Archive for February 16th, 2012|Daily archive page

Don’t try to strike a deal with the Shahrizats, Putrajaya told – The Malaysian Insider – Tuesday, 14 February 2012 13:36

In candidacy, corruption, Ethics, Malaysia, media tricks, PDRM, police on February 16, 2012 at 4:56 pm

KUALA LUMPUR — A former senior policeman today accused a federal minister of trying to indemnify Datuk Seri Shahrizat Abdul Jalil and her family from alleged misappropriation by asking her to repay the RM250 million federal loan given to the National Feedlot Corporation (NFCorp).

Datuk Mat Zain Ibrahim, a retired Kuala Lumpur CID chief, said Shahrizat (picture) need not resign as Cabinet minister, but called on the authorities to take action against her family based on evidence obtained so far.

“The evidence exposed in the NFC scandal thus far is too obvious to be ignored,” the former CID chief said in a statement to The Malaysian Insider.

NFCorp is headed by Shahrizat’s husband, Datuk Seri Mohamad Salleh Ismail. Their three children also hold executive posts in the company.

Mat Zain was referring to a remark made by de facto law minister Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz, who said repayment of the federal loan was the best solution to put an end to the ongoing controversy without forcing a resignation from the women, family and community development minister.

Mat Zain said that even if the minister’s family repaid the “entire amount of the loan”, it did not change the fact that allegations of alleged financial abuse had been made. He also said Nazri’s remarks contradicted what he had said in Parliament last year.

The ex-top cop said Nazri had told Parliament in March last year that “the Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail has no power to strike a deal with anyone facing criminal charges for being caught in a sticky political situation.”

Mat Zain said that not even the prime minister had the power to clear any individual from criminal culpability, and it did not matter whether Shahrizat resigned or stayed as a Cabinet minister.

He cited the case of Tan Sri Rahim Noor as an example, where the former Inspector-General of Police had resigned to take responsibility for giving Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim a black eye when the latter was in prison.

“Yet months later he was charged for assaulting a detainee and he served his sentence,” said Mat Zain.

He also pointed out that Nazri had yet to look into allegations that the Attorney-General’s Chambers had dropped its RM40 million corruption case against former Malacca Chief Minister Tan Sri Abdul Rahim Thamby Chik in exchange for him stepping down from all government and party positions.

“There appear to be some ‘similarities’ in the manner the government of the day handles the NFC case and that involving RTC (Rahim Thamby Chik),” said Mat Zain.

The NFC hit the headlines following last year’s Auditor-General’s Report, and has continued to hog the limelight after it was linked to Shahrizat, and her family, who runs the NFCorp.

PKR has since made several revelations relating to the cattle-project scandal, including NFCorp’s purchase of two luxury condominium units in Bangsar, Kuala Lumpur, and the alleged use of project funds to pay for Shahrizat and her family’s personal expenses.

The opposition party has also alleged that Shahrizat’s family used nearly RM600,000 from NFCorp’s funds to settle their credit card bills in 2009.

But the management of NFCorp has maintained that the credit card expenses were solely for business purposes.

It has also denied allegations that funds from the RM250 million government loan were channelled into its accounts before the loan agreement was signed.

[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]

Without fear of favour. Only the cops could handle the cabinet. How about more ex-police (preferably non-racists) join the political candidacy this time? At least most will not be frightfully rich or GLC linked. Far less an evil than BN’s extreme wealth and bribery problems WITH apartheid on top of that. This could wipe out CORRUPTION in BN at least. That leaves apartheid problems for Pakatan (nepotism) or 3rd Force (no nepotism!) to fill in the betterment of Malaysia.

Who knows maybe most ethical police or retired police who hate corruption are also non-apartheid as well, we won’t need Pakatan by then (for being nepotistic and power mongering, term limitless) and 3rd Force could be a great watcher ready to out or replace any new trouble maker MPs with limitless terms and other b.s..

