Anwar Ibrahim |
- Mengapa Anwar Ibrahim Dibicarakan?
- Julian Assange: At the Forefront of 21st Century Journalism
- Program Lawatan Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim ke Kedah
- Mengapa Takut Dengan Perubahan
| Mengapa Anwar Ibrahim Dibicarakan? Posted: 05 Mar 2011 07:08 PM PST Sebab mengapa Anwar Ibrahim duduk di dalam kandang tertuduh setiap hari di Mahkamah Tinggi Kuala Lumpur pada masa ini dengan menghadapi perbicaraan jenayah sememangnya difahami oleh mereka yang benar-benar waras. Anwar sedang dalam usaha untuk membuat perubahan-perubahan asas terhadap sistem pentadbiran negara ini dan juga ke atas wacana politik nasional. Perubahan ini semestinya menghakis pengaruh kerajaan Barisan Nasional (BN) dan pastinya akan menyingkirkan dari kekuasaan. Pemimpin dan kerajaan BN sememangnya tidak peduli tentang kewajaran perubahan ini yang memberi manfaat kepada rakyat. Apa yang mereka pentingkan adalah kelangsungan politik mereka sahaja. Selain hanya obsesi ke atas kelangsungan ini, mereka juga mengabaikan perkara-perkara yang memberikan manfaat kepada negara. Reformasi yang dibawa oleh Anwar akan menghapuskan ketidakcekapan pengurusan ekonomi dan pembaziran yang diakibatkan dari gejala rasuah dan kronisme; bebas dari kawalan institusi politik yang sepatutnya bersifat bebas; dan mengembalikan kebebasan politik kepada rakyat yang dirampas oleh kerajaan BN selama lebih 50 tahun. Struktur, imperatif dan para personaliti BN membuatkan ianya mustahil bagi mereka untuk melaksanakan perubahan dan memulihkan diri mereka. Maka mereka mengetatkan cengkaman ke atas negara yang sedang bergelut untuk bergerak ke depan menuju kebebasan dan kemakmuran untuk semua, dan menggunakan cara tertentu untuk melumpuhkan sesiapa yang berjuang untuk mengembalikan kuasa kepada rakyat. Maka setiap hari Anwar didudukkan di dalam kandang tertuduh, dan nasib negara digantung tanpa tali. Adalah sesuatu yang tidak asing lagi buat rejim yang zalim untuk merencana pendakwaan fitnah terhadap musuh-musuh politik mereka. Dalam tahun 1930-an, Stalin merancang beberapa siri perbicaraan yang menyaksikan penyingkiran semua yang mengancam kekuasaan beliau. Pada 1995, Ken Saro Wiwa, seorang tokoh pengkritik yang dihormati di dalam kerajaan Nigeria telah didakwa dengan pertuduhan rekaan oleh tribunal tentera dan dijatuhi hukuman mati walaupun dikecam masyarakat antarabangsa. Pada 2009, ikon demokrasi Burma, Aung San Suu Kyi telah dijatuhi hukuman tiga tahun penjara dengan kerja berat selepas didakwa dalam perbicaraan palsu atas pertuduhan tidak masuk akal iaitu mengingkari perintah tahanan rumah. Dengan mencontohi tindakan-tindakan ini, Kerajaan BN mendakwa Anwar Ibrahim. Rakyat cuba diperbodohkan dengan perbicaraan ini yang dibalut dan disamarkan secara formal dengan perendahan undang-undang. Sebagai ketua pendakwaan, Pejabat Peguam Negara mestilah berubah secara komprehensif, dan kuasanya yang besar mesti dikaji. Pihak tertinggi polis dan kerajaan mestilah bertanggungjawab terhadap pencabulan perundangan awam dan pembaziran wang rakyat akibat dari perbicaraan ini. Tiada negara yang bergelut atas nama Kebebasan boleh ditekan sebegitu lama. Jalannya mungkin panjang dan sukar, namun saya menyeru setiap rakyat negara bertuah ini agar melihat semua ini. Kita berhutang dengan diri sendiri dan generasi akan datang. N SURENDRAN === WHY ANWAR IBRAHIM IS IN THE DOCK The reason why Anwar Ibrahim now sits daily in the dock of the Kuala Lumpur High Court undergoing trial on a criminal charge is obvious to any thinking person. Anwar tried to set in train a series of fundamental changes to the way this country is being administered and to our national political discourse. These changes would almost certainly have rendered the Barisan Nasional (BN) government irrelevant and eventually driven them from power. It is of no matter to the BN government and its leaders that these changes are supremely beneficial to the people. It is only their own political survival that matters to them. Upon this survival they are obsessively fixated, to the utter exclusion of what is good for the country. Anwar’s reforms would have driven out economic mismanagement and wasteful corruption and cronyism; freed from political control institutions that were meant to be independent; and returned to us the political freedoms wrested away by the BN government over the course of 50 long years. The BN’s structures, imperatives and personalities make it virtually impossible for them to embrace reform and to redeem themselves. And so they tighten their debilitating grip on a country that is struggling to move forward towards freedom and prosperity for all, and use underhand means to strike down anyone