Monday, April 30, 2012

Eve of Bersih 3.0,净选盟3.0前夕

It was April 27, 2012, the eve of Bersih 3.0 Rally which was to be held on April 28 at Dataran Merdeka, Kuala Lumpur. Me, together with Wesley Ng, Clifford Leong were putting up at Wisma Methodist.
2012年4月27日,于4月28日将在吉隆坡独立广场举行的净选盟3.0前夕。我与蓝传道及梁弟兄在卫理大厦住宿。

Eating beef noodle at Song Kee. Here bumped against former Subang Jaya Assemblyman 
Lee Hwa Beng who is from MCA. He is participating in the Rally too
在颂记吃牛肉面巧遇前梳邦市州议员李华民,他是属马华的。他也参与集会。


Kuala Lumpur City Hall obtained a court order to bar the Bersih 3.0 Rally. 
Police has cordoned off Dataran Merdeka by putting up barricades with barbed wires.
About 11.30 pm there was a crowd of 3,000 people shouting for support from vehicles that passed by
吉隆坡市政厅获得法庭禁令禁止净选盟3.0的集会。
警方已经用塑胶防墙及刺网封锁独立广场。
于11时30分,有3千人向路过的车辆呼喊给予支持

Just passed midnight, here at Jalan Sultan, a group of people were canvassing for support.
In fact, the Anti Lynas Group was also holding Hijau 3.0 in conjunction with Bersih 3.0.
Lynas is a rare-earth investment plant
刚过午夜,这里在苏丹街,一群人在游说支持。
其实,反莱纳斯组织也配合净选盟3.0集会举行绿色3.0集会。
莱纳斯是一间稀土投资厂





Wednesday, April 25, 2012

Electoral roll: What else is the EC hiding?


By Ong Kian Ming | Apr 24, 2012
Malaysiakini
COMMENT In two previous articles, I highlighted 10 problems associated with the electoral roll as part of the preliminary findings of the Malaysian Electoral Roll Analysis Project (Merap), a research effort to identify and understand problems with the existing electoral roll.
In this article, I want to highlight further problems involving far more voters than those identified in the previous two articles. [see Part 1 I Part 2]
Firstly, approximately 3.1 million voters were identified as potential non-resident voters by the National Registration Department (NRD) in 2002. This data was given by NRD to the Election Commission (EC) but no action was taken by the EC to assess the magnitude of this problem and to identify ways to rectify it.
Secondly, using the EC’s own data which lists the nationality or ‘bangsa’ of each voter, approximately 65,000 voters were identified as having foreign nationalities. Of these, close to 90 percent or 58,000 had IC numbers which indicate that they were born in Malaysia.
In addition, approximately 49,000 of these voters came from one state alone – Sabah – which has a well-documented history where ICs were given to illegal immigrants in order to allow them to register as voters.

