Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info

Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Was Mandela right to sell out black South Africa?
Malaysia among countries faring worst in faith-based discrimination, says global study
Dari satu Bashir ke satu lagi Bashir, rasuah berterusan

Was Mandela right to sell out black South Africa?

Posted: 09 Dec 2013 10:58 AM PST

Was Mandela right to sacrifice justice for the chance of a richer and more democratic South Africa? The question of his heroic status depends on the answer. Looking at the career of Yasser Arafat, who consistently made a different choice, inclines one to think that the answer is yes.

Noah Feldman, Bloomberg

Nelson Mandela sold out black South Africans. Now there's a sentence you won't have heard in the days since his death and that you won't be hearing at his funeral tomorrow. Yet it's incontrovertibly true that after centuries of being robbed of possibly the greatest mineral wealth the world has ever known, not to mention decades of being repressed by apartheid, black South Africans got almost no compensation for what should rightfully have been theirs when the old regime was swept away for the new South Africa.

Indeed, the basic deal Mandela struck from prison with F.W. de Klerk, and which was subsequently enshrined in the South African constitution, essentially guaranteed the existing property rights of white South Africans in exchange for an end to apartheid.

For whites, the deal made sense. Apartheid could not be maintained forever against international pressure and internal resistance. The odds of holding onto the material benefits of the oppressive traditional system were much higher with black African enfranchisement than without it. A successful revolution would lead to the dispossession of whites, just as it had in almost every other corner of formerly colonial sub-Saharan Africa. What Mandela was promising was more than half a loaf. It was a whole loaf of wealth with a proportionately small loaf of political power.

For black South Africans, especially supporters of the African National Congress who had idolised Mandela during his 27-year imprisonment, the choice was much harder. What they were giving up was nothing less than their material patrimony. Over many generations, blacks in South Africa might build businesses and earn money, and a slice of leadership might emerge as a political-business elite entitled to a share of the country's national wealth. But for most black South Africans, there would be no major opportunity to change the economic conditions of their lives in the foreseeable future. Wealth would remain with their former oppressors.

On the positive side, if black South Africans could accept the deal Mandela had struck, the country might avoid the flight of whites — and with them white capital — that had happened in other countries on the continent. In the aftermath of morally justified redistribution of wealth, many sub-Saharan countries had found themselves poorer, not richer. It was a gamble for the poorest South Africans to bet that forgoing their just rights might actually leave them slightly better off in the long run; but it was a gamble arguably worth taking.

A further potential upside of the deal was harder to articulate publicly. Many post-colonial African countries had evolved from colonialism to proud independence to patrimonial, despotic dictatorship in just a generation. Perhaps the continued presence of white South Africans in positions of economic importance would create an incentive for the ANC leadership to govern democratically. No credible democratic political opposition to the party that fought for and achieved freedom was going to exist for a long while. To keep the government honest, then, a different threat was needed: The threat of flight by white capital should the ANC subvert democratic practices and values might actually help the country going forward.

The black South African public may not have realised, in the first flush of pride in their freed leader and his global prestige, exactly what deal they were implicitly taking. But the constitutional process, admirably accomplished over several years in full public view, made the deal more or less transparent. For the most part, black South Africans voted to take the deal. They were, in essence, validating Mandela's promises to de Klerk and white South Africa. The rhetoric of brotherhood and non-vengeance — exemplified, for example, in Mandela's embrace of the Springboks national rugby team — was the cultural counterpart to the promise of continued coexistence under white economic dominance.

Was Mandela right to sacrifice justice for the chance of a richer and more democratic South Africa? The question of his heroic status depends on the answer. Looking at the career of Yasser Arafat, who consistently made a different choice, inclines one to think that the answer is yes. A politician shouldn't act on what is absolutely fair, but what is pragmatically most likely to succeed in the real world.

Yet, as we mourn Mandela, it is also worth remembering that, like almost all constitutions, South Africa's founding pact was born in the sin of compromise. Compromise is sin because people don't get what they deserve. But that sin is necessary, because after it's committed, people are better off than they would be without it.

The international community rightly reveres Nelson Mandela as a man of peace. But he was not a saint — and for that we should be grateful. He brought peace through his ability to convince millions of his countrymen that they should accept much less than they were in justice owed.

* Noah Feldman, a law professor at Harvard University and the author of "Cool War: The Future of Global Competition," is a Bloomberg View columnist.

