Mediaboss Marketing

Ever since the political mess that was the one-day-only parliament meeting on May 18 that featured a speech by the King and little else, the Malaysian Parliament has not been meeting in fear of spreading or contracting the coronavirus.

The Malaysian government has held fast onto its decision that its next parliament meeting will be held on July 13, and will take place over the span of 15 days.

But Malaysian youths are not pleased with that decision. Especially as the Conditional Movement Control Order (CMCO) has began loosening its restrictions and many citizens are slowly becoming more used to what we now call 'the new normal' post-coronavirus pandemic.

PARLIMEN DIGITAL MEMERLUKAN ANDA @Challenger_MY, @Undi18, dan @LigaRakyatLRD secara sepakat ingin memperkenalkan Parlimen Digital: sebuah platform yang menghimpun 222 belia untuk 2 hari bagi berdebat, berbincang dan meluluskan rang undang-undang/polisi. @ParlimenDigital pic.twitter.com/HB1Jo0cMHo

The youth-led initiative will be hosting a virtual parliamentary sitting on July 4 and 5 to "propose recommendations to address the economic and health crises in Malaysia," particularly on the topic on policy recommendations regarding COVID-19.

It will be screened lived to showcase "the feasibility of a virtual parliamentary democracy."

The most interesting part of the virtual parliament?

The only requirements is that participants must be 15 to 35 years old, and that participants must be able to speak in Bahasa Malaysia as the meeting will be conducted in the national language.

"Young people have a voice. Express your perpectives on the policies that need to be implemented to address the COVID-19 crisis and prevent the nation from entering a recession. If we, as a group of youth, can gather, why can't the Malaysian House of Representatives (Dewan Rakyat)?" the organizers stated in a Twitter post.

This is not the first time that implementation of an electronic parliamentary system has been brought up.

In an article by the New Straits Times, a professional technologist said that setting one up could take up to two years and an investment of between RM2 million (US$469,314) to RM5 million (US$1.17 million). That's because there is a risk that confidential data such as health and banking details of the ministers could be stolen.

Former Dewan Rakyat deputy Speaker Wan Junaidi bin Tuanku Jaafar also supported efforts in creating an e-parliament, but said it could take up to a year or more to be implemented as house rules have to be amended first.

"First, the speaker must make an appeal to the King to allow for parliamentary sessions to be done outside the Parliament building," he said to the New Straits Times.

"He also has to make a new decree to endorse this because when the building was built in 1959 and the King at the time had decreed that the house was henceforth where Parliament meetings would be held."

Cover image sourced from New Straits Times and @ParlimenDigital.

Read more:
Youths are leading Malaysia's first ever virtual parliament to prove that democracy can go digital - Mashable SE Asia

The former Vice-President Joe Biden, in a speech in Philadelphia on Tuesday, said many of the right things, including issuing promises to ban police choke holds and create a national police-oversight commission. He also grabbed headlines by accusing President Donald Trump of having turned this country into a battleground riven by old resentments and fresh fears. But the passage of the speech that really stuck with me came when Biden talked about Trump preening and sweeping away all the guardrails that have long protected our democracy.

Rather than brandishing the Bible, as Trump did outside St. Johns Episcopal Church on Monday evening, he should read it, and the U.S. Constitution, too, Biden stated. In the latter document, he added, the President would discover a reference to the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition their government for redress of grievances. His voice dropping almost to a whisper, Biden went on, Thats kind of an essential notion built into this country. Mr. President, thats America. Thats America. No horses rising up on their hind legs to push back peaceful protest. Not using the American military to move against the American people. This is a nation of values. Our freedom to speak is a cherished knowledge that lives inside every American, almost from the time when you are a kid. Well not allow any President to quiet their voice.

After sheltering in place at his home in Delaware for much of the past three months, Biden had finally rediscovered his voice. If he makes it to the White House, he may turn out to be an ineffectual President or a great one, but the country can rest assured that he will show a great deal more respect than the current incumbent does for the right to protest and the civilian-military divide. At this stage, though, the question is whether Biden will get the opportunity to succeed Trump in a free and fair election.

Not so long ago, raising this question may have been dismissed as alarmist. Over the past three and a half years, many people, myself included, had reassured themselves that Trumps bumbling and lack of focus served to contain some of his authoritarian instincts. But his response to the protests of George Floyds killing has brought back to the fore the warnings about democratic erosion that a number of political scientists issued immediately after his election, in 2016. If anything, the isolation and pressures of the Oval Office might further warp his ego and exaggerate his dictatorial tendencies, I wrote, in a column that referenced some of these warnings. Surrounded by yes-men, he could well be tempted to try to expand his powers, especially when things go wrong, as they inevitably do at some point in any Presidency.

