Please go to Colour-blind while Malaysian First under repair

Colour-blind

http://ronnieliutiankhiew.wordpress.com

“马华对不起华社”- 谨此呼吁马华基层党员向大山脚马华看齐，集体退党。

“马华对不起华社”

民主行动党中委兼非政府组织局主任刘天球文告- 2006年10月13日

我们对于马华大山脚区会7个支会主席于2006年10月12日晚率领逾百名党员宣布退党，以表示对马华领导层彻底失去信心，表示欢迎和欣慰。

根据报导，以马华大山脚区部前副主席陈廷锡与前秘书陈福良为首的106名党员，是於昨晚在大山脚宣布退党，其中包括7名支会主席、9名支会妇女组主席、5名支团团长及多名支会执委在内。马华大山脚区会前任主席彭纯枰也曾於今年1月初，宣布率领逾千名来自大山脚、巴都交湾、巴东埔、打昔牛汝莪、甲抛巴底、北海支部马华党员加入公正党。

他们形容马华是“无法抓老鼠的猫” ！犹有进者，他们指责马华“对不起华社”。

他们可以认真考虑，加入主张“大马人优先” 的民主行动党，为马来西亚各族群的平等权益而奋斗。

我们呼吁全体马华基层党员，关注陈福良在较早时发表的文告内容。我们也要诚恳地呼吁马华每一位基层党员，向大山脚马华基层看齐，早日脱离这个早已偏离创党目标，不能捍卫和维护华社和全民基本权益的政党。

陈福良在文告中批判道，“有感于马华已无法在巫统牢控下的国阵内争取华社应有权益，且对马华彻底失去信心下，做出彼等身为马华党员的最后一次责任，要马华领袖以彼等的退党引以为戒。

陈福良说，马华口口声声在国阵内与巫统共享政权，华裔权益可透过协商精神争取，可是，事实证明华社长期受到不公平待遇，尤其是华社最关注的华教课题上，非但无法取得平起平坐，还不断地被边缘化。

“不是我们负了马华，而是马华负了全国华裔，马华公会对不起华社，毕竟，华社长期给予支持，换来的却是无奈、委屈、受辱和公开的不公平对待。”

他列举近期国内的3个令华社大感不满的课题作为他们退党的决定性因素：

第一：第9大马计划公然边缘化华社，增建180间学校，却没有增建任何一所华小。教育部副部长诺奥玛在国会殿堂公开宣布后，马华总会长黄家定才后知后觉似的，表示将要正式提呈建议书给政府。

他表示，虽然随后取得“零”的突破，由教长希山慕丁宣布增建两所华小，可是，马华不该忘记，其中一所古来二校早在第8大马计划内，没有如期增建，如今还拿来欺骗华社。

第二：华小工程拨款被 “干捞”，出现3万变3千的荒谬事实。

他说，马华在内阁有教育部副部长一职，对于这个全国普遍存在骑劫拨款的事件，为什么毫不知情，也完全不能制止进种舞弊现象？

他表示，同样是纳税人和公民，华社却长期必须支付第二、第三所得税来发展华教，如今，连仅有的区区工程修缮拨款也都无法保住，马华要叫华社情何以堪。

“第三：华社被边缘化事件。新加坡资政李光耀指大马华裔被有系统地边缘化时，全国华社都一致默认这是事实，可是，做为华社代表的马华总会长黄家定居然不知道，还一口否认华社被边缘化的事实。”

他表示，马华一再保证能解决却永远无法解决的华小师资短缺问题、土著30%的新
经济政策、改变华小本质的英化数理政策、优秀生无法进入国立大学事件、政府工程招标不公平现象等等，都一再显示马华已辜负了华社争取权益的责任。

其实，陈福良等人所列举的理由非常中肯，每一条都值得马华基层党员认真思考。

如果更多的马华基层醒觉过来，离开这个“成事不足，败事有余” 的政党，最终不但迫使马华作出改变， 同时也将迫使坚持奉行种族主义和支配政治霸权的巫统也跟随改变，甚至可能因不愿改变而瓦解。这是一项非常有意义的社会政治工程，也唯有马华基层党员才能发挥这项功能。

/ 刘天球

Najib too has failed to convince Malaysians that the 18.9% Government figure was correct

Najib too has failed to convince Malaysians that the 18.9% Government figure was correct

Media statement by Ronnie Liu Tian Khiew, DAP CEC member and NGO bureau chief on Friday, October 13, 2006 in Petaling Jaya

The government today continued to defend its 18.9% figure of bumiputra equity ownership despite findings by an independent think tank, using new methodologies and data, that found it could be as high as 45%.

