Saturday, January 31, 2015

CHARLIE HEBDO AND THE NEW MARKETING STRATEGY TO PROMOTE FLEDGING PUBLICATIONS.

…GET THEIR COUNTRY AND MOST OF THE WESTERN WORLD TO SUPPORT THEM TO GO FOR THE KILLING AT THE SALES, EVEN IF IT MEANS SACRIFICING SOME OF THEIR OWN STAFF AND A FEW OTHERS – AND FRANCE BANNING THE BURQAS TO RESTRICT FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION.
By Mansor Puteh


Look who’s laughing all the way to the bank…

The three police officers who were gunned down by the attackers at Charlie Hebdo were given a state funeral and given the Legion of Honor.

Yet, the cartoonists who had also died in the incident for which the attack had been launched causing the police officers to be killed, have not been given similar state funerals or Legion of Honor. They deserve to get them more than the police officers, because they were the reasons for the attack to take place, in the first place.

Tuesday, January 27, 2015

CHARLIE HEBDO OF PARIS AND CHARLIE CHAN OF HOLLYWOOD

…AND THE ONE MILLION IN THE UNITY MARCH IN PARIS (TO NOWHERE), LED BY HOLLANDE AND SOME OTHER EUROPEAN LEADERS…
By Mansor Puteh



This is what is happening in Paris and France in recent times; the French had discovered that their own definition and concept of the Freedom of Speech and Expression to be wanting and it is not perfect.

This is what the whole of France and the world did not see; they refused to see it because their eyes are blinkered; they are too close to the happenings that they had all failed to be intellectual and realistic or real.

All of them are thinking of Charlie Hebdo of Paris and none of them seemed to be aware of Charlie Chan of Hollywood. Both the Charlies are in the same boat, involved in the same issues and controversies.

Charlie Chan is ‘dead’, long live Charlie Hebdo…?

And the National Front of France leader Marien le Pen was not invited to attend the march in Paris so she had to organize one her own elsewhere? Long live, ‘Liberte, Egalite and Fraternite’ (Liberty, Equality and Fraternity)??

Yet, Charlie Hebdo cartoonists did not consider these national slogans or philosophy when they decided to make fun of the Prophet knocking off ‘Equalite and Fraternate’ as they pleased.  


Friday, January 23, 2015

ARAB TERROR SUSPECTS AND TERRORISTS AND MILITANTS HAVE STRONG AND DIRECT LINKS TO HOLLYOOD!

…HOLLYWOOD MOMENTS AND TAKING THE FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND SPEECH TO THE UTMOST EXTREME – AND ATTACKS ON THE CHARLIE HEBDO OFFICE AND THE KOSHER SUPERMARKET IN PARIS AND THE LINDT CAFÉ IN SYDNEY.
By Mansor Puteh



The French government or police did not like it that one of the newspapers in France on Saturday, 10 January, 2015 had published a photo on the front-page showing a terrorist gunning down to kill an injured policeman who was lying on the sidewalk, who happens to be an Arab, too, like his attacker. 

Here is how the French practice their so-called Freedom of speech and expression by supporting the publishing of some sketches depicting the Prophet yet on the other hand they frowned upon another newspaper from publishing the photo which they thought was insensitive.

This is happening even before the woman, Hayat, who is said to be linked to the hostage crisis in the Kosher Supermarket (Hyper Cacher) is arrested and the dramas of the two attacks on it and Charlie Hebdo are fully digested. 


Even the attackers of the Twin Towers of Lower Manhattan might have got inspiration from watching an earlier Hollywood called ‘Independence Day’ which saw the White House being bombed to smithereens. 

