ROGER TAN: The day the Bar dined for justice

(From left) Kuthubul Zaman Bukhari, Datuk Zaid Ibrahim and Yeo Yang Poh

ON July 24, 2003, the then chief justice Tan Sri (now Tun) Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim announced the promotions of eight judges.

The four new Federal Court judges were Datuk Abdul Hamid Mohamad, Datuk Wira Mohd Noor Ahmad, Datuk Pajan Singh Gill and Datin Paduka Rahmah Hussain.

Four other High Court judges were elevated to the Court of Appeal: Datuk Nik Hashim Nik Ab Rahman, Tengku Datuk Baharudin Shah Tengku Mahmud, Datuk Arifin Jaka and Datuk S. Augustine Paul.

However, the Malaysian Bar was not happy with the promotion list because its then president, Kutubul Zaman Bukhari, had issued a statement on July 5 on the promotions arguing that if senior judges were bypassed in promotions in favour of junior ones, there must exist reasons which must be explained to the public.

"Anything less than a full and convincing explanation will damage public confidence in the administration of justice."

He said the Bar would, if necessary, call an extraordinary general meeting to discuss the matter.

In announcing the new appointments, Ahmad Fairuz said seniority was not the only criterion, and that if it was, then there would be much deadwood.

"The seniors will not work because they know they will move up when the time comes because they are seniors."

He also denied that the promotions of three of the eight judges -- Arifin, Paul and Pajan -- were a "reward" for their decisions in cases involving Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim.

Responding to the promotions, Khutubul issued the following statement:

"Today's announcement of promotions in the judiciary, which saw so many senior judges being passed over, has unfortunately confirmed the fears of the Bar that such an important aspect of our system of justice has been lightly treated, with indifference to transparency and objectivity, and in the absence of consultation with the Bar.

"There has been no credible explanation for the en masse bypass of senior judges, and none is apparent. This process, or lack of proper process, has been carried out despite the clarion call by the Bar Council as exemplified in the Bar Council's press statement dated July 5, 2003.

"The Bar Council had taken great pains to explain that, when senior judges are bypassed en bloc in favour of junior ones, the question that immediately presents itself is not so much the suitability of the latter, but rather on what acceptable criteria have the former been considered unsuitable and therefore not been chosen (as would otherwise have been in the ordinary course of things).

"This issue is of legitimate concern to the Bar and the public, especially when passing-over appears to have become the rule rather than the exception.

"Today's event has exposed the alarming breakdown of a much needed mechanism for the determination of fair and proper judicial promotions in this country.

"It leaves many questions unanswered, and sinks the system into poorer health."

With this, Khutubul reiterated the Bar's call made even much earlier for an independent judicial appointments and promotions commission in consultation with the Bar to ensure the appointments and promotions process is transparent, structured, accountable, objective and consultative in manner.

Hence, the Bar Council called an EGM on Oct 5, 2003, to pass a resolution for the inception of this commission and also to call on the chief justice to disclose and make public the method and criteria employed in the July 24, 2003 judicial promotions.

In response, former prime minister Datuk Seri (now Tun) Dr Mahathir Mohamad said that in the event that the Bar Council's resolution was adopted, the judges appointed would be indebted to the council and would no longer be independent.

The then de facto law minister, Datuk Seri Rais Yatim, said the appointment of judges must be decided by law and not through public sentiment or pressure from interest groups.

Writing in the New Sunday Times on Sept 28, 2003 ("Appointment of judges: Bar should act rationally"), lawyer Datuk Zaid Ibrahim joined in calling on the Bar not to go ahead with the EGM and instead use diplomacy when dealing with the judiciary, but he did not say that he was against the Bar's proposal.

Alas, due more to the members' insouciance and the stringent quota requirement, the EGM scheduled on Oct 5, 2003, could not proceed.

But in the government's view, Rais said the lack of quorum exemplified the conclusion that the legal fraternity, especially practitioners, were not of the same view as the council.

The Bar Council did not lose hope and it continued with its call for the commission whenever an opportunity arose.

Expectedly, the Bar's lukewarm relationship with the judiciary worsened as thenceforth Ahmad Fairuz virtually stopped all dialogue with the Bar Council, and refused to meet Khutubul.

Instead, he chose only to engage with the state Bar committees with the council wondering whether this was a divide-and-rule tactic.

At the Johor Bar annual dinner on March 11, 2006, in Johor Baru, Ahmad Fairuz shocked everyone present by revealing that he did not like Khutubul and believed that the former's successor, Yeo Yang Poh, would be a better person to work with. But he was obviously mistaken.

Yeo was no less determined and convinced than his predecessor that there ought to be a commission. Backed by a strong Bar Council and its website, Yeo continued with the mission.

In a statement dated June 6, 2006, he said if the commission was implemented, "this will prove to be one of the greatest legacies that the government and the people of Malaysia can leave behind for the benefit of generations to come".

But the Bar's call for such a commission continued to fall on deaf ears.

The new de facto law minister, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz, felt that it should be the judiciary and not the executive who should initiate this.

Thanks to the infamous V.K. Lingam video clip, the need for a more transparent and accountable appointments mechanism could not have been more urgent.

On Sept 26 last year, the Bar led by its president, Ambiga Sreenevasan walked from the Palace of Justice, Putrajaya, to the Prime Minister's Office to hand over the memorandum calling for the formation of a commission.

Hence, needless to say, when the prime minister announced last Thursday that the government agreed to the setting up of a commission, the Bar gave him a standing ovation.

Indeed, the Bar must acknowledge the efforts of Zaid, and the determination of the previous and current Bar leaderships for this struggle now coming to fruition.

If Sept 26 is remembered as the day the Bar walked for justice, then April 17 should be celebrated as the day the Bar dined for justice, savouring the fruits of its many years of struggle for an independent commission leading to an independent judiciary.

The Bar proposes that this commission acts in a recommending capacity in that when the prime minister consults the chief justice over judicial appointments before advising the Conference of Rulers, under Article 122B of the Federal Constitution, the chief justice's advice to the prime minister on candidates will be the candidates identified by this commission.

In other words, it only changes the chief justice's constitutional role in this process and not that of the prime minister and the Conference of Rulers.

With this procedure, it will also render the appointment of judicial commissioners unnecessary.

The Bar is of the view that the commission should comprise 13 members made up of the following:

- Chief justice, who should head the commission;

- The attorney-general;

- The president of the Court of Appeal;

- The chief judge of Malaya;

- The chief judge of Sabah and Sarawak;

- The minister of law or his nominee;

- President or vice-president of the Malaysian Bar;

- Three senior practising lawyers (nominated by the Bar Council); and,

- Three lay people who are not practising lawyers and have never held judicial office (to be appointed by agreement of the other members of the commission).

In this respect, I wish to say that any argument that the judiciary will be beholden to the Bar is fallacious as the Bar, though a minority in this composition, is nevertheless a major stakeholder in the administration of justice.

To say so will mean also that judges appointed are beholden to the executive.

As Ambiga said at the dinner last Thursday, this issue should not arise as judges know that they discharge their responsibilities impartially, independent of who the appointing authority is, guided only by their oath of office and their conscience.

