CERAMAH PERDANA
安華開講
DATO’SERI
ANWAR IBRAHIM
(PENASIHAT PARTI KEADILAN RAKYAT MALAYSIA)
(前副首相,人民公正黨實權領袖)
其他主講者 :蔡添強(公正黨宣傳主任)
:梁自堅律師(公正黨總財政)
07.1.2008(星期一)
TEMPAT : KG BARU PENGERANG
地點: 四灣翡翠園海鮮酒樓
時間:晚間7:00-9:00
入場免費,請踴躍出席
Friday, December 28, 2007
特別報道：“鐵蝴蝶”折翼 巴基斯坦前總理布托遇襲身亡
巴基斯坦前總理、現任反對派領導人貝·布托（港譯貝娜齊爾）被稱為“鐵蝴蝶”，意思是說她像蝴蝶般美麗，內心卻比鋼鐵還堅強：“鐵蝴蝶”兩次當選總理，兩次被罷免，期間九次被軟禁或入獄，但她仍然熬了過來，希望再次返回祖國東山再起。10初她回國時車隊曾遇襲，“鐵蝴蝶”當時避過一劫，但在12月27日，布托這位首位成為伊斯蘭世界的女總理，終因遭到恐怖事件襲擊，重傷去世，終年54歲。
據美聯社報道，貝·布托領導的巴基斯坦人民黨代表已經証實，貝·布托受恐怖襲擊後被送往在醫院，但因傷勢過重不治身亡。現場消息指貝·布托先遭槍傷再遇自殺式炸彈爆炸。外電消息指巴基斯坦多個城市都爆發騷亂。巴國總統穆沙拉夫晚上發表聲明譴責暴力，並呼籲國民冷靜。
今年10月初，穆沙拉夫和貝·布托已就總統選舉等事宜達成一項全國和解協議。根據協議，穆沙拉夫將對貝·布托等前高官予以特赦，而貝·布托領導的人民黨將不會抵制選舉。不過，特赦高官並不包括另一位前總理謝里夫。10月21日，布托回國時，其車隊在卡拉奇遭襲，造成至少136人死亡。事後，巴警方逮捕3名疑犯。曾兩任巴總理的貝·布托，是伊斯蘭國家中的第一位女總理，也是世界上最年輕的女總理。現年５４歲的貝·布托出身政治世家，其父阿里·布托曾任巴總理。
從小就聰慧過人的貝·布托極受父親寵愛。在重男輕女嚴重的巴國，阿里·布托每次都是帶著聰明美麗的女兒出席各種政治活動，將其作為繼承人精心栽培。貝·布托也不負眾望，１６歲就考入哈佛大學學習，後又進入牛津大學深造。1976年，學成歸國的貝·布托繼承父志，進入政界。被稱為“鐵蝴蝶”的貝·布托，外表如蝴蝶般美麗，內心卻比鋼鐵還堅強。她的父親在1977年遭政變被免去職務，並於1979年被處以絞刑。貝·布托受牽連遭軟禁，但她的政治抱負沒有絲毫動搖。恢復自由後，貝·布托參加選舉，1988年，35歲的貝·布托成了巴歷史上第一位女總理，但在任不足兩年，就被解除了職務。
1993年，貝·布托再次當選總理，又因“嚴重腐敗”被解職。兩次當選總理，兩次被罷免，期間９次被軟禁或入獄。1999年，貝·布托被迫流亡海外。為了讓貝·布托對政治“死心”，巴政府曾連下兩道通緝令，通緝貝· 布托夫婦。惡劣環境沒能熄滅貝·布托內心對政治的渴望，在海外流亡至今的貝· 布托，依然領導著巴國人民黨，並積極與各種在野勢力接觸，為回國參選做準備。接受西方教育的貝·布托擁有純伊斯蘭式的婚姻。在父母安排下，同建築業巨頭扎爾達里相識５天後即訂婚，兩人在婚前從未單獨相處過。
但在婚後，貝·布托卻深愛上了自己的丈夫，即使他給貝·布托帶來了大麻煩。貝·布托的兩次被罷免都與其夫有關。被戲稱為“１０％先生”的扎爾達里，在貝·布托任職期間，曾向公司收取１０％回扣。下臺後貝·布托流亡海外，其夫也被投入監獄。2004年，扎爾達裏結束了８年牢獄生活，飛往倫敦同貝·布托團聚。
雖然丈夫兩次讓她從權力巔峰跌落，但貝· 布托對他還是一片癡心，並堅信其無辜。受國內極端主義困擾的穆沙拉夫，為了下個５年總統任期，主動向貝·布托拋出橄欖枝，同意其回國參加議會選舉，並撤銷腐敗指控。據BBC中文網報道，攻擊事件中也至少有另外15人遇難。人民黨一些支持者在事發後痛哭流涕，也有一些支持者則在街道上點燃篝火以示抗議。美國政府在事發後，迅速譴責這次自殺襲擊事件﹔美國國務院表示，事件破壞了巴基斯坦國內和解的努力。俄羅斯外交部也迅速譴責了爆炸事件，並警告說，此舉可能導致更多的恐怖事件。中國政府目前還沒有就事件發表評論
亞洲時報
貝娜齊爾﹒布托生平
不久前結束流亡生涯歸國從政的巴基斯坦前總理貝娜齊爾﹒布托，12月27日在競選集會期間遇刺身亡﹔悲壯中結束了轟轟烈烈的一生。
貝﹒布托曾是巴基斯坦及國際間家喻戶曉的名字：她曾兩次出任政府總理，也曾多年遭腐敗罪名指控。
出身世家 就像印度的甘地家族一樣，巴基斯坦的布托家族在世界政治舞台是相當響亮的。
貝娜齊爾的父親，阿里﹒布托市1970年代初的巴基斯坦總理。阿里﹒布托的政府是當時巴基斯坦獨立之後30幾年來少數的非軍方政府之一。
貝娜齊爾在1953年出生，在美國哈佛大學同英國牛津大學受教育。他從父親的名聲之中獲得了公眾信任，即使她當初並不願意走政治的道路。
她曾經在1988到1990年間及1993到1996年間兩度擔任巴基斯坦總理。
在這兩次擔任總理，他都因為涉及腐敗醜聞而被總統驅逐下台。
被驅逐下台顯示了她不穩定的政治生涯，當中經過了高峰和入低谷。貝娜齊爾最受歡迎的時刻是首次當選之後，她成為了世界上其中一個最高調的女性領袖。 她當時年輕，光芒四射，成功在男性主導的政治世界中，將自己塑造出一個清新的形像。
但是在她第二度下台之後，她的名字同腐敗及治國無能掛鉤。
決心與毅力 貝娜齊爾﹒布托的決心與毅力見於他的父親在1977年齊亞﹒哈克將軍軍事政變之後被抓進牢，兩年之後被處決。
貝娜齊爾當時在她父親被處決之前已經進牢，五年牢獄生涯大部分時間都是單獨關押。她形容當時的情況異常惡劣。
因為疾病治療而脫離牢獄之後，布托女士在倫敦成立了巴基斯坦人民黨的辦事處，開始發動對抗齊亞﹒哈克將軍的運動。 布托在1986年放回巴基斯坦，吸引了大批群眾集會。 齊亞﹒哈克在1988年飛機爆炸事件身亡之後，布托成為了伊斯蘭國家罕見的民選女總理。
腐敗控訴
布托在位期間，她的丈夫扎爾達裡的角色引起了極大爭議。
他在布托兩任總理期間都擔當了重要角色，被多屆巴基斯坦政府指控盜竊數以百萬美元的公款。布托同扎爾達裡都否認了這項指控。
這些指控稱他們將金錢分散存放在歐洲多個國家。
很多評論家都說布托丈夫被指控貪婪加速了布托的下台。
不過，經過了十年審訊，扎爾達裡被控的大約18項腐敗和刑事罪名都不能證實有罪。但是，扎爾達裡還是蹲了至少八年大獄。他在2004年獲准保釋出獄。
布托則一直否認對他指控的腐敗罪名，說指控是有政治目的的。
直到2007年10月的特赦為止，布托面對的至少五項腐敗控罪都沒有一項罪名成立。 布托在1999年自我流亡海外，同家人居住在迪拜。她經常到西方國家的大學講學，同智囊機構及政府官員會面。
布托在2007年10月18日結束流亡生涯回國，軍政府總統穆沙拉夫簽署法令給她同其他人特赦。
布托回國是同穆沙拉夫總統達成分享權力協議的結果。但是在她回國之後，兩人之間的關係嚴重倒退。
布托回國第一天，她的車隊就遭受了自殺式炸彈襲擊。
就在布托準備即將在明年初舉行的議會大選之際，第二次炸彈襲擊結束了她短暫卻有輝煌的一生。 貝﹒布托終年54歲。
BBC 中文罔
貝﹒布托曾是巴基斯坦及國際間家喻戶曉的名字：她曾兩次出任政府總理，也曾多年遭腐敗罪名指控。
出身世家 就像印度的甘地家族一樣，巴基斯坦的布托家族在世界政治舞台是相當響亮的。
貝娜齊爾的父親，阿里﹒布托市1970年代初的巴基斯坦總理。阿里﹒布托的政府是當時巴基斯坦獨立之後30幾年來少數的非軍方政府之一。
貝娜齊爾在1953年出生，在美國哈佛大學同英國牛津大學受教育。他從父親的名聲之中獲得了公眾信任，即使她當初並不願意走政治的道路。
她曾經在1988到1990年間及1993到1996年間兩度擔任巴基斯坦總理。
在這兩次擔任總理，他都因為涉及腐敗醜聞而被總統驅逐下台。
被驅逐下台顯示了她不穩定的政治生涯，當中經過了高峰和入低谷。貝娜齊爾最受歡迎的時刻是首次當選之後，她成為了世界上其中一個最高調的女性領袖。 她當時年輕，光芒四射，成功在男性主導的政治世界中，將自己塑造出一個清新的形像。
但是在她第二度下台之後，她的名字同腐敗及治國無能掛鉤。
決心與毅力 貝娜齊爾﹒布托的決心與毅力見於他的父親在1977年齊亞﹒哈克將軍軍事政變之後被抓進牢，兩年之後被處決。
貝娜齊爾當時在她父親被處決之前已經進牢，五年牢獄生涯大部分時間都是單獨關押。她形容當時的情況異常惡劣。
因為疾病治療而脫離牢獄之後，布托女士在倫敦成立了巴基斯坦人民黨的辦事處，開始發動對抗齊亞﹒哈克將軍的運動。 布托在1986年放回巴基斯坦，吸引了大批群眾集會。 齊亞﹒哈克在1988年飛機爆炸事件身亡之後，布托成為了伊斯蘭國家罕見的民選女總理。
腐敗控訴
布托在位期間，她的丈夫扎爾達裡的角色引起了極大爭議。
他在布托兩任總理期間都擔當了重要角色，被多屆巴基斯坦政府指控盜竊數以百萬美元的公款。布托同扎爾達裡都否認了這項指控。
這些指控稱他們將金錢分散存放在歐洲多個國家。
很多評論家都說布托丈夫被指控貪婪加速了布托的下台。
不過，經過了十年審訊，扎爾達裡被控的大約18項腐敗和刑事罪名都不能證實有罪。但是，扎爾達裡還是蹲了至少八年大獄。他在2004年獲准保釋出獄。
布托則一直否認對他指控的腐敗罪名，說指控是有政治目的的。
直到2007年10月的特赦為止，布托面對的至少五項腐敗控罪都沒有一項罪名成立。 布托在1999年自我流亡海外，同家人居住在迪拜。她經常到西方國家的大學講學，同智囊機構及政府官員會面。
布托在2007年10月18日結束流亡生涯回國，軍政府總統穆沙拉夫簽署法令給她同其他人特赦。
布托回國是同穆沙拉夫總統達成分享權力協議的結果。但是在她回國之後，兩人之間的關係嚴重倒退。
布托回國第一天，她的車隊就遭受了自殺式炸彈襲擊。
就在布托準備即將在明年初舉行的議會大選之際，第二次炸彈襲擊結束了她短暫卻有輝煌的一生。 貝﹒布托終年54歲。
BBC 中文罔
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
STOP THE MADNESS!
