Tuesday, January 31, 2017

Saiful menipu dan hanya untuk tarik perhatian

Cacatan Umum

31 Januari 2017

Mahathir bukan sahaja dalang Fitnah Liwat 1
tetapi juga antara dalang Fitnah Liwat 2
1. Minggu lepas dalang sebalik Fitnah 2, Saiful Bukhari telah mengeluarkan kenyataan menyatakan ada kawan rapat Anwar Ibrahim telah menemuinya mewakili keluarga Anwar untuk memohon maaf dan memohon dia untuk mengajukan permohonan pengampunan di raja bagi pihak Anwar Ibrahim.

2. Rentetan dari kenyataan Saiful tersebut juga saya telah dihubungi minggu lepas oleh beberapa orang wartawan bagi meminta respon saya berkenaan perkara ini. Namun saya tidak memberikan sebarang komen untuk memberi ruang mengenal pasti duduk sebenar perkara tersebut. Setakat ini saya sahkan bahawa kenyataan Saiful itu menipu dan hanya untuk menarik perhatian semata - mata.

3. Saiful dicabar jika dia tidak menipu dedahkan siapa kononya kawan rapat tersebut ? Sudah tentu Saiful tidak akan mampu menyebutnya kerana dia hanya mereka cerita. Cukuplah dengan cerita dia 'dirogol' Anwar dengan dia membawa KY Jelly sendiri dalam beg nya. Dia dipaksa diliwat dengan gagal melawan orang tua yang jarak beza umur mereka 38 tahun dengan tahap kesihatan Anwar yang sangat tidak membenarkan perkara tersebut berlaku.
kulit buku FITNAH 2
terbitan SAMM

4. Ramai perlu tahu bahawa plot fitnah 2 ke atas Anwar sememangnya konspirasi politik. Saiful sendiri ketika berkomunikasi melalui aplikasi laman sosial dengan Anuar Mohd Nor salah seorang blogger dan penulis pro Umno secara jelas mengakui penglibatan Mahathir Mohamad dalam konspirasi Fitnah 2. Saiful mengakui bertemu Mahathir untuk mendapatkan nasihat berkaitan. Saiful juga perlu menjelaskan pertemuan dengan Ezam Mohd Nor sebelum dia disusun ke hospital dan membuat laporan polis. Saiful juga perlu menjelaskan bagaimana dia hadir bertemu Najib Razak dan isteri dua hari sebelum beliau kononya dirogol oleh Anwar Ibrahim.

Beranikah Saiful tampil menjelaskan perkara - perkara tersebut dan sebelum itu menyebut siapa kononya kenalan rapat Anwar itu ?

catatan oleh ; che'GuBard (SAMM)

