Pussy Riot and Malaysian foreign-funded NGOs

Bizarre as it seems, two prominent Malaysian NGOs have something in common with Pussy Riot – the support of the US National Endowment for Democracy.

WHO loves Pussy Riot? Paul McCartney, Red Hot Chili Peppers and Sting are in the long list of celebrities supporting the so-called Russian feminist punk rock outfit.



But Madonna appears to have made the biggest impact with her brazen display of endorsement.

Midway through her 1984 hit Like a Virgin during a concert in Moscow last month, she stripped to exhibit the words “Pussy Riot” written across her back.

Her show did little to prevent three members of the group – Maria Alyokhina, Nadezhda Tolokonnikova and Yekaterina Samutsevich – from being jailed for two years.

They were found guilty of hooliganism and inciting religious hatred in an orthodox Moscow cathedral.

There has been much global media frenzy over their perceived persecution.The international condemnation has come from Amnesty International, the White House, the European Union, the British and German governments and an assortment of human rights groups.

Among the latest to join the chorus are Yoko Ono, wife of ex-Beatle John Lennon, and Myanmar opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi.

The story as being spun by the mainstream global media is that of three young innocent women who were merely expressing their freedom being jailed by the dissent-silencing president Vladimir Putin (ex-KGB, remember?) and as such, need the support from all the outraged freedom-loving, justice-seeking and human rights-embracing people of the world.

After presenting the Lennon Ono Grant for Peace award to Tolokonnikova’s husband, Ono said: “I thank Pussy Riot in standing firmly in their belief for freedom of expression and making all women of the world proud to be women.”

Oh yeah? Let’s look at what they did to earn such an honour. On Feb 21, they stormed the altar of Cathedral of Christ the Saviour wearing balaclavas and bright outfits to “perform” what has been reported as a “punk prayer to the Virgin Mary”.

In reality, it was a grossly blasphemous parody of a Latin hymn, the English lyrics of which read: Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God of Hosts 


Heaven and earth are full of your glory. Hosanna in the highest, Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord. Hosanna in the highest

What they yelled during their “performance” was this:

Holy s***, s***, Lord’s s***! Holy s***, s***, Lord’s s***! St Maria, Virgin, become a feminist ...*Patriarch Gundyaev believes in Putin *(The Russian Orthodox Church’s Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia, whose secular name is Vladimir Gundyaev)
 B****, you better believe in God!

The group is an offshoot of another known as “Voina”, or “War” in Russian, which has since 2008 staged several offensively shocking events in the name of “performance art”, including painting a mural of a penis on a bridge, having group sex in a museum, throwing live cats at workers of a McDonald’s outlet, overturning of police cars and firebombing buildings. They also stole a chicken from a supermarket and performed a lewd act with it.

It’s highly doubtful that the information would be revealed by the Western media when the case comes up for appeal on Oct 1.

Imagine the repercussions if such a group entered a mosque, church, or a Hindu or Buddhist temple in Malaysia to similarly “express their freedom”.

People who commit such acts in the US or in most European countries would also be arrested, charged and jailed, so what’s the big deal about these women?

For one thing, they seem to have powerful backers, in the form of the US National Endowment for Democracy.

Yes, the same entity supporting Bersih and Suaram, which is now being probed over its sources of foreign funding.

According to conspirazzi.com, Pussy Riot and Voina have open links to the NED through Oksana Chelysheva, who is deputy executive director of the Russian-Chechen Friendship Society funded by the NED and George Soros-funded outfits.

The NED was created in 1983, seemingly as a non-profit-making organisation to promote human rights and democracy but as its first president Allen Weinstein admitted to The Washington Post in 1991, a lot of what it does overtly used to be done covertly by the CIA.

In the words of ex-CIA officer Ralph McGeehee, it subsidises and influences elections, political parties, think tanks, academia, publishers, media and labour, religious, women’s and youth groups.

Russia has since introduced a new Bill to label NGOs that get foreign funds and are involved in politics as “foreign agents”, with their accounts subject to public scrutiny.

Paul Craig Roberts, a former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, says the US, too, has laws which require foreign interests to register as foreign agents but this does not always apply to all Israeli lobby groups.

“There are no political parties in the US that are funded by foreign interests. No such thing would be permitted. It would be regarded as high treason,” he was quoted as saying by Pravda.

So, if outsiders are not allowed to fund and interfere in US politics, why should we allow its agencies to meddle in ours?

