为党默默耕耘26年的郑文福显然是在“弃车保帅”的情况下被牺牲，目的是要將支持信风波对行动党的衝击减到最低，然而仍在上诉中的郑文福也不是省油之灯，他的支持者势必在党选中反扑，將矛头指向旧主刘天球。
2010年8月26日星期四
2010年8月4日星期三
林放：小肚鸡肠斗出精彩
雪州行动党因巴生市议员郑文福被指涉嫌盗笺冒签商业支持信而被开除党籍，引起连串的领袖之间的较劲, 明来暗去过招, 实在是始料莫及。这说明，几经粉饰太平丶相互克制的派系争拗已经麻疯上脸，掩盖不住。2009年9月22日星期二
台湾为『政治正確』付出代价
过去20年，台湾在民主化的过程里，从西方借来太多『政治正確』的事务，包括放任的教改政策，图利资本家的BOT政策，以及为富人减税的租税政策，造成的结果是台湾教育水准日益低落，政府財政快速恶化，许多BOT案只不过成了图利公司財团的秘密通道。近代思想及政策研究里，有所谓『政治正確』这种说法，指的是在某个时刻，由於各种条件配合，加以有一个共同愤恨的目標，於是某种认知或主张，就会取得政治態度上的正当性。至於这种『政治正確』是否真的『正確』，那是另一回事了。
在1980至90年代，这种『政治正確』的事多不胜数。最独特的当属公共建设BOT了。1970年代起，西方经济的新自由主义逐渐大盛，这组意识形態的核心价值乃是要非法化政府的职能，因此『政府无能』、『政府无效率』、『政府浪费』这种说法成了主流；在非法化政府职能的同时，当然也將『私人』（其实是公司或財团）的功能美化。在这种『政治正確』引导下，公营企业的私有化、公共建设的民间参与遂成了政策的主流，所谓的BOT即是一种：將公共建设的兴建（Build），一定时间的营运（Operation），期满移转（Transfer）给政府。
这种BOT的观念，1990年代也盛行於台湾。当时的是国民党执政，时代气氛对国民党政府批判甚多，总认为它是个『党国资本主义体系』，因此舆论的走向当然也跟著反政府、重財团。让民间企业参与公共建设的BOT成了当时的『政治正確』，许多財团在那阶段確实获得了许多发展的机会。
台湾的BOT案里，规模最大的是台湾高速铁路。就严格的道理而言，高铁是国家级的重大工程，无论工程规模、资金庞大的程度及调度的困难，都不是一般民营公司能负荷的。但当时由於BOT已成了一种『政治正確』，台湾还是决定以BOT方式交给民营。
台湾高铁是最大的BOT案，也是今天已被证明为失败的BOT案。此案当时有两个財团在爭取，一个是国民党大掌柜刘泰英的『中华高铁团队』，一个是亲民进党的『台湾高铁团队』，严格而言，这两个团队都不是够资格的团队。但最后还是由台湾女强人殷琪的『台湾高铁团队』得標。它之所以得標，乃是对高铁的营运做了过份乐观的估计。由於估计乐观，它在財务上也大胆，宣称这个工程所需的一切资金皆可自筹，政府不必出任何钱。
事实上，台湾高铁成军迄今，却完全不是当时的模样。高铁有五大原始股东，它们其实都无力承担这个台幣5000亿的工程，於是成军后，遂迫使政府保证，向公股银行及国营事业出面融资或认购特別股。迄至目前，这间公司累计债务已逾台幣4000亿。估计到了2009年底，它的剩余现金就会用罄。由於负债庞大，营收不佳，银行团也不可能继续增资。在这种情况下，这间公司即难免要宣告破產，对台湾交通的影响可谓极其严重。
据个人所知，从今年2月起，马政府已对高铁这个无底洞做了討论，原则上考虑在这间公司破產前收归政府所有――根据原始契约，民营的时间为35年，距今还有25年，担心的就是任由民营下去，25年后这个滥摊子不知会大到甚么程度。正因有这样的策略，政府才对高铁再增资抱持消极態度。至於让马政府真正下定决心的，就是8月底达赖访台，高铁董事长殷琪不仅居中牵线，还为达赖开专车，达赖到的当天，马政府已正式决定提前收回高铁经营权，在政治上也等於拔掉了台湾最大的绿色资本家。只是高铁是个失败的BOT，它的借贷、增资、亏掉的资本额，总计亏损及负债达台幣5000亿，这个財务破洞將来不知將如何收拾！
过去20年，台湾在民主化的过程里，从西方借来太多『政治正確』的事务，包括放任的教改政策，图利资本家的BOT政策，以及为富人减税的租税政策，造成的结果是台湾教育水准日益低落，政府財政快速恶化，许多BOT案只不过成了图利公司財团的秘密通道。像高铁这种重大工程，若政府主办，虽然效率不一定更好，至少还可受到民意监督，权责还会清楚，而民间BOT后，如此重大工程的监督和责任归属都变得曖昧难分。由台湾的例子已印证了一种说法，在某个时刻『政治正確』的事，並不一定就真正的正確。每个社会为了『政治正確』，通常都会付出难以估计的代价！
星洲日报／言路‧作者：南方朔‧台湾著名时事评论人‧2009.09.21
2009年9月21日星期一
回应〈回应《星期刊》对明福事件看法〉
林建兴先生9月18日在《沟通平台》发表他对明福事件的观点。他的行文態度凛然令人『肃然起敬』。在他的尺度里，正义人士的良知反应属於滥情；履行天职的媒体报导沦为煽动。他甚至把星洲日报所肩负的社会责任和明福过去的宾主关係强行掛鉤，武断推论媒体感情用事不够冷静和客观。彻底指鹿为马，是可忍孰不可忍。
让我藉以下个案和申明大义的林先生商榷，希望他不嗇赐教。
先说我自己：我出世在日治时代。呱呱坠地不到2个月，日寇来我家把父亲带走，从此音讯渺然。苦了母亲在我们兄弟姐妹成长中受尽创伤、含辛茹苦的煎熬。人同此心，母亲撇不下亡夫之痛，终生对日本人恨之入骨。说到这，若以以林先生的原则作衡量：在他奉为天条的逻辑下，我母亲的抱怨也可谓咎由自取：请问，她如何证明父亲確实死在日军手中？有白纸黑字的法医报告吗？还有，母亲如何確定父亲並非在当天释放后，万念俱灰，在回家途中投河自尽？如果答案是否定的话，我家怎能在没有『確凿证据』情况下把这笔账记在日军头上？林先生，难道这就是你所谓的『就事论事』？
林先生呼吁媒体和民眾在真相大白前，必须冷静和客观，不得轻举妄动。如此论调原则上无可厚非。但在民主精神前提下，怎么连穿黑衣和点蜡烛的心意抒发都被批判为大逆不道？林先生在字里行间的隱喻不难意会：如果最终出炉的报告指出明福事件纯属意外的话，基於法纪原则，民眾必须理智和冷静地接受『真相大白』的事实，任何事后的抗议和控诉行动都將被扣上『目无法纪』帽子。
如果我刚才的推论无误，请大家以缅甸民主领袖昂山舒吉的个案作为借镜。无庸置疑，缅甸军政府是个『坚守宪法』的『民选』政权。他们绝不『无缘无故』扣留舒吉。问题是她不断挑衅政府，搅乱群眾，罪大恶极。如今她更『变本加厉』，斗胆在刑期中违反禁令，法院唯有秉公办理，延刑18个月，罪有应得。如此判决使西方民主国家首领和人权份子义愤填膺、兴师问罪，一些国家甚至加重对缅甸制裁。
此情此景看在林先生的眼中，肯定不是味道，是不是也认为：人家既已十足依法行事，这些食古不化的老外何必苦苦纠缠、惟恐天下不乱，破坏社会安寧？
除非林先生別有用心，否则，我的结语只是这么一句：当针並非刺入自己肉中，要说得轻鬆瀟洒，何须吹灰之力？
出处 ∶星洲日报
作者 ∶谢明意
发表日期∶2009.09.21
让我藉以下个案和申明大义的林先生商榷，希望他不嗇赐教。
先说我自己：我出世在日治时代。呱呱坠地不到2个月，日寇来我家把父亲带走，从此音讯渺然。苦了母亲在我们兄弟姐妹成长中受尽创伤、含辛茹苦的煎熬。人同此心，母亲撇不下亡夫之痛，终生对日本人恨之入骨。说到这，若以以林先生的原则作衡量：在他奉为天条的逻辑下，我母亲的抱怨也可谓咎由自取：请问，她如何证明父亲確实死在日军手中？有白纸黑字的法医报告吗？还有，母亲如何確定父亲並非在当天释放后，万念俱灰，在回家途中投河自尽？如果答案是否定的话，我家怎能在没有『確凿证据』情况下把这笔账记在日军头上？林先生，难道这就是你所谓的『就事论事』？
林先生呼吁媒体和民眾在真相大白前，必须冷静和客观，不得轻举妄动。如此论调原则上无可厚非。但在民主精神前提下，怎么连穿黑衣和点蜡烛的心意抒发都被批判为大逆不道？林先生在字里行间的隱喻不难意会：如果最终出炉的报告指出明福事件纯属意外的话，基於法纪原则，民眾必须理智和冷静地接受『真相大白』的事实，任何事后的抗议和控诉行动都將被扣上『目无法纪』帽子。
如果我刚才的推论无误，请大家以缅甸民主领袖昂山舒吉的个案作为借镜。无庸置疑，缅甸军政府是个『坚守宪法』的『民选』政权。他们绝不『无缘无故』扣留舒吉。问题是她不断挑衅政府，搅乱群眾，罪大恶极。如今她更『变本加厉』，斗胆在刑期中违反禁令，法院唯有秉公办理，延刑18个月，罪有应得。如此判决使西方民主国家首领和人权份子义愤填膺、兴师问罪，一些国家甚至加重对缅甸制裁。
此情此景看在林先生的眼中，肯定不是味道，是不是也认为：人家既已十足依法行事，这些食古不化的老外何必苦苦纠缠、惟恐天下不乱，破坏社会安寧？
除非林先生別有用心，否则，我的结语只是这么一句：当针並非刺入自己肉中，要说得轻鬆瀟洒，何须吹灰之力？
出处 ∶星洲日报
作者 ∶谢明意
发表日期∶2009.09.21
2009年4月19日星期日
凯林拉斯兰：印尼悄悄崛起
出处 ∶星洲日报
原题 ∶The emergence of Indonesia
作者 ∶凯林拉斯兰（Karim Raslan）
发表日期∶18-04-09
翻译 ∶陈莉珍
我一直对东南亚4个国家：马来西亚、新加坡、泰国、印尼的政策深感兴趣。近来，这些国家更经歷了戏剧性的政治发展。
就拿马来西亚来说吧。上周新首相纳吉上任，他领导的政府一开始就面对两场补选失利，还有不太受欢迎的內阁名单所打击。
新加坡方面，我们看到了內阁重组。李显龙让人民行动党里的一些老臣子退休，例如副总理贾古玛退位让贤给国防部长张志贤。当然，这些改变无法平息普通老百姓心里的愤怒，目前环球经济危机影响，他们迫切想知道国家的財富何去何从。
泰国也有它的隱忧，阿比希首相无法控制亲塔辛的红衫军，他们攻击东盟峰会，对曾经引领东南亚的泰国和东盟而言，是个打击。阿比希没有办法拉近泰国社会內陆和城市地区的距离，现在他靠泰王和军方来巩固势力，而非通过选举贏得民心，將使情况恶化。
这一片混乱当中，印尼却是崛起的新星。最近结束的国会选举，由总统苏西洛领导的民主党获胜，也证明该国的民主是充满生机的。很多人对印尼的地方分权和解放过程存疑，但印尼承受环球经济危机的能力，却证实这是个可行的方法。
这让我们不得不思考，其他3个国家纷纷面对政治动荡，反观印尼却在崛起，开始在全球取得地位。为何有如此显著的分別？是甚么让印尼与眾不同？
如我之前所说，印尼崛起的力量是从其开放公共领域开始。开放言论自由、新闻自由的法令，再加上地方分权政策开启了很多机会之门。虽然这个共和国还是被很多其他问题缠身，例如贪污和选举里假选民的事件玷污了这次选举。
不过，是印尼而非新加坡受邀参与G20的伦敦峰会，印证了印尼的崛起和新加坡的没落。苏西洛看似崛起成为「苏丹」，但不像苏哈多，苏西洛的势力是通过人民对他的支持，如果他连任后无法表现，人民绝对有能力淘汰他。
其他东南亚国家面对难题的主因，是他们的领袖拒绝摒弃过时的思想或执政方式。马来西亚和泰国的领袖过於恋栈权力，以致他们无法看见自己的囂张和不公。
在新加坡，新晋的人民行动党领袖里人才济济，但这已不足够了。新加坡在李氏王朝下，仰赖邻国的弱点（尤其执法政策）来推动发展，但这明显无法持续。这个政经模式需要改革，但他们的领导层可有发觉这种需要？如果发现了，他们有改变的意愿吗？
所以，当我们可以保持乐观的態度展望印尼在危机后的表现，我们却无法断定新加坡、马来西亚或泰国是否有一样的命运。危机之后，一切都会改变，那些以人民为本的国家，肯定会昌盛，反之，那些不以民为本的就会灭亡。
老旧经济成长为主，人权自由有限的模式显然行不通了。早就发现这个道理的印尼，现下开始修得正果，反观那些从前漠视这个道理的国家则开始自食其果。
喜欢与否，东南亚势力都將重新定位，且让我们猜猜谁会名列榜首？雅加达未来几年可能成为这个区域里最具影响力的首都！
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I’ve always been interested in the strategic fortunes of four Southeast Asian countries: Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand and Indonesia. All of these countries have recently undergone some dramatic political developments.
Malaysia, for instance, got a new Prime Minister last week, with Najib Tun Razak’s long-forecast ascent to power finally taking place. On the other hand, his fledging administration was struck by two bye-election defeats and an overwhelmingly so-so reception to his first Cabinet.
Singapore, too, will soon a Cabinet reshuffle of its own. Premier Lee-Hsien Loong is to put several long-serving PAP workhorses to pasture, most notably DPM Shunmugam Jayakumar, who has been replaced by Defence Minister Teo Chee Hean. Again, however, this hasn’t done much to assuage the resentment of ordinary Singaporeans who want to know what has happened to their nation’s wealth as the Republic totters under the global economic crisis.
Thailand has also had its share of political drama, where Abhisit Vejjajiva’s fledging government appears to have failed to contain the pro-Thaksin ‘Red Shirt’ movement. Their storming of the East Asia Summit in Pattaya is a blow to the former’s prestige and to Thailand, which previously had pretensions to lead Southeast Asia. Abhisit has failed to close the disastrous gap between the rural and urban divides in Thai society- which will only be exacerbated by his reliance on the monarchy and military to shore up his power rather than seeking a legitimate popular mandate.
Amidst all this turmoil, however, Indonesia, long-despised as a morass of instability emerges as a bright spark. The recently concluded legislative elections there, which was won by President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s (SBY) Democrat Party is proof that democracy is alive and well there. Many were sceptical of the process of decentralization and liberalisation that Indonesia embarked upon, but the fact that it is weathering the economic crisis better than other Asean nations is proof that this has been a source of strength.
So consider, therefore, the three nations that are going through political doldrums and the one that is fast-rising to regional, even global prominence. Why this contrast? What separates Indonesia from what has been going on in Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand?
As I’ve argued before, Indonesia’s new-found resilience lies in its opening up of its public space. Its provision for open debate and a free press, as well as the decentralization of power to the provinces and districts has thrown open a world of possibilities. Now, it is true that many problems still plague the republic- such as corruption and the fact that the last elections were marred by voter fraud.
Nevertheless, the fact that Indonesia, rather than Singapore was invited to the G-20 London Summit is indicative that the former’s star is on the ascent while the latter’s dims. Also, SBY may be emerging as a ‘Sultan’, but unlike Suharto his authority is derived by the support of ordinary Indonesians which can very quickly be withdrawn if he fails to perform in the second-term he seems to be assured of.
The other Southeast Asian countries, on the other hand, flounder because its elites refuse to abandon their outmoded ways of thinking and governing. The Malaysian and Thai elite seem to be so obsessed with retaining power that they no longer see the manifest arrogance as well as injustice in how they are conducting themselves.
