Sunday, July 31, 2011

Biometrics voter verification - myth and reality

First of all, this is not a scientific discussion as most facts are based on assumption. Why I carried on with this post is simple:

Unless it is proven me wrong otherwise, else I still have doubt over feasibility of implement biometrics (fingerprint) verifications during the elections.

The Elections Commissions (EC) announced that they will implement biometrics voter verification system to counter possible phantom voters. This announcement is echo by the Government that biometrics verification is the best way to determine validity of voters.

One of the Bersih 2.0's 8 demands is to deploy indelible ink during the voting process to eliminate possible multi voting by a physical person.

It seems EC has countered Bersih 2.0's demand on the use of indelible ink but the two are coming from the same source, i.e. voter with valid documentation (MyKad), but addressing different issue.

EC mentioned that its biometrics verification is based on information stored in MyKad, i.e. voter's MyKad number and his/her fingerprint. If the verification device matches fingerprint stored in MyKad against the physical voter presence with his/hers physical fingerprint via the fingerprint reader, then it should be a valid voter, if the voter is designated to vote at the said polling station. There is no verification against authenticated hosts, i.e. National Registration Department's (NRD) servers, which can be very costly and challenging for polling station that may not have proper network access to the NRD hosts.

Let's start with use of indelible ink. Indelible ink provide quick and easy way to identify whether the voter indeed voted, without the need of equipment. This prevents one person from voting more than once in the elections, and effectively prevent both phantom voters, and voters who have been found appeared in the electoral roll more than once.

However, for biometrics verification, based on information released from the EC, is only good to deter possible phantom voters who should not exist in the first place. It does not address one voter with multiple votes, here is why:

If the electoral roll contains a voter appeared in different poling stations, using biometrics verification does not help since electoral roll allows the said voter to vote in more than one polling station. It is in effect legitimate the said multiple vote casting instead of invalidating or deterring.

There is no way for one to verify voter based on visual contact except via biometrics devices, and biometrics devices are in turn based on information stored on MyKad, and software application installed on the computer where verification device is attached to.

The above assumes that electoral roll is tainted, both Bersih 2.0 and the Oppositions have raised doubt over accuracy of the electoral roll with evidence in the past, yet it is still not rectified.

Second, biometrics verification has its own flaw, thus, it is always coupled with other method of verification should fingerprint matching failed:

1. Women during their periods, may find their fingerprint less clear thus may have difficulty picking up by biometrics sensor to effectively match with record stored in MyKad;

2. For some reason, fingerprint was distorted due to injury, verification can be difficult as the source is damaged;

3. Damaged MyKad. No one will notice their MyKad is faulty until they use it, since it is not meant for daily use, it is hard for one to confirm that their MyKad is effective;

The above may have invalidate valid voters from exercising their duty, unless EC does have contingency for voters in the above categories. EC has thus far never address this issue. Even if EC has alternatives to address the above, does it means it is possible to manipulate by damaging MyKad, for example, and avoid the biometrics verification?

If I let my imagination runs, concur with the above, extending the damaged MyKad scenario:

Throughout the years, there have been many incidents that MyKad faulty at some point, thus when MyKad holder found out, they have to get their replacement MyKad from NRD.

The question now: what is the treatment of the faulty MyKad? If it is supposed to destroy, how? Will it be possible that these damaged MyKad falls to unauthorized hands? We do not know.

If this is possible, then the damaged MyKad point raised above allows these MyKad holder to avoid biometrics verification, and if the name appeared in the electoral roll, and EC allows alternatives to verify without biometrics, isn't this defeat the purpose of biometrics verification all together?

The list can go on with wild assumptions, that I will not want to speculate further.

Conclusion: the use of biometrics verification, set aside implementation cost involved, has serious flaws to address, and addressing such flaws requires transparency of the entire process, not just voting process, but issuance of MyKad, and treatment of faulty MyKad, which is too big the task for all to appropriately address for all concerned.

In addition, it does not prevent multiple voting if there's no central servers to store up to date information, i.e. whether the same MyKad is already used in one polling station and try on another, which electoral roll has such duplications.

Even if the error is minimal, it may indeed influence the elections result and may not reflect the true will of the majority.

