Advertisement

Showing posts with label Malaysia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Malaysia. Show all posts

Sunday, January 13, 2013

Siri Pengetahuan Rasmi : Kontrak Sosial Malaysia.




Suruhanjaya Reid & Definisi Melayu




POLITICAL TESTAMENT BETWEEN UMNO, MCA & MIC





Diatas adalah dokumen yang asal Suruhanjaya Reid!

Dibawah ini pulak petikan artikel dari blog Chedet bertarikh July 12, 2008.

1. Before there was Malaya and Malaysia the peninsular was known as Tanah Melayu, or Malay Land.

2. Saying this alone would result in accusations of being racist.

3. But I need to go back in history if I am going to be able to explain about Malaysia's social contract.

4. Through treaties signed by the Rulers of the Malay States of the Peninsular the British acquired the
right to rule the Malay States. These treaties obviously recognised and legitimised the States as Malay
States. No one disputed this. Even the aborigines accepted this as shown by their submission to the rule of the Malay Sultans.

5. Initially the peoples living in the States were divided into indigenous Malays and aborigines who were subjects of the Malay rulers and foreign guests who were not subjects of the rulers. There were no citizenship or documents about citizenship status as in most countries.

6. The foreign guests prospered in the British ruled Malay States and in the British colonies of Penang, Malacca and Singapore. The Malay subjects of the Rulers and the Rulers themselves did not feel threatened by the numbers of these non-Malays and the disparities between the general wealth and progress of the foreign guests and the subjects of the Rulers. They did not think that the foreigners who had settled in the country would ever demand citizenship rights.

7. When Japan conquered the Malay States and the colonies of the Straits Settlements, the Chinese felt insecure as the Japanese were their historical enemies.

8. Many Chinese formed and joined guerilla forces and disappeared into the jungle. When Japan surrendered the Chinese guerillas came out and seized many police stations in the interior and declared that they were the rulers of the country. They seized many people, Chinese and Malays and executed a number of them.

9. Malay villagers retaliated by killing the Chinese in the rural areas. Tension rose and a Sino-Malay war was only averted because of the arrival of British forces. But the ill feeling and animosity between the two races remained high.

10. It was in this tensed situation that the British proposed the Malayan Union which would give the "guests" the right of citizenship as indistinguishable from that of the Malays.

11. The Malays rejected the Malayan Union and its citizenship proposal. They forced the British to return to the status quo ante in a new Federation of Malaya.

12. Only Chinese who were British subjects in the colonies of the Straits Settlements were eligible to become citizens in this new Federation. Naturally the Malay citizens far outnumbered the Chinese Malayan citizens.

13. Chinese leaders appealed to the British, who then persuaded the UMNO President, Dato Onn Jaafar to propose to open UMNO to all races. This proposal was rejected by the other UMNO leaders and Dato Onn had to resign.

14. The British kept up the pressure for the Malays to be more liberal with citizenship for non-Malays.

15. Tunku Abdul Rahman, the President of UMNO decided on a coalition with MCA (Malaysian Chinese Association) and the MIC (Malaysian Indian Congress). In the 1955 elections to the Federal Legislative Assembly, since there were very few constituencies with Chinese or Indian majorities, the MCA and MIC partners had to put up candidates in Malay majority constituencies after UMNO undertook not to contest in these constituencies but to support MCA Chinese and MIC Indian candidates instead.

16. Such was the support of the Malays for the MCA and MIC alliance candidates that they won even against Malay candidates from PAS. The MCA and MIC candidates all won. Only UMNO lost one constituency against PAS.

17. The Tunku as Chief Minister of a self-governing Federation of Malaya then decided to go for independence. The British continued to inisist on citizenship rights for the Chinese and Indians as a condition for giving independence.

18. To overcome British resistance to independence and to gain the support of the Chinese and Indians, the Tunku decided to give one million citizenship to the two communities based purely on residence. One notable new citizen was (Tun) Leong Yew Koh, a former general in the Chinese National Army who was later appointed Governor of Malacca.

19. It was at this stage that the leaders of the three communal parties who had formed the Government of self-governing British Federation of Malaya, discussed and reached agreement on the relationship between the three communities in an independent Federation of Malaya.

20. It was to be a quid pro quo arrangement. In exchange for the one million citizenships the non-Malays must recognise the special position of the Malays as the indigenous people. Certain laws such as the pre-eminence of Islam as the state religion, the preservation of Malay reserve land, the position of the Malay Rulers and Malay customs and the distribution of Government jobs were included in the understanding.

21. On the question of national language it was agreed that Malay would be the national language. English should be the second language. The Chinese and Indians could continue to use their own languages but not in official communication.

22. Chinese and Tamil primary schools can use their languages as teaching media. They can also be used in secondary schools but these have to be private schools.

23. For their part the Chinese and Indian leaders representing their parties and communities demanded that their citizenship should be a right which could not be annulled, that they should retain their language, religion and culture, that as citizens they should have political rights as accorded to all citizens.

24. Much of these agreements and understandings are reflected in the Federal Constitution of Independent Malaya. For everything that is accorded the Malays, there is always a provision for non-Malays. Few ever mention this fact. The only thing that attracts everyone's attention and made a subject of dispute is what is accorded the Malays and other indigenous people.

25. Thus although Malay is to be the National Language, Chinese and Tamil can be used freely and in the Chinese and Tamil schools. In no other country has there been a similar provision. Even the most liberal countries do not have this constitutional guarantee.

26. The national language is to be learnt by everyone so that Malayan citizens can communicate with each other everywhere.

27. It was understood also that the Chinese language referred in the understanding were the Chinese dialects spoken in Malaysia, not the national language of China. Similarly for Malayan Indians the language was Tamil, not Hindi or Urdu or whatever became the national language of India. However, the Chinese educationists later insisted that the Chinese language must be the national language of China i.e. Mandarin.

28. The official religion is Islam but other religions may be practised by their adherents without any restriction. As the official religion, Islam would receive Government support. Nothing was said about support for the other religions. The non-Malays did not press this point and the Federal Constitution does not mention Government support for the other religions. Nevertheless such support have been given.

29. A quota was fixed for the Malayan Civil Service wherein the Malays would get four posts for every one given to Chinese or Indians. However it was recognised that the professional post would be open to all races as it was never thought possible there would be enough Malays to take up these posts.

30. The result was that in the early years of independence there were more non-Malays in Division 1 than Malays.

31. The Agong or the Rulers of the States should determine quotas of scholarships and licences for Malays. But no one should be deprived of whatever permits or licences in order to give to Bumiputras.

32. The position of the Malay Rulers was entrenched and could not be challenged. There would be a Paramount Ruler chosen from among the nine Rulers who would serve for five years.

33. The rulers were to be constitutional rulers. Executive power was to be exercised by elected Menteris Besar, Ketua Menteri (Chief Minister) and Prime Minister, assisted by members of councils and cabinets. The British practice was to be the model.

34. The most important understanding was the adoption of Parliamentary Democracy with a Constitutional Monarch, again after the United Kingdom model. It should be remembered that the British imposed an authoritarian colonial Government on the Malay State, the power resting with the Colonial Office in London.

35. Before these the Malay States were feudal with the Malay Rulers enjoying near absolute power. Only the elites played a role in State politics. The Malay subjects had no political rights at all. Certainly the guests had no say in politics. Even the Chinese and Indian British citizens had no say though they may be appointed as Municipal or Legislative Councillors.

