The plainer fact is that no one in DAP was innocent.including Lim Guan Eng did not resign because of mere allegations.Hewill go only when proof appeared in the public domain through a competent process..
a fund-raising dinner, a closed-door affair,why an UMNO Finance Minister II Johari Abdul Ghani to a DAP fund-raising dinner, Has DAP lawmaker Tony Pua become so has invited Finance Minister II Johari Abdul Ghani to a fund-raising dinner, at which Johari can put forth his arguments on 1MDB.a fund-raising dinner, A fund-raising dinner a closed-door affair, reported and interpreted by a select few from print like Malaysiakini UMNO Finance Minister II Johari Abdul Ghani like to have democratised debate to a spectacular degree. Members speak in front of the largest jury in history, in the court of public opinion. By sabotaging debate, DAP is denying the Malaysian people the opportunity to hear evidence from all sides, and then make up their minds.
Finance Minister II said Governments today have to respond fast, and transparently, not because any opposition party wants this to happen, but because Malaysian public opinion will not tolerate any cover-up. Our citizens constitute the most stringent judiciary in history. If Malaysian democracy is safe, it is because of the vigilance of citizens, not the outbursts of politicians.like DAP lawmaker Tony Pua
Other speakers attending the May 6 dinner will be DAP parliamentary leader Lim Kit Siang, former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad, Parti Amanah Negara (Amanah) president Mohamad Sabu and PKR vice-president Rafizi Ramli, they have no locus standi so no way to debate;thrash out, hash out,with Johari
Finance Minister II Johari Abdul Ghani has turned down DAP lawmaker Tony Pua’s invitation to attend a fund-raising dinner to put forth his arguments on 1MDB.
“Thanks for inviting me, but I have said enough in my open letter
to him. I hear him and I take note of his opinion. I respect him as (an) opposition (lawmaker),” Johari said.
Science journal Nature published an investigation conducted by researchers of the University of Wroc³aw, Poland, that found 48 academic journals offering their editorship to a non-existing individual cooked up by the sting operators (‘Predatory journals recruit fake editor’
).And this is just the tip of the iceberg. Gross scientific misconduct, fake data, plagiarism, retractions and faulty experimental designs have become an inseparable part of research publication.Suddenly, the hallowed portals of scientific magazines look suspect. There are thousands of ‘scientific’ journals that do not care much about quality research. They merely exist to extract fees from ‘unsuspecting’ authors. Why these authors choose to publish in these ‘predatory’ journals is another question. The journals use the worst possible marketing schemes to publish research, often without scientific rigor or transparency.
The scientific community knew this for years. In 1978-79, professors at Yale and Harvard were at the centre of research fraud that rocked the very ethos of scientific inquiry. In 1989, the US came up with regulations that defined scientific misconduct and laid out a legal procedure to address such allegations. In their research, they found peer review was ineffective against misconduct. But now it looks that even those regulations were not enough.
In his 1942 essay, The Normative Structure of Science, sociologist Robert K Merton analysed the ethos of science. “Four sets of institutional imperatives — universalism, communism, disinterestedness, organised scepticism — are taken together as the ethos of modern science,” wrote Merton. While describing ‘disinterestedness’, he wrote “passion for knowledge, idle curiosity, altruistic concern with the benefit to humanity, and a host of other special motives have been attributed to the scientist.
The quest for distinctive motives appears to have been misdirected.” So, ascientist demonstrates the “willingness to work to extend knowledge, apart from personal benefit”.
Merton defined ‘communism’ as the free sharing of one’s discoveries with others. What makes such ‘altruism possible’ is the “reward system of science”. This ‘reward’ comprises a host of things: “honour, position, power and money go to those who make discoveries first — and who claim priority by promptly publishing their findings.”
It seems with the growth of aggressive consumerism and the opening up of digital frontiers, only parts of Metron’s ‘reward system for science’ has been the prime focus for many scientists.
In this mad rush to publish for ‘honour, power, position and money’, ‘disinterestedness’ has been given a quiet burial. In fact, predatory journals extend a helping hand to those who care to get on rooftops to shout about a discovery often backed by an invisible industry.
Commercialisation of scientific research has its own issues, as is reflected by ‘code of conduct and best practices guidelines for journal editors’ of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Under the guidelines for ‘commercial considerations’, COPE states, “Journals should have policies and systems in place to ensure that commercial considerations do not affect editorial decisions (e.g. advertising departments should operate independently from editorial departments).”
While it is not easy to identify fake data or plagiarism, over the years, organisations such as COPE have developed mechanisms to weed out suspicious submissions. The latest revelations unveiled how deep the malaise is.
In the early 2000s, when the ‘no peer review’ journals saw a mushrooming growth, the number of reported cases of scientific misconduct began to grow. Most of these journals only have an electronic avatar, their reach and appeal are deep. Visibility, reach and speed of publication make them an attractive proposition to researchers looking for a place in the sun.
There were watchdogs who kept an eye on them. In January, one of them, a blog that listed “potential, possible, or probable predatory” publishers and journals disappeared. Started in 2010 by University of Colorado librarian Jeffrey Beall, at its prime, the blog evoked fear and controversy in the science publishing community. Its disappearance has dealt a body blow to science misconduct-watchers.
The belief within the community is that science will get rid of these bugs. Let’s hope it’s right.
Citing “lessons learned from online engagement with ‘Bernie Bros,’” a pro-Hillary Clinton Super PAC is pledging to spend $1 million to “push back against” users on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit and Instagram.Correct the Record’s “Barrier Breakers” project boasts in a press release that it has already “addressed more than 5,000 people that have personally attacked Hillary Clinton on Twitter.” The PAC released this on Thursday.
The PAC was created in May of last year when it was spun off from the American Bridge SuperPAC, which is run by longtime Hillary and Bill Clinton supporter David Brock. Brock also founded the left-wing media watchdog website Media Matters for America.
The web brigades , also known in English media as the DAP’s Red Bean troll army, are Malaysiakini-sponsored anonymous Internet political commentators and trolls linked to DAP. Participants report that they are organized into teams and groups of commentators that participate in Russian and international political blogs and Internet forums using sockpuppets and large-scale orchestrated trolling and disinformation campaigns to promote and pro-DAP lawmaker Tony Pua
also read this
Finance Minister II Johari Abdul Ghani intellectually stimulating analytical and strategic.