Monday, 9 July 2012

American drone strikes slammed!

Strong criticisms have emerged against the use of drones for killing people in several countries.

THE use of drones by one state to kill people in other countries is fast emerging as an international human rights issue of serious public concern.

This was evident in the recent session (June 18-July 6) of the Human Rights Council in Geneva, both in the official meetings and in NGO seminars.

The use of drones, or pilotless aircraft operated by remote control, by the government in one country to strike at persons and other targets in other countries, has been increasingly used by the United States in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen and Somalia.

Instead of following clear legal standards, the practice of drone attacks has become a vaguely defined and unaccountable “licence to kill”, according to a 2010 report of a UN human rights special rapporteur.

According to an article in The Guardian, the American Civil Liberties Union estimates that as many as 4,000 people have been killed in US drone strikes since 2002. Of those, a significant proportion were civilians.

The numbers killed have escalated significantly since Barack Obama became president.

Recent criticisms and concerns raised by officials, experts and governments about the use of drones include the high numbers of deaths and casualties of innocent civilians; possible violation of sovereignty and international human rights laws; lack of information, transparency and accountability; their being counter-productive; and the indirect encouragement to other countries to similarly use drone attacks.

The UN High Commissioner on Human Rights Navi Pillay in her overall report to the Human Rights Council on June 18 said that during her recent visit to Pakistan she expressed serious concern over the continuing use of armed drones for targeted attacks particularly because it was unclear that all persons targeted were combatants or directly participating in hostilities.

She added that the “UN secretary-general has expressed concern about the lack of transparency on the circumstances in which drones are used, noting that these attacks raise questions about compliance with distinction and proportionality.”

She reminded the US of their international obligation to take all necessary precautions to ensure that attacks comply with international law and urged them to conduct investigations that are transparent, credible and independent, and provide victims with effective remedies.

On June 26, Pakistan’s ambassador Zamir Akram told the council that his country was directly affected by the indiscriminate use of drones, and at least a thousand civilians, including women and children, have been killed in drone attacks.

“The government of Pakistan has maintained consistently that drone attacks are not only counter-productive but a violation of international law and Pakistan’s sovereignty,” said Akram, adding that Pakistan’s Parliament has called for an immediate end to these attacks.

“Regrettably this call has not been heeded. The drone attacks continue in violation of the UN Charter, international human rights and international humanitarian law. The international human rights machinery must clearly reject attempts to justify these actions.”

At the council on June 16, Christof Heyns, the UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, called for more transparency and accountability from the US, according to a IPS news report.

He urged that a framework be developed and adhered to, and pressed for accurate records of civilian deaths. “I think we’re in for very dangerous precedents that can be used by countries on all sides,” he said.

At an event organised by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Heyns said the US drone attacks would encourage other states to flout human rights standards and suggested that some drone strikes may even be war crimes, according to a report in the London-based Guardian.

Criticisms are also coming from US groups and a former president. “The US has cobbled together its own legal framework for targeted killing, with standards that are far less stringent than the law allows,” Hina Shamsi, a director of the ACLU told the council on June 20, according to IPS.

Shamsi also took issue with the lack of transparency of military programmes based on what she called “a secret legal criteria, entirely secret evidence, and a secret process”.

“The international community’s concern about the US targeted killing programme is continuing to grow because of the unlawfully broad authority our government asserts to kill ‘suspected terrorists’ far from any battlefield, without meaningful transparency or accountability,” Shamsi told IPS.

The lack of a legal framework allows for drone strikes to be implemented at will, in non-conflict zones and on the basis of loosely defined terrorist threats, without permission from the host nation, added the IPS article.

“In essence, drones cancel out national sovereignty,” Tom Engelhardt, co-author of Terminator Planet: The First History of Drone Warfare, 2001-2050, told IPS. “The rules of the game are one country’s sovereignty trumps that of another.”

Former US President, Jimmy Carter, writing in the New York Times (June 24), noted that the use of US drone attacks “continues in areas of Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen that are not in any war zone. We don’t know how many hundreds of innocent civilians have been killed in these attacks, each one approved by the highest authorities in Washington. This would have been unthinkable in previous times.

“These policies clearly affect American foreign policy. Top intelligence and military officials as well as rights defenders in targeted areas affirm that the great escalation in drone attacks has turned aggrieved families toward terrorist organisations, aroused civilian populations against us ... As concerned citizens we must persuade Washington to reverse course and regain moral leadership according to international human rights norms.”

Drones were originally developed to gather intelligence.

