Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s criticism and his right to do so should be respected even if some of us may not agree entirely with his grouses against Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak. As a citizen and an ex-Premier of the country, Dr. Mahathir is entitled to his views on the leadership.Mahathir has said that many policies, approaches and actions taken by the government under Najib have destroyed inter-racial ties, the economy and the country’s finances. As a result, he has withdrawn his support for the Prime Minister.
Mahathir claimed that the abolition of the Internal Security Act and the Restricted Residence Act has spiked crime activities because many gang leaders were released. It is ironic that Mahathir has targeted Najib but did not mention anything about our law enforcement officers.The abolition of the two draconian and archaic laws is not the reason for the spike in criminal activities. The government’s reluctance to fully restructure and rejuvenate the Police Force has played a large part in the failure to curb growing criminal activities.But Najib should not be commended for his “achievements” (or a lack of it) in fostering better inter-racial relations through his 1Malaysia initiative. In fact, Najib was too afraid to go against organisations such as UMNO and PEKASA even if their actions may have contravened his administration’s own vision in inter-racial relations. In short, Najib is not willing to risk his position to do what is right for the country.
His inability to curb the racial sentiments from the organisations and to moderate the behaviour of their leaders has been his biggest failure in fostering better inter-racial relations. With a political figure such as Mahathir backing it, PERKASA is able to make all sorts of threats against the Najib administration to accept its wishes, demands and views.
If Najib has erred, he made a mistake for giving too much space and respect to leaders of the right-wing organisations. If Mahathir is so concerned about the people, and the society’s multi-cultural and multi-racial fabric, he should not appear to speak for just a particular race or party. Although Mahathir’s criticism of Najib may have its merits, he missed the point by a mile. He should help to answer the question, “what has contributed to the deterioration of inter-racial relations in the country?”
Several bloggers aligned to Dr Mahathir have called for the same in the weeks after the last Umno elections where Najib's camp won handsomely.These were among the same people who also agitated against Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, who resigned as prime minister and Umno president in April 2009, a year after the ruling Barisan Nasional (BN) suffered historic losses in the 2008 elections. five years ago and Najib took power with the promise that the days of government knows best were over, to relax security laws and liberalise the economy, transforming Malaysia into a high-income nation by 2020, to the chagrin of the Mahathirists.The Mahathir years created fat cats who made money through crony deals and policemen who relied on the ISA as a crutch to keep peace instead of real detective work.It is no wonder that some people want to return to that era, to keep money and power for themselves in an increasingly level economic playing field and a shrinking global economy.But who can they replace Najib from among the parliamentary bench from Umno? The Mahathirists have named no one, save Dr Mahathir himself leading a council of elders to chart Malaysia's future.That would say much about Umno's internal talent pool after Dr Mahathir's time in power.And show the kind of guided democracy to which Umno professes.Seldom has a year begun with so much buzz. We have finally figured that politics is far too important to be left to thugs, scoundrels, scamps and scallywags. People are coming out in thousands to vote. Change is in the air.But that was another time, another season. Najib is not half as ruthless as Mahathir.As Najib popularity soars and people look up to him as a messiah, I can see myself almost going against the euphoria that surrounds the newest kid on the block.
This shows their level of insensitivity. Neither do they understand rape — nor federalism.Malaysia hasn’t seen such a popular leader for ages. People want to welcome PM Njib We take this excitement as a compliment. Mahathir call it stage-managed a egoists he not able to accept the Najib wave. Recent occurrences are a reflection on’Najib deeds. It shows the people’s reaction to their performance and mismanagement.
Rosmah might not have had the means to do it? Or even wanted to or even thought of it? Regardless, not really a valid criticism. The focus should be on the tangible results that the program has brought about (can't seem to find much info on that unfortunately) and the ways the funds have been spent. Not on "why didn't she do it sooner"
Man smart, women smarter. Is that the reason why companies now want to hire women over men? If it’s only to address gender balance at the workplace, then it will be merely paying lip service to the issue. Far more needs to be done to make women feel an important and crucial part of the workplace.
Whatever be company policies, the fact remains that given a choice, most bosses prefer male employees. The reasons are skewed. While there are numerous women employees who could easily give men a run for their money and are very competent, there is the slack minority which is often highlighted. Most forget that there are also men who are lackadaisical and laidback. Yet, the general view is that women take more holidays and come with more family problems than men, never mind the truth.
Can you imagine any male boss remaining immune to the overactive lachrymal ducts of a woman who is denied leave, say, when her child is sick? Which male boss won’t wring his hands in frustration and be dismayed when told by a bright woman employee that she’s in the family way and will need maternity leave? Most often forget they have wives who might be in similar situations.
