Capitalism and Other Kids’ Stuff

Liberals are people who are under the only partially mistaken impression that altering the structure of government is the best way to influence people and resources. Conservatives are people who are under the only partially mistaken impression that altering the people in power is the best way to influence other people and their culture.
To put it more simply: Liberals want the decision to be spread out among more people, preferably everyone; conservatives want the decision to be made by as few people as possible, preferably just one.
Socialism, as envisioned by Marx and Engels was, ideally, a where everyone would share the benefits of industrialization. Workers would do better than in the English system at the time ( The Communist Manifesto was published in 1848 ) because there were more workers than bosses and the majority would rule. As a purely economic system, socialism is a lousy way to run a large scale economy. Socialism is not a political system, it’s a way of distributing goods and services. At their ideal implementation, socialism and laissez faire capitalism will be identical as everyone will produce exactly what’s needed for exactly who needs it. In practice, both work sometimes in microeconomic conditions but fail miserably when applied to national and international economies. And they fail for the same reason: Human pervserity. Too many people don’t like to play fair, and both systems only work when everyone follow the same rules.
Socialism is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the economy works. Democracy is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the government works. “Democracy,” said Marx, “is the road to socialism.” He was wrong about how economics and politics interact, but he did see their similar underpinnings.
Communism is conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just the Party Secretary) have any say in how the economy works. Republicans are conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just people controlling the Party figurehead) have any say in how the government works. The conservatives in the US are in the same position as the communists in the 30s, and for the same reason: Their revolutions failed spectacularly but they refuse to admit what went wrong.
A common mistake is to confuse Socialism, the economic system, with Communism, the political system. Communists are “socialist” in the same way that Republicans are “compassionate conservatives”. That is, they give lip service to ideals they have no intention of practicing.
Communism, or “scientific socialism”, has very little to do with Marx. Communism was originally envisioned by Marx and Engels as the last stages of their socialist revolution. “The meaning of the word communism shifted after 1917, when Vladimir Lenin and his Bolshevik Party seized power in Russia. The Bolsheviks changed their name to the Communist Party and installed a repressive, single-party regime devoted to the implementation of socialist policies.” (quote from Encarta.). Those socialist policies were never implemented.
Whereas Marx saw industrialized workers rising up to take over control of their means of production, the exact opposite happened. Most countries that have gone Communist have been agrarian underdeveloped nations. The prime example is the Soviet Union. The best thing to be said about the October Revolution in 1917 is that the new government was better than the Tsars. The worst thing is that they trusted the wrong people, notably Lenin, to lead this upheaval. The Soviet Union officially abandoned socialism in 1921 when Lenin instituted the New Economic Policy allowing for taxation, local trade, some state capitalism… and extreme profiteering. Later that year, he purged 259,000 from the party membership and therefore purged them from voting (shades of the US election of 2000!) and fewer and fewer people were involved in making decisions.
Marxism became Marxist-Leninism which became Stalinism. The Wikipedia entry for Stalinism: “The term Stalinism was used by anti-Soviet Marxists, particularly Trotskyists, to distinguish the policies of the Soviet Union from those they regard as more true to Marxism. Trotskyists argue that the Stalinist USSR was not socialist, but a bureaucratized degenerated workers state that is, a state in which exploitation is controlled by a ruling caste which, while it did not own the means of production and was not a social class in its own right, accrued benefits and privileges at the expense of the working class.”
Communists defending Stalin were driven by Cognitive Dissonance. “The existence of dissonance, being psychologically uncomfortable, motivates the person to reduce the dissonance and leads to avoidance of information likely to increase the dissonance.” They didn’t want to hear any criticism, and would go out of their way to deny facts. The abrupt betrayal of ideals by Lenin and Marx left many socialists clinging to the Soviet Union even though they knew Stalin was a disaster. They called themselves Communist even though they espoused none of Stalin’s viewpoints and very few of Lenin’s revisionism. In Russia, Lenin remains a Hero of the Revolution. Despite having screwed things up in the first place, Stalin is revered by Communists for toppling the Third Reich.
Conservatives defending George W. Bush are in the same situation as Communists defending Stalin. Stalin was never a “socialist” and Bush was never a “compassionate conservative”, but the conservatives just don’t want to hear any criticism and will go out of their way to deny facts. The current construction of the conservative movement in the US descends through the anti-Communists during and after WWII, the George Wallace “America First” blue-collar workers, the racists that Wallace picked up that switched parties during Nixon’s Southern Strategy, and the nascent libertarian movement championed by Barry Goldwater. Ronald Reagan’s acceptance speech for Goldwater during the 1964 Republican National Convention laid out the insistence of a balanced budget: “There can be no security anywhere in the free world if there is no fiscal and economic stability within the United States.” And yet, like Lenin revising Marx, when Reagan was governor of California he didn’t practice fiscal restraint. And when he was elected president in 1980 he did the exact opposite of his campaign promise and triple the deficit and there has been “no fiscal and economic stability” since his flip-flop. Fiscal restraint was never implemented.
Abrupt betrayal of ideals of Reagan when he got into power left many conservatives clinging to the Republican party even though they espoused none of Reagan’s new policies. Despite screwing things up in the first place, Reagan remains a Hero of the Revolution and is revered by conservatives for toppling the Soviet Union.
Reagan isn’t Lenin and Bush isn’t Stalin, but the parallels are notable. George W. Bush, like Stalin, inherits a failed revolution that relies on a cult-like worship of his predecessors and a complete denial of the facts.
Let me repeat Wikipedia’s quote. “Stalinism is a state in which exploitation is controlled by a ruling caste…. at the expense of the working class.” This is the exact opposite of what Marx and Engels were trying to accomplish, and is precisely what George W. Bush and the Republicans are working so hard for.
Most of the Republicans/conservatives/dittoheads I know are basically good people, but they’re gullible fools who have spent more than 20 years burying themselves in lies needed to resolve the cognitive dissonance created by Reagan’s betrayal. Reagan called the Soviet Union an “evil empire”, but as we’ve seen it wasn’t much of an empire and most of the people in it aren’t particularly evil. Khrushchev repudiated Stalin after he died in 1953, but wasn’t strong enough to change the system or the cult worship that kept the dictatorship alive. Republicans need to repudiate Reagan, but there is no one out there who has the guts to tell the truth. The GOP is reduced to whining, flag-waving and outright lying. The shame of being a conservative has never been greater.

Now Everyone can be a PM........ :p

Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi’s comment that it is possible for anyone, regardless of race and religion, to be the nation’s leader, if the people wanted it to happen sounds rather unconvincing. It even sounds ridiculous.

The truth of the matter is that it could only happen if ruling party agrees or permits it to happen - which is utterly impossible. It can only happen if an alternative party or coalition which is not race-based comes into power. Until then it will only remain wishful thinking.

When a qualified person like Low Siew Moi cannot be accepted as the acting CEO of PKNS, what hope is there for higher political office to be occupied by someone regardless of colour and creed? Just take note of the vehement opposition that is being mounted against her appointment solely because she is not a Malay.

Has the Prime Minister condemned this unreasonable opposition to this well-deserved appointment?

Malaysians had for 50 years given their support to the Barisan Nasional. All the component parties had participated in the election not under their party banner. They stood under the BN banner and were accordingly elected.

In view of this, the MCA had requested that a second BN Deputy Chairman’s post be created and filled by someone from the MCA. (At present the Chairman, Deputy Chairman and Secretary General of the BN are all from Umno.) It has also been suggested that the Deputy Prime Minister could be decided by the component parties of the BN.

What has been the response from the Prime Minister? If he had responded positively to these suggestions, then we can see some hope for the emergence of non-racial politics in Malaysia.

Until then, we can continue to hear words that have no meaning.

BLACK POWER

The new president of the United States of America brings the promise of change not just for the United States but for the whole world, too.

I HAVE a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.’ ... I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character.” – Martin Luther King on Aug 28, 1963.

“If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible; who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time; who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer.” – US President-elect Barack Obama’s first public words after winning the election on Nov 4, 2008.

ON Dec 1, 1955, six years before US President-elect Barack Obama was born, a black American woman, Rosa Parks, refused to get up and give her seat on a bus to a white as required under laws then in Montgomery, Alabama.

The man reported to the police, Parks was arrested and later became a symbol for millions of blacks who were systematically discriminated against despite the end of slavery almost a 100 years before that.

US civil rights activist Martin Luther King led the Montgomery Bus Boycott, lasting 385 days, when blacks, the major users of buses, took other transport. King’s house was bombed and he was arrested during the campaign, which ended with a United States District Court ruling that ended racial segregation on Montgomery public buses.

That energised the black civil rights movement, with King playing a prominent role. In August 1963, two years after Barack Obama was born, King gave his famous “I Have a Dream” speech (extract above), to 250,000 people in Washington, considered one of the most stirring in history and a defining moment in the US civil rights movement.

Less than a year later, in June 1964, partly because of the work done by King and others, the Civil Rights Act was passed in the US giving blacks equal rights under the law and enabling most of them to vote.

In recognition of his work, King was awarded the Nobel Prize the same year, becoming, at 35, its youngest recipient. Four years later, when Obama was seven, King lay dead, felled by a single bullet to the neck from an assassin.

Forty years later, Obama, gave his victory speech to a cheering, crying crowd of over 250,000 in Chicago, when he became – beating his rival John McCain by a wide margin – the president-elect of the United States.

