suhaizam

Archive for October, 2010|Monthly archive page

Budget 2011 Highlight

In Budget, Ekonomi / Economy, Malaysia, Management / Pengurusan, Politik / Politic, Sosial Politik on October 15, 2010 at 12:31 pm
KUALA LUMPUR: Following are the highlights of 2011 Budget tabled by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak, who is also Finance Minister, at the Dewan Rakyat today:
* A mixed development project including affordable houses to be developed at a cost of RM10 billion in Sungai Buloh and is expected to be completed by 2025. 

* Another landmark project “Warisan Merdeka” which includes a 100-storey tower, the tallest in Malaysia, at a cost of RM5 billion to be completed by 2015.
* Development of large-scale integrated Aquaculture Zones in Pitas, Sungai Telaga and Sungai Padas in Sabah as well as Batang Ai and Tanjung Manis in Sarawak with an allocation of RM252 million.

* Allocation of RM135 million for basic infrastructure to encourage farmers participation in high value agriculture activities including swiftlet nests.

* Extension of income tax deduction incentive for investors and income tax exemption for companies undertaking food production activities until 2015.
* RM85 million to provide infrastructure facilities to facilitate construction of hotels and resorts in remote areas with the potential to attract tourists.

* RM50 million to construct several shaded walkways in the KLCC-Bukit Bintang vicinity.

* Development of world’s first integrated eco-nature resort at a cost of RM3 billion by Nexus Karambunai in Sabah to commence next year.
* Abolishing of import duty on 300 goods preferred by tourists and locals, at 5 to 30 per cent, to promote Malaysia as a shopping heaven in Asia.

* RM119 million for the development of local content creation, hosting local content and unlocking new channels for content.

* Exemption of sales tax on all types of mobile phones.

* RM850 million for infrastructure support to accelerate corridor and regional development.

* RM411 million for research, development and commercialisation activity to be the platform for enhancing value-added activities across economic sectors.

* Establishment of a Special Innovation Unit (UNIK) under the Prime Minister’s Department with an allocation of RM71 million for next year to commercialise R&D findings by universities and research institutions.

* RM200 million for the purchase of creative products such as high quality, locally-produced films, dramas and documentaries.

* Rate of service tax to be increased from five to six per cent.

* Service tax to be imposed on paid television broadcasting services.

* Strengthening the revenue collection system by increasing enforcement and audit as well as coverage on all parties that should be paying taxes.

* Restructuring and strengthening of education and training with the sum of RM29.3 billion allocated for Education Ministry, RM10.2 billion (Higher Education Ministry) and RM627 million (Human Resource Ministry).

* Establishment of Talent Corporation under the Prime Minister”s Office in early 2011 to develop an expert workforce database as well as collaborate closely with talent networks globally.

* For the Ministry of Education, a sum of RM6.4 billion is allocated for Development Expenditure to build and upgrade schools, hostels, facilities and equipment as well as uphold the status of the teaching profession.

* RM213 million is allocated to reward high performance schools as well as for the remuneration of Principals, Head Teachers and Excellent Teachers.

* The Government will increase pre-school enrolment rate to a targeted 72 per cent by end 2011 through additional 1,700 classes, strengthen the curriculum as well as appoint 800 pre-school graduate teachers.

* The Government also allocates RM111 million for PERMATA programme including the construction of the second phase of Sekolah PERMATA Pintar school complex, 32 PERMATA Children Centres (PAPN) and financing operations of 52 completed PAPNs.

* RM250 million allocated for Development Expenditure for religious schools, Chinese-type schools, Tamil national schools, missionary schools and Government-assisted schools nationwide.

* Recognising the importance of Islamic education, the Government will provide assistance per capita for primary and secondary rakyat religious schools with an allocation of RM95 million.

* To provide competent and quality teachers and instructors to better guide and educate students, the Government allocates RM576 million in the form of scholarships for those wishing to further their studies.

* RM213 million is allocated to enhance proficiency in Bahasa Malaysia, strengthen the English language as well as streamline the standard curriculum for primary schools.

* The Government will recruit 375 native-speaking teachers including from the United Kingdom and Australia to further enhance teaching of English.

* The number of PhD qualified academic staff will be increased to 75 per cent in research universities and to 60 per cent in other public institutions of higher learning with an allocation of RM20 million.

