法情 首页 法情
www.faqing.org
 
 常见问题与解答 (FAQ)常见问题与解答 (FAQ)   搜索搜索   成员列表成员列表   成员组成员组   注册注册 
 个人资料个人资料   登陆查看您的私人留言登陆查看您的私人留言   登陆登陆 

柏特拉文存
前往页面 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  下一个
 
发表新帖   回复帖子    法情 首页 -> 生花妙笔
阅读上一个主题 :: 阅读下一个主题  
作者 留言
老黄
Site Admin


注册时间: 2005-07-29
帖子: 25840

来自: 太平 --〉关丹

帖子发表于: 11-11-08 星期二 12:41 am    发表主题: 柏特拉文存 引用并回复

原题:Catalyst For Change

毫不留情:改变的催化剂
《西西留博客站》

巫统主席不是由2千6百万名马来西亚人或1千1百万名选民决定的,这是由191个区部领袖决定的。191名巫统马来领袖决定谁将成为巫统主席,也就是马来西亚首相的唯一人选。


改变有两种: 进化和革命。进化是缓慢的,通常费时几代;革命则是迅速的,有时在一天之内就办到了。

他们说马来西亚不可能有革命,他们这么说是因为马来西亚人都不是革命的料,也不暴力,我觉得这是可圈可点的。马来西亚人也许不暴力,至少大部分的人都是如此,不过若他们想要革命,他们是办得到的。

革命不应该和杀戮、街头浴血等画上等号。我们可以来个典范转移,若这革命可以在一夜之间完成;或是思维上的改变,也就是思想上的革命。

马来西亚在2008年三月八日看到了她的革命。那堪称是个革命,你实在是找不出其他的代称了。

革命是好的,若没有和鲜血扯上关系。流血革命通常上都不会完结,因为有报复的因素在内。不过,若无其他法子,流血革命是必须的。就像印尼和菲律宾分别对抗荷兰和西班牙的殖民统治的时候。

马来西亚本来可以迎接一个改革性的变化。实际上他们也等了50年了。后来在第51年的时候,他们觉得情况已经恶化,再也没有什么改进的希望的时候,他们决定要来个改革性的变化。这是为何国阵在三八大选输得这么惨。

这也引发了其他事情。国阵的成员党发觉他们也需要改变,不然就要等死了。所以我们看到这些马华,民政等开始持有异议。巫统也在改变中,至少在领导层中就有变化了。

不过巫统需要的不只是领导层上的改变。态度也需要改变。它不能再用「另一个五一三」,叫「移居者回去他们的祖国」等来威胁那些提起「敏感课题」的人。巫统要知道,华人、印度人、伊班人、达雅人、卡达山人、葡萄牙人、泰国人等等,与马来人有同样的权利。他们也一样拥有马来西亚。敦马不是曾经说过九成的所得税都是由华人『买单』的吗?

最怕就是巫统只有领导层上的改变而已。他们也不会再态度或政策上有所改变。他们有必要这么做吗?毕竟,巫统主席不是由2千6百万名马来西亚人或1 千1百万名选民决定的,这是由191个区部领袖决定的。191名巫统马来领袖决定谁将成为巫统主席,也就是马来西亚首相的唯一人选。

所以,2千6百万名马来西亚人不关紧要,1千1百万名选民也无关紧要,只有那191个区部领袖才紧要。

而这191个巫统区部领袖要的是什么?他们要巫统继续捍卫马来人权益,特别优惠,新经济政策,直到「最后一滴血」。这就是巫统主席兼马来西亚首相要做的事,若他要上位的话。若不,他就会被逼宫,而阿都拉就是榜样了。

首相通常都会忘记他是全马来西亚人的首相。很多时候他都认为他是巫统党员的首相——连全马来人的首相也不是。即使纳吉接手阿都拉的职位以后,也不会有所改变。

这不是说纳吉他不明白,而是他是别无选择。因为他的这个位子不是2千6百万名马来西亚人或1千1百万名选民给他的,而是191个区部领袖提名他,然后只给姑里一个提名。所以他一定要满足这些人的需要,而不是非巫统的马来人或是1千1百万名选民或是2千6百万名马来西亚人的需要。

这是为何我们需要一个来自民联的首相。我们需要一个马来西亚人的首相,不是巫统区部领袖的首相。直到民联接收为止,只要首相是由191个巫统区部选出,首相依然会是巫统的首相,而不是马来西亚人的首相。

不过这些会发生吗?我们将会看到一个民联首相吗? 何时呢?

是的!我想这个日子将会到来。也许不久之后,也许在圣诞节之前。三八大选的革命还没有完毕,还在持续着。它继续在巴东埔补选上发酵,然后在居林补选上,假如他们胆敢宣布选举无效的话——那就是他们销案的原因。只有巫统首相被拉下台后,革命才会完结。

等着接手的巫统领导是马哈迪式的领导。马哈迪在八打灵的Singgahsana旅馆里宣布说,新的首相将会由一个会长理事会所指导。谁将会带领这个新设立的会长理事会呢?人们会接受马哈迪重执政权,通过代理管制的事实吗?这将会是未来几个星期主要的议论课题,当然还有有关民联首相的接手。

我知道有许多人开始沉不住气了。大多数的马来西亚人开始对民联的变天不再存有希望。也许,现在就失望的话就太早了点。如果到了圣诞节还变天不成的话,那个时候才来担心吧!就一直保持希望到那个时候吧!我们可以准备迎接今年的圣诞节,是独立的51年以来,最好的圣诞节。
_________________
个人履历:http://faqing.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2123
部落格:http://wongsienbiang.blogspot.com/


最后进行编辑的是 老黄 on 24-02-10 星期三 2:20 am, 总计第 2 次编辑
返回页首
[ 1楼 ] 阅览成员资料 (Profile) 发送私人留言 (PM) 发送电子邮件 浏览发表者的主页 MSN Messenger
老黄
Site Admin


注册时间: 2005-07-29
帖子: 25840

来自: 太平 --〉关丹

帖子发表于: 11-11-08 星期二 11:17 pm    发表主题: 引用并回复

http://ccliew.blogspot.com/2008/11/blog-post_11.html

我是马来人,并引以为荣

原题:I am Malay, and proud of it
作者  ∶拉惹柏特拉
翻译  ∶ECS283
校对  ∶西西留


宗教式的迷信和迫害总是令我叹为观止。就索马里的摩加迪沙(Mogadishu)的艾莎(Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow)的那宗事件来说吧。在2008年10月27日,年龄只有13岁的艾莎被1,000人丢掷石头致死,原因是由三个男人强奸了她。由于她被强奸,因此他们说她犯下了通奸之罪。

试想象一个13岁少女如此残忍地被致死,就因为她被三个男人强奸。应该被石头丢掷直死的,难道不是那做出强奸行为的三名男子吗?你可否有想过为何回教有很严重的形象问题呢? 回教徒应该重视他们的所作所为以及明白他们对回教所作出的破坏。

我们在甘文丁扣留中心的宗教纠正开始于屠妖节过后的星期二。课程的重点是用“蕃茄饭”以及在塑胶袋里的鸡翅膀凑合而成的午饭,由大马宗教发展局提供,不过是马来西亚纳税人买单,其中九成是华人。

宗教发展局的宗教司告诉我们说,回教是真正的宗教,其他的都是假的。我们再三地被提醒不可相信或依从其他宗教,因为这些都不被神所接受或承认。只有《可兰经》是真正的圣书,是神通过穆圣送来给与我们。其他的都是假的,都是人为的,不是来自神的。

我们绝对不可以模仿非回教徒,因为这样能令我们进入歧途。若我们的举动像个异教徒,我们就会成为叛教者。不过,他没有给什么例子,什么举动才是异教徒的举动。

在同样时候,另一件事情在甘文丁扣留中心外发生了。一位国大讲师说,回教徒不应该学瑜伽或冥想,因为这些本来是来自兴都教义。学瑜伽或冥想的回教徒会误入歧途,这个来自国大的聪明人这么说。他后来要求宗教学士做出裁决,禁止回教徒涉及瑜伽或冥想。

这位来自宗教发展局的宗教司,来到甘文丁扣留中心,竟然选了这个课题,作为我们的宗教纠正课程的开始,的确是很讽刺的。那篇令我扯上政府的麻烦,导致我被《内安法令》扣留的文章里耶说了同样的事情。我在文章中指出星期五的布道会都在诋毁其他的宗教。我也说我们被告知不得模仿非回教徒,或与他们做朋友,因为非回教徒是回教的天敌,绝不能成为我们的朋友。就这样我被《内安法令》扣留了。而我在这里的第一课却是我所写的,令我被扣留的内容。

其实还有很多马来人所做的事情都是来自兴都教义。就拿彩灯来说吧。在开斋节的七天前,马来人会在他们的屋子周围绕上彩灯。有时绕在树上,就像他们在圣诞节所做那样。在以往,他们是用油灯或火水灯。这是他们模仿屠妖节的习俗而来的,因为阿拉伯人从不这样做。

所以,下次你在开斋节时经过一个绕满彩灯的马来屋子的时候,你就会会心一笑,知道屋主是采用兴都习俗,只是他们自己不晓得罢了。

若我们要一一指出马来人所实践的兴都习俗的话,这列单会很长。该名宗教学士告诉我们说,我们不应该模仿异教徒。不然的话我们会成为异教徒。那么,戴领带,穿大衣,长裤呢?这不就是异教徒服装吗?

有多少个马来人是穿长袍带头巾的呢? 即使是那个要求做出禁止马来人学瑜伽或冥想的裁决的国大讲师也是穿者异教徒的服装。你看看所有的马来政府官员。他们都穿着异教徒的服装,有时还戴领带。保安队员全都穿者异教徒的制服,还有一顶异教徒的帽子在他们头上。

我们都用基督教徒的日历来算日子。我在基督教徒日历的一些日子里犯下了一些我如今面对的各种指控。我犯下这些指控的日子,是在回历里的哪些日子呢?控状上没有注明。

我在一个异教徒的法庭内面对各样指控。我犯下的罪名都是依照异教徒的法律。我也是因为一项异教徒的法律下,没有经过审讯就被扣留。实际上,根据回教,我并没有犯下任何罪名。回教也不容许没有经过审讯的扣留。

根据回教,我不但没有涉及犯罪,反而我的作为是一项回教义务。回教强制要求所有回教徒都能 “Amar Makruf, Nahi Munkar”。这就是说“捍卫良善,对抗邪恶”。所有回教徒都不例外。根据回教,不这么做的话,你就是个非常软弱的回教徒。

我,无论如何,还是得面对着审讯,因为这是履行我的宗教义务,而面对未经审讯的扣留。用来对付我的不是回教律法,而是异教徒律法。异教徒的法律被用来对付一个履行回教义务的回教徒。

然后,回教徒对这些全部有什么反应? 那个国大讲师有因此做了什么吗? 他可有反对异教徒的制度被用在回教上? 居林的国会议员有没有跑到街上示威大喊:“我是个回教徒,我不管其他人有什么意见?”

好吧!国大讲师要求禁止瑜伽和冥想,居林国会议员要所有想谈论回教的人闭嘴。不过就这么而已,没有更多。

有时马来人是很令人惊奇的。好吧!不是有时,是很多时候都是这样。现在巫统要再益(Zaid Ibrahim)脱离马来族群。马来人可以从马来族群中脱离的吗?我觉得不可思议,不过巫统觉得这是办得到的。巫统说,若再益不是个马来人,这个国家没有马来人至上和新经济政策的话,他不会是全马最大的律师楼的律师,他什么也不是。

再益觉得这是个侮辱。他宁愿相信他就是他,因为他就是再益,而且他很精明。若没有马来人至上和新经济政策的话,他只能在吉兰丹的道北(Tumpat)那边做一名平凡的渔夫的话,那就是说再益是相当愚蠢的。

我同意再益的看法。我也宁愿相信我是“重要”和“特别”的,因为我是拉惹柏特拉,若这只是因为马来人至上和新经济政策的关系而是我有今天的地位,不然我只有能在孟沙洗车的话,那我会很不开心。

是的!再益和像他那样的人不需要拐杖,只有输家才需要。这是为何巫统需要拐杖继续保留,因为他们都是一群输家。我宁愿相信我就是我,因为是我自己,而不是马来人至上和新经济政策。我对此感到骄傲。我会讨厌人说:“RPK当然是会成功的,因为他是个马来人,马来人有马来人至上和新经济政策来帮忙,马来人需要拐杖向前。”

马来人是时候要丢掉拐杖,学习如何挺胸走路。要向马来人灌输,令他们相信马来人至上和新经济政策是个侮辱,因为这代表马来人是软弱的生物。马来人必须要为了他们的成就而感到骄傲,而不是把他们的成就归功于因为他们是马来人而得到的保护和特权。马来人以往是个自豪的族群。现在他们不再自豪。他们自认他们是软弱的。所以他们要求保护来弥补这个弱点。

_________________
个人履历:http://faqing.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2123
部落格:http://wongsienbiang.blogspot.com/


最后进行编辑的是 老黄 on 24-02-10 星期三 2:22 am, 总计第 1 次编辑
返回页首
[ 2楼 ] 阅览成员资料 (Profile) 发送私人留言 (PM) 发送电子邮件 浏览发表者的主页 MSN Messenger
老黄
Site Admin


注册时间: 2005-07-29
帖子: 25840

来自: 太平 --〉关丹

帖子发表于: 14-11-08 星期五 5:03 pm    发表主题: 引用并回复

[转贴]《西西留博客站》
http://ccliew.blogspot.com/2008/11/blog-post_13.html

罗伯斯庇尔说新闻自由

原题: Robespierre on freedom of the press
作者  ∶拉惹柏特拉
翻译  ∶ECS283
校对  ∶西西留


“法律必须建立在原则上”,1791年4月7日,罗伯斯庇尔(Robespierre)在法国巴黎的雅各宾俱乐部(Jacobin Club)上的演讲时这么说道。“自由绝对不能有限制。在一个自由的国度,每一个公民都是自由的监护者,每个人都必须能够自由地抗议自由受到侵害,无论是个人或在印刷媒体上。如果公众官员因此发觉他们遭到诽谤,就让它这样吧!”

罗伯斯庇尔接着说: “不会贪腐的人,他们除了国家的安泰就没有其它的激情了。他们是不怕他们的子民表示心中看法的公开言论。他们非常清楚,当一个人能够以无可挑剔的生活及无私心的热诚去对抗诽谤的时候,敬重并不是那么简单就能失去的。若他们有时成了流言的受害者,这对他们来说是一个荣耀徽章,品德的最好明证;他们确信在受伤害的纯粹良知内的轻微信任以及事实的力量能在不久之后为他们和他们的子民以正视听。”

简单来说,罗伯斯庇尔的这番话是对于公仆而言,并没有什么《刑事诽谤法》和《煽动法》,这两个让我目前在法庭内受审的法律指控。而且他还是在200多年前,在他有关新闻自由的演说这么说的,这大概是英国人初次来到马来亚殖民的年代。

马来西亚有躲在为了防备挑起『敏感』课题,而做出令人诟病的法律后面的强烈倾向。任何事都能说是『敏感』的。这里只需要有一个人,一位部长,一位警官等等,去宣布说那件事是『敏感『的就行了。不必要有什么理由,或是不可理喻的原因,就能够宣布某件事是『敏感』的。这些只要有某个人的个人看法就够了。

这让人有太大的权力了。这个人会变成国民的『信托人』或良知。他所说的就是对的,也不能改变。他的话语不能受到质疑或挑战。虽然那只是他个人的看法,而且与大家的看法大不同。

当这些看起来已带有神的特征和特质后,那就没有什么是巧合的了。这个人就能用他的权力来宣布所有他不喜欢的为『敏感』,这就肯定是在扮演神。就不要说他实际上已经相信,神接下来之后,就是自己。

赛阿里(Syed Ali Alhabshee)批评马华对于马来人和新经济政策时发飚。「马华的大会不是发泄怒气或激怒马来人的平台!」巫统蕉赖区部主席赛阿里这么说道。为何当一些人谈起《新经济政策》的时候就是被诠释成『激怒马来人』呢?『激怒』就是找麻烦了,这就是当人们谈起新经济政策的时候,巫统的看法,它会说∶「你就是讨打」。

巫统百乐(Bera)区部主席伊斯迈(Ismail Sabri Yaakob),要求民政党革除妇女组主席陈莲花的党籍,因为她说马来人就像其它种族般,也是外来移居者。哈啰!大哥,这说得不对吗?为何对这个事实如此生气和在意?许多马来人只是第二或第三代的马来西亚人,他们的父母亲都是在印度、巴基斯坦、阿富汗、孟加拉、印尼、中东等地出世的。敦马和基尔就是其中例子。

总的来说,言论自由的精神到哪里去了?表达自己的看法有什么错?即使这也许是错的,我们不是有权力表达意见的吗?这就是巫统和政府大不对的地方,他们镇压言论表达自由,他们把这些都当成是在激怒马来人。如果你表达你的看法,他们要求你被革除,然后在《内安发令》下扣留。

巫统在说『社会契约』。这是法国哲学家卢梭(Rousseau)的学说。「所有的支配者或团体的利益都脱离了人民的利益。」那就是卢梭对『社会契约』的诠释。而那也是巫统对所谓『社会契约』的诠释版本,意思是那些当权者在意的是他们的利益而不是人民的利益。

这就是为何《新经济政策》失败了。那些马来『移民』滥用新经济政策来达致自己的利益,人民却没有受益,富有和贫乏的鸿沟越来越大。我们是否需要一个容许当权的少数人凭着多数人的花费而致富的政策吗?

