Right to free election, a fair election; not a manipulated election...
Showing posts with label Politic. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politic. Show all posts
Sunday, July 17, 2011
Monday, March 28, 2011
Radiation fear, another global politic contagion?
The contagion of Japan Radiation fear has spread globally,
Fears over the Japan nuclear crisis triggered a crushing defeat for Chancellor Angela Merkel's conservatives in their German heartland Sunday, as the ecologist Greens roared to a historic triumph.
Merkel's Christian Democrats (CDU) have ruled wealthy Baden-Wuerttemberg, home to industrial giants Daimler and Bosch, for 58 years, but her on-again, off-again support for nuclear power spooked voters ahead of the crucial poll.
The anti-nuclear Greens won a record 24 percent of the vote -- more than 12 points higher than in 2006 -- and were likely for the first time to lead a coalition with the Social Democrats, who garnered about 23 percent.
The opposition edged out Merkel's party and the Free Democrats (FDP), their junior partners in the state and at the national level, who claimed a dismal 44 percent between them.
Forty-five percent of voters called nuclear power a key issue in light of the disaster in Japan, and Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle, the FDP leader, pledged another rethink in Berlin.
"The dreadful events in Japan, the nuclear accident in Fukushima and the consequences for us in Germany: these were the most decisive topics in this state election," Westerwelle said.
"It was a referendum on the future of atomic energy."
Social Democrats leader Sigmar Gabriel declared: "Today the final decision on the end of nuclear power in Germany was made."
(source: extract from German nuclear fears trigger Merkel party poll debacle, By Deborah Cole | AFP News, http://my.news.yahoo.com/merkel-alliance-braces-german-state-poll-disaster-20110327-002904-762.html )
Coming back to country closer to Japan, the radiation fear is also spread to Kuantan Pahang state, Malaysia.
The massive earthquake in Japan and the resulting tsunami has also added fears about the plant in Malaysia’s east coast which faces the Pacific Rim’s ring of fire, the world’s active volcanic region. The 8.9 magnitude earthquake in Japan and the 10-metre high tsunami it sent surging into cities and villages, sweeping away everything in its path.
Australian mining company Lynas Corporation has begun construction of the rare earth refinery in Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s home state, raising fears of a repeat of the radiation pollution in Bukit Merah, Perak that has been linked to at least eight leukemia cases in the local community there.
The Asian Rare Earth plant is now the subject of a quiet US$100 million (RM303 million) cleanup exercise by Mitsubishi Chemical which shut down the facility nearly two decades ago.
The New York Times reported this week that the refinery in Gebeng, just 70 kilometres north of Najib’s Pekan constituency, will be the first such plant outside China in nearly three decades.
Environmental hazards have made other countries wary of rare earth processing, leaving China to control 95 per cent of global supply of rare earth metals.
The metals are crucial to high technology products such as the Apple iPhone, Toyota Prius and Boeing’s smart bombs.
The newspaper said that if prices of the metals stayed at current levels, the Lynas plant would generate over RM5 billion a year in exports for Malaysia, or nearly one per cent of its entire economy.
However, Lynas corporate and business development vice president Matthew James has denied that the plant will be dangerous and told The Malaysian Insider that radiation will be minimal as the raw material used has only 2 per cent of the thorium found in the material processed in Bukit Merah.
Thorium is the radioactive element found in nearly all rare earth deposits.
The RM700 million rare earth refinery being built near Kuantan is set to be a major election issue with Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim now calling for a campaign to alert residents there about the dangers of radiation pollution.
(aource: Extract from The Malaysian Insider – Sat, Mar 12, 2011 2:18 PM MYT, http://my.news.yahoo.com/anwar-calls-for-movement-against-pahang-rare-earth-20110311-183242-669.html)
Will the Japan radiation plant event cause a chain of reactions as geopolitics contagion effect like the recent Jasmine uprising, causing political changes to countries having political dispute on nuclear energy issue? . Germany is clearly on the way for a change, will Malaysia and other countries followed?........
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
South Sudan is a new country
View Larger Map
Southern Sudan, (Arabic: جنوب السودان, Janūb as-Sūdān) also known as South Sudan, is an autonomous region in the southern part of the Sudan, soon to become an independent country. Juba is its capital city. It is bordered by Ethiopia to the east; Kenya, Uganda, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo to the south; and the Central African Republic to the west. To the north lies the predominantly Arab and Muslim region directly under the control of the central government, with its capital at Khartoum. Southern Sudan includes the vast swamp region of the Sudd formed by the White Nile, locally called the Bahr al Jebel. The region's autonomous status is a condition of a peace agreement between the Sudan People's Liberation Army/Movement (SPLA/M) and the Government of Sudan represented by the National Congress Party ending the Second Sudanese Civil War. The conflict was Africa's longest running civil war
Wrong Perception of civil war
North Sudan has historically had close ties with Egypt and is predominantly Arab and Muslim. Sudanese Arabs are, to the distinction of Middle Eastern Arabs, primarily descended from Nubians, who were arabised through immigration, intermarriage, and the introduction of Islam and the Arabic language. British colonial powers exacerbated the differences between the northern and southern parts of Sudan and arguably laid the seed for the conflict that followed after Sudan declared its independence in 1956.
There is wrong perception that the civil war of Sudan is war between Islamic Sudan of the North, and Christian South Sudan. North Sudan's population is mainly Arab and Muslim. South Sudan is predominantly Animists with a Christian minority (15 to 20%), so it is not Christian majority, but animists majority.
So it is not civil war based on religion, it is not religion war. It is political....
South Sudan independence
A referendum on independence for Southern Sudan was held from 9–15 January 2011. Preliminary results released by the Southern Sudan Referendum Commission on 30 January 2011 indicate that 98% of voters selected the "separation" option, with 1% selecting "unity". The final resuls were announced on 7 February with 98.83% of the electorate opting for secession. The Sudanese Government accepted the outcome of the referendum the same day. Southern Sudan is expected to become an independent country on 9 July 2011.
The Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) defines Southern Sudan as three southern provinces (Bahr el Ghazal, Equatoria, and Upper Nile) of the Southern Sudan Autonomous Region, leaving out Nuba Mountains, Abyei and Blue Nile. Abyei will hold a referendum on joining Southern Sudan or staying under Sudanese control, while Nuba Mountains (South Kurdufan as a whole) and Blue Nile are required to hold ill-defined "popular consultations".
Related articles
(i)North Sudan separatists celebrate referendum result in Khartoum,http://www.sudantribune.com/North-Sudan-separatists-celebrate,37912
(2)It's official: South Sudan set to secede with a 99.57 percent vote, http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Africa/2011/0130/It-s-official-South-Sudan-set-to-secede-with-a-99.57-percent-vote
(3)South Sudan votes to secede, http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/02/20112714264792774.html
Friday, October 23, 2009
Auditor-General’s Report 2008
The Star reported on 23-10-2009 that the Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak, has stated that there would be action taken against those found to be non-performing or guilty of misusing government funds as highlighted in the Auditor-General’s Report 2008. Big cheer to the Prime Minister.....
As for non-performance, it is the internal matter of the government, they already set up a ministry specifically for performance measurement of their ministers, that is the job of Tan Sri Dr Koh Tzu Koon and his ministry. We are yet to see how the new KPI system adopted will improve the performance of the ministers and their ministries. KPI had been adopted in performance management of the corporate sector, and it is not a perfect system, it is still open for abuse and biased measurement to achieve their KPIs. We have yet to see how it is to be implemented. The ultimate KPI and performance measurement deciders are the voters who voted the government, they will have the final say.
As for the misusing of government funds, I was wondering how the purchase were authorized, who conducted the feasibility study of the products purchased, especially high value products. Is there any Need Analysis conducted?. The shortcomings reported by Auditor General were annual affairs, unlike the corporate sector, the government sector seems not to put much effort to remedy the shortcoming. Some seems to ignore the report. There are few reported action taken against the party involved when government losses monies(in fact people's monies). As trustee of people's monies, the government need to ensure all the wrongdoers are punished for their action. The punitive measure must include court action and be transparent to the public.
The Auditor General should also published the follow up report on action taken on the shortcomings, and disclosed to the public. Disclosure is important as it is government monies, and also people's monies, the citizen want to know what action have been taken against the wrong doers, and what measure has taken to remedy the shortcomings, what prevention measure have been taken by the ministries or departments itself. The citizen want to know how their taxed monies was used......
This is promised by the Prime Minister, we will want to see the quick action by MACC( the speed must be equal to how they deal with politician). We want to see the court action against the clear cut corruption case. The citizen is watching....
The punitive measure taken should not restricted only to central government , but also state government(including states controlled by opposition parties), local councils, SEDC(State Economic Development Corporation), and all government agencies. Heads need to roll, service need to improve, performance need to be seen, citizen need to be served with more effectively.
We would like to see the promise by the PM fulfilled , and the system of good governance implemented. There must be accountability and transparency.
We are waiting for the change.......and our performance measurement will be on next election. Watch up, all politician and government servants.....We are watching.....