While he shed tears publicly when his grandmother died just a day before the polls, he was rock-solid composure itself during that speech (excerpt above), even as those around him and his supporters cried tears of joy.

Obama’s victory represents the culmination of a long, painful and perilous road that blacks have taken in America to gain recognition for themselves as a people.

They were forcibly brought from Africa as slaves, put through the most inhumane conditions and finally got their freedom from fiefdom in the 1860s. But they continued to be severely discriminated against and humiliated long after that, earning recognition as full citizens under US law only in 1964.

But despite that, the discrimination continued and although it has reduced tremendously, it is by no means over.

While Obama’s victory is without doubt a defining moment for the history of blacks in the US and an indication of how far they have come over the years, Obama himself was not a black civil rights activist.

His thoughts, his actions, his political behaviour cut across racial lines. He never sought to champion just black causes but included everyone in his agenda. That was what made him a presidential candidate and, eventually, president-elect.

Civil rights activist Reverend Jesse Jackson – who shed tears on Obama’s election victory, and the black who came closest before Obama to the presidency – tried creditably, but failed, to get a Democratic nomination for the 1988 election.

Obama’s book, outlining his thoughts and aptly titled the The Audacity of Hope, sets out his political philosophy, his guts and his, well, audacity, to think that he could one day become US president. Against all the odds he did.

In America, where an estimated 70% to 75% of voters are white, he could not have done it without white support. However exit polls by CNN showed he did not enjoy white majority support – some 55% of whites voted for McCain but that 43% (2% of answers were indeterminate) support he got was large.

Huge support from blacks (95%) and Latinos and others (over 65%) tilted the balance in his favour, enabling him to get about 53% of the popular vote. That is an indication of how much power minorities can muster when they vote in unison, as some of our own politicians found out to their dismay or delight on March 8.

Obama got remarkable support among young voters. The CNN exit poll showed two-thirds of voters under 30 supported him. And, importantly, 54% of white voters in this category were behind him, a clear indication the young are becoming less racist.

Obviously Obama did not win because he was black – he’s half-black, to be accurate. He won because he was by far the best candidate. He endeared himself to all segments of society by his genuine, reasoned yet impassioned plea to the goodness inherent in all of them, seeking always to unite and find common ground.

That he was black was NOT sufficient deterrent for the American public to vote him in as the next president of the United States – and by a wide margin, too. That is really fantastic and represents a situation many thought would never materialise.

A dream come true, a hope fulfilled. A victory against racism, a giant leap for mankind – Obama’s win is all that and more. If there is a lesson, it is to show that the problems of race and repression are indeed surmountable. Yes, change has come.

Never in history has a US president-elect had so much of support outside of the United States. Kenya, where his father came from, claims him as its own; students from his former school in Indonesia celebrated unabashedly; a town called Obama in Japan was delighted he won; and in cities around the world there was elation at his election.

Not just the United States, the world expects much from this man Obama. Destiny will dictate that he will make his mark.

OBAMAISME......

Barack Obama’s election demonstrates that we can overcome our prejudices and bigotry and bring ourselves to do what is right, and that we can succeed if we try.

COULDN’T you just cry? With great pride and much joy, many in the United States of America did after Barack Obama was declared the winner of the presidential election.
They were celebrating in the streets – dancing, singing, and honking their car horns as if they had just won the football World Cup. Not that Americans in general give two hoots about soccer, but you get the picture.

In fact, even if they did bother about the World Cup, Obama’s victory is arguably much, much bigger in terms of significance and impact.
With the election of the first African-American president, the people who proudly describe their country as the “Land of The Free” and the “Home of The Brave”, laid to rest many ghosts of their past, and did indeed live up to their boasts.

African-Americans have a long and deep history. The first African slaves were brought over to the British colonies in America in 1619, more than 150 years before the colonies declared independence from Britain in 1776 and formed the United States of America.

The Declaration of Independence, which holds as self-evident the truths of human equality and the inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, was primarily written by Thomas Jefferson, one of the Founding Fathers who, by the way, owned more than 200 slaves.
Nearly a hundred years later, in 1861, Americans went to war with each other over slavery. After the war, the 13th Amendment of the United States Constitution outlawed slavery.
This was quickly followed in subsequent years by the 14th Amendment, which granted full citizenship to African-Americans, and the 15th Amendment, which extended the right to vote to African-American males in 1870. (Women, of whatever colour, were still not allowed to vote.)
You would have thought that that would have been the beginning of true life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for African-Americans. And, for a brief period, the promise was met with progress of substance.

But they soon found themselves oppressed, marginalised and discriminated against – in many instances, legally discriminated against – right up until the 1960s.
So it was no surprise to read in some of the commentaries published in US newspapers today how truly a historic moment it was when the American people chose an African-American as their new president.

(It is also worthy to note here that while African-Americans are a minority, they do not form the largest minority group in the US – that “honour” belongs to Hispanics, who make up 15% of the population, as opposed to 12% for African-Americans.)
The opening words to Thomas Friedman’s column in The New York Times went thus: “And so it came to pass that on Nov 4, 2008, shortly after 11pm Eastern time, the American Civil War ended, as a black man – Barack Hussein Obama – won enough electoral votes to become President of the United States.”

Indeed, the war has finally ended.

The Washington Post published a cartoon by Pulitzer Prize-winning editorial cartoonist Tom Tolles, showing a caricature of Obama walking through the gates of the White House.
The caption at the top of the sketch was the famous line from the Declaration of Independence written down more than 200 years ago : “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal”.

At the bottom, the caption read: “Ratified November 4, 2008.”
Indeed, that truth is now clearly self-evident, at the very least to Americans.
But what of the rest of us, who have followed the US presidential election as if it were the World Cup, including we here in Malaysia?

In fact, there has never been a person that so many non-Americans have wanted so much to be president.

What is this utter fascination with this man, so much so that aliens from Mars on their first visit to Earth could be forgiven for thinking that we earthlings were rooting for Obama as World President?

The answer lies, I believe, not so much in who he is but in what he symbolises.
It is the age-old story of the triumph of hope over despair, of freedom over oppression, and of the best qualities in each and every one of us over the worst that we are all capable of.
It is a story that demonstrates that we can overcome our own prejudices and bigotry, that we can bring ourselves to do what is right, and that we can succeed if we try.
I am not saying that Americans did the right thing by electing Obama. What I am saying is that they did the right thing by voting for who they thought could best lead their country, regardless of skin colour.

There is no doubt many Americans – white, black and every other colour in between – are still unable to get over their racial prejudices, just as there are many such people elsewhere in the world.

But on Tuesday, Nov 4, this unjustifiable intolerance was drowned out by a truth that should not only be self-evident in America, but also to the rest of us.

All men are created equal.

Couldn’t you just cry, thinking about that?

The_Great_Deprezion

Because of the extraordinary greed of American financiers and businessmen, they invent all kinds of ways to make huge sums of money. We cannot forget how in 1997-98 American hedge funds destroyed the economies of poor countries by manipulating their national currencies. When as a result of the so-called trade in currencies the companies in the poor countries faced bankruptcy, the Governments were told not to bail out any company or bank which was in deep trouble.

The Americans claimed that these companies or banks were inefficient and they should be allowed to go bankrupt and perish. Better still they should be sold at fire-sale price to American investors. Yet today we see the US Government readying US700 billion to brazenly bail out banks, mortgage companies and insurance companies. Where does the money come from? From thin air as no real money in cash or bullion or anything tangible are moved into the bankrupt banks. The money is just in the form of loan papers and entries in the books of the banks or companies. The US 700 billion has no backing whatsoever. No gold reserves, no foreign currency reserves as required for other countries. Without such backing the US Dollar is actually useless. Only the military power of the US is forcing the world to give value to the US Dollar.

Desperate to avoid a serious recession the US has abandoned all its principles. It has now banned short selling, limited currency trading and insist that the accounts of hedge funds and currency traders to be open for inspection and be published. In the final spasm of fear, the Government has given itself the right to resolve the problem of bankrupt banks and companies by the Government taking over i.e. the great capitalist country has accepted what is nothing more than nationalisation which it had condemned so much before.

The US now owes the world US 14 trillion. There is no way it can ever settle this debt. If other countries fail to repay or service their debts, the US would demand that they be made bankrupt. Now the US is literally bankrupt but it still insists that the pieces of paper, the famous or infamous greenbacks have some value. It actually has no value. Certainly it cannot be used to finance wars of aggression against Iraq and Afghanistan, to finance the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) activities in undermining Governments and countries. But still the US' ability to threaten countries is undiminished.