在不久的未来,马来西亚将出现新的斗争。不!那不关种族纠纷,那将是个阶级斗争,是压迫者和受压者之间的冲突,贫富之间的矛盾。

40年以来,薪水已经翻了一倍。40年前的一个月马币350元的起薪,如今是大约马币750元。但是生活水平已经翻了10到15倍。40年前价值马币三千元的,现在需要马币五万元。40年前价值马币八千元的,现在需要马币十万元。人民已经不能负担基本需求。

当我在甘文丁『坐花厅』的时候,我问我的监狱看守员他们的起薪是多少?他们告诉我说一个月是马币八百元,当他们做了超过三十五年,在五十八岁退休时,薪水就会达到马币两千两百元。一个月马币八百元,他们能买什么呢? 到了月中他们就没钱了。他们在整个八个小时的值班里都在那儿坐着,因为他们连去食堂喝茶也负担不起。

那些有家庭的,就生活在价值马币六万元多,九百方尺的单层排屋内。他们将为他们的屋子到缴付贷款直到退休为止。九百方尺比起那些精英的主人房还小一些。普通人,那些受薪工人,整家人就在那种大小的空间生活。

这些事情一定要说出来!巫统和政府不能镇压这些,然后假装一切都好。《新经济政策》失败了。『社会契约』是个笑话。这必须说出来,必须弄明白。三八大选不是反对党变强,或是用对竞选策略。那是人民反感而大声说出来: 「够了就是够了!」。

巫统还是不明白,他们还是继续否认。他们不明白三八大选发生了什么事,这是为何巫统会死亡。但那不是安华或反对党杀了巫统,而是巫统自取灭亡,而如今的巫统党选更加速了巫统的毁灭。

大约两个月以来,我都整天被关起来,不能去哪里,也不能见谁。唯一的『娱乐』就是听那些监狱看守员聊天。他们谈的都道出了一个事实∶生活费高涨。他们埋怨基本需求的费用,他们才不管谁是下任首相,安华在圣诞节前取代也好,纳吉在明年三月上任也好,米、牛肉、鱼和蔬菜的费用还是不能以他们的微薄薪水来负担。

巫统和政府应该接受事实,基本薪水不应该少过马币一千五百元一个月。贫穷线应该在马币一千两百元以下。无论是谁即将从阿都拉手中接过当权位子,都应该严正地考虑这个重要点,人民不再负担得起基本需求。这不关政治,这是有关你口袋里的钱,所缺少的钱。这将是未来的斗争,这将是阶级的斗争。没有什么《煽动法令》或《刑事诽谤法》令能够这些改变。送人去坐牢不能让他们的口袋里有更多钱。这反而只会让人更加想要落实在2008年三月八日就开始了的第二期『革命』。
_________________
个人履历:http://faqing.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2123
部落格:http://wongsienbiang.blogspot.com/


最后进行编辑的是 老黄 on 24-02-10 星期三 2:24 am, 总计第 1 次编辑
返回页首
[ 3楼 ] 阅览成员资料 (Profile) 发送私人留言 (PM) 发送电子邮件 浏览发表者的主页 MSN Messenger
老黄
Site Admin


注册时间: 2005-07-29
帖子: 25840

来自: 太平 --〉关丹

帖子发表于: 20-11-08 星期四 5:15 pm    发表主题: 引用并回复

http://ccliew.blogspot.com/2008/11/blog-post_18.html

毫不留情∶马来西亚的天籁绝唱

原题: The Malaysia swan song
作者  ∶拉惹柏特拉
翻译  ∶ECS283
校对  ∶西西留

首先请阅读以下2008年10月29日耶加达邮报的新闻报导。

印尼反歧视法

国会一致通过一项法令,把歧视种族视为严重的刑事犯罪。

副议长穆海明伊斯坎达尔(Muhaimin Iskandar)主持了这全体议员出席并让法令通过的会议。他说,印尼不再让种族歧视有任何生存空间。

国会特别商议法令委员会主席傅志宽(Murdaya Poo)说,法令的通过终结了一直以来把国民分为土著和非土著的分别。

※亚洲财富杂志(Forbes Asia)2007年公布印尼40大富豪名单中,傅志宽(Murdaya Poo,65岁)以4.3亿美元排名第13。他的私人企业集团,经营的是木材和制作耐吉(Nike)球鞋的生意。

「一个人不能选择出生成为某个种族,因此歧视是不应该存在的,」也是一位印尼华族的傅志宽这么说道。

他说国会是为了认可自1999年的国际扑灭各式歧视会议的努力而提出这项法律。

在这项新法律之下,那些行使歧视政策的官员将面对比刑事法更严厉三份一的处罚。

傅志宽举例说,亚齐的地方长官或政府不能在其省份禁止爪哇人举办的集会。

他说延迟法案的通过是因为有人反对应该把监禁作为最低处罚。

严重的刑事犯罪如贪污、恐怖主义、洗黑钱、滥用毒品等的最低惩处都是监禁。

「对于那些触犯种族歧视的人,我们决定把监禁作为最低惩处,」也是印尼民主斗争党(Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle,PDI-P)党员的傅志宽这么说道。

法令通过当天也是印尼庆祝青年公约100周年纪念。傅志宽表示,这将鼓励印尼人捍卫国家多元的环境。 印尼一向来是这区域内,与越南、缅甸和菲律宾等,作为人权纪录最差的『最佳例子国家』之一。而马来西亚和新加坡则是『比较好』的国家。虽然当时的首相—— 马哈迪医生和李光耀——会时常提醒他们的国民说没有绝对的民主,因为这是『不好』的民主。不过我们有被『指导』的民主,对如马来西亚和新加坡那样的东南亚国家来说会比较好。

马来西亚不能容许西式的绝对自由和民主,马哈迪医生这么说。这样的话,人们就会自由携带枪械,随时互相射击,或涉及同性婚姻,或在海滩作裸体阳光浴,或众目睽睽之下在公园的长椅上做爱等。就因为有些事情是不被允许的,不过禁止好的,就为了可以预防坏的是因小失大的做法。

今天,印尼容许国家电视台上反对党也有同等的广播时间,而且还立法规定,作出歧视行为的话就将至少被监禁。印尼一直以来都带着无法无天的形象很久了,她到底走得多远了呢。

马来西亚有很多法令。《出版和印刷法令》、《大专法令》、《社团法令》、《警察法令》、《煽动法令》、《机密法令》、《内安法令》,这些都是其中一些恶法,这些都是独立以后国会通过的法令。所以若我们的领袖说这些都是英国人遗留下来的法律,这是不对的。

旧的英国法律都叫做Ordinances, 例如紧急法令(Emergency Ordinance),那是可以在没有审讯的情况下也能被扣留的。实际上,马来西亚有许多重复的法律,即Acts和Ordinance这两个法令,同时都在使用着。换句话说,旧法令没有废除,虽然新的法令已经通过了,而且它们也应该代替旧的英国法律。

例如说,虽然我们有比较新的《反贪污法令》,在1998至1999年期间,但是安华还是在旧英国法律下被控,结果被判六年徒刑。他们选择利用旧法令而不是新法律来提控安华是因为比较容易钉死安华。若用新的法律的话,也许就不怎么容易了。

有些特定的法律还是在使用着,虽然这已经触犯了《联邦宪法》。不过在宪法下,当国家面对紧急状态的时候,国会还是能够通过与宪法有冲突的法律。换句话说,若马来西亚被侵略,国会就能合法通过非法的法律。这就是所谓的∶『目的合理化方式』。

当印尼在1962年向马来西亚宣战时,我们就颁布了紧急状态,然后经历了一段对峙时期。虽然与印尼的对抗在过后不久就结束,但是紧急状态没有被撤除。然而一直到1969年的五一三的种族暴乱发生后,政府就乘机延长紧急状态。

技术上来说,马来西亚还是处于『紧急状态』,虽然印尼现在已经是我们的朋友,1969年的种族暴乱也结束了很久,马来亚共产党也在1989年,泰国的合艾与马来西亚正式签下合约结束抗战。

换句话说,马来西亚已经『正式地』看到将近20的和平(虽然我们不正式地拥有约40年的和平) 不过紧急状态还持续着,国会还是可以利用宪法给与的权力,合法地通过抵触宪法的非法法律。可以这样的吗?当然是可以的。因为在马来西亚,什么都可以。

南非以前也是像马来西亚那样。之前还有一次马来西亚人被禁止到南非旅行 (还有以色列、中国、苏联、北韩、北越等)。今天,南非不再有《内安法令》,反而还有了个《权益法案》(Bill of Rights)。种族隔离在南非已经结束很久了,在那边再也没有发生什么种族歧视的事情,来自南非的律师实际上都看不起马来西亚的法律和司法制度,这不很讽刺吗?

自从大选以来的最近的几个月,我们都看到了种族主义频频发生。国阵看来还是不清楚因为他们的种族政策而在三八大选中遭受惨败。他们不减少反而增加种族色彩。他们还没有在大选中吸取教训,忽视共有50%的选民已把手中一票投给反对党的事实。

你想怎么称呼都行,『马来人至上』(Ketuanan Melayu)是和『种族隔离』一样的种族主义。就如莎士比亚所说的,玫瑰无论放上什么名字,都是香的。若把它叫做『马来人至上』,就能清洗『种族隔离』的嫌疑,这是行不通的。『马来人至上』只是『种族隔离』的另一个名称。若国阵的死脑筋还有点良知,就好赶快去搞清楚其中的好坏了。

在马来西亚的种族主义应该像印尼那样,也是一种犯罪,而且至少要受到监禁的惩处。所有涉及或类似种族主义的都要被禁止和视为违法,包括以『马来人至上』的名义下的马来西亚式种族隔离。

安华已经把『马来人至上』改成人民至上——人民才是最大的。这必须是我们的目标和展望。而那些反对这些的必须完全拒绝他们。让这些不分种族地,都成为所有马来西亚人的天籁绝唱。你要嘛就成为我们的一份子,不然就是敌人了,就像布什总统所说那样。
_________________
个人履历:http://faqing.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2123
部落格:http://wongsienbiang.blogspot.com/


最后进行编辑的是 老黄 on 24-02-10 星期三 2:27 am, 总计第 1 次编辑
返回页首
[ 4楼 ] 阅览成员资料 (Profile) 发送私人留言 (PM) 发送电子邮件 浏览发表者的主页 MSN Messenger
老黄
Site Admin


注册时间: 2005-07-29
帖子: 25840

来自: 太平 --〉关丹

帖子发表于: 20-11-08 星期四 5:20 pm    发表主题: 引用并回复

http://ccliew.blogspot.com/2008/11/blog-post_881.html

毫不留情∶重施故技

原题:Taking a second bite of the cherry
作者  ∶拉惹柏特拉
翻译  ∶ECS283
校对  ∶西西留

今天下午三时,我又被叫到冼都警察局去报到,说是警察希望能够录取我的口供,也就是要讯问我啦!只不过比较好听罢了。根据《刑事程序法典》第112条文,警方有权记录你的声明,而且:

1) 你必须回答所有问题(你当然可以回答说你不想回答某些问题,这也算是一种回答)。
2) 若你撒谎,警方可以提控你。
3) 若你说实话,你所说的都可以用来提控你。

换句话说,若你不开口,你就死;若你撒谎,你也是死;若你说真话,你也是死;无论怎样,都是死,没有第二条路可以走。

根据警方的情报,在2008年九月,四名回教发展局、还有宗教局的人针对我报了案。至于报案书的内容,在什么条文下他们要录我的口供等都不清楚,也只有在今天较后才会告诉我。

上次他们叫我到冼都警察局的时候,是为了记录我有关我在四月里签署的法定声明书的口供。那个时候他们告诉我他们要提控我做出虚假的声明,因此我不厌其烦地去证明我没有做出虚假声明,而且全都是真的。

我当然没有发觉那其实是个陷阱。他们要我做出能够把我定罪的口供,然后就用这个口供作为我涉及刑事诽谤罪的理由而不提控说我做出虚假声明。这就像是他们本来控告我谋杀,不过当你能证明你自己不在案发现场,而是在情妇家过夜时,他们就控告你通奸。所以,就因为你有很好的不在场证据,他们还是能够引用另一条罪来指控你。

那个报案书是在2008年九月报的。根据这个报案书,他们在九月十二日引用《内安法令》第73条文扣留我。从九月十三日开始到九月二十二日,他们马拉松式地询问我,然后在结束询问后的一小时,就引用《内安法令》第八条文扣留我,在隔天早上就打包我到甘文丁。

在他们以为可以收工的时候,沙亚南法庭却在十一月七日宣布我的扣留是非法的,然后在下午四时就被放出来了。现在情况又跑回起点了,他们只好重施故技。所以我今天下午三时的讯问,只是要看看,既然我没在《内安法令》下被扣留,是否可以另外再提控我某些罪名。

他们当然也在搞上诉。若他们上诉成功,他们就有两种扣留我的理由。

有点司法知识的人也许会说一个人不能因为同样的罪名惩处两次。虽然这是对的,但这也不能阻止他们因为我写的那篇【把谋害阿坦杜雅的凶手送到地狱里去吧】而惩处我两次。我在《煽动法令》下被指控的罪状和四项在《内安法令》下的指控,其中一个就是因为这篇文章。因此,除了面对审讯,我也因为这篇文章而在无审讯下被扣留。这确实已是以同样的罪名来做出两次惩处。

看来他们不计工本,怎么都是要我中招了。就算是他们很明显地做出这种一罪双惩处的法律傻事也在所不惜。也许他们觉得乱拳可以打死老师傅,乱枪总有一弹会中射头奖,不是吗?

