Thursday, December 30, 2010
masterwordsmith-unplugged: Is the Sun Setting for Pakatan Rakyat Selangor?
masterwordsmith-unplugged: Is the Sun Setting for Pakatan Rakyat Selangor?: "Complacency is a dangerous feeling of self-satisfaction or contentment that can blind one to imminent danger, trouble, or controversy. It ap..."
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Sunday, December 19, 2010
WikiLeaks And It's Leaking.
Balance in the availability of information must be maintained
ON THE BEAT WITH WONG CHUN WAI
MANY things are private and confidential. Even WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, as with all journalists, believes in keeping his own sources secret and takes great pains to do so.
He is also secretive about his private life and isn’t comfortable with the bits of information that have come out about him.
In short, the man who has wrecked governments worldwide with classified material leaks, also believes in the importance of secrecy.
In an oxymoron way, he is defending secrecy in order to attack it, as Time wrote recently.
But for Assange, the rule doesn’t apply to government and diplomacy.
All transactions between nations and leaders should be transparent.
The debate has continued over whether the world would become a safer place with these leaks or even whether the strain in relations between countries would benefit from the bits of diplomatic gossip.
Certain things, as we are all aware, are sometimes best not said.
To be more precise, what you do not know does not hurt you and that probably includes what your neighbours say about you behind your back.
Journalists and diplomats have some things in common.
They are required to pick up information, file reports and generally update their bosses on current developments, often political in nature.
Depending on who you talk to, the assessment can sometimes be accurate, wrong or just plain useless.
Certainly, diplomats and newsmen talk to each other a lot.
So, we should not be surprised if Singapore talked about Malaysian politicians including the Prime Minister’s political standing, the Altantuya case, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, sodomy and sexual preferences.
If we all talk about these, why shouldn’t diplomats?
If Singaporean diplomats think our politicians are incompetent, there may be some truth.
Some politicians are truly incompetent.
In fact, some are outright clowns, just look at the antics of some lawmakers in Parliament.
On the other hand, we have also accused Singaporean politicians of being snobbish, cold, selfish and too much of a technocrat.
Even Singaporeans think so, according to reports.
I, too, have said many times that while some Singaporean lawmakers may be academically impressive, they lack “the connect” with the grassroots and would probably not even win an internal party polls at the branch level in Malaysia.
The difference between us and Singaporeans is that we Malaysians are so politically passionate that we contest in everything, including Parent-Teacher Associations.
In Singapore, PAP leaders have to go down on their knees to persuade people to take up politics.
Our diplomats must have told nasty things about Singapore to US officials.
So, what happens when WikiLeaks releases cables of what we said about them?
If we have been saying only nice things about Singapore to the United States, I think something is seriously wrong with our guys. In fact, they should be sacked.
Diplomats, like journalists, should be sniffing for top quality information that would help give us a headstart, whether for defence, trade or political reasons.
A lot of these are obtained at cocktails, social functions and dinners.
My fear is that many of our young diplomats are no longer as skilful as their predecessors, who had social skills.
I am told many shun away from social events and their lack of proficiency in English, resulting in a lack of self-confidence and self-esteem, hasn’t helped.
We cannot hope wrong information would not be filed because of language concerns.
I know of foreign correspondents who arrive in Malaysia with impressions founded on the views of taxi drivers, people they meet at Bangsar and certain politicians, lawyers and activists recommended by their fellow journalists.
There is also a certain degree of hypocrisy when it comes to matters pertaining to secrecy.
Newsmakers, including politicians and movie stars, thrive on publicity, but when it involves negative news, they complain about intrusion of privacy.
Suddenly, the journalists that they cultivate turn enemies because that’s not what they bargained for.
Public figures really have no private lives because that’s the cost of high-living.
We have political parties that purportedly uphold transparency, press freedom and the right to information but shut the door to the media during their annual general meetings.
Only official information, which will enhance the image of the party, is released.
That’s simply because these political parties also believe that certain matters have to be private and confidential.
It is the same with other organisations and it would be naive if we think otherwise, citing conscience and principles.
When lives and properties are affected, then we have more reasons to keep the lid.
Whether they are for strategic or tactical reasons, we all keep some secrets in our daily engagements, often on a need-to-know basis.
Often, these are translated into long-term benefits.
But overclassification of documents is not good and the abuse of the Official Secrets Act, to stop access to information, is not acceptable either.
