Jumaat, 1 Oktober 2010

Anwar Ibrahim

Anwar Ibrahim

The Meaning of the Venezuelan Election Results

Posted: 01 Oct 2010 06:40 PM PDT

From The Huffington Post
By Thor Halvorssen

An avalanche of media has declared Hugo Chavez’s loss of a two-thirds majority significant. It isn’t. On Monday, Venezuela’s electoral council

announced that political opposition groups had won the majority of the votes in the election for the national assembly, Venezuela’s legislature. They simultaneously announced that the Chavez party would retain most of the seats. In other words, those who received the most votes get minority representation. This is puzzling.

Already, Chavez’s party is underlining that while they don’t have a two-thirds majority (the proportion needed to have control) they do have a three-fifths majority and that this is sufficient to pass an “enabling law” granting Chavez the equivalent of dictatorial powers. So here is the scenario: Before the election he ruled with absolute power including the subservience of the

judicial and legislative power and control over the means of production. Now, without the legislature, he will simply get them to quickly pass a law making his absolute power official.

The Chavez government manipulates rules, laws, and institutions as it sees fit. This has been the case for several years and will be its lasting legacy. Despite the outgoing national assembly being a lame duck legislature, be prepared to see them pass all sorts of laws despite having no mandate.

Too many ignore or are simply unaware of the reason why Chavez had full control of the legislature in the first place — in 2005, all opposition parties boycotted the legislative elections because they were protesting the lack of democracy, the manipulation of the electoral system, the systematic violations of human rights, and the use of the state treasury by Chavez for his own party’s benefit. Voters rejected the election en masse with only 17 percent of eligible voters turning out. The OAS and the EU released scathing reports on the entire process. The bleak turnout made that assembly legal but illegitimate. That the opposition was not able to turn all of these facts into a victory and force a redo of that election is baffling. Meanwhile, the Chavez spin machine set into action and the world was led to believe that he had such unanimous support that he ended up with the entire legislature.

After that, the opposition parties ended their boycott and got back into politics, admirably using tactics different from those of the president. Despite the government’s use of violence, a politicized judiciary, the shutting down of media critical of the president, the misuse of public funds for the president’s party, the cult of personality financed by the state, the use of imprisonment to go after political opponents, the presence of a fear-inducing Cuban intelligence apparatus, and the abuse of federal emergency management laws to control the airwaves for several hours a day to spread political propaganda, the democratic elements in Venezuela are to be commended. What they pulled off on Sunday is extraordinary.

I was asked why, if Chavez is such an autocrat, he didn’t rig the election outright. The answer is that Chavez has not yet obtained what his government refers to as “communicational hegemony”. There is still one television channel left on the air, Globovision, which provides critical news and analysis despite both of its key owners being in forced exile. The two other remaining independent channels were silenced — one by being shut down and the other by being bribed and blackmailed. Once the government has the monopoly on media, then it will be impossible, as in Cuba, to have any critical or opposing viewpoints. Any election result is then plausible in a scenario of self censorship and fear.

Chavez’s poll numbers are down considerably given that issues such as crime — Venezuela has one of the highest per capita murder rates in the world (worse than Afghanistan or Iraq) — and inflation — Venezuela has the worst rate in the hemisphere — affect everybody. In the face of these domestic failures he was not going to win outright had the elections been free and fair. That said, the game was stacked: the government used an endless supply of state oil funds to compete against political parties lacking state support, and enforced numerous restrictions on political donations to the opposition. In addition, voter intimidation is rife and loyalty oaths are required from government employees. Imagine what the results would have been had there been an equal playing field.

Given that they couldn’t do a simple “we got more votes” trick, the electoral council, controlled entirely by Chavez, chose instead to do political alchemy. This means he did rig it! Consider that the opposition obtained 52% of the votes (probably much more had it been a clean fight) yet does not have a majority of the seats. It is political alchemy resulting from politicized redistricting. For instance, in Caracas the opponents of Chavez got 484,844 votes versus 484,103 of the Chavista party. And the ten seats get split: three for the winners and seven for Chavez. I strongly hope those who cried foul during Bush v. Gore will come out swinging against this injustice just four hours south of Palm Beach County.

