Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info

Sumber Asal Berita :-

Posted: 18 May 2013 01:59 PM PDT

Eric Loo, fz.com

A friend emailed a photo story on May 3 of "foreign workers" arriving at the Low-Cost Carrier Terminal, KLIA, in Sepang. It said the workers were being brought in to vote for Barisan Nasional (BN). Phantom voters!

I checked with a colleague if the story was accurate. "Utter nonsense," the veteran former editor said. I reverted to my friend who emailed the story. "What, you still have friends in the mainstream papers?" he quipped. "Don't trust them lah."

Indeed, it has been years since I referred to the mainstream papers. But, isolated from the campaign frenzy, I had to this time. User-generated speculation about the election was circulating in the social media network. Caustic commentaries were getting high hits in the alternative and mainstream news sites.

I was appalled at the blatantly biased coverage. Were the media simply careless with the facts or deliberate in manufacturing consent to push their political agendas?

Yes, we are naturally biased in interpreting controversies. This inherent bias inevitably colours the work we do. Writers and journalists are no exception. However, as custodians of the public conscience, professional journalists should activate their in-built alarm system.

They are trained to step back when they feel their biases are eroding their capacity to report or comment accurately, fairly and "objectively". While Platonic objectivity is impractical, especially in covering elections reeking with racial, class and religious undertones, there is what we call the "fairness doctrine" that every professional journalist and writer ought to know. There are more than two sides to a controversial issue.

The lopsided political editorialising and commentaries during the campaign was alarming. Anti-BN stories were as blunt as anti-Pakatan reports were blatant. Malaysiakini ran these headlines in its column section: BN must be destroyed, Najib's zombie apocalypse, and GE is Pakatan's to lose (disclosure: I write an occasional column in Malaysiakini).

The New Straits Times had these: Anwar delusion fuelled by Western media hype, Pakatan's 5-year systemic sinking and PAS-DAP theatre of the absurd.

Of course, columnists and editors do indirectly endorse candidates and political parties. The real question is whether the content and contexts published throughout the campaign period provide an overall fair representation of the ground realities, particularly the people's aspirations. Evidently not.

From April 15 to May 7, Malaysiakini ran 20 columnist articles and NST, 35. An ad hoc reading of the narrative slants show these distribution: Malaysiakini (anti-government (13); somewhat neutral (7); pro-opposition (0); NST (anti-opposition (15); neutral (12); pro-government (8).

Here's how an NST writer worded his disdain for the opposition: "The Bersih organisers, in their myopic march to force electoral reforms, have either naively or idiotically lost their well-meaning plot to opportunistic politicians, allowing the voice of a tyrannical minority to dictate terms in the most brutish manner …

Politicians like Anwar Ibrahim can be reliably counted on for disturbing machinations like Saturday's sordid outing: it is his justification to exist (he still nurses the fantasy that he can still become prime minister) but for the likes of Bersih and even the Bar Council, their constant parroting that they are neutral and non-partisan social activists borders on absurdity."

In one sweeping 97-word judgment, the writer used a string of hyperboles and negative descriptors to metaphorically lump Bersih, the Bar Council, Anwar and opposition supporters as living in fantasyland.

The same writer wrote in another commentary: "The Western media side-steps substantive voter groundswell lurching towards BN but even they must start thinking about Anwar's tangible hypocrisies, mirrored reflectively on his sleeping bedfellows, the DAP and PAS, each with their own set of Orwellian tendencies.

Astoundingly, these profiles confirm a long-time suspicion: they will disregard Anwar's fakery, augment his victimology and enrich his aura/charisma only to create more supplicants to serve Anwar's foreign puppeteers."(NST).

'Substantive voter groundswell', 'tangible hypocrisies', 'sleeping bedfellows', 'Orwellian tendencies', 'fakery', 'victimology', 'foreign puppeteers'. The tautology aside, these specious buzzwords do trigger a negative recall of Anwar's past, and effectively send an implicit message that Anwar and Pakatan are untrustworthy chameleons, contrary to their reformasi agencies that their supporters believe.

Likewise, columnists in the alternative media are as scathing in their attacks on the government.

From Malaysiakini: "… I'm betting that the people are disgusted and determined enough to seize their long-awaited chance to make this May 5 their 'D-day'. 'D' for the destruction of the dumb, despotic, deceitful, double-dealing and altogether despicable BN regime; 'D' for the decent democracy most have dreamed of and been denied for decades. And will be denied for many more decades to come, if BN is ever again allowed to have its way."

READ MORE HERE

Soi Lek’s wrong bet

Posted: 18 May 2013 01:20 PM PDT

To join or not to join the Cabinet, either way is a dead end for MCA. All I can say is, why the brainless bet in the very first place? In the absence of support from the Chinese community and recognition from the government, MCA's future is bleak.

