For every Malay, a dozen seeds are being fertilized

The burden of independence OF Justice
The unfortunate truth is that there is reason for this cynicism. A lot of the opinions that abound in media, both mainstream and social, are rooted in  pre-fabricated positions that fly under the flag of one label or another. In addition, over the last few years it has become clear that very few of our certitudes about the independence of justice the allegedly independent institutions stand up to scrutiny.

‘Umar jailing reminder of Najib’s judicial  reform failure

A nation that cannot uphold its law cannot preserve its order.

It is odd that the government should have chosen law and order as its final alibi after some exhausting self-laceration in its search for a credible explanation for the escape of JUSTICE

Why do we say “law and order” rather than “order and law”? Simple. Law comes before order. Law defines the nature of order. Law is the difference between civilization and chaos. Law is evolutionary: the edicts of tribes, chiefs and dynasties lifted human societies from scattered peril to structured coexistence. The laws of democracy have vaulted us to the acme of social cohesion, for they eliminated arbitrary diktat and introduced collective will. The divine right of kings is dead; it has been reborn as the secular right of an elected Parliament.

A nation that cannot uphold its law cannot preserve its order. When Instuation smuggled  The Predators to safety, the authority of state abandoned the responsibility of state. Excuses, evasions and lies have shifted over 26 years; this central truth has not.

A. Kadir Jasin  dogs only listen to his master Dr M still influential They say that dogs only listen to their masters. I guess this is one case their masters told them not to highlight the matter. Mahathir to Najib  if all these are true then Mahathir think Najib’s position as the PM of the … Read more

The harsh jail sentence imposed on student Umar Mohd Azmi is a reminder of the justice system’s failings and the government’s inability to reform it, charges DAP supremo Lim Kit Siang.

 Umno president Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak and deputy president Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin  the   toss-up is an example of the desire to convert complex issues into simple binaries, turning a fractured reality into a head-to-head contest. Given that Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin  shows no inclination  to lead his party as a Prime Ministerial candidate nor for that matter to materialise in person with any regularity anywhere in public, the question is a meaningless one. Interestingly, the actual leader of UMNO, Mahathir is barely ever discussed in media- his greatest success is in putting himself above an easy binary that he can be shanghaied into,  It is clear that in these elections, arithmetic will matter much more than personalities, but discussing that is a messy matter and besides arithmetic lacks personality.Leaders and issues are easier to grasp and expound theories about. They come with well established narratives, use historical benchmarks we are all comfortable with and allow us to choose sides without exercising our minds too much. The desire to see a national picture and construct a unified national narrative, regardless of ground realities is a strong one- this results in collapsing a large set of slippery variables into an artificially coherent set of ‘national’ issues. The language of the past dominates the discussions of the day- debates about secularism, charisma, youth leaders abound. It does not matter that these questions might not be those that will principally determine the outcome of the elections, but at least these are familiar and fun to talk about.

 Given the somewhat specialised nature of this debate and given that mainstream discussion in the country has seldom concerned itself with strategic questions related to policy, the amount of interest that was generated by this debate was deeply surprising. Had the focus been on the issues rather than the individuals, the conversation would, in all probability have generated some heat in limited academic and policy circles, but would certainly not have leaked out into the open spaces of mass media. Focusing on individuals and their rivalry makes a debate a consumable sport. We know the players involved and choose sides, looking at their performance through the lens of who they are.  As consumers, we have little allegiance to the substance of the argument, we use them tangentially to trumpet our pet theories about the world.

 Malaysia has had a radically different experience. One remains uncertain about whether this is due to the impact of democracy upon Malaysia, or UMNO upon democracy. History’s jury could deliver a verdict either way, and the judgement will be hotly debated. But one thing is clear. In its search for change Malaysia has opted for insurrection as its primary instrument, rather than revolution. A revolution does not pause once begun, even during its phases of retreat in the course of a long struggle. An insurrection builds momentum in bursts, and ebbs from the surface during fallow spells. This can easily mislead an establishment, which quickly tends to believe that it has either managed to defeat or purchase a passing upsurge. But such ash is not dead. Its spirit smoulders, waiting for the moment to resurrect.Insurrection is perfectly suited to the practicals of democracy, whose inbuilt valves release intense pressure — most notably in an election, and also outside the electoral structure as well. That was because he kept them on a parallel course, with different objectives. He offered a revolutionary prescription for social ills, in particular the malpractice of religion, but understood that the cure would take time far beyond the limitations of his own life.

Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak said whatever change wanted by the people should be a carefully planned and organised change for their own betterment and the nation’s.The relationship between change and economic growth is often logical, but can occasionally lapse into paradox. The history of revolutions suggests that radical change is more likely to emerge from economic collapse, which is common sense. The Russian Marxist theorist Leon Trotsky, who had the gift of rephrasing common sense in an uncommon manner without sacrificing logic to phraseology, noted that people did not change governments, and consequently their own lives, when they had found an alternative; they did so when they were fed up.Nearly a century after the Russian Revolution, change has expanded its contours. In some parts of the post-colonial world, a sharp rise in resource wealth and government spending has not followed conventional wisdom and led to societies fashioned around the western-liberal-democratic template. Instead, such governments often use corrosive ideas to incubate deeper levels of conservatism through a state-financed propaganda narrative. They encourage their people to sink into identities that seem stagnant and immutable, abetted by a school curriculum that indoctrinates generations.Increasingly, our attention is being held not by issues that matter, but by those that we take pleasure in consuming. For something that was a personal opinion, expressed by someone prominent but not politically significant, to raise such a storm is a sign of how easily diverted we can become by debates that are juicy rather than substantial. More tellingly, the focus has shifted from events to utterances, from what has happened to what was said. Shobhaa De’s observation has no possible way of converting into any form of reality- the reaction is thus to an entirely hypothetical opinion. This pattern has been seen repeatedly where an injudicious remark raises a violent reaction even if it has no material implications.

Why do we say “law and order” rather than “order and law”? Simple. Law comes before order. Law defines the nature of order. Law is the difference between civilization and chaos. Law is evolutionary: the edicts of tribes, chiefs and dynasties lifted human societies from scattered peril to structured coexistence. The laws of democracy have … Read more

We have always been a government of men, not a government of laws. When law and order break down, we must storm the Bastille, and re-ignite the spirit of limited government with the consent of the sovereign people without the constitutional monarchy. WAKE UP MALAYSIANS.Is this http://suarakeadilanmalaysia. wordpress.com chief editor a idiot the AG Chamber can decide now whether or not an accused go to jail or not, not the court? Hey, just say not available, having a headache or having a rendezvous with your girlfriend or boyfriend would be sufficient to send someone to jail.This is persecution of the …Read more

This is a fine example of a fine lawyer at work. We all need to learn from Americk (can we call you marverick?). The lawyer for the drafting of the 2nd SD should now learn from Americk and do the same. Come out and declare what you did or did not do. Can kah? Simple

The vision and direction of Barisan Nasional (BN), including Umno, which is clear in developing the nation, is among five reasons outlined by the prime minister…Read more

The violence of rape offends the human dignity, and crushes and breaks human beings, near and far, writes author.

Zainuddin Maidin, Musang Tua tak beradab Jakarta | Jum’at, 14 December 2012 Dari Harian Jurnal Nasional, koran Partai Demokrat Oleh N. Syamsuddin CH. Haesy HARI-hari yang menyesakkan. Sejak hari Senin (10/12) sejumlah kalangan bertanya kepada saya tentang Tan Sri Zainuddin Maidin (Zam), bekas Menteri Penerangan Malaysia dalam kabinet Abdullah Achmad Badawi (Pak Lah). Pasalnya, pada … Read more

After the massive release of US diplomatic cables by Wikileaks in late 2010, the government was quick to demonise the organisation and apply pressure on corporations forcing them to embargo it [AFP]