There has to be a balance in the availability of information, especially the principle on the right to know which is fundamentally important in a true democracy.
ON THE BEAT WITH WONG CHUN WAI
MANY things are private and confidential. Even WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, as with all journalists, believes in keeping his own sources secret and takes great pains to do so.
He is also secretive about his private life and isn’t comfortable with the bits of information that have come out about him.
In short, the man who has wrecked governments worldwide with classified material leaks, also believes in the importance of secrecy.
In an oxymoron way, he is defending secrecy in order to attack it, as Time wrote recently.
But for Assange, the rule doesn’t apply to government and diplomacy.
All transactions between nations and leaders should be transparent.
The debate has continued over whether the world would become a safer place with these leaks or even whether the strain in relations between countries would benefit from the bits of diplomatic gossip.
Certain things, as we are all aware, are sometimes best not said.
To be more precise, what you do not know does not hurt you and that probably includes what your neighbours say about you behind your back.
Journalists and diplomats have some things in common.
They are required to pick up information, file reports and generally update their bosses on current developments, often political in nature.
Depending on who you talk to, the assessment can sometimes be accurate, wrong or just plain useless.
Certainly, diplomats and newsmen talk to each other a lot.
So, we should not be surprised if Singapore talked about Malaysian politicians including the Prime Minister’s political standing, the Altantuya case, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, sodomy and sexual preferences.
If we all talk about these, why shouldn’t diplomats?
If Singaporean diplomats think our politicians are incompetent, there may be some truth.
Some politicians are truly incompetent.
In fact, some are outright clowns, just look at the antics of some lawmakers in Parliament.
On the other hand, we have also accused Singaporean politicians of being snobbish, cold, selfish and too much of a technocrat.
Even Singaporeans think so, according to reports.
I, too, have said many times that while some Singaporean lawmakers may be academically impressive, they lack “the connect” with the grassroots and would probably not even win an internal party polls at the branch level in Malaysia.
The difference between us and Singaporeans is that we Malaysians are so politically passionate that we contest in everything, including Parent-Teacher Associations.
In Singapore, PAP leaders have to go down on their knees to persuade people to take up politics.
Our diplomats must have told nasty things about Singapore to US officials.
So, what happens when WikiLeaks releases cables of what we said about them?
If we have been saying only nice things about Singapore to the United States, I think something is seriously wrong with our guys. In fact, they should be sacked.
Diplomats, like journalists, should be sniffing for top quality information that would help give us a headstart, whether for defence, trade or political reasons.
A lot of these are obtained at cocktails, social functions and dinners.
My fear is that many of our young diplomats are no longer as skilful as their predecessors, who had social skills.
I am told many shun away from social events and their lack of proficiency in English, resulting in a lack of self-confidence and self-esteem, hasn’t helped.
We cannot hope wrong information would not be filed because of language concerns.
I know of foreign correspondents who arrive in Malaysia with impressions founded on the views of taxi drivers, people they meet at Bangsar and certain politicians, lawyers and activists recommended by their fellow journalists.
There is also a certain degree of hypocrisy when it comes to matters pertaining to secrecy.
Newsmakers, including politicians and movie stars, thrive on publicity, but when it involves negative news, they complain about intrusion of privacy.
Suddenly, the journalists that they cultivate turn enemies because that’s not what they bargained for.
Public figures really have no private lives because that’s the cost of high-living.
We have political parties that purportedly uphold transparency, press freedom and the right to information but shut the door to the media during their annual general meetings.
Only official information, which will enhance the image of the party, is released.
That’s simply because these political parties also believe that certain matters have to be private and confidential.
It is the same with other organisations and it would be naive if we think otherwise, citing conscience and principles.
When lives and properties are affected, then we have more reasons to keep the lid.
Whether they are for strategic or tactical reasons, we all keep some secrets in our daily engagements, often on a need-to-know basis.
Often, these are translated into long-term benefits.
But overclassification of documents is not good and the abuse of the Official Secrets Act, to stop access to information, is not acceptable either.
There has to be a balance in the availability of information, especially the principle on the right to know which is fundamentally important in a true democracy.
Saturday, December 18, 2010
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Malaysia Chronicle: Follow Us on Twitter
Malaysia Chronicle: Follow Us on Twitter: "Get short, timely messages from Malaysia Chronicle at http://twitter.com/MsiaChronicle. Twitter is a rich source of instantly updated infor..."