As for non-performance, it is the internal matter of the government, they already set up a ministry specifically for performance measurement of their ministers, that is the job of Tan Sri Dr Koh Tzu Koon and his ministry. We are yet to see how the new KPI system adopted will improve the performance of the ministers and their ministries. KPI had been adopted in performance management of the corporate sector, and it is not a perfect system, it is still open for abuse and biased measurement to achieve their KPIs. We have yet to see how it is to be implemented. The ultimate KPI and performance measurement deciders are the voters who voted the government, they will have the final say.
As for the misusing of government funds, I was wondering how the purchase were authorized, who conducted the feasibility study of the products purchased, especially high value products. Is there any Need Analysis conducted?. The shortcomings reported by Auditor General were annual affairs, unlike the corporate sector, the government sector seems not to put much effort to remedy the shortcoming. Some seems to ignore the report. There are few reported action taken against the party involved when government losses monies(in fact people's monies). As trustee of people's monies, the government need to ensure all the wrongdoers are punished for their action. The punitive measure must include court action and be transparent to the public.
The Auditor General should also published the follow up report on action taken on the shortcomings, and disclosed to the public. Disclosure is important as it is government monies, and also people's monies, the citizen want to know what action have been taken against the wrong doers, and what measure has taken to remedy the shortcomings, what prevention measure have been taken by the ministries or departments itself. The citizen want to know how their taxed monies was used......
This is promised by the Prime Minister, we will want to see the quick action by MACC( the speed must be equal to how they deal with politician). We want to see the court action against the clear cut corruption case. The citizen is watching....
The punitive measure taken should not restricted only to central government , but also state government(including states controlled by opposition parties), local councils, SEDC(State Economic Development Corporation), and all government agencies. Heads need to roll, service need to improve, performance need to be seen, citizen need to be served with more effectively.
We would like to see the promise by the PM fulfilled , and the system of good governance implemented. There must be accountability and transparency.
We are waiting for the change.......and our performance measurement will be on next election. Watch up, all politician and government servants.....We are watching.....
Friday, July 10, 2009
Kampong Buah Pala( II)
Friday July 10, 2009, The Star online
Kg Buah Pala files declassified
By K. SUTHAKAR, ANDREA FILMER and WINNIE YEOH
GEORGE TOWN: In the ongoing Kampung Buah Pala saga, the DAP-led state government has declassified confidential minutes of the transfer of the 2.6ha land between the state government and Koperasi Pegawai Kerajaan Pulau Pinang Bhd during the previous Barisan Nasional administration.
Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng yesterday released a chronological summary of events beginning from the application for the development on the land by the cooperative in early November 2001.
The summary revealed that the north-east district of the state Land Office recommended that the application be rejected as two earlier proposals by Tetuan Pembinaan Baufort Sdn Bhd and Tetan Edaran Pelita Sdn Bhd had been rejected by the state executive council in August 1999.
However, the land committee called for a proposal on the grounds that the applicant was a cooperative and it would benefit its members.
The state executive council postponed its decision twice – on Dec 11, 2002 and again on Aug 11, 2004, after exco member Datuk Koay Kar Huah said that the place was unsuitable for high-rise development. There was also proposals from then Chief Minister Tan Sri Dr Koh Tsu Koon for the cooperative to reduce the density of the project in return for a reduced land premium.
August 18, 2004 - the executive council approved the co-operative’s application on the condition that the needs and welfare of the squatters were addressed
July 12, 2005 - an approval letter was issued to the cooperative by the state Land Office for a premium of RM6.4mil.
August 8, 2005 - the cooperative appealed for a lower premium on grounds that it had to pay roughly RM3mil in compensation to squatters.
The land administrator and land committee suggested a 50% discount (RM3.2mil) but the executive councils postponed the matter three times after Koay and another state exco member P.K. Subbaiyah wanted to look into the issues of the squatters and residents who had asked for a piece of replacement land.
March 22, 2007 - the cooperative released a compensation offer to squatters residing at Kampung Buah Pala.
The agreement offered each family one 850 sq ft house worth RM75,000, an RM1,000 relocation payment and RM750 a month for rental subsidy for a period of 36 months until the houses were constructed.
For residents not interested in this package, the cooperative offered one-off payments of RM90,000 per family.
April 25, 2007- the state exco conducted extensive discussions and the then Deputy Chief Minister Datuk Seri Abdul Rashid Abdullah was reported as saying that the compensation offer by the cooperative was “far better” then what was stipulated in the state guidelines. The 50% discount on the land premium was approved on the same day.
October 2007 - 14 families that agreed to the compensation package allowed their houses to be demolished, but only one house was demolished after Koay’s objection.
March 14, 2008 - the cooperative settled RM2.24mil which was the balance payment for the land which had been paid in stages since January 2006.
27th March 2008- The property grant detailing the lease of the land for 99 years was subsequently registered by the state land registry on March 27 last year.
(source: The Star)
The rightful owner
The land was legally owned by Helen Margaret Brown on 1938, she was the rightful owner, and has power to transfer the title to others. She transfer the land to a housing trust for the benefit of her company's workers. At that time, the housing trust was under Housing Trust Act 1950, which was repealed by the Housing Trust (Dissolution) Act 1976. Helen Brown donated the land to the housing trust.
On the reverse side of the Grant of Land, we can see the “sub-divided Lot 691 acquired by Crown for housing Trust - vested in Crown on 12.4.(1954?)”.
The residents are not squatters
Squatting is the act of occupying an abandoned or unoccupied space or building, usually residential, that the squatter does not own, rent or otherwise have permission to use
Obviously from the documents obtained, the residents of Kampong Buah Pala are not squatters, the land was given to the housing trust for the benefit of the workers, the residents are the descendants of these workers. The trust document should provide some clues on the right of the workers/residents, where is the document? They are only squatters if they have no right to reside there, but the residents are allowed to stay under the Housing Trust .....TOL is another issue, and the reason why it come up is doubtful, and need to see the original trust document. Unless they are not the descendants of the Tamil plantation workers under Brown's estates,there will be complication. But UNFORTUNATELY under NLC, as long as you are registered as the owner of the land, you have indefeasible title as legal owner per S340 of NLC, the new owner is the developer if they have their name registered with the Land authority. Technically under the law, other person who occupied the land are considered squatters. Now, it become complicated, it is legal issue for the court to decide if there is any dispute on the legal right based on S340(2)(a) to (c)e.g.when registration of the said land involved element of fraud/misrepresentation or forgery, by means of insufficient or void instrument, or where the title was unlawfully acquired. But the residents who are the descendants , of the Tamil workers prior to year the Housing Trust was created, may have legal interest in the land, as the Housing Trust was created for the benefit of them.
Kampong Buah Pala residents' ancestors
As to the history of the workers to the Glugor Estate, Tamils had been in ancient Malaya long time ago. When Capt Francis Light found George Town in 1786, Indian called Chulias had been here, the Chulia Street was named after them. During 1795-1806, Penang was a Penal Colony, British Crown sent the Indian convicts to Penang. The Fort Cornwallis, Chowrasta Street and Penang Road Police Station were the early convict prisons. They were normally worked as construction workers for Crown Engineer Corps. They were not the ancestors of the residents of Kampong Buah Pala, the ancestors were the workers bought in to work in Brown's estates. The estates are Gelugor Estate( Periya Thottam), Sungai Nibong, Sungai Dua Estate(Sinna Thottam). David Brown came in 1800, and become the largest land owner in 1808, after the death of James Scott,when he took over Scott & Co when James Scott become bankrupt due to his wrong investment in James Town(Bayan Lepas). It is highly possible that it may be after 1800, the Tamils started to be employed in the estate, and only in 1810, David Brown cultivated nutmeg in extensive scale. So it was possible that after 1810, an influx of Tamil estate workers were coming from India to work in Brown's estate. Those working in Glugor Estate before 1954(?) were the ancestors of the residents of Kampong Buah Pala. Some of the families may be working for Glugor Estate since 1810, nearly 200 years(by next year 2010), it is possible that they may be there for 200 years, or at least 55 years(since 1954 assume he was new recruit immediately the land was vested to the Crown).
What is housing trust?
The Colonial Housing Policy , a committee was set up in December 1946(after the WW2), which recommended the establishment of a Housin
So Helen Brown donated the land under Housing Trust , vested with the Crown for the purpose of social housing for her plantation workers. After independent, the Crown is the Federal Government. But the land matter is state control, that raise the dispute of the owner(or trustee)? After statutory law changes, which dissolved the Housing Act 1950, what law govern the housing trust?Is it the Law of Trust? Is it under Public Trust after that ? Who is the trustee? What is the duty, obligation , and right of the trustee? What are the terms of the Trust Deed? This will provide the answer to who has the right to sell the said land.
We still need to see the Trust Deed( or Trust document) of Helen Brown, Housing Trust Act 1950, any statutory act replacing the Housing Trust Act after the dissolution of the said Act and what was the legal transition? is the land under Public Trust? . The necessary documentary evidence and expert of a lawyer to find it. No more political game.....
Why sell to other party to develop, if the original housing trust provided the power for the trust to develop the said land , by the trust itself?. This is another issue....
The crucial point of time,is still was after the Housing Trust 1950 Act no longer apply, what happen to the trust land? Who was the legal owner? Did the state government has the legal right to sell the the trust land? Are the past transaction legal?