ALONG THE WATCHTOWER
By M. VEERA PANDIYAN

> Associate Editor M. Veera Pandiyan sees the wisdom in this quote from Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard: People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.

Related post

Foreign funding for political purposes in Malaysia

Sep 22, 2012

Foreign funding for political purposes in Malaysia

Investigations to determine source of its foreign funding

KUALA LUMPUR: Investigations are being conducted on Suara Inisiatif Sdn Bhd, the company linked to non-governmental organisation Suaram, to determine the source and extent of its foreign funding.

So far, the “money trail” dates back to 2005 with the amount totalling over RM2mil.

The two main contributors are the American-based National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and the George Soros-linked Open Society Institute (OSI), which have been financing groups supporting its interests and objectives around the world.

The NED supposedly provided US$535,000 (RM1.605mil) to Suaram while OSI gave about US$248,000 (RM744,000).

Suaram's No 3 funder was identified as the South-East Asia Centre for e-Media (Seacem), with the German Embassy as the fourth.

The investigations centred on financial transactions conducted with Suara Inisiatif to counter-check “misleading information” and “suspicious transactions” in the company's accounts.

The NED dedicates itself to the growth and strengthening of democratic institutions and awards grants to organisations with programmes consistent with its (political) objectives.

Among others, it was reported to have provided funds to groups in Xinjiang and Tibet opposed to the Chinese Government.

OSI, started by financier Soros in 1984 to help countries make the transition from communism, is active in more than 50 countries in Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union, Africa, Latin America, Asia, and the US.

Domestic Trade, Cooperatives and Consumerism Minister Datuk Seri Ismail Sabri Yaakob had said that legal action would be taken against Suaram and Suara Inisiatif by various government agencies for reporting a “misleading” account in its annual report.

He revealed that CCM's investigation had allegedly detected serious violations of at least five sections of the Companies Act by Suaram and Suara Inisiatif.

The minister also called for an investigation into an American NGO's alleged funding of Suaram and urged Bank Negara to investigate the matter under the Anti-Money Laundering and Anti-Terrorism Financing Act 2001.

On Wednesday, the Attorney-General's Chambers directed CCM to further check accounts and other related offences under the Companies Act.

By PAUL GABRIEL paulnews@thestar.com.my

Related Stories:

Soros link kept under wraps
Malaysiakini admits to receiving foreign funds

• Sep 21

  Police reports lodged against Ismail Sabri over Suaram issue - Story | The Star Online

• Sep 20

  ROS probing Suaram over illegal raising of funds - Story | The Star Online

• Sep 19

  Suaram-linked firm faces legal action - Story | The Star Online

• Sep 19

  ROS: Suaram, Suara Inisiatif being probed separately for different offences - Story | The Star Online

Raise the red flag, cut out the hypocrisy!

Raise the red flag

On The Beat By WONG CHUN WAI

Cut out the hypocrisy in the anti-palm oil campaign.

THERE’S no such thing as a national tree in Malaysia but if ever there has to be one, I would propose the oil palm tree. It may have originated from elsewhere, like the rubber tree, but it has been a miracle tree for this country.

Many Malaysians are aware that palm oil is used as raw material for cooking oil and soap but not many would know that it is also used in the making of instant noodles, cookies, biscuits, candles, washing powder and even medical and cosmetic products, including anti-ageing applications.

Even the tree’s trunks can be used for making furniture.

Palm oil can also be used to create biodiesel. Since 2007, all diesel sold in Malaysia must contain 5% palm oil, putting us at the forefront of promoting biodiesel.

But more importantly, the Malaysian palm oil industry earned a healthy RM60bil in 2010. This was an increase of RM10bil from 2009. Revenue is projected to reach RM80bil and the perception is that the industry will eventually be the country’s biggest money earner.

The income generated by the high price of palm oil has led to a mini economic boom in rural townships throughout the country and benefited the ordinary people.

In simple language, it means an assurance of jobs and income, with a guaranteed daily wage of RM90 in rural areas where the cost of living is low.

In contrast, as shown in some studies, the rural population of many developing countries often earns a mere RM7 per day and employment is sometimes limited or seasonal.

The fact is that while over one billion people have scarce access to food and jobs globally, in Malaysia, we rely on 300,000 foreigners to take on jobs we shun. This includes jobs in the palm oil industry.

