URGENT ALERT – ARREST OF JOAS LEADERS

i know i have not been doing this (posting and blogging) for a long time but i have a good reason for it. i have been BUSY. so easy, huh. when you are busy the world has to stop. anyways, this is important. please do something about it: write, post it somewhere, take actions (if you know what i mean), and whatever else you feel like. i will post some stuff on the penans later, sorta to give you people who visit this blog and an idea on whats going on there. you probably know more than i do. so feel free to share. thanks!

—————————————————————–

16 September 2009

Dear Friends,

URGENT ALERT – ARREST OF JOAS LEADERS

As Malaysia commemorates its 46th anniversary, 15 indigenous Sarawakians have been detained by Kuching police at 2:45 today for trying to send a memorandum of protest to the Sarawak Chief Minister. Among those arrested are Mark Bujang (BRIMAS), Raymond Abin (BRIMAS) and Hellan Empaing (WADESA), all leaders of the Jaringan Orang Asal SeMalaysia (Indigenous Peoples Network of Malaysia) as well as representatives from the Kayan, Kenyah and Penan communities of Sarawak.

The contingent, consisting of 6 Penan, 4 Iban, 2 Kayan and 3 Kenyah are all representatives of communities who will be affected by two major dams which are being built in their areas. They had prepared a memorandum on the issue and were delivering it to Wisma Bapa Malaysia, the office of the Chief Minister. While waiting for endorsement of the document, they were arrested by local police. They are currently being held in the Kampung Gita Police Station in Petra Jaya, Kuching, Sarawak. It is uncertain whether they are being charged, or what reasons are being given for their detention.

Jaringan Orang Asal SeMalaysia strongly condemns the detention of its members who were attempting to deliver a memorandum on behalf of the indigenous peoples of the Baram and Murum areas of Sarawak. The memorandum protested the State Government’s actions to build hydro electric dams in these areas without the free, prior and informed consent of the communities affected and without due regards to the status of the native lands involved. The actions of the State Government are in clear contradiction to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which Malaysia strongly supports.

We also condemn the use of arrest to intimidate and silence the voices of the communities who are questioning the construction of large dams on the area. This demonstrates the unwillingness of the State Government to ensure the full and effective participation of indigenous peoples in projects that affect them.

We call upon the Sarawak State Government to immediately release all fifteen Sarawakians and engage in a proper consultative process with the affected communities. We also call for the respect of the constitutional native land rights of these communities. It is also in violation of the right to peaceful assembly, guaranteed under Article 10 of the Federal Constitution.

Take action:

1. URGENT: Please phone the Gita police station and ask after the well-being of the activists, ask what they are being charged with and demand their unconditional release in line with Constitutional guarantees of freedom of assembly (Article 10).  Tel: ++6082-254417

2. Write to the following:

Chief Minister of Sarawak

YAB Pehin Sri Haji Abdul Taib Mahmud

Chief Minister of Sarawak

22nd Floor, Wisma Bapa Malaysia,

Petra Jaya, 93502 Kuching, Sarawak, Malaysia

mustaphah@sarawaknet.gov.my

FAX: +6082-444566

2. YB Datuk Amar Wilson Baya Dandot

State Secretary of Sarawak

20th Floor, Wisma Bapa Malaysia

Petra Jaya, 93502 Kuching,

Sarawak, Malaysia

wilsonbd@sarawaknet.gov.my

FAX: +6082-441677

3. Datu Haji Abdul Razak Tready

Sarawak Attorney-General

State AG’s Chambers

Level 16, Wisma Bapa Malaysia,

Petra Jaya

93502 Kuching,

Sarawak, Malaysia

razakt@sarawaknet.gov.my

FAX: +6082-440525

4. Tan Sri Musa bin Dato’ Hj Hassan

Ketua Polis Negara

Ibu Pejabat Polis Diraja Malaysia

Bukit Aman,50560 Kuala Lumpur

musa@rmp.gov.my

FAX: +603-22731326

5. Datuk Mohmed Salleh

Ketua Polis Negeri

Ibupejabat Polis Kontinjen Sarawak

Polis Diraja Malaysia

Jalan Badruddin,93560 Kuching,

Sarawak, Malaysia

mohmad@rmp.gov.my

FAX: +6082-257664

Yours truly,

Adrian Lasimbang

President

Jaringan Orang Asal SeMalaysia (JOAS)

