Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News
Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News |
- DAP’s constitutional crisis (UPDATED with Chinese Translation)
- And what are YOUR principles?
- The meaning of principles (UPDATED with Chinese Translation)
- ABU! ABU! ABU! (UPDATED with Chinese Translation)
- Party elections versus general elections (UPDATED with Chinese Translation)
- Politicians make strange bedfellows (UPDATED with Chinese Translation)
| DAP’s constitutional crisis (UPDATED with Chinese Translation) Posted: 17 Apr 2013 03:01 AM PDT Further to that, there is a complaint that 753 Indian members who were opposed to Lim Guan Eng did not receive their notice to the meeting and that 300 of the 1,823 delegates who attended the meeting were 'illegal'. Lim Kit Siang got the highest votes followed by Lim Guan Eng and the anti-Lim group says that if the 753 delegates had not been excluded from the party election then the father and son would have come in 5th and 6th respectively. THE CORRIDORS OF POWER Raja Petra Kamarudin Yesterday, on 17th April 2013, the Registrar of Societies (ROS) sent DAP a letter saying that a dispute has arisen regarding the legality of the officer bearers of the party that was elected on 15th December 2012. The dispute regards the appointment of Vincent Wu Him Ven to the central committee plus the allegation that 753 members of the party were not given the notice to the congress within the required ten weeks. Hence the ROS is questioning the legality of the party elections plus its elected committee and within a month from 17th April 2013 DAP is to submit to the ROS the list of the central committee members that was actually elected on 15th December 2012. DAP has to also send to the ROS the notices that were sent to all the delegates who were eligible to attend the party congress and if there are any discrepancies then DAP is to hold fresh party elections failing which the ROS can deregister the party. DAP said that a miscalculation caused by a technical glitch was discovered in the 15th December 2012 party election results. In the revised results, Zairil Khir Johari, who initially finished in 39th position with only 305 votes, leapt to 20th position with 803 votes. Vincent Wu Him Ven, who was initially elected to the CEC with 1,202 votes was relegated to 26th position with only 669 votes. He was then re-appointed into the CEC as a co-opted member. Further to that, there is a complaint that 753 Indian members who were opposed to Lim Guan Eng did not receive their notice to the meeting and that 300 of the 1,823 delegates who attended the meeting were 'illegal'. Lim Kit Siang got the highest votes followed by Lim Guan Eng and the anti-Lim group says that if the 753 delegates had not been excluded from the party election then the father and son would have come in 5th and 6th respectively. It would be interesting to see how this whole thing unfolds with only 17 days to go before the general election of 5th May 2013. The ROS letter was copied to the Election Commission (SPR) hinting of a possible constitutional crisis that may affect DAP's status in the 5th May 2013 general election. Will DAP have to contest the general election under the banner of PAS after all? PAS has offered to allow DAP to contest under its banner if DAP gets deregistered. What a twist considering that back in 1999 and 2004 the Chinese voters 'punished' DAP because of its association with PAS. Now, ironically, PAS may be stepping in to help DAP by offering the latter its banner. Maybe this is good for Pakatan Rakyat after all. Then the Chinese may vote for PAS to reward it for helping DAP out of its dilemma. But imagine how much fun Umno is going to have telling the voters that Rocket sudah naik Bulan. What a twist indeed. I suppose PAS will come to DAP's aid just like Umno did to MCA when it, too, faced a constitutional crisis some time back. I just love Malaysian politics. ******************************************* @font-face @font-face @font-face p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal span.shorttext div.Section1 行動黨的憲制危機 不止于此，有753名反對林冠英的印裔代表作出投訴，他們根本就沒受到大會通知書。他們也投訴當日大會1823個代表裏有300名代表是'非法'的。林吉祥當天獲得最高選票，而林冠英身居第二。那些反林人士聲明如果那753個代表當天有出席投票的話那林氏父子的排名將會降到第五和第六。 原文：Raja Petra Kamarudin 社團註冊侷于昨天4月17日給行動黨發了一封信，信中提到的是去年12月15日黨選舉内那些成功當選中委會會員們的合法性。這封信點出把伍薪榮被任命為委員的爭議和有753名大會代表並沒有在10個星期的期限前被通知有關黨選舉的事項。 社團註冊侷因此提出對這次黨選舉和當選人合法性的保留。在5月17號前行動黨必須向社團註冊侷呈交當天當選人的名單。行動黨也必須向社團註冊侷呈上當時派發給各個有資格出席大會代表的通知書。如果當中有落差的話，那麽這次的黨大會和選舉就會被宣告無效，而社團註冊侷就有權利撤銷行動黨的合法註冊。 行動黨宣稱12月15日黨選舉中出現的算錯票純屬技術上的錯誤。在更正后，原本以305票排名第39位的Zairil Khir Johari以803票躍升至第20位。而原本以1202票高票選入中委會的伍薪榮則滑落至第26位。他過後被指名進入中委會儅個增选委员（co-opted member）. 不止于此，有753名反對林冠英的印裔代表作出投訴，他們根本就沒受到大會通知書。他們也投訴當日大會1823個代表裏有300名代表是'非法'的。林吉祥當天獲得最高選票，而林冠英身居第二。那些反林人士聲明如果那753個代表當天有出席投票的話那林氏父子的排名將會降到第五和第六。 現在距離大選日還有17天，我真的很想看看這件事會怎樣發展下去。選舉委員會也收到了這封信的副本，這似乎正暗示著行動黨在此次大選中將會被這個憲制危機所影響。 行動黨會否在伊斯蘭黨旗下競選呢？伊黨之前已表明了他們會讓行動黨以他們的名義上陣。 這是多麽的曲折啊!在1999年和2004年大選華裔選民因行動黨和伊黨結盟而以選票來'教訓'行動黨。現在，很諷刺的，伊黨可能需要出手幫助行動黨。 這可能對民聯來講是件好事。華裔有可能因伊黨幫助行動黨而支持伊黨。但你可也想象儅巫統站出來對選民說"火箭已經上月亮了！"時那場景將會是多麽的幽默。 真的是曲折離奇啊。但我想伊黨是會出手相挺的，正如之前馬華面臨憲制危機是巫統出手一樣。 我真是很喜歡馬來西亞的政治。 |
