Has US learned its lessons from post-9/11 wars?

 

 https://youtu.be/UkVPOADFvLM

 Post-9/11 wars: a defeat of Western values

 

Washington's dangerous habit of always seeking an outside enemy needs to change, analysts say

 

It has been 20 years after the world was shocked to see two planes struck the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York on September 11, 2001. It was a chaotic scene featuring fire and heavy smoke, the screaming and scattered crowds and people who were dumfounded by the fact that the US - a superpower - was attacked by terrorists on its ground.

This year's commemoration of September 11 is different as the US just ended the war in Afghanistan and the Afghan Taliban - after being overturned by the US three months after 9/11 in 2001 - has taken over Afghanistan, again.

The past few weeks have seen the Western media making rolling reports to mourn victims of the terror attacks and some reflecting on the failures of the US domestic and diplomatic policies in the past two decades.

However, the fierce criticism and the apparent failures of the past two decades have not awakened the US political elites. They refused to learn. And soon they will be looking for a new enemy in a new region, but even bigger failures await them, observers said. 

Photo:IC

Seeking truth

The US President Joe Biden, heavily criticized for his hasty and disorganized withdrawal from Afghanistan from all fronts, may attempt to use the 20th anniversary of the September 11 to shift the public attention. According to the schedule released by the White House, Biden and his wife are scheduled to visit all three 9/11 memorial sites -- ground zero in New York City, the Pentagon and the memorial outside Shanksville, Pennsylvania, where United Flight 93 was forced down -- on Saturday.

But nearly 1,800 people, including survivors of 9/11 and family members of the victims, are signing a joint letter asking Biden to not attend the memorial activities if he does not declassify documents related to the terror attacks.

Brett Eagleson was among them. His father Bruce Eagleson, who was on the 17th floor of the South Tower of the WTC, died in the collapse of the building, leaving his family unable to recover his remains even through DNA analysis. After luckily surviving when the planes hit the building, he chose to stay and assist more people to evacuate and was last seen going upstairs to retrieve a walkie-talkie to assist in communication between firefighters and the police.

Sorrow and bitterness have engulfed the better part of the last two decades of Brett's life, but it's mostly anger that stands out. The US government's investigation into the 9/11 attacks has been shrouded in secrecy with detailed reports on one of the most shocking terrorist attacks having never been disclosed.

"We have been fighting for 20 years about the information that our government has always been keeping this information from us," Brett Eagleson told the Global Times. "We have been fighting for so long; every family is tired and frustrated."

Brett Eagleson said those 20 years have changed his perception of the US government. "We have seen our government block its own citizens from truth and justice for its own selfish interests and to grow its relationship with Saudi Arabia, and as time goes on, we get further and further away from the truth."

Finally gathering up the courage to visit Ground Zero, the World Trade Center site in Lower Manhattan to see the changes in the place 20 years after it was hit by two planes, Mrs Tsou, a 50-year-old Chinese-American living in New York, remained calm but after seeing the smiling Muslim girls with headscarves painted on the fence not far from the square, she sighed with emotion.

"For the past 20 years, the American people have not seen much of the US counter-terrorism measures in Afghanistan and Iraq, but the fear of and discrimination against Muslims and people of color has grown within the US," she told the Global Times.

Tsou was a software engineer who worked in the north Tower of the WTC. The vacation on September 11 two decades ago saved her life, but more than 30 of her colleagues were wounded or killed in the attack. Tsou quit her job after the 9/11 attacks and has been doing odd jobs at home since then. Rarely has she left the house or have any contact with her former colleagues.

"War is always intertwined with too much self-interest, and 20 years later, the truth about the attacks remains unanswered, and the American people have not been given the answer for 'why do they hate us,' but our government has created more conflict and hate in America and all around the world," Tsou said.

Infographic: Wu Tiantong/Global Times

War on terror

Like Tsou, a lot of Americans are wondering why the US failed and whether the money and the American lives sacrificed in the war on terror in Afghanistan were worth it. But for many outside the US, the question remains how the world and the US were changed by 9/11.

