Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info

Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

GE13: Are Indians rooting for BN?
Will Hindraf Choose To Sleep With The Enemy?
Voting right by residency?
Beating authoritarianism with consistency
Would winds of change usher in hudud?

Posted: 01 Feb 2013 03:52 PM PST

Indians till to-date have failed to read that BN is cunning in practising gimmicks in order to obtain votes.

Selena Tay, FMT

A very recent survey conducted by Pakatan Rakyat grassroots workers has revealed that Indian support for Pakatan has dipped below 50%.

Going by logical indications that the 13th general election is surely going to be held in March, this leaves Pakatan with only one month to work out a plan to regain Indian support.

What made the Indians swing back to Barisan Nasional was the hampers given by BN on a quite frequent basis lately. Most of the Indians who were surveyed commented that they were very grateful to BN for the hampers, especially during the festive occasions.

In fact, this "Hamper Culture" is an insult to the recipients and goes against morality and noble ethics as it is done only for the reaping of temporary gain by the giver. Perhaps the giver has not heard of the proverb: "Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach him to fish and he eats for the rest of his life."

It will be to the great loss of the ordinary citizens (the Indians themselves included) if they were to opt out of the movement for change thereby causing the nation to regress and the citizens who are poor to suffer with the implementation of the GST (goods and services tax).

For the GST will surely be implemented after the general election if BN wins and this will cause the prices of everything and the cost of living to rise rapidly.

Indians till to-date have failed to read that BN is cunning in practising gimmicks in order to obtain votes.

Therefore those Indians who think that BN will always help out with hampers had better think again as this type of assistance is extremely short-term.

Indians must start to think in a progressive and forward-looking manner. The recent incident in Selangor last month when Indians were seen crowding round the BN lorry waiting to receive bags of rice truly resembles a scene from a Third World nation.

It is the ultimate insult and Indians must therefore reject BN in order to salvage any pride.

Better future under Pakatan

Under Pakatan Rakyat, Indians will have lots more to gain. Many Indians in Selangor have been given property titles by the Selangor Pakatan state government whereas during BN's tenure, all that the Indians have got from BN was merely the Temporary Occupation Licence (TOL).

Indians, too, have obtained small business loans from the Pakatan state government's micro-credit business loan scheme and even BN has followed this model.

Certainly Indians have much more to look forward to under Pakatan. As of now, Pakatan has only administered Selangor for only five years this coming March. What is five years compared to BN's 55 years?

Will Indians stop to think how much they will forego if they were to support BN just because of some meagre temporary gain?

Have they stopped to think carefully how their vote will affect their children's and grandchildren's future in the long term?

Shortsightedness will definitely do in the Indians in the near future after BN wins the 13th general election. Another reason for the Indian change of heart in going back to supporting BN is due to the water crisis in certain areas of Selangor and Kuala Lumpur.

The Indians should realise that the water crisis is a BN strategy to obtain their vote and therefore should not succumb to this unethical tactic.

Indians must hold firm and go for change for a better government instead of regressing to the old unworkable methods and in the long run getting stuck in a rut.

This is because it is Pakatan which has ideas for betterment, not BN. Even the reduction in road tolls and the "Jom Shopping" projects are Pakatan's ideas which have been adopted by BN.

Why must Indians vote for someone who uses another person's ideas? Why not vote for the person from whom the ideas originate? Isn't that a better and smarter move?

Posted: 01 Feb 2013 03:19 PM PST

Some of the demands are rather unrealistic and supremely difficult to attain, such as the one involving Article 153. Perhaps that's why they have since been revised by the current Hindraf leadership into a condensed five-year blueprint that was launched last November.

Kee Thuan Chye, Malaysian Digest

The Government has suddenly decided to lift its four-year-old ban on Hindraf, the Hindu Rights Action Force that took to the streets in late 2007 and inspired a massive drop in Indian support for Barisan Nasional (BN) at the 2008 general election.