Thirdly, by comparing the electoral rolls in Quarter 4 (Q4) 2010 and Quarter 3 (Q3) 2011 and by cross-checking them with the quarterly updates in the first to third quarters in 2011, it was found that there were 106,743 voters removed from the electoral roll without public display and another 6,762 voters added to the electoral roll during the same period, also without public display.
Fourthly, important information provided by the EC in the Q1 to Q3 2011 quarterly roll updates such as the reasons for the deletion of names from the electoral roll were omitted in the Q4 2011 quarterly roll. This omission immediately raises concerns about the possibility of concealing important information by the EC in order to prevent detailed analysis from being conducted.
Adding the figures which I found from the initial preliminary analysis to the figures highlighted in this article, I have identified approximately 3.4 million cases where further investigation needs to be conducted by the EC in order to verify the legitimacy of these voters because this is the pool of problematic registrations that currently tars the integrity and accuracy of the electoral roll.
1) 3.1 million potential non-resident voters
In 2002, the information systems section of the NRD (Bahagian Perkhidmatan Sistem Maklumat) conducted an exercise called Projek SPR where the IC addresses of all voters in Peninsular Malaysia were compared with the voting constituencies of these voters.
The main purpose behind this project was to identify all the voters whose IC addresses did not correspond to the constituencies that these voters were registered in.
For example, if a person’s IC address was somewhere in Bukit Gasing in Petaling Jaya, which is located in the PJ Selatan parliamentary constituency but if this person is registered as a voter in the Shah Alam parliamentary constituency, then this voter would be classified as a potential non-resident voter (pengundi luar kawasan).
A total of 3,082,482 million voters were identified as potential non-resident voters, meaning that their IC addresses did not correspond with their voting constituencies. This constituted 37 perrcent of the then 8.3 million voters in Peninsular Malaysia in 2002.
Of course, not all of these 3.1 million voters are non-resident voters. For example, a person’s IC address may be that of his parent’s home in Bukit Gasing, but he may be currently residing in a house in Shah Alam and registered as a voter in that constituency.
Article 119 (1) of the Federal Constitution states that “Every citizen who (a) has attained the age of twenty-one years on the qualifying date; and (b) is resident in a constituency on such qualifying date or, if not so resident, is an absent voter, is entitled to vote in that constituency in any election to the House of Representatives or the Legislative Assembly…”
This means that only those who are residents in a particular constituency when they register as voters are qualified to vote in that particular constituency.
The presence of such a large number of voters whose IC addresses do not correspond with their voting constituencies clearly shows that the problem of non-resident voters is a serious one, even if only a small proportion of these 3.1 million voters were not residents in these constituencies at the time of their registration.
The possibility of these voters not being resident voters is further enhanced when one considers the lax standards required before 2002 in order to ‘qualify’ as a resident of a constituency. All someone needed to do prior to 2002 was to show some sort of proof that he was a resident in a particular area – an electricity or phone bill for example.
A number of politicians whom I interviewed on an informal basis told me that the requirement for this proof of residency was often waived. This meant that many strategic politicians could pad their respective constituencies with supporters, friends and family, even though they did not live in that constituency.
One manifestation of this voter padding exercise is the presence of houses with a large number of registered voters.
According to analysis done by Mimos (Malaysian Institute Of Microelectronic Systems), as instructed by the parliamentary select committee on Electoral Reform, 938 houses with between 51 and 100 registered voters each and 523 houses with more than 100 registered voters were identified in the most recent electoral roll.
If we include the 2,071 houses with between 21 and 50 registered voters each and the 3,949 houses with between 11 and 20 registered voters, there are approximately 260,000 voters who are registered in houses with 11 or more registered voters.
And this excludes localities with no house addresses (kampung or longhouses, for example). This is a legacy system left behind by the pre-2002 electoral roll where non-resident voters were registered in addresses that they did not live in.
Perhaps the most worrying aspect of this NRD analysis is that the EC, as far as we know, made no effort to identify the magnitude of this problem – how many of these voters were actually non-resident voters – nor did the EC seem to take any measure in order to rectify this problem in the pre-2002 electoral roll.
2) 65,000 ‘foreigners’ in the electoral roll
The EC collects comprehensive data on the ‘bangsa’ or nationality of individual voters. This data is not distributed to political parties, not officially at least, but contains valuable information that can be used to identify problematic registrations.
Table 2 below lists the nationalities which I classified as ‘foreign’. I then extracted all the voters from the Q3 2011 electoral roll which were categorised as belonging to either one of these nationalities or ‘bangsa’.
I identified approximately 65,000 ‘foreigners’ on the Q3 2011 electoral roll using this list of ‘foreign’ nationalities. Out of these 65,000 voters, I found that approximately 58,000 or 90 percent had IC numbers which indicated that they were born in one of the states in Malaysia.
This was quite unexpected, since I presumed that most of these foreigners would have IC numbers which would indicate that they were born outside Malaysia rather than in Malaysia.