However, it cannot be denied that whoever is nominated and appointed to sit in this commission does matter a great deal.

This is echoed by Chief Justice Datuk Abdul Hamid Mohamad in his speech at the recent Judges' Conference. He said: "They (the commissioners) themselves must be people of integrity, knowledgeable, incorruptible, fair and without any vested interest. They should not have an agenda of their own. Neither should they be the conduit for lobbying for the judgeship.

"Again, as I have said at Universiti Utara Malaysia, whatever system we have, in the final analysis, it is the people who implement the system that matters."

Indeed, there is no perfect mechanism but this is nevertheless the best option available as many Commonwealth countries have also adopted it.

Even Britain has opted for such an independent judicial appointments commission, doing away with the centuries-old practice of letting the lord chancellor make or recommend judicial appointments to the Queen.

But here, we have the executive and the rulers who continue to act as the check and balance just in case the commission fails in its constitutional duty, and vice versa.

In conclusion, let no one mistake the Bar's resolve when it sets its mind into doing something which is good for the people and country.

The public can be assured that notwithstanding this historic announcement, the Bar will not sit back until the commission becomes a reality.

The writer is a member of the Malaysian Bar Council

http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/NST/Sunday/Columns/2218133/Article/index_html

Semua Kandungan dan Semua komen para pembaca pada blog ini bukan pandangan dan pendirian saya dan Saya tidak bertanggungjawab untuknya.

TUNKU ABDUL AZIZ: It's the triumph of good over evil

IT was unprecedented. And totally out of character for the normally staid New Straits Times to do what it did on Wednesday (April 14).

It dropped all pretence of squeamishness and published its damningly elegant editorial "Get on with the job" which said it all.

It was nothing if not a deeply wounding indictment of the dark side of Umno politics in the aftermath of the 12th general election that saw the mighty in disorderly retreat.

The editorial, couched in language that was quite extraordinary in its directness, had apparently produced the desired effect without being offensive.

It struck at the heart of the anxiety felt by Malaysians as they watched helplessly with ever growing despair their country being forced willy-nilly to witness Umno's tragicomedy being played out with every prospect of turning itself into a full-scale Malaysian tragedy.

You cannot help being struck by the unedifying spectacle of a once great political party destroying itself because some key members who should know better are so consumed by ambition that they have allowed their raw personal greed to set the national agenda.

The political blood-letting, the feuding and the rearguard action must stop immediately.

By their act of vandalism of the very same values and value systems that have, over the years, given Umno its pre-eminent position in Malaysian politics, deservingly or not, it is now hurting the country in ways that will leave permanent scars, in social, economic and political terms, on the face of this great country of ours.

Umno must realise that while millions of us for one reason or another are not party members, we, all of us who are citizens, are stakeholders and our legitimate interests and well-being cannot be studiously ignored.

We are, as it happens, in the same Umno boat that is now taking water.

Umno has to remember that it is not Malaysia, and by the same token, Malaysia is not Umno, its own estimation of its greatness notwithstanding.

It must understand that while it occupies an important place in the politics of race in this country, it cannot ride roughshod over the wishes and sentiments of others, a failing for which they were punished so mercilessly in polling stations up and down the country.

Malaysians are by and large cheerful and long suffering, but they, like other people, have their breaking point.

The proverbial breaking of the camel's back was caused by the straw of arrogance engendered by complete power and aggravated by a grave error of judgment, a misreading of the sentiments on the ground.

When you have had your own way for more than half a century, you may be forgiven, I suppose, for believing that fortune smiles on the powerful, but the ballot box can develop a mind of its own as Umno, MCA and MIC have learnt to their cost.

For all our sakes, I hope some useful lessons have been learnt.

It is refreshing that Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi is reasserting his leadership of the country.

Enough of pandering to the lunatic fringe and the country must not allow itself to be held to ransom by those who cannot see beyond their selfish, short-term ambitions.

I have a confession to make; I am greatly beholden to Abdullah. Now before you jump to any conclusion and hurl abuse at me, let me assure you that I have not been given any business contracts worth a few billion ringgit in any of the many corridors.

I am grateful to him because he has given the country something much more valuable -- the space he has given us to exercise some democratic rights, such as freedom to criticise him and the government he leads for real or imagined shortcomings, and to express opinions in the media that once would have branded you as an enemy of state.

For some it may be a little too little, too late, but things can only improve. So, Abdullah, stay until your mandate runs out because you will need all the time you have to put the house in order.

I am not a great breakfast person at the best of times.

On Friday, I choked on my toast as I read about Abdullah's reiteration of his resolve to honour, promote and defend democracy's cardinal doctrine of the separation of powers.

I do not succumb to emotion easily as a rule, not publicly anyway. However, I made an exception to my own rule that Friday morning when I read about a "heartfelt gesture to mend the pain and loss" inflicted on Tun Salleh Abas and five other judges at the hands of Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad in 1988.

I had a quiet cry because this had proved to be a modern classic case of the triumph of good over evil.

While we are celebrating the restoration of dignity and bestowal of honour that had been unceremoniously removed by an ethically and morally deficient administration of an era best forgotten for its corrupting influence, we must not forget another victim of injustice, former High Court judge Datuk Syed Ahmad Idid who blew the whistle and alerted us to the rot that had set in throughout the system of justice.

If we had only taken his warning seriously, we might have saved the judiciary from its ultimate fall from grace. Instead of protecting him, we hounded him, and made him out as a troublemaker.

In a sense, the events of the last few years have fully vindicated Syed Ahmad Idid, an incorruptible public servant who found the ethical standards of his colleagues on the bench way, way below those prescribed for the custodians of justice.

He became a victim because he lived by a different set of rules.

He deserves similar treatment as Salleh and the other five judges.

Abdullah must look at this blatant example of the manipulation of the system of justice by the state and address the wrong done to Syed Ahmad Idid quickly. Reform should begin with his case and proceed from there.

The writer is a former Special Adviser to the United Nations Secretary-General on Ethics.


http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/NST/Sunday/Columns/2218603/Article/index_html

Semua Kandungan dan Semua komen para pembaca pada blog ini bukan pandangan dan pendirian saya dan Saya tidak bertanggungjawab untuknya.

OPINION: Rulers have to enlighten people

In 1949, the tussle between Datuk Onn Jaafar and the ruler led to the resignation of Onn as menteri besar of Johor.

The line that separates the spheres of politics and constitutional monarchy appears to be fuzzy and crucial decisions of rulers need to be better explained to the people, writes ZAINAL AZNAM YUSOF

ONE of the most interesting developments from the recent general election was the role of the rulers, or the sultans, in determining the choice of the menteris besar of some of the states and also in the composition of the state executive councils.

There were some delays in finalising these appointments.

The broad consensus, following the outcome of the stand of the sultans, was that they were acting in accordance with the federal and state constitutions.

A feature of the saga, which was also apparent in the past, was that the basis of the decisions made by the sultans was not spelt out and made clear to the electorate. Because of this lacuna, one was left with an abundance of speculations and rumours.

Why were the original candidates unacceptable?

The media, which reported on the events, appeared hesitant and relatively foggy and there is a need for everyone to be better informed.

