2010年12月20日星期一

可怜的我姐

二十多年前,我姐在华小开始了她的教师生涯。 在华小任教了十多年,她凭着好学不倦的精神,就申请大学继续深造。

自马来亚大学毕业后,凭着大学资格与十多年的教学经验,我姐与她大学同学们原以为薪金待遇会被调到合理的幅度。 可是,很遗憾的,这些资深的教师们的待遇福利竟然远不如那些资浅教师,非常不合理。

因此,当她看到了《星洲日报》刊登的,由一些同病相怜的教师们所著的〈至教育部的公开信〉,觉得他们所写的,与我姐和她同学们所遭遇到的相同情况。 由此可见,遭遇到此等困境的资深教师,不在少数。

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

致教育部的公開信

2010-12-15 19:20

教育部執事先生:

眾多在小學服務,具大學資格的教師(DG41),對他們在薪金和升職方面的遭遇十分不滿和失望,而且由來已久,但至今猶未能解決。

要解決問題,就需對症下藥。當然,我們更有需要先瞭解,為甚麼他們感到很不滿,很失望?

其中一些原因如下:

其一,他們是在政府的鼓勵和教育部的批准下去深造,豈知寒窗苦讀多年的結果卻是比不去深造的教師更不如!(薪金更低,且不能升級)既然如此,政府當初為甚麼鼓勵他們去深造?他們難免有被騙,被愚弄的感覺!

其二,他們是在自費,半工半讀,花了許多金錢和時間,以及付出許多犧牲的情況下,歷經千辛萬苦才考獲大學文憑。學成歸來,待遇卻不如中學畢業的教師,情何以堪?早知如此,何必當初?這是誰之過?許多金錢和時間,不是白費了嗎?

他 們默默耕耘,辛勤服務了許久,有些年資超過20年,甚至接近退休。但因為差別待遇,而且年資 更少,資格更低者薪金卻比他們優渥許多,更可升級做他們的上司。將心比心,教師也是人,並不是不食人間煙火,他們也有思想,感受和尊嚴。如此不公和反常, 又一直不受尊重,誰能接受?孰可忍,孰不可忍?(如果造成一些教師心裡不平衡,士氣低落,無心教學,連帶的學生的成績、紀律、校風也受影響,又是誰之 過?)這是其三。

除了薪金更低,他們無論服務多久,資格多高;也不論人品,能力,經驗和各項條件如何皆不能升級 擔任小學正副校長,即使有些空缺多年未補!反觀年級更輕,資格更低,完全沒有經驗者卻可爬頭升級。縱觀世界各國各處,誰能接受如此不合理,不正常的現象? 這不是開倒車,顛倒來做嗎?這樣反常,荒謬的薪金和升級制度怎可繼續沿用?是為其四。

某些官員說在小學服務,具大學資格的教師(DG41DG44)人數需過半,甚至需達70%方能升級,這是甚麼邏輯?升級與否,必須看個人的年資、經驗、人品、學歷、辦事能力等等,這是放之四海皆准,全世界公認和通用的準則,怎麼卻要由人數的多寡來決定?

無 論哪一組別教師,具大學資格(DG4144)或非大學資格者(DGA293234), 並非人人有興趣和意願升級!當局放著某些學校正副校長空缺多年不填補,任由學校行政受影響,一邊卻硬性規定中學畢業生(DGA3234)去填補上述空 缺;另一邊卻令數以萬計資格更高,年資更久,條件更充足者(例如DG41級教師)望穿秋水,同時更喊沒有人才,這不是公然的歧視大學生是甚麼?這不是自相 矛盾,自打嘴巴嗎?

一群教師:黃國能、方君璧、陳拼、溫俊宏、謝林燕、王詩音同啟


马来西亚 教育部的公開信

2010年12月18日星期六

致 马来西亚 教育部的公開信

致教育部的公開信

2010-12-15 19:20

教育部執事先生:

眾多在小學服務,具大學資格的教師(DG41),對他們在薪金和升職方面的遭遇十分不滿和失望,而且由來已久,但至今猶未能解決。

要解決問題,就需對症下藥。當然,我們更有需要先瞭解,為甚麼他們感到很不滿,很失望?

其中一些原因如下:

其一,他們是在政府的鼓勵和教育部的批准下去深造,豈知寒窗苦讀多年的結果卻是比不去深造的教師更不如!(薪金更低,且不能升級)既然如此,政府當初為甚麼鼓勵他們去深造?他們難免有被騙,被愚弄的感覺!

其二,他們是在自費,半工半讀,花了許多金錢和時間,以及付出許多犧牲的情況下,歷經千辛萬苦才考獲大學文憑。學成歸來,待遇卻不如中學畢業的教師,情何以堪?早知如此,何必當初?這是誰之過?許多金錢和時間,不是白費了嗎?

他們默默耕耘,辛勤服務了許久,有些年資超過20年,甚至接近退休。但因為差別待遇,而且年資 更少,資格更低者薪金卻比他們優渥許多,更可升級做他們的上司。將心比心,教師也是人,並不是不食人間煙火,他們也有思想,感受和尊嚴。如此不公和反常, 又一直不受尊重,誰能接受?孰可忍,孰不可忍?(如果造成一些教師心裡不平衡,士氣低落,無心教學,連帶的學生的成績、紀律、校風也受影響,又是誰之 過?)這是其三。

除了薪金更低,他們無論服務多久,資格多高;也不論人品,能力,經驗和各項條件如何皆不能升級 擔任小學正副校長,即使有些空缺多年未補!反觀年級更輕,資格更低,完全沒有經驗者卻可爬頭升級。縱觀世界各國各處,誰能接受如此不合理,不正常的現象? 這不是開倒車,顛倒來做嗎?這樣反常,荒謬的薪金和升級制度怎可繼續沿用?是為其四。

某些官員說在小學服務,具大學資格的教師(DG41/DG44)人數需過半,甚至需達70%方能升級,這是甚麼邏輯?升級與否,必須看個人的年資、經驗、人品、學歷、辦事能力等等,這是放之四海皆准,全世界公認和通用的準則,怎麼卻要由人數的多寡來決定?

無論哪一組別教師,具大學資格(DG41/44)或非大學資格者(DGA29/32/34), 並非人人有興趣和意願升級!當局放著某些學校正副校長空缺多年不填補,任由學校行政受影響,一邊卻硬性規定中學畢業生(DGA32/34)去填補上述空 缺;另一邊卻令數以萬計資格更高,年資更久,條件更充足者(例如DG41級教師)望穿秋水,同時更喊沒有人才,這不是公然的歧視大學生是甚麼?這不是自相 矛盾,自打嘴巴嗎?

一群教師:黃國能、方君璧、陳拼、溫俊宏、謝林燕、王詩音同啟

2010年12月10日星期五

One man’s lie is another man’s fact

It is certainly sound advice that Deputy Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin gave to Malaysian students overseas. History as taught in Malaysian schools in the 1950s and 1960s was very different from the history being taught today.

The history that I learned in the Alice Smith School in Kuala Lumpur starts from 1066. I had to research on my own the history of 55 BC when the Romans under Emperor Claudius unsuccessfully invaded England and were sent packing back to Rome with their tails between their legs. The general who suffered this most humiliating defeat was none other than Julius Caesar himself who later on became Emperor of Rome.

It was not until almost 100 years later that the Romans managed to tame England -- but then only stayed for about 367 years before they decided to call it quits and abandon England’s shores for good.

The Romans could not bear the extremely cold English weather and extremely hot resistance from the Britons who never allowed the Romans one bit of peace. England, of course, was thereafter invaded by many regional powers such as the Vikings and the political boundaries of Great Britain were redrawn many times over those 600 years before the Norman invasion of 1066.

For some time England was ruled by France and there were occasions when the English king spoke only French. In fact, the language of the English court at that time was French and not English.

There is no longer any such thing as an Englishman. The term Englishman is a misnomer. What would you regard as an Englishman? For 2,000 years England had been occupied by one power or another, and at times many powers at the same time. The blood of the Englishman has been ‘contaminated’ by almost every known Caucasian.

In short, the Englishman jati (pure) is a fallacy and does not exist.

That is how I have understood history. And that was what we were taught in school back in the 1950s and 1960s.

Malaysian history, however, starts from 1946, the year Umno was born. And Malaysian students are taught that Umno fought for independence. They are also taught that the British tried to undermine the Raja-Raja Melayu (Malay Rulers) by introducing the Malay Union. In speeches by Umno leaders we are even told that the Rulers ‘sold out’ to the British and if not for Umno, who defended the Rulers, the Malay Rulers would no longer exist today.

Some try to downplay the ‘treacherous act’ of the Rulers by saying that the British tricked the Rulers into agreeing to the Malayan Union and it was Umno who pressured the Rulers to abort the plan. Without Umno the Rulers would have kowtowed to the British and would have lost all their powers.

In short, the Rulers had to be saved from themselves and it was Umno that had saved them.

Yes, there are much lies and spinning, as Muhyiddin said. Malaysians are not being taught real history. They are being taught Umno’s version of history. So what Muhyiddin said is true: Malaysians overseas must be careful of these lies and spins.

But it is the lies and spins of Umno that Malaysians must be careful of. What we are being told is not what really happened. Sure, Umno did send a delegation to meet the British to oppose the Malayan Union. But who were these so-called ‘Umno people’?

They were not the rakyat. The rakyat did not care. They were not concerned. In fact, they were not even aware about what was going on.

Those who went to meet the British were the orang istana or people from the royal court, the palace people. Is it any wonder that they all had Raja or Datuk in front of their names? In fact, Umno was ‘born’ in the palace of the Sultan of Johor. For all intents and purposes it was a ‘royal effort’.

So dispel all this talk about the Rulers selling out to the British and that Umno, a party of the rakyat, saved the Rulers who had agreed to the Malayan Union due to their ignorance. Many of the royalty then were well educated and were more English than the Englishman. I remember my grandfather speaking just like Winston Churchill. How more English than that can you be?

The British, then, were good at what they called ‘gunboat diplomacy’. They ‘persuaded’ foreign leaders to agree to the terms of His Majesty’s government with a gun at the head. Did they not use the same tactics on the Chinese Emperor to gain Hong Kong?

Umno, at that time, were not seeking Merdeka. They only wanted the British to abandon the Malayan Union and opt for a Federation of Malaya, which eventually did happen two years later. It was MCA that first broached the subject of Merdeka.

The British, of course, would not talk to MCA unless the Malays too were in the equation. The MIC at that time did not bother about Merdeka. MIC was a communist party that was more concerned with independence for India. Malaya was not their home. India was.

It was not until the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) stepped up the insurgency -- which resulted in the British declaring the Malayan Emergency -- that the British decided it would be prudent to allow Malaya self-rule. Many would not agree with me, of course, but I would dare say that Chin Peng accelerated Merdeka. If not, Malaya would have gained independence much later than 1957.

In fact, Malaysia too came about because of the Communists. Lee Kuan Yew was one smart cookie. He made a deal with the CPM who swept half the seats in the Singapore elections. This frightened the British who saw Singapore falling to the Communists.

Lee Kuan Yew told the British that the only way to stop the march of the Communists was to give Singapore independence so that, together with Sabah and Sarawak, it could form a new country with Malaya that would be called Malaysia. Singapore, on its own, would fall to the Communists. As part of Malaysia the Communists could be stopped.

So, while Chin Peng accelerated Merdeka, Lee Kuan Yew ‘convinced’ the British to give independence to Singapore so that it could join Malaya to form Malaysia. Of course, Singapore was not really interested in being part of Malaysia. It just wanted independence. And not long after that it left Malaysia to become an independent Republic of Singapore, which was what Lee Kuan Yew really wanted.

Lee Kuan Yew then got rid of the Communists by detaining them all without trial. He had used them to frighten the British and now no longer had any use for them. So he rounded them up and locked them away for a long time, the sneaky bugger.

But are Chin Peng and Lee Kuan Yew mentioned in this context? They were significant players in the creation of Malaya and later, Malaysia. What we read is about Umno this and Umno that. We are told that Malaya gained independence and Malaysia was later created because of Umno.

These are the lies and spins that Malaysians overseas and at home must be wary of. The history you are being taught is not the real history. What I have just related is the real history. But rest assured not a single Umno member would admit this. They are too ashamed to admit it. By admitting this they would be admitting that Umno is not really the hero that they pretend to be.

Barking up the wrong tree

Face it, the New Economic Policy and all this screaming about Ketuanan Melayu is frightening investors. They feel that Malaysia is a time bomb waiting to explode. Many have no doubt that May 13 Version 2 is going to happen. They are just not sure when.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Perfect vehicle

Malaysia is all set to make the quantum leap into the future and realise its goal to emerge as a high-income, sustainable and inclusive nation.

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak said the New Economic Model (NEM) laid out by the National Economic Action Council (NEAC) is the perfect vehicle to make the journey.

“However, it won’t be an overnight panacea that can solve all issues. It represents a journey that all of us — the government, the private sector and the people — must undertake together,” Najib said at the launch of NEM’s concluding report here yesterday.

He said the concluding assessment of the NEM by the NEAC would prepare the government to face head-on the challenges to reform the country’s economy.

“The NEM has clearly presented a case of a burning platform in spite of the fact that it may seem fine on the surface.”

“Of course, there are always sceptics and detractors, but actions and results are the best way to sway them. I want to reaffirm the government’s resolute commitment to see through the transformation of Malaysia to become an advanced nation.”

The concluding report outlined challenges and requirements needed to transform the economy into an advanced nation, added Najib, who is also finance minister.

“The NEAC’s economic assessment has identified many areas where improvements must be made if Malaysia is to escape the middle-income trap. Most of these issues are known to the government.”

He noted that piecemeal attempts to address them had proven ineffective, hence the need for concerted and holistic efforts as represented by the Government Transformation Programme (GTP) and the Economic Transformation Programme (ETP).

