Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info

Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Malaysia and the Muslim Spring
Is ‘V’ for victory or vilification?
Attacks on Malaysiakini, here we go again
When the ends justify the means
Where did the money go?
Confused over right to choose

Posted: 27 Sep 2012 12:36 PM PDT

A ruling party is not legitimate if the electoral process is flawed, "national interest" and "realpolitik" are not a legitimate excuse for corruption and police brutality.

Azeem Ibrahim (Huffington Post)

President Obama's recent address to the UN (September 25, 2012) referred to change in the Middle East and North Africa saying that "the path to democracy does not end with the casting of a ballot".

The President went on to deplore the convulsion of violence in the last two weeks in Muslim countries, in reaction to the "crude and disgusting video" denigrating Islam. He said that recent events speak to "the need for all of us to honestly address the tensions between the West and the Arab world that is moving towards democracy".

His remarks brought a welcome balance to recent overreaction by international media to the unrest and violence around the world, by acknowledging that the global movement towards liberty and democracy would not be denied.

The movement behind the Arab Spring -- or rather the Muslim Spring -- has a different connotation in Southeast Asian countries where Burma for example, is slowly transitioning into democracy and Thailand and Pakistan are emerging from periods of military rule. Popular protests and elections have helped bring about change in these countries -- some peaceful, some violent -- but have been more evolutionary than revolutionary in recent years.

Malaysia too, is undergoing change, but its struggle for democracy has also taken a different route from the sudden change of the Arab Spring; it achieved its independence from British colonial rule in 1957 and has since become an example to the world of what an independent multi-racial federation can achieve.

One of the Asia Tigers in economic transformation due to its continued political stability, Malaysia has been governed since 1970 by a coalition headed by the United Malays National Organisation (UMNO) which has presided over a period of dramatic economic growth and increased living standards. Rapid growth, the embrace of technology and industrialization have been accompanied by generous government investment in education, with the result that Malaysia has had one of the best economic records in Asia, with GDP growing at an average of 6.5% for almost 50 years.

Today however, the electorate is restless - the young, educated and relatively well-off population is demanding change. They see the government as representing a past that has been overtaken by modernity. Laws remain on the books that should be repealed in the name of democracy and freedom of speech. At the same time, there is ongoing debate over whether the laws and society of Malaysia, a majority Muslim country, should reflect secular or Islamic principles. Conservative elements in the ruling UMNO coalition are resisting change or want the state to reflect more fundamental Islamic principles and Prime Minister Najib Razak is trying to appease his base while offering reforms to the center, described by some as offering "just enough to alienate his own party and not enough to convince the center ground." (Economist, Feb 4, 2012)

There is one man however, who seems to have a better understanding of the wave of change overtaking Muslim nations right now. Anwar Ibrahim sees his role in the Muslim Spring as reflecting the mood for change from an autocratic and out-of-touch government whose numerous corruption scandals and police brutality prove that government reform is necessary and democracy needs to be up-dated.

Is ‘V’ for victory or vilification?

Posted: 27 Sep 2012 12:26 PM PDT

It appears that Putrajaya is full of closet homosexuals who are unable to declare their sexuality openly.

Mariam Mokhtar (Free Malaysia Today)

Hong Kong billionaire, 76-year-old Cecil Chao Sze-tsung, has offered RM200 million to the man who can woo his lesbian daughter, make her "straight", then marry her. In the past, Chao has claimed to have slept with over 10,000 girlfriends. Gigi, his daughter, is one of three children he fathered with three different women. When he heard that Gigi had married her long-term lover of seven years, Seab Eav, in a civil partnership ceremony in Paris, Chao was prompted to act, to save his family "honour".

Chao appears to have more money than sense. When will he accept his daughter's happiness with her sexuality and her future with her civil partner? Will he concede that money is not everything? How does he reconcile his own promiscuity and think it superior to his daughter's monogamous relationship?

In Malaysia, our ministers and their deputies cannot be considered harmless eccentrics. They are hypocrites and bigots, and the influence and power which they wield, does the nation much harm. So which is worse? The Malaysian authorities who backtrack on issues or the ill-thought-out directives themselves?