One of the political scientists I cited in that 2016 piece was Jeff Colgan, of Brown University. He had posted online a useful list of warning signs of democratic breakdown, which included several that seem particularly pertinent now. One of them was Identification of crises or political paralysis to justify emergency measures. Another one was Significant increase in the internal security forces.

On Tuesday, I called up Colgan, whose research focusses on international order, and he didnt hide his alarm about the situation in the United States. Warning lights for democracy are flashing all over the dashboard, he said. There are just multiple threats. He cited Trumps provocative statements but also pointed to the presence of General Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on the streets of Washington, D.C., on Monday night, apparently to check out the situation, and to the request from Mark Esper, the Secretary of Defense, to dominate the battle space during a conference call with governors on Monday. In short, things are a lot more alarming than they seemed even a couple of weeks ago, Colgan said.

Other experienced observers have reached a similar conclusion. The battle space of America??? Not what America needs to hear... ever, unless we are invaded by an adversary or experience a constitutional failure... ie a Civil War... General Tony Thomas, a retired head of the U.S. Special Operations Command, said, on Twitter, on Monday. After U.S. Park Police used smoke cannisters and pepper balls (observers say they used tear gas) to clear Lafayette Park of peaceful protesters on Monday evening, so that Trump could stage a photo op outside St. Johns Episcopal Church, Marc Polymeropoulos, a former case officer for the C.I.A., tweeted to register his concern. It reminded me of what I reported on for years in the third world. Saddam. Bashar. Qaddafi. They all did this, Polymeropoulos wrote.

Former generals and former C.I.A. officers dont have much influence, of course. It would have been a far more powerful gesture if General Milley, after Trump handed him the responsibility of dealing with the protests, had turned down the assignment and resigned, on the grounds that dealing with domestic political unrest isnt his role. It might also have helped the situation if a single member of the Republican leadership on Capitol Hill had summoned the guts to criticize Trump, or to assert Congresss position as an equal branch of government during a national emergency. But, of course, Trump trampled down that particular guardrail many moons ago.

Lets hope that the Presidents talk of militarizing the response to the protests represented political posturing, rather than an actual plan he intends to follow through on. One can never underestimate his B.S. factor, or the possibility of a reversal. Espers statement, on Wednesday morning, that he doesnt support invoking the 1807 Insurrection Act, which allows the President to deploy the military on U.S. soil for certain purposes, represented a welcome display of independence on his part, especially after his earlier remarks to the governors. But, on the other hand, there is no end in sight to the protests, Trump is consistently trailing Biden in the polls, and he is also surrounded by dangerous intriguers, such as Attorney General William Barr. Right now, it seems far from inconceivable that he would go ahead and overrule local officials to send in the U.S. Army. If that happened, it would probably take an emergency stay from the Supreme Court to stop him. And how likely is this Court to issue such a ruling?

Even if Trump draws back from this precipice, the danger to U.S. democracy that he represents will remain in place for at least another five months. From todayJune 3rdthe election is precisely that far away, and Trump is not the type to give up power readily. Every bit of evidence suggests he will lose in a fair fight, Colgan told me. The conclusion that follows from that is we know with near certainty it is not going to be a fair fight. I think we will face ongoing threats to American democracy right up to Election Day, and possibly after that, too.

Go here to see the original:
Donald Trump Represents a Bigger Threat Than Ever to U.S. Democracy - The New Yorker

Images circulating on social media appear to show an instruction manual forGeorge Floydprotesters,accidentally dropped duringthe demonstrations. This claim is false.

Reuters Fact Check. REUTERS/Axel Schmidt

Examplesofthis claim can be seen here and here .

The image appears to be a scanned copy of a crumpleddocument containingapproved practices for protesting,instructions around whether toescalatethe conflict,guidelines for the useof props, and otherdirectionsforgeneral behavior.At the bottom ofthe page, the document is marked confidential, and Level 7, implying the involvement of government entities.Thescanned document also contains what appears to be the signature of Soros.

This leaked document, however, is not recent, nor is its appearance onlinerelated to the protestsacross the U.S. following the death of George Floyd.A quick searchonlineshows that this scanned page is part of a larger instruction manual posted online at least as far back as 2018 by outlets likeInfowars, in whichitalleged a funding conspiracy related to protests after the death of Freddie GrayinApril,2015.

One version of theclaimfeaturing a longerdocument can be seenin a Twitter post, here .

Thelongerdocument is entitledBWI041815, in reference to Baltimorethe place of Grays death andof the subsequent protestswhich began in mid-April 2015(Baltimore/Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport is often referred to as BWI).Other hand-written notes on the document alsoreference April 2015.Thislonger document appeared to start circulating online around 2018.

