Jika perangai dan kelakuan begini dibiarkan tanpa sebarang tindakan tatatertib, tunggulah.....
You've got me feeling emotions
Rafidah Abdullah/ sun2surf
"You cannot control people's emotions."
This is the excuse given by Minister in the Prime Minister's Department, Datuk Seri Mohamed Nazri Aziz, for the sexist and degrading comments made by two male MPs to a female MP while in the midst of a parliamentary debate.
So, once again, a high emotional pitch seems to be good excuse for bad behaviour. Or is it? Interestingly enough, the good Datuk then contradicts himself by saying that such statements (the offending remarks) were part and parcel of parliamentary debates and Parliamentarians should not be easily offended by the heckling between MPs.
But Datuk, emotions cannot be controlled, right? I can't help it if I feel angry and offended. And given that I wouldn't be able to control myself, my words and actions under such circumstances (short of breaking the law) could certainly be excused, right?
Please tell me this is right because I've been told that I'm quite an emotional person and I would love to use this as justification for extreme rudeness.
Or is this excuse only available to a privileged few?
We're constantly reminded not to stir up "warrior blood" because hey, someone could suddenly snap and give in to a fit of amok and then people could literally lose their heads.
But then again, why have I never heard anyone being warned against inciting the anger of, say, women - a group that makes up half of our population?
Is it because women are not given to violence and are therefore "safe" to be demeaned at will? Is it because, despite the tired old stereotype of the hysterical female, women are actually the cooler-headed sex and are able to face insults with grace and intelligence?
Or is it because, despite protests to the contrary, there is actually a deep-seated, subconscious belief among a lot of men that women are too trivial for their feelings to matter?
Recall, for example, the dark day when our female senators were arm-twisted into voting for the Islamic Family Law (Federal Territories) Amendment Bill 2005 in spite of their protests that the Bill was discriminatory towards women.
Then, Minister in the Prime Minister's Department (Religious Affairs) Datuk Dr Abdullah Md Zin was quick to accuse the women senators, as well as women's groups, of "being too emotional".
So if women get angry at laws and policies that affect their lives in fundamental ways, they are wrong? If women get angry at remarks that are meant to belittle them, they are wrong?
But if men get angry in the midst of a discussion in an august House of Parliament, and indulge in behaviour that should be beneath them, they are not wrong?
Wow, what blatant double standards.
But then again, why am I not surprised? After all, we've been conditioned from the earliest age that it's perfectly acceptable for men to give in to their "manly" emotions - anger, aggression, lust, to name a few.
If they get into fights, well, "boys will be boys". If they disturb girls, "boys will be boys". If they make sexist jokes, "boys will be boys".
So then it's up to girls to watch what they wear, how they act, where they go, because men "can't help themselves" and therefore it's the woman's fault if she is raped, right? How many times have we heard this one?
And is it so far removed from what happened in Parliament that day?
Well, I for one, am sick and tired of "emotions" being used both to exempt some people from common human courtesy, as well as to trivialise the real concerns of others. Such an attitude is an insult to all thinking people, women and men.
If we can't control our emotions enough to respect the dignity of others, and if we can't be accountable for the damage that we do when we do lose control, what business do we have being humans? We may as well be as animals and live by mob rule.
Now that's something to get emotional about.
SILA AMBIL TINDAKAN DEMI KEADILAN DAN MARUAH
HOW MUCH IS YOUR DIGNITY, HONOUR, SELF ESTEEM AND GENERAL DAMAGES WORTH?
