The Independent Insight

Giving truth a voice

Kisah terkuburnya perjuangan Reformasi 1998 di Malaysia

By 1 Comment

Pada 7 Januari 2018 secara rasminya terkuburlah perjuangan reformasi yang dimulakan pada tahun 1998 dengan pengumuman oleh Pakatan Harapan (PH) bahawa Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad merupakan calon perdana menteri. Rakyat tertanya-tanya apa nilai darah mereka yang jatuh dahulu, badan mereka yang dipukul, tidak sedikit merasakan mereka di khianati. Sementara ahli politik mengejar matlamat jangka pendek mereka dengan mengadai prinsip, mereka terlupa rakyat Malaysia mempunyai ‘collective memory’ yang panjang.

Saya merasa sedikit janggal dengan hujah-hujah dari penyokong mereka, terutamanya dari parti baru yang dianggap Islam progresif. Apabila dibawa isu komponen dari parti mereka yang memboikot konvensyen PH seperti dilapor oleh Star Online dan Malaysiakini dikatakan ia adalah dinamika politik. Dengan mengatakan bahawa peranan du’at (pendakwah) untuk bersama menjayakan perubahan. Perubahan ke mana yang hendak dibawa? Apabila disebut rakyat, adakah rakyat yang dimaksudkan hanya rakyat yang menyokong PH?

Alasan yang diberikan adalah ijtihad politik. Yang pertama, ijtihad politik bukan merupakan satu dalil qat’ei setara dengan Al-Quran dan hadis. Ijtihad gerakan Ikhwan dalam politik Mesir juga tidak semestinya bersih dari kesilapan. Yang kedua, bila disebut politik Malaysia, targetnya adalah rakyat Malaysia keseluruhannya. Jadi ia perlu kepada satu bahasa politik yang dapat difahami oleh rakyat kebanyakan, bukan hanya yang difahami oleh ahli jemaah Islam tertentu.

Ironis, sementara Zimbabwe menurunkan presiden mereka yang berumur 93 tahun. Sebuah gabungan pembangkang disebuah negara berusaha keras menaikkan semula pemimpin lama berumur 92 tahun.

I have lived with several Zen masters – all of them cats

By 1 Comment

Not all reviewer gave a favorable review to this book. Some might said that its pseudoscience or spooky, but few people can argue that the book doesn’t have strong influence and had touched millions of readers. The simple reason for this is ‘it makes sense’. In the book, Eckhart Tolle explains the distinction between oneself (consciousness) and the mind. The separate existence of these two elements is the reason why we always heard a dialogue in our head, this according to Tolle was the mind in action.

But the mind is constantly thinking, its often repetitive in nature, unnecessary, dysfunctional and destructive. It was due to this, he argues that if we fail to make a distinction between our consciousness and our mind, our energy could easily be drained out by this useless exercise. By drawing the distinction, a human can use their mind as a tool, use it when necessary, and lay it down once it does not need them, which will put them at a state of stillness and peace.

The mind always perceived something from past perspective and projected what we currently doing to achieve something in future. This attachment of the mind with past and future make us less aware of what we currently do, what Tolle called ‘the Now’. Past is just a memory of the mind, while future is the imagination of the mind, while we were clouded in this time-bound, we lost the sense of the present – the Now – which is the reality. We fail to appreciate the beauty around us, we can’t feel the joy of present, we are constantly at pain. Our focus should always be the present moment, the Now – which is the reality in which we actually live in, not the past or future.

Tolle pointed out that we often become conscious in life-threatening situation. This is when we focused on the current state of affair or as Tolle puts it ‘in the Now’. In this kind of situation, we no longer focused on our daily problems, we no longer use our mind to exercise on past memories. This is why most people will venture into dangerous activities such as skydiving or bungee jumping, the thrill gave them focus which in turns make them feels alive. If they slip from their focused, they will likely to be dead. Realizing that we need this focus will help us in living a more lively life, we don’t need to exercise these dangerous activities, we need to understand how we operate and used it to find our focus.

At the moment of stillness, a moment many Zen masters called satori is a moment where we’re not thinking, this is a state of no-mind. In this state, we become aware of the beauty surrounding ourself. We become conscious of the sound of the wind, we appreciate the heat that comes with sunlight, we become happier and livelier. To really live is to find the stillness.

In the book, he also discussed greatly on pain and suffering. On how we tried to cover our pain with addiction to drugs, cigarettes, drinking – only for the pain to resurface again, more intensely. When there is no way out, as he puts it ‘there’s always a way through’. By accepting what is, what has happened and fully conscious by not creating any pain. Tolle explains that pain and suffering are normal in life, everything goes up and down in their natural cycle. Trees die to make room for new seeds to grow. So do we, we need to accept our failure, to be at our lowest point so that we cant get any lower and the only way is up. By accepting and not resisting, we allow ourself to learn and re-grow.

I personally like the analogy he gave, that we are a deep lake. Our true self (being as he called it) is the water in the deep, our life situation is the surface of the lake. When we realize this, they may be a wind and a wave in the surface, but the water underneath remains still, calm and at peace. The analogy reminds me of ‘Tuesday with Morrie’ where Morrie said that we are not individual wave, but part of the ocean. When we realize this, no matter what comes, whatever life situation we are in, we will forever be at peace.

