What’s new at Perdana Library: January & February 2012
March 29, 2012 in Articles, Books etc, Perdana Library, PLF News, Resource Centre
Click here to read the book synopsis.
You are browsing the Blog for featured-home.
Sinar Harian – Menjadi hebat dengan membaca
March 21, 2012 in Articles, Books etc
*Image from fuelyourwriting.com
Mac 21, 2012 | Oleh NORDEN MOHAMED
Ada kepuasan yang berbeza apabila kita membaca buku berbanding dengan membaca majalah mahupun akhbar. Dengan kita membaca akhbar, kita memperoleh lebih banyak berita daripada maklumat.
Kerencaman kandungan akhbar dan pendeknya sesebuah berita itu menjadikan kita dapat menghabiskan bacaan sesebuah akhbar dalam waktu singkat. Kepuasan membaca pun sedikit.
Apabila kita membelek majalah pula, keseronokan membaca kita bertambah berbanding membaca akhbar. Selain daripada berita, majalah memaparkan maklumat yang boleh dijadikan pengetahuan. Artikel-artikel yang dipaparkan juga lebih panjang dan justeru itu menjadikan minda kita lebih terisi.
Membaca buku pula memberikan kita kepuasan yang maksima. Tidak kira sama ada kita membaca buku hardcopy ataupun e-book, membaca buku adalah kegiatan maraton berbanding dengan majalah yang dianggap sebagai senaman minda untuk jangka waktu yang pendek atau membaca akhbar yang lebih singkat masa bacaannya.
Panjangnya tempoh membaca sesebuah buku itu menjana kelestarian minda. Kondisi ini amat memuaskan. Apakah kepuasan itu? Kepuasannya ialah apabila kita dapat mengadakan hubungan psikik dengan si penulis buku itu. Apabila seseorang penulis hendak menghasilkan bukunya, dia harus melalui proses yang rumit dan mengambil masa.
Penulis yang hendak menghasilkan sesebuah buku biasanya mempunyai sesuatu idea, gagasan, teori atau penemuan besar yang ingin disampaikannya kepada khalayak. Sebelum menulis, dia akan melakar konsep dan idea buku yang ingin ditulisnya. Idea dan konsep ini akan disusun dari mula hingga akhir.
Dia akan mengumpul bahan-bahan penyelidikan dan rujukan yang digaul menjadi manuskrip ilmiah mahu pun fiksyen. Untuk melakar ideanya, si penulis perlu menumpahkan apa yang ada di dalam fikirannya ke skrin komputer. Pastinya idea yang terzahir ini akan disemak dari segi kesahihan fakta, kesinambungan idea, kelogikan pendapat yang kemudiannya diuli dan disusun menjadi ayat yang mudah difahami oleh pembaca. Kemudian, manuskripnya akan disemak dan disunting oleh editor daripada segi ketepatan fakta dan kesinambungan idea.
Akhirnya, apabila sesebuah buku itu lahir, ia merupakan satu rantaian minda penulis yang biasanya dapat diikuti secara linear dari halaman pertama sehinggalah halaman yang terakhir. Bayangkan. Seseorang penulis itu mungkin mengambil masa bertahun untuk menyiapkan sesebuah buku. Ideanya yang rencam, dikumpul menjadi rencah tulisan yang diadun, diperam dan disaring. Hanya pati ideanya sahaja dipersembahkan dalam bentuk sebuah buku. Kita sebagai pembaca boleh dengan mudah menghazam inti fikirannya yang dikumpul bertahun lamanya dalam masa sehari!
Ketika membaca karya seseorang penulis, kita seolah-olah mengembara dan menyelami minda dan hatinya. Meskipun si penulis telah meninggal dunia, kita masih dapat belajar daripadanya. Andainya sebuah buku karyanya dibaca, kita memperoleh sebahagian daripada pemikirannya. Sekiranya kita membaca dua atau tiga atau lebih buku karya seseorang penulis itu, ia bererti kita memperoleh pemikiran si penulisnya.
Bayangkan, jika kita membaca Al-Muqqadimah karya Ilmu Khaldun, kita memahami ilmu falsafah sejarah daripadanya. Andainya kita membaca pula buku Roh, karya Ibnu Qayyim, seorang ilmuwan Islam, kita belajar mengenai roh daripadanya.
Buku Lateral Thinking oleh Edward de Bono, A Brief History of Time oleh Stephen Hawking, The Art of War oleh Sun Tse, adalah mengenai teknik berfikir, fizik dan seni peperangan. Apakah maknanya apabila kita sudah membaca kesemua buku-buku ini? Ia bererti, di dalam diri kita sudah ada pemikiran Ibnu Khaldun, Ibnu Qayyim, Edward de Bono, Stephen Hawking dan Sun Tse setelah kita membaca buku-buku mereka.
