Intellectual Hugo...

Venezuela's revolutionary reading

By Will Grant  BBC News, Caracas Will Hugo Chavez's list make encourage reading? At April's Summit of the Americas in Trinidad, Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez surprised many by giving President Barack Obama a gift. It was a book entitled The Open Veins of Latin America. Within hours, the left-wing classic by Eduardo Galeano had shot up to number two in the New York Times bestseller list. Now the Venezuelan leader is trying to promote much more than the bible of the Latin American left. "Today we launch the Revolutionary Reading Plan," he announced live to the nation in April. "Read, read, read, read. That should be our slogan for every day." Since the announcement, the pace of the reading plan has quickened. A key component is a series of free book distribution events, which have been held in public squares across the country. The government has given out tens of thousands of free copies of Don Quijote by Cervantes and Les Miserables by Victor Hugo, saying that such events "promote reading for the construction of socialism and humanist values". 'Blinkered' At a big book give-away in the Plaza Bolivar in the capital, Caracas, the queues for a copy of Les Miserables trailed back a hundred metres. The government says it has boosted literacy levels "I'm really pleased," one man told me as he emerged from the scrum with his copy in his hands. "I've seen the film but never read the book, so this was a great opportunity as they're giving them away for free and it's too expensive to buy." But far from everyone is convinced that the Revolutionary Reading Plan is the right idea. A number of prominent Venezuelan academics, including the former president of the National Culture Council, Oscar Sambrano, have described a list of 100 texts which make up the first stage of the Revolutionary Plan as "blinkered". Titles on the list include The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx, Selected Speeches of Hugo Chavez and State Terrorism in Colombia. "There are lots of accusations that we're somehow indoctrinating people which I think is completely false," says Edgar Roa, who organised the book event in capital's main square. "What we're doing is putting books within everybody's reach, including children's literature with absolutely no political content. Or Les Miserables by Victor Hugo which can be interpreted in many different ways depending on your political colours." Benefits Beyond the book give-aways, another key part of the Reading Plan are thousands of "book squadrons".  It's incredible that a government which is promoting reading has the most expensive books in the world  Victor Garcia Random House, Venezuela These are basically roving book clubs that are intended to encourage reading on the metro, in public squares and in parks. Each squadron wears a different colour to identify their type of book. For example, the red team promotes autobiographies while the black team discusses books on "militant resistance". The government say they will spread the word of the benefits of reading to the rest of the community. The opposition say they are the thought police. The coordinator of the Revolutionary Reading Plan is a young Venezuelan called Carlos Duque. "When Fidel launched the literacy plan in Cuba in 1961, he told the people of Cuba the plan's slogan was 'We don't tell the people to believe, we tell them to read' and that's kind of the idea here too," he says. As Mr Duque thumbs through the titles produced by the government-run publishing house, El Perro y La Rana, he points out the presence of international authors such as Oscar Wilde and Edgar Allen Poe which, he says, undermines the accusations of indoctrination. "I know a lot of those academics making those claims as many were my teachers at university. They're treating the Venezuelan people as though they were simple, as though they can't make their own choices about what they're reading," he says. But the state control of reading material is only one of the complaints levelled at the Revolutionary Reading Plan. These books are free but not all reading material comes cheap "They're not promoting reading, they're giving away free books. That's something quite different" says Victor Garcia, the commercial director of Random House publishers in Venezuela. "Reading is promoted by the state in the schools. First in the nursery, then the primary schools, and then later at the high schools and universities. That's not what's happening under this plan. This isn't strengthening the education ministry or the culture ministry." Not a priority Mr Garcia also says there is a serious contradiction at the heart of the government's plan to promote literature in Venezuela. "Venezuela has the most expensive books in the world. It's incredible that a government which is promoting reading has the most expensive books in the world," he says. Mr Garcia says that while the government can afford to produce cheap books through national state-run publishers, the situation for foreign editorials is much tougher. Since the oil price fell, fewer and fewer economic activities are receiving the foreign capital they need to operate. Books have been reclassified as a "non-priority sector" meaning getting hold of the dollars needed to import them is increasingly complicated. "I think there's a great contradiction there," says Mr Garcia. "That a government which on the one hand is promoting reading, giving out Les Miserables in a public square, but doesn't allow the free importation of literature - not, it should be said, for any ideological reason, but because of currency controls." Ironically enough, he says, the government in Venezuela doesn't have the necessary rights to mass produce and distribute The Open Veins of Latin America, the book which Mr Chavez recently popularised. In the main square in Caracas, the queues of people stayed out until it was dark to pick up a copy of Les Miserables. The Venezuelan government is fiercely proud of its efforts to eradicate illiteracy, naming as one of its leading achievements during President Chavez's 10 years in office. But whether the Revolutionary Reading Plan can succeed in making Venezuela a nation of readers is another story. Repost from: BBC http://om.ly/?Dxhx

Malaysian Evasion - The Prime Minister should abolish the ISA.

Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak promised in April that his government would conduct a "comprehensive review" of the Internal Security Act, a colonial-era law that allows indefinite detention without trial. On Saturday, 10,000 Malaysians marched in the streets of Kuala Lumpur to hold him to his word, asking him to abolish the act. They were soon dispersed with tear gas and water cannons, and 589 people were arrested.

The confrontation marks a turning point for Mr. Najib's administration, which until now has refrained from employing roughshod tactics against political opponents. Earlier he won praise for releasing 26 ISA detainees and using that law to detain terrorists, not politicians or journalists as his predecessor did.

But even given that restraint, Malaysians increasingly want a more transparent and freer society. Saturday's protest was nominally about the ISA, and it was organized by Abolish the ISA Movement, a human-rights group, along with other NGOs. But it was also a larger vote of dissatisfaction with the government's decision to press ahead with a show trial of opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim and the unexplained death last month of a young opposition political aide following several hours of interrogation by anti-corruption officials. Politicians from all three opposition parties were present at the protest, including Mr. Anwar.

Malaysia's constitution guarantees the right to free speech and assembly. But police set up barricades and checkpoints on Friday to prevent crowds from gathering, and launched teargas Saturday before the march began. Under Malaysian law, street gatherings of more than five people are automatically illegal because they require a permit—which in practice is almost never granted. The prime minister's office and the home office declined to comment to us yesterday, and the police didn't return our calls.

Mr. Najib would be better served by embracing the protestors' cause. Abolishing the ISA would not only benefit Malaysians—who would still be protected from terrorists by a host of other detention laws—but would also deny Mr. Anwar's opposition coalition one of its key rallying points. Arresting opposition leaders, as police did Saturday, only augments their popularity.

Mr. Najib has so far proved to be a savvy leader and boosted his popularity ratings by introducing a series of reforms that begin to tackle Malaysia's affirmative action polices. If he wants to demonstrate his reform bona fides he could start by listening to those protesters instead of chasing them away.

Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204313604574327700317374782.html

Journalism crossroads...

Steal This Professionally Reported Content

By ERIC ETHERIDGE

Stop the presses. There's been another newspaper-blog dustup.

On Thursday, July 9, Washington Post reporter Ian Shapira wrote a feature story about Anne Loehr, a "generational guru" who advises companies and organizations about to deal with Generation Y. That same day, Gawker writer Hamilton Nolan excerpted several of Loehr's quotes from Shapira's story — for the purpose of mocking Loehr ("Generational Consultant' Holds America's Fakest Job") — and linked back to Shapira's article. So far, so normal in today's world.

Yesterday, however, Shapira took to the Post opinion pages to deliver a cri de coeur entitled "The Death of Journalism (Gawker Edition)."

A few weeks ago, I scored what passes these days for one of journalism's biggest coups, satisfying a holy writ for newspaper impact in the Internet age. Gawker, the snarky New York culture and media Web site, had just blogged about my story in that day's Washington Post. . . .

But when I told my editor, he wrote back: They stole your story. Where's your outrage, man?

His consciousness has been raised. Now the more Shapira contemplated the Gawker item, he writes, "the angrier I got, and the more disenchanted I became with the journalism business."

I enjoy reading Gawker and the growing number of news sites like it — the Huffington Post, the Daily Beast and others — but lately they're making me even more nervous about my precarious career as a newspaper reporter who enjoys, at least for the time being, a salary, a 401(k) and health insurance.

I started thinking about all the labor that went into producing my 1,500-word article. The story wasn't Pulitzer material; it was just a reported look at one person capitalizing on angst in the workplace. With all the pontificating about the future of newspapers both in the media and in Capitol Hill hearings, I began wondering if most readers know exactly what is required to assemble a feature story for a publication such as The Post. Journalism at a major newspaper is different from what's usually required in the wild and riffy world of the Internet. And that wild world is killing real reporting — the kind of work practiced not just by newspapers but by nonprofits, some blogs and other news outlets. . . .

After all the reporting, it took me about a day to write the 1,500-word piece. How long did it take Gawker to rewrite and republish it, cherry-pick the funniest quotes, sell ads against it and ultimately reap 9,500 (and counting) page views?

Shapira's essay instantly became fodder for the Sunday morning crowd on Twitter.

Media critic Rachel Sklar: "Did Gawker Rip Off The Washington Post? Yep."

No, said web evangelist Jeff Jarvis. This is just another instance of newspapers not understanding the new "link economy."

Tim O'Brien, who edits the Time's Sunday business section, was not buying Jarvis's frame: "Giving people gifts involves an exchange of value but it's not an 'economy'. Reboot the terms of the debate."

Jim Brady, a former editor of WashingtonPost.com: "So, a few thousand people encountered something you wrote who might not have otherwise? Great!"