THE CESSATION OF HOUSE !!! the Countdown!

this space in PJ has outlived for almost more than a year. much had happen here, workshops, meetings, conflicts, assholeness, awesomeness, drunken nights, party, bitching, film screening, bands playing, gardening, cleaning the house, luna’s poo , etc.

for all it’s worth, the landowner or the middle person want us to move out, and by the end of December 2009.

for all it’s worth, the house has been a worthwhile socio-political experiment .

a mini- library had been setted up, even a proper recording system has not been installed.

a mini-garden of veggies, eventhough people slack off due to various reasons.

and other things…. we have learned much and more to learn about community, “domestic politics”, sustainable living, and many many more.

THUS, people are preparing looking for alternatives.. other spaces for living and space for the operation of FNB-KL.

if you folks out there, know a cheap-ass place( for rent or even best for FREE), for both conditions, exclusively, and or mutually inclusive .

hopefully- hopefully with decent transportation system, and not too far away from KL.

anyway, the space might be going away, but we shall not let our spirits astray!

we shall constantly organize ourselves against the conditions of repression.

cheerz and love

A recent activity Photo-Story: Food Not Bombs KL kitchen krew (part one)

sunday, messed up sunday, the kitchen is out of order, no, it is in perfect harmony!

now it is ready – readily ready for preparing food

after collecting veggatables from a market 10 mins drive away, and we are “guilty” for the petroleum used in that sense. the veggatable are supposely “recycle”, more like given from petty veggtable seller, who does not think it’s sellable and do not mind storring for us to pick it.

then we bring it back, washing veggtables…

oh, better prepare the rice too….

sometimes when there are more people helping we chop the veggies outside, then there were too many poos…(from the dog), we moved to the “living area”.

this time,  it is chopped in the kitchen.

boilling some dhal i suppose….

more chopping more chopping!!

someone preparing some bitter gourd!

A recent activity Photo-Story: Food Not Bombs KL kitchen krew (part two)

at some point of the veggie preparation, drinks are prepared

unhealthy sugary coloured drink! woo hoo!

and then…. and then….

g

MORE on COnflict and Problem Solving!!

Conflict and Problem Solving

paraphrased from: Chapt 10 in Building United Judgement edited by the Centre for Conflict Resolution 1981

 

1. Acknowledging and responding to conflict

2. Creative problem solving between participants in conflict

3. Mediation – a third person or mediator is required where hurt, anger or distrust prevent conflicting persons from resolving the conflict independently

 

GUIDELINES FOR ACKNOWLEDGING AND RESPONDING TO CONFLICT

 

1. Accept conflict as natural. Don’t be afraid of it. When conflict occurs treat it as an opportunity to examine the issues involved in depth and to learn more about the underlying values and assumptions you hold. Accept the challenge to find imaginative and creative responses to conflicting ideas.

 

2. Bring hidden conflicts out in the open. If you think there is a conflict hidden under the surface that is causing problems in the group, call it out at an appropriate time. If you see signs of unexpressed disssagreement, ask those invovled what they are feeling.

 

3. Disagree with ideas, not with people. Try to put yourself in their shoes, that are their needs, values and previous experiences? Remember that your goal is to work together to find a mutually acceptable solution.

 

4. When defining an issue or problem, always define it as shared. Responsibility for a conflict never lies with just one person or faction. Say “We do not agree about the distribution of office space” rather than “Jack refuses to share his desk”.

 

5. Identify and focus on the most important, central issues of the conflict. Insted of dwelling on what is wrong with the statement, try and find what is right. There may be some ideas which you just cannot bring yourself to accept: these are the most important issues in the conflict. Your reasons may be based in logical principles or they may have to do with feelings, both are legitimate.

 

6. Don’t polarize the conflicting positions.

 

7. Don’t compromise too quickly. This may prevent you form adequately exploring the problem and its potential solutions. The ideal solution to a conflict is a creative one which finds a way to give everyone what they most need.

 

8. If you aren’t centrally involved in a conflict, don’t take sides too quickly. By remaining non-partisan you can better watch the process of the meeting and help see that the guidelines are being followed.

 

9. Try to be aware of your own feelings and opinions during a conflict. The more clearly you express what is most important to you, what you really need and want, the better you will be bale to communicte and negotiate with others.