Harvard University scholar Joseph S. Nye Jr. told the Global Times that "future historians will regard September 11, 2001 as important as Pearl Harbor was on December 7,1941."

In the 2000 presidential election, George W. Bush advocated a humble foreign policy and warned against the temptations of nation-building, but after the shock of 9/11, he declared a "Global War on Terror" and invaded both Afghanistan and Iraq, the professor said.

"While the 9/11 attacks killed several thousand Americans, the 'endless wars' that the US launched as part of the global war on terror cost much more," he said.

According to data from the Brown University Costs of War project, over 929,000 people have died in the post-9/11 wars due to direct war violence, and several times as many due to the reverberating effects of war. 38 million people became war refugees and displaced persons. The US is also conducting counterterror activities in 85 countries and the federal price tag for the post-9/11 wars is over 8 trillion.

All this money and lives invested in the post 9/11 wars under the banner of countering terrorism have not stopped terrorism from spreading globally. It has only caused more confrontations between different civilizations.

The rhetoric of the war on terror generated a geopolitical binary that divided the world into the uncivilized and civilized. Islam was posited as the enemy and the symbol of "the uncivilized world." Many Muslim populations -- including innocent civilians -- were viewed as "suspect communities" targeted under the rubric of counterterrorism, Stefanie Kam, associate research fellow from the International Center for Political Violence and Terrorism Research (ICPVTR) S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, told the Global Times via an email.

The old conventional "war on terror" approaches to terrorism - militarized counterterrorism response -- focused on short-term gains, rather than long-term gains attuned to the political realities and the social and historical forces on the ground, which was what largely defined the failure of US' approach to terrorism, Kam said.

Kam thought that the political vacuum engendered in a post-US Afghanistan has the potential to complicate the security landscape by creating breathing space for terrorist groups to consolidate in Afghanistan, and to inspire a wave of foreign fighters -- seeking militant training -- into Afghanistan. Apart from Islamic extremism, the rise of right-wing extremism is an emerging area of concern for governments in Asia.

"In particular, the Southeast Asian region has seen a recent growth in terrorist attacks by ISIS-inspired, self-radicalized individuals, and the involvement of women, youth and family networks in militancy," Kam said.

Echoing Kam, global experts have expressed concerns over the spread of terrorism over the past two decades. The fact that the number of terrorist groups in Afghanistan had grown from less than 10 to more than 20 during the US military occupation also indicates the irony of Bush's words when starting the war.

"Our war on terror begins with al-Qaeda, but it does not end there," former US President George W Bush told Congress days after the attacks, on September 20, 2001. "It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated."

US remains unchanged

For Adnan Akfirat, China Representative of the Patriotic Party (Turkey),it is the US that made an obscure concept of "international terrorism" to justify its occupations and military actions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria and "cover up its imperialist aggression."

The US is not fighting against terrorism but using terrorist groups in different regions to play its geopolitical tactics, Akfirat noted.

"With the liberation of Afghanistan, the US had to admit that the 'Crusade' it launched since 2001 ended in disappointment and disgrace only 20 years later," Akfirat said, noting that all these failures could not wake up "the US ruling clique" who still thinks US "will subdue the peoples of the world with its terrible military power. Their class interests compel them to continue this madness."

Yasir Habib Khan, founder and president of the Institute of International Relations and Media Research in Pakistan, thought that lop-sided war on terror architected by America "is the epitome of complete failure" and it is ironic to see the war under the banner of peace and stability prompted more wars and gave rise to "white supremacy" to which Americans' lives are subjected to be more insecure and vulnerable.

In the eyes of some Chinese experts, the US debacles for the past 20 years also resulted in wrong policies and miscalculations as the US political elites failed to solve domestic problems on social polarization, rising economic disparities and other issues. Instead, the country focused on scrambling for power and playing geopolitical tactics in suppressing other countries.

