Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info

Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Zahid Hamidi should be asked to resign (UPDATED with Chinese Translation)

Posted: 16 May 2013 05:13 PM PDT

So, yes, we too in the UK were not happy with the system. And we 'sold out' the ruling party and 'toppled' the government because we were not happy with the system. But no one told us if we are not happy with the system then we can get out of Britain and go live in another country. If they had done that they would have been crucified. They would have been hung upside down from the nearest tree. We would have nailed their balls (or tits) to the wall.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

The first thing that Home Minister Zahid Hamidi did on taking office was to tell Malaysians who are not happy with Malaysia's political system to leave Malaysia and go live in another country.

If Zahid were a British Cabinet Minister, by now he would have been asked to resign. In the UK you are forced to resign for an even lesser offense than that. And he would have had to resign, no two ways about it.

Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak should, at the very least, demand that Zahid publicly apologise to Malaysians. Forcing him to resign is the correct thing to do but at the very least he must be made to apologise.

Is Najib prepared to demonstrate to Malaysians that he is really serious about his transformation program by doing this? The ball is now in Najib's court. I would suggest Najib walk the talk and do something about this rather than pretend that this never happened.

Look at the two graphics below. In 2010, 23% of us (yes, me included) voted for Liberal Democratic, an opposition party, because we wanted political reforms. However, because of gerrymandering, our 23% of the popular vote gave us only 57 of the 650 seats.

Now do you know why we wanted political reforms? Even though we won 23% of the popular votes we won only 8.8% of the seats. What a bloody unfair system!

The only silver lining in that dark cloud is that the ruling party, Labour, as well as the main opposition party, Conservative, both did not win enough seats to form the government either.

They needed at least 326 seats to form the government. Labour won only 258 seats while its challenger, Conservative, won 307 seats -- both less than the required 326 seats to form the government.

The insult to this injury is that Labour won 39.7% of the seats with 29% of the popular votes while Conservative won 47.2% of the seats with 36.1% of the popular votes. And this also meant that with just 65% of the popular votes (less than two-thirds majority) they could have won 87% of the seats in Parliament (way above two-thirds majority).

What the hell! Bloody unfair, is it not?

Well, we from Lib Dem, the 23% or almost a quarter of the voters, were bloody pissed about this. How can we win 23% of the votes and yet win only 8.8% of the seats while Labour (the government) and Conservative (the main challenger) win only 29% and 36% of the votes respectively and yet win 40% and 47% of the seats each respectively?

Before the election we already knew that we were going to see a hung parliament. We knew that no party was going to win enough seats to form the government. In fact, probably 90% of the British citizens knew this and the media was talking about it every day. Hence no one thought that anyone was going to be able to form the government.

Before the election, Lib Dem said that in the event of a hung parliament it would choose Labour as its partner in a coalition government. But that did not happen for two reasons.

One was that Labour's 258 seats added to Lib Dem's 57 would give the coalition only 315 seats, still short of the 326 it required to form the government. Hence Labour plus Lib Dem cannot form the government either. Only by teaming up with Conservative, where the total would now come to 364, could it happen.

Secondly, Labour promised us electoral reforms, which was not good enough, while Conservative promised us political reforms (which would include electoral reforms), which is a better deal.

Hence for two reasons Lib Dem 'sold out' Labour, as Malaysians would normally say, and went to bed with Conservative.

Hence also, the Labour government was 'toppled', as Umno loves to say, and 59% of the voters controlling 56% of the seats formed the new coalition government.

And what was it that Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said? Ah, yes, Malaysia is a country with a first world infrastructure but a third world mentality. How true!

Zahid Hamidi, apologise! Najib Razak, sack him if he refuses to apologise.

