Pls Click To Support This Blog,TQ!


《逆流世代》屬非盈利,幾年來不斷勤於發表大馬政治時事評論,免費供網友們閱讀。請給予支持,樂捐些稿酬於部落客,信用卡與Paypal都OK,有多少就多少~再次感謝您熱心的支持。 Donations Are Welcome,to keep Arus Lawan's blogger continue his passion & struggle,Thanks 4 your support. 若無Paypal帳號,您可以透過銀行或網絡轉帳進行匯款,請聯繫: If you don't owned a Paypal account,you can pay via bank tranfer or online banking,pls contact 4 further details:


The Khmer Rouge Years...

On April 17, 1975 thousands of Phnom Penh residents celebrated in the streets as victorious Khmer Rouge troops enterd the capital. This joyous celebration, however, was not because the people of Phnom Penh were supporters of the Khmer Rouge; instead, they felt great relief that the five-years civil war had now come to an end. For the first several hours of that sunny morning it didn't matter which side you were on - Cambodia was finally at peace. This morning revealed a moment of hope.

But hope quickly turned to fear as residents noticed that the Khmer Rouge troops weren't celebrating with them. Embittered and toughened after years of brutal civil war and American bombing, the Khmer Rouge marched the boulevards of Phnom Penh with icy stares carved into their faces. The troops soon began to order people to abandon their homes and leave Phnom Penh. By mid-afternoon hundreds of thousands of people were on the move. "The Americans are going to bomb the city!" was the answer given to residents if they asked why they had to leave Phnom Penh. No exceptions were made - all residents, young and old, had to evacuate as quickly as possible.

As the Khmer Rouge well knew, there were no American plans to attack the city. The deception was a ploy to get people into the countryside, away from the urban confines of the city. The Khmer Rouge believed that cities were living and breathing tools of capitalism in their own right - KR cadres referred to Phnom Penh as "the great prostitute of the Mekong." In order to create the ideal communist society, all people would have to live and work in the countryside as peasants. Peasants, in fact, were the Khmer Rouge communist ideal, not unlike the blonde-haired, blue-eyed Aryan of Nazi Germany. Peasants were seen as simple, uneducated, hard-working and not prone to exploiting others. Their way of life had not changed for centuries, yet they always managed to survive. It was this perception that caused the Khmer Rouge to view peasants - old people, to use their political jargon - as the ideal communists for the new Cambodian state.

The city dwellers of Phnom Penh and other Cambodian cities, on the other hand, were seen as new people (or "April 17 people"). New people were the root of all capitalist evil in the eyes of the Khmer Rouge. It didn't matter if you were a teacher, a tailor, a civil servant or a monk: new people were the embodiment of capitalism and the enemy of communism, their personal political ideologies irrelevant. The Khmer Rouge felt that new people had made an active choice to live in the cities and thus declared their allegiance to capitalism. All city dwellers became enemies of the new communist state, a status that would cost hundreds of thousands of them their lives.

Evacuation of the cities was the first of many radical steps taken by the Khmer Rouge. As new people were forced out of the urban centers they soon learned of the new rules that were being imposed by Angka ("The Organization"), the secretive team of Khmer Rouge leaders who dictated the lives of every Cambodian citizen. Among these new rules, religion, money and private ownership were all banned; communications with the outside world elimated; family relationships dismantled. All previous rights and responsibilities were thrown out the window. As was often said by the Khmer Rouge, 2000 years of Cambodian history had now come to an end; April 17 was the beginning of Year Zero for the new Cambodia: Democratic Kampuchea (DK).

The Rise and Fall of the Khmer Rouge


In 1965, Prince Norodom Sihanouk, Cambodia's head of state, asserted the nation's opposition to the U.S.-backed government in South Vietnam by allowing North Vietnamese guerrillas to set up bases within Cambodia's borders. The North Vietnamese had an alliance with a Cambodian Marxist insurgency group, the Khmer Rouge, whose top brass Sihanouk is pictured here with in 1973.

 Losing Control
 A Cambodian soldier holds a .45 to the head of a Khmer Rouge suspect in 1973. When Sihanouk  was forced out of power in a coup, the new Prime Minister, General Lon Nol, sent the army to fight t   he North Vietnamese and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. Fighting two enemies proved to be too  much for Cambodia's army. As Civil War raged from 1970 to 1975, the army gradually lost territory as Khmer Rouge increased its control in the countryside.

Coming Apocalypse
Survivors sift through rubble after the Khmer Rouge bombed Phnom Penh, the capital city, on January 1, 1975. Four months later, the party took the city, on April 17, 1975, and began their mission of returning Cambodia to an agrarian society, emptying the cities and forcing their countrymen into agricultural labor.


Day One, Year Zero
Khmer Rouge fighters celebrate as they enter Phnom Penh on April 17, 1975. Prince Sihanouk, the party's early ally, resigned in 1976, paving the way for the now notorious Khmer Rouge founder and leader, Pol Pot, to become prime minister. The country was renamed Kampuchea, and it was the start Year Zero — the beginning of a new history for Cambodia written by Pol Pot.


Left Behind
Days before the occupation of the capital, thousands of Cambodians gather behind a school perimeter fence near the American embassy to watch the final evacuation of U.S. and foreign nationals.

A prisoner gets her mug shot taken. At prisons like Phnom Penh's infamous Tuol Sleng, prisoners were painstakingly documented before being sent to their deaths in mass graves later to be come known as the "killing fields." Hundreds of thousands of intellectuals were tortured and executed under the Khmer Rouge; others starved or died from disease or exhaustion. In total, an estimated 1.7 million Cambodians died between 1975 and 1979.

Pol Pot's Utopia
An undated photograph shows forced laborers digging canals in Kampong Cham province, part of the massive agrarian infrastructure the Khmer Rouge planned for the country.

A New Occupier
Fed up with cross-border raids by Khmer Rouge, Vietnam invaded Cambodia on Dec. 25, 1978. By Jan. 7, shown here, Vietnamese troops had occupied Phnom Penh. The Vietnamese occupation of Cambodia lasted for 10 years.

Fearless Leader
The Vietnamese overthrew Pol Pot, too, driving the leader to the Thai border where he continued to head the Khmer Rouge in the jungles.
Purging the Western Curse The Khmer Rouge sought to rid Cambodia of all Western influences that distracted its people from their agrarian calling. Cars, abandoned and forbidden, were stacked up alongside the road.
A Bloody Landscape
An exhumed mass grave, pictured in 1981, in the Cambodian countryside reveals the skeletons of those executed and buried together under Pol Pot's regime.

In Cambodia, Pol Pot's Regime on Trial at Last

A Bloody Landscape
An exhumed mass grave, pictured in 1981, in the Cambodian countryside reveals the skeletons of those executed and buried together under Pol Pot's regime.
The Resistance Khmer Rouge guerrillas in the jungle of western Cambodia as they attempt to halt advancing Vietnamese forces on Feb. 15, 1981.


Death Sentence
A prisoner gets her mug shot taken. At prisons like Phnom Penh's infamous Tuol Sleng, prisoners were painstakingly documented before being sent to their deaths in mass graves later to be come known as the "killing fields." Hundreds of thousands of intellectuals were tortured and executed under the Khmer Rouge; others starved or died from disease or exhaustion. In total, an estimated 1.7 million Cambodians died between 1975 and 1979.














Amartya Sen and the Idea of Justice

Charles Barclay Roger, 5 October 2010

What is justice? What does a just society look like? And what principles should guide us there? These questions have occupied an entire tradition - the dominant tradition - of political philosophy, led above all by Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Jean-Jacque Rousseau, Immanuel Kant, and among contemporary philosophers by John Rawls and Robert Nozick. But ask Amartya Sen and he will tell you they are precisely the wrong ones to ask. In his most recent book, The Idea of Justice, he argues that this traditional strain of political philosophy, which seeks to identify ‘the just’, or a single set of just principles that can then be used to design perfectly just institutions for governing society, reveals little about how we can identify and reduce injustices in the here and now.

