It increasingly looks like Donald Trump is likely to be the next U.S. President and I believe so because he at least promises to address the concerns of the American working class, albeit mostly white members of the American working class who are concerned with their economic survival, the loss of decent MANUFACTURING jobs to low wage countries and so forth.
These issues are what the left in the U.S. would have traditionally taken up but now they seem impotent as to what they can or have done in this regard, thus leave a vacuum for the populist right to fill.
Sure, they have organised protests against Trump, have called him "Hitler", "fascist", "racist" and so forth but without becoming a pole of resistance to austerity measures, the loss of jobs, unemployment, housing foreclosures and so forth, how can they expect to be taken seriously by the voters.
Whilst Andre Vitchek's article "Failures of the Western Left" below speaks about something else - i.e. the Western Left's tendency to demonise any Third World or foreign leader who stands against the western imperialist onslaught and its neo-liberal, warmongering Neo-Conservative agenda, just because these leaders are mostly not leftists, still he shows up the Western Left (most of whom are some shade of Trotskyite or Anarchist) for objectively serving as a left face of western imperialism.
A true leftist would support President Assad of Syria in his fight against Daesh/ISIS because he is objectively opposing western imperialist interference in his country and their attempts to destabilise his country. even though Assad is no leftist and may even be anti-left.
What these fake leftists are really engaged in is identity politics - i.e. they label themselves as "left" and Assad as "right", so they oppose Assad, rather than support what he is doing to combat western-supported DAESH/ISIS.
Andre Vitcheck's article follows below.
Charles
Failures of the Western Left
By Andre Vltchek
September 30, 2016 "Information Clearing House" - It is tough to fight any real war. And it takes true guts, discipline and determination to win it.
For years and decades, the so-called ‘left’ in the West has been moderately critical of North American (and sometimes even of European) imperialism and neo-colonialism. But whenever some individual or country rose up and began openly challenging the Empire, most of the Western left-wing intellectuals simply closed their eyes, and refused to offer their full, unconditional support to those who were putting their lives (and often even the existence of their countries) on the line.
I will never forget all those derogatory punches directed at Hugo Chavez, punches coming from members of the ‘anti-Communist left’, after he dared to insult George W. Bush at the United Nations in 2006, calling him a “devil” and choking, theatrically, from the sulfur that was still ‘hanging in the air’ after the US President’s appearance at the General Assembly.
I will not be dropping names here, but readers would be surprised if they knew how many of those iconic leaders of the US left described Chavez and his speech as ‘impolite’, ‘counter-productive’, and even ‘insulting’.
Tens of millions of people have died because of Western imperialism, after WWII. Under the horrid leadership of George W Bush, Afghanistan and Iraq have been reduced to ruins… But one has to remain ‘polite’, ‘objective’ and cool headed?
Well, that is not how real revolutions have been ignited. This is not how the successful anti-colonialist wars are fought. When the real battle begins, ‘politeness’ is actually mostly unacceptable, simply because the oppressed masses are endlessly pissed off, and they want their feelings to be registered and expressed by the leaders. Even the search for ‘objectivity’ is often out of place, when still fragile revolutions have to face the entire monumental hostile propaganda of the regime – of the Empire.
But the question is: do most of the Western leftists really support revolutions and anti-colonialist struggles of the oppressed world?
I believe they don’t. And this is clearly visible from reading most of the so-called alternative media in both North America and Europe.
Whoever stands up, whoever leads his nation into battle against the Western global dictatorship, is almost immediately defined as a demagogue. He or she is most likely christened ‘undemocratic’, and not just by the mass and ‘liberal’ media, but also on the pages of the so-called ‘alternative’ and ‘progressive’ Western press. Not all, but some, and frankly: most of it!
Chavez actually received very little support from Western ‘left-wing’ intellectuals. And now when Venezuela is bleeding, the ‘Bolivarian Republic’ can only count on a handful of revolutionary Latin American nations, as well as on China, Iran and Russia; definitely not on the robust, organized and militant solidarity from Western countries.
Cuba received even less support than Venezuela. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, no attempt was actually made by Western leftists to bail the heroic nation out. It was China, in the end, which ran to its rescue and saved Cuban socialism. (When I wrote about it, I got hundreds of Western leftists at my throat, and in the end it took Fidel to confirm, in his ‘Reflections’, what I was saying, to get them off my back). Then, when the Obama administration began making dangerous advances on Havana, almost everyone in the West began screwing those cynical grimaces: ‘you see; now everything will collapse! They will buy Cuba!’ They didn’t. I travelled to the beloved green island, and it was so clear from the first moment there, that the ‘revolution is not for sale’. But you will not read it often in the Western ‘progressive’ media.
***
It is of course not just Latin America that is ‘disliked’ by the progressives in the West. Actually, Latin America is still at least getting some nominal support there.
China and Russia, two powerful nations, which are now standing openly against Western imperialism, are despised by virtually all ‘liberals’ and by most of the Western ‘left’. In those circles, there is total ignorance about the Chinese type of democracy, about its ancient culture, and about it’s complex but extremely successful form of Communism (or calls it ‘socialism with Chinese characteristics’). Like parrots, the Western leftists repeat ‘liberal’ propaganda that ‘China is being capitalist’, or that it is being ruled by ‘state capitalism’. The internationalism of Chinese foreign policy is constantly played down, even mocked.
The hostility of the Western ‘left’ towards China has disgusted many Chinese leaders and intellectuals. I only realized the extent of this revulsion, when I spoke, last year, at the First World Cultural Forum in Beijing, and mingled with the thinkers at the China Academy of Social Sciences, the right (intellectual) arm of the government and the Party.
China can count on its allies in Russia, Latin America, Africa and elsewhere, but definitely not in the West.
It is pointless to even mention Russia or South Africa.
Russia, ‘the victim’ during the horrid Yeltsin years was ‘embraced’ by the Western left. Russia the warrior, Russia the adversary to Western imperialism, is, once again, loathed.
It appears that the ‘progressives’ in the United States and Europe really prefer ‘victims’. They can, somehow, feel pity and even write a few lines about the ‘suffering of defenseless women and children’ in the countries that the West is plundering and raping. That does not extend to all countries that are being brutalized, but at least to some…
What they don’t like at all, are strong men and women that have decided to fight: to defend their rights, to face the Empire.
The Syrian government is hated. The North Korean government is despised. The President of the Philippines is judged by Western liberal media measures: as a vulgar freak who is killing thousands of ‘innocent’ drug pushers and consumers (definitely not as a possibly new Sukarno who is willing to send the entire West to hell).
Whatever the Western ‘left’ thinks about North Korea and its government (and in fact, I think, it cannot really think much, as it is fully ignorant about it), the main reason why the DPRK is hated so much by the West regime, is because it, together with Cuba, basically liberated Africa. It fought for the freedom of Angola and Namibia, it flew Egyptian MIGs against Israel, it struggled in Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) as well as in many other countries, and it sent aid, teachers and doctors to the entire continent devastated by the Western colonialist barbarity.
Much good it received in return! At best, indifference, at worse, total spite!
***
Some say that the Western ‘left’ doesn’t want to take power, anymore. It lost all of its important battles. It became toothless, impotent, and angry about the world and itself.
When in January 2016 I spoke at the Italian Parliament (ending up insulting the West for its global plunder, hypocrisy), I mingled a lot with the 5 Star Movement, which had actually invited me to Rome. I spent time with its radical left wing. There are some great people there, but overall, it soon became clear that this potentially the biggest political movement in the country is actually horrified of coming to power! It does not really want to govern.
But then, why call those weak bizarre selfish Western entities – the ‘left wing’? Why confuse terms, and by that, why discredit those true revolutionaries, those true fighters, who are risking, sacrificing their lives, right now, all over the world?
***
Wars are all extremely ugly. I have covered many of them, and I know… But some of them, those that are fought for the survival of humanity, or for survival of the particular countries, are inevitable. One either fights, or the entire Planet ends up being colonized and oppressed, in shackles.
If one decides to fight, then there has to be discipline and single-mindedness; total determination. Or the battle is lost from the very beginning!
When the freedom and survival of one’s motherland is at stake, things get very serious, ‘dead-serious’. Battle is not a discussion club. It is not some chat.
If we, as ‘leftists’, have already once decided that imperialism and colonialism (or ‘neo-colonialism’) are the greatest evils destroying our humanity, then we have to show discipline and join ranks, and support those who are at the frontline.
Otherwise we will become an irrelevant laughingstock, and history will and should judge us harshly!
Andre Vltchek is a philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. His latest books are: “Exposing Lies Of The Empire” and “Fighting Against Western Imperialism”.Discussion with Noam Chomsky: On Western Terrorism. Point of No Return is his critically acclaimed political novel. Oceania – a book on Western imperialism in the South Pacific. His provocative book about Indonesia: “Indonesia – The Archipelago of Fear”. Andre is making films for teleSUR and Press TV. After living for many years in Latin America and Oceania, Vltchek presently resides and works in East Asia and the Middle East. He can be reached through his website or his Twitter.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article45581.htm
02 October 2016
14 September 2016
ARAB SPRING 2.0 ???
The so-called "Arab Spring" began on 17 December 2010, the day after the self-immolation of Mohammed Bouazizi in Sidi Bouzid, Tunisia, and led to the ousting of longtime president Zine El Abidine Ben Ali in January 2011. It eventually led to a thorough democratization of the country and to free and democratic elections. They saw the victory of a coalition of the Islamist Ennahda Movement with the centre-left Congress for the Republic and the left-leaning Ettakatol as junior partners. The cause behind all this was poverty and high unemployment.
Then today, 14 September 2016, demonstrations break out in Tunisia, two days after another person self-emolated himself and once again over economic hardship, high unemployment and allegation of government corruption.
So apart from having a democratically elected corrupt government, what did Arab Spring 1.0 achieve, which has instead led to Arab Spring 2.0?
PressTV article follows below.
CHARLES F MOREIRA
Hundreds of people in northwestern Tunisia have staged a protest rally against the deterioration of living standards, widespread poverty, and growing unemployment.
Angry demonstrators set ablaze tires and set up blockades in the roads leading to the town of Fernana, in Jendouba Province, on Tuesday, two days after a young man self-immolated in protest at unemployment in the town.
The protesters also threatened to close the water plant in the region — which supplies the capital, Tunis, and a number of other provinces with drinking water — if their demands are not met.
They also called for launching a thorough investigation into the young man’s tragic death on Sunday as well as the widespread corruption in state-run institutions and the grinding poverty in the country, particularly in the southern and western regions.
Jendouba, like the other western and southern provinces of Tunisia, suffers from a massive rate of almost 30 percent unemployment.
Tunisians are seen setting tires on fire during a protest against economic problems, near the town of Fernana, Tunisia, September 13, 2016.
Tunisia’s new prime minister, Youssef Chahed, and his fresh cabinet members of the unity government are highly expected to deal with these social demands, but the outlines he has drawn for the next year do not seem quite enough to the desperate people in the poor provinces.
“Our situation in 2017, if we don’t change anything in our behavior, it will be so much harder…, we will be forced to adopt a policy of austerity. What does this mean? It means that the state would be forced to cut spending on health, healthcare, it would be forced to fire thousands of public sector employees and forced to raise the taxes,” he had said on August 27.
Chahed, however, promised that fighting corruption and terrorism would be given priority under his administration.
Tunisia registered an unemployment rate of 15.3 percent at the end of 2015 compared to 12 percent in 2010, with university graduates accounting for one third of those without jobs in the country.
Tunisian people rose against the country’s long-time dictator, Zine el Abidine Ben Ali, in 2011, ousting him in the first of a series of revolutions that hit Arab dictatorships in the Middle East and North Africa.
While the country slipped into chaos in the wake of the revolution, it gradually regained average stability and is hailed as the most successful nation in the establishment of democracy among the Arab countries that witnessed uprisings. Most of the other dictatorships either remained chaotic or saw ruling regimes brutally suppressing the revolutions.
http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2016/09/14/484624/Tunisia-Fernana-protest-unemployment-Chahed
Then today, 14 September 2016, demonstrations break out in Tunisia, two days after another person self-emolated himself and once again over economic hardship, high unemployment and allegation of government corruption.
So apart from having a democratically elected corrupt government, what did Arab Spring 1.0 achieve, which has instead led to Arab Spring 2.0?
PressTV article follows below.
CHARLES F MOREIRA
PressTV-People protest economic woes in Tunisia
Hundreds of people in northwestern Tunisia have staged a protest rally against the deterioration of living standards, widespread poverty, and growing unemployment.
Angry demonstrators set ablaze tires and set up blockades in the roads leading to the town of Fernana, in Jendouba Province, on Tuesday, two days after a young man self-immolated in protest at unemployment in the town.
The protesters also threatened to close the water plant in the region — which supplies the capital, Tunis, and a number of other provinces with drinking water — if their demands are not met.
They also called for launching a thorough investigation into the young man’s tragic death on Sunday as well as the widespread corruption in state-run institutions and the grinding poverty in the country, particularly in the southern and western regions.
Jendouba, like the other western and southern provinces of Tunisia, suffers from a massive rate of almost 30 percent unemployment.