It is established that when faced with a public backlash, ministers tend to issue denials and quickly dissociate themselves from whatever it is that caused the outrage. There are numerous examples of such idiocy. Even clothing has attracted official censure; the tutu, yellow shirts and now, V-neck shirts, have all courted controversy. Instead of leaping forward into a world of understanding and tolerance, the nation is forced to descend into the dark ages.

Previously, yellow clothing was banned because those who wore it were supporters of democracy. The tutu was frowned upon because it was considered immoral or indecent. In the latest Ministry of Education (MOE)-sanctioned guide, those who wear tight, brightly coloured clothing, sleeveless shirts and V-neck shirts possess homosexual tendencies.

Recently, Deputy Education Minister Puad Zarkashi denied that his ministry had endorsed the "gay-spotting guidelines" for schools. Unfortunately for him, the reaction of the public has been to organise a National V-neck Day on Oct 1, which thousands of people claim they will attend, as a form of protest.

Puad is furious and has reacted in typical Umno fashion, telling another online newspaper that is was "unreasonable" to hold the "V-neck" event: "There's no gay guideline, is there? I had asked the parent NGO and they said they didn't issue the guideline…

"So when they do this (organise a V-neck Day), it shows that they are not taking this issue seriously. What they are doing is unreasonable."

The backpedalling has invited more contempt for the MOE and the NGO which produced the "gay-spotting" guidelines. They contend that people wearing V-neck shirts must be gay. What about the homosexuals who wear suits in the civil service? What about the many closet homosexuals in the ministries, some of whom are alleged close associates of Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak?

The gay-guide states that girls who sleep with other girls must be lesbian. Parents are aghast at the MOE guide, and will be wondering if the MOE would prefer their daughters to sleep with men? Every parent will now have qualms about having their daughter's girl-friends for a sleep over.

Forcing homosexuals underground

Who are the people in government, who end up dictating policy? Do they live such cloistered and sheltered lives? Is there no discussion to see if their guidelines stand up to reason? Are they themselves closet homosexuals with no avenue to express their sexuality?

Attacks on Malaysiakini, here we go again

Posted: 27 Sep 2012 12:22 PM PDT

Premesh Chandran, Malaysiakini

The attacks against Malaysiakini signal that the government is getting desperate.

For the past week, the mainstream media - TV3, Utusan Malaysia, New Straits Times and The Star - have launched an attack on Malaysiakini and civil society organisations for receiving grants from international foundations in what they claimed is a plot to destabilise the government.

NONE Malaysiakini has been further attacked for having a foreign investor which is allegedly linked to billionaire financier George Soros. Further aspersions have been cast on Malaysiakini that some of our shareholders have political links.

I understand the reason for the attacks. After all, elections are around the corner, and by all accounts, the results could go either way.

Hence, the mainstream media have been ordered by their political owners - Umno and MCA - to attack and discredit voices that are calling for free and fair elections, for investigations into various corruption scandals and for democratic principles to be observed and upheld.

It is no surprise that they repeatedly report accusations, insinuations and half-truths, along with an ugly dose of racism - a strategy perfected by none other than Nazi propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels.

Let's look into these accusations one by one and put them to bed:

1. Same accusation 11 years ago

Former Malaysiakini news editor YL Chong's repeated accusations that in 2001 we hid a RM188,000 grant from Media Development Loan Fund (MDLF) and that he resigned after taking a stand on the matter.

This accusation is not new. It was paraded in the mainstream media 11 years ago - back in 2001 - as "proof" of our links to Soros. We have published our rebuttal shortly after those accusations were made.

azlan In a nutshell, Malaysiakini was open with its staff about a contract to build a software application for the Centre for Advanced Media Prague (Camp), which is MDLF's technology division.

Chong went to the media with the accusation that the deal was a grant and we're hiding the deal. In fact, Malaysiakini had already made an announcement of the software deal on the site.

The question is, why would Malaysiakini be so open with its staff on the deal. Wouldn't it have made more sense to keep Malaysiakini staff in the dark?

2. 'Soros man on Malaysiakini board'

On the back of successfully completing the technology development and successfully launching a subscription model in January 2002, MDLF decided to invest in Malaysiakini - their first in an online medium, breaking away from their traditional investment in newspapers, television and radio stations.

