Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info

Sumber Asal Berita :-

Posted: 23 Feb 2013 02:00 PM PST

Since the 1970s, volunteerism has been labeled as the Third Sector (after government and private sectors).

The economist would attempt to quantify non-monetary benefits gained by a volunteer, while the sociologist would explain volunteerism as humankind's way of expressing core societal principles, like solidarity, social cohesion, and democracy. Psychologists say that volunteerism is innate.

By Anas Alam Faizli, FMT

Every Dec 5, 1985, millions of volunteers across the globe celebrate the International Volunteers Day. This auspicious day is designated by the United Nations to mark the contributions of many voluntary organisations worldwide.

During the recent celebration, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon gave a profound message; crediting significant volunteer contributions to both economic and social development.

"Founded on the values of solidarity and mutual trust, volunteerism transcends all cultural, linguistic and geographic boundaries. By giving their time and skills without expectation of material reward, volunteers themselves are uplifted by a singular sense of purpose." (Ban Ki-moon)

A Eurobarometer study conducted in 2006 estimated that full-time equivalent volunteers total approximately 140 million globally, contributing USD 400 billion or 7% of world GDP.

Together with full time employees working for the sector, they would form the ninth most populous country in the world.

Volunteerism as Fard Kifayah

Islam provides a beautiful perspective, encouraging volunteerism through the concept of the 'fard-kifayah, or socially obligatory duty.

An act is compulsory for any members of society should the need arise. As long as there is already another member of society performing it, this act will be non-compulsory at individual level.

However, the sin of insubordination is borne by the whole society should no one perform it.

Early act of voluntarism made its impact in the Islamic society of Medina under the guidance of the Prophet, at a time when disunity, greed and selfishness plagued Bedouin Arabs.

The great Nabawi mosque of Medina was built on a charitable basis, both by voluntary labour and cash.

It was also benevolent military forces that fought numerous battles against Makkan forces during that period.

In America, voluntarism emerged during periods of European explorations westwards across the Pacific.

Colonists in the "New Land" had no choice but to form mutual systems of support to ensure survival.

Volunteers farmed, developed irrigation systems, and provided healthcare in the absence of state or commercial provision of communal needs. The resulting social cohesion from these voluntary acts became foundation for these earlier systems of livelihood for early colonies in North America.

In mid-nineteenth century Europe too, collectives were organized voluntarily, forming businesses to deliver services given the then lack of a welfare state.

The self-less volunteers

Humans as economic agents are self-interested and aim to maximize their respective utility when they consume goods, and provide factors of production.

So why do people volunteer? Different disciplines have different answers.

The phenomenon of volunteering is difficult to define academically because it is often public perception that defines it.

However, there are three common characteristics of volunteerism beyond the original blunt definition of "work for no pay".

These are choice, going beyond paid or family responsibilities, and ultimately resulting in some kind of contribution to society. This stands even if the volunteer, in whatever way, personally benefits from volunteering.

Volunteerism in developing countries

The voluntary sector already represents an important part of socio, economic and political structures in developed countries.

In the past few decades, it has enjoyed considerably intensive growth in developing countries too.

This is due to several reasons. Most commonly, it is thought to arise from the emergence of pluralism, freedom of speech and increased pressures for solidarity amongst a people.

It is also linked to democratic developments within society and populist rises against the ugly outcomes of capitalism.

While these may all be true, the major underlying reason is efficient provision of goods and services, wherever markets and governments have failed.

As often misunderstood, the sector is apolitical; it need not be in opposing stance to the government.

In fact, it strengthens and complements the government as well as market forces.

Strong governmental support for the sector around the world can be seen as 40% of funding for the sector comes from governments. 10% come from philanthropy while the remaining comes from fees. Resources and funding vary with the wealth of a certain society.

Because needs and deficiencies vary between developed and developing countries, the kind of volunteer movements, the methods deployed, and the degree of exercisable difference, also vary.

