Scholarly Communications Must Transform

Academics have been conditioned to believe that they are responsible scholars if their work appears in reputable peer-reviewed journals or comes out through academic presses. Ever since the 17th century, the "advancement of learning" as Francis Bacon called it, has depended upon the way print publications have organized the evaluation and dissemination of academic work. The print medium has been the default scholarly medium.

Well, it's been a good 300 years. But print is no longer the primary intellectual medium, and it is time for scholars to move forward.

In the digital age, scholarship cannot succeed by working upon the assumptions (nor within the formats and procedures) of a communications system based on print publishing. Today's scholarly communications system must transform, setting aside print paradigm restrictions and fully integrating with the networked knowledge environment of the digital age. 

This post introduces criteria for a digitally transformed scholarly communications system. But first, let's go back in time for a little thought experiment.

In the mid 1700s -- when learned journals really came into their own -- imagine there is some bright scholar who wishes to share some of his best thinking with the world. He is most comfortable with communicating via handwritten letters. After all, scholars used to share information about their work in just this way all the time before scholarly periodicals began appearing in the 1660s. How would our scholar do?

Well, the quality of this scholar's ideas wouldn't matter a great deal in the 1700s if he insisted on sending them around by letter.  Why? Because at this time, in the Enlightenment, information circulated principally by way of print. What people discussed in the coffee houses or in universities was what was getting published in print. In fact, the medium became so important to the message that the authority of knowledge has become associated with its appearance in print. If something was worthwhile, it was worth circulating; if it wasn't, then it wasn't worth spreading through the most prominent medium of the day. And if you refused for some reason to package your thinking within the typeset bounds of the new dominant medium, well, you just plain took yourself out of the game.

I'm sure there was a lot of whining about this as letters and hand-copied manuscripts receded from prominence among scholars. That whole infrastructure that depended upon the manuscript tradition melted away. Gone were the professional scribes, gone were the beauties of calligraphy, gone were the  illuminations that decorated medieval manuscripts. And that personal touch of something handwritten -- could it ever be replaced?

Yes it could.

And those foolish enough to cling to the outgoing medium simply exiled themselves from the new republic of letters -- the exciting new domain of printed literature that reached more people and engaged more minds than the manuscript-based communications system ever could.

Now, let's further pretend that Leonardo da Vinci, that brilliant Renaissance man active in the late 1400s, was  somehow transported forward into the 18th century. His notebooks were amazing, full of novel ideas and fascinating sketches. But he simply wouldn't have been taken seriously in the Enlightenment if his ideas went unprinted. Or, to press the analogy, if our time traveling da Vinci agreed to have his work printed, but insisted that it appear exactly as he wrote it down in his notebooks (in a coded script that took a mirror to read), then his work also would have failed because it would have defied the conventions of the new medium -- which included expanded accessibility and greater standardization of the presentation of information. Sorry Leonardo, you can't go halfway into the new medium and expect to be taken seriously. 

I claim that today's academic publishers and the institutions that uphold them are like my fictional da Vinci, going into the digital age just far enough not to appear utterly out of touch, but essentially clinging to the print paradigm and all the customs and institutions that have grown up around it. Print was a recipe for success from the Enlightenment through the 20th century; today, it is a recipe for the failure of academia as a knowledge system.

And print is persisting online, as ironic as that sounds. The scholarly genres, the methods for evaluating publications, the conventions and expectations surrounding how knowledge is supposed to circulate, be recognized, responded to, and built upon -- these remain largely unchanged. Knowledge has new habits, new identities, and a new social life within the radically transformed ways in which communication takes place today. But you wouldn't know this by examining today's scholarly communications system -- no matter how many journals now offer electronic versions. It's business as usual as far as how publications operate in the academic knowledge and reputation culture. Scholars in 2009 are still publishing as though knowledge works they way that print taught us that it works back in 1709 when print was achieving its monopoly on learned communication.

The print monopoly over knowledge is over. We must have a scholarly communications system configured to the predominant communications medium of the new millennium. This is a frightening prospect, since the new medium threatens the authority of the old, and academics have gotten very used to protecting their authority by controlling learned communication. That control is beginning to slip from their hands, just as it already has from professional journalists, the scholars' cousins. That group has also been very self-assured about their status and authority as information gate keepers. Some of them still write witty invectives against that vast sea of citizen journalists and their silly blogging -- certainly the unwashed many are not capable of conducting bonafide investigative journalism! But the crowds are typing louder than the professional journalists can shout about it. The bloggers are even Dan Rathering the Dan Rathers of the world, exposing the errors of those used to doing the exposing.

Is academia really that much more protected from the masses and their extremely powerful communication tools? Academics who refuse to transform the way they communicate and value information will find, like the professional journalists, that they simply won't play much of a role in the knowledge commons.

Scholars fancy themselves as stewards of knowledge. I claim they are incompetent stewards if they persist in following conventional academic publishing practices. Why? Because those practices  now substantially devalue and cheapen all that hard-won knowledge by slowing its release and restricting its circulation. Scholarship today cannot be considered a responsible and responsive knowledge system by continuing to operate upon the assumptions or within the formats and procedures that have characterized print communications. The scholarly monograph may not quite seem as silly as someone hand writing letters to people in the 1700s, but it is going to. 

