One2Voice

All the Best!

2008-11-04T02:04:00.000-08:00

Dear all members of One2Voice and the rest of the undergraduates in exam month!

I wish you all the best in your exams and enjoy the semester break!!

enchanter

ISA: is it being reinforced properly?

2008-10-16T23:28:00.000-07:00

As all of usnoticed this few week
Tan Hoon Cheng, 33, a former graduate from the school of Communication, Universiti Sains Malaysia was taken from her home at Bukit Mertajam and told that she would be taken to Bukit Aman in Kuala Lumpur, but was informed of her release midway through the journey later. The reason she was picked up by the police is that she reported that Umno Bukit Bendera division Chief, Datuk Ahmad Ismail’s speech at a Permatang Pauh by-election ceramah on August 23 that Orang Cina cuma tumpang di sini sahaja (the Chinese are only “squatting” here).
The question here is: Why should she be detained under the act of ISA merely because she reported the truth?
This issue has brought a sense of injustice and hurt among people that the perpetrator has been let off scot-free while the messenger has been penalized. Datuk Ahmad Ismail was being suspended lightly from UMNO for three years ONLY, yet Tan was detained under ISA as the police believed her life was “under threat”, according to Home Minister Syed Hamid Albar.
The last bit to ponder on:

ISA= Internal Security Act or I Simply Arrest? Do think about it =)

2008-09-24T04:35:00.000-07:00

What’s wrong with public voices?

The Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) is entrusted with the role of promoting and regulating the communications and multimedia industry and to enforce the communications and multimedia laws in Malaysia. MCMC was established on 1 November 1998 pursuant to the provisions of the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC).
Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) had taken action for 11 websites that did not comply with rule and unqualified and until now as much as two case brought to the Attorney-General office to act further. Follow by individual law, who abuse Internet to spread the content behave false, threatening or ploy will be imposed action under 211 and 233 Communication Act and Multimedia 1998’s Section. If convicted, individual could be fined up to RM50, 000 or jail not over a year or both of them once. Apart from that, it also may sue under Sedition Act 1948, Defamation Act 1957 and Penal Code.
Although people are given the opportunity to voice out their voice and opinion, but supervising from the certain parties essentially bounded the right to voice out. It has a lot of advantage if supervise been practised but it must suitable with the human rights itself.
As citizens live in a democracy country, where is the real channel to voice out our opinion and views? And did restriction or freedom website is the one that has been practised in the democratic?

Prepared by : NURUL AZIELLA & NOOR SUHAIDA

Latest Arrest of ISA

2008-09-21T06:18:00.003-07:00

Latest arrest of ISA

Ever heard of what is ISA??

The Internal Security Act 1960 (ISA) (Malay: Akta Keselamatan Dalam Negeri) is a preventive detention law in force in Malaysia. The legislation was inherited by Malaysia after it gained independence from Britain in 1957. In essence, it allows for the arrest of any person without the need for trial in certain defined circumstances. Malaysia is one of the few countries in the world whose Constitution allows for preventive detention during peacetime without safeguards that elsewhere are understood to be basic requirements for protecting fundamental human rights.

Preventive detention first became a feature of the then Malaya in 1948 primarily to combat the armed insurgency of the Malayan Communist Party. The Emergency Regulations Ordinance 1948 was made, following the proclamation of an emergency, by the British High Commissioner Sir Edward Gent. It allowed the detention of persons for any period not exceeding one year. The 1948 ordinance was primarily made to counter acts of violence and, conceivably, preventive detention was meant to be temporary in application. The emergency ended in 1960 and with it ended the powers contained in the that ordinance as it was repealed. The power of preventive detention was however not relinquished and in fact became an embedded feature of Malaysian law. In 1960 itself, the government passed the Internal Security Act under Article 149 of the Malaysian Constitution. It permitted the detention, at the discretion of the Home Minister, without charge or trial of any person in respect of whom the Home Minister was satisfied that such detention was necessary to prevent him or her from acting in any manner prejudicial to national security or to the maintenance of essential services or to the economic life in Malaysia. The ISA is one of the most controversial Acts enacted under Article 149 of the Malaysian Constitution.

Detention

ISA detainees are typically held at the Kamunting Detention Center.

First 60 days

A person detained under the ISA during the first 60 days is held incommunicado, with no access to the outside world. Furthermore, lawyers and family members are not allowed access to the detainee during this initial period. If a two-year detention order is signed, the detainee is taken to the Kamunting Detention Centre to serve his or her two-year term, during which family members are allowed to visit. Otherwise, the detainee may be released.

The following list shows known current and former detainees under the Internal Security Act:

Year	Name	Detention Period	Role	Reason for Detention
1974	Anwar Ibrahim	20 months	student protester
1987	Lim Kit Siang	2 Years	DAP Secretary General	Operation Lalang
1987	Chandra Muzaffar	released either conditionally or unconditionally	ALIRAN President Chandra Muzaffar	Operation Lalang
1987	Chan Kit Chee	released either conditionally or unconditionally	MCA Vice President and Perak	Operation Lalang
1987	Karpal Singh	2 Years	DAP Deputy Chairman	Operation Lalang
1987	Halim Arshat	released either conditionally or unconditionally	PAS Youth Chief	Operation Lalang
1987	Ibrahim Ali	released either conditionally or unconditionally	UMNO MP for Pasir Mas	Operation Lalang
1987	Fahmi Ibrahim	released either conditionally or unconditionally	UMNO Youth Education	Operation Lalang
1987	Dong Jiao Zhong	released either conditionally or unconditionally	Chinese Education Associations	Operation Lalang
1987	Lim Fong Seng	released either conditionally or unconditionally	Chairman Chinese Education Associations	Operation Lalang
1987	Kua Kia Soong	released either conditionally or unconditionally	Publicity Chief of the Civil Rights Committee	Operation Lalang
1987	Irene Xavier	released either conditionally or unconditionally	WAO Member	Operation Lalang
1987	Hilmy Noor	released either conditionally or unconditionally	accused for "disrupting the Malay culture by being a Christian"	Operation Lalang
1990-1991	Abdul Rahman Ahmad		Assistant Superintendent of Police, Special Branch	arrested during Operation Talkak
1990-1991	Albinus Yudah		opposition party member, member of Kadazan Cultural Association	arrested during Operation Talkak
1990-1991	Benedict Topin		opposition party member, Executive Secretary of Kadazan Cultural Association	arrested during Operation Talkak
1990-1991	Damit Undikai		retired Special Branch police officer	arrested during Operation Talkak
1990-1991	Jeffrey Kitingan		opposition politician, director of the Institute for Development Studies	arrested during Operation Talkak
1990-1991	Maximus Ongkili		deputy chief director of the Institute for Development Studies	arrested during Operation Talkak
1990-1991	Vincent Chung		administrator, Sabah Foundation	arrested during Operation Talkak
1998	Anwar Ibrahim		Sodomy and corruption (Deputy Prime Minister)
2001	Yazid Sufaat		Jemaah Islamiyah suspected terrorist
2001	Raja Petra Kamarudin	52 days	Blogger of Malaysia Today
2007	K. Kengadhadran		Hindu Rights Action Force activist (Lawyer)	Organize Hindraf mass rally in KL November 2007
2007	M. Manoharan		Hindu Rights Action Force activist (Lawyer)	Organize Hindraf mass rally in KL November 2007
2007	P. Uthayakumar,		Hindu Rights Action Force activist (Lawyer)	Organize Hindraf mass rally in KL November 2007
2007	T. Vasantha Kumar		Hindu Rights Action Force activist (Lawyer)	Organize Hindraf mass rally in KL November 2007
2007	K. Ganabathi Rao		Hindu Rights Action Force activist (Lawyer)	Organize Hindraf mass rally in KL November 2007
2008	Raja Petra Kamarudin		Blogger of Malaysia Today	Accused of insulting islamic religion
2008	Tan Hoon Cheng	18 hours	Journalist, Sin Chew Jit Poh	Accused of writing a report (on Ahmad Ismail's Incendiary Racist Remarks) that may incite hatred among the Malay and Chinese. The Home Minister later explained she was detained as her security was threatened, which is irrelevant
2008	Teresa Kok Suh Sim	7 days	Member of Parliament, Seputeh	Accused of insulting islamic religion

Criticism

An artist's portrayal of the Internal Security Act. The law has attracted criticism when dealing with civil rights issues.

Due to the alleged draconian nature of the ISA, several human rights organisations and opposition political parties have strongly criticised the act and called for its repeal. Foreign governments, notably that of the United States, have also pressured the government to repeal the act.

Latest ISA arrest will be on Raja Petra

On Sept 6, Home Minister Syed Hamid Albar had warned the 58-year old editor of popular news portal Malaysia Today he could be charged under the ISA for comments allegedly insulting Islam and Prophet Muhammad

Several religious groups - Malaysian Islamic Development Department (Jakim), Yayasan Dakwah Islamiah Malaysia (Yadim), Federal Territory Islamic Religious Council (Maiwp) and Federal Territory Religious Department (Jawi) - had lodged police reports against him.

