21 May 2014


Pendapat Anda?


There are enough laws to prosecute those who make disparaging racial and religious remarks but selective investigation and prosecution is a cause for worry, a former attorney-general and lawyers said.

Insisting that the Sedition Act be removed from the statute book, they said the law on sedition was stacked against an accused and it gave the prosecution an upper hand in obtaining a conviction.

They said this in response to Suhakam chairman Tan Sri Hasmy Agam’s call to Putrajaya that the Sedition Act be repealed and replaced with a National Harmony Act as promised by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak in 2012.

Hasmy said recently, several opposition politicians had been prosecuted for allegedly making “seditious remarks” but the Suhakam chairman noted that there were other laws which could have been used to handle such matters.

Hasmy (pic, left) said Suhakam recognised that freedom of speech had its limits but Putrajaya must uphold the principle of equality.

Former attorney-general Tan Sri Abu Talib Othman said there was no point enacting new laws when the implementation was questionable.

“Every person is equal under our law. To be effective, all laws must be enforced fairly ,” said Talib who was the A-G between 1980 and 1993.

He said these days many were charged with sedition and there was a public perception of selective prosecution.

Talib said he had framed charges against a few individuals under the Sedition Act but it was done fairly to obtain a conviction.

He expressed reservation on the prosecution of DAP national vice-chair Teresa Kok over her controversial satirical video “Onederful Malaysia” last February.

“Is this case a suitable benchmark for sedition in this country?” he asked.

Talib, who is also a former Suhakam chairman, added that there were also adequate laws to maintain public order and national security.

Criminal lawyer Datuk Baljit Singh Sidhu said the prosecution of opposition leaders for sedition only lent support that the law was used to muzzle legitimate dissent.

He said Putrajaya would have done its homework before Najib announced the repeal of the law.

“Yet, the public prosecutor sees it fit to charge opposition leaders and those against the establishment over the past one year.”

He said the conduct of current Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail ran contrary to the promise made by Najib.

Lawyer Edmund Bon (pic, right) said there were sufficient provisions in the Penal Code and also the Malaysian Communication and Multimedia Act 1988 to act against those who used race and religion to make hate speech.

“I am for responsible freedom of speech but against using the Sedition Act,” he said.

Bon said under the sedition law, it was a presumption that the accused was responsible for inciting hatred when the burden of proof in criminal law was always with the prosecution.

“During trial, the prosecution need not prove intention of the accused and this makes it easier for them to secure a conviction.”

Lawyer Abd Shukor Ahmad said the intention of the sedition law, which originated in England, no longer existed.

“It was enacted to curb anyone from making derogatory remarks against the state during the reign of absolute monarchy,” he said.

Shukor said the law had lost its relevance in a parliamentary democracy and open government system.

“We are still stuck in a time warp if the law remained in our statute book,” Shukor said, adding that the legislation was against basic rights of citizens to criticise their elected government or offer differing views.

Lawyers for Liberty executive director Eric Paulsen said individuals would be reluctant to make hate speech using race and religion if they were reprimanded severely by the media, community and political leaders.

“These individuals will think twice to use race and religious card to champion an issue,” he said.

Paulsen, however, lamented that these individuals became bolder because they obtained tacit support from politicians and the mainstream media.

He said offenders could be charged under the Penal Code as it gave them a fair level of playing field in putting up a defence unlike the Sedition Act.

21 May 2014


Pendapat Anda?

Program Ceramah MEGA bersama Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim di Pulau Pinang

Jumaat, 23hb 2014

8.30pm – Dewan Sekolah Menengah Han Chiang, Jalan Lim Lean Teng, Pulau Pinang


20 May 2014


Pendapat Anda?


It is just supposed to be a parliamentary by-election but the battle for Teluk Intan is now between Dyana Sofya Mohd Daud (pic) and Umno, which appears to be rattled by her candidacy on a DAP ticket.

She has apparently struck fear in several Umno leaders, from Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad to Wanita Umno chief Datuk Seri Shahrizat Abdul Jalil  – who have all castigated the political novice for not joining Umno.

Even Perkasa president Datuk Ibrahim Ali has thrown his soiled fingers into the fray, urging Gerakan to use a photograph of him together with the 27-year-old DAP candidate as campaign fodder.

But Gerakan has refused to use the photograph as part of the campaign by their president Datuk Mah Siew Keong, the Barisan Nasional (BN) candidate for the May 31 by-election.

So why is Umno so afraid of the young UiTM law graduate, whose mother is an Umno member? Several reasons come to mind.

One. Dyana Sofya’s candidacy on a DAP ticket shows that Umno is not the only party for Malays, apart from PKR or PAS. Particularly when more Malaysians are seeing themselves as Malaysians and not identifying themselves along racial lines.

As more of that happens, Umno and other race-based parties and even groups like Perkasa will have fewer members and cease to exist or even be relevant in Malaysia.

Dr Mahathir, Shahrizat and even Ibrahim can’t allow this to happen because this will be the end of Umno and its dominance in Malaysian politics.

Two. Dr Mahathir is right, the younger generation have forgotten the hard work of the early Umno members and leaders. Perhaps that is because the old Umno was de-registered under his watch.

The Umno today is Umno Baru, a pale shadow of the Umno of Tunku Abdul Rahman and Tun Abdul Razak Hussein that fought for Malaya’s independence in 1957. The Umno today believes in keeping everything for itself, and only sharing the crumbs with others.

And every day, Umno gives Malaysians a reason to detest them. Every day.

Three. Dyana Sofya’s candidacy shows that there are political parties out there willing to gamble on youth and idealism rather than just rely on the tried and tested or the experienced politician.

There isn’t much of a queue in DAP unlike BN parties where party presidents and top officials are favoured as candidates over younger members. Perhaps it is also the fact that young talent have deserted the BN component parties.

Malaysia’s future belongs to Dyana Sofya’s generation, not the ones who have already tasted power and want to keep it for a while more.

Four. Dyana Sofya’s candidacy shows that young graduates, even from local varsities, such as UiTM, have the intelligence, mettle and leadership skills to strike their own path instead of following what their parents want them to do.

These young Malaysians can think and know they can make the difference. They are hungry and they don’t want to bide their time.

If anything, this mindset is the anti-thesis of a typical BN member who does what he or she is told and waits patiently in line for a shot at political office.

Only some, especially those in the inner circle, make it in BN. That might not be the case in DAP or other PR parties which have had to put up young candidates due to the lack of those willing to run for political office.

If more Malaysians, especially Malays, follow Dyana Sofya’s footsteps, then a party like Umno will come to an untimely end.

Umno cannot allow that to happen and it has to demonise, castigate, heckle and humiliate Dyana Sofya so that others will not follow her footsteps and join parties willing to take a chance on them.

Her success and victory in Teluk Intan will be more than just DAP keeping a seat in parliament or another young Malay becoming a DAP MP. It also means that Umno cannot assert itself as the only platform for the Malays to keep power or run Malaysia.

That is the sad state of Umno these days, that it has to fight a young woman just to keep power.

20 May 2014


Pendapat Anda?


Opposition leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim (pic) has claimed that the cargo manifest for Malaysia Airlines (MAS) flight MH370 had been deleted by “people in authority” as part of efforts to conceal information on the plane’s disappearance.