::SALAM EID MUBARAK::

Like the famous scholar Ibn Khaldun a long time ago, there are thousands wholanguish today in the prisons of the Muslim world as political prisoners whoare deemed a danger to the prevailing order of power. Though history andhindsight may offer little consolation for those who are languishing inprison, it is important to remember that the pen is mightier than the swordand that the labours of the just will always prevail over the injustice oftyrants. History will see to it that they will be remembered, long after thenames of the tyrants and dictators who abused them have been forgotten, saysAliran member Farish Noor.This week marks the end of the fasting month of Ramadhan and the celebrationof Eid'ul Fitri the world over. For more than a billion Muslims all over theplanet the month of Ramadhan has been a time of personal reflection,contemplation and deliberation over their deeds and achievements over theyear; a time of restraint and introspection; a time of reckoning. One onlyhopes that the leaders of the Muslim world have also taken this time off todo some serious soul-searching as well, and in particular to reflect ontheir deeds and misdeeds in the course of running the respective countriesthey have been elected to govern. (That is assuming that they were electedin the first place, for the quaint peculiarity of the Muslim world today isthat quite a number of Muslim leaders have never been elected, and many ofthem regard the position of high office as if it was a God-given right tothem and their families.)During this month of Ramadhan quite a number of peculiar events have takenplace all over the Muslim world. In Malaysia, the fasting month began with aright-wing leader of the conservative Umno party making some ratherrepugnant remarks about the Chinese Malaysian community, referring to themas foreigners who can go back to China if they dont like things as they arein the country. Odd that such a remark could mark the start of the month ofRamadhan, when Muslims are meant to be controlling their emotions ratherthan letting them run riot in public. Odder still that an Umno leader caneven make such a historically inaccurate and unqualified remark, obliviousto the simple fact that not only have the Chinese in Malaysia - and the restof Southeast Asia - been in the region for more than five hundred years, itwas also thanks to the missionary efforts of Chinese Muslim scholars thatIslam came to some parts of the region like Java for instance.The month of Ramadhan also witnessed a string of rather uncharitable actionsbeing performed in the glare of the public eye: Teresa Kok, a member ofParliament and one of the leaders of the Democratic Action Party (DAP) ofMalaysia, was arrested and detained under the Internal Security Act (ISA) onthe grounds that she had made some inflammatory remarks concerning thevolume of the azan, or call to prayer, emanating from the mosques in herconstituency. The member of Parliament was then detained under the ISA onthe grounds that her own remarks were 'provocative', despite the fact thatmuch of the hoo-ha that led to her arrest came from the pro-Umno vernacularMalay media. During the course of her detention Teresa Kok maintained thatshe had never made any of the remarks or statements she was accused of, andthat she was the victim of an orchestrated media campaign aimed at defamingher character instead.Indicative of the lack of direction that prevails in the corridors of powerin Malaysia today, the political leadership at the top of the Badawiadministration was not even consistent in its stand on Teresa's case, andthe MP has been released from detention without trial.But the sordid spectacle of a media campaign used to whip up public angerand hatred against an individual is indicative of the culture of pogroms andblack-listing that dates back to the Emergency era when laws such as the ISAwere first created, designed to help bolster a (then) colonial Britishgovernment on the brink of collapse. Since the 1950s hundreds of Malaysianshave been the victims of the ISA (or other forms of detention without trial)and other colonial-era laws such as the Sedition Act, all in the name ofnational security and the stability of the country.Malaysia's use of such colonial laws is neither new nor unique: Similar lawswere once used in countries like India, Pakistan and South Africa, and ifthe issue at hand is detention without trial then one can only conclude thatthis has been the norm in many Muslim societies dating well back into thepre-colonial era.But it is during the time of Ramadhan that our thoughts go to those who areunfortunate enough to become the prey of such laws. Muslim history isreplete with cases of such arbitrary modes of (in)justice at work, wherecountless Muslim scholars and intellectuals fell prey to the whims andfancies of despotic rulers and tyrants who ruled with an iron fist, andalways in the name of God, needless to say.One needs only to look to the case of one of the most famous scholars ofMuslim history, Ibn Khaldun. During his lifetime Ibn Khaldun was imprisonedtime and again by a succession of despotic rulers who found his criticalideas and deconstructive reading of official history somewhat trying. Onmore than one occasion he was framed, defamed and scandalised by his rivalsand enemies who sought to discredit the scholar and to erase hiscontribution to scholarship for good. Time and again the unfortunate Khaldunfound himself languishing in gaols and dungeons, to be kept thereindefinitely according to the whims of the ruler of the day.Yet despite the hardships he endured, including having to spend many a monthof Ramadhan in isolation in his cell and away from his family, Khaldunpersevered in his critical scholarship against the odds. At a time whenofficial history was nothing more than courtly hagiography written tobenefit and inflate the egos of rulers and noblemen, his humanist reading ofhistory placed the ordinary individual at the centre of the process ofhistory; insisting on the rational agency - and by extension power andresponsibility - of the individual as the master of his own destiny. For thecourtiers who grovelled at the feet of their rulers, this form of popularhistory was destructive and threatening to the order of things.Centuries later, the rulers and kings who imprisoned Khaldun are all butforgotten. Nobody remembers their names despite the grand monuments theybuilt to their own egos. Ibn Khaldun, on the other hand, has beenimmortalised as the founder of modern political sociology, a discipline thatremains crucial in the political education of millions the world over. Hisimprint can be read in the works of Franz Fanon and Antonio Gramsci, and thehumanist, materialist approach he took to the writing of history changed therules of that discipline forever. It is thanks to the efforts of scholarslike Ibn Khaldun that history today is and remains a political andpoliticised discipline, and not just a collection of happy fables to placatethe demands of demagogues and dictators.Like Khaldun, there are thousands who languish today in the prisons of theMuslim world as political prisoners who are deemed a danger to theprevailing order of power. Though history and hindsight may offer littleconsolation for those who are languishing in prison, it is important toremember that the pen is mightier than the sword and that the labours of thejust will always prevail over the injustice of tyrants. History will see toit that they will be remembered, long after the names of the tyrants anddictators who abused them have been forgotten.

UTUSAN MALAYSIA...pembela rakyat... :p

Penggunaan Akta Keselamatan dalam negeri (ISA) terkutuk terhadap wartawan wanita Sin Chew Daily Tan Hoon Cheng, ahli exco kerajaan Selangor, Teresa Kok dan pengendali laman web Malaysia Today Raja Petra Kamarudin mencetuskan bantahan dan gerakan anti-ISA terbesar yang pernah berlaku di negara kita. Selain badan-badan bukan kerajaan dan Majlis Peguam, parti-parti komponen Barisan Nasional sendiri juga tidak dapat bersetuju dengan tangkapan sewenang-wenang itu. Menteri di Jabatan Perdana Menteri, menteri perundangan de facto, Datuk Zaid Ibrahim malah meletakkan jawatannya sebagai pengakuan kegagalan reformasi perundangan yang merupakan tanggungjawabnya.Sungguhpun Hoon Cheng telah dibebaskan 18 jam selepas ditahan sejak 12 September dan Teresa Kok turut dibebaskan selepas seminggu ditahan, namun alasan-alasan yang diberi berkaitan asas penahanan mereka tidak masuk akal dan mengelirukan. Hoon Cheng kononnya ditahan agar diberi "perlindungan keselamatan", dan Teresa, menurut beliau sendiri, cuma disiasat berasaskan suatu rencana kolum yang ditulis oleh Zaini Hassan yang disiarkan oleh Utusan Malaysia pada 10 September lalu bertajuk: “Azan, jawi, JAIS, UiTM dan ba-alif-ba-ya…” .Hoon Cheng yang mula-mula melaporkan kenyataan ketua bahagian Umno Bukit Bendera, Datuk Ahmad Ismail yang melemparkan kenyataan perkauman bahawa masyarakat Cina "kaum penumpang" yang mustahil mendapat hak yang sama dengan kaum bumiputera.Atas tekanan parti-parti komponen Barisan Nasional, Umno terpaksa menggantung hak keahlian Ahmad selama tiga tahun kerana enggan meminta maaf secara terbuka berkaitan kenyataannya.

Yang menakjubkan, Hoon Cheng yang hanya menjalankan tugasnya sebagai seorang wartawan sebaliknya telah ditahan bawah ISA, kononnya untuk melindungi keselamatannya – suatu dalih yang amat melucukan! Menurut rencana Zaini, ahli parlimen Seputeh tiba-tiba menjadi “dalang” di sebalik isu-isu azan, tulisan jawi, Jabatan Agama Islam Selangor (JAIS), Universiti Teknologi Mara (UiTM) dan babi seperti disenaraikan dalam tajuk rencana kolum terbabit.Selepas membaca artikel tersebut, Mohamad Asri Shafii, biro badan bertindak Gabungan Pelajar Melayu Semenanjung (GPMS) Perak telah mencapai kesimpulan seperti tajuk suratnya kepada akhbar yang sama (11 September 2008) “Terhakisnya ketuanan Melayu”! Mohamad Asri selanjutnya merumus: “Adalah menjadi mimpi ngeri bagi orang Melayu sebagai tuan di bumi bertuah ini mendapat menteribesar yang bukan Melayu. "Hakikatnya telah berlaku, meskipun kita melihat dua buah negeri Perak dan Selangor diperintah oleh ketua negeri berbangsa Melayu dan beragama Islam, tetapi hakikatnya daripada artikel ini adalah sebaliknya." Nampaknya niat Zaini untuk merasiskan imej Teresa, dan melaluinya “memomokkan” kerajaan Pakatan Rakyat dari perspektif ketuanan Melayu telah tercapai, dan nyata sekali Teresa telah menjadi mangsa artikel terbabit!Biarlah kita meneliti dakwaan-dakwaan artikel Zaini secara lebih objektif. Terlebih dahulu, dibangkitnya tuduhan bekas menteri besar Selangor, Dr Mohamad Khir Toyo bahawa ada usaha pihak tertentu yang cuba menasihatkan pihak masjid dan surau supaya tidak menggunakan pembesar suara semasa melaungkan azan.Padahal menurut Steven Ee, yang bertanggungjawab menghantar petisyen kepada masjid Bandar Kinrara seperti yang dilaporkan Malaysiakini, penduduk bukan Islam di Seksyen 5 taman perumahan itu tidak pernah membantah penggunaan pembesar suara untuk laungan azan. Mereka hanya meminta agar direndah atau diperlahankan suaranya apabila kaset/CD berkaitan ceramah, kuliah agama serta bacaan al-Quran dipasang sebelum sembahyang subuh di masjid tersebut.Kini, menteri besar baru Selangor Tan Sri Abdul Khalid Ibrahim telah mengeluarkan kenyataan bahawa masjid boleh terus menggunakan pembesar suara semasa menjalankan aktiviti bagi menyebarkan syiar Islam kerana pihaknya tidak menerima sebarang bantahan daripada mana-mana kumpulan atau persatuan penduduk.