Among concerns raised in the report are the dismal level of investment in innovation and research and development (R&D), which falls far short of the amount required for a country aspiring to become an advanced nation.

Najib said the country’s outdated business regulations and rules had not created a conducive environment to attract investment.

Many of the manufacturing businesses remained inward-looking, used low-cost business models and distinct lack of drive and incentives to move up the technological ladder.

The prime minister said there were four thrusts under the NEM, with the first three dealing with accelerating growth, while the fourth focused on inclusiveness and social cohesion.

Among the initiatives are the government’s plan to reform insolvency laws, which include relief provisions for companies and individuals with financial problems.

On the private sector, Najib said one of the NEM’s goals was to strengthen Malaysian firms’ capacity to make them competitive internationally and succeed independently.

“Their viability depends solely on market terms, without subsidy and with the adherence to international standards and best practices. Without a doubt, companies will have to restructure their operations and business models accordingly.”

In the coming months, Najib said the government would expedite implementation of the ETP, with the Performance Management and Delivery Unit keeping track of the progress. -- The New Straits Times

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

My classmates went into banks, worked in state economic development corporations, became stockbrokers, and so on. I never served in any of the financial services. I went into motor engineering and did a stint in Volkswagen as an apprentice. My background is in the motor industry so I am probably the least qualified to speak about the economy. But do you really need to go to Harvard to understand the economy?

Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak talks about the New Economic Model (NEM) as charted by the National Economic Action Council (NEAC). He talks about the need for concerted and holistic efforts as represented by the Government Transformation Programme (GTP) and the Economic Transformation Programme (ETP). He promises to transform Malaysia into an advanced nation. He reveals Malaysia’s goal to emerge as a high-income, sustainable and inclusive nation.

These are big words. But what do they all mean? How is he going to achieve all this?

Najib said there were four thrusts under the NEM, with the first three dealing with accelerating growth, while the fourth focused on inclusiveness and social cohesion.

Do any of us understand what this means?

The above statement sounds like it was drafted by an economist. Economists always say things like sustainable growth, cautiously optimistic, and so on, which till today I don’t really know what they mean. But they certainly sound impressive, nevertheless. The fact that we don’t know what they mean is probably why they sound impressive.

Solving Malaysia’s economic problems is not merely about pouring more money into the system. If the life raft is leaking then pumping air into it will not keep it afloat. How long can you keep pumping air into a punctured dingy and hope to keep it afloat? Finally it will sink and you will drown.

You need to plug the leaks first. And in Malaysia’s case there are numerous leaks. Unless the leaks are plugged, more money pumped into the system just means more money down the drain.

In the mid-1980s, when the world-wide recession hit, Malaysia under Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad scaled down all the projects and many that were not crucial were put on hold. Singapore went the other way. Singapore accelerated their projects and brought forward projects planned for the future. Singapore pumped more money into the economy to ride out the mid-1980s recession.

But then Singapore could do this because it had tons of reserves. Malaysia did not. And the money Singapore spent went into projects, not get diverted into the pockets of its leaders and disappear like in Malaysia. So, what worked for Singapore would not have worked for Malaysia. Malaysia, therefore, had to do the opposite of what Singapore did.

The first thing Najib has to do is to plug the leaks. If the money spent is misused or diverted then only a portion of it would go into the economy. They need to spend RM200 billion to see less than RM100 billion in development.

The other problem is the confidence level of investors. Malaysia’s reputation has been shot big time. Foreigners do not have confidence in Malaysia. The corruption level is very high. Malaysia’s policies are confusing. The government flip-flops and is inconsistent in its policies. Foreign investors do not know whether they are coming or going when dealing with Malaysia.

There are many things fundamentally wrong with Malaysia. Malaysia practices institutionalised racism. No doubt racism exists in every country but only in Malaysia is racism government-sponsored.

I can go on and on but you have probably already heard whatever I can say about the matter. In short, Malaysia is suffering from a crisis of confidence. And unless Najib first solves this crisis then all other problems can never be solved.

The perception people have of a country is most crucial. And the perception they have of Malaysia is very bad. If it is just about making money then there are many neighbouring countries where they can make money. Malaysia is not the only or best place to make money.

Why talk about attracting foreign investors when you can’t even stop fellow Malaysians from transferring their investments overseas? Over the last 20 or 30 years many Malaysians have been winding down their investments in Malaysia and have been transferring them to other countries. And whatever you announce is not going to make them bring their money back to Malaysia.

Face it, the New Economic Policy and all this screaming about Ketuanan Melayu is frightening investors. They feel that Malaysia is a time bomb waiting to explode. Many have no doubt that May 13 Version 2 is going to happen. They are just not sure when.

Who will invest in a country that is about to explode? And if you say that this will never happen, the screams from PERKASA and Umno give the impression that it is inevitable.

Najib said there were four thrusts under the NEM, with the first three dealing with accelerating growth, while the fourth focused on inclusiveness and social cohesion.

How do you accelerate growth? By spending more money? Is that all it takes? And what the hell does ‘inclusiveness and social cohesion’ mean? Can I say I am ‘cautiously optimistic’ that this can be achieved?

No, impressive slogans and big words will not achieve it. It must first start from the political will. Is there a political will, as Najib says, “to transform Malaysia to become an advanced nation with a goal to emerge as a high-income, sustainable and inclusive nation”? How the hell is he going to do this?

How brave and determined is Najib? For example, is he prepared to set up an Ombudsman and invite members from the civil society movements to participate in it?

First, clean up corruption. And if Najib is prepared to set up an Ombudsman to clean up the country, many from the civil society movements will volunteer to serve in it.

But the Ombudsman must be autonomous. There should be no political interference. The final authority to decide on prosecution should not be the Attorney-General. The judiciary should also be free to initiate legal proceedings if it sees fit like in countries such as India or Pakistan where even the top leaders can be brought to book.

Is Najib brave enough to do this? As long as the MACC is a barking dog with no bite and no criminal can be prosecuted without the Attorney-General’s say-so then expect Malaysia’s crisis of confidence to continue. And as long as Malaysia still suffers from a crisis of confidence the economy will never flourish.

People do not trust the Malaysian government. That is the bottom line. And no amount of money or lovely slogans can change this perception.

2010年11月26日星期五

Unfair to deny Anwar’s defence access to documents, says Bar Council

Malaysia

Unfair to deny Anwar’s defence access to documents, says Bar Council

November 25, 2010
KUALA LUMPUR, Nov 25 — The Bar Council has called the courts’ refusal to allow Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim access to documents in his Sodomy II trial a violation of his right to a fair trial.

Recently, the High Court here denied the Opposition Leader access to three Hospital Kuala Lumpur (HKL) doctors’ medical notes, although the court subsequently granted him access yesterday to a proforma report prepared by HKL forensic pathologist Dr Siew Sheue Feng.

A proforma report is a form or a list prepared by a doctor before performing an examination on a patient.

In January, the Federal Court had also denied Anwar access to key documents he sought to prepare his defence, and ruled that he was only entitled to documents and materials related to the charge that had already been provided to him.

“Some of these recent court decisions...have been myopic and regrettably regressive,” said Bar Council president Ragunath Kesavan in a statement today.

“They have in fact whittled down the strength of this vital tenet, rendering it meaningless and subverting the accused person’s right to a fair trial,” he added, referring to section 51A of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) that covers the production of documents and information in a trial.

Ragunath pointed out that section 51A of the CPC was meant to reduce inequalities between the prosecution and the defence.

“We believe that, in enacting section 51A of the Criminal Procedure Code to expand and strengthen the principle governing production of documents, the government made plain its intention to level the playing field between the prosecution and the defence, and to increase

transparency and fairness in the country’s criminal justice system,” he said.

Among the documents that the Federal Court had refused Anwar were chemist reports, medical notes, CCTV recordings, DNA samples, witness statements, and a witness list.

Ragunath pointed out that it was crucial for the prosecution to fully disclose information to all parties so that a judge could make an informed decision.

“It is the responsibility of all parties, including the judge, to ensure that the prosecution complies with full disclosure in terms of the information provided to the parties involved and produced in court,” he said.

“Only when all these elements are present can the judge make an informed decision on the credibility of the witnesses, and the weight to be given to their testimony,” he added.

Ragunath claimed that refusal to produce documents or information would mar public perception of the criminal justice system.

“Non-production of any documents and information merely gives rise to the perception, in the public mind, of a cover-up and would surely erode public confidence in the criminal justice system,” he added.

Anwar, the 62-year-old PKR de facto leader, is currently facing sodomy charges for the second time in his life.

The former deputy prime minister is charged with sodomising Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan at Unit 11-5-1 of the Desa Damansara Condominium in Jalan Setiakasih, Bukit Damansara here between 3.01pm and 4.30pm on June 26, 2008.

Anwar has denied the charge, describing it as “evil, frivolous lies by those in power” when the charge was read out to him. He is charged under section 377B of the Penal Code and can be sentenced to a maximum of 20 years’ jail and whipping upon conviction.

The trial is taking place 18 months after Anwar was charged in court in August 2008.

He was charged with sodomy and corruption in 1998 after he was sacked from the Cabinet and was later convicted and jailed for both offences.

He was freed in September 2004 and later resurrected his political career by winning back his Permatang Pauh parliamentary seat in a by-election in 2008, which had been held in the interim by his wife.

He had two years ago led the loose opposition pact of PKR, DAP and PAS to a historic sweep of five states and 82 parliamentary seats in Election 2008.

“The Malaysian Bar urges the court to exercise its discretion...to preserve the rights of accused persons and in the interest of justice,” said Ragunath today.

“This concern is relevant not only to the Anwar Ibrahim case, but is applicable to the entire criminal justice system,” he added.


http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/unfair-to-deny-anwars-defence-access-to-documents-says-bar-council/

2010年11月22日星期一

政府力阻柔佛千年古城浮面 为权力不惜篡改历史

政府力阻柔佛千年古城浮面 为权力不惜篡改历史

时间:2010-11-22 16:16:05 来源:本报报道 作者:记者
Share72


(吉隆坡22日讯)原本和平进行的《残暴的内安法令下50年系列活动》昨日在光大大道举办首场讲座会时,遭一批由光大店商公会副主席甘尼的及巫青团的带领下的大约50人进行闹场。

著名博客MarGeeMar表示,这群示威者有被邀请参与讲座,但是他们却不肯,反而选择以不适当的方式来恐吓出席者,虽然这群示威者并没有准证,但是警方再次袖手旁观。

“这就是由巫统及国阵政权所制造出来的制度化种族主义,目的就是要捍倒受欢迎的槟州民联政府。这只会为回教蒙上污名,因为内安法令与回教教义是有冲突的,但是巫统及国阵却依然利用这种方式来阻碍反对党,让执政党可以继续掌权。”

柔佛州千年古城推翻国阵塑造的历史

MarGeeMar表示,巫统及国阵政权为了制造马来人特权而刻意更改历史的做法是错误的,因为在柔佛州出现的千年古城“Kota Gelanggi”就推翻了国阵的说法,但是这项发现却被政府掩盖着。

“Kota Gelanggi会不会比婆罗浮屠(Borobudur)和吴哥窟(Angkor Wat)更早存在?如果是真的话,那么马来人的历史就要被推翻了。”

根据博客网《National Express Malaysia》的博文指出,Kota Gelanggi这个被列为马来半岛最早期的文明的新闻会完全被封锁是因为这个古城的文化是佛教。

政府极力阻止Kota Gelanggi历史曝光

“这个记载着Srivijaya王朝和其佛教文化高峰的古迹曾经轰动一时,却被静悄悄地停止研究,主要原因是这个发现足以推翻马六甲王朝,一个500年后才成立的回教国为半岛最早文明的记载。”

“ 我在最近的讲座会中遇见了Lee Kam Hing教授, 一位新加坡马来亚大学的前历史博士,如今是 《星报》出版社编辑研究主任,他告诉我说他一直都在尽力的宣传Kota Gelanggi,可惜都被政府阻止。很明显地,政府不想让这个历史发现曝光,因为他们要后代深信半岛的历史是从公元1400的马六甲王朝开始。更甚的 是,他们也将历史改写,将拜里米苏拉(Parameswara)记载为信奉回教的马来人。事实上,拜里米苏拉是一名印度王子。”

“回顾历史, 希特勒的公关经理曾经说过:如果你不停重复一个谎言,这个谎言也会变成一个事实。因此,政府消灭了这位著名的马六甲王子是来自印度王朝Sri Vijaya的参考资料,突然之间,我们的博物馆及学校课本都称拜里米苏拉为一名马来王子了。”

“其实,我们的国家由哪一个种族控制政权都是次要的,不可原谅的是为了得到权力而私自更改历史记载的行为。就算一个人改信其他宗教,也该变不了一个人的原籍。拜里米苏拉很可能就是巫统马来人特权思维的始源。”

历史清楚记载拜里米苏拉是印度人

“ 如果真的如此,那么马来人特权的说法根本就不存在。马六甲王族拥有的是印度血统,不是马来血统。至于拜里米苏拉是一位来自印度的印度王子的记载也并非什么 秘密。历史很清楚地记载,拜里米苏拉不曾改信回教。他是一位从苏门答腊的巨港(Palembang)逃离出来的兴都教徒,于公元1400年发现马六甲。改 信回教的是之后的 斯里马哈拉惹(Sri Maharaja),他也是将马六甲法庭改为回教法庭的人,并于公元1435年后,将自己的封号改为苏丹莫哈末沙(Sultan Muhammad Shah)。”

“历史上最出名的印度国王是Raja Chola和他的儿子Rajendra Chola。他们于公元1000年占领了泰国南部、吉打、霹雳、柔佛和苏门答腊,并不是马来国王Raja Chulan,可悲的是马来西亚的年轻一代都被教导了。”

“我们被误导印度人和华人是在1850年才以粗工、农夫、采矿工人的身份踏入这个国家的土地上。”


http://www.therocknews.com/dama/local/21649.html

Rewriting History: Kota Gelanggi (the lost city)..

