When the tail seeks to wag the dog

Here are two areas where we will remain on opposing sides of the argument unless Najib get rid of both Tengku Adnan and Ahmad Zahid Hamid i“We are not in a drift, we’re in danger of a rift,”

 snaky Minister Tengku Adnan  can  be trusted to trade diatribes on which one has effectively addressed issues of urgent concern to voters: development, inflation, corruption and governance. Each one will also have to spell out what differentiates it from the other. Two battle-lines are in sight. One will pit ‘inclusive development’ — orMahathir model — against ‘growth at all costs’ for cronies Competence matters less than loyalty. It pays to be in politics or to get on with the political masters. Or is it because these people are indispensable ? Or is it a reflection of the shortage of talent in our country today?Malaysian voters threatened to beat Najib with shoes after he did not to heed voters demandWith Najib in charge and with no one willing to challenge him in the forthcoming UMNO elections, our country will remain divisive and moribund. All the talk about transformation remains a figment of Najib’s imagination, with due respects to his hardworking  snaky Minister Tengku Adnan

Tengku Adnan Mansor has a bunch of issues confronting him; the mass rally by Pakatan Rakyat at Padang Merbok is not one of them.

The endemic corruption in City Hall is one. The unbridled growth of hawkers all around the city is another. So is urban poverty and rubbish-strewn streets.

Then there is the millstone which has been hanging around his neck since the esteemed Royal Commission of Inquiry found him, Dr Mahathir Mohamad, V. K. Lingam and others guilty of fixing appointments to the judiciary.

Lawyer Karpal Singh has challenged the Attorney-General to prosecute Home Minister Datuk Seri Dr Ahmad Zahid Hamidi for assault and attempted murder. Karpal, who is also the Bukit Gelugor member of parliament, said there is a clear case of assault by the minister against former businessman Amir Bazli Abdullah.Speaking to reporters today in Putrajaya, Karpal said Ahmad Zahid is obviously not fit to be a minister. ”This is a serious matter, which requires attention. I had written to the AG in the early stages about this but he did not prosecute,” he said. ”It is not too late. The AG can still commence proceedings against the home minister.” Karpal alleged that the police report lodged by Amir Bazli against Ahmad Zahid was never investigated. Meanwhile, counsel Gobind Singh Deo, who is also representing Amir Bazli, urged the AG to relook the police report.Gobind then read extracts of the police report: “I (Amir Bazli) was dragged to a bench and held by two of Datuk’s men. Datuk scolded me and hit me mercilessly. A man called Hans then threatened to chop off both my hands and he also punched me in the face. ”I was hit by a hard object until my forehead skull fractured. I couldn’t see who did this but I suspect it was Hisham, Datuk Ahmad Zahid’s son-in-law. ”Then, Datuk Ahmad Zahid said ‘get a gunnysack, put him in the sack’.His wife, Datin Hamidah came and tried to calm the situation.” Amir, in his police report, had also claimed that Ahmad Zahid wanted to bury him. Gobind then said: “The prime minister must respond to this. Why does he feel fit to have Ahmad Zahid as a minister. ”Look at Kugan’s case yesterday. The High Court had ruled against Khalid (Inspector-General of Police), yet PM still finds him fit to remain as the IGP,” he said. ”I don’t understand. PM seems to be lost in the woods. He does not seem to be able to see the implications of these things.” Gobind said the home minister is going to be tried for assault and other allegations and if he is still not removed, then the prime minister must explain why he feels Ahmad Zahid should remain as minister.In his suit, Amir Bazli claimed Ahmad Zahid had assaulted and threatened him after claiming Amir Bazli had enticed his daughter and had abducted her. –French Scorpene probe extends to Bala’s SD2  PM should also resign for alleged murder of Mongolian national Altantuya Shaariibuu. Mahathir said, When a BN minister or member becomes a liability, the BN will use all the “goodies” they have collected to destroy him/her by using the judicial system and other forms of blackmail. Mahatir is the master of … Read more

PARLIAMENT DAP parliamentary leader Lim Kit Siang today accused “vested interests” in Umno of creating the Red Bean Army story as a ploy to seek funding supposedly for their own cyberwarriors.

More likely, he said, the funds are destined for private pockets.

“With regard to the Red Bean Army allegations that the DAP employs thousands of cybertroopers, it is all not true.

“DAP has never spent a single sen nor funded the Red Bean Army,” Lim (right) reiterated while debating the royal address in the Dewan Rakyat today.

