Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info

Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Biggest questions without a doubt
This’s what DAP members want
Chinese priority: First-class education
Why now, Musa?
How Our Democracy is Damaged

Posted: 17 Dec 2012 01:20 AM PST

DAP leaders drum home the '100-day countdown' to the general election but on the sidelines, the debate is about the biggest winner and biggest loser in the party polls.

Joceline Tan, The Star

NOT many DAP leaders wanted to answer the question of who is the biggest winner or loser in the DAP election.

Outwardly, it might appear like Karpal Singh is the biggest winner.

The DAP veteran won big but the biggest winner was no other than Lim Kit Siang. He came out No 1 and, more importantly, he can cement DAP for his son Guan Eng before finally calling it a day.

Guan Eng, despite his position as Penang Chief Minister, still does not have the sort of control over the party that his father has. The next three years will see Kit Siang helping his son entrench his position and deepen his hold.

However, the opinion about the biggest loser title was more diverse.

Some think the biggest loser is "warlord" Dr P. Ramasamy. Among those who lost, he has the biggest job title, being Deputy Chief Minister. To rub salt into injury, his rival "godfather" Karpal shot up to third spot.

The bad blood between them has not dried up. Yesterday, as Karpal was being wheeled to his waiting car after the congress ended, Dr Ramasamy who was waiting for his car turned the other way.

Dr Ramasamy was, however, appointed as a CEC member but he may have lost his locus standi to continue contesting in two seats in the general election.

But others think that the Malays in DAP are the big losers.

The delegates had resisted voting in any of the Malay nominees although the top leadership had hinted that they favoured Senator Dr Arrifin Omar. It was a big blow to the party's quest to portray itself as a multi-racial party.

The party had made unprecedented efforts to recruit well-known Malay names in the last few years, including several ex-Umno members. But it has not moved much closer to a multi-racial image.

The party election ushered in an all-Chinese line-up apart from three Indians – Karpal, his son Gobind Singh Deo and Ipoh Barat MP M. Kulasegaran.

Yesterday, at the maiden meeting of the new CEC, Dr Arrifin and Zairil Khir Johari were among the 10 appointed members in the CEC.

It was a necessary move but it will only reinforce the perception of the token role of Malays in DAP, that they are there to plaster up what is largely a Chinese-dominated party.

There is some degree of resentment that Dr Arrifin parachuted from nowhere into a cushy senator post. Many in the party also feel that Zairil has been given more than he deserves.

Apart from being the political secretary to Guan Eng, Zairil is also CEO of Penang Institute, a post that comes with a fat salary. Zairil is quite a pleasant man but he is naturally shy, which sometimes comes across as being aloof, and that cost him votes.

Another segment in the party thinks the biggest loser is Ronnie Liu who did not make it into the CEC.

"Look at my face, do I look sad?" he said when met yesterday.

Many said that Liu was clearly on the way out in Selangor. His "replacement" is the burly-looking Vincent Wu, a party grassroots leader who is now favoured by the Lims.

Wu came in at No 6, way ahead of other big names, including his state chairman Teresa Kok, who almost did not make it at 18.

Some say that there is one big winner in Selangor, namely, Datuk Teng Chang Khim.

The famously independent voice and Guan Eng do not see eye to eye but the latter appears to have acknowledged Teng's clout and he was put in charge of the party's Pakatan Rakyat bureau.

"We have not been very happy about our dealings with Pakatan parties. Chang Khim is seen as someone who can bang the table. He is definitely not a sotong (spineless)," said a party leader.

Teng was reportedly not keen to accept the post but has since described the post as a mission and not just a job.

Party leaders have pressed home that the "100-day countdown" to the general election has begun.

The party showcased many young faces during the debate, who are also likely to be named as candidates in the general election.

They spoke fluent Bahasa Malaysia, they had ideals but they also sounded wet around the gills. Many read from prepared text and sounded like lecturers rather than politicians.

Their speeches did not quite resonate with the audience, many of whom are the traditional stable of DAP supporters – weather-beaten working-class folk who are more used to the old cut-and-thrust style of the senior leaders.

Many thought DAP would use this congress to also speak to the larger audience outside the party. It was primarily an internal affair to put in line the team to lead in the general election.