Scholars are about to lose the knowledge franchise by not applying for full digital citizenship. Their tourist visas to cyberspace are going to expire, and no amount of email or electronically-conducted research will be adequate if the academics of tomorrow don't buy into the communications culture of today, fully. The new medium -- young as it is -- has principles and conventions that must be known and obeyed, just as the writers of manuscripts long ago had to learn to abide by the conventions of the print medium if they wanted their knowledge to have the impact that the new medium offered.

For scholarship to gain full citizenship in the digital age, it must become a fully optimized information system. And today, that means scholarly communications must meet at least the following criteria:

• Scholarly communications must be open
• Scholarly communications must be standards-compliant
• Scholarly communications must be syndicated
• Scholarly communications must be integrated into the cyber-infrastructure
• Scholarly communications must be analytics-enabled
  
• Scholarly communications must be mobile, and
• Scholarly communications must be scalable

These criteria can make for a robust scholarly information system calibrated to the networked online environment and the communications culture of today. Abiding by them will enable academic publishing to survive and thrive within the emerging knowledge environment; ignoring them will effectively decommission scholarship and disenfranchise its adherents.

I hasten to add that these requisite attributes are not automatic features of electronic communication, online periodicals, or digitized scholarly content. They are also not just the concern of information technologists. They involve technical protocols, but they are based upon philosophies about information that academics must understand, accept, implement, and expect of one another.

Source: http://www.academicevolution.com/2009/08/scholarly-communications-must-transform-1.html

These standards are in many ways at odds with the processes and quality control protocols of traditional academic scholarship. Why these criteria matter so much and how they challenge status quo publishing is the subject of this series of posts.

The Man Who Despises America

By Mark Hyman on 11.11.09 @ 6:09AM

The very next paragraph is going to make the nut jobs on the far left excitable beyond belief. I am not referring to all Democrats or even a majority of liberals. I am singling out the "they've-lost-all-touch-with-reality" crowd. This includes Media Matters for America led by the admitted hit-and-run, drunk-driving serial liar. The group includes the unshaven, bathrobe-clad unemployed who live in their mother's basement and are devout followers of MoveOn.Org. It is also the bitter, aging spinster working at the New York Times, the morbidly obese documentary film maker, and cable TV news' resident drama queen who hosts MSNBC's Countdown. They are about to simultaneously suffer from brain aneurisms. So without further delay, I'll say it.

Barack Obama despises America.

When people who voted for Obama in 2008 -- including registered Democrats -- start speaking in normal conversational voices at dinner parties, neighborhood gatherings and PTA meetings that the over-inflated ego from Chicago has it "in for America," then it's clear most reasonable people have reached the same conclusion.

The central conviction of Obama's ideology is that America is guilty of limitless moral failures and is the chief architect of the world's ills. Obama has boundless enmity for America, its key institutions, and its longtime allies. Consider these facts.

The 30-years of Obama's post-adolescent life are radical by any measure. First, he grew up listening to the ramblings of committed Communist Frank Marshall Davis. It had such a profound effect on him that he wrote fondly of Davis in his first book. In fact, that book is replete with statement after statement about how the U.S. is deeply flawed. Most Americans believe in American exceptionalism. Not so with Obama.

Patriotic Americans would not have listened to the bigoted, anti-Semitic, hate-America rants of a fringe religious leader for 20 seconds let alone for 20 years. Yet, Obama who admitted he attended services at Trinity United Church at least twice a month for two decades called Jeremiah Wright his mentor and his moral sounding board.

Nor would most Americans cultivate a close friendship with an admitted domestic terrorist and his wife whose most notable life's accomplishments were to set off bombs that killed and maimed innocent people.

Joining Al Sharpton and Jeremiah Wright in organizing attendance at Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan's 1995 march on Washington is beyond imaginable. Especially after Farrakhan demonstrated public support for Colonel Muammar Qaddafi during the Libyan Leader's most bellicose years against the U.S., which included Libyan complicity in numerous terrorist attacks.

Obama's view of America in national security and foreign affairs is profoundly disappointing to say the least.

Americans overwhelmingly view the men and women who saved Europe and the Far East during World War II as comprising the Greatest Generation. By his comments and actions, President Obama obviously thinks otherwise.

Obama did not honor American greatness on the 60th anniversary of the Berlin Airlift while on his first European trip. Instead, he accused "America [of having] shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive" toward its European allies.

He also denigrated the accomplishments of the American G.I. during World War II in the Pacific theater when he offered a thinly veiled apology for the U.S. having dropped the A-bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Those acts brought the war to a swift conclusion, perhaps saving hundreds of thousands of lives when it appeared Japan was prepared to wage an island-by-island battle to the last man.

Obama ordered the release of the so-called CIA "torture memos," seriously damaging delicate intelligence relations with allied nations and placing at grave risk the safety of U.S. intelligence officers working overseas. The impact of his action handcuffs the ability of U.S. intelligence officials to protect the U.S. and American interests from acts of terrorism.