The US' strength and international reputation have been damaged for the past 20 years. Putting huge resources into military actions or "rebuilding" other countries has worsened the overall crisis domestically, including deteriorating political polarization and struggles, the flooding of popularism and racism, confrontations of different classes and people's losing of recognition of national identity, Li Haidong, a professor at the Institute of International Relations of the China Foreign Affairs University, told the Global Times.

However, despite all these problems awaiting to be solved, the US hasn't changed its tactic of seeking enemies to ensure its global status and define its international policies. The US should have coordinated the international community to counter terrorism and extremism after 9/11, but it took unilateral military actions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria for geopolitical purposes, causing ever-lasting regional chaos, experts said.

After all these years, one would think the US has learned its lesson and can now embark on a journey of solving domestic issues and shifting the focus of its policies. Unfortunately, that's not the case, the country has its eyes on a new "enemy" - China.

Khan said that 20 years after the September 11, the US should have built a broad-based global mechanism to promote counter-terrorism modalities and it should have snubbed impulsive of protectionism but unfortunately it did nothing. "It did not learn from the past. This makes the future of the world remain volatile."

Source link

 

RELATED ARTICLES

Excessive arrogance leads to US failure in its 20-year war on terror

 

Today marks the 20th anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks. The attacks, which killed at least 2,996 people on that very day, convulsed the US. "America Attacked" was the headline on the front page of a major American newspaper. An angry US launched the war in Afghanistan within a month and the war in Iraq a year and a half later. Before the Afghanistan War, the American public discussed the idea of using nuclear weapons in retaliation.

September 11 attacks helped China's rise? A serious misjudgment: Global Times editorial

Though it is a major event, 9/11cannot change the logic of globalization and cannot affect China's national system and the Chinese people's dream and diligence. 

The US heroic story in Afghanistan is merely a fiction

It would be hardly surprising if the serviceman talking to local children were actually looking into an Afghan ...

Afghanistan War: Everyone loses, except American military-industrial complex

Like a vulture, the AMIC has devoured the last bits of flesh from the crippled body of Afghanistan. ...

 

Washington started its counterterrorism campaign because its homeland was attacked. Yet the irony is that after four presidents and 20 years, the United States is still grappling with terror threats on its own soil Read Xinhua Commentary: http://xhtxs.cn/kfN

 

 Related posts:

 

Taliban's rapid victory embarrasses US, smashes image, arrogance

 China respects Afghans' choice, urges Taliban to implement commitments

 

China in top spot for research amid US struggling to ‘contain’ China rise

 

Botched Afghan retreat reveals an America struggling to contain China

 

US needs to work with China in pandemic fight; Let’s return to reason and science:US economist

  Expert: Both countries should cooperate in fight against pandemic   Prof Dr Jeffrey Sachs     KUALA LUMPUR: The United States needs to w..

 

 

United States, terrorist in virus origins tracing

Illustration: Xu Zihe/Global Times   Source link   United States, the spreader of the COVID-19 virus to the world With the most confirmed c...

 

Virus probe needs more early samples, countries: scientists

` A recent US CDC report found COVID-19 antibodies in blood samples as early as Dec 13, 2019. With more & more evidence surfacing a.

 

 

While sowing discord around China, the US is heading to be a 'failing state'

  Illustration: Liu Rui/GT    The Guardian published an article on Wednesday titled "'Like Game of Thrones': how triple crisi... 

Moral vacuum at the heart of modernity, now embodied in US laws!

` 

In short, historically it was the Church that gave the moral blessing for colonisation, slavery and genocide during the Age of Globalisation. The tragedy is that the Doctrine of Discovery is now embodied in US laws. 

 

THE GLOCALISATION OF HUMANITY 

 

 "Globalisation is interpreted as universalisation of American or European values and standards. But the fact remains that these standards and rules were imposed historically by conquest, colonisation and force".

China Does Not Recognize The Rule-Based International Order imposed historically by Conquest, Colonisation and Force !