According to Sen, the dominant approach, which he refers to as ‘transcendental institutionalism’, is beleaguered by two central problems: the problem of feasibility and the problem of redundancy. The first is a result of the practical difficulty, even impossibility, of arriving at a single set of principles that can help us to select just institutions through a process of impartial reasoning. In Rawls’ theory of justice, for instance, his two lexically ordered principles of justice are, it is argued, those that would be unanimously selected through an impartial decision procedure - through the hypothetical original position using the ‘veil of ignorance’ device. These principles then provide the basis for choosing actual institutions in the ‘legislative stage’. Clearly, however, much depends on the assumption that Rawls’ two principles of justice are those that would indeed emerge from the original position. And Sen is skeptical that this is so.

In fact, Sen maintains that there are many principles that can pass the test of impartiality. He illustrates this point, first, using an anecdote about the competing claims of three children over the distribution of a single flute. One child argues that they should receive the flute because they are the best flautist; the second, because they are the poorest of the lot; and the third, because they crafted the flute without help from the others. The three arguments are based, in turn, on principles of utility, economic equity, and the entitlement to the fruits of one’s unaided efforts. Each can be defended with strong, impartial arguments. And, returning to Rawls, it is similarly possible, for example, to provide substantial reasons for selecting Harsanyi’s utilitarian principle in the place of Rawls’ maximin principle as the basis for resolving distributional questions within a situation similar to the original position.

But this indeterminacy has profound implications for Rawls’ theory of justice, for ‘if there is no unique emergence of a given set of principles of justice that together identify the institutions needed for the basic structure of society, then the entire procedure of justice as fairness, as developed in Rawls’ classic theory, would be hard to use’. Sen even suggests that Rawls’ basic claim about the emergence of a unique set of principles of justice from the original position (as defended in A Theory of Justice) was considerably qualified in his later writings, such as The Law of Peoples, and that accepting the full implications of these qualifications would mean abandoning the stage-by-stage theory of justice.

The second problem - the redundancy problem - is that the identification of fully just social arrangements is neither a necessary nor sufficient guide to reasoned choice of just policies, strategies or institutions. It is insufficient because, as Sen explains, ‘the characterization of spotless justice, even if such a characterization were to emerge clearly, would not entail any delineation whatsoever of how diverse departures from spotlessness would be compared and ranked’. In other words, using an analogy with paintings, the fact that a person regards Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa as the most perfect picture in the world does not reveal anything about how they would rank a Picasso against a Van Gogh. But it is also unnecessary because in adjudicating between the various merits of a Picasso and a Van Gogh there is no reason to identify the most perfect picture in the world, just as when determining the relative heights of Mount Kilimanjaro and Mount McKinley knowing that Mount Everest is taller than both is an entirely redundant fact.

In contrast to transcendental institutionalism, Sen advocates what he calls a ‘realization-focused comparative approach’. In doing so, he sides with thinkers such as Adam Smith, Marquis de Condorcet, Jeremy Bentham, Mary Wollstonecraft, Karl Marx, and JS Mill, among others, who each attempted to evaluate the desirability of particular ‘social realizations’, rather than search for a set of perfectly just first principles. It may not be possible to agree on perfectly just institutions, but, Sen contends, using a comparative approach we can at least arrive at widespread consensus on the injustice of certain practices or outcomes relative to others.

Such a comparative approach to questions of justice, he believes, is closely aligned with social choice theory, one of the many fields in which Sen made his mark as an economist, earning him a Nobel-prize in 1998. Social choice theory assumes that, like the plurality of impartial principles of justice that can plausibly sustain critical scrutiny, there can be a variety of competing principles that figure in our assessments of various social orderings. And while it may sometimes appear to be impossible to satisfy all or even most of these competing principles at once - as in Kenneth Arrow’s impossibility theorem, for example - such impasses can often be resolved by incorporating more information about interpersonal comparisons of well-being and relative advantages. Similarly, Sen insists, ‘for an adequate understanding of the demands of justice, the needs of social organizations and institutions, and the satisfactory making of public policies, we have to seek much more information and scrutinizing evidence’.

This, in particular, is something that Sen believes that Rawls’ theory does not do well. Sen offers Rawls’ use of the original position as an example of what he calls ‘closed impartiality’. The ‘veil of ignorance’ device is, Sen admits, a useful, if hypothetical, way of reaching an impartial social choice, free of various vested interests. But it does not ensure the open scrutiny of the values of the people within the original position. The vast plurality of alternative views held by outsiders - their unique moral perspectives and rankings of social realizations that can reveal hidden biases in our choice of basic principles - are simply beyond the scope of Rawls’ theory. Furthermore, by limiting moral claims of outsiders we may be doing an injustice to those that fall outside the artificially closed circle of the original position.

Sen contrasts this example of ‘closed impartiality’ with the ‘open impartiality’ of Adam Smith’s ‘impartial spectator’. Smith’s reflective device, which asks us to observe our actions and institutions from the standpoint of an outsider, specifically refrains from limiting the extent to which the views of others can be considered, refusing to confine moral discussion within the boundaries of a nation-state or any other locality. And, as in social choice theory, such openness to, and critical reflection upon, alternative views and different ways of approaching social problems, Sen believes, can provide a more solid ground for ranking the ‘just-ness’ or, at least, manifest injustice of certain social realizations, even if they are merely partial and ordinal rather than comprehensive, cardinal rankings.

Of course, an engagement with contrary arguments does not imply that we will be able to arrive at agreed positions on every issue (and Sen does not see this as a drawback in his theory - not at all), nor does it oblige us to accept any of them. But there is a connection between what Sen calls the ‘objectivity’ of an ethical judgment and its ability to withstand open public scrutiny. Sen thus underscores the importance of public reasoning for justice throughout the book, and he regards democracy, especially when understood as ‘government by discussion’ rather than the Schumpeterian ‘government by elections’, as a particularly appropriate form of public reasoning, which can serve to increase the ‘objectivity’ of political solutions.

Without doubt, the argument Sen presents in the The Idea of Justice deserves to be seriously considered by contemporary political philosophers and lay-readers alike. It commands respect, for even if it fails to convince it will surely sharpen the arguments of others. Much of what passes for philosophy, including political philosophy, has been repeatedly accused of being irrelevant to the real choices and concerns of those outside of philosophy departments. And in The Idea of Justice Sen presents a serious challenge to those departments, forcing them to prove their relevance and demonstrate how they can actually inform tough decision-making.

However, if we are convinced by Sen’s argument, this raises interesting questions about the role of the philosopher and their claim to any authority or special knowledge. According to Sen, ‘philosophers’ should not - and cannot - strive to become the architects of castles in the sky. Instead, he asks us all to start right at the foundations: to share, explore, and debate our perspectives on how to repair the edifices in which we currently live. Justice arises not from a blueprint, but from a process of open public reasoning in which as many potential policies, strategies or institutions are considered as possible. However, in this process it is not clear that the people who currently occupy philosophy departments have any special standing. They become, according to Sen, purveyors rather than adjudicators of wisdom, on an even standing with economists, doctors, scientists and lawyers, with whom they should collaborate intensely. Sen’s Philosopher turns out to be anyone willing to cross boundaries, willing to explore alternative ways of thinking and living across disciplines, communities and time. What matters is that people know more about what’s out there and make more informed choices - that they are smarter - because, for Sen, smarter is better.