In an interview by Caro Meldrum-Hanna for the Australian Broadcasting Corp’s Four Corners programme yesterday, Anwar said his sources told him that the manifest had been deleted.

“I could not verify that, the only reasonable action I could take was to raise specific questions and demand the cargo manifest,” he said, adding that the matter had even been raised in Parliament but there was no response from the authorities.

“Even if it is deleted or not, the government must come (out and explain) in a transparent manner. You can’t expect the internatiomal community to have this huge search and rescue operation to find the debris. We have to know what is the cargo on the flight.”

Pressed by Meldrum-Hanna if his contact in MAS had actually seen the cargo manifest, Anwar said he wouldn’t know but people volunteer information to him in the strictest confidence as they were afraid of repercussions.

Asked why the government would conceal so much information, Anwar said: “The only plausible reason I could give is that either they want to conceal evidence in order to deflect (something) or (they are) fearful the infomation will cause further embarrassment.

“To my mind, it is not acceptable, you are talking about lives and national security.”

MAS had previously revealed that the cargo on board flight MH370 included 4 tonnes of mangosteen and lithium ion batteries.

Anwar was also asked about the failure of Malaysia’s military to respond when it had picked up flight MH370 on its radar.

“Yeah, I mean it’s a major scandal here, because this is of course amounting to a major threat to national security,” he said.

He said the military had breached the standard operating procedures.

“The Air Force will be alerted and will have to then be flown to that area to either, you know, normally to guide the plane to land or to leave the Malaysian airspace.

“They’re standard operating procedure and this was never done.”

Four Corners also quoted former first admiral of the Malaysian Navy, Imran Abdul Hamid, as saying that the military should have reacted to the plane passing over the peninsula.

“They should be responsible for what they are doing.

“They have to answer to the people of Malaysia for failing to react. So, the Chief of Defence Forces has to answer for it, the Chief of Air Forces has to answer for it.

“If they cannot answer it, I think they should leave the service for other people to serve the country,” he said.

Anwar said clearly there was no defence over the radar issue.

MH370 had flown almost directly over the top of Malaysia’s military radar station located on the island of Penang.

Four Corners said that a team of up to five officers could or should have been on duty at the nearby radar operations centre at Butterworth airbase.

Their job? To man the military radar screens, looking for unidentified aircraft entering Malaysia’s airspace.

In defending the Malaysian military in another interview with Four Corners, acting Transport Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein had said that the military had been told to keep an eye on the plane but had allowed it to disappear off their radar after considering it as non-hostile.

This was the first time that Malaysia had said that civil aviation authorities told the military to keep an eye on the aircraft – a fact which was not mentioned in the five-page preliminary report on the plane’s disappearance released by the Ministry of Transport on May 1.

The much-criticised preliminary report had made no mention of the instructions from the civil aviation authorities to the military to monitor the plane.

Instead, the brief report, which had been sent to the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), revealed a chaotic four hours after communications between Malaysia air traffic controllers, the flag carrier and other regional air traffic controllers before a hunt was initiated.

Hishammuddin, who appeared defensive in the interview, said that the military did not send a plane up to investigate the aircraft shown on their radar as “it was not deemed a hostile object and pointless if you are not going to shoot it down”.

He was defending the military’s failure to scramble a fighter jet after flight MH370 had disappeared from civilian radar on March 8 when its transponder stopped transmitting during a flight from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing around 1.21am.

The military radar had tracked it after it made a turn-back and turned in a westerly direction across the peninsula.

“If you’re not going to shoot it down, what’s the point of sending it (a fighter) up?” Hishammuddin was quoted as asking on the Four Corners programme.

Delays in pinpointing the Boeing 777-200’s location led to days of searching in the South China Sea before analysis from British satellite firm, Inmarsat, pointed its likely course as the Indian Ocean.

Hishammuddin had also said that had the jet been shot down with 239 passengers and crew on board, “I’d be in a worse position, probably”.

He said he was informed of the military radar detection two hours later and relayed it to Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak, who then ordered a search in the Malacca Strait.

20 May 2014


Pendapat Anda?

Program Ceramah Perdana bersama Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim di Telok Intan, Isnin 26hb 2014

1) 8.00pm – Perkarangan Bilik Gerakan KEADILAN, Bandar Baru, Pasir Bedamar

2) 9.00pm - Perkarangan Rumah Kedai, No 11, Tmn Desa Aman, Jln Maharajalela, Teluk Intan (Dun Changkat Jong)



20 May 2014


Pendapat Anda?


Lim Kit Siang hari ini menyelar kenyataan Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad yang menyifatkan calon DAP bagi kerusi Parlimen Teluk Intan Dyana Sofya Mohd Daud adalah untuk mengaburi mata orang Melayu.

Ketua Parlimen DAP itu berkata keny?ataan bekas perdana menteri berkenaan tidak memeranjatkan kerana itulah yang dilakukan selama 22 tahun memerintah Malaysia.

“Semalam Dr Mahathir kata orang Melayu mudah ditipu. Mungkin betul kerana dia tipu orang Melayu 22 tahun.

“Saya percaya Melayu, Cina dan India tidak akan begitu mudah ditipu kerana mereka tahu apa hak dan impian mereka,” katanya kepada media selepas menemui pengundi di pasar pagi di Teluk Intan hari ini.

Semalam, Bernama melaporkan ?Dr Mahathir berkata tindakan DAP meletakkan calon Melayu pada Pilihan Raya Kecil (PRK) Parlimen Teluk Intan merupakan tindakan ‘hiasan luaran’ parti itu bagi mengaburi mata orang Melayu.

Katanya, tidak mustahil ramai orang Melayu akan menyokong calon DAP itu kerana sejarah membuktikan orang Melayu mudah tertipu dengan tindakan seperti itu.

20 May 2014


Pendapat Anda?


Would the unflattering comparison irk Chinese readers? I reflected on this as the idea for the article bobbed about in my head like a lifeboat drifting in the Pacific Ocean.

I blame Yann Martel, the author of the book for this predicament. For it was he, despite the abundance of more dignified predators in the animal kingdom, who chose a hyena.

I nevertheless press ahead but not without first expressing sincere regret to those who might feel slighted by the hyena-Chinese reference.

If you thought director Ang Lee’s Oscar winning celluloid adaptation of “Life of Pi” was brilliant, then you should read the book, which I did over the past week. It is, in one word, magnificent.

For those not acquainted with this fantasy tale either in its cinematic or literary manifestations, allow me to recount the plot in brief.

A sixteen-year-old boy is sailing in a cargo ship with his family from India to Canada. On board with them is a host of animals, given that his father owned a zoo. The ship sinks, and the boy finds himself in a lifeboat with an injured zebra, a famished hyena, a 450-pound tiger and a seasick orang utan.

The hyena kills the zebra and orang utan. Later, the tiger butchers the hyena. And the boy spends the next several months on the lifeboat with the tiger.

Najib’s lifeboat is BN

As I devoured the pages, I could not help but allow imagination to saunter and entwine the plot in hand with the politics of our land. And so I pictured the prime minister in the role of the protagonist, Piscine Molitor Patel, or Pi for short.

It occurred to me that Pi’s shipwreck saga, the version with the animals, bore a striking resemblance to the situation that Najib Abdul Razak finds himself in at this moment.

