KElab.DEBat.Al-amin.Bangi

informed choice

2011-10-07T10:01:00.000-07:00

Purpose

It is for requirements with respect to information provision, decision making and the relationship between the decider and (whoever are) the stakeholders. This kind of choice provides with clear requirements for information provision.

Definition

The decider role in the provision of informed choice is to be facilitative, informative and supportive, in a collaborative, non-authoritarian manner.

Informed choice is a process which:

i.requires the development of trust and respect between the decider and the stakeholders.

ii.involves a collaborative and co-operative information exchange between the decider and stakeholders with taking active part in the process.

iii.allows adequate time for consideration by deciders.

iv.takes into account factual information, risks and benefits, the experiences of the decider and the experience, feelings, beliefs, values and preferences of the stakeholders.

v.respect and encourages the individuals autonomy of the decider as the primary decision-maker.

vi.may include recommendation for care made by the stakeholders.

vii.the result in the end decide by the decider and then supported by the stakeholders.

Required information:

i.the potential risks, benefits and alternatives.

ii.relevant community standards.

iii.relevant research evidence.

iv.information related to decider standards and scope of practice.

v.identification of decider bias, if significant.

p/s:'informed choice' can be used in speech for any debate that talks about choices,rights,etc. eg. : THW legalise Euthanasia

China's economy

2011-01-20T06:29:00.000-08:00

China has announced that its economy grew 10.3 per cent in 2010, marking the fastest annual growth since the onset of the global financial crisis, and underlining the country's growing economic clout.

The GDP figure, up from a revised 9.2 per cent growth in 2009, highlighted China's powerful performance in a year when it overtook Japan to become the world's second-largest economy behind the US.

"Currently the economy is in a critical period of transforming from recovery to stable growth," Ma Jiantang, commissioner of the National Bureau of Statistics, said on Thurday.

Ma said China would step up efforts to transform the country's "economic growth pattern" - referring to the government's aim to boost domestic consumption and reduce its reliance on exports and investment.

His comments were echoed by Hu Jintao, the president, who told US business leaders during a visit to Washington on Wednesday that China would boost interior demand and consumer spending.

The country's consumer price index, the main guage of inflation, rose by 4.6 per cent year-on-year in December compared with 5.1 per cent in November, which was the fastest pace in more than two years.

The index rose 3.3 per cent for all of 2010 exceeding the government's full-year target of three per cent as food costs soared.

Inflation still high

Analysts said the still-high inflation figure in December supported the case for further interest-rate increases and bank-lending restrictions.

Output from the country's millions of factories and workshops rose 15.7 per cent for all of 2010, faster than in 2009 as manufacturers cranked up activity to meet growing demand for Chinese-made goods.

Urban fixed asset investment, a measure of government spending on infrastructure, rose 24.5 per cent over the 12 months - slower than in the previous year as Beijing started to wind back crisis-stimulus measures.

Retail sales, an important indicator of consumer spending, rose 18.4 per cent in 2010.

As the US and Europe struggle to spur growth, Beijing has been trying to slow its economy and halt a flood of liquidity that is fanning inflation and driving up property prices, straining household budgets.

Last week, the central bank again ordered banks to increase the amount of money they keep in reserve, effectively putting a cap on lending, after raising interest rates twice in the fourth quarter.

http://english.aljazeera.net/business/2011/01/201112034442909992.html

0bama edges to the dark side

2010-09-21T03:45:00.000-07:00

In possibly the most dramatic mea culpa in Presidential history, Bill Clinton, newly appointed as UN Special Envoy for Haiti, admitted to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the US policy of compelling poor developing countries to buy US agricultural products at subsidised prices, which destroyed local agricultural sectors, was a disaster.

“I did that. I have to live every day with the consequences of the lost capacity to produce a rice crop in Haiti to feed those people, because of what I did. Nobody else."

For where Clinton helped lay the groundwork for the re-militarisation of America's political and economic systems through his uncritical embrace of neoliberalism (which, despite the "liberal" in the label, inevitably leads to neoconservatism and war), Obama, with the greatest of care and deliberation, is heading to the 'dark side' that the millions of Americans who voted for him did so with the justified expectation that he'd avoid.

Politics of insanity?

The warning signs that President Obama's trajectory would depart from his campaign rhetoric were clear from the beginning. Like when the newly minted President chose for his senior economic advisor's men like Lawrence Summer, Clinton's one time Treasury Secretary, who were responsible for the policies that besides destroying Haiti's rice crop, also enabled a million and one corporate get rich schemes such as the sub-prime mortgage bonanza whose collapse has left the country in its current disastrous condition.

Another clue was surely the fact that Obama's defence spending from the start outstripped his Republican predecessor's, even though his campaign reached national prominence precisely with his pledge to end the war in Iraq, which should logically have meant a major reduction in the military budget.

To be sure, we can understand how hard it would have been for a Democratic president significantly to reduce defence spending in the midst of war. But Obama was elected to do hard things, and given the urgency of the escalating recession and the souring of public opinion regarding both Iraq and Afghanistan, he could have taken control of the national discourse surrounding the ‘Really Existing War on Terror’ and begun a process of steering the country back towards some measure of fiscal and moral sanity.

Indeed, can one consider spending upwards of a trillion dollars a year on defence - enough money to cure most of America's economic and social woes, not to mention much of the world as well - anything less than insane?

The false choice of human rights vs. national security

Instead, President Obama has essentially continued almost every major Bush security policy, either by default or design. State secrets, targeted killings, renditions and indefinite detention, opposing the right of habeas corpus, preventing victims of admitted torture from seeking judicial redress, expanding the Afghan war while moving - however gingerly - to secure a long-term presence in Iraq; all these must surely be making Bush, and especially Cheney, happy and wealthier men.

As Michael Hayden, Bush's last CIA Director, put it in a recent interview, "Obama has been as aggressive as Bush" in defending executive prerogatives and powers that have enabled and sustained the ‘war on terror.’

But just how close to the dark side Obama has moved became evident in the last couple of weeks, specifically from two angles.

In the first, a federal appeals court overturned a lower court decision allowing former CIA prisoners to sue companies that participated in their rendition and torture in overseas prisons. In deciding that the plaintiffs could not sue despite an ample public (rather than classified) record supporting their claims, Judge Raymond C. Fisher supported the Obama Administration's contention that, in his words, sometimes there is a "painful conflict between human rights and national security" in which the former must be sacrificed to preserve the latter.

But this is an utterly ludicrous concept, since a core reason for so much of the frustration, nihilistic anger, radicalisation and ultimately violence involved in Islamist terrorism and insurgencies lies precisely in the long term, structural denial of the most basic human rights by governments in the region, the lion's share of whom continue to be supported by the United States despite their behaviour on the grounds of ‘national security’.

What neither Attorney General Eric Holder nor the President seems to understand is that there can be no contradiction between human rights and national security, since the absence of human rights can never but lead to a lack of security.

What's more, the very idea in the globalised era that one country's "national" security (especially that of the global "hyper-power," the United States) can be defined apart from and in contrast to the security of other nations is so ridiculous, one wonders how supposedly intelligent people, like former law school professors - turned presidents, can in good faith imagine and declare it.

A complete rebuttal of US war justifications

Even more troubling was the release last week of two reports from bi and non-partisan study groups regarding the best possible course forward in Afghanistan. The reports, "A New Way Forward: Rethinking US Strategy in Afghanistan," published by Washington-based Afghan Study Group, and the "Strategic Survey 2010," released by the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies, both conclude that "a Taliban takeover is unlikely even if Washington reduces its military commitment" in Afghanistan, in good measure because the conditions that allowed the first Taliban takeover in the 1990s no longer exist and can't easily be repeated. As important, "there [are] no significant Al Qaeda presence in Afghanistan today, and the risk of a new 'safe haven' there under more 'friendly' Taliban rule is overstated."

Indeed, the unusually blunt critique of the US-British Afghan policy by the normally staid IISS was made precisely because the think tank believes that the current path, far from addressing the threat of Islamist terrorism, is in fact a serious threat to the security interests of the two countries.

Equally important, according to one of the Institute's directors and former senior British Intelligence official Nigel Inkster, al-Qa'eda is unlikely to be able to create a major threat in other countries currently high on the US military-intelligence radar, such as Yemen and Somalia.