Nick Denton, Gawker founder and owner: "Shapira's piece on the appropriation of his work by Gawker was eminently reasonable. Fanatical bloggers should chill."

Media critic Jay Rosen: "To me, the Gawker free riding story is compelling because it treats the conflict between old media and new as ambivalence within Ian Shapira."

As the day passed, the controversy moved from Twitter to blogs. At Columbia Journalism Review, Megan Garber picked up on the same themes that that had interested Rosen: "Shapira's essay . . . is a Socratic dialogue-unto-itself, a conversation engaged in by two characters of the same name: Ian Shapira the Washington Post writer, and Ian Shapira the Washington Post staffer."

Shapira-the-writer is, he notes, initially thrilled with the Gawker pickup. "I confess to feeling a bit triumphant," he notes. . . .

But Shapira-the-Washington Post-staffer … not so thrilled. Shapira-the-staffer cares—or, more accurately, is made to care—about the bottom line. ("They stole your story," Shapira's editor tells him, igniting indignation. "Where's your outrage, man?") He wants recognition, but not merely through the vagueness of attribution or the imprecise compensation of credit-via-link. He wants monetized attribution—attribution that will help, in turn, pay his salary and contribute to his 410k. He wants to be remunerated for the troubles he's gone to to create the story in question. So: he nitpicks. He nickels-and-dimes. He measures his worth as much by the hours he's spent working as by the result of those hours. He defines his impact not by the fuzzy metric of "attention," or even by the slightly-less-fuzzy metric of the links his piece has garnered, but by the revenue that comes from those online reverberations. Or, you know, the lack thereof.

In her column at Mediaite, Rachel Sklar expanded on her Twitter assessment: "The blogosphere has done something weird to the media industry: Now, the imprimatur of having contributed something is not the original byline, but whether your piece was 'picked up.' "

Pickup provides that extra stamp of relevance, that what you did is worthy of inclusion by the all-important aggregators — the outlets which determine the days need-to-know stories, so busy people with no time to read any of it will at least know what's up. Yes, yes, congratulations on getting your little article published in a top national newspaper — but a Drudge/Romenesko/HuffPo/Gawker link? Awesome!

It's not just about traffic, it's about affirmation: You're on to something. You're relevant.

But while affirmation is nice, attribution is nicer.

The issue of attribution is in play here, because Nolan did not explicitly mention Shapira or his article, but did link to the latter, three times in all. For Sklar, that's not enough.

These things are not cut-and-dried. If the Gawker item had credited Shapira by name up top, and praised his reporting at the bottom, it still would have been 8 paragraphs worth of summarizing his work. . . . Fair Use rules take into account how much of the work was used, whether it was added to/improved/commented on, and whether the allegedly-infringing use affects the market for the original work. There's no formula for this and, especially with respect to the latter, these are murky things to assess across platforms (would anyone reading Gawker have clicked on this link from WaPo anyway?). And it's hardly fair to blame Gawker for a form that has become institutionalized across the blogosphere. (Not to mention all those times that major newspapers picked up stories first broken by blogs without crediting!)

But we're at a point where something's gotta give: Where aggregators are surfing to new heights on the backs of content providers going broke paying for reporting; where audiences are now so fragmented that distribution relies so much more on the grace of these aggregators; where attribution and credit is becoming that much more important for personal brands, more important now that platforms at established publications grow more scarce and opportunities for paying work plummet. At minimum, if something's gotta give, then let it be credit and links, considering what's being "given" from the other side.

Matthew Ingram is willing to concede Nolan should have been more forthcoming with the credit: "I'd be willing to agree that Gawker could have— and maybe even should have, in an ethical sense — mentioned Shapira and his story specifically." Still, even absent that, Ingram is not buying the accusation of theft.

But there is no way in heck that a post with three links and an explicit reference to the source constitutes anything approaching a "rip-off" or the "death of journalism." How about the death of hyperbole, and the rebirth of rational debate about the value of linking and traffic, and/or the ethics of sourcing online? That would be nice.

At the Book Over, Hugh McGuire sees the controversy not as one of fair use or link etiquette, but something else entirely: "The problem is measuring the value of content."

Pre-web, written content was relatively scarce, and people wanted to read fluff. So newspapers paid writers to write lots of fluff, which filled a demand for a valuable commodity. The fluff was used that to sell newspapers & ads, and subsidize hard news.

But in the world of the web, we are swimming in a sea of written content. Much of it fluff. The overwhelming majority of it produced without a cent getting exchanged - by bloggers. Some of it is produced by professional blog outfits like Gawker, who produce it much cheaper than a newspaper does.

So, when other people are providing for free some of the kinds of content you used to sell, then you can't keep selling it. And the "free" is on both ends: free for readers, and free from producers. . . .

So . . . my question is: why would newspapers pay a staff writer to spend a full day investigating & writing a 1,500 word fluff piece when there are a million fluff pieces all over the web getting published every day? What value are they adding to the info marketplace, and is that value worth the money/time they've spent on it?