When, in late 2010, Wikileaks started releasing a trove of US diplomatic cables, lawmakers were dumbfounded. The whistleblowing organisation had previously raised ire within the US government for its release of its “Collateral Murder” video, but until the leak of the classified cables, requital seemed uncertain. Then, unable to take legal action against the site because of First Amendment protections, panicky legislators did the one thing they could: Pressure intermediaries to deny service to Wikileaks.The strategy was immediately effective. After public calls from Senator Joseph Lieberman, web giant Amazon.com was first to follow, dropping Wikileaks from its servers and creating a domino effect. Recently released evidence shows that both Lieberman and House Representative Peter King privately called Mastercard to demand the same thing. Within a day, more than five companies – including PayPal, Visa, and MasterCard – had all denied service to Wikileaks. Within weeks, that list included several more, including Bank of America and Swiss postal bank.”Despite committing no crime, and publishing the same information the New York Times and other newspapers were publishing,” says Trevor Timm, an activist with the Electronic Frontier Foundation and executive director of the newFreedom of the Press Foundation, “WikiLeaks was strangled by financial censorship.”In nearly every case, the company publicly claimed that providing services to Wikileaks was against policy. Bank of America, for example, issued a mealy-mouthed statement claiming that Wikileaks was “engaged in activities that are, among other things, inconsistent with our internal policies for processing payments”. But as journalist James Ball has pointed out, few payment processing companies are particularly strict when it comes to who they will process transactions for: A quick review of sites belonging to extremist groups – including the Ku Klux Klan, the English Defence League, and Stormfront – shows that none face the type of financial blockade imposed on Wikileaks.Strangled by politicsSo far, efforts to circumvent the blockade have faced challenges. The Wau Holland Foundation, a German organisation established in 2003, found itself cut off from PayPal and its charitable status revoked after raising more than a million dollars for the whistleblower site. Though Wikileaks’ website offers a few methods of sending donations, none are as accessible as the online payment systems to which most people have become accustomed. As such, and coupled with fears from potential donors that a donation to Wikileaks will put them at risk, the site has suffered financially. Enter the Freedom of the Press Foundation. Headed by a combination of independent media enthusiasts, journalists, and free speech activists (and in most cases, probably all of the above), the new organisation launched this past week, taking in over $100,000 before the end of its first week. While the financial blockade placed on Wikileaks initially inspired the organisation, its goals are much broader: The Foundation plans to leverage crowd power to fund a variety of journalism organisations focused on transparency. Selection will focus on organisations that do innovative work but may not receive enough public attention. Visitors to the site choose the amount they wish to donate, and are presented with sliding bars that can be toggled to decide how much money goes to each of four organisations. In addition to Wikileaks, donors can give to MuckRock News, an organisation that helps citizens easily file Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests in the United States; The Uptake, a local journalism site focused on government transparency looking to go national; and The National Security Archive, an organisation with the lofty goal of expanding citizen access to government information. Timm says that they plan to expand to include “a variety of innovative transparency and journalism organisations that tackle the problem of secrecy from different angles”, both in the United States and internationally. “Because we’re going to be switching out the groups we support every two months, we want to have ‘bundles’ with different themes, showing the diversity and many aspects of journalism. We’re planning on doing an international bundle in the near future that will highlight the work of the many deserving organisations trying to bring transparency to governments around the world, often in the face of extreme adversity.” Journalism under duress Timm is right to point out the extreme conditions faced by journalists around the world. A recent report from theCommittee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) shows that the number of journalists killed in the line of duty “rose sharply” in 2012, with “internet journalists [hit] harder than ever.” A staggering 67 journalists have been killed in action so far in 2012, the highest number since CPJ began tracking deaths in 1992. While a large number of those deaths occurred in conflict in Syria, many of those that occurred elsewhere were retaliatory acts. The murder of Brazilian journalist Décio Sá serves as a chilling reminder of the risks journalists face even in democratic countries. Sá, who covered stories of political corruption for O Estado do Maranhão and on his personal blog, was shot six times in a bar after months of receiving threats. Josh Stearns, a staffer at Free Press who also serves on the board of the Freedom of the Press Foundation, points out that the rates of murder and imprisonment of journalists are “rising faster than any other sector around the world”. Stearns believes that the Foundation will be vital in helping to ”fund and support those uncompromising voices who are putting themselves in harms way to shine a light on government abuse and wrongdoing everywhere”. The potential impact is huge: Not only do journalists the world over face threats to their safety; many face significant financial challenges as well. In countries where “journalist” is defined by who can acquire a state-issued license, those dedicated to unearthing and publishing the truth are often left to do so on their own time, and on blogs and websites that are subject to censorship and cyberattacks. While a crop of “crowdfunding” sites have certainly helped such journalists support their livelihood, even those can be restrictive. The most popular of those sites, Kickstarter, is limited to individuals in the US and the UK, for example. Indiegogo, another popular site, is global and has far fewer restrictions on the types of projects that it will host. Cairo-based independent media collective Mosireen recently had success raising funds on the site, reaching their goal of $40,000 within about a month thanks to an accompanying social media campaign. The group, which doesn’t accept foundation or government funding, also capped donations at $1,000 as part of their effort to remain independent. Timm recognises these fundraising challenges: “There are a lot of organisations out there – both in the US and international – doing great work, and they just need to some exposure to survive. We want to be the tide that rises all boats.”