Malaysia Chronicle: VIDEO Malaysians Must see!!! Namewee's 1Malaysia s...
Malaysia Chronicle: VIDEO Malaysians Must see!!! Namewee's 1Malaysia s...: "Watch naughty boy Namewee's Malaysians Must see!!! Namewee's 1Malaysia story 黃明志要見首相! Read: Grasping at straws? 1 Malaysia to be adde..."
Malaysia Chronicle: Caught in political sex trap
Malaysia Chronicle: Caught in political sex trap: "Philip Dorling and Nick McKenzie MALAYSIAN opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim's sodomy charges are the result of a 'set up job' that the polit..."
Monday, December 6, 2010
Anwar the messiah?
That was one of the things that worried me – to be raised to the position of a semi-god – because then you are no longer a human being. I wanted to be known as Mandela, a man with weaknesses... – Nelson Mandela
The people of Burma are like prisoners in their own country, deprived of all freedom under military rule. – Aung San Suu Kyi
Make no mistake about it: God did not send Anwar Ibrahim to this part of the world to be our saviour. Anwar was not the “son” who would come and deliver us from the clutches of an evil ruler who had deprived the country of all freedom. No.
The Almighty Creator certainly did not have in His grand scheme of things to put on earth a man by the name of Anwar to lead a country called Malaysia to a better future. It is shocking that the wife of the opposition leader could come up with something like a divine mission for her long-suffering husband. Telling Malaysians that God has indeed chosen Anwar to lead his flock to Putrajaya is assuming that the level of political intelligence of the citizens is near zero.
A leader is a combination of strengths and weaknesses. He is first and foremost a human being. He is a bundle of passion, baser instincts, noble feelings, demonic urges – a mixture of saint and devil. It all depends which side of him eventually triumphs: if he can overthrow the devil in him, he can truly become an outstanding leader – even a saintly ruler – in the field of politics. If the Prince of Darkness is the victor, he will surely be a monster who will bring untold misery to his people. Holy or profane, a leader is still a man who harbours weaknesses just like the populace. But how are the common people to know that someone in their midst will one day steer them to the promised land?
Surely Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail did not have a dream in which a Voice told her Anwar is the chosen one. That will be too far-fetched. An inspiration? Unlikely. So how did the leader of a trouble-plagued party come to the amazing conclusion that her other half is God's gift to Malaysians? True, Anwar endured long years of hardship at the hand of a system that many believe is unjust and cruel. A large segment of the population do sympathise with his predicament. Still, his struggle does not make him a celestial figure. It is hard to picture him as the one and only guiding star for the people. It is even harder to imagine a halo around his head.
Malaysians have become a discerning lot. They are unlikely to buy the story that Anwar is a God-send or that what Wan Azizah said was gospel truth. They have a mind of their own and can weigh for themselves the worth of a leader. They acknowledge that Anwar is a powerful politician, but they will not go to the extent of placing him on the same pedestal as Nelson Mandela or Aung San Suu Kyi. Mandela endured almost 30 years of prison brutality for fighting against apartheid. Suu Kyi spent 15 years under house arrest for standing up to the military rulers. Both were potent symbols of resistance against harsh governments. No one in their country shouted from the pulpit that the “Black Pimpernel” or the “Iron Lady” was chosen by God from a list of mere mortals to lead the struggle. People saw their merits – their humility, their common touch, their frailities, their strengths – and went along with them. One eventually walked to freedom and with him the whole of South Africa. The other was released but still has a long way to liberty.
But Anwar is fighting more for himself to stay afloat than marching at the head of an army of the faithful to the seat of power. His personal troubles cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be turned into a war cry of the people for freedom. The conditions that existed in Mandela's South Africa during his long imprisonment ideally made him the standard-bearer for the overwhelming majority of the oppressed black. In Burma, the ruthless junta had turned Suu Kyi into the favoured champion of the people. There was no hint that God played a crucial role in their long, bitter struggle. They are mere mortals but what make them rise above the common lot are their impeccable moral credentials. Against the moral weapon of Mandela, the edifice of racism crumbled. Against the virtuous Suu Kyi, the generals continue to shake in their uniforms.