More than 40 countries have this technology and some have or are seeking drones that can shoot laser-guided missiles, according to a pioneering 2010 report by the then UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Philip Alston.

They enable targeted killings with no risk to the personnel of the state carrying them out and can be operated remotely from the home state.

GLOBAL TRENDS By MARTIN KHOR

Learn anything new from MCA Chua Vs DAP Lim Debate?

It’s debatable who triumphed

The second debate between MCA and DAP leadership was less about convincing the audience about whose policies had better served the people than two fierce Chinese leaders slugging it out for the Chinese vote.

THERE was much less hype in the run-up to the second debate between the two leading figures in Chinese politics.

The novelty of the DAP and MCA leadership going head-to-head in a public debate had passed.

Both MCA president Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek and DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng had proven after the first debate that they are more than capable of taking on each other before a live audience.

As in the first debate, Lim had the advantage of being the top dog because he is the Chief Minister of Penang, an MP and an assemblyman.

Dr Chua, on the other hand, has only his party post to ride on and his party is struggling to regain the confidence of Chinese Malaysians.

Given that Lim is in charge of one of the most developed states in the country, he would have more bragging rights as regards the topic of the debate – “Whose policies benefit the country most?”

But not long after the opening remarks by both speakers, Lim went off the debate path and ventured into ceramah mode and after a while, Dr Chua felt compelled to address him on at that level.

Both launched into attack mode, with neither really answering the questions raised.

They were both more interested in scoring points with accusations rather than giving good, convincing answers on issues.

As Fui Soong, the CEO of the CENSE think-tank, said in her forthright way: “It was like cock-fighting. Lots of posturing and both men going at each other, back and forth. There was not enough intellectual content.”

In fact, the whole thing became rather childish at times, an example being when Dr Chua poked holes at Pakatan Rakyat’s Buku Jingga.

Lim, instead of defending the allegations, said that Dr Chua must have read the wrong Buku Jingga.

That is the sort of answer one would give at a ceramah and not at a national debate.

And no one could quite figure out why Lim was pushing for a debate between Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak and Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim.

He did that right at the start and again towards the end.

By the time the moderator called for a five-minute break, the two debaters had gone well off-topic and were instead taking well-aimed shots at each other.

Dr Chua had accused DAP of being a chauvinist party that is more interested in the “politics of hate and blame” rather than nation-building while Lim declared Barisan Nasional as corrupt and bashed Umno left, right and centre.

Lim is not exactly the best orator on the political ceramah circuit but he is a seasoned speaker and his ceramah style was in full display for much of the two hour-long session.

He had a lot of punchy and pithy lines.

But the thing about the ceramah mode of speaking is that it leans towards drama and exaggeration which is entertaining, but less suited for a debate audience.

Lim was in his street-fighter element when running down Barisan and mocking Umno.

This forum, which comes more than four years into his Penang tenure, would have been the ideal platform for Lim to showcase his achievements as the chief administrator.

But through much of the debate, he was far more successful in rubbishing Umno than convincing the audience that his government and his policies had benefited the people more than the policies of Barisan.

Dr Chua does not have the ceramah flamboyance of his rival.

But he has shown in both debates that his forte lies in being factual and analytical and he thinks quite well on his feet.

He is no drama king and he does not embellish the facts to entertain the people although he can be quite caustic in his rebuttals.

But as many who watched the debate would agree, it is evident that Dr Chua understands policies, is good at facts and figures and his experience in the Government comes across quite clearly.

For instance, when Lim tried to politicise the privatisation of the Penang port, Dr Chua argued the rationale of the move with statistics.

His other advantage was that he could sell the “Najib brand name” whereas Lim was rather reticent about the “Anwar brand” even while endorsing him as the prime minister candidate.

Dr Chua came across as rather staid and serious compared to Lim’s more showy style.

But Lim might want to moderate his ceramah style when speaking before a thinking audience.

He has what the Malays term a senyum kambing side about him when running down his opponents and while that goes down well with his supporters, those less acquainted with his style may find it sarcastic or even arrogant.

A little humility would have served him better.

He is the Chief Minister of a key state and he should try not to sound like an Opposition leader.

Both men started well but as the debate progressed, Lim’s ceramah style put him ahead.

However, Dr Chua made a much more sensible summing up while Lim went over the top with a rousing speech rather than a conclusion.

Said Fui: “I feel kind of cheated. I had expected more but I feel like I didn’t learn anything new.”

ANALYSIS By JOCELINE TAN

Chua vs Lim debate: DAP & MCA: Whose Policies Benefit the Country More?