Mungkin masih ada dua masalah masih belum terjawab. Yang pertama, adakah petisyen bukan Islam Bandar Kinrara terbabit boleh dianggap sebagai tidak sensitif, malah menghina agama Islam seperti tuduhan terbabit? Yang kedua, permintaan agar suara pembesar masjid direndahkan atau diperlahankan juga tiada tolak ansurnya, seperti ditegaskan JAIS? Jika petisyen agar bunyi suara pembesar aktiviti agama direndah atau diperlahankan juga tidak dapat ditoleransi dan ditolak ansur, seperti mesej-mesej yang dibawa dalam Utusan Malaysia, maka semangat toleransi yang diuar-uarkan selama ini hanyalah jalan sehala saja di sisi ketuanan Melayu dan ketuanan Islam!

Teresa yang mendapat salinan petisyen terbabit telah dipertanggungjawabkan sepenuhnya oleh Zaini, dan melalui mulut seorang YB dalam Pakatan Rakyat kononnya dihubunginya melalui telefon, Teresa dikritik sebagai "kurang ajar", dan dikatakan sedang "memaksa" DBKL menurunkan semua tulisan jawi di semua papan tanda jalan di Kuala Lumpur, supaya dinaikkan papan tanda tulisan Cina dan Tamil bersama-sama tulisan rumi. Namun, siapakah Teresa Kok yang mampu "memaksa" DBKL menurun dan menaikkan papan jalan mengikut suka hatinya?

Bagi mereka yang berfikiran liberal, di samping tulisan rumi, jika kaum Melayu inginkan tulisan jawi ditambah atau dikekalkan, sama juga dengan permintaan agar tulisan Cina dan tulisan Tamil ditambahkan di papan jalan, apa salahnya jika kaum Melayu tidak terlalu obsesi dengan ketuanan Melayu? Sekalipun tidak bersetuju, habislah cerita, buat apa digembar-gemburkan seolah-olah tibalah hari kiamat jika bahasa Cina dan bahasa Tamil ditambah di papan tanda jalan! Menurut imaginasi Zaini, Teresa tiba-tiba menjadi manusia yang begitu "berpengaruh" sekali, sehingga sanggup "menyuapkan" Khalid mengenai cadangan supaya diambil 30 peratus peruntukan JAIS untuk digunakan bagi kegunaan agama-agama lain, serta "memegang tali" untuk menyuruh menteri besar itu membuat kenyataan agar pintu UiTM dibuka kepada 10 peratus penuntut bukan Melayu.Jika kita percaya kepada kebebasan beragama seperti yang dijamin oleh Perlembagaan Persekutuan, dan bersetuju bahawa agama-agama bukan Islam di Selangor juga berhak menerima bantuan daripada Selangor seperti JAIS, maka sudah barang tentu JAIS tidak dapat memonopoli seratus peratus peruntukan yang disediakan kerajaan negeri sebagai bantuan kepada institusi-institusi semua agama. Jangan lupa, penganut bukan Islam di negara kita juga wajib membayar cukai.Sebelum kenyataan Khalid, jika tidak silap penulis, kabinet telah mengambil keputusan agar pintu UiTM dibuka kepada 10 peratus penuntut bukan Melayu, masa itu, tiada kontroversi dicetuskan seperti kali ini.

Selain itu, projek pemeliharaan berpusat babi di Sepang juga projek lama Barisan Nasional Selangor, ia juga tidak digembar-gemburkan seperti kali ini.Pembaca Utusan Malaysia tentu sedar bahawa azan, jawi, JAIS, UiTM, dan babi antara isu-isu yang diperbesar-besar dan diapi-apikan oleh Utusan Malaysia daripada perspektif ketuanan Melayu dan ketuanan Islam, demi memburuk-burukkan kerajaan Pakatan Rakyat Selangor.Jika wujud sebarang ketegangan kaum seperti dakwaan pihak polis, maka antara lain, Utusan Malaysia sudah barang tentu telah memainkan peranannya, dan oleh itu, patut disiasat dan diberi amaran, bukan mereka yang menjadi sasaran agenda perkauman, seperti Hoon Cheng, Teresa dan Raja Petra.

JBJ-R.I.P.

He was a man worth his salt. His steadfastness and righteousness was there for all to see. It is a shame that we do not have anyone, and I repeat anyone, on both sides of the border to match him.
He was a very approachable person and talked to anyone who acknowledged him. A simple man, with his trade mark side-burns, collared T-shirts and short pants and sandals… popped into JB very often for his thosai and air suam.
My first encounter with him was in the late 1980s at the Kerala outlet and I was sort of mesmerised to start a conversation with him. However, the many repeated encounters somewhat thawed my anxiety and thereafter we were familiar to each other. He would always address me, “Hello, young man”, and I would call him “Sir” and our conversation would usually centre on the political happenings of our countries.
Can I equate him with Karpal? No, he was a few notches above him. Can I equate him with D R Seenivasagam? Yes, he was as fearless as DRS, a fighter at that.
I also had the misfortune to meet up with him after the demise of his wife - and that was the only time he was at his lowest. His eyes welled with tears as he spoke to me of his only love. He really felt bad for her and regretted that he did not do enough for her. It was a moment that has stood memorably for me thus far.
He advised me repeatedly to stop my smoking habit. He told me that LKY was an incorrigible smoker during the 60s and eventually became a non-smoker. I will never forget his fatherly advice tho’ I still puff away.
I feel privileged to have befriended a LEGEND who was a simpleton fighting for the masses.
And he never expected any returns.
May his soul rest in peace.

It is truly a sad occasion to face the passing of such a gentle soul with an unshakable sense of justice and a mighty heart. But it is just as heartening to know that everyone who has written about his demise have only kind words for JBJ. He deserves them all. Whether the PAP government and LKY appreciate him or not speaks of their humanity. For JBJ did his best and gave his all. He should be resting well in peace now.

this man is a believer,....stubborn to the core.....yet, humble citizen, your uncle, you granpa or whatever he is to you, could have taken an easier path in life, with his wealth that he had previously, and migrated back to sri lanka, and happily lived ever after", but noooo....Man, he fought, he fought for ...so called "Singaporeans" he fought for everyone in that country, be it rich or poor, u may have heard about gandhi, nehru and etc, well welcome to the next generation, JBJ......he is a LION....his spirit is endless...till his deathbed...he tried to make a change, he fought a lonely war....not that singaporeans don support him, but singaporeans hands are tied....and there isnt much that one could do to march down the road with him. But he was stubborn, he chose to fight a war, rather than resolve issues peacefully. For that, he lost his wealth, and many more. Neverthless, a great man he is, a LEGEND, and hence be proud, be real proud.......We all know its too much to ask for when we say "rest in peace" for he still havent finish or achieve what he started, but from the bottom of one's heart...JBJ thanks for everything...PLEASE rest in PEACE...u deserve it for all your efforts....

Here is one of his last public speeches in 2007.

http://theonlinecitizen.com/2008/09/a-video-tribute-to-jbj/

WORKERS' PARTY Statement On The Passing Of Mr J. B. Jeyaretnam
Wednesday, 1 October 2008, 12:27 am

http://theonlinecitizen.com/2008/10/wp-statement-on-the-passing-of-mr-j-b-jeyaretnam/

FREE RPK

NO HOLDS BARRED
Raja Petra Kamarudin
Tuesday, 30 September 2008 12:51


I was perturbed when I read YB Teresa Kok’s statement that the food under ISA detention is equivalent or slightly better than dog food. It costs RM8 to feed a dog, according to the Malay Mail survey and only RM4.50 to feed on ISA detainees.
I feed my cats and fish premium food such as science diet and would never dream of feeding my pets the food that we are fed here. I actually stopped eating the food here after the first couple of days because it gave me diarrhea.
A couple of nights ago I vomited after eating the food and now I cannot even stand the sight or smell of the trays that they send to our cell twice a day.
I now survive on dates and plain water and I suppose if that is good enough for camels to survive in the Arabian Desert, it should be good enough for me.
I was told camels have a healthy sex drive and I would like to believe it because of the date that is my staple food. Of cause, there is no way I can test this theory until I come safely out of this place.
Actually, food is the least of my worries at this point of time. I am presently in three months solitary confinement and the only pussy I get to see is this mangy cat that somehow has found its way into my cellblock to sleep outside my locked door.
It has not rained since I arrived here a week ago and I was told Kamunting has not seen any rain for the last few weeks.
The heat in the cell is unbearable and the air is very stuffy.
The uncomfortable environment does help to put your mind off your growling stomach.
I am what they call under orientation. This three months' orientation I suppose is to get me used to the 2 years I am going to spend here.
One of my favorite classics that I used to read in Standard 1 is the Tale of Two Cities, which is about the French Revolution. I can now better appreciate the battle cry “give me liberty or give me death”. They say you appreciate something only after it has been taken away from you. Today, my liberty is at the top of my priority list. But I know it shall not come soon and it shall not come easy and it shall only come if there is a change of government and if the new government fulfills its promise to abolish the ISA.

