Poligami: pro Barat atau Islam?

Saya mengambil masa yang panjang berfikir tentang tajuk poligami untuk ditulis di ruangan ini. Pasti lepas ini, mungkin ada wanita pembaca tulisan saya sejak sekian lama akan merajuk atau kurang senang.

Pohon saya ingin menyentuh juga tajuk ini bagi berbicara dengan lojik feminis sekularis yang cuba menilai isu ini dengan mentaliti Barat.

Secara umumnya, masyarakat ‘Barat’ ini menganggap seseorang lelaki memiliki perempuan simpanan atau mistress adalah perkara biasa. Bahkan menjadi trend di Barat ini untuk pasangan hidup bagaikan suami isteri tanpa perkahwinan yang diiktiraf. Bertukar-tukar atau menambah bilangan mistress bukanlah satu keganjilan. Namun pemikiran dan undang-undang mereka tidak menerima seseorang lelaki memiliki lebih dari satu isteri atau berpoligami. Poligami bagi mereka mempunyai unsur penghinaan terhadap wanita, atau unsur kerakusan nafsu lelaki. Sementara perempuan simpanan atau seks dengan wanita tanpa perkahwinan bukan satu penghinaan atau kerakusan nafsu. Eksploitasi setiap inci alur tubuh wanita dalam media mereka juga adalah bagi mereka lambang kebebasan dan kemerdekaan wanita. Adapun wanita muslimah yang menutup auratnya dengan rela adalah lambang kezaliman atau penghalangan hak wanita. Malang sekali, aliran ‘liberal melulu’ yang menghantui sesetengah pihak, termasuk di negara kita yang menonjolkan diri sebagai pejuang hak wanita, menelan cara fikir Barat ini lalu menjadikan isu poligami dan menutup aurat sebagai sasaran.

Berbalik kepada isu poligami, perkara yang selalu dibangkitkan adalah bahawa ia menafikan hak wanita atau merendahkan wanita. Padahal beza antara seorang isteri kedua, atau ketiga, atau keempat dengan seorang wanita simpanan begitu besar. Selain dari soal haram dan halal yang dilihat pada neraca agama, seorang yang berstatus isteri mempunyai hak ke atas suaminya; hak nafkah, hak keturunan anak, hak keadilan pembahagian hari dan harta, hak dihormati dan disayangi, hak untuk tidak dipersiakan apabila jemu dan berbagai lagi. Sementara seorang mistress yang ‘dijamah’ dalam senyap atau terang, boleh ditinggalkan tanpa pesan apabila jemu dan diratah apabila bernafsu, tiada apa hak yang boleh dituntut atas kekudusan perkahwinan. Mereka memandang sinis kepada poligami tapi menganggap fonomena biasa bagi perempuan simpanan. Poligami bagi mereka membawa ketidakadilan antara wanita. Mereka patut ditanya; apakah memiliki perempuan simpanan itu adil bagi wanita? Begitu juga, apakah hidup ‘berumahtangga’ tanpa kahwin itu penghormatan bagi wanita?

Ramai masyarakat Barat ini menyangka bahawa hanya Islam sahaja yang mengizinkan poligami. Padahal asalnya, seseorang lelaki Kristian diizinkan berkahwin sebanyak mana bilangan isteri yang dia suka, kerana Bible tidak menghadkan bilangan isteri. Hanya beberapa kurun kebalakangan ini gereja menghadkan bilangan isteri kepada satu. Poligami juga diizinkan dalam Yahudi. Ini berdasarkan undang-undang Talmud, di mana Nabi Ibrahim isterinya tiga, Nabi Sulaiman isterinya seratus. Perlaksanaan poligami berterusan dalam Yahudi sehinggalah Rabai Gersom Ben Yehudah (960-1030M) mengeluarkan perintah menentangnya. Namun masyarakat Yahudi Sephardic yang hidup di kalangan umat Islam terus mengamalkannya sehingga tahun 1950. Namun di Barat, trend hidup pragmatik yang mereka cipta menggantikan agama.

Islam apabila membenarkan poligami, seperti biasa menetapkan dalam setiap perkara peraturan dan disiplinnya. Soal berlaku baik dan adil kepada isteri, bukan sahaja diwajibkan untuk mereka yang berpoligami, bahkan kepada sesiapa yang bermonogami juga wajib melakukan kebaikan dan keadilan kepada isterinya. Jika ada kecuaian mereka yang berpoligami bukan bererti poligami itu buruk, tetapi sikap pelaksananya itu yang salah. Betapa banyak mereka yang monogami yang menzalimi isteri, tidak bertanggungjawab terhadap keluarga dan berbagai lagi. Apakah kerena tindakan salah mereka itu, maka monogami juga patut dilarang? Inilah mentaliti kelompok liberal yang tidak terurus pemikiran mereka.

Ramai isteri yang menghantar e-mail kepada saya bahawa mereka tidak dapat terima suami mereka berpoligami. Ya, itu adalah perasaan yang dikongsi oleh kebanyakan wanita. Apatahlagi jika suami mereka itu tidak menunaikan tanggungjawab yang baik selama belum berpoligami pun. Apabila Allah dan rasul-Nya mengizinkan poligami, pasti ia mempunyai hikmah yang tersendiri. Poligami adalah ubat yang dimakan di waktu perlu dan jangan memakannya jika anda tidak memerlukan. Poligami dalam sejarahnya, menyelamatkan wanita-wanita yang kehilangan suami seperti isteri tentera yang terkorban kerana umat. Mungkin mereka masih muda dan perlukan perlindungan. Jika diharapkan orang bujang, biasanya mereka mencari pasangan dara. Siapa yang akan mengambil tanggungjawab ini? Biasanya lelaki yang stabil dan matang mampu mengendalikan mereka. Mereka ini kebanyakan sudah berkahwin. Saya lihat dalam negara kita, poligami dapat membantu wanita yang baru menganut Islam yang kadang-kala tiada orang bujang yang dapat menjaga mereka dengan baik.

Wanita sama seperti lelaki terdedah kepada sakit dan ketidakmampuan seks. Jika suami tidak mampu dari segi seks, isteri boleh menuntut dipisahkan perkahwinan. Jika isteri tidak bermampuan dari segi seks, amat tidak wajar wanita yang lemah dan disakit ditinggalkan begitu. Namun, dalam masa yang sama naluri suami juga hendaklah diraikan. Poligami boleh menyelesaikannya. Begitu juga jika isteri tidak mampu melahirkan zuriat, apakah patut suami menceraikannya? Poligami sebagai penyelesaian keinginan kepada zuriat keturunan. Maka apabila Islam membenarkan poligami, ia adalah ubat. Barangkali juga ada isteri yang tidak terdaya melayan kehendak suami yang ‘tinggi’ dalam seks. Poligami juga jalan keluar dari beban ini. Kadang-kala ada lelaki yang berwibawa yang memampukan dia memiliki lebih dari seorang isteri yang diberi keadilan yang rata. Maka dalam sejarah Islam, poligami tokoh-tokoh telah membuahkan kebaikan ilmu, keluasan keluarga dan keturunan. Berbagai lagi hikmah poligami yang boleh disenarai panjang. Malang sekali, apabila golongan Pro-Barat atau ‘Islam-Liberal’ ini menyatakan tujuan mereka menentang pologami itu kerana hendak membela wanita, apakah pada mereka selain isteri pertama itu bukan wanita? Wanita itu, bukan isteri pertama sahaja, tetapi setiap yang berjantina wanita termasuk yang akan menjadi isteri kedua dan seterusnya. Perasaan dan kehendak mereka juga adalah tuntutan dan hak wanita yang perlu dihormati.

Pernah saya sebutkan bahawa kadang-kala hukum-hakam Islam boleh diumpamakan sebuah kedai yang menyediakan berbagai jenis ubat untuk semua jenis penyakit. Jangan kerana ada ubat yang dijual itu tidak bersesuaian dengan penyakit kita maka kita menganggap ubat tersebut mesti dihapuskan. Poligami adalah salah satu ubat bagi penyakit yang bersesuaian dengannya. Menghalang zina dan membantu wanita. Bagi yang tidak memerlukan ubat ini dia tidak disuruh meminumnya.

Poligami juga adalah jalan keluar kepada kehendak cinta di luar kawalan. Di zaman ini, untuk seseorang lelaki mendapatkan wanita secara haram, amatlah mudah. Namun jika ada lelaki yang ingin berkahwin sekalipun atas poligami yang membawanya menanggung berbagai risiko, saya rasa dia patut dihormati dan ada nilai tanggungjawab terhadap wanita. Cuma malangnya, poligami ini jika digunakan oleh lelaki yang tidak bertanggungjawab sehingga mencemarkan institusi berkenaan. Apatahlagi golongan anti poligami ini hanya menonjolkan contoh-contoh buruk poligami dan melupai contoh-contoh baik yang banyak. Lelaki-lelaki yang baik dan berkemampuan patut tampil membawa contoh yang baik dalam perlaksanaan poligami. Sementara yang tidak berkemampuan dan ‘lemah kewibawaannya untuk adil, maka janganlah memakan ubat yang tidak diperuntukkan untuk anda.

[Baca]

Remarks by National Security Adviser Jones at 45th Munich Conference on Security Policy - By Lt General (Rtd) James L. Jones (LATEST UPDATE - 12/2/09)

February 8, 2009

U.S. National Security Adviser Jones gave these remarks at the 45th Munich Conference on Security Policy at the Hotel Bayerischer Hof on February 8, 2009.

"Thank you for that wonderful tribute to Henry Kissinger yesterday. Congratulations. As the most recent National Security Advisor of the United States, I take my daily orders from Dr. Kissinger, filtered down through General Brent Scowcroft and Sandy Berger, who is also here. We have a chain of command in the National Security Council that exists today.

I think my role today is a little bit different than you might expect. Following the speech of the Vice President and the presence of our distinguished members from the U.S. House of Representatives, I thought that I would spend my time talking to you about how taking the President’s guidance and the Vice President’s comments yesterday, I would spend a few moments trying to discuss how the U.S. National Security Council intends to reorganize itself in order to be supportive. For decades, this conference in Munich has provided a truly exceptional forum for the kind of open dialogue and candid discussions that can only take place among close friends and allies. The Vice President’s attendance and his speech yesterday should send I think a very strong and sincere signal about the seriousness of our purpose when it comes to listening, engaging and building stronger partnerships with all of our friends and allies because the President feels that the transatlantic alliance is a cornerstone to our collective security.

As many of you know, I have been here coming to this conference since 1980 and I have been privileged to work and know many of you here. I would like to salute my military colleagues with whom I have not only a deep friendship but shared many of the issues that we are discussing in a positive way today. And I am delighted to be back in an altered state, so to speak.

I know there is great curiosity about President Obama among many here. And there has been wonderful enthusiasm and new energy with regard to his election from people all over the world. I would like to take just a moment to speak to you about his approach to national security and in fact international security and the role that I see the National Security Council playing. First and foremost the President’s strategic approach will be grounded in the real understanding of the challenges we face in the 21st century. We must simply better understand the environment that we are in. The President, if nothing else, is a pragmatist. He knows that we must deal with the world as it is. And he knows that the world is a very different place than it was just a few years ago. As he said in his inaugural address, the world has changed and we must change with it. And we certainly agree that the world is a multipolar place in the time frame of the moments we are in.

It is hard to overstate the differences between the 20th and the 21st centuries. We have already experienced many, many differences in the 21st century. When this conference first met, everything was viewed through the prism of the Cold War. And in retrospect, life was simpler then. It was certainly more organized. It was certainly more symmetric.

Year in and year out, the strategic environment was fairly consistent and predictable. Threats were "conventional." The transatlantic security partnership was largely designed to meet the threats of a very symmetric world. It was reactive. The NATO partnership was conceived to be a defensive and fairly static alliance. And I spent a good deal of my career in uniform serving within this framework. But to move forward, we must understand the terms national security and international security are no longer limited to the ministries of defense and foreign ministries; in fact, it encompasses the economic aspects of our societies. It encompasses energy. It encompasses new threats, asymmetric threats involving proliferation, involving the illegal shipment of arms and narco-terrorism, and the like. Borders are no longer recognized and the simultaneity of the threats that face us are occurring at a more rapid pace.

And as the President has detailed, a comprehensive approach to our national security and international security in the 21st century must identify and understand that the wider array of existing threats that threaten us. To name a few:

- Terror and extremism has taken many lives and on many continents across the globe.

- The ongoing struggle in Afghanistan and the activity along the Pakistani border is an international security challenge of the highest order.

- The spread of nuclear and chemical biological and cyber-technologies that could upset the global order and cause catastrophe on an unimaginable scale is real. It is pressing and it is time that we dealt with it.

- The overdependence on fossil fuels that endangers our security, our economies, and the health of the planet.

- Protracted tribal, ethnic, and religious conflicts.

- Poverty, corruption, and disease stands in the way of progress and causes great suffering in many parts of the world.

- Narco-terrorism that provides the economic fuel for insurgencies.

- And an economic crisis that serves as the foundation of our strength.

This list is by no means exhaustive. The challenges that we face are broader and more diverse than we ever imagined, even after the terrible events of 9/11. And our capacity to meet these challenges in my view does not yet match the urgency of what is required. To be blunt, the institutions and approaches that we forged together through the 20th century are still adjusting to meet the realities of the 21st century. And the world has definitely changed, but we have not changed with it. But it is not too late, and this is the good news.

In our country, one of the institutions that is changing is the National Security Council, which like so much of our national and international security architecture was formed in the wake of World War II and during the Cold War. So let me say a few words about what the National Security Council does and how President Obama has asked that I approach my job as National Security Adviser. The President has made clear that to succeed against 21st century challenges, the United States must use, balance, and integrate all elements of national influence: our military and our diplomacy, our economy and our intelligence, and law enforcement capacity, our cultural outreach, and as was mentioned yesterday, the power of our moral example, in short, our values. Given this role, the NSC is by definition at the nexus of that effort. It integrates on a strategic sense all elements of our national security community towards the development of effective policy development and interagency cooperation. But to better carry out the president’s priorities, the National Security Council must respond to the world the way it is and not as we wish it were. And it must consider the fusion of our national priorities within the broader international context and interest. The NSC’s mission is relatively simple. It should perform the functions that it alone can perform and serve as a strategic center – and the word strategic is operative here – for the President’s priorities.

To achieve those goals we will be guided by several principles. As one of our great comedians in the United States, Groucho Marx, once said, "These are our principles. And if you don’t like them, we have others."

First, the NSC must be strategic, as I mentioned. It is easy to get bogged down in the tactical concerns that consume the day-to-day conduct. As a matter of fact, it is much more enjoyable to be involved at the tactical level. But we won’t effectively advance the priorities if we spend our time reacting to events, instead of shaping them. And that requires strategic thinking. The National Security Council I think is unique in its ability to step back and take a longer and wider view of our American national security and our role in the shared context of our international security as well.

Second, the NSC must manage coordination across different agencies of the government – increasing numbers of agencies. We have learned the hard way that this has real implications, both in terms of how policy has developed in Washington and how it is in fact executed. The NSC must therefore function as a strategic integrator by doing several things. One, by ensuring that dissenting views are heard and considered throughout the policy-making process. Two, by monitoring policy implementation to ensure that agencies are coordinating effectively in the field, and that the President’s priorities are being carried out in practice. Third, the NSC must be transparent. We serve the President. We also serve other principal agencies of our government. And that’s why I am committed to managing a process that is as open as possible so that we forge policies that are widely understood throughout our government by our people and by our partners around the world. Fourth, the National Security Council must be agile. We face nimble adversaries and all of us will have to confront fast-moving crises – from conflict and terrorism to new diseases and environmental disasters. To keep pace, we will have to move faster in developing policy and priorities than did our predecessors. The world is a smaller place. Communications is more rapid. And therefore our reactions must be swifter. And we must be able to communicate rapidly throughout the government and around the world in order to effectively respond.

And finally, the National Security Council must adapt to evolving challenges. There are traditional priorities that we will manage. But we must also update our outlook and sometimes our organization to keep pace with the changing world. To give you just a few examples, the NSC today works very closely with President Obama’s National Economic Council, which is led by Mr. Larry Summers, so that our response to the economic crisis is coordinated with our global partners and our national security needs. The NSC has worked closely with the White House Counsel’s office as we implement the President’s orders to ban torture and close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay. The National Security Council is undertaking a review to determine how best to unify our efforts to combat terrorism around the world while protecting our homeland. And this effort will be led by Mr. John Brennan.

The National Security Council will be at the table as our government forges a new approach to energy security and climate change that demand broad cooperation across the U.S. Government and more persistent American leadership around the world. And the NSC is evaluating how to update our capacity to combat the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction while also placing a far higher priority on cyber security.

There is no fixed model that can capture the world in all of its complexity. What’s right today will have to be different four years from now or eight years from now. And that’s precisely the point. The NSC’s comparatively small size gives it a unique capacity to reinvent itself as required and to pivot on the key priorities of our time.

Just as we change our ways at home, so too must we change our international partnerships in order to adapt to the 21st century. Minister Jung just pointed out some very good examples of how NATO could change. If there is one overriding characteristic to the world we face, it is the truth that security is shared. And as President Obama has said time and again, we are strongest when we act alongside our partners.

I know there will be much discussion over the next few months as to the future of NATO, so I am not going to dwell on the topic, although I am passionate about it. I do know that the President looks forward to addressing the future of the alliance at the 60th anniversary summit in April. I have been a fan and a participant in NATO since I was a child, watching NATO during the Cold War as I was growing up and as a military commander, watching NATO troops patrol the streets of Kabul and elsewhere in Afghanistan and the Balkans and the skies and in the Mediterranean. And I can tell you this. NATO is as relevant to our common security in the first half of the 21st century as it was to our common defense in the second half of the 20th century. We know that NATO is a strong alliance, perhaps the strongest the world has ever known. Its capacity does not just come from the strength of its arms but from the enduring democratic values that bind our nations together. And from the iron-clad commitment that ensures our collective security. But I also know this. NATO must also change. It needs to become less reactive and more proactive. I think it needs to become less rigid and more flexible. It needs to become less stationary and more expeditionary. And it needs to become more, not less, essential to our collective security. Our Secretary-General has been a strong voice for developing a new strategic vision for the alliance; and judging from this conference, this has been one of the finest conferences I have attended in Munich; and judging from this conference, the time has come to do so.

There is no doubt that NATO’s involvement in Afghanistan poses an enormous task for NATO, but not just NATO, for indeed all international institutions located on the ground in an effort to bring this to a happy and satisfactory conclusion. Given the nexus of terror and extremism, drugs and proliferation, we cannot afford failure in Afghanistan. And that’s why the Obama Administration will work closely with NATO and with the Afghan and Pakistani Governments to forge a new comprehensive strategy to meet achievable goals. This will be a shared effort with our allies. Afghanistan is not simply an American problem, it is an international problem. And as we work to meet these short-term tests, we must show the same strategic vision that mark NATO’s founding six decades ago. Our predecessors had the vision to build institutions that were durable, that could meet the challenges of the day while adapting over the course of several decades. Now the world has changed, and history has called on us to change once more – and this, we must do. President Obama is committed to pursuing a national security strategy that is fully responsive to the challenges that we face. That means facing down current threats, while forging the lasting structures and capabilities that will protect our people and advance our interests well into the future. As part of that effort, we will take steps that I have outlined to be stronger at home and we will seek stronger partnerships with our friends abroad. Those partnerships will require continuous and rapid consultation. As part of that consultation, the Obama Administration will listen closely, be clear about what we are doing, and work hard to find common ground and develop common capabilities. I have no doubt that we are at another crossroads in history. Together we have fought wars and torn down walls of division and together I know that we can meet the challenges of this moment in history if we have the courage and the commitment to change with the times.

Thank you very much."
[Baca]

A Truce Too Big to Fail? - By Helena Cobban

7 February  2009, Interpress Service

WASHINGTON - The tandem un-negotiated ceasefires that Israel and Hamas announced Jan. 18 across the Gaza-Israel front line remain fragile. Local and international efforts to consolidate the truce have stalled, and officials and analysts around the world warn of a high risk of further escalation.

Further complicating the truce stabilisation effort, Israelis go to the polls Feb. 10 in a general election that Binyamin Netanyahu's rightwing Likud Party, now in opposition, and allies further to his right may well end up winning.

Israel has meanwhile refused to allow even basic construction materials into the Gaza Strip. With thousands of homes and much basic infrastructure in ruins, the situation of the Strip's 1.5 million people remains dire.

Since Jan. 18, both Hamas and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert have sent emissaries to Egypt, where intelligence chief Omar Suleiman, who brokered the (largely successful) ceasefire that ran for six months through mid-December 2008, has again emerged as the main channel for indirect negotiations between them.

But since Jan. 18 there have also been several exchanges of hostilities between the two sides. And as rockets fired from Gaza, by Hamas or others, have fallen from time to time on southern Israel, Netanyahu has scored points by voicing harsh criticisms of the Olmert government's "failure to finish the job" against Gaza.

Under strong pressure from Likud and its allies at home, Olmert has so far refused to meet the demands that Hamas has insisted on in Cairo. Hamas's main demand is that as part of the truce agreement Israel lift the punishing siege it has maintained on Gaza since Hamas won the Palestinian parliamentary elections, back in January 2006.

Meanwhile, at the international level, U.S. President Barack Obama's special envoy to the region, Sen. George Mitchell, completed his first fact-finding tour of Israel, Palestine, and three pro-U.S. Arab countries and reported back to Obama in the White House on Wednesday. Mitchell said he plans to return to the region later this month.

No one in the Obama administration has announced anything substantive about the outcome of Mitchell's first mission. However, before Mitchell met with Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared that Hamas still needed to meet the three tough conditions defined by the Bush administration in 2002 before it could be included in any formal-level diplomacy.

The momentum with which the new administration dove into Palestinian-Israeli peacemaking during its first week in office now seems largely - and worryingly - to have dissipated.

Three major diplomatic challenges face regional powers and the international community regarding the ever-important Palestine question. The first is to stabilise the Gaza ceasefire. The second - which has been receiving increasing recognition from around the world, including from weighty personalities in the U.S. like former Secretary of State James Baker - is to find a way to fold Hamas into the formal peace negotiations, even if only indirectly. The third is to give the final-status peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians considerable new momentum and seriousness.

Robert Pastor has worked very closely with Jimmy Carter on the peace-promotion missions Carter has undertaken in the Middle East in recent years - which included two rounds of discussions that Carter held with Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal in Damascus, Syria, last year. (Carter and Pastor also held intensive talks with Israeli leaders and visited rocket-affected communities in southern Israel.)

Speaking recently at the Washington-based Palestine Centre, Pastor stressed that the strengthened ceasefire agreement for Gaza should be "signed, public, and official; there needs to be a recognised single text... The ceasefire needs to be reduced to its basic elements and should not be freighted down by extraneous issues, such as Israel's demand that Gilad Shalit's release be part of it."

Shalit, a corporal in the Israeli military, was taken as a prisoner-of-war by Gaza-based militants in June 2006, and has been under Hamas's control since June 2007. Israel meanwhile holds some 12,000 Palestinian detainees, including two dozen elected Hamas legislators from the West Bank. Negotiations for a prisoner exchange have continued intermittently since 2006.

Pastor said the Gaza ceasefire agreement should specify an end to all military actions by each side against the other, Israel's opening of the crossings into the Strip, and the establishment of a monitoring mechanism in which the Middle East Quartet - the U.S., the United Nations, European Union, and Russia - should be involved.

Pastor provided several details of how, in the case of the six-month Israel-Hamas ceasefire of last year, the absence of an agreed, public text made it hard for Hamas to insist on Israeli compliance when the Israelis reneged on a commitment Hamas thought Olmert had made, to restore the freight passage through the crossings to the level it was at before the siege began in 2006.

He and many others have noted that Hamas and the main secular Palestinian nationalist group, Fatah, now urgently need to get over the sharp conflict they've been engaged in since June 2007, so they can get the reconstruction for Gaza speedily underway and to allow for rapid and substantive steps forward in the final peace talks.

Amman-based Palestinian analyst Mouin Rabbani has noted that objectively, Hamas and Fatah both need each other: Fatah, to share some of the new political legitimacy Hamas gained through the courage and capability it displayed during the recent war, and Hamas, to gain access to international forums and aid channels from which it is currently barred.

However, as Rabbani and others have noted, rebuilding a collaborative relationship between them may not be easy.

Washington-based analyst (and former Palestinian negotiator) Amjad Atallah said he judged that the rift between the two groups had been significantly exacerbated, if not completely caused, by the strong campaign the Bush administration waged against Hamas, in which it enrolled several key Fatah leaders.

"If the new U.S. administration can just stop that campaign, then reconciliation would become a lot easier," he said.

Regarding the possibility of a resumed and newly energised final-status peace negotiation, all plans for this, whether drafted in Washington or elsewhere, remain on hold pending the outcome of Israel's Feb. 10 election - and of the weeks-long coalition-forming process that is nearly always required after Israeli elections.

Some pro-peace people, including Israeli journalist Gideon Levy, have said that having Likud in power, with its clearly stated opposition to the establishment of any Palestinian state west of the Jordan River, may make matters clearer in the international arena than they have been under Olmert's "centre-left" coalition. Levy noted that the Olmert government held endless negotiations about a Palestinian state while still, in practice, building Israeli settlements that reduce the possibility of the Palestinians establishing a viable state of their own in the West Bank and Gaza.

Whether Likud will win the elections, and the effect that might have on negotiations, both remain to be seen. What is clear, though, is that the Gaza War of 2008-09 has had a deep influence on the politics of both the Palestinian and Israeli communities, strengthening hardliners in each. The risks - to the stability of a largely U.S.-dominated regional order, as to the hard-pressed people of Gaza - remain very high indeed.

Helena Cobban is a veteran Middle East analyst and author. She blogs at www.JustWorldNews.org 
[Baca]

Don't Escalate in Afghanistan - By The Nation Editors

7 February, 2009

President Barack Obama has wisely ordered an internal review of the administration's options in Afghanistan before proceeding with the current plan to send 30,000 more troops, which would nearly double the 32,000 fighting there. For the sake of the country, his presidency and the peace and stability of South Asia, Obama should take US-led military escalation off the table. Instead he should focus on devising a regional strategy to stabilize Afghanistan and strengthen Pakistan. Escalating the occupation of Afghanistan would bleed us of the resources we need for economic recovery, further destabilize Pakistan, open a rift with our European allies and negate the positive effects of withdrawing from Iraq on our image in the Muslim world. Escalation would have all these negative consequences without securing a better future for the Afghan people or increasing US security.


There's no denying that the situation has deteriorated over the past few years; the Taliban now threaten to take over large parts of Afghanistan. But more US forces will not bring stability. We are losing the war not because we have had too few troops but because our presence has turned the Afghan people against us, swelling the ranks of the Taliban.

Any good will the US military once enjoyed has long since been destroyed by airstrikes that have killed civilians. Human Rights Watch reports that at least 321 Afghan civilians died in NATO or US air raids in 2007. According to the UN, many more were killed the following year. Sending more troops will not win back the hearts and minds of their loved ones. The conspicuous corruption of the Karzai government has also taken a toll. The United States is now viewed as propping up an unpopular regime that New York Times reporter Dexter Filkins describes as seeming "to exist for little more than the enrichment of those who run it," and "contributing to the collapse of public confidence...and to the resurgence of the Taliban."

Adding 30,000 troops might be enough to keep the government from falling in the short term, but it will not be nearly enough to wage the kind of counterinsurgency some Obama advisers advocate. For that, some military experts estimate, we may need as many as 600,000. But even a force one-quarter that size would be an immense burden on the US economy, given our debt from the financial crisis. It would almost certainly mean the postponement, if not the end, of Obama's proposals for universal healthcare and a green economy.

It is doubtful that even a major counterinsurgency could succeed. Indeed, it may only engender more resistance and encourage support for the Taliban in Pakistan to stop what would be seen as the advancement of US and Indian interests. If we learned anything from the British and the Soviets, it is that Afghans fiercely resist outside powers and that some in Pakistan are eager to prevent outsiders from controlling its neighbor, especially if those outsiders have good relations with India. Afghanistan is called "the burial ground of empires" for good reason.

In recent Congressional testimony Defense Secretary Robert Gates seemed to rule out the more ambitious goal of stabilizing Afghanistan, suggesting instead the narrower goal of preventing it from being a launching pad for terrorism. But he acknowledged even that would require more troops. Gates did not explain why he would commit more troops to keep Afghanistan from being a terrorist haven when Al Qaeda already operates freely in parts of Pakistan and when the Taliban and Islamist terror groups have sanctuaries in Pakistan's tribal areas. Indeed, the effect of military operations in Afghanistan has been to push Islamists across the border into the tribal areas and Pakistan's North West Frontier Province.

The key to defeating Al Qaeda and its extremist protectors lies with the Pakistani government and its ability to control its remote territories. But there's the rub: major groups within Pakistan's military and intelligence services are reluctant to act against Pakistan's extremists for fear it would help the United States and India gain control over Afghanistan. Thus military escalation would likely counter our efforts to get Pakistan's government to secure its territory against Al Qaeda. Worse, expanding the war may only deepen divisions in Pakistan and further weaken its fragile democratic government. Even if US escalation achieves the limited goal of denying Al Qaeda a presence in Afghanistan, it could lead to the destabilization of Pakistan, with devastating implications for regional and international security. As Andrew Bacevich, a retired Army colonel and professor of history and international relations at Boston University, recently wrote, "To risk the stability of that nuclear-armed state in the vain hope of salvaging Afghanistan would be a terrible mistake."

By any measure, the disintegration of nuclear Pakistan would pose a much greater threat to our national security than would the continued presence of Al Qaeda in remote border areas. In fact, the value of Afghanistan and Pakistan as Al Qaeda safe havens is greatly exaggerated. Pakistan's tribal areas are of limited use in training extremists to blend into US society or learn how to fly airplanes or make explosives (most of the planning for the 9/11 attacks took place in Germany and Florida, not Afghanistan). Nor is this remote, isolated area a good location for directing a terror campaign, recruiting members or threatening global commerce. That is why Al Qaeda is a decentralized network whose leaders in Pakistan can offer little more than moral support and encouragement. American safety thus depends not on eliminating these faraway safe havens but on common-sense counterterrorist and security measures--intelligence cooperation, police work, border control and the occasional surgical use of special forces to disrupt imminent terrorist attacks.

Instead of more troops, we need a regional diplomatic strategy aimed at replacing the US-led NATO occupation with a multinational coalition that would bring about a power-sharing arrangement and new governing structure. This would include more moderate elements of the Taliban who reject Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups and would help enforce a halt to the violence. Such a plan would have a better chance of isolating Al Qaeda in Pakistan and giving that country's government the space it needs to take on extremists.

It won't be easy for an international coalition to stabilize Afghanistan, but it will have a better chance if it has few US fingerprints. Therefore, Obama should make clear that this regional strategy envisions withdrawing troops and reconstituting the mission under UN, not NATO, auspices. We may associate Afghanistan with 9/11, but actually it now poses a regional problem, not a US security threat. It is inextricably tied to the geopolitics of Central and South Asia; its problems must be solved by the region's powers, albeit with our diplomatic and financial contributions to development and reconstruction. Progress in stabilizing Afghanistan depends on progress on Pakistani-Indian relations. It also depends on constructive involvement by Iran, which has an interest in tamping down the narcotics trade and in preventing a return of the Taliban. China and Russia have interests in Afghanistan, too, and can contribute to its reconstruction.

Including these regional powers in a multinational coalition and providing it with diplomatic support will not be easy. But it is a task more worthy of President Obama's pledge to make the United States a respected world leader again than sending more young men and women to die in the mountains and deserts of Afghanistan, which would make this Obama's war. The decision he makes in the coming weeks about Afghanistan will tell us a lot about whether his presidency will succeed in restoring America or will fall victim to a futile war in a distant land.
[Baca]

US Warns of Battle Worse Than Iraq in Afghanistan - By AFP

Tuesday, 10 February

Download PDF

[Baca]

Kissinger Sent to Russia to Cut New World Order Deal - By Kurt Nimmo

February 7, 2009 Global Research, Infowars

It is yet another glaring example there is no difference between Bush, Obama, or anybody else anointed by the global elite to serve as presidential window dressing — the Daily Telegraph reports this morning that former Reichsminister of State and Rockefeller minion Henry Kissinger was dispatched by the Obama administration to talk with Russian president Dmitry Medvedev about reducing stockpiles of nuclear warheads.

“The decision to send Mr. Kissinger to Moscow, taken by Mr Obama when he was still president-elect, is part of a plan to overcome probable Republican objections in Congress,” reports Adrian Blomfield, Moscow correspondent for the British newspaper. It is said the “secret negotiations” were conducted in December.

Obama, of course, runs nothing and the reprehensible octogenarian war criminal Kissinger was dispatched on orders of the elite, not Obama. It is said Kissinger had a sit-down with former Russian boss Vladimir Putin at his country house outside of Moscow. “While the details of the ambitious initiative are yet to be revealed, the proposal to return to the negotiating table after eight years of reluctance in Washington has been welcomed in Britain and elsewhere,” reports the Daily Telegraph.

No doubt a fly on the wall of Putin’s country house would reveal other topics of discussion, as the elite and the military-industrial complex have made trillions on the phony “Cold War” and its subsequent permutations over the decades and really has no desire to slash nuclear warheads, not unless they can make a bunch of money in the process.

“Mr Obama apparently chose Mr Kissinger for his consummate diplomatic skills and his popularity in Moscow, an affection earned by his open acknowledgment of Russia’s international resurgence.”

Kissinger’s “consummate diplomatic skills” are well-known — over the years he has micromanaged the bombing of small and defense countries and is responsible for the murder of millions of people, most notably a few million Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Indonesians. It is absurd to think Obama chose Kissinger or anybody else for that matter. Obama, like all previous presidents in the modern era, is little more than a wind-up doll with notable oratory skills and a knack for reading teleprompters.

Along with Obama foreign policy guru and notorious Russia-hater Zbigniew Brzezinski, Kissinger is a Rockefeller functionary and Trilateral Commission member. He is also a prominent Bilderberg member and long time member of the Council on Foreign Relations. He worked for the Rockefeller Brothers Fund as director of its Special Studies Project.

The CFR, Trilateral Commission, and the Bilderbergers have one objective — to create world government under the guise of a New World Order.

It is safe to say the meeting with Medvedev and Putin had more to do with the New World Order than reducing the number of nukes in Russia and the United States. Last month, Kissinger went on the pages of the International Herald Tribune and called for a New World Order. During an interview with CNBC’s Mark Haines and Erin Burnett on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange, Kissinger said the anointment of Barack Obama represents an “opportunity” to create a New World Order “at a moment when there is upheaval in many parts of the world simultaneously,” never mind the fact these upheavals are orchestrated by the elite and the international bankers.

Of more immediate importance than any number of nuclear warheads is Russia’s strategic relationship with China and Iran and its relations with Cuba, Venezuela and Brazil. Moreover, Putin and the Russians have vehemently opposed the Soros/Freedom House/CIA sponsored revolutions in former Soviet republics and have signaled their intention to resist these globalist sponsored so-called revolutions. “A system of permanent revolutions, rose revolutions or some others, is the most dangerous,” Putin told Interfax on December 23, 2004, well before the U.S. orchestrated provocation in South Ossetia.

It is no secret, as well, the globalists are irked by Russia’s nationalization of the Yukos oil-producing division by Rosnfet. Putin became somewhat of a hero to the anti-globalist movement when he wrestled “power from multinational corporations, multilateral institutions, and the global economic system they promote,” as Liliana N. Proskuryakova described it. In addition, the Russians have consistently resisted the loan-sharking operations of the global elite, most notably in regard to the IMF and the World Bank. Between 2000 and 2004, Putin persistently refused to borrow from these institutions.

Now that the banksters and neolibs have managed to knock Russia and other oil-producing nations down a few notches — due largely to artificially induced falling oil prices — it is time for them to strike a new deal with Russia as the New World Order scheme gains momentum.

Thus it is fair to say Kissinger’s meeting with Medvedev and Putin had less to do with nuclear stockpiles than it had to do with offering a deal the Russians may not be able to refuse.

In short, Kissinger’s trip was likely what it appears to be — a meeting between mob bosses as they set about to carve up their respective spheres of influence.
[Baca]

Revisiting Iran Revolution - By Aijaz Zaka Syed

Saturday, 07 February 2009 13:23

'It was great watching Iranian students, bursting with revolutionary fervor and idealism.' 6 February 2009 Dubai Iran is celebrating 30 years of its Islamic revolution. Al-Jazeera English, the Middle East's favorite television network, has been running a great series based on interviews and first-person accounts to mark the occasion. I guess I had been too young and too far to follow the cataclysmic events in Iran three decades ago. However, growing up in India, one had had the opportunity of watching people who were affected by the revolution. Hyderabad, a citadel of Muslim culture in India, is home to a large Iranian population and has had close, historical relations with Persia. Many young Iranians studied in Indian universities and colleges. Even though one really didn't grasp the significance of the fall of a 2,500-year-old monarchy at the time, it was great watching Iranian students, bursting with revolutionary fervor and idealism, pitch for a new world order inspired by Islam, rather than one dictated by 'big Satan' or 'small Satan.' They would organize photo exhibitions of the anti-Shah movement or screening of Mustapha Akkad's classics like "Lion of the Desert" and "The Message." At times, they would turn to the heart-warming poetry of Iqbal, the great South Asian poet who wrote both in Urdu and Persian languages. Whoever thought revolution would be so much fun! Today, as Iran revisits the revolution, all those childhood memories and images have come flooding back. And one realizes with a shock that it's been three decades since those watershed events that left an imprint on many an impressionable mind at the time. How time flies! Perhaps 30 years are nothing in the history of nations. Besides, in these three decades, little has changed in Iran's relations with the West, especially the United States. It's as though time has stood still since 1979. America has yet to get over its humiliation after its man, Reza Shah Pahlavi, was booted out. It continues to see the Islamic Republic as the fount of all problems and woes in the Middle East. Under George W. Bush, this anti-Iran policy was taken to absurd lengths with the U.S. cowboy president condemning the country to the company of Iraq and North Korea. Iran has not been found wanting in reciprocating these sentiments. The superpower remains the Great Satan in the Islamic republic's eyes – at least in official rhetoric. The Iran-U.S. relationship serves as a case example for the rest of the Middle East. Islam's teachings urging resistance against oppression and injustice did play a seminal role in spawning the movement that brought down Shah's powerful but corrupt and totalitarian regime. But America cannot disown its own role in sowing the seeds of change. Washington's short-sighted policies, especially the CIA's role in bringing down the elected government of Prime Minister Mossadeq – the region's first - and propping up of the discredited monarch in the face of fierce popular opposition also paved the way for the rule of ayatollahs. The more the shah tried to force his fiercely proud, patriotic and religious people into the 'liberal' ways of the West the more they turned to their faith and ancient culture and values. While the Iranians identified with the Palestinians and Arabs, the shah was playing around with the Israelis. Savak, the dreaded secret service agency, was trained and aided by Israel's Mossad. And the more force he used to suppress dissent and democratic and religious forces led by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the stronger they became. The kind of mass protests Iran witnessed in those months and years, with young men and women throwing themselves before the marching tanks were never seen in the Middle East before and haven't been observed since. By identifying itself with the shah and protecting his loathed regime, America invited upon itself the wrath and anger of the Iranian people. In a way, the Americans were right in standing by the shah. After all, he was paying for implementing policies that were dictated by the Americans and the West. Even today, the West and Iran are not able to make peace with each other, because both find it difficult to let go of their unpleasant, shared past and come to terms with their present and future. The United States still hasn't forgotten how it had to leave Tehran in undignified haste after the 444-day long siege of the U.S. embassy by Iranian students. But more than the Americans, it's the Iranian people who have reasons to be unhappy with Washington. Iran continues to pay for the shah's crimes against his people and the U.S. excesses. Even though the majority of the Iranian population today was born after the revolution and is under 30 years old, the West's interventionist policies in the past as well as its current vilification of Iran have poisoned their view of the West. They blame all of their woes and international isolation on the United States – a view that is impossible to counter. The late shah had plenty of warts and flaws. However, what really proved his undoing was his unquestioning fealty and abject loyalty to Uncle Sam, often at the expense of his people's interests. So if anyone was responsible for the monarch's downfall and ignominious exit, it was Uncle Sam. Reza Shah's nemesis was his own mentor and master. There are many Reza Shahs in the Muslim world today. Similar tales of exploitation and victimization at the hands of big powers are galore. The United States has drawn no lessons from the Iran fiasco. Even though it claims to champion democracy and freedom, it continues to impose its own colonial agenda and writ on the Middle East against its people's will. The historical manipulation and maneuvering of Arab and Muslim states – from Palestine to Pakistan - while patronizing and pampering Israel continually fills and multiplies the ranks of America haters. I don't know if the new U.S. president could change this reprehensible history of his country's engagement with the Muslim world. Perhaps it's too much to ask for one term. But let's hope he'd at least give it a try. The hero's welcome Turkish Prime Minister Recep Erdogan received back home after he gave an earful to Israel's President Shimon Peres in Davos and walked out of the World Economic Forum in protest over Gaza offers you an insight into how Muslims think. Having long suffered spineless wonders, Muslims are positively elated when they spot a courageous and self-respecting leader - a rarity for them - who is not afraid of confronting big bullies and saying it as it is. Men like Erdogan give them hope, restoring their dignity and confidence in themselves. If the West indeed wants things to change for the better in the Muslim world, it should encourage and engage leaders like Erdogan, rather than self-serving autocrats. For, as Santayana warned: "Those who cannot remember the past, are condemned to repeat it." - Aijaz Zaka Syed is Opinion Editor of Khaleej Times. He contributed this article to PalestineChronicle.com. Write to him at \n aijaz@khaleejtimes.com This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .

[Baca]

Doug Casey on 2009: Another Year of Shock and Awe - By Casey Research (LATEST UPDATE - 14/2/09)

11 Feburary, 2009

In their annual forecast edition, the editors of BIG GOLD asked Casey Research Chairman and contrarian investor Doug Casey to provide his predictions and thoughts on issues everyone’s thinking about these days. Read what he has to say on the economy, deficits, inflation, and gold…

The $1.1 Trillion Budget Deficit

My reaction is that the people in the government are totally out of control. A poker player would say the government is “on tilt,” placing wild, desperate bets in the hope of getting rescued by good luck.

The things they’re doing are not only unproductive, they’re the exact opposite of what should be done. The country got into this mess by living beyond its means for more than a generation. That’s the message from the debt that’s burdening so many individuals; debt is proof that you’re living above your means. The solution is for people to significantly reduce their standard of living for a while and start building capital. That’s what saving is about, producing more than you consume. The government creating funny money – money out of nothing – doesn’t fix anything. All it does is prolong the problem and make it worse by destroying the currency.

Over several generations, huge distortions and misallocations of capital have been cranked into the economy, inviting levels of consumption that are unsustainable. In fact, Americans refer to themselves as consumers. That’s degrading and ridiculous. You should be first and foremost a producer, and a consumer only as a consequence.

In any event, the government is going to destroy the currency, which will be a mega-disaster. And they’re making the depression worse by holding interest rates at artificially low levels, which discourages savings – the exact opposite of what’s needed. They’re trying to prop up a bankrupt system. And, at this point, it’s not just economically bankrupt, but morally and intellectually bankrupt. What they should be doing is recognize that they’re bankrupt and then start rebuilding. But they’re not, so it’s going to be a disaster.

The U.S. Economy in 2009

My patented answer, when asked what it will be like, is that this is going to be so bad, it will be worse than even I think it’s going to be. I think all the surprises are going to be on the downside; don’t expect friendly aliens to land on the roof of the White House and present the government with a magic solution. We’re still very early in this thing. It’s not going to just blow away like other post-war recessions. One reason that it’s going to get worse is that the biggest shoe has yet to drop... interest rates are now at all-time lows, and the bond market is much, much bigger than the stock market. What’s inevitable is much higher interest rates. And when they go up, that will be the final nail in the coffins of the stock and real estate markets, and it will wipe out a huge amount of capital in the bond market. And higher interest rates will bring on more bankruptcies.

The bankruptcies will be painful, but a good thing, incidentally. We can’t hope to see the bottom until interest rates go high enough to encourage people to save. The way you become wealthy is by producing more than you consume, not consuming more than you produce.

Deflation vs. Inflation

First of all, deflation is a good thing. Its bad reputation is just one of the serious misunderstandings that most people have. In deflation, your money becomes worth more every year. It’s a good thing because it encourages people to save, it encourages thrift. I’m all for deflation. The current episode of necessary and beneficial deflation will, however, be cut short because Bernanke, as he’s so eloquently pointed out, has a printing press and will use it to create as many dollars as needed.

So at this point I would start preparing for inflation, and I wouldn’t worry too much about deflation. The only question is the timing.

It’s too early to buy real estate right now, although a fixed-rate mortgage could go a long way toward offsetting bad timing. It would let you make your money on the depreciation of the mortgage, as opposed to the appreciation of the asset. Still, I wouldn’t touch housing with a 10-foot pole – there’s been immense overbuilding, immense inventory. And people forget: a house isn’t an investment, it’s a consumer good. It’s like a toothbrush, suit of clothes, or a car; it just lasts a little bit longer. An investment – say, a factory – can create new wealth. Houses are strictly expense items. Forget about buying the things for the unpaid mortgage; before this is over, you’ll buy them for back taxes. But then you’ll have to figure out how to pay the utilities and maintenance. The housing bear market has a long way to run.

The U.S. Dollar and the Day of Reckoning

It’s very hard to predict the timing on these things. The financial markets and the economy itself are going up and down like an elevator with a lunatic at the controls. My feeling is that the fate of the dollar is sealed. People forget that there are 6 or 8 trillion dollars – who knows how many – outside of the United States, and they’re hot potatoes. Foreigners are going to recognize that the dollar is an unbacked smiley-face token of a bankrupt government. My advice is to get out of dollars. In fact, take advantage of the ultra-low interest rates; borrow as many dollars as you can long-term and at a fixed rate and put the money into something tangible, because the dollar is going to reach its intrinsic value.

The Recession

This isn’t a recession, it’s a depression. A depression is a period when most people’s standard of living falls significantly. It can also be defined as a time when distortions and misallocations of capital are liquidated, as well as a time when the business cycle climaxes. We don’t have time here, unfortunately, to explore all that in detail. But this is the real thing. And it’s going to drag on much longer than most people think. It will be called the Greater Depression, and it’s likely the most serious thing to happen to the country since its founding. And not just from an economic point of view, but political, sociological, and military.

For a number of reasons, wars usually occur in tough economic times. Governments always like to find foreigners to blame for their problems, and that includes other countries blaming the U.S. In the end, I wouldn’t be surprised to see violence, tax revolt, or even parts of the country trying to secede. I don’t think I can adequately emphasize how serious this thing is likely to get. Nothing is certain, but it seems to me the odds are very, very high for an absolutely world-class disaster.

Gold’s Performance in 2008

The big surprise to me is how low gold is right now. It’s well known that even if we use the government’s statistics, gold would have to reach $2,500 an ounce to match its 1980 high. I don’t necessarily buy the theories that the government and some bullion banks are suppressing the price of gold. Of course, with everything else going on, the last thing the powers-that-be want is a stampede into gold. That would be the equivalent of shooting a gun in a crowded theatre; it could set off a real panic. But at the same time, I don’t see how they can effectively suppress the price. Either way, the good news is that gold is about the cheapest thing out there. Remember, it’s the only financial asset that’s not simultaneously someone else’s liability. So I would take advantage of today’s price and buy more gold. I know I’m doing just that.

Gold Volatility

Gold will remain volatile but trend upward. I don’t pay attention to daily fluctuations, which can be caused by any number of trivial things. Gold is going to the moon in the next couple of years.

Gold Stocks

Last year, it seemed to me that we were still climbing the Wall of Worry and that the next stage would be the Mania. But what I failed to read was the public’s indirect involvement through the $2 trillion in hedge funds. On top of that, while the prices of gold stocks weren’t that high, the number of shares out and the number of companies were increasing dramatically. Finally, the costs of mining and exploration rose immensely, which limited their profitability.

The good news is that relative to the price of gold, gold stocks are at their cheapest level in history. I still have my gold stocks and the fact is, I’m buying more. I’m not selling, because I think we’re starting another bull market. And this one is going to be much steeper and much quicker than the last one. I’m not a perma-bull on any asset class, but in this case I’m forced to go into the gold stocks. They’re the cheapest asset class out there, and the one with the highest potential.
[Baca]

U.S. Taxpayers Risk $9.7 Trillion on Bailout Programs - By Mark Pittman and Bob Ivry (LATEST UPDATE - 14/2/09)

U.9 February 2009 , Bloomberg

The stimulus package the U.S. Congress is completing would raise the government’s commitment to solving the financial crisis to $9.7 trillion, enough to pay off more than 90 percent of the nation’s home mortgages.

The Federal Reserve, Treasury Department and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation have lent or spent almost $3 trillion over the past two years and pledged up to $5.7 trillion more. The Senate is to vote this week on an economic-stimulus measure of at least $780 billion. It would need to be reconciled with an $819 billion plan the House approved last month.

Only the stimulus bill to be approved this week, the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program passed four months ago and $168 billion in tax cuts and rebates enacted in 2008 have been voted on by lawmakers. The remaining $8 trillion is in lending programs and guarantees, almost all under the Fed and FDIC. Recipients’ names have not been disclosed.

“We’ve seen money go out the back door of this government unlike any time in the history of our country,” Senator Byron Dorgan, a North Dakota Democrat, said on the Senate floor Feb. 3. “Nobody knows what went out of the Federal Reserve Board, to whom and for what purpose. How much from the FDIC? How much from TARP? When? Why?”

Financial Rescue

The pledges, amounting to almost two-thirds of the value of everything produced in the U.S. last year, are intended to rescue the financial system after the credit markets seized up about 18 months ago. The promises are composed of about $1 trillion in stimulus packages, around $3 trillion in lending and spending and $5.7 trillion in agreements to provide aid. The total already tapped has decreased about 1 percent since November, mostly because foreign central banks are using fewer dollars in currency-exchange agreements called swaps.

Federal Reserve lending to banks peaked at a record $2.3 trillion in December, dropping to $1.83 trillion by last week. The Fed balance sheet is still more than double the $880 billion it was in the week before Sept. 17 when it agreed to accept lower-quality collateral.

The worst financial crisis in two generations has erased $14.5 trillion, or 33 percent, of the value of the world’s companies since Sept. 15; brought down Bear Stearns Cos. and Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.; and led to the takeover of Merrill Lynch & Co. by Bank of America Corp.

The $9.7 trillion in pledges would be enough to send a $1,430 check to every man, woman and child alive in the world. It’s 13 times what the U.S. has spent so far on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to Congressional Budget Office data, and is almost enough to pay off every home mortgage loan in the U.S., calculated at $10.5 trillion by the Federal Reserve.

‘All the Stops’

“The Fed, Treasury and FDIC are pulling out all the stops to stop any widespread systemic damage to the economy,” said Dana Johnson, chief economist for Comerica Inc. in Dallas and a former senior economist at the central bank. “The federal government is on the hook for an awful lot of money but I think it’s needed to help the financial system recover.”

Bloomberg News tabulated data from the Fed, Treasury and FDIC and interviewed regulators, economists and academic researchers to gauge the full extent of the government’s rescue effort.

Commitments may expand again soon. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner postponed until tomorrow an announcement that may invite private investment as a way to clear toxic debt from bank balance sheets. Measures that have been settled include a new round of injections of taxpayer funds into banks, targeted at those identified by regulators as most in need of additional capital, people briefed on the matter said.

Program Delay

The government is already backing $301 billion of Citigroup Inc. securities and another $118 billion from Bank of America. The government hasn’t yet paid out on any of the guarantees.

The Fed said Friday that it is delaying the start a $200 billion program called the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility, or TALF, to revive the market for securities based on consumer loans such as credit-card, auto and student borrowings.

Most of the spending programs are run out of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, where Geithner served as president. He was sworn in as Treasury secretary on Jan. 26.

When Congress approved the TARP on Oct. 3, Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and then Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson acknowledged the need for transparency and oversight. The Federal Reserve so far is refusing to disclose loan recipients or reveal the collateral they are taking in return. Collateral is an asset pledged by a borrower in the event a loan payment isn’t made.

Fed Sued

Bloomberg requested details of Fed lending under the Freedom of Information Act and filed a federal lawsuit against the central bank Nov. 7 seeking to force disclosure of borrower banks and their collateral. Arguments in the suit may be heard as soon as this month, according to the court docket. Bloomberg asked the Treasury in an FOIA request Jan. 28 for a detailed list of the securities it planned to guarantee for Citigroup and Bank of America. Bloomberg hasn’t received a response to the request.

The Bloomberg lawsuit is Bloomberg LP v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 08-CV-9595, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).
[Baca]

Hmmm... A Trillion Here... A Trillion There...- By Bill Bonner (LATEST UPDATE - 14/2/09)

11 February 2009 The Daily Reckoning

The news this morning is as grey and damp as the weather.

First, the U.S. stock market did nothing yesterday. The Dow ended down 9 measly points. The Dow is about 10% above its November low; have we seen the rebound already?

Oil slipped slightly - down to $39. And gold lost $21. While some may see the drop in the gold price as disheartening, we see it as an opportunity to grab some more of the precious metal while the price is relatively low.

The Banque de France says the country's GDP is falling. It's expected to walk backwards by about 1% this year.

The Sarkozy government announced a $12 billion program to support France's auto industry. "We'll give you money," he said, "but you've got to promise not to cut salaries or close down."

Nissan, 40% owned by Renault, announced it was cutting 20,000 jobs worldwide - 9% of its workforce.

Japan is facing an "unimaginable" contraction, its central bank's chief economist warned yesterday. Orders are drying up... production is falling off... and consumers can't seem to find anything they want to buy. Industrial production in Japan fell a record 9.6% in December. The country is looking at an annual GDP decline of 1.7%.

Growth is collapsing throughout all of Asia. Singapore, for example, went from healthy 5.3% growth last year to minus 2.4% this year. India and China are still projecting decent rates of growth - though significantly below their highs. We'll see how long that growth continues...

And poor Latvia. Its economy is not just walking backward... it's running. Today's Financial Times tells us that output is falling there too at a depression rate of more than 10% per year.

But the big news yesterday was the sell-off in the bond market.

"All eyes on sudden spike in US Treasury yields," says the headline in the Financial Times.

The yield on the U.S. 10-year note rose above 3% for the first time in three months. The two-year note, meanwhile, moved above 1% yield. What does it mean?

We are bearish on U.S. government paper - in all its forms. And here's why. The latest estimate from Goldman Sachs puts US government borrowing for this fiscal year at $2.5 trillion. Meanwhile, foreigners are showing less and less interest in U.S. debt. They're switching to short term paper - bills and notes, which are less vulnerable to inflation and currency declines. And they're pulling out of U.S. Treasury market generally. The total percentage of U.S. debt owned by foreigners is falling from 60% down to about 40%... a huge drop.

Either one of two things will happen. If the government funds its deficits honestly - by borrowing from willing lenders - this huge extra demand for credit will force up yields... thereby lowering bond prices. Or, if the government resorts to "monetizing the debt" - that is, funding its debt with printing press money - investors will flee bonds, in fear of higher inflation.

Either way, it will be bad news for bond prices.

Remember, we are only in the Boondoggle Stage of the crisis. Using the collapsing economy as an excuse to waste money, the pols are having the time of their lives. Does your community need a bridge? A new drainage system? A shooting range for blind people? A study of the mating habits of fire ants (how do they get together without getting burnt?) Even in the best of times, politicians have trouble saying 'no.' Now, 'yes' is the answer to every request.

What strange madness is this? Why would anyone think the economy will be made better off by squandering money now on projects that were deemed unworthy or unaffordable only a few months ago? The country got into trouble because people squandered too much money; now they think they will get out of trouble by letting the government squander money. But we'll have to wonder about that later. Now, we're just trying to keep up with the torrent of boondoggles, bailouts and bunkum.

Let's see, Bloomberg reports that about $3 trillion has been spent fighting the downturn in the last two years by the United States of America. We pass over the issue of whether this has done any good, and stick to our figures... Another $5.7 trillion has been pledged. Plus, this latest Obama Bailout will cost about a trillion more.

Hmmm... a trillion here... a trillion there... pretty soon you're talking about real money.

"US Taxpayers Risk $9.7 Trillion on Bailout Programs," Bloomberg figures, or about two-thirds the entire national GDP.
Hmmm... that's about as much as the total burden of household mortgages. In other words, instead of all these boondoggles, bailouts and bunkum, Congress could have just paid off everyone's mortgage.

