Pussy Riot and Malaysian foreign-funded NGOs

Bizarre as it seems, two prominent Malaysian NGOs have something in common with Pussy Riot – the support of the US National Endowment for Democracy.

WHO loves Pussy Riot? Paul McCartney, Red Hot Chili Peppers and Sting are in the long list of celebrities supporting the so-called Russian feminist punk rock outfit.



But Madonna appears to have made the biggest impact with her brazen display of endorsement.

Midway through her 1984 hit Like a Virgin during a concert in Moscow last month, she stripped to exhibit the words “Pussy Riot” written across her back.

Her show did little to prevent three members of the group – Maria Alyokhina, Nadezhda Tolokonnikova and Yekaterina Samutsevich – from being jailed for two years.

They were found guilty of hooliganism and inciting religious hatred in an orthodox Moscow cathedral.

There has been much global media frenzy over their perceived persecution.The international condemnation has come from Amnesty International, the White House, the European Union, the British and German governments and an assortment of human rights groups.

Among the latest to join the chorus are Yoko Ono, wife of ex-Beatle John Lennon, and Myanmar opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi.

The story as being spun by the mainstream global media is that of three young innocent women who were merely expressing their freedom being jailed by the dissent-silencing president Vladimir Putin (ex-KGB, remember?) and as such, need the support from all the outraged freedom-loving, justice-seeking and human rights-embracing people of the world.

After presenting the Lennon Ono Grant for Peace award to Tolokonnikova’s husband, Ono said: “I thank Pussy Riot in standing firmly in their belief for freedom of expression and making all women of the world proud to be women.”

Oh yeah? Let’s look at what they did to earn such an honour. On Feb 21, they stormed the altar of Cathedral of Christ the Saviour wearing balaclavas and bright outfits to “perform” what has been reported as a “punk prayer to the Virgin Mary”.

In reality, it was a grossly blasphemous parody of a Latin hymn, the English lyrics of which read: Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God of Hosts 


Heaven and earth are full of your glory. Hosanna in the highest, Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord. Hosanna in the highest

What they yelled during their “performance” was this:

Holy s***, s***, Lord’s s***! Holy s***, s***, Lord’s s***! St Maria, Virgin, become a feminist ...*Patriarch Gundyaev believes in Putin *(The Russian Orthodox Church’s Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia, whose secular name is Vladimir Gundyaev)
 B****, you better believe in God!

The group is an offshoot of another known as “Voina”, or “War” in Russian, which has since 2008 staged several offensively shocking events in the name of “performance art”, including painting a mural of a penis on a bridge, having group sex in a museum, throwing live cats at workers of a McDonald’s outlet, overturning of police cars and firebombing buildings. They also stole a chicken from a supermarket and performed a lewd act with it.

It’s highly doubtful that the information would be revealed by the Western media when the case comes up for appeal on Oct 1.

Imagine the repercussions if such a group entered a mosque, church, or a Hindu or Buddhist temple in Malaysia to similarly “express their freedom”.

People who commit such acts in the US or in most European countries would also be arrested, charged and jailed, so what’s the big deal about these women?

For one thing, they seem to have powerful backers, in the form of the US National Endowment for Democracy.

Yes, the same entity supporting Bersih and Suaram, which is now being probed over its sources of foreign funding.

According to conspirazzi.com, Pussy Riot and Voina have open links to the NED through Oksana Chelysheva, who is deputy executive director of the Russian-Chechen Friendship Society funded by the NED and George Soros-funded outfits.

The NED was created in 1983, seemingly as a non-profit-making organisation to promote human rights and democracy but as its first president Allen Weinstein admitted to The Washington Post in 1991, a lot of what it does overtly used to be done covertly by the CIA.

In the words of ex-CIA officer Ralph McGeehee, it subsidises and influences elections, political parties, think tanks, academia, publishers, media and labour, religious, women’s and youth groups.

Russia has since introduced a new Bill to label NGOs that get foreign funds and are involved in politics as “foreign agents”, with their accounts subject to public scrutiny.

Paul Craig Roberts, a former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, says the US, too, has laws which require foreign interests to register as foreign agents but this does not always apply to all Israeli lobby groups.

“There are no political parties in the US that are funded by foreign interests. No such thing would be permitted. It would be regarded as high treason,” he was quoted as saying by Pravda.

So, if outsiders are not allowed to fund and interfere in US politics, why should we allow its agencies to meddle in ours?

ALONG THE WATCHTOWER
By M. VEERA PANDIYAN

> Associate Editor M. Veera Pandiyan sees the wisdom in this quote from Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard: People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.

Related post

Foreign funding for political purposes in Malaysia

Sep 22, 2012

Foreign funding for political purposes in Malaysia

Investigations to determine source of its foreign funding

KUALA LUMPUR: Investigations are being conducted on Suara Inisiatif Sdn Bhd, the company linked to non-governmental organisation Suaram, to determine the source and extent of its foreign funding.

So far, the “money trail” dates back to 2005 with the amount totalling over RM2mil.

The two main contributors are the American-based National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and the George Soros-linked Open Society Institute (OSI), which have been financing groups supporting its interests and objectives around the world.

