評論：侯雅倫‧年度最佳喜劇
評論 2008-09-16 19:26
馬來西亞的政治人物十分有幽默感，最近由朝野政黨議員聯合主演的《越洋迫婚記》，就讓人看得捧腹大笑，嘻哈絕倒。堪稱本年度最佳喜劇。
以“916變天”為腳本的這部喜劇，演員陣容強大，計有50名國陣議員和5名公正黨議員和領袖，還有全程為逃親和迫婚作實錄的新聞記者。
除了搞笑天份，本地政治人物EQ還不錯，給予記者和“幕後工作人員”很高的配合度，但IQ卻不怎麼樣。所以劇情除了有很幽富的笑料之外，在內容方面並沒有多大的啟發性，且演技破綻百出，只看到一班朝野議員盡情發揮了他們的喜劇天份。
話說50名國會議員在一聲令下，匆匆忙忙的收拾細軟遠走高飛，飛到台灣去進行農業考察。
雖強調此舉與916無關，但演員們的演技生硬，台詞也沒背熟，所以跌跌撞撞下機後面對台灣記者的鎂光燈，個個語無論次，不知道去哪裡考察，連在哪裡落腳也不知道。
所以說劇本很粗糙。說不是要躲開民聯的糾纏，這種逃難似的出國考察實在沒有說服力；若真的是為了躲避被挖角，那他們又要躲到何年何月？難不成打算永遠不回來才能顯示效忠？
你要逃？公正黨的領袖並不介意在眾目睽睽之下，厚著臉皮死纏爛打，把你追到天涯海角，上演越洋迫婚記。
用膝蓋想都知道，公開的不會是事實，事實不會公開做。都說這是一場戲，演的人開心，看的人最好也不要太認真，必要時才軋上一角增添熱鬧。
台前的人在演戲，幕後的人在做事。
劇終，眾演員謝幕，不必安哥。幕後的人可忙著呢！
星洲日報／夜雨晨風‧作者：侯雅倫‧2008.09.16
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Thursday, September 11, 2008
評論：鄭丁賢‧老天份上，關閉它吧！
評論：鄭丁賢‧老天份上，關閉它吧！
2008-09-05 20:12
“心痛的母親”還未和我聯絡；意料之外，卻收到許多同樣經歷的讀者，給我電郵。
大家都指向同一個對象：國家幹訓局（Biro Tatanegara）。
如果我轉載每一封電郵，大概一個星期都登不完。所以，我只能轉述其中兩封的部份內容。
痛心的華裔公務員說：
“被令參加Biro Tatanegara的5天課程，是我一生中最憤怒的日子；這期間，非巫裔每天都被羞辱；
“講師一再強調，非巫裔是外來者，不知心存感激，反而得寸進尺，還要我們認清誰才是國家的老大；
“我嘗試作出反駁，結果講師說：你很生氣嗎？生氣就回唐山吧。”
愛國的實習醫生寫道：
“我今年X月X日參加在Kem XXX的課程……，令我和其他非土著憤怒的課題如下：
“華小和淡小（被指）是非法的機構……；
“513事件，講師們說是好事一宗，它使馬來人團結起來……；
“馬來人不是公民（Warganegara），而是國家的主人（Tuan Negara）；
“訴求行動，是國家頭號敵人；
“華裔和印裔，是國家獨立過程的絆腳石；
“鼓吹馬來種族主義，責罵非馬來人作出非分要求；
“馬來人不可以投票給民聯，因為會典當馬來人特權，蘇丹地位會被廢除，馬來人會淪為奴僕。
“馬來學員在課室內讀愛國宣言，而我和一位卡達山人，被勒令到馬路上高喊‘我愛馬來西亞’十幾遍，直到講師滿意為止。
老天，這些讓人毛骨悚然的言論，不是來自傷心病狂的野心家，而是來自一個政府機構。
表面上，國家幹訓局打著“培養愛國意識”的招牌，每年接受政府撥款，主辦課程和生活營，規定大專生、公務員、青年組織，參加它的活動。
實際上，它是在散播分化族群，挑撥種族仇恨的種子。年輕的思維，會莫名的仇視；年輕的血液，會莫名的沸騰。
更可怕的是，它通過國家機器，制度化、長期的把極端、錯誤的觀念，灌輸給年輕一代。
難道非得要人民對立廝殺不可嗎？
這比100個阿末依斯邁更加恐怖。
政治人物高談國民團結，這個政府機構卻不斷的分化國民，這是甚麼邏輯！
國民幹訓局存在這麼久了，種種聳人聽聞的傳聞，已經一再被證明是事實。“領袖”們，不要再冷漠，若無其事，裝作不知道了。
看在老天份上，為了這個國家的未來，在還來得及的時刻，採取行動，關閉它吧！
（所有的電郵，將會轉寄給各有關當局）
星洲日報／夜雨晨風‧作者：鄭丁賢‧2008.09.05
2008-09-05 20:12
“心痛的母親”還未和我聯絡；意料之外，卻收到許多同樣經歷的讀者，給我電郵。
大家都指向同一個對象：國家幹訓局（Biro Tatanegara）。
如果我轉載每一封電郵，大概一個星期都登不完。所以，我只能轉述其中兩封的部份內容。
痛心的華裔公務員說：
“被令參加Biro Tatanegara的5天課程，是我一生中最憤怒的日子；這期間，非巫裔每天都被羞辱；
“講師一再強調，非巫裔是外來者，不知心存感激，反而得寸進尺，還要我們認清誰才是國家的老大；
“我嘗試作出反駁，結果講師說：你很生氣嗎？生氣就回唐山吧。”
愛國的實習醫生寫道：
“我今年X月X日參加在Kem XXX的課程……，令我和其他非土著憤怒的課題如下：
“華小和淡小（被指）是非法的機構……；
“513事件，講師們說是好事一宗，它使馬來人團結起來……；
“馬來人不是公民（Warganegara），而是國家的主人（Tuan Negara）；
“訴求行動，是國家頭號敵人；
“華裔和印裔，是國家獨立過程的絆腳石；
“鼓吹馬來種族主義，責罵非馬來人作出非分要求；
“馬來人不可以投票給民聯，因為會典當馬來人特權，蘇丹地位會被廢除，馬來人會淪為奴僕。
“馬來學員在課室內讀愛國宣言，而我和一位卡達山人，被勒令到馬路上高喊‘我愛馬來西亞’十幾遍，直到講師滿意為止。
老天，這些讓人毛骨悚然的言論，不是來自傷心病狂的野心家，而是來自一個政府機構。
表面上，國家幹訓局打著“培養愛國意識”的招牌，每年接受政府撥款，主辦課程和生活營，規定大專生、公務員、青年組織，參加它的活動。
