June 20, 2012
Do You Trust Your Minister?
by Ali Kadir@http://www.themalaysianinsider.com
Everything begins and ends with this question: Do you trust them?
Do you trust Khaled Nordin to look after the interest of Malaysians or do you believe that the Parliamentary Select Committee was set up to regurgitate information provided by Lynas and merely rubber stamps an investment already banked in by the Barisan Nasional government?
Please bear in mind that Khaled is also the minister who believed he was doing the right thing when he froze federal loans to students at Unisel in a show a political gamesmanship that he lost.
Do you trust Rais Yatim when he tells all and sundry that only 22,000 Malaysians attended BERSIH 3.0?
Do you trust M. Kayveas when he says that urban Malaysians are navel-gazers and an ungrateful bunch who only know how to whine?
Do you trust Muhyiddin Yassin when he says that the BN government has forged national unity in Malaysia? This coming from the man who is the darling of the party’s right-wing movement, the politician ensconced with Perkasa and Pekida, and the man who really believes that Malay unity is the same as national unity.
Do you trust Idris Jala when he talks about statistics, whether it is crime stats or a prosperity index? (He is not a statistician or even an economist-check Wikipedia). Should you trust anyone who supposedly transformed Malaysia Airlines and basked in the glory of “success”, only for Malaysians to be told now that the national icon is on the verge of collapse?
Trust. This is what it boils down to. I dare say that no one in the Malaysian Cabinet can command that important ingredient today when their lips move.
You don’t normally find a Minister’s name and the word “trust” in the same sentence. The only time you’re likely to find the two together in the same sentence is when a judge imposes constructive trust, and make the Minister hold all his assets in trust for those he has stolen them from.
How can we trust anyone of them? How can we trust someone who made a stupid statement like “we don’t want to use indelible ink in the general election because beautiful women will not want to vote!” Does he think he knows women just because he walks around hotel lobbies with beautiful women in his arm who are not his wife?
Are Malaysians so dumb that this Ali Kadir has to ask such a stupid question?
_________
Jamal, this question needs to be ask. There are more stupid people (including me who puts some much faith in UMNO-BN for decades) around than this Q. You need to think now whether you can trust them. If you do, you are free to vote for the status and after stop complaining.You deserve what you get–Din Merican
I used to trust the Ministers but not this present crop. Not only trust I can’t even believe what they are saying. They are not honest and upfront when making statement. There’s always the hidden agenda. So how can we trust them.
The day one realises that one’s aspirations and well being should not be dependent on politicians, that’s the day one is on the way to more freedom.
Incredible performance by these people after millions of ringgit
have been spent employing the services of American
political consultants and image consultants!
DEFENDING THE INDEFENSIBLE:
AN ANALYSIS OF THE PROPAGANDA TECHNIQUES EMPLOYED BY LYNAS AND ITS SUPPORTERS
By Phua Kai Lit
*Note: The analytical framework for this article is based on the two references listed
Name Calling: Attaching a negative label to opponents
Calling those who oppose the Lynas project “politically-motivated”, “anti-government”, “Chinese” (i.e. attempting to paint it as a racial issue in ethnically-polarised Malaysia), “Mainland Chinese agents”, “egotistical”, “concerted political campaign”, “anti-development”, “Luddite”
Glittering Generalities: Important-sounding words that have little or no real meaning
One Lynas executive claims that the company will be a “global leader in rare earths for a sustainable future”. Lynas also claims that it has plans to “recycle” and “re-use” its “by-products” i.e. wastes.
Lynas calls its project the Lynas Advanced Materials Plant (LAMP). Rare earth metals are only particular kinds of metals. It is misleading to call these “advanced materials”.
Transfer: Attempt to transfer the prestige of a positive symbol to something else
Lynas claims that the IAEA has confirmed that “the design of the LAMP is compliant with international standards” (while ignoring the IAEA recommendation to build a permanent disposal facility for the safe disposal of the wastes that will be produced and ignoring the accusation of shoddy construction published in the New York Times)
False Analogy: Two things that are dissimilar are portrayed as being similar
Lynas defenders claim that the level of radiation its wastes will emit is similar to background radiation or to eating a banana. Even if this dubious claim is true, there is a vast difference between unavoidable exposure to radiation versus avoidable exposure to radiation; and voluntary exposure versus involuntary exposure to radiation.
They also ignore the fact that prolonged exposure to low level radiation is a threat to health (especially to children).
Testimonial: Getting prominent personalities to support a position
Lynas supporters keep mentioning a nuclear scientist who supports the project. This nuclear scientist has no background in publich health at all.
Card-stacking: Slanting a message by omitting key words or statistics that are unfavourable
Lynas uses the word “residues” to replace the more appropriate term “wastes”. It also calls its on-site short term storage facility a “Residue Storage Facility”.
Lynas supporters completely avoid mentioning the threat posed by uranium in the wastes and also the non-radioactive but toxic wastes that will be produced. They also ignore the fact that the production of 22,000 tonnes per annum of rare earth elements will result in huge amounts of wastes.
Lynas keeps mentioning the benefits of the project (such as the creation of 300 plus jobs) while avoiding the negative externalities completely i.e. negative impact on the tourism and fisheries industries that already employ a lot of people in the Kuantan metropolitan area.