Monday, January 19, 2015

CARTOONS AND CARNAGE AND CHAOS:

HOW CARTOONISTS MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO DEFINE FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND SPEECH, THE EFFECTS CAN BE DEADLY, THEY WHO CANNOT BE TRUSTED WITH THEIR PENS AS MUCH AS SOME OTHERS WITH THEIR FIREARMS AND ALSO VETO POWER IN THE UNITED NATIONS.
By Mansor Puteh


A reckless man with a gun can be as harmful as an irresponsible cartoonist with a pen…

Some cartoonists of Charlie Hebdo in Paris found this out and paid for it dearly with their own lives.

They subscribed to the false impression and their own version and definition of Freedom of speech and expression and did not care for the sentiments of the others who they poke fun of and paid the price for it with their lives.


Thursday, January 15, 2015

FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION AND THE FAKERY OF THE FRENCH’, EUROPEANS’ AND AMERICANS’ EXHORTATIONS ON THESE.

…WHY EVEN ON OSCAR NIGHT NO ONE IS ALLOWED TO WEAR SIMPLY, THE FOUR-LETTER WORD IS STILL NOT ALLOWED TO BE BROADCAST OR PUBLISHED IN THE MEDIA!
By Mansor Puteh



I first visited Paris in January, 1981 and the second time in June, 2013. I had fond memories of the city I visited the first time.

Paris has not changed the second time I saw it again recently with the Eiffel Tower still standing proudly and can be seen from all over the city.

The only start difference that I could see is the sight of the many colored people especially Arabs and Muslims from African countries that had been colonized by France earlier, who are now there, especially at the Eiffel Tower and the train station, Gard du Nord which was where I had put up in a hotel at.


Sunday, January 11, 2015

HAS THE STAR NEWSPAPER BECOME THE LAUGHING STOCK OF WORLD JOURNALISM?

…CAN THE STAR PRODUCE A DOCUMENTARY ON THE HISTORY OF THEIR NEWSPAPER?
By Mansor Puteh


This is one definition on who may be a nationalist and a chauvinist: A Malaysian nationalist is a person who studies and studied in the national schools; a chauvinist is one who studies and studied in the vernacular schools who grow up depending on the charity of the Melayu for his commercial business while not having any fascination for Malaysian culture and arts, choosing only those from China, Hong Kong, Taiwan and India.

And a Chinese chauvinist newspaper promotes not Malaysian culture but China, Hong Kong and Taiwan culture with the Indian or Tamil chauvinist newspaper promoting India culture and not highlighting the participation of Chinese-Malaysians in the arts and film in Malaysia.

Normally some newspapers like to charge some agencies or individuals for becoming ‘the laughing stock’ of the country. They do that all the time, with the editors and journalists who also sometimes use their readers to say similar things.

But surprisingly, this charge can now be leveled at one newspaper in Malaysia which seems to believe too much in what they say, especially when they want to redefine ‘moderation’ and ‘extremism’ to suit their political agendas, whatever they are without realizing that these two words in the English language not only have negative meanings but also positive ones that they did not care to ask what they are.

How could a reputable English language newspaper not know this? That one can be extremely kind and also moderately evil!

So what’s the point in asking for everybody not to be extremists and to get them to be moderates?

The Star indeed can be charged for being the laughing stock of world journalism.

For a mere newspaper, the Star can be charged for misusing the medium to express the politics of their editors.

Have they gone too far with the word, with their views?

No other newspaper in the world has come anywhere near to them. They are indeed in a class of their own.

Of course the Washington Post had caused President Richard Nixon to be forced to resign over the Watergate scandal. But in this instance, it is the Stargate scandal or controversy that the Star has found it embroiled in.

But alas not many in Malaysian will care about this newspaper which will go on insisting that they are right that they have the right to report and criticize as they please.  

Is the Star taken the Malaysian and their readers and especially their non-readers for granted for too long?

The most disgusting part is how they have the gumption to want to do whatever they are doing to achieve what they have not bothered or dared to say other than being vague about it.

They also have the veracity to insist that they are right. They won’t buckle; they will continue on with their quest to push for the moderation campaign.

The moderate criminals, rapists and liars will welcome that for they have a lot of sentiments to share.