Photo Gallery : Debate 2.0

KUALA LUMPUR: MCA's Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek and DAP's Lim Guan Eng took to the podium together for a second time in months on Sunday as both leaders took each other on over whose policies had better served the rakyat.

They engaged in a fiery two-hour debate themed DAP & MCA: Whose Policies Benefit The Country More at the Sunway Pyramid Convention Centre here yesterday, organised by the Asian Strategy and Leadership Institute (Asli).

In his opening remarks, the MCA president highlighted the policies and programmes put in place by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak after he took over the nation's helm.

Lim, who is Penang Chief Minister, spoke about the island state being the “most liveable city in the country” while attacking MCA ministers with a string of allegations.

At one point, Dr Chua, who spoke off the cuff, took a swipe at his debate adversary, chiding him for reading from a prepared text and turning the debate into a political ceramah.

Dr Chua noted that with the government's policies in place, Malaysia's share market continued to rise as proof of the local and foreign investors rejecting DAP's theory of gloom and doom of the Malaysia economy.

He hit out at Pakatan Rakyat, saying that its ultimate aim was to grab power in the coming general election “at all costs”.

Likening Pakatan's battle cry, Ubah (change) to “Power First, and Chaos thereafter”, Dr Chua said Pakatan was only good at instigating the people to hate the Government, demonising the country's institutions and causing friction among the various races in the country.

He also pointed out that the coalition was known to be good at making promises to the people when more than 95% of their promises had yet to be fulfilled.

Lim spoke about the various improvements in Penang including poverty reduction, adding it was the first state to provide free WiFi access in public places.

He attacked MCA ministers - Tourism Minister Datuk Seri Dr Ng Yen Yen over the ministry's alleged RM1.8mil to maintain a Facebook page, Transport Minister Datuk Seri Kong Cho Ha for paying more attention to the tender for car number plates, Housing and Local Government Minister Datuk Seri Chor Chee Heung for opposing local government elections and Datuk Seri Liow Tiong Lai for allowing middlemen to be involved in the purchase of drugs.

The debate started with Lim's opening remarks.

Guan Eng at the debate

Lim: "MCA is not qualified to talk about politics here, as it is not MCA who decides - it is Umno who decides.

"The MCA speaks only for the Chinese, and those from the Peninsula - not Sabah or Sarawak.

"It is different for DAP - we want to speak for all Malaysians. Malay, Chinese, Indians, Iban, Kadazan.
"We are all Malaysians. Look at the NFC scandal," he said.

"Who gains? The cronies. The losers are the citizens of Malaysia.

"For last 50 years, consumed by race and religion. For the next 50 years, let us be consumed with the tasks of economic wellbeing.

"BN has never spoken truthfully to the people. Let Pakatan Rakyat speak truthfully to you.

Dr Chua stressing a point during the debate with Lim listening intently

"DAP believes a clean government can always perform better than a corrupt government.

"If Penang dares to review the assets of the CM, why is the PM afraid of reviewing his assets and those of his ministers?" he said.

Dr Chua: "Just now YAB asked why the PM didn't want to debate with Anwar. I want to say here, it hasn't happened because he is the prime minister. He is busy with the transformation policies, to improve the country. "From 2008 to 2011, the ease of doing business improved compared from 2003 to 2008. Malaysia is the fifth most favoured FDI nation in Asia.

"They haven't been empty promises like those from Pakatan Rakyat. The promises were fulfilled. These three years, the rakyat has gotten what was promised under the leadership of Najib."

"Anwar is full of rhetoric, no specifics, short on delivery. He has to convince us to translate this rhetoric into what we call delivery.

"MCA has been involved in nation building from day one. We were the one involved in the fight against the communist insurgency, the resettlement of the Chinese in new villages, the fight for independence, the rights of citizenship after independence. That's why citizens like Guan Eng are citizens of the country.

"We laid down the foundations. We have progressed, advocated integration not assimilation. That's why Guan Eng is not called Sukarno Lim.

"This is all history. All part of nation building. DAP has no role to play."

"What has PR done for us? No clear direction.

"Look at the four PR states, 95% of the promises are janji janji kosong.

A section of the crowd enjoying the debate

"Everyday tell the whole world you give hundred dollars to the old people.

"Two hundred to the newborn and they must be voters. We give RM200 to our newborn babies.

"State government giving RM100, RM200 all populist policies. Does not address fundamental problem of country."

"DAP has only one thing to show. They collect a lot of money from the rakyat. Despite calls of accountability, transparency - nothing to show. Transparency, Accountability, where are they? Where has the money collected gone to?