The groups complained his comment in an article entitled “I Promise to be a good, non-hypocritical Muslim” allegedly used sentences that insulted Muslims.

Raja Petra, popularly known by his initials RPK, is also alleged to have allowed comments to appear on his website that degraded Islam and Prophet Muhammad in an article entitled “Not all Arabs are descendants of the Prophet

Meanwhile, his wife Marina said they had yet to appoint a lawyer to handle the matter.

This is the second time Raja Petra, a father of five and part of the Selangor royal family, has been detained under ISA, which allows for indefinite detention without trial.

His first arrest under the tough security law was on Apr 11, 2001. RPK was detained as part of a crackdown against reformasi activists in which nine others were also held. At that time he was webmaster for the now de-funct FreeAnwar.com

Raja Petra was released after 52 days in detention. However, six of the reformasi leaders were eventually sent to the Kamunting Detention Centre in Taiping where they were detained for two years.

According to Home Minister Syed Hamid Albar, the 58-year old father of five would be detained under Section 73(1) of the ISA, which allows for detention of up to 60 days.

“The police will do an assessment during this period and if they feel he should be held more than 60 days, the police will then refer to me,” Syed Hamid was quoted as saying by The Star.

The minister also confirmed that the Sin Chew Daily, The Sun and Suara Keadilan were issued show cause letters. “They have been given a week to reply,” he added.

Raja Petra’s wife Marina Lee Abdullah earlier told Malaysiakini that 10 police personnel from Bukit Aman came to their home in Sungai Buloh at about 1.10pm to arrest him.

When Malaysiakini contacted her at 1.25pm, the police personnel were still there. However, Raja Petra - popularly known by his initials RPK - was taken away to an unknown destination at 1.50pm. The police also confiscated some books and VCDs.

Marina showed the notice from the police which listed out all the items they have taken from the house (right).

Raja Petra is expected to be held under police’s custody for up to 60 days before being sent to the Kamunting Detention Centre in Taiping, Perak, where ISA detainees are incarcerated.

On Sept 6, Syed Hamid had warned that RPK, who edits the popular news portal Malaysia Today, could be charged under the ISA for comments allegedly insulting Islam and Prophet Muhammad.

The minister said several religious groups - Malaysian Islamic Development Department (Jakim), Yayasan Dakwah Islamiah Malaysia (Yadim), Federal Territory Islamic Religious Council (Maiwp) and Federal Territory Religious Department (Jawi) - had lodged police reports against him.

The groups had complained Raja Petra’s comment in an article entitled ‘I promise to be a good, non-hypocritical Muslim’ allegedly used sentences that insulted Muslims.

The government ordered the blocking of the Malaysia Today website two weeks ago, but the ban was lifted yesterday.

The ban together with Syed Hamid’s warning to invoke the ISA had sparked a public furore against government censorship of the Internet.

Opposition parties too accused Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi’s administration of attempting to gag the press in a bid to salvage his party’s sinking popularity.

Second time under ISA

Raja Petra is also alleged to have allowed comments to appear on his website that degraded Islam and Prophet Muhammad in an article entitled “Not all Arabs are descendants of the Prophet”.

This is the second time that RPK, a member of the Selangor royal family, has been detained under ISA, which allows for indefinite detention without trial.

His first arrest under the tough security law was on April 10, 2001. RPK was detained as part of a crackdown against reformasi activists in which nine others were also held.

At that time, he was webmaster for the now defunct FreeAnwar.com site.

Raja Petra was subsequently released after 53 days in detention. However, six of the reformasi leaders were eventually sent to the Kamunting Detention Centre in Taiping where they were detained for two years.

Charged earlier for sedition, defamation

The controversial blogger was earlier charged with sedition and defamation after linking Deputy Prime Minister Najib Razak and his wife to the sensational murder of a Mongolian woman.

In that case, a close friend of the deputy premier - Abdul Razak Baginda - was charged with abetting the murder of 28-year-old Altantuya Shaariibuu, whose body was blown up with explosives.

Two police officers from an elite force, whose duties included guarding the prime minister and Najib, were also charged with the killing.

The ISA, which human rights groups have pushed to have abolished, provides for renewable two-year periods of detention without trial and is normally used against suspected terrorists.

It has also been used to lock up opponents of the government, and last year five Hindraf leaders were detained three weeks after mounting a mammoth rally in the streets of Kuala Lumpur on Nov 25.

Malaysia Today is a popular Malaysian news blog. It is known for being critical of both the governing Barisan Nasional coalition and opposition parties such as the Democratic Action Party and Parti Keadilan Rakyat. Its founder and editor is Raja Petra Kamarudin, a former political detainee. Founded in August 2004, it has claimed that it has received almost 100 million hits since then, and alleges it has a readership larger than that of the New Straits Times, a major English language daily newspaper in Malaysia. ^[1] According to The Star, Malaysia Today receives 1.5 million hits a day, and is one of the top ten political sites in Malaysia.^[2] The website is currently hosted in neighbouring Singapore.

Note: the URL of Raja Petra's website is "www.malaysia-today.net". A site with a similar address, "www.malaysiatoday.com", is unrelated.

How do you think about this issue? What are your perspectives or what have you perceived?? Is this what we called democracy(partially, fully)? What do you think about ISA itself and the ones that are “using” it for the sake of “justice” and “societal harmony”? Time to ponder now.

get more information throught the links below:

>>Raja Petra Kamarudin

>>Raja Petra ‘arrested under ISA'

>>IS"", the scourge of our modern society

>>Do Raja Petra Justice: Abolish the IS""

>>Malaysia Today

prepared by Vance and Yusoff

Think About It

2008-09-20T04:19:00.000-07:00

Teresa Kok from DAP, who is Member of Parliament for Seputeh, state assemblywoman for Kinrara as well the senior state executive councillor for Selangor was arrested under Section 73 (1) of the Internal Security Act (ISA).She has been accused of stirring up racial sentiments by instigating residents to petition against mosques in Kinrara and Kota Damansara to lower the volume of their speakers.The reports were lodged over an allegation by former Selangor Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Dr Mohamad Khir Toyo that Kok had tried to prohibit the "azan" call to prayer at mosques and surau in Kota Damansara, Sri Serdang and Puchong Jaya because teresa alleged statements could hurt the feelings of the Muslim community.

Teresa has denied these allegations and both mosques have already come out to deny these accusations. Masjid Kinrara, the mosque which is embroiled in an azan controversy, said DAP parliamentarian Teresa Kok was not involved in the petition to lower the volume of its loudspeakers.According to Abdul Rahman Nasir, who is head of the mosque committee, Kok had never set foot in Masjid Kinrara to present the residents' petition.

We are curious. Why was Teresa Kok detained under the ISA? Would the reasons given above justify Teresa's detention without trial under the draconian Internal Security Act ? Is democracy in Malaysia at stake? Think about it.

ISA: Is it being reinforced properly?

2008-09-18T01:00:00.000-07:00

As all of us have noticed, this few weeks have been a chaotic yet dilemma moment for all us who live in the once peaceful land of Malaysia. The incident came to its boiling point when Tan Hoon Cheng (Sin Chew Daily Journalist), Teresa Kok (Seputeh Opposition MP) and Raja Petra Kamaruddin were detained under ISA (Internal Security Act) which resulted in a nation-wide furore and political crisis.

Tan Hoon Cheng, 33, a former graduate from the school of Communication, Universiti Sains Malaysia was taken from her home at Bukit Mertajam and told that she would be taken to Bukit Aman in Kuala Lumpur, but was informed of her release midway through the journey later. The reason she was picked up by the police is that she reported that Umno Bukit Bendera division Chief, Datuk Ahmad Ismail’s speech at a Permatang Pauh by-election ceramah on August 23 that Orang Cina cuma tumpang di sini sahaja (the Chinese are only “squatting” here).

The question here is: Why should she be detained under the act of ISA merely because she reported the truth?

This issue has brought a sense of injustice and hurt among people that the perpetrator has been let off scot-free while the messenger has been penalized. Datuk Ahmad Ismail was being suspended lightly from UMNO for three years ONLY, yet Tan was detained under ISA as the police believed her life was “under threat”, according to Home Minister Syed Hamid Albar.

The last bit to ponder on:

ISA= Internal Security Act or I Simply Arrest? Do think about it =)

Technology brings to Democracy, is it true? (PART 4)

2008-09-17T11:13:00.000-07:00

This post is the last post that we will discuss about is it true technology can brings us toward a democratic society. We have discussed about ‘A’ and ‘D’ of ‘ADA’, now let’s move on to the last component which is Accountability. Basically, it is about the responsibility of the government to its citizens, there must be some channels provided for the people to use it to voice out their opinions, needs and wants. Do we have the chance to speak out through certain communication system channels? What are the channels that we have?

In a democratic country, citizens have their own rights to be informed on what is going to happen in future, especially in the aspect of politic. What is government always doing is actually all for the citizens, therefore, there is nothing wrong with the latter to find out the truths through any channel, and also give their feedback. Government which is willing to receive the feedback from the citizens and takes an important consideration about it then makes an effective and satisfying decision is called democratic. Let’s put it in the context of Malaysia, did our government receive the feedback from us and change the plans they already have? Or it blames on the feedback and stops the accessibility of channel which we use to voice out our opinions?