*** Inflation is now only a problem because there isn't any. In the United States, the consumer price index crested at nearly 6% last year. Now, it appears to be headed down to zero... and perhaps below. That is what the feds are desperate to avoid. When consumer prices fall, consumers become obsessively frugal. They know that if they just wait, they'll be able to get what they want at a lower price. And then, why not wait a little longer... and get the item even cheaper still? This "propensity to save," as economists call it, becomes self-reinforcing. As consumers stop spending, lower demand causes prices to fall further... which incites consumers to dilly dally even more... which causes prices to sink again.

That is the Japanese-style 'deflationary cycle' that gives Ben Bernanke a nightmare.

But we explained yesterday, there's not much he can do about it - at least nothing honest. Rupert Murdoch says the financial crisis has caused $50 trillion in wealth to vanish. The feds have put back only $3 trillion (arguably) so far. Just looking at the numbers, it doesn't seem as though prices will be rising anytime soon. For every dollar the feds put into the system, $17 disappears.

What's a fellow to do? The only way out, as near as we can see, is the road taken by Gideon Gono. "Monetizing the debt"... "quantitative easing"... "printing press money" - it will no doubt go by a number of different euphemisms and code words. It's what happens when the Fed buys U.S. Treasury debt directly. For this purpose, it simply creates a ledger transaction... effectively adding to the money supply.

But even printing money does not automatically and immediately cause consumer price inflation. According to classical economic theory, the shelves must be cleared and the excess capacity must be re-absorbed before prices will rise. That could take a very long time. But we're not sure it works like that. If money were suddenly dropped from helicopters, as Ben Bernanke once pledged to do, merchants probably wouldn't wait for their inventory to disappear before raising prices. They'd be concerned that there were giving away something that was valuable in exchange for something that was not.

When this kind of inflation happens - perhaps worthy of the adjectival modifier 'hyper' - it can happen very suddenly, and very violently. That is why we suggest selling U.S. paper now... even if it turns out to be very early.

*** Drought... fires... plagues...

The poor Australians are battling blazes all over Victoria province. The total cost is climbing up towards 200 dead... and half a billion Australian dollars worth of property damage.

There's a terrible drought in China too... the worst in 50 years. Peking has put up 10 million euros to help the peasants.
Chris Mayer sends this note:

"China is in the midst of its worst drought since 1951. Beijing has gone 100 days without rain. Nearly one-fifth of China's wheat harvest is at risk and over 1.8 million head of livestock are short of water. Over 3.7 million people face water shortages, as do nearly 23 million acres of farmland. Rivers and lakes are drying up and farmers are drilling deeper than ever to reach falling water tables.

"As is the way with these things, it couldn't happen at a worse time. The economy is clearly slumping along with the rest of the world. Unemployment is on the rise. And now food prices may also climb. Not a good combination for a country that already has a fair amount of unrest bubbling just below the surface.

"Water mismanagement has long been a problem in China. Wasteful irrigation is one problem. So is pollution and mass urbanization to the cities, particularly in the more industrialized - but water-parched - areas in the north.

"The government knows this and has swung into action with a number of emergency measures, including financial aid for farmers. One of these measures also increases the subsidies to pay for irrigation projects.

"Over the next several years, I think irrigation equipment is going to play an ever-larger role in helping reduce water use. Water problems will get only worse before they get better. The companies that make the tools and have the expertise to solve those problems will be very valuable. And so will their shares."

*** And from Argentina comes bad news. Not only is the country parched, the drought seems to be centered on your editor's farm.

"It's dry... very dry..." says the farm manager. "We got almost no rain this season. The reservoirs are empty. There's no way to keep the cattle. There's nothing for them to eat. We just have sell as many of them as we can."
So far, the cattle business has not been a big winner for us.

"When the grass is too dry and too short," the farm manager explained, "the cattle pick up a lot of dirt and sand when they eat. The sand wears down their teeth, so even if they had good grass, they wouldn't be able to put on much weight. And since they can't find much to eat and can't eat it very well, they don't have the energy to go very far looking for better grass. It's a vicious circle. But that's what we've got up here... a difficult place to raise cattle."

Meanwhile, here in Europe, there's water everywhere. Fields are flooded in England. In France, it's been raining for days.
[Baca]

Pelosi Stimulus Casts Shadow Over Obama, America, World - By John Browne (LATEST UPDATE - 14/2/09)

Pe11 February 2009, Euro Pacific Capital

In a sign that may reveal much about the current deal-making environment in Washington, House speaker Nancy Pelosi has outmaneuvered the Obama Administration in the design of the massive $827 billion so-called Economic Stimulus Package. With the collusion of three moderate Republican Senators - Collins, Snowe and Specter - Pelosi may succeed in steering President Obama into supporting a package with which he may secretly disagree.

Despite the Presidential rhetoric of change, the Pelosi plan is Washington at its most habitual. Her version is a massive, pork-laden monster. Tilted heavily towards consumption, only 10 percent of the bill is allocated toward the infrastructure spending that the President talked about so frequently during the campaign. President Obama initially favored a middle-way. It was to be based on massive public spending, but specifically on infrastructure.

Far from restoring the economy to health, the 'pork-barrel' Pelosi plan will likely force the U.S. economy into the catastrophe of acute stagflation and decline, with grave long-term repercussions at home and abroad.

It is clear that we are now headed into an abnormally severe recession, and we may be face-to-face with Second Great Depression. Tell-tale symptoms of Depression include competitive currency devaluations and protective trade measures. Of even greater concern is the historic fact that trade wars too often lead to hot wars. The times of peace and unprecedented prosperity that we have enjoyed for decades are now under threat.

With the stakes this high, Pelosi should have restrained her urge to flex political muscle.

Most economists agree that America has enjoyed unprecedented prosperity, based primarily on excessive U.S. dollar liquidity and unmanageable levels of debt. Thus, any healthy correction would necessarily involve serious deleveraging and a severe recession. After a lot of pain, the economy would rebuild with healthier fundamentals. Infrastructure improvement would aid, but not cause, the eventual recovery.

Recession is the natural cure for the politically inspired profligacy that America has enjoyed for almost 40 years. Unfortunately, the side effects of this medicine, namely the rapid reallocation of labor resources and deflationary damage to debtors, are still unpalatable to pandering politicians.

The Washington regime, particularly members of the Democrat persuasion, leans towards a socialist solution of avoiding recession at any cost. After all, the bills are paid by others, such as taxpayers and holders of U.S. dollars. This results in an increasing amount of other peoples' money being spent on 'public' works that would in other times carry the label 'pork barrel.'

Washington is choosing to pursue the policy of continued and ever-increasing false prosperity, financed eventually by hyper-taxation, hyper-debt and hyper-inflation accompanied by a gradually eroded standard of living. The jobs created by the Bill are by and large non-productive, and will divert resources from the private sector and rob consumers of their power to make free choices in the marketplace.

America's infrastructure is in great need of restoration. By some estimates, for every $1 billion spent on infrastructure, some 35,000 real, wealth-creating jobs are born in the private sphere. For 'just' $100 billion, 3.5 million jobs would result. Furthermore, this middle-way of Obama's likely would have commanded much greater bi-partisan support than the lonely Republican trio which attached their names to Pelosi's bill.

Unfortunately for American and international investors, Speaker Pelosi pressured the President into the worst of all plans. It will likely bring on a economic catastrophe, characterized by depression followed by hyper-stagflation and civil unrest. Pelosi's power-play may buy her political status, but the entire world will pay the price.
[Baca]

Ship of Fools - By Paul Craig Roberts

February 09, 2009 Information Clearinghouse

Is there intelligent life in Washington, DC? Not a speck of it.

The US economy is imploding, and Obama is being led by his government of neconservatives and Israeli agents into a quagmire in Afghanistan that will bring the US into confrontation with Russia, and possibly China, American’s largest creditor.

The January payroll job figures reveal that last month 20,000 Americans lost their jobs every day.

In addition, December’s job losses were revised up by 53,000 jobs from 524,000 to 577,000. The revision brings the two-month job loss to 1,175,000. If this keeps up, Obama’s promised three million new jobs will be wiped out by job losses.

Statistician John Williams (shadowstats.com) reports that this huge number is an understatement. Williams notes that built-in biases in seasonal adjustment factors caused a 118,000 understatement of January job losses, bringing the actual January job loss to 716,000 jobs.

The payroll survey counts the number of jobs, not the number of employed as some people have more than one job. The Household Survey counts the number of people who have jobs. The Household Survey shows that 832,000 people lost their jobs in January and 806,000 in December, for a two month reduction of Americans with jobs of 1,638,000.

The unemployment rate reported in the US media is a fabrication. Williams reports that “during the Clinton Administration, ‘discouraged workers’ those who had given up looking for a job because there were no jobs to be had--were redefined so as to be counted only if they had been ‘discouraged’ for less than a year. This time qualification defined away the bulk of the discouraged workers. Adding them back into the total unemployed, actual unemployment, [according to the unemployment rate methodology used in 1980] rose to 18% in January, from 17.5% in December.”

In other words, without all the manipulations of the data from a government that lies to us every time it opens its mouth, the US unemployment rate is already at depression levels.

How could it be otherwise given the enormous job loss from offshored jobs. It is impossible for a country to create jobs when its corporations are moving production for the American consumer market offshore. When they move the production offshore, they shift US GDP to other countries. The US trade deficit over the past decade has reduced US GDP by $1.5 trillion dollars. That is a lot of jobs.

I have been reporting for years that American university graduates have had to take jobs as waitresses and bartenders. As over-indebted American consumers lose their jobs, they will visit restaurants and bars less frequently. Consequently, Americans with university degrees will not even have jobs waiting on tables and mixing drinks.

US policymakers have ignored the fact that consumer demand in the 21st century has been driven, not by increases in real income, but by increased consumer indebtedness. This fact makes it pointless to try to stimulate the economy by bailing out banks so that they can lend more to consumers. The American consumers have no more capacity to borrow.

With the decline in the values of their principal assets--their homes--with the destruction of half of their pension assets, and with joblessness facing them, Americans cannot and will not spend.

Why bail out GM and Citibank when the firms are moving as many operations offshore as they possibly can?

Much of US infrastructure is in poor shape and needs renewing. However, infrastructure jobs do not produce goods and services that can be sold abroad. The massive commitment to infrastructure does nothing to help the US reduce its massive trade deficit, the financing of which is becoming a major problem. Moreover, when the infrastructure projects are completed, so are the jobs.

At best, assuming Mexicans do not get most of the construction jobs, all Obama’s stimulus program can do is to reduce the number of unemployed temporarily.

Unless US corporations can be required to use American labor to produce the goods and services that they sell in American markets, there is no hope for the US economy. No one in the Obama administration has the wits to address this problem. Thus, the economy will continue to implode.

Adding to the brewing disaster, Obama has been deceived by his military and neoconservative advisers into expanding the war in Afghanistan, a large mountainous country. Obama intends to use the draw-down of US soldiers in Iraq to send 30,000 more American troops to Afghanistan. This would bring the US forces to 60,000--600,000 fewer than US Marine Corps and US Army counterinsurgency guidelines define as the minimum number of soldiers necessary to bring success in Afghanistan--and less than half as many as the army that was unable to occupy Iraq. The Iranians had to bail out the Bush regime by restraining its Shi’ite allies and encouraging them to use the ballot box to attain power and push out the Americans. In Iraq the US troops only had to fight a small Sunni insurgency drawn from a minority of the population. Even so, the US “prevailed” by putting the insurgents on the US payroll and paying them not to fight. The withdrawal agreement was dictated by the Shi’ites. It was not what the Bush regime wanted.

One would think that the experience with the “cakewalk” in Iraq would make the US hesitant to attempt to occupy Afghanistan, an undertaking that would require the US to occupy parts of Pakistan. The US was hard pressed to maintain 150,000 troops in Iraq. Where is Obama going to get another half million soldiers to add to the 150,000 to pacify Afghanistan?

One answer is the rapidly growing massive US unemployment. Americans will sign up to go kill abroad rather than be homeless and hungry at home.

But this solves only half of the problem. Where does the money come from to support an army in the field of 650,000, an army 4.3 times larger than US forces in Iraq, a war that has cost us $3 trillion in out-of-pocket and already incurred future costs. This money would have to be raised in addition to the $3 trillion US budget deficit that is the result of Bush’s financial sector bailout, Obama’s stimulus package, and the rapidly failing economy. When economies tank, as the American one is doing, tax revenues collapse. The millions of unemployed Americans are not paying Social Security, Medicare, and income taxes. The stores and businesses that are closing are not paying federal and state income taxes. Consumers with no money or credit to spend are not paying sales taxes.

The Washington Morons, and morons they are, have given no thought as to how they are going to finance a fiscal year 2009 budget deficit of some two to three trillion dollars.

The practically nonexistent US saving rate cannot finance it.

The trade surpluses of our trading partners, such as China, Japan, and Saudi Arabia, cannot finance it.

The US government really has only two possibilities for financing its budget deficit. One is a second collapse in the stock market, which would drive the surviving investors with what they have left into “safe” US Treasury bonds. The other is for the Federal Reserve to monetize the Treasury debt.

Monetizing the debt means that when no one is willing or able to purchase the Treasury’s bonds, the Federal Reserve buys them by creating bank deposits for the Treasury’s account.

In other words, the Fed “prints money” with which to buy the Treasury’s bonds.

Once this happens, the US dollar will cease to be the reserve currency.

In addition, China, Japan and Saudi Arabia, countries that hold enormous quantities of US Treasury debt in addition to other US dollar assets, will sell, hoping to get out before others.

The US dollar will become worthless, the currency of a banana republic.

The US will not be able to pay for its imports, a serious problem for a country dependent on imports for its energy, manufactured goods, and advanced technology products.

Obama’s Keynesian advisers have learned with a vengeance Milton Friedman’s lesson that the Great Depression resulted from the Federal Reserve permitting a contraction of the supply of money and credit. In the Great Depression good debts were destroyed by monetary contraction. Today bad debts are being preserved by the expansion of money and credit, and the US Treasury is jeopardizing its credit standing and the dollar’s reserve currency status with enormous quarterly bond auctions as far as the eye can see.

Meanwhile, the Russians, overflowing with energy and mineral resources, and not in debt, have learned that the US government is not to be trusted. Russia has watched Reagan’s successors attempt to turn former constituent parts of the Soviet Union into US puppet states with US military bases. The US is trying to ring Russia with missiles that neutralize Russia’s strategic deterrent.

Putin has caught on to “comrade wolf.” He has succeeded in having the president of Kyrgyzstan, a former part of the Soviet Union, evict the US from its military base. This base is essential to America’s ability to supply its soldiers in Afghanistan.

To stop America’s meddling in Russia’s sphere of influence, the Russian government has created a collective security treaty organization comprised of Russia, Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan. Uzbekistan is a partial participant.

In other words, Russia has organized central Asia against US penetration.

To whose agenda is President Obama being hitched? Writing in the English language version of the Swiss newspaper, Zeit-Fragen, Stephen J. Sniegoski reports that leading figures of the neocon conspiracy--Richard Perle, Max Boot, David Brooks, and Mona Charen--are ecstatic over Obama’s appointments. They don’t see any difference between Obama and Bush/Cheney.

Not only are Obama’s appointments moving him into an expanded war in Afghanistan, but the powerful Israel Lobby is pushing Obama toward a war with Iran.

The unreality in which he US government operates is beyond belief. A bankrupt government that cannot pay its bills without printing money is rushing headlong into wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran. According to the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Analysis, the cost to the US taxpayers of sending a single soldier to fight in Afghanistan or Iraq is $775,000 per year!

The world has never seen such total mindlessness. Napoleon’s and Hitler’s march into Russia were rational acts compared to the mindless idiocy of the United States government.

Obama’s war in Afghanistan is the Mad Hatter’s Tea Party. After seven years of conflict, there is still no defined mission or endgame scenario for US forces in Afghanistan. When asked about the mission, a US military official told NBC News, “Frankly, we don’t have one.” NBC reports: “they’re working on it.”

Speaking to House Democrats on February 5, President Obama admitted that the US government does not know what its mission is in Afghanistan and that to avoid “mission creep without clear parameters,” the US “needs a clear mission.”

How would you like to be sent to a war, the point of which no one knows, including the commander-in-chief who sent you to kill or be killed? How, fellow taxpayers, do you like paying the enormous cost of sending soldiers on an undefined mission while the economy collapses?
[Baca]

Lives Have Been Destroyed by the Federal Government - By Mark R. Crovelli

February 10, 2009 Lew Rockwell

One of the hardest things to deal with in the current economic depression is the disgusting hypocrisy of the U.S. congress, the new president, and the members of the Federal Reserve System. It is one thing to be told, as we all are, that we must hand over fat wads of our hard-earned money to these warmongering and thieving snakes or face jail terms, but one feels a whole new level of revulsion when these people make statements to the effect that they, and they alone, are in a position to "save the economy" by "creating jobs." These statements are made by people who have done virtually everything in their power to destroy the American economy over the last few decades, but who have now proclaimed themselves to be our saviors. Only the most naïve and unlearned among us could possibly be falling for the idea that a bunch of self-serving politicians, bureaucrats and bankers are going to "save" us from problems they have caused.

On its face, the idea that politicians, bureaucrats, and bankers could "save" the economy is laughable. These are people, after all, who live exclusively at our expense. That is, these are people whose entire livelihoods are dependent upon taking money away from productive people and spending it on themselves and their favorite wasteful projects. It's true that they do not all share the same ideas about how to spend the money they take from us. Some prefer to use it to blow up innocent people in foreign lands, while others simply want to take our hard-earned money without our consent and hand it over to other people. The bankers, on the other hand, merely content themselves with printing vast amounts of new money out of thin air that they either hand over to the Treasury Department, or gift to their other banker-buddies to lend out at a profit at our expense. Nevertheless, it should be crystal clear that these people do not actually produce anything themselves (except the bankers, who are very skilled counterfeiters of money). They take money from us through taxation and inflation, (and threaten us with severe punishments if we refuse to obey), and then spend every last penny of it – and more – on war, socialized boondoggles, and welfare. These are the people who would have us believe that they can "save" the economy? How exactly would they accomplish such a thing? More taxes, more idiotic socialized projects, more war, and more newly-printed green paper? Do these actions really seem likely to produce a vibrant and healthy economy, or do they seem more like the actions undertaken by the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R.?

They would also very much like for us to believe that they are the only people in the world capable of "creating jobs" in the United States. A more ridiculous idea would be hard to find. Again, these people are only in the business of taking money from productive people, and either wasting it entirely (e.g., war), keeping it themselves, or giving it to other people (e.g., entitlement programs, foreign aid, and paychecks for bureaucrats). As such, any actions undertaken by these people will necessarily depend for funding upon those who are forced to pay taxes; namely, the increasingly-dwindling group of productive people who have not yet lost their jobs in the private sector. Does it really seem possible that this sort of parasitism on the productive people of the United States really can create jobs that produce the things that people actually want? If socialized job creation is the only way out of this economic quagmire, as the politicians would have us believe, then why don't they socialize the entire economy? If it were indeed the case that the federal government can "create" productive jobs better than the private sector, then why don't they take over all aspects of the American economy, and we can all live happily ever-after in a brave, new, socialized America where everyone is enslaved, I mean employed, by the State.

And don't think for a moment that the politicians and bureaucrats are themselves going to help the productive people shoulder this onerous tax burden. On the contrary, politicians and bureaucrats do not actually pay taxes. As Murray Rothbard has noted in this regard:

"If a bureaucrat receives a salary of $5,000 a year and pays $1,000 in 'taxes' to the government, it is quite obvious that he is simply receiving a salary of $4,000 and pays no taxes at all. The heads of the government have simply chosen a complex and misleading accounting device to make it appear that he pays taxes in the same way as any other men making the same income. The UN's arrangement, whereby all its employees are exempt from any income taxation, is far more candid."

Hence, while Mr. Obama is fond of telling us that "we" are going to have to get out of this recession together, what he really means is that those of us who are employed in productive private lines of work in this country are going to have to hand over more and more of our hard-earned money to those people in this country who pay no taxes at all; namely, men like Mr. Obama himself and the rest of the fat, parasitic political and bureaucratic class that infests this country.

Some of the more shameless of the political class in this country, or their academic lackeys, have even tried to convince us that the trillions of dollars they are wasting in Iraq and Afghanistan are going to help us get out of this depression. They have been taking our money and blowing it up in these two dreadfully poor countries year after year, and they would like for us to believe that this senseless destruction of wealth is going to make us richer. Often known as "Military Keynesians," this group is perhaps more aptly described as the "kill ourselves rich" crowd. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that neither you nor I are made better off when the federal government steals our money, hands it over to Lockheed Martin to purchase bombs, and then uses those bombs to blow up Pakistani civilians. The only people who benefit from this forceful expropriation of our money and indifferent murder are the merchants of death occupying lucrative posts at Lockheed, Blackwater and the Pentagon.

What the political and bureaucratic classes are actually accomplishing very well, however, is creating a veritable army of angry men whose lives have been destroyed by the federal government. Many have lost their jobs, thanks to the collapse of the largest artificial economic boom in American history – a boom that was directly caused by the actions of the federal government and the Fed. In addition, thanks to years of merciless and ceaseless money creation by the Fed, this army of men has found that their savings purchase fewer and fewer goods over time. This depreciation of the dollar will inexorably increase astronomically over the next few years as the massive amount of new money the Fed and treasury have already jointly printed, and are planning to print over the coming months and years, floods the system.

This army of angry men has very little to be optimistic about in the near future. At best, they might be able to keep their present jobs in the private sector – shouldering a heavier and heavier portion of the tax burden that funds the congress and president's wars and socialization schemes, while the value of their savings continues to erode into dust. Those who have lost their jobs might be permitted to work on Mr. Obama's "public works" projects, and thereby become virtual slaves to the whims of the political and bureaucratic classes. Many others will simply find it easier to start sucking at the state's teat in the form of unemployment insurance or food stamps, et cetera, and thereby lose all respect for themselves. One thing is certain for every member of this army of angry men, though; every single one of them will now find it very difficult, if not impossible, to carve out a living for himself, on his own terms, and without being at the complete mercy of politicians, bureaucrats, and bankers he has never even met. The age of the independent, responsible, and free American citizen is now dead.

The hour is fast approaching when each and every one of us will have to decide for ourselves whether we will try to fight this devastating government machine, or join it.
[Baca]

MUST-WATCH VIDEO: Worst Economic Collapse Ever (LATEST UPDATE - 15/2/09)

Click on the link below to watch video: Worst Economic Collapse Ever

[Baca]

Economic Crisis "Top Threat to US" - Al Jazeera (LATEST UPDATE - 15/2/09)

February 13, 2009 "Al Jazeera" -- The current global economic crisis remains the top security concern for the US, the country's new Director of National Intelligence has said.

Dennis Blair said in a report to US congress on security on Thursday that the longer the economic recovery, the greater likelihood of "serious damage" to US strategic interests.

Several countries in South America, Africa and the former Soviet Union were unprepared for economic crises and risked "regime-threatening stability" if the situation were to persist.

Blair also said Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network was less capable and effective than it was a year ago, due to the killing or capture of several of its leaders but said pressure must be kept on the group in Pakistan's tribal areas.

And he warned that Taliban fighters had demonstrated "greater aggressiveness and more lethal tactics" in attacks over the past year and expressed concern that efforts to improve governance and development in the nation were being hampered by poor security in many areas and a lack of strong government control.

Nuclear concerns

Blair said global perceptions that the US had sparked much of the current global economic turmoil because of market excesses and inadequate regulation had increased criticism of the country's free market policies.

This in turn would hamper "long-time US objectives" such as the access to national capital markets and increasing domestic demand in Asia.

"It already has increased questioning of US stewardship of the global economy and the international financial structure," Blair said.

He also cautioned that while US intelligence could not be certain that Iran intended to develop nuclear weapons, the nation was "keeping open the option" to develop them.

On the issue of North Korea, Blair said the country is unlikely to use its nuclear weapons unless it feels its survival is at stake.
[Baca]

US Intel Confirms Iran Not Developing Nukes - Press TV (LATEST UPDATE - 15/2/09)

USFebruary 13, 2009 "Press TV" -- -The new chief of US intelligence has confirmed the findings of a 2007 intelligence report that Iran has no nuclear weapons program.

Dennis Blair told the Senate Intelligence Committee that his organization has assessed that Tehran does not have nuclear weapons design and weaponization work.

A National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), issued in November 2007 by the sixteen US intelligence agencies, clarified that Iran was not pursuing a nuclear weapons program.

The 2007 intelligence report was widely seen as a setback for Bush administration efforts to pressure Iran and halt its nuclear program.

The UN nuclear watchdog, which has carried out the highest number of inspections in its history on Iranian nuclear sites, has also found nothing to indicate that the program has diverted toward weaponization.

Blair also acknowledged that Tehran has made significant progress in its uranium enrichment program during the past two years.

"Although we do not know whether Iran currently intends to develop nuclear weapons, we assess Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop them," said the retired admiral.

He, however, did not elaborate on how his organization can assess that Tehran intends at a minimum level to keep open the option to develop nuclear weapons.

The US official added that the intelligence agency believes Iran is unlikely to be able to produce enough enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon before 2013.

"US intelligence assesses that Iran does not currently have a nuclear weapon, and does not yet have enough fissile material for one," he affirmed.

Blair confirmed that the international community remains divided in dealing with the country's nuclear drive. Both Russia and China are against the imposition of additional sanctions on Iran over its nuclear activities.

The UN Security Council, influenced by the Bush administration, has intervened in Iran's nuclear dossier, slapping three rounds of sanctions against Tehran.

Iran, a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), says the only aim of its program is the civilian applications of the technology.
[Baca]

U.S. Now Sees Iran as Pursuing Nuclear Bomb - In A Reversal Since A 2007 Report, U.S. Officials Expect The Islamic Republic To Reach Development Milestones This Year - By Greg Miller (LATEST UPDATE - 15/2/09)

(FF Editorial: Why is the CIA pursuing this line when the Director of National Intelligence, Dennis Blair said that the Economic Crisis is the greatest threat to National Security. Additionally, in the article above, "US Intel Confirms Iran Not Developing Nukes," Dennis Blair has emphatically refuted CIA's claim against Iran. It is clear from the above that a faction of Obama's administration wants WAR as a solution to the growing financial crisis. FF has been warning its readers that this is the ultimate agenda by the War Party and like 9/11 and the War Against Iraq, false evidence will be manufactured to justify war.)

February 13, 2009 "LA Times" -- Reporting from Washington -- Little more than a year after U.S. spy agencies concluded that Iran had halted work on a nuclear weapon, the Obama administration has made it clear that it believes there is no question that Tehran is seeking the bomb.

In his news conference this week, President Obama went so far as to describe Iran's "development of a nuclear weapon" before correcting himself to refer to its "pursuit" of weapons capability.


Obama's nominee to serve as CIA director, Leon E. Panetta, left little doubt about his view last week when he testified on Capitol Hill. "From all the information I've seen," Panetta said, "I think there is no question that they are seeking that capability."

The language reflects the extent to which senior U.S. officials now discount a National Intelligence Estimate issued in November 2007 that was instrumental in derailing U.S. and European efforts to pressure Iran to shut down its nuclear program.

As the administration moves toward talks with Iran, Obama appears to be sending a signal that the United States will not be drawn into a debate over Iran's intent.

"When you're talking about negotiations in Iran, it is dangerous to appear weak or naive," said Joseph Cirincione, a nuclear weapons expert and president of the Ploughshares Fund, an anti-proliferation organization based in Washington.

Cirincione said the unequivocal language also worked to Obama's political advantage. "It guards against criticism from the right that the administration is underestimating Iran," he said.

Iran has long maintained that it aims to generate electricity, not build bombs, with nuclear power. But Western intelligence officials and nuclear experts increasingly view those claims as implausible.

U.S. officials said that although no new evidence had surfaced to undercut the findings of the 2007 estimate, there was growing consensus that it provided a misleading picture and that the country was poised to reach crucial bomb-making milestones this year.

Obama's top intelligence official, Dennis C. Blair, the director of national intelligence, is expected to address mounting concerns over Iran's nuclear program in testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee today.

When it was issued, the NIE stunned the international community. It declared that U.S. spy agencies judged "with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program."

U.S. intelligence officials later said the conclusion was based on evidence that Iran had stopped secret efforts to design a nuclear warhead around the time of the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Often overlooked in the NIE, officials said, was that Iran had not stopped its work on other crucial fronts, including missile design and uranium enrichment. Many experts contend that these are more difficult than building a bomb.

Iran's advances on enrichment have become a growing source of alarm. Since 2004, the country has gone from operating a few dozen centrifuges -- cylindrical machines used to enrich uranium -- to nearly 6,000, weapons experts agree.

By November, Iran had produced an estimated 1,400 pounds of low-enriched uranium, not nearly enough to fuel a nuclear energy reactor, but perilously close to the quantity needed to make a bomb.

A report issued last month by the Institute for Science and International Security concluded that "Iran is moving steadily toward a breakout capability and is expected to reach that milestone during the first half of 2009." That means it would have enough low-enriched uranium to be able to quickly convert it to weapons-grade material.

Tehran's progress has come despite CIA efforts to sabotage shipments of centrifuge components on their way into Iran and entice the country's nuclear scientists to leave.

Iran still faces considerable hurdles. The country touted its launch of a 60-pound satellite into orbit this month. Experts said Iran's rockets would need to be able to carry more than 2,000 pounds to deliver a first-generation nuclear bomb.

And there are indications that the U.S. and Iran are interested in holding serious diplomatic discussions for the first time in three decades. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said this week that his nation was "ready to hold talks based on mutual respect," and Obama indicated that his administration would look for opportunities "in the coming months."

Hassan Qashqavi, spokesman for Iran's Foreign Ministry, on Wednesday warned the U.S. not to wait for Iranian presidential elections this year, because ultimate authority rests with supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

He also said Iran would be patient.

"Since a new administration came to power in the U.S., we do not want to burn the opportunity of President Obama and give him time to change the reality on the ground," Qashqavi said.

But experts said Iran was now close enough to nuclear weapons capability that it may be less susceptible to international pressure.

"They've made more progress in the last five years than in the previous 10," Cirincione said.

greg.miller@latimes.comThis e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Special correspondent Ramin Mostaghim in Tehran contributed to this report.
[Baca]

Alergi mata kanak-kanak

RAMAI kanak-kanak dan remaja yang mengalami penyakit alergi (alahan) mata. Kanak-kanak kerap kali mengalami keadaan mata merah dan mengadu keadaan mata yang tidak selesa.

Dalam bahasa perubatan, penyakit ini dikenali sebagai allergic conjunctivitis. Keadaan ini menyebabkan mereka kerap tidak menghadiri persekolahan dan menimbulkan keresahan para ibu bapa.

Terdapat ramai juga di kalangan ibu bapa dan para guru yang kurang memahami tentang penyakit alergi mata ini dan menyangka keadaan ini boleh berjangkit kepada pelajar-pelajar lain.

Atas alasan tersebut, kanak-kanak dan remaja yang mengalami penyakit alergi mata dilarang menghadiri sesi persekolahan dan boleh menyebabkan mereka ketinggalan dalam pelajaran.

- Punca

Penyakit ini berlaku disebabkan tindak balas alahan pada struktur konjunktiva mata. Tindakbalas alergi ini boleh disebabkan oleh pendedahan kepada:

* debunga

* habuk

* makanan-makanan tertentu (seperti makanan laut, telur dan sebagainya)

* bulu binatang

* asap rokok

* bahan kimia klorin

* minyak wangi dan kosmetik

* lain-lain punca

Penyakit ini bukanlah disebabkan oleh jangkitan kuman dan ia tidak berjangkit sama sekali. Pesakit yang mengalami masalah alergi mata kerap kali turut mengalami penyakit-penyakit alergi lain seperti asma, rhinitis (resdung) dan penyakit alergi kulit.

Kebanyakan pesakit-pesakit juga turut mempunyai sejarah keluarga atau ahli keluarga yang lain turut mengalami penyakit-penyakit alergi seperti yang dinyatakan di atas.

- Gejala klinikal

Penyakit ini biasanya berlaku pada kedua-dua belah mata. Pesakit biasanya mengadu mata merah, gatal pada mata dan mata berair.

Kelopak mata pesakit juga kadang-kala turut membengkak sedikit. Penyakit ini biasanya tidak mengganggu ketajaman penglihatan kecuali dalam kes-kes yang teruk dan serius.

Tanda-tanda klinikal ini kerap kali berlaku dan biasanya mengambil masa selama tujuh hingga 10 hari untuk pulih.

Ia juga boleh berulang pada bila-bila masa sahaja dan biasanya agak kerap berlaku dalam kes-kes yang serius.

Bagi kes yang serius, pesakit boleh mengalami keadaan mata yang sangat merah dan tidak selesa terutamanya apabila terkena cahaya matahari.

Lapisan konjunktiva pada kelopak mata biasanya membengkak (giant papillae).

Keadaan ini sekiranya berterusan boleh menyebabkan luka pada lapisan kornea mata (shield ulcer).

Luka pada lapisan kornea akan menyebabkan pesakit berasa sangat tidak selesa, mata berair dan berasa lebih selesa apabila memejam mata.

Luka ini perlu mendapat rawatan yang sewajarnya bagi mengelakkan berlakunya jangkitan kuman pada mata.

- Pencegahan dan rawatan

Ibubapa dinasihati supaya mengenalpasti punca-punca alergi kepada anak-anak mereka. Punca-punca alergi ini berbeza dari satu individu ke individu yang lain.

Seterusnya, elakkan anak-anak terdedah secara langsung kepada punca-punca tersebut. Langkah pencegahan ini penting bagi mengelakkan situasi yang kronik dan keadaan mata yang tidak selesa untuk tempoh masa yang lama.

Contohnya, sekiranya bulu kucing menyebabkan gejala alergi mata terjadi ke atas anak anda, jangan membela kucing sebagai binatang peliharaan di rumah.

Jangan menggunakan pewangi tertentu sekiranya bahan tersebut menyebabkan mata anak anda menjadi lebih merah, berair dan gatal-gatal.

Dapatkan pemeriksaan awal di klinik yang mempunyai kepakaran dalam bidang oftalmologi (mata), sama ada di klinik kerajaan atau klinik swasta.

Pengesahan diagnosis yang tepat oleh doktor mata adalah penting bagi menentukan anak anda mengalami penyakit alergi mata dan bukannya penyakit-penyakit mata lain yang mungkin boleh menjejaskan keupayaan anak anda melihat kelak.

Ubat titis mata biasanya digunakan untuk merawat penyakit ini. Terdapat pelbagai jenis ubat titis mata untuk rawatan penyakit alergi mata di pasaran dan preskripsi ubat akan diberikan oleh doktor mata berdasarkan keadaan mata pesakit.

Rawatan susulan dengan doktor pakar mata yang konsisten (berkala) dan penggunaan ubat titis mata secara teratur amat penting bagi mengawal gejala-

gejala klinikal yang disebutkan di atas.

Ibu bapa dilarang daripada membeli ubat titis mata dari farmasi tanpa preskripsi doktor untuk merawat penyakit alergi mata.

Sesetengah ubat, contohnya ubat titis steroid, hanya boleh digunakan untuk tempoh masa yang singkat dengan pengawasan rapi oleh doktor mata.

Pesakit dikhuatiri menggunakan ubat tersebut untuk tempoh masa yang panjang dan berulang-ulang tanpa merujuk kepada doktor mata.

Keadaan ini boleh menyebabkan tekanan dalam bola mata meningkat dan berlaku kerosakan pada saraf mata, yang dikenali sebagai penyakit glaukoma akibat penggunaan ubat steroid.

Situasi ini boleh menyebabkan pesakit menjadi buta sekiranya tidak dikesan dan dirawat pada peringkat awal.

Pesakit yang mengalami gejala alergi mata juga tidak digalakkan menggunakan kanta lekap. Penggunaan kanta lekap biasanya akan menyebabkan gejala-gejala alergi mata sukar dikawal dengan penggunaan ubat titis mata.

Pesakit yang mengalami masalah alergi mata dinasihatkan menggunakan cermin mata bagi mengatasi masalah rabun penglihatan.

[Baca]

Penemuan penyelidikan terkini

- Jepun
Satu kajian yang telah berjalan selama 11 tahun di Jepun melaporkan tekanan (stres) kerjaya meningkatkan risiko strok dengan ketara.

Berdasarkan pemantauan 3,190 sukarelawan lelaki dan 3,363 sukarelawan wanita dari pelabagai latar belakang kerjaya, penyelidik mendapati 147 sukarelawan diserang strok.

Dari jumlah tersebut, 91 merupakan lelaki dan selebihnya merupakan wanita. Kajian merumuskan lelaki yang mengalami tekanan tinggi di tempat kerja menghadapi risiko dua kali ganda lebih menghidap strok berbanding wanita.

Kajian itu turut mendapati wanita yang menghadapi tahap tekanan serupa tidak mencatatkan statistik strok setinggi lelaki.

Hasil penemuan ini mengundang persoalan sama ada wanita secara semulajadi mampu menangani tekanan atau stres dengan lebih baik berbanding lelaki, di rumah dan juga di tempat kerja.

Bagaimanapun, kajian statistik ini juga perlu mengambil kira faktor luaran seperti gaya hidup di luar pejabat, pemakanan dan penyakit yang dihadapi sukarelawan untuk mengukuhkan lagi hasil penyelidikan.

l Sweden

Kajian di Sweden menunjukkan aktiviti sosial yang aktif dapat melindungi seseorang dari demensia (masalah mental).

Ini kerana aktiviti sosial didakwa dapat mengurangkan tekanan yang dihadapi, seterusnya mengurangkan hingga separuh risiko demensia bagi lelaki mahupun wanita.

Aktiviti sosial yang dimaksudkan melibatkan meluangkan masa berbual atau bergembira bersama keluarga dan rakan. Ia tidak melibatkan aktiviti merempit, jenayah, mahupun pengambilan alkohol atau najis dadah.

Ciri demensia termasuklah hilang ingatan, perubahan personaliti dan kekeliruan (rasa keliru). Tekanan didapati boleh membawa kepada keresahan dan kemurungan, mungkin juga demensia.

Lebih 24 juta penduduk dunia menghadapi gejala demensia, termasuk bagi penyakit Alzheimer, dan jumlah ini dijangka akan meningkat empat kali ganda menjelang 2040.

Kajian awal sebelum ini mengaitkan tekanan berpanjangan boleh menjejaskan bahagian tertentu otak, seperti hippocampus, yang boleh membawa kepada demensia.

Penyelidik dari Indtitut Karolinska terbabit turut mendapati perwatakan yang ceria dan bersahaja (santai) lebih berkesan mengurangkan risiko demensia bila digabungkan dengan aktiviti sosial bersesuaian.

Penemuan ini menunjukkan kesan tekanan hidup dapat dikurangkan dengan meluangkan masa bersama keluarga dan rakan.

Dengan mengambil sedikit masa untuk merehatkan badan dan minda dari masa ke semasa mungkin dapat mengekalkan kewarasan dan kesihatan badan anda.

[Baca]

Dunia semakin tertekan

MUZIK merupakan antara kaedah universal yang berkesan dalam mengurangkan tekanan.

PENDUDUK dunia semakin tertekan! Ianya bukan lagi satu persoalan benar atau tidak tetapi lebih kepada perbandingan berapa teruk tahap tekanan atau stres yang dihadapi rakyat sesebuah negara.

Tekanan di rumah, di tempat kerja, di jalan raya, tekanan masalah kesihatan, tekanan perhubungan (keluarga atau rakan) dan bermacam bentuk tekanan lain dilihat semakin bertambah di kala mencapai kemajuan dan kemodenan.

Tidak kira kesan minyak, ekonomi, politik mahupun harga barang asas, semuanya dilihat banyak memberi tekanan berbanding kelegaan, sejak tibanya abad ke-21.

Agak mustahil bagi seseorang itu hidup tidak menghadapi tekanan kerana semua perkara dalam hidup seharian meninggalkan sedikit kesan kepada kemampuan menyesuaikan diri dengan bermacam keadaan yang dihadapi.

Ini secara asasnya seperti 'tukul yang memukul pahat' jauh lebih ke dalam diri individu, menghakis ketenangan dan kesabarannya.

Jelas dan menonjol

Ketegangan jelas kelihatan di seluruh dunia kini akibat bermacam punca, dari bencana alam, peperangan sehinggalah kepada kos makanan.

Namun, kebelakangan ini situasi semasa di luar dan dalam negara menunjukkan tekanan semakin meningkat dalam banyak perkara dan ia perlu ditangani secepat mungkin melalui cara bersesuaian.

Dunia menghadapi perubahan mendadak cuaca, terlalu panas atau terlalu sejuk, yang turut membawa bermacam bencana alam.

Tidak cukup dengan perkara semula jadi, perbuatan manusia menambahkan lagi bebanan dengan bermacam krisis dan skandal.

Pencemaran, krisis bekalan makanan, naik turun harga minyak dan keperluan asas (air, elektrik), harga barang melambung, skandal pencemaran produk makanan, krisis ekonomi dan kini peningkatan pengangguran.

Tidak cukup dengan itu, masih ada yang berselera berperang atau menghalalkan serangan terhadap penduduk awam. Sia-sia dan menyakitkan hati.

Melainkan peperangan, krisis dan skandal serupa turut melanda negara kita. Hasil bermacam cabaran yang perlu dihadapi kini, semakin banyak kejadian 'tekanan melampau' dapat dilihat dalam paparan berita.

Gejalanya mudah dikesan, dari tindakan melepas geram di khalayak ramai, cara pemanduan di jalan raya, gaya pertuturan dan juga cara berkomunikasi, terutamanya di kaunter-kaunter perkhidmatan.

Bukan sahaja doktor, polis dan tentera, di kalangan orang kenamaan juga mula menunjukkan tanda-tanda tekanan tinggi pada emosi dan fizikal.

Teori tekanan bukan sahaja mengaitkannya dengan ancaman kesihatan malahan mempercepatkan penuaan dan tindakan penuh emosi.

Bagaimanapun, perlu diingat rakyat Malaysia juga menghadapi tekanan tinggi dalam memahami dan menyesuaikan diri dengan bermacam perkara yang berlaku secara berturut-turut.

Berita melaporkan kes kemalangan akibat pemanduan laju, aktiviti merempit, melepaskan tembakan (rambang atau tidak), ugutan, hasutan, maki hamun dan terbaru melenting di khalayak ramai.

Kebanyakannya melibatkan mereka yang tertekan, tanpa mengira usia, bangsa atau fahaman, dalam mencari jalan mengurangkan tekanan.

Masa untuk bertenang

Pelopor teori tekanan (stres), Dr Hans Hugo Bruno Selye (1907 - 1982) menjelaskan tekanan sebenarnya ada sudut positifnya, sebagai pendorong dalam mencapai kejayaan pelajaran atau kerjaya.

Bagaimanapun, tekanan positif ini (eustress) jarang atau tidak meninggalkan kesan negatif kepada minda dan badan.

Tekanan negatif (distress) pula melibatkan tekanan berpanjangan yang tidak dapat dikawal melalui penyesuaian diri atau adaptasi keadaan, yang boleh membawa kepada rasa resah atau kemurungan.

Jika dikumpul berbukit-bukit tekanan negatif dalam hidup, bukan sahaja mengundang maut malahan membahayakan kesihatan dan keselamatan orang di sekitar kita.

Kaedah 10B termasuk bertenang, bernafas dengan dalam, berkata 'relakslah', beribadat, bercakap dengan seseorang, berurut, berehat dan mendengar muzik, beriadah, bersenam dan berfikiran positif.

Kaedah ini cuma sebagai panduan menenangkan diri dalam situasi yang tertekan, terutamanya yang memuncak sehingga boleh menyebabkan hilang kawalan diri.

Cara terbaik mengurangkan tekanan tetap bergantung kepada cara individu memandangkan setiap orang mempunyai kecenderungan dan kaedah pilihan masing-masing untuk bertenang.

Aktiviti seperti menyanyi karaoke, menari dalam hujan atau hanya duduk membaca novel dapat memberi ketenangan jika ia sesuai dengan minat dan hobi seseorang.

Sesuatu yang pelik, selagi tidak melanggar tatasusila agama dan adab, boleh menjadi penawar kepada tekanan yang dihadapi seseorang.

Malahan, sebilangan doktor pakar dunia dan tempatan turut memperakui hubungan seks antara suami isteri dapat mengurangkan tekanan yang dihadapi keduanya.

Bagaimanapun, hubungan seks luar nikah mungkin hanya menambah tekanan kerana lebih melibatkan nafsu dan desakan menyorokkan perbuatan tersebut dari pengetahuan umum.

Apa yang ingin ditekankan, carilah cara yang sesuai untuk diri anda meredakan tekanan dan ketegangan tanpa memudaratkan diri sendiri atau orang lain.

Menjadi kebiasaan apabila tekanan melanda seseorang, ia akan menyusup kepada individu di sekitar mereka melalui tindakan secara langsung (marah, layanan kasar) atau secara tidak langsung (tidak endah, mimik muka).

Jika gagal dikawal, dapatkan bantuan sebelum anda pula menjadi punca menambah tekanan atau ancaman kepada orang lain.

Jangan diambil tindakan melulu yang membawa mudarat walaupun dalam situasi yang memberi tekanan tinggi. Gunakan akal untuk melepas tekanan melalui cara yang baik tanpa menyusahkan orang lain.

Bersamalah kita kembalikan ketenangan dan keceriaan hidup, bukan hanya untuk diri dan keluarga, malahan untuk semua yang menggelar Malaysia 'tanah tumpah darah'.

[Baca]

Apakah penyembuh kekalutan kita?

BANYAK email yang dihantar kepada saya mengadu betapa tenatnya perasaan melihat apa yang sedang bergolak dalam negara kita. Ada yang kata dia sesak nafas memikirkan hal umat Islam di negara kita. Ada yang menyatakan dia sudah malas nak fikir lagi. Ada yang kata dia rasa tertipu dengan sikap para pemimpin politik yang dia sokong. Ada yang bertanya penyelesaian dan berbagai lagi.

Jika kita ada penyakit, kita tidak patut mengubati apa yang kita nampak sahaja. Kita perlu ubati akar atau punca penyakit tersebut. Jika tidak, ia akan menyerang semula. Mengetahui punca asal penyakitnya, jika pun kita tidak dapat menyelesaikannya akan menjadikan kita sentiasa beringat di masa hadapan. Kekusutan yang berlaku pada hari ini, apakah ia baru bermula semalam, atau sudah bertahun lamanya? Barah yang kelihatan boleh membunuh pada hari ini, apakah baru muncul ketika doktor berjaya mengesannya, atau sudah bertahun lamanya? Banyak penyakit itu gagal diubati disebabkan hanya pada sangat akhir ketika sudah benar-benar nazak, baru datang berjumpa perawat. Bukan tidak boleh, tetapi penyelesaian yang lengkap akan sukar diperolehi. Ya, banyak perkara dalam hidup kita, Islam hanyalah dirujuk ketika saat gawat. Ini seperti mereka yang berumahtangga, Islam mencadangkan pakej yang lengkap bermula dari ciri-ciri dalam memilih pasangan, mudahnya urusan perkahwinan, kehidupan dengan disiplin agama, tanggungjawab suami, isteri dan anak-anak, hukum-hakam nusyuz sehinggalah kepada bab talak apabila ternyata rumahtangga tidak lagi membawa kebaikan. Malang sekali bagi pasangan muslim jika hanya merujuk kepada hukum Islam ketika hendak bernikah dan talak sahaja. Sepanjang perjalanan rumahtangga; bermula dari masa memilih pasangan, hukum-hakam syarak dalam rumah tangga, tanggungjawab mendidik anak isteri dengan ajaran Islam dan berbagai lagi tidak pernah dipedulikan.

Masalah politik dalam negara kita juga sama. Ia tidak bermula pada krisis semalam, atau kelmarin. Namun ia bermula dari prinsip, tingkah laku dan perjalanan yang sudah berusia tua. Apakah sistem politik yang kita anut selama ini benar-benar diletakkan atas prinsip Islam? Kita juga patut bertanya; bilakah politik permusuhan dan kebencian secara meruncing itu disemai? Apakah puncanya, sehingga ‘ukhuwah’ parti, melebihi ukhuwah Islamiah yang diajar oleh Allah dan Rasul-Nya. Permusuhan politik di peringkat kampung sehingga ke bandar sering memperlihatkan kerakusan kuasa dan ketaksuban parti yang kedua-duanya adalah menyanggahi prinsip Islam yang kudus.

Seterusnya, hilangnya kepercayaan kepada orang-orang politik, bermula bila? Saya secara peribadi melihat ramai pemimpin politik berjawatan dalam negara kita ini sombong. Lebih buruk lagi, apabila ‘kerja-kerja salah’ mereka menjadi bahan perbualan umum. Sehingga hilangnya kepercayaan rakyat itu, bukan kepada mereka, ter‘mangsa’ sistem-sistem lain termasuk mahkamah dan polis. Parti pemerintah bukan tidak boleh diubati, tetapi perlu ada kesungguhan dalam membuang segala unsur barah yang bersarang di tubuhnya sekalipun barah itu berupa orang besar. Jika tidak, generasi baru akan terus prejudis.

Dalam banyak keadaan, manusia hilang prinsip dalam politik. Perkara yang diharamkan semalam, mungkin dihalalkan hari ini. Lompat parti umpamanya, haram dan halalnya pada orang politik parti berdasarkan untung rugi politik kepartian. Sistem Beraja juga demikian, apabila ia menguntungkan, ia disanjung, apabila sebaliknya ia dikeji. Begitu juga politik wang, halal dan haramnya diukur berdasarkan siapa yang beri? Berkawan dengan ‘parti kafir’ juga serupa, kufur dan Islamnya bukan diukur dengan dasar yang dipegang, tetapi siapa yang mereka berkawan? Jika kita berdasarkan prinsip dari awal, kita sentiasa akan istiqamah dalam memutus semua perkara berdasarkan prinsip. Kita akan bertanya; dari segi prinsip ‘apakah melompat parti itu memenuhi akhlak mulia yang diajar oleh Islam? Apakah wang yang mengikis ketelusan itu diizinkan oleh syarak? Apakah Sistem Beraja atau segala adat-istiadat Beraja itu diajar oleh Islam? Jika benar hendak menilai, kita mesti menilainya dengan bebas dan hanya bergantung kepada Allah.

Saya dukacita melihat kadang-kala pertelingkahan politik mengikis akhlak dan nilai Islam dalam jiwa kita. Dalam dunia internet, maki-hamun, carut-marut dan sumpah-seranah menjadi mainan dan hiasan para penyokong aliran-aliran politik. Lebih mendukacitakan, apabila perbuatan keji seperti itu menggunakan nama Islam. Saya membaca komen-komen penyokong parti tertentu mengenai kenyataan Mufti Perak Datuk Seri Harussani Zakaria yang melarang rakyat menentang keputusan Sultan Perak. Komen-komen itu penuh dengan carutan dan makian yang tidak tergamak untuk kita baca. Ya, bagi saya sendiri banyak pandangan dan pendapat Mufti Perak berkenaan yang saya kurang setuju. Namun, memaki hamun dan mencarut kepada seseorang yang ada sumbangannya yang tersendiri bukanlah akhlak yang diajar oleh Islam. Dalam hadis al-Imam al-Bukhari daripada Anas bin Malik r.a. katanya: Bukanlah Nabi s.a.w itu seorang pemaki orang, tidak juga seorang pengucap kekejian dan bukan seorang pelaknat orang lain.

Melihat kepada masalah-masalah yang seperti ini, membawa kita insaf bahawa ada dua perkara yang memerlukan perubahan dalam negara kita. Pertama; melihat semula segala dasar dan sistem yang dipakai dalam negara ini; sejauh manakah itu semua memenuhi prinsip-prinsip yang ditegaskan oleh Allah dan rasul-Nya. Kedua; kembali mentarbiah kaum muslimin; pemimpin dan rakyat agar berdisiplin dalam prinsip, amalan dan akhlak selaras dengan ajaran Allah dan rasulNya. Maksudnya hendaklah dilakukan penegakan Islam di peringkat dasar dan penghayatan. Dengan syarat, tafsiran Islam itu mestilah atas keikhlasan dan ilmu yang bebas dari kepentingan parti dan politik tertentu.

Saya menyeru kepada para pejuang perubahan, semoga apa yang berlaku menginsafkan kita, betapa kita perlukan Islam yang tulen yang merdeka dari kepentingan puak, adat, bangsa, parti dan seumpamanya. Hanya kembali kepada Allah dan rasulNya. maka sesungguhnya tidak mungkin dapat difahami apa yang dikehendaki Allah melainkan dengan perantaraan Rasululah. Sesungguhnya tiada jalan kita sampai kepada baginda melainkan melalui pengetahuan mengenai sunnah baginda. Pula tiada jalan kepada sunnah baginda melainkan dengan ilmu hadis. Justeru itu menjadi kewajipan ke atas kaum muslimin, samada pemerintah atau rakyat, pendakwah atau yang didakwah, beriman bersama kita bahawa tiada jalan terlaksananya apa yang kita seru kepadanya iaitu perlaksanaan keadilan dan keamanan, menegakkan hukum Allah di atas muka bumi kecuali dengan berdakwah kepada sunnah dan mengamalkannya, juga mentarbiah kaum muslimin dengannya. Bukan dengan hukum-hakam dunia, undang-undang ciptaan manusia, pandangan-pandangan individu dan pegangan-pegangan kepartian. Itu semua menjadikan umat semakin berpecah dan jauh dari matlamat yang dituju” (Al-Albani, Sahih al-Adab al-Mufrad m.s. 8-9 Saudi: Dar al-Sadiq).

DR. Mohd Asri ZainUl Abidin ialah bekas mufti perlis dan kini pensyarah pengajian islam, universiti sains Malaysia (usm) yang sedang sabatikal di Britain.

laman web: drmaza.com.

E-mel: moasriza@yahoo.com.

[Baca]

Sukarnya mencari kesepakatan bernegara

MASYARAKAT majmuk banyak karenah
Masing-masing nak menang sendiri
Amalkan demokrasi dengan bijaksana
Daulatkan Raja Payung Negeri.

Seorang pakar sains politik, Raj K. Vasil, dalam sebuah bukunya yang pernah diharamkan kira-kira 40 tahun lalu merujuk kepada Malaysia sebagai Plural society par excellence (Satu masyarakat majmuk yang paling unggul. Judul lengkap buku itu ialah Politics in a Plural Society: A Study of non-Communal Political Parties in West Malaysia.

Saya teringat kembali buku tersebut sewaktu cuba memahami dan mencari iktibar daripada kemelut politik dan proses peralihan kuasa di Perak yang diselubungi kontroversi dan sekali gus menggambarkan kemajmukkan masyarakat Malaysia.

Sekarang kedudukan Datuk Dr. Zambry Abdul Kadir dari Barisan Nasional (BN) sebagai Menteri Besar yang baru dan barisan exconya sudah mulai stabil.

Sanggahan daripada bekas Menteri Besar Datuk Seri Ir. Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin dari Pas dan bekas-bekas ahli Exco Kerajaan Negeri dari DAP yang mengelilinginya, sudah semakin kehabisan tenaga. Namun kontroversi mengenai episod peralihan kuasa itu, nampaknya masih berterusan terutama melalui blog-blog dan akhbar-akhbar pembangkang.

Sebagai gambaran lanjut daripada kemajmukan masyarakat Malaysia itu, semenjak awal episod itu lagi kita perhatikan kontroversi dan pertelingkahan berlaku bukan sahaja antara pihak pemerintah dan pembangkang, malah juga di kalangan parti-parti pakatan pembangkang sendiri.

Begitu juga di kalangan pemimpin-pemimpin UMNO terdapat perbezaan pendapat bagaimana sepatutnya kemelut itu dielakkan sebelum terjadi, dan bagaimana cara penyelesaiannya bila sudah terlanjur.

Di kalangan ahli-ahli akademik dan pemerhati-pemerhati yang non-partisan pun terdapat pandangan berlainan. Tiga pakar undang-undang yang juga ahli akademik, Prof. Shad Saleem Faruqi, Prof. Aziz Bari dan Prof. Salleh Buang secara tidak langsung masing-masing melahirkan rasa kekeliruan dan mempunyai pandangan yang berbeza mengenai tindakan Sultan Perak.

Jadi jelas bahawa terdapat perbezaan persepsi dan pelbagai reaksi yang tidak sama mengenai kemelut politik di Perak itu. Tentu kita boleh mengambil kesimpulan bahawa perbezaan pendapat itu berpunca daripada hakikat bahawa "berlainan tempat tegak, maka berlainan pula benda yang nampak."

Sikap dan persepsi pihak-pihak berkenaan dipengaruhi oleh kepentingan dan latar belakang masing-masing yang berbeza-beza.