 

10. Remember that at times, the best tools for constructive conflict is a little quiet time. If the conflict is inflamed by physical factors such as lack of sleep, skipped meals, or other ailments, these should be attended to before the discussion resumes.

 

11. When normal meeting discussion doesn’t seem sufficient to work out a conflict, you may wish to set up a special structured process for delaing with it. Schedual a special meeting and use a neutral facilitator (either from inside or outside the group).

Conflict Resolution (from ASEN)

a very good friend compiled a cd full of useful stuff! and i would like to share this.

it is a workshop (outline) on an Aus-student-enviro-network camp. 

i think it is a “model” activists, collectives, communities, even NGOs and govt institutions (better burned) should look into, and try it out….. even for “share house”.

anyway, i am always keen to explore “this” with people…. so whoever interested and want to start building something sustainable, healthy and progressive, really really progressive, and not some superficial rightous political  ideologies, bah.. i end my rant here……

let us know! what you think

 

 

CONFLICT RESOLUTION Workshop 1^st afternoon session

 

What is conflict? -> first reactions to mind, how you might define it

What are some types of conflict?

What are ways you respond to conflict? Eg anger, ignoring

Ways of beginning to resolve conflict

 

Why conflict happens, where can it come from, what can fuel it?

-conflict is natural and healthy in groups and communities

-conflict is connective and tension can hold people together

 

What influences how you respond to conflict?

Gender, socialisation, experience in conflict, culture, structural oppression

 

Roleplay

 

Conflict in collectives: 10 people – fishbowl

Scenario: organising a night film screening and discussion event on campus, conflict around whether it should be alcohol free.

Roles:  facilitator – pushing to have alcohol

Quiet person who says nothing – wants alcohol free

Emo kid – runs out of room visibly upset

Physical presence – stands up to argue point, using presence, for alcohol

Verbose kid – same thing over and over

Random smack kid – politically incorrect – people who don’t drink are fags etc

Speaks over others and acronym junkie

Takes a long time to say something

Wait for 5 second silence before you speak

Sexist language

Freeze after 10 minutes

Outer group: What was going on?

        Identifying roles/behaviours

        Identifying conflicts, ways you could have responded

Inner group: How did you feel? What was going on?

       “I feel…” “This is what happened to me “ Ways I could respond

Role play take 2: beginning to name/responded

   Using ‘I’ statements

Freeze after 5 minutes

Outer group: What was good?

        What could have been better?

Inner group: How did you feel calling someone out – did it work?

       How did it feel being called out, how did you respond?

 

Pairs

Talking through force – how to safely explore conflict

Many kinds of safety – what might it take to feel safe in a collective, home, social situation or resolving conflict

 

Evaluation

Positives: prepared facilitators

   Good to learn from and share peoples own experiences

   Learned listening

   Living assertive

   Fishbowl – good having common conflicts, and a realistic issue, so not abstract

      – good to talk about solutions

Changes: Struggled with creating safe space

   Could do better with giving preparation for role plays

   Could have acknowledged more silent stuff

   Needed more on the positive outcomes of conflict

   Should have put safety earlier – made people feel unsafe

   Playing up stereotypes was problematic – could have acknowledge better

   Expand on areas of conflict, eg stalls at festival

(free download) hoodwinked in the hothouse

Introduction

Climate change has, of late, been receiving more media attention than ever before. This is partially a result of the coming into force of the Kyoto Protocol despite US and Australian government intransigence, as well as UK Prime Minister Tony Blair’s championing of the issue while serving as chair of the 2005 meeting of the G8 in Scotland. In parallel to these political processes, the world is slowly waking up to the magnitude of the threat posed by climate change as the world’s leading scientists warn of the dangers of complacency. Concerns over climate change impacts such as droughts, floods, rising sea-levels, food insecurity, loss of biodiversity and depleted fresh water supplies have created a broad social consensus that climate change is one of the single greatest threats humankind faces. According to the World Health Organisation, climate change is already responsible for some 160,000 deaths annually.

The science is clear. A study by the International Climate Change Taskforce found that with any increase above two degrees in global mean temperature, “the risks to human societies and ecosystems grow significantly”, with an increased possibility of “abrupt, accelerated, or runaway climate change”. According to the high-level group -co-chaired by British Labour MP Stephen Byers and US Republican Senator Olympia Snowe – this scenario could be avoided by keeping the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere below 400 parts per million (ppm). However they warn that current concentrations of 379 ppm “are likely to rise above 400 ppm in coming decades and could rise far higher under a business-as-usual scenario”.

