dari Changkat Ning
Sukacita dimaklumkan bahawa Tabung Kumpulan Wang Biasiswa Negeri Selangor akan membuka permohonan tawaran Pinjaman Pelajaran Kerajaan Negeri Selangor mulai 2 Februari 2009.
Tarikh tutup pada 1 April 2009.
Borang permohonan berharga RM3 boleh diperolehi dari Bahagian Pengurusan Sumber Manusia, Pejabat SUK Selangor
Maklumat lanjut sila hubungi : 03-55447480/7481/7482
Khamis, Februari 05, 2009
How to bring a government down
dari Changkat Ning
Raja Petra Kamarudin
Westminster system
The Westminster system is a democratic parliamentary system of government modelled after the British government (the Parliament of the United Kingdom). The term comes from the Palace of Westminster, the seat of the UK Parliament.
The system is a series of procedures for operating a legislature. It is used, or was once used, in the national legislatures and sub-national legislatures of most Commonwealth and ex-Commonwealth nations, beginning with the Canadian provinces and Australian colonies in the mid-19th century. There are other parliamentary systems whose procedures differ considerably from the Westminster system.
Key characteristics
Important features of the Westminster system include the following, although not all of the following aspects have been preserved in every Westminster-derived system:
* a sovereign or head of state who is the nominal or theoretical holder of executive power, and holds numerous reserve powers, but whose daily duties mainly consist of performing the role of a ceremonial figurehead. Examples include the British monarch, the presidents of many countries and state/provincial governors in federal systems.
* a head of government (or head of the executive), known as the prime minister (PM), premier or first minister, who is officially appointed by the head of state. In practice, the head of government is almost always the leader of the largest elected party in parliament.
* a de facto executive branch usually made up of members of the legislature with the senior members of the executive in a cabinet led by the head of government; such members execute executive authority on behalf of the nominal or theoretical executive authority.
* parliamentary opposition (a multi-party system).
* an elected legislature, often bicameral, in which at least one house is elected, although unicameral systems also exist; legislative members are usually elected by district in first-past-the-post elections (as opposed to country-wide proportional representation).(In this case, New Zealand presents an interesting change given its shift to proportional representation.)
* a lower house of parliament with an ability to dismiss a government by "withholding (or blocking) Supply" (rejecting a budget), passing a motion of no confidence, or defeating a confidence motion. The Westminster system enables a government to be defeated, or forced into a general election, independently of a new government being chosen.
* a parliament which can be dissolved and elections called at any time.
* parliamentary privilege, which allows the Legislature to discuss any issue deemed by itself to be relevant, without fear of consequences stemming from defamatory statements or records thereof.
* minutes of meetings, often known as Hansard, including an ability for the legislature to strike discussion from these minutes.
Most of the procedures of the Westminster system have originated with the conventions, practices and precedents of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, which are a part of what is known as the Constitution of the United Kingdom. Unlike the unwritten British constitution, most countries that use the Westminster system have codified the system in a written constitution.
However, uncodified conventions, practices and precedents continue to play a significant role in most countries, as many constitutions do not specify important elements of procedure: for example, some older constitutions using the Westminster system do not mention the existence of the cabinet and/or the prime minister, because these offices were taken for granted by the authors of these constitutions.
A motion of no confidence (alternatively vote of no confidence, censure motion, no-confidence motion, or confidence motion) is a parliamentary motion traditionally put before a parliament by the opposition in the hope of defeating or weakening a government, or, rarely by an erstwhile supporter who has lost confidence in the government. The motion is passed or rejected by means of a new parliamentary vote (a vote of no confidence).
Typically, when parliament votes no confidence, or where it fails to vote confidence, a government must respond in one of two ways:
* resign
* seek a parliamentary dissolution and request a general election
Raja Petra Kamarudin
Westminster system
The Westminster system is a democratic parliamentary system of government modelled after the British government (the Parliament of the United Kingdom). The term comes from the Palace of Westminster, the seat of the UK Parliament.
The system is a series of procedures for operating a legislature. It is used, or was once used, in the national legislatures and sub-national legislatures of most Commonwealth and ex-Commonwealth nations, beginning with the Canadian provinces and Australian colonies in the mid-19th century. There are other parliamentary systems whose procedures differ considerably from the Westminster system.
Key characteristics
Important features of the Westminster system include the following, although not all of the following aspects have been preserved in every Westminster-derived system:
* a sovereign or head of state who is the nominal or theoretical holder of executive power, and holds numerous reserve powers, but whose daily duties mainly consist of performing the role of a ceremonial figurehead. Examples include the British monarch, the presidents of many countries and state/provincial governors in federal systems.
* a head of government (or head of the executive), known as the prime minister (PM), premier or first minister, who is officially appointed by the head of state. In practice, the head of government is almost always the leader of the largest elected party in parliament.
* a de facto executive branch usually made up of members of the legislature with the senior members of the executive in a cabinet led by the head of government; such members execute executive authority on behalf of the nominal or theoretical executive authority.
* parliamentary opposition (a multi-party system).
