Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 37

Michel Foucault

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Michel Foucault

Born

15 October 1926 Poitiers, France

Died

25 June 1984 (aged 57) Paris, France

Era

20th century philosophy

Region

Western Philosophy

School

Continental philosophy, post-structuralism, discourse analysis

Main interests History of ideas,epistemology, ethics, political philosophy

Notable ideas "Archaeology", "genealogy", "episteme", "dispositif", "biopower", "governmentality", "disciplinary institution",panopticism

Influenced by[show]

Influenced[show]

Michel Foucault (French pronunciation: [mil fuko]), born Paul-Michel Foucault (15 October 1926 25 June 1984) was a French philosopher, social theorist and historian of ideas. He held a chair at the Collge de France with the title "History of Systems of Thought," and lectured at the University at Buffalo and the University of California, Berkeley. Foucault is best known for his critical studies of social institutions, most notably psychiatry, social anthropology of medicine, the human sciences and the prison system, as well as forhis work on the history of human sexuality. His writings on power, knowledge, and discourse have been widely influential in academic circles.

In the 1960s, he was associated with structuralism, a theoretical movement in social anthropology from which he later distanced himself. He also rejected the poststructuralistand postmodernist labels later attributed to him, preferring to classify his thought as a critical history of modernity rooted in Immanuel Kant. His project was particularly influenced byNietzsche, his "genealogy of knowledge" being a direct allusion to Nietzsche's "genealogy of morality". In a late interview he definitively stated: "I am a Nietzschean."[1] He was involved in several movements, among others for prisoner's rights. Foucault's radical politics made him sustain broken bones from engaging in street battles with police, something he continued into his 50s[2]. Foucault was listed as the most cited scholar in the humanities in 2007 by the ISI Web of Science.[3]
Contents
[hide]

1 Biography

o o o o o

1.1 Early life 1.2 The cole Normale Suprieure 1.3 Early career 1.4 Post-1968: as activist 1.5 Later life


2 Works

1.5.1 Iranian Revolution 1.5.2 Final years and death

o o o o o o o o

2.1 Madness and Civilization 2.2 The Birth of the Clinic 2.3 Death and The Labyrinth 2.4 The Order of Things 2.5 The Archaeology of Knowledge 2.6 Discipline and Punish 2.7 The History of Sexuality 2.8 Lectures

3 Key dialogues 4 Links to critical theory 5 An introduction to the non-fascist life 6 Bibliography 7 See also

8 References 9 Further reading 10 External links

[edit]Biography [edit]Early

life

Paul-Michel Foucault was born on 15 October 1926 in Poitiers, France, to a notable provincial family. His father, Paul Foucault, was an eminent surgeon and hoped his son would join him in the profession.[4] His early education was a mix of success and mediocrity until he attended the Jesuit Collge Saint-Stanislas, where he excelled.[5][6] During this period, Foucault learned philosophy with Louis Girard.[7] After World War II, Foucault was admitted to the prestigious cole Normale Suprieure (rue d'Ulm), the traditional gateway to an academic career in the humanities in France.

[edit]The

cole Normale Suprieure

Foucault's personal life during the cole Normale was difficult he suffered from acute depression[8] due to distress over hishomosexuality and made several suicide attempts.[9] As a result, he was taken to see a psychiatrist. During this time, Foucault became fascinated with psychology. He earned a licence (degree equivalent to BA) in psychology, a very new qualification in France at the time, in addition to a degree in philosophy, in 1952. He was involved in clinical psychology, which exposed him to thinkers such as Ludwig Binswanger. Foucault was a member of the French Communist Party from 1950 to 1953. He was inducted into the party by his mentor Louis Althusser, but soon became disillusioned with both the politics and the philosophy of the party.[10] Historian Emmanuel Le Roy Laduriereported that Foucault never actively participated in his cell, unlike many of his fellow party members.[citation needed]

[edit]Early

career

Foucault failed at the agrgation in 1950 but took it again and succeeded the following year. After a brief period lecturing at the cole Normale, he took up a position at the Universit Lille Nord de France, where from 1953 to 1954 he taught psychology. In 1954 Foucault published his first book, Maladie mentale et personnalit, a work he later disavowed. At this point, Foucault was not interested in a teaching career, and undertook a lengthy exile from France. In 1954 he served France as a cultural delegate to the University of Uppsalain Sweden (a position arranged for him by Georges Dumzil, who was to become a friend and mentor). He submitted his doctoral thesis in Uppsala, but it was rejected there. In 1958 Foucault left Uppsala and briefly held positions at Warsaw University and at the University of Hamburg.

Foucault returned to France in 1960 to complete his doctorate and take up a post in philosophy at the University of Clermont-Ferrand. There he met philosopher Daniel Defert, who would become his partner of twenty years.[11] In 1961 he earned his doctorate by submitting two theses (as is customary in France): a "major" thesis entitled Folie et draison: Histoire de la folie l'ge classique (Madness and Insanity: History of Madness in the Classical Age) and a "secondary" thesis that involved a translation of, and commentary on Kant'sAnthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View. Folie et draison (Madness and Insanity published in an abridged edition in English asMadness and Civilization and finally published unabridged as "History of Madness" by Routledge in 2006) was extremely well received. Foucault continued a vigorous publishing schedule. In 1963 he published Naissance de la Clinique (Birth of the Clinic), Raymond Roussel, and a reissue of his 1954 volume (now entitled Maladie mentale et psychologie or, in English, "Mental Illness and Psychology"), which again, he later disavowed. After Defert was posted to Tunisia for his military service, Foucault moved to a position at the University of Tunis in 1965. He publishedLes Mots et les choses (The Order of Things) during the height of interest in structuralism in 1966, and Foucault was quickly grouped with scholars such as Jacques Lacan, Claude LviStrauss, and Roland Barthes as the newest, latest wave of thinkers set to topple theexistentialism popularized by Jean-Paul Sartre. Foucault made a number of skeptical comments about Marxism, which outraged a number of left wing critics, but later firmly rejected the "structuralist" label.[12] He was still in Tunis during the May 1968 student riots, where he was profoundly affected by a local student revolt earlier in the same year. In the Autumn of 1968 he returned to France, where he published L'archologie du savoir (The Archaeology of Knowledge) a methodological treatise that included a response to his critics in 1969.

[edit]Post-1968:

as activist

In the aftermath of 1968, the French government created a new experimental university, Paris VIII, at Vincennes and appointed Foucault the first head of its philosophy department in December of that year.[13] Foucault appointed mostly young leftist academics (such asJudith Miller) whose radicalism provoked the Ministry of Education, who objected to the fact that many of the course titles contained the phrase "MarxistLeninist," and who decreed that students from Vincennes would not be eligible to become secondary school teachers.[14]Foucault notoriously also joined students in occupying administration buildings and fighting with police. Foucault's tenure at Vincennes was short-lived, as in 1970 he was elected to France's most prestigious academic body, the Collge de France, as Professor of the History of Systems of Thought. His political involvement increased, and his partner Defert joined the ultra-Maoist Gauche Proletarienne (GP). Foucault helped found the Prison Information Group (French: Groupe d'Information sur les Prisons or GIP) to provide a way for prisoners to voice their concerns. This coincided with Foucault's turn to the study of disciplinary

institutions, with a book, Surveiller et Punir (Discipline and Punish), which "narrates" the micro-power structures that developed in Western societies since the 18th century, with a special focus on prisons and schools.

[edit]Later

life

In the late 1970s, political activism in France trailed off with the disillusionment of many left wing intellectuals.[15] A number of young Maoists abandoned their beliefs to become the so-called New Philosophers, often citing Foucault as their major influence, a status Foucault had mixed feelings about.[16] Foucault in this period embarked on a six-volume project The History of Sexuality, which he never completed. Its first volume was published in French as La Volont de Savoir (1976), then in English as The History of Sexuality: An Introduction (1978). The second and third volumes did not appear for another eight years, and they surprised readers by their subject matter (classical Greek and Latin texts), approach and style, particularly Foucault's focus on the human subject, a concept that some mistakenly believed he had previously neglected. Foucault began to spend more time in the United States, at the University at Buffalo (where he had lectured on his first ever visit to the United States in 1970) and especially at UC Berkeley. In 1975 he took LSD at Zabriskie Point in Death Valley National Park, later calling it the best experience of his life.[17]

[edit]Iranian Revolution
In 1979 Foucault made two tours of Iran, undertaking extensive interviews with political protagonists in support of the new interim government established soon after the Iranian Revolution. In the tradition of Nietzsche and Georges Bataille, Foucault had embraced the artist who pushed the limits of rationality, and he wrote with great passion in defense of irrationalities that broke boundaries. In 1978, Foucault found such transgressive powers in the revolutionary figures Ayatollah Khomeini, Ali Shariati and the millions who risked death as they followed them in the course of the revolution. Both Foucault and the revolutionaries were highly critical of modernity and sought a new form of politics, they both also looked up to those who risked their lives for ideals; and both looked to the past for inspiration.[18]Later on when Foucault went to Iran to be there at the birth of a new form of ideas,[19] he wrote that the new Muslim style of politics could signal the beginning of a new form of political spirituality, not just for the Middle East, but also for Europe, which had adopted the practice of secular politics ever since the French Revolution.[20] Foucault recognized the enormous power of the new discourse of militant Islam, not just for Iran, but for the world. He wrote: As an Islamic movement, it can set the entire region afire, overturn the most unstable regimes, and disturb the most solid. Islam which is not simply a religion, but an entire way of life, an adherence to a history and a civilization, has a good chance to become a gigantic powder keg, at the level of hundreds of millions of men. . . Indeed, it is also important to recognize that the demand for the 'legitimate rights of the Palestinian people' hardly stirred the Arab peoples. What it be if this cause encompassed the dynamism of an Islamic movement, something much stronger than those with a Marxist, Leninist, or Maoist character? (A Powder Keg Called Islam)[21]

During his two trips to Iran, Foucault was commissioned as a special correspondent of a leading Italian newspaper and his articles appeared on the front page of that paper. His many essays on Iran, published in the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera, only appeared in French in 1994 and then in English in 2005. These essays caused some controversy, with some commentators arguing that Foucault was insufficiently critical of the new regime. The more common attempts to bracket out Foucault's writings on Iran as "miscalculations," reminds some authors[who?] of what Foucault himself had criticized in his well known 1969 essay, "What is an Author?" Foucault believed that when we include certain works in an author's career and exclude others that were written in a "different style," or were "inferior" (Foucault 1969, 111), we create a stylistic unity and a theoretical coherence. This is done by privileging certain writings as authentic and excluding others that do not fit our view of what the author ought to be: "The author is therefore the ideological figure by which one marks the manner in which we fear the proliferation of meaning" (Foucault 1969, 110). This controversy is frequently discussed in the Foucault literature.[22]

[edit]Final years and death


In the philosopher's later years, interpreters of Foucault's work attempted to engage with the problems presented by the fact that the late Foucault seemed in tension with the philosopher's earlier work. When this issue was raised in a 1982 interview, Foucault remarked "When people say, 'Well, you thought this a few years ago and now you say something else,' my answer is [laughs] 'Well, do you think I have work ed hard all those years to say the same thing and not to be changed?'"[23] He refused to identify himself as a philosopher, historian, structuralist, or Marxist, maintaining that "The main interest in life and work is to become someone else that you were not in the beginning."[23] In a similar vein, he preferred not to state that he was presenting a coherent and timeless block of knowledge; he rather desired his books "to be a kind of tool-box others can rummage through to find a tool they can use however they wish in their own area I don't write for an audience, I write for users, not readers."[24] In 1992 James Miller published a biography of Foucault that was greeted with controversy in part due to his view that Foucault's experiences in the gay sadomasochism community during the time he taught at Berkeley directly influenced his political and philosophical works.[25] Miller's book has been rebuked by certain Foucault scholars as being either simply misdirected,[26] a sordid reading of his life and works,[27][28] or as a politically motivated, intentional misreading.[29][30] Foucault died of an AIDS-related illness in Paris on 25 June 1984. He was the first high-profile French personality who was reported to have AIDS. Little was known about the disease at the time[31] and his philosophical rivals have at times attacked his sexual activities as an expression of his views.[32] In the frontpage article of Le Monde announcing his death, there was no mention of AIDS, although it was implied that he died from a massive infection. Prior to his death, Foucault had destroyed most of his manuscripts, and in his

will had prohibited the publication of what he might have overlooked.[25] His death is described by his close friend, Herv Guibert, in A l'ami qui ne m'a pas sauv la vie, under the name of Muzil.