Semua itu mengingatkan kita betapa sukarnya mencari kesepakatan akibat kemajmukan tersebut dan betapa sukarnya mengatur dan mentadbir serta "mentertibkan" berbagai golongan yang mempunyai pandangan dan keinginan beragam-ragam itu.

Maka muncullah berbagai-bagai gagasan dan teori serta konsep dan falsafah tentang bagaimana cara untuk memerintah.

Sistem atau konsep "demokrasi" muncul sebagai satu gagasan yang paling popular, seakan-akan semua masalah akan dapat diselesaikan oleh demokrasi. Entah disedari atau tidak, demokrasi" dijadikan penanda aras untuk mengukur pemerintahan yang "adil dan saksama." Demokrasi dianggap (dituntut?) menjanjikan bahawa setiap warga semestinya mempunyai hak yang sama untuk menentukan "arah tuju" dan "tata tadbir" pemerintahan sesebuah negara.

Malangnya, "demokrasi" sebagai satu konsep yang sangat popular itu pun tidak terlepas daripada menjadi mangsa kepelbagaian persepsi dan interpretasi manusia yang majmuk itu. Interpretasi yang berbeza mengakibatkan amalan yang berbeza pula. Kesepakatan yang mutlak tentang takrif "demokrasi" dan tatacara pelaksanaannya tidak pernah tercapai. Barangkali kerana itulah maka Perdana Menteri British Sir Winston Churchill yang terkenal itu pernah berkata bahawa "demokrasi adalah satu cara pemerintahan yang paling buruk, tetapi tidak ada satu cara pemerintahan lain yang lebih baik dari itu."

Churchill mengingatkan kita tentang dilema yang dihadapi oleh demokrasi dengan segala "harapan yang ideal" bertembung dengan "realiti sosial dan persekitaran" yang sukar diatur dan dikawal. Namun manusia terus mencuba mengamalkan demokrasi dengan berbagai-bagai variasi dan memberikan berbagai-bagai nama tambahan untuk disesuaikan dengan masa, tempat dan keadaan.

Kira-kira 50 tahun lalu, Presiden Sukarno di Indonesia memperkenalkan konsep Demokrasi Terpimpin. Hampir pada masa yang sama Presiden Ayub Khan di Pakistan memperkenalkan Demokrasi Dasar (Basic Democracy). Demokrasi Terpimpin di Indonesia kemudian diganti dengan Demokrasi Pancasila.

Selain itu, menurut Profesor Miriam Budiardjo dalam bukunya "Dasar-dasar Ilmu Politik", terdapat pula istilah-istilah seperti demokrasi konstitusional, demokrasi parlimenter, demokrasi rakyat, demokrasi nasional, Demokrasi Soviet, dan sebagainya.

Di negara ini kita mengemukakan konsep "Demokrasi Berparlimen, Raja Berperlembagaan."

Dalam konteks sejarah budaya dan persekitaran sosial politik Malaysia konsep itu adalah penyelesaian yang bijak terhadap "dilema demokrasi".

Gagasan ini adalah satu "formula" atau resipi yang sangat sesuai untuk mengamalkan demokrasi. Ini adalah gagasan yang menggabungkan unsur tradisi dan unsur moden yang dapat mewujudkan "kestabilan yang dinamis" (dynamic equilibrium) dalam kita mengatur kehidupan bermasyarakat dan bernegara.

Rahsia kejayaan Malaysia di pelbagai bidang sejak bernama Persekutuan Tanah Melayu, sangat bergantung kepada keupayaannya mewujudkan keseimbangan antara unsur tradisi dan moden itu, mempertahankan yang asal dan asas sambil menyerap yang baharu dan luaran secara terpilih. Dalam konteks masyarakat berbilang kaum di negara ini, formula tersebut diterjemahkan pula dalam bentuk pengiktirafan terhadap hak sejarah dan tradisi kepemimpinan bumiputera yang digabungkan dengan pengiktirafan terhadap hak asasi dan kemanusiaan masyarakat bukan bumiputera. Kedua-dua hak tersebut mestilah diseimbangkan dan jangan sampai diubah secara radikal demi melanjutkan kestabilan.

Semangat demokrasi berparlimen yang pada teorinya memberi hak sama rata kepada setiap warga negara, perlu dikawal dan diseimbangkan dengan kedaulatan raja berperlembagaan yang menjadi sauh kepada kestabilan yang berurat tunjang pada tradisi.

Seterusnya saya ingin berhujah bahawa kebijaksanaan yang dilaksanakan oleh Istana Perak dalam mencari penyelesaian kemelut politik tersebut adalah berpandukan falsafah "Demokrasi Berparlimen dan Raja Berperlembagaan" tersebut yang mengambil kira keseimbangan dan keamanan negara (negeri) tanpa mengabaikan kemajuan dan hak asasi rakyat.

Kesimpulannya, tuntutan untuk mengamalkan doktrin-doktrin demokrasi secara mutlak hendaknya jangan sampai mengabaikan hakikat bahawa untuk demokrasi berfungsi dengan berkesan demi mencapai manfaat yang optimum, masa dan tempat (ruang dan waktu) mestilah diserasikan (diselaraskan) dengan persekitaran sosial dan emosi.

Dalam falsafah adat Minangkabau, ini dirujuk dengan ungkapan Raso dibawo nayiak, pareso dibawo turun (Perasaan atau emosi hendaklah dibawa naik ke kepala untuk dinilai dengan otak dan akal yang rasional, manakala fikiran yang rasional (pareso) hendaklah dibawa turun ke dada atau ke dalam hati untuk diimbangi dengan perasaan dan emosi.) Kita mestilah bijak mencari keseimbangan antara "idealisme" dan "pragmatisme."

[Baca]

Raja dekat di hati rakyat

Rakyat biasa mahu pun raja - peguam hebat atau ahli politik, ulama dan umara - kesemuanya tidak kebal. Lantaran undang-undang tidak membezakan warna kulit, kedudukan jauh sekali tunduk kepada taburan wang ringgit. Namun mengambil kesempatan kepakaran serta kecelikan undang-undang untuk mengugut dan memperlekehkan pihak yang tidak ada platform untuk mempertahankan diri semestinya bukan sesuatu yang adil.

Senario itu jelas apabila veteran politik pembangkang, Karpal Singh mahu memfailkan saman terhadap Sultan Perak Sultan Azlan Shah. Begitu juga 'sembah derhaka' yang dipohon oleh bekas Menteri Besar Perak, Datuk Seri Ir. Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin.

Rentetan kejadian itu jelas menunjukkan betapa institusi raja-raja Melayu tidak lagi mempunyai darjat kemuliaan di mata segelintir rakyat sehingga mereka sanggup membelakangkan rasional dan kewarasan akal. Apabila akal sudah menjadi tidak waras - maka untuk 'mengaburi' tindakan gila itu cara paling berkesan ialah menggunakan kepakaran untuk memanipulasi undang-undang sehingga mengelirukan rakyat yang jahil.

Tidak ramai rakyat yang tahu sudut teknikal undang-undang terutamanya bidang kuasa raja-raja Melayu lantaran institusi itu sendiri amat bersendiri dan dipandang mulia apatah lagi bagi umat Melayu beragama Islam. Raja adalah payung rakyat Malaysia berbilang kaum, lebih daripada itu raja ialah 'penjaga' kepentingan bangsa Melayu dan menaungi nilai-nilai Islam itu sendiri. Keistimewaan itu menjadikan istana yang biar pun dilihat begitu eksklusif dan terasing hakikatnya amat rapat di hati rakyat.

Sebab itu apabila berlaku penentangan dan kebiadaban terhadap raja secara terang- terangan kerana kegagalan menahan emosi maka semestinya menimbulkan kemarahan yang bukan sedikit di kalangan rakyat. Lebih- lebih lagi raja yang disanggah itu membuat keputusan bukan berdasarkan emosi jauh sekali bertujuan memihak kepada sesiapa.

Sultan Azlan Shah - nama yang sinonim dengan undang-undang. Kepakarannya diiktiraf dan dihormati pelbagai pihak sehingga melayakkan baginda menduduki kerusi Ketua Hakim Negara. Semestinya penghakiman yang dibuat oleh baginda bersandarkan fakta serta falsafah undang-undang yang bertujuan melindungi kepentingan pihak-pihak yang tampil di mahkamah. Warisnya Raja Dr. Nazrin Shah pula sering muncul dengan ucapan-ucapan menyentuh kepentingan agama bangsa.

Namun kriteria yang dimiliki Sultan Azlan Shah tidak cukup untuk menyakinkan bekas Menteri Besar Perak, barisan exco haramnya dan segelintir rakyat. Lantas riuh-rendah Pengerusi DAP mencanang niatnya mengheret sultan ke mahkamah bersandarkan kepercayaan Istana Perak terkhilaf ketika memutuskan menerima pembentukan kerajaan Barisan Nasional (BN). Sultan Perak dicemuh, dan diingatkan supaya 'duduk diam di istana' - jangan campur tangan hal ehwal negeri - dan paling penting 'jangan buat keputusan yang menyanggahi keinginan pakatan pembangkang'.

Jika campur tangan atau sembah diraja itu mempunyai nilai dan kepentingan 'pembangkang', sudah tentu puji-pujian melambung tinggi. Lebih menyedihkan yang melakukan penentangan adalah bangsa Melayu beragama Islam manakala bangsa- bangsa lain yang mengisytiharkan sehidup mati ketika pembangkang berpakat membentuk kerajaan negeri meneruskan aktiviti harian seperti biasa.

Dalam soal ini apa platform yang ada kepada pihak istana untuk mempertahankan keputusan yang dibuat dan menjawab setiap tuduhan serta tohmahan yang dilemparkan oleh golongan terlampau ini. Karpal dalam keghairahannya memfailkan saman terhadap Sultan Azlan Shah menggunakan platform politik dan undang-undang untuk mencuri tumpuan rakyat. Karpal tanpa segan silu jauh sekali ada rasa hormat mengaburi penglihatan rakyat kononnya tentang perkara sebenar di sebalik keputusan Sultan Azlan Shah. Kononnya sultan membaca undang- undang yang salah - dalam erti kata lain sultan tidak bijak apabila menolak cadangan supaya Dewan Undangan Negeri Perak dibubarkan bagi memberi laluan kepada pilihan raya kecil.

Siapa Karpal sebenarnya untuk menimbulkan kekecohan sebegini rupa dengan menggunakan segala platform hakikatnya hanya untuk 'menunjukkan' bahasa sultan dan orang Melayu di negara ini tidak cerdik, oleh itu tidak perlu institusi raja-raja Melayu diberi penghormatan manakala Melayu pula tidak layak menjadi pemerintah. Nada suara Karpal amat keras, paras keyakinannya amat tinggi untuk meneruskan tindakan memfailkan saman. Ahli Parlimen Jelutong itu juga tegar mendakwa dirinya kebal dari sebarang tindakan undang-undang. Bagi Karpal, hanya beliau yang layak bercakap mengenai tindakan undang-undang termasuk memfailkan saman terhadap Sultan Perak - orang lain tidak mampu berbuat demikian.

Platform undang-undang di negara ini hanya boleh digunakan oleh Karpal atas kepercayaan bahawa kehebatannya dalam bidang tersebut mengatasi platform-platform yang digunakan oleh pihak lain. Walaupun Karpal mencabar sultan supaya tampil memberi penjelasan tetapi kita tahu Pengerusi DAP itu telah bersedia dengan hujah-hujah balasnya jika sultan menyahut cabaran tersebut. Sudah tentu Sultan Azlan Shah turut menjangkakan serangan balas itu dan tidak mahu berlaku keributan di antara istana dengan pakar undang-undang itu sehingga memburukkan persepsi rakyat terhadap istana.

Istana tidak mempunyai platform seluas Karpal untuk mempertahankan keputusan yang dibuat dan jika ada pun platform untuk membentangkan fakta-fakta istana belum tentu mahu berbuat demikian lantaran menyedari lawannya bukan jenis yang 'makan saman'. Bukan darjat istana juga untuk mencemar duli melayan kerenah biadab segelintir pihak yang menabur kenyataan kononnya istana dipengaruhi pihak tertentu untuk membuat keputusan yang tidak memihak kepada pembangkang.

Ketiadaan platform di pihak istana tidak sepatutnya menjadi kesempatan kepada Karpal dan sekutunya untuk terus memperlekehkan institusi raja-raja Melayu yang diwarisi sejak turun temurun.

Berlaku adil kepada istana dan orang Melayu termasuk Mohammad Nizar sepatutnya mempertahankan raja-raja Melayu. Tindakan menggadai tanah kepada bangsa lain biar pun perit tetapi terpaksa diterima oleh bangsa Melayu tetapi cubaan untuk merobohkan 'istana' jangan sesekali dibenarkan. Kelmarin bekas Menteri Besar Perak telah membuka laluan untuk 'merobohkan' istana di mahkamah - cubaan yang dipelopori oleh bangsa Melayu sendiri lantaran Karpal masih menangguhkan langkahnya. Jadi tidak mustahil provokasi Karpal mendorong Melayu untuk memusnahkan payung Melayu supaya kelak pengerusi DAP itu boleh cuci tangan.

[Baca]

Hentikan politik biadab

''Janganlah kita mudah terpedaya dengan gelagat serta tindakan yang hanya akan mencemarkan martabat kita, mengundang risiko yang tinggi terhadap kemajuan kita, serta menghakis asas-asas kedaulatan negara ini dengan sifat-sifat keji serta biadab, derhaka, angkuh, jahil ilmu dan kemaruk kuasa.''

Demikianlah titah tegas yang dikeluarkan oleh Sultan Selangor Sultan Selangor Sultan Sharafuddin Idris Shah Alhaj kelmarin.

Kenyataan itu merujuk kepada kemelut politik Perak yang menyaksikan bagaimana biadapnya pihak-pihak tertentu mempertikaikan keputusan Sultan Perak Sultan Azlan Shah yang memperkenankan langkah Barisan Nasional (BN) menubuhkan kerajaan negeri.

Sememangnya, tindakan pihak-pihak tersebut yang dilihat terlalu kemaruk kuasa telah menyebabkan mereka bertindak di luar kewarasan.

Mereka melupakan tata susila sebagai orang Melayu dan biarpun keputusan telah dibuat oleh seorang sultan yang harus dipatuhi dan dihormati tetapi mereka tidak mempedulikannya.

Puak terlibat mengadakan demonstrasi, berkeras mahu mempertahankan jawatan, tidak akur kepada perintah dan lebih rela berkata, ''patik mohon derhaka'.

Titah tegas Sultan Selangor itu seharusnya menyedarkan pihak-pihak berkenaan bahawa mereka sudah jauh menyimpang daripada asas berpolitik yang sebenar.

Persoalannya, kenapakah politik biadab ini semakin berkembang? Sebelum tahun 1998, kita rakyat negara ini tidak pernah berhadapan dengan situasi seumpama ini.

Apa juga keputusan yang dibuat sama ada oleh pihak berkuasa, istana mahupun mahkamah akan dipatuhi. Tetapi sekarang arahan pihak berkuasa dianggap berunsur politik, perintah istana diingkari manakala mahkamah pula dianggap sudah dikuasai.

Adalah tidak keterlaluan kalau kita mengatakan bahawa amalan politik biadab ini dipelopori oleh Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR). Pemimpin-pemimpin parti itu sebenarnya mengajar rakyat supaya menjadi angkuh, jahil ilmu dan kemaruk kuasa.

Mereka mengamalkan politik matlamat menghalalkan cara dan apa yang berlaku di Perak sudah menjadi bukti. Akibat daripada perasaan tidak puas hati mereka turun ke jalanan mengadakan demonstrasi sehinggakan menganggu majlis rasmi yang dihadiri oleh sultan.

Tidak cukup dengan itu, pemimpin- pemimpin pembangkang yang sudah jelas hanya mengikut telunjuk pemimpin PKR sanggup menyeret masalah politik yang berlaku ke mahkamah.

Biarpun apa juga bentuk tindakan undang-undang yang difailkan tetapi selagi ia berkaitan dengan apa yang berlaku dalam politik Perak maka selagi itulah ia berkaitan dengan Sultan Azlan.

Justeru tidak perlu pihak-pihak berkenaan termasuk bekas Menteri Besar, Datuk Seri Ir. Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin berdolak-dalih dalam soal ini.

Pelajar sekolah pun mengetahui apabila Nizar mengemukakan saman meminta pengisytiharan bahawa pelantikan Menteri Besar yang baru, Datuk Dr.Zambry Abdul Kadir tidak sah ia berkaitan dengan Sultan Azlan Shah.

Ini kerana baginda yang memperkenankan pelantikan berkenaan, oleh itu kenapa perlu Nizar dan pemimpin-pemimpin pembangkang bermain sandiwara bagi menyembunyikan perbuatan penderhakaan yang cuba mereka lakukan?

Dalam soal ini, ramai mengetahui siapa dalangnya sehingga memungkinkan semua itu berlaku. Tetapi malangnya 'tok dalang' yang terlibat mengamalkan sikap 'baling batu sembunyi tangan' dan cuba menunjukkan PKR tidak terlibat.

Sedangkan kalau dikaji siapakah dahulu yang menguar-uarkan amalan menubuhkan kerajaan melalui pintu belakang? Siapakah yang mengajar orang Melayu berdemonstrasi menentang kerajaan dan siapa yang acap kali melakukan fitnah kepada pemimpin kerajaan?

Apabila PKR cuba menunjukkan mereka baik, yang menjadi mangsa ialah Pas yang setakat ini seolah-olah tidak mampu mengawal keghairahan Nizar untuk terus mempertahankan kekuasaannya.

Pas lebih banyak mendiamkan diri dan membiarkan sahaja Nizar 'diusung' oleh pemimpin-pemimpin DAP ke hulu hilir termasuk ke mahkamah dalam menegakkan benang yang sama. Keadaan itu mengesahkan andaian pelbagai pihak sebelum ini bahawa biarpun Pas yang menjadi Menteri Besar tetapi yang berkuasa adalah orang lain.

Sebenarnya, itu hak Pas dan DAP untuk menentukan corak kerjasama mereka tetapi janganlah kerana kuasa mereka cuba menggugat institusi orang Melayu iaitu raja-raja Melayu.

Pemimpin-pemimpin Pas di peringkat pusat perlu menyatakan pendirian mereka dengan jelas, apakah benar mereka merestui tindakan Nizar.

Selain itu tindakan penyokong Pas turun ke jalanan berdemonstrasi sudah jelas menunjukkan bahawa parti itu semakin dipengaruhi oleh budaya mob yang diperkenalkan oleh PKR.

Imej Pas kini semakin tercalar biarpun selama ini kalau kita perhatikan pemimpin parti itu sentiasa rasional dalam menghadapi sesuatu situasi politik.

Tetapi oleh kerana bimbang pakatan pembangkang terjejas, mereka membiarkan sahaja Penasihat PKR, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim mendalangi segala-galanya biarpun dari satu segi, Pas boleh bersuara memandangkan Nizar membawa panji-panji parti tersebut.

Kini PKR tidak berbuat apa-apa, mereka melihat sahaja gelagat pemimpin dua parti lain dalam pakatan pembangkang bergelut dalam isu di Perak. PKR cuba menunjukkan bahawa mereka tidak terlibat tetapi di Selangor sudah ada penganjuran ceramah bertajuk 'Krisis politik di Perak'.

Pemimpin PKR sengaja merancang segala kekalutan di Perak bagi mencetuskan suasana tidak tenteram.

Ia juga bagi menutup rasa malu Anwar selepas apa yang dikejar oleh beliau untuk merampas kuasa melalui lompat parti pada 16 September lalu tidak dapat tetapi sebaliknya terpaksa menyaksikan apa yang dikendong di Perak berciciran.

Anwar ternyata terkejut dengan apa yang berlaku di Perak, jika beliau jujur sudah pasti sebagai Ketua pembangkang yang dilihat lebih berpengaruh daripada Lim Kit Siang, Karpal Singh, Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang dan Datuk Nik Abdul Nik Mat, Anwar mampu menghalang kekalutan daripada berlaku.

Teguran yang dibuat Sultan Selangor itu harus dipandang serius oleh orang Melayu kerana seharusnya tidak ada mana-mana kelompok dalam kaum berkenaan bertindak hendak mencemarkan institusi raja-raja Melayu.

Amalan politik biadab dan derhaka harus dihentikan. Orang Melayu tidak akan mendapat apa-apa jika institusi milik mereka terus dicemari hanya semata-mata kerana marah akibat kehilangan kuasa.

Janganlah kerana gila kuasa, kita menggalakkan rakyat turun ke jalanan memaki hamun pihak tertentu sehingga meminggirkan tata susila sebagai orang Melayu.

Kita mempunyai cara, adat, tata susila dan peraturan dalam melahirkan perasaan secara demokrasi iaitu melalui pilihan raya. Justeru tidak perlulah kerana dipengaruhi oleh nafsu serakah untuk terus berkuasa, kita mengamalkan politik biadab. Orang Melayu tidak untung apa-apa melalui amalan politik seumpama itu, sebaliknya ia hanya akan melemahkan mereka sendiri dan apabila keadaan tersebut berlaku maka pihak lain akan mengambil kesempatan.

Oleh itu sebelum segalanya terlambat hentikanlah politik keji berkenaan, jangan sampai akibat terlalu ghairah untuk memperolehi kuasa politik suatu hari kelak orang Melayu menjadi pelarian di tanah air sendiri. Ketika itu menangis air mata darah sekali sudah tidak berguna lagi.

[Baca]

Catatan dari buku Surat Dr. Mahathir

POLITICAL Euphoria. Istilah dari kancah politik dunia Barat menurut kenangan pembaca ketika membaca buku berjudul Surat Dr. Mahathir oleh Zainuddin Maidin, bekas Ketua Pengarang Kumpulan Utusan Melayu. Kerana kegirangan politik yang seumpama juga berlaku dalam masa interaksi mereka.

Hubungan di antara kedua meliputi pelbagai bidang. Ada kalanya akrab kerana pandangan politik yang sejurusan.

Pertemuan pertama mereka berlaku puluhan tahun lampau ketika Zam tinggal “di perkampungan haram Seberang Kereta Api Sungai Korok, lebih sebatu dari Bandar Alor Setar, di sebuah rumah buruk, sebuah keluarga miskin sedang menghadap lelaki tua yang sedang uzur.“ ”Ibunya segera menyuruhnya memanggil doktor dan ia terus berlari ke bandar. Dicatat seterusnya:

“Doktor, datuk saya sakit teruk,

“Di mana?

“Di Seberang Kereta Api Sungai Korok, masuk ikut lorong Sekolah Najat sehingga ke penghujung jalan dan terpaksa jalan kaki ke rumah saya kerana kereta tidak boleh masuk.

“Baiklah, pulang dahulu, nanti saya datang.”

Tidak lama kemudian doktor pun datang. Dia tidak bercakap banyak, hanya memeriksa dan memberikan ubat kepada pesakit. Apabila ditanya tentang bayarannya, doktor berkata: “Berapa yang ada berilah.” Ibu memberikannya dua ringgit dan doktor mengambilnya lalu pulang.

Peristiwa yang dialami lebih 30 tahun dahulu itu meninggalkan kesan yang mendalam di jiwa saya hingga ke hari ini. Pada masa itu, doktor tidak mengenali saya dan saya pun tidak pernah menemuinya. Ketika itu saya masih belajar di Maktab Mahmud Alor Setar. Langkah saya ke kliniknya semata-mata didorong oleh cerita dari mulut ke mulut tentang seorang doktor yang baik di Bandar Alor Setar, Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, Demikian catatan pertama Zam.

Di waktu itu Dr. Mahathir memiliki kereta “paling besar di bandar Alor Setar iaitu kereta Pontiac yang menyaingi kereta besar beberapa orang doktor bukan Melayu,” Zam menambah.

Diceritakan selanjutnya ialah beberapa peristiwa semasa Dr. Mahathir 22 tahun menjadi Perdana Menteri dan lebih 60 tahun dalam arena politik negara. Zam sendiri menjadi pemberita Utusan Melayu hingga menyandang jawatan ketua pengarang. Dengan itu interaksi mereka berlanjutan.

Oleh Zam disebut bahawa watak kewartawanan sukar dipisahkan daripada dirinya. “Maka itu adalah tepat sekali deskripsi yang dibuat oleh Dr. Mahathir dalam majlis pelancaran buku tulisan saya. Tun Razak: Jejak Bertapak Seorang Patriot bahawa “Zam adalah kawan saya tetapi kawan yang adakalanya menyukar.”

Lalu Zam mengulangi kenyataan Dr. Mahathir dalam satu majlis Kelab Akhbar Malaysia pada akhir 1980-an ketika Zam menjadi presiden, iaitu kritik terhadap sikap media selalu mendakwa bersuara bagi pihak rakyat. “Tuan-tuan tidak dipilih oleh rakyat dalam pilihan raya, bagaimanakah tuan-tuan boleh mendakwa bercakap bagi pihak rakyat?”

Zam kemudian menjawab dalam ucapannya: “Kami dipilih oleh rakyat setiap hari, orang ramai membeli akhbar setiap hari, selagi akhbar laku, maka selagi itu kami percaya bahawa kami dipilih oleh rakyat, apabila pasaran akhbar meningkat, bererti semakin ramai rakyat yang memilih kami, suara kami semakin kuat dan semakin sah apabila pasaran semakin tinggi.”

Lain hal berlaku, Zam menyambung cerita: “Apabila saya disingkirkan daripada jawatan Ketua Pengarang Kumpulan Utusan pada akhir 1992, kerana isu bahasa, saya telah menemui Dr. Mahathir bukan untuk meminta disambung kerja tetapi untuk mengetahui sendiri apakah benar beliau sendiri yang mahu menyingkirkan saya. Dr. Mahathir menyatakan: “Zam, saya tak boleh buat apa-apa lagi, semua Majlis Kerja Tertinggi telah menghentam you, saya berpuas hati.”

Penyingkiran itu “tidak terus memisahkan saya daripada Dr. Mahathir,” Zam menambah.

Juga dicatat ialah “kerajinan” Dr. Mahathir menulis surat kepada Zam ketika beliau masih berada di Alor Setar dan Zam menjadi wartawan di Kuala Lumpur dan semasa menjadi wakil Utusan di London ketika Dr. Mahathir menjadi Menteri Pelajaran dalam tahun 1975-1976.

Bab Surat Daripada Dr. Mahathir menyebut antara hasil interaksi kedua. “Memahami caranya berfikir dan bertindak selama beberapa tahun terutama ketika beliau berada dalam krisis politik memudahkan saya mengendalikan Utusan Melayu dan Utusan Malaysia ketika saya menjadi Ketua Pengarangnya dari tahun 1982-1992 dan semasa Dr. Mahathir menjadi Perdana Menteri.

Surat daripada Dr. Mahathir berupa tambahan kepada buku berjudul Mahathir Di Sebalik Tabir dan pelbagai peristiwa mengenai persaraan beliau. Pada suatu ketika Zam menulis: “Saya menangis seorang diri di bilik kerja di rumah,” ketika mengenang kembali pelbagai peristiwa.

Dari asal anak miskin beliau menjadi wartawan, mendapat fellowship Universiti Michigan, menjadi Ketua Pengarang akhbar dan kemudian menjadi Senator, Setiausaha Parlimen, Timbalan Menteri dan Menteri Penerangan. Juga dicatat ialah penghargaan kepada Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, seperti ditulis: “Saya amat menghargai Dr. Mahathir yang mengenang jasa saya kepadanya. Beliau membalas budi kepada saya sebagai wartawan. Sementara Abdullah rakan sejawat saya yang mempunyai latar belakang hampir sama dengan saya telah melihat potensi mengekalkan saya, mengesahkan pengiktirafan yang diberikan oleh Dr. Mahathir kepada saya dengan mengangkat saya menjadi menteri penuh.”

Zam mencatat antara lain nasihat Dr. Mahathir kepada Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim ketika itu dalam UMNO: “Dalam politik yang penting sekali ialah acceptability dan intelligence adalah yang kedua.”

Surat dari Dr. Mahathir kepada Zam di London pada 29 November 1975: “Coret-coret dari London masih saya baca tetapi tidak begitu menarik pada masa-masa yang lampau ini. Nampak saudara begitu tertarik dengan adat resam British Yes, what do you want, love? Dan sebagainya.” Dan lain-lain surat.

[Baca]

Utusan Ratu Balqis kepada Nabi Sulaiman

PADA suatau hari, Nabi Sulaiman memerintahkan burung hud-hud menyampaikan sepucuk surat kepada Ratu Balqis. Tujuan surat itu dihantar ialah untuk menyedarkan Ratu Balqis supaya tidak meninggi diri dengan anugerah Allah SWT yang diberikan kepadanya dan menyeru menyembah Allah SWT.

Setelah membaca surat itu Ratu Balqis terus mengumpulkan para pembesar dan para penasihat kerajaan untuk membincangkan tindakan yang harus diambil berhubung dengan surat Nabi Sulaiman itu. Mereka bersepakat untuk mengirim hadiah yang paling berharga untuk Nabi Sulaiman.

Beberapa hari kemudian, pergilah utusan Ratu Balqis menghantar hadiah itu kepada Nabi Sulaiman. Ketika sampainya utusan Ratu Balqis, Nabi Sulaiman menyambut mereka dengan baik. Nabi Sulaiman tidak sedikitpun berbangga dengan hadiah yang dibawa oleh mereka itu.

Malah Nabi Sulaiman berkata kepada mereka, "Kembalilah kalian semua dan bawalah hadiah ini semula kepada ratu kalian. Allah SWT telah mengurniakan pelbagai nikmat kepada aku. Allah SWT telah memberikan aku kekayaan dan rezeki melimpah ruah yang tidak diberikannya kepada seseorang pun daripada makhluk-Nya.

"Sampaikan kepada ratu kalian, aku tidak perlu harta kekayaan atau kekuasaan, tapi aku mahu ratu kalian bersama kalian menyembah dan patuh kepada perintah Allah SWT. Janganlah kalian semua menyembah selain daripada Allah SWT dan katakan kepadanya, sekiranya dia enggan menyembah dan patuh kepada perintah Allah, kami akan segera menghantar tentera kami untuk menentangnya."

Maka kembalilah utusan Ratu Balqis dengan segera ke istananya. Tiba sahaja di istana, para utusannya menceritakan amanat yang telah disampaikan oleh Nabi Sulaiman. Ratu Balqis mendengar dengan tenang.

"Kalau begitu, tidak ada cara dan usaha lain kecuali kita hanya tunduk dan menurut ajaran Nabi Sulaiman itu," kata Ratu Balqis.

"Baiklah," jawab para utusannya.

Beberapa hari kemudian, berangkatlah Ratu Balqis bersama para pembesarnya menuju ke istana Nabi Sulaiman.

[Baca]

Maryam wanita mulia dan suci

Sheikh Sya'rawi berkata: "Selepas itu, Allah menceritakan berkenaan dengan Maryam kerana ia merupakan subjek utama. Begitu juga masalah rezeki yang dikurniakan kepadanya tanpa sebarang kesusahan dan kepayahan daripada Allah SWT."

Ayat ke-42

Firman Allah SWT yang bermaksud: Dan (ingatlah Wahai Muhammad) ketika malaikat berkata: Wahai Maryam! Sesungguhnya Allah telah memilihmu, dan mensucikanmu, dan telah memilihmu (beroleh kemuliaan) melebihi perempuan-perempuan seluruh alam (yang sezaman denganmu).

Iktibar dan fiqh ayat :

i. Ibn Jauzi berkata: "Maksud dengan penyucian di sini ialah:-

nPertama: Suci daripada haid seperti kata Ibnu Abbas r.a.

nKedua: Suci daripada disentuh lelaki seperti kata Ibnu Abbas r.a juga.

nKetiga: Suci daripada kekufuran seperti kata al-Hassan dan Mujahid.

nKeempat: Suci daripada kejian dan dosa seperti kata al-Muqatil.

ii. Al-Maraghi berkata: "Sesungguhnya Allah SWT telah memilih pengabdianmu kepada Baitu al-Muqaddis dan membersihkanmu daripada kecelakaan material mahupun moral, serta memberikan keistimewaan kepadamu dengan mendapat anak tanpa disentuh oleh mana-mana lelaki serta memuliakanmu daripada sekelian perempuan lain pada setiap masa."

iii. Hamka berkata: "Adalah satu kemuliaan baginya, sebab dia sebagai nazar ibunya berkhidmat di rumah suci. Adalah kemuliaan baginya kerana guru pengasuhnya adalah seorang Nabi dan Rasul yang besar.

"Adalah kemuliaan baginya bahawa dia adalah satu-satunya perempuan yang dipilih Allah SWT untuk melahirkan Isa a.s ke dunia tanpa perantaraan seorang bapa. Satu lagi riwayat menyatakan Maryam benar-benar suci dan tidak pernah dikotori dengan haid. Sebab itu dia disebut juga Maryam az-Zahra, sebagai Fatimah puteri Rasulullah SAW menurut beberapa riwayat tidak diberi haid oleh Allah SAW tetapi tidak menghalangi beliau beroleh putera Hasan dan Husain.

"Menurut sebuah hadis daripada Nabi SAW ada tiga perempuan yang amat mulia. Pertama, Maryam binti Imran. Kedua, Khadijah binti Khuwalid (isteri Rasulullah SAW yang pertama). Ketiga, Fatimah binti Muhammad.

Ayat ke-43

Firman Allah SWT yang bermaksud: Wahai Maryam! Taatlah kepada Tuhanmu, dan sujudlah serta rukuklah (mengerjakan sembahyang) bersama-sama orang-orang yang rukuk.

Iktibar dan fiqh ayat:

i. Al-Maraghi berkata: "Taatlah engkau kepada Tuhanmu dan tunduklah kepada-Nya serta sembahyanglah bersama-sama di tempat sembahyang sedangkan Maryam sudah biasa menetap di mihrabnya".

ii. Hamka berkata: "Selalulah engkau beribadat kepada Allah SWT sehingga kemuliaan dan pilihan atas diri engkau yang diberikan Tuhan bertambah cemerlang. Sebagaimana Imam al-Ghazali pernah mengisahkan bahawasanya Nabi Isa a.s sendiri kadang-kadang membawa bunga karang untuk menghapus air matanya yang mengalir kerana ingat akan Tuhan dan burung yang sedang terbang pun terpegun mendengarkan bunyi kecapi Nabi Daud a.s menyanyikan nama Tuhan dan Nabi Muhammad SAW sampai sesemut kakinya kerana lamanya sembahyang malam. Bertambah mulia kedudukan mereka di sisi Tuhan, tunduk merendah diri kepada Allah SWT."

Ayat ke-44

Firman Allah SWT yang bermaksud: Peristiwa yang demikian ialah sebahagian dari berita-berita ghaib yang Kami wahyukan kepadamu (Wahai Muhammad), sedang engkau tidak ada bersama-sama mereka ketika mereka mencampakkan kalam masing-masing (untuk mengundi) siapakah di antara mereka yang akan memelihara Maryam. Dan engkau juga (Wahai Muhammad) tidak ada bersama-sama mereka ketika mereka berkelahi (tentang perkara menjaga dan memelihara Maryam).

Iktibar dan fiqh ayat:

i. Al-Maraghi berkata: "Inilah antara beberapa cerita mengenai Maryam dan Nabi Zakaria a.s yang Kami ceritakan kepadamu, meskipun engkau sendiri tidak pernah menyaksikannya sama sekali. "Begitu juga orang lain daripada kaummu dan engkau pun tidak membacanya daripada mana-mana buku, bahkan tidak seorang pun mengajarkannya kepadamu. Tetapi kerana wahyu yang Kami berikan kepadamu melalui Jibril a.s, ia dapat menjadi bukti kebenaran kenabian hamba Kami dan menolak pengingkaran yang menentangmu".

ii. Mohamad Quraish Shihab berkata: "Itulah peristiwa yang dialami oleh isteri Imran, Nabi Zakaria a.s serta Maryam a.s sebahagian dari berita-berita ghaib yang kami wahyukan kepadamu dari saat ke saat wahai Muhamad SAW.

"Kini kamu mengetahuinya, padahal engkau wahai Muhamad SAW tidak berada di sisi mereka untuk mengisyaratkan bahawa informasi tersebut tidak terbuka dan hampir tidak diketahui oleh manusia".

iii. Hamka berkata: "Allah SWT menjelaskan bahawasanya berita ini, baik berita nazar isteri Imran atau pengasuhan Nabi Zakaria a.s ke atas Maryam atau doa Nabi Zakaria a.s agar diberi anak. Semuanya adalah berita ghaib yang tidak diterima oleh orang lain tetapi diwahyukan terus kepada Nabi Muhammad SAW.

"Ditekankan lagi peringatan Allah SWT akan kesucian Maryam yang diceritakan kepada Muhammad SAW".

Dalam bahasa Arab perkataan istifa' khususnya pada ayat ini merupakan sifat khusus yang dimiliki Maryam. Dia melahirkan seorang nabi tanpa disentuh oleh mana-mana lelaki. Pemilihan seperti ini tidak dinyatakan dengan perbuatan, tetapi disediakan dengan sifat khusus ini.

Dalam perkara ini, terkandung kesaksian yang membebaskan dirinya daripada apa yang didakwakan oleh orang Yahudi terhadap dirinya.

Ayat-ayat yang kita bincangkan ini kemuliaan Maryam dan ia diperintah Allah supaya sentiasa taat dan patuh dengan berdoa dan solat kepada-Nya. Alangkah baiknya jika sekiranya kita menempatkan diri bersama golongan yang sentiasa taat dan patuh kepada-Nya.

[Baca]

Remaja dan perubahan zaman

"ZAMAN ini dah banyak yang berubah, kehidupan tak macam dulu lagi. Makin banyak pembangunan dan kemudahan yang kita kecapi. Anak-anak muda zaman sekarang, tak sama dengan kita zaman muda-muda dulu. Kita dahulu hanya pergi sekolah, kemudian balik bantu ibu bapa bersawah, menjala. Segala-galanya dibuat sendiri. Pendek kata pandai berdikari, maklumlah kehidupan tak semudah sekarang ni, semuanya di hujung jari," ujar Pak Ali pada anak saudaranya, Din.

"Tentulah Pak Ali. Zaman ini zaman sains dan teknologi. Manusia kan perlukan perubahan supaya kehidupan lebih baik. Kalau tak kita akan ketinggalan dan mundur."

"Itu pakcik setuju. Sains dan teknologi menjadikan kehidupan manusia lebih baik. Tapi, perubahan zaman tak sepatutnya merubah keperibadian remaja. Remaja hari ini menjadi lebih akrab dengan telefon bimbit dan komputer daripada keluarga sendiri. Lebih kenal dan hafal siaran televisyen yang pelbagai. Lalu lebih banyak terdedah kepada suasana yang kurang elok," keluh Pak Ali pula.

"Itulah cabaran remaja seperti saya sekarang, Pak Ali. Perubahan bukan sesuatu yang kita boleh tolak. Tapi, apa yang penting adalah kekebalan diri terhadap perkara-perkara yang kurang elok, tempias daripada perubahan zaman. Barulah mampu menjalani kehidupan yang makin mencabar ni," balas Din.

Kedua-duanya mengangguk-angguk tanda setuju.

Perubahan Zaman

Menurut Kamus Dewan, perubahan yang berasal daripada perkataan 'ubah' membawa maksud lain, berbeza daripada sebelumnya. Perubahan membawa maksud peningkatan, perkembangan atau peralihan dari suatu tahap ke tahap yang lain. Maka perubahan zaman boleh dikatakan sebagai zaman yang berbeza dan mempunyai kelainan daripada zaman yang sebelumnya.

Perubahan seperti kata remaja di atas, bukan sesuatu yang boleh ditolak dan dielakkan. Manusia akan terus berusaha mencari makna diri dan makna kehidupan, terus meningkatkan mutu ilmu dan mutu teknologi, mempelbagaikan pilihan dalam kehidupan, terpengaruh dengan perkembangan sekitar dan merangka pelan kerja ke arah yang lebih meningkat. Daripada sini datangnya perubahan.

Perubahan menjadikan kehidupan kita berbeza daripada sebelumnya. Daripada hanya menggunakan basikal, kemudian ke motosikal dan akhirnya kereta. Daripada hanya menggunakan dakwat untuk menulis, kemudian mesin taip dan kini menggunakan komputer untuk mencatat sesuatu. Malah terkini telefon pun hanya sebesar jam tangan.

Perubahan boleh membawa dua pengertian; perubahan ke arah kebaikan dan perubahan ke arah keburukan. Daripada pandangan Islam, sesuatu perubahan sama ada dalam pemikiran, tingkah laku, budaya, sosial dan lain-lain berdiri atas nilai yang digunakan dan matlamat daripada perubahan itu.

Sekiranya asas perubahan ialah mengekalkan manusia di dalam keadaan fitrah, meninggikan kualiti akhlak dan amal, menjadikan manusia lebih berilmu, ia dikatakan perubahan yang baik. Namun jika perubahan hanyalah sebagai tuntutan nafsu-nafsi dan kebendaan semata-mata serta menyebabkan manusia lebih rakus dan tamak, maka perubahan tersebut lebih menjurus ke arah keburukan.

Remaja harus memahami bahawa ada perkara yang tidak akan berubah. Misalnya peredaran bulan dan bintang, penciptaan manusia yang berlainan jantina, bangsa dan agama serta pasang surut air laut. Itu dikatakan sebagai fitrah alam. Tetapi manusia menggunakan akal dan kekuatan berfikir untuk sebaik-baiknya mengeksploitasikan kejadian alam, sama ada ke arah kebaikan mahupun keburukan.

Remaja kini berada dalam zaman yang cepat berubah. Remaja yang sedang menempuh zaman ingin tahu dan belajar, ingin meniru serta ingin berubah akan terkesan dengan perubahan sekitarnya. Remaja misalnya mudah terpengaruh dengan gaya dan kepelbagaian cara hidup, mencari identiti diri, dan bergolak dengan emosi dan impiannya.

Perubahan zaman menuju era informasi memiliki peranan besar dalam membentuk sikap dan perilaku remaja. Teknologi dan informasi yang tidak terkendali fungsinya turut mempengaruhi pola perilaku remaja. Ertinya, perilaku menyimpang tidak hanya semata-mata bersumber daripada remaja itu sendiri. Tetapi, adanya perubahan zaman secara mendadak mampu memacu remaja bersikap dan berperilaku di luar batas.

Justeru, remaja harus hati-hati dalam menerima perubahan. Amat penting mencari pedoman dan panduan pada peringkat umur remaja. Perubahan bagi remaja adalah suatu fitrah.

Sekiranya perubahan yang diinginkan oleh remaja ialah peningkatan ilmu dan kualiti pemikiran, bersikap terbuka untuk mematangkan pergaulan dan menambah pengalaman yang berguna, perubahan yang bakal berlaku pada remaja adalah perubahan yang berfaedah yang akan menjadikan remaja memiliki kualiti tersendiri apabila remaja memasuki alam dewasa nanti.

Oleh itu remaja harus berusaha mempertingkatkan kemahiran diri, sesuai dengan perubahan zaman. Islam sendiri adalah agama yang dinamik serta mengajak umatnya supaya sentiasa berubah untuk kebaikan diri dan umat. Islam adalah agama yang merentas zaman.

Amalan-amalan yang buruk pada zaman jahiliah dihapuskan selepas kedatangan Islam. Kehidupan wanita dan kanak-kanak menjadi lebih terbela dengan ajaran Islam. Kualiti hidup juga dipertingkatkan dengan pemahaman iman dan amal. Justeru, sebagai remaja Islam kita harus memahami bahawa perubahan ke arah kebaikan adalah sesuatu yang sangat dituntut oleh agama.

Dalam mengendalikan perubahan zaman yang semakin mencabar ini, remaja harus mempunyai beberapa kualiti dan ciri. Pertamanya, remaja mesti mempunyai ilmu dan sentiasa berusaha menambah ilmu. Remaja harus berupaya untuk membandingkan ilmu yang benar dan ilmu yang salah.

Tidak semua perubahan daripada Barat harus diterima, dan tidak semuanya harus ditolak. Keupayaan remaja untuk membandingkan yang baik dan buruk mengikut acuan agama dan norma masyarakat sangat penting agar tidak hanyut dengan badai perubahan.

Keduanya, kefahaman terhadap ilmu agama sangat penting kerana ia memacu kepada nilai sesuatu perubahan yang ingin dilakukan. Pemahaman terhadap agama bukan sahaja merangkumi sesuatu yang bersifat ritual, tetapi juga mempengaruhi ruang lingkup pemikiran dan kehidupan.

Remaja harus melihat di samping pentingnya kekuatan iman dan akhlak dan dikemaskan dengan penguasaan ilmu berasaskan nilai murni dan matlamat yang bermanfaat.

Keimanan menjadikan remaja berjiwa merdeka, iaitu keyakinan dan pergantungan yang bulat dan tinggi kepada Allah yang menyebabkan remaja memiliki daya juang serta daya saing yang hebat.

Apabila memiliki kedua-dua ciri tersebut, remaja harus mempunyai iltizam untuk membangunkan keupayaan diri dan umat mengikut acuan kita sendiri. Sudah tiba masanya umat Islam menampilkan dunia sesuatu yang baru dan menarik pengguna ilmu dan teknologi, supaya bukan sahaja ilmu tersebut dapat dimanfaatkan, tetapi juga mampu menguasai minda dan budaya.

Kesimpulan

Masa remaja adalah usia yang akan dilalui oleh setiap orang dewasa. Masa ini akan menguji setiap orang bahawa tidak selamanya hidup dilewati dengan perjalanan yang lurus. Seorang pendayung yang hendak menuju suatu pulau mungkin tahu arah jalannya dan mungkin tahu ada badai di hadapan, tapi tidak semua pendayung mampu melewati badai dan sampai pada tempat yang dituju. Masa remaja adalah masa yang penuh badai dan tidak semua orang mampu melewati masa-masa itu.

Justeru kekuatan ilmu, iman dan amal adalah amat penting dalam memacu remaja untuk menghadapi cabaran perubahan zaman yang semakin deras ini. Asas-asas jati diri Islam perlu kukuh pada remaja kerana tanpanya, sebarang perubahan yang berlaku akan turut menghanyutkan remaja.

[Baca]

Profesor bidang teologi temui hidayah

APA sudah jadi pada awak? Itulah reaksi awal yang diutarakan kepada Khadijah 'Sue' Watson sebaik mereka mengetahui beliau memeluk Islam. Apa tidaknya, seorang yang sebelum ini disegani sebagai seorang pastor, pengurus gereja, mubaligh dan memiliki ijazah sarjana dalam bidang teologi kira-kira lima bulan lalu sanggup berpaling tadah kepada agama yang sememangnya dibenci oleh mereka yang mengagungkan Nabi Isa itu.

Akui Khadijah lagi dalam laman web Islamonline.net kesemuanya berubah sebaik perkenalan beliau dengan seorang wanita yang pernah bekerja di Arab Saudi dan kemudiannya mengucap dua kalimah syahadah.

"Sudah tentulah bertemu dengan wanita Muslim, soalan yang membuak-buak hendak ditanyakan ialah bagaimanakah layanan Islam terhadap kaum wanita. Saya tidak menyangka dengan jawapan yang diberikan. Malah soalan pertama itu menguja saya untuk terus mengutarakan soalan-soalan berkaitan Allah SWT dan Nabi Muhammad SAW".

Teman baru Khadijah berjanji untuk membawa beliau ke pusat Islam, di mana di situlah segala persoalan yang menyentak mindanya boleh diperoleh dengan lebih jelas dan sempurna. Pun begitu, Khadijah sentiasa berdoa agar kunjungan beliau itu sentiasa dilindungi Nabi Isa, apa lagi beliau difahamkan bahawa agama Islam adalah agama yang jahat dan agama daripada syaitan.

"Sebaik berada di sana, apa yang saya sangka dan anggapan buruk tentang Islam jauh meleset. Sepanjang berada di situ, langsung tidak berlaku pendekatan yang menakut-nakutkan, tiada paksaan, tiada manupulasi psikologi dan tidak juga pengaruh bawah sedar. Malah tambah mengejutkan, mereka mengajak saya mempelajari al-Quran di rumah, bertentangan dengan pengajian kitab Injil.

"Ia sesuatu yang sukar dipercayai dan pelik! Pada pertemuan itu juga mereka memberi saya beberapa buah buku dan mereka mengalu-alukan sebarang soalan. Pada malam itu, saya mentelaah semua buku-buku pemberian beberapa kenalan di pusat Islam itu. Hakikatnya, itulah kali pertama saya membaca buku berkaitan Islam yang ditulis oleh orang Islam itu sendiri. Ini kerana sebelum ini buku-buku berkaitan Islam yang menjadi bahan rujukan dan kajian kami adalah tulisan orang Kristian.

"Keesokan harinya, saya menghabiskan tiga jam di pejabat pusat Islam bertanyakan pelbagai soalan. Situasi ini berlarutan hampir setiap hari selama seminggu. Ketika itu saya sudah membaca hampir 12 buah buku dan barulah saya sedar mengapa umat Islam adalah penganut yang paling sukar untuk dimurtadkan.

Kenapa?

Ini kerana tidak ada apa yang boleh ditawarkan kepada mereka. Di dalam Islam, hubungan yang terjalin di antara hamba dan Penciptanya adalah terus, malah mereka tidak memerlukan orang tengah atau perantara untuk memohon keampunan-Nya serta jaminan keselamatan di akhirat kelak waima, apa hajat jua sekalipun.

Pada saat itu satu sahaja pokok persoalan yang berkecamuk di minda Khadijah. Siapa itu Allah yang disembah oleh orang Islam. Kami diajar di dalam agama Kristian bahawa tuhan umat Islam itu adalah tuhan yang lain ataupun tuhan palsu.

Sedangkan hakikatnya, Allah yang disembah orang Islam itulah Dialah Yang Maha Esa, Maha Berkuasa dan Maha Mengetahui.

Seperkara yang cuba dijelaskan oleh Khadijah ialah bahawasanya perkataan Trinity sebenarnya tidak ditemui sama ada di dalam kitab Injil atau daripada mana-mana kitab terjemahan malah juga daripada kitab asli bahasa Greek atau Ibrani (Hebrew). Sekali lagi persoalan saya tertumpu kepada Nabi Muhammad SAW.

Siapa gerangannya si penama Muhammad ini? Khadijah difahamkan bahawa orang Islam tidak menyembah Muhammad sebagaimana yang dilakukan orang Kristian terhadap Nabi Isa.

Muhammad juga bukan perantara malah adalah perbuatan menyembah Muhammad itu adalah ditegah. Sebenarnya, Muhammad itu ialah Nabi dan Rasul serta penutup segala nabi. Malah sehingga kini selepas 1418 tahun, tidak ada lagi nabi selepas Baginda Rasulullah SAW.

Sementara itu, sebagai seorang pengikut Kristian, Khadijah akui pelaksanaan menyembah Tuhan Isa mempunyai hubungan rapat dan aspek penting sebagai tanda kesetiaan bergelar seorang pengikut.

Lantaran itu, apabila mengetahui bahawa ibadat solat yang wajib dilaksanakan ke atas setiap yang mengakui Muslim, ia telah menimbulkan semacam keterujaan dalam diri Khadijah untuk mengetahui apa yang disembah oleh mereka sehingga solat dianggap sebagai tiang agama. Apatah lagi mereka (orang Islam) itu tidak menyembah kepada mana-mana objek seperti agamanya menyembah kepada patung Nabi Isa.

Selama ini, pemahaman Khadijah, orang Islam tunduk dan sujud kepada Kaabah di mana di situlah dipercayai tempat tuhan palsu mereka. Hakikatnya, segala pergerakan di dalam ibadat solat itu adalah daripada Allah. Malahan apa yang dibacakan semuanya adalah memuji-Nya.

Lebih mengejutkan Khadijah, untuk melaksanakannya juga diwajibkan untuk mengambil wuduk yang bukannya ciptaan manusia tetapi langsung daripada Allah.

Akhirnya, Khadijah mengakui kebenaran Islam. Malah pengajiannya dalam bidang teologi selama lapan tahun tidak dapat menyangkal bukti-bukti kekuasaan kuasa hebat Allah Yang Esa.

Pun begitu, Khadijah tidak serta merta memeluk agama Islam dengan alasan hatinya masih belum terbuka walaupun akal logiknya beranggapan sebaliknya. Walau bagaimanapun, Khadijah tetap terus berdoa, membaca kitab Injil serta pada masa sama menghadiri kelas-kelas kuliah ilmu di pusat Islam.

"Saya benar-benar mengharapkan petunjuk Allah. Bukannya mudah untuk bertukar agama. Sudah pastinya saya tidak mahu terlepas peluang untuk diselamatkan atau adakah benar menerusi agama Kristian saya akan terselamat? Sesungguhnya, sepanjang pencarian kebenaran itu, saya sentiasa diketemukan dengan pelbagai keajaiban Islam yang tidak pernah saya fikirkan.

Dua bulan kemudian, selepas sekali lagi berdoa memohon petunjuk Ilahi, saya dapat rasakan sesuatu kelainan yang menerpa dalam hati ini. Saya bingkas bangun dan pertama kali dalam hidup ini terpacul kata-kata, "Sesungguhnya aku mengakui tiada tuhan yang disembah melainkan Allah."

"Ada semacam ketenangan terasa seperti menyelinap dalam setiap inci pembuluh darah dan sejak itu sehinggalah sekarang aku tidak pernah menyesal dengan pilihan bergelar Muslim. Semua keputusan ini tidak datang tanpa ujian.

"Saya dipecat daripada mengajar di kolej pengajian kitab Injil, dipulau oleh bekas teman-teman sekuliah, profesor dan pastor, dipinggirkan oleh keluarga sebelah suami, disalah anggap oleh anak-anak yang sudah dewasa."

Khadijah akui, tanpa kepercayaan teguh dengan janji Allah, pastinya beliau sudah kecundang. Namun Khadijah begitu bersyukur kerana dengan berpegang kepada tali Islam dan sentiasa percaya semoga hidup dan matinya adalah kerana Allah.

Firman Allah yang bermaksud: Sesungguhnya solatku, ibadatku, hidupku dan matiku hanyalah untuk Allah, Tuhan semesta alam. Tiada sekutu bagi-nya dan demikian itulah yang diperintahkan kepadaku dan aku adalah orang yang pertama-tama menyerahkan diri (kepada Allah). (al-An'aam: 162-163)

[Baca]

Bersatulah bangsa Melayu

BANGSA Melayu kini menghadapi krisis perpaduan yang paling kritikal dan mencabar. Ia lebih hebat daripada tsunami PRU 12 pada Mac tahun lalu. Ia adalah senario yang menyedihkan sekali. Seboleh-bolehnya kita cuba menafikan tetapi itulah hakikatnya.

Tsunami pilihan raya Mac 2008 bukanlah akar sebenar kepada perpecahan Melayu. Tetapi ia berupa isyarat untuk menyedarkan para pemimpin tentang gentingnya perpaduan Melayu ketika ini.

Krisis perpaduan Melayu berlaku apabila kita mula lupa sejarah bangsa. Usaha ke arah itu sedang dilakukan oleh banyak pihak. Maka tidak hairanlah apabila pelbagai muzakarah dan perbincangan dianjurkan sejak kebelakangan ini.

Pelbagai pihak kini mula bercakap soal institusi beraja yang satu ketika dulu tidak ada yang berminat untuk membincangkannya. Begitu juga soal ketuanan Melayu dan keagungan Islam serta kedaulatan bahasa Melayu sendiri.

Sejarah Melayu dikatakan bermula sejak 1400. Walaupun ada yang mengatakan sejarah orang Melayu bermula lebih awal tetapi dengan mengambil kira definisi Melayu berasaskan adat resam, raja dan agama Islam maka tidak syak lagi sejarah Melayu hanya bermula sekitar kurun ke-15 itu.

Jika dihitung, sejarah orang Melayu tidaklah begitu panjang berbanding sejarah bangsa utama dunia lain yang menjangkau ribuan tahun. Sejarah kita baru bermula 600 tahun dahulu.

Mengimbau sejarah, orang Melayu bertuah kerana dianugerahkan Tuhan dengan tanah air yang dinamakan Tanah Melayu (dan kemudian menjadi Malaysia). Orang Melayu, walaupun terjajah ratusan tahun masih bertuah kerana tidak perlu berperang dan berkorban nyawa sepanjang 600 tahun itu.

Orang Melayu juga sungguh bertuah kerana kemerdekaan tanah air berlaku di meja rundingan dan bukannya di medan peperangan. Lebih bertuah jika difikirkan bagaimana orang Melayu hari ini masih terus kekal memerintah tanah air sendiri walaupun pernah dijajah dalam tempoh ratusan tahun.

Namun tuah tidak akan selalu menjadi milik orang Melayu. Tuah itu pun bukannya datang bergolek tetapi berkat semangat, doa dan permuafakatan Melayu.