The Deputy CM said that it may be land scam, then proper action need to be taken fast. May be a high level panel to be set up, with members from independent professionals, to investigate the matter. Kampong Buah Pala case has become a public issue, no longer a merely localized issue or political issue for political parties, the administration of the land matter need to be review.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
20-6-2009, Remember this day
Aung San Suu Kyi, Burma
Burma's famous opposition leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, spent her 64th birthday on 20-6-2009 Friday at a high-security prison outside Rangoon. The pro-democracy leader has spent 13 of the last 19 years under house arrest by the military junta and is currently awaiting the re-opening of her trial on charges of violating her house arrest.
Neda Salehi Agha-Soltan , Iran
On 20-6-2009, the Angel of Iran Miss Neda Salehi Agha-Soltan was shot and killed, during the street demonstration. She died because she only said that she wanted democracy and freedom for the people of Iran. Her name in Farsi is "Voice", the voice of democracy and freedom for Iran. Friends of Agha-Soltan described her as a relatively apolitical person, but that anger over the election results prompted her to join the protest. Panahi , her music teacher who was with Neda during the street demonstration, said : "All she wanted was the proper vote of the people to be counted. She wanted to show with her presence that, 'I'm here, I also voted, and my vote wasn't counted'. It was a very peaceful act of protest, without any violence.".
Why kill her? Is that anything wrong with her voice?
Aung San Suu Kyi from Burma who suffered imprisonment, deprive of her freedom; and Neda from Iran who died, giving her life to her country she loved. Both of them, for the democracy of their respective country.
20-6-2009, is World Refugee Day.......another swarm of refugee is expected to be coming from the two countries......Burma and Iran. It seems that the global refugee issue will not end, as long as politician valued their power more than their people.....
If readers want to know further of the two woman, please visit the youtube or internet website for the latest news....
Thursday, June 4, 2009
China in 1957
The first film by an American in China following the Communist victory in 1949. In 1957,after serving in the US Army at NATO Supreme Headquarters in Paris, Robert Carl Cohen was working for the Doctorate in Social Psychology at the Sorbonne when, defying the US State Department's "travel ban," he traveled across Siberia to film throughout China for NBC-TV. His reports were televised on the "Huntley News" & the "Today Show."
To know the China of yesterday and compared to China of today; the readers can see for themselves how the country has developed. Looking back, there were time of bitterness in their history like the Cultural Revolution;the Gang of Four era, China has wasted their time in history and delay in their development, it was the history of dark ages which many younger generation of today did not experienced; China has changed...you looked for yourselves, beginning from Robert Carl Cohen's film.... democracy is near, the younger generation has tasted the life of capitalism, they are more capitalist than American, the clock will not turn back... the clue is wait for the right timing to avoid drastic change as the interior China is still undeveloped,there were imbalance.....otherwise there will be chaos which many Chinese and global citizen do not want to see now, especially after the global financial crisis in 2008....China is no longer an island, she is now a global citizen which we must giver her the chance to play its rightful role in the world. To ignore China,is to ignore the world....
To know the China of yesterday and compared to China of today; the readers can see for themselves how the country has developed. Looking back, there were time of bitterness in their history like the Cultural Revolution;the Gang of Four era, China has wasted their time in history and delay in their development, it was the history of dark ages which many younger generation of today did not experienced; China has changed...you looked for yourselves, beginning from Robert Carl Cohen's film.... democracy is near, the younger generation has tasted the life of capitalism, they are more capitalist than American, the clock will not turn back... the clue is wait for the right timing to avoid drastic change as the interior China is still undeveloped,there were imbalance.....otherwise there will be chaos which many Chinese and global citizen do not want to see now, especially after the global financial crisis in 2008....China is no longer an island, she is now a global citizen which we must giver her the chance to play its rightful role in the world. To ignore China,is to ignore the world....
毋忘六四, Tiananmen Square 1989
Some said June 4th,1989 at Tiananmen Square was a massacre. Some said it was not only in Tiananmen Square but also the whole of Beijing. Other said it was only Tiananmen Square killings...there was no clear picture of what happen there. We saw the pictures from the news, from western media. I was in the room at Kuantan listening the whole night to the news. This was the day that I never forget....
The video posted from youtube was a classic scenes at that time, a man trying to block the moving of the tanks. Please do not take the narration as that was the view of the author of the video. But the video is real, there was a man who had courage to stop the movement of the tank, he did not leave his name, unlike the student leaders who become famous and enjoyed life in the west. Where is this man?
I will remember the day but I treated it as an event that need to come, it need to be part of history of the modern China. It was a catalyst for the democracy of China, the process still continue, how you looked at it and interpreted it, it need to happen and it had happened. Not the student leaders, but the masses of the students whose names are unknown, that start the event. Please do not give too much credit to the student leaders, looking at their lifestyle now, only few are still active to the agenda of the event. I only remember Wang Dan(王丹),and he is the one I respect. There are many who may be dead, in prisons, or still in China living to contribute to the democracy of China, some may be in the current leadership of the Chinese government.... They are the real hero, not the student leaders who escaped and provided negative feedback of their motherland to the mass media.... some said they may be supported by the CIA in the events, we do not know.... The leaders was like any political leaders, fail or success,they will be known to the world... but the masses, will be unknown forever, they are the real hero, like the one who stopped the tanks, remained unknown.... they are the real hero. They started the change, and the change is still taking place in China.....
The Tiananmen Square protests was an event, evolved from the political reform; the students are not patient with the slowness of the change. The global events happened at the time e.g. East Europe and Russia, provided a ripe environment for the Tiananmen Protest, but the Chinese politic was more complicated than what the students perceived; the internal struggle of the reformist and the hardcore communists, the imbalance development of coastal economic zones and the interior; where the timing was not ripe for a drastic change. It was reported that Wang Dan had foretold that the protest should stopped at the right timing, but it was not agreed by other student leaders.Otherwise, Zhao Ziyang will not be out from government, Wang Dan will be the future leader of China; together with Wen Jiabao(温家宝)today(note: Wen Jiabao was at the Tiananmen Square together with Zhao Ziyang, he was the chief assistant to General Secretary Zhao Ziyang). China cannot face any chaos at that time, the time they need a strong transformation leader. The timing was not right for any drastic change. There will be division of China, there will be civil war just like period after overthrown of Manchus or Qing Dynasty. The leadership at that time also fearful of the unknown, the superpowers are fanning the fire to see the change in China....I believed one day Wen Jiabao will tell the whole world what happen. Tiananmen 1989 was not a simple event, it was more complicated than student protests.
China was not ready for the change as expected by the West; China is not Russia. It had the history of two Opium War, where the nation was force to import the opium at the excuse of free trade. The coastal areas was forced to open to the West and some of their land was occupied by the invaders(e.g. Hong Kong, Shanghai....), a history they never forget.
It has been 20 years, China has changed, but the West still open the old wound. Why only Tiananmen? There are other massacre, like the Nanking Massacre, they are not talking about that?. Democracy will come to China,let the Chinese determine their style... not others. They know what is the best for them, no other can determine for them, not even the west.... looking at the history of China, it need a long time for the Chinese people to understand democracy, when the west did not know the real democracy, you do not expect the Chinese to import the wholesome democracy from USA, Europe....or anywhere, they must be developed from China's people itself.... it is long process and the process has started .... The early democracy of American and the democracy of USA today is totally different and it has been polluted , one major factor is the words clearly stated in the US dollar note " To God We Trust", which has been fading in their democracy. Looking at the democracy and freedom (with moral decay) records of the west, the total freedom concept with no constraint in regard to religion, value and culture of other people; I am sure China will not want the democracy of USA today, they experienced cultural revolution where the kids are given freedom without constraints, and there were destruction and damage to the culture, development and human lives... China need to be wise, and not to import the wholesome democracy form the west. In fact the negative impact of capitalism has been felt in coastal China. It will be another cultural revolution from the west.... where McDonald will defeat Beijing duck,....Democracy is an double edge sword, it can cut both side if not for the good of the people, there are a group of people who is using or abusing democracy and human right for their own agenda, will the Chinese majority accept their agenda, they do not care.....just like the opium was forced to be imported to China at the expense of freedom of trade, the negative effect of opium? they did not care.... it is just another platform for the politician, be it government or NGO or.... they have their hidden agenda on China.... history will only tell the truth one day.
China need to know what they want, their choice,their people's choice.....
The real democracy is , the people choice....and it must be for the good of the people. The world has to respect the Chinese people's choice, and not to forcefully imposed their own choice to Chinese people...that is also democracy, respect of other people's choice. Help China to change at their own phase, we would not want China to loose another good leader, Wen Jiaboa must not be another Zhao Ziyang....After all, it was 20 years ago, China is no longer Tienanmen China in 1989, China has changed and it is moving forward.......
Related posting: 8-5-2009 with the title "May Fourth Movement五四運動"
The video posted from youtube was a classic scenes at that time, a man trying to block the moving of the tanks. Please do not take the narration as that was the view of the author of the video. But the video is real, there was a man who had courage to stop the movement of the tank, he did not leave his name, unlike the student leaders who become famous and enjoyed life in the west. Where is this man?