Volunteerism in developing countries may tackle developing issues such as educational opportunities, human rights or orphan care.

Meanwhile, developed European countries may see the rise of volunteerism revolving around integration issues amongst second-generation immigrants, or urban backlashes.

In America, volunteers may work for victims of a deeply rooted market-based capitalist system, and inequality. In any case, the basis of the voluntary sector is premised on the main goal of not-for-profit and the advancement of identified social goals.

Volunteerism, civil society as the 'Third Sector'

Since the 1970s, volunteerism has been labeled as the Third Sector (after government and private sectors).

Discussions have even gone as far as attaching the role of "saviour of democracy" to it and crediting it for the "rise of a civil society".

The academic realm suggests that the third sector is a credible alternative to state-provided and market-based welfare. But what is civil society and how is the third sector a potential saviour?

Civil society, put simplistically, was originally a term that describes any society living under a functional state.

With increasing state meddling in matters of welfare, civil society disconnected itself to solely represent the interest of the third economic agent (households), championing their rights under banners such as "charity", "humanity" and "equality for all".

That said, the government remains the primary caretaker of the general good and common wealth. Civil society simply shares this sense of "public welfare" without making claims to legitimate coercion or authority, unlike the government.

Voluntarism is an overarching characteristic of civil society. This is because civil society is essentially a collective action that is not a result of coercion or compulsion.

Rather, it is made of groups of individuals with shared interests, purposes and values.

In other words, civil society is the citizen, mobilized out of will. It is the sector that charities, NGOs, religious groups, trade unions, self-help groups, social movements, coalitions and advocacy groups would fall into.

Academics have outlined three major roles of civil society; to provide services, represent common citizens, and governance.

Civil society achieves this via multiple methods. First, it acts as pressure groups; analyzing prevalent policies and advocate recommendations.

Secondly, civil society can become watchdogs and independent experts in monitoring state performance, effectively pressuring the public service to be accountable.

Thirdly, civil society molds society by providing avenue for the latter to identify, articulate and act upon their beliefs and value systems. Fourth, it acts as a political agent, mobilizing marginalized sections of the society otherwise vulnerable, to participate and have representation in public affairs.

Lastly, civil society is an industry of its own, a sector which contributes to society by consuming and demanding outputs of other industries while producing its own services.

Directly, it provides services to the community, which creates new value in itself. Quintessential examples of direct services are teaching and pro bono legal representation.

Indirectly, it demands goods and services from businesses to be transferred to the needy. This actually benefits the commercial private sector as demand is increased, and lightens the burden of the government in providing public goods.

The Third Sector challenges

The third sector is not without its implementing challenges. Civil society acts in very sparse and fragmented manners making it difficult for them to be heard or exercise any concrete influence.

Even with solidarity amongst many organizations, the true quality of their opportunities is questionable.

Furthermore, it too faces possibilities of selectivity and elitism, because citizens that found and drive NGOs tend to be experienced or subject matter experts, instead of your common "everyday man".

This may hinder its claims to legitimacy. Another challenge is balancing diversity and efficacy.

Civil society's claims to be the antidote of democracy stems from its ability to release diverse resources, meet diverse needs, and give voice to diverse groups of citizens.

However, to emerge as a harmonious third sector, reconciling this diversity remains a challenge.

READ MORE HERE

What went wrong with the NEP?

Posted: 21 Feb 2013 03:59 PM PST

"Access (to affirmative action programmes) should be for people who really need it, the poor. But it was appropriated by people who didn't need it and became more wealthy and this lead to wealth disparity," Gomez said. According to Gomez, the problems of cronyism and nepotism arose because the process of awarding concessions to bumiputera entrepreneurs was not transparent or accountable.

Chua Sue-Ann, fz.com

Race-based affirmative action, specifically in business, has long had repercussions on the Malaysian economy but politicians from both sides of the divide are staying away from the contentious topic.