The award of the RM 12.5 billion contract to build the Ipoh – Padang Besar (Thai border) double-tracking railway is destined to create the most wasteful white elephant among the many white elephants already existing in this country.
This is crystal clear from a cursory glance at the current operation of the state-owned monopoly Keretapi Tanah Melayu Berhad (KTMB) or The Malayan Railways Ltd.
Traversing the Malaysian Peninsular with a network of 1,700 km of railways, KTMB only raked in RM 288 million in transportation revenues in 2006, made up as follows:
Intercity services RM 71 million
Commuter services in Kuala Lumpur areas RM 85 million
Freight services RM 132 million
Total RM 288 million
Excluding the commuter services in KL areas (175 km) from our calculations, the total pan-peninsular transportation revenue is RM 203 million, yielded by a network of 1525 km of railways (1,700 – 175). Apportioning 30% of this total revenue to the Ipoh – Padang sector of 329 km (though this sector forms only 22% of the total linear length of 1525 km), the corresponding revenue is RM 60 million.
Granted that traffic volume will increase substantially after completion of the double-tracking project, but there is a limit to this increase. Assuming a generous revenue growth of 7 folds, future annual revenue for this sector will be RM 420 million – a mere 3.3% of the initial capital investment of RM 12,500 million.
Such meager revenues simply mean that due to its low usage, this project will not have any significant impact on the economy or on transportation in this sector after its completion.
On the other hand, let us pause for a moment to ponder over what this astronomical sum of public funds - RM 12,500 million - means to the people.
In the first place, it means every family in this country will have to shoulder an average burden of RM 2,500/-.
Then, if this money is spent for other purposes, the government can complete any one of the following feats:
plant 1.2 million hectares of matured oil palm, which are capable of generating annual revenues of RM 10 billion (5 million tons of palm oil @ RM 2,000 per ton),or
build 400,000 low cost housing units, which is capable of housing to 2 million have-nots, or
establish 100 medium sized institutions of higher learning, capable of taking in 300,000 students for tertiary education, or
build 1,200 km of expressways (equivalent to one more north-south expressway plus one more east-west highway).
The glaring contrast in returns between building the double-tracking project and any of the abovementioned alternative usages clearly indicates that this project is of very low priority at this stage of our development when the country is still short of funds to address many social-economic needs urgently. But our government has chosen to implement it, and worst, doing it in circumstances that are most deplorable.
First, there has never been a proper cost/benefit analysis. For a project that is labeled as the largest ever undertaken (when completed from north to south), this omission is shocking though perhaps understandable, as the cabinet should have been aware that the project proposition could not have survived the preliminary round of analysis.
Second, this project has never been properly discussed in the cabinet – not in Mahathir’s reign when the contract was first dubiously awarded to Gamuda Bhd – MMC Corp Bhd joint venture in Oct 2003 (but shelved in Dec 2003) (see note 1), nor during Abdullah’s premiership when it was revived in Mar 2007 (see note 2).
Third, it was the Cabinet Committee on Public Transport – not the Cabinet – which made the decision to revive the project and to award the contract to the same contractor in a subcommittee meeting held on 16 Mar 2007 chaired by Deputy Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak, who also made the announcement. That such an important project should have been left to Najib’s subcommittee to decide reflected Prime Minister Abdullah’s weak leadership as well as serious-flaw in the decision-making process of his government. One cannot help but ask: Did Najib usurp the authority of the Prime Minister and the cabinet?
Fourth, no open tender has been called for this project. Worst, the decision to award the contract to Gamuda – MMC was made even before prices were known to the government, thus weakening the latter’s bargaining position and throwing the door wide open for collusion and corruption. For a contract of this size, billions of ringgit could easily have been leaked, further burdening the taxpayers. What happened to Abdullah’s promises of open tender, transparency and accountability?
Fifth, it is most improper that the momentous announcement on the official award of this contract with a finalized price should have been left to the contractor, who also doubled up as the spokesman to speak in length to drum up the project’s economic justification, while the government was keeping completely mum? Is it any of the contractor’s business to justify public expenditure to the taxpayers? Shouldn’t that be the responsibility of cabinet ministers? Why have they hidden behind the contractor? Shouldn’t the ministers have appeared in full force to bask in the glory of launching of such a stupendous project, if they really believe it will yield handsome rewards to the people?
Noting the absurd return of this project in relation to its huge capital layout, a series of serious questions beg for answers.
Why did former premier Mahathir Mohammad push for the double-tracking project so urgently, to the extent of clandestinely issuing the letter of offer to Gamuda – MMC only days before he stepped down on 31 Oct 2003? The contract then was for the construction of both the northern Ipoh-Padang sector and the southern Seremban-Johor Bahru sector for a total contract sum of RM 14.5 billion.
Having rightly shelved the project by the new Abdullah cabinet in Dec 2003 due to its low priority, why was it revived in Mar 2007? What was the rationale for its revival? Who made the decision?
Finding no compelling economic or social rationale, what conclusion can we draw other than to attribute the motivation behind this project to the base human instinct of greed – both on the part of giver and recipient of the contract?
Kim Quek.
Note 1: The circumstances under which the double-tracking project was awarded in Oct 2003 (under Mahathir) and shelved in Dec 2003 (under Abdullah) were described in my article listed in Malaysiakini on 17.12.2003 under the title “Double tracking: government back on track”, and also published in my book “Where to, Malaysia?” as Article No. 71.
Note 2: I commented on the revival of the project in Mar 2007 in my article listed in Malsaysiakini on 19.03.2007 under the title “Najib runaway train or Pak Lah Express changes route?”.
This is crystal clear from a cursory glance at the current operation of the state-owned monopoly Keretapi Tanah Melayu Berhad (KTMB) or The Malayan Railways Ltd.
Traversing the Malaysian Peninsular with a network of 1,700 km of railways, KTMB only raked in RM 288 million in transportation revenues in 2006, made up as follows:
Intercity services RM 71 million
Commuter services in Kuala Lumpur areas RM 85 million
Freight services RM 132 million
Total RM 288 million
Excluding the commuter services in KL areas (175 km) from our calculations, the total pan-peninsular transportation revenue is RM 203 million, yielded by a network of 1525 km of railways (1,700 – 175). Apportioning 30% of this total revenue to the Ipoh – Padang sector of 329 km (though this sector forms only 22% of the total linear length of 1525 km), the corresponding revenue is RM 60 million.
Granted that traffic volume will increase substantially after completion of the double-tracking project, but there is a limit to this increase. Assuming a generous revenue growth of 7 folds, future annual revenue for this sector will be RM 420 million – a mere 3.3% of the initial capital investment of RM 12,500 million.
Such meager revenues simply mean that due to its low usage, this project will not have any significant impact on the economy or on transportation in this sector after its completion.
On the other hand, let us pause for a moment to ponder over what this astronomical sum of public funds - RM 12,500 million - means to the people.
In the first place, it means every family in this country will have to shoulder an average burden of RM 2,500/-.
Then, if this money is spent for other purposes, the government can complete any one of the following feats:
plant 1.2 million hectares of matured oil palm, which are capable of generating annual revenues of RM 10 billion (5 million tons of palm oil @ RM 2,000 per ton),or
build 400,000 low cost housing units, which is capable of housing to 2 million have-nots, or
establish 100 medium sized institutions of higher learning, capable of taking in 300,000 students for tertiary education, or
build 1,200 km of expressways (equivalent to one more north-south expressway plus one more east-west highway).
The glaring contrast in returns between building the double-tracking project and any of the abovementioned alternative usages clearly indicates that this project is of very low priority at this stage of our development when the country is still short of funds to address many social-economic needs urgently. But our government has chosen to implement it, and worst, doing it in circumstances that are most deplorable.
First, there has never been a proper cost/benefit analysis. For a project that is labeled as the largest ever undertaken (when completed from north to south), this omission is shocking though perhaps understandable, as the cabinet should have been aware that the project proposition could not have survived the preliminary round of analysis.
Second, this project has never been properly discussed in the cabinet – not in Mahathir’s reign when the contract was first dubiously awarded to Gamuda Bhd – MMC Corp Bhd joint venture in Oct 2003 (but shelved in Dec 2003) (see note 1), nor during Abdullah’s premiership when it was revived in Mar 2007 (see note 2).