In a matter of weeks last spring, Obama gave deference to a variety of belligerent leaders while stiff-arming longtime American allies. First, he called for closer relations with Cuba while ignoring that nation's long list of continuing human rights abuses. Then he warmly welcomed Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez at an Organization of American States summit.

Next, he failed to respond and set the record straight after Nicaragua's Communist leader Daniel Ortega listed alleged U.S. crimes and atrocities during a nearly one-hour rant at the OAS meeting. It is unsettling that in his own remarks Obama incorrectly claimed the OAS has 36 members rather than the actual 34. Ortega and the hemisphere's other Socialist leaders claim the OAS would include 36 members if Cuba and an independent Puerto Rico were allowed to join. Mere coincidence or Freudian slip?

Immediately following the OAS embarrassments, Obama ignored a request from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to meet. Obama would repeat this snub six months later before agreeing at the last moment to meet Netanyahu after the Israeli leader was en route the U.S.

In his speech before the Muslim world, Obama made the patently absurd claim of equivalency between the status of displaced Palestinians and the slaughter of millions of Jews during the Holocaust. His claim that 7 million Muslims live in the U.S. is a figure inflated by as much as 700%.

In an earlier speech, Obama claimed that the U.S. is not a Christian nation, which is at odds with the fact that 79% of Americans self-identify as Christians and the nation's founders were devout Christians.

In less than six months in office, Obama apologized for Guantanamo Bay; for alleged mistakes committed by the CIA; for U.S. policy in the Americas; for America's history of slavery; for "sacrificing [American] values;" for "hasty decisions" in the war on terror; for "America's standing in the world;" for American errors in foreign policy; and for U.S. relations with the Muslim world.

He pronounced Iran's pursuit of nuclear technology acceptable and he warned Netanyahu against targeting Iran's nuclear facilities. Obama's approach to Iran is eerily similar to that of Jimmy Carter, whose actions contributed to the fall of that nation into the control of Islamic radicals.

This summer, the door to greater individual freedoms in Iran was firmly closed shut when Obama announced the U.S would not meddle in Iran's election and he offered no encouragement to democracy activists who protested the obviously stolen elections. His silence was deafening when regime security agents savagely attacked and killed countless Iranians who took to the streets.

In contrast to his deference to anti-American leaders such as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez, and Daniel Ortega, Obama strong-armed Netanyahu on key Israeli matters. In addition to snubbing the Israeli Prime Minister's requests to meet, Obama demanded an end to Israeli settlements and insisted on the creation of a two-state Palestine solution.

Obama abandoned NATO members Poland and the Czech Republic by canceling the central Europe missile defense plan just as rogue nations North Korea and Iran make advances in nuclear and ballistic missile production. The cancellation was demanded by Moscow authorities who have adopted a more confrontational posture toward the west.

Solidarity with freedom-loving East Germans has been a staple of the American presidency for nearly 50 years. John Kennedy pronounced himself a Berliner. Ronald Reagan demanded Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev "Tear down this wall!" Yet, this bricks and mortar icon of first, Soviet totalitarianism, and then, second, the end of Soviet domination did not make the cut as Obama chose not to attend the 20th anniversary of the fall of the wall. In the summer of 2008, Obama altogether skipped mentioning the role of the U.S. -- or even the West, for that matter -- in bringing down the wall, instead crediting "a world that stands as one."

Obama's disagreement with American values and institutions is evident in domestic issues. He has stocked his administration with wild-eyed radicals who believe foreign law trumps the U.S. Constitution (Harold Koh); include an avowed Marxist and "truther" who believes George Bush was complicit in the 9/11 attack and is also an ardent supporter of cop-killer Mumia Abu Jamal (Van Jones); and include a devoted admirer of Mao Tse-tung who slaughtered as many as 75 million people (Anita Dunn). (In contrast, George W. Bush's Attorney-General nominee John Ashcroft was savaged by the news media for being an Evangelical Christian.)

Three weeks after America's first black president was sworn in, the nation's first black Attorney-General who was hand-picked by Obama, called America "a nation of cowards" for some perceived race relations shortfall. The understood meaning of Eric Holder's comments is that white people are still racists. However, the reality is the people most preoccupied with fomenting the racial divide are those who populate the ranks of the Obama Administration.

Obama's Homeland Secretary designated military veterans as terrorists-in-waiting to be equally as dangerous as other domestic terrorists including pro-lifers and citizens opposed to the flood of illegal aliens.

One of Obama's very few suggestions to cut into his $1.4 trillion budget deficit was to have servicemen and women pay for their own war injuries. He's all for providing free health care to illegal aliens but believes wounded warriors should foot their own hospital bills. In fact, the Defense Department is about the only sector of government in which Obama has proposed slashing spending.

Hours after a belligerent "African-American Studies" Harvard professor engaged in behavior unbefitting anyone let alone a professional man, Obama accused the exceedingly tolerant Cambridge police officers as having "acted stupidly" and then digressed into how people of color have been unfairly treated by white America.

