Dr Ling You definately would not dare cheat Tun Mahatir. You gave him his cut and if you did NOT you would have been either charged with Homosexual activity or would have been ISAed. How else Tun Mahatir's kids and your kids have more money than God in a matter of years from being ordinary citizens?? We are all aware of that.Tell us something we don't know.
A casual brush with greatness can give new meaning to one's life in much the same way that an encounter with the recently-verified God particle converts non-matter into matter!
When news first came that the scientific world was excited with the discovery of ‘God particle’, my initial understanding was that proof of the existence of God had been uncovered. Later, after diligently reading through the scientific jargon , which newspapers valiantly tried to convert to layman terms, I realised that the only Gods we had validated were those that walk the earth — celebrities.
At one MCA AGM Ling to said that Mahathir "Sir! You are gods gift to this country".At the same time both together with MIC Samy volu were plundering the rakyats money.This trial is just :wayang".Ling will be acquitted.If he is jailed he will spill the beans on all theother UMNO warlords who ripped millions from PKFZ. To all the non Umno BN ministers and deputy ministers the trial of a former president of the second largest party, Ling Liong Sik, in the coalition can teach you one important thing. That other than Umno members the rest of the coalition members are dispensable - especially the retired ones who are of no further use to the regime. Even when Ling has the country's highest honorable award,Tun, Umno-controlled government did not spared him and he is being made a scrapegoat for the whole PKFZ multi-billions dollars scandal. even to think about it is wrong, but how come your son got 27 billions to buy this co.and that co. when he was only 27 years old. There are many more current BN leaders are involved in this scandal. When you look at the previous allegedly corruption cases that were brought up by the opposition against Umno leaders, even the small divisional leaders, none were seriously investigated and charged. We dare to say an Umno division chairman is more powerful than any top non-Umno ministers; afterall he gets to elect the president of Umno who in turn will be the Prime Minister of the country.
Tun, you are not sending the letter to any ordinary person but to the Number one man in the country and you claim that you did not read it before signing and that it contained lies. How convenient to use your three senior officials as scapegoats. Why should they want to fabricate you? Are you inferring that they were so keen on the project that worded the letter in such a way? I’m sure you can do better than that Tun. If your signature is at the bottom, you are responsible. Dr. M will not hesitate to screw you properly after all you are a pendatang according to his Ketuanan. So get screwed as you deserve it for being a running dog of a corrupt regime. No ifs and buts. Period. One letter with lies went undetected but TWO letters with lies is just too much.
yOU dared not cheat the PM who was Mahathir then...but he dared to cheat the Rakyat? Does that make Mahathir the bigger con?"I dare not cheat the PM". This statement only mean that the PM wasn't cheated by Ling, nothing more. If for e.g., the PM was involved in the lies or if he sanctioned the lies, he wouldn't be "cheated" by Ling, right ? Ling better watch his words. His charge is cheating the cabinet, not the PM, Ling Long Shitt famously once said, when he was MCA President, 'we non-Malays have to know our station in life'. He was happy to be a second-class Malaysian - as long as he could also milk the cow which has been raped and pillaged by his UMNO taiko for 50 years. If any Pendatang deserves a long jail sentence, Ling tops the list. He should be appointed Mahathir's prison slave once Pakatan is able to send old Mahathir into Sungei Buloh!
This guy is hilarious : I was wrongly charged, " " I did not know the value of the PKFZ land " "I would not dare to cheat Dr Mahathir" " I signed and send the letter full of lies inadvertently" 'it was the fault of the Senior Officers" Do they all attend the same course conducted by Biro Tipu Negara with Utusan Group Editors as the visiting guest lecturer in spin and lies ? The BN and MCA politicians Should release their University transcripts .
But wait, I am being facetious here. Hailed by physicists with outstanding ovation and applause, the Higgs Boson is what gives shape and size to all matter in the Universe. It is the operative particle that attracts energy, which then clumps together to form mass. A newspaper gave the interesting analogy of a room scattered with people . Enter a celebrity, and little clusters of people begin to start forming around him as he moves around the room. While one person may not have been as effective, a cluster around the celeb becomes a mass. This is what Higgs Boson does to the non-matter in the Universe; it gives it a shape and size and so, a reality. A brush with God particle converts non-matter into matter.