In Malaysia, our concern is not lack of food but how to cut down on intake of carbohydrates to reduce our waistline. Slimming centres have become a multi-million ringgit business because of this.



For the foreign labourers working in oil palm plantations here, their employment means there will be food daily for over a million family members in Indonesia, Bangla­desh, the Philippines and other countries.

Oil palm is also important for the Malaysian smallholders and the retail business, which will enjoy the trickle-down effect. And the Government will gain as well, through the collection of corporate taxes, which are then used for education, health and infrastructure development.

It means a lot for the children of the smallholders and foreign workers who know they won’t have to go to bed hungry each night.

Over the past few months, however, their livelihood has been threatened by Western non-governmental organisations who have stepped up their campaign against Malaysia’s palm oil industry.

This time, they have widened their target audience to include even primary school children in the United States, Europe and Australia.

If the argument in the past was about health, this time the campaign has shifted towards the purported deforestation of land and the killing of orang utan. Naturally, these issues would be more emotionally appealing and fashionable given the global concern for environmental issues.

No one in his right mind would argue against protecting the environment but the red flag, rather than the green flag, has to be raised when the real issue is whether these NGOs are being funded by lobbyists from the soy bean, sunflower and other seed oil competitors.

There is a lot of hypocrisy here, really. Orang utans may have been affected but look at the shocking decline in the number of koalas in Australia as a result of human clearing and other factors.

It has been reported that the number of koalas has dropped by 95% since the 1990s and that only 43,000 of these tree-dwelling marsupial are left on the mainland. In southeast Queensland, the number has dropped from 25,000 to 4,000 in a decade. Just Google for more information.

Even the world’s 1.5 billion cows are being blamed. There’s a 400-page report quoting the United Nations, which has identified the world’s rapidly growing herds of cattle as a huge threat to the climate, forests and wild life. And they are being blamed for a host of other environmental crimes, too, from acid rain to the introduction of alien species, producing deserts to creating dead zones in the oceans, poisoning rivers and drinking water to destroying coral reefs.

The report by the Food and Agricultural Organisation, titled Livestock’s Long Shadow, surveys the damage done by cows, sheep, chickens, pigs and goats.

Livestock is responsible for 18% of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming, more than cars, planes and all other forms of transport put together – and there’s a lot of cows and sheep in Australia, I believe.

The Independent newspaper in Britain reported that burning fuel to produce fertilisers to grow feed, to produce meat and to transport it, and clearing vegetation for grazing, produces 9% of all emissions of carbon dioxide, the most common greenhouse gas.

And wind and manure from livestock account for more than one-third of emissions of another gas, methane, which warms the world 20 times faster than carbon dioxide.

But I feel that the greatest contributor to global warming has been left out – the great appetite of developed countries for fossil fuel, which is essential for their continued economic performance. The need to continue their lifestyle contributes to the huge emission of CO2.

It makes them look intelligent talking about orang utan and deforestation in exotic Borneo, which many might not even be able to locate on the map, while drinking Dom Perignon at fancy parties after being dropped off by chauffeur-driven gas-guzzling limousines. 

Malaysian Election Reform: a panel for free and fair polls

Tweet

A panel for free and fair polls

Comment by BARADAN KUPPUSAMY

 For the select committee on electoral reform to be successful, there is a need for all parties to put aside partisan politics and work for what matters most – the best interest of the rakyat.

PAKATAN Rakyat should give a chance for the Parliamentary Select Committee to be formed and do its job of investigating and suggesting changes to the country’s electoral system.

As it is, their MPs have issued numerous statements ranging from outright boycott of the select committee to agreeing to participate but on their own terms.

They want Pakatan leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim to head the panel, increase the number of Pakatan panel members from the current three or, alternatively, not to give independent MPs a place in the committee.

They also want the assurance that Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak will not call for a general election before a full, complete report of the panel is published and the recommendations implemented.
 
Najib has said the reforms could be divided into immediate reforms and long term ones; immediate reforms could be implemented before the next general election.

But he has rejected outright the idea of reform first and a general election later, saying the Government reserves the right to call for a general election at any time.
 
Pakatan Rakyat is due to make known its stand on the matter soon, according to PAS deputy president Mohamed Sabu.

While Pakatan Rakyat decides, Parliament is set to debate a motion on the formation of the select committee on Oct 3, which will also include its terms of reference and possibly the members of the committee.