In Singapore, the new cadre of PAP leaders bear the usual talented imprimatur of the party but this is hardly enough anymore. Singapore under the Lee dynasty has relied on the weakness of its neighbours (especially in terms of regulatory policy) to fuel its own development but this simply cannot last. The entire politico-economic model across the Causeway needs to be reworked but does its leadership see this, and if so do they have the will to carry it out?
So while one has every reason to be optimistic about Indonesia’s prospects in the post-crisis world, one cannot say the same thing about Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand. The post-crisis world will be one that is vastly different, and if the last couple of months are anything to go by, the countries that empower its people will prosper while those that don’t shall perish.
The old model of a combination of top-down, economic growth and limited civil liberties simply doesn’t work anymore. Indonesia found that out a long time ago and is now reaping the benefits- the other countries in the region conveniently chose to ignore this and now taste their bitter harvest.
Like it or not, there is going to be a major reordering in Southeast Asia, and guess who will end up on top? Jakarta could well be the region’s capital of power and influence in the years to come.
原题 ∶The emergence of Indonesia
作者 ∶凯林拉斯兰（Karim Raslan）
发表日期∶18-04-09
翻译 ∶陈莉珍
我一直对东南亚4个国家：马来西亚、新加坡、泰国、印尼的政策深感兴趣。近来，这些国家更经歷了戏剧性的政治发展。
就拿马来西亚来说吧。上周新首相纳吉上任，他领导的政府一开始就面对两场补选失利，还有不太受欢迎的內阁名单所打击。
新加坡方面，我们看到了內阁重组。李显龙让人民行动党里的一些老臣子退休，例如副总理贾古玛退位让贤给国防部长张志贤。当然，这些改变无法平息普通老百姓心里的愤怒，目前环球经济危机影响，他们迫切想知道国家的財富何去何从。
泰国也有它的隱忧，阿比希首相无法控制亲塔辛的红衫军，他们攻击东盟峰会，对曾经引领东南亚的泰国和东盟而言，是个打击。阿比希没有办法拉近泰国社会內陆和城市地区的距离，现在他靠泰王和军方来巩固势力，而非通过选举贏得民心，將使情况恶化。
这一片混乱当中，印尼却是崛起的新星。最近结束的国会选举，由总统苏西洛领导的民主党获胜，也证明该国的民主是充满生机的。很多人对印尼的地方分权和解放过程存疑，但印尼承受环球经济危机的能力，却证实这是个可行的方法。
这让我们不得不思考，其他3个国家纷纷面对政治动荡，反观印尼却在崛起，开始在全球取得地位。为何有如此显著的分別？是甚么让印尼与眾不同？
如我之前所说，印尼崛起的力量是从其开放公共领域开始。开放言论自由、新闻自由的法令，再加上地方分权政策开启了很多机会之门。虽然这个共和国还是被很多其他问题缠身，例如贪污和选举里假选民的事件玷污了这次选举。
不过，是印尼而非新加坡受邀参与G20的伦敦峰会，印证了印尼的崛起和新加坡的没落。苏西洛看似崛起成为「苏丹」，但不像苏哈多，苏西洛的势力是通过人民对他的支持，如果他连任后无法表现，人民绝对有能力淘汰他。
其他东南亚国家面对难题的主因，是他们的领袖拒绝摒弃过时的思想或执政方式。马来西亚和泰国的领袖过於恋栈权力，以致他们无法看见自己的囂张和不公。
在新加坡，新晋的人民行动党领袖里人才济济，但这已不足够了。新加坡在李氏王朝下，仰赖邻国的弱点（尤其执法政策）来推动发展，但这明显无法持续。这个政经模式需要改革，但他们的领导层可有发觉这种需要？如果发现了，他们有改变的意愿吗？
所以，当我们可以保持乐观的態度展望印尼在危机后的表现，我们却无法断定新加坡、马来西亚或泰国是否有一样的命运。危机之后，一切都会改变，那些以人民为本的国家，肯定会昌盛，反之，那些不以民为本的就会灭亡。
老旧经济成长为主，人权自由有限的模式显然行不通了。早就发现这个道理的印尼，现下开始修得正果，反观那些从前漠视这个道理的国家则开始自食其果。
喜欢与否，东南亚势力都將重新定位，且让我们猜猜谁会名列榜首？雅加达未来几年可能成为这个区域里最具影响力的首都！
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I’ve always been interested in the strategic fortunes of four Southeast Asian countries: Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand and Indonesia. All of these countries have recently undergone some dramatic political developments.
Malaysia, for instance, got a new Prime Minister last week, with Najib Tun Razak’s long-forecast ascent to power finally taking place. On the other hand, his fledging administration was struck by two bye-election defeats and an overwhelmingly so-so reception to his first Cabinet.
Singapore, too, will soon a Cabinet reshuffle of its own. Premier Lee-Hsien Loong is to put several long-serving PAP workhorses to pasture, most notably DPM Shunmugam Jayakumar, who has been replaced by Defence Minister Teo Chee Hean. Again, however, this hasn’t done much to assuage the resentment of ordinary Singaporeans who want to know what has happened to their nation’s wealth as the Republic totters under the global economic crisis.
Thailand has also had its share of political drama, where Abhisit Vejjajiva’s fledging government appears to have failed to contain the pro-Thaksin ‘Red Shirt’ movement. Their storming of the East Asia Summit in Pattaya is a blow to the former’s prestige and to Thailand, which previously had pretensions to lead Southeast Asia. Abhisit has failed to close the disastrous gap between the rural and urban divides in Thai society- which will only be exacerbated by his reliance on the monarchy and military to shore up his power rather than seeking a legitimate popular mandate.
Amidst all this turmoil, however, Indonesia, long-despised as a morass of instability emerges as a bright spark. The recently concluded legislative elections there, which was won by President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s (SBY) Democrat Party is proof that democracy is alive and well there. Many were sceptical of the process of decentralization and liberalisation that Indonesia embarked upon, but the fact that it is weathering the economic crisis better than other Asean nations is proof that this has been a source of strength.
So consider, therefore, the three nations that are going through political doldrums and the one that is fast-rising to regional, even global prominence. Why this contrast? What separates Indonesia from what has been going on in Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand?
As I’ve argued before, Indonesia’s new-found resilience lies in its opening up of its public space. Its provision for open debate and a free press, as well as the decentralization of power to the provinces and districts has thrown open a world of possibilities. Now, it is true that many problems still plague the republic- such as corruption and the fact that the last elections were marred by voter fraud.
Nevertheless, the fact that Indonesia, rather than Singapore was invited to the G-20 London Summit is indicative that the former’s star is on the ascent while the latter’s dims. Also, SBY may be emerging as a ‘Sultan’, but unlike Suharto his authority is derived by the support of ordinary Indonesians which can very quickly be withdrawn if he fails to perform in the second-term he seems to be assured of.
The other Southeast Asian countries, on the other hand, flounder because its elites refuse to abandon their outmoded ways of thinking and governing. The Malaysian and Thai elite seem to be so obsessed with retaining power that they no longer see the manifest arrogance as well as injustice in how they are conducting themselves.
In Singapore, the new cadre of PAP leaders bear the usual talented imprimatur of the party but this is hardly enough anymore. Singapore under the Lee dynasty has relied on the weakness of its neighbours (especially in terms of regulatory policy) to fuel its own development but this simply cannot last. The entire politico-economic model across the Causeway needs to be reworked but does its leadership see this, and if so do they have the will to carry it out?
So while one has every reason to be optimistic about Indonesia’s prospects in the post-crisis world, one cannot say the same thing about Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand. The post-crisis world will be one that is vastly different, and if the last couple of months are anything to go by, the countries that empower its people will prosper while those that don’t shall perish.
The old model of a combination of top-down, economic growth and limited civil liberties simply doesn’t work anymore. Indonesia found that out a long time ago and is now reaping the benefits- the other countries in the region conveniently chose to ignore this and now taste their bitter harvest.
Like it or not, there is going to be a major reordering in Southeast Asia, and guess who will end up on top? Jakarta could well be the region’s capital of power and influence in the years to come.
大卫马修：口號和绩效管理
出处 ∶星洲日报
原题 ∶One Malaysia: An empty slogan disguised as a solution
作者 ∶大卫马修（DAVID D. MATHEW）
发表日期∶19-04-09
翻译 ∶陈莉珍
口號的奥妙，是它常让我们以为这就是解决方案。但事实上，口號自身只是一个空洞无物的修辞。
至今，『全民的马来西亚』就是一个佯装成解决方案的空洞口號。它犹如一个迷路的小孩，赤裸裸和迷惘的被丟弃在马来西亚政治路上，只因为它的创造者忘了替它定位。
《马来前锋报》的阿旺瑟拉马（Awang Selamat），还有很多其他人，慷慨的替『全民的大马』定位。但在纳吉为我们解释他自己对『全民的大马』的瞭解之前，它只是一个毫无意义的名词。
上週五（4月217日）出席马来西亚中华工商联合会的会议时，首相表示全民的马来西亚的整个主义是强调各族团结、互相信任、尊重，共同努力。老实说，这听起来犹如任何一首爱国歌曲。国人依然在等待一个更明確实际的主义。
我们或许永远也等不到答案，但如果真有答案了，只希望『全民大马』是一个不计肤色、种族，却对马来西亚老百姓承受的痛苦、机会和才能敏感的一个政策。
说到才能，新首相宣佈以『关键表现指標』（KPI）来评估部长们的表现，是人耳目一新。其实，这已让人期待已久，同时，也是可以执行部长责任制的开始。
在这个对部长责任制完全陌生的国家里，关键表现指標是淘汰表现不佳的部长最好的办法。如果实施得当，我们將不会看到部长在低素质的公共建设计划被揭发后，依然可以保住自己的饭碗。我们也不会看到青体部长在国家青年足球队於几乎没有对手的国际赛事惨败后，还可保住饭碗。
或许，我们的內政部长也將会被革职，如果他用『保护她的人身安全』这种理由，引用內安法令將任何人拘留。
部长们应时刻被提醒，他们的部长责任不仅限於自己的行动，同时也必须为自己部门里的官员，和部门的全体表现负责。如果无法在这些领域获得优良的关键表现指標，那么该位部长就须离职。
当然，没有人可以担保关键表现指標制度一定行得通。不过，至少现在我们有一个评估制度，而执行是另一回事。
部长『巡查员』许子根的差事，是一件不让人称羡的差事。一想到他必须鞭策纳兹里，就会惹人发笑。
最后，如果负责监督表现的部长无法表现，那么首相就必须兑现自己的诺言，让人取代这位没有办法取得良好关键表现指標的部长。如果这真的发生，就会是一场灾难，因为监管人都无法表现。
说到表现不佳，檳州民联政府一直无法委任新的第一副首席部长，以取代离职的法鲁斯，这是一个效率欠奉的现象。一直批评敦阿都拉拖拉的安华是不是应该照照镜子呢？
需要面对、解决政治压力或党內问题，不该是借口，因为这不是人民的问题。
民联迟迟不能委任檳州新第一副首长，还有委任所谓的影子內阁，是无法令人接受的。这样的窘境一定要尽快解决，才能让人民看到民联和国阵的不同。
说到拖延，让我们欢迎黄洁冰归队。民联用了很长的时间，將她还给了武吉兰樟选民。
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The thing about slogans is that we often fall into the trap of mistaking them for real solutions. The reality is that slogans by itself are often nothing more than convenient rhetoric with an inside as empty as a pauper’s pocket.
Thus far, One Malaysia has been just that. It is an empty slogan disguised as a solution. Like a lost child, we find it limbering confused and naked along Malaysia’s political road by virtue of it being left without a definition from its maker.
Utusan Malaysia’s whispering Awang Selamat has of course rather kindly ventured its take on One Malaysia and so have many others but until Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak breathes life into it with his own definition, the phrase has no value.
The wait for this may well be in vain. But should an official definition be forthcoming, the hope is that it will firstly describe this One Malaysia entity as something completely blind to race and colour but sensitive to the pain, suffering, potential and aptitude of any ordinary Malaysian.
On the matter of aptitude, it must be said that the new Prime Minister’s decision to apply Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) in evaluating the performance of Ministers is one that is both refreshing and long overdue. It is for all intents and purposes the stick that seeks to enforce Individual Ministerial Responsibility.
In a country where the principle of Individual Ministerial Responsibility is almost completely alien, KPIs are the best way to boot out the poor performers. With proper implementation, the days where the Minister of Works keeps his job after a substandard public construction project comes to light is over.
Gone also are the days where the Minister of Youth and Sports manages to remain snug in her seat on the back of an official loss-making tin cup international youth football tournament played to no one in particular.
With any luck, the country will also see the Home Minister being booted out should he bungle up and purport to arrest a person under the draconian ISA “for her own protection”.
Ministers are reminded that Individual Ministerial Responsibility does not only cover his own actions. It also includes the overall performance of his ministry and his official’s actions or lack thereof. Poor marks in any of these areas will result in a lowly KPI which in turn must see the last of the Minister concerned.
Of course no one is holding their breath that the KPI system is going to work. However, putting cynicism aside, it must be said for now that at least there is a system in place. The enforcement is another matter.
Head Ministerial Prefect Tan Sri Dr. Koh Tsu Koon has an unenviable job. The thought of him actually marking down and disciplining Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz would bring a wry smile to many faces.
At the end of the day though, should the Minister in charge of Performance Management fail to deliver, the new Prime Minister would have to walk the talk and remove him for falling short of his own KPI.
Now that would indeed be a right mess - the Minister in charge of Performance Management being sacked for poor performance.
Speaking of poor performance, the continued failure of the Penang Pakatan Government to appoint a new Deputy Chief Minister to replace Mohammad Fairus Khairuddin smacks of inefficiency. Having incessantly criticised Tun Pak Lah previously for procrastination, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim should look himself in the mirror and ask why he too now moves at glacial speeds.
It is no excuse to say that political pressures or internal party issues need to be resolved first. That is not the people’s problem.
Pakatan’s delay in appointing a new Deputy Chief Minister for Penang and also in constituting the long awaited shadow cabinet is unacceptable. This stationary state of affairs must be resolved soon lest the people soon start to actually see little difference between the BN and the PR.
On the subject of delays, welcome back Elizabeth Wong. It took Pakatan long enough to return you to the people of Bukit Lanjan.
原题 ∶One Malaysia: An empty slogan disguised as a solution
作者 ∶大卫马修（DAVID D. MATHEW）
发表日期∶19-04-09
翻译 ∶陈莉珍
口號的奥妙，是它常让我们以为这就是解决方案。但事实上，口號自身只是一个空洞无物的修辞。
至今，『全民的马来西亚』就是一个佯装成解决方案的空洞口號。它犹如一个迷路的小孩，赤裸裸和迷惘的被丟弃在马来西亚政治路上，只因为它的创造者忘了替它定位。
《马来前锋报》的阿旺瑟拉马（Awang Selamat），还有很多其他人，慷慨的替『全民的大马』定位。但在纳吉为我们解释他自己对『全民的大马』的瞭解之前，它只是一个毫无意义的名词。
上週五（4月217日）出席马来西亚中华工商联合会的会议时，首相表示全民的马来西亚的整个主义是强调各族团结、互相信任、尊重，共同努力。老实说，这听起来犹如任何一首爱国歌曲。国人依然在等待一个更明確实际的主义。
我们或许永远也等不到答案，但如果真有答案了，只希望『全民大马』是一个不计肤色、种族，却对马来西亚老百姓承受的痛苦、机会和才能敏感的一个政策。
说到才能，新首相宣佈以『关键表现指標』（KPI）来评估部长们的表现，是人耳目一新。其实，这已让人期待已久，同时，也是可以执行部长责任制的开始。
在这个对部长责任制完全陌生的国家里，关键表现指標是淘汰表现不佳的部长最好的办法。如果实施得当，我们將不会看到部长在低素质的公共建设计划被揭发后，依然可以保住自己的饭碗。我们也不会看到青体部长在国家青年足球队於几乎没有对手的国际赛事惨败后，还可保住饭碗。
或许，我们的內政部长也將会被革职，如果他用『保护她的人身安全』这种理由，引用內安法令將任何人拘留。
部长们应时刻被提醒，他们的部长责任不仅限於自己的行动，同时也必须为自己部门里的官员，和部门的全体表现负责。如果无法在这些领域获得优良的关键表现指標，那么该位部长就须离职。
当然，没有人可以担保关键表现指標制度一定行得通。不过，至少现在我们有一个评估制度，而执行是另一回事。
部长『巡查员』许子根的差事，是一件不让人称羡的差事。一想到他必须鞭策纳兹里，就会惹人发笑。
最后，如果负责监督表现的部长无法表现，那么首相就必须兑现自己的诺言，让人取代这位没有办法取得良好关键表现指標的部长。如果这真的发生，就会是一场灾难，因为监管人都无法表现。
说到表现不佳，檳州民联政府一直无法委任新的第一副首席部长，以取代离职的法鲁斯，这是一个效率欠奉的现象。一直批评敦阿都拉拖拉的安华是不是应该照照镜子呢？
需要面对、解决政治压力或党內问题，不该是借口，因为这不是人民的问题。
民联迟迟不能委任檳州新第一副首长，还有委任所谓的影子內阁，是无法令人接受的。这样的窘境一定要尽快解决，才能让人民看到民联和国阵的不同。
说到拖延，让我们欢迎黄洁冰归队。民联用了很长的时间，將她还给了武吉兰樟选民。
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The thing about slogans is that we often fall into the trap of mistaking them for real solutions. The reality is that slogans by itself are often nothing more than convenient rhetoric with an inside as empty as a pauper’s pocket.