As Malaysia heads toward its most hotly contested general election, a myriad of issues – from religion, poverty, civil liberties and citizenship – have sparked highly charged debates.

But, Malaysia's affirmative action policies which have far-ranging consequences on the economy and society have curiously been overlooked, laments Universiti Malaya's Professor Edmund Terence Gomez.

Gomez believes that any policy discussion on economic reform is incomplete without an examination of Malaysia's long experiment with race-based affirmative action.

"We know the problems with the policy, the pros and the cons. How do we take this forward? It is an important policy because it dictates our economy and how our economy will move from here," he told fz.com in a recent interview.

Gomez and fellow academic Johan Saravanamuttu are editors of a book entitled The New Economic Policy in Malaysia: Affirmative action, ethnic inequalities and social justice.

The book, published last December, is a collection of academic essays on Malaysia's affirmative action policy and its impact.

The New Economic Policy (NEP) was introduced in 1970, a year after the racial riots, as a remedy for ethnic-based inequalities in the economy and society.

Its main goals were to eliminate poverty regardless of race and address the wealth disparities between the different ethnic communities.

Though the policy formally ended in 1990, subsequent national development policies retained elements of affirmative action for bumiputeras and continued to be known by its old name, NEP.

Gomez said both Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat have strategically avoided talking about affirmative action and are reticent about putting forth their respective policy agenda for Malaysia.

"The policy is so deeply racialised that politicians fear that if they put it out there, they may lose votes. Both sides are not willing to take the risk.

"As a result, core policies that need to be discussed are sidelined by both the opposition and Barisan Nasional for their own vested reasons, to maintain the support that they think they have," Gomez said.

Affirmative action is considered a political hot potato in Malaysia as parties seek to avoid sparking criticism for questioning or eroding the special rights of bumiputeras.

Bumiputera voters make up about 62% of the electorate, according to Election Commission data in 2012.

"If we don't talk about it before the election, it is not going to happen after the election," said Gomez, who is the dean of Universiti Malaya's Social and Behavioural Science Research Cluster.

Clear impact on economy

According to Gomez, the negative effects of race-based affirmative action policies have been visible in the Malaysian economy for the last decade, at the very least.

For one, the repercussions are manifested in low rates of domestic investment in the economy due to a lack of confidence in what is seen as an uneven playing field and a system lacking in transparency, Gomez said.

Gomez and Saravanamuttu's book noted that the phenomenal rise of patronage and corruption seriously undermined genuine entrepreneurship and domestic investment, a point which the government had acknowledged in 2010.

"The economy is the core issue. Investments are low. We have to rebuild the economy. We cannot be dependent on foreign direct investments (FDI) to drive this economy. There is too much competition out there," Gomez said.

In recent years, the Malaysian government has focused on promoting domestic investment although observers say a large portion of it is driven by government-linked companies (GLCs) instead of private sector entrepreneurs.

According to data from the Malaysian Investment Development Authority (MIDA), domestic investments in 2011 continued to exceed FDI at RM82.3 billion or 55.4% of total approved investment compared with foreign investments at RM66.3 billion.

Gomez adds that another impact of race-based affirmative action policies is that programmes aiming to create bumiputera entrepreneurs have inadvertently caused new problems such as intra-bumiputera wealth and power disparities as well as urban-rural spatial inequalities.

Many bumiputeras have complained that they too have been marginalised as only those who are well-connected benefit from affirmative action policies or concessions, Gomez said.

According to Gomez, the problems of cronyism and nepotism arose because the process of awarding concessions to bumiputera entrepreneurs was not transparent or accountable.

"Did it go to the people who were most equipped to use these concessions productively? What have been the outcomes of these distributions? Have they led to the rise of a new independent, vibrant bumiputera business elite? It hasn't," Gomez said.

Gomez notes that it is rather telling that Malaysia's top companies are mostly GLCs, in spite of the rampant privatisation of state enterprises in the 1990s by the then prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad.