The book will definitely give you a new sense of modern spirituality.

This article is a review of “The power of Now: A guide to Spiritual Enlightenment” by Eckhart Tolle. Published by Hodder, 2011.

 

The Story of British Modern Political Elite

By Leave a Comment

British elite

 

Owen Jones started in the introduction on how the elite condemns ‘socialism’ but capitalism when closely observe is in fact socialism. The difference is, it is a kind of ‘socialism for the rich’. Where the state funding is used to subsidized and help business, which in the end gave benefit to the super-rich. When the state funding being used to help people at the bottom, ‘socialism’ is used, with a negative connotation. The attack is targeted to immigrant, public claimant and public servants.

Jones analysis on what is the Establishment, includes not only people with the power but also people around it, without which the system cannot be sustained. The establishment is not about a few corrupt people, but it’s a system, he argues that although the party who form government changed, the policy hardy deviates from what has been accepted of The Establishment’s idea and policies. Changing the people in it argues Jones, will not solve the problem.

He started his analysis on the post-war Britain, where the country ideas were largely dominated by the left, and trade union is a mighty force to reckon with. Back then even the conservatives fighting the election using policies which years before ‘associated with the left’. The game changed with what Jones called ‘The Outriders’. They were peoples with free-market ideology, pro-business and pro-privatization. They formed multiple think tank, which seems as a neutral organization, publishing report and studies to proliferate their idea. They are responsible to shift public opinion to accept the free market ideology and provide fundamentals for future free-market practical policies.

One of the Outriders, the think tank, was Adam Smith Institute, which was founded by Madsen Pirie. Their mission is to throw out the old establishment and found a new one based on free-market ideas. They transform abstract ideas into practical policies, convinced politicians to adopt them, and help them get re-elected. But something was needed to trigger the shift, as Milton Friedman spilled it out ‘Only crisis-actual or perceived produced real change.’ And as it turns out, in the min 1970, the ‘oil-price shock’ came in, and inflation surged. The crisis gave them an opportunity to paint that the political left has failed, the outriders work hand in hand with the Tories to installed Thatcherism – privatization, deregulation and slashing tax for corporations and the rich. They pushed the boundaries of what is seen as politically feasible and popularized the idea of free-market. The groups of these kinds market themselves as people’s voice, neutral and non-bias, while in reality, they are the right-wing organization pushing for their economic and political ideology. Jones also wrote on how the think tank shifted the ‘Overton Window’ – which is what is seen as politically reasonable and practical. The free market idea dominates universities and scholar who did not subscribe to the idea becomes isolated.

Then Jones comes to touch on the issue of the politicians in Westminster. He criticized how Blair after assuming power on labor’s ticket, did not reverse Thatcherism but embraced it as the new normal. When Gordon Brown contested his post, promising a comeback on Labour’s ideal – he managed to assume the premiership but also did not deviate from the free market policies. In fact, as argued by Jones, Brown continue with the privatization and slashing corporate tax. So, it’s not the question of who is the government, but who is the government serving to? The answer is corporate business and multi-national companies. There are a few factors for this, including a strong corporate lobby, revolving doors between political world and business world, which in the end shift the politician’s fight to defend corporate interest.

Then, there are the media. The propaganda machine used by its wealthy owners to defend their wealth and pushed for economic policies which are favorable to their business at the same time destroying communities and environment. Apart from ownership, the media also have become a party for the rich. For example, people aspired to be journalist need to start as an unpaid intern which only possible if you had a financial backing from your parent, also as the competition grow, postgraduate degree has become a ticket for entry.

Then, there is the police. The institution that supposed to protect civilians, but instead used to crushed dissent. Jones brought historical account such as Orgreave and Hillsborough. Where the police used cover-up, fabricated evidence, and propaganda. Jones wrote on how Thatcher bought the police’s loyalty. He also exposed how the police used a method known as kettling – which concentrate protester into a small compound to reap violence, which will give the police the reason to charge. He also wrote on how racism has rooted deep in the police’s institution.

The core idea of modern capitalism is that Big Government is hampering the business, webs of regulation and state intervention caused the market to become less effective, the market needs to be left for itself and self-regulate. On contrary, Jones argued that this idea is a con. The business is highly dependent on the state. It needs the police to protect their property, regulation to protect their intellectual property, and more importantly, the vast amount of taxpayer money to produce university-graduate-workforce. Without all these, the business can barely survive. The financial crisis in 2007-2008 was a practical proof on how disastrous it is when the market is left to self-regulate. In the end, the state comes in and bail out the bank, costing an astronomical amount of taxpayer money, while the banker’s dividends and bonuses remain intact. The loss was paid by the people while the profit was privatized – socialism for the rich. At the end part of the book, Jones argued on how the US and EU are undermining the British democracy. On how Blair commit Britain to war in Iraq without UN resolution and the public supports to appease the American.