Tunisians are seen setting tires on fire during a protest against economic problems, near the town of Fernana, Tunisia, September 13, 2016.
Tunisia’s new prime minister, Youssef Chahed, and his fresh cabinet members of the unity government are highly expected to deal with these social demands, but the outlines he has drawn for the next year do not seem quite enough to the desperate people in the poor provinces.
“Our situation in 2017, if we don’t change anything in our behavior, it will be so much harder…, we will be forced to adopt a policy of austerity. What does this mean? It means that the state would be forced to cut spending on health, healthcare, it would be forced to fire thousands of public sector employees and forced to raise the taxes,” he had said on August 27.
Chahed, however, promised that fighting corruption and terrorism would be given priority under his administration.
Tunisia registered an unemployment rate of 15.3 percent at the end of 2015 compared to 12 percent in 2010, with university graduates accounting for one third of those without jobs in the country.
Tunisian people rose against the country’s long-time dictator, Zine el Abidine Ben Ali, in 2011, ousting him in the first of a series of revolutions that hit Arab dictatorships in the Middle East and North Africa.
While the country slipped into chaos in the wake of the revolution, it gradually regained average stability and is hailed as the most successful nation in the establishment of democracy among the Arab countries that witnessed uprisings. Most of the other dictatorships either remained chaotic or saw ruling regimes brutally suppressing the revolutions.
http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2016/09/14/484624/Tunisia-Fernana-protest-unemployment-Chahed
03 September 2016
THERE THEY GO CHANTING THE SAME MANTRA OVER AND OVER AGAIN WITH DIMINISHING RESULTS
Last Saturday I was chatting with a fellow Alumni member about Malaysian politics and he said that whilst he does not support Prime Minister Najib or the ruling Barisan Nasional (National front) coalition, he however feels the opposition politicians are politically immature, go shooting themselves in the foot and he has lost respect for them.
Well that's how I feel about them too and judging from the Free Malaysia Today article which follows below, it makes me wonder what these opposition politicians have learned by their setback in the Sarawak State Elections, but instead they go on chanting the same old mantra of "1MDB, 1MDB, 1MDM, 1MDB, 1MDB, ....." at a poorly attended roadshow in Sabak Bernam in the north west of Selangor state.
Didn't Einstein say that doing the same think over and over again which achieves the same result (i.e. failure) is insanity?
Well, unable to think outside of the box, these opposition politicians go on doing the same thing over and over again with diminishing results.
Moreover, this Free Malaysia Today article highlights what I have been saying all along, the people in rural and semi-rural areas are more interested in matters of immediate concern to their livelihood and wellbeing but opposition politicians repeatedly bring up issues which are hot with their more affluent urban constituents and coffee shop politicians who have all the time in the world to idly while away the hours unproductively discussing politics and talking about solving the country's problems, then go home to sleep and, go to work the next day and the process repeats ad-infinitum.
I heard through the grapevine that a member of parliament believes that the next general election will likely be held in early 2017 (possible March), about a year earlier than it must.
Well it will be interesting to see how much the repetition of these these mantras "1MDB, RM2.6 billion, Altantuya, Scorpene submarine and so forth" will help the opposition gain more seats or will they suffer a setback as in Sarawak.
It's pretty obvious that increasingly more ordinary Malaysians are getting tired of all this mantra. A clear indication is the low attendance of at most 2,000 at the #TangkapMO1 (Arrest Malaysian Official No. 1) in the centre of Kuala Lumpur last Saturday, when 5,000 were expected to turn up.
Then this road show stop in Sabak Bernam where only 500 people turned up,some just out of curiosity or just because it was a something happening in town.
I've got better things to do with my life than get all excited over this mantra, unless and only unless the investigators in Singapore, Switzerland or the United States explicitly accuse Malaysia Prime Minister Najib by name of any criminal wrongdoing and lay charges against him. Otherwise, it's all just endless, time wasting speculation and endless idle chatter between armchair politicians in coffee shops, pubs, bars, behind computer keyboards, on Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp and so forth, however much these chattering classes may huff and puff, hoping to blow Najib away.
Without further ado, the Free Malaysia Today article follows below.
CHARLES F. MOREIRA
SABAK BERNAM: A nationwide roadshow about 1MDB or ‘1Malaysia Dalam Bahaya’ (1Malaysia In Danger) got off to a lukewarm start with a ceramah attended by about 500 instead of the thousands expected.
With many notable figures including parliamentary opposition leader Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail, Selangor Menteri Besar Mohamed Azmin Ali, and former deputy prime minister Muhyiddin Yassin billed as speakers, initial assumption was that it would be a massive affair attended by thousands.
In reality less than 500 people turned up, barely filling even a third of the mini stadium.
The roadshow is aimed at people in rural and semi-urban areas, to inform them about the scandals surrounding government investment arm 1Malaysia Development Berhad and how that would affect the daily lives of ordinary Malaysians.
However, those who came to listen appeared less than enthusiastic. FMT spoke to many of those present, who said they failed to see how 1MDB had anything to do with them.
This was perhaps why most chose to spend their Friday night on other activities rather than listen to speeches about a matter “they don’t even understand.”
“I just came to see Muhyiddin. It’s not often that people like me get to see him,” said 31-year-old Nur Asyikin Abdul Rashid. “But honestly, I don’t really understand this whole 1MDB issue. Besides, didn’t the RM2.6 billion which they said were taken from 1MDB actually come from the Saudi government?”
Another ceramah-goer, Muhammad Asdi, 44, said he was only at the event because it was near his house.
“I wish the opposition would start speaking more about how they can help improve our lives and welfare. But they are always repeating the same thing.
“It’s always about 1MDB or Anwar Ibrahim. Don’t get me wrong, I believe Anwar is a victim of dirty politics, but they’re so consumed on avenging him that our needs are no longer a priority.”
(Former opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim is serving a five-year jail sentence on a sodomy charge.)
Yesterday being the 18th anniversary of Anwar’s sacking as deputy premier in 1998, the three main speakers made it a point to remind the public of the injustice inflicted upon him.
A big part of their speeches also centered on the need for unity among opposition members in order to oust Najib Razak and his Barisan Nasional government, whom they accused of being corrupt.
However the same issues they raised were much the same as those raised over the past year. The people of Sabak Bernam also appeared to be as unimpressed as voters in Sarawak in May, when opposition candidates suffered losses to the Barisan Nasional.
“Why don’t they talk about other issues? Like how they plan to help the youth get jobs, or how to increase our income in line with the current cost of living,” said Jamaluddin Abdul Hamid, 52.
“To me and my family, that is more important than the issue of corruption which has been the practice since (former premier) Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s time.”
“The Opposition in Penang, and even Azmin have been accused of corruption and abuse of power as well.”
The next stops on the roadshow are: Malacca (Sept 25), Sabah (Sept 30), Pahang (Oct 2) and Perak (Oct 15).
http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2016/09/03/its-the-same-old-song-at-anti-1mdb-ceramah/
Well that's how I feel about them too and judging from the Free Malaysia Today article which follows below, it makes me wonder what these opposition politicians have learned by their setback in the Sarawak State Elections, but instead they go on chanting the same old mantra of "1MDB, 1MDB, 1MDM, 1MDB, 1MDB, ....." at a poorly attended roadshow in Sabak Bernam in the north west of Selangor state.
Didn't Einstein say that doing the same think over and over again which achieves the same result (i.e. failure) is insanity?
Well, unable to think outside of the box, these opposition politicians go on doing the same thing over and over again with diminishing results.
Moreover, this Free Malaysia Today article highlights what I have been saying all along, the people in rural and semi-rural areas are more interested in matters of immediate concern to their livelihood and wellbeing but opposition politicians repeatedly bring up issues which are hot with their more affluent urban constituents and coffee shop politicians who have all the time in the world to idly while away the hours unproductively discussing politics and talking about solving the country's problems, then go home to sleep and, go to work the next day and the process repeats ad-infinitum.
I heard through the grapevine that a member of parliament believes that the next general election will likely be held in early 2017 (possible March), about a year earlier than it must.
Well it will be interesting to see how much the repetition of these these mantras "1MDB, RM2.6 billion, Altantuya, Scorpene submarine and so forth" will help the opposition gain more seats or will they suffer a setback as in Sarawak.
It's pretty obvious that increasingly more ordinary Malaysians are getting tired of all this mantra. A clear indication is the low attendance of at most 2,000 at the #TangkapMO1 (Arrest Malaysian Official No. 1) in the centre of Kuala Lumpur last Saturday, when 5,000 were expected to turn up.
Then this road show stop in Sabak Bernam where only 500 people turned up,some just out of curiosity or just because it was a something happening in town.
I've got better things to do with my life than get all excited over this mantra, unless and only unless the investigators in Singapore, Switzerland or the United States explicitly accuse Malaysia Prime Minister Najib by name of any criminal wrongdoing and lay charges against him. Otherwise, it's all just endless, time wasting speculation and endless idle chatter between armchair politicians in coffee shops, pubs, bars, behind computer keyboards, on Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp and so forth, however much these chattering classes may huff and puff, hoping to blow Najib away.
Without further ado, the Free Malaysia Today article follows below.
CHARLES F. MOREIRA
It's the same old song at anti-1MDB ceramah
Nawar Firdaws Lukewarm start in Sabak Bernam to PKR-Muhyiddin road show, as those who came wish the Opposition would start speaking more about how they can help improve the people's lives and welfare.SABAK BERNAM: A nationwide roadshow about 1MDB or ‘1Malaysia Dalam Bahaya’ (1Malaysia In Danger) got off to a lukewarm start with a ceramah attended by about 500 instead of the thousands expected.
With many notable figures including parliamentary opposition leader Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail, Selangor Menteri Besar Mohamed Azmin Ali, and former deputy prime minister Muhyiddin Yassin billed as speakers, initial assumption was that it would be a massive affair attended by thousands.
In reality less than 500 people turned up, barely filling even a third of the mini stadium.
The roadshow is aimed at people in rural and semi-urban areas, to inform them about the scandals surrounding government investment arm 1Malaysia Development Berhad and how that would affect the daily lives of ordinary Malaysians.
However, those who came to listen appeared less than enthusiastic. FMT spoke to many of those present, who said they failed to see how 1MDB had anything to do with them.
This was perhaps why most chose to spend their Friday night on other activities rather than listen to speeches about a matter “they don’t even understand.”
“I just came to see Muhyiddin. It’s not often that people like me get to see him,” said 31-year-old Nur Asyikin Abdul Rashid. “But honestly, I don’t really understand this whole 1MDB issue. Besides, didn’t the RM2.6 billion which they said were taken from 1MDB actually come from the Saudi government?”
Another ceramah-goer, Muhammad Asdi, 44, said he was only at the event because it was near his house.
“I wish the opposition would start speaking more about how they can help improve our lives and welfare. But they are always repeating the same thing.
“It’s always about 1MDB or Anwar Ibrahim. Don’t get me wrong, I believe Anwar is a victim of dirty politics, but they’re so consumed on avenging him that our needs are no longer a priority.”
(Former opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim is serving a five-year jail sentence on a sodomy charge.)
Yesterday being the 18th anniversary of Anwar’s sacking as deputy premier in 1998, the three main speakers made it a point to remind the public of the injustice inflicted upon him.
A big part of their speeches also centered on the need for unity among opposition members in order to oust Najib Razak and his Barisan Nasional government, whom they accused of being corrupt.
However the same issues they raised were much the same as those raised over the past year. The people of Sabak Bernam also appeared to be as unimpressed as voters in Sarawak in May, when opposition candidates suffered losses to the Barisan Nasional.
“Why don’t they talk about other issues? Like how they plan to help the youth get jobs, or how to increase our income in line with the current cost of living,” said Jamaluddin Abdul Hamid, 52.
“To me and my family, that is more important than the issue of corruption which has been the practice since (former premier) Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s time.”
“The Opposition in Penang, and even Azmin have been accused of corruption and abuse of power as well.”
The next stops on the roadshow are: Malacca (Sept 25), Sabah (Sept 30), Pahang (Oct 2) and Perak (Oct 15).
http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2016/09/03/its-the-same-old-song-at-anti-1mdb-ceramah/
04 August 2016
SHAH ALAM BEAT THE U.S. TO GENDER-NEUTRAL BATHROOMS BY NINE YEARS OR MORE
The controversy over gender-neutral bathrooms (restrooms, public toilets) has been raging in the U.S. since as early as January 2016 and perhaps even earlier.
However, the issue of unisex toilets has been a non-issue in Malaysia - well at least not in Shah Alam, Selangor since 2007 according to the time stamp on this picture of a unisex toilet in the building across Jalan Majlis from the now closed Quality Hotel. From what I see on Google Maps, the building which housed this unisex toilet looks like it is called Plaza Alam Sentral today.
Now that was nearly nine years ago and Shah Alam is a pretty conservative city within the Klang Valley, with a largely Muslim population, yet nobody makes a fuss about this unisex public toilet, which beat the U.S. by nine years with regard to gender equality in toilet designation.
I must pay a visit to Plaza Alam Sentral to see if these toilets are still are still unisex or have they segregated into "Ladies" and "Gents".