fighting to return power to the people. Thus, Anwar sits daily in a hard angular dock, and the nation’s fate hangs in balance. It is nothing new for intolerant regimes to organize trumped-up charges against political opponents. In the 1930s, Stalin engineered a series of show trials which disposed of all those who posed any kind of threat to his power. In 1995 Ken Saro Wiwa, a highly respected critic of the Nigerian government was tried on fabricated charges by a military tribunal and executed despite international condemnation. In 2009 Burmese democracy icon Aung San Suu Kyi was sentenced to 3 years of hard labour in prison after a sham trial on a ridiculous charge of having broken house arrest. Brave Chinese dissidents such as Nobel peace laureate Liu Xiaobo are regularly prosecuted in the communist regime’s unrighteous courts and given long prison sentences. It is in this revolting tradition that the Barisan Nasional government now carries on the judicial persecution and show trial of Anwar Ibrahim. It fools no one that this hounding of Anwar Ibrahim is clothed and camouflaged by a debased type of formal legal process. As the chief instrument of this persecution, the office of the Attorney General must be comprehensively reformed, and his untrammelled powers must be checked by far-reaching legislative reforms. The higher police authorities and the government must be held accountable for the outrage done to the course of public justice and for the sheer waste of public funds necessitated by these proceedings. No nation struggling to a new birth of Freedom can be held down for long. The road may be long and hard, but I call upon the people of our great nation to stay the course and see things through. We owe this to ourselves and to the generations to come. N SURENDRAN This posting includes an audio/video/photo media file: Download Now |
| Julian Assange: At the Forefront of 21st Century Journalism Posted: 04 Mar 2011 09:46 PM PST by: Kevin Zeese, t r u t h o u t | News Analysis If there were ever a doubt about whether the editor in chief of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, is a journalist, recent events erase all those doubts and put him at the forefront of a movement to democratize journalism and empower people. The US Department of Justice is still trying to find a way to prosecute Assange and others associated with WikiLeaks. A key to their prosecution is claiming he is not a journalist, but that weak premise has been made laughable by recent events. The list of WikiLeaks revelations has become astounding. During the North African and Middle East revolts, WikiLeaks published documents that provided people with critical information. The traditional media has relied on WikiLeaks publications, and is now also emulating WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks has been credited by many with helping to spark the Tunisian revolution because it provided information about the widespread corruption of the 23-year rule of the Ben Ali regime. PBS pointed to ten cables, dating from 2006 to 2009 and published by WikiLeaks in November, that were translated and shared widely in Tunisia detailing the corruption and authoritarian rule of Ben Ali, who lived in opulent luxury while Tunisians struggled. Foreign Policy reported that, “the candor of the cables released by WikiLeaks did more for Arab democracy than decades of backstage US diplomacy.” In Egypt, WikiLeaks publications provided democracy activists with the information needed to spark protests, provided background that explained the Egyptian uprising and described the suppression of opinions critical of the regime by arrest and harassment of journalists, bloggers and a poet. They showed the common use of police brutality and torture; the abuse of the 1967 emergency law to arrest and indefinitely detain journalists, activists, labor leaders and members of the Muslim Brotherhood; as well as how rivals were removed to ensure Gamal Mubarak succeeded his father. Traditional media publications like The New York Times relied on WikiLeaks to analyze the causes of the uprising. Another set of documents described how Israel and the US wanted Omar Suleiman to replace Mubarak. Suleiman, a military intelligence officer for three decades, was described by Secretary of State Clinton as the preferred successor. WikiLeaks wrote an article describing Suleiman’s close relationship with the United States. Suleiman described Egypt as “a partner” with the US, and the US described him as “the most successful element of the relationship” with Egypt. The long history of Suleiman working with Israel to suppress democracy in Gaza, keeping the people of Gaza hungry and being