This newspiece caught my eye, and I simply had to blog on it because it is indicative how rotten things have gotten in Malaysia with the present ruling Government.
http://www.bernama.com/bernama/v5/newsindex.php?id=360369
If you don't know what is Radio24, basically, it is a 24-hour news and talk radio station in Malaysia. Broadcasting in both English and Bahasa Malaysia, the station is owned and operated by the Malaysian national news agency, BERNAMA. The station's transmission covered the Klang Valley, which is home to 6.5 million people.
Because it is officially a Bernama Radio Station and covers Klang, I personally don't listen to it.
However, it made news (see link above). It seems Radio24 has committed a "crime", according to Minister of Information Datuk Ahmad Shabery Cheek. He was reported in Bernama (!) to have said "Expressing disappointment, Ahmad Shabery said the incident should not have happened, more so when it involved a radio station run by an agency under the purview of the ministry.". And "Minister Datuk Ahmad Shabery Cheek said the ministry was conducting an investigation into the matter and he himself was awaiting a report before taking further action.".
Wow! Sounds like Radio24 has committed a crime that deserved Government investigation. Enough that the Minister of Information judged it guilty in public, even when the investigation is not yet completed.
So, what is this "crime" that Radio24 is alleged to have committed?
According to the same Bernama piece ...
"Ahmad Shabery was asked to comment on the broadcast of an interactive programme by Radio24 on the topic "Which is more important, the transition of power from Pak Lah (Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi) to Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak or a reduction in the fuel price?"
Is that all?
Is it a crime for Malaysians to discuss such matters openly?
How is it a crime?
Ask yourself - what would your answer be to this question?
Which is more important - Transition of Power? Or Reduced fuel price?
My guess -- 99% will say Reduced fuel price.
Especially in Klang Valley where traffic jams are prevalent, and the monthly cost of fuel is higher than average.
So, what's wrong with asking such a question and effectively seeking a public referendum (albeit a very limited scope)?
Personally, I think they can ask better questions which are more doubtful (such as "Should Malaysia Constitution be amended so that the tenure of the Prime Minister is fixed for the next 5 years, rather than being capable of being terminated as soon as he ceases to command the confidence of the majority?"), than such one-sided question where the answer is obvious.
But I won't say it is a crime to ask such question. So much so, that the Minister of Information had to publicly condemn such acts.
"Expressing disappointment, Ahmad Shabery said the incident should not have happened, more so when it involved a radio station run by an agency under the purview of the ministry."
Is The Minister of Information dissappointed because Malaysians were asked by Radio24 to evaluate "which is more important"??
Since when is it a "crime" to ask "which is more important?"
Isn't the ability to weigh which factor is more important critical in the daily life of every Malaysian Citizen?
Isn't this what we are doing at every General Election - to weight which Party is better? Which factors are more important?
Or are Malaysians being brainwashed by Government Propoganda that it is wrong to think for one-self?
Is the Minister of Information suggesting that since it is a crime for Radio24 to ask this question publicly, then, it is also a crime for all Malaysians to ask this question privately?
Is the Minister of Information suggesting that Malaysians should be dumb and unquestioning?
"Which is more important, the transition of power from Pak Lah (Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi) to Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak or a reduction in the fuel price?"
Even more disturbing is this statement uttered by the Minister of Information - "If you do not agree with government policies, don't be a government employee. Resign," he said.".
Is the Minister of Information giving a clear statement to all Government Employees that it is their job to make Pak Lah, Najib & UMNO looks good, even if it is at the expense of Rakyat's interest to have lower fuel prices?
Is this the kind of Government that Malaysians want?
Showing posts with label Bernama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bernama. Show all posts
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Thursday, June 26, 2008
KB council bans lipstick, high heels?
This evening, the chatbox was chatting - amongst other things - about Kelantan where the topic about banning lipstick, high heels & rape prevention came up!
Personally, my knowledge about this is limited, and came primarily from the Star article below.