Saturday, July 23, 2011

新闻解读:首相评赵明福皇委会报告

本解读纯粹是天马行空,看官若要对号入座,后果自负!!

政府需调查才能对付违规官员 首相促民众莫质疑皇委会报告 - 當今大馬

告诉你们,我们政府其实对皇委会有关反贪官员违规一事非常不满意!他们这么可以这么说?不过,我们是政府,我们可以重新调查,而你们,哼!门都没有!

首相纳吉今日敦促人民不要质疑皇家委员会就赵明福死因所作出的调查结果。

就是叫你们不要呱呱叫,不然。。。。。


他说,由国家元首陛下御准成立的皇委会是一个独立、公正及拥有诚信的机构,并根据事实下定论。

虽然大家都知道皇委会的成员都是首相“建议”最高元首委任,不是最高元首自己做主。这句话的意思是:如果万一皇委会被揭发是一个不独立、不公正、没有诚信的机构,你们找最高元首去,不要再来烦我。

还有,我说这是事实,就是事实,你们不要在吵吵闹闹!



他质问,若人民继续质疑皇委会的结论,那还有其他替代方案可彻查赵明福的死因?

意思就是说:结论不可以被推翻,因为我不会再花时间跟你们玩这游戏,认输吧!


“不要质疑(皇委会的)结论,因为它将违背成立调委会的目的。”

如果还是执迷不悟,社会主义党的那6只,就是你们的榜样!

纳吉于今早抵达玻璃市展开一天的访问。他今日主持玻州国阵会议后,在记者会上受询时这么说。

。。。。。。。。

Wednesday, July 20, 2011

又是媒体

偶尔路过,读到这篇,又有感而发。。。

張立德
換作是你,會怎麼做?
Created 07/13/2011 - 19:05

同事曾毓林在面子書上針對一些別有用心的人對星洲日報有關709集會的報導羅織了一些莫須有的罪名,與一班面友做了相當深刻的交流。

毓林是以一名報社員工的身份與網友們坦誠的交流。這說明了,我們報社員工樂意與讀者/非讀者交流,只要是抱著誠懇和理性的態度,我們願意和大家做最“親密”的接觸。

我和毓林一樣對目前一些網民對星洲日報和其他華文報“喊打喊殺”的惡言相向,無不感慨――幾乎每一場重大事件,總有人把焦點牽引到華文報,尤其是《星洲日報》身上。

这点我同意,应该论证而不是恶言相向。可是对于提出疑点的读者,媒体又如何应对?是不是也一样喊打喊杀?

沒錯,每個人都有發言的權利,能夠自由表達本身的立場,可以選擇抵制、抗議某一個人和某一件事,但是在行使權利之前,必須先做具體分析,不能盲目的人雲亦雲生搬硬套就給對方加上一個罪名,亂貼標籤。

这点我也同意。对于邓议长、和对付敌对媒体的动作,是否又是乱贴标签呢?

有一位網友就說得好,淨選盟的8大訴求中,其中一項就是自由與公平使用媒體,支持709集會卻動輒打壓媒體,不禁令人質疑其動機。

这个,我不同意。媒体若无犯错,又何必计较追风补影之说?

這裡我想到“理想、理解、理性”3個層面。

言論自由應是每一位公民的理想。唯言論自由,是互相尊重的過程,在爭取的當兒,更要學會施予。新聞自由,是言論自由最重要的部份。在爭取新聞自由的路上,媒體工作者有所堅持,不輕言放棄,不自我設限,這是許多媒體工作者的理念。但是爭取新聞自由的責任不只是落在媒體身上,每一位公民也要扮演好角色,做媒體的後盾,一同達致理想。

我們媒體工作者對本身的處境有深刻的理解,政治風險與經濟風險的雙重壓力,令媒體人天天如履薄冰,戰戰兢兢。然而,民眾對媒體,尤其是華文報面對的種種限制和壓力又理解多少?