史上最亂選舉  宣傳車旗幟擾民

「綠 黨」大安文山市議員參選人張宏林表示,這次選舉可以說是史上最亂的一次,多數候選人在大街小巷掛滿旗幟,還出動大量宣傳車掃街拜票,沿途放鞭炮,既不環保 又擾民。張宏林質疑,這些候選人當選,在選舉過程中不擇手段任意違規亂掛旗子,不但置市容於不顧,還任由旗幟遮蓋住紅綠燈與交通指示牌。這些告急要選民搶 救他們的候選人,卻已經先不顧民眾的死活亂掛旗幟,選民值得投票拯救這些為了勝選先出賣用路人安全的候選人嗎?

支持者投票與否  綠黨突圍關鍵

張 宏林不諱言,綠黨這次能否突圍當選議員與支持者的看好度息息相關,很多大黨候選人表面上說投綠黨不會當選,要選民不要浪費選票,實際上卻把綠黨當成假想 敵,而綠黨早在八年前的北市議員選舉,就曾經爆冷拿下兩萬多票,差點就攻下席次,四年前參選市議員還獲得近百位知名部落客推薦,雖然當時因為競選經費有限 而無法當選,卻在網路上打開能見度。

年輕人站出來  送綠黨進議會

張 宏林表示,政府目前每年花費四億納稅人的血汗錢補助兩大黨,如果市長議員都投給兩大黨,你就等於再補助兩大黨60元,讓他們下次選舉有資金繼續亂掛旗子、 用宣傳車擾民。這次選舉綠黨共推出五位候選人,政見涵蓋勞工、環保、及弱勢各領域,希望對政治冷漠的年輕人能站出來,把手中的選票投給環保選舉的綠黨,讓 提不出政見,希望靠宣傳車擾民、亂插旗幟當選的候選人通通落選,把陽光帶進黑暗的議會,一起寫下台灣政治史新的一頁。

※綠黨議員候選人:中正萬華──4號宋佳倫\松山信義──5號潘翰聲\南港內湖──6號李盈萱\大安文山──10號張宏林\新北市淡海──1號 王鐘銘




 由于再益退出公正党风波加上放了创新党的“响地雷”,使国人们都异常吃了惊,仿佛“第三势力”说来就来,虽然再益仍在原地踏步,下一步该怎么走还是个未知 数。两线制有这么脆弱到使人惊讶吗?许多人认为308是种效应,凭在野党联盟的不合群,一次再一次的结盟都没国阵那么无敌,人家是靠金钱利益,在野党靠的 是什么资本?那么第三势力有是如何的呢?

很多人认为,此刻出现第三势力,即犹如巴都沙比那样的状况,在野党的选 票不幸被瓜分,反倒利了国阵。这句话说得有点道理,尤其是在沙巴民联跟进步党无法妥协,再来一招“弃保政策”,也无奈反对票被分裂成两大块,让国阵更自欺 欺人、狂妄自大。沙巴进步党何尝不是第三势力?然而你深感害怕了吧?国阵可是个杂七杂八综合起来的大船,民联若不能将那些返国阵的“第三势力”都谈妥、包 揽起来的话,最大损失的输家最终会是在野势力。民联三党曾经也有决裂过的历史,这些因素无不使得预想改变和渴望两线制的选民感到汗颜。

马 来西亚是个多党制国家,这有何好骄傲的?有人证明这很民主,然而真是如此吗?国阵第一次成立时,其包容性早就形成了巫统一党独大的局面,那些被收编的“前 反对党”(在连两线制都谈不上的时代,在野者一盘散沙,手无缚鸡之力)如今还能有多少能耐?我们大可去问问看典型的人民进步党和民政党,他们靠着国阵的江山吃 饭,支部到处都是,然而这值得夸耀吗?政治结盟是要谈条件的,而非只等着被一个老大骑劫,再美其名说什么团结、自主,根本就是堆陈腔滥调的废话,识时务者 听起来非但可笑,而且还觉得很弱智。也难怪国阵会维持那么久,最紧要是分得一杯羹,那也就足够了。

翻开大马的政 党名册,除了已走入历史的政党,你会发觉还有很多闻所未闻的东西存在着,这些仍未从名册上删除的“蚊子党”构得上是“第三势力”吗?比如认为并入公正党会 有更多出路的人民党,他们的另一支系仍然依存,但相比起前者,后者能成为强大的第三势力吗?还有那些本身有政党组织,却借着他党旗帜竞选的政党呢?若是他 们打着自己的旗号去上阵,那么胜算会是多少呢?第三势力不是不可能,但对于马来西亚来说,它们仍然构不成什么气候;最担心的莫过于有人开始议论的,那些 “第三势力”无非只是国阵分裂反对票的棋子而已,何以见得?

看看人家台湾的多党制,或许国人们才该惊讶,名册一 翻整一百五十个以上的合法政党,不要说有什么第三势力,估计有大半以上皆为“不知所谓而存在的东西”。不知是贪政党注册便利还是想创党闹着玩,结果制造了 太多无可收拾的垃圾,因而导致注销都省了,有些早已不再运作的政党,至今仍留在名册里,只因它没有犯法。反观马来西亚,成立一个政党有多难?其实并不难。 若你是拍着国阵马屁,或依附在其势力下的“分支”,那你很快就能通过申请。不妨去观察那所谓的爱大马党,去看看那些前国阵成员党党员的嘴脸,便能辨识他们 到底能制造啥气候了。反之,反国阵的社会主义党等了近十年才得以通过;中立的大专生党至今连门都没有,办活动甚至还会遭到逮捕。

最 可悲的还是印裔族群,在国阵和民联之外,印裔选票分散得特别厉害。主要还不是归咎于“蚊子党”名册里有太多的印裔政党,而是反国阵、反国大党的阵营最终分 裂得极其严重。当年一个强劲的兴权会示威掴了国阵、国大党一大巴掌,执政党团岂能不怕其威力,更强悍的是他们的领袖都加入了在野阵营。然而,不妨回顾一下 2009年政府很轻松就合法了两个印裔居多的政党,他们跟兴权会都有很大出路,一个是亲国阵的“人民力量党”(人民力量一词被骑劫了)和中立的人权党。姑 且不说能否为印裔办事,单靠如此分裂早就乐坏了国阵,还谈什么“第三势力”?

台湾的五都选举即将到来,然而我们 怎么看都只是国民党和民进党在对打而已,姑且不采用政党名号,而使用蓝营对垒绿营,声势便浩大许多了不是吗?毕竟仅有两种思潮,不是统就是独。统派政党竭 尽全力支持国民党,独派力挺民进党不就得了?若是都不顾一切出来竞争,相信对于任何一方都很不利。国民党就曾尝过分裂出去的新党和亲民党实行“弃保效应”, 丢了台北又丢了台湾。台湾目前是什么制度?恭喜,正是名副其实的两线制!当年的第三势力不是无力便是回流,哪还谈得上有何势力?虽说2008年后,借着反 贪污、反主流政党的新第三势力抬头,诸如红党、公民党、绿党、三社党等都派出了代表竞选总统、立委,但最终全军覆没,结果连无党联盟都不如,也许这正是出 于两线制中的“第三势力”吧?未来或许有很大的机会能胜出,但绝对不是两大主流阵线对垒的时代。

马来西亚自308才刚否决国阵三分之一议席,现在纳吉的“一个大马”政策又企图收买国人对国阵的信心,此刻的在野阵营又太多内在矛盾缠身。然而,我们要相信,这不过 是起步阶段而已,所以人们才会在意第三势力是否在搅局,是否是国阵派来的工具。但我们起码要给予在野势力更多的信心,民联更要多努力多做事、去争取广大人民的信赖,否则下一届大选迎来的不是第三势力的抬头,而是国阵归位做霸权老大而已。

正如在野党领袖安华所说: “再益想搞新党,任由他去吧!”,这就是支强心针,坚韧有力。人家越想分化你,你就更不得愁眉苦脸,怎能一个打击就露出了败相?再益退党后能掀起什么样的 气候,本人倒是很期待。除非他的新党高举“一个大马”旗帜,愿意接受接受招安吧?否则再益再注册个“新公正党”,再声称大搞“第三势力”,亦不过是审核过 程的程序问题而已,到头来还可能是笑话。

 当今大马 2010年11月24日 凌晨 1点17分






Dialogue with The Lady, Aung San Suu Kyi (与昂山素姬女士对话)

Thursday, 18 November 2010 19:33 Mizzima News

(This interview is translated from Burmese.)

