Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info

Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Party elections versus general elections
Politicians make strange bedfellows (UPDATED with Chinese Translation)
Position paper 1: On car prices (UPDATED with Chinese Translation)
Weekend jottings
Malaysia’s first buy-election (UPDATED with Chinese Translation)
Yes, but the question is how? (UPDATED with Chinese Translation)

Party elections versus general elections

Posted: 14 Apr 2013 08:31 PM PDT

And that is why Azmin Ali refuses to give Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail and Nurul Izzah Anwar state seats in Selangor. Dr Wan Azizah is barred from contesting a Parliament seat while Nurul Izzah is contesting an unsafe seat, Lembah Pantai.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

A total of 727 seats -- 222 Parliament seats and 505 state seats -- are going to be contested on 5th May 2013. This excludes the 71 Sarawak state seats or else there would be 798 seats in all (Sarawak already had its state election two years ago in April 2011).

Those who have been politically active -- meaning 'on the ground' -- for some time would know that the party elections are always seen as more important and more hotly contested than the general elections. More money is spent on the party elections than in the general elections.

It would appear that these 3,000 (or more) Malaysians are offering to serve the 28 million rakyat (citizens) as their wakil rakyat (people's representative). And it would also appear that these 3,000 (or more) Malaysians are selfless people who only wish to serve and do good deeds for the rakyat.

Actually, they will be paid a lot of money to do the job that requires no education or qualifications. They only need to know how to talk and how to apple-polish their party bosses and those who decide who gets to contest the elections.

Ultimately, this is cronyism and nepotism at its best. Those who get chosen to contest would be those who are loyal and can serve the interest of the party bosses. Those considered a threat to these party leaders would definitely be sidelined and would not get chosen to contest.

The general elections are crucial to politicians who wish to climb the party ladder or who wish hold on to their position in the party. If they are not wakil rakyat then their political future is bleak and they would not be able to climb the party ladder or hold on to their position in the party.

Hence becoming a wakil rakyat is the first step to bigger things. And if you cannot clear this first hurdle of becoming a wakil rakyat then forget about your political career in the party.

And this is why there is a lot of jostling for seats in every general election. Failing to get a seat means that the party and the party leaders do not have confidence in you, do not trust you, do not consider you one of the gang, do not wish for you to rise up the party ladder, and so on.

The general election is basically the trial run. If you get chosen as a candidate and you make it, then that means you are going to go places in the party. If you do not get chosen or you lose the election, your future in politics is not so bright.

And that was why many of those who were not chosen to contest in 1999, or lost the election in 1999, soon faded away and were never seen again. The same thing happened in 2004 and 2008. And that is why many who were not chosen to contest left the party and/or crossed over to another party and/or contested as independent candidates and/or sabotaged the candidate who was chosen over them.

And this is the greatest fear that Umno and Barisan Nasional faces -- that those who are not chosen will merajuk (sulk) and damage their own party out of spite and vengeance. (Note the many statements by Umno hinting to this over the last few weeks).

Let me put it this way. If their real interest is merely to serve the rakyat, then what does it matter who gets chosen to contest the election and what does it matter if they are not chosen? Why must it be them and only them? After all, anyone can serve the rakyat, not only them.

Well, that is because it is not about the rakyat but about their personal political career and future. And if they do not get to contest the election, no doubt the rakyat loses nothing, but they who do not get chosen will lose everything.

Now do you know why it is so important that you get chosen to contest the election if you wish to go places?

On the other hand, those who make the decision in choosing these candidates need to consider how these successful calun (candidates) can serve them and whether they will be loyal and not bite the hand that feeds them. And if certain people are seen as a threat, those decision makers need to make sure that these threats are eliminated -- meaning they do not get chosen to contest the election.

Now, if Dr Wan Azizah and Nurul Izzah are given state seats in Selangor, and if they are given safe seats on top of that, then the mother and daughter will most likely win the election. And this would mean that their political careers are secure.

However, since Dr Wan Azizah is no longer going to be a wakil rakyat and Nurul Izzah will most likely lose the Lembah Pantai seat, they can more or less kiss their political careers good-bye.

So who will rise up the party ladder instead? Well, the plan is, Azmin Ali will go for President, Zuraida Kamaruddin for Deputy President, and Rafizi Ramli for one of the Vice Presidents.

Hence 'Team Azmin' will emerge victorious while 'Team Azizah' is dead and buried.

And that is the only reason why Malaysia holds a general election every four or five years. It is for the party to weed out 'threats' to the party leadership. And this is what Umno does each and every time, as do all the other parties within Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat.

And this is what is happening to Dr Wan Azizah and Nurul Izzah as well. They are being weeded out because they are a threat to Azmin Ali.

Politicians make strange bedfellows (UPDATED with Chinese Translation)

Posted: 13 Apr 2013 07:45 PM PDT

Some view Mustafa Ali as a threat to Pakatan Rakyat solidarity. They view him as an Umno mole who may sway many in PAS to agree that their party go to bed with Umno in the event that Umno or Barisan Nasional does not win enough seats and DAP ends up getting the most number of seats compared to PAS and PKR.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Whoever thought that my party, the Liberal Democratic Party (LibDem) of the UK, would go to bed with the Conservative Party after saying that in the event of a hung parliament they would go to bed with the Labour Party. "Why the 'U-turn'?" as what Malaysia Today readers are fond of saying.

This is not about doing a U-turn. After all, politics is all about U-turns. Even the most famous Prime Minister in UK history and the most famous Prime Minister in Malaysian history (meaning the Tunku) changed parties. This is about political expediency and who can offer a better deal.

What LibDem wanted was reforms, the same thing that Malaysians have been clamouring for since 1998 but did not almost see until ten years later in 2008. However, while Labour offered only electoral reforms, Conservative offered a bigger and more complete package, political reforms -- part of that package being, of course, electoral reforms.

This is not about what LibDem wants for itself or about what is good for LibDem. This is about what is good for the people and the country. And political reforms are by far better than electoral reforms.

Of course, whether they can deliver these reforms or whether they will keep to their promise is another thing altogether. Time will tell. But we must at least start off by promising first. If you won't even promise that, then for sure you will never deliver it.

Malaysian politics is no different. Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat are both coalitions, just like the Conservative-LibDem coalition in the UK -- and many other coalitions all over the world that will not be able to form the government on their own unless they enter into a coalition because no one party won enough seats to form the government.

So Malaysians had better get used to this new political culture. All over the world very few political parties can win enough seats to form a government on its own. Governments need to be formed via coalitions. And coalition partners are political parties, most times parties that are at odds with one another. And coalition partners can and do change from one election to another.

In 1957, Umno could have never gained Independence or Merdeka for Malaya on its own. So it was forced (by the British) to go into a coalition with MCA and MIC, which they called the Alliance Party.

Just 12 years down the road and the Alliance Party (or coalition) could no longer sustain itself. So they needed to form yet another coalition called Barisan Nasional and the opposition parties were invited to join this new ruling coalition. DAP was the only party that did not join Barisan Nasional.

Umno says DAP refused to join while DAP says it was not invited. I suppose this debate would go on forever -- just like the debate about whether Singapore was kicked out of Malaysia or Singapore left Malaysia.