實際上，它是在散播分化族群，挑撥種族仇恨的種子。年輕的思維，會莫名的仇視；年輕的血液，會莫名的沸騰。
更可怕的是，它通過國家機器，制度化、長期的把極端、錯誤的觀念，灌輸給年輕一代。
難道非得要人民對立廝殺不可嗎？
這比100個阿末依斯邁更加恐怖。
政治人物高談國民團結，這個政府機構卻不斷的分化國民，這是甚麼邏輯！
國民幹訓局存在這麼久了，種種聳人聽聞的傳聞，已經一再被證明是事實。“領袖”們，不要再冷漠，若無其事，裝作不知道了。
看在老天份上，為了這個國家的未來，在還來得及的時刻，採取行動，關閉它吧！
（所有的電郵，將會轉寄給各有關當局）
星洲日報／夜雨晨風‧作者：鄭丁賢‧2008.09.05
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
我们是一家人 周本兴 | 9月7日 9点47分
ahmad ismail bukit bendera umno penang racist cina tumpang 050908 01没有人会预料到阿末依斯迈把华人说成外来者的一句话，就好像打开潘多拉的盒子，一发不可收拾。朝野政党对他呼喝不停，特别是在308惨败的民政和马华，从以前的凡事不发一声和内部解决的态度，转变到如今摇旗呐喊且高调声讨。180度的转变，令人刮目相看。
一片的声讨中，巫统先是一片沉静，后来首相只是淡淡的说，阿末依斯迈没有这个意思，副首相也忙着打圆场，先道歉了事。首相和副首相不努力说明才好，一旦辟谣和道歉，又掀起千层浪的反应，始料不及。308后马华和民政的反应，果然不同凡响。
失言却推诿媒体错误报导
ahmad ismail bukit bendera umno penang racist cina tumpang 050908 02后来，阿末依斯迈出国度假回来，不但没有为自己的失言道歉，反而矛头指向撰写报道的《星洲日报》，恫言枪毙记者，呼呼喝喝，完全不理会巫统老大和老二的劝告，我行我素的模样，好不得意。“我有错吗？这是媒体的歪曲。‘寄居论’仅阐述独立前史实。”矛头一转，媒体再次成为箭靶。千错万错都是媒体的错误报道。
一句失言，各自表述。这是政治的常态，甚至为了掩盖自己的失言，而再次失言者，大有人在，已经达到“变态”的阶段。
从阿末依斯迈当时在峇东埔败选发表的言论而言，《星洲记者》已经清楚行水流云般阐述，就当时的气氛状况和整体的脉络思维来看，阿末依斯迈的确发表不当的言语。后来其极力的解释，也是越描越黑。
马华民政成国阵“寄居者”
一党独大造就许多类似阿末依斯迈的言行举止的人，不计其数，的确令人惊心胆跳。种族极端言论和偏见，在我国独立了半个世纪，还是大行其道，实在令人冷汗直冒，也汗颜。
既然阿末依斯迈不愿意道歉，也得到前首相马哈迪的默许，这是不是足以证明马华和民政当初加入巫统成为国阵也是“寄居”其内？多年以来的不平等的协商和阿谀谄媚，是不是还要继续寄居下去？或许脱离，自成一体，才有出路？
万年前华巫本是一家人
upm student suhakam memo 211107 khoo kay kim华人以前是外来者这是史实，正如马大著名历史学家丹斯里邱家金教授表示，如果依据历史，马来人也是这片国土的外来者中之一，并不是马来西亚的真正主人。这句话说来中听。维基百科也阐明马来族源自中国云南。这也符合维基百科的说明。严格说来，华人和马来人还是1万年前的一家人。这也完全符合安华以前的名言：“ 我们是一家人”。
联邦宪法也提及和承认，在独立之后出生的华人和印度人都是大马公民。既然如此，何必你我分明。旧事重提的同时，伤害其它族群的感受。308的变天之一就是人民唾弃种族主义的猖獗；峇东埔一役，安华胜出，也足以证明种族主义没有市场，这样的讯息还不够明显吗？916变天还会远吗？
一片的声讨中，巫统先是一片沉静，后来首相只是淡淡的说，阿末依斯迈没有这个意思，副首相也忙着打圆场，先道歉了事。首相和副首相不努力说明才好，一旦辟谣和道歉，又掀起千层浪的反应，始料不及。308后马华和民政的反应，果然不同凡响。
失言却推诿媒体错误报导
ahmad ismail bukit bendera umno penang racist cina tumpang 050908 02后来，阿末依斯迈出国度假回来，不但没有为自己的失言道歉，反而矛头指向撰写报道的《星洲日报》，恫言枪毙记者，呼呼喝喝，完全不理会巫统老大和老二的劝告，我行我素的模样，好不得意。“我有错吗？这是媒体的歪曲。‘寄居论’仅阐述独立前史实。”矛头一转，媒体再次成为箭靶。千错万错都是媒体的错误报道。
一句失言，各自表述。这是政治的常态，甚至为了掩盖自己的失言，而再次失言者，大有人在，已经达到“变态”的阶段。
从阿末依斯迈当时在峇东埔败选发表的言论而言，《星洲记者》已经清楚行水流云般阐述，就当时的气氛状况和整体的脉络思维来看，阿末依斯迈的确发表不当的言语。后来其极力的解释，也是越描越黑。
马华民政成国阵“寄居者”
一党独大造就许多类似阿末依斯迈的言行举止的人，不计其数，的确令人惊心胆跳。种族极端言论和偏见，在我国独立了半个世纪，还是大行其道，实在令人冷汗直冒，也汗颜。
既然阿末依斯迈不愿意道歉，也得到前首相马哈迪的默许，这是不是足以证明马华和民政当初加入巫统成为国阵也是“寄居”其内？多年以来的不平等的协商和阿谀谄媚，是不是还要继续寄居下去？或许脱离，自成一体，才有出路？
万年前华巫本是一家人
upm student suhakam memo 211107 khoo kay kim华人以前是外来者这是史实，正如马大著名历史学家丹斯里邱家金教授表示，如果依据历史，马来人也是这片国土的外来者中之一，并不是马来西亚的真正主人。这句话说来中听。维基百科也阐明马来族源自中国云南。这也符合维基百科的说明。严格说来，华人和马来人还是1万年前的一家人。这也完全符合安华以前的名言：“ 我们是一家人”。