It is clear that, even with a stacked deck, the numerical majority of Venezuelans are indicating that they want something different. International elites constantly lecture about how Venezuelan elections are a contest of poor versus rich. The truth of the matter is that the Chavez family and those in government are most of “the rich” — starting with his brothers Adán, Argenis, and Adelis Chavez and longtime government cronies Diosdado Cabello and Jose Vicente Rangel both of whom merit inclusion in the Forbes Billionaires list. Not surprisingly, Venezuela ranks close to the bottom in Transparency International’s corruption index — tied with Angola and the Congo.

To those in the Chavez political machine, the election simply means a change of tactics. To Chavez personally, it is devastating. He has shown that he cannot stand an opposing voice. His word is final. To quote him, speaking in the third person: “He who betrays Chavez dies politically.” Chavez is the revolution. He is the voice of the people. He rules, he doesn’t govern. A true leadership contest is unthinkable. If you were to drive from the main airport to the city of Caracas you will see dozens of billboards with his image — all paid for with state funds and all of them inappropriate in a democracy. It is all about him, all the time. Step out of line and you get expropriated, harassed, persecuted, or even prosecuted and thrown in prison.

A rejection of this sort is humiliating for Chavez. It is sure to cause him an existential crisis. It apparently was agonizing enough that he didn’t even poke his head out on his “Balcony of the People” to say hello to his dejected supporters and admit the rout. He chose as a substitute his Twitter account from where he fantasized a “solid victory.” A few hours later, he called the international press “revolting” and “liars” and was particularly graphic about CNN’s coverage of the elections. During the last referendum, which was the last time the opposition won a majority of votes in a national electoral contest, Chavez went on television and called it a “shit victory” and then proceeded to merrily ignore the results of the election.

Chavez cannot declare defeat. He cannot leave power because this would lead to charges of murder, drug-trafficking on a global scale, corruption charges unlike anything seen in the hemisphere’s history, and — most problematic due to the crimes against humanity element — charges of collaborating with Colombia’s FARC terrorists. While in power he will be untouchable but out of power the line of plaintiffs, prosecutors, and critics is long and includes groups as politically diverse as Reporters Without Borders, the Inter-American Court of Justice, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the families of the victims of the April 11th massacre.

Chavez doesn’t know what to do. He has two years to figure it out. It is highly unlikely that he will allow a fair electoral contest. He has disqualified Leopoldo Lopez, a candidate that has outpolled him, forced Manuel Rosales, the last candidate that challenged him, into exile, and opened judicial investigations into those on the electoral horizon. Chavez will do everything and anything in the next two years to get another term. But this should be a surprise to no one. He has already said it numerous times: he plans to stay until 2030.

Thor Halvorssen is president of the Human Rights Foundation and founder of the Oslo Freedom Forum.

Treffen mit Anwar Ibrahim

Posted: 01 Oct 2010 02:10 AM PDT

By Alexander Lambsdorff

September 30th 2010

Die aktuelle politische Lage in Malaysia und das politisch motivierte Gerichtsverfahren gegen ihn waren die Themen bei einem Mittagessen mit dem malaysischen Oppositionsführer Anwar Ibrahim am Mittwoch in Brüssel. Anwar Ibrahim ist ein Kämpfer für die Demokratie.

—–

English translation:

The current political situation in Malaysia and the politically motivated judicial proceedings against him were the subjects at a lunch with the Malaysian opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim on Wednesday in Brussels. Anwar Ibrahim is a fighter for democracy.

This posting includes an audio/video/photo media file: Download Now

Political Freedom and Liberal Democracy in the Islamic World

Posted: 01 Oct 2010 12:48 AM PDT

Speech by Anwar Ibrahim, Parliamentary Opposition Leader of Malaysia at the German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP), Berlin, 30th September 2010

Let me begin with the poet and philosopher Muhammad Iqbal, a towering figure in the landscape that we are about to traverse this evening, a bridge, if you will, over the gulf that is said to separate the East and the West, between Islam on one side, and freedom and democracy on the other.