As it is one of the fundamental institutions in the country, the monarchy or royalty, in the interest of enlightenment and raising the level of consciousness of the public, ought to consider making the basis of its decisions widely known as clearly as it can be done.

In a broader sense, this request should also be directed at the executive branch of government.

As speculation and rumours can be damaging, unless it is part of a deliberate game to gain some unstated ends, the basis of important decisions should be made known.

Even so, the recent royal interventions and vetoes were not unique as there have been differences of views between the federal government and the rulers in the appointments of menteris besar in the past.

The two states that came under the scrutiny of the sultans were Perlis and Terengganu and to some extent Perak and Selangor for the composition of the state executive councils.

For Perak and Selangor, the intervention by the sultans was to ensure that the choice of candidates for the state executive councils had the backing of the majority of Pakatan Rakyat, the new grouping of the opposition political parties.

In the case of Perlis and Terengganu, it was simply a case of outright disagreement as to who should be the menteri besar.

The federal government, initially, had consigned itself to endorsing Datuk Shahidan Kassim, the incumbent, to continue to be the menteri besar of Perlis.

The Raja of Perlis disagreed with the recommendation of the federal government and instead decided that Datuk Md Isa Sabu should be the new menteri besar.

For Terengganu, Datuk Seri Idris Jusoh, the incumbent, was the choice of the federal government for menteri besar.

The Regency Advisory Council for Terengganu, however, disagreed and instead decided that Datuk Ahmad Said should be the new menteri besar, despite the strong opposition from many quarters and threats that disciplinary action would be taken against Ahmad Said if he accepted the appointment.

Over the past 50 years, there have been other episodes when rulers have had their differences, including over the appointment of menteris besar, and were involved in tussles with the federal government.

The line that separates the sphere of politics and the sphere of a constitutional monarchy appeared to be fuzzy and malleable.

In 1949, the tussle between Datuk Onn Jaafar and the ruler led to the resignation of Onn as menteri besar of Johor and eventually as president of Umno.

According to Raja Azlan Shah, the deteriorating relationship between the then Sultan of Perak and Tan Sri Ghazali Jawi, the menteri besar, led to the latter's resignation and the appointment of a replacement who was acceptable to the ruler.

In Pahang, menteri besar Datuk Abdul Rahim Abu Bakar had to step down because of worsening relations with the Regent of Pahang.

In Johor, deteriorating relations between the ruler and his menteri besar led to the ruler ordering the latter to vacate his office premises.

In 1982, the Sultan of Selangor was displeased when it was reported that Datuk Ahmad Razali had been nominated by Barisan Nasional as the next menteri besar after the 1982 general election.

Raja Azlan Shah indicated that the ruler's displeasure was due to the act of sending Datuk Harun Idris to submit the name of the nominee to the sultan and that "it would have been polite and proper if the incumbent menteri besar or the prime minister or his deputy had sought an audience with his Royal Highness to submit the name of the new menteri besar".

In 1983, following the constitutional crisis, constitutional amendments were made to reduce the royal powers in delaying assent to a bill that had been enacted by parliament.

And in 1993 there was the contestation over royal immunities from the rule of law which also caused another constitutional crisis.

In July 1992, six of the nine Malay rulers signed the Proclamation of Constitutional Principles which in essence was a Code of Conduct.

Among others, it re-affirmed that they would not be involved in politics and that constitutional principles would be applied in the appointment of the menteri besar of a state.

The missing element in the recent confrontation between the sultans and the federal government, as well as in similar episodes in the past, was an explicit and clear explanation for opposing the choice of the original candidates for menteris besar.

The past, buttressed by the new political environment, provides clear evidence to expect that there will be more interventions by royalty which will stretch the constitutional boundaries of a constitutional monarchy.

While checks and balances are vital parts of a working democracy, they could be hostage to personalities and idiosyncratic tastes.

Hence, in the interest of transparency and good governance, key decisions made by the sultans that can have far-reaching repercussions will need to be grounded on reason, a justification for their choices and duly recorded.

Enlightened rulers should enlighten their rakyat who should not be left speculating in the dark.

ZAINAL AZNAM YUSOF
The writer is adviser to the National Implementation Task Force


http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/NST/Sunday/Columns/2218128/Article/index_html

Semua Kandungan dan Semua komen para pembaca pada blog ini bukan pandangan dan pendirian saya dan Saya tidak bertanggungjawab untuknya.

Not proper to question Malay rights, Nik Aziz tells Ong and Karpal Singh

Kelantan Menteri Besar Datuk Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat says it was not proper for the MCA and DAP to question Islamic-oriented Malay rights.

He said such rights were provided for in the Federal Constitution, hence they should not be raised.

"But PAS will reject the rights if they are solely for Malay interests,” he told reporters after opening an ice factory, here today.


He was responding to the statements by MCA president Datuk Seri Ong Ka Ting and DAP chairman Karpal Singh that questioned the speech which touched on Malay dominance by Kelantan prince, Tengku Muhammad Faris Petra, at a seminar in Kuala Lumpur on April 12.


The two leaders regarded the speech as way out of royal line and trying to drag the monarchy institution into the country’s politics.


In relation to the issue, Nik Aziz, who is also PAS’ spiritual leader, said the party could not support Malays who themselves rejected Islamic interests.

"It’s better to be friends with the Chinese and Indian Muslims who are loyal to the religion,” he said.


Nik Aziz said the country’s sovereignty must be protected but must be based truly on the struggle for Islam by the Malays.


On another matter, Nik Aziz said he hoped the federal government would proceed with the development projects planned before the March 8 general election.


These projects include the road construction from Kota Baharu to Kuala Krai as the state government has already approved the land acquisition for the project.


However, Nik Aziz hopes the state government will be given the power to appoint more reliable contractors for the projects.

http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/NST/Sunday/Frontpage/20080420164719/Article/index_html
Semua Kandungan dan Semua komen para pembaca pada blog ini bukan pandangan dan pendirian saya dan Saya tidak bertanggungjawab untuknya.

Najib wants Samy to explain outburst

Datuk Seri Najib Razak said he would ask MIC president Datuk Seri S. Samy Vellu to explain his statement that if the government continued to ignore the Indian community, he would seek support from other countries.

Najib, who is Barisan Nasional deputy chairman and deputy prime minister, said he did not know that the former Works Minister had come up with such a statement.


“I do not know. I will have to ask him what he meant by that. In terms of government policy, it is a fact that we have been giving fair and equal consideration to all races in the country.


“Whatever is needed by the Indian community, we are prepared and willing to consider it but all this must be done in the context of consensus under the Barisan Nasional.”


Najib was asked about Samy Vellu’s interview with an Internet news website, in which he said he go overseas for aid, “if this government does not do anything”.

Najib said the government was prepared to consider concerns raised by all races but not in the form of threats.


“We will look into concerns made through applications, proposals and others but definitely not in the form of threats.”


Najib said the decision not to renew the publication permit of Makkal Osai was made by the Home Ministry and not the Cabinet.


“It is a decision for the ministry to make and it was not discussed in the Cabinet.”