[edit]Works [edit]Madness

and Civilization

Main article: Madness and Civilization The English edition of Madness and Civilization is an abridged version of Folie et draison: Histoire de la folie l'ge classique, originally published in 1961. A full English translation titled The History of Madness has since been published by Routledge in 2006.[33] "Folie et deraison" originated as Foucault's doctoral dissertation;[34] this was Foucault's first major book, mostly written while he was the Director of the Maison de France in Sweden. It examines ideas, practices, institutions, art and literature relating to madness in Western history.[35] Foucault begins his history in the Middle Ages, noting the social and physical exclusion of lepers.[35] He argues that with the gradual disappearance of leprosy, madness came to occupy this excluded position. The ship of fools in the 15th century is a literary version of one such exclusionary practice, namely that of sending mad people away in ships. In 17th century Europe, in a movement Foucault famously calls the "Great Confinement," "unreasonable" members of the population were institutionalised.[36] In the 18th century, madness came to be seen as the reverse of Reason, and, finally, in the 19th century as mental illness. Foucault also argues that madness was silenced by Reason, losing its power to signify the limits of social order and to point to the truth. He examines the rise of scientific and "humanitarian" treatments of the insane, notably at the hands of Philippe Pinel and Samuel Tukewho he suggests started the conceptualization of madness as 'mental illness'. He claims that these new treatments were in fact no less controlling than previous methods. Pinel's treatment of the mad amounted to an extended aversion therapy, including such treatments as freezing showers and use of a straitjacket. In Foucault's view, this treatment amounted to repeated brutality until the pattern of judgment and punishment was internalized by the patient.

[edit]The

Birth of the Clinic

Main article: The Birth of the Clinic Foucault's second major book, The Birth of the Clinic: An Archaeology of Medical Perception (Naissance de la clinique: une archologie du regard mdical) was published in 1963 in France, and translated to English in 1973. Picking up from Madness and Civilization, The Birth of the Clinic traces the development of the medical profession, and specifically the institution of the clinique (translated as "clinic", but here largely referring to teaching hospitals). Its motif is the concept of the medical regard (translated by Alan Sheridan as "medical

gaze"), traditionally limited to small, specialized institutions such as hospitals and prisons, but which Foucault examines as subjecting wider social spaces, governing the population en masse.[37]

[edit]Death

and The Labyrinth

Death and the Labyrinth: The World of Raymond Roussel was published in 1963, and translated into English in 1986. It is Foucault's only book-length work on literature. Foucault described it as "by far the book I wrote most easily, with the greatest pleasure, and most rapidly."[38] Foucault explores theory, criticism and psychology with reference to the texts of Raymond Roussel, one of the fathers of experimental writing.

[edit]The

Order of Things

Main article: The Order of Things Foucault's Les Mots et les choses. Une archologie des sciences humaines was published in 1966. It was translated into English in 1970 under the title The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences. Foucault had preferred L'Ordre des choses for the original French title, but changed it as there was already another book by that name. The work broadly aims to provide an anti-humanistexcavation of the human sciences, such as sociology and psychology. It opens with an extended discussion of Diego Velzquez's painting Las Meninas and the painting's complex arrangement of sight-lines, hiddenness and appearance.[39] It then develops its central thesis: all periods of history have possessed specific underlying conditions of truth that constituted what could be expressed as discourse (for example art, science, culture, etc.). Foucault argues that these conditions of discourse have changed over time, in major and relatively sudden shifts, from one period's episteme to another.[40] Foucault's Nietzschean critique of Enlightenment values in Les mots et les choses has been very influential in cultural studies and social work scholarship. [41] It is in this book that Foucault claims that "man is only a recent invention" and that the "end of man" is at hand.[42] The book made Foucault a prominent intellectual figure in France.[43]

[edit]The

Archaeology of Knowledge

Main article: The Archaeology of Knowledge Published in 1969, this volume was Foucault's main excursion into methodology, written as an outcome of discussions with the French Circle of Epistemology. Taking its point of departure in the French epistemological tradition, it makes few references to Anglo-Americananalytical philosophy except as to speech act theory, from which Foucault distances himself. Foucault directs his analysis toward the "statement" (nonc), which is the rules that render an expression (that is, a phrase, aproposition or a speech act ) discursively meaningful. This concept of meaning differs from the concept of signification:[44] Though an expression is signifying, for instance "The gold mountain is in California" [45]), it may nevertheless be discursively meaningless and therefore have no existence within a

certain discourse. For this reason, the "statement" is an existence function for discursive meaning.[46] Being rules, the "statement" has a very special meaning in the Archaeology: it is not the expression itself, but the rules which make an expression discursively meaningful. These rules are not the syntax and semantics
[47]

that

makes an expression signifying. It is additional rules. In contrast to structuralists, Foucault demonstrates that the semantic and syntactic structures do not suffice to determine the discursive meaning of an expression.[48] Depending on whether or not it complies with these rules of discursive meaning, a grammatically correct phrase may lack discursive meaning or, inversely, a grammatically incorrect sentence may be discursively meaningful - even meaningless letters, e.g. "QWERT" [49] may have discursive meaning. Thus, the meaning of expressions depends on the conditions in which they emerge and exist within a field of discourse; the discursive meaning of an expression is reliant on the succession of statements that precede and follow it.[50] In short, the "statements" Foucault analysed are not propositions,phrases, or speech acts. Rather, "statements" constitute a network of rules establishing which expressions are discursively meaningful, and these rules are the preconditions for signifying propositions, utterances, or speech acts to have discursive meaning. However, "statements" are also 'events', because, like other rules, they appear (or disappear) at some time. Foucault aims his analysis towards a huge organised dispersion of statements, called discursive formations. Foucault reiterates that the analysis he is outlining is only one possible procedure, and that he is not seeking to displace other ways of analysing discourse or render them as invalid. According to Dreyfus and Rabinow, Foucault not only brackets out issues of truth (cf. Husserl), he also brackets out issues ofmeaning.[51] However, Foucault does not bracket out discursive meaning. But, focusing on discursive meaning, Foucault did not look for a deeper meaning underneath discourse or for the source of meaning in some transcendental subject. Instead, Foucault analyzes the discursive and practical conditions for the existence of truth and discursive meaning. To show the principles of production of truth and discursive meaning in various discursive formations, he details how truth claims emerge during various epochs on the basis of what was actually said and written during these periods. He particularly describes the Renaissance, the Age of Enlightenment, and the 20th century. He strives to avoid all interpretation and to depart from the goals of hermeneutics. This does not mean that Foucault denounces truth and discursive meaning, but just that truth and discursive meaning depend on the historical discursive and practical means of truth and meaning production. For instance, although they were radically different during Enlightenment as opposed to Modernity, there were indeed discursive meaning, truth and correct treatment of madness during both epochs (Madness and Civilization). This posture allows Foucault to denounce a priori concepts of the nature of the human subject and focus on the role of discursive practices in constituting subjectivity. Foucault's relation to structuralism seems somewhat ambiguous. However, in the preface to the English translation of Les Mots et les Choses (1970), he clearly disavowed structuralism:

In France certain half-witted 'commentators' persist in labelling me a 'structuralist'. I have been unable to get it into their tiny minds that I have used none of the methods, concepts, or key terms that characterize structural analysis. Whereas structuralists search for homogeneity in a discursive entity, Foucault focuses on differences.[52] Instead of asking what constitutes the specificity of European thought he asks what constitutes the differences developed within it and over time. Therefore, as a historical method, he refuses to examine statements outside of their historical context: the discursive formation. The meaning of a statement depends on the general rules that characterise the discursive formation to which it belongs. A discursive formation continually generates new statements, and some of these usher in changes in the discursive formation that may or may not be adopted. Therefore, to describe a discursive formation, Foucault also focuses on expelled and forgotten discourses that never happened to change the discursive formation (the genealogical analysis). Their differences from the dominant discourse also describe it. In this way one can describe specific systems that determine which types of statements emerge. In his Foucault (1986), Deleuze describes The Archaeology of Knowledge as "the most decisive step yet taken in the theory-practice of multiplicities."[53]

[edit]Discipline

and Punish

Main article: Discipline and Punish Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison was translated into English in 1977, from the French Surveiller et punir: Naissance de la prison, published in 1975. The book opens with a graphic description of the brutal public execution in 1757 of Robert-Franois Damiens, who attempted to kill Louis XV. Against this it juxtaposes a colourless prison timetable from just over 80 years later. Foucault then inquires how such a change in French society's punishment of convicts could have developed in such a short time. These are snapshots of two contrasting types of Foucault's "Technologies of Punishment." The first type, "Monarchical Punishment," involves the repression of the populace through brutal public displays of executions and torture. The second, "Disciplinary Punishment," is what Foucault says is practiced in the modern era. Disciplinary punishment gives "professionals" (psychologists, programme facilitators, parole officers, etc.) power over the prisoner, most notably in that the prisoner's length of stay depends on the professionals' judgment. Foucault goes on to argue that Disciplinary punishment leads to self-policing by the populace as opposed to brutal displays of authority from the Monarchical period. Foucault argues between the 17th and 18th centuries a new, more subtle form of power was being exercised transnationally. He calls this form of power discipline. Soldiers could be made and formed rather than just being chosen because of their natural characteristics. Knowledge and power are central to Foucault's analysis. He questions common concepts like justice or equality and asks where these concepts originated and who they benefit. The process of observing and evaluating individuals leads to more and more knowledge about peoples.

Foucault also compares modern society with Jeremy Bentham's "Panopticon" design for prisons (which was unrealized in its original form, but nonetheless influential): in the Panopticon, a single guard can watch over many prisoners while the guard remains unseen. Ancient prisons have been replaced by clear and visible ones, but Foucault cautions that "visibility is a trap." It is through this visibility, Foucault writes, that modern society exercises its controlling systems of power and knowledge (terms Foucault believed to be so fundamentally connected that he often combined them in a single hyphenated concept, "power-knowledge"). Increasing visibility leads to power located on an increasingly individualized level, shown by the possibility for institutions to track individuals throughout their lives. Foucault suggests that a "carceral continuum" runs through modern society, from the maximum security prison, through secure accommodation, probation, social workers, police, and teachers, to our everyday working and domestic lives. All are connected by the (witting or unwitting) supervision (surveillance, application of norms of acceptable behaviour) of some humans by others.

[edit]The

History of Sexuality

Main article: The History of Sexuality Three volumes of The History of Sexuality were published before Foucault's death in 1984. The first and most referenced volume, The Will to Knowledge (previously known as An Introduction in English Histoire de la sexualit, 1: la volont de savoir in French) was published in France in 1976, and translated in 1977, focusing primarily on the last two centuries, and the functioning of sexuality as an analytics of power related to the emergence of a science of sexuality (scientia sexualis) and the emergence of biopower in the West.[54] In this volume he attacks the "repressive hypothesis", the widespread belief that we have "repressed" our natural sexual drives, particularly since the 19th century.[55] He proposes that what is thought of as "repression" of sexuality actually constituted sexuality as a core feature of human identities, and produced a proliferation of discourse on the subject. The second two volumes, The Use of Pleasure (Histoire de la sexualit, II: l'usage des plaisirs) and The Care of the Self (Histoire de la sexualit, III: le souci de soi) dealt with the role of sex in Greek and Roman antiquity. Both were published in 1984, the year of Foucault's death, with the second volume being translated in 1985, and the third in 1986. In his lecture series from 1979 to 1980 Foucault extended his analysis of government to its 'wider sense of techniques and procedures designed to direct the behaviour of men', which involved a new consideration of the 'examination of conscience' and confession in early Christian literature. These themes of early Christian literature seemed to dominate Foucault's work, alongside his study of Greek and Roman literature, until the end of his life. However, Foucault's death left the work incomplete, and the planned fourth volume of his History of Sexuality on Christianity was never published. The fourth volume was to be entitled Confessions of the Flesh (Les aveux de la chair). The volume was almost complete before Foucault's death and a copy of it is privately held in the Foucault archive. It cannot be published under the restrictions of Foucault's estate.[56]

[edit]Lectures
In 1970 Foucault began a schedule of weekly public lectures and seminars during the first three months of each year at the Collge de France as the condition of his tenure as professor there. These continued each year except 1977 until his death in 1984. The lectures were tape-recorded and Foucault's notes also survive. In 1997 the lectures began to be published in French. Of the first nine volumes to be published, eight have been translated into English: Psychiatric Power 19731974, Abnormal 19741975, Society Must Be Defended 1975 1976, Security, Territory, Population 19771978, The Birth of Biopolitics 1978-1979, The Hermeneutics of the Subject 19811982,The Government of Self and Others 19821983, and The Courage of Truth 1983-1984. Society Must Be Defended and Security, Territory, Population pursued an analysis of the broader relationship between security andbiopolitics,[57] explicitly politicizing the question of the birth of humankind raised in The Order of Things.[58] In Security, Territory, Population, Foucault outlines his theory of governmentality, and demonstrates the distinction between sovereignty, discipline, and governmentality as distinct modalities of state power. He argues that governmental state power can be genealogically linked to the 17th century state philosophy of raison d'etat and, ultimately, to the medieval Christian 'pastoral' concept of power.[59] Notes of some of Foucault's lectures from University of California, Berkeley in 1983 have also appeared as Fearless Speech.

