The residents of Permatang Pasir, Batu Talam, Machap and Ijok were blessed with millions and millions ringgits of 'development' and much needed infrastructure, aids (not from HIV positive)and even 'instant' traffic light. The traffic light installed in Ijok broke the world record. It was done in less than 10 hours.
They were blessed with by-elections and hey presto! Lots of development allocations were approved. The Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, several ministers and chief ministers found the time to 'turun padang' to meet the people. Various activities were carried out for the benefit of the people by the 'caring' government.
By-elections are most welcomed by the people. It is the time for the government to be extra generous, to be caring and to be near the people!
We need the by-elections! I would like to humbly request either my MP (Ampang) or Selangor State Assemblyman (Bukit Antarabangsa) to resign so that a by-election can be held. We need hell lot of things here in Ampang and the only way we can get them is by having a by-election.
Is it too much to ask? Malaysia Boleh!
KUDA RANGGI - You can take a horse to (the) water but you can't make it drink.
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Now the government wants to monitor the Internet
The Ministry of Information, Malaysia, is to set up a unit to monitor issues of national interest on the Internet. The unit would answer all 'lies and slander'.
Deputy Information Minister, Chia Kwang Chye said the idea was mooted in view of the 'growing importance of the Internet as a powerful communication tool.'
Chia said answers would be in the form of written explanations. However, he did not say how or to whom the answers are to be given.
Of late, the Information Ministry has been 'invading' into other ministries portfolios and this latest move is a classic example.
The Information Ministry have no enforcement power on the Internet or its contents, in fact, it has no enforcement power even over contents of its own radio and television networks. The enforcement power has been transfered to the Energy, Water and Communications Ministry.
Under prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad, the Information Ministry's 'power' has been reduced to just information and a not-so-accurate and reliable feedback agency. Its supervisory and authority on broadcasting matters including approving of licence and monitoring of electronic media contents has been taken away. It has also lost control over the National Film Development Corporation or FINAS to the Culture, Arts and Heritage Ministry.
The Information Ministry is now left with the Information Department, the National News Agency (Bernama), the National Film Unit (Filem Negara) and the Special Affairs Department. Bernama, a statutory board, is factually on its own feet.
It is a well known fact that the Information Ministry has not been successful in a number of tasks assigned to it. For example, it failed to woo foreign news agencies and electronic media to set up their regional office or bureau in Kuala Lumpur.
In the year 2000, the ministry said that it was wooing the foreign media to Kuala Lumpur which it claimed offered comparative advantages such as the KL International Airport, the Multi Media Super Corridor and the Petronas Twin Towers.
The government failed to establish Kuala Lumpur as a regional news and information centre and the Information Ministry was responsible for its failure.
International news agencies and television news networks such as Reuters, AFP (French news agency), Associated Press, Kyodo news agency, Jiji and Fuji from Japan, Cable News Network (CNN), CNBC and BBC decided to set up their regional bureaus in Singapore.
Now, the ministry wants to monitor issues of national interest on the Internet, what can I say... enjoy surfing the net!
Deputy Information Minister, Chia Kwang Chye said the idea was mooted in view of the 'growing importance of the Internet as a powerful communication tool.'
Chia said answers would be in the form of written explanations. However, he did not say how or to whom the answers are to be given.
Of late, the Information Ministry has been 'invading' into other ministries portfolios and this latest move is a classic example.
The Information Ministry have no enforcement power on the Internet or its contents, in fact, it has no enforcement power even over contents of its own radio and television networks. The enforcement power has been transfered to the Energy, Water and Communications Ministry.
Under prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad, the Information Ministry's 'power' has been reduced to just information and a not-so-accurate and reliable feedback agency. Its supervisory and authority on broadcasting matters including approving of licence and monitoring of electronic media contents has been taken away. It has also lost control over the National Film Development Corporation or FINAS to the Culture, Arts and Heritage Ministry.
The Information Ministry is now left with the Information Department, the National News Agency (Bernama), the National Film Unit (Filem Negara) and the Special Affairs Department. Bernama, a statutory board, is factually on its own feet.
It is a well known fact that the Information Ministry has not been successful in a number of tasks assigned to it. For example, it failed to woo foreign news agencies and electronic media to set up their regional office or bureau in Kuala Lumpur.
In the year 2000, the ministry said that it was wooing the foreign media to Kuala Lumpur which it claimed offered comparative advantages such as the KL International Airport, the Multi Media Super Corridor and the Petronas Twin Towers.
The government failed to establish Kuala Lumpur as a regional news and information centre and the Information Ministry was responsible for its failure.
International news agencies and television news networks such as Reuters, AFP (French news agency), Associated Press, Kyodo news agency, Jiji and Fuji from Japan, Cable News Network (CNN), CNBC and BBC decided to set up their regional bureaus in Singapore.
Now, the ministry wants to monitor issues of national interest on the Internet, what can I say... enjoy surfing the net!
Friday, April 20, 2007
Peruntukan dan pembangunan segera bila berlaku pilihan raya kecil
Setiap kali berlaku pilihan raya kecil, ratusan juta ringgit akan 'hangus' atas nama pembangunan, bantuan atau bermacam bentuk subsidi. Jika sebelum itu, kawasan pilihan raya terbabit tidak termimpi untuk mendapatkannya dalam keadaan 'segera' apa yang dipohon atau dirayu. Inilah kenyataan di bumi bertuah bernama Malaysia!
Pengundi di Ijok, sebuah kawasan pilihan raya Dewan Undangan Negeri Selangor, boleh bersyukur kerana mereka akan dilimpahi 'rahmat' pilihan raya kecil. Awal-awal lagi Menteri Besar Dr Khir Toyo telahpun 'menunaikan' janji-janji pilihan raya lalu berjumlah hampir RM40 juta.
Ramai yang berpendapat bahawa perbuatan sedemikian sebenarnya satu amalan rasuah atau sogokan untuk mendapat sokongan pengundi. Walaupun pandangan itu ada asasnya namun dari segi peraturan dan undangan-undang ia dibolehkan.
Para menteri, menteri besar/ketua menteri, timbalan menteri dan setiausaha parlimen ditakrifkan sebagai anggota pentadbiran dan mereka boleh merasmikan apa-apa majlis di kawasan sesuatu pilihan raya atas 'urusan rasmi'.
Ia lebih tertumpu kepada majlis-majlis yang berbentuk perasmian jalan, sekolah, jambatan, surau, rumah-rumah ibadat bukan Islam atau balai raya walaupun projek berkenaan sudah 10 tahun siap dan bukan sesuatu yang baru. Inilah hakikat yang dapat dilihat semasa sesuatu pilihan raya kecil diadakan.
Yang perlu diketahui ialah jika sesuatu majlis itu melibatkan pemberian berupa sumbangan seperti komputer, basikal ataupun wang ringgit, maka ia boleh dianggap sebagai satu sogokan atau perbuatan rasuah dan dicakupi oleh Akta Kesalahan Pilihan Raya 1954.
Seksyen 10 Akta melarang "penyogokan sebelum, semasa atau selepas sesuatu pilihan raya secara langsung atau tidak langsung dengan sendiri atau melalui orang lain bagi pihaknya."
Hukuman atas perbuatan itu terkandung dalam seksyen 11 iaitu "dipenjara selama tidak lebih dua tahun atau denda tidak kurang dari RM1,000 dan tidak lebih dari RM5,000."
Seksyen 10 jelas melarang apa-apa penyogokan dalam bentuk pemberian yang disebutkan di atas jika ia bertujuan mendorong seseorang pengundi untuk mengundi atau tidak mengundi, atau untuk memancing undi.
Tetapi, ia sukar dibuktikan kerana dalam sesuatu perbuatan rasuah seperti penyogokan, niat rasuah atau dorongan rasuah (corrupt intention or corrupt inducement) dari pihak calon atau ejennya terhadap pemilih (pengundi) supaya mengundi calon berkenaan atau supaya mengundi atau tidak mengundi hendaklah wujud. Dalam hubungan ini, saksi amat penting dan orang yang menerima sogokan hendaklah berani tampil ke muka untuk membuktikan perbuatan tersebut, inilah yang amat sukar diperolehi dan sebab itulah amalan sedemikian terus berlaku.
Satu lagi keperluan undang-undang ialah bagaimana hendak memastikan bahawa apa jua pemberian di sesuatu majlis itu dibuat dengan niat atau tujuan untuk memancing undi yang dapat membuktikan bahawa ia adalah satu perbuatan rasuah dan menyalahi seksyen 10 Akta berkenaan.
