Rabu, 4 Ogos 2010

Anwar Ibrahim

Anwar Ibrahim

Sidang Sekadar Rubber Stamp Lulus RM80 Juta

Posted: 04 Aug 2010 07:18 PM PDT

Dari Harakah Daily
Oleh Johari Jaafar

DAP meminta Kerajaan BN Perak mengemukakan rang undang-undang untuk menetapkan tempoh masa minimum persidangan dewan negeri supaya badan perundangan tersebut tidak dijadikan rubber stamp semata-mata demi memenuhi agenda peribadi sesuatu pihak sahaja.

Demikian ditegaskan oleh Ahli Dewan Undangan Negeri (Adun) Pantai Remis, Nga Kor Ming (gambar) dalam satu kenyataan medianya di sini semalam.

Beliau melahirkan perasaan kesal dengan tindakan kerajaan negeri hanya bersidang setengah hari untuk meluluskan rang undang-undang perbekalan tambahan yang melibatkan RM80 juta wang rakyat tanpa memberi peluang berbahas yang mencukupi kepada ahli-ahli dewan.

Selasa lalu, BN mengadakan sidang Dewan Negeri cuma satu hari untuk meluluskan enakmen perbekalan tambahan yang menyaksikan Perak mengalami belanjawan defisit yang tinggi RM104 juta.

Persidangan tersebut juga menyaksikan Datuk Seri Ir Mohamad Nizar Jamaluddin diusir keluar dari dewan kerana tegas mempertahankan hak untuk bersuara untuk rakyat.

Akibat pengusiran tersebut, semua 27 orang ahli dewan dari Pakatan Rakyat mengambil ketetapan meninggalkan dewan sebagai tanda protes.

Nga Kor Ming, yang juga merupakan Setiausaha DAP Negeri Perak berkata, adalah tidak masuk akal bahawa persidangan dewan yang begitu penting hanya berlangsung satu hari sahaja.

Beliau mengutuk keputusan Menteri Besar BN, Datuk Seri Dr Zamry Abd Kadir yang enggan bersidang empat hari seperti mana yang diminta oleh Pakatan Rakyat supaya semua ahli dewan diberi peluang untuk berucap.

"Berani kerana benar, takut kerana salah. Jika tidak buat salah, mengapa BN begitu takut mendengar suara rakyat dari Pakatan Rakyat," jelasnya.

Menurutnya lagi, adalah tidak munasabah apabila selaku Ketua Pembangakang Dewan Negeri, Datuk Seri Nizar hanya diberi masa 15 minit oleh Datuk G Ganesan untuk berucap dalam membahas rang undang-undang yang melibatkan wang RM80 juta.

Semua ahli dewan lain pula hanya diberi masa 10 minit di mana amalan kuku besi sedemikian adalah bertentangan dengan prinsip asas sistem demokrasi berparlimen, tegasnya.

"Parlimen mengambil masa 40 hari berdebat untuk meluluskan bajet, tetapi sidang Dun Perak cuma satu hari sahaja, saya percaya ini satu lagi rekod dunia.

"Sepanjang masa persidangan, microphone Aun Pakatan ditutup, media diletak dalam bilik berasingan dan dikurung di atas bangunan seperti akuarium, seluruh dewan dikerumuni oleh anggota polis, kini dewan negeri sudah tidak dapat berfungsi dan demokrasi juga terkubur dalam Negeri Perak berikutan rampasan kuasa," katanya lagi.

Mengikut konvensyen Parlimen dan amalan biasa, Ketua Pembangkang sentiasa diberi penghormatan dan masa yang secukupnya untuk berhujah.

Sebagai contoh, katanya Lim Kit Siang pernah berbahas selama lebih 10 jam di Dewan Rakyat ketika beliau menjawat jawatan Ketua Pembangkang Parlimen tetapi di Perak, ia hanya 15 minit sahaja.

Beliau juga menegur tindakan kerajaan negeri membenarkan pihak kurang bertanggungjawab menggantungkan sepanduk mengecam pembangkang dengan perkataan kejam di perkarangan bangunan kerajaan negeri.

Tindakan sedemikian menunjukkan penyokong BN adalah cetek pemikiran dan kurang matang, katanya.

Demi membela hak bersuara dan memastikan dewan perundangan berfungsi secara sihat, beliau menggesa supaya semua kerajaan negeri mencontohi Dewan Rakyat, menetapkan had minimum waktu bersidang, supaya institusi perundangan dapat memainkan peranan memeriksa kuasa eksekutif yang diketuai oleh kerajaan negeri.

Malaysia’s Opposition on Trial

Posted: 03 Aug 2010 08:24 PM PDT

From Wall Street Journal
By AL Gore And Paul Wolfowitz

Anwar Ibrahim could be headed to prison again on trumped up charges. We urge the U.S. government to speak out on his behalf.

We come from opposite sides of the political spectrum and disagree about a great many things. However, one issue that brings us together is the case of Anwar Ibrahim, the former deputy prime minister of Malaysia who is now leader of the political opposition in that country.