The book concluded with a call for a democratic revolution and called to reject the idea of “there are no alternatives”. Jones also explained that rejecting free market does not mean statism, contrary to binary thinking, there are a lot of policies that can be improved which gave people much more decent life without hampering the economy. Granting workers more secure positions will bring about quality work and quality life at the same time. He also argues that Britain need to be in the forefront to divest from polluting economy and become a market leader in the green economy. Finally, the book ends with a beautiful saying from the late Frederick Douglass.

This article is a review of ‘The Establishment and how they get away with it’ by Owen Jones.

 

Krisis hutang negara : RM 674 billion

By Leave a Comment

 

Kita sering ditakutkan dengan jumlah hutang negara , web National Debt Clock meletakkan hutang Malaysia sekitar 674 billion. Sekitar 66.5% dari keseluruhan GDP Malaysia. Jika hutang ini dibahagikan antara semua rakyat Malaysia yang berjumlah 32 juta, setiap individu memikul beban hutang sebanyak 21 ribu ringgit. Namun data ini tidak conclusive, data dari Bruce Gale sebagai contoh, seorang ahli ekonomi, meletakkan hutang negara Malaysia berbanding GDP pada 53.2%.

Pada sudut pandang rakyat biasa 674 billion merupakan angka yang sangat besar, kerana kita tidak biasa dengan angka sebesar ini dalam kehidupan harian kita. Jumlah yang paling besar yang kita pernah uruskan mungkin sekitar 300 ribu hingga 500 ribu bagi pinjaman perumahan. Jika ahli perniagaan memerlukan pinjaman untuk memperbesarkan perniagaan mereka, begitu juga negara memerlukan pinjaman bagi membiyai program-program pembangunan negara.

Bagaimana Malaysia berhutang?

Seperti mana negara lain, kerajaan menerbitkan bon atau islamic bon (sukuk) yang kemudiannya dipecahkan kepada unit-unit kecil dan dijual untuk langganan. Fund-fund besar di Malaysia seperti PNB, KWSP, KWAP, LTAT dan TH merupakan antara pelanggan biasa bon kerajaan. Dalam erti kata lain, hutang kerajaan kebanyakan nya merupakan hutang domestik dalam mata wang ringgit. Juga harus di ingati, apabila Kerajaan Malaysia membayar semula langganan bon ini beserta faedah, keuntungannya akan kembali kepada rakyat dalam bentuk dividen. Sebagai contoh, mengikut laporan kewangan KWSP bagi tahun 2016, pegangan KWSP dalam Sekuriti Kerajaan Malaysia dan Bon adalah sebanyak 181.3 billion. Ini bermaksud dari 674 billion hutang kerajaan 27% adalah dari KWSP.

Bagaimana perbandingan hutang Malaysia dengan negara lain?

Hutang negara kebiasaanya di nilai dengan perbandingan dengan GDP (Gross Domestic Product). Apa itu GDP? GDP adalah market value sesebuah negara, dalam erti kata lain, berapa nilai sesebuah negara. Ia dikira dengan mengambil kira keseluruhan produk dan servis yang dihasilkan sesebuah negara, nett export, public consumption dan government spending. Dalam bahasa yang lebih mudah, ia mengukur kekayaan sesebuah negara. Dalam skala individu mungkin analogi nya seperti pendapatan bulanan (GDP dikira tahunan), seorang yang berpendapatan seribu sebulan mungkin tidak layak untuk meminjam dari bank 500 ribu bagi pinjaman perumahan. Kerana tidak cukup kaya, dan bank tidak yakin akan keupayaan nya untuk bayaran semula pinjaman.

Begitu juga negara. Hutang negara perlu dilihat dari kemampuannya, iaitu dari GDP negara tersebut. Saya pilih beberapa negara yang saya kira signifikan, data yang sama dari National Debt Clock.

  1. United Kingdom berhutang 87% dari GDP negara mereka.
  2. Amerika Syarikat berhutang 106% dari GDP negara mereka.
  3. Singapura berhutang 115% dari GDP negara mereka.
  4. Jepun berhutang 249% dari GDP negara mereka!

Perhatikan negara-negara lain berhutang lebih dari apa yang mereka produce (kecuali UK dalam contoh ini). Jepun sehingga hampir 2.5 kali ganda! Manakala Malaysia tidak berhutang melebihi GDP, Malaysia berhutang hanya separuh dari apa yang kita hasilkan setiap tahun.

Bolehkah Malaysia membayar hutangnya?

Jika kita hendak berhutang dengan bank sebagai contoh, bank akan melihat record CCRIS kita yang dikeluarkan BNM. Jika rating kita rendah, kita tidak akan mendapat pinjaman, kerana bank tidak yakin kita mampu membayarnya.

Kebolehan membayar hutang bagi negara-negara kebiasaannya diukur melalui rating agency. Antara rating agency yang selalu diguna pakai adalah Moody’s, S&P dan Fitch. Moody’s meletakkan Malaysia dalam kategori A3 (bagi September 2017) bersamaan dengan A- bagi penilaian S&P dan Fitch. A3 atau A- merupakan upper medium grade atau investment grade, dalam erti kata lain pelabur boleh meletakkan duit mereka di Malaysia dengan yakin melalui rating ini, kerana ia memberi gambaran kebolehan Malaysia membayar pinjaman dan memberi pulangan pelaburan.

