Blogging 101 for politicians

==================================
IMPORTANT MESSAGE FOR ALL
The articles are captured from the original writer, MsMarina (with her permission). SambalBelacan is just compiling articles to make easier to find. Any comments received will remain un-respond because it's not mine.Reach her at her very own blog at http://rantingsbymm.blogspot.com Please.
==================================

Wednesday May 9, 2007


Blogging 101 for politicians

MUSINGS
By MARINA MAHATHIR

Blogs and bloggers have come under the microscope once again but for the most part the people complaining haven't the faintest idea what blogging is all about, to the point that it's almost embarrassing.

IN most fields, differentiations are made between those considered amateurs and those deemed professionals.

Talented singers are amateurs when they go on American Idol and immediately become professionals when they win. Those who lug their clubs around the greens on a weekend will never be considered professional unless, like Tiger Woods, they do nothing else but play golf and get paid for it.

Your best friend may be spot-on in diagnosing what’s causing your headaches but you still need to go to a certified doctor to be able to do anything about it.

In other words, there is a line drawn between the amateur and professional worlds that is determined either by entry barriers such as full-time study, exams and other means of certification or by payment for the work done.

The one exception is, perhaps, fulltime homemakers who do not have to pass any exams to become professional, nor are they ever paid.

There are lots of areas of interest where there are very few entry barriers except for enthusiasm and staying power.

In the modern world of the Internet, there is of course the phenomenon of blogging.

For those who do not understand blogging, by and large most bloggers are basically writing public diaries. They may write about their everyday lives, almost as if to themselves, except that they put it up for public viewing.

What differentiates one from another is basically the quality of content and writing. A person who leads an interesting life and can write eloquently about it online is going to have a much more popular blog than someone who has a very routine life.

There are millions of blogs and some of the most interesting ones are those written by people who are, for example, cancer survivors who write about how they cope with everyday life and people who live in war zones like Iraq who give literally an insider’s view of the conflict.

What is wonderful about blogging is that there is no entry barrier except perhaps access to the Internet and a facility for language. Anyone and everyone can start one, on any subject. A friend of mine who lives in France writes about Malaysian food in French.

Bloggers do not have to study how to blog, sit for any qualifying exam, nor are paid for it. So there is no such thing as a professional blogger and a non-professional one. True, there are some full-time ones, people who seem to do nothing but blog.

But most bloggers have a life outside the Internet and write their thoughts for public consumption mostly as a hobby. It is however a hobby that is absorbing and exciting because unlike most hobbies, you do have an audience that is eager to and avidly does interact with you.

The wonderful thing about blogging is that it allows an individual to give voice to their thoughts when there are few other avenues available. Some of these thoughts are not necessarily positive and it has always mystified me why people complain about “political” bloggers who generally can make very erudite comments about national issues, and then say nothing about the fascist and racist bloggers who write under the guise of religion.

But for the most part, most bloggers are people who simply want to air their views through this exciting new medium.

Recent proposals to register bloggers or to categorise them into “professional” and “non-professional” bloggers only serves to confirm what anyone savvy with the Internet thinks: that politicians are clueless as to what blogging is.

Which is rather odd since politics is the other area where “professional” and “amateur” has no meaning. It makes even less sense when many bloggers are writing under pseudonyms. If this were another time, would you register Mark Twain or Samuel J. Clemens?

Perhaps what we need to professionalise are comments made about bloggers. At the moment, their amateurishness is laughably embarrassing.

Read More

Competing for sympathy and money

==================================

IMPORTANT MESSAGE FOR ALL

The articles are captured from the original writer, MsMarina (with her permission). SambalBelacan is just compiling articles to make easier to find. Any comments received will remain un-respond because it's not mine.Reach her at her very own blog at http://rantingsbymm.blogspot.com Please.

==================================

Wednesday April 25, 2007


Competing for sympathy and money

Musings
By MARINA MAHATHIR

There is a mistaken belief that charities must always be run by volunteers, but there is no such thing as a full-time volunteer.

