Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info

Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

No political party is entitled to defend Putrajaya
Can we take a break from all the posturing?
Can Pas really compromise?
Some food for thought for Christian leaders in BN

No political party is entitled to defend Putrajaya

Posted: 28 May 2011 05:27 PM PDT

Putrajaya is no private property of any political party, but a public asset that belongs to all Malaysians. So no one is entitled to talk about defending Putrajaya, unless the country is facing an invasion by a foreign power.

Kim Quek

There is something disturbing in Premier Najib Razak's repeated and frantic calls to defend Putrajaya. The latest, when he was addressing youth at the World Youth day gathering in Putrajaya on May 28.

After asking the youth "Will you defend Putrajaya with me?", and getting a positive answer, he then shouted: "Defend Putrajaya! Defend Putrajaya! Defend Putrajaya!"

His equally paranoid call on an earlier occasion was during the recent 61st Umno general assembly when he shrieked: "Even if our bodies are crushed and our lives lost, brothers and sisters, whatever happens, we must defend Putrajaya".

Any novice to this country must have imagined that Malaysia must be facing an imminent foreign invasion, otherwise, why should its prime minister be exhorting so earnestly for the defence of its administrative capital?

But we Malaysians know that this is not a case of foreign invasion, but a reflection of the sick mentality of the incumbent political power which has ruled this country without interruption for more than half a century.

Umno has held on to its hegemony for so long that it cannot differentiate between what belongs to the party and what belongs to the people.

In fact, Umno is only a guest tenant to Putrajaya, invited by the people to administer the country for a stipulated period. Upon termination of that term of office, the landlord, who is the people, will invite bidders, who are the political parties, to tender their bids for the next term of office. The successful bidder will then be invited to take tenancy in Putrajaya and run the federal government for the next term.

Hence, there is nothing for Umno to defend, except the transient power which ends upon expiration or termination of the term.

It is totally out of order for Najib to talk about defending Putrajaya, least of all its defence with blood and dead bodies.

How would Americans think, if President Obama calls for the defence of Washington DC when facing his adversary in the next presidential election? Surely they would be thinking their President has gone mad! And if he goes on to talk about shedding lives, l bet many will begin to faint.

The concept of lordship over the administrative capital as exclusive private domain by any political power is so alien to the principles of democracy that none would even dream that it could ever be uttered by a contestant for political power.

But in Malaysia, Najib seems to be mighty proud for staking that claim over Putrajaya and for being roundly applauded for doing that.

This is how far Najib and Umno have strayed from the original democratic ideals with which our fore fathers had founded the nation!

Not only is Umno obsessed with clinging on to political power as an exclusive right and a personal death-or-live battle, but even the people's mindset have been so conditioned by Umno's lengthy hegemony that, many fail to see Najib's political posture as an appalling affront against the fundamental tenets of our constitution – that the people are the masters, not the ruling power.

Worse than his claim over Putrajaya, is Najib's inherent threat to resort to extra constitutional means - violence and bloodshed as intimated by Najib – to retain power when facing electoral defeat or potential defeat. Such act, if transpired, is clearly treason to our people and our Constitution. And the latter is the binding contract among the various communities upon which they had jointly achieved the country's Independence.

Malaysians must therefore ponder deeply whether they can entrust their fate to a political power that does not hesitate to tear up the Constitution and defy the people's choice, when facing an unfavourable electoral outcome.

On a separate note, we must strongly condemn BN's exploitation of the youth gathering event in Putrajaya to launch its political propaganda. This festival, organized at great public expenses, is supposed to be a celebration of youth, and therefore a non-political event. But BN has turned it into a BN political platform where it volleyed vicious attacks against its political opponents. This is but another one of many instances of BN's rampant abuse of authority and public funds to advance its parochial political interests, and therefore another important consideration for the people to ponder when weighing the comparative trustworthiness of the existing contestants for political power.

Can we take a break from all the posturing?

