KTEMOC KONSIDERS

READ MORE HERE

FINANCE TWITTER

Sometimes you got to wait for the dust to settle before the actual plot emerges. So if you care to see, read, listen and think over the last two weeks, you should be able to put all the puzzle pieces together. It’s become clearer why this version of Bersih was not as peaceful as previous version 1.0 and 2.0. I’ve wrote before the Bersih 3.0 rally how some UMNO insiders were (plotting and) hoping for a chaos rally (read here). So far it didn’t disappoint and the story goes according to the script. Yes, you don’t have to go extra miles by consulting fortune tellers or look to the stars to get answers as to who were the script writer and producer of this classic peaceful turned violence film.

There was this theory that PM Najib was scared shit that Bersih 3.0 would be the springboard for a “Malaysia Spring”, ala Arab Spring. But Malaysia is not Arab so that’s a truckload of bullshit. Malaysians simply cannot stomach a prolonged rally. Don’t believe me? Go and read this private conversation with PM Najib and President Obama (*grin*). If Najib indeed was imagining himself as if he was on ecstasy and couldn’t think straight, and in the process ordered the brutal crackdown on peaceful protesters, then he’s just months or weeks away from being the shortest serving prime minister of Malaysia. He deserves it.

Now, let’s see who spoke like a “Commander in Chief” right after the rally. Former PM Mahathir said the rally was an attempt to topple the government. Almost immediately, PM Najib was seen parroting Mahathir, claiming the rally participants had intended to take over Dataran Merdeka (Independence Square) and make it like the Egypt’s infamous Tahrir Square. Those statements from dictator Mahathir and PM Najib were so silly that it makes even a bulldog laughing and giggling like a hyena. That’s a huge insult to the country’s Military Intelligence. Do you know that Malaysia’s Police and Military Intelligence are amongst the best in the world?

You meant to say the intelligence report only discovered the attempt to overthrow the government at the eleventh hour of the rally, just before Anwar-Azmin tag-team was seen showing that infamous hand signs? Given the fact that Najib’s administration actually allowed the Bersih 3.0 rally to proceed initially but flip-flop and claim it was an attempt to overthrow the government post-rally only goes to show that Najib was so stupid that his predecessor Abdullah Badawi looks like Albert Einstein. Didn’t his cousin, Home Minister Hishammuddin Hussein announced Bersih 3.0 was not a security threat hence the permission to walk the streets?

Actually it doesn’t matter if opposition de-facto leader Anwar and his lieutenant Azmin hand gesture exchange was indeed a signal to breach the barricades. Even if both of them were strapped in baby strollers and made to suck on pacifiers, the violence would still happen. You don’t think those police violence started by planted agents were mere coincidence, do you? The most disturbing statement came later from Mahathir who told voters to vote PM Najib-led government so that it would be able to revive the draconian ISA (Internal Security Act). But the humour part came from none other than former IGP Hanif Omar.

READ MORE HERE

THE ROCKET 

The book chronicles the political journey of Lim Kit Siang and answers basic questions that baffles the younger generation who have long been bombarded with the image of Kit Siang as a Communist, a Chinese-chauvinist who cares not for the welfare of the Malays nor respects the throne. Ooi mindfully gathers the answers to those allegations and presents it to the readers as a matter of fact.

Reading the Malay version of the book was intriguing. The cover photo alone was eye opening enough. You see a younger Lim Kit Siang posing with friends, his hands in his pocket, jaw line perfectly defined, old school black plastic frame glasses, chin slightly tilted up; as if saying, “What?” to a gang of unruly UMNO bullies.

Taking the reader back in time, we are walked through the early life of Kit Siang, as if sitting in his living room, perched on a couch, looking at old family albums and personally chit chatting about his ambition and hopes for a better Malaysia, while starting off at an early age in the field of journalism before taking on law and finally jumping head on into Malaysian politics.

Special focus is given on the events leading to the black dot in Malaysian history that is the May 13thriots in 1969. UMNO has never ceased to blame the turn of events on Kit Siang, who according to his account in the book was not even in Kuala Lumpur during the riots.

What is also interesting about the book is the number of appendix it includes, among them speeches, letters and press statements by Kit Siang. Most interesting was an excerpt from his speech during the DAP-Gerakan Cultural Debate, late November 1968, where Kit Siang takes on Dr Syed Naguib Al-Attas on issues pertaining to language, art, political beings and other entities that shape the minds and thought pattern of humans.

One is presented with a different perspective at how Kit Siang, the fighter of justice and political activist can also demonstrate his intellectual side.