天啊!又回到惯常的措词。新闻工作者若以言论自由、新闻自由为理念,当有百川会海之胸襟,无理谩骂的,可以一笑置之。

若媒体不愿投资在教育和解说当今媒体的困境,又如何期望读者理解所谓的限制和压力?
就算读者理解当今媒体的困境,却不代表媒体可以在处理新闻时指鹿为马。
而所谓的经济风险,就是一般说的员工饭碗问题。是不是表示说如果有任何重大事件因为某些压力而媒体可以弯腰?而弯腰的原因是为了饭碗?

媒体可以为了饭碗而弯腰,读者也可以因为媒体弯腰而批之。当然我不赞同疯狗似的批评,但却认为此类批评大可不理,而不是试图封杀。


某些已有預設立場的網民亂貼標籤,把華文報的員工都描繪成“十惡不赦”的罪人。如果網民能夠做換位思考,今天換作是自己,處於當前的處境,面對各種的限制和障礙,自己又會怎麼做?

简单的说,如果你刚好目睹事件的经过而媒体的报道不确实,你会怎么做?善言之?若媒体不听,如何?再善言?若媒体请你不要搞砸员工饭碗,你会如何?放弃?还是再三言之?若媒体一再诉说苦衷,你又会如何?抵制?那不是砸了员工的饭碗吗?不抵制?为何要花钱读自己不能确定对不对的报道?

有一位同事曾說過:“我所期望的‘新聞自由’結合下列理念:具建設性的評論、可改善現狀的揭發性調查、可以協助解決問題的報導以及新聞工作者不受恐嚇和壓制。”

当今新闻工作者受到最大的压制和恐吓是从哪儿来的?读者?当局?媒体本身?如果是读者,这样的读者并非对象,不要也罢;如果是当局,为何数十年来受到恶法压制,媒体本身毫无完整策略如何消灭恶法;媒体本身,那不是要来个自我检讨?

這正是我們要一同追求和達成的理想,然而若不能得到客觀理解以及理性對待,一切終歸泡沫。

(补上在面书的感想)
当媒体自觉受到他人误解而感到委屈和愤怒时,可曾检讨为何如此,​还是只会一味的指责他人抹煞媒体的苦心?丰田的车子有问题而被逼​回收,丰田是否应该指责消费人不应该把事件放大,逼使丰田回收,​影响丰田数十年所建立起来的声誉?还是将错误改正,继续上路?

当丰田被逼回收它的产品时,媒体有没有挺身而出的为丰田的员工,​丰田的供应商和员工说话?还是媒体和汽车制造商不同,媒体可以影​响读者做出错误,可能是遗憾终身的判断而不需负责,还要读者“理​解”媒体的“苦衷”?为何没人尝试“理解”丰田的“苦衷”?

媒体最大的悲哀,是失去公信力,而公信力,不是任何人可以瓦解,不是泼妇骂街式的攻击可以将媒体击败,也不是当权的利用恶法和武力可以注销媒体的公信力。可是公信力,却可以因为媒体本身的政策和决策方向而被侵蚀。




Source URL: http://opinions.sinchew-i.com/node/20098




Sunday, July 17, 2011

唇论舌战说媒体

先说背景:(人老了,年代也记不清了,现在更正)

我和中文媒体的渊源始于中国报。1991(应该是1992)年,我为中国报做了一项科技项目,因此认识了一些媒体人。

同年,接管光明的松坚先生让我替光明处理与科技有关的作业,当时也认识了一些现在还在世华的媒体人。

1993(应该是1994)年,我为当时的话MegaTV发展一项科技项目,由于MegaTV是否TV3的子公司,让我也学习了电子媒体的作业流程。

1996年,我向现在世华董事经理的鉴权先生求职,获聘为电子出版顾问。

2001(应该是2000)年,星洲成立星洲互动,我被委任为营运总监。

2002年,我参与起草在多媒体法令下的电子媒体内容准则,为政府下放管制铺路。

期间,我经历了南洋被收购,东方开始出版。

这回答了我是否曾经办过报,也回答了我对媒体作业的理解。

------

昨天在Echo FB看到她的贴文,"有感而发"的写了"一堆"文字而引来"一些"回应。为了不干扰Echo其他对此项目没兴趣的FB友,就把我的回应贴在这里。先由我的开始:

------

媒体有精力和对手对着干,有精力走钢线,却没有把精力投​放在一劳永逸的将威胁媒体的出版与印刷法令消灭,这是我​一直都不能明白的。

我总是觉得媒体在逃避,但却因为一些残余的使命感作祟,​令他们觉得难。难,是难在如何平衡,而从来没有认真思考​如何冲破恶法的缚束,久而久之,”走钢线“就成了他们的​借口。

在面对同行时,媒体突然胆子大了,封杀、促销、优惠,无​所不极,不怕死,也不怕被人骂。这样的斗鸡精神,若用在​对付恶法上,恶法如何不被完(更正:玩)死?

