Sound The Alarm 吹号角

The Seventh Prime Minister of Malaysia

2012-01-10T22:20:00.003+08:00

The outcome of the Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim in his Sodomy II trial on 9^th January was that he walked out a freed man. Before the verdict, Pakatan Rakyat leaders had planned for a few Options should he be put into prison. If he is in jail, an Interim Prime Minister is installed and he will become the Prime Minister when he is out of jail.

Anwar is a persistent fighter for a better Malaysia. To him, even if he is jailed, he will fight from within the prison. He is sure that PR will win governance in the coming General Elections. But now thank God that he is freed and PR needs not to work on other Options. I urge the Attorney General not to proceed with the appeal. The case lasted for three years, and it had wasted both the government’s as well as the people’s resources.

Prime Minister of Malaysia Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak is under pressure as days go by. His concern is about the best timing to call for General Elections. UMNO is plagued by scandals, especially the Datuk Seri Jamil Khir Baharom for allegedly abusing zakat funds and the family of Datuk Seri Shahrizat Abdul Jalil over the RM250 million National Feedlot Centre (NFC) issues. There is no guarantee that Najib can lead Barisan Nasional (BN) into victory this time around. With the acquittal of Anwar, probably Najib will not go into polls sooner than April.

Many Malaysians used to talk about the alphabetical lineup for “RAHMAN” which served the sequent rule of PM in Malaysia.

R – Tunku Abdul Rahman

A – Abdul Razak

H – Hussein Onn

M – Mahathir mohamad

A – Abudullah Badawi

N – Najib Tun Razak

So after Najib, would that mean the end of UMNO governance? If PR is able to take over power, would Anwar be the seventh PM then?

I pointed out this thing because many people have put high hope on Anwar in bringing about reform to our politics, judiciary, economy, Royal Police Force and The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC). Moreover Anwar vows to do away with racial politics. People also hope that the new government by PR would clean up corruption and do away with those laws that have violated human rights. Thus eventually the country will move into justice and fairness.

I have read a book called “Malaysia, the Rainbow Nation of Asia” (Publisher: High Calling Outreach Publications, 2007) which is worth sharing with the readers. The contents are interesting and probably relevant. The author, Steve Ogan, is residing in Nigeria. He spent quite a long period of time in Malaysia studying about this country. (Note: This book was written before Najib became the sixth PM.)

Let me highlight the following parts:

[The number “7” is very significant to Malaysia:

God’s complete number - 7

The rainbow – 7 colors

Malaya became independent on 31.8.1957, and these numbers add up together – 7

The word MERDEKA – 7 letters

Tunku Abdul Rahman proclaimed the word MERDEKA – 7 times

Tunku Abdul Rahman – the 7^th son of a Malay Sultan

The points of star in the Malaysia flag – 14 (double of 7)

The stripes in the Malaysia flag – 14 (double of 7)

– Red stripes – 7

– White stripes – 7]

[God designed Malaysia as a Rainbow Ark of mercy and grace – a place where people with the rainbow character of Noah will make room for both the clean and unclean. Noah was described as perfect. Seven is the number of perfection and there are seven colors in the rainbow. Consequently, Noah had a rainbow character.

God’s will is that all the leaders of Malaysia will have a rainbow character. The five Prime Ministers of Malaysia since independence have at least one point or the other demonstrated this character. But there will come the seventh Prime Minister who will be the supreme embodiment of beauty and balance, mercy and grace. He will bring the rainbow nation to a height never known before. He will carry the heart of Noah with the colorful disposition of the rainbow. The seventh Prime Minister of Malaysia will carry the grace of all his five predecessors in an amazing combination. He will manifest the jubilee grace with the capacity of bringing Malaysia into a new season of release, rest and restoration. Because of the significance of his leadership profile there will be an intensive contest for the position of the seventh Prime Minister of Malaysia.]

Let us pray! Will Anwar Ibrahim be the chosen one or God has someone else in mind? Nevertheless God will give us the best seventh PM in this Age of End-time. God will bless Malaysia. Malaysia, A Truly Rainbow Nation of Asia! Malaysians will bring redemption to all the people in Asia.

A gathering of the National Organisation of Uncouth Morons

2011-12-03T15:28:00.001+08:00

David Martin
December 02, 2011

DEC 2 — With the 13th General Elections a day closer with each sunrise, Malaysians are served with a nauseating fare of daily news by major electronic and print media agencies.

It seems that these days, Malaysian lives revolve around that annual gathering of rabid humans in Putra World Trade Centre whose antics would put even simians to shame.

It’s a place where foul language is cheered upon. A place where religious bashing is commonplace. A place where pots and kettles gather to call others black.

It’s a place where one race reigns supreme, not unlike Hitler’s mantra. A place where seeds of hatred are sown, nurtured and watered. A place that reeks of corruption and hypocrisy.

A place where a backdoor minister is angry over dubious goings-on at her hubby’s business venture. A place where warlords of all sorts and sizes gather hoping to find perhaps a scrap in the form of electoral candidacy or senatorships or even cow-rearing projects! Talk about milking moo-lah till the cows come home ...

It’s a place where the gathered are led by a deputy prime minister who is a Malaysian last. A place where a deputy minister accuses a political party of being agents of Christianisation.

A place where the president-cum-PM is a two-faced chameleon in human guise. A PM who espouses a global movement of moderates yet remains silent in suppressing rabid extremism amongst his party comrades.

It is also a place where the average Malaysian see the normally loud, obnoxious, opiniated leaders of the minor parties in the coalition sitting impassively, almost disinterested at the charged up proceedings.

It’s interesting to note the “Mr Nice Guy” and “Mr Cheated on My Wife and Got Caught With Pants Off” presidents of two components parties keeping their zip (not pants) shut despite the obvious racial and religious bigotry on show. If they should ever contemplate an alternative career, I’m sure co-authoring “An Idiot’s Guide to Being A Yes Man” would set them up for life.

Umno is not at a political crossroads. It’s facing execution and with it annihilation in the next GE. What the leaders are trying to do lately is akin to trying to gain a last-second reprieve from the powers-to-be for them to live, to fight another day.

I happened to catch the animated movie “A Bug’s Life” recently. For the uninitiated, it revolves around an ant named Flik who tries hard to fight off a bunch of grasshoppers.

Now these grasshoppers, they’re bullies. They take what they want from the ants without regard, not unlike a government that steals from its people to line its own pocket.

Now, as with most movies, it had a happy ending. Flik makes the colony realise that despite their smaller size, they have the numbers. Needless to say, the grasshoppers get their comeuppance with their leader getting a good blast up the backside.

The people, citizens of Malaysia, must realise that the power is in their hands. You and me, we decide who leads the country and in which direction it is to be led towards.

The time for reckoning is close at hand. The time has come for Malaysians to say enough is enough. It is time to show them political simians that we are the arbiters of our nation’s destiny.

Until then, I’m just going to ignore the gathering of the deluded cult comforted in the knowledge that the end is near.

Taken with a liberal dose of cynicism, it does make for a good laugh or two on a rainy, gloomy day, the antics of these idiots ...

Source: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/sideviews/article/a-gathering-of-the-national-organisation-of-uncouth-morons-david-martin/

BN, withdraw Assembly Bill if you respect rakyat

2011-12-03T14:52:00.001+08:00

MCCBCHST
7:48PM Dec 2, 2011

The Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Taoism (MCCBCHST) is against the new proposed Bill as it is restrictive, repressive and against freedom of assembly and against freedom of religion, two sacred fundamental rights guaranteed by the federal constitution.

The proposed Bill clearly gives the police and the home minister more powers and is aimed at stifling democratic space.

MCCBCHST is particularly concerned that the new Bill now specifies places where public assembly cannot be held and they include all places of worship, hospitals, train stations, public transport terminals, kindergartens, schools and many others. This proposed provision in the Bill goes against the letter and spirit of Article 11 of the federal constitution which guarantees freedom of religion.

MCCBCHST is also against the following provision in the Peaceful Assemblv Bill 2011, whose title appears to mislead people into not knowing the true nature of amendments:

The bill appears to ban all demonstration including peaceful processions, unless approved by the police

Notification period of 10 days to police is too long. lt does not recognise the right to spontaneous assembly when an important and urgent issue arise.

The removal of the requirement to obtain police permit is illusory as the assembly cannot proceed if Police object. On notification of the proposed assembly, the police are to reply within 10 days listing conditions including whether could proceed. Thus the assemblv is still dependant on police approval

lf the police refuse permission, then Bill provides for appeal to Home Minister. This is not acceptable. The appeal should be to the court.

Processions and peaceful assemblies should be distinguished from street protests. The Bill must reflect this.

The police have been too much power to impose restrictions and set up conditions to hold gathering including duration of event, participant's conduct and cleaning up costs. The Bill also gives the final say to refuse gathering on ground of cultural or religious sensitivity.

While governments all over the world are opening up democratic space, we appear to be back tracking. Even, Burma which has the military junta governing the country, has now passed a "protest bill" which allows citizens to protest peacefully.

The Burma Bill only requires demonstrators to inform authorities five days in advance and advises them to avoid government buildings, hospitals and embassies (The Sun, Nov 25). Our bill is a far cry from this Burma Bill.

We urge the government to listen to the many objections legitimately voiced and earnestly hope that the Bill would not be rushed through our Dewan Negara.

Finally, the MCCBCHST calls on all leaders of all faiths to dedicate every Friday, from December 2 to pray in their respective places of worship that the leaders of our nation have it in their hearts and minds to find the understanding, truth, respect, compassion and most of all, the wisdom, to withdraw the Peaceful Assembly Bill 2011 and engage all stakeholders.

Source: http://www.malaysiakini.com/letters/183054

PSC must adopt all Bersih’s demands

2011-12-02T18:15:00.001+08:00


Bersih 2.0 3:32PM Dec 2, 2011

Bersih 2.0 welcomes certain reforms adopted by the interim report of the Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) on Electoral Reform. However, based on news report, out of Bersih 2.0’s 8 demands, only one is fully adopted while two others are partially adopted but five other demands have yet to be included. The one demand fully adopted is the implementation of indelible ink.

A demand that is partially addressed is the cleaning up of the Electoral Rolls, whereby a thorough audit of the electoral rolls is proposed but without a long-term mechanism. While the removal of RM10 fee for objection of each new voter is adopted, other proposals by Bersih 2.0 are yet to be addressed. These other proposals are:

a. Automatic voter registration, without which 3.7 million eligible citizens will be disenfranchised.

b. A monthly revision of the supplementary electoral roll instead of the current duration of 3 months to ensure timely inclusion of new voters (with or without automatic voter registration).

c. Supplementary electoral roll should be displayed both online and on location in enable easy access for voters. While the PSC interim report recommends for the display time to be extended from 7 days to 14 days, Bersih 2.0 recommends that display time should be a minimum period of 30 days.

d. Certified principal and supplementary rolls must be open for challenge in court and subject to a transparent process of objection and claim.

e. Setting up of an independent auditing committee to maintain and enhance integrity and accuracy of electoral rolls, rather than leaving the regular power of cleaning up at the end of the Election Commission (EC)

f. Reducing the cost of purchasing electoral rolls to enhance public scrutiny.

The other demand partially adopted is reform of absentee voting. We welcome the extension of such right to all Malaysians living overseas and East Malaysians living in Peninsula Malaysia and vice versa. In relation to absentee voting, we would like the PSC final report to make these specific recommendations:

a. In principle, the current practice of separate ordinary voter and permanent postal voters in the electoral rolls, which makes manipulation and intimidation easy, must end. All voters should be on one roll with the right to apply for absentee voting. Hence, the size of absentee voters will depend on application.

b. The right to absentee voting should encompass all civilian voters who are at least 250 km away from their constituencies on polling day. It is unfair if, for instance, Sarawakians are expected to travel from Miri back to Kuching to vote.

c. Military and police voters should be allowed to register for their home constituencies rather than where they serve, as in the case of overseas voters. Forcing the service voters to vote in constituencies where they serve but have no permanent interests is unfair to both themselves and the locals. For instance, in the last Sarawak state elections, more than 18,000 or 2% strong of the electorate were postal voters. Majority of them were non-Sarawakian soldiers and police, who could be king-makers in marginal constituencies.

d. Postal voting must be abolished for all except overseas voters beyond the reach of our foreign missions. This is to terminate the flawed practice of allowing postal voters to bring home their ballots and return them some time later.

e. Distance voting centres must therefore be set up in all our foreign missions, major towns in every West Malaysian state, every division in Sarawak and every residency in Sabah.

f. We support the proposals of allowing military and police voters to vote in advance but the polling centres for them must be out of their barracks and police stations, and the voting process must be under full scrutiny of party agents.

g. To make absentee voting possible, the campaign period should be extended to a minimum of 21 days or more to ensure adequate time for voters to apply for absentee voting and subsequent logistic preparation.

We note that the PSC has also taken on board other recommendations made by Bersih 2.0 in our submission to the PSC on 12 November 2011 and in the past. These include:

1. Election Commission to be made independent and empowered to enforce election laws

2. Forming a Royal Commission of Inquiry to probe into allegations of citizenships being given out in exchange for votes at Sabah

3. Rearranging of desks in polling centres to enable better scrutiny

However, the PSC interim report has yet to respond to five other immediate demands of Bersih 2.0 which are:

1. Setting a minimum campaign period of 21 days

2. Free and Fair Access of Media:

a. Free airtime on state media

b. Televised debate between candidates for Prime Minister and key party leaders

c. Provision for right of reply

3. Strengthening Public Institutions

a. Regulate the conduct of the governments in general or by-elections to ensure impartiality and neutrality, including establishing a Code of Conduct

b. Adopt the practice of an impartial caretaker government

4. Stop Corruption

a. The EC should use its enforcement unit to actively deter corrupt practices and lodge police reports when allegations emerge

b. Vigilant monitoring mechanism for pre- and during elections should be established to detect and prevent corruption including a reporting system to allow for public to report evidences of vote buying

5. Stopping Dirty Politics

a. A Code of Conduct should be established to regulate behaviour of parties and candidates such as the Model Code of Conduct for the Guidance of Political Parties and Candidates used by the Election Commission of India.

We note that there has been no recommendation made to the issues plaguing the process of constituency re-delineation despite strong representations made by Bersih 2.0 and other citizens. Reforming the current manner of the drawing of boundaries is equally of grave importance in ensuring that each vote is accorded its due value.

Bersih 2.0 is also gravely concerned that the recommendation to remove serial number on ballot papers may create possibility of ballot stuffing. It would be wiser to give ballot papers to voter at random instead of following the serial numbers. This can be done by tearing a few ballot papers at once and letting the voter pick his or her own ballot paper. We call for this recommendation to be withdrawn.

Bersih 2.0 emphasises that the EC and any other relevant government agencies must implement the Bersih 2.0 8 demands and the recommendations made by the PSC without further delay while the PSC prepares its final report. The aspiration to improve democratic processes and to guarantee the basic right to free and fair elections of every Malaysian must be present in the national electoral management body and any other enforcement agencies with a role to play in the electoral process. We hope to hear of no more excuses from the EC, but more action taken towards improving the electoral system.

Bersih 2.0 also calls on the EC and other stakeholders to publish a monthly progress report on the implementation of the PSC recommendations and recommendations made by Bersih 2.0 and other groups.

Finally, Bersih 2.0 reminds the PSC, the EC and the Government that the 8 demands of Bersih 2.0 is the bare minimum to ensure that the 13th General Elections will be reasonably clean and fair. The public will not tolerate any attempts to use the PSC to divert pressure on electoral reform.

Salam Bersih 2.0!

Issued by the steering committee of the Coalition for Clean and Fair Elections (Bersih 2.0) comprising:

Ambiga Sreenevasan (Chairperson), Andrew Khoo, Arul Prakkash, Arumugam K., Farouk Musa, Liau Kok Fah, Maria Chin Abdullah, Richard Y W Yeoh, Subramaniam Pillay, Toh Kin Woon, Wong Chin Huat, Yeo Yang Poh and Zaid Kamaruddin.

Source: http://www.malaysiakini.com/letters/183015

Bersih vs Himpun: Double standards

2011-10-24T23:02:00.002+08:00

Scott Thong
4:54PM Oct 24, 2011

PM Najib Razak is saying that the Bersih 2.0 rally should have been held - all nice and orderly like - in a stadium instead of invading the streets of KL. Just like how the wonderful and cooperative Himpun rally was held in Stadium Shah Alam last Saturday.

Let's recap why Bersih 2.0 was not held in a stadium.

When PM Najib was forced to accept the breadth and depth of public support for Bersih 2.0, he moved quickly to try and wrest control of the situation. Bersih 2.0 was verbally legitimised and even promised the use of a stadium for their rally. They decided on the historic and symbolic Stadium Merdeka which has capacity for 30,000 people.

Abruptly, their request to use the stadium was turned down and Bersih 2.0 was de-legitimised again - despite PM Najib's overtures and promises - with the excuse that the expected 300,000 attendees would be way over Stadium Merdeka's capacity. That would be ten times too many people for the stadium to hold.

Way to troll the entire population of Malaysia! You can almost imagine our IGP's face scrunched up in a a wry smile, going "Problem?"

Outraged at this about-turn, the rally went ahead anyway, bringing its message of clean and fair elections to streets (and worldwide via sympathetic rallies). After everything, Bersih 2.0 claims 50,000 attendees showed up. Meanwhile, the media estimates between 10,000 to 15,000 people - well within the capacity of Stadium Merdeka. And the police mockingly put the number at a pathetic 6,000.

Wherefore then the justification for denying Bersih 2.0 the use of Stadium Mereka? Can a measly 6,000 people not safely gather and chant their slogans as the tear-gassing, chemical-spraying police in full riot gear close in on the stadium?

Now let's look at Himpun.

The full title of the rally itself clues us in to the hoped-for turnout - 'Himpunan Sejuta Umat', one million people.

Yet Himpun was cleared to use Stadium Shah Alam - in record time nonetheless - even though the venue can only accommodate between 70,000 to 100,000 with some squeezing.

Similar to Bersih 2.0's original planned turnout-to-stadium-capacity ratio, Himpun would have had ten times too many people for the stadium to hold. But Himpun's planned excess of 900,000 people is a completely different paradigm from Bersih 2.0's mere excess of 280,000!

How can PM Najib and the authorities justify and handwave away the blatant double standards shown here? The hypocrisy is insulting enough, but expecting us to swallow it is doubly insulting!

(Don't get me started on the narrow, factional purpose of the Himpun rally - protesting 'apostates from Islam', which carries worrying echoes of the official plus mob persecution of Christian Copts in Egypt which is often triggered by rumours of converts leaving Islam.)

And just for the record, only a paltry 4,000 attendees actually showed up for Himpun. Can we take that as a resounding Malaysian TAK NAK!!! to religiously divisive politics?

So in this Bizarro World, fringe gatherings with disruptive aims are to be commended and legitimised, while broadly-appealing rallies with noble goals are actually lawbreaking riots bordering on rebellion and civil war.

Finally, I'm going to risk making readers fed up with US/Malaysia political comparisons - but US politics offers us key lessons about what might be up with our local politics.

For a few weeks now, Occupy Wall Street and its related protests have been touting their narrow, factional demands which basically amounts to ‘end capitalism for fairness’ but which as a practical matter translates to ‘people who work hard all day should give free stuff to slackers like us’ - complete with plenty of vulgarity, violence, crassness, lawbreaking, hundreds of arrests, and even the occasional defecating on police cars.

However, the media has been coddling the protests with carefully edited coverage, focusing only on the few individuals who seem the least abnormal, ridiculous and unreasonable. The ABC, CBS and NBC networks gave them 33 full stories or interview segments in just the first 11 days of October 2011.

Meanwhile, the massive nationwide Tea Party protests against wasteful government spending - comprising hundreds of rallies, each with thousands of very normal, job-holding attendees - were given only 13 total stories by ABC, CBS and NBC in all of 2009.

Even then, they are usually depicted as hateful, potentially violent and radically extreme - despite the total lack of observational evidence and about zero total arrests. They even pick up their own trash, instead of pooping on the street!

So in this Bizarro World, fringe gatherings with disruptive aims are to be commended and legitimised, while broadly-appealing rallies with noble goals are actually lawbreaking riots bordering on rebellion and civil war.

Wait, didn't I just use that whole paragraph earlier?

You see, it all depends on who is favoured by certain political parties and their crony mainstream media. And who they oppose as a threat to their precious status quo of power and control.

Source: http://www.malaysiakini.com/letters/179535

Himpun and the politics of religious polarisation

2011-10-18T13:01:00.001+08:00

Written by Maclean Patrick, Malaysia Chronicle

The silence of the Najib establishment in the face of the Himpunan Sejuta Umat (Himpun), or Gathering of a Million Faithful, organised by various right-wing groups such as Perkasa with the backing of both Umno and PAS Youth could raise religious tensions.

Coming hot on the heels of a much-criticised decision by the Selangor Sultan over the alleged proselytization of Muslims by Christians at the Damansara Utama Methodist Church, the rally will do little to abate the anger seething amongst Christians although they may keep their feelings under control.

Politicians behind the scene

Many political watchers have accused Prime Minister Najib Razak and his Umno party of hatching the plot to rally Muslmis in Selangor behind them ahead of general elections widely expected early next year. It is aimed to wrest Selangor from the Pakatan Rakyat state government and nothing much to do with religion.

It is also telling of Najib's style of governance and the questionable sincerity of his 1Malaysia plans to unify the races. His is a government that says “1Malaysia” on one hand yet, given the chance would allow the politics of religious polarisation.

Sadder still is that Muslims in Malaysia are led into a state of fear that the “sovereignty of Islam” would be challenged and could be removed. This in itself speaks volumes about the results and continual push by the BN to keep the Muslims in this country tucked away under the shell of ignorance and fear.

There is no other country in the world that has federally constituted legislation that protects its Muslims majority. Only in Malaysia, by law, a Malay is deemed a Muslim by birth and thus accorded Bumiputera or special rights and economic privileges. Parallel to this, the courts make it almost impossible for a Muslim to convert or to change their religion. By law and legislation, the Muslim is afforded protection that is non-existent for the practitioners of other religions.

So, why the need to rally against the Christians? Muslims are already so protected by law and legslation. And why must it be only Christians? Do not other faiths have in place a system to convert new believers into their fold? And can alleged proselytising really undermine the “sovereignty of Islam” in Malaysia as emoted by the organisers of Himpun?

Festering insecurity for evil reasons

The answers are actually already known by most Muslims themselves because racial and religious politicking are nothing new in Malaysia. Helped by Umno's right-wing NGOs and mainstream media like the Utusan newspaper, the idea is to constantly remind Malays that Christians are the enemy of their faith.

Divide and rule remains the Umno order of the day despite Najib's cosmetic efforts to show that all is hunky-dory with Malaysians of all colours and creed under his 1Malaysia, which sadly by now is clearly a bogus platform.

Perhaps they don't realize it, but it also seems rather sad that Himpun and Utusan are ready to underate the faith of Muslims in Malaysia. Does Himpun and Utusan truly think that Muslims are easily turned off from their faith?

This is hard to fathom when you take into consideration that the level of Islamic study incorporated into the education system in Malaysia. The average Malay child is exposed to the Islamic teachings from day one of education until they graduate from a local higher learning institution. Plus, being the majority religious group in Malaysia; peer pressure alone will keep the sheep within the fold.

Is Himpun also saying that all these past efforts to educate and enlighten the Muslim majority have been failing? That all governmental funded mechanisms to help and assist the Muslims in Malaysia can be so easily undermined by Christian organisations that live on personal donations and well-wishers?

The real questions remain untouched

Truth be told, the presence of Christianity has been around since the Portugese landed in Melaka in 1511. So why the sudden rush to demonise Christians in this day and age?

Moderate Malaysians from all religions should not be fooled by such efforts like Himpun which seek to pit Muslims against Christians. There is nothing to win and yet so much to lose.

If Himpun is thinking of galvanising the Muslims in this country, then should not Himpun work towards ratifying the social ills still prevalent in Malaysia's Muslim society? What long-lasting effect or remedy can a short-lived noisy rally bring?

Can a million Muslims rallying in Stadium Shah Alam be galvanised to help the growing number of poor, marginalised, uneducated and the widows or single mothers in Malaysia?

Can a million Muslim turn to each other, and while protecting the “sovereignty of Islam” also show the “magnanimous nature of Islam”?

Or is Malaysia destined to be forever divided along religious lines - unable to find peace and harmony? It is sad to contemplate these issues, especially when as Malaysians, we are called on to give our “Kepercayaan kepada Tuhan” or Faith in God.

Source: http://www.malaysia-chronicle.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=21345:himpun-and-the-politics-of-religious-polarisation&Itemid=2

Race quotas, politics led to falling UM standards, says World Bank study

2011-10-17T14:18:00.001+08:00

By Leslie Lau
Executive Editor

October 17, 2011

KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 17 — A World Bank publication has found that standards at Universiti Malaya have fallen and the institution has been kept at a disadvantage because of race-based admission quotas and political interference in university management.

In contrast, Singapore’s decision to prioritise research, keeping English as the medium of instruction and a merit-based admissions policy have all contributed to the success of the National University of Singapore’s success, according to “The Road to Academic Excellence,” which studies what contributes to a world-class research university.

The study also noted that Malaysian secondary school students are not well prepared for tertiary education.

It points out that the Malaysian education system promotes rote learning, conformity and uniformity rather than fresh and creative thinking.

The study is led by two scholars — Philip Altbach and Jamil Salmi — while various chapters see contributions from various academics.

Salmi, a Moroccan education economist attached to the World Bank, also notes that “disturbing political developments, from the burning of churches to the whipping of a woman for drinking beer in public,” also cast a shadow on Malaysia’s “image as an open and tolerant society.”

The comparisons between UM and NUS is contained in a chapter entitled “The National University of Singapore and the University of Malaya: Common Roots and Different Paths.”