联邦宪法也提及和承认，在独立之后出生的华人和印度人都是大马公民。既然如此，何必你我分明。旧事重提的同时，伤害其它族群的感受。308的变天之一就是人民唾弃种族主义的猖獗；峇东埔一役，安华胜出，也足以证明种族主义没有市场，这样的讯息还不够明显吗？916变天还会远吗？
Friday, September 5, 2008
夜雨晨風：鄭丁賢‧千百個阿末
夜雨晨風：鄭丁賢‧千百個阿末 2008-09-04 19:10
兩個星期前，我接到一個母親的電話。她的女兒，在政府學校擔任教職，最近被安排接受一項訓練課程。
課堂上，一名講師公然否定非馬來人的公民地位，指他們是外來者；然後，指著華裔學員說：“這個國家是馬來人所擁有，你們不配要求甚麼。”其它污辱和貶低的字眼，我不需要重覆。這些華印裔學生聽了，心裡忿忿不平，極為難過；但是，基於講師手上的權力，大家不敢當場反駁。
到了晚上，女兒終於按捺不住，打電話向母親哭訴經過。
從這位母親轉述女兒遭遇的聲音，聽得出她內心的激動和憤怒。然後，她掛了電話。
昨天，林吉祥公開另一位家長寫給他的信件。
他的女兒，獲得公共服務局獎學金，按照規定，需要出席一項課程。講師來自首相署屬下的國家幹訓局（Biro Tata Negara）。這個機構的名聲和紀錄，大家心裡有數。
這位家長轉述，這名講師聲稱非馬來人不應該置疑馬來人的特權，而且要感謝馬來人給於公民地位，以及居留之所。
他還指示其他馬來人學員，不能和非馬來人交往。非馬來學員受到的心理衝擊，可想而知。連一些馬來學員也受到驚嚇，哭了出來。
這兩起事件，過程竟是如此相同。我不知道，是不是涉及同一名講師？類似的事件，是否兩宗？
我相信，絕對不只是兩宗，而是以千百計。各種政府課程，以及各級學校的課室內，都一再出現這類偏激的種族言論，歧視教育。多少年輕的心靈受到戕害，多少啟蒙中的腦袋受到荼毒。
巫統為一個阿末依斯邁的言論，作出道歉。千百個阿末依斯邁，還在我們的周圍，在族群之間，埋下分化和仇視的種子。幾十年來的種族政治，單元教育，製造了無數的阿末、X講師，以及他們的信徒。
在國家被摧毀之前，請高抬貴手，不要再讓這種情況繼續下去。我們需要的是寬容諒解，不是仇恨和對抗。
（希望文中提起的母親，把詳細的經過、人物名字、主辦單位等資料電郵給我，以便轉給各有關機構，進行調查。我們不能只是哀嘆難過，而必須採取積極行動，作出改變了。）
星洲日報／夜雨晨風‧作者：鄭丁賢‧2008.09.04
兩個星期前，我接到一個母親的電話。她的女兒，在政府學校擔任教職，最近被安排接受一項訓練課程。
課堂上，一名講師公然否定非馬來人的公民地位，指他們是外來者；然後，指著華裔學員說：“這個國家是馬來人所擁有，你們不配要求甚麼。”其它污辱和貶低的字眼，我不需要重覆。這些華印裔學生聽了，心裡忿忿不平，極為難過；但是，基於講師手上的權力，大家不敢當場反駁。
到了晚上，女兒終於按捺不住，打電話向母親哭訴經過。
從這位母親轉述女兒遭遇的聲音，聽得出她內心的激動和憤怒。然後，她掛了電話。
昨天，林吉祥公開另一位家長寫給他的信件。
他的女兒，獲得公共服務局獎學金，按照規定，需要出席一項課程。講師來自首相署屬下的國家幹訓局（Biro Tata Negara）。這個機構的名聲和紀錄，大家心裡有數。
這位家長轉述，這名講師聲稱非馬來人不應該置疑馬來人的特權，而且要感謝馬來人給於公民地位，以及居留之所。
他還指示其他馬來人學員，不能和非馬來人交往。非馬來學員受到的心理衝擊，可想而知。連一些馬來學員也受到驚嚇，哭了出來。
這兩起事件，過程竟是如此相同。我不知道，是不是涉及同一名講師？類似的事件，是否兩宗？
我相信，絕對不只是兩宗，而是以千百計。各種政府課程，以及各級學校的課室內，都一再出現這類偏激的種族言論，歧視教育。多少年輕的心靈受到戕害，多少啟蒙中的腦袋受到荼毒。
巫統為一個阿末依斯邁的言論，作出道歉。千百個阿末依斯邁，還在我們的周圍，在族群之間，埋下分化和仇視的種子。幾十年來的種族政治，單元教育，製造了無數的阿末、X講師，以及他們的信徒。
在國家被摧毀之前，請高抬貴手，不要再讓這種情況繼續下去。我們需要的是寬容諒解，不是仇恨和對抗。
（希望文中提起的母親，把詳細的經過、人物名字、主辦單位等資料電郵給我，以便轉給各有關機構，進行調查。我們不能只是哀嘆難過，而必須採取積極行動，作出改變了。）
星洲日報／夜雨晨風‧作者：鄭丁賢‧2008.09.04
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
国庆？爱国？8月31日？9月16日？
8月31日，星期天，马来西亚官方的国庆日。今年和往年不一样的是今年没有政客出来说七道八，说要怎样爱国，掛国旗啦，等等等等。3月8日，8月26日有很大的关系。
国旗我还是挂了，因为有人给了女儿一小面，我就放在车镜上，我有“爱国”吧？Ｙang Ｂerhormat们。
韦小宝说“尊敬是放在心里的不是挂在嘴上的”。
爱国如果只是说在嘴上，掛掛国旗的话，那么所有人民都是爱国的了。
我认为爱国是要做在日常生活中的，尽一个国民当尽的本分，守法律，那就是爱国了。我没有反对掛国旗，那是其中一种表现，但我绝对反对不挂国旗等于不爱国的言论。难道说平时犯法，贪污，滥权的人挂了国旗就是爱国，他们所做那些明显不爱国的事就可以开一眼闭一眼吗？
8月31日，星期天，马来西亚官方的国庆日。51周年，是吗？马来亚吧？马来西亚成立于1963年9月16日。50岁不到。也许MERDEKA,MERDEKA,MERDEKA，喊起来比较有激情吧，但是我们还是得尊重历史吧。
那么折中吧，8月31日独立日，9月16日成立日，可以吗？但是，没有。不是说要团结吗？为什么这一些些的政策都那么一面倒。要怎样拉近东西马的关系呢？