Bush was prolific in quietly and privately visiting the military wounded and family of the fallen. In contrast, Obama attempted to make political capital of his one visit to Dover Air Force Base. Obama's motives were so transparent that families of 17 of the 18 fallen denied permission for Obama to engage in a photo-op alongside the returning caskets.

In May, Obama immediately issued a statement that he was "shocked and outraged by the murder" of a Kansas doctor specializing in partial-birth abortions. He called it a "heinous act of violence." Attorney-General Holder mobilized U.S. Marshals nationwide to provide protection to abortion clinics.

But Obama remained silent the very next day when two U.S. soldiers were gunned down by a Muslim extremist outside a Little Rock recruiting station. After repeated prodding for a presidential comment, the White House faxed an after-hours statement to select media outlets two days later offering a tepid remark that Obama was "saddened" without even mentioning the soldiers were murdered.

Five months later, another Muslim fanatic gunned down nearly four dozen Americans, killing 13, at the Ft. Hood army base. It was an act that demanded the most serious demeanor of the military's Commander-in-Chief. Yet, Obama referenced the massacre in the most insincere fashion just seconds after a jocular shout-out to an audience member during a public speaking engagement. It was the equivalent of attending a funeral in swimwear while en route to the beach.

The odd inadvertent comment or occasional verbal faux pas can be explained away as just that. However, Obama has a lifetime of comments and actions including 10 months as president that belie his real attitude toward the U.S. The difference between Obama and his immediate predecessors such as Ronald Reagan, the George Bushes and Bill Clinton who actually revere and honor the greatness of America and its citizens and institutions cannot be overstated.

Source: http://spectator.org/archives/2009/11/11/the-man-who-despises-america

TAHUKAH KALIAN, DI HADAPAN SIAPA KITA BERDIRI???

TAHUKAH KALIAN, DI HADAPAN SIAPA KITA BERDIRI???

Hatim Al-Isham pernah ditanya tentang solatnya. 

Ia pun menjawab, "Jika waktu solat telah tiba, aku berwudhuk dengan sempurna, dan menghampiri tempat di mana aku akan mengerjakan solat. Aku pun lantas duduk di sana sampai seluruh tubuhku terttumpu. Kemudian aku pun memulai solat dengan menjadikan Kaabah seolah berada di hadapanku, jambatan Ash-Shirath terletak di bawah kakiku, Syurga di samping kananku, dan neraka di sebelah kiriku, serta Malaikat Maut berada tepat di belakangku. Aku pun menganggap solat ini sebagai solat yang terakhir."

Hatim al-Isham yang kesebakan meneruskan katanya lagi:-
"Kemudian aku mulai mengerjakannya dalam nuansa antara raja'( harap) dan khauf (cemas). Aku bertakbir sepenuh mungkin, dan membaca lantunan ayat Al-Quran dengan tartil, kemudian aku rukuk dengan tawadhu dan bersujud dengan penuh khusyuk. Selanjutnya aku duduk di atas kaki kiri dengan menjulurkan telapaknya dan menegakkan telapak kaki kanan di atas ibu jari. Aku pun mengakhiri solat tersebut dengan rasa ikhlas. Tetapi aku tidak tahu apakah solat itu dikabulkan atau tidak!"

Mari saudaraku! Bacalah setiap potong kalimat Hatim satu persatu, kemudian berusahalah selalu untuk mengerjakan solat seperti di atas mulai sekarang dan jangan biarkan kesempatan berlalu begitu saja.Perhatikan juga Ali bin Abi Thalib. Selepas wudhuk biasanya beliau gementar. Ketika ditanya sebabnya, beliau mengatakan, 

"Sekarang aku sedang memikul amanah yang pernah diberikan kepada langit dan bumi serta gunung, tapi mereka semua menolaknya. Namun aku kemudian maju dan bersedia menerimah amanah ini". 

Inilah seni mempersiapkan solat! 

Selanjutnya perhatikan bagaimana Al-Hasan, putera Ali. Selepas berwudhuk biasanya beliau gementar, ketakutan, menghiba dan air mukanya berubah. Ketika ditanya sebabnya, beliau menjawab,

"Tahukah kalian, di hadapan Siapa aku berdiri?" 

Sungguh, tidak salah jika seorang anak menyerupai ayahnya!

MALULAH AKAN TEGURAN ALLAH.

Sayyidina Abdullah bin Ma'sud berkata, "Tatkala turun ayat, "Belumkah datang waktunya bagi orang-orang yang beriman, untuk tunduk hati mereka mengingat Allah" (Al-Hadid:16) 

Waktu itu baru empat tahun kami masuk Islam. Namun Allah telah menegur kami dalam hal kekhusyukan solat. Kami pun kemudian keluar untuk saling menegur satu sama lain, dengan mengatakan, 'Sudahkah kalian mendengar bahawa Allah telah berfirman, 'Belumkah datang watunya bagi orang-orang yang beriman, untuk tunduk hati mereka mengingat Allah?' Salah sorang lelaki pun kemudian terjatuh akibat menangis atas teguran Allah terhadap diri kami ini" Belum datang jugakah, wahai diri, waktunya bagi kita untuk meraih kekhusyukan dalam solat?! 