READ MORE HERE

To whom does Sabah belong?

Posted: 21 Feb 2013 11:57 AM PST

If there really was an incursion, how come I do not see our Foreign Minister flying off to the Philippines or their Foreign Secretary here in Sabah to negotiate the retreat?

The British government, however as we all know, arrogantly and unilaterally did turn Sabah into a Crown-leased Colony on July 10, 1946 even though there was a declaration by Chief Justice CFC Makaskie of the High Court of North Borneo on Dec 19, 1939 in a civil suit filed by Dayang Dayang Hadji Piandao and 8 other heirs of the Sulu Sultan including Putlih Tarhata Kiram that the successor of the Sulu Sultan in the territory of Sabah was Punjungan Kiram and not Great Britain!

Vidal Yudin Weil,FMT

I was asked to pen my views on the alleged ongoing standoff between the Malaysian armed forces and the so-called Sulu intruders at a Lahad Datu village in Sabah.

I will touch on the history of Sabah followed by my arrival to the conclusion on the probability of the incident actually happening in reality.

North Borneo

It was written that on Jan 23, 1878, the Ruler of Sulu, Sultan Jamalul Alam leased Sabah (formerly known as North Borneo) to Gustavus Von Overbeck for an annual rent of equivalent 5,000 dollars through Von Overbeck's trading partner Alfred Dent. It was also recorded that this amount of money (USD1,500 per year) is still being paid to the heirs of the Sulu Sultan by the Malaysian Embassy in the Philippines until today.

The keyword in the written agreement was "Pajak" which if translated literally means "Lease". It was also explicitly written that the rights to Sabah cannot be transferred to any other nation or anyone else without the Sulu Sultan's express consent.

The Spaniards in Manila eventually took control of the entire Sulu Sultanate; and in 1885, Great Britain, Germany, and Spain signed the Madrid Protocol confirming Spanish influence over everything in the Philippines except Sabah which belongs to the Sultanate.

Great Britain was reminded by America in official black and white in 1906 and 1920 that Sabah does not belong to Great Britain; and was and is at all material times legally and legitimately part and parcel of the Sulu Sultanate.

Earlier on in 1941 the Constitution of the Philippines states specifically that the national territory of the Philippines includes "all other areas which belong to the Philippines on the basis of historical rights or legal claims" which means that the Philippines have never relinquished their claim on Sabah.

Even before Sabah joined Malaya, Sarawak, and Singapore to form Malaysia on Sept 16, 1963, numerous delegations were sent by the Philippines to London reminding the British government that Sabah belongs to the Philippines.

On Sept 12, 1962, the territory of Sabah and the full sovereignty, title and dominion over the territory were ceded by the then reigning Sulu Ruler, Sultan Muhammad Esmail E. Kiram 1 to the Republic of the Philippines during the Presidency of Diosdado Macapagal.

The cession effectively gave the Philippines government full authority to pursue their claim in the International Court of Justice at The Hague. But until today, Malaysia continues to consistently reject the Philippines's calls to refer the matter to the ICJ.

Immediately preceding the formation of Malaysia, two commissions of enquiry visited Sabah and Sarawak in order to establish the state of public opinion regarding merger with Malaya and Singapore. However, the commissions were never mandated to address the legal status of Sabah nor were they referendums in the proper sense.

The first commission known as the Cobbold Commission was established by the Malayan and British governments and was headed by Lord Cobbold, along with two representatives from Malaya and Britain – but none from the territories under investigation.

The Commission found that about one third of the population of each territory i.e. Sabah and Sarawak strongly favours early realisation of Malaysia without too much concern over terms and conditions. Another third, many of them favourable to the Malaysia project, ask, with varying degrees of emphasis, for conditions and safeguards. The remaining third is divided between those who insist upon independence before Malaysia is considered and those who would strongly prefer to see British rule continue for some years to come.