The NED supposedly provided US$535,000 (RM1.605mil) to Suaram while OSI gave about US$248,000 (RM744,000).

Suaram's No 3 funder was identified as the South-East Asia Centre for e-Media (Seacem), with the German Embassy as the fourth.

The investigations centred on financial transactions conducted with Suara Inisiatif to counter-check “misleading information” and “suspicious transactions” in the company's accounts.

The NED dedicates itself to the growth and strengthening of democratic institutions and awards grants to organisations with programmes consistent with its (political) objectives.

Among others, it was reported to have provided funds to groups in Xinjiang and Tibet opposed to the Chinese Government.

OSI, started by financier Soros in 1984 to help countries make the transition from communism, is active in more than 50 countries in Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union, Africa, Latin America, Asia, and the US.

Domestic Trade, Cooperatives and Consumerism Minister Datuk Seri Ismail Sabri Yaakob had said that legal action would be taken against Suaram and Suara Inisiatif by various government agencies for reporting a “misleading” account in its annual report.

He revealed that CCM's investigation had allegedly detected serious violations of at least five sections of the Companies Act by Suaram and Suara Inisiatif.

The minister also called for an investigation into an American NGO's alleged funding of Suaram and urged Bank Negara to investigate the matter under the Anti-Money Laundering and Anti-Terrorism Financing Act 2001.

On Wednesday, the Attorney-General's Chambers directed CCM to further check accounts and other related offences under the Companies Act.

 

By PAUL GABRIEL paulnews@thestar.com.my

Related Stories:

Soros link kept under wraps
Malaysiakini admits to receiving foreign funds

• Sep 21

  Police reports lodged against Ismail Sabri over Suaram issue - Story | The Star Online

• Sep 20

  ROS probing Suaram over illegal raising of funds - Story | The Star Online

• Sep 19

  Suaram-linked firm faces legal action - Story | The Star Online

• Sep 19

  ROS: Suaram, Suara Inisiatif being probed separately for different offences - Story | The Star Online

Raise the red flag, cut out the hypocrisy!

Raise the red flag

On The Beat By WONG CHUN WAI

Cut out the hypocrisy in the anti-palm oil campaign.

THERE’S no such thing as a national tree in Malaysia but if ever there has to be one, I would propose the oil palm tree. It may have originated from elsewhere, like the rubber tree, but it has been a miracle tree for this country.

Many Malaysians are aware that palm oil is used as raw material for cooking oil and soap but not many would know that it is also used in the making of instant noodles, cookies, biscuits, candles, washing powder and even medical and cosmetic products, including anti-ageing applications.

Even the tree’s trunks can be used for making furniture.

Palm oil can also be used to create biodiesel. Since 2007, all diesel sold in Malaysia must contain 5% palm oil, putting us at the forefront of promoting biodiesel.

But more importantly, the Malaysian palm oil industry earned a healthy RM60bil in 2010. This was an increase of RM10bil from 2009. Revenue is projected to reach RM80bil and the perception is that the industry will eventually be the country’s biggest money earner.

The income generated by the high price of palm oil has led to a mini economic boom in rural townships throughout the country and benefited the ordinary people.

In simple language, it means an assurance of jobs and income, with a guaranteed daily wage of RM90 in rural areas where the cost of living is low.

In contrast, as shown in some studies, the rural population of many developing countries often earns a mere RM7 per day and employment is sometimes limited or seasonal.

The fact is that while over one billion people have scarce access to food and jobs globally, in Malaysia, we rely on 300,000 foreigners to take on jobs we shun. This includes jobs in the palm oil industry.

In Malaysia, our concern is not lack of food but how to cut down on intake of carbohydrates to reduce our waistline. Slimming centres have become a multi-million ringgit business because of this.



For the foreign labourers working in oil palm plantations here, their employment means there will be food daily for over a million family members in Indonesia, Bangla­desh, the Philippines and other countries.

Oil palm is also important for the Malaysian smallholders and the retail business, which will enjoy the trickle-down effect. And the Government will gain as well, through the collection of corporate taxes, which are then used for education, health and infrastructure development.

It means a lot for the children of the smallholders and foreign workers who know they won’t have to go to bed hungry each night.

Over the past few months, however, their livelihood has been threatened by Western non-governmental organisations who have stepped up their campaign against Malaysia’s palm oil industry.

This time, they have widened their target audience to include even primary school children in the United States, Europe and Australia.

If the argument in the past was about health, this time the campaign has shifted towards the purported deforestation of land and the killing of orang utan. Naturally, these issues would be more emotionally appealing and fashionable given the global concern for environmental issues.

No one in his right mind would argue against protecting the environment but the red flag, rather than the green flag, has to be raised when the real issue is whether these NGOs are being funded by lobbyists from the soy bean, sunflower and other seed oil competitors.

There is a lot of hypocrisy here, really. Orang utans may have been affected but look at the shocking decline in the number of koalas in Australia as a result of human clearing and other factors.