Is Anwar Ibrahim unstoppable?

Opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim's landslide victory in the Permatang Pauh by-election on August 26 strongly suggests that Malaysians remain in a mood for change five months after a political tsunami swept the country. The writer examines five key questions that may determine the country's future.

Is Anwar Ibrahim unstoppable?
With the big margin he attained in the by-election, it does look as if Barisan Nasional (BN) will have a hard time stopping him. But then, as Anwar himself said, a week is a long time in politics, meaning that nothing is definite.He is stoppable as a person, but I think what has happened to him is that he has become the focus of a lot of hope for Malaysians disillusioned with the BN system. Because he is a wily politician — or a chameleon, as critics like to say — he has been able to remake himself in the image of the reform movement that his arrest 10 years ago inspired and that developed more intensely than he could have expected. That movement has aligned itself with other oppositional forces and that new combined force now places him as its front man. In turn, he has become indispensable to that force.Understood that way, Anwar does look unstoppable. The long-term way BN and the United Malays National Organisation (Umno) can take the wind out of his sail is to reform themselves radically, and in the process, change Malaysian politics to the extent that the polarised situation that makes someone such as Anwar so iconic disappear, or weaken. As long as BN refuses to change, the situation that created the strong opposition that adopts Anwar as its front man will continue.His court case relating to a sodomy charge, starting on September 10, is a big worry for the opposition. A lot of resources will be focused on defending Anwar, and on weakening the prosecution's case, including proving that the charge against him is politically motivated.

What is Mr Abdullah's future?
History will perceive Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi as the accidental politician and will forgive him for many of his failures because of that. But for the moment, many Malaysians on both sides are simply exasperated by his weak leadership and his inability to adapt to changes. No one mistakes his reticence for astuteness any longer.His time is up. He has to realise how critical reforms actually are to the future of the country.If Anwar's attempt at toppling the government does not materialise, then the attention will turn to Umno's general assembly in December. Many Umno leaders are not willing to allow Abdullah to bide his time while they run the risk of being sidelined forever. One goes into politics to gain power, and if the power pyramid that one is part of is sinking, then at some point, one decides that it is every man for himself.What about Umno's future?One day quite soon, Malaysians will learn to see political coalitions as temporary solutions to imbalances in power, and not as monolithic and eternal beings that become a goal in themselves. There are no permanent allies and no permanent enemies.It will be nearly impossible for Umno to regain its former glory. That glory depended on the BN model. Today, it is like the Kuomintang of Taiwan in the '80s. It must go through a radical change, and to do that, it may have to leave the seat of power for a while. Its members have to realise that Malaysia's wellbeing is not necessarily Umno's wellbeing.Even if the party loses power, it can return, but in a new shape and in new alliances. The worst-case scenario is that Umno may go the way of the Communist Party in Yugoslavia and disappear. The fear then is that the country will disintegrate along with it. The best-case scenario is that politics in Malaysia will mature to the extent that political opponents no longer wish destruction on each other.Losing will not be everything; winning will not be everything.From now to September 16 and December, what are the signs to look for?Abdullah presented his budget on August 29 and Parliament is now in recess until the fasting month of Ramadan is over. In the meantime, we have Wednesday to watch, when Anwar goes on trial. Should the sodomy charge be dropped, then BN admits that its tactic has backfired and it withdraws to fight another day. Should it stick, Anwar's camp will try its best to keep him out of jail.Given how Anwar was treated the last time he was in detention, his closest supporters fear that some serious harm will come to him while in jail.September 16 is the day to watch — Malaysia Day, the day 45 years ago when Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore joined the federation. Anwar chose that day as a day of reckoning because it is very symbolic to the East Malaysians who feel let down by the federal government. He promises them a better deal, a simple enough strategy.Even if Anwar cannot convince 30 BN Members of Parliament (MPs) to cross over to his side, he is expected to mark that day in a dramatic fashion. What he could do is perhaps to get some defectors to announce their intention publicly on September 16, and then hope for a snowball effect from there. He could also announce a defection by Umno MPs. Should nine of them defect, it would mean that Umno loses its majority within the ruling BN coalition. A bigger scoop would be to get a whole party to defect, threatening the existence of BN itself.Also important to watch will be the Umno's division elections next month. What support Abdullah still has will become clearer from that. The main challenger to Abdullah within Umno, Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah, will also be gauging his own strength during that time.

A BRIEF HISTORY OF RASTAFARI MOVEMENTS

The Rastafaris draws their beliefs from the bible which they believe to have been incorrectly translated from the Aramaic and, for that reason, to contain some mistakes. They believe that through experience and intuition they can interpret it correctly and discern its truth.
Central to their belief is the doctrine that black people are descendants of the early Israelites and that they were exiled because of their transgressions. Their salvation will come, however, through Haile Selassie I., who, they believe, is God and their saviour, the incarnation of Jah -or Jehovah, the reincarnation of Christ, the one who will bring them to the Land of freedom, to Africa.
For them, Africa and, more precisely Ethiopia, is the home of Black people, the place where they can be saved. Salvation comes through repatriation. The meaning applied to repatriation varies among the believers. For some it means a physical return to Africa; others, however, think that the return to Africa does not need to be a physical return; most important is to become aware of their African identity, to re-establish their identity undermined by the different kinds of power, and to immediately start changing their reality right where they are.
Although they believe in reincarnation they are not concerned with the after life, as salvation happens here in their search for their home, in the search for Africa which is for them associated with heaven, while Babylon (that is the place of the white man, the white society) is associated with hell.
To be a rasta is to live in accordance with the laws of nature, in other words is to live in an African way.
In their diet they avoid meat, and above all, pork, alcohol, and food of unknown sources.
There is no obligation to attend rituals. They have, however collective reasoning sessions called nyahbinghi. In these sessions they reflect on the bible and on their history, as well as on the nature of God, destiny, and among other things the meaning of life.
In order to achieve discernment in these sessions, some of them make use of the ganja (marijuana). There are no strict rules concerning the use of ganja. However, according Rastafarians, the overuse of it might turn into an end in itself, which would be contrary to the aim of the group. So it should be used only in certain occasions.
Family life is very important and though marriage may not be formalized in the western Christian way, it is taken very seriously. Women, however, seem to have a lesser role in the movement as a whole. The family structure is a patriarchal one and therefore woman is subordinated to man, though she might, often, be the earner of the house. Abortion and contraception are forbidden.
For them it is important not just to believe in God, but to know God. To be a rasta is to live a process from believing to knowing, from knowing to experiencing. The importance of experience can be clearly perceived in their language, used as a tool of individual and group identity and awareness. An example of this can be seen in their use of the pronoun "I" that many times replace "me", or "you" or even radicals in words. so they may say "I and I" meaning "we". This reminds them of the awareness of oneself, of the awareness of being God.




History

In 1517 Jamaica started importing African slaves. Unhappy with their condition, many slaves escaped and began revolting against their white master. Even after the abolition of slavery many black people remained unhappy with the miserable condition of their life, and nourished a desire to go back to Africa. This desire started to take shape with movements concerned with the condition of black people. Marcus Garvey, considered a prophet by the rastas, had already formed in 1916 the UNIA (Universal Negroe Improvement Association). In 1929 he prophesied that redemption would come when a black king , descending from the lineage of David, would be crowned. This prophecy was confirmed when on november the second 1929 Negus Tafari - said to be descendent from the King David- was crowned king of Ethiopia, receiving the name of Haile Selassie I. with the enthronement of Haile Selassie I the rastafari movementwas inaugurated. Soon after the enthronement Leonard Howell, Joseph Hibbert, Archibald Dunkley, Robert Hinds and other members of the UNIA, decided to follow Haile Selassie as his disciples, and established the Rasta doctrine.[ After the Rastafari movement had started in the early1930s, Haile Selassie created in 1937 the Ethiopian World Federation (E.W.F.) and in 1938 opened a branch in Jamaica giving a considerable impulse to the movement. By 1940 Howell had established the first Rasta community at Pinnacle, Jamaica. In 1954 this community was dismembered by the police, which, in fact contributed to the dissemination of rastafari ideas.
After Haile Selassie's visit to Jamaica the doctrine of expatriation came to be regarded as a spiritual rather than literal expatriation, and the movement developed a more active, political role in Jamaica.
Despite Haile Selassie's death in August 1975, rastas believe that he is istil alive as he has always been.
In the course of time the movement spread from Jamaica to other partes of the world such as The United States and Europe. Artists and musicians have played a very important roll in this process, either influencing politicians inside Jamaica or promoting the movement in other countries.


Symbols


The dread locks are one of the ways Rastas use to emphasize their identity. It is related to the Lions and inspired on the bible.
Of particular importance to the Rastafarians are the colours gold, red, green, and black (the colours of the Ethiopian flag) which they use to identify themselves.