So what can a man do? Is he expected to smile and say no problem, we will manage? It doesn’t quite work that way. Work is work and few companies have the empathy to understand a woman employee’s problems and allow for some adjustment. The woman is the linchpin of her family and her children’s education, health and upbringing are more her responsibility than her husband’s in the Indian scenario. It’s hardly ever fair and square for her here.
If companies really mean what they say, then they should show it. How about having crèches in office so that women get time for their small kids? How about allowing women other than their favourites to work part-time if they so wish? How about giving kudos to competent women for juggling work and family well? Most still think that as the man is the breadwinner of the family, women can be dispensed with during hard times. Some companies have shown the way to greater gender parity and these should be shining examples for others.
At the same time, women employees need to be professional and make sure family problems don’t come in the way of meeting targets and deadlines. And yes, it’s best to keep those tear ducts in control.
At first, this new item evoked laughter for its absurdity. It seems the managements of several private schools in Kerala have advised women teachers to wear aprons or overcoats to avoid the stares of male students. This is after students took pictures of them with mobile cameras and uploaded them on popular social networking sites.
While the very image of teachers teaching in aprons/overcoats seems ludicrous and puritanical, the fact is there is genuine concern behind this advise. With the explosion of internet and social networking sites and little parental supervision, children are free to do what they want on the web. And sometimes, it can be unsavoury.
Somehow, the use of mobile phones to take pictures of teachers when their backs are turned, speaks volumes for the loss of innocence and respect. Of the blurring of lines between what should be sacrosanct and what is deviant behaviour. Of every woman being seen in sexual terms. This moral degradation is nothing new in today’s times. We see it in politics, we see it in our daily lives. It’s when it settles in the minds of children that there is cause for worry.
Today’s teachers anyway have a tough time, what with the explosion of information, continuous assessments and constant vigil by managements and parents. To now be under scrutiny of immature and wayward students is the final nail in the coffin.
School managements, instead of asking them to cover up, should devise ways to prevent the use of mobiles in schools. Regulation and strict implementation will ensure more discipline. A fine should be imposed on children bringing mobiles to schools. Of course, they will find ingenious ways of beating the system, including hiding mobiles in tiffin boxes, etc.
Parents should be roped in to see that their wards keep electronic devices at home. More importantly, they should teach them to respect their teachers and elders from a young age.
Also, a few hours without mobiles shouldn’t be difficult for students. But when children come to playgrounds showing off their latest iPhones, it’s obvious that materialism has gripped their lives. And the blame lies with grown-ups for allowing it to infringe their lives.
General David Petraeus hasresigned his position as head of the CIA. The reason, you’ve probably heard, is that he cheated on his wife. Gawker has some wild theoriesabout who he might have been cheating with. But that’s not the most important thing.
The important thing is that he’s out of a job, and the CIA is out a highly respected leader.
While it’s a stunning lapse in integrity for someone who was widely respected, it doesn’t at first glance seem like the kind of lapse that has a lot to do with running the CIA. Does having an affair make him a less capable leader?
Maybe. Does philandering lead to other kinds of dishonesty? Would this have cost him the respect of his people? Opened him up to blackmail?
All these things are serious issues, and they add up to it being not all that shocking that breaking his marriage vows cost him his career.
The resignation has caused something of a stir among my non-monogamous friends. The conversation seems to center on the sex-negative aspects of this: did Petraeus lose his position because he had “illicit” sex? What would a world look like where you could have more than one partner and not risk your career over it? Some are wondering if you can even get security clearance if you’re in an open relationship.
I happen to know that the answer to that last one is yes; I have numerous poly friends with security clearance, who are open about their relationships with their supervisors. They’re not running entire branches of the U.S. security apparatus, of course. But they are doing their jobs with integrity, and being treated with respect by supervisors who understand the difference between an illicit affair and an honest open relationship.
I don’t see this as necessarily being about Petraeus having a lover outside his marriage. I see it as being about him lying about it.
I’m not going to defend that. Lying to your spouse is a terrible thing to do, and I’m inclined to trust someone less if I know they’ve done it. It’s not a characteristic I want in my government leadership. If you’ll lie to the person you’ve vowed to be honest with and share your life with, what’s to stop you from lying to me?
I think Petraeus’ integrity is a matter of public import. Should he have lost his job over it? Maybe not. But he should be accountable for this pretty major ethical lapse.
