Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info

Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Courage Rises Up Again And Again
Who To Vote For in The Next Election
The Armageddon of Najib
A free press – or a two-party press system?

Posted: 07 Apr 2013 01:03 PM PDT

Have you ever been confronted by a menacing snarling dog who is ready to pounce on you? And for the briefest of moment, both of you glared into each other's eyes. In your heart you felt sure the dog will sink his teeth into you and you would be his lunch.

But then something arises in you, a courage you never knew you had, and with your eyes fixed unflinchingly on his eyes, you lunge forward towards the dog and... lo and behold, he turned around and ran off with his tail tucked between his legs. Seizing the moment for complete victory, you gave chase, shouting after the terrified beast. Hurray, you have become top dog in your neighbourhood.

Nice thought but I doubt if many of us have had such stories to tell because most of the time we just make sure we don't ever have to come face to face with such a snarling dog. We would "elak" or avoid such a confrontation by making a detour if we know that the neighbourhood bully dog is lying there.

This article is not about dogs but about fear and courage. Fear is a very human emotion and a necessary one to keep us safe and alive. But when fear becomes the dominant emotion in our life, it paralyses us from doing what is right.

Not many would admit to being fearful but would gloss over our fears with such rational sounding terms like - "We just have to be wise" or "Why be a hero?" Meanwhile, that neighbourhood bully dog still reigns.

But there is a gentle but steady wind of change blowing and something is stirring deep inside us. Could it be courage?

The political landscape of our country in the last five years has been nothing short of extraordinary. Malaysians from all walks of life have, as if, woken up from a fifty year old coma. Suddenly we realised that the world has changed so much after our fifty years of slumber and we don't like how it has changed.

Instead of going back to our sleep, some of us decided to do something about it, we decided to confront the neighbourhood bully dog. We are tired of making long detours and pretending that we are not afraid.. Yes, courage, the only antidote for the paralysing disease of fear, has arrived.

Who To Vote For in The Next Election

Posted: 07 Apr 2013 12:54 PM PDT

Elections A System for Checks and Balances
[First of Four Parts]

When he dissolved Parliament on April 3, 2013, to make way for a general election, Prime Minister Najib advised us to "think and ponder appropriately" before casting our votes.

We can practice two mental exercises to help us "think and ponder appropriately." One, imagine the best and worse possible consequences of our vote, that is, perform a "downstream analysis" of our decision. Two, reflect on the greater role of election as an effective bulwark against abuse of power by those in authority.

I will discuss the broader role of elections first. Subsequent essays will be a downstream analysis of the only three possible outcomes to this election: Barisan Nasional returning to power; Pakatan Rakyat to prevail; and a "hung" parliament.

The most effective check on those in power is the knowledge that they could be replaced in an election. The more this is a reality and not just in theory, the more effective is this critical role. Elections serve as periodic useful reminders.

Even where elections are fair and free, but if the same leaders and party were to be re-elected over and over, they would sooner or later succumb to sclerosis and abuse of power, regardless how competent and well meaning they were initially. It is the rare leader who could escape this all-too-human tendency. We must have actual periodic change in government through elections, and not just the promise.

With rigged and fraudulent elections, or where the process is merely illusory, as with having only one candidate per slot (Russian elections of yore and the election of UMNO President), the less effective they would be in keeping those in power accountable. Saddam Hussein bragged that those who did not like him could always vote him out, but Iraqi elections under him were a sham. Had he kept those elections honest, he would have discovered his people's true sentiment much earlier, and the price to both him and his country would have been considerably less.

The British decided through elections that their popular and effective wartime leader Churchill would not be the best person to lead them during peacetime. They wisely concluded that he would quickly turn the Cold War into a "hot" one, as reflected by his hawkish and haughty Iron Curtain speech.

Yes, the British were grateful to him for leading and inspiring them during the war, but that gratitude could be expressed in many other ways. Elections are for selecting the best future leaders, not for expressing gratitude for or rewarding past performance, no matter how exemplary.

Foremost and at the practical level, election is a way to pass judgment on the incumbent. It is not, as some have suggested, a contest between the incumbent and challenger. It is for the incumbent to prove that he deserves another term independent of the merit or capability of the challenger. The incumbent's performance is a matter of record, and can be readily scrutinized.

If the incumbent has proven to be less than capable, then he should be voted out even if the challenger is thought of as potentially not up to the task of taking over. The argument would be that the incumbent has proven himself incapable while the challenger is only regarded (meaning, only potentially) as such. There is the possibility that our initial assessment could be wrong and that the challenger would prove otherwise. There are many ready examples of previously underrated candidates later shining in office; Harry Truman being one.

The first and only question voters must ask before casting their votes in this next election is whether the current Barisan government is deserving of another term. All other matters, as whether other parties are capable of taking over, are irrelevant and besides, conjectural.

Consider three critical areas: economy, education, and level of corruption. Barisan's economic leadership is passable. It is exemplary only when compared to that of Zimbabwe. Granted, by the figures Malaysia outperforms America and Western Europe (and even Singapore), but remember those countries are already cruising at high altitude. We are still ascending. We need faster growth. We should compare ourselves to China and Panama. Even Ghana and Laos surpassed us last year.

More pertinent especially to those under the sway of Perkasa and Ketuanan Melayu, is the aggregate economic performance of Malays. After nearly six decades of UMNO rule, we still could not achieve our modest 30 percent goal.

Then there is education. No one, not even the Minister of Education himself, is satisfied with our schools. Those who can afford it have long ago abandoned the national stream. Again looking from the Perkasa and Ketuanan Melayu angle, only poor Malays are stuck with that rapidly declining system. Consequently, while a generation ago I could still find many Malays at the leading universities of the world; today Malays there are as rare as honesty among UMNO politicians.

