Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info

Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

'Don't equate Merdeka with Sabah IC project'
Reflections on democracy and populism
Sharifah Zohra Jabeen, I challenge you to a debate!
Listen, listen, listen! Have we gone overboard?
Peanuts for landowners, millions for cronies
Welcoming party is over for Zairil
BN’s denial syndrome not helping
Religious Pluralism: The Key to Overcoming Global Conflict and Achieving Peace
Listen to Shahrifah Zohra
The Christians are coming!
Can Deepak bring down Umno?
When pumps fail

'Don't equate Merdeka with Sabah IC project'

Posted: 18 Jan 2013 03:18 PM PST

The national consensus on citizenship brokered before Malaya's independence cannot be equated with the controversial move to grant citizenship to foreigners in Sabah, policy thinkers say.

Chua Sue-Ann, fz.com

This view is being aired as former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad has sought to justify his administration's "Project IC" in Sabah by comparing it to first prime minister Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra's push for Chinese and Indians in Malaya to receive citizenship.

Tan Sri Ramon Navaratnam, director of think tank Asian Strategy and Leadership Institute (ASLI), said the comparison was wrong as the two citizenship exercises were carried out for different reasons.

"This is not a fair comparison. One was for independence whereas the other was for votes. The motive for granting them citizenship (in Sabah) was to fish for votes and purely political. Citizenship was one of the negotiation points for Merdeka.

"The British would not have given independence so easily if the non-Malays were denied citizenship. They had been there for many generations and had toiled to develop the country," Navaratnam told fz.com in a phone interview.

Malaysia should stop harping on the citizenship agreement made during the struggle for independence and focus on the road ahead, Navaratnam added.

"There are so many challenges that we as a nation face today like corruption, cronyism, declining competitiveness and poor education policies. Mahathir's remarks are contrary to the 1Malaysia concept," said Navaratnam, who had served the government for three decades.

Mahathir had on Thursday admitted to granting citizenship to foreigners in Sabah but maintained it was done lawfully.

But Mahathir sought to justify his administration's move by alleging that Tunku Abdul Rahman dished out citizenship to one million people who were "not qualified and not even tested".

Although Mahathir did not specify who these one million people were, his remarks were seen as a reference to the many Malayans of Chinese and Indian descent who were given citizenship when independence was being negotiated with the British powers.

Pre-independence, the proposal to give citizenship to non-Malays was a contentious and arduous process that took several years of multi-party negotiations.

Malaya in 1957 had a population of 5.2 million people comprising 2.2 million Malays and indigenous people and, three million non-Malays, according to a book entitled Malaysia: The Making of A Nation by Cheah Boon Kheng.

In similar vein, Centre for Policy Initiatives director Dr Lim Teck Ghee said Mahathir had no basis to compare the two historical situations.

"What Tunku Abdul Rahman did was open, transparent and with the support of key stakeholders when he agreed to the citizenship clause.

"What Mahathir did was opaque, hidden, known only to a few plotters and basically unjustifiable at the time, today and in the future," Lim said in an e-mailed response.

Lim added that Mahathir's remarks was typical of the latter's "diversion strategy" aimed at shoring up Malay support by stoking racial sentiments.

Sabah's large influx of foreign nationals has been a contentious issue for many years as locals fear an altering of local demographics.

Foreign nationals make up over 27% or 889,000 of Sabah's 3.2 million population, according to witness evidence during the current royal commission of inquiry to investigate the issue of undocumented immigrants in the state.

Aside from altering the state's demographics, Project IC in Sabah was also alleged to be an exercise to give foreign nationals, mostly from the Philippines and Indonesia, citizenship in exchange for votes.

Reflections on democracy and populism

Posted: 18 Jan 2013 03:13 PM PST

IF the government were to devise a scheme where a grandparent could "borrow" future earnings from his grandchild, would the grandparent consent to such an unusual plan?

Khaw Veon Szu, fz.com

Yet, the various popular cash handouts that are now being offered, if continued indefinitely, are akin to intergenerational borrowings that threaten the well-being of future generations with massive financial obligations incurred from the benefits received by today's generation.

A recent statement by Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin has set alarm bells ringing. According to the media, the deputy prime minister said Putrajaya may double the RM500 cash aid distributed under its Bantuan Rakyat 1Malaysia (BR1M) programme.

He added that the federal government may even make it a permanent policy should the national income and tax revenue exceed RM125 billion and Barisan Nasional wins the general election.

The first BR1M, paid out to nearly five million families at a cost to taxpayers of RM2.6 billion earlier last year, saw Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak's approval rating hit 69%, largely due to a surge among lower-income households. BR1M 2.0's coverage has been extended to unmarried youths.

More than 2.3 million applications had been received as at Dec 17, 2012, with more than 1.6 million from unmarried youths and more than 720,000 from households.

Under the programme, Malaysians with a household income of less than RM3,000 a month are eligible for a one-off cash aid of RM500 while unmarried individuals aged 21 and above and who earn not more than RM2,000 a month are eligible for one-off aid of RM250. BR1M 2.0 is expected to benefit 4.3 million households and 2.7 million unmarried individuals.