Question: Mr President... Many urban voters perceive MCA has not done enough. The perception is that many urban voters are not supporting MCA. What would you do to try regain more support for MCA?

Dr Chua: We accept the fact this is a multiracial country and the policy of BN is the policy of balancing. DAP likes to tell the Chinese they are marginalised. The poverty rate of the Chinese is still lowest among three major races. Employment rates the highest. Property ownership largest. Cannot deny in the implementaion process there are people who benefit more than others, this is the bone of contention, causes a lot of Chinese to be angry with the government and MCA bears the burden of this.

"DAP tries to portray itself as a multiracial party, but only dares to contest in Chinese constituencies.
"Why don't you contest in multiracial constituencies? We are a mono-ethnic party, but our aims are clear.

"In this country we have to balance the needs and sensitivities of all countries. No particular race will feel happy.

The crowd at the Debate 2.0

"In the same way we sometimes feel government giving too much to bumiputra. But some bumiputras not happy with government."

Question: Many people still see DAP as Chinese-based party. Are you a Chinese party or multi-racial party, how would you try to win more support among other races if you are multiracial.

Lim: From the very start we are a multiracial party. Our chairman is Indian, we have Indian MPs, have Malay MPs and state assemblymen in the past. We are fair to all regardless of race and religion. Would like the MCA president know that not every Chinese rich as the MCA leaders.

Not every Chinese can apply for PR in Australia.

Don't forget that the Chinese community pays the most taxes in Malaysia.

At the same time we want to see justice and see our Malay brothers and sisters are assisted.

Why is it poor Chinese can't get scholarships but rich bumiputras can?

Don't go and talk about DAP forming a kindergarten. We are a political party to determine the future of Malaysia.

TAR College is clearest example of failure of MCA. Why was it established? Because of unfair quota policies where qualified students cannot enter public universities. so you formed TAR College. Shame on you MCA.

Don't say we haven't built low cost housing. We have built. Don't lie.

Question:Is MCA scared of Umno, that they don't dare to question corruption claims? Is there equal partnership in BN?

Dr Chua: I take objection to that question to say MCA is sacared of Umno. Not a fair question. If I say - and I've always said - if the state Cabinet, state exco and federal Cabinet, all the discussions are taped. The government should declassify the tapes and then they understand better the role of MCA in a multiracial country.

Why is DAP so quiet about Anwar's alleged account of RM3bil, this from a statutory declaration?

This is equal partnership, let me tell you PR claims equal partnership but until today PAS have never openly endorsed Anwar as prime minister.

You can't even agree on a party common symbol and logo and register the party.

Question: I've read your Buku Jingga, stated among other things that if party win GE, forms central government they are going to abolish all road tolls, PTPTN and give income to houses that make less than RM4,000 to make up that amount. Lots of other goodies. How are you going to implement these policies bearing in mind annual revenue does not exceed RM200bil.

Lim: This the first time I'm hearing from a minister admitting corruption cost us RM26bil. Question is, what you doing about it? Are you accepting the fact that BN permits corruption? That's why I say shame on you again.

Don't talk about collections from public. When DAP organises dinners, we don't give free dinners like MCA or Umno. We charge because we rely on public funds to survive. We don't steal the government's money. That is the difference between BN and PR, the difference between MCA and DAP.

I think you need to read the right Buku Jingga, I think you read the wrong one. Abolish tolls, estimate of RM35mil. If you don't believe can be done, vote us into power and we show you can be done.

Question: On Chinese independent schools.

Dr Chua: I only wish DAP is more specific. Why is it not written more clearly they will build more Chinese schools? Independent schools? Recognise UEC?

I openly asked Anwar, are you going to build more Chinese schools? More independent schools?

Because if it is from DAP, I dont trust it. Why? Cos DAP will say this is not common policy framework.

Lim:We are not like MCA leaders who go to jail for cheating rakyat of its money.

When you talk about building of schools, judge by the deeds of the PR government in Selangor and Penang. We have given land, we have given funding, we have given funding every year. If PR can give to all these schools, independent, Indian, Chinese, every year funding, why BN cannot do so?

Don't question our openess to allow independent Chinese schools.

When you talk about Anwar if PR wins power he will be Prime Minister.

Question: What national education policy should there be to generate competent citizens?

Lim:We cannot ignore the fact that human talent will be the future of our country.

Not a question of building human talent but retaining human talent.

Since Merdeka two million Malaysians left the country because they see no future for themselves or Malaysia.

They see they don't have freedom, integrity or justice. That's why we are fighting for freedom, democracy, integrity, justice. To fight corruption is not hard, only depends on whether you got political will. No laws (to combat corruption) in Penang but we have wiped out corruption in Penang, I am proud to say.