Shapira's essay also drew a response today from Gabriel Synder, Gawker's editor-in-chief, who readily agreed with the charge that "blogs are killing newspapers," though not in the way you might think.

It's not by mindlessly cutting and pasting from newspaper web sites. Gawker would go out of business if we did that all day.

The bigger threat is that blogs say the things that hidebound newspaper editors are too afraid to let their reporters write.

Look at Shapira's article, says Synder. It's missing "anything resembling a point of view." And that's exactly what Nolan's Gawker post provided.

Hamilton succinctly digested Shapira's piece and gave his post a headline ("'Generational Consultant' Holds America's Fakest Job") and lede ("The fakest job corporate America ever created was 'Branding Consultant' — until now") that was probably much closer to what Shapira wanted to write but couldn't. It's hard to imagine that in the course of working on his piece — a process that Shapira describes as two hours of sitting in on one of Loehr's courses and what must have been four truly grueling hours of transcribing the session — that he didn't have a chuckle or two at lines like, "I want to touch 500,000 lives this year. I am going to touch 500,000 lives this year. I do have spreadsheets that mark how many people I am touching." He suggests as much in his Outlook piece, complaining that Hamilton got to "cherry-pick the funniest quotes." (Emphasis mine.) So why wasn't there an ounce of humor in the profile?

Now confronted with existential threats, newspaper people rarely look at the failings of their own editorial product. After all, it's tough to criticize something when you're also trying to argue it's worth saving. . . .

Synder closed with a return to Sklar's topic — the need for affirmation. In this instance, that of a certain DC daily.

If you're going to fixate on blog links as the death knell of the industry, we have a lead for you: The threat is coming from inside the building. Nearly every day — 26 times alone in July — a Washington Post staffer not only sends us links to its expensive reporting, but even pulls out the most interesting quotes for us, so as to make it easier for us to pirate. I have strong feelings about revealing the identity of any Gawker tipsters, but in this case, it seems the public interest is simply too pressing and we must reveal this threat to journalism:

Maria Cereghino

Manager, Communications
Washington Post Media

Source:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/03/steal-this-professionally-reported-content/

y0e
+0. I do have spreadsheets that mark how many people I am touching." He suggests as much in his Outlook piece, complaining that Hamilton got to "cherry-pick the funniest quotes." (Emphasis mine.) So why wasn't there an ounce of humor in the profile?

Now confronted with existential threats, newspaper people rarely look at the failings of their own editorial product. After all, it's tough to criticize something when you're also trying to argue it's worth saving. . . .

Synder closed with a return to Sklar's topic — the need for affirmation. In this instance, that of a certain DC daily.

If you're going to fixate on blog links as the death knell of the industry, we have a lead for you: The threat is coming from inside the building. Nearly every day — 26 times alone in July — a Washington Post staffer not only sends us links to its expensive reporting, but even pulls out the most interesting quotes for us, so as to make it easier for us to pirate. I have strong feelings about revealing the identity of any Gawker tipsters, but in this case, it seems the public interest is simply too pressing and we must reveal this threat to journalism:

Maria Cereghino
Manager, Communications
Washington Post Media

Source: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/03/steal-this-professionally-reported-content/

What gives?

She's Definitely Not My Type

Being not very smart, I decided I needed to educate my self a bit more. You see, I have been especially intrigued that the BN and Umno cronies seem to do a good job of masquerading and disguising themselves as committed to democracy. Yet, for some strange reason, I have had this lingering feeling that they not only don't defend democratic values, they are actually actively enforcing authoritarian control.

But that got me wondering: What exactly are the central hallmarks and characteristics of an authoritarian regime? I mean we all have some rough ideas, right? But exactly what does it take for a regime to be characterised as authoritarian? Do I know? I had to be honest with myself; as I said, I had some idea but I could not confidently say I fully grasped what makes a regime authoritarian.

So I thought I'd get a little fancy and look it up. Here's what I learned and you can go to this link for a more detailed description. For now, here are ten especially revealing characteristics of authoritarianism:

1. Centralisation of power to enforce a repressive system that excludes potential challengers
2. Rule of men – not the rule of law that prevails
3. Rigged elections
4. Major political decisions made by unelected officials behind close doors
5. A non-accountable bureaucracy staffed by the regime
6. No guarantee of civil liberties and no tolerance for a meaningful opposition
7. Repressive control of civil society, such that civic and political groups are heavily regulated and controlled – which would reflect the lack of free speech and a free press
8. Control is maintained through the support of the security apparatus and through control of the opposition and internal dissent
9. Creation of conformity and allegiance through intense propaganda
10. Marked by indefinite rule by a single party.

The next time anyone – especially some Umno/BN puppet - claims we're a democracy, perhaps it would be worth reminding them of the above. There is clearly no doubt that our system – in very explicit ways – exhibits each one of the above ten traits.