After all, if we met 10 random ‘Italians’ who are Malaysian citizens, wouldn’t we expect most of them to be born outside Malaysia and subsequently became naturalised Malaysian citizens? Instead, we find the opposite phenomenon, whereby a majority of these foreign voters are born in Malaysia instead.
More worrying is the fact that approximately 49,000 voters out of 65,000 are foreign voters, or 75 percent, and they are in Sabah, where cases of illegal immigrants being given Malaysian ICs has been well-documented.
Out of these 49,000 foreigners in Sabah, almost 48,000 or 97 percent are ‘Malaysian born’.
Table 3 below shows the distribution of these 65,000 foreigners by state and the number and percentage of these voters with IC numbers that indicate that they were born in Malaysia.
Armed with this kind of information, the EC can easily do an audit of these foreign voters in Sabah, perhaps in cooperation with NRD, to verify if their identities are indeed legitimate and that they are resident voters. As it is, the presence of these voters and the high percentage of them who are Malaysian-born certainly raise serious concerns.
3) Mysterious deletions and additions
In every quarterly update of the electoral roll (Rang Daftar Pemilih Tambahan, or RDPT), the names of those who are newly registered voters, those who have changed their addresses and those whose names have been deleted from the electoral roll in a constituency have to be publicly displayed in a location within that constituency, usually in a government building.
The number of voters who have been added and deleted from the gazetted electoral roll before and after this public display and after the possible objections to the inclusion and the exclusion of some names must add up.
For example, if the gazetted roll had 10,000 voters before the quarterly update, during which 1,000 voters were added and 500 voters were deleted, the gazetted roll after public display should contain 10,500 voters.
My team of researchers compared the number of voters in the Q4 2010 with the Q3 2011 electoral roll and cross checked the numbers with the Q1, Q2 and Q3 2011 electoral roll updates. What we found was that 106,743 voters in the Q4 2010 electoral roll no longer appeared in the Q3 2011 electoral roll and also did not appear in the Q1 to Q3 2011 electoral updates as deleted voters.
This means that they were deleted from the electoral roll without public display. In addition, we found that 6,762 new voters were found in the Q3 2011 electoral roll but these new voters did not appear in any of the quarterly updates in 2011, meaning that these voters were added without public display!
The presence of such a high number of cases of additions and deletions without public display raises doubts as to whether these voters were removed or added under suspicious circumstances. It also raises questions about the number of voters that were removed/added without public display in the quarters prior to 2011.
4) Information on deletion of voters missing
The data given by the EC to the political parties for the Q1 to Q3 2011 quarterly updates had detailed information with regard to the reasons as to why a voter was deleted from the electoral roll.
These reasons include: death, change of address, having joined the police or army, losing one’s citizenship, losing the status of being a postal voter and doubtful identities, just to name a few.
Tables 4 to 6 below show the number of voters added and deleted and the reasons for these deletions for the Q1 to Q3 2011 electoral roll updates.
But all of a sudden, the reasons as to why voters were deleted from the electoral roll were no longer included in the Q4 2011 electoral roll update.
What is more shocking is no voter was listed as being deleted as a result of death. The only data given is the number of voters who were deleted from the Q4 2011 electoral roll as a result of a change in address.
The summary of the Q4 2011 electoral roll update are given in Table 7 below.
One cannot help but wonder if the EC wanted to exclude the voters who had been deleted from the electoral roll because of the intense scrutiny given to the earlier Q1 to Q3 2011 electoral roll updates.
For example, the 42,051 voters whose identity was questionable because of their details could not be verified in the NRD database was revealed in the Q3 2011 update (highlighted in yellow in Table 6 above).
In addition, the sudden increase in the number of deletions in Q3 2011 because of voters entering into the army/police force (highlighted in blue in Table 6 above) also may have drawn unwanted attention as to where these new army/police postal voters were being transferred to.
In-depth audit of electoral roll needed
The data shown in this article raises many concerns about the EC’s desire to ensure a clean, accurate and transparent electoral roll.
The EC has clearly failed to act on important data with regard to problematic registrations that were handed over to it by NRD back in 2002 – the 3.1 million potential non-resident voters – and also data that it collected on its own – the 65,000 foreign voters in the Q3 2011 electoral roll.
In addition, the EC seems to have concealed important data from public knowledge, such as the nationality or ‘bangsa’ of the individual voters, deleting and adding voters without public display and excluding the reasons why voters were deleted from the electoral roll.
The EC should conduct an in-depth audit of the electoral roll, including further investigations into selected samples, and then consider various solutions to these problems, including automatic registration of all voters according to their IC addresses.
With the presence of these problems in the electoral roll, it is clear that the EC chairman’s claim that Malaysia has world’s cleanest electoral roll is one that is not based on reality or facts.
__
ONG KIAN MING holds a PhD in Political Science from Duke University. He is a lecturer and political analyst at UCSI University. He is also the project director of the Malaysian Electoral Roll Analysis Project (MERAP) and can be reached at im.ok.man@gmail.com