In his poetic answer to the West, the Paya?m?e?Mashriq, Iqbal sets up the epiphanous encounter between Jallaludin al-Rumi and Johann Wolfgang von Goethe not on earth but up in the heavens. Reciting Faust, his magnum opus, Goethe convinces Rumi that here is one enlightened soul who understands the Great Mystery. We know that Iqbal's Paya?m?i?Mashriq itself was greatly inspired by Goethe's West-östlicher Diwan (West-Eastern Divan) which in turn drew its inspiration from the great 14th century master of the Persian ghazals Hafiz Shirazi. "Ad-Diwan Sharqi lil Mu'allif al-Gharbi," these were the words inscribed in the original script by Goethe himself on the title page, and it may be literally rendered as "The Eastern Divan by the Western Author." So, in an atmosphere of mutual respect and admiration, West meets East, and East meets West and the process goes back and forth.

Today, however, the encounter seems to have taken on a slightly different keel. For simplicity, it looks something like this: West tries to meet East by first tossing a couple of bombs; East says no thanks by firing a couple of missiles in return; West feels outraged and burns their books of wisdom and religion, and East goes berserk by blowing up their buildings.

My apologies for making light of the situation but the point is that the discourse today more than ever before is blindsided by hatred and misunderstanding giving rise among other things to "freedom and democracy phobia" on the one hand and Islamophobia on the other. This sets the stage for the clash of ideals and values, between political freedom and democracy on the one hand and Islam on the other. Yet in spite of this initial alarm and sabre-rattling war cry, I am quite certain that the clash is more imagined than real. I'm not suggesting that Islamophobia doesn't exist; indeed it very real but it is borne by falsehood, and fuelled by irresponsible parties from both sides of the divide. The upshot is stereotyping and cliché mongering about what Islam represents.

Now because of the disparate actions of certain people conducting themselves in the name of the religion, we find ourselves in a quagmire of false notions about Islam: that it is anti-freedom, anti-democracy, that it enjoins murder and mayhem, promotes divisiveness and exclusiveness and so on and so forth.

So, let us try to clear the fog that has descended on the discourse. Firstly, there is essentially no incompatibility between Islam and democracy. To say that it is infeasible for Muslim-majority countries to practice constitutional democracy is to fly in the face of reality. Let's start with Turkey, a fine example of a liberal democracy where the majority of its population are Muslims. They have free and fair elections, they have a proper judicial and legal system, they have fundamental liberties protected by the constitution and they have a relatively free press. You will not be prosecuted simply because you are a leader of the opposition party and the police won't beat you up just because you criticise the government. You can go about your daily business without the fear that at any time the authorities may just raid your homes and put you behind bars without a trial.

Now, the recent referendum of the Turkish people in favor of fundamental constitutional changes including imposing further constraints on the role of the military is clear testimony that democracy is alive and well. Detractors would like to suggest that it is so because it has chosen to depart from Islamic practices. We beg to differ. We would like to see it as a classic example of what a Muslim nation can achieve if its leaders remain faithful to the core values of Islamic statecraft: modernist, moderate, progressive and tolerant with justice and the rule of law as a motto for governance. In this regard, Turkey's Muslim leaders fortified by the principles of liberal democracy, stand in sharp contrast to the autocrats and dictators in some other Muslim countries.

Indonesia is yet another good example of the practice of political freedom and liberal democracy in a nation with a predominantly Muslim population. Of course, they had to go through the entire political evolutionary process to come to where they are today. After gaining independence from the Dutch, they had a brief experiment with democracy but it was short-lived and after May 1965, Indonesia came under the dictatorship of Suharto during the so-called New Order era. And this went on till the 1998 collapse which set forth the era of Reformasi. Now, just to get an idea of how alive and well democracy is in Indonesia, just switch on to their television stations and without fail, there will be aired daily forums and discussion sessions highly critical of the ruling party and the President. I am not suggesting that the system is perfect or that they have attained full democracy but at least most of the essential elements of a vibrant democracy are in place. Just move over to the neighbouring Muslim majority nation and we can see the stark differences. And the absence of real democracy in that neighbouring country as well as other Muslim majority countries has very little, if any, to do with Islam. Islam, I would say, is getting a pretty raw deal here because of the actions of these tyrants, dictators, autocrats and pseudo-democrats.

But are we denying that there is a problem of Islamic fundamentalism? Is the problem of extremists, of terrorists and of suicide bombers a figment of the imagination? Of course not. That is a complex issue but the hypotheses of correlating various acts with Islam are mere correlations and do not reflect the causal links. The underlying causes must be studied and steps taken to address them if we are to see any resolution to these issues.