Of course, as we see with our experience, authoritarian regimes can disguise themselves and dress themselves up as "democratic." After all, we hold elections! We have a parliament! I'm reminded of the fact that Iran recently held elections, and I don't think anyone with even bird brains thinks Iran is a democracy. Besides, even a dictator like Saddam Hussein held elections in Iraq and it had a sitting parliament.

If rouge states like Iraq under Saddam and the North Korea regime can hold elections and have a sitting parliament, imagine how easy it would be for a party such as Umno to pretend it leads a democratic government.

Well, think about it this way: We all know Samy Vellu disguises his actual appearance – what you see is not what you get, right? Sometimes, it really is not difficult to see something for what it is.

And what Umno/BN is dressed up as is obvious and transparent to me. Like a bad seductress trying to manipulate, scheme and even act out arrogantly and abusively while disguising her actual nature, she's definitely not my type.

But looks can be deceiving - so beware.

Original post: http://imagineequality.blogspot.com/2009/08/shes-definitely-not-my-type.html

Where did "I" begin?

UMNO Was Born Out of Demonstrations / Illegal Gatherings (With Pictures)

I just cannot believe my ears when I watched TV3 and TVI news yesterday. They had strings of UMNO leaders, past and present, condemning the anti-ISA gathering last Saturday. 

The biggest blunder came from our own, Dr Mahathir Mohd. He says that the culture of illegal gathering is the culture of Anwar Ibrahim and not of Malaysian. Maybe he forgot that UMNO itself was born out of illegal gatherings. Refer to the picture above.

Najib says that the ISA protest is an inconvenience. I bet the British said the same thing too when Malays came out in numbers protesting against Malayan Union back in 1946 in various illegal gatherings throughout the country.

Funny, because in major cities around the world, i.e. London, New York, Paris, Amsterdam etc, protests are a normal scene and yet none of the major leaders of the world had characterized these gatherings as being an inconvenience.

UMNO leaders are history blind and hypocritical. When UMNO people organized racists gathering bordering on sedition, never was UMNO people arrested or prevented from organizing their rallies.

Aziz Sheikh Fadzir should have been arrested under ISA long time ago and charged under the Sedition Act. Yet, we see Aziz free to contest as UMNO candidate in Kulim Bandar Baru ( although he lost).

Najib organized a seditious gathering in Stadium TPCA back in 1987. Yet, Najib was never arrested. Instead, leaders which has absolutely nothing to do with the gathering was arrested in large numbers.

Najib and a few MCA leaders were given a holiday in Australia to cool down while numerous opposition leaders suffered under the ISA interrogation and solitary confinement.

Clearly, ISA is a tool to serve UMNO. And whatever is inconvenient to UMNO is inconvenient to the current practice of corruption and money grabbing among UMNO leaders.

Original post: http://www.malaysiawaves.com/2009/08/umno-was-born-out-of-demonstrations.html

The RPK Interview and the political conundrum

sunday, 02 august 2009

Here we publish a paragraph an Op Ed by our Editor Kazi Mahmood in his now very own blog: www.worldfutures.info. Malaysian politics is going into the doldrum and some will say down the drain. Both sides, the government and the opposition seem to be sitting on strong fences which are tough to be broken down by either groups. However, if you ask me, the opposition has the momentum going and it will be very interesting to see how the Umno and the BN handles the slippery road ahead of them. Wfol.tv interviews Raja Petra Written by kazi mahmood Sunday, 02 August 2009 03:50 In a revolution we can't avoid victims. People get hurt. And let's face it; what we are seeing in Malaysia today is a revolution of sorts. So we will see victims. Teoh was a victim. Anwar is also a victim. We shall be seeing many more victims before this revolution is over. But we shall make them all pay for this. When the government falls we shall see a lynching a la the French, Bolshevik, Iranian, etc., revolutions. This revolution may yet turn bloody. We never know. But Umno is certainly pushing its luck and one day it will push too far and blood will flow on the streets like it did once in 1969. These and other poignant phrases constitute the Wfol.tv website's first interview with Raja Petra Kamarudin, the Malaysian political activist and Malaysia-Today editor in chief. It is a good interview in which RPK (as he is popularly known) expresses himself on what we thought were the salient points of Malaysia's political development in the recent days. Malaysian politics is going into the doldrum and some will say down the drain. Both sides, the government and the opposition seem to be sitting on strong fences which are tough to be broken down by either groups. However, if you ask me, the opposition has the momentum going and it will be very interesting to see how the Umno and the BN handles the slippery road ahead of them. Here I publish some of the lambasting phrases from RPK: On the mysterious death of a Democratic Action Party (DAP) aide, Raja Petra says this event would have a great impact on Malaysian politics. He adds that this epitomises what the non-Malays have to endure at the hands of the enforcement agencies in Malaysia. "Teoh's death may have been the thing needed to really turn the stomachs of the Chinese. His death is most unfortunate. But his death woke up the Chinese like never before. Now the Chinese realise that their lives are cheap." he added in very powerful terms. I am sure the interview will make waves as he made a few more explosive statements that shows how much gut this personality who hails from a royal family in Malaysia have. It is impressive - interesting is far too small a word - to get RPK to answer to our questions. The interview was done via our office from Riau, Indonesia. My role was to read it, add some texts for our readers to understand what it was all about and get the picture of RPK up on the wfol.tv website. That is not so great a work to do for own organization but it is more than exciting to publish an interview - our very first in this series - on a Malaysian supremo.