Posted: 28 May 2011 05:24 PM PDT

Everyone claims to be talking and speaking on behalf of the rakyat but can we be sure? One need not be politically savvy to begin to suspect that politicians, most of the time and most of them, are actually speaking for themselves. They are talking to you with an eye on your vote; if we are lucky, we matter.

Zainul Ariffin, NST

WHETHER it is fuel prices, electricity tariffs or toll rates, every argument is accompanied by the shrill cry of politicking. To paraphrase Bob Dylan, everyone is talking but no one is listening.

We are in a soapbox climbathon, the higher one clambers than one's opponent and the more outrageous the message, then, presumably, more people will listen.

I wish for a time when people could just argue, debate or disagree without having an eye on the political prize. We should all be outraged at this endless intrusion into our peace and quiet but for some of us, we cannot have enough of it.

We are their raison d'etre? Without us and our problems, they are nothing. No?

But, of course, I am being cynical and I am thinking of the most opportunistic of the lot and the blatantly obtuse who cannot imagine that we can see through their acts.

The latest brouhaha (why do I always feel that the word seems to suggest people losing their heads and we should all laugh at them?) being the Public Service Department scholarships row.

It is a matter of principle that the best should be rewarded. I understand that and agree that every single citizen is important. Yet, everyone claims to be unjustifiably maligned by the policy.

While everyone is avoiding the word "race" publicly and is instead championing "meritocracy", we should not skirt the issue and point out that it is the awarding of scholarships to "ineligible" Bumiputeras that is the issue here.

It is obvious that this becomes a racial issue when Chinese or Indian political parties, or those dominated by them, take up the issue and suggest that members of their communities have been denied.

Are the MCA, MIC -- which are part of the government and have always been able to resolve issues quietly within the confines of Barisan Nasional -- and DAP raging at the PSD while posturing to the Chinese and Indian communities?

One could understand the realpolitik behind this strategy but there are also risks.

The Malays and Bumiputeras may see the protest as a racist thing, too, especially when it is insinuated that many of the recipients are presumed to be unworthy or are incapable of getting such awards without help.

Personally, I feel it is fine and dandy to argue that the best should be rewarded. It is even acceptable to be outraged if there were inconsistencies in the policy.

But should we all be held hostage by a policy that is likely to be flawed in its interpretation -- are the scholarships purely for straight A+ students or deserving ones?

The former required no interpretation except for the string of A+s, while the latter would try to strike a balance between a middle-class child, who was primed for examinations with tuition and prep classes, and the rural or underprivileged kid who had to rely on his wits to get where he was.

Furthermore, the scholarship policy is also challenged by the availability of resources.

Say all those with A+s were to be awarded scholarships, what would happen if the number was ridiculously high, especially when our schools are turning into hothouses of high scorers?

There is only a certain amount of money available to send our brightest abroad. Even if one rages about the unfairness of it all, one can't fight economic reality. Some people will be disappointed.

It must now be clear to everyone that the arguments are never over the availability of scholarships but, specifically, scholarships for abroad.

I had suggested this a few years ago when the same controversy over PSD overseas scholarships came to the fore -- it is now an annual thing, too, along with the outcry over places in medical schools, etc, which are soon to follow -- that the government should only fund postgraduate studies abroad. It is not only cheaper but would rid us of this annual circus.

All students, especially the best ones, should be enrolled in local universities. This will also serve as a signal that our universities are for our best. But this idea is a non-starter since as a society, we put extra currency in foreign degrees, even when they come from schools that are suspect.

Equality or fairness? Should all candidates with straight A+s be treated equally? The demand for equality may not result in fairness, which itself is a major opinion splitter since what is considered fair?

One must understand that scholarships are not only to reward high performers but are also an instrument of social restructuring. There are Malays and Bumiputeras, as there must be Chinese or Indians, who should be awarded scholarships because they would go a longer way towards getting them and their families out of their present situation.

This goes along the universal value of fairness -- the have-nots should be given a leg up. They should be given priority over those who qualify purely on academic performance.