Would I feel the same way if he were coming out about being in an open marriage? Of course not. I know from long personal experience that an open marriage demands the utmost integrity and honesty from everyone involved.
What’s incredibly sad about this situation is that Petraeus probably never felt like negotiating an honest open relationship was an option for him. It may not have been; I don’t know the particulars of his situation.
I am sure that if we had a culture of acceptance and positivity around desire; if we recognized the many ways people can love each other and express that love; if we did away with the assumption that monogamy and commitment always go hand-in-hand, we’d have fewer scandals about adultery engulfing those in the public eye.
Some people cheat on their partners for the thrill. Some are genuinely unwilling to do the hard emotional work necessary in an open relationship. But I think a lot of people who cheat just feel trapped and like they have no choices. They do something deeply wrong because they can’t find a right way to live that honors the full expression of their sexuality.
I’m not excusing Petraeus here. We don’t all get to fully express every aspect of ourselves, and if you’ve committed to a monogamous marriage and find yourself falling for someone else, the thing to do is keep your pants on or renegotiate things with your spouse. I’m not going to side with Dan Savage and excuse some cheaters on the grounds that their spouse is just being totally unfair in not letting them have the nice sex they want. I think cheating is always wrong.
What I’d like to see is a culture where there’s much less pressure to cheat, and much more acceptance of people’s different needs and desires. A culture where having a wife and a lover doesn’t open you up to blackmail because it’s simply not a dirty secret.
In that world, I’d like to imagine Petraeus would still be heading up the CIA, not because we’d be more accepting of him cheating on his wife, but because he wouldn’t have cheated on her in the first place.
U.S. official says the Army has suspended the security clearance of the woman who had an affair with CIA Director David Petraeus, triggering his resignation.
Paula Broadwell, a West Point graduate, is a former Army intelligence officer and held a high security clearance. Because her clearance was issued through the Army, it was the service’s move to suspend it. It’s not unusual for someone’s clearance to be suspended if that person is under investigation, particularly in cases of possible security breaches. Officials say that an FBI investigation has revealed that Broadwell sent emails to another woman warning her to stay away from Petraeus. The FBI also found possibly classified documents on Broadwell’s computer.
The official was not authorized to speak publicly about the clearance so requested anonymity.
Whenever was misbehaving as a young man, my late great Dad always threatened to send me away to military school. I had no idea that my father — a Naval officer back in the day — was thinking of ways for me to someday meet women. So here’s my playlist for General David Petraeus and his confusing personal life that even camouflage can’t cover up right now. As always, please add your own songs below — and please no cheating! WHOSE BED HAVE YOUR BOOTS BEEN UNDER – Shania Twain GENERALS AND MAJORS – XTC NOW I LAY ME DOWN TO CHEAT – David Allan Coe LOVE THE WAY YOU LIE – Eminem featuring Rihanna ANOTHER MAN’S VINE – Tom Waits YOUR CHEATIN’ HEART – Hank Williams BEFORE HE CHEATS – Carrie Underwood YOU, ME AND HE – Mtume CRY ME A RIVER – Justin Timberlake GIVE ME JUST A LITTLE MORE TIME – General Johnson MILITARY MADNESS – Graham Nash TRYING TO LOVE TWO – William Bell BACK DOOR MAN – The Doors BROKEN VOW – Josh Groban SPARE ME THE DETAILS – The Offspring O.P.P. – Naughty By Nature MISERY BUSINESS – Paramore WHO’S MAKING LOVE – Johnnie Taylor SHOULD’VE SAID NO – Taylor Swift TAKE IT ON THE RUN – REO Speedwagon COLD SHOULDER – Adela SHE DON’T HAVE TO KNOW – John Legend
There they go again — powerful men having illicit affairs while their apologists blame the women. Didn’t we just vote to reject these Mad Men mores in last week’s election? Apparently not everyone got the message.
.
I have no idea what happened between the growing cast of characters in this unfurling drama. It could be that Broadwell was the aggressor and Petraeus her prey, or it could have been the other way around. Most likely it was much more complicated than either/or, because human entanglements usually are.
But the fact that we can’t possibly know, and yet so many of us apparently think we know is a testament to stereotype, language and a desire to find a morality play in what is mostly just a messy business. We have archetypes, we give them names, and then we construct our narratives around them. Maybe that’s why there are no words.
I have no idea what happened between the growing cast of characters in this unfurling drama. It could be that Broadwell was the aggressor and Petraeus her prey, or it could have been the other way around. Most likely it was much more complicated than either/or, because human entanglements usually are.