A parliamentary select committee, as the name suggests, is a committee of the House and tasked to deliberate on matters of concern; in this case, on election and the electoral process and submit a report to Parliament and make recommendations which can lead to changes in the relevant laws.

Select committee members must be MPs and exercise all the powers of Parliament to make inquiries, inspect documents, call experts witnesses and go on road shows around the country for evidence gathering.



They must act in a non-partisan manner as Parliament is supposed to be – that is, to act in the best interest of the rakyat.

That is why a select committee is headed by a minister of the Government of the day which has a majority in the House.

It is the Government that decides that the election system needs reforming and carries out the task of forming the select committee.

It is inappropriate for Pakatan Rakyat to demand that it head the select committee because it is the Government’s right to reserve that position for itself.

This means Anwar cannot be head of the select committee but he can be a member of the panel, if he so chooses.

Besides, such a committee has no place for an NGO leader or a civilian because parliamentary convention allows only MPs to be members of the committee.

But they can be called as experts witnesses to aid the committee in carrying out its duties which, hopefully, is the manner in which Bersih leaders will be engaged.

The Government’s right of way also includes having a majority in the select committee but that majority should be proportionate to its membership in Parliament.

Giving Pakatan Rakyat parties three places in the committee is also fair when the Government only reserves for itself five places, which is quite proportionate to the respective representation of Parlia­ment.

The only issue that Pakatan Rakyat can raise is the allocation of one place to the nine independent MPs who act as a bloc in Parlia­ment.

The independents are not true independents but former PKR MPs who defected and now stand with the Government on any issue in Parliament.

Giving them a place seems unjustified but they, too, might have a cause to present.

The nearest thing we have had to a successful select committee, in recent times, was the 2004 select committee on the Penal Code and Criminal Procedure Code that was headed by Datuk Seri Radzi Sheikh Ahmad.

It heard expert witnesses and made numerous recommendations.

This eventually led to amendments to both codes in 2006 that helped to strengthen the fundamental liberties of arrested persons, among other changes.

This current committee will also see changes to the election rules and process if given a chance to be formed and conduct its work.

Therefore, it is incumbent on the Pakatan Rakyat MPs to set aside partisan politics and work together to ensure that the people get what want – a free and fair election.

The polarised world of politics

Tweet

Musings By Marina Mahathir

Politicians of every stripe have two bad habits. Firstly, they think that those who don’t belong to any political party are incapable of having a single political thought. Secondly, when non-politicians think of a good populist idea, politicians of all stripes rush to hijack it.

Image via Wikipedia

George W. Bush, that giant of intellectuals, famously said after the Sept 11, 2001 attacks that “Either you’re with us, or you’re against us.”

Those words unleashed a world polarised by politics with no hope for peace, which necessarily requires a coming to the table of all sides to discuss common issues.

This “Us versus Them” mentality is an affliction that has befallen not only American politicians but many others around the world, including in our own country.

It creates an illness known as hyperpartisanship, which can be defined simply as “if you’re not on my side, you must be wrong.”

It’s the only explanation I can give for the consistently delusional statements that tend to come out from our politicians’ mouths.

To their minds, nobody can be right unless they’re on the same side.

Additionally, if you don’t agree with them, then you must surely be on the “other” side. Politicians can’t seem to fathom anything but a bipolar world.

They can’t seem to get it into their heads that firstly, there may yet be a third (or fourth, fifth) way of looking at things, and secondly, that the ones with these different perspectives could conceivably be civilians.



Politicians of every stripe have two bad habits.

Firstly, they think those who don’t belong to any political party are incapable of having a single political thought.

They forget that every five years or so, it is they who insist that we think of politics when we go and vote.

Secondly, when non-politicians think of a good populist idea, politicians of all stripes rush to hijack it.

Non-politicians, otherwise known as civil society, then have to fight them off tooth and nail.

How many times have we had politicians turning up at big events organised by non-politicians and trying and making it sound as if it’s a big endorsement of themselves?

Some politicians are certainly more delusional than others. Since Bersih 2.0 shocked them, they have been working overtime to demonise it.

It is one thing to badmouth the rally in the days before it happened but it’s quite shocking to see the pathetic attempts to paint it as a riot when it was clearly not.

From calling the teargassing “mild” to denying that the police had fired teargas into the Tung Shin Hospital, to trying to check the motives and bank accounts of those who went for the rally, our dear leaders insult us every day.

Yet all they have to do is, instead of surrounding themselves with sycophants who will only tell them what they want to hear, read all the heartrending and heartwarming personal accounts written by the many ordinary people who went to the Bersih 2.0 rally.