The chapter is authored by Hena Mukherjee, a former Universiti Malaya department head with a doctorate in education from Harvard University, and Poh Kam Wong, an NUS Business School professor.

According to the study, “at an early stage, the Singapore government realised the universities’ role in sustaining economic growth.

“In contrast, after 1970, UM’s institutional goals reflected the New Economic Policy, an affirmative action plan for ethnic Malays and indigenous groups, put in place in the wake of disastrous 1969 ethnic riots that took the lives of hundreds of people on both sides of the racial divide.,” the study found.

The authors said that apart from the student quota system, the NEP translated into more scholarships to Bumiputeras, special programmes to facilitate their entry into higher education institutions, and the use of the Malay language in place of English in the entire education system by 1983.

“In UM and in government, the policy impact spiralled upward so that Bumiputera staff members, over time, secured almost all senior management, administrative, and academic positions.

“As NUS kept pace with the demands of a growing economy that sought to become competitive internationally, with English continuing as the language of instruction and research, UM began to focus inward as proficiency in English declined in favour of the national language — Bahasa Malaysia — and the New Economic Policy’s social goals took precedence.”

The study noted however that there has been widespread recognition that the implementation of affirmative action policies in Malaysia has hurt the higher education system, sapping Malaysia’s economic competitiveness and driving some (mainly Chinese and Indians) to more meritocratic countries, such as Singapore.

In the broader study, the lead authors found that research was an important element in the making of a world-class university, as well as top-grade talent.

“We’re both convinced that serious research universities are important in almost all societies,” Altbach, who is the director of the Center for International Higher Education at Boston College, told the New York Times last week in an interview.

Said Altbach: “Independence, luck, persistence, some kind of strategic vision, adequate resources — usually, but not always, public resources — good governance structures, good leadership, the ability to attract good students and so on. But we have found that the quality of the faculty is really crucial.”

Salmi, who co-ordinates the World Bank’s activities related to higher education, told the same newspaper of their new 390-page study, which will be released later this month, that their advice is like that supposedly given for a rabbit stew recipe: “First, catch your rabbit.” Only in this case the advice would be: “First, catch your faculty.”

“The difference between a good university and great university comes down to talent.”

Source: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/race-quotas-politics-led-to-falling-um-standards-says-world-bank-study/

史蒂夫·乔布斯走了 Steve Jobs has gone

2011-10-15T15:58:00.005+08:00

To the Apple Board of Directors and the Apple Community:

I have always said if there ever came a day when I could no longer meet my duties and expectations as Apple’s CEO, I would be the first to let you know. Unfortunately, that day has come.

I hereby resign as CEO of Apple. I would like to serve, if the Board sees fit, as Chairman of the Board, director and Apple employee.

As far as my successor goes, I strongly recommend that we execute our succession plan and name Tim Cook as CEO of Apple.

I believe Apple’s brightest and most innovative days are ahead of it. And I look forward to watching and contributing to its success in a new role.

I have made some of the best friends of my life at Apple, and I thank you all for the many years of being able to work alongside you.

致蘋果董事會及全體員工：

我總是說，如果有那麼一天，當我無法再盡到身為蘋果執行長，應有的職責與期待時，我會是第一個讓各位知道的人。何其不幸，這天已到來。

於此，我辭去蘋果執行長的職務。如果董事會覺得合適，我願意擔任董事會主席、董事以及一個蘋果的員工。

有關於我的繼承人問題，我強烈建議讓我們照既定的繼承計畫走，由堤姆．寇克（Tim Cock）來繼任蘋果的執行長。

我深信蘋果最光明、最有創新的日子還在前頭。我期盼能扮演個新的角色，來為此貢獻一己之力，並見到它的成功。

我在蘋果結交到一些此生裡最要好的朋友。我要謝謝你們，讓我在這些年裡，能肩並肩地與你們一起工作。

史蒂夫

蘋果執行長史蒂夫．賈伯斯（Steve Jobs）在2011年8月24日，向蘋果遞交辭呈。據悉，董事會已經確定 Tim Cook 的任命案和賈伯斯轉任董事會主席一職。為避免過大震盪，蘋果已在消息公佈前，股票暫停盤後交易。簡短的公開信中，賈伯斯並未詳明辭職原由，僅祝福蘋果未來日子將會更光明、創新，在新的領導團隊的帶領下更加成功卓越。蘋果則是在旋即的聲明稿中感謝賈柏斯在位期間的領導才能。

史提夫·保羅·賈伯斯（Steve Paul Jobs) 生於 1955年2月24日，是蘋果公司剛卸任的首席執行官及創辦人之一，同時也是前Pixar動畫公司的董事長及執行長（Pixar已在2006年被迪士尼收購）。賈伯斯還是迪士尼公司的董事會成員和最大個人股東。

賈伯斯被認為是電腦業界與娛樂業界的標誌性人物，同時人們也把他視作麥金塔電腦、iPod、iTunes商店、iPhone等知名數位產品的締造者。2007年，史提夫·賈伯斯被《財富》雜誌評為了年度最強有力的商人。

賈伯斯小時候被人收養，在加州的Homestead High School畢業後就讀俄勒岡州波特蘭里德學院，只唸一學期就因為家庭的經濟原因而休學，但他仍在學校裡旁聽書法課等課程，也因為對書法美術的素養使他對電腦軟體字形美學處理特別重視，讓蘋果電腦日後吸引了許多美術設計工作者來使用。

1974年曾在雅達利任技術員，以賺的錢往印度靈修。1976年，二十一歲的賈伯斯與二十六歲的斯蒂夫·沃茲尼亞克在自家的車房裡成立了蘋果公司。他們製造了世界上首台個人電腦，並稱為Apple I，其售價是$666.66，然而依蘋果電腦前執行長約翰.史考力的看法，賈伯斯並不算有科技研發能力。

1983年，蘋果公司的業務越做越大，賈伯斯便開始尋找一名出色的執行長管理公司。他找上了百事可樂公司的約翰·史考力，對他說：「你是想賣一輩子糖水呢，還是改變整個世界？」史考力隨後欣然前往蘋果公司，出任CEO。

1984年，首台麥金塔電腦推出，蘋果公司打出電視廣告《1984》，廣告模仿佐治·奧維爾的著作《一九八四》，引起很大反響。

1985年，電腦業界普遍蕭條，史考力認為賈伯斯已成為公司問題的來源，史考利在其自傳"蘋果戰爭"中指出賈伯斯並不算有技術研發的能力，並把賈伯斯趕出了蘋果公司。

離開蘋果後，賈伯斯創立了NeXT電腦公司，並發展出NeXT電腦及NeXTSTEP作業系統。就像Lisa一樣，NeXT擁有最先進的技術，但是不能成為最流行的電腦。

1996年陷入財政困難的蘋果電腦以四億美元收購了NeXT電腦公司，同時賈伯斯也回到了蘋果電腦。

1997年，當Gil Amelio離開公司後，他重掌蘋果電腦的大權。在同年推出iMac，創新的外殼彩色透明設計在美國和日本大賣，使蘋果電腦度過財政危機。

並在之後推出深受大眾歡迎的iBook，Mac mini，Mac OS X作業系統，iPod，Apple TV和iTunes音樂商店等一系列廣受市場好評的產品，賈伯斯並親自為iPod的網路銷售音樂版權和反對的歌手洽談，使iPod能合法下載許多音樂。

對於賈伯斯的個人生活，由於賈伯斯個人十分重視私隱，以致至今世人依舊沒有太多相關資料可考，只知道他是佛教徒，在2004年，賈伯斯曾接受外科手術移除身上的胰臟腫瘤。

2007年6月29日，蘋果公司推出自有設計的iPhone行動電話，使用iOS系統核心，使公司的股票大幅上揚。

在 2008年6月11日的WWDC中，蘋果公司發佈新一代iPhone—iPhone 3G，首度支援 3G功能。

2009年6月19日，蘋果公司發表第三代產品iPhone 3Gs。

近年，賈伯斯出席公開場合時顯得異常消廋，大眾擔心他癌症復發而令公司的股價下跌之際，他也沒有對自己的健康發言，只在2008年九月的Let's Rock發佈會中，以一句字幕「那些關於我死亡的報導內容，是太過誇張了」（Reports of my death are greatly exaggerated）帶過。

2009年1月18日，賈伯斯給每位員工發了一封信，聲稱自己的健康狀況遠比想像的糟糕，需要暫時離開公司治療，並相約「夏天再見」。訊息一出，蘋果的股價當天便下跌將近10%。

2009年4月，賈伯斯在田納西州孟菲斯的衛理公會大學醫院移植研究所（Methodist University Hospital Transplant Institute）接受了肝臟移植，恢復狀況良好。

2010年6月8日發布第四代產品iPhone 4，每次皆引起市場上極大的轟動和銷售熱潮。除iPhone系列之外，2010年1月27日，賈伯斯再次為蘋果迷帶來驚喜，於發表會上正式公布了首款使用iOS系統的iPad平板電腦，更為平板電腦市場帶來全新局面。

但在2011年1月17日，蘋果公司的每位員工再次收到其請假郵件，仍然是由於健康問題，這次並沒有註明其回歸蘋果的日期。這是七年來，他第三度因健康因素向公司請假。2011年8月24日，他終於累了，甘心放下了手中的棒子，將它交給別人承傳。然而，他帶領下的蘋果所創造的銷售奇蹟，卻已在歷史上留下不朽的傳奇，在來日供後人傳說。

賈伯斯的生涯極大地影響了矽谷風險創業的傳奇，他將美學至上的設計理念在全世界推廣開來。他對簡約及便利設計的推崇為他贏得了許多忠實追隨者。

賈伯斯與沃茲尼亞克共同使個人電腦在1970年代末至1980年代初流行開來，他也是第一個看到滑鼠的商業潛力的人。賈伯斯在1985年蘋果高層權力鬥爭中離開蘋果並成立了NeXT公司，瞄準專業市場。1997年，蘋果收購NeXT，賈伯斯回到蘋果接任首席執行官。蘋果在歷盡滄桑後又回鍋的賈伯斯帶領下，脫胎換骨成為電腦產業界的極為成功領導者。

這段人生經驗由一個生下來就被送給人領養，在三十歲就登上人生顛峰，竟被自己創立的公司開除，還能回去再創事業奇蹟，卻又被診斷出罹患絕症，仍為公司利益而堅守崗位至最後一刻，這麼個人生起伏變幻莫測的人的口中，所講出的人生哲理，絕非那一帆風順的對手比爾蓋茲所能體會說出的。底下是段值得一聽的經典演說，值得回味深思…

蘋果前執行長賈伯斯 (Steve Jobs)，在2005年
對史丹佛應屆畢業生所發表的演講

今天，很榮幸來到各位從世界上最好的學校之一畢業的畢業典禮上。我從來沒從大學畢業過，說實話，這是我離大學畢業最近的一刻。

今天，我只說三個故事，不談大道理，三個故事就好。

第一個故事，是關於人生中的點點滴滴如何串連在一起。

我在里德學院（Reed College）待了六個月就辦休學了。到我退學前，一共休學了十八個月。那麼，我為什麼休學？（聽眾笑）這得從我出生前講起。

我的親生母親當時是個研究生，年輕未婚媽媽，她決定讓別人收養我。她強烈覺得應該讓有大學畢業的人收養我，所以我出生時，她就準備讓我被一對律師夫婦收養。但是這對夫妻到了最後一刻反悔了，他們想收養女孩。所以在等待收養名單上的一對夫妻，我的養父母，在一天半夜裡接到一通電話，問他們「有一名意外出生的男孩，你們要認養他嗎？」而他們的回答是「當然要」。

後來，我的生母發現，我現在的媽媽從來沒有大學畢業，我現在的爸爸則連高中畢業也沒有。她拒絕在認養文件上做最後簽字。直到幾個月後，我的養父母保證將來一定會讓我上大學，她的態度才軟化。

十七年後，我上大學了。但是當時我無知地選了一所學費幾乎跟史丹佛一樣貴的大學（聽眾笑），我那工人階級的父母將所有積蓄都花在我的學費上。六個月後，我看不出唸這個書的價值何在。那時候，我不知道這輩子要幹什麼，也不知道唸大學能對我有什麼幫助，只知道我為了唸這個書，花光了我父母這輩子的所有積蓄。所以，我決定休學，相信船到橋頭自然直。

當時這個決定看來相當可怕，可是現在看來，那是我這輩子做過最好的決定之一。（聽眾笑）當我休學之後，我再也不用上我沒興趣的必修課，把時間拿去聽那些我有興趣的課。這一點也不浪漫。

我沒有宿舍，所以我睡在友人家裡的地板上，靠著回收可樂空罐的退費五分錢買吃的。每個星期天晚上得走七哩的路，繞過大半個鎮去印度教的 Hare Krishna 神廟吃頓好料，我喜歡 Hare Krishna 神廟的好料。就這樣追隨我的好奇與直覺，大部分我所投入過的事務，後來看來都成了無比珍貴的經歷（And much of what I stumbled into by following my curiosity and intuition turned out to be priceless later on ）。

舉個例來說。當時里德學院有著大概是全國最好的書寫教育。校園內的每一張海報上，每個抽屜的標籤上，都是美麗的手寫字。因為我休學了，可以不照正常選課程序來，所以我跑去上書寫課。我學了serif 與sanserif 字體，學到在不同字母組合間變更字間距，學到活字印刷偉大的地方。

書寫的美好、歷史感與藝術感是科學所無法掌握的，我覺得這很迷人。

我沒預期過學這些東西能在我生活中起些什麼實際作用，不過十年後，當我在設計第一台麥金塔時，我想起了當時所學的東西，所以把這些東西都設計進了麥金塔裡，這是第一台能印刷出漂亮東西的電腦。

如果我沒沉溺於那樣一門課裡，麥金塔可能就不會有多重字體跟等比例間距字體了。

又因為 Windows抄襲了麥金塔的使用方式（聽眾鼓掌大笑）。因此，如果當年我沒有休學，沒有去上那門書寫課，大概所有的個人電腦都不會有這些東西，印不出現在我們看到的漂亮的字來了。

當然，當我還在大學裡時，不可能把這些點點滴滴預先串連在一起，但在十年後的今天回顧，一切就顯得非常清楚。

我再說一次，你無法預先把點點滴滴串連起來；只有在未來回顧時，你才會明白那些點點滴滴是如何串在一起的（you can't connect the dots looking forward; you can only connect them looking backwards ）。

所以你得相信，眼前你經歷的種種，將來多少會連結在一起。你得信任某個東西，直覺也好，命運也好，生命也好，或者業力。這種作法從來沒讓我失望，我的人生因此變得完全不同。（ Jobs停下來喝水）

我的第二個故事，是有關愛與失去。

我很幸運－年輕時就發現自己愛做什麼事。我二十歲時，跟 Steve Wozniak 在我爸媽的車庫裡開始了蘋果電腦的事業。我們拚命工作，蘋果電腦在十年間從一間車庫裡的兩個小夥子擴展成了一家員工超過四千人、市價二十億美金的公司。在那事件之前一年推出了我們最棒的作品－麥金塔電腦（ Macintosh），那時我才剛邁入三十歲；然後，我被解僱了。

我怎麼會被自己創辦的公司給解僱了？（聽眾笑）

嗯，當蘋果電腦成長後，我請了一個我以為在經營公司上很有才幹的傢伙來，他在頭幾年也確實幹得不錯。可是我們對未來的願景不同，最後只好分道揚鑣，董事會站在他那邊，就這樣在我 30歲的時候，公開把我給解僱了。

我失去了整個生活的重心，我的人生就這樣被摧毀。

有幾個月，我不知道要做些什麼。我覺得我令企業界的前輩們失望－我把他們交給我的接力棒弄丟了。我見了創辦 HP的 David Packard跟創辦Intel的 Bob Noyce，跟他們說很抱歉我把事情給搞砸了。我成了公眾眼中失敗的示範，我甚至想要離開矽谷。

但是漸漸的，我發現，我還是喜愛那些我做過的事情，在蘋果電腦中經歷的那些事絲毫沒有改變我愛做的事。雖然我被否定了，可是我還是愛做那些事情，所以我決定從頭來過。

當時我沒發現，但現在看來，被蘋果電腦開除，是我所經歷過最好的事情。成功的沉重被從頭來過的輕鬆所取代，每件事情都不那麼確定，讓我自由進入這輩子最有創意的年代。

接下來五年，我開了一家叫做 NeXT 的公司，又開一家叫做 Pixar 的公司，也跟後來的老婆（Laurene）談起了戀愛。

Pixar接著製作了世界上第一部全電腦動畫電影─玩具總動員（Toy Story），現在是世界上最成功的動畫製作公司（聽眾鼓掌大笑）。

然後，蘋果電腦買下了 NeXT，我回到了蘋果，我們在 NeXT發展的技術成了蘋果電腦後來復興的核心部份。我也有了個美妙的家庭。

我很確定，如果當年蘋果電腦沒開除我，就不會發生這些事情。

這帖藥很苦口，可是我想蘋果電腦這個病人需要這帖藥。有時候，人生會用磚頭打你的頭。不要喪失信心。

我確信我愛我所做的事情，這就是這些年來支持我繼續走下去的唯一理由（I'm convinced that the only thing that kept me going was that I loved what I did）。

你得找出你的最愛，工作上是如此，人生伴侶也是如此。

你的工作將佔掉你人生的一大部分，唯一真正獲得滿足的方法就是做你相信是偉大的工作，而唯一做偉大工作的方法是愛你所做的事（ And the only way to do great work is to love what you do ）。如果你還沒找到這些事，繼續找，別停頓。盡你全心全力，你知道你一定會找到。而且，如同任何偉大的事業，事情只會隨著時間愈來愈好。所以，在你找到之前，繼續找，別停頓。（聽眾鼓掌， Jobs喝水）

我的第三個故事，是關於死亡。

當我十七歲時，我讀到一則格言，好像是「把每一天都當成生命中的最後一天，你就會輕鬆自在。（ If you live each day as if it was your last, someday you'll most certainly be right ）」（聽眾笑）

這對我影響深遠，在過去 33 年裡，我每天早上都會照鏡子，自問：「如果今天是此生最後一日，我今天要做些什麼？」

每當我連續太多天都得到一個「沒事做」的答案時，我就知道我必須有所改變了。提醒自己快死了，是我在人生中面臨重大決定時，所用過最重要的方法。

因為幾乎每件事─所有外界期望、所有的名聲、所有對困窘或失敗的恐懼─在面對死亡時，都消失了，只有最真實重要的東西才會留下（ Remembering that I'll be dead soon is the most important tool I've ever encountered to help me make the big choices in life. Because almost everything - all external expectations, all pride, all fear of embarrassment or failure - these things just fall away in the face of death, leaving only what is truly important ）。

提醒自己快死了，是我所知避免掉入畏懼失去的陷阱裡最好的方法。人生不帶來、死不帶去，沒理由不能順心而為。

一年前，我被診斷出癌症。我在早上七點半作斷層掃瞄，在胰臟清楚出現一個腫瘤，我連胰臟是什麼都不知道。醫生告訴我，那幾乎可以確定是一種不治之症，預計我大概活不到三到六個月了。

醫生建議我回家，好好跟親人們聚一聚，這是醫生對臨終病人的標準建議。那代表你得試著在幾個月內把你將來十年想跟小孩講的話講完。那代表你得把每件事情搞定，家人才會儘量輕鬆。那代表你得跟人說再見了。

我整天想著那個診斷結果，那天晚上做了一次切片，從喉嚨伸入一個內視鏡，穿過胃進到腸子，將探針伸進胰臟，取了一些腫瘤細胞出來。我打了鎮靜劑，不醒人事，但是我老婆在場。她後來跟我說，當醫生們用顯微鏡看過那些細胞後，他們都哭了，因為那是非常少見的一種胰臟癌，可以用手術治好。所以我接受了手術，康復了。（聽眾鼓掌）

這是我最接近死亡的時候，我希望那會繼續是未來幾十年內最接近的一次。

經歷此事後，我可以比先前死亡只是純粹想像時，要能更肯定地告訴你們下面這些：沒有人想死。即使那些想上天堂的人，也想活著上天堂。（聽眾笑）

但是死亡是我們共同的終點，沒有人逃得過。這是註定的，因為死亡很可能就是生命中最棒的發明，是生命交替的媒介，送走老人們，給新生代開出道路。

現在你們是新生代，但是不久的將來，你們也會逐漸變老，被送出人生的舞台。抱歉講得這麼戲劇化，但是這是真的。

你們的時間有限，所以不要浪費時間活在別人的生活裡。不要被教條所侷限─盲從教條就是活在別人思考結果裡。不要讓別人的意見淹沒了你內在的心聲。最重要的，擁有追隨自己內心與直覺的勇氣，你的內心與直覺多少已經知道你真正想要成為什麼樣的人（have the courage to follow your heart and intuition. They somehow already know what you truly want to become），任何其他事物都是次要的。（聽眾鼓掌）

在我年輕時，有本神奇的雜誌叫做《Whole Earth Catalog》，當年這可是我們的經典讀物。那是位住在離這不遠的 Menlo Park的Stewart Brand發行的，他把雜誌辦得很有詩意。

那是 1960年代末期，個人電腦跟桌上出版還沒出現，所有內容都是打字機、剪刀跟拍立得相機做出來的。雜誌內容有點像印在紙上的平面 Google，在Google 出現之前35年就有了。這本雜誌很理想主義，充滿新奇工具與偉大的見解。

Stewart 跟他的團隊出版了好幾期的《Whole Earth Catalog》，然後很自然的，最後出了停刊號。當時是 1970 年代中期，我正是你們現在這個年齡的時候。在停刊號的封底，有張清晨鄉間小路的照片，那種你四處搭便車冒險旅行時會經過的鄉間小路。在照片下印了行小字：

求知若飢，虛心若愚（Stay Hungry , Stay Foolish）。

那是他們親筆寫下的告別訊息，我總是以此自許。當你們畢業，展開新生活，我也以此祝福你們。

求知若飢，虛心若愚（Stay Hungry , Stay Foolish）。

非常謝謝大家。

(人都有放下與道珍重的一天，重要的是要活得精彩//)

人权组织促内长总警长道歉，冀709警察暴力受害者获赔

2011-10-07T14:51:00.001+08:00

10月·7日

人权组织人民之声谴责警方滥用公帑，为了镇压净选盟709大集会，滥射262枚催泪弹，耗费逾两万令吉。它更要求内政部长希山慕丁和总检察长道歉。

“这样的举动是一种滥用公帑，以及完全不专业的做法。”

“内政部以及全国总警长必须为净选盟2.0集会所出现的警察暴力道歉。”

它也促请政府给所有遭受警方暴力对待的受害者赔偿，包括在709集会去世的巴哈鲁丁（Baharuddin Ahmad）家属。

人民之声认为，警方使用催泪弹来对付集会者，已明显侵害人民的宪赋和国际公认的言论和集会自由。

促解释逮捕人数为何不同

人民之声在今天文告也要求内政部长希山慕丁和全国总警长依斯迈奥玛解释，为何两个部门所提出的逮捕人数会出现落差。

内政部的数据显示，在709大集会共有1509人被捕，但警方之前却宣称，有1697人被捕。

拒认错则显示无政治意志

人民之声强调，内政部和总警长必须为709当天的警方暴力扛起责任。

它说明，若他们不能够提出合理的解释，或者拒绝承认错误警方的错误，则人民将因此感到失望，同时这也显示政府没有政治意志来兑现其诺言，改善警方的服务。

促顺从民意设警察投委会

人民之声认为，警方内部的纪律局并不足以杜绝警方违反警方作业标准的问题。

“这是因为它是不透明的，而且纪律报告也被列为机密。”

人民之声促请纳吉顺从民意，设立警察皇委会所建议的独立警察投诉与行为不检委员会（IPCMC）。

它认为，唯有设立公正和独立行事的警察投委会，警方纪律才有加强的可能。

内政部昨天公布，警方在709当天，总共使用262枚催泪弹来驱散会群众，并逮捕1509名集会者。

它也指出，警方当中发射了的催泪弹分为2种，分别是226枚催泪弹（Tear Smoke Shell，简称TS Shell），以及36枚手掷烟雾弹（Tear Smoke Grenade，简称TS Grenade）。

来源： http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/177974

709集会发262催泪弹耗2万元，警逮1509人乐龄集会者103人

2011-10-06T23:02:00.002+08:00

10月6日

警方镇压709净选盟大集会继续成为国会的焦点。内政部公布，警方在709当天，总共使用262枚催泪弹来驱散会群众，并逮捕1509名集会者。

内政部指出，警方当中发射了的催泪弹分为2种，分别是226枚催泪弹（Tear Smoke Shell，简称TS Shell），以及36枚手掷烟雾弹（Tear Smoke Grenade，简称TS Grenade）。
　
内政部昨日是透过书面方式，这么答覆行动党泗峇沬区国会议员林立迎的提问。
　
每枚催泪弹价格约80令吉
　
内政部指出，每枚TS Shell催泪弹的价格为79令吉76仙，而TS Grenade手掷烟雾弹的价格则是135令吉。
　　
这意味着，警方当天发射的262枚催泪弹，总共耗费2万2885令吉76仙，其中226枚TS Shell价格为1万8025令吉76仙，而36枚TS Grenade催泪弹则为4860令吉。
　
除此，内政部也指出，709大集会当天共有1509人被逮捕，男性占了1412人，而女性只有97人。
　
内政部警方逮捕数据不同
　
被捕者中，巫裔占大多数，即1435人，华裔则有21人，而印裔则有29人，其他则是24人。
　
内政部也说，761名被捕者的年龄介于11岁至35岁，而645人年龄36岁至60岁，61岁以上则有103人。
　
不过，内政部发布的数据跟警方有出入；吉隆坡代总警长阿玛星7月中旬曾说过警方共逮捕1697人。

来源： http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/177861

Steve Jobs – Stay Hungry. Stay Foolish

2011-10-06T17:21:00.002+08:00

(Steve Jobs died on Oct 5, 2011)
__________________________

Steve Jobs

1955-2011

Stanford Commencement address delivered by Steve Jobs, CEO of Apple Computer and of Pixar Animation Studios, on June 12, 2005.