Malaysia among countries faring worst in faith-based discrimination, says global study

Posted: 09 Dec 2013 09:53 AM PST

But this year's more comprehensive study showed six more, bringing the full list to Afghanistan, Iran, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates and Yemen.

Reuters

In 13 countries around the world, all of them Muslim, people who openly espouse atheism or reject the official state religion of Islam face execution under the law, according to a detailed study issued today.

And beyond the Islamic nations, even some of the West's apparently most democratic governments at best discriminate against citizens who have no belief in a god and at worst can jail them for offences dubbed blasphemy, it said.

The study, The Freethought Report 2013, was issued by the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU), a global body uniting atheists, agnostics and other religious skeptics, to mark United Nations' Human Rights Day on Tuesday.

"This report shows that the overwhelming majority of countries fail to respect the rights of atheists and freethinkers although they have signed U.N agreements to treat all citizens equally," said IHEU President Sonja Eggerickx.

The study covered all 192 member states in the world body and involved lawyers and human rights experts looking at statute books, court records and media accounts to establish the global situation.

A first survey of 60 countries last year showed just seven where death, often by public beheading, is the punishment for either blasphemy or apostasy - renouncing belief or switching to another religion which is also protected under U.N. accords.

In others, like India in a recent case involving a leading critic of religion, humanists say police are often reluctant or unwilling to investigate murders of atheists carried out by religious fundamentalists.

Across the world, the report said, "there are laws that deny atheists' right to exist, revoke their citizenship, restrict their right to marry, obstruct their access to public education, prevent them working for the state..."

Criticism of religious faith or even academic study of the origins of religions is frequently treated as a crime and can be equated to the capital offence of blasphemy, it asserted.

EU states

The IHEU, which has member bodies in some 50 countries and supporters in many more where such organisations are banned, said there was systematic or severe discrimination against atheists across the 27-nation European Union.

The situation was severe in Austria, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Malta and Poland where blasphemy laws allow for jail sentences up to three years on charges of offending a religion or believers.

In these and all other EU countries, with the exception of the Netherlands and Belgium which the report classed as "free and equal," there was systemic discrimination across society favouring religions and religious believers.

In the United States, it said, although the situation was "mostly satisfactory" in terms of legal respect for atheists' rights, there were a range of laws and practices "that equate being religious with being American."

In Latin America and the Caribbean, atheists faced systemic discrimination in most countries except Brazil, where the situation was "mostly satisfactory," and Jamaica and Uruguay which the report judged as "free and equal."

Across Africa, atheists faced severe or systemic violations of their rights to freedom of conscience but also grave violations in several countries, including Egypt, Libya and Morocco, and nominally Christian Zimbabwe and Eritrea.

Dari satu Bashir ke satu lagi Bashir, rasuah berterusan

Posted: 09 Dec 2013 09:37 AM PST

Tan Sri Bashir Ahmad, Managing Director of MAHB

Mungkin sudah tiba masanya Yang Mulia Raja mengungkai cerita ini kerana andai perkara ini saya bawa ke pihak atasan, saya yakin tiada tindakan yang akan diambil mengenangkan Nik Anis Nik Zakaria adalah antara 'orang-orang' yang sangat rapat dengan Tan Sri Bashir sendiri.

Kakitangan MAHB

Saya menulis kepada Yang Mulia kerana sebagai salah seorang dari ramai yang bekerja di bawah MAHB, saya tidak lagi boleh bertoleransi dengan sikap sesetengah individu di dalam MAHB yang memanipulasi proses pemberian tender bagi projek dalaman syarikat. Apa yang saya akan beritahu di bawah mungkin hanya satu daripada banyak lagi kes yang menimbulkan keraguan dalam pemberian tender dalam MAHB.

Majalah keluaran MAHB yang bertajuk Convergence adalah salah satu inisiatif untuk mempromosikan KLIA. Jadi ini adalah satu projek yang penting bagi MAHB. Projek ini diletakkan di bawah tanggungjawab Bahagian Komunikasi Korporat yang diketuai oleh Nik Anis Nik Zakaria dan agensi yang diberikan tender bagi mengeluarkan majalah terbabit (2010 – 2013) adalah AMG Holding International Sdn Bhd (AMG).