Third, it was the Cabinet Committee on Public Transport – not the Cabinet – which made the decision to revive the project and to award the contract to the same contractor in a subcommittee meeting held on 16 Mar 2007 chaired by Deputy Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak, who also made the announcement. That such an important project should have been left to Najib’s subcommittee to decide reflected Prime Minister Abdullah’s weak leadership as well as serious-flaw in the decision-making process of his government. One cannot help but ask: Did Najib usurp the authority of the Prime Minister and the cabinet?
Fourth, no open tender has been called for this project. Worst, the decision to award the contract to Gamuda – MMC was made even before prices were known to the government, thus weakening the latter’s bargaining position and throwing the door wide open for collusion and corruption. For a contract of this size, billions of ringgit could easily have been leaked, further burdening the taxpayers. What happened to Abdullah’s promises of open tender, transparency and accountability?
Fifth, it is most improper that the momentous announcement on the official award of this contract with a finalized price should have been left to the contractor, who also doubled up as the spokesman to speak in length to drum up the project’s economic justification, while the government was keeping completely mum? Is it any of the contractor’s business to justify public expenditure to the taxpayers? Shouldn’t that be the responsibility of cabinet ministers? Why have they hidden behind the contractor? Shouldn’t the ministers have appeared in full force to bask in the glory of launching of such a stupendous project, if they really believe it will yield handsome rewards to the people?
Noting the absurd return of this project in relation to its huge capital layout, a series of serious questions beg for answers.
Why did former premier Mahathir Mohammad push for the double-tracking project so urgently, to the extent of clandestinely issuing the letter of offer to Gamuda – MMC only days before he stepped down on 31 Oct 2003? The contract then was for the construction of both the northern Ipoh-Padang sector and the southern Seremban-Johor Bahru sector for a total contract sum of RM 14.5 billion.
Having rightly shelved the project by the new Abdullah cabinet in Dec 2003 due to its low priority, why was it revived in Mar 2007? What was the rationale for its revival? Who made the decision?
Finding no compelling economic or social rationale, what conclusion can we draw other than to attribute the motivation behind this project to the base human instinct of greed – both on the part of giver and recipient of the contract?
Kim Quek.
Note 1: The circumstances under which the double-tracking project was awarded in Oct 2003 (under Mahathir) and shelved in Dec 2003 (under Abdullah) were described in my article listed in Malaysiakini on 17.12.2003 under the title “Double tracking: government back on track”, and also published in my book “Where to, Malaysia?” as Article No. 71.
Note 2: I commented on the revival of the project in Mar 2007 in my article listed in Malsaysiakini on 19.03.2007 under the title “Najib runaway train or Pak Lah Express changes route?”.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
大馬政府：印裔“平均收入不窮
撰文 郭華盈
2007/12/18, 週二
馬來西亞的“新經濟政策”（New Economic Policy, NEP）上月中旬遭前歐盟駐大馬大使羅默爾（Thierry Rommel）公然批評而引起爭論後。最近，由於“印裔權益行動委員會”指責大馬政府50年來邊緣化印裔族群，這個議題再度躍上媒體版面。非政府組織“印裔權益行動委員會”申訴，大馬的低下印裔社群，長期面對貧窮、升學機會不足、廟宇被拆等各類社會政治問題，令他們成為邊緣化社群，在扶弱政策中備受忽略。
就著印裔社群是大馬最貧困一群的說法，大馬官方新聞社《馬新社》12月11日刊登了一篇文章反擊。這篇文章專訪了大馬歷史協會執行委員會的主席奧瑪哈欣（Omar Hashim），當中指馬來族才是生活在最低層的一群，華裔與印裔實際上在“新經濟政策”中受惠。奧瑪哈欣以2004年各族的每戶家庭收入統計來反駁，指華裔與印裔平均每月收入分別為馬幣4427與3456，比馬幣2711的馬來裔來得富裕；因此他們才是新經濟政策的受惠者。奧瑪哈欣並不是第一個拿每月家庭收入，來反駁印裔並非大馬最貧困社群的人。
不少執政巫統（UMNO）的領袖也跳出來作出反駁。大馬的國陣聯盟政府向來聲稱平等對待各族，甚至為多元種族和平共處而驕傲。印裔被邊緣化的言論令政府難以接受，也令其覺得在國際社會顔面盡失。要知道，大馬多元宗族融洽相處的實例，還被西方國家視為值得學習的典範。
大馬首相巴達維曾於2006年9月在芬蘭舉行的亞歐峰會上，發表關於不同文明與文化融洽共處的演講。平均收入抹殺族內貧富差異以家庭平均收入企圖證明印裔社群比馬來社群富裕的說法，惹來經濟學家與在野派的駁斥。他們紛紛指出，上述數據完全沒有考慮印裔社群內部的貧富懸殊因素。針對印裔社群比馬來社群富裕，專業人士也比馬來人多的言論，“馬來西亞印裔商業聯合會”（Malaysian Indian Business Association）總會長西華古瑪（P Sivakumar）駁斥，以專業領域以印裔居多為由，否決印裔社會遭邊緣化的言論，並不公平。他解釋，是父母一代的刻苦耐勞以及“淚水和汗水”，才造就了印裔專業人士的成就，而非政府的功勞。
他補充說，在缺乏政府援助的情況下，要獲得良好教育是很難的事情；在前任首相馬哈蒂爾執政的時期，每家國立大學只有一名印裔學生能夠進入醫學系。社會經濟學者林德宜指出，如果族群內的財富分配極度懸殊或不均，那麽家庭平均收入，就不是衡量各族經濟狀況的良好指標。
另一經濟學者查爾斯（Charles Santiago）也不約而同指出，單看家庭平均收入水平和貧窮率，來判斷印裔社會未遭邊緣化，無疑是以偏概全。大馬“亞洲策略及領導院”（Asli）在去年提呈予政府的第9大馬計劃建議中也表示，大部分印裔從國家獨立前開始，就在經濟和政治領域方面被有系統地邊緣化。這份由亞洲策略研究院屬下的公共政策中心（CPPS）發表的報告，題目為《低收入的大馬印裔》。它指出，當局缺乏特定的政策和計劃，以解決印裔族群在城鄉面對的貧困問題。
根據第9大馬計劃的數據，印裔家庭於2004年的平均收入是馬幣3215，而馬來人則是2522。從1999年到2004年，印裔家庭收入的增長率只有 3.5％，而馬來人是4.9％。該研究報告說，“在另一個末端，另外一套社會指標顯示，我國社會正處於貧困之中”，三分之一的印裔沒有自己的房屋，比率較土著和華裔來得高。該研究報告也引述數據說，印裔雖然只佔大馬2600萬人口的7.55萬人，但是其自殺率卻是全國最高的。
另外，也有很多印裔涉及嚴重罪案和私會黨活動而被捕。“先進國家的研究指出，犯罪案和不平等的待遇是有關連的。如果某個群體涉及違法的活動，那說明他們通過正當管道爭取發展的機會很少。
”新經濟政策的源起“新經濟政策” 在1970年誕生，是針對1969年5月的種族流血事件而出台的，其宗旨是“不分種族消除貧窮”與“拉近族群間的財富分配重組社會”。此政策期望通過消除社會經濟不等導致的族群間的不滿，從而製造國民團結的條件。該政策通過偏向馬來人的措施（積極歧視政策），來提升馬來族群與土著的經濟地位。它在工作、教育、商業與其他領域，為超過2600萬的馬來民族提供優惠對待。馬來人佔大馬人口6成，華裔佔約百分之25，印裔佔百分之8。扶貧的努力在馬來裔農民居多的鄉區展開，重組社會目標，特別著重於縮窄馬來人與華人之間的族群間不平等。
“新經濟政策” 推行之初，目標是促使馬來族群在1990年前，擁有國內所有企業30 %的股權。但在年期屆滿後，當家當權的巫統以馬來土著利益仍未得到適當體現為由，多次延長“新經濟政策”的實施年期。而究竟上述目標是否已經實現，仍在爭議中。
新經濟政策在1990年到期後，由1991-2000第二遠景大綱，與較後的2001-2010第三遠景大綱取代。這兩個國家發展計劃雖把重點擺在達到快速增長、工業化與結構改變，但它們還是被視為新經濟政策的延伸，特別是重組社會或重新分配財富的目標。淪為權力集團牟利工具時評人鄭庭河指出，作為解決結構性因素導致的財富分配不均政策的扶弱政策，除了成為保持社會穩定與經濟發展“工具性”措施以外，背後還必須有“社會正義和人權”的崇高精神為基礎。如此一來，扶弱政策才可以正當樹立、持續推行與發揮功效。
鄭庭河指出，在不民主、民智不高的社會，“扶弱政策和很可能被權力集團濫用，成為謀取私利的工具。”社會正義與人權不止無法高舉，更刻意被忽略、遮蔽、顛覆，模糊了原本的價值目的。學者普遍指出，“新經濟政策”有意混淆了馬來西巫的種族與階級分野，在縮少種族間經濟差距的同時，卻擴大了不同階級間的經濟差距，而且造就了一個高踞社會頂層的馬來族官僚資本階級。然而，種族矛盾的表象，卻無法掩蓋階級間的利益衝突這一具有本質意義的社會矛盾。
經濟學家佐摩（Jomo K.S）在一篇為聯合國屬下結構撰寫的論文中指出，“新經濟政策”的兩大目標大致已經達到，不過卻未必達到改善族群間的關係目的，反而製造族群間的不滿與階級間的競爭。他指出，“新經濟政策”及其後的發展政策，影響了企業擁有財富、教育與就業機會等公共政策的制定。換言之，積極歧視政策主要影響了商界與中產階級的關係。
商界與中產階級之間的族群緊張關係，最為尖銳。佐摩表示，80年代開始的私營化計劃的工程合約，完全由政治領袖決定交給誰人完成，招來朋黨主義與尋租方面的批評。這樣的發放私營化計劃方式，鞏固了領導人的權勢，進而鼓勵黨職與官職，以及提升社會和經濟地位的競爭。1997年至1998年間的金融風暴後，大馬被指選擇性拯救私人或官聯企業，這更進一步強化上述傾向。“獲得政府分配工程合約或商機的馬來商人，通常把工程交給擁有資金與技術的華商完成。這樣的‘阿里巴巴’式合作關係，累計不少不滿。” 因此，他指出，馬來西亞有必要尋找替代方案來改善族群關係。
Saturday, December 15, 2007
WHERE TO, PAK LAH?
Who in his wildest dream would have imagined Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi’s (Pak Lah) promised land of reforms pledged in the last election in 2004 could so dramatically degenerated into a virtual police state on the eve of the next election?