At the top,thedocumentprominently showsthe logo for Friends of Democracy, a Super PAC (Political Action Committee) founded by Jonathan Soros,son of George Soros( archive.vn/wvAl2 ).In past election cycles, the Friends of Democracy Super PAC had donated exclusively to Democratic politicians ( here ).

In2014,the Huffington Post reportedFriends of Democracymerged withthe Public Campaign Action fund to create Every Voice, anon-profit organization focused on campaign finance reform ( here ).Friends of Democracythereforemerged into a different PACayear prior to the protests in Baltimore following Freddie Grays deathin April 2015, andsix yearsprior tothe protestsfollowing George Floyds deathin May 2020.

When the claims that Friends of Democracy were funding protesters afterGrays deathcirculatedin 2018,theCEO ofthe organization, David Donnelly,issued a statementon Twitterconfirming these flyers were fabricated:[]No, Friends of Democracy PAC was created in 2012 to help elect money-in-politics reform champions. Period. Any document that says FOD was involved in, or funded, or in any way encourage, the protests in Baltimore afterFreddie Grays death IS COMPLETELY FALSE AND FORGED.( here )

Reuters recently debunked a claim related tofake flyers showingjob listings to become professional anarchistsandimplicating George Soros here .

False. George Floyd protesters were not issuedtheseinstructions.

This article was produced by the Reuters Fact Check team. Read more about our work to fact-check social media posts here .

Go here to see the original:
Fact check: Protesters were not issued instructions from Friends of Democracy PAC - Reuters

Over the last few years, the health of American democracy has come under great scrutiny. Polling routinely shows that Americans are concerned that democratic institutions arent working as well as they ought to. Inevitably, this brings up the question of whether we can mend our problems or if the system of representative democracy itself is fundamentally broken.

Im biased. I served as a representative for a good bit of my life, watched the system from the inside with all its faults and all its glories, and believe firmly in it. Our strengths as a nation our wealth and culture, our opportunities and human resources developed in an environment that was built from our founding documents, giving an ever-greater swath of Americans the opportunity to reach their potential, solve the problems that face their communities, and work together to move their neighborhoods and their country as a whole forward. Its allowed us to experiment, to approach issues pragmatically, and to shift approaches if the first or second or third doesnt work.

In fact, I would argue that some of our key characteristics as a people spring from the demands of self-governance and electing representatives. Wherever Ive gone around the country, Ive noticed an impressive and restless desire to make things better to improve our communities and states for everyone who lives in them. A representative democracy, in which every few years we choose the people who will be making the decisions that shape how we spend our money and regulate our activities, encourages this.

As concerns about our institutions have grown, however, so has interest in alternatives. A 2018 poll by Vox, for instance, found that young people were less likely to say that democracy is always preferable to any other type of government, and less likely to agree that democracy serves the people than people 40 and older. By the same token, they were more likely to say non-democracies can be preferable in some circumstances and to believe that democracy serves the elite. Many of these people are pushing for more direct democracy.

At the same time, militia groups, political entrepreneurs and big-money interests are also pushing for changes to how the system operates. They often want to move away from representative democracy, limit the power of the legislature, dismiss the professional civil service, rearrange the federal structure and in some cases see an advantage in a strongman leader.

I have to confess; I have trouble seeing us move in either direction. A lot of Americans like the idea of direct democracy indeed, in a poll a few years ago, the Pew Research Center found that 55 percent of those surveyed thought that ordinary Americans would do a better job solving the countrys problems than elected officials. Yet, while I see the value of direct democracy at the town level, as is practiced in parts of New England, I have trouble seeing how 325 million people could make decisions on even major policy questions at the federal level. It would make it impossible to have the kind of deliberation or search for common ground that Congress, when its working, can practice.

Those attracted to strongman leadership see value in a president who can make policy with little or no consultation with the Congress or other elected bodies. This, of course, is a system of authoritarianism you can find in various spots around the world; Russia, Turkey, the Philippines and Venezuela come to mind. This is not, however, an idea many Americans find attractive for governing the country.

My point is this: We cant look at representative democracy in isolation but have to compare it to the alternatives. And the alternatives, Id argue, dont stack up. Even 230 years on, our system remains an experiment in self-government. It is still aiming to achieve equal political rights and economic opportunity, equal access to the protection of the laws, and equal access to political representation. It seems to me that the question is not Is it perfect? Rather, it is: Can it improve itself? The answer lies with ordinary citizens to step up and take advantage of the opportunities the system affords us to do just that.

(Lee Hamilton was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives for 34 years.)