Though some might contend that it is not a male royal Bengal tiger named Richard Parker that has him sweating but a ferocious tigress, whose name incidentally, also begins with the letter R, who prowls the corridors of Seri Perdana. Rumour has it that it was at her behest that he took up the job in the first place.

Fact or adversaries-conjured horror fables, Najib’s domestic woes are of no concern to us.

Given that these are sensitive times, I believe it would be best to convert Richard Parker into a religious extremist for the “Life of Najib” edition. Hence, the tiger shall be known as RidhuanTee bin Abdullah.

Ridhuan Tee bin Abdullah represents the conservative Malay/Muslims, the Umno hardliners as well as the likes of Isma. Whereas the hyena – once again with deep apologies – the Chinese.

As for the inconsequential zebra that is eaten alive – that would be the Indians, who lack both political and economical clout and have for decades been represented by politicians who, some would argue, rightly belong in a zoo.

The orang utan, another insignificant character in the storyline which dies soon after the zebra, is perhaps the indigenous population of both East and West Malaysia.

And the lifeboat, the last remnant of a large vessel which has since sunk, that is now floating aimlessly, would be symbolic of the BN ruling coalition.

Keeping the tiger satiated

At one point during his ordeal, Pi sums up enough courage to believe that he has a fighting chance against the hyena. But when he catches a glimpse of Richard Parker, he believes his fate is sealed.

However, he later arrives at the conclusion that keeping the tiger alive by supplying it with adequate food and water would in turn keep him alive as well.

Similarly, Najib is in no position to act against Ridhuan Tee bin Abdullah and the peddlers of hate speeches.

To crack down on those championing the cause of the Malay race and Islam would upset the precious votes preserving BN in power and further antagonise the ultras in Umno.

As for the Chinese, the prime minister cannot be too concerned about their sentiments or feelings. Whatever he does, their votes would not return. So why stick his head into the jaws of a tiger for them?

Pandering to their demands prior to the polls had earned the wrath of some influential people and the conservative Malays. It would not be wise to push his luck too much, for it is already a miracle that he has not been mauled after the last electoral debacle.

With parties like MCA and MIC being reduced to mere decorative items, it is the conservative Malays who hold the key to Umno and BN’s survival. With defeat nibbling at the heels, one is forced to up the ante on issues of race and religion.

Fear must be struck in the Malay heart that with the powerful Chinese DAP in the opposition bloc – handing Pakatan Rakyat the keys to the administrative capital would sound the death knell for their special rights and erode the significance of their religion.

So Najib and the so-called moderates in Umno can withstand the attack of the hyena. But should Ridhuan Tee bin Abdullah pounce, it would be end game. The tiger must be kept satiated.

But at least to Pi’s credit, he attempts to tame Richard Parker.

The nation crumbles

But Khairy Jamaluddin was spot on when he remarked that bigotry could be found in all races, parties and religions. It is not something exclusive to Umno, Malays or Muslims.

True enough. I have come across Chinese who frighten their children into finishing their meals with the “Indian man will catch you” threat. As well as Chinese and Malays who believe that all Indians are drunkards and criminals.

I have met Indians who believe that the Chinese would drink the blood of others and swindle them. There are Indians and Malays who believe that the Chinese are exploitative and would never promote a non-Chinese in their organisations even if the person is deserving.

I have also met Chinese and Indians who think that all Malays are bone-idle, sex offenders and not the sharpest of tools in the shed, who are undeserving of their positions and wealth.

And let us not even get started on the Christian, Hindu, Buddhist and God knows what else fanatics out there who deride the faiths of others.

However, the difference is that groups like Isma seem to have the tacit backing of our leaders and that is what bodes ill for this nation. It is the selfish shortsightedness of winning the next election at the expense of the next generation.

When the “pendatang” and “intruders” cross the line, even by a fraction, justice is swift. But such is not the case when Ridhuan Tee bin Abdullah embarks on a marauding rampage.

Police reports are lodged, investigation papers are opened, statements are recorded, evidence is gathered, and all of this is then submitted to the attorney-general’s office, where the files gather dust or are stamped “No Further Action”.

The politics of race and religion is this nation’s greatest bane, which has caused and continues to widen the fissures, where the focus over the decades has been on tolerance and not integration.

What is more disheartening is when those like the Oxford-trained Umno Youth chief also turn the wheels of this vicious political cycle.

One can understand the Ahmad Zahid Hamidis, Liow Tiong Lais or G Palanivels taking this route, for it is only in BN can such dim bulbs have a bright future.

But it is an ignominy when young and capable leaders who can alter the fate of this nation decide instead to focus on their own fates in terms of personal elevation.

With the sins of the past revisiting us and as we reap what has been sown in the name of greed for power and wealth, our nation crumbles in the harvest.

19 May 2014


Pendapat Anda?

Radio Free Sarawak

The team from the independent Iban language radio show Radio Free Sarawak (RFS) have won recognition in Australia, with a key award from the University of Queensland in Brisbane.

The Communication for Social Change Award 2014 was designated by the university’s Centre for Communication and Social Change to the organisation as a whole.

The other winner in the individual category went to a photo-journalist working in Afghanistan, Barat Ali Batoor.

The RFS team, who work mainly incognito in order to avoid harassment from the authorities in Sarawak, were delighted and cheered by the news:

“We have been struggling against persistent attempts to jam our show over the past weeks, which is an illegal interference of our right to broadcast. People in Sarawak have a right to choose alternative media to the relentless propaganda on the government controlled channels. There are legitimate dissenting voices against the programme of so-called development being put forward for Sarawak by Taib Mahmud and the state government and there are issues of corruption and human rights abuses that ought to be addressed.  We provide a platform for ordinary folk to have their say on this show about the enormous changes being forced upon them and we provide a rare opportunity for elected opposition politicians in Malaysia to be heard as well” says the programme founder, London based Clare Rewcastle Brown.

This is the second recognition of the work of Radio Free Sarawak in less than a month.

Peter John Jaban interviews a local headman

Peter John Jaban interviews a local headman

On World Press Freedom Day, May 3rd, one of the station’s DJ’s Peter John Jaban, was nominated one of the worlds ’100 Information Heroes’ by the NGO, Reporters Without Borders.

Jaban, who has publicly acknowledged his involvement in the show, paid tribute to the team of determined broadcasters, who have kept the project going for the past 4 years and to the radio station’s key supporters around the world.

The nightly show is targeted at Sarawak’s indigenous rural communities, who have been confronted by industrial scale logging on their traditional forest lands and also land grabs for oil palm plantations.

The latest and most devastating threat for up to a quarter of the mainly riverine communities is the plan to build a series of 12 mega-dams across Sarawak’s river system, which will displace tens of thousands of native people.

This weekend the Radio station took part in a public exhibition in Miri with a stall to advertise the station to local folk. The broadcast regularly brings news on land conflicts and court cases, which are suppressed in the mainstream media. It also provides a platform for NGOs and the discussion of human rights issues in the state.

Sarawak's unparalleled rainforest turned into mass monoculture on eroding hillsides.

Sarawak’s unparalleled rainforest turned into mass monoculture on eroding hillsides.

A ‘virus’ that ‘poisons the minds of the people’?