Setakat ini, berapa buah bukukah yang kita telah baca? Andainya seratus buah oleh penulis yang berbeza, ia bererti, pendekatan pemikiran kita adalah rangkuman daripada pemikiran 100 orang manusia. Bijakkah kita? Kita bijak jika kita berhati-hati memilih buku yang ingin dibaca. Andainya kita memilih karya-karya para ilmuan yang hebat, maka kita juga akan punyai pemikiran yang hebat.
Sebaliknya, andainya kita memilih bahan bacaan yang mudah dan ringan, maka cara berfikir kita pun mudah dan ringan. Jadilah orang yang punyai fikiran yang hebat, bukan berkarat.
* Layari http://www.maafcakap.blogspot.com untuk membaca artikel-artikel sebelum ini.
Source:http://www.sinarharian.com.my/kolumnis/menjadi-hebat-dengan-membaca-1.33911
NST – COMMENT: Defining the legacy
March 5, 2012 in Articles, Spotlight, Tun Dr. Mahathir
The Prime Ministership of Dr Mahathir was a period of general high economic growth
March 4, 2012 | By James Campbell
In setting its own path and policies, at times in contradiction to the received wisdom of neoliberalism and so-called international institutions, Malaysia is a source of pride
RECENTLY as reported in Bernama, former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad was quoted as saying in a lecture titled Malaysia Moving Forward: Political, Social And Economic Approaches that “Malaysia should not rely heavily on Western ideology but instead come up with its own system” (Malaysia Capable of Having Own Unique System — Tun Mahathir, www.bernama.com/bernama/v6/newsindex.php?id=648426).
Dr Mahathir’s speech was widely reported in the media. The arguments he made, seem to this writer, still prescient and relevant to debates on Malaysian economic, social and political policy.
Often criticised in the West for policies that did not acquiesce to Western interests, especially in the economic realm, the reality is that the Prime Ministership of Dr Mahathir was a period of general high economic growth and, on the whole, social stability.
It seems that the basis of this growth and stability was a recognition that Malaysia must develop policies that suit and benefit its interest and advance the cause of development with due consideration of the specific nature of Malaysian society and economic needs.
The classic example of how this principle was enacted in the economic realm was in regard to Malaysia’s response to the Asian economic crisis.
Malaysia went against the advice and opinions of neoliberal orthodoxy and the result was that it was spared the worst of this crisis.
The crisis of 1997-1998 was not, as is often argued, a result of excessive cronyism (pointing this out in no way justifies such practices).
The crisis was far more importantly a result of “systemic factors exacerbated by financial liberalization” (K. S. Jomo, Mahathir’s Flawed Economic Policy Legacy, www.jomoks.org/research/
other/rp003.htm, page 5).
Jomo makes the point clearly in regard to the Malaysian response to the 1997-1998 East Asian Crisis. He writes: “It has become popular to blame the 1997-98 East Asian crises on cronyism and other related abuses in the region.
“However, despite the obvious popular appeal of such attribution, it lacks sound analytical and empirical bases, although these problems undoubtedly exacerbated the region’s problems and compromised policy responses to them.
“Failure to recognise the true roots of the crises runs the risk of not learning lessons from the calamity. Policy responses failed to address the deteriorating situation and even exacerbated the downturn.
“Even now, it is not generally acknowledged that the crises were due to systemic factors exacerbated by financial liberalisation.”
Pointing to the fact that a large part of Malaysia’s ability to weather economic storms has been its willingness to flout neoliberal orthodoxy and buck the trend of advice from authorities such as the International Monetary Fund and World Bank is, I guess, not news to anyone.
However, it does point to the continued significance of the sentiment expressed in Dr Mahathir’s speech.
In previous columns, I have argued that a balanced approach to Malaysian social, economic and educational policy requires an understanding of the nature and problems that can stem from horizontal inequality and the need to balance Malaysia’s desire to compete on the world educational stage with the need to ensure that educational institutions do not return to a situation where they exacerbate horizontal inequality and social division.
Getting the balance right, as I have argued previously, is the key. For example, there are good reasons to address some of the negative consequences of policies designed to redress horizontal inequality.
However, arguing this policy position which is captured neatly in the New Economic Model’s recognition of the need to affirm “market friendly affirmative action” is not the equivalent of accepting the neoliberal prescription for Malaysia, whether it be in the economic field or the educational one.
The relevance of Dr Mahathir’s comments cited above points to the continued importance within public policy of getting the properequilibrium between states and markets.
The capability of nation states to pursue policies that are distinctive and balance the pressure of global economic realities with national needs and aspirations is critical.