in constant contact with Israel through a hotline was revealed. WikiLeaks also showed that Suleiman shared US and Israeli concern over Iran and was disdainful of Muslims, and the Muslim Brotherhood, in politics. All of this made Suleiman very popular with Israel and the US, but unacceptable to democracy advocates. The United States used some WikiLeaks publications to show that it had been critical of Egypt and exerted private pressure, as well as support for democracy activists like Mohamed ElBaradei. Despite what has been portrayed in the traditional media, WikiLeaks published materials with an agenda for transparency and an informed public, not an intent to harm the US. WikiLeaks informed the Bahrain public about their government’s cozy relationship with the US. It described a $5 billion joint venture with Occidental Petroleum and $300 million in US military sales. ABC reported on WikiLeaks documents that described the close relationship between US and Bahrain intelligence agencies and how the US Navy is the foundation of Bahrain’s national security. This fact was emphasized to General Petraeus along with the US and Bahrain’s common opposition to Iran and to al-Qaeda in Iraq, and the two country’s shared desire for US troops to stay in Iraq. WikiLeaks has been criticized by US enemies. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad described WikiLeaks as US “intelligence warfare,” saying: “These documents are prepared and released by the US government in a planned manner and in pursuance of a goal.” WikiLeaks was criticized by Libya’s Ghaddafi, who shut down Facebook in Tripoli and sporadically shut off the Internet to prevent Libyans from knowing the truth. No doubt WikiLeaks publications embarrassed Ghaddafi and added fuel to internal opposition to his regime. WikiLeaks is filling a void in the traditional media as the level of distrust of the mass media is now at record highs. A recent Gallup poll found 57 percent of Americans do not trust the media, and a Pew poll found a record-low 29 percent trust the media. There is good reason for distrust. The New York Times helped start the Iraq War by publishing the false weapons of mass destruction story. It recently misled the public about a Blackwater employee arrested in Pakistan by hiding the fact that he worked for the CIA, reporting that Obama said he was a diplomat. Even the way the Times and The Washington Post reported on WikiLeaks documents showed reason for distrust. WikiLeaks described Iranian long-range missiles that could hit European cities, but also reported that Russian intelligence refuted the claim. The Times and the Post evidently made a decision to exaggerate Iranian capability and mislead readers by excluding the Russian intelligence report. The Times admits it provides WikiLeaks documents to the government in advance and excludes material at the request of the government. There has been a steady decline in readers and viewers of newspapers and television news since 1980. The decline began before the existence of the Internet. The decline in younger readers has been particularly noticeable. Thirty years ago, 60 percent of people under age 36 read a newspaper daily; now it is only 30 percent. The Internet has seen a steady rise in viewers and news outlets. Even though some in the traditional media are threatened by WikiLeaks, more and more outlets are acknowledging their journalism. Reporters Without Borders hosts a mirror site of WikiLeaks as “a gesture of support for WikiLeaks’ right to publish information without being obstructed.” Similarly, a mainstream French newspaper, Liberation, announced a “mirror-WikiLeaks” site on its web site. Jeff Jarvis of the City University of New York’s (CUNY) Graduate School of Journalism writes: “We in journalism must recognize that WikiLeaks is an element of a new ecosystem of news. It is a new form of the press. So we must defend its rights as media. If we do not, we could find our own rights curtailed. Asking whether WikiLeaks should be stopped is exactly like asking whether this newspaper should be stopped when it reveals what government does not want the public to know. We have been there before; let us never return.” The Guardian wrote in an editorial: “There is a need as never before for an internet that remains a free and universal form of communication. WikiLeaks’ chief crime has been to speak truth to power. What is at stake is nothing less than the freedom of the internet.” Jay Rosen of the New York University journalism school describes WikiLeaks as the first stateless news agency. The actions of WikiLeaks, he noted, show our news organizations how “statist they really are” and leakers’ choice to go to WikiLeaks