Kesimpulan

Malaysia sememangnya mempunyai hutang sebagaimana negara-negara lain. Ianya perlu bagi membiyai pembangunan negara. Jika kita menilai hutang ini secara objektif seperti peratusan dari GDP, Malaysia masih di paras yang reasonable. Agensi penarafan juga meletakkan Malaysia di dalam kategori yang selesa. Jika benar negara akan bankrap, rating kita sepatutnya jauh lebih rendah, iaitu pada Triple C (Fitch) atau C (S&P).

Reason to be optimistic in this chaotic world

By Leave a Comment

The book is not really ‘a book’ in my traditional definition of a book. It does not written by an author or an author with a co-author, but a compilation of people’s opinion on the question posed, which was “What are you optimistic about?” As I am a traditionalist when it comes to a book, it easily gets me disinterested, as it does not come with a central thesis, and supplied by continuous contents. It’s an anthology which compiled multiple opinions of multiple people.

In the introduction by Daniel Dennett, he pointed out that human species enjoyed a great power to determine the future for good or evil. The survival of other species, depend on the Homo sapiens, which possess ‘science’. Science is a process of constant reevaluation, re-engineering, and improvement. On the face of existential challenges we have today, science will determine the outcome.

The vast majority of opinions in the early part of the book grounded their optimism on the diminishing belief toward supernatural, dogmatic idea, and religion. They viewed many ideas such as nationalism which breed war and hatred, as an opposition toward a bright future. Their optimism were based on the proliferation of knowledge, the development of high-tech experimental infrastructure such as CERN and LIGO which would help to answer big question using rational and logical thinking.

One of the interesting write-ups I found was from Chris Anderson, which rightly pointed out that the un-ending bad news that we received today mostly exaggerated and dramatized which does not reflect the reality. Realizing this we can safely live our life optimistically. The dramatization of the news is to attract readers, who would read lame real news by the way? The digitalization and globalization of the news also made bad news proliferate at unprecedentedly, it does not mean that bad things increased, it just mean that things that did not received coverage before are now covered.

In the European Union, a new generation is now living the continent, they viewed the world not from the lens of nationalism which was the core idea of previous generation. They grow, learn, work and play beyond the national border, they developed multilingual skill and view themselves not as national, but citizen of the world. This new generation gave us new hope that wars due to national animosity will ceased, and everyone see each other as their human kind.

Climate was also the ground of optimism for many in the book. They ground their optimism on various political supports for climate cause, technological advances and also renewable energy. In the front of renewable energy, the economics also dictates that technological production was bound by ‘experience curve’, which means the more solar panel or batteries we produced, the better we at making them. Means that more quality with less cost, so the renewable energy revolution will take place sooner than we think. Another interesting point in the book is the optimism which comes from the advancement in the field of astronomy, cosmology and space faring. Which predict the future of human kind is beyond this tiny blue dot, the prophecy of Carl Sagan. As the technology advances, we might have a colony in Mars, which gives human a bigger chance to survive.

The current trend of decline in human population growth also the cause to be optimistic. Generations before us witnessed explosion in population growth, this trend continue with forecast predicted that the trend will continue, until recently we saw this growth slowing. Decrease in population means decrease in human consumption, which in turn will reduce the pressure on the environmental destruction. We will also see a new way to approach education. The old tradition of boring lectures may well be replaced by creative and inventive education. Where students learn by building things hands on. There are also opinion on the book on how we should study what object draw students to be interested in science. Children learn by observing, they much receptive to things which are physical rather than complex abstract theory. By giving the right toy, we may attract the right brains for the next scientific breakthrough.

The technology also will revolutionize what we perceived as knowledge. The control of knowledge like what can be publish, which subject can be taught in school is losing significance. More people can participate in what kind of knowledge which is important, and everyone can publish what they no. In some sense, you can say that technology democratize knowledge.  Technology also creates a more transparent world. What happen on the ground can easily be seen through satellite images although some government may block access to certain area, so in places which is in crisis, we can see the burning villages although the authority gave different narrative, the ethnic cleansing of Rohingya people by the government of Myanmar in 2017 is one of such example.

Another ground for optimism is the fact that we tried to homogenized the world for a long stretch of time and failed. The fact that we failed might gave us a different approach, we will soon realize that diversity is not a problem. The fact that we have different races, skin color, language, culture, religion, belief, all of the diversity we have, is the one that made this world a wonderful and colorful place to live in, we should stop fighting with each other. People also will start getting boring when they repeat the same thought, belief and idea, which ultimately gave birth to a new idea and new way of thinking.

Among other interesting idea I found in the book is the concept of ‘Wunderkammer’ or chambers of wonders, where one have a collection of interesting things. I want to start collecting my own wonders!

This article is a review of ‘What are you optimistic about?’ edited by John Brockman.

 

 

Can we organize a bubble party in Teresa’s house?

By Leave a Comment

It makes me wonder. If I ask for permission to Teresa Kok to organized a  naked bubble party inside her house, and if she did not give me a green light, does that mean she’s denying my right?