Thus far, One Malaysia has been just that. It is an empty slogan disguised as a solution. Like a lost child, we find it limbering confused and naked along Malaysia’s political road by virtue of it being left without a definition from its maker.
Utusan Malaysia’s whispering Awang Selamat has of course rather kindly ventured its take on One Malaysia and so have many others but until Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak breathes life into it with his own definition, the phrase has no value.
The wait for this may well be in vain. But should an official definition be forthcoming, the hope is that it will firstly describe this One Malaysia entity as something completely blind to race and colour but sensitive to the pain, suffering, potential and aptitude of any ordinary Malaysian.
On the matter of aptitude, it must be said that the new Prime Minister’s decision to apply Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) in evaluating the performance of Ministers is one that is both refreshing and long overdue. It is for all intents and purposes the stick that seeks to enforce Individual Ministerial Responsibility.
In a country where the principle of Individual Ministerial Responsibility is almost completely alien, KPIs are the best way to boot out the poor performers. With proper implementation, the days where the Minister of Works keeps his job after a substandard public construction project comes to light is over.
Gone also are the days where the Minister of Youth and Sports manages to remain snug in her seat on the back of an official loss-making tin cup international youth football tournament played to no one in particular.
With any luck, the country will also see the Home Minister being booted out should he bungle up and purport to arrest a person under the draconian ISA “for her own protection”.
Ministers are reminded that Individual Ministerial Responsibility does not only cover his own actions. It also includes the overall performance of his ministry and his official’s actions or lack thereof. Poor marks in any of these areas will result in a lowly KPI which in turn must see the last of the Minister concerned.
Of course no one is holding their breath that the KPI system is going to work. However, putting cynicism aside, it must be said for now that at least there is a system in place. The enforcement is another matter.
Head Ministerial Prefect Tan Sri Dr. Koh Tsu Koon has an unenviable job. The thought of him actually marking down and disciplining Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz would bring a wry smile to many faces.
At the end of the day though, should the Minister in charge of Performance Management fail to deliver, the new Prime Minister would have to walk the talk and remove him for falling short of his own KPI.
Now that would indeed be a right mess - the Minister in charge of Performance Management being sacked for poor performance.
Speaking of poor performance, the continued failure of the Penang Pakatan Government to appoint a new Deputy Chief Minister to replace Mohammad Fairus Khairuddin smacks of inefficiency. Having incessantly criticised Tun Pak Lah previously for procrastination, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim should look himself in the mirror and ask why he too now moves at glacial speeds.
It is no excuse to say that political pressures or internal party issues need to be resolved first. That is not the people’s problem.
Pakatan’s delay in appointing a new Deputy Chief Minister for Penang and also in constituting the long awaited shadow cabinet is unacceptable. This stationary state of affairs must be resolved soon lest the people soon start to actually see little difference between the BN and the PR.
On the subject of delays, welcome back Elizabeth Wong. It took Pakatan long enough to return you to the people of Bukit Lanjan.
2009年4月17日星期五
梁文道：清贫与富贵
出处 ∶星洲日报
原题 ∶清贫与富贵
作者 ∶梁文道
发表日期∶16-04-09
我在台湾念小学的时候，有一个同学是军人子弟，他的父亲大概很早就退伍了，所以没有领到太多的长俸和福利，后来务农维生，日子过得很辛苦。虽然贫困，但他家的桌子总是擦得一尘不染，厕所地板亮得反光。每次到他家吃饭，我都震慑於老伯伯一口宏亮的山东腔，以及他那威严的仪容。而他的孩子，我这位同学，儘管一身旧衣早就洗得发白，却永远穿戴得整整齐齐，一丝不苟。
最近偶尔忆起童年往事，念及他家那极尽简朴的陈设，窗明几净，堂堂正正，我才赫然想起这原来就是古人所说的『清贫』。
清贫，也就是贫而不贱，且有一股自重自尊的清气。这种人穷则穷矣，然尊严所在，绝不容人轻视贬抑半分，不食嗟来之食※，不以媚色示人；任何人见他，都还得敬他三分。幼年在台，成年在港，我都曾见过不少这种清贫之士，或者是朝气勃勃的菜园老农，或者是精神抖擞的焊铁工人。瞧他们面目明朗，好像正在干一件天下间挺重要的事似的。
※《礼记·檀弓上》：
齐大饥，黔敖为食于路，以待饿者而食之。有饿者蒙袂辑屦，贸贸然来。黔敖左奉食，右执饮，曰：「嗟，来食!」扬其目而视之，曰：「予唯不食嗟来之食，以至于斯也。」从而谢焉。终不食而死。
白话：
有一年齐国大饥荒，黔敖在路上施舍食物，等待饥荒者前来食用。有一个饥饿的人用衣袖遮面走来，黔敖左手拿着食物，右手持着饮料，向他吆喝：「喂，过来吃吧！」。饥者瞪着他说到：「我就是因为不肯吃『嗟来之食』才落到这般地步的。」终不肯吃，最后饿死了。
日前，我与作家陈丹青在北京参加一场活动。活动快开始了，门外还站了一大堆人。陈丹青问场地经理这到底是怎么回事，后者说是为了安全，不能让所有人入场。进得会堂，我们发现空间其实多的是，於是陈丹青出去交涉要求放人进来，我则请前排观眾一齐挪椅子，好腾出位置让其他人有地方站。正当大家动手搬座椅，现场的保安人员突然用手按住站起来的观眾，同时大喝：「干甚么！统统不许动，回去！回去！」，態度相当粗悍。不论我如何解释，他们亦充耳不闻，场面开始变得有点混乱。
然后，管理人员闻声而至，看看里头究竟在闹甚么。动气的我告诉经理：「你的保安骂人呀！」於是她对一位保安隨手一指：「你！撤！」这时，一位冷静的观眾適时指出我的错误：「他並没有骂人。」
没错，那位保安员的確没开口骂人，他只不过是气势有点凶，语气有点粗暴罢了。说他骂人，只是我自己实在看不惯。然而，我又怎么会看不惯呢？全国各地，这类保安人员的粗野言行我早就碰过不知多少回了。这里似乎又有两种態度，要不是对贵客恭敬行礼，就是在有需要的时间声色俱厉，没有任何中间地带。
又有人提醒我，城里这些保安多半是农村来的民工。我也晓得；我晓得他们只是在执行命令。每次遇到问题，他们只能依照上级指示维护『安全』，不敢自己做主变通；因为他们从来不被赋予这种权力，他们的工作就是听话。每次执行安全任务，他们的方法往往就是高声斥喝越出界限的人群，甚至动手拉扯不守规矩的傢伙；因为除此之外，他们不知道有其他更温和的表达方式。或许，他们自己平常就是被人这样子对待的（我想起了那一声「你！撤！」）。
几天之后，我在一家餐馆晚饭，去洗手间的时候路过一间房门半开的包间，里头传来阵阵怒吼。我本能地走慢几步，看见房里一位喝红了脸的人正在痛骂一个低着头的服务生，他叫道：「我这身衣服你赔得起吗？你老板还得叫我大爷呢！你这XX混蛋！」。我马上就想起那天那一位尽忠职守的保安，不是因为他当时的态度很接近眼前这位『大爷』，而是他的样子很像这个吓得缩起了身子的服务员。
两年前清华大学的孙立平教授写过一篇很好的文章，题目叫做《穷人的尊严与不羞辱》。他认为贫富差距的恶化，使得很多弱者根本连饭碗都很难保得住，更不用说要保住自己的尊严了。那么，我们的社会能够维护他们吗？不能。因为这是一个嫌贫爱富的时代，城市主流如此，甚至连公权力也是如此。在车站广场前驱赶民工的公安可曾显示过尊重？在街道上追打小贩的城管可曾表露过善意？建立于共产主义意识形态的中国已经变成了一个阶级分野最巨大的国家，而且这种分野还不只是权力与财富的区别，更是尊严分配的区别；穷人与弱者的尊严，就和他们的财产一样稀缺。
因为《公共人的衰落》（The Fall of Public Man）而渐为中国读者认识的社会思想家桑内特（Richard Sennet）还有另外一本广受好评的著作：《尊敬》（Respect）。尽管他主要谈的是西方成熟资本主义社会，但是我们读来却一点也不陌生，那种尊严丧尽的情况原来大家都有。只不过中国的问题或许还要更严重些，比较类似苏联当年的情况：「不相连与疏离标志了苏维埃帝国的日常生活……，旁观成为一种生存之道。」每一个人都变成孤立的原子，每一段人伦关系都曾被体制割断，传统的守望相助退化成冷漠相对，只剩下权力高低之间的从属关系还在发挥作用。
然后，无情的市场竞争就进来了，情况只有变得更坏。
有意思的是，尊敬一定是双向的：「以敬待人不能单靠命令就会自动出现，它还是种互相承认。互相承认则需要协商的存在，它涉及个体人格与社会结构的庞杂性」。 用大白话讲，这就是面子。当那位『大爷』觉得服务生不给自己面子、因而当众羞辱他的时候，他也许不知道这种粗暴本身就是很丢脸的行为。弱者饱遭欺凌，并不表示欺人的强者就因此得到尊严；恰恰相反，尊严与面子是人际的舞蹈，任何一个剥夺他人尊严的人，都不可能是个体面的君子。
难怪这个社会不只再也看不见『清贫』，而且连『富贵』也都几近消亡。富贵也者，既富且贵；今日中国有多少富人身上是带着贵气的呢？所以我愿意为孙立平的观点添上一笔注脚：除了穷人与弱者，现在的富豪和强者其实也不见得很有尊严。
原题 ∶清贫与富贵
作者 ∶梁文道
发表日期∶16-04-09
我在台湾念小学的时候，有一个同学是军人子弟，他的父亲大概很早就退伍了，所以没有领到太多的长俸和福利，后来务农维生，日子过得很辛苦。虽然贫困，但他家的桌子总是擦得一尘不染，厕所地板亮得反光。每次到他家吃饭，我都震慑於老伯伯一口宏亮的山东腔，以及他那威严的仪容。而他的孩子，我这位同学，儘管一身旧衣早就洗得发白，却永远穿戴得整整齐齐，一丝不苟。
最近偶尔忆起童年往事，念及他家那极尽简朴的陈设，窗明几净，堂堂正正，我才赫然想起这原来就是古人所说的『清贫』。
清贫，也就是贫而不贱，且有一股自重自尊的清气。这种人穷则穷矣，然尊严所在，绝不容人轻视贬抑半分，不食嗟来之食※，不以媚色示人；任何人见他，都还得敬他三分。幼年在台，成年在港，我都曾见过不少这种清贫之士，或者是朝气勃勃的菜园老农，或者是精神抖擞的焊铁工人。瞧他们面目明朗，好像正在干一件天下间挺重要的事似的。
※《礼记·檀弓上》：
齐大饥，黔敖为食于路，以待饿者而食之。有饿者蒙袂辑屦，贸贸然来。黔敖左奉食，右执饮，曰：「嗟，来食!」扬其目而视之，曰：「予唯不食嗟来之食，以至于斯也。」从而谢焉。终不食而死。
白话：
有一年齐国大饥荒，黔敖在路上施舍食物，等待饥荒者前来食用。有一个饥饿的人用衣袖遮面走来，黔敖左手拿着食物，右手持着饮料，向他吆喝：「喂，过来吃吧！」。饥者瞪着他说到：「我就是因为不肯吃『嗟来之食』才落到这般地步的。」终不肯吃，最后饿死了。
日前，我与作家陈丹青在北京参加一场活动。活动快开始了，门外还站了一大堆人。陈丹青问场地经理这到底是怎么回事，后者说是为了安全，不能让所有人入场。进得会堂，我们发现空间其实多的是，於是陈丹青出去交涉要求放人进来，我则请前排观眾一齐挪椅子，好腾出位置让其他人有地方站。正当大家动手搬座椅，现场的保安人员突然用手按住站起来的观眾，同时大喝：「干甚么！统统不许动，回去！回去！」，態度相当粗悍。不论我如何解释，他们亦充耳不闻，场面开始变得有点混乱。
然后，管理人员闻声而至，看看里头究竟在闹甚么。动气的我告诉经理：「你的保安骂人呀！」於是她对一位保安隨手一指：「你！撤！」这时，一位冷静的观眾適时指出我的错误：「他並没有骂人。」
没错，那位保安员的確没开口骂人，他只不过是气势有点凶，语气有点粗暴罢了。说他骂人，只是我自己实在看不惯。然而，我又怎么会看不惯呢？全国各地，这类保安人员的粗野言行我早就碰过不知多少回了。这里似乎又有两种態度，要不是对贵客恭敬行礼，就是在有需要的时间声色俱厉，没有任何中间地带。
又有人提醒我，城里这些保安多半是农村来的民工。我也晓得；我晓得他们只是在执行命令。每次遇到问题，他们只能依照上级指示维护『安全』，不敢自己做主变通；因为他们从来不被赋予这种权力，他们的工作就是听话。每次执行安全任务，他们的方法往往就是高声斥喝越出界限的人群，甚至动手拉扯不守规矩的傢伙；因为除此之外，他们不知道有其他更温和的表达方式。或许，他们自己平常就是被人这样子对待的（我想起了那一声「你！撤！」）。
几天之后，我在一家餐馆晚饭，去洗手间的时候路过一间房门半开的包间，里头传来阵阵怒吼。我本能地走慢几步，看见房里一位喝红了脸的人正在痛骂一个低着头的服务生，他叫道：「我这身衣服你赔得起吗？你老板还得叫我大爷呢！你这XX混蛋！」。我马上就想起那天那一位尽忠职守的保安，不是因为他当时的态度很接近眼前这位『大爷』，而是他的样子很像这个吓得缩起了身子的服务员。
两年前清华大学的孙立平教授写过一篇很好的文章，题目叫做《穷人的尊严与不羞辱》。他认为贫富差距的恶化，使得很多弱者根本连饭碗都很难保得住，更不用说要保住自己的尊严了。那么，我们的社会能够维护他们吗？不能。因为这是一个嫌贫爱富的时代，城市主流如此，甚至连公权力也是如此。在车站广场前驱赶民工的公安可曾显示过尊重？在街道上追打小贩的城管可曾表露过善意？建立于共产主义意识形态的中国已经变成了一个阶级分野最巨大的国家，而且这种分野还不只是权力与财富的区别，更是尊严分配的区别；穷人与弱者的尊严，就和他们的财产一样稀缺。
因为《公共人的衰落》（The Fall of Public Man）而渐为中国读者认识的社会思想家桑内特（Richard Sennet）还有另外一本广受好评的著作：《尊敬》（Respect）。尽管他主要谈的是西方成熟资本主义社会，但是我们读来却一点也不陌生，那种尊严丧尽的情况原来大家都有。只不过中国的问题或许还要更严重些，比较类似苏联当年的情况：「不相连与疏离标志了苏维埃帝国的日常生活……，旁观成为一种生存之道。」每一个人都变成孤立的原子，每一段人伦关系都曾被体制割断，传统的守望相助退化成冷漠相对，只剩下权力高低之间的从属关系还在发挥作用。
然后，无情的市场竞争就进来了，情况只有变得更坏。
有意思的是，尊敬一定是双向的：「以敬待人不能单靠命令就会自动出现，它还是种互相承认。互相承认则需要协商的存在，它涉及个体人格与社会结构的庞杂性」。 用大白话讲，这就是面子。当那位『大爷』觉得服务生不给自己面子、因而当众羞辱他的时候，他也许不知道这种粗暴本身就是很丢脸的行为。弱者饱遭欺凌，并不表示欺人的强者就因此得到尊严；恰恰相反，尊严与面子是人际的舞蹈，任何一个剥夺他人尊严的人，都不可能是个体面的君子。
难怪这个社会不只再也看不见『清贫』，而且连『富贵』也都几近消亡。富贵也者，既富且贵；今日中国有多少富人身上是带着贵气的呢？所以我愿意为孙立平的观点添上一笔注脚：除了穷人与弱者，现在的富豪和强者其实也不见得很有尊严。
郑文泉：再论汉字的本质
出处 ∶星洲日报
原题 ∶再论汉字的本质
作者 ∶郑文泉
发表日期∶15-04-09
梁文道在报上发表了【汉字的本质】一文，提出汉字是「著重字形构义」的表意文字，和世界上其它「语音辨义的拼音文字」不同，这点不论从文字或文字本身的语言性质来说都有不妥的地方，故藉此提出討论如下：
从文字本身的角度来看，说汉字是「著重字形构义」的文字说法並没有错。每个字都有它的字义，而这个字义都大致可从它们不论是象形、指事、会意或形声等构字原则的最初字形看得出来，如「日」字的「太阳」字义可从它肖似太阳外观的象形字形看出、「明」字的「明亮」字义亦可从它会合了两个最明亮的「日」和「月」的含意而来，如此等等。
但是，这种说法有一个前提：是汉字的「最初字形」而不是现在的字形才能达到望「形」生义的文字功能。毕竟，单从「如」、「发」、「文」、「表」、「字」等今天的楷体字形，谁能说得清它的字义（也就是所谓「字的本义」）是甚么？
从这个「最初字形」的立场来说，汉字与其它「语音辨义的拼音文字」如罗马文字恐怕並没有太大的不同。我们知道，罗马字是由26个字母构成的，单从它现在的字形如A、B、C等也是没有人可以说得出它的字义是甚么。可是，如果我们回到这些字母的「最初字形」，那么就可以得知A其实像形「牛」、B象形门户的「户」、C象形「骆驼」等原则。换句话说，如果我们的汉字「著重字形构义」是指它的「最初字形」来说，那么这点並不真能和罗马字之类的拼音文字构成根本的不同。
至於从文字的语言功能来看，也就是不是从字的「字义」、而是「词义」来看，那么汉字和罗马文字的不同也没有想像中的大。眾所周知，罗马字母虽各有其字义，但字义和字义合成一个词的词义之间並没有甚么逻辑联繫，如a（牛）、i（手）、r（头）三字合成「air」（空气）一词有何道理可说？为甚么一头牛加一只手、一颗头的最后结果是「空气」？唯一的道理就是：a、i、r3个字母合起来的读音，刚好可以表达、记录英语那个读成air音的「空气」一词之义！
从这个地方来说，汉字的词义並不全是「字形构义」得来，它有不少其实是根据表音的原则而有，也就是文字学所说的「假借」。举例来说，「皮」的「字义」是「剥去兽皮」，可是它在「波」、「坡」、「跛」、「颇」等字的词义却是「不平、不正」，也就是水不平为「波」、土不平为「坡」、足不平为「跛」、头不平为「颇」的意思。请问：「皮」在这里的「不平、不正」词义是从「字形构义」的「剥去兽皮」的字义得来的吗？
答案当然是「不是」。道理就在：「皮」字自己的读音是「pi」，字义是「剥去兽皮」，可是在「 波」、「坡」、「跛」、「颇」这些字里却被借成另一个读成「po」的字，字义是「不平坦」。换句话说，如果我们不瞭解「皮」在「波」、「坡」、「跛」、「 颇」等字与其字义无关，硬要从「字形构义」来解释它的「不平、不正」的意思，而不知它其实正在记录、表达华语另一个读成「po」、字义是「不平坦」的字，那么只会自找苦吃而已。
原题 ∶再论汉字的本质
作者 ∶郑文泉
发表日期∶15-04-09
梁文道在报上发表了【汉字的本质】一文，提出汉字是「著重字形构义」的表意文字，和世界上其它「语音辨义的拼音文字」不同，这点不论从文字或文字本身的语言性质来说都有不妥的地方，故藉此提出討论如下：
从文字本身的角度来看，说汉字是「著重字形构义」的文字说法並没有错。每个字都有它的字义，而这个字义都大致可从它们不论是象形、指事、会意或形声等构字原则的最初字形看得出来，如「日」字的「太阳」字义可从它肖似太阳外观的象形字形看出、「明」字的「明亮」字义亦可从它会合了两个最明亮的「日」和「月」的含意而来，如此等等。
但是，这种说法有一个前提：是汉字的「最初字形」而不是现在的字形才能达到望「形」生义的文字功能。毕竟，单从「如」、「发」、「文」、「表」、「字」等今天的楷体字形，谁能说得清它的字义（也就是所谓「字的本义」）是甚么？
从这个「最初字形」的立场来说，汉字与其它「语音辨义的拼音文字」如罗马文字恐怕並没有太大的不同。我们知道，罗马字是由26个字母构成的，单从它现在的字形如A、B、C等也是没有人可以说得出它的字义是甚么。可是，如果我们回到这些字母的「最初字形」，那么就可以得知A其实像形「牛」、B象形门户的「户」、C象形「骆驼」等原则。换句话说，如果我们的汉字「著重字形构义」是指它的「最初字形」来说，那么这点並不真能和罗马字之类的拼音文字构成根本的不同。
