Bapa Gua Yang Punya

Dah menjadi satu kebiasaan la dinegara ni bila dengar menteri buat kenyataan kenyataan bodoh yang ingatkan negara ni bapak depa yang punya. Ni semuanya hasil daripada bukan hanya pemerintahan satu parti sejak dari merdeka lagi tapi juga daripada pemerintahan zaman kesultanan dulu dimana bangsawan bangsawan dipilih untuk mengutip wang cukai dr rakyat. Dulu dulu rakyat dok ikut je, jadi depa ni pun naik kepala la, maka timbullah "bapak gua yang punya" syndrome yang dapat dilihat jelas ada pada kebanyakan pemimpin pemimpin dinegara kita ni.

Pandikar: Benteng Pertahanan Kerajaan Najib.

• Parlimen negara ini pada dasarnya hanyalah satu pentas lakunan, yang mana digunakan sepenuhnya oleh kerajaan yang memerintah demi untuk menampakkan diri mereka ini, dimata dunia, kononnya sebagai sebuah kerajaan yang benar benar mengamalkan tatacara demokrasi dinegara kita ini.
•  Apa yang benar dan dapat dilihat, dengan hati yang rasional, adalah satu situasi dimana speaker parlimen itu sendiri, dengan nyata, dari segala tindakan yang telah diambil oleh beliau, menonjolkan akan satu sikap  yang bersifat bias, yang mana selalunya didapati akan memihak hanya kepada pihak pemerintah.
• Malah situasi ini dapat dilihat jelas sekali apabila segala isu isu penting yang diusulkan oleh pememerintah, terutamanya hal hal yang berkait dengan hak ataupun ekonomi rakyat, seperti Sosma, Akta Hasutan, GST dan sebagainya, yang begitu senang sekali dilihat akan laluannya kearah menjadi satu perundangan atau perlembagaan yang perlu untuk dilaksanakan.
• Berbeza pula kepada usul usul yang dilihat boleh menampakkan akan salahlaku kerajaan, terutamanya perkara perkara yara bersabit dengan  skandal 1MDB. Satu skandal yang amat memalukan, yang kini sedang hangat diperbincangkan bukan hanya dinegara kita sahaja tetapi juga diseluruh dunia. Disebabkan kes ini melibatkan seorang perdana menteri, segala bentuk persoalan yang berkait dengan 1MDB akan sedaya upaya disekat dengan menggunakan benteng utama pertahanan kerajaan, iaitu speaker parlimen itu sendiri. Ternyatalah bahawa fungsi speaker ini pada dasarnya adalah sebagai  satu watak didalam satu lakonan demokrasi kerajaan yang sebenarnya memerintah secara autoritarisme.
• Malah tindakan tindakan kerajaan yang seumpama inilah, yang bukan hanya terhad berlaku diparlimen sahaja, yang sebenarnya, telah menjadi antara batu penghalang yang terbesar negara ini, kearah memupuk satu sistem kerajaan demokratik yang adil, yang bercirikan Islam dan berasaskan kuasa rakyat. 

-  AA

Tindakan Kerajaan Menyalahgunakan Sosma.

DILAPORKAN bahawa Datuk Seri Khairuddin Abu Hassan dan peguamnya, Mathhias Chang telah ditahan di bawah Akta Kesalahan Keselamatan (Langkah-langkah Khas) 2012 atau lebih dikenali sebagai Sosma kerana disiasat di bawah Seksyen 124K dan 124L Kanun Keseksaan. Kemudian, dilaporkan juga kedua-dua mereka telah didakwa di mahkamah atas kesalahan di bawah Seksyen 124L Kanun Keseksaan.

Seksyen 124K adalah kesalahan 'sabotaj' manakala 124L adalah percubaan untuk melakukan sabotaj. 'Sabotaj' ditakrifkan, antara lain, sebagai apa tindakan yang diniatkan untuk membawa kemudaratan
kepada perkhidmatan penting.
perkhidmatan penting.

*Perlu ditekankan bahawa Sosma bukanlah undang-undang yang memperuntukkan kesalahan. Seseorang itu tidak didakwa melakukan kesalahan di bawah Sosma. Sosma adalah undang-undang yang memperuntukkan prosedur, kaedah keterangan dan kuasa pihak berkuasa apabila ia berkaitan dengan apa yang dipanggil sebagai 'kesalahan keselamatan'*.

'Kesalahan keselamatan' mengikut Sosma termasuklah kesalahan-kesalahan di bawah Bahagian VI Kanun Keseksaan, iaitu kesalahan-kesalahan terhadap negara. Antara kesalahan-kesalahan yang disenaraikan di bawah bahagian ini termasuklah 124L dan 12N Kanun Keseksaan.

Apabila seseorang itu disiasat di bawah kesalahan-kesalahan ini, Sosma akan diguna pakai. Sosma, antara lain, memperuntukkan bahawa sesiapa yang didakwa di bawah suatu kesalahan keselamatan seperti Seksyen 124L, orang tersebut tidak boleh diikat jamin. Dia harus direman sehingga keputusan mahkamah.

Di bawah Sosma terdapat prosedur dan kaedah-kaedah keterangan yang berbeza jika dibandingkan dengan bicara jenayah yang biasa.

Semasa Sosma dan Seksyen 124K dan 124L dibentangkan di Parlimen pada 2012, Bar Malaysia dan masyarakat madani membangkitkan kebimbangan berkenaan dengan rang undang-undang tersebut.

Walaupun ia dipakej sebagai undang-undang menentang terrorisme, kesalahan-kesalahan seperti Seksyen 124B melangkaui kesalahan-kesalahan berkenaan dengan terrorisme. Bar Malaysia, pada ketika itu telah menyuarakan pendirian bahawa kesalahan ini mungkin digunakan untuk menyekat penentangan dan perbezaan pendapat. Sekiranya perlu digubal undang-undang, ia hanya terhad kepada kegiatan-kegiatan yang melibatkan keganasan sahaja.

Tetapi Parlimen pada ketika itu tetap meluluskan Sosma dan undang-undang lain. *Kerajaan memberi jaminan bahawa tidak seperti ISA, Sosma dan undang-undang lain tidak akan disalahgunakan oleh kerajaan bagi tujuan politik dan yang tidak ada kena-mengena dengan keselamatan dalam negeri*.

Jaminan yang sama diberikan semasa Akta Pencegahan Keganasan atau Pota dibentangkan di Parlimen awal tahun ini.

Malangnya, selepas tiga tahun Sosma digubal, kita telah melihat bagaimana Sosma telah digunakan terhadap dua orang atas sebab-sebab yang menimbulkan begitu banyak persoalan. Menurut pertuduhan, keduanya telah 'cuba melakukan sabotaj terhadap perkhidmatan perbankan dan kewangan negara' di beberapa lokasi di seluruh dunia. Pertuduhan ini merujuk kepada laporan yang difailkan terhadap syarikat 1MDB yang dibuat oleh Datuk Seri Khairuddin dan ditemani oleh Mathhias Chang sebagai peguamnya.

Bagaimana laporan-laporan ini boleh menjurus kepada memudaratkan terhadap perkhidmatan tersebut, walhal ia adalah berkenaan dengan sebuah syarikat? Membuat aduan terhadap entiti korporat tidak boleh disamakan dengan sesuatu kesalahan terhadap negara.

Inilah masalahnya apabila undang-undang digubal yang memberi kuasa luas kepada pihak berkuasa, tanpa perlindungan-perlindungan yang mencukupi. Ia boleh disalahgunakan. Kita pernah lihat dengan ISA, kini kita lihat pula dengan Sosma.

Pada masa hadapan, adakah kita juga akan lihat perkara sama dengan Pota?

Semasa Sosma diluluskan, kebimbangan Bar Malaysia dan masyarakat madani tidak diendahkan. Dikatakan bahawa kami pro-pembangkang, tidak menyokong usaha untuk memerangi terrorisme dan tidak memikirkan keselamatan negara.

Nampaknya kini ada ahli parlimen yang sedar betapa undang-undang seperti Sosma dan lain-lain boleh disalah guna. Walaupun ada antara mereka yang sendiri telah mengundi di Parlimen untuk luluskan undang-undang tersebut. Lambat tidak mengapa.

Asalkan sedar akhirnya.

Diharapkan pada masa hadapan, sebelum ahli parlimen luluskan undang-undang yang beri kuasa luas kepada pihak berkuasa, mereka ingat apa yang berlaku dengan Sosma.

Shahredzan b Johan

* Penulis adaalah seorang peguam di sebuah firma di Kuala Lumpur

Johor Jangan Jadi Bodoh

http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2015/10/16/tmj-johor-has-every-right-to-secede-if-terms-are-breached/

  - Maka perlulah bagi TMJ untuk menghuraikan lebih lanjut lagi akan perjanjian yg disebutkan itu,  kerana perlu untuk diperingatkan  bahawa hak untuk "keluar" dari Malaysia tidak lagi berada ditangan raja Johor sahaja, apabila negara ini ditubuhkan.
- Pada mulanya memanglah terdapat perjanjian yg menggabungkan kesemua negeri negeri di Tanah Melayu ini untuk menjadi satu Persekutuan Tanah Melayu, dimana hak setiap negeri itu masih dipegang oleh raja raja Melayu.
  - Tetapi apabila Malaysia ditubuhkan kesemua perjanjian yg dibuat sebelum itu telah **dibatalkan**.
  - Sebab itulah raja raja Melayu dipilih diantara mereka, selang empat tahun, untuk menduduki tahta tertinggi negara sebagai Agong.

Zeti. The Only One with Balls.