Tuesday, April 24, 2012

428的变卦


照片来源:http://aliran.com/
內政部长希山慕丁允许“428静坐大集会”举行,这和处理去年709大集会的手法相比,已经有了进步。
不过,国家要迈入集会自由的民主阶段,还有许多环节需要改善和学习。
净选盟3.0有权选择集会的地点,但是警方或广场管理机构也有权根据合理理由拒绝举办方的申请。
净选盟是在4月4日宣佈428大集会,后来绿色盛会加入,匯聚黄绿力量。净选盟事前查询了独立广场当天没有任何节目,但是否与吉隆坡市政局有良好的沟通?
在净选盟决定集会日期后,超过两个星期三方是没有接触的,警方一直回避,而吉隆坡市政局迟至4月19日才回函净选盟,以非国家层次活动为理由,拒绝净选盟的申请。
希山慕丁星期日建议將静坐大集会的地点,从独立广场改到武吉加里尔国家体育场或默迪卡体育场,净选盟联合主席安美嘉和沙末赛益则坚持在独立广场。
民主的其中一项原则是沟通;不沟通、缺乏互信,徒增火药味,大家都失去了下台阶,最终让表达民意的集会变成抗爭、对抗。
其实,在国会通过和平集会法后,和平集会的举办方式已经“有法可循”,避免警方过去以社会秩序为理由一味禁止的做法。但是有了比较宽鬆的法律,未必就能够杜绝矛盾,最重要的是官员有没有把集会视为民主的一部份。
即使有关集会出现政治色彩,也不应该以各种理由阻挠,让人们认为当局缺乏诚意,毕竟集会是人民的权利。
举个例子,人民之声协调员陈泓凯日前在理大校园內张贴“净选盟3.0大集会”海报,遭保安人员扣留,交给警方调查。校方无须惊动警方,只需向陈泓凯及社会人士说明,进入校园张贴海报必须先向校方申请的条例,就不会受到质疑。
在首相誓言打造“马来西亚史上最透明的政府”的承诺上,也有一些地方需要改进,比如国会在4月19日漏夜通过2012年选举罪行修正案,否决了候选人派员监督投票者身份的权利。大家之前都不知道有这样的修改,而且漏夜通过法案,不算透明,也“鼓励”更多人参与集会。
在许多民主国家,集会已经成为週末的活动,各团体会提出各种诉求,如果你认为某个诉求符合你的立场,你可以选择支持。
若诉求变成社会的呼声,就能够聚集人潮,形成社会运动,政府就必须给予回应和满足诉求,否则民眾可用选票来否决政府。
国家现阶段的改革非前瞻性,官员被迫做出改变,因此常有阳奉阴违的现象,民主化还有很长的征途。
(星洲日报/一心不乱‧作者:林瑞源‧《星洲日报》副总编辑)