Following the social analogy, a brush with greatness is bound to have some impact on ordinary mortals. Sometimes it may even become the highpoint of an individual’s existence, his identity for all time to come. Remember the kewat (boatman) who ferried Lord Ram, Sita and Lakshman across the Ganges on their way to exile? This one touch of divinity shot him to greatness; till today kewat is part of bhajans sung about lord Ram. Recall Shabari, the old woman who waited her entire life to meet Ram and feed him berries after tasting them for sweetness? That one incident made her immortal.
A colleague talks about how on two consecutive flights, he happened to sit next to Kishore Biyani and NR Narayana Murthy. He got talking with them and says the rare opportunity set him thinking that these brushes with two great men hadn’t happened without reason. Had he waited months for an appointment with either, he may not have got it and here he was talking to them. It gave him an incentive to push himself and do better in life.
Another friend talks fondly of how her grandfather was once touched on the back by Mahatma Gandhi, and how that became the highpoint of his life, the referral point for everything else. A story about the discovery of the Amarnath caves talks of shepherd Buta Malik who was given a bag full of coal by a saint. Later, Buta realised the bag was full of gold coins. He went looking for the saint but couldn’t locate him. Instead, he found the holy cave of Amarnath and the Shiv lingam there. It is said that till today, part of the proceeds from the holy place go to the shepherd’s family. What benefit from one touch of greatness.
Were these people destined to be touched by greatness and so be catapulted to a new level? They certainly didn’t plan these incidents, and yet the impact on them was profound.
On the other hand, you see people hanging onto celebrity coat tails in the hope of some greatness rubbing off on them. They live entire lives in reflected glory as part of a celebrity posse, losing their own identity in the process rather than gaining greatness. Certainly not a Higgs Boson effect.
You cannot run after greatness expecting a rub-off . If it happens, it happens. Just as Lord Ram or Gandhi or the saint with Buta Malik , or even Narayana Murthy and Biyani gave new meaning and identity to the lives of the people they touched unwittingly. The true Higgs Boson effect.
The God particle helps give an identity, not take it away.
What surely is the most neglected and among the most important issues of this election season will likely be aired for at least a few hours in the Senate early next week. It would be a wonderful surprise if senators make the most of it, and voters should pay close attention to those who don't.
The DISCLOSE Act (S 3369), a simple effort to allow Americans to know who is spending big money to influence our elections, hits the Senate floor on Monday. Stripped down from legislation that passed the House in 2010 but fell a single vote short in the Senate, the bill would close a huge loophole that lets individuals, corporations and labor unions secretly invest in politics by funneling their money through tax-exempt non-profit organizations that are exempt from disclosure requirements.
More than $130 million in secret money sailed through this loophole and into the 2010 elections; hundreds of millions more are flowing into this year's races for control of the White House and Congress.
Introduced by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, (D-RI), and 28 co-sponsors, the new DISCLOSE bill was redrafted to address objections to the 2010 version. Gone are meaningful provisions that would have banned political spending by government contractors and required broadcast ads to list the names of at least some of the donors paying for them. Language that the bill's Republican opponents alleged would force corporate spending into the open while shielding labor spending from disclosure also has been removed -- the new bill treats labor and management spending in exactly the same way. Last but certainly not least, the bill would not take effect until next year, so it would have no impact on this year's elections.
Still, Republicans are promising a filibuster to block the Senate from debating the bill, amending it or taking a final vote to pass or kill it. That tactic worked in 2010 and DISCLOSE supporters concede that they are unlikely to muster the 60-vote super majority needed to overcome it this year.
That's a shame, because the case against DISCLOSE is nothing short of laughable.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, (R-KY) once a vocal supporter of politicaltransparency, now leads the opposition to DISCLOSE; he peddles the nonsense that it's part of a plot to push corporations out of politics. Rather than anger powerful incumbents by openly spending money to oppose them, or invite consumer retaliation by supporting unpopular candidates, companies will close their checkbooks and remain silent, McConnell argues.
The fact is that corporations were openly involved in our elections long before the Citizens United decision allowed them to use corporate money to support or oppose candidates. For decades, hundreds of companies have attached their names to political action committees (PACs), financed by publicly-disclosed donations from their executives and employees; if those companies were seriously worried about reprisals or threatened by politically-inspired boycotts, they'd have shut down their PACs long ago.
And to whatever extent that government officials or irate customers act to cancel contracts or do actual damage to businesses because of their political spending, there are laws in place to punish those involved.
What's really at stake in the DISCLOSE debate is the public's right to know. Before every election, Americans are exposed to hundreds -- even thousands -- of political messages. Information about who is paying for all that speech is vital to our ability to assess it and make decisions about which candidates we want to support.