Bank Negara's statement:

Ref No : 10/15/06

Embargo : For immediate release

Statement on 1MDB

The Attorney General's decision with respect to the investigations on 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) relates to Bank Negara Malaysia's recommendation to initiate criminal prosecution against 1MDB for breaches under the Exchange Control Act 1953 (ECA). It is to be noted that under the Federal Constitution, the decision to initiate criminal prosecution lies solely with the Attorney General.

As an investigative authority, the Bank is duty bound to conduct its investigations with the highest professional care and diligence. The Bank at all times expects full and accurate disclosure of information by applicants in considering any application under the ECA. On its part, the Bank concluded that permissions required under the ECA for 1MDB's investments abroad were obtained based on inaccurate or without complete disclosure of material information relevant to the Bank's assessment of 1MDB's applications.

Therefore, the Bank has revoked three permissions granted to 1MDB under the ECA for investments abroad totalling USD1.83 billion and also issued a direction under the Financial Services Act 2013 to 1MDB to repatriate the amount of USD1.83 billion to Malaysia and submit a plan to the Bank for this purpose.

The Bank will continue to extend its full cooperation to ongoing investigations by the Royal Malaysia Police and the Malaysia Anti-Corruption Commission.

Bank Negara Malaysia 09 October 2015

AG Kapchai

Adakah ini tatacaranya peguam negara kita? Adakah ini tindakan yang sewajarnya keatas suatu kes besar, yang kini diperhatikan dengan terperincinya diseluruh dunia? Dimana seorang peguam negara dengan tiba tiba telah membuat satu keputusan tanpa membentangkan dengan teliti akan siasatan yang telah dilakukan, keatas siapakah siasatan yang telah dilakukan itu, termasuklah bukti bukti penuh yang membuatkan beliau mengambil keputusan bahawa tiada kesalahan yang telah didapati dilakukan oleh pihak 1MDB. Walaupun telah didapati terdapat tindakan dan perkara perkara yang mencurigakan oleh pihak Bank Negara dan juga pihak SPRM sendiri. Adakah peguam negara ini mengingatkan yang rakyat sebegitu bodoh dan tidak boleh memahami ataupun  membuat keputusan tersendiri berkait dengan hal hal sebegini. Ternyatalah bahawa yang bodoh itu adalah AG ini sendiri. Janganlah mengingatkan bahawa rakyat tidak tahu akan kedudukan beliau yang sebenarnya, iaitu sebagai seorang boneka kerajaan, ataupun pak turut, yang hanya diperlukan untuk   menggunakan kuasa yang  diberikan itu untuk  memutarbelitkan keadaan, dan seboleh bolehnya melindungi dengan apa cara sekali pun, bossnya yang mana telah memberikan beliau jawatan yang didudukinya itu. Ternyatalah kedudukan peguam tertinggi dinegara ini sekarang tidak mempunyai apa apa nilai pun didalam pembentukan sebuah negara yang adil dan saksama.  

http://news.yahoo.com/malaysias-attorney-general-defends-govt-over-fund-scandal-102824601.html

Propaganda Media Perdana

Tujuan utama media masa tv dan suratkabar, ataupun yang lebih dikenali sebagai media arus perdana seperti TV3, Utusan, The Star dan sebagainya, adalah untuk mengalih atau mengubah persepsi dan pendapat orang awam terhadap kerajaan yang memerintah. "Biarkanlah mereka ini sibuk dengan hal hal mereka saja, asalkan jangan mengganggu "kita" (dimana "kita" disini bermaksud orang orang besar yang dilantik oleh kerajaan). Biarkanlah mereka ini lalai dan hanya mementingkan perkara perkara remeh saja, seperti skandal artis, penyanyi diakademi fantasia, pasukan bolasepak EPL, hal hal keugamaan dan sebagainya. Apa pun, asalkan ianya bukanlah sesuatu yang serius, sesuatu yang berkait dengan cara pengendalian, pentadbiran ataupun masaalah negara kita ini. Itu semua adalah permainan untuk orang orang besar sahaja, orang orang yang "smart". Biarkan "kita" saja yang menguruskannya.

Ini adalah disebabkan oleh pihak kerajaan yang hanya menganggapkan rakyatnya, ataupun sebilangan besar daripadanya, sebagai mereka yang "ignorant", mereka yang kurang akal, tidak memahami akan cara cara pentadbiran ataupun sebagai orang luar, yang hanya suka untuk menyibuk sahaja, menyusahkan pihak yang mentadbir. Sememangnya pihak yang memerintah ini juga tidak mahu rakyat dilihat sehingga diperingkat umum, membantah akan apa apa salahlaku pentadbirannya, kerana mereka ini tidak layak dan hanya akan menimbulkan pelbagai masaalah sahaja.

Tugas sebenar rakyat pada mereka ini, hanyalah sebagai "spectator" (pemerhati) dan bukannya sebagai "participant" (peserta). Mereka ini dibenarkan empat, lima tahun sekali untuk mengundi, supaya dapat jugalah mereka merasakan yang diri mereka ini kononnya "participate" didalam tatacara demokrasi, memilih salah seorang daripada orang orang besar atau orang orang yang dianggapkan "smart" ini. Kemudian bolehlah mereka kembali semula kepada kerja asal mereka, akademi fantasia mereka, bolasepak atau drama cinta mereka, dan hidup hanya sebagai seorang pemerhati, dan bukannya sebagai "participant", sepertimana dinegara yang mengamalkan ideologi demokrasi yang tulin.

Sambil itu, mereka yang digelar sebagai "participant" ini pula, adalah mereka yang terdiri daripada golongan orang orang yang kononnya bertanggung jawab, yang patuh dan akur hanya kepada pemerintah, yang melantik mereka, yang memberikan mereka kemewahan dan social status yang tinggi. Ini termasuklah editor suratkabar, CEO syarikat tv dan media, producer drama dan juga berita. Mereka yang "smart" inilah yang juga bertanggungjawab menyalurkan suara halus, penuh penipuan dan juga propaganda pihak pemerintah. Semuanya bertujuan untuk mengubah akan persepsi dan pendapat rakyat jelata supaya menyokong dan menyebelahi pihak kerajaan. Tak kiralah sama ada kerajaan yang memerintah ini membuat apa apa kesalahan ataupun tindakan yang merugikan rakyat sekalipun. Mereka akan cuba sedaya-upaya memutarbelitkan sesuatu situasi itu demi untuk menampakkan kebenaran kepada apa yang tidak. Ataupun meletakkan perkara sulit yang mereka lakukan dibawah satu akta rahsia, supaya ianya tidak diketahui umum. Malahan, amat mudah sekali bagi kerajaan yang memerintah ini untuk melakukan jenayah apabila ianya dibantu oleh mereka mereka yang berteduh dibawah payung arus perdana ini.

Kepada editor suratkabar ataupun penyelenggara website yang membangkang ataupun yang cuba untuk menyebarkan apa apa salahlaku pihak pemerintah, mereka ini pula akan ditangkap dibawah satu akta hasutan. Ataupun website mereka, seperti apa yang telah berlaku pada The Sarawak Report di"banned"kan. Ternyatalah kerajaan amat gentar sekali sekiranya jenayah yang mereka lakukan terbongkar dan diketahui umum. Penyelewengan yang membabitkan jutaan duit rakyat secara tak langsung telah menjadi kebiasaan, malah menjadi satu budaya pula kepada ahli ahli politik Barisan Nasional yang memerintah negara ini, sejak dari dulu lagi. Mereka ini bagaikan kebal, tidak boleh dijatuhkan, sekalipun dengan bukti bukti yang amat ketara sekalipun. Ini disebabkan oleh kuasa yang mereka miliki mengawal setiap peringkat pentadbiran kerajaan termasuklah pihak polis, badan kehakiman, peguam negara dan sebagainya.

Mereka juga boleh memberikan apa apa alasan atas tindakan mereka dan ternyata akan mendapat sokongan penuh penyokong penyokong supremasis Melayu mereka. Kerana apa yang penting bukanlah sebenarnya tindakan salahlaku pemerintah ataupun soal wang yang disonglap tetapi lebih kepada pengekalan kuasa bangsa Melayu sepenuhnya didalam hal hal pentadbiran dan pemerintahan dinegara ini. Malah kebanyakkan orang orang Melayu ini masih lagi menganggapkan bahawa parti inilah satu satunya yang kononnya memihak dan akan sentiasa melindungi dan menjamin akan hak mereka sebagai kaum yang lebih "superior" dinegara ini.

Akibat daripada pemerintahan satu parti dinegara ini sejak daripada kemerdekaan lagi, penyokong Barisan Nasional terutamanya parti Melayu UMNO mempunyai sikap waswas, merasakan ketidaktentuan sekiranya negara ini diperintah oleh pihak yang kini membangkang. Tambahan apabila kuasa memerintah dikongsi bersama bangsa bangsa lain. Ini adalah akibat daripada kebiasaan rakyat Melayu pada pemerintahan beraja Melayu dimana kepimpinannya mempunyai hak mutlak keatas segala apapun dibawah tahtanya dan warisan pula dipilih hanya dari kalangan kerabat ataupun golongan bangsawan. Sikap dan pemikiran yang berasaskan feudalisma ini jugalah yang menyebabkan mereka sanggup untuk menutup sebelah mata, membiarkan jenayah dan penyelewengan oleh kerajaan ini berterusan; asalkan pemerintahan negara kekal ditangan orang Melayu sahaja. Ternyatalah ini juga adalah satu tanggapan songsang yang tidak lagi releven dizaman sekarang.