Bersih says will call off rally if PM guarantees polls reforms


By Shannon Teoh
April 24, 2012
KUALA LUMPUR, April 24 — Bersih said today it will consider calling off Saturday’s rally if Datuk Seri Najib Razak can guarantee the electoral reform movement’s demands are met before the next federal polls.
But its co-chairman Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan (picture)told a press conference “it’s a bit late now” as “the guarantee would’ve come by now if there is any sincerity.”
“We’re rushing, because they’re rushing,” the former Bar Council president said, referring to persistent speculation that the prime minister will call elections by June.
“If they promise to delay the elections and implement the changes that we want, and must have, to have a clean 13th general election, there is no issue and there is no rush. Postponing it (the elections) is not enough. There has to be a guarantee that the demands of Bersih will be met before 13th GE. 
“I’d like to hear that guarantee actually. If there is a guarantee by the government, we will certainly reconsider, yes,” she said.
Bersih announced today it will proceed with its sit-in on Saturday after the 84 civil societies that make up the coalition last night “decided unanimously to proceed with Dataran Merdeka” despite threats of action by Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL).
City police have also rejected Bersih’s request for help with traffic control, citing security reasons.
The movement said early this month a third rally was necessary to warn Malaysians that the country is about to face its “dirtiest” polls to date.
The coalition said it was disappointed by the recently concluded Parliamentary Select Committee on electoral reforms, saying that despite Putrajaya’s repeated assurances and promises, the panel had failed to introduce meaningful reforms to the election system.
The bipartisan panel was formed following the July 9, 2011 rally for free and fair elections which saw tens of thousands flood into the streets of the capital.
Najib’s administration was widely condemned for a clampdown on the demonstration where police fired water cannons and tear gas into crowds in chaotic scenes which resulted in over 1,500 arrested, scores injured and the death of an ex-soldier.
Bersih’s eight demands are a clean electoral roll, reforming postal voting, the use of indelible ink, a minimum campaign period of 21 days, free access to the media, strengthening public institutions, stopping corruption and ending dirty politics.
Ambiga said today that Bersih also wants the Election Commission (EC) to resign and international observers to be present at the next polls.

Saturday, April 21, 2012

大选时机(跟进版)


    
    “大选快来了!”这样的声音,已经在一年多前开始听到至今仍不停。喊“狼来了!狼来了!”,总有一天狼一定来的呀!马来西亚的政治,过去所有的大选都是靠首相一人“感觉良好”来举行。

        “感觉良好”就等于是“时机良好” ,你感到现在一切对你有利就是良好。孙子指出:“故善战者,求之于势。”这里的势,即是指时机(有利于我方的态势)。时机只有在悟性及懂得谋略者,才能发挥力量。

        其实首相纳吉真的错过了一个良好时机,就是2010114日国阵一口气夺下沙巴巴都沙比(Batu Sapi)国会议席和吉兰丹州加腊士(Galas)州议席双补选胜利的时候。那时民联也正发生国会议员退出联盟的内斗,还有伊斯兰党有党员想拉拢该党与巫统合作而产生的分裂窘境。如果首相纳吉当时大选,选举成绩极可能跟2008年大选大同小异,国阵即使以简单多数议席执政,但总比失政权更好,起码纳吉可以有5年时间巩固政权。

        西人谚语说:“机会是不会敲两次门的。”那是指好机会,若没有及时把握的话,那未来就不晓得会面对多大的挑战。虽说首相仍然还有一年时间,但分析每个月份情况,他并没多少选择的。

        5月份呢?纳吉打算趁着在51日工人节宣布最低薪金消息,相信是要赢取低收入人士的支持。低收入人士是基层人士,目前少于月薪500令吉的选民并不太多。我说选民,乃因为穷困人士都在偏远地区,很多还没注册为选民。最低薪是多少?800令吉?1100令吉?但政府的最低薪金数目将对经济影响深远。许多商家已经发出反对设立最低薪金政策,因为最后商家的额外成本将转嫁于消费人身上。纳吉在宣布了最低薪金也可能不贸贸然放得太高。

        消息宣布不久解散国会的可能性是存在的,但看来这项所获得的支持票很不肯定,因为目前通货膨胀严重已经抵消了薪金涨幅!问题是国会下议院急速通过对国阵有利的九项法案,必须在上议院通过,否则就枉费心机。上议院是指412日至510日进行。若在此日期后马上解散国会,5月杪大选是可能的。

