Open Letter to Chua Soi Lek

by Kee Thuan Chye

You are a highly educated person and one with the ability to think. As such, you are probably aware that the welfare of this nation rests on more than just the MCA winning its share of seats at the next general election and remaining in the coalition that holds the power to decide the fate of Malaysia. You are probably aware that the way forward for Malaysia is renouncing the way of the Barisan Nasional, led by Umno, falling back on an outdated decades-old formula. And that if you and the MCA continue to collude with the other parties in BN to retain power, you are subscribing to practices that could lead the nation to racial rifts and economic ruin. Would you not agree with me that at this point in our history, as we stand at this crucial crossroads deciding which is the best path to take, national politics should no longer be race-based? If you do agree, what then is the rationale for the MCA to continue to exist as an ethnocentric party? What is the rationale for you and your party members to stick with Umno which avowedly fights for the Malays and the MIC which avowedly fights for the Indians? How long more do you see this ethnocentric equation taking hold of the lives of Malaysians, causing strife from time to time when disputes arise over who should get what and how much? We’ve had 53 years of that; isn’t it enough? Which is more important for you and your MCA colleagues: To stay on in BN in order to reap the rewards of being in government positions, or to do something that will ensure the honor and integrity of your party and of yourselves? I cannot tell you what that thing is which you could do to gain rectitude. You have to find it yourself. But as you search for an answer, perhaps you would like to reflect on how strong the MCA’s position really is within the BN coalition for the party to achieve its aims. Are you, for instance, contributing to inter-racial understanding and harmony? How could that be when you have to speak up against any threat to the position of the Chinese? How could that be when Umno must speak up against any perceived threat against the Malays? It’s a game full of contradictions, isn’t it? You can’t have one and the other, can you? In fact, your attempts over the past several months to speak up for the Chinese – indeed, for the country as a whole – clearly illustrate this. Last August, after the Malaysian Chinese Economic Congress, when you called on the Government to gradually remove the 30 per cent Bumiputra equity in all sectors of the economy, you were immediately jumped upon by Umno deputy president Muhyiddin Yassin. He even warned you about May 13. A few days later, in your interview with a Malay-language newspaper, you had to soften what you had said, clearly showing your vulnerability. Even Umno vice-president Hishammuddin Hussein told you to “stick to the struggles of BN”. What are they? Do you know? You were even a target of criticism at the Umno general assembly last October. A delegate slammed you for saying that the social contract should not be discussed openly. Then at the BN convention last month, you called for a ban on the use of the term “Ketuanan Melayu”, and you told Umno it should not approve government policies during its supreme council meetings. But straight away, Hishammuddin said you had upset many BN leaders, including those in the MCA. This boggles the mind. What you said was absolutely right – how could Umno take it upon itself to decide on government policies when it is only one of the component parties of BN? Does the MCA have no say? So how could MCA leaders be upset by what you said? Have they become Umnofied themselves? Have they become slaves of their masters? Or, as former Perak menteri besar Nizar Jamaluddin said, “running dogs”? If so, what dignity is left in them? And in you, if you continue to serve the MCA within the BN fold? Isn’t it obvious, too, that what you say doesn’t count for “doodley-squat”, as the American novelist Kurt Vonnegut would call it? To be brutally honest, what good is your speaking up when you are still within the same cabal and your partners not only disagree with you, they don’t respect what you say? As you have probably been informed, people outside don’t give much credence to your speaking up, anyway. They think it’s just a sandiwara act to merely give the impression that you are standing up for what is right. But it’s just an act. I admit that going by the issues you have been bringing up recently, you are highlighting the fact that things are not being done right, and that your political partners should be held accountable. I might even hazard that you are at least concerned. What I fail to see, though, is your commitment. For instance, at the MCA general assembly last October, Umno president Najib Razak told your party right within your own premises to be less communal and less demanding. Did you have an answer to that? Did you tell him in return to ensure that Umno would be less communal too? Did you tell him that the MCA was not being more demanding, that it was merely asking for what is guaranteed all Malaysians? You see, I believe you know what is right for the country, but you are not willing to go all the way to ensuring that what is right prevails. If you were, you would not continue with the current regime. You would press for reform. Surely, you would not disagree with me if I said the judiciary needs to be independent, that it needs to regain the trust of the people? The same with the police, the mainstream media and the civil service? Surely, you would not disagree with me if I said our education system needs to be totally revamped to institute quality and regard for merit? Surely, you would not disagree with me if I said that the way we award government projects needs to be transparent to eliminate cronyism? Or is that too tough a call after your appointment as Penang Port Commission chairman, a move that raised many eyebrows? Above all, surely you would not disagree with me if I said we need a government that is clean; tells the truth; follows the rule of law; uses public funds for the people’s sake rather than for its own; and upholds the country’s institutions rather than abuses them for its own advantage? Do we have such a government today? If we did, you would not have said what you said last Dec 5 – when you called for each BN component party to have an equal voice and to share power “genuinely”; when you said BN had to change to be inclusive, multi-racial and to put the people first. I know how to read between the lines, Soi Lek, and what you said that time said a lot about the coalition your party is part of. Do you think it is capable of responding to your calls for change? Right now, looking just at the Cabinet line-up, we can see what a far cry it is from the days of Tunku Abdul Rahman. Will we ever see an inclusive government that has non-Malay ministers for the portfolios of Finance, Trade and Industry, or Defence? That no longer looks at skin color but at ability, integrity and character? I think you might better serve the people by taking the first step that leads away from race-based politics. If you choose to do that, you will be blazing a trail. And that could bring honor not only to you but your party as well. Unless, of course, you’re a politician first and a public servant last. Then all I’ve been saying here is worth doodley-squat. Sincerely, Chye Source: http://www.malaysiandigest.com/opinion/15106-open-letter-to-chua-soi-lek.html

