Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info

Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Rosli Dahlan’s RM50 Million Trial: A Classic Case of Justice Denied
Why ideals are a must in life
BN government never stood by the rakyat in the Bukit Merah – Papan Controversy.
Is Green Walk a death knell for MCA?
Importance of local government elections
Pluralism: The new bogey

Rosli Dahlan’s RM50 Million Trial: A Classic Case of Justice Denied

Posted: 27 Nov 2012 11:21 PM PST

With this in mind, I am posting my latest piece on his Rm50 million trial so that this saga will not escape our attention. As usual, the media has distorted his story.–Din Merican

————————————————–

November 16 2012 was a glorious day for Dato Ramli Yusuff as Polis DiRaja Malaysia (PDRM) gave him a full honour farewell complete with a General's salute by a mounted Guard of Honour and a retreat in a PDRM's ceremonial open top Land Rover in full regalia in the best traditions of the Police Force. The Government seems to have found peace with Dato Ramli.

Thus, I was surprised when I found out that his lawyer and good friend, Rosli Dahlan, is still fighting the MACC and the Government. That can only mean that Rosli did not settle with the government. That can only mean that Rosli has been left out in the cold. I recalled that until now Dato Ramli has yet to file any law suit against the government, the A-G Gani Patail or even against Musa Hassan whom Ramli had repeatedly accused of conspiring to cause his downfall.

In the meantime, I noted with amusement that Musa Hassan now appears to have joined the Opposition bandwagon by attacking PDRM and current IGP Ismail Omar for rigging the country's crime statistics. And today, Musa Hassan accused Home Minister Hishammuddin Hussein of interfering with the Police Force. I don't know what Musa is up to but he is certainly living up to his name Musa the Musang, or Musa the cunning fox.

So, I got a bit confused when I read reports from the mainstream newspapers that Rosli had lost his case when his claim was struck out like this report from The Star:

READ MORE HERE

Why ideals are a must in life

Posted: 27 Nov 2012 04:53 PM PST

This is quite a common accusation, one that has been thrown at me in the past, and added to the fact that I work in a university, that old chestnut of making my living quarters in an ivory tower often comes into play as well.

My comments on university rankings not being the be all and end all when selecting where to study was dismissed as wishful thinking.

I was told in no uncertain terms that parents will look at rankings to choose a university for their children.

Oh, incidentally, for the sake of accuracy, in my last column, I should not have said Leeds was higher ranked than Nottingham. They are not. I should have said Sheffield, or Manchester or Durham instead.

And at a talk where I said "meaningful public participation should occur in developmental and environmental issues", again I was painted as some trippy hippy freak who really should just sit quietly in a VW van listening to Hendrix and burning incense. Frankly, this sounds like a very enticing idea.

However, all these barbs (admittedly they were thrown at me in a gentle and humorous manner) got me thinking. Why do I bother with these ideals? No one seems to care any way. The world is a hard, calculative and oft times, a cruel place. Pragmatism, not idealism, will ensure survival, both literally and metaphorically.

I guess this is true, if mere survival is what one aspires for. I can't buy into this thinking though. Yes, when one is floating in the clouds of principles and ideals, one may lose track of the realities of the world and one's ideas become no more substantive and useful as "insignificant fluff". But pragmatism without the overarching and necessary restraints of idealism is dangerous, too.

If we live our lives without aspirations, then what is to prevent the strong and the crass to rule? Without a higher ideal, then so many things become utterly pointless.

A case in point is the Asean Human Rights Declaration. Personally, I view this document as something positive. It has its problems, and I shall deal with them later, but within the context of Asean.

It is important because for decades the issue of human rights was not really part of the Asean agenda. It was only in the Asean Charter of 2007 did the countries of Asean formally recognise human rights as an essential value. And now, we have this declaration which spells out the human rights that in principle Asean agrees has to be protected.

I say "in principle" because the Asean Human Rights Declaration is, in international law parlance, a "soft law".

By this, it is meant that it is merely a statement of principle, it is not a binding law as say a treaty is. Therefore, legally it would be rather difficult to insist that the Asean governments comply with this declaration.

This does not mean that they do not have a moral responsibility and it is up to the people of Asean to keep pressing their governments to respect the Declaration and to make the necessary domestic legislation to give legal weight to these "soft law" principles and make them hard.

Surely our erstwhile leaders did not sign the declaration for fun.

They agreed to these principles, so let's make sure they live up to them.

Aside from the lack of legal obligation, another criticism of the Declaration is that it appears to provide loopholes for its signatories.

For example, Article 7 begins with the emphatic statement that "all human rights are universal, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated".

So far so good, but it closes with "the realisation of human rights must be considered in the regional and national context bearing in mind different political, economic, legal, social, cultural, historical and religious backgrounds".

