Saturday, 6 September 2008

16 SEPT KEMANA SELEPAS ITU? ~ Ref Malaysiakini


Bagi rakyat biasa, tarikh pembentukan Persekutuan Malaysia pada 16 Sepetember sudah lama dilupai, ia tidak pernah dikenang sebagaimana menyambut tarikh kemerdekaan 31 Ogos setiap tahun. Media arus perdana juga jarang menyorot tarikh penting itu, tiada juga berita mengenainya disiarkan sama ada dalam bentuk berita mahu pun dokomentari di televisyen bagi memperingati nostalgia 16 September itu.

Tiba-tiba kini tarikh 16 Sepetember menjadi sebutan semua apabila dipilih Ketua Umum KeADILan, Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim sebagai tarikh ‘deadline’ pembentukan kerajaan Persekutuan Malaysia yang baru. Malah kerajaan negeri dibawah pemerintahan Pakatan Rakyat seperti Pulau Pinang dan Kelantan telah bersetuju untuk mengistiharkan tarikh tersbeut sebagai cuti umum dinegeri masing-masing, cadangan itu tidak dipersetujui oleh kerajaan Malaysia pimpinan Barisan Nasional – BN.

Menurut teorinya, pada tarikh itu, 30 orang ahli parlimen BN meninggalkan parti itu untuk menyertai gabungan baru Pakatan Rakyat. Pakatan Rakyat kini dianggotai KeADILan, DAP dan PAS. Gabungan ini mempunyai 82 ahli parlimen manakala BN mempunyai 140 kerusi didalam parlimen yang mempunyai 222 anggota itu. Dengan perhijrahan 30 ahli parlimen BN ke Pakatan Rakyat menjadikan kedudukan kerusi parlimen barubah kepada 112 Pakatan Rakyat dan BN 110, dengan kelebihan satu kerusi itu membolehkan kuasa pemerintahan bertukar tangan. BN menjadi pembangkang manakala Pakatan Rakyat menjadi pemerintah.

Andainya fenomena ini berlaku, maka berakhirlah pemerintahan Perikatan/BN selama 51 tahun penuh suka duka. Pakatan Rakyat menjanjikan perkongsian kuasa yang adil diantara kaum-kaum di Malaysia tanpa menjejaskan kontrak sosial yang telah diterima semua kaum sebelum ini. Bagi penulis, apa-apa status qua yang seperti Agama Rasmi, Bahasa Melayu, hak istemewa Orang Melayu/bumiputera dan sebagainya tidak wajar dipinda andainya Pakatan Rakyat Berkuasa. Begitu jugalah meminda penggunaan Bahawa Melayu pada nama jalan umpamanya tidak perlu ditambah dengan bahasa-bahasa lain ia adalah tidak perlu dan hanya suatu tindakan membazir yang ditentang selama ini.

Mengubah pana tanda nama jalan sepatutnya bukanlah keutamaan kepada Pakatan Rakyat, kerana perkara utama kita tidak bersetuju dengan BN bukanlah mengenai isu tersebut tetapi menyetuh isu yang lebih besar seperti ketidakadilan, salahgunakuasa dan sebagainya. Jika sekadar mengubah tanda jalan kampung, lebih baiklah tidak perlu menukar kerajaan kerana BN telah menggunakan Bahasa Kebangsaan dengan betul. Dan bahasa Malaysia telah difahami oleh semua rakyat Malaysia.

Sepanjang penulis mengikuti program Anwar, penulis dapati idea Anwar amat jelas memperjaungkan sebuah kerajaan yang adil, telus untuk semua kaum tanpa mengusik kontrak sosial sedia ada. Ertinya tiada apa yang berubah apabila Pakatan Rakyat berkuasa, yang berubah hanya pendekatan dalam menangani isu –isu rakyat, pengagihan kekayaan negara yang lebih adil, pembenterasan rasuah, salahguna kuasa, penyalahgunaan harta awam dan sebagainya. Anwar tidak menyebut langsung, Pakatan Rakyat akan mengubah secara drastik negara ini menjadi negara lebih sifat Malaysia, Malaysian ! atau lebih Islamik sifatnya atau lebih kebaratan!.

Ini bermakna Malaysia selepas 16 Sept akan ujud sebagaimana keujudanya hari ini tetapi dengan pendekatan pemerintahan yang lebih telus, tanpa rasuah dan salahguna kuasa serta tanpa seribu satu macam keburukan yang dilakukan Umno sepanjang 51 tahun pentadbiranya. Justeru kerana Anwar, beliau boleh mendamaikan PAS-DAP yang mempunyai dasar perjuangan berbeza, matlamat perjuangan berbeza. Perbezaan perjuangan PAS-DAP itu tentunya akan terus menjadi tercabar selepas berkuasa, Ia adalah cabaran kepada Anwar selepas pembentukan kerajaan Malaysia Baru nanti.