根据警察的说法,犯罪率已经翻倍了。警方担心经济在来年衰退,会导致犯罪失去控制。他们已经为了维持秩序而喘不过气来了。明年我们将看到犯罪率攀高,所有马来西亚人连睡在床上的时候都不安全了。浪费这么多资源就为了想送我进牢,不禁令人怀疑警方到底与什麽为优先。

我之前曾提起巫统把三八大选的败绩归咎于网际网络,特别是部落格。巫统觉得若要让批评噤声,就必须让部落格无法可施。巴东埔补选再次证明部落格可以破坏巫统到什么程度。所以今天的焦点不是如何减少攀高的犯罪率,而是如何把部落客们关起来,不让他们破坏巫统。

这就是为何我今天下午三时要到冼都警察局去报到。我现在是自由人了,至少目前是的。所以他们需要看他们如何能够抓我回去坚牢,来确保巫统的安全。这全都是有关巫统和如何让巫统不受部落客的威胁。他们不管他们如何能够办到,只要他们能够镇压对巫统的批评。这就是所谓的目的合理化方式。

在另一方面,警察警告公众不要质疑宗教人士的裁决。若宗教人士发出裁决宣称你是错的,那你就是错的。这是不能质疑的。若你质疑,政府就会对你采取行动。

在屠妖节过后的星期二,我被迫出席一个回教发展局主办的宗教课程。这是我在甘文丁里宗教改造的活动之一。我站起来说,根据目前做出的许多裁决,我们当天所有在那里的人都是异教徒。

在 2006年一月,沙地阿拉伯的大宗教司法出裁决宣布什叶教徒都是异教徒。而什叶派也发出裁决宣布非什叶教徒都是异教徒。马来西亚也将会扣留那些转去什叶派的教徒,就像几年前发生在一些大学讲师身上的事那样。简短来说,基于这些所发出的裁决,所有的回教徒都是异教徒。我们没有一个是回教徒。

问题是,我们必须遵从谁的裁决呢?这也带出了另一个问题,依从那一个宗教学士才是合法的呢?

回教发展局说我侮辱了回教,所以要坐牢。一些其它也是对回教有很深造诣的人联络了我说,他们不觉得我侮辱了回教,实际上反而觉得我所写的都很对。而这些人都是阿拉伯人,精通《可兰经》,他们不同意马来西亚政府的所诠释的回教。实际上,他们取笑『现代化回教』(Islam Hadhari),当它是废话。

所以谁的回教版本才是对的呢?马来版本还是阿拉伯版本?马来人说我侮辱了回教,阿拉伯人告诉我并没有侮辱回教,然后他们觉得政府却说我有,这是很蠢的一件事。

不幸的是,在马来西亚,是巫统说了算,而不是阿拉伯。即使他们如何地支持我,都不能改变这些,这就是现实。
_________________
个人履历:http://faqing.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2123
部落格:http://wongsienbiang.blogspot.com/


最后进行编辑的是 老黄 on 24-02-10 星期三 2:30 am, 总计第 1 次编辑
返回页首
[ 5楼 ] 阅览成员资料 (Profile) 发送私人留言 (PM) 发送电子邮件 浏览发表者的主页 MSN Messenger
老黄
Site Admin


注册时间: 2005-07-29
帖子: 25840

来自: 太平 --〉关丹

帖子发表于: 20-11-08 星期四 5:33 pm    发表主题: 引用并回复

http://ccliew.blogspot.com/2008/11/blog-post_567.html

毫不留情∶思维狭隘的顽固

原题 :Narrow-minded bigotry
作者  ∶拉惹柏特拉
翻译  ∶ECS283
校对  ∶西西留


一名国阵后座议员不满林冠英首长时不时提起哈里发——奥马尔伊本阿卜杜勒阿齐兹(Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz)的名字,以及『amar ma’ruf nahi mungkar』(捍卫良善,抵抗邪恶)这段句子。林首长提起的这名哈里发是个社会改革者,也是回教历史里最贤明的统治者(公元717年至720年)之一。

※伊本阿卜杜勒阿齐兹(Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz)是回教派系伍麦叶(caliphs)的第六任哈里发。哈里发即回教统治者的意思。

直落巴巷(Teluk Bahang)区国阵议员拿督斯里希尔米(Hilmi Yahya)医生在他的2009年度财政预算案的辩论时,质疑林首长没有资格提起该名哈里发的名字以及那句句子。「你不应该随兴使用这些,你可有资格谈论哈里发吗?甚至是那句 『amar ma’ruf nahi mungkar』也出现在印有你的名字的海报上,贴得满街都是。」

「我们不清楚你,以及拉玛三美(P Ramasamy)博士是否有资格使用这些。这件事情应请示宗教司,让他来决定你是否能够使用哈里发的名字和句子,」希尔米补充说。

柏玛当巴拉岸区(Permatang Berangan)州议员及槟州回教宗教事务主席沙哈布丁(Shahabudin Yahaya)说林首长不是个回教徒,不应该使用『amar ma’ruf nahi mungkar』这个句话。

在辩论林首长上星期五提呈的2009年度财政预算案时,沙哈布丁说林首长和其他非回教徒的国州议员应该停止在州内挂起的布条上使用它们。「它的意思是避免犯错,做好事以及加强对上苍的信仰,而不是对耶稣或任何庙里的神。你不是回教徒,所以你不应该使用这些」他补充说。

《The Edge》新闻社简直是废话连篇!希尔米医生和沙哈布丁根本不知道他们自己在说些什么!从何时开始只有回教徒可以谈论哈里发奥马尔或『amar ma’ruf nahi munkar』呢?这全是胡说八道!任何人都能够谈论趋恶扬善,这并不是回教徒的专利。

他们现在是否打算报警对付约翰·艾司博斯托(John Louis Esposito)吗?我看希尔米医生和沙哈布丁连这个名字也没听过吧?

约翰·艾司博斯托是在乔治市大学里国际事务及回教研究的教授。他也是该大学内促进回教徒及基督教徒谅解的阿瓦伊德王子(Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal)中心的总监。

艾司博斯托来自一个天主教世家,并在一间天主教修道院度过十年之久。在他得到他第一个学位后,他就当上管理顾问,以及中学教师。后来他继续深造,并在圣约翰大学得到他神学的硕士学位。他后来在宾西法尼亚的天普大学得到他的博士学位,还研读了回教,并在哈佛及牛津大学等大学出任后博士研究职位。他在加强回教徒和基督教徒之间的联系的努力上非常有名。他甚至挑战梵蒂冈更积极地鼓励这种联系。

艾司博斯托在乔治市大学成立了促进回教徒及基督教徒谅解的中心,并成了现任的总监。该中心接受了沙地阿拉伯阿瓦伊德王子共美金两千万元的捐献,来做出回教文明上的高级教导、回教徒及基督教徒间的谅解,以及加强它目前在举办文化和宗教间对话的领导地位。

艾司博斯托所作的不只是谈论哈里发奥马尔和『amar ma’ruf nahi munkar』而已。他的功绩可以让希尔米医生和沙哈布丁两人无地自容。希尔米医生和沙哈布丁同他比较起来是天差地远。看在他们对宣扬回教和谅解方面所做出的些微努力,他们简直应该羞愧谈论回教。

希尔米医生和沙哈布丁没有了解的是,回教是给所有人的讯息。《可兰经》也是给所有人的,不是回教徒而已。回教徒实际上也应该把《可兰经》视为给与非回教徒的礼物,借此宣扬回教,好让回教的讯息得以广传天下。

马来人有种刻板印象,认为我们只应该向回教徒宣教。若你只是向盘坐在回教堂里的回教徒谈论回教,那你能达成些什么呢?你只是向那些皈依了的人布道。更应该布道的对象,不就是非回教徒吗?这样才能让他们更明白回教,消除他们对回教的歧见,清洗回教过去七年来不等的负面印象。

我们应该感到骄傲,非回教徒能找到恰当的回教讯息。当非回教徒谈论哈里发奥马尔和『amar ma’ruf nahi munkar』的时候,我们应该抬头挺胸。非回教徒没有批评回教,反而引用回教。这是我们应该感到欣慰的。我们不应该谴责这些非回教徒,反而要大声宣扬即使非回教徒也在引用回教,即使这只是在于那句『amar ma’ruf nahi munkar』而已。所以,回教不是好象有些人说的那般十恶不赦。

『Amar ma’ruf nahi munkar』不是圣言神句。也没有什么魔法在内。那只不过是以阿拉伯话说出来的『趋恶扬善』。你可以用阿拉伯语说、英语说、淡米尔语或华语说,你要用什么语言都没有关系,意思还是一样。无论用阿拉伯语来说,或以其它语言来说都没有什么禁忌。那只不过是一种语言的选择,由你决定的选择。

希尔米医生和沙哈布丁即可怜也愚蠢,他们应该停止这些胡言乱语,就是这样的人败坏了回教的名声。他们给人一种印象——回教徒是无理及小气的。这就影响到宗教,成为宗教的缺陷。然后当人们批评回教的时候,回教徒就会埋怨,却不知为他们招来这些批评的,就是他们的这些行为。

希尔米医生和沙哈布丁应该做的是阻止政府禁止回教徒扣留犯做他们的周五祈祷。《内安法令》下的扣留犯向政府争取许久,希望准许他们能够做他们的周五祈祷。但是政府总是不准许。

有一次,甘文丁扣留营当局邀请霹雳州宗教司到来为扣留犯演讲。扣留犯们要求容许他们能够做周五祈祷,但是霹雳州宗教司却责骂他们。一名甘文丁监狱看守员沙末(Samad)老师确认了这件事,并说扣留犯们非常固执。沙末老师投诉说,他们不听从霹雳州宗教司的话,藐视发出的宗教裁决,依然做他们的周五祈祷。

《内安法令》下的扣留犯后来不再鼓噪,也不再做他们的周五祈祷。他们知道,他们越和政府对着干,他们留在甘文丁的时间就越久。有些人已经被扣留近八年了,坚持自己的祈祷权益只有令自己终老,甚至老死于此,这是不值得的。

大多数《内安法令》下的扣留犯都被说成是回教极端分子,对社会有威胁性。还说他们不能容忍非回教徒,还有说他们要设立一个区域性的回教帝国,其中包括了马来西亚、印尼、泰南和菲律宾等。就是这样,他们就没有经过审讯,被扣留在甘文丁。

我可以想像,基于这些扣留犯的背景,政府应该纠正他们,使他们对非回教徒有所谅解,不再执意于成立区域回教帝国。而在2008年10月28日,当我参与我的第一个由宗教发展局的宗教司的讲义的时候,他竟然诋毁所有其他的宗教和经书。这么一来,不就是在回教徒之间散布憎恨,让那些被《内安法令》下被扣留的极端分子更加坚信他们要成立一个区域回教帝国是对的吗?

我实际上在昨天下午二时半,也针对此事在冼都警局内报案,好让政府介入调查此事。我的报案书内也包括了内安法扣留者被禁止做周五祈祷的事实。希尔米医生和沙哈布丁,就看你们的了!让大家看看你们会如何处理这更为重要的课题吧!
_________________
个人履历:http://faqing.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2123
部落格:http://wongsienbiang.blogspot.com/


最后进行编辑的是 老黄 on 24-02-10 星期三 2:10 am, 总计第 1 次编辑
返回页首
[ 6楼 ] 阅览成员资料 (Profile) 发送私人留言 (PM) 发送电子邮件 浏览发表者的主页 MSN Messenger
老黄
Site Admin


注册时间: 2005-07-29
帖子: 25840

来自: 太平 --〉关丹

帖子发表于: 22-11-08 星期六 5:38 pm    发表主题: 引用并回复

王子的幽默:

http://mt.m2day.org/2008/content/view/15196/84/

Mike 写到:
Dear Pete,

I plan to get a dog but I live in a neighbourhood where some of my neighbours are Muslims. I was told that dogs are taboo to Muslims and I do not want to upset my neighbours. I also read somewhere that the majlis perbandaran has a team of dogcatchers that goes around mercilessly killing dogs. How can I ensure that I do not upset my Muslim neighbours and will not run foul of the authority?


Dear Mike,

Muslims do not like doggies licking them as doggie saliva is considered najis or unclean. They have no problems getting licked by pussies though. In fact, they quite enjoy it. Just make sure that your doggie does not lick any Muslim and you should face no problems. The best would be to keep your doggie within your compound and not allow it to stray outside. Anyway, doggies that stray all over the place face the risk of getting knocked down by a car or it might catch an infectious disease. So that is all the more reason to keep them within your compound. And avoid Mongolian breeds as the police SWAT team has been told to be on the lookout for Mongolian bitches, though for what reason I really don’t know.

Pete


Clarence Tan 写到:
Dear Pete,

I am engaged in a land dispute and was advised, in the absence of a valid land title, to file a Statutory Declaration to support my claim that I am the owner of the land. Will such a Statutory Declaration stand up in court?


Dear Clarence Tan,

Statutory Declarations are no longer regarded as having any credibility, like in the past, so the court may not give any weight to it. Anyway, you might run the risk of getting charged in court as, nowadays, those who sign Statutory Declarations are arrested and charged for criminal defamation. Nevertheless, if you sign a new Statutory Declaration within 24 hours to recant what you said in your first Statutory Declaration then you will be exempted from prosecution. Instead of signing a Statutory Declaration, my advice would be to engage a well-connected lawyer with strong links to the Attorney-General and Chief Justice and try to ‘negotiate’ your case ‘under the table’ before it goes to court. Most cases in Malaysia are won on this basis. I could probably give you the name of an Indian-Muslim lawyer whom you can get in touch with if you contact me privately.

Pete


Maimunah Harun 写到:
Dear Pete,

I am a Muslim and my ustaz advices me that Muslims should not participate in candlelight vigils, as, according to Islam, this is considered haram. Is this true?


Dear Maimunah Harun,

Yes, that is true. So make sure that the organisers first apply for a police permit. Any assembly of more than four people at a candlelight vigil is haram and you can get arrested for participating in a perhimpunan haram if you do not have a police permit. The police would normally approve your permit application as long as you do not light any candles at the candlelight vigil.

Pete


Wong 写到:
Dear Pete,

Yesterday, the Anti-Corruption Agency arrested my cousin and alleged that he had attempted to bribe a Road Transport Department officer. They found the money hidden in his underwear and said that they had been monitoring his movements for some time on suspicion of handing out dirty money. What should I advice him to do? Should he just plead guilty and hope for a lesser sentence or should he fight the case out in court?


Dear Wong,

It would be very hard for the prosecution to prove that your cousin had attempted to hand out dirty money unless they can first prove that his underwear was not clean. I would advice him to fight the case out in court. Just make sure that he removes his underwear and lodges it in a safe place or else something ‘dirty’ might be planted on it like they sometimes do in cases such as sodomy.

Pete


Kok Leong 写到:
Dear Pete,

I run my own business and am engaged in state government contracts. At the end of every year, just before Christmas, I hand out ‘red packets’ to the government officers who sign my contracts. Should I stop handing out ‘red packets’ in the Pakatan Rakyat-run states or is it safe to continue doing so?




Dear Kok Leong,

I think it would be dangerous to continue handing out ‘red packets’ to the government officers in the Pakatan Rakyat-run states. I would suggest you hand out ‘green packets’ instead, which is more Islamic, and which the PAS members of Pakatan Rakyat would be more comfortable with.

Pete
_________________
个人履历:http://faqing.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2123
部落格:http://wongsienbiang.blogspot.com/


最后进行编辑的是 老黄 on 24-02-10 星期三 2:31 am, 总计第 1 次编辑
返回页首
[ 7楼 ] 阅览成员资料 (Profile) 发送私人留言 (PM) 发送电子邮件 浏览发表者的主页 MSN Messenger
老黄
Site Admin


注册时间: 2005-07-29
帖子: 25840

来自: 太平 --〉关丹

帖子发表于: 28-11-08 星期五 11:50 pm    发表主题: 引用并回复

http://mt.m2day.org/2008/content/view/15392/84/

Challenge accepted
Thursday, 27 November 2008

Raja Petra ignorant of history, says historian

SEREMBAN: Blogger Raja Petra Kamarudin has been described as being ignorant of history for assuming that the former secretary-general of the Communist Party of Malaya, Chin Peng, was a freedom fighter.

Negeri Sembilan History Association treasurer Mohd Misan Mastor said today the Malays had fought colonialism since the fall of Melaka Sultanate and throughout the Portuguese, Dutch, British and Japanese occupation.

"Chin Peng was not the first man who put up the fight," he told Bernama here.

He was commenting on a recent talk by Raja Petra who said that the country's independence was initiated by a non-Malay, and that Chin Peng was a freedom fighter.