This issue of balance and the need to be able to articulate economic and social policies based on important national considerations is, of course, not limited to Malaysia.
The need for developing countries to pursue policies that address their unique requirements entails recognising that not all the ideas for economic and social reform that stem from so called international bodies are necessarily good for developing countries.
In this column, I have tried to argue that the principal of pragmatically assessing the suitability of foreign ideas to the Malaysian context ensures that we do not blindly accept everything that Western and international institutions suggest.
As always, there is a need to advance the specific agenda of Malaysia’s national interest. This principle of ensuring that we do not simply swallow uncritically the prescriptions of international financial bodies is also of significance to developing nations as a whole.
The fact that Malaysia has provided leadership in articulating this balance and in insisting on setting its own path and policies, at times in contradiction to the received wisdom of neoliberalism and so-called international institutions, is something that can genuinely be a source of pride. This legacy is an important one.
The leadership role that Malaysia has taken in showing that economic independence and national intent can still be articulated even within an international system dominated by finance capital and global financial agencies is no small matter.
Its significance will not fade.
EricMargolis.com – Stop the hysteria or risk war with Iran
February 15, 2012 in Articles, Spotlight
*Image from bollyn.com
Posted on 15 February 2012 – 05:13am | By Eric Margolis
THE war of words between the US, Israel, and Iran intensifies by the day. The parties involved are shamelessly playing to domestic audiences in this election year. Israel keeps issuing threats it will attack Iran’s nuclear power installations, though some of its senior security officials downplay an alleged threat from Iran.
US intelligence still maintains Iran is not working on nuclear weapons. UN nuclear inspectors confirm this view, though they have been pressured by the US, which pays a quarter of UN salaries, to suggest Iran might be working on something nefarious – though all Iran’s nuclear sites are under strict UN inspection and satellite surveillance.
Not a peep from the UN about what global damage would be caused by an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear sites. Radioactive dust storms, to say the least.
The US Congress pulsates with war fever, fuelled by oncoming elections and huge cash donations. North America’s media pounds the war drums.
Iran shows spectacular public relations ineptitude by fulminating against Israel, calling it a “tumour” that must be removed, firing obsolete tactical missiles and staging flamboyant military exercises by its feeble armed forces.
In fact, Iran is doing the work of Israel’s hard-right Likud government by convincing the world that the Jewish state faces another Holocaust. Canada’s blustering, ill-informed foreign minister just repeated this absurd canard even though Iran is not believed to have any nuclear weapons. He preposterously compared Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Hitler.
Even Israel’s hawkish defense minister recently opined that Iran is still some years away from having the ability to deploy a nuclear-armed missile.
Few ask the sensible question: why would Iran risk nuclear vaporisation by Israel or the US just to launch a small number of its inaccurate missiles at Israel? US and Israeli early warning satellites would spot any Iranian missile at launch and bring down a nuclear holocaust on the Islamic republic.
Israel’s North American partisans, whipped into a frenzy of alarm by a clever scare campaign designed to boost the fortunes of Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud Party, reply that Iran is run by madman who seeks nuclear martyrdom.
Over in the Mideast and parts of Europe, Israel’s Likud leadership, notably the Russian-born foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, who Israeli leftists often denounce as a deranged fascist, is regarded with as much alarm as Iran’s hot-headed leaders. “Those crazy Iranians and Israelis are going to start a nuclear disaster on our doorstep,” one European politician said to me.
The Iran crisis has benefited politicians in the US and Israel by defocusing public anger from the ongoing economic crisis in both nations, and by almost totally obscuring the Palestinian quest for recognition and statehood. Little wars are famously beneficial to politicians.
Both Barack Obama and Netanyahu expect to reap dividends from “getting tough” on the latest miscreant in a long line of Muslim bogeymen. Think back to the western powers’ demonisation of Gamal abdel-Nasser, whom Anthony Eden called “Hitler on the Nile”; to “arch terrorist” Yasser Arafat; to “mad dog of the Mideast” Muammar Ghaddafi; to “Butcher of Baghdad” Saddam Hussein; “Mr 9/11” Osama bin Laden; and now “the new Hitler” Ahmadinejad.
Here we go again. These targets of western wrath and vilification actually seem to enjoy their starring roles as villains and hate figures. Any publicity is better than no publicity.
*Image from palestinianpundit.blogspot.com
Lost amid all the threats is another simple question. Why are Iran and Israel at scimitars drawn? After all, under the late, unlamented Shah, Israel and Iran used to be bosom buddies. Even under the late Ayatollah Khomeini – a big hate figure in the Jewish world – Israel secretly sold some US$5 billion (RM15.3 billion) worth of US arms and spare parts to Iran during its long, bloody 1980s war with Iraq.