至於从文字的语言功能来看，也就是不是从字的「字义」、而是「词义」来看，那么汉字和罗马文字的不同也没有想像中的大。眾所周知，罗马字母虽各有其字义，但字义和字义合成一个词的词义之间並没有甚么逻辑联繫，如a（牛）、i（手）、r（头）三字合成「air」（空气）一词有何道理可说？为甚么一头牛加一只手、一颗头的最后结果是「空气」？唯一的道理就是：a、i、r3个字母合起来的读音，刚好可以表达、记录英语那个读成air音的「空气」一词之义！
从这个地方来说，汉字的词义並不全是「字形构义」得来，它有不少其实是根据表音的原则而有，也就是文字学所说的「假借」。举例来说，「皮」的「字义」是「剥去兽皮」，可是它在「波」、「坡」、「跛」、「颇」等字的词义却是「不平、不正」，也就是水不平为「波」、土不平为「坡」、足不平为「跛」、头不平为「颇」的意思。请问：「皮」在这里的「不平、不正」词义是从「字形构义」的「剥去兽皮」的字义得来的吗？
答案当然是「不是」。道理就在：「皮」字自己的读音是「pi」，字义是「剥去兽皮」，可是在「 波」、「坡」、「跛」、「颇」这些字里却被借成另一个读成「po」的字，字义是「不平坦」。换句话说，如果我们不瞭解「皮」在「波」、「坡」、「跛」、「 颇」等字与其字义无关，硬要从「字形构义」来解释它的「不平、不正」的意思，而不知它其实正在记录、表达华语另一个读成「po」、字义是「不平坦」的字，那么只会自找苦吃而已。
2009年4月11日星期六
再娜安华：找麻烦，如果需要的话
出处 ∶星洲日报
原题 ∶The Star:Rock the boat, if need be
作者 ∶再娜安华（ZAINAH ANWAR）
发表日期∶05-04-09
翻译日期∶10-04-09
翻译 ∶张立德
许多大马人刚刚告別卸任的第五任首相，那是黯然的时刻。他是一个充满热诚、要贡献国家的好人，但在面对党內和政府的阻力下，却缺乏魄力和果断去落实改革承诺。
敦阿都拉当初提出『和我一起工作，不是为我工作』（work with me, and not for me）的口號，掳获人心。他誓言巩固民主、消除贪污和实施政策透明化与有效率；承诺成为全民首相，呼吁非政府组织成为政府耳目。这些宣言令厌倦了专制管治手法的国人感到悦耳动听。
他的改革承诺让国阵在2004年大选取得压倒性胜利。但民眾对其改革议程的强大支持很快就沦为失望和愤怒，因其部长、公务员和党员偏离了其改革讯息。他让他们为所欲为，没有一套机制和监督系统来控制状况和导回正轨。他执政团队的杂音让民眾感觉到犹如一艘船，因船长受到各方困扰而漫无目的在航行。
他开启了公共舆论空间，但新闻部和內政部的老主管却没有主意，如何有策略和智慧去应对开放的空间和批评，以及无疆界新媒体、更强大的反对党和更有勇气的选民所带来的挑战。
他应该是改革的主力，带头有效落实其意愿。反之，他不干涉的领导方式让其党和政府內部可以罔顾他的愿景和政策，制定一套完全不同的议程，损害了其政权，最终令人民背弃巫统和国阵。
对伯拉这样一个在种族关係、妇权和民主有著进步愿景，可以展现出党和政府当时改革氛围的人，却被迫提早退位，真是可惜。当他发现必须更具决心去落实他的改革议程时，一切已经太迟。他的党不要他领导了，但歷史会公平评价他的。
伯拉劝告他的继承人不要重蹈他的覆辙──维持原有的那个內阁，被那些无法理解其改革议程或没有魄力去推动改革的旧阁员佔据──这是很好的提醒。为了不要与其前任者敌对，他放弃选贤任能，反之留下旧人。
缺乏激情的推动，改革將无法到位。一个人怕惹麻烦，也无法带来改革。有时候甚至要顛覆，敢於去掉包袱，因为害怕改变的人內心会强烈的抗拒。
大马第六任首相已经就任，並为他的政党提出事先警告：改变，否则就得灭亡。我担心的是，巫统党员在党代表大会上对新领导层的诞生感到兴奋，不是针对纳吉要带来的改变，而是要他回到过去，恢復巫统的旧时光辉──通过政治命令。
民眾仍无法確定纳吉是不是一个可以信任的改革承担者。纳吉本身意识到这一点，他知道在民眾眼中，他的名誉並非无污点的，因此，他很技巧地要求民眾以他的行动来评价他。
他知道没有所谓的蜜月期，必须组织一个適当的內阁，立即將他的改革议程化为具体政策，使巫统上下和他一起奋斗。他必须马上交出具体和明確的成绩，否则，民眾的负面看法会加强，而他要使巫统和人民重新联繫起来，否则人民对其领导的信心將功亏一簣。
The new Prime Minister has to translate his change agenda into concrete public action immediately; change cannot take place without champions with passion to drive it.
For many Malaysians saying silent goodbyes to our fifth Prime Minister, it is a sad moment. For there goes a good man who had the right instincts to do what is best for his country, but who did not have the strength nor the decisiveness needed to deliver on his promises of reform in the face of resistance from within his own party and government.
Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi captured the public imagination when he addressed the nation in Parliament, asking Malaysians to “work with me, and not for me”. He pledged to strengthen democracy, weed out corruption and make governance transparent and accountable. He promised to be Prime Minister of all Malaysians. He called on the NGOs to be the eyes and ears of the government. These pronouncements were all music to a populace tired of the ancien régime autocratic rule.
His promise of change swept Barisan Nasional to an extraordinary electoral victory in 2004. But the overwhelming public support for his change agenda soon turned to frustration and fury when his ministers, his civil servants, and his party apparatchiks went off his change message. He let them run loose on the rakyat, with no mechanism and no monitoring system in place to pull the leash on them and get them to stay on message. The cacophony of divergent voices and messages from his administration led to a public sense of a ship adrift with a captain buffetted by all sides.
He opened up the public space for debate, but the Old Guards in the Information and Home Ministries had no clue how to strategically and intelligently respond to the new openness and counter the criticisms and the challenges posed by the free-for-all new media, a strengthened Opposition and an emboldened electorate.
He should have been the master change agent, providing leadership to effectively execute his message. Instead his laissez-faire leadership style enabled those within his party and his government opposed to his vision and his policies to set a different agenda that undermined his authority and eventually turned the rakyat against Umno and the Barisan Nasional.
It is ironic and a lost opportunity that someone as progressive as Pak Lah in his vision and judgment on race relations, women’s rights, and democracy, who could have brought the party and government success to reflect the changing mood of the times, has instead ended his tenure by being forced into early retirement. By the time he realised that he needed to be more decisive to deliver on his promises of reform, it was too late. His party did not want him at the helm any more. But history will be a kinder judge of his record.
Pak Lah is right to advise his successor not to make the first major mistake he committed – to keep a Cabinet he inherited, dominated by Old School ministers who did not share his change agenda or did not have the energy nor the ideas to deliver the change. Instead of getting the right people with the right skills, he kept the old hands as he did not want to antagonise his predecessor.
Change cannot take place without champions with passion to drive the change agenda. Change cannot take place if one fears rocking the boat. Sometimes one might even need to capsize the boat and lose some crew members because intense resistance will come from those fearful of change.
Now Malaysia’s sixth Prime Minister has taken office with an ominous warning to his party: change or perish. My worry is that the euphoria among the party members at the General Assembly for the new leadership is not for the change that Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak wants to bring, but for him to turn back the clock and bring back Umno’s past glory – through political fiat.
The rakyat outside remains uncertain if Najib will be the bearer of change they can believe in. Najib himself is aware of this for he knows that in the public eye, his reputation is not unblemished. Thus, wisely, he appealed to the public to please judge him by his actions.
He knows there is no honeymoon period for him. He has to get the Cabinet right, he has to translate his change agenda into concrete public action immediately, and bring his party with him on this. He must produce results, tangible and visible, without delay. If not, the negative public perception will only be reinforced and his mission to reconnect Umno with the rakyat and to build public trust in his leadership will be damaged beyond repair.
He has made the right start with his maiden speech, making clear his direction: 1Malaysia, People First, Performance Now. He took immediate action: the release of ISA detainees, the promise to review the ISA, and the lifting of a temporary ban on two party newspapers.
Najib and many of the newly elected Umno leaders do realise the dire straits the party is in and that defeat in the next election is a possible reality. But I do not believe most of the delegates share that sentiment. Those cheers could be for an expected return to the good old days of generous patronage trickling down to the divisions and branches, and autocratic rule to cripple the Opposition and civil society.
Journalists covering the assembly lament how little the delegates picked up on Najib’s or Pak Lah’s speeches calling for change and their criticism of grasping Umno members who have lost touch with the rakyat.
In his closing speech, Najib appealed to the delegates to be the eyes and ears of the rakyat so that Umno can read accurately the pulse of the nation and translate that into policy and action. He directed them to go back to Umno’s beginnings, a party rooted in the grassroots. However, for many of these Umno delegates, the rakyat means them. To listen to the “akar umbi” means the party leadership should listen and respond to the disgruntlement of Umno members for a piece of the pie that has gone to the big boys.
While Najib has proposed some immediate structural changes to reform Umno to make it more democratic and to deal with the scourge of money politics, he was silent on what really makes being an Umno leader such a coveted and lucrative position. It is, for many, a passport to personal wealth accumulation or, at the very least, a better life. Thus the bitter battles to win at all costs, for the investment will bring greater returns. Thus the reason why talented young Malays are blocked by talentless, self-serving branch and divisional leaders from joining the party or rising to the top. Thus the exodus of educated Malays to PAS and PKR, or who opt to be active in civil society instead.
Umno desperately needs fresh young talent to revive the party. But first it has to root out the systemic corruption, rent-seeking behaviour and entrenched patronage within the party. It is this lucrative system that attracts the carpetbaggers to join Umno and to fight tooth and nail to win leadership positions.
In a 2005 party assembly speech critical of bumiputra rent seekers who abused the opportunities given, Pak Lah revealed how the government had been threatened to pump-prime the economy to give the 42,000 Class F contractors, most of whom are Umno members and grassroots leaders, more and more contracts. In 2000 when the government was compelled to allocate projects to each parliamentary constituency to ensure the survival of Class F contractors, it led to even more contractors being registered, demanding even more contracts than the government could ever hand out, he said.
Those familiar with the government’s failure to deal with the migrant labour situation cite the lucrative permits to import workers being in the hands of key figures linked to Umno. Again and again, attempts to effectively control the demand and supply of foreign labour are thwarted because of political interference. The same with taxi permits.
For as long as the government continues to play Santa Claus to keep Umno members happy, there will be no end to money politics and corruption in the party. This is the big running sore that is poisoning Umno. But who within Umno has the courage to really bell the elephant within? Who dares to sink the gravy boat? Obviously, if the new President does not also embark on this big party clean-up, the disconnect between Umno and the rakyat will prolong.
