Our Feeds

Wednesday, January 10, 2018

aman

What’s your alternative to Mahathir?






By Mariam Mokhtar

There are times in life when you have to make tough decisions. Not every decision can be perfect, and you would be naive to think that each comes with a cast-iron guarantee. The most important thing is that you tried your best.

Former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad has teamed up with the opposition coalition to try and regain control of Malaysia. His party, PPBM, has managed to unite the leaders of PKR, DAP and PAS-breakaway party Amanah.

While news of Mahathir’s resurgence has upset many Umno-Baru supporters and definitely Prime Minister Najib Razak, many other Malaysians are also displeased with the “new” Mahathir-Pakatan Harapan (PH) line-up. They have threatened not to vote in GE14 because they claim that voting for Mahathir would be a jump from the frying pan into the fire.

Their anger is manifold. They say Mahathir’s policies sowed the seeds of disunity. They claim that PH can win on its own, without Mahathir. They dismiss the projection of Malay loyalty to Mahathir and claim that this may be overstated. They are also angry with the infighting among opposition parties, which seem to be busy trading blows with one another instead of bringing down Umno-Baru.

Are the Malaysians who will not vote in GE14 justified in staying at home, or are they being selfish and irresponsible?

Are they content to do nothing? Are they happy to live with high prices, corruption, incompetent civil servants and rising racial and religious intolerance for another five years?

One human rights activist and political observer disagrees with people who threaten to refrain from voting in GE14 just because they are displeased with Mahathir. He said, “Idealism is a luxury we cannot afford when the house is on fire.”

Like it or not, we are all Mahathir’s children, metaphorically. He was Malaysia’s longest serving prime minister, and ruled with an iron fist for 22 years. He opted to resign in 2003 rather than overstay his welcome. His policies have affected all of us, in one way or another.

As a result of his ketuanan policies, the potential of the non-Malays was not fully realised. The Malays were rewarded, irrespective of their worth. When Mahathir left office, he also left a divided nation. He may have resigned, but it was alleged that he kept a close eye on various issues from a distance.

So, what do Mahathir’s detractors want? There is little point in moaning and not offering a solution. Spoiling their vote is akin to giving Umno-Baru/Barisan Nasional (BN) the vote. Abstaining from voting is, again, like giving Umno-Baru/BN another five years of power.

Malaysia is at a crossroads. The opportunity to overthrow 60 years of misrule will never present itself again, because if change does not happen after GE14, chances are that our descent will accelerate.

Mahathir has added to our momentum for change. We should capitalise on that. Many of us abhor his policies, but GE14 is not about us. It is about getting Malaysia back on its feet.

Perhaps the people who reject Mahathir can share their alternative plan for defeating Umno-Baru. What is their Plan B?

Malaysians needs to be reminded that if they vote for change in GE14, they can easily vote for another party in GE15 if PH under-performs.

Mariam Mokhtar is an FMT columnist.

The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.

Source: http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/opinion/2018/01/10/whats-your-alternative-to-mahathir/#sthash.wXZZmPRn.gbpl

Tuesday, January 09, 2018

aman

Can we exist without a box?



Existentialism for the day:

Can we exist without a box?

Can we ever ignore the existence of the box?

If we ignore the box, do we exist?

Can we physically be in the box but tell our mind that the box doesn't exist?

Seriously, the phrase "thinking outside the box" has been so overused so much so that it has lost its meaning and glitter.

"Thinking without the box" is nothing but a meaningless derivative of that phrase.

But let us analyze it anyway.

To think outside the box, we must first know the box. What is the box? How does the box make us think? Why must we not think within the box?

Only then we can think OUTSIDE the box.

And be free of the box.

But in doing so, the box is still there. It is just that we are outside of it.

To think without the box is an impossibility. Because without the box, there is nothing. Only a vacuum.

And we can't exist in a vacuum.

In the context of an organization, the rules and regulations set by the management is the box.

To implore the staff to think without the box is to ask the staff to ignore the existence of the rules and regulations.

Now that, to me, is dangerous.

I wouldn't say so. But then, that's just me being me.


aman

Bosnian news respond: Mahatir in 92 is again a candidate for the prime minister of Malaysia



The opposition party in Malaysia has appointed Mahathir Mohammad (92) as the prime minister in the general election to be held this summer, Reuters reports.

Mahatir is the former prime minister of Malaysia, most deserving of its economic growth in the 1990s, but many believe that since 92 years he is no longer able to run the government of this country.

Despite this, given that the most popular opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim is in jail, Mahatir is the biggest challenge for Prime Minister Najib Razak, who is burdening the corruption scandal.

If victory Mahatir will be the oldest political leader in the world.

Source: https://www.klix.ba/vijesti/svijet/mahatir-u-92-godini-postaje-ponovo-kandidat-za-premijera-malezije/180107026

Monday, January 08, 2018

aman

BOLEH KE KITA BUNUH PEROMPAK YANG CUBA MEROMPAK KITA? YA MEMANG BOLEH! Tapi baca dan fahamkan dulu ye!!



Hak pertahanan peribadi (right to self defence) atau hak membela diri dari ancaman penjenayah memang wujud di dalam Kanun Keseksaan. Prinsip ini terkandung dalam seksyen 96 Kanun Keseksaan kita. Maksud pertahanan peribadi dinyatakan lagi dalam bahagian 97 yang menyatakan bahawa setiap orang berhak kepada 2 bentuk pembelaan; (a) hak untuk melindungi diri sendiri dan orang lain dari bahaya fizikal (b) hak untuk melindungi harta benda daripada bahaya.