Its timing is glaringly obvious. With the upcoming general election drawing near, BN is further intensifying its quest for Indian votes. It has been doing everything it can to woo the Indians since its 2008 debacle by making a myriad of promises to improve their lot, almost including throwing in the kitchen sink, and Prime Minister Najib Razak has managed to wriggle his way into some of their hearts; so now the next logical step seems to be to hold discussions with Hindraf and woo it as well.

However, since Hindraf had set the condition that discussions would not take place unless the ban was first lifted, the Government has now swallowed its pride for the sake of political expediency and fulfilled the condition.

Responding to it, Hindraf's chairman, P Waythamoorthy, seems inclined to go ahead with the talks although the movement will discuss the matter first. But the question is, should Hindraf entertain the Government?

Surely, Waythamoorthy is smart enough to see that the lifting of the ban amounts to legerdemain? Former Hindraf leader P Uthayakumar, who now heads his own Human Rights Party, does, and calls it "a political gimmick". In which case, how sincere can the Government be?

Besides, if Hindraf were to engage in talks with the very authority that outlawed it, what message would it be sending to its followers?

Waythamoorthy might want to recall the rough times Hindraf had to experience after its rally of Nov 25, 2007, which brought out 30,000 demonstrators to protest against, among other things, the ongoing marginalization of the Indians. The following month, five of his fellow leaders were detained under the Internal Security Act (ISA) while he was spared the ordeal because he was out of the country then. He nonetheless spent five years in exile after that.

More than the detentions and the arrest of 136 protestors during the rally, Hindraf was unfairly hyped up to be a terrorist organization and alleged to have had links with the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka as the Government distorted the truth to make Hindraf look dangerous in a way it was not.

If a government could do something like that, how could it be trusted?

How could Hindraf put these things behind it and still have credence in the ruling party that treated it so roughly?

Waythamoorthy should think about the many who sacrificed their safety to emerge on that day of protest out of belief and conviction to send a message to the powers that be that they would not be taken for granted any more. He should recall that instead of being met with understanding, these ordinary folks who came in peace, some carrying photographs of Mahatma Gandhi, were pummeled with tear gas and water cannons.

So, would meeting the party that gave the order for the hostile action not amount to selling short the people who struggled and suffered for the original cause?

At least, Uthayakumar and another former Hindraf leader, M Manoharan, know the score. They have come out to express their reservations about the lifting of the ban.

As Manoharan says, "the Government is doing this… to play with Indian sentiments. What we want are merely our fundamental basic rights."

He and Uthayakumar are uncompromising in wanting to see Hindraf's original 18 demands accepted and addressed. Among these are affirmative action plans for all poor Malaysians; stopping the victimization of and discrimination against Indians by the police and all other state authorities; compensation for hardcore poor Indians; ending Article 153 of the Federal Constitution which guarantees the special position of the Malays.

Some of the demands are rather unrealistic and supremely difficult to attain, such as the one involving Article 153. Perhaps that's why they have since been revised by the current Hindraf leadership into a condensed five-year blueprint that was launched last November.

The blueprint is predicated on the setting-up of a Minority Affairs Ministry which Hindraf proposes to administer in order to resolve the Indian stateless issue; provide equal job and business opportunities to Indians; stop police brutality and death in custody; set up the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC); etc.

During the launch, Hindraf National Advisor N Ganesan declared that if either BN or Pakatan Rakyat accepted it in a "formal treaty", that coalition would receive Hindraf's support.

One month later, Waythamoorthy announced that Pakatan had accepted it and was even ready to sign the agreement in January.

READ MORE HERE

Voting right by residency?

Posted: 01 Feb 2013 11:13 AM PST

Malaysians have been using biometric passports since 1998 – the first in the world – there is no stamped date of our entry and exit on our passports. How many overseas Malaysians would have kept a log of their movement in and out of the country – which is required in the registration form 1B? Will the immigration provide easy access to our travel records?

Wong Chin Huat, Selangor Times

AS published in the gazette on Jan 14, 2013, the Election Commission (EC) has changed the postal voting bylaw to extend postal voting rights to more – but not all – overseas Malaysians.

Both the two exclusionary criteria are based on residency.

First of all, ordinary Malaysian voters residing in Singapore, Brunei, Southern Thailand and Kalimantan are not entitled to the postal voting facilities.