Home Minister Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar had said the vernacular newspaper’s permit was not renewed as it had breached guidelines governing the publication of newspapers in the country.

http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/NST/Friday/Frontpage/20080418172515/Article/index_html
Semua Kandungan dan Semua komen para pembaca pada blog ini bukan pandangan dan pendirian saya dan Saya tidak bertanggungjawab untuknya.

Gerakan’s Kah Choon appointed to PDC Board, Investpenang

The Penang government today announced the appointment of former Gerakan deputy secretary-general Datuk Lee Kah Choon as a director of the Penang Development Corporation (PDC) and chairman of the executive committee of InvestPenang, a PDC subsidiary.

Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng told a news conference at his office here the decision on the appointment was made at Wednesday’s meeting of the state executive council.


He said Lee, 48, started work on Friday and today he and Lee were scheduled to visit the Bukit Minyak industrial site. The PDC and InvestPenang were set up by the previous Barisan Nasional (BN) state government to draw investments to Penang.


“The state government has appointed him (Lee) because it feels he can make a positive contribution to the economic development of Penang for the benefit of the people in the state,” Lim said.


He said the DAP-PKR state government welcomed those who wanted to serve the people with sincerity in the public interest and it did not consider race, religion or political background as factors in the selection of any candidate.

“The new state government wants to chart a new course by appointing those who, going by tradition, would not get appointed. We want to pool all capacities to develop Penang, and to make Penang dynamic we need the contribution of all the people,” he said.


Lee, who had resigned from all his party posts last month, thanked the state government for the trust placed in him and said he would help step up domestic and foreign investment in Penang and strengthen the state’s economy so that Penang became the choice for not only investors but also tourists and skilled workers.


“I considered all options and decided that my role in the two institutions will not be any different from my original objective of serving the people of Penang when I entered politics 11 years ago,” he said.


He said he would give his full attention to efforts to develop Penang but would remain a member of the Gerakan although he would not be active in politics.


At the same news conference, Lim announced the appointment of former Sessions Court judge Datuk Ho Mooi Ching, 56, as chairman of the Penang Pardons Board and Tan Sri Khalid Ahmad Sulaiman, 71, as the deputy chairman.




http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/NST/Sunday/NewsBreak/20080420183745/Article/index_html

Semua Kandungan dan Semua komen para pembaca pada blog ini bukan pandangan dan pendirian saya dan Saya tidak bertanggungjawab untuknya.

楊麗琴‧領導人的噩夢和挑戰

第一任首相東姑阿都拉曼曾做了這樣的一個噩夢：

在夢中，他身處一條狹窄污穢的後巷。一群體型如貓的老鼠湧出，咬喫髒物。

他企圖從後巷的另一端走出去，卻被成群的藍色蒼蠅擋住去路。

前無出路，後有追兵。他掩住眼面，從蒼蠅群中奪路而出，被追了好一段路，終“衝出生天”。

東姑為了這個夢苦惱了好幾天，一直不解老鼠和藍色蒼蠅代表何物，但肯定的是必是不祥之兆。

這個夢發生在1969年5月2日，也是第三屆大選的前8天。大選過後，發生了五一三事件，東姑被迫下台。

這時，東姑才“恍然大悟”。他說，原來老鼠代表馬來西亞共產黨和不良份子。藍色蒼蠅呢？無庸置疑，是來自巫統明地暗裡要他下台的聲音。

這位曾自稱是“世界上最快樂的首相”，居然曾經做過這樣的噩夢（關於這個夢，東姑在他所著的《513前後》有詳盡的描繪）。

無需弗洛伊德解夢，我們也了解他必是在大選前聞到山雨欲來風滿樓的氣息，內心充滿無比的恐懼。

可見，即使位高權重也不過是凡人一個，一樣會有情緒起落，會擔憂會害怕，尤其是政治觸覺敏銳者。

只不過，平凡小民的噩夢可以在一覺醒來後，拋到大西洋，領導人的噩夢，卻非同小可，影響弗遠。畢竟一位真正快樂，被人民所祝福的領導人，不會無故發噩夢，即使一個不小心發了，也不會縈繞心頭，揮之不去。

大馬建國50年，出了5位首相。

第一任首相做了噩夢後，向我們說拜拜。

第二任首相阿都拉薩及第 三任首相胡申翁因為健康問題交出棒子，有沒有在任內發噩夢無人知曉。

第四任首相敦馬哈迪在位22年，雖經歷無數風浪，但多順利擺平，本該是“安枕無夢”。 他真正的“噩夢”反而是卸任後才開始，即選出了“不聽話的接班人”，前朝政策未被持續貫徹，在任時的弊端也逐一浮出檯面，令人民感覺如幻似真，有如夢一 場。

阿都拉當前所面對的困境，不必贅言，大家大抵也看到，該分析的也分析了。

只要巫統黨爭一日未塵埃落定，司法改革和打擊貪腐濫權未有實際成效，以及未重新獲得人民的信心前，阿都拉不可能甜夢連連，因為他所要面對的挑戰實在太多了。

東姑在噩夢應驗後，還很豁達地說：老鼠可以殺死，蒼蠅可以不理，讓我們祈禱，在試煉和災禍過去後成功反擊，將一切視為一場教訓。

東姑的這番語重心長，未嘗可被視為提供現任政府一個思考的空間。

只不過，阿都拉當前的挑戰，已非“殺老鼠趕蒼蠅”這麼簡單，而是必須超越這個範疇，去深切理解到底是怎樣的環境，會造成蒼蠅老鼠滋生，對症下藥，營造一個衛生清潔的大環境。

還是那句話，如果受到足夠的祝福，領導人不會輕易做噩夢。

如果他們開始噩夢連連，又解夢和處理不當，恐怕就會輪到及連累到人民開始做噩夢了。

所以，領導人的噩夢不容小覷

http://www.sinchew-i.com/commentary/node/5358

Semua Kandungan dan Semua komen para pembaca pada blog ini bukan pandangan dan pendirian saya dan Saya tidak bertanggungjawab untuknya.

顏炳壽‧制度化政黨合作模式

3月8日的大選已為我國民主政治掀開新的頁章。新的政治格局也帶來了諸多不穩定的現象；然而，從宏觀的角度來評論，相信絕大部份國民都會認同新的局面有助於國家民主政治的發展。

新政治格局的產生必然延伸出黨團權力的鬥爭、整頓或重建，廣納賢才與提升問政素質等迫切性問題。接踵而來的，還包括各政黨的選後檢討。

檢討別人尤過於檢討自己者不乏其人；檢討外在因素而忽略本身內在問題的政黨亦比比皆是。肯定的，國家政治生態也將熱鬧好一段日子。

而國陣成員黨未來的合作模式也將是國家民主政治轉型的重要指標。

巫統之外的國陣成員黨長期強調“策略爭取” 和“實效成績”。這與我國特有的族群政治客觀環境息息相關。諸多國陣成員黨被視為無法與巫統平起平坐，當家不當權，有一定的政治現實根據。