Nevertheless, PAS stayed in the Barisan Nasional coalition for just three years. In 1977, PAS left Barisan Nasional to join DAP in the opposition ranks.

But not everyone was happy for PAS to leave Barisan Nasional. Once such person was (or is) Mustafa Ali who was a Deputy Minister (and for less than one year on top of that). But Mustafa Ali and the rest of the 'Umno-friendly' PAS leaders had no choice. They were members/leaders of the party and the Cabinet post 'belonged' to the party. Hence if PAS left Barisan Nasional then they too had to leave, like it or not.

There are still leaders in PAS who have no objections to a 'unity government' with Umno or Barisan Nasional in the event that Umno or Barisan Nasional does not win enough seats to form the federal government or state governments.

If you can remember, soon after the 2008 General Election, I wrote about the secret negotiations going on between some leaders in PAS and some leaders in Umno to form unity governments in Perak and Selangor -- two states that fell to the opposition Pakatan Rakyat.

At first, and as usual, they denied this and called me a liar. Later, it was revealed that the secret negotiations did, in fact, take place. However, not all the PAS leaders were excited about going to bed with Umno. Only a few of the 'Umno-friendly' PAS leaders wanted it to happen. Those such as Kelantan Menteri Besar Nik Aziz Nik Mat, who has never forgotten and forgiven Umno's 'betrayal' of 1977, would not go to bed with Umno ever again even if their political life depended on it.

Hence, without a clear consensus, the secret negotiations failed. And later some of the PAS leaders came out to confess that the secret negotiations did take place. They also confirmed that one of the carrots that Umno dangled in front of them was that PAS would become the Menteris Besar of both Perak and Selangor.

And hence, also, Raja Petra Kamarudin did not lie after all, as they had originally alleged.

And the man who would become the Menteri Besar of Selangor would be Hasan Ali, one of those who together with Nasharudin Mat Isa were involved in the secret negotiations -- and who have both since left PAS (or got kicked out) and are now 'independent cum Umno-friendly' ex-PAS leaders.

In fact, as far back as 1999, Hasan Ali already indicated that he wanted to become the Menteri Besar of Selangor and this was the reason why he and Azmin Ali could not see eye-to-eye -- because Azmin too wanted to become the Menteri Besar of Selangor. (Now you know why Khalid Ibrahim got the job instead -- to keep both these sons of Ali from tearing into each other).

You will have noticed that many of those PAS leaders involved in the unity government secret negotiations have since drifted away from PAS. But there is one man still in PAS and who is considered very influential and who could play an important role in bringing PAS and Umno together in the event Umno or Barisan Nasional does not win enough seats to form the government on 5th May 2013.

And this man is Mustafa Ali. And Mustafa Ali does not want to state in very clear terms that in the event Pakatan Rakyat gets to form the federal government then Anwar Ibrahim is without a doubt going to be the Prime Minister.

You must remember, most of the top PAS leaders are ulama' (religious scholars). Mustafa Ali is not and that is why they call him Cikgu Pah and not Ustaz Pah. Mustafa Ali is more a Malay nationalist than an Islamist. Hence Mustafa Ali would have no problems if PAS went to bed with Umno, a Malay nationalist party.

So who killed off Mustafa Ali (and I can only assume that with the latest Mustafa Ali sex video going viral on the internet we can consider him dead)? Is it Umno? Why would Umno want to kill the best friend they have in PAS? Or are the people behind the video those who view Mustafa Ali as a threat to Pakatan Rakyat as well as a threat to Anwar Ibrahim's ambition to become Prime Minister?

Honestly I do not know. But if I had to hazard a guess I would guess that Umno would be the last one who would want to see Mustafa Ali killed off.

I have always said, in politics you need to keep your friends close and your enemies even closer. And has this not been proven so many times?

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

從政者：一群很奇怪的同枕人

有些人把Mustafa Ali看成民聯團結的絆腳石。他們把他看成巫統派來的内鬼，而儅伊黨和巫統贏不了多數席且行動黨贏得多於伊黨和公正黨的席位時，他的首要任務就是把伊黨和巫統'睡在同一張床上'。

原文：Raja Petra Kamarudin

譯文：方宙

很多人會以爲我在英國的自由民主黨（Liberal Democratic Party ，LibDem)在國會懸吊的情況下會如他們之前所說的跟工黨聯盟，但事實上他們是跟保守黨聯盟的。"爲什麽要U轉呢？"這是MT讀者們很喜歡問的。

這並不是U轉，因爲政治本來就是U轉的。就連英國最出名的首相和我們最出名的首相（即國父）也曾經換黨。很多時候政治是要看便利性和哪方會開出更好的條件的。

LibDem要的是改革，正如很多大馬人從1998年就開始想要的, 當然要到了2008年大馬人才真正開始看到改革。無論如何，工黨提供的只有選舉改革，但保守黨提供的是一個更全面的政治改革配套，當中當然包括選舉改革。

在這裡我們並不看重LibDem 要的是什麽，或對LibDem有利的是什麽；我們著重的是對人民和國家有利的到底是什麽。而政治改革在這方面相比選舉改革要好得多。

當然，他們能不能實行這些改革和他們能不能堅持他們的承諾是另一回事。時間將會證明一切，但我們必須先從他們的諾言開始。如果你連承諾都給不了，那你肯定會做不了那些東西。

大馬政治其實沒有太大差別。囯陣和民聯都是政治聯盟，正如英國LibDem-保守黨聯盟般。世界各國也有很多的政治聯盟，因爲很多時候單一政黨並沒有足夠的席位來組織政府。

所以大馬人最好要能熟悉這個新的政治文化。全世界只有區區那幾個國家擁有單一執政黨，所以有很多政府都是靠聯盟組建的。很多時候這些聯盟的成員黨的信念是相互不合的，而且還會時不時地替換成員。

就講我們好了，在1957年巫統根本不可能獨自取得馬來亞獨立，所以它被（英國）強迫和馬華和印度囯大黨聯盟，通稱Alliance Party聯盟黨。

僅僅12年内聯盟黨就支撐不住了，所以他們開始邀請反對黨來組織新的聯盟，這次稱爲囯陣。行動黨當時是唯一一個沒有加盟的政黨。

巫統聲稱是行動黨自己不想加入，但行動黨則聲稱他們根本沒有受到邀請。我想這件事情會辯得永遠也沒有答案----就正如新加坡是自己要退出馬來亞或是被迫退出馬來亞這個問題。

無論如何，伊斯蘭黨只加入了囯陣3年，在1997年伊黨就離開了進而和行動黨組成反對黨。但並不是伊黨的所有人都對此擧感到開心的。Mustafa Ali 就是其中一個，他當時當了1年的副部長。但是Mustafa Ali 和其他親巫統的領袖們沒有得選擇，因爲内閣部長的職位只是公開給囯陣聯盟成員而已，他們得跟伊黨一起退出囯陣。