rather than the traditional media shows how distrustful people are of the corporate media. This all shows that “the watchdog press has died” and WikiLeaks is filling the void. The void will exist – and be filled – whether or not the Department of Justice prosecutes Julian Assange. The Economist writes: “With or without WikiLeaks, the technology exists to allow whistleblowers to leak data and documents while maintaining anonymity. With or without WikiLeaks, the personnel, technical know-how, and ideological will exists to enable anonymous leaking and to make this information available to the public. Jailing Thomas Edison in 1890 would not have darkened the night.” The traditional media is emulating WikiLeaks. Al Jazeera has created a “transparency unit” that launched in January 2011 and has published the Palestine Papers, which describe the Palestinian-Israeli peace process based on leaked documents. The New York Times is now talking about creating its own version of WikiLeaks. Students at CUNY’s Graduate School of Journalism designed LocaLeaks, allowing anonymous encrypted leaks to over 1,400 US newspapers. Government employees and business insiders can now report illegal or unethical practices without being identified. The journalism democracy door has been opened, power to report is being redistributed, government employees and corporate whistleblowers are being empowered and greater transparency is becoming a reality. The United States would be better off accepting these realities than prosecuting the news organization that showed the way. Prosecution will highlight the utter hypocrisy of the US government, showing the world it does not mean what it says when it claims that freedom of the speech and press are cornerstones of democratic government. |
| Program Lawatan Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim ke Kedah Posted: 04 Mar 2011 09:42 PM PST Sempena Sambutan 3 Tahun Kedah Sejahtera Di Bawah Pemerintahan Pakatan Rakyat 8 Mac 2011 (Selasa) 9.00 – 12.00 Malam – Ceramah Perdana Lokasi : Kompleks PAS Batu 9, Jalan Kota Sarang Semut, Pendang Penceramah: |
| Mengapa Takut Dengan Perubahan Posted: 04 Mar 2011 09:40 PM PST Pagi ini terpampang amaran pemimpin Umno agar pembangkang jangan bermain api. Amaran ini dikeluarkan oleh pimpinan Umno kerana para pemimpin Pakatan Rakyat memulakan inisiatif membandingkan antara tuntutan Perubahan yang diungkapkan di Timur Tengah serta Afrika Utara dengan tuntutan Perubahan di Malaysia. Sebenarnya apa yang Pakatan Rakyat lakukan sekadar mengingatkan kerajaan agar mengambil iktibar akan beberapa persoalan mendasar yang menjadi punca kemarahan penduduk di Libya, Mesir dan Tunisia misalnya. Apakah peringatan yang diungkapkan kita agar kekayaan jangan hanya tertumpu kepada segelintir manakala masih ramai yang terpaksa membanting tulang untuk sesuap nasi itu suatu usaha meniup kebencian? Apakah usaha kita mendedahkan betapa 1.36 juta(34%) dari 4 juta pekerja di Malaysia dibayar kurang dari RM 700 sebulan, manakala 40% dari keseluruhan rakyat Malaysia hanya menikmati pendapatan isi rumah kurang dari RM 1500 itu suatu usaha hasutan? Hanya mereka yang memahami Demokrasi itu sekadar pilihanraya 5 tahun sekali menganggap usaha mengungkapkan kebenaran sebagai suatu hasutan. Nah sekarang apa bezanya propaganda diktator di sana dengan regim Umno-BN di sini? Ternyata yang menghasut dan meniup kebencian adalah pimpinan Umno-BN, bukannya Pakatan Rakyat. Hampir setiap hari tohmahan dilemparkan kepada pimpinan Pakatan Rakyat seumpama agen pengkhianat dan agen asing. Modus operandi yang sama digunakan oleh diktator di Mesir dan Libya terhadap penentangnya. Cumanya, hanya di Malaysia, regim pemerintah berusaha menghalang kemaraan Perubahan dengan fitnah liwat. Persoalannya mengapa pimpinan Umno-BN begitu gusat dengan Perubahan yang melanda Timur Tengah dan Afrika Utara sekiranya negara kita tidak berhadapan dengan permasalahan tersebut. Oleh kerana terlalu takut, Dato’ Sri Najib, sepertimana yang dilaporkan National Review, sanggup meragui sosok ulama terkenal, Sheikh Yusuf al Qaradawi serta menuduh gerakan Ikhwan al Muslimun masih terbabit dengan keganasan. Apa yang pasti, laungan mahu melaksanakan perubahan oleh pimpinan Umno hanya sekadar kosmetik politik. Rakyat sedar pengumuman demi pengumuman langsung tidak membawa manfaat kepada mereka melainkan menguntungkan mereka yang dekat dengan pemerintah. Justeru kepada pemimpin Umno-BN yang mengeluarkan amaran itu, saya ingatkan mereka, “Hanya mereka yang makan cili terasa pedasnya.” ANWAR IBRAHIM |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Anwar Ibrahim To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
Tiada ulasan:
Catat Ulasan