再说,媒体一再的强调读者人数,强调自己的影响力,可是​心底下对这些数据总是表现的不太有信心。若以最新的数据​,世华旗下的日报控制了60%市场。以一个简单的假设来​计算,就是说马来西亚共有650万华人,50%阅读中文​日报,既是说世华旗下的日报可以影响接近2百万人。如果​60%读者超过21岁,那就有100万人。

全国合格选民有大约1千2百万人,世华的读者几乎占了1​0%。如果能不间断的教育读者有关印刷及出版法令对他们​的负面影响,这10%的选票,足以令当权者倒台。媒体要​去掉恶法的方法,就是动员读者向当权者施加压力,而不是​妥协。以世华的规模,当权者是不可能,也不会将全部日报​关闭。如果加上光华、东方、还有东马的媒体,最保守估计​是大约150万到180万适龄选民,几乎占了15%强。

抛开历史的包袱,如果中文媒体能够步伐一致,恶法就不会​有今天,而媒体也不必天天挨骂,还要常常哭诉如何如何的​委屈。

恶法之所以还存在,还在张牙舞爪的威胁媒体,是媒体本身​没有好好利用自己的强项来解除威胁,而副作用就是读者的​知情权被剥夺。

-------

回应贴了出去后,就得到了一下(“以下”,是iPad替我选的词,不关我事)的回文:

Agnes Chung 樓上的講得頭頭是道,請問你辦那一份報紙?可以具體說明​報紙可以怎樣利用自己的強項解除威脅嗎?謝謝。

Chia Chin Yau 没办过报,因为没钱。:) 方法我提了,重点在于团结则强,涣散则弱。


(在这里加料)
Agnes,的确我是没办过报,在开头的叙述交代了我的背景供参考。

在说媒体的强项之前,先说媒体存在的必须元素:

媒体,必须依赖读者才能继续生存,这点我不说你也应该明白。

要建立读者群众,就必须要有公信力。而公信力,是基于处理新闻时不偏不倚(这是当年中国报的通光先生和星洲的庆曾先生先后不约而同的向我解析处理新闻的准则。)

媒体可以有立场,不管是偏向任何一方都不是问题,但是立场是通过评论而不是新闻本身说明,就是说:

假设当局要实施某项措施,引起在野党的抨击。新闻的处理,应该是向读者交代双方的说辞而不是一面倒倾向某方。

在评论此事时,媒体可以以本身的立场向读者阐述媒体对事件的看法。

如果Agnes同意以上说法,那我们继续,若不同意,读到这里就可以停止了。


所谓的处理新闻没立场,就是以叙事方式,不添加删减,让事实还原,那读者才会相信你。就像是你对我是否了解媒体作业方式有疑问,基本上是基于我的论点你可能不苟同,才会有"你办过报吗?"的疑问,因为我没有公信力,或者说你不认得我。

当然,就算是我曾经办过媒体(严格来说我没有,因为我不是总编辑,也不是老板),你也可能不同意我的说法。这里的"同意"包含了"认同"之意,而我贴回应时从来没有要读的人认同或同意,我只是把我所想的写出来。

在任何对抗行动中,唯一能够取胜的方式是展示力量。集会,是展示力量;读者人数,同样的也是展示力量的一种。

媒体以经营多年而累积的读者人数,就是展示力量的最有力证据。而如何能让读者为自己心仪的媒体出力,就要从教育着手。

但是媒体同行之间如何能达致协议,以前,我觉得难,但是并非不可能,虽然同行如敌国,尤其是在不同老板旗下。可是现在世华的媒体占了60%强的市场,达致协议基本上已经不需要,需要的,是最高领导的决心。

可是,世华的媒体,有没有如此规划来教育它的读者有关钳制媒体的恶法?如果有,同行是否可以在这事项尽量和世华配合?还是会来个小报告让世华尝尝内政部的咖啡?