* Excise duty exemption be increased from 50 per cent to 100 per cent on national vehicles purchased by the disable.

* Existing tax relief of up to a maximum of RM5,000 be extended to cover other expenses such as day care centre, cost incurred to employ caretakers for parents and other daily needs such as diapers.

* Stamp duty exemption of 50 per cent be given on loan agreement instruments to finance first-time purchase of houses.

* Full import duty and 50 per cent excise duty exemption was granted to franchise holders of hybrid cars.

* Implementation of 1Malaysia Training Programme by Community Colleges, National Youth Training Institutes, Giat Mara and Industrial Training Institutes to commence in January 2011 with an allocation of RM500 million.

* The establishment of National Wage Consultation Council as the main platform for wage determination.

* The establishment of 1Malaysia Youth Fund with an allocation of RM20 million.

* Monthly allowance for KAFA teachers will be increased to RM800 compared with RM500 currently.

* Increase in monthly allowance for the Chairman of JKKK and JKKP, Tok Batin, Chairman of JKKK Orang Asli and Chairman of Kampung Baru to RM800 compared with RM450 currently.

* Increase in meeting attending allowance to all comittee members from RM30 to RM50.

* Special Financial Assistance amounting to RM500 to be provided to all civil servants from Grade 54 and below, including contract officers and retirees.

* The abolishment of the Competency Level Assessment or PTK to be replaced with a more suitable evaluation system by June 2011.

* Extension of services of Pegawai Khidmat Singkat for an additional period of one year from December 2010.

* Raising the amount of loan from RM10,000 to RM20,000 for additional works on low-cost houses for Support Group Two.

* Raising the maximum loan eligibility to RM450,000 compared with RM360,000 currently, effective January 1, 2011.

* Increasing the rate for Funeral Arrangement Assistance to RM3,000.

* Allowing flexibility to self-determine fully-paid maternity leave not exceeding 90 days from the current 60 days subject to a total of 300 days of maternity leave throughout the tenure of service.

Source: NST

Read more: Budget 2011 highlights http://www.nst.com.my/nst/articles/Budget2011highlights/Article/#ixzz12QhvqZKw

Advertisements

Was Iran’s Election Stolen? New Study Makes a Convincing Case

In Election, Iran, World on October 15, 2010 at 12:25 pm

A report by the Chatham House in London and the Institute of Iranian Studies at St. Andrew’s University in Scotland shows that official Iranian election data raises many key questions about the June 12 vote.

The CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR
By Dan Murphy | Correspondent 06.22.09

A statistical analysis of province-by- province voting in Iran’s June 12 presidential election makes a compelling case for wide-spread fraud in the vote that returned conservative President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to power and touched off days of bloody protests in Iran.

The report, “Preliminary Analysis of the Voting Figures in Iran’s 2009 Presidential Election” published by the Chatham House think tank in London and the Institute of Iranian Studies at St. Andrew’s University in Scotland, found instances of greater than 100 percent turnout in two provinces. It also found an improbable 90 percent turnout in four other provinces. The research was based official Iranian data.

In the immediate aftermath of the election, with defeated challenger Mir Hossein Mousavi and his supporters saying the election was stolen, political scientists cautioned that it was possible that Mr. Ahmadinejad had won, given the lack of accurate polling data before the election

Vastly different voting patterns

But the researchers found a pattern of voting widely at odds from past Iranian elections, including a surge in support for Ahmadinejad in rural areas where conservative candidates were deeply unpopular in Iran’s 1997, 2001, and 2005 elections.

In those elections “conservative candidates, and Ahmadinejad in particular, were markedly unpopular in rural areas,’’ the authors write. “That the countryside always votes conservative is a myth. The claim that this year Ahmadinejad swept the board in more rural provinces flies in the face of these trends.”

Ahmadinejad won more than 44 percent of reformist voters?

They also find that for Ahmadinejad’s support to be legitimate, in a third of Iran’s provinces he would have had to win over not only all of his former supporters, but all formerly centrist voters, all new voters, and “up to 44 percent of former reformist voters, despite a decade of conflict between these two groups.”

‘It’s the economy, stupid’

Juan Cole, a historian of the Middle East and an expert on Shiite Islam at the University of Michigan, called the results “fairly damning” noting that Iran’s economy has deteriorated sharply in the past year, something that almost always hurts incumbents in free and fair elections.