This briefing examines how despite the urgent need for action, the G8 nations are locked into this “business-as-usual” scenario through their perpetuation and reinforcement of the kind of fossil-fuelled economic expansion that has given rise to climate change in the first place. As the grouping of nations most responsible for the majority of historic greenhouse gas emissions, as well as simultaneously being the most powerful industrialised nations, the G8 is a logical frame of reference from which to analyse the political economy of climate change.

However this focus is somewhat arbitrary. Firstly, the nature of economic globalisation demands a more complex reading of the relationship between nation-states and transnational corporations. These corporations are in no way restricted to the G8 countries, either in economic and industrial activity or in terms of influence over national and international policy. Secondly, the G8 is only one particular grouping of rich nations, and although arguably the most powerful and influential, it is not unique. Institutions such as the World Economic Forum (WEF) and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) also exist to foster political and economic consensus amongst richer nations, and thus also have an impact on climate change through their mutual reinforcement of neoliberal economic policies and frameworks. The focus on the G8 countries in this briefing is intended to serve as a useful window into the interaction of neoliberal policy and climate change rather than telling the whole story.

Offsetting Responsibility

In an effort to demonstrate its green credentials, the British Government has been proudly boasting that its G8 presidency will be “carbon neutral”. It promises to achieve this by “offsetting” the anticipated greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the summit by investing approximately $90,000 in supposedly climate-friendly projects in Africa. In many ways, the attempt to make the summit “carbon neutral” is emblematic of the degree to which the climate debate has been corrupted by a corrosive discourse. As a result, this offset culture has emerged as one of the principle concepts of “action” on climate change. But offsets are deeply problematic and not, in the final analysis, a solution to the crisis.

Firstly, the money being invested elsewhere invariably distracts from action to reduce emissions at source. Northern governments and industry are taking advantage of such offsetting arrangements to postpone making the desperately needed cuts at home. Secondly, it is difficult, if not impossible, to guarantee that offset projects lead to genuinely “additional” reductions. There simply is no guarantee that the supposed emission savings from a project would not have happened anyway without the offsetting investment. Thirdly, the scientific basis upon which carbon calculations of such projects are made is hotly contested. The carbon estimates vary hugely and rely upon accounting methodologies so flawed as to make the Enron-Andersen dealings seem mild in comparison. Many projects have delivered significantly lower emission reductions than predicted in their project documents.

A project category particularly prone to such overestimations is tree-planting, where verification of the amount of carbon actually stored in the forest ecosystem or tree plantation is virtually impossible. In some cases companies have received payments just to avoid felling existing forests. Monoculture trees have also been planted on carbon-rich peat bogs – emitting more carbon dioxide than they “sink”. The worst examples have involved projects replacing grassland ecosystems with ecologically and socially destructive monoculture plantations – described as “green deserts” by local people – in places such as Ecuador and Brazil.

Cracks in the logic of these schemes emerge when attempts are made to establish a solid equivalence between the emissions one source makes with those theoretically avoided or sequestered in trees somewhere else. One side of the equation, the emissions that one is responsible for, is comparatively definite and quantifiable. The other side, the emissions saving project, is marred in both uncertainty with regards to the long-term progress of the project (for instance, if the carbon from the emissions is to be sequestered in trees, how long will these trees still be standing and storing the carbon?) and also with regards to limited scientific knowledge of the carbon cycle. According to leading scientists, calculating these carbon fluxes involves, at best, variations in the estimates of 50% or more. But for the G8 nations seeking to demonstrate vague commitment to climate action, the inherent problems relating to offset culture and other distractions such as emissions trading are swept aside by a sleight of hand. The market, we are told, is lean and green. The problem of climate change requires not radical reductions at source, but the “invisible hand” of the market to sweep up the mess in the most cost effective manner possible. Part economics and part philosophy, this reliance upon the market represents an increasingly prevalent paradigm in environmental legislation.

