ask About Pengerang
- All The World's A Stage - Press Release regarding the Happy Mansion “Water Crisis” ...
- Why the compulsion to lie, lie and lie, Rafizi?
| Can there be a SPM trial exam question: Is it appropriate for police to use tear gas, water ... Posted: 27 Sep 2012 02:46 PM PDT
Lim Kit Siang Would the Education Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin and his two deputies, Puad Zarkashi and Datuk Wee Ka Siong give their tacit approval or close their eyes and shut their ears if any of the following questions had appeared in a SPM trial examination paper for Moral Education: * Is it appropriate for the police to use tear-gas or chemically-laced water cannon or used physical violence against peaceful demonstrators comprising all races, religions, age and gender who merely wanted to send a clear and unmistakable to the government that they want free, fair and clean elections?* Is it appropriate for any government to misuse public funds for political party purposes especially in the run-up to a general election? * Is it appropriate for voters in a general election to support candidates from a political coalition which is responsible for Malaysia having the lowest Transparency International Corruption Perception Index ranking of No. 60 as well as lowest CPI score of 4.3 in 2012? * Is it appropriate for any Minister or MP to go against national unity efforts as publicly dissociating from the 1Malaysia policy, declaring that he or she is Malay first and Malaysian second? Of course not. There can be no shadow of doubt that if such questions had appeared in any school SPM trial examination paper, there would be an orchestrated howl of protest and condemnation in the mainstream mass media of Utusan Malaysia, New Straits Times, Berita Harian and the Star as well as on government/Barisan Nasional radio and television channels, followed by a witch-hunt to expose, penalise and even criminalise those responsible for setting the questions. Surely, Puad would not say: "As long as it does not affect the racial or religious sensitivities or malign any individual, I feel (the question) is not a problem…It is up to the rakyat to decide". This is what Puad said when commenting on a question in a school SPM trial examination on Moral Education in Johore Baru, which featured two photographs of the Bersih 3.0 rally on April 28, and asked: "Is it appropriate for a citizen to participate in an illegal assembly?" A photograph of the question referring to the Bersih 3.0 rally from a an SPM trial examination paper at a school in Johore Baru appeared on Facebook, which showed that the answer given by the student - "tidak wajar (not appropriate)" - was ticked as correct.
Would Muhyiddin, Puad and Wee take the position that there is nothing wrong with the setting of questions like the four above for students, just as they now strike the posture that its "not a problem" for such a Bersih question to be posed in the SPM school trial examination? In fact, in another trial examination for STPM General Paper in a school in Johore Baru, there is a clear insinuation that those who supported the Opposition could have their citizenship revoked? Would Muhyiddin, Puad and Wee agree and approve if STPM General Paper school trial examination poses the question whether a person who supported corrupt political leaders have failed their citizenship responsibilities? Clearly the politicisation of education has reached a new low with the Education Minister and his two deputy Ministers failing to condemn in the strongest possible terms the setting of these tendentious and misguided questions – which amounts no less to an irresponsible attempt to indoctrinate and brainwash schoolchildren to parrot the views of the ruling coalition. With such continued politicisation of education, there can be very little public confidence that under continued UMNO/Barisan Nasional government, the education system could unite rather than divide Malaysians or that the Malaysian Education Blueprint 2013-2025 recently launched by the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak would be able to make any fundamental difference to the problems of politicisation and deterioration of educational standards in Malaysia.