Soal sama ada sesuatu pemberian itu mempunyai niat rasuah atau dorongan rasuah adalah satu soalan fakta yang hanya boleh ditentukan dengan melihat kepada hal keadaan sesuatu kes. Kenyataan ini sebenarnya memihak kepada pihak yang memerintah atau kerajaan kerana dalam musim pilihan raya, sama ada pilihan raya umum atau pilihan raya kecil, banyak habuan dan peruntukan diluluskan secara 'segera' untuk sesuatu kawasan pilihan raya.
Undang-undang yang ada sebenarnya memihak kepada kerajaan kerana anggota pentadbiran boleh meluluskan peruntukan, mengagih-agihkan bantuan dan membuat janji atas sifat sebagai menteri, menteri besar atau ketua menteri, timbalan menteri ataupun setiausaha parlimen.
Jika kerajaan ikhlas untuk berlaku adil dan menyerahkan kepada rakyat untuk membuat pilihan secara telus dan benar-benar demokratik, maka anggota pentadbiran tidak seharusnya menggunakan kedudukan mereka untuk meluluskan projek, merasmikan projek atau mengagih-agihkan apa jua bentuk bantuan atau subsidi.
Satu lagi perkara yang mungkin tidak diketahui umum ialah anggota pentadbiran tidak boleh membuat sebarang tuntutan perjalanan, penginapan dan elaun makan semasa menjalankan tugas politik termasuk berkempen dalam sesuatu pilihan raya.
Malangnya, perkara ini mudah diatasi apabila anggota pentadbiran bertindak "sambil menyelam, minum air" iaitu dengan menjalankan 'tugas rasmi' dan tugas politik 'serentak' atau beriringan. Maka tuntutan perjalanan dan tuntutan-tuntutan lain boleh dibuat berdasarkan tugas rasmi.
Semua perkara yang saya sebut di atas memperlihatkan 'ketakadilan' dalam pilihan raya tetapi ianya dapat 'ditangani' kerana undang-undang yang ada membolehkan pihak yang mewakili kerajaan, iaitu anggota pentadbiran, 'lepas diri' berpandukan tanggungjawabnya mengikut Perintah Menteri-Menteri Kerajaan Persekutuan.
Dalam hubungan ini, Suruhanjaya Pilihan Raya (SPR) tidak boleh dipersalahkan sama sekali. SPR bertindak atau menjalankan tugasnya mengikut undang-undang yang ada dan SPR bukanlah badan yang menggubal dan meluluskan undang-undang itu. Ini tugas kerajaan melalui Jabatan Peguam Negara (Penggubal Undang-Undang) dan Parlimen yang meluluskan sesuatu Rang Undang-Undang.
Banyak pihak, terutama parti-parti pembangkang, sering menuding jari kepada SPR dengan bermacam tuduhan termasuk tidak telus dan tidak berlaku adil. Bagi saya, tuduhan sedemikian adalah tidak adil dan tidak seharusnya dilemparkan kepada SPR. Ahli Suruhanjaya dilantik oleh Yang Di-Pertuan Agong manakala kakitangannya (yang diketuai oleh Setiausaha SPR) adalah anggota perkhidmatan awam yang bekerja mengikut aturan dan peraturan yang ditetapkan.
Yang harus dipersoalkan ialah sistem yang membolehkan pihak pentadbiran menggunakan aset kerajaan untuk 'memancing undi' termasuk meluluskan peruntukan, meluluskan projek, meluluskan bantuan dalam pelbagai bentuk dan menggunakan jentera kerajaan termasuk radio dan televisyen dalam sesuatu pilihan raya.
Pengundi di Ijok, sebuah kawasan pilihan raya Dewan Undangan Negeri Selangor, boleh bersyukur kerana mereka akan dilimpahi 'rahmat' pilihan raya kecil. Awal-awal lagi Menteri Besar Dr Khir Toyo telahpun 'menunaikan' janji-janji pilihan raya lalu berjumlah hampir RM40 juta.
Ramai yang berpendapat bahawa perbuatan sedemikian sebenarnya satu amalan rasuah atau sogokan untuk mendapat sokongan pengundi. Walaupun pandangan itu ada asasnya namun dari segi peraturan dan undangan-undang ia dibolehkan.
Para menteri, menteri besar/ketua menteri, timbalan menteri dan setiausaha parlimen ditakrifkan sebagai anggota pentadbiran dan mereka boleh merasmikan apa-apa majlis di kawasan sesuatu pilihan raya atas 'urusan rasmi'.
Ia lebih tertumpu kepada majlis-majlis yang berbentuk perasmian jalan, sekolah, jambatan, surau, rumah-rumah ibadat bukan Islam atau balai raya walaupun projek berkenaan sudah 10 tahun siap dan bukan sesuatu yang baru. Inilah hakikat yang dapat dilihat semasa sesuatu pilihan raya kecil diadakan.
Yang perlu diketahui ialah jika sesuatu majlis itu melibatkan pemberian berupa sumbangan seperti komputer, basikal ataupun wang ringgit, maka ia boleh dianggap sebagai satu sogokan atau perbuatan rasuah dan dicakupi oleh Akta Kesalahan Pilihan Raya 1954.
Seksyen 10 Akta melarang "penyogokan sebelum, semasa atau selepas sesuatu pilihan raya secara langsung atau tidak langsung dengan sendiri atau melalui orang lain bagi pihaknya."
Hukuman atas perbuatan itu terkandung dalam seksyen 11 iaitu "dipenjara selama tidak lebih dua tahun atau denda tidak kurang dari RM1,000 dan tidak lebih dari RM5,000."
Seksyen 10 jelas melarang apa-apa penyogokan dalam bentuk pemberian yang disebutkan di atas jika ia bertujuan mendorong seseorang pengundi untuk mengundi atau tidak mengundi, atau untuk memancing undi.
Tetapi, ia sukar dibuktikan kerana dalam sesuatu perbuatan rasuah seperti penyogokan, niat rasuah atau dorongan rasuah (corrupt intention or corrupt inducement) dari pihak calon atau ejennya terhadap pemilih (pengundi) supaya mengundi calon berkenaan atau supaya mengundi atau tidak mengundi hendaklah wujud. Dalam hubungan ini, saksi amat penting dan orang yang menerima sogokan hendaklah berani tampil ke muka untuk membuktikan perbuatan tersebut, inilah yang amat sukar diperolehi dan sebab itulah amalan sedemikian terus berlaku.
Satu lagi keperluan undang-undang ialah bagaimana hendak memastikan bahawa apa jua pemberian di sesuatu majlis itu dibuat dengan niat atau tujuan untuk memancing undi yang dapat membuktikan bahawa ia adalah satu perbuatan rasuah dan menyalahi seksyen 10 Akta berkenaan.
Soal sama ada sesuatu pemberian itu mempunyai niat rasuah atau dorongan rasuah adalah satu soalan fakta yang hanya boleh ditentukan dengan melihat kepada hal keadaan sesuatu kes. Kenyataan ini sebenarnya memihak kepada pihak yang memerintah atau kerajaan kerana dalam musim pilihan raya, sama ada pilihan raya umum atau pilihan raya kecil, banyak habuan dan peruntukan diluluskan secara 'segera' untuk sesuatu kawasan pilihan raya.
Undang-undang yang ada sebenarnya memihak kepada kerajaan kerana anggota pentadbiran boleh meluluskan peruntukan, mengagih-agihkan bantuan dan membuat janji atas sifat sebagai menteri, menteri besar atau ketua menteri, timbalan menteri ataupun setiausaha parlimen.
Jika kerajaan ikhlas untuk berlaku adil dan menyerahkan kepada rakyat untuk membuat pilihan secara telus dan benar-benar demokratik, maka anggota pentadbiran tidak seharusnya menggunakan kedudukan mereka untuk meluluskan projek, merasmikan projek atau mengagih-agihkan apa jua bentuk bantuan atau subsidi.
Satu lagi perkara yang mungkin tidak diketahui umum ialah anggota pentadbiran tidak boleh membuat sebarang tuntutan perjalanan, penginapan dan elaun makan semasa menjalankan tugas politik termasuk berkempen dalam sesuatu pilihan raya.
Malangnya, perkara ini mudah diatasi apabila anggota pentadbiran bertindak "sambil menyelam, minum air" iaitu dengan menjalankan 'tugas rasmi' dan tugas politik 'serentak' atau beriringan. Maka tuntutan perjalanan dan tuntutan-tuntutan lain boleh dibuat berdasarkan tugas rasmi.
Semua perkara yang saya sebut di atas memperlihatkan 'ketakadilan' dalam pilihan raya tetapi ianya dapat 'ditangani' kerana undang-undang yang ada membolehkan pihak yang mewakili kerajaan, iaitu anggota pentadbiran, 'lepas diri' berpandukan tanggungjawabnya mengikut Perintah Menteri-Menteri Kerajaan Persekutuan.