就算是没有其它援手,媒体是不是应该尽其所能去让读者加入消灭恶法,让读者自动的站在媒体一边?

而媒体现在做的,只是在某些特定的纪念日如国际新闻自由日、或在同行接到当局警告时候,略略提起印刷及出版法令的威力和对新闻自由的杀伤力,这样的做法够不够?

这里想说的,是媒体在受到威胁时,只会呻吟,而不思反击,或者说媒体更乐意的有意无意利用恶法成为挡箭牌,而不想一劳永逸有一个妥善的策略废除恶法。

----------

Sean Chua 吊销执照就全部玩完……

Sean Chua 你的方法都蛮刺激地,请问是否能更具体地说出一些计划和​策略?还有如何应对被吊销执照后的窘境?如何安置被遣散​的报馆员工?他们是否会被恶法秋后算账?

没理由你告诉我去抢银行可以发达,我就傻傻拿之机关枪去​做世界滴……

Sean Chua 你说了一大堆说抢银行可以发达的方法,最后你却告诉我你​没抢过银行……结果还不是得个讲字?

回应:
Sean在这里把废除恶法和打枪银行扯在一起,多少令我对前线媒体人的原本的看法摇动。废除恶法是不是犯法?是不是不道德?如果是犯法或不道德,那我对Sean无话可说。如果不是,为何引用如此例子,还理直气壮?这恰恰说明或者媒体的自我催眠是多么的可怕,因为媒体人对废除恶法的认知如此,那又为何在受到恶法对付时才象小媳妇那样向读者哭诉?而且一定要读者理解媒体的"委屈"?

如果连教育读者有关恶法对媒体作业的威胁和干扰都属犯法,请问每年新闻自由日总会刊登的恶法和它对新闻自由的影响力,或类似文章,不就已经犯法了吗?为何媒体认为犯法却不管而照登?

和如此对象交流,岂不是缘木求鱼?


--------

Agnes Chung 先不提出版法令,我只問幾個問題:報社老闆是誰?他們怎​樣獲得准證?他們的核心業務是報社還是其他projec​t?總編輯是怎樣一步步升上去的?你認為可以可以做到老​總是因為他最會寫?報道最中立?

Agnes Chung 還有



回应:
Agnes,先说老板。老板有几种,一种要回馈社会,一种要名,一种要利,一种要名利双收。

回馈社会的,应该都入土为安了,不说也罢。

要名的,不管你如何舞,记得将他老人家的活动摆显眼的版位就行了。这种老板就怕死,遇到如此媒体老板,你能呆下去也算是一号人物了。

要利的话,一般不会办报,办报问题多,收益未必成比例,他宁可做别的生意也不会淌这浑水。

现在的老板,都想名利双收,媒体对他们来说是生意也是维持知名度的管道,不是慈善,也不是回馈社会。而这类老板,算盘精,会看长远,媒体人若能面陈方略,只要是有长远利益,他们都会愿意尝试。而媒体人的最大问题,是高层不让老板和你单独面陈。如何突破高层的封锁,又是一番学问。

所以说,障碍不是前线媒体人,不是一般媒体人,不是老板,而是卡在老板和员工之间的高层。

--------
Sean Chua 星期六一早在FB上吹水,都几没有建设性……


回应:
总还是有建设性过那些连想个法子都不愿意,而不能平心看待大问题的媒体人强得多。

--------

Agnes Chung 什麼是報道中立?我認為自己中立,這中立平身中不中立?​所謂的電子報就中立嗎?外國沒有種種法令限制,就中立了​嗎?我完全同意你說的團結就可以什麼什麼,但那好像是理​論呢。。。