Nik Anis Nik Zakaria

Berkenaan AMG, ramai kakitangan MAHB, khususnya dari bahagian Komunikasi Korporat yang terpaksa berurusan dengan mereka dalam projek berkenaan, bersetuju bahawa prestasi kerja mereka adalah TIDAK mencapai tahap yang dikehendaki. Di sebabkan perkara yang sedemikian, juga berikutan kontrak dengan agensi terbabit akan tamat pada penghujung tahun ini, bahagian Komunikasi Korporat telah memanggil beberapa agensi lain bagi tujuan bidaan tender pada Julai 2013. Mereka diminta untuk menyediakan kertas kerja bagi projek berkenaan dan diberi masa selama sebulan untuk berbuat demikian.

Melalui satu proses pemilihan yang dijalankan berdasarkan kertas kerja yang dihantar oleh agensi-agensi yang mengambil bahagian, dua agensi (Agensi A dan Agensi B) telah disenarai pendekkan. Yang menarik adalah AMG tidak langsung tersenarai sebagai 'top 3'. Walau bagaimanapun, Nik Anis telah kemudiannya melakukan apa yang saya kira sebagai keterlaluan dengan menarik balik kertas pemarkahan beliau bagi tujuan penilaian semula. Tindakan ini menyebabkan AMG disenaraikan semula dalam senarai agensi yang telah dipilih setelah pilihan kedua (Agensi B) disingkirkan atas alasan teknikal. Kami semua sebenarnya sedia maklum dengan hubungan baik antara Nik Anis dan juga pemilik AMG, namun saya cuba untuk memberinya the benefit of the doubt.

Untuk pengetahuan Yang Mulia, agensi A yang mendapat tempat pertama kali ini adalah agensi sama yang mendapat tempat pertama tiga tahun yang lalu dan mereka gagal mendapatkan tender tersebut atas sebab-sebab yang tidak diketahui.

Nik Anis kemudiannya melalui bahagian Perolehan telah memanggil dua agensi terbabit untuk membentangkan kertas kerja mereka dihadapan jawatankuasa pemilihan yang terdiri daripada Exco MAHB pada 18 November 2013. Apa yang meragukan adalah surat tersebut hanya diemelkan pada hari Jumaat, 15 November 2013 pada jam 5.05 petang, memberikan kedua-dua agensi masa yang singkat untuk barangkali meneliti semula kertas cadangan mereka. Namun saya yakin bahawa AMG, melalui Nik Anis, telah terlebih dahulu diberitahu mengenai perkara ini.

Nik Anis Nik Zakaria bersama tuan punya syarikat AMG

Mengikut salinan surat jawapan yang di hantar oleh Agensi A, mereka meminta untuk diberikan tempoh tambahan kerana tidak langsung diberitahu bahawa agensi mereka adalah antara agensi yang disenarai pendekkan juga mereka mempersoalkan mengapa pembentangan ini dibuat secara tergesa-gesa.

Oleh yang demikian, pembentangan kertas kerja di hadapan jawatankuasa pemilihan hanya dihadiri oleh AMG. Apa yang membuatkan saya lebih yakin bahawa pemberian tender ini telah dikompromi adalah sewaktu proses tersebut berjalan, kakitangan lain yang terlibat secara langsung dengan penerbitan majalah ini tidak dipanggil untuk turut serta melainkan Nik Anis. Mereka sendiri tertanya-tanya mengapa Nik Anis tidak mahu mereka terlibat di dalam proses tersebut.

Nik Anis Nik Zakaria di dalam majallah Passion, keluaran AMG

Yang Mulia Raja,

Tindakan Nik Anis yang seperti pilih bulu sangat mendukacitakan, lebih-lebih lagi apabila hasil kerja yang ditunjukkan oleh Agensi A adalah jauh lebih baik daripada agensi sedia ada dan saya tidak nampak keperluan untuk terus berurusan dengan AMG. Saya juga sebenarnya tertanya-tanya adakah Exco MAHB yang terlibat dalam jawatankuasa pemilihan tersebut sedar tentang mengapa hanya satu agensi yang hadir bagi pembentangan tersebut.

Jadi, saya merasakan adalah tanggungjawab saya sebagai seorang kakitangan untuk mempersoalkan mengapa dalam organisasi besar seperti MAHB, perlakuan yang saya lihat menyalahi etika (sila lihat lampiran mengenai Kod Etika Perolehan) terus dilakukan secara terang-terangan dan ianya seperti mendapat restu orang atasan.

Walau perkara ini nampak kecil, tetapi ia mungkin hanya cebisan daripada banyak lagi kes-kes sepertinya yang mampu membiakkan virus korupsi di kalangan kakitangan MAHB.

Sekian, Terima kasih.

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Isnin, 9 Disember 2013

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

0 ulasan:

Catat Ulasan