It failed to address the question of how it is going to make Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim the next premier over PAS' insistence that Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang is a better choice.

The party's reluctance to address the encroachment of PAS' Islamic agenda begged the question of who is going to call the shots on this sort of issues if Pakatan comes to power.

The DAP house is in order but its relations with its partners seem to be in the grey area as the party starts its 100-day countdown.

This’s what DAP members want

Posted: 16 Dec 2012 02:39 PM PST

Give the DAP members credit for insisting that they stay what they have been, will be and shall always be – a Chinese political party comfortable in its own skin.

CT Ali, Free Malaysia Today

If what happened in the recently-concluded DAP election is projected onto the national stage, the Malays are gone!

Malays who are appointed to the central executive committee (CEC) will be lame duck members – they will be Malays who will forever be dependent on others for their position in DAP.

There really is not much to tell about the DAP election, is there? Factionalism, nepotism and race. Race, nepotism and factionalism. Is there anything new in Malaysian politics? Even Umno can beg to differ on a few matters that it has been accused of.

In nepotism, DAP has no equal.

But surely there cannot be anything new, not until we the people change ourselves. Change our perceptions of what politics should be, change our mindset and change the very DNA that resides in the inner-most sanctum of our being.

That's the DNA that tells us what to think, what to do and how to react when we think that we are being threatened and when we fear that our very being is in danger of extinction.

And it is not only the Malays that have this DNA. All of you out there have it, too. That is why those in DAP voted the way they did.

No need for excuses, no need for explanations, no need for name-calling and recriminations. We all know we would do the same in similar circumstances.

When will change happen? Education helps. A concerted effort by all of us to consciously better ourselves helps. Our ability to empathise with those who are different from us helps.

Speaking for myself, what education I have had and having lived among people who try to do the right thing in celebrating diversity helps me to tolerate and at times even appreciate people who are different from me.

But Malaysia is doubly cursed. As if it is not enough that we are burdened with having to understand each other's weaknesses and strengths, we are cursed with having a parochial government concerned only with its political survival.

Our concern should be what political advantage (what other advantage is there?) this Umno-led parochial Barisan Nasional government will make of this weekend DAP party election results?

Already BN cyber troopers have been working through the night, through the weekend, through much pain and sufferings (softened by dollops of cash!) in preparation for their vitriolic attack against DAP and Pakatan Rakyat when opportunism presents itself.

Why not seize it? And what opportunism this DAP party election has presented to them! They are going to town on this, not any old town, but to KL itself.

Race politics is alive

What I write here is merely a reflection of the goings-on around me. I read what others write, hear what others say and seek out what others think.

I put it down on paper and you read and let it permeate into the inner recesses of your mind, then spit out what you yourself deduce from all these inputs around you. And I kid you not, we will all come to the same conclusion.

Race politics is alive and well in DAP as it is alive anywhere else in any political entity in Malaysia. What differentiates one from the other is just a matter of degree, not substance.

Chinese priority: First-class education

Posted: 16 Dec 2012 02:28 PM PST

If we read our Federal Constitution, vernacular education should have by now been replaced completely by a national school education system.

Mohd Ariff Sabri Aziz, Free Malaysia Today

The Chinese are not intent on having schools in Chinese as a means of preserving their culture. They just want the best education environment.

If we read our Federal Constitution, vernacular education should have by now been replaced completely by a national school education system.

Having allowed the continuity of vernacular schools, the government cannot undo it now. No way can we expect Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak to have the gumption and the courage to enforce the constitutional provision that there should only be one type of school – national schools.

Let's look at that current situation with the Chinese.

The Chinese are really not intent on having schools in Chinese as a means of preserving their culture and all things Chinese.

They are, I suspect, really after a good education setting which offers excellent and superior facilities and resources.

If they are pursuing the purity of their culture, then how do we explain the fact that the biggest enrolment in international schools and in the various private schools such as KDU, Sri Inai and others are Chinese?

I don't see Chinese cultural-enhancement or strengthening curriculum in these centres of superior education.

These offer what the Chinese are really looking out for – the best facilities and resources that money can buy that produce the best results.