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

再希·哈密迪有必要辭職

是的，我們這些在英國的也對這個系統深感不滿，我們還因此'出賣'了執政黨和'推翻'了政府。但從來沒有人敢告訴我們如果對系統感到不滿的話我們大可離開英國到其他國家居住。如果他們膽敢那麽做那他們會被活生生地給宰了。他們將會被倒吊在隨便一棵樹上面，我們也可以把他們的LP（或者是乳頭）切下來釘在牆壁上。

原文：Raja Petra Kamarudin

譯文：方宙

内政部部長再希·哈密迪Zahib Hamidi上位后所作的第一件事就是叫那些不滿馬來西亞選舉系統的人離開本國到其他地方去生活。

如果再希是個英國内閣成員的話，那現在他已被要求下臺了。在英國，他會因犯了比這還要小的錯誤而被要求下臺，而且他也必須辭職，這是沒有得談的。

首相納吉他最起碼也要要求再希向全馬人民公開道歉。強迫他辭職是件正確的事情，但最少最少他也必須得道歉。

請問納吉他準備好要通過要求再希辭職/道歉來向大馬人民宣示他改革政府的決心了嗎？現在行動權在納吉手裏。我會勸告納吉真正去做他曾答應會做的改革而不是對此事視而不見。

請看看以上的圖表，在2010年，我們有23%（是的，連我在内）都因要看到政治改革而投給了反對黨之一的自由民主黨。無論如何，因爲選民分佈不均（gerrymendering)的問題，我們23%的選票只換來了650個囯席中的57個。

你現在知道爲什麽我們要政治改革了沒？我們贏得了23%的選票，但是只掌控了8.8%的議席。真他媽個不公平的系統！

在這一片黑暗中的唯一曙光就是執政黨工黨和最大在野黨保守黨都沒有贏得足夠的議席來組織政府。他們需要至少326席，但工黨只贏得了258席而它的挑戰者保守黨則是307；他們雙雙都沒有達到最低所需的席位數。

最往傷口上撒鹽的就是，工黨以29%的選票贏得了39.7%的議席而保守黨以36.1%的選票贏得了47.2%的席位。這也表示，他們只需以65%的選票（少過2/3）就能夠奪得87%的國會議席（多過2/3）。

我靠！真他媽的不公平，對嗎？

我們這些23%的自由民主黨的支持者真的都給惹火了。我們怎麽有可能以23%的選票來換得8.8%的議席，而工黨（執政黨）和保守黨（最大反對黨）只是以29%和36%的選票就能分別奪得40%和47%的席位呢？

大選之前我們已知道我們將會看到一個懸吊的國會，我們知道沒有單獨一個政黨會贏得足夠的議席來組織政府。事實上，至少有90%的英國人民都知道這一點而媒體也天天在談論。所以根本就沒有人會相信會有異軍突起來獨食這個國會。

大選之前，自由民主黨也站出來開說了，如果懸吊國會真的發生了，那他們就會和工黨組織聯合政府。但這到最後因兩個原因而沒有發生。

第一，單凴工黨的258席和自由民主黨的57席，我們還是沒有326席來組織政府。只有和保守黨的307席聯合在一起，我們才能以364席來組織新政府。

第二，工黨只是答應我們會做出選舉改革，但這對我們來講是不夠的。另一方面，保守黨則是答應我們政治改革（這包括選舉改革），這明顯的是個更好的選擇。

自由民主黨以這兩個原因'出賣'（馬來西亞人會經常用到這個詞）了工黨而同保守黨一同上床。所以說，工黨政府被'推翻'（巫統很喜歡用這個詞）了，而59%的選民通過他們控制的56%議席組織新的聯合政府。

是的，我們這些在英國的也對這個系統深感不滿，我們還因此'出賣'了執政黨和'推翻'了政府。但從來沒有人敢告訴我們如果對系統感到不滿的話我們大可離開英國到其他國家居住。如果他們膽敢那麽做那他們會被活生生地給宰了。他們將會被倒吊在隨便一棵樹上面，我們也可以把他們的LP（或者是乳頭）釘在牆壁上。

前首相敦阿都拉講過了什麽來著？啊，對了，馬來西亞擁有先進囯的設備但只有落後囯的思想。真被他講中了！

再希哈密迪，道歉！納吉，如果他不道歉就把他給辭掉！

Is beer halal or haram? (UPDATED with Chinese Translation

Posted: 16 May 2013 03:25 PM PDT

Now, what I do not understand is: why emphasise 'on a Chinese woman'? The Chinese scream that they are not racists. Yet they send me this very racist e-mail. This woman was humiliated or treated badly. That is wrong. Period! But to play up this issue as a racial issue is more wrong. And this is what Malaysians like to do. They like to emphasise that so-and-so who is Chinese or Indian is a victim of such-and-such.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

There are some who say I am being too idealistic by comparing Malaysia to the UK. You have been in the UK too long you are no longer realistic, some say. Malaysia can never be like the UK because Malaysians do not have a mature mind like those in the west, some others say.