An additional RM300 million has been set aside for the Youth Communication Package that offers a oneoff rebate of RM200 to youths aged 21 to 30 with a monthly income of RM3,000 and below for the purchase of a 3G smartphone.

Make no mistake. The Pakatan Rakyat state governments are equally guilty as they pioneered such cash aid programmes after taking over several states in the last general election. These included the Senior Citizens Appreciation Programme, the Single Mother and Disabled Person Programme and the Golden Students Programme, under which eligible recipients receive RM100 each annually.

That is what we fear most about populism. What initially starts out as one-off or ad hoc cash aid measures to win elections might eventually end up as a fixture in our national annual budget.

No wonder many now worry that the battle to win the hearts and minds of the rakyat is fast descending into a mindless competition to put cash into the pockets of voters.

The natural tendency in a democracy is for politicians to promise more and more to fulfil a multitude of the rakyat's incompatible desires. To meet these everincreasing promises, politicians are left with no alternative but to resort to print-ing money or borrowing in epic proportions.

Hence, it is not surprising to learn that Aristotle was of the view that political regimes may be divided according to the number who rule and what kind of rule — good or bad. And here comes the shocker.

If the many, the majority, rule for the sake of true common good, the regime is called a polity; if the many, the majority, rule for their own advantage rather than the common good, the regime is a democracy. This probably explains why our great institutions — the judiciary, Parliament, civil service, free press and the family — have such profound importance. They provide a system of checks and balances against the populism that is such a po-tent force in a democratic system.

They stand for values — decency, fairness, protection of minori-ties, freedom under law — that inevitably come under strain in a democracy. Actually, an obsession with politics is dangerous.

It is factually and patently wrong to assume that democracy is the same as liberty, tolerance and fairness because these values were embedded in public service long before universal suffrage and the emergence of what we think of today as democracy.

Sharifah Zohra Jabeen, I challenge you to a debate!

Posted: 17 Jan 2013 02:49 PM PST

You were a big bully. You didn't even have the decency to let her finish speaking and then counter her opinions with your own. But then again, you didn't have much to say.

Zan Azlee, The Malaysian Insider

You were way out of your depth. It was obviously clear. And that was the reason why you had to pull the microphone away from KS Bawani when she was speaking.

But you definitely had no awareness of this, I'm sure. You thought you were all that in your sophisticated-looking pantsuit and fancy title of President of Suara Wanita.

Trying to go for a SW1M? Try not to sink instead!

You were at a university, Universiti Utara Malaysia, an institution of learning where people go to (where most of them are actually legally adults) obtain an education.

You were a part of a panel at a forum. A panel forum, which I'm very sure, had an objective to bring forth discourse and intellectual discussion, and to share that with the students.

The forum, which was titled "Seiringkah Mahasiswa dan Politik", had given the panellists a chance to speak, and also had a session that was open to the floor, a chance for the students to speak.

If the panellists were allowed to share their thoughts and opinions, then by all means, the members of the floor should be given that chance too. It is a forum anyway.

What right did you have to stop a person from speaking? What right did you have to pull the microphone away from someone when she is speaking?

Is it because you are older? And this is considering the fact that you said to Bawani that she had to learn to respect her elders.

Respecting elders doesn't mean blindly following what they say. Respecting elders is also feeling the responsibility to correct them when they are wrong and heading down the wrong path.

Or did you feel you had a right to pull the microphone away because you thought it was your forum? And, to you, this meant that only you had a right to an opinion?

I really felt that you were just scared. You were scared because suddenly, there was this young girl dressed casually in a long sleeved T-shirt and jeans who could articulate better than you.

I think you felt threatened because this young girl was sharing opinions that were so well thought out and clear that the rest of the attendees might just have been persuaded by her.

Probably the desperation that you felt was so intense that you couldn't do anything else but force her to keep quiet by pulling the microphone away from her so no one could hear her.

You were a big bully. You didn't even have the decency to let her finish speaking and then counter her opinions with your own. But then again, you didn't have much to say.

You just ranted along about how those who didn't like the state Malaysia is in to leave the country. Come on! How stupid do you think people are?

And what is it with the animal analogy? I don't even want to comment on that one! Basically, you didn't even have quality rebuttals for Bawani. You just bullied her away from the microphone.

Posted: 17 Jan 2013 02:37 PM PST

I am reminded of a scene in the film "Les Misérables", when the young revolutionaries whisper the lyrics "do you hear the people sing? Singing the song of angry men? It's the music of a people who will not be slaves again!" Though there will not be a revolution as our country is already a democracy, finally being free after 56 years of a BN government is now the idea of a people's victory in Malaysia.

Douglas Tan, The Malaysian Insider

In this day and age, there are YouTube sensations which catapult little known individuals to fame. The K-Pop star, Psy, went from a virtual unknown outside Korea into an international sensation, with his music video "Gangnam Style", garnering 1.2 billion views on YouTube and setting a Guinness world record and spawning masses of parodies including local favourites such as "Oppa KL Style" and "Georgetown Gangnam style".