The Star attributed the source of reporting to Bernama, which should have raised eyebrows.
But the actual impact of that reporting surprised me in retrospect.
In the absence of conflicting information, none of us suspected anything and just ass-u-me-d that both Bernama and the Star were reporting the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
And in retrospect, this turned out to be a BIG mistake!
Anyway, if you still don't understand what I'm talking about, this is what the Star reported:
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/6/24/nation/21636718&sec=nation
________________
KB council bans lipstick, high heels
KOTA BARU: Muslim women employees working here are forbidden to wear lipstick and high-heeled shoes to work.
This directive is contained in a municipal council circular dated May 25 and signed by its president Shafie Ismail, which has been distributed to business premises here.
A check, however, found that only a few tenants had received the circular this week.
The circular stated that the directive, targeted at Muslim women employees working in food outlets and other business premises, was issued to prevent incidents like rape and illicit sex as well as to safeguard the morals and dignity of Muslim women in Kelantan.
It stated that Muslim women were forbidden to wear thick make-up, bright coloured lipstick and high-heeled shoes which made a tapping sound.
Those who insisted on wearing high-heeled shoes should choose those with rubber soles.
Attempts to contact Shafie for clarification were futile.
The directive on the wearing of lipstick and high-heeled shoes are in addition to the wearing of scarves, which should cover the chest and not be of transparent material, blouses with long sleeves, which were long and loose, as well as socks.
Those who do not adhere to the regulation can be fined up to RM500. – Bernama
_________________
So, if you just read that and that only, what do you think?
Well, if you're like most people, I think this might be what you're thinking ...
"What a stupid & idiotic thing to do in Kelantan"
"It is stupid to ban lipsticks and high heeled shoes!"
"Lipsticks and high heeled shoes have nothing to do with rape prevention!"
"Men must take responsibility for their own feelings and actions, not the women!"
"Which stupid government in Kelantan introduced this? PAS?"
"Doesn't PAS has better things to do in Kelantan?"
etc. etc. etc.
Right?
So easy to think like this isn't it?
And like you, I also fell into that trap of thinking for nearly 2 days.
Until I visited this website here - http://harismibrahim.wordpress.com/2008/06/24/selamat-datang-ke-darul-al-taliban/
A few enlightening things:
1. More facts in that article. There is an actual copy of the circular in that link. It also has a copy of the pamphlet so that we can better understand what actually happened in Kelantan.
2. The first shocking discovery I got from the website is that the scope is not applying to the entire Kelantan state, but to just Muslim women traders within the ambit of Majlis Perbandaran Kota Bahru (MPKB) Bandar Raya Islam.
This was a real shock!
Bernama and the Star failed to clarify.
Instead, see how the Star and Bernama reported this:
"The circular stated that the directive, targeted at Muslim women employees working in food outlets and other business premises, was issued to prevent incidents like rape and illicit sex as well as to safeguard the morals and dignity of Muslim women in Kelantan."
Wow!
Amazing isn't it?
How by just taking out the reference to the ambit, we were led to think that this happened throughout the whole state of Kelantan.
Do you think this is an omission?
Or the work of a clever writer?
3. Reading further the excellent investigative article by Helen Ang disclosed several other facts:
a. The circular and the pamphlet are 2 separate documents. (The Star reporting didn't disclose the presence of the pamphlet).
b. The circular is issued annually, and does not appear to be something new. (I didn't get this sense from the Star Reporting. Instead, I thought it was a new directive).
c. Where did MSM (Bernama, The Star) get the info in red bold about "... The circular stated that the directive, targeted at Muslim women employees working in food outlets and other business premises, was issued to prevent incidents like rape and illicit sex as well as to safeguard the morals and dignity of Muslim women in Kelantan."???
Did the circular in Helen Ang's article refer to "rape prevention"?
If not, don't you wonder where MSM got this info from?
Helen Ang (the author) mentions the possibility that maybe the pamphlet might have something like that, but she was speculating at the time of writing her articles. Certainly, the "circular" didn't appear to say that.