Office romance not always a bad thing – Malaysia Chronicle – Tuesday, 14 February 2012 13:11

In 1% tricks and traps, bosses, conflict of interest, Ethics, intent on February 16, 2012 at 4:52 pm

WITH people clocking long hours at work these days, it is not surprising that some of them do eventually fall in love with their co-workers.

And unless one’s company has a strict no-dating policy, it would not be remiss of an employee to openly express romantic interest in his or her colleague, say human-resource (HR) and dating experts.

In fact, it is perfectly acceptable for an employee to present a bouquet of flowers – on special occasions such as Valentine’s Day – to his girlfriend at the office, said Ms Violet Lim, co-founder of dating agency Lunch Actually.

For those who prefer to stay low-key, sweet nothings can come in the form of online messages.

These days, most companies take a neutral stance towards office romance as people are spending more time at the workplace, which, as a result, has become convenient hunting ground for marriage mates, said Mr Josh Goh, assistant director of corporate services at staffing and HR consultancy The GMP Group.

“Employers are aware that a no-office- romance policy could be a bit intrusive and may have negative repercussions on its employer brand,” said Mr Goh.

“Most of the time, they would expect their employees to behave like adults and know where to draw the line between professional and personal lives.”

Human-resource manager Ivy Tan, for example, has witnessed her fair share of happy endings during her 11 years at a professional-services firm.

“It is common for team members to work till 2am or 3am, so they have limited time for socialising. It is very common to see them marry their colleagues, bosses or subordinates,” said Ms Tan, who now works for a Japanese firm dealing in printing and imaging products.

Companies usually have no issue with their staff members dating or marrying one another, she said. However, employees involved in office romance should take steps to protect their professional image, said Mr Goh.

In cases where the couple’s professional relationship is one of supervisor and subordinate, they should be mindful not to show favouritism towards each other, said Mr Goh.

Some companies require their staff to declare if their spouse is working in the same department or in the company, so that the management can decide whether there is a conflict of interest.

As for day-to-day behaviour, public display of affection is a big no-no because it could make others feel uncomfortable and tarnish one’s professional image, said the experts.

“The dating couple should be mindful that the workplace is still a place to conduct business and not a place to display affection openly,” said Mr Goh.

“Dating employees should not be exchanging confidential information about the company or colleagues.”

It is also good practice to keep the romance under wraps until both parties are certain that they are serious about the relationship, to avoid unwanted gossip and potential embarrassment when things do not work out, Mr Goh advised.

And should the romance sour, do not make irrational decisions like resigning without first finding another job.

“Employees should assess the circumstances, such as their career progression within the company, and the impact of the break-up. Resignation should be the last resort,” said Mr Goh.

Instead, speak to the immediate bosses about spending some time away from the office, or ask for a transfer to another department or location.

Said Ms Lim: “If all parties are mature, and can deal with office romance properly, one should not rule out the possibility of finding love at the office.”

-my paper

[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]

Office romance is unprofessional, unethical, skews office politics with potential couple blocs. Do seek a new job in another company before embarking on romance by all means though. That is is ethical and principled thing to do. Any ‘aware’ bosses would fire the offenders. Do not mix work with pleasure because it results in psychic affliction (spirit sequestration) against non-couple workers in the office. That is also why pregnant women are fired, or put on extended unpaid leave. Same thing with religion and politics, which when mixed, results in Theocracy afflicting all non-religious citizens in a country and colouring policy in a way that can start wars due to ‘sensitivities’ which only a civil government can handle. This writer needs to stop pushing subtle agendas or if genuinely ignorant, grow up and learn about spiritual ethics or office politics. What is the writer trying to do, promote strife at the office? Promote nepotism?

How can a man with such a high IQ have such low views? – by A N Wilson Last updated at 3:59 PM on 15th February 2012

In 1% tricks and traps, advice, critical discourse, criticism, word of the law on February 16, 2012 at 4:44 pm

Yesterday, Professor Richard Dawkins was on Radio 4’s Today programme defending his latest piece of secularist propaganda — a poll which purportedly shows that of those who said they were Christians, many did not go to Church, read the Bible or hold very specific beliefs about Jesus, and some could not even name the first book of the New Testament.