回应:
Agnes,是你说中立,我并没要求媒体中立没立场,我只是要求媒体做份内事,就是报道事实,要求媒体不应只是怪罪恶法,读者,和街边放屁的所谓"评论员"。媒体报道事实,就如嘴巴是用来吃的事实一样。这里再重复:媒体可以有立场,可是不代表媒体可以自我提升到赵高指鹿为马的境界,毕竟付费的读者应该有知情权。

--------

Echo 许慧珊 我也不知道。这次709给我很大的冲击,我也在衡量,宏​祥兄说的,对我来说是一个全新的角度来看这件事情,所以​才回出来。

时代几乎来到了一个转弯的地方,是一个历史的分界线,接​下来会怎样,我也不知道。因为没有身在其中,只能旁观者​。看着这样的变化很有趣。有个感觉,要翻这底牌,应该不​会超过五年。可能三年就露出了。

回应:
主流媒体的最大障碍是高层,和受到他们影响的媒体人的心态:执着于之前的成功模式,未必能确保将来一样成功。只有突破不合理的限制性,才是媒体新的一片天。

有兴趣的应该参考为何NOKIA在短短的4年内兵败如山倒。

--------


Agnes Chung Echo終於出來講話了。。。其實我問ccy辦那一份報​紙,只是想了解他對報界的認識有多深。平面媒體的操作,​是一層層上去的,當大家批判媒體這個那個時,我覺得有必​要從根本去探討,即幕後老板是誰,有那一個老板會允許僱​主或老總拿石頭砸自己的腳?如果報館依舊由“老板”操縱​,只靠下面的人如記者去衝,是不實際的。。。每年有多少​有“志氣”,頂不順這種作業方式的媒體人離開,轉行,就​是因為改變不了現狀。

回应:
我同意Agnes的说法,这就是为何我说必须要有办法直接面对老板。对抗恶法对媒体事业来说,不是用石头砸自己的脚,而是利用现有的一切有利因素来为这个投资的回馈最大化。我没说媒体一定要冲撞恶法,而是说是否可以融合读者的力量推倒恶法。

--------

Agnes Chung 至於林宏祥講的,我贊成,也在思考。。。我覺得公眾不能​太過依賴媒體,凡事要求證和思考。今天我告訴你警察是好​人,保護良民,你要自己去想這句話是否可以全盤接收。

回应:
当主流媒体仍然是公众的消息来源,而很多时候是唯一的消息来源时,基本上公众应该再向那方面求证?如果主流媒体不是大多数的主要消息来源,它已经不再是主流媒体。

--------

Echo 许慧珊 我今天忙到现在才有时间坐下来。。。

如果我没弄错的话,CCY曾经为媒体服务。
15 hours ago · Like

Echo 许慧珊 现在依赖媒体的群体,仍然很多,十年后应该变成少数。

这十年是关键,媒体要怎样转弯?变得特别重要。
15 hours ago · Like

Agnes Chung 主流媒體最終會像新加坡報紙一樣,寫跳樓新聞、報導社團​糾紛、罵罵地方政府、採訪一些好人好事,還有看下那裡大​減價 。。。一塊兩毛錢的報紙,你還想看什麼?呵呵!

回应:

如果主流媒体安于这样的发展,其实就标榜着它已经不再是媒体,其它媒介的媒体会因此获利,到时候,因为要保障员工有饭吃的媒体管理层,反而将媒体本身打入万劫不复的深崖。

Sunday, July 10, 2011

中国报,应该道歉吗?

一家媒体,如果刊登了误导性报道,是不是有义务公开道歉?

说是记者太嫩,不知如何拿捏,或者说编辑时间太赶,匆匆下了个误导性的头条标题,又或者是太上皇请喝茶,要媒体如何如何处理净选盟新闻等等,刊了出来,有误导之嫌,公开道歉很难吗?

如果坚持没误导,那么为何夜报头条标题和日报头条标题意思完全不一样?

夜报头条:说好的和平呢?示威乱隆市,近千人被捕

日报头条:净选盟上街 1667人被捕

夜报标题,似乎给人一种印象,就是净选盟作乱,说和平游行变成暴动。

请问,当天的游行,净选盟有没有挑衅警方?若有,证据在哪?

若没有,那净选盟游行是不是和平的进行?或者说净选盟没意愿,也不曾有“不和平”的想法。若如此,为何质问“说好的和平呢?”