These reports are important not merely due to their conclusions, which vitiate the entire rationale for continuing the war in Afghanistan. More so is the fact that if these two documents, based largely on non-classified information and sources, have reached the same fundamental conclusion, then there is no way that the US and allied military and intelligence communities haven't reached the same determination.

President Obama is by all accounts a decent man who unlike his predecessor does not enjoy leading his country in war time. His political future and legacy depend in large part on successfully navigating the United States away from a war economy and towards rebuilding it along more innovative and sustainable lines. And yet he is deepening the War in Afghanistan even though he and his senior advisor's and commanders must know full well that doing so is a disastrous folly.

Even though they must understand that it will likely produce precisely the outcome the policies were supposed to avoid - greater hatred and violence against the United States in the heart of Central Asia, and from there, across the Muslim world.

Perhaps some day President Obama will write a memoir or testify before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and echo, or even evoke, President Clinton's sad testimonial to the arrogance of power and wilful ignorance seems all too often to produce in the leaders entrusted with it.

If so, it will be good fodder for historians and commentators, but of little comfort to the untold masses of peoples - Afghans, Pakistanis, Americans, and who knows whom else - who will continue to be devastated by the President's inability to look the truth square in the face and do what he was elected to do: lead his country, away from greed, cynicism, and despair, and towards hope and renewal.

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2010/09/2010916104022372281.html
As shown in the link.it's actually an opinion. take it from the point of the third person! :)

Australia..

2010-05-25T03:53:00.000-07:00

Reporter: Liz Hayes
Producer: Stephen Rice

When we stand in front of the wardrobe in the morning, we can choose anything we want to wear.

No one has the right to make that decision for us. And neither should they.

But right now in Australia, moves are underway to take that choice away from Moslem women.

Some of our politicians want to ban the head-to-toe Burka.

Already in other countries, restrictions have been placed on the traditional head scarf or hijab.

It's all part of an international backlash against the Moslem community that's made the Islamic veil a symbol of fear and suspicion.

Read Liz Hayes's blog on this story and have your say

Full transcript:

STORY -

LIZ HAYES: Sunday afternoon out in Sydney's west and the Lakembaroos are out to make their mark. This is a fiercely competitive bunch of women, women who don't take losing lightly. But their biggest battle isn't on the field. In what these women see as an attack on their Muslim faith, soccer's international ruling body, FIFA, has banned the wearing of the hijab, their headscarf.

HIBA AYACHE: I'd be very devastated for someone to even consider telling me, "OK, you can't play soccer because of your headscarf."

LIZ HAYES: Australian officials have so far resisted the ruling, but many Muslims feel the ban is part of an anti-Islamic backlash sweeping the world.

LAKEMBAROOS PLAYER: I mean, if you're starting to ban wearing the hijab then is it going to stop there? You know, are you going to stop us from wearing other things? You know, as women - not even as a Muslim female, but as women.

LIZ HAYES: But it's not just FIFA. Internationally there are moves to ban the burqa - the full-face veil worn by some Islamic women and considered one of the most powerful and visible Muslim symbols. Lakembaroos captain Hiba Ayache has no doubt what's really behind it all.

LIZ HAYES: What do you think is going on then? Is it fear?

HIBA AYACHE: It's September 11. It really is. Like, you don't really like to talk about it, but it's September 11.

LIZ HAYES: So it is fear?

HIBA AYACHE: Yep.

REVEREND FRED NILE: What woman would want to put on a burqa and cover her face in Australia - with our temperature, in our summer temperature, and so on - what woman would want to do that voluntarily?

LIZ HAYES: Many who want the burqa banned, like NSW MP the Reverend Fred Nile, claim they're defending women's rights. This week he tried to introduce his own legislation to outlaw the Islamic veil.

REVEREND FRED NILE: Well, I'm very concerned about what I believe is the oppression of Muslim women. All the evidence points to directions from either the husband or males in the family or from the Islamic leaders in the mosque.

LIZ HAYES: So you're doing this for women?

REVEREND FRED NILE: For women, definitely.

LIZ HAYES: You're not doing it because you don't like the look of the burqa?

REVEREND FRED NILE: I don't like the look of it either.

LIZ HAYES: The legislation Fred Nile is proposing is exactly what European countries like France and Belgium are already introducing. Muslim women there will be banned from wearing the burqa anywhere in public. Switzerland has said no more Islamic minarets, and in Holland anti-Islamic politicians are winning votes.

GEERT WILDERS: People feel not only threatened, but they feel they are losing their country, they are losing their values, and the Islamisation - the tsunami of Islamisation, as I often call it - is something that people are, for good reasons, concerned about.

LIZ HAYES: When a tolerant nation like Holland starts supporting an intolerant politician like Geert Wilders, you know Muslims have a problem.

GEERT WILDERS: If you have a burqa in the Netherlands today you will not get a Dutch friend. You will probably not get a job. You will have almost terrible things you will find yourself into. Without a burqa you will get a Dutch friend, you will assimilate, you will get a job more easy.

LIZ HAYES: His once unpalatable policies are now winning Wilders 20% of the national vote and a seat in the European Parliament. But it's not just the burqa that's in his sights.

GEERT WILDERS: I have a very clear message to Muslims in Holland - if you are here already and you abide by our laws and our constitution, you are not only welcome to stay but we will even help you integrate with everything. But if you don't - this is the red line - then we will extradite you.

LIZ HAYES: The French were the first to draw a line in the sand. Six years ago they banned women and girls from wearing headscarves in public-funded schools and government offices. Now there is a proposal to ban the burqa, the full-length veil that covers all but a woman's eyes, and prevent her from wearing it in public places. For a country that is now home to 5 to 6 million Muslims, this latest plan sends a very clear message - it's the French way or the highway. This is a nation that has consistently grappled with a clash of cultures, simmering tensions between Muslims and French authorities that have often boiled over into violence. Now banning the burqa is seen by Muslims as just another provocation.

NOOR ALI: They're playing a game. They don't realise how dangerous it is.

LIZ HAYES: And how dangerous is it?

NOOR ALI: It's dangerous because we know that Europe has a very sad history with what they did to the Jewish people when they started to discriminate against them. They're repeating history. They don't see what they're going to do.

LIZ HAYES: Noor Ali is a student at an Islamic school in Paris - where she can wear a headscarf because it's not publicly funded. She sees the burqa ban as nothing more than a political manoeuvre, just another way of vilifying Muslims.

NOOR ALI: The majority of the Muslims don't really believe that it is compulsory to wear that.

LIZ HAYES: So you're saying, "Why did they bother if there are so few people wearing it?"

NOOR ALI: It's obvious, it's just something... It's just a manipulation.

LIZ HAYES: This could be a street scene in any Muslim country, but it's not. This is Birmingham, in the middle of England, which has one of the biggest Muslim communities in the UK.

SAIRA KHAN: I just feel like these kind of places have sprung up and it's like Muslims only and that's it - no-one else allowed. And that's a problem and that's a bit sad.

LIZ HAYES: Even Saira Khan, a Muslim herself, believes if Muslims choose to live in a Western country they need to integrate.

SAIRA KHAN: I think the burqa should completely be banned. As a woman, I'm completely... As a Muslim woman, I am completely abhorred by it. Why would you... I mean, I've worn one just to see what it's like. I felt isolated. I felt I wasn't part of society. It didn't give me any freedom. It restricted what I could see. We have to now in public be able to see people's faces so that we can identify people and we don't feel scared or threatened.

LIZ HAYES: So it's a security measure to ban it?

SAIRA KHAN: It is a security measure. It is a security measure. You know, how do I know that an extremist wouldn't wear the burqa to enter somewhere like Harrods and blow it up?

LIZ HAYES: Saira's parents came to the UK from Pakistan and she was raised in a strict Muslim household, but she understands how more and more British people have become angry and suspicious of Muslims.

SAIRA KHAN: You've got your halal shops, you've got your mosques, we've allowed you to be educated in this country, we've welcomed you, we've given you work - you know, you've participated - and now you're blowing up British citizens. What do you want non-Muslims to say? I'm not surprised we're on notice.

LIZ HAYES: Not surprisingly too when you meet British-born Muslim Anjem Choudary.