As for the claim by some that fundamentalists are gaining traction on the political front in certain Muslim countries, the problem is largely blown out of proportion. It is true, however, that ideological rigidity is not conducive to the promotion of constitutional democracy. It is partly because of this rigidity that sees some fundamentalists citing so-called sabre-rattling verses from the Holy Book to condone acts of violence in the name of jihad. We, however, maintain that Islam prohibits violence and terror by virtue of the principles of moderation and the protection of life, limb and property. The objectives of the religion are clear: jihad enjoins on Muslims to do good and prevent evil, establish justice, promote goodwill and charity and help the weak and the needy. It is not a war cry, let alone one to justify mayhem and murder. Above all, jihad enjoins Muslims to maintain peace and harmony and safeguard the sanctity of life and property. But it remains incumbent on reformists and progressives to make it clear that Islam is for all time. Modernity is not anti-thetical to Islam. Casting the religion in stone is.

For those countries still bent on remaining static, we would urge them to democratize.

I make this call on the platform of Islam itself. Because Islam enjoins the faithful to uphold equality, justice, and human dignity, the resolve to embrace constitutional democracy is a reaffirmation of these principles. Our message is consistent on this: hold free and fair elections, ensure the separation of powers and guarantee fundamental civil liberties including allowing the full participation of women in political life. Put an end to vindictive prosecutions, arbitrary arrests, and the use of the state apparatus to silence political dissent.

On the question of the democratization process itself, I call on certain powers to stop practising double standards. Please do not blow hot and blow cold. Human rights violations are violations no less. We cannot allow some countries latitude in this and condemn them in others. The diplomacy of "you give me this, and I'll give you that in return" is well and good in certain matters but not so if it is a betrayal of the cause of democracy and freedom.

The hypocrisy has to stop unless of course we want to see Muslim societies continuing to languish under dictatorships, autocracies and sham democracies. Sham democracies as you know are now the rage particularly in Southeast Asia. They are more insidious and pose a greater threat to political freedom and constitutional democracy than even dictatorships and autocracies. Dictatorships and autocracies are at least clearly visible and we know that they cannot by any stretch of the imagination pretend to be democracies. Sham democracies on the other hand come well armed with the trappings of democracy. We can't see or in certain cases we pretend that we can't see that they are masquerades perpetuating injustice, human rights abuses and corruption.

With the entire state apparatus at their disposal, they rob and plunder the nation's wealth and resources, imprison dissidents without trial, deny press freedom and render the judiciary into a spineless organ of state whose existence is to serve their political survival. Yet, and this is the most insidious part, their leaders are recognised as leaders of the "free and democratic world" standing shoulder to shoulder with the leaders of the established democracies.

So, this begs the question whether there has been any real progress in political reform in the Muslim world apart from Turkey and Indonesia. Certain states even in the Middle East appear to be moving towards democracy but the rhetoric often exceeds the reality. Nevertheless, let us not be confused about what the real issue is. It is not whether Islam and democracy are compatible but whether leaders in Muslim countries will uphold freedom and democracy. Nor is it a problem about the East being at loggerheads with the West. If I may just conclude with a few lines from Iqbal's Zarb-i-Kalim:

Shun neither the East
Nor fear the West
For it is Nature that sets
you turning each night
(wherever you may be)
To the morning bright"

Thank you

Siapa Ibrahim Ali Dalam Utusan?

Posted: 01 Oct 2010 12:41 AM PDT

Dari Merdeka Review

Mungkin sesuatu yang sukar dibayangkan, apabila UMNO ditikam lidah sendiri setelah Setiausaha Agungnya menyatakan pendirian untuk menjauhi PERKASA. Malah, Presiden PERKASA Ibrahim Ali dijulang lebih tinggi, seolah-olah lebih berpengaruh ke atas Utusan Malaysia, jika dibandingkan dengan sesetengah pemimpin UMNO.

Keadaan ini mencungkil kesangsian ramai, yang mungkin tertanya-tanya apakah yang membuatkan Ibrahim Ali begitu popular, sehingga dilihat terserlah dalam ruang dada Utusan Malaysia? Bahkan kadang-kala Ibrahim Ali, pemimpin politik veteran yang pernah ditendang keluar UMNO, diberi liputan yang lebih besar dalam Utusan Malaysia, berbanding dengan pemimpin UMNO sendiri.

