The Election Commission has a lot of explaining to do:
For more information, go to Screenshots and Malaysia Today. Raja Petra of Malaysia Today has more juice, that is for sure.
Categories
Category: Politics & government
When I first read over the news about the occupying force in Iraq was constructing a wall between Sunni and Shiite Arab areas in Baghdad in hope to reduce violent contact between the two groups, I felt a hint of disapproval toward that plan, as much as I felt against the proposal to turn Iraq into a three-state federation. Yet, the continuing violence between the two groups does make a case for the erection of walls in the city. Existing walls have proven to reduce the number of attacks:
Although the strategy of using barriers to safeguard areas of Baghdad is not new, the Adhamiya plan to enclose the neighborhood entirely was promoted as an advanced security measure. About two years ago, the American military erected a wall along the section of the Amiriya neighborhood that borders the airport road. While hardly foolproof, it reduced the number of attacks on American convoys on the route. [Frustration Over Wall Unites Sunni and Shiite. NYT. April 24 2007]
The separation barriers roughly run along the periphery of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip is another supporting case of how it could reduce attacks. Nevertheless, it divides community, cutting friends and relatives from each others. I am therefore am undecided on the issue of separation barriers in Iraq.
While undecided, I am happy to read that there are those from both Sunnis and the Shiites Arab communities that oppose the walls. It does show that both communities are willing to work together toward an end, regardless of creeds. Perhaps, there is hope for Iraq after all.
The ability of the Arab Iraqis to trust the Kurds might be another signal of hope:
Arabs see them as a neutral force, the Americans say.
“The reason why people are willing to trust the 1-3-4 is because they’re Kurdish,” said Capt. Benjamin Morales, 28, commander of Company B of the 1st Battalion, 325th Airborne Infantry, the partner unit of Captain Hamasala’s company. “They don’t care about Sunni or Shia.” [In Twist of History, Kurds Patrol Baghdad. NYT. April 24 2007]
Yet, I doubt if this is a clear cut sign that Sunni and Shiite Arabs in general could live together. I feel so because the opposition to the walls might be fueled by common dissatisfaction against a force rather than true respect:
The American involvement in the wall’s construction has united Iraqis of different sects. Sunni political parties, as well as some Shiite groups, strongly oppose the wall. Shiite groups fear that though Sunni Arab neighborhoods are the ones being cordoned off this week, next month it could be Shiite areas as well. [Frustration Over Wall Unites Sunni and Shiite. NYT. April 24 2007]
The uniting factor is more of ad hoc in nature, rather than permanent. It is ad hoc because it is superficial. I do not believe commonality based on hate would produce lasting alliance. Once that commonality is removed, what other intransient factor would peacefully hold the communities together?
Exposé on the rape of Lojing started a finger pointing fest between UMNO and PAS in Kelantan. It was not long before the the state and the federal government started to join the blame game. To a certain extent, given how poor the state is and hence, the lack of resource to protect the natural environment, I am sympathetic of the state. Nevertheless, I am refraining from taking side for I am fully aware that both sides are more interested in looking for brownie points instead of the environment. Yet, I cannot help but ridicule PAS on the way it handles the issue. Instead of engaging in damage control, it makes matter worse for itself, much to the UMNO’s gain.
About a week ago, it was revealed by the minister of the environment Azmi Khalid that the state government — more precisely, the office of the state chief minister (menteri besar; MB) — issued a gag order to the state forestry department on the situation at Lojing. The deputy MB denied the allegation:
KANGAR: The Kelantan government is said to have stopped the state Forestry Department from divulging information on the environmental damage in the Lojing Highlands.
Natural Resources and Environment Minister Datuk Seri Azmi Khalid, who made the claim yesterday, said the gag order had resulted in the ministry not being able to get any information.
“I want the people of Kelantan to know that the Kelantan menteri besar’s office had issued a written directive to the state Forestry Department preventing them from giving any information on the damage in Lojing Highlands.”
Kelantan Deputy Menteri Besar Datuk Ahmad Yakob had earlier denied allegations that the Kelantan government had withheld information about Lojing. [‘Forestry Dept told to keep mum about Lojing’. NST. April 15 2007]
In The Star:
“The statement by the Deputy Menteri Besar that the Kelantan government did not issue such a directive is not true and implies that I have lied. I have written proof as the letter came from the Menteri Besar’s office.
“I urge Datuk Ahmad to retract his statement and check the matter with the Menteri Besar’s office,” he told reporters after closing a handicraft seminar and workshop in Mata Air near here yesterday. [Azmi hits back at Kelantan government over Lojing logging. The Star. April 15 2007]
Later, the deputy MB admitted to the existence of the order after consulting with the MB’s office:
KOTA BARU: Deputy Menteri Besar Datuk Ahmad Yakob made another about-turn yesterday, saying that there had indeed been an order restricting the disclosure of information on forest clearing in the state.
He said the menteri besar’s office had issued a letter dated March 26 to the state forestry director not to divulge details on logging in the state to federal authorities.