RPK Interview

Mahathir is man of many facets

written by ali cordoba

sunday, 02 august 2009

Ali Cordoba: Riau Islands, Indonesia. Wfol.tv, 2 August 2009:-  Exclusive - No Holds Barred and Straight Forward...this is the very first interview of World Future Online TV with Raja Petra Kamarudin, the famous Editor of the most popular blog on the Malaysian webscene.  This interview is brought to our many, many readers in a bid to get a better understanding of the Malaysian political scene and more interviews of Malaysian figure heads (opposition or government) will follow.  (Note: Interview was carried via email exchanges with RPK)     The poignant phrases in the RPK interview constitutes the Wfol.tv website's first interview with Raja Petra Kamarudin, the Malaysian political activist and Malaysia-Today editor in chief. It is a good interview in which RPK (as he is popularly known) expresses himself on what we thought were the salient points of Malaysia's political development in the recent days.   Read our Editor's note on the Interview. Additional Read: Our Editor's Note on the RPK Interview       Wfol.tv: The Teoh case: What is your personal opinion on this matter? We have read your articles on the issue yet we feel that it is better to ask you directly what you think of the whole thing? We do not want to ask if its murder or suicide. What we want to hear from you is do you think this will influence local politics? In what way?  RPK: It would certainly have a great impact on Malaysian politics. Teoh's death epitomises what the non-Malays have to endure at the hands of the enforcement agencies. Indians and Chinese suffer the most when it comes to detention and other matters related to the Malaysian authorities. They treat Malays gentler compared to the non-Malays.  The fact that Umno says the Chinese opposition to what the MACC did to Teoh translates to the Chinese challenging Malay political power strengthens this argument. The MACC and all other agencies of its ilk are perceived as Malay agencies and this is supported by Umno's own argument. To challenge the MACC means you are challenging the Malays. Therefore, what happened to Teoh can also be translated as the Malays oppressing the Chinese. Even Umno agrees with this.  Teoh's death may have been the thing needed to really turn the stomachs of the Chinese. His death is most unfortunate. But his death woke up the Chinese like never before. Now the Chinese realise that their lives are cheap.  Wfol.tv: The racial issue: What should the government do to put an end to the race problems that has arisen in Malaysia after the 2008 elections? We are asking you due to the fact that you are known to be a person who do not put race ahead in your political, citizen and journalistic concerns. In short, do you think this current government can end the race problems in Malaysia?  RPK: Certainly not. Barisan Nasional is perpetuating racism. The very foundation of Umno, MCA and MIC, the three leading component members of Barisan Nasional, is race. They need race to remain relevant. Minus race, who needs Umno, MCA and MIC?  See what happened on March 2008. When the races united, Barisan Nasional suffered a beating. Only when the races are divided can Barisan Nasional excel.  The only way to eliminate racism would be to eliminate Barisan Nasional. You end the plague by burning the rats.  Wfol.tv: The Malays are being blamed for the 'race' troubles in the country. However, we see little done by the non-Malaysia in particular to try to cement the races. We are thinking of the rich and loaded Chinese citizens of Malaysia who were given the opportunity to make it and reap the benefits of the years of economic boom. Today they are filthy rich, so to say, but yet they want more and they are not helping the country in any ways. What we mean is they are taking and asking more but they are giving much less to the country. Think of the list of 40 top richest people in Malaysia for example.  RPK: You are of course talking about the Barisan Nasional Chinese and Indians. They are as corrupt and racist as the Umno Malays. Umno, MCA and MIC are cut from the same cloth. Yes, not only are the Malays to blame. The 'running dogs' of the Malays are equally guilty.  You are right. The Chinese and Indians are no less guilty, in particular the Chinese who put money before all else. These people would sell their daughters for money. They know what Umno stands for. Yet they support Umno because of money. They are traitor to their own race.  Wfol.tv: Tun Mahathir has turned the 'race' issue as his horse battle. Is he really gunning for 'Malay' power or is he simply trying to gain attention once again in the already competitive political landscape in Malaysia? What would be your advise to local politicians who are outright playing the race card to win support, votes and attention?  RPK: Many Chinese and Indians became super-rich during the time of Dr Mahathir. Mahathir is a racist when it comes to politics but not when it comes to money. He uses race to garner Malay support but works with the Chinese and Indians when it comes to business.   Mahathir is man of many facets. And he can switch from one to the other whenever the situation demands it. That makes Mahathir a good politician. Good politicians must know how to play to the gallery and how to change colours like a chameleon. And Mahathir can do this.   Take that as a positive statement on my part.  Wfol.tv: The sodomy II case: Do you think the case is already lost by the Anwar Ibrahim camp?  RPK: That depends on whether you are talking about the legal system or the court of public opinion. Anwar would probably lose his battle in court. That would not be a surprise to most of us. And we would not be too worried about that. Anwar is, after all, collateral damage.  I know this sounds very cold; but maybe the best thing for Pakatan Rakyat is for the government to send Anwar to jail, yet again, on trumped up charges. Teoh's death was a boost to the opposition, as much as this may sound insensitive and cold-blooded of me to say so.  In a revolution we can't avoid victims. People get hurt. And let's face it; what we are seeing in Malaysia today is a revolution of sorts. So we will see victims. Teoh was a victim. Anwar is also a victim. We shall be seeing many more victims before this revolution is over.  But we shall make them all pay for this. When the government falls we shall see a lynching a la the French, Bolshevik, Iranian, etc., revolutions. This revolution may yet turn bloody. We never know. But Umno is certainly pushing its luck and one day it will push too far and blood will flow on the streets like it did once in 1969.  Wfol.tv: The rise of pro-Umno blogs: Will this phenomena be an additional plus to the Umno and the BN or will it sink them further due to the nature of these blogs, which borders on pure racism with an extreme right nature? Would you qualify yourself as a 'left-wing' political activist?  RPK: Ummo admitted it did badly in March 2008 because it lost the Internet war. So, if you can beat them, join them. And Umno too wants to fight in the Internet arena. But it is causing more damage than helping it cause. It is like giving a man a gun and he shoots his own side.  Starting a Blog is one thing. But the popularity of your Blog depends on its content. And this is what Umno can't understand. It has no content worth reading.  Wfol.tv: The authorities are curbing on the Internet, attempting at collecting all information possible on anti-government bloggers and so on. Will this affect websites like Malaysia Today? Or do you feel the authorities are actually fighting against the windmills?  RPK: I suppose when the 'committee' made the decision that I should go underground and avoid being sent back to Kamunting this is exactly the reason why. I was in fact preparing myself for a long stint under ISA. The 'committee', however, felt that my two months under ISA from September to November 2008 did not do Malaysia Today any good.  No, Malaysia Today will continue, in spite of what they are trying to do to silence us. We shall continue hitting Barisan Nasional and Umno until it is forced out of office. That is my mission and vision. And there is very little Barisan Nasional and Umno can do short of sending an assassin to put a bullet in my head. Original post: http://wfol.tv/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1242&Itemid=9