Anonymity a double-sided shield

 

How to protect your online privacy in 2020 | Tutorial

https://youtu.be/jxeeKKfjb5o

Internet anonymity empowers people to speak without fear, and to be trolls

ONLINE anonymity is such a huge topic, often carrying a bad reputation because it appears to incite irresponsible behaviour.

Anyone can say something cruel or nasty, and no one will ever know it was him because he uses a made-up personality.

When you spend more time delving into the subject of Internet anonymity, you will find that it has its fair share of pros and cons.

It is a matter of debate among security researchers, politicians and policy analysts. There are those who say it affords everyone freedom of speech as there is less judgement levelled at an anonymous person who speaks his mind freely, and whistleblowers are able to unearth secrets and share information without fear of being accused of slander or ending up in jail.

It is important to note that freedom of speech doesn’t mean you have freedom to lie.

Online abuse is rampant, it’s easy for lies to be manufactured and spread, and news loses its credibility in the process.

Cloak of anonymity

Assoc Prof Dr Anasuya Jegathevi Jegathesa, programme director of Psychology at Taylor’s University, concurs that anonymity allows people to speak without fear.

“If you have to put your name to it, there may be consequences for speaking the truth, ” she said.

Dr Anasuya Jegathevi Jegathesan will be speaking at the Star Empowerment: Healing Hearts 2020, a forum on grieve management.Dr Anasuya Jegathevi Jegathesan will be speaking at the Star Empowerment: Healing Hearts 2020, a forum on grieve management.

“When you’re anonymous, you can avoid the consequences. The Internet and social media allow people to remain anonymous and there is a certain power in this.

“In certain situations, when you say your truth, you may be put in jail or you may be harassed and abused by other people because they don’t agree with you.

“In such situations, people choose to be anonymous because they need a voice and there’s no other outlet.

“Of course, even without the consequences, many still hide behind anonymity when they want to insult others or stir up disagreement. Online drama can be an interesting thing for some people!”

Digital culture expert Dr Niki Cheong of University of Nottingham feels that there are many strong arguments that can be made in defence of anonymity – victims and marginalised people and communities rely on the cloak of anonymity to speak truth to power.

“This is particularly so when they have been wronged or taken advantage of. This is also the case when it comes to larger institutions whereby acts like whistleblowing have shown to be a powerful tool.

“Journalism has for the longest time used anonymity for very good reasons – not just to protect the identity of sources speaking out against, among other things, corruption and misdeeds, but also to protect people who share important stories from being stigmatised or targeted.”

Cheong agrees that anonymity has emboldened many to engage in anti-social behaviour, both offline and online.

“We are seeing severe repercussions from an individual level with personal attacks and bullying, and at a more societal level with political suppression and information manipulation.”

Sharing stories

The advent of social media has also seen the rise of citizen journalism – which is the creation or collection, dissemination and analysis of information by the general public.

“It’s trendy to create news these days because when you have more likes, that translates to more interest in your channel, and that’s how you make more money.

“There is a financial reward for being popular – whether you’re a blogger, YouTuber or TikTok artist, ” Anasuya explains the psychology behind the obsession to create content and share it with the world.

“The other reward is an emotional reward. Research shows that when you see ‘likes’ and ‘comments’, there’s dopamine released in your system, and dopamine is a pleasure hormone that makes you feel good.

“So when people get more posts, or become more famous, they feel good about themselves.”

When it comes to sharing, she says that when “news” calls for attention and is fun or shocking, people naturally want to be the first to tell others.

“It’s a high, you get a good feeling when you are the first person to tell somebody some interesting or important.”

Because of this, people often make the mistake of not verifying information before hitting the forward button. Often a headline is enough to make someone share a post without even reading the story. Admit it, many of us have made that mistake, right?

Spreading rumours takes that scenario one step further, because a rumour usually has a negative tilt to it.

So why do certain people get off on spreading rumours? Anasuya says it’s because some people like to create flame wars.