Another interesting signboard I saw was in front of a coffee shop in the same building with a sign in English saying "Wi-Fi Free", with a sign in Malay right below it saying "Please pay at the counter".
Quite frankly, these "progressives" in the U.S. have nothing better to make issue with, especially when many people have lost their homes to foreclosure, many secure well-paying jobs have been moved offshore to low wage countries, university graduates are saddled with student loan debt which perhaps many will not be able to pay off until they are in their 40s or maybe never, and so many other bread and butter issues.
Don't get me wrong. I'm all for gender equality in employment, promotion prospects, income, rights and so forth but how do gender-neutral bathrooms address such more urgent issues of gender equality and treatment?
These "progressives" in the U.S. have got their priorities all upside down or perhaps they have to make a fuss about this irrelevant issue to most, so as to remain "relevant" in the eyes of whatever funding body they may have been receiving their funding from.
So no surprise that right-wing populists like Donald Trump who promises to address the concerns of such suffering folk is so popular and is quite likely to be elected the next U.S. president in November?
Whether he lives up to his promises if elected is left to be seen but gender-neutral bathrooms would have a very low priority compared to bread and butter issues of economic survival amongst those working class Americans who are inclined to vote for him.
As for Hillary Clinton, well if she becomes president you can expect to see more U.S. imperialist intervention and de-stabilisation of other countries, more refugees fleeing to Europe, more terrorism and a much higher probability of World War III, and a nuclear one at that, though there may be many more gender-neutral bathrooms and the U.S. imperialists via their paid NGO fronts may well demand that all countries designate their public toilets gender-neutral in the name of "democracy" and "human rights".
Following below are four articles in U.S. media about this gender-neutral bathroom controversy and there are plenty more which I did not include. Just do a Google search on "gender-neutral bathrooms".
Don't you find this issue in the U.S. about gender-neutral bathrooms rather ridiculous?
CHARLES F MOREIRA
The Gender-Neutral Bathroom Revolution Is Growing
Katy Steinmetz @katysteinmetz Jan. 11, 2016
Bathrooms often become battlegrounds in fights over civil rights
San Francisco has long been considered one of America’s most—if not the most–LGBT friendly cities. Yet in at least one increasingly watched area, the city has fallen behind. On Monday, San Francisco Supervisor David Campos took the first substantive steps toward changing that when he announced plans to introduce a bill that would make many city bathrooms gender-neutral.
The measure would mandate that all single-occupancy bathrooms in the city be relabeled as places for all genders, rather than solely “men” or “women,” and that new buildings constructed in the city have a gender-neutral bathroom on each floor. The bill would also go beyond similar laws in other cities by putting in place sweeping enforcement mechanisms, including a complaint process handled by the Human Rights Commission, an LGBT rights organization, and adding these facilities as a standard checklist item for building inspections.
The measure, which is expected to pass easily, will add San Francisco alongside Philadelphia, Seattle, Washington, D.C., West Hollywood, Calif. and Austin, Texas, to the list of cities with gender-neutral bathroom provisions. More than 150 U.S. colleges and universities have also instituted such measures, including the entire University of California system. In April, the White House added a gender neutral bathroom at the nation’s most prominent address. These changes have prompted push back in a number of states, where bills that would determine access to public school restrooms according to a person’s biological sex at birth are now being considered.
Campos, who developed San Francisco’s bill with the Transgender Law Center, argues its benefits extend beyond that community. “Many people right now are impacted negatively by the gender-specific restroom,” he says. Among his examples: a mother who wants to accompany her son to the bathroom and isn’t sure which to choose; a disabled or senior person who is a caretaker of the opposite sex; any woman stuck in a long line for a single-occupancy ladies’ room while the men’s sits there vacant.
Still, helping LGBT people is the primary thrust of such bills. “Having gender-specific restrooms can create unnecessary risks that lead to transgender or gender non-conforming folks to be harassed,” says Sasha Buchert, a staff attorney at the Transgender Law Center. “Those aren’t in a vacuum either. Those types of interactions can have long-term health consequences.”
One high-profile example is the case of Chrissy Lee Polis, a transgender woman who was beaten at a Baltimore McDonald’s after using the women’s restroom. One of her assailants was sentenced in 2011 to five years in prison for first-degree assault and a hate crime. A video of the beating taken by a McDonald’s employee went viral.
Bathrooms are one of the most incendiary battlegrounds in the transgender community’s ongoing fight for civil rights, as those spaces have previously been for women, African-Americans and the disabled community. This bill comes at a time when four states—Missouri, Indiana, South Dakota and Wisconsin—are considering bills that would limit transgender students usage of facilities at public schools. The Wisconsin bill, for instance, would mandate that all sex-specific bathrooms be used by students according to their biological sex, “as determined by an individual’s chromosomes and identified at birth by that individual’s anatomy.”
The Transgender Law Center’s Buchert says such laws are unenforceable. “Are they going to place security guards at each bathroom to do DNA tests to verify folks’ chromosomes?” she says.
There are also questions about whether laws restricting bathroom access run counter to federal guidance. In a 2014 memo citing the Civil Rights Act, the Department of Education said a school “must treat transgender students consistent with their gender identity in all aspects of the planning, implementation, enrollment, operation, and evaluation of single-sex classes.” Rulings from the Department of Justice have found that not allowing a transgender person to use the bathroom that aligns with their gender identity is a form of sex discrimination.
Though the issue remains controversial in cities and states around the country, San Francisco’s measure is likely to become law without much fuss. “The bottom line,” Campos says, “is this: going to the bathroom is such a basic necessity that nowhere should anyone have a difficult time or be in danger because of that.”
http://time.com/4175774/san-francisco-gender-neutral-bathrooms/
Who’s Afraid of Gender-Neutral Bathrooms?
By Jeannie Suk , January 25, 2016
In the middle of taking the bar exam at the Jacob K. Javits Convention Center, in New York City, along with thousands of aspiring lawyers, I had to go to the bathroom. The enormous line for the women’s restroom looked like it would take at least a half hour. There was no line for the men’s restroom. I walked in, passed my male counterparts at a row of urinals, used one of several empty stalls, then returned to my desk. I felt that my decision to forgo the women’s bathroom made a difference to my passing the exam, and that the much longer wait for women than men during an all-important test for entry to the legal profession was obviously unfair.
There is now, however, an active debate around what bathrooms we should be able to use. A recently proposed Indiana law would make it a crime for a person to enter a single-sex public restroom that does not match the person’s “biological gender,” defined in terms of chromosomes and sex at birth. The punishment could be up to a year in jail and a five-thousand-dollar fine. Similar laws proposed in several other states have not passed. These proposals attempt to counter recent moves in many states to allow transgender people to access bathrooms that correspond to their gender identity. In the wake of the Supreme Court’s same-sex-marriage decision, last summer, these skirmishes may give the sense of moving the L.G.B.T.-equality debate from the sublime to the ridiculous. But the implications of the controversy go far beyond bathrooms.
Last fall’s successful campaign in Houston to reject a broad anti-discrimination ordinance made clear that restrooms will be fields of battle over gender and sexuality for the foreseeable future. The Houston ordinance, which prohibited discrimination in employment and housing based on categories including sex, race, religion, and gender identity, was defeated in a referendum after opponents painted it as a “bathroom ordinance” that would enable men to enter women’s restrooms. One ad in the campaign showed a young girl being followed into a bathroom by an older man. Another ad emphasized the risk of having registered sex offenders in bathrooms with women and girls. The vulnerability that most people feel in a public restroom, with their trousers pulled down in proximity to others, was easily exploited in connection with sexual assault. Saying no to the so-called bathroom ordinance was framed as preventing sexual danger to women and girls (even though danger to transgender individuals is often seen as a reason to support bathroom access).
Today’s most-prominent arguments against inclusive restrooms are remarkably consistent with the Victorian notions that led to sex-segregated bathrooms in the first place. When the ideology of separate spheres for male and female, public and private, the market and the home reigned, the growth of women’s presence in public life led to the desire to protect women from the crude dangers of the male world. Among the legal effects was the 1873 Supreme Court holding in Bradwell v. Illinois that it was not unconstitutional for a state to deny women admission to the bar on the basis of their sex, with a famous concurring opinion that stated, “Man is, or should be, woman’s protector and defender. The natural and proper timidity and delicacy which belongs to the female sex evidently unfits it for many of the occupations of civil life.” The same separate-spheres paternalism led to the designation of certain physical spaces for women apart from those for men, including bathrooms in public venues. These were safe spaces, if you will, tucked in a world in which women were vulnerable. As our society is currently experiencing a resurgence of paternalist concern about women’s sexual vulnerability—especially in the context of that great equalizer, education—it is no surprise that there would also be a new emphasis on the Victorian phenomenon of separate restrooms.
The connection of public bathrooms with condemned sexual behavior also relates to our recent history of criminalizing homosexuality. For most of the twentieth century, gay sex was criminal, and public disclosure of a man’s homosexuality spelled the death of his reputation and career. Public restrooms were sites of clandestine sex among men, and undercover police engaged in bathroom surveillance to catch men seeking sex in toilet stalls. David Sklansky, a law professor at Stanford, has argued that modern legal ideas of privacy were forged in the nineteen-sixties in part because of the Supreme Court’s distaste for this sordid police practice. According to his theory, bathroom sex is the “secret subtext” of Katz v. United States, which requires the police to have a warrant to eavesdrop electronically on a call made from a telephone booth, and is the source for the modern idea that the Constitution protects a reasonable expectation of privacy. Since Lawrence v. Texas, in 2003, it has been unconstitutional to criminalize gay sex taking place in private, but this protection does not apply to sex (gay or straight) in public spaces. As late as 2007, Senator Larry Craig was arrested in an airport-restroom sex sting for signalling interest in sex with a stranger in an adjacent stall, and convicted of disorderly conduct.
Whereas homosexuality was until recently considered the paradigm of sexual deviance, today’s bathroom debate focusses on heterosexual deviance. The undercover figures we imagine are not snooping cops but rather heterosexual men who might pretend to be women “that day” to follow women and girls into restrooms. I’m not aware of reliable statistics that would indicate that public bathrooms are more sexually dangerous than any other places—or would be, were they to be desegregated—though the history of bathroom sex does associate the space with sexual conduct. Even if the sexual-assault argument against allowing transgender restroom access is implausible, it is still hard to come up with an account of why public bathrooms should be gender-segregated that does not rely on a gendered version of privacy and safety that recapitulates “separate spheres” and sexual vulnerability.
Today, men and women, not assumed to be only heterosexual, are expected to function at work alongside one another, eat at adjacent seats in restaurants, sit cheek by jowl in buses and airplanes, take classes, study in libraries, and, with some exceptions, even pray together. Why is the multi-stall bathroom the last public vestige of gendered social separation? When men, gay or straight, can stand shoulder to shoulder at urinals without a second thought, is there much to back up the view that men and women must not pee or poop next to one another, especially if closed stalls would shield them from view? Women may have some distinctive sanitation needs, but why does that require a wholly separate space from men?
Perhaps the point is precisely that the public restroom is the only everyday social institution remaining in which separation by gender is the norm, and undoing that separation would feel like the last shot in the “war on gender” itself. As we consider the possibility of electing our first female President, the bathroom as the site of sex difference has been underlined by another candidate, Donald Trump, who said, “I don’t want to think about” the “disgusting” things Hillary Clinton was doing in the bathroom, in a comment widely understood to be about her female sex. Though both men and women must perform private bodily functions in public bathrooms, the mere thought of a woman doing it implied an irreducible sex difference that made plain a gross incongruity with the ultimate public role. Public restrooms are not just toilets; for more than a hundred years, they have implicated questions of who really belongs in public, civic, and professional life.
One practical reason we can’t change to unsegregated bathrooms overnight is that municipal, state, and federal legal codes, many with origins in the nineteenth century, mandate that there be separate facilities for each sex, in businesses and places of work. These widespread codes could be changed one by one. But it seems more likely that, when it comes to multi-stall bathrooms, gender segregation will remain the norm, and that we will see the addition of more single-stall restrooms that are open to any gender. Transgender people’s need to use bathrooms that match their identified gender is modest and not reasonably denied. Old ideology, in the meantime, stays alive in mundane legal regulation that resists more thorough change and determines our plumbing.
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/whos-afraid-of-same-sex-bathrooms
'We need a restroom revolution'
By John D. Sutter, CNN
Updated 1551 GMT (2351 HKT) May 9, 2016
Atlanta (CNN)Before I launch into the argument for making all restrooms in the United States gender neutral -- that is, removing "men's" and "women's" labels -- I want to show you a photo.
This is James Parker Sheffield.
Now a truly ridiculous question: Which restroom do you think he should use?
Men's or women's?
In the United States at the moment, the legal answer depends on location. If Sheffield is in North Carolina, it's illegal for him to use a public men's restroom. Since he's a transgender man -- his birth certificate has an "F" on it -- he has to use the women's.
If he's at home in Atlanta, he can use the men's.
"It's now the law for me to share a restroom with your wife," Sheffield wrote on Twitter along with his selfie. He posted that message in March, only hours after North Carolina passed a law making it illegal for transgender people to use public restrooms that correspond with their true gender identities.
