PEOPLE’S POWER READY TO DEAL WITH THE DANGEROUS DIMENSION OF UMNOCYBER TERRORISM

The Star since 2010 because it is not worth the RM1.30. Some have described it as Malaysia’s No.1 toilet paper, as far as hard news is concerned.
The paper is just a mouth piece of the MCA which it controls and directly manages. The paper is fully used by the MCA to promote and further its political agenda – to brainwash the Chinese community and Malaysians in general.
However, in so doing, the MCA leadership, especially its morally tainted president Dr Chua Soi Lek, and The Star do not exercise intelligence and innovative arguments. They are either too lazy to think intelligently, too arrogant or just don’t have the political ideas to suit their cause without insulting its readers.
I reproduce here a classic report by The Star that explains why the paper is not worth a single sen as far as hard news is concerned:
‘Opposition are mere critics’
(The Star) – The Opposition is only good at criticising the Government without displaying any concrete policy or plan, said MCA president Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek.
He said the Opposition had never shown its programmes to maintain what the nation had been enjoying now or how to even better it.
“Job opportunities and a nation’s stability do not come naturally and should not be taken for granted,” he said.
In contrast, the Barisan Nasional Government under the Prime Minister’s leadership had taken a step further by implementing its transformation programmes to ensure continuous economic growth and improve people’s lives, said Dr Chua.
“The programmes provide clear social and economic development and the whole direction is towards becoming a high-income nation by the year 2020,” he said, adding that economic and social progress for the next few years was vital in bringing Malaysia out of the middle-income group.
“If we cannot get out in 10 years, we will be unable to compete with other countries, including Thailand, Vietnam and Indonesia,” he said during a dialogue with youths from 12 Chinese associations here yesterday.
The Opposition, added Dr Chua, had also managed to sidetrack people from the real issues affecting their lives and the country by creating and harping on highly emotional issues.
He said while many were excited over the two-party system in the wake of the 2008 general election, they forgot key matters like education, job opportunities as well as economic and social development.
“They seem to be more worried about other political issues that incite arguments rather than important matters concerning them.
“A two-party system that brings greater competition among political parties and provides alternatives for the people is good.
“Unfortunately in Malaysia, there are a lot of personal attacks rather than policy to policy or service performance comparison,” he said
Many people, Dr Chua pointed out, seemed to be less bothered whether the next government could ensure the country’s stability and economic growth, and create more job opportunities.
Earlier, Dr Chua, who is Batu Pa­­hat MCA chairman, visited a health awareness campaign organised by the division’s 1MCA Medical Foundation at Taman Makmur.
In PUTRAJAYA, after attending the Prime Minister’s Hari Raya open house, he said open houses could be regarded as part of the 1Malaysia concept as it promoted inclusiveness.
This concept, he said, was unique to Malaysia and should be actively practised.
From the news heading down to its last text, it is just plain insulting the readers’ intelligence and just not worth the money you are paying.
Get real, Soi Lek!
The news headline: ‘Opposition are mere critics’ – so, what is MCA and him? Please go and look at yourself in the mirror!
Instead of continuing to dish out such crap since Merdeka (Independence) Aug 31, 1957, can’t Chua and MCA come up with the right questions and issues?
Instead of insulting us, can’t he ask:
1. Why is Umno trying to woo PAS and why is Umno, now led by the former racist premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad, calling for the implementation of Hudud?
2. If Barisan Nasional (BN)’s 1Malaysia policy, idea, guide or whatever you call it is to be taken seriously, why are people like the deputy prime minister allowed to be Malay First, Malaysian Next?
3. Why are people like Ibrahim ‘Perkasa’ Ali allowed to freely spew seditious statements and use violence on the public?
4. Why the Christian bashing every now and then?
5. Why, after 55 years, MCA is still talking about Chinese education and that it is the sole party able to defend it? Instead, by saying so, MCA has actually admitted it had failed to promote and defend the people’s right to mother-tongue education since 1957. If not, why are we still upset about this issue?
6. What about the Cowgates and all other scandalous gates that are emptying the government’s coffer or depleting tax payers’ savings for the country?
I can go on to list up to 100 questions but I do not want to risk insulting or boring readers of this blog. It is enough to rest my case that MCA and The Star are insulting the peoples’ intelligence.
You be the judge. Use a mirror to question every paragraph in The Star report and you will see the light at the end of the tunnel!