“When you’re anonymous, after all, you don’t even have that platform where you can get popular, so why do people still share and spread rumours or false information? The dopamine is still there.

“They know they are in the midst of a drama unfolding, they are getting hits, creating issues and they enjoy this. They enjoy people ‘believing’ them.

“And sometimes they believe it themselves. Truth can be based on perception, after all, and there are lots of people who perceive truth in a different way from the norm. That doesn’t mean they are crazy, they just perceive truth differently, ” she says.

Cheong reckons that a lot of this boils down to the individual.

“Some people don’t always feel that there are real life consequences to their online actions.

“We’ve seen cases where trolls have been confronted by their victims and regret their actions once they get to know them better because they suddenly realise they are real people with real feelings and real family members feeling threatened.”

He cites the case of American writer/activist Lindy West who responded to the guy who stole her dead father’s identity to abuse her. West received an apology from the person who she had earlier billed her “cruellest troll”, and went on to talk to him which ended in forgiveness.

“There is also this culture on the Internet, from the early days, of doing things just for the sake of it, which may have partially influenced this disconnect, ” says Cheong, explaining the catchphrase

“I did it for the lulz” (IDIFTL) which serves as a description for any trolling you do or any Internet drama you cause. To explain further, “lulz” translates to “fun, laughter or amusement at another’s expense”.

“Increasingly we’re seeing in many cases around the world that there are few consequences for people’s actions especially when they favour those in power or are perceived as ‘public sentiment’, so people feel they can act with impunity, ” Cheong adds.


Check and balance

What can we do to prevent this situation from plunging?

“Censorship isn’t the answer, ” Anasuya offers. “Because then you will be going backwards, and people will find ways around it.

In journalism, anonymity protects sources who provide information, and victims from being targeted, says Cheong.In journalism, anonymity protects sources who provide information, and victims from being targeted, says Cheong.

“Instead we should be educating people about best practices: how to check on false media, how to verify news, how to spot fake accounts, ” she says, using the anti-vaxxer movement as an example of how things can go terribly wrong without proper check and balance in place.

In that case, research fraud – a study led by the now discredited physician-researcher Andrew Wakefield involving 12 children – suggested there was a link between the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine and autism.

This study was subsequently thoroughly debunked, and Wakefield was stripped of his medical licence. Yet, today there is still a growing number of parents who buy into the whole anti-vaxxer argument and refuse to vaccinate their children.

“Because of some fake research and false findings, this ‘correlation between vaccinations and autism’ went viral and people started posting scary stuff, so much so that even a few in the US Congress believe this false news!” says Anasuya.

“So why do people believe it? Because they need somebody to blame, they want to be able to point a finger and say this is why the world is going bad, this is why things are going wrong, this is why my child got sick. It’s not me, it’s something else.

“People feel power in thinking that they are not sheep being told what to do, when in fact that’s exactly what they are. They don’t check their news, they don’t check their facts.

“You have to educate people to recognise what is real news and what is false. And it has to be a repeated learning.

“The checks and balances do exist, if people know how to use websites like FactCheck, Snopes and Sebenarnya.my.

“There’s a huge bunch of very logical, very factual people in cyberspace who are constantly correcting false news but as a user you have to be able to use those channels.

“It is whether each individual who creates and receives news is willing to do all the checking required. And sadly this is not something that we teach our children in school.”

Cheong agrees that education is the best policy, but it needs to be a multi-pronged approach.

“We need better media literacy education at all levels, we need political will to ensure that any response to these actions is fair across the board, we need to pressure digital platforms to take a more proactive role in managing these sort of behaviour.

“And we need better leadership and role models.”

Source link

‘Money/cash is King’ comes back to bite Pakatan

Politicians using cash to buy power and votes has created a culture in Malaysia in which people have started valuing money more than truth, hard work and honesty. 

THE enduring potency of the ringgit caused by former Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s “Cash is King” regime came in for much ridicule in the last election campaign, much to the chagrin of the perpetrator of this philosophy.