Mohd Misan said the peak of the Malays struggle for freedom was when they thwarted the British effort to introduce the Malayan Union which, among others, would have usurped the powers of the Malay rulers.

He challenged Raja Petra to prove that the independence of the country was due to the efforts of others.

"This is what happens when the Malays lose their spirit of nationalism and become ignorant of history," he added. (Bernama)
******************************************************

The fight for Merdeka started before the Second World War and continued all through the Japanese Occupation of Malaya. After the War, all the races, members of the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) included, joined hands to fight for Merdeka. Only when the British refused to accept the Malayans’ terms for Merdeka did the CPM take to the jungles to continue their opposition to the British. But it was not only the members of the CPM who took to the jungles. Many non-Communists did as well and they filled the ranks of the CPM guerrillas.

The struggle for Merdeka was not an exclusive Malay affair but an effort by all the races, as the following piece shall show. It cannot be denied that, before that, many Malays did oppose the British and some died because of it. But it was not until the Second World War, during the Japanese Occupation, when the idea of Merdeka was finally taken to a higher level of a united Malaya or Federation of Malaya -- a Federation comprising of the Straits Settlements, Federated Malay States and Unfederated Malay States. Before that, all the states were independent of one another and no nation, as we know today, existed.
*****************************************************

PUTERA-AMCJA Conference (1947)

By the grace of God, through the PUTERA-AMCJA Conference, I was given a second opportunity to participate in efforts towards drafting Malaya’s Independence Constitution. The first time had been in July 1945, through the Japanese-sponsored Hodosho and KRIS, at a time when Japan was like a dragon in its death throes, struggling against the Allied onslaught. There were two differences. My first effort had been with Dr Burhanuddin, who had served the Japanese Sumatra-Malaya Military Administration in Taiping while I was a farmer. Then, there had been only five Malay States; this time, there were nine.

On 22 December 1946, multi-ethnic, but mainly non-Malay leftist political bodies in Malaya formed a coalition called the All-Malayan Council of Joint Action (AMCJA). Its members comprised:

1. Malayan Indian Congress (MIC) – led by John Thivy,
2. Malayan Democratic Union (MDU) – led by John Eber,
3. New Democratic Youth League (NDYL),
4. Malayan People’s Anti-Japanese Ex-Comrades Association (MPAJECA),
5. Pan-Malayan Federation of Trade Unions (PMFTU).

Four months later, on 22 February 1947, left-wing Malay parties formed their own coalition during a meeting at the MNP Head Office in Kuala Lumpur. It was called Pusat Tenaga Rakyat (PUTERA) or the Centre for People’s Power. Led by Ishak Haji Muhammad (Pak Sako), the member parties were:

1. Malay Nationalist Party, MNP as its nucleus – led by Dr Burhanuddin
2. Angkatan Pemuda Insaf, API (Generation of Aware Youth) – led by Ahmad Boestamam
3. Angkatan Wanita Sedar, AWAS (Generation of Conscious Women) – led by Shamsiah Fakeh
4. Gerakan Angkatan Muda, GERAM (Young Generation Movement) – led by Aziz Ishak and A. Samad Ismail
5. Barisan Tani Se Malaya, BATAS (Pan-Malayan Farmers/Peasants Front) – led by Musa Ahmad,
6. Majlis Agama Tertinggi SeMalaya, MATA (Pan-Malayan Supreme Religious Council).

While travelling all over North Malaya with Dr Burhanuddin, we had discussed, at great length, the forthcoming PUTERA-AMCJA Conference, consisting of left-wing Malay and non-Malay political parties, to promote our demand for Independence from the British through constitutional means. Most post-war non-Malay unions and political parties were left-leaning. MNP was the only Malay political party which, even as early as 1946, had realised that Independence could not be achieved unless the demand was unanimously made by the three major communities in Malaya – the Malays, the Chinese and the Indians.

UMNO, led by Datuk Onn bin Jaafar, had yet to fathom this reality, and continued to function as if it was still in pre-war Malaya. In 1951, six years after the war ended, an UMNO-led delegation went to London to demand more Malayan Civil Service officers, more Malay police officers, especially above the rank of Assistant Superintendent of Police (ASP), and improvements in Malay education and other issues. Yet not one mention of Merdeka (Independence) was made. Ironically, it was also in 1951 that Datuk Onn began to realise that the co-operation of non-Malays was vital for obtaining Independence.

As mentioned earlier, Ishak Haji Muhammad had been earlier sent by Dr Burhanuddin to Kuala Lumpur to meet AMCJA representative Gerald de Cruz to initiate arrangements for PUTERA and AMCJA to work hand in hand in our struggle against the British. The resulting draft, The People’s Constitutional Proposals for Malaya, was the document Ishak Haji Muhammad had handed to Dr Burhanuddin and me at the end of our two-day Balik Pulau visit. Ishak said, “This is all I managed to achieve. If something is unsatisfactory, please bring it up at the forth- coming PUTERA-AMCJA meeting.” We promised to go over the draft on our way back to Kuala Lumpur. Ishak left before we could even invite him to a meal. Dr Burhanuddin commented, “Ishak is like that. He is a man of few words.” I suspected a slight tension between Dr Burhanuddin and Ishak then; they could hardly bring themselves to talk to each other.

I was willing to play the role of the mediator. However, there were four things that kept the two connected: the struggle, the party, the Malay race and the nation. Nothing could keep the two men apart with these four elements present.

The clauses proposed by AMCJA and MDU were for:

1. Malaya and Singapore to be united.
2. A popularly elected Federal Consultative Council.
3. Equal citizenship rights to be accorded to all those who considered Malaya their permanent home and the object of their undivided loyalty.
4. The Malay sultans to become constitutional monarchs. The British would no longer have the right to interfere or advise the Malay sultans. The popularly elected Federal Consultative Council would be exclusively responsible for all such advice.
5. Islam and Malay customs would be fully controlled by the Malay people through a special council, not by the sultans.
6. Special privileges for the advancement of Malays in all fields.

Having read the draft, I was certain that if the leftist Malay parties accepted the draft in toto, the parties would lose credibility, influence and support. However, in the draft’s preamble I saw a loophole in the words ‘the Nine Malay States’. I drew Dr Burhanuddin’s attention to the word ‘Malay’. If we ‘used’ this loophole wisely, the Malays would gain substantially. During the tiresome mail train ride from Penang to Kuala Lumpur, Dr Burhanuddin was happy with one boiled egg, a banana and a cup of coffee. I had to supplement that with a plate of fried rice from the buffet coach. Food was important to me.

As I had mentioned, as soon as we arrived in Kuala Lumpur from North Malaya, we looked for lawyer John Thivy at his High Street office. He was MIC’s Secretary-General, while Budd Singh was President; both were socialists. Thivy, being from a notable Kuala Kangsar family, fully understood Malay customs and aspirations. He confided in us that the Indian community shared a common fear with the Malays – that of being drowned by the Chinese. He therefore promised to support all proposals beneficial to the ‘safety’ of the Malays and Indians. I believe Thivy left MIC when it leaned to the right; I am told he is now in Fiji.

Before attending the PUTERA-AMCJA Conference, we Malays met in the rented Kampung Baru home of Ibrahim Karim, API’s Secretary- General. We drank black coffee out of a pail for lack of proper utensils. It was bought with the paltry balance of money collected from our garland-auctions and the sale of photographs of Dr Burhanuddin and Ibrahim Yaakub. Disappointingly, the photos were not selling. No one bought the one of Ibrahim, although he was then deemed a Malay hero.

We took a bus to a five-storey building in Foch Avenue, the highest building in Kuala Lumpur at the time, where the MCP flag fluttered inthe wind. However, the conference was not held on the floor housing the MCP’s headquarters. Desks were arranged in a circle. Dr Burhanuddin sat rigidly, with me on his left, and Taha Kalu on his right. John Eber (MDU) was on Taha’s right and farther on, beside John Eber, were Ahmad Boestamam (API), Lim Kean Chye (MDU) and John Thivy (MIC). Ishak sat opposite me with Conference Secretary Gerald de Cruz (MDU) on his left while Sir Cheng Lock Tan (AMCJA) dressed in a shirt and coat ensemble sans tie, sat on Ishak’s right. On Sir Cheng Lock Tan’s right were representatives from the New Democratic Youth League (NDYL), Malayan People’s Anti-Japanese Ex-Comrades Association (MPAJECA) and Cheng Loo from the Pan-Malayan Federation of Trade Union (PMFTU) – all very young men. They were probably the front men or dummies. Everyone held a draft of The People’s Constitutional Proposals for Malaya. Mine was full of markings, reflecting my pre-occupation during the train journey.

The PUTERA-AMCJA Conference began with a speech by Ishak as Chairman. We had to tread carefully; no undesirable elements should come into play lest an ugly impasse rear its head. Nothing untoward must happen to jeopardise our efforts to gain the nation’s Independence. We had to be of one heart; bickering would only contribute to prolonged British rule. Even the normally vocal and aggressive Ahmad Boestamam was extraordinarily impassive. Everyone adopted a passive attitude, a patient disposition, a tolerant demeanour, a peaceful mind and a united stance. Everyone wanted an end to British rule. Everyone craved to live in a free Malaya. Chairman Ishak was extremely careful in choosing his words and ministering his responsibilities. The only one who spoke more shrilly than the rest was Conference Secretary Gerald de Cruz, who was known for his humour and jest. All the six items were endorsed with ease. I noticed that the representatives from the NDYL, MPAJECA and PMFTU hardly uttered a word, just like Sir Cheng Lock Tan.

On behalf of PUTERA, I proposed four more clauses to strengthen our rights, referring to the magic phrase ‘the Nine Malay States’ already in the preamble as proof of PUTERA’s absolute right to claim them:

a. Malay to be Malaya’s national and official language,
b. Malaya’s defence and foreign policies be handled by the Malayan and British Governments with equal responsibility,
c. Melayu (Malay) as the nationality of the people of Malaya,
d. The National Flag would have a red band above a white one.

Clauses (a) and (b) were quickly endorsed with the support of NDYL, MPAJECA and PMFTU representatives who abhorred colonialism. But clause (c) raised the conference room’s temperature. The same degree of unrest was experienced each time the Malays demanded a 60-40 quota in the running of the administration and in employment.

Sir Cheng Lock Tan vehemently opposed demand (c) while the three young men looked calm enough. I stood up to voice my disappointment at the opposition, drawing their attention to one question. How would hundreds of thousands of Malays – supporters of MNP, API and AWAS in the kampungs – react, should PUTERA announce that ‘Malayan’ and not ‘Melayu’ would be the term used to describe the people’s nationality? They would probably charge at us like bulls provoked by a red cape. Leftist Malay parties would be ruined, much to the glee of the British and right-wing Malay parties.

Even though I had presented my case with great care, Lim stood up and remarked, “We are not dogs to be led by the people. We lead the people.” In response to such strong words, I retorted in a flash, “Are you not here at this conference table because the people chose you? Do not humiliate the people. You ought to retract your words.”

I then saw Conference Secretary de Cruz write something on a large piece of paper and hold it up for all to see. On the paper was written “CRACK” in big, bold letters. Chairman Ishak wisely proposed the matter be handled by a sub-committee later that evening and its decision be announced the next day. The sub-committee met that night in Kampung Baru over a Malay dinner of rice and tapioca shoot vegetable curry, during which time a PUTERA representative managed to positively influence members who had opposed the proposal to describe our nationality as ‘Malay’.

We had asked, “What is wrong with using the term ‘Malay’ to describe our nationality? If this request is denied, we can only deduce that colonial elements have infiltrated this conference, and that colonialists are still in control.” Gerald de Cruz loved Malay food. Perhaps the tapioca shoot vegetable curry contributed to the agreement that ‘Malay’ will be the agreed nationality of the people. I was glad that the matter had not split up the conference. Actually, the Malay nationality proposal was won due to the votes of the three Chinese youths. They were the first ones to be convinced by our little speech and appeals.

On the second day of the PUTERA-AMCJA Conference, API leader Ahmad Boestamam, who was honoured with the final vote, gave PUTERA the winning edge. With that victory, I felt that the Malay states and the Malay race would be forever preserved. In Hang Tuah’s words, “The Malays will not perish from this earth.”

Next in the discussion was the question of citizenship. AMCJA had proposed the jus soli concept, but PUTERA found it difficult to accept. However, Taha Kalu seemed to agree with jus soli. As he sat near me, I raised my fist as if to warn him, “Should you support this jus soli concept, I will punch you.” To my relief, he voted in support of PUTERA. Despite some frantic hand signalling, Ahmad Boestamam – who sat at a distance from me – did not understand my signals. He chose AMCJA’s stand. I said to myself, “Allah! What will happen now?”

The AMCJA won and we were in deep trouble. My mind quickly came up with an idea to overcome the matter. Pretending not to know the meaning of ‘amendments’, I asked the chairman to define the term. Then, I asked what ‘clause’ meant. I pretended not to know these words so as to allay the fear of the others. I then proposed a ‘clause’ be included to determine the quota for Malays and non-Malays in all Federal Councils and in all government business. I wanted a restriction or a certain formula in the Malay and non-Malay sharing.

Conference secretary Gerald de Cruz commented on my proposal as sweetly as he could. He said he had anticipated it. He explained that if the ‘universal franchise’ policy was adopted, the Malays should get 95 per cent of the vote and 95 per cent of all seats and posts. The other conference members were taken in. Chairman Ishak could not do much as his hands were tied. Dr Burhanuddin’s mouth was shut tight, as the conference was conducted in English. (Earlier, when the ‘national language’ issue was being discussed, non-Malay members had asked for a compromise, “Please give us ten years to master the Malay Language.”

In view of this, how could we compel them to use Malay at the conference?) I stood up, stating with great care that, “We Malays do not want 95 per cent as that is unjust. We do not want 80 per cent as that would be unfair. Neither do we want 80 per cent or 70 per cent. But in the name of all Malays who own this land, we want 60 per cent. We ask for only 60 per cent because we are holding fast to the concept of democracy. At the same time, we want to preserve the rights of the people of this land.”

I was shouted at by the MDU leader, the lawyer John Eber. He snarled, “I did not want to say anything harsh earlier, but now, I have to. The truth is, your people do not have the right to claim Independence – what more to obtain other people’s help to appeal on your behalf.” He added, “We are the ones who are willing to work with you and help you claim it. Now you want to determine the quota for yourselves and for us?” He paused and continued, “I am standing here to promote my party principles and one of them is democracy.” Before sitting down, he pointed his finger at me and asked clearly, “Is he democratic?”

I was forced to stand up another time to respond to his words. I forgot how to remain calm and collected. I had forgotten about compromise and co-operation. Luckily, I remembered Sutan Jenain’s words, “Be hot in the heart, but not in the head.” With whatever was left of my composure, I said, “Look at the appearance of PUTERA members, the Malays, at this conference. Their hair uncombed, clothes unkempt and not ironed. Some did not have a chance to wash as they slept in bus stations and train stations in order to attend this conference. Some did not even have breakfast. They drank coffee out of a pail. But you, sir (looking at John Eber), even though you were given a comfortable rattan chair, you still need a folded towel to serve as a cushion. Who among us truly needs Independence, you or us?” John Eber got up to pull the folded towel off his chair. His face was red with anger. He was enraged, but I could not care less. An insult for an insult!

The Chairman stood up to calm the situation and again suggested the quota issue be discussed by a sub-committee. The outcome was positive. AMCJA agreed to the 60-40 quota. I was thankful to God for His blessings. The Malay States and the Malay people were now secure and safe. This would maintain Malay pre-eminence. The outcome would guarantee the future of the Malays, especially in a situation where non-Malay votes may outnumber Malay votes. I must add that MIC John Thivy in the AMCJA kept his word by giving us his vote every time, to our mutual benefit.