Does Wan Azizah want to strike the fear of God in the people so that they will run helter-skelter to Anwar? This is unnecessary. Such tactic only breeds cynicism. It is counter-productive. It will only drive people away. No mere mortal can invoke God and expect Him to come down on his or her side. The Great Maker is above the fray. He gave Man the freedom to act on their own. In them rest the power to make their own choice. The choice for Malaysians is clear-cut: either support Anwar warts and all or drop him for a better messiah. They need not have to wait for divine instruction.
Also read:
Wan Azizah: Anwar is God's gift to Malaysians
The people of Burma are like prisoners in their own country, deprived of all freedom under military rule. – Aung San Suu Kyi
Make no mistake about it: God did not send Anwar Ibrahim to this part of the world to be our saviour. Anwar was not the “son” who would come and deliver us from the clutches of an evil ruler who had deprived the country of all freedom. No.
The Almighty Creator certainly did not have in His grand scheme of things to put on earth a man by the name of Anwar to lead a country called Malaysia to a better future. It is shocking that the wife of the opposition leader could come up with something like a divine mission for her long-suffering husband. Telling Malaysians that God has indeed chosen Anwar to lead his flock to Putrajaya is assuming that the level of political intelligence of the citizens is near zero.
A leader is a combination of strengths and weaknesses. He is first and foremost a human being. He is a bundle of passion, baser instincts, noble feelings, demonic urges – a mixture of saint and devil. It all depends which side of him eventually triumphs: if he can overthrow the devil in him, he can truly become an outstanding leader – even a saintly ruler – in the field of politics. If the Prince of Darkness is the victor, he will surely be a monster who will bring untold misery to his people. Holy or profane, a leader is still a man who harbours weaknesses just like the populace. But how are the common people to know that someone in their midst will one day steer them to the promised land?
Surely Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail did not have a dream in which a Voice told her Anwar is the chosen one. That will be too far-fetched. An inspiration? Unlikely. So how did the leader of a trouble-plagued party come to the amazing conclusion that her other half is God's gift to Malaysians? True, Anwar endured long years of hardship at the hand of a system that many believe is unjust and cruel. A large segment of the population do sympathise with his predicament. Still, his struggle does not make him a celestial figure. It is hard to picture him as the one and only guiding star for the people. It is even harder to imagine a halo around his head.
Malaysians have become a discerning lot. They are unlikely to buy the story that Anwar is a God-send or that what Wan Azizah said was gospel truth. They have a mind of their own and can weigh for themselves the worth of a leader. They acknowledge that Anwar is a powerful politician, but they will not go to the extent of placing him on the same pedestal as Nelson Mandela or Aung San Suu Kyi. Mandela endured almost 30 years of prison brutality for fighting against apartheid. Suu Kyi spent 15 years under house arrest for standing up to the military rulers. Both were potent symbols of resistance against harsh governments. No one in their country shouted from the pulpit that the “Black Pimpernel” or the “Iron Lady” was chosen by God from a list of mere mortals to lead the struggle. People saw their merits – their humility, their common touch, their frailities, their strengths – and went along with them. One eventually walked to freedom and with him the whole of South Africa. The other was released but still has a long way to liberty.
But Anwar is fighting more for himself to stay afloat than marching at the head of an army of the faithful to the seat of power. His personal troubles cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be turned into a war cry of the people for freedom. The conditions that existed in Mandela's South Africa during his long imprisonment ideally made him the standard-bearer for the overwhelming majority of the oppressed black. In Burma, the ruthless junta had turned Suu Kyi into the favoured champion of the people. There was no hint that God played a crucial role in their long, bitter struggle. They are mere mortals but what make them rise above the common lot are their impeccable moral credentials. Against the moral weapon of Mandela, the edifice of racism crumbled. Against the virtuous Suu Kyi, the generals continue to shake in their uniforms.
Does Wan Azizah want to strike the fear of God in the people so that they will run helter-skelter to Anwar? This is unnecessary. Such tactic only breeds cynicism. It is counter-productive. It will only drive people away. No mere mortal can invoke God and expect Him to come down on his or her side. The Great Maker is above the fray. He gave Man the freedom to act on their own. In them rest the power to make their own choice. The choice for Malaysians is clear-cut: either support Anwar warts and all or drop him for a better messiah. They need not have to wait for divine instruction.
Also read:
Wan Azizah: Anwar is God's gift to Malaysians
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