Former Lord President Tun Salleh Abas today (Sept 26, 2006) responded to a Cabinet Minister's recent call for new and important facts to emerge to justify a review of the 1988 judicial crisis. In a five-page statement, Salleh rebutted Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz's argument for not agreeing to a review, and touched on five incidents which should trigger a review. Nazri's argument: That he did not agree to the review because the decision of the two tribunals which decided on Salleh and his five colleagues were accepted by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong and the government in 1988. Salleh's rebuttal: According to the Federal Constitution, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong as a constitutional monarch is not even allowed to refuse advice tendered by the Cabinet or the Prime Minister. No emphasis need be placed on such an acceptance. The five incidents that Salleh referred to in his statement have been touched on or discussed in his 1990 book 'May Day for Justice'. Since he never appeared before the tribunal that tried him, they are in effect "new facts". The incidents are: Former Lord President Tun Salleh Abas today responded to Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Datuk Seri Mohd Nazri Abdul Aziz's statement regarding a proposal to review the 1988 Judicial Crisis. Salleh thanked Nazri for agreeing to the review of that dark day in judicial history if "new and important facts" emerge. He said Nazri has also not agreed to the review because the decision of the two tribunals - the first tribunal which decided on Salleh and the second tribunal which decided on his five other colleagues - were accepted by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong and the Government in 1988. Salleh said Nazri seems to place great reliance on the fact that acceptance of the recommendations by both tribunals were also accepted by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong. He said according to Article 40(1) of the Federal Constitution, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong as a Constitutional Monarch must act "in accordance with the advice of the Cabinet or a Minister acting under the general authority of the Cabinet, except as provided by this Constitution." "Thus, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong is not even allowed to refuse advice tendered by the Cabinet or the Prime Minister. "This is further provided in Article 66(4)(a) where the Yang di-Pertuan Agong cannot refuse to assent to a bill passed by Parliament. He is given three months within which to assent to the bill. If he fails to do so, the government is free to gazette the bill into law. "The history of this country has shown that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong has never acted against the wishes of the Prime Minister or the Cabinet including on the issue of depriving the Rulers of their own immunity. "There is therefore no way for the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to refuse consent to accept to the recommendations of the two tribunals when they were submitted to His Majesty. "In my view, no emphasis need therefore be placed on the acceptance of the recommendations of the two Tribunals by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, since in the light of the constitutional provisions and practice, His Majesty's powers have become, with respects, almost procedural and reflect the wishes of His Majesty's Government, even if the Prime Minister of the day is dictatorial." Salleh said as for the call for "new and important facts" to trigger a review, these should be presented to a tribunal or commission charged to investigate the matter, should the government decide to do so. He said since Nazri has placed this as a condition for agreeing to a review, he has decided to touch on five incidents only in general terms. FIRST INCIDENT: The first incident relates to my meeting with the then Prime Minister in his office on Friday 27th May 1988 in the presence of the then Deputy Prime Minister and the then Chief Secretary to the Government. I was asked by the then Prime Minister to step down because I was accused of being biased in the discharge of my judicial duties. My understanding of this accusation was that it must have been connected with the impending Umno 11 case when I decided to establish a nine-member panel of the Supreme Court to hear the appeal. I strongly denied the accusation and told him that I was not prepared to resign. Then he threatened to dismiss me by instituting a tribunal under the Constitution. I told him I was prepared to be dismissed rather than leave the judicial office under a cloud. This was a very short meeting and after I had left the Prime Minister's office and returned to my chambers, I immediately wrote by way of an aide memoir a note of what had transpired during that meeting. That note coincidentally appears in the latest issue of Aliran. SECOND INCIDENT: The second