If we were into cliches and admittedly rather racist demographics, then the children of Felda settlers or estate workers, or fishball mee sellers must surely be given priority over others. But yet many of them will be disappointed. Resources are finite.

We should not be making excuses if we are true to this cause of fairness. Yet ambiguities must be cleared and transparency should be the rule of the day.

But when we argue out loud, in the media especially, we are forced to adopt some posturing. For we are not discussing but instead flexing our muscles, or what we think are muscles, not at our opponents but our intended audience.

By posturing, we are trying to telegraph the message that we are fighting for justice, against friend or foe, and we are fighting for you.

This is not a good way to begin consultation since even if one were to get what one wished for, it would leave a bitter taste in the mouth of others. Posturing makes it difficult for anyone to come down from his position, lest he be seen a loser.

It requires a clear head and it would take a lot of confidence and stamina to resist posturing, especially when it is tempting to reap the quick rewards of public approval.

The PSD scholarship issue has been turned into a test case for some and for others, the posturing is getting rather out of hand. There must be a better way to resolve the issue. Stand down. We need a respite from never-ending politicking.

Can Pas really compromise?

Posted: 28 May 2011 05:21 PM PDT

By promising this, the DAP debunked suspicions that it was going to place more Malay candidates in Perak to allow its representative to become the menteri besar of the state which it failed to do in 2008 despite having the most number of seats among the PR components.

Shamsul Akmar, NST

If it were the days of yore, it is doubtful Datuk Zaid Ibrahim-led Parti Kesejahteraan Insan Tanah Air (Kita) would dare to offer a Rolls Royce to anyone who can produce an (Datuk Seri) Anwar Ibrahim look-alike.

Then, at a time when Malays believed in the existence of hantu raya, the equivalent of the West's doppelganger, the evil double, Kita and Zaid would definitely end up without or one Rolls Royce less.

Back in present times, when beliefs in the supernatural are usually met with watery smiles if not outright derision, Kita's offer is made to mock Anwar and his supporters who firmly believe he is not the man in the sex video recording.

In present times when science can evoke past crimes and solve them, surely the mystery of the sex video recording should have been resolved by now using video and imaging experts for the accusers to prove that it is Anwar, or for Anwar to disprove that it is him.

While the majority of Malays are still trapped in the debate on whether it was Anwar or otherwise, the DAP, partner of Anwar-led Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) had not been sitting idle nor been dragged into the debate extensively.

It has taken definitive measures to reach out to the Malays, promising to field more candidates from the community in the general election and set up Roketkini, a Malay language news portal.

These efforts are meant to get more Malays to join the DAP which in effect will shed the party's Chinese chauvinistic image.

More interesting is the announcement by the party's central executive committee to endorse Perak DAP's support for the reappointment of Pas' Datuk Seri Mohamed Nizar Jamaluddin as menteri besar if Pakatan Rakyat (PR) recaptures the state.

By promising this, the DAP debunked suspicions that it was going to place more Malay candidates in Perak to allow its representative to become the menteri besar of the state which it failed to do in 2008 despite having the most number of seats among the PR components.

This is due to the provision in the Perak state constitution, which requires the menteri besar to be a Malay Muslim, hence, the elevation of Nizar to the coveted post despite Pas having the smallest number of seats within PR.

Even then, it was something the DAP had shown its displeasure at.

By endorsing Nizar before the election is called, the DAP has shown "good faith" to Pas and in effect convinced the Malays in Perak that even if the DAP wins the biggest number of seats and has Malay candidates to take up the menteri besar's post, it is not going to insist on its "right".

With one stroke the DAP has portrayed itself as magnanimous to both the Malays and Pas.

If Nizar and especially Pas, did not feel grateful to the DAP in the last general election when Nizar became the menteri besar because the DAP did not have much of a choice, this time around, they will have to be grateful. Of course the whole thing is still hypothetical as Nizar needs to win his seat first and PR needs to win the state.