Dalam hubungan ini, Suruhanjaya Pilihan Raya (SPR) tidak boleh dipersalahkan sama sekali. SPR bertindak atau menjalankan tugasnya mengikut undang-undang yang ada dan SPR bukanlah badan yang menggubal dan meluluskan undang-undang itu. Ini tugas kerajaan melalui Jabatan Peguam Negara (Penggubal Undang-Undang) dan Parlimen yang meluluskan sesuatu Rang Undang-Undang.
Banyak pihak, terutama parti-parti pembangkang, sering menuding jari kepada SPR dengan bermacam tuduhan termasuk tidak telus dan tidak berlaku adil. Bagi saya, tuduhan sedemikian adalah tidak adil dan tidak seharusnya dilemparkan kepada SPR. Ahli Suruhanjaya dilantik oleh Yang Di-Pertuan Agong manakala kakitangannya (yang diketuai oleh Setiausaha SPR) adalah anggota perkhidmatan awam yang bekerja mengikut aturan dan peraturan yang ditetapkan.
Yang harus dipersoalkan ialah sistem yang membolehkan pihak pentadbiran menggunakan aset kerajaan untuk 'memancing undi' termasuk meluluskan peruntukan, meluluskan projek, meluluskan bantuan dalam pelbagai bentuk dan menggunakan jentera kerajaan termasuk radio dan televisyen dalam sesuatu pilihan raya.
Monday, April 16, 2007
The forbidden four-letter word of 'fine city' Singapore
If you plan to go to 'fine city' Singapore, please take note that the Singaporean authorities are on their toes of a certain four-letter word, particularly within Changi Airport or the sea ports.
No it is not "f#*@" nor its Malay, Chinese or Indian versions. That word is OK as far as Singapore is concerned.
A Chinese Singaporean family underwent "hell" at Changi airport last month simply because one of them mentioned the word "bomb", in fact hell broke loose if you mention that word in front of airport security officers.
Madam Molly Tan (not her real name) of Tampines Avenue 5 wrote to the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS) to complain how she and her family suffered at Changi airport.
Molly's family (her husband, daughter and son) planned a Darwin holiday for the March school vacation period and was supposed to depart on 09 March. Unfortunately, they were put in a situation by the security officers at the departure terminal, that was beyond their control and they were not able to make their trip.
Molly entered the immigration gantry at about 7.15pm with her 13-year-old daughter to have their passports scanned and their hand luggage checked whilst her husband stayed behind with their son (8 years old) at the ticketing counter to sort out the little boy's visa.
After having their pssports scanned, they proceed to the security gantry to have their hand luggage and bodies scanned. Her daughter passed the security gantry first, whilst Molly followed right behind her. A lady officer asked Molly to remove her boots for scanning, and she did as told immediately and put her boots inside the basket provided, for it to be scanned together with her hand luggage. Molly then proceed to the metal detector of which she cleared without the gantry beeping or detecting any metal objects.
Molly's daughter asked casually: "Mummy, why do you have to remove your shoes?"
Whilst putting on her boots, Molly replied her and said that "They (the security officers) are afraid that we might keep bombs in our shoes (which is why she need to take it off to have it scanned)"
Immediately, a security officer (name given) standing at the conveyor belt (in front of Molly) said with a very rude tone "repeat what you just said". Molly clarified with him what he meant - is it for her to repeat what she had told her daughter? He said loudly again, to repeat what Molly had just said. So Molly did exactly what the officer told her. She said to him that "my daughter asked me why I need to take off my shoes, and I told her that you guys (the security officers) are afraid that we will keep bombs in our shoes."
The officer immediately asked Molly to stand aside and said that he had to report it to his superior that Molly said the word "bomb" twice. Then a lady (name given) at the customs started hurling at Molly and her daughter and said that Molly said the word "bomb" twice and it is against the law and she can be sent to jail and they (the security officers) are calling the police.
According to Molly, the lady officer was so loud and rude and she shoved Molly and her daughter to the side, and refused to listen to her explanation. In fact, she got so aggressive that another officer (name given) had to come forward to stop her from further attacking Molly and her daughter verbally. Molly believe that the officers were deliberately provoking her by being rude and intimidating, in the hope that she will retaliate in kind, thereby making their unreasonable actions justifiable.
Despite her anger and the fact that her daughter was scared to tears by the situation, Molly knew she had to keep her cool. She sat beside her daughter taking down names of the personnel involved on her mobile phone. She was told to wait for another officer of a higher rank to decide on the matter, and she was still hoping whoever the higher ranked officer that was coming will have the logical thinking to acknowledge that what she had said to her daughter was a simple, harmless private conversation taken completely out-of-context.
At about 7.30pm, the sergeant-in-charge (name given) came and after Molly explained the full context of the incident to him, he refused to make a decision and decided to escalate it further to the Auxilary Police and State Police. He said that the word "bomb" is very sensitive and Molly should not have mentioned it twice.
Meanwhile, at about 7.40pm her son's visa cleared and her husband and son went in through the customs. After knowing what had happened, her husband tried to talk to the sergeant, further explaining to him that they are just a family going on holiday and what Molly have said to their daughter had been taken out of context. Again, no one was bothered to listen.
At about 8.05pm, they were informed by the airline personnel that the plane will have to depart and they will off-load the family's luggage from the plane. At about 8.10pm, the State Police arrived to take their statement.
According to Molly, in the entire episode, the State Police and the SWISS PORT personnel were the only ones who conducted themselves professionally and offered consolation and meaningful advice to her family. They have also at some stages expressed their personal views that they acknowledged that the incident was gravely mis-handled on the part of the security officers.
The State Police further confirmed that there is no case against Molly, and they would just need to complete the paperwork. Molly and her daughter's statements only completed at about 10.45pm.
For the ordeal that her family had been put through, Molly would want an official reply from CAAS and all relevant authorities addressing the following:
* whether the security officers were trained to handle passengers with such bad attitude and rudeness and if such actions by them are condoned by authorities. (Molly also insisted the CAAS to refer to the CCTV recordings during the period of the incident).
* what actions would be taken by CAAS and all relevant authorities with reference to both the security officers (nameds given) for their unruly behavior and attitude? (Molly said characters as such do not belong to a national airport that aspired to be a world class travelling hub).
* whether all the officers concern are properly trained and competent to handle such situation. Besides hardware (i.e. the protocol book), are they taught to apply the software (i.e. common senses)?
* is it really a protocol that as long as the word "bomb" is mentioned twice by a person (once being asked to repeat by the officer) then no matter what context, tone, situation and profile of the person who said it, it would not be taken into consideration?
Molly said her case was clearly not verbally threatened staff members in the aviation service or had deliberately caused public alarm using sensitive words.
So, if you wish to go to Singapore, please refrain from saying the forbidden four-letter word BOMB!
No it is not "f#*@" nor its Malay, Chinese or Indian versions. That word is OK as far as Singapore is concerned.
A Chinese Singaporean family underwent "hell" at Changi airport last month simply because one of them mentioned the word "bomb", in fact hell broke loose if you mention that word in front of airport security officers.
Madam Molly Tan (not her real name) of Tampines Avenue 5 wrote to the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS) to complain how she and her family suffered at Changi airport.
Molly's family (her husband, daughter and son) planned a Darwin holiday for the March school vacation period and was supposed to depart on 09 March. Unfortunately, they were put in a situation by the security officers at the departure terminal, that was beyond their control and they were not able to make their trip.
Molly entered the immigration gantry at about 7.15pm with her 13-year-old daughter to have their passports scanned and their hand luggage checked whilst her husband stayed behind with their son (8 years old) at the ticketing counter to sort out the little boy's visa.
After having their pssports scanned, they proceed to the security gantry to have their hand luggage and bodies scanned. Her daughter passed the security gantry first, whilst Molly followed right behind her. A lady officer asked Molly to remove her boots for scanning, and she did as told immediately and put her boots inside the basket provided, for it to be scanned together with her hand luggage. Molly then proceed to the metal detector of which she cleared without the gantry beeping or detecting any metal objects.
Molly's daughter asked casually: "Mummy, why do you have to remove your shoes?"
Whilst putting on her boots, Molly replied her and said that "They (the security officers) are afraid that we might keep bombs in our shoes (which is why she need to take it off to have it scanned)"
Immediately, a security officer (name given) standing at the conveyor belt (in front of Molly) said with a very rude tone "repeat what you just said". Molly clarified with him what he meant - is it for her to repeat what she had told her daughter? He said loudly again, to repeat what Molly had just said. So Molly did exactly what the officer told her. She said to him that "my daughter asked me why I need to take off my shoes, and I told her that you guys (the security officers) are afraid that we will keep bombs in our shoes."