| Posted: 16 Apr 2013 08:40 PM PDT My stand is very clear. I believe in fundamental rights -- which means every Malaysian has freedom of choice, freedom of opinion, freedom of association, freedom of thought, and so on. Do you also believe in the same thing? And do you also agree that whichever government comes come to power -- whether Barisan Nasional or Pakatan Rakyat -- this government must respect our fundamental rights? THE CORRIDORS OF POWER Raja Petra Kamarudin Okay, now that we have established what my principles are, let us now establish what are yours -- that is, in the first place, if you have any. Let us not talk about corruption because clearly my interpretation of corruption differs from yours. You oppose corruption in Umno and Barisan Nasional. I oppose corruption, PERIOD! So let us agree to disagree on the issue of corruption, abuse of power, mismanagement of the country's wealth, nepotism, cronyism, etc. For example, when Umno and Barisan Nasional are in power, the Umno and Barisan Nasional crony-lawyers get the legal work from the government. When Pakatan Rakyat is in power, the Pakatan Rakyat crony-lawyers get all the legal work instead. And when I point this out you argue that there is nothing wrong with that. It is quite 'normal' and acceptable, you say. Surely Pakatan Rakyat will not give the legal work to the Umno and Barisan Nasional crony-lawyers. It is natural that they will give the work to their own people. The fact that some of these lawyers also happen to be in the government is only coincidental. That is not corruption, abuse of power, nepotism or cronyism. So, with that as but one example, let us agree to disagree on what corruption, abuse of power, nepotism and cronyism, etc., means. Clearly you look at things differently from the way I look at things. And while my perjuangan is to eradicate corruption, abuse of power, nepotism, cronyism, and so on, yours is merely to kick out Umno and replace one corrupt government with another. I have my principles and you have yours and our principles differ by a mile. So we will just leave it at that and move on to the next issue. And the next issue is regarding fundamental rights. What are your principles regarding fundamental rights? Do we share the same principles or do we have different interpretations of what it means? For those of you who do not understand what I am talking about -- which would, therefore, mean most of you -- when I talk about fundamental rights I am talking about freedom of choice, freedom of opinion, freedom of association, freedom of thought, and so on. What is your stand on all these issues that affect fundamental rights? As I said, we will put aside the issue of corruption, abuse of power, nepotism or cronyism. We will agree to disagree on that. Let us confine the discussion to freedom of choice, freedom of opinion, freedom of association, freedom of thought, etc., meaning your fundamental rights. My stand is very clear. I believe in fundamental rights -- which means every Malaysian has freedom of choice, freedom of opinion, freedom of association, freedom of thought, and so on. Do you also believe in the same thing? And do you also agree that whichever government comes come to power -- whether Barisan Nasional or Pakatan Rakyat -- this government must respect our fundamental rights? Of course we do, you will scream. Well, do you? Actually, I have baited you many times and each and every time you walk right into my trap and get snared. You people are fakes and hypocrites. You do not respect our fundamental rights. You deny us our fundamental rights. You are all talk and no action. You do not walk the talk. You are as dangerous as those people from Umno, Perkasa, Pekida, and so on. You too are backward thinking and narrow-minded. You say what you do not mean and don't do what you say. And that, to