But even if both or either loses, the gratitude that Pas must feel towards the DAP should know no bounds.

Yet, in politics, anything forfeited must result in gains.

The DAP will definitely gain much from this magnanimity -- it can be assured of Pas' support if it fielded Malay candidates.

In the past, it would be difficult for Pas, for that matter any Malay, to give their support to DAP's Malay candidates because these candidates would have been seen to be Malays who had compromised their Malay and Islamic values.

In fact, much as it is easier for Pas and other Malays who opposed the Barisan Nasional and Umno to vote for DAP's non-Malay candidates, to vote for DAP's Malay candidates conjures a different consideration.

In the past, one of the problems faced by Pas in working with or supporting the DAP is that the latter is secular and opposed to Pas' Islamic pursuits.

Likewise, DAP had always been reluctant to work and support Pas because it is theocratic and wanted an Islamic state.

But in the last couple of general elections, Pas was prepared to work and support the DAP on the struggle for common and universal values while the issues of Islamic state and secularism were avoided.

Even though DAP remains avowedly secular, Pas' preparedness to dilute its Islamic pursuits had allowed both to work together.

But now, the question of supporting DAP's Malay candidates throws open the issue of whether Pas can support Malays who would surely be secular and opposed to an Islamic state and everything else that comes along with it.

This is on the basis that any Malay who joins DAP must surely subscribe to the party's principles that are based on secularism and opposed to anything theocratic, in this context, the Islamic state.

If Pas' objection to working with Umno is centred on the latter's alleged secularism, how is Pas going to reconcile with supporting DAP Malays who have to be committed secularists and opposed to its Islamic state?

The manner Pas has evolved, such matters seem to be only of consequence in a distant past, making some Malays, including from its own midst, to wonder whither its direction, something it will have to grapple with sooner than later.

Meanwhile, DAP is definitely on a roll.

Some food for thought for Christian leaders in BN

Posted: 28 May 2011 04:49 PM PDT

On the overall, what we have witnessed is a case of serious bullying, intimidation, insult and moral degradation as Christians. The word tolerance and mutual respect no longer exist in the minds of many politicians and NGO leaders. The pleadings of Christian leaders for understanding and offer of dialogues between the faiths for the sake of interracial and interreligious harmonies have been totally ignored. Because of this, the Christian leaders in BN have been pushed to the corners and they have been fighting back quite bravely.

DANIEL JOHN JAMBUN

Since the last two years alone we have seen how the freedom of speech and religion have been severely curtailed in Malaysia. And of late the debate and altercations in religious matters have escalated to an extreme proportions, no thanks to extremist statements by several firebrand leaders, and to the inaction by the authorities.

Up to now the Christian leaders in the Barisan Nasional have been very tolerant, speaking out quite loudly when necessary but not sufficient to bring the whole matter to a critical level. But to recap, what we have gone through include:

(1) The silly instruction to remove crucifixes from churches when a Muslim dignitary comes to visit "because the Christian symbols are offensive to Muslims" (so why not remove the whole church building as well, and why come at all?),

(2) Church burning,

(3) Arguments about the acceptability of Malay Bibles which have been in use in Sabah and Sarawak long before the creation of Malaysia,

(4) Unauthorised confiscations of Bibles and Christian book at airports,

(5) the banning of movies, including innocent cartoon movies like The Prince of Egypt (which by the way is about Moses, the prophet for Judaism, Christianity and Islam),

(6) The defacing of Malay Bibles with serial numbers and conditions of their use ("…for use by Christians only" – so what if some Buddhists, Hindus, Taoists, and pagans are interested to read and study the Bible?),

(7) The quarrel about the use of the name "Allah" in which the Christians won the court case, but was appealed and is now deliberately stalled in the court to deny justice to Christians),