Current Acting Transport and Defence Minister Hishamuddin Hussain

The broadcast, which has developed a powerful following amongst native communities, has been condemned by local and national politicians, who have sought to accuse the broadcasters of illegal activity.

When Home Minister, Hishammuddin Hussein (of MH 370 fame) announced he would “leave no stone unturned” to discover crimes against the radio station:

 ”This is not about politics. This is about spreading malicious lies, the issue of unity and harmony among the races”, he said.

However, Hishammuddin was unable to find sufficient evidence under the stones he turned and prosecutions never resulted.

Likewise, the Sibuti MP Ahmad Lai Bujang is one of a number of local BN politicians who have likened RFSto a virus which must be avoided by the people:

“This is because the radio is meant to mislead its listeners by disseminating false information and spreading malicious lies that could jeopardise racial unity and harmony”, he claimed.

It has been pointed out that such words imply an accusation of ‘sedition’, a serious crime that carries a punishment of years of imprisonment and it has forced the broadcasters to conduct their legitimate right to freedom of expression clandestinely to avoid harassment.

The criticism has continued relentlessly, indicating that ruling politicians find themselves threatened by an independent source of information which they cannot control.

Another BN minister Douglas Uggah has called Radio Free Sarawak poison.  And the Deputy Information, Communications and Culture Minister, Joseph Salang Gandum announced, in reply to a parliamentary question:

 ”We know that several Sarawakians are involved in the broadcast and are liable to legal action”

The BN Assemblyman, the wealthy young Snowdon Lawan, son of a key crony of Taib himself, also spoke out  saying the state government should monitor activities by Radio Free Sarawak, because it was a pro opposition independent radio station “known to manipulate facts for the opposition’s political mileage in the upcoming general election”.

The Malaysian authorities have been clearly connected to persistent jamming of the radio station and cyber-attacks against its website at regular intervals over the past four years, particularly during election periods.

Emerging frontier – communicating change

The accolade from Queensland University is a powerful academic endorsement for the Radio Station, which has been the butt of so much virulent criticism from politicians in the ruling BN coalition in Malaysia.

The Centre for Communication and Social Change CfCSC is based at the School of Journalism and Communication at the University of Queensland, one of Australia’s premier learning and research institutions. It was established in 2007 and is the only specialised centre in this field, in Australia.

“Our Centre is staffed by experienced researchers and practitioners who have global expertise in development and communication matters, including with the UN, NGOs and government institutions…. Communication for social change is an emerging frontier, the goal of which is to use communication processes, techniques and media to facilitate social, economic and technological development. The underpinning philosophy of CSC is that communication is not simply about transferring information and sending messages, but rather about listening, responding to, and helping people give direction to their own change, and supporting enabling environments for this change to take place.”[Centre for Communication and Social Change]

Malaysia has one of the lowest ratings in the world’s media freedom indexes. The government has regulated to ban  all forms of criticism from the licensed broadcast media and is quick to charge challengers with ‘sedition’ for undermining the reputation of the governing party.

RFS, however, broadcasts on shortwave from outside of the state and via the internet and is therefore not subject to such rules. The station is a sister project to Sarawak Report.

A native Penan listens to the show.

A native Penan listens to the show.

16 May 2014


Pendapat Anda?

16 Mei 2014

Pimpinan KEADILAN mengamati situasi perjalanan Pemilihan parti yang telah berjalan tiga minggu berturut-turut dengan cukup serius. Seperti yang telah disebut dalam sidang media saya sebelum ini, sekiranya ada isu cacat cela dalam proses pengundian – termasuk penipuan, gangsterisme, dan disiplin – maka siasatan penuh wajib dijalankan dan tindakan disiplin harus diambil. Harus ditegaskan bahawa JPP dan Lembaga Disiplin KEADILAN telah diarah supaya tidak melindungi mana-mana anggota pun.

Semalam kita telah saksikan seramai lapan anggota KEADILAN yang telah digantung keanggotaan bagi membantu siasatan berkaitan Pemilihan parti, dan saya difahamkan Lembaga Disiplin kini bermesyuarat setiap hari bagi mempercepat proses siasatan.

Pada masa yang sama, saya telah meminta ketiga-tiga calon Timbalan Presiden KEADILAN untuk bersama saya pagi ini mewakili kesemua anggota KEADILAN memberi sokongan penuh kepada JPP untuk terus bergerak dan menambahbaik proses pemilihan parti.

Pimpinan KEADILAN amat prihatin tentang insiden kekerasan dan gangsterisme yang berlaku, terutamanya sewaktu proses pengundian di Selangor. Berdasarkan maklumat yang diterima serta bukti video dan foto, didapati terdapat elemen bukan anggota parti yang telah menceroboh pusat-pusat pengundian dengan niat memburukkan imej parti dan menggagalkan proses pengundian. Saya juga difahamkan ramai daripada elemen-elemen ini telah masuk KEADILAN sejurus sebelum daftar pemilih ditutup dan disahkan pada 15 Mac yang lalu.
Oleh yang demikian, pimpinan KEADILAN telah mengarahkan JPP dan Lembaga Disiplin untuk menyiasat perkara ini dengan lebih lanjut dan tindakan disiplin yang cukup keras mesti diambil, bagi memastikan elemen-elemen ini dibanteras dan dibuang dari parti.


15 May 2014


Pendapat Anda?


Saya ingin memberi reaksi serangan terbaru Dr Mahathir ke atas Anwar Ibrahim seperti dilapor Bernama bertarikh 14 Mei 2014.
Saya kira Dr Mahathir melatah lagi.

Kali ini beliau menyerang Anwar Ibrahim kerana dijemput menyampaikan syarahan di Universiti Al-Azhar, Jakarta Indonesia. Bahkan penganjur yang menjemput Anwar juga diserang Dr Mahathir.

Kata Dr Mahathir, Anwar tidak layak menyampaikan syarahan tentang Islam kerana moralnya rendah!

Izinkan saya menceritakan kepada Dr Mahathir yang mudah lupa, lama sebelum Anwar berkawan dengan Dr Mahathir, Anwar sudah pun mengenali dan berguru dengan Dr Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, Dr Ismail Faruqi, Dr Sheikh Taha Jabir Al-Awani, Pak Natsir, Pak Hamka, Sheikh Hassan Turabi, Dr Rashid Ghanoushi, Sheik Mehdi Aqif dan ramai lagi.

Anwar terlibat dengan gerakan Islam sejak zaman sekolah, mahasiswa, belia dan tidak pernah bersara hingga hari ini.

Tokoh-tokoh ilmuan dan gerakan Islam seantero dunia seperti Dr Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, Dr Wahbah Zuhaily, Dr Abu Hamid Sulaiman, Dr Ahmad Totonji, Dr Tariq Suwaidan dan Dr Tariq Ramadan sentiasa mengunjungi Anwar setiap kali mereka berkesempatan datang ke Malaysia berbincang isu-isu umat sejagat.

Biarlah saya mengingatkan Dr Mahathir walau bersungguh-sungguh beliau berusaha untuk membunuh karakter Anwar dengan fitnah liwat selama lebih 15 tahun, fitnah jijik itu tidak mampu menjauhkan tokoh-tokoh ilmuan Islam daripada Anwar.