And disclosure yields added benefits after Election Day, when the people, groups and companies that pay for all that speech come calling on the officials it helped elect. Disclosure lets us connect the dots when officials repay donors by rewriting the laws that tax or regulate their businesses or associations; the knowledge that we can detect such corruption can keep it from happening.
In short, DISCLOSE is a critical line of defense in the battle to make ours a government truly "of, by and for the people." Liberals who worry that big businesses are trying to buy our democracy, and conservatives who have the same fear about the influence of big labor, should support it with equal fervor.
The resignation of PKR central leadership council memberLatheefa Koya from the Petaling Jaya Municipal Council calls attention at an inopportune moment to Selangor Menteri Besar Khalid Ibrahim’s attitude towards internal dissent, which could charitably be described as maladroit.
Latheefa, a lawyer with a long track record of human rights advocacy – initially with Parti Rakyat Malaysia (PRM) and, latterly, with Parti Keadilan Malaysia, the entity PRM merged with in 2002 – was appointed a councillor in 2008 when Pakatan Rakyat took over Selangor following its victory in the general election that year.
Latheefa had sent an email to Khalid sharply criticising the way a demonstration by a band of urban pioneers (peneroka bandar) at the Selangor State Secretariat (SUK) office in Shah Alam on June 20 was handled.
‘Peneroka bandar‘ is a legally recognised concept that makes it incumbent of property developers not to treat as squatters families long domiciled on land the latter do not own but to which they have rendered value through a combination of residence, small-scale agriculture, animal husbandry, or other economic activity.
The designation ‘peneroka bandar’ was a hard won legal coinage gained in the mid-1980s through the advocacy of Parti Sosialis Malaysia (PSM) and its predecessor, Parti Sosialis Rakyat Malaysia (PSRM).
It was a triumph of no small import and a signal piece of evidence that the patient and dedicated espousal of causes by opposition parties, however minuscule, can redound to the betterment of the hoi polloi.
Protesters made to endure blazing heat
The people – who had demonstrated on June 20 were from 46 families from a urban pioneering colony in Sungai Buloh that was uprooted to make way for development – had been trying in vain to engage with MB Khalid for a year.
The gates of the SUK complex were closed to prevent the demonstrators from coming into the building proper, thus forcing them to endure the blazing heat for some hours before they dispersed.
It certainly wasn’t the way for a Pakatan government to treat people that they should engage with even if disinclined to acquiesce to their demands.
Engagement is a core plank of the Pakatan manifesto of national salvation for a country steadily succumbing to the plutocracy that UMNO-BN has devolved into over the past half century.
On those grounds, Latheefa was right to criticise Khalid and to give wider effect to her strictures by circulating the email to senior leaders of PKR.
Khalid took umbrage. He tabled a motion at a meeting of the Majlis Tindakan Economy Selangor (Selangor Economic Action Council) or MTES, which is composed of state executive councilors, to have Latheeya sacked.
The motion, seconded by Dr Xavier Jeyakumar, was passed with two demurrals – Elizabeth Wong’s (PKR) and (it was bruited about) Ronnie Liu’s (DAP).
Latheefa heard about the decision. To pre-empt matters she decided to quit before the decision to sack her as MBPJ councillor could be executed. Thus a matter that could have been eased by engagement has eventuated in the resignation of a party activist from a position in which it has not been suggested she is unsuited on account of criticising conduct considered unbecoming of a Pakatan government.
Good in some areas, bad in others
Convoluted? Yes, but a look at the source of the controversy should indicate how simply the whole matter could have been avoided.
When asked at a political bureau meeting why the gates were closed leaving the demonstrators to the mercy of the withering heat, Khalid replied that it was done for “security” reasons.
If Khalid had stayed true to the Pakatan ideological core of engagement, the contretemps leading to Latheefa’s resignation could plausibly have been avoided. This caper is unfortunate because the merits of his administration are all too plain to see.
As outlined at a Selangor State Assembly session recently, the state’s cash reserves stood at RM918 million at the end of 2010, and RM1,100 million at June 30, 2011.
“In six months, the state government has managed to increase the state revenue by RM200 million and this is the best financial record over the past 28 years,” trumpeted Khalid to the assembly.
When the record of financial administration is so good; when it is contrasted to the profligacy, corruption and waste of the UMNO-BN years in charge of the country’s most prolific state; when the marked improvement in most measures of governance is grounds for optimism that Pakatan would retain at the polls the state that UMNO-BN so badly wants back, it would seem churlish to criticise an administration for peccadilloes such a lack of solicitude for the grouses of a batch of urban pioneers and consequent high-handedness in dealing with a critic of that lack.