國陣成員黨領袖甚至因為不能暢所欲言，而造就了被巫統的霸權牽著鼻子走的整體印象。

其實，國陣成員黨對國家政策及特定課題，尤其是族群關係、宗教、文化及母語教育等課題上擁有本 身的立場是理所當然的。畢竟，以單一族群為主的國陣成員黨維護的是其族群為主的利益；倘非如此，各成員黨將失去存活的理由或者存在的價值。

當然，單一族群 的利益不等同，也絕對不能超越國家的整體利益。因此，若各成員黨無法自由表述各自的立場，以達致集體共識，那將與健全的民主程序運作背道而馳；而所謂的合 作，充其量也將只是附庸性的。

真誠的政黨合作，尤其是類似國陣模式的政黨合作，取決於成員黨決策機制的建立，政策制定程序的透明化。當然，無論是國陣還是民盟，在推動國家民主政治議程上，都必須以國家整體利益為主要考量，建立起更完善的決策機制。

目前國陣成員黨的互動，大都只是局限在內閣及州行政會議或者是黨魁部長私下的溝通；成員黨其他 層次的領袖互動程度幾近於零。

然而，內閣會議或者是州行政會議商討的大都是全民共業及當下的政策課題，未必適合深入探討特定族群，及族群與族群之間的問 題。

此外，內閣或者是州行政議會成員，有主次從屬之分，也未必有利於族群與族群間棘手課題的討論。

如何與人共事本來就是一門大學問，更何況是有不盡相同利益考量的成員黨。真誠的共事，也需要各 政黨領袖通過長期的合作以建立起彼此的信任與步伐一致的默契。

因此，國陣成員黨領袖應把國陣最高理事會、國陣青年團及婦女組在國、州與區會層次的會議與互 動制度化，定期探討族群與族群之間的文化、宗教、母語教育及牽涉特定族群的就業與經濟課題（如養豬業、養燕業、園坵勞工、公務員等）。

或許，各國陣成員黨領袖也能因此無須固步自封，在討論棘手與所謂的敏感課題上面對綁手綁腳的窘境。

至於政綱迥異、政治意識型態相左的民盟，該如何維系其權宜性的合作，民眾還將拭目以待。

http://www.sinchew-i.com/commentary/node/5342

Semua Kandungan dan Semua komen para pembaca pada blog ini bukan pandangan dan pendirian saya dan Saya tidak bertanggungjawab untuknya.

植建成‧1個月的成績單

大選過去了一個多月，朝野兩陣線在這段時間做了什麼事呢？

先來看看民盟管理的5個州。檳城和霹靂政府率先取消前朝開出的傳票，這種寬待違法者的做法，慶祝意味濃，馬上就引起了一些人的非議。

不過後來霹、雪兩州政府發放的好消息，可就高明多了。先是雪州宣佈豁免住戶首20立方用水收費的措施，即是一種濟貧的方式。

對富人來說，這筆錢無關痛癢，但對貧窮戶來說，每年省下百多兩百元水費，生活就可明顯改善。

後來是霹靂州宣佈境內的新村地契為永久地契，這措施看以在討好選民，其實是一種實際意義的經濟改革。

貧窮的居民終於可以以抵押地契的方式來融資，這筆錢可以拿來經商或是給子女受高等教育，也是幫助窮人脫貧的第一步。

除此之外，雪、霹、檳州政府也認真地捲起袖管，逐步推行集中養豬場計劃、追查土地舞弊案、徵收 外勞人頭稅10元（以救濟失業國人）、象徵式徵收華小和獨中一元地稅、委任民政代表為縣市議員等。

大中小型的計劃，似乎都能有條不紊地開跑。反倒是回教黨 執政的吉、丹州，腳步明顯落後。

飽受驚濤駭浪才奪下政權的國陣，這段時間又做了什麼呢？

一個團體，如果經歷了有史以來最激烈的挫敗，各個成員靜下心來後，第一個思考的問題，會是：“what is the problem?”（問題出在哪？）但是當這個團體大到是一個政黨的話，大部份人就會問：“who is the problem?”（問題出在誰？）

很遺憾，國陣各成員黨就陷入了一個這樣的困境。國陣大選失利後，很少人認真、理性地全盤分析失利的原因；反之，許多人是直接指責或間接影射某一人必須要負責，而負責的方法，就是辭職下台。

一場挫敗，也讓各黨的領袖發現，即使現在真的想全心落實競選宣言，或是痛改之前的弊端，也變得力不從心了。黨員變得更沒有耐性，以前他們可能是你施政的助力，現在可能變成了一種干擾，甚至是阻力。

剎時間，對領袖來說，天時、地利、人和的條件，是不具備了，成績單暫時是交不出來了。倒是基層的逼宮戲碼、倒黃大會天天在上演。皆因政治的本質就是一個梯狀的權力結構，在下位者難免會想，如果最上位者退了下來，理論上來說，下面的人通通都有晉升一級的機會。

國陣的內憂還不止於此。敵營的人一直喊話，說有大將要倒戈相向，人數多到足以讓國陣政權崩盤。究竟是實是虛，還不知道，但這種甜蜜的呼喚听多了，肯定對國陣不利，即使後來只有兩三人投誠，也會造成軍心潰散，形成骨牌效應。

除了內憂，還有外患，那就是安華復出的補選之戰。以民盟目前的氣勢，國陣派大將或是小兵上陣應戰，都是兩難。小兵要是慘敗，國陣氣勢恐怕更加沮喪；大將若不能拉低多數票，更是難看。

國陣現在的困境，真的有點四面楚歌的況味，

一要應對黨內的挑戰勢力、

二要在資源變少的情況下，更快地向選民兌現競選宣言、

三要提仿投機黨員倒戈敵營，

四是迎戰來勢洶洶的安華。

情況似乎比一個月前還要嚴峻。

http://www.sinchew-i.com/commentary/node/5327

Semua Kandungan dan Semua komen para pembaca pada blog ini bukan pandangan dan pendirian saya dan Saya tidak bertanggungjawab untuknya.

凌國文‧歡迎光臨花果

政客時下最流行的玩意，不再是高爾夫球，而是加入部落客的行列。甚麼是部落客？不妨參考以下的定義。

習慣在國會開罵、悉心經營中年怒漢形象的內閣部長大罵︰“部落客是騙子！”

擁有無限創意、建議中文及淡米爾文電視節目以國語配音的前部長說︰“部落客是愚蠢的！”

有份客串演出林甘短片的前部長則加以數據說明︰“80%的部落客是一群失業的女人！”

最傳神的，還是為大馬政壇帶來新希望的那位高材生的定義︰“部落客是一群猴子！”

風水輪流轉，山水有相逢。不到一年的光景，曾揚言將反對黨全數趕出州議會，如今自己卻淪為州議 會反對黨議員的前州務大臣、曾揚言要狠狠教訓“這群猴子”的那位高材生、還有無數個從未上過網、忙著找搶手代勞的高官大人，如今卻一一排著隊加入“騙子、 蠢人、大部份是失業女性、還有猴子”的一伙。

這麼多人爭著當猴子猴孫，花果山一夜之間興旺了起來！老人家說︰欺山莫欺水，果然沒說錯。一場大海嘯之後，高瞻遠矚的高官大人紛紛上山避難，為了重振旗鼓，也顧不得面子身段，自己也當起了猴子。