The main reason is that Islamic Iran has become the primary champion of the Palestinians now that the Arab states – and notably Syria – are on the ropes. Iraq, formerly a leading champion of the Palestinians, was crushed by the US. Iran is next on the chopping block if the US American-Israel Public Affairs Committee has its way.
A fair Israel-Palestinian deal would end the crisis between Israel and Iran. So would a Mideast nuclear-free zone. But no one dares pose this simple solution.
Eric S. Margolis is an award-winning, internationally syndicated columnist, writing mainly about the Middle East and South Asia.
*Photo from snippits-and-slappits.blogspot.com
The Independent – Robert Fisk: This is not about ‘bad apples’. This is the horror of war
February 2, 2012 in Articles, Media, Spotlight
*Photo from boiserealestatesoup.com
January 13, 2012 | By Robert Fisk
How many other abuses took place off camera? How many Hadithas? How many My Lais
So now it’s snapshots of US Marines pissing on the Afghan dead. Better, I suppose, than the US soldiers pictured beside the innocent Afghan teenager they fragged back in March of last year. Or the female guard posing with the dead Iraqi prisoner at Abu Ghraib. Not to mention Haditha or the murder videos taken by US troops in the field – the grenading of an old shepherd by an Iraqi highway comes to mind – or My Lai or the massacre of refugees by US forces in Korea or the murder of Malayan villagers by British troops. Or the Bloody Sunday massacre of 14 Catholics by British troops in Derry in 1972. And please note, I have not even mentioned the name of Baha Mousa.
The US Marines’ response to the pissing pictures was oh so typical. These men were not abiding by the “core values” of the Marines, we were informed. Same old story. A “rogue” unit, a few “bad apples”, rotten eggs. Maybe.
But if there is one game of pissing on the dead, how many others happened without pictures? How many other shepherds got fragged in Iraq? How many other Hadithas have there been? There were plenty of other My Lais.
As laptop filmography gets better, so it all comes slopping out, the rapes and slaughter – and yes, by the Taliban the stoning of young women for supposed sexual misconduct in Afghanistan; by al-Qa’ida, executions and throat-cuttings in Iraq.
And no – the Americans are not the Nazis, the Brits are not the French Paras of 1960 Algeria (but surely we’re not comparing the French paras to the Nazis). The Canadians handed prisoners over to Afghan thugs for brutal questioning but the Canadians are not like Saddam’s secret police – and, I suppose, the Taliban are not Stalin’s NKVD or Putin’s KGB (before he became a statesman). And you can’t compare – surely – the Soviet invaders of Afghanistan in 1979 with Genghis Khan.
So let’s take a little guessing game. A British Sunday paper reveals shocking revelations of torture and cigarette burning, of physical brutality where prisoners must be hospitalised for a week, of possible electric torture. The French in Algeria? Saddam’s mukhabarat? Nope. It’s The Sunday Times Insight Team’s report of 7 May 1972; the victims, of course, IRA suspects in Belfast. A “rogue” unit? A “few bad apples”? I doubt it.
When the Gloucestershire Regiment went on a rampage near Divis flats, smashing every window in the street the day before they were due to leave Belfast, the line was changed. They had been under “enormous strain” – but weren’t these the “Glorious Gloucesters” of Imjin River fame? And the killer Paras of Derry – weren’t these the same Paras of Arnhem Bridge?
And so we go on. Yes, British troops murdered SS prisoners after Normandy – just as the Red Army did in the Second World War and the Americans. And all this gets a bit dull, doesn’t it?
Dresden was worse than the Blitz – but who started it? Hiroshima was worse than Pearl Harbour (ditto). The Canadians bayoneted German prisoners in the First World War – but the Germans really did committed atrocities in Belgium in 1914. And what about Waterloo? What did we do with the heaps of French dead? Why, we honoured them by shipping their corpses off to Lincolnshire and using them as manure on the fields of East Anglia.
If war were not about the total failure of the human spirit, there would be something grotesquely funny about the American reaction to the pissing pictures.
For note, it was not the killing of these men that worried the Marine Corps in the US – it was the pissing. Nothing wrong in killing amid the “core values” of the Marine Corps; you just shouldn’t urinate on the corpses. And even more to the point: YOU MUSTN’T DO IT ON CAMERA! Too late. It comes to this. Armies are horrible creatures and soldiers do wicked things but when we accept all these lies about “bad apples” and the exceptionalism of crime in war – “there may have been some excesses” is the usual dictator-speak – we are accepting war and going along with the dishonesty of it and we are making it more possible and easier and the killings and rapes more excusable and more frequent.
And how should armies react? With one word: guilty.