至今爲止，伊黨還是有人很願意和巫統組成聯合政府，尤其是儅巫統沒有足夠的席位來組織中央/州政府時。

如果你還記得的話，在08年大選后，我寫了一篇文章，内容是伊黨某些領袖和巫統領袖進行秘密談判來商量在霹靂和雪蘭莪組織聯合州政府----霹靂和雪蘭莪當時都是民聯的州屬。

一開始他們如往常般跳出來否認和指責我講騙話，但後來事實證明那個秘密談判確實是存在的。無論如何，不是所有伊黨領袖都想和巫統'同床'的。吉蘭丹州務大臣聂阿芝就是其中一個。他從未忘記巫統在1977年所作出的背叛行爲，他永遠也不會想要和巫統'同床'，即使他的政治生涯會因此結束。

之後，那個秘密談判在未有清楚的共識下宣告破裂。有些伊黨領袖後來有站出來承認那個談判的存在。他們也確認巫統當時開給他們的條件是霹靂和雪蘭莪的州務大臣一職歸伊黨所管。

這也證明了我，Raja Petra Kamarudin，並沒有像他們指控般的説謊。

當時雪蘭莪州務大臣的内定人選為Hasan Ali，他當時和Nasharudin Mat Isa一樣參加了那個秘密談判。他們兩人之後退出了（或被踢出了）伊黨而成爲了'獨立但親巫統'的前伊黨領袖。

事實上，早在1999年Hasan Ali 就表示他要成爲雪蘭莪州務大臣，而這也是爲什麽他和阿芝敏Azmin Ali 互相看不順眼的原因-----阿芝敏本身也想成爲雪蘭莪州務大臣。（你現在知道爲什麽卡立會被命名為大臣了吧，那是爲了防止這兩個阿里互相把對方撕爛）

你也應該看到了很多出席那場秘密談判的成員日後與伊黨漸行漸遠。但還有一個人到今天爲止還留在伊黨，而他還擁有很大的影響力。如果5月5號伊黨和巫統都贏不了多數席位的話，那他很可能能把雙方拉在一起組成聯合政府。那個人就是Mustafa Ali。Mustafa Ali至今爲止都不願闡明如果民聯真的贏得政權的話那安華是否會成爲首相。

你必須記得，多數的伊黨領導都是宗教師'ulama'。Mustafa Ali他本身並不是，所以人們都把他稱爲Cikgu Pah而不是Ustaz Pah。他本身更像的是個馬來民族主義而不是穆斯林主義者。所以說要Mustafa Ali和巫統這個馬來民族主義政黨同枕的話，他絕對沒問題。

所以到底是誰'謀殺'了Mustafa Ali呢？（我在這裡會這樣講，是因爲網上瘋傳的性愛片足夠要他性命了）是巫統嗎？爲什麽巫統要把他們在伊黨的好朋友給幹掉呢？還是幕後操手其實是在擔心民聯的前途和安華要成爲首相的野心而下此對策？

老實講我真的不知道。但如果你要我粗略的猜測的話，我會說巫統會是最後一個想把Mustafa Ali 給幹掉的。

我已經說過很多次了，在政治世界裏，你必須親近你的朋友，但你更要親近你的敵人（keep your friends close but your enemies closer）。這不是已經上演很多次了嗎？

Position paper 1: On car prices (UPDATED with Chinese Translation)

Posted: 12 Apr 2013 09:32 PM PDT

The local councils should operate free shuttles from your homes to the train and bus stations, as well as within the city -- where you can get from one place to another free by just jumping onto the shuttle. And there should be only five-minute intervals between shuttles at peak time and ten or 15 minutes off-peak.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

On the one hand, while I agree that car prices in Malaysia are ridiculously expensive, on the other hand I do not agree that cars should be cheap in Malaysia.

I know this sounds contradictory so allow me to explain what I mean.

In the UK, I can buy a brand new BMW that will cost roughly ONE year of my gross salary -- assuming I am earning £22,000-24,000 a year, say, as a chef in a restaurant.

In Malaysia, doing that same job, the same BMW would cost me about twelve years of my salary. That means in, Malaysia, it costs 12 times what it costs in the UK.

So I do not convert the Pound to the Ringgit and worry about the actual cost of the car in Ringgit. I compare my earning capacity to the number of years it would cost to own that car based on that earning level.

Cars should cost about one to two years of your earning capacity and houses about ten years. That would mean you have quality of life.

Now, while cars should be affordable to own, they should be heavily taxed when you drive them. Currently, they are heavily taxed even if you don't use them and they sit idle in your garage or driveway.

Hence we should implement congestion zones where you pay heavily to drive in these congestion zones but not when you drive on the highways and country roads. And you also pay heavy parking fees when you park in the cities and towns.

Hence, also, cars would be cheap to own but expensive to operate. And the more you drive and park, the more you pay. So it is better you 'abandon' your car and use public transport to get where you want to get to.

We must also be very careful about reducing car prices overnight. If you have just spent RM120,000 to buy a new car, you would not want that same car being sold for RM80,000 the following year. That means your RM120,000 car would suddenly become RM50,000 in value. You would expect your (second-hand) car value to be at least RM80,000 but how can it be RM80,000 when you can now buy a brand new one for that same price?

Pakatan Rakyat has made promises about reducing car prices without looking at the implications of that move. Firstly, many Malaysians would see their asset value depreciating drastically. Secondly, we will see many more cars on the road. What we want to see is lesser cars on the road, not more cars. The traffic jams and pollution in Malaysia is so bad that we should discourage rather than encourage Malaysians to drive.

Of course, for all this to happen, we need a more efficient public transport system. And herein lies the problem -- Malaysia's public transport system sucks.

And am I glad I will not be in the government that needs to worry about all this.

Anyway, the local councils and town planners need to look into this. And this is why we need local council elections. Then we can kick out those councillors who are not doing their job. Currently, local council positions are used as a reward for loyal party supporters.

And herein lies the other problem -- our local councils suck.

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

立場表明文（一）：論車价

地方政府（即市政府）應該提供免費的公交，讓你免費地往來你的住家和公交站。而儅你要到市内的任何一個地方時，你也應該可以乘搭免費的公交到達目的地。再者，繁忙時段的公交等候時間最長應該只是5分鐘，非繁忙時段則10-15分鐘。

原文：Raja Petra Kamarudin
譯文：方宙

一方面我認同馬來西亞車价貴的離譜，但另一方面我不贊同大馬應該把車价降低。

我知道這聼起來很矛盾，所以請讓我進一步解釋。

假設我在英國是一名廚師，那一輛剷新寳馬的價格大約是我一年的薪水，即22千-24千英鎊。

但在馬來西亞，如果我做的是同樣的職業，我則需要用我12年的薪水來購買同一輛寳馬。換句話說，大馬的寳馬比英國的貴了12倍。

在這邊我講的並不是那輛寳馬真正的馬幣價格，我對比是在這兩個不同的國家裏我應該用多少年的年薪來購買同一輛車。

一般上，想要擁有好的生活質量，你的車子應該是你年薪的1-2倍，你的房子則應該是大約10倍。

現在，雖然說車子應該是負擔得起的，但在你駕駛時你應該被抽重稅。但是在馬來西亞即時你只是買了車子而沒有經常駕駛，你還是被抽了重稅。

我們應該規劃出該付費的繁忙地段；而儅你駕在高速公路或鄉間馬路時你則不必付費。同樣的，如果你在市内泊車時你也應該付較貴的泊車費。

所以說，買車應該是便宜的，但用車則應該是昂貴的。儅你駕得更多時你也要付得更多，所以你自然而然地就會'放棄'你的車子而應用公交系統。

地方政府（即市政府）應該提供免費的公交，讓你免費地往來你的住家和公交站。而儅你要到市内的任何一個地方時，你也應該可以乘搭免費的公交到達目的地。再者，繁忙時段的公交等候時間最長應該只是5分鐘，非繁忙時段則10-15分鐘。