incident relates to the visit to me on the same day of a messenger who was a very important officer of the Government. He came with the idea of persuading me to resign or go on long leave and at the same time threatening me with dismissal should I choose not to. Were I to resign, I would be appointed to a lucrative job in Jeddah as a director of Islamic Bank with a high salary I could never have dreamed of, coupled with an unlimited amount of entertainment allowances and travelling expenses. The officer said he had been authorised to pass this message to me by a very important Minister. When I told him I could not accept the offer, I was then threatened with dismissal and the ignominy of having to face a tribunal. My answer to the messenger was the same as I had given to the Prime Minister earlier on in the day. THIRD INCIDENT: The third incident took place on 24th June 1988, almost a month after my suspension as Lord President when two benevolent messengers arrived at my home to tell me that some Malay Rulers then gathered at Istana Kelantan at Jalan Kia Peng and wanted to see me. Post haste, I made my appearance before Their Royal Highnesses. I was informed that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong (HRH the Sultan of Johor) had just left the meeting. Taking the lead upon my appearance was HRH the then Raja of Perlis and also present were the other Malay Rulers or their representatives. (The Sultans of Kedah and Selangor were away abroad and the Sultan of Pahang was unable to attend on account of the serious illness of his then Consort who in fact passed away the following day). I was informed by HRH the late Raja of Perlis that agreement was reached between the Yang di-Pertuan Agong and the Rulers then present that should I tender my apologies to and ask forgiveness from the Yang di-Pertuan Agong for writing my impugned letter to His Majesty at His Majesty's Istana Bukit Serene in Johor Baru, my suspension would be lifted and the matter would end there. I was to travel to Istana Bukit Serene with my chief counsel, Yang Mulia Raja Aziz Addruse. Since we could not get seats on the plane, I decided to travel to Johor Baru by car whilst Yang Mulia Raja Aziz chartered a private aircraft for that purpose. Upon my arrival in Johor Baru, I was admitted into the Istana but Yang Mulia Raja Aziz, despite all the trouble he took to charter the plane, could get only as far as the gates of the Istana as he was prevented from entering the palace. At the Istana, contrary to my expectation, my mission was a failure because the Yang di-Pertuan Agong had earlier been briefed by two very senior government officers from Kuala Lumpur not to forgive me for the wrong I had committed. FOURTH INCIDENT: The fourth incident relates to the suspension of my colleagues with the eventual dismissal of two of them. The suspension was engineered for the purpose of thwarting them from hearing my judicial review application challenging the legality and constitutionality of my suspension and the composition of the tribunal to deal with my dismissal. A particular High Court judge who was reluctant to hear my application feigned illness on the day fixed for hearing. His replacement did his utmost to delay hearing my application and when he finally did so, my application was dismissed. I appealed to the Supreme Court and succeeded. An Order of the Court must always be sealed before it is served on the respondent. The Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court was the keeper of its seal but when I succeeded in my appeal, the seal could not be found as it was purposely hidden. However, after a search by the late Tan Sri Wan Suleiman, the seal was discovered. The sealed copy of the Order had then to be served on the respondent tribunal which was located at Parliament House. But when my counsel Raja Aziz Addruse attempted to effect service of the Order on the respondent, he found that the authorities had ordered the Parliament gates closed. However at the request by the late Tan Sri Wan Suleiman for assistance from the office of the IGP (Inspector-General of Police), the gates were opened and the Order was served. Despite receipt of the Order, the Tribunal proceeded with its deliberation. The end result of this incident was that upon my refusal to recognise the composition of the Tribunal, especially with regards to the appointment of its chairman on grounds of a serious breach of natural justice, I was, in my absence, adjudged guilty and subsequently dismissed. The five Supreme Court judges which allowed my application were themselves suspended. Another Tribunal was established to try them and two of these valiant judges, namely the late Tan Sri Wan Suleiman and Datuk George Seah were dismissed. The other three, namely the Tan Sri Eusoffee Abdoolcader, Tan Sri Azmi Kamaruddin and Tan Sri Wan Hamzah were reinstated. If the Supreme Court Order were obeyed, my reinstatement would have automatically followed and this would have been