Apalah maknanya ketuanan Melayu yang sering diuar-uarkan kalau orang Melayu langsung tidak memahami bagaimana ketuanan itu diperolehi. Ketuanan Melayu hanya hasil tetapi sejarah bangsa Melayu adalah prosesnya.

Pada setiap zaman, orang Melayu pasti mengalami perubahan. Ia berlaku sejak era tradisional ke penjajahan dan kemudian era modenisasi sebelum ke alaf globalisasi sekarang. Pada setiap era, orang Melayu sentiasa berusaha untuk menguasai perubahan demi menjadi bangsa yang lebih baik.

Tetapi fakta sejarah menunjukkan sebaik manapun pencapaian kita, pastinya ada bangsa lain mendapat pencapaian lebih baik. Sebagai contoh, walaupun kerajaan Melayu Melaka dipimpin oleh Kesultanan Melayu dengan para pembesar terdiri daripada orang Melayu, yang mengaut laba di Melaka ialah pedagang Arab, Cina dan India.

Penjajah Inggeris membantu membangunkan sekolah Melayu tatkala masyarakat bukan Melayu berhempas pulas membangunkan sistem pendidikan sendiri. Sepatutnya pendidikan orang Melayu jauh lebih maju, tetapi sebaliknya lebih ramai yang berpendidikan tinggi ialah bukan Melayu.

Bila universiti mula ditubuhkan oleh kerajaan dengan memperkenalkan sistem kuota demi bangsa Melayu, masih ramai graduan terbaik adalah bukan Melayu.

Apabila Dasar Ekonomi Baru diberikan kepada kalangan bumiputera khususnya Melayu sebagai satu keistimewaan, yang menjadi kaya raya kebanyakannya bukan Melayu. Walaupun politik dipegang oleh orang Melayu, pimpinan Melayu terpaksa merayu dan melobi pengundi bukan Melayu untuk memerintah. Ia berlaku tidak kira di kalangan parti kerajaan atau pembangkang.

Memikirkan hal ini sudah cukup memenatkan. Jelas sekali orang Melayu semakin lupa sejarah bangsa. Mereka, khususnya para pemimpin mula lupa hakikat bahawa sebagai pemimpin, mereka datang dan pergi.

Hari ini dengan kudrat dan tenaga yang ada mereka membangunkan anak bangsa, sampai masanya orang lain akan menggantikan mereka. Yang penting ialah perjuangan membangunkan anak bangsa, tidak berpecah-belah tetapi sentiasa bertimbang tara dan berbincang.

Mereka yang berpengalaman sepatutnya memberi nasihat sementara yang muda menimbangkannya. Akhirnya bangsa Melayu tidak akan rugi dan terus maju.

Sejarah bangsa Melayu nampaknya tidak begitu dihayati oleh bangsa kita. Rasuah, penyalahgunaan kuasa, nepotisme dan kronisme, berfoya-foya menjadi amalan. Ramai yang suka memegang kuasa walaupun terpaksa bersengketa sesama sendiri. Amalan itu nampaknya masih kuat menguasai sebahagian pemimpin Melayu.

Nasihat cendekiawan agar keadaan ini diperbetulkan nampaknya gagal. Ramai pemimpin dan sebahagian besar bangsa Melayu masih tidak belajar mengenai tragedi kejatuhan Melaka kepada Portugis. Ia berpunca daripada perbuatan khianat pembesar Melayu.

Bangsa Melayu telah lupa Perjanjian Pangkor. Kealpaan kepemimpinan Melayu ketika itu membuatkan seluruh negeri tergadai kepada penjajah Barat. Pimpinan Melayu juga mungkin sudah lupa bagaimana sukarnya orang Melayu menentang Malayan Union.

Apakah para pemimpin Melayu tidak ingin menjadi seperti Tok Janggut, Mat Kilau, Tok Bahaman atau Dol Said. Semua tokoh pejuang itu sanggup berkorban nyawa semata-mata untuk bangsa Melayu.

Janganlah kerana kita sudah pandai memakai kot dan bertali leher atau selesa berucap dalam bahasa asing, menaiki kereta mewah dan tinggal di rumah cantik, agenda bangsa Melayu tidak lagi menjadi keutamaan.

Mungkin di kalangan pemimpin Melayu kita hari ini sudah tidak boleh menterjemahkan semangat perjuangan bangsa. Pemimpin yang ikhlas untuk menjulang perjuangan bangsa akan sentiasa bersatu, tidak berpecah belah dan amanah dalam perjuangan. Golongan ini tidak berharap kepada kedudukan dan pangkat. Mereka komited dengan perjuangannya membela Melayu.

Malangnya apa yang kita lihat sekarang ialah wujudnya ramai pemimpin Melayu yang semakin lupa sejarah. Kita mungkin biasa mendengar ucapan hebat pemimpin Melayu. Tetapi yang nampak di luar belum tentu sama dengan apa yang ada di dalam hati mereka.

Semoga Allah sahaja yang mengetahui apa yang ada di dalam hati dan sanubari para pemimpin Melayu. Rakyat hanya boleh berdoa agar pemimpin mereka benar-benar ikhlas dalam perjuangan.

Orang Melayu mungkin bukan sahaja lupa kepada sejarah bangsa, tetapi gagal menterjemahkan ajaran Islam yang begitu sempurna.

Jelas begitu tebalnya masalah bangsa Melayu. Cuba kita teliti satu persatu segmen kehidupan kita dan di mana letaknya kedudukan bangsa Melayu yang berjumlah tidak sampai 15 juta ini.

Dalam bidang ekonomi, secara umum kita hanya menguasai 18 peratus agihan kekayaan negara. Selebihnya dimonopoli oleh bangsa bukan Melayu serta syarikat konglomerat antarabangsa. Lihat juga sektor pekerjaan, hampir keseluruhan pekerjaan profesional dikuasai oleh bukan bangsa Melayu seperti doktor, jurutera, akauntan serta peguam. Begitu juga sektor ICT, perbankan dan pembinaan.

Sektor sosial pula menunjukkan begitu banyak kewujudan pertubuhan bukan kerajaan (NGO) di kalangan masyarakat Melayu. NGO Melayu masih terikat kepada soal sukan, hiburan dan politik.

Sektor politik walaupun dikuasai oleh bangsa Melayu tetapi bentuknya bukanlah mutlak tetapi atas dasar tolak ansur dan ihsan bangsa lain. Jelas walaupun sebagai bangsa majoriti daripada segi penduduk, pencapaian bangsa Melayu masih jauh di belakang.

Banyak usaha dan tenaga perlu ditumpukan untuk maju. Berpecah belah dan bersengketa sesama pimpinan Melayu bukan sahaja melambatkan usaha memajukan bangsa tetapi menolak bangsa lebih jauh ke belakang. Kita perlu insaf, perkara itu sangat merugikan orang Melayu.

Bangsa Melayu tentu ingin maju dan mahu menjadi bangsa lebih hebat 100 tahun akan datang. Tetapi sejarah 600 tahun dahulu perlu diinsafi terlebih dahulu sekiranya kita mahu menjadi lebih hebat.

Anak-anak kita diajar di sekolah tentang bersatu padu, cintakan bangsa dan negara tetapi di luar bilik darjah mereka melihat tokoh kebanggaan mereka berpecah-belah. Ironinya, keadaan ini tidak menguntungkan sesiapa khususnya bangsa Melayu itu sendiri.

Pemimpin dan masyarakat Melayu seharusnya lebih menilai dan menginsafi sejarah bangsa sendiri. Percayalah, pemimpin Melayu yang sedar mengenai sejarah bangsanya akan berjuang untuk menjadikan bangsa ini lebih hebat dan berdaulat.

PENULIS ialah Pensyarah Fakulti Pendidikan Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.

[Baca]

Asia And The Crisis: Unlucky Numbers - By David Pilling (LATEST UPDATE - 11/2/09)

February 9 2009 FT   Pick a number, any number. For Asia, they are all likely to be bad. Lau Wong-fat, the unfortunate Hong Kong official designated to select a fortune-telling stick on the city’s behalf during recent lunar new year celebrations, plucked out the number 27, seen by those present as the unluckiest possible omen for the year. A fortune teller at Che Kung temple, shrouded in incense and consulting the heavens for inspiration, declared it meant Hong Kong could not isolate itself from global economic turmoil.   But no such master of divination was needed. Not only Hong Kong, which as a port city and financial centre thrives on its openness to fast-dwindling world trade, but the whole of Asia is in trouble. All over the region, particularly in manufacturing-heavy south-east and north-east Asia, government statisticians have been summoning up evil-eye numbers of their own.   From a sprint to a limp: a country by country graphic   One of the worst came from Japan, whose conservative banks had been slow to buy toxic assets, making the economy seemingly less threatened by recession. That illusion ended when statistics showed that exports had fallen a shocking 35 per cent in December from a year earlier as demand for cars, electronics and precision equipment collapsed around the world.   That was followed by a stream of further bad data including a nearly 10 per cent month-on-month drop in industrial production, a sharp rise in unemployment to 4.4 per cent (see below) and a fall in headline inflation that suggests a return to deflation is just around the corner. So sharp has been the deterioration that the International Monetary Fund has forecast a contraction in gross domestic product of 2.6 per cent this year, suggesting Japan could fare even worse than the US, the origin of the credit crisis.   Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan vie with Japan for the swiftest downturn. Singapore, the canary in the coalmine of global trade because of its open economy, could contract by up to 5 per cent this year in what would be the deepest recession since the city-state’s birth in 1965. The IMF is predicting a 4 per cent contraction in South Korea, though the government in Seoul is sticking much more optimistic.   Interactive graphic: Asia’s economic weather map   Nor is China, an economy that is at least expected to grow by a respectable 6-8 per cent this year, immune from heart-stopping statistics. Last week, the government estimated that no fewer than 20m rural migrant workers, 15 per cent of the total, had lost their jobs as export-oriented factories shut their gates. Blue skies in Hong Kong are testimony to the closure of polluting plants across the border in the Pearl River delta.   The speed and ferocity of Asia’s downturn has taken aback even the pessimists. “Whilst Asia was not the epicentre of the crisis it has been hit hard,” said Dominique Strauss-Kahn, IMF managing director, last week. His organisation expects regional growth of just 2.7 per cent, a fraction of the 9 per cent achieved in 2007 and a percentage point lower even than it managed during its own financial crisis a decade ago. That crisis was largely self-inflicted, the product of an overdependence on fickle flows of foreign finance. This time, the region’s balance sheets are in better shape and the crisis began elsewhere. So why does Asia appear set for an even harder fall?   The short answer is trade. As Mr Strauss-Kahn says, Asia is more intimately bound to the global economy than it was a decade ago. The region has grown spectacularly on the back of exports but the “bad side of the coin” is that this makes it more vulnerable now. At the time of the previous crisis, exports accounted for 37 per cent of developing Asia’s output, according to economists at Morgan Stanley. A decade later, that had risen to 47 per cent as governments sought to build large foreign currency reserves to protect themselves against the current-account shocks that had floored them before. The upshot was that Asia swapped dependence on external financing for dependence on external demand.   Pointers to Asia’s Agony   Anecdotal evidence from across Asia suggests the slowdown is beginning to have a profound effect on people’s lives, writes David Pilling.   Even in India, an economy less exposed to trade than much of the region, many businesses are paring back, cutting overtime or going to a shorter working week. At the weekend, 600 of the 1,600 discount food outlets of Subhiksha Trading Services were looted because the company had run out of money to pay security guards. The retailer’s difficulties underline how lack of credit, the second channel through which the crisis is spreading to Asian business, is bringing companies low.   Corporate Japan, whose best companies are the most exposed to trade, has announced a string of losses and factory closures. The coastal cities of China, where prosperity has risen rapidly, show signs of consumer caution everywhere, from a stronger growth in the second-hand car market than for new vehicles, to the more modest buckets of chicken that diners order at take-away restaurants.   Macao’s cranes stand idle after the building boom in ever more lavish casino complexes stopped dead. Middle-class Taiwan, where much wealth depends on now desperate chip and flat-screen display makers, has seen a sixfold increase in business at self-service petrol stations as people save a few cents a litre.   This matters hugely for a world that, until just a few months ago, had assumed that the financial crisis jolting the west would somehow pass Asia by. A corollary of that flawed assumption was that China – and to a lesser extent Japan and India – could somehow shoulder the global economic burden by substituting for fast-disappearing US and European demand. That hope ignored the fact that, with the exception of Japan, no Asian economy yet possesses anything like the scale to play such a role. But, more important, it missed the point of how entrenched Asia’s export-dependent model is and how difficult it will be to convert its economies into ones powered by domestic demand. As N.K. Singh, a member of India’s parliament, says: “It is not just a matter of hey presto.”   Indeed not. Cem Karacadag of Credit Suisse calculates that exports, net of their import content, account for as much as two-thirds of GDP in Hong Kong and Singapore, almost half of the output of Malaysia and Thailand and one-third for South Korea and Taiwan. He says the initial impact of a 10 per cent fall in exports – without taking into account secondary effects, including inevitable job losses and a fall in consumer sentiment – would cut 2 percentage points off growth in South Korea and Taiwan and leave Hong Kong and Singapore each 7 percentage points worse off.   Jong Wha-Lee of the Asian Development Bank says a sharp rise over recent years in intra-regional trade disguises the fact that 60 per cent of final demand for Asian goods comes from developed countries. As western consumers postpone purchases, a lot of intra-Asian trade – much of it components, inputs and capital equipment – has also evaporated. As if this were not bad enough, economies that rely on tourism are receiving an additional body blow as visitor numbers fall. Tourism makes up 5-7 per cent of GDP in Hong Kong, Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand. Moreover, if employment of foreign workers in the Gulf and elsewhere falls as fast as expected, then remittance-dependent countries from the Philippines to parts of India are also in for a shock.   At the other end of the development scale, Japan is undergoing factory closures as companies slide into the red. Toyota, the leading car manufacturer, has warned amid collapsing US sales that it would make an operating loss of Y450bn ($5bn, €3.8bn, £3.2bn) this year, its first since 1950. Just a few months ago it was predicting a Y600bn profit.   In China, the slowdown contrasts with breakneck 13 per cent growth in 2007. There are tentative signs – including a sharp recovery in bank lending – that growth, which slowed to 6.8 per cent in the fourth quarter, may have hit bottom as a barrage of government stimulus measures begins to take effect. Beijing was fairly quick to recognise the severity of the slowdown, announcing as early as November a Rmb4,000bn ($585bn, €447bn, £390bn) stimulus package. Many other governments are still playing catch-up. Last week, Australia became the latest to formulate a big stimulus package, announcing A$42bn ($29bn, €22bn, £19bn) in extra spending. Japan, whose deadlocked parliament is fighting over stimulus measures, has come up with a string of unorthodox actions, including the central bank’s decision last week to buy up to Y1,000bn of shares owned by banks.   Even if such moves help dull the pain of the external demand shock, the bigger worry is what comes next. Michael Pettis, a finance professor at Peking University, argues that China (and others) will have to engineer a massive rebalancing of their economies towards domestic-led growth if they are to adjust to a world in which US consumers must rebuild depleted savings.   “In the best possible world, Chinese consumption would rise by exactly the same amount as US consumption drops,” he says. But given that the US economy is more than three times the size of China’s, the magnitude of such an adjustment is likely to be beyond it.   “There is no longer any choice for Asia,” concurs Clyde Prestowitz, president of the Economic Strategy Institute who warned for years that global imbalances were unsustainable. “Asia has to start consuming more but I am not sure that the Asian leaders I have been speaking to get it,” he says, adding that this would require changes to credit provision, tax incentives and regulation. “The export-led model has outlived its usefulness.”   If Mr Prestowitz is right, the global crisis means more than a cyclical shock to Asian economies. Rather it signifies the start of a profound – and no doubt painful – transformation as they adjust to a world in which the US consumer is no longer the buyer of last resort. Whether Asian economies are up to that long-term challenge is something on which fortune tellers might usefully comment.     JOB INSECURITY IN JAPAN: ‘TEMPS ARE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST’   It took the worst economic downturn in decades to bring home to Shungo Horita that he was on the wrong side of Japan’s great labour divide.   Aged 24, Mr Horita had worked for more than two years alongside permanent staff at a food preparation plant on Tokyo’s outer fringes, processing eggs for convenience store sandwiches. But he was a contract worker from a temporary employment agency and, while Japanese companies are famously reluctant to fire permanent staff, they are showing little compunction about shedding temps.   In mid-December, Mr Horita’s agency told him he would no longer be required – and must vacate his employer-subsidised one-room apartment by the end of the month. “I was really angry,” he says. Temps “are discriminated against: we get less in pay and bonuses – and we are easily fired”.   Mr Horita is far from alone. With Japan’s industrial output plunging by 9.6 per cent month-on-month in December, “irregular staff” such as part-timers and temps are bearing the brunt of the slowdown. The government says an unprecedented 125,000 irregular employees – mainly temps in manufacturing – will lose their jobs in the six months to March. An industry estimate puts the figure at closer to 400,000.   Such numbers reflect in part a transformation in the workforce over the past decade and a half, wrought by a reluctance to hire permanent staff among companies suffering from the bursting of a 1980s asset bubble. As part of a liberalisation of labour laws, 2004 legalisation allowed temps to be used in manufacturing.   A greater use of non-permanent staff – now one-third of the workforce – has helped Japanese manufacturers to maintain competitiveness. But temps and part-timers with little or no employment insurance are badly placed to play the role of economic buffer. Even when working, Mr Horita was lucky to have more than Y10,000 ($110, £75, €85) a month left over from his Y160,000 pay, after food and his Y50,000 rent: “It was basically impossible to save money.”   Unable to find work before his eviction, on new year’s night he queued for free food and a place to sleep at a tent village near Tokyo’s imperial palace. The sight of hundreds of such newly unemployed at the “dispatch workers’ village” set up by unions and campaigners against poverty, shocked many and helped to make irregular labour one of Japan’s hottest political topics.   Opposition politicians – likely to win power from the long-ruling Liberal Democratic party this year – are demanding a reversal of the 2004 reform. Taro Aso (above), prime minister and leader of the LDP, has pledged to review the system and ban the use of temps engaged on a day-to-day basis.   Tsuyoshi Takagi, president of Rengo, Japan’s biggest trade union confederation, says temps are being treated “the same as robots”, adding: “We need to go back to the old way.”   Mr Horita has learnt from his time at the egg plant that he needs a less vulnerable job. “I want to be a regular employee,” he says. “I don’t want the same to happen again.”

[Baca]

The Government Finance Bubble - By Doug Noland (LATEST UPDATE - 10/2/09)

6 February 2009, Credit Bubble Bulletin

What are we really dealing with here?  First of all, the system is suffering through the breakdown in contemporary “Wall Street finance.”  As wrenching and destabilizing as it continues to be, this process should be differentiated from outright financial collapse.  Confidence in Wall Street “money” (their previously perceived safe and liquid securities/instruments) has been shattered.  Myriad sophisticated Credit instruments have been discredited and thus will no longer provide a viable mechanism for system Credit expansion.  Importantly, however, confidence has been sustained for system “money” more generally.

As I’ve noted in previous writings, analysts made a momentous blunder earlier this decade when they mistook the collapse of the technology Bubble (and attendant recession and corporate debt problems) for the onset of “deflation.”  Reflationary policymaking without regard to the nature of inflationary consequences proved disastrous.  We’re about to repeat this error.

Ignoring the Acute Inflationary Bias unfolding in mortgage finance was the greatest mistake in both analysis and policymaking from the ill-fated 2001-2004 period.  It should have been clear at the time that rates were way too low and mortgage finance way too loose.  This was especially the case when compared to the rapid pace of home price inflation.  Most regrettably, the strong inflationary biases that had taken hold in the mortgage and housing marketplaces (“Bubbles”) were too easily exploited as a monetary policy expedient for systemic reflation.  Excess in some local housing markets was viewed as a small price to pay for thwarting systemic deflationary pressures.

Despite today’s histrionic fixation on “deflation,” current dynamics have some similarities to the post-tech Bubble period.  Granted, the collapse of Wall Street finance is of much greater scope and consequence than the bursting of the tech Bubble.  Yet I would counter that The Burgeoning Bubble in Government Finance is poised to make the Mortgage Finance Bubble appear tiny in comparison.

There has been no run on bank deposit “money;” not with the FDIC, Treasury, and Federal Reserve there to backstop confidence.  The marketplace’s love affair with agency debt runs unabated – compliments of federal government receivership and guarantees.  Money market fund assets are right at record levels, confidence bolstered by Fed and Treasury assurances.  And despite the prospect of a $1 TN borrowing requirement this year, the Treasury can still tap liquid markets for short-term funds at about 20 bps.  The Fed’s balance sheet has ballooned, although nothing to compare to the unfolding explosion of Trillions of Treasury borrowings, obligations and guarantees (both implied and explicit).   

The Government Finance Bubble is enormous and powerful - and should be anything but underestimated.  Akin to the previous Bubble in Wall Street finance, the epicenter of this Bubble is here in the U.S.  But I would argue that this unfolding Bubble dynamic has greater potential to engulf the entire world than even U.S.-style mortgages and derivatives did starting back around 2002.  Welcome to the new world of synchronized stimulus, deficits, and reflationary policymaking.  I don’t believe true systemic deflation (as opposed to collapsing asset Bubbles) is a high probability scenarios as long as the Government Finance Bubble is rapidly inflating.  All bets are off, however, if confidence in government debt falters.  The worst case scenario – that should be avoided at all costs – is a massive inflation of government claims that sets the stage for a devastating bust.

It is imperative for policymakers to ensure that the Government Finance Bubble does not follow in the footsteps of the runaway excess associated with Wall Street/mortgage finance.  Yet it’s clear that policymaking (monetary and fiscal) is setting a course to guarantee just such an outcome.  And, as has been the case for some time now, markets are keen to fall in love with – and aggressively accommodate – whatever might be the Bubble of the Day.

The Wall Street/Mortgage Finance Bubble ran to such incredible extremes that its subsequent implosion has created the near ideal backdrop for the explosion of Government Finance (as the tech implosion did for mortgage finance).  Some notable pundits espouse throwing “Trillions” at the problem in hopes of finding a solution.  They fail to be appreciated that Trillions today will only create the need for ongoing Trillions.  But this is the nature of vulnerable inflationary booms.  The solution is always incorrectly gauged as a shortage of money, Credit and spending.

There is hope that massive government reflation will reinvigorate the asset markets and resuscitate Wall Street finance.  I view this as highly unlikely - and these lofty goals incredibly dangerous.  It is more likely that the historic Bubble in private-sector Credit creation – with its focus on myriad sophisticated instruments, structures and leveraging – will recover little of its former power and glory.  In past episodes of financial turmoil, our policymakers would simply entice private sector financial operators (notably the Wall Street firms, hedge funds and bond fund managers) with alluring borrowing costs, spreads and speculative profits.  Strong inflationary biases permeated Wall Street finance, the leveraged speculating community, and U.S. asset prices more generally.  Accordingly, almost on demand, private-sector Credit creation would quickly evolve into the main source for fueling system (i.e. asset) reflation.  Moreover, asset price inflation was the focal point for perceived wealth creation and economic stimulus.

Today's Post-Credit Bubble Backdrop and The Nature of the Government Finance Bubble ensure quite atypical dynamics (and analytical surprises).  For one, the flow of finance to the asset markets will be insufficient to reinvigorate
asset inflation (post-Bubble realities of burst confidence, altered market psychology, impaired Credit mechanisms and economic angst/dislocation).  This is critical analysis.  It was the strong inflationary biases throughout the asset markets that fostered the self-reinforcing Bubble in private-sector Credit.  And private-sector Credit was behind past inflationary financial and economic Bubbles - that have left the system today so fragile (and pundits clamoring for more inflation!).

Structural realities dictate that Government Finance cannot simply enter the fray and miraculously make things right.  A moderate amount of stimulus would be expected to assist the post-Bubble economic adjustment, while inordinate government Credit inflation and market intervention will only work to compound systemic fragility.

The public sector is now essentially on its own when it comes to stoking this bout of reflation.  Moreover, it is being called upon after a couple of decades where private-sector Credit grossly inflated home prices, securities values, various other asset prices, household incomes, consumer borrowing and spending, corporate profits, and government receipts and expenditures.  The Government Finance Bubble is being called upon to reflate with little assistance from private Credit, while at the same time it is faced with a Deeply Maladjusted Economic Structure still overly dependent upon inflationary Credit expansion.  Throwing mega-Trillions at our distorted economy is just asking for trouble.
 
It is in this context that I fear that the Trillions of Government Finance spent to save the world from “deflation” will, in the end, require perpetual needs for Trillions more.  There will be no kick-starting asset Bubbles or a return of private-sector Credit excess.  Instead, it will be a case of throwing repeated doses of government-directed finance/purchasing power at the system.  Temporary but fleeting economic boosts will then require only stronger doses of artificial stimulus.

We’ve commenced a new cycle dominated by government electronic printing presses in all their various forms.  The inflationary consequences will be a different variety than we’ve grown accustomed to from previous reflations. But the bottom line is – and there’s ample history to support this view – that once the “printing presses” get humming along it’s going to be darn difficult to slow them down.
[Baca]

For Bank of America and Merrill Lynch, Love Was Blind - By Louise Story and Julie Creswell (LATEST UPDATE - 10/2/09)

7 February 2009,  NYT
 
In mid-September, as Wall Street unwound and venerable financial institutions were brought to their knees, the mood inside the Manhattan law offices of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz was decidedly celebratory.

After a weekend of whirlwind deal-making and emergency meetings at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, John A. Thain and his team at Merrill Lynch had sold their troubled brokerage firm to the Bank of America Corporation, dodging the financial sinkhole that was swallowing Lehman Brothers.

But before Wachtell lawyers, who were representing Bank of America, signed off on the deal, they told Merrill’s lawyers that they wanted to be sure about just one more thing: the size of the bonuses that Mr. Thain and his colleagues would snare at the end of the year. A page was ripped from a notebook, and someone on Merrill’s team scribbled eight-digit figures for each of Merrill’s top five executives, including $40 million for Mr. Thain alone.


Although Merrill had been bleeding money all year — and would continue to do so — the bonuses weren’t, as Merrill executives later explained to colleagues, about that performance. Rather, they were fees for getting the merger done, akin to what investment bankers receive for blockbuster deals. Mr. Thain in particular felt he deserved a hefty payout for his deal-making heroics, according to five individuals with detailed knowledge of the situation who requested anonymity because of their personal and business relationships with those involved.

A few weeks later, Merrill’s human resources director visited John D. Finnegan, the head of the compensation committee on Merrill’s board, and told him about the bonuses, according to four people briefed on the conversation. “That’s ludicrous,” said Mr. Finnegan, the chief executive of the Chubb Group of Insurance Companies. He thought that the lush bonus requests came across as greedy and insensitive — particularly because Wall Street was in such dire straits that it was likely taxpayer support would be needed to survive.

An internal debate with Mr. Thain over his bonus ensued; a person familiar with Mr. Thain’s thinking said that a $40 million bonus was “never a subject of serious discussion.” Even so, others at Merrill were put off by his bonus negotiations, which helped splinter the carefully tended image of Merrill’s chief executive, a man perceived during most of his career to be a robotic and circumspect number-cruncher.

More important, the episode revealed the rampant hubris and sense of entitlement embedded on Wall Street, foreshadowing the myriad problems that would eventually threaten the merger of the two beleaguered financial giants.
Hailed as the path forward for a Wall Street in disarray, the merger offered Merrill a chance to rebound from billions of dollars in mortgage-related mistakes and gave Bank of America access to Merrill’s well-known brand and its vast network of brokers, known as the thundering herd.

But the merger, in which Bank of America agreed to pay about $50 billion in stock for Merrill, soured at light speed. Back then, the combined companies would have been valued by the stock market at about $176 billion. Today, the combination has a market capitalization of only $39 billion.

Interviews with almost 30 current and former Bank of America and Merrill executives and employees convey just how messy the merger has been. All of them asked not to be identified because they either did not have permission from the banks to speak or because they had signed confidentiality agreements with their former employers.

On one side is Mr. Thain, who was viewed as someone who promised far more to Merrill than he delivered. Although he has repeatedly said that he helped heal the firm’s financial wounds and its battered morale, he wound up insulating himself from most top Merrill executives and failed to protect the firm from a stunning $15.3 billion loss in the fourth quarter of last year, according to several current and former senior Merrill insiders.

On the other side of the deal is Kenneth D. Lewis, a pragmatic, no-nonsense banker who, as Bank of America’s chief executive, monitored the Merrill takeover from a remote base in his Charlotte, N.C., headquarters and who, according to people at his bank, was perhaps blinded to Merrill’s risks by his own ambitions and penchant for empire building.

While Mr. Lewis has maintained in calls with analysts that his team dug deep into Merrill’s books in mid-September, analysts have repeatedly questioned whether the reviews were thorough. Although Mr. Lewis contends that he was surprised by the magnitude of Merrill’s losses, his financial team on the ground in New York had daily access to Merrill’s trading books, which would have allowed them to detect the mounting exposures.

Spokesmen for Mr. Thain and Mr. Lewis declined to comment for this article.

Now, after dismissing Mr. Thain amid public criticism about his bonus negotiations and the huge losses, Mr. Lewis faces an uphill battle as he struggles to make the marriage of two financial giants work.

Taxpayers are furious that Bank of America hit up the government for a second round of bailout funds in order to close the Merrill deal earlier this year, bringing its tab at the federal trough to $45 billion and potentially exposing taxpayers to further losses. Shareholders were shocked to see the stock of what was a solid retail banking operation recently trade below $5 a share. And Bank of America employees are angry that their own bonuses have all but evaporated because of what they see as Mr. Lewis’s mistakes.

While Bank of America’s board has affirmed its support for Mr. Lewis, 61, many analysts believe that his job — and his own legacy — is in jeopardy if the ambitious bet he placed on Merrill plays out poorly.

Mr. Lewis is now scrambling to shore up his bank and its image by conserving cash and selling corporate jets. The bank, meanwhile, is providing reams of documents to the New York attorney general, who is investigating whether all aspects of the Merrill merger were handled legitimately.

Above all, individuals inside the bank say, Mr. Lewis is desperate to avoid greater government intervention and maintain control over his wobbling financial empire.

“When you go into a deal, you hope for the best but expect the worst,” says Nancy Bush, a banking analyst. “I think Bank of America did plenty of due diligence; they just ignored what they found. They knew it was there. They just didn’t completely grapple with the fact that it could get uglier. And it did.”

ON Jan. 22, only shortly after the Merrill takeover was formally complete, breaking news drew Bank of America’s traders away from their blinking computer screens in New York to nearby televisions: John Thain was out. Spontaneous applause broke out across the trading floor and bets were placed on which one of Mr. Thain’s highly paid lieutenants would be next.
That reaction was hardly a surprise. In the eyes of Bank of America employees, Mr. Thain sold them a lemon of a company that put their own company — and their jobs — at risk. The animosity was fueled by reports of Mr. Thain’s lavish $1.2 million office renovation and last-minute bonuses that he paid out to Merrill employees days before the deal closed. A manager at Bank of America said that he and others were ordered to cut already-low bonuses by 20 percent the day after Merrill’s loss became public. A Bank of America spokesman said the bank did not tie its bonuses to Merrill’s results.

What is a surprise, however, is just how disliked Mr. Thain, 53, had become inside Merrill. When he arrived at Merrill in late 2007, he was given a hero’s welcome. Mr. Thain, lanky and square-jawed at 53, was brought in to fix the wayward firm battered by losses and the ouster of its controversial leader, E. Stanley O’Neal.

Merrill’s board thought Mr. Thain perfect for the job. He had traded mortgage securities at Goldman Sachs in the 1980s and rose quickly through that investment bank’s ranks to become one of the youngest chief financial officers on Wall Street. He left Goldman in 2003 to lead the New York Stock Exchange, in part because Goldman had passed him over for the top job there.


Ultimately, Mr. Thain’s tenure at Merrill would generate distinctly different internal assessments of his character within the firm. Initially, people considered him aloof but hard-working and well intentioned. After he helped engineer the sale to Bank of America at a moment when Lehman was collapsing, he was regarded as a savvy deal maker who saved the firm. But after publicity about his lavish office redecoration and his bonus negotiations was coupled with the firm’s huge losses, people came to resent what they considered to be his feckless and self-aggrandizing behavior.

When he was first ensconced at Merrill, he brought over his closest associates from the Big Board, including Margaret D. Tutwiler to run communications. A seasoned political operator who spent most of her career working for Republican administrations in Washington, Ms. Tutwiler largely spent her time cultivating Mr. Thain’s image.

Ms. Tutwiler quickly scheduled a series of interviews for Mr. Thain from Merrill’s trading floor. As the cameras flashed, he shook hands with the troops. When the cameras left, so did Mr. Thain.

“He went on a series of speeches all over the world. He was being called a hero. The press was incredible,” remarked one Merrill Lynch executive. “What was not happening was that he was not meeting with Merrill people.”

Mr. Thain, who always carefully parses his public comments and is a well-known micromanager, seemed to insulate himself from longtime Merrill executives and didn’t take time to familiarize them with his plans for reviving the firm.

Instead, he surrounded himself with former colleagues. In addition to luring his N.Y.S.E. deputies, he showered cash on former Goldman executives to bring them to Merrill. He paid $25 million to Peter S. Kraus, who ran Goldman’s investment management unit, to oversee business strategy at Merrill. He shelled out $39 million to Thomas K. Montag, who was co-head of Goldman’s global securities unit, to run Merrill’s trading operations.

Mr. Kraus and Mr. Montag have already received all of that money, some in cash and some in stock and options. Mr. Kraus, who was not offered a job at Bank of America, left Merrill weeks later to become C.E.O. of AllianceBernstein. Mr. Montag, who is still at Merrill, declined to comment on his compensation, as did Mr. Kraus.

Mr. Thain took control of Merrill’s gigantic trading and risk-management operations, saying that his mortgage expertise would help him solve the firm’s problems. He also quickly raised capital — $12.8 billion by early 2008. Enough, he repeatedly told Wall Street analysts, to cover the firm for the year.

Along the way, Ms. Tutwiler helped get out the message: Mr. Thain was cleaning house and getting rid of Mr. O’Neal’s problems.

But on the ground at Merrill, gridlock ensued. For months, there were inquiries from hedge funds and other buyers about a range of mortgage assets and securities, but Merrill’s mortgage desk was blocked from distributing price lists because Merrill’s management refused to agree on market estimates, according to Merrill insiders.

By last summer, these people say, Mr. Thain began to realize that he, in fact, didn’t have a handle on Merrill’s mortgage mess. When he learned the firm’s second-quarter earnings were devastated by mortgage losses, he picked up a chair and threw it against a wall, according to two people who were briefed on the incident.

On a conference call shortly after that, he was testy with an analyst who asked about Merrill’s toxic portfolio of securities known as collateralized debt obligations, or C.D.O.’s: “I did not create these C.D.O.’s,” he said.

After Mr. Thain decided to sell a batch of Merrill’s C.D.O.’s at a cut-rate price, he had to raise more capital. That incurred a fee with certain Merrill investors, forcing the firm to pay them $4.6 billion.

On top of that, Mr. Thain’s point man for the C.D.O. sales alienated a potential buyer, Guggenheim Partners, that had been willing to pay north of $2 billion more in cash than Merrill received, driving yet more cash out the door just when investor confidence in Wall Street was about to nose-dive — all of which eventually pushed Mr. Thain into Bank of America’s arms.

IN New York on Monday, Sept. 15, after that weekend of meetings at the New York Fed, Mr. Thain and Mr. Lewis shook hands for photographers as they announced the merger. Mr. Thain emphasized his successes at Merrill, saying that “we have been consistently cleaning up the balance sheet, repairing the damage that was done over the last few years.”

Mr. Lewis had built Bank of America into one of the nation’s largest and most powerful banks through numerous mergers. Some acquisitions — like Merrill and, earlier, Countrywide Financial — were riskier than others. He felt strongly that Merrill’s brokers, tied to his bank’s retail branches, would increase his bank’s ability to sell its products.

That included his firm’s own stock. When Bank of America raised $10 billion in new capital just a few weeks after announcing the merger with Merrill, Mr. Lewis got on a conference call with Merrill’s financial advisers and encouraged them to sell his bank’s stock to their clients. It wasn’t the most propitious time to be pushing a bank stock: a week later, the government pumped $125 billion into nine large banks, including Bank of America.

Mr. Thain, meanwhile, was already in the running for other jobs. He was rumored to be Senator John McCain’s choice for Treasury secretary. When Senator McCain lost the presidential election, Mr. Thain still had a nice option: possibly taking the reins at Bank of America when Mr. Lewis retired. New trouble, however, was brewing on Merrill’s trading floor. Under Mr. Montag’s direction, Merrill’s traders were far more active than they had been since Mr. Thain’s arrival.

Said by Merrill insiders to be an unpopular figure, Mr. Montag further alienated many people — already stunned by the $39 million package Mr. Thain gave him — when he insisted on a holiday before starting at Merrill. His late arrival, many individuals at Merrill say, left traders navigating troubled markets on their own and uncertain about when their boss would arrive to guide them.

Mr. Montag has little interaction with traders on the floor, largely communicating through short, sometimes castigating, e-mail bursts, according to Merrill insiders. Others say that when a Merrill trader or colleague disagrees with him, Mr. Montag — like Mr. Thain — often points out that he didn’t create the financial mess at Merrill.

Last October, Mr. Montag’s traders dove into higher-quality, though risky, mortgage assets known as alt-A loans, according to people familiar with Merrill’s trading books. The fate of those maneuvers is now hotly disputed inside and outside of Merrill.

Several individuals familiar with the alt-A trades, as well as others involving bets on such things as interest rates and equity derivatives, say that these gambits contributed about a third of the firm’s $15.3 billion fourth-quarter loss. But a senior Merrill trader and a former senior Merrill executive contend that there were no “significant” trading losses taken in the quarter. The former executive said that any investigation of the firm’s trading would support that fact.

Whatever transpired on the trading desk, Merrill was still contending with withering assets that predated Mr. Thain’s arrival. Despite the fact that Mr. Thain inherited these assets, Merrill insiders say they could have been hedged — moves well within Mr. Thain’s purview as head of risk management at the firm. Yet he never did so, according to three people who worked closely with him. An individual familiar with Mr. Thain’s thinking said that Mr. Thain didn’t believe hedges would have been effective.

Losses in those so-called legacy assets would reach $10 billion in the quarter.

By most accounts, few at Merrill knew how much the fourth-quarter losses would be. Many chalk that up to the fact that Mr. Montag reported directly to Mr. Thain, bypassing other Merrill executives.

Still, other individuals inside Merrill note that Bank of America, shortly after the deal was announced, quickly put 200 people at the investment bank, including a large financial team. A Bank of America executive was sent to New York from Charlotte to act as an interim chief financial officer and had daily access to Merrill’s profit-and-loss statements.

Likewise, Bank of America was well aware of the $3.2 billion in bonuses that Merrill paid to its rank and file in late December. The two companies had agreed in September that Merrill might pay up to $5.8 billion, according to a private agreement reviewed by The New York Times.

Several weeks after that agreement was struck, a top deputy to Mr. Lewis met with Mr. Thain and asked him to lower the bonus pool below $3.5 billion and to increase the portion paid in cash. Mr. Thain agreed to do so, according to two people familiar with the meeting.

Mr. Thain, meanwhile, lobbied for a bonus of his own until December, according to people familiar with his board discussions. The initial $40 million suggestion floated on his behalf was no longer viable and Mr. Thain himself suggested a figure of $5 million to $10 million. After that number was pilloried in public, he formally asked the board to award him nothing.

On Dec. 9, Mr. Thain flew to Charlotte to attend Bank of America’s board meeting, where Merrill’s financial results through November were presented. Already 60 percent of Merrill’s losses were visible, but neither Mr. Lewis nor his board questioned Mr. Thain about the losses, according to a person close to Mr. Thain. Mr. Lewis did not immediately disclose the losses to his shareholders, who had voted to approve the merger just days before.

Mr. Lewis later said that the losses greatly accelerated in mid-December, which caught him off guard. On Friday, James Mahoney, a Bank of America spokesman said that “we have not disputed that we were kept informed about the financial condition of the company.”

During the last two weeks of December, while Mr. Thain was skiing in Vail, Mr. Lewis told federal regulators that he was thinking of backing out of the deal because of the losses. Government officials, according to Mr. Lewis, told him he had to complete the deal in order to keep markets calm. But Mr. Lewis did not tell Mr. Thain about his talks with the government until Jan. 5, according to a person close to Mr. Thain.

As the merger closed, and a new year began, Mr. Thain was prepared to take on a leadership role at Bank of America, even though several of his top deputies, longtime Merrill leaders, began leaving the bank themselves. Mr. Lewis, battered by analyst questions about the wisdom of the Merrill takeover, became disenchanted with Mr. Thain. In mid-January, he met with Mr. Thain at Merrill’s downtown headquarters. After a five-minute meeting, Mr. Thain was out.

Furious, Mr. Thain paced the halls of Merrill, venting his frustration to at least two people. “I don’t know how these people can run this company without me,” he told them.
[Baca]

Currency Crisis: First Sterling, Now the Euro, and Then...? - By Adrian Ash (LATEST UPDATE - 8/2/09)

February 5, 2009 BullionVault

How to get a jump on the big central banks as interest rates race towards zero worldwide...

OF SIX CENTRAL BANKS voting on interest rates this week, only the European Central Bank in Frankfurt failed to reduce its cost of money to either record or multi-year lows, holding rates steady at 2.0%.

- The market's reaction? Forex traders trashed the Euro vs. those currencies now paying way less than inflation...

- The result for Eurozone investors? Gold leapt to a new record high by the PM Gold Fix in London, recording a new all-time high above €719 an ounce...

- Big picture? That puts the Gold Price right back at its long-term high for European cash savers, as measured by the old pre-Euro war-horse, the lost and lamented German Deutsche Mark...

Gold in 2009 has already hit new record highs for Australian, Canadian, Indian and even Swiss gold buyers.

British gold buyers saw the price surge to £662 an ounce in January – up by 100% from just 18 months earlier. Because as the UK Pound Sterling slid on the forex market, gold proved itself as the ultimate hedge amid a currency crisis.

Now the Euro looks ripe for coming under "speculative attack" from currency traders trying to get even. The Dollar-Yen shock starting in summer 2008 whacked pretty much all asset classes. But the biggest losers by far were those currency gamblers still backing the favorites – those fillies sporting the best rates of return – as the going switched from 'good' to 'heavy'.

During the previous half-decade, the interest-rate gap had paid time and again. Sell the Dollar – and dump the Yen! – in exchange for anything bearing a strong or rising interest rate payment. But the bottom fell out of this strategy in mid-2008. Racing first to the bottom, the Japanese Yen (zero-hour: May 2001) was then first out of the blocks when debt needed redemption, and currency gamblers all scrambled to cover their shorts. Close on its tail came the almighty Dollar (zero-hour: Dec. 2008)...and thus a new form-guide emerged amongst currency traders.

Low yield good, zero yield better. Because in a world of deflation, destroying savers and cutting debt-service costs might just help spark an economic recovery.

That's why, when early in Prague today the Czech central bank slashed its interest rates to an all-time low, the Czech Koruna actually bounced vs. the Euro...

That's why today's 100-basis point cut to South African rates worked to stem the slide in the Rand – now trading one-third below its US-Dollar value of last February despite paying fully 1,050 basis points more...

That's why, midday here in London, the Bank of England took its base rate further into record-low territory at 1.0%...yet currency traders pushed the Pound Sterling to a two-week high above $1.4650...

That's why on Tuesday, when the Reserve Bank of Australia cut its interest rate to a 45-year low, the Aussie Dollar bounced from near-6 year lows in response...

That's why on Wednesday, after the central bank of Norway cut its target interest rate by 50 basis points to 2.50%, the Norwegian Krone turned higher after losing one-third of its value vs. the Dollar since July last year...

And that's also why, on Thursday – when the world's No.2 behind the Fed, the European Central Bank (ECB), opted to keep its rates flat – the Euro lost 2¢ from this week's high to trade below $1.2850...despite paying returns to cash fully 200 basis points above the Dollar.

Priced in Euros, the value of gold – which yields nothing already, but also carries no counter-party or inflation risk – rose to €720 an ounce, more than 14% higher for 2009 to date.

In short, Thursday's foreign exchange action confirms the currency markets' perverse verdict on falling premiums. First seen last year as the US Fed and Bank of Japan cut their rates to zero and their currencies leapt, this deflation-bent view of lower interest rates says that rewarding savers – rather than debtors – is beneficial to a currency's future. Whereas failing to cut is a negative.

So if we were in the business here at BullionVault of making short-term calls on the currency markets (which we're not; we just enable private individuals to buy and sell gold, securely, at the tightest possible prices), we'd expect the Euro to suffer right up until the ECB next meets in March....or until currency traders start taking ECB chief Jean-Claude Trichet at his word and begin pricing in record-low Eurozone rates ahead.

"I don't exclude that we could reduce interest rates at our next decision," Trichet told a new conference after today's "No change" decision.

Asked whether he'll go for a half- or quarter-point cut, M.Trichet replied "It would probably more be the first figure."

You tell 'em Jean-Claude...and you tell 'em straight!

But once the Euro starts paying "probably more" like zero than anything better, what next for the currency markets to kick around? The Yen...? The Dollar...? Everything and everyone all at once...?

In this race to the bottom – which even the "inflation-vigilant" European Bank now says it will join – private investors with something to lose might want to get a jump on the currencies, and move straight into zero-yielding Gold Bullion.

After all, gold has already proven its value as a "currency crisis" defense for UK investors this year. And if all currencies tipped into crisis together, we'd guess that defense would soon trade sharply higher from here.
[Baca]

MUST-WATCH VIDEO: Rep. Kanjorski: $550 Billion Disappeared in "Electronic Run On the Banks" (LATEST UPDATE - 11/2/09)

Wednesday, 11 February 2009 20:21

Click on the link below to watch video: - MUST-WATCH VIDEO: Rep. Kanjorski: $550 Billion Disappeared in "Electronic Run On the Banks"

[Baca]

Breaking Down Media Spin on Obama and Stimulus - By Joe Brewer (LATEST UPDATE - 11/2/09)

February 9, 2009 Commondreams

The ideological battle continues as progressive leaders seek to save the U.S. economy from collapse. Conservatives in the federal government and beyond have rallied together to challenge the will of the people with the most sophisticated propaganda machine known to politics. Last week, in Calling Out the Conservative Lies on Stimulus , I drew attention to the hidden motives of conservative leaders in Congress. This week I'd like to shift focus and call out some of their spin agents in the mainstream media for their less than savory attempts to undermine the progressive movement.

First a recap of what has happened in the last few weeks:

President Obama was inaugurated in the presence of more than two million people who came together to show their commitment to a fundamental change in the course of our country. Obama immediately set to work fulfilling campaign promises - the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, closure of Gitmo, an end to torture, and a bold recovery plan for an economy crippled by years of conservative mismanagement.

President Obama also made good on his promise to change the tone in Washington, calling for unity and reaching across the aisle to invite Republicans to help rebuild America. Days on end were devoted to gaining Republican participation in a landmark bill to envision a nation prosperous in its shared infrastructure, outstanding in the education of its populous, and equipped for the energy demands of the future.

President Obama's inclusive approach stood in stark contrast to the block of Republicans who unanimously voted against the recovery plan in the House of Representatives. Senate Republicans then took to the political stage to grandstand against the plan, halting the delivery of true relief (in the form of jobs that provide stable incomes to millions of unemployed). They preferred to obstruct the process to allow time for allies in the media to organize a counter-attack.

The stage has been set. Editorial pages are starting to fill with opinion articles by members of the Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation, and hundreds of other conservative think tanks. Talking heads in the cable news parrot memes crafted and disseminated through a consolidated, and largely conservative owned, media apparatus.

No matter where you turn, you'll now find messages about runaway "government spending", the need for more "tax cuts", and seedlings of doubt about Obama's character. My favorite of these disingenuous mumblings is the deeply ironic framing of bipartisanship. What once meant something akin to "working across party lines" has been twisted to mean something else. Now we hear nonsense like this from Steve Holland of Reuters UK:

"President Barack Obama showed he is willing to cast aside talk of bipartisanship and flex Democratic muscle to push opposition Republicans out of the way in the battle over a U.S. economic stimulus."

This came from an article titled, What the stimulus battle tells us about Obama . Holland goes on to note the"Republican charges that the plan was stuffed with wasteful Democrat spending items" - a hat tip to the conservative idea that the efficiency of markets are superior to pesky government programs. This is followed with a claim that Obama "changed his tune, reverting to some of the rhetoric he used on the campaign trail to win the White House."

Here is our first inkling of what bipartisanship is supposed to mean. Working across party lines is only about party boundaries. It says nothing about ideology. After all, there are a few very conservative-minded people in the Democratic Party (Joe Lieberman anyone?). President Obama's efforts to work across party lines can be ignored when bipartisanship means granting conservative ideology as the centerpiece of the plan. More than a week of meetings with Republican leaders doesn't count because there is no change in ideology. As long as President Obama continues to attempt the unthinkable - a recovery plan that delivers millions of jobs and a promise of advances in renewable energy, education, health care, and more - he will be treated as an obstructionist by the media.

Never mind that President Obama won a landslide victory in November. Ignore the millions of people who happen to agree with his views about government and the economy. Pretend that conservative principles of governance are not the root cause of this disaster. None of these things matter so long as we have a Bad Apple in the barrel. Our President is a flip-flopper. He's the real problem.

Okay, back to reality. The truth is that our economy is in dire shape. Every day ends with thousands more people out of work. Where's that story? I'm still waiting for the news article pointing out how Republicans are obstructing the process. Hundreds of elected officials, all from the same party, are refusing to budge from their ideological stance like defiant children on the verge of throwing a tantrum. Yet, we're expected to question the character of President Obama after he offered a hand of friendship to the most extreme and reckless band of ideologues to hold the reigns of government in U.S. history.

A series of yarns with the stench of truthiness are expounded daily to the detriment of our democracy. Our challenge as progressives is to overtake this massive message machine - or bypass it entirely - and tell our stories. We can speak out about the promise of opportunity that only comes through investments in common infrastructure. Our voices can ring with joy at the progress we've made expanding the boundaries of human dignity to include women and people of color. And we can speak truth to power, shifting the locus to an empowered citizenry, by calling deceptive media narratives out when we see them.

Joe Brewer is founder and director of Cognitive Policy Works , an educational and research center devoted to the application of cognitive and behavioral sciences to politics.  He is a former fellow of the Rockridge Institute , a think tank founded by George Lakoff to analyze political discourse for the progressive movement.
[Baca]

SIGTARP Initial Report to Congress (LATEST UPDATE - 10/2/09)

Tuesday, 10 February 2009 16:43

Download PDF

[Baca]

War Reporters Used to Prefer Morality over Impartiality - By Robert Fisk (LATEST UPDATE - 10/2/09)

7 February 2009, The Independent UK

The "normality" of war, part two. We had a great storm in Beirut this week, thunder-cracks like gunfire, great green waves crashing below my balcony, rain like hail. So I curled up on my balcony sofa - coat and red scarf and thick socks - and opened a book sent by a kindly Independent reader, a much bent copy of Snyder and Morris's 1949 A Treasury of Great Reporting. And I began to wonder - in an age when the BBC can refuse help to the suffering because of its "impartiality" - whether we still report war with the same power and passion as the men and women of an earlier generation.

"'Turn back! Retreat!' shouted the men from the front, 'we're whipped, we're whipped!' They cursed and tugged at their horses' heads and struggled with frenzy to get past." This is William Howard Russell covering the Union rout at Bull Run for The Times. "Soon I met soldiers who were coming through the corn, mostly without arms... The ambulances were crowded with soldiers, but it did not look as if there were many wounded... Men literally screamed with rage or fright when their way was blocked... At every shot a convulsion, as it were, seized upon the morbid mass of bones, sinew, wood, and iron, and thrilled through it, giving new energy and action to its desperate efforts to get free from itself... In silence I passed over the long bridge."


And here is Archibald Forbes reporting the collapse of the Paris Commune in 1871 for the London Daily News. "The Parisians of civil life are caitiffs to the last drop of their thin, sour, white blood. But yesterday they had cried 'Vive la Commune!'... Today they rubbed their hands with livid currish joy to have it in their power to denounce a Communard and reveal his hiding place. Very eager at this work are the dear creatures of women... They have found him, the misérable!... a tall, pale, hatless man with something not ignoble in his carriage. His lower lip is trembling, but his brow is firm, and the eye of him has some pride and defiance in it. They yell - the crowd - 'Shoot him; shoot him!'... men club their rifles and bring them down on that head. They are firing on the flaccid carcass now, thronging about it like blowflies..."

The first German war crime of the 1914-18 war - the sack of the Belgian city of Louvain - was covered by Richard Harding Davis of the New York Tribune, forced by the Germans to stay aboard his military train as it circled the burning city. "When by troop train we reached Louvain, the entire heart of the city was destroyed and fire had reached the Boulevard Tirlemont, which faces the railroad station. The night was windless, and the sparks rose in steady, leisurely pillars, falling back into the furnace from which they sprang... Outside the station in the public square the people of Louvain passed in an unending procession, women bare-headed, weeping men carrying the children asleep on their shoulders... Once they were halted, and among them were marched a line of men. They well knew their fellow townsmen. These were on their way to be shot."

Now a slightly selfish Quentin Reynolds at the fall of Paris in 1940: "I had stayed behind to write the story of the siege of Paris... Now it developed that there would be no siege of Paris. The Grand Boulevard was almost deserted this morning. One middle-aged woman was sitting at a table at a sidewalk café, one of the very few where one could still get coffee and bread. She had driven into the city that morning in her small one-seated (sic) car. She wanted to sell her car. I bought it on the spot. Now I was mobile."

And Ed Murrow for CBS in the London Blitz: "Millions of people ask only, 'What can we do to help? Why must there be 800,000 unemployed when we need these shelters?... What are the war aims of this country? What shall we do with victory when it's won? What sort of Europe will be built when and if this stress has passed?' These questions are being asked by thoughtful people in this country. Mark it down that in the three weeks of the air Blitz against this country, more books and pamphlets have been published on these subjects than in any similar period of the war... Mark it down that these people are both brave and patient, that all are equal under the bomb... You are witnessing the beginning of a revolution, maybe the death of an age."

Finally, the sharp tongue of Rebecca West for The New Yorker at the Nuremberg trials. "Though one has read surprising news of Göring for years, he still surprises. He is, above all things, soft. He wears either a German air-force uniform or a light beach-suit in the worst of playful taste, and both hang loosely on him, giving him an air of pregnancy. He has thick brown young hair, the coarse, bright skin of an actor who has used grease paint for decades, and the preternaturally deep wrinkles of the drug addict; it adds up to something like the head of a ventriloquist's dummy. His appearance makes a pointed but obscure reference to sex... it appears in the Palace of Justice that it is only the Americans and the British who can hold up a mirror to Germany and help her to solve her own perplexing mystery - that mystery which, in Nuremberg and the countryside around it, is set out in flowers, flowers which concert by being not only lovely but beloved... 'The people where I live now send me in my breakfast tray strewn with pansies,' says the French doctor who is custodian of the relics at the Palace of Justice (the lampshade made of human skin, the shrunken head of the Polish Jew)."

It's not just the power of the writing I'm talking about here; the screaming soldiers, the dying Communard, the condemned men, the woman wanting to sell her car, the death of an age, the flowers. These reporters were spurred, weren't they, by the immorality of war. They cared. They were not frightened of damaging their "impartiality". I wonder if we still write like this.