Tidak pernahkah anda merasakan, meski hanya sekali, bahawa Allah telah menegur anda dengan ayat di atas?! Saudaraku tercinta, malulah atas teguran Allah ini!

Source: http://silakanterpesona.blogspot.com/2009_10_01_archive.html#7678612086886452085

Omar Ong slipped into Petronas?

This news just came in on Rocky Bru's today here and his Malay Mail is publishing the story here.

Words leaked today that the controversial and member of the Oxford mafia, Omar Ong will be appointed as Petronas Director. The announcement will be soon.

It seemed that the decision was already made in early August. Despite the strong resistance expressed by Independent Directors of Petronas, Prime Minister, Dato Seri Najib Tun Abdul Razak vehemently insisted on the appointment beleived to be at the behest of Omar Ong.

Words are his appointment would pave the way for his eventual appointment as President/CEO of Petronas. Hasan Merican is due for retirement.

The general concern of those in the know of Omar Ong's background and affiliation is that he is being assigned a position beyond his own capacity and capability. His past tendency to tinker and introduce his yet to be proven successful consultancy templates.

Omar Ong is untested and should be tried to run a smaller organisation elsewhere. The succession plan in Petronas should be respected.

Why are we ready to gamble Petronas in his hand?

Petronas is a major asset of the nation and manges the nation's oil reserve and foreign exploration. It has a wealth of human resources and experiance within its fold. It has its own succssion plan and there should not be any queue jumping from outside the organisation.

The problem with the worldview of people like Omar Ong is their tendency to be fascinated with what's fashionable of the day and not ready to defy convention and norms.

When Petronas was established by Tengku Tan Sri Razaleigh Hamzah, Malaysia defied the norms set by the Seven Sisters Oil Companies of the world. The country resisted the pressure to follow the rules and terms laid down by the major oil companies and its backing superpower. That brevity and strong sense of patriotism had enabled Malaysia to have "real ownership" of its oil wealth and the money plowed back to develop the nation. Otherwise, Petronas would be in the boondogs like Indonesia's Pertamina today.

Placing personalities like Omar Ong, with linked and association with Khairy, Tingkat 4 and their network of corporate freeloaders pervading every Government linked Companies in the country, is that they are devoid of any sense of patiotism and over awed with the western corporate thinking without pondering a glimpse of the bigger national agenda.

The presence of Omar Ong was attributed to the high dependence of the Government and GLCs with wasteful brand named Corporate Consultant. Lost are the building of creativity and capacity to think and plan put our own solutions to problems and our own thinking in development.

The irony is that the presence of graduates from such branded prestigous Universities does not translate into independent thinking but becoming more dependent nore on foreigh brains. Petronas will eventually be run by outside consultants rather by from capacity and capability from within.

The most scary part is Omar will have access to confidential and important numbers that is not reported. This blogger see Omar as a security risk just like Khairy and his Tingkat 4.

Omar is dangerous because he has his own personal cause and agenda that will not be congruent with the historical social, political and economic fabric of the party and nation.

Beyond the sight of the Prime Minister, Omar Ong is not as personable to others to enable him to command the respect and loyalty from his underlings to be an effective leader is such an important organisation.

His appointment will have a discouraging effect on the sizable number of Petronas employee who has been loyal to the organisation. Omar was a Petronas scholar who did not honour his commitment to serve with Petronas and on many occasion have repeatedly rescinded in his agreement with his scholarship provider.

All due respect to the prerogative of the Prime Minister to choose and in the spirit of 1Malaysia and his call to listen to the rakyat, this rakyat plead the PM to reconsider. Also this rakyat wish to remind the PM that he had gave a commitment not emulate Pak Lah's practise of having a wunder boy and a West Wing style Tingkat 4.

This is one appointment this blogger strongly feel the PM made a mistake and this honest view is expressed without any malice but out of concern for his own Premiership. In fact, the appointment will become a political liability to Najib. This is one burden he does not need.

The PM may have confidence in Omar Ong but not those who knows Omar Ong beyond the confine of the PM's office and a natural kow tow to the number 1 of the country.

Can 1Malaysia please listen to what the fear and concern of the people?

Article source: http://anotherbrickinwall.blogspot.com/2009/09/omar-ong-slipped-into-petronas.html

The military flexes its muscle - A hint of what's to come in case things go wrong in the Peninsula

Military Invasion Of The Highest Order!

The sovereignty of Sabah is being dangerously compromised with the involvement of the Armed forces in politics. In my last posting,Malaysia,a police state in the making?,I mentioned that it's ashamed that the present regime has mobilized and abused all the public-funded institutions in this country whose fundamental roles and responsibilities are to safeguard the nation and the people's interest.

The intrusion of fully armed army personnel in demanding a villagerDatu Pengiran Ahmad Datu Ali Alam,who is a member of Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) to take down the party flag which he proudly hoisted in his house,simply because the Minister of Defence,Datuk Zahid Hamidi (below left) was making an "ops pasir" visit is not only tantamount to abuse of power but complete erosion and violation of his constitutional rights and freedom of association with the political party of his choice.