I will remember the day but I treated it as an event that need to come, it need to be part of history of the modern China. It was a catalyst for the democracy of China, the process still continue, how you looked at it and interpreted it, it need to happen and it had happened. Not the student leaders, but the masses of the students whose names are unknown, that start the event. Please do not give too much credit to the student leaders, looking at their lifestyle now, only few are still active to the agenda of the event. I only remember Wang Dan(王丹),and he is the one I respect. There are many who may be dead, in prisons, or still in China living to contribute to the democracy of China, some may be in the current leadership of the Chinese government.... They are the real hero, not the student leaders who escaped and provided negative feedback of their motherland to the mass media.... some said they may be supported by the CIA in the events, we do not know.... The leaders was like any political leaders, fail or success,they will be known to the world... but the masses, will be unknown forever, they are the real hero, like the one who stopped the tanks, remained unknown.... they are the real hero. They started the change, and the change is still taking place in China.....
The Tiananmen Square protests was an event, evolved from the political reform; the students are not patient with the slowness of the change. The global events happened at the time e.g. East Europe and Russia, provided a ripe environment for the Tiananmen Protest, but the Chinese politic was more complicated than what the students perceived; the internal struggle of the reformist and the hardcore communists, the imbalance development of coastal economic zones and the interior; where the timing was not ripe for a drastic change. It was reported that Wang Dan had foretold that the protest should stopped at the right timing, but it was not agreed by other student leaders.Otherwise, Zhao Ziyang will not be out from government, Wang Dan will be the future leader of China; together with Wen Jiabao(温家宝)today(note: Wen Jiabao was at the Tiananmen Square together with Zhao Ziyang, he was the chief assistant to General Secretary Zhao Ziyang). China cannot face any chaos at that time, the time they need a strong transformation leader. The timing was not right for any drastic change. There will be division of China, there will be civil war just like period after overthrown of Manchus or Qing Dynasty. The leadership at that time also fearful of the unknown, the superpowers are fanning the fire to see the change in China....I believed one day Wen Jiabao will tell the whole world what happen. Tiananmen 1989 was not a simple event, it was more complicated than student protests.
China was not ready for the change as expected by the West; China is not Russia. It had the history of two Opium War, where the nation was force to import the opium at the excuse of free trade. The coastal areas was forced to open to the West and some of their land was occupied by the invaders(e.g. Hong Kong, Shanghai....), a history they never forget.
It has been 20 years, China has changed, but the West still open the old wound. Why only Tiananmen? There are other massacre, like the Nanking Massacre, they are not talking about that?. Democracy will come to China,let the Chinese determine their style... not others. They know what is the best for them, no other can determine for them, not even the west.... looking at the history of China, it need a long time for the Chinese people to understand democracy, when the west did not know the real democracy, you do not expect the Chinese to import the wholesome democracy from USA, Europe....or anywhere, they must be developed from China's people itself.... it is long process and the process has started .... The early democracy of American and the democracy of USA today is totally different and it has been polluted , one major factor is the words clearly stated in the US dollar note " To God We Trust", which has been fading in their democracy. Looking at the democracy and freedom (with moral decay) records of the west, the total freedom concept with no constraint in regard to religion, value and culture of other people; I am sure China will not want the democracy of USA today, they experienced cultural revolution where the kids are given freedom without constraints, and there were destruction and damage to the culture, development and human lives... China need to be wise, and not to import the wholesome democracy form the west. In fact the negative impact of capitalism has been felt in coastal China. It will be another cultural revolution from the west.... where McDonald will defeat Beijing duck,....Democracy is an double edge sword, it can cut both side if not for the good of the people, there are a group of people who is using or abusing democracy and human right for their own agenda, will the Chinese majority accept their agenda, they do not care.....just like the opium was forced to be imported to China at the expense of freedom of trade, the negative effect of opium? they did not care.... it is just another platform for the politician, be it government or NGO or.... they have their hidden agenda on China.... history will only tell the truth one day.
China need to know what they want, their choice,their people's choice.....
The real democracy is , the people choice....and it must be for the good of the people. The world has to respect the Chinese people's choice, and not to forcefully imposed their own choice to Chinese people...that is also democracy, respect of other people's choice. Help China to change at their own phase, we would not want China to loose another good leader, Wen Jiaboa must not be another Zhao Ziyang....After all, it was 20 years ago, China is no longer Tienanmen China in 1989, China has changed and it is moving forward.......
Related posting: 8-5-2009 with the title "May Fourth Movement五四運動"
Saturday, May 9, 2009
Black shirt, go ahead at last
We see hope, hope of awareness of democracy from the young Malaysian.
Listen to Wong Chin Huat's words carefully, Malaysian. It is inspiring....
This is democracy, the enforcement unit should re-educated themselves prior to take any action on citizen who exercise their right of expression in orderly manner. They should be neutral in politic. They are the protector of people, people's right of expression, the protector of democracy, did they played their role right? they are not the prey for politician...over-reaction for what? for who?. Read the Constitution, the right of citizen, otherwise if the enforcement unit is so powerful to arrest who they want, and not base on basis of law? what will happen to democracy? A police state. Read the law, I appeal.
We see hope and rainbow in democracy ...so what is the fuss if I wear black, yellow, red or rainbow shirt? It is the individual right of freedom of expression, the expression of my personality.
Remember the earlier video posting on the first lesson of democracy for politician; democracy is a personality.
The color of the dress is expression of the personality, democracy.
Democracy, democracy, and democracy.....did we understand democracy?
Listen to Wong Chin Huat's words carefully, Malaysian. It is inspiring....
This is democracy, the enforcement unit should re-educated themselves prior to take any action on citizen who exercise their right of expression in orderly manner. They should be neutral in politic. They are the protector of people, people's right of expression, the protector of democracy, did they played their role right? they are not the prey for politician...over-reaction for what? for who?. Read the Constitution, the right of citizen, otherwise if the enforcement unit is so powerful to arrest who they want, and not base on basis of law? what will happen to democracy? A police state. Read the law, I appeal.
We see hope and rainbow in democracy ...so what is the fuss if I wear black, yellow, red or rainbow shirt? It is the individual right of freedom of expression, the expression of my personality.
Remember the earlier video posting on the first lesson of democracy for politician; democracy is a personality.
The color of the dress is expression of the personality, democracy.
Democracy, democracy, and democracy.....did we understand democracy?
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Democracy- 7th May 2009 Black day for Perak
Democracy is demon go crazy, according to one Chinese scholar, Koh Hong Beng(辜鴻銘)1857-1928(who is from Penang). I now understand his wisdom and why he said that. Any excess freedom without the consideration of human life, or the other human's right is not beneficial democracy. Democracy is for the people, by the people; any political process is for the benefit of people, not just a specific person on their own agenda or platform.
In 2007,the United Nation General Assembly decided to observe 15th September as International Day of Democracy, the resolution affirmed that :-
"Democracy is a universal value based on freely- express will of the people to determine their own political, economic, social and cultural systems,and their full participation in all aspects of life"
Is the development of politic in Perak for the people? Is the elected representatives represented the people, their views? If they cannot able to represent the people, and their views, they should resign and not fit to hold any position in the government elected by the people. They have failed the people, and rightfully lost their representation.
Democracy , Demon go crazy - the Demon is the power crazy politician.....politician who go for power,position (and even merely an official car),instead of global financial crisis, H1N1....
Today is the black day for democracy in Malaysia. Who is the state leader for Perak? Where is the state government for Perak?
I am sad, as a Malaysian, who have seen the independence in 1957 and Malaysia's democracy was a model for many countries; today 2009 is a day of shame for the democracy. The victim is the citizen of the country who voted for their representative and faithfully paying tax so that the salaries of these appointed representatives of the people will be paid.
Democracy for the people? all these politician need to attend a course of basic democracy, best conducted by the United Nation. So they still remember who they represented and who voted for them.
We need to remember the culprits of all this chaos, the party hoppers, we need to remember today and show them the people power the next election. Give back the dignity of democracy,the Westminster system..and the dignity of the people's choice...
In Thailand, red and yellow shirt are allowed for both opposing parties; in Malaysia black shirt is not allowed. Democracy allow freedom of orderly demonstration, freedom of expression of will of people...Is our democracy lower than Thailand? Did the enforcement unit has the power to prohibit people wearing black shirt and freedom of expression?. Enforcement unit need to be neutral, and maintain order(when demonstration turn wild), not create their own order to prevent orderly demonstration(expression of the will of the people).... if not, what is the use and purpose of enforcement unit in democracy.
Malaysia boleh (Malaysia can...).... bukan boleh sahaja, apa pun boleh jadi( not only can, anything also can happen)....
Malu lah.... shameful....pity Perak.
Note: For readers who like to know more about 7th May state assembly chaos in Perak, Malaysia. Please visit www.youtube.com, and see for yourself. The Great DUN Perak fiasco by Malaysiakini.tv;507 Perak state assembly chaos by anakmalaysia 1990 are good video to understand what happen on the day.