On the local scene, 2012 was the year of cows in condos, with Datuk Seri Shahrizat Abdul Jalil being lambasted by political leaders and online media, and most prominently being featured in yet another "Gangnam Style" parody, "Ubah Rocket Style" released by the DAP. In 2013, the word of the month seems to be "Listen".

Respect?

For those who are unaware or oblivious of the background, a little known leader of an NGO called Suara Wanita 1 Malaysia or SW1M was propelled to fame when a YouTube video of a woman berating a student went viral on social media circles.

Sharifah Zohra Jabeen reached notoriety, which is almost unparalleled in local politics in terms of ridicule and attention, from a video made at Universiti Utara Malaysia entitled "Forum Suara Mahasiswa Part 4" (translated into "Voice of the Students Forum Part 4"). This virtually happened overnight when she cut off second-year law student Bawani KS mid-way through her question by saying "Listen" 10 times and "Let me speak" seven times despite Bawani's protests.

The crux of Bawani's question was whether Malaysia would be able to move towards a system where university education could be provided for free. This is reflective of a promise being made by Pakatan Rakyat leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, to abolish PTPTN and provide free tertiary education to Malaysians. What proceeded from Sharifah Zohra's interruption was ludicrous.

She then thanked Bawani for "having the guts" to ask the question, before turning to ask the students whether she had accorded "respect" to Bawani. At this point in the video, I began to feel sick inside because what she proceeded to do was nothing short of humiliating.

She mocked Bawani's attitude, said she is less "pendidikan" compared to her, asked her to leave the country if she is unhappy with the government's policies, and then proceeded to say the now famous "even animals have problems". If there was anyone who was being disrespectful, it was Sharifah Zohra. Her reply was not only "kurang ajar", it was a classic red herring.

For many online netizens who vented their frustrations, she epitomised the Barisan Nasional government: arrogant, out of touch, emotionally cold and vindictive. Bawani, on the other hand, achieved hero status by being the underdog, standing up for her beliefs and daring to question the authorities.

Neitzen's revenge

Although the forum itself took place on December 8 last year, the outpouring of wrath and ridicule only culminated in the past week. The parodies, Photoshopped pictures and even music "re-mixes" have all gone viral, especially on Facebook, with countless "likes" and "shares". There has also been a Facebook page opened dedicated to asking Sharifah Zohra to apologise to Bawani. Eventually this was highlighted on Yahoo! News and then the mainstream media just a couple of days ago.

The controversy has also given birth to a slew of marketing opportunities. Yes 4G, DiGi and Nandos came out with their own "Listen" campaigns to great effect, catching the wave of emotion crashing against Sharifah Zohra. I admit that I also got caught up in all of this, going so far as to order a "Listen, Listen" T-shirt!

There seems to be no end to the scorn poured on Sharifah Zohra and Barisan Nasional from this sordid episode. What is apparent is that there is a lot of pent-up rage which is being poured out, which is far larger than Sharifah Zohra herself.

There is the anger at the BN for attempting to brainwash university students. There is also the arrogance and oppressiveness of the party which is personified in how Sharifah Zohra attacked Bawani. Subsequent to all of this, there is also the unrepentant recalcitrance by Sharifah Zohra not issuing an apology and with the SW1M Facebook page posting updates defending their president.

It may be an understatement to say that this may be worrying to Datuk Seri Najib Razak and his colleagues with the general election looming.

Gone too far?

However, in the midst of all this emotion, there were two of my friends who kept their heads to ask some very logical questions about the situation. Kelvin Yii posted a very meaningful video blog, providing a logical commentary and asking crucial questions as to the state of affairs transpiring from the event. Another friend, Tai Zee Kin, proceeded to ask a very honest question, as to whether all the persistent mocking, joking and parodies would make us any better than Sharifah Zohra herself? Have we gone too far?

Politics, it appears, finds its basis on emotional hyperbole rather than constructive, rational discussion. Taking a step back, are we being excessively harsh on Sharifah Zohra? Perhaps so, especially where there are individuals in high political positions who had made blatantly racist or arrogant statements in the media in the past. Sharifah Zohra perhaps is a victim of circumstances.

Was what she did acceptable then? No it was not. Shall we feel too sorry for her then? Maybe not. But then again, have we as netizens allowed for emotion to usurp logical and pragmatic discussion? Yes, but I believe that it mostly down to the fact that we are guilty of jumping on the "bash Sharifah Zohra" bandwagon.

Posted: 17 Jan 2013 01:47 PM PST

The moment your land is eyed by the greedy Umno cronies, that's it. It will be taken away from you in the name of development.

By Chua Jui Meng

Now the Malays are beginning to see through Umno's 55 years of misleading the community to enrich themselves, their families and cronies.

It sure took a long time for the Malay Chamber of Commerce Malaysia and several non-governmental organisations to finally see the real problem – the super corrupt and greedy Umno.