提升大马的中文水准

（此文以下是一个作者的评论）

“狮子舞”和“舞狮”两个词在中国都通用，然而在大马却大多数人只懂得“舞狮”。大马人从小就看舞狮，听到“舞狮”乃耳熟能详，那为何舍熟悉而取陌生的词汇？不过我赞成用刮胡增加同义字词让学生学习新东西，这值得推动。

中国词汇是生动的，“舞狮”是动词也是名词。把“舞狮”解释为一只舞动的狮，它就是名词。例如“我们去看舞狮”（名词）；而“我们去看他们舞狮”（动词）。不过我们不应跟英文“Lion dance”作比较而指“舞狮”与它格格不入。再者“Lion dance”是正确国际英文用词，而不是大马式英文用词。

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

刘佩佩‧採纳实用性词汇

2011-01-06 19:13

笔者质疑马来西亚华语规范理事会副主席杨欣儒指明一年级新课本採用的“狮子舞”与“舞狮”皆是同一词。笔者翻查了《最新汉语大辞典》对该词的解释后，还是不能確定“此狮是彼狮”，再经过网络搜查，笔者確定杨君的话是毫无疑义的。

笔者在近几年也曾为几家出版社编写小学作业本，低年级的孩子所认识词匯不多，编辑对词汇运用可是不易拿捏。笔者认为教育部所委託的出版社，在一年级

的作业本中收录了“狮子舞”而非“舞狮”这个做法並不完全不適合。在马来西亚式的英语教学中“lion dance”似乎就是“狮子舞”直译而来的用词，所以这两者关係为之密切，倒是“舞狮”这个词与它格格不入。

另，低年级孩子在思维上属於直线式思考，在教学上就字面解释对他们会是最理想的方法。因此“狮 子舞”的“舞”所指的就是“舞蹈”，与“狮子”合成后，教师只要就字面上的解释，孩子就能容易理解。反之，“舞狮”中的“舞”却產生了词性变化，从原本的 名词转化成了“舞动”、“挥舞”的动词之用。对於这样复杂的词性歷程，教师可能真的没有办法对思路不成熟的孩子一一说清。

笔者认为，词汇的普遍性及实用性也是非常重要的，出版社所採用的词汇也应该依此基准。词汇是没 有生命的，它可能会隨著时代的改变而萍踪浪跡，所以不时淘汰也是我们难以劝阻的。笔者委劝出版社在课本或作业本中注入新词之际，也不要忘了在该词后附加惯 用词，如：狮子舞（又称“舞狮”）或舞狮（又称“狮子舞”）。除了能平缓出版社及家长两种不同思维的声音，对孩子而言多学一词並没有大害。

从这事情看来，肩负最大责任的並不是家长或孩子，笔者认为出版社才是真正能提昇孩子中文素质的 推手，因此在教材设计上除了求变也要求质。多样化的作业本能培养孩子不同层面的思考，这是一件好事，所以作业本上有不一样的突破是件创意之事，不过千万別 忘了不完善的设计將是孩子前进的绊脚石。

星洲日报／言路‧作者：刘佩佩‧2011.01.06

来源：http://opinions.sinchew-i.com/node/17730

我们不应认为初入小学的学生思路不成熟，认为很难向他们讲解新词汇。在那些单语的国家，譬如英国小孩讲得标准的英语，而中国（城市）小孩也讲得标准汉语。至于大马华裔小孩在多语的环境里则华语的水准欠佳。小学生吸收的能力是很强的，不过，只要老师以标准的华语教学。