Tay Tian Yan, Sin Chew

Up till this second I still do not have much idea why Dr Chua Soi Lek made the decision of not joining the Cabinet.

And why the presidential council, central committee and general assembly all rushed to echo the decision in unison.

What I was trying to say is that it was a very imprudent political gamble, one of inconsiderate "show-hand."

It is a kind of gamble that puts your life at stake, one that is committed only under specific circumstances: You either have all the best cards to yourself and are sure the opponent is absolutely no match for you, or you are pretty sure your opponent is only feigning confidence to make believe he has the best cards whereby he does not.

But if you do not come close to the above requirements, your show-hand bet is purely suicidal.

Chua Soi Lek's 2011 gamble with the Chinese voters of Malaysia, betting MCA's withdrawal from the government if the party won fewer than 15 parliamentary seats, was of bad judgement.

What cards did MCA have in hand?

1. Back in 2011, things were not quite going in favour of MCA, and there were no signs the party would perform any better than in 2008.

2. "Pakatan Rakyat" was the trump card in the hands of Chinese Malaysians, so the "out of Cabinet" decision (read: threat?) would not work.

3. MCA had limited remnants of its influences and support base, and was in no position to place such a stake at all.

It wasn't the right time when things didn't go your way to put a bet, more so an all-or-none show-hand.

But, the big-time gambler in Chua Soi Lek cajoled him into making such a foolhardy bet without giving the slightest thoughts for the forte of the party nor the realistic intent of the Chinese community.

The bet that shunned the appraisal for possible consequences accelerated the demise of MCA.

I was wondering. Why on earth did the right-minded souls in MCA's presidential council, central committee and central delegates just ingest the motion without digesting it?

Didn't the idea flash past the mind of any what would befall MCA if the Chinese voters didn't buy its idea?

It is easy for a defeated gambler to quit the table while conceiving a comeback plan later.

While Chua can just call it a day and bow out, what about the party he is leading? Does it have to wind up its business as well?

To stay out of the Cabinet means foregoing political power, leading to the obliteration of whatsoever residual influences the party might still have now. But if it changes its mind and joins the government, be prepared for a quicker death.

To join or not to join the Cabinet, either way is a dead end for MCA. All I can say is, why the brainless bet in the very first place?

In the absence of support from the Chinese community and recognition from the government, MCA's future is bleak.

Politics is no gambling party. In deciding every single move, a political party must first and foremost take into consideration its feasibility, possible consequences and ways to tackle them. If Plan A fails, there is always a Plan B or Plan C to back up.

If the step would possibly lead to a disaster, it has to be avoided at all costs!

While a gambler may not need a complete set of strategic plans, the boss of a political party cannot afford to go by a day without the right strategies.

Whither Dr M?

Posted: 18 May 2013 01:06 PM PDT

Dr Mahathir, despite being the hard man that he was, would never abandon the component parties. He was always loyal to his allies even if he knew some of them to be corrupt or were no longer useful to the coalition. Friendships mattered to Dr Mahathir. He did not use people and then forget them later.

Zaid Ibrahim, TMI

We know that Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad had little say in the naming of the new Cabinet. This wasn't because he didn't try. Indeed, he was rebuffed by the prime minister who suddenly felt strong and energised by his so-called new mandate after the election.

Barisan Nasional (BN) likened Datuk Seri Najib Razak to a rock star, and put posters of him in all constituencies during the campaign period as if he were the most popular politician to ever grace this country. Now he is continuing on the same path with his list of new ministers.

It matters little what Umno or the Barisan Nasional (BN) think because it's a list who will keep him at the helm for the next five years.

This is why I think Dr Mahathir has lost his influence, or at least the will to fight back. He must be disappointed with this turn of events, for, in his 22 years in power, he never once dispensed with Umno or BN during a general election as if they didn't matter.

He never traded on his personal popularity or put up posters of himself as Najib has gleefully done. To Dr Mahathir, it was always about Umno and the Barisan, and not the personality of individual leaders.

It must be painful for him to see Najib embracing people like Datuk Paul Low and P. Waythamoorthy, whom Najib met just three weeks before election, practically abandoning the MCA and MIC who have been steadfastly loyal for over 55 years. This is not the Alliance or the Barisan spirit. This is a massive ego trip on a temporary high.

So it's up to Dr Mahathir's son, Datuk Paduka Mukhriz Mahathir, and Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin to redeem the glorious past and remove Najib at the forthcoming Umno general assembly (that is, if they still have the Umno-BN spirit in them).