Yes, the ridiculous spectacle of arrest of opposition party and civic leaders (who only wanted to present a petition) in a Parliament house that was completely sealed off by police road blocks in the absence of any threats of attacks is indeed one that exudes the image of a police state.
This spectacle was rendered even more ridiculous when the petition was a noble mission to persuade the ruling coalition Barisan Nasional (BN) from rushing through a wanton alteration of the Constitution for political expediency – amending Article 114 of the Constitution to extend the retirement age of the chairman of election commission (EC) from 65 to 66, so as to enable the discredited and pro-BN chairman Rashid Rahman (due for mandatory retirement at 65 on Dec 31) to helm the coming election.
On the same day of these arrests, Dec 11, the headquarters of main opposition party PAS was cordoned off by police so as to prevent leaders of the party from going to Parliament House to present the petition. Where on earth can you find a democratic country indulging in such high-handed acts of contempt of democratic principles and such uninhibited abuse of police force? What a big slap on the face of the Prime Minister, who only days before shamelessly declared to the world through an article in the Asian Wall Street Journal (Dec 7) what glorious democracy Malaysia had been practicing!
FRANTIC REPRESSION
To get a further view of the state of repression this country has descended to, I will list briefly relevant events that took place recently, in reversed chronologic order:
Dec 11: Arrests in Parliament and cordoning of PAS headquarters as stated above.
Dec 9: International human rights day. Arrest of Bar Council human rights committee chairman for preventing government officials from removing a human rights banner in the premises of the Bar Council. Arrest of lawyers and activists who were walking in a small group toward the Bar Council premises in celebration of International human rights day, after the Bar Council had cancelled its annual human rights walk under pressure from the government.
Dec 9: Scores of activists including opposition party leaders were arrested in different parts of the country for participating in the Nov 10 rally organized by BERSIH – a movement supported by opposition parties and NGOs to campaign for free and fair elections.
Nov 25: Hindra rally of 30,000 in the streets of Kuala Lumpur to protest against marginalization of ethnic Indians due to racial discrimination under the “New Economic Policy” (NEP). The demonstrators were brutally suppressed with endless volley of tear gas canisters, chemically laced water cannons and beating with batons by police. Subsequently 31 ethnic Indians were arrested and charged for attempted murder for wounding a policeman; and leaders of Hindra - an ethnic Indian rights movement - were arrested and charged.
Nov 10: BERSIH rally of 40,000 in Kuala Lumpur to present a petition to the King requesting for electoral reforms. The marchers were confronted by police blockades and chased around by riot squats using tear gas, chemically laced water cannons and batons.
In an apparent attempt to exonerate himself from accusation of reckless repression, Pak Lah said in a speech on Dec 10: “If the choice is between public safety and public freedom, I do not hesitate to say here that public safety will always win.” He alluded to demonstrators as law-breakers who threatened public safety and vowed to apply the dreaded Internal Security Act if necessary.
But what blatant lies these assertions are, when there is not a shred of evidence to indicate there has been any intent, act or weaponry of violence on the part of participants throughout these assemblies. In fact these protesters should be commended for having exhibited exemplary conduct of discipline and self-restraints, particularly when subjected to harsh treatment from the police. There was no violent clash, safe in the Batu Cave temple incident in the early hours of Dec 25 when large crowd of Hindu worshippers and participants were locked in and subjected to endless attacks of tear gas and water canons.
REBUKE FROM SUHAKAM
In a statement in apparent rebuttal to the Prime Minister’s wild accusation of “threats to public safety”, the Chairman of Suhakam, which is Malaysia’s Human Rights Commission, said:
“The possibility of public disorder should be based on evidence, not speculation or imagination.
“Suhakam regrets the government had ignored its repeated call to repeal the law requiring permits for public assemblies and processions. In London you can hold peaceful assemblies and the police are around to prevent public disorder. But here a group needs a permit even to present a memorandum.
“Suhakam wants Section 27 of the Police Act 1967 (which requires a police permit for an assembly of more than three) repealed, because it goes against the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and appears to be inconsistent with the spirit of the Federal Constitution.” (Star Dec 12).
A Suhakam statement further said:
“Currently, it appears that arrests and prosecutions are selective and seemingly biased. Suhakam calls on the authorities to respect and uphold the law and to implement it equally as guaranteed by Article 8 of the Federal Constitution. Suhakam regrets that many of its recommendations remain unheeded, and this has not enhanced our national human rights status.” (Malaysiakini Dec 12)
It should be clear from the foregoing who the villains are in these shameful episodes of trampling of the people’s constitutional rights.
PARANOID REFLEXES?
Why would Pak Lah and his cabinet resort to such dastardly acts that have put Malaysia to shame? I venture to suggest two main reasons.
FIRST, Abdullah’s government has been rocked by endless series of mega scandals of corruption and abuse of power since early this year. These included the grisly Mongolian murder with links to top political hierarchy; dubious commissions that run into hundreds of millions paid in respect of purchases of submarines and fighter jets respectively; the almost simultaneous investigations of the top three crime-busters – deputy minister of home security, inspector general of police and former anti-corruption agency chief; the inflated spending of RM 4.6 billion to create a “Ghost Town” in Port Klang; the inflated RM 6.75 billion naval vessel contract that ran foul; the auditor general’s report that reveals pervasive corruption in the millions that run right across the full spectrum of the entire government; and the recent Lingam video clip that exposes judicial rot of the worst kind.
Any of the above scandals would have dealt a fatal blow to any democratic country, but in Malaysia, thanks to collusion of local press and TV, these are largely hidden from the masses. However, with increasing influence exerted by critics through a growing Internet, the government is beginning to feel the heat of critical public opinion. Needless to say, the regime’s popular support will change in inverse proportion to the spread of public knowledge of the ruling coalition’s incompetence and corruption.
Economic hardships caused by spiraling inflation in an uncompetitive economy help to fester growing dissatisfaction against a leadership that is increasingly exposed as one which feathers its own nests through abuses of the NEP. The latter is supposed to be an affirmative policy but has been illegitimately hijacked by UMNO to enrich its elites in the name of helping the Malay race. These abuses, built on racial discriminations, have in turn heightened resentment among minority races as well as accentuating class conflicts due to widening disparity of wealth. To cling to power, UMNO has to depend on a manipulated electoral system as pillar to its political hegemony. This is why it is so determined to retain current EC chairman Rashid Rahman’s service, to the extent of amending the social contract of the founding fathers of this country – the Constitution.
And so, when tens of thousands of people threaten to amass in the streets to demand for fair elections (by BERSIH) or protest against racial marginalization (by Hindra), UMNO has reasons to feel panicky. What if these crowds swell to over a hundred thousand? What if news of the evil deeds of the regime spread like wild fire through word of mouth among the disgruntled masses? As UMNO’s popularity wanes, would it implode in the midst of worsening internal power struggle? Or would it be deserted by its racial hangers-on who have been scrounging on UMNO’s power, but whose roles as champions of their own racial groups are increasingly untenable in the light of UMNO’s recent surge in racial arrogance and dominance under the competitive influence of Pak Lah’s ambitious son-in-law Khairy Jamaluddin?
These nagging thoughts are fair assumptions, judging from the paranoia displayed by UMNO in clamping down so recklessly and insanely on any public expression of dissent.
SECOND, Pak Lah seemed to have been emboldened by the favourable findings of a recent opinion poll commissioned by the UMNO owned New Straits Times, judging from his recent smugness at the poll results and the sudden tightening of the police noose on the opposition of late. The spin doctors and sycophants who have insulated him from the real world might have convinced him that it is safe and timely to strike as hard a blow as possible against the opponents irrespective of what the Constitution prescribes, given the supposed unswerving support of the people.
CAUTION TO PAK LAH
A word of caution for Pak Lah here. Since when is opinion poll in a highly repressed state like Malaysia taken seriously? Democracies like US or Australia which practices exemplary democracy can rely on opinion poll to predict electoral outcome to the nearest percent or two. But haven’t we noticed that opinion polls on political support are rarely conducted in countries in Africa, middle east, the former Soviet Union and large parts of Asia? Why? It is simply because the people there have been so repressed that few would feel at ease to give honest answers openly, especially those answers deemed unfavourable to the ruling power. The same goes with Malaysia, where long entrenched political culture of submission under threats and inherent fear of punitive consequences will preclude any meaningful results from such an opinion poll. Taking this into consideration, it is safe to assume that there will be a large margin of error in favour of the ruling power, if at all such a poll is conducted.
A case in point was the opinion poll conducted by the Merdeka Centre for Opinion Research in 2004 when Pak Lah won a sweeping electoral victory. Though his popularity rating then was found to be 91% by Merdeka Centre, his coalition BN could only garner 64% of the popular votes. Projecting this trend onto his present popularity rating at, say 70%, that could mean he may only garner 49% of the popular votes for BN, a prospect not at all comfortable for the mighty and haughty UMNO/BN.
Regardless what the true level of Pak Lah’s popular support is, he will be well advised to stand on the right side of history by honouring his oath of allegiance to the country and the Constitution. For any betrayal of his oath of allegiance, such as the rampant violation of the constitutional rights of the people as is being committed now may bring misfortune to himself and his party in due course, as truth will eventually triumph. By then, his name will be defiled in eternity.
Kim Quek
Yes, the ridiculous spectacle of arrest of opposition party and civic leaders (who only wanted to present a petition) in a Parliament house that was completely sealed off by police road blocks in the absence of any threats of attacks is indeed one that exudes the image of a police state.
This spectacle was rendered even more ridiculous when the petition was a noble mission to persuade the ruling coalition Barisan Nasional (BN) from rushing through a wanton alteration of the Constitution for political expediency – amending Article 114 of the Constitution to extend the retirement age of the chairman of election commission (EC) from 65 to 66, so as to enable the discredited and pro-BN chairman Rashid Rahman (due for mandatory retirement at 65 on Dec 31) to helm the coming election.
On the same day of these arrests, Dec 11, the headquarters of main opposition party PAS was cordoned off by police so as to prevent leaders of the party from going to Parliament House to present the petition. Where on earth can you find a democratic country indulging in such high-handed acts of contempt of democratic principles and such uninhibited abuse of police force? What a big slap on the face of the Prime Minister, who only days before shamelessly declared to the world through an article in the Asian Wall Street Journal (Dec 7) what glorious democracy Malaysia had been practicing!