        不过令纳吉不敢随意在5月份大选的考量之一,乃砂拉越州宣称要在5月份过后才准备好应对大选。砂州是国阵定存州,纳吉不可忽视它的要求。加上53031日是沙巴州土著的丰收节,及612日是砂州土著的达雅节。即说应该是不适宜这段时期内让他们忙于进行群众大会的事务。彭博社报道说获得四个政府官员消息大选会在63日学校假期举行。行动党的刘振东分析,他不认为大选会在63日,因为在西马工作的砂沙子民回乡庆祝佳节,他们会投反对票的。此言有理,在西马工作的砂沙子民,多数都获得更多政治资讯的。

        所以,在6月份学校假期期间,即使在610日大选也不利国阵,因为土著既然已经回乡庆祝佳节,就索性留下投票后才回西马。传统上,学校假期是大选日期好选择,因为老师是好帮手。我最近问一个曾经协助的老师,她说协助者都是自愿的,并不是强制性的。同时净选盟说为了公平,也要求协助员不要来自公务员。

         6月份都是不少人看重是大选的热门日子,要不就在学校假期后,即610日之后。不过行动党的林吉祥声称在前首相马哈迪最近批评巫统没人才后,大选或许不会在6月,会再推迟。
        6月份不大选的话就要再等几个月了。原因是7月份是穆斯林的斋戒月,8月份是开斋节,9月份开斋节通常庆祝一个月。

        必须要提的是,若428日净选盟3.0 和绿色3.0 在吉隆坡独立广场静坐获得踊跃的支持,在6月份大选就不大可能。需要推迟至9月份及之后。这段时期大选对国阵有点冒险,因为一旦到时它有丑闻出现的话,它真的没时间灭火了!

        现在有人认为9月份是最可能。若要推迟,应该在这期间提呈2013年财政预算案,那么,10月份就举行大选。推到明年吗?更冒险。1月份学校开学,家长因着通胀而气氛。2月份华人新年,纳吉敢仿效前首相阿都拉在华人新年期间解散国会吗?若不,国会到了4月份将自动解散。

        大马的大选日子是秘密,什么惊讶的情况都会出现。猜测归猜测,无论猜中猜错都无所谓,总之,大选已近了!

Thursday, April 19, 2012

新瓶旧酒抑或新酒旧瓶?

马来西亚国会于417日通过废除内部安全法令(ISA),但却也提前几天通过新法令“2012年国家安全罪行法案(特别措施)取代。那些质疑者皆形容新法令或许是“新瓶旧酒”。而无论纸媒或网媒在撰写新闻时也用相同的形容词。

“新瓶旧酒”用得贴切吗?首先让我讲述这形容词的背景来源。来源出自圣经,耶稣当时和犹太人的一个党派法利赛人士辩论,耶稣说:“没有人会把新酒装在旧皮袋里,如果这样,皮袋就会胀破,酒就漏出来,皮袋也损坏了。”

古代人,包括犹太人和中国人,兽皮是其中一种装液体的容器。新酒必须装在新皮袋里,不过酒天天在皮袋内发酵,皮袋渐渐就膨胀至极限,或变成脆弱,若再用来装新酒的话,就会被胀破。耶稣要传达的意思是新酒必须装在新皮袋里,他本人就是新酒(新思维),而法利赛人是旧皮袋(旧思维),除非法利赛人放弃他们的旧思维,改变成新思维,否则的话他们是不能容纳他的。

对比之下,法令的内容是酒,而它的名称是皮袋(包装),因为酒是主角,而名称是配角。即说,新法令的内容虽然是新的,但若还是使用残旧的包装的话,更美的名肯定该包装很快就被胀破。即说还是会受到人民的批评,久而久之就不堪一击。内安法令不是“很美丽”的包装名称吗?所谓“内部安全”,美其名也不过是被利用为政治打压的恶法吗?所以,把它废除是合时宜的。

现在使用皮袋的情况已经不普遍了,除了草原牧民和医疗用途外,各种物质瓶子取代了皮袋。批评者认为政府不会轻易放弃压制政敌法令的,新法令或许会维持内安法令的不利内容的,或许甚至比它更严厉的。