The U.S. Justice Department recently said the law violates the Civil Rights Act. North Carolina on Monday sued the feds in defense of the regulation.
As it's written, Sheffield would have to use the lady's room or break the law.
That's absurd, as the selfie and tweet make clear. Sheffield is a 36-year-old man who lives in Decatur, Georgia. He has a scruffy beard and a receding hairline, which he jokingly calls a "reverse fade." If he walked into a lady's restroom he'd likely be met with stares or screams or worse.
But you know what else is absurd? The idea that Sheffield -- or anyone else -- should have to choose a male or female restroom at all. And, beyond that, that any of us would feel entitled to decide someone else's gender for them -- and, consequently, where they can and can't pee.
This isn't a binary gender world. People don't fit neatly into the "M" and "F" boxes. It's time our public restrooms reflected that. The fairest way to do so is to desegregate restrooms by sex, and that means eliminating the men's and women's rooms in favor of "all gender" restrooms.
Think that's an overreaction? Take a quick look at the history of bathroom politics in the United States. We've tried time and again to control who we sit and stand next to at the toilet.
In the 1960s, black civil rights activists were killed for trying to use "whites only" bathrooms. In the 1980s, gay men were harassed because the public wrongly assumed they could catch HIV-AIDS from a toilet. (AIDS was viewed then as a gay man's disease). Restrooms weren't required to be accessible to people with wheelchairs until the Americans with Disabilities act of 1990. And now, some cities and states are trying to keep transgender people out.
The only justification is bigotry and ignorance.
You might think that allowing a transgender person to use the restroom of their choice is a workable solution. It's a first step. But Sheffield and others who don't conform to gender norms face discrimination even when they're legally allowed to choose which restroom to use.
Seventy percent of transgender people surveyed in Washington, for example, a city with progressive laws allowing people to use either restroom, reported "verbal harassment, assault and being denied access to public restrooms" because of their identities, according to a report from the Williams Institute at the University of California, Los Angeles. Further, 54% reported medical problems "like dehydration, urinary tract infections, kidney infections and other kidney problems" because they avoided using restrooms entirely.
Sheffield told me he plans his days around where he can and can't pee.
"I almost never go to the restroom in a place I haven't been at least once before," he told me. He cuts appointments short and avoids going out simply to avoid peeing in public. Sometimes he'll find the one stall in a men's room is occupied, or out of order. Other times he sits on the toilet for longer than necessary because he worries it's suspicious a man would sit down to urinate.
"It's not a good feeling to be a grown-up and wondering, 'Am I going to make it to a restroom on time -- and how do you explain it if you don't,'" he said.
Such fears apply not only to transgender people but also those who don't meet our rigid gender norms. In 2013, I met a female middle school student in Mississippi, for example, who told me her teachers wouldn't let her use the girl's restroom because she had short hair and wore hoodies. She looked too boyish.
Gendered restrooms support these biases.
"We need a restroom revolution in this country," said Kathryn Anthony, an architecture professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
I agree. And there are simple places to start. Restaurants and small businesses with two single-unit restrooms simply can paint over the "M" and "W" on their doors and -- ba-da-bing! -- they're gender inclusive. No one's harmed as long as we men stop peeing on the toilet seat.
Philadelphia recently made that concept law for single-stall bathrooms. Other governments and businesses should follow. (And if you're a business that is considering this sort of move, please send me a tweet).
Then, bigger leaps: The International Building Code should suggest all-gender restrooms become the norm, or at least be included, in larger businesses and public establishments. (That idea comes from Terry Kogan, a law professor at the University of Utah.)
City, state and federal governments also could legislate these restrooms into existence, too.
It won't happen immediately, but new construction and renovations could be subject to our updated understanding of which types of bathrooms are safest for everyone. That's the precedent set by the Americans with Disabilities Act, Kogan said.
Harvey Molotch, a professor of sociology at New York University and co-editor of the book "Toilet: public restrooms and the politics of sharing," outlined for me what he considers to be the Holy Grail of restrooms. Walk in and you'd see a long line of private toilet stalls, with floor-to-ceiling doors. On the other side would be a row of communal sinks. Anyone is free to use any stall -- and there might be a row of urinals tucked away somewhere to the side.
The urinals could be left out of some restrooms, but they should be kept when possible, Molotch said, because they're much more water-efficient than sit-down toilets.
All this sounds wildly inoffensive to me.
And it's already happening.
The Cooper Union, a college in New York, announced on March 18 that it is removing gender identification from restrooms on campus and opening single-occupancy toilets up for anyone's use. "We have always been ahead of our time and we must continue being leaders on issues of social justice," Bill Mea, acting president, wrote in an email to the campus.
The Urban Justice Center, also in New York, made a similar move a decade ago.
"I'm delighted to be able to share that our experiences have been wholly positive," the center's executive director, Doug Lasdon, and a development associate, Hugh Ryan, wrote in a recent op-ed in the Washington Post. "To this day, we have not received a single complaint. Not one in a decade. Nor have any incidents of violence or harassment been reported."
There's little counterargument other that bias and squeamishness.
Sheffield, the transgender man in Georgia, doesn't expect the all-gender restroom revolution to occur anytime soon. "If we could go to sleep tonight and wake up and all the bathrooms were gender neutral -- great! But it's not practical," he said. "It's not going to happen that way."
In the meantime, he said, a little courteousness would help.
"We can't hold it," he said. "Trans people have to pee multiple times a day, just like everyone else."
Currently, there are only two places Sheffield feels comfortable peeing.
One's at home.
The other's at work.
And that's because it's labeled "all gender restroom."
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/05/09/opinions/sutter-gender-neutral-restrooms/
Right-Wing Media Monitor, Film Attendees Inside All-Gender Restroom At Democratic Convention
Research ››› July 26, 2016 2:38 PM EDT ››› RACHEL PERCELAY
Right-wing media monitored and filmed people using the designated all-gender restroom at the Democratic National Convention, looking for “obviously transgender” convention attendees in the bathroom. Conservative media have long peddled the bogus myth that nondiscrimination protections for transgender people will allow male sexual predators to sneak into women’s bathrooms by pretending to be transgender, leading to an increase in assault and misbehavior in restrooms.
BuzzFeed: People Were “Unfazed” By The All-Gender Restroom At The Democratic National Convention. BuzzFeed reported that the Democratic convention has one designated all-gender restroom and that attendees were “seemingly unfazed” by it, calling the shared bathroom “perfectly natural” and saying that using it was a “nonevent”:
Hundreds of men and women shared a big, busy “all-gender restroom” at the Democratic National Convention on Monday — and were seemingly unfazed by the experience.
“It doesn’t make me nervous at all,” Lula Dualeh, a delegate for Bernie Sanders, told BuzzFeed News. “I just need to use the restroom. I don’t care who’s next to me.”
But restrooms have been a hot-button issue for many Republicans. State and federal politicians have politicized bathroom access, saying that allowing transgender women — whom they call “men” — to use the women’s restroom poses a safety threat.
At the Wells Fargo Center, which also had single-sex restrooms, a sign at the entrance of the all-gender restroom featured a figurine in a dress and another figurine without a dress.
Inside, everyone took turns using stalls; then women and men washed their hands side-by-side at a bank of sinks. Nobody who spoke to BuzzFeed News found the situation troubling.
A co-ed pack of conventioneers were searching for a bathroom — one restroom for the guys and another for the women — when one of the guys saw the sign and said, “It’s an all-gender restroom. Let’s go.” The group emerged a couple minutes later. Did they have any qualms about sharing a bathroom with each other at the same time? “It was a nonevent,” one woman said. “It was perfectly natural.” [BuzzFeed News, 7/25/16]
http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/07/26/right-wing-media-monitor-film-attendees-inside-all-gender-restroom-democratic-convention/211903
However, the issue of unisex toilets has been a non-issue in Malaysia - well at least not in Shah Alam, Selangor since 2007 according to the time stamp on this picture of a unisex toilet in the building across Jalan Majlis from the now closed Quality Hotel. From what I see on Google Maps, the building which housed this unisex toilet looks like it is called Plaza Alam Sentral today.
Now that was nearly nine years ago and Shah Alam is a pretty conservative city within the Klang Valley, with a largely Muslim population, yet nobody makes a fuss about this unisex public toilet, which beat the U.S. by nine years with regard to gender equality in toilet designation.
I must pay a visit to Plaza Alam Sentral to see if these toilets are still are still unisex or have they segregated into "Ladies" and "Gents".
Another interesting signboard I saw was in front of a coffee shop in the same building with a sign in English saying "Wi-Fi Free", with a sign in Malay right below it saying "Please pay at the counter".
Quite frankly, these "progressives" in the U.S. have nothing better to make issue with, especially when many people have lost their homes to foreclosure, many secure well-paying jobs have been moved offshore to low wage countries, university graduates are saddled with student loan debt which perhaps many will not be able to pay off until they are in their 40s or maybe never, and so many other bread and butter issues.
Don't get me wrong. I'm all for gender equality in employment, promotion prospects, income, rights and so forth but how do gender-neutral bathrooms address such more urgent issues of gender equality and treatment?
These "progressives" in the U.S. have got their priorities all upside down or perhaps they have to make a fuss about this irrelevant issue to most, so as to remain "relevant" in the eyes of whatever funding body they may have been receiving their funding from.
So no surprise that right-wing populists like Donald Trump who promises to address the concerns of such suffering folk is so popular and is quite likely to be elected the next U.S. president in November?
Whether he lives up to his promises if elected is left to be seen but gender-neutral bathrooms would have a very low priority compared to bread and butter issues of economic survival amongst those working class Americans who are inclined to vote for him.
As for Hillary Clinton, well if she becomes president you can expect to see more U.S. imperialist intervention and de-stabilisation of other countries, more refugees fleeing to Europe, more terrorism and a much higher probability of World War III, and a nuclear one at that, though there may be many more gender-neutral bathrooms and the U.S. imperialists via their paid NGO fronts may well demand that all countries designate their public toilets gender-neutral in the name of "democracy" and "human rights".
Following below are four articles in U.S. media about this gender-neutral bathroom controversy and there are plenty more which I did not include. Just do a Google search on "gender-neutral bathrooms".
Don't you find this issue in the U.S. about gender-neutral bathrooms rather ridiculous?
CHARLES F MOREIRA
The Gender-Neutral Bathroom Revolution Is Growing
Katy Steinmetz @katysteinmetz Jan. 11, 2016
Bathrooms often become battlegrounds in fights over civil rights
San Francisco has long been considered one of America’s most—if not the most–LGBT friendly cities. Yet in at least one increasingly watched area, the city has fallen behind. On Monday, San Francisco Supervisor David Campos took the first substantive steps toward changing that when he announced plans to introduce a bill that would make many city bathrooms gender-neutral.
The measure would mandate that all single-occupancy bathrooms in the city be relabeled as places for all genders, rather than solely “men” or “women,” and that new buildings constructed in the city have a gender-neutral bathroom on each floor. The bill would also go beyond similar laws in other cities by putting in place sweeping enforcement mechanisms, including a complaint process handled by the Human Rights Commission, an LGBT rights organization, and adding these facilities as a standard checklist item for building inspections.
The measure, which is expected to pass easily, will add San Francisco alongside Philadelphia, Seattle, Washington, D.C., West Hollywood, Calif. and Austin, Texas, to the list of cities with gender-neutral bathroom provisions. More than 150 U.S. colleges and universities have also instituted such measures, including the entire University of California system. In April, the White House added a gender neutral bathroom at the nation’s most prominent address. These changes have prompted push back in a number of states, where bills that would determine access to public school restrooms according to a person’s biological sex at birth are now being considered.
Campos, who developed San Francisco’s bill with the Transgender Law Center, argues its benefits extend beyond that community. “Many people right now are impacted negatively by the gender-specific restroom,” he says. Among his examples: a mother who wants to accompany her son to the bathroom and isn’t sure which to choose; a disabled or senior person who is a caretaker of the opposite sex; any woman stuck in a long line for a single-occupancy ladies’ room while the men’s sits there vacant.
Still, helping LGBT people is the primary thrust of such bills. “Having gender-specific restrooms can create unnecessary risks that lead to transgender or gender non-conforming folks to be harassed,” says Sasha Buchert, a staff attorney at the Transgender Law Center. “Those aren’t in a vacuum either. Those types of interactions can have long-term health consequences.”
One high-profile example is the case of Chrissy Lee Polis, a transgender woman who was beaten at a Baltimore McDonald’s after using the women’s restroom. One of her assailants was sentenced in 2011 to five years in prison for first-degree assault and a hate crime. A video of the beating taken by a McDonald’s employee went viral.
Bathrooms are one of the most incendiary battlegrounds in the transgender community’s ongoing fight for civil rights, as those spaces have previously been for women, African-Americans and the disabled community. This bill comes at a time when four states—Missouri, Indiana, South Dakota and Wisconsin—are considering bills that would limit transgender students usage of facilities at public schools. The Wisconsin bill, for instance, would mandate that all sex-specific bathrooms be used by students according to their biological sex, “as determined by an individual’s chromosomes and identified at birth by that individual’s anatomy.”
