The Malay rights group, Perkasa’s white packets to corrupt or ignorance of ethnic culture?

Perkasa President, Ibrahim Ali (picture) is  a MP. 

Young leaders see red over Perkasa’s white packets

By LEE YEN MUN and SIRA HABIBU newsdesk@thestar.com.my 

PETALING JAYA: No excuse.

That’s the reaction from several young MCA leaders over Perkasa’s white ‘ang pow’ distributed at its Chinese New Year gathering on Sunday.

Money given out in white packets is traditionally associated with the pak kam (white gold), which are donations given at a funeral.

MCA Young Professionals Bureau chief Datuk Chua Tee Yong said there was no excuse for what Perkasa did.

“Perkasa should have been aware. They should have learnt the practices of another race before organising such an event, so that they did not upset anyone,” said Chua.

MCA Youth secretary-general Datuk Chai Kim Sen described Perkasa’s white ‘ang pows’ as disrespectful and not knowing this was not an excuse.

“(Perkasa president) Datuk Ibrahim Ali should act in the people’s interest by understanding our multi-cultural society which he represents as a Member of Parliament,” Chai said in a statement.



On his Twitter handle @weekasiongmp, MCA Youth chief Datuk Dr Wee Ka Siong slammed “some people” for not understanding the meaning of ang pow.

“Ang pow, in the Hokkien dialect, means red packet. If you want give an ang pow to your friends, make sure the colour is RED,” Dr Wee wrote.

Perkasa deputy president Datuk Rahman Bakar had said on Sun- day that the white packets were the only mini envelopes they had and that they did not know if some may be offended by the colour.

Meanwhile, Perkasa secretary-general Syed Hassan Syed Ali said they had no idea that white packets was taboo among the Chinese community.

“To us, white symbolises purity and sincerity. If we had known that it is wrong to give out white packets, we would not have done it,” he said.

Syed Hassan said the media should have highlighted Perkasa’s attempt to forge greater harmony, rather than harping on an honest mistake.

Perkasa's 'white envelope' ang pow nothing to do with govt

KUALA LUMPUR: The use of white envelopes along with the customary ang pow red packets at Perkasa's Chinese New Year gathering last Sunday has nothing to do with the Government, said Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak.

He said the leader of the non-governmental organisation (NGO), Datuk Ibrahim Ali, is an independent member of parliament. Perkasa is a Malay right-wing group.

"As such, the white packet distributed at the Chinese New Year function should not be construed to be acceptance by the Government," Najib said in a posting on his Chinese-language 'Ah Jib Gor' Facebook page.

"I think that as long as we can have a better understanding of Chinese culture and promote sensitivity to cultural taboos, such controversial events can be avoided.

"We all know that ang pow means a red envelope, dominated by red rather than other colours," he said, adding that the incident can be used as a social experience.

On Monday, Perkasa was asked to apologise for insulting the Chinese community by using white envelopes as ang pow packets at its first Chinese New Year open house. White envelopes are reserved for funerals in Chinese custom.

Gerakan vice-president Datuk Mah Siew Keong had said that giving cash in white envelopes during Chinese New Year, which is meant to be a prosperous and joyful festival, showed that Perkasa chief Ibrahim Ali was "greatly insensitive and insincere".

MCA Youth secretary-general Chai Kim Sen said Perkasa's action was disrespectful to Chinese culture and custom.

He said Ibrahim should act in the people's interests and understand the multi-cultural society and the taboos and prohibitions of each ethnic group and religion.

Perkasa deputy president Datuk Abdul Rahman Bakar had explained that due to the large turnout at the open house at the Sultan Sulaiman Club in Kampung Baru, the red ang pow packets ran out and white envelopes were used instead. - Bernama

Eurozone unemployment hits new record

Unemployment is at the highest rate since the euro was launched in 1999

The jobless rate in the 17 countries that use the single currency was 10.4% in December, unchanged from November's figure which was revised up from 10.3%.