Saying that Malaysia can never be like the UK because Malaysians do not have a mature mind like those in the west is as good as saying that YOU (those saying this) do not have a mature mind. 'Malaysians' here would mean the first party and not the third party. You might as well have said WE Malaysians, which means you included.

If you start off by believing that this or that cannot be done because WE Malaysians are backward then we will never move forward. This is just like the old folks of the pre-Merdeka days believing it is useless to send their children to school because they are better off planting padi. After all, sending them to Qur'an reading classes is good enough. What more do they need?

If the Malays had continued believing this then, until today, the Malays would still be in the padi fields. It took the British (more than 100 years ago) to convince four Malay Monarchs (Sultan Idris of Perak, Sultan Suleiman of Selangor, Yang di-Pertuan Besar Mohd Shah of Negeri Sembilan, and Sultan Ahmad of Pahang) to agree to the setting up of a school to educate the sons of the elite so that one day the Malays could take over the running of the country.

This school, the Malay College Kuala Kangsar (no longer a school for the elite), was the brainchild of R .J. Wilkinson, the Inspector of Schools for the Federated Malay States (F.M.S). In a letter to the Resident-General dated 24th February 1904, he wrote about "establishing at a suitable locality in the F.M.S., a special residential school for the education of Malays of good family and for the training of Malay boys for admission to certain branches of Government service."

A 1910 report said, "From this school the Government have great hopes that the sons of Malays of the Raja and higher class will be educated and trained on the lines of an English Public School and be fitted to take a share in the Government of their Country."

So, the Malays were dragged screaming and kicking into the 20th Century to receive an education in the British tradition -- in what was then known as 'the Eton of the East' -- so that they could one day become 'Brown Englishmen' in thinking and mentality but yet still retain their 'old values' regarding Malay customs and traditions and Islam as the religion of the Malays.

And that is why those of you who are in your 60s (like me), or in your 70s-80s, always lament that the Malays you knew back in the 1940s, 1950s or 1960s were very different people compared to the Malays of today. You admired and loved the Malays of the old days but find the Malays of today very obnoxious and lacking principles, ethics, honour, etc.

Yes, that is very true. Just ask the Chinese and Indians who are in their 60s or 70s and they will sigh and talk about the good old days. And that is why those Malays, Chinese and Indians of my age (or older) can agree with what I say and do, while the younger Internet/social media generation whack me. You in your 20s and 30s (or even you in your 40s) just do not possess the same values that we do.

Hence I would blame what we used to call back in the 1960s 'the generation gap' as being the reason for this. You do not understand the meaning of principles, ethics, honour, etc. To you, the ends justify the means. However, those of our generation would regard this as 'not cricket'. It is not winning that counts but how you play the game that was our code of conduct and ethics back in the old days.

But it would be useless to try to explain this to you post-Merdeka Malaysians. You have not received the type of breeding that we did back in the 1950s and 1960s. You have been corrupted by the education system that was 'modified' back in the 1980s. And that is sad because what we are seeing today is what I call 'The Ugly Malaysian' (after the 1958 book and 1963 movie 'The Ugly American').

Hmm…I wonder which Education Minister I should blame for this.

I received the e-mail below entitled 'HUMILITATING TREATMENT BY BULLY COPS.....on a Chinese woman'. A number of Chinese friends from various parts of Malaysia sent me this e-mail.

And don't try to pretend that this e-mail being circulated has nothing to do with race. It is all about race. You want us to know that it is a Chinese woman who was humiliated by Malay police officers.

Lim Kit Siang said he feels sorry for Umno Youth chief and Rembau MP, Khairy Jamaluddin, who was appointed Youth and Sports Minister. "I am no friend of Khairy's but it is unfair to him that he is put in charge of one of the most minor posts in the Cabinet," he said, adding that Khairy was an Oxford University graduate and deserved better.