The paper also finds that while in past elections there were considerable differences in turnout from province to province, these regional differences declined sharply in the latest election. “The data seems to suggest that regional variations in participation have suddenly disappeared,’’ the authors wrote.

“This makes the lack of any sort of direct relationship between the provinces that saw an increase in turnout and those that saw a swing to Ahmadinejad all the more unusual,’’ they write. “The lack of a direct relationship makes the argument that Ahmadinejad won the election because of an increase in participation by a previously silent conservative majority somewhat problematic.”

Meanwhile on Monday, protestors continued to take to the streets of Tehran, though in small groups harried by riot police and helicopters. Iran’s highest elected authority, the Guardian Council, admitted on Monday to electoral “irregularities” in 50 of the nation’s 366 districts, but insisted that these problems were minor and did not effect the outcome of the election.

Copyright © 2009 The Christian Science Monitor
http://features. csmonitor. com/globalnews/ 2009/06/22/ was-iran% E2%80%99s- election- stolen-new- study-makes- a-convincing- case/

China to Lose Ally Against US Trade Hawks

In Amerika, China, Ekonomi / Economy, Politik / Politic on October 11, 2010 at 2:00 pm

The US business community can no longer resist political pressure for Washington to take a tougher stand against China on trade issues, according to a senior figure from the US Chamber of Commerce.

Myron Brilliant, senior vice-president for international affairs, who has previously helped to protect Beijing from hawkish trade policies, told the Financial Times: “I don’t think the Chinese government can count on the American business community to be able to push back and block action [on Capitol Hill].”

Speaking on the eve of a trip to Beijing, where he will meet senior Chinese officials, Mr Brilliant added: “Certainly the chamber remains a bridge in support of the relationship but it is a difficult time to keep the wolves at bay. China shouldn’t take the American business community for granted.”

Mr Brilliant said corporate America’s attitude had changed in response to a range of “industrial policies” pursued by Beijing, including the undervaluation of the renminbi, which made it harder for US companies to do business and compete with China. He also cited the tough economic times in the US – particularly the near 10 per cent jobless rate – as making it more difficult to argue against tough action on China.

The political heat in the US surrounding China’s currency policy increased last week when a group of Democrats and Republicans in the House of Representatives urged the Treasury to describe China as a “currency manipulator” in its report due in April. This move could be followed by sanctions. In addition, lawmakers from both parties in the Senate last week proposed legislation designed to force China to allow the renminbi to appreciate.

Mr Brilliant said it was too early for the chamber to take a position on the recently unveiled Senate proposal. However, he did say the chamber understood the “frustration” of lawmakers. “We concur that this is a growing problem,” he said, while adding: “I don’t believe in an eye-for-an-eye. I don’t believe that protectionism should be met with protectionism.”

In the 1990s, Mr Brilliant helped lead the chamber’s lobbying efforts in favour of China’s accession to the World Trade Organisation, persuading thousands of companies to push for its inclusion in the global trading system. “I don’t think I could pull that coalition together now. Part of it is that China is not playing by the same rules”

Meanwhile, China vowed again on Sunday to resist pressure for a renminbi revaluation and threatened to retaliate if the US imposed trade sanctions.

Speaking as Beijing sent a senior official to Washington to ease trade frictions, Chen Deming, commerce minister, said China would “not turn a blind eye” if it was labelled a manipulator by the US Treasury. Mr Chen said if the US falsely called China a manipulator for domestic political reasons, and sanctions followed: “We will not do nothing. We will also respond if this means litigation under the global legal framework.”

He added adjusting the value of the renminbi would not solve global trade imbalances, predicting that China could see its trade balance turn to deficit in March.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2010.

By James Politi in Washington and Patti Waldmeir in Shanghai

The Financial Times

Published: March 21 2010 19:28 | Last updated: March 21 2010 19:28

Al Qaeda in Afghanistan

In Afghanistan, Military, Politik / Politic, War on October 11, 2010 at 1:54 pm

On Friday President Obama said he was “surprised” to win the Nobel Peace Prize and doesn’t “view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments.”

Here’s hoping he will feel more worthy after announcing a new strategy for Afghanistan.