you, is principles. Let me quote some examples. Some of you whack Anwar Ibrahim because, according to you, he is gay or bisexual. Is that respecting someone's fundamental rights? Doesn't one have the right to his or her sexual preference? I have spoken to many pro-Pakatan Rakyat people who have been supporting the opposition since the days of Semangat 46 in 1990 and these people believe that Anwar is guilty of sexual misconduct as alleged. However, they will not openly say so and they have requested me to not whack Anwar (especially after my mainstream media interview when I said I believe that Anwar is bi-sexual) because, according to them, this will hurt Pakatan Rakyat's chances of winning the coming general election. They do not want me to say what I believe and they want to deny me my right to speak not because they think Anwar is not bi-sexual but because they want to win the general election. In fact, they too believe what I believe about Anwar. They just do not want me to say so. And you call this principle? In 2001 when I was detained under the ISA, the Special Branch officers asked me whether I think Anwar is guilty. They then offered to show me the evidence to convince me that Anwar is really guilty. I responded by saying that I do not wish to see the evidence because I do not care whether Anwar is gay or bi-sexual. To me that is his choice and that does not make him any less suitable to lead the country. They then pressed me further to try to extricate my response and I replied that yes, I do believe he is bi-sexual. Then they asked me why I set up the Free Anwar Campaign if I think that and I replied that the Free Anwar Campaign is about the sham trial that Anwar received. Anwar's guilt was not proven in court, I argued. Hence Anwar is a victim of a sham trial even if he may be guilty of what they call 'sexual misconduct' -- and which I don't regard as so. Hence the principle behind the Free Anwar Campaign is that he should be freed because they failed to prove his guilt and not because he is not bi-sexual. Anwar's sexuality has nothing to do with this. Furthermore, I believe in freedom of choice, which includes freedom of sexual preference. Bi-sexuality, to me, is not a crime even if the Bible says it is and Islam 'borrowed' this from the Bible. Ah, but this has nothing to do with religion, they argued. It is about the law of the land and the laws of Malaysia stipulate that homosexuality is a crime. Well, some of those laws are old British laws, I argued, and that does not mean that the law is right. And if the law is bad then we must oppose it. Don't we also oppose the Internal Security Act, Sedition Act, Printing Presses and Publications Act, Universities and University Colleges Act, and many other bad laws that are draconian and deny Malaysians their fundamental rights of freedom of choice, freedom of opinion, freedom of association, freedom of thought, etc? The principle of the law is bad. Malaysians should be allowed freedom of choice, freedom of opinion, freedom of association, freedom of thought, and so on. And this includes the right to choose your religion, the right to reject the belief in God and to become an atheist, the right to be gay, the right to associate yourself with any political party (and not be compelled to support a certain political party) and much more. So which are you? What is your stand and what are your principles? Are you a libertarian and a democrat? Or do you deny others their fundamental rights? All I need to do is to write an article saying that I do not believe in the Bible, the Crucifixion, the Resurrection, the Trinity, and so on, and watch those Bible-thumpers accuse me of insulting Christianity. You are just like those people who accuse me of insulting Islam merely because I criticise those mosques that spread hate messages in their Friday prayer sermons (kutbah). Just see how many people are whacking the Umno candidate for Shah Alam, Zulkifli Noordin. I despise that bugger but what was it that Zulkifli Noordin said that is so disgusting? Explain what he said. And he said what he was supposed to have said when he was a PAS Member of Parliament. Why did you not whack him then? Why whack him now only when he is an Umno candidate? Can you see how thick your hypocrisy is? It is so thick you can cut it with a knife. And why do you say I have insulted Christianity when I say that I do not believe in the Bible, the Crucifixion, the Resurrection, the Trinity, and so on? Is it not