(8) The double standard on the use of the name "Allah" (permitted in Sabah and Sarawak but forbidden in the Peninsular, so a person carrying the Malay Bible on a flight to Kuala Lumpur will suddenly become a criminal the moment the aircraft enters the peninsular air space – should he or she be forced to throw the Alkitab out of the aircraft window before landing?),

(9) Datuk Ibrahim Ali said there is no such thing as a Malay Christian, and he may be right if he is talking about Malaysia, but there are 300 million Malayo Polynesians in the Malay archipelago, in Polynesia and Micronesia and they belong to many religions, including Christianity (e.g. in Indonesia), and Hinduism (in Bali),

(10) We have been subjects to incessant bullying and threats, the extreme case being Ibrahim Ali swearing to be willing to be bathed in blood in a jihad against Christians),

(11) We have been trapped into a nonsensical accusation of trying to install a Christian Prime Minister, no thanks to the dishonest and conspiratorial actions of two bloggers and the Utusan Malaysia which sensationalized the rumor into a supposedly legitimate news),

(12) We have been highly discriminated as Christians in the civil service, especially in the armed forces and in teaching profession, because Malaysia wants these two sectors to be overwhelmingly dominated by Malays, and now they want to send 80,000 teachers to Sabah and Sarawak, so say goodbye to Borneonisation!),

(13) The Herald, a Christian newspaper has been under threats of having its publishing permit suspended for using "Allah" and publishing news which are deemed anti-Islam.

Tan Sri Bernard Dompok, for example has been championing Christian rights, by saying that the Bahasa Malaysia belongs to all Malaysians, including Christian Malaysians and they have the right to use it in worship. He had also said there is nothing wrong with having a Christian Prime Minister, because after all the religion of the Prime Minister has never been made a condition in the Malaysian Constitution. The fight for Christians by other leaders in the recent controversy with confiscation of Bibles and conditions for their release was admirable and deserve our accolades.

But still the problem continues. There has been some quiet for a while but it might be the discomforting quiet before another storm. The campaign to formant hatred and to stoke anger against Christians have tested our patience and no noticeable intervention has been forthcoming from the Prime Minister, which is very, very disappointing. We know this is because of the Umno's dilemma; they worry that by seeming to support Christians, BN will lose a lot more Malay votes. We can bet this is not the end of it. There will be more attacks later, especially after the next general elections, if the BN comes back to power.

Because it is already a problem which has already become endemic, the BN Christian leaders must now think very hard about their positions in BN, and where they are headed for as leaders. Obviously, their role as members of the BN elite group, and their opportunities to speak at the highest level in the land have been insufficient. They have been ignored and treated as negligible. As such they must reevaluate their stances in the BN, and to stand back some distance and to see the BN situation as an outsider, and understand as clearly as possible what is really going on, what is really rotten in Malaysia. That way, they will be able to see the truth to help them make the ultimate decision whether or not to continue in BN or not.

Keep in mind that the Christian issue is not just religious but also cultural, historical and spiritual, by which all aspects of our lives are involved for our ultimate destinies. Ask, how long can BN go on the way things are going in Malaysia now? Why not join forces under a new umbrella to create change and to get us to go back to what the Constitution originally intended for us?

They need to remind themselves that as Christians we are guaranteed protection by several provisions in the national Constitution, as follows:

Article 3 (1): Islam is the religion of the Federation; but other religions may be practiced in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation.

Article 8 declares that "all persons are equal before the law and entitled to equal protection of the law," but states that this article "does not prohibit . . . any provision or practice restricting office or employment connected with the affairs of any religion, or of an institution managed by a group professing any religion, to persons professing that religion."

Article 10 states that, subject to proper requirements, (a) "every citizen has the right to freedom of speech and expression, (b) all citizens have the right to assemble peaceably and without arms; and (c) all citizens have the right to form associations."

Article 11 (1): Every person has the right to profess and practice his religion, and subject to Clause (4), to propagate it. But too bad, these provisions seem to have become meaningless for Malaysian Christians!

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Ahad, 29 Mei 2011

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

0 ulasan:

Catat Ulasan