It has been reported that the number of koalas has dropped by 95% since the 1990s and that only 43,000 of these tree-dwelling marsupial are left on the mainland. In southeast Queensland, the number has dropped from 25,000 to 4,000 in a decade. Just Google for more information.

Even the world’s 1.5 billion cows are being blamed. There’s a 400-page report quoting the United Nations, which has identified the world’s rapidly growing herds of cattle as a huge threat to the climate, forests and wild life. And they are being blamed for a host of other environmental crimes, too, from acid rain to the introduction of alien species, producing deserts to creating dead zones in the oceans, poisoning rivers and drinking water to destroying coral reefs.

The report by the Food and Agricultural Organisation, titled Livestock’s Long Shadow, surveys the damage done by cows, sheep, chickens, pigs and goats.

Livestock is responsible for 18% of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming, more than cars, planes and all other forms of transport put together – and there’s a lot of cows and sheep in Australia, I believe.

The Independent newspaper in Britain reported that burning fuel to produce fertilisers to grow feed, to produce meat and to transport it, and clearing vegetation for grazing, produces 9% of all emissions of carbon dioxide, the most common greenhouse gas.

And wind and manure from livestock account for more than one-third of emissions of another gas, methane, which warms the world 20 times faster than carbon dioxide.

But I feel that the greatest contributor to global warming has been left out – the great appetite of developed countries for fossil fuel, which is essential for their continued economic performance. The need to continue their lifestyle contributes to the huge emission of CO2.

It makes them look intelligent talking about orang utan and deforestation in exotic Borneo, which many might not even be able to locate on the map, while drinking Dom Perignon at fancy parties after being dropped off by chauffeur-driven gas-guzzling limousines. 

Malaysian Election Reform: a panel for free and fair polls

Tweet

A panel for free and fair polls

Comment by BARADAN KUPPUSAMY

 For the select committee on electoral reform to be successful, there is a need for all parties to put aside partisan politics and work for what matters most – the best interest of the rakyat.

PAKATAN Rakyat should give a chance for the Parliamentary Select Committee to be formed and do its job of investigating and suggesting changes to the country’s electoral system.

As it is, their MPs have issued numerous statements ranging from outright boycott of the select committee to agreeing to participate but on their own terms.

They want Pakatan leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim to head the panel, increase the number of Pakatan panel members from the current three or, alternatively, not to give independent MPs a place in the committee.

They also want the assurance that Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak will not call for a general election before a full, complete report of the panel is published and the recommendations implemented.
 
Najib has said the reforms could be divided into immediate reforms and long term ones; immediate reforms could be implemented before the next general election.

But he has rejected outright the idea of reform first and a general election later, saying the Government reserves the right to call for a general election at any time.
 
Pakatan Rakyat is due to make known its stand on the matter soon, according to PAS deputy president Mohamed Sabu.

While Pakatan Rakyat decides, Parliament is set to debate a motion on the formation of the select committee on Oct 3, which will also include its terms of reference and possibly the members of the committee.

A parliamentary select committee, as the name suggests, is a committee of the House and tasked to deliberate on matters of concern; in this case, on election and the electoral process and submit a report to Parliament and make recommendations which can lead to changes in the relevant laws.

Select committee members must be MPs and exercise all the powers of Parliament to make inquiries, inspect documents, call experts witnesses and go on road shows around the country for evidence gathering.



They must act in a non-partisan manner as Parliament is supposed to be – that is, to act in the best interest of the rakyat.

That is why a select committee is headed by a minister of the Government of the day which has a majority in the House.

It is the Government that decides that the election system needs reforming and carries out the task of forming the select committee.

It is inappropriate for Pakatan Rakyat to demand that it head the select committee because it is the Government’s right to reserve that position for itself.

This means Anwar cannot be head of the select committee but he can be a member of the panel, if he so chooses.

Besides, such a committee has no place for an NGO leader or a civilian because parliamentary convention allows only MPs to be members of the committee.

But they can be called as experts witnesses to aid the committee in carrying out its duties which, hopefully, is the manner in which Bersih leaders will be engaged.

The Government’s right of way also includes having a majority in the select committee but that majority should be proportionate to its membership in Parliament.

Giving Pakatan Rakyat parties three places in the committee is also fair when the Government only reserves for itself five places, which is quite proportionate to the respective representation of Parlia­ment.

The only issue that Pakatan Rakyat can raise is the allocation of one place to the nine independent MPs who act as a bloc in Parlia­ment.

The independents are not true independents but former PKR MPs who defected and now stand with the Government on any issue in Parliament.

Giving them a place seems unjustified but they, too, might have a cause to present.

The nearest thing we have had to a successful select committee, in recent times, was the 2004 select committee on the Penal Code and Criminal Procedure Code that was headed by Datuk Seri Radzi Sheikh Ahmad.

It heard expert witnesses and made numerous recommendations.

This eventually led to amendments to both codes in 2006 that helped to strengthen the fundamental liberties of arrested persons, among other changes.

This current committee will also see changes to the election rules and process if given a chance to be formed and conduct its work.

Therefore, it is incumbent on the Pakatan Rakyat MPs to set aside partisan politics and work together to ensure that the people get what want – a free and fair election.