But the people who are extremely kind and generous will not think much about them. They have been made to feel like they had done something wrong for being extremists in the eyes of some people who did not know any better than to charge them for being ‘extremists’.  

So now the criminals will go on robbing and hurting others but they can do that only moderately. And those who are extremely kind and generously will also want to consider to be less so.

Last year’s bonuses for the Star staff will therefore be moderate; and instead of them getting a few months’ bonus, they will get just half a month!

This will make the staff of the newspaper organization extremely happy for being able to do their part to prove that they also practice what their paper is preaching to everybody.

And in the international front, the Zionists will not want to completely destroy Palestinian towns and villages but partially.

This also caused those who are said and reported by this paper to be supporting their cause, without any of them now actually knowing why and what they are supporting.

The strategy used by the Star is not unique; they write and insist on being right until they come to the extent that they began to believe in their own filth, however ridiculous it may be.

No wonder not many Malaysians are giving their support to their cause.

The silent majority does not care with their politics and continue to read what they say just to see how ridiculous it is.

They want everybody to be moderate. Do their editors, sub-editors and journalists want to do what they are trying to preach, i.e. by getting moderate wages, which is a third of what have been getting now, just to show to everybody and mostly their readers and those who support their cause that they mean what they say?

And will the Star dare to get someone to produce a documentary on its history and also a book on how this newspaper first appeared and how it expanded to become a national newspaper, and if they had supported the cause of Independence or Merdeka of the country?

But can the Star prove to everybody that they are capable of doing what they are doing with their moderation and extremism campaign?

Do they have the history to back that?

Do they dare to get an independent agency to help them come up with a special documentary to document how their newspaper started and how it expanded and what they have been doing all these years to prove that they have been moderates and had also shun extremism?

They have been promoting the English Premier League (EPL) to the extreme, everyday, giving them many pages in the sports section.

They continue to do that even though they have not been given any due recognition by the EPL or even one EPL football team in England.

England has also not offered any of their editors due recognition much less a knighthood for helping to promote the EPL.

The Star newspaper therefore can be charged for being the laughing stock of world of journalism because they are serving the cause of the other countries in this way.

And no newspaper in the world has said they also endorse what this newspaper is doing, much less to want to report on it and to also recommend to the selection committee of the Pulitzer’s Prize to give due recognition to them.

No newspaper in England is devoting even a single column on Malaysian football; even the Wimbledon badminton finals are not covered extensively by any newspaper in England, the reason being no English player has made it to the finals in ages.  




Wednesday, January 7, 2015

THE STAR, MODERATION, EXTREMISM AND THE MELAYU DECOYS OF THE LEFT…

By Mansor Puteh


I have been following the campaign by the Star to encourage moderation by Malaysians and am feeling confused as to what it means and what the Star wants to achieve.

Everything is written in doublespeak and statements made by its originators and unofficial creators are laced with hidden meanings.

How could some mere journalists of a newspaper publishing in English who are not so well-educated on many matters dare to trust themselves to the fore in such a campaign or movement and unabashedly push aside the many others who are better educated than them?

They have failed miserably to definite what they exactly mean by moderation and extremism.

They have in one swipe charged Melayu nationalists as ‘extremists’, they who lead organizations simply to uphold the National Constitution, and nothing more.

They are no more like Mahatma Gandhi who promoted independence of his country, India, or the nationalists of Indonesia who wanted to cause their Dutch colonial masters to leave their country.    

Many Melayu privately wonder if this is nothing but a silly ploy to slowly and moderately change the political system of the country?  

The first Melayu nationalists led by Umno and other Melayu organizations had been recognized for their campaigns and support that led the country to its independence.

They who fought against the implementation of the Malayan Union are ‘extremists’. If they were moderates, chances are Malayan Union would have been implemented.

The newspaper of Malaysia which had championed the cause of Merdeka or Independence of the country was Utusan Melayu; the Chinese newspapers especially did not care too much about helping the leaders of the country on the struggle to achieve Merdeka.