In her statement she made on 18 September 2017, she said that the DBKL decision not to grant permission for ‘Better Beer Festival 2017’ as denying the right of non-muslim in Malaysia. The question is, since when organizing beer festival become a right? Like human right you mean? I never read Amnesty International or Human Right Watch published report suggesting they recognized ‘organizing beer festival’ as international human right. Sounds silly.

Leaving religion and race aside it look like Teresa and her gang live in a very different world, detached from reality. Many countries have law, prohibiting drinking in public places. Singapore, a country which DAP always sang their praises also have a specific law on alcohol.Under the The Liquor Control (Supply and Consumption) Act, drinking is banned in all public places from 10.30pm to 7am, while retail shops are also not allowed to sell takeaway alcohol from 10.30pm to 7am. So does this make Singapore an ultra-religious country which does not respect non-muslim ‘right’ (or maybe Teresa Kok’s right).

Glasgow also in 2016 refused a license to Oktoberfest Beer Festival. Among other things cited for concern was the drunk ‘pose a threat to pedestrians and a significant burden on the surrounding streets’. The police also said that they have to stand riot van because of ‘a number of fights broke out’. Such event do pose a threat to public disorder. If we use Teresa Kok’s logic, the the government in Glasgow does not respect the right of non-muslim, and like DBKL, the goverment in Glasgow is trying to be ‘jaguh agama’.

Have we forget the case in March 2017 where a drunk woman drove her car against traffic and caused an accident which killed an innocent man?

 

The New Anti-Semitism, Israel Occupation and Alan Dershowitz’s Misconduct

By 2 Comments

 

The main theme of the book is to exposed Israeli apologist tactics of using anti-Semitism to silence critics toward brutal Israeli occupation. In his preface, Finkelstein pointed out that, many of the solutions of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, are highly uncontroversial. On settlement for example, World Court ruled that it “have no legal validity”, citing article 49 of the 4th Geneva Convention. The UN also in accordance to General Assembly Resolution 194 (1948) upheld Palestinian refugees “right of return”.

When Gazan moved to elect Hamas to power, they received harsh collective punishment. One cannot help but ask, what kind of democracy do the West is championing, does popular support means anything? Although Hamas support two-state solution, majority of Israeli, vehemently opposed a sovereign Palestinian state that control their own border, water and airspace. Yet, Israel suffers no punishment. Why the double standard?

Israeli apologist often suggested that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is due to ‘Arab anti-Semitism’, ‘Arab fear of modernity’ or that the conflict is uniquely cosmic clashes which is not easy to understand. Finkelstein pointed out that, even Israeli historian, Benny Morris stated clearly that the animosity is due to “fear of territorial displacement”. As simple as that, easy to understand. Finkelstein made a reference to the case of Native American, historian will be mocked if they suggest that their struggle against European settler as anti-Christian or anti-Europeanism , its just a native population defending their right. Same with Palestinian Arab struggle.

Finkelstein also devoted large part of his book, criticizing Alan Dershowitz, Harvard professor turned Israel’s apologist. He went extra length exposing Dershowitz false argument and poor evidence. In his word, Finkelstein described Dershowitz’s book The Case for Israel as “complete nonsense” and “spectacular academic frauds ever published”.

Finkelstein, in exposing the use of ‘anti-semitism’ to silence critics of Israeli occupations aggression analyzed the work of Phyllis Chesler in her book ‘New Anti-Semitism’. He pointed out vast of Chesler’s claims which are not correct and contrary to serious scholarly account. For example she claimed that “Many Palestinians were actually born in Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, and Syria”, which was a myth and in Finkelstein’s own word, a “Zionist fairy tale”.

Many of Israeli apologists such as Elie Wiesel claimed that everything about Jew is unique. These uniqueness includes anti-Semitism, the Holocaust, Israel were used as ideological function that “Israel shouldn’t be bound by normal moral standards”. In various events everything which has to do with Palestinian liberation was classified as anti-Semitism, in order to push forward the Zionist political agenda. Although in many study, hatred toward Jews were intensified during the peak of Israeli military aggression, the apologist never considered, that to put a stop to it can be done simply by ending the occupation.

Anti-Semitism also was fueled by Jewish organization themselves, when they lend uncritical support to every Israeli policy. By labeling every critic on Israeli violation of human right as ‘anti-Jewish’, doesn’t that equate Israel with Jew? As the line was made blurred, is it a mystery why International antagonist attitude toward Jew rises when Israel continue its brutal aggression? Indeed, Finkelstein noted that “anti-Semitism alongside ‘war against terrorism ‘serves as a cloak for a massive assault on international law and human rights”.