The officer immediately asked Molly to stand aside and said that he had to report it to his superior that Molly said the word "bomb" twice. Then a lady (name given) at the customs started hurling at Molly and her daughter and said that Molly said the word "bomb" twice and it is against the law and she can be sent to jail and they (the security officers) are calling the police.
According to Molly, the lady officer was so loud and rude and she shoved Molly and her daughter to the side, and refused to listen to her explanation. In fact, she got so aggressive that another officer (name given) had to come forward to stop her from further attacking Molly and her daughter verbally. Molly believe that the officers were deliberately provoking her by being rude and intimidating, in the hope that she will retaliate in kind, thereby making their unreasonable actions justifiable.
Despite her anger and the fact that her daughter was scared to tears by the situation, Molly knew she had to keep her cool. She sat beside her daughter taking down names of the personnel involved on her mobile phone. She was told to wait for another officer of a higher rank to decide on the matter, and she was still hoping whoever the higher ranked officer that was coming will have the logical thinking to acknowledge that what she had said to her daughter was a simple, harmless private conversation taken completely out-of-context.
At about 7.30pm, the sergeant-in-charge (name given) came and after Molly explained the full context of the incident to him, he refused to make a decision and decided to escalate it further to the Auxilary Police and State Police. He said that the word "bomb" is very sensitive and Molly should not have mentioned it twice.
Meanwhile, at about 7.40pm her son's visa cleared and her husband and son went in through the customs. After knowing what had happened, her husband tried to talk to the sergeant, further explaining to him that they are just a family going on holiday and what Molly have said to their daughter had been taken out of context. Again, no one was bothered to listen.
At about 8.05pm, they were informed by the airline personnel that the plane will have to depart and they will off-load the family's luggage from the plane. At about 8.10pm, the State Police arrived to take their statement.
According to Molly, in the entire episode, the State Police and the SWISS PORT personnel were the only ones who conducted themselves professionally and offered consolation and meaningful advice to her family. They have also at some stages expressed their personal views that they acknowledged that the incident was gravely mis-handled on the part of the security officers.
The State Police further confirmed that there is no case against Molly, and they would just need to complete the paperwork. Molly and her daughter's statements only completed at about 10.45pm.
For the ordeal that her family had been put through, Molly would want an official reply from CAAS and all relevant authorities addressing the following:
* whether the security officers were trained to handle passengers with such bad attitude and rudeness and if such actions by them are condoned by authorities. (Molly also insisted the CAAS to refer to the CCTV recordings during the period of the incident).
* what actions would be taken by CAAS and all relevant authorities with reference to both the security officers (nameds given) for their unruly behavior and attitude? (Molly said characters as such do not belong to a national airport that aspired to be a world class travelling hub).
* whether all the officers concern are properly trained and competent to handle such situation. Besides hardware (i.e. the protocol book), are they taught to apply the software (i.e. common senses)?
* is it really a protocol that as long as the word "bomb" is mentioned twice by a person (once being asked to repeat by the officer) then no matter what context, tone, situation and profile of the person who said it, it would not be taken into consideration?
Molly said her case was clearly not verbally threatened staff members in the aviation service or had deliberately caused public alarm using sensitive words.
So, if you wish to go to Singapore, please refrain from saying the forbidden four-letter word BOMB!
Sunday, April 15, 2007
Bernama News on Astro
Beginning today, Malaysia's national news agency, Bernama, aired four news bulletins in Malay, English, Mandarin and Tamil languages. The Malay news bulletins goes on air at 8.30 pm on Astro Ria (ch 4) while the English bulletin at 7.30 pm on Astro Prima (ch 8). The Mandarin and Tamil bulletins were transmitted on two other channels.
Congratulations to the Bernama Audio Visual team for a job well done. It is a good start and hopefully, in the not so far future, Bernama TV can go on air for at least 12 hours as a specialise news and current affairs channel representing the Asean region.
To Ahmad Wahab and his team, congratulations and the very best for the future.
Congratulations to the Bernama Audio Visual team for a job well done. It is a good start and hopefully, in the not so far future, Bernama TV can go on air for at least 12 hours as a specialise news and current affairs channel representing the Asean region.
To Ahmad Wahab and his team, congratulations and the very best for the future.
What about monkeyrights?
Every day without fail, unless due to weather conditions, a Chinese Malaysian and an Indian Malaysian, rides their motorcycles to the foothill of the Ampang Forest Reserve, at Taman Tun Abdul Razak or Taman TAR to feed the monkeys.
There are three species of macaques living in the forest. The macaques, namely the silver-leaf or lutong in Malay, the pig-tail or beruk in Malay and the long-tail or monyet in Malay, will take turns to come down to the foothill for the food.
The monkeys are the 'original' residents of the forest reserve and Taman TAR was part and parcel of it. The forest was cleared for the housing estate by a company linked to the Selanor State Government
The beruks and the monyets are familiar with the Chinese and the Indian men for providing them with groundnuts, bananas and other local fruits and bread. Apart from these two kind gentlemen, others occasionally feed the monkeys when they come down to the edge of the forest, at least half a mile away from human dwellings.
But, alas! The Ampang Jaya Municiapl Council or MPAJ came out with a great idea. The council put up two signboards warning visitors not to feed the monkeys! The signboard says it is by order of "the President of Ampang Jaya Municipal Council".
I leave it to you, my weblog's visitors, to ponder whether the Council has the right to prevent the public from feeding the monkeys. What about monkeyrights?
Friday, April 13, 2007
Dirty Gurney Drive, here is the source
Gurney Drive or Padang Kota Baharu is a popular sea front to Penangites. Every morning, hundreds of people, young and old, males and females, go there for their morning walk. The air is clean and fresh. In the evening, the coastal road is alive with not less than a dozen restaurants and food courts. It is also the home of Penang's most popular shopping complex, Plaza Gurney. Gurney Drive is equally popular with tourists.
Alas! Gurney Drive today is dirty, filthy and smelly, particularly the stretch fronting Plaza Gurney. The sea seems to avoid this muddy stretch. Why?
It is caused by reclamation of Tanjong Tokong for the Sri Tanjong housing project.
But, is the project safe? This particular area was hit by the great Asian tsunami. The housing estate is facing potential disaster if another major eathquake created another great tsunami. Do not under estimate the power of nature!
Alas! Gurney Drive today is dirty, filthy and smelly, particularly the stretch fronting Plaza Gurney. The sea seems to avoid this muddy stretch. Why?
It is caused by reclamation of Tanjong Tokong for the Sri Tanjong housing project.
But, is the project safe? This particular area was hit by the great Asian tsunami. The housing estate is facing potential disaster if another major eathquake created another great tsunami. Do not under estimate the power of nature!
Monday, April 09, 2007
Bernama TV boleh adakan saluran sendiri
Timbalan Menteri Penerangan Zahid Hamidi memberitahu Dewan Rakyat hari ini bahawa Bernama TV boleh mengadakan salurannya sendiri dan tidak lagi hanya menyalur beritanya menerusi saluran Astro.
(lihat: http://www.bernama.com/bernama/v3/bm/news.php?id=255709
Saya menyambut baik pengakuan (jaminan) itu dan berharap ia tidak akan tinggal sebagai satu pengakuan berunsur politik. Ia harus dilaksana dan kerajaan mesti memastikan ia akan menjadi kenyataan.
Malaysia memerlukan satu saluran khusus untuk berita dan hal ehwal semasa serta dokumentari ala National Geographic atau Discovery Channel dan Bernama TV boleh memikul tugas itu.
Saluran itu boleh dipancarkan merentasi sempadan negara melalui sistem satelit Astro untuk mencapai matlamat dan kesan yang sewajarnya.
Seperti yang sedia dimaklumi, ia memerlukan perbelanjaan yang besar dan sanggupkah kerajaan memperuntukkan kewangan untuk menjayakan projek itu? Bagi saya, ia adalah satu projek yang seharusnya mendapat sokongan.
(lihat: http://www.bernama.com/bernama/v3/bm/news.php?id=255709
Saya menyambut baik pengakuan (jaminan) itu dan berharap ia tidak akan tinggal sebagai satu pengakuan berunsur politik. Ia harus dilaksana dan kerajaan mesti memastikan ia akan menjadi kenyataan.
Malaysia memerlukan satu saluran khusus untuk berita dan hal ehwal semasa serta dokumentari ala National Geographic atau Discovery Channel dan Bernama TV boleh memikul tugas itu.
Saluran itu boleh dipancarkan merentasi sempadan negara melalui sistem satelit Astro untuk mencapai matlamat dan kesan yang sewajarnya.
Seperti yang sedia dimaklumi, ia memerlukan perbelanjaan yang besar dan sanggupkah kerajaan memperuntukkan kewangan untuk menjayakan projek itu? Bagi saya, ia adalah satu projek yang seharusnya mendapat sokongan.