These were housewives, retirees and young people, all fearful of what violence they might encounter, but who steeled themselves to go and exercise their right to voice their opinions.

These were people who had probably never done anything more confrontational than argue with a salesperson in their entire lives, who faced teargas and water cannons fired at them by a government they probably voted in.

How much courage does it take to insult your own people from an airconditioned room compared to facing the FRU?

If our leaders think teargas is something mild, they should ask the FRU to try it on them. I was lucky that day because I chose a route where the police decided not to deploy their gas and water cannons on us.

But many of my friends and colleagues were not so lucky. I feel ashamed that I suffered no more than tiredness, compared with what they so courageously went through.

And all our hapless leaders can do is call them names. The people who went to Bersih 2.0 are Malaysians who will forever feel united and bound to each other because of that experience. Some may have been politicians and NGOs but so many more were just people of every race, religion, age and creed.

So many have said they never felt more Malaysian than they did that day. At a time when everyone has been lamenting how divided we are, we came together. What more could we have wished for?

Perhaps we should take another leaf from Sept 11. In the wake of the death and destruction wreaked by the US government to avenge the World Trade Centre deaths, some of the families of those who died, horrified by such violent vengeance, started an NGO called Not In Our Name.

Perhaps those many decent Malaysians, the “silent majority” our leaders like to claim as their own, can come out and say that, even if they disagree with Bersih 2.0, they will not stand by and let their fellow citizens be insulted and abused in this way.

At least, not in their name.

Bersih 2.0 Winners or Losers? Time to move on!

Tweet

No winners, just losers

ON THE BEAT WITH WONG CHUN WAI

IT’S becoming tiring for many Malaysians. We are talking about our politicians and supporters regardless of their political affiliations.

Take, for example, the organisers of Bersih 2.0. They need to realise that not all Malaysians are their fans. Not all share their beliefs and decision to stage a rally in Kuala Lumpur.

Their supporters have the right to argue and convince others that it is their constitutional right to protest but, again, do not expect everyone to share their enthusiasm.

When jazz singer Datuk Sheila Majid tweeted: “I am disappointed with all political parties, NGOs and Bersih. There are better ways to approach,” she immediately received a nasty rebuke from a PKR activist who shot her down, saying he used to respect her. She probably lost a fan because of her tweet.

There are enough people who would like to tell them that their protest was illegal and that they should know this is basic law.

Protesters should know better that when you attend a demonstration, it is not going to be a picnic. One should expect to be arrested and hauled into a Black Maria, so let’s not kid ourselves into believing that the cops would give them a red carpet welcome.

Certainly, only a politically naive person, or someone in self-denial, would believe that Datuk S. Ambiga was acting on her own.

Yes, of course, it was not politically motivated. The opposition politicians just happened to be there. Yes, they just bumped into each other at KL Hilton.

In the case of the government, many are also shaking their heads at the authorities’ sledgehammer treatment of Bersih 2.0.

Just weeks ago, not many Malaysians knew who Ambiga was. Thanks to the over-excitement of the authorities, she has become an icon overnight.

And don’t blame Malaysians for being cynical over the claims that communist elements were involved in the rally. More so when those dreamer socialists were said to have T-shirts bearing the names of dead Commie leaders.



Suddenly, Che Guevera, whom many teenagers at Pertama Complex had all this while thought was Bob Marley, was declared dangerous and subversive.

Then there was the obsession with the colour yellow. By the way, there were enough Malaysians who actually believed the Digi Man was arrested by the police, although the e-mailed picture was doctored.

But it was a funny spoof, and I wish there were enough Malaysians with a sense of humour to laugh at the fat yellow man.

Arresting people who wear yellow T-shirts with the word “Bersih” is not going to help the government win votes. Something is wrong with us if we believe revolutions can be launched by wearing yellow T-shirts with the word “Bersih”.

One need not be a rocket scientist to know the political backlash of such an action, even though there may be good security measures.

And the police, trying too hard to be friendly, put on its Facebook pictures of those detained being served with a buffet meal. There were round tables covered with tablecloth. Not bad at all, man!

No wonder there are many people who think a protest in KL is really a stroll on a weekend.