Mujurlah dengan adanya internet, pihak kerajaan tidak lagi boleh menguasai dengan sepenuhnya segala imformasi rekaan mereka yang cuba disalurkan kepada rakyat dan orang awam. Rakyat pun semakin faham dan mula menyedari akan penyelewengan yang sering dilakukan oleh kerajaan BN ini. Malah banyak berita berita didalam internet sekarang termasuklah akhbar luar negara yang menunjukkan bukti2 jelas akan jenayah yang kini dilihat sering dilakukan oleh pentadbir dan pegawai tinggi kerajaan. Contohnya sepertimana yang berlaku dengan dakwaan korupsi syarikat 1MDB, termasuklah penglibatan Perdana Menteri kita sendiri yang nyata menunjukkan ketidakperihatinan mereka2 ini didalam menyelenggarakan hak2 rakyat, jesteru menambahkan lagi kesusahan dan memberikan impak yang negatif kepada cara hidup masyarakat secara keseluruhanya.

TOYO

In a country like China crime such as bribery, graft etc will definitely get you a death penalty, especially when it involves a high ranking officer. Surely crimes such as these are considered a big sin just like stealing in some Islamic countries, wIn a country like China crime such as bribery, graft etc will definitely get you a death penalty, especially when it involves a high ranking officer. Surely crimes such as these are considered a big sin just like stealing in some Islamic countries, where your limbs will be cut of.

But of course things are a bit different in this country that's trying hard to project itself as truly Islamic. A slap in a wrist was given yesterday to an ex chief minister for a crime involving million of dollars. Fair? Hell no. In this country you'll get more time stealing freaking sardines and a few bags of rice. Luckily for Mr Big Shot, his trial was in KL and not Beijing. Surely there might be some other crimes too done while he was in office, we'll never know, hide under a carpet somewhere. Since it is quite well known already, in fact nowadays we are globally famous for crimes such as these that  has become kinda like a culture or kinda like a norm for this Malay supremasist government  currently driving this country to hell.

--

@aidyadnan Aidy Adnan

@p now

Keeping Quiet

Now we will count to twelve
and we will all keep still

For once on the face of the earth
let's not speak in any language;
let's stop for one second,
and not move our arms so much.

It would be an exotic moment
without rush, without engines;
we would all be together
in a sudden strangeness.

Fishermen in the cold sea
would not harm whales
and the man gathering salt
would look at his hurt hands.

Those who prepare green wars,
wars with gas, wars with fire,
victories with no survivors,
would put on clean clothes
and walk about with their brothers
in the shade, doing nothing.

What I want should not be confused
with total inactivity
Life is what it is about;
I want no truck with death.

If we were not so single-minded
about keeping our lives moving,
and for once could do nothing,
perhaps a huge silence
might interrupt this sadness
of never understanding ourselves
and of threatening ourselves with death.

Perhaps the earth can teach us
as when everything seems dead,
and later proves to be alive.

Now I'll count up to twelve
and you keep quiet
and I will go.

Paul Neruda

Perubahan ke Ekonomi Berdasarkan Keperluan dan Merit

- Antara masaalah yang selalu diperdebatkan apabila menyoalkan akan dasar ekonomi negara ini adalah ketidakseimbangannya didalam pengagihan hasil kekayaan negara terhadap rakyatnya yang berbilang kaum.

- Ianya juga adalah antara faktor utama yang dapat dihat kini telah memecah belahkan kaum dan secara langsung menghindar akan progres ekonomi negara ini.

- Dasar Ekonomi Baru (NEP) yang mula diperkenalkan pada tahun 1971 pada asasnya adalah satu langkah kecemasan yang bertujuan untuk merapatkan jurang ekonomi antara orang Melayu dan kaum Cina, termasuklah mengagihkan pencapaian hakmilik kuasa ekonomi bumiputera ketahap 30 peratus didalam satu jangkamasa yang ditetapkan, iaitu 20 tahun.

- Ianya juga pada asasnya satu sistem kuota bertujuan untuk menghasilkan satu kuantiti yang terbesar dalam satu masa yang singkat.

- Tun Abdul Razak Hussein termasuklah timbalannya Tun Dr Ismail Abdul Rahman, kedua dua pemimpin yang bertanggungjawab mengasaskan perancangan Dasar Ekonomi Baru ini telah memberikan amaran bahawa akan timbulnya satu masaalah besar sekiranya sistem "kecemasan" ini dilanjutkan melebihi tempohnya iaitu 20 tahun, yang mana sepatutnya berakhir pada tahun 1990an.

- Bukankah lebih baik sekiranya negara ini beralih terus kesatu dasar sosial yang berasaskan pendapatan, dimana sekiranya bantuan diperlukan kepada satu golongan termiskin, maka seharusnya usaha itu ditumpukan kepada mereka yang terbabit. Tidaklah kepada satu golongan miskin kaum bumiputera sahaja yang diberikan layanan istimewa dan tidak kepada golongan miskin kaum Cina ataupun kaum India.

- Ini termasuklah dasar social yang berasaskan merit, dimana biasiswa diberikan kepada mereka yang mendapat keputusan yang terbaik sahaja tanpa mengira kaum. Tidak sepertimana yang dihat sekarang dimana terdapat segolongan pelajar Cina yang menghadapi masaalah untuk masuk ke universiti universiti tempatan walaupun mendapat keputusan yang cemerlang.

- Kegagalan untuk memperkenalkan dasar-dasar ekonomi berdasarkan tahap pendapatan dan juga merit inilah yang akan melemahkan lagi ekonomi negara, terutamanya bila dilihat berlakunya pengaliran keluar pakar (brain drain) dan juga modal (capital flight).

- Terdapat lima langkah utama yang perlu diambil untuk mengurangkan ketegangan antara kaum termasuklah penjanaan pertumbuhan ekonomi dinegara ini.

- Ianya adalah dengan meletakkan dasar-dasar berasaskan keperluan dan amalan berasaskan merit untuk menggantikan dasar-dasar berasaskan kaum, menghapuskan sistem persekolahan yang berasaskan kaum, membebaskan pasaran (freeing the market) untuk meningkatkan daya saing negara dan akhirnya meningkatkan lagi prestasi pentadbiran terutamanya dijabatan jabatan kerajaan.

- Walaupun secara teknikalnya NEP ini sepatutnya ditamatkan pada tahun 1990, masih banyak dasar dasar yang berasaskan NEP ini yang terus dikuatkuasakan dan secara langsung telah berkembang, menyebabkan bertambahnya rasa tidak puas hati di kalangan masyarakat bukan Bumiputera, yang menganggapkan bahawa ianya menafikan mereka akan peluang yang sama.

- Setahun selepas menjawat jawatan Perdana Menteri pada tahun 2009, Datuk Seri Najib Razak telah melancarkan New Economic Model (NEM) pada 30 Mac, 2010, kononnya untuk menjanakan dua kali ganda pendapatan negara per kapita di tahun 2020 kepada kira-kira AS15,000 (RM49,500).

Tiga tema yang menjadi dasar NEM ini adalah "pendapatan tinggi, kemampanan dan keterangkuman". Sebagai Perdana Menteri, beliau turut menekankan akan keperluan untuk mengurangkan jurang fiskal di antara golongan kaya dan miskin tanpa bergantung kepada dasar-dasar tindakan afirmatif seperti yang berlaku didalam NEP.

- Namun ramai pengkritik sosial yang melihatkan NEM ini sebagai satu sistem yang sama, yang mana tidaklah ada bezanya dengan NEP, hanya namanya sahaja yang diitukarkan.

- Pada 14 September 2013, Najib mengumumkan pula Agenda Bumiputera Baru yang akan menawarkan lebih RM30 bilion, didalam bentuk bantuan dan juga kontrak kepada komuniti bumiputera - jelas, ianya satu kesinambungan sistem tindakan afirmatif NEP seperti yang telah dijanjikan beliau akan dihapuskan di bawah NEM.

God

It is inaccurate to call God the Supreme Being because God is not a being at all, and that we really don't understand what we mean when we say that he is "good," "wise," or "intelligent." People of faith like those ulama' or bishop will admit in theory that God is utterly transcendent, but they seem sometimes to assume that they know exactly who "he" is and what he thinks, loves, and expects. We tend to tame and domesticate God's "otherness." We regularly ask God to bless our nation, protect our yang dipertuan, cure our sickness, or give us a fine day to go pancing. We even keep reminding God that he has created the world and that we are just a bunch of miserable sinners, as though this may have slipped his mind. Politicians like those in PAS quote God to justify their policies, government's body too like JAKIM uses him to keep order in our society, and terrorists commit atrocities in his name. We beg God to support "our" side in an election or even war, even though our opponents are, presumably, also God's children and the object of his love and care.

AA

Tahniah Tapi Mana Tudung?

Kritikan terhadap seorang pelajar wanita terbaik, berkait dengan soal hijab baru baru ini, hanya menunjukkan bahawa masih terdapat ramai orang orang Islam dinegara ini yang begitu cetek sekali akal pemikirannya. Mereka ini masih lagi tidak sedar dan menganggapkan kononnya pendidikan dan pengetahuan dalam hal hal keugamaan sahaja sudah mencukupi, untuk menaikkan balik taraf umat Islam yang telah hancur dizaman sekarang. Lupakah mereka bahawa zaman kegemilangan Islam yang bermula dengan Nabi Muhamad saw ke khalifah Al Rashidun sehinggalah keempayar besar Ottoman adalah disebabkan mereka pada ketika itu mempunyai antara tentera yang terbaik, termasuklah peralatan dan senjata perang yang termoden sekali didunia.