[edit]Key

dialogues

Scholars have criticized Foucault's work on several grounds. Certain theorists have questioned the extent to which Foucault may be regarded as an ethical 'neo-anarchist', the self-appointed architect of a "new politics of truth", or, to the contrary, a nihilistic and disobligating 'neofunctionalist'. Jean-Paul Sartre, in a review of The Order of Things, described the non-Marxist Foucault as "the last rampart of the bourgeoisie."[60] Jrgen Habermas has described Foucault as a "crypto-normativist", covertly reliant on the very Enlightenment principles he attempts to deconstruct. Central to this problem is the way Foucault seemingly attempts to remain both Kantian and Nietzschean in his approach:
Foucault discovers in Kant, as the first philosopher, an archer who aims his arrow at the heart of the most actual features of the present and so opens the discourse of modernity ... but Kant's philosophy of history, the speculation about a state of freedom, about world-citizenship and eternal peace, the interpretation of revolutionary enthusiasm as a sign of historical 'progress toward betterment' must not each line provoke the scorn of Foucault, the theoretician of power? Has not history, under the stoic gaze of the archaeologist Foucault, frozen into an iceberg covered with the crystals of arbitrary formulations of discourse? Habermas Taking Aim at the Heart of the Present 1984,
[61]

Philosopher Richard Rorty has argued that Foucault's 'archaeology of knowledge' is fundamentally negative, and thus fails to adequately establish any 'new' theory of knowledge per se. Rather, Foucault simply provides a few valuable maxims regarding the reading of history:
As far as I can see, all he has to offer are brilliant redescriptions of the past, supplemented by helpful hints on how to avoid being trapped by old historiographical assumptions. These hints consist largely of saying: "do not look for progress or meaning in history; do not see the history of a given activity, of any segment of culture, as the development of rationality or of freedom; do not use any philosophical vocabulary to characterize the essence of such activity or the goal it serves; do not assume that the way this activity is presently conducted gives any clue to the goals it served in the past." Rorty Foucault and Epistemology, 1986,
[62]

[edit]Links

to critical theory

Foucault's discussions on power and discourse have inspired many critical theorists. Critical theorists believe that Foucault's analysis of power structures could aid the struggle against inequality. They claim that through discourse analysis, power structures may be uncovered and analyzed for their truth claims. This is one of the ways that Foucault's work is linked to critical theory.[63]

[edit]An

introduction to the non-fascist life

In the preface to the "Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia" (pp. xi-xiv; xiii-xiv) Foucault introduces the following principles that comprise from his perspective an introduction to the non-fascist life: Free political action from all unitary and totalizing paranoia. Develop action, thought, and desires by proliferation, juxtaposition, and disjunction, and not by subdivision and pyramidal hierarchization. Withdraw allegiance from the old categories of the Negative (law limit, castration, lack, lacuna), which Western thought has so long held sacred as a form of power and an access to reality. Prefer what is positive and multiple: difference over uniformity, flows over unities, mobile arrangements over systems. Believe that what is productive is not sedentary but nomadic. Do not think that one has to be sad in order to be militant, even though the thing one is fighting is abominable. It is the connection of desire to reality (and not its retreat into the forms of representation) that possess revolutionary force. Do not use thought to ground a political practice in Truth; nor political action to discredit, as mere speculation, a line of thought. Use political practice as an intensifier of thought, and analysis as a multiplier of the forms and domains for the intervention of political action. Do not demand of politics that it restore the 'rights' of the individual, as philosophy had defined them. The individual is the product of power. What is needed is to 'de-individualize' by means of multiplication and displacement, diverse combinations. The group must not be the organic bond uniting hierarchized individuals, but a constant generator of deindividualization. Do not become enamoured of power.[64]

[edit]Bibliography
Main article: Bibliography of Michel Foucault

[edit]See

also

Biopower Gilles Deleuze Dispositif Ecogovernmentality Foucauldian discourse analysis FoucaultHabermas debate Governmentality Heterotopia (space) Panopticism Parrhesia Postsexualism Georg Simmel Structuralism

[edit]References Constructs such as ibid., loc. cit. and idem are discouraged by Wikipedia's style guide for footnotes, as they are easily broken. Please improve this article by replacing them withnamed references (quick guide), or an abbreviated title. (December 2011)

1. 2. 3.

^ Nik Farrell Fox, The New Sartre: Explorations in Postmodernism, Continuum, via Google Books, pg 169. ^ Halperin, David. Saint Foucault. Oxford University Press, 1997: p. 23 ^ "The most cited authors of books in the humanities". timeshighereducation.co.uk. 26 March 2009. Retrieved 16 November 2009.

4.

^ Adams, Bert (2002). Contemporary Sociological Theory. Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press. p. 237. ISBN 0-7619-8781-9.

5. 6.

^ Smart, Barry (1994). Michel Foucault. New York: Routledge. p. 19. ISBN 0-415-08887-9. ^ Dosse, Franois (1997). History of Structuralism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. p. 148. ISBN 0-8166-2241-8.

7.

^ Louis Girard, author of L'argument ontologique chez Saint Anselme et chez Hegel, in Bodream ou rve de Bodrum, Jean-Pierre Thiollet, Anagramme ed., Paris, 2010, p. 111. ISBN 978-2-35035-279-4

8. 9.

^ Foucault, Michel (2006). History of Madness. New York: Routledge. p. V. ISBN 0-415-27701-9. ^ Eribon, Didier. Michel Foucault (1991). Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

10. ^ Morris, Brian (1991). Western Conceptions of the Individual. Oxford: Berg. p. 428. ISBN 0-85496-801-6. 11. ^ Halperin, David (1997). Saint Foucault. Oxford University Press, USA. p. 214. ISBN 0-19-511127-3. 12. ^ Dosse, Franois (1997). History of Structuralism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. p. 79. ISBN 0-8166-2370-8. 13. ^ Hitchcock, Louise (2008). Theory for Classics. New York: Routledge. p. 124. ISBN 0-415-45497-2. 14. ^ Mills, Sara (2003). Michel Foucault. New York: Routledge. p. 18.ISBN 0-415-24569-9. 15. ^ Hazareesingh, Sudhir (1991). Intellectuals and the French Communist Party. Oxford: Clarendon Press. p. 166. ISBN 0-19-827870-5. 16. ^ Peter Dews, "The Nouvelle Philosophie and Foucault," Economy and Society 8(2) (May 1979), pp. 127 71. 17. ^ David Macey (1995). The Lives of Michel Foucault: A Biography. Vintage. ISBN 0-679-75792-9. 18. ^ Janet, Afary & Kevin, Anderson ((2005). Foucault and the Iranian Revolution: Gender and the Seductions of Islamism. Chicago University Press, pp. 13. 19. ^ Eribon, Dider (1991). Michel Foucault. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. p. 282. ISBN [[Special:BookSources/0-647-57287-4|0-647-57287-4]]. 20. ^ Janet, Afary & Kevin, Anderson ((2005). Foucault and the Iranian Revolution: Gender and the Seductions of Islamism. Chicago University Press, pp. 209. 21. ^ Janet, Afary & Kevin, Anderson ((2005). Foucault and the Iranian Revolution: Gender and the Seductions of Islamism. Chicago University Press, pp. 241. 22. ^ See e.g. Janet, Afary & Kevin, Anderson ((2005). Foucault and the Iranian Revolution: Gender and the Seductions of Islamism. Chicago University Press. Eribon, Didier ((1989)1991). Michel Foucault. Harvard University Press. Paul Veyne (2008). Foucault. Sa pense, sa personne. Albin Michel. 23. ^
a b

David Gauntlett. Media, Gender and Identity',' London: Routledge, 2002.

24. ^ Michel Foucault (1974). 'Prisons et asiles dans le mcanisme du pouvoir' in Dits et Ecrits, t. II. Paris: Gallimard, 1994, pp. 5234). 25. ^
a b

James Miller (1993). The Passion of Michel Foucault. HarperCollins. ISBN 0-00-255267-1.

26. ^ Scialabba, George. Review: "The Passion of Michel Foucault by James Miller." Boston Globe, 30 January 1993. 27. ^ Rubenstein, Diane 1995 Modern Fiction Studies 41.34 681698 28. ^ Williams, James S. The French Review March 1997, Vol. 70, No. 4 pp. 604605

29. ^ "Carrette, Jeremy R. Religion and culture By Michel Foucault". Books.google.com. 1999-08-15. Retrieved 2012-03-18. 30. ^ "Halperin, David M. Saint Foucault: towards a gay hagiography". Books.google.com. Retrieved 2012-0318. 31. ^ "So Little Time: A year-by-year history of the AIDS epidemic". AIDS Education Global Information System. Retrieved on 4 February 2008. 32. ^ O'Farrell, Claire. "Letter to The Times Literary Supplement (unpublished)". Letter written in 2002 in the context of a controversy over Foucault's death from AIDS. Retrieved on 4 February 2008. 33. ^ Foucault, M., Khalfa, J., & Murphy, J. (2006). The History of Madness. New York: Routledge. 34. ^ "Report from Mr. Canguilhem on the Manuscript Filed by Mr. Michel Foucault, Director of the Institut Francais of Hamburg, in Order to Obtain Permission to Print His Principal Thesis for the Doctor of Letters." In Arnold I. Davidson, ed., Foucault and his Interlocutors. Chicago, Il: University of Chicago Press, 1997, 237. 35. ^
a b

Torrey, E. (2001). The Invisible Plague. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. p. 303. ISBN 0-

8135-3003-2. 36. ^ Still, Arthur (1992). Rewriting the History of Madness. New York: Routledge. p. 119. ISBN 0-415-06654-9. 37. ^ Hardy, Anne (2006). The Western Medical Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 81. ISBN 0-521-47524-4. 38. ^ Foucault, Michel (2004). "An Interview with Michel Foucault by Charles Ruas". Death and the labyrinth : the world of Raymond Roussel. London New York: Continuum. p. 186. ISBN 978-0-8264-9362-0. 39. ^ Gresle, Yvette. "Foucault's 'Las Meninas' and art-historical methods". Journal of Literary Studies, retrieved 1 December 2008. 40. ^ Holub, Robert (1992). Crossing Borders. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. p. 57. ISBN 0-29913274-9. 41. ^ Chambon, Adrienne (1999). Reading Foucault for Social Work. New York: Columbia University Press. pp. 3637. ISBN 0-231-10717-X. 42. ^ Hutcheon, Linda (1995). Irony's Edge. New York: Routledge. p. 123. ISBN 0-415-05453-2. 43. ^ Booker, Keith (1996). A Practical Introduction to Literary Theory and Criticism. New York: Longman. p. 122. ISBN 0-8013-1765-7. 44. ^ French version p. 117 45. ^ ibid. 12 46. ^ ibid. 115 47. ^ the construction rules, Dits et Ecrits I, p. 728 48. ^ French version: p. 108, 113-14, 118-19, 134

49. ^ ibid. 114 50. ^ Gutting, Gary (1994). The Cambridge Companion to Foucault. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 231. ISBN 0-521-40887-3. 51. ^ Caputo, John. "Foucault and the Critique of Institutions". Pennsylvania State University Press, March, 2006. pp. 249253.ISBN 0-271-02966-8 52. ^ Jones, Colin (1994). Reassessing Foucault. New York: Routledge. p. 155. ISBN 0-415-07542-4. 53. ^ Deleuze, Gilles (1986). Foucault. London: Althone. p. 14.ISBN 0-8264-5780-0. 54. ^ Butler, Judith (1999). Gender Trouble. New York: Routledge. p. 120. ISBN 0-415-92499-5. 55. ^ Edmond, Rod (1988). Affairs of the Hearth. New York: Routledge. p. 11. ISBN 0-415-00656-2. 56. ^ Michel Foucault, edited by Jeremy R. Carrette (1999). Religion and culture: Michel Foucault. ISBN 0-41592362-X. 57. ^ Larner, Wendy (2004). Global Governmentality. New York: Routledge. p. 77. ISBN 0-415-31138-1. 58. ^ Crampton, Jeremy (2007). Space, Knowledge and Power. Ashgate Pub Co. p. 75. ISBN 0-7546-4655-6. 59. ^ Hansen, Thomas (2001). States of Imagination. Durham: Duke University Press. p. 43. ISBN 0-82232798-8. 60. ^ Sartre, Jean-Paul, in L'Arc no. 30, Oct. 1966, pp. 8788. 61. ^ Jrgen Habermas. Taking Aim at the Heart of the Present in Hoy, D (eds) 'Foucault: A critical reader' Basil Blackwell. Oxford, 1986. 62. ^ Richard Rorty. Foucault and Epistemology in Hoy, D (eds) 'Foucault: A critical reader' Basil Blackwell. Oxford, 1986. 63. ^ Van Loon, Borin (2001). Introducing Critical Theory. Thriplow: Icon Books Ltd.. 64. ^ Deleuze and Guattari, G and F (1984). Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

[edit]Further

reading

Artires, Philippe; Bert, Jean-Franois; Gros, Frdric and Revel, Judith (ed.). Cahier Foucault. (L'Herne, 2011).