And then there was Perkasa’s Datuk Ibrahim Ali. The man is really comical. After driving enough people into a frenzy with his racist tirade, he decided to stay home. At one point, he claimed he could mobilise 15,000 people. As a face-saving gesture, he declared he would take “a stroll” at Tasik Titiwangsa. It must have been a pretty long stroll. He was probably walking around in circles.

And we can assume everyone would declare themselves winners. Bersih 2.0 will say that they managed to stage a protest despite the police locking down the city.

The authorities, too, will say that they won this round by claiming that the Bersih 2.0 crowd wasn’t as massive as they had expected.

Ibrahim Ali could also declare himself a winner as he could have successfully earned a place in the Malaysian Book of Records for taking the most number of strolls at Tasik Titiwangsa.

Umno Youth’s Patriots can also claim to be winners despite walking barely 200m before being tear-gassed and arrested.

There was another record – Anwar could still post a tweet at 4.40pm that says “undergoing CT scan for injury. Wishing #Bersih all the best.”

How he could take his mobile phone into a CT scan machine is a wonder. The Opposition leader had purportedly fallen during the protest.

Either Malaysians must be very bad in Maths or they are very good at exaggerating. The police said there were only 5,000 protesters whereas Datuk A. Samad Said said 50,000 while the pro-opposition Malaysia Chronicle news portal claimed 100,000 people.

The silat exponents turned out to be a lot of hot air in the end.

The biggest losers were the public who got stuck in horrendous traffic jams. Businesses can count their losses, vendors could not distribute their newspapers, commuters found at least eight LRT stations shut, the city’s cabbies had to stay at home and, worse, terrified city dwellers had to stock up on food unnecessarily.

And taxpayers must certainly be wondering why their money is being spent on bringing so many cops into the city – and serving a buffet meal to law-breakers at Pulapol – when they should be busy catching criminals.

It must be brought to mind that not everyone who supports Bersih 2.0 are pro-opposition. Many middle class urban voters are unhappy about many issues and it won’t hurt the government to listen to them. Don’t give up on them so they won’t give up on the government. Some concerns are legitimate ones that need fixing.

Likewise, Pakatan Rakyat should not misread today’s rally as an endorsement of the Opposition.

The game is over, time for everybody to move on!

THE STAR SAYS . . .

EVERYBODY seems to have achieved what they wanted over yesterday's Bersih 2.0 rally in Kuala Lumpur.

The demonstrators had no access to any particular venue, so they gathered anyway en route.
And so they declared the rally a success.

The police had also imposed a 22-hour lockdown of the city.  They, too, declared the day a success.

The Federal Government had observed the minimal participation of the public and declared yesterday a success too.

There seems to be no rancour or bitter recriminations.

Since everybody appears to have got what they wanted, perhaps the country as a whole can now move on.



Although 1,667 protesters were detained, all were released last night.

Many who had taken to the streets may well have been committed to the cause of a clean election.

Then there are the political players who would relish any opportunity to make the nation's political incumbents look bad.

After much haranguing over the protest venue, the legitimacy of the protest and even the legal status of the Bersih group itself, the logistics of the protest came to eclipse its purpose.

The organisers' efforts in internationalising the protest by getting supporters abroad to hold simultaneous demonstrations worked, at least as an international news item.

News reports were filed and foreign commentators weighed in.

So, regardless of whether protest organisers succeeded in assembling exactly where they wanted, they got all the publicity they wished.

And yet the underlying question remains: was there no better way of putting across the message, cause or demand for a clean general election?

Whether or not a street demonstration should be the last resort for aggrieved parties, it should seldom, if ever, be the first.

The Yang di-Pertuan Agong had advised rally organisers against a street protest, and the Prime Minister had approved in principle a stadium rally.

But had the organisers tried to hold a top-level dialogue with Government leaders to press their case?

If every complaint made one or the other party take to the streets, bringing a city to a standstill, people would not be getting much work done.

Demonstrators would also not be making many friends, let alone winning supporters.

There should be a better way, but we can know only if we try.

Yellow: What’s behind the shade & Bersih 2.0?

Tweet

Along The Watchtower By M. Veera Pandiyan

The organisers of Bersih 2.0 should explain their links and funding by the NED.

IT’S been a rather eventful week shaded by the overwhelming colour of yellow. In psychology, the colour is associated with optimism and cheerfulness.

Yellow, the colour of the sun, is linked with laughter, happiness and good times.

People surrounded by yellow feel optimistic because the brain actually releases more serotonin, the happy hormone that influences mood and sense of well-being.