Malaysia - a Police State?

Sayang Malaysia Negara Polis

Posted August 1, 2009 by myzaidibrahim

Hari ini (1 Ogos 2009) buat kali pertama dalam sejarah hidup saya, saya menjadi mangsa bom gas pemedih mata. Pedih sungguh mata dan hati saya! Inilah pengalaman saya berhimpun dan berarak bersama dengan berpuluh ribu rakyat Malaysia di Kuala Lumpur. Ia benar-benar membuka mata saya di samping memberi banyak pengajaran.

Saya amat terkejut kerana tidak menyangka betapa kejamnya polis bertindak terhadap rakyat yang hanya berhimpun dan berjalan secara aman. Rakyat hanya mahu meluahkan perasaan tentang buruknya Akta Keselamatan Dalam Negeri (ISA) yang perlu dimansuhkan secepat mungkin. Rakyat kita tidak membawa senjata; mereka hanya membawa anak-anak untuk menyedarkan warga kecil betapa kejamnya ISA. Lelaki, perempuan, tua dan muda, pelbagai kaum, bermacam agama, semuanya berhimpun secara aman di ibu kota. Hak untuk berhimpun secara aman adalah hak asasi rakyat. Tapi nampaknya hak yang dijamin oleh Perlembagaan Persekutuan ini sudah tidak ada guna lagi. Hak kita sudah hancur kerana polis yang bersenjata, yang berkuasa penuh, yang sombong dan angkuh, kini telah menentukan hak kita. Bila polis kata perhimpunanan itu haram, maka kita semua yang berhimpun atas dasar kebebasan dan hak yang telah dijamin oleh Perlembagaan Persekutuan, telah menjadi mangsa kekerasan polis. Ya, polis yang mengaku diri sahabat rakyat, kini menunjukkan belang sebenar mereka. Tak sangka, dengan sedikit kuasa itu, mereka sudah merasakan diri seperti Fira'un.

