The Pakatan Rakyat alliance has called for an immediate boycott of Malay newspapers Utusan Malaysia and Mingguan Malaysia for what it said was unfair reporting and for allegedly fanning racial sentiments.

In a joint statement issued at a press conference in the lobby of Parliament, Opposition leader Datin Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail said the mainstream media had shown signs of opening up since the results of the March 8 polls.

However, many publications still gave wider coverage to Barisan Nasional and its component parties, while stories on Pakatan Rakyat tended to be full of distortion and misinformation to discredit the alliance parties and their leaders, she claimed.

The Parti Keadilan Rakyat president was accompanied by alliance members DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng and PAS deputy president Nasaruddin Mat Isa in reading out the joint statement.

Dr Wan Azizah said the worst were the two aforementioned newspapers, which she claimed unfairly criticised and demonised Pakatan Rakyat leaders.

She also alleged these publications were always trying to provoke narrow ethnic sentiments, "clearly with the intention of creating anger among Malays against Pakatan Rakyat component parties." (source)

And rightly so. I don't think it is just because the reports are skewed against PR component parties but more so because it is constantly using racial sentiments to create hatred and anger. Two days ago, I happened to switch on my television just to check out what's on prime time news on TV3 and felt nauseous at the propaganda against the PR-led Selangor State Government. The PR-led Selangor State Government is only 2 months old and you are making such a big issue on election promises not performed? What about the federal government's promises over 50 years? And what is this about 80 Indians making demands along racial grounds? Totally regressive, I must say.

If this country has to progress, it must be merits-based. All the poor need to be assisted regardless of race or religion. And all the intellectuals and skilled should be retained to continue to build this nation. Race and religious-based demands are outdated and does not benefit all. Or is it that our forefathers and governance has instilled upon us Malaysians a distrust for other Malaysians who are not of the same race or religion as us so much so that only those from our own race and religion are able to look after out interest?

Which comes first in an ordinary man's mind when he looks at a group of school girls in their white blouse uniform? Lust or Uniform? According to the vice-president of the National Islamic Students Association of Malaysia, Munirah Bahari, whom I presume is a lady / girl, “The white blouse is too transparent for girls and it becomes a source of attraction”. “It becomes a distraction to men, who are drawn to it, whether or not they like looking at it" she added before saying “Decent clothes which are not revealing can prevent and protect women from any untoward situations”. If I read her correctly, she is saying that the current white blouse worn by school girls for as long as I could remember, is indecent because it is revealing and encourages lustful thoughts. I don't know whether I should laugh or cry. Well, I was laughing in glee this morning celebrating Man Utd's victory but when I read this piece of news, I thought I was having trouble thinking with such little sleep last night.

I could not think of how absurd such a suggestion could come out from Munirah - that the white blouse is or could be a cause of social ills (rape, sexual harassment and even premarital sex) prevalent in this country. Was a proper study conducted which led to such evidence that the triggering factor for such social ills point towards the white blouse which is deemed too transparent? From what I know, the whole of the white blouse is only visible when sixth formers wear them. Those in the pre-sixth forms have a blue pinafore over and above the white blouse. Surely, if Munirah is a lady, she would know the difference between a white blouse and a white baju kurung top. Whereas the white baju kurung top is indeed fully visible, the white blouse is, save for sixth formers, substantially covered by the blue pinafore. But she can't be wrong because in the news report, she mentioned about white blouse. Not white baju kurung top.

Perhaps Munirah and her association ought to go and study why is it that pre-marital sex, rape and incest is prevalent amongst certain communities in this country. Take a visit to the courts - especially in the rural areas. It is not uncommon to find some blokes being charged for rape or incest. It is an open secret. Moreover, just search in the internet for certain keywords with 3gp and a certain race in Malaysia and you will find a whole list of sites with homemade videos of young couples making out and enjoying their video shooting session. Of course, I am not trying to say there are no social ills amongst the other communities but there are. I am just saying that with this community, the problem is more serious that what it is made out to be.

The point I am trying to make is this - the social ills are not just arising from a white blouse which has been worn by millions of school girls in this country. It goes deeper. I have had a couple of discussions with DPPs in court who told me that such social ills could be related to the living conditions of the community. When all in the family live in a one room house, you don't really have a thing called privacy. Why is it that despite efforts to be stricter religion-wise, the young seems to become more liberal and rebellious? Does Munirah seriously think that if all school girls are covered from head to toe in thick denim-like clothing that social ills would drop dramatically? If a man is lustful, he will be lustful regardless of whether a girl is dressed up in revealing clothes or fully covered head to toe. Either way, his thoughts would run wild and that is the problem that we all need to tackle.

And I truly hope that this is not another attempt to force all school girls to "cover up" solely based on Islamic precepts. If that's the case, Munirah should have advocated a covering up of all women in this country as believe me, some women out there do dress far more revealing than these school girls in their school uniform. That would have been a more consistent stance that dressing contributes to social ills as suggested by Munirah. I truly believe that there is nothing wrong with the current uniform worn by school girls and that it should stay that way. If somebody needs a slap in the face, it would be those boys who are unable to control their overcharged hormones and resort to sexual immorality. Deal with the root cause of sexual immorality, Munirah. Not on white blouses please.

I have been very busy with work lately so much so that blogging has been sporadic. That does not mean, however, that I have not been following the news. It's just that I have not felt the urge to blog about the silly things and statements uttered by our politicians of late. Not until this piece of news greeted me on Malaysiakini - "No case of indelible ink smugglers". Apparently, the Election Commission acted on hearsay back in March 2008 and called off the use of the indelible ink.

On 04.03.2008, it was reported in the Star that the Election Commission had cancelled the use of indelible ink citing public order and security reasons. Apparently, EC chairman Abdul Rashid said there were also reports made to the police confirming that certain irresponsible quarters had purchased indelible ink from abroad with the intention of creating confusion and suspicion as to the status of voters.

So, the police reports are hearsay? Who made those police reports? The person/s who lodged the police reports must have identified "irresponsible quarters" as having purchased indelible ink from abroad. The reports confirmed the existence of irresponsible quarters. And the EC upon being informed of these police reports sought and obtained legal advice to stop the use of indelible ink. Surely, how could it be mere hearsay? Unless the EC is saying that the legal advisors gave negligent advice. If it was hearsay, it would have been hearsay from the face of the reports and dismissed as hearsay resulting in the continued plan and use of the indelible ink. If it was direct knowledge, the investigation at that point of time in late February / early March would have identified the irresponsible quarters which would have formed the basis for cancelling the use of the indelible ink which costs tax payers RM2.4million to purchase followed by possible prosecution by the AG for possibly an act of sedition.

Alas, the truth is out and the EC took the nation for a ride. Who will bear responsibility? My guess is, true to Malaysian type of governance, no one will be made accountable. It's just hard luck that public funds are used and discarded. Are you not pissed off by this? I sure am.