|
| Pakatan, where will the money come from? Posted: 27 Sep 2012 01:43 PM PDT
From Arul K Muthiah, via e-mail In anticipation of the general election, we have seen the Opposition trying to introduce more policy proposals to sway key voting segments. In particular, it has targeted young, first-time voters, who make up the bulk of the more than two million newly registered Malaysian voters, and the middle class in general. Two of Pakatan's policy proposals announced this year are designed to strike at these two voter demographics directly. The first was a promise to write off all National Higher Education Fund (PTPTN) loans and provide free university education, and the latest, a policy that will see a reduction in passenger car prices. Both policies have clear political objectives in mind. The student loan write-off is an attractive promise for young voters still stuck with their PTPTN debt in addition to dealing with higher living costs. The promise of lower car prices casts a wider appeal as most Malaysian car owners bemoan having to pay more for the same car than people in other countries, which results in a bigger chunk of the salary being used to service their monthly car loans. By selling these promises, the federal opposition is saying that it can assist with increasing your disposable income because you will have more to spend on other things and also save because these two expenditure items will either disappear (PTPTN loans written off) or be reduced (cheaper car prices). The purpose of this article is not to examine the two proposals directly but to discuss one fundamental question that arises when political parties – especially those not in power – make electoral promises: How do they hope to pay for these promises? If this question does not require answering, then politics would be an easy game. Promise people everything under the sun, sit back and enjoy watching voters swing your way. But we do not live in a world where the electorate believes they can get everything for free. Politicians cannot assume people are stupid, as they seem to do particularly when elections are approaching. Apart from subsidies which many Malaysians still hold dear, most Malaysians do generally believe that the government should not increase the budget deficit and borrow more money. Most Malaysians also feel a sense of responsibility and that people should pay back whatever they borrowed and not have the government write off those loans. Also, importantly, international investors and credit rating agencies are watching to see whether we live within our means. In an age of sovereign defaults and bailouts, fiscal responsibility is a key measure of sound public administration that will have an impact on our attractiveness as an investment destination and on our credit ratings. As far as the federal opposition is concerned, it is doubtful that balancing the books high is on its agenda. It has not really explained how it is going to pay for its electoral promises. And just to put it on the record once again – its electoral promises amount to a very very high RM206.5 billion in the first year alone. And this doesn't even include Pakatan's standard promise of an immediate reduction in the price of petrol should it take over the Government. Depending on the reduction, this could cost billions on top of whatever has already been promised. Multi-billion ringgit promises Let's just put the cost of the opposition's promises into context. The federal government development budget for 2012 was RM51.2 billion. Pakatan's electoral promises costs 400% or four times more than the current 2012 Government's development budget. So if it were to fulfil its promises in the first year of office, a Pakatan federal Government would not have enough money to pay the salaries of teachers, doctors, nurses, police and army personnel, let alone have the funds for building roads, schools, hospitals or providing welfare assistance to the poor. Most of the money would have been used to deliver on its Jingga promises. If this happens, essential services would grind to a halt and the country would cease to function. If it decides to borrow more money to fund its promises and keep the government going, the fiscal deficit would balloon from 4.7%, which it is now, to more than 25% of GDP and Malaysia would effectively be bankrupt within the first two years of Pakatan ruling Putrajaya. Pakatan's standard response to this is that it will "get rid of the corruption" to pay for its promises. But the question is can getting rid of corruption pay for the Oppositions RM206.5 billion promises?
|
| 10 Big Questions To Ask About Pengerang Posted: 25 Sep 2012 12:20 PM PDT