unacceptable not only to the government of the day but also to those who would benefit from my dismissal. Thus my five colleagues were innocently suspended with all the consequences that have adversely affected them and their families until this day. FIFTH INCIDENT: The fifth incident relates to the government's action to deprive the Rulers of their immunities. The late Tun Suffian and I acted as advisors to the Rulers. By then, the Sultan of Johor was no longer the Yang di-Pertuan Agong and His Royal Highness was very concerned about the government's intention. This was my first audience with His Royal Highness after my dismissal. HRH said to me in no uncertain terms that he very much regretted what had happened to me as he said he then realised that he had been "made use of." I told HRH that there was no need to feel sorry for me personally but he should express his regrets and apology to the people of this country for losing a Judiciary that was independent and could look after their rights. I was later summoned again by HRH to Istana Bukit Serene for advice after HRH learned that a bill had already been introduced in Parliament to disband the Johor Military Force (JMF). My advice to HRH was that the JMF, which was established long before the Malay Regiment, was and is part of the privileges of the Sultan of Johor and, without the consent of His Royal Highness, such privileges could not legally be withdrawn. My opinion was confirmed by Mr Neil Lawson, Q.C., the legal adviser to the Malay Rulers during the negotiation for Merdeka. There was no doubt that HRH was very pleased with my effort over HRH's then predicament and, in appreciation thereof, offered to make a public apology in Johor Baru over HRH's role in my dismissal. The Johor Palace then began to put in place arrangements for the occasion but, once again, mightier hands from Kuala Lumpur managed to persuade HRH from keeping to his pledge. The above are some of the new facts which I hope could persuade Nazri to change his mind. These incidents undeniably go to show that come what may, I must be made to give up my judicial office. There would of course be other incidents and other details which would emerge if the review is held but for the time being, I shall keep the identity of those unnamed persons in this statement concealed. As regards responses from the other two judges who were also dismissed, Tan Sri Wan Suleiman is no longer with us. His widow, has nevertheless, supported the call for a review. But the speech made by the late Tun Suffian (Hashim) during a special reference organised by the Malaysian Bar in Tan Sri Wan Suleiman's memory and honour should give an indication on the role played by my late colleague during the crisis which, in the learned Tun Suffian's opinion, certainly did not deserve his dismissal. Datuk George Seah is currently unwell to make any contribution to Nazri's call for "new facts" but the series of articles on the crisis written by him not so long ago continue to appear in the websites of both the Malaysian Bar and Aliran. Knowing the character of the late Tan Sri Eusoffee Abdoolcader, I am sure that he too would support a review. Tan Sri Azmi Kamaruddin has already come out publicly for a review. I believe Tan Sri Wan Hamzah is also of this view. For these reasons, I hope Nazri will present the proposal to the Cabinet for a review of the 1988 Judicial Crisis so that the truth of this important episode in our nation's history is uncovered.
EXCERPTS FROM sun2surf " Karpal: Nazri misled Parliament"
PUTRAJAYA, Nov 7 (Bernama) -- Bukit Gelugor Member of Parliament Karpal Singh said
Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Datuk Seri Nazri Abdul Aziz had misled Parliament
when he said judges involved in the 1988 Judicial crisis were not sacked but were asked to take
early retirement.
"They were not sacked. They were asked
to retire early. Its like optional. At
66, you can (receive) pension. Since they
chose to retire, the pension was paid.
The Pension Department would not pay (pension) if they had broken
any laws," Nazri had said.
Karpal told reporters at the Palace of Justice today that in order to clear
the honour and dignity of the judges sacked in 1988, the Government
should have set up two tribunals to absolve them from the actions taken
against them instead of giving ex-gratia payment.
"What should have been done was not to pay out ex-gratia to the judges
but to have another tribunal set up to clear their name. It can still be done. Paying them
ex-gratia payment does not in anyway clear them from having been found guilty for
misbehaviour"
For full report [HERE]
TUN SALLEH ABAS CASE REVISITED from sun2surf dated 26 Sept 2006
Salleh pleads his case
Read on for more:
Updated: 07:32PM Tue, 26 Sep 2006
ROSMAH KEKAL CANSELOR UNISEL
Pemuda Pakatan Rakyat telah mendesak agar Canselor Unisel ditukar kepada seorang individu yang lebih layak dan berwibawa sesuai dengan status Unisel sebagai sebauh gedung ilmu dan menara gading.