RECENTLY an article appeared in this paper commenting on the rise in the numbers of professional fundraisers for charities. Much justifiable tut-tutting was done at the very idea that fundraising for charity could have a commercial element.

But what was interesting to me was the reaction by several people who e-mailed me, saying they thought that the article would be very detrimental to genuine charities because people would simply become even more cynical about donating.

It will be good to put the whole issue of fundraising in this country in context. Despite the constant stream of news of people donating money to various causes, fundraising is still a difficult thing to do for individual charities.

For one thing, it takes a lot of time, and unless you have people dedicated to just doing this, fundraising can distract from doing actual work. Anyone who runs an orphanage or shelter knows that there are daily issues to deal with, which leaves very little time to go out and look for money.

Secondly, fundraising is competitive. You have to “compete” for the sympathy, and therefore the wallets, of companies who get dozens of appeals every year, with bigger better-known charities, politically-favoured causes and with unexpected natural disasters.

Nobody is saying that the tsunami, for instance, was an undeserving cause, but it did sweep up a lot of money, leaving very little for others. At least that’s what many companies said.

In this type of environment, it is no wonder that charities find

professional fundraising tempting. It guarantees you some money and it frees you from the hassle of actually having to go out and raise funds.

Basically, if a charity agrees

with the fundraiser on what they expect to get, then that is their business.

The question is really about the public’s perception of this. In some ways, the public view of charity has not evolved with the times. Often, charity means giving money directly to someone in need, which is fine for individual cases.

But a charity that is providing a service for people in need also needs money to run itself. Without the ability to pay for the right people to run homes or do counselling, they cannot provide the service. Yet this is often what people refuse to pay for.

There is a mistaken belief that charities must always be run by volunteers, but there is no such thing as a full-time volunteer. Unless the person is a very wealthy person already, charities are run by professionals.

Rather than condemning professional fundraisers outright, there should be some sort of regulatory action instead.

There has to be, first, some way of ensuring that all genuine charities get funding in an equitable manner. This will stop the dependence on VIPs as patrons, because those who have no access to such VIPs will obviously be disadvantaged.

Second, all charities should be required to be accountable for the money given to them, whether by the Government or the private sector. There is a need to develop the capacities of smaller charities to keep accounts and reports properly.

Third, there should be a way of defining and regulating professional fundraisers. There are many people who offer to raise funds for charity as a way of getting round some tax regulations.

Some charities are so pleased to be beneficiaries that they allow their names to be used in such a way, and receive very little for it. It would be up to the charities themselves to ensure that they are not exploited.

What I find most disturbing is the more ad hoc fundraising by organisations that people know very little about. I often see young people hanging around banks and restaurants in my neighbourhood asking for donations and showing supposed letters of support from so-called VIPs.

Often they can tell you nothing about either the cause, the organisation or the VIP. You can never know whether the money gets to the people it is purportedly for, because you will never see anything that confirms that.

But the people most exploited are these so-called volunteers. Some of them receive a “commission” for each donation they get.

But that commission is a pittance. They have to put up with the humiliation of having to stand on street corners to appeal for donations.

The public is often sceptical, not least because the volunteers often cannot explain the cause they are supposedly raising money for. This is not surprising; they are not “volunteers” for the cause, they are “volunteers” for the fundraiser.

It is this exploitation of young people in need of a job that should be stopped. But mostly, there is a need to stop the factors that cause cynicism about charity.

Ensuring causes are genuine would be a good start.

Read More

Thank the feminists out there

==================================
IMPORTANT MESSAGE FOR ALL
The articles are captured from the original writer, MsMarina (with her permission). SambalBelacan is just compiling articles to make easier to find. Any comments received will remain un-respond because it's not mine.Reach her at her very own blog at http://rantingsbymm.blogspot.com Please
.==================================

Wednesday April 11, 2007


Thank the feminists out there

Musings: By MARINA MAHATHIR

Feminist” may be seen as a derogatory term, even by women, but Malaysian women today can hold their heads high because of feminists.