Kalau Dr Mahathir ingin tahu apa sebabnya, jawapannya cukup terang. Islam melarang dan mengharamkan seorang muslim memfitnah saudara muslimnya yang lain dengan fitnah zina atau liwat.

Dr Mahathirlah yang mereka fitnah liwat terhadap Anwar.

Mangsa fitnah

Namun Dr Mahathir tidak pernah berupaya menampilkan empat saksi sepertimana yang Al-Quran wajibkan. Rakan-rakan Anwar dari kalangan tokoh-tokoh Ilmuan Islam ini terus mendokong Anwar kerana kayu ukur mereka ialah Al Quran. Keyakinan mereka ialah Anwar menjadi mangsa fitnah jahat Dr Mahathir.

Dr Mahathir sewaktu menjadi Perdana Menteri memperalatkan seluruh jentera pemerintah termasuk media, polis, peguam negara dan mahkamah untuk  melengkapkan fitnahnya terhadap Anwar. Dipenjarakan tujuh tahun, bebas dan Anwar terus berjuang.

Apakah Dr Mahathir berhasil “membunuh” Anwar? Tidak sama sekali!

Kalau dahulu ketika masih berkuasa Dr Mahathir boleh sahaja menyekat dan memenjarakan Anwar. Hari ini pun kerajaan Umno/ BN boleh terus menyekat Anwar menyampaikan syarahan di universiti-universiti awam dan swasta di negara kita.

Kerajaan Umno/BN malah boleh mengugut mahasiswa-mahasiswa Malaysia di luar negara agar jangan mengikuti syarahan Anwar.

Namun Dr Mahathir dan kerajaan Umno/BN tidak boleh menyekat universiti-universiti terkemuka di rantau ASEAN, di Eropah, di Amerika Syarikat dan di Timur Tengah dari terus mengundang Anwar. Anwar sering dijemput mengupas pelbagai tajuk menyentuh persoalan umat Islam dan dunia seluruhnya.

Saya pernah berpergian bersama Anwar ketika beliau diundang menyampaikan syarahan di Mesir, Turki, Singapura, Indonesia dan banyak negara-negara lain. Siapa yang hadir mengikuti syarahan Anwar?

Untuk makluman Dr Mahathir, mereka ialah menteri-menteri, tokoh-tokoh pemikir dan sarjana Islam, golongan korporat, pimpinan media, professor universiti, tokoh-tokoh ekonomi dan teknokrat.

Di Tunisia misalnya Dr Rashid Ghanoushi menjemput Anwar menyampaikan pandangannya kepada seluruh ahli-ahli parlimen dan anggota jemaah menteri Tunisia.

Kupas topik Islam

Di Turki, Perdana Menteri Tayyib Erdogan menjemput Anwar berucap di Istana Presiden mengupas topik Islam dan kebangkitan dunia arab.

Satu ketika di Mesir seingat saya pada 2010, Anwar dijemput menyampaikan ucaputama persidangan antarabangsa Islam dan Demokrasi.

Di Singapura, bertempat di World Trade Center, ucapan Anwar pula ditujukan kepada tokoh-tokoh media dunia.

Di Indonesia pengaruh Anwar bukan kepalang. Seorang teman saya asal Bogor pernah bergurau, katanya tokoh-tokoh Indonesia saling berselisih dan berbeda pendapat antara satu sama lain, namun mereka boleh sahaja bersatu kalau mengkagumi Anwar.

Pesantren, universiti, badan-badan pemikir dan intelektual Indonesia sering mengundang Anwar menyampaikan pidatonya.

Anwar boleh berbicara karangan Shakespeare, Confucius, Mohamad Iqbal, Rabindranth Tagore, Jose Rizal atau mendeklamasi puisi Rendra.

Pada masa yang sama Anwar giat mempelopori maqasid syariah dan membentang kertas seminar Islam dan demokrasi di serata dunia.

Tidaklah menghairankan sebaik keluar dari penjara Anwar dilantik sebagai fellow di Universiti Oxford dan menjadi professor di Universiti New Hopkins Amerika Syarikat.

Anwar juga dilantik penasihat ekonomi Qatar dan beberapa institusi perbankan di negara arab.

Bunuh karekter

Elok juga saya mengingatkan Dr Mahathir bahawa Anwar yang cuba dibunuh karakternya oleh Dr Mahathir cuma manusia biasa. Hormat orang kepadanya bersebab. Fitnah Dr Mahathir hanya “berhasil” di dalam kalangan Umno. Itupun bukan semua.

Ramai kenalan saya di dalam Umno yang kini menduduki jawatan-jawatan utama dalam parti dan kerajaan mengakui hakikat ini. Cuma yang tiada pada mereka ialah keberanian untuk berkata benar di hadapan pemimpin pencipta fitnah.

Bagaimana sebenarnya Dr Mahathir mahu dingati? Berkuasa selama dua puluh tiga tahun legasi yang ditinggalkannya ialah merosakkan institusi kehakiman, menekan kebebasan media, menyuburkan budaya rasuah, memunggah kekayaan negara menjadi kekayaan peribadi, memusuhi institusi raja-raja Melayu dan berkekalan memusuhi ulama.

Ketika Anwar masih terus dengan tradisi ilmu dan rapat dengan Dr Yusof Qardawi, Dr Tariq Suwaidan, Dr Wahbah Zuhaily, Dr Mahathir pula rapat dengan Ananda Krishna, Francis Yeoh dan Syed Mokhtar Bukhary.

Ketika anak-anak Anwar membesar dan membina kerjaya yang cukup sederhana, Dr Mahathir pula cemerlang membantu anak-anaknya mencipta nama tergolong kelompok mahakaya di Malaysia!

Ketika Anwar terus berjuang membela rakyat, menolak politik perkauman, mengajak rakyat mencari titik persaudaraan, menuntut kekayaan negara diagih secara adil, Dr Mahathir pula kekal dengan gaya politik lama, usang, tidak pernah puas menimbun kekayaan dan penuh dendam kesumat.

Saksikanlah pada usia lebih 80-an tahun Dr Mahathir terus menyerang Anwar tanpa henti. Tidak pernah ada tanda-tanda beliau sedar dan insaf perbuatan fitnahnya terhadap Anwar. Pesanan buat Dr Mahathir, sesungguhnya Allah swt menyayangi hamba-hambanya yang sentiasa bertaubat dan membersihkan diri.

Sebaliknya Allah juga bencikan orang yang tidak mahu bertaubat dan paling dibenci-Nya ialah orang tua yang tidak mahu bertaubat. Doa saya agar Dr Mahathir tidak tergolong dalam kalangan jenis itu dan dibuka pintu hatinya. Amin ya Rabb.

14 May 2014


Pendapat Anda?

Huffington Post

It is very rare for the Left to have a best-seller but we have one now. The French economist Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-First Century is currently being both widely read and even more widely discussed. That is great news. The question it leaves us with is how to put all that reading and discussion to best use.

My suggestion is that we capitalize on this rare moment of clarity on the true sources of contemporary inequality by placing the Picketty thesis at the core of a wider argument on the need for a managed capitalism. We need that progressive argument now — and we need it disseminated widely in the run-up to the mid-term elections — because of the equally wide dissemination around us of its obverse: namely the libertarian and conservative counter-assertion that markets work best when regulated least.