Tuesday, January 10, 2017

Capitalism Is the Problem

By Richard D. Wolff, Truthout | News Analysis

Over the last century, capitalism has repeatedly revealed its worst tendencies: instability and inequality. Instances of instability include the Great Depression (1929-1941) and the Great Recession since 2008, plus eleven "downturns" in the US between those two global collapses. Each time, millions lost jobs, misery soared, poverty worsened and massive resources were wasted. Leaders promised that their "reforms" would prevent such instability from recurring. Those promises were not kept. Reforms did not work or did not endure. The system was, and remains, the problem.
Inequality likewise proved to be an inherent trend of capitalism. Only occasionally and temporarily did opposition from its victims stop or reverse it. Income and wealth inequalities have worsened in almost every capitalist country since at least the 1970s. Today we have returned to the huge 19th-century-sized gaps between the richest 1 percent and everyone else. Rescuing the "disappearing middle class" has become every aspiring politician's slogan. Extreme inequality infects all of society as corporations and the rich, to protect their positions, buy the politicians, mass media and other cultural forms that are for sale.
Recent Crises in the History of Capitalism
Capitalism in Western Europe, North America and Japan -- its original centers -- has boosted profits in four basic ways since the 1970s. First, it computerized and robotized, not to lessen everyone's work time, but instead to raise profits by reducing payrolls. Second, it exploited low-wage immigrant labor to offset wage increases won by years of labor struggles. Third, it moved production to lower-wage countries such as China, India, Brazil and others. Fourth, it divided and weakened the labor unions, political party groups and other organizations that pursued labor's interests. As a result, inside nearly every country of the global capitalist system, the rich-poor divide deepened.
The Great Depression provoked economic "reforms," such as FDR's New Deal. These included regulations restricting risky bank and other market practices. Reforming governments also established public pensions, unemployment insurance, public employment systems, minimum wages, monetary and fiscal policies, and so on. Advocates believed that such reforms would end the 1930s depression and prevent future depressions. They dismissed critics who diagnosed depressions as systemic and prescribed system change (or "revolution") as the necessary solution. "Reform versus revolution" was then a hot debate.
In the US, the reformers defeated the revolutionaries as preparation for war -- and then war itself -- finally ended the Great Depression. As capitalism rebounded after 1945, capitalists increasingly evaded the Depression-era reforms, using their growing wealth to buy the political influence needed to gut many reforms. Later, Reagan led the frontal assault, repackaged as "globalization" and "neoliberalism" to undo the New Deal. When that rollback of reforms culminated in the 2008 crash, it exposed capitalism's instability and inequality yet again.
The continuing post-2008 economic crisis has reproduced both the kinds of suffering that happened after 1929 and the reform-versus-revolution debates. The difference this time is that we know what happened last time. While the reformers then defeated the revolutionaries, their reforms failed to prevent the continuation of capitalism's instability and inequality, and their harmful social effects. Reformism today advocates the same (or a slightly varied) set of reforms as last time. It thus represents a refusal to learn from our history. The revolutionary alternative now makes more sense. "Revolutionary," however, need not evoke romantic notions of storming barricades: Today, revolutionary refers to the recognition that system change, not another reform, is our primary task.
What System Change Requires
What differentiates system change from reforms? Reforms refer to government interventions that still leave employers in the exclusive position to make the basic enterprise decisions: what, how and where to produce and what to do with profits. Reforms include minimum wage laws, redistributive tax structures, and enterprises owned and operated by the government. They range from the mildly Keynesian (the New Deal) to the democratic socialist (what we see in Scandinavian countries) to the state socialist (the model of the USSR and People's Republic of China). All such reforms retain the core relationship inside enterprises as that of employer-employee, with private or public directors controlling the mass of workers and making the basic enterprise decisions.
In contrast, system change means reorganizing the core human relationship inside the factories, offices and stores of an economy. That relationship connects all who participate in production and distribution of goods and services. It shapes (1) who produces what, how and where; (2) how much surplus or profits are available; and (3) the disposition of the surplus or profits.
Truly moving beyond capitalism means breaking from the employer-employee core relationship. It means no longer assigning a relatively tiny number of people inside each enterprise to the employer position of exclusively making the sorts of decisions outlined above. In private corporations the employers are the boards of directors selected by the major shareholders. In state or public enterprises of the traditional socialist economies, the employers are state officials. Instead of either kind of employer-employee relationship, system change installs a different core relationship inside enterprises. A different group of people -- all workers in the factory, office or store -- democratically makes those same decisions. The rule is "one worker, one vote," and in general, the majority decides. The difference between employer and employee dissolves.
Such system change beyond capitalism means something quite different from shifting to public directors from private directors, which is a reform. System change entails the democratization of the workplace. The logic governing the economic system, then, would no longer be capital-centric (making decisions (1) through (3) in such a particular way that the capitalist employer-employee relationship in production is reproduced). The particular connecting relationship at the core of capitalism will have been superseded: rather like what happened earlier to the slave-centric core relationship (master-slave) and the feudal-centric core relationship (lord-serf). Instead, the post-capitalist core relationship will be democratically worker-centric, with the central type of workplace being the worker cooperative.
Among the goals driving an economy based on democratic worker coops, job security, quality of workers' lives and reproduction of the worker coop core relationship in production will weigh more heavily than enterprise profits. Because different people will be making the key enterprise decisions and because those people will be driven by different goals, the post-capitalist society will develop very differently from the capitalist. Democratic worker coops will likely (1) not relocate themselves overseas, (2) distribute incomes far less unequally than capitalist enterprise, (3) not install ecologically damaging technologies near where their families and neighbors reside, and so on.
Responding to reductions in demands for their outputs, worker coops will more likely stress sharing any reduced work hours among all workers rather than forcing a few into unemployment. The needless social irrationality of capitalist downturns -- when unemployed workers coexist with unutilized means of production to leave social needs unmet -- will be much more apparent and thus widely unacceptable.
In an economy built on worker coops, children, retired people, people living with disabilities or illness and others outside the labor force would be sustained from the worker coops' "surplus." The latter comprises what the coop labor force produces above and beyond what it consumes and requires to replace used-up means of production. Adults in and out of the coop labor force would together and democratically determine the sizes and recipients of all the distributions of the surplus. They would decide how much of the surplus would go to expanding production, to provisions for future contingencies, to providing for children, for those in other social institutions, and so on. In place of capitalists (a social minority) distributing the surpluses produced by and appropriated from their employees, a genuine democracy would govern that distribution, much as it governs other worker coop decisions.
Worker coops mark a qualitative and quantitative advance beyond capitalism. They represent a system change adequate to key problems capitalism has shown it cannot overcome, even after centuries of failed efforts to do so.
Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.