Saya sebagai warga Malaysia yang prihatin telah turut sama menyertai perhimpunan aman ini. Tapi saya bersama dua anak saya dan kawan-kawan lain tak tahu ke mana mahu dituju kerana polis telah tutup banyak jalan. Kami hanya mahu ke Istana Negara untuk menyaksikan penyerahan memorandum anti-ISA. Kami telah tersepit di sebatang jalan dekat Masjid Negara. Ramai yang berarak menghala ke Jalan Kuching ke arah Selangor Club; kami pun ikut sama. Niat kami hanyalah untuk bersama-sama orang ramai menunjukkan sokongan. Tetapi bila sampai sahaja di belakang Selangor Club, polis dengan ganasnya telah menyembur gas pemedih mata dan menggunakan pncutan air tekanan tinggi. Lintang-pukang orang berlari. Saya pun tunggang-langgang lari.

Polis kemudian meminta orang ramai bersurai. Tetapi ke mana nak bersurai kerana semua jalan sudah ditutup. Tak ada cara lain kecuali patah balik ke arah Masjid Negara. Saya pun bersedia untuk bersurai. Tapi bila sampai dekat dengan Masjid Negara, ada pula sekatan jalan polis. Di situlah saya lihat orang ramai angkat tangan supaya polis membenarkan mereka bersurai ke arah bagunan Dayabumi. Saya juga angkat tangan kerana kami memang nak bersurai. Ada dua orang wanita tua bersama saya yang merah serta berair mata mereka di samping terbatuk-batuk akibat bom gas pemedih mata. Sa orang peserta lelaki yang cacat anggota dengan crutches nya tidak dapat lari. Saya tak tahu apa nasib maanusia berani ini. Kasihan saya melihat mereka semua.

Rupa-rupanya polis sudah berniat jahat. Tanda angkat tangan tidak ada erti kepada mereka. Walau pun melihat ramai antara kami yang sudah mahu bersuara, polis terus melepaskan bom pemedih mata. Saya dapat lihat wajah-wajah polis berkenaan, kebanyakannya orang Melayu, yang penuh benci dan kesumat dendam. Maka terpaksa lagi kami berlari elakan diri. Tapi nak ke mana lagi? Di Jalan Kuching dekat Selangor Club pun polis sudah melemparkan bom pemedih mata. Bom dari canisters yang tidak ada jenama kata kawan saya. Bererti bom jenis buatan haram. Dinegara kita apa pun boleh dilakukan Ramai orang termasuk saya terpaksa lari masuk ke dalam hutan kecil berhampiran Jalan Kuching dengan melompat pagar bangunan di situ. Mujur juga ada pengawal keselamatan di situ yang baik hati yang telah melepaskan kami keluar dari perkarangan bangunan tersebut. Semoga Allah membalas budi baiknya. Di sana barulah kami dapat keluar untuk bersurai. Masa itu mata kami semua sudah merah, suara parau dan seluar koyak akibat terpaksa melompat pagar. Saya pun baru sedar bila sudah berumur begini lutut sudah tidak sekuat waktu muda dulu.

Memang jelas hak dan kebesan kita semakin terhakis. Apa yang polis lakukan dengan cara mengepung orang ramai yang hanya mahu berhimpun secara aman dan membelasah mereka dengan semburan air dan bom pemedih mata adalah untuk menunjukan kepada rakyat bahawa kerajaan Barisan Nasional tidak peduli dengan kehendak dan keperluan rakyat. Mereka mahu mengajar rakyat Malaysia bahawa era Pak Lah yang mahu mencuba membuka ruang kebebasan sudah tidak wujud lagi. Ini era Najib yang tak mahu dengar dan tak terima pandangan rakyat.

Bagi polis yang jelas bekerjasama dengan UMNO dan Barisan Nasional, mereka mahu rakyat takut kepada mereka. Mereka tidak mahu kita di Malaysia bebas seperti Indonesia dan Filipina yang memberi rakyat peluang bersuara dan berhimpun secara aman. Mereka mahu semua rakyat sedar bahawa Malaysia adalah Negara Polis seperti Myanmar. Sesiapa yang berhimpun dianggap bersalah kecuali mereka yang berhimpun untuk menyokong Najib dan pemimpin UMNO yang lain. Inilah mesej 1Malaysia ciptaan Najib yang memberi amaran kepada rakyat bahawa kekerasan akan digunakan pada bila-bila masa sahaja demi mengekalkan kuasa.

Tapi rakyat Malaysia termasuk saya juga ingin menyampaikan berita kepada Najib. Kita akan berkorban apa saja untuk menentang kekejaman dan kezaliman. Kita yakin kita di pihak yang benar kerana kita menentang salaha guna kuasa, penyelewengan dan rasuah. Kuasa rakyat akan menang juga suatu hari nanti di negara Malaysia yang tercinta ini, InsyaAllah.

Original post: http://myzaidibrahim.wordpress.com/2009/08/01/sayang-malaysia-negara-polis/