But that’s what it is. Khalid is good at excelling at several of the things that are important for the longevity of Pakatan rule while fouling up some of the things that cumulatively would undermine the coalition’s hold in the future.
This is called excelling at pomp and fouling up circumstance, incidentally an UMNO-BN speciality.
Earlier this week White House Press Secretary Jay Carney responded to a question about the release of President Obama's college transcript:
"This is the Donald Trump question... It is preposterous, this is from the guy who insisted that he didn't believe the president was born in the United States."
There are times, however, when even ill-intended or even conspiracy leaning egotists have a point. Such is the case of those, including many disappointed or disbelieving birthers, who have shifted their focus to demanding the release of President Obama's college and law school transcripts. Mitt Romney, who initially hesitated on releasing his tax returns, has apparently released his transcripts. Hopefully, his vice president will as well. Such transcripts, like tax returns and medical records, and some criminal records, are private by law unless voluntarily waived. American voters, however, notwithstanding the motives of some advocates, have an overriding interest in transparency for objective, even old, information about the formative adult years of those seeking the highest office in the nation. I would add that it would serve the public interest if in addition, Supreme Court nominees as well as congressional and other candidates did the same. Why is it that so many positions of far less import, in both the public and private sector, with far smaller constituencies often call for the presentation of a transcript, but not the most sensitive job in the world?
It is a testament to our nation that included among our most noteworthy founders were some of the greatest thinkers the world has ever known. And among their most significant contributions to our fledgling society was the establishment of universities to create an educated citizenry to serve the public good. The founding of a public university was so important to Thomas Jefferson's legacy that he mandated its placement on his epitaph:
Here was buried Thomas Jefferson Author of the Declaration of American Independence Of the Statute of Virginia for religious freedom & Father of the University of Virginia.
Similarly, Ben Franklin, founder of what is now the University of Pennsylvania, sought in 1749 to create an institution to prepare the area's youth for, among other things, citizenship:
The idea of what is true merit, should also be often presented to youth, explain'd and impress'd on their minds, as consisting in an Inclination join'd with an Ability to serve Mankind, one's Country, Friends and Family... which Ability should be the great Aim and End of all Learning.
While there are certainly plausible reasons to keep personal information about public figures private, in this case disclosure serves compelling purposes. It fills in an informational void about a candidate's educational exposure, inclinations and performance. It also sends a message to those now in college, that their efforts are recognized. Society, as the founders intended, should put a high degree of importance on education as an important building block for citizenship itself. It also gives the voter an idea of what basic knowledge the candidate may have in areas they consider relevant to presidential service. Such classes need not only be directly "pre-professional" courses like accounting, economics, or international relations or a foreign language, but others that make a person connected to the greater world around them, like literature, art and history.
To be sure, there are millions of people who serve the country or achieve success for themselves and their community in a variety of ways without a college degree at all. Admittedly, in an increasingly information-based society one's job prospects without such a degree are decidedly more tenuous than they were in previous decades. The point of this blog post is not to argue for some minimum requirement for presidential service, as the Constitution merely sets native born citizenship and a minimum age of 35.
There are billionaires like Bill Gates and the late Steve Jobs who never obtained degrees. Two of our most beloved leaders, Abraham Lincoln and Harry S. Truman, never earned degrees, although I don't think that, barring some extraordinary credential, a non-degreed candidate would be electable today. It used to be that military service was considered a critical prerequisite for high office to much of the electorate. Over the last two decades service in a field of active conflict has not been as pivotal as decorated veterans like Senators Dole, Kerry, and McCain and President George H.W. Bush might have hoped. However, when there is an important thread to a person's life, be it military service or education, that becomes a key part of the tapestry of their public narrative and the candidate should be forthcoming about it.
President Obama, with degrees from Columbia and Harvard, has an extraordinary record of academic achievement. He should establish a clear standard for himself, as well as for future candidates and contemporary students, that one's scholastic efforts mean something, not just for getting a credential, but for being a descriptive part of the narrative of who they are for years to come. With all the sometimes dubious information swirling around about the candidates, their college and grad school grades are something the public should be trusted with. There are few areas where educators like myself, the Daily Kos and the Wall Street Journal agree -- releasing these transcripts is one of them.
No comments:
Post a Comment