Referring to the findings of Asli's Centre for Public Policy Studies, which disputes the official statistics, Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Abdul Razak said there was no need for the government to prove the institute wrong.

Najib was quoted as saying that "we have already explained through public statements the Economic Planning Unit's (EPU) basis of calculations.” He said “"the government will continue to insist on the official data. We hope this will be accepted and will not be questioned by anyone."

Such attitude taken by Najib was clearly wrong and certainly would not help to convince Malaysians that the 18.9% figure for bumiputera equity was correct. In fact, it only serves to confirm that the EPU under PM Abdullah has little or no basis to support its claim.

We maintain that the government's figure could only be verified if its data, methodology and analysis were publicized. If the government has nothing to hide, they should immediately disclose its data, methodology and analysis, just like what has done by Asli.

It’s wrong and unethical for the Chairman of Asli Mirzan Mahathir to withdraw the report without a reasonable justification although we understand that he was doing so under tremendous political pressure from the Barisan Nasional Government leaders. As a leader of Asli, Mirzan is obliged to protect the integrity and reputation of the think-tank. He has destroyed the credibility of his institution beyond repair. He might as well close down the entire institution.

It must be noted that the Asli reports were prepared and presented to the Government in response to the call made by Abdullah prior to the drafting of the 9th Malaysia Plan.

We like to impress upon Mirzan and other UMNO leaders that the government’s figure could not be “vigorously defended” and certainly not the other way round.

The centre's director Dr Lim Teck Ghee has resigned in the interest of defending "the integrity of independent and non-partisan scholarship". What Dr Lim has done was heroic and his sacrifice will always be remembered by all fellow Malaysians. The non-Malays now see Dr Lim as their hero. And sooner or later, even the Malays will regard him as a hero when they realize that the 45% equity were in the hands of a select few and not distributed evenly to the Malay community.

Najib also cautioned NGOs from raising "sensitive matters" that could be seen as seditious. He was reported as saying that “initially, it could be seen as intellectual discourse but once it touches on sensitive matters, it can incite racial feelings.”

We wish to remind Najib that he has no credibility to make such remarks as the whole world knows that he has not apologized for those highly sensitive remarks he made prior to the 1988 Operasi Lalang, where more than 100 leaders of political parties and NGOs were detained and incarcerated under the Internal Security Act (ISA).

It appears to all Malaysians that from Muhyiddin Yassin to Abdullah Badawi and now Najib Tun Razak, they were all resorted to “secrecy and threats” to rule this country. Isn't "Accountability", "Reliability" and "Transparency" part of the election pledges of the Abdullah government?

We feel proud that more NGOs have come forward to support Dr Lim Teck Ghee despite of mounting political pressure from government leaders. These include the Selangor Kuala Lumpur Chinese assembly Hall, the Writers Alliance for Media Independence (Wami) and the Centre for Independent Journalism (CIJ). They have all expressed the view that critics of the Asli report must use the "same or a higher level of intellectual rigour" to dispute its findings.

"As the NEP (National Economic Policy) has been central to Malaysia's political and socio-economic development, all Malaysians have the right to listen to the debates on its achievements and make their own judgments."

Stressing the need for freedom of information legislation, they also said the attacks on the centre were an assault on academic freedom and freedom of expression.

DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng has earlier said that Mirzan's statement and apology had reduced Asli's credibility and integrity because it was without academic basis or rationale.

Opposition Leader Lim Kit Siang also challenged the other Barisan Nasional component parties to speak up on an issue affecting all Malaysians.

A Malaysian Today reader LC Chuah urges all Malaysians to scrutinize the academic and professional qualifications of Dr.Lim, his experience with world-level organizations, and compare with those of his critics.

“There's no need to say anything more,” he opined. So, what do you think, my fellow Malaysians?

An open letter to Muhyiddin over equity debate

How much longer can Umno leaders rule with secrecy and threats?


An Open Letter to Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin, Vice President of UMNO and the Agriculture and Agro-based Industry Minister
On Wednesday, October 11, 2006 in Petaling Jaya.

By Ronnie Liu Tian Khiew, DAP CEC member and NGO Bureau Chief

Dear Tan Sri,

I am borrowing the question raised by Malaysian in his letter to Malaysiakini titled “ Asli report: Muhyiddin’s threat disappointing” as the topic of my letter.

Like Malaysian, I too was disappointed with Tan Sri‘s remarks on the controversial Bumiputera equity debate.

You have spoken twice on the matter within the last one week. It shows the subject is of great interest and importance to you.