The Transgender Law Center’s Buchert says such laws are unenforceable. “Are they going to place security guards at each bathroom to do DNA tests to verify folks’ chromosomes?” she says.
There are also questions about whether laws restricting bathroom access run counter to federal guidance. In a 2014 memo citing the Civil Rights Act, the Department of Education said a school “must treat transgender students consistent with their gender identity in all aspects of the planning, implementation, enrollment, operation, and evaluation of single-sex classes.” Rulings from the Department of Justice have found that not allowing a transgender person to use the bathroom that aligns with their gender identity is a form of sex discrimination.
Though the issue remains controversial in cities and states around the country, San Francisco’s measure is likely to become law without much fuss. “The bottom line,” Campos says, “is this: going to the bathroom is such a basic necessity that nowhere should anyone have a difficult time or be in danger because of that.”
http://time.com/4175774/san-francisco-gender-neutral-bathrooms/
Who’s Afraid of Gender-Neutral Bathrooms?
By Jeannie Suk , January 25, 2016
In the middle of taking the bar exam at the Jacob K. Javits Convention Center, in New York City, along with thousands of aspiring lawyers, I had to go to the bathroom. The enormous line for the women’s restroom looked like it would take at least a half hour. There was no line for the men’s restroom. I walked in, passed my male counterparts at a row of urinals, used one of several empty stalls, then returned to my desk. I felt that my decision to forgo the women’s bathroom made a difference to my passing the exam, and that the much longer wait for women than men during an all-important test for entry to the legal profession was obviously unfair.
There is now, however, an active debate around what bathrooms we should be able to use. A recently proposed Indiana law would make it a crime for a person to enter a single-sex public restroom that does not match the person’s “biological gender,” defined in terms of chromosomes and sex at birth. The punishment could be up to a year in jail and a five-thousand-dollar fine. Similar laws proposed in several other states have not passed. These proposals attempt to counter recent moves in many states to allow transgender people to access bathrooms that correspond to their gender identity. In the wake of the Supreme Court’s same-sex-marriage decision, last summer, these skirmishes may give the sense of moving the L.G.B.T.-equality debate from the sublime to the ridiculous. But the implications of the controversy go far beyond bathrooms.
Last fall’s successful campaign in Houston to reject a broad anti-discrimination ordinance made clear that restrooms will be fields of battle over gender and sexuality for the foreseeable future. The Houston ordinance, which prohibited discrimination in employment and housing based on categories including sex, race, religion, and gender identity, was defeated in a referendum after opponents painted it as a “bathroom ordinance” that would enable men to enter women’s restrooms. One ad in the campaign showed a young girl being followed into a bathroom by an older man. Another ad emphasized the risk of having registered sex offenders in bathrooms with women and girls. The vulnerability that most people feel in a public restroom, with their trousers pulled down in proximity to others, was easily exploited in connection with sexual assault. Saying no to the so-called bathroom ordinance was framed as preventing sexual danger to women and girls (even though danger to transgender individuals is often seen as a reason to support bathroom access).
Today’s most-prominent arguments against inclusive restrooms are remarkably consistent with the Victorian notions that led to sex-segregated bathrooms in the first place. When the ideology of separate spheres for male and female, public and private, the market and the home reigned, the growth of women’s presence in public life led to the desire to protect women from the crude dangers of the male world. Among the legal effects was the 1873 Supreme Court holding in Bradwell v. Illinois that it was not unconstitutional for a state to deny women admission to the bar on the basis of their sex, with a famous concurring opinion that stated, “Man is, or should be, woman’s protector and defender. The natural and proper timidity and delicacy which belongs to the female sex evidently unfits it for many of the occupations of civil life.” The same separate-spheres paternalism led to the designation of certain physical spaces for women apart from those for men, including bathrooms in public venues. These were safe spaces, if you will, tucked in a world in which women were vulnerable. As our society is currently experiencing a resurgence of paternalist concern about women’s sexual vulnerability—especially in the context of that great equalizer, education—it is no surprise that there would also be a new emphasis on the Victorian phenomenon of separate restrooms.
The connection of public bathrooms with condemned sexual behavior also relates to our recent history of criminalizing homosexuality. For most of the twentieth century, gay sex was criminal, and public disclosure of a man’s homosexuality spelled the death of his reputation and career. Public restrooms were sites of clandestine sex among men, and undercover police engaged in bathroom surveillance to catch men seeking sex in toilet stalls. David Sklansky, a law professor at Stanford, has argued that modern legal ideas of privacy were forged in the nineteen-sixties in part because of the Supreme Court’s distaste for this sordid police practice. According to his theory, bathroom sex is the “secret subtext” of Katz v. United States, which requires the police to have a warrant to eavesdrop electronically on a call made from a telephone booth, and is the source for the modern idea that the Constitution protects a reasonable expectation of privacy. Since Lawrence v. Texas, in 2003, it has been unconstitutional to criminalize gay sex taking place in private, but this protection does not apply to sex (gay or straight) in public spaces. As late as 2007, Senator Larry Craig was arrested in an airport-restroom sex sting for signalling interest in sex with a stranger in an adjacent stall, and convicted of disorderly conduct.
Whereas homosexuality was until recently considered the paradigm of sexual deviance, today’s bathroom debate focusses on heterosexual deviance. The undercover figures we imagine are not snooping cops but rather heterosexual men who might pretend to be women “that day” to follow women and girls into restrooms. I’m not aware of reliable statistics that would indicate that public bathrooms are more sexually dangerous than any other places—or would be, were they to be desegregated—though the history of bathroom sex does associate the space with sexual conduct. Even if the sexual-assault argument against allowing transgender restroom access is implausible, it is still hard to come up with an account of why public bathrooms should be gender-segregated that does not rely on a gendered version of privacy and safety that recapitulates “separate spheres” and sexual vulnerability.
Today, men and women, not assumed to be only heterosexual, are expected to function at work alongside one another, eat at adjacent seats in restaurants, sit cheek by jowl in buses and airplanes, take classes, study in libraries, and, with some exceptions, even pray together. Why is the multi-stall bathroom the last public vestige of gendered social separation? When men, gay or straight, can stand shoulder to shoulder at urinals without a second thought, is there much to back up the view that men and women must not pee or poop next to one another, especially if closed stalls would shield them from view? Women may have some distinctive sanitation needs, but why does that require a wholly separate space from men?
Perhaps the point is precisely that the public restroom is the only everyday social institution remaining in which separation by gender is the norm, and undoing that separation would feel like the last shot in the “war on gender” itself. As we consider the possibility of electing our first female President, the bathroom as the site of sex difference has been underlined by another candidate, Donald Trump, who said, “I don’t want to think about” the “disgusting” things Hillary Clinton was doing in the bathroom, in a comment widely understood to be about her female sex. Though both men and women must perform private bodily functions in public bathrooms, the mere thought of a woman doing it implied an irreducible sex difference that made plain a gross incongruity with the ultimate public role. Public restrooms are not just toilets; for more than a hundred years, they have implicated questions of who really belongs in public, civic, and professional life.
One practical reason we can’t change to unsegregated bathrooms overnight is that municipal, state, and federal legal codes, many with origins in the nineteenth century, mandate that there be separate facilities for each sex, in businesses and places of work. These widespread codes could be changed one by one. But it seems more likely that, when it comes to multi-stall bathrooms, gender segregation will remain the norm, and that we will see the addition of more single-stall restrooms that are open to any gender. Transgender people’s need to use bathrooms that match their identified gender is modest and not reasonably denied. Old ideology, in the meantime, stays alive in mundane legal regulation that resists more thorough change and determines our plumbing.
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/whos-afraid-of-same-sex-bathrooms
'We need a restroom revolution'
By John D. Sutter, CNN
Updated 1551 GMT (2351 HKT) May 9, 2016
Atlanta (CNN)Before I launch into the argument for making all restrooms in the United States gender neutral -- that is, removing "men's" and "women's" labels -- I want to show you a photo.
This is James Parker Sheffield.
Now a truly ridiculous question: Which restroom do you think he should use?
Men's or women's?
In the United States at the moment, the legal answer depends on location. If Sheffield is in North Carolina, it's illegal for him to use a public men's restroom. Since he's a transgender man -- his birth certificate has an "F" on it -- he has to use the women's.
If he's at home in Atlanta, he can use the men's.
"It's now the law for me to share a restroom with your wife," Sheffield wrote on Twitter along with his selfie. He posted that message in March, only hours after North Carolina passed a law making it illegal for transgender people to use public restrooms that correspond with their true gender identities.
The U.S. Justice Department recently said the law violates the Civil Rights Act. North Carolina on Monday sued the feds in defense of the regulation.
As it's written, Sheffield would have to use the lady's room or break the law.
That's absurd, as the selfie and tweet make clear. Sheffield is a 36-year-old man who lives in Decatur, Georgia. He has a scruffy beard and a receding hairline, which he jokingly calls a "reverse fade." If he walked into a lady's restroom he'd likely be met with stares or screams or worse.
But you know what else is absurd? The idea that Sheffield -- or anyone else -- should have to choose a male or female restroom at all. And, beyond that, that any of us would feel entitled to decide someone else's gender for them -- and, consequently, where they can and can't pee.
This isn't a binary gender world. People don't fit neatly into the "M" and "F" boxes. It's time our public restrooms reflected that. The fairest way to do so is to desegregate restrooms by sex, and that means eliminating the men's and women's rooms in favor of "all gender" restrooms.
Think that's an overreaction? Take a quick look at the history of bathroom politics in the United States. We've tried time and again to control who we sit and stand next to at the toilet.
In the 1960s, black civil rights activists were killed for trying to use "whites only" bathrooms. In the 1980s, gay men were harassed because the public wrongly assumed they could catch HIV-AIDS from a toilet. (AIDS was viewed then as a gay man's disease). Restrooms weren't required to be accessible to people with wheelchairs until the Americans with Disabilities act of 1990. And now, some cities and states are trying to keep transgender people out.
The only justification is bigotry and ignorance.
You might think that allowing a transgender person to use the restroom of their choice is a workable solution. It's a first step. But Sheffield and others who don't conform to gender norms face discrimination even when they're legally allowed to choose which restroom to use.
Seventy percent of transgender people surveyed in Washington, for example, a city with progressive laws allowing people to use either restroom, reported "verbal harassment, assault and being denied access to public restrooms" because of their identities, according to a report from the Williams Institute at the University of California, Los Angeles. Further, 54% reported medical problems "like dehydration, urinary tract infections, kidney infections and other kidney problems" because they avoided using restrooms entirely.
Sheffield told me he plans his days around where he can and can't pee.
"I almost never go to the restroom in a place I haven't been at least once before," he told me. He cuts appointments short and avoids going out simply to avoid peeing in public. Sometimes he'll find the one stall in a men's room is occupied, or out of order. Other times he sits on the toilet for longer than necessary because he worries it's suspicious a man would sit down to urinate.
"It's not a good feeling to be a grown-up and wondering, 'Am I going to make it to a restroom on time -- and how do you explain it if you don't,'" he said.
Such fears apply not only to transgender people but also those who don't meet our rigid gender norms. In 2013, I met a female middle school student in Mississippi, for example, who told me her teachers wouldn't let her use the girl's restroom because she had short hair and wore hoodies. She looked too boyish.
Gendered restrooms support these biases.
"We need a restroom revolution in this country," said Kathryn Anthony, an architecture professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
I agree. And there are simple places to start. Restaurants and small businesses with two single-unit restrooms simply can paint over the "M" and "W" on their doors and -- ba-da-bing! -- they're gender inclusive. No one's harmed as long as we men stop peeing on the toilet seat.
Philadelphia recently made that concept law for single-stall bathrooms. Other governments and businesses should follow. (And if you're a business that is considering this sort of move, please send me a tweet).
Then, bigger leaps: The International Building Code should suggest all-gender restrooms become the norm, or at least be included, in larger businesses and public establishments. (That idea comes from Terry Kogan, a law professor at the University of Utah.)
City, state and federal governments also could legislate these restrooms into existence, too.
It won't happen immediately, but new construction and renovations could be subject to our updated understanding of which types of bathrooms are safest for everyone. That's the precedent set by the Americans with Disabilities Act, Kogan said.
Harvey Molotch, a professor of sociology at New York University and co-editor of the book "Toilet: public restrooms and the politics of sharing," outlined for me what he considers to be the Holy Grail of restrooms. Walk in and you'd see a long line of private toilet stalls, with floor-to-ceiling doors. On the other side would be a row of communal sinks. Anyone is free to use any stall -- and there might be a row of urinals tucked away somewhere to the side.
The urinals could be left out of some restrooms, but they should be kept when possible, Molotch said, because they're much more water-efficient than sit-down toilets.
All this sounds wildly inoffensive to me.
And it's already happening.
The Cooper Union, a college in New York, announced on March 18 that it is removing gender identification from restrooms on campus and opening single-occupancy toilets up for anyone's use. "We have always been ahead of our time and we must continue being leaders on issues of social justice," Bill Mea, acting president, wrote in an email to the campus.
The Urban Justice Center, also in New York, made a similar move a decade ago.