my right to believe what I want to believe? Since when does expressing my beliefs translate to an insult? All Muslims don't believe in the (new) Bible, the Crucifixion, the Resurrection, the Trinity, etc. You say that the Christians are modern, liberal, tolerant, open-minded and so on, unlike those closed-minded and extremist Muslims. You think so? Well, read the news report below. France was one of the first secular countries and became so due to Napoleon Bonaparte's good work. Yet the Catholics in France are foaming at the mouth and threatening violence just like the Talibans. Modern, liberal, tolerant, and open-minded my foot! And it is not only the Christians (and Muslims) who are like this. Even the 'pagan' Chinese are the same. They too are closed-minded and extremist. See what they are saying about Michelle Yeoh just because she wants to attend a MCA dinner. Why did you not also whack and boycott the South Korean singer PSY for attending MCA's function in Penang? In fact, you all attended that function. Why the double standards? I like it when you people talk about principles and ask me about my principles. You do not even understand what the word means. And everything you do and say is not based on principles. ***************************************** French cardinal warns gay marriage law risks violence (Reuters) - PARIS: France's top Catholic bishop warned the government yesterday that legalization of same-sex marriage risked inciting violence at a time the country had more pressing economic and social problems to tackle. Cardinal Andre Vingt-Trois told a meeting of French bishops the planned marriage reform, which the government has speeded up amid mounting pressure from opponents, was a sign that society had lost its capacity to integrate different views. Protests against the law, led by lay groups mostly backed by the Catholic Church, have become more agitated in recent days as noisy opponents rally outside the Senate and National Assembly and harass politicians supporting the reform. Vingt-Trois, the archbishop of Paris, said the difference between the sexes was a basic human trait and denying it by legalizing marriage and adoption for homosexuals would weaken society's ability to manage its differences peacefully. "This is the way a violent society develops," he told the spring meeting of the French bishops' conference. "Society has lost its capacity of integration and especially its ability to blend differences in a common project." The Socialist-led government, whose popularity has plummeted amid economic woes and a tax fraud scandal, is expected to pass the law next week to make France the 13th country to allow gays to tie the knot. Uruguay legalized gay marriage last week. (READ MORE HERE)
|
| The meaning of principles (UPDATED with Chinese Translation) Posted: 16 Apr 2013 06:08 PM PDT I mean, look at what happened when I tried to raise money for Nurul Izzah Anwar. All we got was a few thousand ringgit. I then organised a fund raising dinner for Nurul Izzah and even sponsored the entire cost of the dinner and, again, all we managed to raise was a few thousand ringgit. And with this small amount of money how can Nurul Izzah fight against Raja Nong Chik who has hundreds of millions at his disposal? THE CORRIDORS OF POWER Raja Petra Kamarudin One reader has posted repeated comments demanding to know which of the two coalitions I would wish to see winning the coming general election on 5th May 2013. That is the wrong question to ask and if you want to ask me any question then you had better know how and what question to ask. The correct question to ask me would be: what would you like to see in the coalition that wins the coming general election on 5th May 2013? I mean it is like the issue of not whom I want as my wife but what I would like to see in wife. Hence asking me whom I want as my wife is the wrong question to ask. You should instead ask me what I expect in a wife. Then you will get a reply or else all you will get is my backhand. Okay, I know that sounds arrogant. So I am arrogant. So what? That is what makes me what I am. That's what makes me fight even when the odds are against me. And you do not need to tell me how arrogant I am. The Special Branch has already told me that same thing and they found out how arrogant I can be on both occasions that they detained me without trial. For example when the Special Branch officers whacked me and said that as a Muslim I should not be insulting Islam, I