Indeed the Chinese pay to get into colleges such as Taylors and Sunway because these colleges offer them pathways to better and first-class education.

Are they after the triumphalism of Chinese culture and if so, why then attend international and private colleges?

Chinese want top class education

The fact is the Chinese are after high-quality education because their own culture is best preserved in their home environments and other cultural-enhancement activities.

What if our national schools have first-class facilities and resources and produce top results?

Believe me, Chinese parents would gladly send their children there, forgetting the supposedly overriding need to preserve their culture.

If national schools have only one agenda – to produce the best results using the best facilities and resources and not imposing one group's hegemony on others – I think the Chinese will enrol their children at national schools.

If Education Minister Muhyiddin Yassin does not already know this, maybe I should replace him.

The government should turn all national schools into first-class teaching-and-learning facilities; then you will see the Chinese abandon their national-type schools.

My reasoning is simple. Take Sekolah Kebangsaan Subang. It has a very large Chinese enrolment. Competition to get into this school is super tough.

Why? Because this school, it seems, has the best teachers, excellent facilities and resources and offer what the Chinese see as first-class educational environment.

What is important to Chinese parents is that this school provides the best results and the best students year after year.

It's good education which the Chinese are really after. The Chinese appear to not mind that the medium of instruction in SK Subang is in Malay.

The Chinese can tolerate this as they see the resources and facilities and the preparation for a better educational future in SK Subang as the best. They want schools that produce the best results year after year.

Why now, Musa?

Posted: 16 Dec 2012 02:23 PM PST

You cannot create doubts in the minds of the people by making such sweeping statements without substantiation. No amount of denials by the minister or his cohorts is going to clear the reservations of the rakyat unless and until you are willing to be specific.

R. Nadeswaran, The Sun

WHEN Tan Sri Ismail Omar was appointed inspector-general of police two years ago, many had expected him to shape up an already beleaguered police force. From rising crime rates to public order, he had his work cut out for him. Besides, the internal bickering between his predecessor, Tan Sri Musa Hassan and the former commercial crimes chief, Datuk Ramli Yusoff, turned into what appeared to be a bare-fisted brawl. With Tan Sri Robert Phang in the fray, a battle royale has ensued.

After months of anxiety, worry and concern, Ramli was acquitted of charges accusing him of misuse of power.

While the civil suit which was filed by Ramli has yet to start, everyone thought the dust had settled and Ismail would be able to focus on reducing crime rates and other issues of public interest.

But last week, Musa came to the fore with his claims of "interference from politicians" and a host of other claims, allegations and assertions, this time accusing Phang of having had a hand in the transfer of a senior police officer.

Why now? If indeed there was interference, shouldn't Musa have thrown the Police Act in the face of the people behind the interference and ask them to mind their own business? Was he not the key witness in the trial of a former deputy prime minister who was charged with "interfering with police business"?

Why now? Did Musa consciously stop investigating crimes just because the call came from Putrajaya?

Why now? There were no reasons or provocateurs behind Musa's sudden outburst and hence why out of the blue, call for a press conference?

Why now? Having yet to answer the charges made by Ramli in his various court affidavits, does Musa now want us to believe his hands were tied in the past?

Why now? Musa retired two years ago and if he was unhappy with the events during his tenure, shouldn't he have voiced out his views at the handing-over ceremony to his successor?

Why now? Musa had all the opportunity to offer advice to his successor, Ismail who had been his deputy. Is he trying to undermine the IGP by describing Ismail as a "yes man"?

Why now? Who was the Tan Sri who came to you with a stack of summonses? Shouldn't he have been shown the door and told that the law takes it course?

Such claims have yet again forced the public to form their own views and opinions on the impartiality of the police force. People are wondering if the police pander to the wishes of politicians or if they go by the book in the application and enforcement of the law.

Going by Musa's assertions, people who have committed murder, robbery and other heinous crimes are walking on our streets on the basis of phone calls from politicians?

These claims may have some truth in them, but making statements without substantiation would be akin to self-appointed do-gooders and instantly-created NGOs demanding all kinds of explanations from the opposition.

Musa did not provide one instance where the minister or a politician had interfered in police investigations. Except for saying that a titled politician turned up in his office to sort out summonses, nothing more specific was revealed.