I am honored to be with you today at your commencement from one of the finest universities in the world. I never graduated from college. Truth be told, this is the closest I’ve ever gotten to a college graduation. Today I want to tell you three stories from my life. That’s it. No big deal. Just three stories.

The first story is about connecting the dots.

I dropped out of Reed College after the first 6 months, but then stayed around as a drop-in for another 18 months or so before I really quit. So why did I drop out?

It started before I was born. My biological mother was a young, unwed college graduate student, and she decided to put me up for adoption. She felt very strongly that I should be adopted by college graduates, so everything was all set for me to be adopted at birth by a lawyer and his wife. Except that when I popped out they decided at the last minute that they really wanted a girl. So my parents, who were on a waiting list, got a call in the middle of the night asking: “We have an unexpected baby boy; do you want him?” They said: “Of course.” My biological mother later found out that my mother had never graduated from college and that my father had never graduated from high school. She refused to sign the final adoption papers. She only relented a few months later when my parents promised that I would someday go to college.

And 17 years later I did go to college. But I naively chose a college that was almost as expensive as Stanford, and all of my working-class parents’ savings were being spent on my college tuition. After six months, I couldn’t see the value in it. I had no idea what I wanted to do with my life and no idea how college was going to help me figure it out. And here I was spending all of the money my parents had saved their entire life. So I decided to drop out and trust that it would all work out OK. It was pretty scary at the time, but looking back it was one of the best decisions I ever made. The minute I dropped out I could stop taking the required classes that didn’t interest me, and begin dropping in on the ones that looked interesting.

It wasn’t all romantic. I didn’t have a dorm room, so I slept on the floor in friends’ rooms, I returned coke bottles for the 5¢ deposits to buy food with, and I would walk the 7 miles across town every Sunday night to get one good meal a week at the Hare Krishna temple. I loved it. And much of what I stumbled into by following my curiosity and intuition turned out to be priceless later on. Let me give you one example:

Reed College at that time offered perhaps the best calligraphy instruction in the country. Throughout the campus every poster, every label on every drawer, was beautifully hand calligraphed. Because I had dropped out and didn’t have to take the normal classes, I decided to take a calligraphy class to learn how to do this. I learned about serif and san serif typefaces, about varying the amount of space between different letter combinations, about what makes great typography great. It was beautiful, historical, artistically subtle in a way that science can’t capture, and I found it fascinating.

None of this had even a hope of any practical application in my life. But ten years later, when we were designing the first Macintosh computer, it all came back to me. And we designed it all into the Mac. It was the first computer with beautiful typography. If I had never dropped in on that single course in college, the Mac would have never had multiple typefaces or proportionally spaced fonts. And since Windows just copied the Mac, it’s likely that no personal computer would have them. If I had never dropped out, I would have never dropped in on this calligraphy class, and personal computers might not have the wonderful typography that they do. Of course it was impossible to connect the dots looking forward when I was in college. But it was very, very clear looking backwards ten years later.

Again, you can’t connect the dots looking forward; you can only connect them looking backwards. So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your future. You have to trust in something — your gut, destiny, life, karma, whatever. This approach has never let me down, and it has made all the difference in my life.

My second story is about love and loss.

I was lucky — I found what I loved to do early in life. Woz and I started Apple in my parents garage when I was 20. We worked hard, and in 10 years Apple had grown from just the two of us in a garage into a $2 billion company with over 4000 employees. We had just released our finest creation — the Macintosh — a year earlier, and I had just turned 30. And then I got fired. How can you get fired from a company you started? Well, as Apple grew we hired someone who I thought was very talented to run the company with me, and for the first year or so things went well. But then our visions of the future began to diverge and eventually we had a falling out. When we did, our Board of Directors sided with him. So at 30 I was out. And very publicly out. What had been the focus of my entire adult life was gone, and it was devastating.

I really didn’t know what to do for a few months. I felt that I had let the previous generation of entrepreneurs down – that I had dropped the baton as it was being passed to me. I met with David Packard and Bob Noyce and tried to apologize for screwing up so badly. I was a very public failure, and I even thought about running away from the valley. But something slowly began to dawn on me — I still loved what I did. The turn of events at Apple had not changed that one bit. I had been rejected, but I was still in love. And so I decided to start over.

I didn’t see it then, but it turned out that getting fired from Apple was the best thing that could have ever happened to me. The heaviness of being successful was replaced by the lightness of being a beginner again, less sure about everything. It freed me to enter one of the most creative periods of my life.

During the next five years, I started a company named NeXT, another company named Pixar, and fell in love with an amazing woman who would become my wife. Pixar went on to create the worlds first computer animated feature film, Toy Story, and is now the most successful animation studio in the world. In a remarkable turn of events, Apple bought NeXT, I returned to Apple, and the technology we developed at NeXT is at the heart of Apple’s current renaissance. And Laurene and I have a wonderful family together.

I’m pretty sure none of this would have happened if I hadn’t been fired from Apple. It was awful tasting medicine, but I guess the patient needed it. Sometimes life hits you in the head with a brick. Don’t lose faith. I’m convinced that the only thing that kept me going was that I loved what I did. You’ve got to find what you love. And that is as true for your work as it is for your lovers. Your work is going to fill a large part of your life, and the only way to be truly satisfied is to do what you believe is great work. And the only way to do great work is to love what you do. If you haven’t found it yet, keep looking. Don’t settle. As with all matters of the heart, you’ll know when you find it. And, like any great relationship, it just gets better and better as the years roll on. So keep looking until you find it. Don’t settle.

My third story is about death.

When I was 17, I read a quote that went something like: “If you live each day as if it was your last, someday you’ll most certainly be right.” It made an impression on me, and since then, for the past 33 years, I have looked in the mirror every morning and asked myself: “If today were the last day of my life, would I want to do what I am about to do today?” And whenever the answer has been “No” for too many days in a row, I know I need to change something.

Remembering that I’ll be dead soon is the most important tool I’ve ever encountered to help me make the big choices in life. Because almost everything — all external expectations, all pride, all fear of embarrassment or failure – these things just fall away in the face of death, leaving only what is truly important. Remembering that you are going to die is the best way I know to avoid the trap of thinking you have something to lose. You are already naked. There is no reason not to follow your heart.

About a year ago I was diagnosed with cancer. I had a scan at 7:30 in the morning, and it clearly showed a tumor on my pancreas. I didn’t even know what a pancreas was. The doctors told me this was almost certainly a type of cancer that is incurable, and that I should expect to live no longer than three to six months. My doctor advised me to go home and get my affairs in order, which is doctor’s code for prepare to die. It means to try to tell your kids everything you thought you’d have the next 10 years to tell them in just a few months. It means to make sure everything is buttoned up so that it will be as easy as possible for your family. It means to say your goodbyes.

I lived with that diagnosis all day. Later that evening I had a biopsy, where they stuck an endoscope down my throat, through my stomach and into my intestines, put a needle into my pancreas and got a few cells from the tumor. I was sedated, but my wife, who was there, told me that when they viewed the cells under a microscope the doctors started crying because it turned out to be a very rare form of pancreatic cancer that is curable with surgery. I had the surgery and I’m fine now.

This was the closest I’ve been to facing death, and I hope it’s the closest I get for a few more decades. Having lived through it, I can now say this to you with a bit more certainty than when death was a useful but purely intellectual concept:

No one wants to die. Even people who want to go to heaven don’t want to die to get there. And yet death is the destination we all share. No one has ever escaped it. And that is as it should be, because Death is very likely the single best invention of Life. It is Life’s change agent. It clears out the old to make way for the new. Right now the new is you, but someday not too long from now, you will gradually become the old and be cleared away. Sorry to be so dramatic, but it is quite true.

Your time is limited, so don’t waste it living someone else’s life. Don’t be trapped by dogma — which is living with the results of other people’s thinking. Don’t let the noise of others’ opinions drown out your own inner voice. And most important, have the courage to follow your heart and intuition. They somehow already know what you truly want to become. Everything else is secondary.

When I was young, there was an amazing publication called The Whole Earth Catalog, which was one of the bibles of my generation. It was created by a fellow named Stewart Brand not far from here in Menlo Park, and he brought it to life with his poetic touch. This was in the late 1960′s, before personal computers and desktop publishing, so it was all made with typewriters, scissors, and polaroid cameras. It was sort of like Google in paperback form, 35 years before Google came along: it was idealistic, and overflowing with neat tools and great notions.

Stewart and his team put out several issues of The Whole Earth Catalog, and then when it had run its course, they put out a final issue. It was the mid-1970s, and I was your age. On the back cover of their final issue was a photograph of an early morning country road, the kind you might find yourself hitchhiking on if you were so adventurous. Beneath it were the words: “Stay Hungry. Stay Foolish.” It was their farewell message as they signed off. Stay Hungry. Stay Foolish. And I have always wished that for myself. And now, as you graduate to begin anew, I wish that for you.

Stay Hungry. Stay Foolish.

Thank you all very much.

Police fired tear gas, broke rules in Tung Shin incident

2011-10-05T13:51:00.001+08:00

UPDATED @ 07:19:12 AM 05-10-2011

By Shannon Teoh

October 04, 2011

KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 4 — Riot police broke their own standard operating procedures (SOP) by firing tear gas and water cannons when dispersing Bersih 2.0 rally marchers at the Tung Shin Hospital on July 9, a Health Ministry investigation has concluded.

Home Ministry secretary-general Tan Sri Mahmood Adam said tonight that errant policemen would be referred to the police’s disciplinary board.

File photo of tear gas in the Chinese Maternity Hospital car park, next to Tung Shin Hospital at the July 9 Bersih rally.

“The investigation results concluded that there were unethical actions which were beyond the SOP of the Royal Malaysian Police when enforcement was performed on rally participants who were wrongly using the hospital premises,” Mahmood said in a statement.

Putrajaya and police had earlier denied any wrongdoing despite proof given by Bersih 2.0 and those at the rally.

The Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam) is now waiting for police to answer questions into the incident after a complaint from Bersih, which held the rally to call for free and fair elections.

The Health Ministry probe confirmed police fired water cannons at demonstrators who were converging at the hospital.

“This action was solely to disperse groups of protesters who were gathering at the hospital area,” said Mahmood.

But Mahmood also said that tear gas was only fired in the direction of a car park outside the hospital compound and not into the hospital itself.

The report also found that smoke bombs were hurled by police at demonstrators who gathered in the car park of the neighbouring Chinese Maternity Hospital.

But it noted that the maternity hospital had ceased operations since September 2006 and would only reopen in December.

Mahmood said the Home Ministry “will not compromise on disciplinary action if it is found that there are (staff) who are proven to have violated operational guidelines.”

Police had absolved themselves of any wrongdoing during the July 9 rally after setting up six internal teams to investigate claims of police brutality that followed after nearly 1,700 were arrested, scores injured and an ex-soldier died during chaotic scenes in the capital.

But Health Minister Datuk Seri Liow Tiong Lai ordered a second probe into the Tung Shin incident on July 14 after a group of medical consultants had written to the media refuting the hospital board and police who claimed that no gas canisters or water cannons were fired into the hospital.

The DAP then accused the authorities of sweeping the incident under the rug as its eye-witnesses were told by the Health Ministry in August to join “the police in building an investigation report that will be held soon.”

Police finally admitted on July 21 that Tung Shin was hit with tear gas canisters and water cannons during the rally, but denied shooting directly into the compound.

But this claim flies in the face of various video clips uploaded on the YouTube video-sharing site showing water cannons and tear gas being fired into the hospital.

Source: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/police-fired-tear-gas-broke-rules-in-tung-shin-incident/

出动1万警员镇压709集会，4天行动共耗费201万令吉

2011-10-05T13:42:00.002+08:00

警方数据709游行者是6，000人，出动超过11，000警员。游行者手无寸铁，而警方荷枪实弹，还需要两人对一人，杀鸡何须用牛刀呀？

________________________

李伟伦
10月4日上午11点28分

为了应对净选盟2.0集会，警队共派出1万1046名警员在全国驻守，后勤准备耗费了逾201万令吉。

内政部长希山慕丁指出，警方在7月6日至9日期间，从全国各地警区动员警力，以协助吉隆坡警区应对709集会。

他以书面回答行动党士布爹国会议员郭素沁的提问时，也再次以“非法集会”来形容净选盟2.0集会。

“为了确保巴生谷一带的治安，我们总共派出1万1046名警员驻守和值勤，包括2600名警员在全国各地警区驻守，以防情况所需，就可被召唤。”

8446人驻守巴生谷

这意味着，单是在巴生谷一带驻守的警员，就有8446人。

“警队被迫做好万全准备，而这需要添置额外配备、饮食、住宿及其他物流需要，总花费是201万8550令吉06仙。”

在7月9日，逾万名不分种族民众响应净选盟2.0的号召，走上吉隆坡街头，敦促政府落实8点选举改革诉求。

警方派出镇暴队水炮车，并以催泪弹强行镇压集会，逮捕1697名集会者，打破过去的逮捕人数记录，结果引起公民和国际社会的批评。但政府却强调镇压有理，近期更频频援引伦敦骚乱事件来为打压集会自由背书。

来源： http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/177654

RM2m spent on 11,000 cops to stop Bersih rally, Parliament told

2011-10-05T13:39:00.001+08:00

Police's figure for 709 participants was 6,000, and cops deployed was >11,000. The participants were unarmed, and whereas the cops were heavily armed. Oh, 2 cops against 1 participant, when you want to slaughter a chicken, why need to use a knife which is for an ox?

________________________________

By Melissa Chi

October 04, 2011

Home Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein said today a total of 11,046 police officers from all over the country were stationed in the Klang Valley area during the period in question. — file pic

KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 4 — The government spent more than RM2 million to “handle” the outlawed rally by electoral reform group Bersih 2.0 in July, it was revealed today.

More than 11,000 police officers were also deployed in the days leading up to the rally on July 9.

In a written reply in Parliament to Teresa Kok (DAP-Seputeh), Home Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein said today the total amount spent by the police to “handle” the rally was RM2,018,850.06.

He added that a total of 11,046 police officers from all over the country were stationed in the Klang Valley area, including 2,600 who were on standby outside the city.

“PDRM had to make preparations which included expenditure for additional fittings, food and drinks, lodging and other logistic needs,” he said.

The protest turned chaotic when the police fired tear gas and water cannon at thousands of demonstrators, resulting in nearly 1,700 arrests, scores injured and the death of ex-soldier Baharuddin Ahmad, 59.

Bersih estimates that 50,000 people showed up at the July 9 rally for free and fair elections despite government efforts to prevent it from taking place while the police have said there were only 6,000.

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak has since gone to great lengths to try and win back middle Malaysia after international condemnation of the clampdown on the rally.

In the wake of the rally, Najib had promised to reform the country’s election process, a key demand of Bersih 2.0, followed by sweeping changes to security and press laws, a move he said was to increase civil liberties in the country.

Source: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/rm2m-spent-for-11000-cops-to-stop-bersih-rally-parliament-told/

半年内大选等同“谋杀”特委会，净选盟警告将有更大政治海啸

2011-10-04T14:10:00.003+08:00

李伟伦
2011年10月4日
中午 12点56分

虽然选举改革国会特别遴选委员会今日已正式启动第一次会议，不过净选盟2.0提醒政府，务必确保特委会能够在来届大选前先完成探讨选举改革的工作，否则国阵政府势必将面对更大的政治海啸。

净选盟2.0委员玛丽亚陈、黄进发与杨勇为等今日在国会走廊召开记者会，回应昨日成立的选举改革特委会事宜。

净选盟强调，如果政府没有在来届大选前，落实净选盟提出的8点诉求，那么政府所承诺的选举改革诺言将是毫无诚意的空谈。

“特委会是属于国会的一部分。如果特委会在完成工作前，国会就已经解散，特委会也会跟着自动解散。”

“因此，如果纳吉政府成立特委会，只是要让特委会的工作作废，那么这将是公开侮辱国会之举。”

人民将发送“更强烈讯息”

玛丽亚表示，如果国阵政府忽略了709当天的5万名群众力量，硬要在特委会完成工作前解散国会，则政府将会看到人民送出“更强烈的讯息”。

黄进发也指出，如果政府在未来6个月内解散国会举行大选，就等同于“谋杀”特委会。

询及会否有“净选盟3.0”集会，他说：“我想我们将看到任何形式的净选盟3.0，还有一个更大的海啸。”

来源： http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/177664

More Pastors Plan to Preach Political Sermons

2011-10-04T11:00:00.002+08:00

Posted 9:07AM EDT 10/3/2011 Charisma News Staff

Then-Senator Barack Obama is greeted by Pastor Rick Warren in the green room just prior to the beginning of the Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency. (Scott Tokar, PiCS Saddleback Church)

Pastors from more than 475 churches nationwide—nearly five times as many participants as last year—have committed to preach sermons that present biblical perspectives on the positions of electoral candidates.

In so doing, they will exercise their constitutionally protected right to free religious expression despite a problematic Internal Revenue Service rule that activist groups often use to silence churches.

“Pastors and churches shouldn’t live in fear of being punished or penalized by the government,” says Alliance Defense Fund Senior Legal Counsel Erik Stanley. “Churches should be allowed to decide for themselves what they want to talk about. The IRS should not be the one making the decision by threatening to revoke a church’s tax-exempt status. No government-recognized status can be conditioned upon the surrender of a constitutionally protected right. That’s why ADF started Pulpit Freedom Sunday: to get the government out of the pulpits of America.”

Pulpit Freedom Sunday is an event associated with the ADF Pulpit Initiative, a legal effort designed to secure the free speech rights of pastors in the pulpit. ADF hopes to eventually go to court to have the IRS rule known as the Johnson Amendment struck down as unconstitutional for its regulation of sermons, which are protected by the First Amendment.

A national phone survey conducted by ADF and LifeWay Research last month with 1,000 randomly drawn senior pastors found that nearly nine out of 10 Protestant pastors believe that the government should not regulate their sermons.

“The survey confirmed what pastors of nearly every persuasion have told us for years: they don’t want the IRS, or any other governmental agency, to censor what they say from their pulpits,” Stanley says.

Source: http://charismanews.com/politics/32091-more-pastors-plan-to-preach-political-sermons

Kelana Jaya Immigration Renewing Passorts

2011-09-27T15:25:00.005+08:00

Today I renewed my passport at Kelana Jaya Immigration Office. It was at Plaza Glomac, Jalan SS7/19 Block B. The internet misled me to Block A. I got it done in 50 minutes, kudos!

But photo cost RM10 for 4 pieces without a CD (I was afraid to take it at the studio somewhere as there has been people getting problem with fuzzy officers). Photostat of IC cost 40 cents. A glass of tea tarik at the next door Mamak cost me RM2. They did not even have a wifi service, so my money was not worth spent. Parking at Block A cost RM4.20 for an hour plus (20 cents must be government tax as the rate stated RM2 per hour. I was exploited by all these. Who would fight for people such injustice?

今天在可拉那再也移民局更新我的护照，它位于 Plaza Glomac B 座，互联网却误导我在 A 座。50分钟就搞定了，赞！

然而，在那里拍4张照片10令吉，没有提供光碟（我怕在外面照相馆拍，因为有资讯说有人曾经受到爱找渣的官员为难）。复印身分证卡40仙。隔壁的麻麻餐室收我一杯拉茶2令吉，可笑就是它们没有无线网络设备，那我的钱算是花得不值。在 A 座停泊汽车1小时多收费4.20令吉（20仙或许是政府税吧？因为通告牌注明每小时2令吉）。我被这些东西剥削了！谁能帮助人们伸张这般的不公呢？

“与末沙布辩论而非提控他”，党团联署质疑纳吉改革诚意

2011-09-21T15:51:00.002+08:00

2011年9月21日
下午 2点24分

47个党团组织今日联署，集体表达对政府提控回教党署理主席莫哈末沙布的厌恶。

45个公民团体及2个政治组织发表联合文告表示，政府提控莫哈末沙布，显然与首相纳吉在马来西亚日宣布的民主开放措施背道而驰。

“这令人质疑首相纳吉宣布的系列改革的诚意，包括修改印刷与出版法令。首相是否还能全面控制警察部队的行动？”

“我们促请政府即刻撤销此含有政治动机的提控，停止恐吓挑战官方历史与意识形态的异议者。”

“我们吁请首相与副首相，与其滥用政府机关将莫哈末沙布入罪，不如接受莫哈末沙布的挑战，在不设禁的电视台上公开与他辩论武吉格蓬事件。”

使反对者噤声懦弱行为

文告是，政治人物、前军警人员和土著权威组织也应在媒体或论坛上与莫哈末沙布公开辩论，并应该尊重莫哈末沙布有表达不同意见的权利。

文告谴责，滥用政府机关使反对者噤声是懦弱的行为，显示掌权者没有安全感、没有信心以事实与道理赢得辩论。

“如此压制言论自由，实际上对马来西亚的独立是个侮辱。不同于殖民地或一党专政的国家，一个独立国家的人民应享有基本人权和自由。”

联署公民团体：

1. 维护媒体独立撰稿人联盟
2. 人民之声
3. 妇女力量组织
4. 雪隆社区协会
5. 社会传播中心(KOMAS)
6. 隆雪华堂民权委员会
7. 林连玉基金公民社会委员会
8. 连环扣全国行动小组(NIAT)
9. 528媒体行动小组
10. 政策倡议中心(CPI)
11. 马来西亚青年与学生民主运动
12. 社区行动网络(CAN)
13. 我是马来西亚之子(SABM)
14. 全球化可续性监督组织(MSN)
15. 被压迫人民联盟
16. 隆雪华堂青年团
17. 理大前进阵线
18. 博大前进阵线
19. 北大前进阵线
20. 新纪元学院前进阵线
21. 雪兰莪社区关怀协会
22. 博大华文学会
23. 大专生团结阵线 (SMM)
24. 动力青年 (Y4C)
25. 新纪元学院校友会
26. 马来西亚印裔组织联合会（PRIMA）
27. 雪隆理华同学会
28. 北马理华同学会
29. 中国维权大马后援会
30. 还原大马历史运动委员会
31. 独立大专生活跃小组（KAMI）
32. 50B 空间
33. 709黄潮世代
34. 政改研究所 (KPRU)
35. 人民之声新山支会 (SUARAM JB)
36. 原住民关怀中心 (COAC)
37. 妇女行动协会（AWAM）
38. 彩虹性别学会
39. 社会想像工作室
40. 全民挺明福运动
41. 杨伟光后援会
42. 回教复兴阵线（IRF）
43. 雪兰莪妇女之友协会
44. T'anda Tanya of DurianFM.com
45. 槟城中文报记者及摄影记者协会 (PEWAJU)

联署政治组织：

1. 社会主义党
2. 雪兰莪民联议员助理协会（SELPROA）

来源：http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/176434

Branding guru calls Najib’s PR efforts an ‘absolute scam’

2011-09-21T15:38:00.001+08:00

By Yow Hong Chieh

September 21, 2011

Anholt, courtesy of www.simonanholt.com

KUALA LUMPUR, Sept 21 — The creator of the nation branding concept has called the prime minister’s use of British publicity firm FBC Media to burnish Malaysia’s image abroad an “absolute scam” and a waste of public funds.

Simon Anholt, who pioneered the use of nation branding as a way to measure, build and manage a country’s reputation, said that while public relations was needed in the private sector, it was “highly suspect” that a country could up its standing using the same means.

“There’s a great deal of evidence around us to show what a waste of taxpayers’ money this is,” he told BFM Radio in a phone interview this morning.

“First of all, the countries that tend to spend most money on these PR campaigns to fix their image tend to be the rogue nations.

“If you look at the countries that have spent the most money on ambitious PR campaigns, they’re the places that are most despised and it hasn’t done anything to fix their image at all.”

Anholt pointed out that media studies has known for decades that the media cannot change people’s perception of a country from worse to better or vice versa but could only raise the profile of its existing image.

For this reason, he said “the last thing” a country with a bad image should do is engage in public relations as increased media coverage would only remind the rest of the world what a “problematic” country or government it was.

“So I’m afraid I think the whole thing is an absolute scam and a shocking and indefensible waste of taxpayers’ money,” he said.

Anholt stressed that governments needed to understand that when they engaged in foreign policy, economic development or international relations, they risked damaging the reputation of their country, which was worth “much, much, much more” than all other tangible assets combined.

It was the “sacred responsibility” of governments today to ensure their country’s good name was preserved and handed down in the same condition, if not better, he said.

Anholt added that countries could only make themselves more relevant to the rest of the world by becoming more useful, and suggested Malaysia tackle shared global issues like climate change, women’s rights, terrorism and financial instability to improve its reputation.

“And then I absolutely guarantee that if you do that and you do it well and you do it consistently over a number of years... you will find that you will become a much more widely recognised and more widely appreciated country,” he said.

“That’s how reputation is earned. I’m afraid there aren’t any shortcuts to it.”

Last month, Putrajaya was forced to end its contract with FBC Media after an embarrassing exposé revealed that Malaysian leaders routinely appeared in paid-for interviews on global television programmes.

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak has since engaged the services of a new group of political strategists — including members of the team behind Tony Blair’s “New Labour” — to reinvent the first-term premier as a moderate reformist in preparation for possible snap polls next year.

Najib’s new team of advisers is just the latest in his administration’s penchant for foreign public relations firms.

APCO’s time in Malaysia was marked by controversy after the opposition alleged the public relations firm was linked to Israel.

Source: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/branding-guru-calls-najibs-pr-efforts-an-absolute-scam/

Forget ISA abolition, zero-in on electoral reform

2011-09-20T15:52:00.002+08:00

Monday, 19 September 2011 Super Admin

Article 149, which is meant for national security, is the mother of repressive laws, as it enables parliament to brush aside fundamental human rights guaranteed under Part 2 of the Constitution to enact laws that grant the Executive sweeping power that includes detention without trial. The human rights so affected include those enshrined under Article 5 (life and liberty), Article 9 (freedom of movement), Article 10 (freedom of speech and assembly), etc.

