Tahniah warga Amerika atas keberanian memilih perubahan!
Tahniah warga Amerika atas keberanian menolak perbedaan warna kulit!
Tahniah warga Amerika kerana menunjukkan kepada dunia bahawa harapan masih ada untuk melakukan perubahan!
Tahniah Barack Obama kerana telah menzahirkan potensi perubahan buat seantero dunia!
Tahniah Amerika Syarikat!
Tahniah! Tahniah! Tahniah!
http://copieetpate.blogspot.com/2008/11/congratulation-to-obama.html
Tahniah buat orang Islam kerana turut berbangga dengan Obama yang dahulunya Islam mutad kepada Kristian?
Namun Tahniah kepada BARRACK HUSSEIN OBAMA kerana menjadi Presiden United States of America
wahai cik murai..
adakah tuan lg meyokong encik mc cain tuk mengepalai amerika dan menyambung semula rancangan2 bush ke ats iraq dan negara arab yg lain?
owh tidak..
Apakah menjadi masalah buat sdr seandainya Obama seorang Kristian?
Najwan
Benar, menjadi masalah bila saya memikirkan Obama itu murtad dari agama Islamnya dahulu.
iya, menjadi masalah buat saya memikirkan kepimpinan pemimpin dulunya islam murtad kepada Kristian.
Benar, menjadi masalah bila orang Islam yang lainnya mula berfikir tidak mengapa jika murtad seperti Obama.
Saya juga tidak menyokong McCain yang memang kristian apatah lagi Obama yang dahulunya Islam kemudian memeluk kristian.
Apa akan jadi dengan akidah jika kita merelakan begitu sahaja kebebasan pegangan agama. Suka2 tukar agama.
Apapun syabas kepada rakyat amerika yang lebih toleransi dan ternyata demokrasi membutakan mata mereka terhadap warna.
Boleh saudara kemukakan bukti Obama memang pernah Muslim lantas murtad? Setahu saya, hanya orang tua nya yang Muslim, biarpun tidak mengamalkan secara sepenuhnya (non-practising Muslims) namun Barack Obama telah menegaskan berkali-kali beliau bukan seorang Muslim biarpun asal-usul keluarganya ada yang Muslim.
Atau adakah saudara murai77 lebih gemarkan supaya McCain memenangi US Presidential Election 2008?
Perlu diingatkan ini ada US Presidential Election, bukan Pilihanraya Umum Malaysia. Sepanjang pengetahuan saya, tiada seorang pun calon Muslim yg bertanding merebut jawatan Presiden Amerika sepanjang tempoh 1 tahun kempen.
Fatwa dari Arab Saudi sendiri ada menyebutkan kaedah fiqh supaya kita memilih yang kurang mudharat antara 2 perkara yang buruk. Jadi, antara Obama dan McCain, pendapat saya McCain adalah calon yang hanya akan meneruskan usaha Bush memerangi umat Islam seperti di Afghanistan, Iraq dan tidak mustahil dia akan menyerang Iran sebaik sahaja memegang tampuk pemerintahan Amerika.
Jadi, murai77, untuk meleraikan kekeliruan, adalah lebih bagus jika saudara sudi kemukakan bukti keIslaman Obama sebelum beliau murtad.
mmg betul..
but we wait n see..
sememangnya kita tahu amerika itu yahudi..
mc cain atau obama,jewish pasti ada...
OVERNIGHT, American voters put us to shame.
They voted in a black president, while Singaporeans will still baulk at accepting a non-Chinese prime minister, say some political top guns and many observers.
In the evolution of democratic politics, Americans just took a giant step forward.
Meanwhile, Singaporeans are still lumbering along like Third World tribes, dragging our baggage of racial hang-ups.
Of course, not all Americans are enlightened voters.
Half of the country's population, who are older and mostly white, are still living in the past and might well view President-elect Barack Obama as an 'uppity nigger'.
As one academic commentator noted: 'Today's radical Republican Party represents a large segment of the population that believes that abortions and same-sex marriages are immoral, God sent America to Iraq...'