Melalui Konstantinople juga orang Islam menjadi bertambah pintar didalam bidang perdagangan dan hal hal kewangan. Ini termasuklah soal pendidikan, terutamanya dimasa pemerintahan Ummayad dan Abbasid dimana ahli bijak pandai Islam mula menterjemahkan segala ilmu ilmu yang asalnya dari Greek, Rom, Farsi dan Cina ke bahasa Arab. Mereka juga telah menghasilkan ahli sains, pakar perubatan, ahli falsafah seperti Ibn Sina, ahli mathematik dan juga sastera yang telah menaikkan taraf umat Islam ke satu tamadun tertinggi selama lebih 6 abad lamanya. Sesuatu yang pasti tidak lagi akan berlaku kepada umat yang sentiasa berpecah belah ini.


AA

Consumption (Konsumsi)

Pengacara: Mari kita berbincang sedikit mengenai keseluruhan konsep penumbuhan dan juga pembangunan ekonomi dinegara ini. Telah didapati bahawa Amerika Syarikat, yang terdiri dari 5% penduduk dunia, didapati menggunakan lebih daripada 40% daripada segala sumber-alam yang ada di dunia ini. Ternyata bahawa anda tidak perlu untuk menjadi seorang pemenang Hadiah Nobel, ataupun seorang genius untuk memikirkan akan kesan kesaannya akibat daripada situasi sebegini.
Noam Chomsky: Sebenarnya kebanyakkan daripada apa yang kita fikirkan sebagai "consumption" (pengunaan) ini bolehlah dianggapkan sebagai "artificially induced consumption". Sesuatu yang sengaja diada-adakan. Sesuatu yang direka. Ianya bukanlah consumption ataupun penggunaan yang mempunyai nilai nilai yang berkait dengan kehendak sebenar rakyat. Sejumlah besar daripada propaganda perniagaan, termasuklah apa yang dikeluarkan oleh industri public relations, industri pengiklanan dan sebagainya, adalah semata-mata satu usaha untuk mewujudkan satu keinginan ataupun kemahuan pada pihak pengguna. Ianya adalah satu ideologi yang difahami sejak dari dulu lagi, bermulanya dari Revolusi Perindustrian itu sendiri. Ramai dikalangan pengguna yang terpengaruh dengan propaganda perniagaan ini. Besar kemungkinan hidup mereka akan bertambah baik sekiranya mereka tidak memiliki kebanyakkan daripada barang barang yang mereka kini anggapkan sebagai satu "keperluan" itu. Selain itu, consumption secara berlebih-lebihan adalah satu cara hidup yang terbukti tidak sihat.
Consumption itu juga adalah satu perbuatan yang lebih cenderung kepada mereka mereka yang berduit. Oleh itu jelas lah bahawa ianya lebih menjurus kearah kemewahan, sesuatu aktiviti untuk orang kaya dan bukanlah satu keperluan bagi mereka yang terdiri dikalangan orang miskin. Perkara ini bukanlah satu perkara yang hanya dapat dilihat berlaku di Amerika Syarikat sahaja malah ianya berlaku diskala global, yang mana membawa kepada angka angka yang kamu sebutkan tadi. Ternyatalah negara-negara yang lebih kaya mempunyai peratus pengguna yang lebih tinggi dan selalunya golongan orang kayalah yang menjadi "consumer" yang paling utama. Dan kebanyakkan daripada "consumption ini adalah sepertimana yang saya sebutkan tadi, "artificially induced" yang tidak langsung berkait dengan kehendak ataupun keperluan asas yang sebenarnya untuk rakyat. Didalam jangkamasa panjang ianya boleh menimbulkan satu keadaan yang memudaratkan.
Ternyatalah bahawa ianya adalah satu anggapan yang salah sekiranya ukuran kesihatan ekonomi sesebuah negara itu diukur hanya dari segi keuntungan kewangannya sahaja, kerana apa yang lebih penting pada kesihatan ekonomi sesebuah negara itu adalah kesannya terhadap masyarakat secara keseluruhannya.

AA

The Bullshit

It's illogical to think that you can win by going "by the book" while they can just go around doing as they please - while you have to take all the shit, the abuse and what not, hoping that one day things will change. It's just not gonna happen, this "being patient " bullshit. And if history is to be our guide then they ll be no such thing as change without blood. Like it or not that is the truth, the whole truth. Because as long as those a-holes are in charged things are not going to get any better, things are not gonna change, and we have to go through this same old bullshite over and over again.

AA

Philippines offers refuge to desperate migrants trapped on boats

Government in Manila becomes first in the region to offer safe haven to thousands of refugees and migrants stranded on Asia’s seas

The Philippines has signalled it is ready to take in thousands of migrants who are stranded on Asia’s seas, the first country to offer shelter after its south-east Asian neighbours blocked them from entering.

Manila, a signatory to the United Nation’s refugee convention, said it would help as it denied a local report claiming that the Philippines planned to push back boats carrying some 8,000 people fleeing persecution in Burma and poverty in Bangladesh.

“The Philippines has extended humanitarian assistance to ... ‘boat people’ and had even established a processing centre for Vietnamese travellers in the 70s,” said Herminio Coloma, a spokesman for the president, Benigno Aquino.

“We shall continue to do our share in saving lives under existing and long-standing mechanisms pursuant to our commitments under the [UN] convention.”

It would be a long and unlikely journey for the migrants – who are believed to be in the region of the Andaman Sea – to make it to the Philippines on their rickety boats with little food and fuel.

more

Azmin Ali, You're Guilty

It looks like Azmin Ali is trying very hard to dig himself out of a quicksand. But no matter how hard he tried to spin himself out of this situation, he is basically guilty. Being a Menteri Besar he should have known that using a word like "barua" is a no no. Even if it's in a form of a question. Although it's pretty clear that the questioning itself is a type of provocation done sarcastically.

Surely we have seen this before. Our own Prime Minister used to cursed during one of his speeches at Felda. And so did some of our parliament members during a heated argument. But is that the right thing to do? Of course not. They are public figures and shouldn't be cursing at people they don't like, or don't agree with. I'm sure that behind closed door, everybody curses, especially them politicians. Najib is probably fuckin cursing his ass off right now because of the Tabung Haji gate. Hey, curse all you want pappi as long as it's not on record or in public. That's the rule.

Personally I have nothing good to say about our IGP either. He's a total d-head and definitely got his head stuck way up in his ass. Plain and simple, he is the epidemy of an UMNO's "barua". But luckily for me, I do not get paid to be in their positions as a public figure, nor to abide to such a rule.


AA

Mahathir On 1MDB

Berikut adalah petikan dari Blog Dr Mahathir chedet berkenaan syarikat kerajaan 1MDB.

1. UMNO telah mengadakan majlis penerangan tertutup yang dihadiri oleh sebahagian dari Ketua-Ketua Bahagian pada 8 Mac. Keputusan majlis mengikut akhbar ialah menyokong penuh Presiden parti.

2. Tidak diketahui tentang penjelasan oleh Presiden berkenaan kontroversi 1MDB, yang sedang dibincang dengan meluas oleh rakyat. Bahawa perkara ini dibawa oleh parti lawan, justeru itu ia adalah fitnah belaka tidak mencukupi untuk rakyat menolak tuduhan-tuduhan berkenaan 1MDB.

3. Rakyat masih tidak puas hati berkenaan 1MDB. Mereka bincang perkara ini dimana sahaja. Jika mereka tidak puas hati dan tidak sokong Barisan Nasional (BN) dalam PRU akan datang, BN mungkin kalah. Dan jika BN ditolak, sokongan kepada Presiden oleh pemimpin bahagian UMNO tidak lagi bermakna.

4. 1MDB bukan buat hutang biasa seperti Kerajaan yang biasanya berjumlah hanya ratusan juta sahaja. 1MDB telah hutang berbillion Ringgit. Walaupun 1MDB bukan Kerajaan tetapi ia adalah badan yang ditubuh dan dimiliki oleh Kerajaan sepenuhnya dengan modal sebanyak 1 juta Ringgit. Ada juga jaminan oleh Kerajaan terhadap beberapa hutang 1MDB. Oleh itu Kerajaan tidak boleh dakwa bahawa ini masalah syarikat dan bukan masalah Kerajaan.

5. Kerajaan sudah melantik Auditor General untuk memeriksa akaun 1MDB. Tetapi ini tidak akan menjawab banyak soalan yang telah dikemukakan dan dibincang oleh rakyat.

6. Dakwaan-dakwaan yang telah dibuat terhadap 1MDB bukan berbentuk tuduhan melulu. Ia disertai dengan fakta yang jelas, iaitu jumlah hutang, siapa yang mengurus, siapa yang menerima wang berbillion Ringgit, pelaburan yang dibuat, dimana wang ini disimpan, dalam bentuk apa.

7. Nama Jho Low disebut berkali-kali. Demikian juga nama-nama syarikat miliknya. Tuduhan dibuat berkenaan dengan pembelian rumah mewah olehnya di London, New York dan Holywood. Lepas itu rumah dijual kepada anak tiri Perdana Menteri dengan harga ratusan juta Ringgit. Sudah tentu ini tidak disebut dalam akaun 1MDB yang akan diperiksa oleh AG.

8. Pada mulanya duit Riza Aziz dikatakan warisan harta kekayaan dari keluarga Tun Razak. Kemudian dakwaan ini dinafi. Soalannya jika tidak dari keluarga Tun Razak dari mana datang wang yang banyak ini. Apakah ianya hasil dari perniagaan? Jika ya, apa perniagaan, dimana? Sudahkah cukai pendapatan dibayar? Kepada Kerajaan mana?

9. Pelaburan ratusan juta untuk filem “The Wolf of Wall Street” oleh Riza Aziz, anak tiri Dato Sri Najib datang dari mana? Filem ini tidak memberi keuntungan. Tidak mungkin filem ini membiayai rumah mewah yang dibeli dengan ratusan juta Ringgit atau Dolar Amerika.