Chiang Mai (Mizzima) – Burmese pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi was released from seven year’s house arrest on November 13. Mizzima’s managing editor Sein Win spoke to her by phone four days later to receive her comments on India’s policy on Burma, using the internet and social weblogs, ethnic issues, the intrusion of John Yettaw, youth issues and women’s rights. 

Firstly, I’d like to ask you about India. What do you think Indian people can do for Burmese people and the establishment of democracy in Burma?

Pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi walks among residents of a National League for Democracy hospice for people living with HIV in South Dagon Township, Rangoon, handing out roses to each of them, before offering encouragement and the promise of a better medicine supply, on Wednesday, November 17, 2010. Photo: Mizzima

I think Indian citizens should learn more about Burma. Burma and India closely co-operated in fighting for independence. But currently, I think Indian citizens don’t know too much about Burma. Trying to know about Burma would clearly be the first step.

How can India’s government and parliament help Burma? What would you like to say?

This question is related to the previous one. India is a democratic country, so, as the citizens of a democratic country, if Indian people are active in supporting the establishment of democracy in Burma, India’s government will not ignore Burma. So, I want to say that Indian citizens should clearly learn more about Burma’s democracy movement as a first step. They should provide more support.

India says Burma is influenced by China. Another thing is that some say Burma should take steps towards democracy on the basis of a gradual evolution. What is your opinion regarding these issues?

This way of thinking merely concerns the relationship between China and India, not Burma’s democracy. So, we need to differentiate between the people who are thinking about the Sino-Indian relationship and the people who are seeking to establish democracy in Burma. Regarding the idea that Burma should approach democracy on the basis of gradual evolution, that’s an issue that must be decided only by us, the Burmese people. 

It is said that civil war has raged in Burma for more than 60 years. And some Western governments also said Burma’s movement towards democracy should be carried out on the basis of gradual evolution. What are your thoughts on these stances?

People need to discuss that hypothesis using concrete facts. They say Burma should take gradual steps towards democracy because of continuing ethnic conflicts. On the other hand, we can say the reverse … that the continuing ethnic conflicts are the result of the lack of genuine democracy in Burma. So, it depends on the person. But, what we should think is how the current situations affect the people and what should we do for the sake of the people.

I’m healthy but I’m very busy. I don’t have enough time even to take a breath.

I heard you and your son spoke on the phone. Did he obtain a visa to enter Burma?

The authorities have not told him whether they will issue a visa or not. So all we can do is wait.

As a mother out of contact with her sons, how do you cope with that situation?

There are many people whose situations are worse than ours. For my sons, they can live in a country that has human rights. They don’t need to worry about the cost of living. Some children don’t have enough food. Some children are homeless. Their parents cannot help them. So I don’t have the heart to say that my situation is stressful.

Many people are deeply concerned for your safety. Do you think someone may harm you?

In the past I was harmed so there is no guarantee that they will not harm me. But I should not be worried sick about it. I should not act under the feeling of insecurity. Anyway, both young people and old people take care of me. They want to protect me as much as they can. They are trying too hard to ensure my safety.

There are many rumours with regard to John Yettaw’s intrusion. What do you think about this? Was it trick of the junta?

I don’t know. I have no idea. I don’t want to have any bias … I don’t think it was a plan of the junta, but I can’t guarantee that 100 per cent. All in all, I don’t suspect junta involvement.

Many young people came to listen to your speech. What do you want to tell them and women and what do you want to do for them?

I want them to utilise that collective strength effectively. I want them to use those strengths both for the country and for their own sake, correctly and systematically. I want to help them to keep the right balance between promoting their own welfare and promoting the welfare of the nation.

No, I don’t mean that. I just want their strength not to be wasted. If they use their strength just for their own sake, it will not be effective for them in the long run as no one can enjoy a good life in an unpleasant environment. And I think social affairs and politics cannot be separated and every citizen should have high spirits. When I was a child, I was taught general maxims. People can be trained to have high moral values.

In recent days, fighting between the junta and ethnic armed groups broke out. What are your thoughts over those tensions? How should we deal with ethnic unrest?

As I said earlier, we don’t have the custom to solve political problems by engaging in constructive political dialogue or by using non-violent methods. I want our people to develop that custom. That’s why I choose to use the principle of non-violence. We must create a custom in which we solve the problems through political dialogue and non-violence. That’s not easy. It’ll be difficult sometimes. So, we must try to establish that custom to end the conflicts.

Today [Tuesday], we’ve heard you’ve proposed a second Panglong Conference through the use of modern communications technology. You’ve also expressed a wish to use Twitter. I’m sure our readers are very interested when you’ll be online.

I’ve got an application form to apply for internet installation. But one of the rules … to obtain a permit to gain internet access says I must not be involved in politics. Nevertheless, I’ll apply for the permit, but I’ll fill in the form saying that I’ll participate in politics. I cannot obey that rule. But I will apply for the permit and fill in the correct information on the form.

If you are denied internet use, what alternatives will you seek?

We must seek alternatives. That’s why I said we must find alternatives suited to the 21st Century. I heard about the second Panglong Conference on the radio when I was detained under house arrest. Since that time, I thought we should apply modern technology to overcome the difficulties. Our young technicians will find ways. You also can offer us advice. 

You’ve said mobile phones are a novelty for you. How about the internet?

I have never used the internet but I’m computer literate … [it] will not be difficult.

Do you have any immediate plans to go to ethnic minority areas to meet them?

No, I don’t have such plans at present because I still have many things to do in Rangoon.

What is your attitude to the political parties that contested in the recent election, and if they would like to form an alliance with the NLD?

I’ve said since the day I was released that we want the people to create a democratic network for themselves. So, all must have many strong allies. Even if we cannot form alliance with everyone, we will form an alliance with anyone who has the same objectives as us. As I said earlier, we are ready to co-operate with any … of the 37 contending political parties that really have the same objectives and want to work for democracy.

What would you like to say to Mizzima reporters?

The roles of journalists are very important … Journalists can influence the country. So I want journalists to use that influence for the welfare of the people. Some journalists are trying to secure scoops and get dramatic news. That’s also fine, but they also need to do so for the welfare of the nation. I think I said after I was released from house arrest that I’d found that communications technology was playing a very important role in this era. Most people have mobile phones. So, please don’t forget that information is very important and journalists are in powerful positions. I want to request that all journalists do good things for the people … with spiritual awareness. 

A cyclist holds a placard honouring ‘The Lady’ while awaiting the release of Aung San Suu Kyi in Rangoon, last Friday, November 12, 2010. Photo: Mizzima
By the way, how is your health?

Burmese pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi holds up a placard that reads, “I also Love the People”, to her supporters at the headquarters of her National League for Democracy party last Sunday, November 14, 2010, in Rangoon. The country’s democracy icon, freed from seven years of house arrest, told thousands of wildly cheering supporters that she would continue to fight for human rights and the rule of law in the military-ruled nation. Photo: Mizzima

Does ‘using strength correctly’ mean they should participate in politics?