TODAY I received an interesting email that contained, among other things, these statements:

If you are a woman voter, thank a feminist.

If your doctor is a woman, thank a feminist.

If you open the help-wanted section of any US paper and see job listings classified by occupation rather than “help wanted – male” and “help wanted – female,” thank a feminist.

If your depression is taken seriously rather than considered a by-product of having a uterus, thank a feminist.

If you can have birth control prescribed to you without first obtaining your husband’s written permission, thank a feminist.

If you’re allowed to teach school regardless of your marital status, and you’re a woman, thank a feminist.

If you are told you can become something other than a nurse, a grade-school teacher, a housewife and mother, or a nun, thank a feminist.

If you expect to be considered for admission to university programmes based on your qualifications rather than your gender, thank a feminist.

If you expect your qualifications for admission to educational programmes to be considered equally, rather than after every male application has been admitted, thank a feminist.

If you’ve heard of the crime of domestic violence, and know that it’s illegal, thank a feminist.

If you can drive, thank a feminist.

If you expect to be paid the same wage as a man doing the same job you are, with the same seniority and the same qualifications, thank a feminist.

If you are considered a person in your own right rather than the chattel of a man, thank a feminist.

If you’re legally permitted to own property in your own name, thank a feminist.

If you don’t expect to be fired because a man “needs your job to feed his family,” thank a feminist.

If the phrase “non-traditional occupation” seems a little old-fashioned or, better yet, you don’t understand it at all, thank a feminist.

If you hear terms like “firefighter,” “police officer,” or “postal worker” in everyday life, thank a feminist.

If the phrase “she’s a woman lawyer” seems odd, thank a feminist.

If you aren’t expected to leave the room at a party when the conversation turns to current events and politics, thank a feminist.

If you’re a grown woman and don’t expect to be called “girl” when you are 50, thank a feminist.

Feminists brought about all of these things. Before the feminists got involved, the reverse was true in each and every case.

Although this list applies mostly to the United States, there are some things here in Malaysia that we can thank feminists for, too.

For instance, the amendment to the Federal Constitution in 2004 which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, the Domestic Violence Act 1994 and current proposals for laws against Sexual Harassment, longer maternity leave and workplace child care.

But whom do we have to thank when female flight attendants are grounded after three children while their male colleagues can keep flying even if they have 10?

When our national airline refuses to recruit and train female pilots even though there are already women fighter pilots in our air force?

When ministers insult bloggers by calling them unemployed women, liars and cheats?

When male judges allow women to lose their children by refusing to make just decisions just because it involves religion?

When women are blamed for “allowing” themselves to be raped even if they are 73 and doing nothing more provocative than washing dishes in their own home?

When career women are constantly reminded not to neglect their families while men who neglect theirs are never chided?

When the fact that there are more female students in universities is considered a problem that has to be corrected by preferential admissions for males?

When laws that protect the rights of Muslim women are overturned because God allegedly prefers it that way?

When women’s faith and morals are judged solely by the way they dress while men’s aren’t?

When unmarried women are deemed unqualified to speak for abused married women whereas it’s OK for men to speak on behalf of women?

When, despite the overwhelming number of cases of violence against women, men, and even some women, insist on focusing on the rare cases of women committing violence against men?

When women have absolutely no chance of becoming Prime Minister in this country?

When “feminist” is considered a derogatory term, even by women, while “male chauvinist” is worn as a badge of honour by some men?

Who indeed do we have to thank for these?