He claimed there are reports that some in Umno want to ask for RM250 million to fight the Red Bean Army.

“Now I know why the rumour was started by those who spread the slander as a vested interest. It is not to fight the Red Bean Army, but to enrich themselves,” alleged Lim.

At this, Shabudin Yahaya (BN-Tasek Gelugor) stood up on a point of order, quoting Standing Order 36(6) which prohibits MPs from making presumptions of bad intentions on other members.

However his complaint was set aside by presiding deputy speaker  Ismail Mohamed Said.

“I feel that he has no ill intentions,” said Ismail, dismissing the matter.

Can you keep your privacy online? With the US National Security Agency’s Prism programme snooping on social media networks to collect data, you have reasons to be highly sceptical. People who are not on Google, Facebook and Yahoo and not using smartphones are becoming a minority across the world. The digital age in which we are living has become an uncertain place.

Eric Schmidt, executive chairman, Google, and Jared Cohen, director, Google Ideas, warn us about the consequences of going online in a brilliant book The New Digital Age: Reshaping the Future of People, Nations and Business (Published by Hachette in India, Rs 650).

Five billion more people are poised to come online. By 2025, the majority of the world’s population will, in one generation, have gone from having virtually no access to unfiltered information to accessing all of the world’s information through a device that fits in the palm of the hand.

If the current pace of technological innovation is maintained, most of the projected eight billion people on Earth will be online, write Schmidt and Cohen.

The authors raise an important question– will the digital empowerment of individuals result in a safer world, or a more dangerous one? They don’t have the answers but try to chart out the scenario that may unfold before us.

Any stuff you keep online is vulnerable. Identity will be the most valuable commodity for citizens in the future. How to protect it? There is no delete button in digital world. Isn’t that a frightening piece of knowledge?

WikiLeaks cofounder Julian Assange believes in the dictum of ‘information wants to be free.’ Free-information activists say the absence of a delete button ultimately strengthens humanity’s progress toward greater equality, productivity and self-determination.

But the absence of a delete button also presents challenges.

Schmidt and Cohen do not address whether secrecy and privacy are the same. As an individual you have a right to privacy, but do you have a right to secrecy? Public interest should be the key to unlock this question.

The authors caution us that if we are on the web, we are publishing and we run the risk of becoming public figures—it’s only a question of how many people are paying attention, and why. You are always under surveillance in the digital world.

Security and privacy are a shared responsibility between companies, users and the institutions, write Schmidt and Cohen. They admit that companies like Google, Apple, Amazon and Facebook are expected to safeguard data, prevent their systems from being hacked into and provide the most effective tools for users to maximize control of their privacy and security.

But they also make it clear that it is up to users to leverage these tools. “Each day you choose not to utilize them, you will experience some loss of privacy and security as the data keeps piling up.” The option to delete data is largely an illusion.

The irony is that privacy is in danger but we don’t even get our basic information right, the kind of information no one has withheld from us. Take the case of former railways minister Pawan Kumar Bansal, as an example. Did we know about the kind of environment in which Bansal was operating as a politician?

Schmidt and Cohen, tech evangelists themselves, say technology is neutral but people are not. They, however, hope that the balance of power between citizens and their governments will depend on how much surveillance equipment a government is able to buy, sustain and operate. “Genuinely democratic states may struggle to deal with the loss of privacy and control that the data revolution enables, but as a result they will have more empowered citizens, better politicians and stronger social contracts. Unfortunately, the majority of the states in the world are either not democratic or democratic in name only, and the relative impact of connectivity—both positive and negative – for citizens in those countries will be far greater than elsewhere,” they write.

The authors point out, rightfully, that there is a canyon dividing people who understand technology and people charged with addressing the world’s toughest geopolitical issues, and no one has built a bridge. They advocate collaboration between the tech industry, the public sector and civil society.

Schmidt and Cohen predict that in the Digital Age, the role of mainstream media will primarily become one of an aggregator, custodian and verifier, a credibility filter that sifts through the data and highlights what is and is not worth reading, understanding and trusting.

“A disaggregated, mutually anonymous news gathering system would not be difficult to build or maintain and by encrypting the personal details of journalists (as well as their editors) and storing their reporting in remote servers, those who stand to lose as a more independent press emerges will become increasingly immobilized,” write Schmidt and Cohen.

But let us remember that quite often it is journalists themselves who are digging their credibility grave by bartering their independence and judgment for a few freebies.