If indeed the police acceded to directives and instruction from higher up, are we to assume that the police closed the file on the Balkis fiasco where funds totalling almost RM10 million were transferred illegally, which borders on breach of trust?

Are we to say that the police also closed the files on the overseas money transfers that were carried out illegally through money changers although there were prima facie cases against them?

No, Musa. You cannot create doubts in the minds of the people by making such sweeping statements without substantiation. No amount of denials by the minister or his cohorts is going to clear the reservations of the rakyat unless and until you are willing to be specific – incidences, names, dates and times – when such interference took place.

R. Nadeswaran maintains that the police should be impartial and that any charges made must be backed up with evidence. Comments: citizen-nades@thesundaily.com

How Our Democracy is Damaged

Posted: 16 Dec 2012 02:15 PM PST

The individual analyses of the 16 by-elections in the book, contributed by about a dozen observers ranging from journalists to researchers to political scientists, reveal how inept the EC has been, especially in not attending to electoral roll irregularities and preventing abuse of public institutions and corrupt practices.

Kee Thuan Chye

We often hear of electoral fraud and unfair election practices but what do they really mean? What forms does electoral fraud usually take? What constitute unfair practices and how have they surfaced?

Beyond that, what are the measures that need to be taken to ensure that Malaysian elections are free and fair so that this vital aspect of our democracy is truly well-served and our vote for the candidate or party we support is not made a mockery of?

A new book called Democracy at Stake?: Examining 16 By-elections in Malaysia, 2008-2011, published by Strategic Information and Research Development Centre, answers our questions and collates our concerns into a handy and comprehensive compact.

Edited by Wong Chin Huat and Soon Li Tsin, it analyses the 16 by-elections that have been held since the 12th general election according to such relevant categories as how free, fair and clean they were; the freedom and quality of the campaigning; the political parties' access to media; corrupt practices that were perpetrated; how impartial or otherwise the public institutions were; the amount of campaign money spent; the electoral roll; and the polling process.

Wong, who is in my opinion one of the sharpest political analysts we have, sets the standard for the conduct of elections in his introductory article.

Well-researched and replete with references from many documented sources, it explains why electoral fraud is wrong ("Even if one person is disenfranchised … even if one vote is rigged, democracy is damaged because political equality is compromised to favour the ones who play foul") and explains what we as citizens should expect of a free and fair election.

The most fundamental of expectations are that we "must be able to register as voters with minimal cost and trouble" and be able to vote "without much difficulty", and our votes "must be counted with integrity". By that token, we must also expect that the electoral roll "includes all citizens who are eligible to vote" and "nobody else".

Wong, however, declares that the electoral rolls in Malaysia "fail on both accounts". This is partly because as of March 2012, three million eligible citizens are still not registered voters. But what we may find more disturbing is his revelation that the electoral rolls "include many names who [sic] should not be there in the first place, such as illegally enfranchised foreigners, deceased voters, multiply-registered voters, voluntarily and involuntarily transferred voters who are non-residents in the constituency".

It is amusing to note that entries like Kampung Baru and a Police Station at Kampung Kerinchi are registered voters on the electoral rolls.

Wong proposes synchronising the electorate database maintained by the Election Commission (EC) with the citizenry database of the National Registration Department (NRD) to minimise errors and allow for corrections to be made continually.

Although he does not say so explicitly, it would also facilitate automatic voter registration, one of the eight demands of Bersih, the Coalition for Clean and Fair Elections of which Wong is a steering committee member. The synchronisation of databases would alert the EC to instances of citizens turning 21 and attaining eligibility for voting.

Another disturbing point Wong raises concerns the legal impediments to transparency in the procedure for correction of errors. Section 9A of the Election Act 1958 prevents the electoral rolls from being challenged in court, and Regulation 25 of the Elections (Registration of Voters) Regulations gives "unchecked power" to the EC to "correct any errors free from any public scrutiny".

This point is particularly pertinent in regard to the Malaysian EC because the public has lost much confidence in the commission's ability and inclination to be independent and neutral in the conduct of its duty. One important measure that the public needs to take, therefore, is to lobby for the EC to be truly independent and neutral.