So while Mr Obama was the favourite in polls, many expected whites to reveal their true colours when put to the test.
Well, they did the right thing by putting race in the background. Can they continue to do so as America attempts to heal itself after bruising campaigns?
And could Singaporeans do the right thing and ignore the skin colour of a future prime minister?
The leaders of the People's Action Party believe that Singaporeans do vote on racial lines, said Dr Gillian Koh, senior research fellow at the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS).
Dr Koh said: 'They feel that there are social faultlines that divide us, especially on race, so Singapore is no where near to being a de-racialised country.
'And that is the whole basis of the GRC system.'
The GRC or group representation constituency was introduced in 1988 to protect Parliament's multiracial composition.
The need for such a scheme shows clearly that we're still tribal folk, flocking together like birds of a feather.
But the immediate post-65 generation, said Dr Koh, would probably be more ready for other ideas as to who the PM can be.
'They were brought up to think One Singapore, One Nation, and would probably not be averse to the idea because of the political ideals of their time,' she added.
The young and the cosmopolitan are likely to be even more colour-blind, say some observers.
They will let the best man lead.
Political analyst Terence Chong from the Institute of Southeast Asia Studies said: 'Many Singaporeans, especially younger ones, are ready because the ideologies of multiculturalism and meritocracy have become part of the Singaporean myth.'
Singaporeans are very pragmatic, and will look for leaders with management ability and people-skills, IPS' Dr Koh said.
Citing an IPS post-2006 election survey, Dr Koh said respondents indicated they voted their members of parliament based on whether they thought they would be effective, fair and have a heart for the people in general.
Another survey last year by two academics at the S Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS) on race and religion also produced surprising results.
It found that over 91 per cent of all races polled said they would accept a prime minster of another race, while at least 92 per cent said they would vote an MP or a Singapore president of a different race.
Among the Chinese, 94 per cent did not mind if the PM was an Indian, and 91 per cent, if he was a Malay.
Referring to the topic of race as an old issue, Workers' Party's organising secretary Yaw Shin Leong said: 'If we truly believe in merit and capabilities, then so long as the person is Singaporean and can do a good job, there should be no reason why the person can't be given the top job.
'To say that certain ethnic groups are not suitable or ready for top office is regressive'.
All that debate might be purely academic given that the electoral system here is focused on political parties, not individual candidates.
The party which has the majority forms the government and chooses the prime minister.
Dr Koh said: 'I think we would need a fully functioning two-party system before we ever reach that scenario.'
The question of race and prime ministership was on then-PM Lee Kuan Yew's mind back in 1988.
He publicly said then that he would have considered then-National Development Minister S Dhanabalan for the PM's job if not for his Indian ethnicity.
Singapore, Mr Lee said, was not ready for an Indian prime minister.
Mr Dhanabalan himself did not think Chinese Singaporeans were ready to accept a non-Chinese PM. In a Straits Times report in November last year, he said that such cross-racial acceptance takes time.
Referring to the RSIS race survey, Mr Dhanabalan felt that the respondents probably gave 'politically correct' answers that did not reflect their real feelings.
He said then: 'I'm not quite convinced. It will take a bit more time. You look at the United States. How long, how many years were they a nation before a Catholic could be elected?
'Let's don't even talk about blacks. Now Barack Obama is the first one. Well, he may not even make it through the primary, right?
'So these are very deep feelings. I'm not saying it's not possible, but I think it will take some time.'
Fast forward a year later.
Mr Obama has done it, despite the widespread fears of voting along racial lines.
Commentators even spoke openly of the prospect of his assassination by a white supremacist group.
But, as in Malaysia's general election, many voters surprised even the experts by rejecting race to 'do the right thing'.
All this gives Singaporeans good reason to gaze in the mirror and ask ourselves how deep runs a tribal instinct and how far we want to evolve as a society.
This article was first published in The New Paper on Nov 07, 2008.