Outcome

The ten principles we discussed came to be known as the Ten People’s Principles, to represent all communities. Since The People’s Constitutional Proposals for Malaya was endorsed and announced to the nation, the PUTERA-AMCJA partnership was reinforced because the masses, not the administrators and the elite, were strongly behind us. The final copy of The People’s Constitutional Proposals for Malaya was sent to the British Government as the voice of the different communities living in Malaya who clamoured for Independence. The people’s response to the constitution was proof of their spirit. But the British appeared unconcerned, refusing to hold discussions with us, or even to read the constitution, as if nothing urgent was happening. We had to think of our next constitutional move. As a result, the hartal of October 1947 was organised and received widespread support from the people. Shops and business houses shut their doors. Kuala Lumpur looked deserted.

What the Dailies Wrote

I don’t remember what the Malay papers wrote. Majlis was certainly in opposition to the hartal as it was wary of any co-operative efforts by the three races. But the 23 September 1947 edition of The Straits Times described the hartal as: “The first attempt to put Malayan party politics on a plane higher than that of rival racial interests and also the first attempt to build a political bridge between the domiciled non-Malay communities and the Malay race”. The other English language newspaper editorials also found The People’s Constitutional Proposals for Malaya generally fair.

Conclusion

The PUTERA-AMCJA effort was my third attempt to gain Independence. I had failed in all three but I continued to work towards loosening the colonial grip on Malaya and freeing Malaya from British fetters. With that uppermost in my mind, I decided to continue fighting for the cause with Dr Burhanuddin. As that required my staying on in Kuala Lumpur, I felt that it was time I brought my family (whom I had left for months in Matang) to join me in Kuala Lumpur.
_________________
个人履历:http://faqing.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2123
部落格:http://wongsienbiang.blogspot.com/


最后进行编辑的是 老黄 on 24-02-10 星期三 2:33 am, 总计第 1 次编辑
返回页首
[ 8楼 ] 阅览成员资料 (Profile) 发送私人留言 (PM) 发送电子邮件 浏览发表者的主页 MSN Messenger
老黄
Site Admin


注册时间: 2005-07-29
帖子: 25840

来自: 太平 --〉关丹

帖子发表于: 04-12-08 星期四 10:45 pm    发表主题: 引用并回复

http://mt.m2day.org/2008/content/view/15532/84/

The twists and turns of mala fide
Raja Petra Kamarudin
Monday, 01 December 2008 12:33

引用:
The Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) was created persuant to the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission Act (1998) as a new regulator for the communications and multimedia industry in Malaysia. At the same time, the Communications and Multimedia Act (1998) was passed, to fulfil the need to regulate an increasingly convergent communications and multimedia industry.

The Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 is based on the basic principles of transparency and clarity; more competition and less regulation; flexibility; bias towards generic rules; regulatory forbearance; emphasis on process rather than content; administrative and sector transparency; and industry self-regulation.

The Act seeks to provide a generic set of regulatory provisions based on generic definitions of market and service activities and services. The jurisdiction of this Act is restricted to networked services and activities only.

The MCMC took over regulation of the Postal Services on 1 November 2002. On the same day it also was appointed the Certifying Agency under the Digital Signature Act (1997).

(http://www.skmm.gov.my/the_law/legislation.asp )


The above is what they say on the MCMC website. In the section called WHAT WE DO (http://www.skmm.gov.my/what_we_do/licensing/licensing.asp ), the MCMC website says: The Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission issues licences under the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998, the Postal Services Act 1991 and the Digital Signature Act 1997.

In the section titled ENFORCEMENT (http://www.skmm.gov.my/what_we_do/Enforcement/enforcement.asp ), this is what the MCMC website says:

The primary function of enforcement is to conduct investigation upon receiving reports relating to the commission of offences under the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 (CMA), the Postal Services Act 1991 (PSA), the Digital Signatures Act 1997 (DSA) and the relevant subsidiary legislations.

The objective of the investigation is to ascertain whether or not the offender has committed the offence and also to gather sufficient evidence on the offender. After the investigation is completed, the investigation paper will be submitted to the Deputy Public Prosecutor for his decision on the appropriate action to be taken on the case investigated by MCMC.

Effective enforcement carried out by MCMC is to ensure the rights of the licensees, investors, consumers and the public are always protected and the confidence in communications, multimedia and postal services are maintained at all times.

***********************************************

Okay, now read the above again and note the following sentences or clauses:

1) The jurisdiction of this Act is restricted to networked services and activities only.
2) …….emphasis on process rather than content……
3) ……. more competition and less regulation…….
4) Effective enforcement carried out by MCMC is to ensure the rights of the licensees, investors, consumers and the public are always protected…….

At 6.00pm on 26 August 2008, Malaysia Today suddenly ‘disappeared’. We thought it was a technical glitch and called the hosting company. The hosting company, who was located overseas, said that the site is working fine and that they have no problems accessing it. We insisted we can’t access it from Malaysia and on further investigation they confirmed what we said and told us that Malaysia Today can’t be accessed only in Malaysia but there are no problems if accessing the site from other countries outside Malaysia.

It was soon established that Malaysia Today could not be accessed because the MCMC had written to the 20 or so Malaysian ISPs (Internet Service Providers; such as Jaring, TMNet, Maxis, Celcom, etc.) and ordered them to block malaysia-today.net. They did not unblock malaysia-today.net until barely a few hours before the police detained me under the Internal Security Act around noon of 12 September 2008.

The reason given to the ISPs was that Malaysia Today had broken the law. Which law was never specified but then Malaysian companies that need the goodwill of the Malaysian government to renew their licences or to ensure that their licences do not get withdrawn do not ask for clarification. They just do what they are told.

Before the MCMC acted on 26 August, they had been summoned for a few meetings to be told that the Cabinet was not happy with the countless revelations and exposes that Malaysia Today had dragged up the last four years since 2004. The MCMC was told the Cabinet is of the view that they (MCMC) are not doing their job and the Cabinet wants them to act against Malaysia Today.

The fact that the MCMC, as charted in its website above, does not have that power (read items 1, 2, 3 and 4 above) to block Malaysia Today appears lost to the powers-that-be. The Cabinet is not concerned about what the law says. They just want Malaysia Today closed down and it is the MCMC’s job to do that. The MCMC replied that it would be difficult to block malaysia-today.net on political grounds as this would look too obvious. It would be better that they use ‘insulting Islam’ and ‘insulting Prophet Muhammad’ as that reason. This would look more ‘legitimate’.

So, on 26 August 2008, the MCMC ordered all the Malaysia ISPs to block malaysia-today.net, which they did. But they still needed a reason to block malaysia-today.net and they found this reason in a comment posted by anti-jihadist. The problem is anti-jihadist posted that comment on 28 August 2008, two days after malaysia-today.net was put out of action. Is the MCMC clairvoyant and could see into the future? Did it have a crystal ball and knew, two days in advance, that anti-jihadist was going to post a ‘damaging’ comment? It is mind-boggling that the MCMC was able to block malaysia-today.net two days before the comment that caused it to be blocked was posted.

Soon after malaysia-today.net went out of action, overseas friends of Malaysia Today floated a new website and tried to restore as much of the old data as possible. Some were saved but much was lost when the servers that hosted malaysia-today.net were closed down and sold off.

This posed another problem. I am facing a charge under the Sedition Act and the Attorney-General did not attach an original copy of the article ‘Let’s send the Altantuya murderers to hell’ with the charge. Instead, they manually typed out the article -- so, for all intents and purposes, the ‘evidence’ of my ‘crime’ had been fabricated. They are now trying to amend the charge but the court has rejected the motion to amend the charge. (The Attorney-General has now appealed this decision in the High Court so we are yet to know if they will be allowed to amend the charge).

Nevertheless, because malaysia-today.net no longer exists, they are not able to adduce the evidence to support the charge and even the amended charge is based on the manually typed copy of the article -- meaning the evidence is still ‘fabricated’. It would be interesting to see how the prosecution now pursues its case against me in the absence of the original article from malaysia-today.net.

Anyway, on 3 December 2008, the prosecution will be embarking on a ‘fishing expedition’ to see if they can find the original copy of that article in my two computers which they have confiscated. They hope, since they can no longer obtain the original copy of the article from malaysia-today.net, that they can instead find it in one of the computers. They are really desperate to find the evidence with which they can use to nail my balls to the wall.

The MCMC realised that they could not justify blocking malaysia-today.net based on a comment by anti-jihadist that was posted two days AFTER the site was blocked. So they decided to unblock malaysia-today.net and instead detain me under Section 73 of the Internal Security Act, barely a few hours later, on vague grounds that I posted articles that incite Malaysians to hate its leaders plus insult Islam and the Prophet.

My wife then filed a writ of habeas corpus and it appeared like the court might agree with my wife’s contention that my detention was vague and mala fide. The court was due to hear our petition on 23 September 2008. On 22 September 2008, they quickly re-detained me under Section 8 of the Internal security Act and on the morning of 23 September they sent me packing off to Kamunting. This torpedoed the habeas corpus hearing due to be held that same day and my wife had to start all over again and file a new habeas corpus action.

A day or two after the MCMC blocked malaysia-today.net, I received a phone call from that big chap who runs the Chawan restaurant in Bangsar, across the road from The Outback in Bangsar Village, who said he wants to discus how malaysia-today-net can be unblocked. My wife and I went to meet him and he told us that the MCMC wants to explore how to unblock malaysia-today.net but this must be based on certain terms and conditions. He told me that he is an emissary from Mohamed Shahril Tarmizi, the senior manager of the MCMC, the man who ordered Malaysia Today closed down.

The problem, they told me, was not my articles, but the comments. Currently, the comments in Malaysia Today are not moderated. Would I be prepared to moderate them? I asked them how to do that when we receive thousands of comments and they are posted 24-7. I would have to employ at least ten staff and that would cost me maybe RM15,000-RM20,000 per month. I do not have the money to do that. I then asked them what solutions they could recommend.

They admitted that they have been pondering over this problem for some time and also do not have any solutions to suggest. Okay, I replied, I am prepared to hand over the job of moderating the comments in Malaysia Today to the government. The government can take over and moderate the comments in Malaysia Today. Would they be prepared to do that?

They admitted that the government would not be able to do that, as it would require a massive operation to do so. Never mind, they told me, they will unblock malaysia-today.net and give us six months to come out with a solution. On 10 September 2008, I received a phone call telling me that the MCMC has decided to unblock malaysia-today.net and that they will give us six months to come out with a plan on how to moderate the comments in Malaysia Today. On 11 September 2008, malaysia-today.net was unblocked. On 12 September 2008, they detained me under the Internal Security Act.

Can any of you figure out what is going on here? I, for one, can’t imagine what game they are playing.

While under ISA detention, I related this whole episode to SAC1 Dato’ Zamri, the man in-charge of the six-member team of interrogators assigned to me. I am not sure of his ‘surname’ but he is probably the best-looking Special Branch officer in Bukit Aman and most likely will be the head of the Special Branch in time to come.

He was very accommodating (even bought me a packet of cigarettes; which is not allowed when you are in jail) but what concerned me was his insistence that my articles could mislead the readers because the majority of Malaysians have a much lower intellectual level and may not understand what I write. It is not that I have committed a crime as such. It is just that the way I write may confuse Malaysians. In short, my crime is for having a higher intellectual level than the average Malaysian and they might misunderstand what I write. This is why the government regards me as a threat to society.

I do not regard myself as an intellectual or even as being smarter than most Malaysians. But this was the argument THEY were using to justify my detention and this bothered me. Based on what they were tying to tell me, I have to be sent to Kamunting because I am smart and most Malaysians are stupid. So Malaysians need to be protected from me.

I asked Dato’ Zamri: would it not be better that I be allowed to go free and continue to educate Malaysians through Malaysia Today so that, in time, they too can be ‘smart like me’ (tongue-in-cheek of course because I did not buy the “Raja Petra is too smart and Malaysians too stupid” argument)? No, they did not think so. They felt that the best solution would be to lock me up so that the ‘stupid’ Malaysians can be ‘protected’.

I suppose there must be a good reason why the government would rather keep Malaysians stupid and why they lock me up so that I can’t continue my attempts to wake Malaysians up and educate them. Could it be because stupid Malaysians can be easily manipulated while smart Malaysians would vote opposition? Maybe Dato’ Zamri can help reply to this question.

In the meantime, the government has appealed the court’s decision to release me from ISA detention on 7 November 2008. They want me back in Kamunting where they feel I belong and which they feel would be safer for Malaysians. Let’s see what the court has to say about this. Will the court agree that Malaysians should be ‘protected’ and that I should not be allowed to awaken and educate them, or will the court feel that it is time Malaysians received the right information and not the crap that the school history textbooks and mainstream media spews forth?
_________________
个人履历:http://faqing.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2123
部落格:http://wongsienbiang.blogspot.com/
返回页首
[ 9楼 ] 阅览成员资料 (Profile) 发送私人留言 (PM) 发送电子邮件 浏览发表者的主页 MSN Messenger
老黄
Site Admin


注册时间: 2005-07-29
帖子: 25840

来自: 太平 --〉关丹

帖子发表于: 19-12-08 星期五 5:37 pm    发表主题: 引用并回复

http://mt.m2day.org/2008/content/view/16173/84/

A serious case of mental block

Friday, 19 December 2008

Raja Petra Kamarudin

This is what the Sin Chew Daily reported yesterday:

引用:
Change Or Perish, Pak Lah Tells UMNO

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said the Malays have changed their old thinking and value system, only that UMNO seems to have "forgotten" that the Malays have indeed changed.

He said the Malays have changed, but if UMNO remains unwilling to change, then the party will eventually head for destruction.

"UMNO has forgotten that the Malays have changed their own thinking and perspectives. It has forgotten that the Malays have changed their value system. The Malays are no longer what they used to be. They unreservedly express themselves. They even wave the DAP flags!"

Abdullah said during an exclusive interview with Sin Chew Daily at his private residence in Kuala Lumpur that during his five-year tenure as the prime minister, he has managed to change the mentality of the Malays.

He said young Malays believe they can stand on their own feet, and this is the major value that has changed the young Malays today.

"Young Malays feel that they need the opportunities, so they begin talking about DAP and PKR. They believe they have better opportunities there."

On the admission by former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad that he had failed to change the mentality and attitude of the Malays, Abdullah said decisively, "I can change the Malays!"

On UMNO's reluctance to change in order to check money politics and racism, he said although this is a mounting task, he knows UMNO members are in the midst of changing.

"UMNO is getting more and more powerful, with some three million members. The larger the membership, the more problems will arise. We have all kinds of people among these three million members. I'm very unhappy (with money politics in UMNO), and have told (UMNO disciplinary board chairman Tan Sri Tengku Ahmad) Rithauddeen to take actions as soon as possible."



99% Malays will not eat pork
98% Malays will not touch a dog
90% Malays will not drink liquor
80% Malays will not eat un-slaughtered meat
70% Malays will not eat in a non-Muslim restaurant
60% Malays will not indulge in homosexual activities
50% Malays will no indulge in extra-marital sex
40% Malays will not take bribes
30% Malays will not wish the non-Muslims on their religious festivals (such as Merry Christmas, Kong Hee Fatt Choy or Happy Deepavali)
25% Malays will not shake hands with a member of the opposite sex
20% Malays will not celebrate the ‘Christian’ Valentine’s Day on 14 February
10% Malays will not celebrate birthdays
5% Malays will not take loans -- to avoid paying interest

Okay, the above is not a real poll. I just made it up. I don’t think anyone has ever conducted a poll to analyse this issue. But the ‘list of priorities’ is not that far off the mark although the percentages are a figment of my imagination. I just wanted to get your attention and demonstrate the priorities of the Malays.

Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad once cried during an Umno General Assembly because, he said, he had failed to change the Malays. When asked during an interview soon after he retired as Prime Minister on 1 November 2003 what he would consider as the greatest regret of his 22 years in office, he replied his greatest regret is that he could not change the Malays.

And that was Tun Dr Mahathir, the strongest-minded Prime Minister Malaysia ever had in 51 years of nationhood. Can Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, a ‘softer’ man, achieve what someone regarded as a dictator had failed to do?