大海嘯可真不是開玩笑的，雖然已過了一個月有餘，可是遭受衝擊者至今仍暈頭轉向，分不清東南西北。於是乎，有人像阿炳被阿蓮拋棄般無奈泣訴︰“你到底要的是甚麼？”搞政治搞了那麼多年，竟還搞不懂選民要的是甚麼，這種人不談也罷。

另一種人，則人云亦云地高喊︰“都是因為我們忽略了部落格！”那位習慣攜帶巨款出入境，如今咸魚翻生的高官大人還一臉委屈地訴說︰“反對黨充份利用網絡媒體及部落格，這對我們來說是不公平的競爭！”這種話說一次就好了，不然真的會笑死人的！

換句話說（這句話也可能會笑死人），他們並沒有輸，只是被對方利用部落格來佔了便宜吃了豆腐。這麼一來，部落格也就突然水漲船高，成為了選舉的必殺武器！原本當劍客的，也兼職當起部落客來了！

不知其然，是無知；只知其然，不知其所以然，是另一種無知。你以為成為了部落客，就會光環加冕，魔鬼變天使嗎？你以為只要是部落格，讀者就一定會照單全收，對你刮目相看嗎？

重點，不在於你是否多了一個傳達訊息的平台，而在於你所傳達的是甚麼訊息。網絡輿論的引導，在 於共鳴；而共鳴的根原，在於貼近民心；要貼近民心，就得講出人民的心底話。

然而，沒有徹底的反思，又怎麼可能知道人民心底的是哪一句話？也因為沒有徹底地 反思，所以才不斷有人重復︰“你們到底要甚麼？”

如果部落格裡充斥著一貫的管腔妄語、自我修飾的濃脂艷抹、 脫離現實的傻話蠢話，就算不被網民唾棄，也只會成為另一個提供娛樂的笑話網。

無論如何，既然已經加入了猴子的大家庭，就得入鄉隨俗，尊重花果山上百花爭艷、百家爭鳴的游戲規則，別再動不動就扳起臉孔說甚麼殺雞儆猴了，會被人笑話的！

http://www.sinchew-i.com/commentary/node/5285

Semua Kandungan dan Semua komen para pembaca pada blog ini bukan pandangan dan pendirian saya dan Saya tidak bertanggungjawab untuknya.

陳泓縑‧把握黃金機遇，討回東馬權益

早前首相兼巫統主席阿都拉拜訪東馬兩州，出招穩定軍心，聆聼州國陣領袖的心聲，積極拉攏東馬兩州議員，以應付甚囂塵上的人民聯盟“在國會將提首相不信任動議”。

繼沙巴巫統2名國會議員拒絕受委聯邦副部長、沙巴巫統異議派系“六君子”會見阿都拉、沙巴領袖更公開要求更大的內閣代表性之後，種種小動作讓阿都拉在此時不得不礙於政治現實而有所對策。

因此，在權力博弈的結果是，沙巴巫統的班迪卡阿敏將是首位受委國會下議院議長的東馬人；而相信未來新的內閣排陣，沙巴也將會有所得。

其中一項沙巴國陣的要求，乃廢除沙巴聯邦發展局。沙巴聯邦發展局，是1990年大選團結黨退出國陣後成立的“統戰”機構。作為發放聯邦撥款的管道，沙巴聯邦發展局的功能主要是以資源發放換取選票和朋黨的忠誠。

可是沙巴自從15年由國陣執政以來，這個具重疊功能的聯邦發展局並沒有被廢除，這明顯是吉隆坡不相信沙巴。只是今時不同往日，沙巴國陣又怎不乘機奪回資源發放的權力呢？

但是若把握黃金機遇等於為自己升官發財，則沙巴國陣領袖就愧對于民。相對於沙巴巫統的爭取官位，卡達山杜順社群領袖則爭取這個機遇，落實解決數項困擾沙巴已久的問題。

民統主席兼首相署部長柏納東博的表現就可圈可點，繼去年公開聲稱大馬是世俗國之後，現在更呼吁設立皇家調查委員會，來解決非法移民問題、沙巴基本設施落後問題、以及要求國家石油確保沙巴與其他石油州屬獲得平等的權利。

其實民統所提的種種，與沙巴人民公正黨所提的訴求有著公約數。非法移民、基本設施落後以及石油資源的不公平分配，可說是沙巴朝野政黨的共識（除了巫統未必那麼關心非法移民課題）。

民統要求國油在沙巴建造石油提煉廠，與人民公正黨倡議的“議員跳槽配套”中的從5%增加至 20%的石油稅於沙巴州政府，出發點一樣，只是要求的程度不同而已。根據初步估計，20%的石油稅相等於18億令吉，也等於2008年州財政預算案估計的 沙巴州政府年收入。也就是意味著，若20%石油稅落實，州政府收入兩倍增加。

談起來東馬兩州的國陣議員，也得“感謝”成功否決三份二國會議席、執政半島5州的人民聯盟。第十二屆大選之後的政治新格局，讓東馬兩州的國陣成員黨增加了議價空間；若不是民心思變，東馬兩州也不會從國陣內部的邊緣，走向能夠影響大局的主流州屬。

這邊阿都拉親身拜訪，那邊人民聯盟伸出橄欖枝提供跳槽配套，真是左右逢源。所以，這個歷史性的黃金機遇，東馬兩州應該充分把握；尤其沙巴州，必須站在重新檢視立國20條款的基礎上，追討失去了的權益。

http://www.sinchew-i.com/commentary/node/5272

Semua Kandungan dan Semua komen para pembaca pada blog ini bukan pandangan dan pendirian saya dan Saya tidak bertanggungjawab untuknya.

林友順‧下一步，安華怎樣走？

1998年4月14日，前任副首相安華被法庭判入獄，10年後的4月14日，安華以一個“未來首相”的姿態高調出現，成為國內外媒體、投資者及政界的焦點。每個人都在觀望，下一步，安華怎樣走？

在大選期間，安華曾樂觀預測在野黨將取得70個國會議席，包括在野黨領袖在內，沒有多少人會相信他的談話。剛剛過去的大選不僅證明安華的預測準確，也達到了安華所要的局面︰打破國陣國會三份之二議席優勢。

如今，當安華揚言國陣將在6個月內倒台，事實是否如此有時間證明。

安華下一步將怎樣走，相信沒有多少人會知道，安華有很多選擇，這要看他從哪方面考量。他可以選 擇利用當前在野黨士氣高漲的時期發動攻勢，以求一鼓作氣擊倒陷入人事傾軋的國陣；

安華也可以寄望以時間來拖垮國陣，讓國陣因敗選而出現的內鬥分裂，同時讓 人民聯盟領導的5個州政府得以有時間鞏固政權、吸取執政經驗及交出成績，以在來屆大選執政全國。

安華及其領導的公正黨不斷放出風聲，聲稱逾30名執政黨議員準備跳槽，一些人相信公正黨的談話，一些人則認為那只是一種心理戰，為了在國陣內部制造恐慌，達到眾人跳槽的目的。