In 2007,the United Nation General Assembly decided to observe 15th September as International Day of Democracy, the resolution affirmed that :-
"Democracy is a universal value based on freely- express will of the people to determine their own political, economic, social and cultural systems,and their full participation in all aspects of life"
Is the development of politic in Perak for the people? Is the elected representatives represented the people, their views? If they cannot able to represent the people, and their views, they should resign and not fit to hold any position in the government elected by the people. They have failed the people, and rightfully lost their representation.
Democracy , Demon go crazy - the Demon is the power crazy politician.....politician who go for power,position (and even merely an official car),instead of global financial crisis, H1N1....
Today is the black day for democracy in Malaysia. Who is the state leader for Perak? Where is the state government for Perak?
I am sad, as a Malaysian, who have seen the independence in 1957 and Malaysia's democracy was a model for many countries; today 2009 is a day of shame for the democracy. The victim is the citizen of the country who voted for their representative and faithfully paying tax so that the salaries of these appointed representatives of the people will be paid.
Democracy for the people? all these politician need to attend a course of basic democracy, best conducted by the United Nation. So they still remember who they represented and who voted for them.
We need to remember the culprits of all this chaos, the party hoppers, we need to remember today and show them the people power the next election. Give back the dignity of democracy,the Westminster system..and the dignity of the people's choice...
In Thailand, red and yellow shirt are allowed for both opposing parties; in Malaysia black shirt is not allowed. Democracy allow freedom of orderly demonstration, freedom of expression of will of people...Is our democracy lower than Thailand? Did the enforcement unit has the power to prohibit people wearing black shirt and freedom of expression?. Enforcement unit need to be neutral, and maintain order(when demonstration turn wild), not create their own order to prevent orderly demonstration(expression of the will of the people).... if not, what is the use and purpose of enforcement unit in democracy.
Malaysia boleh (Malaysia can...).... bukan boleh sahaja, apa pun boleh jadi( not only can, anything also can happen)....
Malu lah.... shameful....pity Perak.
Note: For readers who like to know more about 7th May state assembly chaos in Perak, Malaysia. Please visit www.youtube.com, and see for yourself. The Great DUN Perak fiasco by Malaysiakini.tv;507 Perak state assembly chaos by anakmalaysia 1990 are good video to understand what happen on the day.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Jackie Chan's democracy
This is an extract from the news, Yahoo on 20-4-2009;
HONG KONG - Action star Jackie Chan 's comments wondering whether Chinese people "need to be controlled" have drawn sharp rebuke in his native Hong Kong and in Taiwan .
Chan told a business forum in the southern Chinese province of Hainan that a free society may not be beneficial for China 's authoritarian mainland.
"I'm not sure if it's good to have freedom or not," Chan said Saturday. "I'm gradually beginning to feel that we Chinese need to be controlled. If we're not being controlled, we'll just do what we want."
He went on to say that freedoms in Hong Kong and Taiwan made those societies "chaotic."
Chan's comments drew applause from a predominantly Chinese audience of business leaders, but did not sit well with lawmakers in Taiwan and Hong Kong.
(source:Associated Press writer Annie Huang in Taipei,via Yahoo news. The photo of Jackie Chan was by TimVickers of US Navy, credited to him)
Some politician from Hong Kong and Taiwan said it is an insult to Chinese, and the comment is racist, on the statement that Chinese need to be controlled. I did not read the whole statement from Jackie Chan, but the statement that Chinese need to be controlled is of no wisdom, and can considered racist, why only Chinese? Freedom or Democracy need to be controlled, that will be a better statement from him and even I may not agree with his statement, but I will respect his personal view.
But if we look deeper, Chan's statement may have some wisdom, I may not totally agreed with him on the statement mentioned specifically for Chinese; but I do agree that democracy and freedom need to have limit or controlled, with rules. There is no absolute democracy,you can do anything you want base on your individual right. Democracy is demon go crazy, according to one Chinese scholar, Koh Hong Beng(辜鴻銘)1857-1928(who is from Penang). I now understand his wisdom and why he said that. Any excess freedom without the consideration of human life, or the other human's right is not beneficial democracy. Democracy is for the people, by the people; any political process is for the benefit of people, not just a specific person on their own agenda or platform. Look at the recent demonstration in Thailand, the democracy process to exercise of their right on freedom of demonstration, freedom of gathering. When they occupied the airport, when violence started, and physically attacked happen; and emotion turn wild.... it is no more beneficial to people anymore, whichever party or ideology they represented. Looked at the Cultural Revolution of China, the freedom to criticize by the youth, and when emotion turn wild,which the country failed to control, had resulted in many lives lost and chaotic situation for the nation. America is the advocacy of complete perfect democracy, the gun ownership issue, has caused life lost of innocent people. Freedom for who? democracy for whose benefit? There must be rules for the political game called freedom or democracy... otherwise when without control and the emotion go wild,the demon go crazy...and people not benefited.What is the use of democracy,just an ideology.
The founder of America were God abiding, and understand the human nature well. In the American dollar notes it is clearly printed " In God we trusted". There is control in democracy based on the Christian philosophy,In God We Trust, the rule and control of democracy, anything against God's teaching, we will not do it. America was then developed in rapid rate, a country whole world respected. There is restraint in their freedom and democracy, the founder of the greatest and biggest democracy country in the world understand true democracy. Looked at what happen to day, when we focus on individual human right(rather than people's right), the greedy wall street people caused the global financial crisis, and there was no control by the US government on the wall street based on liberation of capital market. The US contagion effect affect the whole world.... because they respect individual right more than the people right.
Looked at Singapore, and asked who benefit on the orderly society of Singapore; is the country progress... of course there may be some opposition...then so what? as long as people are happy, human are respected, and they can find peace and good living.....
When individual democracy conflict with people democracy(society or national democracy),which freedom or human right to prevail? Individual benefit or people benefit(society benefits)?... or country benefit? or global benefit?.Politic is for the benefit of people, whatever academic terms you called it , democracy, capitalism, socialism, communism, dictatorship.. if not for the benefit of people, it is merely academic exercise of politician, and their hidden personal agenda. History had proven that.
True democracy or absolute democracy or demon crazy?.....I wonder.........
Jackie Chan, I may not be your loyal fan; but on this point, I may agreed with you in a way.....
Monday, April 13, 2009
Asian Democracy?
I am sad about what happen in the political development of Thailand. At the time of global financial crisis, where the concern of people should take priority, instead of politic.
I was in the Bangkok immediately after the open of Bangkok airport during the last anti-government demonstration. My friends were rushing out of airport during the period. It was time of concern for our friends' safety. At that time we were on the way to North Thailand. We managed to arrive in Bangkok when others had left. Asian tourists were hardly seen, we are the only few in the Bangkok airport. However, the 1st demonstration was considered peaceful. The armies was neutral.
This is the 2nd demonstration of the other party, but the demonstration was turning violence,which was not normal for Thailand's politic. The armies have took the action, emergency rule has declared. I wonder why the police who are in charge of internal security did not take action to control and monitor the crowds? Why the army must come in?
Democracy is the process where forming of government is by majority of citizen who has won the election, to choose their representatives in the government. The elected citizens are normally from a political party, which was formed by citizens based on their common political ideas. It is a peaceful transfer of power for specific period. For the democracy to be successful, all parties involved in the election system, must respect the right of the winner. The election must be fair, otherwise there will be dispute. In the democracy, any dispute should be decided by the court. Democracy is a western product, Asian have difficulty to understand democracy, it is just not the culture, and need a long process of education. The end result of democracy is for the benefits of people. Individually, democracy is the right of individual, a human right, and freedom of individual provided any action is not against the law or result in the damage of other individual right and property. When political democracy failed, individual democracy will take its place to exert a change.
In the Thailand case, the result of the election was disputed, but the respective parties did not wait for the judgment of the court. They take to demonstration of individual right, freedom of expression, freedom of gathering..... . In the west, the demonstrators and the police know the rule, it is peaceful and orderly, just to express their anger or disagreement. In Asia, the demonstrators may resulted in crowd contagion effect, and the ruling party may lost control, where emotion turned high, and end up in violence. They do not understand democracy.
Democracy without rules and control become demon crazy.
A politician who understand democracy is the politician who love his country and his people, even with the expense of positive collaboration, negotiate for win-win political solution, or even giving up his power, if situation demand that. For peace, and for the benefits of the country and its people. After all, democracy is for the people, the elected representatives are elected by the people, the country is the people, not individual politician.....A good politician is not crazy of individual power, he will not hold on to power, just to see his country and people suffer(despite he may be a good leader). He has the heart for his country and his people, not his power; he has the patient to wait and win the heart of the people in the next election, rather than let the country to face the chaotic future and suffer. He has the respect for his opponents, the winner in the democratic election process.
Because there is always another election..... to let the people decide again.
If the unstable situation continue, at the end there is no winner(even for politician) , the final loser is the country, the people....
(Note: This article dedicated to my friends who are in Thailand; ho peng, jia yin, tek leong, and others, remember them in prayers; for comfort, safety and peace will come to Thailand)
I was in the Bangkok immediately after the open of Bangkok airport during the last anti-government demonstration. My friends were rushing out of airport during the period. It was time of concern for our friends' safety. At that time we were on the way to North Thailand. We managed to arrive in Bangkok when others had left. Asian tourists were hardly seen, we are the only few in the Bangkok airport. However, the 1st demonstration was considered peaceful. The armies was neutral.