In my earlier statement titled “ Bumiputera equity- 18.9% or 45%?” ( www.dapmalaysia.org and Malaysiakini) , I have asked you to disclose the methodology used by the EPU to determine the percentage of equity held by different ethnic Malaysians and foreigners instead of discrediting the facts and figures presented by Asli.

I certainly did not expect you to describe Asli’s findings as “rubbish” and worse still, you even threaten to take action against Asli if the think-tank refuses to withdraw their report.

And what were you thinking about when you say that “ as Malay, I’m very angry.” What were you angry about?

I think Malaysian is right. How long can UMNO leaders rule with secrecy and threats?

Business Times Malaysia has a report on October 9, 2006, which I find very sensible and relevant to the debate today. I like to reproduce the report here in toto for the benefit of our discussion.

Malaysian Insight :A lack of openness is driving investors away.
One example is the reluctance in discussing the extent of NEP's success.

FOR years now, Malaysia's market players have racked their brains for remedies for its slumping stock exchange. Last week, when the Dow Jones set new all-time highs, Bursa Malaysia's pulse flickered briefly, a six-and-a-half year peak barely raising any interest.

Although the country has gradually rolled back capital controls which in 1998 made it a pariah in the international community, there has been close to zero interest in the Malaysian market, except for very brief periods of large foreign buying or hedge fund activity - which is strange, given that Malaysia's economic growth has been reasonably impressive and its reserves solid, courtesy of surging oil and commodity prices and strong exports.

Somewhat belatedly, the regulatory authorities are trying to inject confidence into the market. It is, for example, attempting to clean up bad public listed companies (PLCs) and ensuring only quality share offerings get listed after the disastrous late 1990s implementation of the disclosure-based system and the notion of caveat emptor. Many retailers have gone to the extent of closing their trading accounts.

Surveillance of PLCs has been stepped up, and the Securities Commission recently warned them 'to perform to stay listed'. On its part, Bursa has made it easier for foreign investors and introduced new products. But nothing seems to excite the market. Even the proposed reintroduction of securities lending and regulated short-selling (RSS) for some 40-odd companies this month is expected to meet with muted enthusiasm. Already, a foreign stockbroking firm has noted it was too cumbersome to be effective.

The nod for dual listings on the local bourse also seems ironic now in view of an increasing trend by controlling shareholders to take their companies private and delist them in order to relist on other regional bourses. After enduring years of poor single-digit valuations in the Malaysian market, controlling shareholders are looking at other options. Often this means looking abroad.

More the pity then for the Malaysian exchange, for there are good undervalued companies that deserve a second look. However, as much as regulators can do their utmost to ensure PLCs abide by corporate governance rules or to drum into entities the principles of corporate social responsibility, it appears all too hollow given the corresponding lack of transparency or accountability at the municipal, state or national levels. This in spite of the many, many glaring examples of mismanagement.

What are foreign investors to think? And what are they to make of the political stand-off between Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi and his former boss Mahathir Mohamad, which shows little sign of ending? Or the current controversy surrounding Malaysia's over-three-decade-old affirmative action policy which favours bumiputras or indigenous Malaysians who are mainly Malays?

A report on the New Economic Policy (NEP) by the Asian Strategy and Leadership Institute (Asli) Centre for Public Policy Studies has concluded that bumiputras actually own closer to 45 per cent of Malaysian corporate equity - or more than double the government's figure of 19 per cent.

There are significant implications should Asli's figures be accurate, since the continuation of the national policy is based on the premise that the stated objective of ensuring bumiputras hold a third of the country's wealth has not been achieved.

Both Asli and the government use different methodology and mechanisms to reach their conclusions. Already, the top leadership has dismissed the think tank's report as inaccurate, irresponsible and liable to incite anger - in other words, the less said the better.

But don't expect the debate to end. It will continue to be discussed - if not openly in mainstream media - in homes, offices, coffee-shops and online. As Malaysia continues to argue the pros and cons of extending the NEP indefinitely, refusing to address larger and more pressing issues, investors - local and foreign - will continue to head for greener pastures. And Malaysia's competitors will undoubtedly pull even further ahead.”

Tan Sri, I have highlighted the last paragraph for you to read and ponder over it. I think the concern expressed in the report is well founded. Secrecy and threats may only work for some period of time.
My challenge to you remains unchanged: please show us how the figure 18.9% was concluded. Or prove to us in what ways the figure 45% put forward by Asli was erroneous?

To calculate the value of equity, it’s wrong to base on par value instead of market value. The par value simply cannot reflect the real value of any share or equity for that matter. And the value of one Hwa Tai share cannot match the value of one Maybank share although their par values may be of same value.