Secondly, even for other ordinary overseas Malaysian voters, they would have to first prove that they have been "in Malaysia, or returns to Malaysia, for a period of not less than thirty (30) days within five (5) years before dissolution of Parliament or any State Legislative Assembly in force".

Previously the only "absent overseas voters" who vote on postal ballots are civil servants and students and their wives. These rights are unaffected by the new changes but they are only a fraction of Malaysians residing abroad.

Well, if you insist on seeing a half-full rather a half-empty glass, you should cheer for the EC's move.

However, if one were to take a closer look at the amendment, it is not amusing at all.

To begin with, the residency in Malaysia requirement is worded exclusively for general elections, whether for federation or state.

As such, ordinary overseas voters cannot vote on postal ballots should by-elections take place after the General Election

Next, since Malaysians have been using biometric passports since 1998 – the first in the world – there is no stamped date of our entry and exit on our passports.

How many overseas Malaysians would have kept a log of their movement in and out of the country – which is required in the registration form 1B? Will the immigration provide easy access to our travel records?

And what about those who travel to Malaysia via Singapore or some other checkpoints, where more often than not the Malaysian immigration officials would pay no more than a cursory look at our passports and then do nothing to record our entry or exits?

Now, even if we move on to the exclusion based on country of residency, is it justified? Why is it assumed that those who live in Singapore are from Johor and not Kelantan or Sabah, or that someone who works and lives in Kalimantan must be from Sabah and Sarawak and cannot be from Penang or Terengganu?

It is clearly ridiculous for the EC to assume that Malaysians living in a neighbouring country must be from the border town.

And in the case of Kalimantan, how many hours would one spend on the flight and transit from Tawau to Pontianak?

Or from Kapit in Sarawak to Palangkaraya, Central Kalimantan, by whatever means of transport?

As a matter of fact, travelling from Sandakan to Santubung in Sarawak, let alone from either to Sauk of Perak, to exercise one's duty to vote is taxing in time and money.

Civil society has been calling for absentee voting facilities to be provided for domestic voters, at least between Sabah, Sarawak and the Peninsula. Unfortunately all these have been falling on to the deaf ears of the EC.

As the custodian of the electoral process, the EC should do everything it can to encourage voter registration and voting.

If postal voting can get more of the 300,000 Malaysians residing in Singapore to vote, why should we indirectly suppress their turnout by forcing them to travel home to vote?

Similarly, if overseas Malaysians care enough to keep their citizenship, why should they be deprived of their right to vote but called upon to serve the nation only when we need their talents, money, skills and network? Why don't we also impose residency conditions in the TalentCorp programme and tell those who have not spent at least 30 days in the past five years to take a hike?

The disenfranchising of overseas Malaysians has no basis in our Federal Constitution.

Beating authoritarianism with consistency

Posted: 01 Feb 2013 11:09 AM PST

Malaysia would not be a better, more democratic place if we incarcerated authoritarians under the ISA or charged them for sedition. We would thereby perpetuate authoritarianism ourselves.

Yin Shao Loong, Selangor Times

LONG exposure to authoritarian, race-based politics has shaped who we are on a moral, intellectual, and cultural level, including our ideas about authority, argument, acceptable speech, group identity, and national destiny.

Shifting away from Umno and the Barisan Nasional's brand of soft authoritarianism will not be easy, but this is what is needed for democracy to deepen in Malaysia.

BN has been in power long enough to exert a strong gravitational force on the methods and principles of our political culture. Even their critics within civil society, the opposition, and the public sometimes resort to the very methods they otherwise stand against.

The Bar Council has been known as an opponent of the Sedition Act and a defender of constitutional democracy.

Last week however, the president of the Bar Council condoned the use of the Sedition Act against Datuk Ibrahim Ali for the latter's incitement to burn Bibles.

Additionally, Karpal Singh has filed a police report against Ibrahim citing violation of the Sedition Act even though Karpal himself is currently being prosecuted under the Act and his party has opposed it as a draconian piece of legislation.

