Showing posts with label Democracy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Democracy. Show all posts

Thursday, May 23, 2013

Crave For Power, Anwar Lost The Plot

Hantu Laut

Gross miscalculation on Anwar's part. His narcissistic character and political grandstanding killed his chance of becoming the prime minister. The massive crowd in towns misled him into believing that taking the trophy will be a walk in the park. He lost sight of the fundamentals. He ignored the rustic rural communities where politicking are made easier by the smaller number of voters in each constituency.

Anwar beware! UMNO knew the game well. They will continue to win elections. The year 2018 will see a marked increase in support. 

He and his Pakatan people can go on crying wolf, organise big rallies but nothing is going to change the fact that they have miscalculated and ignored the power of the rural voters. 

These bunch of sore losers are now using allegation of frauds against BN to cover their biggest political clanger and again making the same mistake of using the same urban folks to try topple a duly elected government. 

Tunku Aziz, formerly of DAP has rightly described Anwar as an anarchist and untrustworthy and warned the government to put a stop to his dangerous political charade. 

This overconfident chameleonic politician has lost the plot and now resorting to public rallies to rattle, destabilise and hopefully overthrow the government with his streets culture. Aziz also advised Malaysians not to allow themselves be treated as cows by Pakatan Rakyat (PR).

Anwar boasted that by virtue of he and PR having gathered more popular votes, he should be in Putrajaya and should be the prime minister, not Najib and BN, the alleged cheaters. 

PR won by a negligible 386,285 votes, but Anwar thinks it justifies a revolution to overthrow the government. This desperate man coaxed unwary Malaysians into believing that he and Pakatan were cheated by massive frauds perpetrated by Najib and BN. Most Malaysians and, surprisingly, the so-called sophisticated urban dwellers supposedly to be more intelligent and discerning turned out to be more dense than one would have expected. They fall for Anwar's ruse, hook, line and sinker.

This country parliamentary system does not recognise popular votes as the mechanism to determine the winner and Anwar knew this better than anyone that he had fooled to believe otherwise. His greed for power had driven him to the edge of madness and does not give a damn to the well being of the people and the nation.

The same system exists in U.K. and there have been instances where party with less popular votes become the government. 

A referendum called on 5 May 2011 to replace the "first past the post" system  turned out to be a complete failure, 68% voted "NO" and preferred to keep the old system, only 32% voted "YES". Winning by virtue of an overall majority in the Commons continued to be the winning formula in Britain.

There are 650 parliamentary constituencies in U.K. Guess what? Who has the biggest slice of the cake?

England took the biggest slice with 533 constituencies, 59 in Scotland, 40 in Wales and 18 in Northern Ireland. So, the SOB English also gerrymander the constituencies in their favour. No wonder the Scots, Welsh and Irish are peeved with the English. However, the peeved Celts and Gaels organised no big rallies to complain of unfair parliamentary practices.

Trust the English for being fair, fair game is not in their lexicon, but based on population and land mass the English exercised their demographic and democratic rights that majority ruled the land.

In Malaysia, someone, out of intense and selfish desire to rule wants to change the rules of the game.

His name is Anwar Ibrahim!



Wednesday, October 10, 2012

In God We Trust, Politicians Pay Cash

Hantu Laut
  
Even before getting the big guns they already behaved like absolute monarchs, worse than the one they want to get rid off......the abominable UMNO.....looking more and more democratic under Najib.

They have their own lese-majeste law that forbids anyone under their rule to criticise them. 

In Penang you have "Dear Leader" who talked democracy but practised autocracy. Anyone or any media who gets on the wrong side of him will be banned from his press conference. His deputy thinks he is a "tokong" worshipped by the Chinese of Penang. The Malays think he is anti-Malay. He thinks he doesn't need the Malay votes, so be it.

His Majesty Azmin Ali not happy with his subject Faekah.

Poor Faekah, for speaking out loud, they want her head on the chopping board. The PKR's Court of Retribution will hear her case.Read here.

It's "Pakatan's Way", the only way.