READ MORE HERE

http://pdrmbrutal.wordpress.com/

Now the police wants help in identifying their own men ( LOL, ROTFL, LOL AGAIN) I know, its hilarious.. they know 49 people from 28 million citizens and know their addresses but they don’t know their own men?

 Are you dying for a 2-party system and a better Governance for you and your next generation? The truth that can never be erased about the No 1 Licensed Organized Crime Organization in Malaysia and its misdeeds on the people. Please download and save as many as you can before they are erased or the site attacked and have them burnt into hundreds of DVDs to be distributed from door step to door step to your folks, friends, those in the rural and taman who do not have access to internet or illiterate for the Truth or to even those hard core MCA, MIC and Gerakan members.

uppercaise

Investigative journalist R Nadeswaran (Citizen Nades of the Sun) was turned away by the Appeal Court this week in his attempt to make his defence against a libel case.

He was alleged to have made a defamatory and racial remark on Twitter, the text message broadcasting system of the Internet, about a businessman, Datuk Mohamad Salim Fateh Din.

The crux of the case is that Nadeswaran was judged to have defamed the businessman, based only on several technicalities:

• Nadeswaran did not file a defence against the writ in the High Court
• His lawyer at the time had since admitted, according to Nadeswaran’s appeal affidavit, that he had failed to file on time, accepted full responsibility and asked that Nades not be punished for his error
• The counsel for the businessman who had sued asked the appeal bench not to allow Nades more time. The matter was academic now; the High Court had already delivered its judgment; Nades should have appealed for time before the judgment was delivered.
• The appeal court agreed, and ordered Nades to pay RM15,000 in costs

» Appeals Court dismisses journalist’s appeal

Nades might still be able to appeal against the orginal High Court judgment, or he could try to appeal to the Federal Court against the Appeal Court’s decision, a more unlikely possibility.

There is also a question of possible professional negligence by his previous lawyer if, as his appeal affidavit states, the previous lawyer had admitted accepting full responsibility for not filing on time.

Nades could sue the lawyer on the basis that such negligence had cost him undue hardship, RM500,000 in damages and at least RM15,000 or more in legal costs. Nades could also refer the lawyer to the Bar on grounds of professional misconduct.

Yet all these battles would be about procedural matters.

The real issues — did Nades defame the businessman; did Nades make that tweet; what did Nades say; how did that tweet damage the businessman’s reputation; what reputation did the businessman have to defend in the first place — all these matters did not arise in court, were not discussed, were not heard, and were not judged. Neither was Nades’s own explanation about the circumstances regarding the tweet.

Given all that, it is difficult not to conclude that Nades has been hard done by.

A basic lesson in journalism that all reporters learn is their duty to give both sides a hearing in order to produce a fair and accurate report. Citizen Nades, in breaking the Port Klang Free Trade Zone scandal among other investigative reports, could not fail to keep that basic rule in mind.

The High Court, though, heard only one side, and decided on that basis. No honest news editor would accept a story written on that basis. The High Court may have been legally and procedurally correct. But was it just?

Read more at: http://uppercaise.wordpress.com/2012/05/10/defamation-legal-mumbo-jumbo-and-press-freedom/
Read also: http://uppercaise.wordpress.com/2012/05/10/curious-case-of-the-judges-curious-remark/

Another Brick in the Wall

Anwar Ibrahim claimed the attendance for Bersih 3.0 was 300,000. Raja Petra Kamaruddin wrote that it could be 250,000 or 200,000 or 150,000 or 100,000.

One thing we learned of opposition’s estimate is that their announced number tend to be a multiplication of their estimated number by ten.

On the night of Black 14 gathering on April 14, 2008 at Kelab Sultan Sulaiman, Anwar proclaimed to the crowd that the gathering that night was 15,000. We were there pretending to go along screaming, “Reformasi! Takbir! Suara Rakyat, Suara Keramat!”

One old hand at estimating crowd responded, “Nak mampus 15,000?” His estimate was only 1,500. He explained that at full capacity the field, a football field can only take up 2,000. The crowd was only pack in front but generally sparce behind. It could be as low as 1,200.

Back to Bersih 3.0, Al Jazeera only placed it at 25,000. And immediately, they were accused as pandering to the Government censorship. Wonder what BBC estimated since they admitted being censored by Government.

Most pro-Government media or blogs put the number at between 25,000 to 35,000.

Still nevertheless a credible number than Bersih 2.0 which was around 7-8,000. Opps … one can hear the Bersih 2.0 demonstraters, that was soaked by the water cannon, claiming the moving crowd was 25,000.