当然你可以说,净选盟和警方冲突,游行变成了噩梦。如此说法,就是说是警方先挑衅,才变得不和平,而且将吉隆坡变成战场?

如果肯定,标题大可有用类似“警方先动手,隆市大乱”,又或者是“和平请愿,镇压收场”之类的,不是清楚明确吗?何必用夜报那个头条。

或许邓议长说得没错,是记者/编辑素质不好吧?

如果不觉得有错,为何必须在日报该完头条字眼,而把夜报更有爆炸力的标题改为平淡的“净选盟上街 1667人被捕”呢?

如果因为发觉误导而改,那么是不是应该为误导的标题向净选盟或读者公开道歉呢?

Wednesday, July 6, 2011

The "PIMP KING" thought he is really the KING

Read HERE

Self implied "Pimp King" of Malaysia said:

“His Majesty should not be receiving people like that. We know Ambiga represents an illegal organisation.”

He is teaching the King how to be a "King"

“She should be arrested under the ISA or the Emergency Ordinance (EO) and not being invited to the palace,

He is teaching the Police how to treat the situation

“Who does she think she is?” he asked. “Ambiga is behaving like she is the police chief. Like this is her father’s country. She’s not even running in the next general election so why is she poking her nose into the electoral system with all these demands?”

Wow! He is really the KING, the greatest "PIMP KING", talk like he rules the country!

“We hope that we will also be received in the same manner that the King received the organiser of an illegal rally,” he said. “If the people can extend favourable treatment to an illegal organisation that is already causing chaos in the country, then they should also extend the same treatment to us.”

He refers to the King granted audience to Dato' Ambiga, and called the King "the people".

Deep in his heart, he really think that he is the KING, PIMP KING


---------

KUALA LUMPUR: Bersih chairman S Ambiga should be arrested under the Internal Security Act (ISA) instead of being invited to the palace, Perkasa said today.

“We were shocked that Ambiga was granted an audience,” Perkasa chief Ibrahim Ali told a press conference here. “His Majesty should not be receiving people like that. We know Ambiga represents an illegal organisation.”

“She should be arrested under the ISA or the Emergency Ordinance (EO) and not being invited to the palace,” he said.

Nevertheless, Ibrahim said Perkasa respected the decision of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong Sultan Mizan Zainal Abidin to grant Ambiga a royal audience.

He added that the move reflected a benevolent King who cared for his country and people.

“The King’s willingness shows his concern for the safety of his people.”

Perkasa will also submit a letter requesting an audience with the King before this Saturday to voice its intentions for holding its own rally to counter the Bersih gathering.

The Malay right-wing group was reported to have been turned away by the palace when it attempted to submit the letter this morning. Ibrahim, however, denied this allegation.

“We hope that we will also be received in the same manner that the King received the organiser of an illegal rally,” he said. “If the people can extend favourable treatment to an illegal organisation that is already causing chaos in the country, then they should also extend the same treatment to us.”

A disgruntled Ibrahim then took potshots at Ambiga, beginning with her demand for the immediate release of the six Parti Socialis Malaysia (PSM) members detained under the EO.

“Who does she think she is?” he asked. “Ambiga is behaving like she is the police chief. Like this is her father’s country. She’s not even running in the next general election so why is she poking her nose into the electoral system with all these demands?”

Strong doubts

Ibrahiim also expressed strong doubts over Bersih’s assurances that the rally would be peaceful as he believed that crowd control would be a serious problem.

“You cannot make such guarantees even if the rally is being held in a stadium,” he said. “Anything can happen with people moving in and out. There are huge groups of illegal immigrants living in the city who could also incite violence.”

“A Chinese shop gets broken into and a Malay is accused or vice-versa. And then the whole country erupts into chaos. This is what I’m worried about. The government also keeps flip-flopping on whether it will allow the rally to go on or not. It needs to rule with a firmer hand!”

On the contrary, he said Perkasa could guarantee peace because he was the only firebrand in the group and if anyone were to be arrested, it would be him.