 Umno Youth chief Khairy Jamaluddin (KJ) sounds like the little spoilt kid shouting to the world that he doesn’t mind if his own gang kicks him in the face when he knows they never will.  Khairy, not everyone is as privileged as you are, having access to a lot of resources to fight court cases, especially bad laws.  Why don’t you help eliminate section 114A of the Evidence Act before it becomes law? How can you get votes when you can’t do the right thing? Actually you (Khairy) have just inadvertently endorsed the widely known fact that the AG (attorney-general) is but an instrument under BN and is instructed to exercise selective persecution – only prosecute those who oppose the government.The richest unemployed is good at play acting: trying to give us the impression that Umno enforces the law impartially. But we shall not be fooled.

Is he also prepared to investigated by an independent panel over the ECM Libra scandal. The following excerpt is illustrative:”Nothing uncovers fraud behaviour than inconsistency in someone’s or an organisation’s public position. Where exactly was the indignation of Umno Youth when Umno bloggers and Utusan Malaysia ignited the campaign against Christianity?”Remember that talk that Christians wanted to take over Malaysia – allegations that have been proven mischievous and wrong.”Umno Youth was silent then because the movement was happy for its associates to create a sense of siege and fear among Muslims and hopefully drive them into the arms of Umno. Where was Khairy then? Where was Umno Youth?” Christians believe that it’s about personal faith, and making Christianity an ‘official’ religion of the country is not what will make the difference.
Anyway, what does ‘official religion’ mean? Land for churches? Tax exemption? Bibles not barred? Bibles in Bahasa Malaysia? Freedom to tell others about the gospel? Khairy failed to understand what section 114A of the Evidence Act is. You cannot be charged under this section.It is a section laying down the procedural law of evidence, i.e. the judge will only convict an accused charged under any other offence in connection with the abuse of cyberlaw, if that accused cannot prove his innocence.  KJ, let me put it this way. You know it and Malaysians know it, but the Umno warlords will stop you from agreeing with itThe following would suffice: “Theory is when you know everything but nothing works. Practise is when some things work but no one knows why. In Umno’s lab, theory and practise is combined – nothing works and no one knows why.”
The burden of proof is put on the accused and not on the prosecutor. One can only be charged if he had offended a substantive law and not an evidential law.  Khairy, why do you or anyone have to prove that you are not the originator of those posts?
Under the common law, the onus of proof is on the one who accuses and not the one who defends or is denying the charge. That’s why we are against the amendment to the Evidence Act.think it is not turning Christianity into an ‘official religion’ that will make any of that happen. It requires respect for Christians and a law which allows freedom of religion. And that hopefully even Khairy can do. the same law but the way it is interpreted differs depending on which side you are on. you are confident of proving you were not responsible for the Facebook posting, absolutely certain that this case will not have a chance to even peep into the courtroom.The police will investigate (or play a drama and pretend to investigate) and then declare that you had proven (beyond a shred of doubt) to them your innocence and consequently no charges will be preferred against you.However, it would be interesting to know the identity of the actual person which may surface in the course of your establishment of innocence and whether the police will charge him if he is a BN supporter.Join Pakatan Rakyat and throw that same challenge and see if they do. This is all big talk when you are hiding behind the Umno-BN regime’s skirt.The same KJ who has denied many of his actions is now indirectly admitting guilt. It could be pressure from his bosses.If you were part of the opposition, the full weight of the ‘law’ would have descended upon you. Is that not the intention of introducing this Act – to silence the opposition so that the truth can be suppressed?And calling DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng a desperado was mischievous. The real desperado is KJ himself, who is now at the crossroads, not knowing to turn right or left. Just count your days as MP.
The Task Force for Psychological Campaign to respond adequately to the deadly moves of the anti-Opposition in Malaysia both within your mind’s ability to see reason depletes in troubled times, seems to best explain the government’s inexplicable attempt at blocking websites, URLs and twitter handles of those it thinks are advocating or inciting communal trouble in the country in the aftermath of Assam riots and the trouble that brewed in Mumbai and elsewhere. This follows the earlier knee-jerk reaction to ban bulk SMSs. the dirty designs of the government – The action may be arbitrary, but the intention is to control.  Task Force is still in doubt as agencies do not wish to share their failures. In such meeting agencies usually try to project their own achievements and demand more resources. A strict scrutiny of the functioning of this unit is essential to take necessary steps to achieve the objective for which it has been created.No right thinking person can support this move. Let me repeat myself. Anyone who tries to divide this nation shouldn’t be spared. If the government’s intention was genuine, they will get unstinted support. But here, it is clear the intention is not. It should realise that times have changed. You cannot fool people all the time. Each and every move is scrutinised and analysed threadbare, instantly, by millions and shared. The quality in totality is far better than any clutch of analysts or ‘senior’ media men can.r are attempted to be blocked are strong opponents of what this government does. They are unapologetic about their religious leanings and would strongly advocate their point of view from that angle, but under no circumstances can they be accused of inciting trouble or communal tension. What they are doing is democratically permissible.The effort of some of our policy makers to suggest that such events cannot be anticipated is very disheartening. The debates on TV channels hardly touch the weaknesses of the system but put blame on one or the other political parties or groups. The former intelligence officials were seen laboriously pointing out difficulty in monitoring a large scale e-mails, morphed pictures and SMSs. They have also been pointing out that even if they could have noted these, it was difficult to anticipate the kind of reaction that had taken place. It is true for such anticipation certain amount of knowledge of societal fault lines is essential. These are often created not because of religious commitments but because of lack of political will and to use them for electoral victories.umnO will be interested in exploiting the internal situation is known to all policy makers and intelligence agencies This was being discussed at higher levels and those involved in the preparation of policy papers stressed the need for taking necessary steps. One can only at this moment that such discussions usually are forgotten and necessary follow up actions are not taken. In our system, unfortunately sufficient emphasis is not placed on intelligence analysis. The intelligence operatives feel extremely uncomfortable when analysts start questioning about their reports. More often they term the reports of intelligence analysts as cut and paste effort, failing to realise that an intelligence input makes a meaning only when it is analysed properly. These kinds of reports in the western countries are known as ‘All- Source’ Reports. The individual reports of agencies bare termed as ‘Single Source’ Reports and are not given preference over the former unless the ‘Single Source’ Report is in itself conveying something very important. Often such reports land up the country into an embarrassing situation.