Adherents
It is estimated that there are some 100,000 Rastafarians in Jamaica (Harris et al. 1994, 197). There are also Rastafarians in Great Britain, the United States, and eslewhere in the Caribbean. It is not known how large these communities are.
It is estimated that there are some 100,000 Rastafarians in Jamaica (Harris et al. 1994, 197). There are also Rastafarians in Great Britain, the United States, and eslewhere in the Caribbean. It is not known how large these communities are.

S.H.I.T

This Article Is Tribute Our Own Legend ShahnonAhmad

From: Asiaweek
Date: 06 May 1999
Time: 22:52:41

Shahnon Ahmad's satire outrages the Malaysian establishment
By Amir Muhammad / Kuala Lumpur

MALAYSIA'S LITERARY SCENE IS not one of the most exciting in the world. The average educated person would rather read stock-market reports than the latest fictional opus. No local writer can boast of a readership that cuts across barriers of ethnicity, language and age. Seen in this context, you might expect a homegrown best-seller to be greeted with joy. Think again.
True, the 30th novel by Malaysian literary lion Shahnon Ahmad is a runaway success. All 15,000 copies have been snapped up since its release in March. Bootleg versions are flooding the market to meet the demand. An English translation is on the way. But government politicians have called for a ban. Literary bureaucrats want to strip the writer of his National Laureate title. The novel is variously described as obscene, shameful and a disgrace.


Why all the fuss? To begin with, the Malay-language book is called Shit. Even more startling is the full title carried on an inside page: Shit@Pu*****@PM. The second word is a common but harsh Malay expletive referring to female genitalia. PM stands for exactly what you think it does. Prefacing that with two swear words is provocative enough. Worse, the plot revolves around a large turd, PM, which refuses to leave the bowels despite stinking up the place for almost 20 years. Other turds are constantly at PM's bidding. But instead of exiting naturally, PM expels an idealistic piece of excrement named Wirawan. PM is shocked when the outcast is welcomed by the public.


Only the most obtuse could fail to speculate that the novel is a satire on Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad and his government. Wirawan (from wira, or hero) is taken to represent sacked deputy premier Anwar Ibrahim, who was expelled from UMNO, Malaysia's dominant party. He was sentenced last month to six years' jail for interfering with investigations into his alleged sexual misconduct.


The 66-year-old author says extreme circumstances call for extreme responses. But is Shahnon's book any good? It starts with a burst of ferocious energy but sometimes lapses into repetition and bathos. The structure feels hurried. At 240 pages, the tale seems over long. But the blistering display of iconoclasm and earthy hyperbole is such that it would take an ass not to respond to the life-affirming humor. What has appalled some people is its unrelentingly bawdy, vituperative tone. Scatological imagery peppers world literature from Rabelais to The Arabian Nights. Malay writing,though, is usually more decorous.


Mahathir has yet to comment, but deputy home minister Ong Ka Ting says there will be no ban - that would only "draw attention to the book." It has already received an unprecedented level of notoriety. At first, pro-establishment newspapers could not bring themselves to even mention the title, but they soon lost any qualms. One recent headline screamed: "Shit: A shitty satire."
Shahnon doesn't mind the abuse. "I don't feel anything. At my age, if I don't speak my mind now, when will I get the chance?" he asks. "Writers should be themselves. What are the others afraid of? "Most of his fellow literati prefer to keep quiet or merely chide the author for bad language. Faisal Tehrani, an award-winning young scribe, is not among them: "There's so much hypocrisy among our writers. Shit is a good work of satire because it's brave and approachable. We've been trying for years to make literature not seem like some elitist, esoteric game." Others see an even greater impact. Kee Thuan Chye, literary editor of the New Straits Times, calls the daring work "a very important development" for Malay literature. "I think the trauma will trigger in the Malay mindset some questioning of long-held, deeply rooted cultural notions of non-confrontation."


After inadvertently giving the novel a blaze of publicity, the government has changed tack. Calling Shit unIslamic, officials are using it to discredit the opposition party Pas, of which Shahnon is a life member. But party chief Fadzil Noor is having none of that. The normally puritanical politician hails the book as a "major contribution." Vulgarity is "all right," he declares - as long as it fits the story.


"I have a bit of a split personality," Shahnon laughs. "People look at me and see a pious man, but there's a repressed side which comes out in my writing. That's when I don't censor myself. I let it all out." (A professor at the Malaysian Science University in Penang, he also headed its Islamic Center for 11 years until 1996.) There are other contradictions. He hopes for an Islamic state, yet revels in what most conservative Muslims would label sensationalism at best. For all Shahnon's antipathy toward Mahathir, the two men have many similarities. Both come from the northern state of Kedah, share the same blunt-speaking style and pugnacious audacity. Earlier this year, they were hospitalized for near-identical lung ailments. The coincidences seem unreal. Like something out of a novel.

TheGr8Debate

TheGr8Debate ...


If the Anwar-Shabery debate was anything to go by, it is apparent that the Government continues to deal with things the way it has always done: by burying its head in the sand.


In his enthusiasm to point us at the global fuel crisis, Shabery Cheek appears to have blinded himself to the obvious flaws in the system the Government created and maintains. I waited in vain for him to cut out Anwar Ibrahim's feet from under him by tactically acknowledging that long standing corruption had left us less capable of dealing with the crisis on hand for having robbed us of the invaluable resources needed for a more gradual and managed dismantling of subsidies.


But then, perhaps I should not single him out for blame. His perspective, that of the "there's nothing wrong with the way we do things" variety, is one that appears to be shared by fellow members of the cabinet. Speaking of the concerns expressed by the US State Department on the current investigations into Anwar Ibrahim, Foreign Minister Datuk Seri Dr Rais Yatim is reported as having defended the application of the Rule of Law in this country.


Dr Rais had indicated that he wished to enter into a debate on the subject with foreign critics. I am very much a Malaysian and do not as such qualify. I am certain however that the Minister will not begrudge me a round or two in the ring with him.


Allow me to start with a few concessions. I concede that there is in place a written constitution that is the supreme law. I also conceded that the primary institutions of a system of administration of justice - the Judiciary, the legal profession and the police force - exist, as do laws that are enacted by elected representatives in legislature. Additionally, I agree that provision is made for the appointment of judges, prosecutors and a host of other officers who man the system. But then, so do Zimbabwe and a number of countries in which the rule of law has collapsed. Burma in fact only recently unveiled a sparkling, bright constitution filled to the brim with the requisite bells and whistles. The point here is that the mere existence of the institutions that make up a system of administration of justice does not in itself give rise to the Rule of Law. That only exists when it can be said with certainty that the system by which justice is administered is one that is competent, of integrity and independent. The Minister might say that we have such a system. His fellow minister, the Home Affairs Minister might say it too. Their views, as relevant as they may be, are not definitive. Neither is that of the Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister, the Home Minister or the de facto Law Minister or the entire cabinet. It would not matter even if they assembled at the top of the Twin Towers along with every other Barisan Nasional member of parliament and proclaimed it to the heavens.

The only relevant point of view is that of the rakyat. As the Minister fully appreciates, a system is only effective if it inspires public confidence. Like justice, public confidence is in part a question of perception. The question is whether the Malaysian system inspires confidence. I think not and the average Malaysian cannot be blamed for thinking it. Through the last decade or so, we have heard from authoritative personalities of the low level of public confidence in the Judiciary. The events that resulted in the Lingam Royal Commission of Enquiry and its damning conclusions and recommendations merely reinforced belief that all was not well in the Judiciary and that something had to be done. The Government has recently acknowledged the need to appoint the best persons for the job and the need for reform to allow for that. Where the police force is concerned, a separate Royal Commission of Enquiry had found that abuses of power and corruption was sufficiently widespread for it to make numerous recommendations including the establishment of an Independent Police Complaints And Misconduct Commission. No significant changes have been made since the recommendations and the IPCMC remains a concept on the proverbial drawing board. No basis for increased confidence there, even if that was possible bearing in mind police actions over the last year or so. The Attorney General's Chambers has not been spared. Questions had been raised of the Attorney General's conduct when he was second chair in the prosecution of Anwar Ibrahim in 1998. The underlying issues were not raised, a matter that the Federal Court had reason to take note of. Since then the issues have come up again, this time as the subject of investigations by the Anti-Corruption Agency. This and recent decisions taken by the Attorney General have raised eyebrows, Malaysians being very aware that like the Inspector General of Police, the Attorney General is dependent on the largesse of the Prime Minister. The public image of these institutions has taken a serious beating, so much so that it would not be unreasonable for the average Malaysian to believe that the entire system needs an overhaul and until that is done the system will not work as it is meant to. With draconian laws such as the Internal Security Act and the Official Secrets Act in active use, it would not take much for one to believe equally that the law is an instrument of the Government and that the Government is above the law. And that, as the Minister undoubtedly appreciates, is Rule By Law. Over to you, Dr Rais...

R.E.F.O.R.M.A.S.I 1998-2008- PART 2

Selain mengubah Umno dan BN, gerakan reformasi juga memberikan impak yang besar terhadap dua parti tua pembangkang iaitu PAS dan DAP.

Pada 1999, Parti Keadilan Nasional (sekarang PKR setelah bergabung dengan PRM), PAS, DAP dan PRM telah membentuk satu pakatan yang digelar Barisan Alternatif (BA).
BA memberikan saingan yang hebat kepada BN dalam pilihanraya umum ke-10. Penyatuan parti pembangkang bawah BA telah menyebabkan pertarungan satu lawan satu di antara dua parti (BN dan BA) di kebanyakan kawasan.