也许今年的9月16日开始？
9月4日@1400
国旗我还是挂了，因为有人给了女儿一小面，我就放在车镜上，我有“爱国”吧？Ｙang Ｂerhormat们。
韦小宝说“尊敬是放在心里的不是挂在嘴上的”。
爱国如果只是说在嘴上，掛掛国旗的话，那么所有人民都是爱国的了。
我认为爱国是要做在日常生活中的，尽一个国民当尽的本分，守法律，那就是爱国了。我没有反对掛国旗，那是其中一种表现，但我绝对反对不挂国旗等于不爱国的言论。难道说平时犯法，贪污，滥权的人挂了国旗就是爱国，他们所做那些明显不爱国的事就可以开一眼闭一眼吗？
8月31日，星期天，马来西亚官方的国庆日。51周年，是吗？马来亚吧？马来西亚成立于1963年9月16日。50岁不到。也许MERDEKA,MERDEKA,MERDEKA，喊起来比较有激情吧，但是我们还是得尊重历史吧。
那么折中吧，8月31日独立日，9月16日成立日，可以吗？但是，没有。不是说要团结吗？为什么这一些些的政策都那么一面倒。要怎样拉近东西马的关系呢？
也许今年的9月16日开始？
9月4日@1400
情在人間 : 鄭丁賢‧道歉是一種態度
鄭丁賢‧道歉是一種態度
2008-09-03 18:49
納吉道歉了。
作為種族主義政黨，要為種族主義的言論說道歉，這似乎是第一遭。
馬來民族主義的急先鋒《前鋒報》，簡短的交代納吉的談話；我翻了3次報紙，總算在一個小小的角落，發覺這條新聞。
一些親巫統的電子網站，還為此叫屈。許多意見認為，阿末是捍衛馬來人主權，為馬來人說話，何錯之有？
但是，對所有腦袋正常的馬來西亞人來說，錯了就是錯了。沒有任何一個人民，可以告訴另一個人民說，你是外來的寄居者，不能享有平等的地位。
如果這種言論和觀念不被糾正，這個國家將沒有是非黑白，社會將繼續分裂。
納吉說了應該說的話，也做了一次正確的示範。
或許黨內一些偏激者不同意他的道歉，但是，他可以藉這個機會，告訴黨內的右派份子，馬來民族主義是到了收歛的時候，巫統確實也要檢討反省了。
惟有如此，納吉才能建立起領導人的地位。
然而，納吉的道歉，不應該是一個句點。
比較具有批判意識的朋友說，納吉的道歉，其一是來得太遲，其二是道歉者非其人也。
如果巫統在第一時間，馬上要阿末依斯邁收回談話，並且道歉，事件其實可以很快落幕。
然而，一天過一天，人們等著阿末和巫統的反應，卻是傻子看月亮，沒一回事。
於是，民間的不滿，引起滾雪球效應。向來被動的馬華和民政，這次都積極得很。
一方面或是黨選逼近，正是眾多黨內英傑要有所表現的時機；另一方面，確實也是國陣華基政黨的關鍵時刻，如果再容忍下去，本身的代表性和存在價值，就要面對另一波的侵蝕。
巫統此時面對兩難的困局。
友黨的激烈反應，其實是一種求救訊號。如果馬華和民政的高調姿態，未能得到巫統給予一定程度的滿足，那麼，華印裔社會將對國陣進一步失望，馬華和民政會更加被邊緣化。
但是，巫統要是認錯道歉，又恐怕會偏離它一貫的民族立場，以及主權論述。
何況，巫統黨選正在熱烈進行之中。像阿末依斯邁這種區部領袖，正是控制部份中央代表選票的人物。如果得罪這種黨閥，可能會失去這個區部的支持，甚至擴大到其它區部。
巫統最終放下身段，選擇道歉，還是為了顧全大局，不能讓國陣的裂痕加深，以免形成那一道崩解的裂口。
而由納吉出面，主要還是納吉在黨內還有強大力量，鎮得住場面，比阿都拉出面的效果為佳，後挫力也較小。
即使如此，遲到的反應，無法完全彌補已經造成的傷害。
與此同時，當事人阿末依斯邁還欠國人一個道歉，對象不只是華人，而是全體人民。
道歉只是一種態度。政治層面而言，巫統還必須對阿末採取紀律行動，才能挽回形象，整修架構損毀的國陣。
當然，如果巫統從大選和補選中汲取了教訓，這也是一個重新出發的機會。
星洲日報／情在人間‧作者：鄭丁賢‧言論不代表本站立場‧2008.09.03
2008-09-03 18:49
納吉道歉了。
作為種族主義政黨，要為種族主義的言論說道歉，這似乎是第一遭。
馬來民族主義的急先鋒《前鋒報》，簡短的交代納吉的談話；我翻了3次報紙，總算在一個小小的角落，發覺這條新聞。
一些親巫統的電子網站，還為此叫屈。許多意見認為，阿末是捍衛馬來人主權，為馬來人說話，何錯之有？
但是，對所有腦袋正常的馬來西亞人來說，錯了就是錯了。沒有任何一個人民，可以告訴另一個人民說，你是外來的寄居者，不能享有平等的地位。
如果這種言論和觀念不被糾正，這個國家將沒有是非黑白，社會將繼續分裂。
納吉說了應該說的話，也做了一次正確的示範。
或許黨內一些偏激者不同意他的道歉，但是，他可以藉這個機會，告訴黨內的右派份子，馬來民族主義是到了收歛的時候，巫統確實也要檢討反省了。
惟有如此，納吉才能建立起領導人的地位。
然而，納吉的道歉，不應該是一個句點。
比較具有批判意識的朋友說，納吉的道歉，其一是來得太遲，其二是道歉者非其人也。
如果巫統在第一時間，馬上要阿末依斯邁收回談話，並且道歉，事件其實可以很快落幕。
然而，一天過一天，人們等著阿末和巫統的反應，卻是傻子看月亮，沒一回事。
於是，民間的不滿，引起滾雪球效應。向來被動的馬華和民政，這次都積極得很。
一方面或是黨選逼近，正是眾多黨內英傑要有所表現的時機；另一方面，確實也是國陣華基政黨的關鍵時刻，如果再容忍下去，本身的代表性和存在價值，就要面對另一波的侵蝕。
巫統此時面對兩難的困局。
友黨的激烈反應，其實是一種求救訊號。如果馬華和民政的高調姿態，未能得到巫統給予一定程度的滿足，那麼，華印裔社會將對國陣進一步失望，馬華和民政會更加被邊緣化。
但是，巫統要是認錯道歉，又恐怕會偏離它一貫的民族立場，以及主權論述。
何況，巫統黨選正在熱烈進行之中。像阿末依斯邁這種區部領袖，正是控制部份中央代表選票的人物。如果得罪這種黨閥，可能會失去這個區部的支持，甚至擴大到其它區部。