Avoiding Stadium

When Bersih 2.0 called for Stadium Merdeka, initially the authorities were reluctant. Then Prime Minister, Dato Najib called their bluff and offered Stadium Merdeka.

Everyone was too consumed to call him flip flop but most forgotten that Anwar and Ambiga didn’t accept it. They wanted the streets for it’s dynamics, as PAS Member of Parliament, Dr Dzulkifli Ahmad described it.

This time the Government offered Stadium Merdeka and they refused. They were determine to invade Dataran Merdeka. Why?

Forget the thought of a repeat of Tahrir Square. Marina Mahathir refuse to think there was such an intention. Clever and informative … maybe lurus bendul (innocent straight arrow) would right.

The reason is by having it in a Stadium, it will be a daunting task on their part to fill it. Otherwise it looks barren and embarrassing.

See the picture above of PAS’s Solat Hajat program in a closed Stadium in Shah Alam. Imagine how much of the seats were taken up during the ceramah session later.

Another reasonis that by having it in a stadium, where most are usually seated and quite stationary, it is easy to estimate the crowd. But they can’t spin to claim the crowd to be as much as 100,000 to 300,000.

Since we are talking about stadium, if Bersih had held it in Stadium Merdeka and filled it up to the brim (off course, stadium authority will not allow the crowd to step on the grass), the full capacity is 45,000.

Can Bersih 3.0 crowd fill-up Stadium Merdeka?

Anwar claimed before th eevent that there will be 500,000 coming. Then he must need a bigger stadium. It will be a great propaganda to have a standing room only event with crowds spilling over into the Stadium parking lots.

He should have taken either the Shah Alam Stadium or the National Stadium Bukit Jalil.

Shah Alam Stadium is a multi-purpose stadium located in Shah Alam, Malaysia. It is used mostly for football matches but also has facilities for athletics. The stadium is the home of Selangor FA, and has a capacity of 80,000.

While the full capacity of National Stadium Bukit Jalil is 100,000. The Bukit Jalil’s capacity makes it the 25th largest stadium in the world and the 9th largest football stadium in the world. It is also the largest stadium in Southeast Asia.

The dynamic are all there but Anwar refused. Why?

Frankly, deep inside Anwar he knows he can’t fill it up. It is a daunting task to do so within few weeks of preparations. Usually, only sporting or entertainment event can fill up a stadium with such crowd.

Read more at: http://anotherbrickinwall.blogspot.com/2012/05/myth-5-anwars-claimed-300000.html

Dr Lim Teck Ghee, CPI 

I disagree. So do the great majority of online commentators that have followed our exchange. Despite attempts by cybertroopers to disrupt feedback, many readers have encouraged us to engage over the Net that is an open and unfettered public space in which they can also contribute their say.

If I had thought that the scholar rather than the ex-politician in Chandra would prevail, I was mistaken.

Another reason not to have a debate

A few commentators also pointed to a key reason why a one-off debate is not in the public interest. This is because the intensive official media coverage of the event will, in all certainty, spin the debate in Chandra’s favour to ‘prove’ that the government has embarked on meaningful political changes as well as engage in the further demonizing of Bersih and the opposition.

Bitter experience has taught us that we have a media that is highly skilled in its ability to distort any story in favour of the government. Having a one-off debate covered by our dominant official media will play into the hands of the government and its numerous propaganda agencies (Utusan Malaysia, Berita Harian, NST, RTM, TV3, etc).

I am sure Chandra will not want to be an unwitting tool to any spin (of the debate) by the government. Hence I am appealing to him to reflect on his own media experiences when he was in Aliran and Parti Keadilan, and to accept my proposal for our forum to be held in cyberspace without further excuse.

To assuage his concerns that the Internet forum will generate more heat than light, I would like to propose that we have one of our eminent social science colleagues moderate the forum and for the two of us to be permitted extended space and time to continue our debate. On a matter of such national importance as described by Chandra, this commitment of time is surely the minimal that we can provide.

I am sure that Chandra’s employer the Universiti Sains Malaysia will not only give him recognition and time-off to lead the Internet forum but also that they will prefer a scholarly exchange rather than a one-off debate in which egos rather than substance may be more likely to be prominently displayed.

Speak to the Vice Chancellor and other colleagues on this proposal, Chandra, before you dismiss it out of hand.

The other parts of Chandra’s note are really quite sad and even poignant.

Exposure threat

Firstly, with regard to his threat that he will reveal how I have “metamorphosed from Marxist to MCA intellectual to PR apologist” – that does not frighten me in the least.

Come on Chandra, you really don’t need to give me notice. You have my go ahead to do your worse. But let me provide some empirical data to give you pause.