This is the 2nd demonstration of the other party, but the demonstration was turning violence,which was not normal for Thailand's politic. The armies have took the action, emergency rule has declared. I wonder why the police who are in charge of internal security did not take action to control and monitor the crowds? Why the army must come in?
Democracy is the process where forming of government is by majority of citizen who has won the election, to choose their representatives in the government. The elected citizens are normally from a political party, which was formed by citizens based on their common political ideas. It is a peaceful transfer of power for specific period. For the democracy to be successful, all parties involved in the election system, must respect the right of the winner. The election must be fair, otherwise there will be dispute. In the democracy, any dispute should be decided by the court. Democracy is a western product, Asian have difficulty to understand democracy, it is just not the culture, and need a long process of education. The end result of democracy is for the benefits of people. Individually, democracy is the right of individual, a human right, and freedom of individual provided any action is not against the law or result in the damage of other individual right and property. When political democracy failed, individual democracy will take its place to exert a change.
In the Thailand case, the result of the election was disputed, but the respective parties did not wait for the judgment of the court. They take to demonstration of individual right, freedom of expression, freedom of gathering..... . In the west, the demonstrators and the police know the rule, it is peaceful and orderly, just to express their anger or disagreement. In Asia, the demonstrators may resulted in crowd contagion effect, and the ruling party may lost control, where emotion turned high, and end up in violence. They do not understand democracy.
Democracy without rules and control become demon crazy.
A politician who understand democracy is the politician who love his country and his people, even with the expense of positive collaboration, negotiate for win-win political solution, or even giving up his power, if situation demand that. For peace, and for the benefits of the country and its people. After all, democracy is for the people, the elected representatives are elected by the people, the country is the people, not individual politician.....A good politician is not crazy of individual power, he will not hold on to power, just to see his country and people suffer(despite he may be a good leader). He has the heart for his country and his people, not his power; he has the patient to wait and win the heart of the people in the next election, rather than let the country to face the chaotic future and suffer. He has the respect for his opponents, the winner in the democratic election process.
Because there is always another election..... to let the people decide again.
If the unstable situation continue, at the end there is no winner(even for politician) , the final loser is the country, the people....
(Note: This article dedicated to my friends who are in Thailand; ho peng, jia yin, tek leong, and others, remember them in prayers; for comfort, safety and peace will come to Thailand)
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Perak State Assembly & Rain Tree
It was reported in the newspaper that the Perak state assembly was convened on 3-3-2009 , under a rain tree. This was an abnormal venue for a state assembly, but the environmentalists or green parties will be happy as the meeting was environmental friendly.
They said that Perak is a state with full blessing, with two Mentri Besar, two state government, with a very powerful state secretary; what a proud moment for Perak people. Perak make history in the democracy of national political history or may be even global records. I should have not leave Perak so early, as the action is just warming up.
It is the golden moment for the lawyers; not the politician. Perak politician has failed in the democracy process, it is the time for the lawyers to start the battle in the court house. The main loser is the taxpayer and the voters, the people in the street. Can we still trust the Westminster system?
Will the rain tree, which had witnessed the past democracy process in Ipoh since colonial time, laugh at the awful incident happen currently in the state. The rain tree is an old tree, it has seen the political changes in Perak. But this is the best show. Is democracy dead?
What is democracy? Democracy is a form of government in which power is held directly or indirectly by citizen under the free electorial system. The power of democratic government is from the people, but the development of politic in Perak, indicated that there is no respect on the wishes of the people. What is the wishes of the people in Perak? A survey conducted by Merdeka Centre on Feb 2009, reported 74% of the respondents feel that the state assembly should have dissolved after the defection of the 3 Pakatan assemblyman/woman. What is 74%? the majority of Perak people agreed for fresh mandate. Democracy is the government of majority citizen, not a single person, not a single political party.........What happen to our democracy?
Rain Tree, or also called monkeypod; scienctifically is called Albizia saman or Samanea saman, a type of leguminous tropical trees. The tree is tall and main attained the height of 80 feet, with a branch spread out of up to 100 feet. The flat topped trees are widely cultivated as a solid shade trees in the tropics. The leaves closed at night or when weather is cloudy or in darkness. The flower is small and pink in color, the dead leaves, which when fall down, it resemble the raining of flowers/leaves. May be that is the reason it was called Rain Tree. It was commonly planted as street trees in Penang, some planted during the colonial time, there are still few old rain trees along the Burma Road, Penang, near Penang Chinese Recreation Club. But some of the trees may have faced the fate of being chopped down by the local council.
I hope Perak politician will not faced the same fate as rain tree in Penang, when it no longer function as a shade tree or street tree. The said Rain tree, under which where the state assembly met, will rains for the Perak politic, will cry for the Perak state, and her leaves will close as this is the darkest moment for Perak politic....... Why it need to be happen?
The mandate should be revert to the people, to preserve the dignity of Westminster system and the democracy. Democracy is for the people, elected representatives is for the service of people, and for the good and betterment of the people. How good is the elected representatives in Perak ? For the good of Perak people?
Let people decide ...... and fresh mandate is required........Why are we sill waiting?
Monday, February 9, 2009
Anti- political hopping for elected representative
Party hopping or party switching or party defection, New Zealanders called it waka-jumping. It is the act by an elected representative to change from one political party affiliation to another between elections, especially his election to the office was through the current political party. One good example is the recent hopping of three Perak state assemblyman, hopping from the ruling party to support the "opposition front(but remained as independent)", causing the downfall of the state government. The hopping happen without the consent of the voters/people who voted them in office,this is the betray of the mandate of the people who voted them in. There is another name called Crossing the floor; in UK, Canada and other countries,the term is used to describe the act of leaving one's party entirely and joining another party, include leaving the opposition party to support government(or vice versa).
There are lobbyists and political parties now appealing for anti-hopping law,which is the law that prohibit MP elected representative to leave the party for which he/she was elected, and cross over to another party after elected. It also require MP or elected representative to leave his seat if he/she hopped to other party. Other opposed the anti-hopping law and stated that it is unconstitutional, it is against the basic human right of association.
Party switching should be allowable as an discrete action or process, which allow the elected person or members of the party to change party on their personal basis. No one will question an individual's legal right of association,he has his liberty to do so. But if he /she is an elected representative elected on party ticket. The party was elected, he is only representing the party. He was elected to the office by the people/voters based on party ticket, he is only a representative, an agent of the people who elected him because of the party. Under the basic law of agency, the principal is the people who elected him/her.Legally he or she as an agent, has breached the trust and legal authority that people,the principal has give to him/her, if he hopped to other party(or other camp that oppose the party who nominated him). This is breach of trust.The principal should be able to change the agent, which is not irrevocable.
Anti-hopping law is not against party switching, it is against elected representative hopping party for a personal motive,without resigning from the elected office. If he resign and vacate his/her office,he/she can always continue hopping, as now he/she is under no obligation to the party and the people who elected him/her.
In 1992, PAS state government took legal action against its member Nordin Salleh who has joined UMNO, based on the anti-hopping law earlier passed by the state. But the court decided that the law was null and void as it is against the constitution. In 1994, PBS(Parti Bersatu Sabah) also bought a legal action against mass defection, which caused the downfall of the PBS state government. The case also failed.
Roger Tan, an advocate and solicitor, wrote in his blog on 22-6-2008, http://www.rogertan.com; that anti-hopping law is vital for political stability of the nation. He said currently party hopping is not unlawful. He quoted Article 10(1)(c) of the Federal Constitution,which expressly states that all citizens have the right to form associations, that is, to join, not to join and leave any association, but Parliament may by law impose such restrictions as it deems necessary in the interest of the security of Malaysia or any part thereof, public order, morality, labour or education.
Mr Roger Tan also quoted a case in 1992. The Supreme Court (now Federal Court) had the opportunity to decide in the case of Dewan Undangan Negeri Kelantan v Nordin Salleh 1992 whether an amendment to the Kelantan state constitution which prohibits party-hopping is inconsistent with Article 10(1)(c). Article XXXIA of Part I of the Kelantan constitution provides that if any member of the Legislative Assembly who is a member of a political party resigns or is expelled from, or for any reasons whatsoever, ceases to be a member of such political party, he shall cease to be a member of the Legislative Assembly and his seat shall become vacant.
The Supreme Court declared that such a law was invalid because the restriction imposed by the Kelantan Constitution could not be a restriction imposed under clauses 2(c) and (3) of Article 10 as it was a law passed by a state legislature and not the Federal Parliament.
For further understand of legality and moral of party hopping, a visit to Mr Roger's web site will be helpful.