36. The decision to adopt a democratic system of Government was a radical step in the governance of the Federation of Malaya and of the Malay States. This was agreed to by the leaders of the three major communities as represented by their political parties i.e. UMNO, MCA and MIC. There can be no doubt that these parties represented the vast majority of the three communities in Malaya. The Communists and the other leftists did not signify their agreement to the understanding.

37. The Reid Commission was briefed on all these agreements and understanding so that they will be reflected in the Constitution to be drawn up. All the three parties approved this Constitution after several amendments were made. In effect the Constitution became a contract binding on all the three communities in the Federation of Malaya upon attaining independence in 1957.

38. When Sabah and Sarawak joined the Peninsular States to form Malaysia the social contract was extended to the two Borneo States. The natives of Sabah and Sarawak were given the same status as the Malays. At this time the word Bumiputra was introduced to distinguish the indigenous Malays and Sabah, Sarawak natives from those descendants of foreign immigrants. Because Malay was widely used in the Borneo States there was no difficulty in the acceptance of Malay as the national language. The fact that the natives of the two states are not all Muslims necessitated no change in the Constitution once the word Bumiputra was accepted. But the official definition of a Malay remained.

39. The embodiment of the social contract is therefore the Constitution of first, the Federation of Malaya and then Malaysia.

40. To say it does not exist is to deny the contents of the Constitution which was based upon the acceptance by the leaders of the three communities of the original social contract.

41. All subsequent actions by the Government were the results of this social contract. The fact that the initiators of this social contract and their successors were endorsed by the people in every election reflects the undertaking of the people to honour this social contract.

42. Saying that the social contract does not exist is like saying that Malaysia exists in a vacuum, without a Constitution and laws based on this Constitution.

43. Implementing the social contract requires understanding of its spirit as much as the letter. The social contract is aimed at creating a multi-racial nation that is stable and harmonious. Any factor which would cause instability and result in confrontation between the races must be regarded as incompatible with the spirit of the social contract.

44. For 50 years no one seriously questioned the social contract. Even today the majority of Chinese and Indians and the indigenous Malays and natives of Sabah and Sarawak accept the social contract. But because Dato Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi basically lost the 2008 election and now heads a weak Government the extremists and erstwhile detractors have questioned the social contract. The Bar Council has now become a political party believing that its expertise in law will exempt it from being questioned as to its credentials and its political objectives.

45. Abdullah's UMNO is incapable of countering any attack on the social contract. If anything untoward happens Abdullah and UMNO must bear responsibility.

*****


KONTRAK SOSIAL MALAYSIA

1. Sebelum adanya Malaya dan Malaysia, semenanjung ini dikenali sebagai Tanah Melayu.

2. Hanya berkata ini akan sebabkan kita dituduh bersifat perkauman.

3. Untuk terangkan berkenaan asal-usul kontrak sosial Malaysia saya terpaksa imbas semula sejarah.

4. Melalui perjanjian-perjanjian yang ditandatangani Raja-Raja Melayu Semenanjung, British telah mendapat hak untuk menakluk Negeri-negeri Melayu. Perjanjian-perjanjian ini mengakui dan mengesahkan Negeri-negeri ini sebagai Negeri-negeri Melayu. Tidak ada sesiapa pun yang membantah. Orang Asli juga menerima keadaan ini dengan penerimaan oleh mereka pemerintahan Raja-Raja Melayu.

5. Pada mulanya penduduk yang tinggal di Negeri-negeri ini dibahagi kepada orang Melayu dan Orang Asli yang merupakan rakyat Raja-raja Melayu dan tetamu asing yang tidak dianggap sebagai rakyat kepada Raja-raja Melayu. Tidak ada kewarganegaraan mahupun dokumen berkenaan taraf kerakyatan sepertimana di kebanyakan negara-negara lain.

6. Tetamu asing ini hidup mewah di Negeri-negeri Melayu di bawah pentadbiran British dan di jajahan British di Pulau Pinang, Melaka dan Singapura. Orang Melayu yang menjadi rakyat kepada Raja-raja Melayu dan Raja-raja Melayu sendiri tidak sikitpun merasa tergugat dengan bilangan besar orang bukan Melayu dan perbezaan jurang kekayaan dan kemajuan di antara tetamu asing ini dan rakyat Raja-Raja Melayu. Mereka tidak terfikir yang orang asing yang menetap di negara ini akan menuntut hak kewarganegaraan.

7. Apabila Jepun menakluk Negeri-negeri Melayu dan Negeri-negeri Selat, orang Cina merasa tidak selamat kerana Jepun merupakan musuh tradisi mereka.

8. Ramai orang Cina telah menubuhkan dan menganggotai angkatan gerila dan lari ke dalam hutan. Apabila Jepun serah diri, gerila-gerila Cina ini keluar dan merampas balai-balai polis di kawasan pedalaman dan isytihar yang mereka adalah pemerintah negara ini. Mereka menangkap ramai orang, Cina dan Melayu dan beberapa daripada mereka ini dibunuh.

9. Orang Melayu di kampung-kampung membalas dengan membunuh orang Cina di kawasan luar bandar. Ketegangan timbul dan pertempuran antara Cina dan Melayu dielak hanya dengan kedatangan angkatan tentera British. Tetapi perasaan marah dan benci antara kedua-dua kaum ini tetap tinggi.

10. Di dalam keadaan tegang ini British mencadang penubuhan Malayan Union yang akan memberi "tetamu-tetamu" ini hak kerakyatan yang tidak membezakan mereka daripada orang Melayu.

11. Orang Melayu menolak Malayan Union dan cadangan hak kerakyatan ini. Mereka paksa British untuk kembali keapda keadaan asal atau status quo ante di dalam Persekutuan Tanah Melayu (Federation of Malaya) yang baru.

12. Hanya orang Cina yang menjadi rakyat Negeri-negeri Selat layak untuk mendapat kerakyatan di dalam Persekutuan yang baru ini. Sudah tentu warganegara keturunan Melayu jauh lebih ramai daripada rakyat Malaya yang berketurunan Cina.

13. Pemimpin-pemimpin Cina merayu kepada British, yang kemudiannya menekan Presiden UMNO, Dato Onn Jaafar supaya mencadangkan agar UMNO dibuka kepada semua kaum. Cadangan ini ditolak lain-lain pemimpin UMNO dan Dato Onn terpaksa melepaskan jawatan.

14. British terus beri tekanan kepada orang Melayu untuk bersikap lebih terbuka berkenaan soal kerakyatan bagi orang bukan Melayu.

15. Presiden UMNO Tunku Abdul Rahman memutuskan untuk menubuhkan pakatan dengan MCA (Malaysian Chinese Association) dan MIC (Malaysian Indian Congress). Dalam pilihanraya Majlis Perundangan Persekutuan (Federal Legislative Assembly) 1955, oleh kerana kurangnya kawasan majoriti penduduk Cina dan India, MCA dan MIC terpaksa letak calon mereka di kawasan yang mempunyai majoriti Melayu selepas UMNO bersetuju untuk tidak bertanding di kawasan-kawasan ini dan sebaliknya menyokong calon Cina MCA dan calon India MIC.

16. Begitu sokongan orang Melayu terhadap calon Perikatan MCA dan MIC hinggakan mereka menang walaupun menentang calon Melayu daripada PAS. Calon MCA dan MIC kesemuanya menang. Hanya UMNO kalah satu kerusi kepada PAS.

17. Tunku sebagai Ketua Menteri Persekutuan Tanah Melayu kemudian memutus untuk menuntut kemerdekaan. British terus berkeras menuntut hak kerakyatan bagi orang Cina dan India sebagai syarat memberi kemerdekaan.

