How should we judge a government?

In Malaysia, if you don't watch television or read newspapers, you are uninformed; but if you do, you are misinformed!

"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing." - Malcolm X

Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience - Mark Twain
Never argue with an idiot, otherwise people won't know which one of you is the idiot.
Since light travels faster than sound, some people appears bright - until you hear them speak.

Why we should be against censorship in a court of law: Publicity is the very soul of justice … it keeps the judge himself, while trying, under trial. - Jeremy Bentham

"Our government is like a baby's alimentary canal, with a happy appetite at one end and no responsibility at the other. " - Ronald Reagan


Government fed by the people

Government fed by the people

Career options

Career options
I suggest government... because nobody has ever been caught.

Corruption so prevalent it affects English language?

Corruption so prevalent it affects English language?

When there's too much dirt...

When there's too much dirt...
We need better tools... to cover up mega corruptions.

Prevent bullying now!

Prevent bullying now!
If you're not going to speak up, how is the world supposed to know you exist? “Orang boleh pandai setinggi langit, tapi selama ia tidak menulis, ia akan hilang di dalam masyarakat dan dari sejarah.” - Ananta Prameodya Toer (Your intellect may soar to the sky but if you do not write, you will be lost from society and to history.)

Wednesday, December 07, 2016

The Ultimate Insult to Tun Dr Mahathir


My simple comment in Facebook received 75 likes within 3 hours!:

The mention of 'no chair' must be most insulting for withdrawal of invitation. How low can they be? It reflects badly on the authority who did this.

https://www.facebook.com/MalaysiaKini/posts/10154014857140906?comment_id=10154014894245906&notif_t=like&notif_id=1481102777483370
Link

Saturday, December 03, 2016

YB Lim Kit Siang: Challenge to Najib to list out DAP’s Three Big Lies after I have exposed Najib’s three “Big Lies” in his UMNO presidential speech yesterday

Excerpt:

"Are we seeing a repetition of the “Big Lie” theory in modern-day Malaysia, with the UMNO leadership warning about the “Big Lie” theory but with the UMNO President, Datuk Seri Najib Razak becoming the biggest exponent of the “Big Lie” propaganda?
Najib impudently told three colossal “Big Lies” in his UMNO Presidential Speech yesterday, viz:
1. That the 14th General Elections will be a contest between UMNO and DAP;
2. That the DAP is anti-Malay or anti-Islam.
3. The “nightmares” Malay will suffer if UMNO loses power in the next general elections.
These three “Big Lies” fit the Hitler/Goebbels definition that “if you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”
Lets take a look at Najib’s three “Big Lies” and the rebuttals:
1. 14th General Election not a battle UMNO vs DAP. It will be a battle between the Barisan Nasional led by UMNO and the Pakatan Harapan coaliltion of DAP, PKR and Parti Amanah together with Parti Pribumi Bersatu Malaysia (Bersatu) to save Malaysia from a kleptocracy by defending the founding Constitutional principles of a democratic, just and united plural Malaysia.
2. DAP is not anti-Malay or anti-Islam. DAP is not a Chinese party as right from the beginning of our formation 50 years ago, we were committed to the principles and vision of a Malaysian party, led by Malaysians and serving the interests of all Malaysians, regardless of race, religion or region.
This was why in the very first general election contested by DAP in 1969, two Malay State Assemblymen were elected, and down the decades, there had been Malay Members of Parliament and State Assembly representatives under the DAP banner.
This was also why in the first general election contested by the DAP in 1969, and now after the 2013 General Elections, the DAP has more Indian Members of Parliament than MIC.
But this does not make DAP a political party only for the Indians as DAP remains unequivocably as a party for all Malaysians, regardless of race, religion or region.
3. Malays will not have “nightmares” if UMNO loses power in 14GE, as Najib tried to create scare and panic among the Malays that they will lose political power to the Chinese.
Whatever happens in the 14GE, whether Najib is toppled as Prime Minister or UMNO loses the Federal Government, the Malays in Malaysia will continue to exercise political power in the country as there is no way they will lose their political power.
The demographic reality is the surest guarantee that the Malays will not lose political power whatever happens to Najib or to UMNO in the next general elections.
In 1970 Malaysia’s population comprised 44.32% Malays, 34.34% Chinese, 8.99% Indians, 11.89% non-Malay Bumiputeras, 0.67% others.
In 2010, the percentage of Malays in the Malaysian population increased to 55.07%, Chinese reduced to 24.34%, Indians dropped to 7.35%, non-Malay Bumiputeras maintained at 11.94% and 1.3% others.
During the 13th general election, 52.63% of the voters were Malays, 29.68% Chinese, 7.31% Indians, 8.96% non-Malay Bumiputeras and 1.43% others.
Out of the 165 Parliamentary seats in Peninsular Malaysia, 114 are Malay majority seats representing some 70%, 22 Chinese majority seats (13%) and 29 mixed seats. There is not a single Indian majority seat.
With the triple factors establishing overwhelming Malay predominance in the Malaysian political scene – the demographic make-up of the general population, the electorate and the parliamentary constituencies – can Najib and UMNO propagandists explain how the Malays will lose political power, whatever the scenario in the 14GE?
How Malays who dominate in 70% of the parliamentary seats in Peninsular Malaysia will lose political power to the Chinese, who are in the majority in only 13% of the parliamentary seats?"
Link

Monday, November 28, 2016

64 fact-checking organizations are offering to help Facebook with its fake news problem.