10. Semua perkara-perkara ini tidak akan terdapat dalam akaun 1MDB. Tetapi rakyat ingin tahu kerana melibatkan Jho Low. Dan Jho Low disebut-sebut berkenaan dengan pengurusan 700 juta USD dari 1MDB.

11. Ada yang disebut berkenaan Petro Saudi yang juga menerima bayaran ratusan juta dolar dari 1MDB Benarkah Petro Saudi ini mendapat konsesi kawasan minyak dan gas di Argentina, di Turkmenistan dll. Apa buktinya? Benarkah JV dibuat dengan Petro Saudi sebelum ‘due diligence’ dibuat. Katanya sementara 1MDB melabur USD1 billion dalam JV dengan Petro Saudi, tetapi Petro Saudi tidak melabur satu sen pun. Apa jadi kepada wang IMDB dalam JV tidak jelas.

12. Apa sebabnya lebih dari 6 billion Ringgit (Dollar) disimpan di Cayman Island? Kerajaan tidak pernah simpan duit di lain negara selain pembelian bond. Apakah bond dibeli? Apa hasilnya?

13. Katanya wang sebanyak USD1 billion sudah dibawa balik dari Cayman dan disimpan dalam bank Singapura. Kononnya Bank Negara menjadi masalah kerana proses menyimpan wang yang banyak mesti melalui proses yang rumit. Bolehkan Bank Negara jelas kenapa menimbul masalah sedangkan 1MDB adalah syarikat Kerajaan yang dikuasai oleh Kementerian Kewangan. Jika mudah di Singapura kenapa susah sangat di Malaysia?

14. Urusan Kerajaan pernah dirahsia. Tetapi soal bayar balik hutang adalah public knowledge (dalam pengetahuan orang ramai). Orang ramai ingin tahu benarkah Ananda Krishnan memberi pinjam RM 2 billion untuk bayar faedah ini. Apakah faedah yang dikenakan oleh Ananda? Apa cara bayaran balik hutang Ananda? 1MDB dikatakan untung. Kenapa tidak dapat bayar faedah 2 billion Ringgit.

15. Juga diketahui umum ialah permohonan hutang sebanyak 3 billion dari Kerajaan baru-baru ini. Apakah Kabinet melulus pinjaman yang begitu besar ini? Apakah syarat yang dikenakan? Bagaimanakah hutang ini akan dibayar balik oleh 1MDB.

16. Tanah Kerajaan di Jalan Tun Razak dan Lapangan Terbang Sungai Besi telah dibeli oleh 1MDB. Apakah harga yang dibayar? Apakah tanah ini yang dikatakan asset 1MDB? Bagaimanakah dinilai harga tanah ini? Kerajaan berhak mendapat pulangan yang setimpal apabila tanah ini dijual kepada sesiapa pun. Berapakah harga satu kaki persegi. Tanah berdekatan dijual dengan harga RM7000/- satu kaki persegi. 1MDB juga membeli tanah di Pulau Pinang. Apa harganya. Apa jenis pembangunan yang dicadangkan. Sudah dimulakah?

17. Jika tanah-tanah ini menjadi aset 1MDB, apakah nilai tinggi aset ini disebabkan kenaikan (revaluation) dari harga belian yang murah dan harga pasaran yang tinggi.

18. 1MDB meminjam lebih dari 10 billion Ringgit untuk beli beberapa stesyen janakuasa. Harga yang dibayar dikatakan lebih tinggi dari harga pasaran. Lesen stesyen-stesyen ini akan mati tidak lama lagi. Kenapa tidak tunggu hingga lesen mati sebelum membeli. Harga selepas mati lesen tentu amat rendah. Membeli dengan harga tinggi sebelum lesen mati amat merugikan.

19. Wang untuk membeli stesyen janakuasa dipinjam. Laporan menunjuk komisyen sebanyak lebih dari 10% dibayar kepada Goldman Sachs untuk mengurus penjualan bond.

20. Jika komisyen 10%, 1MDB akan dapat hanya 90% dari jumlah yang dihutang. Tetapi faedah perlu dibayar keatas 100% jumlah hutang. Ini menghairankan!

21. Biasanya hutang yang dijamin oleh Kerajaan dikenakan faedah 3%. Hutang yang diurus oleh Goldman Sachs dikenakan faedah sebanyak 5.9%.

22. Jumlah hutang sudah meningkat kepada 42 billion Ringgit. Faedah keatas jumlah ini, jika hanya 5% pun akan berjumlah 2.6 billion Ringgit setahun. Ini adalah satu jumlah yang amat besar.

23. Sebaliknya jumlah keuntungan dari pelaburan dalam stesyen janakuasa tidak akan mencukupi untuk membayar faedah ini. Demikian juga pelaburan untuk beli tanah di Kuala Lumpur dan Pulau Pinang tidak akan beri apa-apa pulangan sebelum di bangun atau dijual.

24. Sesungguhnya 1MDB menimbul banyak soalan tentang pengurusan dan kegunaannya. Dan jumlahnya juga amat besar. Rakyat berhak merasa curiga akan cara dan kegunaan wang mereka yang banyak ini.

25. Ulasan bahawa semua tuduhan adalah fitnah tidak mencukupi. Mereka yang mendakwa bahawa ada penyelewengan dalam pengurusan 1MDB berani membuat kenyataan terhadap Kerajaan dan individu-individu tertentu walaupun terdedah kepada tindakan saman malu. Tetapi mereka mendakwa mereka memiliki bukti-bukti yang jelas seperti e-mail, surat perjanjian dan bukti-bukti lain. Tarikh dan nama-nama diberi tanpa bersembunyi. Pembohongankah tuduhan mereka!!

26. Sehingga kini Kerajaan tidak menjawab secara yang masuk akal. Umpamanya 1MDB tidak punyai masalah kerana asetnya lebih dari hutang. Tetapi hanya untuk bayar faedah 2 billion, tidak ada wang sehingga tidak dapat tutup akaun ikut jadual. Kemungkinan terpaksa hutang untuk bayar faedah.

27. Sejak Arul Kanda Kandasamy mengambil jawatan CEO, banyaklah kenyataannya yang tidak munasabah yang dibuat. Kononnya wang di Cayman sudah dibawa balik. Kemudian wang ini tidak boleh bawa balik. Kemudian sudah dibawa balik tetapi disimpan di Singapura.

28. Yang diperlukan bukan audit biasa buku akaun. Yang diperlukan ialah siasatan forensik oleh polis akan tuduhan yang dbuat terhadap beberapa orang yang terlibat dengan pengurusan wang 1MDB.

29. Jika ini tidak dibuat dan dibuat secepat mungkin, sokongan rakyat yang sudah pun merosot dalam PRU 2008, 2013 akan merosot lagi. Besar kemungkinan BN akan kalah pada 2018, walaupun ketua-ketua UMNO sokong dan terima dengan puas hati penerangan yang dibuat. Ingatlah undi orang UMNO sahaja tidak cukup untuk menang pilihanraya.

~ Chedet.cc

Jho Low and a 48 Million Dollar Painting

- Basquiat who was also a known heroine addict died pretty early, at the age of 27. Just like those rockstars who died from overdose, or some other drug related death. Pretty weird ain't it. In fact I used to visit his gallery/show back in the eighties during those Warhol era. Nevertheless he has definitely make a big mark on modern style expressionist and having his paintings sold for 20 to 30 million bucks is something that I'm sure he himself didn't expect to happened.

- But that's not what's important here. What's important here is a story of a young, very ambitious and very rich son of a gun, whose name is being tied to all the shit that is 1MDB and of course our PM Najib Razak, himself. In a matter of just a few months, He has become so popular that many would want to know exactly who the fuck is this Jho Low guy? And he is the guy reported by Christie to have bought a 48.8 million dollar painting of Basquiat back in 2013. The highest somebody had ever paid for a Basquiat. And there is absolutely no misprint on that number that you see there.

- My first reaction after seeing this is - what a mother-fucking asshole this guy is! Sure it is his rights to do whatever he wanted with his money, but come on man, to spent like fucking 48 mil on a bloody painting? It is just way too much and damn ridiculous. Even those at Christie was kinda surprised by that bid. Worst, is when that money is not being spent here in this country.

- Forget it if you think that this boy from Penang could have used the money for charity, helping the needy or to better the lives of those who are less fortunate because those kinda feelings are basically non-existent to those affected by this disease called greed. And this particular event has definitely conformed as to the character of this one "lupa daratan" local kid by the name of Jho Low.

GST: WHY NOW?

- GST Task Force yang ditubuhkan sebaik saja Najib mengumumkan keputusan untuk melaksanakan sistem GST dinegara ini sebenarnya bertujuan untuk memberi penerangan dengan lebih jelas berkenaan satu sistem cukai baru kepada penduduk dinegara ini. Namun apa yang jelas kelihatan ialah sehingga kini ramai yang masih lagi tidak memahami dengan sepenuhnya konsep sistem cukai ini, termasuklah mereka yang mewakili pihak Task Force ini sendiri. Malah jawapan jawapan yang diberikan oleh wakil UMNO dari badan Task Force ini telah gagal untuk menyakinkan pelajar pelajar diUniversiti Malaya tempoh hari akan sebab mengapa kerajaan perlu untuk melaksanakan sistem cukai GST ini.