Sabtu, 2008 November 08
Ketuanan Rakyat : Fahaman Karut Lagi Kolot
Ketuanan Rakyat adalah fahaman karut lagi kolot. Fahaman ini dilihat terlalu kabur kerana belum jelas dasar dan prinsip-prinsipnya. Perjuangan ketuanan rakyat adalah mirip atau menyamai fahaman liberal dan sosialis. Fahaman atau ideologi ini kononnya mahu memberi peluang keadilan dan kesamarataan kepada seluruh lapisan rakyat tanpa mengira kaum dan agama.
Marilah kita sama-sama berfikir perkara-perkara di bawah ini;
1. Rakyat memilih pemimpin tidak kira apa agama dan bangsa pemimpin tersebut. Maka pemimpin yang dipilih sudah tentu mengikut kaca mata dan selera rakyat. Jelasnya mengikut keyakinan agama, tahap akademik dan pengalaman rakyat.
2. Jika majoriti rakyatnya bodoh, maka tentulah mereka memilih pemimpin yang bodoh juga. Jika majoriti rakyatnya suka rasuah, maka pemimpin yang dipilih tentulah juga dari kalangan yang suka bagi rasuah.
3. Mungkin terdapat pemimpin yang telah dipilih oleh rakyat cuba membuat sesuatu rancangan untuk mengubah minda atau sikap rakyat sedangkan tindakan demikian kadang-kadang boleh mengundang kemarahan atau kebencian rakyat.
4. Jika terjadi demikian rakyat akan mengancam untuk menjatuhkan pemimpin tersebut. Hasilnya pemimpin yang dipilih tidak akan berbuat apa-apa perubahan jika menimbulkan kemarahan atau kebencian rakyat.
5. Sekiranya sesebuah negara itu jumlah penduduk yang bijak hanya sedikit, maka rakyat yang bijak tidak mungkin berjaya memilih pemimpin yang bijak. Jika mereka yang bijak berjaya menjadi pemimpin tentulah kerana telah berjaya memanipulasi kebodohan rakyat. Ketuanan rakyat sudah tiada lagi.
6. Sekiranya terjadi majoriti rakyat adalah bijak dan pandai, maka tentulah mereka akan memilih pemimpin yang bijak dan pandai juga. Persaingan di kalangan bijak pandai belum menjamin tidak berlakunya penyelewengan dan rasuah. Sedangkan jenayah rasuah kerap berlaku di kalangan bijak pandai terutama jika mereka berkuasa.
7. Jika kriteria pemimpin yang patut dan wajar dipilih adalah di kalangan mereka yang bijak pandai, maka tentulah rakyat kena lebih bijak untuk boleh menilai siapa yang bijak atau tidak. Jika rata-rata rakyatnya tidak pandai maka bagaimana mereka dapat menilai orang yang bijak dan pandai untuk dipilih sebagai pemimpin?
8. Jaminan seseorang yang akan memimpin tidak berlaku penyelewengan dan rasuah bukanlah ditentukan oleh kebijaksanaan dan kepandaian sebelum menjadi pemimpin. Terjadinya pemimpin menyeleweng dan rasuah adalah kerana peluang yang terbuka di hadapan mata setelah berkuasa.
9. Kebiasaannya pemimpin yang dipilih oleh rakyat mempunyai dua kumpulan rakyat. Penyokong dan penentang atau yang tidak menyokong.
10. Belum terbukti bahawa pemimpin yang dipilih rakyat mampu memenuhi dan menyamaratakan peluang kepada semua rakyat. Kebiasaan yang terjadi pemimpin yang dipilih rakyat akan menunaikan kehendak penyokongnya terlebih dahulu. Ini kerana penyokong sentiasa mendesak dan mengancam supaya membalas budi atau undi mereka.
11. Kumpulan yang menggunakan konsep ketuanan rakyat biasanya sebelum berkuasa lagi telah menidakkan kumpulan rakyat yang tidak menyokong mereka. Mereka telah bersikap tidak adil dan tidak sama rata terhadap golongan yang belum menerima ideology sosialis itu. Apakah jika setelah mendapat kuasa mereka boleh berlaku adil atau sama rata?