The standard line for a fully deregulated set of capitalist markets goes something like this.

There is no need to regulate capitalism because, left to themselves, capitalist markets are the great drivers of human progress. Unregulated markets not only generate economic growth, as recent history so clearly demonstrates. They also allocate scarce resources in an entirely optimal way. Prices in unregulated markets educate consumers, trigger entrepreneurial activity and set in motion Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” — the one that leads entrepreneurs to benefit society without planning to do so. Interference in such markets by well-meaning governments only distorts those optimal settlement points. Heavy taxation discourages enterprise. Labour laws create unemployment; and bailing out the weak only penalizes the strong. Letting the market decide is more than economic common sense. It is also the quintessential American way of doing business. Let Europeans regulate markets if they must, but don’t bring those European weaknesses to this side of the Atlantic.

So what does the Piketty argument do to that general case?

Debunking core claims It blows a huge hole in the central libertarian and conservative claim about optimal allocation. Conventional economics would have us believe that unregulated markets can be expected to reduce income and wealth inequalities over time. Piketty, by contrast, demonstrates that, without political intervention, unequal societies are likely to become more unequal rather than less. That is particularly so, he argues, in periods of slow economic growth of the sort we have witnessed in advanced capitalist economies since the 1970s; for in those periods, when the rate of return on capital and the rate of economic growth both diminish, the latter slows much more dramatically than the former. As he recently put it:

 “Beyond education and income factors, history tells us that, in the long run, the most powerful force pushing in the direction of rising inequality is the tendency of the rate of return to capital (r) to exceed the rate of output growth (g). When r exceeds g, as it did in the nineteenth century and seems quite likely to do again in the twenty-first, initial wealth inequalities tend to amplify and to converge towards extreme levels.”

The Piketty data suggests that inequality in contemporary capitalism is now at such a level that ordinary market processes no longer apply. Instead the trend is otherwise: “The past tends to devour the future: society inexorably tends towards dominance by inherited wealth.” So just because healthy competition requires some degree of inequality, there is no reason to claim that for reasons of competitiveness we must tolerate whatever level of inequality happens to prevail. If Piketty is right, too much inequality is as damaging to long-term economic health as too little.

Perfect & Imperfect Competition The data-sets in the Picketty volume are new and extremely valuable, but the basic argument that they sustain has its own long and well-established pedigree. It has long been recognized by critics of market deregulation that only under the very special circumstances of perfect competition do capitalist markets perform in the optimal way claimed for them by their advocates. Unregulated markets work in that optimal way only when the economy is entirely composed of small firms competing with each other in sectors that are easy for new firms to enter. And unregulated markets only work in an optimal way in economies in which no one firm is capable of affecting prices in the market by its actions alone. But modern capitalist markets are rarely of that kind; and when they are, the competitive processes that go on within them invariably move them away from such perfect competitiveness. Markets necessarily generate both winners and losers. As the winners get bigger and the losers smaller relative to each other, perfect competition between them becomes necessarily imperfect in character unless those markets are managed back into competitiveness. No matter how often it is asserted otherwise, market competition rarely works in the manner of Adam Smith’s invisible hand; and it does so only if, and to the degree that, periodically the invisible hand is itself given some externally-generated assistance.

Arguments for market regulation Nor is anti-monopoly policy of itself enough for progressive purposes, for unregulated markets do more than generate structurally-embedded inequalities of wealth of the Piketty variety. They also suffer from a basic fallacy of composition. In unregulated markets, action that is rational for the individual firm is not necessarily rational for the economic system as a whole. That is why there is an environmental case for market regulation. Unless markets are regulated, there is no incentive for firms to factor in the costs of pollution. That is also why there is a Keynesian argument for market regulation. Cutting wages for competitive advantage works for individual firms, but if all firms cut wages simultaneously they open a race to the bottom that leaves each of them short of consumers with money to spend. That is also why there is a labor market argument for market regulation. Successful firms growing larger gain market power not only over their competitors but also over their employees. Unless trade unions can establish minimum standards of wages and conditions, there is nothing in unregulated markets that blocks off sweat-shop routes to immediate profitability. And that is why there is always a democratic argument for market regulation. Because unregulated markets produce losers as well as winners, they eventually settle at points of economic optimality which are not automatically socially optimal. Their minimum standards and ours are not automatically the same.

The moral limits to markets Moreover, it is simply not the case that everything produced and consumed in modern economies can safely be left for allocation to unregulated market forces. There are moral limits to markets that everyone recognizes, limits that have to be imposed from outside, since ultimately the only morality an unregulated market recognizes is that of the jungle. Morality in unregulated markets lies with the victor in the perennial competitive struggle between demand and supply. Yet there are things which any civilized person recognizes are not suitable for allocation in that manner. In modern America, it isn’t legal to sell people any more. We don’t allow small children to work when they should be at school. We don’t think people should be allowed to starve simply because disabilities of age, illness or infirmity exclude them from labor markets. And in modern America, most of us don’t think that every good or service available to us should be freely sold. Instead, we implicitly agree that a list of exceptions to market mechanisms is required while we explicitly disagree – often intensely — about what that list ought to contain. For some, at the top of that list ought to be abortions. For others, it ought to be drugs. For many more, it ought to be health care itself. But clearly, for all the sharp disagreement on detail, all of us recognize that some limits to unregulated market processes are required. So the one thing that is illegitimate in the political conversation between us is the anger that many libertarians project back at progressives for having the audacity to propose market limits at all. It is not that progressives are out to destroy America — or God forbid, Europeanize America — by proposing that certain market outcomes need to be amended by public policy. It is simply that different ways of understanding how modern economies work produce different sets of policy proposals for their greater success.

With inequality at the levels they currently occupy in contemporary America, unregulated markets lock most individuals onto self-fulfilling trajectories of wealth or poverty. A particularly fortunate or gifted individual might break away from the poverty into which he/she was born, but for the mass and generality of us, the reality is that we have to strive endlessly just to stand still. As Thomas Piketty’s colleague Emmanuel Saez has recently demonstrated, since 2008, the richest 1 percent have taken a remarkable 95 percent of the new income and wealth generated by the collective efforts of us all, in the process locking the economy onto a low growth trajectory that over time excludes more and more of us from the core claim of the American Dream. What is that core claim: namely that through hard work, Americans can achieve a higher living standard as adults than they enjoyed as children. It is time to un-wrap the flag placed around unregulated markets by their libertarian and conservative advocates, and to wrap it instead around a progressive program of managed markets. It is time to advocate again a genuinely American New Deal that uses tax policy to break cycles of poverty and deprivation, and public spending to trigger the return of strong middle class jobs anchored in prosperous American-based businesses.

14 May 2014


Pendapat Anda?

The Atlantic

Outside satellite experts say investigators could be looking in the wrong ocean.

Investigators searching for the missing Malaysian Airlines flight were ebullient when they detected what sounded like signals from the plane’s black boxes. This was a month ago, and it seemed just a matter of time before the plane was finally discovered.

But now the search of 154 square miles of ocean floor around the signals has concluded with no trace of wreckage found. Pessimism is growing as to whether those signals actually had anything to do with Flight 370. If they didn’t, the search area would return to a size of tens of thousands of square miles.