儅我們談及降低車价時我們得格外小心。如果你剛花12万購買一輛新車的話，你不會想看到同一輛車在明年就以8万售出；那將會代表你那12万的車明年只值5万。你當初預算在1年后你那12万的車會值8万，但現在新車都已經是8万了，你的（二手）車賣8万還會有人買嗎？

民聯當初作出承諾時根本就沒想清楚後果。其一，很多人將會看到他們的資產一夜間貶值。其二，我們會看到很多車子在馬路上奔跑。我們真正需要的是較少的車子而不是更多的車子。馬來西亞的塞車與污染程度已經很糟糕了，我們不應該再鼓勵人們駕車。

當然，我們必須首先擁有一個有效的公交系統。而這正是問題的癥結----我國的公交系統真他媽的沒用。

而我真的很慶幸我沒有為政府工作，因爲我不必爲上述的事情操心。

無論如何，地方政府與城市策劃應該認真地看待這個問題。這就是爲什麽我們要舉行地方選舉的原因：我們可以把沒做工的的市議員們踢出局。如今，市政侷的崗位只是執政黨用來安頓他們自己黨員的而已。

而這正是問題的另一個癥結----我們的地方政府/市政府真他媽的窩囊。

Weekend jottings

Posted: 12 Apr 2013 06:44 PM PDT

Yes, on stage, in front of a crowd of tens of thousands, I warned Umno to not try anything. I also told the non-Malays to stay home in case race riots do happen. I told the non-Malays that the Malays from the opposition would handle Umno. And I warned Umno that there are more Malays in the opposition than in Umno. I cautioned Umno that the Malays in the opposition are fighters and unless Umno is prepared to see blood on the streets then don't even try to start anything.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Actually, today I am not really in much of a mood to write because of the various 'good tidings' I am enjoying. First of all, my essay has been returned with an 'excellent' comment and my Oxford tutor informed me he will be recommending me for full credits.

For someone who refused to study beyond college because I believed in the doctrine that studying causes permanent brain damage, I am, of course, elated that I have passed with full credits three courses over two years. I suppose this is all about self-esteem and personal satisfaction. I have proven to myself that I did not go to university back in 1970 not because I am stupid but because I thought I do not need a university degree to get through life.

Anyway, forgive me for bragging. This is just like a new grandfather boring everyone in the pub with photographs of his newly born grandchild. Only to the grandfather does the baby look cute. The other pub goers would rather ogle the barmaid's boobs and butt.

The second good tiding is that my wife, Marina, and I will be celebrating our 40th wedding anniversary tomorrow, 14th April 2013. I mean 40 years of marriage is longer than many of you reading this have been alive. And even after 40 years Marina still has to push me off and ask me to take a shower to cool down, if you know what I mean.

We were hoping to celebrate our 40th wedding anniversary together with the grand opening of our kopitiam, Gossip on Broadway. Unfortunately that is no longer possible and we may instead have to open after the 13th General Election of 5th May 2013 -- yet another good tiding.

The place, an old 1800s building, needed more extensive renovations than we originally thought (some parts of the building had rotted away and was threatening to collapse). Hence the two months delay. And my budget has inflated from RM250,000 to RM600,000…sigh…not so good tiding.

Anyway, we are ready to roll and by the first to second week of May 2013 we should be open for business. I hope to also apply for a live music licence so that those of you who want to jam on Saturday night can do so. Once the licence is approved I may have to spend a bit more money on a keyboard. I already have the electronic drum set and it works just great.

While on the subject of music, I also managed to get two tickets to The Rolling Stones concert in Hyde Park on 13th July 2013. And that is my fourth good tiding. The tickets for the first concert on 7th July 2013 were sold out within mere minutes so they decided to hold a second concert on 13th July for those who were not able to get tickets to the first concert.

The tickets were on sale from 9.00am on 12th April and I managed to get my tickets after waiting 20 minutes for the website to be 'free'. That shows how many people wanted tickets. The website was so jammed that we were put on hold. The tickets, which cost 100-300 quid, are now selling for as high as 12,000 quid on the black market. Crazy!

Then, on 18th July 2013, I will be going to the Santana concert in Manchester -- my fifth good tiding. That, as far as I am concerned, is the ultimate in concerts so you can understand why I am so elated.

Well, there you have it -- five good tidings in a row. So what more can a person want? So you can understand why going back to Malaysia is not at the top of my priority list. There is just so much going on here that I do not see myself returning to Malaysia any time soon.

Anyway, just to change the subject, one reader posted a comment today lamenting that we are quite unfair in whacking all Chinese for the racist comments of a mere handful of people.

I agree, maybe less than 100 of our 700,000 or so readers post racist comments so not all Chinese should be painted with the same brush. But maybe you can read the statement below by pastor Martin Niemöller.

You see, when Malays make racist statements, other Malays whack them. I am sure you have read what Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad said yesterday regarding what would happen (meaning race riots) if Pakatan Rakyat takes over Johor. And I am sure you also read PAS leader Datuk Mahfuz Omar's response to that here: http://www.malaysia-today.net/mtcolumns/newscommentaries/55878-pas-will-shield-all-from-race-clash-veep-vows

Those of you who have been following my columns/articles since back in the Reformasi days can remember when in 1999 I said that PAS gives the non-Malays a guarantee that in the event of a May 13 Version 2 happening the Malays are going to come out in full force to defend the non-Malays (I quoted Dr Hatta Ramli).

Those of you who attended the 2008 election rallies and ceramahs would also remember me openly and publicly giving a warning to Umno to not threaten the non-Malays and that in the event of a May 13 Version 2 happening it is no longer going to be Malays killing Chinese but Malays killing Malays.

So you see, when Malays threaten the non-Malays, the Malays -- such as I and those in PAS -- come forward and openly declare our non-racist stand. We openly declare that we shall protect the non-Malays. But when the non-Malays make racist statements, the other non-Malays either keep very silent and not whack their fellow Chinese and Indians or they add more fuel to the fire.

So, yes, maybe just a handful of Chinese and Indians make racist statements and it is not fair to whack all non-Malays for what just a handful of people do. But silence is consent. Even if you do not add fuel to the fire by joining the anti-Malay (or anti-Islam) chorus, even if you just keep quiet, that is still bad, as pastor Martin Niemöller demonstrated.

Islam teaches Muslims amar makruf, nahi munkar. This means do good and oppose bad. Hence 'doing good' is just not good enough. You must also oppose bad. And when someone does or says something bad, even if they are people of your same race and religion, you must do something about it. Saying that I did not say it but someone else said it -- but you keep silent while they say it -- is not good enough. By keeping quiet that means you agree with what was said.