Robert Fisk is Middle East correspondent for The Independent newspaper. He is the author of many books on the region, including The Great War for Civilisation: The Conquest of the Middle East.
[Baca]

Debate on U.S. Missile Defense: Frank Gaffney (CSP) vs Alfred Webre (ICIS) - Bush & Obama Positions On Missile Defense Are Identical And Will Lead To Space Weaponization (LATEST UPDATE - 10/2/09)

Tuesday, 10 February 2009 17:08

VANCOUVER, B.C. - U.S. Vice President Joe Biden has announced in a major speech at the Munich Security Conference that the Obama administration will continue with the development of the U.S. Missile Defense system, a system re-initiated by the G.W. Bush administration when it unilaterally announced abrogation of the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty on Dec. 13, 2001, in the aftermath of the Bush administration false flag operation of September 11, 2001. U.S. missile defense is a $trillion-dollar weapons system to continue the research & development for space-based weapons, and the defense contract mandate for the weaponization of space, and is the strategic long term-plan for space weaponization. Despite its 2008 campaign promises to seek a ban on the weaponization of space, the Obama administration has now adopted the long-term plan of the Bush administration for promoting the weaponization of space - U.S. missile defense. Atlanta Life Magazine recently sponsored a public debate on "The New Star Wars" between Frank Gaffney, founder and president of the Center for Security Policy in Washington, D.C., and Alfred Lambremont Webre, JD, MEd, International Director of the Institute for Cooperation in Space (ICIS) in Vancouver, B.C. Please take a few moments out of your busy day to read this important debate between two radically different points of view about space weaponization. The most startling conclusion you will come away with is that U.S. missile defense - the space weaponization plan of the Bush administration - is identical under the Obama administration. No change under Obama for now. The New Star Wars: Experts debate the U.S. missile defense system (Atlanta Life Magazine) Frank Gaffney versus Alfred Lambremont Webre, JD, MEd Please download Parts I - IV of the Gaffney-Webre debate on The New (Obama) Star Wars (PDF): Part I: Gaffney-Webre debate on The New (Obama) Star Wars (PDF) Download New Star Wars Debate - Part I Part II: Gaffney-Webre debate on The New (Obama) Star Wars (PDF) Download New Star Wars Debate - Part II Part III: Gaffney-Webre debate on The New (Obama) Star Wars (PDF) Download New Star Wars Debate - Part III Part IV: Gaffney-Webre debate on The New (Obama) Star Wars (PDF) Download New Star Wars Debate Part IV URL of this article: http://peaceinspace.blogs.com/peaceinspaceorg/2009/02/debate-on-us-missile-defense-frank-gaffney-csp-vs-alfred-webre-icis-bush-obama-positions-missile-def.html

[Baca]

Financial Crisis: The Failure of Accounting Reform - By Jesus Huerta de Soto (LATEST UPDATE - 10/2/09)

4 February 2009, Mises Institute

The years of "irrational exuberance" that have characterized the current economic cycle have culminated in a profound crisis in both the banking system and financial markets, a crisis that threatens to trigger an acute, global economic recession. A central feature of the recent period of artificial expansion was a gradual corruption, on the American continent as well as in Europe, of the traditional principles of accounting as practiced globally for centuries.

To be specific, acceptance of the International Accounting Standards (IAS) and their incorporation into law in different countries (in Spain via the new General Accounting Plan, in effect as of January 1, 2008) have meant the abandonment of the traditional principle of prudence and its replacement by the principle of fair value in the assessment of the value of balance-sheet assets, particularly financial assets.



In this abandonment of the traditional principle of prudence, a highly influential role has been played by stock brokers, analysts, investment banks (fortunately now on their way to extinction), and in general all parties interested in "inflating" book values in order to bring them closer to supposedly more "objective" stock-market values, which in the past rose continually in an economic process of financial euphoria.

In fact, during the years of the "speculative bubble," this process was characterized by a feedback loop: rising stock-market values were immediately entered into the books, and then such accounting entries were sought as justification for further artificial increases in the prices of assets listed on the stock market.

In this wild race to abandon traditional accounting principles and replace them with others more "in line with the times," it became common to evaluate companies based on unorthodox suppositions and purely subjective criteria that in the new standards replace the only truly objective criterion (that of historical cost). Now, the collapse of financial markets and economic agents' widespread loss of faith in banks and their accounting practices have revealed the serious error involved in yielding to the IAS and their abandonment of traditional accounting principles based on prudence, the error of indulging in the vices of "creative," fair-value accounting.

It is in this context that we must view the recent measures taken in the United States and the European Union to "soften" the impact of fair-value accounting for financial institutions. This is a step in the right direction, but it falls short and is taken for the wrong reasons.

Indeed, those in charge at financial institutions are attempting to "shut the barn door when the horse is bolting"; that is, when the dramatic fall in the value of "toxic" or "illiquid" assets has endangered the solvency of their institutions. However, these people were delighted with the new IAS during the preceding years of "irrational exuberance," in which increasing and excessive values in the stock and financial markets graced their balance sheets with staggering figures corresponding to their own profits and net worth, figures that in turn encouraged them to run risks with practically no thought of danger.

Hence, we see that the new standards act in a procyclic manner by heightening volatility and erroneously biasing business management: in times of prosperity, they create a false "wealth effect" that prompts people to take disproportionate risks; when, from one day to the next, the errors committed come to light, the loss in the value of assets immediately decapitalizes companies, which are obliged to sell assets and attempt to recapitalize at the worst moment, i.e., when assets are worth the least and financial markets dry up.

Clearly, accounting principles that, like those of the IAS, have proven so disturbing must be abandoned as soon as possible, and all of the accounting reforms recently enacted (specifically the Spanish one, which came into effect January 1) must be reversed. This is so not only because these reforms mean a dead end in a period of financial crisis and recession, but especially because it is vital that, in periods of prosperity, we stick to the principle of prudence in valuation — a principle that has shaped all accounting systems from the time of Luca Pacioli at the beginning of the 15th century to the adoption of the false idol of the IAS.

In short, the greatest error of the accounting reform recently introduced worldwide is that it scraps centuries of accounting experience and business management when it replaces the prudence principle, as the highest ranking among all traditional accounting principles, with the "fair-value" principle, which is simply the introduction of the volatile market value for an entire set of assets, particularly financial assets.

This Copernican turn is extremely harmful and threatens the very foundations of the market economy for several reasons.
First, to violate the traditional principle of prudence and require that accounting entries reflect market values is to provoke, depending upon the conditions of the economic cycle, an inflation of book values with surpluses that have not materialized and which, in many cases, may never materialize. The artificial "wealth effect" this can produce, especially during the boom phase of each economic cycle, leads to the allocation of paper (or merely temporary) profits, the acceptance of disproportionate risks, and, in short, the commission of systematic entrepreneurial errors and the consumption of the nation's capital to the detriment of its healthy productive structure and its capacity for long-term growth.

Second, we must emphasize that the purpose of accounting is not to reflect supposed "real" values (which in any case are subjective and which are determined and vary daily in the corresponding markets) under the pretext of attaining a (poorly understood) "accounting transparency." Instead, the purpose of accounting is to permit the prudent management of each company and to prevent capital consumption, by applying strict standards of accounting conservatism (based on the prudence principle and the recording of either historical cost or market value, whichever is less), standards that ensure at all times that distributable profits come from a safe surplus that can be distributed without in any way endangering the future viability and capitalization of the company.

Third, we must bear in mind that market value is not an objective value: in the market, there are no equilibrium prices that a third party can objectively determine. Quite the opposite is true; market values arise from subjective assessments and fluctuate sharply, and hence their use in accounting eliminates much of the clarity, certainty, and information balance sheets contained in the past. Today, balance sheets have become largely unintelligible and useless to economic agents.
Furthermore, the volatility inherent in market values, particularly over the economic cycle, robs accounting based on the "new principles" of much of its potential as a guide for action for company managers and leads them to systematically commit major errors in management. Moreover, if this state of affairs is serious for a financial institution, it is much more so for any of the small and medium-sized enterprises, which make up 90 percent of the industrial base.

Fourth, we must remember that the abolished accounting standards already stipulated that in the additional notes of the annual report, stockholders be informed as of a certain date of the market value of the largest assets; but this in no way affected the stability nor the traditional principles of prudence demanded by any accounting assessment of the different entries in the balance sheet. Furthermore, the accounting standards abolished were prudent and anticyclic, and they allowed for provisions to cover all sorts of contingencies, provisions sadly missing now.

Conclusion
Just as "war is too important to be left to the generals," accounting is too vital for the economy and everyone's finances to have been left to the experts, whether they be visionary professors, auditors eager to strengthen their position, analysts, (ex-)investment bankers, or any of the manifold international committees. All have been as arrogant in the defense of their false science as they have been ignorant of their role as mere sorcerer's apprentices playing with a fire that has been on the verge of provoking the most severe financial crisis to ravage the world since 1929
[Baca]

The Road to Bank Nationalization - By John Browne, Senior Market Advisor

February 6, 2009 Euro Pacific Capital

This week, seven major corporations announced major layoffs, adding 72,000 to the unemployed. At the same time, lending by the big banks fell. With falling demand for loans, it is little wonder that President Obama described the national economic situation as "worsening day by day." Clearly, we are heading into a deepening and severe recession that is spreading worldwide.

As the reckless speculation of the major money center banks became clear in the second half of 2008, there was resistance to rescue efforts. However, the perceived wisdom was that these banks were too large to fail. Congress approved the $700 billion TARP to rescue them and the financial system. Now, there is growing demand by politicians for the banks to lend, in the face of falling loan demand. Clearly, a Democrat Congress is intent upon using Wall Street to dispense taxpayer funds to Main Street. This is socialism and strikes at the very heart of the 'American Way' of free enterprise.

Three major questions arise. Firstly, can the banking system be used to dispense cash to un-creditworthy citizens? Secondly, should the free-market banking system be used for political purposes? Thirdly, can the American government afford to bailout the collapsing economy and banking system simultaneously?

Acknowledging Tim Geithner's vow to employ "credit action on a dramatic scale", there is little doubt that the new Treasury Secretary thinks the banking system not only can, but will, be used to push taxpayer funds into the Main Street economy. If so, would this not necessitate nationalization?

The original TARP was designed to 'rescue' the banking system by relieving it of depreciating toxic assets. Subsequently, the TARP was used to inject capital into the main money center banks. So far, despite its enormous size, the TARP appears to have failed.

Contrary to political hopes, the banks are seen too have used the TARP selfishly (but rationally) to bolster their own capital and pay their own executives, whilst making fewer loans.

There is now an increasing specter of a massive bank failure, despite the TARP. As a result, there is growing pressure to nationalize the banks, as is being done in Europe. So far, Americans have resisted this option, but with Bank of America now trading below $5.00 per share, the temptation is growing.

In a recession, falling loan demand and deteriorating credit worthiness result in fewer loans worth making. There is mounting pressure, especially from Democrats, for banks to make 'social' or imprudent loans. Such actions are practicable only if the banks are nationalized.

Most Americans are firm believers in freedom and its economic progeny, the free enterprise system. But, under the cover of entitlement programs, increasingly large numbers of Americans are dependent, directly or indirectly, upon the Government.

In short, socialism is already alive in America, but is being extended, via the banking system, to become the dominant political force.

Citi and Bank of America, two of the three most important money market banks are technically insolvent. Yet, each has received $45 billion in TARP funds.

These two banks have total exposure of some $78 trillion to derivatives. Most importantly, they have almost $6 trillion of exposure to highly toxic Credit Default Swaps. Even JP Morgan has more than $9 trillion of exposure to these assets.

The Government TARP and stimulus packages now add up to some $3 trillion. Already, they have caused political consternation and pose serious challenges to America's credit rating and ability to extend further its towering debts, without crowding out viable corporate borrowing. What will happen when all of the private bank liabilities get thrown on top?

The money center banks render the TARP and, indeed, the total financing ability of the U.S. Government almost insignificant. In short, they have become too big to bail out.

It appears that America and the world are staring into the face of financial collapse, depression and eventual hyperinflation. Little wonder that, despite the growing evidence of recession, gold is rising in price.

John Browne is the Senior Market Strategist for Euro Pacific Capital, Inc. Mr. Browne is a distinguished former member of Britain's Parliament who served on the Treasury Select Committee, as Chairman of the Conservative Small Business Committee, and as a close associate of then-Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. A graduate of the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst, Britain's version of West Point and retired British army major, John served as a pilot, parachutist, and communications specialist in the elite Grenadiers of the Royal Guard.
[Baca]

The Insolvency of the Fed - By Philipp Bagus and Markus H. Schiml

Saturday, 07 February 2009 14:05

Download PDF

[Baca]

Galbraith on the Crash... It Has a Familiar Ring - By Pat Regnier

5 February 2009, Fortune Magazine

James Galbraith picks up the argument for government intervention where his father left off. His prescription: Spend now, spend a lot, and spend some more.

Until about Sept. 20, 2008, the day Henry Paulson asked Congress for a $700 billion blank check, most of us probably thought we had a decent layman's grasp of how the economy works and how it grows.

Something like this: Buyers and sellers meet in the marketplace and strike their best bargains. Those may not always turn out to be perfectly fair or wise, but consumers generally know better than the government. Growth comes from the efforts of savers and entrepreneurs, so taxes on them must be kept low. Few argued about this stuff. Liberals just wanted to put a bigger social safety net underneath the markets; conservatives, not so much.

Now that all hell has broken loose, none of that seems obvious anymore. Consumers and businesses know what's best for them? Allow us to introduce the erstwhile homeowners of San Diego and Las Vegas, and the MBAs of Citigroup (C , Fortune 500 ) and Lehman Brothers.


The conventional wisdom about economics is up for grabs right now. We're not speaking here of the conventional wisdom in the economics profession - that moves pretty slowly, and is anyway less wedded to a caricature of infallibly rational markets than most people think. We mean the assumptions that lawmakers, businesspeople, journalists, and educated voters use when they talk about economic problems. Ideas that had been banished to the dustbin are suddenly back on the table, and last year's gadflies now seem as if they were ahead of the curve. Exhibit A: James K. Galbraith, go-to economist of Nation magazine-style liberalism, unabashed market skeptic, and rock-ribbed Keynesian since before Keynesianism was cool (again).

"Events have moved me to the center - I have not moved," says Galbraith, sipping coffee in his University of Texas office, which overlooks the presidential library of Lyndon B. Johnson, architect of the Great Society. It's December, and Galbraith has just returned from Washington, D.C., where he was one of five economists speaking in a closed-door session for House Democrats. In step with a former John McCain campaign advisor and a Clinton administration economist, he argued for a very, very big stimulus package.

"Every previous recession in my professional life has been a shock to a reasonably healthy system," says Galbraith, who is 57. "This is a general collapse of the core funding mechanism all across the country, and you don't know what the scale of the base case will be. The task is to come up with a large enough program to get ahead of this unknown tsunami coming our way."

So what do you call the $850 billion the Democrats asked for in January? For Galbraith, it's just a good start.

Galbraith, Galbraith...


The name rings a bell, although probably a faint one if you're much under 40. Galbraith's father, the late economist John Kenneth Galbraith, was one of the most influential liberal intellectuals of his time. At the start of the World War II he was a top official at the Office of Price Administration, literally setting the price of a cup of coffee.

He was briefly an editor for this magazine, where, according to biographer Richard Parker, he played a crucial role in founder Henry Luce's efforts to popularize the ideas of economist John Maynard Keynes, a proponent of government intervention to maintain full employment. (Luce was a conservative, but not a very doctrinaire one.) The elder Galbraith later became an advisor to John F. Kennedy and then to Johnson, and was ambassador to India.

John Kenneth Galbraith was also a prolific writer. He actually coined the term "conventional wisdom" in his 1958 bestseller, The Affluent Society, a passionate argument for public spending that helped build the case for the Great Society programs. His 1955 history, The Great Crash: 1929, became a classic of market lore and cemented a popular view that capitalism just goes nuts from time to time.

Galbraith's reputation among economists is another matter: He barely has one, even though he taught economics at Harvard and served a year as president of the American Economic Association. Milton Friedman, the great free-market economist of the 20th century, told NPR that Galbraith was more of a sociologist than an economist. Even the liberal Paul Krugman wrote him off in 1994 as a "policy entrepreneur" not to be taken seriously for economics.

The sympathetic view is that at a time when economics was taking a mathematical turn, Galbraith stuck to writing in plain English, paying attention to the way real people in positions of power deviated from sterile models. "Galbraith insisted on taking the corporation as the central modern institution, not the market," says Parker.

Galbraith wrote about an economy dominated by unions and giant corporations like GM and IBM. Consumers and their choices hardly mattered - technocrats used scale and advertising to generate their own demand, and co-opted government to protect their markets. After the onslaught of Japanese imports in the 1980s and the technological disruption of the 1990s, that picture of the impregnable corporation was easy for critics to dismiss.
But this is a story about James Galbraith - why spill so much ink on his father? First, because Galbraith fils is proud to call himself, well, a Galbraithian. And it seems to be a very Galbraithian moment. In time, economists may settle on a neat model that explains the current chaos, and even identify some deft intervention that might have prevented it. Right now, though, the stories in the headlines are messy tales about corporations and people: lenders and mortgage brokers who stoked an artificial demand for housing, regulators who dropped the ball, and a speculative bubble reminiscent of the one described in The Great Crash: 1929.

"In the past four months The Great Crash has been the No. 1 bestseller on Amazon in both microeconomics and economic theory," says the son. "Wherever he is, my dad is laughing."


An intellectual legacy


James Galbraith - his friends call him Jamie - completed his Yale doctorate in economics in 1981. "I probably started my career in economics thinking that the overlap between my father's career and mine would be relatively short," he says. In fact his father, who died in 2006 at 97, still had a shelf's worth more books in him. "After a while I just got used to the fact that his presence in my professional life was going to be a lot more prominent than initially imagined, and that there was simply ... no ... escape," he says, smiling and raising his eyebrows to punctuate those last words.

Galbraith came into economics via politics, working as a Democratic staffer on the Hill through grad school. In 1981 he became executive director of the Joint Economic Committee of Congress. The economy had been racked by stagflation, and a sort of consensus Keynesianism - the notion that the government could "fine-tune" a market economy with its taxing and spending decisions - had fallen into disrepute. The Keynesians "just didn't have a good theory of how to get out of inflation," recalls Bruce Bartlett, Galbraith's Republican opposite number on the JEC. There was a new conservative orthodoxy: Let the Federal Reserve keep inflation at bay with tight monetary policy, and otherwise get government out of the way.

In his 2008 book, The Predator State, Galbraith strikes a rather bitter chord about the time - "This was personal: The conservative alliance devalued my Keynesian education, obstructed my career, and deprived me and my few comrades on Capitol Hill of purchase on the levers of power." In conversation, however, he allows that he enjoyed those years immensely.

From his father and during his time as a Marshall Scholar at Cambridge University, Galbraith had imbibed a different brand of Keynesianism from the version that had just been swept away. It was a Keynesianism that emphasized capitalism's instability. Galbraith also held the view that high-employment policies need not spur inflation. Thus, he became a perfect sparring partner for the supply-siders and free-market monetarists. "They believed in their ideas and were willing to defend them," says Galbraith. "You could schedule an unending series of hearings and have these debates out in the open."

Bartlett, who later became a friend, recalls Galbraith's skill in debate. For one hearing on unemployment, Galbraith invited a group of jobless people to address the committee. One told the Congressmen that he had attempted suicide. "CBS radio ran that the whole day," Galbraith recalls.

Galbraith left Washington in 1985 and went to Austin, where he lives just off campus with his wife, Ying Tang, and their two children. Galbraith teaches in UT's public-policy school (named after L.B.J.), not in the economics department. He's first to admit that the mainstream of academic economics hasn't made much room for him. "For the most part, for people like me or people who work on financial instability ... all the doors [have been] closed," he says.

Unlike his father, Galbraith has done a fair amount of data-driven empirical work, largely on economic inequality. Outside academic journals he reaches a wider audience through liberal magazines like The Nation and Mother Jones, where he has a frequent column.

His book The Predator State is aimed at a similar readership, and it's a conscious effort to pick up the argument John Kenneth Galbraith left off. (The afterword notes that the father suggested the idea for the book in their final conversation, saying, "It will make you the leading economic voice of your generation.") It hit bookstores at an almost perfect moment last summer, just before the wheels came off the system.

Galbraith argues that "small government" conservatives never actually delivered free markets or fiscal restraint. In power, they grew deficits and didn't seriously attack public spending built up in the New Deal and Great Society. Rather, they've harnessed government for private gain. It's a clever attempt to defuse one of the most powerful arguments against government intervention - that picking winners and losers invites corruption and favoritism. Show that both parties have their own version of big government, and you can shift the debate to whose brand voters should prefer.

Republicans have an especially lousy brand right now, so the argument resonates. Free-market economists, of course, believe the moment will pass. "I don't think government will do a very good job getting us out of the crisis," says George Mason University economist Tyler Cowen. "Three years from now there will be a lot of handwringing and skepticism about why we have all this debt, and how taxes are going up, and did the stimulus really work."


People are listening


During the presidential campaign, Galbraith was an informal advisor to the Obama team. This was largely a matter of sending e-mail memos, but it helped soothe progressives who worried that the rest of Obama's economic team was drawn from the centrist, Robert Rubin wing of the party.

And in the midst of the present crisis, Galbraith's voice reaches beyond the lefty netroots. Last September he played a small role in the Capitol Hill battle over the TARP bailout. On the eve of the failed House vote Galbraith, along with another prominent liberal economist, Dean Baker, and former FDIC chairman William Isaac, spoke before a group of 40 skeptical Democratic members in a basement room of the Capitol, laying out the flaws of the Paulson plan. (Galbraith, alone among that group, recommended voting for it anyway: "I didn't think Democrats should take responsibility for this bill going down.")

Galbraith was on the Hill thanks to an invitation from California Representative Adam Schiff, a fiscally conservative Blue Dog Democrat who had read a Galbraith op-ed in the Washington Post proposing an alternative plan. "I was concerned we were not getting a broad enough spectrum of opinion from economists," says Schiff, who voted against the first version of the bailout bill in part, he says, because of Galbraith's critique. Galbraith recommended raising the cap on federal deposit insurance and allowing the Treasury to buy preferred shares in banks; both ultimately happened. He also called for a bigger, more direct homeowner rescue and a massive increase in federal spending.

Even in today's climate Galbraith sits at the leftward edge of polite political conversation. He jokes that he is doing his best to make Larry Summers look like a moderate. Economists across the spectrum, from Krugman to former Reagan economic advisor Martin Feldstein, have blessed the idea of a fiscal stimulus. But Galbraith thinks it needs to be huge and should provide fast, direct aid to people in the form of higher Social Security payments and slashed payroll taxes.

For Galbraith, this is about more than a temporary stimulus. He thinks the crisis is proof that the economy needs the very visible hand of government to ensure long-term stability. And although he concedes that the pervasive wartime price controls administered by his father wouldn't make sense today, he sees lots of room for government to set wage standards (including caps on CEO pay) and to control prices in key sectors like energy and health care.

Put so baldly, it seems unlikely that this agenda would get much traction in Washington. Then again, the first steps toward nationalizing the banking system came under a Republican administration. Or look at the health-care debate. Almost every liberal reform proposal making the rounds attempts to tackle, in some way, the relentless rise in the cost of health care. Perhaps Galbraith's most urgent contribution is mainly rhetorical: the idea that it's okay to speak about "planning" again.

At what looks like a turning point in American economic history, the rhetoric matters. In the early 1980s, supply-siders like Jude Wanniski and Art Laffer may have had few allies in the ranks of academic economists, but through their popular writing and the Wall Street Journal editorial page, they convinced a generation that laissez faire was common sense.

One might expect Galbraith to bristle at the comparison, but he doesn't. He keeps an autographed copy of Wanniski's The Way the World Works on his bookshelf; the two men became friends in the years before Wanniski's death in 2005. "It's fun, 30 years later, to have some of the chance they did," he says.

Unless the markets pull off a miracle this year, the fun's just getting started.
[Baca]

Breaking Down Media Spin on Obama and Stimulus - By Joe Brewer (LATEST UPDATE - 11/2/09)

February 9, 2009 Commondreams

The ideological battle continues as progressive leaders seek to save the U.S. economy from collapse. Conservatives in the federal government and beyond have rallied together to challenge the will of the people with the most sophisticated propaganda machine known to politics. Last week, in Calling Out the Conservative Lies on Stimulus , I drew attention to the hidden motives of conservative leaders in Congress. This week I'd like to shift focus and call out some of their spin agents in the mainstream media for their less than savory attempts to undermine the progressive movement.

First a recap of what has happened in the last few weeks:

President Obama was inaugurated in the presence of more than two million people who came together to show their commitment to a fundamental change in the course of our country. Obama immediately set to work fulfilling campaign promises - the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, closure of Gitmo, an end to torture, and a bold recovery plan for an economy crippled by years of conservative mismanagement.

President Obama also made good on his promise to change the tone in Washington, calling for unity and reaching across the aisle to invite Republicans to help rebuild America. Days on end were devoted to gaining Republican participation in a landmark bill to envision a nation prosperous in its shared infrastructure, outstanding in the education of its populous, and equipped for the energy demands of the future.

President Obama's inclusive approach stood in stark contrast to the block of Republicans who unanimously voted against the recovery plan in the House of Representatives. Senate Republicans then took to the political stage to grandstand against the plan, halting the delivery of true relief (in the form of jobs that provide stable incomes to millions of unemployed). They preferred to obstruct the process to allow time for allies in the media to organize a counter-attack.

The stage has been set. Editorial pages are starting to fill with opinion articles by members of the Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation, and hundreds of other conservative think tanks. Talking heads in the cable news parrot memes crafted and disseminated through a consolidated, and largely conservative owned, media apparatus.

No matter where you turn, you'll now find messages about runaway "government spending", the need for more "tax cuts", and seedlings of doubt about Obama's character. My favorite of these disingenuous mumblings is the deeply ironic framing of bipartisanship. What once meant something akin to "working across party lines" has been twisted to mean something else. Now we hear nonsense like this from Steve Holland of Reuters UK:

"President Barack Obama showed he is willing to cast aside talk of bipartisanship and flex Democratic muscle to push opposition Republicans out of the way in the battle over a U.S. economic stimulus."

This came from an article titled, What the stimulus battle tells us about Obama . Holland goes on to note the"Republican charges that the plan was stuffed with wasteful Democrat spending items" - a hat tip to the conservative idea that the efficiency of markets are superior to pesky government programs. This is followed with a claim that Obama "changed his tune, reverting to some of the rhetoric he used on the campaign trail to win the White House."

Here is our first inkling of what bipartisanship is supposed to mean. Working across party lines is only about party boundaries. It says nothing about ideology. After all, there are a few very conservative-minded people in the Democratic Party (Joe Lieberman anyone?). President Obama's efforts to work across party lines can be ignored when bipartisanship means granting conservative ideology as the centerpiece of the plan. More than a week of meetings with Republican leaders doesn't count because there is no change in ideology. As long as President Obama continues to attempt the unthinkable - a recovery plan that delivers millions of jobs and a promise of advances in renewable energy, education, health care, and more - he will be treated as an obstructionist by the media.

Never mind that President Obama won a landslide victory in November. Ignore the millions of people who happen to agree with his views about government and the economy. Pretend that conservative principles of governance are not the root cause of this disaster. None of these things matter so long as we have a Bad Apple in the barrel. Our President is a flip-flopper. He's the real problem.

Okay, back to reality. The truth is that our economy is in dire shape. Every day ends with thousands more people out of work. Where's that story? I'm still waiting for the news article pointing out how Republicans are obstructing the process. Hundreds of elected officials, all from the same party, are refusing to budge from their ideological stance like defiant children on the verge of throwing a tantrum. Yet, we're expected to question the character of President Obama after he offered a hand of friendship to the most extreme and reckless band of ideologues to hold the reigns of government in U.S. history.

A series of yarns with the stench of truthiness are expounded daily to the detriment of our democracy. Our challenge as progressives is to overtake this massive message machine - or bypass it entirely - and tell our stories. We can speak out about the promise of opportunity that only comes through investments in common infrastructure. Our voices can ring with joy at the progress we've made expanding the boundaries of human dignity to include women and people of color. And we can speak truth to power, shifting the locus to an empowered citizenry, by calling deceptive media narratives out when we see them.

Joe Brewer is founder and director of Cognitive Policy Works , an educational and research center devoted to the application of cognitive and behavioral sciences to politics.  He is a former fellow of the Rockridge Institute , a think tank founded by George Lakoff to analyze political discourse for the progressive movement.
[Baca]

Obama's Wealth Destruction - By Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. (LATEST UPDATE - 11/2/09)

February 9, 2009 Mises Institute

President Obama is under the impression that history owes him $1 trillion right now to spend on whatever he wants. His language is strident and full of irritation that anyone would question his right to live out his personal dream of being Franklin Roosevelt to George Bush's Hoover. This, he says, is what the election was all about.

The arrogance reminds me of George Bush after 9-11, who similarly believed that history owed him a gargantuan war in the tradition of FDR. And look how that arrogance led to disgrace and loss, as he unwittingly presided over the destruction of American prosperity while searching for bugbears abroad.

It just goes to show you that the presidency is something like a drug. It makes people lose all connection to reality. Part of the reality that Obama needs to recognize is that the New Deal was a calamity far worse than the initial market downturn that began it. He needs to stop basing his policies on dumbed-down civics texts versions of events and consider the economic logic.

With his rhetoric and policies, he has decided to demonize private enterprise, just as FDR did, as a way to present government as the great savior. Now, think about this. If there is a way out of the recession, it will have to be provided by private enterprise. It will come by new businesses, business expansions, entrepreneurship, new technology, and this will be the source of lasting jobs and prosperity.

You cannot make a country rich by looting taxpayers and paying people to pound nails into siding at public schools! These activities amount to capital consumption. They are not sources of investment. You can say that they are stupid tasks or wonderful tasks, but it is not a matter of ideology as to whether such public projects will make us all wealthier. They will not. They drain the sources of wealth from society. They represent a cost, not a blessing.

That was also true of Bush's dumb stimulus program. He was only bailing out his friends at our expense. The effect was to give a little longer life to institutions that were failing anyway. It's pathetic that the Republicans ever went along with it. You will notice that the scheme didn't actually work.

Well, Obama is doing the same thing, though rewarding a different set of friends. This is not wealth production. This is wealth consumption. Do enough of this nonsense and you can destroy the livelihoods of an entire generation.

Americans are proud of their system of government, but consider what it has given us this time around. We had an outgoing president who thought it was his right to grab as much as he could while leaving. Now we have a new president who thinks that the election entitled him to grab as much as he can, right from the beginning. We get looted by the state coming and going. It all amounts to one massive war on prosperity and freedom.

Particularly culpable here are the official historians who have for generations heralded FDR as the great savior. It is a case study in how a civic lie can appear and fester for decades. The fact is that the New Deal did not work. It prolonged what might have been a troubling two-year downturn into a horrifying blow to world prosperity that ended up in a war that killed countless millions. It was one of the greatest acts of wreckage in world history.

And Obama is inspired by this? He wants to repeat it?

I'm not so cynical about human affairs that I believe that errors must be endlessly repeated. Obama can put a stop to his madness. He needs to know — someone must tell him frankly and openly — that his current path is going to lead not to recovery, but to an extension of suffering, and untold amounts of it.

The biggest threat facing the American economy right now is rarely even discussed. It is the massive buildup of paper bank reserves in the last quarter of 2008. This was Bush's doing. He ordered the Fed to print like mad. Fortunately for us, the banks are still holding on to these reserves. When they start lending again, the result could be hyperinflation of Confederate-dollar proportions.

Hence the priority of the Obama administration should be to first do no evil, and second to find some means for withdrawing those reserves from the banking system before they wash through the economic structure and destroy the dollar. There is still time. He must act. Yes, that will lead to bank failures. That's good! It will lead to business failures. That's good and essential too.

There simply is no choice. If he acts now, he could find that recovery will come before his second term. This is precisely what happened with Reagan. He was fortunate to have advisers who insisted that he let the liquidation happen rather than attempt to fix the recession of 1981–82 with huge new government spending programs.

In any case, the hardest work to do here is intellectual. Obama's head is filled with myths and lies, not only about FDR and the New Deal but also about the government's power to repair the existing economic problems. With this model in his head, he can only do evil. This must change.

Nothing is inevitable. He can turn on a dime. The main message: do not repeat the actions of FDR, lest you destroy what is left of American liberty and prosperity.
[Baca]

Secretary Geithner Introduces Financial Stability Plan - By Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner (LATEST UPDATE - 11/2/09)

Remarks by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner
Introducing the Financial Stability Plan

10 February 2009, Tuesday

As prepared for delivery

As President Obama said in his inaugural address, our economic strength is derived from "the doers, the makers of things."

The innovators who create and expand enterprises; the workers who provide life to companies; this is what drives economic growth.

The financial system is central to this process. Banks and the credit markets transform the earnings and savings of American workers into the loans that finance a first home, a new car or a college education. And this system provides the capital and credit necessary to build a company around a new idea.


Without credit, economies cannot grow at their potential, and right now, critical parts of our financial system are damaged. The credit markets that are essential for small businesses and consumers are not working. Borrowing costs have risen sharply for state and local governments, for students trying to pay for college, and for businesses large and small. Many banks are reducing lending, and across the country they are tightening the terms of loans.

Last Friday we learned that the economy had lost three million jobs last year, and an additional 600,000 just last month. As demand falls and credit tightens, businesses around the world are cutting back the investments that are essential to future growth. Trade among nations has contracted sharply, as trade finance has dried up. Home prices are still falling, as foreclosures rise and even credit worthy borrowers are finding it harder to finance the purchase of a first home, or refinance their mortgage.

Instead of catalyzing recovery, the financial system is working against recovery. And at the same time, the recession is putting greater pressure on banks. This is a dangerous dynamic, and we need to arrest it. It is essential for every American to understand that the battle for economic recovery must be fought on two fronts. We have to both jumpstart job creation and private investment, and we must get credit flowing again to businesses and families.

Without a powerful Economic Recovery Act, too many Americans will lose their jobs and too many businesses will fail. And unless we restore the flow of credit, the recession will be deeper and longer, causing even more damage to families and businesses across the country.

Today, as Congress moves to pass an economic recovery plan that will help create jobs and lay a foundation for stronger economic future, we are outlining a new Financial Stability Plan.

Our plan will help restart the flow of credit, clean up and strengthen our banks, and provide critical aid for homeowners and for small businesses. As we do each of these things, we will impose new, higher standards for transparency and accountability.

I am going to outline the key elements of this program today. But before I do that, I want to explain how we got here. The causes of the crisis are many and complex. They accumulated over time, and will take time to resolve.

Governments and central banks around the world pursued policies that, with the benefit of hindsight, caused a huge global boom in credit, pushing up housing prices and financial markets to levels that defied gravity.   

Investors and banks took risks they did not understand. Individuals, businesses, and governments borrowed beyond their means. The rewards that went to financial executives departed from any realistic appreciation of risk.

There were systematic failures in the checks and balances in the system, by Boards of Directors, by credit rating agencies, and by government regulators. Our financial system operated with large gaps in meaningful oversight, and without sufficient constraints to limit risk. Even institutions that were overseen by our complicated, overlapping system of multiple regulators put themselves in a position of extreme vulnerability.

These failures helped lay the foundation for the worst economic crisis in generations.

When the crisis began, governments around the world were too slow to act. When action came, it was late and inadequate. Policy was always behind the curve, always chasing the escalating crisis. As the crisis intensified and more dramatic government action was required, the emergency actions meant to provide confidence and reassurance too often added to public anxiety and to investor uncertainty.

The dramatic failure or near-failure of some of the world's largest financial institutions, and the lack of clear criteria and conditions applied to government interventions caused investors to pull back from taking risk. Last fall, as the global crisis intensified, Congress acted quickly and courageously to provide emergency authority to help contain the damage. The government used that authority to pull the financial system back from the edge of catastrophic failure.

The actions your government took were absolutely essential, but they were inadequate.

The force of government support was not comprehensive or quick enough to withstand the deepening pressure brought on by the weakening economy. The spectacle of huge amounts of taxpayer assistance being provided to the same institutions that help caused the crisis, with limited transparency and oversight, added to public distrust. This distrust turned to anger as Boards of Directors at some institutions continued to award rich compensation packages and lavish perks to their senior executives.

Our challenge is much greater today because the American people have lost faith in the leaders of our financial institutions, and are skeptical that their government has – to this point -- used taxpayers' money in ways that will benefit them. This has to change.

To get credit flowing again, to restore confidence in our markets, and restore the faith of the American people, we are fundamentally reshaping the government's program to repair the financial system.

Our work will be guided by the lessons of the last few months and the lessons of financial crisis throughout history. The basic principles that will shape our strategy are the following:

We believe that the policy response has to be comprehensive, and forceful. There is more risk and greater cost in gradualism than in aggressive action.

We believe that action has to be sustained until recovery is firmly established. In the United States in the 30s, Japan in the 90s, and in other cases around the world, previous crises lasted longer and caused greater damage because governments applied the brakes too early. We cannot make that mistake.

We believe that access to public support is a privilege, not a right. When our government provides support to banks, it is not for the benefit of banks, it is for the businesses and families who depend on banks… and for the benefit of the country. Government support must come with strong conditions to protect the tax payer and with transparency that allows the American people to see the impact of those investments.

We believe our policies must be designed to mobilize and leverage private capital, not to supplant or discourage private capital. When government investment is necessary, it should be replaced with private capital as soon as possible.

We believe that the United States has to send a clear and consistent signal that we will act to prevent the catastrophic failure of financial institutions that would damage the broader economy.

Guided by these principles, we will replace the current program with a new Financial Stability Plan to stabilize and repair the financial system, and support the flow of credit necessary for recovery.

This new Financial Stability Plan will take a comprehensive approach. The Department of the Treasury, the Federal Reserve, the FDIC, and all the financial agencies in our country will bring the full force of the United States Government to bear to strengthen our financial system so that we get the economy back on track.

We have different authorities, instruments and responsibilities, but we are one government serving the American people, and I will do everything in my power to ensure that we act as one.

Our work begins with a new framework of oversight and governance of all aspects of our Financial Stability Plan.

The American people will be able to see where their tax dollars are going and the return on their government's investment, they will be able to see whether the conditions placed on banks and institutions are being met and enforced, they will be able to see whether boards of directors are being responsible with taxpayer dollars and how they're compensating their executives, and they will be able to see how these actions are impacting the overall flow of lending and the cost of borrowing.

These new requirements, which will be available on a new website FinancialStability.gov, will give the American people the transparency they deserve.

These steps build on what we've done already. We've acted to ensure the integrity of the process that provides access to government support, so that it is independent of influence from lobbyists and politics. We've committed to provide the American people with information on how their money is spent and under what conditions by posting contracts on the Internet. And, importantly, we have outlined strong conditions on executive compensation.

Under this framework, we are establishing three new programs to clean up and strengthen the nation's banks, bring in private capital to restart lending, and to go around the banking system directly to the markets that consumers and businesses depend on.

Let me describe each of these steps:

First, we're going to require banking institutions to go through a carefully designed comprehensive stress test, to use the medical term. We want their balance sheets cleaner, and stronger. And we are going to help this process by providing a new program of capital support for those institutions which need it.

To do this, we are going to bring together the government agencies with authority over our nation's major banks and initiate a more consistent, realistic, and forward looking assessment about the risk on balance sheets, and we're going to introduce new measures to improve disclosure.

Those institutions that need additional capital will be able to access a new funding mechanism that uses funds from the Treasury as a bridge to private capital. The capital will come with conditions to help ensure that every dollar of assistance is used to generate a level of lending greater than what would have been possible in the absence of government support. And this assistance will come with terms that should encourage the institutions to replace public assistance with private capital as soon as that is possible.

The Treasury's investments in these institutions will be placed in a new Financial Stability Trust.

Second, alongside this new Financial Stability Trust, together with the Fed, the FDIC, and the private sector, we will establish a Public-Private Investment Fund. This program will provide government capital and government financing to help leverage private capital to help get private markets working again. This fund will be targeted to the legacy loans and assets that are now burdening many financial institutions.

By providing the financing the private markets cannot now provide, this will help start a market for the real estate related assets that are at the center of this crisis. Our objective is to use private capital and private asset managers to help provide a market mechanism for valuing the assets.

We are exploring a range of different structures for this program, and will seek input from market participants and the public as we design it. We believe this program should ultimately provide up to one trillion in financing capacity, but we plan to start it on a scale of $500 billion, and expand it based on what works.

Third, working jointly with the Federal Reserve, we are prepared to commit up to a trillion dollars to support a Consumer and Business Lending Initiative. This initiative will kickstart the secondary lending markets, to bring down borrowing costs, and to help get credit flowing again.

In our financial system, 40 percent of consumer lending has historically been available because people buy loans, put them together and sell them. Because this vital source of lending has frozen up, no financial recovery plan will be successful unless it helps restart securitization markets for sound loans made to consumers and businesses – large and small.

This lending program will be built on the Federal Reserve's Term Asset Backed Securities Loan Facility, announced last November, with capital from the Treasury and financing from the Federal Reserve.

We have agreed to expand this program to target the markets for small business lending, student loans, consumer and auto finance, and commercial mortgages.

And because small businesses are so important to our economy, we're going to take additional steps to make it easier for them to get credit from community banks and large banks. By increasing the federally guaranteed portion of SBA loans, and giving more power to the SBA to expedite loan approvals, we believe we can turn around the dramatic decline in SBA lending we have seen in recent months.

Finally, we will launch a comprehensive housing program. Millions of Americans have lost their homes, and millions more live with the risk that they will be unable to meet their payments or refinance their mortgages.

Many of these families borrowed beyond their means. But many others fell victim to terrible lending practices that left them exposed, overextended, and with no way to refinance. On top of that, homeowners around the country are seeing the value of their homes fall because of forces they did not create and cannot control. This crisis in housing has had devastating consequences, and our government should have moved more forcefully to limit the damage.

As house prices fall, demand for housing will increase, and conditions will ultimately find a new balance. But now, we risk an intensifying spiral in which lenders foreclose, pushing house prices lower and reducing the value of household savings, and making it harder for all families to refinance.

The President has asked his economic team to come together with a comprehensive plan to address the housing crisis. We will announce the details of this plan in the next few weeks.

Our focus will be on using the full resources of the government to help bring down mortgage payments and to reduce mortgage interest rates. We will do this with a substantial commitment of resources already authorized by the Congress under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act.

Let me add that as we go forward, President Obama is committed to moving quickly to reform our entire system of financial regulation so that we never again face a crisis of this severity.

We are consulting closely with Chairman Chris Dodd in the Senate, Chairman Barney Frank in the House, and their colleagues on both sides of the aisle on the broad outline of a comprehensive program of reforms. The President's Working Group on Financial Markets is developing detailed recommendations.

And we will begin working closely with the world's leading economies on a set of broader reforms to the international financial system in preparation for the G-20 Summit in London on April 2nd.

The success of our financial stability plan is going to require an unprecedented level of cooperation, here in the United States and around the world. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, FDIC Chair Sheila Bair, John Dugan, the Comptroller of the Currency, and John Reich the head of the Office of Thrift Supervision, are here today. I want to thank them for helping to shape this plan, and their commitment to making it work.

This program will require a substantial and sustained commitment of public resources. Congress has already authorized substantial resources for this effort, and we will use those resources as carefully and effectively as possible. We will consult closely with Congress as we move forward, and work together to make sure we have the resources and the authority to make this program work.

Later this week, I will be traveling to meet with the G7 finance ministers and central bank governors in Italy. There, I'll start the process of working with our international partners to ensure that we're working together to strengthen recovery and to help stabilize and repair the global financial system.

And we will work closely with the leadership of the IMF and World Bank so that they can deploy resources quickly to help those countries around the world that are most at risk from this crisis.

Many of the programs I've just discussed involve large numbers. But it is important to recognize that these programs involve loans, guarantees, and investments with terms and conditions that protect taxpayers and help compensate the government for risk. Because of these terms and conditions, the risk to taxpayers will be less than the headline.

Our obligation is to design the programs so that we are achieving the largest benefit in terms of supporting recovery at least cost to the taxpayer. And we take that obligation extremely seriously.

But I want to be candid: this strategy will cost money, involve risk, and take time. As costly as this effort may be, we know that the cost of a complete collapse of our financial system would be incalculable for families, for businesses and for our nation.

We will have to adapt our program as conditions change. We will have to try things we've never tried before. We will make mistakes. We will go through periods in which things get worse and progress is uneven or interrupted.

We will be guided by the principles of transparency and accountability, dedicated to the goals of restoring credit to families and businesses, and committed to moving our nation towards an economic recovery that is as swift and widespread as possible.

This is a challenge more complex than any our financial system has ever faced, requiring new programs and persistent attention to solve. But the President, the Treasury and the entire Administration are committed to see it through because we know how directly the future of our economy depends on it.

Thank you.
[Baca]

Fact Sheet - Financial Stability Plan (LATEST UPDATE - 11/2/09)

Wednesday, 11 February 2009 10:47

Download PDF

[Baca]

A Ticking Toxic Time Bomb - Who Will Get The Shits When It Explodes? - By Matthias Chang (LATEST UPDATE - 9/2/09)

Anwar’s Pakatan Rakyat and Badawi’s UMNO have one thing in common. They attract toxic waste in the same intensity as cow-dungs attract flies.

When the two Pakatan Rakyat State Assemblymen for Perak, Jamaluddin Mohd Radzi and Mohd Osman Mohd Jailu, were charged with corruption, a ticking time bomb was set to go off.

The newspaper reported that the two State Assemblymen were caught red-handed in committing the offence of corruption. The public prosecutor would not proceed with a charge against anyone unless there was at the minimum, a prima facie case. In this case, the two accused were caught red-handed!

But Anwar hung on to the two accused even though they were toxic.


It would have secured Pakatan Rakyat’s credibility as a bastion against corruption had the coalition demanded the resignation of the two accused as State Assemblymen and held By-elections. Pakatan Rakyat chose instead to cling on to the stupid political strategy that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. This may well be the case for ordinary folks charged with a crime.

This standard cannot apply to a politician. While innocent until proven guilty, transparency demands that they resign from office and let the legal process take its course. But Anwar was too desperate for power. He has been charged for sodomy and he cannot demand of the two State Assemblymen what he was not prepared to do himself.

Herein lies the true character of Anwar.

Why did UMNO not wait for the prosecution of the two accused? If they were to be convicted, a By-election would be inevitable and the two parties could then go to the people for a fresh mandate.

But the Badawi regime is equally desperate for power. So they mindlessly adopted Anwar’s tactics of luring weak and corruptible representatives, men who have no principles at all.

As a result of the defections, Barisan Nasional is now back in power in Perak. But for how long?

The toxic time bomb is ticking!

If there are no prosecutions against the two accused until after the next general elections, it is a given that the rakyat will rebel in full force and accuse UMNO and Barisan Nasional of abusing the law and a massive cover-up to cling on to power.

If the two accused are convicted after a full trial, hopefully very soon, the status quo is back to square one. And there will have to be By-elections. Once again, Barisan Nasional would be at a disadvantage, because the rakyat would perceive the government of having mindlessly took on two corrupt politicians just so to regain power.

In both scenarios, Barisan Nasional would be perceived negatively.

What about Anwar and Pakatan Rakyat?

This will be a wake up call for the rakyat not to believe and fall for the theatrics of Anwar and Pakatan Rakyat.

Instead of consolidating their political power in the five states and help the people overcome the global financial tsunami, the power-crazy loonies in Pakatan Rakyat are only concerned with grabbing power so that they can have their turn to loot the national treasury.

With regard to the DAP representative, she is as good as a factory reject. The Chinese community will “lynch her politically” and she will be an outcast. MCA will suffer a backlash from the betrayal of this factory reject, even though MCA has nothing to do with the defection. The Chinese community will take it out on MCA. I sincerely hope that MCA will avoid her like a plague if its leaders are to survive in the next General Elections!

The toxic time bomb is ticking and it is only a matter of time before it explodes.

I would like to take this opportunity to suggest to the good people of Malaysia – ignore the political theatrics of both sides, focus on the financial crisis and save your family from unemployment, foreclosure and or bankruptcy if you are deep in debt. There is no time to waste. After March 2009, the economy will turn messy.

When that time comes, go out in full force and harass the politicians in Parliament, in the State Assemblies, in their service centres, and in their offices for answers and demand from them why they have wasted so much time, energy and money on grabbing power instead of saving the country.

When the country is in deep shits and no one seems to know anything and or able to do anything, be reminded that I was there to warn you of the dangers since 2006 and I will be there with my team to help you if need be.
[Baca]

This is Just the Beginning - By Peter Schiff (LATEST UPDATE - 8/2/09)

February 6, 2009 Euro Pacific Capital

The intense scrutiny recently paid to my investment strategy in the immediate wake of the financial crisis of the last six months has unfortunately obscured the central element of my larger economic forecast. The standard line has been that although I was able to predict the crash, in the form of the housing collapse and the credit crunch, my expected fallout of a weaker dollar and global decoupling has been proven false. However, this assumes that the crash has fully played out. In reality, all we have heard thus far is the overture.

In 2008, the bubble economy that I had meticulously described years ago finally hit the pin that I knew was out there. The corporate losses, frozen credit markets and plunging home prices were the opening salvo in the unfolding economic crisis. However, the vast majority of air has yet to leak out of the bubble. As it does, the U.S. economic crisis will kick into a much higher gear. I have positioned my clients to withstand the full fury of the gale, and when it finally comes, the question "was Peter Schiff right?" will finally be answered.

Thus far, our economy has actually been spared the worst due to the temporary strength in the dollar and the recent desirability of our Government's debt. These movements derailed the short-term performance of many of my investment recommendations (though clearly not to the extent alleged by my critics) and threw a life-line to the downing U.S. economy. The demand for U.S. Treasuries has led to one of the sharpest dollar rallies on record, which has helped bring about just as pronounced a decline in commodity prices. As a result, although consumer income has fallen, so too have prices and interest rates.

The stronger dollar gives the Federal Government plenty of cover to a pursue a policy of rampant monetary inflation in order to re-inflate the collapsing bubble. Even though the Federal Reserve has thrown trillions of new dollars into circulation, those dollars have actually gained purchasing power - contrary to economic law. This, along with inventory liquidations and going-out-of-business sales, has kept a lid on consumer prices. The continued, although misguided, appeal of U.S. debt has also made it possible for the government to garner cheap financing for its equally misguided and massive bails-outs and stimulus packages.

In addition to cushioning the blow for us, the dollar rally has exacerbated the pain abroad. As money has rushed to our aid it has created a global credit crunch. The rest of the world is not only dealing with losses on toxic U.S. credit instruments but is also shouldering the burden of financing our new borrowing as well. As foreign currencies have fallen, foreign consumers have not received as large a windfall as Americans have from falling commodity prices.

In effect, Americans have been using these life-lines to pull the rest of the world into the stormy seas. However, there are signs that those holding the lines are about to cast them adrift. The dollar rally has run out of steam, gold has clearly broken out, and commodity prices are moving back up. 2009 is already the worst year ever for US. Treasury bonds and foreign stock markets are once again outperforming ours.

This week President Obama claimed that failure to pass his economic stimulus bill will have catastrophic consequences for the U.S economy. The reality is the catastrophe will be far greater with his plan then without it. If the trends of January and early February of 2009 continue, the rug will be completely pulled out from beneath the U.S. economy, and the full cost of the President's "economic depressant package" will be apparent to all.

If foreign capital does not continue to pour into Treasuries, interest rates and consumer prices in the U.S. will soar. At that point, we will finally be confronted with the real crises that I have long predicted. When the day of reckoning arrives our policy response will be critical. If we continue on the course our new President has mapped out, the catastrophe will far exceed the scope of any he hoped to avoid.
[Baca]

D-Day For Gordon Brown As He Says World Is Already In A Depression - By Philip Webster, Political Editor and Gary Duncan (LATEST UPDATE - 8/2/09)

February 5, 2009 Timesonline

Gordon Brown described the global economic downturn as a depression for the first time yesterday during a furious Commons clash with David Cameron.

The Prime Minister’s remark came as he told MPs that countries “should agree as a world on a monetary and fiscal stimulus that will take the world out of depression”.

His use of the D word was not picked up at the time by Mr Cameron, who was using a series of questions to embarrass Mr Brown over his “British jobs for British workers” slogan that has been used by strikers in the foreign labour dispute.

Downing Street officials later moved swiftly to say that he had not intended to refer to the word depression but had slipped up. They suggested that he meant “recession”.

Mr Brown has been careful in his use of language when describing the state of the world economy, previously talking of a global financial crisis, then – after vigorous debate among ministers – a recession, and last week a deep recession.

George Osborne, the Shadow Chancellor, called on Mr Brown to explain whether his use of the word had been deliberate. “The Prime Minister must personally and urgently clarify whether his statement today that the world is in ‘depression’ was a slip of the tongue, or whether he knows something that we don’t know,” he said. “For the sake of confidence he should clear up this confusion. Prime Ministers in particular need to be very careful about their use of language to ensure they don’t undermine confidence.”

Downing Street said that Mr Brown did not believe the world was in a depression, despite his use of the word. Even so ministers, including Lord Mandelson, have spoken of the danger of the recession becoming a depression unless the right action is taken. “It was not his intention going into PMQs to describe the current global situation by using that word,” the Prime Minister’s spokesman said.

Mr Brown’s slip was ironic given a poll last night that suggested a majority of people – 58 per cent – believe he is refusing to acknowledge the full depth of the economic crisis.

The bleak remark over the peril facing Britain was all the more ironic as a glimmer of hope emerged for the embattled economy.

A key gauge of conditions in the services industries, spanning everything from leisure centres to legal firms, and accounting for the majority share of the economy, showed a second monthly improvement last month. The pickup in the index of services activity from purchasing managers at businesses nationwide led to speculation in the City that the 1.5 per cent slump in GDP in the past quarter might signal that the low point of the recession had been reached.

While analysts believe that there will be several more quarters of decline, some felt that these might be less brutal. Tellingly, the measure of businesses’ confidence rose in December.

[Baca]

Apabila Melayu rela dijadikan 'boneka'

KETIKA ini para pemimpin DAP mungkin masih terus bertepuk dan ketawa berdekah-dekah. Tanpa bersusah payah, mereka berjaya memporak-perandakan hubungan penduduk Melayu Perak.

Mereka juga mula berjaya menjadikan segelintir orang Melayu menderhaka kepada Sultan.

Mereka tahu ada Melayu yang boleh dipergunakan untuk kepentingan mereka. Mereka tidak perlu turun padang kerana pasti ada Melayu yang akan mengikut telunjuk.

Inilah padahnya apabila ada orang Melayu yang tidak sedar bahawa mereka sebenarnya bukan sahaja 'diperkudakan.'

Siapa bekas Menteri Besar Perak yang diperkudakan DAP? Tentunya orang Melayu. Siapa pula kumpulan perusuh jalanan yang berjubah, berserban, bertudung yang dijadikan 'balaci' DAP? Pastinya, orang Melayu juga.

Ada orang lain turut serta? Tidak. Mereka tahu waktu itu mereka perlu bekerja mencari rezeki menyara keluarga.

Sebenarnya ramai yang terlalu kecewa melihat Melayu diperlakukan sedemikian rupa. Lebih mengecewakan apabila Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar bukan sahaja dipergunakan sewaktu menjadi Menteri Besar malah berlarutan sehingga kini.

Sedangkan, beliau bukan sahaja berupaya membebaskan diri dan biarlah hanya sekali pemimpin Melayu Perak dijadikan boneka.

Apa yang berlaku kepada Nizar mungkin menjadi contoh terbaik untuk direnungkan. Ketika Sultan Perak perkenan melantik beliau sebagai Menteri Besar tahun lalu, keputusan itu dianggap bijak dan adil. Tetapi minggu lalu, Sultan yang sama dituduh membuat keputusan yang tidak adil, berat sebelah serta bertindak melampaui kuasa.

Apabila Melayu sudah berani mempertikaikan Sultan maka peluang ini digunakan sepenuhnya oleh orang lain untuk memperkecilkan Raja Melayu. Namun, kita patut bersyukur kerana masih ada perkumpulan Melayu yang tidak sanggup membiarkan Raja dicabar sedemikian rupa.

Di manakah letaknya nilai kesanggupan Nizar menerima realiti? Adakah hanya kerana keputusan Raja tidak menyebelahinya maka Raja harus disanggah? Sikap tidak dapat menerima kenyataan itu juga menimbulkan persoalan yang lebih besar iaitu apakah Nizar tidak boleh menerima qada dan qadar Allah?

Ketika dilantik sebagai Menteri Besar, terucap di bibirnya bahawa pelantikan itu adalah ketentuan Allah. Pelantikan itu kemudiannya dijadikan modal oleh pemimpin Pas bahawa perjuangan untuk memerintah Perak mendapat keredaan Tuhan.

Namun kini Nizar tidak dapat menerima kenyataan malah enggan melepaskan jawatan. Tindakan ini menggambarkan beliau bukan sahaja tidak dapat menerima kenyataan bahkan tidak reda dengan ujian Allah.

Tindakan tersebut secara tidak langsung menyaksikan ketidakpekaan beliau terhadap dua prinsip Rukun Negara iaitu Kepercayaan kepada Tuhan dan Kesetiaan kepada Raja dan Negara.

Paling memalukan apabila sebagai pemimpin yang berjuang atas nama kalimah Islam, beliau turut mengetepikan satu daripada prinsip Rukun Iman iaitu percaya dengan qada dan qadar.

Barangkali inilah petunjuk Allah. Pejuang Islam sifatnya bukan gilakan kuasa, inginkan rumah besar atau sayangkan Toyota Camry. Pejuang Islam sentiasa sabar dan waras menghadapi segala dugaan. Setiap cabaran perlu diterima dengan hati terbuka serta mengharap ada hikmah di sebaliknya.