But yellow can also be quickly overpowering if over-used. When intense, it can inflame and also evoke fear.

Studies show that babies cry more in bright yellow rooms and adults are more likely to lose their tempers in such places.

Apparently, energy levels can be taken up by the intensity of the colour to the point of it becoming an irritant.

Primarily, yellow is used to attract attention. That is why most danger signs come in yellow and black.
Spiritually, the hue is said to provide clarity of thought and enlightenment of mood.

Yellow has a very colourful use in language. The terms “yellow belly” or “yellow streak” connote it with cowardice, deceit or betrayal.

During the Middle Ages, paintings by Christian artists depicted Judas by dressing him in yellow.

In China, a pornographic film is called “yellow movie”, unlike the “blue movie” used in the west and elsewhere.

In Arab culture, people can recognise a “yellow smile” – a fake expression. Such smiles are put on when people want to hide their lack of interest, or any other emotion.

It is similar to the French expression of rire jaune (yellow laughter), which means to laugh from the wrong side of the mouth or feigned mirth.

Politically, yellow characterises freedom and moderation in many countries.



In the US, where yellow traditionally has a negative nuance, the Gadsden Flag, a symbol of American independence, has become popular again, especially with “Tea Party” activists.

The yellow flag, with a fierce-looking rattlesnake, coiled and ready to strike, bears the motto: “Don’t Tread on Me”.

The US is also the origin of “yellow journalism” – the phrase to describe irresponsible, exaggerated, lurid and slanderous reporting that can be traced to the late 1800s when two newspaper owners tried to outdo each other with their front-page stories to get the highest circulation.

Joseph Pulitzer (yes, of the Pulitzer Prize fame) who owned the New York World was the first to make use of sensational journalism to impress readers.

For example, his headline for a story on a heat wave that killed many people was: “How Babies are Baked”.

His rival, William Randolph Hearst, who owned the San Francisco Examiner, bought the New York Journal and also bought over Pulitzer’s top writers to outdo the World.

The rivalry was most intense before the Spanish-American War, when both papers churned out outrageous headlines to whip up support for the US, much to the dismay of other publishers and editors.

Both papers were denounced as “yellow journals”, inferring that Pulitzer and Hearst were cowards who chose the easy way to gain readers through sensationalisation and false news rather than responsible reporting.



Back home in Malaysia, critics of the mainstream media have been accused of being “yellow-bellied”, especially with regard to positions taken on the Bersih 2.0 rally.

The organisers of our yellow rally have since agreed to call it off and hold their gathering in a stadium instead after an audience with the Yang di-Pertuan Agong.

If Bersih 2.0 is indeed all about the noble cause of demanding free and fair elections, it must be rightly given the utmost support by all Malaysians.

The organisers of Bersih 2.0, however, must also explain their association and funding by the US’ National Endowment for Democracy (NED).

Even in the US, many questions are being asked about the NED set up in the early 1980s in the wake of negative revelations about the CIA.

According to William Blum the writer of Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II, the NED was set up to overtly do what the CIA had been doing covertly for decades.

He described it as a “masterpiece of politics, public relations and cynicism”.

Ron Paul, a Republican Congressman from Texas, described the NED as “nothing more than a costly programme that takes US taxpayer funds to promote favoured politicians and political parties abroad”.

“What the NED does in foreign countries, through its recipient organisations the National Demo­cratic Institute and the International Republican Institute, would be rightly illegal in the US.

“The NED injects soft money into the domestic elections of foreign countries in favour of one party or the other.

“It is particularly Orwellian to call US manipulation of foreign elections ‘promoting democracy.’

“How would Americans feel if the Chinese arrived with millions of dollars to support certain candidates deemed friendly to China? Would this be viewed as a democratic development?” he asked.

With such questions, don’t Malaysians deserve to know more about links between Bersih 2.0 and other Malaysian NGOs funded by the NED?

> Associate Editor M. Veera Pandiyan likes Coldplay’s song “Yellow”.

It’s all about politics, in the end

Tweet

On The Beat By Wong Chun Wai

The competing forces have little choice but to bring in the numbers, and every single one of them will claim to represent and act for us.

THERE isn’t much time left, really. Those of us who live in Klang Valley can only brace ourselves for the numerous police road blocks that would be set up ahead of this Saturday’s illegal Bersih 2.0 rally.

The city will be locked down for sure, even as early as Wednesday, and we can expect a lot of inconvenience. But the police have a job to do.