Democracy, freedom of speech, freedom to assemble is a lie to fool the fools and there are many out there who wanted to be fooled.

Fools who lives under the coconut shell and opportunists looking for new ride.....plenty are coming to PKR.

Now, you know why so many left this political hell hole.

See for yourself who they have collected recently from the Rogue's Gallery in Sabah......the "orang-orang kechewa" looking for new ride.

They take new shithead at the expense of old unhappy shithead who had to leave as there is not enough room to keep too many shithead who want to be YBs.

Do you believe they really want to wipe out corruptions?

Joseph Astrada said that when he was running for president and Gloria Macapagal said the same thing when she was running for president.

Both were caught for corruptions

In God we trust, politicians pay cash!

Kuala Lumpur

Sunday, June 24, 2012

Parti Bohong: Pandai Berpidato Adakah Pandai Memerintah?

Hantu Laut







Pandai berpidato, adakah, pandai memerintah ?


Senyuman sombong!



 Bersendiwara!



Marah!

Anwar, jangan lupah.

"Dalam sebuah negara demokrasi, yang miskin  akan mempunyai kuasa yang lebih daripada yang kaya, kerana terdapat lebih daripada mereka, dan kehendak majoriti adalah yang tertinggi"...Aristotle

Janji-janji palsu akan datang kembali menghantui anda!






Thursday, May 10, 2012

Democracy,Kleptocracy Or Hypocrisy ? Take Your Pick.







Hantu Laut
Some people say you can't separate Sharizat from her husband and she paid  a heavy price for what he did. 
Can you separate Marina from her father?
There was no record of her attacking her father's policies when he was prime minister for 22 years under the same political umbrella. 
UMNO political ideology have not changed much until quite recently when current PM Najib tried to repair the damage done under Pak Lah's tenure by reforming some of the archaic and draconian laws.
Najib is fighting an uphill battle not only from the oppositions but from within his own party where old habit diehards see reforms stripping away their political fortunes.
Obviously, she is not a fan of PM Najib Tun Razak and the kleptocratic UMNO, her father's former political bastion.
Marina binti Mahathir is the daughter and eldest child of the 4th Prime Minister of Malaysia, Tun Mahathir Mohammad. She is well known as a leader in many non-governmental organizations such as the Malaysian AIDS Foundation and is currently an active socio-political blogger. She also writes a bi-weekly column in The Star.
Marina has called for an end to discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Marina has 3 children and is married to an Indonesian professional photographer, Tara Sosrowardoyo.
She graduated from the University of Sussex.

Marina Mahathir, daughter of Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, has launched a stinging attack on UMNO leaders



May 8: Marina Mahathir, daughter of former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad, has launched a stinging attack on UMNO leaders who accused participants of the Bersih 3.0 rally last month of wanting to topple the government through street protests.

“What is this obsession with us not being Egypt anyway? If we’re not, then why worry? Besides, who needs to worry about the Arab Spring unless they identify themselves with Ben Ali, Mubarak, Gadaffi and Assad?” she wrote in a blog posting, referring to the Arab dictators.
UMNO leaders, including her father, had earlier said that Bersih protesters were imitating the people’s uprising in the Middle East, collectively known as the ‘Arab Spring’, and wanted to replace the current government through street protests and foreign interference.
Marina (pic), who also joined the Bersih 3.0 rally on April 28, defended the right to peaceful assembly and said there was nothing wrong when the Egyptian people assembled at Tahrir Square to press for democratic reforms.
“They want a greater say in the policies of the government. They want an end to corruption. They want proper elections with many candidates to choose from, not just those handpicked by the rulers. They want an end to military interference in politics,” she wrote.
“Aren’t these reasonable? But our government will not acknowledge that these demands are quite normal. Well maybe they’re not in an undemocratic country.”
Marina also took to task those who argued that Malaysians need not protest as their country was “not Egypt.
“If Malaysia is not Egypt and our leaders are not Mubarak, then why are Malaysians who went to Bersih treated like Egyptian protestors?” she asked.
“If anyone had gone down to Dataran on the Sunday after Bersih 3.0, apart from the barbed wire, everything was back to normal… Made our point, now let’s go eat. This is why we are not Egypt. In this we agree with our government. We are NOT Egypt. But then why respond in such Mubarak-like fashion?”
On the recent declaration by the National Fatwa Council that demonstrating against the government was forbidden in Islam, Marina reminded of a similar ruling made by Egypt’s Al-Azhar University Fatwa Committee in the days leading to Mubarak’s resignation on February 11, 2011.
“So getting the NFC ( hmmm…dubious initials…) to issue such a fatwa seems very Mubarak-like, doesn’t it?” she quipped. Harakahdaily.