And no one is saying the Malay poor needs no more help from the government. In fact, all Malaysian poor needs the help from the government. No government should neglect or marginalize the poor. To help the poor and close the gap between the haves and have-nots is a duty and obligation no government could run away.

You are correct to point out that many Bumiputera brothers and sisters in Sabah and Sarawak are still living in poor. But did you do anything significant and substantial to help them in the past? Did you do anything to stop both the chief ministers in these two states to amass wealth for themselves?

I believe Asli is now under tremendous pressure to withdraw and apologize to the Government. I hope they have the resolute and courage to stand by their study and finding.

If Mirzan Mahathir, the Chairman of Asli, was eventually succumbed to pressure and forced to withdraw the study and finding of his institution as suggested by some of your colleagues in UMNO, we would not be overly surprised.

But Tan Sri, the fact remains unchanged – that the 45% figure has not been proven incorrect by the government. And ordinary Malaysians would have more reasons to believe that the Asli’s figure is more accurate than the 18.9% concocted by the government.

And many Malaysians will start thinking ( they were not allowed to say ) that the basis to continue with the NEP ( nicknamed “Never Ending Policy” , “Never Ending Payouts”, “Not Equal Policy”, Never Enough Payouts”) is not valid.

And sooner or later, the Malay poor will realize that NEP is not helping them after all said and done, but just a vehicle to enrich a handful of well-connected Malays.

And the entire nation and its people have to pay a heavy price for an outdated, ineffective and self-defeating economic policy.

Tan Sri, I put it to you that the NEP is destroying the Malays (Malaysiakini), a claim made by the former Guthrie and PNB boss Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim.

Your former colleague Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim was also of similar view. He too has said that NEP has lived out its usefulness after all these years and I quote,
… "Far from charting a new way forward, the Ninth Malaysia Plan that Mr. Abdullah unveiled in April retains one of the ugliest legacies of the past: the race-based affirmative action policy that favors bumiputra -- mostly Muslim Malays -- for educational and business opportunities. While this policy may have served a useful purpose in promoting more equitable growth during the initial decades after Malaysia’s 1957 independence, it has long since outlived its usefulness. In recent years, it has devolved into an instrument for corruption and rent seeking that heightens racial tensions and deters foreign investments. Most of all, it demonstrates the Abdullah administration’s lack of resolve in dealing with the challenge of global competitiveness while ensuring social justice for all." ...

WSJ- October 3, 2006- Malaysian Mudslinging- COMMENTARY by ANWAR IBRAHIM- Source: http://online. wsj.com

I would also argue that the NEP is depriving the rights of non-Malays.

In fact, Malaysians now are saying that the denial on your part was to cover up the fact that wealth was concentrated in the hands of a few Bumiputera. Some feels that it is UMNO’s underarm tactic to understate the wealth of Bumiputera so that people like you could continue to mislead the Malay poor for their support. How I wish there is no truth in such arguments.

And please tell your colleagues not to turn the debate into a racial spat and bring up the ugly May 13 Incident to threaten the non-Malays again. I noticed some of the overzealous writers in the Malay press have attempted to do that. This would not work anymore except making the debate meaningless and leaving a very bad taste.

It’s time for the UMNO-led Barisan Nasional Government to admit the anomalies of NEP and move on with a colour-blind economic policy as suggested by DAP Sec Gen Lim Guan Eng.

I trust you to talk to all your peers in the Cabinet and convince them that “you guys can no longer rule with secrecy and threats.”


Yours sincerely,

Ronnie Liu Tian Khiew
- liu.ronnie@gmail.com

Too late and too little in tackling haze

Indonesia has done too late and too little to tackle the haze problem

Media statement by Ronnie Liu Tian Khiew, DAP CEC member and NGO Bureau Chief on Tuesday, October 10, 2006 in Kuala Lumpur.

The DAP delegation led by Sec Gen Lim Guan Eng met the First Secretary of the Indonesian Embassy in Kuala Lumpur this morning over the haze problem.

Judging from the explanations and statement issued by the Indon Embassy today, we could only say it’s too late and too little on the part of the Indonesian authority in tackling the above environmental menace.

So many years have passed but they have not ratified the Asean trans-borders agreement on haze; they are now saying “the matter is being debated in the Indonesian parliament”.

And guess how much manpower they were engaging in fighting the current “forest fires” in Kalimantan, Sumatra, Rain, Slaws and other parts of Indonesia? 1058.

And they are talking about ‘those who were found burning the forest will be charged and heavy fines will be imposed.” But they have produced no figures whatsoever on how many wrongdoers were charged and fined so far.