Yes, I do have Marxist tendencies on an issue-by-issue basis – more pronounced when I was younger but still visible on some key challenges. (See my recent piece ‘Breaking up wealth concentration in Malaysia’ published on Feb 2, 2012 in CPI).

On being an MCA intellectual, when a replacement policy to the New Economic Policy (NEP) was being considered by the government in 1990, I was nominated by the MCA to sit in the National Economic Consultative Council (NECC) convened to prepare the post-NEP policy. This appointment was made arising from my position as an independent academic.

Prior to that, I provided inputs to the MCA’s report on ‘Deviations in the NEP’. I regard that NECC period with mixed feelings as I have always been and still am – both in private as well as in public – critical of the role played by MCA in the country’s political development.

The stint with the NECC, however, provided me the unusual opportunity and opening to work within the system so as to affect a breakaway from the dominant NEP paradigm and to help the country to a new path of development. As a member of the five-man drafting committee set up to break the deadlock over the final submission, I am proud that we were able to produce a national policy report which was well ahead of its time in terms of its merit-based, non-racial philosophy.

Although the Mahathir administration cherry-picked through the report in the follow-up national policy after 1990 and ignored our major recommendations relating to a timeline for ending the NEP, establishing an independent national policy monitoring mechanism and implementing a needs-based approach, our report was instrumental in liberalizing higher education and socio-cultural policy as well as in moving economic policy away from its narrow racial and stultifying approach.

Many members of the NECC have recognized my contribution in working against the odds over a three-year period to ensure the completion of a landmark report. I am sure they will be happy to correct or confirm any impression that Chandra may have of my role and contribution during that period.

I have written on this episode of my career in a chapter that will appear in a book assessing Abdullah Badawi’s contribution to the country as prime minister. I am happy to give Chandra permission to obtain the draft of the chapter from the book editors so he can scrutinize it to substantiate his threat.

Finally as to my final incarnation as a PR apologist, I have spoken in support of a PKR candidate at public rallies on two occasions and have provided comments on the country’s leadership in the way of Anwar Ibrahim’s impact which appeared in a 2009 article ‘The Malay Dilemma’ in the New Yorker magazine. This is the sum total of what can be construed as my service as a PR apologist – quite short and undistinguished, compared with Chandra’s.

I apologize for boring readers with these personal details. However, they are necessary to rebut the insinuations made. In summary, my intellectual positions have mostly (I cannot say always) been consistent both as a scholar and civil activist.

I have spent 26 years researching on poverty and rural development issues. Six of these years were as a graduate student mainly in the archives, whereas the many, many hours in the field were with fishermen, Felda settlers, Risda smallholders, paddy farmers and other marginalized communities.

Unlike those who have pontificated on the issues of “economic justice and equitable distribution of wealth” from the comfort of air-conditioned rooms or political pulpits, I have combined scholarly research with social activism when I was with the Consumers Association of Penang (CAP) and Sahabat Alam Malaysia (SAM). I still do so.

My colleagues, who have worked in academia and in the NGO circles with me in the past can be interviewed, should Chandra or Umno or Barisan supporters be interested in digging up any inconsistency or other muck on me to be put out for public consumption.

Pity Chandra

Most people do not need to recite ad infinitum how well balanced or consistent they are in their views on political or social change, or to repeat the same old tired stories to prove their consistency or scholarly integrity. Action proves louder than words.

When a person protests too much of how balanced, ethical and moral he is; how independent or full of integrity he is; he must expect Malaysians to sit up and take notice – especially when that person puts himself up in the public limelight as often as Chandra has done.

He writes:

[Teck Ghee] accuses me of “intellectual gymnastics”, of changing my position, of doing a volte face. He is not the only one to do this. Many others have. Some have used vulgar and vicious language. In fact, every time an article of mine appears in cyber media, there would an avalanche of crude, coarse, sometimes cruel comments giving the impression that the assault on me is well orchestrated and organised.”

Firstly, let me assure Chandra that I am not part of a well-orchestrated and organized assault on him, and never will be. While I have problems understanding his recent turnaround on several major issues, I have kept them private – after all, we were good friends for 17 years and more.

Secondly, while I sympathize with his predicament, many will say that he has brought it upon himself. Those of his students, associates and even family friends who have written to express their disappointment and displeasure with his recent political positions have done so from the vantage point of close interaction with him, before and after his stint as an opposition politician.

In my view, that avalanche of critical comments (in the thousands) and assault on his integrity is not organized or orchestrated. It has cascaded spontaneously and in many cases, reluctantly and sadly, from many people who once admired his principled positions but who now cannot stomach reading what he has to offer. There is no plot against Chandra. The only one there is, is in his own mind.