Actually, exactly 30 years ago, back in 1983, Anwar Ibrahim too was appointed the Minister of Culture, Youth and Sports. But then Anwar is not an Oxford graduate like Khairy. Anwar went to Universiti Malaya. So maybe that is why Kit Siang did not feel sorry for Anwar back in 1983.

Ravinder Singh sent a letter to Free Malaysia Today (read the letter below) asking: "Is gerrymandering halal or haram?"

This is like asking is beer, which has only 5% alcohol, halal or haram?

Why do we even need to argue whether gerrymandering is halal or haram? If you really want to kira halus, the Westminster system of choosing the government itself is not halal. Malaysia's system is already un-Islamic. So why bother about whether gerrymandering is halal or haram when the system itself is in a way haram?

Let me put it another way. Ask any Malay-Muslim what makes a Muslim and he/she will reply anyone who accepts Prophet Muhammad as the Last Prophet and follows the Qur'an, the Sunnah and the Hadith, plus precedence.

Okay, now quote me one verse of the Qur'an regarding the Westminster system of government. None? Okay, if the Qur'an is silent on this issue, then you need to look at the Sunnah and the Hadith plus by using precedence.

How was the successor (caliph) to Muhammad chosen? The successor to Muhammad, Abu Bakar, was chosen by a committee after a three-day 'conference'. Umar, who was Abu Bakar's deputy, took over because he was the deputy (but he did not appoint any deputy when he took over). Usman, the third successor, was appointed by a Committee. And Ali took over because he was the last of the four comrades of Muhammad still alive (but he was bitterly opposed by many).

So, was there any Westminster system in appointing Muhammad and his four successors to the leadership? Hence is Malaysia's system Islamic? And hence, also, should we worry about whether gerrymandering is haram or halal when the system itself is not halal?

Beer is not haram. It is the alcohol in the beer that is haram. So alcohol-free beer would be halal. So I suppose you can argue that a Westminster system without gerrymandering is like alcohol-free beer. Why bother to drink beer then? You drink beer to get high. You play gerrymandering to make sure that the minority can rule over the majority.

And is this not what politics is all about? Even the committee that decided on Muhammad's successors was a minority decision and the majority just had to accept what a handful of people decided.

Is that halal or haram, Ravinder Singh?

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

Is gerrymandering halal or haram?

FMT LETTER: From Ravinder Singh, via e-mail

Just days ago well known Malaysian cleric Mohd Asri Zainal Abidin stated that it was haram for Muslims to incite tensions between peoples of different races and religions. While his words are still ringing in the ears, more racist words have been spewed out. No one, not even the Chief Executive, seems to care about what Asri pointed out.

Asri was surely not giving his personal opinion, but stating a fact from the teachings of Islam. When racist words continue to be spewed out by people in high and privileged places, what is to be made of the "haramness" of their actions?

Now, one of the main complaints about our elections and not just the 13GE, is about gerrymandering. This is not something that was raised only after the elections but had been raised long before that.

Gerrymandering is clearly about cheating in the elections by giving undue advantage to a certain party over its opponent(s). It is cheating because the ruling party does not have any right, legal or moral, to change electoral boundaries to favour it. The Constitution does not give it any such right.

The cheating is done by manipulating the boundaries of the constituencies such that supporters of the ruling party are put into smaller groups (constituencies) and the non-supporters into very much bigger constituencies. This is how with about 47% of the popular vote the BN has about 60% of the Parliament seats.

How does the EC find out who supports whom? Very easy. Votes are now counted in the very same room they were cast. Voters are streamed into the different rooms based on their residential locality, which is only a short distance from the polling station. Thus based on the results from each room, i.e. a maximum of about 600 voters in a stream, the EC can draw maps showing the voting trend of each locality with great accuracy.

Each locality's votes are therefore no more secret as the EC knows what percentage of a locality voted for whom. This information is then used to draw up new electoral boundaries. In fact our votes are no longer truly secret as the EC knows how voters in a small area voted.

The new electoral boundaries are drawn in such a way that the ruling party will have advantage over its rivals. In other words, it is like moving the goalposts.