Friday, April 06, 2007
Blog politik mesti dipantau - Zam Zam ALA KA ZAM!
Menteri Penerangan yang juga mantan wartawan Utusan Melayu terus memperlihatkan pusingan 360 darjahnya sejak selesa mengawangi dunia politik yang pada satu ketika dahulu dia tidak berminat. (Mungkin Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad boleh dipersalahkan kerana membawa masuknya ke dunia politik menerusi Dewan Negara. Memberi nafas baru kepada kehidupannya)
Datuk Seri Zainuddin Maidin yang berada di Kota Singa (6 April) dan menikmati hiburan bersama RTM dengan saluran Suria Mediacorp, memberitahu wartawan bahawa dia menyokong cadangan untuk mendaftarkan laman blog, terutamanya yang bersifat politik.
Nana Zam dipetik oleh Bernama sebagai berkata bahawa jika media arus perdana tertakluk kepada pendaftaran, pemantauan dan undang-undang tertentu, (Nana Zam tak sebut nama undang-undang itu seperti ISA, Akta Hasutan, Akta Mesin Cetak dan Penerbitan dan Akta Rahsia Rasmi, antara lain) tidak ada sebab kenapa pengendali blog boleh dikecualikan.
Lepas ini, kita tak akan terperanjat sekiranya Nana Zam kata kerajaan mesti pantau gelombang udara dan jaluran-jaluran komunikasi kerana sumber itulah yang membawa dan mengalirkan segala maklumat ke seantero dunia dan mungkin sebuah kementerian khas perlu diwujudkan dengan pejabatnya bukan di Angkasapuri tetapi di angkasa raya!
Pertama sekali, apa dia blog bersifat politik? Adakah blog yang dimaksudkan itu dikendalikan oleh orang politik seperti Shahrir Samad, Lim Kit Siang, Dr S G Tan, Husam Musa, Anwar Ibrahim dan ramai lagi tokoh politik profesional.
Apakah blog bersifat politik itu termasuk yang dikendalikan oleh Ibu Pejabat UMNO dan Bahagian-Bahagian serta Cawangan-Cawangan UMNO, MCA, MIC dan Gerakan atau yang dikendalikan oleh PAS, DAP, KeAdilan dan sebagainya?
Nana Zam kata: "Kita mesti tahu siapa mereka, jadi mesti ada undang-undang yang akan menyebabkan mereka kita kenali". Kalau blog bersifat politik dan dikendalikan oleh orang politik, tak payah daftarlah sebab dah tahu dan dah kenal!
(sila ke http://www.bernama.com/bernama/v3/bm/news.php?id=255420 untuk laporan lengkap Bernama)
Yang lebih teruk lagi, Nana Zam berkata (menuduh lebih tepat) bahawa: "Cita-cita mereka ialah untuk menjatuhkan kerajaan dan juga untuk mengembangkan fahaman politik mereka dan membantu mana-mana pihak untuk tujuan politik."
Tu dia! Satu tuduhan yang amat berat tetapi mana asasnya? Amat mudah dan selesa nampaknya tuduhan seperti itu dilemparkan oleh seorang mantan wartawan seperti Nana Zam.
Kalau nak cari modal politik dan nak tambah saham pun janganlah sampai macam tu. Kajilah dulu, tenangkan fikiran, fikir masak-masak sebelum mengeluarkan sebarang kenyataan yang hanya memperlihatkan 'kecerdikan atau kebodohan' kita.
Kepada Nana Zam, saya syorkan supaya sekali-sekala singgahlah ke pekan Kuala Kedah, pekena laksa atau pasembor di sana. Kenang-kenanglah zaman silam. Renung-renunglah zaman kehidupan lampau, zaman kanak-kanak ... Mungkin, ya mungkin, kenangan lalu dapat mengubati rindu, dapat mententeramkan jiwa, dapat menemui ketenangan dan mengembalikan kita kepada realiti hidup di zaman siber!
Tempat jatuh lagi di kenang, inikan pula tempat bermain.
Datuk Seri Zainuddin Maidin yang berada di Kota Singa (6 April) dan menikmati hiburan bersama RTM dengan saluran Suria Mediacorp, memberitahu wartawan bahawa dia menyokong cadangan untuk mendaftarkan laman blog, terutamanya yang bersifat politik.
Nana Zam dipetik oleh Bernama sebagai berkata bahawa jika media arus perdana tertakluk kepada pendaftaran, pemantauan dan undang-undang tertentu, (Nana Zam tak sebut nama undang-undang itu seperti ISA, Akta Hasutan, Akta Mesin Cetak dan Penerbitan dan Akta Rahsia Rasmi, antara lain) tidak ada sebab kenapa pengendali blog boleh dikecualikan.
Lepas ini, kita tak akan terperanjat sekiranya Nana Zam kata kerajaan mesti pantau gelombang udara dan jaluran-jaluran komunikasi kerana sumber itulah yang membawa dan mengalirkan segala maklumat ke seantero dunia dan mungkin sebuah kementerian khas perlu diwujudkan dengan pejabatnya bukan di Angkasapuri tetapi di angkasa raya!
Pertama sekali, apa dia blog bersifat politik? Adakah blog yang dimaksudkan itu dikendalikan oleh orang politik seperti Shahrir Samad, Lim Kit Siang, Dr S G Tan, Husam Musa, Anwar Ibrahim dan ramai lagi tokoh politik profesional.
Apakah blog bersifat politik itu termasuk yang dikendalikan oleh Ibu Pejabat UMNO dan Bahagian-Bahagian serta Cawangan-Cawangan UMNO, MCA, MIC dan Gerakan atau yang dikendalikan oleh PAS, DAP, KeAdilan dan sebagainya?
Nana Zam kata: "Kita mesti tahu siapa mereka, jadi mesti ada undang-undang yang akan menyebabkan mereka kita kenali". Kalau blog bersifat politik dan dikendalikan oleh orang politik, tak payah daftarlah sebab dah tahu dan dah kenal!
(sila ke http://www.bernama.com/bernama/v3/bm/news.php?id=255420 untuk laporan lengkap Bernama)
Yang lebih teruk lagi, Nana Zam berkata (menuduh lebih tepat) bahawa: "Cita-cita mereka ialah untuk menjatuhkan kerajaan dan juga untuk mengembangkan fahaman politik mereka dan membantu mana-mana pihak untuk tujuan politik."
Tu dia! Satu tuduhan yang amat berat tetapi mana asasnya? Amat mudah dan selesa nampaknya tuduhan seperti itu dilemparkan oleh seorang mantan wartawan seperti Nana Zam.
Kalau nak cari modal politik dan nak tambah saham pun janganlah sampai macam tu. Kajilah dulu, tenangkan fikiran, fikir masak-masak sebelum mengeluarkan sebarang kenyataan yang hanya memperlihatkan 'kecerdikan atau kebodohan' kita.
Kepada Nana Zam, saya syorkan supaya sekali-sekala singgahlah ke pekan Kuala Kedah, pekena laksa atau pasembor di sana. Kenang-kenanglah zaman silam. Renung-renunglah zaman kehidupan lampau, zaman kanak-kanak ... Mungkin, ya mungkin, kenangan lalu dapat mengubati rindu, dapat mententeramkan jiwa, dapat menemui ketenangan dan mengembalikan kita kepada realiti hidup di zaman siber!
Tempat jatuh lagi di kenang, inikan pula tempat bermain.
Keng Yaik reminded bloggers on rights and responsibility
Less than 24 hours after the formation of the National Bloggers Alliance (NBA), the government via Water, Energy and Communications Minister Datuk Seri Dr LimKeng Yaik said they were free to do so but reminded bloggers, especially the 'irresponsible ones' that they must be willing to be held responsible 'for their actions'.
According to the government-controlled national news agency, Bernama, Keng Yaik said the government 'will not stop bloggers in the country from forming an alliance to protect their rights'.
"Rights come with responsibility. So be responsible," he was quoted as saying by Bernama after attending a photo exhibition organised by the Gerakan political party in tribute to his 35 years in politics and public service.
Bernama quoted him as saying that the government would not hesitate to take away the rights of irresponsible bloggers. However, the report did not elaborate on what he meant by taking away the 'rights'.
Meanwhile, Tourism Minister Datuk Seri Tengku (Teuku) Adnan Tengku (Teuku) Mansor told civil servants not to be 'misled' by any weblog reports especially those that printed 'negative reports' on national leaders.
Bernama quoted him as claiming that some of the information given to bloggers were by civil servants and he advised those who are not happy with certain leaders to approach them personally or use the 'correct and proper' way to voice their grouses.