If we win power in Malaysia, we will do the same in Malaysia. That is why so many people are afraid.

Dr Chua: When people are educated or talented, they have economic independence and social mobility. Almost all developing countries face brain drain.

This no justification. That's why when I say we trained 200,000 talented people, the Penang Chief Cminister says shame on us.

Look at our meritocracy policy, number of non-Malays in tertiary gone up. Last year, JPA gave more scholarships to all races, 20% to needy, disadvantaged in Sabah and Sarawak.

Talent Corp is another good example of reaching out. When we train talent they say shame on you. If you can't do it, admit you can't. No country in the world can meet needs of education for all citizens.

Sunday, 8 July 2012

Malaysian Bodoh Politik 101 !

Light (and silly) side of politics

Self-proclaimed centrist Anas Zubedy, who has just published a book titled Bodoh Politik 101: Easy Guides on How (Not) to Choose a Malaysian Leader, insists he takes no sides in politics.

BODOH Politik is when you think those who do not support you are disloyal to the country or have been bought over by the other side.

Bodoh Politik is when you spend public money like it's your own.

Bodoh Politik is complaining that certain media is biased to the other side but you think it is okay when other media is biased to your side.

Bodoh Politik is when you say Malaysian students have no right to get involved in what is happening in their own country.

Bodoh Politik is when you ask and advise others to vote FOR or AGAINST someone simply because he or she is from BN (Barisan Nasional) or PR (Pakatan Rakyat).

Dose of humour: Anas has compiled some of his tweets on the silly politcs practised in this country into a book 'Bodoh Politik'. The easy-to-read book pokes fun at both sides of the political divide.

These are some of the amusing quotes found in a little book by Anas Zubedy called #Bodoh Politik 101: Easy Guides on How (Not) to Choose a Malaysian Leader.

Cute? Funny? Does any of these hit a mark?

The quotes are actually some of his tweets from late last year and Anas thought it would be a good laugh to compile them into an easy-to-read book.

And he has dedicated it to so-called “Clever Malaysians”.

“We need to cheer up a little because in our zest to make Malaysia a better place, Malaysians are getting angry with each other to the extent of it sometimes getting ridiculous on both sides of the political divide,” Anas says.

“We must remember at the end of the day that while we might oppose each other's ideas, we are not enemies.”

He believes there is a bunch of Malaysians who are active on the Internet who have become “ugly Malaysians” and are using nasty words on Facebook, twitter, blogs and the web sphere and who are also going around screaming and shouting to disrupt the other party's ceramah.

It bothers him that political leaders on both sides are not doing anything against it.

“They should tell their supporters to not do it because it's not helping them or the country,” he says.

His book of tweets, he adds, is in jest and “yet deep”.

Bodoh Politik, he explains, means Silly (not Stupid) Politics.

Anas insists he is a centrist who does not support any side of the political divide. His tweets do take pot shots at both Barisan Nasional (BN) and Pakatan Rakyat (PR).

Bodoh Politik is when you make chauvinistic jokes about women politicians.

Bodoh Politik is when you keep predicting the date of the next general election as though it is your day job.

Anyone following politics in the country, including parliament sessions, is able to tell for sure the first is directed at Barisan (thanks to some of their MPs sexist remarks) and the second at Pakatan.

Then there are a few quotes that are very personality-specific.

Bodoh Politik is when you run for politics and then go and bite the ears of a policeman. It is a no-brainer that this tweet was aimed at PKR's Tian Chua, who bit the ear of a policeman in 2007 after the latter threw a punch at him.

The following year, Tian Chua was voted into parliament as Batu MP.

For the biting incident, Tian Chua was charged and fined RM2,000 but the policeman who punched him was never charged.

Describing him as “nonsensical” and “gila” (mad), Anas makes no secret what he thinks of Tian Chua.

“Why so silly? How can you be a political leader and go and bite someone's ear? There must be some kind of wrong make-up there (in the head) for him to do that.

“Also, during the Bersih 2.0 protest, Tian Chua got a bunch of followers to rush towards the policemen. For what? These kinds of things make Bersih look bad.

“He's gila. But the good news is he's calming down and maturing.”

About a year ago, Anas (who says he doesn't belong to any political party) called for the resignation of the DAP's respected leader Lim Kit Siang, which understandably got party members really angry.

They called Anas an Umno tool and attacked him ferociously in cyberspace.