Seksyen 100 Kanun Keseksaan menyatakan bahawa dalam melakukan pembelaan diri, seseorang boleh bertindak balas sehingga menyebabkan kematian kepada penyerang apabila ia melibatkan;

(a) ketakutan kematian
(b) ketakutan luka parah
(c) niat untuk merogol
(d) berniat memuaskan nafsu yang tidak wajar
(e) niat untuk menculik atau menculik
(f) niat untuk mengurung secara salah

Dalam erti kata lain, jika anda diancam oleh penjenayah yang ingin melakukan perkara (a) hingga (f) di atas, anda boleh membela diri sehingga membunuh penyerang tersebut. Selain dari ancaman-ancaman di atas, anda tidak boleh membela diri anda sehingga menyebabkan kematian kepada penyerang.

Kes yang sangat popular apabila mengupas tentang isu ini adalah kes PP vs Dato’ Balwant Singh. Dalam kes tersebut, Dato’ Balwant telah di kepung oleh sekumpulan samseng jalanan. Dato’ Balwant mempunyai pistol dan telah melepaskan tembakan ke udara untuk memberi amaran kepada penyerang-penyerangnya.

Namun walaupun selepas tembakan dilepaskan, penyerang beliau masih tidak lari dan menuju ke arah Dato’ Balwant dengan memegang kayu yang besar. Maka Dato’ Balwant menembak mati penyerangnya. Dato’ Balwant dituduh di mahkamah kerana membunuh.

Peguam Dato’ Balwant berhujah bahawa Dato’ Balwant berhak untuk menggunakan haknya membela diri kerana ancaman ke atas dirinya adalah jelas; beliau mungkin dipukul hingga mati atau cedera teruk jika beliau tidak menembak penyerangnya. Ini juga ditambah dengan faktor umur Dato’ Balwant yang sudah tua dan walaupun beliau telah melepaskan tembakan amaran, penyerang-penyerangnya tidak lari malah terus menuju ke arah Dato’ Balwant. Mahkamah menerima hujah tersebut dan Dato’ Balwant Singh dilepaskan.

ADAKAH KITA BOLEH MEMBUNUH PENJENAYAH DEMI MEMPERTAHANKAN ORANG LAIN?

Jawapannya boleh. Hak membela diri juga terpakai kepada orang ketiga. Contohnya dalam kes Wong Laii Fatt v PP, beliau telah menggunakan pisau dan menikam orang yang sedang merogol isterinya. Mahkamah membebaskan tertuduh dengan alasan bahawa tertuduh layak menggunakan hak membela diri dan membunuh orang yang sedang merogol isterinya.

JIKA RUMAH ANDA DIROMPAK, PECAH RUMAH PADA WAKTU MALAM, BOLEH KAH ANDA MEMBUNUH PEROMPAK TERSEBUT?

Jawapannya ya, boleh. Seksyen 103 menyatakan bahawa hak pertahanan peribadi ke atas harta malah boleh mengakibatkan kematian kepada penyerang anda jika kesalahan itu merupakan:-

(a) rompakan
(b) rumah yang dipecah pada waktu malam
(c) kerosakan oleh api
(d) kecurian, kerosakan atau rumah

Bagi (c) dan (d), anda hanya boleh membunuh penyerang anda jika ia melibatkan ancaman kematian atau kecederaan yang teruk, akibat daripada jika anda tidak menggunakan hak anda untuk membela diri.

Namun had anda untuk membela diri ada hadnya. Hak anda untuk membela diri hanya muncul apabila anda diserang pada waktu itu dan hak anda itu akan tamat apabila pencuri/perompak atau penyerang anda melarikan diri dari anda.

Jadi, adalah menjadi satu kesalahan jika anda mengejar penyerang anda dan membunuhnya kerana tempoh had masa anda untuk membela diri telah tamat. Kini anda pula dianggap sebagai penyerang kerana anda tidak lagi membela diri.

Dengan penjelasan ini kami berharap dapat memperbetulkan persepsi masyarakat terhadap undang-undang membela diri di Malaysia.

Untuk pertanyaan lanjut berkaitan undang-undang, hubungi www.wasap.my/601129464868

Friday, January 05, 2018

aman

Bukan Tun M yang mahu singkirkan Salleh, kata bekas AG



Bekas peguam negara (AG), Tan Sri Abu Talib Othman sekali lagi berkata bekas perdana menteri Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad tidak bertanggungjawab dalam pemecatan ketua hakim negara ketika itu, Tun Salleh Abas.

 Pengesahannya dibuat susulan kenyataan Dr Mahathir semalam yang mengulangi bahawa beliau tidak bertanggungjawab terhadap pemecatan Salleh sehingga mengakibatkan krisis kehakiman pada tahun 1988. 

Walau bagaimanapun, Abu Talib menegaskan bahawa dirinya bukan mempertahankan Dr Mahathir dalam perkara itu. 

Isu itu, menurutnya, adalah "sejarah". 

Abu Talib membuat penjelasan itu susulan Dr Mahathir dalam kenyataannya semalam menyalahkannya kerana menggunakan nama bekas perdana menteri itu untuk memecat Salleh. 

Namun, bekas peguam negara itu bagaimanapun menegaskan bahawa beliau tidak menggunakan nama Mahathir kerana perdana menteri itu berperanan dalam penubuhan sebuah tribunal untuk meneliti kes berhubung dakwaan ke atas Salleh. 

Memetik perlembagaan, Abu Talib berkata bahawa tribunal itu hanya boleh ditubuhkan atas perwakilan yang dibuat oleh perdana menteri.



Sumber: https://www.kinitv.com/video/55923O74

Thursday, November 30, 2017

aman

Sejarah kebangkitan Pelajar UiTM yang ramai belum tahu.