Indonesia and the Philippines rejected the findings of the Cobbold Commission and in 1963, a tripartite meeting was held in Manila between Indonesian President Soekarno, Philippines President Diosdado Macapagal and Malayan Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman. The meeting agreed to petition the UN to send another commission of enquiry and the Philippines and Indonesia agreed to drop their objection to the formation of Malaysia if the new commission found popular opinion in the territories in favour.

The UN Mission to Borneo found "a sizeable majority of the people" dubiously in favour of joining Malaysia and as expected Indonesia and the Philippines subsequently rejected the report's findings and Indonesia continued its semi-military policy of "konfrontasi" towards Malaysia – the disputed report in effect sealed the creation of Malaysia.

The whole situation in a nutshell

To give the ordinary layman on the street an easier picture to digest, the following analogy best describes the whole situation:

A landlord called Jamalul leased a piece of land to a tenant called Overbeck for a yearly rent of $5,000. The written agreement stated that Overbeck cannot sub-let the land or sell the lease without Jamalul's permission.

But the tenant despite the prohibition illegally sold the lease to a sub-tenant called Great Britain who later also illegally sold the lease to a sub-sub-tenant called Malaysia.

And in between all the illegal transactions perpetrated by Overbeck, Great Britain and Malaysia, Jamalul transferred all his rights and interests to a new landlord called the Philippines. The new landlord now wants back the land but the sub-sub-tenant Malaysia refuses to leave. The new landlord wants to take the matter to the International Court of Justice at The Hague but the sub-sub-tenant Malaysia also refuses to go there.

Can the sub-sub-tenant Malaysia claim to be an innocent victim when she took over the lease from the sub-tenant Great Britain?

In my humble opinion: the law be it either international or of any civilized country is that if a purchaser acquires a property with prior knowledge that the property in question is in fact stolen or that the seller does not have a legal or legitimate title to the property at the time of transaction is equally guilty of the crime of theft. Such transaction is not only null and void and of no effect, the title to the property in question is still vested with the original owner.

The ICJ only handles cases between states and nations which must agree to come voluntarily to be adjudged and be bound by its decisions; I strongly believe that Malaysia dares not go to the International Court of Justice to face the Philippines because the former foresee the high possibility of losing.

For centuries Great Britain was the cause of a lot of world problems today, history will tell you the sufferings of people in the Middle East, Africa, Indian Sub-Continent, Argentine Falklands and many more. Even within the United Kingdom, the Scottish, Welsh, and Irish people are really pissed with England.

Hong Kong was fortunate when the late Deng Xiao Ping told Margaret Thatcher in private that if Great Britain does not leave Hong Kong after squatting there for more than 150 years, the Chinese Army will overrun Hong Kong in one day. She was eventually returned to China on July 1, 1997 and now enjoyed autonomy.

What about the voices of the population during the times of the first tenant Overbeck and sub-tenant Great Britain who agree to let the sub-sub-tenant Malaysia take over?

Read more here

The Sabah standoff

Posted: 20 Feb 2013 02:41 PM PST

Randy David, Philippine Daily Inquirer

There is more to the ongoing standoff between Malaysian forces and some 300 armed men holed up in a coastal village in Sabah than meets the eye. The latter are Filipino nationals, though they identify themselves as members of the "Royal Security Forces of the Sultanate of Sulu and North Borneo." They have announced that they sailed to Sabah to reclaim their rightful homeland. Heaven forbid that any harm should befall them. For, that will play right into the hands of those who, for some reason or other, wish to derail the current peace effort in Mindanao and foment a rift between Malaysia and the Philippines.

The relations between the two countries have significantly improved after Malaysia began hosting the peace negotiations between the Philippine government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front. Malaysia has a clear interest in the political stabilization of neighboring Muslim Mindanao. In the past, Muslim rebels routinely sought sanctuary in Malaysian territory, and their presence there not only strained relations with the Philippines but also posed the danger of locally spreading a politicized Islam. Of course, beyond all this, the Malaysian investment in goodwill, properly acknowledged as a Filipino debt of gratitude, serves to undercut any move to activate a long-standing irritant in the relations of the two countries.