FRANTIC REPRESSION
To get a further view of the state of repression this country has descended to, I will list briefly relevant events that took place recently, in reversed chronologic order:
Dec 11: Arrests in Parliament and cordoning of PAS headquarters as stated above.
Dec 9: International human rights day. Arrest of Bar Council human rights committee chairman for preventing government officials from removing a human rights banner in the premises of the Bar Council. Arrest of lawyers and activists who were walking in a small group toward the Bar Council premises in celebration of International human rights day, after the Bar Council had cancelled its annual human rights walk under pressure from the government.
Dec 9: Scores of activists including opposition party leaders were arrested in different parts of the country for participating in the Nov 10 rally organized by BERSIH – a movement supported by opposition parties and NGOs to campaign for free and fair elections.
Nov 25: Hindra rally of 30,000 in the streets of Kuala Lumpur to protest against marginalization of ethnic Indians due to racial discrimination under the “New Economic Policy” (NEP). The demonstrators were brutally suppressed with endless volley of tear gas canisters, chemically laced water cannons and beating with batons by police. Subsequently 31 ethnic Indians were arrested and charged for attempted murder for wounding a policeman; and leaders of Hindra - an ethnic Indian rights movement - were arrested and charged.
Nov 10: BERSIH rally of 40,000 in Kuala Lumpur to present a petition to the King requesting for electoral reforms. The marchers were confronted by police blockades and chased around by riot squats using tear gas, chemically laced water cannons and batons.
In an apparent attempt to exonerate himself from accusation of reckless repression, Pak Lah said in a speech on Dec 10: “If the choice is between public safety and public freedom, I do not hesitate to say here that public safety will always win.” He alluded to demonstrators as law-breakers who threatened public safety and vowed to apply the dreaded Internal Security Act if necessary.
But what blatant lies these assertions are, when there is not a shred of evidence to indicate there has been any intent, act or weaponry of violence on the part of participants throughout these assemblies. In fact these protesters should be commended for having exhibited exemplary conduct of discipline and self-restraints, particularly when subjected to harsh treatment from the police. There was no violent clash, safe in the Batu Cave temple incident in the early hours of Dec 25 when large crowd of Hindu worshippers and participants were locked in and subjected to endless attacks of tear gas and water canons.
REBUKE FROM SUHAKAM
In a statement in apparent rebuttal to the Prime Minister’s wild accusation of “threats to public safety”, the Chairman of Suhakam, which is Malaysia’s Human Rights Commission, said:
“The possibility of public disorder should be based on evidence, not speculation or imagination.
“Suhakam regrets the government had ignored its repeated call to repeal the law requiring permits for public assemblies and processions. In London you can hold peaceful assemblies and the police are around to prevent public disorder. But here a group needs a permit even to present a memorandum.
“Suhakam wants Section 27 of the Police Act 1967 (which requires a police permit for an assembly of more than three) repealed, because it goes against the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and appears to be inconsistent with the spirit of the Federal Constitution.” (Star Dec 12).
A Suhakam statement further said:
“Currently, it appears that arrests and prosecutions are selective and seemingly biased. Suhakam calls on the authorities to respect and uphold the law and to implement it equally as guaranteed by Article 8 of the Federal Constitution. Suhakam regrets that many of its recommendations remain unheeded, and this has not enhanced our national human rights status.” (Malaysiakini Dec 12)
It should be clear from the foregoing who the villains are in these shameful episodes of trampling of the people’s constitutional rights.
PARANOID REFLEXES?
Why would Pak Lah and his cabinet resort to such dastardly acts that have put Malaysia to shame? I venture to suggest two main reasons.
FIRST, Abdullah’s government has been rocked by endless series of mega scandals of corruption and abuse of power since early this year. These included the grisly Mongolian murder with links to top political hierarchy; dubious commissions that run into hundreds of millions paid in respect of purchases of submarines and fighter jets respectively; the almost simultaneous investigations of the top three crime-busters – deputy minister of home security, inspector general of police and former anti-corruption agency chief; the inflated spending of RM 4.6 billion to create a “Ghost Town” in Port Klang; the inflated RM 6.75 billion naval vessel contract that ran foul; the auditor general’s report that reveals pervasive corruption in the millions that run right across the full spectrum of the entire government; and the recent Lingam video clip that exposes judicial rot of the worst kind.
Any of the above scandals would have dealt a fatal blow to any democratic country, but in Malaysia, thanks to collusion of local press and TV, these are largely hidden from the masses. However, with increasing influence exerted by critics through a growing Internet, the government is beginning to feel the heat of critical public opinion. Needless to say, the regime’s popular support will change in inverse proportion to the spread of public knowledge of the ruling coalition’s incompetence and corruption.
Economic hardships caused by spiraling inflation in an uncompetitive economy help to fester growing dissatisfaction against a leadership that is increasingly exposed as one which feathers its own nests through abuses of the NEP. The latter is supposed to be an affirmative policy but has been illegitimately hijacked by UMNO to enrich its elites in the name of helping the Malay race. These abuses, built on racial discriminations, have in turn heightened resentment among minority races as well as accentuating class conflicts due to widening disparity of wealth. To cling to power, UMNO has to depend on a manipulated electoral system as pillar to its political hegemony. This is why it is so determined to retain current EC chairman Rashid Rahman’s service, to the extent of amending the social contract of the founding fathers of this country – the Constitution.
And so, when tens of thousands of people threaten to amass in the streets to demand for fair elections (by BERSIH) or protest against racial marginalization (by Hindra), UMNO has reasons to feel panicky. What if these crowds swell to over a hundred thousand? What if news of the evil deeds of the regime spread like wild fire through word of mouth among the disgruntled masses? As UMNO’s popularity wanes, would it implode in the midst of worsening internal power struggle? Or would it be deserted by its racial hangers-on who have been scrounging on UMNO’s power, but whose roles as champions of their own racial groups are increasingly untenable in the light of UMNO’s recent surge in racial arrogance and dominance under the competitive influence of Pak Lah’s ambitious son-in-law Khairy Jamaluddin?
These nagging thoughts are fair assumptions, judging from the paranoia displayed by UMNO in clamping down so recklessly and insanely on any public expression of dissent.
SECOND, Pak Lah seemed to have been emboldened by the favourable findings of a recent opinion poll commissioned by the UMNO owned New Straits Times, judging from his recent smugness at the poll results and the sudden tightening of the police noose on the opposition of late. The spin doctors and sycophants who have insulated him from the real world might have convinced him that it is safe and timely to strike as hard a blow as possible against the opponents irrespective of what the Constitution prescribes, given the supposed unswerving support of the people.
CAUTION TO PAK LAH
A word of caution for Pak Lah here. Since when is opinion poll in a highly repressed state like Malaysia taken seriously? Democracies like US or Australia which practices exemplary democracy can rely on opinion poll to predict electoral outcome to the nearest percent or two. But haven’t we noticed that opinion polls on political support are rarely conducted in countries in Africa, middle east, the former Soviet Union and large parts of Asia? Why? It is simply because the people there have been so repressed that few would feel at ease to give honest answers openly, especially those answers deemed unfavourable to the ruling power. The same goes with Malaysia, where long entrenched political culture of submission under threats and inherent fear of punitive consequences will preclude any meaningful results from such an opinion poll. Taking this into consideration, it is safe to assume that there will be a large margin of error in favour of the ruling power, if at all such a poll is conducted.
A case in point was the opinion poll conducted by the Merdeka Centre for Opinion Research in 2004 when Pak Lah won a sweeping electoral victory. Though his popularity rating then was found to be 91% by Merdeka Centre, his coalition BN could only garner 64% of the popular votes. Projecting this trend onto his present popularity rating at, say 70%, that could mean he may only garner 49% of the popular votes for BN, a prospect not at all comfortable for the mighty and haughty UMNO/BN.
Regardless what the true level of Pak Lah’s popular support is, he will be well advised to stand on the right side of history by honouring his oath of allegiance to the country and the Constitution. For any betrayal of his oath of allegiance, such as the rampant violation of the constitutional rights of the people as is being committed now may bring misfortune to himself and his party in due course, as truth will eventually triumph. By then, his name will be defiled in eternity.