Now, before we take the word ‘dictator’ as something negative, let me stress that there are many types of dictators and sometimes we need a dictator to set things right. A benevolent dictator is not so bad for the country and is maybe just the thing the country needs to cure it of its ills. It is when we get a malevolent dictator is when things became very dicey. But then dictators can sometimes change from being benevolent to malevolent when power gets to their heads. That is the problem with having too much power in the hands of a dictator and not enough democracy.

For example, if a dictator heavy-handedly passes laws that make it a crime to perpetuate racism, even if the law is draconian and robs us of our fundamental rights, in the long term it would be good for the country. But then laws tend to get abused and ‘good’ laws eventually get used for what they were not originally intended.

Take the Internal Security Act as one example. It was a ‘good’ law when we needed to solve the problem of massacres, assassinations, bombings and terrorism in the 1960s. But once all the chaos and anarchy ends and the law is not abolished, and then it is used for other purposes, such as for stifling dissent and for curtailing criticism of those who walk in the corridors of power, what used to be ‘good’ gets transformed to bad.

So good can very rapidly become bad when wrongly applied. And good dictators can also become bad dictators when they no longer just want to end racism the ‘undemocratic’ way but start using their vast powers to do things like to put down criticism of their rule.

I suppose this is why the ends can never justify the means. If we accept undemocratic methods to achieve good, these undemocratic methods eventually come back to bite us in our sorry behinds.

Anyway, back to the issue of the day, whether Abdullah can do what Mahathir failed to do: to change the Malays.

When I was under ISA detention in September, I spent days arguing and debating with the six Special Branch officers who had been assigned to ‘take my statement’. These are basically marathon interrogation sessions where they point out to you the error of your ways and try to get you to repent so that you can again be released into society. I suppose they not only discovered they could not change me, but they were also perturbed that I passionately defended my position to the very end. I was ‘unreformable’ and there was no way they could reformat my brain and reinstall a new program.

They should have known that I am an ‘old model’, the first generation ‘hardware’, and new software can’t run on old hardware. Ever try installing Windows XP into an old 386? There is no way it would work. You would need a very old Windows program to run a 386.

So I am old hardware, a 386, and I need the Windows 3.0 to make me tick. Forget about Windows XP. That is what the Special Branch officers did not understand.

The debates we engaged in behind the barbed wire fence of the Police Remand Center (PRC), your first stop for 60 days before they either allow you to go home or you get sent to Kamunting for at least two years, was why I write what I write. I whack the Malays to kingdom come. I show no mercy. I ask for no quarter and offer none as well. Why am I so brutal with the Malays? And even the way the Malays practice Islam is not spared. I am heartless and merciless in my criticism.

My reasoning was simple. And I explained it to the Special Branch officers. The Malays will never change. Even Tun Dr Mahathir said so. (But Abdullah, though he agrees that the Malays need changing, does not share Mahathir’s view that they can’t be changed. Abdullah thinks he is able to change them).

The Malays, I explained, need to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into the new Millennium. You can drag a horse to water but you can’t force it to drink, they say. Well, we not only need to drag the Malays to water, we also need to force their heads into the water and make them drink. So we may end up drowning a few. So what? The end result would be we get them to drink, though against their will.

When someone is a lunatic and no drug can cure him or her, we need to use shock treatment. Sometimes shock treatment is the best cure when reasoning and medication can’t do the job. We have been Merdeka for 51 years. How long more are we going to wait before we declare that drastic times require drastic measures? Another 51 years when it would by then have already been too late?

I am third-generation Malaysian, I told the Special Branch officers. My grandfather fought for Merdeka. I, too, am now a grandfather. I have four grandchildren of my own. So my grandchildren, who in 20 years from now will be inheriting this country, are fifth generation Malaysians. Five generations is long enough. If, by now, we have not changed, then we never will.

So we are in a crisis situation. In 1960, when Malaysia was facing a crisis, we introduced the ISA. The ISA is not only draconian but unconstitutional as well. It is, in short, a downright ‘illegal’ law. But even the opposition agreed that the ends justify the means and they supported the ISA.

I, too, believe that the Malays need to be changed. Tun Dr Mahathir believed the same thing. And so does Abdullah Badawi (though he feels he can rectify what Mahathir couldn’t).

Sure, I whack the Malays, I told the Special Branch officers. I insult them. I vilify them. I make fun of the way they practice Islam. I make some Malays ashamed that they are Malays and would rather be called something else. But no good medicine tastes nice. All medicine is bitter. And I do not want to sugar-coat the medicine to hide its real taste. What you see is what you get.

But the Special Branch officers did not agree with me. They felt I was beyond redemption. They did not need 60 days with me to try to ‘turn me over’. They knew I was beyond salvage. So, after just ten days, they packed me off to Kamunting where I was supposed to spend the rest of my days on earth. And as long as I defended my views and refused to change my position, I would remain in Kamunting, be in ten years if necessary.

But I am now out again, thanks to my lawyers who did a good job getting me released. And I am back at it, whacking the Malays. I can’t help it. If I hated the Malays I would just say, “To hell with them. Why bother to try to change them?” But the English say: spare the rod and spoil the child. And the Malays say: if you love the child, you beat him or her.

_________________
个人履历:http://faqing.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2123
部落格:http://wongsienbiang.blogspot.com/
返回页首
[ 10楼 ] 阅览成员资料 (Profile) 发送私人留言 (PM) 发送电子邮件 浏览发表者的主页 MSN Messenger
老黄
Site Admin


注册时间: 2005-07-29
帖子: 25840

来自: 太平 --〉关丹

帖子发表于: 23-12-08 星期二 12:44 am    发表主题: 引用并回复

http://mt.m2day.org/2008/content/view/16250/84/

The constantly grumbling Chinese
Monday, 22 December 2008 12:44
Raja Petra Kamarudin

Malays can sometimes be real assholes. But at least they are honest about it. Chinese can also sometimes be assholes as well. But they pretend to be something else whilst they are actually the opposite of what they pretend to be. In that sense the Chinese are hypocritical assholes. And this is where the Malays are better than the Chinese. The Malays are honest assholes while the Chinese are dishonest assholes.

Look at what MCA said yesterday. They want PKR and DAP to state their stand on the Hudud laws. But when Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad declared that Malaysia is already an Islamic state and therefore the Malays do not need PAS any more, MCA clapped and whistled just like trained seals in a circus. MCA should have demanded that Umno states its stand on the Hudud laws the day Mahathir made his announcement. What about the government proposal on the Syariah laws? What has MCA go to say about the matter? Why no response? Why as silent as a church mouse?

Look at the petition to the King and the Sultans. The Malays keep a respectful silence when it comes to the Rulers. Except for a handful of Malays, the majority of the Malays do not drag the Rulers through the mud. And you do not need the Sedition Act for the Malays to show respect to the Rulers.

The Chinese, however, grumble that the Rulers are a waste of money. “Why do we need Rulers?” the Chinese argue. “It just costs us a lot of money to maintain a Monarchy. And the Rulers do not do anything to earn their salary.” But when we take the initiative to send petitions to the Rulers, these same Chinese will argue, “Why waste time with petitions? It is not like the Rulers will do anything.”

So what do the Chinese really want? When they perceive the Rulers as not taking any action, they grumble. But when we take the initiative to bring to the Rulers’ attention certain grievances of the rakyat, they also grumble. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. Sometimes I get the impression that these Chinese get an orgasm by grumbling. Maybe it’s a fetish thing, sort of like kinky sex.

Look at the issue of free speech. When I whack the Malays, I am a great guy. I am open. I am fair. I am a person who allows and practices freedom of expression. But, when I whack the Chinese, I am a racist pig. Whacking Malays is good for the country and in the spirit of free speech. Whacking the Chinese is a negative thing and bad for the country’s future.

The Chinese do not believe in freedom of expression. They believe in the freedom to whack the Malays. And whacking the Chinese is not freedom of expression. It is racism.

Look at the issue of who to vote for in the elections. Barisan Nasional is evil. Barisan Nasional is Umno. The non-Malays have no say in Barisan Nasional. The non-Malays in Barisan Nasional are Umno’s running dogs. But we Chinese must vote for Barisan Nasional because it is a devil we know. Pakatan Rakyat may be an angel but it is an angel we don’t know. Better a devil we know than an angel we don’t know.

The Malays are split into four groups. There are the Malays who support Ketuanan Melayu and the New Economic Policy. These Malays will vote for Umno come hell or high water. And they will defend Ketuanan Melayu and the New Economic Policy with their six-inch keris to the death. Then there are the Malays who support PAS, basically because they believe it is the Islamic thing to do. Then there are Malays who want to see transparency, good governance, freedom of expression and assembly, independence of the judiciary, an end to abuse of power and corruption, an end to police brutality, and all those other ‘Western notions’. These Malays will vote for PKR. Then there are those Malays who don’t care a damn and think that all politicians are hypocrites and politics is sheer bullshit. They don’t bother to come out to vote or even to register as voters.

The Malays are clear in their leanings. They don’t hide their feelings. They say it as they see it and you can go to hell if you don’t like what they say for all they care. But you can’t say the same about the Chinese. They grumble and grumble till the cows come home. But they will do the exact opposite of how they feel. They equate Barisan Nasional as the reincarnation of the devil. But then they will vote for Barisan Nasional because it is the devil they know and the devil they know is better than an angel they don’t know.

Some Chinese say they refuse to vote for PAS because they are worried that PAS may implement Islamic laws. But how can PAS implement Islamic laws when they will never have a two-thirds majority in Parliament? PAS contested only 60 seats out of 222 Parliament seats. Then they went and won only 23 seats.

PAS needs about 150 seats in Parliament to change Malaysia from a Secular state into an Islamic state. But when they contest only 60 seats, even if they win all the 60 seats they contest it will still be only 60 seats. And they can’t win all the seats they contest. They can only win less than half the seats they contest. Where would PAS get the 150 parliament seats it requires?

The Chinese counter this argument by saying that PAS can always team up with Umno to form an Islamic state. So better we vote for Barisan Nasional than vote for PAS. This will prevent PAS from teaming up with Umno to change Malaysia into an Islamic state.

Again, this argument does not make sense. If you refuse to vote for PAS because you are scared that PAS will team up with Umno to change Malaysia into an Islamic state, would voting for Umno instead of PAS prevent this? I mean; you are scared of a PAS-Umno alliance. So you refuse to vote for PAS and instead vote for Umno. Does this mean the alliance will not happen if this is what you suspect is going to happen? You are just transferring from the right pocket to the left pocket. The sum total still remains the same.

You transfer your vote from PAS to Umno. One seat less for PAS means an additional seat for Umno. Or you transfer your vote from Umno to PAS. One seat less for Umno means an additional seat for PAS. You are merely ding-donging from PAS to Umno and vice versa. Therefore, if PAS and Umno form an alliance, would not the number of ‘Malay’ seats total the same? How does ‘robbing’ PAS of one seat and giving that seat to Umno have any impact if PAS and Umno form an alliance?

Now, if Umno and DAP are face-to-face in that constituency and you vote for DAP instead of Umno, then this would make a difference. And if PAS faces MCA or Gerakan in that constituency and you vote for MCA or Gerakan, this too would make a difference. Then you are not giving the seat to either PAS or Umno; you are giving it to DAP or MCA or Gerakan. But DAP will face MCA or Gerakan, not Umno, while it is PAS that is facing Umno. So you either vote for PAS or Umno. There is no DAP to vote for. DAP is fighting MCA or Gerakan.

Anyway, PAS has 23 seats in Parliament. Umno has 66. Even if you add Umno Sabah into the equation, Umno’s seats will come to only 79. 23 plus 66 equals 89. Add the 13 Umno Sabah seats and it still comes to only 102. 102 of 222 comes to less than 50% because 50% of 222 is 111.

So you are scared that PAS will betray us and team up with Umno. But if they do that they still do not have the two-thirds they need to change Malaysia into an Islamic state. In fact, they do not even have 50% of the seats. How do you, therefore, reconcile the ‘logic’ that you vote for Barisan Nasional instead of Pakatan Rakyat to prevent PAS from teaming up with Umno? But this is Chinese ‘logic’ for whatever it is worth.

Chinese demand mother-tongue education. They argue that vernacular schools offer better education than national schools. Many Chinese go to Chinese schools while Malays go to national schools, although some Malays do go to Chinese schools. But Malays can rationalise better than the Chinese can. Chinese may be better at mathematics. That I don’t deny. But those Malays who are supposed to be weak in mathematics can count better than the Chinese. The Malays know that 23 plus 79 equals 102. And the Malays know that 50% of 222 is 111. The Chinese don’t know this in spite of the fact they are better at mathematics than the Malays.

No, the Chinese are not poor in mathematics. They are not even stupid. They are in fact quite clever and, at times, cleverer than the Malays. It is just that the Chinese like to grumble. The Chinese are constantly grumbling. And they will raise all sorts of grievances -- the Malays this, the Malays that, the Chinese are second-class citizens, the Chinese are unfairly treated, the Malays are mean to the non-Malays, without the Chinese Malaysia would never have developed, Malaysia is what it is because of the Chinese, and so on and so forth. But ask them to act on their grievances and the Chinese will offer a million lame excuses why they will vote Barisan Nasional instead of Pakatan Rakyat.

You can’t get the job because you have no experience and the job specifications stipulate they require at least three years experience. But how to get experience when you can’t get a job? That is called ‘Catch 22’. The Chinese refuse to vote opposition because, according to the Chinese, the opposition does not have a track record in government whilst Barisan Nasional has 51 years experience. But how will the opposition build up its track record or prove what it can do if it never gets to form the government? That is also called ‘Catch 22’.

Maybe the Chinese can answer this question. But their answer will be the typical: better a devil you know than an angel you don’t know. And then, after voting for Barisan Nasional, the Chinese will go on grumbling about how unfairly they have been treated by Umno, and that the non-Malay parties in Barisan Nasional are Umno running dogs, etc., etc., etc. And the Chinese are supposed to have received a better mother-tongue education than the Malays.

You could have fooled me.
_________________
个人履历:http://faqing.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2123
部落格:http://wongsienbiang.blogspot.com/
返回页首
[ 11楼 ] 阅览成员资料 (Profile) 发送私人留言 (PM) 发送电子邮件 浏览发表者的主页 MSN Messenger
老黄
Site Admin


注册时间: 2005-07-29
帖子: 25840

来自: 太平 --〉关丹

帖子发表于: 26-12-08 星期五 2:13 pm    发表主题: 引用并回复

http://mt.m2day.org/2008/content/view/16320/84/

The hypocrisy in men
Thursday, 25 December 2008
Raja Petra Kamarudin

Christmas is upon us, yet again. Another Christmas, another year gone, another year nearer to our graves. Tomorrow is Boxing Day, also remembered as Tsunami Day, the day when people were drowned in their sleep and swept out to sea into their watery graves.

How quickly joy turns to sorrow. One day we are elated with festivity and drowning in food and wine. The next we are sedated with reality and drowning in the Indian Ocean. I am now in Penang. I arrived yesterday with an entourage of six families, about 25 souls or so in all. I am now in the land where it all happened almost a memory ago.

The Boxing Day Tsunami, some say, is God’s punishment. It is God punishing mankind for the wrongs it has done. If that was really what God intended then God did not do a good job. Those who deserve punishment certainly did not get punished. Those who were punished were not deserving of that fate. Are we talking about my God, one of compassion and justice, or are we talking about your God, one with a sick sense of humour and misguided sense of justice?

To you your God and to me mine, the religionists say. But then are we not all God’s children and the creation of that same, one God? How can you, therefore, have your God and me, mine? Your God and mine are one and the same. To believe we have separate Gods means we believe there is more than one God. And the doctrine of most religions says there is but one God, in particular that of the Abrahamic faiths.