The Sultan's heirs have been pressing the Philippine government to actively pursue its sovereign claim to Sabah. Keeping the issue alive will greatly bolster their demand to be justly compensated as the rightful private owners of the territory. The Philippine claim is solely anchored on the property rights asserted by the descendants of the Sultan of Sulu. This claim was formally advanced by President Diosdado Macapagal in 1962. That was the year before the British formally relinquished their colonial hold on Malaya, North Borneo, Sarawak, and the straits settlements (including Singapore), paving the way for the establishment of Malaysia as an independent state. Singapore subsequently left the Malaysian federation.

"North Borneo," writes the historian Onofre D. Corpuz, "was crucial to the new Malaysia; without it, the latter would have an overriding Chinese majority in its population, because Singapore was to be part of Malaysia. The United Kingdom, the United States, and Japan had interests in the new state based on global strategic considerations. The claim would be pursued, if at all, in diplomatic isolation. The future of the Philippine claim, into the 1980s, was not bright." Sure enough, the keen desire of the Philippine government to forge strong regional ties with its major Southeast Asian neighbors thereafter consigned the issue to the margins of Philippine foreign policy.

It has been a long time since the Sabah claim has been openly discussed in the media or, even less, officially taken up by any administration. Yet, no Philippine president has dared to categorically renounce the country's claim to this territory. The young generation of Filipinos, who are unaware of the historic claim of the heirs of the Sultan of Sulu, may thus be forgiven if they perceive the group of Sultan Jamalul Kiram III as no different from those syndicates who now and then invade expensive real estate in Metro Manila waving fictitious royal titles. But, this particular claim is by no means founded on fantasy.

North Borneo was acquired by the Sultanate of Sulu sometime in the 17th century as a gift from the Sultan of Brunei, in appreciation for the former's help in successfully quelling a local rebellion against the latter's rule. In 1878, the Sultanate of Sulu agreed to lease the property to a British company. Malaysia argues that in 1885, Spain renounced all claims of sovereignty over the whole of Borneo, in exchange for British recognition of Spanish sovereignty over the entire Sulu archipelago. Its lawyers contend, moreover, that the Sultanate of Sulu ended in 1936 following the death of the last Sultan.

Yet, since its formation in 1963, the Malaysian state has thought it proper to hand over every year to the lawyers of the descendants of the Sultan of Sulu a check for 5,300 Malaysian ringgit (about P70,000 at the current exchange rate). Before that, except for the period between 1936 and 1950, the payment was made by the British North Borneo Co., in accordance with the terms of a lease agreement between the British company and the heirs of the Sultan. Today, Malaysia calls the token payment "cession," meaning payment made in exchange for the ceding of property rights. The Sultan's descendants, however, continue to refer to it as "rent," for obvious reasons. Regardless, the amount is ridiculous. The territory in question covers approximately 30,000 square miles.

The Sultan's heirs have a pending petition with the United Nations for the return of Sabah to the family. This may be a way of compelling Malaysia to pay a substantially higher rent, or an offer to quit all claims in exchange for a huge payment. But, it is also possible that Malaysia intends to stop paying altogether in order to put to rest any doubt about Malaysian sovereignty over Sabah. Unfortunately, the UN has not acted on the petition.

The "invasion" led by the brother of the current Sultan is clearly an attempt to shove the issue into the faces of the two governments, neither of which relishes being dictated upon by the heirs of an archaic sultanate. Still, both governments must realize that they have an interest in ending this standoff without firing a single shot. A messy end to this impasse could stoke ethnic resentments and needlessly inflame nationalist sentiments.

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Ahad, 24 Februari 2013

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

0 ulasan:

Catat Ulasan