Chamber president Syed Ali Alattas lamented that the Malays in Johor are the poorest in Malaysia, with cost of living skyrocketing due to the significant presence of foreigners (Singaporeans) residing in the state.

He also pointed to the fact that 80% of the former Malay-majority owned Iskandar land was now foreign-owned.

Syed Ali said even the Malays in Kelantan were richer because one can buy more with the ringgit in the east coast state.

The Malays can buy a bungalow for RM200,000 in Kelantan but the same would cost RM1.5 million in Johor.

In the past two decades, thousands of acres of Malay ancestral land had been "robbed" by former Menteri Besar Muhyiddin Yassin and now the Ghani Othman-led Johor government is using the Land Acquisition Act 1960.

Just look and tell me what you see in Tebrau, Pasir Gudang, Danga Bay, Iskandar and Nusajaya.

And the latest to benefit from the "seized" Malay land is China's Country Garden (Holdings) Ltd.

It bought 55 acres in Iskandar's Danga Bay for RM900 million for property development. The state government, using the Act, had paid the majority Malay land owners only 64 sen psf or RM1.53 million.

Now, locals just cannot afford the houses and condominiums priced from RM800,000 and above. And these properties are on land previously belonging to Malays.

Blame Dr Mahathir

In fact the land grabs in Johor have been going on the past two decades, starting with Muhyiddin, and now with Ghani and his government using the Act to acquire land to be alienated to cronies for property development.

And the person Malaysians have to thank for such an opportunity to abuse and grab land is Dr Mahathir Mohamad.

It was Mahathir, using Barisan Nasional (BN)'s overwhelming majority in Parliament in 1991, who passed the Land Acquisition Amendment Bill.

The rephrasing of sections of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 basically gave incontestable power to state governments to seize private land for development by private companies and individuals. Lands originally acquired for public purposes can also be used for private development.

Before the amendments, land could only be acquired for public purposes or for public utilities like building of roads, schools, hospitals, pipelines, water or power plants, etc.

With the addition of "…for any purpose which in the opinion of the State Authority is beneficial to the economic development of Malaysia", no land is safe.

The term "beneficial to the economic development of Malaysia" is as subjective as you can get. A piece of land can be acquired to build a posh five-star hotel, an amusement park or a golf resort because in the opinion of the government it would bring in the tourist dollar and create jobs for locals, not to mention enriching the private companies which would, of course, be paying taxes.

That was Umno and Mahathir's "killer" and is the cause of land grabs everywhere today. This has actually rendered all land in Malaysia as unsafe investment.

The moment the land you own is eyed by the greedy Umno cronies, that's it. In the name of development (read Umno's pockets), you will be paid peanuts but Umno and its cronies will develop and reap millions or billions of ringgit.

READ MORE HERE

Welcoming party is over for Zairil

Posted: 16 Jan 2013 02:44 PM PST

DAP golden boy Zairil Khir Johari is learning that a famous family name can be a double-edged sword in the game of politics.

A well-known family name is great in politics but as Zairil and others before him have learnt, it can also backfire. Google Zairil's name and one will be bombarded by items questioning whether he is a real Malay or the real son of Khir. The Internet gossip about him has almost completely eclipsed his role as the Malay face of DAP.

Joceline Tan, The Star

ZAIRIL Khir Johari is not in a good place right now. He parachuted into DAP on the strength of a famous family name but the very same fame has now put him on the defensive.

The last few days have found Zairil having to explain his status as the son of the late Tan Sri Khir Johari. It was weird that he had to defend his status as the son of his father but that sort of thing does happen when one drives on the fast lane of the political highway.

He told a business publication recently: "People say crazy things about me but at the end of the day, I will prove myself."

His defenders have condemned accusations about his lineage as "gutter politics". They say it is petty, irrelevant and vicious.

What does his lineage have to do with his politics? they ask.

Quite a lot, actually. DAP leaders went to town with the news that Tan Sri Khir Johari's son had joined the party. It was the chance for them to thumb their nose at Umno.

Zairil was given the red carpet treatment and a "direct flight ticket" to the 28th floor of Komtar. He joined the party in September 2010 and was appointed political secretary to Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng five months later.

"We appointed him not because of his race but because of his attributes and qualifications. He is also learned, especially in international relations and diplomacy. He just happens to be a Malay," Lim had said then.

However, not everyone was as bowled over as Lim.

"He was like the wind blowing in. The grassroots had never heard of him but the top decided he was a political advantage and suddenly he was up there," said a Penang DAP worker.

By the end of 2011, Zairil was Special Officer to the Chief Minister. Three months later, he was promoted to CEO of the state think-tank, the Penang Institute, overseeing experts who had decades of experience in their respective fields. Very few people in the party were happy for him because he was only 29 and a rookie politician with little to show in terms of contribution.

As one DAP veteran put it: "The best kind of curry puff, you have to make from scratch. But nowadays they buy the ready-made curry puff from the supermarket. You have to defrost it, it looks nice and puffs up when you cook it but the ingredients are not there and it doesn't taste right."