Repetition of Claims: Keep on repeating a claim even when it has been shown to be completely untrue
Some Lynas supporters keep on claiming that the wastes are not radioactive although radioactive material such as thorium and uranium will be in the wastes and even though Lynas submitted a document titled “Document 1: Radioactive Waste Management Plan” to the AELB.
Disruptive Counter-Argument: Sidestep an issue when one is unable to address it
When one pro-Lynas writer was unable to reply to the fact that a huge amount of toxic wastes will be produced, he claimed that it will only add 1% to the amount of scheduled wastes in Malaysia. He also ignored the fact that this huge amount of wastes will be produced in one geographical region alone.
Create Cognitive Dissonance in Opponents: Trying to make opponents feel uncomfortable
Lynas supporters accuse anti-Lynas people of being hypocritical for using computer and communications equipment that contain rare earth elements
Decoys: Attempting to deflect criticism onto other parties
Lynas supporters make the claim that there are other plants in the Gebeng industrial park that are emitting toxins into the surrounding area
Foot-in-the-Door Technique: Step by step escalation in the face of strong resistance
Because of the fierce resistance of anti-Lynas groups, the technique employed is to achieve the ultimate aim of getting the plant going by means such as the “temporary operating license” (TOL). The TOL has been granted in spite of the lack of a permanent disposal facility for the long term storage of hazardous wastes (as recommended by the IAEA), the lack of a Detailed Environmental Impact Assessment, and the lack of a Health Impact Assessment.
References
Anthony Pratkanis and Elliot Aronson (2001) revised edition. Age of Propaganda: The Everyday Use and Abuse of Persuasion. New York: W.H. Freeman
Recognizing propaganda techniques and errors of faulty logic
http://academic.cuesta.edu/acasupp/as/404.htm
” Do you trust your Minister “? – author
An emphatic NO .
” Trust . This is what it boils down to. I dare say that no one in the Malaysian Cabinet can command that important ingredient today when their lips move . ” – Ali Kadir
Ali Kadir is absolutely right . This applies not just to those in the current Cabinet but to all from Mahathir’s first Cabinet. Here is where UMNO Barisan’s problem is . The mistrust has such a LONG HISTORY and has so much to do with Mahathir’s legacy, it cannot be undone overnight .
Indeed we have lost trust of the total System, b’coz we have lost trust in them….
In order for them to win trust all over again, they should put Electable candidates like for Eg: the Toyol type to become YBs/YABs, so that when or if all the States crumble down, PKR would be able to reign with Glee…..
I won’t trust the Minister even with my pet monkey, moid.
Trust la rais yatim coz his got his brain certified from London University, Mind You, even his brain got conferred from LOndOn..still he failed in his basic calculation of Bersih Rally! Therefore, I put my trust in rais anak yatim? why? coz LOndOn brain simply like cow brain. That’s why cow n bull ‘brainless’ minister are with Bee End!!!!
I won’t trust the Minister even with my pet monkey,- Bean
Bean, there’s too many of them in Parliament as declared by the Deputy Speaker. Which one do you have? The Red ass baboon or the white faced amang or the berok, good for picking kelapa.
My uncle who used to be a politician told me the last people whom I should put my trust in would be the politicians and lawyers (no offence Bean). I don’t know whether to believe him or not considering he was once a politician and even harbored the ambition to be a lawyer had it not been for his dad.
At The Moment the only Minister we can trust is JAMIL KHIR!
Becos he is menteri agama islam
Kalau dia bohong
1st to be in HELL!
There are some UMNO/BN ministers that I trust, but I will not give my vote to any of them.
Of course I trust them all! How could we not.
Their oath of office has them solemnly swearing to uphold the constitution, protect the country, be just, honest, truthful, loyal, and treat public coffers not as their own. Its all there for you to read. If you can find it. I could find, on the web, that of the US President, China, Belarus, Botswana, and Brazil. But Bolehland’s was somehow the odd one out.
Maybe that tells us something.
Trust our Ministers, trust them to do what?
Oh yes, you can trust our ministers to find the Safest Bank in the world to put our money in!!
Kathy , Trust them to tell lies .
“Bean, there’s too many of them in Parliament as declared by the Deputy Speaker. Which one do you have? The Red ass baboon or the white faced amang or the berok, good for picking kelapa” Pak Semper
“Berok good for picking kelapa”? More like the one good for licking the kepala The problem is Scarlet Johansson doesn’t have a kepala nor has seen a kelapa.
the last people whom I should put my trust in would be the politicians and lawyers- didi
Lawyers and Politicians are two sides of the same coin. Mr Bean can confirm that.
They are what we call, the “necessary evil”…ie can’t do without them
Trust the ruling & even Xministers? HAHAHAH!
I sooner trust that suspected killer pitbull 2doors away.
There is a big difference in Statesmen and Politicians. Here? I trust 1Boleh Ministers are neither. They are in their very own unique 1 of a kind, 1st in the world ce$$pool.
Hi! This is my first visit to your blog! We are a collection of volunteers and starting a new project in a community in the same
niche. Your blog provided us beneficial information to work on.
You have done a marvellous job!
______________
Thank you for your interest. Keep on reading critically and your constructive comments are welcome. This blog is about sharing ideas and views. It is mainly Malaysia-centric-naturally so since I am proud to be Malaysian–but I try to cater to all kinds of readers across the globe.–Din Merican