On this basis, Dawkins suggested, it was wrong to claim Britain is still a Christian country, so we should get rid of bishops sitting in the House of Lords, abolish faith schools and put an end to chaplains in NHS hospitals.

Radio 4 had asked along the Rev Giles Fraser, former Canon of St Paul’s Cathedral, to lock horns with Dawkins. He said it was ludicrous to assume someone was not a Christian simply because he could not name the first book of the New Testament.
‘Secularist propaganda’: On Radio 4, Richard Dawkins suggested it was wrong to claim Britain is still a Christian country, citing a poll which shows that many ‘Christians’ do not appear to practice their religion

‘Secularist propaganda’: On Radio 4, Richard Dawkins suggested it was wrong to claim Britain is still a Christian country, citing a poll which shows that many ‘Christians’ do not appear to practice their religion

And he challenged Dawkins, as the high priest of the secular movement, to recite the full title of the secularists’ own bible, Darwin’s Origin Of Species.

So Dawkins began, ‘On The Origin of Species?…’ before getting it wrong and, rather touchingly in the circumstances, groaning: ‘Oh God, there’s a sub-title.’

(The full title is On The Origin Of Species By Means Of Natural Selection, Or The Preservation Of Favoured Races In The Struggle For Life.)

The professor’s humiliation, in which he was skewered on his own argument, did not stop him from taking to the airwaves throughout the day to promote his anti-Christian agenda with its creed of intolerance and ignorance.

Sadly, his zealotry would have precluded him giving consideration to an event the day before, in which a Cabinet Office minister called eloquently for Europe to become more confident and comfortable in its Christianity.

Religious discourse: Rev Giles Fraser, former Canon of St Paul’s Cathedral (left) challenged Richard Dawkins to recite the full title of Charles Darwin’s most famous work

Baroness Warsi — a woman and a Muslim — was addressing the Pontifical Ecclesiastical Academy in the Vatican. She said: ‘The societies we live in, the cultures we have created, the values we hold and the things we fight for, all stem from centuries of discussion, dissent and belief in Christianity.’

Her speech was especially timely. ‘I am not calling for some kind of 21st-century theocracy,’ she went on. ‘Religious faith and its followers do not have the only answer?… My concern is when secularisation is pushed to an extreme, when it requires the complete removal of faith from the public sphere.’

Note the difference in tone between Baroness Warsi and Professor Dawkins. I believe she speaks for most people in this country, for the huge number who would not call themselves very religious, but who might want a wedding or a funeral in church, and who might very well describe themselves as Christian.

In contrast to Baroness Warsi’s open-minded declaration that religion might not have ‘the only answer’ to life, Dawkins peddles the extraordinary view that science does have all life’s answers.

The truth is that science does not even have the answers to the questions posed by science itself, let alone the questions posed by philosophy, or by the experiences of birth, love, bereavement and the prospect of our own deaths.

Very few Christians of the 21st century would see such matters in the same terms that they were seen by Christians in the Middle Ages or in the first century AD.

But that does not mean there is no reason for practising a faith, or for having religious institutions which hallow and shape our experiences of life.

The contempt felt by the secularists such as Dawkins for hospital chaplains tells us so much about their approach to life. The chaplaincies in our NHS hospitals play a vital role in bringing healing, human company and comfort to patients.
Repercussions: The trouble with this observation is that it all too often leads to reactionary extremes

Timely: I believe that Baroness Warsi speaks for most people in this country

This is not something we should despise. No doubt, some religious extremists would wish, in such circumstances, to push their own hardline viewpoint on to vulnerable patients and their families.

Most, however, are kindly presences, recognising the fears we all feel in the face of illness or death, and are offering comfort.

When the immensely popular comedian Peter Kay wrote in his autobiography that he was brought up as a Roman Catholic and found the notion of some kind of God or higher being ‘comforting’, Dawkins was excoriating. ‘How can you take seriously someone who likes to believe something because he finds it “comforting?”?’ he demanded.

