Vote to Save our Future Generations The honest truth how barisan cheatvoters to win
How often are voters given the chance to cast a vote that will save the truth?
The honest truth how barisan cheat voters to winThis frogs has nothing except to cook up accusations and gossips to cover up the real culprits like TUN’s who sold anything to cronies and enrich themselves in the name of modernization, since election in the corner their opening up their own can of worms.
A classic example of farting through his mouth and talking through his ass Muhyiddin why make stupid statement and do you think we believe . Another abuse of government machinery for its harrassment of the opposition and those who don’t support BN/Umno feifdom. Why don’t MooCC investigate the submarine case since it involved such a … Read more
This is what we called dirty politics… That’s why as an UMNO member I’m really ashamed of my very own party… cum on wake uplah UMNO… the ship is sinking…
Umno and its servants keep accusing Anwar is based on ‘if you sling enough mud some will stck ‘and follow by trials by medisa through Utusan and its controlled mediaslleged crime about 17 years ago.
Why try to implicate him now?
Why not last year or the year before?
It is because election is due soon!
Anuar Shaari, How much BN pay you in this time or your crime evident hold up by BN? If you have the evident, please table it instead demand. Don’t test the Nation knowledge.Because the ex deputy BNM governor Murad, who made the original SD, has since retracted the same SD, and stated categorically that “UMNO created the story and forced me to sign it”. (Just like a certain private detective Bala by the way…)So in fact this has nothing to do with Anwar at all. It’s UMNO who should explain why they forced Murad to sign this fake SD. UMNO is the culprit here.It is and has been very obvious, that Saudara Anwar has never been all the rubbish thrown at himHe has been the single galvanising force particularly since 1998, to “reform” / “evolve” our blessed land/bumi, into the blessed land that is a Divine Gift to all of us.Further, he has culled together the various different perspectives into a PAKATAN, which term in itself is so powerful & symbiotic!
I cite you an example: Recently, all that rubbish about Saudara Anwar & Azmin, causing the chaos at Berish 3, is a total bumkum and a lie!
If one watches the videos, after Dato Ambiga, gave the plea to disperse, Saudara Anwar with Azmin, went to the frontlines, the corner , in front of the old DBKL
Dzulkarnain, spot on. All the accusations do not stick because they are patently false. What UMNO is hoping for is the famous Joseph Goebbel’s doctrine of telling a lie often enough so that it will be accepted as the truth over time. The fly-in-the-ointment for UMNO is that so many lies have been told about Anwar, it is no longer able to repeat one consistent lie. So it swings wildly from one lie to another, back and forth, endlessly, hoping some mud will stick. It has even recruited discredited individuals like Ummi Halfilda to do the smearing, to no avail.Many of Anwar’s former friends and colleagues have queued in line to accuse and condemn Anwar for his alleged wrongdoings ranging from corruption, mismanagement to his queer sexual preferences, but his reputation is hardly tainted.In fact his following has increased with most having no qualms against him being the Prime Minister, should Pakatan Rakyat manages to win the election The determination to neutralize Anwar is so obvious, that many are starting to feel sorry for him.”…I do not know about others but it is not out of sympathy that I support him. The charges against him were so frivolous and would have been thrown out of any court except in Malaysia. Sodomy I has made us an International laughing stock and it was sheer mockery of Justice. It was not so much the charge, but the circumstance & evidence that were built against him. Statement from witnesses that were already proven to bear no credibility was deemed acceptable evidence. Nevertheless, Anwar spent 6 years in jail.
Quote (2) “And until the BN government comes up with solid evidence to prove that Anwar is indeed a charlatan, it will be an uphill battle for BN to win the hearts of the people. No harm trying though…”…it is strange that the writer would end with this statement when he has just explained that demonizing Anwar has failed miserably. The writer, like the power to be has insulted the intelligence of the Public. The hearts & minds of the people are with a Free, Clean & Fair Election. Why is it so difficult for the leadership to understand that? Free, Clean & Fair Election is the Mother of Birth to good governance. It is as simple as that. Anwar understands the aspiration of the People and provided the platform for People to achieve this goal. What the Public has seen so far are intimidation, stoking the fire of racism & religion, hooliganism on the street, open money politics, selective prosecution, in-effectiveness of our check & balance, wastefulness, corruption, lopsided law enforcement and last but not least, the messiest Electoral Roll in the History of Malaysia. Seriously, are these issues less important than the obsession with Anwar? The question that should be asked is “What can the government offer?”.