国家安全罪行法案允许警方无须根据正常的刑事程序或证据法令查案,可以没审判先扣留,至多28天。不过不但曾经被扣留的人士,律师公会以及许多非政府组织批评,不少普罗百姓也不赞成。他们质疑扣留28天释放后,不保障他们不会重新被扣留。有识之士都呼吁政府完全废除内安法令,不要任何类似的新法令取代,以证明政府的诚心。

那么,批评者的质疑,把政府这般的“改革”形容为“新瓶旧酒”,形容得并不正确。因为新瓶的确有能力装旧酒,而酒是好的。(也有人形容为“毒酒新瓶“,那还可以接受!)况且酒越陈(旧)越好。反而他们若用相反的形容词更贴切,即是“新酒旧瓶”。而我本人认为比“新酒旧瓶”更贴切的是“换汤不换药”。

Revoke ISA ban on Alkitab, Christians tell PM

UPDATED @ 04:53:01 PM 17-04-2012
April 17, 2012

File photo of a Christian going through his copy of the Alkitab.
KUALA LUMPUR, April 17 — The Christian Federation of Malaysia (CFM) today urged Datuk Seri Najib Razak to lift immediately the government’s outdated orders banning the import of the Alkitab to prove his global movement of moderate reforms.

The umbrella body, representing over 90 per cent of Christian groups in the country, reminded the prime minister of three outstanding orders dating back 20 years under the Internal Security Act (ISA), which is being replaced by a new security law currently the subject of hot debate in Parliament.

The first, signed in March 1982 under the Internal Security (Prohibition of Publications) (No. 4) Order 1982, outlaws the Indonesian version of the Alkitab published by the Lembaga Alkitab Indonesia and printed in Korea.

The other two orders ban the publication of a book titled “Kalam Hidup”, published by the Kalam Hidup (Kemah Injil Gereja Masehi Indonesia), and “Perjanjian Baru” (New Testament), published and printed by the Lembaga Alkitab Indonesia, in 1983.

“This order deems the Alkitab (the Bible in the Malay language) to be prejudicial to the national interest and security of the Federation and prohibits the printing, publication, sale, issue, circulation or possession of the publication with the condition that the prohibition ‘shall not apply to the possession or use in churches of such publication by persons professing the Christian religion, throughout Malaysia’.

“Pursuant to Clause 32 of the Bill, such orders will remain in force notwithstanding the repeal of the Internal Security Act 1960. This is wholly unacceptable,” Bishop Datuk Ng Moon Hing, who chairs CFM, said in a statement today.

He added that all three orders must be lifted to be in line with Najib’s raft of law reforms.

“As long as they remain part of the corpus of legislation in Malaysia, they represent an odious and obnoxious derogation from the freedom of religion in Malaysia,” Ng stressed.

The Federal Constitution, the country’s highest law, states that Islam is the religion of the federation but provides for Malaysia’s diverse ethnic and religious groups the freedom to profess their faiths.

While Christians make up only about 10 per cent of the country’s 28 million population, it forms the biggest religious group in East Malaysia, where bibles in the national language are widely used as a common denominator.

In recent years, the Christian and Muslim religious communities have been engaged in a tug-of-war over the word “Allah”, with the latter group arguing that its use should be exclusive to them on the grounds that Islam is monotheistic and the word “Allah” denotes the Muslim God.

Christians, however, have argued that “Allah” is an Arabic word that has been used by those of other religious beliefs, including the Jews, in reference to God in many other parts of the world, notably in Arab nations and Indonesia.

A 2009 High Court ruling in favour of the Catholic Church using the word to also refer to God has however been blocked pending an appeal by the Home Ministry for the past three years.

A number of conservative Muslim groups have also accused Christians of attempting to convert Malays, resulting in heightened tension between followers of the two religions.

Last month, an officially-sanctioned seminar focusing on the “threat of Christianisation” jointly-organised for religious teachers by the Johor Education Department and the Johor Mufti Department saw another flare up among Christians and Muslims.