And that is why when a handful of non-Malays say and do something racist, I whack all the non-Malays. And I will continue whacking all the non-Malays until they come out to condemn the acts of their fellow non-Malays. If I can stand up on stage in front of tens of thousands to warn Umno not to threaten the non-Malays and warn Umno that we Malays will come out to face them in defense of the non-Malays, the least you non-Malays can do is to condemn your fellow racists.

Malaysia’s first buy-election (UPDATED with Chinese Translation)

Posted: 10 Apr 2013 07:07 PM PDT

And this was when the Pakatan Rakyat people said I was opposed to a change in government. I never said do not change the government, as what I was accused of saying. What I said was just changing the government would not see change unless we can accept the entire concept and full package of change. Changing the government without a revolutionary paradigm shift is merely old wine in a new bottle.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Free fishing nets for fishermen and annual good service incentive for taxi drivers are part of the Penang Pakatan manifesto.

(Free Malaysia Today) - Pakatan Rakyat will give away two free fishing nets annually, one worth RM400 to RM500, to each onshore fisherman in Penang if it gains another mandate to rule the state. In a similar move, Pakatan is also throwing goodies to taxi drivers as well by giving them RM600 annually as a good service incentive.

All these promises will feature in the state Pakatan manifesto scheduled to be launched at Hotel Vistana in Bayan Baru on April 15. Pakatan and PKR de facto leader Anwar Ibrahim is scheduled to grace the event as the guest-of-honour.

In announcing this today, DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng said between 5,000 and 6,000 fishermen and registered taxi drivers in the state would benefit from the programme. "These are 'peek' information on our manifesto," he told a press conference at Wisma DAP. Among Pakatan state leaders present were DAP chief Chow Kon Yeow and PKR vice-chairman Abdul Halim Hussain.

All this while, Lim said successive state governments, including his Pakatan administration, have not carried out any welfare programmes to benefit these groups because those economic sectors were under the federal purview. He said Pakatan planned to give away the gifts because it did not want these groups to be marginalised and sidelined from state welfare benefits any longer.

He believes Pakatan's gestures if implemented would be an incentive booster for both the fishery and tourism sectors. He clarified that taxi drivers would be all those who come under the universal understanding of taxis, which would include hired cars and airport limousines as well.

If re-elected, he said, Pakatan would disburse the goodies correctly to only registered taxi drivers and active fishermen. Under Lim's administration, cash gifts were given out to senior citizens, single mothers, disabled persons and even for death.

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

It depends on how you want to look at it. Malaysia's 13th General Election is either the first Presidential Election between Najib Tun Razak and Anwar Ibrahim or it is the first buy-election where both sides are buying votes.

In the past, the buying was very one-sided. It would normally be the government or Barisan Nasional buying the votes. Today, both sides are doing it. In that sense, Malaysia has finally achieved a two-party system.

In fact, this is quite true -- that we are seeing the emergence of a two-party system. For the first time in history, Pakatan Rakyat has a real and genuine chance of forming the new federal government. This has never happened in the past. Today, even the top bosses in Barisan Nasional admit that there is a clear and present danger that the ruling party may actually lose power.

The bad thing about this is that the top bosses in Pakatan Rakyat know this. In fact, even the taxi drivers and vegetable sellers in the market know this. And because of this Pakatan Rakyat and its supporters have turned arrogant and over-confident while those from Barisan Nasional have become very worried and extremely cautious.

Arrogance and over-confidence is bad. It causes you to make mistakes. Very worried and extremely cautious is good. You never take things for granted.

If I were asked how I would rate the chances, I would say that Pakatan Rakyat has a chance of winning 95-100 Parliament seats. It also has a chance of retaining Kelantan and Penang but with a slightly reduced majority in both federal and state seats.

Barisan Nasional can win 80-82 Parliament seats in West Malaysia and 30-35 in East Malaysia. The 'non-aligned' parties from East Malaysia can sweep about 12-15 seats with about 10-12 going to DAP (from the current two).

For all intents and purposes, we are going to see a hung-parliament of sorts with the 'third force', if I may be permitted to call it that, deciding who gets to form the federal government.

Selangor, Perak, Sabah and Negeri Sembilan are, at this point of time, a 50:50 situation (as are the 13 Wilayah Persekutuan Parliament seats where it is 7:6 in Pakatan Rakyat's favour from currently 10:3). These four states can go either way and there are just too many 'internal factors' from both sides that will determine the outcome (selection of candidates being one main factor).

And that is why I say Malaysia, at last, is seeing a two-party system emerging with the third force being the kingmaker.

Is that good?

Well, it depends on your Christmas wish. If you wish to see Barisan Nasional retain power with a two-thirds (or close to two-thirds) majority then it is not good. If you wish to see Pakatan Rakyat take over then it is also not good. But if you want to see a balance of power with no one political grouping having absolute power then it will definitely be good.

If you can remember what I wrote soon after the 2008 General Election regarding a two-party system and a unity government (which the majority of you profusely opposed) then you can see that the last scenario would be very palatable to me.

If you can remember why I mooted the idea of the Malaysian Civil Liberties Movement (MCLM) in 2010 and why we launched the 'Independent Candidates Initiative' (targeted at a minimum of 10 and a maximum of 30 candidates), and which also many of you profusely opposed, you will also see that the last scenario would be very palatable to me.

Unfortunately, the two-party system, the unity government, the Independent Candidates Initiative, etc., all did not go down well with the majority of you. In fact, the top leadership of Pakatan Rakyat made it very clear that they would not support all these ideas. To add insult to injury, they even said that Barisan Nasional was behind MCLM and that the objective was to trigger three-corner fights to help Barisan Nasional win the election.

I could see that not many could accept new ideas when they feel that Barisan Nasional is finished and that Pakatan Rakyat is poised to take over. Why the need for new ideas when you have practically won the fight? Only if you do not win do you need new ideas on how to win.

No doubt, everyone is talking about change. However, to most people, change merely means changing the government. I do not disagree with changing the government. Hell, even here in the UK I became a member of the opposition party and voted opposition so that we could see a change in government. But what I was trying to impress upon Malaysians was that change means more than just changing the government. Change needs to come in a bigger package than just changing the government.

But that argument was lost on most people. Hence what I needed to do was to sit back and allow the 13th General Election to play itself out. One of the issues I raised that needed addressing to avoid three-corner fights, inter-party bickering, intra-party bickering, internal sabotage, and so on, was by deciding on the seat allocation and choice of candidates early and not at the eleventh hour.

Today, we are seeing the logic in that appeal we made to Pakatan Rakyat and I really need say no more about the matter.

If the 13th General Election is going to be decided by who can promise the voters more and better gifts and handouts, then we are still a long way away from change. The 'future' that we are talking about and fighting for is all about how much money we are going to receive. How long would that money last? Even if it is RM10,000 per voter or per Malaysian is that going to guarantee us a good future?