By Kim Quek

Prime Minister Najib Razak’s stunning announcement of his intention to repeal the abominable Internal Security Act (ISA) as well as the three archaic Proclamations of Emergency has brought much excitement to a country long struggling to rid itself of repressive rule.

Najib said in a much anticipated speech delivered on the “historic night” of Sept 15 (as he himself described) that the lifting of these repressive legislations was meant to meet the “aspiration of the people for a more open and dynamic democracy, …..so as to be at par with other democratic systems in the world”.

The immediate emotional impact of such a momentous announcement must be one of exhilaration and euphoria for many – we are now finally on the path to regain our long lost democracy!

But are we?

OLD WINE IN NEW BOTTLE?

In the same breath as Najib announced the good news, he said new legislations will be enacted – an anti-terrorism act and a public order law - under the umbrella of Article 149 of the Federal Constitution to combat subversives and organized violence, so as to preserve public order and security.

But isn’t this the same umbrella Article 149 that gave birth to the detestable ISA?

Article 149 was written in such a way that it virtually gives the dominant party in parliament a blank cheque to write whatever autocratic law whenever it desires, as the grounds upon which such law can be enacted encompass a wide range of vague justifications – grounds such as any actual or threatened action that may cause citizens to fear organized violence, or to excite disaffection against government, or to promote ill-will among races, or prejudice the functioning of public service or supply, etc.

With such licence to create autocratic legislations, can Umno resist the temptation to fashion the new anti-terrorist laws after its repressive impulse for self-preservation? Considering Umno’s notorious record of contempt for the sanctity of law, as reflected in its cavalier attitude in amending the Constitution for political expediency – having made more than 600 amendments to the Constitution in the short period of the country’s independence – the answer must be an emphatic no.

NO CHANCE OF FAIR IMPLEMENTATION

Even in the unlikely event of Umno managing exceptionally to enact the replacement security laws in accord with the democratic spirit of our Constitution on this occasion, there is still the huge question of whether Umno is capable of implementing these laws with fairness and equity.

In this respect, we recall that when the ISA was enacted in 1960, our first prime minister Tunku Abdul Rahman gave the solemn pledge in parliament that the vast power of ISA would only be used to curb the communist insurgency, and would never be used to suppress political opposition.

But we all know that the ISA detention center at Kamunting has played host to such distinguished “guests” (detainees) as Anwar Ibrahim, Lim Kit Siang, Mat Sabu, Karpal Singh, Lim Guan Eng (among thousands of others). Does anyone in his right mind believe that any of them could have been a communist or a subversive?

It is an undeniable fact that the history of ISA is a mirror of the relentless abuse of draconian power by the Umno led regime to oppress opponents and silence critics. Instead of using the ISA as a weapon to combat the communists as pledged, ISA has been turned into Umno’s potent instrument to keep its hegemony intact all these decades.

Umno is now facing unprecedented challenge to its political survival. Are we to believe that it will give up this potent weapon at this most vulnerable moment of its existence?

What Najib is effectively tellings us is that the anti-communist law (ISA) will now be replaced by anti-terrorist law.

Since both laws derive from the same root (Article 149), have the same power of preventive detention, exercised by the same political masters, and implemented by the same institutions (police, attorney general and judiciary), which now enjoy even less public confidence than in the past, why should one believe that history will not repeat itself?

If an anti-communist law has been persistently and unhesitatingly abused to blunt opposition challenges in the past, why should we believe that the new anti-terrorist law will not be similarly abused now that Umno is struggling desperately for its political survival?

GENUINE REFORM UNLIKELY

Even if Najib is serious about these changes this time, as he may have been persuaded to adopt this course as the best way to recoup the middle ground support he lost in the recent Bersih rally debacle, obstacles ahead abound.

For a start, Najib appears to have acted in isolation, as two key players seem to have been left out of the loop. Neither his deputy Muhyiddin Yassin nor Home Minister Hishamuddin Hussein – and by extension, the cabinet – seem to have participated in the decision-making process.

The hardliner Home Minister, who is responsible for implementing the security laws, expressed ignorance, when reporters asked him about rumours of a pending repeal of ISA only two days before Najib’s speech.

While Muhyiddin, speaking at a Merdeka-Raya event in Nibong Tebal, Penang on Sept 17, said that Najib’s announcement was “unexpected and radical”, but he quickly added that Najib’s speech was “bold and courageous”. He went on to praise Najib for moving with the time and assured the people that the changes were meant for the good of the people.

Such expressions of “surprise” and “praise”, coming after keeping mum for two days, give a lot of food for thought.

A reasonable interpretation is that the staunchly conservative and increasingly more powerful deputy leader of Umno cum deputy prime minister was not happy with such a “radical” move, but pragmatism dictates that he must not show it. Instead, he must have decided over the two days of contemplation to turn an apparently unhappy event into advantage by riding on this new wave of “democratic reform” to reap maximum support at home and abroad, without the slightest intention to let go of Umno’s repressive grip. After all, there is still ample opportunity to keep Umno’s draconian power intact during the legislative as well as the implementation stage.

Indeed that seems to be the case, as unmistakably signaled by Muhyiddin when he pointed out that the new security laws will prioritize security over human rights, when answering query whether there would be true reforms with the introduction of two new security laws.

Without the prior consultation and support of Umno’s top guns for genuine reforms, and with Najib’s miserable record of flip-flops whenever opposed by conservatives, it is almost a foregone conclusion that there will not be true reforms whether there is or isn’t repeal of current repressive legislation.

ELECTORAL REFORM TOP PRIORITY

The real danger to true reformists lies in the false propaganda that can be generated from this new development, considering the immense power of BN’s propaganda machinery, which encompasses all newspapers and all TV channels.

Among the casualties of such false propaganda would be the Bersih 2.0 movement for electoral reform, as euphoria so created may deflate the immense momentum generated by the recent Bersih rally. It may even cripple Bersih’s capacity to rally another mass demonstration, if substantial section of the middle ground is doped into cherishing such false hope of democratization.

And Bersih rally 3 looks inevitable, in the light of alarming increase of discovery of frauds in the electoral roll, against the back drop of a reluctant BN to institute real reform.

This new menace of apparently systemic infestation of phantom voters in the electoral roll, unless effectively checked now, can snowball into something like ‘Project M’ (M stands for Mahathir) which had singularly propelled Umno to political dominance in Sabah in the Nineties.

We are therefore landed in the dire state of having to face new trouble spots while resolution of old issues is not in sight yet.

It is therefore imperative that we redouble our effort to press for swift and effective measures to rectify the current electoral flaws, and not allow ourselves to be unnecessarily distracted by Najib’s new initiative over democratization.

Top priority must always be electoral reform, as it holds the key to a fair chance of winning the right to administer the country. Without the mandate to rule, all talks of reforms will be in vain.

Source: http://malaysia-today.net/mtcolumns/guest-columnists/43544-forget-isa-abolition-zero-in-on-electoral-reform

同性婚姻应该是私事

2011-09-09T11:35:00.002+08:00

2011-09-08 18:10

男人跟男人结婚，女人跟女人结婚，在我们这个小社会吹皱一池春水。

除了一些宗教团体根据固有价值观公开反对之外，比较收敛的平面媒体有一些文章，虽然不表同意，却也是欲言又止，点到为止。

不过，知名写作人黄子的一篇《威过北港的大马香炉》，对于好此道者的不知其丑、以丑为美、大事张扬的行为，无法掩饰他的厌恶之感。

我有同感。

人权自由扭曲道理

在人权自由的大幌子下，道理会被扭曲。对于此种“打破世俗观念”的同性婚姻现象，除了强势的宗教敢出声之外，以常理看问题的人即使不能苟同也不敢出声反对，因为一反对就是
守旧落伍反人权，害怕得罪不起一班前卫分子。

一样米养百样人，百样人之中就有逐臭之夫，以臭为香。如果有人喜欢嗅臭袜子，那是他的人权，但拜托自己嗅好，不要拿来当风扬。

对于性倾向异常的人，他们与同性成双成对，或者他要去挨刀变性，都是他们的私事，别人也没有什么好说的；可是把这种事拿来大事宣扬甚至鼓吹就不同了，因为这样一来就不再是
私事，而变成了一个公共卫生的问题，也就是道德的公共卫生。

我们的两性道德观念尽管千差万别，总离不开大自然法则，那就是阴阳化物，两性结合为了传宗接代，延续种群。

传宗接代不让人类绝种

各民族的人祖神话，也都是从男女两个祖先开始。传宗接代是天职，其他不论玩什么花样都不是正道。所以，道德公共卫生的基调就是维护异姓婚姻，不让人类绝种。

华人对于同性恋其实很宽容，所以历史上的断袖、分桃这些“男色”玩意都没有受到批判，有娈童癖者也没有受到歧视。用现在的话说，就是尊重他们的人权。

都说了，臭袜子可以自己嗅不可当风扬，嗅臭袜是他的个人卫生，但不可影响到公共卫生。

打个比喻，我们喜欢吃榴梿，洋人厌恶榴梿。吃榴梿是我们的权利，洋人也尊重我们的权利。但是，我们却被禁止在飞机上吃，也被禁止在五星级酒店吃。

为什么？就是行使权利的时候，不能让别人觉得不舒服，要照顾公共卫生。

老实说，把同性结婚铺排成为“世纪婚姻”似的大事宣扬，很令人不舒服。显然，他们这么张扬，是为了造势，声势一成，以后更没有人敢说事。

为了不让人类绝种，要敢敢反对同性婚姻合法化。

张木钦

来源：http://nanyang.com/node/381490?tid=490

威过北港的大马香炉

2011-09-09T11:30:00.001+08:00

2011-09-05 17:04

《北港香炉人人插》，出版时非常经轰动。但因为早前读过作者的中篇《暗夜》，说其文字朴素可以，粗糙也不妨；既然以文字为媒介，文字的审美情趣，总不能缺吧？故此，对其作品，也就兴趣缺缺了。

轰动是因为那个丰胸肥臀被冠上“建国妖姬”女政客，对号入座，一把眼泪一把鼻涕地要索回清白，而作者则被指是公报私仇用小说影射情敌，台湾媒体遂将之定性为“两个女人的战争”。在作者已死，文学正在死亡中，文学作品萧瑟的年代，普通书籍初版两千，从此没有再版，小说竟因此印了20万本，实销也有16万本，真利害！
“北港香炉”，因此名扬华人地区；后来法国人搬上舞台，更是锦上添花。

北港香炉太地方性

当初哭诉被毁谤为“表哥四五桌”的“公共厕所”；后来提升到更高境界，是革命志士都想上一回的 “豪华公共汽车”；表哥的人数，不能用增法，而是要用减法──哪个同志没上过──才能计算出，多少人上过。再后来，改行当名嘴的女政客，大彻大悟，得道作仙，不再以这为耻，反倒以豪放为荣，公然宣称昔日敌营中的马英九是她最理想的one night stand的对象了！

如此看来，她的道根不高，远远比不上Buatan Malaysia，国际共用的大马第一香炉了！

嫁黑嫁白公告天下

北港香炉，同志们个个想上一回；但上香的男人，个个都是“台湾表哥”，不只是同一种族，而且还是讲台语的同一籍贯，太地方性，太单一性了。

大马的第一香炉，打从十岁在家乡的泳池被人上香之后，来到雪隆升学：深夜搭末班巴士，就让巴士佬上；中国话“搭的”，就让德士佬上；萍水相蓬，街头巷尾，只要一个眼神，就是一炷香；除了娶妻那几年，从大马到美国，真是承香无数。

北港香炉从四五十个表哥，升级到用减法才能算出多少香客，小说一出版，那女政客就哭哭啼啼，大喊冤屈。可人家大马第一香炉，则是高调出柜，自己著书，津津乐道其失身史──虽然是简史，没有一一细数，正如饮食，除非是皇帝的起居，否则毋须餐餐细载，读者可以类推。若以量计，大马第一香炉，至少可与北港香炉打个平手；若论悟道，年纪更轻，就已认定被人上香是光宗耀祖、绝对真理了──论得道之早，更胜一筹。

自从到美国留学之后，在被人嘲为吃足软饭，才休妻，更是走上国际路线，虽未曾一一细表，但至少先公告与白人天使共筑爱巢，现在高调嫁给黑人──看清楚，是嫁黑人咧──还有比这更荣耀的伟业？其一举一动，不但要昭告大马国民，现在有法新社这全世界最浪漫的法国人的通讯社为他电传全球。

资助婚礼吸引游客

北港香炉名气大，但始终不过是地方性、单族性的法器；大马香炉，则是从大马走向国际，肤色五彩缤纷。北港香炉人人要上一回，但没人敢娶回家；大马第一香炉，万族共用，退可娶，进可嫁，婚礼何止世纪性，还要两国隆重演出呢。

北港香炉，顶多名扬华人区的四海；大马第一香炉，何止光宗耀祖，还为国争光，扬威国际呢。

大马政府不应禁之，有道的宗教人士说，不能祝福，就别出声，否则，活该被斥为原教旨主义；反应拨款赞助其婚礼，以吸引游客复得文明开放的美名──如此一来，更多父母将生了儿子，可得个女婿；生个女儿，还会多个媳妇，包赚。

黄子

来源：http://www.nanyang.com/node/380646?tid=490

为何提倡同性恋？

2011-09-09T11:14:00.002+08:00

2011-09-07 17:06

最近，本地有两个女子高调“结婚”，我们的报章不约而同形容为“打破世俗观念”，“同志新人”，报道她们“不惧他人异样的眼光”…。

什么叫“打破世俗观念”？什么又叫“同志”？

说打破“异性结婚”的世俗观念，显然是表明同性结婚是对的，是好事，不然为什么要去“打破”它？我们有“破旧立新”的成语，中国近代也有“破四旧”运动。所以，只有坏的事物，才会去“打破”。

如果用“反世俗观念”，那又不同，是在说明一个事实，没有赞同的意味。

同性恋并非一种志向

“同志”又是什么？为什么只有应用中文的同性恋群体自称、被称为“同志”，从没见过西方的此道中人以“comrade”来称呼？

以中文来说，“同志”一词早期是左派专用来指党员战友，“志同道合”之意，至今不变。其他政党后来也用这个词来称呼同一政党的党员。

香港的同性恋名人迈克也用这个词来称呼同道中人，港台媒体呼应，也就形成了“气候”。德高望重如星云大师，对同性恋课题也只能说“不可说”，显示这股“气候”的威力大到什么程度。

为什么同性恋要以“同志”来称呼，而不是直截了当的同性恋？或者“同恋”、“同娈”？

名正了，言才顺。他们应该是认为，称为“同志”才“正当”。我认为，理由至少有两个：一、“同性恋”这个名称虽然没有恶意，却不够“正面”。二、“同志”最适当，虽然西方人没有这么做。

颠覆家庭道德观念

我认为，这个群体根本没有条件可以用这个称呼。直截了当的理由是，同性恋绝对不是一种志向，只能是一种性取向，一种选择。那么，为什么提升为志向？什么时候听到人说：让我们立志搞同性恋？这不是自我美化是什么？

我想不通为什么中文媒体也跟着他们这样说？即使不愿意在这个问题上“开罪”这个群体，至少也应保持最基本的中立，理由是：

一、同性恋权利是西方文化东扩的另一个标记。可是，西方的一切并不是都是好的，他们的经济一团糟，就是一个明证。

二、同性恋颠覆家庭观念。西方的家庭观念本来就不深，与东方背道而驰。世纪绝症爱滋病首先是在男同性恋群体中发现的。

三、同性恋群体并不能成为永续的社会，因这它是“绝后”的，必须依附以传统家庭为主流的社会。

四、这个群体既然选择这条路，就不应该“窃取”“结婚”这个名堂，虽然其中一个女人扮成男人。奇怪的是，男“娶”男时，其中一个却不扮成女人？这个群体应该自己找出另一个名堂，因为“结婚”是属于传统异性恋的。

五、既然选择“绝后”，就没有权利造出一个试管孩子来“续后”。这种做法对这个孩子公平吗？这种行为有什么值得歌颂之处？

选择权与认同权

同性恋在华人社会受到歧视吗？让事实来回答：

一、已故张国荣的影艺事业，并没有因为公开性取向而受到影响，传媒还是捧他为巨星。

二、白先勇备受尊敬，在中国也是如此。他有没有以“同性恋”自居？

三、要得到社会尊重，首先就得先尊重社会，不危害社会。最近在台湾发生的同性恋死者带爱滋病毒器官移植给五名病人的医疗事故，更凸显这个群体的风险。死者家属知道他是同性恋者，家人无奈地接受，他却隐瞒患爱滋病的事实，虽然他的第一个“男友”还是医生。

同性恋者固然有选择的权利，别人更有不认同的权利。生命必须生生不息，否则一切都变得没有意义。

纵横

来源：http://www.nanyang.com/node/381126?tid=490

'Godless' China to be world's biggest supplier of Bibles?

2011-09-09T10:39:00.001+08:00

A Deutsche Presse Agentur story released on the eve of the New Year's reveals that Nanjing is about to be home to the world's largest Bible factory to be housed in what's been described as an "aircraft hangar-sized plant" capable of producing 1 million copies a month, or one Bible per second.

Amity Printing's current factory is already 800,000 Bibles a month in 90 languages, from Braille to Slovakian to Swahili. Megan Hunt, a volunteer English teacher with Amity in Yizhou, Guangxi Autonomous Region has graciously shared with Shanghaiist her pictures of what the current plant looks like. Click for more after the jump:

This looks like just any other factory in China.

Another view of the plant.

Reams and reams of paper that reach to the ceiling. A lot of this paper has been donated by the UK-based United Bible Society and other overseas Christians.

The word of God being printed by these old rickety macines that have served Amity for years.

Women ripping out faulty pages.

And this is where they all end up!

Pages for the Bibles being collated before the binding. Does it not strike you how most of the work seems to be done manually? A state-of-the-art US$4 million Timson publishing press has just been shipped in from Europe for the new plant that will replace the old system.

The finished products. More than 50 million Bibles have been produced this way, with over 80% of them in the Mandarin-language edition.

Bibles that have passed quality inspections are tagged "合格" (approved) before they are sent to be sold at state-sanctioned churches throughout China for as little as 9.50 yuan (US$1.30) each. Other language versions are exported to other parts of the world.

For another equally interesting look at Amity Press, refer to BENSLCHAN's photo set. The Amity Foundation has its official website here.

Maybe you, too, have an interesting photostory to share with Shanghaiist readers? Get in touch with us at info AT shanghaiist DOT com!

Source: http://shanghaiist.com/2008/01/03/godless_china_t.php

中秋节英文翻译

2011-09-06T12:23:00.001+08:00

（我回应的文章在此文后面）

读了陈德庆的“中秋节不是月饼节”文章，我的看法如下。我管理的教会每年都有庆祝中秋节，我起初把中秋节在英文的名称上使用“Lantern Festival”，即“灯笼节”。但发觉英文部的会友们经常都称此节为“Moon Cake Festival”，后来就索性在英文上如此称呼它，然而中文还是用“中秋节”。

若用“灯笼节”，在中国反而会想到“元宵节”，因为传统上，元宵节就是在街市挂满灯笼，百姓当晚会出来赏花灯猜灯谜的。而在中秋节，习俗上乃提灯笼。所以对读英文的人士，中国有两个“Lantern Festival”，那其实也如此。而马来西亚的英文名称却是用（本地英文报纸也这样用）福建话的音译“Chap Goh Meh”（十五晚），而不用“Lantern Festival”。

把中秋节以字义直译为“Mid-Autumn Festival”，并不会令老外关注其什么特殊性。而“Moon Cake Festival”却能够抓住他们的好奇心，会询问为什么在这节日吃月饼？朱元璋在农历八月十五日的“月饼起义”推翻元朝事迹，比中秋节的神话故事更来得有说服力。太空人登陆月球，并没有发现什么“嫦娥，月兔捣药，吴刚伐桂”的迹象。

若读英文的人认同英文名称“Moon Cake Festival”我们不必斤斤计较，若你在互联网搜索此名称，可发现有百万计的结果。除此，在中秋节不是只是为了吃月饼而已，而是月饼有中秋节的一定意义的。老外对改革是相当有兴趣的，因此他们会对“月饼起义”的故事有兴趣的呢！陈德庆把月饼跟各族群的糕点来相比乃不恰当的相比。月饼只有在中秋节才有得吃，而“Ketupat, Muruku”长年累月都有得吃，甚至“年糕” 也不例外，我家附近的卖油炸鬼的档口，长年累月都卖炸番薯芋头夹年糕呢！

-----------------------------------------------
2011-09-06 08:23

再過不久，就是中秋節了。中秋節和其它華人傳統節日一樣，是個充滿故事的節日。中秋節傳說及活動多與月亮有關，若稱其為“月亮的慶典”也不為過。除了華人，日本、韓國、及越南等地也有過中秋節之習俗，但各民族間關於中秋之傳統則不盡相同。

一直以來馬新兩地常將中秋節翻譯成“mooncake festival”，而兩地華人也很習慣並接受此翻譯。之前我也不覺得這樣的翻譯

有何不妥，但漸漸地卻發現這翻譯實在不可接受。好的翻譯有3大原則――信、達、雅，即忠實、通順、高雅。

“Mooncake festival”這一翻譯雖然通順，但它即不忠實又不高雅，也貶低了中秋節做為華人大節日的傳統文化價值。若不瞭解中華文化的外國人或友族同胞看了此翻譯，也許還會以為中秋節不過就像西班牙蕃茄節，德國啤酒節等以食物為主題之嘉年華呢？想想看若我們將農曆新年翻譯成“nian gao festival”，開齋節翻譯成“ketupat festival”，屠妖節翻譯成“muruku festival”，這樣的翻譯豈不令人笑掉大牙？

筆者認為，將中秋節翻譯為“mid autumn festival”或“moon festival”更為恰當。這兩個譯名都是中港台等地的主流翻譯。前者忠實、通順，確切地表達了“中秋節”一詞之字義，也較常被使用；而後者則帶有一絲中秋節的浪漫色彩。有些翻譯稱中秋節為“mid autumn moon festival”，但筆者認為此譯法稍嫌累贅，且也非當今主流。

月餅是中秋節之一大重點，但它不過是個配角。華人注重吃，也常說民以食為天，但若我們的大節日只剩下食物，我們的文化也該準備收入冷凍庫裡了。因此，為了傳統文化，也為了更漂亮及貼切的翻譯，早日將“mooncake festival”正名為“mid autumn festival”是極重要的。（星洲日報／言路‧作者：陳德慶）

来源：http://opinions.sinchew-i.com/node/20789

The Ominous Handwriting on America’s Wall

2011-09-02T12:32:00.002+08:00

Wednesday, 31 August 2011 09:18 AM
EDT J. Lee Grady Newsletters - Fire In My Bones

An earthquake rattles Washington, D.C., and a fierce storm ravages the East Coast. Is God speaking to us?

I’m not a doomsday prophet, and I don’t believe every hurricane, earthquake or drought is God’s judgment. But I did pause to ponder the significance of the freakish 5.8-magnitude quake that jolted the East Coast last week. The White House was evacuated, the Washington Monument was closed indefinitely because of cracks, and the National Cathedral’s central tower was seriously damaged.

Does anybody else find that slightly spooky?

“I hope President Obama and the leaders of both political parties in Washington are heeding the ominous signs of the times. And I pray they don’t forget the words of another one of our founders, Patrick Henry, who said: 'It is when people forget God that tyrants forge their chains.'”

Atheists and secularists will say it was just a big seismic coincidence. They probably also ignored the fact that a few days after the quake, a massive storm weirdly drifted toward Washington, D.C., and New York City. Hurricane Irene has now been blamed for at least 42 deaths in 12 states, and more than 2.5 million people from North Carolina to Maine were still without electricity Tuesday.

Judgment from God? That’s not how I view disasters. But I do think last week’s double whammy was about as obvious a sign from heaven as when God scribbled a warning on the wall while King Belshazzar was partying in his palace.

Hello? Is anybody reading the handwriting on America’s wall?

In the case of Belshazzar (see Daniel 5:1-31), that clueless king couldn’t decipher God’s cryptic graffiti—so he called a true prophet to decode it. I’m not sure if many American leaders would ask a modern Daniel for counsel. Many of them have divorced themselves and our government from faith in God and His moral standards.

New York’s ultra-secularist mayor, Michael Bloomberg, was certainly in a Belshazzar mood when he announced last week that he was excluding any and all members of the clergy from the city’s commemoration of the 10th anniversary of 9/11. Pastors as well as politicians have blasted Bloomberg for his insensitivity, but he insists that the ceremony will be better without a spiritual tone.

I guess he thinks America doesn’t need God to help us through our worst national crisis in a generation. We can just read some humanistic poems and grieve by ourselves.

According to the joke posted on thousands of Facebook pages last week, the Virginia earthquake was triggered when America’s founding fathers rolled over in their graves. A funny thought, yes, but I don’t think George Washington or Benjamin Franklin would find anything amusing about the state of our country today. And I don’t think they’d be laughing at Mayor Bloomberg’s blatantly tyrannical stance against religion.

The idea of a 9/11 commemoration without prayer is downright sad, especially when you recall that our nation’s founders—as imperfect as they were—built this country on Christian precepts. In today’s secularist climate, people who speak about our founders’ faith are labeled right-wing whackos. Pardon my political incorrectness, but questioning whether many of the founders were Bible-believing Christians is as insulting as denying the Holocaust.

The founders did not hide their faith or apologize for it—and they certainly never legislated against it. Consider these facts (which, thankfully, have not been removed from history books):

The first prayer in the U.S. Congress was offered in Philadelphia in 1774. George Washington was among those kneeling as other leaders gathered to pray after hearing that British forces had attacked Boston. One observer wrote that the scene “was enough to melt a heart of stone” as he watched tears gush from the eyes of the old patriots.