One of his tweets in the book pretty much sums up what he thinks about the matter: Bodoh Politik is demanding old-timers from the other side resign from politics but getting emotional when the same is asked from your side.

Anas bristles when asked about him being seen as an Umno tool.

Stressing that he has always been a centrist, he points out that before 1998, he was seen as being anti-establishment and hence a leftist.

And it was only after the 2008 elections, “when the left has gone so far left”, that he who has remained in the centre now appears like a rightist.

“I've never changed my position for the past 20 to 25 years. When I say be fair to both sides', people say cannot'. To the opposition, anyone who is not with them has been bought over or is with Barisan.

“Barisan used to be like that too. If you are in the centre, they used to call you a traitor, but not any more.

“I take offence when people say I am an Umno tool. I refuse to take money for my business from cigarette, beer and gambling companies, so do you think someone like that will take money from Barisan or the Opposition?

“I will sue the next person who says I have been paid by Barisan,” he says.

People should vote for the candidate rather than the party, Anas stresses.

“We have good people in both Barisan and Pakatan but the problem is the good people might not be in the forefront so we need to support them so that they can come up,” he says, adding that party members shouldn't be too extreme to support their leader when he makes a mistake.

Some of the politicians Anas likes on the Pakatan Rakyat side are Nurul Izzah Anwar (PKR-Lembah Pantai), Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad (PKR-Seri Setia state seat) and Mujahid Yusof Rawa (PAS-Parit Buntar).

On the Barisan side, he has high regard for Datuk Seri Mustapa Mohamed (Jeli), Datuk Saifuddin Abdullah (Temerloh), Khairy Jamaluddin (Rembau), Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah (Gua Musang) and Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak (PM).

Anas also takes to task race-based and religious-based political parties, saying that PKR probably has the best multi-racial party at this point in time.

He adds that macho political structures like having the main wing, a Wanita, Youth and Puteri wings is “so old school”.

To have more good leaders, he says, you have to allow people to rise and not segregate them into male and female wings.

“Women make up 50% of the talent pool. In the business world, we would be dead meat without the women.

“But in Umno, it's the Wanita and Puteri who are doing the work but when it's time to make the speech, it's the men who go up in front (to take the credit).

“As for the Puteri, why call them Puteri in the first place? Princess? Come on, are we living 400 years ago?”

Anas believes the 2008 general election changed the political landscape for the better because “the government cannot take the people for granted any more” although, at times, he thinks “the Umno fellows haven't woken up yet”.

Another thing Anas finds hard to stomach is when the opposition parties start compromising on principles in their desire to get to Putrajaya.

“My favourite politician is Karpal Singh who has always been anti-frogging (against elected representatives jumping parties) but now he is silent on it because his own party wants to go to Putrajaya.

“The opposition has betrayed us because they are not fighting against frogging any more.”

Pointing to Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim as being responsible for the opposition parties' compromising on their principles, he says: “We do not have a checking mechanism any more so we need a third group of people who are neither Barisan nor Pakatan who are willing to voice out whichever side is wrong. Without that, we lose our conscience.”

On Bersih, Anas says it is good to clean up the electoral roll but saying that there is massive fraud and cheating in the elections is too much.

Bersih 3.0 should have held their rally in the streets of Putrajaya instead of Kuala Lumpur, he feels, and he is sorry for “poor Ambiga” (Bersih 3.0 co-chairman) because he thinks she got “played out” for working with the opposition parties.

Anas also has a number of tweets on the NEP.

He is all for affirmative action and says it should be celebrated for helping millions out of poverty.

But he believes it was “designed wrongly” because it was a race-based affirmative action, which meant huge chunks of very poor Indians in the estates were missed out.

“I don't believe in equality. I believe the poor must be helped. I think now we need a special Indian-based NEP to help the Indian poor in areas like housing, schooling to jobs.”

One bad thing about the NEP, he says, is that it has created a nation of blamers.

The Chinese who don't do well or are not rich blame it on the NEP, while the Malays lack self confidence as they think they cannot be successful and cannot survive without the NEP, he elaborates.

Anas is also known for taking full-page advertisements in newspapers to celebrate festivals. Even this has critics accusing him of being publicity-hungry.

In his defence, he says there's nothing wrong with publicity: Zubedy is the brand of his company and that brand is unity.

“We have been advertising for almost every festival not only the major ones but even for Vaisakhi and Vesak Day for so many years. I was also advertising Sept 16 Malaysia Day since 2001.

“We are a business organisation and we have a marketing motive. The world will be a very boring place if nobody wanted publicity.

“The only problem is when people get publicity to do wrong things. I am trying to get publicity to win people's hearts to unite.