自从我国有了卫星电视后，看中港台的电视节目，我真的感到大马人的中文水准比它们低得多，且也发觉我们的中文节目用词多么乏味。甚至连跟本国的英语节目比也输一把！

让我讲讲收听大马中英语电台播报股市行情的感受。华语电台播报员通常很单调地从头到尾用“跌”和“长”播报，再不然就是“上”和“下”。而英语电台播报员则一石二鸟地表现它文字的优秀，却很自然，很顺畅，不仓促，不公式化，没造作，令人听了蛮舒服的。

“上升股”变化使用“upped, rose, increased, soared, climbed, gained, added, plus, shot, grew, got, swelled, ….”，而“下降股”用“downed, sank, decreased, slipped, dropped, lost, subtracted, minus, shed, shrunk, ....”。我想，五千年优秀的中文，为何不用丰富形容词呢？中文岂不是有“上升股”的“上、升、起、增、扬、攀、得、加、飙、长、胀 ….”，而“下降股的“下、沉、落、降、滑、跌、失、减、削、损、少、缩 ….”吗？

现在全球很多非华人学习中文，如果我们这些大马华裔只满足于力求简单沟通用语就算的话，那么迟早我们都被挤出中国市场分一杯羹的竞争地位，因为许多老外比我们更精通中文。即使是全球华裔选美，要求也很高，不像十年前选貌而已，现在小姐们也必须有才智，那掌握一定的中文水准者才胜面提高。

学中文不要自我矮化，即使是沟通，倘若能使用丰富的词汇来形容岂不是很生动吗？我们经常听到说我国华裔中文水准持续滑落，当报道去年的UPSR评估试作文和理解滑落时，真的有虞。我国必须提升中文老师的水准，各华裔人士也不妨从中港台的电视节目多学习，以自我提升。

联邦与州共协商全民蒙福

2011新年伊始，我国政治以混乱开头，尤其在雪州因委任州秘书事件闹得沸腾腾的，让国人叹为观止！

雪州政府因不接受联邦政府委任给前者的秘书库斯林，正策划修改州宪法，以归还委任州秘书，州法律顾问和财政的权力给大臣和苏丹。

我认为修改州宪法只能短暂满足一州的政权利益，对整个国家的发展却弊病丛生。民联致力于缔造两线制的政治制度，这是迈向一个成熟的全民共享国家利益的结果。达成这种结果需要长期的斗争，若非有能耐则会半途而废的！所以取回州政权乃走回头路，因为若每个州都要自己作主，太多“主”必导致很多东西都不能完善推动，因为不能服从中央政策。

民联雄心勃勃，希望在来届大选执政中央。致使州宪法赋予州政权以摆脱联邦管制，如果两者都由同一个阵线执政当然没问题，若不，肯定是长远没完没了互相对峙的。民联目前执政四个州，但难保日后它们不会易权的。倘若有一天民联执政中央，基于被州宪法局限，它会否大方地恩待国阵的州属？

要成为一个先进国，政治人物必须先变得成熟，要有远见，为长远斗争。无论是国会或州议员，人民选他们上去，乃是希望他们能够以民为本，而不是以己为本，或以当为本。但我国的情况是，当大选时，候选人当选民为王，然而一旦中选了却自己变成王！中央政府必须尊重人民的选择，即使那些选区的代议士是属于在野党的，也应该一概公平地分配国家的资源祝福人民，发展各区就是发展整个国家。

你看看那些欧美澳洲等的先进国，在国会和州议会里，代议士投票是按着理智作的，这才是以民为本。我们离开2020年成为先进国目标只有9年时间，但以我国目前乱糟糟的国会和州会的情况，到时我们会神迹般突然变得成熟吗？

解决这件委任州秘书的纠纷其实不必劳师动众需要修改州宪法的，我认为首相能够扮演一个重要的角色。联邦政府只需跟雪州政府协商，视雪州人民的利益为大前提，委任一个能够跟雪州大臣合作的州秘书就是最佳做法。

In Najib’s silence, priests forced to clarify ‘blunder’

By Clara Chooi

January 05, 2011

Pakiam hosted the event at the carpark of his residence. — file pic

KUALA LUMPUR, Jan 5 — The Najib administration’s latest “Christmas blunder” has religious leaders in a mad scramble to explain to Christians that the church had not bowed to a directive to remove religious symbols during a Christmas party a fortnight ago.

The Malaysian Insider understands that over the weekend, Catholic priests were forced to address the issue as it had caused an uproar among parishioners who questioned why the church had adhered to such “overzealous” requests, allegedly made by the prime minister’s aide.