Rewriting History: Kota Gelanggi (the lost city)..

A small piece of History for our future generation.. Why Kota Gelanggi (lost city) touted as earliest civilization in Malay Peninsula news were banned as they were Buddhist The Johor find of 2005 which was quietly dropped was none other than Kota Gelanggi lost city reflecting Srivijaya and its Buddhist splendour.

But they deliberately disregarded it because that would have sidelined Malacca Empire and Islam which was smaller and came some 500 years later. I met Dr Lee Kam Hing, a former History prof at MU in Singapore recently at a seminar. Dr Lee, who is now Star research director, told me he was
trying his best to highlight Kota Gelanggi, but that the govt killed it off. This is clearly another case to cover up the real history of Malaya and fool the younger generations into believing that our history only began from Malacca

1400.. Not only that, they try to show Parameswara as Malay and Muslim, but actually he was Hindu! If one were to condemn these UMNO scumbags on how they distort history, it will never end....the condemnations will more than cover 10 PhD thesis!

A small piece of History for our future generation Hitler's public relations manager, Goebbels, once said, 'If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth.'

Once again our government wiped out any references to a famous Melaka prince as being Hindu and
belonging to the powerful Hindu empire Sri Vijaya.

So all of a sudden our museums, school text-books etc. all refer to Parameswara as a Malay prince.
What race ruled or did not rule is besides the point. What is important is not butchering history to create your own truths. You cannot change your race even if you convert - Parameswara could have been responsible for Umno's proud heritage of ' Ketuanan Melayu '.

If this is what it is based on, there is no ' Ketuanan Melayu '. The lineage of Melaka Sultans are Indians, not Malays. It is no secret that Parameswara was an Indian and a Hindu prince. It is clear from records that Parameswara never converted to Islam. He was an Indian Hindu who fled Palembang in Sumatra to eventually found Melaka circa 1400 AD. It was Sri Maharaja who converted himself and the court of Melaka to Islam, and as a result took on the name of
Sultan Muhammad Shah sometime after 1435.

The most famous of Indian Hindu Kings were Raja Chola and his son Rajendra Chola who invaded Southern Thailand, Kedah, Perak, Johor and Sumatra about 1000 AD. This is Raja-raja Chola - the Indian/Hindu kings and not Raja Chulan - a Malay king. But what is really sad is that our children are
taught as though Malaysian history suddenly began in 1400 with an Islamic Melaka. We are led to believe that the Indians and Chinese first arrived on the shores of Malaysia in about 1850 as desperate indentured labourers, farmers and miners . Nothing could be further from the truth.

The cultural influences of India in particular, and China, in South East Asia span over 2,000 years,
starting with the arrival from India of the Brahmanical prince/scholar - Aji Saka in Java in AD78, through to Vietnam, Cambodia (Indo China), Thailand,Burma, Indonesia, Bali, Borneo, Brunei and beyond.

The findings at Bujang Valley speak of an ancient Indian/Hindu presence in Kedah. There were Chinese settlements in Pahang and Kelantan around the 13th-14th century and in 12th century in Singapore. The early Brunei Sultanate had a Chinese Queen. One need not ponder at length the implications of Angkor Wat and Borobudur or that 40%-50% of Bahasa Malaysia comprises Sanskrit/Tamil words.

To illustrate, some of these word are :
bumi = boomi
putra = putran

raja = rajah
desa = thesam
syakti = sakthi
kolam = kulam
bahaya = abahya
jaya = jeya
maha = maha
aneka = aneha
nadi = naadi
kedai = kadai
mahligai = maaligai
mantra = manthrum
tandas = sandas
(This list can go on)
An extremely important archeological find that pointed to one of the greatest empires in history

- the Raja Cholan empire that ruled from the Maldives through India, Sri Lanka and right down to South East Asia found deep in the jungles of Johor a few years ago and made headlines in the mainstream newspapers in 2005, suddenly disappeared from the news…..

The time has arrived for us to record our history as the facts tell us and not as we would like to wish it.

The truth will never hurt anyone. Lies, always will .


http://national-express-malaysia.blogspot.com/2010/01/rewriting-history-kota-gelanggi-lost.html

逐鹿问鼎∶大马组织性犯罪集团∶条条大路通布城

逐鹿问鼎∶大马组织性犯罪集团∶条条大路通布城

出处∶Malaysia Today
原题∶The Corridors Of Power∶Malaysia’s organised crime syndicate: all roads lead to Putrajaya
作者∶拉惹柏特拉
发表日期∶03-06-07
翻译∶CC LIEW


在欧洲,有一句老话叫:「条条大路通罗马」,在马来西亚,他们会说「条条大路通布城」。这个说法有根据吗?是真的还是假的?《今日大马》决定把答案给找出 来,至少了解一下这些欣欣向荣的高利润组织性犯罪活动,包括卖淫(尤其是中国大陆女郎)、毒品(四种设计的毒品)和非法搏栾活动(万字票和角子机)的相互 关系。

在2007年5月14日,反贪污局(Anti-Corruption Agency,ACA)新上任的总监阿末赛益(Ahmad Said Hamdan)以接替因为贪污丑闻而被迫退休的前总监袓基菲里(Zulkipli Mat Noor)的职位。袓基菲里因为涉嫌贪污和性丑闻被迫提早退休。这并不是不寻常的事件,在马来西亚,政府首脑在性或是贪污丑闻中被迫退休是常有的事。实际 上,今天如果一位马来西亚政府高官在退休后两袖清风的话反而让人觉得很可疑,这种少数的清廉正直的人都会被民众所怀念。

等等!也许我应该再说明一次:「实际上,今天如果一位马来西亚政府高官在退休后两袖清风的话反而让人觉得很可疑,这种少数的清廉正直的人都会被民众所怀 念。」是的!这就是关键字——『今天』。因为在过去这种现象很普遍,那些混球和人渣在马来西亚公务员中只是占很少的部分,大部分公务员还是非常的有教养 的,因此『辞职谢罪』是一种很普遍的规范。

全国总警长慕沙哈山(Musa Hassan)被誉为『清廉先生』(Mister Clean),这个称号出自反贪污局总监阿末赛益的口。反贪污局和警队都是在首相阿都拉的关系下。更加陪衬的是,他们两任的上司也被誉为『清廉先生』,当 然后者的这个外号是前首相马哈迪胡乱给他取的。

『清廉先生』这个外号用在慕沙哈山身上可以说是当之无愧的,因为他对袓基菲里的贪污和性丑闻展开了调查工作。照道理,应该是反贪污局调查警方才对,可是这 次倒过来了。警方向这个部门的头目张开调查,而这个部门本来就是抓贪污的。就说这条摇尾狗吧!为了更进一步加强这个『清廉先生』的形象,警方也开始调查他 们自己的副部长。在马来西亚,部长就是『神』,是否『秉公处理』能附加在这些『神』身上呢?答案是肯定的,他们在这个事件上就办到了这一点。这应该能够把 这些巫统政客给抓拿归案,再次的证明给大家看到底是谁在管理这个国家。

我们已经有了一位反贪污局『清廉先生』总监、一位『清廉先生』全国总警长还有一位『清廉先生』首相。虽然这些『清廉先生』已经开始在动作,可是目前的社会 局势还是需要一个非常大的关注。为何我们的犯罪率在飙升?这里我们不是在说摩托车偷窃案,或是手提袋掠夺案,更不是说发生在巴士上的扒窃案,我们是在说组 织性的犯罪活动。

我所说的组织性犯罪集团,包括包括卖淫(尤其是中国大陆女郎)、毒品(四种设计的毒品)和非法搏栾活动(万字票和角子机)。这些非法活动在慕沙哈山上任后 变得更加猖狂。这是否仅仅是个巧合,又或是说这些人借着警队的『内乱』,乘机大张旗鼓,以便在警队在新政府的重组前搜刮一笔呢?

看来目前有超过120名警员已经被调职,这个大动作被视为慕沙哈山企图在清算整个警队,以提高整个团队的效率。干得好!慕沙哈山。可是批评慕沙哈山的人却 不认为是这么一回事,他们声称慕沙哈山只是在铲除旧势力,以便把自己人安排在这些重要的职位上。故事通常都有两面性,要了解究竟几乎是非常难的,除非警队 中有人愿意出来敲锣打鼓的把里面的故事给爆料。

无论如何,无论这个大清算是好是坏,也只是停留在谈论阶段吧了。可是唯一非常清楚,而不是至于理论的就是「组织性犯罪集团」这件事。这些集团起初发迹于柔佛,过后逐渐的往北移,在占据了马六甲、森美兰、雪兰莪,以及巴生谷这个金矿后,目前已经在霹雳巩固了他们的势力。

根据黑道人士的说法,这个组织性犯罪集团的头目名字叫『BK陈』(BK Tan)※。我们在《今日大马》曾经说过,这些黑帮老大最糟糕的地方就是他们非常喜欢炫耀。他们几乎无法自拔的到处去跟人说自己是多么的『有办法』,就包 括夜总会的公关小姐和招待都知道这些事。他们也有超乎常人的自大狂,尤其是最爱被『加封』。《新海峡时报》在2003年11月14日的一篇报道就有提到马 来西亚有10个州属在出售『拿督』衔头。该报道是这样说的:
※陈文强(Tan Boon Kiong,BK Tan)

「很多商人说他们愿意付出五万令吉购买『拿督』衔头,一些人更加愿意以十五万令吉或是更高的价格购买那些更加显赫的头衔。他们希望通过这些衔头可以让他们 在生意上的地位更高。令人关注的是在近几年来,一些收封的拿督甚至不会国语或是英语。一些拿督在犯罪活动中被捕,据称这些拿督都有涉入华人帮派。这使得封 衔的价值已经变质。」

常言道:「升官发财」,起初想发财,发了财就想买官。就连一些混球和人渣(用肮脏手段)赚到肮脏钱后,也想要获得社会人士的『尊敬』。他们所用的手法就是通过收买『拿督』衔头,十五万令吉对这些人又算得了什么?这笔钱还不到他们操作淫窟、地下赌场和毒品集团一天的收入呢!

『BK陈』到处去和认识的人说他多么的『有办法』。他会吹嘘他是如何的把全国总警长玩弄在手掌心,他会和人说他可以在全国总警长家进出自如。他能够对那些 听得如痴如醉的听众们保证,他有调换警官的权力,甚至是警区主任(OCPD)。如果哪一个警区主任不愿意合作的话,『BK陈』对那些听他吹嘘听出耳油的听 众们说:他能够担保这些警区主任将会在24小时内被调走。如果还有谁任旧怀疑他的说法的话,他会大声的唬叫:「警察部队就是我管的!」

当然大家都在猜想,他是说真的还是在吹牛。很肯定是没人敢打个电话去和全国总警长确认那些暗窟、地下赌场和毒枭的说法到底是不是真的。如果「BK陈」可以 明目张胆的在全国搞他的「生意」的话,他们还需要去确认这个说法吗?虽然他是在干些地下勾当,可是却一点也不想是在干这一行的人,因为他竟然四处招摇他和 全国总警长的关系,就只差没有穿上一件「总警长是我的人」标语的衬衫吧了!很肯定的总警长也应该知道『BK陈』的大嘴巴,可是最大的疑问是为何总警长可以 容忍自己的名誉这样子被他糟蹋呢?又或者是没人敢把『BK陈』『出卖』他的名字的事情告诉总警长?又或者是,会不会……不!……不可能会有这种事!

『BK陈』的第二把交椅是林(Lim Een Hong),他是集团中的执行者,以确保所有『规矩』都有在正确运作。柔佛州的生意是由吴清宝(Goh Cheng Poh)打理,他的绰号叫『登姑』(Tengku)。那些调配好的毒品通过新山的『夜来香迪斯哥夜总会』(Platinum Disco)出售,而那些妓女大部分都是由中国大陆『进口』。至于地下博栾网络不只是限制于新山,也伸延到了麻坡(Muar)、巴株巴辖(Batu Pahat)、居銮(Kluang)、笨珍(Pontian)还有哥打丁宜(Kota Tinggi)。在柔佛的每个市镇都能够看到他们的地下万字票厂和角子机。

『登姑』也和『BK陈』没有两样爱吹嘘。他自夸自己是如何安排总警长去把整个柔佛的竞争者的生意给关掉的,以达到垄断整个市场的目的。『登姑』也提起有一 位名叫拉欣加化(Dato Rahim Jaafar)※的警官因为拒绝和他合作而被总警长调出柔佛的事。这些黑道老板应该学会把嘴巴给关紧。即使是真的人们也不该轻易的相信,更何况这些也许都 是吹牛呢?
※拉欣加化(Dato Rahim Jaafar)当时是柔佛州刑事调查局总监

马六甲的『生意』是由一位名叫『吉米』(Jimmy)的人负责,就像柔佛的黑帮一样,也是一样从事淫业、毒品和地下赌场的活动。他们的主要销售点是在福臨 門Red Square KTV和Joker nightspots。这些地下赌博活动包括万字票和角子机,我们记住,这些地下万字票和角子机的收入远远的比云顶高原赌场还要高,更别提他们收入都是没 有缴税的。

森美兰州的『生意』集中在Taman NST,而这里的头子全名不祥,只知道他叫『Y2K』。吉隆坡是由一位『Ah Sek』的人士领导,巴生则是『Sor Hon Kia』。你可以随意的在Red Square、Aloha、Kelab De Macau、Deluxe等等地点公开购买毒品和找小龙女拉皮条。这些都是有执照的合法夜店,可是所有形式的非法交易都是公开在台上交易的,不是台下。