If this were achieved, we can be better assured that other conditions necessary for free and fair elections will be facilitated.

These would include what Wong describes as allowing citizens to make "informed decisions after deliberation" from the "availability of information from all perspectives".

As such, there should be campaign freedom – a reasonable period for campaigning once an election is called; free airtime for all contesting parties on State-owned broadcast media like RTM and unbiased coverage in Bernama as well as private-owned media, like Utusan Malaysia, The Star, Sin Chew, Media Prima's TV stations, etc; and no restrictions like those imposed in three by-elections at which the Home Ministry banned campaigners from "mentioning (a) Altantuya Shaariibuu, the Mongolian model cum interpreter whose murder was linked to Prime Minister (PM) Najib Razak and his wife Rosmah Mansor, and (b) the role of the Perak Palace in the state's constitutional crisis".

The impartiality of public institutions should also be upheld. This includes no abuse of government machinery by the ruling party, such as using official cars and helicopters for party campaigning or, worse, announcing development projects like in the Hulu Selangor "buy-election" when BN offered about RM136 million in projects, payments and compensations while the Pakatan Rakyat Selangor State Government offered about RM27.6 million's worth.

And of course there should also be no pork barrelling at the hustings, the most famous example being the "I help you, you help me" offer of RM5 million for flood mitigation that Najib made to the Rejang Park voters in the Sibu by-election in return for their support of the BN candidate.

Nor should there be outright vote-buying, as in the alleged giving out of RM100 cash to each Chinese voter at a polling station during the Merlimau by-election.

It is the duty of the EC to report such transgressions but, unfortunately, it has not been fulfilling that duty.

By and large, the individual analyses of the 16 by-elections in the book, contributed by about a dozen observers ranging from journalists to researchers to political scientists, reveal how inept the EC has been, especially in not attending to electoral roll irregularities and preventing abuse of public institutions and corrupt practices.

In the Permatang Pauh by-election, for example, a voter was turned away from the polling station because on the electoral roll, he was said to be dead.

Furthermore, 949 voters were discovered to have disappeared from the constituency's electoral roll. As the media reported the issue and the EC's deputy chairman could not explain the disappearance, Deputy Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin called on the EC to investigate it. However, "no finding was revealed to the public".

In Bukit Selambau, election watchdog Malaysians for Free and Fair Elections (MAFREL) backed the Opposition's claim that more than 60% of the voters in a housing estate were phantom voters, but the EC merely dismissed it.

In fact, the picture that emerges from the 16 analyses is that many of the complaints and allegations made during the by-elections were not resolved afterwards.

On the whole, as the editors sum up in the final chapter, "the integrity of the electoral rolls in Malaysia is highly questionable". Citing extensively from research done by political scientist Ong Kian Ming, they elaborate on unexplained deletions of names; unaccounted-for additions; high number of voters registered under the same address; unusually high increase of military/police voters (most markedly in Lembah Pantai, currently a Pakatan Rakyat seat held by Nurul Izzah Anwar, which has seen a 1,024% growth of such voters); and other manifestations.

EC Chairman Abdul Aziz Mohd Yusof has declared that Malaysia has "the cleanest electoral rolls in the world", with problematic registrations amounting to only 42,051 names, but according to Ong's research findings, the number is closer to 3 million.

Whomever you choose to believe, the outlook is far from rosy. The editors believe the irregularities are caused by deliberate fraud rather than administrative or clerical errors. They consider the state we're in an "Orwellian absurdity".

On our part, we the public should be pressing for accountability from the EC and other related authorities. Although Democracy at Stake? does not suggest how we could go about doing this, it focuses attention on a serious issue of our political life.

It's up to us now to protect our democratic right. Taking to the streets through the Bersih rallies has been done and resulted in some headway, but this is unlikely the way to achieve the ultimate goal.

We need to think of other ways to shake the powers that be to get the real democracy we deserve.

* Kee Thuan Chye is the author of the bestselling book No More Bullshit, Please, We're All Malaysians, available in bookstores together with its Malay translation, Jangan Kelentong Lagi, Kita Semua Orang Malaysia.

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Isnin, 17 Disember 2012

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

0 ulasan:

Catat Ulasan