Belum Ada Rancangan Tukar Canselor Unisel - Abdul Khalid
MURIZA ABDUL HAMID / BULETIN SELANGOR
SHAH ALAM, 5 November - Kerajaan negeri tidak mempunyai kuasa untuk menamatkan pelantikan Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor sebagai Canselor Universiti Industri Selangor (Unisel), kata Dato' Menteri Besar, Tan Sri Abdul Khalid Ibrahim.
Menurutnya, sebarang keputusan mengenai pelantikan dan penamatan terletak di bawah kuasa penuh Ahli Lembaga Pengarah Unisel.
"Kita sudah menerima memorandum bantahan Pemuda Pakatan Rakyat namun setakat ini kita tidak ada rancangan untuk menukar Canselor," katanya dalam sidang media selepas mempengerusikan mesyuarat Exco, di sini petang tadi.
Walau bagaimanapun katanya, sebarang perubahan berkaitan perkara itu akan dimaklumkan.
Pemuda PAS desak MB ganti Canselor Unisel
Saidah Hairan / HARAKAHDAILY
Wed | Nov 05, 08 | 11:55:13 am MYT
KUALA LUMPUR, 5 Nov (Hrkh) - Dewan Pemuda PAS Negeri Selangor tidak nampak keberkesanan peranan isteri timbalan Perdana Menteri, Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor sebagai canselor Universiti Industri Selangor (Unisel) selama ini.
Ketuanya, Ustaz Sallehen Mokhyi berkata, Unisel merupakan satu institusi akademik oleh itu pelantikan Canselor mesti ada hubungkait dengan tokoh akademik dan orang yang bebas atau tidak terikat dengan mana-mana parti politik.
Memandangkan pelantikan Rosmah sejak zaman kerajaan BN, Menteri Besar, Tan Sri Abdul Khalid tidak ada alasan untuk menggantikan canselor yang lebih layak dan mempunyai latarbelakang akademik, tegasnya.
"Unisel berorientasikan ilmu bukan politik maka amat tidak sesuai Rosmah dilantik sebagai canselor. Jika Unisel merupakan pusat teater atau kebudayaan maka sesuai Rosmah diletakkan disitu,"katanya.
Beliau berkata, ramai lagi tokoh yang sesuai diletakkan di Unisel yang boleh dijadikan model atau rujukan pada pentadbiran dan akademik.
Katanya, jawatan Canselor merupakan tempat yang penting dalam institusi kerana ia menggambarkan bagaimana bentuk yang akan berlaku di institusi tersebut.
"Kita lihat banyak insititusi yang tidak dapat bersaing sehingga ke peringkat antarabangsa bahkan ketinggalan jauh disebabkan kongkongan politik sempit," tegasnya.
Beliau beranggapan Unisel tidak boleh bergerak lebih jauh disebabkan kongkongan atau campurtangan politik yang terlalu kuat.
Unisel merupakan universiti penuh milik kerajaan negeri itu melantik Rosmah sebagai canselor pertama pada Ogos 2006.
Unisel ditubuhkan pada 1999 diuruskan oleh Pendidikan Industri Yayasan Selangor Sdn Bhd (PIYSB) dipengerusikan Menteri Besar Tan Sri Abdul Khalid Ibrahim.
MANA BOS? PERGI KURSUS
Menurut Guru Pengurusan dari USA, Stephen Covey, di antara Tujuh
Tabiat Orang Yang Amat Berkesan ialah " Menajamkan Gergaji ". Ia
bermaksud memelihara dan meningkatkan perkara yang membantu kita untuk
mencapai objektif kerja kita serta keinginan yang lain. Konsep ini merujuk kepada cerita seorang
pemotong kayu yang begitu asyik memotong pokok sehingga ia "tiada masa" untuk menajamkan
gergajinya yang telah tumpul. Maka kesannya ialah si pemotong kayu ini menggunakan lebih
banyak tenaga dan masa dengan mengergaji lebih lama serta lebih kuat lagi dek kerana
gergajinya yang tumpul tidak diasah.