预估在今年年尾,霹雳州的运作也将开发完成,过后这组织性犯罪集团就会移师到槟城。到了时整个网络将会完成,卖淫、地下万字票、老虎机和合成毒品的生意将 会有一个全国性的集团控制。当然私人小企业还是会继续存在的,就和其他的行业一样。可是他们将会逐步的被排挤出局,他们会被「鼓励」售卖给这些组织性犯罪 集团,否则他们将会遭受报复。其中有两个头子因为反抗而最终得逃到中国大陆去,不敢再回来马来西亚,当然他们的地盘也就这样给这组织性犯罪集团给吞没了。

马来西亚从来也没有脱离过华人黑社会和组织性犯罪组织,可是却没有见过像目前这样有组织的情况。令人惊讶的是华人黑社会竟然可以在警方的耳目下如此快速的 蔓延。警方内部指出内情,他们说这种情况不可能会发生,除非在内部有人在和这些人勾结,直接上所有的警察都涉及其中,如果看来只有一些人站出来大喊大叫, 说国内安全已经失控的话,可未必是这样了。

一些警官愿意在问起的时候站出来指证这件事,可是问题是没有人问他们,而且也没有人自愿出来除非有人先问起。一名警方的高级官员曾经给阿都拉写了一封信, 揭露整个活动的详细内情以及幕后人是中的黑白两道人物。在这封给首相的告密信中,一些响当当的大人物的名字都有在里头,如果不是亲眼看过这封信,人们是绝 对不会相信的。反贪污局后来很像是有根据信中的引述做了调查,而且也确认了都是事实,可是想当然的,过后事情就这样不了了知了。

令人感到困惑的是,即使这件事(即是给首相写的这份信件,这封信已经被反贪污委员所证实)已经被揭发,可是却没见当局对这件事做过了什么。一些人怀疑首相 很可能就连这封信也没见过,因为阿都拉从坏消息中被『隔离』和『孤立』,他只被允许听到好新闻,这是众所周知的秘密。是否一些在首相署办公室的人士,也许 是那些坐在四楼的人士不让阿都拉知道真相呢?嗯……我们是否已经发现到了布特拉再也和华人黑社会集团之间的联系呢?这很肯定的令人大吃一惊。

好的!假设首相并没有被及时告知国内发生的事,很肯定的,他的很多部长们,比方说内政部长一定知道其中的所有内情,他应该采取一些形式上的动作,或者至少通知阿都拉目前正在发生的事。

阿都拉的副内政部长佐哈里(Johari Baharum)曾经因为接受了五百五十万令吉的贿赂,以便释放因为地下赌场、妓院和毒品网络而被扣留的黑帮老大,可是最终佐哈里却洗脱了嫌疑,看来警方 错误的扣留了黑帮老大,或是没有根据正确的程序进行扣留,于是佐哈里在毫无选择之下签字并释放了他,实际上,如果这个案件被带上法庭的话,整件事将会被 『曝光』。但是反贪污局在当时并还没有宣布他已经被赦免,即使佐哈里挑战反贪污局说,如果他们找到任何证据,尽管公开宣布。为什么反贪污局撤回了他们的宣 布,不帮助佐哈里洗脱他在这宗案件中的嫌疑呢?这是另外一个谜。

是否佐哈里对华人黑社会组织毫不知情呢?每个人都在谈论着,甚至就连许多警官都在议论纷纷。纸已经包不住火,佐哈里为何不做点事来补救呢?是否发起一项调查把事情追根究底是这样的困难呢?很肯定的,无论千山万水,要把罪犯绳之以法并不是这样的困难。

这令人不禁的想起,佐哈里是否已经在祖基菲(Zulkipli)事件中吸取了教训呢?佐哈里曾经看过『以下犯上』的事,至高无上的反贪污局头目理应调查的 人士竟然反过来将他拉倒,佐哈里也几乎遭受同样的命运,可是却很幸运的死里逃生。一个仅有一篇文章的网站就足以让他下台,而这个网站的设立看来就只是为了 影射他的贪污罪行,它这个目的仅此而已。

佐哈里是否患了『视若无睹』症候群呢?当然。如果知道谁是他的米饭帮主的话,当然也不能怪他了。常言道:『一朝被蛇咬,十年怕井绳』①,把警方给『洗』一 次就已经足够,可是如果佐哈里可以做些小动作的话那还好,可是他却选择什么也不做,这导致事情变得更糟。他现在是前无去路,后有来兵。如果他动作的话,他 就只有死路一条,如果他什么也不做的话,他会被人用手指指着说他是华人黑帮组织的卧底。这将会使他看来更加的像个犯罪者,到时他被人指责包庇并在无审讯的 情况下释放黑帮头子更是跳进黄河也洗不清了。马来人形容这种局面叫『吞下去死娘,吐出来死爹』②。
①英文谚语:『当被咬过一次后,下次懂得闪避了』Once bitten, twice shy。等同谚语『一朝被蛇咬,十年怕井绳』
②马来谚语:『吞下去死娘,吐出来死爹』(Telan mati emak, ludah mati bapak),等同成语『左右为难』


佐哈里也许已经洗脱了罪名,反贪污局也已经还给了他一个清白,可是以今天在国内的情况来看,这不过是九牛一毛。娼妓、非法赌博和贩毒集团显然的在国内如入 无人之地,这只能在那些高官允许之下才可能发生的。阿都拉以迅耳不及的速度表示自己是清白的,如果人们开始指责阿都拉是妓院、非法赌场和毒品网络的保护人 和受惠者的话,这将会破坏他作为『文明回教』的发起人和『宗教导师』的形象和声望。

实际上,阿都拉和佐哈里两人的名誉正在赌注中,他们是否意识到横扫全国的组织性犯罪集团呢?他们是否直到现在还充耳不闻呢?又或者是,他们是幕后的操纵 人?如果他们不是背后的操纵人,也对此一无所知的话,那好!现在他们都知道了。今天,《今日大马》就把正在发生的事揭发出来了,我们可否看到一些行动呢? 如果『文明回教』的意思就是当权者的脚下到处都是卖淫、非法赌场和毒品乱窜的话,那是极度可悲的。

***********************************************
英国广播电台自从2005年九月二十日起,播放了一个系列的专题节目,名叫【谁在掌管你的世界?】。乔纳森•肯特(Jonathan Kent)撰写了一篇【与大马恶名昭彰黑帮的会面】讲述了马来西亚恶名昭彰的黑帮。

在我试图挖掘更多有关黑帮的故事前,我一开始就拟出了明确的规矩,我不要特定的内容,我不要细节,当然,我不要任何人的名字,我只是要知道这些黑帮是如何 运作的。我不知道阿兴(Ah Hing)的真正名字,可是我知道他将走马上任,成为一名『大哥』(tai ko)(帮会成员对他们老板的称呼),这个黑帮活跃于北马一个小镇。

我们挑选了一家旧店屋的一间房间作为见面的地点。阿兴就像一般大马华裔中的就业人士,他穿金戴银,脚下是双俗不可耐的皮鞋,头上是尖刺般的头发,身上充满刺青。

「我们售卖迷幻药,这是我和我的朋友讨生活的方式」他说,「我们也带女孩子去卖淫,可是迷幻药比较容易,因为通常政府不会找我们麻烦。」

这黑帮和大马其他的犯罪组织一样,他们都涉及了不同的勾当,有些甚至走私含有鸦片成分的咳嗽药水。在大马,毒品贩卖的惩罚是死刑。吊刑执行官的薪金在今年 年初被调整了,政府对这个课题是很重视的。卖淫活动比较容易避过警方的注意,同样的还有高利贷以及制造和售卖赝品。马来西亚被认为是世界上最大的盗版光碟 生产地。

可是,阿兴拉皮条和售卖摇头丸,这些帮派必须花费七百五十美元至两千美元在购买一个女子,他们就像畜生一样被买卖,而皮条客要的是回本。「这些女子知道他 们必须工作,以偿还我们买下她们时的肉金」阿兴表示「我们也有发现一些女子不愿意工作,我们将他们关起来,让她们尝尝苦头,直到她们愿意工作为止。」

这些帮派的渊源可以追溯到十七世纪反清复明的时代,可是时代的变迁,他们已经变质成为了犯罪集团。一位在大马华社人面及广的刘女士(Jessica Lau)发现,在一些地区,他们还有保留着昔日的仪式。刘女士目前定居在纽西兰,她的邻居曾经是一位决定要退出江湖的香港黑帮老大。

「在他担任黑社会领袖的最后日子里,他把帮派内所有人都召集起来,在其他帮派领袖面前,他用一个金色的盆子洗手,以表示说从今以后不再介入帮派事务,现在他是个受人尊敬的老人,他获得了自由。」她说道。

和香港帮派比较起来,马来西亚的帮派组织相对的比较松散。仪式的元素已经不在,这些帮派都被当成是生意来运作。阿兴把他自己的帮派称为『我们的公司』,这是直达当局的协定,作为实务主义,他们知道这一类罪犯是无法扑灭的,于是他们给这些罪犯画上楚河汉界。

「如果我要在特定的街道经营的话,我会告诉政客去和当局交涉,要他们别来干扰我们,政客会说:『零逮捕是不可能的,你倒是可以在部分时间营业,我们会在其他时间才来巡逻』,这样就能够达到双赢的局面了。」阿兴说道。

如果有人冒犯了他,那就很肯定的不是『双赢』了,「如果有人私下背叛我的话……我会叫一些帮派中的成员一同殴打他,直到他昏死过去,或是变成植物人。可是 如果是大件事的话,我们会把他带到我的大哥面前接受审判,」他表示。「如果我的大哥叫我去和某人谈判,即使我们杀了那个人,我们也不会担心,因为如果警方 逮捕我们的话,我的大哥会把我救出来,」他补充。「上次我被带到(警局)牢房前面,马上我就由后门走出去了。」

大部分马来西亚人都没有参与帮派,可是有许多比较贫苦的人民在需要借钱的时候却求助无门。马华公共服务局主任张天赐(Michael Chong)表示这种现象已经习以为常,看看借贷者借钱后常发生的事。「我们也接到好些案例,他们无力摊还,于是就逃跑了,你知道吗?……带着全家……当 然,我们也接到一些被人袭击的案例,被人殴打直至躺在医院。」张天赐表示。

阿兴对自己的生活毫无怨悔。「我承认我是坏人,我是一个流氓。」他表示。

「那是谁在运作这个世界呢?」我问道,他给了我很简单的答复:「是政府,如果不是因为政府对我们如此宽宏大量的话,如果他们限制一切的话,我们是无法生存下去的,根本就没有工作可做。」阿兴说道。

当1998年金融风暴袭击亚洲时,许多大马人投入黑帮,这使得成千上万的人获得了生计。这也是一个充分的理由为何当权者放任这些帮派的活动,在共识上,这些帮派是在谋生计,而不是在制造麻烦。

他们也许是坏人,可是他们同时也是生意人。

***********************************************
这是刊登在《新海峡时报》志期2007年一月二十三日的一篇报道:

大马全国警察刑事调查总监拿督尹树基(Christopher Wan Soo Kee)两周前在雪兰莪北部的一个沿海小镇适耕庄(Sekinchan)对当地的四个赌档进行了扫荡行动,在行动中,他做了一次很不寻常的决定——即是不 通知当地警方。当地警方见证了一次成功的扫荡行动,这家被扫荡的商店就在距离警局一百米处。参与扫荡行动的警官破获了两百四十一台角子机,总值七十二万三 千令吉,同时逮捕了十一人。

全国总警长丹斯里慕沙哈山(Musa Hassan)在去年九月份上任后,委任尹树基担任刑事调查总监,尹树基被认为是非常专业的警官。慕沙哈山对适耕庄警局缺乏行动觉得不是一个玩笑的事。 「如果他们有涉及,或是放任非法活动的话,我们将会采取行动。」他在提到该地区的警员时这样表示。

在该突击行动后,尹树基马不停蹄的进行指挥和策划对全国各个小镇的地下赌场的扫荡行动,这些地下赌场通常不在国家的监视范围内。除了对这些由大马黑帮控制的地下赌场宣战外,这次的扫荡行动部分也是对那些与犯罪组织有裙带关系的警方人员放话。

当首相阿都拉的政府在2003年上台后,它把消灭贪污作为最优先处理的事项,可是已经过了三年有余,公众对公务员贪污,特别是警队内部的贪污行为的形象维持不变。

看来目前新上任的全国总警长正在和刑事调查总监携手合力打造警方的新形象。在尹树基发动的突击行动后,适耕庄警长已经被调回警察总部,目前正在进行纪律调查,该地区的警区主任也被质询是否有涉及其中。

突击行动的连带效应:该区的市议会主席也别调职,因为该赌档被发现并没有合法的商业执照。

「这次的行动很肯定能够帮助建立警方的威望,以及增强它给公众的印象。」国阵国会议员诺嘉兹兰(Nur Jazlan Mohamed)※对《新海峡时报》表示。他表示任何对警方和公共服务部门的净化运动都能够协助提高首相的形象。「可是,对付贪污是漫长的工作,现在最主 要的是逐步的改变警队的(贪污)文化。」他表示。
※诺嘉兹兰(Nur Jazlan Mohamed)柔佛蒲莱国会议员

上周五,尹树基带领他的队伍抵达吉打州的双溪大年(Sungei Petani),他们在七家『家庭式娱乐中心』破获了一百七十八台赌马机,其中一家的位置就在警局的五百米处。「我们要在三月底前关掉所有的非法赌档」他 最近这样表示。当被问及他有和解决方案时,他表示「非法聚赌会使人家破人亡」。

***********************************************
是的!没错,就是非法赌博,尤其是角子机在全马特别猖狂,他们就在警方咫尺之处经营着,重点是,这些场所都在警方走路就能到的距离,看来就像是和警察合伙 的样子。这不是《今日大马》说的,这是警察他们自己在《新海峡时报》说的。为何警方无法扫荡干净呢?他们不是不知道这些,他们都知道。