The much-heralded growth of the private sector in education is not a sign of health rather the contrary. It reflects a deteriorating public system. Alberta and Singapore do not have robust private-sector education because their public systems are so much superior.

Talking about corruption, well, there is no point dwelling on it anymore. We are past the tipping point; we are now where Nigeria was in the 1980s. The only way to stop corruption is to deprive UMNO of power. The recent Court of Appeal decision granting one Eskay Abdullah, an UMNO strongman and a member of the slimy "Datuk T's" trio, his RM20 million "commission" on the aborted crooked bridge in Johor reflects the rot in UMNO. We cannot blame non-Malays for seeing that as the characteristic of contemporary Malay politics and ethics.

Elections are like multiple choice tests, to pick the best candidate from the list offered. The incumbent always argue that his past performance had been superior or at any rate better than what his opponents could ever hope to achieve; the challenger offers the promise of a brighter future. Voters have to balance the risk of changing horse midstream versus being stuck with a lame one to face an incoming flood.

The Armageddon of Najib

Posted: 07 Apr 2013 12:24 PM PDT

All through childhood my mother would tell me: "You have to work hard to get whatever is in your destiny. But, remember, you can never get more than you are destined to get and never before the time that you are destined to get it.''

I am reminded of that again as I watch Najib Tun Razak fight against his destiny to continue as Prime Minister after GE13. Perhaps it is in his destiny, perhaps not. Perhaps it could even be RAHMAN's prophecy signifying the end of the line of Umno. But he is, at least, putting up a great fight for it and it is good to see that the man who wanted us to believe that the UMNO was a party with a difference, is himself now at the head of those differences with so many others.

However, it is satisfying to know that what we have been saying all along about Barisan National – that it is actually doing much worse than the Pakatan Rakyat despite seeming so scatter-brained and incapable of holding their act together – is now being reiterated by the grand old man Dr Mahathir. And though it might be due to the threat of losing his power as Prime Minister that might have brought forth the realisation of impending doom, it could actually be time for others within the Barisan National coalition to heed Dr Mahathir's warning.

The party is usually better at hiding its bickering than the Pakatan Rakyat is under similar circumstances. Dr Mahathir's latest diatribe seemed to be aimed at Najib as usual, but it is not just Dr Mahathir who is attempting to bring him down a peg or two. Muhyiddin Yassin is also sending feelers that he wants to contest for the Number One position in UMNO after this coming polls.

Now Najib himself is unable to espy the mischief afoot against him in his home town by his own men — those who claim proximity to him have already begun to work the wires to ensure that he does not win in Pekan, in the 1999 general election, dominated by Anwar's dismissal and marked by mass defections from UMNO, Najib's 10,793 majority in Pekan fell to just 241 votes, thanks to the postal votes he won. And the Pakatan Rakyat has, of course, opened out its arms to such backstabbers and is wholeheartedly aiding their game plan. Whether, then, Najib overcomes the image of being a coward, as Anwar has suggested, due to a refusal of a debate, remains to be seen. This is exactly what I have been saying all along about Najib — and being called all sorts of names for that observation.

Clearly, Mahathir has more friends in the UMNO than Najib does and so the orchestration has begun in preparation for polling day GE13 2013 — though, I believe, the national party leaders were waiting with bated breath for the announcement of the dissolution of parliament on April 3rd 2013 before really outing themselves. There is a whole group of anti-Najib people who despair that he might win with a small majority but the opposite is felt over at UMNO, as loud whispers points to figures and statistics, proving that neither Malaysia nor its current PM are doing as well as they pretend.

A free press – or a two-party press system?

Posted: 07 Apr 2013 12:20 PM PDT

We know the Barisan Nasional's idea of a free press: it's the system already in place, a system mostly owned or controlled by the Barisan Nasional, free to report the thoughts of Barisan Nasional leaders; a free press kept in check by press control laws and licensing rules that allow the Barisan Nasional to decide who can be a publisher or broadcaster.

Who will buy my papers? [NST photo]

What is Pakatan Rakyat's answer to that? Anwar Ibrahim made an emphatic declaration on this at the March 8 ceramah in Penang:

Ada orang kata Ban TV3! NO! Kita FREE media. . .YES! Kita bagi FULL FREEDOM – siapa nak bawa television, radio, surat khabar. . . FIRST DAY of the new Pakatan Rakyat government. . .(cheers, applause). Dan kita ada confidence. . .kita boleh compete dengan these racist media organs. . . Kerana. Orang. Nak. Media. Yang. Bebas. Dan bukan: media yang memperlembukan rakyat (cheers, applause). » What did Anwar really say? » Video: Anwar on free media

Stirring stuff, the kind people have been longing to hear.

But two questions remain: is he truly promising full freedom, or will Pakatan Rakyat, in practice, deliver something a little short?

Based on what he said, we can infer:

No punitive action — that means no action to close down TV3 (and by extension, Media Prima and Utusan groups, and all the rest), and they stay in business.
Full freedom to publish — possibly means no licences needed to publish a newspaper or open a broadcasting station.
But he also asserted a freedom to compete — and that's the crux of it. Kita boleh compete dengan these racist media organs he said. Kita boleh compete. . .meaning who, exactly?

The existing press houses are already a Barisan Nasional bloc. With freedom to publish, new people will rush in to open newspapers and broadcasting stations. Obviously, Anwar expects that these new people will be his kind of people — he did say Kita boleh compete.

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Isnin, 8 April 2013

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

0 ulasan:

Catat Ulasan