And the other measure they were employing to tackle the haze was cloud seeding. But where can you find clouds to do the seeding when you were burning forests everywhere and the temperature was so hot all–round?

The Indonesian government appears to be very much lacking the political will to resolve this environmental disaster although their own citizens also suffer from the haze.

The Malaysian Government is also at fault. Their duty and responsibility is to protect the health and economic wellbeing of this nation and its citizens. But they do not even put up an official protest as of today. Do they care about the losses we incurred in terms of health, economic activities and tourism?

ASEAN as a whole has also failed to help resolving this problem. It should collectively pressure the Indonesian authority to at least ratify the trans-borders agreement immediately and at the same time provide assistance and efforts to resolve the matter.

The DAP delegation also put up a protest outside the embassy before meeting their officials.

Yes! Return our blue sky to us!

/ Ronnie Liu Tian Khiew

MCA Makes Chinese Angry?

“马华 = 卖华？请读者自行判断”

/ 刘天球(民主行动党全国中委兼非政府组织局主任) -2006年10月9日

读过了由马华中央宣传局观察家撰写，只是发表在马华网页上的“马华将把行动党以华制华的画皮一层一层剥下来” ，确实有点啼笑皆非。

我曾经说过，希望马华不要畏缩，继续和行动党辩论有关华教和其它涉及华社权益的问题，但是马华总该认真和严肃地进行辩论，而不是进行人身攻击或者顾左右而言他吧？将文章选择性地刊在自己的网页，不将它发去报馆，难道有什么难言之隐吗？

无论如何，有关文章谬误层出，故不得不加以反驳，以正视听：

马华指控：“行动党领袖林吉祥持续其以华制华的政治谋略，自贬身份向教长进谗，企图唆摆教长革除华裔副教长韩春锦的邪恶意图被马华中宣局揭穿后，那名在行动党内不得人心，只靠林氏父子庇阴保住地位的刘天球，一马当先，站出来护驾，为表其护驾之诚，不惜拿华裔副教长韩春锦来开刀，刻意抹杀韩氏在任内勤勤恳恳，竭尽所能为华教作出的奉献，以一大堆歪曲事实及莫须有的罪名加到韩氏身上，从而片面判定韩春锦"何来功劳"，不但令人啼笑皆非，简直是教人齿冷。”

本人反驳：“众所周知，开除正副部长的权力在于首相，教育部长无权过问，何来林吉祥企图唆摆教长革除华裔副部长之说？我写文章揭露周美芬误导林良实和黄家定，要求关闭白小，韩春锦身为副教育部长没有捍卫白小原校，导致白小关闭至今已经接近六年，句句实话，不容抵赖！再说马华/韩春锦争取增建华小不力，迁校又慢吞吞，对于宏愿学校不敢反对，还搞了一个不伦不类，极可能会造成华小变质的 “二四三方案” ，也是铁一般的事实，何以马华中央教育局和中央宣传局双双对本人的上述质问避而不谈？马华在改制华文中学事件出卖了华社，我说连马华前署理总会长(也是当时的副教育部长)李孝友临死前公开在雪兰莪中华大会堂表示忏悔和道歉，也是众人皆知的事实。一个月前，翁诗杰不是在报上怪责韩春锦在安邦二小建校方面监督无方，搞到建校工程一再拖延吗？韩春锦明明显失职和失败，连翁诗杰也看不过眼，马华宣传局却写文告极力吹捧他，岂能怪我严厉批判韩氏？”

马华指控：“刘天球对马华中央宣传局揭露"民主行动党一贯奉行以华制华政治竞争手段"的事，色厉内苒，不愿置辩，却另辟蹊径，到历史堆里去挖掘一些陈年旧事，来转移视线，大肆指责，咒骂马华，以为这样一来，人们就会忘记行动党采纳分散华人政治力量，导致华人各领域面对困境的以华制华罪行，实在是愚不可及之极。

刘天球孤陋寡闻，不知道有人以东姑一句话，凭自由心让误判而流传着的一个谜团，即指当年参与草拟至今被视为华人权益护身符的联邦宪法的其中一名马华已故领袖，陈东海当年与东姑等赴英伦谈判独立时，丢弃华团备忘录，出卖华人的谜团。经"华社之谜"作者朱可立深入追查华社党团历史档案记录后，谜团已解，事实是当年并没有任何华社党团交付备忘录给他，何来丢弃之有？