International Trade and Industry Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin , who is also the deputy president of UMNO on 30-1-2009 stated he supports the proposal for an “anti-hopping” law to ensure political stability in the country. He said that it is not that he fear more will leave Barisan Nasional, but what is important is the question of principle(source: www.thestar.com.my)
DAP Secretary general and Chief Minister of Penang, Mr Lim Guan Eng stated that
“If the Government is serious and advocates principles and ethics, it should introduce an anti-hopping law to allow those who defect to another party to resign and re-contest the same seat. Elected representatives who quit their seats should be allowed to contest the same seat in a by-election. Under Article 48(6) of the Constitution, a person who resigns his membership in the House of Representatives shall, for a period of five years beginning with the date on which his resignation takes effect, be disqualified from being a member of the House of Representatives.
(source: The star, 30-1-2009)
PAS Shah Alam MP En Khalid Samad also concurred with Mr Lim Guan Eng for anti-hopping law. He said that if the anti-hopping law were to be passed, the government must allow the public to express their "mandate" again.Khalid acknowledged that such a situation had happened before, to his brother Shahrir, who coincidentally is the BN MP for Johor Baru. In 1988, Shahrir resigned as MP for Johor Baru, in events leading up to a constitutional crisis and a split within Umno between the then Prime Minister and challenger Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah. Shahrir, who supported Tengku Razaleigh then, was challenged to prove he had won his parliamentary seat on his own abilities and not that of Umno's.He ran as an independent in the resulting by-election and won. (note: Hat off to En Shahrir,he is one of the UMNO minister I respected, and a firm believer of democracy).
DAP chairman Mr Kapal Singh on 1-2-2009 said his party had stood against party hopping since being formed in 1966. He called for amendment to Federal Constitution to make it illegal for MP to jump ship, as MP is voted by the people according to his party not individual. The MP represented the party and therefore has no right to cross over after being elected.In fact,he or she should quit the seat for a by-election,should be resign from the party he represented when he was elected. Mr Kapal consider the party hopping after elected as cheating offence, and disgrace to the country.
Deputy Chief Minister Datuk Seri Joseph Pairin Kitingan said the time was ripe to amend the Federal Constitution for the enaction of the proposed Anti-Hop Law.“We have seen enough political instability in the past. It is time to give this proposal its due merit and approval.
“By having Anti-Hop Law provisions in the constitution, we would add another significant milestone in the stability of our social and political landscape,” he said in a statement today.
Pairin, who is also Parti Bersatu Sabah (PBS) president, said he would support “all those who are advocating to propose this amendment to the Federal and State constitutions(source: Malaysian Insider, 29-1-2009)
(note: Mr Pairin was a victim of political hopping, his state government collapsed due to political hopping, which changed the future of Sabah political situation,and from a Chief Minister,today he is only a deputy)
Datuk Mohd Zaid Ibrahim, former Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Senator Datuk Mohd Zaid Ibrahim said on 22-3-2008, had proposed to the Cabinet for the formulation of the Anti-Hopping Law to put a stop to party-hopping by politicians.
He said the act of switching political parties by politicians after winning the general election on their former parties' tickets was immoral."We cannot allow people who contested on a particular party's ticket, make all kinds of promises to convince the people and after winning, they switched over to another party."To me, these people have no integrity and I hope the government can formulate a special law. It's high time that we have the `Anti-Hopping Law' to stop such acts," he told reporters at a press conference at his residence in Kota Baharu. He said although switching political party was not against the federal constitution, it had negative impact on the country's administration. En Mohd Zaid said he would propose that the matter be discussed at the Cabinet, adding that such a law had already been adopted in several countries including India.(source: Bernama, 22-3-2008). Note: But sad to say,the proposal had not been successful, and he has resigned from the cabinet.
MP Mr Lim Kit Siang had on 21-3-1978 proposed to seek leave of the House to introduce a private member’s bill instituted Members of Parliament [Prevention of Defection] Act 1978 to ensure political integrity of Members of Parliament. He said "Nothing disgusts the Malaysian public more than to see MPs or State Assemblymen elected on one party’s ticket and then betray the Party and the people’s trust by switching parties. This makes them very little different from con-men. Such practices debase politics, and strengthen the general impression that ‘politics is dirty’, when it is the dirty people who get into politics to make politics dirty. The defection of MPs or State Assemblymen from parties on whose ticket they got elected is most undesirable and unethical, because they are elected not because of their personal qualities, but because of the Party they represent. Such practices also permit elected politicians to be bought and sold as if they are on the market place.
If an elected MP resigns or is expelled from the Party on whose ticket he was originally elected, then he should resign his seat and cause a by-election to be held. If the resignation and expulsion is over a matter of political principle which has the support of the people, then the MP or State Assemblymen concerned should have no qualms about getting re-elected.(sourcce:http://blog.limkitsiang.com)
Singapore : In 1961, 19 left-wing assemblymen of the People’s Action Party resigned and formed the Barisan Sosialist, almost bringing down the government.
A new law was enacted by then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew not too long later forbidding assemblymen from joining another party without first vacating their seats and a by-election be held to fill them.
Since then, Singapore has enjoyed almost 5 decades of political stability bereft of the endless politickering and infighting which have grown to become a scourge of Malaysian politics.(source:http://wayangparty.com by Lim Siow Kuan)
New Zealand: New Zealand attempt to combat party hopping by having Mixed Member Proportional voting system or MMP in 1996 general election. Voters get 2 votes under MMP system. One to elect candidate they wish to see elected to represent their local electoral district(constituency vote); and another to their preferred political party(party vote). The candidate who received the most constituency votes will be elected.But once all the constituency MP was identified and elected, additional seats are then distributed to each political parties so that total number of seats held by each party is proportionate to its total,nationwide share of the party votes. For example,a part who gained 10% of the party votes across the country is entitled to 10% of the total seats(party listed seats), regardless of constituency votes. The system is fair distribution of elected seats based on degree of support it attract for the party. The final distribution of the seats will based entirely on the nationwide share of the party votes received by each political party, not upon the constituency votes,which is personal or candidate based. So even the elected candidate hopped, the majority political party still control the seats based on the party votes. The candidates who filled the party list are drawn from the closed list.
So,you can jump, but since this is party seat, the party can always replace another candidate from the same party, what is the use of jumping?
Brazil: There is a good news from Brazil;a supreme court decision on anti-hopping:-
RIO DE JANEIRO, Oct 5 (IPS) - A Brazilian Supreme Court decision that legislators cannot switch parties during their term in office - a common practice in Brazil - will pave the way for a newfound political stability, as well as a reduction in the number of parties, say analysts.
By a vote of eight to three, the Supreme Court decided late Thursday that mandates belong to political parties, not individual legislators.
Supreme Court Justice Celso de Mello stated in the ruling that the practice is an "inadmissible abuse" of the democratic system and exercise of power.
"The change of allegiance without a reason hurts the representativity of parties, is disrespectful of the electorate’s votes, and is harmful to the model of proportional representation," according to the magistrate.
Observers described the ruling as "historic."
He said that legislators will now only be allowed to change their party affiliation under certain circumstances, such as when a party changes its ideological focus.
"Voters will now know that when they vote for candidates, they will have to remain in the parties for which they were elected," said political analyst Andre Pereira.
(extract from source: www. http://www.ipsnews.net/news)
Another interesting article on anti-hopping, Teach party hoppers a good lesson by policy analyst, N V Krishnakumar is a good read. You can find the article on http://www.liebertonline.com
Party hopping of elected representative is an issue of law, let the judicial decide in the court on the validity of the state government when party hopping caused the change in controlling power(like the case in Brazil). Let us put a stop to political Toad , and avoid any future political hopping of elected representative without revert to people for further mandate. All Malaysian be awake and exercise wisely in the next election..... Life will not be beautiful with the political hopping, the political stability, the country and people suffered. The country has more urgent issues to handle.
There are lobbyists and political parties now appealing for anti-hopping law,which is the law that prohibit MP elected representative to leave the party for which he/she was elected, and cross over to another party after elected. It also require MP or elected representative to leave his seat if he/she hopped to other party. Other opposed the anti-hopping law and stated that it is unconstitutional, it is against the basic human right of association.
Party switching should be allowable as an discrete action or process, which allow the elected person or members of the party to change party on their personal basis. No one will question an individual's legal right of association,he has his liberty to do so. But if he /she is an elected representative elected on party ticket. The party was elected, he is only representing the party. He was elected to the office by the people/voters based on party ticket, he is only a representative, an agent of the people who elected him because of the party. Under the basic law of agency, the principal is the people who elected him/her.Legally he or she as an agent, has breached the trust and legal authority that people,the principal has give to him/her, if he hopped to other party(or other camp that oppose the party who nominated him). This is breach of trust.The principal should be able to change the agent, which is not irrevocable.
Anti-hopping law is not against party switching, it is against elected representative hopping party for a personal motive,without resigning from the elected office. If he resign and vacate his/her office,he/she can always continue hopping, as now he/she is under no obligation to the party and the people who elected him/her.
In 1992, PAS state government took legal action against its member Nordin Salleh who has joined UMNO, based on the anti-hopping law earlier passed by the state. But the court decided that the law was null and void as it is against the constitution. In 1994, PBS(Parti Bersatu Sabah) also bought a legal action against mass defection, which caused the downfall of the PBS state government. The case also failed.