I would like to take the issue which has been raised up before, MALAYSIA TODAY is a channel which Raja Petra uses it to write about the truths, the blog readers are also able to leave their comments, it is one of the ways that people voice out their opinions on the recent politic. Unfortunately, the blog has been blocked and Raja Petra was arrested under ISA, he is not given any chance to express his opinions and tell the truths which are considered inciting the country by the government. Do you think our government is accountable to us?

Accountability is the most important character in a society which declare as democracy if compare with other two of character. This is because of accessibility in internet and diversity of information would not exist if a society which do not have accountable of government and people. For instance, the issue of a chieftain of UMNO Ahmad Ismail told an irresponsible speech which about the existence of Chinese Malaysian in Malaysia during the by-election in Permatang Pauh. This issue had become a hot and a big issue in our country during that time. As you can see this kind of irresponsible leader would destroy the unity among race. Besides that, a democratic society must have the element of accountability to ensure people or even leaders act responsible in order to maintain the stability of a country. Moreover, the important reason of accountability in a society is because of government which is actually chosen by our people through the General Election and they represent us to making policies in cabinet. At the same time, they have to be responsible to us so that our people would know that what kind of policies they have planned for our country and whether it would brings benefit to our people or erodes the right of people.

In conclusion, technology actually can improve the relation among people thereby our people have a platform which used for get various information from internet and make discussion and best decision to solve our current hot issue or governmental policies through an abstract space which known as “Public Sphere”. However, nowadays, unfortunately there are a lot of leaders attempt to control the technology like filtering the website in order to avoid someone against them and consolidate their regime. A society must have 3 kind of character like “Accessibility, Diversity, Accountability” thereby to built up a totally democratic society and technology can be said that is a proper tool which can be used by our people toward democracy in future. Who knows once a day it will brings a big reformation and impact for our country?

By ER SIANG (ryan) & YING SHIN

SEKATAN TERHADAP PENGGUNAAN MALAYSIA TODAY DITARIK BALIK

2008-09-14T10:54:00.000-07:00

Datuk Shaziman Abu Mansor iaitu Menteri Tenaga, Air dan Komunikasi mengeluarkan kenyataan bahawa sekatan terhadap penggunaan laman web Malaysia today ditarik balik dan berkuat kuasa serta merta sejak 11 september 2008. keputusan ini dicapai dalam mesyuarat cabinet yang dijalankan pada 10 september 2008 bertujuan bagi menggalakkan rakyat menggunakan Internet sebagai medium penyebaran maklumat dalam dunia tanpa sempadan ini(globalisasi). Hal ini juga ekoran menghormati hak kebebasan rakyat untuk menyuarakan pendapat masing-masing ekoran Negara ditadbir berasaskan kepada pentadbiran demokrasi yang mana rakyat bebas menyuarakan pendapat mereka disamping memilih pemimpin yang dirasakan layak memimpin Negara. Sekatan ke atas Malaysia Today berhubung beberapa artikel penulis blog itu dan tulisan pembacanya yang didapati menghina Nabi Muhammad s.a.w ditarik balik sehingga siasatan ke atasnya selesai.
Sehubungan itu, satu jawatankuasa akan ditubuhkan yang dianggotai oleh Suruhanjaya Komunikasi dan Multimedia Malaysia (SKMM), Jabatan Peguam Negara, Polis Diraja Malaysia (PDRM) dan Kementerian Dalam Negeri (KDN) bagi memantau secara teliti laman-laman web yang didapati mempunyai unsur-unsur hasutan atau perkauman dan menghina agama sehingga menjejaskan keselamatan serta keharmonian Negara akan dikenakan tindakan paling tegas termasuk mengikut ISA.
Persoalan:Adakah pengembalian webside Malaysia Today memberi satu ruang demokrasi kepada rakyat.
Disediakan oleh: Nurul Asyikin bt Abu Seman

Technology brings to Democracy, is it true? (PART 3)

2008-09-13T21:37:00.000-07:00

I have talked about the Accessibility for the past two posts last week. Now, I will continue the topic that we have discussed before. Today, I will share something about the character of Diversity in a democracy system. There are three aspects of diversity which are the diversity of the range of different information, idea and the pattern of thinking, and the pattern of media. We always say that we are in the democractic country, but have we ever thought that do we really have diverse information?

I think that technology actually can bring various of information to people. For instance, the internet system can provide us unlimited resources to identify the information whether it is correct or not if compared to newspaper, radio station, and television. The obvious comparison is that all of the traditional media always choose the information for us to read and to know it.

On the other way round, actually we can choose what kind of information we want to obtain through internet or the new media. This kind of technology has different structure of operation which can let us freely to select the information. For example, we can get the latest information through internet immediately so that we do not need to wait until the next day to buy the newspaper. The current hot issue in our society is about Internal Security Act (ISA) which known as a bad act to cope with people who are against BN government without fairly interrogation in court because of the reason of internal security in Malaysia. Now, I just want to ask you what is the definition and the interpretation of Internal Security in Malaysia? There are different definitions of Internal Security if we compare between the newspaper which mostly controlled by our government and the bloggers in internet. As we can see, there are two kinds of paradigm and ideology.

For new information, our government used the ISA to arrest Raja Petra (known as most popular holder of an objection website-MALAYSIA TODAY), Tan Hoon Cheng (a senior reporter of Sin Chew Chinese Daily) and an opposition leader of DAP. I am very not satisfied with the current government using ISA to arrest people who are telling the truths, I think everyone has the right to get these information because the newspapers had lost their reliability and people need to gain different information from other ways. I want to voice out that we are not afraid of the ISA and people should not afraid also in order to protect our democracy system in future. If you are conscious of this issue, ISA is one of the tools that government always uses for cracking down on people who threaten their regime. Is this ISA really useful for the security of our country or protecting the hegemony of politicians?

Let me take another example from foreign country. Community radio is a media which is used widely in many countries like Vietnam, Japan, Australia, Philippines, Thailand and so on. Here, I am going to focus on community radio in Thailand. This media is a very important channel which disseminates a variety of information to the public like farmers. However, since the changes of politic, there is an act which might restrict the community radio from disseminating the information. From here, we bave to think, is the information in Thailand still diverse?

We really need diversity of information to solve a lot of social problems and this can be done by the internet platform. A society which is considered to have a healthier development is which has freedom to speak up and free diversity of information so that people can be mature to think and discuss national problems.

BY : ER SIANG (ryan) & YING SHIN

An Apology

2008-09-10T23:41:00.000-07:00

We, at the team, one2voice, would like to apologize, because we have made a mistake regarding our previous post. The mistake is highly regretted. Thank you

Team,
One2voice

‘Technology bring to democracy’, is it true?? (PART 2)

2008-09-08T10:42:00.000-07:00

Continuing from Part 1, we shall look at the universities in Malaysia. Our university does not provide or allow us full internet access for the students to get more information. Sometimes we cannot access a website which is marked as violent by our university. By the way, university students should have their own right, wisdom and knowledge to identify whether certain information is true or not. Filtering websites is not the right and appropriate way to control or teach these students.
So, is it true if we have technologies (internet access), it can truly enable us to gain more information? Are we more able to express our different points of view openly through web publishing and speech? Is this bringing our society to be more democratic?
If we look at the other countries which have already implemented high technologies like Singapore (a technologically advanced country in Southeast Asia), China (known as a big country in Asia), Japan (a high-tech country in the world), United States (as the most democratic country in the world) and so on, are they more democratic today?
Please do take some time to think on this issue and give us comments.
I have just shared regarding Accessibility; I will touch on Diversity and Accountability the next time.

BY ER SIANG(ryan) & YING SHIN

something for everyone, no matter who you are! (Yeah, even you over there! ^.^v

2008-09-08T06:17:00.000-07:00

this is a video made by fellow malaysian artistes for unity. It is a great music video to share with everyone. It is considered one way, how communication technology can be used to voice out and promote democracy!!

Click here for more!!

‘Technology bring to democracy’, is it true?? (PART 1)

2008-09-06T07:42:00.000-07:00

As we know, a lot of people think that if we have advanced technology, which can bring us forward, then we will be able to develop into a more democratic country like the United States. But, I just want to bring out some questions to discuss with you all…Is this really true? If our society possesses advanced technology, our nation will become more democratic in the aspects or human rights, attitudes, thinking or opinions, truths and so on and so forth? Just take a few minutes to think about it!
What is the definition of democracy? I think everybody have a basic understanding about it. Here, I am not going to talk about what is democracy, instead, I want to share something on what do we need in order to be democratic and what is the reality we have when we have various technologies like the mobile phone, computer, PDA, Internet system, satellite, television, radio, newspaper and many more which enable us to gain the important information from all over the world.
When we talk about democracy…Accessibility, Diversity, and Accountability are the three aspects which we can use to see whether a country is democratic. I use the first alphabet from the three words to create a new word called “ADA” (Malay word), which means “HAVE” in English. Now, I want to ask do we have “ADA” in Malaysia where we always say it is more democratic than other countries? Let us do a little observation on our society. First, I want to talk about the accessibility in our democracy system in Malaysia. Long ago, newspapers were one of the main sources to get true and free information. Now news agencies are controlled by our government indirectly, and this control is due to power crisis. But nowadays, we have advanced technology like SMS and Internet to gain the true, free and various information to replace the newspapers. Obviously, the new technology actually lets us express our different opinions easier, discuss about our routine matters and making it more complete.
However, if we look into the issues in our country seriously, that we can know that it is not true actually. Let us use the current issue to talk further about it. MALAYSIA TODAY has been blocked by order of the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC). It is because it posted many comments which are able to incite the country’s multi-racial society to hate each other. Accessibility is basically about the equal chance that is given to everybody to gain any information and use the communication technology freely. In the case of MALAYSIA TODAY, the government blocked it for the sake of our society, do you agree with it?? Or you might think the government is trying to protect itself? If the decision to block MALAYSIA TODAY is to limit our accessibility to it, so now do you think Malaysia is still democratic???