刘天球以此来重复诋毁马华出卖华社权益，已印证其修养的浅薄，不料他连马华创党人陈祯禄因年迈及曾于1955年跌倒受伤不良于行，未亲自出马而委派李孝式和陈东海与东姑于1956年赴英参加独立谈判的事都搞不清，却妄言陈祯禄"不被马华公会委派为代表"。这种有违事实的说法，若非对历史无知则显然存心歪曲事实来嫁罪马华，如此卑劣存心，其心可诛，其言又如何可住(信)？”

我的反驳：华人社会总要求被陈东海丢进废纸箩，是马来西亚前首相东姑所为文公开揭露者。马华现在看到两人已经去世，反正死无对证了，就可以死不认错吗？难道马华要指东姑说谎吗？恕我孤陋寡闻，所谓的朱可立到底是何方神圣，他凭什么说谜团已解？据说朱可立就是马华‘枪手” 郭仁德，那么郭仁德为什么不敢以真名实姓来推翻东姑的说法，要躲在什么“朱可立”( 巧克力？朱古立？) 的笔名大做文章呢？需知东姑的谈话涉及历史大事，事关马华出卖华人的历史事迹，郭仁德若有真凭实据，就应该以真名发表，他/马华害怕什么呢？

独立之前，华人提出的诉求很多，包括要求合法公民权，华文列为官方语言之一，平等对待华教，民族地位平等，马来人特别地位为期不得超过十五年。。。这些要求都获得当时的马华总会长兼创党人陈祯禄的同意，并表示准备提到伦敦的谈判桌上去。可是马华(在巫统的淫威下？) 没有让陈祯禄代表华人，连他自己的儿子陈修信也曾经一度推说父亲当时病重，几乎神智不清(注；马华解释陈祯禄没有出席谈判的说法很多，包括此文所说的“跌到受伤不良于行”，但是始终洗脱不了临阵退缩之嫌)；结果所托非人，派出去的陈东海竟然将华人的总要求丢掉；另一位代表李孝式也“好不到哪里”，导致无人在谈判桌上提出华人的重大要求，种下今天华人长期有系统地被边缘化的恶果，马华难逃其咎！

马华指控：“马华自独立前至今历57载，在当年紧急法令期间，致力解救陷于水深火热的乡区同胞，协助50万同胞免于被驱逐出境，并积极协助他们在新村重建家园；与友族联手，致力争取国家独立、建国，参与宪法的制订，致力为华族，包括行动党人及刘天球的父祖辈争取公民权，奠定了华族在大马的政治地位，既可与友族共享政权，又确保民族文化，教育不致像东南亚其他国家的可悲遭遇而能完整保存，且与时并进，发扬光大，凡此种种已一一载录在国家历史、档案中，已铭记在华族心中，岂是刘天球妄加诬蔑所能抹杀、篡改的？”

我的反驳：“马华原为马票党；独立前受英国殖民地政府所托，在紧急法令期间负责华人新村的福利工作，代表英国人(英人和马共对着干，不便出面)收买民心，故获得英人政府给予彩票发行权。当时中彩票者必须成为马华会员，因此不少会员(后称党员) 属于这类性质。至于公民权，当时的马来左翼领袖和华裔和印度社会领袖，早在巫统，马华成立之前，已经取得共识，一起争取独立，同时让所有各族人民取得合法公民权；而英国政府则要求三大民族必须合作，在政治上取得共识，组成统一阵线，才让马来亚独立。当时的教总主席林连玉也到处奔走，说明华人争取和申请公民权的重要，敦促华人一定要争取和申请公民权，不容马华厚颜吹牛，将取得公民权的功劳占为己有。我的祖父辈多有海峡殖民地发出的的州籍民公民权，独立后自动改为马来亚公民权，马华不得无礼，不得邀功！英国人在马来左派和马共的压力和反抗下几乎破产，不得不利用巫统，马华和印度国大党，对付马来左派和马共，不得不让马来亚独立；这是历史事实，并非本人杜撰。今天华人地位有如二等公民，在多方面皆受到边缘化，马华领袖为了头上的乌纱帽，从来不敢据理力争，导致华人权益节节败退，马华难逃其咎，故有“卖华公会” 之污名。”

马华指控：“而令华社难原宥的是，行动党为了权欲，不惜冒险与摆明欲在我国建立回教神权统治的回教党明勾暗结，先后在1990年与回教党成立人民力量阵线，于1999人结成替代阵线，公然出卖政治原则，出卖华社的前途，为虎作伥，充当回教党马前卒，没有任何实际的建树，至今仍是年年交白卷。”