In my own case, his unscholarly piece lambasting Bersih and in particular his final pronouncement on the movement’s leaders as “frauds and hypocrites without any sincere commitment to freedom and democracy” who “[t]hrough their politics of deceit and duplicity…continue to manipulate mass sentiments for their own diabolical agenda” was the last straw.

That article convinced me that he needed to be publicly responded to, and that silence or non-response would only embolden him and his supporters in their propaganda war demonizing Bersih and the opposition.

It is not surprising that Chandra’s allegations – though bereft of evidence or scholarly backing – has resonated with the government, its supporters and extremist groups especially. It is not surprisingly that the government has now gone on the offensive accusing Bersih and the opposition of plotting a coup and planning to overthrow the government through violent means – a claim echoed by former premier Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad and taken up by the police.

Advertently or inadvertently, Chandra has provided the government with the ‘intellectual capital’ to justify turning the clock back in the struggle for a more democratic and free country.

Since his unprofessional lambasting of Bersih’s leaders, he has remained quiet when asked for scholarly evidence to prove his charge. I urge Chandra once again not to dodge the issue and to put the record straight on his serious allegation as soon as possible.

READ MORE HERE

Sarawak Report

Big enough stage for Najib Razak? Maybe – but not large enough for Bersih 3.0!

The Malaysian Prime Minister, Najib Razak, has hired London’s top venue to stage a self-promoting event, all at the cost of taxpayers, next week!

The O2 Arena, known locally as the Dome, is one of the UK capital’s most eye-catching modern landmarks and it will feature as a key location for the up-coming Olympics.

It is also frequently used to host major pop concerts, such as the fateful Michael Jackson final tour.

However, on Monday Najib Razak has commandeered it for an event starring himself. ‘An Evening With The Prime Minister’!

According to the London High Commission website all Malaysian’s living in the UK are invited to attend what is billed as a free event, with food and and drink provided and cultural entertainment on offer throughout.

Sarawakians, for whom the fund for hard core rural poverty could only afford RM3.47million this year were left aghast.

“Why is Najib spending this sort of money on a foreign PR event”? asked one bemused London student.  ”Does he think it plays back home, because hardly any Malaysians living in London are allowed to vote?  The only people who can vote are government workers and they are forced to vote BN anyway!

Another told Sarawak Report

“This is a party political electioneering event that will have cost millions to stage. It is not correct to spend public money on this sort of PR event and I don’t think people will be impressed that it is being held in Britain either.  Perhaps he just does not dare hold a rally in KL anymore after the turn out for Berish 3.0!”

Organised by the Malaysian High Commission – at your expense!

‘Hired audience’ to be bussed in from all over the UK !

‘Unmissable opportunity” – according to the promoters from the High Commission!

Even more scandalous, Sarawak Report can reveal that the High Commission is also arranging for free transport and provisions for students to attend the event from all over the UK!

Students from as far away as Edinburgh University up in Scotland have been urged to attend in a highly organised effort by diplomats.  The roundup is presumably designed to avoid too many empty front row seats that might otherwise be picked up by cameras beaming back pictures to the censored media in Malaysia.

An insider email has been passed to Sarawak Report, revealing the scale of the operation:

“The Coordintor for the entire event is the Malaysian High Commission in London. They are targeting 1000 Malaysians to join in the gathering.

Travel by Coach to London will be provided. Refreshments and a Dinner pack will be served on the Coach. All branches are asked to confirm attendee numbers so that we will know whether to book one of two Coaches. Please pass this message to your local groups(?) and other Malaysians. Get back to me with the total number.

Ideally, let me know by Tuesday 8th May so that i can submit the Budget and total number of attendees to the High Commission.

This is not a formal gathering – the PM will just say a few words and will then mingle with the crowd throughout the evening.

if anyone is interested , please pass me your name, phone number and University. Thanks [email to student organisers]

 Read more at: http://www.sarawakreport.org/2012/05/najib-plans-puff-tour-of-uk-at-taxpayers-expense-exclusive/

Fortunately, Mr. Tan Sek Choong, feature writer from Merdekareview.com found out that Lynas has been misleading the public in their experiment [3].  He found out that the salt used is not the typical sodium chloride (NaCl) type used in Malaysian households, but a low-sodium substitute containing potassium chloride (KCl).  The brand of the substitute is Diet Rite Lite Salt and it is imported from Australia (see picture).  High sodium intake can lead to  hypertension, and the substitute is thought to be a healthier alternative, although KCl is toxic when consumed in excess [4].