Source: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/revoke-isa-ban-on-alkitab-christians-tell-pm/

Thursday, April 12, 2012

教会学校:国家资產

怡保一间教会女校的食堂人声鼎沸,学生纷纷挤在自己喜爱的档口前。食堂位於中小学校区中间衔接位置的死角,为中小学生共用。

这间学校的歷史可以追溯到1895年英国传教士建立的教育机构,虽然它自1959年才启用现在这个校名。2010年,它被评选为其中一间“展望学校”。

中学是在建於上世纪20年代的宏伟老旧建筑物內上课,小学则是在礼堂旁50年代建成的建筑物內上课。由於中小学的午休时间错开,女孩们在不同的时间用午餐。该校学生的种族融合情况相当明显,华巫印3大民族的学生数量也几乎平均。

我从教员用餐室看见食堂热闹的风光,当时我正与清一色是女士的资深教师(她们热情又健谈)在教员用餐室交流。

“教育课程可说是我们的核心事业,”该校的女校长这么说。“我教书30年了,其中的25年都给了教会学校。”

“80年代时,我从教会的老教师们身上学习良多。他们的行政方式一丝不苟,但我们都乐在其中,当年的委员会会议也紧凑简短。”

“现在的董事会非常活跃,他们有很强的传统意识,对学校的成绩和声誉都特別的讲究。”

“我个人倾向拥有强有力的董事会。他们可以提供制衡机制,也在筹款方面给予帮助,並且经常监督我们的录取標准,以確保我们保持学校的特点与传统。”

传统及其维系,对教会学校而言是很重要的。

一个和我对话的教师1969至1980年期间在该校唸书,后来去了师训学院受训,1985年重返该校执教,前前后后共有38年的时间都在该校度过。

教会学校在大马教育的歷史中扮演关键的角色。第一间传教士学校是英国圣公会牧师於1816年创办的檳城大英义学。1852年,天主教会又在檳城开办了圣芳济学校和莱特街修道院女中。至今,全马估计有462间教会学校,西马半岛有227间,另外235间在东马。而吉隆坡咖啡山姑娘堂女中、吉隆坡圣约翰学院、怡保圣米高中学和女英华更在名校之列。

教会学校不分种族、宗教、阶级,培育了不计其数的大马人,杰出校友包括我国好几位首相(纳吉是圣约翰学院的毕业生)、部长、企业领袖、体育明星和艺人。

儘管如此,很多人都遗憾地发现教会学校没落的同时,也对整个国家教育体系带来影响。

就像我们从歷史上看到的,多数教会学校在70年代成为部份津贴学校,这表示教育部提供、支付教职员薪资和行政费,而教会对土地和建筑物依然保有其所有权。除了经常引起关於教学媒介语和教学素质的辩论,教会学校还面对丧失其独有的基督教特质的批评。另一边厢,却一些人觉得教会学校的宗教气息过於明显。

的確,任命校长的问题和不允许在校內进行非穆斯林宗教活动的规定,让部份校友和家长感到不满。

我拜访了怡保的教会学校,这里周围有很多绿色植物,然而我感觉这间学校做了很多努力,以维持它们本身的特质,但也呈现了大马的真正特质。

当圣公会和天主教教会学校面对老化和各宗教学生人数锐减的困难时,由非神职人员组成的学校董事会仍非常积极努力,怡保的这间教会学校便是其一。

在某种意义上,教会学校实现了我们的国中无法兑现的事情。首先,教会学校显得更加多元种族:我拜访的这间怡保女校的学生人数比例是33.5%巫裔、36.4%华裔、26.9%印裔、3.2%为其他族群。这样的人数比例几乎反映了西马半岛的种族结构。像《星报》总编辑黄振威所说:“教会学校为各个族群的孩子提供了一个中性的平台,让他们有机会彼此认识並交流。”

教会学校的学生无论在学术(过去5年小六评估考的及格率超过90%,2006年有40%的学生考获5A)或课外活动上(在各种竞赛中,包括游泳项目上取得显著的成绩)都有非常优秀的表现。我们真的应该给予赞赏、支持並表扬他们一直以来的努力。真实呈现出大马特质的教会学校確实是我国的资產。(译:张德兰)(星洲日报/言路‧作者:凯林拉斯兰‧著名专栏作者)

资料来源:http://opinions.sinchew-i.com/node/23410