Kim Quek
Friday, December 14, 2007
工廠3害,鐵粉,異味,噪音擾民
古來）古來沙令成業花園附近一間鐵工廠被指散發鐵粉、異味及噪音，嚴重影響附近居民的健康與生活起居。
該花園區的楊志騰（37歲）指出，他居住在該花園約10年，隨著這家工廠在一年多前，在其住宅後面的商店開設廠房後，他們居家的環境嚴重受污染。
他說，這間廠不時傳來焊鐵的噪音，加上鐵粉的散發及異味，讓他們苦不堪言，特別是他6歲大的女兒，近一年多來幾乎都因為氣管疾病而進出醫院，他們全家也不時會患上傷風、咳嗽等與支氣管相關的疾病。
“醫生在問診時，一直問我們住的環境是不是很差；我女兒進醫院所索取的保費，連保險公司都怕了我們。”
他指出，曾經向有關方面投訴，包括衛生部，但相關部門表示沒有問題，於是他只好向人民公正黨古來區部主席劉順強投訴。
工廠老板稱將解決問題
劉順強表示，其實他在1年前曾經接獲相關的投訴，並曾經致電該工廠的老板，有關老板聲稱將解決相關的問題，並搬遷到其他地區。
“我今早致電古來市議會投訴後，市議會表示將採取行動；我今午再次致電相關老板，老板說該廠經在前兩天將生產部分搬遷到其他地區，以期減少對居民的干擾。”
他表示，其實與住家毗鄰的商店並不適宜作為鐵工廠，有關業者應將相關行業搬遷至小型工廠地帶，更何況根據當局的條令，在工作時間以外的時段，工廠不允許發出超過60分貝的噪音。
他希望，當局能認真監督古來或各區，特別是未掛上招牌的商店，是否進行將導致環境受污染的行業。
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Monday, December 10, 2007
沒有必要逮捕蔡添強
人民公正黨全國副總秘書羅志昌指警方的逮捕行動是無理的，因為警方可以傳召這些人士到警察局作筆錄，而相關人士都會配合，沒有必要展開氣氛緊張的行動。
他週日（9日）晚上在新山一場講座會上說：“警方要資料，蔡添強自會配合，根本不需要來新山捉他，而且警方逮捕他的方式很粗野。”另一方面，蔡添強的父親週日晚上9時許致電羅志昌，向對方瞭解兒子的情況。由於羅志昌當時正在講座會上演講，因此他把手機交給人民公正黨柔佛州副主席劉順強接聽。
劉順強說，蔡添強的父親只是打來瞭解兒子的情況，並安排友人前來士姑來拿取兒子的車子，以駕回馬六甲。他說，蔡添強週日下午5時30分曾傳送了一則手機短訊給他，告知自己身在士姑來警局，並會被押返吉隆坡。蔡添強過後又傳來一則短訊，要求劉順強安排律師到士姑來警察局.-星洲日報
新山訊）人民公正黨全國宣傳局主任蔡添強原本週日（9日）晚上出席一項講座會，詎料卻在講座會開始前的兩個小時被警方逮捕，使得主辦單位只好找來全國副總秘書羅志昌頂替，並在講座會前播放一段蔡添強被捕的影像，以及在他的名卡上添加了“剛被捉”3個字。由柔佛州人民公正黨舉行的講座會是於晚上7點半開始，講座會分為兩個部分，第一個部分是由主修區域經濟學的中國人民大學碩士吳以倫負責，他的講題是《從深圳看依斯干達》，而羅志昌則代替蔡添強主講《大集會的反思》。
60位民眾出席講座會共吸引逾60位民眾參與。蔡添強是於週日下午5點，在人民之聲柔佛州分會設於士姑來的會所前被捕。事發前，他剛剛主講完一場講座會.-光明日報
蔡添強被捕
人民公正黨全國宣傳局主任蔡添強因為11月10日參與了在吉隆坡舉行一項非法集會，週日（9日）下午在新山主講一場講座會後即被4名警方人員逮捕。警方是援引警察法令第27項條文，即涉及非法集會，而逮捕蔡添強。除了蔡添強外，警方週日也逮捕回教黨副主席莫哈末沙布、莫哈末阿斯里和莫哈末哈里斯，使到因參與乾淨與公平選舉聯盟（Bersih）於11月10日所舉辦之大集會而被捕的人士增加到14名。消息說，這14人當中有一些曾在大集會當天被捕，他們過後獲得口頭保釋外出。警方在他們保釋期週日期滿後，決定重新逮捕他們。莫哈末阿斯里和莫哈末哈里斯的身份暫時不詳。
該黨古來區部主席劉順強說，蔡添強於週日晚上在新山原本還有另一場由公正黨舉辦的演講；蔡添強在演講後即接到消息，指吉隆坡有兩名回教黨領袖被捕，因而預料自己可能週日晚上也會被捕。劉順強說，蔡添強是於下午5時13分被帶往士姑來警局，然後押返吉隆坡。蔡添強較早的演講內容圍繞在最近發生的兩次大集會.
高通膨對經濟的影響-講座會
Forum:
'Prices are going up.Where are we gong'
Kenaikan Harga barang!Dimana Silapnya
高通膨對經濟的影響-阿根廷借鏡-講座會
Tarikh:14/12/07(Jumaat)
Masa:7:30-10:30pm
Penceramah(主講人):
Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim(Setiausaha Agong PKR)
丹斯里卡立依布拉辛(人民公黨正總秘書)
William Leong(Bendahari Agong PKR)
梁自堅律師(人民公正黨總財政)
Din Merican(Pengarah Program PKR)
Venue:Hotel Crystal Crown
地點:新山世紀花園晶冠酒店
Masuk Percuma.
入場免費,請踴躍出席
聯絡:劉順強SK LIEW0197553486,陳仁明YM TAN:0197184052
'Prices are going up.Where are we gong'
Kenaikan Harga barang!Dimana Silapnya
高通膨對經濟的影響-阿根廷借鏡-講座會
Tarikh:14/12/07(Jumaat)
Masa:7:30-10:30pm
Penceramah(主講人):
Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim(Setiausaha Agong PKR)
丹斯里卡立依布拉辛(人民公黨正總秘書)
William Leong(Bendahari Agong PKR)
梁自堅律師(人民公正黨總財政)
Din Merican(Pengarah Program PKR)
Venue:Hotel Crystal Crown
地點:新山世紀花園晶冠酒店
Masuk Percuma.
入場免費,請踴躍出席
聯絡:劉順強SK LIEW0197553486,陳仁明YM TAN:0197184052
Saturday, December 8, 2007
Friday, December 7, 2007
三萬印裔大馬公民請願後續：電台主持支持行動遭開除
撰文 郭華盈 -亞洲時報
2007/12/06, 週四
馬來西亞印裔社群日前動員三萬人上街、抗議遭邊緣化後，策劃大集會的“印裔權益行動委員會”（Hindu Rights Action Force, Hindraf）派遣代表到印度求助，並獲得印度外交部長與總理對大馬印裔社群處境表達關注，令事件迅速轉升級為國際社會關注的議題。值得注意的是，委員會放棄向代表當地印裔的執政聯盟成員“馬來西亞印度國大黨”（Malaysian Indian Congress）求助，卻派遣代表展開國際行程，訪問倫敦、聯合國、歐洲與美國，申述大馬印裔社群的困境，企圖贏得國際社會支持，發聲向大馬政府施壓。他們成功令歐盟輪任主席國葡萄牙的總理蘇格拉底開腔，在新聞發布會上提及大馬印裔社群狀況。
“印裔權益行動委員會”也致信英國首相布朗，要求插手大馬印裔社群被“滅族”事件。“印裔權益行動委員會”於11月25日號召印裔走上首都吉隆坡街頭，試圖向英國最高專員署提呈請願書，要求英女王委派御用律師，免費為在150年前遭英殖民地政府剝削的印裔先輩申冤，索取4兆美元的賠償。大馬的印裔公民大部分是印度的泰米爾族人，在英殖民時期，被英國人從印度南部帶到該國發展當地經濟。大集會未獲得警方發出准證，參與示威的群眾遭受警方以水炮和催淚彈驅散。大集會後的一周內，聯盟政府閣員與人民代議士，紛紛譴責大集會破壞國家安寧與治安；聲援集會群眾的聲音，也出現在網絡媒體、博客、一些英文報章與中文報章上。
雖然警方逮捕示威者，總檢察長又親自提控集會者企圖謀殺和破壞公物等罪名，然而，三萬印裔上街公開宣洩不滿與憤慨的事件，並沒有因此而畫上句號。政府宣佈成立特別委員會研究印裔社群問題，似乎也無法阻止草根印裔社群把不滿情緒燃燒至海外。“印裔終於發出心底憤怒”國內外民間組織與個別人士，紛紛對印裔社群被邊緣化狀況表達看法。
一位在大馬居住了17年的斯里蘭卡女詩人，不久前接受印度孟買一家報章訪問時，聲稱大馬實行的是“種族隔離”政策。另一位在英國牛津大學修讀博士學位、大馬出生的印裔學人阿納提（Anathi），則在一封公開信中指出，儘管她並不認同“印裔權益行動委員會”提出的滅族論，但她完全瞭解印裔社群為何走上街頭，也很欣慰草根印裔社群終於把埋藏在心底的憤怒發出來。阿納提在信中寫道：“那是關於被忽視，那是關於無法在談判桌上平起平坐跟人討價還價，那是關於不可信賴甚至於可恥的國家與族群領導人。”阿納提說出了走上街頭和沒有走上街頭的印裔社群，不願意繼續成為被遺忘與邊緣化的馬來西亞人的心聲。
大馬印裔佔了2600萬人口中的7%。本地非政府組織“公民關懷組織”（Group of Concerned Citizens），也呼籲執政的“國陣聯盟”誠心傾聽人民的心聲。該組織協調員阿魯慕甘（K Arumugam）說，首相巴達維才聲稱有一雙“大耳朵”能夠聽到人民的不滿，隔天（12月1日）就對印裔社群指印裔備受欺壓的言論表示極度生氣，他對此感到不解。 “首相發出這樣的言論是荒謬的，他必須藉著自己的‘大耳朵’，走進街頭親自視察窮人的情況，無論是印度人、華人還是馬來人，並聆聽他們的心聲。”在集會前10天，“印裔權益行動委員會”法律顧問烏泰雅古瑪（P.Uthayakumar）致信英國首相布朗，要求他插手馬來西亞印裔社群遭受大馬政府“種族清洗” （ethnic cleansing）或“滅族”的問題。
