Posts Tagged ‘Protest’

Kg Buah Pala residents get new house next month

July 20th, 2011
|  Subscribe in a reader | Subscribe to by Email

Not sure what happened to the balance families that rejected the house offer initially. I think there were another 9 families.

Fifteen Kampung Buah Pala families who were evicted from their homes to make way for a housing project two years ago can look forward to a new life at the site of their former homes which has been renamed Taman Buah Pala.

Its residents association chairman R. Karunakaran said the new double-storey terrace houses offered as compensation for 15 families were recently completed.

“We are now eagerly waiting to move into the new houses next month. We are happy with the design of the houses which have three rooms, a balcony and a porch big enough to accommodate a car.

Work in progress: The houses still undergoing construction Taman Buah Pala.

“Each house with a built-up area of 1,200sqft is estimated to be worth RM500,000,” he said yesterday.

The village was a topic of controversy in 2009 when villagers tried in vain to continue living there despite a Federal Court decision ruling that they must make way for redevelopment.

Nine houses were also offered to nine families after they voluntarily moved out before the demolition.

Karunakaran said the developer had also allocated a land behind the houses to build a temple and a multi-purpose hall, which are presently under construction.

Deputy Chief Minister II Dr P. Ramasamy said the villagers could expect to move in by August after the occupancy certificates had been issued by the Penang Municipal Council.


Why black out misleading and incorrect text?

July 19th, 2011
|  Subscribe in a reader | Subscribe to by Email

I always thought that if a publication contained misleading or wrong information, you can ask the publisher to print a correction/apology or sue the publisher later.

So, I’m a bit confused with the article below. First it says the authorities blacked out certain text, then it says the authorities contacted the publisher to black out the texts. Which is correct?

Maybe The Star understood the statements wrongly? Maybe the Home Ministry should black out this article in tomorrow’s paper. Come to think of it, there are many misleading articles everywhere, starting from school text books to magazines, from newspaper ads to posters. Wonder if we have the man power to sift through all those materials and black out those misleading and incorrect texts. Maybe can introduce a KPI for this – number of reading materials vetted. Anyway, the issue is still under investigation, so one wonders, what revelation was obtained to decide that its misleading or incorrect? If the text were to be found correct in future, would the authorities be held responsible for tampering with truth or some other crime?

Anyway, this being the world of Internet, you can read the actual article here:

I’m not sure that readers of the Economist would be easily misled. We are not talking about school kids or illiterate rural folks. The readers can easily get the original copy from the Internet once they see the blacked out sections. It just piques the readers interest.  Not sure which genius thought of this idea in the first place.

The Home Ministry blacked out parts of The Economist’‘s article on the recent Bersih 2.0 rally for being incorrect and misleading.

Its Publications Control and Quranic Text Division secretary Abd Aziz Md Nor said the sentences contained incorrect statements and could mislead readers.

He said the decision to instruct the magazine’s publisher to black out the sentences was made after consulting the police.

“We went through the article and found the incorrect statements.

“Subsequently, we told the publisher to black out those sentences,” he said when contacted Tuesday.

Abd Aziz said they received the July 16 edition about a week before it went on sale for clearance, which, he added, was the normal procedure.

The article chronicles the July 9 rally, including the arrest of more than 1,600 people.


The blacked out texts were:

– ‘and one man died of a heart attack’, in the first paragraph. [so, how did the man die?]

– ‘The march itself was then banned, although the authorities offered Bersih a stadium to meet in – and then withdrew the offer’, in the second paragraph [wasn’t stadium mentioned?]

– ‘The heavy-handed police tactics have provoked a lot of anger; the government has conceded an official investigation into claims of police brutality. In one instance (caught on film), police seemed to fire tear gas and water cannon into a hospital where protesters were sheltering from a baton charge’, in the fourth paragraph. [not sure which part of this is wrong. the word used was “seemed” for the hospital part. Maybe its the word “heavy-handed”]

Maybe its a good time to revamp the said division. But then again, maybe those officers were just following orders. Just doing their jobs.

Bersih rally participation estimate by PoliTweet

July 18th, 2011
|  Subscribe in a reader | Subscribe to by Email



This is an interesting calculation based on tweets. They estimate the crowd to be about 45ooo. I think if the footage from helicopters are released (untampered), then we can get a accurate estimate.

refer the website at :



PETALING JAYA: Crowd estimates for the July 9 Bersih 2.0 rally are almost as contentious as the rally itself. Various figures have been bandied about. Just about everybody has their own estimation – the organisers, police and the media.

Now, one man has come out and said that with his mathematical calculations, the figure is around 45,000 and 50,000. He is Politweet founder, Ahmed Kamal Nava., a research organisation that studies Twitter interactions between Malaysian citizens and politicians, had mapped out the number of people who attended the rally using polygons.

But before proceeding to draw the polygons, a timeline of events needed to be established.

Ahmed Kamal told FMT that his primary source to determine the timeline of events were tweets and also pictures posted on Twitter as these pictures, unlike the ones posted on Facebook or other websites, had the integral time stamped on them.

“Using the images from the photo gallery as a reference, I started to draw the polygons covering the area on a map. I used some photos found online, if they were of higher quality, and matched them up with my established timeline,” he said. He established that at about 1pm to 2.30pm the crowd was at its largest.

“The crowd estimation is based on this peak period for different areas within the same time frame. This is to avoid double-counting because crowds were moving, growing and shrinking between 1pm and 4pm,” he said.