* an elected legislature, often bicameral, in which at least one house is elected, although unicameral systems also exist; legislative members are usually elected by district in first-past-the-post elections (as opposed to country-wide proportional representation).(In this case, New Zealand presents an interesting change given its shift to proportional representation.)
* a lower house of parliament with an ability to dismiss a government by "withholding (or blocking) Supply" (rejecting a budget), passing a motion of no confidence, or defeating a confidence motion. The Westminster system enables a government to be defeated, or forced into a general election, independently of a new government being chosen.
* a parliament which can be dissolved and elections called at any time.
* parliamentary privilege, which allows the Legislature to discuss any issue deemed by itself to be relevant, without fear of consequences stemming from defamatory statements or records thereof.
* minutes of meetings, often known as Hansard, including an ability for the legislature to strike discussion from these minutes.
Most of the procedures of the Westminster system have originated with the conventions, practices and precedents of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, which are a part of what is known as the Constitution of the United Kingdom. Unlike the unwritten British constitution, most countries that use the Westminster system have codified the system in a written constitution.
However, uncodified conventions, practices and precedents continue to play a significant role in most countries, as many constitutions do not specify important elements of procedure: for example, some older constitutions using the Westminster system do not mention the existence of the cabinet and/or the prime minister, because these offices were taken for granted by the authors of these constitutions.
A motion of no confidence (alternatively vote of no confidence, censure motion, no-confidence motion, or confidence motion) is a parliamentary motion traditionally put before a parliament by the opposition in the hope of defeating or weakening a government, or, rarely by an erstwhile supporter who has lost confidence in the government. The motion is passed or rejected by means of a new parliamentary vote (a vote of no confidence).
Typically, when parliament votes no confidence, or where it fails to vote confidence, a government must respond in one of two ways:
* resign
* seek a parliamentary dissolution and request a general election
Ahad, Februari 01, 2009
Democracy-the Missing Piece in the Search for Common Ground
dari Changkat Ning
PRESS STATEMENT
12 January 2009
Democracy-the Missing Piece in the Search for Common Ground
The recent U.N. Resolution called for an immediate ceasefire of the Gaza-Palestine conflict and unimpeded provision and distribution of aid to Gaza, as well as measures to halt arms smuggling and open the borders. Yet, the indiscriminate killing of civilians in Gaza-Palestine continue to escalate at an unprecedented rate, raising alarm of a greater regional conflict and threat to world peace.
The cruelty inflicted by the Zionists of Israel on civilians must be stopped immediately. However, ending the violence seems a near-impossible task when a compromise can hardly be reached by the warring parties. This is a conflict that bears a historical baggage which dates back centuries and although it is a land and territorial dispute, what matters are issues which remain to be a complex hybrid of religion and human rights. To say that it must be resolved “with care” is an understatement.
In response, almost all nations in the world have taken the position that this war must end and the conflict resolved. In mounting pressure, we have witnessed a surge of protest, anti-war vigils, press reports in the electronic and print media and even trade boycotts of U.S. and Israel products globally, particularly in the Muslim world. Malaysians have admirably answered the call for help by sending our own medical relief team and the public has been tremendously generous in the effort to despatch aid.
Restoration of Democracy
However, I am deeply concerned that we have also neglected other means of resolving this conflict which has time and time again threatened world peace. It is not the first time that we have despatched aid or exerted international pressure through the U.N. What we have done thus far, is timely and must be applauded. Yet, let us not dismiss the need to also embark on other equally meaningful of resolving this conflict and that is calling for the restoration of democracy in the Middle East.
It is clear that Israel and the U.S. have not recognized Hamas, despite it being democratically elected by the Palestinians. It is not helpful either that democracy as a principle has not thrived nor gained any strong footing in the Middle-East. We must recognize that this conflict affects the Middle East deeply and its relations with the other countries. The rejection of democracy and legitimate democratic practices only fuels disrespect and distrust on the political and legal systems of the region, when in fact these systems and their leaders must be depended on in order to facilitate genuine efforts to chart a road map to peace in the region. Albeit difficult, we must be honest and make no apologies in advocating democracy not just in Palestine but in the Middle East as a whole, in order to properly uphold the rule of law in the region.
What we have witnessed thus far, are reactive measures being taken once the conflict had began. We must learn our lesson as this conflict is hardly new, the efforts taken, clearly expected. In the face of such predictability, it is only proper that proactive measures be equally devised and not be marginalized in favour of reactive and temporal measures. Press reports evoking emotions do not result in proper understanding of the conflict. The media have an equally compelling role to play by educating the public of the long history of the conflict, how it began and the divergent views that exist on the issue. The average Malaysian in the kampong must be educated to know what the issue is truly about and how it affects us in particular. This issue in fact reflects what Malaysians have generally clamoured for, that is a genuine understanding of differences in order to facilitate a peaceful resolution to a conflict.
Respecting differences, upholding democratic principles
It is probably the Southeast Asian experience of handling multi-culturalism, religious diversity and the adoption of the principle of unity in diversity (bhinneka tungga ika), which ought to be shown as an example to resolve a conflict fraught with sensitive issues. As an important member of the Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC), Malaysia must play and exemplary role to other Islamic nations who have equally stated their stand in condemning the indiscriminate killing of civilians in Gaza-Palestine.