And are we so different? Did not Muhammad learn from the Christians and much of Islam ‘adopted’ from Christianity? Does not the Ka’bah also appear in the same name and form in the land of the Zoroastrians in the far reaches of Persia? Did not Jesus disappear from the ages of 12 to 30 when he sought tuition from Buddhists, as many now believe? Did not John the Baptist practice what was practiced by the Hindus in India of his time? But what can we really believe? Do we really know what was fact and fiction thousands of years ago? What we do know is what we have been told to believe. And what we are told to believe is what they want us to believe. And what they want us to believe is what suits the political agenda of those who walk in the corridors of power.

John roamed the land with just the clothes on his back to preach the word of God. And he brought no rations save those he accepted as alms along the way. Was John a Jew, Christian or Buddhist? We believe what we want to believe as long as it suits those who walk in the corridors of power. And to believe otherwise will not incur the wrath of God but the wrath of those who need us to believe what we are told to believe for purposes of political expediency.

Such is religion. And such is politics. And religion is not about God. It is about politics. And Cain killed Abel not for God but for politics. The good died that day, thousands of years ago. And we are descendants of the bad that lived, not the good that died.

So, can mankind be good when we are children of bad? How can the fruit of a poisonous tree be nothing but poisonous? If Cain had survived and society had convicted Abel and sentenced him to death for attempted murder, then we would probably be good because then we would be children of Cain, not Abel.

But would children of good also be good? And would children of bad also be bad? Can those whose mothers and fathers who are both nuclear scientists be equally brilliant? Or is there no possibility the son could be born mentally retarded? How many children of Umno diehards join the opposition, to be cursed and disowned by their fathers? And can there not be two brothers on opposite sides of the political fence? Shahrir and Khalid, the two sons of Samad, are testimony that there can. But which of Samad’s sons is Cain and which is Abel? It all depends on whether you walk in the corridors of power. Cain can be Abel and Abel, Cain, if he you judge walks with you and not against you.

Hudud is the current controversy, the latest Tsunami sweeping this land. But what is the issue? Is it about religion or it is merely politics? The hand is quicker than the eye. And what we see is what our brain tells us to see. We see what the hand waves in front of us. Magic is not magic. Magic is sleight of hand.

And the politicians are playing silap mata. It is a cheap show to indulge our fantasies. Is it not fantasy that Hudud will be implemented in Malaysia? How can the minority move the majority? The Federal Constitution does not provide for it. Hudud is not about religion. It is about the law of the land. Religion may be a state matter. But Hudud is not about religion. It is about the law of the land. And the states do not have authority over the laws of the land. Hudud can only become law when Parliament says so. And you need 66.666% of Parliament to say so. PAS owns only 23 seats. And 23 seats in Parliament is not 66.666% of 222. So Hudud can never be the law of the land.

The non-Muslim coalition partners of Barisan Nasional oppose Hudud. This, they have said so. Umno from Kelantan supports Hudud. This, they have said so. The non-Muslim partners of the opposition coalition oppose Hudud. This, they have said so. PAS, the propagator of Hudud, is split on the issue. This may have a bearing on the Kuala Terengganu by-election on 17 January 2009.

In the meantime the people are confused. Who supports what and who opposes? It is no longer that easy to tell. But it is meant that way. This is what politics is all about. And Hudud is about politics, not about religion. Politics is about exploitation and deception. Politics, not prostitution, is the oldest profession in the world. But, while prostitutes are not politicians, politicians are certainly prostitutes. And they will prostitute themselves if need be. And most times it needs be that they prostitute themselves.

PAS wants to secure the Malay votes in Kuala Terengganu. Umno wants to swing the Chinese votes. So, with the by-election looming over the horizon, Hudud is played to the hilt. Islam is the issue of the day. Hudud is the bad boy of Islam. And there are no sacred cows in politics. All is fair in love and war. So let us play up the Hudud issue for the benefit of winning votes.

A critical analysis of Hudud could lay the matter to rest. Those opposed could become converted if the real issue is explained. But then this will end the confusion. And the objective is not to end the confusion. The game plan is exploitation and deception. That is how ‘good’ politics is played. And there is only one type of politics, the type that wins.

I do not want to explain Hudud. I am not even a Hudud apologist. I can do that if you want me to. It is so crystal clear and extremely simple that it makes me laugh. How can Hudud be an issue? Hudud can be good and can be bad depending on application. So can the Internal Security Act if you really want to get analytical. Hudud is not about punishment. It is about looking into circumstances. Hudud explores what went wrong and how to put it right. It is not about imposing on society and causing tears to be shed.

Thieves must not be automatically punished under Hudud. The circumstances need to first be explored. Under common law thieves must not escape punishment. The circumstances do not matter. If a thief is a thief because of circumstances then the thief is not a thief and society must instead be punished, as far as Hudud is concerned. Society will be ordered to adopt the thief. The thief will become the ward of the state. And the thief can now leave his life and crime and enter into a life of adoption.

Such is the beauty of Hudud. A thief is not a thief. A thief becomes our adopted child. And if, again, he needs to steal because we have failed him, then we receive punishment instead. The thief loses no limb. But do people understand this? They do not because they are meant to not understand. This is about politics. And politicians are prostitutes. They exploit us and deceive us. And that is a mark of a good politician.

Murder is murder. Death is punished by death. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. But that is common law. That is not Hudud. In Hudud the question would be: why did you kill? Circumstantial evidence is not allowed under Hudud. Under common law you hang because of the smoking gun. Never mind they can’t prove that you killed. As long as the gun is yours you will die even if you did not pull the trigger. And did not Mokhtar Hashim get sentenced to death because of the smoking gun?

Even if you confess to murder you still do not die. The victim's family would first be asked whether they want you dead. Taking your life will not bring back the deceased. So do we want a life for a life? Two lives gone serves no purpose. The deceased's family’s welfare for the rest of its natural days takes precedence over punishment. Dead men do not put food on the table. Would another life lost, notwithstanding it is the life of a murderer, solve the economic problems of the deceased's family?

So you can ‘buy’ your life by supporting the family. It may be costly but that is the price of life. But what if you are destitute yourself? How to support your victim’s family when you can’t even support yourself? Many pay tithe or zakat. Zakat must be paid, come hell or high water. You can choose how to pay as long as it assists society. And if your millions can be spent for the benefit of mankind then you have fulfilled your duty to God and society. So a philanthropist can help 'buy back' your life for the good of the deceased's family.

So there are ways. Hudud can be humane if you want it to be. But has this been explained? Are the people aware that Hudud can improve society where common law has failed? But who cares? Who cares that Hudud can be better than what we have now? Hudud is not about religion. It is about politics. And politics is about exploitation and deception. And that is because politicians are prostitutes. And Hudud has been prostituted for the benefit of politics. That is what Hudud is all about, political prostitution.

But I too do not support the implementation of Hudud. I support Hudud in that it can be better than what we have if properly implemented. But what is properly implemented nowadays? Even the Internal Security Act has been abused. The Internal Security Act was good in 1960. One generation later and it has become a tool to stifle dissent and freedom.

So, while I might support Hudud in principle, I do not support it as the law of the land. And I do not support it because I can’t support what two-thirds of Parliament does not support. This is not about religion. It is about democracy. Even if two-thirds of Parliament supports it I still will not support it. How can 148 members of Parliament decide on behalf of 26 million Malaysians? Never mind some people gave them their two-thirds majority in Parliament. It was only four million people that did. 22 million other Malaysians did not.

Run a referendum. 10 million Malaysians are minors. 16 million Malaysians are of voting age. Get the 16 million Malaysians to decide. And let that referendum of 75% tell us what they want. And if 12 million Malaysians, representing 75% of eligible voters, vote in favour of Hudud, then let this be the law of the land. If not, forever hold your tongue and let the matter be given a decent burial.

I have just about had it with political prostitutes. It has come to a point I feel like campaigning for Umno in the Kuala Terengganu by-election just to send a message to PAS that they can’t keep playing this exploitation and deception game of political prostitution. Do they think I have my brains in my ass? Just because they do does not mean I do too.

Those who both support and oppose Hudud do not know one bit what Hudud is. Many years ago I wrote a ‘thesis’ on the matter, which was published in Harakah, the official party organ of PAS. No, I am no lawyer. I am not even a religious scholar. I just have a brain; a brain God gave me. And God gave us brains so that we can use it to think. But I wonder why others do not also use their brains that God gave them to think.

No, Hudud is not evil. Hudud is better than what we have now. But it can be worse if we want to make it so. And chances are the evil in man will make it worse. That is what makes the matter dicey.

Nevertheless, the issue is not whether Hudud is better or worse. It is about whether the majority of the people want it as the law of the land. That is what matters. And we do not care what 23 PAS Members of Parliament want. We do not even care what 148 Members of Parliament want, even if they represent two-thirds of Parliament. We care what 75% of 16 million Malaysians want. If 12 million Malaysians shout, “Let’s implement Hudud”, then let that happen. If not, buzz off and get out of my face before I really lose my temper, you political prostitutes.

Oh yes, and Merry Christmas everyone. Hope you are in the same mood as I am today. I want to kick ass. Don’t know what you want to do though.
_________________
个人履历:http://faqing.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2123
部落格:http://wongsienbiang.blogspot.com/
返回页首
[ 12楼 ] 阅览成员资料 (Profile) 发送私人留言 (PM) 发送电子邮件 浏览发表者的主页 MSN Messenger
老黄
Site Admin


注册时间: 2005-07-29
帖子: 25840

来自: 太平 --〉关丹

帖子发表于: 30-12-08 星期二 2:26 pm    发表主题: 引用并回复

http://mt.m2day.org/2008/content/view/16467/84/

Opening the door to your heart
30 December 2008
Raja Petra Kamarudin

The title of my piece today is 'borrowed' from the book, ‘Opening the door to your heart’, by Ajahn Brahm, a Buddhist monk. In the first chapter of the book, called ‘Two bad bricks’, Ajahn talks about how he built his first wall. It is very difficult, of course, for one with no bricklaying experience, Ajahn lamented, and he challenged the readers to try building one. Nevertheless, he finally completed the wall and stepped back to admire his handiwork.

To his horror he noticed that two of the bricks were crooked and he felt these two ‘bad bricks’ spoiled the appearance of the wall. He then asked the abbot for permission to tear the wall down and to start all over again. The abbot, however, told him to leave it as it is. Since then Ajahn felt ashamed of his shoddy workmanship.

One day, a visitor visited their monastery and expressed admiration for how the monks had built it from scratch with their own hands and without any outside expert help. Ajahn pointed out that the monastery was actually far from perfect because one of the walls had two bad bricks. The visitor replied that he did not notice it because all he saw was the 998 good bricks, not the two bad ones.

It suddenly dawned upon Ajahn that all this while he was upset about the two bad bricks without noticing the 998 good ones. And to think he actually wanted to tear the wall down because of these two bad bricks while not realising he would be destroying 998 good bricks in the process.

Yes, many see half a glass of water as being half empty rather than half full. And that is also how we see people and situations. We only notice and become concerned about the two bad bricks while totally overlooking the 998 good ones.

And how do we see PAS (the Islamic Party of Malaysia)? Do we see it for the blunder that Husam Musa made during his recent debate with Khairy Jamaluddin or do we see the 998 good bricks in PAS? Husam blundered big time with his retort on Hudud -- thanks to the very clever Khairy who trapped Husam into a corner that resulted in the latter blurting out without thinking. Not only was Husam wrong in saying that Pakatan Rakyat has not dropped the Hudud issue, when it is PAS and not Pakatan Rakyat that is propagating Hudud, but he was also wrong in not repeating what he had said so many times in the past on the matter of Hudud and the Islamic State.

And what was it that Husam and many of the other PAS leaders said so many times in the past? They had said that while the Islamic State is still very much the ideal of the party, PAS, however, is prepared to drop it from their agenda as they realise they will never have the two-thirds majority in parliament to turn Malaysia into an Islamic State.

PAS is pragmatic. Without a doubt they are an Islamic party, so they can’t but talk about Islam. This must be expected just like how the Christian Democrats would never stop talking about Christianity or a Hindu party stop talking about Hinduism. But turning Malaysia into an Islamic State would be a tall order if you do not have at least 150 seats in Parliament. And, as has been pointed out many times in the past, how to get 150 seats when PAS contests only 60 seats and wins not even half those seats?

In other words, I would like to do it but will not because I just can’t do it. I suppose the same goes for many Muslims who would like to marry a second wife but will not because there is no way they can marry a second wife without their first wife skinning them alive -- and we are not talking about foreskin here. Wanting it in your heart but actually doing something about it is a separate matter altogether.

So, PAS has two bad bricks, maybe even ten. But there are one million PAS members, grass-root leaders and national leaders. Are we going to judge and sentence PAS because of two bad bricks, or even ten? Are we going to tear the wall down because of two bad bricks? What about the 998 good bricks, the one million other PAS members and leaders? Do these count for nothing?

Let us look at just some of the 998 ‘good bricks’ in PAS.

In 1990, when PAS first formed the government in Kelantan together with Semangat 46, Nik Aziz Nik Mat, the Menteri Besar, summoned the Hindus for a meeting and offered them permission to build a temple in the state. The Hindus were delightfully surprised. For more than a decade they had tried to get the Umno government to approve their request to build a temple but with little success. Suddenly, even before Nik Aziz could warm his seat, he summoned the Hindus for a meeting to grant them permission to build a temple -- even though they had not approached the new state government to ask for it.

In the past, pigs could not be slaughtered in ‘Umno’ Kelantan and pork had to be brought in from the other states. Now, under the new PAS-led government, the Chinese can slaughter pigs in the state.

Yesterday, the Umno-backed Malay NGOs sent PAS a petition protesting the slaughter of pigs in ‘Umno’ Melaka. Hello, why protest to PAS about what is going on in an ‘Umno’ state? And why does the PAS Youth Movement not also send a petition to Nik Aziz to protest the slaughtering of pigs in Kelantan since PAS is supposed to be more radical and intolerant than Umno?

Liquor and beer can still be purchased and consumed in Kelantan, contrary to what is being reported. (The same thing happened in Terengganu when PAS ruled the state from 1999 to 2004. Liquor and beer were not banned). Furthermore, the Chinese can now do business without any hindrance and they no longer need to pay bribes to get things done or approved like in the days of ‘Umno’ Kelantan.

And so on and so forth, the list goes on.

These are but some of the ‘happy stories’ that people relate and there are certainly many, many more. But people do not want to look at the 998 good bricks. They would rather focus on the two bad ones and keep harping on them till the cows come home.

Can we look at PAS’s 998 good bricks and then compare the party to Umno with its so many bad bricks? Sure, Umno does have some good bricks. The party is not 100% bad. But the Umno bad bricks far outnumber its good bricks and you need to use a fine toothcomb to look for these good bricks.

It appears like Hudud is the main and only issue for most to reject PAS. Actually, Hudud is not even an issue any longer. It was a stupid slip that Husam made and which the mainstream media is going to town with. But is life only and all about Hudud, a law which can never be implemented anyway? Surely there is more to life than just Hudud.

What about good governance, transparency, the independence of the judiciary, restoration of the rights of Malaysians, plus an end to corruption, racism, abuse of power, wastage of public funds, and much more? Are these no longer important? Do these 998 good bricks become irrelevant because of the two bad bricks, which were not really that bad in the first place but was a mere perception issue?

In the run-up to the 8 March 2008 general election, PAS, PKR, DAP, PRM, MDP, PASOK and PSM endorsed the People’s Declaration or Deklarasi Rakyat, which was launched by the civil society movements at the Blog House in Bukit Damansara in Kuala Lumpur. These are the 998 good bricks that we should focus on. These 998 good bricks overshadow the two bad bricks -- the blunder Husam made in his debate with Khairy.

Maybe during the Kuala Terengganu by-election campaign PAS should reiterate its stand and reinforce its support for the People’s Declaration. Let the voters, in particular the Chinese, Indians and liberal Malays, see that PAS is committed to reforms and to the propagation of a civil society (masyarakat madani). PAS needs a makeover. It is suffering from a serious image problem. And it is a victim of mainstream media propaganda. PAS needs to correct public perception about what it stands for.