Sultan Ibrahim Sultan Iskandar and Datuk Seri Najib Razak (third from left) looking at the model of the Petronas Refinery and Petrochemical Integrated Development (Rapid) project in Pengerang. Pic by Hairul Anuar Rahim The total value is now RM120bil, with expected investments from Taiwanese and German petrochemical companies, easily making this Pengerang project the biggest-ever in the history of this nation. Thomas Fann On May 13 2011, PM Najib announced that Petronas will invest RM60bil in a major integrated refinery and petrochemical complex in Pengerang, Johor. The Refinery and Petrochemicals Integrated Development (RAPID) project by Petronas, as it is known, is expected to be commissioned by the end of 2016, as part of the national oil company's efforts to expand its downstream production. Exactly a year later on May 13 2012, when the RAPID project was officially launched, the total value is now RM120bil, with expected investments from Taiwanese and German petrochemical companies, easily making this Pengerang project the biggest-ever in the history of this nation. In the midst of all the excitement and promises of economic benefits to the state of Johor and the nation, there has been some disquiet amongst the Pengerang community. Local NGOs were formed and has submitted memorandums to various authorities and several protests were organised this year. It would be wrong to say that these NGOs and the people they represent are against any form of development in Pengerang but what many are concerned about is that it has to be sustainable. These local NGOs have adopted a unifying theme - Kekalkan Pengerang Lestari, or Maintain the Sustainability of Pengerang. Development of such scale must be embarked upon with regards for the people affected by it and be done responsibly to minimise its impact on the environment. We have to ask honest questions and hear honest answers to these questions so that the concerns of not just the Pengerangites but also Malaysians are allayed. There are many issues and questions to ask but I want to list down 10 big questions to ask the government about this massive project. Question 1 - The RAPID Project requires 6,424 acres of land but why is the Johor government using the Land Acquisition Act 1960 to acquire 22,500 acres of land? We hope a plausible and detailed explanation for its justification is forthcoming so that the government would not be accused of using Rapid as an excuse to grab land from the ordinary people of Pengerang. Question 2 – What is going to happen to the fishermen and smallholders who would have lost their means of livelihood? There are about 3,100 residents within the seven villages affected, who earned a living as fishermen and smallholders. Though some argued that 40,000 jobs would be created during the construction phase and 4,000 by the time the projects are completed in 2016, the reality are for many of these affected fishermen and farmers, it would be difficult for them to work in these new jobs because their skills are different. Question 3 - It has been reported that licensed fishermen are being offered RM30,000 compensation whilst unlicensed ones are offered half that amount. Smallholders with 1-2 acres land are offered between RM65,000 to RM105,000 for their land. As a "sweetener", the Johor government is offering "subsidized" alternative housing on 6,000 sq.ft. of land with built-up area between 750 to 1,600 sq.ft. The discounted prices the villagers would have to pay for these houses range from RM35,000 to RM105,000. In short, they would have given up their 1-2 acres of land and houses in exchange for 6,000 sq.ft. of land with a house on it, some 15-20km away, with little or no money in their pocket and no land to earn a living. I am told many of these lands are shared between several siblings in the first place, thus, after dividing the compensation they won't even be able to afford the "subsidized" housing. Is this a fair deal? Question 4 - Why is our government so keen to welcome KuoKuang Petrochemical of Taiwan when they have been rejected by their own country? Again, like the Lynas case, is our government telling us that Malaysian lives are worth not only less than the Australian but also now, less than the Taiwanese? We have to understand why the Taiwanese people were so against KuoKuang before we welcome them into our land. Question 5 - Is it true that a petrochemical plant the scale of Rapid would need massive amount of processed water a day to operate, almost 75% of Johor's current daily consumption? If this is true, wouldn't it cause acute water shortages in Johor? Have the government foresaw this and made plans to increase the supply of processed water for the state? Question 6 - Apart from consuming large quantity of water, it would also need large quantity of electrical energy? If not, has the government made plans to increase the energy output in Johor? Has this got anything to do with the rumoured nuclear power plants to be setup in Pengerang? What would our neighbour across the straits have to say about this, especially in the light of the recent Fukushima nuclear disaster? Question 7 - In May 2009, during a visit to Singapore, PM Najib proposed to his counterpart PM Lee that a third link be built linking Pengerang to Singapore. When would this proposal be followed-up with another announcement? Would it be after all the land near this third link has been acquired and parceled to third party companies so that they can make a killing? Question 8 – Currently the Department of Environment (DOE) requires developers to submit the EIA report. This report is paid for by the developers, in this case Petronas. Can we trust the glowing DEIA (Detailed Environmental Impact Assessment) report by Integrated Envirotect Sdn Bhd? Isn't it a case of "he who pays the piper calls the tune"? Shouldn't an independent panel of local and international Question 9 – It is oppression to the local communities when you unilaterally announce a major development without consultation. That was what happened in Pengerang. When PM Najib made the announcement in May 2011, it was said that even the local state assemblyman was clueless, let alone the villagers. Free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) is an approach outlined in international human Question 10 – For all the claims of huge economic benefits these petrochemical projects would bring to this country, we hear that the Taiwanese company, KuoKuang Petrochemical will be given a tax holiday of 10-years! Their government rejected them and ours give them this incentive to move here. While we, the taxpayer pay our government to look after us, hazardous foreign companies are invited into our country to pollute us tax-free, denying us probably billions in taxes which could have bee used to clean up the environment and improve health care here. What is going on here? In Conclusion... As Malaysians, we are concern with what is happening in Pengerang not because it could directly impact us but because it could be our homes and livelihood that would be taken next. What we are confronting is not an isolated situation but a systemic problem of lack of transparency, disregards for the people's rights and the environment. These are honest questions that are in need of answers from the only people who can answer them - the government. We hope that honest answers will be forthcoming in the days to come. We hope that the declaration "Rakyat didahulukan, Pencapaian diutamakan" (People first, Performance now) is more than an empty slogan when it comes to Pengerang. But for now, myself and thousand others will be attending Himpunan Hijau Lestari Pengerang on 30th September because we are seeking answers and standing in solidarity with our fellow Malaysians in Pengerang. For more information, you can visit www.hijau.info |
| All The World's A Stage - Press Release regarding the Happy Mansion “Water Crisis” ... Posted: 24 Sep 2012 08:09 PM PDT
The residents of Happy Mansion, a privately-owned apartment complex, in Section 17 were bewildered early morning yesterday by the sight of more than 300 people, mostly unknown faces, congregating around the compound; awaiting their turns to fill the water containers from several mobile water tankers. A production crew was filming the entire process; to create a 40 s infomercial regarding the water supply of Selangor. Further investigations have shown that the production was allegedly paid for by certain leaders from the Barisan National. Some residents had informed us that the crowd was paid RM50/each to participate in the production, while the JMB was given RM7500 for permission to use the place. Food was ample for those involve in the production. I denounced this act of concocting a water shortage in the state of Selangor. There have been no incidences or reports of water shortages in the area. Since 2008, we'd assisted the residents of Happy Mansion to qualify for the state's free water program by converting centralized meter to individual meter. The residents are upset with the charade and are demanding an apology from the makers of the infomercial. This incident could potentially put a dark spot on the value of their properties owing to the negative perceptions created by the filming. If the allegations are true, Barisan National should strongly reprimand the leaders responsible for creating such malign infomercial. The people expect an honest government and an honest media. The Pakatan Rakyat-led Selangor Government, under the leadership of MB Tan Sri Khalid, had fulfilled its promise to provide free water to the needy. Since implementation in 2008, over 92% of low cost apartments have gotten free water, and more than 1 million individual subscribers have benefited from the program. The Selangor Government had spent more than RM400 million in this program. On the issue of treated water, the state water plants are capable of producing 4700 million litres per day (MLD) of treated water, whereas the daily demand of Selangor and KL averages around 3000 MLD. The Selangor government had repeatedly rebuked the necessity of the RM6 billion Langat 2 project. If SYABAS is unable to fulfill its contractual agreement of providing treated water to the people of Selangor, the state is willing to take over SYABAS to realize the responsibility. SYABAS currently owes more than RM2.8 billion to water treatment operators in the state. I would like to urge the public to call, inform, and write to your Member of Parliament and let them know that you disapprove of such sandiwara. The residents of Happy Mansion would like to know who instructed the filming of the infomercial. The film owners should be honest; come forward, and take responsibility over this fiasco. Hee Loy Sian MP Petaling Jaya Selatan