Well, Ku Nan it is easier said than done! You don't expect a civil servant who is not happy with his boss or political leader to do so. They would either be demoted, transferred to some 'ulu' posting or 'put in cold storage'.
The safe remedy for them is to 'pass' whatever information or grouses to 'responsible bloggers' because the so called 'media arus perdana' or mainstream media will not publish such information, unless, the boys squatting on the fourth floor of Perdana Putra told their editors to do so!
No wonder more and more Malaysians and foreigners are surfing the net for the latest information and news on Malaysia.
Blogging is expanding daily while the print media is shrinking.
According to the government-controlled national news agency, Bernama, Keng Yaik said the government 'will not stop bloggers in the country from forming an alliance to protect their rights'.
"Rights come with responsibility. So be responsible," he was quoted as saying by Bernama after attending a photo exhibition organised by the Gerakan political party in tribute to his 35 years in politics and public service.
Bernama quoted him as saying that the government would not hesitate to take away the rights of irresponsible bloggers. However, the report did not elaborate on what he meant by taking away the 'rights'.
Meanwhile, Tourism Minister Datuk Seri Tengku (Teuku) Adnan Tengku (Teuku) Mansor told civil servants not to be 'misled' by any weblog reports especially those that printed 'negative reports' on national leaders.
Bernama quoted him as claiming that some of the information given to bloggers were by civil servants and he advised those who are not happy with certain leaders to approach them personally or use the 'correct and proper' way to voice their grouses.
Well, Ku Nan it is easier said than done! You don't expect a civil servant who is not happy with his boss or political leader to do so. They would either be demoted, transferred to some 'ulu' posting or 'put in cold storage'.
The safe remedy for them is to 'pass' whatever information or grouses to 'responsible bloggers' because the so called 'media arus perdana' or mainstream media will not publish such information, unless, the boys squatting on the fourth floor of Perdana Putra told their editors to do so!
No wonder more and more Malaysians and foreigners are surfing the net for the latest information and news on Malaysia.
Blogging is expanding daily while the print media is shrinking.
Thursday, April 05, 2007
British naval sailors released but Blair is ungrateful
Fifteen British sailors and marines held captive by Iran returned home Thursday. Prime Minister Tony Blair insisted that no deal had been cut for their release and he called for continued international pressure on Tehran.
Blair thanked his European allies and the UN but not Iran or Presiden Ahmadinejad. Blair should thank his Creator that his sailors and marines were held by Iran and not some other developed and civilised countries including at the Guantanamo Bay detention centre.
The British servicemen and woman were not hooded, given the electric shocks, suffered beatings and sexual abuse like those at Guantanamo although they were held by "uncivilised bunch" in the axis of evil.
Actor and film director Terry Jones, commented in The Guardian on Saturday March 31 and I quote: "I share the outrage expressed in the British press over the treatment of our naval personnel accused by Iran of illegally entering their waters. It is a disgrace. We would never dream of treating captives like this - allowing them to smoke cigarettes, for example, even though it has been proven that smoking kills. And as for compelling poor servicewoman Faye Turner to wear a black headscarf, and then allowing the picture to be posted around the world - have the Iranians no concept of civilised behaviour? For God's sake, what's wrong with putting a bag over her head? That's what we do with the Muslims we capture: we put bags over their heads, so it's hard to breathe. Then it's perfectly acceptable to take photographs of them and circulate them to the press because the captives can't be recognised and humiliated in the way these unfortunate British service people are."
Jones went on to say that "it is also unacceptable that these British captives should be made to talk on television and say things that they may regret later. If the Iranians put duct tape over their mouths, like we do to our captives, they wouldn't be able to talk at all. Of course they'd probably find it even harder to breathe - especially with a bag over their head - but at least they wouldn't be humiliated.
"And what's all this about allowing the captives to write letters home saying they are all right? It's time the Iranians fell into line with the rest of the civilised world: they should allow their captives the privacy of solitary confinement. That's one of the many privileges the US grants to its captives in Guantanamo Bay."
"The true mark of a civilised country is that it doesn't rush into charging people whom it has arbitrarily arrested in places it's just invaded. The inmates of Guantanamo, for example, have been enjoying all the privacy they want for almost five years, and the first inmate has only just been charged. What a contrast to the disgraceful Iranian rush to parade their captives before the cameras!
Jones also stated that the Iranians "are not giving their British prisoners any descent physical exercise. The US military make sure that their Iraqi captives enjoy PT. This takes the form of exciting 'stress positions', which the captives are expected to hold for hours on end so as to improve their stomach and calf muscles."
"A common exercise is where they are made to stand on the balls of their feet and then squat so that their thighs are parallel to the ground. This creates intense pain and, finally, muscle failure. It's all good healthy fun and has the bonus that the captives will confess to anything to get out of it.
"It is clear from her TV appearance that servicewoman Turner has been put under pressure. The newspapers have persuaded behavioral psychologists to examine the footage and they all conclude that she is "unhappy and stressed".
"What is so appealing is the underhand way in which the Iranians have got her 'unhappy and stressed'. She shows no signs of electrocution or burn marks and there are no signs of beating on her face. This is unacceptable. If captives are to be put under duress, such as by forcing them into compromising sexual positions, or having electric shocks to their genitals, they should be photographed, as they were in Abu Ghraib. The photographs then be circulated around the civilised world so that everyone can see exactly what has been going on".
Blair thanked his European allies and the UN but not Iran or Presiden Ahmadinejad. Blair should thank his Creator that his sailors and marines were held by Iran and not some other developed and civilised countries including at the Guantanamo Bay detention centre.
The British servicemen and woman were not hooded, given the electric shocks, suffered beatings and sexual abuse like those at Guantanamo although they were held by "uncivilised bunch" in the axis of evil.
Actor and film director Terry Jones, commented in The Guardian on Saturday March 31 and I quote: "I share the outrage expressed in the British press over the treatment of our naval personnel accused by Iran of illegally entering their waters. It is a disgrace. We would never dream of treating captives like this - allowing them to smoke cigarettes, for example, even though it has been proven that smoking kills. And as for compelling poor servicewoman Faye Turner to wear a black headscarf, and then allowing the picture to be posted around the world - have the Iranians no concept of civilised behaviour? For God's sake, what's wrong with putting a bag over her head? That's what we do with the Muslims we capture: we put bags over their heads, so it's hard to breathe. Then it's perfectly acceptable to take photographs of them and circulate them to the press because the captives can't be recognised and humiliated in the way these unfortunate British service people are."
Jones went on to say that "it is also unacceptable that these British captives should be made to talk on television and say things that they may regret later. If the Iranians put duct tape over their mouths, like we do to our captives, they wouldn't be able to talk at all. Of course they'd probably find it even harder to breathe - especially with a bag over their head - but at least they wouldn't be humiliated.
"And what's all this about allowing the captives to write letters home saying they are all right? It's time the Iranians fell into line with the rest of the civilised world: they should allow their captives the privacy of solitary confinement. That's one of the many privileges the US grants to its captives in Guantanamo Bay."
"The true mark of a civilised country is that it doesn't rush into charging people whom it has arbitrarily arrested in places it's just invaded. The inmates of Guantanamo, for example, have been enjoying all the privacy they want for almost five years, and the first inmate has only just been charged. What a contrast to the disgraceful Iranian rush to parade their captives before the cameras!
Jones also stated that the Iranians "are not giving their British prisoners any descent physical exercise. The US military make sure that their Iraqi captives enjoy PT. This takes the form of exciting 'stress positions', which the captives are expected to hold for hours on end so as to improve their stomach and calf muscles."
"A common exercise is where they are made to stand on the balls of their feet and then squat so that their thighs are parallel to the ground. This creates intense pain and, finally, muscle failure. It's all good healthy fun and has the bonus that the captives will confess to anything to get out of it.
"It is clear from her TV appearance that servicewoman Turner has been put under pressure. The newspapers have persuaded behavioral psychologists to examine the footage and they all conclude that she is "unhappy and stressed".
"What is so appealing is the underhand way in which the Iranians have got her 'unhappy and stressed'. She shows no signs of electrocution or burn marks and there are no signs of beating on her face. This is unacceptable. If captives are to be put under duress, such as by forcing them into compromising sexual positions, or having electric shocks to their genitals, they should be photographed, as they were in Abu Ghraib. The photographs then be circulated around the civilised world so that everyone can see exactly what has been going on".
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
Keretapi laju akan untungkan Changi, jejaskan KLIA
Demi kepentingan negara, kerajaan disaran supaya mempertimbangkan dari semua sudut cadangan sebuah syarikat swasta (YTL) untuk mengadakan perkhidmatan keretapi laju antara Kuala Lumpur dan Singapura. Kerajaan mesti fikir masak-masak sebelum membuat sebarang keputusan.