“Itu you kena tanya Editor, apa tujuannya, saya sendiri pun tengah mencari-cari. Kenapa Utusan utamakan PERKASA, kenapa tak utamakan UMNO, sedangkan pemilik akhbar UMNO? Kita pun pelik tentang ni, Ibrahim Ali ada saham banyak kat Utusan, banyak sangat ke?”

Keraguan ini dikongsi bersama Hata Wahari, Presiden Kesatuan Wartawan Kebangsaan (NUJ) Malaysia baru, yang telah 15 tahun berkhidmat di Utusan Malaysia sebagai wartawan. Dalam satu wawancara bersama MerdekaReview kelmarin (28 September), Presiden NUJ yang mencungkil kontroversi sejak terpilih pada 17 September 2010 ini mendedahkan bagaimana dirinya menerima layanan dingin, selepas kenyataan untuk mengkritik majikannya dikeluarkan.

Isu yang dibawa Ibrahim Ali remeh temeh

Biarpun terkenal dengan lonjakan dari parti ke parti, Ibrahim Ali akhirnya diberi nafas baru untuk melanjutkan hayat politiknya apabila menubuhkan PERKASA, badan bukan kerajaan (NGO) yang lantang mempertahankan kepentingan Melayu. Namun demikian, perjuangannya dipertikaikan oleh seorang wartawan Utusan Malaysia bernama Hata Wahari.

Hata Wahari yang mendakwa dirinya “pakar dalam parlimen” seketika dahulu, kerana ditugas khas untuk membuat liputan parlimen dan politik, kini dilarang untuk berbuat demikian. Beliau yang pernah menolak untuk menulis berita Ibrahim Ali (gambar kiri) tidak pasti sama ada peristiwa ini menjadi punca larangan tersebut.

“…saya pernah menolak menulis berita Ibrahim Ali, dia berucap di Parlimen dan saya tak tulis, editor suruh tulis tapi saya tak tulis. (Mengapa?)… sebab benda dan isu tu remeh temeh, tidak penting, tak membina dan membangunkan minda, news (berita) lain lagi bagus.”

Mengapa Ibrahim Ali mempunyai pengaruh yang begitu besar terhadap Utusan Malaysia, tanya wartawan MerdekaReview.

“You tanya saya, saya pun hairan juga, siapa Ibrahim Ali dalam Utusan? Ibrahim Ali punya pencapaian, saya tak nampak pun, apa yang dia bantu orang Melayu, perjuangannya ada menyebabkan orang Melayu kaya ke? Tak nampak lagi. Ada menyebabkan lebih orang Melayu dapat biasiswa ke? Tak nampak lagi, itu masalahnya. Tak ada dia punya sumbangan sangat terhadap orang Melayu, kenapa kita nak utamakan dia, apa masalah?”

“Kalau you tanya, kenapa Utusan utamakan Ibrahim Ali, soalan ini saya tertanya-tanya sejak dua tiga tahun ni!” tambah beliau.

Malah, Hata Wahari tidak faham mengapa dibangkitkan isu artikel 153, “Kalau dia (Ibrahim Ali) nak perjuangkan artikel 153, benda itu ada dalam Perlembagaan. Siapa nak pertikaikan? Saya tak berani pertikaikan Perlembagaan. Mungkin you akan tanya, tapi siapa pertikaikan Perlembagaan? Benda tu memang dalam perlembagaan!”

“Presiden sepenuh masa”

Hata Wahari membeliakkan khalayak ramai apabila mengeluarkan tiga kenyataan yang sudah semestinya tidak menyenangkan pihak majikannya (pengarang kanan) dan bosnya, UMNO.

Bermula dengan kritikan terhadap Ketua dan pengarang kanan kerana “berkhidmat untuk memenuhi keperluan tuan politik”, disusuli pula dengan kritikan terhadap kedua-dua Barisan Nasional dan Pakatan Rakyat dalam isu larangan media, Hata Wahari (gambar kiri) baru-baru ini menyangkal pula tulisan Awang Selamat. Hata Wahari memberi tamparan sengit apabila berterus-terang bahawa “laporan berat sebelah” merupakan punca sebenar penurunan edaran Utusan Malaysia.

Keberanian dan kelantangan Hata Wahari disambut dengan pujian dan tepukan. Namun, di sebalik “semangat berkobar-kobar” yang diperlihatkan dari Hata Wahari, ramai mungkin tidak mengetahui bahawa beliau telah “dibekukan” oleh pihak atasannya setelah kenyataan tersebut dikeluarkan.