It has also been reliably learnt,that the police has forwarded the report made by Datu Pengiran Ahmad to the army for their further action.I was also informed by Datu Pengiran Ahmad that,he was also approached by a third party to withdraw his police report and negotiate the matter amicably.What was there to negotiate is absolutely mind-boggling.

I almost fell off my chair,upon hearing this,which to me is an effort to completely "cover-up" this entire episode and erase it from the face of the earth. This also further confirms my earlier post,that the said incident was a clear sign of immense fear of the present regime toward the opposition's presence, and a desperate attempt to eliminate such fear or threat by suppressing the general masses' show of support for the opposition.

I urge the Chief Minister of Sabah cum State Security Committee Chairman,Datuk Musa Aman (left),to refrain from being "confused" in his press statement that appeared in a local daily stating "DON'T FALL FOR BLOG TALK".The Chief Minister cannot be that ignorant,on the facts and events that took place in Semporna.The army must come clean and respond to their actions.

In a magnanimous stand,Supreme council member,Hj.Ansari Abdullah (below) and the state leadership of Parti Keadilan Rakyat(PKR) of Sabah called for the armed forces to keep out of the political realm of the country,at a press conference.The video clip on the press conference is presented to you here.





Watch the videos at the article source: http://advocateviews.blogspot.com/2009/09/sovereignty-of-sabah-is-being.html

A Voice from Singapore Malay

By Lee Wee Tak at 12:57 PM

Laporan The News Straits Time 30 August 2009

Dr. Suzaina Kadir, 41
Pensyarah Kanan Sains Politik, Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy (Institut Dasar Umum Lee Kuan Yew)

"Pihak kerajaan dapat bantu memberikan lapangan yang rata untuk semua"

"Jika anda tanya saya apakah maksud "keadilan perkauman", jawapan saya adalah ia bermaksudhak yang sama untuk semua dalam mendapatkan peluang dan sumber. Ini tidak sepatutnya dilihat dari segi perkauman sahaja tetapi dari segi semua pihak dan perkumpulan.

Perkara ini menjadi rumit apabila kita mengahadapi peninggalan sejarah yang telah menindas hak kumpulan-kumpulan tertentu termasuk penindasan dari segi kaum. Maka persoalan ini berkembang menjadi sama ada pihak kerajaan harus bertindak mewujudkan suatu suasana di mana semua pihak menmpunyai peluang yang sama.

Terdapat pihak yang menyatakan perbuatan ini adalah "meratakan padang persaingan yang tidak rata". Terdapat pelbagai pendekatan untuk pihak kerajaan cuba untuk mencapai matlamat ini.

Saya bersetuju dengan peringatan Menteri Mentor Lee Kuan Yew dalam Parlimen bahawa kita mesti mengingati "titik permulaan" kita. Kita perlu memahami perbincangan mengenai hubungan perkauman yang wujud ketika dan semasa waktu merdeka. Hanya dengan inilah kita boleh memahami maksud dan matlamat yang membentuk dasar-dasar yang berkenaan dengan perkauman di Singapura. Saya bersetuju bahawa kita sering tidak berbuat demikian dan tidak memahami ini dengan sepenuhnya.

Penting juga kita berbuat demikian untuk menilai sepenuhnya apa yang kita telah capai dan bolehkah kita beralih daripada dasar sekarang. Pemahaman mendalam adalah perlu untuk kita menilai pencapaian kita sama ada telah mencapai matlamat asal kita serta adakah kita telah melakukan kesalahan atau tidak.

Ini membawa saya kepada persoalan yang lebih peka lagi mengenai kaum minoriti di Singapura patut dilindungi dan dibantu oleh kerajaan atau tidak. Ini adalah soalan yang sukar untuk saya jawab dan saya kerap memikirkannya. Seperti ramai rakyat Singapura, saya diasuh dengan dan mempercayai tentang dasar meritokrasi dan saya masih berpegang mengenai dasar ini.

Saya masih ingat lagi dalam tahun lewat 80'an, sebagai penuntut universiti Melayu/Muslim, perbahasan genting ketika itu adalah patutkah pihak kerajaan patut memansuhkan subsidi pendidikan untuk orang Melayu dan saya ingat mendengar pemimpin-peminpin Melayu / Muslim menentang tindakan ini tetapi saya rasa subsidi ini harus dimansuhkan kerana bagi Singapura, cara tunggal yang membolehkan kita bergerak ke hadapan adalah hak yang sama untuk semua kaum. Tanpa mengira kedudukan istimewa orang Melayu dalam perlembagaan Singapura, saya rasa tidak perlu perlindungan khas untuk laum-kaum minoriti kerana ini bertentangan dengan fahaman meritokrasi. Saya memegang kepercayaan kuat bahawa pendekatan yang sama patut diamalkan dalam pelbagai perbadanan bantu-sendiri.