全马大约有五百台拥有制造的跑马机,每个档口至少有十五台。80%的市场有两个派系在控制,第一个派系包括陈志成(Danny Tan Chee Sing),他的兄长陈志远(Vincent Tan Chee Yioun),以及陈志远的长子陈永钦(Robin Tan Yeong Ching),第二的派系是又一名叫『拿督斯理华联』(Dato Seri Wazlian)※的人士所控制。他们从财政部获得了执照,而财政部就是阿都拉自己所领导的。无论如何,有执照和无执照的档口被『混』在一起,以让当局无 法分辨到底哪些是合法及非法的档口。有人说非法档口是合法档口的三倍,这就使得正在运作中的角子机总数高达三万台。对马来西亚这样小的国家来说,这是很可 观的数量了。
※陈志远只有一名弟弟,也就是成功集团(Berjaya Group)的副主席陈志成。他有两名儿子,长子名叫陈永钦(Robin Tan Yeong Ching),幼子名叫陈永硕(Rayvin Tan Yeong Sheik),目前是The Edge杂志的总编辑。
※华联(Wazlian)并非是一个人的名字,他指的大概是华联集团(Waz Lian Group),这家公司由拿督郑金炎(Ta Kin Yan)和新加坡商人傅宝联(Paul Poh Po Lian)所创办。表面上专门从事东南亚的电子赌博机的销售。据说许金炎是全马最大的盗版光碟制造商。


一个号称『文明回教』的马来西亚竟然比『大恶魔』——美国的拉斯维加斯拥有还要多角子机,也比禁止娼妓的『不信神』的中国拥有还要多的妓女?然而,一名马 来女子丽娜乔(Lina Joy)在很久以前改信基督教以后,现在她要求在她的身份证上修改她的宗教类别时,却被当局疯狂的抨击。那简直就是极度虚伪的动作!怪不得马来人是个罪大 恶极的民族。什么?你不同意吗?这样说好了!马来人保护华人犯罪组织集团,导致非法赌博、毒品和娼妓无法根除,不是吗?如果不是的话,你要如何说明华人黑 社会能够把这个国家当成是1920年的上海滩呢?无论如何,在《新经济政策》的精神下,马来人获得了这些地下企业的30%盈利,怪不得巫青团和马来商会认 为我是在小题大做了。


http://ccliew.blogspot.com/2007/06/blog-post_2324.html

2010年11月17日星期三

Boy's pork lunch sparks religious tensions in Malaysia

Boy's pork lunch sparks religious tensions in Malaysia
("EarthTimes," November 12, 2010)

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia - The controversy surrounding the case of a boy who was caned for taking pork to school for lunch has threatened to spark religious tensions in mainly-Muslim Malaysia.

Earlier this month, a school's assistant principal caned 10-year-old Basil Beginda from the eastern state of Sarawak for taking fried rice with pork to school for his lunch.

Consuming pork is not permissible for followers of Islam, which is Malaysia's official religion, but there are no laws that forbid non-Muslim students from eating it in schools or public places.

The boy's outraged mother lodged a complaint with the state's education department, and the assistant principal - who is Muslim - subsequently issued an apology.

However, the case has sparked fierce debate on the rights of religious minority groups in Malaysia.

Non-Muslims, comprised mostly of Christians, Buddhists and Hindus, make up just over a third of Malaysia's 28-million population.

Basil's case has revived longstanding claims by minority religious groups that their rights to practise freely have been threatened under the Muslim-dominated government.

In the last two days, debates in Parliament have skirted around the legality of the assistant principal's act, and instead have been centred around Basil's religion.

Basil's father, Beginda Anak Minda, claimed he legally converted from Islam 1999. His wife, who is a Christian, raised their son as a Christian.

However, a lawmaker claiming to know Beginda said the man was legally still Muslim, resulting in the government calling on the National Religious Department to investigate Beginda's religious status.

If Beginda lacks the legal papers to show he had converted to Christianity, he will be considered still a Muslim, and according to Malaysia's Islamic decree, his son is automatically also a Muslim and therefore forbidden to consume pork.

The response in blogs and chat rooms to the case has been strong, with many Muslims and non-Muslims condemning the punishment and expressing outrage that no action has been taken against the assistant principal.

"The real issue here is not whether the boy is Muslim or not. The issue is the caning of a child for bringing the food of his choice to school," wrote an online commentator who identified himself as Colin.

"The antics of some extremists are bordering on the ridiculous, and now they are bringing it to the school," wrote Lynn, another reader.

While the government takes great pains to project an image of a moderate Muslim society, critics say there is a growing wave of radical Islamism.

Religious tensions reached their highest point earlier this year, when nine churches were fire-bombed or vandalized in one of the country's worst spates of religious violence.

Reports of Islamic authorities seizing the bodies of non-Muslims for Islamic burial rites based on claims that the deceased were Muslims - even when there was no proof of those claims - have also riled minority religious groups.

Earlier this year, the government set up an interfaith committee of religious leaders in the hope of easing the rising tensions, but critics said the panel is unlikely to resolve disputes as its recommendations are not legally binding.


http://wwrn.org/articles/34482/?&place=asia-pacific

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/news/353213,tensions-malaysia-feature.html


「猪肉课题」及「不参军代表不爱国」

「猪肉课题」及「不参军代表不爱国」在互联网也升温

时间:2010-11-14 20:13:30 来源:本报报道 作者:编辑
Share4

过去一週,在国会下议院议会中引起争辩的「猪肉课题」及「不参军代表不爱国」,触动大马社会对宗教、种族的「神经线」,在互联网也升温。

特别是东马一名10岁小学生被指因为携带猪肉饭盒到学校而遭到鞭打的新闻,一经国会议员朱基菲里诺丁的提起后,随即引起网民的热烈讨论,许多国内外新闻网站纷纷转载。

至于国防部长拿督斯里阿末扎希的「非土着不参军可能是因为不够爱国」的言论,则引起许多网民的不满,而在网站、部落格以及论坛中做出反驳。

-------------

一 盒猪肉香肠饭盒,不是引起体罚争议,而是扯到宗教争议,大马这等怪事让国际媒体如《地球时报》、《悉尼时报》、《圣战观察组织》、《怪物与评论家》及《全 球宗教新闻》等网站趋之若鹜,同时转载了《德国新闻社》(Deustche Presse-Agentur)的新闻,指有关事件导致我国宗教关系紧张。

有关报导详细转述了该名10岁学生携带母亲所准备的饭盒而遭到鞭打,在其母亲向相关部门提出投诉后曝光。

不过,该课题却在尔后被居林万达峇鲁区国会议员朱基菲里诺丁在国会议会内提及而掀起更大的风波。

在谷歌搜索引擎上键入「男孩猪肉午餐导致马来西亚宗教紧张」(Boy's pork lunch sparks religious tensions in Malaysia)的字眼,出现将近8000则搜索结果,而大部份都转载有关新闻的国内外网站或部落格。

在本地的新闻网站及部落格上,网民对朱基菲里在国会提及有关课题感到不满,他们认为朱基菲里刻意渲染有关课题,并将课题政治化。

《马来西亚记事》(http://www.malaysia-chronicle.com/2010/11/zul-noordin-defends-caning-of-pork.html)上所转载有关朱基菲里言论的博文,引起许多读者的迴响。

在50则留言当中,绝大部分的读者都对朱基菲里的言论深表不满,并认为年仅10岁的小学生不应因此而被鞭打。

此外,在佳礼中文论坛上,小学生因在校内享用猪肉饭盒而被鞭打的新闻也引起用户的热烈讨论。

其中数名用户因为「马来西亚是不是回教国」、「在回教徒面前吃猪肉就是不尊重回教徒」等课题而掀起骂战,其中一些用户则因为言论过火而被论坛版主「屏蔽」。

无论如何,在社交网站「推特」上,有关新闻并未引起太大的舆论,而仅搜获约30则相关发言。

转载相关新闻的各大国际网站及网址:

1. 《地球时报》(www.earthtimes.org/articles/news/353213,tensions-malaysia-feature.html

2. 《悉尼时报》的PerthNow网站www.perthnow.com.au/news/breaking-news/boy-caned-for-bringing-pork-to-school/story-e6frg13l-1225952978374

3. 回教研究权威史宾沙的《圣战观察组织》
www.jihadwatch.org/2010/11/malaysia-10-year-old-christian-student-caned-for-bringing-fried-rice-with-pork-to-school.html

4. 《怪物与评论家》(Monster and Critics)新闻网站(www.monstersandcritics.com/news/asiapacific/features/article_1598525.php/Boy-s-pork-lunch-sparks-religious-tensions-in-Malaysia-News-Feature

5. 《全球宗教新闻》(wwrn.org/articles/34482/?&place=asia-pacific)

--------

●何解好男不当兵?
除了猪肉饭盒引起宗教舆论,国防部长拿督斯里阿末扎希指非土着不参军是因为不爱国的言论也在互联网上升温。

政策创议中心主任林德宜博士指出,在许多国家,种族并非人民参军的主要因素,相对地,真正影响人民参军的因素是社会经济阶级。

「我 们很难找到来自大马社会中上阶层的青年加入军队,这与他们来自什麽族群或是否爱国无关,无论是现在还是在未 来。」(english.cpiasia.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article& amp;id=2066:non-malay-lack-of-patriotism-what-is-the-truth& catid=118:cpi-press-releases&Itemid=162)

他说,若要求证非土着的爱国情操是否比土着来得低,则必须通过慎密的研究,继而展开更开明的讨论及更深入的分析,才可得到正确的答案。

他强调,有关研究必须由可靠及独立的研究人员来进行,而我国在这方面拥有许多人才,或者将有关研究外包给拥有卓越表现记录的国外研究中心。

他主张我国不应该以消极的方式让这个课题沉寂下来,而是应该进行全面的民调,以确保我国的政治人物不再毫无根据地随意发表意见。

不过,一名自称为charleskiwi的网民却对本身的不爱国直认不讳,「为何非土着必须爱国,而这个国家却并未将非土着视为公民?」

一些网民则认为爱不爱国不是非土着不参军的因素,因此支持林德宜的建议,即展开详细的调查,以确定非土着参军率偏低的主要原因。


http://therocknews.com/dama/local/21451.html

Can there be justice for non-Muslims in Malaysia?


Case in point
Gooi, a lawyer by profession, was referring to one of his recent cases where Muslim convert, Fatimah Fong, 28, recently took away her seven-year-old daughter from school.

The child, Tan Yi Min, had been living with her father, Tan Cheow Hong, 36, since 2007, after the couple separated. During this period, the child’s mother had hardly visited her, and Yi Min has been under the care of her father, his mother and sister, who live in Butterworth. Fatimah resides in Kuala Lumpur.


Gooi said the teachers and principal of Yi Min’s school had tried to prevent the child from being taken away, but failed because the mother produced a Syariah Court order.

click here for details

Islamic Injustice: Snatching and Unilateral Conversion of Child

Parent uses Syariah Court order to 'snatch' her child

Parent Uses Syariah Court Order to ‘Snatch’ Her Child

Parent Uses Syariah Court Order to ‘Snatch’ Her Child

Susan Loone
Malaysiakini Nov 16, 2010 LINK

A worrying trend of child snatching has emerged in recent years, enabling a Muslim convert to ‘seize’ his or her child from a non-Muslim parent with help from different agencies. Making this claim, Kedah PKR Youth vice-chairperson Gooi Hsiao Leung said the child is then converted to Islam without the non-Muslim parent’s consent, leading to problems from the point of law.
“The Muslim parent is able to do this because he or she manages to secure a Syariah Court order, which encroaches on the constitutional and civil law rights of the non-Muslim parent over his or her child,” said Gooi (right).


He said this creates a constitutional problem because the rights of a non-Muslim parent are “subjugated” by the Syariah Court.
This forces a non-Muslim to submit to the authority of the Syariah Court when its jurisdiction can only apply to Muslims, he noted. Gooi also said incidents of child snatching are occurring with the help of other institutions, such as the police and state religious councils.


“All we are saying is, if a marriage has been contracted under civil law, any matrimonial dispute, including custody of children, should be decided by the civil court,” he said.


“The Syariah Court should stay out of it and not encroach into the jurisdiction of the civil court.
“It is a worrying trend that we’ve seen recent developments where the Syariah Court continues to challenge the jurisdiction of the civil court.”


Case in point
Gooi, a lawyer by profession, was referring to one of his recent cases where Muslim convert, Fatimah Fong, 28, recently took away her seven-year-old daughter from school. The child, Tan Yi Min, had been living with her father, Tan Cheow Hong, 36, since 2007, after the couple separated. During this period, the child’s mother had hardly visited her, and Yi Min has been under the care of her father, his mother and sister, who live in Butterworth. Fatimah resides in Kuala Lumpur.


Gooi said the teachers and principal of Yi Min’s school had tried to prevent the child from being taken away, but failed because the mother produced a Syariah Court order.
“The mother came with the Syariah Court order from Shah Alam and was accompanied and aided by representatives of the religious council and police,” he said.


“The father was never previously informed of the Syariah Court proceedings and there was absolutely no reason why the wife had acted in such secrecy and haste. The situation turned ugly but eventually the child was taken away. Since then, my client has filed for custody before the civil court and the hearing is on Nov 24.”


Gooi said the matter appeared to have been planned right from the beginning, where the Muslim parent took the “backdoor” approach to obtain the child from a non-Muslim parent.


He added that his client’s ex-wife only filed for divorce in the Syariah Court on Oct 26. The very next day, on Oct 27, Fatimah obtained an ex-parte order to get custody of the child.
“What is worse now is, it is learnt, that she has converted the child to Islam without the consent of the non-Muslim father,” Gooi said.


Rows over conversion

Rows over conversion, including ‘body-snatching’ cases, are common in Malaysia, where Islam is the official religion. This involves cases where Muslim authorities clash with relatives over the remains of the dead, whose religion is disputed.


Last year, Malaysia disallowed the “forced conversion” of children to Islam to subdue unease among non-Muslims.