Saya bimbang rancangan yang akan menelan belanja berbilion ringgit itu tidak akan menguntungkan Malaysia sangat tetapi sebaliknya memberi rahmat dan pulangan besar kepada Singapura.
Bayangkan faedah yang boleh diraih oleh Singapura apabila seseorang dari Kuala Lumpur mampu sampai ke republik itu dalam masa satu jam 30 minit dengan keretapi laju. Sebaliknya cuba fikirkan apakah faedah yang boleh diperolehi oleh Malaysia. Siapa yang akan mendapat kelebihan, Singapura atau Malaysia?
Bagi saya, keretapi laju itu pasti akan menjejaskan kedudukan Lapangan Terbang Antarabangsa KL (KLIA) yang masih ketinggalan berbanding Changi di Singapura dan Don Muang di Bangkok. Yang akan mendapat faedah ialah Lapangan terbang Changi.
Saya percaya syarikat penerbangan Singapura (SIA) akan memperkenalkan satu pakej khas untuk menarik rakyat Malaysia dan warga asing yang tinggal di KL dan kawasan sekitarnya untuk menggunakan Changi sebagai lapangan terbang perlepasan. Pakej itu akan meliputi tambang keretapi laju dari KL ke Singapura, mungkin juga penginapan dan semestinya pengangkutan transit ke Changi.
Kita sedia maklum bahawa Changi menawarkan jauh lebih banyak penerbangan ke serata bandar utama dunia berbanding KLIA dan jumlah syarikat penerbangan yang menggunakan Changi juga lebih banyak. Mampukah KLIA bersaing dengan Changi?
Sebagai sebuah syarikat penerbangan yang paling beruntung di dunia, SIA mampu menawarkan pakej dengan kos yang menarik.
Jika sesuatu projek itu tidak menguntungkannya, Singapura tentu tidak akan berminat, umpamanya projek jambatan untuk menggantikan tambak Johor. Untuk cadangan projek keretapi laju, nampaknya Singapura cukup berminat, kenapa?
Kita semua sedar akan sikap para pemimpin Singapura dari Lee Kuan Yew hinggalah ke anaknya Hsien Loong yang dikenali sebagai sindrom "kiasu" atau tidak berani menghadapi kekalahan (takut kalah), terutama apabila membabitkan Malaysia.
Dulu, Kuan Yew sendiri memperkecil-kecilkan tindakan Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad membangunkan litar F1 di Sepang sebagai sesuatu yang membazir dan tidak ekonomik. Nah, sekarang apa dah jadi? Singapura sendiri begitu ghairah melobi untuk menganjurkan perlumbaan F1 di litar jalan raya. Kenapa? Sebabnya, Kuan Yew sedar bahawa dia telah melakukan satu kesilapan setelah melihat kejayaan yang diraih oleh Malaysia. Jadi, oleh kerana sikap "kiasu" mereka, Singapura terpaksa menjilat ludahnya sendiri!
Satu lagi projek yang diperkecilkan oleh Singapura ialah kasino. Singapura tidak mahu kasino di dirikan atas alasan moral walaupun negara itu adalah sebuah negara sekular. Rakyat Singapura (majoriti yang bukan Islam) sering berduyun-duyun ke Genting untuk berjudi, sama ada pada hujung minggu atau musim cuti.
Sekarang, Singapura nak wujudkan kasino yang canggih di republik itu. Bukan satu tapi dua buah kasino dan pusat percutian dan riadah. Semuanya itu kerana sindrom "kiasu" mereka.
Mengenai jambatan yang dicadangkan (sebelum ianya nak dibengkokkan), Singapura mendapati ia tidak akan memberi banyak faedah kepadanya. Sebaliknya, Malaysia yang akan meraih faedah besar. Jadi, Singapura menolaknya dengan pelbagai cara termasuk mahu ianya dirangkumkan dengan isu dua hala yang masih belum selesai seperti kedudukan tanah Keretapi Tanah Melayu dari Keranji ke Tanjong Pagar, soal penggunaan ruang udara Malaysia untuk pesawat pejuangnya, isu bekalan air dan isu Tabung Wang Simpanan Pusat (CPF) warga Semenanjung yang bekerja di republik itu. Dalam erti kata lain, Singapura menolaknya.
Jadi, minat yang ditunjukkan oleh Singapura apabila ada cadangan untuk mengadakan perkhidmatan keretapi laju antara KL dan Singapura, harus diteliti dan dihalusi. Mereka sanggup berkongsi biaya semata-mata kerana ia akan menguntungkan mereka.
Kenapa tidak wujudkan perkhidmatan keretapi laju antara KL dan Ipoh ataupun KL dan Butterworth? Atau KL dan Padang Besar? Bukankah ia lebih menguntungkan kita, rakyat Malaysia?
Mungkin ada udang di sebalik batu. Mungkin ada kaitan dengan projek Wilayah Pembangunan Iskandar. Mungkin ada faktor lain yang kita tidak tahu. Siapa tahu?
Saya bimbang rancangan yang akan menelan belanja berbilion ringgit itu tidak akan menguntungkan Malaysia sangat tetapi sebaliknya memberi rahmat dan pulangan besar kepada Singapura.
Bayangkan faedah yang boleh diraih oleh Singapura apabila seseorang dari Kuala Lumpur mampu sampai ke republik itu dalam masa satu jam 30 minit dengan keretapi laju. Sebaliknya cuba fikirkan apakah faedah yang boleh diperolehi oleh Malaysia. Siapa yang akan mendapat kelebihan, Singapura atau Malaysia?
Bagi saya, keretapi laju itu pasti akan menjejaskan kedudukan Lapangan Terbang Antarabangsa KL (KLIA) yang masih ketinggalan berbanding Changi di Singapura dan Don Muang di Bangkok. Yang akan mendapat faedah ialah Lapangan terbang Changi.
Saya percaya syarikat penerbangan Singapura (SIA) akan memperkenalkan satu pakej khas untuk menarik rakyat Malaysia dan warga asing yang tinggal di KL dan kawasan sekitarnya untuk menggunakan Changi sebagai lapangan terbang perlepasan. Pakej itu akan meliputi tambang keretapi laju dari KL ke Singapura, mungkin juga penginapan dan semestinya pengangkutan transit ke Changi.
Kita sedia maklum bahawa Changi menawarkan jauh lebih banyak penerbangan ke serata bandar utama dunia berbanding KLIA dan jumlah syarikat penerbangan yang menggunakan Changi juga lebih banyak. Mampukah KLIA bersaing dengan Changi?
Sebagai sebuah syarikat penerbangan yang paling beruntung di dunia, SIA mampu menawarkan pakej dengan kos yang menarik.
Jika sesuatu projek itu tidak menguntungkannya, Singapura tentu tidak akan berminat, umpamanya projek jambatan untuk menggantikan tambak Johor. Untuk cadangan projek keretapi laju, nampaknya Singapura cukup berminat, kenapa?
Kita semua sedar akan sikap para pemimpin Singapura dari Lee Kuan Yew hinggalah ke anaknya Hsien Loong yang dikenali sebagai sindrom "kiasu" atau tidak berani menghadapi kekalahan (takut kalah), terutama apabila membabitkan Malaysia.
Dulu, Kuan Yew sendiri memperkecil-kecilkan tindakan Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad membangunkan litar F1 di Sepang sebagai sesuatu yang membazir dan tidak ekonomik. Nah, sekarang apa dah jadi? Singapura sendiri begitu ghairah melobi untuk menganjurkan perlumbaan F1 di litar jalan raya. Kenapa? Sebabnya, Kuan Yew sedar bahawa dia telah melakukan satu kesilapan setelah melihat kejayaan yang diraih oleh Malaysia. Jadi, oleh kerana sikap "kiasu" mereka, Singapura terpaksa menjilat ludahnya sendiri!
Satu lagi projek yang diperkecilkan oleh Singapura ialah kasino. Singapura tidak mahu kasino di dirikan atas alasan moral walaupun negara itu adalah sebuah negara sekular. Rakyat Singapura (majoriti yang bukan Islam) sering berduyun-duyun ke Genting untuk berjudi, sama ada pada hujung minggu atau musim cuti.
Sekarang, Singapura nak wujudkan kasino yang canggih di republik itu. Bukan satu tapi dua buah kasino dan pusat percutian dan riadah. Semuanya itu kerana sindrom "kiasu" mereka.