BY ER SIANG(ryan) & YING SHIN

to ACT, or NOT to act.... that's the question....

2008-09-01T17:05:00.000-07:00

As university students, we rely on public transportation to get back to our hometown, to see and embrace our love ones. The question is: Is public transportation ALWAYS safe? Well, to me, I certainly DISAGREE but I'll leave that question for you to thinker for a moment. Everytime when I board on a bus to travel somewhere, I would always think, “Is this bus going to overturn now? Will I be able to reach my destination safely?”

What happened was a life of my dear friend was taken away while she was on the way to Kuala Lumpur by an express bus. Her name is Lee Nian Ning. She is a beautiful 21 year old medicine student, pure at heart and has the whole world in her hands. She had her life all planned out. But her future crashed right before her eyes: It happened all because of the reckless bus driver.

Losing a friend is indeed a weird feeling. No words could express how we felt. I thought that nothing could be done due to this incident. However, democracy somehow proves me wrong. My friends had set up a blog (http://buscrashnomore.blogspot.com- if you guys haven’t heard of this blog, do check it out) regarding to her incident hoping to reach out to the people out there which receive many response in return. The purpose of the blog is to voice out on safer long distance bus rides for Malaysians. The best part was that petition about road safety was set up by them and many people actually signed up for it! Then, the petition was sent to the government.

You guys can go and have a look at the petition: http://www.petitiononline.com/buscrash/petition.html

After all the work, finally there has been progress. This is what my friend has forwarded to my mail:

From: Raymond <raymondtjh@yahoo.com>
To: teoleeken@yahoo.com
Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 19:35:24 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Dialogue Session

Dear Lee Ken,

Good morning. My name is Raymond Teoh and I am attached with the Road Safety Department as an Assistant Director. Firstly, let me extend my deepest condolence for the loss of your friend.

Everyday we hear about accidents occurring but it only really effects us when the victim is someone close to us. We, at the Road Safety Department are working tirelessly to reduce the number of fatalities and injuries due to road accidents.

As such, we welcome a dialogue session with your association on how we can work together to improve road safety in Malaysia. I have scheduled for the dialogue session to take place on the 16th May 2008 at 9.30 a.m. in the office of the Road Safety Department (Level 2, Block D5, Complex D, Putrajaya).

Please confirm your attendance and inform me of the number of your associates that would be attending this dialogue session. Hope to hear from you soon. Thanks.

Regards,

Raymond Teoh

Road Safety Department

Though there has been progress, it wasn’t easy at the first place. Before that, they have tried many times to get in touch with people from the Transport Ministry but so far they have received no reply. They do face a lot of rejections before they manage to talk to the people from the Road Safety Department, even I myself. I teamed up with a group of friends and talk to the people about our petition and hoping that it will change the current road safety. A lot of them gave us their full support, while there are others; who told us to just leave it to the government. I do not disagree with them, but if we do not take the effort to voice out or do something... who can hear us? If this could happen to my friend, it can happen to you too.

There might be changes if the society work together and voice out their opinions. Though there might be or might not be any changes, at least we do give it a shot, and see how it goes right? We must always bear in mind that this is a democratic country, which means the people has the rights and freedom to speak up and voice out their opinions. I must clarify here first that I do not mean to insult or support any other parties but rather more on my frustrations and disappointment to what has happened on my friend. I hope this matter will raise a more pivotal issue and question the importance of democracy.

By: Neoh Shin Yen and Tan Wei Fu

Malaysia Today BANNED!!!

2008-09-01T07:18:00.000-07:00

Popular Malaysian news blog ‘Malaysia Today’ has been blocked by the order of MCMC. Malaysia's telecoms watchdog ordered internet providers to block access to Malaysia Today website because it posted comments that could incite the country's multi-racial society. The MCMC action was then said to be contradicts the MSC Bill of Guarantees 'zero censorship on MSC'.

Democracy or Totalitarian
Democracy = freedom of speech + freedom of information
Malaysia Today = space for public speech + source of information
Ban Malaysia Today = Ban freedom of speech + Ban to freedom of information
= BAN DEMOCRACY!!
Through the action towards Malaysia Today, the government was trying to proof to us that ‘NO MORE DEMOCRACY IN MALAYSIA’. Beside, the action showed the degree of totalitarian from the authority.

Dont Feed Us Like a Baby
The claims from the government towards the action taken were, the information posted could incite the country's multi-racial society. Thus, it was not suitable for the citizens. However, are we as stupid as a baby who needs someone to decide what food is good for us? We are actually able to know if the information is really bad to us or untruth but not the government to decide it for us.

Walking Backwards from 51st Merdeka
This year, Malaysia is celebrating its 51st independent day. Malaysia has been pronouncing itself as a democracy nation over 51 years. However, for my words, the action taken recently was just a shame of the 51st independent day of being democracy.

Prepared by: Lim Chin Aun, Lim Fei Fun

Is Democracy the best policy?? by Angela

2008-08-31T22:02:00.000-07:00

We live in a country which practises democracy. We know how we are involved in the democratic process through the electoral system. It is always said that democracy is the ideal way to run a country. How true is that?? I will state down just a few pros and cons of the democratic system.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

*************************************************************************************************

__Pros__

1.People are represented

-Malaysia is a constitutional monarchy. The "Yang di-Pertuan Agong" as king and head of state has the obligation to act in accordance with government advice.

-Malaysia's bicameral parliament consists of the Senate (Dewan Negara) and the House of Representatives (Dewan Rakyat).

-The people will vote for the candidate whom they think is the best. Therefore, the candidate who wins in the elections will represent the voices of the ‘rakyat’.

2.Power is not accumulated (Separation of Power)

-In keeping with the concept of Parliamentary Democracy which
forms the basis of the government administration in Malaysia,
the Federal Constitution underlines the separation of governing
powers among the Executive, Judicial and Legislative Authorities.
The separation of power occurs both at the Federal and State level.

-The separation of power is used to ensure that ‘checks and balances’

do happen in the government.

There is a saying :
Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely

3.The MPs are also bound by the law

-In the olden days, kings are not bound by their own law. They can do anything as they wish without the need to abide the law.

-But, thanks to democracy, even rulers now has to follow the law!

-Now that all men are bound to the law, there is equality.

====================================================

__Cons__

1.Too slow in decision making
-Malaysia has about 222 seats in the parliament.
The question is :-
Would it be easy to have a majority to agree on an issue especially when Malaysia is a multi-racial country? We have different beliefs and interests. How can there be a consensus?

2. Electorate may not know whom they are choosing

-As an example, i will share about Adolf Hitler. He led the National Socialist German Workers Party or more commonly known as the Nazi Party.

-Here’s something which Hitler said :- “Nature is cruel; therefore we are also entitled to be cruel. When I send the flower of German youth into the steel hail of the next war without feeling the slightest regret over the precious German blood that is being spilled, should I not also have the right to eliminate millions of an inferior race that multiplies like vermin?”
Source: Adolf Hitler, quoted in Hitler, by Joachim Fest, Vintage Books Edition, 1974, p. 679-680.

-Is cruelty right? Should cruelty be practised by men? by people who are chosen to protect the citizen's rights?

-This is an example of the effects which may happen when the electorate does not know whom they are choosing.

3. Democracy or any other systems cannot work without morality

-The real problem does not lie in the system but the problem arises when there is no morality.

-For an example, if a king is corrupt, the country will be corrupted. If the MPs in a democratic country is corrupt, the country will also be corrupted.

-So, what makes democracy the best system if there is no morality?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Today, democracy and technology are closely linked. The very fact that you can read this has already proven my point that technology allows us to know democracy through the Internet. Without technology, we might not be able to find out about the current political situation in our country as quick as we do now.

We can watch the ‘Annual Budget’ being reported by our Prime Minister live on television. Can we do that if we do not have access to television?

Without technology, the democracy system might not be able to run efficiently. This is because we depend so much on technology to ease our participation in this country’s democratic system.

Is democracy the best system which can be used to run a country???Think about it.

Demokrasi dan kebebasan - Tiada kebebasan mutlak

2008-08-31T20:52:00.000-07:00

DEMOKRASI DAN KEBEBASAN- Tiada kebebasan mutlak.