Tetapi keadaan kini bukanlah begitu jelas. Peluang sama rata untuk semua sebenarnya tidak begitu adil untuk kumpulan-kumpulan tertentu. Mungkin kerajaan masih ada peranan lagi. Saya rasa perbahasan kita harus bertuju mengenai apakah peranan kerajaan, bagaimanakah kita mewujudkan peluang sama rata untuk semua kumpulan masyarakat.

Source: http://wangsamajuformalaysia.blogspot.com/2009/09/voice-from-singapore-malay.html

The New World Order is “Communism”

September 11, 2009

by Henry Makow, Ph.D.

(This incorporates, revises and updates the essential "Central Bankers Seek Totalitarian Power" from Nov. 2003.)  

Most people think Communism is an ideology dedicated to public ownership and championing workers and the poor.  This was a simple but incredibly successful ruse which duped hundreds of millions. The ideology appealed to people who want something for nothing-  rather a large segment. 

In fact, Communism is devoted to concentrating all wealth and power in the hands of the central banking cartel (the Rothschilds and their allies) by disguising it as State power. (The State is run by witting & unwitting agents of the Rothschilds.)

Any ideology that further concentrates wealth and power in the hands of the "State" is Communism in another guise. These ideologies -- socialism, liberalism, fascism, neo-conservatism, zionism and feminism -- are fronts for "Communism," and are organized and funded by the central banking cartel.     

The essence of the New World Order is Communist. Current events are all designed to increase government power. For example, the viruses that the Protocols of Zion mentioned over a hundred years ago, and threaten us now, are designed to force people to vaccinate or quarantine. They are tests to see how much government control people will docilely accept. That's why it's very important to resist vigorously.  My hunch is that this is not the big plague but could very well be a dry run. Amazing how the mainstream media is so certain this is going to be serious.

We must ask ourselves why, when America is teetering on financial collapse, Obama would  focus his energies on expanding health care? This is like a bankrupt man buying a Mercedes instead of getting a job. My friends say it is a diversion. It certainly fits the pattern of increasing government control. 

THE RED SYMPHONY 

After The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, The Red Symphony  is the best revelation of the real state of our world. "The Red Symphony" is a 1938 Stalinist Secret Police (NKVD) interrogation of Christian Rakovsky, a Soviet ambassador who was a close associate of Leon Trotsky, Rothschild's agent. The text is online or in Des Griffin, Fourth Reich of the Rich. 

I introduced this explosive 50-page document to my readers in 2003. It strips the veil from modern history and explains the real meaning of Revolution, Communism, Freemasonry and War. It was not intended to become public knowledge. The translator, a Dr. J. Landowsky, made an unauthorized copy.

The human experiment is endangered by private interests who have usurped the function of money creation everywhere. Modern history reflects the gradual process by which they transfer all wealth and power to themselves, destroying Western Civilization and creating a world police state. In 1938, he could say the whole world is controlled by the Rothschild syndicate of Sabbatean (Illuminati, Masonic) Jewish bankers and their allies. 

Rakovsky, whose real name was Chaim Rakover, was sentenced to death in Stalin's purge of the Trotskyite faction of the party. Leon Trotsky wrote in his autobiography, My Life, : "Christian G. Rakovsky... played an active part in the inner workings of four Socialist parties-- the Bulgarian, Russian, French, and Roumanian--to become eventually one of the leaders of the Soviet Federation, a founder of the Communist Internationale, President of the Ukranian Soviet of People's Commissaries, and the diplomatic Soviet representative in England and France ..." 

Rakovsky tried to convince his interrogator that the bankers created the Communist state as a "machine of total power" unprecedented in history. In the past, due to many factors, "there was always room for individual freedom. Do you understand that those who already partially rule over nations and worldly governments have pretensions to absolute domination? Understand that this is the only thing which they have not yet reached." (emphasis mine) 

A pernicious force paralyzes our national life. Rakovsky identifies it: "Imagine to yourself, if you can a small number of people having unlimited power through the possession of real wealth, and you will see they are the absolute dictators of the stock exchange and [economy]...If you have enough imagination then...you will see [their] anarchical, moral and social influence, i.e. a revolutionary one...Do you now understand?" 

"...They created credit money with a view to making its volume close to infinite. And to give it the speed of sound....it is an abstraction, a being of thought, a figure, number, credit, faith...." (pp.245-246)

Of course they need to protect their credit monopoly by translating it into a monopoly over all power and thought. World government is necessary to prevent any country from issuing their own credit (money) or repudiating their debt. This is the New World Order. 

MARXISM

The Revolutionary Movement, which defines modern history, was a means to institutionalize banker power by destroying the old order. Marxism, "before being a philosophical, economic and political system, is a conspiracy for the revolution." Rakovsky scoffs at the "elementary Marxism...the demagogic popular one" that is used to dupe the intellectuals and the masses. (238)  Marx was hired by Rothschild to dupes the masses. Rakovsky says Marx "laughs in his beard at all humanity."  (Griffin, 240) Of course, Marx never mentioned the Roithschilds. (243) 

As for Freemasonry: "Every Masonic organization tries to create all the required prerequisites for the triumph of the Communist revolution; this is the obvious aim of Freemasonry," says Rakovsky, a high-ranking Mason himself.