Even before the black-box search turned up empty, observers had begun to raise doubts about whether searchers were looking in the right place. Authorities have treated the conclusion that the plane crashed in the ocean west of Australia as definitive, owing to a much-vaunted mathematical analysis of satellite signals sent by the plane. But scientists and engineers outside of the investigation have been working to verify that analysis, and many say that it just doesn’t hold up.

A Global Game of Marco Polo

Malaysia Airlines flights are equipped with in-flight communications services provided by the British company Inmarsat. From early on, the lynchpin of the investigation has been signals sent by Flight 370 to one of Inmarsat’s satellites. It’s difficult to overstate the importance of this lonely little batch of “pings.” They’re the sole evidence of what happened to the plane after it slipped out of radar contact. Without them, investigators knew only that the plane had enough fuel to travel anywhere within 3,300 miles of the last radar contact—a seventh of the entire globe.

Inmarsat concluded that the flight ended in the southern Indian Ocean, and its analysis has become the canonical text of the Flight 370 search. It’s the bit of data from which all other judgments flow—from the conclusive announcement by Malaysia’s prime minister that the plane has been lost with no survivors, to the black-box search area, to the high confidence in the acoustic signals, to the dismissal by Australian authorities of a survey company’s new claim to have detected plane wreckage.

Although Inmarsat officials have described the mathematical analysis as “groundbreaking,” it’s actually based on some relatively straightforward geometry. Here’s how it works: Every so often (usually about once an hour), Inmarsat’s satellite sends a message to the plane’s communication system, asking for a simple response to show that it’s still switched on. This response doesn’t specify the plane’s location or the direction it’s heading, but it does have some useful information that narrows down the possibilities.

You can think of the ping math like a game of Marco Polo played over 22,000 miles of outer space. You can’t see the plane. But you shout Marco, and the plane shouts back Polo. Based on how long the plane takes to respond, you know how far away it is. And from the pitch of its voice, you can tell whether it’s moving toward you or away from you—like the sound of a car on the highway—and about how fast.

This information is far from perfect. You know how far the plane was for each ping, but the ping could be coming from any direction. And you how fast the plane is moving toward or away from you. It could also be moving right or left, up or down, and the speeds would sound the same. The task of the Inmarsat engineers has been to take these pieces and put them together, working backwards to reconstruct possible flight paths that would fit the data.

What’s the Frequency?

There are two relevant pieces of information for each ping: the time it took to travel from plane to satellite, and the radio frequency at which it was received. It’s important to keep in mind that the transit times of the pings correspond todistances between satellite and plane, while frequencies correspond to relative speeds between satellite and plane. And this part’s critical: Relative speed isn’t the plane’s actual airspeed, just how fast it’s moving toward or away from the satellite.

Authorities haven’t released much information about the distances—just the now-famous “two arcs” graphic, derived in part from the distance of the very last ping. But they’ve released much more information about the ping frequencies. In fact, they released a graph that shows all of them:


This graph is the most important piece of evidence in the Inmarsat analysis. What it appears to show is the frequency shifts or “offsets”—the difference between the normal “pitch” of the plane’s voice (its radio frequency) and the one you actually hear.

The graph also shows the shifts that would be expected for two hypothetical flight paths, one northbound and one southbound, with the measured values closely matching the southbound path. This is why officials have been so steadfastly confident that the plane went south. It seems to be an open-and-shut verdict of mathematics.

So it should be straightforward to make sure that the math is right. That’s just what a group of analysts outside the investigation has been attempting to verify. The major players have been Michael Exner, founder of the American Mobile Satellite Corporation; Duncan Steel, a physicist and visiting scientist at NASA’s Ames Research Center; and satellite technology consultant Tim Farrar. They’ve used flight and navigation software like STK, which allows you to chart and make precise calculations about flight scenarios like this one. On their blogs and in an ongoing email chain, they’ve been trying to piece together the clues about Flight 370 and make sense of Inmarsat’s analysis. What follows is an attempt to explain and assess their conclusions.

What We Know

Although the satellite data provides the most important clues about the plane’s overall flight path, they’re not the only clues available. Authorities have some basic but crucial additional information about the flight that can help to make sense of the satellite math:

1. The satellite’s precise coordinates

The satellite in contact with Flight 370 was Inmarsat’s IOR satellite, parked in geostationary orbit above the Indian Ocean. The satellite is meant to be stationary, but its orbit has decayed somewhat, so that it actually rotates slightly around its previously fixed position. Its path is publicly available from the Center for Space Standards & Innovation.

2. The plane’s takeoff time and coordinates

16:41 UTC from the Kuala Lumpur airport.

3. The plane’s general motion toward or away from the satellite

From radar tracking, we know the plane traveled northeast, away from the satellite, over the first 40 minutes after takeoff, then westward, toward the satellite, until 94 minutes into the flight, when it was last detected on radar. Inmarsat spokesmen have stated that the ping distances got progressively longer over the last five hours of flight, meaning that the plane was moving away from the satellite during that time.

4. Two flight paths investigators think are consistent with the ping data

In addition to the frequency shift graph, the Inmarsat report includes a map with two “Example Southern Tracks,” one assuming a flight speed of 400 knots, the other a speed of 450 knots. Check it out:


These bits of knowledge allow us to put some basic constraints on what a graph of the ping frequency shifts should look like. We’ll use more precise numbers later; for now, it’s helpful just to have some qualitative sense of what to expect:

5. Frequency shifts that should all be negative

When the plane is moving away from the satellite, the radio signal gets stretched out, so the frequency decreases. This means that the frequency shifts should be negative over most of the flight. Although there was an approximately one-hour period starting 40 minutes after takeoff when radar showed the plane moving westward, toward the satellite, the graph shows that no pings were sent during that time—so actually, all of the shifts on the graph should be negative.

6. Frequency shifts before takeoff that should be near zero

Plotting the satellite’s path in STK, you can see that it moves through an ellipse centered around the equator. Space scientist Steel has created this graphic of the satellite’s motion, including marks for its position when the plane took off and when it last pinged the satellite:

The satellite’s motion is almost entirely north-south, and the plane’s takeoff location in Kuala Lumpur is almost due east of the satellite. This means that the satellite was only barely moving relative to Kuala Lumpur, so the frequency shift for a plane nearly stationary on the ground at the airport would be nearly zero.

7. Frequency shift graph should match map of southbound flight paths

The way the Marc-Polo math works is that, if you assume the plane traveled at some constant speed, you can produce at most one path north and one path south that fit the ping data. As the example flight paths on Inmarsat’s map show, the faster you assume the plane was moving overall, the more sharply the path must arc away from the satellite.

This constraint also works the other way: Since flight paths for a given airspeed are unique, you can work backwards from these example paths, plotting them in STK to get approximate values for the ping distances and relative speeds Inmarsat used to produce them. The relative speeds can then be converted into frequency shifts, which should roughly match the values on the frequency graph. (This is all assuming that Inmarsat didn’t plot the two example paths at random but based on the ping data.) We’ll put more precise numbers on this below.

The Troubled Graph

But the graph defies these expectations. Taken at face value, the graph shows the plane moving at a significant speed before it even took off, then movingtoward the satellite every time it was pinged. This interpretation is completely at odds with the official conclusion, and flatly contradicted by other evidence.