Dalam sistem demokrasi yang berteraskan pemikiran sekular, empat kebebasan utama yang disucikan adalah kebebasan beragama, kebebasan bersuara dan kebebasan berekonomi. Inilah yang dijunjung dan dipandang tinggi dan mereka menamakannya dengan Hak Asasi Manusia (HAM). Perbuatan pemimpin mengkritik konsep kebebasan yang dibawa oleh barat nampak seperti suatu yang ‘mulia’, namun hakikatnya aktiviti dakwah untuk menerapkan Islam juga turut disekat atas nama kebebasan.

Islam bukannya berdiri atas asas kebebasan, tetapi Islam datang dan mengatur perbuatan manusia agar sesuai dengan hukum hakam Allah s.w.t . Sebenarnya baratlah yang mempolopori idea kebebasan dan HAM ini dijajanya ke seluruh negeri kaum Muslimin melalui media- media, majalah, akhbar dan teknologi canggih kini internet yang membenarkan seluruh umat manusia untuk mendapatkan segala maklumat dan terpengaruh dengan pengaruh kebebasan yang dibawa oleh barat ini. Empat tunggak utama kebebasan dalam sistem demokrasi ini semuanya adalah bertentangan dengan hukum-hukum syarak:

(1) kebebasan berakhidah/beragama: kebebasan berakhidah dalam HAM ertinya ialah manusia berhak untuk menganut atau menyakini agama atau ideology apa sekali pun dan berhak mengingkari atau menukar agama sesuka hati. Sebahagian kaum Muslimin yang tertipu dengan fahaman yang dibawa oleh barat melalui teknologi kini khususnya menyangka bahawa kebebasan beragama yang dipropagandakan oleh barat adalah tidak menyalahi hukum agama Islam. Hujahan yang dikeluarkan oleh barat melalui firman Allah iaitu “tidak ada paksaan untuk (memasuki) agama (Islam)" [TMQ Al-Baqarah (2):256] dan ayat "Maka barangsiapa yang ingin (beriman) hendaklah dia beriman dan siapa sahaja yang ingin (kafir) biarlah dia kafir" [TMQ Al-Kahfi (18):29]. Nas ini telah disalah ertikan dan menyebabkan ramai umat Islam kini menjadi murtad. Sedangkan nas ini menjelaskan bahawa kaum muslimin tidak boleh memaksa sesiapapun untuk memeluk Islam. Jika seorang Muslim telah keluar dari Islam (murtad), maka dia akan diminta bertaubat dan jika dia enggan, maka hukuman hudud wajib dijatuhkan ke atasnya yakni dihukum mati.
(2) Kebebasan berpendapat/ bersuara: Kebebasan berpendapat menurut HAM bererti bahawa setiap orang memiliki hak untuk menyatakan pendapat apa sahaja dalam segala perkara tanpa terikat dengan batasan apa pun. Kebebasan berpendapat ini sangat menarik perhatian sebahagian kaum Muslimin, sebab mereka selama ini hidup tertindas di bawah penguasa-penguasa yang zalim di mana mereka akan ditangkap jika bersuara menyalahi kepentingan/kehendak penguasa sepertimana sebelum merdeka yang mana setiap masyarakat di tanah melayu tidak dibenarkan sama sekali memiliki radio untuk mendapatkan maklumat atau berita tentang parti dan pejuang bangsa pada ketika itu. Justeru, mereka melihat idea ini sesuai dengan Islam. Walhal kebebasan berpendapat yang dibawa oleh HAM ini merangkumi pendapat/pemikiran apa sahaja, walaupun pemikiran tersebut bertentangan dengan aqidah Islam seperti pemikiran tentang nasionalisme, patriotisme, pluralisme, feminisme dan sebagainya. Pendapat ini dibawa melalui teknologi seperti internet secara berleluasa tanpa kesedaran kita sebagai pengguna teknologi ini melalui blog yang diwujudkan dalam internet. Padahal, Islam telah memerintahkan umatnya untuk menghapuskan segala bentuk pemikiran kufur ini.
(3) Kebebasan Kepemilikan: Adapun kebebasan hak milik menurut idea HAM ini bererti manusia berhak memiliki segala sesuatu sesuka hatinya dan menggunakan segala sesuatu miliknya itu sesuka hati, selama hal itu tidak melanggar hak-hak orang lain. Maksudnya, selama tidak melanggar hak-hak yang diakui oleh sistem dan undang-undang yang mereka gubal. Hal ini bererti manusia berhak memiliki segala sesuatu baik yang dihalalkan oleh Allah mahupun yang diharamkanNya, kerana yang menjadi ukuran adalah undang-undang buatan manusia, bukannya undang-undang Allah. Contohnya manusia berhak memiliki harta dari wang riba atau perjudian (kerana undang-undang manusia membenarkan) dan manusia juga berhak memiliki barang-barang yang termasuk dalam pemilikan umum (public property) seperti minyak, gas, pantai dan sungai-sungai, malah mana-mana individu tidak dihalang dari memiliki harta/saham yang jelas-jelas diharamkan Allah seperti syarikat judi, bank riba, syarikat insurans, rumah pelacuran dan sebagainya. Kebebasan ini telah menimbulkan pula akumulasi kekayaan yang melimpah ruah di tangan segelintir orang yang disebut sebagai para kapitalis. Ada pun Islam menjelaskan bahawa seorang Muslim itu hanya berhak memiliki harta yang dihalalkan oleh Allah sahaja dan haram baginya memiliki apa sahaja yang diharamkan oleh syara'. Islam telah membahagi dan membezakan hak pemilikan kepada tiga kategori iaitu pemilikan individu (milkiyyah al-fardiah), pemilikan umum (milkiyyah al-'ammah) dan pemilikan negara (milkiyyah ad-daulah) yang setiap satunya diperincikan oleh nas-nas yang jelas. Kontradiksi kebebasan kepemilikan di bawah HAM dengan pemilikan dalam Islam adalah teramat jelas, sehingga kaum Muslimin diharamkan mengamalkan idea kebebasan di dalam memiliki sesuatu kecuali wajib berpegang kepada halal dan haram.
(4) Kebebasan Bertingkah laku: Menurut HAM, kebebasan bertingkah laku bererti setiap orang berhak menjalani kehidupan peribadi semahunya, asalkan tidak melanggar kehidupan peribadi orang lain. Berdasarkan hal ini, seorang lelaki dan wanita bebas untuk berdua-duaan, bercium atau berzina sekalipun selama mana kedua-duanya redha. Pengaruh kebebasan yang dibawa ini adalah melalui TV, radio, internet dan pelbagai alat teknologi kini. Tontonan wayang gambar, lagu- lagu yang disebarkan ke dalam negara Islam turut telah mempengaruhi kebebasan yang diamalkan kini. Tidak ada apa yang dinamakan halal atau haram di dalam HAM, yang penting, semua orang boleh melakukan setiap perbuatan di dalam ruang lingkup undang-undang yang dibuat oleh manusia. Justeru, boleh sahaja jika perempuan tidak mahu bertudung atau lelaki mahu berseluar pendek di khalayak ramai kerana tidak ada undang-undang yang menghalangnya. Praktik kebebasan bertingkah laku di bawah HAM ini telah menimbulkan kerosakan yang amat mengerikan yang sudah tidak dapat dibayangkan lagi. Konsep kebebasan ini langsung tidak ada di dalam Islam dan umat Islam langsung tidak memerlukan HAM untuk mengatur tingkah laku mereka. Setiap individu Muslim wajib 'terikat' dengan hukum Allah. Tingkah laku manusia justeru wajib diatur dengan hukum syara' dan Islam telah lama mengatur hal ini sesuai dengan perintah dan larangan Allah.

persoalan yang ditimbulkan ialah mengapa kebebasan ini harus ada dalam sebuah negara yang terdapatnya masyarakat Islam dan mengapa budaya barat mudah mengalir dalam diri masyarakat Malaysia kini?

Disediakan oleh: Nurul Asyikin Abu Seman@naas

Teknologi dan demokrasi dalam pilihanraya

2008-08-31T20:45:00.000-07:00

Pilihanraya ialah satu peluang untuk kita

cuba

membentuk satu persekitaran yang boleh meningkatkan lagi amalan demokrasi di negara ini. Bercakap mengenai pilihanraya, Negara kita baru sahaja selesai menjalani satu pilihanraya kecil di kawasan Parlimen Permatang Pauh, Pulau Pinang di mana dapat kita lihat keputusannya memihak kepada Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, dengan memperoleh 31,195 undi, mengalahkan calon Barisan Nasional (BN), Datuk Arif Shah Omar Shah yang mendapat 15,524 undi. Seorang lagi calon dari Angkatan Keadilan Insan

Malaysia

(Akim), Hanafi Mamat, pula hilang wang deposit selepas memperoleh hanya 92 undi. Apa yang dapat kita lihat dari senario ini adalah menunjukkan Negara Malaysia masih lagi Negara yang demokrasi,dimana rakyat mempunyai hak membuat pilihan sendiri untuk memilih wakil rakyat mereka melalui pilihanraya ini walaupun pelbagai spekulasi timbul berkaitan kes Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim seperti yang kita sedia maklum mengenainya sebelum ini.