In all his speeches and media interviews in the last two years before 2018’s 14th General Election, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad never failed to hammer home the point that Najib told him this when he asked why he was giving out cash hand-outs in so many forms to the people, and very freely too.

His intended message to the voters was that Najib used this tactic to “buy” votes, as Malaysians will eventually be beholden and grateful to the man who dishes out cash. Whether those receiving it deserved it or not did not matter, everyone wanted the money and many did not care where it came from.

For a long time, money and power worked like a firewall around Najib and his Cabinet, which made him believe cash was indeed king as they blithely went about plundering the nation.

It has been established or is being established at Najib’s on-going corruption trial involving the alleged siphoning of funds from SRC International Sdn Bhd, that money was freely dished out for political support, popularity and reverence, among others.

Mahathir’s campaign was direct and simple, that it was borrowed money and stolen funds from the people that was being given out, and this campaign strategy worked. It thus showed that anti-corruption is an easy sell and proved that most Malaysian voters did care about abstract ethical issues like corruption.

Unbelievably, even many of the beneficiaries of Najib’s largesse had obviously voted against Barisan Nasional while some others became turncoats shamelessly, leaving the flagging party.

But one year after dismantling the Cash is King mantra, it somehow appears to be coming back to bite Dr Mahathir and the Pakatan Harapan leadership. The new mantra among many Malaysians now is that they don’t seem to have enough money all the time.

True, the cost of living never came down substantially after the abolition of the GST (goods and services tax), but we cannot deny that it did lower shopping bills in places like hypermarkets as there was no SST (sales and services tax) levied at such outlets.

RON 95 petrol, which is currently used by most motorists, is capped at RM2.08 a litre which is about 40 sen lower than the actual price it would have been if the old managed float system based on global crude oil prices was in place

Not very tangible for the average Malaysian, right? Do they even care to understand the intangibles that they are benefiting from as a result of several new policies and taxes? No! Looks like Malaysians are not prepared to ask what they can do for the country, it is always what the country must do for them.

Nearly every person I meet seems to have just one thing to say: nothing has come down. All prices have remained the same while some have only gone up. And that Pakatan has not delivered or is slow in keeping its promises.

And strangely, I have been noticing a pattern where those providing certain home services like courier and telecommunication technicians actually volunteer to say that times were better under the Barisan government as they had more money to spend.

“It is very difficult now, we have less money to spend compared to last time when BN was in power. Pakatan Harapan is not keeping its promises,” a Pos Laju staff told a friend of mine without being asked.

I’m one who views surveys by certain groups and parties, especially the random ones, warily as the respondents do not necessarily reflect the actual feelings on the ground. So I make it a point to talk to strangers about this subject whether in public stations or while in a queue waiting to pay something.

What I notice is that while people may be a tad bit sympathetic when I tell them they have to give Pakatan more time because of certain extenuating circumstances, generally, they are unhappy.

The bottom line of their unhappiness now is all about cash. They are receiving less money from the government, never mind what they were enjoying in the past was stolen or borrowed money.

This group of people don’t seem to be outraged, which we all should naturally be, at past leaders who had virtually abused their power to rob the nation’s coffers, a fact which has emerged or is being exposed in many key institutions.

They claim that the BR1M (Bantuan Rakyat 1Malaysia) payments are now lower and many recipients have also been removed from the list as they do not qualify under the minimum household income requirement. So what is wrong with that? Why do you want money that does not belong to you or you don’t deserve?

Yes, it’s true that the Bantuan Sara Hidup (BSH, as BR1M is now called) has been reduced by RM200 to RM1,000 but Pakatan has made sure that only really needy Malaysians get such welfare aid, as it had been greatly abused in the past.

And to make sure those really in need receive more help, the government is giving out an additional RM100 for each child below 18 years of age whose guardians are BSH recipients, for a maximum of four children. And if the child is disabled, it is for a lifetime, no age limit. So if a BSH recipient has four children below 18, he or she gets a total of RM1,420. This is higher than before.