Sentimen anti-Mahathir yang begitu kuat telah menyebabkan undi orang-orang Melayu beralih kepada BA. Bagaimanapun majoriti undi bukan Melayu masih lagi memihak kepada BN.
Pilihanraya 1999 menguntungkan PAS apabila Terengganu jatuh bawah penguasaannya, Kelantan kekal dan mendapat 27 kerusi parlimen berbanding dengan hanya tujuh kerusi parlimen yang diperolehinya pada 1995.DAP bernasib malang dalam pilihanraya tersebut apabila Lim Kit Siang dan Karpal Singh, dua jaguh DAP, gagal kembali ke parlimen.
Akan tetapi DAP mendapat lebihan satu kerusi, menjadikan jumlahnya 10 berbanding dengan sembilan kerusi yang diperolehinya pada pilihanraya umum sebelumnya.
Parti Keadilan Nasional, yang masih setahun jagung dan mentah, berjaya mendapat lima kerusi parlimen dan empat kerusi negeri.

Kejayaan gerakan reformasi dalam pilihanraya umum 1999 memberikan tamparan hebat kepada Mahathir selaku perdana menteri. Beliau diserang hebat dari dalam dan luar Umno.
Sebagai reaksi spontan kepada trend pengundi Melayu yang memihak kepada pembangkang, kerajaan Mahathir menyerang beberapa media cetak berbahasa Melayu yang bebas dan kritikal.
Tindakannya itu kerana semenjak permulaan gerakan Reformasi, Harakah, Eksklusif, Detik dan akhbar-akhbar tidak berkala menjadi sumber maklumat alternatif kepada orang-orang Melayu.
Akhbar mingguan independen Eksklusif dan majalah Detik ditutup, manakala Harakah telah dihadkan pengeluarannya dari dua kali seminggu kepada dua kali sebulan (sehinggalah saat ini).
Pakatan BA yang menjadi pencabar kuat kepada BN dalam pilihanraya 1999 tidak dapat bertahan lama, malangnya.

DAP sudah mula merasakan bahawa kekalahan Karpal, Kit Siang dan beberapa kawasan potensi adalah kerana penggabungannya dengan PAS dalam BA.
DAP akhirnya meninggalkan BA pada 21 September 2001, 10 hari selepas berlakunya tragedi 11 September di Amerika Syarikat.

Menurut Kerk Kim Hock dalam satu temubual selepas DAP keluar daripada gabungan pembangkang, penyokong-penyokong tradisi DAP tidak akan menyokong lagi parti itu jika DAP bekerjasama dengan PAS.

Dalam keadaan BN mengeksploitasikan isu negara Islam yang dibawa oleh PAS, ramai pengundi tradisi DAP tidak menyokong parti tersebut pada pilihanraya 1999.
PAS yang menjadi semakin kuat apabila berjaya menguasai Terengganu dan mempertahankan Kelantan sedikit demi sedikit menjadi angkuh dan melupakan agenda Reformasi.
PAS pada ketika itu terlupa atau "buat-buat lupa" bahawa kejayaan mereka merampas Terengganu atas dorongan rakyat mahukan Reformasi ditambah dengan sentimen kebenciaan rakyat kepada Mahathir yang sangat kuat.

Rakyat yang mengundi PAS juga mahukan skandal dan salah urus selama 25 tahun pentadbiran bekas MB Wan Mokhtar Wan Ahmad dibongkar dan dibawa kemuka pengadilan.
Akan tetapi pemerintahan PAS Terengganu tidak mengutamakan agenda Reformasi dan memerangi rasuah. Pada 12 November 2003, PAS melancarkan Dokumen Negara Islam.
Pelancaran dokumen ini telah menyebabkan DAP menjauhkan lagi daripada PAS dan pengundi-pengundi bukan Melayu menjadi takut. PAS sudah tersilap baca. Kesilapan ini akhirnya membawa padah kepada parti Islam terbesar tersebut.

Perang "anti terorisme" yang dibawa oleh George W Bush, pemegang mahzab politik "neocon" disambut oleh kerajaan BN. Usaha menakut-nakutkan pengundi bukan Melayu dilakukan secara terancang.
Mahathir menggunakan Akta Keselamatan Dalam Negeri (ISA) untuk menahan Kumpulan "Mujahidin" Malaysia yang kemudian tidak semena-mena ditukar namanya oleh polis kepada Kumpulan "Militan" Malaysia (KMM) pada pertengahan 2001 sebelum berlakunya tragedi 11 September.

Penggunaan ISA besar-besaran dimulakan dengan penahanan 10 aktivis Reformasi pada April dan dua pemimpin mahasiswa dua bulan kemudian 2001. BN juga mula melarang sebarang ceramah politik.
Pada Ogos 2001, “perang anti terorisme” telah dimulakan di Malaysia apabila kerajaan Mahathir menahan 10 orang anggota KMM, termasuk anak Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat.
Apabila berlaku peristiwa 11 September, tindakan Mahathir menggunakan ISA menjadi “halal”. Kerajaan Mahathir berbangga apabila Amerika Syarikat juga mahu memperkenalkan “Patriot Act” yang mirip kepada ISA.

Yang menjadi tanda tanya dalam fikiran saya sehingga ini: Apakah penahanan KMM pada Ogos 2001 hanyalah satu kebetulan? Atau, pihak perisikan Malaysia sudah mengetahui tentang tragedi 11 September yang bakal berlaku di Amerika Syarikat?
Begitu eratkah hubungan perisikan Malaysia dengan CIA?
Rapuhnya pakatan BA telah memberikan kekuatan kepada BN menjelang pilihanraya umum 2004. Apabila Abdullah Ahmad Badawi naik sebagai PM, harapan baru diberikan dan mandat yang besar diperolehi oleh BN dalam pilihanraya tahun itu.
Terengganu berjaya dirampas kembali oleh BN - jika pada 1999, PAS menguasai 28 kerusi, kali ini PAS hilang pula 28 kerusi negeri. Kelantan walaupun masih dipegang oleh PAS, pentadbirannya sentiasa goyang akibat majoriti yang kecil.
Abdullah yang dibantu oleh "pemikir tingkat empat" mencedok konsep "Masyarakat Sivil" (civil society) daripada gerakan Reformasi dengan mengantikan namanya kepada "Masyarakat Hadhari".
Tetapi beliau gagal membawa Reformasi kepada negara - janji-janjinya tidak ditunaikan. Perang rasuah yang ingin dibawanya hanyalah cakap-cakap kosong.
Saki-baki orang-orang Mahathir dalam pemerintahannya tidak dibersihkan sehingga "memakan" dirinya kembali. Mahathir seperti yang dikatakan oleh Musa Hitam baru-baru ini adalah "duri dalam daging" pemerintahan Abdullah.
Ketika Abdullah lemah akibat serangan Mahathir dan konco-konconya yang bertalu-talu, Anwar Ibrahim memainkan peranan untuk memperkuatkan pakatan pembangkang.
Anwar muncul "pendamai" konflik ideologi senyap PAS-DAP. Akhirnya Anwar berjaya mendorong PAS dan DAP duduk semeja. Kedua-dua parti tersebut bersetuju Anwar sebagai calon perdana menteri mereka.

Akibatnya PAS memperkenalkan garis Negara Berkebajikan (welfare state) dalam manifesto pilihanrayanya yang lalu dan menggugurkan agenda negara Islam.
PAS dilihat oleh pengundi-pengundi bukan Melayu sebagai "lebih liberal" dan berwajah baru. Penjenamaan semula yang dilakukan itu, bersama sejumlah faktor lain, berjaya mempengaruhi rakyat pelbagai kaum.
DAP yang sebelum ini dilihat sebagai "chauvinis" Cina juga menunjukkan mereka komited untuk membela semua kaum dan berjaya melunakkan hati pengundi Melayu, khususnya di bandar dan pekan kecil, untuk bersama mereka.
Selepas menang di Pulau Pinang, Lim Guan Eng yang menjadi ketua menteri baru bertekad untuk mengamalkan pemerintahan ala "Umar bin Abdul Aziz", seorang khalifah Islam yang terkenal dengan pemerintahannya yang bersih dan telus.
Guan Eng telah berjaya menggagalkan rancangan jahat pemimpin-pemimpin Umno Pulau Pinang yang mahu membangkitkan sentimen perkauman.
Menjelang 10 tahun gerakan reformasi yang akan genap usianya pada September ini, politik negara semakin berkocak.
Terbaru, Dr Mahathir keluar dari Umno dan menyeru pemimpin dan ahli untuk mengikut jejak langkahnya bagi memberikan tekanan kepada Abdullah untuk meletakkan jawatan. Dr Mahathir yang ditentang oleh gerakan Reformasi kerana pemerintahan kuku besinya masih lagi bebas "mengacau".
Kesilapan terbesar Abdullah ialah beliau tidak membersihkan sisa-sisa orang Mahathir dalam Umno dan pentadbirannya.
"Budak tingkat empat" yang menjadi pemikir kepada Abdullah hanya rakus untuk mengaut kekayaan daripada memberikan strategi politik yang betul kepada Abdullah.
Akibatnya, Abdullah hilang mandat besar yang diperolehinya pada 2004. Sekarang beliau terpaksa "bertarung" dengan pendekar-pendekar di dalam Umno (majoritinya orang Mahathir) yang menyalahkannya kerana BN hilang majoriti dua pertiga di parlimen.
Pakatan Rakyat yang lahir daripada gerakan Reformasi harus bijak mengharungi arus politik negara.
Jika tersilap langkah seperti apa yang dilakukan oleh PAS semasa memerintah Terengganu dan Abdullah Ahmad Badawi yang tidak membersihkan orang-orang Mahathir dalam pemerintahannya, Pakatan Rakyat juga akan menerima nasib yang sama.
Apakah 10 tahun Reformasi yang akan disambut pada September ini akan menyaksikan Pakatan Rakyat mengambil alih negara seperti yang dikatakan oleh Anwar baru-baru ini?
Ataupun Mahathir akan berjaya menaikkan Najib sebagai perdana menteri agar legasinya diteruskan?
Kita tunggu dan lihat. Sejarah telah membuktikan kemenangan sentiasa di tangan orang-orang yang berani dan bijak.