|
| Why the compulsion to lie, lie and lie, Rafizi? Posted: 24 Sep 2012 03:10 PM PDT
According to KL Chronicle, Opposition Strategist Rafizi Ramli has again made a nonsensical and irresponsible statement regarding Approved Permits (AP) for the import of cars - intended specifically to confuse the rakyat, and create dissatisfaction towards the BN Government. Why is Rafizi still lying to the rakyat, it asks in a recent posting? In another September case, reports and blogs say Rafizi is not to be believed. Why? Is it because Section 114A of the Evidence Act now requires news portals and bloggers to report accurately, or have journalists and editors found Rafizi to be a pseudologia fantastica? Fabiani Azmi Psychiatrists say there are three of several terms that best describe compulsive liars, pseudologia fantastica, mythomania, or pathological lying. According to Wikipedia, it was first described in medical literature in 1891 by Anton Delbrueck. Although controversial in nature, pathological lying has been defined as "falsification entirely disproportionate to any discernible end in view. It may be extensive and very complicated, and may manifest over a period of years or even a lifetime." But before we delve into this illness of the mind any deeper, let's look at National Feedlot Corporation's bone of contention that Rafizi had been lying all these months to defame them and create unwarranted public outrage. Rafizi lied on radio There is nothing better than hearing it from the horse's mouth, they say. In a BFM 89.9 podcast, there is a recording with Rafizi in which he tells listeners that NFCorp was never serious in doing the beef business. Rafizi went on to make dramatic defamatory statements to say that money was being swindled and siphoned off. NFCorp however in a news release had said that the company has over 160 customers buying their Gemas beef. These customers comprise hypermarkets, supermarkets, minimarkets, wet markets, pasar tani, processed meat manufacturers, and a host of hotels, restaurants and cafes (HORECA sector). The customers subsequently sell to more than 100,000 retail consumers each week. Now if this is not serious business, what then is it? Why did Rafizi lie to cast a different perception? Can we count on Rafizi to count correctly? Rafizi claims he is a trained chartered accountant. In a Malaysian Insider report (1 November 2011), he said NFCorp met only 5% of the projected annual plan of 50,000 tonnes of beef (5% from 330,000 heads of cattle) for 2009. Rafizi with a gang of PR assemblymen had tried to gain entry into the NFC to do some arithmetic audit. According to the Malaysian Insider, they were rebuffed by security while arguing that they had a right to go in and "count cows". So if Rafizi and gang had not entered the NFC, how did he count the heads of cattle? An Implementation Agreement sighted showed that NFCorp met preliminary targets set by the government for the NFC. For 2010, NFCorp's target was charted at 8,000 heads. NFCorp had imported 8,897 heads of cattle, 897 heads or 11 per cent more than the target charted for that year. As always, Rafizi appears to have not had the correct picture or the full set of numbers. His dramatization of his arguments was premised on lies and fabrications. The target of 330,000 heads of cattle claimed by Rafizi does not exist. Even going up the road, the official target for 2015 in Schedule 9 of the Implementation Agreement for NFCorp reads 60,000 heads of cattle. So why did Rafizi misrepresent and distort? More so, why did Rafizi lie to Malaysians? Can Rafizi read? Or did he not read? The Auditor General's 2010 Report was very clear that the Auditor General (AG) only audits the government machinery comprising ministries, government departments, government agencies, government owned companies, and government projects. The AG's foreword confirms this. It does not audit private limited companies registered with the Companies Commission of Malaysia (CCM). But at the outset of the NFC commotion in 2011, Rafizi went at length to demonise NFCorp (the company) backing the Auditor-General's assertion that the project had turned "into a mess" (Malaysian Insider, 1 November 2011). On 26 January 2012, the AG Tan Sri Amrin Buang surfaced with a news release to clarify that NFCorp had not been audited, only the government NFC project under the Ministry of Agriculture and Agro-Based Industry was. More importantly, NFCorp was not in a "mess", putting to rest months of tireless public bashing from hard-line critics and a riled public. According to the AG's statement, the audit was to evaluate whether the NFC project had been carefully planned, whether its implementation was carried out prudently and had met its objective. The audit was never on NFCorp. So why did Rafizi misrepresent and distort NFCorp? Why did he lie? No free land and certainly not 5,000 acres Rembau MP Khairy Jamaluddin had in a 11 November MalaysiaKini report said, "Rafizi had alleged that NFCorp was