During the Continental Congress of 1787, Benjamin Franklin asked that clergy be called in every morning to lead prayers “imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessing on our deliberations.”

George Washington asked citizens in 1789 to “unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations, and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions.”

In 1799 President John Adams urged Americans to fast, pray and “call to mind our numerous offences against the most high God, confess them before Him with sincerest penitence” and “implore His pardoning mercy … for our past transgressions.”

Fast forward to the America of 2011, where faith is criticized, believers are mocked and leaders don’t see any need for prayer. It’s a pitiful way to end our legacy.

It will probably take more than a few cracked monuments or damaged cathedral towers to grab the attention of leaders like Mayor Bloomberg. Meanwhile, I hope President Obama and the leaders of both political parties in Washington are heeding the signs of the times. And I pray they don’t forget the words of another one of our founders, Patrick Henry, who said: “It is when people forget God that tyrants forge their chains.”

Source: http://www.charismamag.com/index.php/fire-in-my-bones/31890-the-ominous-handwriting-on-americas-wall#readmore

Rule of law or rule by law?

2011-09-01T12:49:00.001+08:00

NO HOLDS BARRED

Wednesday, 31 August 2011 Super Admin

Whether these people can or cannot leave Islam is a matter for the Muslims to resolve. This has nothing to do with the church and the church cannot be subjected to Islamic laws. As far as the church is concerned, these people are no longer Muslims. But if there is no such thing as ‘ex-Muslims’, then a law needs to be passed stating so. Then the confusion will be cleared up. Then the church would be barred from preaching to anyone born a Muslim since the word ‘murtad’ would no longer be in the Muslim vocabulary.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Malaysia has tens of thousands of lawyers. But how many lawyers actually ‘practise law’ or are most in this only for the money? Seldom do we hear lawyers speak out on what is right and what is wrong. It should be the job of lawyers to educate Malaysians as to what the law is all about. Only then can it be said that they are true to their profession.

Laws are man-made. Sometimes we say that these are God’s laws or this is what God ordained. Invariably, all laws are made by man but blamed on God. Why are the lawyers not telling us this?

Just because it is law does not make it right. Are we talking about rule of law or rule by law? “What’s the difference?” you may ask. A lot of difference! And it is the duty of lawyers to educate us on the difference between the rule of law and rule by law.

Queen Elizabeth I ordered Parliament to appoint her as Governor of the Church. Since she was a woman, she could not be appointed as a proper head of the church like her father and brother before her -- which would tantamount to the position of the English Pope. So they made her the governor instead.

Then Elizabeth banned the practise and belief of the wafer as the body of Christ and wine as the blood of Christ. All the Catholic Bishops opposed this and they instigated the citizens to defy this new ‘heretic’ law.

The Bishops were all rounded up and imprisoned and replaced with Protestant Bishops. The Catholics were forced to go underground and to practise their faith in secret and behind closed doors. There were pockets of rebellion all over the Kingdom, even as far as Scotland where they deposed their Catholic Queen (later they chopped off her head as well).

Of course, this conflict between the Church and the Throne was not new. Even back in the days of Henry II, 400 years earlier, there was already a conflict and the Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Becket, was assassinated because of his conflict with the King over the rights and privileges of the Church.

So, was Elizabeth right? Of course, she had the power. But just because she had power and just because a law had been passed does this make it right? Who was Elizabeth to decide that this is what God ordained? Did God speak to her? Or was this merely a political move?

You see: England, then, was only South England. From York onwards, this was Catholic country. So, by getting rid of the Catholic faith, this meant England could unite and Scotland, if it turned Protestant, would become part of English territory.

Scotland was also aligned to France. And France was Catholic and the age-old enemy of England. So, by ‘occupying’ Protestant Scotland, this meant that the danger of a French invasion (through Scotland) would be eliminated.

So there you have it. It was not about what God wanted. It was about what Elizabeth wanted. And Elizabeth wanted Scotland under her control. And she wanted the French Catholic Queen kicked out of Scotland. And she wanted the French army kicked out of Scotland. If not, her throne would be in jeopardy of a ‘Catholic’ invasion with a new Catholic Queen from Scotland installed onto the throne.

In short, Elizabeth had to control and dictate what is and is not acceptable religious beliefs and practises to be able to control England and get rid of the Scottish-French threat to her throne.

Elizabeth used religion to hold on to power.

Today, we celebrate Merdeka. But how are we celebrating Merdeka? By raising the flag? By sleeping at home? Merdeka should be celebrated by respecting the ‘Merdeka Agreement’, which is basically the Federal Constitution.

How can we say we are remembering or honouring Merdeka when we do not respect the Constitution? The Constitution was the foundation of Merdeka. Without the Constitution there is no foundation and therefore no Merdeka.

This, the lawyers should tell the people far and wide, the length and breadth of Malaysia. The basis of our laws is the Constitution. However, many of our laws violate the Constitution.

Many things ail Malaysia. But I want to talk about only one ailment today. And this ailment, the latest in a series of ailments, is the conflict between Church and State brought on by the DUMC raid and the allegations made against the Church.

The DUMC raid was not the only conflict between Church and State. Earlier, we had the Allah issue, the Bahasa Malaysia Bible issue, and so on. It appears that all along the way the Church is in conflict with the State.

But has this not been so for more than 1,000 years? The Church has always had its differences with the State (or more like the State resented the power the Church had over the people and thus started the ‘turf war’ between the State and the Church).

Anyway, Article 3 and Article 11 of the Constitution are very clear (by right, lawyers ought to be talking to you about this, not me). Let us consider what it says.

Islam is the religion of the Federation. No dispute.

Other religions may be practised in peace and harmony. No dispute.

The Ruler is the Head of the religion of Islam in his State. No dispute.

Every religious group has the right to manage its own religious affairs. No dispute.

Every person has the right to profess and practise his religion and, subject to Clause (4), to propagate it. No Dispute.

There should be no propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the religion of Islam. No dispute.

So, where is the dispute then?

Let’s look at “Every religious group has the right to manage its own religious affairs”. What does this mean? If the Christians want to publish a Bahasa Malaysia Bible, would this be under the clause of “manage its own religious affairs”? Can the government then dictate what language the Bible can and cannot be published?

Let’s look at “Christianity cannot be propagated to persons professing the religion of Islam”. But what if that person has announced that he or she has left Islam?

Now, you may say that once a person is born to Muslim parents then he or she is automatically a Muslim and a Muslim is a Muslim for life and cannot leave Islam. But that is between the Muslim and his ‘Church’. Once a Muslim renounces Islam (murtad), he or she is an apostate. Technically, he or she is no longer a Muslim.

The State may say that he or she is still a Muslim. That’s according to the government. But in the ‘eyes’ of God, he or she is no longer a Muslim. He or she has become a murtad.

So, where is the crime here?

Actually, the issue is not that complicated. It is just that the lawyers would rather not get involved in this issue because it is very sensitive and Malays are a very emotional people who would run amok if they think that they cannot win by words and need to resort to violence to win an argument.

A true lawyer would educate us. Most lawyers, however, would remain silent and allow the ignorance to continue. And this ignorance has caused a lot of confusion.

In short: Christians cannot preach to Muslims. That is the law. But if that person has left Islam, technically, he or she is no longer a Muslim but an ex-Muslim. So, it is not against the law to preach Christianity to these people (who are technically not Muslims any more).

However, as it stands now, the word ‘murtad’ does exist. And this means Islam recognises the existence of 'ex-Muslims'.

So, where do we go from here? And why are the lawyers not speaking up?

***************************************

Article 3

1. Islam is the religion of the Federation; but other religions may be practised in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation.

2. In every State other than States not having a Ruler the position of the Ruler as the Head of the religion of Islam in his State in the manner and to the extent acknowledged and declared by the Constitution, all rights, privileges, prerogatives and powers enjoyed by him as Head of that religion, are unaffected and unimpaired; but in any acts, observance or ceremonies with respect to which the Conference of Rulers has agreed that they should extend to the Federation as a whole each of the other Rulers shall in his capacity of Head of the religion of Islam authorize the Yang di-pertuan Agong to represent him.

3. The Constitution of the States of Malacca, Penang, Sabah and Sarawak shall each make provision for conferring on the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall be Head of the religion of Islam in that State.

4. Nothing in this Article derogates from any other provision of this Constitution.

5. Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall be the Head of the religion of Islam in the Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur and Labuan; and for this purpose Parliament may by law make provisions for regulating Islamic religious affairs and for constituting a Council to advise the Yang di-Pertuan Agong in matters relating to the religion of Islam.

Article 11

1. Every person has the right to profess and practice his religion and, subject to Clause (4), to propagate it.

2. No person shall be compelled to pay any tax the proceeds of which are specially allocated in whole or in part for the purposes of a religion other than his own.

3. Every religious group has the right -

(a) to manage its own religious affairs;

(b) to establish and maintain institutions for religious or charitable purposes; and

4. State law and in respect of the Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur and Labuan, federal law may control or restrict the propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the religion of Islam.

5. This Article does not authorize any act contrary to any general law relating to public order, public health or morality.

Source: http://malaysia-today.net/mtcolumns/no-holds-barred/43172-rule-of-law-or-rule-by-law

同性戀沒有特殊地位

2011-08-31T13:58:00.001+08:00

2011-08-30 11:18

在大馬，同性戀婚禮是不被應許的。這是國家法律，沒甚麼好辯論。男男或女女的婚禮是不合法也不受承認。犯規者將會面對罰款及鞭刑。這個獨特的現象不只發生在大馬而已，幾乎世界上所有國家皆如此。

同性戀婚禮違反文化、道德以及宗教倫理。在回教裡，婚禮的定義是男人與女人合法的結合然後生活在一起、互相愛護、傳宗接代、組織家庭以及社會。在合法婚姻中夫妻二人須分別扮演角色以

及負起責任。

基督教也不允許信徒做出這樣的行為，除非是自由主義教派。前天主教教宗若望保祿二世和現任教宗本篤十六世也一樣反對同性戀婚禮。

因此，一名來自本地的基督教牧師與他男友即將在吉隆坡舉行婚禮的意圖不被同一個宗教以及其塔信徒接受。代表全國2千個教會的全國福音派基督徒聯盟譴責該位牧師的行為。佛教與興都教也反對這段同性戀婚姻，原因是這個行為違背了宗教教義。政府與馬來西亞回教律師協會也同樣反對這個做法，而大馬宗教局也一樣認為自由主義不符合回教教義。

大馬曾經有人舉行同性戀婚禮，就是名為鍾潔希的變性人與一名會計師於2003年在砂拉越所舉行的，那是唯一的一次。

他們婚禮主持人是3位來自3個獨立教會的牧師，然而在法律上是不被承認的。

在其他國家，如此婚禮是被視為“公民聯盟”或“承諾儀式”。雙方沒有正式法律約束。他們對財產、遺產或是同類型的問題上無需付出責任。

同性戀婚禮在羅馬帝國早期歷史的確有被記載。但是在公元342之後，士坦提烏斯二世和士坦提已執行法律禁止同性戀婚禮，犯規者必須面對死刑。中國，非洲以及希臘也是如此。根據回教法律，同性戀者將面對鞭笞100下以及被流放一年。而同性戀結婚者將被丟石致死。

明知道這是違反宗教教義和國家法律的行為，然而是甚麼原因導致那位本地牧師有這樣的意圖？

在人權和自由選擇的基礎上，同性戀者如今要求伸張正義，並希望他們的生活方式可以被社會接受。對我來說，他們要求的不只是人權。他們其實是要的是特殊地位，即是要求社會接受他們歪曲的生活方式，就算是違反宗教、人的本質以及國家法律甚至威脅他人的生命。

這已經非常過份了。憲法和國家法律賦予所有公民平等的權利。同性戀不能指望或要求特殊的權利或地位。85個國家將會對那些不尋常戀愛者採取行動，包括大馬。在這個數據當中，8個國家將判這些犯罪者死刑。

在新加坡、巴基斯坦、烏干達、印度、坦桑尼亞、塞拉利昂以及其他4個國家，同性戀者將被判終身監禁。要是那位牧師堅持他的意圖舉行同性戀婚禮，那麼他可以這麼做然後繼續住在被允許的10個國家，即是阿根廷、比利時、加拿大、冰島、荷蘭、挪威、葡萄牙、南非、西班牙和瑞典。只要不是在馬來西亞。（星洲日報／言路‧作者：瑪茜達‧首相署副部長）

来源： http://opinions.sinchew-i.com/node/20708

Jesus the Socialist

2011-08-26T12:29:00.003+08:00

Janie B. Cheaney, WORLD Magazine
Wednesday, August 24, 2011

(WNS)--The Washington Post “On Faith” column gives space to writers of all religious persuasions, including atheist Gregory Paul. I guess that makes sense if he writes about other people’s faith, especially if he can work in their politics. His latest column zings American evangelicals who supposedly wave the flag of capitalism, venerate Ayn Rand, and believe that God favors deregulation and low tax rates. He finds it odd that so many Christians adapt happily to a Darwinist (“survival of the fittest”) model for the marketplace but reject it when applied to biology, where it belongs. And he wonders why communists reject God but adopt the only economic system apparently sanctioned by God in the New Testament.

To support the latter point, Paul references Jesus’ blessings on the poor and his warnings to the rich about how hard it will be for them to enter the kingdom. Sealing his case is the depiction of the early church in Acts 2 and 4—how believers shared all their goods in common. To Christians who insist that such giving was voluntary, not government-enforced, he slams back the story of Ananias and Sapphira. Aha! God zapped these two for failing to give the whole amount of their real estate sale. “And great fear fell upon the whole church.” Does that sound “voluntary”?

Here the writer does the same sort of cherry-picking he accuses Christian capitalists of, for he doesn’t include the actual condemnation. The couple was struck down for lying, not for hoarding their property: “While it remained unsold [said Peter], did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? . . . You have not lied to men but to God” (Acts 5:4). Besides misapplying Scripture, Paul lays about with such a broad sword he doesn’t really skewer anybody, and convinces only those who are already convinced. The case for Christian socialism has been made often, and better, by those who claim to be Christians.

That said, I agree with him that “Jesus is no free marketeer.” But neither was Jesus a socialist. His primary concern was not saving the economic system but saving individual souls. He has no more encouraging words for the revolutionary socialist than for the laissez-faire capitalist. I would not go so far as to say that God favors one economic system over another. Maybe He left that up to us.

It seems that every generation becomes encrusted with its own catchphrases and angle of repose. Christian baby boomers cheered the Great Society; their Gen-X children joined the Reagan Revolution; now Millennials are asking, along with Jim Wallis, "What Would Jesus Cut?" It’s not enough to fall back on the saying (wrongly attributed to Winston Churchill) that a 20-year-old conservative has no heart and a 40-year-old liberal has no brain. Young people are capable of thinking as well as feeling, but free-market parents can’t assume their children will absorb their economic values as naturally as their faith.

Some issues require going back to the basics in every generation. Given that a just society cares for the poor, what is the best way to do that? What responsibility belongs to government, what to the church, what to the family? What is the historical record of entrenched welfare? Does it have a discernable effect on human responsibility and family structure, and do the consequences outweigh the benefits? Knowing that no society will be perfect, how much good can we achieve? When does social justice become social engineering, and how do Christians balance charity with liberty?

There’s a case to be made on both sides, and the only way to determine the better case is to discuss these questions honestly, with mutual respect and open debate. Since that’s not likely to happen in the public sphere, it had better happen at home.

Janie B. Cheaney writes for WORLD Magazine.

Source: http://www.crosswalk.com/news/jesus-the-socialist-commentary.html?utm_source=Crosswalk_Daily_Update&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=08/25/2011

NGO: One in 10 abused victims may turn into sex offender

2011-08-24T15:00:00.002+08:00

Wednesday, Aug 24, 2011
by Lee Yen Mun

PETALING JAYA: To say that cases of sexual abuse of boys are under reported is an understatement as one in three sexually abused children is believed to be male.

This finding was based on indirect disclosures filed by victims to the Protect And Save The Children Association of Selangor and Kuala Lumpur, a registered non-profit organisation advocating children's rights.

One in 10 of these victims may turn into a young sex offender if they are not given counselling and therapy sessions, said association director Madeleine Yong.

“Much of our society are still unable to accept disclosures from boys who were sodomised or sexually abused.

“Even with female victims, the first reaction is usually blatantly blaming the children what more with the boys, who are more commonly expected to defend themselves?” Yong told the The Star yesterday.

On Monday, Health Ministry Disease Control Division deputy director Dr Zainal Ariffin Omar said sexual abuse of boys might be under reported due to shame and stigma attached to such cases.

In his keynote address at the International Congress of Legal Medicine 2011: Child Abuse and Neglect in Putrajaya, Dr Zainal said a maltreated child might have negative effects on the development of the individual's brain and nervous systems.

This may expose an individual to a higher risk in abusive and sexual behaviours, among others, in adulthood.

Social psychologist Datuk Dr Chiam Heng Keng concurred, saying that paedophiles prey upon victims of both sexes.

Dr Chiam is the Malaysian representative (children) to the Asean Commission on the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Women and Children.

“If left untreated, there is a high chance the victim will turn into a sex offender himself.

“The victims would feel they need an outlet to appease their guilt and anger by doing the same to another person, as the abuser has stimulated a perverted desire in them,” Dr Chiam said, adding that Malaysia lacked an awareness of abused children's right to express in defence of themselves.

Source: http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2011/8/24/nation/9355158&sec=nation

莫在大马推动同性恋议程

2011-08-23T21:56:00.001+08:00

一对同性恋情侣欧阳文风先生与菲尼亚斯先生选择趁大马国庆日8月31日在美国结婚，并过后在大马举行华人仪式婚礼。虽然基督教会不能阻止婚礼的举行，但它们仍然必须发出不表赞同的声音，以站稳支持圣经纯洁的信仰。

欧阳通过媒体呼吁同性恋者勇敢出柜表明性倾向，也呼吁异性恋者勇敢支持同性恋者的斗争。基督教会已经多次表明不歧视同性恋者，事实上今天不少教会都有同性恋者，但没听过有人因此被驱逐出教会。如果说教会要求同性恋者接受辅导而被视为逼迫他们的话，那就误解了教会的用心良苦。

教会正视欧阳高调地宣传同性恋议程，乃是基于他打着一个“牧师”身分的名堂。几年前欧阳在大马推动同性恋教会，受到教会的对抗，至今这项卫道的努力并没削减。几年前那次欧阳带着一个南美洲男伴回国，和这次跟另一个非洲裔男伴决定结婚的新闻见报后，两次牧师们都难于回答会友们的提问，包括：“牧师搞同性恋这样都可以吗？”

教会里头不是每个人都是熟读圣经的，同性恋者对于圣经有自己一套的诠释，这种似是而非的所谓“圣经支持同性恋”的教义乃足以混淆一些会友的。所以欧阳在大马大肆推动同性恋议程，教会绝不会袖手旁观的。

欧阳以“联合国在今年6月通过了议决案，赋予所有人同等权益，不以其性取向为考量”来抨击大马歧视同性恋。我认为西方以人权至上的姿态作其政策的考量，已造成了社会道德的沦落而不自知。譬如父母不可鞭打儿女（即使还年幼也不可），否则就是算为暴力，难怪孩子叛逆个案飙升。

合法化不等同合乎道德，不同的国家有风月场所，赌场，雏妓等领域合法化，难道它们就等同合乎道德吗？我知道在加拿大吸毒是没犯罪的，被逮捕的吸毒者被安顿在一个地方，政府免费提供毒品任由他们去吸，那这是什么样的尊敬人权？

在大马，以宗教为反对同性恋行为的只有天主教，基督教和回教。而佛教，从8月19日佛教论坛得知，此宗教不反对它，而是尊重人的自由选择。前三者以及犹太教跟佛教有别，乃在于前者是出于同一个祖宗亚伯拉罕。它们有相同的旧约圣经，都是相信“上帝创造论”，并且新旧约圣经都明文指同性恋是罪。而佛教没有“创造论”，也没有经典抨击同性恋，可以理喻。同性恋行为是亚当和夏娃堕落的后遗症，上帝只创造一男一女，并在生理上给他们能力生养众多。堕落后的后裔带着这个原罪执意违反上帝的旨意，包括同性恋，自有人类以来就记载在圣经上。

人类长久以来的繁殖，乃是靠男女的婚姻制度延续至今。婚姻是上帝为人类设立最神圣的制度，夫妻彼此贞忠。而同性恋者的后裔必须通过第三者拥有孩子，这岂不是另类的婚外情？澳洲一个男子曾捐精子给一对女同性恋者而诞生了一个孩子，最近他通过法庭争取自己为合法生理父亲的地位，结果法官判他输。可见同性恋带给社会有颠倒秩序的祸害。

美国在开创国家时是秉持基督教信仰很严谨的国家，但种种迹象看到它已经离经背道了。它允许俗世主义驾御于圣经主义之上。希望欧阳不要把世俗主义强加于大马社会里，结果衍生不可预知的社会伦理问题。国庆日是个神圣日子，不可糟蹋它。

歐陽文風苦樂自尋求

2011-08-23T21:49:00.001+08:00

2011-08-23 07:54

41歲的同性戀牧師歐陽文風與47歲的美籍非裔情人音樂劇製作人菲尼亞斯締結同性婚姻，使兩年的情侶關係進入新的篇章。如果從傳統的異性婚姻界定名份，育有14歲女兒的菲尼亞斯理應以其雄風紀錄被視為“丈夫”，歐陽文風則是“妻子”。

不久前，有兩位女同性戀者也大擺宴席辦婚禮款待親友的祝福。其中一人就有接近丈夫外表的打扮，可見得，無論是男與男、女與女同性戀，最終還是

跳脫不了以異性特徵的分野。因此，同性戀婚姻中的乾坤之別，在觀念上還是離不開陰陽之辨。

歐陽文風可說是強勢的“妻子”，多年來毫不避諱公開倡導同性戀，其言其行，毀譽參半。他落實這樁婚姻，給力的是美國紐約州參議院今年6月24日通過法案，讓同性戀者可以合法註冊婚姻。兩天後，他接受求婚並籌劃註冊。歐陽文風趁勝追擊班師大馬，將在吉隆坡與美籍非裔情人舉行另類的轟轟烈烈華人婚禮。

歐陽文風的同性戀性取向廣受爭議，他的牧師及評論人地位的能言善道強項使他成為焦點。簡單的說，歐陽掌握媒體的力量表述他的性取向，並以坦然以對宣示他驚世駭俗的婚姻理念。而在同性戀中，他的率性表述非但不會造成恥辱，反而令人對他的我行我素，勇於追求本身的幸福得到衷心祝福。但是，刻意標榜性取向就自然有輿論的反彈，看來，歐陽有“雖千萬人吾欲往之”的氣勢，使他的同性戀色彩格外顯眼。

其實，當今世界，除了政客、影視歌星和其他公眾人物的同性戀傾向成為新聞之外，數以千萬計的同性戀都默默耕耘，其結局是悲是喜，正如老歌“月兒彎彎照九州”的那一段經典歌詞：“翻天的風浪使人愁，要穿要吃哪顧得險呀，可憐夜夜淚雙流，月兒彎彎照九州，人生的苦樂自尋求……”。

其實，不管同性或異性婚姻，這種被捧為終身大事的“投資”雖經過激情、嚮往、理想、甜蜜、誓盟的揉合要長相廝守，常經不起現實生活和時間的考驗。所以，每一樁婚姻都受到親友的叮囑和祝福。上帝即使為他們禱告也不能擔保天長地久。每個人都得對本身的抉擇自求多福。

作者：林放

歐陽的婚訊似乎沒有受到太多的祝福，一些牧師與基督教青年組織強調同性戀違反聖經教義，譴責歐陽文風過度宣揚同性戀結婚的事難以被接受。官方也指我國的國情若不加過濾同性戀婚姻，將使傳統價值觀和道德亂了套。因此，歐陽舉辦華人傳統婚宴，純粹是一種儀式而沒有法律基礎的認證。那些衛道之士即使嘶喊，也只能是，吹皺一池春水，干卿底事？

歐陽文風大可不必“挾持”捍衛世界人權宣言的原則，為本身的同性戀婚姻訴求塗脂抹彩，畢竟，再先進再文明的紐約也只在最近通過同性戀婚姻法案，若要大馬急起跟隨，就得等下一世投胎再議，恐怕來世時，他倒贊成異性戀了。（星洲日報／言路‧作者：林放‧資深報人）

来源：http://opinions.sinchew-i.com/node/20602

Homosexuality, the church and Malaysia

2011-08-23T17:40:00.002+08:00

Ou Yang's letter is after this at below.

August 23, 2011

FMT LETTER

From Loh Seong Wei, via e-mail

Mr Ou Yang Wen Feng, in his letter to Malaysiakini dated Aug 18, 2011, pleads for homosexuals to be treated with respect and dignity. As Christians who by faith seek to live out the will of Jesus in loving our neighbours, we do not discriminate between heterosexuals and homosexuals.

However, what Mr Ou Yang desires for is more than respect and dignity for homosexuals. The church is being asked to accept and by extension celebrate homosexuality, which is condemned in the clearest terms possible in scripture, as natural.

The Scripture not only condemns homosexual acts as unnatural (i.e. contrary to the “order of human nature”), but homosexuality itself. For “thought” precedes “action”, and Romans 1 castigates homosexuals who exchanged natural affection for unnatural one.

Since Christians in Malaysia have normally understood St Paul the Apostle to be speaking under divine revelation rather than talking from experience, we cannot in good conscience recognise homosexuality in the “theological context.”

The unnatural state of being is grounded in how the homosexual perceives his self-identity. Self-identity is “who I am/ who you are” and thus goes to the very definition of a “person.” This makes a person unique, unrepeatable and ultimately mysterious and at the same time (simultaneously) sharing a common nature with the rest of human beings.