12. Konsep Ketuanan Rakyat adalah hujah golongan yang cuba memanipulasi rakyat sebenarnya. Belum pernah terbukti bahawa rakyat dapat menguasai pemimpin setelah berjaya dipilih menjadi pemimpin.
13. Pemimpin yang telah dipilih oleh rakyat melalui sistem ideology apa sekalipun akan menggunakan pendekatan paksaan. Mereka akan memaksa rakyat mengakui, menerima dan tunduk kepada ideology dan kepimpinan mereka. Sekurang-kurangnya kepada golongan rakyat yang tidak sependapat atau sefahaman. Masihkah ini dinamakan ketuanan rakyat yang memperjuangkan konsep sama rata?
14. Idea kononnya rakyat berkuasa atau ketuanan rakyat sebenarnya bertujuan mempengaruhi, mengelirukan dan memanipulasi rakyat. Maksud tersirat golongan yang memperjuangkan kuasa rakyat adalah bertujuan menumbangkan pemimpin sedia ada justeru mengharapkan rakyat memilih mereka atau kelompoknya untuk menjadi pemimpin atau berkuasa.
15. Berdasarkan pengalaman mana-mana kerajaan yang dijatuhkan atau bertukar tangan, pemimpin yang baru dipilih juga tidak diterima sepenuh hati oleh seluruh rakyat. Yang sering terjadi ialah pemimpin yang dipilih atau menggantikan pemimpin yang dijatuhkan semakin meloyakan rakyat terutama setelah dilihat pemerintahannya juga tidak membela dan menyelamatkan rakyat.
16. Negara seperti Indonesia, Philipine dan Thailand adalah contoh negara yang berjaya menukar pemimpin mereka melalui kuasa rakyat. Sehingga kini hidup sebahagian besar rakyatnya masih mundur dari sudut kebajikan, sosial, ekonomi, pendidikan malah politik. Sedangkan rakyat telah menggunakan kuasa mereka kononnya untuk mendapatkan pemimpin yang adil dan memberikan keselamatan serta kesejahteraan. Apa yang terjadi setelah melalui masa dan keadaan yang mengecewakan, majoriti rakyat kini tidak lagi peduli siapakah yang memimpin negara mereka.
17. Negara-negara yang mengamalkan dasar sosialis kebanyakannya mendapat pemimpin yang berkuasa secara diktator. Contohnya Saddam Hussein dan banyak negara lain yang mengamalkan dasar sosialis. Ketuanan rakyat adalah ciptaan sosialis dan komunis.
18. Di bawah ideology ketuanan rakyat keyakinan dan kefahaman agama terutamanya Islam menjadi musuhnya. Keadaan ini terjadi oleh kerana Islam merupakan agama wahyu mempunyai kekuatan tersendiri. Islam juga merupakan cara hidup lengkap yang tiada tandingannya.
jom sambung baca di http://nawawidahalan.blogspot.com/
Obama pro gay engko sokong? AHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!
Biasela sumer pro AlJuburay sokong Obama, si itam bansatt! Aku lbih suker McCain yg anti gay&abortion!
AL JUBBBBB!!!! KIH!KIH!KIH!
There are very simple reasons why Chinese do not fully assimilate into malay society. It is because the malay people are very hostile and disrespectful to the Chinese. It is well ingrained in their society, this anti-Chinese sentiment.
Also, given this hostility, why should Chinese integrate with your society? Let me tell you, it is a very simple reason. Unlike primitive tribesmen minorities in your territories, our civilization and culture is actually far superior than your malay culture.
We are the inheritors of one of the greatest civilizations in human history. Why do we want to downgrade our cultural knowledge and perception, and accept a backward and undeveloped primitive culture?