Braver, Lee. A Thing of This World: a History of Continental Anti-Realism. Northwestern University Press: 2007. This study covers Foucault and his contribution to the history of Continental Anti-Realism.

Carrette, Jeremy R. (ed.). Religion and culture: Michel Foucault. (Routledge, 1999). Cusset, Francois. (Translated by Jeff Fort) French Theory: How Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze, & Co. Transformed the Intellectual Life of the United States. (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2008)

Derrida, Jacques. Cogito and the History of Madness. In Alan Bass (tr.), Writing and Difference, pp. 3163. (Chicago University Press, 1978).

Dillon, M. Foucault on Politics, Security and War, (Palgrave Macmillan, 2008). Dreyfus, Herbert L. and Paul Rabinow. Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics, 2nd edition. (University of Chicago Press, 1983).

Elden, Stuart. ""Power, Nietzsche and the Greeks: Foucaults Leons sur la volont de savoir" , Berfrois, July 2011.

Eribon, Didier. Insult and the Making of the Gay Self (Duke University Press, 2004). The third partabout 150 pages of this bookis devoted to Foucault and a reinterpretation of his life and work.

Eribon, Didier. Michel Foucault (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1991). Considered in France, according to Le Monde, as the best biography of Foucault.

Flyvbjerg, Bent. ""Habermas and Foucault: Thinkers for Civil Society?", British Journal of Sociology, vol. 49, no. 2, June 1998, pp. 210233.

Foucault, Michel. Sexual Morality and the Law (originally published as La loi de la pudeur), is the Chapter 16 of Politics, Philosophy, Culture (see Notes), pp. 271285.

Deleuze, Gilles and Flix Guattari. Anti-Oedipus. (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1983). Deleuze, Gilles. Foucault. (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1988). Halperin, David M. Saint Foucault: Towards a Gay Hagiography (Oxford University Press, 1995). Hoy, D. (Ed.). Foucault. (Oxford, Blackwell, 1986). Hicks, Stephen R. C. Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault (Scholargy Publishing, 2004).

Isenberg, Bo. Habermas on Foucault. Critical remarks (Acta Sociologica, Vol. 34 (1991), No. 4:299308). (SAGE Acta Sociologica)

Macey, David. The Lives of Michel Foucault (London: Hutchison, 1993)This is the most detailed biography of Foucault.

MacIntyre, Alasdair (1990). Three Rival Versions of Moral Enquiry: Encyclopaedia, Genealogy, and Tradition. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

Merquior, J. G. Foucault, University of California Press, 1987 (A critical view of Foucault's work) Milchman, Alan (Ed.). "Foucault and Heidegger." Contradictions Vol. 16 (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2003).

Miller, James, The Passion of Michel Foucault (London: HarperCollins, 1993)A number of scholars have expressed reservations in relation to some of the sensational claims made in this biography.

O'Farrell, Clare. Michel Foucault. (London: Sage, 2005). Includes a chronology of Foucault's life and times and an extensive list of key terms in Foucault's work, which includes references to where these terms appear in his work.

Olssen, M. Toward a Global Thin Community: Nietzsche, Foucault and the cosmopolitan commitment, Paradigm Press, Boulder, Colorado, USA, October 2009

Elisabeth Roudinesco, Philosophy in Turbulent Times: Canguilhem, Sartre, Foucault, Althusser, Deleuze, Derrida, Columbia University Press, New York, 2008.

Smart, B. Foucault. (Chichester, Ellis Horwood, 1985). Sim, Stuart, & Van Loon, Borin. "Introducing Critical Theory". Thriplow: Icon Books Ltd., 2001 Veyne, Paul. Foucault. Sa pense, sa personne. (Paris: Albin Michel, 2008). Wilson, Timothy H. "Foucault, Genealogy, History." Philosophy Today, 39.2 (1995): 15770. Wolin, Richard. Telos 67, Foucault's Aesthetic Decisionism. New York: Telos Press Ltd., Spring 1987. (Telos Press).

[edit]External

links

Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: Michel Foucault

Wikibooks has a book on the topic of Student's Guide to Michel Foucault

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Michel Foucault

General sites (updated regularly)

Foucault.info repository of texts, news. Michel Foucault Archives by IMEC Clare OFarrell. michel-foucault.com Michel Foucault and Noam Chomsky on YouTube Clare OFarrell. Foucault news blog Updates on Foucault related research activity

Biographies

Michel Foucault entry in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy Michel Foucault entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Retrospective articlewritten by Michel Foucault

Bibliographies

French and English bibliographies Lynch's bibliography

Journals

Foucault Studiesan electronic, refereed, international journal Materiali Foucaultianian electronic, refereed, international journal in English, French and Italian.

Hating Liberals
The Tyranny of Clichs, by Jonah Goldberg
By JOE KLEIN

Jonah Goldbergs first book was called Liberal Fascism. It was a screed, of course, but a clever one. He argued that liberals who routinely denounce extreme conservatives as fascists should take a look in their own backyard, and he wasnt fooling around: It is my argument that American liberalism is a totalitarian political religion. Goldberg has read around a bit, and he was able to lace his thesis with embarrassing quotations from progressives past who expressed admiration for Italian Fascism, eugenics and other assorted statist atrocities. But his essential point was a simple one: fascists believe in state control of almost everything, and so do liberals.
Bismillah Walhamdulillah Was Salaatu Was Salaam 'ala Rasulillah As-Salaam Alaikum Wa-Rahmatullahi Wa-Barakatuhu Prayer - 1st Rajab 1433 (22nd May 2012) Narrated 'Abdullah (Radi-Allahu 'anhu): You should not give away a part of your prayer to Satan by thinking that it is necessary to depart (after finishing the prayer) from one's right side only; I have seen the Prophet (Sallallahu 'Alaihi Wa Sallam) often leave from the left side. Bukhari Vol. 1 : No. 811 --

Ma'asalaam

THE TYRANNY OF CLICHS


How Liberals Cheat in the War of Ideas By Jonah Goldberg 312 pp. Sentinel. $27.95.

There was one small flaw in this argument, though. Liberals dont believe that at all. They may favor government action to bail out the auto companies, but they dont favor government auto companies. There are exceptions, and a liberal belief in governmentmanaged health care may be one of them. But there are more than a few self-described conservatives who believe in that sort of socialism, too about 70 percent of the American public, according to most polls, supports Medicare in its current form. One of the lovely things about American political life is its complexity. Another is its essential moderation, with, Ill concede, a certain libertarian tinge. Goldberg isnt much interested in complexity or moderation, though. In the end, Liberal Fascism was an exercise in sandbox casuistry: Im not a fascist. You are! Goldberg has now returned to plow much of the same turf with The Tyranny of Clichs: How Liberals Cheat in the War of Ideas. There are, of course, some fat targets here. The multiple excesses of political correctness, academia gone amok and identity politics have been common fodder for discerning conservatives for decades. The left can be foolishly myopic at times: it took a quarter-century before most liberals admitted the truth of Daniel Patrick Moynihans insight into the social disintegration caused by single-parent families. And liberal righteousness Dissent is the highest form of patriotism is a Goldberg favorite can be gagging. But Ive just come off six months of watching Republican candidates for president ply their trade, and the clich spew has been volcanic. We can start with Government doesnt create jobs, which somehow elides the existence of the militaryindustrial complex. Goldberg does acknowledge that conservatives also inhale, but liberal clichs are, well, fascistic, a never-ending assault on American freedom. Whatever minimal truth there is to that, Goldbergs methods in exposing these depredations are not exactly rigorous. He begins his exploration of liberal clichs with this one: I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. He says he hears it all the time on college campuses, from students more serious-looking than the typical hippie with open-toed shoes and a closed mind. (Hmm. Arent stereotypes first cousins to clichs?) My response? he responds. Who gives a rats ass? First of all, my right to speak never was in doubt. . . . Second, the kid is almost surely lying. Hell take a

bullet for me? Really? But is Goldberg giving the student a fair shake? In my experience, the defend your right clich is inevitably preface to an attack: But I must say your position on war with Iran, or whatever, is catastrophically ahistorical, or whatever. That Goldberg chooses to begin his book by oversimplifying this teeny misdemeanor is telling, given the available ducks in the liberal-clich barrel. Hes more interested in style than substance, and there is a smarty-pants sloppiness that infects even his most astute moments. One of Goldbergs next targets and were still in the introduction, by the way is centrism, which he sees as a particularly insidious brand of liberal obtuseness: Well, the Wahhabis want to kill all the gays and Jews. The Sufis dont want to kill any gays or Jews. So the moderate, sensible position must be to kill just the gays, but not the Jews. . . . The point is that sometimes the extreme is 100 percent correct while the centrist position is 100 percent wrong. Would it be pedestrian, in a decidedly liberal way, for me to point out that this sort of argument is not merely infantile, but a sly denigration of the necessary compromises that are at the heart of almost every real policy dispute? Figuring out how to calculate cost-ofliving increases for Social Security is not an all-or-nothing proposition. But Goldberg is not interested in anything so quotidian as actual governance. Joe Klein is Time magazines political columnist.

Hating

Liberals
The Tyranny of Clichs, by Jonah Goldberg
(Page 2 of 2)

And so we get whole chapters wasted in combat against the tides of standard English usage, in which it is argued that having an ideology or dogma is not a form of extremism. If you have one of the above, Goldberg posits, it just means you have a worldview. Even pragmatism, that classic American anti-ideology, is a worldview although a rather smarmy one, since William Jamess moral equivalent of war was a liberal clich: In Europe Jamess will to believe joined forces with Nietzsches will to power and produced the ideas that led to Italian Fascism. Who knew?
THE TYRANNY OF CLICHS

How Liberals Cheat in the War of Ideas By Jonah Goldberg 312 pp. Sentinel. $27.95.

At his best, Goldbergs erudition can entertain and enlighten. The fact that Marie Antoinette never said Let them eat cake allows him to explore the 18th-century French bread laws, which required that boulangeries sell cheap bread at artificially low prices and, if the bread ran out, further required them to sell more expensive fare like brioche at the same price as the cheap bread. . . . To declare Quils mangent de la brioche wasnt so stupid after all. Its also nice to know that Jefferson never said Dissent is the highest form of patriotism, and that Herbert Spencer, the father of social Darwinism, never used that term (although he did coin survival of the fittest). But most of Goldbergs assaults against alleged clichs collapse into irrelevance. He devotes a chapter to undermining slippery slope arguments which, in truth, are used by conservative organizations like the National Rifle Association as often as they are by liberals but he ultimately decides that slippery slope arguments are not so bad, and indeed, he trots out an absurd one of his own in the very next chapter: Liberals are uncomfortable with the topic of patriotism because their core philosophical impulses are to make America a different country than it is. In other words, the reforming instinct the progressive insistence that meat be inspected by the government, for example is inherently unAmerican because its a first step down the slippery slope toward government control? After a while, it just becomes exhausting. Feminism was in no small part launched as a Trojan horse for an older and more familiar Marxist assault. And No Jews were tortured in the Spanish Inquisition (only former Jews who claimed conversion to Catholicism were, but Jews were treated far better by the Muslims than by the Catholics, a fact Goldberg neglects). Gandhi evinced stunning navet and was, occasionally, incandescently dumb, without a mention of the impact of his philosophy on the American civil rights movement or the collapse of the Soviet empire. Does Goldberg really believe this stuff? Or is he just being tendentious for rhetorical effect? In the end, his vindictive thrashings have very little to do with the actual practice of politics; the idea that political clichs are banal isnt exactly a blinding insight, either. Sadly, Goldberg has intellectual resources that might be put to grown-up use. But then, as the liberal clich has it, a mind is a terrible thing to waste. Joe Klein is Time magazines political columnist.