Malaysia has thrived because of a culture of opportunity that encourages hard work in the private sector. Of course, the social restructuring policy, which was aimed at giving a hand to the have-nots to give them a lift, played a role.

But this should not go on forever, the number must reduce eventually as those benefiting should finally be able to help their families to grow away from this dependency.

The growth of this form of welfare state funded by projected or borrowed income -- or worse still, by funds siphoned from government coffers -- is turning Malaysia into a land where many expect, and see no stigma attached, to receive regular financial support.

I find this a growing and dangerous trend, when undeserving Malaysians sit back idly and wait for these cash hand-outs as an entitlement instead of a privilege. And what’s more distressing is to see politicians feeding this cancer as a way of continuing to stay in power.

The actual meaning of the phrase “Cash is King”, as most of us know, is a term reflecting the belief that cash money is more valuable than any other form of investment tool for businesses. For individuals, it is meant to be a fund which is easily accessible for urgent expenditures or purchases.

It is not a phrase that politicians or others use to indicate that they can buy power and votes so that they are able to be in absolute control of the nation for as long as they want. Unfortunately, though, many have done this and it has created a culture in Malaysia in which the people have started valuing money more than truth, hard work and honesty.

Cash is not king when it is stolen from others or, worse still, from public funds placed under your trust or control. That is called cashing in. It is surely not king if it is obtained by unfair trade practices or it is beyond a fair deal.

In this context, something that Dr Mahathir said about two years before the last election shortly after he decided to re-enter politics stands out in my mind. He had said: “You see the collapse of moral values in Malaysia is terrible. In the future we are going to be like those countries where bribery is a part of daily life -- you can’t do anything without bribery.”

This is what he is trying to dismantle after he came back into politics at the age of 93, so we should give our wholehearted support to him and Pakatan for a better and cleaner Malaysia for all.

Source link 

'Bossku' is coming ... or not - It's Just Politics

Expect the unexpected from Dr M - Analysis

Delivering Malaysia's Reformasi : From kleptocracy to democracy

Related posts:

Move away from a culture of mediocrity! Who does Malaysia belong to?

Mediocre future? If selection at the matriculation level is not based on meritocracy, the quality of our tertiary institutions will be .

..

Malaysia's education policy must champion Meritocracy instead of Mediocrity system

Meritocracy Vs. Mediocrity Education system must champion meritocracy THE country is facing yet another controversy of its own ...

Pakatan Harapan government plunges in popularity

  The Pakatan government has little choice nor time to check the slide on its popularity and goodwill from voters. WHAT a difference a y

 

Crime and cost of living are top concerns for Malaysians - Ipsos Global Research

Truth be told: It’s not wrong to tell the truth

Two things could make the controversial Sedition Act fairer: It’s OK if you tell the truth, and it’s OK if you want to stop injustice.

 

Sedition Act Can Be Fairer If Truth Is Taken Into Account | Star2.com Star2.com

A COUPLE of weeks ago, Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad talked about the Sedition Act. He calmly explained to all Malaysians that it isn’t meant to avoid criticisms about wrongdoing, it isn’t meant to shackle whistleblowers, and it’s completely not sedition if you tell the truth.

“If you say something factual, you cannot be punished for it,” said Dr Mahathir, “But, on the other hand, if we shut the mouths of everyone, to the point that people cannot even speak up against acts of crime, then there will be injustice in the country.” (“Be clear on what insult means”, Nation, The Star, Jan 11; online at tinyurl.com/star-insult.)

Basically, it sounded like he could have been talking about anything – except the Sedition Act. Now, the Sedition Act is not unfamiliar to Pakatan Harapan. In its own manifesto, PH said that it would revoke the Sedition Act if it came to power, giving the reason that it is a law “inherited from the British colonial era without amendment to improve weaknesses”. And then after PH formed the government, it seemed to kind of casually forget this.