“Saya memang tidak diberi apa-apa tugasan, saya sekarang ni seperti Presiden (NUJ) sepenuh masa, ” Hata Wahari sempat menyindir dirinya. “Sudah masuk hari kelima saya tidak diberi apa-apa tugasan atau susulan, selepas kenyataan…(dikeluarkan). Sebelum kenyataan (dikeluarkan) memang tiap-tiap hari saya ada buat berita. Sebenarnya, pada hari saya buat kenyataan, saya ada dapat berita eksklusif…”

Namun, tiada lagi berita untuk Hata Wahari pada keesokannya. “Saya tidak diberi apa-apa berita, saya duduk senyap dalam office (pejabat), masuk pukul 10 pagi dan balik pukul 6 petang. Saya tak kisah, hak dia orang nak bagi tugasan, pada masa sama saya cari berita, sama ada mereka nak pakai atau tidak, terpulang kepada editor.”

This posting includes an audio/video/photo media file: Download Now

YB Umno Diminta Pulangkan Gaji Wang ‘Haram’

Posted: 01 Oct 2010 12:24 AM PDT

Dari Malaysiakini

Seramai 11 ADUN Umno di Pulau Pinang dicabar memulangkan wang gaji mereka kerana kemungkinan wang berkenaan datangnya dari sumber judi.

Sekretariat Pemuda Pakatan Rakyat Negeri Pulau Pinang yang membuat cabaran itu juga menggesa Umno mengarahkan semua staf dan kakitangan akhbar Utusan Malaysia milik parti itu untuk memulangkan semua gaji mereka.

Tindakan itu supaya kakitangan Islamnya tidak 'termakan wang haram'. Sekretariat itu mendakwa ada unsur-unsur perjudian dalam penghasilan gaji mereka, menerusi iklan-iklan empat nombor ekor di akhbar itu.

"(Sekretariat Pemuda Pakatan Rakyat juga) mencabar Umno agar mengarahkan semua GLC (syarikat berkaitan kerajaan) di bawah pengaruh mereka supaya memulangkan semua pendapatan gaji semula kepada Perbendaharaan Kerajaan Malaysia, kerana tidak ada satu pun gaji mereka ini boleh dipastikan bersih daripada percampuran dengan hasil cukai judi, hiburan dan arak," kata mereka ketika membacakan kenyataan media.

Menurut setiausaha pemuda PKR Pulau Pinang, Syed Mikael Rizal Aidid, – Umno kini tertekan dengan keupayaan Pakatan dalam perbelanjaan berhemah kerajaan negeri yang berjaya mempunyai wang berlebihan dan memperuntukkan dana RM20 juta untuk program menghargai sumbangan warga emas.

Katanya, tertekan dengan keupayaan itu, Umno memfitnah kerajaan negeri pimpinan Pakatan Rakyat.

"(Justeru) cabaran ini juga dibuat untuk memberi peluang kepada Umno membuktikan diri mereka adalah 'pembela Melayu yang sebenar', seperti yang selalu mereka war-warkan.

Warga emas ditipu

"Kami juga menyeru agar Umno benar-benar membantu merubah nasib orang Melayu dengan bersungguh-sungguh dengan membela jatuh bangun mereka dan bukan hanya berlagak hebat di televisyen dan di dada-dada akhbar," kata Syed Mikael pada persidangan akhbar di Prai, semalam.

Turut menadatangani kenyataan bersama ini adalah Setiausaha Pemuda DAP, Pulau Pinang, Ng Wei Aik dan Setiausaha Dewan Pemuda PAS, Pulau Pinang, Mohd Nor Harun.

Dua hari lalu, lebih 40 warga emas memulangkan semula wang ehsan yang diberikan itu selepas berasa curiga dengan sumber wang berkenaan.

Ia berikutan pendedahan oleh pemimpin Umno yang mendakwa bahawa wang berkenaan diperolehi daripada sumber perjudian.

Sekretariat Pemuda Pakatan Rakyat itu juga mendakwa kumpulan warga emas berkenaan telah ditipu dan dipermainkan oleh ADUN Penaga, Datuk Azhar Ibrahim yang juga setiausaha perhubungan Umno Pulau Pinang.