18. Untuk mengatasi halangan British terhadap kemerdekaan dan untuk memenangi sokongan orang Cina dan India Tunku memutuskan untuk beri satu juta kerakyatan kepada kedua-dua komuniti ini berdasarkan hanya kepada permastautin. Salah seorang rakyat baru yang menonjol ialah (Tun) Leong Yew Koh, bekas general di dalam angkatan tentera nasional China yang kemudiannya dilantik Gabenor Melaka.

19. Di peringkat ini pemimpin-pemimpin ketiga-tiga parti yang berdasarkan kepada kaum yang telah mendirikan Kerajaan pemerintahan sendiri di dalam Persekutuan Tanah Melayu (Federation of Malaya) British telah berbincang dan mencapai persetujuan berkenaan syarat perhubungan antara ketiga-tiga kaum di dalam Persekutuan Tanah Melayu yang merdeka.

20. Ianya merupakan agihan yang sama rata. Sebagai balasan untuk satu juta kerakyatan bukan Melayu, orang bukan Melayu mesti mengakui kedudukan istimewa orang Melayu sebagai Bumiputera. Beberapa peruntukan undang-undang seperti kedudukan Islam sebagai agama rasmi, pengekalan tanah rizab Melayu, kedudukan Raja-raja Melayu dan adat istiadat Melayu dan pengagihan jawatan dalam Kerajaan juga termasuk di dalam persefahaman ini.

21. Dalam soal Bahasa Kebangsaan, Bahasa Melayu telah dipersetujui sebagai Bahasa Kebangsaan. Bahasa Inggeris pula sebagai bahasa ke-dua. Kaum Cina dan India boleh terus gunakan bahasa mereka tetapi bukanlah sebagai bahasa rasmi untuk berkomunikasi.

22. Sekolah rendah Cina dan Tamil juga boleh menggunakan bahasa masing-masing sebagai bahasa pengajar. Bahasa-bahasa ini juga boleh digunakan di sekolah menengah, tetapi hanya di sekolah menengah swasta.

23. Di pihak mereka pemimpin-pemimpin Cina dan India yang mewakili parti mereka menuntut agar kerakyatan dijadikan hak mereka yang tidak boleh ditarik balik, mereka dibenar kekalkan bahasa, agama dan budaya mereka dan sebagai rakyat mereka diberikan hak politik sepertimana yang diberikan kepada semua rakyat.

24. Kebanyakan persetujuan dan persefahaman ini terkandung di dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan Tanah Melayu merdeka. Bagi setiap yang diperuntukkan kepada orang Melayu, akan sentiasa terdapat peruntukan bagi yang bukan Melayu. Tidak ramai yang sebut akan hakikat ini. Yang menarik perhatian ramai dan yang menjadi tajuk perbalahan ialah apa yang diperuntukkan kepada orang Melayu dan lain-lain kaum Bumiputera sahaja.

25. Demikian walaupun Bahasa Melayu dijadikan Bahasa Kebangsaan, bahasa Cina dan Tamil tetap bebas digunakan di sekolah Cina dan Tamil. Peruntukan ini tidak terdapat di mana-mana negara lain. Bahkan di negara-negara yang liberal sekalipun tidak terdapat jaminan seperti ini yang termaktub di dalam Perlembagaan.

26. Bahasa Kebangsaan ini haruslah dipelajari semua orang agar setiap warganegara Malaya dapat berkomunikasi antara satu sama lain di mana-mana sahaja.

27. Difahamkan bahasa Cina yang di maksudkan di dalam persefahaman tersebut adalah dialek-dialek Cina yang ditutur di Malaysia dan bukannya bahasa kebangsaan negeri China. Demikian bagi kaum India Malaya bahasa Tamil digunakan dan bukannya Hindi atau Urdu atau apa-apa bahasa pun yang menjadi bahasa Kebangsaan di India. Tetapi para pendidik aliran Cina kemudiannya mengguna Bahasa Cina yang menjadi bahasa Kebangsaan negara China iaitu Mandarin.

28. Islam adalah agama rasmi tetapi agama-agama lain boleh dipraktik penganut masing-masing tanpa apa-apa halangan. Sebagai agama rasmi Islam mendapat bantuan Kerajaan. Tiada tersebut tentang bantuan bagi mana-mana agama lain. Bukan Melayu tidak menekankan tentang ini dan Perlembagaan Persekutuan tidak pun sebut tentang bantuan Kerajaan terhadap agama lain. Namun sokongan dan bantuan tetap diberikan.

29. Kuota ditetapkan bagi kakitangan Kerajaan (Malayan Civil Service) dimana orang Melayu akan mendapat empat tempat bagi setiap satu yang diberikan kepada orang Cina dan India. Walaubagaimanapun, jawatan profesional diiktiraf terbuka bagi semua kaum kerana dianggap tidak mungkin terdapat cukup bilangan orang Melayu untuk mengisi jawatan-jawatan tersebut.

30. Hasilnya pada awal kemerdekaan terdapat lebih ramai kaum bukan Melayu daripada Melayu yang mengisi jawatan dalam Divisyen Satu.

31. Yang Di-Pertuan Agong atau Raja-raja Melayu akan menentukan kuota biasiswa dan lesen bagi orang Melayu. Tetapi tiada sesiapa yang akan dirampas mana-mana permit atau lesen hanya untuk diberikan kepada kaum Bumiputera.

32. Kedudukan Raja-raja Melayu termaktub dan tidak boleh dipersoalkan. Seorang Yang Di-Pertuan Agong akan dipilih daripada sembilan Raja-raja Melayu dan akan berkhidmat selama lima tahun.

33. Raja-raja akan menjadi Raja berperlembagaan. Kuasa eksekutif akan dilaksanakan oleh Menteri Besar, Ketua Menteri dan Perdana Menteri yang dipilih dan dibantu ahli majlis atau Kabinet. Amalan British dijadikan contoh.

34. Persetujuan yang paling penting ialah pelaksanaan Demokrasi Berparlimen digabungkan dengan Raja Berperlembagaan, sekali lagi seperti yang diamalkan di United Kingdom. Harus diingat pihak British telah mengenakan Kerajaan Kolonial kuku besi ke atas Negeri-negeri Melayu dengan kuasa diletak pada Pejabat Kolonial di London.

35. Sebelum ini Negeri-negeri Melayu diperintah secara feudal di mana Raja-raja Melayu mempunyai kuasa mutlak. Hanya golongan bangsawan yang memain peranan dalam politik negeri. Rakyat Melayu tidak langsung ada apa-apa hak politik. Sudah tentu tetamu juga tidak mempunyai suara dalam hal-hal berkenaan politik. Warganegara British keturunan Cina dan India juga tidak mempunyai apa-apa suara walaupun mereka boleh dilantik sebagai Ahli Kehormat Majlis Kerajaan Tempatan atau Perundangan.

36. Keputusan untuk melaksana sistem Kerajaan berlandaskan demokrasi merupakan satu langkah radikal di dalam pentadbiran Kerajaan di Persekutuan Tanah Melayu dan Negeri-negeri Melayu. Ini dipersetujui pemimpin ketiga-tiga kaum terbesar yang diwakili parti-parti politik UMNO, MCA dan MIC. Tidak syak lagi yang parti-parti ini mewakili sebahagian besar daripada ketiga-tiga masyarakat di Malaya. Pihak Komunis dan yang berhaluan kiri lain tidak menyatakan persetujuan mereka terhadap persefahaman ini.