LIZ HAYES: For those who choose not to wear any covering, does it make them a bad Muslim?

ANJEM CHOUDARY: No, well, that would make you, obviously, sinful for not abiding by the sharia.

LIZ HAYES: So if you don't wear the burqa or head covering of some sort, you are sinning and you are a bad Muslim?

ANJEM CHOUDARY: Oh, absolutely. And that is something they will be accountable for.

LIZ HAYES: Choudary preaches a strict interpretation of Islam and his ambition is for Britain to become an Islamic state.

LIZ HAYES: What would happen to a woman under sharia law if she had an affair outside her marriage?

ANJEM CHOUDARY: If a man or a woman had an affair outside of their marriage and there were sufficient witnesses for either or both of them they would be stoned to death.

LIZ HAYES: Do you believe you're a superior being?

ANJEM CHOUDARY: A Muslim will always be superior to a non-Muslim, absolutely.

LIZ HAYES: You are a better person than me?

ANJEM CHOUDARY: In terms of...in the eyes of God, that would certainly be the case, yes. My dear Muslims, we live in the time of fitna...

LIZ HAYES: At 43, Anjem Choudary spends much of his time conducting his version of a sharia court and preaching to young Muslim men his views on anything from women to Americans and their pets.

ANJEM CHOUDARY: You can see, my dear Muslims, that in America, in at least 28 states, you can even get married to an animal. Bestiality is halal as long as you have relationship in your own home. This is the downfall of Western civilisation.

LIZ HAYES: You told a recent court that in 28 states in America you can get married to an animal.

ANJEM CHOUDARY: Bestiality. I mean, I did my research - that is true.

LIZ HAYES: That is an absolute lie.

ANJEM CHOUDARY: Find out, research it yourself.

LIZ HAYES: You cannot marry an animal.

ANJEM CHOUDARY: You can. It's true, it's true. Bestiality is completely legal in America.

LIZ HAYES: You are shameful. That is a lie.

ANJEM CHOUDARY: It's true. That is true. Do your research. You will see. That is the fruit of Western civilisation.

LIZ HAYES: You tell young, impressionable people lies.

ANJEM CHOUDARY: No, the reality is very difficult to swallow sometimes. In Britain, for example...

LIZ HAYES: No, it's hard for you to swallow.

LIZ HAYES: Such extremist nonsense is only feeding the worldwide anti-Muslim backlash and opening the way for politicians like Fred Nile to pursue a burqa ban.

LIZ HAYES: You see it as an unwanted symbol of Islam?

REVEREND FRED NILE: Certainly, and an un-Australian symbol. It's not part of our culture and I don't want it in our nation.

LIZ HAYES: Reverend Nile, as a Christian, aren't you being un-Christian?

REVEREND FRED NILE: No, I'm being a Christian.

LIZ HAYES: Aren't you being quite discriminatory?

REVEREND FRED NILE: No, I want... Those women are the ones who are being discriminated against.

LIZ HAYES: Aren't you being quite intolerant?

REVEREND FRED NILE: No, I think it's actually a form of domestic violence where the husband or the rulers of the mosque are trying to enforce these rules on Muslim women.

LIZ HAYES: Aren't you being divisive?

REVEREND FRED NILE: No, wearing the burqa is what's divisive. That's the whole point I'm making. That's what's dividing our society.

LIZ HAYES: Is it the case that you just don't like Islam?

REVEREND FRED NILE: Well, I'm certainly concerned about Islam. I certainly don't want to see Islam in any position of authority in Australia.

HIBA AYACHE: It's not nice. It's really a big slap in the face. It's disappointing, and it does, like, it does affect the way you see Australia - I have to admit that.

LIZ HAYES: At 24, Hiba Ayache can't believe that the only home she's ever known, Australia, is treating her like an alien.

HIBA AYACHE: I'm Australian, yeah, I'm born and bred here. I'm a typical Aussie. I love my barbecues, my beach, family gatherings - like, the only difference between an Australian gathering and a Lebanese gathering is we just have more food.

LIZ HAYES: If you had the opportunity to talk to a politician who wanted to ban the burqa or the headscarf, what would you say?

HIBA AYACHE: Well, my vote counts so to those politicians out there - "You want my vote then you have to earn it."

LIZ HAYES: This young mum is the face of a Muslim community that rejects fundamentalism but demands the kind of fair go that Australia has always prided itself on.

HIBA AYACHE: I go to Anzac Day memorials and people look at me going, "What the hell is she doing here?" But no, you know - tribute to my soldiers. I do all that and don't take it away from me. I'm an Australian more than anyone else here. If you're going to judge me by my hijab then really that's your problem.

http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=1055289 [ there's even a video! ]

Burqa', Face Veils, Niqab and Hijab

2010-05-14T06:20:00.000-07:00

[ THBT the face veil is just as much a symbol of female empowerment as the miniskirt ].

this was the motion at the grand finals. but then, the debate went quite messy . when the debate is still going on, i was just thinking what is the issue all about? i don't understand!. only after the debate we were told by our trainer that it's about muslims wearing face veils in France.

well, here are some infos that i found about Burqa and etc.

FRANCE

The law: In 2004, France instituted a controversial ban on the wearing of religious symbols and clothing in schools -- a law that was widely interpreted as targeting Islamic headscarves. More recently President Nicolas Sarkozy's UMP party has begun a push to also ban the burqa (a garment that covers a woman's entire face and body, leaving only a screen for the eyes) and the niqab (a veil for the face that leaves the area around the eyes open) in all public spaces in France. The parliament passed a nonbinding resolution on May 11 in support of such a ban.

The debate: France is the European country with the largest Muslim minority population (6 percent, or 4 million citizens). The proposed burqa ban has opened difficult questions about national identity and the place of religion in society. Sarkozy was quoted in June 2009 as saying "the burqa is not welcome in France" and has since argued that it is a tool for the suppression of women.

A parliamentary commission, which concluded earlier this year, recommended a partial ban in spaces like hospitals and on public transportation. In an attempt to minimize the controversy surrounding the legislative effort, Jean-François Copé, leader of the UMP party in parliament, argued last week that the ban is based on security concerns ("the visibility of the face in the public sphere ... is essential to our security and is a condition for living together"), not religious discrimination.

Earlier this year, Prime Minister Francois Fillon asked the Council of State, a body that provides legal advice to the executive branch, to examine whether a full ban would be constitutional. The council found that such a law would most likely violate the French Constitution and could be challenged in court. However, it also found that a partial ban on face-covering garments could stand in certain "high-risk" places for security reasons. (A similar law is already on the books in Italy, where a woman was recently fined 500 euros for wearing a niqab in public.) Nonetheless, Copé says he will continue to pursue a full ban of the burqa in France.

BELGIUM

The law: Belgium has taken great steps toward a ban on face-covering veils. On April 29, the lower house of parliament approved a bill that bans burqas and niqabs; the bill is expected the pass the upper house of parliament later this year. Human rights groups such as Amnesty International have forcefully condemned the bill. The new law would impose a fine of 15 to 25 euros, or jail time of one to seven days.

The debate: If the ban is approved, Belgium will become the first country in Europe to completely outlaw face-covering veils. Although Belgium has an estimated Muslim population exceeding 600,000, legislators estimate that only a small percentage, 300 to 400 women, wear the burqa. Opponents of the bill therefore argue that the root issue is Islamophobia in a country with a rapidly growing Muslim population.

Meanwhile, in making the case for the ban, the head of the Liberal Party, Daniel Bacquelaine, told National Public Radio: "To forbid the veil as a covering is to give [Muslim women] more freedom. I'm proud Belgium is the first country to do that."

Amnesty International's John Dalhuisen, an expert on religious discrimination in Europe, counters, "The Belgian move to ban full-face veils, the first in Europe, sets a dangerous precedent. Restrictions on human rights must always be proportionate to a legitimate goal. A total ban on full-face veils would not be."

GERMANY

The law: Half of Germany's 16 states have passed laws restricting the wearing of religious clothing and symbols, including the burqa and hijab (headscarf), in schools. (Meanwhile, five of these states have made exceptions for Christian items.) Throughout Germany, women are not allowed to drive while wearing the burqa, allegedly for safety purposes.