I have written about the Sedition Act before (“Lost in translation?”, Contradictheory, Star2, March 29, 2015; online at tinyurl.com/star-sedition). If you’re not reading this column online, here’s a summary of what I said then: I pointed out the problem that you can be guilty of sedition even if all you are doing is repeating what somebody else has said. And to top it off, it doesn’t matter if what you said was true, nor does it matter if you said it with the best of intentions. It’s like saying somebody’s dress is figure-hugging, and hearing them answer, “Are you saying I’m fat?”

It’s all there in the Act. The Act talks about whether “things” have a “seditious tendency”. These include actions, speech, words and publications, for example, and whether they influence people to feel hatred, contempt or disaffection for the Rulers or the government. Whether the “things” are true or not doesn’t matter.

The Act also says, “The intention of the person charged at the time ... shall be deemed to be irrelevant”.

Why is it interpreted like that? It’s hard to say, but I think it does make it easier for the authorities to manage anti-government sentiments.

For example, it’s possible to be selective with the truth to manipulate a situation. So, technically, what somebody said might be fact, but might also be misleading.

Secondly, intent is something that can be very difficult to establish. You have to get into the mind of the accused and tease out what he or she intended by what he or she said or wrote.

For example, if all you wrote on a Facebook page is that somebody should be investigated for doing a Very Bad Thing, then you have sown the seeds of doubt in the minds of the audience. You might argue, I didn’t know it wasn’t true, I just wanted to see justice being done. What, people got upset by what I wrote? I didn’t know that would happen.

This is precisely the sort of annoying thing I have to face on social media almost every day. Somebody re-posts or retweets a rumour en masse to others with two button clicks and when you ask them why didn’t they just check it first, they shrug and say, “I just wanted people to know – just in case”.

(That’s really what we should have a law against: Indiscriminate and irresponsible retweets. The penalty would be to copy pages of Wikipedia by hand for the local library.)

But the thing is, it should be hard to put somebody in jail.

The system of justice we have now focuses on the presumption of innocence. In other words, people have to gather evidence and prove to the court that you are guilty. And people should be entitled to the best possible defence, and saying I am normally a good person who does good things should be taken into account.

Intent matters. The difference between murder and manslaughter is intent. Intent is the bedrock of whether we are kind to others because we want everyone to thrive, or because we want to later take advantage of them.

If we want to be able to prosecute people for saying hateful things that disturb society, you must show intent. Either make clear the context or show a pattern of previous behaviour. It’s the difference between an Internet troll and Karpal Singh.

The Sedition Act, in a way, does try to at least cover situations where you are trying to right a perceived wrong in society. But in a case like when artist Zunar (Zulkiflee Anwar Haque) drew cartoons making fun of alleged crimes in the previous government, it is clear there is still much leeway for interpretation there.

The facts do matter. In this world where politicians more than anyone seem to believe they can skate by on allegations, people who say horrible things should be forced to stand by their words and prove them. It’s an opportunity for the truth to shine instead of hiding out.

There are many who blame the PH government for being hypocritical for not keeping its election promise and maintaining the Sedition Act. I don’t disagree.

But the fact is that Dr Mahathir touched on the two things that perhaps could potentially make the Act fairer. He said it is OK if we told the truth. And it is OK if we want to stop injustice.

And I can’t think of why any Malaysian wouldn’t want to do both.

The facts do matter. In this world where politicians more than anyone seem to believe they can skate by on allegations, people who say horrible things should be forced to stand by their words and prove them.

• star2@thestar.com.my Dzof Azmi

Logic is the antithesis of emotion but mathematician-turned-scriptwriter Dzof Azmi’s theory is that people need both to make sense of life’s vagaries and contradictions. Write to Dzof at star2@thestar.com.my.

Related:

Parliament can repeal Sedition Act - Letters

Experts: Sedition Act can be amended - Nation

 

Contradictheory: The Truth About History Depends On Context