responded with, "In that case I now leave Islam to become an atheist. So, since I am no longer a Muslim, can I now insult Islam?" The Special Branch officer slammed the table and shouted at me and I also slammed the table and shouted back at him. He then got so upset he walked out of the room and I turned to the remaining six Special Branch officers and said, "One down, six more to go. Whose next?" Not a single officer dared open his mouth. They then sent me back to my cell to 'cool off' and after lunch they came back to fetch me. However, I refused to leave my cell and for three days I stayed in my cell and refused to come out. And every time they sent my meals to my cell I threw it back at them. My whole cell was covered with discarded food. On the night of the third day, two senior officers from the Ministry came to my cell (a man and a woman) to ask me to sign some documents. I refused to sign the documents and told these two officers that I am now an apostate. I have announced I have left Islam. So take me outside and cut my head off like what should be done to apostates under the Islamic Sharia law of Hudud. The officers sighed and left my cell without being able to persuade me to sign the documents. They were so exasperated with me they eventually cut my normal 60-day detention short and on the 10th day they ended all attempts to interrogate me and packed me off to Kamunting. They then made me attend religious rehabilitation classes and I gave the ustaz such a hard time he never came back to see me again. I was called to the Director's office who pleaded with me to not embarrass the ustaz in front of so many people (more than 50 other detainees in all) but I still debated the new ustaz they sent and made them look so stupid in front of the other detainees. In fact, the religious rehabilitation classes were the most fun time that I had in Kamunting. I really enjoyed those sessions and would look forward to these religious rehabilitation classes. I made those ustaz look so stupid and left them speechless. So tell me, if I am not arrogant would I do all that? So, yes, I am arrogant and I make no apology for that. I am arrogant and proud of it. (The Chinese would probably call me taufung). So there! Tell me something I do not know. Anyway, for those of you who have limited intelligence and can't understand what drives me, allow me to tell you where I am coming from. But read this next part of my article only if you are stupid. If you are not stupid then you can stop reading now. From 1978 all the way up to 2008, for 30 years, my objective was to oppose Umno. And I opposed Umno over those 30 years because I hated corruption. And I, of all people, should know because during that time I was a businessman and I had to personally indulge in corruption to get ahead. So who better to talk about corruption than someone who had to survive and succeed in corruption? I was just like all you wankers and losers. I hated corruption but I still got involved in it because I had no choice and only by getting involved in corruption could I get ahead. Corruption was necessary. You need to condone it if you want to meet your objectives and achieve what you aspire -- success. And is this not also what all you wankers and losers believe? You oppose Umno and Barisan Nasional because of the rampant and blatant corruption but you will condone and tolerate corruption by Pakatan Rakyat as long as Umno and Barisan Nasional can be kicked out. Corruption is necessary or else how can Pakatan Rakyat raise money to contest in the general elections? General elections cost money, plenty of money, and the only way you can successfully raise that much money is through corruption. I mean, look at what happened when I tried to raise money for Nurul Izzah Anwar. All we got was a few thousand ringgit. I then organised a fund raising dinner for Nurul Izzah and even sponsored the entire cost of the dinner and, again, all we managed to raise was a few thousand ringgit. And with this small amount of money how can Nurul Izzah fight against Raja Nong Chik who has hundreds of millions at his disposal? Hence if we try the moral and legal way we can never raise enough money to finance the cost of the general election. Therefore we need to do it the immoral and illegal way. So corruption is okay as long as it is Pakatan Rakyat that is corrupted and not Barisan Nasional. So what have I achieved over those 30 years from 1978 to 2008? I opposed Umno and Barisan Nasional because I