巫統最終放下身段，選擇道歉，還是為了顧全大局，不能讓國陣的裂痕加深，以免形成那一道崩解的裂口。
而由納吉出面，主要還是納吉在黨內還有強大力量，鎮得住場面，比阿都拉出面的效果為佳，後挫力也較小。
即使如此，遲到的反應，無法完全彌補已經造成的傷害。
與此同時，當事人阿末依斯邁還欠國人一個道歉，對象不只是華人，而是全體人民。
道歉只是一種態度。政治層面而言，巫統還必須對阿末採取紀律行動，才能挽回形象，整修架構損毀的國陣。
當然，如果巫統從大選和補選中汲取了教訓，這也是一個重新出發的機會。
星洲日報／情在人間‧作者：鄭丁賢‧言論不代表本站立場‧2008.09.03
鄭丁賢‧區區一個阿末
評論：鄭丁賢‧區區一個阿末
2008-09-02 19:10
我一直在數，巫統高層需要多久時間，才能有正常反應。
之前，阿都拉說：“我會告訴他（阿末依斯邁），別再這麼說了。”
很多人，尤其是國陣友黨成員們，心都涼了半截。
事隔一個星期，直到昨天（星期二），納吉才說會有“對付”行動。
一個星期時間，巫統的形象如何下挫，國陣失去了多少未來的選票？
可能超出想像。
這一切，只是因為一個區區的巫統區部主席。
其實，阿末依斯邁貶低華人的言論，我一點也不奇怪。
這是根植巫統核心的觀念，已經是巫統文化的一部份。
每年結算，總要有好幾單（如果不是幾十件），包括在國會、巫統大會，而今，甚至是在選舉時期。
此種言論，在巫統的馬來主權論述中，合理合法，理所當然。
怎麼樣的政黨，就有怎麼樣的黨員，以及怎麼樣的思維論述；既然有主權論護身，哪還有是非黑白，又何來公義真理？
你可以說是縱容，也可以說是傲慢。
308大選，826補選的結果，看來是過眼雲煙，了無痕跡。
78%的華人和印裔票逃離國陣，竟也不值得些許檢討和反思。
任憑你馬華和民政又氣又跳，也不管民聯又增添了多少的支持度。
長期唯我獨尊，權力集中，為所欲為，已經造成神經中樞麻木，無法對新的環境，外來挑戰產生正確反應。
我是說恐龍。
星洲日報／夜雨晨風‧作者：鄭丁賢‧2008.09.02
2008-09-02 19:10
我一直在數，巫統高層需要多久時間，才能有正常反應。
之前，阿都拉說：“我會告訴他（阿末依斯邁），別再這麼說了。”
很多人，尤其是國陣友黨成員們，心都涼了半截。
事隔一個星期，直到昨天（星期二），納吉才說會有“對付”行動。
一個星期時間，巫統的形象如何下挫，國陣失去了多少未來的選票？
可能超出想像。
這一切，只是因為一個區區的巫統區部主席。
其實，阿末依斯邁貶低華人的言論，我一點也不奇怪。
這是根植巫統核心的觀念，已經是巫統文化的一部份。
每年結算，總要有好幾單（如果不是幾十件），包括在國會、巫統大會，而今，甚至是在選舉時期。
此種言論，在巫統的馬來主權論述中，合理合法，理所當然。
怎麼樣的政黨，就有怎麼樣的黨員，以及怎麼樣的思維論述；既然有主權論護身，哪還有是非黑白，又何來公義真理？
你可以說是縱容，也可以說是傲慢。
308大選，826補選的結果，看來是過眼雲煙，了無痕跡。
78%的華人和印裔票逃離國陣，竟也不值得些許檢討和反思。
任憑你馬華和民政又氣又跳，也不管民聯又增添了多少的支持度。
長期唯我獨尊，權力集中，為所欲為，已經造成神經中樞麻木，無法對新的環境，外來挑戰產生正確反應。
我是說恐龍。
星洲日報／夜雨晨風‧作者：鄭丁賢‧2008.09.02
蘇俊翔‧誰在破壞巫統？
評論：蘇俊翔‧誰在破壞巫統？
2008-09-02 18:58
巫青團長希山慕丁說，有人指責巫統是個種族政黨，這些人刻意為巫統貼上標籤，其目的是要破壞及分裂大馬各族之間和諧融洽的關係。他強調，巫統雖然致力爭取馬來人的權益，但並不是個種族政黨。
這番話說得好極了！作為全國最大及最具實權政黨的巫統，如果全黨上下都有這樣的見識與共識，真是全國人民的福氣。按照希山
慕丁的說法，巫統並非種族政黨，只是遭人破壞。但是，到底是誰在破壞巫統呢？信手拈來就有以下幾個例子。
有位代表接連兩年在巫統青年團全國大會上發表極端言論，並且多年來一直為極端言論辯護。直到今年308大選之後，他終於就此道歉。但他說：“我被逼接受現實，因為此課題影響了黨；身為領袖的我，必須把黨的利益放在個人利益之上，所以我被逼要道歉。”
另一位巫統黨員在2006年，接連提出“檳城馬來人被邊緣化”、“種族輸贏論”、“寧可賤賣公司股權，也不能讓股份落在非土著手上”，以及“政府應確保馬來人收入在2020年必須與華人平等，即從目前的1比1.65，達到1比1的比例”等驚人之語。這位仁兄十分堅持其言旨在捍衛種族和宗教權益，並沒有做錯。
再來一個巫統黨員在為峇東埔補選的造勢大會上，指華人只是“寄居”在大馬，因此不可能做到各族平等。他對台下的友族群眾說：“華人是否能夠平均分配財富給我們呢？如果今天你居住在華人家庭，你相信他們能夠公平對待你們嗎？”
從這些例子看來，這些巫統黨員正是希山所指的“有人”。他們的偉論，正是讓巫統被人貼上“種族政黨”標籤的主要原因。
正如希山所言，雖然大馬已經獨立了51年，但扭曲種族課題的趨勢，仍是一種不良與不健康的發展。如果巫統能夠帶頭導正這股歪風，其作用勢必比其他政黨來得大。巫統領導人在308大選及826補選之後，都強調巫統必須改變作風以爭取民心；遏制黨員繼續以這類言論破壞巫統，應是可行之道。
星洲日報／有話直說‧作者：蘇俊翔‧2008.09.02
2008-09-02 18:58
巫青團長希山慕丁說，有人指責巫統是個種族政黨，這些人刻意為巫統貼上標籤，其目的是要破壞及分裂大馬各族之間和諧融洽的關係。他強調，巫統雖然致力爭取馬來人的權益，但並不是個種族政黨。
這番話說得好極了！作為全國最大及最具實權政黨的巫統，如果全黨上下都有這樣的見識與共識，真是全國人民的福氣。按照希山
慕丁的說法，巫統並非種族政黨，只是遭人破壞。但是，到底是誰在破壞巫統呢？信手拈來就有以下幾個例子。