Many pages in the book from preface, chapters, right into appendices were devoted to expose Alan Dershowitz “threadbare hoax”, namely his book ‘The Case for Israel’ which Finkelstein compared to the work of Joan Peter ‘From Time Immemorial’ which he said “grossly distorts the documentary record”. Finkelstein destroyed many of Dershowitz false claims with vast documentary evidence from human right groups including Amnesty International, B’Tselem, Human Right Watch (HRW) and many others. According to Dershowitz, when it comes to house demolition, Israel is not a “racist state”.  This claim however was destroyed by documentary evidence from various human right group which maintain that Israel specifically target Palestinian houses as a collective punishment. For example, Amnesty International in their report Killing The Future: Children In The Line Of Fire, London, October 2002. Pg. 7 wrote:

“Three children, Abdallah, Azam, Anas al-Shu’bi, aged four, seven, and nine years, their pregnant mother and four other relatives died under the rubble of their house which was demolished by the IDF on 6 April 2002 in the Qasbah (Old City) of Nablus during a period of strict curfew imposed by the IDF. Two survivors were eventually pulled from under the rubble, nearly one week after the house was demolished. Neighbours of the family interviewed by Amnesty International stated that the IDF had given no warning before beginning to destroy the house with bulldozers, and that they had been fired upon by the IDF when they defied the curfew in an attempt to search for survivors under the rubble of the destroyed house.”

In the appendices, Finkelstein continue his analysis and provide clear documentary proof that Dershowitz plagiarized his book, The Case For Israel from Peters. As you read further and further, you will find that Dershowitz did not even know his subject (or his book), he seems a little bit more like a joker than a Harvard Law Professor. Among other things Finkelstein help to clarify, is Dershowitz claim that the Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini “was a full-fledged Nazi war criminal”. A scholarly consensus however proves otherwise.

To conclude, the saga between Finkelstein vs Dershowitz, its worth quoting in length, the conclusion drawn by Frank J. Menetrez, who study their feud as an independent investigator. His essay was included in the updated edition of 2008 Beyond Chutzpah, where he wrote:

“From these facts it appears reasonable to conclude that, with the possible exception of the plagiarism issue, Dershowitz has been unable to find a single false statement in Beyond Chutzpah. And its follows that, as far as Dershowitz himself can now determine, his own book The Case for Israel is full of falsehoods concerning Israel’s human rights record and the history of the Israel/Palestine conflict, while Finkelstein’s book contains none.”

This article is a review of ‘Beyond Chutzpah’ by Norman Finkelstein.

 

Adakah Rohingya terlalu busuk untuk Malaysia?

By 10 Comments

 

Malaysia merupakan negara yang terkenal dengan sikap toleransi merentasi bangsa. Pasca era kolonial, ketika negara serantau lain memperkenalkan satu identiti negara dengan satu bahasa, satu sistem pendidikan dan satu budaya, Malaysia mengambil jalan tengah dengan mengiktiraf kepelbagaian bangsa, menerima bangsa lain sebagai warga Malaysia, malah memelihara bahasa dan melindungi sistem pendidikan masing-masing. Walaupun ia bukanlah sistem yang sempurna, rakyat Malaysia mampu menerima perbezaan dan hidup bersama.

Di arena antarabangsa Malaysia juga memainkan peranannya dalam mempertahankan hak asasi manusia. Ketika konflik Balkan pada tahun 1992, Malaysia adalah antara negara yang aktif membantu di bawah naungan UN. Malah Malaysia dengan berani mengumumkan akan menghantar bantuan ketenteraan apabila krisis memuncak dimana bangsa Bosnia dibunuh dengan kejam oleh bangsa Serbia. Bahkan sehingga hari ini jasa Malaysia diperingati di Bosnia dengan penubuhan Masjid Malaysia di Nova Breka, Sarajevo.

Dalam hubungan serantau juga, Malaysia memainkan peranan aktif, antaranya dengan menjadi broker keamanan bagi menyelesaikan konflik bersenjata di Mindanao, Filipina dengan menggalakkan perjanjian keamanan ‘Bangsamoro’. Begitu juga komitmen Malaysia membantu krisis kemanusiaan di Palestin, Syria dan lain-lain negara.

Baru-baru ini kita dikejutkan dengan gelombang keganasan terbaru di Arakan, Myanmar. Video dan gamba-gambar kekejaman tentera Myanmar membanjiri ruangan media sosial. Semestinya Malaysia yang terkenal dengan toleransi kaum tidak dapat menahan diri dari bersimpati dengan keadaan disana. Walaupun, dalam sejarah, Malaysia telah lama membantu bangsa Rohingya melalui NGO seperti HALUAN Malaysia dan MAPIM. Namun, kemuncak krisis terbaru menyaksikan segolongan warga Malaysia yang mempersoalkan bantuan kepada kaum Rohingya.

Antara tulisan yang tersebar adalah tulisan oleh Saudara Mohd Faizal Zulkifly. , beliau juga menulis berkenaan dengan Rohingya sebagai “bangsa tak sedar diri”. Antara lain beliau menulis bahawa “konflik ini berlaku kerana keegoan kedua-dua pihak”. Beliau juga menyalahkan bangsa Rohingya yang gagal berasimilasi dengan konsep ‘Burmanization’ dan “keengganan mereka untuk keluar dari kelompok mereka sendiri”. Beliau juga memetik rasa patriotik dengan menulis bahawa isu Rohingya menyebabkan kita “tersepit dan serba salah antara kemanusiaan dan kedaulatan negara”. Persoalannya benarkah dakwaan ini?