Excerpt:

"In light of how Facebook may have had an effect on the 2016 election, Mark Zuckerberg has been forced to reflect on the power of his social media platform.

After election night, an analysis revealed that fake news distributed through Facebook actually outperformed real, fact-checked news in terms of Likes and shares. In fact, the most popular news story leading up to the election was about Pope Francis endorsing Donald Trump. Even though that never happened and the story has been taken down, it was still Liked and shared nearly a million times.
Other popular (and fake) stories claimed to confirm that Hillary Clinton sold weapons to ISIS or insinuated that she murdered an FBI agent. If voters only saw those stories, it's not hard to imagine how their opinions of each candidate might have been influenced before heading to the polls. Since most people get their news from social media, it's entirely likely that was the case.

In a Nov. 12, 2016, Facebook post, however, Zuckerberg claimed that the "fake news" problem is smaller than people think and also something that Facebook is working on.

"Of all the content on Facebook, more than 99% of what people see is authentic," Zuckerberg wrote. He went on to say that of the fake news stories and hoaxes that do exist, many of them aren't even political:
"Our goal is to show people the content they will find most meaningful, and people want accurate news. We have already launched work enabling our community to flag hoaxes and fake news, and there is more we can do here. We have made progress, and we will continue to work on this to improve further."
Rest of article: http://www.upworthy.com/64-fact-checking-organizations-are-offering-to-help-facebook-with-its-fake-news-problem?c=ufb1

Link

Monday, November 21, 2016

Nades: Police need to act now

This article by Nades in The Sun was published on Nov 16, before Bersih 5 rally.

Excerpt:

"A retired police officer had this to say on his Facebook post:
I have served in the Royal Malaysian Police for 36 odd years and went through the mill to become a Police Officer and underwent through the period of May 1969, various duties in Traffic, Highway Patrol, Anti SS Officer, IO/SIO, Prosecutor, Law Lecturer in CID College, PRO, OCS, Camp Commandant ... Assistant Controller in various Election period from Mid 80s ... till retirement ... Never have I seen a group of people who can freely resort to violence or force being used in public while the authorities watch ... It is a very sad stage. Deterrent action is rarely put into use ... Please do correct me if I am wrong !!!!!!!" (This passage was edited for clarity).
Precisely the point – Why aren't the perpetrators being hounded and hunted down when a mere innocent post by a journalist on holy water prompted police to jump over his gate and arrest him in the wee hours of the morning?
The police seem to be pursuing the wrong horse in wanting a planned protest for which applications have been submitted to stop. As was pointed out by Professor Gurdial Singh Nijar in his column on Monday, the home minister declared Bersih illegal on the ground that it was being used for purposes which threatened the security of Malaysia and public order. The High Court quashed the minister's order. That was in 2011.
That order was challenged in the High Court which said that the order was irrational – meaning that it was so outrageous that no sensible person who had applied his mind could have declared it as illegal. Besides, it was illogical and ludicrous."
Link

Bhag Singh: Secrets in the House!

There is immunity for members of Parliament against prosecution, except for cases of sedition, and when they communicate ‘official secrets’ outside Parliament.

Excerpt:

"The Constitution does not place any restrictions on freedom of speech in Parliament, but an amendment was made many years later to deny the privilege of any member of Parliament in matters related to sedition.
Except for such cases of sedition, there would thus be immunity for members of Parliament against prosecution.
The principal gatekeeper in this regard is the Speaker of the House, within whose powers it is to allow or disallow questions, answers and comments on what is sought to be discussed.
Such a situation has so far not arisen in the courts of the country for their deliberation. However, it was touched upon in passing in the judgment of the Federal Court in the case of Lim Kit Siang v. Public Prosecutor.
The case arose out of speeches made outside Parliament and articles published based on the statements made by Lim Kit Siang further to his having received information which was indisputably, on the facts of the case, an “official secret”.
During this trial it was suggested that Lim Kit Siang was under a duty, as a Member of Parliament and particularly as the Leader of the Oppo­sition, to disclose such information, especially where it concerned the proper defence of the country.
In deciding that there was no privilege granted to such a person to communicate such information outside Parliament, then Chief Justice Raja Azlan Shah went on to say: “Parliamentary privileges may exempt the appellant from the laws of defamation, so long as the libellous words were uttered within the walls of Parliament, but as he well knows, will not save a member from an action for damages if repeated outside the House.
“We do not consider, since it does not arise for consideration and we do not have the benefit of submissions whether any speech in Parliament revealing official secrets would be caught by the Act, but clearly the duty of the appellant as a Parliamentarian does not include the right to disclose or make available for disclosure official secret information outside the walls of the House to the public at large whatever his motive might be.”
Link