detested corruption. You also oppose Umno and Barisan Nasional because you too detest corruption. But you detest corruption only if Umno and Barisan Nasional are corrupted. You are okay with corruption if it is Pakatan Rakyat that is corrupted. And that is where we part company. I detest corruption by all parties. You detest only Umno and Barisan Nasional's corrupt deeds. You are okay with Pakatan Rakyat's corrupt deeds. So, from 1978 to 2008, we shared the same objectives. After 2008 we no longer share the same objectives. From 1978 to 2008, I opposed corruption in Umno and Barisan Nasional. After 2008 I oppose corruption in both Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat. I take it you don't like that. Well, then tough. That is your problem, not mine. I have principles. You do not. You talk only. I walk the talk. And I would even oppose my own close friends like Ronnie Liu and Teresa Kok, or whoever it may be who are close to me, if I discover that they are not true to the cause. That, my friend, is called PRINCIPLES, a word you would not understand. ******************************** 原則的意義 我的意思是，看看我在為努魯湊錢時所發生的事；我們湊獲的只是那區區幾千塊錢。我過後又為努魯辦了個湊款晚宴，我甚至還為那個晚宴扛起所有開銷，結果也還是那區區幾千塊錢。靠這筆小錢努魯她應該怎樣對抗腰纏萬貫的Raja Nong Chik 呢？ 原文：Raja Petra Kamarudin 譯文：方宙
有一個讀者不停地留言問我這次5月5大選誰會勝出。這個問題問得很不對，如果你要問我問題的話那你最好懂得如何問對的問題。 正確的問題是：你想要從獲勝的那一方看到些什麽東西？ 一個很好的比喻是我要我的老婆有些什麽特質，而不是我要我的老婆是誰。所以如果你問我我要誰儅我的老婆，這是個錯誤的問法，你應該問的是我的老婆應該有什麽特質，然後我才會回答你，不然我只會給你看我的掌背。 是的，我知道我聼起來很高傲。我是很高傲，那又怎樣？這就是爲什麽我會成爲今天的我。這就是爲什麽儅情況不利于我時我還是繼續鬥爭。你根本不必告訴我我是多麽的高傲，那個'特別單位'已經告訴過我了；他們在（兩次）沒經過審訊的情況下逮捕了我，然後他們發覺我是真的可以那麽的高傲。 給你個例子，儅那些特別單位官員在給我訓話，告訴我身為一個穆斯林我不應該侮辱回教時，我對他們嗆聲："如果是那樣我現在就脫離回教成爲無信仰主義者。現在我已不是穆斯林了，那我可以侮辱回教了沒？" 其中一個官員跟著就拍打桌子對我大叫，我也跟著拍打桌子對他大叫。他氣得跳起來走出了（扣留室），我轉向剩下的那六個官員說："一個走了，還有六個，誰會是下一個？" 沒有一個敢張開他的嘴，接著他們就把我送囘我的牢房要我'冷靜'。午飯后他們回來接我，但我拒絕離開我的牢房。3天裏我沒踏出我牢房一步，他們給我送來的飯我照樣的丟回去；我的牢房最終堆滿了丟棄的食物。 第三天晚上，某個部門派來了兩名高層官員（一男一女），要我在牢房裏簽下一些文件。我拒絕並且告訴他們我現在已經離開回教變成叛教者了。他們現在應該遵照回教法律，把我這個叛教者給斬首。 他們兩嘆了嘆氣，在我沒有簽下那些文件的情況下離開了我的牢房。那些人士氣得把我原本60天的扣留時間縮短成10天，在第十天他們就放棄盤問我直接把我送到甘文丁Kamunting。 在那他們強迫我上宗教改正課，而我在課堂裏把那宗教師弄得很難堪，他從此再也不願見到我。扣留所總監要求我別在其他被拘留者面前羞辱他們的宗教師，但我還和新來的宗教師辯論，把他們在其他人面前弄得很愚昧。 事實上，上宗教改正課是我在甘文丁最歡樂的時光。我真的很享受上這些課而我會很期待它們的到來。我把那些宗教師耍得像個白痴般，他們根本無法開口跟我辯論。 告訴我，如果我不高傲的話我會做出以上的一切嗎？我很高傲而我從來不為這道歉。我為我的高傲感到自豪（華人們可能會把我稱爲'頭瘋'）。所以請告訴我我到現在還不知道的東西！ 話説回來，你們當中有誰是智力有限的，不明白我的推動力到底是什麽的，容許我在此告訴你我的出發點。只有那些笨的人才需要繼續讀下去；如果你不是笨的那你可以停止閲讀了。 從1978年到2008年這30年裏，我的目標是對抗巫統。我對抗巫統的原因是因爲我厭惡貪污。我應該是最清楚的，因爲身為一名商人如果我想成功的話我必須親身踏入那個世界裏。還有誰能比那些曾在貪污世界裏生存而成功的人更有資格跟你談論貪污呢？ 我就像你們這群卑鄙者和失敗者一樣，我明明很討厭貪污但我還是攪和進出。我沒得選，因爲只有通過貪污我才能獲得成功。貪污是必須的。如果你想要達成目的和成功的話，你就必須縱容貪污這囘事。 這不是你們這群卑鄙者和失敗者相信的嗎？你們因猖獗和明顯的貪污而對抗巫統和囯陣，但你們會縱容民聯貪污，只要你們可以把囯陣踢出局的話。 貪污是必須的，不然民聯哪有競選本錢？大選是很燒錢的，而你只有通過貪污才能湊得這麽多錢。 我的意思是，看看我在為努魯湊錢時所發生的事。我們湊得的只是那區區幾千塊錢。我過後又為努魯辦了個湊款晚宴，我甚至還為那個晚宴扛起所有開銷，結果也還是那區區幾千塊錢。靠這筆小錢努魯她應該怎樣對抗腰纏萬貫的Raja Nong Chik 呢？ 所以說，我們不可能通過正當的通道來湊取足夠的經費來應付大選，因此我們必須通過不正當的管道。所以說貪污是沒錯的，只要貪污的那一方是民聯而不是巫統。 所以過去30年來我到底達成了些什麽？我因厭惡貪污而反對囯陣。你也一樣因厭惡貪污而反對囯陣，但你只厭惡巫統貪污；你認爲民聯貪污是可接受的。 這就是爲什麽我們分道揚鑣。我厭惡所有政黨的貪污，而你只厭惡巫統貪污，你認爲民聯貪污是可接受的。 所以說，從1978年到2008年我們擁有共同的目標，但08年后就不一樣了。從1978年到2008年我反對巫統貪污，而08年后我反對巫統和民聯貪污 我知道你會很不爽。那是你的代誌，不是我的。我有我的原則，你沒有。你只會空談，而我會親手去做。我甚至還會站起來對抗我的親密朋友如劉天球和郭素沁，或任何親近我的人，只要他們有違原來的理念的話。 這，我的朋友，就是原則，一個你們不會明白的名詞。
|
| ABU! ABU! ABU! (UPDATED with Chinese Translation) Posted: 15 Apr 2013 05:52 PM PDT Dijaya originally bid only RM895 million (payable over 20 years) while SP Setia Berhad bid RM1.15 billion (payable over only 6-8 years) and Mah Sing Group Bhd bid RM945 million (payable over only 7 years). This means Dijaya cannot get the deal because their bid is the least attractive of the three. Dijaya was then asked to up their price to RM1.3 billion in a 'behind-the-scenes' negotiation. THE CORRIDORS OF POWER Raja Petra Kamarudin I am glad that a lot of dirt was revealed recently regarding the billions of ringgit worth of 'rush jobs' that Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak did to beat the 13th General Election deadline. Should a 'caretaker government' commit the country to billions of ringgit in contracts when there is always a possibility that the government may change the night of Polling Day? Of course, there is nothing illegal here and we will not be able to indict and convict anyone for any crime. After all, although Parliament may have been dissolved, life must still go on and it is still business as usual. Nevertheless, there is still the issue of moral although the issue of legal does not arise. If you just want to focus on legal issues while you ignore moral issues, then for a politician