37. Suruhanjaya Reid diberi penerangan tentang perjanjian dan persefahaman ini agar ianya akan dimasukkan kedalam Perlembagaan yang akan digubal. Ketiga-tiga parti meluluskan Perlembagaan yang digubal setelah beberapa pindaan dilakukan. Kesannya Perlembagaan ini menjadi kontrak yang mengikat ketiga-tiga kaum di Persekutuan Tanah Melayu menjelang merdeka pada tahun 1957.

38. Apabila Sabah dan Sarawak menyertai Negeri-negeri Semenanjung untuk membentuk Malaysia kontrak sosial ini di panjangkan kepada kedua-dua negeri ini. Orang Bumiputera Sabah dan Sarawak di beri taraf yang sama dengan orang Melayu. Pada masa ini juga perkataan Bumiputera diperkenalkan untuk membezakan orang Melayu dan orang Bumiputera Sabah, Sarawak daripada yang berketurunan pendatang. Kerana Bahasa Melayu dugunakan secara meluas di negeri-negeri Borneo tidak ada kesulitan bagi penerimaan Bahasa Melayu sebagai Bahasa Kebangsaan. Walaupun kaum Bumiputera di kedua-dua negeri ini bukan semuanya orang Islam ini tidak memerlukan pindaan kepada Perlembagaan apabila perkataan Bumiputera diterima. Tetapi definisi rasmi bagi orang Melayu tetap tidak berubah.

39. Oleh itu pembentukan kontrak sosial dimaktubkan dalam pertama, Perlembagaan Persekutuan Tanah Melayu dan seterusnya Malaysia. Untuk mengatakan yang ianya tidak wujud samalah dengan menidakkan kandungan Perlembagaan yang diasaskan kepada penerimaan oleh pemimpin-pemimpin ketiga-tiga kaum terhadap kontrak sosial yang asal.

40. Kesemua tindakan susulan oleh Kerajaan adalah hasil daripada kontrak sosial ini. Hakikatnya pencetus kontrak sosial ini dan pewaris-pewaris mereka yang diiktiraf rakyat di setiap Pilihanraya Umum menunjukkan kesediaan rakyat untuk menghormati kontrak sosial ini.

41. Menidakkan kewujudan kontrak sosial ini ialah seperti berkata yang Malaysia ini wujud di dalam suasana kekosongan, tidak ada Perlembagaan dan undang-undang yang berlandaskan kontrak ini.

42. Pelaksanaan kontrak sosial ini memerlukan pemahaman semangatnya yang mendalam. Kontrak sosial ini bertujuan mewujudkan satu negara berbilang kaum yang stabil dan harmoni. Apa jua faktor yang akan akibatkan ketidakstabilan dan menghasilkan ketegangan di antara kaum haruslah dianggap tidak sesuai dengan semangat kontrak sosial ini.

43. Selama 50 tahun tidak ada sesiapa yang menyoal kontrak sosial ini. Malahan hari ini pun majoriti kaum Cina dan India dan Bumiputera Melayu dan kaum Bumiputera Sabah dan Sarawak menerima kontrak sosial ini. Tetapi kerana Dato Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi pada asasnya kalah dalam pilihanraya 2008 dan sekarang mengetuai Kerajaan yang lemah, pihak ekstrimis dan penyanggah sekarang ini mempersoalkan kontrak sosial ini. Majlis Peguam kini telah menjadi sebuah parti politik yang percaya bahawa kepakarannya dalam undang-undang akan mengecualikan ianya daripada dipersoal tentang kelayakannya dan objektif politiknya.

44. UMNO Abdullah tidak berdaya menangkis apa-apa serangan terhadap kontrak sosial ini. Jika apa-apa terjadi Abdullah dan UMNO harus dipertanggungjawabkan.
***********************************************************************

Petikan dari akhbar pada tahun 1965, ini sejarah! Baca dibawah ini..

KUALA LUMPUR, 24 JUN 1965 – Menteri Kerjayara, Pos dan Telekom, Datuk V.T Sambanthan, hari ini telah bertanyakan Lee Kuan Yew, Perdana Menteri Singapura, di negeri mana di dalam dunia ini bangsa-bangsa yang mendatang diterima baik menjadi warganegaranya beramai-ramai.

Beliau menegaskan bahawa hanya negara ini sahaja di dalam dunia ini telah memberi segala kemudahan kepada semua bangsa yang mendatang di sini menjadi warganegaranya.

Datuk Sambanthan berkata demikian di dalam Dewan Rakyat tadi ketika dewan mendebatkan titah ucapan Seri Paduka Yang Di Pertuan Agong.

Di dalam ucapannya selama 45 minit, Datuk Sambanthan telah mengkecam hebat sikap Lee Kuan Yew yang memainkan peranan perkauman di sini untuk kepentingan diri sendiri.

Beliau menuduh Lee Kuan Yew cuba memainkan politik perkauman dengan mengatakan Kerajaan Melayu Pusat cuba menguasai Kerajaan Negeri.

Datuk Sambanthan telah bertanyakan Lee Kuan Yew di mana letaknya logik tuduhannya itu.

Katanya: “Jikalau sungguhlah dakwaan Lee Kuan Yew itu, memang bodohlah pemimpin-pemimpin Melayu di sini dalam tahun 1957 dahulu memberi segala kemudahan kepada bangsa-bangsa asing di sini menjadi warganegara di sini.

“Jika benar laungan-laungan Lee Kuan Yew itu bahawa Kerajaan Melayu Pusat hendak mengusai bangsa-bangsa lain, mengapa mereka membenarkan bangsa-bangsa asing itu dengan senang saja menjadi warganegara di sini”.

“Ini amat bodoh sekali kerana adanya lebih ramai bangsa-bangsa asing (khususnya Cina dan India) menjadi rakyat di sini, tentu sukar bagi orang-orang Melayu di sini hendak menguasai bangsa-bangsa lain itu.

“Jika benar mereka hendak menguasai bangsa-bangsa asing di sini, mereka denga mudah sahaja berbuat demikian dalam tahun 1957 dahulu dengan tidak memberi kemudahan untuk bangsa-bangsa asing menjadi warganegara.

Beliau menerangkan bahawa sungguhpun orang-orang Melayu telah bermurah hati menerima baik bangsa-bangsa asing, tetapi sekarang ini mereka itulah (Melayu) golongan bangsa yang termiskin sekali.

Datuk Sambanthan bertanya: “Siapa yang memiliki bandar-bandar dan gudang-gudang serta ladang-ladang di sini. Adakah gudang-gudang dan ladang-ladang ini dimiliki oleh orang-orang Melayu?” (Berita Harian: 25.6. 19650).


anaknilai

Thursday, October 4, 2012

KABINET BAYANGAN PAKATAN RAKYAT !!!