“Using the polygons, I was able to use a custom tool to estimate the covered area in square feet. With the factors stated on the website, it was possible to gauge how many people were gathered.”

“Polygons were then generated based on the photos taken within that time frame in different parts of the city,” he said, explaining the methodology used on Politweet’s website.

“The area covered by the polygon was calculated using a separate tool, and this area was then divided by a factor based on how dense the crowd was,” he added.

“If the crowd was standing close together, the factor was one person for every 4 sq ft (one person/4 sq ft). If the crowd was moving about, or a mix of people standing close and far, then it was one person for every 5 sq ft to 6 sq.ft. The factors used are stated for each map.”

He had focused on three areas of the city during the peak period – Puduraya, KLCC and Sungei Wang Plaza. The other “hot spots” such as Pasar Seni were either counted as a subset of these three areas or fell under the “others” category.

“Crowds that were close to Puduraya (such as at the Agro Bank at 12.30pm) are assumed to have joined the Puduraya crowd,” he said.

“Smaller groups were recorded at other areas such as Jalan Raja Laut, Pasar Seni, and Jalan Maharajalela and are all assumed to be within the ‘other’ group of 2,000. This also includes people who stayed behind in Petaling Street when the majority moved to Puduraya at 1pm,” he added.


Indians participation in Bersih rally

July 13th, 2011
|  Subscribe in a reader | Subscribe to by Email

I’m still wondering how this conclusion was arrived at. I hope those folks in MIC can share their statistics on the number of Indians who participated in the rally last Saturday.  Is the conclusion based on absolute number or percentage of participants? Are they relying on third party data (police/media/observers) or had their own team on the ground gathering data?

I saw a tweet from MP Padang Serai N Gobalakrishnan who was replying to MP Ipoh Timur Lim Kit Siang saying: “@limkitsiang It shows that the Indians have deserted PR as not even 1% in Bersih”

I tweeted for clarification from the MP, but no reply to date, even after sending a reminder tweet: “@Ngobalakrishnan @novinthen @limkitsiang 1% of 6k or 50k or committee members?”


The decline in participation of Indians in the Bersih 2.0 illegal rally yesterday compared to that in the 2007 street demonstration was because they realised that it was only aimed at tarnishing the image of the BN government.

MIC president G Palanivel said many in the Indian community realised that yesterday’s illegal rally held in the federal capital was not actually about questioning the role of the Election Commission.

“The Indians are now more aware that such a practice (street demonstration) is no longer relevant in resolving issues.”

He said this to reporters after launching a book on the early history of the Kinta Indian Association and ground-breaking ceremony for its new building.

Palanivel said the realisation came about after proactive measures taken by the government that focused on improving the lot of the Indian community.

He said the Indians were benefiting from the efforts undertaken such as in the education, business, economic and social sectors.

“This has brought about a high level of realisation among the Indian community of the government’s sensitivity to their needs and problems.”

Palanivel said yesterday’s Bersih-organised illegal rally also clearly showed that the opposition was actually behind it, from the participation of opposition leaders such as Anwar Ibrahim, Abdul Hadi Awang, Lim Kit Siang and Azmin Ali.

The MIC president praised the police for their quick and stern action  against the illegal demonstrators to protect public safety and national security. – Bernama


50 NGOs and 30000 supporters

July 13th, 2011
|  Subscribe in a reader | Subscribe to by Email

As we all know, the rally participant numbers between 6,000 (police) and 50,000 (foreign media, rally organisers, participants). I wonder what the Indian NGOs below would have said after the rally. Where were their 30,000 supporters?

30,000 / 50 Ngos = 600 supporters per NGO. Not to mention, how many percent of the supporters are also supporters of the other NGOs.

I really wonder if these folks did any analysis of their membership strength and activeness. Or simply talk.


A coalition of 50 ethnic Indian NGOs says it will mobilise 30,000 supporters to join the Bersih 2.0 rally tomorrow.

 Known as the Angkata Warga Aman Malaysia (Warga Aman), the coalition said it whole-heartedly supported Bersih 2.0’s rally and hoped the authorities would cooperate to make the event a success.

Warga Aman spokesperson Gobi Krishnan said the coalition hoped police would respect the Yang di-Pertuan Agong’s mediation effort between Bersih 2.0 and the government. 

“We advise the police to stop all harassment and arrest of people who support Bersih 2.0,” Gobi said in a statement issued late yesterday. 

The group said it would gather in Brickfields, Kuala Lumpur, before marching to Stadium Merdeka.

The 50 NGOs involved include Persekutuan Pertubuhan India Malaysia (Prima), Malaysian Indian Voice (MIV), Persatuan Kemajuan Pelajar Tamil Malaysia and Majlis Kemajuan Belia Bell Tamil.

Two ex-ISA detainees lend voice

NONEGobi’s statement was also endorsed by two former Internal Security Act (ISA) detainess V Ganabatirao (right) and T Vasanthakumar. 

The duo were active in the Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf) movement in 2007 but are now playing the same role in DAP and PKR respectively.

Bersih 2.0 intends to rally at Stadium Merdeka tomorrow but police have denied the coalition a permit for an assembly. 

The movement chose to accept the government suggestion to rally at a stadium after the Agong stepped in as mediator on Tuesday. 

However, Bersih 2.0 is now accusing Prime Minister Najib Razak of reneging on his word by refusing to do the necessary to facilitate the stadium rally.