Yet, the Malaysian government disregarded democracy by practicing double standards and not honouring the freedom of speech and assembly enshrined in the Federal Constitution, which further erodes our credibility to play an effective role in the issue. As evidenced recently, we have witnessed a clear case of hypocrisy in the manner in which this issue has been handled and highlighted. Opposition Members of Parliament are condemned and arrested, whilst Government Parliamentarians are praised and put on the pedestal when in fact both sides share a common intention and shout a common slogan. Time is running short. We must rise above our differences and not let political interest stand in the way- of searching for a common ground and of advocating world peace.
YUSMADI YUSOFF,MP
Chairman of Strategy and International Affairs
Youth Wing of Parti KeAdilan Rakyat
Youth Chief of AMK PKR Penang
PRESS STATEMENT
12 January 2009
Democracy-the Missing Piece in the Search for Common Ground
The recent U.N. Resolution called for an immediate ceasefire of the Gaza-Palestine conflict and unimpeded provision and distribution of aid to Gaza, as well as measures to halt arms smuggling and open the borders. Yet, the indiscriminate killing of civilians in Gaza-Palestine continue to escalate at an unprecedented rate, raising alarm of a greater regional conflict and threat to world peace.
The cruelty inflicted by the Zionists of Israel on civilians must be stopped immediately. However, ending the violence seems a near-impossible task when a compromise can hardly be reached by the warring parties. This is a conflict that bears a historical baggage which dates back centuries and although it is a land and territorial dispute, what matters are issues which remain to be a complex hybrid of religion and human rights. To say that it must be resolved “with care” is an understatement.
In response, almost all nations in the world have taken the position that this war must end and the conflict resolved. In mounting pressure, we have witnessed a surge of protest, anti-war vigils, press reports in the electronic and print media and even trade boycotts of U.S. and Israel products globally, particularly in the Muslim world. Malaysians have admirably answered the call for help by sending our own medical relief team and the public has been tremendously generous in the effort to despatch aid.
Restoration of Democracy
However, I am deeply concerned that we have also neglected other means of resolving this conflict which has time and time again threatened world peace. It is not the first time that we have despatched aid or exerted international pressure through the U.N. What we have done thus far, is timely and must be applauded. Yet, let us not dismiss the need to also embark on other equally meaningful of resolving this conflict and that is calling for the restoration of democracy in the Middle East.
It is clear that Israel and the U.S. have not recognized Hamas, despite it being democratically elected by the Palestinians. It is not helpful either that democracy as a principle has not thrived nor gained any strong footing in the Middle-East. We must recognize that this conflict affects the Middle East deeply and its relations with the other countries. The rejection of democracy and legitimate democratic practices only fuels disrespect and distrust on the political and legal systems of the region, when in fact these systems and their leaders must be depended on in order to facilitate genuine efforts to chart a road map to peace in the region. Albeit difficult, we must be honest and make no apologies in advocating democracy not just in Palestine but in the Middle East as a whole, in order to properly uphold the rule of law in the region.
What we have witnessed thus far, are reactive measures being taken once the conflict had began. We must learn our lesson as this conflict is hardly new, the efforts taken, clearly expected. In the face of such predictability, it is only proper that proactive measures be equally devised and not be marginalized in favour of reactive and temporal measures. Press reports evoking emotions do not result in proper understanding of the conflict. The media have an equally compelling role to play by educating the public of the long history of the conflict, how it began and the divergent views that exist on the issue. The average Malaysian in the kampong must be educated to know what the issue is truly about and how it affects us in particular. This issue in fact reflects what Malaysians have generally clamoured for, that is a genuine understanding of differences in order to facilitate a peaceful resolution to a conflict.
Respecting differences, upholding democratic principles
It is probably the Southeast Asian experience of handling multi-culturalism, religious diversity and the adoption of the principle of unity in diversity (bhinneka tungga ika), which ought to be shown as an example to resolve a conflict fraught with sensitive issues. As an important member of the Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC), Malaysia must play and exemplary role to other Islamic nations who have equally stated their stand in condemning the indiscriminate killing of civilians in Gaza-Palestine.
Yet, the Malaysian government disregarded democracy by practicing double standards and not honouring the freedom of speech and assembly enshrined in the Federal Constitution, which further erodes our credibility to play an effective role in the issue. As evidenced recently, we have witnessed a clear case of hypocrisy in the manner in which this issue has been handled and highlighted. Opposition Members of Parliament are condemned and arrested, whilst Government Parliamentarians are praised and put on the pedestal when in fact both sides share a common intention and shout a common slogan. Time is running short. We must rise above our differences and not let political interest stand in the way- of searching for a common ground and of advocating world peace.
YUSMADI YUSOFF,MP
Chairman of Strategy and International Affairs
Youth Wing of Parti KeAdilan Rakyat
Youth Chief of AMK PKR Penang
Langgan:
Catatan (Atom)