Again, I ask you - do you think this is accidental omission?
Or is this the work of someone clever?
Well, I don't know about you, but I think this one deserves an A+.
Ok.
Despite the misreporting, MPKB did issue something and you might wonder "Does MPKB has the moral authority to even issue such a circular and pamphlet?"
What do I think?
Well, this is tricky.
Because if you had read just the Star & Bernama articles and nothing else, chances are good that you will have already formed your own opinions.
My guess - very strong opinions.
Which means, in practice, it would be very difficult for you to then take the personal effort to study the circular and the pamphlet in detail.
Have you tried looking at the circular and pamphlet in Helen Ang's article?
I did.
Unfortunately, the font size in Helen Ang's article of the pamphlet is far too small for me to read.
I couldn't make sense of what's written in there to be honest.
So, I still don't know what is actually written in that pamphlet.
Which means, I am still not able to form an intelligent view of what MPKB has actually issued.
Which means, I don't have a strong intelligent opinion.
But from the little that I can gather ...
There seems to be some sort of "uniform" code for the traders in MPKB.
In the pamphlet, I can see on the left side, an "example" of an acceptable dress code. In the middle, some examples of what isn't acceptable.
I also know that dress codes are a fairly common thing in many industries and service sectors. E.g. work uniforms like the army, police, nurses, doctors, factories, traders, etc.
But let me ask you another question.
If you had just read the Star and Bernama, what would be your immediate feelings towards Kelantan government?
You might think PAS is an idiot isn't it?
So, would this article then be considered seditious?
Any lawyers like to lend their views?
Personally, my knowledge about this is limited, and came primarily from the Star article below.
The Star attributed the source of reporting to Bernama, which should have raised eyebrows.
But the actual impact of that reporting surprised me in retrospect.
In the absence of conflicting information, none of us suspected anything and just ass-u-me-d that both Bernama and the Star were reporting the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
And in retrospect, this turned out to be a BIG mistake!
Anyway, if you still don't understand what I'm talking about, this is what the Star reported:
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/6/24/nation/21636718&sec=nation
________________
KB council bans lipstick, high heels
KOTA BARU: Muslim women employees working here are forbidden to wear lipstick and high-heeled shoes to work.
This directive is contained in a municipal council circular dated May 25 and signed by its president Shafie Ismail, which has been distributed to business premises here.
A check, however, found that only a few tenants had received the circular this week.
The circular stated that the directive, targeted at Muslim women employees working in food outlets and other business premises, was issued to prevent incidents like rape and illicit sex as well as to safeguard the morals and dignity of Muslim women in Kelantan.
It stated that Muslim women were forbidden to wear thick make-up, bright coloured lipstick and high-heeled shoes which made a tapping sound.
Those who insisted on wearing high-heeled shoes should choose those with rubber soles.
Attempts to contact Shafie for clarification were futile.
The directive on the wearing of lipstick and high-heeled shoes are in addition to the wearing of scarves, which should cover the chest and not be of transparent material, blouses with long sleeves, which were long and loose, as well as socks.
Those who do not adhere to the regulation can be fined up to RM500. – Bernama
_________________
So, if you just read that and that only, what do you think?
Well, if you're like most people, I think this might be what you're thinking ...
"What a stupid & idiotic thing to do in Kelantan"
"It is stupid to ban lipsticks and high heeled shoes!"
"Lipsticks and high heeled shoes have nothing to do with rape prevention!"
"Men must take responsibility for their own feelings and actions, not the women!"
"Which stupid government in Kelantan introduced this? PAS?"
"Doesn't PAS has better things to do in Kelantan?"
etc. etc. etc.
Right?
So easy to think like this isn't it?
And like you, I also fell into that trap of thinking for nearly 2 days.