The Star did not exist then.

It is so convenient for the Star to charge Perkasa and the Melayu groups for being ‘extremists’ when they are nationalist organizations.

It is also strange how the campaign to promote moderation and to condemn extremism by the Star has not become a national past-time by most Malaysians of all races and backgrounds; those who had stood up to be counted are mostly those who had retired or pensioned who wanted to be seen to be active.

But alas, they have only managed to get so few people to support their move. Those who offer their support do not seem to have written or said much on the matter

I am confused by what the Star means by 'moderation' and also 'extremism' and who are ‘moderates’ and ‘extremists’.

Therefore one would hope for the newspaper to define what they mean by that instead of using the definition as found in some dictionaries.

I am wondering if the Star condones those who want to be terrorists or militants just moderately? The Moderate Terrorists? The Moderate Racists? The Moderate Criminals, etc?

And is it any bad if one just wants to be extremely kind and generous?

Surely one can now also wonder if the Malaysian football team Harimau Melayu (Malaya?) lost to Thailand in the AFF Suzuki Cup finals simply because they decided to play less agressively to the extreme, but moderately?

Does the Star also want the law enforcement officers and agencies to enforce the law moderately? Does the Star also want the judges to adminster the law moderately? Does the Star want students to study less agressively but moderately?

Did the Star assume that the Malaysian government has not been moderate in their actions?

Tunku Abdul Rahman had been quoted by the Star for being a leader who adopted moderate actions. Is that so?

If Tunku had done so, then surely it could mean that he had agreed to give the Chinese and Indian immigrants citizenship and allowing the Mandarin and Tamil vernacular schools, which have now become one of the reasons for the whole country not being able to develop fully for the full benefit of its citizen.

And is the Star charging the Malaysian government for not adopting a moderate stance so much so that the moderation movement has to be launched and more and more voices from the so-called moderate Melayu and other Malaysians have to be solicited?

Bear in mind that those who have done so including Musa Hitam had not said much on the matter; they said they are moderates. But what exactly have they done to show that they are so?

The Star says it supports the Vision School which the chauvinist Chinese organizations and groups and leaders do not.

For your information the Vision Schools which see schools from the different education systems – Sekolah Melayu, Mandarin and Tamil schools – located in the same area, may be an idea which I had first mooted.

I wrote about it long ago and was asked how such a system be introduced and I said what the government would later describe as the Vision Schools or Sekolah Wawasan.

To me the Melayu who have voiced their support for the movement for the moderates led by the Star to be nothing but decoys to confuse the Chinese even more; they who comprise mostly of people who once held high office but who have not done much upon their retirement and who wants to be counted.

All Melayu know that the shape of the country has changed so much so that in less than a decade Chinese economy and politics that they had tried to exemplify will collapse.

Everywhere the Melayu are present where at an earlier time the Chinese dominated those economic activities.

More and more Chinese have started to accept this as a fact that cannot be denied; that more and more young Chinese have also realized that Sekolah Melayu are their only guarantee for a future.

Those Chinese and Indian kids who do not speak in Melayu will be left behind; unless if they want to be sidelined by the majority Melayu in the country who cannot earn a living if they cannot converse in the Melayu language.

Did Faridah Noor who is one of the twenty-five ‘prominent’ Melayu who support the Star’s moderation movement know what she is talking about?

Wasn’t she who had led the Malaysian team at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the Pulau Batu Hitam (Pedra Branca) dispute with Singapore which saw Malaysia lost the islands, because she had conducted the case on behalf of Malaysia moderately?








Saturday, January 3, 2015

WHO IS THE MASTER OF TRIBUTES OF MALAYSIA…HE WHO CRIES CROCODILE TEARS EACH TIME WHEN SOMEONE RELATED TO THE FILM INDUSTRY AND LITERATURE DIES?