有位代表接連兩年在巫統青年團全國大會上發表極端言論，並且多年來一直為極端言論辯護。直到今年308大選之後，他終於就此道歉。但他說：“我被逼接受現實，因為此課題影響了黨；身為領袖的我，必須把黨的利益放在個人利益之上，所以我被逼要道歉。”
另一位巫統黨員在2006年，接連提出“檳城馬來人被邊緣化”、“種族輸贏論”、“寧可賤賣公司股權，也不能讓股份落在非土著手上”，以及“政府應確保馬來人收入在2020年必須與華人平等，即從目前的1比1.65，達到1比1的比例”等驚人之語。這位仁兄十分堅持其言旨在捍衛種族和宗教權益，並沒有做錯。
再來一個巫統黨員在為峇東埔補選的造勢大會上，指華人只是“寄居”在大馬，因此不可能做到各族平等。他對台下的友族群眾說：“華人是否能夠平均分配財富給我們呢？如果今天你居住在華人家庭，你相信他們能夠公平對待你們嗎？”
從這些例子看來，這些巫統黨員正是希山所指的“有人”。他們的偉論，正是讓巫統被人貼上“種族政黨”標籤的主要原因。
正如希山所言，雖然大馬已經獨立了51年，但扭曲種族課題的趨勢，仍是一種不良與不健康的發展。如果巫統能夠帶頭導正這股歪風，其作用勢必比其他政黨來得大。巫統領導人在308大選及826補選之後，都強調巫統必須改變作風以爭取民心；遏制黨員繼續以這類言論破壞巫統，應是可行之道。
星洲日報／有話直說‧作者：蘇俊翔‧2008.09.02
Monday, September 1, 2008
PAUL TOMKINS: HEROES AND VILLAINS
Original from http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/news/drilldown/NG161121080901-0941.htm
Unfortunately, much of a Sunday as a football fan has to spent in front of a certain TV station. But to listen to the views expressed on Sky this weekend, you'd think Liverpool weren't in fact sitting second in the table, as the only title contenders to have faced two away games so far.
I'm actually far from Andy Gray's biggest critic amongst Liverpool fans. He talks some sense about many of the general truths of football, and does offer some insight – such as when noting how Liverpool's centre-backs dropped off Carew so that they could focus on the 'second ball'; this was excellent punditry, and not just because it was a positive point. But on Sunday it was the almost incessant drone of Gray's critical co-commentary, particularly in the first half, that was so offensive to my ears.
Later on in the day, Gray even managed to write off Benítez's European Cup win as 'irrelevant', suggesting anyone can win it. It was that kind of Sunday.
Although I mention my illness from time to time, the worst thing about not being able to go regularly to places like Villa Park (where I’ve been almost a dozen times over the years) is that the 'enjoyment' of a steady (but admittedly uninspiring), containing away display where the home team are kept at bay for the first 45 minutes is decimated by the constant harping on about every last detail of Benítez's management.
Villa, the home side who'd just spent £50m this summer, and who had no major players out injured (unlike Gerrard, and then Torres after 25 minutes), were doing nothing constructive with the ball, but all we heard was criticism of Liverpool. Had it been at Anfield I'd have said "sure, spot-on"; but at Villa Park?