He has been labelled one too many things, from a thief, a corrupt, a liar, a
homosexual, bisexual, adulterer, a sexual deviant, a spy, an Israeli agent, a radical, a communist, religious fanatic, disloyal to King and country, willing to sell out the Malays, and countless other allegations.
However, none of it was ever proven and he still walks around a free man. The overkill is so obvious that the rakyat cannot help sensing the underlying desperation of the ruling government led by Najib Tun Razak.
Daily, the rhetoric by BN politicians grows louder, as each politician takes turns to condemn Anwar and Pakatan. The lame efforts to discredit him continue to fail miserably, and fall apart as fast as they were conjured up. The lack of follow-up has many wondering whether these accusations had any truth in it in the first place.
But what is most disturbing is how can a whole government be so ‘fixated’ upon one man to the point of ‘obsession’? The determination to neutralise Anwar is so obvious, that many are starting to feel sorry for him.
But the conclusion now is that it is foolhardy for the government to jail this man even if he is found guilty, as it will backfire on the ruling coalition. The most they can do is to continue discrediting his reputation, in the hope of swinging sympathy votes.
This latest accusation against him does come as a surprise. Surely, the government had knowledge of these accusations, and why was action not taken against him then? Why bring it up now?
Makes no sense
Does it make sense to try and pin him with these allegations now, when they could have done so a long time ago?
Everyone has tried to predict the date of the next election without taking into account the ‘Anwar factor.’ With Anwar on the loose, would BN actually take the risk to go ahead with the general election knowing full well that he will be a thorn in the flesh?
Many think, neutralising Anwar would pave the way for a general election, Pakatan would collapse, and the rakyat would be persuaded to swing their votes. The Opposition, however, feels that with or without Anwar, the momentum for change is irreversible, and the rakyat is determined to vote for change.
Each passing day, Anwar, continues to hold his head tall, mesmerising the crowd with his calls for change, a dawn of a new era, equal rights, Ketuanan Rakyat, and a government that is people-centric
A few years ago, in one of my graduate classes, I lectured about some of my research related to conflicts of interest. After class, a student (I’ll call her Jennifer) told me that the discussion had struck a chord with her. It reminded her of an incident that had taken place a few years earlier, when she was working as a certified public accountant for a large accounting firm.
Jennifer told me that her job had been to produce the annual reports, proxy statements, and other documents that would inform shareholders of the state of their companies’ affairs. One day her boss asked her to have her team prepare a report for the annual shareholders’ meeting of one of their larger clients.
The task involved going over all of the client’s financial statements and determining the company’s financial standing. She did her best to prepare the report as accurately as possible, without, for example, over-stating the company’s profits or delaying reporting any losses to the next accounting year.
Later that day, Jennifer got the report back with a note from her boss. It read, “I don’t like these numbers. Please gather your team and get me a revised version by next Wednesday.”
After deliberating for a while, she concluded that she and her team should comply with his request; after all, he was her boss, and he certainly knew a lot more than she did about accounting, how to work with clients, and the client’s expectations.
In the end, although Jennifer started the process with every intention of being as accurate as possible, she wound up going back to the drawing board, reviewing the statements, reworking the numbers, and returning with a “better” report. That time, her boss was satisfied.
After Jennifer told me her story, I thought about her work environment and the effect that working on a team with her boss and teammates had on her decision to push the accounting envelope a bit further. Jennifer was certainly in the kind of situation that people frequently face in the workplace, but what really stood out for me was that in this case the cheating took place in the context of a team, which was different from anything we had studied before.