Dakwaan ini dijawab secara panjang lebar oleh Setiausaha Serantau Muslim, Hakim Mohd Nor. Antaranya beliau menyebut bahawa “Hakikatnya, mereka sudah pernah berjaya integrasi dan menjadi sebahagian ahli parlimen kerajaan pun. Tapi mengapa tiba-tiba tarik balik kerakyatan mereka dan menafikan hak-hak asasi hidup, pendidikan, bergerak, memilik harta dan pelbagai lagi nikmat warganegara. Sangat tidak adil mengatakan Rohingya tidak boleh integrasi menyebabkan mereka tidak mendapat warganegara.” Oleh kerana dakwaan ini telah dijawab, saya lebih berminat untuk meneliti komen-komen oleh penyokong Saudara Mohd Faizal Zulkifly, dibawah ada beberapa komen untuk dibincangkan.

Komen Muhammad Hilmi, nama sedap tapi sayang, bahasa yang digunakan penuh kekesatan dan kebencian. Benarkah tiada bangsa yang pernah menolong bangsa kita? Mungkin beliau tidak pernah membaca berkenaan dengan bantuan tentera Ottoman semasa Melaka dikepung pada tahun 1568. Juga bantuan tentera Commonwealth dari Australia, Newzealand, Fiji dan lain-lain dalam perang guerilla melawan komunis dari tahun 1948 hingga 1960. Bahkan veteran ini dijemput oleh Malaysia semasa sambutan kemerdekaan baru-baru ini.

Ismail Idi Rtiga menulis 99% Rohingya di Pasar Borong Selayang kurang ajar. Sebelum menggunakan statistik ini, elok beliau ungkapkan kajian ini dari mana, berapa responden Rohingya yang telah di survey. Pengotor? Mungkin beliau tidak tahu bahawa mereka diberi perlindungan sebagai ‘refugee’ oleh UNHCR dan tidak boleh bekerja. Agak-agak kalau gaji mereka RM3000 sebulan hendak ke mereka tinggal di Pasar Borong? Jika benar pun ada segelintir yang bersikap tidak baik, wajarkah kita menghukum semuanya dan membiarkan mereka ditindas? Jika ada tiga orang warga Malaysia buang najis dalam shower di Osaka, bolehkah warga Jepun membuat kesimpulan bahawa 99% rakyat Malaysia suka buang najis merata-rata? Kita perlu lebih berhati-hati.

Nor Liya mengatakan mereka pengecut. Pernahkah Nor Liya melihat ibunya sendiri di bunuh di depan mata? Rumah dibakar? Xtvts Myheart mengatakan mereka mogok berdemonstrasi nak kerakyatan, mungkin beliau masih belum benar-benar pandai membaca. Sebenarnya mereka berdemonstrasi untuk menyampaikan nota bantahan kepada kedutaan Myanmar. Mahadzir Hashim pula menyamakan mereka sebagai anjing. Saya tertanya, jika pun tiada nilai kemanusiaan di dalam hatinya, tidakkah beliau pernah bersekolah dan belajar perbezaan antara manusia dan anjing?

Saya percaya, golongan-golongan simple minded dan rasis ini wujud di kalangan rakyat Malaysia, namun kita seharusnya tidak mencontohi mereka dan cuba sedaya upaya menasihati mereka. Seharusnya rakyat Malaysia bersama-sama menyokong persatuan yang membantu perjuangan Rohingya seperti HALUAN Malaysia dan MAPIM. Tekanan dari masyarakat international sememangnya mempunyai kesan dan mampu mengubah keadaan. Seperti mana Aparteid dapat ditumpaskan pada tahun 1990-1993 oleh tekanan masyarakat antarabangsa, tidak mustahil kita mampu memberi tekanan bagi mengakhiri kekejaman terhadap bangsa Rohingya.

Sumber foto: The Star

Bolehkah PKR menjadi lebih dari sekadar perjuangan survival Anwar

By 1 Comment

 

Saya selalu terfikir, apabila orang mempersoalkan Tun Mahathir sebagai mengamalkan nepotisma apabila Mukhriz masuk ke dalam areana politik dan menjadi figur yang berjaya hingga mendapat jawatan menteri besar  Kedah. Tapi dalam masa yang sama tidak sedikitpun mengkritik penglibatan isteri dan anak Anwar dalam politik. Perkara ini memuncak dalam pemikiran saya apabila, dalam wawancara bersama Al Jazeera, Wan Azizah berkata beliau bersedia menjadi ‘seat warmer’ sementara menunggu Anwar mendapat pengampunan dan keluar dari penjara. Seolah-olah, logik PKR, jawatan perdana menteri Malaysia seperti pemain bola sepak, boleh ditukar ganti dalam kalangan ahli keluarga sesuka hati.

Langkah Kajang yang gagal, seolah-olah tidak memberi pengajaran kepada PKR. Bagi saya Langkah Kajang merupakan satu strategi yang sangat memalukan, ia merupakan titik di mana saya berhenti melihat bahawa PKR serius dalam memperjuangkan agenda rakyat. Sebaliknya sibuk dan tergesa-gesa mahu menaikkan Anwar dengan apa juga cara. Penyingkiran Tan Sri Khalid juga merupakan titik utama yang menyebabkan saya melihat PKR sudah tiada lagi ‘moral compass’, sanggup menggunakan strategi fitnah dahulu, ‘damage done’, kemudian minta maaf secara terbuka apabila kalah di mahkamah.