I am 62. Most of you who are nearing that age will know that at that age we are concerned about our health. Can I be assured of a good healthcare system to look after me until I reach the age of 77 or 82 (if I get to live that long)?

I am a grandfather of five grandchildren and maybe by the time I die I will have 10 or more grandchildren. Will my grandchildren receive the best education to help them survive in a borderless and globalised world?

Malaysia is badly divided racially with a serious problem of religious intolerance. Is Malaysia's political culture conducive to improving this ethnic and religious divide or does it, in fact, make the problem worse?

Malaysians live in gated communities with security guards patrolling the neighbourhood and iron bars on their doors and windows. They also face the risk of their handbags being snatched as they drive on the highways or walk on the streets. Are you happy with Malaysia's security situation?

Malaysia's election fraud plus election violence is beginning to make the country look like one of the tin-pot regimes. How many of you are going to leave town or are going to lock yourselves in your homes on Polling Day on 5th May in case we see another 'May 13'?

Those are the issues close to my heart alongside good governance, transparency, accountability, eradicating corruption and abuse of power, and so on. And RM10,000 to vote for any particular party is not going to see these issues resolved.

And while we can certainly blame Barisan Nasional and Umno's 56 years rule for all these problems, Pakatan Rakyat needs to convince us that a change of government is definitely going to see these problems get resolved.

Our worry should not be about winning the election. Our worry should be about what would we do if we do win the election. That is when the work really begins. To most of you, however, winning the election is not when the work begins but when the problems end.

And that is what concerns me because once we make our bed we will have to lie in it.

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

大馬史上第一個'買賣選舉'

就此事上，民聯支持者說我反對換政府。這是絕對的誣賴，我從來沒說過我反對換政府，我說的是，只是換政府是做不到真正的改變的。如果我們只是換政府而不是做出革命性的典範轉移那這一切只是新瓶裝舊酒。

原文：Raja Petra Kamarudin
譯文：方宙

免費漁網與年度計程車司機良好服務獎勵是檳城民聯大選宣言内的項目

(Free Malaysia Today) – 民聯宣佈，如果他們保住檳州政權，他們將會每年發放兩個價值400-500馬幣的漁網給州内漁民和600馬幣服務獎勵給州内的計程車司機。

（下文省略）

*************************************
視乎你的個人詮釋，此次大選可以是納吉和安華的首相之爭，也可以是大馬史上第一個'買賣選舉'，因爲雙方都使盡全力來買票。

在過去，買票是政府/囯陣一方的作爲，但如今這已是雙方的。所以某個層面上，馬來西亞可以説是達成了兩綫制。

這是蠻正確的；我們現在看到的是兩黨制的崛起。現今，反對黨有史以來第一次真正地有出綫的機會。連囯陣上層的頭目們都承認他們面對的是很真實的危機，是有可能讓他們倒臺的危機。

不好的是，民聯的領導人也知道這一點（其實就連巴刹的賣菜阿姨們都知道），而這恰巧會讓民聯和他們的支持者變得目中無人和過於自信。相對的，囯陣就變得很擔憂而步步爲營。

目中無人和過於自信是不好的，因爲你會因此而犯錯。而擔憂而步步爲營是好的，因爲你不會指望不勞而獲。

如果你問我民聯的贏面，我會說他們有機會贏得95-100 個囯席。他們也會保住吉蘭丹和檳城，但總體的支持率會稍微下降。囯陣則會贏得80-82西馬囯席和30-35東馬囯席；東馬的12-15席會落入獨立黨派手裏，而剩下的10-12席則會由行動黨勝出（行動黨現在只贏得2席）。

若上述屬實，我們將會看到一個懸吊的國會，而那個'第三勢力'（請容許我這麽稱呼）將會決定哪個黨會成爲執政黨。

雪蘭莪，霹靂，沙巴和森美蘭現階段還是處於50-50的狀態（聯邦直轄區也將由以往的民聯10：3囯陣變成現在的民聯7：6囯陣）。其他的四個州屬都有可能落入任何一方，因爲雙方都有太多的内在因數左右這四個州屬的選票去向（候選人為其中一個因數）。

這就是爲什麽我講説馬來西亞終于迎來了兩綫制，而第三勢力終于擡頭成爲造王者。

這是好事壞事呢？

這要看你到底要的是什麽。如果你要的是囯陣取囘2/3的多數權，或民聯入位得權，那對你來講不是件好事。但如果你要的是一個平衡的政治，沒有一方專權，那這絕對是件好事。

如果你還記得我在08年大選后寫的"兩綫制和聯合政府"的文章（你們很多人都吐嘈這個理念），那你應該知道后者才是我的杯中茶。

如果你還記得我在2010年提出的建立 'Malaysian Civil Liberties Movement (MCLM，此譯馬來西亞國民自由運動) '和'獨立人選倡議' （提倡至少有10-30名獨立候選人上陣），那你也一定更清楚后者才是我的杯中茶。

很無奈的，兩綫制、聯合政府、獨立人選倡議都不是你們要的東西。民聯還表明得很清楚他們絕對不會支持我的提議。他們甚至還往我的傷口上灑鹽，散播囯陣是 MCLM的幕後老闆，且MCLM嘗試在大選中提倡三角戰來使囯陣獲勝。

我看得出來，沒有很多人願意接受這個新的理念，尤其是儅他們認爲囯陣已'玩完'而民聯接手在即，那我又何必再提出一個新的理念呢？一個人只有在要失敗時才會提出新理念。

很多人是會談到改變，但他們眼中的改變只是改變政府，而這是我所不贊成的。雖然說在英國這邊我爲了要換政府而加入英國反對黨，但我真正要給馬來西亞人民的思想是改變不止是換政府這麽狹隘的，而是比換政府還要重大得多的。

就此事上，民聯支持者說我反對換政府。這是絕對的誣賴，我從來沒說過我反對換政府，我說的是，只是換政府是做不到真正的改變的。如果我們只是換政府而不是做出革命性的典范转移那這一切只是新瓶裝舊酒。

很不幸的，很多人都聼不明白我的論點。所以我現在只能靜觀這屆大選的結果。但我還是想強調，只有趁早圈定上陣區與候選人，（民聯）才可以避免三角戰、黨内紛爭、跨黨紛爭、自相扯後腿等問題。

我希望今天你們可以看到我對民聯的呼籲的邏輯，而我真的無需再重復了。

如果說第13屆大選的輸贏是看誰能夠答應給更多禮物與糖果的話，那我們離改變還有很長的一段路。我們所謂的'未來'是取決於我們會收到多少錢，但那筆錢會持續多久呢？請問在發放給每位選民1万塊錢后，我們的未來是否會更好呢？

我今年62嵗，如果你和我差不多的話你會很關注你的健康問題。我現在是否有自信，儅我77或82嵗時（如果我有如此長命的話）我國將會擁有良好的醫療系統來照顧我呢？

我現在是5個孫子的爺爺，而有可能我死的時候我會是10個孫子的爺爺。我關心的是，我的孫子孫女們會不會得到最好的教育以便能在現今這無國界的世界裏生存呢？

大馬是個種族間隔很濶的國家，也是個宗教相容很差的國家。請問，大馬的政治文化將會改善這些情況還是會把它們弄得越來越糟呢？

許多大馬人都住在有保衛亭保護的住宅區，他們都依靠警衛巡邏和都裝上鐵窗。無論他們是駕駛在高速公路上還是走在人行道上他們都面臨著被搶奪包包的危險。你是否對大馬治安感到滿意？