In all of our earlier experiments on cheating, one person alone made the decision to cheat (even if he or she was spurred along by a dishonest act of another person). But in Jennifer’s case, more than one person was directly involved, as is frequently the case in professional settings.
In fact, it was clear to Jennifer that in addition to herself and her boss, her teammates would be affected by her actions. At the end of the year, the whole team would be evaluated together as a group — and their bonuses, raises, and future prospects were entwined.
I started to wonder about the effects of collaboration on individual honesty. When we are part of a group, are we tempted to cheat more? Less? In other words, is a group setting conducive or destructive to honesty?
This question is related to whether it’s possible that people can “catch” cheating from one another. But social contagion and social dependency are different. It’s one thing to observe dishonest behaviour in others and, based on that, alter our perceptions of what acceptable social norms are; it’s quite another if the financial welfare of others depends on us.
In pondering Jennifer’s situation, Francesca Gino, Shahar Ayal, and I began to wonder how dishonesty operates in collaborative environments. Does monitoring help to reduce cheating? Do social connections in groups increase both altruism and dishonesty? And if both of these forces exert their influence in opposite directions, which of the two is more powerful? In order to shed light on this question, we turned to some experiments.
In our initial experiments, both the cheater and his or her partner benefited from every additional exaggeration of their performance score. So if you were the cheater in the experiment and you exaggerated the number of your correct responses by one, you would get half of the additional payment and your partner would get the same. This is certainly less financially rewarding than snagging the whole amount for yourself, but you would still benefit from your exaggeration to some degree.
To look into purely altruistic cheating, we introduced a condition in which the fruit of one participant’s cheating would benefit only the partner. What did we find? As it turns out, altruism is indeed a strong motivator for cheating. When cheating was carried out for purely altruistic reasons and the cheaters themselves did not gain anything from their act, overclaiming increased to an even larger degree.
Why might this be the case? I think that when both we and another person stand to benefit from our dishonesty, we operate out of a mix of selfish and altruistic motives. In contrast, when other people, and only other people, stand to benefit from our cheating, we find it far easier to rationalise our bad behaviour in purely altruistic ways and subsequently lose more of our moral inhibitions. After all, if we are doing something for the pure benefit of others, aren’t we indeed a little bit like Robin Hood?
Of course, we cannot survive without the help of others. Working together is a crucial element of our lives. But clearly, collaboration is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it increases enjoyment, loyalty, and motivation. On the other hand, it carries with it the increased potential for cheating.
In the end — and very sadly — it may be that the people who care about their co-workers end up cheating more. Of course, I am not advocating that we stop working in groups, stop collaborating, or stop caring about one another. But we do need to recognize the potential costs of collaboration and increased affinity.
If collaboration increases dishonesty, what can we do about it? One obvious answer is to increase monitoring. In fact, this seems to be the default response of the government’s regulators to every instance of corporate misconduct.
For example, the Enron fiasco brought about a large set of reporting regulations known as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, and the financial crisis of 2008 ushered in an even larger set of regulations (largely emerging from the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act), which were designed to regulate and increase the supervision of the financial industry.
To some degree, there is no question that monitoring can be helpful, but it is also clear from our results that increased monitoring alone is unlikely to completely overcome our ability to justify our own dishonesty — particularly when others stand to gain from our misbehaviour (not to mention the high financial costs of compliance with such regulations).
In some cases, instead of adding layers and layers of rules and regulations, perhaps we could set our sights on changing the nature of group-based collaboration.
Clearly, there are no silver bullets for the complex issue of cheating in group settings. Taken together, I think that our findings have serious implications for organizations, especially considering the predominance of collaborative work in our day-to-day professional lives.
Muhyiddin Yassin, the then chief minister of the Johor state thinks we Malaysians have short memories. His hands and feet were tainted to the brim. He was lucky TDM saved him, yet he showed no gratitude at all. Pray thee, now tell me, how can he be our future PM with this kind of tainted … Read more
There is also no question that better understanding the extent and complexity of dishonesty in social settings is rather depressing. Still, by understanding the possible pitfalls involved in collaboration, we can take some steps toward rectifying dishonest behaviour. — Reuters
<img 