2007-03-07 15:41:40

2006年12月21 日,统治土库曼斯坦21年的尼亚佐夫先生离开了这个国家,只剩下那些密布于土库曼各地的金色塑像仍然在警示人们,过去的21 年是怎样的21年。

“连一些逃亡者都手足无措,不敢相信尼亚佐夫真的已经离去。他们因为在土库曼斯坦感到不安全而远离那个国家,但是他们中的一些人相信,只要给尼亚佐夫更多的时间,他是可以给土库曼斯坦带来他所说的荣耀和自由。”美国乔治敦大学的土库曼问题专家Kenyon S. Weaver 说,人们在“土库曼之父”离去后感到无所适从,看不到未来。
“土库曼之父”是尼亚佐夫先生自封的称号。从1985年,45 岁的尼亚佐夫被戈尔巴乔夫钦点为土共总书记以来,他一直屹立在苏联的最南方而不倒。
1990年,尼亚佐夫成为土库曼斯坦总统,并在1992年那场被广为诟病的大选中,以 99.5%的选票连任总统。
2002年,尼亚佐夫宣称自己躲过了一场暗杀阴谋,随后在国内加大了克格勃化管理的力度。当时的外交部长Boris Shikhmuradov 被当众判处终身监禁,并在电视上述说了自己的罪行,对领袖表达了自己的痛悔。


尼亚佐夫总统生前不仅对统治国家感兴趣,他同时还是一个诗人、爱好哲学、历史和音乐。2006年,他出版了自己的半自传体哲学作品《 Rukhnama》(土库曼语,意为“精神之书”)。
在介绍这本书时,土库曼斯坦的官员富有感情地说道:“人们总是习惯到亚洲来寻找精神上的指导书籍——《圣经》、《古兰经》,而现在则轮到了《Rukhnama 》,一本体现土库曼斯坦人民精神的书籍。”
“《Rukhnama》的作者是一位真正的预言家——‘土库曼斯坦之父’。神圣的《Rukhnama 》与《圣经》与《古兰经》齐名,他将成为你日常生活的精神向导,去除生活中的复杂和阴霾。”
他热情地为自己的著作进行推广工作。2006年3 月20日,他在一个国家节日的讲话中,对全国人民说:“一个人阅读《Rukhnama》将变得聪明,然后,他将直接进入天堂。我已经要求真主安拉,一个人只要每天阅读这本书三遍,他就可以直接进入天堂。”


土库曼斯坦这个中亚国家本应该是一个富裕的能源型国家,他有着全世界最大的几块天然气田,并向俄罗斯和西欧供应天然气。依靠世界能源市场价格的高企,土库曼斯坦2005 年的国内生产总值达到了237亿美元,比2004年增长20.7 %。
但是,这个人均GDP将近5000 美元国家的失业率已经逼近80%。Kenyon S. Weaver说:“我接触的每一个土库曼斯坦人都会展望自己的未来,但他们决不会说现在。他们习惯用‘但不是现在’这样的词汇,来表达他们对未知世界的憧憬。”
在尼亚佐夫任上,土库曼斯坦将原来的10年义务教育改成了8 年甚至更少,大学的学制改成了2年。这个国家还宣布,他们不承认任何国外大学的文凭,拿国外文凭的人在国内将找不到工作。同时,尼亚佐夫关闭了全国的图书馆,这一代土库曼斯坦人有望成为苏联时代后最大的一群文盲。
阿什哈巴德市中心屹立着其中最著名的一尊。它净高100多米,四周各有360 级台阶。雕塑的底座上还有旋转装置,让这尊雕像一直转动,朝着太阳的方向,俯瞰土库曼斯坦的“金色年代”。这4个字在国家控制的4个电视频道和 2个广播电台夜以继日地被宣扬。此外,尼亚佐夫还耗资1亿美元在他的家乡修建了中亚地区最大的一座清真寺,金壁辉煌,并命名为“土库曼斯坦之父的精神清真寺”。
尼亚佐夫先生以自己的名字给土库曼斯坦几乎所有的东西命名,甚至连一块陨石都不放过。他模仿古罗马的凯撒大帝,将每年12个月份的名称重新命名。 1月以他自己的名字相称,4月属于他的母亲,9月则是 Rukhnama。
据英国的非政府组织Global Witness估算,尼亚佐夫在德意志银行可能有20 ~30亿美元的存款,而他的俄罗斯籍夫人以及女儿也都生活在英国的伦敦。


在他逝世后,俄通社甚至发表唁电赞扬尼亚佐夫,“自1991年10 月独立以来,土库曼斯坦在尼亚佐夫的领导下发生了巨大的变化,实现了政局、社会稳定,经济保持高增长,人民生活水平不断提高。……尼亚佐夫在土库曼斯坦具有极高的威望,全国各战略要地都树立起他本人及其父母的金制雕像。他是第一位‘土库曼斯坦英雄’和‘阿尔登·阿伊’金质奖章获得者。土库曼斯坦给尼亚佐夫颁发了以马赫杜姆库利命名的国家奖金。”
莫斯科的非政府组织“纪念碑”的中亚项目主任Vitaly Ponomaryov说:“在尼亚佐夫的阵营中,没有一个明显的强人。一旦某个人的位置和角色有所提升,那么在 1到2年内,他就会被捕。结果是,在现在的土库曼斯坦政府中,没有一个真正的领导人。那些拥有关系网、金钱和影响力的人早被清除。”

2010年 8月 26日


这座纪念碑是尼亚佐夫在2006年去世前,在他长达20年的独裁统治期间为他自己建立的许多雕像中的一个。他还写了一本精神巨著作为土库曼强制性读物。他的继任者别尔德穆哈梅多夫总统自2007年就职总统以来,逐步拆除尼亚佐夫的遗留物。别尔德穆哈梅多夫承诺开放国家,但批评者说, 他的改革只是装点门面而已。




如 今经过核实后,再益终于声称不干了,辞呈一递、驷马难追。再益的公正党生涯没想到还比在巫统时期还短。此人真得不到重用吗?在主仆闹翻之前,再益是安华严 重的正义之士,经过一番撮合后,再益接受了“烈火莫熄”精神的邀请而入党。一个入党不久的新星,又被钦点出征乌雪补选,可见公正党对其抱有期望。败选后, 再益竞选署理主席,其背后也获得相当人数的支持。问题是,一个新人在短期内不停往上爬,野心比天还高,难道不怕跌得全身伤吗?

再 益的期盼过高,失望就越大,毕竟公正党不属于个人,而是个团体。于是,他姑且不满那些将党包揽在一人之手的现实。若说再益是党内的“少数派”,那他必须坦 然面对“当权派”,然而却输不起,反复强调党内不民主、耍奸诈、被迫害云云。现实再次告诉我们,再益并非输不起,而是打不下去了,于是干脆乘人气尚兴旺, 索性捡起包袱走人,也许对他来说是最好的方法。

藉此,某些人再次赐予他“特洛伊木马”的名号,证实再益这人已离 心,再也留不住他的人了。问题是,谁会不怕再益退出并另组新党后,会对公正党甚至民联造成不利?再益是个出了名的独行侠,然而最好不要只限于想象,就如他 本身所说:“政治是个孤单的游戏,最好和好朋友在同一旗帜下竞选”。关键是,他离开了巫统又背弃了民联,他的好朋友试问还有哪几位?谁会借出旗帜让他竞选 呢?