De facto Law Minister Mohd Nazri Abdul Aziz (left) had said then that the law would be changed so that children’s conversions would not be allowed without the consent of both parents.
The decision came in the wake of the highly publicised case of M Indira Gandhi, who estranged husband embraced Islam and then converted their children to the religion. She has since been granted custody of the children, although the youngest child has not been surrendered by her ex-husband. In addition, she has been given leave to challenge their conversion. Nazri said minors are to be bound by the common religion of their parents while they were married, even if one parent later becomes a Muslim. He also said that Islamic law would apply only from the point of a person’s conversion to the religion, and is not retrospective.


xxxxxxxxxxxx



Islamic Injustice: Snatching and Unilateral Conversion of Child

By nkw LINK

I noted in my last blog that the leading judge in the Malaysia’s Highest Court facetiously commented that it is not right if any party gains an unfair advantage in a court dispute. He added, “The Federal Court said it cannot adopt a “fugitive doctrine of heads I win, tails you lose” in deciding the basic rights for either parent.”

Well said indeed. Unfortunately, we are not convinced of the sincerity of such rhetoric (regardless of whether it comes from the top judge or the de facto Law Minister) so long as non-Muslims continue to suffer unfair disadvantage (an euphemism actually) in their legal disputes with Muslim (converts). We recall instances when the police, the Muslim authorities and court officials collude and contemptuously brushed aside the legitimate rights of non-Muslims in disputes over child custody, family inheritance and burial rights/rites. To use, an ugly American neologism – there is systemic discrimination against non-Muslims in the Malaysian legal system.

The question is: Can there be justice for non-Muslims under a shariah compliant/dominated legal system?


2010年9月23日星期四

“回中国论”校长等级太高 慕尤丁辩称教部无权对付

“回中国论”校长等级太高
慕尤丁辩称教部无权对付
2010年9月23日
傍晚 6点34分
分享 284
虽然在野党的再三施压,两名发表“回中国论”的中学校长依然未遭对付,其中吉打州武吉士 南卯国中校长温古阿斯南更已重返该校掌校。面对排山倒海的压力,副首相兼教育部长慕尤丁今日出人意表的辩称,教育部无权对付温古阿斯南。

muhyiddin attend anti corruption seminar 230910 01慕尤丁(左图)今午为第10届贿赂罪行区域研讨会开幕后,向记者指出,教育部无法定夺发表种族主义 言论的温古阿斯南的命运,理由是该名校长的公务员等级过高,已超出教育部长的权力管辖范围。

“我相信校长的公务 员等级是52级,教育部长不能对48级及以上的公务员,做出任何决定。”

“只有公共服务局的纪律局主任,才有权 对付这种等级的公务员。”

调查报告交
公务局定夺

muhyiddin attend anti corruption seminar 230910 02目前担任公共服务局纪律局主任者,就是公共服务局总监阿布巴卡(Abu Bakar Abdullah)。

慕尤丁说,教育部已完成针对该名校长的调查,并已把调查报告呈予公共服务局,以让后者决定 进一步的行动。

“这是该局的权限,我已宣布把报告交给该局,所以现在就等待该局要做的任何决定。”

根据英文媒体早前报道,公共服务局已经接获教育部的调查报告,这份报告共有6寸厚。

马华宣称校长没有返校

由于中央政府 在两名校长发表种族性言论后,一直没有对付两人,在野党已经多番表达不满,社青团更在今日提呈备忘录给吉打教育局,敦促该局革除 该名温古阿斯南的职务。

媒体是在日前揭发,温古阿斯南在开斋节假期结束后,一如往常地重返学校掌校。

不过,吉打州马华却宣称,经过马华与教育局查证后,该名校长在开学第二天已再度被调回双溪大年的瓜拉慕达县教育局,以等 待调查完毕后发落。

传调离校长以冷却争议

《当今大马》早前报道,两名发表种族性言论的中学校长,将有截然不同的遭遇,柔佛古来国中女校长茜蒂英莎预料将面 对惩罚,但吉打武吉士南卯中学校长温古阿斯南却将获准保留原职,进一步掀起人们对教育部惩罚标准的疑问。

根据 《当今大马》了解,一旦公共服务局调查发现,茜蒂英莎(Siti Inshah Mansor)发表种族主义言论罪成,那么她将面对处分。

至于茜蒂英莎的同僚温古阿斯南(Ungku Aznan Ungku Ismail),虽然传言他将被撤换,但相信他将能保留原职。

虽然教育部对外宣称,温古阿斯南已经暂时停职,不过其实 他已经被调任到双溪大年的瓜拉慕达县教育局。有传言指称,此举是要确保该名校长在调查期间,暂时远离媒体和政治人物的目光,以待该课题冷却后,重新回返学 校。

据悉温古阿斯南在事故发生数天后,已经在一个特别会面中,向该校的学生道歉,希望藉此解决争议。

两校长相继发表回中论

温古阿斯南是因为目睹华裔学生在学校食堂内享用早餐,在隔一天的朝会上,指责该批华裔学生不尊敬回教徒, 并声称他们应该回中国。

在温古阿斯南事故后,茜蒂英莎却又在 一个学校的公开活动上,发表类似的种族性言论,而且比起温古阿斯南的言论,来得更为过火。

茜蒂英莎除了叫华裔生 回中国和宽柔独中外,更形容印裔生戴在手上的宗教绳,象狗链一样,引起华印裔学生与家长强烈不满。

尽管女校长 已在周一的周会道歉,但不被学生接受。

黄明志写歌轰校长掀波

namewee nah 020910在发生两起杏坛丑 闻后,争议性的网络歌手黄明志在Youtube上发布最新的音乐短片《呐!》,声称本身 看到媒体报道两名校长失言的事件,感到“心情很热”,并扬言要将这首饶舌歌送给所有带着种族歧视的人士。

他在 歌曲中大肆抨击茜蒂英莎、温古阿斯南及“寄居论”主角阿末依斯迈等,但因为在歌曲中穿插着不少粗俗的英语和马 来语词句,结果掀起轩然大波,先后遭到警方和通讯及多媒体委员会调查。

由于政府迅速援引煽动法令调查黄明志,但 对两名校长的调查却进展不大,一些舆论质疑,政府采取双重标准。

If It's a Problem.........

If It's a Problem, Don't Recognise It! By Kee Thuan Chye

Idris Jala was interviewed on BFM 89.9 this morning. During the time of the interview I twitted that people who heard the interview should read an article by Kee Thuan Chye before they make up their minds about what Idris Jala said. But for some reason people who wanted to read it could not access the Facebook page. So here it is re-produced. If you missed the BFM interview you might be able to get it as a podcast eventually at www.bfm.com.my For some reason it wasn't there when I looked just now.

If It's a Problem, Don't Recognise It!

By Kee Thuan Chye

Idris Jala is a good speaker. If you listen to him and you don't watch it, he will sell you an idea.

That's what he did - or tried to do - when he gave the keynote address at the “We Are Malaysia” event hosted by UCSI University on Malaysia Day.

He spoke of 1Malaysia and its aims, and how national unity can be achieved. One of the central aims of 1Malaysia is upgrading the diverse population's attitude towards one another from tolerance to acceptance and, eventually, the celebration of diversity. And one of the central strategies of achieving that is the recognition that, in Idris' own words, “in life, there are only two types of issues”.

Sounds rather pat, as if coming from a self-enrichment guru. But as I said, Idris Jala (left) is a seller of ideas.

What are these two types of issues?

Problems and polarities. A problem, expounded Idris, is something that can be solved. A polarity is something that cannot be solved but must be managed. The examples of polarities he gave are old and young, urban and rural, good and evil, rich and poor. Like the North and South Poles, they cannot be removed; therefore a balance must be struck between them.

To illustrate further, he gave the example of his wife and him. She is fastidious in wanting him to place his socks in a proper basket for washing, but he is used to leaving them all over the house. Despite her repeated attempts to get him to conform, he is incorrigible. She on her part takes an inordinate amount of time to get ready when they have a function to attend. It annoys him that because she can't decide on what to wear, they often turn up late.

“That's the situation,” said Idris, “but if we tried to solve it, we could end up in divorce.”

Extending the idea to a wider realm, Idris said race and religion are also polarities, which means they cannot be solved.

“If you try to solve them,” he said, “you could get something like Hitler's Final Solution and the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia.”

On that UCSI occasion, Idris got away with not having to answer questions from the floor as there is usually no provision for such in a keynote address. But if there had been, the key question would be: Isn't this all just a game of semantics? How do you decide what is a problem and what is a polarity? Or is there really no difference between the two?

Let's look at the issue of race in the present context. Let's bring in Perkasa, which insists that the 30 percent equity for bumiputeras must be upheld in the New Economic Model (NEM). For want of an opposing camp, let's bring in the MCA, which recently called for the 30 percent to be gradually reduced.

Is this situation of two opposing viewpoints over a racial issue a problem or a polarity? What does it translate into when from this dispute, policy has to be made?

Policy is policy. It provides a guideline for operations to be performed and actions to be taken. It provides a clear-cut solution. It does not merely manage. So how will it solve this Perkasa-MCA dispute?

If Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak decides to listen to Perkasa and includes the 30 percent in his NEM, the MCA might have something to say. Not to mention other groups opposed to Perkasa as well. But since the MCA is a Barisan Nasional partner, Najib or his deputy, Muhyiddin Yassin, can ask its party leaders to shut up and toe the coalition line, and chances are they will obey. Is that managing the issue or solving it?

While we mull over this, let's consider another point - for an issue to be resolved, it calls for negotiation and sometimes arbitration. There was negotiation between the two differing groups over the ge tai issue in Penang last week and the outcome was satisfactory to both sides. Do we say they found a solution to the issue or that they merely managed it? Does it matter what we call it?

It's all semantics. And semantics are of no practical use. Sometimes, semantics create further problems. In any case, the fact that you enter into a negotiation shows that you want to find a solution. If after negotiating, you still can't find it, you may seek an arbiter.

For racial disputes, there is already an arbiter. And that, plain and simple, is the constitution. So how we solve or manage - whichever word you want to use - racial disputes should be guided by that arbiter.

Article 153 of the constitution is the bone of contention. But as lawyer Azzat Kamaluddin (left), who also spoke at the “We Are Malaysia” event, astutely pointed out, there is no mention in that article of special rights for the Malays.

Clause 1 of Article 153 states: “It shall be the responsibility of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to safeguard the special position of the Malays and natives of any of the states of Sabah and Sarawak and the legitimate interests of other communities in accordance with the provisions of this Article.”

Note that there is only mention of “special position”. And the second part says, significantly, that the Agong shall also be responsible for safeguarding “the legitimate interests of other communities”. It's not all one-sided.

Azzat pointed out that “everyone stops at Clause 1”. But if they were to look at Clause 2, they would see clearly that the special provisions for Malays and natives of Sabah and Sarawak pertain only to positions in the public service; scholarships, exhibitions and other similar educational or training privileges or special facilities; and permits and licences for the operation of any trade or business.

And in these areas, the provisions have to be “of such proportion as [the Agong] may deem reasonable”. In other words, it's not carte blanche.

Look also at Clause 5, which states that Article 153 “does not derogate from the provisions of Article 136”.

What does Article 136 say?

It says: “All persons of whatever race in the same grade in the service of the federation shall, subject to the terms and conditions of their employment, be treated impartially.” This is another limit to the scope of Article 153.

If the government follows the rule of law and interprets the constitution as it should be interpreted, we wouldn't have a racial problem. Yes, problem. Let's call a spade a spade. The racial problem we have now is mostly the result of what the government has done and not done.

It has not followed the rule of law. It has not told Perkasa to grasp the proper provisions of Article 153. Instead, it has been affirming that Perkasa's doing the right thing - only a few days ago, Deputy Education Minister Puad Zarkashi said Perkasa was championing the people's rights as spelt out in the constitution. Perhaps Puad hasn't read beyond Clause 1. Perhaps he doesn't understand it fully.

In terms of what the government has done, it has chosen to take sides to formulate policies that are contrary to the spirit of the constitution. For instance, is the discount for bumiputeras purchasing property constitutional? If so, where is it written in that sacred document?

The government favours one race and marginalises the other races. With regard to the civil service, it has not upheld Article 136 of the constitution, which calls for impartial treatment for civil servants of all races. Over the past four decades, the promotion of civil servants to the highest positions has been almost totally confined to those of one particular race. Is that impartial treatment?

As for religion, it is again the government that has created problems. Just to name two, one is its action to deny Christians the right to use the word “Allah”; the other, and more far-reaching, action is declaring Malaysia an Islamic state, as Najib did in 2007 when he was Deputy Prime Minister.

“Islam is the official religion and we are an Islamic state,” he said.

He must surely have read Article 3 of the constitution but chose to ignore what it says: “Islam is the religion of the federation; but other religions may be practised in peace and harmony in any part of the federation.”

Nowhere is it stated that Malaysia is an Islamic state.

But by his declaration, Najib caused fresh anxieties to surface and made the issue of religion more contentious. In extreme situations, the provisions of Article 3 have been disrespected. A recent example is Perkasa's lodging of a police report against a church in Shah Alam for planning to stage a Christian play during Ramadan on the grounds that it was seditious and insulting to the sultan.

That police report became a problem to the church. How would it be solved? In an ideal Malaysian setting, the government would have stepped in and told Perkasa to respect Article 3. But of course, it did not. For the church and other Christian groups, these problems will continue to crop up in future and there will be no solution in sight if the government stays silent.

Is the government silent because it now believes it can call such a problem a polarity? And with a polarity, which cannot be solved, the less said about it, the better? Similarly, in the case of the Johor school principal who allegedly made racist remarks, it is better to let the issue be until the public forgets about it?

If so, 1Malaysia is not about taking a radically honest approach towards national unity and the celebration of diversity. It seems to shy away from calling a problem a problem and solving it. Calling it a polarity merely adds a new twist to the propaganda.