Whilst nature in its psychological and physical – psychosomatic – functions can be sensually or consciously experienced, the person (i.e. the “I”) is the “subject of faith.” In other words, it is something taken for granted as a fundamental fact of life.

One may question whether UFOs exist or not but our very own existence (the I/Ego) is a given (literally by God and not generated from within the person since person = “I”; and if person is created by God, then the “I” only exists – as a gift – from God).

Even the notion that life is an illusion acknowledges the existence of an “I.” Homosexuality is not reducible to (i.e. exclusively understood in terms of) the mind and the body. As part of human self-understanding and identity, homosexuality is central to who a person is.

After all, despite the biological anomaly in homosexuality (at least compared to heterosexuality where sexual expression of love and pro-creation go naturally hand in hand), homosexuals nevertheless insist on their sexual identity.

Furthermore, science has yet to probe the depths of human existence in all its complexity and mystery. The Book of Genesis offers simple clues as to whether homosexuality is natural or not.

The Fall of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden caused by their lack of faith in the Creator resulted in “Original Sin” so that the entire person (epitomised by the I/ Ego) is no longer at peace ‘and’ harmony with God and creation (nature).

Wars, greed, poverty, environmental degradation, etc. are the concrete symptoms that is part of our world. Homosexuality proceeds from Original Sin where ‘prior’ to the Fall, the “immutable” basis for human life was determined by the Creator, namely heterosexuality – man and woman.

So that, sexuality always imply two distinct (but inseparable) sexes/ genders. Jesus Himself reaffirmed the original creation order in Matthew 19 where a man shall cleave to his wife and become one flesh. Marital union from the religious viewpoint is always and only heterosexual.

Unless of course Mr Ou Yang denies a literal account of the six-day creation. Still Mr Ou Yang should now know that the unconditional love of God who died on the Cross and proclaimed in the Gospel restores man and woman to their original state of being prior to the Fall.

The whole person is re-created by the Creator who is at once Saviour. So profound is the change that it can only be perceived by faith (in God). As it is, Mr Ou Yang and his fellow homosexuals want to place “nature” as constituting their identity rather than the “person.”

By doing so, we are merely confirming our Original Sin since human beings are by ‘nature’ sinners. That is, the sinful nature determines the identity and acts of the person. In the Gospel, the situation is reversed whereby the person is now free from sinful nature, and the person is free to give meaning to his new nature and to live according to his or her identity given freely by the Creator.

In the “political context”, the church in Malaysia cannot also agree or support the legalisation of homosexuality and the concomitance of same-sex marriages (civil or religious). Just as Mr Ou Yang is bound to his conscience, likewise the church is bound to its conscience.

Mr Ou Yang has no right to “force” the church and state in Malaysia to emulate the example of the State of New York and others. What the church can do and will do is to urge the government of the day in Malaysia not to persecute homosexuals. But it is the moral and legal responsibility of the church and state to ensure that homosexuals in Malaysia are subject to prosecution where necessary.

So, I ask Mr Ou Yang to understand that whilst homosexuals in Malaysia are equal under the law with equal political rights, they cannot expect to practice and advocate their lifestyle normally and openly as in the West. Secularism does not hold the same meaning in Malaysia as in the West.

Secularism in Malaysia does not mean separation of religion and state or a “liberal” interpretation of religion. On the contrary, both religious and secular values and principles exist side-by-side in harmony, and where applicable one takes precedent over the other. So, please do not try to impose Western secularism on Malaysia with your homosexual agenda.

Source: http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/2011/08/23/homosexuality-the-church-and-malaysia/

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

Homosexuals too have a right to love

Rev Ou Yang Wen Feng
Aug 18, 11
7:04pm

In June 2011, the United Nations Human Rights Council has passed a resolution on human rights violations based on sexual orientation and gender identity, thus, it is heartbreaking to hear some politicians in my beloved country call my love unethical or immoral simply because of the gender identity of my lover.

Many people in Malaysia, some of them are my friends, some are total strangers, gay and straight alike, have sent me blessings and congratulated me when they learn that I will be marrying my lover. I am deeply touched and moved by their gestures. My country, however, fails to uphold the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is therefore particularly disappointing.

For too long, gay people have suffered from discrimination not because of what we do but simply because of who we are. Our constitutional right as a human being, taxpayer, and citizen to be treated equally has been denied.

Due to ignorance and prejudice, many gay people have to pretend to be someone whom they are not. Many have to hide themselves in the closet of heterosexual marriages, and it hurts their heterosexual spouses deeply. Thus, what I am doing in Malaysia, is not only for gay people, but to send a strong message to heterosexuals that you all deserve to be loved passionately by heterosexuals, and no one should cheat on your love for the sake of survival.

Thus, I urge all reasonable and open-minded straight people to come out and speak up in order to break the conspiracy of silence, because silence kills. By keeping quiet, many good people have inevitably and unfortunately given their tacit consent to the oppressive culture that promotes homophobia and perpetuate ignorance.

When straight people who have known better about homosexuality refuse to speak up for gay people, they are guilty of the injustice done to gay people and also to themselves indirectly. It is therefore critical for everyone, especially heterosexuals, to come out and speak up in favour of homosexuals in order to challenge homophobic or social discourse and practice.

As a Christian, I believe in love and I live in hope, I strongly believe that everyone should be treated with respect and dignity. If we all are willing to work together, I have no doubt that soon and very soon, love and fairness shall win.

Source: http://www.malaysiakini.com/letters/173451

摄记拍安华保镳中弹被问话律师斥多媒体委会骚扰媒体

2011-08-19T23:33:00.002+08:00

2011年8月19日
傍晚 7点40分

公正党喉舌《公正之声》摄记因拍摄一张公正党实权领袖安华保镖以身护主，脸中催泪弹而血流满脸的照片，而受到大马通讯与多媒体委员会传召问话近一小时。
　
该名摄记是现年55岁的尤丝丽娜（Yusriah Yusof），她在律师法迪雅的陪同下，到通讯与多媒体委员会办公室录取口供。

尤丝丽娜是因为把有关照片交给《马来西亚内幕者》新闻网站，经由后者刊登后，才受到多媒体委员会的调查。

质问照片是否没伪造

尤丝丽娜在完成录供后，向记者揭露多媒体委员会的盘问内容。

“他们问我，那张照片是否我拍摄的？照片是否真实？为何会出现在《内幕者》网站上？我是否因此又收钱？”

“我说，摄记朋友之间交换照片是正常的。他们也问我，是否有把照片交给其他人？但我不记得了。”
　
炮轰当局骚扰封真相
　
针对此，也是捍卫自由律师团成员的法迪雅批评，这次传召问话，是媒体在报道警方滥权时，当局反而骚扰媒体。
　
“这是一种根本不会停止的恐吓及骚扰，他们是试图封堵真相。”
　
尤丝丽娜是在1998年通讯及多媒体法令第255条文下，受传召助查。多媒体委员会官员派出官员凯鲁（Mohd Khairul Abdul Kadir）领导4名官员，录取尤丝丽娜的口供。
　
留难阻止律师陪录供
　
法迪雅指称，当她要陪伴尤丝丽雅录供时，多媒体委会官员还说要为她另外录取口供。

“有两名官员进来后对我喝斥，说我若不肯录口供，他们就会报警举报我。”
　
“他们说‘在这间办公室内不要讲法律，这是我们的办公室，你没有权利谈法律，要讲法律的话，你就上法庭去。’”
　
无论如何，法迪雅坚持留在办公室内，全程陪同其当事人录供。

保镖挺身护主挨弹头
　
安华保镖法耶（Fayyahd Afiq Albakqry）是在警方镇压净选盟集会时，在中环车站地下道内挺身护主，为安华挡了一发催泪弹，结果其左颊骨碎裂受伤。法耶已针对此事报警，并在7月27日向警方录取口供。

来源： http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/173574

We are always an ‘exception’

2011-08-18T13:58:00.001+08:00

Wednesday August 17, 2011

Musings
By Marina Mahathir

Malaysian policies often state that we are different and therefore cannot be compared with others. Yet those who join peaceful marches are likened to British rioters. Suddenly we are the same?

ARE we getting progressively schizophrenic? Judging by current responses to events around the world, it would be easy to conclude that we are.

Schizophrenia is a mental disorder that makes it difficult to tell the difference between real and unreal experiences, to think logically, to have normal emotional responses and to behave normally in social situations.

If you read up on Malaysian policies and statements on various issues, the one striking factor is our insistence on exceptionalism. That is, we are different and therefore cannot be compared with any other country.

Fiery aftermath: The violent riots in London left many properties in ruin. — AFP

In the early years of the AIDS pandemic, we thought we were protected because we were different. If non-Muslims in other Muslim countries use the word “Allah” for God with no fuss, ours can’t because we are different. We are apparently unique and incomparable to anyone else in the world.

Which is why it puzzles me that all of a sudden our citizens, or at least the ones who want to voice their opinions with peaceful assemblies and marches, are being compared to British rioters and looters.

If we are always different, how come suddenly we are the same?

Going by the statements of our leaders, basically we are nothing more than savages who would rob, rape, loot and pillage given half the chance. Therefore, we need all sorts of laws to keep us in check and not venture in groups of more than five outside our homes.

Now, this is why that schizophrenic inability to think logically comes into play. Despite evidence that none of the 30,000 or so peaceful marchers last July robbed, raped, looted or pillaged, our leaders insist that we would have. They must be looking at mirrors.

Just a few days ago the fellow who demonstrated how inconvenient a protest is by inconveniencing everyone in Penang declared that he would burn down two online news portals whose reports he disagreed with. Now if that’s not London rioter behaviour, I don’t know what is.

More disturbingly, after already having insulted all the good citizens who exercised their right to peaceful assembly, our leaders go on to insult them some more.

Instead of being proud that we did not have the type of violence that the UK experienced, instead of talking about how so much more civilised our people are, our leaders liken us to rioters who have vandalised, stolen and killed.

Talk about the inability to distinguish between reality and fantasy.

A certain amount of hypocrisy also rears its ugly head. What if Mark Duggan, the man who was shot by police in London and whose family’s peaceful protest became the original rallying cry for the rioters, was Mohamad Duggan?

Between 1987 and 1993 and 2000 and 2005, the Palestinian people went through two uprisings against the Israeli government, known as the First and Second Intifadas, respectively. Both Intifadas involved demonstrations, protests and, yes, a certain amount of violent rioting.

They were met with an even more violent response from the Israelis that resulted in many deaths and the eventual blockade of Gaza, still in force today.

Our government supported the Intifadas then. Does that mean that our government supports the right of Palestinians to demonstrate, protest and riot, but refuses its own people’s right to do much less, that is to just march peacefully?

Or is the logic that when governments are democratically elected, its people then lose the right to protest against them?

Conveniently ignored, too, is the fact that in the UK, protests and demonstrations are held all the time without the type of violence we saw recently.

One of the biggest was in 2003 when hundreds of thousands of people marched against the Iraq war. At the time we looked benignly at this because we had the same stand. Did we tell the Brits and others round the world that they should not demonstrate against the war?

So what is the message here? We may be trusted to peacefully protest as long as the subject of our protest is in sync with the Government’s. Otherwise, if we should protest for free and fair elections, against corruption or anything else that the Constitution gives us the right to, we are labelled as unpatriotic thugs out to disturb the peace and destroy the economy and image of our country.

Looking at the UK riots, are we even talking about the same thing? What cause was the UK rioters espousing?

Some wide reading instead of political posturing might be more beneficial here. The UK rioters did not loot bookshops, and some have suggested it’s because they don’t like to read.

Perhaps they are not unlike some of our politicians.

Source: http://thestar.com.my/columnists/story.asp?col=musings&file=%2F2011%2F8%2F17%2Fcolumnists%2Fmusings%2F9301335&sec=Musings

No way to gay’s big day, say pastors

2011-08-18T12:39:00.001+08:00

Thursday August 18, 2011

PETALING JAYA: Several pastors have condemned their gay counterpart Rev Ou Yang Wen Feng’s upcoming marriage and want the authorities to ensure he does not hold a wedding reception in Malaysia.

His planned nuptials to African-American partner Phineas Newborn III in New York had aroused a lot of curiosity amongst the youths, they said, and if left unchecked, would lead to a “morally-bankrupt” society.

The 41-year-old pastor and his 47-year-old partner, a Broadway musical producer, planned to have a Chinese wedding banquet and a traditional tea ceremony in Kuala Lumpur after their marriage in New York at the end of the month.

Grace Assembly Klang Pastor Kam Sian Yee said Ou Yang’s “unnatural sexual behaviour” had flouted many warnings against homosexuality in the Bible.

“His behaviour is not only abnormal, it is a sin in Christianity,” Kam said, adding that he had received several complaints from church members.

“We love Ou Yang and hope he will repent,” he added.

Puchong Joy Charismatic Centre Pastor Tang Chee Sing urged Ou Yang to “return to the right path”.

“Homosexual parents would bring up their children to think that their behaviour is normal.

“This trend cannot go on,” he said, stressing that same-sex marriages were a sin despite this being legalised in several American states recently.

“We do not recognise him as a pastor,” he said at a press conference hosted by Selangor MCA Public Complaints Bureau chief Datuk Theng Book yesterday.

Theng said he had received complaints from several Christians who worried that society would think that the church condoned gay marriages and homosexuality.

Source: http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2011/8/18/nation/9319063&sec=nation

Gay pastor to marry partner in New York at the end of the month

2011-08-18T12:33:00.001+08:00

Saturday August 13, 2011

KUALA LUMPUR: The self-confessed Malaysian gay pastor and his African-American partner are planning to tie the knot at the end of the month in New York.

Rev Ou Yang Wen Feng, 41, and his partner Phineas Newborn III, 47, a Broadway musical producer, also planned to have a Chinese wedding banquet and traditional tea ceremony in Kuala Lumpur eventually.

“We are still in the planning stage but we will register as spouses first in New York. We plan to tie the knot on Aug 31 as it is Malaysia's National Day. It means a lot to me,” he said in an e-mail interview recently.

Happy family: Ou Yang posing with Phineas and his daughter Zaya.

Ou Yang had told AFP in an interview that Phineas popped the question on June 26, two days after New York City legalised same-sex marriages.

Ou Yang, who now serves at the Metropolitan Community Church in New York, said his family members met Phineas last year and they liked him very much.

“To find a partner to spend your life with is not easy, ” he said, adding that he planned to come back to Malaysia for holidays next year.

“Phineas is an intelligent person and I feel that I can learn a lot from him and engage in stimulating conversation. He is very focused and determined to achieve success in whatever he pursues and has a very strong will to overcome life's challenges.

“He is connected to his own spirituality and supports my church work. We learn a lot from each other,” he said, adding that Phineas has a 14-year-old daughter Zaya who lives in the same neighbourhood.

“So we see her all the time,” he said, adding that Phineas was just like him - a closet heterosexual who finally came out to be who he is.

Ou Yang said “coming out” took place in 2006 after nine years of childless union with his now ex-wife, whom he described as an “angel”. Ou Yang grew up in a conservative Christian family.

Ou Yang, a former columnist with Sin Chew Daily, is currently in Hong Kong promoting his book on homosexuality and Christianity.

“I was also invited to speak in some churches in Hong Kong. I also spent some time in China. I was invited to talk in Chengdu and Guangzhou,” he said.

Source: http://thestar.com.my/metro/story.asp?sec=nation&file=/2011/8/13/nation/9297103

同志牧师欧阳文风结婚 ‧ 马华投诉中心与4牧师联合谴责欧阳文风伤风败俗

2011-08-18T12:22:00.001+08:00

17/08/2011 17:10

（八打灵再也17日讯）马华雪州雪州公共投诉及服务中心联同4名牧师，谴责欧阳文风大肆宣扬同性恋结婚事宜的举动，有损社会道德。

　巴生神召会恩典堂牧师甘信誉、蒲种喜恩神召会牧师邓志升、新生命圣所牧师陈亚伦及大马基督教青年协会总秘书林坚术，今日在马华雪州公共投诉及服务中心主任拿督汤木及副主任张胜富陪同召开记者会，指责欧阳文风，並强调同性恋不但不合法，在宗教上也是种罪恶。

　甘信誉声声斥责，欧阳文风鼓吹同性恋歪风的行为，直接影响社会情绪，如忧鬱症及自杀风气等。

　他说，根据马大医学讲师研究报告指出，同性恋是与生俱来的说法並不正確，因为目前尚未有科学依据，证明此说法。

　“即使同性恋真的是天生，但在圣经里是罪过，必须协助他们重返正途，毕竟人类不能以其天性来生活，否则与野兽无甚分別。”

违反基督教义

　他认为，欧阳文风口口声声说同性恋关係较异性恋关係崇高，一切都是因为爱，那他是否也能接受婚外情？

　他澄清，他们教会并非歧视同性恋，只希望能带领同性恋者踏上正途，希望欧阳文风能回头。

　出席记者人士皆强烈反对同性恋行为，因那已违反基督教义，不能被接受。

　林坚术说，若有机会，他將带领教友拉横幅，反对欧阳文风在大马举办婚礼。

　汤木则指出，若欧阳文风真的回马举行婚礼，对基督教是种挑战。

　他认为，欧阳文风大肆宣扬其同性恋结合，目的是为了把他个人的议程，透过媒体，渲染整个社会。

　大马拥有多个中心和社团协助辅导同性恋者，引领他们踏回正途。

来源： http://www.chinapress.com.my/node/243590

雪州马华联同4牧师严斥欧阳文风鼓吹社会歪风

2011-08-18T12:13:00.001+08:00

2011-08-17 18:31

大马教会牧师召开记者会，反对同性恋结合。左起为陈亚伦、林坚术、邓志升、汤木及甘信誉。

（八打灵再也17日讯）马华雪州公共投诉及服务中心联同4名牧师，谴责欧阳文风大肆宣扬同性恋结婚事宜的举动，有损社会道德，强调同性恋不但不合法，在宗教上也是一种罪恶。

巴生神召会恩典堂牧师甘信誉、蒲种喜恩神召会牧师邓志升、新生命圣所牧师陈亚伦及大马基督教青年协会总秘书林坚术，今日在马华雪州公共投诉及服务中心主任拿督汤木陪同召开记者会，指责欧阳文风的做法。

甘信誉声声斥责，欧阳文风鼓吹同性恋歪风的行为，直接影响社会情绪，如忧郁症及自杀风气等。

他说，根据马大医学讲师研究报告指出，同性恋是与生俱来的说法并不正确，因为目前尚未有科学依据，证明此说法。

协助同性恋重返正途

“即使同性恋真的是天生，但在圣经里是罪过，必须协助他们重返正途，毕竟人类不能以其天性来生活，否则与野兽无甚分别。”

他认为，欧阳文风口口声声说同性恋关系较异性恋关系崇高，一切都是因为爱，那他是否也能接受婚外情？

他澄清，他们教会并非歧视同性恋，只希望能带领同性恋者踏上正途，希望欧阳文风能回头。

出席人士皆强烈反对同性恋行为，因那已违反基督教义，不能被接受。

林坚术说，若有机会，他将带领教友拉横幅，反对欧阳文风在大马举办婚礼。

汤木则指出，若欧阳文风真的回马举行婚礼，对基督教是种挑战。

他认为，欧阳文风大肆宣扬其同性恋结合，目的是为了把他个人的议程，透过媒体，渲染整个社会。

他说，大马拥有多个中心和社团协助辅导同性恋者，引领他们重回正途。

来源： http://www.nanyang.com/node/376779?tid=460

欧阳文风不理政客批评大马婚礼照办

2011-08-18T11:51:00.001+08:00

16/08/2011 17:13

（吉隆坡16日美联电）同志牧师欧阳文风週二誓言，儘管受到马来西亚政府的政客批评，他依然会在马来西亚举行婚宴。

　欧阳文风告诉《美联社》，他希望更多大马人能大胆地为同性恋者说话。负责掌管回教事务的首相署部长拿督斯里惹米基尔，最近形容同性结合是一种“极端主义”。

　41岁的欧阳文风打算今年与美籍非裔音乐剧制作人菲尼亚斯结婚。他们计划先在美国婚姻注册，成为合法伴侣后，再返大马吉隆坡举行华人婚礼。

与友分享喜悦

　欧阳文风现在纽约的学院执教社会学和性別研究课程。美国纽约州参议院于今年6月24日通过法案，成为全美同性婚姻合法化的第六个州。

　欧阳文风在回覆《美联社》的电子邮件中说：“我仍然计划明年在吉隆坡举行华人婚宴。我相信，我至少享受这种权利，和朋友共进餐宴，分享我的喜悦，即使是在马来西亚。”

　他说：“听见我挚爱的国家的部分政客，仅仅因为我的情人的性別，就把我的爱情称为不道德或伤风败俗，这让我心碎。我呼吁所有通情达理和开通的坦率民眾，站出来打破沉默。”

来源： http://www.chinapress.com.my/node/243298

轰鼓吹同性恋‧促回头是岸‧3牧师愿辅导欧阳文风

2011-08-18T11:46:00.001+08:00

2011-08-17 19:53

汤木（中）联同数名牧师召开记者会，谴责欧阳文风鼓吹同性恋的做法。左起为林坚术、邓志升，右起为张胜富及甘信誉。（图：光明日报）

（雪兰莪‧八打灵再也17日讯）大马同性恋牧师欧阳文风高调宣佈婚讯的举动，引起本地一些基督教组织强烈的不满和反对，3名教会牧师週三挺身而出，严厉谴责欧阳文风鼓吹同性恋的风气，並强调教会不排斥同性恋者，但是绝对不能认同和接纳同性的性行为，希望欧阳文风及早回头是岸，教会將义不容辞给予他辅导。

3名牧师分別是来自巴生神召会恩典堂的甘信誉、蒲种喜恩神召会的邓志升及新生命圣所的陈亚伦。他们週三联同马华雪州公共服务与投诉局主任拿督汤木及马来西亚基督教青年协会总秘书林坚术召开记者会。

力禁大马摆设喜宴

林坚术说，马来西亚基督教青年协会强烈反对欧阳文风同性恋的行为，並全力禁止对方在大马摆设喜宴。

甘信誉表示，教会有责任向欧阳文风发出警告，而教会坚持同性恋不是异性恋的另类选择。

对於欧阳文风指同性恋是天生的说法，他说，科学上並没有这个根据，人不能凭本能活，欧阳文风一直强调人权的问题，可是人权却有分合法和不一定正当。

“真心相爱没有不对，但是並不代表同性爱是对的。如果同性爱是对，那么婚外情、父女恋、母子恋、兄妹恋和姐弟恋岂不是也对？”

他强调，同性恋数千年前就有了，这与时代进步没有关係，不能说反对就是落伍。

陈亚伦表示，一些国家合法化同志婚姻，这將会促使该国的牧师难为情，一旦拒绝为同志主持婚礼，他们將被视为触犯法律。

来源： http://www.guangming.com.my/node/111086?tid=3

欧阳文风与同性伴侣结婚　基督教会坦言不接纳

2011-08-18T11:42:00.001+08:00

二零一一年八月十八日凌晨十二时三十六分

（吉隆坡17日讯）针对同性恋者欧阳文风宣布与伴侣今年8月底至9月初注册结婚一事，基督教会坦言不接纳他的行为，更不认同他大肆宣扬作法，并认为同性恋会严重造成社会问题及影响下一代的思想。

马华雪州公共投诉局主任汤木召开有关记者会，并邀请数位基督教牧师给予意见与看法，他们包括新生命圣所的陈亚伦、大马基督教青年团协会总秘书林坚术、浦种区喜恩神召会的邓志升以及来自巴生神召会恩典堂的甘信誉以及雪州马华公共投诉局副主任张胜富。

甘信誉借着李安导演的电影《断背山》表示，这是利用潮流文化来推广破坏家庭的电影，是现代文化的悲剧；李安拍这种片子，等于加入破坏的行列，也是华人的悲剧。

他表示，站在基督教的角度观看，同性恋不但不正常，且犯下了罪，同性恋亦会带来性病和疾病的蔓延、精神和情绪的问题、一夫一妻的瓦解以及家庭结构和伦理的瓦解。

“基督教不排斥同性恋者，但并不表示接受，我们是以关怀的方式为出发点。”

他强调，同性恋是种种因素下产生，并不是欧阳文风早前发表说是“天生”，更没有医学报告有明确证据说明同性恋行为源自生理因素。

另外，邓志升指出：“真心相爱没有错，同性爱也是爱，因此，这是否也意味着婚外情、父女恋、母子恋、兄妹恋和姐弟恋也没问题？”

他说，如果同性恋是对，被说成错，那是歧视或偏见；如果同性恋是错，反对不是偏见或歧视，那是正义；就算证明反对是出于偏见与歧视，也不能论证同性恋没有错。他对于美国数个州属的法律承认同性恋而感到痛心。

“大马必须阻止这种歪风，媒体更不应该大肆报导同性恋新闻，因年轻人的思想会被影响及容易感到好奇。”

他认为，同性恋是一种病态，他们需要外界的辅导、帮助以及回到正常的生活。

站在年轻人的角度看待同性恋的林坚术表示，同性恋会制造更多社会问题，因此不鼓励这种行为，更禁止欧阳文风回马举行婚礼。他说：“要是他回来举办婚礼，我们不排除采取行动，坚决反对。”

陈亚伦则指出，由于同性恋的新闻越来越多，导致基督教会的多数男性不敢与同性有更深入的友谊，担心被传是同性恋以及破坏男子汉的形象。

“因为男性之间没有深入的友情，更不敢向对方谈心事，因而导致个人忧郁症发生。因此，我呼吁政府能够成立同性恋辅导中心，帮助他们返回正确的心态。”

汤木表示，同性恋不是与生俱来，而是能够辅导的，多数基督教会亦成立了相关中心协助有同性恋倾向者，也对此呼吁父母发现孩子有同性恋的倾向，可陪同他们到基督教会给予正确的辅导。

来源： http://www.kwongwah.com.my/news/2011/08/18/26.html

指欧阳文风过度宣扬‧教会不接受同性恋结婚

2011-08-18T11:33:00.002+08:00

2011-08-17 18:33

汤木（中）连同牧师与基督教青年协会谴责欧阳文风过度宣扬同性恋结婚，并指在圣经教义下是不能被接受的。左起为林坚术、邓志升，右起为张胜富与甘信誉。（图：星洲日报）

（雪兰莪‧八打灵再也17日讯）牧师与基督教青年组织同声谴责欧阳文风过度宣扬同性恋结婚的事，並强调同性恋是违反圣经教义，是不能被接受的。

牧师与基督教青年组织代表指出，同性恋是不正常的关係，即使在部份国家或地区合法化，也不代表是正当的行为，显示社会道德价值观的沦陷与本末倒置。

担忧下一代受影响

他们也对大事宣扬同性恋结婚会对下一代造成的影响感到担忧，並指一旦同性恋合法化会让牧师很为难，特別是在被要求主持婚礼的时候。

雪州马华公共投诉局主任拿督汤木、副主任张胜富今日连同来自巴生神召会恩典堂甘信誉牧师、蒲种喜恩神召会邓志升牧师、新生命圣所陈亚伦牧师及马来西亚基督教青年协会总秘书林坚术召开新闻发佈会，同声谴责欧阳文风过度宣扬同性恋结婚。

甘信誉指出，同性恋结婚的新闻获报章刊登后，教友都纷纷提出意见与表示反对，並指同性恋在教会里不普遍。

借媒体宣扬有议程

汤木强调，大马的基督教群体很难接受同性恋结婚，因此认为应该站出来纠正社会的道德价值观。

“我不要阻止（interfere）与理会欧阳文风要结婚的事，但他借用媒体的力量来宣扬，显然是有议程。”

他说，欧阳文风打算回国举行婚礼的安排，对大马的教会是个挑战。

邓志升（蒲种喜恩神召会牧师）：现今道德观本末倒置

“同性恋在美国合法化，並不代表这是正確的，也显示现今的道德价值观已本末倒置与沦落。而且，同性恋並非天生，反而是一种病態，需要辅导与协助以回到正常轨道。同性恋是很噁心与不正常的，看到这种歪曲的理论，媒体也应该阻止，不该大事报导。欧阳文风不配当牧师，我自己身为牧师也对此感到羞愧。”

甘信誉（巴生神召会恩典堂）：我们爱他，希望他回头

“依据圣经的教义，同性恋是被禁止的；同时，也清楚责备及严厉警告同性恋的行为。我要强调的是，我们爱他们，但这並不能被接受，更不是异性恋以外的选择。”

欧阳文风指同性恋行为是天生的，但却是无科学根据。

爱是对的，但如果同性恋也可被接受，是否代表可接受婚外情或不伦恋？我要强调我没有鄙视他，我们爱欧阳文风，希望他回头，而且在国內也设立了许多中心，要援助同性恋的人。

陈亚伦（新生命圣所牧师）：一旦合法化牧师为难

“从这事件，我能看到未来的趋势。一旦同性恋合法化后並要求牧师主持婚礼，牧师很难拒绝。”

林坚术（大马基督教青年协会总秘书）：“不排除拉布条反对婚礼”

“这种歪风是绝对不能发展下去的。我们不要欧阳文风回国举行婚礼。同时，有机会的话，不排除会拉布条以示反对。”

（星洲日报）

来源： http://www.sinchew.com.my/node/216389?tid=1

Ambiga tells of her ‘lawyerly revolt’

2011-08-15T14:59:00.002+08:00

Clare Rewcastle Brown | August 15, 2011

All the violence during the Bersih 2.0 rally came from the police, said Ambiga during a fundraising dinner in London.