Mengenai jambatan yang dicadangkan (sebelum ianya nak dibengkokkan), Singapura mendapati ia tidak akan memberi banyak faedah kepadanya. Sebaliknya, Malaysia yang akan meraih faedah besar. Jadi, Singapura menolaknya dengan pelbagai cara termasuk mahu ianya dirangkumkan dengan isu dua hala yang masih belum selesai seperti kedudukan tanah Keretapi Tanah Melayu dari Keranji ke Tanjong Pagar, soal penggunaan ruang udara Malaysia untuk pesawat pejuangnya, isu bekalan air dan isu Tabung Wang Simpanan Pusat (CPF) warga Semenanjung yang bekerja di republik itu. Dalam erti kata lain, Singapura menolaknya.
Jadi, minat yang ditunjukkan oleh Singapura apabila ada cadangan untuk mengadakan perkhidmatan keretapi laju antara KL dan Singapura, harus diteliti dan dihalusi. Mereka sanggup berkongsi biaya semata-mata kerana ia akan menguntungkan mereka.
Kenapa tidak wujudkan perkhidmatan keretapi laju antara KL dan Ipoh ataupun KL dan Butterworth? Atau KL dan Padang Besar? Bukankah ia lebih menguntungkan kita, rakyat Malaysia?
Mungkin ada udang di sebalik batu. Mungkin ada kaitan dengan projek Wilayah Pembangunan Iskandar. Mungkin ada faktor lain yang kita tidak tahu. Siapa tahu?
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
Masa untuk kembalikan kewibawaan BPR
Keputusan kerajaan untuk tidak melanjutkan perkhidmatan Datuk Seri Zulkipli Mat Noor selaku Ketua Pengarah Badan Pencegah Rasuah (BPR) tepat dan seharusnya begitu. Keputusan yang disahkan oleh PM Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi sebenarnya sudah dijangkakan ekoran daripada isu "rasuah" yang dihadapi oleh Zulkipli.
Bagi saya, perlantikan Zulkipli itu adalah satu kesilapan yang dilakukan oleh mantan PM Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, walaupun ia dibuat atas nasihat dan sokongan para pegawai tinggi pentadbiran. Zulkipli adalah pegawai tinggi polis yang pertama dilantik mengetuai BPR sedangkan ketua pengarah sebelum itu adalah daripada Perkhidmatan Perundangan (Legal Service).
Apabila Zulkipli dilantik, banyak pihak menyuarakan kesangsian mereka kerana umum sering mengaitkan amalan rasuah dengan pihak-pihak pelaksana undang-undang terutama polis, walaupun ia bukanlah satu andaian yang adil kerana ramai anggota polis berkhidmat dengan jujur dan penuh amanah.
Pada masa itu, saya berkhidmat di Pejabat Menteri Di Jabatan Perdana Menteri yang bertanggungjawab ke atas hal ehwal undang-undang dan kami ada menerima maklumat dan maklum balas mengenai latar belakang Zulkipli seperti yang umum ketahui sekarang.
Saya tidak tahu dan masih tertanya-tanya kenapa khidmat Zulkipli disambung oleh Tun Mahahir dan kemudian oleh Pak Lah sedangkan isu yang timbul sekarang bukanlah satu perkara baru.
Tun Mahathir dan Pak Lah sudah pasti akan menafikan hakikat ini. Penafian seperti itu bukanlah sesuatu yang luar biasa dalam dunia politik tanah air mahupun di peringkat antarabangsa.
Rakyat Malaysia sudah tentu mahukan pihak berkuasa, terutama polis dan BPR sendiri, menjalankan siasatan secara telus, rapi, adil dan saksama ke atas semua tuduhan yang dilemparkan terhadap Zulkipli.
Penamatan khidmat Zulkipli seharusnya dijadikan titik-tolak untuk mengembalikan keyakinan dan kepercayaan terhadap BPR dan untuk para petugas badan itu, kita harus pulihkan semangat bekerja dan kewibawaan mereka selaku pegawai penyiasat.
Saya dimaklumkan bahawa segelintir pegawai penyiasat telah "patah semangat" dan amat kecewa apabila kerja keras yang mereka lakukan dalam sesuatu penyiasatan tidak mendapat "keadilan" atau dibawa ke mahkamah.
Seperti yang pernah saya nyatakan sebelum ini, BPR bebas untuk menyiasat tetapi tidak bebas untuk membawanya ke muka pengadilan kerana dalam kes-kes tertentu, BPR perlu mendapat restu pihak atasan. Perkara ini telah dan akan terus dinafikan tetapi, bagi saya, ia adalah satu kenyataan yang walaupun pahit, mesti ditelan!
DATUK AHMAD SAID HAMDAN DAPAT PULIHKAN IMEJ BPR
Bagi saya, perlantikan Zulkipli itu adalah satu kesilapan yang dilakukan oleh mantan PM Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, walaupun ia dibuat atas nasihat dan sokongan para pegawai tinggi pentadbiran. Zulkipli adalah pegawai tinggi polis yang pertama dilantik mengetuai BPR sedangkan ketua pengarah sebelum itu adalah daripada Perkhidmatan Perundangan (Legal Service).
Apabila Zulkipli dilantik, banyak pihak menyuarakan kesangsian mereka kerana umum sering mengaitkan amalan rasuah dengan pihak-pihak pelaksana undang-undang terutama polis, walaupun ia bukanlah satu andaian yang adil kerana ramai anggota polis berkhidmat dengan jujur dan penuh amanah.
Pada masa itu, saya berkhidmat di Pejabat Menteri Di Jabatan Perdana Menteri yang bertanggungjawab ke atas hal ehwal undang-undang dan kami ada menerima maklumat dan maklum balas mengenai latar belakang Zulkipli seperti yang umum ketahui sekarang.
Saya tidak tahu dan masih tertanya-tanya kenapa khidmat Zulkipli disambung oleh Tun Mahahir dan kemudian oleh Pak Lah sedangkan isu yang timbul sekarang bukanlah satu perkara baru.
Tun Mahathir dan Pak Lah sudah pasti akan menafikan hakikat ini. Penafian seperti itu bukanlah sesuatu yang luar biasa dalam dunia politik tanah air mahupun di peringkat antarabangsa.
Rakyat Malaysia sudah tentu mahukan pihak berkuasa, terutama polis dan BPR sendiri, menjalankan siasatan secara telus, rapi, adil dan saksama ke atas semua tuduhan yang dilemparkan terhadap Zulkipli.
Penamatan khidmat Zulkipli seharusnya dijadikan titik-tolak untuk mengembalikan keyakinan dan kepercayaan terhadap BPR dan untuk para petugas badan itu, kita harus pulihkan semangat bekerja dan kewibawaan mereka selaku pegawai penyiasat.
Saya dimaklumkan bahawa segelintir pegawai penyiasat telah "patah semangat" dan amat kecewa apabila kerja keras yang mereka lakukan dalam sesuatu penyiasatan tidak mendapat "keadilan" atau dibawa ke mahkamah.
Seperti yang pernah saya nyatakan sebelum ini, BPR bebas untuk menyiasat tetapi tidak bebas untuk membawanya ke muka pengadilan kerana dalam kes-kes tertentu, BPR perlu mendapat restu pihak atasan. Perkara ini telah dan akan terus dinafikan tetapi, bagi saya, ia adalah satu kenyataan yang walaupun pahit, mesti ditelan!
DATUK AHMAD SAID HAMDAN DAPAT PULIHKAN IMEJ BPR
BPR kini tiada Ketua Pengarah dan Timbalan Ketua Pengarah (1), Datuk Ahmad Said Hamdan diumum sebagai Pemangku Ketua Pengarah.
Pak Lah berkata dia masih mencari-cari orang yang paling layak untuk mengetui BPR. Kenapa sampai begitu Pak Lah? Masanya sudah tiba untuk melantik pegawai BPR mengepalai badan itu dan orangnya sudahpun ada, Datuk Ahmad Said Hamdan!
Pak Lah harus sedar bahawa imej dan kewibawaan BPR agak terjejas dek episod Zulkipli dan inilah peluang untuk memulihkannya. Jangan lakukan kesilapan yang lalu apabila Zulkipli dilantik sedangkan ada pegawai BPR yang layak dan cukup merit untuk mengisi jawatan Ketua Pengarah.
Datuk Ahmad Said bukan calang-calang pegawai. Dia memiliki pengalaman yang cukup luas dan berbekal pula dengan kelulusan yang bertepatan dengan bidang tugasnya. Dia adalah seorang pegawai yang setia dan lama berkhidmat dengan BPR.
Datuk Ahmad Said adalah pemegang ijazah Sarja Muda (Kepujian) daripada Universiti Sains Malaysia dan ijazah Sarjana Sains (Kriminologi) dari sebuah universiti di Amerika Syarikat dan dia merupakan pegawai paling layak dan tepat untuk mengetuai BPR.
Saya percaya jika Datuk Ahmad Said disahkan sebagai Ketua Pengarah, seluruh petugas BPR akan menyambut baik dan imej serta kewibawaan BPR akan mampu dipulihkan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)