It does not look like there is going to be a compromise or a middle ground solution between the organisers of the rally and the police. The organisers want to proceed and have no intention of applying for a permit.

The police, meanwhile, have said there will be no more talk with the organisers and stressed that it is time now for action and the full force of the police would be applied.

Deputy Inspector General of Police Datuk Seri Khalid Abu Bakar did not rule out the possibility of the police invoking the Internal Security Act to nab participants of the illegal rallies.

What is different from the first Bersih protest held in 2007 and other past massive protests is that this time, two other parties have warned that they would proceed with counter demonstrations if the Bersih 2.0 rally went ahead.



This time, the police fear a clash and their concerns are justified, given the emotions that have built up. From the information the police have gathered, there are good reasons why police are talking about taking tough preventive measures.

In 1997, supporters of Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim staged a huge protest after the court sentenced him to six years’ jail for sodomy. A passing TV3 vehicle was attacked in front of Masjid Jamek by an angry mob in full view of the public and many shops were looted. And it was a one-sided affair then.

Anwar’s conviction, the protests and the backdrop of the 1997 financial crisis in Asia certainly had an impact as (then Prime Minister) Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad had a tough election in 1999.

In the case of the Bersih protest in 2007, which also called for electoral reforms, about 250 demonstrators were arrested as they clashed with the police. When elections were called the following year, Pakatan Rakyat won five states, despite claiming the electoral rolls were “unclean”, and that cheating and dirty tactics were used. And for the record, PAS has ruled Kelantan for 21 years.

But it’s hard to argue against a case for a clean electoral system. It’s a clever political package. Seriously, who can argue against such a clarion call and who can say “no” to freedom of expression and the right to protest, which are all basic principles of demo­cracy?

It’s understandably attractive for many and, undoubtedly, a matter of choice if people wish to take part in the rally. But again, those who organise the rally and those who wish to take part should also know the legal and political consequences of their decisions.

Any gathering of five, without a permit, is illegal and even if we feel that it is an archaic law, it remains a law until it is changed.

The organisers of Bersih 2.0 should give a convincing answer to whether their campaign is initiated by Paka­tan Rakyat, which has given the whole show a political dimension, or it has been hijacked by them.

It doesn’t help that Anwar has said he could just call organiser Datuk S. Ambiga to call off the rally. Of course, like many politicians, he claimed he was misquoted.

PAS deputy president Mohamed Sabu has also said on record that the Bersih 2.0 rally would help Pakatan in the elections.

On the surface, it looks simple but it’s all politics in the end and not quite as innocuous as it seems. The reaction has been political, and likewise the counter protests.

The organisers of Bersih 2.0 cannot expect their rivals to join them on the argument of a clean electoral system when the latter feels that the system is sufficient, admittedly it can still be improved, as the opposition has gained so much.

Against the rising political temperature, the issue has become more explosive when elements of religion and sedition come into play.

Some have said the authorities over-reacted and the communist revival claim is a little scratched, given the fact that almost all the commie icons are long dead. Even China and Vietnam are communist in name only these days.

Still, the July 9 rally won’t be a stroll in the park. It is a political event. So, let’s not bluff ourselves that it is a non-governmental organisation affair as they wouldn’t be able to marshal the numbers, if it is indeed an NGO show. The organisers need PAS particularly to bring in the crowd.

It is essentially a show of strength ahead of the polls. The competing forces too have little choice but to bring in the numbers. Every single one of them will claim to represent and act for us, not because the rallies and counter-rallies will help their political ambitions.

There will be enough people who believe in them. Just as enough people climbed trees to put up PAS flags and quarrelled with their families and friends for Datuk Ibrahim Ali, until he called himself an independent.

There will also be people who still believe in him now that he is representing an NGO and he is doing all these for Malay rights.

There will also be people who believe politics can be clean and there are wannabe politicians with noble intentions.

The Datuk Trio, meanwhile, must be upset at the seeming obsession of the authorities over the Bersih 2.0 rally as the sex video issue has been forgotten overnight, which is what Anwar probably wants.

All these groups could hold their gatherings in stadiums, with even a short march thrown in, if they want to. They could shout and make speeches for 24 hours if they want, but as Selangor Mentri Besar Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim was quoted in Sinar Harian as saying, it would have lacked the “oomph”.

Without the chaos, the anger, the water cannon, the arrests, it would not be a success. So it all comes down to that.