Some 16.5 million people were out of work in the eurozone in December, up 751,000 on the year before.

The highest unemployment rate remains in Spain (22.9%), while the lowest is in Austria (4.1%).

Unemployment has been rising throughout 2011, as the debt crisis in the region has continued. In December 2010, the unemployment rate in the euro area was 10%.



Investment delays
 
Guillaume Menuet, economist at Citigroup, said he expected the number of people out of work to increase throughout 2012.

"If you think about the direction of employment expectations that you see across various business surveys, the outlook for employment doesn't look particularly enticing, simply because the uncertainty is very high.

“Start Quote

Much energy and argument has been spent on this agreement. It is questionable, however, whether it will have much influence on the immediate crisis. ”

Gavin Hewitt BBC Europe editor

 

"In many cases you find firms continuing to delay investment projects. For those that are still making profits, hiring is being frozen, and for those which are under pressure to hit results or losing money, job losses are becoming the only solution that they have," he said. 

In the 27 EU countries, the unemployment rate was 9.9% in December, with 23.8 million people out of work. November's figure was also revised up from 9.8% to 9.9%.

The biggest increases over the past year were seen in Greece, Cyprus and Spain.

The largest falls took place in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.

Deteriorating situation

  The issue of jobs and economic growth was a key area for discussion at this week's summit of EU leaders in Brussels.

On Monday, figures showed that the Spanish economy shrank by 0.3% in the last quarter of 2011. It is now widely expected that Spain will enter recession in the first quarter of this year.

Also on Monday, France cut its growth forecast for this year to 0.5% from 1% "to take into account the deterioration of the economic situation".

At the Brussels summit, 25 of the 27 member states agreed to join a fiscal treaty, aimed at much closer co-ordination of budget policy across the EU to prevent excessive debts accumulating.

The UK and the Czech Republic did not sign up to it. UK Prime Minister David Cameron said he had "legal concerns" about the use of EU institutions in enforcing the treaty, while the Czechs cited "constitutional reasons" for their refusal.

Newscribe : get free news in real time 

How American Consumers Handle an Ever-Growing Heap of Personal Debt?

Source: Cornell University Newswise — ITHACA, N.Y. – Got debt?

Probably. Most Americans do. Bombarded by home mortgages, college loans, credit card payments and car loans, the typical American consumer faces a mountain of financial obligations. Louis Hyman, Cornell assistant professor in the College of Industrial and Labor Relations, will speak to journalists about debt in his new book, “Borrow: The American Way of Debt,” on Friday, Feb. 10, 2012 at 10 a.m. at Cornell’s ILR Conference Center, sixth floor, 16 E. 34th St., Manhattan.



“Borrow: The American Way of Debt” is a lively, historical account of consumer debt in America, published by Vintage/Random House on Jan. 24, 2012.

In this society, debt is pervasive. Hyman says the average American owes more than $15,000 in credit card debt alone, and he provides a fresh look at the financial mess in which millions of Americans wallow. “Today’s problems are not as new as we think,” Hyman says.

“Borrow” examines how the rise of consumer credit – virtually unknown before the twentieth century – and how it has altered our culture and economy.

“My book puts today’s economy in context and helps explain how we got here, and then offers some novel solutions for today's troubles,” Hyman says

Newscribe : get free news in real time

Get set for Malaysian politics of the young!

Get set for a generational political shift

CERITALAH By KARIM RASLAN

The UKEC’s Projek Amanat Negara (PAN) shows how much young people can achieve without the straitjacket of thought control. Open debate events like the PAN will do Malaysia a world of good.



I’M in London and it’s late at night. Having arrived from Davos only yesterday I’m also exhausted but I can’t sleep. I’m too excited.

In fact, I’ve just returned to my hotel from the United Kingdom & Eire Council of Malaysian Students (UKEC) Projek Amanat Negara (PAN) conference and I feel as if I’ve seen – if not participated – in the future.