BREAKING NEWS - Shadow Cabinet Pakatan Revealed

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 2012


Senarai Kabinet Bayangan Pakatan Rakyat

Perdana Menteri: Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim (PKR)

Timbalan Perdana Menteri I: Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang (Pas)

Timbalan Perdana Menteri II: Lim Guan Eng (DAP)

Timbalan Perdana Menteri III: (Pemimpin dari Sabah dan Sarawak)

Menteri di Jabatan Perdana Menteri:

Dr Tan Seng Giaw (DAP)

Datuk Seri Wan Azizah Wan Ismail (PKR)

Datuk Mustafa Ali (Pas)

Menteri Kewangan I: Tony Pua (DAP)

Menteri Kewangan II: Rafizi Ramli (PKR)

Menteri Pertahanan: Salahuddin Ayub (Pas)

Menteri Pelajaran: Datuk Seri Ir Mohamad Nizar Jamaludin (Pas)

Menteri Dalam Negeri: Azmin Ali (PKR)

Menteri Penerangan Komunikasi dan Kebudayaan: Fuziah Salleh (PKR)

Menteri Tenaga, Teknologi Hijau dan Air: Dr Dzulkefly Ahmad (Pas)

Menteri Kemajuan Luar Bandar dan Wilayah: Dr Mohd Hatta Ramli (Pas)

Menteri Pengajian Tinggi: Chong Chieng Jen (DAP)

Menteri Perdagangan Antarabangsa dan Industri: Datuk Husam Musa (Pas)

Menteri Sains, Teknologi dan Inovasi: Dr Che Rosli Che Mat (Pas)

Menteri Sumber Asli dan Alam Sekitar: R Sivarasa (PKR)

Menteri Pengangkutan: Khalid Samad (Pas)

Menteri Pelancongan: Elizabeth Wong (PKR)

Menteri Pertanian dan Industri Asas Tani: Tian Chua (PKR)

Menteri Kerja Raya: Datuk Tuan Ibrahim Tuan Man (Pas)

Menteri Kesihatan: Dr Lee Boon Chye (PKR)

Menteri Belia dan Sukan: Yusmadi Yusoff (PKR)

Menteri Sumber Manusia: Gobind Singh Deo (DAP)

Menteri Perdagangan Dalam Negeri, Koperasi dan Kepenggunaan: S Kulasegaran (DAP)

Menteri Perumahan dan Kerajaan Tempatan: Anthony Loke (DAP)

Menteri Pembangunan Wanita, Keluarga dan Masyarakat: Zuraida Kamarudin (PKR)

Menteri Luar Negeri: Datuk Saifuddin Nasution (PKR)

Menteri Wilayah Persekutuan dan Kesejahteraan Bandar: Nurul Izzah Anwar (PKR)

Menteri Perusahaan Perladangan dan Komoditi: Teresa Kok (DAP)


Senarai diatas ini dikeluarkan oleh Shuhaimi Adun Batu Tiga dalam mesyuarat biro politik PKR baru - baru ini tanpa persetujuan DAP dan PAS. Mereka menganggap kononnya PKR akan menang besar di semua kerusi yang dipertandingkan, manakala parti - parti lain hanyalah pelengkap sahaja.(sumber dalaman PKR)


anaknilai via www.papagomo.com

Monday, October 1, 2012

Pengerang bakal Jadi Hub Petroliam dan Gas terbesar di Asia Pasifik.


Pengerang Bakal Jadi Hab Minyak dan Gas Terhebat Dengan Pelaburan RM60 billion.

peta kpg terbabit dgn rapidPengerang, terletak kira-kira 45 kilometer dari bandar Johor Bahru yang mana sebahagian besar kawasannya, iaitu 70 peratus adalah tanah rancangan FELDA sementara 30 peratus adalah kampung tradisional.
Disebabkan lokasinya yang terletak di kawasan pedalaman, Pengerang pernah dilabel sebagai “tempat jin bertendang”. Apa tidaknya, kerana sepanjang perjalanan hanya kelihatan tanaman kelapa sawit, kelapa dan getah.
Aktiviti utama penduduk Pengerang ialah pertanian dan perikanan dan tarikan utama pelancong ialah pusat peranginan Desaru. Bagaimanapun pada waktu malam tidak ada banyak aktiviti berlaku dan ianya agak sunyi.
Bagaimanapun, Pengerang bakal bertukar wajah mulai 2013 apabila Kompleks Bersepadu Petroleum Pengerang (PIPC) di kawasan seluas 8,000 hektar, dimulakan.
hab minyak
Kompleks itu akan menempatkan Projek Pembangunan Bersepadu Penapisan Minyak dan Petrokimia (RAPID) yang dimajukan oleh Petronas dan Terminal Petroleum Laut Dalam Bebas oleh Kumpulan Dialog dan Royal Vopak dan Setiausaha Kerajaan Johor Diperbadankan (SSI).
Apabila kedua-dua projek itu siapdan memulakan operasi masing-masing pada 2017, Pengerang akan berubah wajah sebagai hab minyak dan gas terkemuka di Asia Pasifik dan barangkali, setanding dengan Rotterdam, Belanda.
MHR 3157
Tetapi apa yang lebih penting, perlaksanaan projek-projek terbabit sudah pasti memberi kesan besar dan positif kepada lonjakan ekonomi di negeri Johor khasnya dan Malaysia, khasnya.
Untuk RAPID, Petronas dilaporkan akan melabur sebanyak RM60 billion untuk membina dua buah pusat penapis minyak yang dapat menghasilkan 450,000 tong sehari dan perekah nafta sebanyak 3.8 juta tan setahun.
kerja2 PIPC
Perdana Menteri, Datuk Seri Mohd Najib Tun Razak pada Mei lalu mengumumkan industri minyak dan gas di Pengerang bakal menerima pelaburan keseluruhan RM120 billon dalam tempoh llima hingga enam tahun.
Manakala PEMANDU menganggarkan RAPID bakal menyumbang RM17.7 billlion kepada Pendapatan Kasar Dalam Negara (KDK) menjelang 2020.
Jurong di Singapura dan Rotterdam, tidak mempunyai sumber gas atau minyak, tetapi boleh berjaya menempatkan diri mereka sebagai negara pengeluar gas dan minyak terbesar dunia, jadi tidak ada sebab mengapa Pengerang, yang memang kaya dengan sumber berkenaan tidak boleh mencapai taraf yang sama. Apatah lagi kedudukan geografi yang strategik dan terlindung daripada angin monsoon, ia menjadi pilihan laluan kapal dagang antarabangsa.
Malah RAPID apabila siap akan lebih besar daripada kompleks sedia ada di Malaysia, iaitu Kerteh, Gebeng dan Melaka disatukan.
Perlaksanaan RAPID dan Terminal Petroleum Laut Dalam itu akan mewujudkan 50,000 peluang pekerjaan. Sehubungan itu, cadangan usahasama FELDA, Kementerian Belia dan Sukan serta Petronas untuk menaiktaraf Institut Kemahiran Belia Negara(IKBN) di Bandar Penawar dengan memperkenalkan kursus-kursus berkaitan minyak dan gas, boleh memberi jaminan bahawa Malaysia tidak akan menghadapi masalah mendapat sumber tenaga kerja dalam bidang berkenaan.
Meskipun kedua-dua projek masih dalam peringkat perlaksanaan awal, metamorfosis sudahpun bermula di Pengerang.
Dengan siapnya Lebuhraya Senai-Desaru yang melintasi Sungai Johor, ia memudahkan laluan ke kawasan itu. Kini, perjalanan dari Desaru ke Johor cuma mengambil masa setengah jam, sekaligus membantu meningkatkan industri pelancongan di sekitar Desaru dan Pengerang.
Penduduk yang terbabit dengan kedua-dua projek mega itu akan dipindahkan mengikut fasa bermula Mac tahun hadapan. Penduduk tidak akan berpindah dengan tangan koson, sebaliknya diberikan pampasan tunai berdasarkan nilai tanah, rumah, tanaman dan kebun sedia ada masing-masing.
Selain itu setiap pemilik tanah masing-masing diberikan 0.8 hektar tanah pertanian, sebuah tapak tanah perumahan seluas 6,000 kaki persegi dan subsidi untuk kos membeli atau membina rumah baharu di tapak berkenaan.
Malah untuk memastikan penduduk memiliki rumah baharu, Kerajaan Negeri akan memberi subsidi antara RM85,000 hingga RM140,000 seunit di penempatan baru seluas 154.8 hektar di Kampung Dato Abdul Ghani Othman yang terletak cuma 15 kilometer dari kampung asal mereka.
rajah pemberian pampasan
Pemindahan penduduk daripada tiga kampung dalam fasa pertama akan bermula Mac tahun hadapan sementara untuk fasa kedua, penduduk empat buah kampung akan berpindah pada Oktober 2013.
Bagi fasa pertama, kampung yang terbabit ialah Sungai Kapal, Teluk Empang dan Langkah Baik, sementara fasa kedua membabitkan Sebong, Batu Mas, Jawa dan Sungai Buntu.
tapak perumahan baru-kg
Kedua-dua projek RAPID dan Terminal apabila siap kelak akan mewujudkan rangkaian ekonomi yang besar kepada penduduk. Sejajar dengan pembangunan rapid, Kerajaan Negeri akan menaiktaraf kemudahan awam termasuk jalan raya, sistem pengangkutan awam, bangunan, sekolah, masjid, tempat ibadat dan lain-lain.
Mengikut persempadanan parlimen, dua Dewan Undangan Negeri (DUN) terletak di bawah parlimen Pengerang, iaitu Tanjung Surat dan Penawar. Parlimen Pengerang mempunyai 35,425 pengundi berdaftar dan daripada jumlah itu majoriti adalah melayu, iaitu 87% (31,055), Cina 11% (3,820), India 1% (330) dan lain-lain 1% (220).