Go here to see the original:
Why Representative Democracy Is Best Option - The Transylvania Times

D

o we live in a democracy? You may well ask. An unelected adviser seems to exercise more power than the prime minister, and appears unanswerable to people or parliament. Boris Johnson makes reckless public health decisions that could put thousands of lives at risk, apparently to dig himself out of a political hole. Parliament is truncated, as the government arbitrarily decides that MPs can no longer take part in votes remotely. As the government blunders from one disaster to the next, there seem to be no effective ways of holding it to account.

Established power in this country is surrounded by a series of defensive rings. As soon as you begin to name them, you see that the UK is a democracy only in the weakest and shallowest sense.

Lets begin with political funding. Our system permits billionaires and corporations to outspend and outmuscle the electorate. The great majority of money for the Conservative party comes from a small number of very rich people. Just five hedge fund managers have given it 18m over the past 10 years. The secretive Leaders Group grants big donors special access to the prime minister and his frontbenchers in return for their money. Courting and cultivating rich people to win elections corrupts our politics, replacing democracy with plutocracy.

This grossly unfair system is supplemented by outright cheating, such as breaching spending limits and secretly funding mendacious online ads. The Electoral Commission, which is supposed to regulate the system, has deliberately been kept powerless. The maximum fine for winning an election (or a referendum) by fraud is 20,000 per offence. Democracy is cheap in this country.

Despite such assistance, the Conservatives still failed to win a majority of votes at the last election. But, thanks to our preposterous, outdated first-past-the-post electoral system, the 43.6% of the vote they won granted them a crushing majority. With proportional representation, we would have a hung parliament. Five years of unassailable power for Johnsons Conservatives, even as popular support collapses, would have been impossible.

The structure and symbolism of parliament, with its preposterous rituals and incomprehensible procedures, could scarcely be better designed to alienate people, or to favour former public schoolboys, educated in a similar environment. Even its official emblem tells us we are shut out. Its a portcullis: the means by which people are excluded from the fortress of power. The portcullis is topped by a crown, reminding us that power is still vested symbolically in an unelected head of state. Many of her actual powers have been assumed, in the absence of a codified constitution, by the prime minister.

These powers are routinely abused, by all governments. Prime ministers bypass parliament, governing through special advisers like Dominic Cummings. When they make catastrophic mistakes, they have the power to decide whether or not there should be a public inquiry, and, if there should, what its terms and who its chair should be. Its as if a defendant in a criminal trial were allowed to decide whether the trial goes ahead and, if so, what the charges should be and who the judge and jury are.

Even when an investigation does take place, the prime minister can suppress its conclusions, as Johnson has done with the report on Russian interference in the British political system, which remains unpublished. Does it contain details of unlawful donations to the Conservative party? Or of Conservative Friends of Russia, whose launch party was attended by Cummings? A key figure in this group was a man who has subsequently come under suspicion of being a Russian spy. He has been photographed with Johnson, whom he described as a good friend. What was going on? Without parliaments intelligence and security committees report, we can only guess.

The same inordinate powers enabled Johnson to suspend parliament last autumn, until his decision was struck down by the supreme court, and to terminate remote access for MPs this week, preventing many of them from representing us. He is, in effect, a monarch with a five-year term and a council of advisers we call parliament.

The House of Lords is a further defensive ring within this ring. Some of its seats are reserved for hereditary aristocrats. Some are reserved for bishops, making this the worlds only country, other than Iran, in which religious leaders have an automatic right to sit. The rest are grace and favour appointments, keeping power within existing circles. Many of them are granted to major political donors, reinforcing the power of money. In any other country, they would call it corruption.

Despite a vast array of new democratic techniques, pioneered in other countries, there has been a total failure to balance our supposedly representative system with participatory democracy. This failure grants the winning party a scarcely challenged power, on the grounds of presumed consent, to do as it pleases, for five years at a time. Even when public trust and consent collapse, as they have now done amid the coronavirus pandemic, there are no effective channels through which we can affect the decisions government makes.

These formal rings of power are supported by further defences beyond government, such as the print media, most of which is owned by billionaires or multimillionaires living offshore, and the network of opaquely funded thinktanks, that formulate and test the policies later adopted by government. Their personnel circulate in and out of the prime ministers office.

Our political system has the outward appearance of democracy, but it is largely controlled by undemocratic forces. We find ourselves on the wrong side of the portcullis, watching helplessly as crucial decisions are taken about us, without us. If theres one thing the coronavirus fiascos show, its the need for radical change.

George Monbiot is a Guardian columnist

View original post here:
Britain's claims to being a functioning democracy are only skin deep - The Guardian