Whilst the World Economic Forum was an overwhelming event, the PAN conference was altogether more enthralling and meaningful for me - as a Malaysian.

What can I say? A small if well-organised group of Malaysian students in Britain – full of enthusiasm and determination – has set out to bring the best Malaysian minds and voices together.

In short, they succeeded and in doing so have shamed their nervous, narrow-minded elders back home in Kuala Lumpur – those who mumble that Malaysians aren’t ready for or need democracy and/or debate.

Instead, and with great confidence, they have proved that Malaysians are ready for change and that dialogue – open, frank and at times, heated – is well within our capacity.



Whilst I wasn’t much of an expert in the topic of my session (religion, of all things), I was glad and grateful to have contributed to the PAN along with my fellow panellists: Dr Carool Kersten, Zainah Anwar and PAS’ Dr Dzulkefly Ahmad.

Nonetheless, the highlight of the conference was undoubtedly the debate on public policy between PKR’s Rafizi Ramli and Umno’s Khairy Jamaluddin.

The anticipation in the lead-up was almost unbearable.

Taking a front row seat and sitting alongside fellow columnist Marina Mahathir, I prepared myself for the encounter. Behind me, the room was seething with activity.

Would the session degenerate into a nasty, partisan session between the two prominent young lions? Both men are renowned as passionate voices for their party’s causes and Rafizi has recently assumed a very high national profile with his attacks on Government mismanagement (especially the NFC).

What we got, however, was a total surprise. The session was gracious and very statesman-like as two very smart young men squared off.

Both of them explained their respective political positions. Rafizi argued for political change whilst Khairy called for the status quo (plus reform).

When I thought about their responses later, I had to acknowledge that they held remarkably similar positions.

Calm and reasonable, the two men discussed a wide range of issues: from media access to freedom of assembly, race relations and Government tax policy.

Throughout the hour-and-half debate, the two men eschewed personal attacks. Neither was crude or vulgar: their points were well-argued and professional.

Moreover, instead of trying to score personal political points, they remained above the mere partisan.

The organisers had obviously spent time thinking through the format of the session to achieve the maximum impact and I congratulate them on the dramatic US Presidential-style format.

As I looked on, it struck me that I was a witness to a critical generational shift in Malaysian politics – as leaders stepped forward to discuss their differences openly in a manner that rose above mere political pettiness.

Glancing at my Twitter feed throughout the conference, another thing I noted was how many people shared my contention – which was published a few weeks ago – that it was a real tragedy that such an event like the PAN could not take place in Malaysia.

Many people have claimed that such debates are not part of the “Malaysian culture”.

Well, the historic exchange between Rafizi and Khairy showed how wrong they are.

The UKEC shows how much our young people can achieve without the straightjacket of thought control.

Open debate events like the PAN will do Malaysia a world of good and I call on all Malaysians to go online and watch the debate.

As Rafizi so pointedly said in his debate: “It doesn’t matter which side you get involved with. The important thing is that you go home – go home and make a difference.” One can only hope that they take his advice.

Western war on Iran soon?

Rising risk of Western war on Iran

GLOBAL TRENDS BY MARTIN KHOR

The new year is witnessing an escalation of a Western economic blockade against Iran while it has been claimed that Israel is preparing for a military strike. Can a war against Iran be avoided? 



THE risk of the world being engulfed in a new and dangerous war is increasing. In recent weeks, Iran has come under greater pressure over its nuclear programme, and the chances of this leading to military conflict have escalated.

A recent article in New York Times magazine revealed that senior Israeli leaders were preparing for a strike on Iranian nuclear facilities in 2012.

The United States has intensified its initiative on trade and financial sanctions on Iran.

Republican candidates for the Presidency have been using high anti-Iran rhetoric.

And there is the possibility in a Presidential election year that the incumbent President may start a war to gain popularity.



In his State of the Union speech last week, President Barack Obama said he would take no option off the table to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.

Europe recently announced an embargo on Iranian oil. The European Union foreign ministers decided there would be no further oil contracts between its member states and Iran, and that existing oil delivery deals would be allowed to run only until July.