Namun sebelum itu, rakyat sedang memerhatikan apakah tindakan yang dibuat oleh dua kerajaan negeri, iaitu Kerjaan KeADILan di Selangor dan kerajaan DAP di Pulau Pinang, jika tersilap langkah harapan untuk Pakatan Rakyat akan musnah semuanya … ini sudah tentu berkaitan dengan survival Melayu dan Islam di kedua –dua negeri itu. Melayu sebagai penduduk majoriti sudah tentulah mereka tidak mahu melihat survival mereka terhakis dibawah pentadbiran Pakatan Rakyat, Ini kerana undi yang diberi kepada Pakatan Rakyat adalah untuk menentang pembaziran, salahgunakuasa dan segala macam kebonrakan BN semata-mata, ia sudah tentu tidak akan mengizinkan perkara-perkara lain diubah sesuka hati!.

darigaunghati

Stumble
Delicious
Technorati
Twitter
Facebook

4 Comments:

Anonymous said...

16 sep ni tak akan berlaku perubahan kerajaan ini hanya gimik sahaja , pemimpin BN/UMNO tak sebodoh yang di sangka dia orang pun ada perancangan . Oleh itu kita kena terima hakikat bahawa selepas 16 sep ni kerajaan BNy yang ada masih kekal , kalau Pakatan Rakyat nak memerintah sangat tunggu PRU ke 13 itupun kalau mendapat mandat rakyat lebih dari majoriti 2/3. Rakyat pun tak ingin lihat perubahan kuasa secara kotor. Komen saya ni bukan memihak kepada mana-mana kerana saya bukan ahli parti politik tetapi setiap pilihanraya tetap keluar mengundi.
......dari maimiarai.

Nostradamus said...

(Anwarwood Produksi - Tayangan Paling Besar dan Hebat di Dunia!)
---------------------------------

Awas! Politik bukan permainan untuk mereka yang berlemah hati di Malaysia. Rakyat Malaysia akan sakit jantung apabila melihat kesudahannya. Jika pun tidak, anda akan terkena strok atau darah tinggi. Kenapa? Tayangan Titanic 2 kali ini yang diarah dan diskripkan oleh Anwarwood Produksi akan bersambung dengan adegan-adegan berikut:

1. Little Napoleon akan meneruskan dengan ungkapan "Matalamat Menghalalkan Cara-Caranya" dalam mempertahankan kepentingan-kepentingan mereka.
2. Sebilangan penumpang-penumpang akan kehilangan kewarasan dan kemanusiaan apabila kapal sedang tenggelam.
3. Semua orang akan merebut-rebut naik bot-bot penyelamat.
4. Wang digunakan untuk membeli apa sahaja untuk menyelematkan diri daripada kehampaan yang akan menimpa.
5. Pelakon dan Pembantu-pembantu Seniman dan Seniwati Terbaik serta Kuda-kuda Trojan akhirnya dipertontonkan pada kesudahan tayangannya.

Jika adapun emosi yang tinggal pada akhir tayangan tersebut, harus ingat bahawa ia cuma sebuah tayangan sama seperti gelagat-gelagat politik. Realiti kehidupan bersama masih berterusan di tanah air ini.

http://patek172.wordpress.com

Anonymous said...

FOLKS, CAN DEMOCRACY ACTUALLY GUARANTEE US FREEDOM???

CAN WE LEARN SOMETHING FROM THE AMERICAN EXPERIENCE ….
read on
————————————————————————————

What’s the Meaning of ‘Freedom’? …. But don’t ask a politician!

by Rep. Ron Paul

“Man is not free unless government is limited. There’s a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts”.

- Ronald Reagan

We’ve all heard the words democracy and freedom used countless times, especially in the context of our invasion of Iraq. They are used interchangeably in modern political discourse, yet their true meanings are very different. George Orwell (picture above right) wrote about “meaningless words” that are endlessly repeated in the political arena. Words like “freedom,” “democracy,” and “justice,” Orwell explained, have been abused so long that their original meanings have been eviscerated. In Orwell’s view, political words are “often used in a consciously dishonest way.” Without precise meanings behind words, politicians and elites can obscure reality and condition people to reflexively associate certain words with positive or negative perceptions. In other words, unpleasant facts can be hidden behind purposely meaningless language.