Many Umno members think Najib is due for some payback at the November assembly, even though members are not normally very demanding. They are easily satisfied if the leaders take care of them, making them feel important and making sure their opinions count in the big decisions of the party. Najib, however, abandoned the counsel of the members during the election and chose instead to trust Datuk Seri Dr Jamaluddin Jarjis and the "war room operators".

READ MORE HERE

Bring back English schools

Posted: 18 May 2013 12:05 PM PDT

There are many good reasons for English-medium schools to be reintroduced, chief of which must surely be the language's neutral status whereby no one can claim ownership to it.

Wong Chun Wai, The Star

It is unhealthy for race relations when the student population in Chinese schools is 99.9% Chinese, Tamil schools is 100% Indian and national schools, dubbed Malay schools, is 80% to 90% Malay.

SERIOUSLY, the government should allow the use of English as a medium of instruction in schools again. If there are Chinese and Tamil primary schools alongside national schools, there is no reason for Malaysians not to have other options.

At present, the other option for better English proficiency is in private schools, which allocate more time for the teaching of English despite following the national school syllabus. However, it is an expensive option that only a few can afford.

Why should the right of Malaysians to study in English-medium schools be enjoyed only by those who can afford to study at international schools?

There are many good reasons for English-medium schools to be reintroduced, chief of which must surely be the language's neutral status whereby no one can claim ownership to it.

Older Malaysians who went to English-medium schools can testify that it was in such an environment that they made many friends of all ethnic backgrounds.

The English schools, as they were popularly referred to, were neutral grounds and were real cultural melting pots.

Friendship cultivated at primary school level among Malaysians of different races and religions would always be strong and deep. Our current primary school system basically does not provide such opportunities for our young ones to mix.

We do get to mix with one another later on in life, but working relationships that are untested or superficial are not true friendships.

Older Malaysians can narrate long stories of how they used to sleep over at their friends' homes, eating with their friends' families and parents of their friends treating them like their own children. These friendships continued even after they went to university, entered working life, and got married.

These are the kinds of friends who would be part of the wedding entourage, either on the side of the bride or bridegroom.

I am now 52 years old. I believe I was among the last batch of Malaysians who had the privilege of being taught in English.

While some may dismiss what I have said as elitist or an attempt to glorify English at the expense of the national language, let me set the record straight. In Form 6, I opted to study Malay Literature and sat for the exam in Upper Six, which was then called Higher School Certificate and is the equivalent of the STPM today. It was also the entrance exam into local universities. I also studied Islamic History.

During my first year at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, I also chose Malay Letters as one of my three majors. At UKM, it is also compulsory to pass the Islamic Civilisation course, which was a basic course on Islam. I have also amassed a huge collection of books on Islam in my private library, and the works of Malay artists like Yusuf Ghani and Ismail Latiff continue to inspire me.

I dare say many of our politicians and leaders of so-called non-governmental organisations, who loudly make statements with racial overtones, do not even have such credentials.

But the point I am making is that more and more Chinese parents are sending their children to Chinese primary schools because they believe the standard of teaching and discipline in these schools is better. For the same reason, the number of Malay students at such schools has also increased.

But most Malay parents send their children to national schools where they form the bulk of the student population. Over the years, the national schools have been seen by many Chinese as becoming more religious in nature.

It's a Catch 22 situation. If the Chinese are shunning national schools, then the students in these schools would be predominantly Malay.

The Federal Constitution guarantees the position of Chinese and Tamil schools. No politician, whether in Barisan Nasional or Pakatan Rakyat, would dare to make any statement against these vernacular schools.

But the reality is that it is unhealthy when the student population in Chinese schools is 99.9% Chinese, Tamil schools is 100% Indian and national schools, dubbed Malay schools, is 80% to 90% Malay!

It is meaningless to talk about 1Malaysia when our children have no friends of other races in their formative years! Many Malaysians in their 30s and 40s now are already in this situation.

Just ask Malaysians at random how many real friends of other races, not colleagues, customers or bosses, they have. Be honest.

Is it any wonder then that the Malays are incredulous when they see Chinese Malaysians who can't speak Bahasa Malaysia well or even refuse to speak Bahasa among themselves?

The Chinese, on the other hand, still wonder why some Malay quarters continue to ask what else the Chinese want when they find that some policies are working against them and make them feel discriminated.

This is happening because race relations have taken a beating. The various races are not talking or trying to understand one another. Each side only sees its own viewpoint without appreciating that in a complex and plural society like ours, no one group can have its way completely.

We have churned out bigots in our schools. It also doesn't help that the various races are only watching channels in their own languages on Astro. The only time they probably watch the same channel is when an English Premier League football match is on.

If we are serious about restoring the standard of English in schools and improving race relations in this country, bring back the English-medium schools. Let Malaysians choose.

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Ahad, 19 Mei 2013

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

0 ulasan:

Catat Ulasan