With the Gareth Barry saga stoking the Villains, it was a far more hostile atmosphere than usual for this fixture, and in many ways a game that needed to be treated like a European away tie. An early goal for Villa would have ramped up the noise and made it very difficult to even get a point. I don't see the problem with containing the opposition for the first half, and quietening the crowd, when they are a good team playing at home with a distinct edge to the game; then, as the game opens up, exploit the space in the second half.
Maybe I'm a pessimist, but I just don't see that Liverpool have to win every away game bar Arsenal, Chelsea and United. When did drawing away at clubs with ambitions to break into the top four become a bad result? It was certainly a far better result than drawing at home to Newcastle or a struggling Spurs side, as United and Chelsea have already done, or losing at Fulham, like Arsenal have.
Villa rested six players against hugely inferior opposition in the UEFA Cup on Thursday, but Liverpool had to play 120 minutes against 'proper' opposition the night before that. So this was never going to be an easy game. In fact, I felt it was one the Reds could easily lose, and with this in mind, I was obviously fairly content at the end.
Performances have to improve, everyone can see that; but the quality of this team is not defined by what we've seen so far. We know that. Once again an international break disrupts the flow of a stop-start season, although for once the timing might not be too bad. And this time all other clubs are in the same boat, after the unfair Olympic situation.
Obviously getting the two key players fit is imperative. Torres and Gerrard are possibly the best in their respective positions in the world; you can't but help miss such attacking quality. You don't just have another couple like that lying around in the reserves – they don't even exist in other top clubs' first teams.
In that sense, the international break could be a blessing. Ryan Babel, whose fitness still doesn't look 100%, is another who may benefit from an extra couple of weeks of training and some games with Holland.
However, despite the validity of Gerrard's injury, a certain Sunday morning football chat show lambasted Benítez for the timing of the operation; how could he do so with important World Cup qualifiers looming, the guests asked, as if Liverpool should have timed it so that he instead definitely missed the Manchester United match.
It was agreed, with baffling unanimity, that Liverpool had acted improperly. I was flabbergasted.
Let's get some facts straight. Gerrard had already missed two stretches of preseason with the injury, which precluded him being able to start in Liege – a very important game for the Reds. As the employers who pay his wages, which are indirectly funded by Liverpool fans (not England's!), Liverpool have the right to decide when to put their captain under the knife for an essential operation. It's a no-brainer.
Why wouldn't Benítez chose a time that is most beneficial to him? And it's not like Liverpool themselves weren't going to pay some kind of price, with Gerrard forced out of the Villa game, if not more. Any injury needs treating sooner rather than later, so why should the club pay the potential price of the injury worsening just to benefit England? It's insane.
But what sickens me is that the club is being criticised for keeping a player out of international games when 50% of the Reds' senior midfielders – Mascherano and Lucas – were off in Beijing until this week. So Liverpool were hardly going to countenance an operation when two players who play in the very same position were away with their countries. It's illogical.
I'm in no doubt that International football has decimated Liverpool's preparations to the season. Four key players missed most of preseason because of their wonderful exploits with Spain; no other Premiership club lost that many players for that long, as Liverpool are the only 'Spanish' team.
It was a great achievement, and one I totally salute, but it also means that those players lost their sharpness at a later point in the summer with their break, and thus it'll be later to return. (The one exception is Pepe Reina, who has been superb so far, but as a goalkeeper it's a different story regarding fitness.)
Three further first-team players then went to the Olympics. I don't recall any other top club losing even two important players, let alone three. Add to that the injury that Ryan Babel picked up playing for Holland at the start of the summer, and how to me he didn't look fit enough to even be in Beijing, and it's added a significant handicap.
I have no problem with the international game. But it should never override the club game because clubs are the ones who employ the players, and whose fans generate the finance over ten months of a long season. That seems lost on some England-centric journalists.
With everything taken into account, the Villa game was always going to be tricky. A lot of fans rightly talk about the importance of the league, but some seem to have this misconception (as does Andy Gray) that Benítez favours Europe. You only have to see games like Wednesday's, and how hysterical the reaction would have been had the Reds not overcome the Belgians, to know how difficult the balancing act of a Liverpool manager needs to be.
Europe is seen as having less importance by some – but only until the club are faced with elimination. Then, all of a sudden, it's the most important thing in the world. As such, the manager had to give that game his full attention, and that won't have helped preparations for the trip to Villa Park. Ideally the tie would have been won in Belgium, but it wasn't to be after a bad night.
For the second leg Liverpool had to be slightly cautious because one goal conceded on the break would be costly. It was hard to go gung-ho with that in mind.
Rafa took a lot of stick for being negative, but he had two strikers up front, and a midfield comprising three attacking players –– Kuyt, Gerrard and Benayoun –– who scored over 40 goals between them last season, while Xabi Alonso nets more than almost any other sitting midfielder. (His record is almost twice as good as Didi Hamann's was during his stint at the club. And of course, Alonso even scores directly from the holding midfield area of the pitch.)
The start of the season is never about strutting about in style and winning plaudits not points, but getting results and gaining that extra sharpness; creating a solid platform to build on for when the team hits its stride. Excuse me for thinking it's a good start to see Liverpool in the group stages of the Champions League for the fifth successive season under Benítez, whilst having gained seven points from the opening three league games.
Like others I look forward to greater style and more goals arriving in due course – and I see no reason why it won't come when everyone's fit and sharp – but for now the ends totally justify the means.
Unfortunately, much of a Sunday as a football fan has to spent in front of a certain TV station. But to listen to the views expressed on Sky this weekend, you'd think Liverpool weren't in fact sitting second in the table, as the only title contenders to have faced two away games so far.
I'm actually far from Andy Gray's biggest critic amongst Liverpool fans. He talks some sense about many of the general truths of football, and does offer some insight – such as when noting how Liverpool's centre-backs dropped off Carew so that they could focus on the 'second ball'; this was excellent punditry, and not just because it was a positive point. But on Sunday it was the almost incessant drone of Gray's critical co-commentary, particularly in the first half, that was so offensive to my ears.