SUMBER : JURNALMALAYSIA.COM
admin anaknilai

Wednesday, September 26, 2012

SUDAH TERANG LAGI BERSULUH !! SUARAM, MKINI DAN BEBERAPA PERTUBUHAN HARAM SERTA SYARIKAT TERIMA DANA YAHUDI. APA TINDAKAN KDN, KPDN & HEP DAN KERAJAAN ?? - THE SUARAM CHRONICLES Part 2



The Suaram Chronicles
The Collective Information Report Part 2
by

 DATED 25/09/2012



THE  REPORT  OF THE CONNECTION BETWEEN
SUARAM,
NATIONAL ENDOWMENT of DEMOCRACY (NED)
&
OPEN SOCIETY FOUNDATIONS (OSF)


Pg 13



NED  : THE STORY

NED makes more than 1000 grants each year to nongovernmental groups in more than 90 countries. Behind each grant is a story about people who share a common desire to live in a world that is free and democratic, and who are willing to dedicate and often risk their lives to achieve that goal.
Read and listen to the compelling stories of a few outstanding NED grantees as they talk about their daily struggles to advance freedom and democracy in their countries. 

If the culture survives, then so too does the nation,” is the motto of Prague’s Kampa Museum, where the exhibition “Archive of Freedom,” opened on September 20, 2011. The exhibit, which runs through Nov. 6, 2011, celebrates the 25th anniversary of legendary NED grantee Czechoslovak Documentation Center, “one of the most important exile institutions of the second half of the 20th century.” :: MORE
The Burmese government's brutal crackdown on the monk-led “Saffron Revolution” sought to silence opposition voices. But the Democratic Voice of Burma is risking everything to make sure new ideas are heard through independent media. :: MORE
The Yuri Levada Analytical Center, a NED partner since 2009, documents trends in public opinion in Russia. Named for its founder, a well-known Russian sociologist who was stripped of his professorship in 1969 for “ideological mistakes,” provides timely insight on pressing sociopolitical issues. :: MORE
The Al-Khatim Adlan Centre for Enlightenment and Human Development (KACE), a NED partner in Sudan since 2007, was founded in memory Al-Khatim Adlan, one of Sudan’s great progressive political thinkers. KACE is committed to finding democratic answers to Sudan’s long-entrenched conflicts and testing the limits of the greater political openness envisioned by Sudan’s Comprehensive Peace Agreement. :: MORE
Olang Sana of Citizens Against Violence describes how his organization was formed to stop political and electoral violence in Kenya. :: MORE
NED grantee Rescue Alternatives Liberia (RAL) is partnering with Liberian legislators to bring anti-torture legislation into law as Liberia moves beyond war atrocities and blood diamonds.
 
 :: MORE
Fifteen years after the genocide at Srebrenica, NED grantees Nataša Kandić of the Humanitarian Law Center in Belgrade and Anisa Sućeska-Vekić of the Balkan Investigative Reporting Network in Sarajevo speak to Democracy Digest about growing tensions in Bosnia, and the importance of truth and transitional justice in the Balkans. :: MORE
Adnan Hajizade is in jail for a YouTube satire, but his work continues to inspire young Azerbaijanis who long for democracy. :: MORE
Roya and Ladan Boroumand describe how they honor their family's legacy and continue their father's fight for Iranian democracy from outside the country. :: MORE
Democracy Stories producer Joe Rubin follows up with Fondation Espoir director Hans Tippenhauer to talk about the impact of the January earthquake. Tippenhauer shares on both a personal and professional level the challenges posed by the devastation, and how he and his colleagues are coping and starting to rebuild. :: MORE
HOME
 |ABOUT
 |LIBRARY
 |CONTACT
 |FELLOWSHIPS
 |PUBLICATIONS
 |RESEARCH
 |EVENTS

FOLLOW US:


source :
National Endowment for Democracy
1025 F Street NW, Suite 800
Washington, DC 20004 / (202) 378-9700
info@ned.org
[ NED Staff Access]



pg 14

additional infos’ :    About Open Society Foundations.

Open Society Foundations
Founded by George Soros
 http://www.soros.org
get email updates Twitter  Facebook  ISSUES  REGIONS  GRANTS  VOICES

ABOUT US

Mission & Values

Our Mission

The Open Society Foundations work to build vibrant and tolerant societies whose governments are accountable and open to the participation of all people.
We seek to strengthen the rule of law; respect for human rights, minorities, and a diversity of opinions; democratically elected governments; and a civil society that helps keep government power in check.
We help to shape public policies that assure greater fairness in political, legal, and economic systems and safeguard fundamental rights.
We implement initiatives to advance justice, education, public health, and independent media.
We build alliances across borders and continents on issues such as corruption and freedom of information.
Working in every part of the world, the Open Society Foundations place a high priority on protecting and improving the lives of people in marginalized communities.