to be caught bonking another woman in a hotel room is not something illegal or criminal. However, it is certainly immoral. Hence the moral aspect of your actions must also be questioned even if there is nothing illegal in what you do. Another moral issue is concerning the news item below regarding the RM1.3 billion deal (with a RM20 billion earning potential) involving the Selangor State 'Caretaker' Government and Dijaya Corporation. According to the Selangor Menteri Besar, Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim, the deal has not been finalised yet (MB says Dijaya deal not finalised). According to the market, however, it is actually a done-deal. As I said, this is only a moral issue. Is it a done-deal or is the deal not yet finalised? There are mixed signals here. And should the caretaker government commit the state to this deal when there may be a possibility that the state government may change hands by dinnertime of 5th May 2013? According to the critics of the deal, this is exactly why they are rushing the deal before 5th May 2013. Pakatan Rakyat is not sure whether it can retain the state so it wants the deal wrapped up before then. That is one issue. The second issue is: Dijaya originally bid only RM895 million (payable over 20 years) while SP Setia Berhad bid RM1.15 billion (payable over only 6-8 years) and Mah Sing Group Bhd bid RM945 million (payable over only 7 years). This means Dijaya cannot get the deal because their bid is the least attractive of the three. Dijaya was then asked to up their price to RM1.3 billion in a 'behind-the-scenes' negotiation. Why was Dijaya given the privilege of a behind-the-scenes negotiation and allowed a second bite of the cherry? This is what the other bidders are unhappy about. A tender is a tender and the highest price should get it (if all bidders equally qualify, of course). In this case, Dijaya was allowed to revise their price to out-bid the others. Interestingly enough, the people behind Dijaya are Ronnie Liu, Teresa Kok and Azmin Ali. And even more interesting is the fact that Dijaya has 'donated' RM200 million to Pakatan Rakyat Selangor's war chest. Furthermore, Azmin threatened to drop Khalid from a Selangor state seat if he objects to the deal and tries to block it (and if Khalid keeps quiet and supports the deal he would be given the Port Kelang state seat). Now hold on a minute, I thought that the man behind Dijaya is Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad's crony, Tan Sri Dato' Danny Tan Chee Sing! You mean Dr Mahathir's cronies are also Pakatan Rakyat's cronies? Hmm…that is most interesting. No wonder Umno did not make any noise about this. Is this what ABU is all about? Reject Umno but keep giving the Umno cronies plenty of money under a Pakatan Rakyat government? Well, what does Raja Petra Kamarudin know? After all, he is living in Manchester and does not know what is going on in Malaysia. And Pakatan Rakyat Selangor can certainly do with the RM200 million 'donation' to face the coming general election. And does not the ends justify the means (matlamat menghalalkan cara)? ********************************************* Dijaya buys land for RM1.3 billion, with potential GDV of RM20 billion (The Edge) - Property developer Dijaya Corporation announced it has acquired 1,172 acres of prime development land in Canal City, Selangor. In a statement, Dijaya said it has today entered into an agreement to acquire the state-owned land from Permodalan Negeri Selangor Bhd (PNSB) for about RM1.3 billion via a deferred payment method spanning up to 20 years. The purchase consideration comprises land purchase price of RM587 million, interest cost, share of gross development value (GDV) and profit entitlement from the development. "This land development is expected to contribute significantly to the group's prospects in the coming years," Dijaya said. Dijaya said it will progressively fund the acquisition and development cost via internally generated funds and bank borrowings. The land is targeted for an integrated self-contained township development with potential GDV of RM20 billion. It is earmarked for launch within two years. Datuk Dickson Tan, its group managing director said: "With strong prospects for capital appreciation due to excellent accessibility, this project can potentially generate a GDV of up to RM20.0 billion when fully completed over its 15-20 year targeted development timeframe." ********************************************* Dijaya