These actions are purportedly aimed at preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons. But Iran has insisted its research programme is for developing nuclear power, not weapons.

And there is no evidence that it is in fact developing, or intending to develop, weapons.



There is a danger of dramatic escalation of the present conflict through one of various scenarios, such as an Israeli attack on Iran (with or without United States assistance or approval) or an incident in the Persian Gulf involving Western and Iranian ships.

The US has doubled the number of aircraft carriers near the Persian Gulf, while French and British warships recently accompanied the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln into the Gulf.

These developments are creating the conditions for a slide into a catastrophic war.

On Jan 25, the New York Times carried an article – “Will Israel attack Iran?”– by Israeli journalist Ronen Bergman, an analyst who interviewed Israel’s Defence Minister Ehud Barak, vice-premier Moshe Ya’alon and others.

“After speaking with many senior Israeli leaders and chiefs of the military and the intelligence, I have come to believe that Israel will indeed strike Iran in 2012,” wrote Bergman.

This determination to strike comes despite many difficulties, listed by Bergman.

Iran has dispersed its nuclear installations throughout its vast territory, and Israel has limited air power and no aircraft carrier.

Even if an attack were successful, Iran would be able to rebuild the damaged or wrecked sites. And Iran had declared that it would strike back if attacked.

There is of course irony and double standards in this situation.

While Israel and the West decry the consequences if Iran obtains nuclear weapons capability, it is well known that Israel itself owns many nuclear weapons.

And while Iran is often accused by the same countries of sponsoring terrorism, Iran itself has been the victim of terrorist attacks and economic and technological sabotage.

Bergman’s article provides many details of many of the covert actions taken by Israel against Iran.

The Israeli secret service Mossad was given “virtually unlimited funds and powers” to stop the Iranian bomb through a five-front strategy that involved “political pressure, covert measures, counter-proliferation, sanctions and re­­gime change”.



The moves against Iran include boycotting of financial institutions, the use of computer viruses to disrupt the operations of the nuclear project, tampering with components and the supply of faulty parts and raw materials, explosions at various facilities, and the assassination of several Iranian nuclear scientists.

The article implies that Israel has been involved in, or approves of, these actions, although it does not explicitly admit to them.

Meanwhile, Iran insists it is not intending to develop nuclear weapons, and there has been no evidence that it is doing so.

Iran’s enemies are fearful it will develop a technical capability for developing weapons as it pursues its nuclear energy programme.

Nuclear physicist Yousaf Butt, a former Fellow in the Committee on International Security and Arms Control at the US National Academy of Sciences, and scientific consultant for the Federation of American Scientists, has said Iran was not doing anything that violated its legal right to develop nuclear technology.

Under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, it is not illegal for a member state to have a nuclear weapons capability or option.



If a nation has a fully developed civilian nuclear sector, it, by default, already has a fairly solid nuclear weapons capability, and several countries that do not have weapons, do have this capability.

Meanwhile, Jim Lobe of Inter Press Service reported that several influential foreign policy figures in the US (who used to be Iraq war hawks) were speaking up against military action on Iran.

“We’re doing this terrible thing all over again,” wrote Leslie Gelb, the president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations and previously a Iraq-war hawk.

Kenneth Pollack, whose 2002 book on Iraq was cited frequently by hawks before the Iraq invasion, argued not only against any further escalation, but also suggested that the US-EU sanctions were proving counterproductive.

Princeton University professor Anne-Marie Slaughter argued that the West and Iran were playing a “dangerous game of chicken” and that the West’s current course “leaves Iran’s government no alternative between publicly backing down, which it will not do, and escalating its provocations”.

“The more publicly the West threatens Iran, the more easily Iranian leaders can portray America as the Great Satan,” wrote Slaughter, formerly director of policy planning under Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

It remains to be seen if cooler heads will indeed prevail so that a new war against Iran is avoided.