- Dengan nilai matawang paling merosot dalam 7 tahun; dengan skandal kerajaan yang melibatkan jumlah wang berbilion ringgit; dengan kerugian yang bakal dialami oleh syarikat Petronas akibat jatuhnya harga minyak; dengan ramalan pengkaji ekonomi diWall Street yang tidak memberansangkan; dengan tidak kepuasan hati rakyat terhadap kepimpinan dan juga kerajaan yang memerintah, maka adalah tidak waras untuk melaksanakan sistem cukai ini yang nyata akan menaikkan bukan saja harga barangan malah kemarahan penduduk dinegara ini.

- Apa yang jelas ialah kerajaan dengan sikap terburu buru mereka dalam melaksanakan sistem GST ini hanyalah bertujuan untuk mengaut sebanyak mana yang boleh untuk menutup lubang lubang yang timbul akibat daripada kecuaian dan kelemahan mereka sendiri dalam mengimbangi dan menyelaraskan ekonomi negara ini.

- Mereka cuba pula untuk mengambil kesempatan daripada rakyat yang kebanyakannya kurang memahami dengan proses cukai ini dengan memberi contoh bahawa banyak negara negara lain yang turut menggunakan sistem ini. Namun mereka tidak menjelaskan dengan sepenuhnya bahawa negara negara terutamanya dirantauan Asia Tenggara ini sebenarnya telah lama melaksanakan sistem GST ini. Contohnya Indonesia pada tahun 1984, Thailand 1992, Singapura 1993, Filipina 1998, Cambodia 1999, Vietnam 1999 dan Laos 2009

- Kerajaan pemerintah juga sepatutnya telah menperletakkan sistem GST ini sejak dari dulu lagi kerana ianya lebih menguntungkan kerajaan dan juga lebih berkesan secara keseluruhannya sekiranya dibandingkan dengan sistem cukai SST yang diamalkan sekarang. Oleh itulah kita lihat kerajaan seperti Republik Indonesia yang mempunyai lebih ramai penduduknya dan peratus golongan "below the poverty level" yang tinggi telah mengamalkankan sistem ini sejak dari tahun 1984 lagi.

- Namun kerajaan Malaysia tidak memandang jauh seperti negara negara lain akibat daripada kekayaan baru yang dinikmatinya hasil daripada pengeluaran minyak pada ketika itu. Oleh kerana ekonomi negara yang agak stabil, tambahan pula dengan keuntungan yang diperolehi daripada industri cari gali minyak dan sebagainya, soal sistem cukai ini tidak dititik beratkan malah diketepikan sepenuhnya. Apa yang dipentingkan hanyalah untuk mempastikan supaya kerajaan Barisan Nasional yang memerintah akan senantiasa memegang kuasa pemerintahan. Oleh itu mempertahankan kuasa pula dijadikan satu prioritas terutamanya apabila Anuar Ibrahim dibebaskan dari penjara oleh Perdana Menteri Ahmad Badawi. -

to be continued

PROTEST AND WORK

I hope there'll be shit load of people at the ‪#‎KitaLawan‬ protest this afternoon. I couldn't go cause one of the guy at work just told me that he can't make it to work today. Typical shit when you got locals working for you. There's always something. Best is when they'll be telling you that they can't work instead of asking permission to take a day off. Yep, suddenly they've become your boss. The fact of the matter is that they don't even realise what happened at all and I guess it's not totally their fault. It's just not in our culture this adat bekerja thingy. Maybe I should write something about this topic. But do expect shit like this when you're hiring locals staffs for your business. And it's no wonder that a lot of small businesses would prefer to hire those who're from Myanmar or Filipinos instead and I would suggest the same. I'm not sayin that all of them locals are without work ethics coz some do. Although it's quite rare.

The Age of Social Democracy. Norway and Sweden in the Twentieth Century

To write a general history of two neighbouring countries spanning 100 years is no easy task. Furthermore, in 1905 Norway became independent of Sweden, meaning that there was no natural linkage between the two, geography apart. Sejersted has overcome this hurdle by emphasizing the prevalence of social democracy in both nations in the 20th century, and this comparative work therefore has a clear angle of interest for readers across the globe. As a Norwegian economic historian with knowledge of Swedish history and comparative methods, the author had perhaps the best possible background to enable him to pull off this major feat. Another historian might have struggled with the economic and financial issues, which are among the most pivotal topics a work of this nature must address, but Sejersted treats them confidently throughout. The first chapter on industrialization is a curtain raiser for what follows. Since Swedish engineering and manufacturing and Norwegian oil production are some of the most distinctive features of their nations’ recent past, the author’s knowledge is not wasted here. The book is richer and more insightful for being comparative. One of the strengths of comparative history is its ability to supply context, and at its best it is also able to provide a clearer scheme of causality than a more straightforward historical approach might.

The author divides the volume into three parts, covering 1905–40, 1940–70 and 1970–2000 respectively. A concluding chapter, entitled ‘After social democracy’, utilizes the findings of the work to point towards the future, and even in earlier chapters there is treatment of events occurring after 2000. The division has the virtue of capturing the coming, zenith and decline of social democracy neatly. The second part is thus entitled ‘The golden age of social democracy’, surely an uncontested view. To the English-speaking reader, the first question arising might be whether Scandinavian social democracy equates to what is known as socialism in Britain and the United States. It is not a straightforward topic to debate, because avowedly socialist parties have seldom been in power for long enough to carry out their programmes of principles. Until 2004 British Labour had never been in power for more than six years consecutively, and it was scarcely a socialist party by then. A British Marxist like Perry Anderson has argued that social democracy is not socialism, because the Swedish Social Democrats had not nationalized the factors of production.(1) On the basis of this book, one imagines Sejersted would agree. He notes that social democracy ‘had roots in both the liberal and the socialist and reformist traditions’ (p. 122). The Swedish labour movement’s post-war programme of 1944 contained ‘no demand for socialization’ (p. 294). Sejersted sees social democracy as the practical ideas of the Swedish and Norwegian labour movements, aiming at inclusion in the national community and radical only when excluded from it. Upon taking leadership in Sweden in 1932 and Norway in 1935, they did not seek to supersede the norms of their respective societies but to take charge of the modernization project. However, the author challenges the myth that that the state does not own industry in Sweden and Norway. In 2005 the Norwegian state owned 40 per cent of the total value of assets on the stock exchange (p. 385), and while both the absolute value and the proportion is lower in Sweden, the state was still the largest owner of companies listed on the stock exchange as of 2007 (p. 386). Sejersted could also have mentioned that the manifesto of the Swedish Social Democrats in 1944, at the dawn of the post-war age, demanded socialization of the economy. In 1975 a committee of the Trade Union Confederation, led by the economist Rudolf Meidner, reported on the proposal for wage-earner funds that would buy up the stock of private companies and wield proprietary power (p. 373). So the issue of Swedish socialization never entirely went away. This points to the open-endedness of the social democratic project.

Sejersted considers the nature of the Norwegian Labour Party and the Swedish Social Democrats in chapter ten, which is entitled ‘Capitalism, socialism and democracy’. He outlines their trajectories from 1945 until 1970, discussing economic planning, corporatism and business reaction. The author’s framework for discussing the social democratic order works well. But if I had written the book, I would have focused on how the two parties faced a clear choice in 1944 and 1945 about whether they wanted to transform Sweden and Norway into socialist societies or not. In Sweden in 1944 (the nearest she came to a post-war election) the Communists advanced to 10 per cent of the votes, and sought to cooperate with the Social Democrats. Together they held the majority in Parliament. The Social Democrats rebuffed them, preferring to work with their traditional allies the Agrarians. In Norway in 1945, the Labour Party and the Communists held talks about merging. These talks led nowhere, despite goodwill on both sides. The Labour Party got its own majority later that year, and did not require Communist support. However, Labour and the Communists together totalled more than half the votes, and the two parties now held a mandate for the creation of a socialist society.  Labour held forth this goal in the manifesto, but like its Swedish counterpart it shied away in reality. The same choice was made in France, where the Communists and Socialists held a parliamentary majority in 1945. Thus the difference is not between ‘Scandinavian social democracy’ and ‘socialism’, but between those who genuinely want a socialist society and those who do not.

An issue which logically demands attention in this book, since it was a debate between these two and Denmark, is the question of NATO membership versus the proposed Scandinavian defence alliance in 1948–9. Sejersted treats this on pages 189–94. Given the importance of security-policy anchoring during the Cold War and afterwards, I feel this could have been expanded with profit. There is a lot more to be said about ideology, Scandinavianism and political conflict on this. Was Sweden able to pursue a more consistently social democratic foreign policy due to her neutrality? Sejersted notes the conflict over the stationing of nuclear arms in Norway in peacetime, where the government eventually decided to oppose the wishes of the United States (p. 193). To be fair to the author, the work was originally written for a Scandinavian readership, for whom this much-discussed issue required no fuller explanation.

The work has social democracy at its core, but it is not about how socialism ran its course in Sweden and Norway, but about how these countries changed over the course of a century. Sejersted deals with the relevant issues within both, and is able to say something about one country then the other. In terms of balance, the flow of the narrative, the logical way in which the book is structured and the author's mastery of the literature on very diverse topics, the book is a pleasure to read. Issues that had no importance in the other society, but which were highly controversial in either Sweden, such as nuclear power, or Norway, such as the conflict over language, are nevertheless fairly dealt with. Indeed, the book is an ideal introduction to the history of both countries.