Until I visited this website here - http://harismibrahim.wordpress.com/2008/06/24/selamat-datang-ke-darul-al-taliban/
A few enlightening things:
1. More facts in that article. There is an actual copy of the circular in that link. It also has a copy of the pamphlet so that we can better understand what actually happened in Kelantan.
2. The first shocking discovery I got from the website is that the scope is not applying to the entire Kelantan state, but to just Muslim women traders within the ambit of Majlis Perbandaran Kota Bahru (MPKB) Bandar Raya Islam.
This was a real shock!
Bernama and the Star failed to clarify.
Instead, see how the Star and Bernama reported this:
"The circular stated that the directive, targeted at Muslim women employees working in food outlets and other business premises, was issued to prevent incidents like rape and illicit sex as well as to safeguard the morals and dignity of Muslim women in Kelantan."
Wow!
Amazing isn't it?
How by just taking out the reference to the ambit, we were led to think that this happened throughout the whole state of Kelantan.
Do you think this is an omission?
Or the work of a clever writer?
3. Reading further the excellent investigative article by Helen Ang disclosed several other facts:
a. The circular and the pamphlet are 2 separate documents. (The Star reporting didn't disclose the presence of the pamphlet).
b. The circular is issued annually, and does not appear to be something new. (I didn't get this sense from the Star Reporting. Instead, I thought it was a new directive).
c. Where did MSM (Bernama, The Star) get the info in red bold about "... The circular stated that the directive, targeted at Muslim women employees working in food outlets and other business premises, was issued to prevent incidents like rape and illicit sex as well as to safeguard the morals and dignity of Muslim women in Kelantan."???
Did the circular in Helen Ang's article refer to "rape prevention"?
If not, don't you wonder where MSM got this info from?
Helen Ang (the author) mentions the possibility that maybe the pamphlet might have something like that, but she was speculating at the time of writing her articles. Certainly, the "circular" didn't appear to say that.
Again, I ask you - do you think this is accidental omission?
Or is this the work of someone clever?
Well, I don't know about you, but I think this one deserves an A+.
Ok.
Despite the misreporting, MPKB did issue something and you might wonder "Does MPKB has the moral authority to even issue such a circular and pamphlet?"
What do I think?
Well, this is tricky.
Because if you had read just the Star & Bernama articles and nothing else, chances are good that you will have already formed your own opinions.
My guess - very strong opinions.
Which means, in practice, it would be very difficult for you to then take the personal effort to study the circular and the pamphlet in detail.
Have you tried looking at the circular and pamphlet in Helen Ang's article?
I did.
Unfortunately, the font size in Helen Ang's article of the pamphlet is far too small for me to read.
I couldn't make sense of what's written in there to be honest.
So, I still don't know what is actually written in that pamphlet.
Which means, I am still not able to form an intelligent view of what MPKB has actually issued.
Which means, I don't have a strong intelligent opinion.
But from the little that I can gather ...
There seems to be some sort of "uniform" code for the traders in MPKB.
In the pamphlet, I can see on the left side, an "example" of an acceptable dress code. In the middle, some examples of what isn't acceptable.
I also know that dress codes are a fairly common thing in many industries and service sectors. E.g. work uniforms like the army, police, nurses, doctors, factories, traders, etc.
But let me ask you another question.
If you had just read the Star and Bernama, what would be your immediate feelings towards Kelantan government?
You might think PAS is an idiot isn't it?
So, would this article then be considered seditious?
Any lawyers like to lend their views?
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Corruption Worsens in Malaysia (2)
Found this article in Malaysian Insider which reported the same topic that I blogged yesterday. The actual article is from Bernama. http://themalaysianinsider.com/index.php/home/42-lead-stories/227-malaysia-improving-in-corruption-index-can-do-better
Read this, and compare this with my earlier article as reported by mysinchew.com. http://fusioninvestor.blogspot.com/2008/06/corruption-worsens-in-malaysia.html
What a total contrast in reporting!
I am most dissappointed with Bernama! Read it, and see for yourself why.