So, could anyone please tell us whether gerrymandering, which is a cheating game, is halal or haram? This is very relevant as Malaysia is said to be an Islamic state. The non-Muslims, I'm sure, would like to know whether an Islamic State condones cheating in this way to remain in power?

Let it be remembered that the Constitution orders the EC to ensure that the number of voters in the different constituencies must be approximately equal. In Padang Rengas P61 there are only 28,518 voters but in Kapar P109 there are 144,159 voters.

Now, in the eyes of the EC, is it halal to say that the number of 28,518 voters in Padang Rengas is approximately equal to the 144,159 voters in Kapar?

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

啤酒合乎伊斯蘭教規嗎？

我很不明白的是：為什麼要注重在'一個華裔婦女'上面呢？華人們都大聲喊叫說他們不是種族主義者，但他們都給我發了很'種族'的郵件。這個婦女被警方侮辱了，這是錯的，句號，還扯這麼多幹嘛！把這件事情粉飾為一件很'種族'的做法是錯的，而這就是馬來西亞人很喜歡做的。他們很喜歡強調那某某人是個華人或那某某受害者是個印度人。

原文：Raja Petra Kamarudin

譯文：方宙

有人說我比照馬來西亞和英國的舉動很理想化：你在英國太久了，你已經變得很不現實了。也有些人會講因爲馬來西亞人沒有西方人那種成熟的思想所以馬來西亞不可能變得像英國般。

講說'因爲馬來西亞人沒有西方人那種成熟的思想所以馬來西亞不可能變得像英國般'就好比講説你們（講出以上這段話的）沒有成熟的思想。'馬來西亞人'在此應該是第一人稱而不是第三人稱，你更好直接就說'我們馬來西亞人'，因爲這也包括了你。

如果你一開始就相信'我們馬來西亞人'是落後而做不到某些事情的，那我們永遠都不可能會進步。這好比是獨立之前有一些老一輩的人相信把孩子送上學校是在浪費時間，他們更好跑去種田。把他們送去古蘭經學習課已經很足夠了，他們還需要其他的東西嗎？

如果馬來人到現在還是有這樣的思想的話，那他們將還只是生活在稻田而已。在100年前英國人得苦口婆心地説服4位馬來君主（霹靂的Sultan Idris，雪蘭莪的Sultan Suleiman，森美蘭的Yang di-Pertuan Besar Mohd Shah，還有彭亨的Sultan Ahmad）建立學校來給貴族子弟供書教學以便有朝一日馬來人能夠自行管理國家。

這閒學校就是瓜拉江沙馬來學院Malay College Kuala Kangsar（現在已經開放給非貴族），而它是當時聯邦馬來亞（Federated Malay States，F.M.S）學校監察員R .J. Wilkinson的智慧結晶。在他1904年2月24號寫給當時地方總督的信裏提到："。。。坐落于F.M.S 一個適當的地點，一閒專門供給馬來名門望族教育的特別學校和訓練馬來男孩以便他們日後能考進特定的政府部門。"

一份1910年的報告裏也寫道："政府給予這閒學校厚望，希望馬來君主和貴族的兒子們能夠接受到質素相等于英國公立學校的教育與訓練；也希望他們（日後）擁有足夠的資格來一同管理他們國家的政府。"

所以馬來子弟們一個個都在喊叫聲中被拖進20世紀的傳統英式教育系統裏----當時被稱爲'東方的伊頓公校'------終而希望有一天他們能像'棕色皮膚的英國人'般來思考問題但與此同時也保持著他們對於馬來傳統文化和伊斯蘭教的'老舊價值觀'。

這也是爲什麽你們當中60（就像我），70或80嵗的讀者都會哀嘆四五十年代和現今馬來人的大不同。你們會喜歡且敬重那些日子的馬來人但你們都認爲今日今時的馬來人都是可惡且缺乏原則，操守，尊嚴。。。等等的。

是的，你可以問問那些六七十歲的華人和印度人，他們會嘆氣與緬懷過去的日子。這也是為什麼和我年級相當的華巫印都會贊同我所講的，而那些年輕的網絡一代則會干屌我。你們這群二三十歲的（甚至是40歲的）真的不俱有我們這群人的價值觀。