Apart from social democracy itself, the Swedish/Scandinavian model of society is a matter which has excited outsiders. In an Anglo-Saxon context, its tenets of high taxes, active employment policy, generous welfare, centralized wage bargaining and the mixed economy seem a political impossibility. One of the editorial reviewers asks the question of whether it rests on unique geographical and historical factors, or whether it can be imitated. This is a different way of discussing the identity or otherwise of Scandinavia and social democracy. Do they imply each other? To the extent that the model is a desideratum, one imagines that it cannot be replicated elsewhere in the Western world. Social democracy completed its nation-building (or modernization project, as Sejersted says) in the 1945–70 period of stable economic growth. It was a symbiosis with the golden age of capitalism in the era when the system was amenable to correction. High taxes are resented less when one’s living standards are rising anyway, and the Social Democrats could point to the contrast with the mass unemployment of the 1930s. The author does not directly engage with this question, but from his contention that social democracy is declining in its most favourable region, one imagines that he would negate the idea that the Scandinavian model might be re-created in the rest of Europe or European-settler societies.

Sejersted brings out the antecedents of the Scandinavian model, to be found in the policy of industrial intervention (including compulsory arbitration) and social reforms pursued by the Liberals until 1920 in Norway (pp. 68–73, p. 153). No equivalent left-liberal project existed in Sweden, but the Social Democrats first cooperated with the Liberals in government in 1917, and formed the first pure party government in 1920 under Hjalmar Branting (p. 130). These developments may be part of the reason why the Norwegian Labour party was more radical than the Swedish Social Democrats in the 1920s. The other stepping stones to the Scandinavian model were the Main Agreement in Norway (1935) and Saltsjöbad Agreement in Sweden (1938) (p. 158). The author does not quite bring out how important these general business-trade union settlements were. According to the data of Douglas Hibbs Jr., in the period 1919–38 Norway topped the list (among liberal democracies) of the volume of strikes relative to population, with Sweden in second place.(2) While the development towards industrial harmony took place sometimes at odds with the Social Democrats, the agreements epitomized the coming of a new order in society, also represented by the Social Democratic takeovers. The takeovers in both countries rested on an agreement with farmers about economic policies. The Cow Agreement was concluded between the Social Democrats and Agrarians in Sweden in 1933, and the Norwegian Crisis Agreement, inspired by the Danish and Swedish precursors, in 1935. Of these two crisis settlements, the Swedish was the more elaborate as it led to the Agrarians entering government, while the Norwegian Agrarians were free to oppose the Labour government on matters not covered by the budget of 1935. On the other hand, the Norwegian Labour party only entered government as a result of this deal, whereas the Swedish Social Democrats had already formed a minority government when the deal was brokered.

What the two working-class parties got from the deals was viability for their governments, as their crisis policies were not as effective in dealing with the Depression as was previously thought (p. 170). Incidentally, the Norwegian crisis plan (not the same as the crisis agreement) drawn up by the Labourites Axel Sømme and Ole Colbjørnsen in 1933,  which in a shortened form was the mainstay of the party’s election campaign, was not inspired by the Nazi Gregor Strasser (p. 169). The research the author refers to was deliberately one-sided, because its originator felt that the German example, both of the trade unions and the Nazis, had been underemphasized. Colbjørnsen, who had lived in Britain and the Soviet Union, was inspired by Keynes’s ideas and Stalin’s under-consumptionist analysis and possibly also Strasser’s plan, but if so it was hardly the germ of his ideas. Since Ernst Wigforss, who became minister of finance in the 1932 Social Democratic government, had written a pamphlet arguing for expansionist policies a year before Colbjørnsen did the same in Norway, and one can imagine that the Swedish example played some part.

Sweden and Norway are not just known for social democracy. They are also case studies par excellenceof the affluent society after the 1950s, and for gender equality. Because of generous transfers, Sweden and Norway have largely avoided the two-thirds society, though this is not something the author emphasizes. His concern is instead that paternalistic governments wished to teach the population to be discerning, rational consumers. The labour movement was sceptical of consumerism, but required it for the health of the economy (p. 316). He also notes how great an influence John Kenneth Galbraith has had on Sweden (pp. 212–13). It is perhaps not appreciated outside Scandinavia the extent to which ‘private wealth, public poverty’ applies to those societies too (p. 319). This feature distinguishes Sweden and Norway from Socialist countries, and paradoxically are a possible line of argument as to why Social Democrats deserve continued support. Not that they will create a truly socialist society, but that there are still some faults in society which require mending. Sweden and Norway have been among the wealthiest countries in the world, going back to 1938 or earlier, when the former was selling metals, timber and manufactured goods, and today when Norway is selling oil and gas. In 1975 Sweden was the sixth wealthiest OECD country (per capita), and in 2006 Norway came third (p. 497). These facts add impetus to the moral argument that it is shameful poverty still exists, and that public services sometimes fail their users.

There is an overview of feminism in the book. The author sees the socialist feminism (or 'Marxist feminism' as he says) of the 1970s as contiguous with the youth rebellion. The mobilizing issue was the demand for abortion rights, achieved in Sweden in 1974 and Norway the following year (p. 460). The feminists also demanded day care and employment rights. The author concentrates on the Swedish ‘Group 8’ and the Norwegian ‘Women’s Front’, but alleges that it was liberal feminists who were instrumental in the passing of gender equality legislation in 1978 (Norway) and 1979 (Sweden). This contention cannot easily be proved one way or the other; one would have thought that socialist feminism, as the more visible of the two movements, would this have played a greater part in making women’s rights a more pressing issue. In any case, there should also have been coverage of liberal feminists if they were the ones who were advancing the agenda. It would also have been interesting if Sejersted had suggested reasons why women’s rights have had a greater impact in these two countries than elsewhere.

These two societies had traditionally been exporters of migrants, especially to America, and it was not until the 1960s that they attracted significant numbers of immigrants. Both had been marked by homogeneity of population. The author believes that the concept of the nation needed to be rethought in the wake of especially Third World immigration (p. 400). This shows how fundamental the changes brought by this new development had the potential to be. As early as 1967, Sweden had received half a million migrants, which was considerable for a nation then numbering eight million people. There were differences between Sweden and Norway in this regard, because the author notes that a mere six hundred Pakistanis, arriving in Norway in 1971, caused ‘near panic’ (p. 401). He sees Sweden as the more liberal in terms of attitudes to immigration, which is borne out by the figures. What is unique to Sweden and Norway is that they had no colonial past, and therefore the immigrants were in every sense ‘foreigners’. Stricter rules were enforced in Sweden in 1968 and Norway in 1970, though immigration continued and has never stopped, owing to family reunion and asylum. Sweden has had one of the most liberal immigration policies in the world, and contains a higher proportion of immigrants and their descendants, yet interestingly it is in Norway that the populist right has been able to mobilize around this issue. The author’s treatment is factual, but the tenor of it is to see immigration as a problem. Since he believes that ‘cultural classes’ are constructed, he could have viewed ethnicity in the same light, as something amenable to homogenization in the medium term.

On the issue of the European Union, coverage is concise, integrating analysis with statements of fact. He makes the interesting point that Sweden and Norway have exchanged roles on the European stage between 1972 and 1994 (when the referendums on membership were held). Sweden had been the wealthy nation refusing to engage with Europe and seeing itself as ‘different’, a role which passed to Norway after 1995 when Sweden entered the EU. Appropriately for a work of this nature, he mentions the Norwegian ‘union complex’, which does not always feature in other explanations for why Sweden is today a member and Norway is not (p. 475). In a separate section, Sejersted explains why Sweden changed its policy on Europe. The end of the Cold War and reduced confidence in the Swedish model, due to the preceding economic crisis of 1991–3, loom large. The idea of the EU as an economic lifeboat is a good formulation. But the author does not mention the referendum on the single currency held in Sweden in 2003. Referendums on European integration often go badly in the Scandinavian peninsula. There is a social democratic aspect to the European issue as well, because while those parties have at a leadership level generally been pro-Europe whenever the issue arose, many of their voters, and indeed supporters of other parties, fear the dissolution of the Scandinavian model if their countries engage too deeply with the EU. Thus one can speak of a social-democratic consciousness, which now resides more with the people than with its original carriers, the leaders of the labour movement. Scandinavian Euroscepticism, usually of the leftist kind, shows the populace preferring the policies which have been built up over the decades covered in this book, to the alternative provided by a benign bureaucracy. This in itself goes to demonstrate the relevance of the author’s angle.

Notes

1. Perry Anderson, ‘Sweden: study in social democracy’, New Left Review 9 (1961), 34–45.Back to (1)
2. Quoted in Gregory M. Luebbert, Liberalism, Fascism or Social Democracy. Social Classes and the Origins of Regimes in Interwar Europe (Oxford, 1991), p. 257.Back to (2)

Zahid, The Gangster & The Pirate Government

Poor Zahid Hamidi. The guy used to be a lion, where nobody can say nothing bad to him, he'll fight back, right there and then, roaring and crushing them, using his power as the chosen Malay warrior and also as a trusted big dog, in a big chair, in the current ruling administration.

But that doesn't seem to be the case with the latest scandal involving a letter written by Zahid himself regarding a millionaire, who is also a world-class poker player and a gangster, by the name of Tony Phua, who is currently under investigation by LVPD in Vegas, US of A.

For weeks the opposition was firing shots at the warrior Zahid trying to get him to explain as to the reason for such letter being sent to the CIA. A letter which was clearly, (for those who understand the English language)

1. to be in the defence of Poker Phua
2. a letter with false information regarding the 14K Triad, which was later conformed by PDRM
3. a letter written without prior knowledge of the Foreign Ministry or the even the Attorney General.

More questions were being raised when the letter was withdrawn in the Nevada District Court in Las Vegas, after Putrajaya objected to it being used in Phua's defence. Now this is gettin serious, but which of the big dog in Putrajaya knew about this, have asked for that particular letter to be withdrawn?