Malaysiakini received RM1.3 million for 29 percent of equity and MDLF agreed to sign an editorial non-intervention agreement. Following that, Malaysiakini held a press conference and made an announcement about the matter.

At the time of the investment, MDLF was led by its co-founder Sasa Vucinic, a journalist whose independent radio station B92 in Belgrade fought a long and hard battle to help bring down Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic. Milosevic was subsequently charged with war crimes and crimes against humanity in connection with wars in Bosnia, Croatia and Kosovo.

Sasa went on to set up MDLF with the strategy of helping independent media in Eastern Europe grow following the fall of communism. Soros, a Hungarian with a track record of supporting press freedom, was among the many major donors of MDLF.

Do watch Sasa's fantastic TED talk to know more about MDLF's philosophy.

To date, MDLF is involved in 269 projects for 85 independent media companies in 27 countries. Not only does MDLF have a right to be on Malaysiakini's board given its stake in the company, it is hardly business sense for us to pass on the opportunity to have such distinguished individuals to serve on our board.

The advice and guidance from MDLF and their current CEO, Harlan Mandel, have been a tremendous boost to Malaysiakini's business strategy.

How is Mandel a Soros' man? Indeed, using the tenuous link between MDLF and Soros to argue that somehow MDLF is doing Soros's bidding is definitely straight out of the Goebbels handbook.

3. But why attack Soros?

The entire attack by the mainstream media is premised on a link between Malaysiakini and Soros. But why the hatred of Soros?

The Malaysian central bank chose to gamble our hard-earned reserves on defending the pound. When the pound collapsed in 1992, Malaysia was left with a major hole in the Treasury, and Soros made a name for himself for breaking the Bank of England.

Instead of asking why was our central bank engaged in highly speculative and risky action, Malaysia attacked Soros.

NONE Despite a heated exchange of words in the wake of the Asian financial crisis, former PM Dr Mahathir Mohamad later conceded that Soros was not responsible for the damage to Malaysia. Mahathir subsequently met Soros in Kuala Lumpur and asked for his support for his global campaign to outlaw war.

During his visit to Malaysia, Soros met with a host of government and business leaders.

We have even heard of there were subsequent private meetings between Soros and top Umno leaders, which to date have gone unreported but will come to light soon.

4. Malaysiakini gets grants from foreign donors

The mainstream media have portrayed that Malaysiakini has been hiding the fact that we receive grants from international donors and we now "admit" to this long-hidden fact. The truth is that Malaysiakini has always declared the grants it receives.

Malaysiakini funds its core activities from subscription and advertising revenues. Grants are used to fund projects that are of social benefit but are not likely to be revenue generating or profitable.

So while Malaysiakini as a whole is a for-profit organisation, we do solicit funds to support our "non-profit" projects.

When the ends justify the means

Posted: 27 Sep 2012 12:19 PM PDT

Many NGOs receive funds from foreign countries but not all are equally transparent about it.

Tunku 'Abidin Muhriz (The Star)

AEROPLANE passengers who enjoy the interactive maps on flights to KLIA will notice a curious settlement east of Sepang: Kampung LBJ in Negri Sembilan.

It was named after the President of the United States Lyndon Baines Johnson when he visited in 1966 (it remains the only town in Malaysia apart from Kuala Lumpur that has ever hosted a US President, and you can find footage of this visit by going to criticalpast.com and searching for "Lyndon Johnson Malaysia").

Although the Malayan Emergency was officially over, the Cold War was still very much ongoing elsewhere in the world.

Diplomatic showcases such as this reminded the world that newly-established Malaysia under the leadership of Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra was resolutely pro-democratic and unashamedly anti-Communist.

Of course, we would not have triumphed over the Communists if not for the enormous contributions – military and aid – that we received from our British and other Commonwealth allies.

And as our national focus moved from ensuring stability to development, our Government continued to receive funding from friendly countries and entered numerous bilateral partnerships to upgrade our infrastructure: this in addition to increasingly stable foreign direct investment of course.

Let us be clear: foreign funds were something the Malaysian Government actively sought, obtained, and celebrated, and there is no doubt that these funds formed a vital ingredient in our post-independence success.