It is almost beyond belief that such an eminent man could ask such a silly question.

When figures such as Richard Dawkins are asked to defend themselves against religion, they always select as their opponents the most extreme fundamentalists — whether Christian, Muslim or Jewish.

But Dawkins’ presumption to have an idea of someone else’s innermost beliefs is both fanatical and an intrusive thing.

He may be very clever at explaining the theory of evolution, but when hurling insults at those who profess their religious belief, he is hardly the objective scientist.

Of Nadia Eweida, the check-in worker whom British Airways tried to prevent from wearing a cross round her neck, he said she had ‘one of the most stupid faces I have ever seen’.

There never has been, in the whole history of the world, a culture or a society or a civilisation which was devoid of any religious structure.
Forgotten truth: Richard Dawkins neglects to dwell upon the fact that Charles Darwin said he believed in God

Forgotten truth: Richard Dawkins neglects to dwell upon the fact that Charles Darwin said he believed in God

Nor, in the history of human thought in West or East, does there exist more than a handful of eccentrics who would reject the spiritual dimension of life.

The vociferous secularist minority may, at first hearing, sound like the majority of intelligent men and women, dominating the broadcasting channels and much of the printed media.

But they have ranged against them Plato and Aristotle, nearly all the philosophers and sages of East and West down to the 20th century. Einstein was no atheist either. ‘Science without religion is lame,’ he said. ‘Religion without science is blind.’

Even Charles Darwin — and this is a fact Dawkins does not dwell upon — said he believed in God.

It is time the secularists shut up and grew up. They are like spotty adolescents who think themselves clever for cocking a snook at the clergy. Anyone can pick holes in the more absurd myths of religion, just as anyone can make perky fifth-form debating points about the non-existence of God.

The truths of the great religions have been tested, not in radio studios but in human lives. Look at the deeply religious beliefs of Mahatma Gandhi or Martin Luther King.

They were all highly intelligent people whose gentle lives are more impressive than the strident debating points of secularism.

I am not saying gentleness is impossible for unbelievers; merely that a little more gentleness from the secular lobby might allow them a humble glimpse of what we all — whatever our beliefs — owe to our religious inheritance.

[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]

But Xianity’s not even the native religion of the North Atlantic Isles??? Celtism, Wiccanism and the Tuantha Pantheon are the TRUE faith of Scots, Welsh and Irish BEFORE the English invaded and subjugated the original faith systems and peoples (albeit beringing some tehcnology and development, that does not justify the loss of Sovereignty nor the right to destroy the original faith systems).

So who’s going to keep the native religion alive while all the ‘Godders’ go around being all Xian which was only imported when the Angles colonised and butchered the local Scots, Irish and Welsh? He who has no roots has no future. And that is why Israel and Palestine both have the sympathy of many with Israel holding to Judaism which of course was derived from the Egyptians.

“Anyone can pick holes in the more absurd myths of religion, just as anyone can make perky fifth-form debating points about the non-existence of God.”

Don’t throw that strawman at the people. The original faith issue conquers all arguments about people making non-arguments. This point is moot and culture and faith ORIGINALE is the real issue. Xianity is an Aramean/Armenian import of the near middle East from what some call ‘sand n1gg3rs’. Not white enough!

It takes a high IQ to want to keep one’s original faith system relevant and vibrant in opposition to one from a foreign land and full of strife, what makes such informativeness on one’s homeland’s native faith system to survive and be strong in one’s own homeland such a low view?

REAL Ratings Unlike the Feel Good Ones That Ratings Agencies Give – original edits by @AgreeToDisagree – 17th February 2012

In 1% tricks and traps, as close to original as possible, banks, criticism, media tricks, misrepresentation of data, neurolinguistics, opaque system, out of context, ratings agencies, strawman NGOs, Strawmen on February 16, 2012 at 4:27 pm

A nation TRILLIONS in debt and in negative growth CANNOT have any A's at all.