Read More

A blog is no e-surat layang

==================================

IMPORTANT MESSAGE FOR ALL

The articles are captured from the original writer, MsMarina (with her permission). SambalBelacan is just compiling articles to make easier to find. Any comments received will remain un-respond because it's not mine.Reach her at her very own blog at http://rantingsbymm.blogspot.com Please

.==================================

Wednesday March 28, 2007


A blog is no e-surat layang

MUSING BY MARINA MAHATHIR

People in high places featured on blogs should become Net-savvy and post their own version of things instead of labelling all bloggers as irresponsible.

OF LATE, there has been a lot of blather about bloggers from people in high places. Bloggers are apparently prone to lying, rumour mongering, and are not credible or authoritative. Some even go so far as to charge that bloggers can cause disharmony among our people, leading to that old bogey, inter-racial violence.

It’s all a bit puzzling, given this country’s embrace of the Internet and desire to build a knowledge-based economy. As the eleven million Malaysians on the Internet will attest, once you’re on, you’re on; there is no turning back. Otherwise, why would there be websites for everything, including for government ministries?

As many writers (especially those online) have pointed out, the only people really complaining about blogs are politicians. Obviously one only complains about something that makes one uncomfortable. Why blogs should make politicians uncomfortable is of course up to anyone to surmise. But it does look as if some events are not just coincidental.

For instance, recently there have been some allegations of high-powered hanky-panky that originated on blogs, mostly to do with large sums of money. Now whether they are true or not, doubt certainly has been put in the public’s mind about some people.

Therefore the proper thing to do is to investigate quickly to ascertain whether there is any basis to the allegations. If not, come out loud and clear that the poor guy is innocent. If they are true, then take the proper course of action.

Instead, the immediate reaction has been to divert attention by creating doubt in people’s minds about the Internet in general and bloggers in particular. The objective of this is possibly to allow for any allegations that surface on the Net to be pooh-poohed as just some fanciful stories, and of no need for any attention.

Memos are sent out, and calls are made to various media not to pay any credence to anything interesting on the Net. If the reputation of the messenger can be sullied, then there is no need to take any action on any allegation at all.

Which sounds fine, except that of course the reputation of the person accused will never be cleared at all. The bad smell lingers. In the end, it is unfair to both innocent parties and the public.

Some people have likened blogs to surat layang, those nasty anonymous diatribes against people that circulate and are read with the same voraciousness as gossip magazines.

But there is a huge difference between those letters and blogs. For one thing, many blogs are not anonymous, unlike the writers of surat layang. Therefore bloggers who write under their own names are taking responsibility for what they are saying.

Secondly, unlike surat layang, one can always instantly respond to a blog posting by simply posting a comment. The more intelligent your response, the more likely you are to persuade people that what’s reported in the blog is not credible.

Indeed, one way for politicians to counter what they view as untrustworthy and non-authoritative blogs is to start their own blogs. Since they view themselves as very credible straightforward people, whatever they say on their blogs must surely be persuasive.

In the US, politicians are increasingly turning to the Net to promote themselves, and it has worked well for many of them. Therefore, it is surely time for ours, especially those on the government side, to join in.

As they say, if you cannot beat them (and you cannot), then you might as well join them. Indeed, there are several politician blogs that could be very popular.

The only thing, however, is that politicians must be prepared for the Net to bite back at them. Unlike ceramahs to supporters and cosy chats to compliant reporters, netizens have a tendency to talk back, and not always very politely.

If they think you are talking garbage, they will tell you. The only solution to this is to not talk garbage, which apparently some of our politicians find very hard to do. Perhaps this explains their reticence in embracing the Net.

After a whole day of trying to figure out how to attract more development money one’s way, the last thing anyone would have energy for is to answer aggressive questioning about some new policy. Or how one built one's new house.

Worst of all, such grouchy foot stomping about the Net only makes politicians look outdated and out-of-touch. Telling the mainstream media not to look to blogs for information only backfires. It makes the mainstream media look stupid and raises the profile of blogs, justifiably or not.

Some blogsites get more than one million hits because they talk about things the papers won’t. It’s an irreversible tide. Might as well flow with it, or risk drowning.