Di kebanyakan Jabatan Kerajaan, kakitangan bawahan diwajibkan menghadhiri pelbagai kursus
serta bengkel sebagai satu "exercise" sebelum kenaikan pangkat. Sementara "bos" pula tidak
diwajibkan dan jika ada ia lebih dikenali sebagai "lawatan sambil belajar". Jika para "bos"
menghadhiri kursus, ini bermakna beliau masih ada beberapa bulan lagi sebelum bersara, jadi
untuk menghabiskan sisa-sisa (baki) perkhidmatan, eloklah berkursus. Terdapat bos yang
mewakilkan kepada kakitangan bawahan jika terdapat pekeliling menghendaki beliau datang ke
kursus. Juga kursus untuk bos lazimnya dibuat di hotel lima bintang di suatu kawasan
peranginan sama ada di dalam atau di luar negara. Ada bos yang beranggapan bahawa
menghadhiri kursus hanyalah membuang masa kerana ini akan menyebabkan tidak dapat
hadhir mesyuarat, tiada siapa yang akan tandatangan surat serta bila balik kursus nanti kerja
akan bertimbun.
Budaya di atas harus diubah dan mentaliti "dah tahu semua/ tiada apa yang perlu dipelajari"
perlu diganti dengan suatu budaya cintakan ilmu, cintakan program diskusi, sumbangsaran,
bengkel, kerja berpasukan dan kecemerlangan dalam kehidupan duniawi ukhrawi. Sifat
tawadhu' serta merendah diri harus ditanam dalam hati dan sanubari pemimpin bukan sahaja
kepemimpinan di peringkat keluarga, pejabat, jabatan, kementerian bahkan di peringkat negara.
Bengkel Latihan Kerajaan wajib di Selangor
Oleh Nur Fadzmin Alias
bhnews@bharian.com.my
Ketua jabatan, pengawai kanan diberi input mantap pengurusan organisasi terap kerja cemerlang
PETALING JAYA: Kerajaan negeri Selangor mewajibkan ketua jabatan dan pegawai kanan di bawah agensi kerajaan negeri menghadiri bengkel latihan kerajaan bagi memantapkan hala tuju pentadbiran dan menerapkan amalan budaya kerja yang lebih cemerlang.
Pengerusi Jawatankuasa Tetap Hal Ehwal Islam, Adat Melayu, Infrastruktur dan Kemudahan Awam, Datuk Dr Hasan Mohamed Ali, berkata bengkel itu akan dijadikan garis panduan bagi menyelaras pengisian sistem nilai, pembentukan minda serta penyuburan emosi pegawai kerajaan negeri.
“Garis panduan yang mereka peroleh dalam bengkel ini akan menjadi asas kukuh bagi melahirkan modal insan yang bermotivasi, amanah dan berwawasan supaya misi dan visi kerajaan negeri tercapai.
“Jadi kita harap mereka akan menerapkan pengisian program untuk faedah mereka sendiri dan juga organisasi yang ditadbir,” katanya selepas merasmikan Bengkel Latihan Kepimpinan ESQ anjuran Pejabat Setiausaha Kerajaan Negeri Selangor dan Majlis Bandaraya Petaling Jaya (MBPJ) di sini, semalam.
Sementara itu, Datuk Bandar Petaling Jaya, Datuk Roslan Sakiman, berkata pihaknya menyokong usaha itu yang mengambil pendekatan ‘Spies’ bermaksud penekanan akan diberikan kepada faktor fizikal, intelektual, emosi dan sosial dalam setiap program yang dilaksanakan.
“Bagi MBPJ program ini bermula dengan kumpulan pengurusan tertinggi dan profesional untuk mencapai tujuh nilai dasar iaitu jujur, tanggungjawab, disiplin, berpandangan jauh, kerjasama, adil dan prihatin supaya mereka dapat memajukan diri serta perkhidmatan dalam organisasi.