“But I should be given an award for fighting to preserve the nation’s peace instead of being arrested,” he said. “This is what I want to tell the people. Don’t think that the country will only be right if (Opposition Leader) Anwar Ibrahim becomes prime minister.”

“Anwar isn’t the only person who is qualified to be prime minister. I am also qualified. In fact, I am more popular than Anwar with his sodomy case and sex video clip. I am known for my so-called racist statements in defending the Malays. I feel great!”

Ibrahim also warned the online media not to distort their reports of the rallies this Saturday by under-reporting Perkasa’s crowd size and exaggerating that of Bersih’s.

“You watch and see,” he said.”If 2,000 turn up at Perkasa’s rally the online news will report it as 200. But if 500 turn up at Bersih’s rally, it will be reported as 5,000 and the portals will say that the people are rejecting Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak’s rule.”


BERSIH 2.0 - Back to basics

With disappoint and anger razed across my facabook friends, who wanted to stage on the street come 709, further, accusing Bersih 2.0 chair Dato' Ambiga for her latest decision to call off the walk.

Shall we go back to the basics and re-examine the objective of Bersih 2.0?

Clean and fair election

Right?

Is the walk the objective?

No! the walk is just a mean to achieve the objective.

What is the purpose of the walk?

When all avenue exhausted, and there's no other way other than walking on the street to voice out, thus the walk.

And you stage a walk when you wanted media spotlight, and create awareness for those who may not even know what Bersih 2.0 is all about, thus the walk.

Just like handing the electoral reform memorandum to the King, what does it signify? It is a mean to achieve the objective, i.e. Clean and fair elections, again, sending the memorandum is not the objective, it is a mean to achieve the objective.

So, what is the best way to achieve the objective at this juncture? OK, you may still insist walking on the street, saying that Bersih 2.0, especially Dato' Ambiga, has betrayed those who trusted her. That's your view, but is the walk the objective or just a mean to achieve the objective? Ask yourself.

I've walked for Anwar back 1998, walked for No ISA vigil 2008 , I took part in the Bersih/Anti ISA vigil 2008. I walked because there's no other avenue to voice our concern, thus I walk.

We went to PJ court to show support to RPK back then, where we witnessed those who shouted most in Malaysia Today ended up no show.

We went to Sentul Police Station to support RPK for his criminal defamation charge, it was less than 20 person there, Where were all of you who cried that you will support RPK for his sacrifices?

I voiced my concern, with my legs. I walk, when there's no other means to voice out.

Back to Bersih 2.0. If the government did not soften its tune to agree with gathering in a stadium after declaring Bersih 2.0 as illegal, I'll walk, and we shall walk.

Now, the Najib Administration, on one hand still label Bersih 2.0 as illegal, has to extend olive branch to accommodate, isn't this an achievement instead of setback?

I agreed, if the government did not soften their stand, we shall walk, walk to achieve our objective.

But if the government has accepted the fact that it has to deal with Bersih 2.0 in a civilized manner, be it willingly or not, are we moving one step towards the objective? I do think so.

If the government then reacted as before, giving all sorts of reason trying to derail Bersih 2.0 even it has agreed to hold the gathering in a stadium, of which the offer was made by non other than the Prime Minister, then you should walk.

Else, why should people, who may not even have the guts to walk, to accuse Dato' Ambiga for accepting the stadium's offer, and some even blamed her for scarifying those arrested by Police due to Bersih 2.0?

Why should you make a pre-judgement that Bersih 2.0/Dato' Ambiga has betrayed the trust on them? Isn't this the same attitude that Perkasa is adopting? That you are now behaving like Perkasa unconsciously?

Will all these blame and criticisms achieve our objective?

Or do they have their own objective instead?

Saturday, July 2, 2011

净选盟三宗罪


一)净选盟2.0积极活动,引发我国多元种族社会的不安和担忧。

土权和巫统不算

二)通过发传单等,传播煽动民众的意识形态,以图推翻政府

干净公平的选举是要推翻政府

三)净选盟2.0的活动已对我国形象造成负面影响,更可能威胁和动摇社会和平与安全、经济繁荣以及国家主权,同时影响多元种族社会的和谐生活。

贪污滥权滥杀种族主义是正面的

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone