Hiatus for Exams
J-On News will be on a hiatus until the end of the trimester’s final examinations.
All of us at J-On wish you good luck with your papers.
Carpe Diem.
基于九月是拉大考试月份。J-on编辑组祝所有考生榜上有名，并于此向支持J-on的读者致谢。
J-on
|
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
|
拉大无表态，官有缘撤回3000万建宿舍建议
(怡保9日訊）隨著一週限期已過，有意捐獻3000萬令吉給金寶拉曼大學建學生宿舍的華商官有緣，已於昨日致函給拉曼大學信託人及理事會，撤回捐款的獻議。
官有緣今天在其住家召開新聞發佈會時說，在這一週內，他沒有收到馬華及拉曼大學任何回覆，因此決定撤回捐款獻議。
他表示對捐款未被接受而感到深切的遺憾及失望。
不知被拒捐款原因
他說，他從去年8月19日開始提出獻議至今已有一年，但拉曼大學始終沒有給正式的答覆，而他至今仍不明白為何拉曼大學拒絕他的捐款。
“現在就由公眾、拉曼大學生及父母去向拉曼大學施壓，要求拉曼大學以本身的資源建宿舍。不過，公眾有權去問馬華總會長拉曼大學不接受我捐款的真正理由。”
詢及這筆已撤回的捐款是否將捐給其他方面，他笑言，這一週來有很多人來向他要錢，不過他暫時沒有打算。
他更打趣說：“我可以用來坐頭等艙位去旅行。”
官有緣說，目前拉曼大學及拉曼學院分別有1萬5000名及2100名學生。學生人數每年增加2千人，並預計很快會超過2萬人。
他說，他在確定拉曼大學沒有計劃興建宿舍後，於去年8月19日向大學獻議捐款3千萬令吉建宿舍，所獲的淨利將用來興建更多宿舍，用意只是想幫助學生，並不是要賺錢。
官有緣強調，他捐獻3千萬令吉給拉曼大學，從來沒有要求要成為該大學理事會的一份子。
他是針對馬華怡保東區區會主席拿督湯華昌日前指他捐獻3000萬令吉的同時，也要求進入拉曼大學理事會的言論，作出回應時這麼表示。
湯華昌也指因為官有緣的這項要求，所以拉曼大學不能接受後者的捐款，而官有緣反駁，指這不是事實。
官有緣說，在去年的第一次獻議中，他列出的條件是包括成立一個由董事局監管的基金，由他當主席，另外4人可由拉曼大學理事會委任，唯需經過他同意，然而這與他要求進入拉曼大學理事會是兩回事。
“我在今年3月1日所發出的第二次獻議書中，修改了一些條件，並加插第三項條件，即成立一個擁有7名成員的工作小組，由拉曼大學提議4人，我本身或我的提議人提議3人出任成員。”
“在過去一年，拉曼大學的信託人及理事會要接受我的捐款是如此困難，這令人感到困惑。任何一個捐款者可能很早便失去耐性及放棄了。”
陪同官有緣出席新聞發佈會的一名繪測師李天福表示，他一直都有陪同官有緣與拉曼大學校方接觸，他可以作證，官有緣不曾要求進入拉曼大學理事會，他不明白為何一些不是拉曼大學理事會的人，在沒有見證官有緣與校方交涉的情況下，發表有關談話。
官有緣指出，他在新聞網站中刊登廣告，希望可協助來自家庭收入不超過2千令吉的貧苦學生繼續升學。在過去3年半時間內，他共協助了70名貧苦學生，大部份都在金寶拉曼大學升學。
“他們不需還錢給我，但需要答應我，當他們財務有能力時需協助其他貧苦學生，這樣一來，我相信許多人會因此受惠，直到我死後，這慈善工作還在繼續做。”
“今年杪，第一個獲得我資助的會計系學生將畢業，他在大馬教育文憑中考獲10科A1，卻無法獲得任何一方面的獎學金。他的父親在他考完大馬教育文憑後去世，在數千名考獲好成績的貧苦學生中，他是其中一人。”
J-on
|
Thursday, September 9, 2010
|
Duo Hurt in Westlake Street Collision
Kampar, September 8 (J-on) - A motorcyclist suffered serious bruises while the pillion rider required stitches after being involved in collision with a red Proton Gen 2 in Westlake at about 2.20pm yesterday.
The accident occurred along Jalan Seksyen 1/3 when the Gen 2 exited an alley way and collided with the oncoming motorcycle.
“The car turned into the road without stopping and bumped into us," said the motorcyclist, Low Shu Jie who is a year two Biomedical student.
According to Low who suffered injuries to her left arm and both legs, she had asked that the driver of the Gen 2 to take them to the hospital but were turned down.
“She said that she had to rush back for her lunch and she does not know the way to Kampar Hospital,” said Low.
Low and her pillion rider, Nelson were subsequently sent to a nearby clinic with the help of a passer-by.
Low's injuries sustained in the accident
According to Low, the passer-by recognised the driver as a UTAR lecturer and had brought her to the clinic to meet the victims.
The victims were later taken to Kampar Hospital for thorough checkup before both parties lodged a report at Kampar police station.
"She denied that it was her fault and refused to pay for our medical treatment and asked us to claim from insurance but don't not know how to claim,” she said.
Low claimed that both of their medical fees amounted to RM85 for the treatment they received at the clinic.
"It's too painful to walk now and I have to prepare for my final exams," added Low.
J-on
|
|
Why Can't Pak Haji Have A Flying Beca?
By Tan Jue Jun
“Santa Claus has a flying sleigh. Harry Potter has a flying broomstick. Ali Baba has a flying carpet. So why can't Pak Haji have a flying beca?” – A comment raised by one of the Malaysiakini reader in the Vox Populi section following TV3’s apology and retraction of a Hari Raya advertisement on September 5, 2010.
The retraction came after a chorus of objections expressed by a number of Muslims groups.
The focal point of controversy lies in a minute-long commercial entitled “Sinaran Lebaran” (The Light of Aidilfitri), where audiences saw an elderly skullcap-wearing Pak Haji inviting several children into his magical “beca” (trishaw) for an amazing ride through the skies.
Protestations questioned the resemblance of Pak Haji and his beca to Santa Claus and his flying sleigh, viewing such ‘adoration’ as polytheism in Islam, which is regarded as the gravest sin a Muslim can commit.
Critics also questioned why there were blossoming of lotus flowers towards the end of the RM200,000 advertisement, in which lotus could be associated with Hinduism and Buddhism, and thus might mislead Muslims, especially children to be confused of what exactly Aidilfitri is.
When apologising, creative director of the advertisement – Douglas Khoo Hong Seng explained that he has zero intention to offend Muslims, but was merely trying to depict the happiness of the children in experiencing the ‘miraculous’ trip through the skies in the beca during festivities.
No doubt, it is important especially for Muslims, to understand the real meaning of Aidilfitri, not just merely a makan-makan celebration. And no doubt, being a Malaysian living in a multiracial and multicultural society, we should have a sense of multicultural sensitivity by cultivating the spirit of mutual respect to help enhance racial harmony.
But why must people interpret or see things from the religious or political perspective? Why must we further Islamised or politicised the issue, in fact, it is just a form of creativity in cohort to the 1Malaysia concept? It would be arbitrary for certain groups to label the ad as being disrespectful to Muslims when the public thinks otherwise.
In a question raised by another Malaysiakini reader: “Why does everything need to be so sensitive? It’s just someone’s form of creativity. Just like Santa, the Christmas tree also has absolutely nothing to do with Christianity. It doesn’t reduce their (Christians’) faith even if it’s there year after year. Faith is what you hold on to from the inner-self. 1Malaysia really has to walk a super thin line.”
Back to square one, what is ‘sensitive’? It very much depend on how it is defined and who defines it. In other words, if you think this is sensitive, then it is, or vice versa.
People tend to be fearful when they are uncertain, and many would then opt for a safer path, which is doing something so-called ‘not sensitive’ as perceived (by the powers in the society who define sensitivity), thus ending up being self-restraint, just like the self-censorship practices by media practitioners, leaving the very independence of the media into questions.
Self-restraint demeanors limit one’s creativity and ability to critical thinking. We might learn and grow better under contestations, sometimes. If our society gets used to the free flow of creative ideas, people would no longer react overly.