“Ia akan menjadi perangsang kepada mereka supaya meningkatkan prestasi dan emosi dengan lebih baik ketika bekerja,” katanya.
Bengkel diadakan sehingga 5 November ini, dihadiri 163 peserta dan membincangkan pelbagai tajuk penting, antaranya memahami prinsip kepemimpinan, pengawalan diri, membina kerjasama dan membina karakter dengan lebih lanjut.
BUDAYA ILMU DI [SINI] dan ESQ Training di [SINI]
KEHIDUPAN OBAMA SEMASA KECIL SUMBER INSPIRASI SEMUA
Walaupun kedua ibubapa
Obama bercerai ketika beliau masih kecil dan dipelihara serta disekolahkan oleh
kedua orang datuk sebelah emak, Obama tidak pernah menyoalkan nasib beliau kenapa
dilahirkan berkulit hitam, dalam keluarga bermasalah dan ditinggalkan kepada datuk.
Emak ayah beliau bernikah pada tahun 1961, lahirlah Obama enam bulan kemudian dan
pada tahun 1964, kedua ibu bapanya berpisah. Ibunya berhijrah ke Indonesia dan
berkahwin lagi dengan Lolo Soetoro. Obama Sr pulang ke Kenya pada tahun 1972 dan
menemui ajalnya dalam kemalangan jalanraya pada tahun 1982 ketika berumur 46 tahun.
Diceritakan bahawa Obama hanya sempat berjumpa bapanya pada tahun 1972 setelah kedua
ibu bapanya bercerai. Beliau berjaya melanjutkan pelajaran hingga ke Columbia
Universiti, New York dalam bidang perundangan pada tahun 1980 dan seterusnya maju
ke hadapan tanpa melihat ke belakang sejarah hitamnya.
Born in Kenya, Barack Obama Sr. came to the University of Hawaii in order to study for a degree in economics. This photograph hangs on the wall of his stepmother's house in Kogelo, Kenya
MotherThough she has signed this sophomore yearbook photograph of herself "Stanley" — her parents named her Stanley Ann at birth — Obama's mother was known as Ann for most of her life. After attending Mercer Island High School in Washington, she enrolled at the University of Hawaii, where she met Barack Obama, Sr.
Barack Sr. and Ann Dunham married in February, 1961 and Barack was born six months later. Their union did not last long, however. The marriage ended in divorce in early 1964.
The Young ObamaFor the first six years of his life, Barack lived in Hawaii. In 1967, his mother remarried and the family moved to Indonesia.
ReunionAfter the divorce, Barack Jr. only saw his father one more time, in Hawaii, in 1972, when this photograph was taken. The senior Barack then returned to Kenya, where he worked for a US oil company and the Kenyan government. He died in a car accident in 1982, at the age of 46.
Family TiesWhen Ann returned to Indonesia, the young Barack remained behind in Hawaii, where he was raised by his maternal grandparents. He eventually attended Columbia University in New York, where this photo was taken in the 1980s.
Half SisterMaya Soetoro, the daughter of Barack's mother and her second husband, Lolo Soetoro sits beside the young Barack, Ann and grandfather Stanley Dunham in this photograph taken in Hawaii the early 1970s. Ann came back to Hawaii to attend graduate school in 1974 and remained until 1977, when she returned to Indonesia.
GrandparentsStanley and Madelyn Dunham pose with Obama's mother Ann in a photograph probably taken in the 1950s. Born in Kansas, Obama's maternal grandparents lived in four states before settling in Hawaii.
KenyaSarah Obama, now 86, still resides in Kogelo. In this photo, she and Obama pose together outside her home in 1995.
Extended FamilyOn his father's side, Obama has numerous relatives. He has made several visits to the home of his step grandmother, Sarah Obama, front row, second from right. He also has four half brothers through his father.
MichelleBarack met his wife in the late 1980s, when the two worked at the prestigious Chicago law firm Sidley & Austin. They were married in 1992. Shortly thereafter, they spent a Christmas in Hawaii, where this photo was taken.