Later on in the day, Gray even managed to write off Benítez's European Cup win as 'irrelevant', suggesting anyone can win it. It was that kind of Sunday.
Although I mention my illness from time to time, the worst thing about not being able to go regularly to places like Villa Park (where I’ve been almost a dozen times over the years) is that the 'enjoyment' of a steady (but admittedly uninspiring), containing away display where the home team are kept at bay for the first 45 minutes is decimated by the constant harping on about every last detail of Benítez's management.
Villa, the home side who'd just spent £50m this summer, and who had no major players out injured (unlike Gerrard, and then Torres after 25 minutes), were doing nothing constructive with the ball, but all we heard was criticism of Liverpool. Had it been at Anfield I'd have said "sure, spot-on"; but at Villa Park?
With the Gareth Barry saga stoking the Villains, it was a far more hostile atmosphere than usual for this fixture, and in many ways a game that needed to be treated like a European away tie. An early goal for Villa would have ramped up the noise and made it very difficult to even get a point. I don't see the problem with containing the opposition for the first half, and quietening the crowd, when they are a good team playing at home with a distinct edge to the game; then, as the game opens up, exploit the space in the second half.
Maybe I'm a pessimist, but I just don't see that Liverpool have to win every away game bar Arsenal, Chelsea and United. When did drawing away at clubs with ambitions to break into the top four become a bad result? It was certainly a far better result than drawing at home to Newcastle or a struggling Spurs side, as United and Chelsea have already done, or losing at Fulham, like Arsenal have.
Villa rested six players against hugely inferior opposition in the UEFA Cup on Thursday, but Liverpool had to play 120 minutes against 'proper' opposition the night before that. So this was never going to be an easy game. In fact, I felt it was one the Reds could easily lose, and with this in mind, I was obviously fairly content at the end.
Performances have to improve, everyone can see that; but the quality of this team is not defined by what we've seen so far. We know that. Once again an international break disrupts the flow of a stop-start season, although for once the timing might not be too bad. And this time all other clubs are in the same boat, after the unfair Olympic situation.
Obviously getting the two key players fit is imperative. Torres and Gerrard are possibly the best in their respective positions in the world; you can't but help miss such attacking quality. You don't just have another couple like that lying around in the reserves – they don't even exist in other top clubs' first teams.
In that sense, the international break could be a blessing. Ryan Babel, whose fitness still doesn't look 100%, is another who may benefit from an extra couple of weeks of training and some games with Holland.
However, despite the validity of Gerrard's injury, a certain Sunday morning football chat show lambasted Benítez for the timing of the operation; how could he do so with important World Cup qualifiers looming, the guests asked, as if Liverpool should have timed it so that he instead definitely missed the Manchester United match.
It was agreed, with baffling unanimity, that Liverpool had acted improperly. I was flabbergasted.
Let's get some facts straight. Gerrard had already missed two stretches of preseason with the injury, which precluded him being able to start in Liege – a very important game for the Reds. As the employers who pay his wages, which are indirectly funded by Liverpool fans (not England's!), Liverpool have the right to decide when to put their captain under the knife for an essential operation. It's a no-brainer.
Why wouldn't Benítez chose a time that is most beneficial to him? And it's not like Liverpool themselves weren't going to pay some kind of price, with Gerrard forced out of the Villa game, if not more. Any injury needs treating sooner rather than later, so why should the club pay the potential price of the injury worsening just to benefit England? It's insane.
But what sickens me is that the club is being criticised for keeping a player out of international games when 50% of the Reds' senior midfielders – Mascherano and Lucas – were off in Beijing until this week. So Liverpool were hardly going to countenance an operation when two players who play in the very same position were away with their countries. It's illogical.
I'm in no doubt that International football has decimated Liverpool's preparations to the season. Four key players missed most of preseason because of their wonderful exploits with Spain; no other Premiership club lost that many players for that long, as Liverpool are the only 'Spanish' team.
It was a great achievement, and one I totally salute, but it also means that those players lost their sharpness at a later point in the summer with their break, and thus it'll be later to return. (The one exception is Pepe Reina, who has been superb so far, but as a goalkeeper it's a different story regarding fitness.)
Three further first-team players then went to the Olympics. I don't recall any other top club losing even two important players, let alone three. Add to that the injury that Ryan Babel picked up playing for Holland at the start of the summer, and how to me he didn't look fit enough to even be in Beijing, and it's added a significant handicap.
I have no problem with the international game. But it should never override the club game because clubs are the ones who employ the players, and whose fans generate the finance over ten months of a long season. That seems lost on some England-centric journalists.
With everything taken into account, the Villa game was always going to be tricky. A lot of fans rightly talk about the importance of the league, but some seem to have this misconception (as does Andy Gray) that Benítez favours Europe. You only have to see games like Wednesday's, and how hysterical the reaction would have been had the Reds not overcome the Belgians, to know how difficult the balancing act of a Liverpool manager needs to be.
Europe is seen as having less importance by some – but only until the club are faced with elimination. Then, all of a sudden, it's the most important thing in the world. As such, the manager had to give that game his full attention, and that won't have helped preparations for the trip to Villa Park. Ideally the tie would have been won in Belgium, but it wasn't to be after a bad night.
For the second leg Liverpool had to be slightly cautious because one goal conceded on the break would be costly. It was hard to go gung-ho with that in mind.
Rafa took a lot of stick for being negative, but he had two strikers up front, and a midfield comprising three attacking players –– Kuyt, Gerrard and Benayoun –– who scored over 40 goals between them last season, while Xabi Alonso nets more than almost any other sitting midfielder. (His record is almost twice as good as Didi Hamann's was during his stint at the club. And of course, Alonso even scores directly from the holding midfield area of the pitch.)
The start of the season is never about strutting about in style and winning plaudits not points, but getting results and gaining that extra sharpness; creating a solid platform to build on for when the team hits its stride. Excuse me for thinking it's a good start to see Liverpool in the group stages of the Champions League for the fifth successive season under Benítez, whilst having gained seven points from the opening three league games.
Like others I look forward to greater style and more goals arriving in due course – and I see no reason why it won't come when everyone's fit and sharp – but for now the ends totally justify the means.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