Saya tidak menafikan kredibiliti Anwar yang merupakan satu figur yang mampu menjadi broker penyatuan parti sekular dan parti Islamis dalam mengalahkan status quo. Ketiadaan Anwar merupakan mempunyai kesan serius dalam pakatan pembangkang, yang akhirnya berakhirnya dengan pembubaran dan penubuhan pakatan baru. Namun, saya melihat sudah sampai masanya PKR menampilkan tokoh baru, ‘next in line’, jika mereka serius memperjuangkan agenda rakyat. Seharusnya mereka memikirkan ‘plan B’ jika pemimpin utama ini tidak dapat lagi mengemudi perjuangan.

Kebanyakan rakyat semakin lama, mula tertanya-tanya, adakah hanya Anwar sahaja yang boleh menjadi perdana menteri? Perkara ini menjadi lebih memalukan apabila dalam Kongres Nasional PKR, setelah menjemput PPBM kedalam pakatan baru, semua pemimpin utama mengangkad plakad ‘Anwar PM ke-7’ kecuali Tun Mahathir, TS Muhyiddin dan DS Mukhriz. Seolah-olah mereka ingin memalukan PPBM, namun signal yang diterima rakyat adalah PKR masih belum boleh ‘move on’ dengan Anwar.

Yang terbaru adalah isu kerjasama dengan PAS, kritikan pimpinan tertinggi PKR sendiri terhadap pengarah strategik mereka yang juga pengasas INVOKE. Persengketaan dua kem dalaman PKR, membuatkan rakyat terus tertanya-tanya, adakah perjuangan PKR adalah sekadar untuk individu-individu tertentu sahaja?

Imej kredit: My News Hub

You are statistically deceived

By 105 Comments

This article is a review of Darell Huff’s book ‘How to lie with statistics’.

First of all, this book is hilariously fun. Yet, the subject is important. Huff in the introduction emphasized why we should know the flaws in statistics. In his own words, he said “honest men must learn them in self-defense”.

The first chapter explored on how sample that have been chosen determined the final product of statistical analysis. Random sample is crucial to produce a fair an unbiased result. A truly random sample is very expensive and hard to get. That is why Huff said “you can’t win”. Statistics also are not safe from interpretation, statisticians interpretations may not the same as what the public understands or defines certain things. As an example of this, Huff said “the word ‘average’ have a loose meaning”. This loose meaning can present a misrepresentation, whether unintentionally or intentionally.

Talking about the sample, which we already discussed, that it needs to be random, the other important aspect of a sample is that, it need to be big and broad to represent the correct whole results. If we heard that a survey said that “50% of men own a Ferrari”, we should ask “which men?”. The hard question as Huff pointed out, is, how big is big?

Another myth Huff help uncover is on the effect of average. For example study on a pool of babies might come up with an average of age a baby should start walking. Say the figure is 1.25 years old. Parent who read this figure might think their baby is slow or retarded if they start walking after 1.25 years. The fact is, there are high chances that none of the babies from the sample pool start walking at exactly 1.25 year. It is just a figure that came when you do the arithmetic average. The right way to approach this, is by giving the range of normal age in which babies start walking, instead of a singular decimal.

The use of graphic to represent a set of data makes ‘manipulation’ easier. As saying goes ‘seeing is believing’. The drawing will gave a different impression even though below the drawing precise numbers are written. So you can compare two set of data that said that one is twice as big as the other, but the optical illusion will gave the reader an image of four times bigger. That image have a lasting effect compare to the numbers quoted.

Deception also can be used by the means of attaching, as Huff said, ‘the semi-attached figure’. You can say for example ‘this product is 50% more effective to reduce migraine’, but apart from the figure, the details are left out. The number can mean anything if concrete details are not given. Maybe the original studies is tested onto ‘lab rat’, who knows that rat also can contract migraine. And maybe the effect on human are not the same from the result produced by the rat.

Say for example your company profit last 2 years was $100, last year was $200 and this year, its $300. You can say that your company grow by $100 each year. That is honest, but it’s not interesting. You can divide your current year’s profit from the previous year and come up with more interesting representation. A 150% increase in profit. Or, you can use last 2 years profit, which will give you a smaller base and more impressive percentage. 300% increase in profit compare to last 2 years! So you can choose whichever way to represent your exact data, depending on purpose at hand.

Statistics also frequently help misled people on relationship between two set of data, Huff mention it as “assumptions of causality”. For example study shows that more people died in accident in weekdays on the road during the evening compared to driving during the night. We may think that driving in the evening cause accident. What the statistics did not mention is that more people driving in the evening back from work, of course more cars will gave a higher number of accidents.

In conclusion, Huff recognized that statistics should not be thrown out of the window, we still need them to make predictions and informed future decisions, statistics is better than our wild guess. The catch however, is to always be skeptic and ask questions. Don’t rush into conclusion without finding how the figure is derived and what does it actually mean. We also need to find, what have been left out of the stories, and how the conclusion would be if we take them into account.