Friday, March 23, 2012

In The Land Of The Free,Freedom Is A Myth




The US touts itself as the land of free, but it has laws which are designed to crush criticisms of the state.
Listen to this page using ReadSpeaker
Since the terrorist attacks of 2001, the US has spent about $635bn to militarise the country's local police forces [GALLO/GETTY]

New Haven, CT - In 1893, a massive financial panic sent demand for the Pullman Palace Car Company into a downward spiral. The luxury rail car company reacted by slashing workers' wages and increasing their work load. After negotiations with ownership broke down the following year, the American Railway Union, in solidarity with Pullman factory workers, launched a boycott that eventually shut down railroads across the US. It was a full-scale insurrection, as the late historian Howard Zinn put it, that soon "met with the full force of the capitalist state".

The US Attorney General won a court order to stop the strike, but the union and its leader, Eugene V Debs, refused to quit. President Grover Cleveland, over the objections of Illinois' governor, ordered federal troops to Chicago under the pretense of maintaining public safety. Soldiers fired their bayoneted rifles into the crowd of 5,000, killing 13 strike sympathisers. Seven hundred, including Debs, were arrested. Debs wasn't a socialist before the strike, but he was after. The event radicalised him. "In the gleam of every bayonet and the flash of every rifle," Debs said later on, "the class struggle was revealed".

I imagine a similar revelation for the tens of thousands of Americans who participated in last fall's Occupy Wall Street protests. As you know, the movement began in New York City and spread quickly, inspiring activists in the biggest cities and the smallest hamlets. Outraged by the broken promise of the US and inspired by democratic revolts of Egypt and Tunisia, they assembled to protest economic injustice and corrupt corporate power in Washington.

Inside Story: US 2012 - Attacking the unions

Yet the harder they pushed, the harder they were pushed back - with violence. Protesters met with police wearing body armour, face shields, helmets and batons; police legally undermined Americans' right to assemble freely with "non-lethal" weaponry like tear gas, rubber bullets and sonic grenades. There was no need for the president to call in the army. An army, as Mayor Bloomberg quipped, was already there.

Before Occupy Wall Street, many protesters were middle- and upper-middle class college graduates who could safely assume the constitutional guarantee of their civil liberties. But afterward, not so much. Something like scales fell from their eyes, and when they arose anew, they had been baptised by the fire of political violence.

Income inequality isn't just about justice; it's about freedom, too. One view of freedom minimises the state's role in an individual's life and maximises markets so that individuals are free to risk whatever they want to risk to be whatever they want to be. Another view sees the obligation of the state to hedge against the risk of the marketplace so that individuals can feel secure enough to be what they want to be.

Obviously, the libertarian view favours someone who can afford risk; the socialist view favours someone who can't. One view has confidence in the market while the other is skeptical. One view sees income inequality as natural while the other sees it as politically oppressive.Read more.

Monday, August 8, 2011

Tottenham riots: police let gangs run riot and loot

Hantu Laut

A peaceful protest developed into one of the ugliest scenes in recent UK history as sections of London went up in flame and rioters clashed with police.

This can happen in Malaysia if Bersih and Pakatan Rakyat were given their ways.


Yeah! Democracy. Yeah!Freedom.

London's burning because the cops were afraid of being accused of police brutality.