Three million members have become a burden to the party and the economy. The vicious circle of goodies in return for support must end.
原题 ∶The Star:Rock the boat, if need be
作者 ∶再娜安华（ZAINAH ANWAR）
发表日期∶05-04-09
翻译日期∶10-04-09
翻译 ∶张立德
许多大马人刚刚告別卸任的第五任首相，那是黯然的时刻。他是一个充满热诚、要贡献国家的好人，但在面对党內和政府的阻力下，却缺乏魄力和果断去落实改革承诺。
敦阿都拉当初提出『和我一起工作，不是为我工作』（work with me, and not for me）的口號，掳获人心。他誓言巩固民主、消除贪污和实施政策透明化与有效率；承诺成为全民首相，呼吁非政府组织成为政府耳目。这些宣言令厌倦了专制管治手法的国人感到悦耳动听。
他的改革承诺让国阵在2004年大选取得压倒性胜利。但民眾对其改革议程的强大支持很快就沦为失望和愤怒，因其部长、公务员和党员偏离了其改革讯息。他让他们为所欲为，没有一套机制和监督系统来控制状况和导回正轨。他执政团队的杂音让民眾感觉到犹如一艘船，因船长受到各方困扰而漫无目的在航行。
他开启了公共舆论空间，但新闻部和內政部的老主管却没有主意，如何有策略和智慧去应对开放的空间和批评，以及无疆界新媒体、更强大的反对党和更有勇气的选民所带来的挑战。
他应该是改革的主力，带头有效落实其意愿。反之，他不干涉的领导方式让其党和政府內部可以罔顾他的愿景和政策，制定一套完全不同的议程，损害了其政权，最终令人民背弃巫统和国阵。
对伯拉这样一个在种族关係、妇权和民主有著进步愿景，可以展现出党和政府当时改革氛围的人，却被迫提早退位，真是可惜。当他发现必须更具决心去落实他的改革议程时，一切已经太迟。他的党不要他领导了，但歷史会公平评价他的。
伯拉劝告他的继承人不要重蹈他的覆辙──维持原有的那个內阁，被那些无法理解其改革议程或没有魄力去推动改革的旧阁员佔据──这是很好的提醒。为了不要与其前任者敌对，他放弃选贤任能，反之留下旧人。
缺乏激情的推动，改革將无法到位。一个人怕惹麻烦，也无法带来改革。有时候甚至要顛覆，敢於去掉包袱，因为害怕改变的人內心会强烈的抗拒。
大马第六任首相已经就任，並为他的政党提出事先警告：改变，否则就得灭亡。我担心的是，巫统党员在党代表大会上对新领导层的诞生感到兴奋，不是针对纳吉要带来的改变，而是要他回到过去，恢復巫统的旧时光辉──通过政治命令。
民眾仍无法確定纳吉是不是一个可以信任的改革承担者。纳吉本身意识到这一点，他知道在民眾眼中，他的名誉並非无污点的，因此，他很技巧地要求民眾以他的行动来评价他。
他知道没有所谓的蜜月期，必须组织一个適当的內阁，立即將他的改革议程化为具体政策，使巫统上下和他一起奋斗。他必须马上交出具体和明確的成绩，否则，民眾的负面看法会加强，而他要使巫统和人民重新联繫起来，否则人民对其领导的信心將功亏一簣。
The new Prime Minister has to translate his change agenda into concrete public action immediately; change cannot take place without champions with passion to drive it.
For many Malaysians saying silent goodbyes to our fifth Prime Minister, it is a sad moment. For there goes a good man who had the right instincts to do what is best for his country, but who did not have the strength nor the decisiveness needed to deliver on his promises of reform in the face of resistance from within his own party and government.
Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi captured the public imagination when he addressed the nation in Parliament, asking Malaysians to “work with me, and not for me”. He pledged to strengthen democracy, weed out corruption and make governance transparent and accountable. He promised to be Prime Minister of all Malaysians. He called on the NGOs to be the eyes and ears of the government. These pronouncements were all music to a populace tired of the ancien régime autocratic rule.
His promise of change swept Barisan Nasional to an extraordinary electoral victory in 2004. But the overwhelming public support for his change agenda soon turned to frustration and fury when his ministers, his civil servants, and his party apparatchiks went off his change message. He let them run loose on the rakyat, with no mechanism and no monitoring system in place to pull the leash on them and get them to stay on message. The cacophony of divergent voices and messages from his administration led to a public sense of a ship adrift with a captain buffetted by all sides.
He opened up the public space for debate, but the Old Guards in the Information and Home Ministries had no clue how to strategically and intelligently respond to the new openness and counter the criticisms and the challenges posed by the free-for-all new media, a strengthened Opposition and an emboldened electorate.
He should have been the master change agent, providing leadership to effectively execute his message. Instead his laissez-faire leadership style enabled those within his party and his government opposed to his vision and his policies to set a different agenda that undermined his authority and eventually turned the rakyat against Umno and the Barisan Nasional.
It is ironic and a lost opportunity that someone as progressive as Pak Lah in his vision and judgment on race relations, women’s rights, and democracy, who could have brought the party and government success to reflect the changing mood of the times, has instead ended his tenure by being forced into early retirement. By the time he realised that he needed to be more decisive to deliver on his promises of reform, it was too late. His party did not want him at the helm any more. But history will be a kinder judge of his record.
Pak Lah is right to advise his successor not to make the first major mistake he committed – to keep a Cabinet he inherited, dominated by Old School ministers who did not share his change agenda or did not have the energy nor the ideas to deliver the change. Instead of getting the right people with the right skills, he kept the old hands as he did not want to antagonise his predecessor.
Change cannot take place without champions with passion to drive the change agenda. Change cannot take place if one fears rocking the boat. Sometimes one might even need to capsize the boat and lose some crew members because intense resistance will come from those fearful of change.
Now Malaysia’s sixth Prime Minister has taken office with an ominous warning to his party: change or perish. My worry is that the euphoria among the party members at the General Assembly for the new leadership is not for the change that Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak wants to bring, but for him to turn back the clock and bring back Umno’s past glory – through political fiat.
The rakyat outside remains uncertain if Najib will be the bearer of change they can believe in. Najib himself is aware of this for he knows that in the public eye, his reputation is not unblemished. Thus, wisely, he appealed to the public to please judge him by his actions.
He knows there is no honeymoon period for him. He has to get the Cabinet right, he has to translate his change agenda into concrete public action immediately, and bring his party with him on this. He must produce results, tangible and visible, without delay. If not, the negative public perception will only be reinforced and his mission to reconnect Umno with the rakyat and to build public trust in his leadership will be damaged beyond repair.
He has made the right start with his maiden speech, making clear his direction: 1Malaysia, People First, Performance Now. He took immediate action: the release of ISA detainees, the promise to review the ISA, and the lifting of a temporary ban on two party newspapers.
Najib and many of the newly elected Umno leaders do realise the dire straits the party is in and that defeat in the next election is a possible reality. But I do not believe most of the delegates share that sentiment. Those cheers could be for an expected return to the good old days of generous patronage trickling down to the divisions and branches, and autocratic rule to cripple the Opposition and civil society.
Journalists covering the assembly lament how little the delegates picked up on Najib’s or Pak Lah’s speeches calling for change and their criticism of grasping Umno members who have lost touch with the rakyat.
In his closing speech, Najib appealed to the delegates to be the eyes and ears of the rakyat so that Umno can read accurately the pulse of the nation and translate that into policy and action. He directed them to go back to Umno’s beginnings, a party rooted in the grassroots. However, for many of these Umno delegates, the rakyat means them. To listen to the “akar umbi” means the party leadership should listen and respond to the disgruntlement of Umno members for a piece of the pie that has gone to the big boys.
While Najib has proposed some immediate structural changes to reform Umno to make it more democratic and to deal with the scourge of money politics, he was silent on what really makes being an Umno leader such a coveted and lucrative position. It is, for many, a passport to personal wealth accumulation or, at the very least, a better life. Thus the bitter battles to win at all costs, for the investment will bring greater returns. Thus the reason why talented young Malays are blocked by talentless, self-serving branch and divisional leaders from joining the party or rising to the top. Thus the exodus of educated Malays to PAS and PKR, or who opt to be active in civil society instead.
Umno desperately needs fresh young talent to revive the party. But first it has to root out the systemic corruption, rent-seeking behaviour and entrenched patronage within the party. It is this lucrative system that attracts the carpetbaggers to join Umno and to fight tooth and nail to win leadership positions.
In a 2005 party assembly speech critical of bumiputra rent seekers who abused the opportunities given, Pak Lah revealed how the government had been threatened to pump-prime the economy to give the 42,000 Class F contractors, most of whom are Umno members and grassroots leaders, more and more contracts. In 2000 when the government was compelled to allocate projects to each parliamentary constituency to ensure the survival of Class F contractors, it led to even more contractors being registered, demanding even more contracts than the government could ever hand out, he said.
Those familiar with the government’s failure to deal with the migrant labour situation cite the lucrative permits to import workers being in the hands of key figures linked to Umno. Again and again, attempts to effectively control the demand and supply of foreign labour are thwarted because of political interference. The same with taxi permits.
For as long as the government continues to play Santa Claus to keep Umno members happy, there will be no end to money politics and corruption in the party. This is the big running sore that is poisoning Umno. But who within Umno has the courage to really bell the elephant within? Who dares to sink the gravy boat? Obviously, if the new President does not also embark on this big party clean-up, the disconnect between Umno and the rakyat will prolong.
Three million members have become a burden to the party and the economy. The vicious circle of goodies in return for support must end.
东姑阿都阿兹：新政府亟需透明和负责
出处 ∶星洲日报
原题 ∶The BN government has lost all its moral capital
作者 ∶东姑阿都阿兹（Tunku Abdul Aziz）
发表日期∶10-04-09
翻译 ∶张立德
如果纳吉在4月7日补选当天，对武吉士南卯和武吉干当选民不投反对党一票没有抱著一线希望的话，那有悖常理。那是一个未完成的梦想，因为他们不仅可以解救国阵於不间断的抨击，也能够摆脱马哈迪的炮轰。一如所料，民联候选人大获全胜。我不会抬举砂拉越峇当艾补选成绩，除了说砂拉越甚么都可以发生，以及政府不能持久严密监视。
选民难以接受新首相领导的巫统將通过民主选举上台的霹雳州务大臣推倒，遂把不满情绪反映在选票上。
当纳吉在检討非国阵希望看到的补选成绩时，相信会发现，他还未完全摆脱个人的许多负面因素。他肯定知道自己没有办法平静，直到困扰他的问题获得解决为止。不幸的，这是政治生涯的本质。无论他的政治化装师如何为国阵的失败解套，事实是大马人已经改变，但巫统没有。『父荫』不再是优势，领袖很难靠此上位。
补选前我观察到，敦马应该留在他那绿色家园里不受干扰，好好休息，避免他对巫统和国家带来破坏。在竞选期间摆马哈迪上台，当作巫统其中一项秘密武器，会產生和预期情况完全相反的结果。所谓的『马哈迪效应』，只不过是心理作用。乡区人民所知的和我们知道的不成正比。他们不知道马哈迪执政的22年时间带来了哪些负面影响，双峰塔、四通八达的高速大道网络和其他现代化发展都很好，但这一切资產到底耗损了多少马哈迪政权的道德和修为资本？
纳吉受到严重误导，结果必须付出严重代价，因此，建议部署旧战將来贏取民心的人应该被革职。我身为在野党成员，固然希望纳吉犯下更多策略上的错误，以有利於我们。我们无法改变我们国家的一切，直到我们改变了政府。国阵政府已经丧失了它的道德资本。
我希望西马补选成绩可以给纳吉带来深刻影响；那是好的反省教材，为人民建立乾净、开明和负责任的管理制度是很重要的，人们已经不再容忍过份的不当行为。大马的民主机制儘管不完善，但我们不应该忘记：当选民在投选他心仪的候选人时，他们就是造王者。
纳吉必须谨记並遵守此格言：诚实是最好的政策。他应该明白自己拥有的权力是对他信任的委託，只能够用在他身为政府领导人所负责的合法事务上。马哈迪主义下的一切不应该回笼，纳吉也不应该让在道义上可疑、並对他现在领导的政党名誉造成巨大破坏的人以任何形式回归。以今天的情况而言，贪污仍是国民非常关心的课题，如果政府要做好一切，在管理国家时，透明和负责任是不二法则。
纳吉与他內阁同僚有没有履行职责的重大决心？或者，祈求厄运不要降临，还是保留巫统领袖的那一套？这是纳吉不能逃避的挑战。
IT WOULD NOT have been human if Datuk Seri Najib Razak had not hoped against hope that the voters in the Bukit Selambau and Bukit Gantang by-elections on April 8 would, in a manner of speaking, present him, on a gleaming silver salver, the two decapitated heads of the vanquished Pakatan Rakyat candidates. In the event, it was an unfulfilled dream because not only did they survive the relentless Barisan Nasional sniper fire, but also the heavy artillery in the shape of Tun Dr. Mahathir. Pakatan Rakyat candidates, as expected, emerged triumphant and completely unscathed. I will not dignify the Sarawak by-election with my comment except to say that in Sarawak anything goes, and the government cannot stand up to close scrutiny.
The new prime minister, who in another life, deftly diverted the course of “natural justice” by having the democratically elected menteri besar removed, and subsequently treated him so shabbily, was not forgotten by the public for this disgraceful action. He was punished by the voters in these constituencies who denied him the one trophy that would have legitimised his elevation to the nation’s highest political office.
As Najib was left to ponder on the implications for him of the electoral reverses that he so devoutly wished to avoid, he must have realised that he had not completely shed the many negative vibes emanating from his person. He surely must know that he will not be allowed to have a moment’s peace until he clears the allegations of impropriety against him. That unfortunately is in the nature of political life. Whatever clever spin his public relations professionals might put on the BN failure, the fact is that Malaysians have changed and UMNO in particular has not. “Father” in this day and age no longer knows best, and it is hard for leaders to come to terms with this.
I made the observation before the by-election were held that Tun Dr. Mahathir should have been left undisturbed to enjoy his rest and recreation in pastures green where he could do UMNO and the nation little damage. Parading him around the election paddock as part of the UMNO secret weapon, in the event, backfired seriously. The so-called Mahathir factor had nothing more than curiosity value at best. People in the rural areas know more than we care to admit. They are not unaware what 22 years of Mahathirism had done to the soul and spirit of Malaysia. Twin Towers, a great highway network criss-crossing the country and all the other manifestations of modernity are fine, but these assets have been acquired at what cost under Mahathir in ethical and moral terms?
Whoever suggested that the old war horse be deployed in the campaign for the hearts and minds of the people should be sacked. Najib had been badly advised, and is now paying a heavy price. What a way to start his first week in office. As a member of an opposition political party, I should be encouraging Najib to commit more strategic errors that will work to our advantage. We cannot change anything in our country unless and until we change the government. The BN government has forfeited its moral capital.
I hope the outcome of the Peninsular Malaysia by-elections will make a deep impression on Najib; it should be a salutary lesson in the importance of delivering the benefits of clean, open and accountable governance to the people who are no longer prepared to overlook excesses that border on the criminal. Imperfect as the democratic institutions are in our country, we must never forget that the voter is king when he exercises his rights to choose whom he wishes.
Najib must always remember and live by the dictum: Honesty is the Best Policy. He should understand that the power he exercises is but entrusted power to hold in trust, to be used solely for the purpose of benefiting those for whose legitimate welfare he, as head of government, is responsible. The days of Mahathirism are, we hope, well and truly over. Mahathirism with all that it represented should not be allowed to revisit this nation, and Najib must not allow obligations of a dubious nature to people who have done great harm to the reputation of the party he now leads to make a comeback in whatever capacity. As things stand today, with corruption remaining a serious national concern, there is no substitute for transparency and accountability in the affairs of state if the government is to last a full term.
Does Najib and his cabinet colleagues have the strength of character to live up to their oath of office? Or, God forbid, will it be a case of more of the same as far as UMNO leadership is concerned. This is a challenge that Najib cannot evade.