The debate: This month Silvana Koch-Mehrin, a German representative in the European Parliament, called for a Europe-wide ban on face-covering veils, saying "the burqa is a massive attack on the rights of women. It is a mobile prison."

In the wake of moves toward bans in Belgium and France, as well as Koch-Mehrin's statement, German Muslim leaders such as Aiman Mazyek, chairman of the Central Council of Muslims, have voiced their disapproval of a similar national ban in Germany, calling it a "a completely senseless debate. It would only further widen the gap between Muslims and non-Muslims." German politicians like Interior Minister Thomas de Maiziere agree with Mazyek, calling a ban "inappropriate and therefore unnecessary."

THE NETHERLANDS

The law: Geert Wilders, leader of the Party for Freedom and well-known anti-immigration politician, has been at the forefront of the international movement to ban burqas and veils. In 2006, he introduced legislation before the Dutch parliament to ban burqas, but worries that a ban would breach religious freedom laws together with personnel changes in the Dutch cabinet stopped it from being voted into law.

The debate: Because of concerns over freedom of religion and offending the country's growing Muslim community, Dutch lawmakers have been especially reticent about a burqa ban in recent years. Yet 66 percent of the population would support it, according to a February 2007 opinion poll. Wilders attempted to once again put forward legislation banning the burqa in public places in 2008, but concerns about religious freedom have elevated the political opposition.

Wilders's party gained in recent local elections, and with general elections scheduled for June, he will probably gain more seats in parliament. Last fall, Wilders suggested a 1,000 euro excise tax on headscarves, which he dubbed a "head-rag tax."

TURKEY

The law: Turkey is officially a secular state; the wearing of veils almost vanished after Mustafa Kemal Ataturk launched his modernization drive in 1923. Headscarves were practically nonexistent in Turkey's big cities by the 1960s, but this trend reversed thanks to a religious revival in the 1970s.

Today, all veils are banned in universities and public buildings. The ban was introduced after Turkey's 1980 military coup; further restrictions were enacted in 1997. In November 2005, the European Court of Human Rights upheld the university headscarf ban against challenges, setting a precedent for current legislative efforts in Europe.

The debate: More recently, the election of Islamic-leaning parties such as Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's Justice and Development Party (AKP) has led to enforcement of the ban being relaxed somewhat. Still, every year thousands of women -- such as Leyla Sahin, the plaintiff in the European Court of Human Rights case -- find themselves in trouble for refusing to remove their headscarves.

Lawmakers have made several attempts in the last decade to lift the ban, but all have been unsuccessful. Despite the growing influence of religious parties in government, the headscarf ban is unlikely to be overturned anytime soon; Turkish military leaders see themselves as protectors of Turkey's secular status and remain fierce critics of religion entering the public space.

reference : http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/05/11/europe_s_burqa_wars?

ON THAILAND'S CRISIS

2010-05-07T07:34:00.000-07:00

--brief post--

As for no one is updating this blog, I'll just put up a random issue. This could be benefited by both English n Bahasa debaters. But of course, this post will be in English.

If you have not yet known the situation and what is happening in Thailand, this is the best site you could go to --> [just click] The article is very comprehensive and should make you clear and understand the reasons behind the actions of those red-shirt protesters and other parties involved.

Happy Reading! hahah.

There are a few debatable motions regarding Thailand's current situation, which is ending, hopefully. Try to do some research and discuss on it. Most probably, these motions would appear during MUSLEH. So be ready. Here are the motions.

THBT Thailand should dissolve its parliament
THBT Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva Should Step Down Immediately To Avoid Further Acts Of Violence
THBT Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva Has Failed In Handling The Situation In Bangkok
THW give Thaksin a re-election
THBT the dissolution of the parliament wont solve Thailand's crisis
THW legally hold red-shirt leaders responsible for death of their people

Enjoy!haha.

-----

As for Bahasa debaters, maybe you could try work something on these --> Usul Debat Diraja 2009

And of course, korang kena tapis dulu la. Leave out topik2 yang dah tak relevan lagi.

Goodluck!

-----

As I am going to Bangkok on 12th [Wednesday], I really hope for your prayers as of my safety and success.tq!

debat BM di UIA - Pengalaman berharga!

2010-04-24T19:30:00.000-07:00

Catatan Pasukan Debat Bahasa Melayu SMSAAB
di Pertandingan Debat Antara Sekolah 2010

Bismillahirrahmaanirrahiim.

Hari yang dinanti tiba. Perjalanan membawa nama sekolah, memartabat nama Islam pun bermula. Taman Ilmu dan Budi, Universiti Islam Antarabangsa jadi saksi usaha dan pengalaman kita.

Jumaat, 16 April 2010.
Kami datang ke sekolah seperti biasa, pukul 8 pagi. Target nak bertolak ke UIA pukul 9 pagi. Konon-konon nak berkumpul sekejap untuk last training, tapi terpaksa batal, debaters BM ada urusan yang kena diselesaikan sebelum meninggalkan sekolah selama 6 hari. lama tu.lagi2 minggu Pro-Bahan sedang melanda al-Amin.memang hectic

.

a million thanks to a.zubair. dia yang tolong susun2.

Naik van, punggah barang yang sangatt banyak. semua pakat bawa beg kotak2. Lepas hampir setangah jam susun2 barang, fikir strategi nak muatkan 11 orang (+driver) beserta bahan debat dlm van yang berkapasiti 12 orang, kami pun memulakan perjalanan.singgah rumuh Umar dgn a.Zubair dulu, baru menuju ke UIA.

Sampai sana, mendaftar,bayar,dsb. masa ni dah jumpa sekolah Hira' dan jumpa akh Fahmi Faudzi yang mempromosikan pada kami majalah ratio, majalah rasmi program debat ni.sementara tunggu daftar, sempat isi borang survey untuk majalah ratio. dlm borang tu ada tanya, sekolah mana yang kita target untuk naik ke final untuk debat BM dan BI. kami semua semangat tulis Al-Amin Gombak dan Smi Hidayah. heh. optimis dengan kebolehan mereka. Musleh boleh!

kemudian check in dalam dorm, peserta perempuan di Mahallah Maryam, lelaki Mahallah Salahuddin.makan tengahari dalam dorm, solat, rehat sementara tunggu Grand Dinner malam tu. dlm pukul 2 ptg, a.Zubair call, minta buat training dengan Hira'.

Haifa pelajar mithali.banyak buku dia angkut.

dlm pukul 4 ptg, banat Hira' datang dorm kami, A 4.6, untuk sedikit perbincangan. by Asar mereka balik dorm. then kami ke kedai runcit dan kantin, beli stok untuk enam hari. :)

sblm maghrib dah tunggu nak naik bas ke CAC Hall. lamaaaa tunggu.

bergambar dengan banat Hira' (hannah mahmud dan errr-tak-ingat)

sampai sana, kami solat maghrib dulu. habis solat, terus bergegas nak masuk, takut lambat. betul pun jangkaan, mmg kami lambat, masuk sekali dengan VIP. dahlah tak reti cari meja. konon2 tak nak tanya usher, nak cari sendiri. akhirnya malu sendiri..-_-

malam tu kami semeja dengan SEMASHUR. bagus betul mereka. penuh yakin dan percaya untuk naik ke pentas final tahun ini. all the best.

masa habis dinner, urusetia umumkan untuk tahun ni senarai usul tak diberi.wah.mencabar juga untuk kami yang masih baru. tak boleh nak duga usul macamana yang akan keluar.tak apa. tawakkal.

sebelum bersurai, tangkap gambar dulu.

*********

the next day, ada bangkel debat oleh pendebat2 UIA. very useful and informative. then Round 1 begins.

ROUND 1

Sidang 25
MRSM Serting (kerajaan) vs Al-Amin Bangi (pembangkang)
Isu : Alam Sekitar
Usul : Kita tidak sepakat dalam isu alam sekitar.