The following article continues in this vein and states "the exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition for the human rights and fundamental freedom of others, and to meet the just requirements of national security, public order, public health, public safety, public morality, as well as the general welfare of the peoples in a democratic society".

Suspicious, is it not? Signatories of this document have left themselves a method of avoiding their responsibilities.

Posted: 27 Nov 2012 12:25 PM PST

Apparently by not having the rakyat's welfare at heart, the Minister of the Science, Technology & Innovation Ministry (MOSTI), Maximus Ongkili has forsaken the "prime duty" of the regulatory authorities that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) had proposed.

The IAEA, which was invited by the government during the Bukit Merah and Papan controversy made many recommendations, and one of them was the "prime duty" which the regulatory authorities should "adhere":

"there is one principle to which all should adhere: regulatory authorities (Government) should be effectively separated from implementing organization (ARE), since … the prime duty of regulatory authorities is to protect Man and the environment, ensuing the … radiation doses to Man do not contravene the recommendations of the ICRP regulation."

Contrary to what the IAEA had recommended, the Federal and the State Government, in the case of the Papan and Bukit Merah controversy, chose to sideline the welfare of the rakyat and sided with the giant conglomerate – Mitsubishi Chemical, Japan.

Likewise in Ongkili's case, by ignoring the rakyat's welfare, he had deviated from the "prime duty of (the) regulatory authorities… to protect Man and the environment".

Unmistakably, the proof is in his unambiguous expressed statement which he said: "the onus is on them (anti-Lynas group), not on me, to say that decision of the board is not correct. So give me additional information to point to the fact that it was not a wise decision." (Ongkili's interview with Malaysian Insider, April 15, 2012)

Is Green Walk a death knell for MCA?

Posted: 27 Nov 2012 11:52 AM PST

Number Facts 1

In the past when Barisan Nasional was at their peak , we also can see a large numbers of people attending all the DAP and pro opposition ceramah that can made up to easily 10 000 crowds in most area and DAP still lost in most of the previous General Election .

Number Facts 2

Most of MCA Mega Dinner is having a range of 5000 – 15 000 people in each division that the organized. Did MCA ever claim that this mega dinner with such a huge number of crowd is sign of MCA will be winning in General Election or in another way Pakatan Rakyat is currently losing their strength to win in the next General Election ?

The total number of series of MCA Mega Dinner by now easily will reach 100 000 Malaysians and in this case MCA only claimed that they are recovering and way stronger than before. MCA will never take the numbers political game for granted to brag that it is a sign of their early victory.

Number Facts 3

In 1998 Reformasi there are easily way larger and bigger protest than all the current BERSIH and LYNAS rally added up all together but then again it never indicates the weakness of MCA performance in 1998 General Election .

Double Standard Political Benchmark

If a strength and weakness of any particular political party is just based on the impact of a protest then Stanley Koh should also include the 1500 NGO Rally with Barisan Nasional PWTC will also be the strength of the latest Barisan Nasional political strength?

Please do not forget that if we want to play numbers game , then 1500 NGO is a way bigger NGO compare to HIMPUNAN HIJAU as part of the only NGO in the entire country. If we are talking about number games then it will be 1 (PR) vs 1500 (BN).

What about the recent 2000 single mother protest against Selangor Pakatan Rakyat government that had cheated and manipulated them with their empty promise after taking over the state? If the political bench mark as simple as protest is equals to death knell for any political party then can we consider a list of protest against Selangor Pakatan Rakyat government after Mac 2008 is a sign of a death knell for Pakatan Rakyat?

Read more at: http://1sya.com/?p=3890

Importance of local government elections

Posted: 25 Nov 2012 03:51 PM PST

For the Prime Minister to promise the ending of an unpopular project if his party is elected into power beggars belief when it is the local authority which was appointed by his very own party which gave the approval in the first place.

Then for the MCA to chip in by saying that the Pakatan state government was at fault for not stopping the project themselves is akin to a thief saying the theft is the fault of the victim because he did nothing to stop it happening.

But then, this level of ridiculousness is to be expected. Let's look at something a bit more constructive than the shamelessness of some politicos.

For me, this whole fiasco serves as greater proof that there has to be a complete overhaul of our local governments.

Firstly we need to bring back local government elections. The current system of appointment of councillors by the state government is simply not democratic.

There is also the danger of councillors being beholden to the ones who appointed them.

Instead they really should be beholden to the people who live in the area.

Furthermore, although I know there are many local authorities and councillors who work very hard and make themselves accessible to their "constituents", what is truly needed is the institutionalising of a system where they are structurally answerable to the people.

