Anwar Ibrahim |
- Jelajah Bas Merdeka Rakyat Ke Selangor Bersama Dato’ Sri Anwar Ibrahim, Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim, Azmin Ali & MPN
- Who’s the Bigger Friend of Israel — And Do Voters Really Care?
- Pakatan Ulangi Jaminan Beri Pendidikan Percuma, Hapus PTPTN Dan Tol
- Tuduhan Sanusi Tidak Berasas
| Posted: 24 Oct 2012 06:40 PM PDT 28 Oktober 2012 (Ahad) 1) 10.00 pagi – Pekan Sungai Besi 2) 12.30-hari –Warung Ibu Nasi Ambeng, Kg Sungai Gulang-Gulang, Permatang, Tanjung Karang 3) 3.00 ptg – Padang Sepaktakraw, Bagan Nakhoda Omar, Sungai Air Tawar, Sabak Bernam 4) 5.00 ptg – Felda Sungai Tengi Selatan 5) 7.00 mlm – Solat & Tazkirah Maghrib 6) Lokasi – Masjid Abu Bakar Ali Bashah, Taman Bunga Raya, Bukit Beruntung 7) 9.00 – 10.00 mlm – Pekan Rasa 8) 9.00 -12.00 mlm – Ceramah Perdana- Merdeka Rakyat Lokasi : Pusat Bandar Baru Batang Kali, Ulu Selangor Barisan Penceramah: i. YB Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim ii. YAB Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim iii. YB Azmin Ali iv. YB Zuraida Kamaruddin v. YBhg N Surendran |
| Who’s the Bigger Friend of Israel — And Do Voters Really Care? Posted: 24 Oct 2012 11:48 AM PDT From al.monitor By: Shibley Telhami posted on Tuesday, Oct 23, 2012 One of the striking aspects of the third presidential debate was the frequent mention of Israel (34 times). Western Europe and the challenges facing the European Union, or Mexico and Latin America hardly registered. It is as if the Israel issue is a burning one in American politics, or that the American public is dying to see which candidate supports Israel more. Neither is close to the truth. Even aside from the fact that Americans are not much focused on foreign policy in any case in determining their electoral choices, the Israel issue is often misunderstood. For years now, polls indicate that when Americans are asked if they want the United States to lean toward Israel, toward the Palestinians, or toward neither side, about two thirds consistently choose neither side. Roughly one quarter to one third want the US to take sides, and among those, Israel is favored over the Palestinians by a strong ratio, ranging from 3-to-1 to 5-to-1. But something happened over the past decade in public attitudes toward Israel: America has become far more polarized than ever before. Historically, there was little difference in the degree of support for Israel among Democrats, Independents, and Republicans. In recent polls, a huge difference emerged. According to two polls I conducted with the Program for International Policy Attitudes in 2010 and 2011, more than two thirds of Democrats and Independents wanted to the United States to take neither side in the conflict, and among those who supported one side or the other, the ratio of support for Israel over the Palestinians was about 2-to-1. Republicans had substantially different views: Nearly half wanted the United States to lean toward Israel and the ratio of support for Israel over the Palestinians was 46-to-1. In other words, the Israel issue has become far more a Republican issue than a Democratic one, at the level of constituency opinion. Obviously, given the demographic makeup of both major parties, it is more about the Evangelical Rights than about Jewish Americans. Yet these demographics do not explain why both candidates would go out of their way to compete in avowing support for Israel. In fact, two of the constituencies that were a central target of the final presidential debate, Independents and women, were less likely to want the United States to take sides. And it is obvious that Mitt Romney labored to bring up women’s issues (at least in the Middle Eastern contest, where it is “safe” politically) and projected himself as a candidate for “peace,” knowing that the general public — especially Independents and