Keputusannya
Usul : ditolak (hamdulillah!)
Margin : 4 point something
Juri : 3-0
Pendebat terbaik : Husna (juri 3-0)

Kedudukan selepas pusingan 1 : no 11

ROUND 2

Sidang 12
Al-Amin Bangi (kerajaan) vs Maktab Tentera Diraja (pembangkang)
Isu : Ekonomi
Usul : Bajet 2010 membebankan rakyat

Keputusannya
Usul : ditolak
Margin : 3.67
Juri : 3-0
Pendebat terbaik : 2nd speaker pembangkang

Kedudukan selepas pusingan 2 : no. 32

ROUND 3

Sidang 25

Al-Amin Bangi (kerajaan) vs MRSM Batu Pahat (pembangkang)
Isu : Pendidikan
Usul : Sekolah Berprestasi Tinggi hanya satu jenama

Keputusannya
Usul : ditolak
Margin : 4.167
Juri : 3-0
Pendebat terbaik : 3rd speaker pembangkang

Kedudukan selepas 3 pusingan : no. 46

ROUND 4

Sidang 20
MRSM Pendang (kerajaan) vs Al-Amin Bangi (pembangkang)
Isu : Humour / Peribahasa
Usul : Zaman Sudah berubah : Kera di Hutan Perlu Disusukan

Keputusannya
Usul : diterima
Margin : 3.67
Juri : 3-0
Pendebat Terbaik : Fitrah Adila (2nd speaker kerajaan)
*masa ni Haifa jadi calon pendebat terbaik. mungkin kerana bola-bola apinya?

Kedudukan selepas 4 pusingan : no. 53

ROUND 5

SMK Taman Melawati (kerajaan) vs Al-Amin Bangi (pembangkang)
Isu : Sosial
Usul : Pelacuran : Mak Ayam yang bersalah

Keputusannya
Usul : ditolak
Margin : 3
Juri : 2-1
Pendebat Terbaik : Husna (juri 3-0)

Kedudukan selepas 5 pusingan : no. 45

sementara tunggu pusingan 6, sempat bergambar dengan usher kami yang comel, kak Ruwaida. Pelajar tahun kedua jurusan Bioteknologi. tengok ekspresi Haifa yang sedih sebab masa ni kami kalah tiga kali berturut-turut.

ROUND 6

Sidang 23
MRSM Kuantan (kerajaan) vs Al-Amin Bangi (pembangkang)
Isu : Politik
Usul : Kita Sudah Bersedia untuk Sistem Dua Parti

Keputusannya
Usul : ditolak
Margin : 1
Juri : 2-1
Pendebat terbaik : Husna (juri 3-0)

Selesai semua 6 pusingan, berikut adalah prestasi kami.

Kedudukan : no. 39 daripada 62 pasukan
Juri : 7
Margin : -3.507
Total Win : 3
Total Score : 4543

Alhamdulillah, pasukan debat bahasa melayu sekolah kita berjaya menunjukkan prestasi yang baik untuk debat UIA kali ini.jazaakumullah untuk semua yang mendoakan dan bertanya khabar kami dari semasa ke semasa kami di UIA. doa dan tiupan semangat antum benar2 memberikan kekuatan buat kami.namun kami rasa ini bukan yang terbaik kami dah lakukan. macam ada yang tak puas bila tengok final ranking.nanti nak tebus dan buat yang terbaik dalam debat Musleh, insyaAllah!

-to be continued-

coming soon

2010-04-24T19:25:00.000-07:00

-coming soon-

laporan debat Bahasa Melayu semasa 9th IIUM Debating Championship.

p/s: English bila lagi?

China-Google

2010-04-04T06:22:00.000-07:00

The Global Implications of Google’s Stand Against Chinese Censorship

Google dropped a bombshell, declaring that it won’t censor Chinese search results after sophisticated attacks on the Gmail accounts of Chinese human activists. This opens the door not only for China to kick Google out of its country, but for a renewal of the battle over censorship and government oppression in China.

I’m going to divide this analysis of the ramifications of Google’s decision into three sections: what this means for China, the impact of the decision on global politics and its potential effect on censorship itself.

=> WHAT THIS MEANS TO CHINA : NOT MUCH

Google () may be taking a stand and threatening to pull out, but we predict that it won’t be enough to sway the Chinese government to let the Google China search engine run unfiltered, even if world governments apply strong pressure.

Let me make it clear: China has a long and disturbing history of censorship. I could link to hundreds of examples, but I think you get the picture.

Google isn’t the U.S. Government; it doesn’t have the political or technological leverage to make the Chinese government to do anything. Even the U.S. Government has limited influence, due to the economic ties between the two nations and our large debt to the Asian nation.

To think that China would change its rules and allow its citizens unfiltered access to what it believes is objectionable content (e.g. porn), as well as information and images on its greatest atrocities, is absurd. China backing off would weaken its iron-grip hold and open it up to more calls for the abolition of censorship inside its borders.

The end result is that Google will likely be gone from China and censorship will continue, at least in the short term. Only if Google agrees to some less-restricted censorship rules will the search engine be allowed to stay.

China’s about to feel some heat from the rest of the world, though.

=> THE GLOBAL CENSORSHIP DEBATE HAS BEEN REIGNITED

Google pulling out of China won’t be the end of the issue. Members of Congress have been very critical of not only China’s censorship and human rights violations, but of Google for complying with Chinese censors.

Now lawmakers and governments worldwide have another reason to speak out if China kicks Google out. The criticism will mount from institutions, organizations and governments worldwide over China’s decision.

Google’s positioning it so that this is China’s decision, not Google’s, over whether the search engine stays operational within the nation’s borders. This is a smart move on Google’s part and places China in an uncomfortable position.

The world will also begin to focus on the specifics of the attack on Google’s infrastructure. Who was targeted? How deep of a role did China play? What information do they have? What actions can be taken against China?

In the end, though, China is a sovereign nation with one of the world’s largest economies. There will be a lot of head-butting over the next few weeks, but we doubt that anything more severe than condemnations will be issued.

The posturing and criticism will, however, return the spotlight to China and its questionable practices. That is a good thing. The debate has been reignited, which will make us question once again what China is doing on the web and beyond.

=> THE STATE OF CENSORSHIP

The world’s focus on major issues comes and goes. It was red-hot on Iran during the Iran Election Crisis and has been on and off when it comes to Chinese censorship and their human rights violations.

Today’s move places the spotlight back on China and the state of censorship, at least for the next few weeks. The 24/7 news cycle will analyze all angles, especially if China does end up kicking Google out. The more information that comes out, the more pressure that will be placed on China.

Even though Google will likely be a casualty of the censorship war, it will not have been taken down in vain. Activists will be reinvigorated, new information will be revealed, and the fight against oppression will continue.

How the war will turn out or when it will end is anybody’s guess. We haven’t even come close to seeing the full implications of Google’s decision. You can bet, though, that the effect will be felt for years to come in political, social and technological circles worldwide.

http://mashable.com/2010/01/12/chinese-censorship-implications
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/24/technology/24google.html?pagewanted=1

NEM to make Malaysia more competitive globally

2010-03-31T19:47:00.000-07:00

Model Ekonomi Baru

Model Ekonomi Malaysia

Higher Per capita income by 2020

KUALA LUMPUR: Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak today unveiled the much-awaited New Economic Model (NEM) which will transform the nation into a highincome economy that is sustainable and inclusive and will position the nation on the right path towards attaining developed nation status by 2020.

The NEM would make Malaysia more competitive regionally and globally with benefits accruing to all Malaysians, with their per capita income increasing to US$15,000 (RM48,900) by the end of the decade from US$7,000 (RM22,820) currently, said Najib, who is also Finance Minister.

"It will be no easy task, but the rewards will be great if we make this transformation. The challenge is how we will do it. This means building upon existing sectors and maximizing the potential of new ones through innovation," he said.

Under the NEM, the Government would no longer tolerate practices that support the behaviours of rentseeking and patronage, which have long tarnished the altruisic aims of the New Economic Policy (NEP).

The NEM wil be "inclusive" with all Malaysians contributing and benefiting from economic growth a fundamental element of any new economic approach, he said in his speech at "Invest Malaysia 2010" conference.