Perbahasan Belanjawan 2012 Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim


Ucapan Perbahasan Belanjawan 2012 oleh Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim MUKADIMAH Tan Sri Yang Di Pertua Izinkan saya merujuk kepada pembentangan Bajet 2012 oleh PM selaku Menteri Kewangan pada 7 Oktober 2011 lalu. Lazimnya Belanjawan dilakar dengan maksud memacu pertumbuhan ekonomi mampan serta menjamin kesateraan rakyat. Namun setelah meneliti cadangan cadangan yang dibentangkan terdapat kekurangan pertimbangan dasar dan program khusus. Permasalahan pokok dan sebarang rencana ekonomi tidak terlepas dari isu tatakelola pentadbiran yang baik. Hambatan besar bagi mana-mana ekonomi termasuklah ekonomi kukuh sekalipun adalah soal keutamaan dan kewibawaan institusi. Amartya Sen dalam bukunya The Idea of Justice ada menyebut , Any theory of justice has to give an important place to the role of institutions, so that the choice of institutions cannot but be a central element in any plausible account of justice. (Sebarang teori perihal Keadilan tidak dapat tidak mestilah memberi keutamaan kepada peranan institusi supaya institusi yang dipilih itu menjadi teras kepada maksud Keadilan tersebut. m/s 82) Makanya saya berhasrat untuk mengulangi dalam Dewan Yang Mulia ini, usaha-usaha Reformasi Politik dan Institusi yang digarap Pakatan Rakyat seperti yang terkandung dalam Belanjawan Pakatan Rakyat 2012. Antaranya adalah: Melaksanakan sepenuhnya janji-janji di dalam Buku Jinggatermasuk pemansuhan Akta Keselamatan Dalam Negeri, akta-akta bersabit media dan percetakan, Akta Rahsia Rasmi dan Akta Universiti dan Kolej Universiti; Membentangkan Akta Pemulihan Demokrasi seperti yang dicadangkan Pakatan Rakyat dalam tahun 2011 untuk memansuhkan semua peruntukan undang-undang yang bertentangan dengan amalan demokratik; Melaksanakan serta-merta semua tuntutan BERSIH2.0; Merombak Jabatan Perdana Menteri dengan menaiktaraf jabatan-jabatan berkaitan tata kelola dan pertanggungjawab nasional seperti SPR, SPRM, Biro Pengaduan Awam dan lain-lain supaya bertanggungjawab terus kepada Parlimen; Pengenalan laporan setengah tahun perbelanjaan dan prestasi kewangan negara yang dibentangkan ke Parlimen bersama-sama dengan laporan Ketua Audit Negara; dan Pembentukan tujuh Jawatankuasa Parlimen untuk membahaskan belanjawan di peringkat Jawatankuasa secara terperinci. Suka saya mengingatkan Dewan bahawa sebarang usaha membaiki kedudukan ekonomi negara tidak akan berhasil jika tidak disertai oleh reformasi politik yang menyeluruh.

Sementara kedudukan ekonomi negara yang semakin goyah bergelumang dengan masalah defisit yang kian meruncing, kelembapan ekonomi dizahirkan dalam bentuk kenaikan harga barang dan gaji rendah yang menekan rakyat. Kita tetap dijangkiti dengan keborosan, rasuah dan ketirisan. Kita tidak mahu belanjawan yang baru dibentangkan minggu lepas, pada hari Jumaat 7hb Oktober lalu seumpama yang dikritik al Quran, ayat 7, Surah al Maun:

[Dan orang-orang yang tidak memberi sedikit pertolongan(kepada orang yang berhak mendapatnya )] Tan Sri Yang Di Pertua Pembentangan Belanjawan Pakatan Rakyat 2012 yang berlangsung pada 4hb Oktober 2011, 4 hari sebelum pembentangan belanjawan kerajaan memberi kesempatan kepada rakyat untuk menilai. Mustahak untuk saya tegaskan, Belanjawan Pakatan Rakyat 2012 pastinya mengambil pendekatan reformasi dasar untuk mengubah struktur ekonomi dan membaiki kepincangan sistem manakala belanjawan Barisan Nasional ternyata mengekalkan beberapa program baru yang dikitar semula tanpa kesediaan merombak struktur usang.

BAB 1: BELANJAWAN YANG TIADA WIBAWA Perdana Menteri senang sekali memilih jalan yang paling beliau mahir dan gemari iaitu sekadar usaha penjenamaan semula dan kitar semula. YAB Perdana Menteri kitar semula pelbagai program yang telah gagal, janji yang tidak terlaksana tetapi diberi nama baru dengan pelbagai program penjenamaan semula itu melibatkan perbelanjaan yang besar. Perbelanjaan RM232.8 bilion yang diumumkan adalah berasaskan angka-angka unjuran yang tidak tepat dengan penambahan beban hutang rakyat dan negara. Unjuran defisit pada angka 4.7% ini adalah tidak tepat dan tanpa wibawa kerana ia bergantung kepada pertumbuhan ekonomi tahun 2011 dan unjuran 2012, serta unjuran jumlah pendapatan negara dalam tahun 2012. Unjuran pertumbuhan pada 5% 6% bagi tahun 2012 perlu dibidas keras kerana ianya ternyata terlalu tinggi sedangkan analisa dari sumber-sumber lain menunjukkan pertumbuhan yang lebih rendah. Berikut adalah unjuran pertumbuhan terpilih yang dibuat bagi tahun 2011 dan 2012: Bank Dunia 4.8% bagi tahun 2011 dan 5.7% bagi tahun 2012; MIER 5.2% bagi tahun 2011 dan 5.5% bagi tahun 2012; RHB 4.3% bagi tahun 2011 dan 4.5% bagi tahun 2012 Kesemua unjuran ini dibuat sebelum IMF memotong unjuran pertumbuhan dunia kepada 4% pada pertengahan September baru-baru ini; yang bermakna angka-angka terkini sudah tentu lebih rendah dari paras 5% bagi tahun 2011 dan 2012. Unjuran yang lebih mutakhir dibuat oleh Bank Pembangunan Asia di dalam Asian Development Outlook 2011 yang diterbitkan pada pertengahan September, mengambil kira risiko ketidaktentuan ekonomi global akibat krisis hutang yang dialami Amerika Syarikat dan Eropah serta kesan lanjutan dari peristiwa gempa bumi dan tsunami di Jepun. Bank Pembangunan Asia mengunjurkan pertumbuhan ekonomi Malaysia bagi tahun 2011 sekadar 4.8% dan hanya menokok kepada 5.1% dalam tahun 2012; jauh berbeza dari angka yang terlalu optimistik yang digunakan Perdana Menteri di dalam Belanjawan 2012 iaitu pertumbuhan di antara 5% hingga 5.5% bagi tahun 2011 dan kekal pada 5% hingga 6% bagi tahun 2012. Begitu juga dengan unjuran pendapatan sebanyak RM186.9 bilion. Berdasarkan unjuran pertumbuhan yang lebih perlahan, unjuran pendapatan mendedahkan niat tersirat Barisan Nasional untuk menuntut dividen yang tinggi dari PETRONAS.

Kadar pertumbuhan purata kutipan cukai langsung (tidak termasuk cukai petroluem) oleh kerajaan adalah 9.6% di antara tahun 2008 hingga 2011. Kadar pertumbuhan purata kutipan cukai tidak langsung bagi tempoh yang sama adalah lebih rendah, hanyalah sekitar 5.6%[1]. Pada kadar pertumbuhan sebegini, anggaran kami menunjukkan jumlah pendapatan RM186.9 bilion hanya boleh dicapai sekiranya kerajaan meneruskan amalan mengenakan dividen tinggi sekitar RM30 bilion setiap tahun dari PETRONAS, sedangkan amalan tidak bertanggungjawab ini akan melemahkan keupayaan PETRONAS melabur semula keuntungannya untuk mencari rizab baru minyak dan gas di seluruh dunia. Sebab itu, Pakatan Rakyat mengesyorkan supaya kerajaan mengurangkan lagi jumlah dividen yang dibayar oleh PETRONAS bagi tahun 2012 kepada RM26 bilion sahaja, seperti yang termaktub di dalam Belanjawan Pakatan Rakyat 2012. Jumlah yang lebih kecil ini akan mengajar kerajaan berjimat cermat dan mengamalkan disiplin fiskal untuk mengekang hutang negara. Apa kesannya apabila kerajaan menggunakan unjuran-unjuran pertumbuhan ekonomi dan jumlah pendapatan yang terlalu optimistik dan tidak realistik? Pertamanya, ia akan memburukkan lagi keadaan defisit negara kerana dakwaan Perdana Menteri bahawa belanjawan 2012 akan membawa defisit ke paras 4.7% dari KDNK adalah tidak benar, selain tidak mengambil kira kecenderongan Barisan Nasional berbelanja lebih dan menyeludup peruntukan baru melalui belanjawan tambahan di pertengahan tahun. Keduanya, ia mengenepikan keperluan mendesak untuk mengamalkan disiplin fiskal dan pendekatan berbelanja wang rakyat dengan berhemah, pada kala ia sangat penting demi menjamin kelangsungan kewangan dan pertumbuhan sihat ekonomi negara. Namun, kerajaan Umno-Barisan Nasional jangan sangka rakyat mudah tertipu dengan hamburan datadata yang digunakan. Angka yang dipersembahkan kononnya untuk memberi gambaran bahawa keadaan defisit dan hutang dalam keadaan terkawal, sedangkan kita sedia maklum tabiat Barisan Nasional membentangkan belanjawan tambahan pada pertengahan tahun. Tabiat seperti itu menzahirkan niat sebenar pentadbiran ini untuk membelanjakan dana awam sewenang-wenangnya, seperti yang berlaku pada tahun 2010 dan 2011. Saya ingin mengambil masa yang pendek untuk memperincikan analisa peruntukan yang dibuat Perdana Menteri bagi belanjawan 2012. Di bawah Barisan Nasional, 78% dari keseluruhan peruntukan belanjawan 2012 digunakan bagi tujuan menguruskan perjalanan kerajaan; suatu jumlah yang sangat tinggi dan mengalihkan sumber kewangan negara dari bidang-bidang ekonomi yang mempunyai kesan gandaan. Jumlah ini juga terus meningkat saban tahun dan jika tidak dibendung, peruntukan belanjawan bagi tujuan pembangunan dan pelaburan dalam bidang ekonomi dan sosial akan semakin mengecil di masa masa akan datang. 11 kementerian-kementerian utama diperuntukkan wang yang lebih tinggi bagi perbelanjaan mengurus bagi tahun 2012 sedangkan jumlah bagi tujuan pembangunan adalah lebih kecil. Saya ingin mempersoalkan apakah tiada langkah yang diambil oleh kerajaan untuk mengekang perbelanjaan operasi kementerian-kementerian yang semakin tidak terkawal ini? Contoh-contoh terpilih yang perlu diberi perhatian adalah seperti berikut: Walaupun Perdana Menteri mengurangkan peruntukan dari Jabatan Perdana Menteri sebanyak RM2.98 bilion, jumlah ini nampaknya diagihkan pula kepada beliau sendiri melalui Kementerian Kewangan yang peruntukan pembangunannya melonjak 208%. Malah, perbelanjaan operasi di kedua-dua kementerian yang dipimpin Perdana Menteri akan melonjak sebanyak 12% di Jabatan Perdana Menteri dan 15% di Kementerian Kewangan; bertentangan dengan

desakan rakyat agar Perdana Menteri mengurangkan pergantungan beliau kepada juru runding luar negara dan pakar media yang mahal dan mengenepikan pendapat pimpinan penjawat awam. Perbelanjaan operasi di Kementerian Kerja Raya akan melonjak sebanyak 29%, Kementerian Perumahan dan Kerajaan Tempatan sebanyak 61% dan Kementerian Dalam Negeri sebanyak 25%. Peningkatan kos ini adalah sangat besar dan menimbulkan tanda tanya apakah ini peruntukan projekprojek kecil dan segera bagi menenangkan tuntutan kontraktor-kontraktor yang rapat dengan kerajaan di akar umbi? Dewan juga perlu memberi perhatian kepada potongan peruntukan yang besar kepada Kementerian Pelajaran. Perbelanjaan operasi akan dipotong 3% sementara perbelanjaan pembangunan dipotong sebanyak 28%. Sebab itu, rakyat tidak teruja dengan pengumuman Perdana Menteri bahawa yuran sekolah rendah dan menengah akan dihapuskan kerana jelas penghapusan ini akan dibiayai pula melalui potongan peruntukan yang lain. Keadaan ini tidak ubah seperti Belanjawan 2011 bila mana Perdana Menteri secara senyap-senyap memotong peruntukan operasi pendidikan sehingga bilangan hari di asrama dan peruntukan-peruntukan lain dikurangkan. Makanya, rakyat akan tetap menanggung kos pendidikan yang dibayar kepada pihak sekolah, sama ada melalui sumbangan PIBG atau pelbagai bayaran lain yang terpaksa dikenakan oleh pihak sekolah bagi menampung kos operasi.

Tan Sri Yang diPertua, Di sebaliknya Pakatan Rakyat mengunjurkan pertumbuhan ekonomi pada kadar 4% hingga 4.5% bagi tahun 2011 dan 2012. Jumlah pendapatan negara bagi tahun 2012 diunjurkan mencecah RM181.3 bilion. Berdasarkan angka-angka ini, sasaran defisit 4.4% bagi tahun 2012 adalah realistik dan mempunyai kesan besar kepada usaha negara mengekang hutang. Justeru saya mencadangkan pada hari ini supaya Dewan meletakkan syarat sekiranya pertumbuhan ekonomi bagi tahun 2011 kurang dari 5.5% dan suku pertama 2012 kurang dari 6%, maka Dewan akan bersidang semula untuk memotong belanjawan RM232.8 bilion yang dibentangkan pada 7 Oktober dan diunjurkan ke angka RM220 bilion seperti yang dibentangkan di dalam Belanjawan Pakatan Rakyat 2012.

BAB 2: ASAS EKONOMI YANG MASIH RAPUH DALAM SUASANA EKONOMI GLOBAL TIDAK MENENTU Perdana Menteri juga mewar-warkan seolah-olah ekonomi Malaysia sudah rancak semula dengan menyebut kejayaan menarik pelaburan asing (FDI) dalam tahun 2010 dan separuh tahun pertama 2011. Malangnya, beliau hanya menyebut prestasi Malaysia semata-mata tanpa perbandingan dengan aliran pelaburan sejagat atau prestasi-prestasi negara-negara pesaing di rantau ini. Hakikatnya, prestasi pelaburan asing yang masuk ke Malaysia masih ketinggalan berbanding dengan negara-negara lain di rantau Asia Pasifik. Peningkatan 6 kali ganda yang disebut oleh Perdana Menteri bagi tahun 2010 adalah kerana nilai pelaburan yang sangat rendah dalam tahun 2009, maka angkanya nampak lebih gah bila dibandingkan dengan asas yang sebegitu rendah. Saya merujuk perhatian dewan kepada laporan FDI Global Outlook Report yang diterbitkan oleh Financial Times, edisi terbaru keluaran Mei 2011 sebagai rujukan yang lebih menyeluruh untuk menggambarkan prestasi pelaburan asing Malaysia. Rujuk mukasurat 14 yang menyenaraikan perbandingan destinasi pelaburan terbaik di rantau Asia Pasifik bagi tahun 2010:

Senarai 5 negara teratas berdasarkan jumlah projek pelaburan adalah Cina, India, Singapura, Australia dan Thailand. Malaysia tidak termasuk di dalam senarai. Senarai 5 negara teratas mendapat pelaburan berdasarkan jumlah pelaburan diketuai oleh China, India, Australia, Vietnam dan Singapura. Malaysia juga tidak termasuk di dalam senarai.Malah, jumlah pelaburan asing yang masuk ke Vietnam dalam adalah RM87 bilion dan Singapura sebanyak RM39 bilion, berbanding jumlah RM29 bilion yang diperolehi negara dalam tahun 2010. Jika Malaysia mensasarkan pelaburan asing dalam industri berteknologi tinggi, kita semestinya ketinggalan jauh berbanding Singapura dan Australia. Jika Malaysia ingin bersaing untuk mendapatkan pelaburan asing dalam bidang pembuatan dan perkilangan, kita ditewaskan pula oleh Vietnam dan Bangladesh. Oleh itu, dewan perlu lebih berhati-hati dengan data-data yang dipersembahkan Perdana Menteri kerana ia mengenepikan gambaran keseluruhan kedudukan ekonomi negara. Sebab itu juga agaknya, Perdana Menteri langsung tidak menyentuh mengenai keadaan hutang negara yang semakin meruncing. Jumlah hutang negara yang telah mencecah RM437 bilion pada akhir Jun 2011 seperti angka rasmi Bank Negara Malaysia adalah paras tertinggi hutang negara dalam sejarah Malaysia. Laporan Majlis Kewangan Negara 2010 mukasurat 120 mencatatkan pola keberhutangan awam negara di antara tahun 1970 hingga 2009. Perenggan dua merujuk kepada usaha berterusan untuk mengurangkan nisbah hutang kepada KDNK dalam tahun 90an hingga mencapai paras terendah dalam sejarah iaitu 31.9% pada tahun 1997. Menurut laporan itu lagi, saya petik: .. paras terendah 31.9% pada tahun 1997 didorong oleh pemulihan ekonomi negara yang pantas, pelaksanaan dasar fiskal berhemat serta pengurusan hutang yang berkesan. Ini telah membolehkan Malaysia mencatat lebihan fiskal di antara tahun 1993 dan 1997.. Laporan ini dikeluarkan oleh kementerian yang diketuai oleh Perdana Menteri sendiri, oleh itu wajarlah Perdana Menteri mengambil iktibar tentang peri pentingnya kaedah pengurusan hutang yang berkesan dalam menjamin kelangsungan kewangan negara. Belanjawan 2012 malangnya dijangka akan mengabaikan beberapa garis panduan jumlah hutang yang digunapakai oleh negara selama ini. Pertamanya, jumlah hutang negara akan terus meningkat. Jumlah terbitan hutang dalam tahun 2010 adalah RM64.7 bilion sementara jumlah hutang yang akan matang dalam tahun 2011 telah mencecah RM44.5 bilion, berbanding RM23.4 bilion tahun sebelumnya. Kedua, pertambahan hutang negara yang mendadak ini bermakna jumlah peruntukan belanjawan setiap tahun yang digunakan untuk membayar faedah dan perkhidmatan hutang akan semakin menghampiri had panduan nisbah bayaran khidmat hutang kepada KDNK pada kadar purata 3.5% yang digunapakai selama ini. Bagi tahun 2012, peruntukan bayaran khidmat hutang telah melonjak kepada RM20.5 bilion berbanding hanya RM12.8 bilion dalam tahun 2008. Kos hutang ini akan bernisbah sebanyak 2.3% berbanding KDNK dan pada kadar pertambahan hutang sebegini rupa, garis had nisbah 3.5% dari KDNK ini bakal dilepasi dalam tempoh masa 5 tahun akan datang.

Tan Sri Yang diPertua, Perdana Menteri juga menyandarkan angka pertumbuhan 5% 6% bagi tahun 2012 kepada perbelanjaan rakyat yang kononnya akan merancakkan penggunaan domestik ( domestic consumption).

Walaupun perbelanjaan domestik adalah penting untuk menampung pertumbuhan ekonomi negara dalam suasana global yang tidak menentu, sandaran kepada perbelanjaan rakyat untuk meransang pertumbuhan ekonomi perlu lebih realistik mengambil kira faktor harga barang meningkat dan gaji rakyat yang tersekat di takuk lama. Sebab itu Belanjawan Pakatan Rakyat 2012 mengambil keputusan memperkenalkan kembali cukai dan eksais ke atas barang-barang mewah seperti beg tangan, alat kosmetik, celana dalam dan lain-lain kerana ia tidak memberi manfaat kepada rakyat terbanyak sedangkan kos pelepasan cukainya ditanggung oleh kerajaan. Makanya, kita wajar perihatin dengan kebanyakan rakyat Malaysia yang terbeban dengan jumlah hutang yang membimbangkan. Pada akhir tahun 2010, jumlah hutang isi rumah yang ditanggung rakyat Malaysia telah mencecah RM577 bilion bersamaan 77% dari KDNK negara. Nisbah jumlah hutang isi rumah kepada KDNK ini telah meningkat dua kali ganda semasa saya menjawat Menteri Kewangan iaitu 33% dalam tahun 1997, kepada 77% apabila Perdana Menteri mengemudi Kementerian Kewangan di akhir tahun 2010. Pendapatan rakyat setiap bulan sebahagian besarnya dihabiskan untuk membayar hutang rumah kereta dan rumah. Lantaran itu, rata-rata rakyat Malaysia masih berada dalam keadaan yang daif. Masih ada golongan pekerja yang diperlakukan seperti khadam dan dibayar gaji di bawah paras kemiskinan. 40% dari rakyat Malaysia tinggal di dalam isi rumah yang pendapatan bulanannya kurang dari RM1,500. Tiga perempat dari golongan ini adalah Melayu/Bumiputra yang kononnya dibela oleh Umno-Barisan Nasional. Kekayaan negara pula dipusatkan kepada segolongan kecil golongan kaya dan mahakaya. 50% kekayaan dan pendapatan yang dijana oleh ekonomi negara dibolot oleh golongan 20% terkaya, sedangkan golongan 40% terbawah tadi yang rata-ratanya Melayu/Bumiputra tidak ubah seperti melukut di tepi gantang yang hanya mendapat 15% dari kekayaan dan pendapatan yang dijana. Manakala itu masih wujud fenomena ketidakseimbangan di antara keperluan tenaga mahir dan tuntutan industri, serta pergantungan kepada pekerja asing yang memberi kesan yang bukan sedikit kepada pasaran kerja. Ini menyebabkan aliran wang tunai keluar negara sebanyak RM22 bilion setahun sekaligus masih menjadi persoalan ekonomi mendesak yang perlukan penyelesaian segera. Sebaliknya, Belanjawan 2012 yang dibentangkan Perdana Menteri mengelak sepenuhnya dari menjawab persoalan kerangka asas ekonomi seperti yang saya perincikan tadi. Ada perbezaan yang besar di antara perubahan dasar yang membawa impak ekonomi yang berkekalan dengan membaiki kerangka dan sistem ekonomi, berbanding dengan pengumumanpengumuman pemberian peruntukan dan hadiah wang tunai bagi satu tahun sahaja seperti yang dibuat Perdana Menteri. Oleh sebab itulah, Pakatan Rakyat mengambil pendekatan dasar untuk membaiki kerangka ekonomi negara. Di antara tawaran Pakatan Rakyat yang sangat penting untuk membaiki struktur ekonomi negara adalah untuk memastikan dasar gaji minima terlaksana. Apa yang sangat ditakutkan kepada dasar gaji minima, sedangkan kajian Bank Dunia menunjukkan kadar RM1,100 seperti yang dicadangkan oleh Pakatan Rakyat mampu ditanggung oleh majikan dan ekonomi. Perdana Menteri seolah-olah lebih mengutamakan lobi taukeh-taukeh besar dan kroni mahakaya daripada keperluan jutaan rakyat yang sangat mengharapkan satu anjakan gaji yang menyeluruh meliputi semua 12 juta tenaga kerja di negara ini, bukannya gula-gula yang hanya memikat pekerja sektor awam tetapi mengenepikan kebajika 90% tenaga kerja yang lain.

Oleh kerana pendekatan Belanjawan 2012 kerajaan Umno-Barisan Nasional adalah penjenamaan semula yang pastinya akan melibatkan banyak peruntukan pengiklanan dan perunding, Dewan berhak tahu secara teperinci berapa yang telah diperuntukkan kepada firmafirma asing dan tempatan bagi tujuan pengiklanan dan putar belit ( spin). Berapa juga jumlah kontrak bagi tujuan ini yang telah ditandatangani?

BAB 3: PENJENAMAAN SEMULA PROJEK DAN DASAR GAGAL Telah pun saya tegaskan program-program yang diumumkan oleh Perdana Menteri merupakan ulangan program-program yang telah dibentangkan dalam Rancangan Malaysia atau belanjawan, akan tetapi tidak berjaya membawa sebarang hasil ataupun gagal dilaksanakan. Sedangkan wang rakyat berbilion-bilion ringgit dibelanjakan untuk membiayai program-program yang gagal mencapai matlamat itu. Kini, sekali lagi rakyat berdepan dengan beban kewangan untuk melaksanakan program-program yang gagal ini. Tiga contoh terbaik yang boleh saya huraikan, pertamanya,pengumuman-pengumuman yang melibatkan usaha menjamin kelangsungan bekalan makanan dengan memajukan sektor pertanian. Kedua, naiktaraf infrastruktur dan jaringan bekalan air dan elektrik luar bandar termasuk di Sabah dan Sarawak danketiga, pengumuman yang menyentuh usaha mewujudkan rumah mampu milik kepada rakyat. Kerajaan Barisan Nasional telah berjanji untuk mengekang impot makanan dan menjamin food sovereignty (kedaulatan negara melalui bekalan makanan yang terjamin) sejak 10 tahun yang lepas. Selain menjadi teras utama RMK8, kerajaan juga telah memperuntukkan sebanyak RM11.4 bilion sepanjang RMK9 untuk mencapai hasrat ini selain dari meletakkan pengurangan sasaran impot makanan kepada RM14.3 bilion sahaja menjelang akhir 2010. Izinkan saya untuk memberikan beberapa contoh kegagalan tersebut: Projek ternakan feedlot yang menelan belanja sekitar RM250 juta yang membabitkan suami dan anak seorang menteri di dalam kabinet Perdana Menteri. Soalan ini yang saya bangkitkan sejak tahun lepas tidak pernah dijawab oleh Perdana Menteri mahupun menteri yang bertanggungjawab. Peruntukan sedemikian rupa jumlahnya sama dengan potongan subsidi gula yang terpaksa ditanggung oleh rakyat. Selain itu apakah nasib Terminal Agrobisnes Nasional yang tidak digunapakai dan kini menjadi projek gajah putih? Puluhan jutaan ringgit dibelanjakan tetapi objektif penggunaannya tidak pernah tercapai, kini dijenamakan kembali oleh Perdana Menteri di dalam belanjawan terkini beliau. Manakala kegagalan tersebut belumpun dijawab, tiba-tiba kerajaan berhasrat melancarkan satu lagi dasar iaitu Dasar Agro Makanan Kebangsaan, kononnya untuk merangka hala tuju industri makanan dan menjamin bekalan makanan. Bukankah semuanya sudah pun diputuskan dalam RMK8 hingga RMK10 dan dasar-dasar yang lain. Saya harus mengingatkan dewan bahawa yang tergelincir bukannya dasar tetapi matlamat akibat penyelewengan, rasuah dan tiadanya tata kelola yang baik. Belanjawan 2012 mengulangi kembali janji-janji dalam belanjawan yang lepas, RMK8 hinggalah RMK9; cuma kini dijenamakan semula. Kalau dulu dipanggil TEMAN (Terminal Agrobisnes Nasional), kini mahu dijenamakan pula sebagai Pusat Transformasi Desa. Kalau dulu tabungnya dipanggil Tabung Jaminan Makanan, kini tabung kononnya turut melibatkan Dana Pengkomersilan Pertanian. Walaupun berpuluh bilion telah dibelanjakan sejak tahun 2000 untuk mengurangkan import makanan, ia terus melonjak akibat kegagalan dasar dan projek yang lebih bermotifkan penyelewengan wang rakyat, bukannya demi kepentingan negara. Bank Negara Malaysia di dalam perangkaan perdagangan luar negeri Disember 2010 menyatakan bahawa import makanan telah mencecah RM30 bilion.

Statistik ini turut disokong oleh jawapan kepada pertanyaan di dalam dewan, bahawa import makanan telah meningkat dari RM17.7 bilion dalam tahun 2005 kepada RM26.7 bilion dalam tahun 2009 pada kadar pertumbuhan 10.2% setiap tahun, membuktikan kegagalan 10 tahun berturut-turut dasar dan pelaksanaan program di bawah Umno-Barisan Nasional yang kini dijelmakan kembali oleh Perdana Menteri di dalam Belanjawan 2012.

Tan Sri Yang diPertua, Kita sudah bertukar 3 Perdana Menteri tetapi kita masih bercakap perkara yang sama. Kemahiran yang mereka ada hanyalah menjelmakan dan menjenama semula dasar lama yang gagal. Barangkali ini semua merupakan nasihat perunding asing yang mahal-mahal belaka. Begitu juga dengan soal membangunkan prasarana desa dan di Sabah serta Sarawak. Misalnya baru-baru ini Perdana Menteri mengakui bahawa prasarana perbekalan air di kawasankawasan FELDA sudah berusia 50 tahun dan sangat daif. Maknanya selepas beratus-ratus dasar digarap, pelbagai janji ditaburkan kepada warga FELDA, hakikatnya masyarakat FELDA belum mempunyai system perbekalan air yang sempurna. Masalah ini turut berlaku di Sabah dan Sarawak. Dalam Belanjawan 2012, Perdana Menteri mengumumkan seolah-olah perkara-perkara ini adalah keprihatinan baru demi membantu rakyat, sedangkan sewajarnya adalah untuk memohon ampun dan maaf kepada rakyat kerana terlewat 50 tahun menjaga keperluan asas mereka. Nasib yang sama juga menimpa projek menyediakan rumah mampu milik kepada rakyat. Barisan Nasional gagal menyediakan perumahan mampu milik sedangkan pelbagai agensi telah dipertanggungjawabkan selama ini. Berbilion ringgit wang rakyat telah diperuntukkan saban tahun dan disalurkan kepada kontraktor dan syarikat yang rapat dengan Umno/Barisan Nasional, tetapi memiliki rumah mampu milik seolah-olah mimpi ngeri buat rakyat Malaysia. Syarikat Perumahan Negara Berhad ditubuhkan sebagai agensi kerajaan membantu menyediakan perumahan rakyat. Kini, Perdana Menteri menubuhkan pula agensi baru yang dikenal sebagai PR1MA kononnya sebagai agensi tunggal untuk membangunkan rumah-rumah mampu milik di tanah-tanah nilai perdana kerajaan seperti Sungai Buloh, Sungai Besi dan kawasan-kawasan sekitar MRT/LRT. Pengumuman ini memunculkan dua keraguan. Pertama, bukankah fungsi itu bertindih dan serupa dengan SPNB? Kenapa perlu ditubuhkan agensi baru yang akan menelan belanja pentadbiran yang baru untuk menjalankan tugas yang sama? Kedua, kenapa PR1MA diberikan tugasan lumayan membangunkan rumah mampu milik di tanah milik kerajaan yang paling bernilai? Apakah PR1MA juga akan menjadi pemaju tidak ubah seperti SPNB, seterusnya melibatkan peruntukan ratusan juta dari wang rakyat dan kerjasama swasta? Oleh itu, Dewan wajar menegur Perdana Menteri dan seluruh kabinetnya yang giat menubuhkan unitunit baru dan pelbagai inisiatif pengiklanan baru seperti yang diumumkan di dalam Belanjawan 2012, kerana ini membebankan rakyat. Izinkan saya menarik perhatian Dewan yang Mulia ini kepada pengumuman menubuhkan Yayasan Inovasi Malaysia. Yayasan tersebut diwujudkan dan dibarisi oleh golongan mahakaya seperti Tan Sri Lim Khok Thay, individu yang dekat dengan Perdana Menteri seperti Rohana Tan Sri Mahmood dan ahli-ahli politik Barisan Nasional untuk mengendalikan program-program invoasi kelolaan Kementerian Sains Teknologi. Kita tertanya-tanya berapakah kos pentadbiran yayasan-yayasan seperti YIM ini? Daripada peruntukan ratusan juta untuk program-program promosi ini, berapa yang diberikan kepada YIM untuk menganjurkan beberapa seminar antarabangsa?

Projek sebeginilah yang merugikan rakyat dan menelan belanja yang besar tanpa manfaat kepada rakyat. Apa yang merisaukan beberapa pendekatan Perdana Menteri telah terbukti gagal manakala inisiatif tersebut terkait dengan kepentingan awam. Beliau mengumumkan pelbagai insentif cukai yang lumayan kepada golongan niagawan terutamanya bagi projek-projek kesayangan dan berkepentingan kepada beliau seperti Kuala Lumpur International Financial District (Daerah Kewangan Antarabangsa Kuala Lumpur) Belanjawan 2012 menjanjikan pelepasan cukai kepada pemaju hartanah di KLIFD sebanyak 70% bagi tempoh 5 tahun. Kita boleh mencongak berapa jumlah cukai yang akan dilepaskan begitu sahaja kepada kroni-kroni yang mengusahakan projek mewah ini. Pengumuman awal menyebut keseluruhan projek hartanah itu bakal menelan belanja RM26 bilion. Kalau kadar keuntungan kasarnya adalah sekitar 20% iaitu kadar biasa projek-projek hartanah mewah, maka keuntungan kasar yang sepatutnya dikenakan cukai adalah RM5.2 bilion. Pada kadar cukai korporat 25%, ini bermakna sebanyak RM1.3 bilion wang rakyat akan bolos ke tangan kroni. Tidak cukupkan tanah Sungai Besi yang paling berharga milik rakyat itu diserahkan kepada 1MDB yang dikawal oleh individu yang rapat dengan Perdana Menteri? Siapa yang sering dikaitkan dengan pembangunan KLIFD ini kalau bukan Jo Thaek Low. Kalau dikaji projek mega KLIFD ini, ternyata ia tidak memanfaatkan rakyat terbanyak dan memberi keuntungan yang lebih kepada: Perunding luar negara atau yang dekat dengan pemerintah, termasuklah CIMB yang selalu terbabit di dalam urusan-urusan besar kewangan negara Pembinaan pastinya dianugerahkan kepada mereka yang dekat dengan pemerintah. Bekalan sebahagian besar peralatan dan bahan akan diimport dari luar negara seperti kebiasaan pembinaan mercu tanda megah di bawah Umno-Barisan Nasional atau dianugerahkan kepada syarikat kroni Tenaga pembinaan rata-ratanya akan menggunapakai buruh asing Tenaga kerja di KLIFD kelak sebahagian besar terdiri dari juru analisa kewangan antarabangsa dan hanya sedikit rakyat Malaysia yang berpeluang bekerja di situ Oleh yang demikian, Pakatan Rakyat mengesyorkan kepada Dewan supaya Perdana Menteri memberi jaminan-jaminan berikut: Hentikan insentif berlebihan yang menyebabkan kutipan cukai berkurangan termasuk insentif kepada KLIFD, sebelum kerajaan berniat melaksanakan GST; Perdana Menteri perlu umumkan kepada rakyat dan dewan bila GST akan dilaksanakan supaya rakyat dapat mengundi berdasarkan rancangan pelaksanaan GST pada PRU13;

Dan Dewan perlu menghentikan sikap jelik yang menghina rakyat; menyalahkan bayaran subsidi semata-mata, sedangkan insentif-insentif yang melampau turut melibatkan banyak ketirisan kepada wang negara dan pendapatan yang berkurangan Sekiranya diberi peluang untuk mentadbir negara, Pakatan Rakyat beriltizam memastikan mana-mana perjanjian atau insentif yang tidak telus dan membelakangkan kepentingan rakyat akan dirujuk kepada Suruhanjaya Perjanjian Awam, yang akan ditubuhkan demi untuk menilai semula segala perjanjian ini.

BAB 4: KRONI DIDAHULUKAN, PROJEK DIUTAMAKAN Tan Sri Yang diPertua

Belanjawan 2012 menzahirkan ketagihan BN kepada rasuah dan penyelewengan. Tidak ada tandatanda ketagihan ini akan reda, kerana pelbagai pengumuman yang dibuat jelas akan menguntungkan pihak-pihak berkepentingan semata-mata. Saya ingin merakamkan kekesalan kepada dewan kerana cadangan penyenaraian Felda Global Ventures Holding yang merupakan mercu tanda dan harta rakyat yang sensitif langsung tidak dibahaskan terlebih dahulu di dewan ini, sebelum dipertimbangkan untuk dibawa masuk ke dalam belanjawan. Saya bukanlah menentang sebarang usaha untuk mengembangkan saiz pasaran saham dan menarik pelabur asing ke Bursa Malaysia, tetapi persoalan yang membabitkan institusi Melayu/Bumiputra dan harta rakyat yang dibina oleh 3 generasi rakyat Malaysia ini perlukan perdebatan ikhlas dan ilmiah di dewan ini terlebih dahulu. Perdana Menteri seharusnya mengambil kira risiko kewangan dan pasaran yang akan mendedahkan Felda kepada susut nilai pasaran mirip kepada nasib yang sedang menimpa MAS, sekiranya penyenaraian ini tidak disertakan dengan tata kelola yang baik, pengurusan yang telus dan bebas dari campur tangan politik dan diperkuatkan dengan segala langkah mengelakkan manipulasi pasaran dan spekulasi. Harga pasaran saham MAS telah susut sehinggakan harga semasanya hanyalah sekitar 37% berbanding harganya sekitar tahun 1993 hingga 1995. Walaupun asetnya besar dan saiz operasinya berlipat kali ganda berbanding AirAsia, harga sahamnya turun naik dan sekarang ini hanyalah 50% dari harga saham AirAsia. Kita perlu berwaspada supaya nasib yang sama tidak menimpa Felda, maka keputusan sebesar itu sewajarnya dibahaskan di dewan ini agar prasyarat berhubung kemantapan pengurusan, amalan tata kelola baik yang ketat dan nilai tambah dapat diambil kira. Janganlah kerajaan mengulangi kesilapan dalam penggabungan tiga gergasi perladangan iaitu Sime Darby, Guthrie dan Golden Hope yang disandarkan semata-mata kepada yuran rundingan dan laba yang bakal diperolehi oleh para perantara (broker) dan penasihat termasuklah CIMB yang rapat dengan Perdana Menteri. Perdana Menteri juga mengumumkan pembinaan projek-projek melalui kaedah perkongsian awam dan swasta (PPP) termasuklah pembinaan hospital wanita dan kanak-kanak melibatkan perbelanjaan RM700 juta. Saya memberi ingatan supaya projek ini dilaksanakan dengan penuh ketelusan dan bertata kelola termasuklah dengan memastikan ia menggunakan bidaan terbuka, supaya harganya berpatutan kerana kita faham bila sahaja dipanggil perkongsian awam dan swasta, maknanya perkongsiannya begini: untung dikaut oleh swasta, kerugian dan kos ditanggung oleh awam dan rakyat. Saya juga kesal dengan cara Perdana Menter yang tidak segan silu mengumumkan projek-projek yang bermasalah kerana diberikan kepada krono seolah-olah ia projek baru demi kesejahteraan rakyat. Peruntukan projek pembangunan dibawah RMK10 bagi tahun 2012 berjumlah RM49.2 bilion contohnya melibatkan pembinaan Lebuhraya Pantai Timur Jabor-Kuala Terengganu yang tidak siapsiap dan telah pun menelan belanja yang tinggi, akibat pembabitan pihak-pihak yang berkepentingan sedangkan fasa yang dibina oleh MTD di antara Sungai Besi ke Ajil telah pun dibuka. Akhir sekali, saya wajar menyentuh mengenai peruntukan RM40 juta untuk membina lebih banyak Kedai Rakyat 1Malaysia. Saya tidak begitu mempersoalkan tindakan kerajaan mahu memberi bantuan melalui subsidi barangan secara terus di kedai-kedai runcit. Saya juga tidak mahu mempersoalkan cara Perdana Menteri