You Malaysians, Filipinos and Indonesians need to learn from the example of the Thais. They are friendly to Chinese and many Thai Chinese are very integrated and are loyal to Thailand. However, they also have links to China and bring the two countries closer.
Hence, China and Thailand enjoy very strong relations and all of this bodes well for Thailand economically and politically. It is no wonder Thailand has experienced a great deal of economic progress.
Too, I lived in Malaysia before and let me tell you that Malaysia is not rich. The government owes a lot of money to Japan and other countries. The nation is corrupted! In outside look, you think Malaysia is rich but the truth is Malaysia is very poor. A lot of projects have been cancelled such as new airport in Kuching, and etc.
Indeed right, in Malaysia the malays are like shit. They disrespect the Chinese. And you want to know why the malay government has money? It is because the tax! Chinese pay high tax to the malay government where the malay government even use quota control!
The malays given of special treatment, the government give money to the malays because without this, the malays will have nothing! We Chinese in Malaysia depend on ourselves! We earn money on ourselves!
The Chinese in Malaysia is dropping rapidly, one day and one day will come, when the malays don't like Chinese and riot, then we Chinese move away and hahaha! Malaysia will become like Indonesia!
Now look at your Indonesia, last time when Chinese there, the government can be rich. Now when Chinese gone - your country like shit! Hahaha! This is dream funny!
This is simply a statement of fact that nevertheless appears to have gotten local Umno leaders into a tizzy.
Every local Umno politician hopes to be in a position to be approving investment flows into the country because to stand as gatekeeper is a very lucrative position, and when public squabbles erupt between Umno politicians about who is the better "protector of malay privileges and rights", it usually means someone just wants a bigger cut of the investment action for himself.
Go figure that one.
Of course, the relationship between Malaysia and Singapore is special because of the race relations issue.
Singapore has been the favourite whipping boy of the Umno-controlled malay vernacular press for the last 50 years, and if anything are seen as even bigger devils than the local Chinese and Indian citizens of Malaysia in the eyes of Malaysia's malay Muslims.
The fact is Singapore's development model has meant that Singapore's malays are far better educated, far better equipped, far better paid, far more self-confident, and self-reliant to deal with globalisation than malay Muslims in Malaysia.
This makes Ketuanan Melayu, malay Agenda, and the NEP look like failed racist apartheid policies that have impoverished everyone except Umno cronies. Of course, Umno must demonise Singapore to maintain the illusion that Umno politicians are nationalists and not parasites, and more so if Singapore happens to be better educated, meritocratic, richer, and safer than Malaysia.
Malay Muslims in Malaysia have been brainwashed by Umno for the last 50 years into thinking that the Chinese and Indians both Malaysians and Singaporeans have gotten rich at their expense, and this perception probably won't change anytime soon because Umno does not have another elections winning formula if it dumps the present demonisation formulas.
Every time Singapore's first world achievements are compared with the sluggish competitiveness, economic, educational, professional, scientific, technological, and social standard in apartheid Malaysia, there is the predictable keris waving, baying for blood, and frothing at the mouth in every Umno up and down the country in Malaysia.
Although Chinese and Indian Malaysians have simply accepted the gross racial discrimination in business, education, and job as a fact of life in Malaysia, the non-apartheid non-NEP meritocratic Singaporean mindset may not have the stomach for this particular type of nonsense in the IDR.
I think Lee Kuan Yew is way too smart to think the demonisation process of the Chinese and Indians in the Umno-controlled malay vernacular press is going to stop anytime soon. How else is Umno going to win elections except by continuing to perpetrate the lie that the orang asing minorities in Malaysia are a threat to the malays?
Nevertheless Lee Kuan Yew may be hoping Chinese and Indian Singaporean investors will not be discriminated against in the IDR in comparison with investors from countries like China, Europe, Hong Kong, India, Taiwan, United Kingdom, and United States.
In the meantime, I am sure it will simply be business as usual for the rest of us in racial and religious apartheid Malaysia.
Sepatutnya kata Obama,fokus US kepada Afganistan dahulu.