然而，阿都拉也可以先發制人，通過解散國會來反制，同時不解散州議會，以在大選中再次與安華領導的人民聯盟對決。許多人對此次的大選成績感到震驚，他們只是想教訓國陣，並沒有意願讓在野黨上台執政，如果再次大選，執政5州逾30天頻頻犯錯的人民聯盟是否能夠取得好成績，這是很大的疑問。

人們也認為，人民聯盟可能在國會在巫統反阿都拉派系議員的配合下，對首相阿都拉投不信任票，以把阿都拉拉下台。

阿都拉可以選擇解散國會，也可以選擇卸任，交由國會去決定新首相人選，人民聯盟是否能正如其所願通過取巧的方式奪取中央政權，還是未知數。

政治是瞬息萬變的，就好像今年3月前沒有人會料想到國陣會失去國會三分二議席優勢及雪蘭莪、霹 靂、檳城及吉打州政權，經歷這次大選，人們更相信世間沒有一成不變的事，任何事都是可能的。

也就因為這個道理，善變的政客及沒有是非只有利益的商人開始改 變，一些曾經是親近前朝的商人，今天卻迫不及待的出現在現今權貴的辦事處。為了執政，安華也許應該考慮對他在擔任副首相時所犯的錯，向人民道歉，以消除人 民對他的疑慮。

由於政局動蕩，前景不明朗，投資者目前採取觀望的態度，一些商家也感覺到經濟似乎不如預期，這對國家的發展是考驗，也對極希望能吸引外資的人民聯盟控制的州屬沒有好處。

面對通貨膨脹壓力的人民，更是重重考驗。

http://www.sinchew-i.com/commentary/node/5258


Semua Kandungan dan Semua komen para pembaca pada blog ini bukan pandangan dan pendirian saya dan Saya tidak bertanggungjawab untuknya.

林瑞源‧巫統權爭何時落幕？

巫統黨內權力鬥爭方興未艾，黨主席阿都拉面對“內憂外患”。

對首相不利的是，有越來越多黨領袖不談繼續擁護他擔任首相，而是轉口風支持權力轉移計劃，一些比較厚道的領袖為了黨的傳統，不同意催促和施加壓力，但是黨員是否有耐性？

如果阿都拉獲得兩位副主席的支持，相信可以壓住基層的不滿，由黨選來決定由誰繼續領導，但是原本是首相忠貞支持者的慕尤丁卻扮演反當權的急先鋒角色，而莫哈末阿里也同意權力轉移。

瞭解巫統的人士都知道，阿都拉是否能夠支撐到黨選，關鍵在於各州的主席，如果各州主席聯合納吉舉行新聞發佈會，那就是真正攤牌的時候，就好像1993年巫統黨選前，幾乎所有領袖出席安華領導的“宏願隊伍”召開的新聞發佈會，展示勢力，原任署理主席嘉化峇峇只好黯然引退。

巫統內部演變有各種變數，以下是幾種可能：

一，在各級領袖的表態下，進行權力轉移：儘管首相派系發動報章輿論進行反擊，不過在形勢比人強和眾叛親離的情況下，把權位交給署理主席是黨內傳統做法，譬如東姑阿都拉曼經歷1969年大選失敗後引退。這種安排以目前局勢發展來看，可能性很高。

二，進入黨選程序：反伯拉派系無法達到逼宮的目的，因此就只有通過黨選對決，以基層反應來看，挑戰者應該可以拿到足夠的提名固打，而首相能夠拿到多少個提名將反映他受到基層的支持程度，不能排除他在區部提名過後，自動退選的可能。

假如納吉和慕尤丁結合，而拉菲達等人保持中立，區部提名就可決定選舉結果。

三，黨選勝利或失敗：如果拖到12月中央代表大會，黨將元氣大傷，而選舉只會有兩種結果，不是勝、就是輸。除非阿都拉勝得漂亮，才有能力重新團結黨，不會重蹈1987年黨爭的覆轍。

阿都拉目前已全力反擊，包括對司法進行改革，希望他的行動不會太遲，也期望他有足夠的時間來贏回民眾和黨員的信心。

國家政治必須儘快恢復穩定、改革工作也必須儘早執行，巫統領袖主宰了黨的前途，這場危機何時落幕也考驗他們的智慧。

http://www.sinchew-i.com/commentary/node/5334

Semua Kandungan dan Semua komen para pembaca pada blog ini bukan pandangan dan pendirian saya dan Saya tidak bertanggungjawab untuknya.

孫禮珊‧資訊無法限制

互聯網的出現可說是人類通訊科技的一大革命，它不僅推進了人類史上的通訊技術，更為人類塑造了無疆界世界，使身在不同國度或地區的民眾都能更快速、方便及頻密地交流。

這一切有賴互聯網本身的開放特質，每個人只要有辦法與網絡連接，就能從互聯網下載所需要的資訊，同時也可上載欲與其他網民分享的資訊，包括針對些課題抒發意見與看法。

對於這種開放式的資訊流通，許多人在剛結束的大選前還對互聯網的輿論嗤之以鼻，當中更有高官說“所有的部落客都是騙子”。

過去有些人對新生代及中生代選民通過部落格及論壇網站的嗆聲，不以為意，直到接近投票日時才如夢初醒，但為時已晚；結果成績出爐后，許多之前勝券在握的候選人落得人仰馬翻，這才不得坦承之前忽視了民意，小看了互聯網的影響力。

因此，新聞部長一上任就信誓旦旦要改革隸屬部門管轄的國營電台與電視台，期望與部落客交流、策劃更多尺度比較寬鬆的清談節目及現場直播半小時的國會問答，這一切努力都希望改變人們對電子媒體過去保守的觀念。

或許是基於政治的考量，部長日前卻籲請媒體“適度”採用互聯網，在查閱資料時保持“防範與開放”的態度。這一番言論，著實讓人有些摸不著頭腦，所謂“適度”采用如何詮釋？

就如之前所述，互聯網是個開放式的網絡、是全球性的網絡，發展至今它已演變成另一種民間媒體。 既然是開放式網絡、民間媒體，就表示每個人都能自由地從中獲取資訊，因此要媒體自我設限，“適度”採用反而有裹足不前之意；即使是媒體“適度”採用互聯 網，民眾還是可以獲得未經過濾的資訊。

如果要媒體適度採用互聯網，是因為擔心人民沒有分辨虛實資訊的能力，這未免過度憂慮及低估了人民的智慧。歷史已證明，在越受保護、越封閉的情況下，一個國家或民族只能原地踏步，甚至是不斷倒退。

再說，媒體除了廣播資訊，針對人事物進行平實報導外，也肩負著啟迪民智的社會責任；互聯網上的資訊五花八門，虛實皆有，但限制資訊就如盲人摸象，只能觸摸到事情的某一面向，卻讓人無法瞭解到整個實相。

http://www.sinchew-i.com/commentary/node/5307
Semua Kandungan dan Semua komen para pembaca pada blog ini bukan pandangan dan pendirian saya dan Saya tidak bertanggungjawab untuknya.