Perkembangan terkini turut menyaksikan gabungan Pakatan Rakyat semakin rapuh apabila Ketua Pembangkang, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim ditempelak hebat oleh Karpal Singh sebagai punca Perak berjaya ditawan semula oleh BN.

Karpal menyalahkan Anwar kerana menyuntik momentum lompat parti yang akhirnya memakan diri. Karpal menganggap perbuatan Anwar yang ingin menubuhkan kerajaan mengikut "jalan belakang" sebagai "berdosa".

Amat malang sekali apabila pemimpin Pas tidak menyedari bahawa tindakan menderhaka kepada Sultan dan orang Melayu adalah satu dosa.

Prinsip Islam bagi Pas sudah diubah begitu jauh sehingga menjadikan mereka begitu taksub. Apa yang mereka lakukan semuanya dianggap betul dan baik biarpun terpaksa menjadi 'boneka.'

AHMAD ZAKI HASAN

Universiti Utara Malaysia

[Baca]

Demokrasi, demonstrasi, dusta dan durhaka

Orang tua-tua memberi nasihat
Berdusta jangan, durhaka pun jangan
Di tengah jalan jika tersesat
Kembali ke pangkal cari pedoman

WINSTON Churchill pernah berkata: "Demokrasi adalah sistem pemerintahan yang paling buruk, tetapi tidak ada satu sistem lain pun yang lebih baik daripada itu."

Sewaktu rusuhan kaum 13 Mei 1969, Menteri Keselamatan Dalam Negeri pada masa itu, Allahyarham Tun Dr. Ismail mengisytiharkan "demokrasi telah mati di Malaysia."

Iktibar daripada ucapan kedua-dua tokoh itu ialah tidak mudah untuk mengamalkan demokrasi dalam pengertian yang murni.

Menyentuh isu demonstrasi, peristiwa mutakhir di Malaysia ialah rusuhan pada Jumaat lalu di sekitar Kuala Kangsar. Turut tersiar ialah gambar beberapa individu berjubah dan berketayap berbaring di atas jalan menghalang kenderaan Raja Muda Perak ke Istana Iskandariah.

Menghairankan tentang demonstrasi itu ialah hampir keseluruhannya terdiri daripada orang Melayu sedangkan yang hendak dipertahankan ialah pemerintahan Pakatan Rakyat yang didominasi oleh DAP.

Bila memperkatakan tentang dusta, media massa berulang kali menyiarkan percakapan dolak-dalik bekas Menteri Besar Perak, Datuk Seri Muhammad Nizar Jamaluddin.

Pada satu ketika Nizar berkata (berjanji) akan mematuhi keputusan Sultan Perak mengenai permohonannya supaya baginda membubarkan Dewan Undangan Negeri. Kemudian ternyata Nizar mungkir janji bila beliau enggan menerima keputusan Sultan.

Tentang penderhakaan, petikan luar biasa bekas Menteri Besar tersebut ialah "Saya dengan rendah hati mohon derhaka dengan berkata kepada baginda, patik mohon untuk derhaka Tuanku."

Rujukan terhadap "demokrasi, demonstrasi, dusta dan derhaka" di atas, adalah catatan rambang dan imbasan minda bersabit kemelut politik Perak yang mencapai kemuncak dengan peralihan kuasa daripada Pakatan Rakyat kepada Barisan Nasional.

Daripada satu segi, peristiwa kemelut politik dan peralihan kuasa itu dapat dilihat sebagai satu ujian, dan mungkin juga satu cabaran, terhadap sistem politik Malaysia. Ujian dan cabaran itu muncul dalam bentuk tindakan-tindakan yang luar biasa terhadap sistem politik dan tradisi pemerintahan di Malaysia khususnya di negeri Perak.

Sistem politik Malaysia secara umum atau pada peringkat mikro dipanggil sistem "Demokrasi Berparlimen dan Raja Berperlembagaan". Sistem utama digerakkan oleh pelbagai subsistem atau struktur seperti sistem legislatif (Dewan Rakyat dan Dewan Negara pada peringkat kebangsaan dan Dewan Undangan Negeri pada peringkat negeri), sistem parti politik, sistem pilihan raya, sistem birokrasi, struktur tentera dan kepolisan, struktur badan sukarela dan struktur media massa.

Menurut amalan pemerintahan selama ini, pelbagai subsistem dan struktur tersebut pada amnya secara terbuka sentiasa taat setia kepada raja.

Maka apabila Nizar secara terbuka mohon derhaka kepada Sultan, beliau bukan sahaja memperlekehkan kedaulatan dan kewibawaan Sultan malah turut memandang remeh subsistem atau struktur yang menggerakkan sistem Demokrasi Berparlimen dan Raja Berperlembagaan itu.

Nizar seakan-akan terlepas pandang atau tidak memahami hakikat kewujudan struktur-struktur atau subsistem tersebut.

Dalam kealpaannya memahami hakikat tersebut Nizar cuba menguji atau mencabar sistem. Kenapa beliau begitu nekad? Adakah kerana tidak dapat menerima hakikat kehilangan kuasa?

Atau kerana tidak sedar beliau diperalat oleh golongan berkepentingan. Kepada Nizar, kembalilah ke pangkal jalan!

DATUK DR. FIRDAUS ABDULLAH ialah Felo Penyelidik Kanan (Pelawat) Akademi Pengajian Melayu, Universiti Malaya.

[Baca]

Sultan tentukan siapa MB

Undang-Undang Tubuh Negeri Perak memberi kuasa mutlak Sultan sebagai penentu kuasa pemerintahan mutakhir kerajaan negeri.

Perak ditadbir di bawah sistem Raja Berperlembagaan dan Demokrasi Berparlimen. Mengikut Perlembagaan Negeri Perak, Sultan mempunyai kuasa memerintah tertakluk di bawah peruntukan Undang-Undang Tubuh Kerajaan Negeri Perak. Mengikut Perkara 7 undang-undang tersebut, Sultan memerintah mengikut undang-undang dan dikehendaki berlaku adil terhadap semua rakyat.

Perkara 10 pula menyatakan, baginda mempunyai kuasa eksekutif tertakluk kepada peruntukan undang-undang tersebut dan juga Perlembagaan Persekutuan. Perkara 11 pula menyebut, semua tindakan eksekutif yang diambil oleh kerajaan negeri Perak hendaklah disebut di atas nama Sultan.

Dalam melaksanakan pemerintahan, Sultan hendaklah melantik seorang Menteri Besar seperti yang diperuntukkan dalam Perkara 12. Baginda mempunyai kuasa mutlak menentukan siapa yang akan menerajui pucuk kepimpinan pemerintahan negerinya. Ia bermaksud, pelantikan Menteri Besar Perak akan ditentukan oleh Sultan. Ketetapan itu diperuntukkan dalam Perkara 16 (2) (a) dan perkara 18 (2) (a).

Dalam melaksanakan kuasa pelantikan di bawah Perkara 16 (2), Sultan hendaklah melantik seorang Menteri Besar daripada kalangan Ahli Dewan Undangan Negeri (ADUN) yang pada pendapatnya akan mendapat kepercayaan sebilangan besar ADUN lain.

Beliau sudah pasti telah mendapat kepercayaan rakyat kerana menang pada pilihan raya menerusi proses demokrasi. Majoriti ADUN juga perlu menyokong dan memberi kepercayaan. Sultan juga melantiknya kerana yakin beliau akan mendapat kepercayaan tersebut.

Dalam keadaan di Perak pada 4 Februari lalu, Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin telah tidak mendapat kepercayaan sebilangan besar ADUN apabila dua ADUN-nya diminta mengosongkan kerusi. Dengan sendirinya kepercayaan terhadap beliau terhakis kerana Nizar menjadi Menteri Besar pada Mac 2008 berdasarkan kepercayaan 31 ADUN. Jumlah itu tinggal 29 dan kemudiannya merosot kepada 28.

Apabila keadaan itu berlaku, beliau mengumumkan pembubaran DUN dan kemudian memohon menghadap Sultan untuk mendapatkan persetujuan bagi membubarkan Dewan Undangan Negeri Perak itu.

Mengikut Perkara 18 (2) (b), Sultan boleh bertindak menurut budi bicaranya untuk tidak mempersetujui permintaan bagi membubarkan DUN tersebut. Seperti yang termaktub dalam Perkara 7, Undang-Undang Tubuh Negeri Perak, Sultan akan bertindak adil terhadap rakyatnya berdasarkan undang-undang.

Sultan perlu mempertimbangkan sedalam-dalamnya dan mengambil kira permohonan itu sebagai permintaan adil bukan sahaja kepada DUN tetapi juga rakyat.

Seorang Menteri Besar hanya akan memohon pembubaran DUN apabila tidak lagi mendapat kepercayaan sebilangan besar ADUN. Apabila seseorang Menteri Besar tidak lagi mendapat kepercayaan, maka ia bermakna beliau tidak lagi boleh menjadi Menteri Besar.

Secara automatik kerajaan dan jemaah exconya tidak lagi berfungsi melainkan diberi mandat baru oleh rakyat pada pilihan raya baru.

Baginda Sultan mempunyai kuasa untuk tidak mempersetujui pembubaran DUN. Apabila baginda tidak memperkenankan pembubaran itu, maka secara automatik, jawatan Menteri Besar dan jemaah exco akan digugurkan. Peraturan ini bertepatan dengan Perkara 16 (6).

Mengikut Undang-Undang Tubuh Negeri Perak, jelas Sultan mempunyai kuasa bertindak untuk melantik Menteri Besar baru dan sekali gus penubuhan kerajaan negeri yang baru. Jelas juga bahawa kuasa Menteri Besar dan Exco lama akan gugur dengan sendirinya.

Setelah Menteri Besar tidak lagi boleh berfungsi maka Sultan boleh melantik Menteri Besar baru. Dalam situasi di Perak, jumlah ADUN BN ialah 28 dan tiga lagi ADUN mengisytiharkan keluar dari barisan pembangkang berdiri atas tiket Bebas serta menyokong BN.

Apabila Sultan mendapati seorang ADUN BN boleh mendapat kepercayaan sebilangan besar ADUN lain maka baginda membuat pelantikan baru. Pelantikan Menteri Besar baru adalah sah di sisi undang-undang Perlembagaan dan juga aspek prosedur.

Maka tidak timbul persoalan Perlembagaan dan undang-undang tidak dipatuhi. Apa yang berlaku pada Mac 2008 ialah Nizar menghadap dan memberitahu Sultan bahawa beliau mendapat kepercayaan 31 ADUN. Sultan telah melantik beliau sebagai Menteri Besar dan jawatan itu dipegangnya sehingga beliau hilang kepercayaan tersebut.

Apabila BN pula mendapat kepercayaan 31 ADUN, maka Datuk Dr. Zambry Abdul Kadir telah dilantik sebagai Menteri Besar mengikut kaedah dan peraturan yang sama bagi memenuhi peruntukan Undang-Undang Tubuh Negeri Perak. Malah Sultan telah berjumpa dan menemu bual semua ADUN Bebas yang secara peribadi memberi pengakuan menyokong BN untuk menerajui kerajaan Perak.

Tambahan pula Sultan telah mengambil kira keadaan politik semasa yang mana pilihan raya umum baru diadakan dan telah yakin tentang perlunya penubuhan segera kerajaan baru. Ia bertujuan untuk tidak menangguh dan melewatkan jentera kerajaan berjalan demi kestabilan dan kesejahteraan rakyat. Ini kerana Sultan berkuasa dan bertanggungjawab memastikan negeri Perak dalam aman dan sejahtera.

Dalam keadaan itu, Sultan tidak perlu membubarkan DUN walaupun Nizar mengemukakan permintaan itu. Sultan boleh menolak mengikut undang-undang Perak. Ia adalah hak dan kuasa mutlak Sultan.

Tidak perlu undi tidak percaya di DUN sebelum pelantikan Menteri Besar baru kerana Nizar sendiri telah menghadap Sultan menyatakan sudah tidak ada kepercayaan untuk dirinya terus menjadi Menteri Besar apabila beliau sendiri memohon membubarkan DUN.

Nizar tidak perlu meletak jawatan kerana perbuatan memohon pembubaran DUN itu sendiri dianggap satu peletakan jawatan kerana beliau dengan sendirinya sudah tidak ada mandat untuk berfungsi sekali gus turut menggugurkan jawatan kesemua exconya.

Namun Nizar berdegil menyatakan beliau masih Menteri Besar Perak. Sebenarnya daripada sudut undang-undang beliau tidak lagi menjadi Menteri Besar. Zambry kini sah menjadi Menteri Besar Perak. Perintah mahkamah boleh diambil terhadap Nizar kerana melanggar perintah Sultan.

Adalah malang apabila kuasa Sultan dicabar. Mengikut undang-undang Perak, Sultan mempunyai enam prerogative dalam Perkara 10 Bahagian ll yang jelas menunjukkan kuasa Sultan dalam isu penghormatan, keadilan, keampunan, agama, adat Melayu dan tanah. Kuasa Sultan jelas dan nyata serta sedia tertulis.

Satu perlembagaan bertulis adalah undang-undang yang sangat jelas dan mudah dilaksanakan berbanding perlembagaan di England yang tidak bertulis dan perlu mengikut konvensyen. Justeru, kita amat mudah untuk melaksanakan semua tindakan dan perintah Sultan.

Sebagai anak negeri Perak saya amat kesal dengan tindak-tanduk Nizar dan segelintir orang Melayu yang tidak menghormati Sultan. Ia dijelaskan dengan insiden di depan Istana Iskandariah, Jumaat lalu.

Oleh itu saya rasakan kita perlu mewujudkan satu sekretariat untuk memastikan institusi kesultanan Melayu terus dipelihara dan dipertahankan agar tidak digugat oleh pihak yang tidak bertanggungjawab.

Sekretariat ini juga akan memastikan kedaulatan serta martabat kesultanan Melayu tidak tercemar dan dipersenda. Selain itu kewibawaan institusi tersebut sebagai pemutus kata dalam hal penubuhan kerajaan serta pelantikan ketua kerajaan berasaskan demokrasi berperlembagaan terus kekal, tidak boleh disangkal dan dipersoalkan.

Penubuhan sekretariat itu juga penting untuk mempertahankan institusi kesultanan Melayu sebagai pelindung hak orang Melayu dan kepentingan semua kaum, menegakkan kesultanan Melayu sebagai penaung dan pelindung agama Islam sebagai agama rasmi negeri dan Persekutuan yang kini dipertikai serta diragui. Ia juga akan berfungsi untuk mengembalikan kepercayaan kepada institusi Sultan sebagai institusi tertinggi negara.

Apa yang nyata rakyat Perak perlu faham tentang kedudukan Sultan yang tinggi dan perintah Sultan perlu dipatuhi tanpa dipersoal atau diragui. Kita tidak boleh membawa isu institusi kesultanan ke jalanan.

DATUK KAMILIA IBRAHIM ialah PengerusiBiro Undang-Undang, Wanita UMNO Malaysia.

[Baca]

Tidak Merokok

Merokok meningkatkan risiko sehingga 10 kali ganda, mendapat lebih daripada 40 jenis penyakit serius seperti kanser paru-paru, emfisima, penyakit jantung dan angin ahmar.

Merokok boleh menjejaskan hampir semua organ dan tisu di dalam badan.

Asap rokok mengandungi 4,000 bahan kimia iaitu 200 beracun dan 63 boleh menyebabkan kanser (karsinogenik).

Untuk kekal sihat, gunakan kaedah yang betul untuk berhenti merokok:

* Tetapkan tarikh untuk berhenti merokok

* Buat nota peringatan

* Katakan pada diri anda ‘Aku bukan perokok’

* Tumpukan pada hari ini untuk berhenti merokok

* Sentiada berfikiran positif

* Dapatkan sokongan

* Lawan keinginan untuk merokok

* Gunakan Terapi Gantian Nikotin (NRT)

* Amalkan Petua 10 M untuk berhenti merokok:

Petua 10 M untuk berhenti merokok

* Melengahkan-lengah menghisap rokok

* Minum banyak air

* Menarik nafas panjang

* Membuat sesuatu

* Menjauhkan diri dari tempat orang merokok

* Mengunyah sesuatu

* Membasuh tangan

* Mandi dengan kerap

* Melakukan senaman regangan

* Memohon doa

[Baca]

Tiroid biasa atau kanser?

Kanser tiroid menyerang mangsa letupan loji nuklear di Chernobyl.

PENYAKIT berkaitan tiroid merupakan masalah kesihatan biasa yang mampu menjangkiti sesiapa pun. Malah separuh daripada bilangan pesakit tiroid sehingga kini masih belum menyedari mereka sebenarnya menghidap penyakit itu.

Malangnya, bagi kebanyakan orang yang belum dikenal pasti jenis masalah tiroid mereka juga tidak sedar ia berkait rapat dengan masalah berat badan mereka.

Ini kerana pesakit tiroid sukar menurunkan berat badan yang dikatakan meningkat akibat penyakit itu meskipun setelah puas berdiet dan mengikuti program senaman secara konsisten.

Justeru masalah berkaitan tiroid harus diambil serius dan pesakit perlu mendapatkan pemeriksaan dan rawatan segera kerana ia juga boleh dikesan sebagai kanser!

Kanser tiroid

Kanser tiroid merujuk kepada empat jenis tumor malignan pada kelenjar tiroid iaitu papilari, folikular, medulari atau anaplastik.

Kanser tiroid papilari dan folikular:

l Merupakan jenis kanser tiroid paling lazim dijumpai berbanding jenis lain. Kedua-duanya bermula pada sel folikular pada tiroid. Kebanyakan kanser jenis ini tumbuh dengan perlahan tetapi jika dikesan lebih awal, ia mampu dirawat dengan jaya.

Kanser tiroid medulari:

l Terdiri daripada lima hingga 10 peratus kes kanser tiroid yang muncul dalam sel C tetapi ia lebih mudah dikawal jika dikesan dan dirawat sebelum merebak ke bahagian lain.

Kanser tiroid anaplastik:

l Jenis kanser tiroid yang paling kurang ditemui (hanya satu atau dua peratus) dan timbul dalam sel folikular. Sel kanser jenis ini amat luar biasa dan sukar dikenal pasti. Ia juga sukar dikawal berbanding sel kanser lain kerana biasanya tumbuh serta merebak dengan pantas.

Nodul tiroid boleh menjadi sama ada tidak berbahaya (benign) atau berbahaya (malignan). Sel nodul tidak berbahaya, merebak ke organ lain dalam badan mahupun mengancam nyawa. Kira-kira 90 peratus nodul tiroid adalah tidak berbahaya.

Namun nodul malignan bersifat kanser. Ia lebih serius dan kadangkala boleh meragut nyawa. Sel kanser boleh menceroboh, merosakkan tisu, organ dalam badan dan memasuki saluran darah atau sistem limfa.

Menerusi cara inilah kanser disebarkan daripada sel asalnya (tumor utama) untuk membentuk tumor baru dalam organ lain. Penyebaran kanser ini dipanggil metastasis.

Sekiranya metastasis berlaku di luar tiroid, sel kanser biasa ditemui pada nodus limfa berhampiran, urat saraf atau pembuluh darah. Apabila kanser sampai di nodus berkenaan, sel kanser mungkin juga telah merebak ke nodus limfa atau organ lain seperti paru-paru dan tulang.

Simptom

Peringkat awal kanser tiroid lazimnya tidak menimbulkan sebarang simptom namun apabila kanser itu membesar, beberapa tanda yang boleh dilihat adalah;

l Benjol atau bintil di depan leher atau berhampiran halkum.

l Suara menjadi parau dan sukar bercakap dalam nada normal.

l Nodus limfa bengkak terutama di leher.

l Sukar menelan atau bernafas

l Sakit pada tekak atau leher.

Bagaimanapun simptom berkenaan tidak menjamin wujudnya kanser tiroid sebaliknya keadaan di atas boleh dicetuskan akibat jangkitan goiter tidak berbahaya atau masalah lain.

Sesiapa yang mempunyai tanda-tanda tersebut dinasihatkan berjumpa doktor secepat mungkin kerana doktor sahaja yang mampu mendiagnosis dan merawatnya.

Diagnosis

Sekiranya pesakit menghidap simptom yang mencadangkan kewujudan sel kanser tiroid, doktor mungkin menjalankan pemeriksaan fizikal dan bertanya mengenai sejarah perubatan diri dan keluarganya.

Doktor yang merawat itu boleh menjalankan ujian makmal dan pengimejan untuk menghasilkan gambaran tiroid serta kelenjar lain.

Pemeriksaan fizikal: Sebelum itu, doktor akan merasa tengkuk, tiroid, peti suara dan nodus limfa untuk memeriksa sebarang ketumbuhan atau bengkak.

Ujian darah: Doktor mungkin menguji darah pesakit untuk sebarang keluarbiasaan paras hormon rangsangan tiroid (TSH) dalam darah.

TSH terdiri daripada kelenjar pituitari dalam otak dan mampu merangsang pelepasan hormon tiroid serta mengawal kepantasan pertumbuhan sel folikular tiroid.

Ultrasonografi: Alat ultra bunyi menggunakan gelombang bunyi melantun pada tiroid dan komputer menggunakan gema untuk menghasilkan imej dipanggil sonogram.

Dari gambar itu, doktor boleh mengenal pasti bilangan nodul, saiz dan adakah mendatangkan bahaya kepada pesakit.

Pengimbasan Radionuklida: Doktor mengarahkan pengimbangan perubatan nuklear yang menggunakan sedikit bahan radioaktif untuk menimbulkan imej nodul tiroid.

Biopsi: Pembuangan tisu untuk mencari sel kanser dipanggil biopsi. Ia boleh menunjukkan kanser, perubahan tisu yang boleh mengakibatkan kanser dan keadaan lain. Biopsi merupakan satu-satunya cara terbaik untuk mengesan sama ada nodul itu bersifat kanser atau tidak.

[Baca]

Seribu satu khasiat ulam

MAKAN ulam baik untuk kesihatan. Ayat itu sudah biasa didengar, tetapi tidak semua mengetahui akan khasiat sebenar yang terselindung di sebalik ulam-ulaman yang banyak dijual di Pasar Malam Sayur Kampung, Chow Kit, Kuala Lumpur ini.

Dahulu, ulam mungkin hanya terkenal di kalangan masyarakat Melayu di kampung-kampung. Tetapi, kini hidangan ulam-ulaman semakin digemari warga kota termasuk masyarakat bukan Melayu, malah turut menjadi antara hidangan wajib di hotel-hotel terkemuka.

Ulam adalah sayuran atau tumbuhan yang dimakan mentah atau sekadar dicelur iaitu direndam sekejap di dalam air panas. Ada juga sesetengah ulam perlu direbus terlebih dahulu, baru sedap dimakan seperti ulam pucuk ubi. Biasanya ulam dijamu bersama sambal belacan, budu atau cencaluk untuk dimakan bersama nasi.

Ulam diambil daripada pelbagai bahagian sesuatu pokok atau tumbuhan yang boleh dimakan, antaranya pucuk, daun, biji, buah, ubi dan kadang-kadang bunganya.

Ada antara ulam cukup popular dan mudah didapati di pasaran seperti rebung, cekur manis, jering, petai, ulam raja dan sebagainya.

Sementara ulam beluntas, pucuk betik, pucuk kadok dan pucuk gajus antara ulam yang sukar dicari, malah ia juga kurang dikenali walaupun dalam masyarakat Melayu itu sendiri.

Ulam dikatakan mempunyai banyak khasiat sebab ia dimakan secara mentah atau tidak dimasak terlalu lama. Justeru, kandungan galian seperti mineral dan vitamin utama iaitu kalsium, fosforus, zat besi, natrium, kalium yang terdapat dalam ulam tidak dimusnahkan oleh haba.

Selain itu, ulam juga dikatakan membekalkan serat yang amat diperlukan oleh sistem penghadaman manusia. Serat memainkan peranan sebagai pengisi pada bahan buangan dan memudahkan perkumuhan.

Antaranya, ulam pegaga yang telah diiktiraf oleh Pertubuhan Kesihatan Sedunia (WHO) sebagai herba menjana kecerdasan berfikir di kalangan kanak-kanak serta dikatakan dapat membantu peredaran darah dan meningkatkan kesihatan kulit.

Kangkung pula sejenis sayuran yang murah dan mudah diperoleh kerana tumbuh secara meliar di tepi-tepi sumber air, dikatakan dapat membantu mengurangkan kesakitan penyakit buasir, sakit kepala dan boleh digunakan untuk melebatkan rambut.

Jering pula didapati mengandungi banyak zat, antaranya protein, lemak, karbohidrat, kalsium, fosforus, vitamin A, B dan C. Biarpun rasanya pahit dan berbau, ia juga dikatakan menjadi penawar kepada pesakit kencing manis.

Sementara petai juga mempunyai khasiatnya tersendiri. Berdasarkan kajian, buah petai yang berbintil-bintil pada papannya dikatakan mengandungi kadar protein dan lemak yang tinggi berbanding tumbuhan hutan yang lain, iaitu sebanyak 8 peratus. Kandungan lain yang ada dalam petai adalah karbohidrat, air, kalsium, fosforus, zat besi, vitamin A, B1, B2 dan C.

Khasiat petai bergantung kepada umur dan kesegaran biji petai tersebut. Buah petai yang kecut ataupun bijinya tidak membulat, dikatakan kurang mempunyai kandungan khasiat yang tinggi. Biji petai dikatakan berkesan merawat penyakit jantung, kencing manis, mencuci buah pinggang dan untuk mengeluarkan cacing daripada kanak-kanak yang kecacingan.

Disebabkan khasiat yang terselindung, ulam-ulaman diminati ramai biarpun rasanya pahit dan baunya busuk.

Sebolehnya, jadikanlah ulam sebagai makanan wajib dalam hidangan kerana selain ia mampu membuka selera, turut 'dijamu' khasiatnya yang tinggi tidak kira dari segi pemakanan mahupun perubatan.

Untuk itu, para petani perlu memainkan peranan menanam pokok-pokok ulam secara komersial bukan hanya mengharapkan ia tumbuh melata di hutan atau kebun mereka.

[Baca]

Osteoartritis & Osteoporosis

BUKAN hanya mereka yang berusia berisiko menghadapi masalah tulang seperti osteoartritis dan osteoporosis.

DI seluruh dunia, berjuta orang mengalami masalah tulang dan sendi. Masalah seperti artritis dan osteoporosis memberi kesan yang besar terhadap mutu kehidupan seseorang. Lebih separuh penghidap penyakit sendi kronik adalah di kalangan warga tua.

Perkataan "artritis" bermaksud "radang sendi" iaitu sendi yang sakit, terasa bisa bila disentuh, mungkin kemerahan, membengkak yang dikaitkan dengan kehilangan fungsi. "Osteo" ialah perkataan Greek untuk "tulang". Terdapat lebih daripada 100 masalah yang berkaitan dengan sendi dan tulang penyambung, otot dan tisu. Penyakit ini dikelaskan dalam pelbagai jenis artritis, sama ada terdapat radang, jangkitan atau pendarahan.

Osteoartritis (OA) dikenali sebagai penyakit "degeneratif" (penyakit yang berkaitan dengan peningkatan usia) kerana ia disebabkan oleh haus dan lusuh dalam jangka masa yang lama. Kesannya sangat ketara. OA terjadi apabila rawan (tisu lembut) yang melapisi hujung tulang mula terhakis. Ini boleh berlaku apabila:

- Haus dan lusuh berlaku apabila usia semakin meningkat

- Kecederaan atau kerosakan pada sendi disebabkan oleh trauma atau jangkitan

- Rawan yang terkena penyakit lain atau lemah secara genetik

Apabila sistem lapisan pada sendi hilang, tulang akan bergeser antara satu sama lain dan menyebabkan kesakitan. Sendi akan mula berasa kaku dan pergerakan akan menjadi lemah.

Sokongan Nutrisi untuk Osteoatritis

Glukosamina dan kondroitin merupakan komponen semula jadi dalam tisu sendi yang sihat. Tugasnya ialah untuk membekalkan bahan mentah semula jadi yang diperlukan oleh rawan untuk memperbaiki dan membina semula dirinya dan menentang enzim semula jadi yang merosakkan rawan.

- Glukosamina merupakan perintis bagi molekul yang dikenali sebagai glikosaminoglikan. Molekul ini digunakan dalam pembentukan dan pembaikpulih rawan. Tidak seperti ubat NSAIDS dan aspirin, glukosamina bukan sahaja menghilangkan kesakitan tetapi juga membantu membina semula rawan.

- Kondroitin merupakan glikosaminoglikan yang paling banyak dijumpai dalam rawan dan bertanggungjawab untuk memastikan ketahanan rawan. Ia bertindak seperti 'daya penarik air'. Keupayaan kondroitin ini memberi keanjalan kepada rawan dan bertindak sebagai 'penyerap hentakan'. Kajian menunjukkan keberkesanannya meningkat sebanyak 24 peratus apabila rawatan digabungkan dengan Glukosamina Sulfat.

- Mengambil suplemen Glukosamina dan Kondroitin dapat membantu membina dan membaiki rawan, memperlahankan perkembangan OA, melincirkan sendi-sendi, mengurangkan kesakitan sendi-sendi dan kekakuan dan meningkatkan keselesaan pergerakan.

Sejak akhir-akhir ini, suplemen Glukosamina dan Kondroitin telah menarik minat orang ramai di Amerika Syarikat (AS) sehinggakan pihak berkuasa AS telah menjalankan kajian klinikal terbesar ke atas glukosamina dan kondroitin untuk menguji keberkesanannya. Keterangan terperinci mengenai ujian GAIT telah disiarkan dalam New England Medical Journal pada 23 Februari 2006.

Ujian GAIT

Ujian GAIT disifatkan sebagai 'ujian paling ketat dan rapi sehingga kini' dalam menilai keberkesanan Glukosamina dan Kondroitin terhadap sakit lutut yang berkaitan dengan Osteoatritis (OA). Ujian GAIT telah membuktikan bahawa gabungan dua suplemen ini (Glukosamina dan Kondroitin) adalah lebih berkesan untuk merawat sakit lutut OA peringkat sederhana sehingga teruk berbanding Celecoxib, sejenis perencat COX-2 (ubat anti inflamasi).

Pencegahan osteoporosis

Osteoporosis ialah keadaan kekurangan khasiat dikenali 'tulang rapuh'. Keadaan ini berlaku, terutamanya pada tulang belakang, pergelangan tangan dan pinggul yang menjadi nipis, lemah dan mudah retak.

Tulang sebenarnya adalah tisu hidup dan selalunya mempunyai tindak balas biokimia di mana ia bergantung kepada nutrien mikro dan sistem enzim yang berbeza-beza. Seperti mana tisu hidup lain, tulang memerlukan pelbagai bekalan khasiat.

Pemakanan moden kini seperti roti putih, gula putih dan lemak yang tinggi adalah tersangat kurang khasiatnya untuk tulang. Pengambilan daging dan air berkarbonat yang banyak pula menyumbang kepada menurunnya penyerapan kalsium oleh badan. Kekurangan pengambilan khasiat yang diperlukan tulang boleh menyumbang kepada osteoporosis.

Sekiranya osteoporosis tidak dicegah atau dibiarkan tanpa rawatan, ia akan berkembang perlahan-lahan tanpa berasa sakit sehinggalah ada tulang yang mengalami keretakan atau patah.

Mustahaknya mengambil suplemen kalsium telah lama diakui dalam penjagaan kesihatan tulang. Meskipun kalsium begitu penting, didapati hanya 25 peratus wanita AS yang menghidap osteoporosis mengalami kekurangan kalsium. Bukti baru ini dengan jelas menunjukkan vitamin D, magnesium, kuprum, zink, boron dan mangan juga penting untuk mewujudkan tulang yang kuat dan sihat.

Semua nutrien ini hendaklah diambil bersama untuk mendapatkan metabolisme tulang yang optimum. Malah, kekurangan hanya satu nutrien tersebut boleh mengakibatkan tulang menjadi lemah dan membawa kepada penyakit osteoporosis. Lelaki dan wanita seharusnya mengambil suplemen kalsium antara 800 hingga 1,500 miligram (mg) sehari bersama dengan makanan untuk penyerapan yang optimum.

Selain kalsium

- Vitamin D membantu badan menyerap kalsium. Paras vitamin D yang rendah adalah perkara biasa bagi wanita terutama yang sudah berusia. Kekurangan vitamin D boleh menyebabkan kekurangan kalsium dan akan menyebabkan tulang menjadi lembut (osteomalacia). Pakar mengesyorkan pengambilan harian vitamin D antara 400 dan 800 unit antarabangsa (IU).

- Magnesium perlu untuk pemeliharaan dan penggerakan kalsium dalam tulang dan diperlukan untuk penggunaan vitamin D. Kekurangan magnesium sudah menjadi perkara biasa dan merupakan faktor risiko utama bagi osteoporosis. U.S. RDA untuk magnesium ialah 400 mg setiap hari. (U.S. RDA yang disebut di sini ialah untuk orang dewasa, kecuali wanita hamil, ibu-ibu menyusu dan kanak-kanak yang berumur lebih empat tahun).

- Mangan merupakan mineral surih diperlukan untuk menghasilkan tisu-tisu sambungan yang membentuk matriks tulang, tempat pengumpulan mineral berlaku. Pengambilan harian yang disyorkan untuk mangan ialah 2 mg.

- Boron diperlukan untuk menukar vitamin D kepada bentuk aktif; ini menerangkan mengapa kekurangan boron akan menjejaskan metabolisme kalsium dan pembentukan tulang. Boron mengurangkan penyusutan kalsium dari tulang. Walaupun tidak ada RDA rasmi bagi boron, dosej harian yang mengandungi 1.5 hingga 3.0 mg adalah selamat dan mencukupi.

- Zink menyokong pembentukan tulang dengan memperkuatkan tindakan vitamin D. Zink membantu mengekalkan struktur tulang-temulang dan ia juga terbabit dalam pembinaan tulang.

- Kekurangan kuprum mungkin akan menyebabkan pengumpulan tulang yang tidak normal. Kuprum membantu membentuk blok-blok binaan untuk tulang-tulang.

Panduan Membeli Suplemen

Apabila anda mencari suplemen untuk kesihatan sendi dan tulang, pilihlah suplemen 'Ostepakej' 3 dalam 1 yang baik dengan menggabungkan Glukosamina dengan Kondroitin bersama Kalsium, serta manfaat-manfaat tambahan daripada Magnesium, Vitamin D, Boron, Mangan, Zink dan Kuprum.

Maklumat dalam artikel ini adalah untuk tujuan pendidikan sahaja dan seharusnya tidak digunakan sebagai ganti nasihat kesihatan peribadi. Jika anda sedang mengalami masalah kesihatan, anda dinasihatkan supaya berjumpa dengan pengamal pakar kesihatan.

[Baca]

Derita osteoartritis

RAWATAN susulan pada lutut Zainaton Hassiah selepas menjalani pembedahan osteoartritis.

BAGI kebanyakan daripada kita, penyakit osteoartritis dilihat hanya dialami oleh warga tua bersesuaian dengan umur, tahap metabolisme serta kesihatan mereka yang semakin merosot.

Namun, adalah silap bagi kita untuk membuat jangkaan sedemikian kerana penyakit ini sebenarnya tidak mengenal usia.

Penyakit osteoartritis berlaku akibat rawan (cartilage) yang terdapat di antara dua tulang penyambung sendi badan telah menipis (terhakis), seperti di bahagian lutut, siku, pinggul dam leher.

Bagi setiap manusia normal, rawan yang terdapat di antara dua tulang, contohnya seperti di bahagian lutut, membantu melancarkan pergerakan atau membantu tulang tersebut membengkok.

Dalam erti kata lain, rawan melindungi bahagian hujung tulang bagi memudahkan pergerakan seharian.

Jika rawan telah menipis, ia akan mengakibatkan kesakitan yang amat sangat setiap kali kita melakukan pergerakan.

Lutut meletup

Setiap tindakan yang biasa kita lakukan setiap hari seperti menaiki tangga, membuka pintu malah menyikat rambut akan mengakibatkan kesakitan kepada pengidap penyakit ini.

Itulah yang berlaku kepada Zainaton Hassiah Mohamad Kamal yang menderita penyakit osteoartritis sejak dua tahun lepas.

Bagi Zainaton Hassiah, penyakit ini mula dikesan setelah dia menghadapi kesukaran untuk menggerakkan bahagian lututnya malah setiap kali dia cuba bangun dari duduk, lututnya pasti akan mengeluarkan bunyi seperti meletup.

Setelah menjalani pemeriksaan di Hospital Pusrawi di Jalan Ampang, Zainaton disahkan mengidap penyakit osteosrtritis berikutan rawan yang terdapat di bahagian lututnya semakin menipis.

Ini mengakibatkan bahagian tulangnya bergeser antara satu sama lain sekali gus menyukarkan pergerakan harian.

Bagi wanita berusia 40 tahun ini, dia tidak menyangka akan mengidap penyakit sedemikian memandangkan sebelum ini dirinya merupakan seorang yang aktif dalam kegiatan sukan mencabar seperti mendaki gunung dan juga "jungle tracking".

Namun setelah berhenti dari kegiatan sukan berkenaan untuk jangka masa yang agak lama ditambah pula dengan peningkatan berat badan, ia mungkin menyumbang kepada Zainaton Hassiah mengidap penyakit ini sekarang.

Semakin sakit

Zainaton Hassia mula didiagnosis menghidap penyakit osteosrtritis pada 2007 dan doktor telah memberikan beberapa pil ubat untuk meredakan kesakitan memandangkan penyakit tersebut masih di peringkat awal.

Namun, setelah menderita kesakitan sehingga sukar untuk berjalan dan bertugas, doktor menyarankan dia menjalani pembedahan menggunakan kaedah arthroscopy.

Kaedah ini membenarkan doktor melihat ke bahagian dalam sekitar rawan tulang yang sakit menggunakan kamera kecil dikenali sebagai arthroscope tanpa perlu melakukan pembedahan besar.

Alat ini yang turut dilengkapi video masa sebenar akan dimasukkan ke bahagian lutut bagi mencari punca kesakitan sebelum pembedahan dilakukan bagi memulihkan bahagian tersebut atau mengeluarkan bahagian yang rosak teruk.

Ketika ditemui, wanita yang berasal dari Sarawak ini telah semakin pulih dari pembedahannya dan mula menjalani rawatan susulan.

Zainaton Hassia menasihatkan kepada mereka yang mempunyai tanda-tanda penyakit osteoartritis supaya segera menjalani pemeriksaan di hospital bagi mengelakkan penyakit tersebut semakin parah.

"Jangan ambil mudah bila sakit lutut dan sakit di bahagian sendi lain kerana jika tidak dirawat dari peringkat awal, ia akan memberi kesan yang lebih teruk.

"Kebanyakan daripada kita lebih gemar pergi berurut jika berasa sakit di bahagian tersebut dan ia bukan langkah terbaik.

"Doktor mengesahkan saya telah pulih dan saya sangat bersyukur, namun yang pasti saya tidak boleh memakai kasut tumit tinggi selepas ini kerana ia akan memberi kesan ketika saya berjalan," katanya.

[Baca]

Memahami khasiat air

BERAPA gelas anda minum air setiap hari? Dua, tiga, empat...atau lebih? Soalan tersebut memang kerap kita dengar terutama ketika berjumpa doktor atau pakar pemakanan.

Mungkin ada yang menganggap ia soalan remeh tapi sebenarnya ia amat penting untuk mengingatkan anda supaya minum lebih banyak air.

Kita selalu memperkatakan bahawa asas kepada kesihatan yang baik ialah diet makanan yang seimbang, senaman yang kerap, rehat, sentiasa gembira dan ketawa.

Pengambilan air juga merupakan salah satu daripada asas utama ini. Jika mahukan tubuh sihat, mungkin sudah tiba masanya anda memikirkan saranan pakar iaitu minum enam hingga lapan gelas besar air sehari. Fakta-fakta di bawah mungkin membuatkan anda mula memikirkannya.

Mengapa tubuh memerlukan ‘bekalan’ air baru setiap hari?

Antara 55 peratus hingga 75 peratus berat badan adalah air. Air bahan kedua terpenting selepas oksigen yang diperlukan oleh tubuh. Berikut adalah antara sebab kenapa tubuh memerlukan air.

-Ia membantu penghadaman, penyerapan dan penyingkiran makanan yang dimakan.

-Ia membantu perkumuhan bahan buangan dari usus dan buah pinggang.

-Untuk menyelaraskan suhu badan 24/7

 

-Memberi kelancaran pergerakan sendi dan membran

-Darah merupakan sistem pengangkutan yang berfungsi ‘mengagihkan’ nutrien makanan ke seluruh tubuh. Hampir 92 peratus kandungan darah ialah air.

-Rembesan tubuh dan cecair penghadaman hampir keseluruhannya adalah air (sistem penghadaman menghasilkan hampir 1.7 liter air liur setiap hari)

Disebabkan fungsi-fungsi yang penting ini, dalam keadaan normal tubuh memerlukan antara satu hingga dua liter air setiap hari supaya ia berfungsi secara optimum. Jumlah ini juga bergantung kepada saiz, diet, sejauh mana individu tersebut mengamalkan gaya hidup aktif dan keadaan cuaca persekitaran.

Senarai di bawah menunjukkan bagaimana tubuh boleh kehilangan air.

-Melalui pernafasan, perpeluhan dan penyingkiran (najis dan air kencing) tubuh anda kehilangan 1.7 liter setiap hari.

-Dalam cuaca panas, perpeluhan meningkat jadi lebih banyak air diperlukan bagi membantu menyelaraskan suhu bandan dan menjadikan anda berasa selesa.

-Ketika cuaca sejuk, lembapan tambahan hilang melalui pernafasan.

-Bagi setiap jam aktiviti fizikal atau bersenam, anda memerlukan tambahan 1-3 gelas air.

-Sistem haba berpusat memberi kesan kekeringan, jadi anda perlu minum lebih banyak air atau kurangkan suhunya.

Tahukah anda?

Air adalah penahan selera secara semula jadi. Kekurangan air boleh membawa kepada makan berlebihan, ini kerana otak tidak dapat membezakan antara lapar dan dahaga, jadi apabila anda fikir anda berasa lapar kemungkinan tubuh sebenarnya memerlukan air. Jadi minum segelas besar air sebelum anda makan keran itu yang mungkin diperlukan oleh tubuh bukannya makanan seperti otak anda fikirkan.

Adakah anda penyahhidratan (dehydaration)

Ramai yang tidak menyedari tubuh sedang mengalami penyahhidratan dan. Di bawah adalah simptom-simptom menunjukkan tubuh sedang ‘dahagakan’ air.

-Pening - Salah satu fungsi utama air ialah membuang toksin dari tubuh. Otak manusia mengandungi 75 peratus air, jadi walaupun mengalami sedikit penyahhidratan boleh menyebabkan pening.

- Letih/Lemah tumpuan - Jika tubuh mengandungi terlalu banyak toksin dan tidak cukup air untuk mengeluarkannya, anda akan berasa kurang bertenaga kerana tubuh bergelut dengan toksin.

-Sembelit - Aiar melawaskan proses penyingkiran najis, jadi minumlah air secukupnya untuk melancarkan penyingkirannya.

-Mengurangkan pengeluaran air kencing/Airkencing kotor - Buah pinggang adalah penapis bahan-bahan buangan dari darah. Hampir 180 liter air dikitar semula oleh buah pinggang setiap hari. Proses ini bergantung kepada bekalan air segar yang secukupnya, tanpanya pengeluaran air kencing akan berkurangan menyebabkan bahan buangan menjadi lebih pekat menghasilkan kencing kotor.

-Mulut berbau - Jika cecair tidak cukup di dalam mulut untuk membersihkan sisa-sisa makanan, bakteria akan membiak di dalam tekak dan mulut menyebabkan mulut berbau.

-Mulut kering - Air liur merupakan bahan ‘pelincir’ mulut, penyahhidratan mengurangkan jumlah air liur.

 

Penyahhidratan yang teruk juga menyebabbkan:

-Ketegangan otot - Ini berlaku apabila tidak cukup oksigen sampai ke otot melalui pembuluh darah disebabkan tubuh tidak cukup air.

 

-Kulit - Kulit yang tidak cukup air akan hilang keanjalan. Ujinya dengan mencubit kulit di belakang tangan ia akan terlepas dengan serta merta.

-Mata - Mata cengkung dan kulit di sekeliling mata lembah menandakan penyahhidratan yang teruk.

Jadikan pengambilan air sebagai habit

Matlamat anda sekarang ialah untuk minum air secara kerap sepanjang hari. Bagi beberapa hari pertama mungkin anda akan berasa kerap ke tandas, ini kerana tubuh belum biasa dengan keadaan itu dan memerlukan masa untuk penyesuaian. Anda juga akan berasa berat badan berkurangan memandangkan simpanan air dalam tubuh menjadi berlebihan dan secara beransur-ansur anda melepaskannya.

[Baca]

Stres mungkin baik untuk anda

BARU-BARU ini seorang ibu membawa anak lelakinya yang berusia tujuh tahun menemui doktor pakar setelah anaknya mengalami demam yang berpanjangan sejak memasuki tahun satu sekolah rendah pada 5 Jan lepas.

Sebelum ini, doktor yang merawat budak lelaki tersebut telah menyatakan bahawa dia bebas daripada penyakit yang serius.

“Setiap kali saya bawa anak ke klinik atau hospital, mereka (doktor) hanya bagi ubat untuk demam. Ujian darah pula menunjukkan tiada apa-apa penyakit”, ibu tersebut, yang hanya mahu dikenali sebagai Rahimah, memberitahu penulis di sini baru-baru ini.

“Anak anda adalah normal. Mungkin dia stres kerana masih belum dapat menyesuaikan diri di persekitaran baru sekolah”, itulah antara kata-kata oleh pakar kanak-kanak tersebut kepada Rahimah semasa sesi rawatan di kliniknya.

APA ITU stres?

Menurut Dr. Hans Selye, pengasas teori stres, stres merupakan satu gejala tindak balas yang tidak spesifik oleh individu terhadap beban yang datang dalam bentuk keresahan yang disebabkan cabaran, ancaman atau perubahan yang memerlukan respon.

Bertentangan dengan persepsi ramai orang, stres boleh dibahagi kepada stres yang baik atau positif yang dikenali sebagai eustress dan yang buruk atau negatif distress.

Pegawai perubatan di sebuah institusi kesihatan di ibu negara, Dr. S. Mogan berkata, stres yang positif boleh membuatkan seseorang lebih berhati-hati, fokus dan kreatif dalam kehidupan harian.

Menurut sejarah, Alexander Graham Bell mencipta telefon, alat yang mencetus revolusi dalam bidang perhubungan, ketika ingin membantu tunang beliau yang telah hilang pendengaran.

Sukar untuk didefinisi

 

Kata Dr. Mogan, memang sukar untuk memberi definisi mengenai stres kerana ia suatu aspek yang subjektif.

“Kalau anda tanya 10 orang tentang apa yang sebabkan mereka rasa stres, maka anda akan mendapat 10 jawapan yang berlainan.

“Sebabnya tiada definisi tentang stres yang dipersetujui semua, apa yang stres bagi seseorang mungkin perkara yang menyeronokkan atau tiada apa-apa bagi orang lain.

“Contohnya, penunggang motosikal akan berasa gembira bila dapat memecut kenderaan mereka manakala ini perkara yang menakutkan bagi orang lain. Menang dalam perlumbaan mungkin lebih stres daripada kalah tapi ini merupakan stres yang baik”, kata kepada Bernama.

Menurut pendidik Fatimah Mansur, stres melonjakkan produktiviti seperti bila pelajar menghadapi peperiksaan.

“Pelajar berusaha dengan lebih keras bila peperiksaan telah hampir manakala pekerja di pejabat bekerja dengan lebih cepat bila waktu pulang sudah dekat", kata beliau.

Fatimah berkata, orang ramai perlu mendapat stres yang sesuai untuk produktif dalam kehidupan seharian.

“Anda boleh guna dan gembleng stres untuk menjadi lebih produktif,” kata Fatimah lagi.

Risalah Kementerian Kesihatan

 

Menurut risalah yang dikeluarkan oleh Kementerian Kesihatan, antara punca stres ialah beban kewangan, masalah rumah tangga, menunggu terlalu lama, mangsa buli, beban kerja yang tinggi, suasana persekitaran yang tidak sihat, rasa rendah diri, kesesakan jalan raya, serta tragedi.

Seseorang yang mengalami stres akan menunjukkan kegelisahan, risau keterlaluan dan gangguan emosi, insomnia (tidak dapat tidur), kurang fokus dan tumpuan kerja serta resah dan cepat marah.

Mereka digalakkan mengambil 10 langkah ‘B’ iaitu bertenang, bernafas dengan dalam, berkata ‘relakslah’, beribadat, bercakap dengan seseorang, berurut, berehat dan mendengar muzik, beriadah, bersenam dan berfikiran positif.

[Baca]

Peliharalah mata anda

MATA adalah salah satu organ manusia yang sangat berharga kurniaan Tuhan yang membolehkan kita melihat. Sistem penglihatan yang sempurna ini akan berkurang sedikit demi sedikit apabila meningkatnya usia.

Walaupun ini adalah perkara biasa dalam penuaan, masih terdapat antara kita yang kurang prihatin dalam penjagaan mata, terutamanya mereka yang berumur 40 tahun ke atas.

Terdapat beberapa penyakit dan gangguan mata yang dikaitkan dengan proses penuaan. Dengan adanya teknologi yang sering berkembang hari demi hari, penglihatan yang sempurna dan terang dapat dinikmati oleh semua golongan di hari tua.

Sayangnya, banyak yang berpendapat bahawa tiada bantuan dapat diberikan kepada masalah mata berkaitan dengan penuaan.

Salah satu gangguan mata yang sering berlaku ketika penuaan ialah presbiopia, yang bermula di kalangan mereka dalam lingkungan 40 ke 50 tahun.

Hasil dari penuaan, kanta mula hilang keanjalannya, menyukarkan untuk memfokus jarak dekat seperti aktiviti membaca.

Tetapi presbiopia boleh dibetulkan dengan penggunaan cermin mata untuk membaca atau cermin mata dengan bifocal, trifocal atau kanta (tanpa garis) progresif.

Penuaan mata juga menyebabkan kanta mata menjadi lebih tebal dan kuning iaitu pembentukan katarak awal.

Perubahan ini mungkin akan memberi kesan kepada persepsi warna dan ketajaman penglihatan.

Apabila mata melalui proses penuaan, anak mata menjadi semakin kecil, menyebabkan keperluan kepada lebih cahaya untuk melihat dengan jelas.

Terdapat juga beberapa situasi lain yang membolehkan kehilangan penglihatan, antaranya degenerasi makula, glaukoma, katarak dan retinopati diabetis.

Perkara yang paling penting di dalam penuaan mata adalah untuk menjalani pemeriksaan mata secara berkala oleh pakar mata untuk memastikan kesihatan mata dan pengesanan awal sebarang penyakit mata.

Berikut merupakan beberapa persoalan yang sering menjadi persoalan di kalangan pesakit:

1. Apakah faktor yang mempengaruhi kesihatan mata seseorang?

- Terdapat dua faktor utama iaitu faktor genetik dan faktor alam sekitar di samping tabiat pemakanan dan tabiat merokok seseorang.

Faktor genetik menentukan sama ada seseorang itu mengalami rabun, katarak pada umur awal, degenerasi makula dan penyakit mata lain manakala tabiat merokok pula amat mempengaruhi kesihatan mata.

2. Bagaimanakah cara terbaik untuk menjaga kesihatan mata dan mencegah kebutaan ketika umur meningkat?

- Cara terbaik adalah dengan menjaga pemakanan dengan banyak memakan ikan dan sayuran serta makanan kesihatan dan mengelakkan merokok sejak usia muda.

Seperkara lagi bagi mereka yang berumur 40 tahun ke atas, harus menjalani pemeriksaan mata secara berkala oleh pakar mata untuk mengesan penyakit mata berbahaya yang mungkin tidak mempunyai gejala, seperti kekaburan.

3. Apakah peringkat umur yang harus menjalani pemeriksaan secara berkala oleh pakar mata?

- Mereka yang sihat tubuh badan dan berumur kurang daripada 40 tahun harus menjalani pemeriksaan mata setiap dua tahun dan setelah berumur 40 tahun, harus menjalani pemeriksaan setiap tahun.

Jika seseorang mengidap kencing manis atau darah tinggi, harus menjalani pemeriksaan setiap tahun walaupun berumur kurang daripada 40 tahun.

4. Kenapa mereka yang berumur 40 tahun ke atas harus menjalani pemeriksaan mata setiap tahun?

- Apabila anda berumur 40 tahun, risiko untuk mendapat penyakit mata meningkat. Penyakit mata yang berbahaya mungkin menyebabkan kebutaan termasuklah glaukoma, degenerasi makula dan katarak.

Semua penyakit ini tidak mempunyai gejala pada peringkat awal dan hanya dapat dikesan oleh pakar mata.

Pemeriksaan mata juga mungkin mengesan penyakit kencing manis dan darah tinggi melalui perubahan pada salur darah mata dalam keadaan berkenaan.

5. Apakah risiko untuk seseorang berumur lebih 40 tahun mengalami masalah gangguan penglihatan?

- Statistik menunjukkan sebanyak satu pertiga daripada mereka yang berumur 40 tahun ke atas mengalami masalah mata.

Pakar mata harus mengesan penyakit mata sebelum berlaku kebutaan yang kekal. Adalah tidak bijak untuk menunggu sehingga ada masalah sebelum menjalani pemeriksaan mata.

6. Apakah yang dilakukan ketika pemeriksaan mata oleh pakar mata?

- Pemeriksaan mata sepenuhnya mengambil masa 30 minit di mana sejarah kesihatan anda dan keluarga anda diteliti terlebih dahulu.

Pemeriksaan mata secara menyeluruh dilakukan menggunakan berbagai alat untuk menentukan struktur mata anda sihat.

Tekanan mata juga diperiksa untuk menentukan anda tidak mengidap glaukoma. Gambar retina anda akan diambil untuk dokumentasi dan sebagai rekod status saraf mata dan retina anda.

Otot mata anda juga diperiksa untuk menentukan otot bergerak dengan sempurna. Refraksi dilakukan untuk menentukan keperluan anda untuk memakai cermin mata dan adakah cermin mata yang digunakan sesuai.

Setelah pemeriksaan dilakukan, pakar mata akan menerangkan kepada anda status mata dan memberi nasihat yang perlu untuk menjaga kesihatan mata anda.

7. Apakah pengalaman doktor dengan mereka yang merokok dan kesihatan mata?

- Saya sering berjumpa pesakit, selalunya lelaki, yang berumur kurang dari 40 tahun yang merupakan perokok tegar dan mengidap katarak pada kedua belah mata.

Terdapat juga di kalangan perokok yang mengalami degenerasi makula yang menyebabkan kebutaan kedua belah mata pada peringkat umur melebihi 65 tahun.

Mereka selalunya menyesal tetapi keadaan mata telah teruk dan mereka menjadi buta untuk selamanya dan rawatan yang mahal hanya dapat memulihkan sedikit sahaja penglihatan mereka.

8. Apakah pengalaman doktor dengan mereka yang lambat berjumpa pakar mata?

- Terdapat pesakit yang datang lewat hanya setelah mereka benar-benar tidak dapat melihat lagi.

Ini sering berlaku kepada pesakit kencing manis. Mereka menjadi buta dengan cepat dan walaupun dirawat, penglihatan hanya dapat dipulihkan dengan sedikit sahaja.

Semua warga Malaysia melebihi 40 tahun harus menjalani pemeriksaan mata secara berkala oleh pakar mata untuk mengesan sebarang masalah yang wujud dari peringkat awal dan mencegah kebutaan.

Jika keluarga anda mengalami masalah mata, kencing manis, penyakit serius atau pun memakan ubat yang mungkin mempunyai kesan ke atas mata, mereka seharusnya menjalani pemeriksaan mata yang sepenuhnya.

[Baca]

PALESTINE - SPEECH BY TUN

SPEECH BY TUN DR MAHATHIR BIN MOHAMAD AT THE PALESTINE FORUM AT CROWNE PLAZA MUTIARA, KUALA LUMPUR FEBRUARY 5, 2009

1.                  Thank you for your presence at this forum on Palestine.  I think it is important that we remind ourselves briefly of the background of this tragic country.

2.                  When after the Second World War, the Europeans had to give up their empires; they left behind time bombs, which regularly exploded, making the development of the ex-colonies fraught with danger and obstacles.  Nearly all the newly independent states emerging from European colonisation have not been stable, nor been able to develop themselves, giving the impression that these ex-colonies are unable to manage independence.  Many even think that they should remain as colonies.