So after a month of thinking, (honestly this is an act that is quite foreign to our man, Zahid) on how to answer to all this allegations directed towards him, the lion finally did a press conference and as expected didn't say much of anything except repeating the same shit, that Poker Phua is not a member of 14K Triad and that no such group was found to exist here in Malaysia. Shit! A whole month's worth of time and all he can come up with is the same lame ass bullshit that was written in that letter? Come on, what happen to Dr Spin, at least you can do is to spin something up, something short, maybe. But no. And at the same time, he kept refusing to give any explanation whatsoever regarding Tony Phua's involvement with the government on the nation's security, proclaiming that those are considered to be under the Official Secret Act. Isn't that just so typical? Pointing directly to the gold.

Now, to those who're still new to the Malaysian style of governing, this is a pretty common practice, used by our politicians in order to stop any line of inquiries that will point them as the guilty party, which is to sweep all informations available under the word "national security" and locked em up with a key called the Official Secret Act. This is an act that has nothing much to do with protecting our nation as much as it is used to basically just cover up all those hanky panky done by these pirate government of ours so that it'll never be known to the public.

Anyway, what was not answered, is this part of the letter, where our little Zahid wrote:

1. Phua helped the Malaysian government in “projects affecting our national security”
2. “We continue to call upon him to assist us from time to time as such, we are eager for him to  return to Malaysia”
3. Phua’s release would impact on furthering “good international relations between our two   countries, especially in the exchange of information”.

Let's look at these words being used here really carefully. Does it sounded to you as if Poker Phua is a criminal, or a gambling kingpin or even a member of the brutal Hong Kong 14K Triad? No, I don't think so. It seems to me like Poker Phua is in fact quite an asset actually, a golden boy of some sort, in this pirate government of ours, since they are so "eager" in having him back home, and I'm sure for none other than to assist in those important matters of national security which he has shown to be one of the essential key player. And just imagine, the impact that could have happened between those two countries involved, if Phua is to be released by the American authority. Doesn't that sound a bit like pleading for Poker Phua's release? I don't know about you, but honestly I don't think that I'm far from the truth here, and I'm pretty damn sure of it.

Unfortunately, the cabinet, heads by Muhyiddin said that they were very suprised and unaware of the letter written by Zahid, which can only tells us how rarely these people actually read the news or care about any important issues of the day, or, they're just lying their asses off, both situation which are, quite honestly valid and pretty much damn believable.

Futhermore after being brief by the warrior Zahid, the cabinet decided that there's nothing that can be considered as wrongdoing, or something that is against the law as to what was being written in that letter. My God! What has happened to this cabinet of ours? I know that their command of English is rather questionable but I never thought that they're really sucks at it! I mean, how hard it is to understand just three fucking sentences. And to not see it as suspicious is just plain ridiculous, beyond any expectation of the level of intelligence that were expected to those chosen to be sitting in the so called country's cabinet. Or is it the matter of not having the balls to go against this Malay warrior, the chosen one, the lion who is himself a gangster, desperate for any helping hand, knowing that for him, it is a do or die situation.

Even then, what about that big secret where Poker Phua helped our government with the "national security" issues. Was that big secret being explained to the cabinets by Zahid? Or is it after a lengthy confession, and a cryout for help by the Malay warrior that the cabinet decided that it wasn't necessary anymore for him to explained it any further because they've decided, that a brother in need of help, no matter how fuck up it is, has to be given a chance. After all he's fighting on our side, he is one of our guy and he's fighting for the Malays. And so the story goes.. 


@aidyadnan 

6 Reasons Why Religion May Do More Harm Than Good.

For most people especially Muslims in this country, it'll be a waste of time to be listening to an atheist, or anybody who do not believe in the existence of God, reasoning about why they find religion to be sort of a hindrance towards the making of a good society. But personally, I do think that it is an essential for those who have faith in God, to not ignore these types of debates, and to fully understand the reason why some people have different perpectives on religion. 

Especially nowadays when there are no countries implementing Sharia' that we can put forth as an example, where religion, as a foundation, will bring a lot of good for it's citizens. Here is an article that I have found interesting upon discussing such matters. Although I wouldn't recommend it for those non-open minded type Malaysian Muslims who would probably think that something like this is a liberal way of attacking Islam.

Religion... shall mean for us the feelings, acts, and experiences of individual men in their solitude... in relation to whatever they may consider the divine. 

Most British people think religion causes more harm than good according to a survey commissioned by the Huffington Post. Surprisingly, even among those who describe themselves as “very religious” 20 percent say that religion is harmful to society. For that we can probably thank the internet, which broadcasts everything from Isis beheadings, to stories about Catholic hospitals denying care to miscarrying women, to lists of wild and weird religious beliefs, to articles about psychological harms from Bible-believing Christianity.

In 2010, sociologist Phil Zuckerman published Society Without God: What the Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us About Contentment. Zuckerman lined up evidence that the least religious societies also tend to be the most peaceful, prosperous and equitable, with public policies that help people to flourish while decreasing both desperation and economic gluttony.

We can debate whether prosperity and peace lead people to be less religious or vice versa. Indeed evidence supports the view that religion thrives on existential anxiety. But even if this is the case, there’s good reason to suspect that the connection between religion and malfunctioning societies goes both ways. Here are six ways religions make peaceful prosperity harder to achieve.

1.  Religion promotes tribalism. Infidel, heathen, heretic. Religion divides insiders from outsiders. Rather than assuming good intentions, adherents often are taught to treat outsiders with suspicion. “Be ye not unequally yoked with unbelievers,” says the Christian Bible. “They wish that you disbelieve ountroas they disbelieve, and then you would be equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends of them,” says the Koran (Sura 4:91).

---

At best, teachings like these discourage or even forbid the kinds of friendship and intermarriage that help clans and tribes become part of a larger whole. At worst, outsiders are seen as enemies of God and goodness, potential agents of Satan, lacking in morality and not to be trusted. Believers might huddle together, anticipating martyrdom. When simmering tensions erupt, societies fracture along sectarian fault lines.

2. Religion anchors believers to the Iron Age. Concubines, magical incantations, chosen people, stonings . . . The Iron Age was a time of rampant superstition, ignorance, inequality, racism, misogyny, and violence. Slavery had God’s sanction. Women and children were literally possessions of men. Warlords practiced scorched earth warfare. Desperate people sacrificed animals, agricultural products, and enemy soldiers as burnt offerings intended to appease dangerous gods.

Sacred texts including the Bible, Torah and Koran all preserve and protect fragments of Iron Age culture, putting a god’s name and endorsement on some of the very worst human impulses. Any believer looking to excuse his own temper, sense of superiority, warmongering, bigotry, or planetary destruction can find validation in writings that claim to be authored by God.

Today, humanity’s moral consciousness is evolving, grounded in an ever deeper and broader understanding of the Golden Rule. But many conservative believers can’t move forward. They are anchored to the Iron Age. This pits them against change in a never-ending battle that consumes public energy and slows creative problem solving.

3.  Religion makes a virtue out of faith. Trust and obey for there’s no other way to be happy in Jesus. So sing children in Sunday schools across America. The Lord works in mysterious ways, pastors tell believers who have been shaken by horrors like brain cancer or a tsunami. Faith is a virtue.

As science eats away at territory once held by religion, traditional religious beliefs require greater and greater mental defenses against threatening information. To stay strong, religion trains believers to practice self-deception, shut out contradictory evidence, and trust authorities rather than their own capacity to think. This approach seeps into other parts of life. Government, in particular, becomes a fight between competing ideologies rather than a quest to figure out practical, evidence-based solutions that promote wellbeing.

4. Religion diverts generous impulses and good intentions. Feeling sad about Haiti? Give to our mega-church. Crass financial appeals during times of crisis thankfully are not the norm, but religion does routinely redirect generosity in order to perpetuate religion itself. Generous people are encouraged to give till it hurts to promote the church itself rather than the general welfare. Each year, thousands of missionaries throw themselves into the hard work of saving souls rather than saving lives or saving our planetary life support system. Their work, tax free, gobbles up financial and human capital.

Besides exploiting positive moral energy like kindness or generosity, religion often redirects moral disgust and indignation, attaching these emotions to arbitrary religious rules rather than questions of real harm. Orthodox Jews spend money on wigs for women and double dishwashers. Evangelical parents, forced to choose between righteousness and love, kick queer teens out onto the street. Catholic bishops impose righteous rules on operating rooms.

5.  Religion teaches helplessness. Que sera, sera—what will be will be. Let go and let God.We’ve all heard these phrases, but sometimes we don’t recognize the deep relationship between religiosity and resignation. In the most conservative sects of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, women are seen as more virtuous if they let God manage their family planning. Droughts, poverty and cancer get attributed to the will of God rather than bad decisions or bad systems; believers wait for God to solve problems they could solve themselves.

This attitude harms society at large as well as individuals. When today’s largest religions came into existence, ordinary people had little power to change social structures either through technological innovation or advocacy. Living well and doing good were largely personal matters. When this mentality persists, religion inspires personal piety without social responsibility. Structural problems can be ignored as long as the believer is kind to friends and family and generous to the tribal community of believers.

6. Religions seek power. Think corporate personhood. Religions are man-made institutions, just like for-profit corporations are. And like any corporation, to survive and grow a religion must find a way to build power and wealth and compete for market share. Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity—any large enduring religious institution is as expert at this as Coca-cola or Chevron. And just like for-profit behemoths, they are willing to wield their power and wealth in the service of self-perpetuation, even it harms society at large.

In fact, unbeknown to religious practitioners, harming society may actually be part of religion’s survival strategy. In the words of sociologist Phil Zuckerman and researcher Gregory Paul, “Not a single advanced democracy that enjoys benign, progressive socio-economic conditions retains a high level of popular religiosity.” When people feel prosperous and secure the hold of religion weakens.