当今大马 2010年11月22日 早上 8点47分

二手书店 闹市角落旧书香





在PJ Old Town 有间较僻静的商业大厦(Menara Mutiara Majestic),Skoob Books就在其中。旧旧的书有些摆放在柜子,有些则随意的摆去地上、桌上,加上一个让人歇脚看书的小角落,很有居家书房的感觉。

老 板涂家雄以前是Skoob Books忠实熟客之一,并不是马来西亚Skoob Books的创办人。曾任某英报的编辑的他,每天放工后都会买上百元的书籍,后来与书店老板结成朋友,机缘巧合之下于1993年辞去编辑一职,接手这间二 手书店,经营至今。虽然所处位置僻静,但有固定熟客及追寻旧书香的爱好者,Skoob Books在闹市的角落沉默地生存着……


涂 老板告诉我其实卖二手书的市场竞争很大,因为来自伦敦不到一年的新书都卖得很便宜。在这里,稍微囤货的书本都会抛售,因为货仓的租金杂费都很贵,所以亏一 点点卖掉存货放新货都算值得。“马来西亚二手书店不是没市场价值,除了买量,质也很重要。绝版限量版的书本都会有识途老马来找。”

也许因为书源从伦敦著名的二手书店Skoob Books空运而来,我发现这里的旧书品质都很好,当然货源也包括本地老房子遗留下来的老书,那些经过岁月洗礼的书都是宝。


因 为爱书懂书而最后变成卖书人的经营者,涂家雄陪Skoob Books走过了近20个年头。二手书店的未来,他说是艰辛,是难熬……因为马来西亚人不爱看书,人口的增加并没有让阅读人数增加。但无论如何Skoob Books是他退休的小天地,也是寻书人的天堂。在这里不仅是寻找书本,也是知音人的块宝。


1991年在Bangsar开始营业时,它只是间小书店,1997年孟沙一区的租金飙升,无法之下搬到Brickfield十五碑,直到2003年,Brickfield要建Sentral车站,屋租又再暴增,Skoob Books再搬迁到现址。

Skoob Books

地址:Lot 122, Menara Mutiara Majestic, Jalan Othman (old town PJ)



星期一至五 11am-8pm

星期六与日 1pm-8pm





乔纳森·弗兰岑(Jonathan Franzen) 长得很方正,并不古板。《时代》周刊分毫毕现的封面照上写着简洁有力的标题:“伟大的美国小说家”。距离上一次这本杂志以作家为封面,已经过去10年—这 一次,弗兰岑接替了斯蒂芬·金。弗兰岑和些“海獭式作家”站在一个队伍,他热爱包罗万象的生活题材,描写当下人们的生活方式。他的人物不过是芸芸众生—— 无法解决自我的困难,活在当下,而非未来。

       弗兰岑凭什么“伟大”?不论是他的《纠正》(The Corrections)还是新作《自由》(The Freedom)都不像是21世纪的小说:情节既不紧凑,也缺乏微观描写,主题上与亚文化、个人声音、特有的民族团体……统统无关。价值观上,他和约翰· 厄普代克、乔伊斯·卡罗尔·欧茨、约翰·契弗、菲利普·罗斯牢牢地站在一个阵营,把自己的作品与美国当下的社会现状与阶层心理联系在一起……但这一类作家 代表着20世纪70年代知识大众的品味,放在21世纪,他们显得多么地陈旧过时、不与时俱进啊!

『文化』弗兰岑凭什么“伟大”?       但弗兰岑就是登上了《时代》周刊的封面,而且这份老牌杂志以自己的影响力把作家的声名传播得更广更远。在中国,《纠正》的中译本3年前就由译林出版社出 版,但它在中国依旧鲜有人知。若不是因为《时代》周刊的封面故事,它或许就像很多杰出且无人问津的伟大作品一样,被人束之高阁后,作为废纸被回收,与各种 低廉、花哨的印刷品一起,融成纸浆做成新纸张。

       洋洋洒洒632页(中译本)的故事发生在一个美国小镇,人物是一对老夫妻伊妮德和艾尔弗雷德以及他们的3个孩子,讲的是他们各自面对生活中“纠正”的情 景:大儿子加里,看似一切如意,但患上了抑郁症;二儿子奇普,原本是大学教师,与女学生有染后丢了饭碗,辗转去立陶宛,以诈骗美国同胞为生;丹妮丝是厨 师,与餐厅老板发生了关系,但意想不到的是老板娘爱上了她。伊妮德试图把在外生活的3个孩子齐聚到家中,过一个团圆的圣诞节,但最终却发现这个看似和谐的 家庭已经陷入了分崩离析。故事从上世纪中叶的美国中西部,写到今天的华尔街和东欧,在弗兰岑的时而刻薄、时而心酸中,人物粉墨登场,再黯然谢幕。

       9年前,《纠正》问世时,好评如潮。《时代》周刊的首席书评人列夫·格罗斯曼写道:“弗兰岑并非最富有或最著名的美国在世小说家,他最具雄心,亦属最佳之 列。”本·马库斯在《哈泼斯》杂志上为弗兰岑的这部小说还打了笔仗。美国著名作家唐·德里罗认为:“乔纳森·弗兰岑从浮想联翩的关于婚姻、家庭、整体文化 的意识中构建出一部具有极强感染力的小说……” 更夸张一些的甚至认为,凭借《纠正》,弗兰岑能步入美国文学大师的仙班。

       评论就算出自所谓的“权威”,这些漂亮话也让人生疑。因为乔纳森·弗兰岑成为“伟大的美国作家”时,约翰·厄普代克、诺曼·梅勒都已经去世,美国文坛拿得 出手的大腕真是越来越少。英国《观察家报》对《时代》周刊以弗兰岑为封面的举动是这么分析的:“以给弗兰岑的这份荣誉调适该刊长期以来忽视文学的负罪心 理”,它希望通过一张严肃作家的照片告诉本国国民:“请记住,还有严肃文学这档子事。它跟丹·布朗、哈利·波特没关系,这阵子我们都没怎么搭理它,可它确 实挺重要的!”


『文化』弗兰岑凭什么“伟大”?       2010年8月末,弗兰岑的第4本大作《自由》在美国出版。像《纠正》一样,《自由》讲述的也是一个美国家庭的故事。之前,美国总统奥巴马在麻省科德角玛 莎葡萄园度假时,不小心在当地著名的“葡萄串”书店获得了一本试读本,谁知引发了一连串麻烦……这件事被热炒后,弗兰岑随即被请上《时代》周刊的封面,成 为“伟大的美国作家”。

       弗兰岑羡慕水獭,看它们刨水,大声咀嚼食物,自由自在地在水塘里游泳。像所有乐天派动物一般,水獭不为自己的未来担忧,尽管水塘不远处有电厂,它的污染物 随时可能毁灭美好的一切。弗兰岑没有水獭的自在,他蜷起身子,1米89的大个子在镜头里显得很小。摄影师没有把51岁的中年男人拍得伟岸、高大,又或是把 画面雕琢得像“历史学家”封面汤姆·汉克斯一般,立体得如同油画。照片看上去不加修饰的粗粝感和弗兰岑的小说一并形成一种对外在不以为然的无所谓态度。但 同时弗兰岑微锁眉头注视别处,像在担心着什么。或许因为读者们的期望,或许因为《纠正》在全世界已经卖出去了285万册的销量,或许因为他成为《时代》周 刊封面这件事本身……作为一个其实应该生活在维多利亚时代的老派作家,美国社会的复杂让他身心疲惫。


『周末画报』 撰文 钟蓓


3.不要使用“然后”这个词作为契合-我们有“并且”为此。 替代“然后”是懒惰或音盲作家的非解答对许多“ands”的问题。
6.纯粹自传体小说要求纯净的发明。 没人比“变形记”写了一个更加自传体的故事。

Guardian UK,Ten Rules for Writing Fiction



在“1个大马”国度的“民主”之下,一群颇有幽默感且不满政府乱花钱建100层高楼的人们,确实毫不畏惧 执政党强压政策和那狗屁内安法令,搞了个滑稽的“蛋糕党”。超过五个人,并且有目的性的集会皆属于非法集会。那他们聚集在一起为纳吉的高塔“庆生”倒没问 题吧?藉此祝贺我国已一跃进入先进国,因此才会建造这座多么能显示国威的东西。