鄭梅嬌‧沉重的棒子

國家領導人終究要交出棒子，這端看交棒者的智慧，首相兼巫統主席阿都拉宣佈會交棒，沒有設下交棒時限，還強調不要接班人接下一個爛攤子；但在他交棒之前，必是面對腹背受敵的壓力。

黨內，這邊廂喊著：不要挑起敏感問題，那邊廂又指某某族群是新勢力崛起，一邊熄火，另一邊又添油；黨外有宣示回教國理念，又有爆發力

強勁的公正黨，政壇激起千層浪，政權交棒之際各種叫陣、煽動、敏感的話題紛沓，權力轉移計劃豈會是順利之事？

從獨立至今，國陣從來沒有經歷過本屆大選的慘敗，面對丕變，多數黨員無法接受事實，政黨頓時失去方針，但是選戰的失利，並不是一個人的失責，而是整個黨的每一個成員，是否有盡到服務人民，效忠國家的義務，而不是找幾個替罪羊就可以了事。

與其爭論不休，互扯後腿，各執政成員黨更該檢討許多政策的疏漏與弊端；為何一些國家建設無法落實，為何學校建了3年就塌，為何醫院建了不能用，為何許多給選民的承諾無法實現，為何許多公共建設都貨不對辦。

交棒與接棒，並不是點的交接，而是線與面的交接；執政成員黨之間，是否能互相尊重，尊重 各族政黨代表，一起平心靜氣的為國家謀發展，為百姓謀出路，並確保交給下一屆的是棒子而不是爛攤子，這才是交棒與接棒的原則。而今，吵吵鬧鬧，罵的人另有 意圖，看的人眼花繚亂，卻無益於國家的前進。

富民強國本該是國家第一、種族第二、宗教第三；可是各種叫囂卻只見順序全然倒轉；當政治還在交棒、接棒打轉之際，外資與民生日常生活課題早已被忽略，恐怕是投資的人不敢來，做生意的人爭相走避，屆時損失最大還是整個國家

http://www.sinchew-i.com/commentary/node/5294

Semua Kandungan dan Semua komen para pembaca pada blog ini bukan pandangan dan pendirian saya dan Saya tidak bertanggungjawab untuknya.

曾毓林‧不能避重就輕

回教黨並不可怕，但是回教國理念也並不可愛。

人民聯盟裡頭，華人對行動黨、公正黨都在可接受的範圍內，唯獨對回教黨，依然是採取“可以交個朋友，但不等於可以結為一體”的態度。

回教黨對建立回教國的信念一直沒有放棄，回教黨長老哈侖丁也表明“回教黨一旦奪下中央政權後，就會實行回教刑事法”。

在極力爭取非華族的認同的此刻，哈侖丁的談話，無疑是“倒米”。

回教黨領袖也頻頻在稱“這是長老的個人意見，回教黨當務之急是落實宣言中的福利與關懷服務”。

但瞭解內情的人都應該知道，在回教內，長老的意見是凌駕一切之上，也被視為“某種不可忽視的指示”。

同時，人民聯盟的行動黨、公正黨對這關鍵目標似乎也多數抱著避重就輕的態度，有者甚至直接揚言 “這是回教黨內政，不便過問”。

但是，這是關係到大原則的問題，不是說今天不談，改天就會沒事。真正衷誠的合作，必須在大原則上達到共識，否則，將來碰到 同樣的問題，也還是會吵吵鬧鬧。

寧可先小人後君子，也總好過表面和和氣氣，等到尖銳的問題浮上台面時才來各執一詞，不歡而散。

大選時，選民把票投向反對黨，很大程度上是宣洩對國陣政府的不滿。但是，不滿國陣政府並不等於苟同回教黨，這中間還是有差別的。

公正黨過去一直唾罵巫統搞金錢政府，但這次安華遊說沙巴眾多國會議員跳糟，不懂是否也是五十步笑百步。

回教黨今天說最優先處理的是宣言中的福利與關懷服務，對是否實行回教刑事法避而不談。

很多人說，非回教徒無需害怕回教黨，因為回教黨在吉蘭丹州執政以來，並沒有甚麼值得可怕之處。

但此一時彼一時，回教黨只是在吉蘭丹州執政，自然不敢為所欲為。

如果一旦奪下中央政府政權，掌控全國大局後，會不會變成怪獸，那就很難說了──不要以為回教黨永遠沒有可能奪下中央政權，政海詭譎，經過3月的大選，政壇上已經沒有絕對不可能的事了。

http://www.sinchew-i.com/commentary/node/5282
Semua Kandungan dan Semua komen para pembaca pada blog ini bukan pandangan dan pendirian saya dan Saya tidak bertanggungjawab untuknya.

李愛如‧打破種族藩籬

沙巴大學某華裔講師，新學年踏進講堂，不是介紹課程，而是分享他念大學時第一次走進講堂的經歷：

只見講堂裡的大學生明顯以族群區分而坐。這位講師中小學都在國小和國中受教育，平素往來的都是馬來同胞，因此他站在門口，十分掙扎，最後還是走到“馬來陣營”坐下。

馬來同學對此大為驚訝，華裔同學則竊竊私語，甚至還傳出他是華族“叛徒”的流言。

再看一個真實故事。一個五口之家，父母彷彿做實驗似的，將3個孩子分別送到獨中、國中和國民型中學校受教育。

3個孩子各有建樹，但唯有中小學在所謂“馬來校”唸書的孩子，進入社會後能與他族維持不流於表面的交流。

大馬雖然是多元種族國家，但各族間私底下卻少有交集。不時聽聞政治人物炒作或說關注個別族群的團結問題；可是如何團結全民大問題，卻淹沒在族群權益與待遇的爭議下。

從上述兩則故事，可見人不一定以膚色區分，從小的生活環境與接觸層面，都會影響交友傾向。

如果各族從小互動頻密、從日常接觸中互相瞭解，目前從校園、辦公室到公共場合比比皆是的種族結群現象會相應減少嗎？問題得回到各源流學校的定義，以及未來要走的方向。

雖然各源流學校在文化傳承方面扮演關鍵角色，但卻加深族群分化。大馬國情特殊，華校是華社誓死維護。

除了兩岸三地，大馬華社在文化傳承確實做得比其他國家出色。摒除英化的新加坡不談，歸根咎底，種族比率佔了主要因素。

但以比率優勢爭取的東西，會隨著比率減少而轉為劣勢。所以，華社在注重母語文化的同時，也應釐清華校在這個多元國家的立足點，思考如何打破種族藩籬。

目前的形勢是，各族紛把矛頭指向外，互不信任、成見日深，不見化解跡象。許多人認為，問題癥結在於各源流學校是否獲得公平待遇。且讓我們假設各源流學校獲得公平對待，但那之後呢？各族還是少有交流，種族區分意識依舊強烈，看待問題主觀多於客觀。

政府之前提出的讓各源流學校學生在共同校園內交往的宏願學校，似乎並沒有達到預期效果。要如何既提昇各族交流互動，又化除種族猜忌是一大挑戰。

消除隔膜、淡化種族區分，各方才能更客觀探討其他權益問題。

http://www.sinchew-i.com/commentary/node/5274

Semua Kandungan dan Semua komen para pembaca pada blog ini bukan pandangan dan pendirian saya dan Saya tidak bertanggungjawab untuknya.