3.         Of the ex-colonies which have to manage the continuously exploding time bombs, none is worse than the mandated territory of Palestine.

4.         Britain, which was given the mandate for Palestine had no right to carve the state in order to create the state of Israel.  It is shameful that Britain should succumb to the terrorism of the Haganah and the Irgun and Zionist pressures and reneged on the conditions of the mandate.  It was a totally irresponsible and dishonorable act unworthy of a country that talks so much about honour and integrity.

5.         The Arab Palestinian not only lost much of their land but they were driven out of the portion given to the Jews.  Their land was expropriated with no compensation and many were massacred at Deir Yassin, al-Dawayina, Eilaboun, Jish, Ramle and Laydda.

6.         Since 1948, the Palestinians had to live as refugees in refugee camps under terrible conditions.  Their children grew without proper schooling knowing only poverty and squalor.

7.         One would have thought that the imperialists who had wronged the Palestinian Arabs would at least help them reclaim their rights in the state that is now called Israel.  But instead we find Britain and the United States in particular giving military aid to the Israelis even when they openly seize more Palestinian land and set up Jewish settlements on land that is not apportioned to them.

8.         There are some who blame the Palestinians for what they term as terrorism.  I have no liking for irresponsible acts which result in the killing of people, innocent civilians whether Jews or Muslims.  In fact I am against war i.e. the killing of people as a way of solving conflicts.  But when the Arabs mounted a conventional war against Israel to regain Palestinian land, what did the British and the Americans, the people responsible for the outbreak of fighting between Jews and Muslims do?  They provided Israel with military support so that the Arab states of Jordan, Syria and Egypt were defeated.

9.         Unable to get any more help from the Arab nations, with no sympathy from other nations, the Palestinians finally had to fight an unevenly matched struggle against the overwhelmingly powerful armed might of Israel.  Perhaps they should know that they could not win against Israel backed by American forces.  But this is their land unlawfully occupied by the Israelis and even if they have to fight alone against their powerful oppressors, they have to do so.  After abortive attempts to dislodge the Israelis, without the weapons to match those of the Israeli military, they had no choice but to resort to methods which must be physically very painful and terrifying to them.  It is not something people would like to do – tying explosives to your body and blowing yourself up.  But desperate people have to resort to desperate ways.  And suicide bombings became their main weapon.

10.       If they cannot do this what can they do when the Israelis expanded their territory, building roads on Palestinian land, which the Palestinians were barred from using, building high walls to break-up Palestinian families and their villages.

11.       I went to Palestine and was shocked to find that entry into Palestine is controlled by Israelis armed with machine guns.  Their checkpoints deliberately delayed my entry into Palestine by more than two hours so that I could not visit the village of Jenin where Israel had destroyed houses while their occupants were still inside, where the whole village was reduced to rubble by Israeli guns and bombs.  I could not go to Jerusalem because the Israelis declared that it was unsafe, as if they cared for me.  And everywhere I saw Israeli settlements guarded by armed militia while the Arabs were forced to build huts and live in them with their animals to prevent seizure of their land by Israelis for their settlements.

12.       I was shocked that the Palestinians were not even allowed to call the remaining land that had formed the state of Palestine after the UN carved up a part of it to give to the Jews, the State of Palestine.

13.       The Israelis insisted and the international community appeared to acquiesce that there is no State of Palestine, only a Palestinian Authority.  Yet the United Nations when it agreed to create a state of Israel on Palestinian land referred to the partition as creating two separate states of Israel and Palestine.  How come today there is no Palestine?

14.       At any time Israeli tanks could enter Palestinian towns as if land under the control of what is called the Palestinian Authority is actually under Israeli rule.  When I was there Israeli armored cars actually drove through Ramallah.  I was told Israeli tanks had surrounded the building where Arafat was forced to seek shelter and Israel’s guns kept up a continuous bombardment of the buildings. 

15.       The Americans and the British insisted that the Palestinians hold elections to determine who should be the Palestinian Authority.  The contest was between Fatah and Hamas.  Hamas won hands down.

16.       The least the British and the Americans could do was to accept the result of the elections.  But these backers of Israel rejected the results of the election because they do not like Hamas.

17.       If other countries reject the results of elections these so-called democrats would condemn them.  But we now see the great proponents of democracy themselves rejecting the results of the democratic process.

18.       But perhaps this is to be expected.  America and Britain which had previously condemned detention without trial are now detaining people without trial and without even the benefit of the law.  And the American Congress went so far as to make torture of prisoners legal.

19.       In the meanwhile the Palestinians have been subjected to condemnation for defending as best they could but the Western Press played up the futile retaliation by the Palestinians as terrorism.  That the Israelis attack, kill, destroy and arrest Palestinians thus terrifying them does not make them terrorists.

20.       In a recent newspaper report in Malaysia, we are told that the Israelis blasted a car in which a terrorist was traveling.  We know the Israelis are technologically advanced.  But how could they know which car was carrying a Palestinian “terrorist”.  Every time a car or a home is blasted by the Israelis we are told by our own papers that there were terrorists in the car or the house.  Can we trust the Jewish controlled Western wire service and media to tell the truth?

21.       What we do know for a fact is that schools, including a UN school and hospitals have been blasted by Israeli guns and the victims are plainly children and ordinary people.  How come they fail to recognise that they were targeting children when their guns and tanks were so close?

22.       Hamas may have fired rockets into Israel.  But it was not without provocation.  The Israelis had blockaded Gaza under the excuse that arms may be smuggled into the strip.  Why is it so wrong for the Palestinians to get some pitiably inadequate weaponry when the US supplies guns, rockets, bombs, tanks and warplanes to the Israelis with which to blast Palestinian towns out of existence, with which to kill children?

23.       The peculiar thinking of the Western backers of Israel was also demonstrated during the Serbian ethnic cleansing in Bosnia-Herzegovina when the West did not allow the Bosnians to be supplied with weapons because they will cause more deaths in Bosnia-Herzegovina.  It would seem that they wanted to see only the Bosnians killed.  The Serbs were to be saved.  Yet they talk of Serb brutalities. It would seem that Muslim lives were always expandable.

24.       This is also the case with Palestine.  The Palestinians must not be supplied with weapons so that they would be totally defenseless in the face of Israeli attacks, so that the Palestinians would be killed, so that the Israeli killers would be saved, so that the Israeli killers would be able to kill with impunity.

25.       The same thinking also resulted in allowing Israel to have nuclear weapons while those against Israel are castigated and prevented from having similar weapons or any defensive capability.  Sanctions are applied against them even when Israel is being supplied with more brutish weapons like cluster bombs and depleted uranium shells and bombs.

26.       War is inhuman and war should be made a crime.  People should stop killing people to settle their conflicts.  But far worse than the killing in war is the murder of people who have been deliberately deprived of the means to defend themselves, to save their lives. 

27.       What kind of people are these great powers whose idea of fairness is to literally tie up the hands of the opponents so that their thugs can beat them to a pulp.

28.         This is what we are seeing in Gaza. Yes the Gazans may have rockets but the scale of the so-called retaliation by Israel is beyond what can be   considered as retaliation.   It is nothing less than deliberate genocide worthy of primitive people. And yet the Israelis claim they are the most intelligent people with the greatest number of Nobel Laureates and scientific achievements. The greatness of a people cannot be measured by cerebral brilliance alone. Heartless people and bully are not great. They will go down in history as inhuman brutes. And those who support them must be considered equally brutish.

29.       Some apologists for Israel claim that the Palestinians have rejected peace, have been deliberately provocative. But what is the peace that is offered the Palestinians?

30.       It consists of being subservient to the Israelis and the Americans. It consists of rejecting their duly elected Government. It consists of giving up land that has been occupied by Israelis during peace as well as through one-sided wars.  It means accepting Jewish settlements on Palestinian land, and denial of the Right of Return of the   Arab refugees.

31.       The peace that is offered by America and the West is the peace for a subservient Israeli colony, where the Palestinian may not even call their land Palestine, where Israeli forces have full liberty to do what they like in the land of the Palestinians.

32.       Israeli brutality is unprecedented and shameless. The world knows that Israeli forces attack, kill and maim innocent children, women, the sick and the infirm. They deliberately starve their would be victims and deny them medical aid and fuel for power so as to weaken them before they attacked. And they attack with forces and weapons out of all proportions to the strength or military capability of their victims. And they do all these knowing that the mighty forces of the United States will be right behind them, ready to support their brutal acts.

33.       The Americans and the Israelis are forever demanding that the Palestinians stop their terror attacks before there could be peace talks. Why should the Palestinians do that when the Israelis still occupy their land and enforce their rule on Palestinian land, keeping thousands of Palestinians as prisoners and in every way threaten the lives of the Palestinians?

34.       If the Palestinians must cease their ineffective attempts to defend themselves, the Israelis must evacuate Palestinian land and allow the return of Palestinian refugees. Then only would it be right to demand that Palestinians do nothing to retaliate against Israeli aggression. Then only could peace negotiations begin.

35.     The world must insist on these. The war will not stop otherwise. Today not even the mightiest military power can conquer countries. The authorities or the Governments of the countries concerned may surrender but the people will not. They will continue to fight by whatever means possible until their country is fully liberated.

36.       We saw this in Vietnam, in Somalia, in Afghanistan, in Iraq. The only war the US won was in tiny Grenada. Shock and awe will get the military powers nowhere. When people are determined to get back their land they will continue to fight until they achieve their honorable objective.

37.       The big powers must realise this. Your weapons of mass destruction your sophistication in inventing new killing machines will avail you of nothing.  A hundred years ago you may conquer and colonise.  But not any more.  You cannot crush the spirit of the people and the love of their land. They will fight if it takes a thousand years.

38.       If there is to be peace in this world, if it is going to be freed from acts of terror by irregulars and regulars, stop thinking that force and the killing of people will solve the conflicts between people.

39.       If the world is to see peace in Palestine and the Middle-East and indeed the whole world, take no sides in the Palestinian conflict. Only justice based on historical facts will put an end to the Palestinian issue peacefully. Until then the world will continue to see endless violence and war in the Middle-East and Palestine.

40.       The onus is on the big powers which created Israel, the time bomb par excellence, which will not stop exploding in the face of the world until justice is done.

41.       This is not a religious war.  The Jews have been living in Muslim land for centuries.  In fact they seek refuge in Muslim land from the oppressions and pogroms of the Europeans.  But if the Jews reward their Arab hosts by seizing their land then they and their European invaders will have to pay the price.

42.       The tragedy of Gaza will be repeated again and again.  But those who think that the Palestinian will be cowed into submission are mistaken.  For every Gazan killed many will replace them.

43.       War will solve nothing for the militarists.  Only justice through peaceful negotiation will.

[Baca]

Bernanke's Great Lie - The "Gold Standard" and the Great Depression - By Jake (LATEST UPDATE - 3/2/09)

Jake

Download PDF

[Baca]

It’s Not Going to Be OK - By Chris Hedges (LATEST UPDATE - 3/2/09)

2 February 2009, TruthDig.com

The daily bleeding of thousands of jobs will soon turn our economic crisis into a political crisis. The street protests, strikes and riots that have rattled France, Turkey, Greece, Ukraine, Russia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria and Iceland will descend on us. It is only a matter of time. And not much time. When things start to go sour, when Barack Obama is exposed as a mortal waving a sword at a tidal wave, the United States could plunge into a long period of precarious social instability.

At no period in American history has our democracy been in such peril or has the possibility of totalitarianism been as real. Our way of life is over. Our profligate consumption is finished. Our children will never have the standard of living we had. And poverty and despair will sweep across the landscape like a plague. This is the bleak future. There is nothing President Obama can do to stop it. It has been decades in the making. It cannot be undone with a trillion or two trillion dollars in bailout money. Our empire is dying. Our economy has collapsed.

How will we cope with our decline? Will we cling to the absurd dreams of a superpower and a glorious tomorrow or will we responsibly face our stark new limitations? Will we heed those who are sober and rational, those who speak of a new simplicity and humility, or will we follow the demagogues and charlatans who rise up out of the slime in moments of crisis to offer fantastic visions? Will we radically transform our system to one that protects the ordinary citizen and fosters the common good, that defies the corporate state, or will we employ the brutality and technology of our internal security and surveillance apparatus to crush all dissent? We won't have to wait long to find out.

There are a few isolated individuals who saw it coming. The political philosophers Sheldon S. Wolin , John Ralston Saul and Andrew Bacevich, as well as writers such as Noam Chomsky, Chalmers Johnson , David Korten and Naomi Klein, along with activists such as Bill McKibben and Ralph Nader, rang the alarm bells. They were largely ignored or ridiculed. Our corporate media and corporate universities proved, when we needed them most, intellectually and morally useless.

Wolin, who taught political philosophy at the University of California in Berkeley and at Princeton, in his book "Democracy Incorporated" uses the phrase inverted totalitarianism  to describe our system of power. Inverted totalitarianism, unlike classical totalitarianism, does not revolve around a demagogue or charismatic leader. It finds its expression in the anonymity of the corporate state. It purports to cherish democracy, patriotism and the Constitution while cynically manipulating internal levers to subvert and thwart democratic institutions. Political candidates are elected in popular votes by citizens, but they must raise staggering amounts of corporate funds to compete. They are beholden to armies of corporate lobbyists in Washington or state capitals who write the legislation. A corporate media controls nearly everything we read, watch or hear and imposes a bland uniformity of opinion or diverts us with trivia and celebrity gossip. In classical totalitarian regimes, such as Nazi fascism or Soviet communism, economics was subordinate to politics. "Under inverted totalitarianism the reverse is true," Wolin writes. "Economics dominates politics-and with that domination comes different forms of ruthlessness."

I reached Wolin, 86, by phone at his home about 25 miles north of San Francisco. He was a bombardier in the South Pacific during World War II and went to Harvard after the war to get his doctorate. Wolin has written classics such as "Politics and Vision" and "Tocqueville Between Two Worlds." His newest book is one of the most important and prescient critiques to date of the American political system. He is also the author of a series of remarkable essays on Augustine of Hippo, Richard Hooker, David Hume, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Max Weber, Friedrich Nietzsche, Karl Marx and John Dewey. His voice, however, has faded from public awareness because, as he told me, "it is harder and harder for people like me to get a public hearing." He said that publications, such as The New York Review of Books, which often published his work a couple of decades ago, lost interest in his critiques of American capitalism, his warnings about the subversion of democratic institutions and the emergence of the corporate state. He does not hold out much hope for Obama.

"The basic systems are going to stay in place; they are too powerful to be challenged," Wolin told me when I asked him about the new Obama administration. "This is shown by the financial bailout. It does not bother with the structure at all. I don't think Obama can take on the kind of military establishment we have developed. This is not to say that I do not admire him. He is probably the most intelligent president we have had in decades. I think he is well meaning, but he inherits a system of constraints that make it very difficult to take on these major power configurations. I do not think he has the appetite for it in any ideological sense. The corporate structure is not going to be challenged. There has not been a word from him that would suggest an attempt to rethink the American imperium ."

Wolin argues that a failure to dismantle our vast and overextended imperial projects, coupled with the economic collapse, is likely to result in inverted totalitarianism. He said that without "radical and drastic remedies" the response to mounting discontent and social unrest will probably lead to greater state control and repression. There will be, he warned, a huge "expansion of government power."

"Our political culture has remained unhelpful in fostering a democratic consciousness," he said. "The political system and its operatives will not be constrained by popular discontent or uprisings."

Wolin writes that in inverted totalitarianism consumer goods and a comfortable standard of living, along with a vast entertainment industry that provides spectacles and diversions, keep the citizenry politically passive. I asked if the economic collapse and the steady decline in our standard of living might not, in fact, trigger classical totalitarianism. Could widespread frustration and poverty lead the working and middle classes to place their faith in demagogues, especially those from the Christian right?

"I think that's perfectly possible," he answered. "That was the experience of the 1930s. There wasn't just FDR. There was Huey Long  and Father Coughlin . There were even more extreme movements including the Klan. The extent to which those forces can be fed by the downturn and bleakness is a very real danger. It could become classical totalitarianism."
He said the widespread political passivity is dangerous. It is often exploited by demagogues who pose as saviors and offer dreams of glory and salvation. He warned that "the apoliticalness, even anti-politicalness, will be very powerful elements in taking us towards a radically dictatorial direction. It testifies to how thin the commitment to democracy is in the present circumstances. Democracy is not ascendant. It is not dominant. It is beleaguered. The extent to which young people have been drawn away from public concerns and given this extraordinary range of diversions makes it very likely they could then rally to a demagogue."

Wolin lamented that the corporate state has successfully blocked any real debate about alternative forms of power. Corporations determine who gets heard and who does not, he said. And those who critique corporate power are given no place in the national dialogue.

"In the 1930s there were all kinds of alternative understandings, from socialism to more extensive governmental involvement," he said. "There was a range of different approaches. But what I am struck by now is the narrow range within which palliatives are being modeled. We are supposed to work with the financial system. So the people who helped create this system are put in charge of the solution. There has to be some major effort to think outside the box."

"The puzzle to me is the lack of social unrest," Wolin said when I asked why we have not yet seen rioting or protests. He said he worried that popular protests will be dismissed and ignored by the corporate media. This, he said, is what happened when tens of thousands protested the war in Iraq. This will permit the state to ruthlessly suppress local protests, as happened during the Democratic and Republic conventions. Anti-war protests in the 1960s gained momentum from their ability to spread across the country, he noted. This, he said, may not happen this time. "The ways they can isolate protests and prevent it from [becoming] a contagion are formidable," he said.

"My greatest fear is that the Obama administration will achieve relatively little in terms of structural change," he added. "They may at best keep the system going. But there is a growing pessimism. Every day we hear how much longer the recession will continue. They are already talking about beyond next year. The economic difficulties are more profound than we had guessed and because of globalization more difficult to deal with. I wish the political establishment, the parties and leadership, would become more aware of the depths of the problem. They can't keep throwing money at this. They have to begin structural changes that involve a very different approach from a market economy. I don't think this will happen."

"I keep asking why and how and when this country became so conservative," he went on. "This country once prided itself on its experimentation and flexibility. It has become rigid. It is probably the most conservative of all the advanced countries."

The American left, he said, has crumbled. It sold out to a bankrupt Democratic Party, abandoned the working class and has no ability to organize. Unions are a spent force. The universities are mills for corporate employees. The press churns out info-entertainment or fatuous pundits. The left, he said, no longer has the capacity to be a counterweight to the corporate state. He said that if an extreme right gains momentum there will probably be very little organized resistance.

"The left is amorphous," he said. "I despair over the left. Left parties may be small in number in Europe but they are a coherent organization that keeps going. Here, except for Nader's efforts, we don't have that. We have a few voices here, a magazine there, and that's about it. It goes nowhere."
[Baca]

Foiling Another Palestinian "Peace Offensive": Behind the bloodbath in Gaza - By Norman G. Finkelstein (LATEST UPDATE - 3/2/09)

Early speculation on the motive behind Israel's slaughter in Gaza that began on 27 December 2008 and continued till 18 January 2009 centered on the upcoming elections in Israel. The jockeying for votes was no doubt a factor in this Sparta-like society consumed by "revenge and the thirst for blood,"[1] where killing Arabs is a sure crowd-pleaser. (Polls during the war showed that 80-90 percent of Israeli Jews supported it.)[2] But as Israeli journalist Gideon Levy pointed out on Democracy Now!, "Israel went through a very similar war...two-and-a-half years ago [in Lebanon], when there were no elections."[3] When crucial state interests are at stake, Israeli ruling elites seldom launch major operations for narrowly electoral gains. It is true that Prime Minister Menachem Begin's decision to bomb the Iraqi OSIRAK reactor in 1981 was an electoral ploy, but the strategic stakes in the strike on Iraq were puny; contrary to widespread belief, Saddam Hussein had not embarked on a nuclear weapons program prior to the bombing.[4] The fundamental motives behind the latest Israeli attack on Gaza lie elsewhere: (1) in the need to restore Israel's "deterrence capacity," and (2) in the threat posed by a new Palestinian "peace offensive."

Israel's "larger concern" in the current offensive, New York Times Middle East correspondent Ethan Bronner reported, quoting Israeli sources, was to "re-establish Israeli deterrence," because "its enemies are less afraid of it than they once were, or should be."[5] Preserving its deterrence capacity has always loomed large in Israeli strategic doctrine. Indeed, it was the main impetus behind Israel's first-strike against Egypt in June 1967 that resulted in Israel's occupation of Gaza (and the West Bank). To justify the onslaught on Gaza, Israeli historian Benny Morris wrote that "[m]any Israelis feel that the walls...are closing in...much as they felt in early June 1967."[6] Ordinary Israelis no doubt felt threatened in June 1967, but -- as Morris surely knows -- the Israeli leadership experienced no such trepidation. After Israel threatened and laid plans to attack Syria, Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser declared the Straits of Tiran closed to Israeli shipping, but Israel made almost no use of the Straits (apart from the passage of oil, of which Israel then had ample stocks) and, anyhow, Nasser did not in practice enforce the blockade, vessels passing freely through the Straits within days of his announcement. In addition, multiple U.S. intelligence agencies had concluded that the Egyptians did not intend to attack Israel and that, in the improbable case that they did, alone or in concert with other Arab countries, Israel would -- in President Lyndon Johnson's words -- "whip the hell out of them." The head of the Mossad told senior American officials on 1 June 1967 that "there were no differences between the U.S. and the Israelis on the military intelligence picture or its interpretation."[7] The predicament for Israel was rather the growing perception in the Arab world, spurred by Nasser's radical nationalism and climaxing in his defiant gestures in May 1967, that it would no longer have to follow Israeli orders. Thus, Divisional Commander Ariel Sharon admonished those in the Israeli cabinet hesitant to launch a first-strike that Israel was losing its "deterrence capability...our main weapon -- the fear of us."[8] Israel unleashed the June 1967 war "to restore the credibility of Israeli deterrence" (Israeli strategic analyst Zeev Maoz).[9]

The expulsion of the Israeli occupying army by Hezbollah in May 2000 posed a major new challenge to Israel's deterrence capacity. The fact that Israel suffered a humiliating defeat, one celebrated throughout the Arab world, made another war well-nigh inevitable. Israel almost immediately began planning for the next round, and in summer 2006 found a pretext when Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers (several others were killed in the firefight) and demanded in exchange the release of Lebanese prisoners held by Israel. Although Israel unleashed the fury of its air force and geared up for a ground invasion, it suffered yet another ignominious defeat. A respected American military analyst despite being partial to Israel nonetheless concluded, "the IAF, the arm of the Israel military that had once destroyed whole air forces in a few days, not only proved unable to stop Hezbollah rocket strikes but even to do enough damage to prevent Hezbollah's rapid recovery"; that "once ground forces did cross into Lebanon..., they failed to overtake Hezbollah strongholds, even those close to the border"; that "in terms of Israel's objectives, the kidnapped Israeli soldiers were neither rescued nor released; Hezbollah's rocket fire was never suppressed, not even its long-range fire...; and Israeli ground forces were badly shaken and bogged down by a well-equipped and capable foe"; and that "more troops and a massive ground invasion would indeed have produced a different outcome, but the notion that somehow that effort would have resulted in a more decisive victory over Hezbollah...has no basis in historical example or logic." The juxtaposition of several figures further highlights the magnitude of the setback: Israel deployed 30,000 troops as against 2,000 regular Hezbollah fighters and 4,000 irregular Hezbollah and non-Hezbollah fighters; Israel delivered and fired 162,000 weapons whereas Hezbollah fired 5,000 weapons (4,000 rockets and projectiles at Israel and 1,000 antitank missiles inside Lebanon).[10] Moreover, "the vast majority of the fighters who defended villages such as Ayta ash Shab, Bint Jbeil, and Maroun al-Ras were not, in fact, regular Hezbollah fighters and in some cases were not even members of Hezbollah," and "many of Hezbollah's best and most skilled fighters never saw action, lying in wait along the Litani River with the expectation that the IDF assault would be much deeper and arrive much faster than it did."[11] Yet another indication of Israel's reversal of fortune was that, unlike any of its previous armed conflicts, in the final stages of the 2006 war it fought not in defiance of a U.N. ceasefire resolution but in the hope of a U.N. resolution to rescue it.

After the 2006 Lebanon war Israel was itching to take on Hezbollah again, but did not yet have a military option against it. In mid-2008 Israel desperately sought to conscript the U.S. for an attack on Iran, which would also decapitate Hezbollah, and thereby humble the main challengers to its regional hegemony. Israel and its quasi-official emissaries such as Benny Morris threatened that if the U.S. did not go along "then non-conventional weaponry will have to be used," and "many innocent Iranians will die." To Israel's chagrin and humiliation, the attack never materialized and Iran has gone its merry way, while the credibility of Israel's capacity to terrorize slipped another notch. It was high time to find a defenseless target to annihilate. Enter Gaza, Israel's favorite shooting gallery. Even there the feebly armed Islamic movement Hamas had defiantly resisted Israeli diktat, in June 2008 even compelling Israel to agree to a ceasefire.

During the 2006 Lebanon war Israel flattened the southern suburb of Beirut known as the Dahiya, where Hezbollah commanded much popular support. In the war's aftermath Israeli military officers began referring to the "Dahiya strategy": "We shall pulverize the 160 Shiite villages [in Lebanon] that have turned into Shiite army bases," the IDF Northern Command Chief explained, "and we shall not show mercy when it comes to hitting the national infrastructure of a state that, in practice, is controlled by Hezbollah." In the event of hostilities, a reserve Colonel at the Israeli Institute for National Security Studies chimed in, Israel needs "to act immediately, decisively, and with force that is disproportionate....Such a response aims at inflicting damage and meting out punishment to an extent that will demand long and expensive reconstruction processes." The new strategy was to be used against all of Israel's regional adversaries who had waxed defiant -- "the Palestinians in Gaza are all Khaled Mashaal, the Lebanese are all Nasrallah, and the Iranians are all Ahmadinejad" -- but Gaza was the prime target for this blitzkrieg-cum-bloodbath strategy. "Too bad it did not take hold immediately after the ‘disengagement' from Gaza and the first rocket barrages," a respected Israeli columnist lamented. "Had we immediately adopted the Dahiya strategy, we would have likely spared ourselves much trouble." After a Palestinian rocket attack, Israel's Interior Minister urged in late September 2008, "the IDF should...decide on a neighborhood in Gaza and level it."[13] And, insofar as the Dahiya strategy could not be inflicted just yet on Lebanon and Iran, it was predictably pre-tested in Gaza.

The operative plan for the Gaza bloodbath can be gleaned from authoritative statements after the war got underway: "What we have to do is act systematically with the aim of punishing all the organizations that are firing the rockets and mortars, as well as the civilians who are enabling them to fire and hide" (reserve Major-General); "After this operation there will not be one Hamas building left standing in Gaza" (Deputy IDF Chief of Staff); "Anything affiliated with Hamas is a legitimate target" (IDF Spokesperson's Office).[14] Whereas Israel killed a mere 55 Lebanese during the first two days of the 2006 war, the Israeli media exulted at Israel's "shock and awe" (Maariv)[15] as it killed more than 300 Palestinians in the first two days of the attack on Gaza. Several days into the slaughter an informed Israeli strategic analyst observed, "The IDF, which planned to attack buildings and sites populated by hundreds of people, did not warn them in advance to leave, but intended to kill a great many of them, and succeeded."[16] Morris could barely contain his pride at "Israel's highly efficient air assault on Hamas."[17] The Israeli columnist B. Michael was less impressed by the dispatch of helicopter gunships and jet planes "over a giant prison and firing at its people"[18] -- for example, "70...traffic cops at their graduation ceremony, young men in desperate search of a livelihood who thought they'd found it in the police and instead found death from the skies."[19]

As Israel targeted schools, mosques, hospitals, ambulances, and U.N. sanctuaries, as it slaughtered and incinerated Gaza's defenseless civilian population (one-third of the 1,200 reported casualties were children), Israeli commentators gloated that "Gaza is to Lebanon as the second sitting for an exam is to the first -- a second chance to get it right," and that this time around Israel had "hurled [Gaza] back," not 20 years as it promised to do in Lebanon, but "into the 1940s. Electricity is available only for a few hours a day"; that "Israel regained its deterrence capabilities" because "the war in Gaza has compensated for the shortcomings of the [2006] Second Lebanon War"; and that "There is no doubt that Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah is upset these days....There will no longer be anyone in the Arab world who can claim that Israel is weak."[20]

New York Times foreign affairs expert Thomas Friedman joined in the chorus of hallelujahs.[21] Israel in fact won the 2006 Lebanon war, according to Friedman, because it had inflicted "substantial property damage and collateral casualties on Lebanon at large," thereby administering an "education" to Hezbollah: fearing the Lebanese people's wrath, Hezbollah would "think three times next time" before defying Israel. He expressed hope that Israel was likewise "trying to ‘educate' Hamas by inflicting a heavy death toll on Hamas militants and heavy pain on the Gaza population." To justify the targeting of Lebanese civilians and civilian infrastructure Friedman asserted that Israel had no other option because "Hezbollah created a very ‘flat' military network...deeply embedded in the local towns and villages," and that because "Hezbollah nested among civilians, the only long-term source of deterrence was to exact enough pain on the civilians...to restrain Hezbollah in the future."

Leaving aside Friedman's hollow coinages -- what does "flat" mean? -- and leaving aside that he alleged that the killing of civilians was unavoidable but also recommends targeting civilians as a "deterrence" strategy: is it even true that Hezbollah was "embedded in," "nested among," and "intertwined" with the Lebanese civilian population? Here's what Human Rights Watch concluded after an exhaustive investigation: "we found strong evidence that Hezbollah stored most of its rockets in bunkers and weapon storage facilities located in uninhabited fields and valleys, that in the vast majority of cases Hezbollah fighters left populated civilian areas as soon as the fighting started, and that Hezbollah fired the vast majority of its rockets from pre-prepared positions outside villages." And again, "in all but a few of the cases of civilian deaths we investigated, Hezbollah fighters had not mixed with the civilian population or taken other actions to contribute to the targeting of a particular home or vehicle by Israeli forces." Indeed, "Israel's own firing patterns in Lebanon support the conclusion that Hezbollah fired large numbers of its rockets from tobacco fields, banana, olive and citrus groves, and more remote, unpopulated valleys."[22]

A U.S. Army War College study based largely on interviews with Israeli participants in the Lebanon war similarly found that "the key battlefields in the land campaign south of the Litani River were mostly devoid of civilians, and IDF participants consistently report little or no meaningful intermingling of Hezbollah fighters and noncombatants. Nor is there any systematic reporting of Hezbollah using civilians in the combat zone as shields." On a related note, the authors report that "the great majority of Hezbollah's fighters wore uniforms. In fact, their equipment and clothing were remarkably similar to many state militaries' -- desert or green fatigues, helmets, web vests, body armor, dog tags, and rank insignia."[23]

Friedman further asserted that, "rather than confronting Israel's Army head-on," Hezbollah fired rockets at Israel's civilian population to provoke Israeli retaliatory strikes, inevitably killing Lebanese civilians and "inflaming the Arab-Muslim street." Yet, numerous studies have shown,[24] and Israeli officials themselves conceded[25] that, during its guerrilla war against the Israeli occupying army, Hezbollah only targeted Israeli civilians after Israel targeted Lebanese civilians. In conformity with past practice Hezbollah started firing rockets toward Israeli civilian concentrations during the 2006 war only after Israel inflicted heavy casualties on Lebanese civilians, while Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah avowed that it would target Israeli civilians "as long as the enemy undertakes its aggression without limits or red lines."[26]

If Israel targeted the Lebanese civilian population and infrastructure during the 2006 war, it was not because it had no choice, and not because Hezbollah had provoked it, but because terrorizing the civilian population was a relatively cost-free method of "education," much to be preferred over fighting a real foe and suffering heavy casualties, although Hezbollah's unexpectedly fierce resistance prevented Israel from achieving a victory on the battlefield. In the case of Gaza it was able both to "educate" the population and achieve a military victory because -- in the words of Gideon Levy -- the "fighting in Gaza" was "war deluxe." Compared with previous wars, it is child's play -- pilots bombing unimpeded as if on practice runs, tank and artillery soldiers shelling houses and civilians from their armored vehicles, combat engineering troops destroying entire streets in their ominous protected vehicles without facing serious opposition. A large, broad army is fighting against a helpless population and a weak, ragged organization that has fled the conflict zones and is barely putting up a fight.[27]

The justification put forth by Friedman in the pages of the Times for targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure amounted to apologetics for state terrorism.[28] It might be recalled that although Hitler had stripped Nazi propagandist Julius Streicher of all his political power by 1940, and his newspaper Der Stuermer had a circulation of only some 15,000 during the war, the International Tribunal at Nuremberg nonetheless sentenced him to death for his murderous incitement.

Beyond restoring its deterrence capacity, Israel's main goal in the Gaza slaughter was to fend off the latest threat posed by Palestinian moderation. For the past three decades the international community has consistently supported a settlement of the Israel-Palestine conflict that calls for two states based on a full Israeli withdrawal to its June 1967 border, and a "just resolution" of the refugee question based on the right of return and compensation. The vote on the annual U.N. General Assembly resolution, "Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine," supporting these terms for resolving the conflict in 2008 was 164 in favor, 7 against (Israel, United States, Australia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau), and 3 abstentions. At the regional level the Arab League in March 2002 unanimously put forth a peace initiative on this basis, which it has subsequently reaffirmed. In recent times Hamas has repeatedly signaled its own acceptance of such a settlement. For example, in March 2008 Khalid Mishal, head of Hamas's Political Bureau, stated in an interview:

There is an opportunity to deal with this conflict in a manner different than Israel and, behind it, the U.S. is dealing with it today. There is an opportunity to achieve a Palestinian national consensus on a political program based on the 1967 borders, and this is an exceptional circumstance, in which most Palestinian forces, including Hamas, accept a state on the 1967 borders....There is also an Arab consensus on this demand, and this is a historic situation. But no one is taking advantage of this opportunity. No one is moving to cooperate with this opportunity. Even this minimum that has been accepted by the Palestinians and the Arabs has been rejected by Israel and by the U.S.[29]

Israel is fully cognizant that the Hamas Charter is not an insurmountable obstacle to a two-state settlement on the June 1967 border. "[T]he Hamas leadership has recognized that its ideological goal is not attainable and will not be in the foreseeable future," a former Mossad head recently observed. "[T]hey are ready and willing to see the establishment of a Palestinian state in the temporary borders of 1967....They know that the moment a Palestinian state is established with their cooperation, they will be obligated to change the rules of the game: They will have to adopt a path that could lead them far from their original ideological goals."[30]

In addition, Hamas was "careful to maintain the ceasefire" it entered into with Israel in June 2008, according to an official Israeli publication, despite Israel's reneging on the crucial component of the truce that it ease the economic siege of Gaza. "The lull was sporadically violated by rocket and mortar shell fire, carried out by rogue terrorist organizations," the source continues. "At the same time, the [Hamas] movement tried to enforce the terms of the arrangement on the other terrorist organizations and to prevent them from violating it."[31] Moreover, Hamas was "interested in renewing the relative calm with Israel" (Shin Bet head Yuval Diskin).[32] The Islamic movement could thus be trusted to stand by its word, making it a credible negotiating partner, while its apparent ability to extract concessions from Israel, unlike the hapless Palestinian Authority doing Israel's bidding but getting no returns, enhanced Hamas's stature among Palestinians. For Israel these developments constituted a veritable disaster. It could no longer justify shunning Hamas, and it would be only a matter of time before international pressure in particular from the Europeans would be exerted on it to negotiate. The prospect of an incoming U.S. administration negotiating with Iran and Hamas, and moving closer to the international consensus for settling the Israel-Palestine conflict, which some U.S. policymakers now advocate,[33] would have further highlighted Israel's intransigence. In an alternative scenario, speculated on by Nasrallah, the incoming American administration plans to convene an international peace conference of "Americans, Israelis, Europeans and so-called Arab moderates" to impose a settlement. The one obstacle is "Palestinian resistance and the Hamas government in Gaza," and "getting rid of this stumbling block is...the true goal of the war."[34] In either case, Israel needed to provoke Hamas into breaking the truce, and then radicalize or destroy it, thereby eliminating it as a legitimate negotiating partner. It is not the first time Israel confronted such a diabolical threat -- an Arab League peace initiative, Palestinian support for a two-state settlement and a Palestinian ceasefire -- and not the first time it embarked on provocation and war to overcome it.

In the mid-1970s the PLO mainstream began supporting a two-state settlement on the June 1967 border. In addition, the PLO, headquartered in Lebanon, was strictly adhering to a truce with Israel that had been negotiated in July 1981.[35] In August 1981 Saudi Arabia unveiled, and the Arab League subsequently approved, a peace plan based on the two-state settlement.[36] Israel reacted in September 1981 by stepping up preparations to destroy the PLO.[37] In his analysis of the buildup to the 1982 Lebanon war, Israeli strategic analyst Avner Yaniv reported that Yasser Arafat was contemplating a historic compromise with the "Zionist state," whereas "all Israeli cabinets since 1967" as well as "leading mainstream doves" opposed a Palestinian state. Fearing diplomatic pressures, Israel maneuvered to sabotage the two-state settlement. It conducted punitive military raids "deliberately out of proportion" against "Palestinian and Lebanese civilians" in order to weaken "PLO moderates," strengthen the hand of Arafat's "radical rivals," and guarantee the PLO's "inflexibility." However, Israel eventually had to choose between a pair of stark options: "a political move leading to a historic compromise with the PLO, or preemptive military action against it." To fend off Arafat's "peace offensive" -- Yaniv's telling phrase -- Israel embarked on military action in June 1982. The Israeli invasion "had been preceded by more than a year of effective ceasefire with the PLO," but after murderous Israeli provocations, the last of which left as many as 200 civilians dead (including 60 occupants of a Palestinian children's hospital), the PLO finally retaliated, causing a single Israeli casualty.[38] Although Israel used the PLO's resumption of attacks as the pretext for its invasion, Yaniv concluded that the "raison d'être of the entire operation" was "destroying the PLO as a political force capable of claiming a Palestinian state on the West Bank."[39] It deserves passing notice that in his new history of the "peace process," Martin Indyk, former U.S. ambassador to Israel, provides this capsule summary of the sequence of events just narrated: "In 1982, Arafat's terrorist activities eventually provoked the Israeli government of Menachem Begin and Ariel Sharon into a full-scale invasion of Lebanon."[40]

Fast forward to 2008. Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni stated in early December 2008 that although Israel wanted to create a temporary period of calm with Hamas, an extended truce "harms the Israeli strategic goal, empowers Hamas, and gives the impression that Israel recognizes the movement."[41] Translation: a protracted ceasefire that enhanced Hamas's credibility would have undermined Israel's strategic goal of retaining control of the West Bank. As far back as March 2007 Israel had decided on attacking Hamas, and only negotiated the June truce because "the Israeli army needed time to prepare."[42] Once all the pieces were in place, Israel only lacked a pretext. On 4 November, while the American media were riveted on election day, Israel broke the ceasefire by killing seven Palestinian militants, on the flimsy excuse that Hamas was digging a tunnel to abduct Israeli soldiers, and knowing full well that its operation would provoke Hamas into hitting back. "Last week's ‘ticking tunnel,' dug ostensibly to facilitate the abduction of Israeli soldiers," Haaretz reported in mid-November was not a clear and present danger: Its existence was always known and its use could have been prevented on the Israeli side, or at least the soldiers stationed beside it removed from harm's way. It is impossible to claim that those who decided to blow up the tunnel were simply being thoughtless. The military establishment was aware of the immediate implications of the measure, as well as of the fact that the policy of "controlled entry" into a narrow area of the Strip leads to the same place: an end to the lull. That is policy -- not a tactical decision by a commander on the ground.[43]

After Hamas predictably resumed its rocket attacks "[i]n retaliation" (Israeli Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center),[44] Israel could embark on yet another murderous invasion in order to foil yet another Palestinian peace offensive.

Norman G. Finkelstein
New York City
19 January 2009

1. Gideon Levy, "The Time of the Righteous," Haaretz (9 January 2009).

2. Ethan Bronner, "In Israel, A Consensus That Gaza War Is a Just One," New York Times (13 January 2009).

3. 29 December 2008;
www.democracynow.org/2008/12/29/israeli_attacks_kill_over_310_in.

4. Richard Wilson, "Incomplete or Inaccurate Information Can Lead to Tragically Incorrect Decisions to Preempt: The example of OSIRAK," paper presented at Erice, Sicily (18 May 2007; updated 9 February 2008;
www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=1589).

5. Ethan Bronner, "Israel Reminds Foes That It Has Teeth," New York Times (29 December 2008).

6. Benny Morris, "Why Israel Feels Threatened," New York Times (30 December 2008).

7. "Memorandum for the Record" (1 June 1967), Foreign Relations of the United States, vol. XIX, Arab-Israeli Crisis and War, 1967 (Washington, DC: 2004).

8. Tom Segev, 1967: Israel, the war, and the year that transformed the Middle East (New York: 2007), p. 293, my emphasis.

9. Zeev Maoz, Defending the Holy Land: A critical analysis of Israel's security and foreign policy (Ann Arbor: 2006), p. 89.

10. William Arkin, Divining Victory: Airpower in the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war (Maxwell Air Force Base, AL: 2007), pp. xxi, xxv-xxvi, 25, 54, 64, 135, 147-48.

11. Andrew Exum, Hizballah at War: A military assessment (Washington Institute for Near East Policy: December 2006), pp. 9, 11-12.

12. Benny Morris, "A Second Holocaust? The Threat to Israel" (2 May 2008; www.mideastfreedomforum.org/de/node/66).

13. Yaron London, "The Dahiya Strategy" (6 October 2008; www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3605863,00.html); Gabriel Siboni, "Disproportionate Force: Israel's concept of response in light of the Second Lebanon War," Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), 2 October 2008. Attila Somfalvi, "Sheetrit: We should level Gaza neighborhoods" (2 October 2008; www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3504922,00.html).

14. "Israeli General Says Hamas Must Not Be the Only Target in Gaza," IDF Radio, Tel Aviv, in Hebrew 0600 gmt (26 December 2008), BBC Monitoring Middle East; Tova Dadon, "Deputy Chief of Staff: Worst still ahead" (29 December 2008; http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-36466558,00.html); www.btselem.org/English/Gaza_Strip/20081231_Gaza_Letter_to_Mazuz.asp.

15. Seumas Milne, "Israel's Onslaught on Gaza is a Crime That Cannot Succeed," Guardian (30 December 2008).

16. Reuven Pedatzur, "The Mistakes of Cast Lead," Haaretz(8 January 2009).

17. Morris, "Why Israel Feels Threatened."

18. B. Michael, "Déjà Vu in Gaza" (29 December 2008;
www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3646558,00.html).

19. Gideon Levy, "Twilight Zone/Trumpeting for War," Haaretz (2 January 2009).

20. Amos Harel and Avi Issacharoff, "Israel and Hamas Are Both Paying a Steep Price in Gaza," Haaretz (10 January 2009); Ari Shavit, "Analysis: Israel's victories in Gaza make up for its failures in Lebanon," Haaretz (12 January 2009); Guy Bechor, "A Dangerous Victory" (12 January 2009; www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3654505,00.html).

21. Thomas L. Friedman, "Israel's Goals in Gaza?," New York Times (14 January 2009).

22. Human Rights Watch, Why They Died: Civilian casualties in Lebanon during the 2006 war (New York: 2007), pp. 5, 14, 40-41, 45-46, 48, 51, 53.

23. Stephen Biddle and Jeffrey A. Friedman, The 2006 Lebanon Campaign and the Future of Warfare: Implications for army and defense policy (Carlisle, PA: 2008), pp. 43-44, 45.

24. Human Rights Watch, Civilian Pawns: Laws of war violations and the use of weapons on the Israel-Lebanon border (New York: 1996); Maoz, Defending the Holy Land, pp. 213-14, 224-25, 252; Augustus Richard Norton, Hezbollah: A short history (Princeton: 2007), pp. 77, 86.

25. Judith Palmer Harik, Hezbollah: The changing face of terrorism (London: 2004), pp. 167-68.

26. Human Rights Watch, Civilians Under Assault: Hezbollah's rocket attacks on Israel in the 2006 war (New York: 2007), p. 100. HRW asserts that Hezbollah rocket attacks on Israeli civilians were not retaliatory but provides no supporting evidence.

27. Gideon Levy, "The IDF Has No Mercy for the Children in Gaza Nursery Schools," Haaretz (15 January 2009).

28. Glenn Greenwald, "Tom Friedman Offers a Perfect Definition of ‘Terrorism'" (14 January 2009; www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/01/14/friedman/).

29. Mouin Rabbani, "A Hamas Perspective on the Movement's Evolving Role: An interview with Khalid Mishal, Part II," Journal of Palestine Studies (Summer 2008).

30. "What Hamas Wants," Mideast Mirror (22 December 2008).

31. Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center at the Israel Intelligence Heritage and Commemoration Center, The Six Months of the Lull Arrangement (December 2008), pp. 2, 6, 7.

32. "Hamas Wants Better Terms for Truce," Jerusalem Post (21 December 2008). Diskin told the Israeli cabinet that Hamas would renew the truce if Israel lifted the siege of Gaza, stopped military attacks and extended the truce to the West Bank.

33. Richard N. Haass and Martin Indyk, "Beyond Iraq: A new U.S. strategy for the Middle East," and Walter Russell Mead, "Change They Can Believe In: To make Israel safe, give Palestinians their due," in Foreign Affairs, January-February 2009.

34. Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah's Speech Delivered at the Central Ashura Council, 31 December 2008.

35. Noam Chomsky, The Fateful Triangle: the United States, Israel and the Palestinians (Boston: 1983), chaps. 3, 5.

36. Yehuda Lukacs (ed), The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: a documentary record, 1967-1990 (Cambridge: 1992), pp. 477-79.

37. Yehoshaphat Harkabi, Israel's Fateful Hour (New York: 1988), p. 101.

38. Robert Fisk, Pity the Nation: The abduction of Lebanon (New York: 1990), pp. 197, 232.

39. Avner Yaniv, Dilemmas of Security: Politics, strategy and the Israeli experience in Lebanon (Oxford: 1987), pp. 20-23, 50-54, 67-70, 87-89, 100-1, 105-6, 113, 143.

40. Martin Indyk, Innocent Abroad: An intimate account of American peace diplomacy in the Middle East (New York: 2009), p. 75.

41. Saed Bannoura, "Livni Calls for a Large Scale Military Offensive in Gaza," IMEMC & Agencies (10 December 2008; www.imemc.org/article/57960).

42. Uri Blau, "IDF Sources: Conditions not yet optimal for Gaza exit," Haaretz (8 January 2009); Barak Ravid, "Disinformation, Secrecy, and Lies: How the Gaza offensive came about," Haaretz (28 December 2008).

43. Zvi Bar'el, "Crushing the Tahadiyeh," Haaretz (16 November 2008). Cf. Uri Avnery, "The Calculations behind Israel's Slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza" (2 January 2009; www.redress.cc/palestine/uavnery20080102).
[Baca]

Final declaration of the Beirut International Forum

To Support the Peoples’ Anti-Imperialist Resistance and the Construction of Alternatives to Globalization

At the initiative and with the support of many research centers, associations and political or social movements, the work of the Beirut International Forum was accomplished January 16-18, 2009, with the participation of 450 Arab and international representatives and individuals from five continents (66 countries).
Contact (only) :

This Forum, where Latin America, Asia and the Near East were strongly represented, embodied the spirit of the Tricontinental. Two great current events marked the Forum: on the one hand, the heroic resistance of the Palestinian people of Gaza who were facing an intensity of violence and a cruelty without precedent; on the other, the total crisis of world capitalism, which is not only financial but also economic, social, cultural and moral, endangering the survival of humanity.

Principles & Rights
The Forum affirms that:
• Peoples possess the right to resistance and this right must be inalienable, supported by the whole of the international community and recognized as such in international law;
• The combat of the resistance confronting colonialism cannot be divided from the combat by revolutionaries and free men and women confronting globalized capitalism, imperialism, militarization and the elimination of the social benefits that were established by more than two hundred years of determined working-class struggles.
• The people have a sovereign right to their natural resources. The right to food, health and education must take priority over any commercial consideration;
• Each culture and all knowledge should contribute to increasing the common wealth of humanity on the basis of respecting Nature, giving priority to human needs and the democratic management of society;
• The right to democratic governance must be carried out not only at the political level but also at the economic level and is the concern of both men and women;
• The right to cultural differences and freedom of worship while rejecting any cultural and racial bias must be guaranteed.

Campaigns & Resolutions:

Concerning Gaza
The Forum’s participants affirm their support for the resistance of the Palestinian people of Gaza. They condemn the terrorism and crimes carried out against this population by Israel in violation of all human standards and human values.

They also call for:

1. The application of strict sanctions with regard to Israel, such as: breaking diplomatic relations and agreements and the prohibition of any sale of weapons to this country.
2. Legal charges against the States and the firms that sell weapons to Israel.
3. The European Union’s ceasing any political, cultural and economic collaboration with Israel and cancelling all conventions and agreements which tie the EU to this country.
4. Holding an International Conference to evaluate the war crimes, and the crimes against humanity carried out against the population of Gaza, as well as all economic and ecological crimes, and bring judicial charges against those people responsible for these crimes and those committed in Lebanon in 2006.
5. Reestablishing UN Resolution #3379 equating Zionism and racism, and expelling Israel from the United Nations.
6. Launching an international campaign for the rebuilding of Gaza, the lifting of the blockade and the release of the political prisoners.

Concerning the anti-imperialist and anti-colonial struggle, the participants

1. Express their support for both the Palestinian and Lebanese resistance in their struggle against Israeli occupation, as well as for the Iraqi resistance that combats the U.S. occupation. Moreover, the participants support the efforts of the Iraqi people to preserve their territorial unity.
2. Announce their support for the self-determination of the Afghan people and their fight against the U.S. and NATO occupation.
3. Salute Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez as well as Bolivian President Evo Morales for their support for the peoples’ resistance. The participants also express total support with the struggle of these two leaders against any intervention of the United States in Latin America.
4. Call for the lifting of the blockade on Cuba and the release of the Cuban prisoners held in U.S. prisons.
5. Condemn the alliance between the USA and the neofascist government of Colombia that for four decades has terrorized its own people and worked to destabilize the progressive governments of Latin America. They also bring their support to the revolutionary movements in struggle against this regime.
6. Call for the formation of an international league of members of Parliament to defend the rights of peoples to resistance and self-determination, and to reactivate the agreements on the protection of the civilian population.
7. Call for the creation of an international media network to uncover propaganda lies concerning the nature of and the crimes perpetrated by Israel.
8. Call for continuing the work of the court of conscience to judge war crimes, in particular to bring to justice those persons responsible for the war crimes carried out in Lebanon in 2006.
9. Call for launching a campaign for the application of the Advisory Council of the International Court of Justice concerning the racist partition wall in Palestine;
10. Call for founding a global network to coordinate among local representatives at times of crises and wars;
11. Call for rejecting U.S. threats and provocations with regard to Iran’s right to develop a civilian nuclear program within the framework of international standards. Also rejecting the U.S.’s bellicose threats regarding Syria and Sudan;
12. Call for thwarting the U.S. attempts to strip international and humane legislation of all its contents under pretext of waging the so-called war against terror;

The participants propose as alternatives to rule by the market:

1. To remove agriculture and the sectors related to food from international negotiations to remove government controls (GATT, OMC…)
2. To challenge the agreements and the international policies that put biodiversity in danger by allowing large corporations to get ownership rights to living entities.
3. To establish a Mediterranean Common Market, based on the principle of equitable trade between consumers and producers, on the north and the south of the sea basin as well as inside each country. This is to be done during the process of establishing a regional cooperation in the Mediterranean (excluding Israel while awaiting a solution of the colonial problem in Palestine), in opposition to Sarkozy’s neoliberal program.
4. To fight against overexploitation by industrial fishing and to support small-scale fishing by guaranteeing a social subsidy.
5. To preserve the common inheritance of humanity and the resources fundamental to life by developing organic agriculture and by using renewable energy sources.

Center for Studies and Documentation in Beirut, International Campaign against American and Zionist Occupation (the Cairo Conference), National Gathering to Support the Choice of Resistance (Lebanon), Anti-Imperialist and Peoples’ Solidarity Forum (the Calcutta-India Conference), Stop War Campaign (London), Union of Democratic Youth (Lebanon), Network of the Organizations of Palestinian Youth, Party of Dignity (Egypt), Popular Campaign to Break the Siege of Gaza, KIFAYA (the Egyptian movement for change), Union of Democratic youth (Lebanon), Egyptian Women’s Issues Association, Palestinian Youth Organizations Network (Palestine), Federation of Moroccan Trade Unions, Mediterranean Agency for International Co-operation (AMCI–Morocco), Arab Youth Council, Walk to the Arab Parliament (Morocco), Dated and Strategic Studies Center (Syria), El Badil Regroupment Against Globalization (Syria), Campaign Genoa 2001 Greece, L’Altra Lambardia-Sulatesta, Anti-Imperialist Camp (Greece), Socialist Thinking Forum (Jordan), Organization of the Revolutionary Socialists (Egypt). (To be continued.)

[Baca]

Yasmin Alibhai-Brown: Those who seek justice do so in vain

Some nations – and some leaders – are beyond the reach of the law

Monday, 2 February 2009

So that's that then, is it? Gaza is done and dusted? Very satisfying, I'm sure, for the Israeli leadership and their devoted allies at the BBC. But not so fast. For the one and a half million traumatised and wounded souls in that small strip, unendurable agony goes on. The very earth they stand on burns and cracks. And I am not here indulging a writer's tendency to hyperbole or neat metaphor.

Up to 60 per cent of the best farmland in Gaza has been systematically destroyed, livestock too. Christine van Nieuwenhuyse, a director at the World Food Programme, says this deliberately blighted land "may not be exploitable again". The lemon trees and noisy chickens must have been hiding Hamas rockets. Israel is also keeping some of the remaining arable land beyond the reach of the Palestinians who own it by making it into a buffer zone. Almost all the infrastructure has been flattened too. The resulting perpetual humiliation and dependency, one assumes, is part of Israel's strategic plan.

President Obama has sent forth George Mitchell, a skilled and respected negotiator, to start dialogues that could eventually lead to a durable settlement. We must hope he can achieve the impossible. But even if he does, that alone cannot ensure the kind of peace that all the people in that region sorely need and surely deserve.

There is too much unfinished business, too much reckoning left over. Peace without equality and credible scrutiny is itself a violation of human rights, an affirmation that some nations are beyond the reach of the law. Mitchell would not have been able to achieve peace in Northern Ireland if Britain had, with impunity, bombed the Catholic areas and slaughtered civilians. Israel is today a ruthless nuclear state, with arsenals of artillery, missiles, chemical and biological weaponry. It respects no international laws and conventions (originally set up to stop Jewish persecution) and does what it pleases.

But why pick only on Israel? Western nations, including Britain, supply some of the killing machines used on children in Gaza. The US and UK have never been hauled through any independent judiciary to explain their lies spun to justify the war on Iraq, or the cluster bombs dropped on civilians, the massacres in Fallujah, the million dead and many more who are born deformed.

We may at long last learn about what happened in the run-up to the war in Blair's cabinet meetings. Many of the ministers who colluded – Hoon, Straw – or acquiesced have gone on to further great success. As have several "ethnic minority" MPs and Peers always happy to oblige. Blair has enriched himself faster than any recent British PM I know of – an indication of how low is his sense of public morality and of those who pay him for his services. All is forgiven and forgotten. He is even our most trusted Man in the Middle East – who must have known about Israel's plans in Gaza and did F all.

Henry Kissinger is in the same happy position. Instead of being tried for actively supporting Pinochet, bombing Cambodia etc etc, he became a sought after statesman, rich and famous enough to stroke the fair arms of Princess Diana. How shocked he was when, a few years ago, Jeremy Paxman interrogated him on Start the Week on his unethical foreign policies. (Paxo's finest hour in my view) and Kissinger walked out of the studio. Such men do not expect to answer such questions. They are above all that. Watch this space and George Bush Jnr will be raking in loot and obsequies. That is what power gets you – immunity and pleasures untold.

We are still basking in Obama's radiance and are heartened that he so soon announced the closure of Guantanamo Bay concentration camp. But again that cannot be the final word on the crimes committed there. The men evoked by the new American president would understand why. Thomas Jefferson's words at his own inauguration speak up clearly from the grave: "Equal and exact justice to all men ...freedom of the person under the protection of the habeas corpus and trail by juries impartially selected – these principles form the bright constellation that has gone before us".

Martin Luther King also warned: "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice around the world." The west too often fails these truly noble ideals. What happens to those who established the camp and its methods? To the torturers and prison guards? Binyam Mohammed, a British resident is said to be close to death and may well leave in a coffin. But apparently nobody is responsible.