“I don't think there's anything wrong with that,” says Anas, who points out that accusations of him being publicity-crazy only started after he asked Kit Siang to step down.

On the back cover of #Bodoh Politik, Anas has put a popular Malay idiom in bold. “Siapa yang makan cili, dia yang terasa pedasnya (Whoever eats chilli, he will feel the spiciness which means whoever has done something wrong, he will feel the guilt).”

For sure, some will feel the sting with this book.

By SHAHANAAZ HABIB shaz@thestar.com.my

Whose Policies Benefits the Country Most, MCA or DAP? Chua-Lim Debate 2.0

Dawn of a new superpower

When the world continues to discuss China’s impact even when there are other issues to consider, China has clearly ‘arrived’.

CHINA’S unrelenting growth is continuing to fuel speculation about the implications of its spectacular rise for the rest of the world.

Its irrepressive re-emergence as a major world power shapes and colours private discourses, academic analyses and bilateral and multilateral discussions, whether or not intended originally to discuss China.

It permeates strategic discourses behind closed doors, casual coffeeshop talk and everything in between. The recent Germany-Malaysia Security Forum in Kuala Lumpur, sponsored by Konrad Adenaur Stiftung (KAS) and organised by ISIS Malaysia, was an example.

Germany’s political foundations like the KAS are affiliated with their respective political parties, and with the KAS it is with Chancellor Angela Merkel’s rightwing Christian Democratic Union (CDU).

It is significant that even with a conservative CDU government, Germany has no qualms about the rise of China. German delegates instead looked constructively ahead to an even more prosperous China with which to work, above and beyond any ideological differences.

A Malaysian delegate privately remarked that Germans had been trading successfully with China for centuries. China had been a major world power then and, after a period of isolation and internal upheaval, it is becoming a major world power again.

Countries East and West that have had similarly positive experiences with China feel the same. Those that might have upset China through war, invasion, occupation or squabbling over tiny islets might feel differently, but exactly how an unprovoked China would perceive them today is another matter.

A larger conference in Berlin some years ago attended by delegates from various countries, and sponsored by Germany’s Defence Ministry, was similarly positive about China. At that time, Merkel’s government comprised her CDU, the equally rightwing Christian Social Union (of Bavaria) and the left-of-centre Social Democratic Party (SPD) of her immediate predecessor, Gerhard Schröder.

Since then, Merkel’s CDU-led coalition had substituted the SPD with the Free Democratic Party (FDP), a centrist party that became another right-of-centre party. That Germany’s formal posture towards a rising China has not changed indicates that its positive outlook on China is deep-seated and enduring, unaffected by political ideologies in Germany or China.

Nonetheless, some classic questions about a rising China and its impact on Asia and the world linger. These tend to refer to developments such as the increasing defence expenditure of countries in East Asia.

Other slick assumptions are that Asean countries are “hedging” against China, and the world has moved from the Westphalian concept of national sovereignty to that of “responsibility to protect”. The former is untested and the latter is still disturbing.

It is easy to make a superficial connection between these issues and a rising China, and then to conclude that there is an arms race in the region, and the arms race must therefore have resulted from a region alarmed by China’s rise.

These points had been raised erroneously 20 years ago, and they will still be raised 20 or more years from now. The problem with these simple-minded assumptions is that they neglect both the key details and the big picture.

All countries spend continually on defence, routinely preparing for contingencies from any quarter and not just to arm against any particular threat. This happens everywhere all the time, regardless of the prevailing strategic situation in a country or region.

A Malaysian delegate explained that it was part of the normal course of running defence establishments, when countries need to renew their ageing arsenals or when they become more developed and can afford to spend more. It might be added that defence procurement is the most lucrative industry in the world, so it easily acquires a logic and a momentum of its own.

However, at a time when Philippine and Chinese officials have had uncomfortable brushes with each other over the disputed Scarborough shoal in the South China Sea, blips in national defence budgets may appear suggestive.

But alarmist presumptions about regional threats and the need to “arm” against them can easily acquire a logic and a momentum of their own as well, however unjustified. At the same time, some parties may be hoping to see conflict in the region to profit from it through the arms trade, strategic leverage or recruitment of allies.

Such a prospect militates against this region’s collective interests and several of its abiding realities.

First, the political stability and economic prosperity of countries in East Asia depend on the stability and propensity for growth in the region as a whole. Injury to the region’s prospects also hurts individual national prospects.

Second, the countries in East Asia, particularly those of Asean, are clearly dwarfed by China. No amount of individual “arming” can address the gulf in national defence capacities between them and China.