Britain’s biggest police force is facing criticism after it let looters run riot in north London for almost 12 hours, in some of the worst scenes of street disturbances seen in recent years.


The Metropolitan Police said it was focused on containing violent disorder in Tottenham on Saturday night, which left dozens of officers injured and saw squad cars, shops and flats burned to the ground.

But its tactics meant gangs of youths were free to break into stores at nearby Tottenham Hale retail park and in Wood Green, with looters forming an orderly queue in broad daylight to steal from a sports shop.

Riot police did not intervene to stop the looting in some areas until 7.30am the following morning, almost 12 hours after the riots began, and last night there were fresh disturbances in Enfield.

Police defended their actions, saying that their priority was to avoid loss of life in the violent clashes that started after a peaceful gathering outside a police station, held to protest a fatal shooting by Met officers on Thursday.

Metropolitan Police Commander Adrian Hanstock said that police took a decision to devote resources to the scene of the riot rather than the looting.

He said: “What you have to recognise here is that this is opportunistic criminality. These individuals who stole, looted and rampaged through businesses, businesses which are struggling in the current climate, took advantage at a time where police were dealing with some serious incidents that posed a threat to life.

“Of course we are going to focus on fires and people potentially in danger.

“You have got a situation where people have been violent and are setting fire to things. Police officers have to remain in position even after the initial violence dies down.

“It is a very delicate balance. Officers have to consider that by staying here [the riot scene] can I prevent someone being seriously injured or should I intervene when someone is committing a theft that we might be able to investigate afterwards.” Read more.

Friday, April 23, 2010

Are You Man Of Democracy?

Hantu Laut

With his close friends and party members leaving in droves can Anwar claimed he is a man of democracy?

Were there truly widespread persecution and oppression in Malaysia or was it one man suffering from persecution complex?

The answer lies below whether Anwar and his US type democracy can survive in Asia.

A nation that professed and preached democracy, liberty, human rights and world peace but waged wars against defenceless nations and killed hundreds of thousand of innocent civilians in the name of democracy and world peace.

A nation that truly believe in the history of the Bible.....the United States of America.

Can You Teach Democracy?

Ben Bland

Ben Bland reports that at last week’s assembly of the World Movement for Democracy, in Jakarta, it depends on who you ask.

Photo Credit: Flickr/LukeLuke

Joseph Yu-shek Cheng approached me in the ballroom of the Shangri-La Hotel in Jakarta, proffered his business card and thrust a leaflet into my hands.

‘People think everything is good in Hong Kong but we have to fight for our democracy,’ he said.

The bespectacled professor of political science, a member of the executive committee of Hong Kong’s Civic Party, was among more than 600 delegates from 110 countries who were in town last week to attend one of the world’s largest gatherings of democracy activists.

Like many of the attendees at the sixth bi-annual assembly of the World Movement for Democracy, a non-partisan initiative funded by the US Congress, Cheng was keen to draw attention to his particular cause: the lack of genuine democracy in Hong Kong since it reverted to Chinese rule in 1997.

But, with many delegates from countries in much more dire straits than Hong Kong (Burma, Haiti, Iran and Zimbabwe, to name a few), Cheng accepted that he might struggle to be heard above the democratic din.

At a time when democracy, particularly of the variety promoted by the Unites States, has increasingly been called into question, the four-day conference, entitled ‘Solidarity across cultures: working together for democracy,’ sought to renew a sense of hope among those engaged in the often lonely struggle against human rights abuses and dictatorial rule.

Yet beyond the closeted world of Washington’s drawing room democrats, does such solidarity exist? What can a Hong Kong professor learn from a Congolese human rights campaigner or a Burmese journalist from a Zimbabwean student leader? And if, as the protracted Iraq and Afghanistan expeditions seem to suggest, democracy is best grown from within rather than imposed from outside, what can such cross-border gatherings hope to achieve?

In the keynote address, Indonesia’s president, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, made an impassioned defence of democracy in a region where it’s the exception rather than the rule.

