You ask for it, and your wish will come true.
Needless to say, these expenses, which range from a few million to hundreds of million ringgit for each constituency, come from the pockets of taxpayers.
And, of course, during the handing out of these goodies, residents never cease to be reminded who they must vote for. In fact, some of these promises are conditioned upon their electoral support and a Barisan Nasional (BN) (ruling coalition) win.
You may ask: aren’t these bribery?
Of course they are. In fact, they are serious breaches of our election laws.
Dysfunctional election institutions
So what does our Election Commission do about this?
They do nothing. They will say these are government projects for the benefit of the people. Or if the bribery is too obvious, they will say this is none of their business. Their job is to conduct elections. For bribery and corruption, you will have to report to the MACC (Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission) or the police. However, reports to MACC and police are never acted upon.
There is a proviso to this EC approach to election corruption though. That is, if the corruption is committed by BN. For BN’s opponent, the slightest indication of a mis-step will incur the wrath of EC, as in the case of the recent Galas by-election in Kelantan.
During that election campaign, the PAS spiritual leader handed out a few hundred ringgit wang zakat (alms) to three newly-converted Orang Asli. The deputy chairman of the EC immediately pounced on this and declared: “Alms or not, in the eyes of the law, any money given by anyone to voters that can sway their votes is considered a bribe under Article 10 of the Election Offences Act 1954.” He said he had tipped off the MACC to take action.
Then, what about the millions of public funds poured out for “instant noodle” projects by BN to buy votes?
Aren’t these bribery a thousand times more serious?
It is such double standards that incensed our common decency.
One may ask further: what about our courts? Can’t they administer justice and defend our constitution?
To answer this question, let us take a look at the recent case of the Hulu Selangor by-election, reputed as the dirtiest, where the prime minister openly offered to pay RM3 million to a locally-run school on condition that BN won. BN won and the PM promptly arranged for the government to pay the RM3 million two days later.
The PM was so proud of what he did that he even bragged about it during the election campaign in the Sibu by-election that followed soon after. He made a “deal” with the Sibu electorate that BN would allocate RM5 million to overcome the local flood problems provided BN won the election. To convince the electorate, he proudly cited his RM3 million Hulu Selangor payment as proof of his “trustworthiness”.
(Incidentally, the PM’s deal-making with the electorate was captured in video and uploaded in Youtube, where it was widely viewed around the world.)
The losing candidate (Zaid Ibrahim) in the Hulu Selangor by-election applied to the court to annul the election results on ground of corruption. This petition was promptly thrown out by the judge (Azahar Mohamed) on grounds of “lack of evidence” without even asking BN to submit its defence. Zaid decided not to appeal against this decision despite having iron-clad evidence of BN corruption, saying that our judiciary was such that it would be a waste of time and money to pursue further legal recourse.
People power reforms?
With the last defender of the constitution, the judiciary, also crumbled under the hegemony of BN, and all other institutions equally dysfunctional, BN is virtually given a blank cheque to do what it wants with no regards to law, as exhibited in the ongoing by-elections in Kerdau and Merlimau, where the public is introduced to a relatively new election culture, unique to Malaysia of course. Thousands of local residents are fed nightly with lavish dinners, stage shows, karaoke, complete with lucky draws that include motorcycles, TV, domestic appliances and numerous gifts, compliments from BN of course.
In the midst of this merry-making, I wonder how many of the electorate realise how heavy their responsibility is when they cast their votes in a few days’ time. Only they can restore some integrity to our electoral system which has now become a total farce.
And only through the votes of our people can we revive the democratic dreams of our founding fathers.
Without any avenue to institute reforms and make corrections through the democratic means, there is only one way left — the people power reform that is currently raging in the Middle East.
The bargaining rights of public workers in Ohio would be dramatically reduced and strikes would be banned under a bill narrowly passed by the Ohio Senate on Wednesday.