"Simpati kami adalah kerana mereka ini telah ditipu dan dipermainkan oleh ADUN mereka yang melatah berasaskan maklumat yang tidak betul.

“Ini bukti jelas, bahawa Umno sanggup buat apa saja, hingga sanggup menidakkan hak rakyat, semata-mata mahukan populariti politik murahan!" kata Syed Mikael.

Ng pula menganggap Umno merampas hak warga emas beragama Islam apabila mendalangi usaha dengan 'memperbodohkan' mereka dengan menyebarkan propaganda tidak bersandar fakta.

Diaturkan Umno

"Kesian mereka. Mereka tidak tahu apa yang sebenarnya berlaku. Tapi jelas, Umno cuba merampas apa yang sepatutnya mereka dapat,” katanya.

Katanya, kerajaan negeri tidak pernah memaksa mana-mana syarikat menghulur sumbangan baik badan korporat mahupun kelab lumba kuda tetapi dana itu diasing mengikut kategori.

“Bantuan ini terletak di bawah pegawai kewangan negeri. Mereka boleh mengasingkan sumbangan tanpa ada masalah”, katanya yang kesal kerana warga emas disogok maklumat tidak tepat dan percaya ia didalangi pimpinan Umno.

“Itu majlis yang diaturkan Umno. Tak adalah, mana boleh warga emas yang minta majlis macam itu. Ini memang didalangi mereka. Siapa yang membangkitkan isu ini terlebih dahulu? Umnolah," katanya lagi.

“Kalau Umno cakap semua wang termasuk RM100 haram, maka, gaji yang diterima ADUN Umno juga haram. Jadi, pulangkan duit gaji, jangan ambil," kata beliau yang juga ADUN Komtar itu.

This posting includes an audio/video/photo media file: Download Now

Final Round of PKR Divisional Meetings and Elections

Posted: 30 Sep 2010 09:18 PM PDT

MEDIA STATEMENT
1 OCTOBER 2010

Final Round of PKR Divisional Meetings and Elections

The third and final round of Parti Keadilan Rakyat's divisional annual general meetings and elections will take place this weekend on 2nd and 3rd October 2010. Divisional Annual General Meetings will be held in 38 divisions with contest taking place in 23 divisions – Selangor (14); Sarawak(4); Johore (2); Sabah (1); Kedah (1) and Penang (1).

Some of the logistical problems that affected a few divisions over the past weekend can be attributed to the high voter turn out. This, compounded by the unfamiliarity of members with the newly introduced system of voting, contributed to the logistical problems that were encountered.

It may not be widely known, but the divisional party elections involves members casting their votes for positions in the Jawatankuasa Cabang, the Jawatankuasa Wanita Cabang and Jawatankuasa Angkatan Muda Keadilan (AMK) Cabang. This means that where there is a contest, there are potentially three parallel elections taking place at the division level involving up to 46 positions:

a. Jawatankuasa Cabang – Ketua Cabang (1), Timbalan Ketua Cabang (1), Naib Ketua Cabang (1) and Ahli Jawatankuasa Cabang (15);

b. Jawatankuasa Wanita Cabang – Ketua Wanita Cabang (1), Timbalan Ketua Wanita Cabang (1), Naib Ketua Wanita Cabang (1) and Ahli Jawatankuasa Wanita Cabang (7); and

c. Jawatankuasa AMK Cabang – Ketua AMK (1), Timbalan Ketua AMK (1), Naib Ketua AMK (1) and Ahli Jawatankuasa AMK Cabang (15).

In contrast to a general election where a voter is required to remember say, two names, or more often than not just one logo, in the Pemilihan 2010 divisional elections, a voter has to choose up to 46 candidates. The actual process of marking and casting the ballot is thus more time consuming than in a general election. And when a voter is illiterate, this adds to the challenge.

The JPP has taken note of these issues and steps have been taken to try to ensure that voting over the coming weekend takes place in a smooth and orderly fashion. We call on all candidates and the incumbent leadership at the division level to work with us towards this end and to give the Keadilan Secretariat and our volunteers their full cooperation.

Dr. Molly Cheah
Chairperson
Jawatankuasa Pemilihan Pusat (JPP)
Dicatat oleh di

Tiada ulasan:

Catat Ulasan

Langgan: Catat Ulasan (Atom)