信函內容指大馬政府對印裔族群犯下了四宗暴行。第一宗是在甘榜美丹（Kampung Medan）的暴力行動中，至少100名印裔人士被攻擊，其中6人被殺害。其二，許多扣留者在扣留期間死亡，其中60%為印裔。其三，每三個星期就有一所印度教廟宇被拆毀。其四，政府在錄取印裔學生進入公立大學、技術培訓學院與政府機構等方面，實行歧視政策。
這封向布朗控訴大馬政府“暴行”的信函，在11月25日大集會過後曝光。它恰巧寫在沙亞南一所印度教廟宇被強行拆毀，執法人員與捍衛廟宇的村民發生肢體沖突當天。 一般相信，大部分參與和支持11月25日大集會的人士，對這封信函一無所知。
巴達維對這封“遲來”的滅族言論“冒火”，指責“印裔權益行動委員會”無中生有，企圖製造宗教與種族間的仇恨、引起騷亂。大馬執政聯盟由14 個政黨組成，其中的主要政黨為代表馬來裔的巫統（United Malays National Organization，UMNO）、華裔的“馬華公會”與“民政黨”、代表印裔的“馬來西亞印度國大黨”。被指責不平等對待印裔的執政“巫統”領袖，一個接一個站出來抨擊“印裔權益行動委員會”。不過，並非所有執政聯盟的領袖都持同樣立場。在聯盟政府裏代表華裔的“馬華公會”與“民政黨”的領袖，都站出來“仗義執言”。唯獨聯盟裏代表印裔社群的“馬來西亞印度國大黨”領袖三美維魯（Samy Vellu）一再聲言，聯盟政府不曾待薄印裔，他們也不曾被邊緣化。印裔大集會一周後，當地一些英文與中文報章的評論文章中，雖都不認同滅族論，卻不乏聲援印裔社群的聲音。
大馬政府指示媒體低調報道鑑於印裔社群被邊緣化議題獲國內一些組織與個別人士積極回應，甚至開始獲得國際媒體關注，大馬政府指示國內媒體，低調處理相關新聞。一如面對其他涉及種族與宗教的議題，巴達維領導的聯盟政府向來採取的手段，都不是正面回應與解決問題，而是把可能展現在大眾媒體裏的聲音“和諧”掉，即指示國內媒體低調報道，企圖不讓閱聽人對事件有全面的認知與瞭解。
網上媒體《當今大馬》昨日（12月5日）報道說，掌握印刷媒體生死大權的國內安全部，前日再度召見各語文報章的編輯，指示低調報道所有有關“印裔權益行動委員會”，以及即將再次舉行的“乾淨與公正選舉聯盟”（淨選盟，Bersih）集會新聞。報道指出，圖文並茂大篇幅報道印裔大集會的泰米爾語報章，成為了國安部“勸告”的首當其衝對象。 《當今大馬》引述消息來源指出，國安部下達了三道指令：（一）不得以圖片或新聞方式，正面突顯“印裔權益行動委員會” ；（二）相反的，必須正面突顯警方和政府對大集會的處理，不得指控警方動用暴力；以及 （三）不得為“淨選盟”未來所號召的大集會作宣傳。
不僅如此，《當今大馬》也報道，國營泰米爾語電台Minnal FM有多名主持人，包括一些極受歡迎的七位主持人，都遭到內部紀律處分，理由是他們參與11月25日大集會，又或在廣播時段大肆宣傳大集會和“印裔權益行動委員會”。該網站指出，有數名主持人遭開除，一些則被凍結職務。該電台共有20名全職主持人。政府在印裔大集會兩天後，宣佈成立特別委員會，而聯盟政府裏代表印裔的印度國大黨，被指派研究印裔社群面對的問題。國會下議院在野黨領袖林吉祥一語點破：“（巫統）把球踢給國大黨。”印度國大黨領袖三美維魯任政府閣員已有28年，既然他至今仍也無能力說服掌實權的巫統，解決低下階層印裔社群面臨的生活貧困、文化、高輟學率與犯罪率等問題，那麼，再成立三五個委員會也無濟於事。誠如“公民關懷組織”所言，印度國大黨當家不當權，它“甚至連把一分錢放進印度人的口袋的權力都沒有” 。
這個非政府組織強調，集會群眾是貧窮階級，也是馬來西亞人，而協助貧困階級並不只是印度國大黨的責任，而是政府的責任。它建議聯邦政府通過政策、機制和計劃來解決問題。感受嚴重被邊緣化的印裔集會群眾，大部分來自種植園丘的泰米爾草根族群。在公共領域服務達30年的約翰（K.J. John）指出，印裔社群走上街頭，或許正是 “缺乏社會認同與個人尊嚴被否定”的典型例子。
約翰指出，在馬來西亞的大規模工業化過程中，種植業不再是印裔社群當年的保護罩傘。在英殖民時期，在橡膠園或棕油園裏工作的印裔，雖然生活只夠溫飽，卻擁有固定的住所、泰米爾語學校與膜拜的廟宇。他們對這片土地擁有歸屬感。 然而，當園丘被開發成住宅區域工業區，種植業勞力又被外國廉價勞工取代，失去工作的印裔社群在國家發展轉換過程中，已失去了依據的地方，也失去對傳統生活方式的掌握。迷失在價值觀快速遞變、生活成本遞增的他們，不僅無所適從，甚至貧困交加。
作者注：甘榜美丹位於八打靈再也南區， 7成居民是馬來裔， 2成印裔，另外1成華裔。它是一個處於大都會吉隆坡與其他城市夾縫中的鄉鎮，沒有完善水電供應，衛生條件欠佳。
2007/12/06, 週四
馬來西亞印裔社群日前動員三萬人上街、抗議遭邊緣化後，策劃大集會的“印裔權益行動委員會”（Hindu Rights Action Force, Hindraf）派遣代表到印度求助，並獲得印度外交部長與總理對大馬印裔社群處境表達關注，令事件迅速轉升級為國際社會關注的議題。值得注意的是，委員會放棄向代表當地印裔的執政聯盟成員“馬來西亞印度國大黨”（Malaysian Indian Congress）求助，卻派遣代表展開國際行程，訪問倫敦、聯合國、歐洲與美國，申述大馬印裔社群的困境，企圖贏得國際社會支持，發聲向大馬政府施壓。他們成功令歐盟輪任主席國葡萄牙的總理蘇格拉底開腔，在新聞發布會上提及大馬印裔社群狀況。
“印裔權益行動委員會”也致信英國首相布朗，要求插手大馬印裔社群被“滅族”事件。“印裔權益行動委員會”於11月25日號召印裔走上首都吉隆坡街頭，試圖向英國最高專員署提呈請願書，要求英女王委派御用律師，免費為在150年前遭英殖民地政府剝削的印裔先輩申冤，索取4兆美元的賠償。大馬的印裔公民大部分是印度的泰米爾族人，在英殖民時期，被英國人從印度南部帶到該國發展當地經濟。大集會未獲得警方發出准證，參與示威的群眾遭受警方以水炮和催淚彈驅散。大集會後的一周內，聯盟政府閣員與人民代議士，紛紛譴責大集會破壞國家安寧與治安；聲援集會群眾的聲音，也出現在網絡媒體、博客、一些英文報章與中文報章上。
雖然警方逮捕示威者，總檢察長又親自提控集會者企圖謀殺和破壞公物等罪名，然而，三萬印裔上街公開宣洩不滿與憤慨的事件，並沒有因此而畫上句號。政府宣佈成立特別委員會研究印裔社群問題，似乎也無法阻止草根印裔社群把不滿情緒燃燒至海外。“印裔終於發出心底憤怒”國內外民間組織與個別人士，紛紛對印裔社群被邊緣化狀況表達看法。
一位在大馬居住了17年的斯里蘭卡女詩人，不久前接受印度孟買一家報章訪問時，聲稱大馬實行的是“種族隔離”政策。另一位在英國牛津大學修讀博士學位、大馬出生的印裔學人阿納提（Anathi），則在一封公開信中指出，儘管她並不認同“印裔權益行動委員會”提出的滅族論，但她完全瞭解印裔社群為何走上街頭，也很欣慰草根印裔社群終於把埋藏在心底的憤怒發出來。阿納提在信中寫道：“那是關於被忽視，那是關於無法在談判桌上平起平坐跟人討價還價，那是關於不可信賴甚至於可恥的國家與族群領導人。”阿納提說出了走上街頭和沒有走上街頭的印裔社群，不願意繼續成為被遺忘與邊緣化的馬來西亞人的心聲。
大馬印裔佔了2600萬人口中的7%。本地非政府組織“公民關懷組織”（Group of Concerned Citizens），也呼籲執政的“國陣聯盟”誠心傾聽人民的心聲。該組織協調員阿魯慕甘（K Arumugam）說，首相巴達維才聲稱有一雙“大耳朵”能夠聽到人民的不滿，隔天（12月1日）就對印裔社群指印裔備受欺壓的言論表示極度生氣，他對此感到不解。 “首相發出這樣的言論是荒謬的，他必須藉著自己的‘大耳朵’，走進街頭親自視察窮人的情況，無論是印度人、華人還是馬來人，並聆聽他們的心聲。”在集會前10天，“印裔權益行動委員會”法律顧問烏泰雅古瑪（P.Uthayakumar）致信英國首相布朗，要求他插手馬來西亞印裔社群遭受大馬政府“種族清洗” （ethnic cleansing）或“滅族”的問題。
信函內容指大馬政府對印裔族群犯下了四宗暴行。第一宗是在甘榜美丹（Kampung Medan）的暴力行動中，至少100名印裔人士被攻擊，其中6人被殺害。其二，許多扣留者在扣留期間死亡，其中60%為印裔。其三，每三個星期就有一所印度教廟宇被拆毀。其四，政府在錄取印裔學生進入公立大學、技術培訓學院與政府機構等方面，實行歧視政策。
這封向布朗控訴大馬政府“暴行”的信函，在11月25日大集會過後曝光。它恰巧寫在沙亞南一所印度教廟宇被強行拆毀，執法人員與捍衛廟宇的村民發生肢體沖突當天。 一般相信，大部分參與和支持11月25日大集會的人士，對這封信函一無所知。
巴達維對這封“遲來”的滅族言論“冒火”，指責“印裔權益行動委員會”無中生有，企圖製造宗教與種族間的仇恨、引起騷亂。大馬執政聯盟由14 個政黨組成，其中的主要政黨為代表馬來裔的巫統（United Malays National Organization，UMNO）、華裔的“馬華公會”與“民政黨”、代表印裔的“馬來西亞印度國大黨”。被指責不平等對待印裔的執政“巫統”領袖，一個接一個站出來抨擊“印裔權益行動委員會”。不過，並非所有執政聯盟的領袖都持同樣立場。在聯盟政府裏代表華裔的“馬華公會”與“民政黨”的領袖，都站出來“仗義執言”。唯獨聯盟裏代表印裔社群的“馬來西亞印度國大黨”領袖三美維魯（Samy Vellu）一再聲言，聯盟政府不曾待薄印裔，他們也不曾被邊緣化。印裔大集會一周後，當地一些英文與中文報章的評論文章中，雖都不認同滅族論，卻不乏聲援印裔社群的聲音。
大馬政府指示媒體低調報道鑑於印裔社群被邊緣化議題獲國內一些組織與個別人士積極回應，甚至開始獲得國際媒體關注，大馬政府指示國內媒體，低調處理相關新聞。一如面對其他涉及種族與宗教的議題，巴達維領導的聯盟政府向來採取的手段，都不是正面回應與解決問題，而是把可能展現在大眾媒體裏的聲音“和諧”掉，即指示國內媒體低調報道，企圖不讓閱聽人對事件有全面的認知與瞭解。