Our Values

We believe in fundamental human rights, dignity, and the rule of law.
We believe in a society where all people are free to participate fully in civic, economic, and cultural life.
We believe in addressing inequalities that cut across multiple lines, including race, class, gender, sexual orientation, and citizenship.
We believe in holding those in power accountable for their actions and in increasing the power of historically excluded groups.
We believe in helping people and communities press for change on their own behalf.
We believe in responding quickly and flexibly to the most critical threats to open society.
We believe in taking on controversial issues and supporting bold, innovative solutions that address root causes and advance systemic change.
We believe in encouraging critical debate and respecting diverse opinions.

 http://www.soros.org




PG 15



OPEN SOCIETY FOUNDATION - The founder

George Soros
Founder / Chairman
George Soros came of age in Hungary at a time when it was a battleground in the decades-long conflict between fascism and communism, the two great totalitarian ideologies of the 20th century. A personal experience of this conflict—including the violence, foreign occupation, anti-Semitism, and other forms of intolerance that went with it—as well as a personal fascination with philosophy shaped Soros’s thinking in later years and influenced his successful strategies in both finance and philanthropy.
Born in Budapest in 1930, Soros survived the Nazi occupation of Hungary during World War II as well as the postwar imposition of Stalinism in his homeland. Soros fled Communist-dominated Hungary in 1947 and made his way to England. Before graduating from the London School of Economics in 1952, Soros studied Karl Popper’s work in the philosophy of science as well as his critique of totalitarianism, The Open Society and Its Enemies, which maintains that no philosophy or ideology has the final word on the truth and that societies can only flourish when they allow for democratic governance, freedom of expression, a diverse range of opinion, and respect for individual rights.
Later, while working as a financial analyst and trader in New York, Soros adapted Popper’s thinking in developing his own application of the social theory of “reflexivity,” a set of ideas that seeks to explain how a feedback mechanism can skew how participants in a market value assets on that market. After concluding that he had more talent for trading than for philosophy, Soros began to apply his ideas on reflexivity to investing, using it to predict, among other things, the emergence of financial bubbles. In 1967, he helped establish an offshore investment fund. In 1973, he set up a private investment firm that eventually evolved into the Quantum Fund, one of the first hedge funds.
Soros’s memories of anti-Semitism in wartime Hungary prompted him, in 1979, to begin providing financial support for black students at the University of Cape Town in apartheid South Africa. In 1984, Soros created an education and culture foundation in Hungary. He later supported dissident movements in Eastern Europe’s other Communist countries, helping people to organize themselves at a time when popular organizations were banned, to voice their opinions when dissonant opinions were considered anti-state propaganda, and to promote tolerance, democratic governance, human rights, and the rule of law when a one-party dictatorship exercised a monopoly on power.
As the East bloc crumbled during the late 1980s and the Soviet empire collapsed in the early 1990s, Soros expanded his funding in an effort to help create open societies in all of the region’s countries. He demonstrated his commitment to critical thinking and democratic political development by establishing Central European University in 1991. In 1993, he founded the Open Society Institute. Over the past three decades, Soros’s philanthropy has spawned a network of foundations dedicated to promoting development of open societies in Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America, and the United States. To date, Soros has given over $8 billion to support human rights, freedom of expression, and access to public health and education in more than 100 countries.
Soros's most recent book is Financial Turmoil in Europe and the United States: Essays (2012). His other books include The Soros Lectures: At the Central European University (2010); The Crash of 2008 and What it Means: The New Paradigm for Finance Markets (2009); The Age of Fallibility: Consequences of The War on Terror (2006); The Bubble of American Supremacy (2005); George Soros on Globalization(2002); Open Society: Reforming Global Capitalism (2000); The Crisis of Global Capitalism: Open Society Endangered (1998); Soros on Soros: Staying Ahead of the Curve (1995); Underwriting Democracy(1991); Opening the Soviet System (1990); and The Alchemy of Finance (1987). His essays on politics, society, and economics appear frequently in major periodicals around the world.
For more information about George Soros's activities that are separate from the Open Society Foundations, visit www.georgesoros.com.



Pg 16


GRANTS, SCHOLARSHIPS, AND FELLOWSHIPS

The Open Society Foundations award grants, scholarships, and fellowships throughout the year. Start with the form at left to explore our published grant opportunities and view eligibility requirements and application guidelines.




FEATURED GRANTS
The Open Society Campaign for Black Male Achievement aims to create hope and opportunities for black men and boys who are significantly marginalized from U.S. economic, social, and political life.
The Open Society Foundations seek to empower LGBTI communities to promote and defend their human rights.
The Arts & Culture Program invites proposals for projects that aim to promote the cultural inclusion of Roma in Central and Eastern Europe.
Funds are available in programmatic areas including human rights, labour migration, transparency and consumer protection, and transparency of Western military and security cooperation.
The Burma Project/Southeast Asia Initiative focuses on open society issues throughout Southeast Asia, particularly in Burma but also in other countries where essential freedoms are threatened.
The Open Society Initiative for Eastern Africa invites applications from pro-democracy organizations in the region.

PG. 17

Grant Requirement & Criteria
        Grantmaking
In 2010, the Open Society Foundations, through its New York, Budapest, and London offices alone, awarded more than 4,500 grants in the amount of $612 million.
Many Open Society Foundations programs engage proactively to identify organizations whose efforts closely correspond to our strategies.  While we predominantly fund preselected organizations, some programs encourage submission of letters of inquiry or publish funding guidelines for grant seekers.  Our scholarship and fellowship programs in particular actively solicit applications from individuals who satisfy the defined selection criteria.
If you are interested in seeking a grant from the Open Society Foundations, we encourage you to explore this website to determine whether any of our programs or foundations correspond to the work you are pursuing. The Foundations do not award grants outside of our targeted thematic and geographic areas of interest.
GRANTS
Southeast Asia: Beyond Borders
Application Deadline - Ongoing
Southeast Asia: Beyond Borders
Southeast Asia: Beyond Borders is a grantgiving and operational program of the Southeast Asia Initiative and the East East Beyond Borders Program of the Open Society Foundations.
The mandate of the Southeast Asia: Beyond Borders grantgiving and operational program derives from the East East Beyond Borders Program, which was created in 1991 in Central and Eastern Europe and Central Asia, specifically in the context of post-socialist transition. Today, the East East Beyond Borders Program works to support exchanges among civil society and nongovernmental organizations to share experiences and create new knowledge to advance principles of open society internationally.
Southeast Asia: Beyond Borders supports multinational initiatives of civil society and nongovernmental organizations in Southeast Asia, and the participation of these organizations in regional and global exchanges, to share best practices and lessons learned in the realization of practices of open society. 
Examples of initiatives supported by Southeast Asia: Beyond Borders include:
Exposing and Challenging Undemocratic Displacement in Asia: Video Advocacy
Campaign to End the Use of Child Soldiers in ASEAN Member States
Crossover: From Civil Society to Civil Service
Multimedia Training for Youth Affected by the Asian Tsunami
Democratization Assessment and Grassroots Empowerment in Southeast Asia
Transforming Asian Leadership: Globalization, Regional Integration and Cultural Diversity
Linking Philanthropies in Eastern Europe and Southeast Asia through Peer Learning
Ineligibility Criteria
Southeast Asia: Beyond Borders does not support world congresses/annual conferences; artistic productions; individual travel/conference participation; consultancies; higher education research; translation/publishing; hard science; or, business/commercial/for-profit activities.
Guidelines
For information and application guidelines, please contact:
Mary Frances Lindstrom
East
East Beyond Borders
Open Society Foundations
mflindstrom@osf-eu.org