The aim of the Revolution is no less than to redefine reality in terms of the interests of the bankers. This involves the promotion of subjective truth over objective truth. If Lenin "feels something to be real" then it is real. "For him every reality, every truth was relative in the face of the sole and absolute one: the revolution." 

In other words, white is black and up is down. This is the way it was in the Soviet Union and this is now happening to us. Truth and justice are being replaced by political diktat. "Political correctness" a Bolshevik term is now in common usage. Physicists like Steven Jones who question Sept.11 are silenced. (The problem with not bringing the 9-11 perps to justice is that they will do it again.) Homosexuality is normalized and promoted to increase arrested development and destroy the family. . 

Rakovsky marvels that "the benches on which sat the greasy usurers to trade in their moneys, have now been converted into temples, which stand magnificently at every corner of contemporary big towns with their heathen colonnades, and crowds go there ...to bring assiduously their deposits of all their possessions to the god of money..."

He says the Soviet five-pointed star represents the five Rothschild brothers with their banks, who possess colossal accumulations of wealth, the greatest ever known."

Isn't it strange that Marx never mentions this fact? Rakovsky asks. Isn't it strange that during revolutions, the mobs never attack the bankers, their mansions or banks?

WAR

War is the means by which the central bankers advance their goal of totalitarian world government. Rakovsky says Trotsky was behind the murder of Arch Duke Ferdinand (which sparked WWI.) He recalls the phrase used by the mother of the five Rothschild brothers: "'If my sons want it, then there will be no war.' This means that they were the arbiters, the masters of peace and war, but not emperors. Are you capable of visualizing the fact of such a cosmic importance? Is not war already a revolutionary function? War? The Commune. Since that time every war was a giant step towards Communism." 

After the murder of [Illuminati member Weimar Foreign Minister] Walter Rathenau in 1922, the Illuminati give political or financial positions only to intermediaries, Rakowsky says. "Obviously to persons who are trustworthy and loyal, which can be guaranteed a thousand ways: thus one can assert that those bankers and politicians [in the public eye] - are only men of straw . . . even though they occupy very high places and are made to appear to be the authors of the plans which are carried out."  Think Barack Obama. 

In 1938, Rakovsky outlined three reasons for the upcoming Second World War. The first is that Hitler began to print his own money. "This is very serious. Much more than all the external and cruel factors in National-Socialism." 

Secondly, the "fully developed nationalism of Western Europe is an obstacle to Marxism...the need for the destruction of nationalism is alone worth a war in Europe." 

Finally, Communism cannot triumph unless it suppresses the "still living Christianity." He refers to the "permanent revolution" as dating from the birth of Christ, and the reformation as "its first partial victory" because it split Christianity. This suggests that the "conspiracy" also contains a racial or religious factor. 

"In reality, Christianity is our only real enemy since all the political and economic phenomena of the Bourgeois States. Christianity controlling the individual is capable of annulling the revolutionary projection of the neutral Soviet or Atheist State." 

Now the Central Bankers are promoting World War Three as in "The Clash of Civilizations." Substitute Islam for Christianity above, and pit "Christians" against them.

NEW CONCLUSION

The New World Order does not only create a new power. It creates a new reality out of touch with the truth. It employs legions of pundits, professors and politicos to enforce its precepts. These are the argentur  ("agents") referred to smugly in The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
What kind of credibility do these people have knowing they will lose their jobs if they tell the truth? They are all accomplices in the 9-11 cover-up,

The truth is that society is totally subverted. Government, education, entertainment and the news media are totally in the hands of the central banking cartel. The private sector all sings from the same song book, indicating the central bankers control it.  The same applies to think tanks, foundations, NGO's, professional associations and major charities.  Intelligence agencies report to the central bankers. They and Masonic secret societies are a central part of the mechanism of control.

This article "How the Fed Bought the Economics Profession" is the template for all professions. 

As a result, society is helpless to address its real problem: the untenable concentration of wealth, power and cultural influence in the hands of Cabala-believing bankers secretly intent on culling, degrading and enslaving us. We are stymied by the bogus charge of "anti-Semitism" when most Jews are deceived and manipulated like everyone else,(although their role is vastly disproportionate.) There is no shortage of lackeys from all ethnic backgrounds willing to serve these Satanist bankers. This service defines "success" today.

"History" is a lie. Wars are a fraud. Current events are largely orchestrated. Projects are ventured for different purposes than stated. All we can do is continue to throw a spanner in their works and alert our fellow citizens.  I am not too concerned with catastrophe. I see continued gradual drift to one world order fascism. Mankind is being put into a coma, a state of arrested development based on a fixation with toys, sports, relationships, sex and money. The last thing the bankers want to do is awaken the cattle from their slumber.

Mankind is doomed as long as Cabalist central bankers control society. All that is needed is to nationalize the central banks, repudiate debts created from nothing by these bankers, break up cartels, especially Hollywood and the media, and institute strict public campaign financing. 

But as long as the majority perceive their interests in terms of the status quo, our problems will remain systemic. They won't go away.

Article source: http://www.henrymakow.com/what_is_communism.html