網上媒體《當今大馬》昨日（12月5日）報道說，掌握印刷媒體生死大權的國內安全部，前日再度召見各語文報章的編輯，指示低調報道所有有關“印裔權益行動委員會”，以及即將再次舉行的“乾淨與公正選舉聯盟”（淨選盟，Bersih）集會新聞。報道指出，圖文並茂大篇幅報道印裔大集會的泰米爾語報章，成為了國安部“勸告”的首當其衝對象。 《當今大馬》引述消息來源指出，國安部下達了三道指令：（一）不得以圖片或新聞方式，正面突顯“印裔權益行動委員會” ；（二）相反的，必須正面突顯警方和政府對大集會的處理，不得指控警方動用暴力；以及 （三）不得為“淨選盟”未來所號召的大集會作宣傳。
不僅如此，《當今大馬》也報道，國營泰米爾語電台Minnal FM有多名主持人，包括一些極受歡迎的七位主持人，都遭到內部紀律處分，理由是他們參與11月25日大集會，又或在廣播時段大肆宣傳大集會和“印裔權益行動委員會”。該網站指出，有數名主持人遭開除，一些則被凍結職務。該電台共有20名全職主持人。政府在印裔大集會兩天後，宣佈成立特別委員會，而聯盟政府裏代表印裔的印度國大黨，被指派研究印裔社群面對的問題。國會下議院在野黨領袖林吉祥一語點破：“（巫統）把球踢給國大黨。”印度國大黨領袖三美維魯任政府閣員已有28年，既然他至今仍也無能力說服掌實權的巫統，解決低下階層印裔社群面臨的生活貧困、文化、高輟學率與犯罪率等問題，那麼，再成立三五個委員會也無濟於事。誠如“公民關懷組織”所言，印度國大黨當家不當權，它“甚至連把一分錢放進印度人的口袋的權力都沒有” 。
這個非政府組織強調，集會群眾是貧窮階級，也是馬來西亞人，而協助貧困階級並不只是印度國大黨的責任，而是政府的責任。它建議聯邦政府通過政策、機制和計劃來解決問題。感受嚴重被邊緣化的印裔集會群眾，大部分來自種植園丘的泰米爾草根族群。在公共領域服務達30年的約翰（K.J. John）指出，印裔社群走上街頭，或許正是 “缺乏社會認同與個人尊嚴被否定”的典型例子。
約翰指出，在馬來西亞的大規模工業化過程中，種植業不再是印裔社群當年的保護罩傘。在英殖民時期，在橡膠園或棕油園裏工作的印裔，雖然生活只夠溫飽，卻擁有固定的住所、泰米爾語學校與膜拜的廟宇。他們對這片土地擁有歸屬感。 然而，當園丘被開發成住宅區域工業區，種植業勞力又被外國廉價勞工取代，失去工作的印裔社群在國家發展轉換過程中，已失去了依據的地方，也失去對傳統生活方式的掌握。迷失在價值觀快速遞變、生活成本遞增的他們，不僅無所適從，甚至貧困交加。
作者注：甘榜美丹位於八打靈再也南區， 7成居民是馬來裔， 2成印裔，另外1成華裔。它是一個處於大都會吉隆坡與其他城市夾縫中的鄉鎮，沒有完善水電供應，衛生條件欠佳。
恢復地方選舉,讓人民當老闆
人民公正党古来区部主席刘顺强发表文告，对于武吉巴都区国阵州议员张震亮终于对武吉巴都新村油棕厂排放污水及废弃物，严重污染并影响村民生活的事件采取必要行动，表示这才是州议员应该做的。虽然每次都是在在野党揭发一些事情后，国阵国州议员才会加以关注，但是，这总比没有好，因此，刘顺强表示，如果张震亮需要他的协助，他将义不容辞给予配合，以期尽快协助村民免除环境污染的梦魇。
刘顺强强调，关心民瘼，身体力行，先天下之忧而忧，本来就是民选代议士的天职，千万不应在老百姓受苦后，还蒙然不知。过去4年来，本区许多的民生问题，如果不是在野党监督，恐怕人民的生活会更加困难。由于地方政府是由执政党委任，地方议员/市议员没有经过选举的洗礼，造成此类官委议员无须认真服务老百姓，只需得过且过的执行任务，散漫的态度应付日常工作，因此，许多地方上的问题都没有及时获得解决，往往需要在野党发现、揭发，或者人民群起反对后，才又花费更多公帑去解决，可谓劳民又伤财。
其实，人民公正党不止一次的重申，地方政府必须由人民直选，地方上才会有有效率、为人民服务的地方议会。此外，无论哪一个政党执政，都必须有另外一批人监督，而且人民一定要紧记，在民主的国家，各层级政府（包括中央、州及地方），都只是由人民选出，以便在五年内，为人民（老板）管理这个国家/州/地方。因此，当这些代议士没有做事，人民有绝对的权利要求，甚至教训他们；反之，如果他们执行了任务，人民当然可以赞赏，但绝对不是感激或感恩，因为那本来就是他们的职责，人民已通过缴税，付予他们应得的报酬。
刘顺强说，他过去4年来，在武吉巴都区，甚至整个古来国会选区，一次又一次的率领居民，揭发一个又一个的地方政府因效率不彰，甚至因官商勾结而产生的环保、污染、浪费公帑、规划欠妥、行政效率等等的问题，深深感觉到人民的疾苦。长期以来，柔佛州议会没有在野党议员监督、古来市议会（包括未来的古来再也县议会）也将长期以官委制度管理，本区人民长期受到不透明、缺乏效率、贪污、腐败的国阵政府宰制，实在是痛彻心扉。
刘顺强认为，如果来届大选继续让国阵的议员，无论是马华或民政党的议员当选本区代议士，上述情况将会持续下去，那么人民必须继续忍受过去数十年面对的问题。因此，他呼吁本区选民，敢于提出改变，让州议会里也有一些在野党议员代表人民监督政府，让更多人监督地方议会，尤其是古来市议会/古来再也县议会，那么，人民才有可能过更好的生活。如果人民有意愿一举让全国的地方议会由人民直选，那么，选民必须团结一致，让人民公正党执政，因为本党已经承诺，如果执政，将恢复实行地方议会民选制，让人民真正的参与管理这个国家。
刘顺强强调，关心民瘼，身体力行，先天下之忧而忧，本来就是民选代议士的天职，千万不应在老百姓受苦后，还蒙然不知。过去4年来，本区许多的民生问题，如果不是在野党监督，恐怕人民的生活会更加困难。由于地方政府是由执政党委任，地方议员/市议员没有经过选举的洗礼，造成此类官委议员无须认真服务老百姓，只需得过且过的执行任务，散漫的态度应付日常工作，因此，许多地方上的问题都没有及时获得解决，往往需要在野党发现、揭发，或者人民群起反对后，才又花费更多公帑去解决，可谓劳民又伤财。
其实，人民公正党不止一次的重申，地方政府必须由人民直选，地方上才会有有效率、为人民服务的地方议会。此外，无论哪一个政党执政，都必须有另外一批人监督，而且人民一定要紧记，在民主的国家，各层级政府（包括中央、州及地方），都只是由人民选出，以便在五年内，为人民（老板）管理这个国家/州/地方。因此，当这些代议士没有做事，人民有绝对的权利要求，甚至教训他们；反之，如果他们执行了任务，人民当然可以赞赏，但绝对不是感激或感恩，因为那本来就是他们的职责，人民已通过缴税，付予他们应得的报酬。
刘顺强说，他过去4年来，在武吉巴都区，甚至整个古来国会选区，一次又一次的率领居民，揭发一个又一个的地方政府因效率不彰，甚至因官商勾结而产生的环保、污染、浪费公帑、规划欠妥、行政效率等等的问题，深深感觉到人民的疾苦。长期以来，柔佛州议会没有在野党议员监督、古来市议会（包括未来的古来再也县议会）也将长期以官委制度管理，本区人民长期受到不透明、缺乏效率、贪污、腐败的国阵政府宰制，实在是痛彻心扉。
刘顺强认为，如果来届大选继续让国阵的议员，无论是马华或民政党的议员当选本区代议士，上述情况将会持续下去，那么人民必须继续忍受过去数十年面对的问题。因此，他呼吁本区选民，敢于提出改变，让州议会里也有一些在野党议员代表人民监督政府，让更多人监督地方议会，尤其是古来市议会/古来再也县议会，那么，人民才有可能过更好的生活。如果人民有意愿一举让全国的地方议会由人民直选，那么，选民必须团结一致，让人民公正党执政，因为本党已经承诺，如果执政，将恢复实行地方议会民选制，让人民真正的参与管理这个国家。
Thursday, December 6, 2007
政治與經濟講座會
日前公選盟萬人大集會要求干淨選舉及與 兴都权益委员会（HINDRAF ）申诉印度社群150 年处于边缘困境万人大集会, 事件引发各界关注, 為此 柔州人民公正黨將於本月9 日, 主辦政治經濟講座會.
日期:09/12/07
政治講座:
地點: 新山世纪花园晶冠酒店(HOTEL CYSTEL GROWN)
時間: 晚上7:30-10:00
主講人: 人民公正黨全國宣傳主任蔡添強.
題目:2 大集會的反思
經濟講座
主講人: 北京人民大學 吴以伦硕士
題目: 从深圳经验看柔南经济特区
吴以伦个人简历 : 宽柔中学，新纪元学院, 中国人民大学商学院本科，中国人民大学公共管理学院研究生, 擅长领域: 城市经济学、产业经济学、区域经济学、城市管理、城市交通, 曾参与2005 年北京市城市规划修编工作, 研究生论文曾获得中国人民大学优秀硕士论文奖
入場免費, 請踴躍出席. 有意者可聯絡劉順強0197553486, 陳仁明:0197184052
日期:09/12/07
政治講座:
地點: 新山世纪花园晶冠酒店(HOTEL CYSTEL GROWN)
時間: 晚上7:30-10:00
主講人: 人民公正黨全國宣傳主任蔡添強.
題目:2 大集會的反思
經濟講座
主講人: 北京人民大學 吴以伦硕士
題目: 从深圳经验看柔南经济特区
吴以伦个人简历 : 宽柔中学，新纪元学院, 中国人民大学商学院本科，中国人民大学公共管理学院研究生, 擅长领域: 城市经济学、产业经济学、区域经济学、城市管理、城市交通, 曾参与2005 年北京市城市规划修编工作, 研究生论文曾获得中国人民大学优秀硕士论文奖
入場免費, 請踴躍出席. 有意者可聯絡劉順強0197553486, 陳仁明:0197184052
Monday, December 3, 2007
Seminar Memaju Kemenangan PRU12.柔州人民公正党大选工作营
柔州人民公正党主办大选工作营,来自不同区部120党员出席.
大选工作营主要是培训党员在来届大选所要准备的工作及面对的问题.
大选工作营主要是培训党员在来届大选所要准备的工作及面对的问题.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