Most people would not have given a hoot as to whether Zairil was the biological son or otherwise of Khir, but DAP made such a song and dance about the Khir Johari name that the Umno bloggers hit back with a vengeance.

The end result is that truth and fiction have become all mixed up.

The botched DAP polls that saw Zairil go from a loser to a winner did him more harm than good. Very few people bought the story that it was a computing glitch and it was seen as yet another attempt to push the Chief Minister's golden boy up the political ladder.

The resentment has swelled on news that the party is looking for a safe seat for him in the general election. A few months ago, Zairil had to deny that he was being slated for the Sungai Pinang state seat. His name also popped up as the replacement for Bukit Bendera MP Liew Chin Tong who is reportedly hopping over to his home state Johor.

But the rumour mill now has him going to Pulau Tikus after assemblyman Koay Teng Hai was slapped with a six-month suspension earlier this week for not attending a crucial State Legislative Assembly sitting.

The speculation is that the party is using this as an excuse to ditch Koay and make the seat available for Zairil. Pulau Tikus, populated mainly by middle-class Chinese, is tailor-made for him because party people say that they cannot see Zairil dealing with a working-class populace. Their impression of him is that he mingles only with the big names.

Zairil is basically a rather shy and introverted personality. The most successful politicians are those who can strike up a conversation with anyone, friend or stranger, big name or small fry – Zairil has yet to master this.

He is not aggressive or pushy and his detractors admit that his fast-track path in the party is because the boss likes him.

They used to call him "teacher's pet" behind his back but now they call him "Tokong's boy".

During last month's DAP Congress in Penang, he stood out like a sore thumb among the traditional DAP grassroots. He was seen sitting apart from the rest, fiddling with his handphone and iPad.

The party's annual gathering was the golden opportunity to meet delegates from all over the country and he could have milked the occasion by moving around and introducing himself to the delegates, to mingle and make small talk.

The feel-good factor over Zairil has worn off.

The family name opened some very big doors for him but credibility is not ascribed, it has to be earned.

Gossip about him will continue and will only dissipate when he is able to show that the family name is secondary to what he can do on his own.

BN’s denial syndrome not helping

Posted: 16 Jan 2013 01:56 PM PST

The show of support at the Saturday rally is yet another clear indication that the rakyat wants a change and that too for the better.

Jeswan Kaur, FMT

The politicking post-Himpunan Kebangkitan Rakyat continues for the federal government which is bent on having the last laugh, that too at the expense of its nemesis, the opposition Pakatan Rakyat.

Last Saturday's gathering dubbed "the people's uprising" at Stadium Merdeka under the aegis of Pakatan, which saw a turnout of some 100,000 supporters, was all about demanding that the ruling Barisan Nasional government do the "right thing" which included reforming the electoral system, reviewing the Felda administration, equal treatment for Sabahans and Sarawakians and upgrading the use of the English language and preserving Bahasa Malaysia.

Yet, none of the above concerns affected the ruling government. With the 13th general election round the corner, BN continues to engage in money politics, working desperately to buy over the rakyat's votes in all ways conceivable.

BN has lambasted Pakatan for flouting stipulations under the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012 which, among others, bars children from participating in rallies and demonstrations.

The rally organiser has now come under police scrutiny for breaking three conditions under the Act, that is, no child participation, breaching the maximum 30,000 crowd capacity allowed at Dataran Merdeka and displaying inciting banners.

In fact, the BN government has been very sly on this issue, using the Jan 12 rally to its advantage by giving out a false message via its tightly-controlled mainstream media that Pakatan had the police to be thankful for a peaceful gathering.

As for the massive show of support, the police obviously under "orders from the higher ups" toned down the 100,000 number to a mere 45,000.

BN's denial syndrome not helping

Either BN is in denial or the coalition is afraid to contemplate its future in the face of the coming general election. Had the ruling government been trusting and comfortable in its own skin, there would have been no reason for it to downplay the huge turnout nor would there have been the need to give unnecessary credit to the police.

The Himpunan Kebangkitan Rakyat gathering was a peaceful affair. Why? Was it because the police had post-Bersih become "competent"?

Or was it because this time around Prime Minister and BN chief Najib Tun Razak had given no orders for the police to act aggressively against last Saturday rally's protesters?

The truth is the Jan 12 rally was seen as an excellent opportunity by BN to condemn its nemesis and earn the rakyat's much-needed empathy and support.

This time around the ruling government did not think it necessary to instigate the people through chaos and that too at the expense of the opposition because Bersih 2.0 on July 9, 2011 and Bersih 3.0 on April 28, 2012 had done the trick for BN.

Posted: 16 Jan 2013 10:17 AM PST

Those who assert that their religious faith is the only one that paves the way to God contribute to human suffering and conflict.

Ramesh Rao, Patheos Hindu

The only way we can reduce human conflict is to understand the human quest for liberation, knowledge, and finding the answers to the fundamental questions that have troubled us—Who are we? Why are we here? Where do we go from here?—is to acknowledge that we can access answers to these questions using a variety of means, under the guidance of a variety of spiritual and religious leaders, and as adherents to any of the world's faith groups.