COMMENT

Over the weekend, Bersih 2.0 chairman Ambiga Sreenivasan drew a big draw in London, bringing enthusiastic audiences to a fund-raising dinner and to listen to speeches.

The Bersih 2.0 rally had produced an excellent sympathy turnout over here in July, with several hundred marchers clad in yellow making the walk from the Malaysian High Commission over to Trafalgar Square.

The time difference between the two regions made the London event especially poignant, because by the time it got going news had already come through about what had happened to friends back home.

This weekend was the first chance for many to receive a first-hand account of what took place and from the leader of the event herself.

Ambiga manages a rare combination. She is a highly formidable female, but also warm and engaging.

She laid out with clarity and objectivity why she had led her lawyerly revolt.

For us who had been so far away it was a welcome analysis.

Bersih’s concerns had been sparked off by their observation of the Sarawak state election, she explained.

To their horror they witnessed “the dirtiest election ever” with “out and out vote buying”, “intimidation”, “phantom votes” and all the paraphernalia of rigged elections.

The fact that modern technology meant there was solid, recorded evidence of plenty of cheating meant that, in Ambiga’s view, the Election Commission had a constitutional duty to investigate and take action.

However, to her dismay the Election Commission did nothing.

EC’s wilful ignorance

As a former leader of the Malaysian Bar Council, Ambiga couches her arguments in the language of the law and not politics.

Throughout (her speech), she made clear that her core concerns are about the abuse of legality and of Malaysia’s constitution.

She explained how Bersih had appealed to all political parties on the issue, but that support had come only from the opposition.

Yet, her most withering criticism was directed towards officials of the Election Commission for their persistent attacks on the opposition and their refusal to investigate fraud.

“The Election Commissioners just don’t understand that under the constitution they are supposed to be independent of the government,” she sighed.

There can be nothing more frustrating for a lawyer than such wilful ignorance by those who have responsibility for upholding the rule of law.

For those who had been distant from the event, Ambiga’s description of what had happened to her and others at the rally was shocking.

Police had subjected her and the leader of the opposition to an attack of tear gas, fired at them from both ends in an enclosed tunnel.

“(It was) the most frightening experience of my life, I could not breathe,” Ambiga said.

Back in Malaysia, she said, BN politicians are now crowing that their tough handling of the rally had been designed to avoid the rioting and looting that had resulted from the soft tactics against protesters last week in the UK.

Wryly, Ambiga explained the main difference between the two events.

“In Malaysia all the violence came from the police”, she pointed out.

‘Raw abuse of power’

Not a pot had been broken by the peaceful demonstrators, who had turned out because they did not want the illegal practices and improprieties that they had seen in Sarawak to spill over into the upcoming general election in Malaysia.

But, the Bersih 2.0 leader is full of optimism and hope.

Thanks to the foolish handling by the government, their campaign has been successful beyond their wildest dreams.

To begin with, the Bersih Executive Committee had been worried that they would never be able to inspire the people with such a dry and difficult topic as electoral reform.

Would voters appreciate the significance of such matters as electoral registers, boundary delineation and all the little tricks that allow for the manipulation of election results?

But, as they started to mount their protests and demand key reforms, the response of the government took them by surprise and played right into their hands.

“We didn’t expect for a minute the violent reaction. It was so extreme” she said.

In her analysis, it was this “raw abuse of power”: the threats to lock her up under the ISA laws, the lies about funding, the raids on their premises, that woke up the Malaysian public to the rally and the principles that Bersih were trying to protect.

Who could have imagined, for example, that the matter of indelible ink for voting slips could have become such a major political issue?

Yet, the ferocity of the government’s refusal to take this very sensible step has created suspicion throughout Malaysia.

Heightened awareness

Since the rally, explained Ambiga, people have woken up to the fact that the electoral roll is a mess.

“The achievement of that day is heightened awareness of the importance of electoral reform”.

Every day now communities are actively scrutinising their local registers and turning up anomalies they wish to complain about.

Bersih’s crucial campaign for clean elections has taken centre stage in Malaysian politics, just as she wished.

Clare Rewcastle Brown is the founder/editor of Sarawak Report. She is also a FMT columnist.

Source: http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/2011/08/15/ambigas-tells-of-her-lawyerly-revolt/

Big difference between Bersih and London riots

2011-08-13T21:22:00.001+08:00

Marion Tharsis
Aug 13, 11
5:41pm

The recent London riots and looting is totally a different situation from the Bersih 2.0 gathering on July 9, because one is violent in nature while the other was a peaceful expression against an electoral system that has shown so much of ambiguity and suspicious handling over a long period of time.

Bersih neither had any violent inclinations nor ulterior motive to put the country in disarray and turmoil. Bersih was blown out of proportion by certain groups to make it look like an extremist movement out to create chaos and trouble.

Therefore, comparing what happened in London to that of Bersih's peaceful march for electoral reforms is like comparing an apple to an orange. It does not take an expert to analyse both the situations and conclude that one was purely peaceful in nature while the other had evil and destructive intentions to capitalise on a police shooting incident.

Our leaders are always seen to be quick to seek some kind of absolution and justification for their actions by making statements to intensify any given local situation.

The Bersih supporters did not throw missiles at the police on guard or riot or loot for that matter but in return the supporters were literally attacked by law enforcers with water cannons and tear gas, All these unnecessary use of force for a peaceful march to hand-over a petition to the king?

Most right thinking Malaysians can see the difference between the two situations and are not easily swayed to accept the authorities' mostly jagged analysis and explanations.

As general election draws closer, many attempts to coax, confuse and mislead the public by both sides, can occur at an accelerated pace. Thus one has to be cautious about falling into their game of chance and opportune.

We want people to lead the country with wisdom, justice and fairness to all. We do not want people who use the given power to undermine and persecute the public at the slightest opportunity. We want leaders who lead from the front and not from the rear.

We want a prime minister who takes control and accepts that faults can and do occur and not a Prime Minister who lets his subordinates to do the talking and take individual actions according to their own whims and fancies.

Free and clean election is our prerogative and it is one of the fundamental principles of a genuine democratic process.

Source: http://www.malaysiakini.com/letters/172922

My Myvi Story

2011-08-12T21:39:00.005+08:00

I booked the Myvi Limited Edition in May, the dealer promised us the car but at the end he couldn't deliver it. The old models were all finished and no more in production. So I have no choice but to book for the new model. It came slightly more than one month later. We never expected that a big handover ceremony was held. And Cecilia and 4 others each received the car from the Perodua Managing Director Datuk Aminar Rashid Salleh. We were given a big gift as well. The event appeared on TV in many channels as well as in newspapers.

The event took place on 23^rd June 2011.

从“服务丈夫”谈起

2011-08-11T14:11:00.002+08:00

（我回应的两篇文章在本文之后）

蔡细历一番批评林冠英夫人周玉清是少有的“在马六甲中选，却在槟城服务丈夫的议员”言论后，引起了林冠英抨击他“何苦为难女人？”。林冠英指“服务丈夫”一词隐藏着弦外之音。而蔡细历却在“林冠英何必跳脚”驳斥林冠英断章取义，前者声称他“服务”这词其实是指“服务选民”那般的“服务丈夫”。

到底蔡细历指的“服务丈夫”是那种“服务”，只有天知他知了！若说“服务选民”，听来很正常。若说“服务丈夫”，听来有点另有所思的。经常报纸报道取缔风月场所的新闻，说里头什么普通收费多少钱，“特别服务”则额外加费等之类的字眼，明眼人不必记者“画公仔画出肠”（粤语）即不言而喻！若不要别人误解为弦外之音，正确的字眼是“服侍丈夫”。以我们圣职人员而言，我们对社群的责任是“服务社群”，而对会友则是“服侍会友”即可见一斑。

我认为蔡细历从政那么多年，应该知道现在人民真正关心的课题。如此抨击一个州议员作槟—甲两头走，并不会让人感到他是关心该州议席人民的利益，而是看到近来因他与林冠英互相隔空对骂所引起的，因此他会受到人民反弹。以前他是拉美士国会议员，但同时又是部长时，试问他也是否花在吉隆坡的时间比在自己的选区更多的吗？

蔡细历说马六甲马华妇女组主席江雪霞没有资格评论此事（“服务丈夫”课题），并教训她在批评别人时，先看看自己是不是适合说人长短。可见马华表面上党争平息，但派系汹涌，江雪霞乃属“翁派”人马。并有消息指出“翁派”和“黄派”人马少在来临大选能够上阵。

蔡细历问：“人民代议士基本的任务是什么？”传统上在大马，答案是解决民生问题。成功的人民代议士不是靠个人的能力，而是团队的能力。若选民有不满的话，下届选举自有分寸。民生肯定有很多问题，在民联执政的州属其中两个最大的问题是款项和人力不足。它们并没有获得中央政府的拨款，要解决问题实在是杯水车薪，因此有点力不从心。

我住在大城市，自上次308大选后我所了解的城市人，知道他们并不在意获得不获得拨款，认为把拨款用在比他们更有需要的人身上才恰当。可见大马人对于政治成熟了许多，我们开始接受代议士的任务不是脱掉鞋子走入沟渠清理垃圾，也不是用手指对着有问题的地方“指天笃地”拍拍照。这样只是治标不治本的，他们必须作出有利人民的政策和行政更为重要。政策好，行政好，国家就富强，民生自然就少问题。

民联三党，好些人兼任国议员和州议员，因为缺乏人才。上届大选民联有突破性成绩让人民看到大马有机会迈向两线制，为了国家的利益，无论是国阵或民联，都应该摒弃各自党的利益而致力于推动对双方都好的体制。

马来西亚有更迫切的需要，就是迈向国际性民主公平自由。那我们就必正司法、反贪、人权、信仰等课题改进。这需要朝野同心把国家利益置于党利益之上，从政者必须能够接受批评，办到舍恶纳善；必须心胸宽阔，才能争取落实民主。但愿上帝拯救大马这个彩虹国家！
---------------------------------------

何苦为难女人？

过去两年，我的专栏都是以槟州施政作为讨论的焦点，鲜少谈及政治这块敏感课题。但这一期，我实在忍无可忍，不得不谴责大男人主义的论述。

马华总会长拿督斯里蔡细历医生上周出席马六甲马华代表大会时，不知何故把我太太周玉清扯进话题，称她是少有的“在马六甲中选，却在槟城服务丈夫的议员”。

蔡总这话想要表达什么意思呢？单从言语上的“服务丈夫”字眼，就充满着大男人主义的影子。为什么是“服务丈夫”呢？难道为夫者就不能够以服务太太为荣吗？言语之中隐藏的毛毛之意不言而喻。

也许对他而言，女人只不过是应付生理需求的工具，发泄兽欲的性代表。

我承认，我从来没有想过会当上槟州首席部长。我的太太也从来没有预料到会当首长夫人。相信蔡细历也从未想过他在三年前会因个人问题而引咎辞职，更在较后依然当选总会长。

尽管这可以是政敌猛攻的要害，但是我向来从没对他作出任何人身攻击。遗憾的是，马华的领导人却以人身攻击来对付我太太。

在这事上，我同情太太的遭遇，我更不忿让她受到一丁点的委屈。虽然蔡总对我太太百般无礼、甚至如斯羞辱，但我不会以其人之道还治其人之身，反之，这却让我更同情他的太太。

她当年所受的羞辱和痛苦，非我们局外人所能理解，以同理心看待，既然今天我就自己的太太被政敌羞辱感到愤怒，我更能理解他太太当年吞下的苦水。

蔡总的这番“伟论”，连其党同志甲州妇女组主席江雪霞也看不过眼，发文告谴责自己的总会长“用词不当”。江氏在大是大非前不计党派，分辨是非，诚属难得，更值得赞赏。

诚如江雪霞所言，职业妇女要家庭事业兼顾，并不简单。我太太连续三届中选哥打拉沙玛那区州议员，多数票一届比一届多，如今因一场政治大海啸而当上首长夫人，身兼太太、首长夫人、母亲、代议士多职，她从未埋怨。

我与太太结婚时，她还不是律师，只是一位拥有大众传播文凭的大学毕业生。是我鼓励太太读法律，她千辛万苦考到律师牌，然后有人问我：“你不怕你太太比你好料吗？”

看着心爱的人成长，我是欢欣的，因为能分享她的成长；只有没自信的人才会怕另一半比自己好。

308后她基于分身乏术，断然结束了本身经营的律师楼，除了照顾孩子，也专心做首长夫人和代议士。

今天，身为首长夫人，她积极在州内推动玩具图书馆概念。从平凡家庭出生，她深谙贫穷孩子没钱买玩具的心情，就推动了二手玩具捐赠图书馆，把欢乐带给穷孩子。

有时在一些官方场合，就官方礼仪，她本应时时陪伴在我身边，但是为了回甲州服务人民、为了承诺，她常常当空中飞人奔波两地。这点尚能获得州元首的谅解，可是当过大官的蔡总却刻意刁难女人，同时无视大马驻美国大使贾玛鲁丁弃选区不顾长驻美国，双重标准可见一斑。

蔡总常常说，他不是一个不认账的男人。可是，为什么在这件事上，没看到他敢敢道歉及收回不当言论的“高调问政”呢？

来源： http://lgesinchewcolumn.wordpress.com/
---------------------------------------

蔡細歷‧林冠英何必跳腳

2011-08-06 09:42

就因為我以一句“服務丈夫”批評馬六甲哥打拉沙馬那區州議員周玉清，暴露了檳州首長林冠英護短和好斗的本質，指責我“為難女人”，更以強硬口吻的向我“單挑”，態度囂張。

可以理解林冠英是護妻心切，以顯示他是愛家庭愛妻子的好丈夫，但這恰恰的凸顯他是公私不分，這也許就是林冠英在行動黨的“家天下”作風。

周玉清是馬六甲州議員，可是她大部份時間已是“首席部長夫人

”，選民是選人民代議士，不是選議員助理來服務選區，所以我批評周玉清是“服務丈夫”，然而林冠英卻斷章取義，把“服務丈夫”聯想到其他方面，借此亂套罪名指我羞辱女性。

身為州議員，周玉清服務選民是天經地義，不過她長時間是在檳城扮演首長夫人的角色，把選區工作丟給助理，所以我指她“服務丈夫”並不過份。林冠英可以辯稱其太太沒想過當首長夫人，也可以體諒太太身兼多職，唯別忘了人民代議士的最基本任務是甚麼，周玉清擔任了3屆州議員應該最清楚，選民投選她又是為了甚麼？

林冠英指我百般無禮羞辱其太太，這是行動黨故意歪曲事實誇大其詞的本色，然後又把問題牽扯到性事並大作文章，更反映出林冠英是無時不刻的在玩弄課題，以達到個人的政治目的。為甚麼不把“服務丈夫”詮釋和“服務選民”或“服務國家”一樣來看待，或解釋為“疼惜丈夫，協助丈夫和照顧丈夫”呢？

林冠英往往動輒要國陣議員或部長辭職謝罪，偏偏對自己的太太無法兼顧選區卻要人家體諒，更甚的是把這種體諒當成理所當然，還要我基於“用詞不當”做出道歉和收回言論。

其實是林冠英自己狹隘的思想作祟，才會把性事和服務聯想在一起，真正在羞辱女性和需要道歉的是林冠英！

“用詞不當”是馬六甲馬華婦女組主席江雪霞對我作出的批評，林冠英如獲至寶罕有的對江雪霞讚賞有加；也許是林冠英離開馬六甲太久不知甲州情況，因為江雪霞根本沒有資格評論此事。我也要奉勸我的這位同志，在開口批評別人時，先看看自己是不是適合說人長短。

我當過部長，也知道我太太身為部長夫人時所需應付的忙碌工作，這是從政者及其家人所需付出的代價。

林冠英也不必跳腳，如果行動黨的其他民選議員也如此身兼多職，以致大部份時間不在選區服務，他又能夠容忍和要求別人體諒嗎？一味的替太太辯護講好話，這難道不是印證林冠英存有以親壓理的私心嗎？（星洲日報／言路‧作者：蔡細歷‧馬華總會長）

来源： http://opinions.sinchew-i.com/node/20385

Christian group ‘shocked and appalled’ by Jais church raid

2011-08-04T21:55:00.001+08:00

By Melissa Chi

August 04, 2011

The DUMC compound in Petaling Jaya last night. — Picture by Boo Su-Lyn

KUALA LUMPUR, Aug 4 — The Christian Federation of Malaysia (CFM) demanded today an investigation into the church raid by the Selangor Islamic Religious Department (Jais) last night.

CFM Chairman Bishop Datuk Ng Moon Hing said in a statement that CFM is “deeply shocked and appalled” by the raid at Damansara Utama Methodist Church (DUMC) by Jais, assisted by the police.

“It is ironic that such a celebratory gathering of volunteers, leaders, supporters and members of the community should be disrupted by the high-handed and repugnant actions of the state religious enforcement officers,” he said.

The Damansara Utama Methodist Church (DUMC) has earlier called on all Malaysians to lend support and object to what it called the authorities’ breach of their constitutional right to assemble freely, after it was raided by Jais officials and the police.

In a statement today, DUMC’s senior pastor Daniel Ho related how a group of 20 to 30 of Selangor’s religious police had entered its rented premises at the Dream Centre in Petaling Jaya late last night without a warrant and intimidated invited guests, including Muslims, at its private dinner celebration.

“They have subjected all guests at the Thanksgiving Dinner to undue harassment,” he said, noting that not all the enforcement group were in uniform and had failed to produce a copy of the complaint when asked for the reason for the raid.

Ho stressed that the dinner was non-religious in nature but held to celebrate the work of non-profit organisation Harapan Komuniti in helping women, children, HIV/AIDS sufferers and victims of natural disasters.

The pastor told The Malaysian Insider last night that the thanksgiving dinner organised by Harapan Komuniti was attended by between 100 and 120 guests of all races, adding they were mainly Christian although he admitted there were “there were about 15 or so Malays.”

The Bishop Ng said JAIS and the police officers’ action is an affront to the values of “mutual respect and harmony which should be accorded to every person, regardless of religious, cultural or ethnic background in Malaysia”.

Ng also questioned the legality of the raid and the subsequent “interrogation and harassment” of the guests present at the dinner.

“Christians are shocked and saddened at this deplorable action. In recent times, we have witnessed an increase in incidences where Christians have been singled out and targeted with unjustified accusations and prejudice from various groups as well as certain mainline media who have made inflammatory statements against the spirit of 1Malaysia.

“We call upon the relevant authorities, including His Royal Highness the Sultan of Selangor, to conduct a thorough investigation over this unjustified raid. We also call upon the government and all Malaysians to work together to build a truly cohesive and harmonious society based on mutual respect, dialogue and understanding,” he said.

Last night’s raid in the Pakatan Rakyat (PR) state came after Malaysia sealed formal ties with the Vatican last month, seen as a high point in religious relations where Muslims are the majority.

Religious tensions heightened two years ago when the Home Ministry barred Christians from referring to their god as “Allah” in a Catholic newspaper.

In 2009, the High Court allowed the church to use the word, but the case is pending a Home Ministry appeal of the decision.

Several churches across the country fell victim to arson attempts in January last year following the ruling.

Christians, who form 9.2 per cent of Malaysia’s 28.3 million-strong population, were further outraged when the Home Ministry seized 35,100 Malay-language bibles.

The bibles were later released ahead of the Sarawak state election in April on condition that copies in Peninsular Malaysia be marked with a cross and the words “Christian publication”.

Source: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/christian-group-shocked-and-appalled-by-jais-church-raid/

Minority with a major role

2011-07-25T21:23:00.001+08:00

Insight
By Joceline Tan

Christians make up only 9% of the country’s population but their willingness to take political positions in recent years suggests that they will be a factor to reckon with in the new political landscape.

BACK in the 1990s when Datuk Ngeh Koo Ham was still a small fry in DAP politics, his party boss Lim Kit Siang told him that going into politics was not like going to church. The boss further told him he should not manage politics the way the church is managed.

Ngeh, who was then about to become the Perak DAP chief, was seen as too soft and talked like a preacher rather than a politician.

Lim’s implication then was that Ngeh, a devoted Christian, had the tendency to turn the other cheek, a phrase in Christian doctrine that discourages retaliation in the face of aggression whereas politics is often about an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.

Influential voice: The Christian church has had to confront a catalogue of issues over the years and the feeling among many Christians is that their spiritual space is under siege. Picture shows a congregation of the Full Gospel Assembly Church in Jalan Klang Lama.

Ngeh has since gone from small fry to a big name in DAP but he is still as Christian as they get. He is the Bruas MP and Sitiawan assemblyman and his family members have been staunch Methodists for four generations.

But as for that thing about turning the other cheek, well, that was a long time ago. DAP politics has become almost as fierce as that seen in Taiwan, and Ngeh and his equally famous younger cousin Nga Kor Min are known as the most aggressive and combative pair of politicians in Perak.

But Ngeh’s edge over many other Chinese politicians these days is his church background. This is because the Christian vote has become a political factor in the new political landscape.

“Among the non-Muslims, Christians are among the most active and vocal in political advocacy,” said UCSI University don Dr Ong Kian Ming.

A key reason, said Dr Ong, is the way government decisions on religious matters have impacted on them over the last few years, chief of which was the court ruling on what has become known as the Allah issue. The controversy surrounding the High Court decision on the use of the term “Allah” was a tipping point of sorts for the Christian community.

Ngeh: His edge over many other Chinese politicians is his strong church background.

More recently, said Fui Soong, CEO of the Cense think tank, the Christian community has been “completely stirred up” by the politics of Bersih.

Christian sentiment has not been this politicised in years and many congregations had prayed over the Bersih issue while church members and even some pastors were known to have joined the protest. The thing is, Bersih’s call for free and fair elections resonated with biblical concepts of justice and righteousness.

A widely circulated article by Rev Eu Hong Seng, chairman of the National Evangelical Christian Federation (NECF), defended the aims of the protest and said it was “time for the moderates to speak up, be heard and play their role in this nation.”

This weekend, former NECF secretary-general Rev Wong Kim Kong is giving a talk titled “Christian response in the midst of political confusion and uncertainty”.

The online version of the recent Catholic Herald newsletter said a lot about where its editorial team stands politically.