So, if Idris Jala comes to your neighbourhood and tries to sell you that idea, be sure to ask him some difficult questions. He's a good speaker and can easily mesmerise his audience. His words may sound pretty until you probe them for substance. If you do, you might find that they amount to nothing more than public relations prattle.


http://niamah.blogspot.com/2010/09/if-its-problem-dont-recognise-it-by-kee.html

2010年9月14日星期二

Transcripts – New York Times/IHT interview Lee Kuan Yew

The following is the transcript of the interview Seth Mydans had with Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, for the New York Times and the International Herald Tribune. The interview was held on 1 September 2010.

Mr Lee: “Thank you. When you are coming to 87, you are not very happy..”

Q: “Not. Well you should be glad that you’ve gotten way past where most of us will get.”

Mr Lee: “That is my trouble. So, when is the last leaf falling?”

Q: “Do you feel like that, do you feel like the leaves are coming off?”

Mr Lee: “Well, yes. I mean I can feel the gradual decline of energy and vitality and I mean generally every year when you know you are not on the same level as last year. But that is life.”

Q: “My mother used to say never get old.”

Mr Lee: “Well, there you will try never to think yourself old. I mean I keep fit, I swim, I cycle.”

Q: “And yoga, is that right? Meditation?”

Mr Lee: “Yes.”

Q: “Tell me about meditation?”

Mr Lee: “Well, I started it about two, three years ago when Ng Kok Song, the Chief Investment Officer of the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation, I knew he was doing meditation. His wife had died but he was completely serene. So, I said, how do you achieve this? He said I meditate everyday and so did my wife and when she was dying of cancer, she was totally serene because she meditated everyday and he gave me a video of her in her last few weeks completely composed completely relaxed and she and him had been meditating for years. Well, I said to him, you teach me. He is a devout Christian. He was taught by a man called Laurence Freeman, a Catholic. His guru was John Main a devout Catholic. When I was in London, Ng Kok Song introduced me to Laurence Freeman. In fact, he is coming on Saturday to visit Singapore, and we will do a meditation session. The problem is to keep the monkey mind from running off into all kinds of thoughts. It is most difficult to stay focused on the mantra. The discipline is to have a mantra which you keep repeating in your innermost heart, no need to voice it over and over again throughout the whole period of meditation. The mantra they recommended was a religious one. Ma Ra Na Ta, four syllables. Come To Me Oh Lord Jesus. So I said Okay, I am not a Catholic but I will try. He said you can take any other mantra, Buddhist Om Mi Tuo Fo, and keep repeating it. To me Ma Ran Na Ta is more soothing. So I used Ma Ra Na Ta. You must be disciplined. I find it helps me go to sleep after that. A certain tranquility settles over you. The day’s pressures and worries are pushed out. Then there’s less problem sleeping. I miss it sometimes when I am tired, or have gone out to a dinner and had wine. Then I cannot concentrate. Otherwise I stick to it.”

Q: “So…”

Mr Lee: “.. for a good meditator will do it for half-an-hour. I do it for 20 minutes.”

Q: “So, would you say like your friend who taught you, would you say you are serene?”

Mr Lee: “Well, not as serene as he is. He has done it for many years and he is a devout Catholic. That makes a difference. He believes in Jesus. He believes in the teachings of the Bible. He has lost his wife, a great calamity. But the wife was serene. He gave me this video to show how meditation helped her in her last few months. I do not think I can achieve his level of serenity. But I do achieve some composure.”

Q: “And do you find that at this time in your life you do find yourself getting closer to religion of one sort or another?”

Mr Lee: “I am an agnostic. I was brought up in a traditional Chinese family with ancestor worship. I would go to my grandfather’s grave on All Soul’s Day which is called “Qingming”. My father would bring me along, lay out food and candles and burn some paper money and kowtow three times over his tombstone. At home on specific days outside the kitchen he would put up two candles with my grandfather’s picture. But as I grew up, I questioned this because I think this is superstition. You are gone, you burn paper money, how can he collect the paper money where he is? After my father died, I dropped the practice. My youngest brother baptised my father as a Christian. He did not have the right to. He was a doctor and for the last weeks before my father’s life, he took my father to his house because he was a doctor and was able to keep my father comforted. I do not know if my father was fully aware when he was converted into Christianity.”

Q: “Converted your father?”

Mr Lee: “Yes.”

Q: “Well this happens when you get close to the end.”

Mr Lee: “Well, but I do not know whether my father agreed. At that time he may have been beyond making a rational decision. My brother assumed that he agreed and converted him.”

Q: “But…”

Mr Lee: “I am not converted.”

Q: “But when you reach that stage, you may wonder more than ever what is next?”

Mr Lee: “Well, what is next, I do not know. Nobody has ever come back. The Muslims say that there are seventy houris, beautiful women up there. But nobody has come back to confirm this.”

Q: “And you haven’t converted to Islam, knowing that?”

Mr Lee: “Most unlikely. The Buddhist believes in transmigration of the soul. If you live a good life, the reward is in your next migration, you will be a good being, not an ugly animal. It is a comforting thought, but my wife and I do not believe in it. She has been for two years bed-ridden, unable to speak after a series of strokes. I am not going to convert her. I am not going to allow anybody to convert her because I know it will be against what she believed in all her life. How do I comfort myself? Well, I say life is just like that. You can’t choose how you go unless you are going to take an overdose of sleeping pills, like sodium amytal. For just over two years, she has been inert in bed, but still cognitive. She understands when I talk to her, which I do every night. She keeps awake for me; I tell her about my day’s work, read her favourite poems.”

Q: ‘And what kind of books do you read to her?”

Mr Lee: “So much of my time is reading things online. The latest book which I want to read or re-read is Kim. It is a beautiful of description of India as it was in Kipling’s time. And he had an insight into the Indian mind and it is still basically that same society that I find when I visit India. “

Q: “When you spoke to Time Magazine a couple of years ago, you said Don Quixote was your favourite?”

Mr Lee: “Yes, I was just given the book, Don Quixote, a new translation.”

Q: “But people might find that ironic because he was fantasist who did not realistically choose his projects and you are sort of the opposite?”

Mr Lee: “No, no, you must have something fanciful and a flight of fancy. I had a colleague Rajaratnam who read Sci-Fi for his leisure.”’

Q: “And you?”:

Mr Lee: “No, I do not believe in Sci-Fi.”

Q: “But you must have something to fantasise.”

Mr Lee: “Well, at the moment, as I said, I would like to read Kim again. Why I thought of Kim was because I have just been through a list of audio books to choose for my wife. Jane Austen, Emily Bronte, books she has on her book shelf. So, I ticked off the ones I think she would find interesting. The one that caught my eye was Kim. She was into literature, from Alice in Wonderland, to Adventures with a Looking Glass, to Jane Austen’s Persuasion, Pride and Prejudice, and Sense and Sensibility. Jane Austen was her favourite writer because she wrote elegant and leisurely English prose of the 19th century. The prose flowed beautifully, described the human condition in a graceful way, and rolls off the tongue and in the mind. She enjoyed it. Also Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales. She was an English Literature major.”

Q: “You are naming books on the list, not necessarily books you have already read, yes?”

Mr Lee: “I would have read some of them.”

Q: “Like a Jane Austen book, or Canterbury Tales?”

Mr Lee: “No, Canterbury Tales, I had to do it for my second year English Literature course in Raffles College. For a person in the 15th Century, he wrote very modern stuff. I didn’t find his English all that archaic. I find those Scottish poets difficult to read. Sometimes I don’t make sense of their Scottish brogue. My wife makes sense of them. Then Shakespeare’s sonnets.”

Q: “You read those?”

Mr Lee: “I read those sonnets when I did English literature in my freshman’s year. She read them.”

Q: “When you say she reads them now, you’re the one who reads them, yes?”

Mr Lee: “Yes, I read them to her.”

Q: “But you go to her.”

Mr Lee: “Yes, I read from an Anthology of Poems which she has, and several other anthologies. So I know her favourite poems. She had flagged them. I read them to her.”

Q: “She’s in the hospital? You go to the hospital?”

Mr Lee: “No, no, she’s at home. We’ve got a hospital bed and nurses attending to her. We used to share the same room. Now I’m staying in the next room. I have to get used to her groans and grunts when she’s uncomfortable from a dry throat and they pump in a spray moisture called “Biothene” which soothes her throat, and they suck out phlegm. Because she can’t get up, she can’t breathe fully. The phlegm accumulates in the chest but you can’t suck it out from the chest, you’ve got to wait until she coughs and it goes out to her throat. They suck it out, and she’s relieved. They sit her up and tap her back. It’s very distressing, but that’s life.”

Q: “Yes, your daughter on Sunday wrote a moving column, movingly about the situation referring to you.”

Mr Lee: “How did you come to read it?”

Q: “Somebody said you’ve got to read that column, so I read it.”

Mr Lee: “You don’t get the Straits Times.”

Q: “I get it online actually. I certainly do, I follow Singapore online and she wrote that the whole family suffers of course from this and she wrote the one who’s been hurting the most and is yet carrying on stoically is my father.”

Mr Lee: “What to do? What else can I do? I can’t break down. Life has got to go on. I try to busy myself, but from time to time in idle moments, my mind goes back to the happy days we were up and about together.”

Q: “When you go to visit her, is that the time when your mind goes back?”

Mr Lee: “No, not then. My daughter’s fished out many old photographs for this piece she wrote and picked out a dozen or two dozen photographs from the digital copies which somebody had kept at the Singapore Press Holdings. When I look at them, I thought how lucky I was. I had 61 years of happiness. We’ve got to go sometime, so I’m not sure who’s going first, whether she or me. So I told her, I’ve been looking at the marriage vows of the Christians. The best I read was,” To love, to hold and to cherish, in sickness and in health, for better or for worse, till death do us part.” I told her I would try and keep you company for as long as I can. She understood.”

Q: “Yes, it’s been really.”

Mr Lee: “What to do? What can you do in this situation? I can say get rid of the nurses. Then the maids won’t know how to turn her over and then she gets pneumonia. That ends the suffering. But human beings being what we are, I do the best for her and the best is to give her a competent nurse who moves her, massages her, turns her over, so no bed sores. I’ve got a hospital bed with air cushions so no bed sores. Well, that’s life. Make her comfortable.”

Q: “And for yourself, you feel the weight of age more than you have in the past?”

Mr Lee: “I’m not sure. I marginally must have. It’s stress. However, I look at it, I mean, it’s stress. That’s life. But it’s a different kind of stress from the kind of stress I faced, political stresses. Dire situations for Singapore, dire situations for myself when we broke off from Malaysia, the Malays in Singapore could have rioted and gone for me and they suddenly found themselves back as a minority because the Tunku kicked us out. That’s different, that’s intense stress and it’s over but this is stress which goes on. One doctor told me, you may think that when she’s gone you’re relieved but you’ll be sad when she’s gone because there’s still the human being here, there’s still somebody you talk to and she knows what you’re saying and you’ll miss that. Well, I don’t know, I haven’t come to that but I think I’ll probably will because it’s now two years, May, June, July, August, September, two years and four months. It’s become a part of my life.”

Q: “She’s how old now?”

Mr Lee: “She’s two-and-a-half years older than me, so she’s coming on to 90.”

Q: “But you did make a reference in an interview with Time magazine to something that goes beyond reason as you put it. You referred to the real enemy by Pierre D’Harcourt who talked about people surviving the Nazi, it’s better that they have something to believe in.”

Mr Lee: “Yes, of course.”

Q: “And you said that the Communists and the deeply religious fought on and survived. There are some things in the human spirit that are beyond reason.”

Mr Lee: “I believe that to be true. Look, I saw my friend and cabinet colleague who’s a deeply religious Catholic. He was Finance Minister, a fine man. In 1983, he had a heart attack. He was in hospital, in ICU, he improved and was taken out of ICU. Then he had a second heart attack and I knew it was bad. I went to see him and the priest was giving him the last rites as a Catholic. Absolutely fearless, he showed no distress, no fear, the family was around him, his wife and daughters, he had four daughters. With priest delivering the last rites, he knew he was reaching the end. But his mind was clear but absolutely calm.”

Q: “Well, I am more like you. We don’t have something to cling to.”

Mr Lee: “That’s our problem.”

Q: “But also the way people see you is supremely reasonable person, reason is the ultimate.”

Mr Lee: “Well, that’s the way I’ve been working.”

Q: “Well, you did mention to Tom Plate, they think they know me but they only know the public me?”

Mr Lee: “Yeah, the private view is you have emotions for your close members of your family. We are a close family, not just my sons and my wife and my parents but my brothers and my sister. So my youngest brother, a doctor as I told you, he just sent me an email that my second brother was dying of a bleeding colon, diverticulitis. And later the third brother now has got prostate cancer and has spread into his lymph nodes. So I asked what’re the chances of survival. It’s not gotten to the bones yet, so they’re doing chemotherapy and if you can prevent it from going into the bones, he’ll be okay for a few more years. If it does get to the bones, then that’s the end. I don’t think my brother knows. But I’ll probably go and see him.”

Q: “But you yourself have been fit. You have a stent, you had heart problem late last year but besides that do you have ailments?”

Mr Lee: “Well, aches and pains of a geriatric person, joints, muscles but all non-terminal. I go in for a physiotherapy, maintenance once a week, they give me a rub over because when I cycle, my thighs get sore, knees get a little painful, and so the hips.”

Q: “These are the signs of age.”

Mr Lee: “Yeah, of course.”

Q: “I’m 64. I’m beginning to feel that and I don’t like it and I don’t want to admit to myself.”

Mr Lee: “But if you stop exercising, you make it worse. That’s what my doctors tell me, just carry on. When you have these aches and pains, we’ll give you physiotherapy. I’ve learnt to use heat pads at home. So after the physiotherapy, once a week, if I feel my thighs are sore, I just have a heat pad there. You put in the microwave oven and you tie it around your thighs or your ankles or your calves. It relieves the pain.”