Selain itu,dalam proses pilihanraya juga, ahli politik turut menggunakan kemajuan teknologi sebagai medium untuk memainkan peranan penting dalam menentukan kejayaan sesebuah parti dalam piliharaya. Statistik menunjukkan bahawa 73% bakal pengundi di Malaysia mempunyai akses kepada maklumat dalam talian. Akses maklumat dalam talian (online) itu termasuklah pemilikan telefon bimbit dan juga akses kepada internet. Melalui telefon bimbit , bakal pengundi akan disogokkan oleh panggilan , SMS serta MMS yang berbau politik dan kempen pilihanraya. SMS atau MMS mungkin akan diterima oleh pengguna telefon bimbit melalui nombor-nombor telefon biasa ataupun dari nombor-nombor premium lima digit. Dalam keadaan-keadaan tertentu SMS atau MMS mungkin dihantar melalui server didalam dan luar negara.

Sebagai contoh,dalam pilihanraya Umum Malaysia ke-11 pada tahun 2004 menyaksikan kehebatan kesan SMS digunakan untuk kemudahan berkempen. Statistik dari sumber pembekal perkhidmatan telekomunikasi menunjukkan bahawa lebih 200 juta SMS telah dihantar sepanjang tempoh berkempen. Pada peringkat pra-pilihanraya dimana bakal-bakal calon melobi untuk mendapatkan kerusi untuk bertanding, SMS telah digunakan untuk menjatuh atau menaikkan seseorang calon sesama parti. Keadaan ini telah menyebabkan pihak berkuasa telah mengeluarkan amaran tentang penggunaan SMS fitnah dan maklumat palsu dalam tempoh berkempen. Walaupun nombor-nombor telefon tertentu telah disekat dari menghantar SMS, keadaannya sudah tidak terkawal lagi apabila pihak-pihak yang berkempen telah menggunakan SMS gateway dari server-server yang berada diluar Negara

Calon-calon yang bertanding serta pengurus-pengurus kempen mereka telah menggunakan sepenuhnya kemudahan telekomunikasi dalam memastikan kemenangan berpihak kepada mereka. Kemudahan ini juga telah digunakan untuk menggerakkan jentera pilihanraya dibawah kelolaan mereka. Ini telah menghasilkan tindakbalas yang cepat serta tepat. Sebarang perubahan strategi telah dapat dihebahkan dalam masa yang sangat singkat dan amat berkesan.Apabila keputusan pilihanraya diumumkan, jelas terbukti bahawa pengaruh penggunaan sistem telekomunikasi terutamanya SMS sangat memberi kesan. Calon-calon yang bertanding sebelumnya tidak menyangka untuk menang telah mendapat keputusan yang memihak kepadanya, sementara calon-calon yang terlalu yakin akan menang,lalu mengabaikan penggunaan teknologi telah merosot pencapaian mereka malah ada yang langsung kalah.Merujuk kepada pengunaan teknologi dalam piliharaya, seorang penganalisa politik yang terkemuka berpendapat bahawa dalam pilihanraya ke-11 ditahun 2004 calon-calon yang dapat menguasai sistem teknologi telekomunikasi telah berjaya dengan cemerlang.

Dengan kecanggihan alat telekomunikasi dan kelajuan capaian internet pada masa kini, calon-calon serta pengurus kempen akan berdepan dengan cabaran untuk menguasai kedua-dua saluran tersebut. Dengan maklumat yang terkini serta lengkap, bakal-bakal pengundi telah mengenepikan maklumat-maklumat yang diperolehi dari media cetak dan juga media eletronik. Surat Khabar, radio serta TV tidak lagi menjadi rujukan utama sepanjang tempoh berkempen. Orang ramai lebih tertumpu kepada internet dan sumber telekomunikasi seperti SMS dan MMS.Parti-parti yang bertanding sekarang harus bersedia untuk menyediakan prasarana kempen mereka didalam internet dan saluran-saluran telekomunikasi seperti SMS dan MMS. Calon-calon yang bertanding harus memiliki perkhidmatan capaian internet tanpa wayar (wireless internet) mereka sendiri dikawasan yang mereka akan bertanding. Mereka juga tidak lagi boleh mengharapkan kempen dari laman-laman web yang disediakan oleh pihak parti. Mereka sendiri harus membina laman web atau blog mereka bagi menyalurkan maklumat serta berkempen mengenai isu-isu tempatan. Melalui laman web itu juga mereka boleh mewujudkan saluran webTV atau radio online mereka sendiri bagi mengemukakan manifesto serta rancangan-rancangan yang akan mereka lakukan jika mereka dipilih.

Pilihanraya masa kini tidak boleh lagi dilihat sebagai satu pilihanraya yang pasif dimana bakal pengundi hanya menerima maklumat dari satu sumber. Mereka mempunyai banyak pilihan dan berhak menyatakan pendapat mereka secara aktif. Mereka akan melayari internet bagi mendapatkan serta menyalurkan maklumat secara aktif. Sudah tentunya laman web, portal, forum, blog dan saluran TV online akan menjadi pilihan mereka.Bukan saja golongan muda yang terdedah dengan maklumat tersebut, malah orang-orang kampung sekarang ini sudah bijak mengunakan internet dan saluran telekomunikasi SMS dan MMS.Dengan kemudahan teknologi yang ada sekarang ini kita akan melihat bahawa pilihanraya di Malaysia akan berdepan dengan penggunaan kecanggihan teknologi yang melonjak dalam kaedah melobi dan berkempen pada masa hadapan.

By:noor suhaida ali

Podcast=The New Millenium's Community Radio? by Edmund

2008-08-30T06:36:00.000-07:00

Have you ever turned off the radio just because you can't find anything that you want to hear? Situations like these happens a lot. And yet, what does it mean?Well, you may well be an under-served minority in the broadcasting world, where the mainstream contents just make your stomach churn in disgust.

However, there seems to be a solution: podcasting. It hit the blogosphere in the late 2004. Although the idea of sharing files on the Internet has been present since its creation, podcasting pushed it further. With a podcast, you can now have the audio file downloaded right into your computer media player! Convenient, eh? Now, what would be the potentials for the podcasting industry? (still being in infancy)

Many parties are having an awareness that such a communicative technology is the successor for the radio. It provides the ordinary man with the power to be heard, with the RIGHT to communicate to the world. This is however, limited by the resources at hand. Although it takes a few steps to just make a podcast, it will take a Internet connection, a computer, a microphone and some tech literacy to make it happen. The question now is whether it can have the same effects as much as what the community radio has?

1) Community radio serves the minorities,: Less can be said about the proper definition of a community radio, but we do know that it serves the minorities in the community. It broadcast programmes tailor-made for the specific group of people left out by the mainstream radios. It speaks in their native languages and talks about things that interest them. For podcasting, you can literally do the same thing. You can record anything you find interesting or that which shares the same view with a small group of people and put it on your website. However, the question of accessibility and accountability comes in. Is the public able to access it? By June of 2007, only 59% of the Malaysian population is able to access the Internet. Now, the figure may be anyone's guess even as Selangor was declared a developed state a few years ago. So, does anybody really listens to them? On the other hand, who would the podcasters be accountable to? Do they self-censor or do they just express anything they have on their mind, without regards to the listeners' sensitivity?

2) Community radio is a platform for democracy: Is podcast then a platform too? Democracy is in itself a power for the people and by the people (look at the origin of democracy). Can podcast then equip the people with such power? Undoubtedly, there isn't any known effect of such magnitude yet for the humble podcast. And yet, it is undeniably taking the cyberspace by storm. Podcast content can talk about democracy and much more. It is much harder to interfere with the mainstream broadcasting air wave, therefore slipping past the radar of authorities. It is truly a marvelous idea, it being a community radio, but are these opportunities merely the icing on the cake?

I leave you with a video on how to make your own podcast, in hopes for you to execise your RIGHT TO COMMUNICATE. That's what democracy is about anyways *wink*! (Go outside of USM hotspot if you can't view it!)

What’s the difference between NGOON and GOON???

2008-08-29T09:41:00.000-07:00

We think that non-government owned online newspaper doesn’t have to worry about readership as their cost is lower, so they can write anything they want, right up to saucy and maybe unknown facts or from unreliable sources, they can quote anyone and not be afraid to be hauled to court because they know as long as they tweak the names a little they are sure to go scot-free.

Whereas for the government-owned online newspaper, they have to be careful in what they write as the attitude or articles that they write might reflect badly on them since they are government-owned. They are more careful in what they write or else they will risk hurting the government's image. Their articles about the opposition or anything need to be vetted so that they would not portray the government in a bad light / sour grapes.

Besides that, in terms of democracy, government-owned newspapers are trying harder to portray that they are democratic but they lose out in the end as their news are slanted towards the government, but then again, not necessarily private-owned newspapers are democratic as well because they tend to focus on things that government-owned newspapers would not write, as in they are more vocal in criticizing government up to the point where sometimes they are too quick to jump to conclusion which might not be a good thing as well because there are some things that government need to do (although its not really right) to put the country in order

Democracy for Malaysia is a far-cry, we all wanted democracy but we are not ready to sacrifice our own comfort for it.