原题 ∶The BN government has lost all its moral capital
作者 ∶东姑阿都阿兹（Tunku Abdul Aziz）
发表日期∶10-04-09
翻译 ∶张立德
如果纳吉在4月7日补选当天，对武吉士南卯和武吉干当选民不投反对党一票没有抱著一线希望的话，那有悖常理。那是一个未完成的梦想，因为他们不仅可以解救国阵於不间断的抨击，也能够摆脱马哈迪的炮轰。一如所料，民联候选人大获全胜。我不会抬举砂拉越峇当艾补选成绩，除了说砂拉越甚么都可以发生，以及政府不能持久严密监视。
选民难以接受新首相领导的巫统將通过民主选举上台的霹雳州务大臣推倒，遂把不满情绪反映在选票上。
当纳吉在检討非国阵希望看到的补选成绩时，相信会发现，他还未完全摆脱个人的许多负面因素。他肯定知道自己没有办法平静，直到困扰他的问题获得解决为止。不幸的，这是政治生涯的本质。无论他的政治化装师如何为国阵的失败解套，事实是大马人已经改变，但巫统没有。『父荫』不再是优势，领袖很难靠此上位。
补选前我观察到，敦马应该留在他那绿色家园里不受干扰，好好休息，避免他对巫统和国家带来破坏。在竞选期间摆马哈迪上台，当作巫统其中一项秘密武器，会產生和预期情况完全相反的结果。所谓的『马哈迪效应』，只不过是心理作用。乡区人民所知的和我们知道的不成正比。他们不知道马哈迪执政的22年时间带来了哪些负面影响，双峰塔、四通八达的高速大道网络和其他现代化发展都很好，但这一切资產到底耗损了多少马哈迪政权的道德和修为资本？
纳吉受到严重误导，结果必须付出严重代价，因此，建议部署旧战將来贏取民心的人应该被革职。我身为在野党成员，固然希望纳吉犯下更多策略上的错误，以有利於我们。我们无法改变我们国家的一切，直到我们改变了政府。国阵政府已经丧失了它的道德资本。
我希望西马补选成绩可以给纳吉带来深刻影响；那是好的反省教材，为人民建立乾净、开明和负责任的管理制度是很重要的，人们已经不再容忍过份的不当行为。大马的民主机制儘管不完善，但我们不应该忘记：当选民在投选他心仪的候选人时，他们就是造王者。
纳吉必须谨记並遵守此格言：诚实是最好的政策。他应该明白自己拥有的权力是对他信任的委託，只能够用在他身为政府领导人所负责的合法事务上。马哈迪主义下的一切不应该回笼，纳吉也不应该让在道义上可疑、並对他现在领导的政党名誉造成巨大破坏的人以任何形式回归。以今天的情况而言，贪污仍是国民非常关心的课题，如果政府要做好一切，在管理国家时，透明和负责任是不二法则。
纳吉与他內阁同僚有没有履行职责的重大决心？或者，祈求厄运不要降临，还是保留巫统领袖的那一套？这是纳吉不能逃避的挑战。
IT WOULD NOT have been human if Datuk Seri Najib Razak had not hoped against hope that the voters in the Bukit Selambau and Bukit Gantang by-elections on April 8 would, in a manner of speaking, present him, on a gleaming silver salver, the two decapitated heads of the vanquished Pakatan Rakyat candidates. In the event, it was an unfulfilled dream because not only did they survive the relentless Barisan Nasional sniper fire, but also the heavy artillery in the shape of Tun Dr. Mahathir. Pakatan Rakyat candidates, as expected, emerged triumphant and completely unscathed. I will not dignify the Sarawak by-election with my comment except to say that in Sarawak anything goes, and the government cannot stand up to close scrutiny.
The new prime minister, who in another life, deftly diverted the course of “natural justice” by having the democratically elected menteri besar removed, and subsequently treated him so shabbily, was not forgotten by the public for this disgraceful action. He was punished by the voters in these constituencies who denied him the one trophy that would have legitimised his elevation to the nation’s highest political office.
As Najib was left to ponder on the implications for him of the electoral reverses that he so devoutly wished to avoid, he must have realised that he had not completely shed the many negative vibes emanating from his person. He surely must know that he will not be allowed to have a moment’s peace until he clears the allegations of impropriety against him. That unfortunately is in the nature of political life. Whatever clever spin his public relations professionals might put on the BN failure, the fact is that Malaysians have changed and UMNO in particular has not. “Father” in this day and age no longer knows best, and it is hard for leaders to come to terms with this.
I made the observation before the by-election were held that Tun Dr. Mahathir should have been left undisturbed to enjoy his rest and recreation in pastures green where he could do UMNO and the nation little damage. Parading him around the election paddock as part of the UMNO secret weapon, in the event, backfired seriously. The so-called Mahathir factor had nothing more than curiosity value at best. People in the rural areas know more than we care to admit. They are not unaware what 22 years of Mahathirism had done to the soul and spirit of Malaysia. Twin Towers, a great highway network criss-crossing the country and all the other manifestations of modernity are fine, but these assets have been acquired at what cost under Mahathir in ethical and moral terms?
Whoever suggested that the old war horse be deployed in the campaign for the hearts and minds of the people should be sacked. Najib had been badly advised, and is now paying a heavy price. What a way to start his first week in office. As a member of an opposition political party, I should be encouraging Najib to commit more strategic errors that will work to our advantage. We cannot change anything in our country unless and until we change the government. The BN government has forfeited its moral capital.
I hope the outcome of the Peninsular Malaysia by-elections will make a deep impression on Najib; it should be a salutary lesson in the importance of delivering the benefits of clean, open and accountable governance to the people who are no longer prepared to overlook excesses that border on the criminal. Imperfect as the democratic institutions are in our country, we must never forget that the voter is king when he exercises his rights to choose whom he wishes.
Najib must always remember and live by the dictum: Honesty is the Best Policy. He should understand that the power he exercises is but entrusted power to hold in trust, to be used solely for the purpose of benefiting those for whose legitimate welfare he, as head of government, is responsible. The days of Mahathirism are, we hope, well and truly over. Mahathirism with all that it represented should not be allowed to revisit this nation, and Najib must not allow obligations of a dubious nature to people who have done great harm to the reputation of the party he now leads to make a comeback in whatever capacity. As things stand today, with corruption remaining a serious national concern, there is no substitute for transparency and accountability in the affairs of state if the government is to last a full term.
Does Najib and his cabinet colleagues have the strength of character to live up to their oath of office? Or, God forbid, will it be a case of more of the same as far as UMNO leadership is concerned. This is a challenge that Najib cannot evade.
2009年4月9日星期四
梁文道：中国的出现
出处 ∶星洲日报
作者 ∶梁文道
发表日期∶07.04.09
汉字拉丁化的主张和白话文运动都有一个共同的前提，那就是语言优先於文字，声音优先於字形。之所以要读写白话文，是为了『我手写我口』。不只要让我手上的文字臣服於我口中的语言；更要一反古代文言分离的传统，达致言文一致。瞿秋白和钱玄同力主汉字拉丁化，其实是这种想法的合理延伸：既然要我手写我口，那么我使用的文字就不该是表意文字，而是彻底透明地传达语音的表音文字。借用法国哲学家德里达的说法，这实在是一种非常西方的逻各斯中心主义（logocentrism），以语音为根源的玄妙形上学。
但是，如此激进的西化方案却又弔诡地服务了建国目的。因为要真正做到我手写我口，真正实现汉字拉丁化的长程目標，语言就不能不统一。我们不能只是改变书面语，也不能只是改造汉字，还要推行遍及全中国的『国语』或『普通话』，使中国人先说同一种语言，再写同一种文字。
以往的中国人虽有不同方言，却能凭脱离口语的文言文彼此沟通，还发展出广被东亚的汉字文化圈。从日本、朝鲜、一直到越南，莫不在汉字的文化范围內。可是和这种汉字文化圈相通適应的『天下观』，却与现代东传而来的民族国家观念有矛盾。按照现代民族主义的常规，一个独立的民族国家必须有统一而標准的国语，有能够准確表达国语的文字系统。除了日本保留部份汉字，朝鲜和越南都先后放弃汉字，改採用新造的拼音文字（虽然日本也曾有过完全弃绝汉字的『新国语运动』）。
至於中国，白话文运动和国语运动更是民族国家建立计划的一部分。可別忘了，自清末开始，『中国不算是一个国家』和『中国人是一盘散沙』的哀嘆就已渐成共识。要让中国人团结，语言统一是极其必要；要让中国人没有內在的区隔，便要把本属士绅阶层的书写能力交还大眾。
汉字改造不单为了扫盲（其实扫除文盲也是现代民族国家建立工程的普遍步骤），更是为了建立一个新中国，把中国从过去的『天下中心』变成现代民族国家之林的一部份。
问题是：外来的民族主义思潮要求我们统一国语，普以语言驾驭文字，仿效西方民族国家在语言上的种种规划。这种举措却与传统中国文言分离，以文字形体为思维核心的现实差得太远。所以语言和文字总会引起大家的兴趣，从电子媒体上的方言之爭，到汉字该不该恢復繁体的论战，再小的涟漪下面都是汹涌矛盾的暗流。昔日我们以改革汉字为代价，换回民族国家世界的入场券，於是留下了难忘创伤，与现代中国建立过程中的各种耻辱一起进入集体的记忆。
作者 ∶梁文道
发表日期∶07.04.09
汉字拉丁化的主张和白话文运动都有一个共同的前提，那就是语言优先於文字，声音优先於字形。之所以要读写白话文，是为了『我手写我口』。不只要让我手上的文字臣服於我口中的语言；更要一反古代文言分离的传统，达致言文一致。瞿秋白和钱玄同力主汉字拉丁化，其实是这种想法的合理延伸：既然要我手写我口，那么我使用的文字就不该是表意文字，而是彻底透明地传达语音的表音文字。借用法国哲学家德里达的说法，这实在是一种非常西方的逻各斯中心主义（logocentrism），以语音为根源的玄妙形上学。
但是，如此激进的西化方案却又弔诡地服务了建国目的。因为要真正做到我手写我口，真正实现汉字拉丁化的长程目標，语言就不能不统一。我们不能只是改变书面语，也不能只是改造汉字，还要推行遍及全中国的『国语』或『普通话』，使中国人先说同一种语言，再写同一种文字。
以往的中国人虽有不同方言，却能凭脱离口语的文言文彼此沟通，还发展出广被东亚的汉字文化圈。从日本、朝鲜、一直到越南，莫不在汉字的文化范围內。可是和这种汉字文化圈相通適应的『天下观』，却与现代东传而来的民族国家观念有矛盾。按照现代民族主义的常规，一个独立的民族国家必须有统一而標准的国语，有能够准確表达国语的文字系统。除了日本保留部份汉字，朝鲜和越南都先后放弃汉字，改採用新造的拼音文字（虽然日本也曾有过完全弃绝汉字的『新国语运动』）。
至於中国，白话文运动和国语运动更是民族国家建立计划的一部分。可別忘了，自清末开始，『中国不算是一个国家』和『中国人是一盘散沙』的哀嘆就已渐成共识。要让中国人团结，语言统一是极其必要；要让中国人没有內在的区隔，便要把本属士绅阶层的书写能力交还大眾。
汉字改造不单为了扫盲（其实扫除文盲也是现代民族国家建立工程的普遍步骤），更是为了建立一个新中国，把中国从过去的『天下中心』变成现代民族国家之林的一部份。
问题是：外来的民族主义思潮要求我们统一国语，普以语言驾驭文字，仿效西方民族国家在语言上的种种规划。这种举措却与传统中国文言分离，以文字形体为思维核心的现实差得太远。所以语言和文字总会引起大家的兴趣，从电子媒体上的方言之爭，到汉字该不该恢復繁体的论战，再小的涟漪下面都是汹涌矛盾的暗流。昔日我们以改革汉字为代价，换回民族国家世界的入场券，於是留下了难忘创伤，与现代中国建立过程中的各种耻辱一起进入集体的记忆。
莫辛阿都拉：歷史教科书须要重写吗？
出处 ∶星洲日报英文版
原题 ∶Rewriting History?
中文出处∶星洲日报
作者 ∶莫辛阿都拉（MOHSIN ABDULLAH）
发表日期∶08.04.09
翻译 ∶赵雪芬
（西西留注：译者并没有将全文精髓译出，可能出自编辑的压力，只选择性的对某些段落译出，因此在此贴出全文以充对照。）
我之前已问过了，现在再问一遍：我们的歷史教科书需要重写吗？有必要重写我们的歷史吗？
我第一次公开发问，是在去年11月这份报纸的专栏里。那时我的专栏固定於每週日出现，鉴於当时前首相阿都拉建议从小学开始教授歷史课，因此我才提出这个疑问。阿都拉固然有他的理由，不过教育界人士似乎对此献议毫不感兴趣。不过，这已然成了歷史，我们也就无谓再討论。
让我们来谈谈『真正』的歷史，尤其是和国家独立有关的。最近，马华总会长翁诗杰表示，在学校里教授的歷史教科书，稀释了华社为国家独立而奋斗的事实。换言之，他意指华族在爭取独立及建国方面的贡献被『淡化』了。
对其批评者来说，当翁诗杰提及华社时，他其实是在指马华。就如同每当巫统领袖说是马来社群努力取得独立，他们意味的是巫统。
替翁诗杰说句公道话，他说，之所以发表这番言论，乃源自与他有同感的各个华人团体发出来的『抱怨』。因此，可见也有非马华的华裔认为，马华以外的其他华人也在爭取国家独立中扮演了重要的角色。
陈禎禄最早率领马华单独爭取国家独立，是一个不爭的事实，可是马来亚共產党却也经常主张要从英殖民地主手中，把国家解救出来。当时华裔共產党主要由陈平领军，他们皆视自己为自由斗士，而非『土匪』。他们说，土匪是英国人给他们贴上的標籤。
当时的歷史课本是由英国人撰写的，而那都是我在多年前上课时读的书。我也像歷史教科书上所说般，称他们为『土匪』。现在的孩子也称马共为『土匪』，纵使他们现在的课本已改由马来西亚人所写，而非英国人。结果，两者皆有异曲同工之妙。
读了马来西亚版本的歷史教科书，现在的学生都把马哈拉惹列拉视为勇於向英国人抗爭求取国家独立的英雄。如果你清楚歷史，一定知道马哈拉惹列拉和其隨从在霹雳州的巴西沙拉刺杀毕治。毕治是驻英殖民地的参政司。
英国军队以叛逆英国君主罪名，逮捕了马哈拉惹列拉和他的手下。最终他们全被施以绞刑。
我在学生时代读到英国人版本的歷史教科书，马哈拉惹列拉和其隨从都是『土匪』，或我们现在所称的恐怖份子。可是，根据马来西亚人版本的歷史教科书（大多数是马来人撰写的），马哈拉惹列拉则是一位想从英国人手中解放祖国的大英雄。
如之前所说，巫统对於独立而『索求全部的功劳』並没有感到一丝疑虑。不过，回教党声称他们的领袖也曾和英国人抗爭，当时同样也有其他马来组织这么做。不过，对回教党而言，他们和其他人在爭取独立上的角色不仅被『淡化』，甚至被『抹煞』了，全然不在歷史教科书概括的范围內。和马华一样，回教党也在叫屈。而这两党的『抱怨』却不期然地相同。
所以我再问一次？我们的歷史教科书需要重写吗？
如果答案是『要』，那么我再问这：谁將是作者？
（作者莫辛阿都拉是NTV7和八度空间新闻时事总编辑）
原文：
The PM wants history to be taught in our primary schools. Some folks in the education fraternity are saying: let's not rush things. They have their reasons. The PM has his.
But to me the most important question is what we teach our kids. History of our nation of course. But we have heard for so long that our history has been presented according to the British "perspective," simply because many of our history books were written by British historians--the colonial masters. If this is true, are we to use the same books to teach our kids?
When I was in school years ago (and I really mean many years ago), I read history books "proclaiming" CPM leader Chin Peng as a bandit. So too were Rashid Mydin, Abdullah CD, and Shamsiah Fakir. But, there are many who see them as freedom fighters. They were fighting the British for Malayan independence. They are telling their side of their story in books easily available in any bookstore. As the books are not banned by the government, can the content or part of it be "incorporated" into our history textbooks?
And what about the May 13 tragedy? We have read the "official version" of what happened and why. Now we're getting the "unofficial version." Will it make into our history textbooks?
Then there was the big UMNO fight of 1987, of which the aftermath could be "felt" right to this day.
And the present day political landscape can be traced back to the 1998 sacking of Anwar Ibrahim and the reformasi movement.
There are many more of course. Like it or not it's all part of our history. Will it be taught in schools?
In short, will our history books be rewritten? Is there a need to rewrite our history?