But the fact that we can’t possibly know, and yet so many of us apparently think we know is a testament to stereotype, language and a desire to find a morality play in what is mostly just a messy business. We have archetypes, we give them names, and then we construct our narratives around them. Maybe that’s why there are no words.
Oho! Love happens. And it has happened. That the love birds happen to be Bilawal Bhutto and Hina Khar, makes this particular ishq-vishq saga most riveting, especially to those of us across the border who have recently been exposed to Khar’s irresistible charms. So irresistible, in fact, that our dapper foreign minister, S M Krishna, who went totally latoo over the lovely lady, behaved like a smitten schoolboy, drooling in her alluring presence and forgetting all about the Indian agenda.
It’s possible he is nursing a broken heart even as young Bilawal (23) and Hina (34) deal with the storm that has been unleashed in Pakistan after a Bangladeshi tabloid ran a juicy expose on the scandal. Bilawal is a bachcha Majnu to Hina’s seasoned Laila. Reports suggest that President Asif Zardari is far from amused by his son’s dangerous liaison with his external affairs minister. Not only is Bilawal the chairman of the ruling Pakistani People’s Party, but he is also the nominated heir to his mother’s and father’s respective legacies. If the love-struck chap does indeed push off to Switzerland to begin a fresh chapter in his life with the begum he adores, the repercussions of such a decision could prove very costly to the government.
The buzz in Islamabad is that old boy Asif plans to rein in his handsome son, and perhaps sack the seductive Khar. Spoilsport! Really Asif miya, we expect you to be far more understanding, given your own personal history. Look at it this way – Bilawal is seriously cute. And loaded. Hina Khar is seriously gorgeous, and married to a loaded guy. Feroz Gulzar, Hina’s smart husband, has rubbished the scoop and called it ‘social media gossip’. Yes, there is an 11-year age difference between Bilawal and the luscious mother of two. So what? Some of the most enduring love stories in the world have been similarly scripted. Think about it – Hina is keen to take the relationship forward, as her love notes to Bilawal establish. Now that their secret is out, there’s no stopping this pyar ki jodi.
‘Dil Toh Pagal Hai’ is how we put it in Bollywood lingo. Hina has apparently told Asif to keep his nose out of her ‘personal matters’. This is remarkably gutsy of her, considering it was Zardari who found the two in a ‘compromising position’. Known for his fiery temper and happy relationship with guns, it’s a miracle that the president didn’t reach for his favourite weapon when he walked in on the lovers at his official residence. Instead, he tamely asked for Hinaji’s mobile phone records! No point in such a silly exercise, considering the lady has not bothered to deny anything!
The real fun starts now. Will Zardari have the guts to fire his minister-sahiba? What charges can he frame against her? Will he send Bilawal into exile? Where will that leave the PPP? More importantly, since Bilawal is the one with access to his mother’s considerable (but undisclosed) wealth, how can Daddyji kiss the impressive funds goodbye? Unfortunately, the most dispensable member of the cast is Feroz Gulzar. But blowing him away serves no purpose – it will be one more body in an overcrowded morgue.
There is, however, one solution: India could immediately step in and offer a safe haven to the lovebirds. Why go to Switzerland when there is India? We can create an attractive destination for their nikaah. Maybe throw in a luxury houseboat on Dal Lake for the honeymoon. Sarpanches in Omar Abdullah’s state may not be safe. But he’ll take good care of his mehmaans from across the border. After all, when it comes to matters of the heart, Omar knows a thing or two about unbridled passion.
Apart from asylum in India, we could make life a lot more fun for this couple. As neighbours, we owe them this much. Cross-border romanticism is so much more civilized than cross-border terrorism. Hina can happily shop for pearls and more Birkins in our luxury malls. We can get her to host a talk show and perhaps, design a signature fashion collection. Bilawal could consider Bollywood. This is a fabulous, heaven- sent opportunity to strengthen bilateral relationships between the two nations. Hina Khar has already charmed half the country, and reduced S M Krishna to putty. If India can manage to bag two for the price of one, it will rank as a major political coup.
The Haqqani network is still fighting against NATO forces in Afghanistan.
These are the facts: Generals David Petraeus and John Allen exchanged torrents of emails with women not their wives. Petraeus had a relationship with his biographer and Allen exchanged voluminous emails with his female friend while both generals were supposed to be waging war and defending our country in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and around the world. The FBI, CIA, Pentagon, House and Senate are all looking into the chain of events to see whether and how national security was breached and military codes of conduct violated.