Today, through our memberships of multiple international organisations, foreign funds continue to enter our country.

Still, some people's attitude towards foreign funding in Malaysia has been less enthusiastic, particularly where the recipients are non-governmental organisations they do not like.

The fact is that NGOs in democracies all over the world routinely accept and disburse funds to further the causes that they support.

In Malaysia, there are charities that have been accepting overseas donations for some time (like the Malaysian AIDS Council), and service organisations like Rotary International and the Lions Club which are headquartered in the USA have operated here openly for decades.

However, many recent entrants into Malaysian civil society have been far more vocal on policy and political matters than their predecessors. Since there is still scepticism and ignorance about the role played by think tanks and independent research institutes in a healthy democracy, the accusation that they are "foreign agents" is an easy one for critics to make.

There are many reasons why such accusations should be dismissed, prime amongst them that so many values are universal, shared by people across the world who will no doubt reach out to friends in other countries, just as Malaya did in fighting communism.

Indeed, our Federal Constitution adapted much from the British experience of parliamentary democracy, though of course modified to suit our own historical circumstances.

All of the major religions practised by Malaysians originated in "foreign" lands, and let us remember that virtually the entire social, political and economic structure of Negri Sembilan was, to begin with, "foreign": the Minangkabau immigrants who came from Sumatra brought with them their adat, institutions and wealth to a peninsula where Adat Temenggong had hitherto enjoyed a monopoly, and yet these settlers continued to receive resources (and invited monarchs) from the motherland until the Anglo-Dutch Treaty of 1824.

Today, many NGOs undeniably receive funds from foreign countries, but not all are equally transparent about it.

I'm proud to say that we at IDEAS have been open and honest about our funding from the beginning. Since our inception we have received funds or collaborated with organisations from Britain, Indonesia, Singapore, Hong Kong, India, Turkey, Morocco, China, France, Germany, the United States and Nigeria.

Furthermore, we ourselves have funded activities for students in Indonesia.

Nonetheless, we have also worked with the Prime Minister's Department, government ministries, parliamentary and statutory bodies and political parties that did not feel that our relationships with foreigners compromised our patriotism and adherence to the vision of Bapa Kemerdekaan.

It is entirely fair for the rakyat to judge NGOs based on the activities that they run, the company they keep and the funding that they receive.

But the prerequisite for all of this is transparency and a free media, and that is where I believe the focus should be, rather than singling out any particular NGO, which is probably just as patriotic and committed to our national institutions (though not necessarily their office bearers) as most other participants in Malaysian civil society, even if some of their principles and methods may differ from ours.

> Tunku 'Abidin Muhriz is president of IDEAS.

Where did the money go?

Posted: 27 Sep 2012 12:13 PM PDT

(The Star) - While they are doing a fine job listing out the need for more money and to improve the social amenities, sadly none of them have touched on the need for the Government to come up with a better system on how to use Government funds to make sure that these money are utilised in the right way, for the right purpose, to benefit the targetted group and how to ensure that these money are spent on time for the intended project.

I HAVE been scanning the local and national newspapers over the past two weeks to find out what our local and national politicians expect from the coming Budget that will be tabled by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak in his capacity as Finance Minister 1 in the Dewan Rakyat tomorrow.

Almost all of the elected representatives (YBs) talked about the need for more money for their respective states and the constituencies they represent.

They talked about the specific needs that have to be looked into, especially affordable housing, basic amenities and better public transportations and the likes.

While they are doing a fine job listing out the need for more money and to improve the social amenities, sadly none of them have touched on the need for the Government to come up with a better system on how to use Government funds to make sure that these money are utilised in the right way, for the right purpose, to benefit the targetted group and how to ensure that these money are spent on time for the intended project.

These state assemblymen and Members of Parliament, including those from the Barisan Nasional, seemed to have forgotten that year after year, a lot of money announced during the annual Budget does not seem to benefit the intended group of people because the intended projects did not materialise as stipulated in the Budget.

These projects often got delayed and the funds approved were not used according to the announced purposes.

There were so many examples how the money approved under the annual Budget did not seem to end up accomplishing its intended purposes.