If you are interested in viewing non-government owned online newspaper, please log on to www.malaysiakini.com, www.malaysiatoday.com, www.merdekareview.com. On the other hand, there are some government-owned online newspapers such as www.thestar.com.my, www.nst.com.my, www.bharian.com.my etc. for you to check it out.

Malaysia bans Spielberg's Prince

2008-08-25T14:30:00.000-07:00

The Prince of Egypt falls foul of censors (courtesy DreamWorks)

Steven Spielberg's animated epic The Prince of Egypt has been banned in Malaysia.

Government officials in the country said the film had been banned so as not to offend the country's majority Muslim population.Film Censorship Board chairman Lukeman Saaid said: "We found it insensitive for religious and moral reasons. Because of the many races in Malaysia, religion is a very sensitive issue."

The film was produced by DreamWorks Studios, which is co-funded by Steven Spielberg. His films have a history of trouble with Malaysian censors.
Saving Private Ryan was allowed but with many violent scenes cut. Spielberg insisted the film be shown in full - and it still has not been seen in Malaysia.

Strict censorship in Malaysia
About 60% of Malaysia's 22 million people are Muslim; the remainder are Christian, Hindu or Buddhist. Film censors in the country have little tolerance over nudity, sex, strong language, violence or sensitive religious themes in films.

The ban has angered opposition leader Lim Kit Sang. He said: "This high-handed attitude may be the order of yesteryear but is no more satisfactory or acceptable in this modern age of information technology.

"How can Malaysia become Asia's film-making hub when it has such outmoded censorship laws?"

Google Earth vs Democration???

2008-08-14T10:13:00.000-07:00

Google Earth is a software that allows you to navigate planet Earth from multiple views. Google Earth combines satellite photos and maps with a search engine to allow you search to find directions and specific addresses or general locations and services.

The software has been criticized by a number of special interest groups, including national officials, as being an invasion of privacy and even posing a threat to national security. The typical argument is that the software provides information about military or other critical installations that could be used by terrorists.

The question here posted is that how this new technology does has something good on promoting democracy? We think that it’s invading our own privacy, however the good way we can see is that we can search and have a look for the desired tourist destinations where we plan to go for vocations and nothing more than that.

It seems a bad news for peace-loving nations who are eager to protect their own countries’ assets from prying eyes. Besides that, some citizens all around the world may express concerns over aerial information depicting their properties and residences being disseminated freely. As relatively few jurisdictions actually guarantee the individual's, right to privacy as opposed to the state's right to secrecy, this is an evolving, but
minor, point.

For example, in October 2007, The Guardian reported that the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades were using Google Earth to plan Qassam rocketattacks on Israel.

If you wanna get a feel on how powerful is the google earth, you can just download the software and try it.

http://google-earth.en.softonic.com/

YOUtube censorship vs. freedom of information

2008-08-13T07:41:00.000-07:00

YouTube is a video sharing website where users can upload, view and share video clips. Unregistered users can watch most videos on the site, while registered users are permitted to upload an unlimited number of videos. Some videos are available only to users of age 18 or older (e.g. videos containing potentially offensive content). The uploading of videos containing pornography, nudity, defamation, harassment, commercial advertisements and material encouraging criminal conduct is prohibited. Related videos, determined by title and tags, appear onscreen to the right of a given video. Before the launch of YouTube in 2005, there were few simple methods available for ordinary computer users who wanted to post videos online. With its easy to use interface, YouTube made it possible for anyone who could use a computer to post a video that millions of people could watch within a few minutes. The wide range of topics covered by YouTube has turned video sharing into one of the most important parts of Internet culture.

YouTube has been blocked in several countries since its inception, including Tunisia, Thailand (which has since been lifted) and Iran. Certain video pages were banned as of October 1, 2007 in Turkey, but this was lifted two days later. More recently on January 22, 2008 Turkey banned YouTube once again but this ban was lifted after three days. There is currently a ban on YouTube in Turkey since May 5, 2008. Certain pages are also banned in United Arab Emirates.

On February 23, 2008, Pakistan blocked YouTube due to "offensive material" towards the Islamic faith, including the display of pictures of the prophet Muhammad. This action by the Pakistani authorities led to a near global blackout of the YouTube site for at least two hours. Thousands of Pakistanis undermined the 3-day block using a VPN software called Hotspot Shield. The YouTube ban was lifted on February 26, 2008 after the "offensive material" were removed from the site.

YouTube has been subject to threats of censorship by various countries because of the content it hosts. It was blocked from Mainland China from the 18th October due to the censorship of the Taiwanese flag. URLs to YouTube were redirected to China's own search engine, Baidu. It was subsequently unblocked on the 31st of October.

Schools in certain countries have begun to block access to YouTube due to students uploading videos of bullying behavior, school fights and racist behavior as well as increased bandwidth usage and other inappropriate contents

Below are the links to the detail informations on the ban of youtube in certain country:

· A Turkish court has reportedly once again blocked access to the popular video-sharing Web site, YouTube in the country because of clips allegedly insulting the country’s founding father, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk

· Banned, YouTube seeks to mend rift with Thai Kingdom

· The attempt to block the site, reportedly because of a "blasphemous" video clip, caused a near global blackout

· Can Brazil Ban YouTube?

· Indonesia lifts its YouTube ban

· Pakistan declares war on YouTube

· YouTube Banned in Morocco

The YouTube YouTube banning trend is getting out of hand. Every week we hear of some country or other that has decided to protect its oversensitive citizens from the horrors of video sharing by initiating a block of the site. To track what the hell is happening, we’ve created a nice map of countries that have banned YouTube in the past, and/or still don’t allow access to the service.

*Map modified from Wikipedia world map.

Here’s an overview of what’s actually happening on the map above.

Iran and UAE United Arab Emirates - The UAE, as well as Iran, are blocking YouTube due to their standard censorship of “offensive material”. It is unlikely that their big fat firewall will open up for YouTube anytime soon.

Morocco - Morocco has had YouTube banned because of videos that mock the Moroccan king as well as some pro-Western Sahara clips - until today. For the first time in two weeks, Moroccans can access YouTube again.

Thailand - A similar on and off situation is found in Thailand, which blocks/bans/sues YouTube every time a new clip which mocks their king appears. Thailand has recently lifted the ban, but who knows when it may appear again.

Turkey - Finally, a court in Istanbul has issued a short-lived order to block YouTube because of videos offending Ataturk, the founding father of the Turkish Republic.

Iraq - Iraq has quite a weird situation: in Internet cafes you can access YouTube, but the US military forces residing there, due to an order from Pentagon, can’t. The ban, which blocks access not only to YouTube but also several other social networking sites Most-Networked-Executives , like MySpace, is still enforced, despite severe protests from YouTube.

Brazil - Brazil, like Turkey, has had a nationwide YouTube ban due to a court order. The offending clip this time was Daniela Cicarelli’s sex stunt on the beach (how you can expect to have sex on the beach and not have it end up on YouTube is beyond us), and this Brazilian model insisted that the clip should either be fully removed (and users stopped from reposting it) or that YouTube should be banned altogether. YouTube was banned for a while, but the ban was removed relatively quickly.

Victoria, Australia (in schools) - Australia is also included here (actually, only one of its states, Victoria) because YouTube was banned in schools there. It’s not really a full ban, but it’s not negligible either, considering some 1600 schools were affected.

China and India - Finally, China and India currently have no active ban on YouTube, but both states have on occasions threatened to block the video sharing website; India because of a video clip mocking Gandhi, and China because of their general policy of banning, well, all kinds of stuf

Banning only offensive videos, or entire YouTube?

The ban of accessibility to youtube however provoked a question mark towards the genuine understanding of democracy. Should this be happening? I mean by forbidding access of us(citizens) to knowledge, to information and what is more, our right to be a step closer to the truth. To put it in a layman’s term, internet censorship is jeopardizing human rights and the freedom to information.

** Freedom of information (or information freedom) may refer to the accessibility of government-held information (Freedom of information legislation and Open government), or the protection of the right to freedom of expression with regards to the Internet and information technology. Freedom of information may also concern censorship in an information technology context, i.e. the ability to access Web contents without censorship or restrictions.

Freedom of information is an extension of freedom of speech, a fundamental human right recognised in international law, which is today understood more generally as freedom of expression in any medium, be it orally, in writing, print, through the Internet or through art forms. This means that the protection of freedom of speech as a right includes not only the content, but also the means of expression. Freedom of information may also refer to the right to privacy in the context of the Internet and information technology. As with the right to freedom of expression, the right to privacy is a recognised human right and freedom of infromation acts as an extension to this right

What is more I managed to found these two theories in supporting this whole idea of freedom of information and democracy… One of it is the “Semiotic Democracy” a phrase first coined by John Fiske, a media studies professor, in his seminal media studies book Television Culture. Fiske defined the term as the "delegation of the production of meanings and pleasures to [television's] viewers. Prof. Terry Fisher of Harvard Law School has written extensively about semiotic democracy in the context of the crisis facing the entertainment industry and in terms of the ability of people to use the Internet in creative new ways.