馬來西亞的大選舞弊與選舉暴力使大馬逐漸邁向獨裁囯，你們當中有誰因害怕這個5月5號會成爲另一個'513事件'而決定離開居住地/鎖緊大門呢？

還有很多其他課題，如管理，透明，貪污，濫權等，這些都不會因我們爲了那1万塊錢而投而就會解決的。

在我們責備囯陣在56年掌權期間令國家問題叢生時，民聯應該説服我們，令我們相信在換政府以後他們會根治這些問題。

我們的憂慮不是贏得大選，而是贏了大選以後我們應該怎樣做。贏了大選以後才是我們做功課的開端，但對你們很多人來説贏了大選不是開始工作的開端，而是問題的結束。

一旦我們安好床位以後，我們就得睡在那張床上，這就是最令我最爲擔心的。

Yes, but the question is how? (UPDATED with Chinese Translation)

Posted: 07 Apr 2013 06:54 PM PDT

Let us discuss the salient points in these two Election Manifestos, though not in order of priority or importance (since each person will have different priorities on what they expect from life). And the first item would be the issue of abuse of power, corruption, cronyism, nepotism, mismanagement of the country's wealth, and so on.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

I have been observing with interest without much comment since the announcement of the dissolution of Parliament and thought that maybe today I would write something as food-for-thought for Malaysia Today's readers.

You may have noticed that I like to write controversial pieces and would usually take the opposing side in a debate or argument just so that, as I always say, I can throw the cat amongst the pigeons. For example, when people take a stand opposing the Islamic Sharia law of Hudud, I take a stand supporting its implementation and when people take a stand propagating that law I take a stand opposing it.

People ask me why I do that. Well, I suppose it is in my genes. It is what I do. More importantly, however, it teaches people to think and if they disagree with my stand then they would be forced to argue their case in defense of their stand. No doubt this does not always work as planned. In some instances, when people do not have the ability to debate with decorum and civility, they resort to name-calling, swearing and cursing.

I suppose we can only blame these people's parents who did not bring them up the right way. I remember my teenage days when I visited the homes of my Chinese school-friends. The whole family would be playing mahjong and the children would scream tiu niamah in front of their parents whenever they got a weak 'card'.

Hence, when children scream tiu niamah over the mahjong table in front of their own parents you can imagine why they are so coarse and rude when they comment in Malaysia Today. It is the way they were brought up by their parents.

Anyway, that is not the point of what I want to say today. What I do want to talk about is the promises made in the run-up to the coming general election, which some call Election Manifesto and some call Akujanji (I promise).

There appears to be some confusion or misunderstanding about the meaning and implication of an Election Manifesto. In the past, the Bahasa Malaysia translation of Election Manifesto was Manifesto Pilihanraya. Now that it is being called Akujanji makes it even more confusing, especially since Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim, the Selangor Menteri Besar, said that an Election Manifesto is not a promise.

The voters need to be told whether this is a firm commitment or merely an aspiration. And they also need to be told that there is a difference. For example, I aspire to become rich but since I am unemployed and am surviving on welfare that aspiration will remain unrealised. However, if I borrow a million dollars from the bank and I invest this million together with another million of my own money into a business that can turn water into oil, then definitely that aspiration will become reality.

The thing is, I may aspire, but the question is how do I plan to meet that aspiration? That is what appears missing in these election promises being made by both sides of the political divide.

Hindraf says that Pakatan Rakyat stole their Manifesto while Pakatan Rakyat says that Barisan Nasional stole theirs. In that case I need not address the Pakatan Rakyat and Barisan Nasional Election Manifestos separately since both are duplicates of each other.

Now, while everyone claims that reducing or eliminating corruption is going to be one area of priority, can we be told how this is going to be done? The aspiration of attacking corruption is commendable. How we are going to achieve that is more important.

For example, are we going to send convicted corrupt government officials and politicians to the firing squad like they do in China? Or are we going to execute them by chopping off their heads like in Saudi Arabia? Or maybe cut of their hands like in Afghanistan?

You see: corrupt people do not fear God. In fact, they may not even believe in God. Hence it is pointless to try to put the fear of God in them. We need a stronger fear factor. And a bullet in their head or their head chopped off or their limbs severed may be a stronger deterrent to corruption.

And how do we gain a conviction? Most times, just from their lavish lifestyle, we know these people are corrupt. But to prove it in court is another thing. Less than 1% of corrupt people actually get sent to jail. Can we, therefore, do what they do in Iran (or used to do back in the days of the Revolution of 1979)? In Iran, they torture (or tortured) suspects to gain a confession and after they confess to these crimes these people are executed.

So you see, we need to know the modus operandi that is going to be applied. Having an aspiration to reduce or eliminate corruption is one thing. Being able to achieve it is another thing altogether. So we need to know how this is going to be achieved. And that is missing from the election promises.

The next thing is about the people's welfare. This, of course, would involve a few things such as education, health, safety, quality of life, and so on. We will need details on how the people's welfare is going to be taken care of. And if we talk about change then we need to be brave (plus honest) and talk about a paradigm shift. And if we are not brave enough in committing ourselves to this 'revolutionary change' then nothing much is going to change.

I have written about all these issues more than once in the past so I do not think I need to repeat myself here. Nevertheless, at the risk of boring you with the 'same old story', allow me to summarise the issues as briefly as I can (and being brief is not something within my nature, as you may well be aware).

Will all Malaysian citizens irrespective of race, religion and gender be guaranteed a place in school, college and university?

Will all Malaysian citizens irrespective of race, religion and gender be guaranteed financial assistance to attend school, college and university if they deserve and require financial assistance?

Will the poverty level be reset at a more realistic level -- say RM2,000 for the big towns and cities and RM1,500 for the rural areas -- and will all those families living below this poverty level be guaranteed financial assistance to attend school, college and university if they deserve and require financial assistance?

Will a National Health Trust be set up so that all Malaysian citizens can receive good and free healthcare even in private hospitals, the cost to be borne by the National Health Trust?

Now, these are just some of the issues and certainly not the only ones. However, to me, education, health and the safety and welfare of our citizens take priority over all other issues. Hence we need a strong welfare, education and healthcare system to achieve this. And of course someone has to pay for this 'welfare state', if that is what you would like to call it.

Petronas brings in billions in revenue. The states receive only 5% of this while 95% goes to the federal government. Say the states' share is increased to 20%, as what Pakatan Rakyat promises. Can, say, 5% be paid to a National Health and Education Trust so that all Malaysian citizens living below the poverty level can receive free education and healthcare without exception?

A law can be passed in Parliament, say called the National Trust Act, where Petronas, by Act of Parliament, pays 5% of its oil revenue to this Trust. This National Trust then pays for the cost of education and healthcare to those registered with the Welfare Department. They are then given a National Trust Registration Number where with this they can qualify for free education and healthcare.