Third, Asean countries are still unable to act as one militarily even if by doing so their collective clout can achieve some “balance” with a hulking China. Age-old border issues, disputed maritime territory and other niggling bilateral concerns have prevented any sense of an Asean security entity from developing until now and for the foreseeable future.

Fourth, the immature presumption that smaller countries in East Asia can always bank on the US for protection is both mistaken and dangerous, because that notion becomes very destabilising whenever it is proven untrue.

The notion of a US acting as a countervailing force against China derives only from those instances when US and indigenous concerns coincide in ways that are dissimilar to China’s. When US and East Asian interests diverge, as they will at certain points, the regional strategic picture will change.

US-China joint interests have grown tremendously and will continue to grow. They may already have surpassed the shared interests between the US and East Asia minus China.

The US itself is the sole superpower with an agenda and priorities of its own. Beyond a limited convergence of interests with other countries, it will not deign to act as a servant or bodyguard of smaller nations.

China remains inundated with domestic problems of its own. These span pressing social, administrative and environmental concerns as well as restive provinces and an economy running out of steam.

Meanwhile, it has witnessed the collapse of the Soviet Union that had suffered excessive arms expenditures, and a troubled US economy weighed down by overspending on foreign wars. Pragmatic Chinese leaders today would know better than to repeat those mistakes.

Modern China’s success also depends considerably on a peaceful East Asia that has enabled it to boost its exports worldwide. And since the regional peace has also been maintained by a US military presence in the Asia-Pacific, China as its greatest economic beneficiary might perhaps be asked to help pay for that presence.

When I mentioned that to Martin Jacques, the British academic and author of When China Rules The World, he chuckled. But that is a modern-day reality that a country like Germany may be able to understand.

Clearly, not all Western views of a rising China are created equal. The differences between the German and US views are interesting, and they become more telling when Germany is a leading country and the strongest economy in Europe.

Perhaps that has something to do with Germany not having to “guard” its status as the sole superpower in the world.

Behind The Headlines By Bunn Nagara

Saturday, 7 July 2012

Apple faces new legal challenge in China

Enlarge

A placard advertises an Apple iPhone 4S for sale at an electronics market in Hong Kong last year. A Chinese technology firm has filed a legal challenge accusing US giant Apple of infringing its patented voice recognition software with its Siri function on the iPhone, the company said Saturday

A Chinese technology firm has filed a legal challenge accusing US giant Apple of infringing its patented voice recognition software with its Siri function on the iPhone, the company said Saturday.

The move comes just days after Apple paid $60 million to end a dispute over who could use the iPad name in China.

Shanghai Zhizhen Network Technology Co Ltd patented its Xiao i Robot software in 2004, while Apple's Siri, which made its debut with the release of the iPhone 4S last year, was first developed in 2007.

The Chinese company's version operates in a similar way to Apple's personal assistant and works on the iOS and Android operating systems.

Si Weijiang, a lawyer acting for the Shanghai-based firm, said it had tried to contact Apple two months ago over the alleged infringement but received no response.

"We sent legal notices to Apple in May, but no one contacted us. We filed the lawsuit in late June to the Shanghai number one intermediate people's court," Si told AFP. "Currently the case is now at the court-mediated stage."

"We mainly ask Apple to stop infringing on our patent and cover the court costs, but once the court confirms Apple has infringed on our patent, we will propose compensation," he added.

The company's chairman, Yuan Hui, told the Apple Daily newspaper that the firm had 100 million users in China.

"People feel that China has no innovation, that companies here just copy. But in fact, we are leaders in our field, and we have created our own innovation," Yuan told the paper.

It added that Apple was also facing legal action from another Chinese company for allegedly infringing its "Snow Leopard" trademark.

The High Court of the southern province of Guangdong said on Monday that Apple had paid $60 million to settle a long-running legal battle with Chinese computer maker Shenzhen Proview Technology over the iPad name.

Both Proview, based in the southern city of Shenzhen, and Apple had claimed ownership of the Chinese rights to the "iPad" trademark.

Proview's Taiwanese affiliate registered "iPad" as a trademark in several countries including China as early as 2000 -- years before Apple began selling its hugely successful tablet computer.

Analysts said the Chinese government wanted the matter resolved, wary of the damage a ruling against Apple could do for the foreign business climate in China.

Greater China -- which includes Hong Kong and Taiwan -- has become Apple's fastest-growing region, with revenues second only to the United States.

(c) 2012 AFP
Newscribe : get free news in real time

Pages

Rightways - Sowing the seeds of Succes

Share This