Wednesday marked the beginning of Year Nine of the war. In the Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator John Kerry, chair of the Foreign Relations Committee and a Vietnam vet who knows a thing or two about the costs and consequences of a quagmire, convened a hearing titled “Confronting Al Qaeda: Understanding the Threat in Afghanistan and Beyond.”

It was timely, considering the United States went to war with the express purpose of “disrupting, dismantling and defeating the terrorist organization that attacked us on September 11,” Kerry said. Timely too because the president now faces increasing pressure to double down on US military presence there, rather than seek alternatives to escalation, including a drawdown of US forces. Two of the witnesses, Robert Grenier and Dr. Marc Sageman–both of whom served in the CIA, as station chief in Pakistan and on the Afghan Task Force, respectively- -concurred that escalation would only further spread anti-American sentiment among Afghans and other Muslims, and that nonmilitary initiatives to contain Al Qaeda and foster civic development in Afghanistan would prove far more effective.

Kerry began the Q&A of the three witnesses by soliciting an update on how Al Qaeda is faring in Afghanistan eight years after the invasion. “The president’s strategy is to disrupt, dismantle and defeat Al Qaeda in Afghanistan,” he said. “Is it a fair judgment to say that that has happened?… They’re not in Afghanistan?”

Sageman and Grenier agreed with that assessment. (The third witness, Peter Bergen, a journalist and senior fellow with the New America Foundation, said the number of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan wasn’t as important as “their influence ideologically and tactically.” As the lone witness who is a proponent of an increased military presence, it is striking that Bergen had the least amount of on-the-ground experience on the panel.)

Kerry also raised the issue of denying Al Qaeda a safe haven so that it can’t “plot at will against the United States.” He asked whether there is legitimate concern about “a new union [between Al Qaeda and] the Taliban.”

Sageman didn’t perceive such a threat.

“A Taliban return to power does not automatically mean an invitation to Al Qaeda to return to Afghanistan,” Sageman said. “The relationship between Al Qaeda and…[the] Taliban has always been strained.” In the event that the Taliban did extend such an invitation, Sageman noted in written testimony, “there are many ways to prevent the return of Al Qaeda…besides a national counterinsurgency strategy. Vigilance through electronic monitoring, spatial surveillance, a network of informants in contested territory, combined with the nearby stationing of a small force dedicated to physically eradicate any visible Al Qaeda presence in Afghanistan will prevent the return of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.”

Republican ranking member Richard Lugar then turned to Gen. Stanley McCrystal’s call for up to 60,000 additional US troops. “Who would we be surging against [in Afghanistan] ?” he asked. “How would this have any effect whatever on the incidences of terrorism in the United States, Western Europe or what have you?”

“Let me answer that with an old Middle Eastern proverb,” Sageman replied. “‘It’s me and my brother against my cousin. But it’s me and my cousin against a foreigner.’ So if we send 40,000 Americans… that will coalesce every local rivalry; they will put their local rivalry aside to actually shoot the foreigners and then they’ll resume their own internecine fight…. Sending troops with weapons just will unify everybody against those troops, unfortunately.”

Grenier emphasized that a surge would turn not only Afghans against the United States but also Pakistanis. “A large increase in the US presence in Afghanistan would not be welcomed by the majority of Pakistanis,” he said. “It would make the struggle seem all the more starkly as one of the US versus Muslims, as opposed to the US supporting Afghans in their own struggle.”

Senator Russ Feingold–who supported the decision to go to war but now calls for a flexible timetable for withdrawal, who recently introduced an amendment requiring the president to provide Congress with information regarding the cost, estimated duration and possible destabilizing impact of any increase in troop levels before authorization- -honed in on what it is exactly that we are trying to accomplish in Afghanistan and how it fits into our larger objectives.

“Do you believe that completely denying Al Qaeda access to Afghanistan is an achievable objective?” Feingold asked. “Is [this] goal…distracting us from a broader goal [of] relentlessly pursuing Al Qaeda and its affiliates globally and ensuring that they can’t conduct training and plotting in Afghanistan and elsewhere?”

“Right now, as I said, they are in Pakistan; and even if they return to Afghanistan, I think they will return in the same way they now are in Pakistan–in hiding,” Sageman said. “Things have changed; it’s not going to be the types of huge training camps that we saw in the 1990s. Right now what we see…are really small rented houses, half a dozen people, who get a few days’ training, and they’re not as well trained as the previous [guys] in the 1990s. You’re talking about a very different threat. So even if they do come back…their threat…is still not going to be what it was.”