But first thing first. For starters, an independent body of historians must be commissioned to verify the truth, the half truth and the non-truth. We must then be brave enough to face the result and reality. We must learn from our history.
Which brings me to a book written by former politician Fan Yew Teng which I bought a long time ago.
The book was entitled The UMNO Drama. In a nutshell, it documented the many power struggles in the party.
I hope Mr. Fan would not mind me reproducing some paragraphs of his book here.
"The serious electoral setback of the Alliance coalition government under the leadership of Tunku Abdul Rahman and the subsequent May 13 riots and paramilitary rule under the so-called National Operations Council left the ruling Alliance in political if not organisational shambles. Deep seated differences in UMNO, dormant under a deceptive Calm, erupted into fierce and open antagonisms. The Alliance had lost its two thirds majority in the Parliament, although it still had a comfortable majority.
"A formidable challenge was mounted against Tunku by a combination of Malay intellectuals, Malay university students and some UMNO personalities including Dr. Mahathir, Musa Hitam, Syed Jaafar Albar.
"On 17 June 1969, Dr. Mahathir wrote a letter to Tunku Abdul Rahman, making scathing attacks on the Prime Minister and UMNO President. Apart from accusing Tunku for being too soft on the Chinese, it also suggested that Tunku should step down as Prime Minister and UMNO President.
"Mahathir also referred to patronage as a significant factor in UMNO's intra-party politics. He accused UMNO leaders of having succumbed to the disease of dispensing patronage and believing that they no longer needed the opinions of their supporters. They disregarded them at every turn.
"He (Mahathir) also claimed that the government was apparently oblivious to what went on around it."
Sound familiar? Save for the main characters, the May 13 tragedy and some other events, the paragraphs above could very well be used to describe the current situation in this beloved country of ours.
There are lessons to be learned today from yesterday for a better tomorrow. After all, history they say, repeats itself. (By MOHSIN ABDULLAH/MySinchew)
(MOHSIN ABDULLAH is the Editor-in-Chief for News and Current Affairs of Ntv7 and 8TV.)
原题 ∶Rewriting History?
中文出处∶星洲日报
作者 ∶莫辛阿都拉（MOHSIN ABDULLAH）
发表日期∶08.04.09
翻译 ∶赵雪芬
（西西留注：译者并没有将全文精髓译出，可能出自编辑的压力，只选择性的对某些段落译出，因此在此贴出全文以充对照。）
我之前已问过了，现在再问一遍：我们的歷史教科书需要重写吗？有必要重写我们的歷史吗？
我第一次公开发问，是在去年11月这份报纸的专栏里。那时我的专栏固定於每週日出现，鉴於当时前首相阿都拉建议从小学开始教授歷史课，因此我才提出这个疑问。阿都拉固然有他的理由，不过教育界人士似乎对此献议毫不感兴趣。不过，这已然成了歷史，我们也就无谓再討论。
让我们来谈谈『真正』的歷史，尤其是和国家独立有关的。最近，马华总会长翁诗杰表示，在学校里教授的歷史教科书，稀释了华社为国家独立而奋斗的事实。换言之，他意指华族在爭取独立及建国方面的贡献被『淡化』了。
对其批评者来说，当翁诗杰提及华社时，他其实是在指马华。就如同每当巫统领袖说是马来社群努力取得独立，他们意味的是巫统。
替翁诗杰说句公道话，他说，之所以发表这番言论，乃源自与他有同感的各个华人团体发出来的『抱怨』。因此，可见也有非马华的华裔认为，马华以外的其他华人也在爭取国家独立中扮演了重要的角色。
陈禎禄最早率领马华单独爭取国家独立，是一个不爭的事实，可是马来亚共產党却也经常主张要从英殖民地主手中，把国家解救出来。当时华裔共產党主要由陈平领军，他们皆视自己为自由斗士，而非『土匪』。他们说，土匪是英国人给他们贴上的標籤。
当时的歷史课本是由英国人撰写的，而那都是我在多年前上课时读的书。我也像歷史教科书上所说般，称他们为『土匪』。现在的孩子也称马共为『土匪』，纵使他们现在的课本已改由马来西亚人所写，而非英国人。结果，两者皆有异曲同工之妙。
读了马来西亚版本的歷史教科书，现在的学生都把马哈拉惹列拉视为勇於向英国人抗爭求取国家独立的英雄。如果你清楚歷史，一定知道马哈拉惹列拉和其隨从在霹雳州的巴西沙拉刺杀毕治。毕治是驻英殖民地的参政司。
英国军队以叛逆英国君主罪名，逮捕了马哈拉惹列拉和他的手下。最终他们全被施以绞刑。
我在学生时代读到英国人版本的歷史教科书，马哈拉惹列拉和其隨从都是『土匪』，或我们现在所称的恐怖份子。可是，根据马来西亚人版本的歷史教科书（大多数是马来人撰写的），马哈拉惹列拉则是一位想从英国人手中解放祖国的大英雄。
如之前所说，巫统对於独立而『索求全部的功劳』並没有感到一丝疑虑。不过，回教党声称他们的领袖也曾和英国人抗爭，当时同样也有其他马来组织这么做。不过，对回教党而言，他们和其他人在爭取独立上的角色不仅被『淡化』，甚至被『抹煞』了，全然不在歷史教科书概括的范围內。和马华一样，回教党也在叫屈。而这两党的『抱怨』却不期然地相同。
所以我再问一次？我们的歷史教科书需要重写吗？
如果答案是『要』，那么我再问这：谁將是作者？
（作者莫辛阿都拉是NTV7和八度空间新闻时事总编辑）
原文：
The PM wants history to be taught in our primary schools. Some folks in the education fraternity are saying: let's not rush things. They have their reasons. The PM has his.
But to me the most important question is what we teach our kids. History of our nation of course. But we have heard for so long that our history has been presented according to the British "perspective," simply because many of our history books were written by British historians--the colonial masters. If this is true, are we to use the same books to teach our kids?
When I was in school years ago (and I really mean many years ago), I read history books "proclaiming" CPM leader Chin Peng as a bandit. So too were Rashid Mydin, Abdullah CD, and Shamsiah Fakir. But, there are many who see them as freedom fighters. They were fighting the British for Malayan independence. They are telling their side of their story in books easily available in any bookstore. As the books are not banned by the government, can the content or part of it be "incorporated" into our history textbooks?
And what about the May 13 tragedy? We have read the "official version" of what happened and why. Now we're getting the "unofficial version." Will it make into our history textbooks?
Then there was the big UMNO fight of 1987, of which the aftermath could be "felt" right to this day.
And the present day political landscape can be traced back to the 1998 sacking of Anwar Ibrahim and the reformasi movement.
There are many more of course. Like it or not it's all part of our history. Will it be taught in schools?
In short, will our history books be rewritten? Is there a need to rewrite our history?
But first thing first. For starters, an independent body of historians must be commissioned to verify the truth, the half truth and the non-truth. We must then be brave enough to face the result and reality. We must learn from our history.
Which brings me to a book written by former politician Fan Yew Teng which I bought a long time ago.
The book was entitled The UMNO Drama. In a nutshell, it documented the many power struggles in the party.
I hope Mr. Fan would not mind me reproducing some paragraphs of his book here.
"The serious electoral setback of the Alliance coalition government under the leadership of Tunku Abdul Rahman and the subsequent May 13 riots and paramilitary rule under the so-called National Operations Council left the ruling Alliance in political if not organisational shambles. Deep seated differences in UMNO, dormant under a deceptive Calm, erupted into fierce and open antagonisms. The Alliance had lost its two thirds majority in the Parliament, although it still had a comfortable majority.
"A formidable challenge was mounted against Tunku by a combination of Malay intellectuals, Malay university students and some UMNO personalities including Dr. Mahathir, Musa Hitam, Syed Jaafar Albar.
"On 17 June 1969, Dr. Mahathir wrote a letter to Tunku Abdul Rahman, making scathing attacks on the Prime Minister and UMNO President. Apart from accusing Tunku for being too soft on the Chinese, it also suggested that Tunku should step down as Prime Minister and UMNO President.
"Mahathir also referred to patronage as a significant factor in UMNO's intra-party politics. He accused UMNO leaders of having succumbed to the disease of dispensing patronage and believing that they no longer needed the opinions of their supporters. They disregarded them at every turn.
"He (Mahathir) also claimed that the government was apparently oblivious to what went on around it."
Sound familiar? Save for the main characters, the May 13 tragedy and some other events, the paragraphs above could very well be used to describe the current situation in this beloved country of ours.
There are lessons to be learned today from yesterday for a better tomorrow. After all, history they say, repeats itself. (By MOHSIN ABDULLAH/MySinchew)
(MOHSIN ABDULLAH is the Editor-in-Chief for News and Current Affairs of Ntv7 and 8TV.)
梁文道：汉字的本质
出处 ∶星洲日报
作者 ∶梁文道
发表日期∶05.04.09
如果说真有甚么东西是不该让步於『西方主导的普世价值』，要坚持『中国自己的特色』，那一定就是传统的汉字了。由於汉语以单音节为主，同音字的数量太多，所以汉字的发展走向了表意的道路，著重字形构义，以免同音字造成误会。
这种特徵和语音辨义的拼音文字大异其趣，开发了拼音文字所不具备的视象世界。欧洲学者很早就注意到这一点，並且据此联想推论出种种中西文化差异的玄谈，有的说中思维方式过度联接自然，缺乏逻推理能力；有的则说汉字形体只需三两个具体模件，就能表达极抽象的意念（例如现代普通语言学之父洪堡特①，他就曾讚誉汉字形体『自有哲学工夫在其中』）。
①洪堡特（Wilhelm Freiherr Von Humboldt，1767—1835）
德国语言学家、哲学家、政治家。1767年生于波茨坦。1787—1789年就读于法兰克福大学和格廷根大学，1801—1810年任普鲁士宗教和教育大臣，致力于教育事业的改革。1809年创建柏林大学，即现在的洪堡大学。1810—1819年任外交官。1919年以后辞去公职，专门从事学术研究。