"I'm delighted to be able to share that our experiences have been wholly positive," the center's executive director, Doug Lasdon, and a development associate, Hugh Ryan, wrote in a recent op-ed in the Washington Post. "To this day, we have not received a single complaint. Not one in a decade. Nor have any incidents of violence or harassment been reported."
There's little counterargument other that bias and squeamishness.
Sheffield, the transgender man in Georgia, doesn't expect the all-gender restroom revolution to occur anytime soon. "If we could go to sleep tonight and wake up and all the bathrooms were gender neutral -- great! But it's not practical," he said. "It's not going to happen that way."
In the meantime, he said, a little courteousness would help.
"We can't hold it," he said. "Trans people have to pee multiple times a day, just like everyone else."
Currently, there are only two places Sheffield feels comfortable peeing.
One's at home.
The other's at work.
And that's because it's labeled "all gender restroom."
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/05/09/opinions/sutter-gender-neutral-restrooms/
Right-Wing Media Monitor, Film Attendees Inside All-Gender Restroom At Democratic Convention
Research ››› July 26, 2016 2:38 PM EDT ››› RACHEL PERCELAY
Right-wing media monitored and filmed people using the designated all-gender restroom at the Democratic National Convention, looking for “obviously transgender” convention attendees in the bathroom. Conservative media have long peddled the bogus myth that nondiscrimination protections for transgender people will allow male sexual predators to sneak into women’s bathrooms by pretending to be transgender, leading to an increase in assault and misbehavior in restrooms.
BuzzFeed: People Were “Unfazed” By The All-Gender Restroom At The Democratic National Convention. BuzzFeed reported that the Democratic convention has one designated all-gender restroom and that attendees were “seemingly unfazed” by it, calling the shared bathroom “perfectly natural” and saying that using it was a “nonevent”:
Hundreds of men and women shared a big, busy “all-gender restroom” at the Democratic National Convention on Monday — and were seemingly unfazed by the experience.
“It doesn’t make me nervous at all,” Lula Dualeh, a delegate for Bernie Sanders, told BuzzFeed News. “I just need to use the restroom. I don’t care who’s next to me.”
But restrooms have been a hot-button issue for many Republicans. State and federal politicians have politicized bathroom access, saying that allowing transgender women — whom they call “men” — to use the women’s restroom poses a safety threat.
At the Wells Fargo Center, which also had single-sex restrooms, a sign at the entrance of the all-gender restroom featured a figurine in a dress and another figurine without a dress.
Inside, everyone took turns using stalls; then women and men washed their hands side-by-side at a bank of sinks. Nobody who spoke to BuzzFeed News found the situation troubling.
A co-ed pack of conventioneers were searching for a bathroom — one restroom for the guys and another for the women — when one of the guys saw the sign and said, “It’s an all-gender restroom. Let’s go.” The group emerged a couple minutes later. Did they have any qualms about sharing a bathroom with each other at the same time? “It was a nonevent,” one woman said. “It was perfectly natural.” [BuzzFeed News, 7/25/16]
http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/07/26/right-wing-media-monitor-film-attendees-inside-all-gender-restroom-democratic-convention/211903
05 July 2016
MANY WORKERS VOTED FOR BREXIT BECAUSE OF THE EFFECTS OF YEARS OF NEOLIBERALISM
The You Tube videos reveal that working people in the U.K., especially in the industrial or former industrial areas of England and Wales, voted for Brexit because of the effects of years of neoliberal policies implemented by the Conservatives and the Labour Party over the past few decades.
They also reveal how the centre-left, which used to strongly be for the interests of the workers, has become more like the Conservatives in imposing austerity measures upon the working people and how the European Union capitalists want to depress the wages of western European workers to the level of wages in the poorest Eastern European countries as part of the Neo-liberal's much touted "globalisation" which is nothing more than a prettified term for imperialism and hegemony.
I really hated it when I saw how the ideology of globalisation and open borders to trade was pushed as a "great thing" for humankind,with such neoliberal ideology flowing through the Internet and parroted by Internet wallahs, business consultants, management consultants, spin doctors and their subservient media, when I knew that this globalisation only benefits business people who want to be able to arbitrage labour costs by sourcing the cheapest cost labour anywhere in the world thanks to the global reach of the Internet.
Well, something had to give sooner or later, unless they euthanise (merfifully kill) the chronically unemployed who cannot find jobs because they are unable to acquire new skills and "move up the value chain".
Now, these much derided "useless eaters" are finally stirring and are not ready to be turned into Soylent Green, as portrayed in that 1973 movie (CLICK HERE), but instead are now flexing their muscles against the neoliberal elite by turning to the far-left or the far-right, and in Europe and North America, more towards the far-right than the far-left.
Why did England's North vote to leave the European Union?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1zL3wDLyXk
Brexit: The immigrants who voted Leave - BBC News
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fec8Ya-MhXk
Full Show 6/30/16: Brexit: The Backlash Against Neoliberalism?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v39xA13xGIk
Why Brexit Is Good For Working People In Clear, Simple Terms
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xq-gWv91WM
In the last video, the Scottish professor speaks about how the centre-left of New Labour has betrayed the working people and how the leadership of the centre-left has supported and pursued imperialist wars against Iraq, Libya and other countries in the Middle East, Afghanistan and elsewhere.
I spent my university days in the north of England and my sympathies remain with the people of the north of England.
Of course, Brexit does not mean the end of neo-liberalism in the U.K. or anywhere else in the world but it's a blow by the working people against it, which could encourage more blows against it to come, and quite probably kill off the TPP as well in the process.
We are witnessing a sea change taking place in the world, where the tide is turning against the dominance of neoliberal policies in the last 35 or so years, which have impoverised billions of people around the world and which has only benefited the elite 1%.
CHARLES F MOREIRA
Note: There was a mistake in my original title which read "MANY WORKERS VOTED AGAINST BREXIT..." when I meant "MANY WORKERS VOTED FOR BREXIT...". It was a slip on my part - Charles
They also reveal how the centre-left, which used to strongly be for the interests of the workers, has become more like the Conservatives in imposing austerity measures upon the working people and how the European Union capitalists want to depress the wages of western European workers to the level of wages in the poorest Eastern European countries as part of the Neo-liberal's much touted "globalisation" which is nothing more than a prettified term for imperialism and hegemony.
I really hated it when I saw how the ideology of globalisation and open borders to trade was pushed as a "great thing" for humankind,with such neoliberal ideology flowing through the Internet and parroted by Internet wallahs, business consultants, management consultants, spin doctors and their subservient media, when I knew that this globalisation only benefits business people who want to be able to arbitrage labour costs by sourcing the cheapest cost labour anywhere in the world thanks to the global reach of the Internet.
Well, something had to give sooner or later, unless they euthanise (merfifully kill) the chronically unemployed who cannot find jobs because they are unable to acquire new skills and "move up the value chain".
Now, these much derided "useless eaters" are finally stirring and are not ready to be turned into Soylent Green, as portrayed in that 1973 movie (CLICK HERE), but instead are now flexing their muscles against the neoliberal elite by turning to the far-left or the far-right, and in Europe and North America, more towards the far-right than the far-left.
Why did England's North vote to leave the European Union?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1zL3wDLyXk
Brexit: The immigrants who voted Leave - BBC News
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fec8Ya-MhXk
Full Show 6/30/16: Brexit: The Backlash Against Neoliberalism?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v39xA13xGIk
Why Brexit Is Good For Working People In Clear, Simple Terms
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xq-gWv91WM
In the last video, the Scottish professor speaks about how the centre-left of New Labour has betrayed the working people and how the leadership of the centre-left has supported and pursued imperialist wars against Iraq, Libya and other countries in the Middle East, Afghanistan and elsewhere.
I spent my university days in the north of England and my sympathies remain with the people of the north of England.
Of course, Brexit does not mean the end of neo-liberalism in the U.K. or anywhere else in the world but it's a blow by the working people against it, which could encourage more blows against it to come, and quite probably kill off the TPP as well in the process.
We are witnessing a sea change taking place in the world, where the tide is turning against the dominance of neoliberal policies in the last 35 or so years, which have impoverised billions of people around the world and which has only benefited the elite 1%.
CHARLES F MOREIRA
Note: There was a mistake in my original title which read "MANY WORKERS VOTED AGAINST BREXIT..." when I meant "MANY WORKERS VOTED FOR BREXIT...". It was a slip on my part - Charles
IF THIS WEATHER FORECAST CAN BE BELIEVED, THE HOT AND DRY SPELL LOOKS LIKE COMING TO AN END
Petaling Jaya and the Klang Valley saw a return of suffocatingly hot and dry weather, with daytime temperatures as high as 37 degrees Celsius soon after the Summer Solstice around 21 June but if this weather forecast can be believed, it looks like we are heading into cooler and wetter days ahead.
CHARLES F. MOREIRA
24 June 2016
SO IT'S BREXIT 51.9% TO 48.1%
So the United Kingdom people voted to leave the European Union by 51.9% voting to leave versus 48.1% voting to stay in the EU.
By UK member country, England (53.2%) and Wales (51.7%) voted to leave, whilst Scotland (62%) and Northern Ireland (55.7%) voted to remain.
According to The Telegraph website dedicated to the Brexit referendum, those regions of the UK which voted to leave have a high proportion of working class voters who were concerned over issues of immigration and employment.
Full details, with infographics can be accessed on its website at:-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/23/leave-or-remain-eu-referendum-results-and-live-maps/
So what next?
Some predict that Prime Minister David Cameron and the Chancellor of the Exchequer ("Finance Minister") Gordon Osborne will be forced to step down.
Russia Today believes that Boris Johnson who supported Brexit will be the UK's next prime minister.
"So who would take Cameron’s job? There are already suggestions the next resident of 10 Downing Street could be former London Mayor Boris Johnson, who campaigned for a ‘Leave’ vote."
"It’s reported that negotiations may already be underway to coordinate Cameron’s exit and the installation of Johnson and Michael Gove into the seats of power."
https://www.rt.com/uk/348112-brexit-cameron-resign-scotland/
RT also reports opinion that Scotland may decide to make a second bid for independence from the UK and bid for EU membership on its own.
"It had been suggested that if ‘Leave’ won, Scotland could push for a second independence referendum to leave the United Kingdom and seek EU membership for itself."
"Scotland’s former First Minister Alex Salmond said in May that such a vote would probably occur “within two years.”
Others also predict that the U.K.'s exit from the EU will prompt other EU countries to make their own bids to leave.
Meanwhile, Asian markets have been badly shaken, since many believed the pollsters who predicted that the U.K. would remain in the EU.
Reuters reported jittery Asian markets this morning in anticipation of a Brexit.
Asian currency, bond and equity traders kicked off an early day of choppy trading as the growing likelihood of a British vote to leave the European Union sent shivers across trading floors and kept many investors glued to their television screens.
Trading desks at most foreign banks from Hong Kong to Singapore started on Friday nearly two hours before their normal start to take in early orders and address investor concerns. But the market meltdown and volatility pushed many traders to the sidelines as they waited for the final vote tally, before taking fresh positions.
"I am getting slightly seasick from the fluctuations between in and out," Michael Blythe, chief economist at Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA.AX). "I haven't heard this much noise from the dealing room in a very long time," he added.
Britain's bitterly contested referendum on whether to quit the EU began too close to call early on Friday, with partial results showing a deeply divided nation, but the pound was hammered as the numbers slowly tipped in favor of a vote to leave.
The threat of Britain leaving the European Union has had markets across the asset classes on edge.
The British pound fell about 10 percent, while shares in British bank HSBC plc (HSBA.L) tumbled 8 percent, while the FTSE futures FFIc1 pointed to a 7.5 percent slump at the UK stock market open.
"Volatility has been the theme of the year, and people are getting used to it," said Danny Bao, chief investment officer at HJY Capital Advisors (HK) Ltd. "The big unknown is the complication that a Yes vote (to leave) will create for EU. We are sitting tight for now," he added.
Asian markets were first to open and react as the results vote count tricked in. With results declared from 282 of 382 voting districts plus parts of Northern Ireland, Leave was ahead by 51.6 percent to 48.4 percent..
"Liquidity generally is very light. Even before coming into the voting day, liquidity was generally light. The problem is the market was generally pricing in a 'remain', so obviously you're seeing the pound and currency markets generally recovering back to any risk-off level," one Hong Kong-based fund manager said.
"I don't think it's Armageddon day, but definitely it's a short-term surprise if they voted for a leave," the fund manager said.
Tight liquidity has widened the bid and offer gaps in the Asian credit markets, with very small lots going through in low volume trade. In the CDS market the iTraxx benchmark ITAIG5Y=MG is trading at 142/145 bps, wider by about 8bps, and traders said it was one of the most volatile days of the year.
One bond taking a big hit was the HSBC 6.875% perpetual US404280BC2=TE, down 4 points in price at 97.5/99. But some high-yield bonds are outperforming as it has caught bids from risk seekers.
"We are seeing some support in high yield from investors rotating out of stocks,” said a Singapore based trader.