我的反驳：当年社阵在联盟的种种打压下愤而抵制大选，在策略上是对是错未有定论；原为人民行动党的曾敏兴医生以及蒂凡那国会议员等人由于马新分家而创办民主行动党，继续为民主化马来西亚而斗争，可谓合情合理合法；马华指控行动党“冒社会主义之名，取社阵而代之’ ，原是一些不了解事实真相之辈向来的成见，马华竟然也用来诬蔑行动党，居心不良。马华自己不争气，陆续被巫统边缘化，失去工商部长和财政部长的职位也不敢大声，如今竟然怪到行动党的头上来，真是” 千古奇闻“。再说，马华基层之中的确有人默默为华教贡献力量，但是马华领袖利用拨款(人民的钱 ，对外宣称或当作自己的钱，将拨款称为捐款)来“东捐一点，西捐一些，大选要来就捐多一点” ，则令人不敢恭维，称不上什么“出钱出力建设”云云。

马华指控：“而令华社难原宥的是，行动党为了权欲，不惜冒险与摆明欲在我国建立回教神权统治的回教党明勾暗结，先后在1990年与回教党成立人民力量阵线，于1999人结成替代阵线，公然出卖政治原则，出卖华社的前途，为虎作伥，充当回教党马前卒，为建立神权回教国担当开路先锋。”

我的反驳：“行动党为了打破国阵的种族霸权和支配政治，才多次联手其它反对党对抗国阵，可惜受到国阵(尤其是马华)利用控制媒体之便，歪曲和抹黑行动党的正义之战，结果功败垂成。无论如何，行动党反对在多元的马来西亚成立回教国，向来立场鲜明，马华要诬蔑也难以得逞。反观马华公然支持前首相的‘九二九’回教国宣言，同时支持各种回教化措施，才是不可原谅的过错。

备注：欲知马华创党以来的种种恶行和过失，请参阅本人著作的小书
<<马华在华社的角色：罪魁？帮凶？祸首？>> (2004年出版)

The Iconic Che Cuevara

1967年10月9日

拉美游击革命家格瓦拉被害

　　1967年10月9日，拉美游击革命家格瓦拉被害被害。

　　1928年6月14日，格瓦拉出生在阿根廷罗萨里奥一个资本家兼庄园主家庭。
　　1953年3月毕业，取得了医生资格。这时，他决定先到委内瑞拉加拉加斯的一所麻风病人收容所工作。当他在布宜诺斯艾利斯车站与父母告别时，意味深长地说：“一个美洲士兵向你们告别了。”

　　同年12月，他到达危地马拉。当时，阿本斯总统正在实行某些反帝反封建的措施，因而受到美国的反对。格瓦拉挺身投入保卫阿本斯政权的斗争，积极为阿本斯民主政府服务。他曾呼吁建立民兵组织对付国内外的反动派。阿本斯政权失败后，他被美国中央情报局列入黑名单，于是越过边界潜逃到墨西哥。

　　这时，古巴革命运动的领导人菲德尔-卡斯特罗为了寻找活动基地，来到了墨西哥。1955年6月的一个夜晚，格瓦拉与卡斯特罗在墨西哥城埃姆帕朗街49号会面。两人一见如故，通宵畅谈各种国际政治问题。最后，格瓦拉同意参加正在筹划的古巴远征军。

　　1956年11月25日深夜两点钟，八十二名古巴远征军成员，在墨西哥湾的图克斯潘港悄悄登上“格拉玛”号游艇，开始向古巴进发。格瓦拉作为“格拉玛”号名册上最早两名成员之一，和大家一起唱起古巴国歌和《七月二十六日赞歌》。由于风急浪高，大部分人都晕船了，经过七天七夜的紧张搏斗，12月2日，他们终于到达古巴东南部科洛腊多斯海滩一个叫贝利克的地方。他们刚一登陆，就遭到敌机的袭击。巴蒂斯塔政府的军队随即跟踪而来。部队来不及休整就与敌人展开了周旋。格瓦拉作为随军医生，一面治疗伤病，一面参加战斗，他不仅受哮喘病的折磨，在12月5日的战斗中还受了伤。部队历经千辛万苦，转移到层峦叠嶂的马埃斯特腊山区，开辟游击根据地。1957年1月14日，在拉普拉塔河口打了第一个胜仗，格瓦拉表现出坚定的革命立场和顽强的斗争意志。

他经常出色地完成任务。1957年5月28日，他参加著名的乌维罗战斗，显露出杰出的军事才能。战斗结束后，他留下照顾伤员，并克服困难带领他们回到了部队。从此以后，他崭露头角，不久就被提升为第二纵队(后来叫第四纵队。当时有七十五人，下辖三个排，相当于连队(的指挥员。7月，荣获少校军衔。以后，他指挥了布埃西托和翁布里托等多次战斗，与卡斯特罗的部队密切配合，迫使敌人退出了马埃斯特腊山区。