Feingold pointed out that devoting so many resources to preventing Al Qaeda from returning to Afghanistan detracts from the broader fight against present and future safe havens elsewhere.

“All we get is this simplistic notion that if we don’t stay in Afghanistan for a very long term, Al Qaeda will be right back,” Feingold said. “[But] what happens if they go to Yemen? What happens if they go to Somalia? What happens if they stay in Pakistan? How can it be that an international strategy against a global network can be that heavily concentrated on one place on the assumption that they will reconstitute themselves in a way that is exactly the same and allowed them to conduct the 9/11 attacks? It’s far too simplistic.”

Feingold said that polls now show the majority of Afghans want all foreign troops to leave within two years, and only 18 percent support an increase in foreign troops. He wanted to know “what impact these public attitudes [are] likely to have on the viability of any plan that involves a massive, open-ended foreign military presence.”

“There is a high degree of xenophobia that is endemic among the Afghans,” Grenier said, “and they do tend to coalesce against what is perceived as an outsider. The best that we can hope for is not a permanent elimination of safe haven, or the opportunity for safe haven for Al Qaeda, but rather the elimination of uncontested safe haven…. That needs to be a sustainable effort. What we are currently doing, I believe, is not sustainable either by us or by the Afghans.”

Democratic Senator Jeanne Shaheen then asked the million-dollar question: “What would a fully resourced, non-military- focused campaign against Al Qaeda look like?”

“We have to start relying on the Afghans themselves and not so much on American troops,” Sageman replied. “We have to almost remove ourselves… . You have to gradually shift it to an Afghanized strategy.”

“Are you suggesting then that we don’t need to continue a campaign in Afghanistan in order to address Al Qaeda?” Shaheen pressed.

“That’s correct,” Sageman said. “A nonmilitary campaign would be to try to flip some of the locals who are hiding [and] protecting Al Qaeda to betray them, and allow us to either arrest them or eliminate them through other means.”

Sageman and Grenier also said there are nonmilitary options to deal with the Taliban.

“I think many of them are young men who could be won over,” said Grenier, “and who would just as soon take a paycheck from the local governor and serve in his militia as they would serve with the Taliban. Or if you had more constructive engagements that benefited them, they would pursue those instead.”

“We make a mistake labeling everyone that is not for us with the same name,” said Sageman. “On the ground what you have is a collection of a lot of young people who resist central government. Those [people] really are not ideologically motivated. I don’t think we can cut a deal with Mullah Omar, but we certainly can take most of his followers away from him.”

I spoke to Sageman after the hearing to get a better sense of what he envisions as an effective US presence in the region. He spoke of utilizing a small “cadre of folks” that understands Afghanistan and can “cut deals with local power brokers to make the peace.” He believes we need “a small military presence” in the region for “focused action” when needed against Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. He said we need to “Afghanize” economic development and work with NGOs and local entrepreneurs to “do things in their own communities” rather than using “outside contractors, [where] all the money for development ends up in their pocket or in Switzerland.”

For those who agree with Sageman and Grenier that any escalation or continuation of the current counterinsurgency strategy is exactly the wrong way to go, there are some Congressional efforts promoting these alternative ideas. Congresswoman Barbara Lee has introduced HR 3699 to prohibit funding for any increase in US troop levels in Afghanistan. Congressman Jim McGovern and ninety-nine co-sponsors have reintroduced HR 2404 requiring Defense Secretary Gates to submit an exit strategy to Congress–something even President Obama said is needed but has failed to deliver. The Feingold amendment never received a vote, and it should be reintroduced so that it can.

There are clear alternatives to staying the course or escalating– ideas that could not only save Obama’s presidency but justify the peace prize he seemed to suggest is premature.

About Greg Kaufmann
Greg Kaufmann is a Nation contributor living in his disenfranchised hometown of Washington, DC.