(Reporting by Denny Thomas Howard Rebecca, Elzio Barreto, Umesh Desai; Editing by Will Waterman)
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-trading-asia-idUSKCN0ZA0EO?mod=related&channelName=ousivMolt
China's People's Daily newspaper appears to have hoped that the UK would remain in Europe but now that is not the case, it is left to be seen what China will do next.
As Britain takes to polls for Brexit, China is also closely watching and weighing the impact of the possible United Kingdom leaving the European Union.
The future of the relationship between the U.K. and the E.U. depends on the vote on Thursday. Recent opinion polls put the “Leave” and “Remain” campaigns neck-to-neck, but the betting markets suggest there is a 75 percent chance that “Remain” will win, the media reported.
The U.K. is only second to Germany when it comes to trade with China in the E.U. According to an analysis report from the Bank of China, China will lose an important power to push forward free trade between China and Europe and it will also add to more difficulties for future negotiations on free trade pacts, the Beijing Morning Post reported.
As one of the most important offshore market and trading hubs for the RMB, London is a key mainstay for RMB internationalization efforts. Since the Brexit may threaten London’s position as a leading world financial hub, it may also affect China’s plans to go global, according to the Economic Daily.
The newspaper added that the world’s capital markets, including China’s, will receive a negative impact from the Brexit.
On the other hand, exports to the U.K. account for some 3 percent of China’s total exports, a figure not too big to indicate a huge blow, Beijing Morning Post noted, adding that the U.K. may also turn to seek more cooperation with countries like China, after Brexit impairs the country’s free trade with the E.U.
The Xinhua News Agency pointed out that the Brexit will also be followed by devaluation in the pound.
Several Chinese experts said the chance of the U.K. leaving the E.U. is relatively small. Professor Wang Yiwei with Renmin University of China said it is not very likely for the referendum to pass and for them to leave the E.U. and even if so, the E.U. may still hold emergency meetings in order to keep the U.K.
A“Remain” camp may attract the majority as keeping the E.U. membership is beneficial for the U.K. in the long run, according to Feng Zhongping, vice president of the China Institute of Contemporary International Relations.
“In all, we will be still delighted to see a ‘united E.U.’ for a Brexit will only jeopardize both the E.U. and the U.K. and weaken future global economic growth, which, obviously, will be bad for China,” People’s Daily commented.
http://en.people.cn/n3/2016/0623/c90000-9076549.html
Something else which could happen is that the UK will now pay more attention to the Commonwealth nations such as Malaysia, which the UK appears to have paid less attention to that it was in the EU, but from now on, let's see what the UK does with regards our part of the world.
CHARLES F. MOREIRA
By UK member country, England (53.2%) and Wales (51.7%) voted to leave, whilst Scotland (62%) and Northern Ireland (55.7%) voted to remain.
According to The Telegraph website dedicated to the Brexit referendum, those regions of the UK which voted to leave have a high proportion of working class voters who were concerned over issues of immigration and employment.
Full details, with infographics can be accessed on its website at:-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/23/leave-or-remain-eu-referendum-results-and-live-maps/
So what next?
Some predict that Prime Minister David Cameron and the Chancellor of the Exchequer ("Finance Minister") Gordon Osborne will be forced to step down.
Russia Today believes that Boris Johnson who supported Brexit will be the UK's next prime minister.
"So who would take Cameron’s job? There are already suggestions the next resident of 10 Downing Street could be former London Mayor Boris Johnson, who campaigned for a ‘Leave’ vote."
"It’s reported that negotiations may already be underway to coordinate Cameron’s exit and the installation of Johnson and Michael Gove into the seats of power."
https://www.rt.com/uk/348112-brexit-cameron-resign-scotland/
RT also reports opinion that Scotland may decide to make a second bid for independence from the UK and bid for EU membership on its own.
"It had been suggested that if ‘Leave’ won, Scotland could push for a second independence referendum to leave the United Kingdom and seek EU membership for itself."
"Scotland’s former First Minister Alex Salmond said in May that such a vote would probably occur “within two years.”
Others also predict that the U.K.'s exit from the EU will prompt other EU countries to make their own bids to leave.
Meanwhile, Asian markets have been badly shaken, since many believed the pollsters who predicted that the U.K. would remain in the EU.
Reuters reported jittery Asian markets this morning in anticipation of a Brexit.
Asian currency, bond and equity traders kicked off an early day of choppy trading as the growing likelihood of a British vote to leave the European Union sent shivers across trading floors and kept many investors glued to their television screens.
Trading desks at most foreign banks from Hong Kong to Singapore started on Friday nearly two hours before their normal start to take in early orders and address investor concerns. But the market meltdown and volatility pushed many traders to the sidelines as they waited for the final vote tally, before taking fresh positions.
"I am getting slightly seasick from the fluctuations between in and out," Michael Blythe, chief economist at Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA.AX). "I haven't heard this much noise from the dealing room in a very long time," he added.
Britain's bitterly contested referendum on whether to quit the EU began too close to call early on Friday, with partial results showing a deeply divided nation, but the pound was hammered as the numbers slowly tipped in favor of a vote to leave.
The threat of Britain leaving the European Union has had markets across the asset classes on edge.
The British pound fell about 10 percent, while shares in British bank HSBC plc (HSBA.L) tumbled 8 percent, while the FTSE futures FFIc1 pointed to a 7.5 percent slump at the UK stock market open.
"Volatility has been the theme of the year, and people are getting used to it," said Danny Bao, chief investment officer at HJY Capital Advisors (HK) Ltd. "The big unknown is the complication that a Yes vote (to leave) will create for EU. We are sitting tight for now," he added.
Asian markets were first to open and react as the results vote count tricked in. With results declared from 282 of 382 voting districts plus parts of Northern Ireland, Leave was ahead by 51.6 percent to 48.4 percent..
"Liquidity generally is very light. Even before coming into the voting day, liquidity was generally light. The problem is the market was generally pricing in a 'remain', so obviously you're seeing the pound and currency markets generally recovering back to any risk-off level," one Hong Kong-based fund manager said.
"I don't think it's Armageddon day, but definitely it's a short-term surprise if they voted for a leave," the fund manager said.
Tight liquidity has widened the bid and offer gaps in the Asian credit markets, with very small lots going through in low volume trade. In the CDS market the iTraxx benchmark ITAIG5Y=MG is trading at 142/145 bps, wider by about 8bps, and traders said it was one of the most volatile days of the year.
One bond taking a big hit was the HSBC 6.875% perpetual US404280BC2=TE, down 4 points in price at 97.5/99. But some high-yield bonds are outperforming as it has caught bids from risk seekers.
"We are seeing some support in high yield from investors rotating out of stocks,” said a Singapore based trader.
(Reporting by Denny Thomas Howard Rebecca, Elzio Barreto, Umesh Desai; Editing by Will Waterman)
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-trading-asia-idUSKCN0ZA0EO?mod=related&channelName=ousivMolt
China's People's Daily newspaper appears to have hoped that the UK would remain in Europe but now that is not the case, it is left to be seen what China will do next.
As Britain takes to polls for Brexit, China is also closely watching and weighing the impact of the possible United Kingdom leaving the European Union.
The future of the relationship between the U.K. and the E.U. depends on the vote on Thursday. Recent opinion polls put the “Leave” and “Remain” campaigns neck-to-neck, but the betting markets suggest there is a 75 percent chance that “Remain” will win, the media reported.
The U.K. is only second to Germany when it comes to trade with China in the E.U. According to an analysis report from the Bank of China, China will lose an important power to push forward free trade between China and Europe and it will also add to more difficulties for future negotiations on free trade pacts, the Beijing Morning Post reported.
As one of the most important offshore market and trading hubs for the RMB, London is a key mainstay for RMB internationalization efforts. Since the Brexit may threaten London’s position as a leading world financial hub, it may also affect China’s plans to go global, according to the Economic Daily.
The newspaper added that the world’s capital markets, including China’s, will receive a negative impact from the Brexit.
On the other hand, exports to the U.K. account for some 3 percent of China’s total exports, a figure not too big to indicate a huge blow, Beijing Morning Post noted, adding that the U.K. may also turn to seek more cooperation with countries like China, after Brexit impairs the country’s free trade with the E.U.
The Xinhua News Agency pointed out that the Brexit will also be followed by devaluation in the pound.
Several Chinese experts said the chance of the U.K. leaving the E.U. is relatively small. Professor Wang Yiwei with Renmin University of China said it is not very likely for the referendum to pass and for them to leave the E.U. and even if so, the E.U. may still hold emergency meetings in order to keep the U.K.
A“Remain” camp may attract the majority as keeping the E.U. membership is beneficial for the U.K. in the long run, according to Feng Zhongping, vice president of the China Institute of Contemporary International Relations.
“In all, we will be still delighted to see a ‘united E.U.’ for a Brexit will only jeopardize both the E.U. and the U.K. and weaken future global economic growth, which, obviously, will be bad for China,” People’s Daily commented.
http://en.people.cn/n3/2016/0623/c90000-9076549.html
Something else which could happen is that the UK will now pay more attention to the Commonwealth nations such as Malaysia, which the UK appears to have paid less attention to that it was in the EU, but from now on, let's see what the UK does with regards our part of the world.
CHARLES F. MOREIRA
23 June 2016
HAS THE CORPSE OF KiDEX RISEN FROM THE GRAVE?
On 16 February 2015, Selangor State Chief Minister (Menteri Besar) Azmin Ali announced his government's decision to cancel the Kinrara-Damansara Expressway (KiDEX), an elevated tolled highway which would run from the Sprint Highway to Kinrara, passing through residential and commercial areas of Petaling Jaya along its way.
In his media statement in Malay bearing the Selangor State Government logo and published on his official web page, Azmin said:-
KENYATAAN MEDIA YAB DATO’ MENTERI BESAR SELANGOR
16 Februari 2015
Pembatalan Projek Lebuhraya Kinrara Damansara (KIDEX)
Kerajaan Negeri Selangor mengamalkan pendekatan mengambil kira pandangan orang ramai dalam menentukan kelulusan sesebuah projek agar ia membawa manfaat menyeluruh. Selain dari pembangunan ekonomi, pentadbiran Negeri Selangor turut menitikberatkan sumbangan sosial dan manusiawi dalam setiap projek yang diluluskan. Dasar pembangunan berkualiti, rakyat dipeduli akan menjadi teras dalam setiap pembangunan di Negeri Selangor.
Pertikaian mengenai kelulusan Lebuhraya Kinrara Damansara (KIDEX) sebelum ini banyak berkisar kepada persoalan – persoalan ini.
Kerajaan Negeri telah menggunapakai maklum balas orang ramai yang terbabit untuk menetapkan syarat – syarat khusus yang perlu dipatuhi. Kerajaan Negeri juga berpendirian bahawa pembinaan lebuhraya dalam Negeri Selangor perlulah bermanfaat bukan sahaja kepada pengguna lebuhraya tetapi juga dinikmati oleh penduduk di mana lebuhraya itu dibina. Pendirian ini telah diluluskan dalam pembentangan Belanjawan Negeri Selangor 2015 di Persidangan Dewan Negeri Selangor pada 24 November 2014.
Justeru, pihak konsesi KIDEX perlu memenuhi syarat – syarat berikut :
1. Menyediakan Penilaian Impak Lalulintas (Traffic Impact Assessment) yang bebas, Penilaian Impak Sosial (Social Impact Assessment) dan Penilaian Impak Alam Sekitar (Environmental Impact Assessment). Kajian – kajian ini perlu membuktikan manfaat yang ternyata kepada pihak pengguna dan penduduk kawasan yang terlibat setelah mengambil kira kesan negatif yang timbul akibat pembinaan lebuhraya tersebut.
2. Mendedahkan kadar tol sepanjang tempoh konsesi termasuk segala kenaikan tol yang ditetapkan dalam konsesi. Pihak konsesi perlu memberikan anggaran rasmi jumlah tol yang akan dikutip dan kadar pulangan kepada pelaburan (rate of return to investment).
3. Mendedahkan perjanjian konsesi sepenuhnya untuk mematuhi dasar kerajaan Pakatan Rakyat yang menegaskan ketelusan dan kebertanggungjawaban.
Kerajaan Negeri telah memaklumkan kepada KIDEX untuk mematuhi syarat – syarat ini sebelum 14 Februari 2015. Oleh kerana tidak ada satu pun syarat – syarat ini yang dipatuhi oleh KIDEX setelah tempoh masanya tamat, maka Kerajaan Negeri Selangor dengan ini mengumumkan pembatalan Projek Lebuhraya Kinrara Damansara (KIDEX).
Pendekatan yang sama akan digunakan dalam mempertimbangkan permohonan kelulusan oleh lebuhraya – lebuhraya lain yang dicadangkan pada masa depan di bawah bidang kuasa Kerajaan Negeri Selangor.
MOHAMED AZMIN ALI
http://azminali.com/kenyataan-media-pembatalan-projek-lebuhraya-kinrara-damansara-kidex/
Azmin basically said:-
"The State Government has informed the KIDEX to comply with the conditions before February 14 , 2015. Since none of the conditions - conditions which are observed by KIDEX after the time period expires , the Selangor State Government is announcing cancellation Kinrara Damansara ( KIDEX )."