The other facet of this argument is that those who claim God for themselves, or assert that their religious faith is the only one that paves the way to God contribute to human suffering and conflict by denying others the right to follow their own spiritual instincts, their God-given freedom to probe the universe as they wish. They do so by imposing hierarchies that categorize people as infidels or believers, saved or lost, devil worshipers or God-followers, and heathens or religious people. These exclusivist and monopolistic claims to God then pave the way to predatory proselytism, and the denial of agency to others—the "adhikara" (authority or ownership) and "ishta" (desired, liked)—guiding principles that shape the Hindu pursuit of transcending the mundane.

This argument is not new. In fact, I wrote a short piece for United Press International's "religion and spirituality forum" in 2006, which I think can describe why religious pluralism is essential to mitigating conflict in the world. Before we get there, we have to clarify what pluralism means. Swami Vivekananda said, "We not only tolerate, but we Hindus accept every religion, praying in the mosque of the Mohammedans, worshipping the fire of the Zoroastrians, and kneeling before the Cross of Christians, knowing that all the religions, from the lowest fetishism to the highest absolutism, mean so many attempts of the human soul to grasp and realize the infinite, each determined by the conditions of its birth and association, and each of them marking a stage of progress" (The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, pp. 331-32). Vivekananda was stating something a hundred years before what Professor Diana Eck of Harvard and the Pluralism Project callnecessary conditions for the practice of and belief in pluralism. Pluralism, for her, has to be "the energetic engagement with diversity . . . , the active seeking of understanding across lines of difference . . . , the encounter of commitments . . ." arrived at through dialogue. In 2006 we had a visitor at Longwood University where I teach. He was a holocaust survivor. Jay Ipson, President and Executive Director of the Virginia Holocaust Museum, came to talk to our students about love, hate, and bigotry. He began by asking the luncheon audience what it was that made Germans hate the Jews. One person said that maybe Germans learned it at home; another said that the media played a role; and yet another offered the hypothesis that maybe they learned it at school. I suggested that it was religion that was at the bottom of that hatred. He nodded his head, looked around, and asked us to consider that fact.

In the audience were a Presbyterian minister, a Catholic priest, and Christians of other denominations. People uncomfortably shifted in their chairs, and one person said that religions don't teach hate but people misuse religion. Is that true, Ipson asked, and he himself seemed to indicate that it might be so. Some others pointed out that there is much in religious literature that is problematic, if not hateful.

Ipson's story of survival in a Lithuanian Jewish ghetto, and of escape with his father and mother from the ghetto, while the rest of his family was sent to the concentration camps and to their deaths, made us all acknowledge the real import of religious discrimination. Ipson still retains a strong German/European accent but has a fine command of American colloquial English. His talk was precise, and he avoided the politically correct clichés that many modern speakers use to soften the horrors of the past, and the vulgarities of the present.

The holocaust survivor's story is important not only in the context of continuing anti-Semitism but it can also provide the context for pluralism, the lessons we can learn from Hinduism, and the concerns of Hindus, Native Americans, and others about the effects of predatory proselytism—aggressive and manipulative efforts at converting others through force, fraud, seduction, and lies.

At the end of his presentation, Ipson asked the audience what they felt were the answers to reducing conflict and hate. There were the usual suggestions of education, interfaith dialogue, acceptance, and so on. I raised my hand. Once again, there was some uncomfortable shifting in the chairs. I was, after all, the first one in the audience to say that some people learn hate from religion, and Ipson had acknowledged that. He also found that I was the one person in the audience who knew the group, other than the Nazis, who had mandated the wearing of a piece of colored cloth to identify the "other": these were the Taliban, who in Afghanistan had mandated that Hindus wear yellow-colored clothing to identify themselves as Hindus.

Listen to Shahrifah Zohra

Posted: 15 Jan 2013 03:39 PM PST

Darren Nah, The Malaysian Insider

Malaysians all over the globe are pouring spiteful derision at an unknown, supercilious lady, Shahrifah Zohra, whose bubbling partisan affinities and inability to address the contentious issues posed by a contrarian student, Bawani KS (now an overnight sensation), led her to do what all noisome vixens do: Raise a whole lot of malarkey and hullabaloo about monkeys, cows, goats and, yes, even sharks.

Her bestial [pertaining to beasts] diatribe came in an interminable, rapid fire succession. Shahrifah Zohra went from calling Ambiga (a Malaysian public figure fighting for free and fair elections) an anarchist, to asking the student, Bawani, to leave the Malaysia given Bawani's dissatisfaction, and to then doling out Galaxy Notes gratuitously to a body of passive, browbeaten students who was indifferent to the whole Orwellian mis-en-scene, and merely parroted affirmatives and clapped in support of both sides. In Shahrifah Zohra's deluge of half-baked, quasi-educated Malay-English creole verbiage, many might mistake her fulmination to be a truculent message sponsored by the Selangor Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA).