Both men will pay with their jobs. Both men will be cautionary tales. But what is the moral of their stories? That smart people do stupid things? Yes. That some secret keepers can’t keep secrets? Yes. That the “e” in email stands for evidence? Yes. That there is no such thing as a private email on the “world wide web?” Yes. That human beings being human make lamentable mistakes? Yes. That the generals are victims of the women? Absolutely not.
Generals Allen and Petraeus are many things — but victims they are not. There are victims here — starting with the spouses and children and the children of the four consenting adults. There may be other victims as well — such as service members and security personnel sacrificing their lives under the command of men who were not 100% focused on the task at hand. But the generals are not the victims and their enablers need to stop blaming the women.
Young folks call it “slut shaming” — and Mother Jones reporter Kate Shappard has a pretty nasty compilation of the verbiage directed at Petraeus biographer Paula Broadwell: “Got her claws into him” “dressed in tight clothes” and “shared a story about women wanting to be sexually dominated” to name a few. And we now have General Allen’s friend depicted as “flirtatious” and “salacious.” Sigh. As if two of the most powerful men in the world were hapless victims to female sexuality. Please.
Didn’t we just have this discussion at the 2012 ballot box? Didn’t we just reject “binders full of women” and victim shaming in favor of women making our own decisions about our bodies, our families, and our futures? Didn’t a majority of voters just elect powerful women to work side by side along men to make the critical decisions about security and economic power? Apparently not everyone got the memo — because the minute this sex scandal was reported, people regressed without a second thought.
Enough with the Mad Men mores — the generals are not the victims. If you just voted to defend women’s rights, then don’t participate in blaming these women for what they and the men did — hold all four consenting adults Petraeus, Broadwell, Allen, and Kelley equally accountable for the facts. If you just finished thinking, “gee the Republican party needs to modernize its views of women” make sure yours are modernized too.
The larger point here is that Generals Allen and Petraeus held American blood and treasure in their hands. They decided the fate of hundreds of thousands of American service members and security personnel. Were the liaisons deadly distractions that put troops in harm’s way or prevented us from doing better in Afghanistan? The public deserves to know — and deserves new leaders who can give 100 percent focus to bringing our troops home safely honorably and soon.
This is 2012 not 1962. Here’s a thought — David Petraeus and John Allen ought to stand up and make clear that they the generals are not the victims here and that anyone suggesting otherwise should stand down.
Paula Broadwell was (apparently) David Petraeus’ mistress.
What, then, was David Petraeus?
Colloquial English language has no word for that — no label we use to describe the man with whom a married woman cheats. Gigolo doesn’t really cover it. Lover, perhaps, but no newspaper account would use it in a situation like this because their goal is to talk about sex without directly mentioning it. Paramour? That just sounds ridiculous.
Mister-ess? Maybe that will catch on.
But until it does we are left lopsidedly with “mistress” and, by extension, the implication that she is somehow his and not the other way around. “Paula Broadwell, David Petraeus’ Biographer and Alleged Mistress,” reads the TIME‘s “2 Minute Bio” on her. “FBI Search Petraeus Mistress Paula Broadwell’s Home,” says the BBC. “Petraeus’ ex-mistress Broadwell quipped in interview ‘I’m not in love’,” the New York Daily News tells us.Language is a reflection of culture, which is why there are so many Inuit words for snow. Given that one can not be a mistress without a… someone… what does it say about our culture that we haven’t given that role a name?Mostly it says that we still think of him as a bit of a stud at best, and a victim of her manipulation, at worst, while we think of her as defined in relation to him — something we can label. And label we do.The former general and CIA chief is described as “a driven, focussed leader,” who “let his guard down,” according to the Washington Post.Business Insider anonymously quoted one of Broadwell’s colleagues in a story headlined “Biographer Paula Broadwell ‘Got Her Claws Into Him’“: “You’re a 60 year-old man and an attractive woman almost half your age makes herself available to you — that would be a test for anyone.” And Pat Robertson so helpfully smirked on the Christian Broadcast Network: “A man is off in a foreign land and he’s lonely and here’s a good looking lady throwing himself at her. He’s a man.”Broadwell, too, is being described as “driven,” but when applied to her the word becomes a condemnation. “Paula Broadwell Is the Classic Over-Achiever,” one Newser headline exclaimed, and went on to take the fact the she excelled at West Point, Harvard and King’s College in London, wrote a well reviewed book, and was an ironman triathlete who bested Jon Stewart at push-ups, and turn those into bad things. “Over …time, she went from someone very likeable to a shameless self-promoting prom queen,” the anonymous “friend” told the Business Insider
No comments:
Post a Comment