__________________
Malaysia improving (?) in Corruption Index, can do better
(Seng: What? Malaysia improving? Are you serious? A score from 4.0 in 1996 which deteriorated to a score of 2.38 in 2006 and you call that improving?)
KUALA LUMPUR, June 12 — Malaysia has made a headway (?) in the battle against corruption, but the country can do better, according to an analysis in a United Nation's Development Programme (UNDP) report.
The report, presented by Transparency International (TI) Malaysia president Tan Sri Ramon V. Navaratnam today, stated that Malaysia ranked sixth according to the World Bank and TI, but ninth according to the International Country Risk Guide (ICRG).
Navaratnam said this was the first time a report on how corruption impacted human development had been delivered.
"Prior to this, most corruption reports focused on index and indices. We are not interested in comparing how well we are doing in the index against countries that are weaker than us. On the other hand, we must compare and benchmark ourselves against countries that are doing well in order to improve ourselves instead of being complacent," he said.
(Seng: Ok. I hear you talk about comparing with countries better than ourselves, so, where is that comparison?
Although the World Bank's Control of Corruption Index (CCI) and TI's Corruption Perception Index (CPI) showed higher progress, the ICRG, which perceives corruption from business and trade aspects, reflected a steady deterioration over the last decade from 4.00 in 1996 to 2.38 in 2006.
(Seng: Ok. In the middle of nowhere, after you lied via the Headline and after you lied from the First Sentence, you then decide to hide and print the truth that it deteriorated from 4.00 to 2.38.
Also, if the index deteriorated from 4.00 to 2.38, where is your basis to claim that Malaysia improve?
And also, where is the comparison with Singapore, where over the same period, Singapore improved from 4.0 to 4.5?)
And to make things worse, UNDP reported that corruption hit the poor hardest, especially through what had been termed as "petty" or "street" corruption where low-level officials (in permit registration, licensing, police) could harrass the people for extra money to "grease the wheels".
(Seng: And where is that reference to "Negotiated Tender" being one of the main sources of corruption?)
Navaratnam said although the government was battling corruption in the right way, he believed the government should give a stronger dosage to this national illness by tackling it not only from the "top down" but also from "bottom up" because this could better help the poor.
He also voiced his regret that Malaysia is not yet a party to the United Nations Convention Against Corruption but being a former government officer, Navaratnam said he understood that the government took time to discuss the policies and legislation inherent with such international agreements.
As for SMS rumours (!) going around saying that the IMF would fund Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim's campaign to buy over Barisan Nasional MPs and in return mortgage Petronas and a few other national companies to the IMF once he becomes prime minister, Navaratnam said:
"I used to work with the World Bank. The World Bank does not involve itself in politics and I doubt its board of directors would even contemplate or agree to such a thing." — Bernama
(Seng comment: Right. Take a cheap shot at Anwar via "SMS rumours", even though from 1996 to 2006 when corruption situation has deteriorated, the country's leaders were TDM and Abdullah.
And conveniently ignore Navaratnam's comment about "Malaysia can do much better if there is stronger political will to fight corruption on all fronts." . Amazing!)
Conclusion: What can I say?
1. Misleading Title.
2. Misleading First Sentence.
3. No statistical basis to justify claim of improvement in 1. and 2.
4. Hide the truth in the middle of the article.
5. Twist a quotation by an authority to make it appear we improved by comparing to a country that has also improved.
6. Hide the comparison with Singapore, because it would make Malaysia look bad.
7. And most importantly, don't even talk about Negotiated Tender being the first source of corruption.
8. Shift attention to Anwar, and publicize these SMS rumours more!
9. Don't ever mention that from 1996 to 2006, our leaders are TDM and Abdullah!
WOW! Definitely an A+ in misleading reporting! Congratulations Bernama! Malaysians have much to learn from you in "accurate reporting"!
Read this, and compare this with my earlier article as reported by mysinchew.com. http://fusioninvestor.blogspot.com/2008/06/corruption-worsens-in-malaysia.html
What a total contrast in reporting!