There are unconfirmed reports that some senior media men are advising government on whom to take action against. This is absurd and reeks of those dark days of emergency, rather pre-emergency.
This raises a fundamental question as to why the filter system did not work. While in the US a new office of Director National Intelligence has been established for ensuring that all agencies work as one force, our system keeps on opposing this move despite the fact that such a recommendation exists for the last few years. Unfortunately the turf war between the agencies continues creating difficulties in the proper understanding of the developments taking place around us. The agencies are meant to present a picture of the developing situation from the available inputs. Often they may present a worse-case scenario based on their experience but they are never expected to underestimate their adversaries.

On another note though. Apparently a number of URLs the government wants blocked are still functioning. While I for one am relieved that technology has thwarted arbitrary decisions, at one level, isn’t it genuinely scary too? What if there is something serious and the government legitimately wished to block something and found itself unable to?

In addition to citizen interactivity onanwar’s blog, there have been at least two innovations that are unprecedented and have come to us via the newest technology developed since 2008: the app.  so supporters could be the first like ANWAR can also collect data about users to further the trend toward microtargeting messages to voters. But the Obama campaign not only has an app for supporters, with the usual information about issues and events, but also one for campaign organizers. The “Canvass” section of the “ANWAR for MALAYSIANS” app provides information about voters in specific neighborhoods, and those voter responses are then sent to campaign headquarters. This could indeed transform the business of field organizing, making it more streamlined and effective