[…]
Ahmad, who had denied issuing the gag order, said he was only told about the letter by the menteri besar’s office on Monday. [Deputy MB blames boss. NST. April 18 2007]
In the article, the word another refers to this:
In a sudden about turn, the state government is now claiming that 13,000ha of Lojing Highlands had long been gazetted as a forest reserve.
Deputy Menteri Besar Datuk Ahmad Yakob, contradicting his own statement on Sunday that the government-owned 25,000ha of land in Lojing which had yet to be gazetted under the National Forestry Act 1984, said the 13,000ha had been earmarked as a water catchment area. [Deputy MB’s gaffe over Lojing Highlands claim. NST. April 17 2007]
That means he shot himself in the foot, twice. He should be in a wheelchair now. It is unsure if the shot foot was in his mouth.
Back to the letter, apparently, the letter ordered the forestry department not to divulge information to the public with permission from the chief minister’s office, as clarified by PAS member Husam Musa:
State Public Administration, Economic Planning, Finance and Community Development Committee chairman Datuk Husam Musa said Menteri Besar Datuk Nik Aziz Nik Mat, as a state leader, was “well within his rights” to insist on being kept informed.
He said a letter dated March 27 to the department was in fact not a gag order although it ordered the department director to obtain permission from the menteri besar before releasing any information on land clearing in the state. [State says MB ‘well within his rights’. NST. April 19 2007]
Not a gag order? Really? Further in the same article:
“We have no intention of restricting information or vetting them as we are transparent. But the menteri besar must be informed, otherwise there will be chaos.” [State says MB ‘well within his rights’. NST. April 19 2007]
No intention of restricting information? Transparent? Au contraire!
There is no restriction of information if and only if the state does not restrict information!
And yes, that is a tautology.
Moreover, how does the rationale “menteri besar must be informed” rationalize the restriction of information? Would the MB be uninformed if there was no gag order? Stupid is it not?
Also, despite what had happened:
Its secretary, Takiyuddin Hassan, said the party would hire a consultant who would be accompanied by knowledgeable government officials to inspect the development of hilly terrain in other states.
“We are pushing for total conservation of the environment. We are aiming for it in Kelantan, but can other states follow suit?” he said in an interview. [Look at damage in other states first, says Kelantan. The Star. April 1 2007]
The people from PAS will be better off if they take my advice: slow down and think way, way harder before blurting an opinion.
Earth Day falls on April 22 every year and the next Earth Day is about five days away. Those that care should start things running by reading The Power of Green at the NYT:
One day Iraq, our post-9/11 trauma and the divisiveness of the Bush years will all be behind us — and America will need, and want, to get its groove back. We will need to find a way to reknit America at home, reconnect America abroad and restore America to its natural place in the global order — as the beacon of progress, hope and inspiration. I have an idea how. It’s called “green.” [The Power of Green. Thomas L. Friedman. NYT. April 15 2007]
This is possible of those of writing that shakes the green world. If I am not mistaken, the last writing of such importance was The Death of Environmentalism.
The article is pretty long. If you are interesting in watch a video on it instead, go to the video section of the NYT.
The cover of the current issue of The Economist:
How do the candidates measure up? Only three of the 12 are serious runners… A fourth who may shape the outcome is Mr Le Pen, the veteran leader of the racist National Front, who shamed France by edging past the Socialist candidate into the run-off against Mr Chirac in 2002. Mr Le Pen’s poll numbers are better now than they were at the equivalent stage then. It is vital for France and its image that Mr Le Pen be kept out of the second round this time.
Ms Royal would be an asset in the second round, turning it into a satisfyingly direct left-right contest. She has other attractions: the first woman to be a serious contender, the boldness to push past the elephants in her party to win the nomination, a willingness to break with Socialist taboos by praising Britain’s Tony Blair and criticising the French state’s imposition of a maximum 35-hour working week. Unfortunately her policies are woolly even by modern standards. And in economics, she stands squarely behind all the old left-wing shibboleths: state intervention, rigid labour protection and high taxes.
On the face of it, the centrist Mr Bayrou is more promising. His pledge to curb the public debt is more credible than Ms Royal’s and even Mr Sarkozy’s. But he has failed to promote a free-market agenda—he is distressingly fond of farm subsidies and state intervention. Nor is it clear how he would form a government: his centrist party is tiny, and his vague musings of drawing in like-minded leaders from left and right smack of the lowest common denominator.
[…]
Which leaves Mr Sarkozy as the best of the bunch. Unlike the others, and despite his long service as a minister under Mr Chirac, he makes no bones of admitting that France needs radical change. He is an outsider, born to an aristocratic Hungarian émigré father; he openly admires America; he is enthusiastic about the economic renaissance of Britain. He plans an early legislative blitz to take on hitherto untouchable issues such as labour-market liberalisation, cutting corporate and income taxes and trimming public-sector pensions. [France’s chance. The Economist. April 12 2007]
For a libertarian, he might be the best credible candidate that is worth considering, despite his shortcomings.