given 5,000 acres of land in Gemas, Negeri Sembilan, for free. This is categorically false – NFC was only offered 1,500 acres on lease by the Negeri Sembilan Menteri Besar Incorporated." "Two major errors: on the acreage of the land in question and the fact that it is on lease, not handed out for free. You will notice that Rafizi makes no mention of this in his MalaysiaKini piece on Nov 10, although there is still the Nov 1 blog entry with the words '1 lembu = 5 ekar'." "Great math," quipped Khairy. Documents sighted show the existence of a lease agreement – so the land isn't free as claimed by Rafizi. And Khairy was right that it was just 1,500 acres. The lease agreement reads so. So why did Rafizi lie? Perhaps Khairy sums it best when he said, "Something that has become terribly clear to me is that throughout this debate, Rafizi has shown himself to be disingenuous, dishonest and in the habit of shifting the goalposts the very moment he realises a line of attack is broken down." KL Eco City lie and fabrication nuked The controversy on loans for the KL Eco City office lots was another perfect example where Rafizi realized that his line of attack had been shot down. Rafizi deliberately distorted and misrepresented the bank documents he had unlawfully obtained from a bank employee. MalaysiaKini captured it all on camera on 7 March 2012 (http://www.malaysiakini.tv/video/23239/more-properties-in-bangsar-bought-by-nfc-directors.html). Brandishing and dispensing the documents in outright violation of BAFIA, he dramatised the media into believing that he had the hard facts on loans taken for eight office lots as well as information on the poor credit standing of the directors. Rafizi even lied that the loans were taken at the jeopardy of NFCorp's RM71 million government deposit in the bank when he provided a sly analysis of the bank documents. However, NFCorp clarified to say no loans were ever taken for KL Eco City by the company. The documents Rafizi had were for other private personal loans taken in 2005 and 2008 not connected in any way to KL Eco City. Our close inspection of the bank documents Rafizi had given to the media showed the loans had in fact commenced as far back as 2005 and 2008. It is interesting to note that KL Eco City was only launched for sale in 2011. And if you look at the equation, NFCorp was not even formed in 2005. Ultimately, the bluff that the RM71 million deposit was under threat, was debunked. Since his line of attack was nuked, there has not been a further squeak from Rafizi on the purported loans for the KL Eco City office lots. However, sources close to NFCorp say Rafizi's exaggeration had caused irreparable damage to NFCorp and its chairman. On the premise of lies and fabrication, a whole nation was riled against them. No prizes for guessing why NFCorp is preparing to sue the pants off Rafizi. Why does Rafizi thrive on lies? Why is he so bent hell? Yes, why does Rafizi lie so very often, begs the question? Wikipedia and other Internet resources say that the defining characteristics of pseudologia fantastica or a compulsive liar are: · The stories told tend toward presenting the liar favorably. For example, the person might be presented as being fantastically brave, bold and brazen. It would even make the liar be perceived as a towering hero. Or even related to many famous people. · The problem also usually affects people with low self-esteem – they lie to make themselves feel important and because they are not able to communicate well with other people. They are able to attract attention by exaggerating or making up stories or anecdotes. · The stories told are not entirely improbable. They are not a manifestation of delusion or some broader type of psychosis: upon confrontation, the teller can admit them to be untrue, even if unwillingly. · The fabricative tendency is long lasting. · Pseudologia fantastica may also present as false memory syndrome, where the sufferer genuinely believes that fictitious events have taken place, regardless that these events are fantasies. Pathological lying zealot makes false statements Wikipedia explains that lying is the act of both knowingly and intentionally/willfully making a false statement. Pathological lying is considered a mental illness, because it takes over rational judgement and progresses into the fantasy world and back. Some research suggests that certain people may have a "predisposition to lying". Excessive lying is a common symptom of many mental illnesses. There are several consequences of being a pathological liar. Due to lack of trust, most pathological liars' relationships and friendships fail. Is this not what we hear from the opposition's grape vine? If the disease continues to progress, lying could become so severe as to cause legal problems. Is Rafizi in some dire need of help? About the Writer Fabiani Azmi is an avid reader of Internet news portals like Malaysia Today as well as other blogsites. He believes the world's mysteries can be solved. And it does not warrant a paleontologist to investigate.
|
| 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