I challenge PAS to prove its critics wrong. Re-endorse the People’s Declaration and prove, once and for all, that a civil society and not the cutting off the hands of thieves is the priority of the party. In response to the move by PAS to, again, endorse the People’s Declaration, the civil society movements, even those whom PAS labels as ‘deviant Muslims’, will go down to the ground to explain the issue to the voters. This, we promise PAS.

I can assure you of one thing. Even those who are not Muslims plus those, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, who are opposed to the setting up of an Islamic State and Hudud will be campaigning for PAS in the Kuala Terengganu by-election. Re-endorse the People’s Declaration and see whether this happens or not.
_________________
个人履历:http://faqing.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2123
部落格:http://wongsienbiang.blogspot.com/
返回页首
[ 13楼 ] 阅览成员资料 (Profile) 发送私人留言 (PM) 发送电子邮件 浏览发表者的主页 MSN Messenger
老黄
Site Admin


注册时间: 2005-07-29
帖子: 25840

来自: 太平 --〉关丹

帖子发表于: 04-01-09 星期日 7:12 pm    发表主题: 引用并回复

http://mt.m2day.org/2008/content/view/16606/84/

Does MCA support Hudud?

Sunday, 04 January 2009
Raja Petra Kamarudin

I am going to suggest that Malaysians boycott the mainstream media for the next two weeks beginning from Monday, 5 January 2009. This is to teach them a lesson that they can’t keep spinning and lying to us and continue to get away with it.

Look at how they are spinning the Indian issue to give an impression that the Indians have abandoned the opposition. Are they trying to suggest that all the Indian Wakil Rakyat in Pakatan Rakyat are that stupid to not realise that they came into office not on Indian votes alone?

There is not a single seat in any of the Parliament and State constituencies where there are more than 30% Indian voters in the constituency. Maybe ten seats or so will have roughly 20% Indian voters. But that is about it. This means there is not a single seat in the whole of Malaysia where the Indians form a majority.

You could probably find a few seats where the Chinese form a majority. But it is only a handful of seats and not enough to form even a state government. For Malay-majority seats, however, there are many. Some seats are 97% or 98% Malay. But most hover around 70% to 90%. Putrajaya is 98% Malay, Kuala Terengganu is 89%, Permatang Pauh is 79%; just to name a few.

So, as Ali Rustam said in 2007 during the PPP convention in Melaka, Umno can form the government just on Malay votes alone. This is, of course, on condition that the Malays are solidly behind Umno and are not split -- like they are now and like they have always been since Merdeka.

So there are two things to note here, which the mainstream media is hiding from us.

Firstly, no Indian Wakil Rakyat can make it just on Indian support -- even if he or she gets 100% of the Indian votes. And they can never get 100% Indian support. So they need the Malay and Chinese votes as well. Therefore, how can the Indian Members of Parliament and State Assemblymen/women harp on ‘Indian issues’? Even Samy Velu admitted, more than once, that he needs Malay votes to win the election. And this is in a “Chinese Communist” constituency like Sungai Siput mind you.

Next, the Malays have always been, and always will be, split almost 50:50. That is because we have PAS around. If the Chinese ‘kill’ PAS, then the Malays will only have Umno to vote for. An Umno with 100% Malay support would mean that Umno no longer needs the Chinese and Indians, or those from Sabah and Sarawak -- as Ali Rustam said in 2007, may I add.

Do the Chinese really want to put PAS out of business? If PAS ‘dies’ then Umno, and not DAP, will get the Malay votes. And this will make Umno very powerful -- powerful enough to not need Chinese and Indian support. Are the Chinese that stupid? Do the Chinese not understand the game of divide and rule? Would it not be better that the Malays are split 50:50 between Umno and PAS? Or is it better that PAS dies and 100% of the Malays unite under Umno?

Come on! Use your brains lah! Don’t fall for the mainstream media spin. The Star is MCA owned. The New Straits Times is owned by Umno. You still believe what they say? Bodoh lah!

Today, The Star said: MCA dares DAP on hudud. Okay, MCA has challenged DAP to state its stand on Hudud. Did DAP not say so many, many, many times that it DOES NOT support Hudud? Did DAP not leave the opposition coalition, Barisan Alternatif, soon after PAS proposed Hudud in Terengganu in 2002? What more do you want DAP to say?

Hey, read my lips, MCA. DAP does not, I repeat, DOES NOT support Hudud. And they have very honestly said so many, many, many times. What we DO want to know is: what is MCA’s stand on Hudud? MCA has not made its stand clear. Can MCA, once and for all, state its stand on Hudud?

MCA, do you or don’t you support Hudud? Speak up now or forever hold your tongue. Are you pro-Islam or anti-Islam? Please tell us now and make it very clear. Tomorrow we are going to Terengganu to campaign for PAS and we want to know what to tell the Kuala Terengganu voters. And it will either be “MCA is anti-Islam” or “MCA is pro-Hudud”. And you can bet your sweet ninny I am going to milk this cow till the tits become sore.

And while we are at it, MCA, please also give us your comments on the news items below. We want to know your stand -- and make it very clear because we are going to talk to the Kuala Terengganu voters about these matters as well.

Over to you, MCA!

You MCA Chinese are the worst kind. At least PAS and DAP are honest about what their stands are. You just throw the cat amongst the pigeons and stir racial and religious issues to divide Malaysians and to make them hate each other. You are dangerous Chinese. It is Chinese like you who trigger race and religious conflicts. Are you trying to turn Malaysia into another Beirut or what? You are the cause of tragedies like ‘May 13’. The Chinese should skin you alive and leave your carcass out in the sun to rot.

Puaka punya Cina MCA!
_________________
个人履历:http://faqing.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2123
部落格:http://wongsienbiang.blogspot.com/
返回页首
[ 14楼 ] 阅览成员资料 (Profile) 发送私人留言 (PM) 发送电子邮件 浏览发表者的主页 MSN Messenger
老黄
Site Admin


注册时间: 2005-07-29
帖子: 25840

来自: 太平 --〉关丹

帖子发表于: 20-01-09 星期二 11:56 pm    发表主题: 引用并回复

http://mt.m2day.org/2008/content/view/17041/84/

A threat too far
Monday, 19 January 2009
Raja Petra Kamarudin

“I need guys who can drink like a fish and not fall down,” I told Bernard. “So make sure we get the hardcore drinkers to Kuala Terengganu. The Chinese will never trust anyone who does not drink.”

It was exactly two weeks that we spent in Kuala Terengganu -- from the eve of Nomination Day until the day after Polling Day. It was not a lot of money we spent, though, just about RM25,000 in all. But then that is because we never had to pay for our beer and liquor. Our Chinese hosts would refuse to accept our money and appeared very offended when we insisted we pay.

Okay, not everyone drank. Even some Indians in the group did not drink a drop in spite of them having a reputation of being ‘terror drinkers’. In fact, Bala would not even drink Coke. He only drank plain water or, once in awhile, green tea.

Nevertheless, seeing that we had about 20 rooms, twin-sharing, there were certainly enough in the gang to do us proud and to stand up to the heavy-drinking Chinese loggers and saw-millers without falling down drunk before the witching hour.

“PAS is going to win big,” said my ‘drinking partner’ who was not only pissed drunk but quite pissed that I had a Coke glass in my hand and was refusing his constant ‘harassment’ to ‘drink with me’.

“Hey!” I kept reminding him. “Just being in this pub is already an offence. I could get arrested. You want me behind bars or what? Imagine how Umno would go to town with the news tomorrow when the newspaper headlines report ‘Blogger RPK caught drinking in a pub in Kuala Terengganu’. They will crucify me.”

“Okay, okay, I understand. You are forgiven. But I still don’t like drinking with someone drinking only Coke.”

“Never mind about me. My friends are drinking. They can drink my share.” In fact, Bernard more than drank my share. He probably drank three people’s share. Anyway, being a Muslim was a convenient ‘excuse’ not to drink. The others were never allowed a half-empty glass. Our Chinese friends from Kuala Terengganu kept topping up the glasses of our Blogging Team until no one knew any longer how much they had drunk.

“You do not need the Chinese votes,” my Chinese friend went on. “PAS is going to win big without the Chinese votes.”

This statement troubled me and I asked my Chinese friend who was facing great trouble tying to remain standing to explain what he meant.

“PAS is going to win big. The Malays will swing to PAS. You just watch. So you do not need the Chinese votes. The Chinese can vote BN.”

“I don’t think we should look at it that way,” I told my friend with a discouraged sound in my voice. “Every vote counts. We need the Chinese votes.”

My Chinese friend probably detected that I was perturbed and he downed his glass before explaining further. “We Chinese know that PAS is going to win. The Malays are going to swing to PAS. So you can win without the Chinese votes. The Malay votes are enough to give PAS the win.”

“Okay,” I replied. “But even if PAS can win with the Malay votes why can’t the Chinese also vote for PAS?”

“PAS is already going to win by at least 2,000 votes even if the Chinese vote BN. So why worry?”

“Okay, I understand. But what’s wrong if the Chinese also vote PAS and make the win 5,000 instead of 2,000?”

“We Chinese don’t want to be blamed for Umno’s loss. Let the Malays vote PAS. PAS then wins on the Malay votes. The Chinese will vote BN. Then Umno can’t blame the Chinese for their defeat. The Chinese voted BN and PAS won with the Malay votes, not the Chinese votes.”

I could see his logic here but I did not like it. “What if the Chinese vote BN and BN wins, PAS loses.”

“No way man. PAS will win. The Malay swing is big. It is safe for the Chinese to vote BN. PAS will still win.”

“But why?” I asked. “Why do the Chinese want to vote BN when you support PAS?”

“We support PAS. Look, my friend over there gave PAS RM1 million in the last general election.” He pointed to the chap at the end of the bar and signalled him to come over.

“We have no problems with PAS. We prefer PAS to BN,” his friend added. “I was the one in the Chinese newspapers who held up the can of beer in front of the PAS markas in Wakaf Tapai. You remember or not?”

Yes, I remembered that episode. I think it was in the 2004 general election. But Umno went to town with the whole thing and distorted the issue. They said that PAS is hypocritical about Islam and is allowing liquor in the state.

“Okay, what if PAS loses and they lose because the Chinese voted BN?”

“No way. PAS will win. If PAS is going to lose then we Chinese will vote PAS. But we know PAS will win. So no need for the Chinese to vote PAS. Let PAS win on the Malay votes. We Chinese can then say we voted BN but BN still lost. And it is because of the Malays and not the Chinese that PAS won.”

I suppose this is Chinese ‘logic’ and I have come to understand how the Chinese mind works. Cari makan is very important to the Chinese and must come first. They can’t risk their cari makan by being seen to be supporting the opposition. This was, after all, a bunch of Chinese towkays that I was taking to. They are flush with money and became rich not by being seen as anti-government.

By the end of the two weeks I realised that PAS would have to depend on the Malay swing, not the Chinese votes. The Chinese would give us enough votes just to keep BN in check. At best we can expect 40% to 45% votes from the Chinese. They will make sure that the majority of the Chinese vote for BN just so that it can be seen that more than half the Chinese support the government. But it will not be more than that.

Rosmah Mansor, the wife of the Deputy Prime Minister, made this very clear to the Kuala Terengganu voters on Saturday, one week before the by-election. “We know who you vote for,” said Rosmah. “If you vote for the opposition we will know.”

The message Rosmah was sending to the Kuala Terengganu voters is that your vote is not secret and the government will know if you voted for PAS or BN. That is not true, of course, but who would want to take that risk in case it is?

The Terengganu Menteri Besar, Ahmad Said, was more blunt when he told the Chinese. “If you are nice to me, then I will be nice to you. If you are not nice to me, then I can be ten times more not nice to you.”

This was a veiled threat if ever I did see one and the message was simple: if you vote for PAS then expect my wrath. And everyone knows Ahmad Said would not hesitate to engage in fisticuffs, even during a State Assembly meeting, as Wahid Endut, who was once a victim of Ahmad Said, can testify.

The 8,000 Chinese voters in a state with a population of more than one million Malays do not need too many ‘messages’ to understand what lies ahead of them if they vote for PAS. And the 8,000 police personnel positioned all over town, practically laying Kuala Terengganu to siege, makes matters more dicey. Why the need for a police-to-Chinese ratio of one-to-one?

What the Chinese were telling us was not comforting but something we could not quarrel with. The Chinese were being threatened. They were being told that they vote for PAS at their own peril. If they know what is good for them then they must vote BN.

The Chinese got the message loud and clear. And they also knew that PAS was going to win just on Malay votes, even if the Chinese voted BN. Okay, if the Chinese vote BN then PAS is going to win by a 2,000-vote majority. And if the Chinese vote PAS then the majority is going to be 5,000. But is it worth the risk just to increase PAS’s majority from 2,000 to 5,000?

I had to concede that the Chinese are going to ‘play safe’. “But just promise me one thing,” I told my Chinese friend. “If PAS can’t get the Malay swing will the Chinese then vote PAS?”

“If PAS can’t win without Malay votes then we Chinese will vote PAS. But PAS will win, you watch, so no need for the Chinese votes. Let us vote BN and then we can put the blame on the Malays when PAS wins.”

The story does not end here though. On Sunday morning, the Blogging Team did a door-to-door walkabout to personally thank the Chinese voters before we came home to Kuala Lumpur. Some had tears in their eyes. “Kita menang,” many told me. Yes, ‘kita menang’, not ‘you menang’. It was a win for them as well as far as the Chinese were concerned.

Many who were wet with tears while hugging me tightly probably did not vote for PAS. They could not due to fear of retaliation. But it was still ‘we won’ for them. And they will tell their comrades all over Malaysia that they voted for BN mainly because the government threatened them. 8,000 Chinese voters in a state of more than one million and with 8,000 armed police surrounding the town did not offer them too many options.

But the Chinese will remember this. They will remember how Umno threatened them in the Kuala Terengganu by-election on 17 January 2009. And it will be payback time come the next general election. You can threaten 8,000 Chinese when your numbers are more than one million. But try doing this in states where the Malay-Chinese population is almost balanced.

Umno ‘won over’ the Chinese in Kuala Terengganu. But it was with a gun at the head. And the Chinese will never forget this. And neither will we. I was hoping that the Chinese were right. I was hoping that the Chinese can safely vote BN and that PAS will still win just on the Malay votes. On hindsight, the Chinese were right of course. Much to my relief that is exactly what happened, though I would have loved a 5,000 majority instead of just 2,631.

In the short-term, Umno ‘won’ the Chinese votes. But the ‘win’ was gained through the barrel of the gun. This is not the best way to win because, in the long-term, the Chinese will want to ‘pay back’ Umno for threatening them in the Kuala Terengganu by-election.

And that will be when Umno discovers they have won the battle of Kuala Terengganu but they are going to lose the war, the bigger battle for Malaysia. And MCA too will suffer. If it was just Umno that threatened the Chinese this can be accepted as ‘normal’. But when MCA joins the gang of thugs to also threaten their own community, this is something the Chinese find hard to stomach. MCA is supposed to serve the Chinese. In the Kuala Terengganu by-election, MCA was the voice of Umno to help threaten the Chinese.
_________________
个人履历:http://faqing.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2123
部落格:http://wongsienbiang.blogspot.com/
返回页首
[ 15楼 ] 阅览成员资料 (Profile) 发送私人留言 (PM) 发送电子邮件 浏览发表者的主页 MSN Messenger
从以前的帖子开始显示:   
发表新帖   回复帖子    法情 首页 -> 生花妙笔 论坛时间为 马来西亚时间
前往页面 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  下一个
1页/共5

 
转跳到:  
不能发布新主题
不能在这个论坛回复主题
不能在这个论坛编辑自己的帖子
不能在这个论坛删除自己的帖子
不能在这个论坛发表民意调查


Sponsored by EMERGE WEBhosting
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Copyright © 28-7-2005 hawkuen.blogspot.com Inc. All rights reserved.