Roger Tan, an advocate and solicitor, wrote in his blog on 22-6-2008, http://www.rogertan.com; that anti-hopping law is vital for political stability of the nation. He said currently party hopping is not unlawful. He quoted Article 10(1)(c) of the Federal Constitution,which expressly states that all citizens have the right to form associations, that is, to join, not to join and leave any association, but Parliament may by law impose such restrictions as it deems necessary in the interest of the security of Malaysia or any part thereof, public order, morality, labour or education.
Mr Roger Tan also quoted a case in 1992. The Supreme Court (now Federal Court) had the opportunity to decide in the case of Dewan Undangan Negeri Kelantan v Nordin Salleh 1992 whether an amendment to the Kelantan state constitution which prohibits party-hopping is inconsistent with Article 10(1)(c). Article XXXIA of Part I of the Kelantan constitution provides that if any member of the Legislative Assembly who is a member of a political party resigns or is expelled from, or for any reasons whatsoever, ceases to be a member of such political party, he shall cease to be a member of the Legislative Assembly and his seat shall become vacant.
The Supreme Court declared that such a law was invalid because the restriction imposed by the Kelantan Constitution could not be a restriction imposed under clauses 2(c) and (3) of Article 10 as it was a law passed by a state legislature and not the Federal Parliament.
For further understand of legality and moral of party hopping, a visit to Mr Roger's web site will be helpful.
International Trade and Industry Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin , who is also the deputy president of UMNO on 30-1-2009 stated he supports the proposal for an “anti-hopping” law to ensure political stability in the country. He said that it is not that he fear more will leave Barisan Nasional, but what is important is the question of principle(source: www.thestar.com.my)
DAP Secretary general and Chief Minister of Penang, Mr Lim Guan Eng stated that
“If the Government is serious and advocates principles and ethics, it should introduce an anti-hopping law to allow those who defect to another party to resign and re-contest the same seat. Elected representatives who quit their seats should be allowed to contest the same seat in a by-election. Under Article 48(6) of the Constitution, a person who resigns his membership in the House of Representatives shall, for a period of five years beginning with the date on which his resignation takes effect, be disqualified from being a member of the House of Representatives.
(source: The star, 30-1-2009)
PAS Shah Alam MP En Khalid Samad also concurred with Mr Lim Guan Eng for anti-hopping law. He said that if the anti-hopping law were to be passed, the government must allow the public to express their "mandate" again.Khalid acknowledged that such a situation had happened before, to his brother Shahrir, who coincidentally is the BN MP for Johor Baru. In 1988, Shahrir resigned as MP for Johor Baru, in events leading up to a constitutional crisis and a split within Umno between the then Prime Minister and challenger Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah. Shahrir, who supported Tengku Razaleigh then, was challenged to prove he had won his parliamentary seat on his own abilities and not that of Umno's.He ran as an independent in the resulting by-election and won. (note: Hat off to En Shahrir,he is one of the UMNO minister I respected, and a firm believer of democracy).
DAP chairman Mr Kapal Singh on 1-2-2009 said his party had stood against party hopping since being formed in 1966. He called for amendment to Federal Constitution to make it illegal for MP to jump ship, as MP is voted by the people according to his party not individual. The MP represented the party and therefore has no right to cross over after being elected.In fact,he or she should quit the seat for a by-election,should be resign from the party he represented when he was elected. Mr Kapal consider the party hopping after elected as cheating offence, and disgrace to the country.
Deputy Chief Minister Datuk Seri Joseph Pairin Kitingan said the time was ripe to amend the Federal Constitution for the enaction of the proposed Anti-Hop Law.“We have seen enough political instability in the past. It is time to give this proposal its due merit and approval.
“By having Anti-Hop Law provisions in the constitution, we would add another significant milestone in the stability of our social and political landscape,” he said in a statement today.
Pairin, who is also Parti Bersatu Sabah (PBS) president, said he would support “all those who are advocating to propose this amendment to the Federal and State constitutions(source: Malaysian Insider, 29-1-2009)
(note: Mr Pairin was a victim of political hopping, his state government collapsed due to political hopping, which changed the future of Sabah political situation,and from a Chief Minister,today he is only a deputy)
Datuk Mohd Zaid Ibrahim, former Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Senator Datuk Mohd Zaid Ibrahim said on 22-3-2008, had proposed to the Cabinet for the formulation of the Anti-Hopping Law to put a stop to party-hopping by politicians.
He said the act of switching political parties by politicians after winning the general election on their former parties' tickets was immoral."We cannot allow people who contested on a particular party's ticket, make all kinds of promises to convince the people and after winning, they switched over to another party."To me, these people have no integrity and I hope the government can formulate a special law. It's high time that we have the `Anti-Hopping Law' to stop such acts," he told reporters at a press conference at his residence in Kota Baharu. He said although switching political party was not against the federal constitution, it had negative impact on the country's administration. En Mohd Zaid said he would propose that the matter be discussed at the Cabinet, adding that such a law had already been adopted in several countries including India.(source: Bernama, 22-3-2008). Note: But sad to say,the proposal had not been successful, and he has resigned from the cabinet.
MP Mr Lim Kit Siang had on 21-3-1978 proposed to seek leave of the House to introduce a private member’s bill instituted Members of Parliament [Prevention of Defection] Act 1978 to ensure political integrity of Members of Parliament. He said "Nothing disgusts the Malaysian public more than to see MPs or State Assemblymen elected on one party’s ticket and then betray the Party and the people’s trust by switching parties. This makes them very little different from con-men. Such practices debase politics, and strengthen the general impression that ‘politics is dirty’, when it is the dirty people who get into politics to make politics dirty. The defection of MPs or State Assemblymen from parties on whose ticket they got elected is most undesirable and unethical, because they are elected not because of their personal qualities, but because of the Party they represent. Such practices also permit elected politicians to be bought and sold as if they are on the market place.
If an elected MP resigns or is expelled from the Party on whose ticket he was originally elected, then he should resign his seat and cause a by-election to be held. If the resignation and expulsion is over a matter of political principle which has the support of the people, then the MP or State Assemblymen concerned should have no qualms about getting re-elected.(sourcce:http://blog.limkitsiang.com)
Singapore : In 1961, 19 left-wing assemblymen of the People’s Action Party resigned and formed the Barisan Sosialist, almost bringing down the government.
A new law was enacted by then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew not too long later forbidding assemblymen from joining another party without first vacating their seats and a by-election be held to fill them.
Since then, Singapore has enjoyed almost 5 decades of political stability bereft of the endless politickering and infighting which have grown to become a scourge of Malaysian politics.(source:http://wayangparty.com by Lim Siow Kuan)
New Zealand: New Zealand attempt to combat party hopping by having Mixed Member Proportional voting system or MMP in 1996 general election. Voters get 2 votes under MMP system. One to elect candidate they wish to see elected to represent their local electoral district(constituency vote); and another to their preferred political party(party vote). The candidate who received the most constituency votes will be elected.But once all the constituency MP was identified and elected, additional seats are then distributed to each political parties so that total number of seats held by each party is proportionate to its total,nationwide share of the party votes. For example,a part who gained 10% of the party votes across the country is entitled to 10% of the total seats(party listed seats), regardless of constituency votes. The system is fair distribution of elected seats based on degree of support it attract for the party. The final distribution of the seats will based entirely on the nationwide share of the party votes received by each political party, not upon the constituency votes,which is personal or candidate based. So even the elected candidate hopped, the majority political party still control the seats based on the party votes. The candidates who filled the party list are drawn from the closed list.
So,you can jump, but since this is party seat, the party can always replace another candidate from the same party, what is the use of jumping?
Brazil: There is a good news from Brazil;a supreme court decision on anti-hopping:-
RIO DE JANEIRO, Oct 5 (IPS) - A Brazilian Supreme Court decision that legislators cannot switch parties during their term in office - a common practice in Brazil - will pave the way for a newfound political stability, as well as a reduction in the number of parties, say analysts.
By a vote of eight to three, the Supreme Court decided late Thursday that mandates belong to political parties, not individual legislators.
Supreme Court Justice Celso de Mello stated in the ruling that the practice is an "inadmissible abuse" of the democratic system and exercise of power.
"The change of allegiance without a reason hurts the representativity of parties, is disrespectful of the electorate’s votes, and is harmful to the model of proportional representation," according to the magistrate.
Observers described the ruling as "historic."
He said that legislators will now only be allowed to change their party affiliation under certain circumstances, such as when a party changes its ideological focus.
"Voters will now know that when they vote for candidates, they will have to remain in the parties for which they were elected," said political analyst Andre Pereira.
(extract from source: www. http://www.ipsnews.net/news)
Another interesting article on anti-hopping, Teach party hoppers a good lesson by policy analyst, N V Krishnakumar is a good read. You can find the article on http://www.liebertonline.com
Party hopping of elected representative is an issue of law, let the judicial decide in the court on the validity of the state government when party hopping caused the change in controlling power(like the case in Brazil). Let us put a stop to political Toad , and avoid any future political hopping of elected representative without revert to people for further mandate. All Malaysian be awake and exercise wisely in the next election..... Life will not be beautiful with the political hopping, the political stability, the country and people suffered. The country has more urgent issues to handle.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