The three conditions referred not met by the above deadline are:-
1. Provide Traffic Impact Assessment ( Traffic Impact Assessment) are independent , Social Impact Assessment ( Social Impact Assessment) and Environmental Impact Assessment ( Environmental Impact Assessment) . The study - this study should prove useful as it appears to users and residents of the affected areas after taking into account the negative effects arising from the construction of the expressway .
2. Disclose the toll rates over the concession period including any toll increases set out in the concession . The concessionaire must provide an official estimate of the amount of toll to be collected and the rate of return on investment ( rate of return to investment ) .
3. Disclose the concession agreement is fully in compliance with government policies that affirm PR transparency and accountability.
In his media statement in Malay bearing the Selangor State Government logo and published on his official web page, Azmin said:-
KENYATAAN MEDIA YAB DATO’ MENTERI BESAR SELANGOR
16 Februari 2015
Pembatalan Projek Lebuhraya Kinrara Damansara (KIDEX)
Kerajaan Negeri Selangor mengamalkan pendekatan mengambil kira pandangan orang ramai dalam menentukan kelulusan sesebuah projek agar ia membawa manfaat menyeluruh. Selain dari pembangunan ekonomi, pentadbiran Negeri Selangor turut menitikberatkan sumbangan sosial dan manusiawi dalam setiap projek yang diluluskan. Dasar pembangunan berkualiti, rakyat dipeduli akan menjadi teras dalam setiap pembangunan di Negeri Selangor.
Pertikaian mengenai kelulusan Lebuhraya Kinrara Damansara (KIDEX) sebelum ini banyak berkisar kepada persoalan – persoalan ini.
Kerajaan Negeri telah menggunapakai maklum balas orang ramai yang terbabit untuk menetapkan syarat – syarat khusus yang perlu dipatuhi. Kerajaan Negeri juga berpendirian bahawa pembinaan lebuhraya dalam Negeri Selangor perlulah bermanfaat bukan sahaja kepada pengguna lebuhraya tetapi juga dinikmati oleh penduduk di mana lebuhraya itu dibina. Pendirian ini telah diluluskan dalam pembentangan Belanjawan Negeri Selangor 2015 di Persidangan Dewan Negeri Selangor pada 24 November 2014.
Justeru, pihak konsesi KIDEX perlu memenuhi syarat – syarat berikut :
1. Menyediakan Penilaian Impak Lalulintas (Traffic Impact Assessment) yang bebas, Penilaian Impak Sosial (Social Impact Assessment) dan Penilaian Impak Alam Sekitar (Environmental Impact Assessment). Kajian – kajian ini perlu membuktikan manfaat yang ternyata kepada pihak pengguna dan penduduk kawasan yang terlibat setelah mengambil kira kesan negatif yang timbul akibat pembinaan lebuhraya tersebut.
2. Mendedahkan kadar tol sepanjang tempoh konsesi termasuk segala kenaikan tol yang ditetapkan dalam konsesi. Pihak konsesi perlu memberikan anggaran rasmi jumlah tol yang akan dikutip dan kadar pulangan kepada pelaburan (rate of return to investment).
3. Mendedahkan perjanjian konsesi sepenuhnya untuk mematuhi dasar kerajaan Pakatan Rakyat yang menegaskan ketelusan dan kebertanggungjawaban.
Kerajaan Negeri telah memaklumkan kepada KIDEX untuk mematuhi syarat – syarat ini sebelum 14 Februari 2015. Oleh kerana tidak ada satu pun syarat – syarat ini yang dipatuhi oleh KIDEX setelah tempoh masanya tamat, maka Kerajaan Negeri Selangor dengan ini mengumumkan pembatalan Projek Lebuhraya Kinrara Damansara (KIDEX).
Pendekatan yang sama akan digunakan dalam mempertimbangkan permohonan kelulusan oleh lebuhraya – lebuhraya lain yang dicadangkan pada masa depan di bawah bidang kuasa Kerajaan Negeri Selangor.
MOHAMED AZMIN ALI
http://azminali.com/kenyataan-media-pembatalan-projek-lebuhraya-kinrara-damansara-kidex/
Azmin basically said:-
"The State Government has informed the KIDEX to comply with the conditions before February 14 , 2015. Since none of the conditions - conditions which are observed by KIDEX after the time period expires , the Selangor State Government is announcing cancellation Kinrara Damansara ( KIDEX )."
The three conditions referred not met by the above deadline are:-
1. Provide Traffic Impact Assessment ( Traffic Impact Assessment) are independent , Social Impact Assessment ( Social Impact Assessment) and Environmental Impact Assessment ( Environmental Impact Assessment) . The study - this study should prove useful as it appears to users and residents of the affected areas after taking into account the negative effects arising from the construction of the expressway .
2. Disclose the toll rates over the concession period including any toll increases set out in the concession . The concessionaire must provide an official estimate of the amount of toll to be collected and the rate of return on investment ( rate of return to investment ) .
3. Disclose the concession agreement is fully in compliance with government policies that affirm PR transparency and accountability.
However, when it seemed that KiDEX had forever been laid to rest, less than two weeks ago on 12 June 2016, a neighbour in Section 14 Petaling Jaya showed us this brochure bearing the name of a company - PJD Link (M) Sdn. Bhd., which describes its proposed Petaling Jaya Dispersal Link (PJD Link) - a four-lane elevated expressway starting from the North Klang Valley Expressway intersection and ending at the connection to the Bukit Jalil Highway. Alon the PJD Link's route, will be access points to/from Bandar Utama, Taman Tun Dr. Ismail, Petaling Jaya, Taman dato' Harun, Taman Medan baru, Taman Sri Manja and Bandar Kinrara.
(If you cannot see the enclosed brochure, maps or photos below, please enable "viewing images" in your e-mail client or viewer.)
(Please click on the picture to enlarge)
(Please click on the picture to enlarge)
On the reverse side of this brochure is a map showing the route of the proposed PJD Link will run past the front of Tropicana City Mall and Damansara Intan, then swing right and run down the land near the borders of Section 17 and Section 19 till it reaches the former Rothmans Roundabout, then along Jalan Semangat and quite literally run right through the middle of Section 14, Petaling Jaya on its way to the Bukit Jalil Highway.
More particularly, it will swing right past the Quill building on Jalan Semangat, then past the Mosque, then along the Sungai Pencala river reserve immediately behind the offices in the Right Angle and homes along Jalan 14/28 and Jalan 14/30, then swing right at Jalan 14/15 (Dato' Jamil Rais) and continue past the front of Millennium Square, quite probably requiring the acquisition and demolition of a cluster of homes on Jalan 14/15, in front of Millennium Square.
You can also watch a video narrative of the issue by clicking on the link below to play the video.
For a real world view, the proposed PJD Link will come running down the river as seen from Millennium Square in the picture below:-
It will then swing past the front of Millennium Square, quite probably requiring the acquisition and demolition of the homes in the foreground of the picture below.
We neighbours of Section 14, Petaling Jaya are very concerned about the traffic noise, pollution due to dust, petrol and diesel fumes from an expressway running so close to our homes, and the loss of the peace and serenity of our mature, friendly, multi-ethnic, neighbourhood, established in the 1950s or very early 1960s.
My neighbours and I are also very concerned that the proposed PJD Link, if constructed will negatively impact upon the value of our properties in Section 14, especially of those properties nearest to the PJD Link - i.e. Jalan 14/28, Jalan 14/30, Jalan 14/15, those apartments in Millennium Square overlooking the river, the businesses in Millennium Square which overlook the river and also residents of Menara Jaya next to Millennium Square, whose apartments face the expressway.
CHARLES F. MOREIRA
IT'S KIND OF NICE TO KNOW THAT BLOOMBERG HAS SIMILAR VIEWS AS I
Free Malaysia Today carries an article citing Bloomberg as saying that Malaysia's rural voters will decide which party wins the next elections.
Well, it's good to know that Bloomberg and several other political analysts share the same views on this issue with this humble, semi-retired, former writer who once specialised in writing about the information and communications technology (ICT) industry.
This understanding is not new and many who have been active in or who have observed politics on the ground in rural, semi-rural and semi-urban areas already know this, and also that people living, working and running businesses in these areas have different perspectives, priorities and values from more affluent and sophisticated urbanites.
Back in January 2011, a controversy flared over the historical novel Interlok being derogatory towards ethnic Indians of Malaysia, and it was one of the books in the school reading syllabus which made the controversy even more hot, with articles about it appearing on Free Malaysia Today's website almost daily and in other print and online media as well.
Meanwhile, reporters from Free Malaysia went down to cover the campaigning in the run up to the by-election for the state seat of Tenang. a small rural town in northern Johor state on 30 January 2011 and they asked some ethnic Indians there what they thought about Interlok and some Indians there said that they had not heard about Interlok, whilst others who did told the reporters that yes they had heard about the Interlok controversy but they had bigger concerns over their economic survival to have time to be bothered with a mere book, to its credit Free Malaysia Today reported.
Now that was way back in 2011 and we still have some clowns, especially from the opposition parties and opposition supporters who go around places like Tenang, Sungai Besar, Kuala Kangsar, recently in Sarawak, etc, using issues which urbanites are preoccupied with to try convince voters there to vote from them.
Their approach here is to demonise the incumbent, rather than try to convince the voters that the opposition can do a better job of serving their interests if elected.
So they usually lose in these areas but continue on repeating their failed approach, over and over again, perhaps hoping that one fine day, the proverbial needle of their proverbial turntable will somehow become unstuck from the rut in the damaged proverbial vinyl record playing on their proverbial turntable at the time, and the opposition party finally goes on to beat the incumbent party for the seat.
So without further ado, below is the story by Free Malaysia Today.
CHARLES F MOREIRA
KUALA LUMPUR: The rural population is well-taken care of by the Government, which is why the Barisan Nasional (BN) does consistently well in rural areas.
And that is why Prime Minister Najib Razak continues to court farmers and works to keep smallholders and Felda settlers happy.
According to a Bloomberg report, Najib needs to keep smallholders happy as he seeks the votes of rural and semi-urban areas to retain power in the next General Election due by 2018.
“Farmers — many of them ethnic Malays — are a linchpin for his party, which leads one of the world’s longest-ruling coalitions. Their votes have a higher weighting than their work, which contributes to less than a tenth of gross domestic product.”
The report said, at the next General Election, Najib would probably further target the bottom 40 per cent of the population who can swing votes in tight races.
Well, it's good to know that Bloomberg and several other political analysts share the same views on this issue with this humble, semi-retired, former writer who once specialised in writing about the information and communications technology (ICT) industry.
This understanding is not new and many who have been active in or who have observed politics on the ground in rural, semi-rural and semi-urban areas already know this, and also that people living, working and running businesses in these areas have different perspectives, priorities and values from more affluent and sophisticated urbanites.
Back in January 2011, a controversy flared over the historical novel Interlok being derogatory towards ethnic Indians of Malaysia, and it was one of the books in the school reading syllabus which made the controversy even more hot, with articles about it appearing on Free Malaysia Today's website almost daily and in other print and online media as well.
Meanwhile, reporters from Free Malaysia went down to cover the campaigning in the run up to the by-election for the state seat of Tenang. a small rural town in northern Johor state on 30 January 2011 and they asked some ethnic Indians there what they thought about Interlok and some Indians there said that they had not heard about Interlok, whilst others who did told the reporters that yes they had heard about the Interlok controversy but they had bigger concerns over their economic survival to have time to be bothered with a mere book, to its credit Free Malaysia Today reported.
Now that was way back in 2011 and we still have some clowns, especially from the opposition parties and opposition supporters who go around places like Tenang, Sungai Besar, Kuala Kangsar, recently in Sarawak, etc, using issues which urbanites are preoccupied with to try convince voters there to vote from them.
Their approach here is to demonise the incumbent, rather than try to convince the voters that the opposition can do a better job of serving their interests if elected.
So they usually lose in these areas but continue on repeating their failed approach, over and over again, perhaps hoping that one fine day, the proverbial needle of their proverbial turntable will somehow become unstuck from the rut in the damaged proverbial vinyl record playing on their proverbial turntable at the time, and the opposition party finally goes on to beat the incumbent party for the seat.
So without further ado, below is the story by Free Malaysia Today.
CHARLES F MOREIRA
Rural votes to decide next General Election victor
FMT Reporters A Bloomberg report says farmers and land settlers favour Umno as they say government policies have helped improve their lives.
KUALA LUMPUR: The rural population is well-taken care of by the Government, which is why the Barisan Nasional (BN) does consistently well in rural areas.
And that is why Prime Minister Najib Razak continues to court farmers and works to keep smallholders and Felda settlers happy.
According to a Bloomberg report, Najib needs to keep smallholders happy as he seeks the votes of rural and semi-urban areas to retain power in the next General Election due by 2018.
“Farmers — many of them ethnic Malays — are a linchpin for his party, which leads one of the world’s longest-ruling coalitions. Their votes have a higher weighting than their work, which contributes to less than a tenth of gross domestic product.”
The report said, at the next General Election, Najib would probably further target the bottom 40 per cent of the population who can swing votes in tight races.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)