A sampling: GE13 our thanks to Bersih; Police tried to kill Anwar; Firm wins RM620,000 from ‘PM aide’ in cheating case; After Bersih, Pakatan sets eyes on expanding rural votes; Malaysian police arrest four for wearing Bersih T-shirts.

The church, or the Herald, at least, also seemed intent on downsizing the significance of the Prime Minister’s meeting with the Pope, going by the headings of the related news items: Catholics won’t suddenly change; Allah row drags on despite Najib-Pope meet; Holy See and Malaysia agree to establish diplomatic relations; Vatican visit alone won’t solve Christian problems.

All these are a sign of the times, it has been said.

Soong: ‘Christians have been completely stirred up by the politics of Bersih’

Even the formation of the NECF itself was a consequence of the times. NECF is the umbrella body for some 20 or so Christian denominations, many of which are of the newer variety. They congregated under NECF in 1983 because of issues relating to the Malay language Bible and difficulty in finding suitable sites for worship.

NECF is one of three main Christian umbrella bodies. The other two are the Roman Catholic Church which reports to the Vatican and the Christian Churches of Malaysia (CCM) which comprises denominations such as the Methodist, Anglican, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Syrian Orthodox and so on.

The three groupings claim about a third each of the total Christians in the country. Yet, together, they make up only 9.1% of the country’s population and even a smaller percentage of voters.

“They are not big but they are generally educated, articulate and willing to take positions,” said Dr Ong.

The new middle class

Many of them are professionals and part of the new middle class. They travel, are informed and their economic situation also allows them to put into action what they believe in.

They are vocal, which makes them seem bigger than they actually are and their views are easily disseminated because there is a pulpit to preach from and a captive congregation to preach to. They are also into social networking where they take their message far and wide.

Ong: ‘The Christian community is generally educated, articulate and willing to take positions’

In Peninsular Malaysia, they are too widely spread out to be the king-maker in an election, except perhaps in Selangor.

The parliamentary areas of PJ Utara and PJ Selatan, said Dr Ong, have the highest percentage of Christians in Peninsular Malaysia. Christians make up 20% of the population and 14% of voters in these two seats, which fell to DAP and PKR.

In the 2004 and 2008 general elections, St Francis Xavier Church in Petaling Jaya invited the opposing candidates to address church members. Barisan Nasional’s Datuk Donald Lim had won in PJ Selatan in 2004, but by 2008 the mood had changed and although Lim’s challenger was the rather unremarkable and wooden Lee Hoy Sian of PKR, the audience’s hostilities were directed at Lim.

The bulk of Christian Malaysians are still to be found in Sabah and Sarawak. Christians make up 40% of the people in Sarawak and over 25% in Sabah.

The Sibu by-election in 2010 provided the first inkling of what could happen when the Christian vote moved en masse. DAP deployed its Christian leaders like Ngeh, Teresa Kok and Hannah Yeoh to campaign among Christian groups in Sibu; PAS MPs like Khalid Samad went to meet church goers after the Sunday service; and Datuk Seri Nizar Jamaluddin received a standing ovation for attending a forum for Christian voters.

“It was a big gesture on the part of PAS. I don’t recall an Umno MP doing that,” said Soong.

The Sibu by-election was where the game plan changed.

But no one comes close to Sarawak Chief Minister Tan Sri Taib Mahmud in terms of connecting with the Christians. He officiated at the opening of a new Catholic church at the height of campaigning for the Sarawak election, speaks openly of having studied Bible knowledge and is not afraid to enter a church.

Comparatively, Barisan does not have as many politicians who identify closely with the Christians, or Muslims leaders who are willing to engage the Christians. The Christian Kadazandusun leaders come closest to being the Christian face of Barisan.

Cabinet Minister and Upko president Tan Sri Bernard Dompok is one of them. He is Catholic and when he is at home in Penampang, he attends prayer meetings, supports the Monfort Youth Training Centre and helps raise funds for church groups.

Dompok has emerged as a credible leader among the Christian Kadazandusuns and he was a natural choice to accompany the Prime Minister to meet the Pope.

“Christians want to see genuine respect for our religion. In Sabah, especially, we have to be very sensitive about religious issues because people here are not afraid of opposition politics,” said Dompok.

Or as Soong put it: “The Christians used to be more complacent when they were less challenged by the political landscape. But so much has changed.”

The Christians have had to confront a catalogue of issues over the years and the feeling among many of them is that their spiritual space is under siege. It began with misgivings over issues of conversions and body-snatching and culminated in the Allah issue.

“Things like that made people decide they have to assert their political rights to defend their religion,” said NECF’s Wong.

If it is any consolation to the Barisan, the Christian vote also overlaps to some extent with the Chinese vote which the ruling coalition already has problems with. But a point to note is that the Christian vote also comprises Indians and other minority races.

“Some of the older Christians are still afraid of PAS. The younger people have less hang-ups. They have seen that PAS has been trying to be more pragmatic,” said Dr Ong.

A point of no return has been reached for many of them. They are undeterred even though they know that PAS will never abandon its Islamic agenda.

Nor do they seem worried by survey findings which show that young Muslims support the Quran rather than the Constitution as the highest law, that an overwhelming majority agree with whipping for those guilty of alcohol consumption and cutting off hands for convicted thieves.

The Christians are too small in numbers and, in the peninsula, too spread out to be considered a powerful vote.

But, said Dr Ong, they are influential because they know their rights and have become very vocal about it.

As Puah Chu Kang would say, don’t pray pray (play play) with these people. They may be a minority but they are a part of the emerging third force.

Source: http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2011/7/24/focus/9149291&sec=focus

Najib’s hypocrisy

2011-07-24T00:00:00.001+08:00

NEWS/COMMENTARIES

Saturday, 23 July 2011 Combat

By Ronald Benjamin

The statement by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak that Christians have to respect Islam before they are respected is disappointing because one would have expected the prime minister to speak in an inclusive tone since he articulated the importance of a global coalition of moderates in his overseas trip.

A leader who sincerely believes in moderation would have said that it is time for Muslims and Christians to work together to promote peace, justice and prosperity in the country.

It is this type of statement that would have been most welcome instead of demanding respect on an imaginary assumption that Christians have no respect for Islam.

How does he come to this type of conclusion? What is the evidence to show that Christians have no respect for Islam?

The prime minister, from time to time, has shown that he is incapable of courage and honesty in dealing with religious matters as that would make him look weak among extremist elements in his party.

This has made him a weak leader who is not capable of confronting extremism in his own party besides having a poor understanding of human rights. It reveals elements of poor governance.

The question is why he has chosen a right-wing tone in conceptualising the relationship between Muslims and Christians, after establishing diplomatic relations with Vatican?

Is it to show to right-wing groups that he is a firm Muslim leader in dealing with Christians, and diplomatic relations with Vatican have no bearing on current issues such as the usage of the word Allah in the Bible? Would this type of tone start the ball rolling for upcoming propaganda for the general election in ensuring the Muslim-majority vote?

The characteristics of credible leadership are its ability to dialogue and proactively solve problems and take a principled and inclusive position on issues of great importance that has major implications on the future of the country in terms of the common good, and not take the country towards destruction by playing to the tune of influential extremist voices.

A resolution on the usage of the word Allah in the Bible is a test of Najib’s governance on whether common good would triumph over exclusivity.

The so-called slogan of a coalition of moderates should start in one’s own backyard.

Source: http://malaysia-today.net/mtcolumns/newscommentaries/42295-najibs-hypocrisy?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Fake Apple Store in China

2011-07-22T22:41:00.000+08:00

Are you listening, Steve Jobs?

July 20, 2011 by BirdAbroad

To address the main issue that people have been getting all bent out of shape about: the stores I photographed do not appear to be authorized Apple sellers. The list of resellers in Kunming that Apple’s website has published does not include the locations that I photographed. An employee at the main store photographed has confirmed that it is not an authorized reseller. Apple itself has confirmed that it is a fake.

I will not be publishing on this blog the addresses of the stores I photographed – if you live in China, you’ll understand why. Feel free to email me at birdabroadblog [AT] gmail [DOT] com.

*****

The Western news media is replete with pithy descriptions of the rapid changes taking place in China: China has the world’s fastest growing economy. China is undergoing remarkable and rapid change. This represents a unique moment for a society changing as quickly as China.

You probably read such things in the paper every day – but if you have never been to China, I’m not sure you know quite what this means on a mundane level. As I’ve mentioned elsewhere on this blog, in the 2+ years that RP and I have been in our apartment, much of the area around us has been torn down, rebuilt, or gutted and renovated – in some cases, several times over. I had the thought, only half-jokingly, that when we returned from a couple months abroad, we might not be able to recognize our apartment building. Or that it might not be there at all.

As it turns out, my fears were baseless – our scrappy little home remains. The neighborhood, however, has definitely kicked it up a notch or seven. Starbucks has opened not one, but THREE branches (that I encountered) within a 10 minute walk of one another. An H&M has opened across from our apartment building. These are the kinds of major Western brands that were previously only represented in Kunming by fast food chains like McDonald’s and KFC. Our neighborhood has quickly become the swanky shopping center of the city.

So when we strolled down a street a few blocks from our house a couple weeks ago, I was only sort of surprised to see this new place, one that any American of my generation can probably recognize instantaneously:

It’s an Apple store!

Or is it?

RP and I went inside and poked around. They looked like Apple products. It looked like an Apple store. It had the classic Apple store winding staircase and weird upstairs sitting area. The employees were even wearing those blue t-shirts with the chunky Apple name tags around their necks.

We proceeded to place a bet on whether or not this was a genuine Apple store or just the best ripoff we had ever seen – and to be sporting, I bet that it was real.

I know, you guys are laughing: an Apple store in Kunming? No one who doesn’t know me personally has ever heard of Kunming before. Kunming is the end of the Earth. It’s all true – but seriously, China warps your mind into believing that anything is possible, if you stay here long enough. When we went back to this store 5 days later and couldn’t find it, having overshot by two blocks, I seriously thought that it had simply been torn down and replaced with a bank in the mean time – hey, it’s China. That could happen.

You have already guessed the punchline, of course: this was a total Apple store ripoff. A beautiful ripoff – a brilliant one – the best ripoff store we had ever seen (and we see them every day). But some things were just not right: the stairs were poorly made. The walls hadn’t been painted properly.

Apple never writes “Apple Store” on it’s signs – it just puts up the glowing, iconic fruit.

The name tags around the necks of the friendly salespeople didn’t actually have names on them – just an Apple logo and the anonymous designation “Staff”. And of course, Apple’s own website will tell you that they only have a few stores in Beijing and Shanghai, opened only recently; Apple famously opens new stores painstakingly, presumably to assure impeccable standards and lots of customer demand.

Is this store a copy of one of those in Beijing? A copy of a copy in another Chinese city? A copy of a copy of a copy?! While you’re pondering that, bear in mind: this is a near-perfect ripoff of a store selling products that were almost unknown when we first came to China. My white MacBook was likely to draw only blank stares or furrowed brows as I sat gnashing my teeth trying in vain to get a piece of Chinese software to run on it.

Being the curious types that we are, we struck up some conversation with these salespeople who, hand to God, all genuinely think they work for Apple. I tried to imagine the training that they went to when they were hired, in which they were pitched some big speech about how they were working for this innovative, global company – when really they’re just filling the pockets of some shyster living in a prefab mansion outside the city by standing around a fake store disinterestedly selling what may or may not be actual Apple products that fell off the back of a truck somewhere.

Clearly, they had also been told that above all, they must protect the brand. As I took these photos I was quickly accosted by two salespeople inside, and three plain clothes security guys outside, putting their hands in my face and telling me to stop taking photographs – that it wasn’t allowed. And why wasn’t it allowed? Because their boss told them so.

I…may or may not have told them that we were two American Apple employees visiting China and checking out the local stores. Either way, they got friendlier and allowed me to snap some pictures.

And the best part? A ten minute walk around the corner revealed not one, but TWO more rip-off Apple stores.

Some store managers may have dozed off briefly during certain parts of the lecture on How to Completely Ignore Intellectual Property Rights:

Anyone from Apple want to come down to Kunming and break open a can of IPR whoop-ass?

Source: http://birdabroad.wordpress.com/2011/07/20/are-you-listening-steve-jobs/

Trapped, ambushed and gassed

2011-07-21T22:59:00.001+08:00

July 21, 2011

'I was coughing really hard. It was getting harder to breathe. The only thing that was flashing on my mind was the thought of death.'

COMMENT

By Fadiah Nadwa Fikri

On July 7, while I was lazing around at home after work, I got a call from my friend, N Surendran saying that my name was on the list of 91 individuals who were restricted from entering Kuala Lumpur on July 9, 2011.

Nothing surprising. It was just that I couldn’t wrap my mind around the paranoia displayed by the government over a planned peaceful assembly to demand for clean and fair elections.

This whole scare tactic definitely was funnier than any comedy show I’d ever watched on TV.

It was July 9, the day plethora of right thinking Malaysians and I had been waiting for. It felt like waking up to Aidilfitri morning. Serenity filled the air. Peaceful. I packed my bag. Salt, checked. A bottle of water, checked. My friends, Latheefa Koya, Eric Paulsen and Renuka Balasubramaniam and I went to KL Hilton to meet with the rest of the group.

When I got into the room, I saw Bersih leaders, Ambiga Sreenevasan, Maria Chin Abdullah, Wong Chin Huat, Haris Ibrahim and Zaid Kamarudin, all getting ready to lead the march.

I also saw Pakatan Rakyat leaders, Anwar Ibrahim, Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail, Lim Kit Siang, Hadi Awang, Tian Chua, William Leong, Nurul Izzah and our respected national laureate, Pak Samad Said, standing firm next to Bersih leaders, to give their undivided support to the cause.

I looked at my watch, it was 1.30pm. After finishing our Zohor prayers, we put our yellow Bersih t-shirts on.

The room was filled with laughter, the worrying thoughts on the highhandedness of the police in dealing with this planned peaceful assembly seemed to fade away for a little while.

I could feel the strong conviction to freedom, freedom to march on, to assemble peaceably to demand for free and fair elections. We couldn’t wait to meet with the rest of right thinking Malaysians so that we could walk together to Merdeka Stadium on this historic, most awaited day.

We started marching on, we held each other’s arms so tightly. We chanted “Bersih!Bersih!Bersih!”.

A strange feeling suddenly embraced me. A pleasant strange feeling. I believed this was what solidarity, strength and conviction felt like.

I was holding Wan Azizah’z right arm. Nurul Nuha was holding my left arm. As we were walking, I could feel more hands were holding my arms, the hands of amazing people I hardly knew.

When I looked around, all I could see was police. My heart was beating so fast, in between the chanting and the thought that all of us would not make it to Merdeka Stadium as it was almost certain that we would be arrested, judging from the heavy police presence around us.

Sudden attack

From KL Hilton, we proceeded to KL Sentral train station. At this juncture I kept asking myself why we weren’t arrested yet.

The police were there, surrounding us, waiting and watching our single move. I just ignored the question that was lingering on my mind. From KL Sentral train station, we had to go down the escalator to the underpass to reach the main road.

After going down the escalator, we then walked through the dark and confined underpass. Suddenly I heard the wail of police siren behind us, there was a police truck that was trying to pass. We stopped and gave way to the police truck. We then continued walking.

As we were still walking in the underpass, people in the forefront abruptly stopped. It was puzzling as to what was happening. I saw Anwar Ibrahim turning around and asking the people who were standing in the back to step back.

I was still puzzled as to what was happening at that particular moment. In a split second, I saw the dark and confined underpass filled with tear gas. I couldn’t breathe. My eyes were all teary. Everyone was coughing. Panic struck.

I kept asking myself these questions. “Why did they fire the tear gas directly at us while we were still in the confined underpass? Why didn’t they arrest us right before we headed for the underpass? Could this be a trap?”.

Every one ran towards the escalator to escape. Haniza Talha fell on the floor and Sharifah Shahidah picked her up. I saw one man was holding Lim Kit Siang’s left arm, trying to help him to get onto the pavement. I quickly grabbed Lim Kit Siang’s right arm and helped him get onto the pavement.

I was coughing really hard. It was getting harder to breathe. The only thing that was flashing on my mind was the thought of death.

The voice inside my head was getting louder and louder-“God, I’m going to die, I won’t be able to join any peaceful assembly in the future as this would be my last. How are people going to survive this brutality in the future?”

The use of tear gas on us, in the confined underpass was severely criminal. The thought that the same tear gas would be used on peaceful demonstrators in future peaceful assemblies was killing me.

I dragged myself to the wall and leaned against it. I was struggling to find air. A woman gave me water and held my hands. We were trapped in the middle of the underpass, we couldn’t escape from where we came. It got harder and harder to breathe.

I tried to drag myself to the escalator in my attempt to escape but my steps were getting heavier. I saw tear gas was also shot from the back of the underpass and that made me realize that I would never make it to the escalator. The dark and confined underpass was filled with tear gas which was shot from both directions, leaving every one trapped in the middle.

I just stopped as I couldn’t move, not even an inch towards the escalator. At this point in time, I couldn’t open my eyes. Everything around me seemed so distant. I couldn’t hear a thing.

Light, I suddenly saw light in between the wooden walls that were blocking off the adjacent construction site.

I told myself to get to the light and try to escape. I suddenly saw Wan Azizah and Elizabeth Wong running towards the construction site. I ran towards them and we managed to get through the gap in between the wooden walls into the construction site.

‘Welcome to Malaysia’

We ran and crossed the main road in the rain. We stopped to catch our breath. We were still coughing. Our eyes and skin were all red. I couldn’t touch my skin as it was burning.

Two American journalists were standing next to us. They too were hit by the tear gas. One of the journalists asked us “Are you okay? The police were brutal”. I replied “Welcome to Malaysia!”.

There were also a few men standing around us, passing a bottle of water to us. Elizabeth Wong drank the water and threw up as she couldn’t stop coughing.

We then sought refuge at a chapatti shop nearby. At the shop, I started calling everyone to ask whether they were alright. Some were severely injured, some were arrested and some managed to escape.

I received calls from my lawyer friends, Farhana Abdul Halim and Afiq Mohd Noor who were on their way to the police station to give legal representation to peaceful demonstrators who got arrested. They told me that they were caught in a middle of sea of people, attacked by tear gas and water cannons in Puduraya.

The whole city was under siege.

Why did they have to launch this brutal attack on us, the unarmed, peaceful citizens of this country?

Why did they have to launch this brutal attack on us, the unarmed, peaceful citizens who were just exercising our constitutional and democratic rights?

Why did they have to wage this war against us, the unarmed, peaceful citizens who were just marching on to demand for free and fair elections?

I might not have the answers to these questions but I am certain about one thing. We, the people have won this war the authority waged against us.

We stood tall in dignity, weathering this brutal attack, standing up for one belief, a belief that would never be taken away from us.

Yes, we, the people have won.

Fadiah Nadwa Fikri is from Lawyers For Liberty.

Source: http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/2011/07/21/trapped-ambushed-and-gassed/

From Queen E and now the Vatican, Najib's book gaffe triggers sniggers

2011-07-19T23:11:00.001+08:00

Written by Chiifen Hiu, Wong Choon Mei, Malaysia Chronicle

Oh no! Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak has done it again.

At the top international circles, where understatement is de rigueur rather than bombast and self-aggrandizement, Najib's latest gaffe in presenting a book about himself to the Pope could not but raise a round of giggles and rude snorts.

It looks like the Malaysian leader could have taken a lesson or two in subtlety from the British Queen, who gave him a stunning snub last week. Elizabeth II wore the yellowest of yellow summer dresses during an audience with him and his wife Rosmah Manor during their 4-day official visit to the UK.

Just colour of Her Majesty's attire sent shockwaves through a red-faced Malaysian entourage, cascading down the diplomatic channels and all the way back home, where the Queen was cheered and blessed for remembering everyday Malaysians as they struggled to transform their society.

The royal disapproval was made clear to Najib for having ordered a violent crackdown on a peaceful civilians march, leaving thousands injured and one dead. What better way than to wear the colour of the Bersih rally T-shirt that Najib had outlawed in a bid to suppress the movement for free and fair elections?

Beginning or end of a legacy

Indeed, Malaysians are shuddering at their first couple's disastrous European outing.To them, it is obvious the world has moved on and civil liberties and social justice are now increasingly considered with equal if not greater importance than business and economic outlooks.

But not so to the 58-year old Najib, who preaches 'moderation' in his speeches abroad and rules by 'extremism' at home.

Hogging the limelight is not the news of his establishing diplomatic ties with the Vatican, but rather the thick coffee-table book with the letters 'N a j i b' prominently displayed on the front cover.

The book, after some help from Google, has been identified as the 2010 not-quite bestseller Najib: Beginning of a Legacy.

The MPH online description of the RM199 (US$66) book depicts the Prime Minister as an illustrious yet unpretentious leader, one who walks “alongside his people instead of ahead”. The irony of this statement with regards to the Bersih rally is one that isn’t easily missed.

Will Christian issues be resolved now?

Nonetheless, the meeting with the Pope concluded with Malaysia and the Vatican agreeing to establish formal ties, though exactly what this entails remains unclear.

Although boastfully described as a “multi-ethnic and multi-religious country” that “draws on the values of moderation to ensure continued harmony, stability and prosperity” by the Prime Minister, Malaysia is still reeling from many a religion-related uproar.

Malaysians, especially of the Christian faith, would ask how would this newly formed alliance with the ecclesiastical state align itself with Islam conversion cases such as that of Lina Joy, a Malay who was forced to go into hiding after she tried to get the courts to recognize her switch from Islam to Christianity.

What about the attempts to ban the Catholic Church of Sabah and Sarawak from using the word Allah in their newspaper, The Herald, and the more recent torching of churches in the peninsula?

And what about the extremist religious and racial rights groups endorsed by Najib's political party UMNO? How would they react to such zingers of issues?

Few Malaysians, let alone of the Christian faith, would believe UMNO would let go of its traditional political weapons just to please the Vatican. It is also hardly likely that the Vatican will not insist on greater human rights for their followers.

The Najib book - the greatest satire?

So it looks Najib's much-glorified foray into the Holy See will turn out to be another expensive public relations exercise to benefit himself.

What was agreed at the Vatican may not be inked yet, and what is expected to be finally formalized a mere 'exchange-of-smiles-and-handshakes' pact.

Deep-seated and entrenched religious rows will stay unresolved in Malaysia and Christian 'bashing' will continue as and when it suits Najib and UMNO to play up their political game.

In light of today’s political climate in Malaysia under Najib’s regime, one must wonder if the description of the PM in the book presented to the Pope as a “truly inspiring leader … one all Malaysians look up to for the future of their society” is really satirical. - Malaysia Chronicle

Source: http://www.malaysia-chronicle.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=16077:from-queen-e-and-now-the-vatican-najibs-latest-gaffe-triggers-sniggers&Itemid=2

Taken to the cleaner

2011-07-19T14:09:00.002+08:00

Political affray in Malaysia

An overzealous government response to an opposition rally

Jul 14th 2011 | SINGAPORE | from the print edition

MALAYSIA is one of South-East Asia’s stabler nations; but a rally in Kuala Lumpur on July 9th in demand of electoral reform turned surprisingly nasty, leading to the arrest of more than 1,600 people. The police fired tear gas and water cannon into the crowd, and one man died of a heart attack. All those arrested were released fairly quickly, but Amnesty International, a London-based human-rights group, called it “the worst campaign of repression in the country for years”. The government’s reaction showed a lot of nervousness about how much opposition it can tolerate.

In fact the crackdown started a few weeks ago after “Bersih 2.0” announced that it was going to stage the rally. Bersih, also known as The Coalition for Clean and Fair Elections, is a loose alliance of NGOs and activists (bersih means “clean”). It argues that all candidates should be given access to the mainstream media and that indelible ink should be used to stop people voting more than once. It all sounds uncontroversial, but not to the government. Bersih was declared illegal on July 1st and about 200 activists were rounded up. The march itself was then banned, although the authorities offered Bersih a stadium to meet in—and then withdrew the offer.

Perhaps the government was looking back nervously to the first Bersih march, in 2007. On that occasion, too, thousands protested against the Barisan Nasional (BN) coalition government and demanded reform. Subsequently, in the 2008 general election, the BN lost its largest share of votes since 1957 when it started ruling the country after the British left. The current prime minister, Najib Razak, deputy prime minister in 2007 before taking over the top job in an internal party coup, must have feared that the second Bersih rally might be a similar portent. He has to hold an election before 2013, but wants to do so earlier to win his own mandate. Opposition politicians were quick to join Bersih. The pre-eminent leader of the opposition, Anwar Ibrahim, was shoved to the ground and injured in the affray.

None of this bodes well for Malaysia. The heavy-handed police tactics have provoked a lot of anger; the government has conceded an official investigation into claims of police brutality. In one instance (caught on film), police seemed to fire tear gas and water cannon into a hospital where protesters were sheltering from a baton charge. Few old laws were left untouched in the attempt to round up suspects before the march. It was reported that 30 people arrested in Penang were investigated under Section 122 of the Penal Code for the charge of waging war against the king. Dragging in the constitutional monarch, Tuanku Mizan Zainal Abidin, seemed particularly desperate, reminiscent of the abuse of the monarchy’s position in neighbouring Thailand. On the eve of the rally, the king came out with a statement reminding everyone that “street demonstrations bring more bad than good, although the original intention is good.”

Mr Najib defended the police and accused the marchers of sowing chaos. Dismissing the motives of Bersih, he cast it as a desperate attempt by Mr Anwar to grab power. The immediate upshot is that Mr Najib may choose to delay calling for an election for some time, to let things settle down. He presumably hopes that if he waits long enough, people will have forgotten about this ugly incident. But the longer-term effects are hard to judge. It might also help to unite a fractious opposition against what they portray as an assault on democracy.

Source: http://www.economist.com/node/18959359?fsrc=scn%2Ftw%2Fte%2Far%2Ftakentothecleaners