By Greg Kaufmann

The Nation
October 9, 2009

Copyright © 2009 The Nation
http://www.thenatio n.com/doc/ 20091026/ kaufmann

Getah Sekerap (Dialek Kedah)

In Comodity, History, Malaysia, Politik / Politic, Sosial Politik on October 8, 2010 at 5:25 pm

Ia bermula 2000 tahun dahulu oleh Puak Mayan di Hutan Amazon apabila mereka mula melantunkan bola pertama yang diperbuat daripada  getah. Ketika era pelayaran Christopher Columbus serta pengikutnya ke Benua Amerika Latin ketika itu telah menemui pokok getah dan mereka telah melaporkan penemuan tersebut. Mereka hanya mengatakan “bouncing balls and boots”.

Pada tahun 1735, Penjelajah Perancis iaitu Charles-Marie de La Condamine telah ke Brazil dan telah ditunjukkan kepadanya bagaimana mereka mengumpul susu getah (milky white latex sap) dari pokok Hevea brasiliensis dengan cara mengoyak kulit pokok tersebut. Pribumi pada ketika itu menggunakan getah tesebut untuk merekabentuk bola dan mengikat batu pada sebatang kayu untuk dijadikan kapak.

Getah ini dibawa balik ke Eropah dan pada awal kegunaanya adalah untuk dijadikan pemadan (dengan paggilan RUBBER) dan terma ini masih lagi digunkan sehingga kini. Getah pada awal penemuannya adalah tidak sempurna, ia melekit, lembut, berbau dan reput bila ia panas dank eras bila sejuk.

Pada tahun 1839, Charles Goodyear yang merupakan pedagang muflis mencipta proses “Vulcanisation” iaitu proses yang menggunakan haba. Lead putih dan sulfur ditambah kepada getah mentah dan dipanaskan. Hasilnya, getah tersebut kenyal, kuat, kalis air dan tahan lama.

Pada tahun 1888, John Boyd Dunlop telah mencipta tayar getah yang lebih senyap dan memberi keselesaan kepada kenderaan. Hasilnya menberi revolusi baru dalam industry pengangkutan dan kenderaan. Akibat pelbagai kegunaan dan kehebatan getah, pemintaan serta penawaran meningkat  mendadak. Penawaran getah meningkat dari 2,500 tan kepada 20,000 tan antara tahun 1851 dan 1881.

Hasil permintaan yang tinggi, Brazil pada ketika itu tidak mampu untuk menawarkan keperluan dunia yang semakin mendesak. Justeru, Henry Wickham telah menghantar 70,000 benih pokok getah dari Santarem, Brazil ke London’s Kew Garden. Hanya 2,000 benih yang hidup dalam rumah kaca tersebut dan ia memadai untuk tujuan penyelidikan. British yang ketika itu mempunyai tanah jajahan yang luas dinegara-negara Asia, telah mengambil keputusan untuk  membawanya ke Singapore’s  Botanic Garden dan ditakbir oleh Henry Ridley.

Pada 1909, lebih dari 40 juta benih pokok getah telah dibawa ke Malaya (Malaysia) dan ditanam secara meluas. Setahun kemudian, lebih dari 300,000 ribu hektar tanah dia Asia ditanam dengan getah. Hasil kekayaan negara Asia dibolot habis oleh Penjajah Barat. Namun, ia juga memberi nafas baru kepada negara Asia untuk menggunakan tinggalan tersebut untuk menguasai pasaran getah dunia.

Ketika Perang Dunia Kedua, Jerman pada ketika itu tidak dapat megimport getah secukupnya hasil dari sekatan dan gangguan laluan perkapalan akibat perang. Justeru, Getah Sintetik diperkenalkan oleh Saintis Perancis Georges Bouchardat pada tahun 1875. Nazi Jerman menghasilkan 100,000 tan getah sintetik setahun manakala Amerika Syarikat menghasilkan 800,000 tan getah sintetik setahun. Pada hari ini, 10 juta tan getah asli dan 12 juta tan getah sintetik dihasilkan setahun.

 

Ulasan: SZM

Sumber: Discovery Channel Magazine, June/July 2010.

Spy Flies – Pengintip

In Military, Perisikan / Intelligent, Technology on October 7, 2010 at 4:29 am

 

“Float like a butterfly, spies like a bee” itulah ungkapan bagi teknologi perisikan dan pengintipan negara maju dalam usaha mengekang musuh dan mencuri maklumat perisikan. Sebuah universiti di Belanda iaitu Deft University of Technology telah merekabentuk robot berupa serangga yang mampu terbang dan menghantar isyarat video secara langsung terus ke pusat kawalan.