Of course, we need to fine-tune the mechanics to weed out those who do not qualify or who no longer qualify because their income has already exceeded the poverty level. Whatever it may be, the system must be colour-blind. If you deserve it you get it, never mind what race, religion and gender you may be. And that would automatically make the New Economic Policy irrelevant without even needing to officially abolish it.

Note that the points above are just examples of some of the issues and in no way make the list complete. If I want to cover every issue then this piece needs to run into 20 pages. Nevertheless, I trust this demonstrates the point I am trying to make in that the aspirations in the Election Manifesto is only the skeleton and what we now need to see is some meat on that skeleton.

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

是的，但問題是，我們應該怎麽做？

現在，讓我們來談談這兩份宣言的重要事項。請記住，我的論點是不按重要性來分先後的（因爲重要性的先後是人人不同，很客觀的。而我要談的第一點是和濫權相關的（如貪污、裙带关系、不當管理財政等。

原文：Raja Petra Kamarudin

译文：方宙

自從國會解散后，網絡上出現了很多有意思的爭論，而今天我想就這些爭論上提出看法，希望我的看法能夠成爲MT讀者們的'思想糧食'。

你們可能注意到，我會常寫些具爭議性的文章，且我經常會為反方站臺。如，儅人們反對落實回教法時我會提出贊同的言論。別人問我為何會那麽做，我想這可能是我的基因吧，這就是我的作風。但更重要的，我希望人們會動腦筋思考。如果他們想反駁我的話，他們必須提出論據。然而並不是每一次他們都會這樣的，有些人詞窮時會用罵髒話、詛咒等來回應。

我想可能是他們父母沒把他們教好吧。我記得我年輕時去拜訪我一個華人同學，當時他們家人正在打麻將。那些小孩在摸到一手坏牌時會儅他們長輩面前大罵'屌你老媽'！所以你在此可以想象爲何他們可以如此粗魯的在網絡上發言了；他們的父母是如是教養的。

話説回來，這不是我今天的重點。我今天要講的是大選宣言（或有些人會稱爲 Akujaji）内的承諾。

很多人誤解了大選宣言的目的。之前大選宣言的馬來文翻譯是Manifesto Pilihanraya，但現在的Akujanji 這個翻譯把它的意思搞得更加亂（尤其是在雪蘭莪大臣Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim表明大選宣言並不是承諾后）。

選民們有必要被告知那些宣言到底是個承諾還是個心願，他們也必須被告知這兩者的不同。打個比方，我現在失業，很窮，但我有要成爲有錢人的心願。如果我靠福利金苟且度日的話，那我的心願就不會實現。反過來，如果我從銀行借了1百萬來做生意而賺取了另一個1百萬，那我的心願就會實現。

我可以有心願，但問題是我要怎麽實踐呢？這就是雙方大選宣言裏邊沒有提到的。

Hindraf 已説明了，民聯的宣言是抄他們的，而民聯則說囯陣的宣言是抄民聯的。因此，我並不需要個別説明，因爲無論是民聯或囯陣，他們的宣言都是一樣的。

現在，讓我們來談談這兩份宣言的重要事項。請記住，我的論點是不按重要性來分先後的（因爲重要性的先後是人人不同，很客觀的）。而我要談的第一點是和濫權相關的（如貪污、裙带关系、不當管理財政等）。

所有人都宣稱打擊貪污是他們的首要任務，那他們能否告訴我們要怎樣來實踐呢？打擊貪污這個理念是很可取的，但如何達到目的才是更爲重要。

我們是否應該像中國一樣，把貪官污吏捉去槍斃？還是仿效沙特判他們斬首示衆？還是像阿富汗剁他們的手？

你應該明瞭，那些貪贜枉法的人是不怕上帝的。事實上，他們可能根本都不信有上帝這囘事，所以你根本不能用上帝這個名號來嚇阻他們。我們需要一個更有效的嚇阻方法。在他們頭顱上打一槍或讓他們斷手斷腳可能會有效。

我們又能怎樣更有效的制裁他們呢？大多時候我們是從他們那奢侈的生活方式來斷定他們是有貪污的，但要在法庭内將他們定罪又是另一回事。目前只有少過1%的貪污人士被送進監牢裏。那麽我們又能否仿效伊朗般呢？在伊朗他們會折磨嫌犯，讓他們屈打成招，然後再將他們處決。

所以你看，我們必須知道及擁有一個執行方式。擁有一個心願是一回事，實踐又是另一回事。我們必須知道實踐的方法，而這正是那些大選承諾裏所沒談及的。

我要講的下一個課題是福利（牽涉到的計有教育、醫療、治安、生活素質等）。我們必須知道人民的福利會怎樣地被照顧。如果我們所談到的是改變，那我們就應該勇敢的（和誠實的）談及典範轉移。如果我們不能夠很徹底地做出革命性的更改，那很多事情就只會維持原貌。

我之前已經提及很多次了，其實我並不需要重復。但在此容我再重復一遍，給你一個很簡短的總結（其實簡短並不是我的作風，你們應該是很了解的）。

所有馬來西亞人，無論種族、宗教、性別，是否能有保障性地進入學校，學院和大學求學？

所有馬來西亞人，無論種族、宗教、性別，在符合條件下，是否能有保障性地得到財務資助進入學校，學院和大學求學？

贫困线會否被調整至一個合理的底綫----即大城市的2000馬幣和鄉村地區的1500馬幣----而那些窮困學生是否能有保障性地得到財務資助進入學校，學院和大學求學？

'國家醫療基金'會否被成立以幫助所有大馬人得到免費而有素質的醫療服務（甚至涵蓋私人醫院的醫療費用）？

這只是所有問題裏的冰山一角，但對我而言，教育、醫療、治安、和人民福利就現在而言是最爲緊要的。所以現今我們需要的是一個很好的福利、教育、與醫療系統。當然背後必須得有人為這個'福利社會'買單。

囯油每年進帳上億，產油州只抽取那其中的5%，而95%則進入中央政府的口袋。就如民聯應承般，讓20%的盈餘給州政府好了，那就是否能抽取5%放進'國家醫療及教育基金'中來幫助窮苦人士得到教育與醫療服務呢？

或者福利部可以通過審查來登記那些有需要且符合資格的窮苦人士，然後國會可以通過'國家信托法'勒令囯油把5%的盈餘用在此信托中以支付那些窮苦人群的教育與醫療費用。

當然，我們必須要有一個很好的檢查方式來排除掉那些沒資格或那些之前有資格但現在已經脫離贫困线的人。底綫是這個系統必須是色盲的。無論你的種族、宗教、性別是什麽，只要你符合條件，你就有資格得到援助。若這個計劃能夠落實，那NEP將會自動地失去用處，我們根本就不必特意地去廢除它。

以上的幾點只是一小撮的例子，要我現在把所有課題都列出來，那是不可能的；我可能需要20多頁才能擧列完畢。我希望在此你們能夠看見我所要表達的意思：大選宣言裏的理念其實只是骨头架子而已，而我們現在要看到的是骨頭上的肌肉。

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Isnin, 15 April 2013

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

0 ulasan:

Catat Ulasan