Richard D. Wolff is professor of economics emeritus at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, where he taught economics from 1973 to 2008. He is currently a visiting professor in the Graduate Program in International Affairs of the New School University, New York City. He also teaches classes regularly at the Brecht Forum in Manhattan. Earlier he taught economics at Yale University (1967-1969) and at the City College of the City University of New York (1969-1973). In 1994, he was a visiting professor of economics at the University of Paris (France), I (Sorbonne). His work is available at rdwolff.com and at democracyatwork.info.

Thursday, January 05, 2017

SUA PKR dilantik di PP, pembongkar kebenaran dipecat di Selangor

Catatan Umum

5 Januari 2017

1. Pertama sekali diucapkan tahniah kepada Datuk Saifuddin Nasution Ismail kerana dilantik secara rasmi selaku Penasihat Strategik Kerajaan Negeri P.Pinang. Tahniah juga kepada YAB Lim Guan Engkerana tindakan berani dan tidak membazirkan guna tenaga dalam Pakatan Harapan. Untuk rekod Saifuddin Nasution pernah menyusun dan melonjak tapak sokongan Pas Kelantan melalui latihan dan penyusunan strategik ketika beliau diberikan kepercayaan oleh Datuk Husam Musa melalui Yayasan Tok Kenali.

2. Melalui lantikan ini juga seharusnya malu ialah PKR itu sendiri kerana menguasai Kerajaan Negeri Selangor sebaliknya gagal menggunakan aset aset sumber tenaga manusia yang bagus dalam PKR sendiri sebaliknya P.Pinang pula yang memberikan kedudukan rasmi kepada aset PKR. Sudah tentu juga 'musuh' dalam dan luar akan menggunakan isu Setiausaha Agung PKR kini bekerja dan digaji dibawah Setiausaha Agung DAP. Namun tegasnya ini ialah kerana kesilapan dan keangkuhan Azmin Ali menyusun kroni korupnya di Selangor tanpa memikirkan pembinaan masa depan parti itu sendiri.

3. Sekitar pertengahan 2016, Ketua Menteri P.Pinang didakwa kerana kes korupsi yang mana pendakwaan tersebut sendiri banyak kelemahan. Namun isu ini dilihat peluang terbaik bagi 'checkmate' Kerajaan Pusat, dimana jika DUN Pulau Pinang dibubar dan Pilihanraya Negeri (PRN) dipanggil dengan mengembalikan mandat kepada rakyat untuk menjadi hakim. Kemenangan PRN di Pulau Pinang akan memaksa dan mengasak isu - isu korupsi kaitan PM mahupun kerajaan pusat ke dinding. Namun cadangan PRN ini ditolak oleh PKR walaupun diterima baik oleh DAP dan Amanah. Alasan ialah PKR tidak yakin menang ketika itu kerana undi melayu dan akhirnya idea PRN ditolak kerana ketakutan PKR itu.