I am most dissappointed with Bernama! Read it, and see for yourself why.
__________________
Malaysia improving (?) in Corruption Index, can do better
(Seng: What? Malaysia improving? Are you serious? A score from 4.0 in 1996 which deteriorated to a score of 2.38 in 2006 and you call that improving?)
KUALA LUMPUR, June 12 — Malaysia has made a headway (?) in the battle against corruption, but the country can do better, according to an analysis in a United Nation's Development Programme (UNDP) report.
The report, presented by Transparency International (TI) Malaysia president Tan Sri Ramon V. Navaratnam today, stated that Malaysia ranked sixth according to the World Bank and TI, but ninth according to the International Country Risk Guide (ICRG).
Navaratnam said this was the first time a report on how corruption impacted human development had been delivered.
"Prior to this, most corruption reports focused on index and indices. We are not interested in comparing how well we are doing in the index against countries that are weaker than us. On the other hand, we must compare and benchmark ourselves against countries that are doing well in order to improve ourselves instead of being complacent," he said.
(Seng: Ok. I hear you talk about comparing with countries better than ourselves, so, where is that comparison?
Although the World Bank's Control of Corruption Index (CCI) and TI's Corruption Perception Index (CPI) showed higher progress, the ICRG, which perceives corruption from business and trade aspects, reflected a steady deterioration over the last decade from 4.00 in 1996 to 2.38 in 2006.
(Seng: Ok. In the middle of nowhere, after you lied via the Headline and after you lied from the First Sentence, you then decide to hide and print the truth that it deteriorated from 4.00 to 2.38.
Also, if the index deteriorated from 4.00 to 2.38, where is your basis to claim that Malaysia improve?
And also, where is the comparison with Singapore, where over the same period, Singapore improved from 4.0 to 4.5?)
And to make things worse, UNDP reported that corruption hit the poor hardest, especially through what had been termed as "petty" or "street" corruption where low-level officials (in permit registration, licensing, police) could harrass the people for extra money to "grease the wheels".
(Seng: And where is that reference to "Negotiated Tender" being one of the main sources of corruption?)
Navaratnam said although the government was battling corruption in the right way, he believed the government should give a stronger dosage to this national illness by tackling it not only from the "top down" but also from "bottom up" because this could better help the poor.
He also voiced his regret that Malaysia is not yet a party to the United Nations Convention Against Corruption but being a former government officer, Navaratnam said he understood that the government took time to discuss the policies and legislation inherent with such international agreements.
As for SMS rumours (!) going around saying that the IMF would fund Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim's campaign to buy over Barisan Nasional MPs and in return mortgage Petronas and a few other national companies to the IMF once he becomes prime minister, Navaratnam said:
"I used to work with the World Bank. The World Bank does not involve itself in politics and I doubt its board of directors would even contemplate or agree to such a thing." — Bernama
(Seng comment: Right. Take a cheap shot at Anwar via "SMS rumours", even though from 1996 to 2006 when corruption situation has deteriorated, the country's leaders were TDM and Abdullah.
And conveniently ignore Navaratnam's comment about "Malaysia can do much better if there is stronger political will to fight corruption on all fronts." . Amazing!)
Conclusion: What can I say?
1. Misleading Title.
2. Misleading First Sentence.
3. No statistical basis to justify claim of improvement in 1. and 2.
4. Hide the truth in the middle of the article.
5. Twist a quotation by an authority to make it appear we improved by comparing to a country that has also improved.
6. Hide the comparison with Singapore, because it would make Malaysia look bad.
7. And most importantly, don't even talk about Negotiated Tender being the first source of corruption.
8. Shift attention to Anwar, and publicize these SMS rumours more!
9. Don't ever mention that from 1996 to 2006, our leaders are TDM and Abdullah!
WOW! Definitely an A+ in misleading reporting! Congratulations Bernama! Malaysians have much to learn from you in "accurate reporting"!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