Read More

Impunity needs a knock on the head

==================================
IMPORTANT MESSAGE FOR ALL
The articles are captured from the original writer, MsMarina (with her permission). SambalBelacan is just compiling articles to make easier to find. Any comments received will remain un-respond because it's not mine.Reach her at her very own blog at http://rantingsbymm.blogspot.com Please.
==================================

Wednesday March 14, 2007


Impunity needs a knock on the head

Musings: By MARINA MAHATHIR

THE other day I saw an extraordinary sight. A man was riding his motorcycle on a busy KL street and SMSing at the same time. He had one hand on the handlebars, and the other hand was tapping out a message.

No doubt he had only one eye on the traffic and the other on his phone. There was no policeman around to stop him.

I contemplated winding down my window to yell at him but was afraid I would cause a major accident if I did that.

The fact was that he felt comfortable doing this because he knew that nobody would really stop him.

This is known as impunity, or the exemption from punishment, harm or recrimination.

As it happened, “impunity” was a big word on the day I saw him, because it was International Women’s Day, the theme for which was Ending Impunity for Violence against Women and Girls.

What this means is that although many countries, including ours, have enacted legislation to prevent violence against women, most however have not followed through with proper implementation.

According to United Nations country reports on the implementation of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), no country has comprehensive data on violence against women or any plan of action to combat it.

Progress in policies has simply not been accompanied by implementation.

In other words, laws and policies against violence against women have no teeth.

Therefore, abusers can act with impunity with little or no fear of punishment.

In most cases around the world, as reported by our representative on the CEDAW Committee, Shanti Dairiam, the police are the first and most persistent obstacle to justice for abused women and girls.

We hear all too often of women being discouraged from reporting domestic violence by the police themselves, or made to feel so humiliated that they change their minds.

In some countries, rape victims suffer much more than rapists.

For every one courageous woman like Mukhtaran Mai of Pakistan, who went to the courts to seek justice, there are hundreds more that we never hear about.

Besides the police, judges and forensic doctors also need to implement these laws diligently.

In Malaysia, last year, there were 3,264 reported cases of violence against women, up from the previous year.

But there is no data on the number of cases prosecuted, nor how many were successful, nor how many could be classified as Grievous Bodily Harm (GBH), in which case the police have to prosecute.

The factors that contribute to impunity include non-reporting of cases, lack of cooperation from the victims (usually because they are fearful or made to feel guilty), lack of support for the victims, pressure on the victims, lack of victim and witness protection, lack of transparency in police action, lack of media attention and lack of NGO advocacy.

All these create an environment where impunity is supported, where people feel free to abuse because they don’t believe anybody will seriously do anything about them.

Needless to say, an environment of impunity is not limited to violence against women.

As long as people feel they can get away with breaking the law, they will continue to break it with impunity.

We are seeing so many cases of alleged corruption and abuse of power these days but very few of them ever have to face prosecution, let alone any form of punishment. Many are let off for supposed lack of evidence.

This only serves to allow these same perpetrators to carry on, as well as encourage others to do the same.

The same factors that contribute to impunity for violence against women can contribute here, too.

Hence perpetrators blithely carry on their crimes, secure in the knowledge that nothing will happen to them.

What we need to do, therefore, is to remove this culture of impunity, whether it is one that allows people to break traffic laws, abuse women and girls or demand bribes.

This means truly applying the law and coming down hard on offenders – not just one or two, but each and every single one.

Then people will believe that the law means something.

Doing that mostly takes political will and leadership. But, most of all, we need people and communities saying very loudly that the current environment of impunity is unacceptable, whatever the issue.

To do this, people must feel free, safe and secure to talk, and not find themselves in turn made to feel like criminals.

Impunity needs to be socially unacceptable.

We should not laugh off people boasting of giving bribes, no matter how small, nor for that matter, any racist comments.

It creates a culture that is tolerant of such things, normalising things that should not be normal.

Read More