The newest political app for Election 2013? The status quo. Although we’ve seen dramatic changes in campaigns’ use of technology since the first websites in 1996, the 2012 campaigns are focusing more on existing platforms. Those first websites were essentially tightly controlled carbon copies of campaign promotional materials: positions on the issues, how to donate, and how to get involved (offline). In 2000 both campaigns integrated dynamic features on their websites. In 2004 Howard Dean’s supporters used Meetup.com to create an entirely new form of campaigning. In 2008 we saw Facebook, Twitter, and texting as the newest ways to communicate with voters.
But the growth, novelty, and innovation that have occurred every cycle appear to have slowed somewhat in 2012. This is evident from a report recently released by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism. In some ways the candidates are using technology differently from 2008, but in many other ways they are quite similar.

What surprised me is that the
BARISAN team lags behind the PAKATAN team in overall digital activity. I figured,that BARISAN would have created a more visible and active presence. But the report demonstrates thatBARISAN still lags far behind PAKATAN in nearly every measure, Perhaps the biggest differences appear
But even these innovations are still tightly controlled and are not so much about allowing a robust dialogue among voters as about collecting data about them. Will presidential candidates ever fully embrace technology that allows citizens to voice their opinions about the campaigns? Or is it simply too much of a risk? The trends we see incampaign so far suggest the latter. The campaigns’ need for control still mahathir the need to be tech-savvy in a world where one outrageous comment from a voter on a candidate’s Facebook page can quickly become fodder for cable news. I believe we can expect to see some additional innovations from the campaigns between now and Election Day, but I don’t count on them fully embracing the interactive potential of the Internet as a virtual public sphere for citizen dialogue.

Often in blog posts on the Internet, especially heated political arguments, people start slinging around the term “Nazi,” particularly in discussions of Neoconservative Republicans. Neocons are not “Nazis.” They are in fact “Fascists.” A fascist is one who combines the power of industry, government and the military into totalitarian…total…political control. The Nazis were a Fascist-leaning […]

In addition to citizen interactivity onanwar’s blog, there have been at least two innovations that are unprecedented and have come to us via the newest technology developed since 2008: the app.  so supporters could be the first like ANWAR can also collect data about users to further the trend toward microtargeting messages to voters. But the Obama campaign not only has an app for supporters, with the usual information about issues and events, but also one for campaign organizers. The “Canvass” section of the “ANWAR for MALAYSIANS” app provides information about voters in specific neighborhoods, and those voter responses are then sent to campaign headquarters. This could indeed transform the business of field organizing, making it more streamlined and effective

The newest political app for Election 2013? The status quo. Although we’ve seen dramatic changes in campaigns’ use of technology since the first websites in 1996, the 2012 campaigns are focusing more on existing platforms. Those first websites were essentially tightly controlled carbon copies of campaign promotional materials: positions on the issues, how to donate, and how to get involved (offline). In 2000 both campaigns integrated dynamic features on their websites. In 2004 Howard Dean’s supporters used Meetup.com to create an entirely new form of campaigning. In 2008 we saw Facebook, Twitter, and texting as the newest ways to communicate with voters.
But the growth, novelty, and innovation that have occurred every cycle appear to have slowed somewhat in 2012. This is evident from a report recently released by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism. In some ways the candidates are using technology differently from 2008, but in many other ways they are quite similar.

What surprised me is that the
BARISAN team lags behind the PAKATAN team in overall digital activity. I figured,that BARISAN would have created a more visible and active presence. But the report demonstrates thatBARISAN still lags far behind PAKATAN in nearly every measure, Perhaps the biggest differences appear
But even these innovations are still tightly controlled and are not so much about allowing a robust dialogue among voters as about collecting data about them. Will presidential candidates ever fully embrace technology that allows citizens to voice their opinions about the campaigns? Or is it simply too much of a risk? The trends we see incampaign so far suggest the latter. The campaigns’ need for control still mahathir the need to be tech-savvy in a world where one outrageous comment from a voter on a candidate’s Facebook page can quickly become fodder for cable news. I believe we can expect to see some additional innovations from the campaigns between now and Election Day, but I don’t count on them fully embracing the interactive potential of the Internet as a virtual public sphere for citizen dialogue.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s