Mr. Anwar has been charged under very dubious circumstances with sodomy, a criminal offense under Malaysian law. If convicted, he faces a possible 20-year sentence—effectively life in prison for a man of 63. His trial, scheduled to resume next week, threatens not just Mr. Anwar but all those in Malaysia who have struggled for a freer and more democratic nation. It is also important for the rest of the world, because it casts a troubling shadow over the future of a nation that should be a model for other Muslim countries.?

Our views of Anwar Ibrahim have been formed completely independently of each other. We do not always agree with his views on foreign policy, but we do agree that as a political leader, statesman and intellectual, Mr. Anwar possesses qualities that encourage hope for the future. These qualities include lucidity and openness to debate and engagement; commitment to principles of accountability and good governance; and a serious concern for the future of his country and the world—not to mention his extraordinary courage in standing up for what he believes. We are convinced that he is committed to the values of pluralism, tolerance and freedom that are needed for Malaysia to flourish.

In the end, what matters is not our opinion of Mr. Anwar’s character, but the opinion of his fellow countrymen. Malaysians should decide for themselves, through an open electoral process, who they wish to lead them. They should not be deprived of that opportunity by an abuse of judicial power.

This is the second time that Mr. Anwar has been subjected to a politically?motivated trial on similar charges. The first time was in 1998, when as deputy prime minister and finance minister he dared to mount a challenge to then Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamed. Mr. Anwar was jailed, beaten severely, and condemned to years of solitary confinement after a trial that was a travesty of justice. That is not just our conclusion. It is the conclusion of the International Commission of Jurists, the International Bar Association, and a number of international human-rights organizations. It was also the conclusion of Malaysia’s highest court, which overturned the sodomy conviction in 2004, after Mr. Mahathir was no longer prime minister.

Mr. Anwar now leads the coalition of Malaysia’s three opposition parties, which won more than a third of the seats in the parliamentary elections of March 2008. This was the best showing that the opposition had ever managed against the governing coalition led by the United Malays National Organization, the party that has ruled the country for the past 53 years.

Three months after the election, Mr. Anwar threatened to call for a vote of no confidence in Parliament and take over the government. He was then arrested and charged again with sodomy. Like the charges 10 years earlier, the timing of these new charges carries the strong odor of political manipulation. And, if anything, the case against Mr. Anwar this time is even less credible and the violations of due process are even more egregious.

While Anwar Ibrahim is on trial before the state, the state is on trial before its people and the world. If he were to be convicted, the whole of Malaysia’s political life and its standing in the world would be damaged. And for what gain? The timing of the trial has led many observers to the conclusion that the objective is to stem the ruling party’s loss of popular support. Public opinion polls indicate that the great majority of Malaysians see the charges against Mr. Anwar as politically motivated. In any event, as Mr. Anwar himself would be the first to say, his imprisonment would not extinguish his cause. On the contrary, the movement he began a decade ago will continue to spread.

This is a pivotal moment in Malaysia’s history with consequences that are also meaningful on a global scale. With a population of nearly 30 million, Malaysia is not a small country. But it is also significant as an example of a Muslim-majority country making its way in the world. It has been able, over the first half-century of its independence, to demonstrate that it is possible to achieve economic growth while sustaining a degree of harmony among its religiously and ethnically diverse population.

In recent years, however, the country has been sliding backwards, with increasing exploitation of religious and ethnic differences for political purposes. The trial and conviction of Mr. Anwar would intensify these problems by destroying the confidence of millions of Malaysians in the possibility of justice under the law.

We urge our own government to make clear the importance the U.S. attaches to the role of the law in sustaining a political process in which justice and freedom are natural allies. We know from experience that sensitive issues of this kind are often best pursued quietly, government to government. But time is running out. A moment of truth is approaching.

Two days ago, a judge postponed Mr. Anwar’s trial in order to deal with charges of an improper relationship between a female prosecutor and Mr. Anwar’s accuser. This is an opportunity. Malaysia’s system of governance has the capacity to do the right thing—not only for Anwar Ibrahim, but for the millions of Malaysian citizens who look to him as a spokesman for their aspirations. We urge those in the Malaysian government who will decide this matter to act with wisdom.

Mr. Gore was the 45th vice president of the United States. Mr. Wolfowitz was deputy secretary of defense from 2001 to 2005.

Launching Of Pakatan Rakyat Of Batu Pahat

Posted: 03 Aug 2010 08:10 PM PDT

A Rotting Chicken in Every Pot: Venezuela’s Disastrous Food Policy

Posted: 03 Aug 2010 07:44 PM PDT

From The Huffington Post
By Thor Halvorssen

Hugo Chávez announced last week on a national broadcast (aired, by presidential decree, on every television channel and radio station simultaneously) that Venezuelan troops are amassing on the western border with Colombia and that this was being done “in secret” so as to not alarm the population of Venezuela. Stung by the mountain of evidence of his support for the FARC terrorist group, Chávez is using a potential conflict with Colombia to whip up nationalistic fervor. The truth is that Chávez’s Bolivarian Revolution continues to crumble with no end in sight — his celebrated war against hunger defeated by seven years of a reckless food policy that causes shortages, involves price controls, central planning and currency manipulation and rewards corruption. Food policy, not his shenanigans with the FARC, are of much greater importance to the Venezuelan population in advance of legislative elections in September. The past few months reveal a government in chaos and crisis mode.