Also The Cute Cat Theory of Digital Activism but I will not touch much on this one as it may be a little bit dry. Nevertheless, here is the link if you feel like knowing more then just the “name” of this theory.

~~http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/007877.html~~

YouTube for Democracy!!

“Senator Lieberman stated his belief, in a letter sent today, that all videos mentioning or featuring these groups should be removed from YouTube — even legal nonviolent or non-hate speech videos,” YouTube’s blog post states. “While we respect and understand his views, YouTube encourages free speech and defends everyone’s right to express unpopular points of view. We believe that YouTube is a richer and more relevant platform for users precisely because it hosts a diverse range of views, and rather than stifle debate we allow our users to view all acceptable content and make up their own minds.”

Senator Lieberman Wants Terrorist Videos Removed From YouTube

… the folks at YouTube did it so well. I love that Lieberman wanted even the legal videos removed.

I ask, exactly what is about this country that is worth saving if things like ‘free speech’ and ‘civil rights‘ go to hell?

YouTube did, by the way, do the right thing as far as I’m concerned.

Senator Lieberman’s staff identified numerous videos that they believed violated YouTube’s Community Guidelines. In response to his concerns, we examined and ended up removing a number of videos from the site, primarily because they depicted gratuitous violence, advocated violence, or used hate speech. Most of the videos, which did not contain violent or hate speech content, were not removed because they do not violate our Community Guidelines. #

Uploading Democracy: Candidates Field YouTube Questions

Another very good example is that For the first time, individuals could submit video questions via YouTube to be shown on-screen and answered by the political candidates in a democratic debate which held at the Citadel in Charleston, South Carolina. The submissions varied in content and presentation and engaged the candidates on a wide range of issues, some of which had not been addressed in previous Democratic debates. What follows is an analysis of the format and major themes of the debate as compared with public opinion data.

The debate highlighted the emerging role of online videos in the 2008 presidential campaign. Some 15% of adult internet users report having watched or downloaded political videos online and 2% report doing so on a typical day. Recent popular campaign videos have included Hillary and Bill Clinton's parody of the final episode of "The Sopranos"; "I got a crush on Obama"; John McCain joking about bombing Iran; and a tape of John Edwards combing his hair. Fully 44% of the public have heard of at least one of the four videos and 27% have seen at least one.

The YouTube format gave voice to a range of citizens not normally heard on the presidential debate stage. In addition to airing some of the dissatisfaction and frustration held by individuals and the public, the YouTube questions also raised issues that had not been addressed in-depth by previous Democratic debates.

SO What is y’all commentary on this?? Should the ban of youtube be supported?? Or youtube shouldn’t be banned at all cost as it’s a new creative way of utilizing internet to the sharing of information as well as a platform for acquiring new informations. Please comment on this folks!!!=)

prepared by vance and Yusoff.

National Security Agency

2008-08-10T05:20:00.000-07:00

National Security Agency (NSA) - di bawah Kerajaan Amerika Syarikat,merupakan sebahagian daripada “United States Department of Defense” yang ditubuhkan pada 4 November 1952.

NSA bertanggungjawab untuk mengumpul dan menganalisis “foreign communications and foreign signals intelligence”. NSA turut memantau rangkaian-rangkaian komputer dalam agensi persekutuan Amerika Syarikat untuk melindungi mereka pada serangan.

Sistem pengawasan yang digunakan untuk memerhati tingkah laku orang ramai bagi tujuan sekuriti atau kawalan sosial dengan penggunaan teknologi seperti berikut :

· Penjejakan melalui GPS
· Kapal terbang peninjauan, contoh Lockheed U-2
· Satelit ,Internet dan pengawasan komputer
· Televisyen litar tertutup (CCTV)

Sekiranya teknologi pengintipan (surveillance) digunakan, adakah hak dan kebebasan individu seseorang itu dicabuli apabila dikaitkan dengan jaminan keselamatan negara? Adakah ini mampu untuk menjamin kebebasan dan hak individu? Ataupun digunakan untuk kebaikan pihak yang berkepentingan sahaja?

Menurut 'Enemy of the State'

-banyak teknologi pengawasan telah digunakan oleh N.S.A. untuk menjamin keselamatan negara.

-America’s Secret Police turut ditubuhkan untuk mengawasi tindak tanduk ahli kumpulan Nazi pada masa dahulu.

-Adakah teknologi pengawasan digunakan untuk kepentingan negara? Ataupun untuk menyembunyikan kesalahan dirinya sendiri serta mengukuhkan kedudukannya? Bayangkan apa yang akan terjadi kepada kehidupan seharian kita sekiranya segala tindak-tanduk kami diawasi oleh pihak yang berkuasa. Apa yang kita mampu buat, sebagai seorang rakyat apabila hak dan kebebasan kita telah dicabuli?

-Maklumat peribadi tentang Robert Dean telah dicabuli oleh pihak NSA. Kemudian, rumahnya dicerobohi apabila ia dipasang dengan teknologi-teknologi pengawasan seperti CCTV, alat pengesan, alat pencuri dengar, “phone tapping” dan sebagainya Selain itu, kad kredit, kad ATM dan telefon bimbitnya turut tidak dapat digunakan akibat daripada sekatan yang dilakukan oleh pihak N.S.A.

Walaupun keselamatan Negara adalah penting, hak dan kebebasan individu juga harus dihormati dan tidak diabaikan.

ISA - keganasan putih???

2008-08-10T03:26:00.000-07:00

Akta Keselamatan Dalam Negeri 1960 juga dikenali sebagai Internal Security Act (ISA).
ISA merupakan undang-undang tahanan pencegahan di Malaysia.
ISA digunakan secara konsisten terhadap mereka yang mengkritik kerajaan dan untuk mempertahankan hak asasi manusia.

ISA juga dikenali sebagai "keganasan putih" (white terror). Walaupun ISA membantu negara untuk membasmi penentangan dan perdebatan terbuka, namun ISA tetap ditakuti dan dibenci oleh masyarakat.

Dirujuk dari http://ms.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polis_Diraja_Malaysia#Cawangan_Khas pada 10 Ogos 2008
Dari aspek demokrasi, adakah hak asasi manusia dipertahankan? Adakah ISA dan cawangan khas polis ditubuhkan untuk kepentingan keselamatan dalam negara atau untuk pihak yang mempunyai kepentingan diri?

Contoh kes :
19 orang ditahan dan telah dibebaskan pada awal tahun 2006. Mereka dituduh oleh kerajaan sebagai ahli “jemaah islamiyah (ji)”, iaitu satu kumpulan yang dikatakan terlibat dalam kegiatan pengganas.

Kerajaan telah gagal mempamerkan sebarang bukti untuk menyokong tuduhan terhadap tahanan-tahanan tersebut. Namun begitu, tahanan-tahanan telah ditahan tanpa bicara selama empat tahun.

Penahanan tanpa bicara jelas melanggar prinsip syariah dan keadilan dalam perundangan Islam. Islam merupakan agama rasmi dalam Malaysia dan konsep Islam Hadhari mengutamakan keadilan dan kesaksamaan. Sekiranya bukti yang kukuh tidak dapat dipamerkan untuk menyokong tuduhan tersebut, adakah keadilan wujud apabila mereka ditahan tanpa perbicaraan???

Penahanan tanpa bicara jelas merupakan satu pencabulan hak asasi manusia. Perkara 9 dalam perisytiharan hak asasi manusia sejagat 1948 (universal declaration of human rights) yang diakui oleh seluruh dunia mengatakan, “tiada sesiapapun boleh dikenakan tangkapan, tahanan atau pembuangan negeri secara sewenang-wenangnya.”

Dipetik daripada http://www.jim.org.my/modules.php?module=akhbar&kerja=tengok&id=13 pada 10 Ogos 2008.

TERDAPAT KRITIKAN TERHADAP ISA :

Dari dalam negara

Beberapa parti politik pembangkang termasuk Parti Tindakan Demokratik (DAP) dan Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) telah menyatakan bantahan mereka terhadap ISA. Ramai antara pemimpin dan ahli terkenal mereka yang pernah ditahan di bawah ISA termasuk Lim Kit Siang, Karpal Singh dan Lim Guan Eng dari DAP dan Anwar Ibrahim dari PKR.

Dari luar negara

Kerajaan Amerika Syarikat pernah mengkritik kerajaan Malaysia kerana menggunakan ISA beberapa kali, paling terkini pada tahun 2001 apabila Presiden George W. Bush mengatakan bahawa "Akta Keselamatan Dalam Negeri adalah undang-undang jahat". Pada 2004 pula, Bush telah bertukar pandangan dan mengatakan bahawa "Kami tidak seharusnya sewenang-wenangnya mengklasifikasi Akta Keselamatan Dalam Negeri Malaysia sebagai undang-undang kejam". Pertukaran pendirian Bush mungkin berpunca daripada peristiwa 11 September 2001 dan penggubalan Akta PATRIOT selepasnya.