他们来硬的,为何人民就不能来软 的呢?又不是非法上街游行或闹事,不过只是钻个窍门,用“生日快乐”的方式来反对高塔。这样也有错?以致某大学的脑残副校长还警告该校学生不要乱来,否则 报警抓人?喂,看看我们的首相署部长纳兹里说了什么?他呼吁政府要尊重大专生的决定,并且让大学生参政。另一边厢呢?捆绑大学生的思想,还出言恐吓大学生 不要做这个、做那个,还真是“民主”呐!未起步就已经这样的局面了,你说政府还会放胆让学生有参政的自由吗?别空口说白话了,快实施吧,大学里的自由讲台 都生满蜘蛛网了。

其实,司马昭之心路人皆知啦,说什么严禁大学生参与政治活动,结果还是显示了国阵那著名的“两 面政策”。凡事参与国阵的“有志青年”,无论何时都欢迎;反之,都是破坏“和谐社会”的恐怖分子,用各种方式来让你屈服权威。今年巫统开大会,胆敢有两名 大专生帮巫统老大开路,试问他们合不合法?连党大会都敢参加了呢,怎会没有背景?然而,他们受到对付了吗?反观到加腊士助选的大专生组织,打着的还是中立 的旗帜,不与任何政党沾边,后果呢?都被逮捕了,动用的是大专法令。有趣吧?

那可耻的100层楼高塔,在人民的 反对下依然照常计划实行,这不是在有违民愿吗?是人民雷声大雨声小,还是这个政府存心和人民作对?姑且不去谈那些官员的狗屁话语,怎么去为这栋高大威猛的楼说三道四、捧得多高有多高,仔细去问问看高塔是否真的没有动用到人民上缴的税金?是否有个完整的计划构思?是否有个明确的数字?答案不是没有便是模 糊,甚至模凌两可。身为人民的你,怎么会不担心、不愤怒?他们可以跟你担保绝对会跟吉隆坡塔、双子星塔那样成功,但如果像巴生港口特区那样的例子呢?怎么办?钱继续在浪费却仍然建不好,而且还要加,财政都赤字了说!

马华公会的黄某说得好啊,他们也许比槟州林首长还 懂经济,那为何当年还有蠢到将塞车问题当成是国家繁荣来了结的?“1个大马”的虚伪政策下,看来巫统之下的成员党也“高调”不到哪里,反而还成了巫统的旗 子,依然任它来摆布。凡事对“1个大马”政策或工程计划有话说得,都属于反对“1个大马”、反对和谐,是种族主义者,是不爱国。其实谁稀罕你们这些?我们 要的是真相!问题是,他们不愿放开,不愿让我们了解更多,了解得多了你们就会变聪明、会反对我、会造反!所以,倒不如让人民继续愚蠢下去得了。看吧,绕了 一大圈设了陷阱来等异议者落网,“1个大马”的霸权主义实在太可恶了,人民稍微不满于他们所“为人民精心策划的东西”,他们就要动用各种暴力来干扰镇压, 真有够民主的!

我们都认为土权组织很极端、很种族主义?他们的党员还身着有“1个大马”徽章的服饰呢,这是讽 刺?抑或是恶搞?这一群被政府供养的号称“非政府组织”的东西真的跟政府不相干?刚上网得知黄明志在彭亨的签唱会被临时取消了,理应是有几十个“非政府组 织”报了警,黄明志的通告就这么告吹了。那30个“非政府组织”就算不认识也能猜到几个啦,还不都是那些整天抹黑在野党、歌颂种族之上主义、妖魔化特定意识形态的种族主义者吗?咦,马来西亚还挺“民主”的嘛,反正只有他们自己最“民主”,因为警察、镇暴队都对他们睁只眼闭只眼。能让他们肆意煽风点火的,难 道是内安法令吗?

还有个更荒唐的,马华为了显示他们很和谐、很“1个大马”,把前公正党的大叛徒、伪君子依占请 上来演讲。这位可是出了名“见人说人话、见鬼说鬼话”、表里不一的人,他攻击安华很假,那他自己呢?说是为了争取马来人利益才退出的,在巫统的邀请下到处 开讲座抨击安华、民联,他的鬼话马华还真的听得进去呵?(确实是同路人。)这些双头乌龟真的很搞笑,总之“1个大马”民主得很虚伪、和谐得很恶心,唯独迎 合那些分治主义者和种族主义者的胃口,而稍有理智的人民都恶心得快要呕吐了,真难受呀!

 当今大马 2010年11月18日 下午 1点08分



                   Sdr.Mohammad Firdaus,Melayu alternatif!

行动党对马来人来说有多敏感?上网去搜查看看,你会发觉一堆莫须有的谬论呈现在你眼前,跟行动党结盟的回教党反被拖累,被马来愤青讥讽为“马来人行动党”(DAP Melayu)。对这些目光短浅、思想狭隘的人来说,行动党等同于剥削他们特权的撒旦,虽然根本就没这回事。

行 动党多年来被国阵—巫统抹黑,政治资本也极其有限,不打华裔牌实在很难熬下去。在巫统霸权的日子里,行动党偏向被政治气氛严重施压的人民,有其是以华裔、 印裔群体为主。那些极右愤青为何看不见行动党内有许多印裔支持者?也许对他们而言,非马来人就是一个群体吧?管得你那么多。总之,在巫统“马来人至上”的 长期教导下,马来人的思维引起了巨大转变;反之,只要非马来人诉求平等权益,就会被扣上种族主义者、反马来人、反回教等帽子。或许,我们不应该一竿打翻整 船人,巫统越恐吓马来人、妖魔化在野党,就越激励马来人往更广泛的思维路线走去,譬如“烈火莫熄”世代为例,现实就摆在眼前。

《星 洲日报》在报道加腊士补选时有篇文章,很多说不定会感到惊讶,一位名为莫哈末费特努斯(Mohammad Firdaus Babh)的马来青年,是行动党员。不熟悉行动党的人确实会很惊吓,马来人怎么会跟行动党走?行动党不是华人党吗?当然不是,火箭又不是马华公会,随时都 欢迎各族的加入!本人挺佩服费特努斯的勇气,反对巫统主流的异议马来人,若不是选择回教党便是人民公正党,而这位马来青年选择果断加入行动党。那些不了解 这种“叛徒行为”的朋友疏离他、女友背弃他、马来店主看不起他,但他还是坚持下来了,因此而成为行动党内少数的马来同胞党员。

费 特努斯是沙登区州议员张念群的特别助理,这点不奇怪。张念群、黄瑞林等行动党籍代议士有这个胆识,他们不惧怕进入马来人的圈子,和他们广泛交流并宣传行动 党的理念。无论《前锋报》侮辱张念群进入祈祷室、巫统流氓围殴探访马来农民的黄瑞林,就让他们方便去吧,我们必须相信马来人也想寻求改变,之所以如此才有 一股强大的反对势力。虽然有许多人是支持民联反国阵,却对行动党还存在着很多误会,特别是基于它看起来更像是华人政党,跟多元的公正党、马来伊斯兰教徒居 多的回教党有巨大差别。

费特努斯不像行动党副主席东姑阿兹依布拉欣(Tunku Aziz Tunku Ibrahim,少数著名的马来党员)般有名,他没有强大的背景,然而他却有着为民争利的理想,和一股求知的热情。他受过6年中文教育,由于此他更易理解 马来人难接触的层面。再者,他为张念群的亲民形象而感动,并在熟读了党章后才浑然发现,主流马来人所认识的是被诬蔑、种族化、重新“包装”后的行动党。这 也促使了这名友族青年参加“华人反对党”,甚至不惜跟狭隘思想的“自己人”闹翻,缺乏大志者试问岂能有此能耐?