Teknologi seperti ini amat berguna untuk pihak keselamatan seperti maritim, tentera, polis dan badan perisikan bebas. Pasukan penyelidikan yang diberi nama “DelFly” ini bertanggungjawab menjalankan penyelidikan UAV sejak lima tahunl alu.

Kegunaan teknologi ini adalah untuk mengantikan tugas manusia dalam situasi berbahaya seperti memasuki bangunan terbakar, lombong yang runtuh, tumpahan kimia dan sebagainya.

DelFly Micro merupakan yang terkecil selepasDelfly II, hanyas eberat 3 gram. Ia dilengkapi sebuah kamera dan sayap sepanjang 10 sentimeter.

Photo : Contoh Sahaja (Tidak nerujuk kepada Objek sebenar)

Sumber: Discovery Channel Magazine, June/July 2010.

Buku : Ahmadinejad : Singa Baru Dunia Islam

In Iran, Management / Pengurusan, Military, Nuklear, Politik / Politic, Sosial Politik, World on October 2, 2010 at 6:39 pm

Buku ini mengisahkan mengenai sejarah Iran, Pemerintahan Iran, Ketenteraan, Individu berpegaruh, Revolusi Iran, Islam, Politik dan Isu-isu berkaitan Iran.

Ditulis oleh Muhsin Labib, Ibrahim Muharam, Musa Kazhim dan Akfian Hamzah.

Melayu : Rupa Bangsa Rakyat Semenanjung

In Bangsa, History, Malaysia, Melayu, Politik / Politic, Sosial Politik on October 1, 2010 at 1:44 pm

Menurut buku penulisan Syed Husin Ali, selepas Perang Dunia II pemimpin seperti Dr. Burhanuddin serta Tan Cheng Lock menyarankan supaya rupa bentuk bangsa untuk semua penduduk di Semenanjung dinamakan “Melayu” saja. Faktor yang menyebabkan saranan ini tidak mendapat tempat kerana gerakkan politik mereka tidak mendapat kuasa.

Setelah Persekutuan Tanah Melayu berjaya ditubuhkan pada 1948, istilah “Malayan” diguna pakai sebagai rupa bangsa ketika itu. Walaupun istilah tersebut digunakan sebagai merujuk kepada  Bangsa Malaya ketika itu sedikit pun tidak berjaya. Hal ini kerana, Melayu, Cina, India dan lain-lain bangsa merupakan entiti yang berbeza. Pekara ini tidak akan menjadi realiti jika setiap borang yang kita isi seperti borang di jabatan kerajaan mahupun swasta masih lagi merujuk “Bangsa” diruang [Race], kenapa tidak diletakkan “Keturunan” .

Apabila Malaysia dibentuk dan istilah tersebut jugak berubah menjadi “Malaysian” tetapi ia lebih merujuk kepada warganegara Malaysia bukan merujuk kepada Bangsa Malaysia seperti sepatunya. Mungkin penduduk Malaysia masih belum memahami kepentingan penakrifan ini. Adalah lebih baik ia dirujuk dengan istilah “Bangsa Malaysia” dan kesan penakrifan ini penting dalam menanam jati diri terhadap bangsa dan negara. Namun, penakrifan ini masih tidak menampakkan sebarang hasil yang ketara kerana penduduk masih merujuk diri mereka sebagai bangsa Melayu, Bangsa Cina, Bangsa India, dan lain-lain.

Melalui pemerhatian, pembentukan sesebuah bangsa didunia memerlukan jangka masa yang lama dan usaha yang jitu dari segenap sudut. Malaysia yang mempunyai pelbagai kaum semestinya memerlukan masa yang lebih panjang untuk memberi ruang kepada setiap kaum membuyka minda dan menerima konsep Bangsa Malaysia.

Menurut Syed Husin Ali, adalah lebih sesuai jika kumpulan Melayu, Cina dan India itu tidak disebut sebagai bangsa atau bangsa-bangsa kecil tetapi dirujuk sebagai kumpulan kaum atau etnik sahaja.

Ulasan : SZM

Sumber:

Syed Husin Ali. (2008). Orang Melayu: Masalah dan masa depan. Kuala Lumpur: Harakah