menggunakan wang rakyat untuk terus mempromosikan jenama 1Malaysia beliau, asalkan rakyat mendapat manfaat. Namun, kenapa hanya satu pihak dan pengusaha iaitu Mydin yang dipilih untuk mendapat bantuan subsidi terus ini, sedangkan pembinaan lebih banyak kedai sebegini akan mematikan kedai-kedai runcit rakyat terbanyak di seluruh Malaysia? Apakah kerajaan tidak boleh mencari sebuah kedai runcit yang maju dan berdaya saing di setiap daerah yang ingin dibantu, agar bantuan tersebut akan memberi lebih manfaat kepada lebih ramai pengusaha kedai runcit, bukannya membantu melebarkan sayap pengusaha sebuah pasaraya besar yang akan mematikan pengusaha kecil di kampung-kampung? Sudahlah selama ini mereka terpaksa bersaing dengan pasaraya besar, kini kedai runcit pun mahu dibolot dan diberi bantuan terus oleh kerajaan. Sebab itu saya memohon dewan menerima hakikat bahawa belanjawan 2012 ini tidak lebih dari senarai hadiah-hadiah kepada kroni dan golongan berkepentingan. Ratusan billion akan dibelanjakan semata-mata kerana kroni akan diterus didahulukan, projek-projek diberi keutamaan, kemudian sisa bakinya barulah diagihkan kepada rakyat.

BAB 5: ANJAKAN STRUKTUR EKONOMI Tan Sri Yang diPertua Dewan yang mulia seharusnya sedar pengumuman-pengumuman yang terkandung dalam Belanjawan 2012 oleh Perdana Menteri adalah gula-gula yang membebankan rakyat tetapi tidak menghasilkan sebarang anjakan perubahan kepada struktur ekonomi negara. Pengumuman kenaikan gaji dan bonus kepada kakitangan awam adalah tidak berasaskan kepada sebarang pendekatan ekonomi, berbeza dengan pendekatan Pakatan Rakyat melalui pengenalan gaji minima yang akan memanfaatkan kesemua tenaga kerja di negara ini. Sebab itu kerajaan tidak boleh memandang remeh kemarahan pekerja sektor swasta yang merasakan mereka diketepikan semata-mata kerana kerajaan ingin memikat undi dari penjawat awam. Begitu juga dengan pelepasan cukai berkaitan teksi yang membabitkan jumlah maksima bantuan sebanyak RM7,560 setahun. Perdana Menteri boleh berpura-pura berbangga dengan bantuan itu, tetapi jangan lupa rintihan sebenar pemandu teksi dibebankan sejumlah RM21,000 setahun kerana bayaran kepada pemegang konsesi. Bantuan RM7,560 setahun itu pun hanyalah kepada mereka yang memilih untuk menukar kenderaan teksi, tetapi bagi sebahagian besar pemandu teksi mereka masih perlu membayar yuran yang mencekik darah kepada pemegang konsesi lesen teksi, sebahagiannya terdiri dari Yang Berhormat di dalam dewan ini. Perdana Menteri menyenaraikan beberapa subsidi makanan yang diberikan kepada rakyat seolah-olah ia diberikan ehsan kerajaan. Janganlah kita lupa bahawa amanah mentadbir wang rakyat itu datangnya dari rakyat dan ia boleh ditarik balik bila-bila masa, seperti kerajaan sewenang-wenangnya menarik subsidi sehingga menaikkan harga barangan. Kerajaan berbangga dengan subsidi gula 20 sen setiap kilogram yang diberikan kepada rakyat, tetapi buat-buat lupa bahawa kerajaan jugalah yang menaikkan harga gula sehinga ia 60% lebih mahal sekarang berbanding sebelum Perdana Menteri mengambil alih kuasa. Perdana Menteri nampaknya cukup berbangga dengan bayaran-bayaran yang diumumkan seperti bantuan persekolahan, bonus kepada bekas perajurit dan lain-lain. Saya nasihatkan supaya Perdana Menteri jangan senyum terlalu lama kerana rakyat tahu bahawa bayaran itu hanyalah bayaran sekali sahaja dalam tahun 2012 yang tidak berkekalan dan berbentuk gula-gula. Jika mereka termakan gula-

gula tersebut, selepas pilihanraya kelak rakyat terpaksa memulangkan kembali bayaran-bayaran tersebut melalui cukai barangan dan perkhidmatan yang akan diperkenalkan oleh Perdana Menteri. Namun saya yakin rakyat boleh menilai perkara-perkara ini, kerana mereka juga sedar bahawa bayaran yang besar diberikan kepada golongan yang rapat dengan Umno/Barisan Nasional termasuk bayaran sejumlah RM3,000 kepada bekas petugas KEMAS dan JASA yang lebih tinggi daripada bentuk-bentuk bantuan lain.

Tan Sri Yang diPertua, Belanjawan yang bertanggungjawab mesti menetapkan dasar-dasar yang akan mengubah struktur ekonomi dan membolehkan anjakan, bukannya pengumuman pemberian hadiah satu tahun sahaja. Perbandingan dengan Belanjawan Pakatan Rakyat 2012 akan menunjukkan bagaimana belanjawan kami menumpukan usaha kembali kepada kerangka dasar serta berusaha menyelesaikan masalah asas: Pengenalan gaji minima untuk melonjakkan paras gaji pekerja seterusnya membantu rakyat berhadapan dengan tekanan kos sara hidup Menghapuskan monopoli dan merombak struktur harga barang-barang komoditi dan kepenggunaan (termasuklah monopoli BERNAS, AP dan lain-lain) untuk menghapuskan herotan harga dan menurunkan harga secara drastik Memperuntukkan subsidi secara berpatutan kepada rakyat dengan mengalihkan peruntukan yang digunapakai oleh sektor korporat dan monopoli sebelum ini Memberi penekanan kepada latihan teknikal dan vokasional termasuk melalui universiti teknikal untuk menyediakan graduan dan tenaga kerja yang berpadanan dengan kehendak industri Peruntukan RM6.9 bilion sebagai pakej bantuan terus (direct assistance package) untuk golongan sasaran Agihan sumber antara pusat dan negeri yang lebih adil mengikut pindaan capitation grant

BAB 7: PENUTUP Rakyat akan menilai janji-janji yang terkandung di dalam Belanjawan 2012 dan Perdana Menteri mempunyai masa yang suntuk sebelum keadaan ekonomi global makin tidak menentu. Sewajarnya Perdana Menteri menunaikan janji-janji terdahulu sebelum cuba menambah janji-janji baru ini, bermula dengan janji reformasi pilihanraya dan pemansuhan ISA yang perlu disegerakan. Saya juga mengingatkan dewan supaya kita insaf bahawa reformasi ekonomi yang berkekalan adalah mustahil tanpa iltizam untuk merubah pendekatan politik dan pentadbiran yang diamalkan pemerintah sekarang. Tidak ada reformasi ekonomi tanpa reformasi politik yang menyeluruh. Jika Perdana Menteri gagal melaksanakan harapan dan tuntutan-tuntutan rakyat ini, nescaya segala usaha menjelmakan dan menjenamakan semula dasar dan program-program yang gagal tidak akan berjaya meredakan hasrat rakyat yang mahukan perubahan. Dengan ingatan itu kepada diri saya dan seluruh dewan, saya sudahi dengan wassalam.

[1] Analisis pertumbuhan kutipan cukai oleh Kerajaan Malaysia Belanjawan Pakatan Rakyat 2012 Sumber Ketua Umum PKR, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim bersama dengan Timbalan Presiden, Azmin Ali dan bekas ahli majlis pimpinan pusat, Badrul Hisham Shaharin dihadapkan ke Mahkamah Sesyen Kuala Lumpur atas tuduhan mengambil bahagian dalam protes jalanan, di bawah

Akta Perhimpunan Aman. Anwar bersama dengan isterinya, Datuk Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail, tiba di Mahkamah Sesyen 5 pada jam 9.15 pagi. Bekas peguamcara II Datuk Mohd Yusof Zainal Abiden - yang mengetuai pasukan pendakwa dalam kes Liwat 11 terhadap Anwar - kali ini bersama peguam kanan Karpal Singh dalam pasukan peguambela ketua pembangkang itu. Mohd Yusof meletak jawatan dari Jabatan Peguam Negara pada akhir perbicaraan kes liwat tersebut. Anwar memberitahu Hakim Mahmud Abdullah bahawa pertuduhan tersebut adalah satu lagi kempen "politik" terhadapnya, dan dia tidak mengaku bersalah. Peguam Karpal dan Yusof, meminta Anwar dibenarkan bon peribadi tetapi ia dibantah oleh Timbalan Pendakwa Raya, Abdul Wahab Mohamad. Hakim mengarahkan ikatjamin RM500 dan menetapkan 2 Julai depan untuk sebutan semula kes tersebut. Sementara itu, Azmin yang diwakili oleh peguam Sivarasa Rasiah dan Gurcharan Singh, dan Badrul Hisham, yang diwakili oleh peguam Latheefa Koya, juga telah dikenakan ikatjamin RM500 jamin setiap. Ketiga-tiga mereka merupakan yang pertama didakwa di bawah Akta Berhimpun Aman yang diluluskan baru-baru ini, di mana Anwar dan Azmin boleh kehilangan jawatan mereka sebagai wakil rakyat jika didapati bersalah. Mereka boleh didenda RM10,000 jika sabit kesalahan di bawah akta tersebut. Wakil rakyat secara automatik hilang jawatan jika disabit oleh mahkamah dan didenda lebih RM2,000 atau penjara lebih setahun. Mereka dituduh mengikut Seksyen 4(2) (c) Akta Perhimpunan Aman kerana didakwa mengambil bahagian dalam yang perhimpunan BERSIH 3.0 dan melanggar perintah Majistret Zaki Asyraf Zubir, bertarikh 26 April yang melarang perhimpunan di Dataran Merdeka dan kawasan yang bersempadan dengan Jalan Sultan Hishamuddin , Jalan Raja dan Jalan Kelab. Mereka didakwa melakukan kesalahan itu antara jam 2.30 petang dan 3 petang pada 28 April. Mereka juga menghadapi satu lagi tuduhan di bawah Kanun Keseksaan, iaitu bersama penyokong BERSIH 3.0 yang melebihi lima orang yang masih bebas, dalam mencapai niat bersama, telah bersubahat dengan Tangam a/l Raju, Rajesh Kumar a/l Gejinder dan Farhan bin Ibrahim @ Alias, telah mengingkari perintah yang dikeluarkan oleh Majistret Zaki Asyraf Zubir pada 26 April. Azmin dituduh bersubahat dan menghasut Tangam, Rajesh dan Farhan membuka sekatan besi halangan di Dataran Merdeka yang mungkin menyebabkan rusuhan atau gaduhgempur di kawasan tersebut.