If one chooses to interpret artworks from the right-wing viewpoints but not from the appreciation of creativity, 1Malaysia might have just become an empty slogan, while the parochialism of religious racism will exist and might thrive if the power grows stronger and bigger.
The advertisement as seen on TV3 before it was taken off the air
(Ms. Tan Jue Jun is a lecturer at UTAR with the Department of Journalism.)
J-on
|
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
|
回顾三年前后的黄明志
撰稿人：陈珏君
“嘿，黄明志！呐！”
以上假想情景发生在某日某时，你在路上巧遇日前因不慎言而开罪你的黄明志，仇人见面分外眼红，肚里一股怒气再也憋不住，中指随着“呐”一并出击。侮辱对方泄愤后，心里凉快得多；不过，自责随之而来。这样做行吗？你不断自问。
行。这绝对是你的权利，只是这是 没教养、冲动和不理智的宣泄方式。
自责，对自己的所作所为有所反省，证明你觉得自己做错了；可是，不是每个人都认识“反省”，更别提“懂得”反省。
看来黄明志并没因改编国歌，以粗俗短片影射公务员贪污、懒散、种族政治及不平等的教育政策造成人才外流等现象事件中汲取教训，因为他或许不曾认为自己做错，所以不曾反省，也因此没有改进。
三年前的黄爸爸，为了让受尽非议的儿子从《煽动法令》中脱险，不辞劳苦四处为儿子求助，念及才华洋溢的黄明志当年才24岁，因年少而过于气盛，马华总会长蔡细历（当时的副总会长）出面协解，才使得事件告一段落，当事人不受对付。
事件落幕前的最后一次记者会上，道歉声明并非由黄明志本人念出，而是由其父亲转交蔡细历，再交给在座媒体代为刊登。为何善于制作短片的当事人不自行录制道歉短片上载网际网络或社会媒体，就像他批判他人的方式一样，公开道歉，以证其诚意并凸现他向来为自己塑造的“敢敢来”精神呢？
三年前，三年后的黄明志，网络创作确实增加不少，可人生历练和岁月的增长，并没对他的人格修养、思维和举止造成丝毫改进。不管是《我爱我的国家Negarakuku》还是《呐！》短片，都表现粗俗，更被事实评论人形容为离不开歧视与被歧视的框架。
生活在这不愁吃，不愁穿的“饱食”时代，我们总是叹息年轻一代（80年代起）患上政治冷感症。对于拥有这么一位关心国事，公共事务的黄明志，我们却无法为此而欣慰，反而是忧心忡忡。因为他的无礼、鲁莽、偏激和滥用网际网络的小聪明，已在本来已经紧张和有欠和谐的种族关系上雪上加霜。
黄明志发表拒绝种族主义没有错，但是以粗俗的歌词和不雅手势对他人进行人身攻击的举止，是万万不能鼓吹的。此举将对社会，尤其是年轻的网上一族造成深远影响，误导他们在不满时可以完全不顾及他人/他族感受，一竹竿打翻整艘船，以偏概全，以粗言秽语进行人身攻击，再上传网际网络大事宣传一番，换个痛快。
“唱”人、辱骂或谩骂他人可以有效解决问题吗？这是年轻人应该体现的爱国情操和表现吗？假如每个人都用这种方式“关心”国家，马来西亚就不再和谐了。
J-on
|
Monday, September 6, 2010
|
UTAR RM30m controversy on NTV7
Kampar, September 2 (J-on) - The controversy surrrounding philantrophist Koon Yew Yin's claim that UTAR had turned down his RM30m offer to build hostels has picked up the pace, this time making into last night's Mandarin news on NTV7.
The issue which was first brought up by the Malaysian Mirror November last year gained renewed attention when the matter was raised by Koon to DAP's Taiping MP Nga Kor Ming recently.
Accoridng to the report, MCA president Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek in a statement yesterday revealed that he was unaware of the donation and has asked the university's council to provide an explanation.
However according to a report last year, Koon revealed that he had appealed to the then MCA president Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat for UTAR to reconsider his offer.
Koon had last year made the offer to UTAR on condition that he had oversight over how the money is spent by the university's committee and that proceeds from hostels should be used for scholarships and the construction of new hostels.
J-on
|
Thursday, September 2, 2010
|