pg  18

The Functions
VOICES
Police Need a New Professionalism (Fortunately, It’s Already Hiding Inside Many Agencies)
July 24, 2012   by Christopher Stone
info
In cities across the United States, violent crime rates are at record lows as are the numbers of civilians killed by police action. Yet police agencies are facing a spike in hostile protests over stop-and-frisk tactics and racial profiling. In South Africa, crime rates have been falling for years and the technical sophistication of the Police Service has never been higher, yet public respect for the police is in the toilet. In Turkey, police corruption, once flagrant, is now rare, and the use of physical force has virtually disappeared from interrogations; yet fear of the police is growing. In Rio de Janeiro, a widely praised police unit that occupies the slums once controlled by violent gangs has made many of them safer than they have been in a generation, but the results of a survey of officers working in those slums released this week reveals that the residents are growing increasingly hostile toward the police there. Why?
Why—when crime is falling, corruption receding, technical mastery growing, torture disappearing, and safety rising—are the residents of all these places distrustful of, or outright angry at, the police?
Police are still chasing a false image of their own professionalism, conceived a half century ago. The professionalism of the 1950s and 1960s, made popular in American television shows like Dragnet,Starsky and Hutch, and S.W.A.T. held out a promise that following the law, mastering sophisticated weaponry, and pledging loyalty to the organization would bring professional discipline and, with it, public respect. Wrong, wrong, wrong.
By the 1990s, political leaders and reform-minded police executives had recognized the problem. The so-called “professional model” of policing was distancing police from citizens and squelching their ingenuity. In the competition for the most rapid response, police departments lost sight of the right response to a call for help.
Community policing—collaborative partnerships between law enforcement and the individuals and groups they serve—became the new creed: professional policing out, community policing in. Bill Clinton built a big part of his 1992 presidential campaign around his pledge to add a hundred thousand community police officers nationwide, and the African National Congress enshrined community policing in the 1996 constitution of the new South Africa. 
But community policing was no match for the allure of professionalism. Community policing became a specialized unit, a vague philosophy, and a funding stream from Washington or London, but most of what police agencies around the world did everyday still looked a lot like the old, professional model. The real investments were made in new computers, vehicles of every sort, weapons, and surveillance. Yes, police almost everywhere became more adept at following the law, and most made gestures toward community policing. These were meaningful—but not sufficient—achievements.
Only a new professionalism can replace the old professionalism. Community policing is an invaluable foundation for a new professionalism, but it is not—and never was—a complete package, able to guide detectives as well as patrol officers, and able to inspire police dealing with financial fraud, gun running, or political corruption.
What is that new professionalism? In an article last year Jeremy Travis and I suggested that police professionalism requires four commitments: to accountability, to legitimacy, to innovation, and to national and global coherence. Professional police are accountable for the cost of policing, the level of crime, and the conduct of the police themselves. Professional police attend not just to the legality of their actions, but to the public perception of those actions as legitimate. Professional police cultivate innovation and learning throughout their agencies. Professional policing is nurtured coherently in national, regional, and global networks. Building that new professional culture of policing will take time and effort, and it will also take money.
Last year, my predecessor at Open Society, Aryeh Neier, began an effort to create a new, global program on police reform to support more professional, rights-respecting policing. I encouraged that effort as a member of two Open Society advisory boards, and now we are bringing those plans to fruition. Of course, the Open Society Foundations will continue to support human rights advocates documenting misconduct and pressing for reform and our efforts to expand the information about crime and policing available from governments and in media of all kind will continue. But we will also increase support to NGOs, academics, and police organizations themselves willing to define a new professionalism in practice.
The answers are already in the police agencies. I’ve seen them in the genius of police officers I’ve worked with in Brazil, Jamaica, the Netherlands, Nigeria, South Africa, Turkey, and the United States. The answers are also in society, in organizations like Nigeria’s CLEEN Foundation and the Brazilian Forum for Public Security, whose conference I attended this week. Most promising of all, the answers lie in partnerships between police agencies aspiring to a new professionalism and the people they police.
There will always be a certain degree of force in policing. What matters is whether policing—when it asserts its authority—makes democratic progress possible or impedes it. Professional policing enhances democratic progress when it accounts for what it does, achieves public support, learns through innovation, and transcends parochialism.
Learn More:

PG. 19


The Events
The Open Society Foundations early childhood programs advance a holistic approach to teaching, while our advocacy and debate initiatives strive to ensure that young people of different backgrounds have equal access to education and individual expression.
FEATURED WORK
REPORT
VOICES
Instead of investing millions of dollars to build a new jail, state officials should end the practice of automatically charging youth as adults.
VOICES
Obama's new Initiative on Educational Excellence for African Americans is a significant game changer for millions of black students.
OPEN SOCIETY VOICES
September 18, 2012 by Monique DixonInstead of investing millions of dollars to build a new jail, state officials should end the practice of automatically charging youth as adults.
September 18, 2012 by Andrea Csanadi 1
A DVD collection of Central Asian cinema looks at Soviet and post-Soviet cinema in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan.
September 17, 2012 by Katherine LaphamWhy providing access to high-quality education is a good place to try to right the wrongs of twenty years of turmoil in the South Caucasus.
NEWS
September 12, 2012 | Press Release
August 13, 2012 | Press Release
June 7, 2012 | Press Release
GRANTEE SPOTLIGHT
VOICES
EXPERTS
Senior Advisor, Pakistan / Lead Education Economist and Researcher, South Asia
Education Support Program
Director, Education and Youth Development Program
Open Society Institute–Baltimore
Campaign Manager, Campaign for Black Male Achievement
U.S. Programs
UPCOMING EVENTS
OCT 12
This conference is designed to bring together a range of institutions and representatives to critically debate the effects of privatization on education quality, equity, effectiveness, and efficiency.


pg. 20

THE PROFESSIONALS

Jane Sundius is the Education and Youth Development Program director at the Open Society Institute–Baltimore. She is responsible for the development and implementation of a grantmaking, advocacy, and technical assistance program that works to enhance access to high quality learning opportunities for all of Baltimore’s youth, both in and out of school.
Recent major initiatives include efforts to increase the quality and quantity of after-school and summer learning opportunities for Baltimore’s children, to reduce suspensions, expulsions, and arrests in public schools and to improve student attendance. She serves on several advisory groups working to improve outcomes for children, including the executive committee of the Baltimore Education Research Consortium and the advisory committee of the Maryland Out-of-School-Time Network.
Prior to her work at the Open Society Foundations, she worked as a research and evaluation consultant to local foundations and
nonprofit organizations and was the administrator of a graduate program in public policy. She also served as a senior research associate on a longitudinal study of Baltimore City Public School children that analyzed the effects of poverty and family characteristics on school performance and tracked children’s school year and summer learning trajectories. She holds a PhD in sociology and an MA in public policy from the Johns Hopkins University. 



pg 21

        Faisal Bari is senior advisor for Pakistan with the Central Eurasia Project and lead education economist and researcher for South Asia for the Education Support Program. He is also associate professor of economics at Lahore University of Management Sciences.

Bari has been a teacher and researcher in the field of development and education in Pakistan for over 12 years.



Pg 22

THE MAN BEHIND

FOUNDER/CHAIRMAN



GEORGE SOROS



PG. 23

THE PRESIDENT of OSF
Christopher Stone is the president of the Open Society Foundations. He is  an international expert on criminal justice reform and on the leadership and governance of nonprofits.
Prior to joining Open Society as president in July 2012, he was the 
Guggenheim Professor of the Practice of Criminal Justice at Harvard 
University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government and director of the 
Hauser Center for Nonprofit Organizations. Before that, Stone spent a 
decade as director of the Vera Institute of Justice. He founded the 
Neighborhood Defender Service of Harlem and served as a founding 
director of the New York State Capital Defender Office and of the Altus Global Alliance.
Stone received his BA from Harvard, an MPhil in criminology from the 
University of Cambridge, and his JD from Yale Law School. He was awarded 
an honorary Order of the British Empire for his contributions to criminal justice reform in the United Kingdom.



PG. 24



pg. 25


   Admin Review and Comments shall be written in 

SEE YOU THERE…………………….
BAHA TAHA
ADMIN
ANAKNILAI
JANJI DITEPATI
FB PAGES/ BLOGSPOT
25/09/2012






Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

SANTAI.......Video Mr. Mansuh.....

Sudah Terang lagi Bersuluh !!! Wawancara Anwar oleh BFM

Anaknilai Bloggers Group Social Plugin