However, Shahrifah Zohra does artfully credit Ambiga, the "anarchist," with one thing: enlightening Malaysians to human rights, which in this case, it so happens to be the right of free speech. Shahrifah Zohra, of course, in trumping the right of every individual to free speech, does not hesitate to remove her opponent's (Bawani's) microphone, and quickly proceeds to up the volume-ante to an audibly deranging holler.

Aside from the (hopefully) non-permanent ear damage that Shahrifah Zohra's twenty-minute harangue has caused, it is very odd that Shahrifah Zohra should undermine her own case by saying that "it is my human right to speak, and you to listen" (paraphrased).

Shahrifah Zohra's logic is a non sequitur. If everyone has a human right to speak, it does not follow that every human has a right to not speak when another speaks. In other words, you can't stop me from speaking simply by saying that you have a right to speak. We can both speak at the same time, though no one would be listening. (Bawani by this time has gone back to her seat, probably fatigued by her obtuse opponent. Stupidity can be very tiring!).

In fact, Bawani's real contention was with the lack of free education in Malaysia. Or more pointedly, the lack of quality education in Malaysia was her main complaint. Which good citizen does not complain about her own nation, not to bring it down, but to build it better?

Again, Shahrifah Zohra's non sequitur logic resurfaces, this time in international fury! She beseeches Bawani to leave Malaysia and go to Cuba, Libya and Argentina. Shahrifah Zohra does not mention the United States, the United Kingdom or Australia, but third-world nations. In her logic, we're meant to compare ourselves with Libya. Right. I'm sure you win a race by running with handicaps.

It is very sad (and here comes my plangent tone) that the Malaysians in the video were so indifferent. "All the students in this hall," Shahrifah Zohra vaunts, "are happy with whatever the government does for them." And to a great extent, this is very true. The government does too much, and the people too little, and this is how we're silenced.

People like Shahrifah Zohra can speak with such temerity at another co-citizen simply because, she knows (and we know) that the Malaysian government can take away whatever it has given; free education, petrol subsidies, free this and free that. One can even say that Bawani, by asking for free education, indirectly empowers people like Shahrifah Zohra!

No one stops to think about the larger picture. No one talks about the appropriate role of government. Everyone talks about democracy, but no one talks about mob rule. Everyone wants things free, but no one sees the hidden charges.

READ MORE HERE

The Christians are coming!

Posted: 15 Jan 2013 03:23 PM PST

Twenty years ago, he said, there were about 5 per cent of Christians in the country. The number has jumped to 9 per cent. We must not forget, too, Christians of other ethnicities.

Dina Zaman, The Malaysian Insider

Dr Chandra Muzaffar who spoke at the "Pathways Institute Seminar: Leadership Amidst Controversy" recently said, "It will be the Malaysian Christians who will make an impact at the upcoming general elections."

There is a political awakening among them, and many feel sidelined and discriminated against, he said. The Allah issue is just but one of the many issues they feel strongly about. Again, a reminder: They are highly educated and earn incomes many envy.

Twenty years ago, he said, there were about 5 per cent of Christians in the country. The number has jumped to 9 per cent. We must not forget, too, Christians of other ethnicities.

There is also another thing that I would like to add, and had volunteered at the seminar. When we talk about Muslims in Malaysia, the conversation is really about the Malays. We fail to take into account that there are other Malaysian Muslims: the Chinese and Indian Muslims, and the first generation of migrants who have made Malaysia their home. Let's not forget the Arabs! The Chinese and Indian Muslims, and Arabs are some of the economic drivers of the country. Their contributions to the country's GDP cannot be overlooked.

Don't forget the Shiites, too!

What is my point?

It would be that these very communities will not just make an impression at the polling booth, but are big huge billboards that should wake Malay-Muslims up. They want to be heard, and their traditions, culture and mindset accepted, and not just tolerated. Add the numbers up ― they are significant.

Many times, I have encountered exchanges between Chinese-Muslims and Indian-Muslims, and the question asked often is why they aren't accepted as Bumiputeras?

"I don't get the Constitution. If you are Muslim, you are automatically Malay and vice versa. I'm Muslim, and I'm still ticking off Chinese/Indian on forms. My culture and heritage dictate a long history of Islam, longer than you Malays."

"We make more money than you. We drive the economy. Don't you dare say that we are insignificant!'

My response is usually silence. They're right.

It is obvious that the current politics and policies surrounding ethnicity and religions in Malaysia are outdated. It is also disheartening to hear, in this day and age the ever-oft complaint, that the non-Malays are going to take over. This coming even from the more exposed, educated Malay professionals.

Are we really under siege?

To some, yes.

Even if they are Muslim? I pointed out.

READ MORE HERE

Can Deepak bring down Umno?

Posted: 15 Jan 2013 02:53 PM PST

When Anwar and his Pakatan colleagues are in agreement that Deepak has the goods to topple the BN government, then Deepak can have whatever he wants.

CT Ali, FMT

The need, greed and obsessison for money, wealth and power at its most corrupt can all be seen in the trials and tribulations that Deepak Jaikishnan, with his supporting cast of Rosmah Mansor, Najib Tun Razak and Anwar Ibrahim, are going through now.