…AND WHO WILL WRITE A TRIBUTE FOR THE ‘MASTER OF TRIBUTES’ – BECAUSE HE IS A JOKER?
By Mansor Puteh


There is a person who has written more tributes to dead film actors, directors and authors in Malaysia than anyone else.

It is a pity that there is no special mention of this feat or achievement in the Malaysia Book of Records, or he will definitely get a mention in the book that no one else in Malaysia can better.

It is an achievement not many will want to better, anyway…

Maybe the person who can be described as the Master of Tributes had not written that many tributes to be given this recognition.

He has to wait a while before that happens, and he can achieve this feat when more authors and film folks die; his achievement depends greatly on how many of them die – the sooner the better.   

Normally tributes for the dead are written by someone close to the deceased. But in Malaysia those who are closed to the deceased authors or film folks generally do not do that.

The chore has thus been given to anyone who had the propensity to misuse the word to express emotions that look and sound to be fake.

He was never known to be close to anyone in the film industry and literary scene in Malaysia.

He had not been known to have written anything interesting about them in the form of essays much less in books.

And he had also not been known to have spoken in any length with any of them, much less to pose for photos with them.

However, when one of them dies, he is quick – very quick – to put pen to paper or hit his fingers on the keyboard of his computer to write a tribute on him, calling them ‘his friend’ who had just passed away and which is also a loss to the film and literary scene in the country.

He seems to have developed or created a template in which he can just change the names of the persons and circumstances he had died from and also some details on his artistic or literary backgrounds and he has got yet another tribute to publish.

One thing’s for sure is that he writes not with passion or personal interests but to attract attention to himself so he can show to all Malaysians that he cared. He did not care about the persons he had written when they were alive.

He only cares about them when they are dead.

Who is this person? What is he trying to pull?

He can probably publish an anthology of tributes if there are enough people in these fields had died. But it won’t be anytime soon as those who go away do not go in droves but one at a time.

And for any given year, there are at the most two or three such persons who die, mostly due to old age.

It is also good that his view of things do not extend to very far; he is not known to have written on the arts, since there are some famous but relatively popular painters who had gone on.

Yet, there are also some literary figures who had passed away but they did not get the Master of Tribute’s attention because they are seen to be small figures, not worthy of his attention.

He would deem it unnecessary and below him to come up with a tribute on such personalities.

The Master of Tributes only concentrates on those who are much larger in size and who commanded a certain degree of attention in their fields.

No one can be faulted if he thinks the ‘Master of Tributes’ is nothing but a JOKER!

He is indeed a JOKER.

He is indeed a JOKER because he does not write on personal anecdotes on the ‘victims’, which proves that he did not have any personal relationship with them when they were still alive.

He only writes what is obvious about the person who has become his ‘victim’ by saying about things that everybody knows about him and his works – books he had written or films that he had acted or starred in and how they first met to sit and talk about them, etc, etc.

There is none of that.

Normally, a person paying a tribute to a dead film star or director or author will have something more personal or intimate to share with his readers of his column to show how close they were.

This is also to show how he could and had better understood the inner thinking of the author and film star.

But none of these had appeared and could appear in the tribute simply because it is written by someone who is misusing the dead author and film actor to serve his own self-interests which is to show how much he remembers them and had cared for them and their works, when in fact he did not bother with them when they were still alive.

The Master of Tributes knew no one else would want to write tributes to the dead authors or film folks, so he took it upon himself to do it.

He won’t dare or would want to write tributes of dead national politicians or figures from the government ministries and agencies or corporate sector, because his true colors would be exposed since he did not know any of them to be able to write much on them.

The task normally fell on the newspapers and media to do so and they would normally seek the views of those who were close to the persons.

How could the Master of Tribute want to write on prime ministers who had died? His words will ring hollow because his perspective will be severely restricted. They can only come from his peers and those who knew him, leaders of foreign countries and also party leaders in the Barisan Nasional coalition.  

Let’s see who will write a special tribute if the Master of Tribute dies finally?