The first problem seems rather straightforward to resolve: the reason the frequency shifts aren’t negative is probably that Inmarsat just graphed them as positive. Plotting absolute values is a common practice among engineers, like stating the distance to the ocean floor as a positive depth value rather than a negative elevation value.

But the problem of the large frequency shift before takeoff is more vexing. Exactly how fast does the graph show the plane and satellite moving away from each other prior to takeoff?

The first ping on the graph was sent at 16:30 UTC, eleven minutes prior to takeoff. The graphed frequency shift for this ping is about -85 Hz. Public recordsshow that the signal from the plane to the satellite uses a frequency of 1626 to 1660 MHz. STK calculations show the satellite’s relative motion was just 2 miles per hour toward the airport at this time. Factoring in the satellite’s angle above the horizon, the plane would need to have been moving at least 50 miles per hour on the ground to produce this frequency shift—implausibly high eleven minutes prior to takeoff, when flight transcripts show the plane had just pushed back from the gate and not yet begun to taxi.

On the other side of the frequency graph, the plane’s last ping, at 00:11 UTC, shows a measured frequency shift of about -252 Hz, working out to a plane-to-satellite speed of just 103 miles per hour. But the sample southbound paths published by Inmarsat show the plane receding from the satellite at about 272 miles per hour at this time.

In other words, the frequency shifts are much higher than they should be at the beginning of the graph, and much lower than they should be at the end. Looking at the graph, it’s almost as if there’s something contributing to these frequency shift values other than just the motion between the satellite and the plane.

Cracking the ‘Doppler Code’

Exner, an engineer who’s developed satellite and meteorology technologies since the early 1970s, noted that the measured frequency shifts might come not just from each ping’s transmission from plane to satellite, but also from the ping’s subsequent transmission from the satellite to a ground station that connects the satellites into the Inmarsat network. In other words, Exner may have found the hidden source that seems to be throwing off the frequency graph.

Inmarsat’s analysis is highly ambiguous about whether the satellite-to-ground transmission contributed to the measured frequency shift. But if it did, a ground station located significantly south of the satellite would have resulted in frequency shifts that could account for the measured shifts being too large at the beginning of the graph and too small at the end. And sure enough, Inmarsat’s analysis states that the ground station receiving the transmission was located in Australia.

It’s possible to check the theory more precisely. Public records of Inmarsat ground stations show just one in Australia: in Perth. Using STK, you can precisely chart the satellite’s speed relative to this station, and, using thesatellite-to-ground signal frequency (about 3.6 GHz), you can then factor the satellite-to-ground shifts out of the frequency graph. Finally, you can at last calculate the true satellite-to-plane speed values.

The results seem to be nearly perfect. For the first ping, you wind up with a satellite-to-plane speed of about 1 mile per hour—just what you’d expect for a plane stationary or slowly taxiing eleven minutes before takeoff. This finding seems to provide a basic sanity check for interpreting the graph, and led Exner to declare on Twitter, “Doppler code cracked.” He produced a new graph of the frequency shifts, shown below. The gently sloping blue line shows the shifts between the satellite and the ground station in Perth, while the dotted red line shows the newly calculated satellite-to-plane shifts:

Michael Exner

Why Inmarsat’s Analysis Is Probably Wrong

If this interpretation—based on the work of Exner, Steel, Farrar, and myself—is correct, it would allow independent experts to fully review Inmarsat’s analysis, verify its work and check to see if Inmarsat might have missed any important clues that could further narrow down the plane’s whereabouts.

The problem is, although this interpretation matches two basic expectations for the frequency graph, it still doesn’t match Inmarsat’s example flight paths. The new frequency values, calculated by Exner, show the flight’s speed relative to the satellite as only about 144 miles per hour by the last ping, but Inmarsat’s example flight paths show a relative speed of about 272 miles per hour.

It’s possible these outside experts have still erred or missed some crucial detail in their attempts to understand the Inmarsat analysis. But that just means that Inmarsat’s analysis, as it has been presented, remains deeply confusing, or perhaps deeply confused. And there are other reasons to believe that Inmarsat’s analysis is not just unclear but mistaken. (Inmarsat stands by its analysis. More on that in a minute.)

Recall that the Marco-Polo math alone doesn’t allow you to tell which direction pings are coming from. So how could Inmarsat claim to distinguish between a northern and southern path at all? The reason is that the satellite itself wasn’t stationary. Because the satellite was moving north-south, it would have been moving faster toward one path than another—specifically, faster toward a southbound track than a northbound one over the last several hours of the flight. This means that the frequency shifts would also differ between a northbound and southbound path, as the graph shows with its two predicted paths.

But this is actually where the graph makes the least sense. The graph only shows different predicted values for the north and south tracks beginning at 19:40 UTC (presumably Inmarsat’s model used actual radar before this). By this time, the satellite was traveling south, and its southward speed would increase for the rest of the flight. The frequency shift plots for northern and southern paths, then, should get steadily further apart for the rest of the flight. Instead, the graph shows them growing closer. Eventually, they even pass each other: by the end of the flight, the graph shows the satellite traveling faster toward a northbound flight path than a southbound one, even though the satellite itself was flyingsouth.

One ping alone is damning. At 19:40 UTC, the satellite was almost motionless, having just reached its northernmost point. The graph shows a difference of about 80 Hz between predicted northbound and southbound paths at this time, which would require the satellite to be moving 33 miles per hour faster toward the southbound path than the northbound one. But the satellite’s overall speed was just 0.07 miles per hour at that time.

Inmarsat claims that it found a difference between a southbound and northbound path based on the satellite’s motion. But a graph of the frequency shifts along those paths should look very different from the one Inmarsat has produced.

Losing Faith

Either Inmarsat’s analysis doesn’t totally make sense, or it’s flat-out wrong.

For the last two months, I’ve been trying to get authorities to answer these questions. Malaysia Airlines has not returned multiple requests for comment, nor have officials at the Malaysian Ministry of Transportation. Australia’s Joint Agency Coordination Centre and the UK’s Air Accidents Investigation Branch, which have been heavily involved in the investigation, both declined to comment.

An Inmarsat official told me that to “a high degree of certainty, the proponents of other paths are wrong. The model has been carefully mapped out using all the available data.”

The official cited Inmarsat’s participation in the investigation as preventing it from giving further detail, and did not reply to requests for comments on even basic technical questions about the analysis. Inmarsat has repeatedly claimed that it checked its model against other aircrafts that were flying at the time, and peer-reviewed the model with other industry experts. But Inmarsat won’t say who reviewed it, how closely, or what level of detail they were given.

Until officials provide more information, the claim that Flight 370 went south rests not on the weight of mathematics but on faith in authority. Inmarsat officials and search authorities seem to want it both ways: They release charts, graphics, and statements that give the appearance of being backed by math and science, while refusing to fully explain their methodologies. And over the course of this investigation, those authorities have repeatedly issued confident pronouncements that they’ve later quietly walked back.

The biggest risk to the investigation now is that authorities continue to assume they’ve finally found the area where the plane went down, while failing to explore other possibilities simply because they don’t fit with a mathematical analysis that may not even hold up.

After all, searchers have yet to find any hard evidence—not so much as a shred of debris—to confirm that they’re looking in the right ocean.

Switch to our mobile site