As a result, Americans have been conditioned to accept the word “democracy” as a synonym for freedom, and thus to believe that democracy is unquestionably good. The problem is that democracy is not freedom. Democracy is simply majoritarianism, which is inherently incompatible with real freedom. Our founding fathers clearly understood this, as evidenced not only by our republican constitutional system, but also by their writings in the Federalist Papers and elsewhere. James Madison cautioned that under a democratic government, “There is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual.” John Adams argued that democracies merely grant revocable rights to citizens depending on the whims of the masses, while a republic exists to secure and protect preexisting rights.

Yet how many Americans know that the word “democracy” is found neither in the Constitution nor the Declaration of Independence, our very founding documents? A truly democratic election in Iraq, without U.S. interference and U.S. puppet candidates, almost certainly would result in the creation of a Shi’ite theocracy. Shi’ite majority rule in Iraq might well mean the complete political, economic, and social subjugation of the minority Kurd and Sunni Arab populations. Such an outcome would be democratic, but would it be free? Would the Kurds and Sunnis consider themselves free? The administration talks about democracy in Iraq, but is it prepared to accept a democratically elected Iraqi government no matter what its attitude toward the U.S. occupation? Hardly. For all our talk about freedom and democracy, the truth is we have no idea whether Iraqis will be free in the future.

They’re certainly not free while a foreign army occupies their country. The real test is not whether Iraq adopts a democratic, pro-Western government, but rather whether ordinary Iraqis can lead their personal, religious, social, and business lives without interference from government. Simply put, freedom is the absence of government coercion. Our Founding Fathers understood this, and created the least coercive government in the history of the world. The Constitution established a very limited, decentralized government to provide national defense and little else. States, not the federal government, were charged with protecting individuals against criminal force and fraud. For the first time, a government was created solely to protect the rights, liberties, and property of its citizens.

Any government coercion beyond that necessary to secure those rights was forbidden, both through the Bill of Rights and the doctrine of strictly enumerated powers. This reflected the founders’ belief that democratic government could be as tyrannical as any King. Few Americans understand that all government action is inherently coercive. If nothing else, government action requires taxes. If taxes were freely paid, they wouldn’t be called taxes, they’d be called donations. If we intend to use the word freedom in an honest way, we should have the simple integrity to give it real meaning: Freedom is living without government coercion. So when a politician talks about freedom for this group or that, ask yourself whether he is advocating more government action or less. The political left equates freedom with liberation from material wants, always via a large and benevolent government that exists to create equality on earth.

To modern liberals, men are free only when the laws of economics and scarcity are suspended, the landlord is rebuffed, the doctor presents no bill, and groceries are given away. But philosopher Ayn Rand (and many others before her) demolished this argument by explaining how such “freedom” for some is possible only when government takes freedoms away from others. In other words, government claims on the lives and property of those who are expected to provide housing, medical care, food, etc. for others are coercive?and thus incompatible with freedom. “Liberalism,” which once stood for civil, political, and economic liberties, has become a synonym for omnipotent coercive government. The political right equates freedom with national greatness brought about through military strength.

Like the left, modern conservatives favor an all-powerful central state? but for militarism, corporatism, and faith-based welfarism. Unlike the Taft-Goldwater conservatives of yesteryear, today’s Republicans are eager to expand government spending, increase the federal police apparatus, and intervene militarily around the world. The last tenuous links between conservatives and support for smaller government have been severed. “Conservatism,” which once meant respect for tradition and distrust of active government, has transformed into big-government utopian grandiosity. Orwell certainly was right about the use of meaningless words in politics. If we hope to remain free, we must cut through the fog and attach concrete meanings to the words politicians use to deceive us.

We must reassert that America is a republic, not a democracy, and remind ourselves that the Constitution places limits on government that no majority can overrule. We must resist any use of the word “freedom” to describe state action. We must reject the current meaningless designations of “liberals” and “conservatives,” in favor of an accurate term for both: statists. Every politician on earth claims to support freedom. The problem is so few of them understand the simple meaning of the word.

Merdeka!!!

Ibnu Mohyeddin said...

bro.. nie dah dekat 16 september tak der nampak apa -apa pun lagi . asyik dimomokkan BBCBN buat lawatan sambil makan angin jer .. Jadi ker tak ?? kalau jadi kata jadi .. kalau tak jadi bagitau awal2

Keahlian Unit Amal

Iklan

Artikel Menarik

A

 

Dewan Pemuda PAS Bukit Katil Hakcipta © 2011 Kredit Ubahsuai oleh Kijang59