This kind of inconsistent behaviour can fuel simplistic judgements that little difference exists between our present political alternatives. There are, of course, substantial differences, but a struggle waged on principle must strive for consistency.

Supporting the use of the Sedition Act against even Ibrahim Ali was a breach of principle. The broad definition of sedition within the Act makes it ripe for abuse by a government scared of accountability.

There are many non-authoritarian laws within the Penal Code that would serve equally well to handle Ibrahim's threats.

The provisions of the Sedition Act against raising ill-will and disaffection have traditionally been used to criminalise dissent against the government. This runs counter to the spirit of democracy where it should be legitimate to question power.

The call to use the repressive weapon of sedition is a symptom of a bigger problem in Malaysian political life where the authoritarian political culture promoted by Umno during its hegemony has influenced the behaviour of its critics.

Recently, some people wanted to lodge a police report against Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad for his comments about Tunku Abdul Rahman's granting of citizenship to various Malayans prior to Merdeka being a bigger crime than Dr Mahathir's involvement in granting ICs for votes in Sabah.

Using a police report as a punitive measure is part of the old political culture of intimidation. Far better than lodging a report would be to expose Dr Mahathir's faulty grasp of historical facts and logic in public, as several writers have done.

The melodrama of filing a police report against someone annoying has become a staple of Malaysian political theatre. Rather than use more rational forms of debate and argument, the ritual of the political police report – backed by repressive laws such as the Sedition Act and the compliance of the police and judiciary with the powers that be – became a way for the threat of authoritarian state power to be used to silence dissent.

Police reports should be lodged if a crime has been committed. If there is a breach of the law, the police and the attorney-general are duty bound to take up the matter.

However, democrats should refrain from exercising those draconian laws that criminalise legitimate dissent and democratic freedoms.

Malaysia would not be a better, more democratic place if we incarcerated authoritarians under the ISA or charged them for sedition. We would thereby perpetuate authoritarianism ourselves.

Equally, if we stand against race politics we should move beyond the kinds of hate-speech and prejudice promoted by patriarchal, race-based politics.

Would winds of change usher in hudud?

Posted: 01 Feb 2013 10:55 AM PST

(FMT) - With the general election drawing nearer, there is talk of negotiation and alliance.The question now is, would PAS and Umno lie on the same bed?

Is there any way possible for the Barisan National to snatch victory from Pakatan Rakyat in the upcoming general election? This is the question being asked by all and sundry in the country.

Nevertheless, a large number of organisations and nations across the globe see change as an inevitable thing in Malaysia, and would welcome a Pakatan victory.

Among them is Hamas whose top-most leaders are allies of Anwar Ibrahim.

During the entire Pakatan campaign in 2012, Anwar displayed images of the Hamas leaders in meetings with Egyptian scholar Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qardawi, with Anwar himself at the centre of attention.

These images, applauded by the local folks all over Peninsular Malaysia and in Borneo, show the close relationship the Hamas leadership has with Anwar.

And suddenly, Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak jumps onto the Hamas bandwagon and gets himself meddled in a diplomatic row with Al-Fatah. Yet, the surprise visit – surely arranged by some organisations acting as public relations and image polisher of the Malaysian prime minister – has had some reverberations.

The presence of PAS Syura Council member Ustaz Nasharuddin Mat Esa, since then ejected from the party, speaks for itself.

Was the trip to Gaza an attempt to gain the sympathy of local Islamic NGOs? Or was it an attempt to discuss future plans for the pro-Umno PAS members?

It would be stupid to dismiss the possibility of talks between Umno and PAS members. It is clear that a PAS member who joins an Umno prime minister's trip is either a toad or simply a negotiator.

Was it not expected that PAS would dismiss Nasharuddin after this display of love for the prime minister?

However, many observers believe the Malaysian prime minister's visit to Gaza, where he praised the Hamas movement, was not a simple visit. Despite the apparent diplomatic faux pas, there is more than support for Gaza in the visit.

This was certainly an attempt to reach Sheikh Yusuf, the mentor of Anwar. And do we care to know why?

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Sabtu, 2 Februari 2013

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

0 ulasan:

Catat Ulasan