Among highlights of the NEM are:

● Employees Provident Fund (EPF) will be allowed to invest more in overseas assets;

● Malaysian Industrial Development Authority (MIDA) will be corporatised and renamed as Malaysian Investment Development Authority to make it more effective as an investment promotion agency;

● Government and EPF to form a joint venture to promote the development of 1,200 hectares of land (3,000 acres) in Sungai Buloh into a new hub for Klang Valley;

● Several parcels of land in Jalan Stonor, Jalan Ampang and Jalan Lidcol in Kuala Lumpur will be tendered out and developed by private sector, failing which it will be wasteful if the assets were not developed as the government will incur cost of maintaining them;

● The land development in Sungai Buloh and development of parcels of land in the city centre is expected to generate new investments worth over RM5 billion;

● The Ministry of Finance Inc companies such as Percetakan Nasional Malaysia, CTRM Aero Composites Sdn Bhd, Nine Bio Sdn Bhd and Innobio may be privatised;

● Petronas has identified two sizeable subsidiaries with good track record to be listed this year on Bursa Malaysia, a move that will reduce government's presence in business and enhance private sector's role;

● Khazanah Nasional Bhd will divest its 32 per cent stake in Pos Malaysia Bhd through a two-stage strategic divestment process;

Najib said there will be a renewed affirmative action policy in the NEM, with a focus on raising income levels of all disadvantaged groups.

He said these include long house dwellers in Sabah and Sarawak and poor rural households in Peninsular Malaysia, who often feel disconnected from the mainstream economic activity.

"Fishermen, petty traders and small farmers also fall under this category . Not forgetting the Orang Asli and low income urban dwellers, eking out a livelihood in tough economic circumstances. The proposal in the NEAC report suggests a focus on the bottom 40 percent of Malaysia’s income strata — both individually and regionally.

"These are the disadvantaged groups where special attention is still required."

Najib also said the government will reassess the subsidy system and broaden revenue-raising base through proposed Goods and Services Tax (GST).

This will place Malaysia in line with international norms and reduce unsustainable reliance on a small number of industries, business and taxpayers.

He also said Malaysia should rise out of the "middle-income trap" that will be a precarious position for any nation in the new global economy, which means pursuing economic policies in knowledge industries of the future with high-wage jobs and prosperity that can be shared by all.

The Prime Minister said the NEM, formulated by the independent National Economic Advisory Council (NEAC), will be integrated into the 10th Malaysia Plan with a longer term vision that will be delivered through the 11th Malaysia Plan.

"These can transform the economy to become one with high incomes and quality growth over the next decade," he said.

Initiatives to boost GNP growth

Currently almost four per cent of all Malaysians and over seven per cent of rural Malaysians live below the poverty line.

The poorest 40 per cent of Malaysian households earn incomes, on average, barely one-seventh that of the richest 20 per cent.

For millions of ordinary Malaysians, life is far worse than even the USD7,600 annual Gross National Product (GNP) figure suggests.

Thirty years after the National Economic Policy and 10 years before 2020, these figures show how far Malaysia still has to go before it becomes an advanced, high income economy.

In order to achieve this, National Economic Advisory Council's (NEAC) recommendations will be anchored by eight Strategic Reform Initiatives (SRIs).

These SRIs will incentivise economic players to make decisions in ways that will increase private investment and increase productivity which will result in real GNP growth at an average annual pace of 6.5 per cent or higher from now until 2020.

In a high income economy, the rakyat can expect:

• More choices and higher purchasing power. An upward spiral of consumption and high income career choices.

• Better quality of life. Not only higher incomes, but quality healthcare and social support, accessible to all rakyat and income groups.

• Opportunities for upward mobility. Readily available skills development programmes. Access to resources, jobs, contracts and licences based on merit and effort.

• Reward for innovation and creativity. A more developed, specialised, innovative, technology driven and knowledge based economic structure.

• Greater confidence in the robustness of the economy. Sustained high private investment rates on the back of high savings, foreign capital and globally mobile talent.

by Marhalim Abbas
credit to Malay Mail
source --- http://www.mmail.com.my/content/31837-nem-make-malaysia-more-competitive-globally

I`m studying this New Economic Model, i`ll write about the review later...will be updated soon :-) (Mlmah Nad)

Review (Part One)

Pros

If this NEM be implemented and eventually success, the pros will be:

1. Economy
- Malaysia will be an economically high-income country and also spur greater economic development through FDI (Foreign Direct Investment). Malaysia will compete with other economic outstanding with larger population countries (China, India, Vietnam and Indonesia). If we stay with the current economic policy, the country will be left behind by the neighbouring countries and other Asian countries. I think FDI will contribute more to the country`s income in the future. Last year, the government approved 766 manufacturing investments worth RM32.6 billion where foreign investments accounted for 67.8 per cent or RM22.1 billion.
- The economic growth will lead to higher Gross Domestic Product (GDP)among Malaysians. Currently, our GDP has been extremely low compared to other developing Asian countries (South Korea’s GDP per capita is US$16,450, Singapore US$34,346 and Hong Kong US$29,559 while Malaysia is still at US$7,469.)
- NEM recognises needs as a basis of distribution of the country`s wealth, so this will eradicate the poverty gap among Malaysians.
- There will be more chances for Malaysians to start small businesses to achieve the high income nation status and not fully depending on salaries (as most Malaysians do). This will generate more income to Malaysians and the country.

2. Education
- Malaysia is losing its skilled talent - as many are leaving to seek better opportunities to overseas countries, according to Ministry of Human Resources, the NEAC says in 2008 some 350,000 Malaysians were working abroad, over half of which had tertiary education. If the country manage to improve its economic growth, more Professional Malaysians will choose to stay in Malaysia and contribute to the country.

..ok, to be continued :-)

English Debate Training

2010-03-30T21:03:00.001-07:00

Attention to English Language Debate teams,

English Debate Training will be conducted on every Fridays ( 9th and 30th April, 14th and and 28th May) and every Saturdays (Sundays as well, if necessary..)

Mlmh Nadia,
English Language Debate Advisor

About Asian Parliamentary Debate

2010-03-25T00:52:00.000-07:00

Teams:

There two opposing teams in an Asians format of debate:

1. Government side- proposes and defends the motion;
2. Opposition side- refute and negates the motion.

Each each side is composed of three members.

The Members of the government side are the following:

1. Prime minister (PM)- opens the debate, defines the motion and advances arguments;
2. Deputy prime Minister(DPM)- refute at first instance the case of the opposition, re-establish the government's claim, and advances arguments;
3. Government whip(GW)- makes an issue-based rebuttal of the opposition's case and summarizes the case of the government.

The Members of the Opposition side are the following:

1. Leader of the Opposition(LO)- responds directly to the case of the government by giving a direct clash, and advances arguments. May challenge the motion if the definition is challengeable;
2. Deputy Leader of the Opposition(DPL)- refutes the case of the DPM, reestablishes the case of the opposition, and advances an argument;
3. Opposition Whip (OW)- makes an issues-based rebuttal of the government's and summarizes the case of the opposition.

Time of Speeches:

Each speaker is allocated seven minutes to deliver their constructive speeches. One speaker from each side (For the Government:PM/DPM, for Opposition:LO/DLO) is given four minutes to deliver a reply speech. The speakers will be speaking in the following order:

1. Prime Minister
2. Leader of the opposition
3. Deputy Prime Minister
4. Deputy Leader of the Opposition
5. Government Whip
6. Opposition whip
7. Opposition Reply
8. Government Reply

During the constructive speeches, Point of Information (POI) may be raised by the opposing side after the first minute up to the sixth minute. POI may be refused or accepted by the speaker. During reply speeches, no POI may be raised.

Reply Speech:

Reply speech is a comparative analysis of the strength and weaknesses of the case of both sides. The aim of the speech is to give a bias judgment as to why should the people support the team's claim. The speech is first delivered by the opposition side and followed by the government side who will close the debate.

Matter, Manner, Method:

Asian Parliamentary Debate is assessed by an Adjudicator Panel composed of an odd number according to the following criteria:

1. Matter (40)- substance of the debate, the arguments and evidence presented, and the logical reasoning and presentation of said arguments.
2. Manner (40)- the style of delivery, the persuasion skills, and the conduct of the debaters.
3. Method (20)- the response to the dynamics of the debate, and the observance of the rules of debate.

by: Arnel D. Mateo
credit to : http://parliamentarydebate.blogspot.com

The blog will officially open to all Al-Aminians

2010-03-24T00:48:00.000-07:00

Assalamualaikum.. dearest Al-Aminians Bangi...