women — feared being dragged into another costly war. Is there any risk of alienating them? No. An Israeli friend with whom I spoke the morning after the debate said he felt “embarrassed” and “uncomfortable” about the frequent mention of Israel in the debate, knowing that neither candidate truly ranked this issue as high in their priorities as they made it appear. I suspect that many Americans felt the same way, or felt at least puzzled. But here is why it is not likely to make a difference for those who didn’t like the focus on Israel: In the polling we have done in the past couple of years, those who want the US to take neither side rank the issue of the Arab-Israeli conflict much lower in their priorities than those who want the US to take Israel’s side. Those who don’t rank the issue high in their priorities are less likely to vote based on the candidate’s position on that issue. They can be uncomfortable, but not uncomfortable enough to make a difference. In a close election campaign like this one, the focus is much narrower. Certainly, there is a fundraising aspect of American electoral politics, and supporters of Israel tend to be generous contributors in the American electoral process, which is an important element of the clout of organizations like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), whose mission is to consolidate American support for Israel. But electorally it matters, too. Sure, majorities of Jewish Americans will vote Democratic no matter what, as the Israel issue is not the top (or even the second top) issue in their voting behavior. And the Evangelical Right will mostly vote Republican, no matter what Romney’s position is on foreign policy. Still, both constituencies also need to be energized. But, in the end, the principle focus of the campaigns in the final two weeks on this issue is two swing states in which Jewish voters could affect a close election: Florida and Ohio. One Republican advisor, Ari Fleischer has been quoted to say that with only 25% of Jewish votes going to Romney, Republicans would win Florida, and 30% support would mean winning Ohio and the election. That certainly sounds like an exaggeration. But no democratic strategist wants to test it out. All of this adds up to a show that is particularly hard to take seriously for many voters, and which is puzzling to audiences around the world, especially in the Middle East. But most have come to expect that there is in the end little correlation between what is said in the heat of political campaigns, and what presidents in fact do when elected. Shibley Telhami is Anwar Sadat professor for Peace and Development at the University of Maryland and Non-Resident Senior Fellow at the Saban Center of the Brookings Institution. He is co-author of the forthcoming book, “The Peace Puzzle: America’s Quest for Arab-Israeli Peace, 1989-2011″ (Cornell University Press, December 2012). |
| Pakatan Ulangi Jaminan Beri Pendidikan Percuma, Hapus PTPTN Dan Tol Posted: 23 Oct 2012 11:17 PM PDT Pakatan Rakyat (Pakatan) sekali lagi mengulangi jaminan akan mereformasi sistem pendidikan negara dengan memberi pendidikan percuma serta menghapuskan pinjaman Perbadanan Tabung Pendidikan Tinggi Nasional (PTPTN) jika membentuk Kerajaan Persekutuan yang baru. Pengarah Strategi KEADILAN, Rafizi Ramli berkata, Pakatan mempunyai beberapa pendekatan untuk mengurus ekonomi antaranya mereformasi pendidikan, meningkatkan pendapatan rakyat dan mengurus sumber dengan baik tanpa ketirisan. "Malaysia perlu bertukar daripada ekonomi yang bergantung kepada komoditi kepada negara modal insan yang inovatif dan kreatif. Caranya adalah mereformasi sistem pendidikan, memberi pendidikan percuma dan menghapus PTPTN," katanya dalam forum "Bagaimana Kerajaan Pakatan Rakyat akan membelanjakan wang rakyat" di Dewan Perhimpunan Cina Kuala Lumpur-Selangor (KLSCH), kelmarin. Rafizi berkata, untuk meningkatkan pendapatan boleh guna rakyat, Pakatan berhasrat melaksanakan gaji minima RM1,100 yang dijangka dapat melepaskan rakyat daripada garis kemiskinan. Menurutnya, Pakatan juga akan mengurangkan kos sara hidup antaranya penurunan harga minyak, cukai kereta serta penghapusan tol. "Sebahagian besar pendapatan rakyat dibelanjakan untuk membayar ansuran kereta, membayar tol dan minyak. Jika kita dapat mengurangkan beban ini kita dapat meningkatkan lebihan daripada pendapatan mereka," katanya. Mengupas mengenai kebajikan wanita, Ahli Parlimen Kota Raja, Dr Siti Mariah Mahmud berkata, Pakatan berhasrat membelanjakan sehingga RM4.5 bilion peruntukan dalam Belanjawan 2013, merangkumi Skim Caruman Wanita Nasional (SCWN) yang menelan kos RM3 bilion dan Skim Elaun Penjagaan Anak (SEPA) melibatkan peruntukan RM940 juta setahun. Menerusi SCWN, beliau berkata, Pakatan berhasrat memberi caruman sebanyak RM600 setahun kepada suri rumah sebagai persediaan keselamatan sosial termasuk kematian suami, penceraian atau kurang upaya. Sementara itu, Ahli Parlimen Klang, Charles Santiago pula menegaskan, kajian Bank Dunia menyatakan gaji minima RM1,100 Pakatan tidak akan memufliskan negara. Katanya, dasar tersebut mampu mengurangkan penggunaan tenaga kerja warga asing dan meningkatkan kualiti hidup rakyat. "Satu kajian lain di Indonesia pada 1990 merumuskan perlaksanaan gaji minima bukan mengurang pengangguran malah dapat mewujudkan perniagaan baru, peluang pekerjaan dan merapatkan jurang kekayaan," katanya. |
| Posted: 23 Oct 2012 09:02 PM PDT Kenyataan bekas Menteri Kabinet, Tan Sri Sanusi Junid bahawa Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim menggagalkan agenda Melayu ketika memegang jawatan Menteri Kewangan adalah tidak berasas sama sekali. Menurut Sanusi ketika sebuah forum ekonomi Melayu semalam, Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohammad dan Tun Daim Zainuddin cuba 'meniru' dasar anti-Yahudi Jerman dahulu dengan tidak memberikan lesen perbankan kepada masyarakat bukan Melayu. Namun Sanusi mendakwa usaha ini digagalkan oleh Anwar yang memberikan lesen perbankan kepada dua kumpulan bukan Melayu – Hong Leong Bank dan Alliance Bank. Tuduhan Sanusi tidak berasas. Alliance Bank Malaysia Berhad merupakan syarikat perbankan di bawah Alliance Financial Group Berhad (AFG) yang dikaitkan dengan Tun Daim Zainudin. Daim dikatakan memiliki 14.8% AFG menerusi Langkah Bahagia Sdn Bhd. Langkah Bahagia bersama-sama pihak-pihak berkaitan syarikat pelaburan Singapura, Temasek Holdings Ltd mempunyai kepentingan di dalam AFG menerusi Vertical Theme Sdn Bhd. Hubungan AFG dan Daim bermula sejak 1982 lagi apabila beliau membeli Malaysian French Bank. Malaysian French Bank kemudian dinamakan Multi-Purpose Bank. Pada 1997, Langkah Bahagia membeli saham di dalam Hock Hua Bank (Sabah). Salah seorang pemilik saham Langkah Bahagia, Mohd Nasir Ali mengumumkan bahawa beliau bertindak bagi pihak Daim. Hock Hua Bank kemudian ditukar nama menjadi International Bank Malaysia Berhad dan digabungkan bersama Multi-Purpose Bank serta enam lagi syarikat kewangan untuk menjadi AFG. Mungkin agenda Melayu yang dimaksudkan Sanusi adalah untuk menjaga kepentingan saham kroni-kroni UMNO-BN seperti bagaimana Petronas ditekan untuk menyelamatkan syarikat milik anak Mahathir, Mirzan iaitu Konsortium Perkapalan Berhad sewaktu krisis ekonomi 1997 dengan harga melebihi kadar pasaran. Namun yang menghalang usaha tersebut ialah Anwar. Nyata sekali kenyataan Sanusi adalah fitnah semata-mata yang tidak berasas. Ketaksuban beliau di dalam menyerang Anwar dan mempertahankan Mahathir dan Daim membuatkan beliau tidak nampak penyelewengan ekonomi yang telah menjadikan rakyat Malaysia umumnya dan Melayu umumnya sebagai mangsa. NIK NAZMI NIK AHMAD |
| 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