The GOP-backed measure that would restrict the collective bargaining rights of roughly 350,000 teachers, firefighters, police officers and other public employees squeaked through the state Senate on a 17-16 vote. Six Republicans sided with Democrats against the measure. Firefighters and teachers shouted "Shame!" in the chamber as the legislation was approved and moved on to the GOP-controlled House, where it is likely to receive strong support.
The bill is similar to the Republican-supported collective bargaining bill in the Wisconsin legislature that has sparked national debate in its weakening of public employees' ability to negotiate contracts – although there are differences between the two. Wisconsin's bill exempts police and firefighters from the collective bargaining restrictions, while Ohio's does not.
The Ohio bill would ban strikes by public workers and establish penalties for those who do participate in walkouts. Unionized workers could negotiate wages, hours and certain work conditions – but not health care, sick time or pension benefits.
The legislation would also set up a new process to settle worker disputes, giving elected officials the final say in contract disagreements. Binding arbitration, which police officers and firefighters use to resolve contract disputes as an alternative to strikes, would be eliminated.
"It's a fair bill," said Ohio Senate President tom Niehaus, a southwest Ohio Republican. "It's more balanced and fair for the taxpayer whose money these elected officials will ultimately spend."
But Sen. Edna Brown, a Toledo Democrat, said the bill muzzles public employees.
"This bill tilts the balance of power toward management and does not give one new right to employees," she said.
Ohio Gov. John Kasich, a Republican like his counterpart, Scott Walker, in Wisconsin, praised the development. Both have pushed the collective bargaining bills as part of budget-balancing measures.
"This is a major step forward in correcting the imbalance between taxpayers and the government unions that work for them," Kasich said.
Republican Sens. Tim Grendell of Chesterland and Bill Seitz of Cincinnati spoke out against that provision. Grendell said the process would turn workers into beggars before city councils and other officials who oversee them.
"No one can be a judge and advocate in their own cause," Seitz said. "That's called heads I win, tails you lose."
The bill had passed a Senate committee after leadership replaced Seitz on the panel after he expressed disappointment in the bill, a move that secured the votes needed to get the legislation before the full Senate.
Extra chairs had to be brought in to accommodate the public attending the hearing. Prohibited from clapping, many wagged or waved their hands in response to pro-labor comments.
The bill now goes to the state House, where the GOP holds a 59-40 majority. If passed there, it would go to Kasich, a strong supporter.
During the debate, the chamber defeated Democrats' request to have the entire bill read aloud. GOP Sen. Scott Oelslager of North Canton sided with Democrats on that issue, as he did on the bill.
The bill sponsor, Republican Sen. Shannon Jones, had said the bill, which would change a 27-year-old Ohio law, is long overdue and would help state and local governments control costs.
Jones said the bill is not an attack on the middle class, prompting snickering and coughs from members of the public in the crowded room. Democratic lawmakers pointed out teachers, pipefitters and public safety workers from their districts as the hearing began.
Tennessee is considering making it a felony to follow some versions of the Islamic code known as Shariah, the most severe measure yet put forth by a national movement whose members believe extremist Muslims want Shariah to supersede the Constitution.
The bill – drawn up by conservatives with ties to opponents of a planned Islamic center two blocks from New York City's ground zero and efforts to expand a mosque 30 miles southeast of Nashville – would face steep constitutional hurdles if enacted. Nevertheless, it represents the boldest legislative attempt yet to limit how Muslims worship.
Muslim groups fear the measure would outlaw central tenets of Islam, such as praying five times a day toward Mecca, abstaining from alcohol or fasting for Ramadan.
"This is an anti-Muslim bill that makes it illegal to be a Muslim in the state of Tennessee," said Remziya Suleyman, policy coordinator for the Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition, which was among several civil rights and interfaith groups that held a news conference Tuesday to oppose the proposal.
Nadeem Siddiqi, a 35-year-old American Muslim entrepreneur who drove about 160 miles from Knoxville to attend the event, said Shariah governs his life.