This blog will be open to all Al-Aminians starting this week.. feel free to blog about any current issues and please state together your opinions about the issues..... (the account and password will be display on the notice board at school)

Thank You

English debate Advisor,
Muallimah Nadia
:-)

Siasatan skandal PKFZ telus - Muhyiddin

2009-12-12T04:40:00.000-08:00

MELAKA 11 Dis. - Tiga orang yang didakwa di Mahkamah Sesyen atas tuduhan pecah amanah skandal Zon Bebas Pelabuhan Klang (PKFZ) merupakan bukti manifestasi Perdana Menteri, Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak dan pendirian kerajaan mahu memastikan kes itu dilaksanakan dengan telus.

Timbalan Perdana Menteri, Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin berkata, kerajaan tidak akan melindungi sesiapa jika ada bukti dan asas kukuh untuk mengheret mereka ke mahkamah.

''Kita tidak langsung mahu melindungi tetapi kita juga tidak mahu nak menghukum di peringkat awal ini hanya kerana sudah ditahan seolah-olah sudah terbabit.

''Tetapi dari segi tindakan pihak berkuasa menahan tiga orang semalam dan kalau ada bukti penyelewengan dan elemen rasuah berlaku, kita memang tidak akan bertolak ansur.

''Sekarang terserah kepada bidang kuasa hakim untuk menentukan sebarang bentuk hukuman kes-kes yang telah dibawa ini," katanya.

Beliau berkata demikian kepada pemberita selepas merasmikan Showcase Satu Daerah Satu Industri (SDSI) di Pusat Dagangan Antarabangsa Melaka (MITC), Ayer Keroh di sini hari ini.

Turut hadir Menteri Perdagangan Antarabangsa dan Industri, Datuk Seri Mustapa Mohamed; Timbalannya, Datuk Mukhriz Mahathir dan Ketua Menteri Melaka, Datuk Seri Mohd. Ali Rustam.

Muhyiddin mengulas mengenai tiga orang yang didakwa di Mahkamah Sesyen semalam atas tuduhan pecah amanah dalam skandal PKFZ.

Mereka yang ditahan ialah bekas Pengurus Besar Lembaga Pelabuhan Klang (LPK), Datin Paduka Oi Choo Phang; Ketua Pegawai Operasi Kuala Dimensi Sdn. Bhd. (KDSB), Stephen Abok, 51, dan arkitek, Bernard Tan Seng Swee, 48, dari syarikat perunding BTA Architect.

Mengulas lanjut Muhyiddin berkata, tindakan mendakwa tiga orang itu di mahkamah adalah tindakan pertama pihak berkuasa terhadap mereka yang disyaki.

Bagaimanapun beliau membayangkan ada lagi individu-individu yang akan didakwa di mahkamah berhubung skandal tersebut.

Muhyiddin menegaskan, kes ini masih belum selesai walaupun tiga orang sudah didakwa di mahkamah.

''Kita tidak kata mereka sudah melakukan melainkan sehingga disabitkan di mahkamah tentang salah laku yang dibuat.

''Ia sama ada kesalahan kecil atau besar, RM6 juta atau RM60 juta biarlah mahkamah yang akan menentukan," katanya lagi.

Muhyiddin menambah, pihak berkuasa sudah mempunyai laporan-laporan asas berhubung skandal PKFZ berdasarkan siasatan yang telah dijalankan oleh pihak akauntan sebelum ini.

Sehubungan itu katanya, laporan-laporan itu akan digunakan sebagai asas untuk melihat ada penyelewengan berlaku dan mendakwa mereka yang terlibat.

-------> hmmm skandal RASUAH dan penyelewangan lagi? sampai bila rakyat Malaysia akan terus dihujani dengan skandal berprofil tinggi seperti ini? apakah punca dan apakah pula penyelesaiannya? ....

Amaran FAM (Football Association Malaysia)

2009-12-08T05:34:00.000-08:00

PETALING JAYA - Persatuan Bolasepak Malaysia (FAM) mengeluarkan amaran keras kepada skuad bola sepak lelaki Bawah 23 (B-23) tahun negara supaya tidak mengulangi tindakan luar kawalan selepas mereka mencetuskan insiden kekecohan menyerang pengadil perlawanan selepas mengalami kekalahan 1-3 di tangan pasukan Vietnam pada temasya Sukan Sea Laos XXV kelmarin.

FAM turut mengeluarkan tegahan terhadap skuad bola sepak wanita negara, yang menjadi pasukan belasahan di temasya yang sama, daripada beraksi dalam mana-mana pertandingan antarabangsa mulai tahun depan.

Keputusan itu diumumkan oleh Timbalan Presiden FAM, Khairy Jamaluddin Abu Bakar selepas mesyuarat FAM di Wisma FAM, Kelana Jaya, semalam.

“Pihak FAM menerima laporan pengurus pasukan Malaysia di Vientiane yang melaporkan tahap pengadilan yang tidak memuaskan.

"Berikutan itu pengurus pasukan telah membuat aduan rasmi berhubung mutu pengadilan dengan pihak penganjur,” katanya.

Selain itu, Khairy berkata, FAM, menerusi pengurus pasukan, telah memberi amaran keras kepada setiap pemain supaya tidak mengulangi perbuatan tersebut dalam dua baki perlawanan Kumpulan A nanti.

“Walaupun, mutu pengadilan tidak baik atau tidak setuju dengan keputusan pengadil perlawanan, mana-mana pemain tidak boleh bertindak mengikut emosi masing-masing. Disiplin harus diutamakan kerana ia melambangkan sikap profesional,” katanya.

Pada perlawanan kedua Kumpulan A yang berlangsung di Stadium Utama, Kompleks Sukan Nasional Laos Ahad, Malaysia tewas 1-3, sekali gus menyukarkan laluan negara ke separuh akhir.

Malaysia kini berada di tangga ketiga Kumpulan A selepas mengumpul tiga mata, hasil kemenangan membelasah Timor Leste 11-0 pada Rabu lalu.

Ditanya mengenai peluang skuad Malaysia untuk melayakkan diri ke pusingan separuh akhir, Khairy berkata, skuad Malaysia mesti memenangi baki dua perlawanan kumpulan A iaitu menentang Kemboja dan juara bertahan Thailand untuk melayakkan diri ke separuh akhir.

Mengenai persembahan pasukan bola sepak wanita yang tidak memuaskan, Khairy berkata, pihak FAM memutuskan mulai tahun depan skuad bola sepak dan futsal wanita tidak dibenarkan beraksi di mana-mana perlawanan antarabangsa kecuali perlawanan persahabatan sahaja.

“Dengan dua kekalahan dibelasah (Thailand 14-0, Vietnam 8-0) yang agak memalukan ini, pihak FAM telah mengambil keputusan untuk tidak membenarkan pasukan bola sepak wanita beraksi di mana-mana pertandingan di peringkat antarabangsa. Yang paling utama sekarang adalah program pembangunan untuk memperkukuhkan, memperkemaskan pasukan bola sepak dan juga futsal,” katanya.

-------> Bola sepak negara kita mengalami kemerosotan lagi... agak agak apakah puncanya? dan apakah solusi kepada masalah ini? Sila kawan kawan beri komentar..

Global: Belanda dalam bahaya!!

2009-11-23T02:52:00.000-08:00

Di pesisir pantai Monster, deretan jengkaut bertungkus-lumus mengalih pasir yang disedut dari dasar Laut Utara membentuk beting dalam usaha mengekang Belanda dilimpahi banjir.

Memanjang lebih 20 kilometer ke selatan The Hague, projek itu adalah satu daripada 'perang tidak berkesudahan' kerajaan bagi mengatasi masalah peningkatan paras laut disebabkan pemanasan global.

"Disebabkan kedudukannya yang rendah, Belanda sangat sensitif kepada perubahan iklim," kata Timbalan Menteri Pengurusan Air Belanda, Tineke Huizinga, selepas melawat tapak projek di Monster itu.

Menurut Huizinga, jika paras laut meningkat, Belanda akan terancam. Bagaimanapun, katanya, negara itu masih bernasib baik kerana pantainya masih selamat setakat hari ini.

Cuma, katanya, projek berkenaan mesti dijalankan demi masa depan warga Belanda.