4. Kini sudah hampir 6 bulan selepas PKR sedar jika PRN dilakukan mereka mungkin kalah 'kerana undi melayu'. Namun apa yang PKR lakukan ? Jawapanyahampir tidak ada, maka kemasukan Saifuddin ketika ini amat tepat bagi merangka strategi ke arah melonjak tapak sokongan. Cuma persoalanya adakah Saifuddin diterima oleh PKR Negeri Pulau Pinang yang rata - ratanya dikuasai oleh puak kartel Azmin ? Sudah hangat kedengaran kartel memainkan propaganda isu kononya Saifuddin bakal TKM baru yang dikawal Lim Guan Eng kerana itu perlu disekat.

5. Meneliti rekod Saifuddin saya yakin beliau mampu merangka dengan baik ke arah mengombak sokongan khususnya melayu di Pulau Pinang. Namun halangan terbesar beliau ialah PKR Negeri P.Pinang sendiri jika beliau mampu memilih dan mengutip pasukan muda dari pemain pemain yang benci dengan politik dalaman tak kesudahan beliau akan berjaya, namun jika beliau terperangkap dan terlalu berhati hati dengan protokol beliau akan tersangkut.

6. Ramai bila membaca tulisan ini pasti nampak cheGuBard pemuja DAP. Jawapanya tidak, di Selangor keadaan berbeza DAP sendiri senyap dengan segala macam korupsi yang jelas berjaya dibuktikan. Terbaru ialah 'pengadu SELCAT' dalam isu Paya Indah Wetlands yang merupakan pegawai kepada Exco Kerajan Negeri Selangor dari DAP baru sahaja dipaksa berhenti.

7. Abdul Razak Ismail, merupakan Pegawai di Pejabat YB Datuk Theng Chang Kim dalam beberapa update laman sosial FB nya menyatakan beliau dipaksa berhenti atas nasihat bosnya kerana tekanan yang diberikan oleh Azmin Ali. beliau juga mendedahkan bagaimana Pejabat MB sendiri ada pemantau media sosial dimana sesiapa yang mengkritik MB jika bekerja berkaitan kerajaan negeri pasti akan diadu dan dihukum. Jadi apa bezanya Kerajaan Selangor dengan kerajaan Bn yang lain ?

8. Melalui tulisan ini cheGuBard mendesak Theng Chang Kim menyatakan kebenaran mengenai 'pengusiran' Razak Ismail keluar dari pejabatnya kerana tekanan Kartel Azmin Ali. Juga sehingga kini masih ternanti komen pemimpin DAP, Amanah mahupun Pas (khususnya di Selangor) mengenai pembaziran kos hampir RM10juta cat pintu gerbang Darul Ehsan, anugerah Balak lebih RM40 juta tanpa tender kepada entiti perniagaan bertaraf enterprise, pembaziran tukar kubah masjid Shah Alam bernilai RM32 juta, pembaziran siapkan parkir perpustakaan RM50 juta yang mana nilai lebih mahal dari perpustakaan itu sendiri, kewujudan proksi Azmin yang menghantar masej kepada semua Exco dan pegawai kerajaan berkaitan pertukaran status kawasan Paya indah Wetlands yang mana turut melupuskan sebahagian kawasan Hutan Simpan Kuala Langat Utara..... dan banyak lagi... namun semua bisu kerana jaga 'tembolok' masing masing.

catatan oleh : che'GuBard

nota tambahan : Razak Ismail 'berhenti' kerana hormati Theng Chang Kim dan elak bekas bosnya ditekan salinan surat 'berhenti' di sertakan di bawah.

Isu BR1M: Bukan kali pertama Azmin 'menunjal' Wan Azizah...

Bekas Ahli Pimpinan Tertinggi PKR, Badrul Hisham Shaharin menyifatkan tindakan Timbalan Presiden PKR, Datuk Seri Mohamed Azmin Ali yang menyokong kenyataan  Pengerusi Parti Pribumi Bersatu Malaysia (PPBM), Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad berhubung pemberian Bantuan Rakyat 1Malaysia (BR1M) sebagai rasuah untuk mengalih perhatian rakyat terhadap isu dalaman PPBM.
Badrul Hisham yang lebih dikenali sebagai Chegubard berkata, tindakan Azmin memberikan kenyataan yang berbeza dengan Presiden PKR, Datuk Seri Dr. Wan Azizah Wan Ismail bukan satu perkara baru kerana pada tahun 2015, Mohamed Azmin pernah 'menunjal' Wan Azizah di depan umum.
"Saya melihat, tindakan Azmin menyokong Tun Mahathir secara terang-terangan menggambarkan keadaan polimik sebenar yang berlaku dalam parti pembangkang. Ini bukan pertama kali Azmin buat begitu kepada Wan Azizah.
"Perkara sama pernah dilakukan sewaktu Wan Azizah mengumumkan Pakatan Harapan (PH) pada waktu tengah hari, dan Azmin mengambil pendekatan untuk memberitahu media bahawa PH tiada kena mengena dengan kerajaan Selangor, pada hari yang sama.
"Begitu juga dengan yang terjadi sekarang ini. Azmin dilihat cuba untuk menyebelahi kenyataan Tun Mahathir bahawa BR1M sebagai rasuah, bagi mengalihkan dan menutup kemelut yang berlaku dalam parti Tun Mahathir," katanya kepada AgendaDaily ketika dihubungi pada Rabu.
Beliau yang juga merupakan Pengasas Solidariti Anak Muda Malaysia (SAMM) berkata demikian ketika diminta mengulas mengenai Azmin yang membidas kenyataan presidennya dan mengibaratkan BR1M sebagai sogokan rasuah.
Menteri  Besar Selangor itu berkata nilai bantuan yang diberikan oleh kerajaan pusat itu  dilihatnya tidak mampu membantu menjana ekonomi rakyat.
Kenyataan itu jelas berbeza dengan Wan Azizah yang berpendapat BR1M seharusnya diberikan kerana ia merupakan hak rakyat.
Chegubard turut mengajukan beberapa soalan terhadap Tun Mahathir dan Azmin jika benar mereka menganggap BR1M ini sebagai satu bentuk rasuah.
"Rasuah bukan hanya melibatkan sebelah pihak...ia melibatkan pihak yang memberi dan menerima. Jadi saya nak tanya, adakah Tun Mahathir berani mengarahkan semua ahli PPBM untuk tidak menerima rasuah? kerana jika rasuah, yang menerima juga dikira salah.
"Adakah Azmin boleh mengarahkan rakyat Selangor untuk tidak menerima BR1M? Jika BR1M adalah rasuah, adakah pemberian air percuma di Selangor merupakan rasuah? Adakah baucar  Tabung Warisan Anak Selangorn (Tawas) juga merupakan satu rasuah?," katanya.
Chegubard tidak menafikan Tun Mahathir merupakan seorang yang bijak memainkan isu, sebab itu beliau menjadikan BR1M sebagai isu untuk mengalihkan kemelut yang berlaku dalam 'parti bunga raya' dan Azmin dilihat cuba 'membantu' Tun Mahathir dengan menyatakan sokongannya.
"Tindakan Azmin merupakan sikap dolak dalih bagi mengalih perhatian rakyat terhadap apa yang berlaku dalam parti Tun Mahathir. Azmin sengaja nak alihkan isu  Anina Saadudin yang dipecat sebagai ketua wanita PPBM dek kerana isu 'selak kain' terbongkar.
"Bukan itu sahaja, ia juga sebagai usaha untuk mengalihkan pandangan rakyat daripada pertembungan penyokong Tun Mahathir dan Presiden PPBM, Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin.
"Jika benar Anina dipecat kerana salah laku, kenapa Muhyiddin yang dikatakan mempunyai hubungan sulit dengan isteri hakim tidak pula dipecat atau diminta direhatkan daripada parti?," katanya.
Chegubard turut meminta agar Tun Mahathir dan Azmin menghentikan sandiwara yang dibawa mereka kini kerana rakyat sudah muak dengan drama yang dipertontonkan.
"Cukuplah...rakyat sudah muak dengan pendekatan yang dimainkan pembangkang. Azmin telah berjaya membawa peranan 'anak angkat' baik kepada Tun Mahathir," katanya
sumber : http://www.agendadaily.com/Muka-Hadapan/isu-br1m-bukan-kali-pertama-azmin-menunjal-wan-azizah.html