Only Third World and ex-Communist bastards ever get to face international condemnation and trials. If the Sri Lankan government carries on shelling Tamil civilians, it will be ( rightly) censured and held responsible by the UN and other bodies. Not so-called "leading nations" when they ignore binding conventions. Sure, a few unfortunate soldiers or policemen are forced through weak, domestic investigations to prove that rule of law is respected. They are merely sacrificial goats. People of real of power or influence in the west or Israel, or Russia, now China and India, know they will never be dragged off to The Hague.

Corrupt individuals with the kind of money that makes western politicians salivate are always safe and clean. Accountability will not come knocking at their doors. The freemasons making torture equipment and arms thrive, protected in perpetuity by official secrecy. Individuals in those hidden crypts will never stand in the dock. Peace without fairness and due process is worthless. Even in South Africa, where Mandela virtuously put reconciliation before justice, furious urban blacks still feel that the settlement on that basis was profoundly unjust because whites who cruelly administered Apartheid policies got away with it.

Millions around the world, the young in particular, will not accept that double international standards are as immutable as laws of nature. They are now connected up, sharing rage and frustration. The beneficiaries are Mugabe (a hero for many), Bin Laden, Hamas, suicide terrorist cells, violent nihilists and real anti-Semites. And so there will be no peace. The great anti-slavery judge William Mansfield said in 1768: "Fiat justitia, ruat coelum" – Let justice be done, though the skies may fall. If the powerful don't understand that, they deserve the contempt increasingly heaped on them.

y.alibhai-brown@independent.co.uk

[Baca]

Tuan Guru Haji Sulong al-Fathani

Telah tercatat dalam sejarah bahawa kelima-lima anak lelaki Tuan Minal al-Fathani (Sheikh Zainal Abidin al-Fathani) menjadi ulama. Salah seorang antaranya ialah Sheikh Abdul Qadir bin Sheikh Zainal Abidin bin Muhammad al-Fathani. Beliau melahirkan ramai keturunan yang menjadi ulama, antaranya adalah ulama yang dibicarakan ini iaitu Tuan Guru Haji Sulong al-Fathani.

Haji Sulong al-Fathani adalah seorang ulama yang sangat besar pengaruhnya bagi umat Islam Patani. Bahkan hampir semua orang Islam yang berasal dari Patani mengenali beliau. Beliau turut diakui oleh masyarakat Patani sebagai Bapa Perjuangan Patani, kerana pembangkit Revolusi Patani Merdeka pada zaman moden.

Pada zaman Perang Dunia Kedua, beliau dilantik sebagai ketua untuk pergerakan ulama Patani yang membuat tuntutan kemerdekaan dengan dinamakan Hai-atun Nafaz al-Ahkam asy-Syari'yah.

Ketika remajanya, Haji Sulong selalu mengikuti bapanya belajar kepada Sheikh Ahmad al-Fathani. Tidak dapat dinafikan bahawa sehinggakan kesan kewibawaan dan kepimpinan Sheikh Ahmad al-Fathani turut sebati dalam diri Haji Sulong. Disimpulkan bahawa Haji Sulong ialah kader politik tempaan Sheikh ahmad al-Fathani walaupun ketika itu usia Haji Sulong masih muda.

Karya-karya

Kesemua karya Haji Sulong menggunakan nama Haji Muhammad Sulum bin Abdul Qadir bin Muhammad al-Fathani. Menurut penelitian penulis dan selepas berbahas dengan beberapa keturunan ini. Antaranya Haji Muhammad Amin bin Haji Sulong, Hajah Nik Wan Nafisah (iaitu isteri Abdullah bin Sheikh Abdul Qadir bin Tuan Minal al-Fathani, merupakan saudara kandung Haji Sulong), bahawa memang tidak terdapat anak Sheikh Zainal Abidin al-Fathani yang bernama Muhammad.

Maka kami simpulkan bahawa munculnya nama 'Muhammad' yang dikatakan ayah kepada Sheikh Abdul Qadir al-Fathani hingga kini belum diketahui sebab-sebabnya. Ia berkemungkinan memang sengaja ditulis oleh Haji Sulong seperti demikian yang merujuk kepada ayah Tuan Minal sendiri.

Nama Haji Sulong terkenal bukan kerana penulisan tetapi kerana perjuangan. Namun beliau juga telah menghasilkan beberapa artikel. Berikut dibicarakan sebahagian maklumat berkaitan penulisan yang beliau hasilkan.

i. Kitab Cahaya Islam - Gugusan Maulid Saiyidil Anam

Cahaya Islam ditulis oleh Haji Sulong al-Fathani sempena bulan kelahiran Nabi Muhammad SAW pada tahun 1362 H/1943 iaitu dalam masa darurat suasana Perang Dunia Kedua.

Di bawah judul kitab, dinyatakan juga, "Dan perihal asal bagi berbuat Maulid Yang Karim. Dan Menyatakan kelebihan yang amim".

Karya judul tersebut kemungkinan terdiri dari beberapa jilid, tetapi yang sempat diterbitkan hanya jilid yang pertama saja. Cetakan yang pertama oleh Mathba'ah Patani Press, pada 23 Rabiulakhir 1372 H, bererti 10 tahun setelah selesai ditulis.

Tumpuan utama kandungan kitab Cahaya Islam adalah tentang Maulid Nabi Muhammad SAW. Namun pendekatan yang digunakan jauh berbeza dengan penulisan-penulisan lain yang pernah dihasilkan oleh ulama dunia Melayu yang terdahulu daripadanya. Hampir separuh kandungan jilid pertama adalah membahas pembahagian bidaah.

Seterusnya dilanjutkan pula pendapat para ulama-ulama yang terkenal dunia Islam tentang hukum mengadakan Maulid Nabi Muhammad SAW.

Sebelum membahaskan lebih lanjut, Haji Sulong al-Fathani menyatakan abstrak karangannya terlebih dahulu, iaitu: 1. Kenyataan fasal bidaah, dan maknanya, serta segala bahagiannya. 2. Kenyataan fasal dalil bagi sunat berbuat maulid, dan sunat bangun berdiri. 3. Kenyataan fasal kelebihan berbuat maulid, dan kelebihan orang yang hadir pada majlisnya.

Mengenai yang pertama iaitu fasal bidaah yang terkandung pada halaman 4-5 kitab tersebut, Haji Sulong al-Fathani menulis, "Bahawa berbuat maulid itu bidaah, kerana tidak diperbuat oleh Nabi SAW, dan begitu juga sahabat-sahabat dan ulama-ulama yang kemudian daripada sahabat.

" Hingga sampai kepada tahun hijrah 300 tahun tiada ada siapa-siapa yang berbuat akan dia. Dan kemudian daripada hijrah yang tersebut itu barulah timbul maulid. Dan tatkala timbul maulid itu sentiasa orang-orang Islam pada tiap-tiap negeri mengadakannya, istimewa pula negeri yang besar-besar seperti Baghdad, negeri Syam, negeri Mesir, negeri Mekah, Madinah, pada tiap-tiap tahun menghimpunkan manusia serta diperbuat beberapa kebajikan daripada jamuan, dan membaca Quran, dan berzikir, dan membaca kisah maulid...".

Namun, Haji Sulong al-Fathani menolak pendapat golongan tertentu yang mengatakan bahawa mengadakan perayaan maulid adalah bidaah yang keji (terlarang). Selanjutnya beliau menulis perkara tersebut yang terkandung pada halaman 5-6, iaitu "Maka sesungguhnya berbuat maulid itu bidaah. Akan tetapi masuk di dalam bahagian 'bidaah hasanah' diberi pahala akan orang yang mengerjakan dia, seperti memperbuat ibadat yang sunat ... Maka perhamba sebutkan sedikit fasal bahagian bidaah kerana takut terkeliru di atas mereka yang tidak tahu bahagian bidaah, maka ia berkata bahawasanya berbuat maulid itu bidaah yang keji atau haram, seperti sangkaan mereka yang telah disesatkan..."

Haji Sulong al-Fathani berpegang bahawa merayakan maulid Nabi SAW adalah termasuk dalam kategori Bidaah Hasanah atau sunat dikerjakan. Untuk menguatkan pendapat tersebut, beliau memetik pendapat-pendapat di antaranya Sheikh Ibnu Hajar al-'Asqallani, Imam as-Sayuthi, al-Muhaddits Muhammad bin Mas'ud al-Kazaruni dan ulama-ulama lainnya, sedangkan mereka adalah ulama ahli hadis yang sangat terkenal.

Semua pendapat ulama yang tersebut dilengkapi dengan petikan yang agak panjang dan pada beberapa tempat disebut pula kitab-kitab rujukan.

Pada penutup bahagian pengenalan Cahaya Islam di halaman 42, karya Haji Sulong menulis, "Dan telah lalu cerita Hikayat Raja al-Muzhaffar Abu Said, bahawasanya membelanjakan hartanya pada berbuat maulid di dalam setahun 30 laksa dinar.

"Maka janganlah mengikut pengugut-pengugut iblis, yang ia berkata kepada seseorang, "Janganlah engkau belanjakan harta engkau kepada jalan kebajikan, lama-lama habis harta engkau jadi papa, maka jadilah engkau orang miskin". Maka itulah jadi bakhil dan lokek tidak berbuat sesuatu kebajikan dengan hartanya. Maka minta Allah SWT menjauhkan hal yang semacam itu daripada kita".

ii. Kitab Gugusan Cahaya Keselamatan

Kitab ini adalah karya Haji Sulong yang terakhir yang ditulis ketika dalam penjara di Legor. Selepas karya ini, tidak ada karya beliau yang lain kerana setelah itu Haji Sulong hilang secara misteri. Bahkan hingga sekarang tidak diketahui dimana Haji Sulong dikebumikan. Judul karangan yang diberikan oleh Haji Sulong ialah Gugusan Cahaya Keselamatan.

Gugusan Cahaya Keselamatan selesai ditulis pada 3 Zulkaedah 1368 H bersamaan dengan 28 Ogos 1949 M. Cetakan yang pertama 10.000 naskhah, diusahakan oleh Haji Muhammad Amin anak Haji Sulong.

Dicetak oleh Saudara Press Patani, 185, Jalan Rodi, Patani, 1377 H/1958 M. Di bawah judulnya, Haji Sulong memberi keterangan sebagai berikut, "Pada membentengkan. Beberapa wirid, dan doa, dan ayat Quran. Diterbitkan cahaya yang cemerlang daripada jel negeri Legor, Siam, ke seluruh negeri Islam ..."

Kandungannya merupakan kisah yang terjadi mulai kedatangan pihak penguasa Siam untuk menangkap Haji Sulong pada jam 5 petang, hari Jumaat 5 Rabiulawal 1367 H bersamaan 16 Januari 1948 M.

Semua peristiwa yang berlaku terhadap diri beliau dicatat dengan kemas dan teliti, sehinggalah beliau selesai menulisnya. Kandungan selanjutnya ialah berbagai-bagai jenis amalan untuk ketahanan diri menghadapi perjuangan.

Sebelum membicarakan kandungan kitab, terlebih dulu dimuat gambar Haji Sulong. Di bawah gambar tersebut dan sesudah nama beliau diberi keterangan oleh Haji Muhammad Amin bin Haji Sulong,

"Beliau telah meninggal dunia bersama-sama anaknya Ahmad, Wan Utsman dan Encik Ishaq pada malam Sabtu, 13 Singhakom 2497 bersamaan 13 Ogos 1954, di dalam laut Senggora kerana dibunuh oleh kakitangan kerajaan kejam".

Sesudah gambar Haji Sulong, pada halaman yang di sebelahnya adalah gambar anak beliau, di bawahnya dinyatakan, "Haji Muhammad Amin bin al-Marhum Tuan Guru Haji Muhammad Sulum Fathani. Wakil Rakyat Patani".

Pada kata pengantarnya, Haji Muhammad Amin mencerminkan jiwa patriotik, mengajak umat Patani terus berjuang. Di antara kata-kata beliau, "Dengan ini saya mengeluarkan sebuah buku karangan ayahanda saya untuk menjadi pengetahuan kepada seluruh umat Islam. Buku inilah menjadi pusaka bagi isterinya, anak-anaknya seterusnya kaum bangsa kita".

Kata Haji Muhammad Amin pula, "Sekarang ini saya berseru kepada kaum muslimin dan muslimat sekelian, biar pun ayahanda saya telah tidak ada lagi dimuka bumi ini, kerana beliau telah mati syahid, tetapi perasaan dan semangat serta juga jasa-jasanya masih hidup. Dan tertanam di dalam jantung sanubari tuan-tuan sekalian untuk kita pula bersama-sama bekerja dan mencapai tujuan-tujuan baik yang telah diasaskan oleh ayahanda saya itu ..."

Pada mukadimah, Haji Sulong memantapkan pegangan perjuangannya dengan pandangan akidah, dipetik dari firman Allah bahawa sesuatu tiada terjadi pada seseorang melainkan yang sudah ditentukan oleh Allah.

Dari hadis pula Haji Sulong menyebut, "Barang yang menghendaki Allah SWT itu ada ia. Dan barang yang tidak menghendaki itu tidak ada ia". Kata Haji Sulong lagi, "Datanglah percubaan yang berpatutan dan munasabah dengan pekerjaannya dan tuannya. Kalau besar pekerjaannya, besar percubaannya. Kalau kecil, kecil percubaannya".

Setelah wasiat dan nasihat pada mukadimah, pada halaman dua pula Haji Sulong menceritakan penangkapan terhadap dan sebab-sebabnya, bahawa pada 16 Januari 1948 petugas-petugas kerajaan Siam datang ke rumah beliau.

Katanya, "..serta membawa surat memberi perintah suruh tangkap saya. Dan suruh periksa bilik-bilik rumah dengan sebab saya membuat surat wakil kepada Tengku Mahmud Muhyiddin bin Tengku Abdul Qadir, Raja Patani berkenaan dengan tujuh buku (maksudnya: perkara) tuntutan rakyat-rakyat Patani kepada kerajaan Siam. Ialah dengan persetujuan rakyat jelata Patani suka berwakil kepadanya supaya boleh berunding dan berkira akan tuntutan yang telah dihantar kepada kerajaan pada 19 Jamadilawal tahun 1366 H bersamaan dengan 3 Musayun tahun 2490 B (3 April 1947 M) ..."

Mulai dari kalimat-kalimat yang tersebut dan seterusnya Haji Sulong menceritakan semua peristiwa yang berlaku atas diri beliau. Pada pandangan penulis, karangan Haji Sulong inilah merupakan sejarah asli perjuangan rakyat Patani sesudah perang dunia yang kedua untuk mengembalikan 'Daulah Patani Darus Salam' dari pemerintahan Siam.

Sebelum menutup karangan ini, sekali lagi Haji Sulong memberikan kata-kata slogan perjuangannya, kata beliau pada halaman 13, "Akan tetapi manakala saya teringat akan tarikh nabi-nabi dan sahabat-sahabat dan tabi'in r.a bermacam-macam ditimpa percubaan di atas mereka itu, ialah menjadi contoh dan tauladan supaya mengikut oleh mereka yang bersetuju melangkah sebagaimana langkahan mereka itu yang patut dengan peredaran masa yang kelam sekarang.

"Maka tidaklah jadi pelik dan dukacita, oleh kerana perjalanan saya mengikut dasar mereka itu, iaitu meninggikan agama yang maha suci..."

[Baca]

Titah DYTM Raja Muda Perak, Raja Dr Nazrin Shah di Majlis Perasmian Penutupan Kongres Ekonomi Islam Ketiga

-

Atas hasrat mahu menyamakan kedudukan ekonomi umat Islam dengan bukan Islam, Majlis Raja-Raja dan Majlis Agama Islam dipohon membuat kajian mengenai segala hukum Islam dan menolak fahaman salah yang boleh menghalang kemajuan.

Melaksanakan langkah-langkah untuk mengatasi kemunduran umat Islam supaya dapat disamakan dengan pencapaian bukan Islam.

Penduduk negara berbilang kaum tidak harus dikenali melalui identiti yang berasaskan profesion, pekerjaan dan kegiatan ekonomi.

Membina Masyarakat Perdagangan dan Perindustrian.

Meningkatkan usaha dalam sektor pertanian.

Kebimbangan ulama akan akibat buruk daripada kemajuan kebendaan dan gesaan untuk diimbangkan kemajuan sains dan teknologi dengan pembangunan rohani.

Sikap rakyat yang tidak mahu berubah terutama di kalangan yang mengamalkan kepercayaan-kepercayaan lama dan pegangan kolot berpunca dari tafsiran-tafsiran tidak tepat mengenai ajaran Islam.

Pentingnya bagi ulama membawa perubahan, memahami tugas Badan-badan Berkanun seperti MIDF, UDA dan Bank Bumiputera hingga berupaya mengupas dan memahami masalah Masyarakat Perdagangan dan Perindustrian.

Tabung Pembangunan Ekonomi Islam

Tabung Kewangan Orang-Orang Islam

Kompleks Kewangan dan Permodalan.

Persatuan Ulama Malaysia

Yayasan Sebaran Am (Islamic Missionary Trust) untuk menjalankan tugas-tugas dakwah Islamiah dan usaha-usaha kebajikan. Wang sejumlah 117,020.00 ringgit berjaya dikumpulkan di akhir Kongres untuk kegiatan dakwah Islamiah.

Bahawa agama Islam dan budaya Melayu harus menjadi tunggak bangsa dan perlu dijadikan landasan serta pedoman dalam segala dasar dan perancangan.

Perjuangan memartabatkan bangsa Melayu berlandaskan kebudayaan dan keagamaan yang berteraskan ilmu pengetahuan sains dan teknologi bagi menentukan kecemerlangan Melayu dan kelangsungan bangsa.

Sistem pendidikan Islam di semua peringkat pengajian perlu disemak supaya bersesuaian dengan tujuan memahami pandangan global.

Kementerian Pendidikan mengambil alih sekolah-sekolah agama yang daif dan distrukturkan semula pengurusan dan kurikulum.

Struktur organisasi pentadbiran dan pimpinan semua institusi Islam hendaklah disusun semula supaya dapat berfungsi secara berkesan dan masjid dijadikan pusat pembangunan ekonomi dan sosiobudaya ummah.

Kepakaran dan pengalaman Bumiputera mengendalikan institusi kewangan Islam dalam bidang perbankan dan insurans harus dijadikan kesempatan utama (niche opportunity) dan kaedah pembiayaan melalui kaedah Islam perlu dipertingkatkan.

[Baca]

Antara tudung dan cawat besi

Minggu lepas ketika di Prague, Republik Czech saya mengambil peluang berjalan-jalan di kota yang penuh sejarah dan seni itu. Memang menarik Bandar Prague yang penuh dengan bangunan-bangunan lama yang cantik dan indah yang dibina sejak kurun ke sepuluh atau ke sebelas. Walaupun usia bandar ini sudah 10 abad, namun bangunan bersejarahnya masih dipelihara.

Inilah salah satu keistimewaan yang saya lihat di Barat. Mereka begitu menjaga sekali bangunan-bangunan bersejarah yang begitu banyak di sana-sini. Bangunan-bangunan bersejarah mereka diizinkan untuk diubahsuai untuk kegunaan semasa di bahagian dalaman, tetapi reka bentuk luaran yang menyimpan kenangan sejarah dikekalkan. Dengan itu bangunan-bangunan tersebut tidak terbiar, tetap terpelihara dan dijaga. Sejarah mereka yang panjang menyebabkan bangunan bersejarah begitu banyak di setiap kota dan desa. Istana-istana lama yang menyimpan kenangan tentang raja-raja Eropah bertaburan di sana-sini. Walaupun mereka sudah tidak menyimpan institusi beraja mereka, kerana sudah tiada apa keperluan lagi untuk dikekalkan, namun mereka menyimpan bangunan-bangunannya. Ia bahan sejarah untuk dikaji dan dikenang. Bagi saya, mungkin mereka akan mengenangnya sebagai satu institusi yang menggambarkan bagaimana kezaliman, pembaziran dan penindasan dihalalkan atas nama kuasa, bahkan lebih buruk atas nama agama.

Sebelum kuasa pemerintahan dipisahkan dari agama oleh kebangkitan golongan reformis sekular, para penguasa di Eropah memerintah atas nama agama. Gereja dan istana itu disepadukan. Tindakan-tindakan istana dianggap mendapat restu Tuhan kerana gereja sentiasa bersama istana. Inilah keburukan jika agama dijadikan alatan untuk kerakusan kuasa pemerintah. Akhirnya kekejaman pemerintah dianggap kerestuan agama. Kerakusan dan ketamakan akhirnya dipalitkan kepada agama. Pemikiran bahawa agama berada di bawah kuasa pemerintah atau raja adalah pemikiran yang berasal dari Kristian Eropah.

Dalam Islam, agama mengatasi mengatasi raja atau sultan atau pemerintah. Pemerintah bertanggungjawab membela agama, bukan mengongkong agama. Hukum-hakam agama tidak terikat di bawah kerestuan atau limpah perkenan pemerintah atau raja. Sebaliknya “Islam itu tinggi dan tiada yang lebih tinggi daripadanya”. Maka tidak pelik dalam sejarah Islam, para ulama berkata tegas dan berani di hadapan raja atau sultan atau khalifah tentang sesuatu hukum sekalipun tidak mendapat restu istana. Hanya ulama-ulama cari makan sahaja di sepanjang sejarah menjadi alatan atau ‘hamba’ raja atau penguasa.

Di Prague, ada muzium khas yang mempamerkan alat-alat penyeksaan yang digunakan pada kurun pertengahan. Muzeum Of Medieval Torture tersebut menggambarkan betapa tidak berhati perut para pelaksana hukuman tersebut. Antara yang ngeri adalah gergaji yang digunakan untuk menggergaji dari celah kelengkang orang yang dihukum. Juga alatan sula yang menakutkan. Begitu juga sikat besi yang digunakan untuk menyikat jasad mangsa sehingga terpisah antara daging dan tulangnya. Melihat itu semua mengingatkan saya kepada hadis yang diriwayatkan oleh al-Imam al-Bukhari di mana Nabi saw pernah menceritakan peri kesabaran para pejuang agama yang terdahulu. Kerakusan itu nampaknya terus diwarisi oleh zaman pertengahan Eropah. Sabda Nabi saw: “Sesungguh di zaman terdahulu, seorang lelaki dibuat lubang untuknya dalam tanah lalu dimasukkannya, lalu dibawa gergaji diletakkan atas kepalanya (digergaji) sehingga terbelah dua. Dia disikat dengan sikat besi sehingga terpisah antara daging dan tulangnya. Namun itu semua tidak membuatnya meninggalkan agamanya”.

Antara yang yang menarik yang dipamerkan adalah cawat-cawat besi yang dipakaikan kepada isteri-isteri tentera yang pergi berperang menentang tentera Islam di Palestin. Barangkali kerana tidak percayakan kesetiaan isteri-isteri mereka, maka cawat besi berkunci dipakaikan. Ia begitu menyeksa, begitu menyusahkan untuk bergerak, apatah lagi ke tandas. Pada musim sejuk, tidak dibayangkan bagaimana menderitanya wanita-wanita yang dipaksa pakai cawat-cawat tersebut. Itulah layanan yang diberikan kepada wanita Eropah pada zaman dahulu. Bagi mereka yang begitu mengagungkan pemikiran ‘orang Eropah’ tentang wanita, jangan lupa bahawa mereka baru sahaja keluar dari kegelapan lampau yang menzalimi wanita dengan begitu rakus. Malangnya, mereka memang telah keluar dari kegelapan itu, namun wanita mereka sekarang dimasukkan kegelapan baru di mana harga diri dan maruah menjadi begitu murah. Majalah dan akhbar saban hari menayangkan tubuh-tubuh yang muda dan cantik untuk menarik perhatian ramai demi keuntungan golongan ‘pemodal’ yang hanya memikirkan wang, tanpa menilai kesannya ke atas masyarakat. Sesetengah golongan ‘liberalis terlajak’ yang mengkritik pakaian yang dipakai oleh wanita muslimah kononnya mengongkong kaum wanita, sepatutnya tahu bahawa tudung dan pakaian yang menutup aurat itu tidak pernah mengganggu wanita beriman. Betapa ramai yang memakai tudung yang sempurna berjaya dalam merebut persaingan kehidupan mereka. Betapa ramai dalam kalangan mereka yang menutup aurat yang sempurna itu mencapai kemuncak kejayaan dalam kerjaya dan rumahtangga. Jika kebahagiaan dunia yang diburu itu yang menjadi sukatan, tiada sebarang data yang menunjukkan wanita muslimah yang bertudung kurang berjaya daripada yang tidak bertudung. Jika nikmat seks yang hendak diukur, adakah sesiapa yang berani menyatakan wanita bertudung kurang menikmati seks dibandingkan wanita lain? Janganlah apabila golongan ‘liberalis terlajak’ ini membaca perjuangan reformis Eropah membebaskan kongkongan terhadap wanita mereka, cuba hendak mengutip semuanya. Pakai cawat besi tidak sama dengan pakai tudung kepala. Cawat besi tidak mungkin dilakukan oleh manusia berhati perut, tetapi tudung ada nilai kesopanan dan kesusilaan. Sehinggakan golongan rahib wanita atau ‘nun’ juga memakai tudung. Mungkin ada pihak yang mempunyai pendapat yang berbeza tentang tudung, tetapi nas-nas Islam yang difahami oleh majoriti umat ini sejak dahulu sehingga sekarang menyuruh wanita muslimah agar tidak mendedah tubuh mereka melainkan wajah dan kedua tangannya. Adapun purdah, saya antara yang menganggap ia tidak diwajibkan oleh agama ini. Mungkin ia boleh dianggap mengongkong di zaman ini. Pun begitu, ia masih tidak sama dengan cawat besi para isteri tentera Kristian pada zaman pertengahan.

Sebenarnya Islam telah lama membebaskan wanita dari kegelapan kepada cahaya yang menerangi kehidupan manusia. Malangnya, di sesetengah negara adat istiadat kaum telah mengambil tempat agama. Wanita diwajibkan apa yang tidak diwajibkan oleh agama. Adat telah mengongkong mereka, seperti mana adat telah mengongkong wanita melayu zaman dahulu dan wanita sesetengah negara Arab di zaman kini. Kefahaman agama yang sempit juga, sering memangsakan wanita. Demikian di Malaysia, pengurusan agama seperti ‘mahkamah yang bernama syariah’ yang melewatkan kes-kes talak sehingga seseorang wanita terpaksa berkurung nafsu bertahun lamanya adalah cawat besi halimunan yang dipakaikan kepada wanita beriman secara kejam.

dR. Mohd Asri ZainUl Abidin ialah bekas mufti perlis dan sekarang pensyarah pengajian islam, universiti sains Malaysia (usm) yang sedang sabatikal di Britain.

laman web: drmaza.com.

E-mel: moasriza@yahoo.com.

[Baca]

Berakhirkah kekejaman Guantanamo?

Presiden Amerika Syarikat (AS) Barack Obama, memulakan penggal pemerintahannya dengan melaksanakan satu tindakan yang dilihat agak drastik iaitu mengarahkan kem tahanan Teluk Guantanamo ditutup dalam tempoh setahun.

Beliau turut mengarahkan pendakwa raya tentera dalam tribunal jenayah perang Guantanamo memohon supaya semua kes ditangguhkan selama 120 hari.

Arahan Obama ini bukan sesuatu yang mengejutkan memandangkan beliau telah menyatakan hasrat ini ketika kempen pilihan raya presiden lalu.

Tindakan ini juga dilihat sebagai usaha Obama memulihkan imej AS yang tercalar teruk di bawah pemerintahan Presiden George. W. Bush.

Bush membuka kem tahanan Teluk Guantanamo sebagai salah satu agenda beliau untuk memerangi keganasan terhadap golongan militan Islam selepas peristiwa rempuhan dua pesawat yang memusnahkan mercu tanda ekonomi AS, Pusat Dagangan Dunia pada pada 11 September 2001.

Kem tahanan Teluk Guantanamo sememangnya menyimpan seribu satu prasangka terhadap umat Islam memandangkan kem itu digunakan sebagai tempat tahanan mereka yang disyaki bersekongkol dengan kegiatan pengganas.

Namun akibat daripada kewujudan kem inilah rekod kemanusiaan dan hak asasi manusia AS tercalar teruk sekali gus merosakkan pengaruh dan kekuasaan mereka di mata dunia.

Pelbagai teknik dan kaedah soal siasat yang kejam digunakan tentera AS untuk mendapatkan rahsia mengenai kegiatan pengganas.

Antara teknik soal siasat yang sering digunakan ialah "Water Boarding" dengan memasukkan air ke dalam mulut dan hidung tahanan - teknik sama digunakan oleh tentera Jepun ketika menjajah Tanah Melayu satu ketika dulu.

Pelbagai penderaan lain yang di luar batasan kemanusiaan turut digunakan dan pernah didedahkan di dada akhbar seperti mengarahkan tahanan berbogel, melakukan aksi hubungan seks serta pelbagai lagi.

AS turut bertindak melakukan pelbagai cara yang dilihat sangat menghina kesucian agama Islam seperti mengoyakkan al-Quran, menghina Rasulullah dan menggunakan anjing dalam sesi soal siasat.

Pangkalan

Kem tahanan itu terletak di dalam Pangkalan Tentera Laut AS Teluk Guantanamo serta berhampiran Cuba.

Pangkalan berkenaan mula diduduki AS sejak 1898 berikutan Perang Sepanyol-Amerika ketika itu.

Sebaik tamatnya perang tersebut, Teluk Guantanamo kemudiannya dipajak secara berterusan setelah Presiden Tomás Estrada Palma menawarkannya kepada AS bermula 23 Februari 1903.

Beberapa masalah timbul selepas 1959 memandangkan AS tidak mempunyai hubungan baik dengan Presiden Cuba ketika itu Fidel Castro.

Namun AS masih terus menyewa kawasan tersebut dengan menggunakan pengaruh mereka di peringkat antarabangsa serta kekuatan tentera yang dimiliki.

Selain dijadikan pangkalan tentera, Teluk Guantanamo juga pernah dijadikan penempatan pelarian dari Cuba dan Haiti sekitar tahun 1990-an.

Kem itu mula bertukar sebagai "kem neraka" setelah ia menempatkan tahanan yang didakwa bersekongkol dengan kegiatan pengganas selepas AS melancarkan serangan terhadap Afghanistan pada Oktober 2001 yang didakwa menjadi kawasan penempatan dan latihan pengganas Islam.

Kem tahanan Guantanamo dibuka pada Januari 2002 untuk menempatkan tahanan dan suspek pengganas bagi memenuhi tuntutan Bush yang mengisytiharkan perang terhadap keganasan namun ia hanya membabitkan umat Islam.

Sememangnya terdapat pelbagai kumpulan pengganas dan militan terlibat dalam pelbagai perlakuan jenayah dan keganasan di seluruh dunia namun hanya pengganas Islam yang mendapat perhatian utama dalam kempen AS memerangi keganasan.

Walaupun AS mendakwa perang di Afghanistan dilakukan bagi melumpuhkan kegiatan pengganas namun hakikatnya ia dilancarkan sebagai tindakan balas dendam berikutan peristiwa 11 September.

Kumpulan militan Islam seperti Al-Qaeda dan Taliban dituduh sebagai dalang serangan tersebut dan sejak itu umat Islam di seluruh dunia turut menerima tempias dan dilihat sebagai pengganas.

Kem tahanan Guantanamo yang sebelum ini sunyi secara tiba-tiba digunakan untuk menempatkan tahanan perang yang didakwa bersekongkol dengan pengganas tanpa sebarang bukti yang jelas.

Tahanan dilayan seperti binatang dan mereka tidak dibenarkan mendapat perbicaraan dan pembelaan sewajarnya.

Dianggarkan pada peringkat awalnya lebih 800 tahanan ditempatkan di kem itu termasuklah kanak-kanak dan remaja.

Terdapat tiga kem di di dalam Guantanamo iaitu Kem Delta, Kem Echo dan Kem Iguana serta lebih separuh daripada tahanan ditangkap ketika perang di Afghanistan. Namun tahanan yang ditempatkan di sini terdiri daripada pelbagai keturunan dan warga negara.

Apa yang menjadi persoalan sejak awal penubuhan kem itu sehingga sekarang ialah teknik soal siasat oleh anggota tentera AS yang disifatkan di luar batas kemanusiaan.

Pelbagai teknik kejam digunakan AS atas alasan mendapatkan maklumat berhubung kegiatan pengganas.

Namun hakikatnya teknik sedemikian sengaja digunakan sebagai membalas dendam berikutan kemusnahan dan kematian lebih 3,000 penduduk negara berkenaan yang terkorban dalam peristiwa 11 September.

Dibebaskan

Sehingga kini masih terdapat 245 tahanan yang ditempatkan di situ dan sekurang-kurangnya 525 telah dibebaskan.

Lima daripada tahanan tersebut dilaporkan mati ketika dalam tahanan dengan empat daripada mereka membunuh diri dan seorang lagi akibat mengidap kanser.

Bagaimanapun penutupan kem tahanan Teluk Guantanamo itu bukanlah penyelesaian terbaik bagi menangani kemelut yang dihadapi oleh kebanyakan negara-negara Islam.

Dengan penutupan kem tersebut masalah utama yang timbul ialah di mana tahanan akan ditempatkan terutama mereka yang diklasifikasikan sebagai terlalu bahaya untuk dibebaskan.

Terdapat tiga kategori tahanan yang terdapat di sini selepas proses penutupan iaitu pertama tahanan yang tiada bukti kukuh terlibat dalam kegiatan pengganas dan mereka ini kemungkinan besar akan dibebaskan atau dihantar pulang ke negara asal.

Tahanan kategori kedua pula akan dibicarakan berdasarkan bukti yang diperolehi oleh kerajaan AS.

Manakala kumpulan ketiga ialah mereka yang terlalu bahaya untuk dibebaskan tetapi kebanyakannya tidak mempunyai bukti kukuh untuk didakwa.

Bush sebelum tamat pemerintahannya telah berbincang dengan beberapa negara terutama di Eropah agar tahanan ini dapat ditempatkan di negara mereka. Banyak negara yang tidak bersetuju dengan langkah itu kerana bimbang ia akan menjejaskan rekod kemanusiaan dan hak asasi mereka.

Antara negara yang bersetuju untuk menerima tahanan ini ialah Portugal dan Switzerland.

Persoalan baru yang timbul adakah nasib tahanan ini akan lebih baik jika ditempatkan di negara lain? Tindakan AS itu dilihat hanya sebagai melepaskan beban yang terpaksa ditanggung dan membiarkan negara lain membersihkan segala kesilapan mereka lakukan.

Berkemungkinan besar tahanan yang bakal dipindahkan akan mendapat layanan lebih buruk berbanding sebelumnya.

Terdapat kebimbangan bahawa tahanan yang akan dihantar pulang itu akan menerima hukuman lebih teruk di negara asal mereka.

Tahanan berbangsa Uighur yang beragama Islam, yang sememangnya tidak mendapat layanan yang adil dari China serta tahanan dari Uzbekistan dan Algeria merupakan antara tahanan yang bakal menerima hukuman berat jika kembali ke negara asal.

Dari segi politik, tindakan Obama dilihat mampu mengendurkan ketegangan hubungan antara agama terutama membabitkan dunia Islam.

Langkah ini juga jika ditangani dengan baik mampu mengawal kebangkitan pejuang militan Islam terutama di negara Pakistan dan Afghanistan.

Jika polisi baru yang akan digubal pentadbiran Obama dilihat cenderung ke arah mengembalikan kepercayaan umat Islam terutama dalam menangani perang terhadap pengganas adalah tidak mustahil maruah AS yang tercalar sebelum ini akan kembali pulih.

Namun sebelum itu beliau harus menyelesaikan terlebih dahulu nasib tahanan di Teluk Guantanamo dengan menjamin nasib dan hak asasi mereka lebih terpelihara setelah sekian lama teraniaya.

Jika tidak beliau akan dilihat sebagai pemimpin yang hanya bersikap lepas tangan dan tidak serius menangani masalah walaupun pada awalnya berniat baik memulihkan hubungan dengan negara Islam dan imej sosial mereka yang terjejas akibat kebongkakan Bush.

[Baca]

Perang agama di Gaza?

Kenapa ada negara-negara Arab merestui Israel membunuh penduduk Gaza? Jika pun betul mereka sangat marah kepada Hamas kerana perkiraan permainan politik semasa di rantau Asia Barat memaksa mereka berbuat demikian, tetapi tercapaikah matlamat mereka?

Hamas masih kuat dan mungkin dalam masa beberapa bulan akan datang, ia akan menjadi lebih kuat dari masa lalu. Buktinya selepas sehari tentera berundur dari Gaza, beribu-ribu orang Hamas lengkap dengan senjata keluar mengadakan tunjuk perasaan mengisytiharkan kemenangan. Kebanyakan mereka keluar dari ratusan terowong bawah tanah. Mungkin pada masa akan datang jika proses damai tidak diteruskan, bukan saja Yahudi akan menjadi sasaran keganasan, tetapi juga negara-negara Arab.

Pada penelitian saya, kebanyakan orang Muslim, orang Yahudi dan orang Kristian melihat perang Israel ke atas Gaza itu sebagai perang agama atau sekurang-kurangnya perang yang mempunyai ciri-ciri agama.

Pandangan stereotaip ini mungkin terpantul daripada semua perang yang berlaku antara Arab dan Yahudi dalam jangka sama lebih enam dasawarsa lalu. Malah ia mugkin juga terpantul daripada pengalaman pelbagai perang Salib dan perang jihad orang Muslim pada zaman silam. Jika dihalusi memang terdapat faktor agama dan budaya menyebabkan perang Arab-Israel termasuk perang ke atas Gaza dianggap sebagai perang agama atau sekurang-kurangnya perang yang mempunyai ciri-ciri agama. Dalam masa empat minggu berturut-turut saya memantau media massa Yahudi, saya dapati selain rencana-rencana yang memperkatakan perang ke atas Gaza merupakan perang agama, ramai anggota tentera Israel merupakan orang yang kuat agama, membawa dan membaca kitab suci ketika di medan perang, memakai kopiah dan menjadi ahli pergerakan atau parti pelampau agama Yahudi.

Dengan itu dapat dikatakan bahawa perang agama menjadi gagasan perjuangan Yahudi sejak sekian lama. Ini juga yang terjadi di kalangan orang Palestin dan bangsa-bangsa Arab lain kerana terpengaruh dengan gagasan perjuangan Yahudi. Umat Muslim di seluruh dunia turut dijangkiti fahaman ini. Kerana pandangan stereotaip ini, sejarah silam yang amat buruk dan keji itu diulangi serta dimainkan semula oleh manusia yang moden dan maju kini. Mereka yang memilih jalan untuk berperang atau mempunyai mentaliti mahu berperang di kalangan orang Muslim, Kristian, Yahudi dan lain-lain tidak berbeza.

Hanya diri mereka berada pada zaman serba maju dan canggih ini, tetapi otak dan akal tercampak jauh ke zaman kuno.. Semua mereka bermusuh dan berperang atas nama agama dan Tuhan. Pada hal agama dan Tuhan tidak pernah merestui perang.

Sebenarnya jika merujuk kepada wacana agama (al-khitab ad-dini) dalam ketiga-tiga agama langit (Islam, Kristian dan Yahudi), kita akan dapati bahawa terdapat banyak wacana agama yang bermasalah.

Begitu juga dalam Islam ada konsep jihad, yang sering disalah fahamkan ramai orang terutama orang bukan Islam. Jihad bila dikaitkan dengan perang seperti disebut dalam al-Quran, maka ia bererti bersugguh-sunguh dalam perang mempertahankan diri. Perang mempertahan diri adalah satu-satunya perang yang sah dalam Islam berdasarkan nas al-Quran dan hadis. Islam tidak pernah mensyariatkan perang untuk menceroboh dan merampas wilayah orang lain.

Jika merujuk kepada wacana agama dalam Kristian dan Yahudi terdapat nas-nas Injil dalam Perjanjian Lama yang secara jelas menganjurkan pembunuhan dan perang. Jika nas-nas Injil itu difahami secara harfiah, nescaya pembunuhan dan perang tidak dapat dielak dan orang atau bangsa yang disuruh dibunuh dalam nas-nas itu pula adalah orang atau bangsa Palestin. Saya tidak pasti apakah para pemimpin Yahudi yang membuat keputusan melancarkan perang ke atas Gaza pada 27 Disember lalu turut berhujah dengan peruntukan Injil dalam Perjanjian Lama di bawah ini.

Cuba teliti nas-nas Injil di bawah.

33:50-56 Tuhan berfirman kepada Musa di Dataran Moab di tepi sungai Jordan dekat Jericho:

Berbicaralah kepada orang Israel dan katakanlah kepada mereka: Apabila kamu menyeberangi sungai Jordan ke tanah Kanaan, maka haruslah kamu menghalau semua penduduk negeri itu (Palestin) dari depanmu dan membinasakan segala batu berukir kepunyaan mereka; juga haruslah kamu membinasakan segala patung tuangan mereka dan memusnahkan segala bukit pengorbanan mereka.

Haruslah kamu menduduki negeri itu dan diam di sana, sebab kepadamulah Kuberikan negeri itu untuk diduduki. Maka haruslah kamu membahagi negeri itu sebagai milik pusaka dengan membuang undi menurut kaummu: kepada yang besar jumlahnya haruslah kamu memberikan milik pusaka yang besar, dan kepada yang kecil jumlahnya haruslah kamu memberikan milik pusaka yang kecil; yang ditunjuk oleh undi bagi masing-masing, itulah bahagian undiannya; menurut suku nenek moyangmu haruslah kamu membahagi milik pusaka itu. Tetapi jika kamu tidak menghalau penduduk negeri itu dari depanmu, maka orang-orang yang kamu tinggalkan hidup dari mereka akan menjadi seperti selumbar di matamu dan seperti duri yang menusuk lambungmu, dan mereka akan menyesatkan kamu di negeri yang kamu diami itu.

Akhirnya sekali saya ingin jelaskan bahawa walaupun Israel yang melancarkan perang ke atas Gaza, tetapi negara-negara Arab yang kena kutuk. Bukan Israel tidak kena kutuk, tetapi kali ini negara-negara Arab kena kutuk dengan cara yang agak luar biasa. Ia bukan pertama kali negara-negara Arab kena kutuk disebabkan angkara Yahudi.

Pada masa lalu kebanyakan negara Arab kena kutuk kerana dilihat tidak mampu melakukan apa-apa yang sepatutnya untuk berhadapan dengan ancaman Israel, tetapi kini beberapa negara Arab berpengaruh kena kutuk kerana didakwa bersekongkol dengan rejim Tel Aviv untuk menjatuhkan Pergerakan Pertahanan Islam (Hamas).

Pada negara-negara Arab itu, Hamas patut diperangi kerana ia adalah al-Ikhwan al-Muslimun (al-Ikhwan), mahu menubuhkan negara Islam, menjadi proksi Iran dan menjadi paksi yang tidak disukai dengan Hizbullah, Syria dan Iran. Malah negara-negara Arab itu juga memerangi Hamas kerana melihatnya sebagai Taliban Palestin.

[Baca]

Israel anggap hanya mereka berhak hidup

Serangan yang dilancarkan Israel di Genting Gaza merupakan kejadian terburuk bagi menandakan pembukaan tahun 2009.

Peristiwa ini bukanlah perang membabitkan dua pasukan tentera tetapi serangan yang dilancarkan oleh satu pihak yang dilengkapi kelengkapan canggih terhadap 1.5 juta penduduk yang langsung tidak mempunyai keupayaan.

Tindakan ini merupakan satu jenayah terhadap kemanusiaan yang memalukan "masyarakat antarabangsa" (negara Barat dan Timur Tengah) kerana tidak melakukan apa- apa untuk menghentikan kekejaman Israel.

Di seluruh dunia, berjuta penduduk menunjukkan kemarahan dengan melancarkan protes. Rakyat Malaysia dilihat mendahului melalui banyak demonstrasi dan tunjuk perasaan serta resolusi di Parlimen dalam menunjukkan kebencian terhadap kekejaman Israel dan menyatakan sokongan terhadap rakyat Palestin.

Antara kekejaman Israel ialah pengeboman Ibu pejabat bantuan Pertubuhan Bangsa-Bangsa Bersatu (PBB) serta kemudahan dan infrastruktur yang dimiliki beberapa pertubuhan kemanusiaan.

Dunia kini semakin jelas membenci Israel, pemimpin mereka memutuskan untuk menghentikan pengeboman di Gaza, namun mereka akan terus melaksanakan pelbagai tekanan terhadap penduduk Palestin termasuklah mengekalkan kehadiran tentera, selain sekatan ekonomi serta menghalang pemberian bantuan seperti makanan dan perubatan.

Satu lagi kekejaman yang nyata oleh Israel ialah penggunaan bom yang mengandungi fosforus yang mampu meninggalkan kesan kecederaan yang parah sehingga membawa kematian dengan cara membakar kulit hingga ke tulang. Penggunaan fosforus putih terhadap penduduk awam telah diharamkan di bawah undang-undang antarabangsa.

Akhbar Times of London merupakan media pertama yang mendedahkan penggunaan senjata ini pada 8 Januari lepas dan melaporkan bagaimana doktor di hospital Gaza menggambarkan kesengsaraan pesakit yang menderita akibat kebakaran luar biasa yang terlalu dalam dan tidak boleh dikawal.

Kesan penggunaan senjata ini merupakan antara sekelumit dari pelbagai kekejaman yang berlaku terhadap penduduk di Gaza. Memandangkan kawasan sempadan telah ditutup, rakyat Palestin tidak boleh keluar dari zon perang, tidak seperti peperangan lain di mana orang awam bertindak keluar untuk mendapatkan perlindungan di kawasan lain.

Kelancangan Israel dalam melancarkan serangan tidak berhati perut di Gaza adalah kerana mereka mendapat sokongan padu Amerika Syarikat (AS). Ketika Majlis Keselamatan PBB meluluskan resolusi supaya gencatan senjata dilaksanakan segera, AS bertindak mengundi untuk berkecuali. Perdana Menteri Israel mendedahkan bahawa dia telah menelefon Presiden George W. Bush supaya tidak menyokong resolusi itu.

Pentadbiran Bush telah menujukan semua kesalahan ini kepada Hamas. Namun AS yang telah membekalkan kebanyakan senjata dan pesawat pejuang dalam perang di Gaza. Negara-negara Eropah juga menunjukkan kekesalan mereka. Walaupun mereka mengecam pembunuhan penduduk awam namun mereka masih belum menarik balik bantuan dan sokongan kepada Israel.

Double standard dan hipokrasi yang didedahkan dalam konflik ini sangat ketara. Ketika berbilion dolar disumbangkan dalam bentuk dana dan senjata kepada Israel secara tetap oleh Barat, namun keadaan berbeza berlaku di Palestin apabila kerajaan yang memerintah Gaza dilarang memiliki senjata.

Oleh itu rakyat Palestin dilarang sama sekali daripada mempertahankan diri ketika berhadapan pengeboman dan serangan yang sangat dahsyat.

Sejak dua tahun lepas Gaza telah dikepung dan bantuan makanan serta pelbagai barangan penting lain dihalang memasuki kawasan sempadan. Apabila Palestin membina terowong bawah tanah melintasi kawasan sempadan Mesir bagi membolehkan penghantaran bahan makanan dan barang penting lain, Israel telah menyatakan tindakan ini sebagai satu jenayah.

Memang benar, senjata telah dibawa masuk melalui terowong ini tetapi kenapa menafikan penghantaran senjata ke Gaza sedangkan senjata besar dan canggih telah dibekalkan ke Israel? Kenapa Israel perlu berasa tidak senang dengan penduduk Gaza memperoleh makanan dan perubatan menggunakan terowong ini sedangkan hakikatnya penghantaran secara sah menggunakan jalan darat dan laut dihalang?

Ramai beranggapan bahawa AS akan berubah dengan nyata di bawah pemerintahan apabila Barack Obama mengambil alih tampuk kuasa. Tetapi ada tanda-tanda menunjukkan beliau akan meneruskan polisi yang sama. Kongres AS pada 10 Januari lepas mengundi dengan majoriti yang besar (390 berbanding 4) untuk terus menyokong Israel dalam langkah-langkah perang yang diambil. Pastinya Obama akan mengambil perhatian yang lebih tentang isyarat ini tanpa sebarang keraguan.

Israel telah melancarkan perang propaganda secara besar-besaran dalam serangan kali ini. Mereka telah menggunakan tempoh gencatan senjata selama enam bulan dari bulan Jun lepas untuk bersiap sedia melancarkan serangan seperti yang diakui oleh pemimpin Israel bahawa mereka telah menetapkan sasaran untuk serangan dalam tempoh beberapa bulan kebelakangan ini.

"Apabila serangan bermula, sekelompok diplomat, kumpulan pelobi, bloggers dan para penyokong Israel akan melancarkan mesej yang telah dirangka bagi menunjukkan bahawa mereka adalah mangsa walaupun serangan ini sebenarnya membunuh rakyat Palestin," lapor The Observer of London pada 4 Januari lepas..

Semua ini merupakan sesuatu yang telah dirancang sejak sekian lama, ujar bekas duta Israel ke PBB yang telah dilatih oleh Israel bagi menjalankan usaha-usaha yang telah dirancang mereka.

The Observer turut melaporkan bahawa dalam satu taklimat kepada pelobi mereka, mesej yang sama telah dinyatakan bahawa Israel tidak mempunyai pilihan lain selain melancarkan serangan ke Gaza sebagai tindak balas terhadap serangan yang dilancarkan oleh pejuang Hamas. Menurut mereka serangan dilancarkan hanya terhadap terhadap pejuang Hamas dan jika orang awam terbunuh ini adalah kerana Hamas menyembunyikan pejuangnya di kalangan orang awam.

Berdasarkan artikel The Observer, dalam pelan propaganda Israel, Hamas akan digambarkan sebagai pengganas. Tindakan mereka tiada kaitan langsung dengan penjajahan berterusan di tebing Barat, kepungan di Gaza atau pembunuhan berterusan rakyat Palestin sejak mereka dihalau dari Gaza.

Perang media Israel telah memainkan peranan seperti mana yang telah dijangka dalam artikel The Observer. Israel telah menonjolkan bahawa Hamas sememangnya berhak diserang memandangkan Hamas menolak untuk memanjangkan gencatan senjata pada penghujung Disember lepas.

Namun sebenarnya Israel yang telah melanggar gencatan senjata apabila melancarkan serangan udara dan darat pada awal November lalu. Palestin sebenarnya sangat tidak berpuas hati dengan tindakan Israel mengetatkan kepungan di Gaza yang turut mendapat sokongan AS dan Kesatuan Eropah (EU), yang mana tindakan ini telah mengakibatkan bekalan makanan, ubat-ubatan, sumber air dan elektrik semakin berkurangan sebagai satu hukuman kepada penduduk yang telah mengundi Hamas.

Hamas sebagai sebuah kerajaan yang dipilih telah ditonjolkan sebagai penjenayah kerana cuba memperoleh senjata sebagai alat untuk mempertahan diri daripada musuh mereka yang kejam. Namun Israel telah digambarkan tidak bersalah apabila menerima berbilion dolar dalam bentuk persenjataan yang canggih seperti senjata, pesawat pejuang dan kapal perang yang diperoleh kebanyakan dari AS.

Tiada sebarang bantahan dari Barat apabila bom yang mengandungi bahan kimia fosforus digunakan terhadap orang awam. Sasaran yang paling ketara terhadap melibatkan prasarana dan penduduk awam ialah apabila Israel mengebom sekolah di bawah kendalian PBB, yang mengorbankan lebih 40 orang dan pengeboman di satu kawasan perlindungan Palestin yang mengorbankan 30 orang.

Robert Fisk, seorang wartawan terkenal dan pakar Asia Barat berkata, adalah sesuatu yang mengkagumkan apabila ramai pemimpin Barat dan pengarang media telah berterusan mendendangkan pembohongan yang telah digunakan sejak sekian lama bahawa Israel sangat bertanggung jawab dalam mengelakkan pembunuhan membabitkan orang awam.

Beliau menyenaraikan banyak kekejaman Israel yang dilakukan pada masa silam yang disaksikan sepanjang beliau berkhidmat sebagai wartawan, yang mana ia membabitkan pembunuhan orang awam dengan ketara.

Antaranya ialah peristiwa penawanan Lebanon pada 1992 yang mengorbankan 17,500 orang, peristiwa pembunuhan beramai-ramai Sabra-Shatila membabitkan 1,700 orang awam, pembunuhan beramai-ramai Qana membabitkan 106 pelarian Lebanon di kem pelarian PBB pada 1996, pembunuhan beramai-ramai pelarian Marwahin yang telah diarah keluar dari rumah mereka oleh tentera Israel sebelum dibunuh oleh tentera yang menembak dari atas helikopter pada 2006.

[Baca]

Musa menyeru Firaun menyembah Allah

SETELAH Nabi Musa menghadapi pelbagai rintangan, baginda terpaksa pula berhadapan dengan Firaun dan pengikutnya. Allah memerintahkan baginda menyeru Firaun bersama pengikutnya supaya menyembah Allah. Firaun memerintah Mesir dengan kejam dan zalim. Firaun juga mengaku dirinya sebagai Tuhan.

Nabi Musa memohon kepada Allah agar diberikannya seorang teman dan sebagai wazir bagi dirinya iaitu saudaranya yang bernama Harun. Allah SWT telah memakbulkan doa Nabi Musa.

Allah telah memberi ilham kepada Harun supaya segera berangkat mendapatkan Nabi Musa di Thur Sina. Maka bertemulah dua saudara itu. Mereka berjanji akan saling membantu untuk sama-sama melepaskan rakyat Mesir daripada disesatkan oleh Firaun yang sombong dan zalim itu.

Allah SWT telah memerintahkan Nabi Musa bersama Harun mengadap Firaun dengan segera. Allah mahu Nabi Musa dan Nabi Harun menyeru Firaun dengan lemah-lembut.

Kedua-duanya segera menuju ke Mesir dan bertemu dengan Firaun. Mereka menyeru Firaun dan pengikutnya agar menyembah Allah, namun Firaun tidak mengendahkan seruan mereka.

"Bukankah kami yang mendidik kamu. Kami yang membesarkan kamu. Kamu tinggal dengan kami bertahun-tahun lamanya," kata Firaun kepada Nabi Musa dengan marah.

"Adakah kerana penjagaan aku dulu engkau mahukan balasan yang baik? Bukankah itu kejahatan yang engkau lakukan terhadap kaum Bani Israel?" tanya Nabi Musa.

"Aku meninggalkan istana kerana aku tidak mahu tersesat dengan kepercayaan kamu, wahai Firaun. Aku telah mendapat rahmat daripada Allah SWT. Allah telah mengangkat aku menjadi rasul-Nya," terang Nabi Musa.

"Siapakah tuhan bagi seluruh alam ini?" tanya Firaun.

"Allah, Tuhan bagi seluruh alam ini. Bukannya kamu. Allah yang menjadikan langit dan bumi," terang Nabi Musa.

Firaun amat marah kerana tidak dapat mengalahkan Nabi Musa dengan kata-kata. Maka dia menggunakan kekuatan yang ada padanya. Firaun mahu Nabi Musa dipenjarakan sekiranya Nabi Musa enggan menyembahnya.

Nabi Musa tidak takut dengan apa yang diperintahkan Firaun kepadanya. Baginda mahu menunjukkan mukjizat yang diberikan oleh Allah kepadanya.

"Mahukah engkau melihat mukjizat hebat yang Allah bagi kepadaku?" tanya Nabi Musa.

"Aku tidak akan percaya sebelum melihat bukti yang nyata. Aku mahu melihat bukti itu," jawab Firaun.

Dengan penuh harapan, Nabi Musa memperlihatkan mukjizat Allah berikan kepadanya. Baginda telah melemparkan tongkat lalu menjadi ular yang besar dan memasukkan tangannya ke dalam saku bajunya. Apabila tangan itu dikeluarkan, tangan tersebut mengeluarkan sinar yang berkilauan. Nabi Musa mahu Firaun insaf dan sedar apabila melihat bukti itu.

Walaupun sudah terbukti, Firaun tetap tidak mahu menyembah Allah. Kehebatan yang ada pada Nabi Musa diperkecil-kecilkan oleh Firaun. Dia menganggap mukjizat yang ada pada Nabi Musa itu adalah sihir semata-mata.

PENGAJARAN

Pendekatan yang berhikmah perlu ada dalam setiap pendakwah. Begitu juga dengan sikap lemah lembut walaupun berhadapan dengan orang yang menentang ajaran agama atau bersikap zalim.

Petikan daripada buku Untaian 366 kisah daripada al-Quran terbitan Edusystem Sdn. Bhd.

[Baca]