Q: “So you continue to cycle.”

Mr Lee: “Oh yeah.”

Q: “Treadmill?

Mr Lee: “No, I don’t do the treadmill. I walk but not always. When I’ve cycled enough I don’t walk.”

Q: “That’s your primary exercise, swimming?”

Mr Lee: “Yeah, I swim everyday, it’s relaxing.”

Q: “What other secrets, I see you drink hot water?”

Mr Lee: “Yes.”

Q: “Tell me about it.”

Mr Lee: “Well, I used to drink tea but tea is a diuretic, but I didn’t know that. I used to drink litres of it. In the 1980s, I was having a conference with Zhou Ziyang who was then Secretary-General of the Communist Party in the Great Hall of the People. The Chinese came in and poured more tea and hot water. I was scoffing it down because it kept my throat moistened, my BP was up because more liquid was in me. Halfway through, I said please stop. I’m dashing off. I had to relief myself. Then my doctors said don’t you know that tea is a diuretic? I don’t like coffee, it gives me a sour stomach, so okay, let’s switch to water.”

Q: “You know you had the hot water when I met you a couple of years ago and after I told my wife about that, she switched to hot water. She’s not sure why except that you drink hot water, so she’s decided to.”

Mr Lee: “Well, cold water, this was from my ENT man. If you drink cold water, you reduce the temperature of your nasal passages and throat and reduce your resistance to coughs and colds. So I take warm water, body temperature. I don’t scald myself with boiling hot water. I avoid that. But my daughter puts blocks of ice into her coffee and drinks it up. She’s all right, she’s only 50-plus.

Q: “Let me ask a question about the outside world a little bit. Singapore is a great success story even though people criticize this and that. When you look back, you can be proud of what you’ve done and I assume you are. Are there things that you regret, things that you wished you could achieve that you couldn’t?”

Mr Lee: “Well, first I regret having been turfed out of Malaysia. I think if the Tunku had kept us together, what we did in Singapore, had Malaysia accepted a multiracial base for their society, much of what we’ve achieved in Singapore would be achieved in Malaysia. But not as much because it’s a much broader base. We would have improved inter-racial relations and an improved holistic situation. Now we have a very polarized Malaysia, Malays, Chinese and Indians in separate schools, living separate lives and not really getting on with one another. You read them. That’s bad for us as close neighbours.”

Q: “So at that time, you found yourself with Singapore and you have transformed it. And my question would be how do you assess your own satisfaction with what you’ve achieved? What didn’t work?”

Mr Lee: “Well, the greatest satisfaction I had was my colleagues and I, were of that generation who were turfed out of Malaysia suffered two years under a racial policy decided that we will go the other way. We will not as a majority squeeze the minority because once we’re by ourselves, the Chinese become the majority. We made quite sure whatever your race, language or religion, you are an equal citizen and we’ll drum that into the people and I think our Chinese understand and today we have an integrated society. Our Malays are English-educated, they’re no longer like the Malays in Malaysia and you can see there are some still wearing headscarves but very modern looking.”

Q: “That doesn’t sound like a regret to me.”

Mr Lee: “No, no, but the regret is there’s such a narrow base to build this enormous edifice, so I’ve got to tell the next generation, please do not take for granted what’s been built. If you forget that this is a small island which we are built upon and reach a 100 storeys high tower block and may go up to 150 if you are wise. But if you believe that it’s permanent, it will come tumbling down and you will never get a second chance.”

Q: “I wonder if that is a concern of yours about the next generation. I saw your discussion with a group of young people before the last election and they were saying what they want is a lot of these values from the West, an open political marketplace and even playing field in all of these things and you said well, if that’s the way you feel, I’m very sad.”

Mr Lee: “Because you play it that way, if you have dissension, if you chose the easy way to Muslim votes and switch to racial politics, this society is finished. The easiest way to get majority vote is vote for me, we’re Chinese, they’re Indians, they’re Malays. Our society will be ripped apart. If you do not have a cohesive society, you cannot make progress.”

Q: “But is that a concern that the younger generation doesn’t realize as much as it should?”

Mr Lee: “I believe they have come to believe that this is a natural state of affairs, and they can take liberties with it. They think you can put it on auto-pilot. I know that is never so. We have crafted a set of very intricate rules, no housing blocks shall have more than a percentage of so many Chinese, so many percent Malays, Indians. All are thoroughly mixed. Willy-nilly, your neighbours are Indians, Malays, you go to the same shopping malls, you go to the same schools, the same playing fields, you go up and down the same lifts. We cannot allow segregation.”

Q: “There are people who think that Singapore may lighten up a little bit when you go, that the rules will become a little looser and if that happens, that might be something that’s a concern to you.”

Mr Lee: “No, you can go looser where it’s not race, language and religion because those are deeply gut issues and it will surface the moment you start playing on them. It’s inevitable, but on other areas, policies, right or wrong, disparity of opportunities, rich and poor, well go ahead. But don’t play race, language, religion. We’ve got here, we’ve become cohesive, keep it that way. We’ve not used Chinese as a majority language because it will split the population. We have English as our working language, it’s equal for everybody, and it’s given us the progress because we’re connected to the world. If you want to keep your Malay, or your Chinese, or your Tamil, Urdu or whatever, do that as a second language, not equal to your first language. It’s up to you, how high a standard you want to achieve.”

Q: “The public view of you is as a very strict, cerebral, unsentimental. Catherine Lim, “an authoritarian, no-nonsense manner that has little use for sentiment”.”

Mr Lee: “She’s a novelist, therefore, she simplifies a person’s character, make graphic caricature of me. But is anybody that simple or simplistic?”

Q: “Sentiment though, you don’t show that very much in public.”

Mr Lee: “Well, that’s a Chinese ideal. A gentleman in Chinese ideal, the junzi (君子) is someone who is always composed and possessed of himself and doesn’t lose his temper and doesn’t lose his tongue. That’s what I try to do, except when I got turfed out from Malaysia. Then, I just couldn’t help it.”

Q: “One aspect of the way you’ve constructed Singapore is a certain level of fear perhaps in the population. You described yourself as a street fighter, knuckle duster and so forth.”

Mr Lee: “Yes.”

Q: “And that produces among some people a level of fear and I want to tell you what a taxi driver said when I said I was going to interview you. He said, safer not to ask him anything. If you ask him, somebody will follow you. We’re not in politics so just let him do the politics.”

Mr Lee: “How old is he?’

Q: “I’m sorry, middle aged, I don’t know.”

Mr Lee: “I go out. I’m no longer the Prime Minister. I don’t have to do the difficult things. Everybody wants to shake my hands, everybody wants me to autograph something. Everybody wants to get around me to take a photo. So it’s a problem.

Q: “Yes but…”

Mr Lee: “Because I’m no longer in charge, I don’t have to do the hard things. I’ve laid the foundation and they know that because of that foundation, they’re enjoying this life.’

Q: “So when you were the one directly in-charge, you had to be tough, you had to be a fighter.”

Mr Lee: “Yes, of course. I had to fight left-wingers, Communists, pro-Communist groups who had killer squads. If I didn’t have the guts and the gumption to take them on, there wouldn’t be the Singapore. They would have taken over and it would have collapsed. I also had to fight the Malay Ultras when we were in Malaysia for two years.”

Q: “Well, you don’t have a lot of dissidents in prison but you’re known for your libel suits which keeps a lot of people at bay.”

Mr Lee: “We are non-corrupt. We lead modest lives, so it’s difficult to malign us. What’s the easy way to get a leader down? He’s a hypocrite, he is corrupt, he pretends to be this when in fact he’s that. That’s what they’re trying to do to me. Well, prove it, if what you say is right, then I don’t deserve this reputation. Why must you say these things without foundation? I’m taking you to court, you’ve made these allegations, I’m open to your cross-examination.”

Q: “But that may produce what I was talking about, about a level of fear.”

Mr Lee: “No, you’re fearful of a libel suit? Then don’t issue these defamatory statements or make them where you have no basis. The Western correspondent, especially those who hop in and hop out got to find something to show that they are impartial, that they’re not just taken in by the Singapore growth story. They say we keep down the opposition, how? Libel suits. Absolute rubbish. We have opponents in Parliament who have attacked us on policy, no libel suits against them and even in Parliament they are privileged to make defamatory allegation and cannot be sued. But they don’t. They know it is not true.”

Q: “Let me ask a last question. Again back to Tom Plate, “I’m not serious all the time. Everyone needs to have a good laugh now and then to see the funny side of things and to laugh at himself”.”

Mr Lee: “Yes, of course.”

Q: “How about that?”

Mr Lee: “You have to be that.”

Q: “So what makes you laugh?”

Mr Lee: “Many things, the absurdity of it, many things in life. Sometimes, I meet witty people, have conversations, they make sharp remarks, I laugh.

Q: “And when you laugh at yourself as you said?”

Mr Lee: “That’s very frequent. Yeah, I’m reaching 87, trying to keep fit, presenting a vigorous figure and it’s an effort and is it worth the effort? I laugh at myself trying to keep a bold front. It’s become my habit. I just carry on.”

Q: “So it’s the whole broad picture of things that you find funny?”

Mr Lee: “Yes, life as a whole has many abnormalities, of course.”

Q: “Your public life together with your private life, what you’ve done over things people write about you and Singapore, that overall is something that you can find funny?”

Mr Lee: “Yes, of course.

Q: “You made one of the few people who laugh at Singapore.”

Mr Lee: “Let me give you a Chinese proverb “do not judge a man until you’ve closed his coffin. Do not judge a man.” Close the coffin, then decide. Then you assess him. I may still do something foolish before the lid is closed on me.”

Q: “So you’re waiting for the final verdict?”

Mr Lee: “No, the final verdict will not be in the obituaries. The final verdict will be when the PhD students dig out the archives, read my old papers, assess what my enemies have said, sift the evidence and seek the truth? I’m not saying that everything I did was right, but everything I did was for an honourable purpose. I had to do some nasty things, locking fellows up without trial.”

Q: “For the greater good?

Mr Lee: “Well, yes, because otherwise they are running around and causing havoc playing on Chinese language and culture, and accusing me of destroying Chinese education. You’ve not been here when the Communists were running around. They do not believe in the democratic process. They don’t believe in one man, one vote. They believe in one bullet, one vote. They had killer squads. But they at the same time had a united front exploiting the democratic game. It gave them cover. But my business, my job was to make sure that they did not succeed. Sometimes you just got to lock the leaders up. They are confusing the people. The reality is that if you allow these people to work up animosity against the government because it’s keeping down the Chinese language, because we’ve promoted English, keeping down Chinese culture because you have allowed English literature, and we suppress our Chinese values and the Chinese language, the Chinese press, well, you will break up the society. They harp on these things when they know they are not true. They know that if you actually do in Chinese language and culture, the Chinese will riot and the society must break up.”

Q: “So leadership is a constant battle?”

Mr Lee: “In a multiracial situation like this, it is. Malaysia took the different line; Malaysians saw it as a Malay country, all others are lodgers, “orang tumpangan”, and they the Bumiputras, sons of the soil, run the show. So the Sultans, the Chief Justice and judges, generals, police commissioner, the whole hierarchy is Malay. All the big contracts for Malays. Malay is the language of the schools although it does not get them into modern knowledge. So the Chinese build and find their own independent schools to teach Chinese, the Tamils create their own Tamil schools, which do not get them jobs. It’s a most unhappy situation.”

Mdm Yeong: “I thought that was the last question.”

Q: “This is the last part of the last question. So your career has been a struggle to keep things going in the right way and you’ve also said that the best way to keep your health is to keep on working. Are you tired of it by this point? Do you feel like you want to rest?”

Mr Lee: “No, I don’t. I know if I rest I’ll slide downhill fast. No, my whole being has been stimulated by the daily challenge. If I suddenly drop it all, play golf, stroll around, watch the sunset, read novels, that’s downhill. It is the daily challenge, social contacts, meeting people, people like you, you press me, I answer, when I don’t…. what have I got tomorrow?”

Mdm Yeong: “You have two more events coming up. One is the Radin Mas Community.”

Mr Lee: “Oh yeah. I got it.”

Mdm Yeong: “And then you have other call, courtesy call on the 3rd.”

Mr Lee: “We are social animals. Without that interaction with people, you are isolated. The worst punishment you can give a person is the isolation ward. You get hallucinations. Four walls, no books, no nothing. By way of example, Henry Kissinger wants to speak to me. So I said okay, we’ll speak on Sunday. What about? We are meeting in Sao Paolo at a J P Morgan International Advisory Board. He wants to talk to me to check certain facts on China. My mind is kept alive, I go to China once a year at least. I meet Chinese leaders. So it’s a constant stimulus as I keep up to date. Supposing I sit back, I don’t think about China, just watch videos. I am off to Moscow, Kiev and Paris on the 15th of September. Three days Moscow, three days Kiev, four days Paris. Moscow I am involved in the Skolkovo Business School which President Medvedev, when he wasn’t President started. I promised to go if he did not fix it in the winter. So they fix it for September. I look at the fires, I said wow this is no good.”

Q: “It’s not going to be freezing if there are fires.”

Mr Lee: “No but our embassy says the skies have cleared. Kiev because the President has invited me specially and will fly me from Moscow to Kiev and then fly me on to Paris. Paris I am on the TOTAL Advisory Board together with Joe Nye and a few others. They want a presentation on what are China’s strengths and weaknesses. That keeps me alive. It’s just not my impressionistic views of China but one that has to be backed by facts and figures. So my team works out the facts and figures, and I check to see if they tally with my impressions. But it’s a constant stimulus to keep alive, and up-to-date. If I stop it, it’s downhill.”

Q: “Well, I hope you continue. Thank you very much, I really enjoyed this interview.”


http://theonlinecitizen.com/2010/09/transcripts-new-york-timesiht-interview-lee-kuan-yew/