Sceptics had argued that Indonesia would break up after the fall of Suharto, buffeted by a ravaging recession and torn apart by social, racial and religious tensions. But, Yudhoyono said, the advent of democratic rule had helped Indonesia to weather the storm, with the separatist conflict in Aceh resolved and the old question of a choice between democracy and economic growth proven to be a false dichotomy.

‘We have shown that Islam, democracy and modernity can grow together,’ said the president of the world’s largest Muslim nation, which is also the world’s third-largest democracy and the third-fastest growing economy in the G20 (after China and India).

However, he also warned over the limits of democratization, echoing the standard line adopted by members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) about non-interference in other countries’ affairs: ‘democracy cannot be imposed from the outside. Ours is democracy from within.’

Anwar Ibrahim, the charismatic Malaysian opposition leader, was more optimistic about the potential for cross-border democratization.

He attacked the promoters of ‘Asian values’ who say ‘democracy is not meant for all or that it’s not the best system because it’s a Western invention’ and called on ASEAN member states to do more to support democracy, for example by sending observers to Burma to monitor the upcoming election.

‘The shared history of oppression is an imperative for solidarity. We must remain resolute in our commitment to fight for democracy,’ said Anwar, who is currently on trial for the second time over sodomy charges that he insists are politically motivated.

Alongside the rhetoric of the main speakers, the organizers, the National Endowment for Democracy, had put on a series of practical workshops focused on regional issues or technical skills such as online advocacy.

Some found them more helpful than others.

‘These events are of little use in terms of knowledge but are good for promoting your cause and making contacts,’ Cheng said.

Seelan Palay, a young political activist from Singapore, was more upbeat. ‘I’ve been to many similar conferences before and have learned at least one thing each time, whether it’s a new skill base or approach,’ he said. ‘Things like how to bend the rules or go around them and using video and the internet to further your cause.’

In a city-state such as Singapore, where the ruling party dominates politics and the media and an atmosphere of fear and self-censorship pervades, democratic and social activism can be a lonely pursuit.

Palay said he took strength from meeting others engaged in the same battle. ‘It’s good to know other people are going through similar struggles elsewhere,’ he said.

It was certainly rousing listening to people like Tapera Kapuya, a former Zimbabwean student leader who ‘was abducted in the middle of the night from my student hostel, electrocuted, made to stand in a bucket of acidic water, beaten and dumped on the outskirts of Harare’ before being exiled from university at the age of 21 and continuing his fight in South Africa and Australia.

‘My story is the same for many young people struggling for democracy across the world,’ he said. ‘But young activists are finding creative ways to organize themselves without violence.’

For delegates such as Abdi Suryaningati, a board member of Indonesia’s Civil Society Alliance For Democracy, the benefits of these sorts of gatherings are less spiritual than technical. She said that her organization, which promotes political education and empowerment, had learned from Brazilian NGOs about the practice of ‘participatory budgeting,’ where activists help citizens to hold local governments to account over their budgets. Now her organization assists other NGOs from around Asia.

Elsewhere, the attempts to foster cross-border links sometimes seemed like a dialogue of the deaf. During a session on the wider lessons that could be learnt from Indonesia’s transition from military dictatorship to democracy, Khin Maung Win, deputy director of the Democratic Voice of Burma, a Norway-based broadcaster, rose to quiz the panel of eminent Indonesians.

Many of Burma’s neighbours, he said, accept at face value the junta’s argument that a strong military is vital to keep the country together given the profusion of separatist conflicts. But didn’t Indonesia’s experience show that a democratic government was actually better placed to resolve such issues?

One of the panellists was Agus Widjojo, a former general who was at the forefront of Indonesia’s drive to take the military out of politics. Having been sent by Yudhoyono to Burma to speak to the generals after they crushed the anti-government protests in 2007, he seemed the ideal person to answer this question. But he responded obliquely.

‘We can’t export democracy, it has to have self-ownership,’ he said. ‘Although we’d like to see democracy flourish, we understand this limit.’

Source:The Diplomat