所以我在此會引用我們在1960年代的說法'年代隔膜'來形容你和我的差別。你們都不懂原則，操守，尊嚴。。。等是什麼。對你來講，結果能合理化你的行為。無論如何，對我們這個年代的人來講這不是一場'板球遊戲'。這不只是勝利而已，而是你玩那個遊戲的方法是符合體育精神和操守的，正如我們那個年代所注重的。

但這對你們這群獨立以後的大馬人來講都是對牛彈琴。你們不是猶如我們在50,60年代般給培養起來的，你們都是在1980年後那個'被改革后'的教育系統裡成長的。這是很可悲的，我們近日所看到的是'醜陋的大馬人'（這個名字源於1958年的書和1963年的電影'醜陋的美國人'）。

哼，我在想我們應該怪罪哪個教育部長呢。

我收到了一封電郵，題為"一個華裔婦女受辱於一群霸權警察"。我的很多華人朋友都給我送了同樣的郵件。

還有，請別假裝這封郵件的背後不含任何種族主義，這完全是種族主義的寫照。你想要我們知道一個華裔婦女被馬來警官給侮辱了。

林吉祥講到他為巫統青年團長凱利被委任為青年與體育部長一事感到抱歉："我不是凱利的朋友，但我認為他被委任為一個最不重要部門的部長是很不公平的。"他繼續談到凱利是個牛津畢業生和應該得到更好的。

其實在30年前安華曾被委任為文化，青年與體育部長，但可能安華他並不是牛津畢業生吧，他畢業于馬大，所以林吉祥在1983年時並不為安華感到可惜。

Ravinder Singh給 Free Malaysia Today寫了封信 (請讀以上原文) 問道："不均選民分佈是違法halal還是合法的Is gerrymandering halal or haram?"

這好比你問到5％酒精濃度的啤酒到底是合法還是犯法？

為什麼我們要爭議那是合法犯法的呢？如果你真的要很嚴謹來講，那西敏寺系統都是犯法的，而馬來西亞的系統是很不符合回教教義的。所以當整個系統都是不符合教義時，你幹嘛還問選舉的選民分佈不均是否haram/halal呢？

讓我這樣來進一步講解，你去問任何的穆斯林／馬來人什麼是真正的穆斯林，他們都會回答你只要那個人接受默罕默德先知相信古蘭經,Sunnah經和Hadith經等等那他就是個穆斯林。

那好，現在請你給我來一段古蘭經中談及西敏寺系統的經文。沒有？那好，如果古蘭經沒有談及的話，那你就必須參考Sunnah經和Hadith經等等。

請問先知的後繼人（卡利法）是怎樣被挑選出來的呢？先知的繼承人阿布巴卡是由一個委員會經3天3夜的'會議'後選出來的。而阿布巴卡的助手，Umar，于他之後掌權，因為他是阿布巴卡的副手（但Umar並沒有委任任何副手）。Usman，第三個繼承人，是由委員會委任的。Ali隨後出任，因為他是先知時代四大將軍儅中唯一一個還沒死掉的（但很多人都反對他）。

所以說當時有任何西敏寺系統來委任先知和他的四個繼承人來成為領導人嗎？再者，馬來西亞的系統合乎回教教法嗎？所以說當整個系統都是不符回教是，我們還有必要談論選舉的選民分佈不均是否haram/halal呢？

啤酒本身是不犯法的，啤酒裡的酒精才犯法，所以無酒精啤酒是合法的。所以我想你可以爭論沒有Gerrymandering的西敏寺系統是合法的，正如無酒精的啤酒一樣。如果是那樣，那為何你還要喝啤酒呢？你喝酒是為了要high，而你打出gerrymandering這張牌是為了確保少數人民可以統治多數人民。

這不是政治世界裡所追求的嗎？就連挑選先知繼承人的委員會也是個少數人的委員會，而多數人必須接受他們這群少數人所決定的東西。

這又是Halal或Haram呢，Ravinder Singh?

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Jumaat, 17 Mei 2013

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

0 ulasan:

Catat Ulasan