As written, he said the proposal is "overly broad" and "basically includes all Muslims and all their practices as being illegal."
"Shariah is how I know how to fast in the month of Ramadan; how I wash before my prayers," he said. "It also directs me in how much charity I need to give to the poor. It orders me to be honest and fair in my business dealings."
The bill's sponsor, Republican Sen. Bill Ketron of Murfreesboro, said the proposal exempts the peaceful practice of Islam but seeks to condemn those "who take Shariah law to the other extreme." He said it would give state and local law enforcement officials "a powerful counterterrorism tool."
Ketron, who has successfully pushed through bills tightening restrictions on illegal immigrants, said he expects the Shariah measure will become law. He said he doesn't have a problem with Muslims and is open to talking with them about their concerns.
"My daughter went to the prom with a Muslim," Ketron said. "I want to hear from them."
For now, supporters of the measure are working to bolster it against any constitutional challenges, which may be an impossible task, said First Amendment Center scholar Charles Haynes, who called it a "really distorted understanding of Shariah law."
"The legislation would clearly be unconstitutional," he said. "Trying to separate out different parts of Islamic law for condemnation is nonsensical. Shariah law, like all religious law, is interpreted in a great many different ways."
Shariah is a set of core principles that most Muslims recognize as well as a series of rulings from religious scholars. It covers many areas of life and different sects have different versions of the code they follow.
At least 13 states have bills pending that would bar judges from considering Shariah in legal decisions, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, but none of those proposals is as strict as what Tennessee is weighing.
If the law is passed in Tennessee, it could face a legal challenge. The law passed in November by Oklahoma voters banning the use of Shariah law in state courtrooms was blocked by a federal judge pending the resolution of a lawsuit calling it unconstitutional.
Ketron said he and House Speaker Pro Tempore Judd Matheny, R-Tullahoma, were given the bill by the Tennessee Eagle Forum.
Eagle Forum state President Bobbie Patray said it was drafted by David Yerushalmi, an Arizona-based attorney who runs the Society of Americans for National Existence, a nonprofit that claims following Shariah is treasonous.
Yerushalmi has written for years in conservative media about what he calls the danger of Shariah and its central role in Islam. He has represented Pamela Geller, who leads the group Stop Islamization of America and is one of the most vocal critics of a planned Islamic center two blocks from New York City's ground zero.
Yerushalmi also represented Stop The Madrassa, a group that opposed a public school in Brooklyn established to teach Arabic language, culture and history. He is one of the contributors to the report "Shariah: The Threat To America" by the Center for Security Policy, a think tank led by Frank Gaffney, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration.
Last year Gaffney testified at a court hearing on the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro. The hearing was intended only to determine if local officials violated the state's open meetings law in approving the site plan, but the mosque's foes used the opportunity to argue it was part of a plot to expand Shariah law in the U.S.
Yerushalmi said the legislation in Tennessee is clear about who's being targeted.
"The legislation simply states that Shariah that follows the law of jihad, which calls for the violent overthrow of the Tennessee and U.S. government, is the Shariah that is at issue," he said.
Sarah Thompson, a spokeswoman for the Islamic Society of North America, disagreed.
"The way that it's worded makes the assumption that any practice of Islam is a practice of terrorism," she said. "And that's a dangerous line to walk. It excludes the millions of Muslims that are practicing peaceably from the ability to do so."
Republican Gov. Bill Haslam said he plans to meet with the bill's sponsors to find out more about the proposal, but said he wants to ensure "that we're doing things that are welcoming people to Tennessee that are legally here."
___
Online:
Read SB1028/HB1353 at: http://www.legislature.state.tn.us/
Tennessee Eagle Forum: http://www.tneagleforum.org/
Society of Americans for National Existence: http://www.saneworks.us/indexnew.php
Center for Security Policy: http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/index.xml
No comments:
Post a Comment