洪堡特对许多语言都有广泛的认识。他研究过欧洲的巴斯克语、美洲的印第安语，非洲的埃及语和亚洲的梵语、汉语、日语等多种语言，是比较语言学创始人之一。他善于突破历史局限，透过个别的语言现象，深入考察人类语言的普遍特性。在语言的本质和功能、语言与思维的关系、语言的文化内涵等多方面的问题上，他都做了富有创见性的研究和探讨，为现代语言学思想奠定了基础，被誉为德国最伟大的人物之一。洪堡特第一篇有关语言学的著作是1820年6月29日在柏林学会宣读的一篇报告《依照语言发展的不同时期论语言的比较研究》，在这篇文章里他起草了他所设想的语言哲学体系的纲要。1828年，他发表了《论双数》一文，这标志着他在语言研究上完全转向理论研究的开始。他一生中最后也是最大的一项工作是《论爪哇岛上的卡维语》的写作，这篇巨著共分三卷，陆续出版已在他去世以后的1836—1840年。书中附有一篇长达300多页的绪论，题为《论人类语言结构的差异及其对人类精神发展的影响》，这篇绪论是洪堡特语言理论的代表作，对其后的语言研究产生了深刻的影响。洪堡特有关语言的创造性特征的论述，是他的语言理论的精髓。他认为语言绝不是一个实体或已完成的事物，而是一种创造活动，是人的心灵不断地用声音来表达思想的活动。语言所要表达的意义内容是十分广泛的，其运用手段却极为有限，这些手段并不为个人独有，而是所有语言使用者的『共同本质』。对于语言和民族的关系问题，他认为语言是民族的最大特征，民族的语言即民族的精神，它们之间的关系密不可分。语言随着民族的成长而发展，它是民族精神的外在表现，同时它又是民族的历史和文化的载体。所以，研究语言不能孤立地看问题，应该与历史文化、风俗习惯的研究相结合。洪堡特把语言置于具体民族的文化背景之中，进一步考察了语言在人们认识世界和处理事物的活动中所起的作用。他认为语言从精神出发，再反作用于精神。任何语言都具有接受一切事物并且将其付之于表达的灵活性，但无论怎样都不会对人的认知活动形成绝对的制约。在他看来，语言是人类本质的组成部分，其萌发是由于人类的内在需要，而不是仅仅产生于维持外部交际的需要。洪堡特细致地考察了许多语言，以词的语法形态为主要依据，将世界语言分为三类：孤立语粘着语和屈折语。他认为汉语是典型的孤立语言，梵语则是典型的屈折语，包括粘着语在内的所有其它语言处在这两种极端类型之间。世界上的语言有比较完善和不太完善的区别。但没有优劣之分。即使是最野蛮的部落的语言也不应该予以歧视，或贬低它的价值，因为每种语言都是人类原有的创造语言的能力的表现。
洪堡特的语言哲学思想宏大深邃，对20世纪的语言学产生了深刻、持久的影响。欧洲语言学界魏斯格贝尔等的『新洪堡特派』，美国的萨丕尔、沃尔夫的语言学说都在不同程度上继承和发展了他的语言思想，他的许多富有创见的理论观点至今仍有极其深刻的意义，为当代语言学研究者所瞩目。
我的老师，哲学家关子尹先生就曾在《论汉语古文字中的哲学工夫》一文中以『幾』为例，说明汉字抽象思维的特点：「『幾』的金文从幾从戍，幺幺从二幺，即两条细丝並列之形，意会一些『细微之极』的事情或事態，《周易．繫辞上》中『夫易，聖人所以極深而研幾』中的『幾』，即是此意；『戍』则解持戈防守。二者合起来，便意会吾人对『细微之极』的事象保持警惕」。
单是一个『幾』字，在中国哲学里的重要，真的可以用『微言大义』去形容，绝对没有夸张。
「例如《周易．繫辭下》中有『知幾其神乎』、『其知幾乎，幾者動之微，古之先見者也，君子見幾而作，不俟終日』等语，很清楚的道出了『幾』的认识与掌握於世道人生的重要」。
又如「《尚书．大禹謨》『人心惟危，道心惟微，惟精惟一，允執厥中』这后世號称『十六字心传』的经典名句，因为此中提到的『危』和『微』，正是『幾』一字从幾从戍的要旨所在」。为甚么一个字就能表达如此精湛深微的想法呢？这正是汉字『字形构义』的结果。
假如真把汉字拉丁化，变成一套拼音文字，不仅会造成一字多义等种种实际的麻烦，更有可能根本改变汉语思维世界的特质。我无意在此比附汉字拉丁化和汉字简化同样会遇上的问题，因为我不大想正面介入当前的繁简之爭。
我感兴趣的，始终是当年中国和知识界改革汉字呼声背后的动力，到底是甚么使得他们寧愿中断汉语思维本色的传统，也要奋力推动一场惊天动地的语言规划呢？
作者 ∶梁文道
发表日期∶05.04.09
如果说真有甚么东西是不该让步於『西方主导的普世价值』，要坚持『中国自己的特色』，那一定就是传统的汉字了。由於汉语以单音节为主，同音字的数量太多，所以汉字的发展走向了表意的道路，著重字形构义，以免同音字造成误会。
这种特徵和语音辨义的拼音文字大异其趣，开发了拼音文字所不具备的视象世界。欧洲学者很早就注意到这一点，並且据此联想推论出种种中西文化差异的玄谈，有的说中思维方式过度联接自然，缺乏逻推理能力；有的则说汉字形体只需三两个具体模件，就能表达极抽象的意念（例如现代普通语言学之父洪堡特①，他就曾讚誉汉字形体『自有哲学工夫在其中』）。
①洪堡特（Wilhelm Freiherr Von Humboldt，1767—1835）
德国语言学家、哲学家、政治家。1767年生于波茨坦。1787—1789年就读于法兰克福大学和格廷根大学，1801—1810年任普鲁士宗教和教育大臣，致力于教育事业的改革。1809年创建柏林大学，即现在的洪堡大学。1810—1819年任外交官。1919年以后辞去公职，专门从事学术研究。
洪堡特对许多语言都有广泛的认识。他研究过欧洲的巴斯克语、美洲的印第安语，非洲的埃及语和亚洲的梵语、汉语、日语等多种语言，是比较语言学创始人之一。他善于突破历史局限，透过个别的语言现象，深入考察人类语言的普遍特性。在语言的本质和功能、语言与思维的关系、语言的文化内涵等多方面的问题上，他都做了富有创见性的研究和探讨，为现代语言学思想奠定了基础，被誉为德国最伟大的人物之一。洪堡特第一篇有关语言学的著作是1820年6月29日在柏林学会宣读的一篇报告《依照语言发展的不同时期论语言的比较研究》，在这篇文章里他起草了他所设想的语言哲学体系的纲要。1828年，他发表了《论双数》一文，这标志着他在语言研究上完全转向理论研究的开始。他一生中最后也是最大的一项工作是《论爪哇岛上的卡维语》的写作，这篇巨著共分三卷，陆续出版已在他去世以后的1836—1840年。书中附有一篇长达300多页的绪论，题为《论人类语言结构的差异及其对人类精神发展的影响》，这篇绪论是洪堡特语言理论的代表作，对其后的语言研究产生了深刻的影响。洪堡特有关语言的创造性特征的论述，是他的语言理论的精髓。他认为语言绝不是一个实体或已完成的事物，而是一种创造活动，是人的心灵不断地用声音来表达思想的活动。语言所要表达的意义内容是十分广泛的，其运用手段却极为有限，这些手段并不为个人独有，而是所有语言使用者的『共同本质』。对于语言和民族的关系问题，他认为语言是民族的最大特征，民族的语言即民族的精神，它们之间的关系密不可分。语言随着民族的成长而发展，它是民族精神的外在表现，同时它又是民族的历史和文化的载体。所以，研究语言不能孤立地看问题，应该与历史文化、风俗习惯的研究相结合。洪堡特把语言置于具体民族的文化背景之中，进一步考察了语言在人们认识世界和处理事物的活动中所起的作用。他认为语言从精神出发，再反作用于精神。任何语言都具有接受一切事物并且将其付之于表达的灵活性，但无论怎样都不会对人的认知活动形成绝对的制约。在他看来，语言是人类本质的组成部分，其萌发是由于人类的内在需要，而不是仅仅产生于维持外部交际的需要。洪堡特细致地考察了许多语言，以词的语法形态为主要依据，将世界语言分为三类：孤立语粘着语和屈折语。他认为汉语是典型的孤立语言，梵语则是典型的屈折语，包括粘着语在内的所有其它语言处在这两种极端类型之间。世界上的语言有比较完善和不太完善的区别。但没有优劣之分。即使是最野蛮的部落的语言也不应该予以歧视，或贬低它的价值，因为每种语言都是人类原有的创造语言的能力的表现。
洪堡特的语言哲学思想宏大深邃，对20世纪的语言学产生了深刻、持久的影响。欧洲语言学界魏斯格贝尔等的『新洪堡特派』，美国的萨丕尔、沃尔夫的语言学说都在不同程度上继承和发展了他的语言思想，他的许多富有创见的理论观点至今仍有极其深刻的意义，为当代语言学研究者所瞩目。
我的老师，哲学家关子尹先生就曾在《论汉语古文字中的哲学工夫》一文中以『幾』为例，说明汉字抽象思维的特点：「『幾』的金文从幾从戍，幺幺从二幺，即两条细丝並列之形，意会一些『细微之极』的事情或事態，《周易．繫辞上》中『夫易，聖人所以極深而研幾』中的『幾』，即是此意；『戍』则解持戈防守。二者合起来，便意会吾人对『细微之极』的事象保持警惕」。
单是一个『幾』字，在中国哲学里的重要，真的可以用『微言大义』去形容，绝对没有夸张。
「例如《周易．繫辭下》中有『知幾其神乎』、『其知幾乎，幾者動之微，古之先見者也，君子見幾而作，不俟終日』等语，很清楚的道出了『幾』的认识与掌握於世道人生的重要」。
又如「《尚书．大禹謨》『人心惟危，道心惟微，惟精惟一，允執厥中』这后世號称『十六字心传』的经典名句，因为此中提到的『危』和『微』，正是『幾』一字从幾从戍的要旨所在」。为甚么一个字就能表达如此精湛深微的想法呢？这正是汉字『字形构义』的结果。
假如真把汉字拉丁化，变成一套拼音文字，不仅会造成一字多义等种种实际的麻烦，更有可能根本改变汉语思维世界的特质。我无意在此比附汉字拉丁化和汉字简化同样会遇上的问题，因为我不大想正面介入当前的繁简之爭。
我感兴趣的，始终是当年中国和知识界改革汉字呼声背后的动力，到底是甚么使得他们寧愿中断汉语思维本色的传统，也要奋力推动一场惊天动地的语言规划呢？
2009年4月3日星期五
梁文道：汉字的命运
出处 ∶星洲日报
作者 ∶梁文道
发表日期∶03-04-09
到底该不该放弃简体字，重新推广繁体字呢？自从今年两会有人提出这问题，困扰中国人达百年以上的老爭议一下子又成了中国媒体关心的时髦话题。比起这个爭论，更有趣的其实是汉字繁简之爭背后的思潮转变；夸张点说，这种思潮的变化甚至和近年『普世价值』与『中国特色』的有关討论相呼应，是中国民族意识崛起另一层面的表现。
今天在討论汉字繁简之爭时，往往忽略了当年中国政府推动简体字，除去扫盲等种种便利考虑，还有一个更长远更终极的目標；那就是汉字的拉丁化。早在 1951年，毛泽东就曾指出：「文字必须改革，要走世界文字共同的拼音方向」。这也就是当局推行汉语拼音方案的理由了，它不只可以標准化全国上下的普通话，而且能让大家逐渐適应拼音文字，终有一日取传统汉字而代字。也就是说，简体字只是一个过渡阶段，汉字的拉丁化才是最后的目的地。
晚清以后，从世界语言运动，华语罗马字运动，一直到汉字拉丁化运动，各种废除传统汉字的激进方案层出不穷。它们的推手虽然据有迥异的政治立场，却有志一同，理由大致相似。例如钱玄同①认为传统汉字『和现代世界文化格格不入』，主张『学校从识字起直到研究最高深的学术，都应该採用拼音新字，而研究固有的汉字，则只为看古书之用』。又如瞿秋白②更嫌白话文运动的结果不彻底，无法做到完全的『文言合一』，於是激烈地说：「要写真正的白话文，要能够建立真正的现代中国文，就一定要废除汉字採用罗马字母。我们可以把一切用汉字写的中国文叫『旧中国文』或者汉文，而把罗马字母写的中国文叫作『新中国文』。或者简直叫做『中国文』」。
①关于钱玄同生平，请查阅【维基百科】。
②关于瞿秋白生平，请查阅【维基百科】。
为甚么包括毛泽东在內的这批名人如此痛恨汉字，非欲除之而后快呢（儘管毛本人一直使用繁体字）？用现在的说法，那是受到了西方的毒害。当年的语言学家受到粗俗版达尔文主义的影响，认为全人类的文字系统也可以排列成一条单线进化的轨跡，从图画文字到象形文字，再从象形文字到表意文字，最后则进化至表音文字。汉字是种表意文字，比起拼音的西方文字，实在落后太多。
在那年头，中国知识界为了寻找中国落后的原因，真可说是上穷碧落下黄泉，於是连沿用数千年的汉字也被他们拿来当做革命的对象，似乎汉字不改就不得富强。
作者 ∶梁文道
发表日期∶03-04-09
到底该不该放弃简体字，重新推广繁体字呢？自从今年两会有人提出这问题，困扰中国人达百年以上的老爭议一下子又成了中国媒体关心的时髦话题。比起这个爭论，更有趣的其实是汉字繁简之爭背后的思潮转变；夸张点说，这种思潮的变化甚至和近年『普世价值』与『中国特色』的有关討论相呼应，是中国民族意识崛起另一层面的表现。
今天在討论汉字繁简之爭时，往往忽略了当年中国政府推动简体字，除去扫盲等种种便利考虑，还有一个更长远更终极的目標；那就是汉字的拉丁化。早在 1951年，毛泽东就曾指出：「文字必须改革，要走世界文字共同的拼音方向」。这也就是当局推行汉语拼音方案的理由了，它不只可以標准化全国上下的普通话，而且能让大家逐渐適应拼音文字，终有一日取传统汉字而代字。也就是说，简体字只是一个过渡阶段，汉字的拉丁化才是最后的目的地。
晚清以后，从世界语言运动，华语罗马字运动，一直到汉字拉丁化运动，各种废除传统汉字的激进方案层出不穷。它们的推手虽然据有迥异的政治立场，却有志一同，理由大致相似。例如钱玄同①认为传统汉字『和现代世界文化格格不入』，主张『学校从识字起直到研究最高深的学术，都应该採用拼音新字，而研究固有的汉字，则只为看古书之用』。又如瞿秋白②更嫌白话文运动的结果不彻底，无法做到完全的『文言合一』，於是激烈地说：「要写真正的白话文，要能够建立真正的现代中国文，就一定要废除汉字採用罗马字母。我们可以把一切用汉字写的中国文叫『旧中国文』或者汉文，而把罗马字母写的中国文叫作『新中国文』。或者简直叫做『中国文』」。
①关于钱玄同生平，请查阅【维基百科】。
②关于瞿秋白生平，请查阅【维基百科】。
为甚么包括毛泽东在內的这批名人如此痛恨汉字，非欲除之而后快呢（儘管毛本人一直使用繁体字）？用现在的说法，那是受到了西方的毒害。当年的语言学家受到粗俗版达尔文主义的影响，认为全人类的文字系统也可以排列成一条单线进化的轨跡，从图画文字到象形文字，再从象形文字到表意文字，最后则进化至表音文字。汉字是种表意文字，比起拼音的西方文字，实在落后太多。
在那年头，中国知识界为了寻找中国落后的原因，真可说是上穷碧落下黄泉，於是连沿用数千年的汉字也被他们拿来当做革命的对象，似乎汉字不改就不得富强。
东姑阿都阿兹：为马哈迪做件事：別理他！
出处∶星洲日报
原题∶Do Mahathir A Favour: Ignore Him
作者 ∶东姑阿都阿兹（民主行动党副主席）
发表日期∶2009-04-03
翻译 ∶张立德
巫统在刚结束喧哗改变和改革双主题的年度政治大拜拜中，成功主导了一场独脚戏。他们自我催眠进入狂热状態中。改变说来容易，但『落实改革』是不受承诺约束者遭受失败时才做的。
根据各种说法，在大马所有政党中，巫统是极不可能改变的一个。她还沉浸在旧时光辉中，被认为缺乏能力专注於重大国家议题並快速反应的领导层，经常不知道该如何开始改革。
凡事无法按照计划就责备反对党，那的確有效，然而，如果巫统能够接受並领悟一项简单道理，即外在压力和內在软弱有著同样影响力，对该党会更有帮助和具建设性。巫统的內部弱点大家都很清楚，但其结构文化导致领导层对问题根源视而不见。有鉴於此，巫统不断被一个接一个的危机所羈绊，无法意识到为甚么那些原本应该支持她的马来人也背弃了她。
巫统没有准备好向前迈进，更令人困惑的是，为甚么其领袖竟然主动要求马哈迪回归，甚至成为『顾问』？从某种角度而言，这是彻底的傲慢、思想糊涂，並轻蔑大马民意。我相信病態倾向是巫统政治文化的一部份。令人痛苦的22年马哈迪模式『良好管治』，导致『重大腐败』（Grand Corruption）（ 这是George Moody-Stuart在其著名的国际贪污著作中首倡的用语）在国民生活中每一重大层面都被制度化的年代，我们认为已经足够。不论以甚么標准来衡量，马哈迪22年的掌政期太长了。
尤其对巫统而言，任何尝试去与马哈迪公开和解的举动將是危险的。如果在59届巫统常年大会的亢奋余韵中，巫统领袖打算对马哈迪宽厚，並原谅他对社会所做的一切错误，看来他们需要去检查一下头脑。
根据我们对马哈迪的瞭解，他最开心的时候，也是作最多伤害他人的事的时候。如果没有议题，他会虚构一个。在他22年首相生涯中，他一再玩弄和操纵各种课题，如我们担心会重演的513事件。每当巫统感受到『马来主权』受到威胁，他们就会祭出这张王牌。
他並不大方，从他对他亲自挑选却没有信心的接班人──阿都拉不间断的敌对动作就可看出。然而，马哈迪並非像东姑阿都拉曼、敦拉萨或敦胡申翁那样，是具有运动家品格的人。马哈迪主义的其中一项中心信条，也是这位伟人用无止尽的热诚去拥护的信条，即是『胜者为王』（winner takes all）。
他不相信別人。他选择支配司法，那些法官爭先恐后奉承他们的恩主，证人可以隨意被『转向』，以迫使他们合作。共和联邦国家其中一个最受尊崇的司法体制，就这样一下子沦为开玩笑、奚落和嘲笑的对象。
他疯狂地要支配一切和所有人，是他性格上的严重瑕疵。一旦想到他將永远具有支配的领导力，更是至需改革的巫统准备面对第十三届大选的资產，那就等於相信童话。
国人很幸运的摆脱了他。以上苍之名，让他继续爱管閒事，而我们將自由地根据宪法和本身良知来决定我们的生活。
允许马哈迪回归巫统会添加问题，而內部团结將持续微弱，並加速巫统衰败。或许我应该不多说，就让巫统自己去享受有马哈迪同在的快乐。
原题∶Do Mahathir A Favour: Ignore Him
作者 ∶东姑阿都阿兹（民主行动党副主席）
发表日期∶2009-04-03
翻译 ∶张立德
巫统在刚结束喧哗改变和改革双主题的年度政治大拜拜中，成功主导了一场独脚戏。他们自我催眠进入狂热状態中。改变说来容易，但『落实改革』是不受承诺约束者遭受失败时才做的。
根据各种说法，在大马所有政党中，巫统是极不可能改变的一个。她还沉浸在旧时光辉中，被认为缺乏能力专注於重大国家议题並快速反应的领导层，经常不知道该如何开始改革。
凡事无法按照计划就责备反对党，那的確有效，然而，如果巫统能够接受並领悟一项简单道理，即外在压力和內在软弱有著同样影响力，对该党会更有帮助和具建设性。巫统的內部弱点大家都很清楚，但其结构文化导致领导层对问题根源视而不见。有鉴於此，巫统不断被一个接一个的危机所羈绊，无法意识到为甚么那些原本应该支持她的马来人也背弃了她。
巫统没有准备好向前迈进，更令人困惑的是，为甚么其领袖竟然主动要求马哈迪回归，甚至成为『顾问』？从某种角度而言，这是彻底的傲慢、思想糊涂，並轻蔑大马民意。我相信病態倾向是巫统政治文化的一部份。令人痛苦的22年马哈迪模式『良好管治』，导致『重大腐败』（Grand Corruption）（ 这是George Moody-Stuart在其著名的国际贪污著作中首倡的用语）在国民生活中每一重大层面都被制度化的年代，我们认为已经足够。不论以甚么標准来衡量，马哈迪22年的掌政期太长了。
尤其对巫统而言，任何尝试去与马哈迪公开和解的举动將是危险的。如果在59届巫统常年大会的亢奋余韵中，巫统领袖打算对马哈迪宽厚，並原谅他对社会所做的一切错误，看来他们需要去检查一下头脑。
根据我们对马哈迪的瞭解，他最开心的时候，也是作最多伤害他人的事的时候。如果没有议题，他会虚构一个。在他22年首相生涯中，他一再玩弄和操纵各种课题，如我们担心会重演的513事件。每当巫统感受到『马来主权』受到威胁，他们就会祭出这张王牌。
他並不大方，从他对他亲自挑选却没有信心的接班人──阿都拉不间断的敌对动作就可看出。然而，马哈迪並非像东姑阿都拉曼、敦拉萨或敦胡申翁那样，是具有运动家品格的人。马哈迪主义的其中一项中心信条，也是这位伟人用无止尽的热诚去拥护的信条，即是『胜者为王』（winner takes all）。
他不相信別人。他选择支配司法，那些法官爭先恐后奉承他们的恩主，证人可以隨意被『转向』，以迫使他们合作。共和联邦国家其中一个最受尊崇的司法体制，就这样一下子沦为开玩笑、奚落和嘲笑的对象。
他疯狂地要支配一切和所有人，是他性格上的严重瑕疵。一旦想到他將永远具有支配的领导力，更是至需改革的巫统准备面对第十三届大选的资產，那就等於相信童话。
国人很幸运的摆脱了他。以上苍之名，让他继续爱管閒事，而我们將自由地根据宪法和本身良知来决定我们的生活。
允许马哈迪回归巫统会添加问题，而內部团结將持续微弱，並加速巫统衰败。或许我应该不多说，就让巫统自己去享受有马哈迪同在的快乐。
订阅：
博文 (Atom)