I want to highlight just a few of these "incidents" which, to some extend, have directly or indirectly affected the people of Miri just to prove my point. I am not saying there was any hanky-panky surrounding the use of these money, but these incidents raised much confusion.

In the year 2008, a certain politician took a group of reporters to Bakong Bazaar, about 60km from Miri, to tour the Lapok Road, a vital road link that connects Miri into the interior of Baram and the rest of northern Sarawak.

He wanted to announce that the Government had approved a RM200mil fund to repair the road that was then in a terribly bad shape. The road had not been upgraded since Sarawak gained its independence through Malaysia. During the event, he proudly announced that the fund had been approved by the Federal Treasury for the 40km-long Lapok Road to be resurfaced and that repair works would start immediately.

He even brought along senior officers from the company that had been hired to do the job.

In the year 2010, I had the opportunity to travel pass the road to get into the interior parts of Baram to attend a function by Home Minister Datuk Seri Hishamuddin Tun Hussein, who was then visiting some Penan settlements to distribute MyKads.

Sadly, the road was still in its horrendous condition as in 2008. The politician's sweet announcement remained just an announcement.

I passed through the same road again in 2011, when I was assigned to attend a function by Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin. Again, there was still no sign of repair works being been done on the road.

Surprisingly, a few months ago, another politician announced that the Government had approved yet another RM150mil to upgrade the same road. The announcement had me perplexed.

What actually is going on? What happened to the initial RM200mil meant for the road upgrading as announced in 2008?

I am not insinuating that there are some hanky-panky going on. But all these turn of events are very confusing and the fact that the Lapok Road upgrading is neither there nor there is indeed a cause of frustration to the people who have to bear with the poor road condition daily.

Another example is the proposed RM120mil Pujut-Permyjaya highway upgrading project.

A politician announced in 2008 that the project would soon start to alleviate the massive traffic jam affecting more than 100,000 people in Kuala Baram district daily.

But until April 2011, there was absolutely no progress to that project. Works only begun after the state elections where SUPP president and Deputy Chief Minister Tan Sri Dr George Chan lost his Piasau state seat while Andy Chia lost Pujut seat, both to DAP.

The delay in that project's implementation was part of the reasons that the SUPP lost the two seats and almost lost the Senadin seat as well.

Yet another example is the RM100mil announced in 2011 meant for the improvement of Miri Port.

DAP YB for Piasau Alan Ling asked what had happened to the money and why the funds was not used for the intended project.

Infrastructure Development Minister Datuk Michael Manyin explained that the money was "diverted" for some urgent projects in Kuching.

This sort of "diversion of funds" should have been made public before it was diverted.

The intention may sound reasonable, but the manner in which these money were diverted surely raised suspicions.

There are so many examples of these "fund diversions" that I can dig up.

Just a few months ago, I found that certain Class F contractors hired by government authorities and the MP office here in Miri had done a horrible job in carrying out urgent repair works for the needy and the poor in Miri.

They had not only resorted to using low quality materials but also produced shoddy workmanship in order to cut corners to earn bigger profit margins.

In the process, they had fleeced the poor people whom the Government had intended to help.

This is another blatant example of how Government money had been misappropriated and misused and how the intended target groups of people did not fully benefit from the funds meant for their well-being.

The Budget is not just about dishing out money. Equally important is how to make sure that the money allocated do not end up "getting lost" or unaccounted and at the same time failed to benefit the rakyat as it was originally intended for.

Whatever money dispensed from the Federal Treasury to the state treasury or to the individual ministries must be speedily channeled to the proposed project and be used for the purpose it was intended for.

For example, if a RM100mil fund is approved for the construction of School A in Long Panjang, that money must be used to build the particular school worth the amount.

It cannot be "quietly diverted" from Long Panjang and used to build some other things in some other parts of the state.

It is also not fair to the people of Long Panjang if the school built is built but not amounting to the approved budget.

The people of Long Panjang have the right to query where the money had gone to and who is the one who had made the decision in allowing the "divertion" of the money meant to enable the people of Long Panjang.

The MP and state assemblyman for Long Panjang must be held answerable. He must be in the know about the whereabouts of the money and what had transpired.