From Venezuela’s presidential palace, Minister for Food Supply Félix Osorio denounces “the oligarchy’s media campaign” for a single report aired on Globovisión — the last opposition television station remaining in Venezuela. The TV segment said that 23,000 lbs of rotting chicken were found in a rural waste dump in Eastern Venezuela. The packaging, they said, indicated the chickens came from the government food program. The Minister rejected this as false and called it a part of the “imperialistic onslaught” against Hugo Chávez’s Bolivarian Revolution.

The minister was silent about a different food scandal (ten-thousand times larger) that has made headlines across the world: 2,340 shipping containers with more than 120,000 tons of rotting food (estimated to feed 17 million people for one month) laying idle at Puerto Cabello. The port where the debacle took place recently became nationalized. The new incompetent management, combined with electricity rationing, led to the food putrefying as it sat in refrigerated containers. Such bungling shows that the national food supply network PDVAL, despite its status as a flagship revolutionary program and the logistical support of Venezuela’s state oil company and military, is a disgraceful failure that lays bare the results of the disastrous government food policy.

Perhaps it is no surprise then that Venezuela’s agricultural policy is modeled on that of another country with chronic food shortages — communist Cuba. Agricultural advisors have joined the ranks of Cuban teachers, military advisors and doctors in providing expertise to the Venezuelan government. In rhetoric that harkens back to the days of Soviet communism, Venezuelan policymakers speak of land reform, not to create small farms, but to expropriate large working farms and turn them into “cooperatives” with no private property.

Venezuela has imposed price controls on basic goods like chicken, sugar, milk and other food stuffs. As supplies have dwindled, hoarding has become a growing problem, despite government efforts to criminalize stockpiling.

With erratic policy, Venezuelan authorities have on occasion allowed sudden liberalization of food prices. Rather than equilibrate the market overnight, such confused policy leads to double digit increases in price as supply meets demand. Price controls are then invariably re-imposed.

Seventy percent of Venezuela’s food is now imported, up from forty percent ten years ago.

The state monopolizes the sale of fixed-rate dollars for food imports but these dollars are worth a lot more in the floating-rate street markets of Venezuela, so the stage is set for rampant speculation.

This year alone Venezuelan food prices have risen 21%. The result is that foodstuffs are unavailable and unaffordable to Venezuela’s poorest people, even in a country awash with petrodollars.

Throughout the food market in Venezuela, corruption is rife. The state-owned low-budget food chain, Mercal, is perhaps the most egregious example.

Created in 2003 to compete with private supermarkets, Mercal was intended to undercut the prices of Venezuela’s other grocery stores. The principal beneficiary of Mercal has not been the Venezuelan consumer — it has been a businessman with close ties to the Chávez family, Ricardo Fernández. When private media reports surfaced critical of Fernandez, Chávez has gone on Venezuela’s airwaves to defend him.

In a large part due to profits from Venezuelan social welfare programs, Fernández became a billionaire.

I know this because in 2007, Fernández approached an international bank flashing a personal financial audit from KPMG. It showed his net worth in excess of U.S. 1.5 billion dollars. The bank declined any financial transactions with Fernández, although a copy the KPMG audit was sent to me by an official at that bank.

I passed the audit along to a Caracas-based correspondent of a major American newspaper. Not long after, the laptop of the correspondent — with Fernández’s financial statements — was stolen from his Caracas home. Fearing for his personal safety, the journalist chose to drop his investigation into Fernández. (Eventually the KPMG audit received wide circulation and it can even be found online.)

However, I soon began to be publicly pilloried on Venezuelan state television. These attacks have continued ever since. In November of 2009, Fernández was finally eaten by the revolution that created him and he is now in a Venezuelan jail accused of bank fraud. Fernández is not an unusual character in Chávez’s Venezuela and his story illustrates that the Bolivarian Revolution is incapable of preventing the opportunism, incompetence and the voracious appetite of its cronies.

The Chávez government has the reverse Midas touch. Whatever they manage deteriorates: energy policy, healthcare, the financial sector, land reform, food policy, crime prevention, oil production, agriculture. And they know public exposure is their Achilles heel which explains why Globovisión’s main shareholder, Guillermo Zuloaga, is now a fugitive of Venezuela. Ironically, he is accused of “hoarding” 14 cars.
Thor Halvorssen is the president of the Human Rights Foundation and the founder of the Oslo Freedom Forum.
Dicatat oleh di

Tiada ulasan:

Catat Ulasan

Langgan: Catat Ulasan (Atom)