This briefing will examine the origins of this paradigm and its development in the context of climate change, as well as the way it is being enthusiastically applied as a panacea in other areas of environmental policy as well. It argues that the “win-win” rhetoric pervading the climate discourse is both an attempt to confound and marginalise those seeking more meaningful and effective action on climate change, as well as contributing to increased corporate power and further commodification of natural resources such as the earth’s carbon-cycling capacity. The neoliberal ethic embodied in power blocs such as the G8, themselves highly dependent on the fossil fuel economy, is ultimately what drives this agenda forward. Free-market environmentalism and increased trade and investment liberalisation in the area of “environmental goods” and “ecosystem services” is ultimately a false promise. For activists seeking to engender meaningful social and environmental change in the climate arena, these trends must be challenged outright.

TNI Briefing 3

http://www.tni.org/detail_pub.phtml?know_id=168

download it here >  fsbooklet

Amor Fati Journal (preview) please support!

Dear all,

First of all I am sorry for the email address that I’ve been sending this call for donation concerning Amor Fati Journal, again. As for this is the last one. During these two years we’ve been trying to maintain the printing cost of the journal from our own pockets and some small donation. Up to the second edition we still lacking of management for the money that comes in and we ended up giving it up for free. And in the end there’s no money left for us to back up the cost of the third edition. We must say, although we are enormously please to see the report and feedbacks of our second issue of Amor Fati–and there are some reports that it’s been downloaded by 800 hundred people (mostly come from Indonesia) through the 325collective.com website—financial support for this sort of anti-authoritarian/anarchist publication are still very low in Indonesia. Whether our comrades and circle of friends are just too poor or have their own priorities for other projects, the only donation that comes in are quite small. In the third edition we are trying to make the layout and design more exciting and we want to put some colors on the front cover, in order for it can be more sellable. Until now we only can cover the cost of filming and papers in which we want to print it to 1000 exemplars. And since the last two monts we tried to gain fundraising it is still too small. We are making this last call for donation because if we can’t meet the demand for the printing cost to the end of the month, then we have to quit this publication and only making it in a pdf version for the last time. In this call for donation we will give you the low-res quality of the journal. We know that we are looking for donation from people abroad, and we are aware that most of you don’t understand Indonesian language. And the reason we are still doing this is because of various reasons which perhaps most of you already know. Much thanks for those who already support us.

No. Jenis Pekerjaan Harga 1 Film Rp. 650000

2 Kertas Isi HVS 70 Gr Rp. 2300000

3 Kertas Kover Artpaper 150 Gr (Paper) Rp. 250000

4 Ongkos Cetak (printing cost) Rp. 2150000

5 Finishing Rp. 100000

Total Rp. 5450000

Thanks, Amor Fati Crew Further details:

jurnalamorfati@gmail.com

preview

Amorfati #3 PREVIEW

Amorfati #3 PREVIEW2

food not bombs vancauver

we have recently made new friends from vancouver canada.

check out their blog http://vanfnb.blogspot.com/

thanks to mr A

monologue: revolutionary participation of the 23rd century

An outspoken and charismatic speaker no longer bears any meaningful self and collective “development”. it is nostalgia of a distant struggle, perhaps supported and perpetuated by the masses but it is recorded past that some might felt akin or “associated” – in spirit. following such leaders /movements are irrelevant. for it is not about the implication of change but change that implicates .

the hierarchy of the know-how in the “alternative” organizing has created an elite barrier. unfortunately, many groups /individuals still falls in a paradigmatic hierarchical structures . it is true that whatever methodologies are essentially “ladened” or perhaps that perspective itself should be brought into question.

but hierarchy; a distinguished form or modes of category – privileged epistemology are always intended to be “challenge” by the so call radicals, deviants of society, however, there are never fully realize the hierarchy of the will. our 23rd century sense of the “will” has been appropriately reconstructed by the system of expropriated exploitation. has it?

organized crime as organized resistance (against what?)

for making the initiation, taking away the instinct of fun and spontaneous thrill, a weekend get away — an unpremeditated experience in a premeditated contextualization. so where and what is the point in following the instincts of “having leisure time”; a break from what? preset alienating conditions imposed by the confinements of work, sleep, fuck, eat and play? are these the individual ultimate expression of the will and urges for freedom?

but there lack dialog, a monologue, it is.

differences in methodologies – superior and inferior or a “synthesis” that can not be synthesized…?
or in other words, priorities over the less “urgent” and such “mentality” would not reconcile-ate…? or it appears to “manage”….

because of “these” differences. a form of “collaboration” are hindered? or is it the lack or “evaluation”

it is a “career” that one seek? or is it something else, something so essential to abandon, to neglect?

to be continue……