Whether or not there is any hanky-panky involved in the "diversion" of the money is another thing altogether.

The fact that the money meant to construct School A in Long Panjang was not used for that intended purpose is already an issue by itself and the YBs and state authorities must explain and reveal the truth.

To ensure that these incidents of "missing money" are prevented from happening, the team drawing up the annual Budget must relook at its effectiveness in terms of fund-distribution, the implemen- tation process and the auditing process.

Unless these aspects are looked into and improved, the delivery system will always fall short of performance and the intended group of people who should benefit from these money - the citizens - will continue to suffer from the delays, shoddy workmanship and "fund-diversions".

I honestly hope that this Friday's Budget will also see Najib introducing stricter mechanisms to check on how fund that were approved under the annual Budget is being spent throughout every nook and corner of the country, including here in Sarawak.

Confused over right to choose

Posted: 26 Sep 2012 03:21 PM PDT

We have a far from perfect democracy but then there are no perfect ones anywhere.

People's right to voice critical opinions is suddenly seen as traitorous. The possibility of alternative administrations is deemed taboo, a word that has connotations beyond the mundanity of voting, rather like talking about sex is considered taboo.

Marina Mahathir, The Star

IN all the past 55 years, we have been proud of being a democracy, minimalist though it may be.

We elect our Parliament like clockwork every five years or so and everyone is aware that that is the first hurdle they have to get over in order to get into power.

Of course, we have a far from perfect democracy but then there are no perfect ones anywhere.

We can do with a more inclusive and representative government and certainly can do with a more vibrant and free media and more space for alternative viewpoints to be heard.

Still, we like to describe our federation with its constitutional monarchy as a democracy – our democracy. So it rather surprises me that of late, there are voices that seem to say that democracy is a bad thing to have.

For some reason, there are people who think that an elected form of government where people have the power to choose who they want to elect is not a good thing.

Perhaps this is because they are unsure that this type of government will put them into power at all. Some are even going so far as to say that democracy is incompatible with our state religion, Islam.

That's rather odd because I've just been at a conference where an Islamic scholar stated that Islam is the most democratic of religions, because everyone has equal access to God. Yet, he added, most Muslims live in undemocratic states.

This sudden turn in attitude towards democracy has had predictable results. Anyone who talks about democracy is suddenly viewed with suspicion, as if they are advocating that the Devil himself should take over the country.

If the citizens of a country are not allowed to elect whom they want, then they don't live in a democracy.

So to say that it is taboo to elect anyone other than the present government is to bring the conversation to a realm that is beyond rational argument.

Somehow nowadays, it is a sin to get our people to think democratically, as if democracy is a religion that teaches immorality.

I remember in my childhood being taught about democracy at school. My teachers would talk about how concepts like apartheid or "the colour bar" were undemocratic.

We held mock elections where we would have candidates and campaigns, including "political" rallies, so that we would understand the whole process of how our leaders are elected.

Of great importance were the issues our "candidates" put up; those who had the best solutions to our issues at school were the ones who would get elected.

Today, I hear that schools are not encouraged to have any such thing in case our children get "funny" ideas.

Instead, we are differentiating children by the way they look and dress, rather than treating all of them as equal.

We expose them to possible discrimination, even violence, even though our Federal Constitution says that every citizen has an equal right to education.

Every day, we have new restrictions on our already limited democracy. We can get arrested for comments we never made just because someone made them on our website or Facebook page.

Some of us, in an already limited job market, find ourselves charged with allegedly working against our own religion even though we are not responsible for anything other than doing our jobs.

Even though both our official religion and Constitution give us rights, these rights are now contested. And contested in such a way that those who shout loudest win, even if their numbers are small.

Yet these same folks would be the first to demand their right to speak should anyone object to what they say.

We need to ask ourselves, how did we come to this state where democracy is confused with "total freedom" and "Westernisation"?

Are Westerners the only ones allowed democracy? In that case, why are thousands of people in those autocratic Middle Eastern countries demanding to have a say in how their countries are run?

Are we somehow undeserving of democracy, of the simple right to have a say?

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Jumaat, 28 September 2012

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

0 ulasan:

Catat Ulasan