In Deepak we see the use of money not for good but for evil. He will have difficulty in finding friend as they see what he is now doing to his 'sister' and to those from whom he now seek help from.

Today he is toxic to the two people most able to get him out of the business predicament that he has got himself into. A predicament born out of cronyism and politics so flawed that it requires a political solution only Anwar or Najib can contemplate.

Najib and Rosmah have washed their hands off him – encouraged by no small amount, I am sure, by Deepak's threats to reveal Rosmah's and Najib's involvement in Altanatuya's murder.

After much circumspect consideration, Najib and Rosmah have decided that what Deepak has to say about their involvement in the retraction of PI Bala's first SD would not harm Najib's chances of winning the 13th general election.

So what is Deepak to do now?

Deepak traitorously goes to the other man who may be able to help him – Anwar. Anwar knows that Deepak comes to him because Najib and Rosmah has cast him off.

If Najib and Rosmah think that Deepak is not worth the money he is asking for, how much then is Deepak worth to Anwar?

What Anwar has to decide now is whether what Deepak has on Najib and Rosmah can win Pakatan Rakyat the general election and make him the prime minister.

Those are the only criteria that Anwar and Pakatan Rakyat will judge Deepak by.

Taking Najib and Rosmah out of the political equation is not enough. There are Muhyiddin Yassin and Dr Mahathir Mohamad eager to step into Najib's shoes.

Delivering a mortal blow to Umno

Not only must Najib go but also what Deepak reveals of Najib, the Umno president, must deal Umno a mortal blow from which it cannot recover – at least not in time to ready itself to battle Pakatan in the 13th general election.

Then, and only then will Anwar and Pakatan be able to consider 'working' with Deepak for the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth to come out.

It is not Deepak who decides. All this talk of telling the truth and getting immunity as a whistleblower is bull dust.

READ MORE HERE

When pumps fail

Posted: 15 Jan 2013 10:44 AM PST

One does not need a degree in rocket science to understand why there is a need for maintenance.

These days the only beneficiaries of the quality of water are the makers and distributors of water filters. The quality of water leaves much to be desired and tying a piece of cloth to the mouth of the tap will attest to this.

R. Nadeswaran

, The Sun

SOME members of the Thomas Cup winning team of 1967 referred to him as the "tormentor". That's because he was their fitness coach and he spared no one.

Those in sports circles knew him as a double international having played soccer and hockey for Malaya. Those in the football fraternity knew him as "Uncle Nada", but T. Nadarajah worked with the Selangor Waterworks Department in Pantai, Kuala Lumpur, where everyone saw the other side of him.

Every year, he used to organise a walk for waterworks employees and in the mid-seventies, I was assigned to cover the event. They all came – the sweepers, plumbers, technicians and engineers. Food was prepared in the compound of the department and for a good measure, beer and toddy flowed.

And for prizes, Uncle Nada gave away fruits, vegetables and the main prize was a rattan cage containing five chickens. He said something along the lines that medals and cups are useless to the workers. He would rather give them something which could end up on the dinner table.

And one of the most telling remarks he made was: "They can be plumbers and labourers, but it is their hard work that keeps water flowing through your taps. Round-the-clock, they ensure that everything is working." It was an era when bottled water – mineral, distilled, purified, etc – was never heard of. If you were thirsty, you just turned on the tap, clasped your hands and drank the water direct from the source – without any worry or hassle.

I will not delve into the politics of water but raise some pertinent, common sense questions that have to be addressed. I have no intention of going into the contractual disputes between the Selangor government and the concessionaires.

Let it be reiterated that privatisation was supposed to enhance quality and service, not to be detrimental to the people. Raw water and processed water are two different things. The problem is the processing of water and it has nothing to do with new dams. From what I have read, the water crisis has nothing to do with privatisation or new treatment plants. It has everything to do with failure of mechanical equipment to pump the water. Was it changed or did it disappear with privatisation?

One does not need a degree in rocket science to understand why there is a need for maintenance. Like aircraft and printing presses, water pumps can last a lifetime with regular maintenance and replacement of parts as recommended by the suppliers or until they become obsolete because of innovations.

So, the questions that should be answered are:
>Is there a maintenance schedule in place?
>Has something gone awry with the maintenance schedule which has caused the pumps to fail?
>Are sufficient spares being kept so that worn out or damaged parts can be repaired or replaced?
>How could four pumps fail at the same time?
>Why is it taking a long time to get the pumps repaired? Is it because we do not have the expertise, the tools or the spares?
>In this context, why has our quality of water dropped significantly?

We seem to espouse the "First World infrastructure, Third World mentality" at every turn. The public needs answers and the concessionaires must take cognisance that ordinary folk should not be pawns in trying to hammer through an unfair deal.

R. Nadeswaran is editor (special and investigative reporting) at theSun. Comments: citizen-nades@thesundaily.com

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Sabtu, 19 Januari 2013

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

0 ulasan:

Catat Ulasan