There are far too many cases of local authorities acting in a high handed manner simply because they know that ultimately there is very little that the ordinary folk can do. The argument that you indirectly select your local government by the state government you vote for does not hold water.

This is because the job of the state government is very different from the job of the local government. There are broader political and policy issues that come into play when choosing your state representative. A local representative need not even be affiliated with any party.

What people want are councillors who are dedicated and work hard on local issues. State-wide, let alone national issues, does not come into the equation of tree trimming, drain clearing and garbage collection.

READ MORE HERE

Pluralism: The new bogey

Posted: 25 Nov 2012 11:26 AM PST

THERE is a new threat against Muslims in Malaysia and its name is pluralism. No less than Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak himself has flagged pluralism as an "enemy of Islam" and grouped it together with the other bad words, "LGBT" and "liberalism".

My Name is Khan promotional poster (source: Wiki Commons)

Not to be outdone, some Muslims, who have been described as scholars, recently declared the spread of pluralism in Malaysia as "worrying", as if it were some kind of pandemic that needed to be controlled. Even popular Bollywood star, Datuk Shah Rukh Khan, has been accused of promoting pluralism through his rather inspiring and endearing movie, My Name is Khan.

But just what kind of threat does pluralism pose to Malaysian Muslims? And if it's such a clear and present danger to the majority of the population, what are other nations, which also experience cultural and religious diversity, doing about pluralism that we may learn from them?

Pluralism 101

Just what is pluralism anyway?

According to Harvard University's Pluralism Project, there are four components to pluralism. Diana L Eck writes that diversity alone is not pluralism. There needs to be an "energetic engagement with diversity" for pluralism to exist. "Today, religious diversity is a given, but pluralism is not a given; it is an achievement," she writes, adding: "Mere diversity without real encounter and relationship will yield increasing tensions in our societies."

Second, it's not about tolerance, which is tenuous, but "the active seeking of understanding across lines of difference". Eck argues that tolerance "does nothing to remove our ignorance of one another" and warns that in today's world, "our ignorance of one another will be increasingly costly".

Thirdly, pluralism is not relativism. Rather it is the "encounter of commitments". What does this mean? It means that proponents of pluralism don't need to leave their identities and commitments behind. It's about "holding our deepest differences, even our religious differences, not in isolation, but in relationship to one another."

And finally, pluralism's foundation is dialogue. That means both speaking and listening in a way that involves "give and take, criticism and self-criticism" so that the process can reveal both "common understandings and real differences".

More sheep than Muslims

Seen in this light, it's no wonder that institutions such as Harvard University in the US have embarked on initiatives to promote, rather than reject, pluralism. Indeed, the motivation for undertakings such as the university's Pluralism Project has been the radically changing religious and cultural landscapes that have emerged in the US because of immigration. The project's mission statement is "to help Americans engage with the realities of religious diversity".

Helen Clark (source: Wiki Commons)

The US isn't the only place in the world where a predominantly white, Christian population views diversity as a gift that can be channelled for greater good by promoting pluralism. In a country where there are likely more sheep than Muslims, Helen Clark's administration lent support to a project by the New Zealand Diversity Action Programme that resulted in the Statement on Religious Diversity. Among others, the statement "encourages education about diverse religious and spiritual traditions, respectful dialogue, and positive relationships between government and faith communities". And just like in the US, New Zealand was spurred by the increasing religious and cultural diversity arising from migration from Asia, Africa and the Middle East.

More Muslims than sheep

In Malaysia meanwhile, there are clearly more Muslims than sheep. In fact, the Malay Muslim population in Malaysia is what the white Christian population is in countries like the US and New Zealand. More importantly, unlike the US and New Zealand, we've always lived with religious and cultural diversity. Our society didn't suddenly see a dramatic shift in demographics that led to citizens feeling befuddled about the appearance of mosques, temples, gurdwaras and churches.

Sheep (Todd Huffman | Flickr)

And yet, what do we do about our plurality? From prime minister to so-called religious scholars to Muslim youth groups, we hear a clear and resounding rejection of pluralism. Here's what they're saying when they cast pluralism as the new bogey in town: "No" to engagement. "No" to dialogue. "No" to active understanding. "No" to equal and respectful relationships with others.

In other words, "No" to what we've been historically and culturally since, at the very least, Malacca became a trading port in the 15th century. And "No" also to what we have already achieved which developed countries are only now trying to acquire. In fact, let's just demolish one of the bedrock of Malaysian life.

Seen in this light, we shouldn't be at all surprised that there were attempts to denigrate Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim through the distribution of leaflets in Slim River this month that condemned the Opposition Leader as a believer of religious pluralism. He's not the only one. Two years ago, PAS spiritual leader Datuk Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat was attacked at an Islamic seminar for attending a function at a Buddhist temple.

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Rabu, 28 November 2012