"Kami melabur untuk keselamatan rakyat yang akan tinggal di sini 50 tahun akan datang," katanya.

Lebih 18 juta meter padu pasir - cukup untuk mengisi 7,200 kolam renang bersaiz Olimpik - bersedia dicurahkan ke kawasan pantai di sepanjang Monster sehingga 2011 bagi membentuk beting pasir.

Projek itu diluluskan tahun lalu dengan kos kira-kira RM680 juta.

Pasir dasar Laut Utara disedut kira-kira 15 kilometer dari pantai menggunakan dua bot khas yang bertugas bergilir-gilir 24 jam sehari.

Ia kemudian dipindahkan ke pantai menggunakan saluran paip.

Jengkaut kemudian mengambil alih tugas menyusun pasir berkenaan untuk membentuk beting di pantai dan menjarakkan keluasan pantai sedikit demi sedikit.

Ketua Pencegahan Banjir Monster, Michiel van Haersma Buma, berkata mereka tiada pilihan kecuali menambak pasir bagi menambah keluasan pantai sehingga ke laut.

"Secara relatif, pantai Belanda sempit, manakala kawasan penempatan yang padat terletak tidak jauh dari beting pasir.

"Tidak cukup kawasan untuk membina beting pasir kecuali menambak laut bagi melebarkan pantai," katanya.

Beting pasir dan pantai itu - dengan keluasan di antara 30 hingga 60 meter - dibina sehingga 10 meter lebih tinggi dari paras laut.

Bagi mengukuhkan kedudukannya, kerajaan menanam rumput khas di atas beting berkenaan.

"Lebih banyak beting dibina, lebih sedikit air melimpah masuk dan mengurangkan risiko pencemaran air tawar di darat," kata Haersma Buma.

Apabila siap, projek itu akan mengubah sehingga 20 kilometer pantai di kawasan berkenaan.

Panjang anjuran pantai juga meningkat sehingga 200 meter ketika air surut berbanding 180 meter sebelum ini.

Pertaruhan terhadap kejayaan projek itu juga besar.

Sehingga 65 peratus daripada pengeluaran dalam negara kasar Belanda datang dari kawasan yang terletak di bawah paras laut.

Kata Huizinga, kerajaan mahu memastikan penduduk Belanda mampu hidup dan bekerja dalam suasana keselamatan masing-masing terjamin.

"Ia memang pelaburan besar, tetapi ia dianggap kecil berbanding kesan buruk berlaku terhadap ekonomi dan ancaman sosial - termasuk kehilangan nyawa - jika ia tidak dilakukan," katanya.

Sementara itu jurucakap Kementerian Pengurusan Air, Marie-Christine Lanser-Reusken, berkata kerajaan dijangka mengumumkan program perlindungan baru terhadap ancaman pemanasan global tahun depan.

Katanya, kerajaan memperuntukkan kira-kira RM5.1 bilion setahun mulai 2020.

September tahun lalu, sebuah suruhanjaya lantikan kerajaan memberi amaran, Belanda mesti membelanjakan lebih RM504.6 bilion pada abad akan datang untuk menaik taraf beting dan pelebaran pantai.

Suruhanjaya itu menjangkakan, air laut meningkat di antara 0.65 hingga 1.3 meter menjelang 2100.

Banjir besar pada 1953 mengorbankan 1,835 orang selain memusnahkan kediaman lebih 72,000 warga Belanda apabila 200,000 hektar tanah di Zeeland, Noord Brabant dan Zuid-Holland dinaiki air. - AFP

sila beri komentar... agaknya apakah solusi kepada masalah alam sekitar yang mengancam dunia ketika ini? Mungkinkah satu hari nanti Malaysia juga akan jadi seperti Belanda?

Rude Malaysians don’t know how to queue

2009-11-18T19:15:00.000-08:00

MARK OF HONOUR: Japanese queueing for the train

IT makes me quite sad to hear on the radio these days how we Malaysians need to be reminded to be patient
and courteous on the roads.

As the announcer states, giving way to other motorists would at most delay our journeys by an average 40 seconds. In the overall scheme of things, waiting 40 seconds does not really cause us much harm and can in fact reduce our stress levels.

This is already the practice among residents in most developed countries that we Malaysians keep on aspiring to emulate, but fail to actually follow in both thought and spirit. It’s no wonder then that we keep hearing the constant refrain of ‘world class facilities, but third class mentality’ being applied to ourselves!

This rude practice also extends to how we supposedly queue up at various points. How many times have you seen commuters actually queueing up to board a bus, train or the LRT?

Granted that the public transport system needs major improvement, but a quick look at how things are done in Japan will put many of us to shame.

The crowd of commuters there waiting to board the trains are far more than what we have in Malaysia.

Yet, the overall situation in Japan’s train stations is far less chaotic – because the passengers actually make it a point to stay in their queues. This is because the Japanese see it as a mark of politeness and honour to stay in the queue – as only uncouth barbarians would shove and push their way forward while others have been waiting patiently.

From this viewpoint, we Malaysians definitely have a long way to go before we can be seen as being refined and having a world class mentality.

Even when some actually make an effort to form queues, it only takes one errant person skipping forward to trigger off a chaotic situation as the herd mentality kicks in.

This behaviour is especially galling as our schoolchildren actually keep to their queues in schools, but their parents often tell them to do otherwise in public.

Is this how we want to perpetuate this poor image of a rude Malaysian into the next generation?

Maybe it’s time for concerned individuals to take the first step of setting virtuous examples for others to follow. Since many of us now use cellphones fitted with cameras, it would be interesting to see how many images of rude Malaysians cutting queues can then be seen at various blogsites.

Michael Wong
Rawang

taken from ---->

http://www.mmail.com.my/content/19130-mailbox-rude-malaysians-don%E2%80%99t-know-how-queue

NUTP sambut baik penggredan baru SPM

2009-10-22T00:38:00.000-07:00

KUALA LUMPUR 6 Okt. - Kesatuan Perkhidmatan Perguruan Kebangsaan (NUTP) menyambut baik penggredan baru untuk peperiksaan Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia (SPM).

Setiausaha Agungnya, Loke Yim Pheng berkata, pihaknya menyambut baik keputusan kementerian itu kerana menyedari keberkesanan sistem penggredan baru tersebut.

"Sebenarnya sistem penggredan baru ini adalah satu sistem lama yang diperkenalkan semula.

"Oleh kerana ia praktikal dan berkesan untuk menilai prestasi sebenar pelajar, maka sebab itu kerajaan menukar semula sistem ini," katanya ketika dihubungi Utusan Malaysia di sini hari ini.

Semalam, Ketua Pengarah Pelajaran, Tan Sri Alimuddin Mohd. Dom mengumumkan sistem penggredan baru bagi pelajar SPM dan menggantikan sistem penggredan yang lama.

Sistem itu akan mula dilaksanakan tahun ini dan semua pengetua di seluruh negara telah dimaklumkan agar memberi penerangan kepada calon-calon yang akan menduduki SPM tahun ini.

Dalam pada itu, Yim Pheng berkata, sekolah-sekolah di luar negara juga mengamalkan sistem penggredan yang sama dan memang terbukti ia berkesan

"Ini juga akan memudahkan kementerian menilai prestasi pelajar dengan lebih tepat.

"Sebagai contoh, sebelum ini, pelajar yang mendapat 80 peratus juga akan mendapat gred A sama dengan pelajar yang mendapat 99 peratus, tetapi kini dengan sistem baru kita sudah ada tiga peringkat A iaitu A+, A dan A-," jelasnya.

Sehubungan itu, Yin Pheng berkata, cara itu akan membuatkan para pelajar lebih kuat bersaing antara satu sama lain.

Sila beri komen tentang isu ini....

Ahlan Wa Sahlan!!

2009-10-13T23:47:00.000-07:00

Al-Amin Bangi Debate Club has its own blog!! You are free to post comment under your own name or anonymous in Bahasa Malaysia or English Language... this blog is specifically dedicated to all Al-Aminians Bangi (not just members of Al amin Bangi Debate Club!) in order to promote critical thinking and knowledge sharing, we hope that all of you would feel free to comment on various issues including sports, environment, politics, economy, education etc etc... this blog will be updated from time to time with latest issues and interesting links to variety of websites.. Thanks..