R.E.F.O.R.M.A.S.I 1998-2008- PART 1

Cepat sungguh masa berlalu....
Sedar tidak sedar, tinggal beberapa bulan lagi “gerakan reformasi”
Malaysiaakan menyambut ulang tahunnya yang ke-10.

Dalam tempoh satu dekad, pelbagai cabaran, onak dan duri telah dilalui, akan tetapi gerakan reformasi masih lagi hidup dengan subur dan mekar, terus relevan mewarnai arena politik negara. Banyak peristiwa besar berlaku dalam sepanjang perjalanan gerakan “organik” yang telah melahirkan beberapa perubahan besar dalam politik negara. Pencapaian tertinggi gerakan reformasi, antaranya, keputusan pilihanraya ke-12 lalu apabila kita dapat melihat ramai pengundi terutamanya di kawasan bandar telah berjaya “dicerahkan”. Politik perkauman yang dahulu menjadi tunjang kekuatan Barisan Nasional kini semakin tidak relevan.


Kita boleh lihat selepas pilihanraya, ramai pemimpin Umno
cuba untuk membangkitkan agenda ketuanan Melayu tetapi gagal mendapat sokongan akar umbi. Demonstrasi dan forum yang dianjurkan oleh kumpulan ini hanya dihadiri oleh peniaga-peniaga yang kehilangan kontrak kerajaan di beberapa negeri dan tidak daripada rakyat jelata.

Protes terpanjang Perlu diingatkan bahawa perjuangan reformasi yang bermula pada 1998 adalah antara siri protes politik yang terpanjang dalam sejarah
Malaysia. Pelbagai cara telah digunakan oleh pemerintah
Malaysia untuk membunuh protes ini, namun tidak berjaya. Semua jentera, “senjata” pemerintah seperti polis dan undang-undang kuku besi tidak berjaya mematikan gerakan ini.

Apakah rahsia gerakan reformasi mampu bertahan lama? Apa-apa gerakan sekalipun, jika tidak mendapat sokongan rakyat dan tidak bergerak secara “organik” pasti tidak akan berjaya. Lihatlah apa yang terjadi kepada perjuangan Parti Komunis Malaya (PKM) satu ketika dahulu. Walaupun PKM mempunyai agenda perjuangan yang suci iaitu untuk membebaskan
Malaysia (Malaya) seratus peratus daripada penjajahan dan menegakkan keadilan sosial, oleh kerana tidak mendapat sokongan yang meluas daripada rakyat secara berterusan, akhirnya perlahan-lahan perjuangan tersebut menemui kegagalan.

Gerakan reformasi disokong oleh rakyat pelbagai latar belakang politik, sosial dan ekonomi - buruh, petani, nelayan, pekerja kerajaan, guru, pelajar dan ramai lagi. Ia juga melangkaui batasan kaum dan agama.


Ada yang terlibat secara langsung dan ramai juga yang menyokong secara senyap-senyap. Mereka inilah yang sebenarnya menjadi tunjang kekuatan gerakan reformasi. Mereka menyampaikan maklumat dari mulut ke mulut sehingga hegemoni media pemerintah yang mengawal maklumat terbarai. Berita-berita yang disekat oleh media arus perdana sampai juga kepada rakyat, khususnya melalui internet, termasuk yang berada di kawasan luar bandar. Golongan ini jugalah yang meramaikan demonstrasi-demonstrasi prodemokrasi yang dianjurkan. Mereka tidak takut walaupun berhadapan dengan pelbagai risiko seperti hilang pekerjaan, tangkapan polis dan macam-macam lagi. Bongkar rasuah Pemimpin-pemimpin Pakatan Rakyat yang telah menang di beberapa negeri dalam pilihanraya yang lalu perlu sedar akan hakikat ini. Kemenangan mereka kerana sokongan rakyat daripada pelbagai latar belakang. Mereka naik kerana rakyat mahukan reformasi; bukan kerana pemimpin atau parti politik semata-mata.

Rakyat telah muak dengan Barisan Nasional yang telah memerintah selama 50 tahun. Jika wakil-wakil Pakatan Rakyat turut melupakan agenda perjuangan reformasi, mereka juga akan kehilangan sokongan daripada rakyat dan tidak mustahil penguasaan di beberapa negeri akan hilang. Rakyat sekarang ini telah bijak untuk berfikir dan menilai. Belajarlah daripada pengalaman Abdullah Ahmad Badawi. Ketika baru diangkat naik sebagai perdana menteri, harapan rakyat kepadanya menggunung selepas 22 tahun berada bawah pemerintahan Dr Mahathir Mohamad yang kuku besi.

Abdullah menang pilihanraya 2004 dengan majoriti yang luar biasa besar kerana mendat dan harapan yang diberikan oleh rakyat untuk melihat perubahan berlaku di
Malaysia. Abdullah pada ketika itu berjanji untuk membawa reformasi dalam pemerintahannya, antaranya, agenda terpenting yang kononnya ingin dilaksanakan oleh Abdullah ialah membasmi rasuah. Sebelum pilihanraya 2004, Abdullah berjanji untuk menghapuskan rasuah dan membawa pelaku-pelaku rasuah kemuka pengadilan.

Ketika itu Dr Rais Yatim sebagai menteri di Jabatan Perdana Menteri mengumumkan 18 kes rasuah yang berprofil tinggi akan dibawa ke muka pengadilan. Kenyataan ini akhirnya terbukti hanyalah retorik untuk mendapat undi popular dan ternyata Abdullah dan Rais berbohong kepada rakyat. Sebagai jawapan kepada penipuan Abdullah dan Rais ini, rakyat menghukum Barisan Nasional pada pilihanraya umum Mac lalu. Kerajaan Pakatan Rakyat di Selangor, Perak, Pulau Pinang dan Kedah harus belajar daripada pengalaman Abdullah ini. Sekarang, masanya Pakatan untuk membongkarkan segala kegiatan rasuah yang dilakukan oleh pemerintahan terdahulu. Kegiatan rasuah ini perlu diketahui oleh umum walaupun ia melibatkan Raja atau bekas menteri - tiada siapa yang kebal di sisi undang-undang.

'Cetak rompak' agenda reformasi Selain Abdullah yang “mencetak rompak” agenda reformasi, Dr Mahathir yang pernah menjadi musuh nombor satu gerakan reformasi satu ketika dahulu juga turut tidak ketinggalan. Dr Mahathir tahu, untuk terus kekal relevan, beliau harus berada selari dengan agenda dan tuntutan reformasi. Maka, apabila beliau bertembung dengan pemerintahan Abdullah, beliau juga bercakap tidak ubah seperti musuh utamanya Anwar Ibrahim. Ramai yang terperanjat apabila Mahathir mengatakan
Malaysiaadalah "negara polis". Ramai yang berasa seperti berada di dalam mimpi apabila Mahathir bercakap amalan politik wang di dalam Umno. Ramai yang tidak percaya apabila Mahathir mempertikaikan kebebasan media di
Malaysia. Sewaktu beliau masih berkuasa, inilah yang dilakukan oleh Mahathir. Tidak mengapalah, mungkin beliau telah insaf (atau lupa?) dan ingin membantu memenangkan agenda reformasi.

Menantu kesayangan Abdullah - yang kini ahli parlimen Rembau - tidak ketinggalan untuk bernada selari dengan agenda gerakan reformasi. Baru-baru ini sewaktu berucap pada forum anjuran Kesatuan Wartawan Kebangsaan (NUJ) bertajuk "Kebebasan Akhbar: Pilihanraya Umum 2008" sempena Hari Kebebasan Akhbar Sedunia di Kuala Lumpur, Khairy Jamaluddin menuntut agar Akta Penerbitan dan Mesin Cetak dimansuhkan. Akta ini yang menjadi musuh utama kepada kebebasan media di
Malaysia, menurut Khairy, perlu dimansuhkan agar media arus perdana terus relevan di mata rakyat.

Menantu PM juga tahu beliau masih lagi muda dan mahu terus kekal relevan dalam arena politik negara. Maka beliau telah membuang egonya dan menyuarakan mengenai pentingnya kebebasan media yang merupakan salah satu daripada tuntutan utama gerakan reformasi.

TheNewDawnHasArrived

This is my 1st personal blog. Even i have done quite some works for "some people", this will be my definite moment, where i came out of the closet i was hiding for so many years. Well, it does feel good. By the way, for some of you who doesnt really know my style, this blog is mix of things and events that traspasses my life and effect me personally or professionally.... So... WELCOME