Corp's RM1.3b Canal City site purchase 'favourable' (The Star) - Dijaya Corp Bhd's acquisition of the 1,172 acres of land in Canal City for RM1.3bil is "favourable" due to its "cheap" price tag and payment terms which bodes well for its balance sheet, UOB KayHian Malaysia Research says. "Although Dijaya's surprise landbank acquisition runs against our earlier assessment the company was in an asset monetisation and degearing mode, its acquisition of 1,172 acres of land in Canal City from the state of Selangor for effectively RM1.3bil (RM25.41per square foot) is deemed cheap," it said. It maintained a "buy" call on the stock with a target price of RM1.65 per share as the Canal City land project would only be launched in 2015. It said the staggered payment over 12 years would have minimal impact on Dijaya's balance sheet. The research house said the RM1.3bil price tag was manageable as Dijaya had close to RM214mil cash, which should further strengthen based on its unbilled sales of close to RM1bil. "The deal also includes an interest of 5% per annum of up to RM252mil (subject to waiver) and a gross development value (GDV) sharing totalling a minimum amount of RM458.3mil (out of a projected GDV of RM8.6bil)," the research house said. It pointed out the land was next to IJM Land Bhd's Bandar Rimbayu, a development which attracted significant demand with over 6,000 registrants with first phase fully sold. "With connectivity to five major highways, namely KESAS, LKSA, ELITE, SKVE and WCE (once it is ready), we believe Dijaya's cheap entry provides a good margin buffer for their integrated self-contained township development," it added. UOB KayHian Research said the developer's latest acquisition would level up its landbank size and GDV significantly from 800 acres to 2,000 acres and RM50bil to RM70bil respectively. It also said Dijaya's realisable net asset value (RNAV) per share would be lifted to RM3.15 per share from RM2.35 per share, factoring in a conservative RM40 psf to the Canal City land. "Pegging a similar discount of 30%, our target price could be lifted to RM2.32," it added. ************************************************* 只要不是巫統！只要不是巫統！只要不是巫統！ |
| Party elections versus general elections (UPDATED with Chinese Translation) 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. 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. 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. ***************************** 黨内選舉對壘國家大選 这就是为什么阿芝敏Azmin Ali拒绝让旺姐 Azizah Wan Ismail 和努鲁Nurul Izzah Anwar 在雪兰莪竞选州席。在国席方面，旺姐已被禁止参选，而努鲁则被派发到一个凶险的选区——Lembah Pantai。 原文：Raja Petra Kamarudin 译文：方宙 这次5月5好将有727个席位举行选举——222个国席和505个州席。如果把砂劳越的71个州席也算进去的话，那就总共有798个席位（砂劳越在2011年4月就举行了州选举）。 那些曾经很活跃地参与政治的——既是'在工地工作的'——肯定很清楚党内选举其实将会比大选更为激烈和重要。党内选举所花的钱要比大选的还要多呢。 看来这3000个马来西亚人会以成为人民代议士的方式来服务2千8百万个马来西亚人民。而看来这3000个人都是无私的，他们的目的就只是要服务和为人民做事。 其实，他们将得到的是一份薪水很高且不需要高学历的工作。他们只需要懂得如何讲话和如何拍他们党内老大和候选人决定人的马屁。 最终，这将会演变成最正宗的裙带关系。那些会被派上阵的将会是那些只对他们老大忠诚，处处只会为他们老大着想的。而那些被看成会对党领袖造成威胁的就会被排挤掉而不会被派参选。 大选对那些想要上位或要在党内捉权的政客来讲是非常重要的。如果他们不是人民代议士那他们的政治前途将会是很黯然的；他们将无法上位，也无法捉权。 所以成为人民代议士是迈向大好前途的第一步。如果你跨不出这第一步那你就忘了你的政治生涯吧。 这就是为什么会有很多席位竞争的原因。争不到一席半座代表着党领袖对你的没信心，对你的不信任，没把你当成是他们的一份子，不想你上位。。。等等。 大选基本上是个演习；如果你是候选人而你又被选的话，那么你在党内就能继续往前走。如果你没被选当候选人或输掉大选的话，那你的前途就不是那么光明了。 这就是为什么那些在1999年大选没有被选或输掉大选的就会渐渐消失，同样的事情也发生在2004年和2008年大选。而这也是为什么很多在党内没有被命为候选人的很快就会离党，或跳去其他政党，或成为独立候选人，或扯他们党候选人的后退。 这就是巫统和国阵最大的恐惧——那些没被命为候选人的会因为要复仇而进行破坏（你可以注意最近几个星期巫统的公告，他们都在暗示着这一点）。 让我这样讲吧，如果他们要的是服务人民的话，那么谁是候选人很重要吗？为什么一定是要某些人成为候选人呢？毕竟所有人都可以服务人民，并不只是那一小撮人而已。 答案是得关键并不在人民而是在他们自己的政治生涯和前景。如果他们不上阵的话，人民根本就不会失去任何东西，而他们失去的将会是所有的东西。 你现在明白，如果你要更上一层楼，为什么你一定要被选为候选人了吗？ 另一方面，那些话事人要确保的是他们选的候选人将会对他们忠诚而不是会反过来咬他们。如果话事人认为某个人是个威胁的话，那他必须确保這个威胁会被清除——那某个人将不会出现在大选中。 这就是为什么阿芝敏Azmin Ali拒绝让旺姐 Azizah Wan Ismail 和让努鲁Nurul Izzah Anwar 在雪兰莪竞选州席。在国席方面，旺姐已被禁止参选而努鲁则被派发到一个凶险的选区——Lembah Pantai。 如果旺姐和努鲁被批准在雪兰莪竞选且在安全的国席选区上阵的话，她们母女两有很大的胜出机会。那也代表她们的政治生涯将会固若金汤。 但现在旺姐将不会是国会议员而努鲁有很大机会将在Lembah Pantai败选。她们可以和她们的政治前途说再见了。 那谁会称霸公正党呢？答案是，Azmin Ali会成为党主席，Zuraida Kamaruddin会成为副主席, Rafizi Ramli也会掌握党内要职。 换句话说，Azmin队将会庆祝胜利而旺姐队将会被活埋。 这也是马来西亚每隔4,5年就要举行大选的唯一原因。这是个让政党把威胁给排除掉的大好机会。巫统每届都这样做，而国阵和民联各党也是。 现在旺姐和努鲁正面对着这个问题。她们正在被排除着，因为她们是阿芝敏的眼中钉。
|
| 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. 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. 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。 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'。 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？ |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
0 ulasan:
Catat Ulasan