But the leaders also agreed that despite their attempts at defusing the situation, the “damage has already been done”, resulting in a rekindling of the same tension that rose during last year’s “Allah” controversy.

Father Simon Labrooy, who spoke on the issue during two separate masses, predicted that the Christian community’s anger was not likely to dissipate until the premier publicly clarified his stand.

He agreed that the administration, now mulling snap polls, would encounter an “angry” Christian electorate if it failed to address the issue.

“Najib should say something about it... he should make a statement to clarify whether the instruction had indeed been given and whether he plans to take action against the person who stirred up this whole thing.

“If the instruction truly did not come from him, then he should take action because this whole thing has created disharmony and animosity among Christian followers,” he told The Malaysian Insider when contacted.

The prime minister has been silent on the issue.

Since the issue erupted last week, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak has not issued a formal statement on the matter.

It was reported that an official from the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) confirmed that the premier had been “completely unaware” of the directive issued by his aide.

The official was also quoted as saying that the PMO would not respond to the incident as it did not want to prolong the issue but gave its assurance that the aide, a non-Muslim, had been advised against repeating such a directive without going through senior officials.

The aide had reportedly listed out several conditions on Catholic Archbishop Murphy Pakiam to facilitate Najib’s attendance at the Christmas tea-party held at his home, including the removal of religious symbols like crucifixes from the venue.

Questions later arose over whether the archbishop had complied with the requests, resulting in rising anger among the Christian community towards both Najib and Pakiam himself.

Labrooy said he was forced to clear the air over the issue by explaining during his sermons that the archbishop had not “compromised God for man’s need” and had not complied with the requests.

A parishioner told The Malaysian Insider that the Catholic priest had repeated his words twice, first during New Year’s and again the following Sunday, that Pakiam had not submitted to the directive despite speculations suggesting otherwise.

“Father Simon said that he was aware of the many speculations and how people were upset that the archbishop had complied with the requests.

“He told us that the Catholic church had stood its ground and refused to comply. But it makes little difference. Najib should apologise and fire his aide,” said the church-goer.

Labrooy confirmed this with The Malaysian Insider, adding that he had wanted to silence conjecture on the issue.

“There seems to be suggestions that Pakiam had relented to the requests and this is putting him in a bad light. It is not right.

“However, it is true... the damage has already been done. Many people are very angry that the directive was issued in the first place and this does will not look good on the government,” he said.

Father Michael Chua agreed with Labrooy and stressed that Pakiam had not needed to comply with the directive as the function had been held at the carpark of his home where there were no Christian symbols.

“I was there and there had been no changes to the itinerary for the function. It is just that the prime minister came at the time when prayers had already been said.

“Also, it was at the carpark, so there was no removal of crosses or anything. The reports in the media suggested that we had to remove them but it is not true,” he said.

Chua is in charge of the Ministry of Ecumenical and Inter-religious Affairs of the Kuala Lumpur Archdiocese, and is a part of the Christian Federation of Malaysia which organised the function on Christmas day last year.

He admitted that since the media exposed the issue last week, religious leaders have been finding it difficult to explain the matter to their followers.

“We have been having problems explaining to the congregation. The most important thing is the context of the matter — it was a carpark and there were no crosses there.

“We have been having it here for the past few years and this was just the first time that the prime minister attended. There was no deliberate removal [of Christian symbols] and we did not take seriously any of the requests,” he said.

Chua stressed that the function had gone on according to plan and it had also seen the attendance of political leaders from the opposition.

“But many people have been angered by this. First, they directed their anger to the government and then to the archbishop and this is not fair. We have been trying to explain it but many do not want to hear the explanation,” he said.

Chua would not say if he felt the prime minister should apologise on behalf of his aide but insisted that the matter not be taken out of context.

“Also, it was a CFM affair, hosted by the archbishop. CFM will meet soon and perhaps then we will discuss it. If we have an issue with it, we will take it up with the authorities,” he said.

The Malaysian Insider reported last week that the prime minister’s aide had issued a list of directives to Pakiam to facilitate Najib’s attendance at the Christmas tea-party on Christmas day.

Among the directives given were: to remove any overt Christian symbol, such as crucifixes, from the party premises and that carollers not belt out hymns and not to quote from Scriptures or say any Christian prayers during the visit.

At the time of publication, Pakiam could not be reached for comment.

Pakiam reportedly said this week that the directive was probably issued by an “overzealous officer”. He also refused to wade deeper into the matter by saying, “Let us not waste time on things like these.”

Source: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/in-najibs-silence-priests-forced-to-clarify-blunder/