我 们或许会想,到底会有多少像费特努斯那么勇敢“跨族际”加入行动党的马来人?其实,反对国阵的马来同胞不都这么做吗?公正党便是一个很好的例子,虽说有人 将其讥为“巫基反对党”,但其多元性不容置疑。再来则是回教党,非伊斯兰教徒也设有“支持者俱乐部”(D.H.P.P)党籍,供华、印裔支持者加入。行动党呢?这长期为人所误解的多元政党,在长期跟马华的争斗的过程中,华裔成分明显十分浓厚。无知的马华还口出诳言,挑战行动党有本事就攻打马来区。问题是, 一个多元政党就经不起考验吗?非也,是约定俗成的思维模式,未能即刻扭转过来。再者是国阵长期分化族群的政策,以为国阵才能救大马人,不惜使用种族主义手 段来欺骗、诱惑人民。马华公会真的有胆,不妨在没有巫统的扶持下到马来区去选选看?输到脱裤都很难说!(也难怪,人家是正港“华人政党”)要了解国阵的双 面政策很简单,铭记“见人说人话、见鬼说鬼话”就行了。

行动党没有马来人吗?我们国人都被国阵“骑劫”的历史搞 懵懂了,更甚的是懒得理会事实真相。再懒也懂得上网吧?官网资料里有个叫阿末宾顿(Ahmad bin Ton)的中常委,那可是少数中的马来党员。说到更广义的土著,砂拉越有个地方叫林梦(Limbang),那里有为数最多的达雅行动党员。翻阅2010年 第7期的《火箭报》,得知一个最忠贞的党元老逝世的消息,那位元老是依布拉欣辛格(Ibrahim Singeh),他在1969年(5.13事件发生时的那届大选)中选为打把州议员,乃行动党史上第一位马来人议员!当年连巫统展开挖角都没能成功,这就 是我们所忽略掉的历史。再经历国阵的妖魔化,国人还能知道多少真相?独立史、建国史都被他们骑劫、修改得一干二净,甚至为政客所利用再抛弃之时,我们是否 能更客观地看待有独特见解的马来人(无论是马来人抑或非马来人)?

你为马来人加入行动党的事实感到惊讶吗?很恐 怖吗?是一种叛国、叛族的行为吗?这很简单,你已被执政党的教育模式洗脑多年,就快要成为僵硬的种族主义者了。谁说马来人仅能是巫统党徒?他还可以使回教 党人、公正党人、行动党人、社会主义党人,甚至是共产党人(马共第十支队便是由马来人组成),这有何奇怪?巫统用虚假的民族主义骑劫马来人的自由若干年, 马来人就有权力去解除这隐性的枷锁,去寻找属于他们更广阔的天空。


              Yo,what's wrong with this flag?Racist are nuts!

當今大馬 2010年11月16日 傍晚 5点16分






Suu Kyi Willing to Work with USDP(By WAI MOE)

Aung San Suu Kyi speaks at a meeting with members at her National League for Democracy's party headquarters in Rangoon on November 15. (Photo: Reuters)

Burma’s pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi told party colleagues she is even ready to work for democracy with the Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP) though the party was allegedly involved in an attempt on her life seven years ago.

Suu Kyi’s comment on the USDP came during a two-hour meeting from 1 p.m. On Monday with leaders of her party, the National League for Democracy (NLD), from divisions and states of Burma.

Answering a question about cooperating with other parties that participated in the Nov. 7 elections, Suu Kyi said she is willing to work with any party that shows goodwill towards the country and that she wanted to work with the USDP if it was willing to work with her, according to Aung Kyi Nyunt, who attended the meeting.

Chaired by Prime Minister Thein Sein, the USDP was directly transformed from the junta-backed “mass organization”, the Union Solidarity and Development Association (USDA), in April in order to participate as a political party in the elections. State media claimed throughout the week that the USDP won the elections in a landslide victory.

Suu Kyi and hundreds of her supporters were brutally ambushed by USDA thugs in Depayin, Sagaing Division in northern Burma in May 2003. Suu Kyi narrowly escaped but about 100 of her supporters were reportedly killed and she was put under detention.

Monday's meeting was her first with about 100 party key members across the country following her release from detention on Saturday.

“Like twenty years ago, she is still very dynamic although she is 65,” said Aung Kyi Nyunt, who won an NLD seat in Mon State in the 1990 election.
“When Daw Aung San Suu Kyi arrived at the meeting, she told us she wanted to listen to party delegations rather than talk herself but she still replied to issues raised by delegates point by point,” he said.

The highlight of the meeting was her statement that she is willing to cooperate with anyone for the good of the nation, he said.

NLD sources said party delegates also discussed vote cheating during the elections, the NLD’s legal status, national reconciliation and the plan to hold a multi-ethnic conference for national reconciliation.

“It was quite an open discussion between Daw Suu and us,” said one attendant. “She answered every question.”

In response to issues raised by delegates involved in human rights advocation including coordination with the International Labor Organization over child soldiers and forced labor issues, Suu Kyi said she will help with facilitating “systematic” reports, saying all cases have to be according to “laws, justice and the truth.”

Regarding the junta's detention of about 2200 political prisoners, Suu Kyi said she will “seriously” focus on gaining freedom for those behind bars soon and that all cases must be dealt with through truth and justice.

According to NLD sources, Suu Kyi met some diplomats in the morning at party headquarters and then held a personal meeting with the owner of the property used as party headquarters.

 “She expressed her gratitude to the owner for providing the compound and house free of charge for more than 20 years despite threats of a jail-term,”  said Yar Zar, an NLD member speaking from party headquarters. 

Later on Monday, Suu Kyi visited a monastery in Rangoon.

Meanwhile, the National Democratic Force, which split from the NLD in favor of participating it the election, issued a statement on Monday offering “cognitive support” for Suu Kyi's stated intention of cooperating with all pro-democracy forces for national reconciliation.





2010-11-15 01:35


Aung San Suu Kyi: the unseen photo album
Aung San Suu Kyi’s Burmese passport, issued in New York on 9 December 1970. She refused to get a British passport – though she was entitled to one, being married to the British academic Michael Aris. It was and still is illegal in Burma to have dual nationality
Photograph: Private Aris Family Collection 

New Year’s Day, 1972, Chelsea registry office in London. Aung San Suu Kyi and Michael Aris marry, aged 26 and 25 respectively

Aung San Suu Kyi at her wedding reception, following a Buddhist blessing at a family friend’s London home

Aung San Suu Kyi on the snowy slopes of a mountain in Bhutan in 1971. Further up the hill, at Taktsang temple, Michael had proposed to her

The future Nobel laureate riding a mule up a mountain in Bhutan, 1971

Aung San Suu Kyi’s mother, Daw Khin Kyi, meets her grandson, Alexander, for the first time on a family visit to Rangoon. Michael Aris stands at the back. 1974

A family picnic in Grantown-on-Spey. Aung San Suu Kyi with her husband (with the beard) and two sons Alexander and Kim. The woman in the back wearing the headscarf is Mathané Fend, a famous pre-war singer who was Aung San Suu Kyi’s most trusted friend and confidante, her ‘emergency aunt’

1970/1980 on the lawn of her father-in-law’s house in Grantown-on-Spey, Scotland, Aung San Suu Kyi plays with her two sons, Alexander (in the braces) and Kim

Aung San Suu Kyi’s husband, Michael Aris, an academic and specialist in Tibetan and Himalayan Studies, in his study at St John’s College, Oxford
From 1973 to 1988, Aung San Suu Kyi devoted her time and energy to motherhood in Oxford where her husband was an academic

Having a barbecue on a family holiday to the Norfolk Broads in the early 1980s

Her husband-to-be, Michael Aris, riding a yak in Bhutan, where he was a tutor to the royal family, 1971