　　1958年5月，游击队打退了敌人规模最大的一次攻势，随后便转入了反攻。8月31日，格瓦拉率领一路部队突破敌人的重重阻拦，向拉斯维利亚斯省挺进。他们负责切断敌人的主要交通线，破坏敌人组织的选举。12月底，在袭击交通枢纽圣克拉腊城的战役中，格瓦拉带领不足三百人的纵队，攻进并解放了这个有坦克、大炮和几千步兵守卫的城市，使敌人处于崩溃之势。接着，游击队挥师东进，解放了首都哈瓦那。格瓦拉满载鲜花和荣誉进入这个城市，成了一个传奇式的游击大师。

　　古巴革命胜利后，格瓦拉于1959年1月9日被新政府宣布为古巴公民。同年9月任土地改革全国委员会工业部主任。1959年11月-1961年2月任国家银行行长。1961年2月-1965年任工业部长。1962年-1965 年任古巴统一革命组织全国领导委员会书记处成员。他先后访问过埃及、印度、日本、南斯拉夫、苏联、阿尔及利亚、刚果( 金) 等三十多个国家。1960年11月和1965年2月访问过中国。

　　古巴革命胜利后，格瓦拉总结自己从事游击战的经验，撰写了《游击战》、《游击战：一种手段》、《古巴革命战争回忆录》等著作，系统地提出了“游击中心论”、“大陆革命论”等思想理论。他认为，夺取政权最基本的手段是“游击战” ，即“非正规的武装斗争道路”。

游击战士是最有战斗力的先锋队成员，是社会的改造者。革命的胜利要靠游击队实现。

19 65年4月，格瓦拉从古巴神秘地“失踪”了。原来，他曾先后支持拉美一些革命者，在危地马拉、委内瑞拉、秘鲁、哥伦比亚、海地和阿根廷等国实验他的理论，但都一一失败了。因此，他决定亲自出马，重新回到游击斗争中去，发动拉丁美洲的革命。

1965年4月1日，他致函卡斯特罗，辞去党内外的一切职务和古巴的军籍军衔，准备去“世界的另一些山地”进行斗争。6月，他带领一支约一百二十五名古巴游击队员的小分队，开赴非洲的金沙萨地区，化名“塔图司令员”，支援那里的起义军，想在非洲的心脏地区建立一个新古巴。但起义军屡遭挫折，格瓦拉认为这里不适宜建立游击中心，便撤回了古巴游击队。9月，格瓦拉决定在玻利维亚的尼阿卡瓦苏建立游击中心。尼阿卡瓦苏处于圣克鲁斯省一个被数以百计峻削的丛山所包围的峡谷之中。峡谷里布满了繁茂的热带植物。他们准备以此为中心，将安第斯山变成马埃斯特腊山区。

　　1966年11月，格瓦拉化装成一位秃顶、戴眼镜的乌拉圭商人，从蒙得维的亚经巴西圣保罗市乘飞机抵达玻利维亚首都拉巴斯。他声称是美洲国家组织的特使，要从事社会调查工作，乘车抵达了尼阿卡瓦苏。他在这里准备训练一批游击队员，然后展开游击活动。但是由于他的活动没有得到玻利维亚共产党的支持，因而难以招募到玻利维亚人。游击队经初步训练后外出行军时，很快就被政府军队发现和包围。于是，游击队过早地暴露了自己，不得不与政府军队展开艰苦的周旋和战斗，

1967年8月，由于叛徒的告密，游击队的秘密仓库被搜获，城市中的联络网也遭到破坏，游击队的处境从此更加困难。格瓦拉率军左冲右突。始终不能改变局势，加上伤病员增加，不得不兵分两路，进行突围。8月31日，以华金为首的一路游击战士在横渡马西库里河时，遭到敌人伏击，全部壮烈牺牲。格瓦拉率领的十六名游击队员被围于尤罗峡谷。

10月8日下午1 时，游击队滑下峡谷准备突围。但敌人的包围圈已经密合，随着密集的机枪声，格瓦拉腿部中弹受伤。当他包扎伤口时，敌人已出现在他面前。格瓦拉镇静地报出了自己的名字。敌人立即将他押送到附近的拉伊格拉村。敌军总部立即用直升飞机派来了高级军官和美国中央情报局的特务。


次日黎明，敌人的军区司令等大小头目乘直升飞机到达，以便确认被俘者是否真是格瓦拉，并对格瓦拉进行审讯。格瓦拉临危不惧，坚定地回答敌人：“革命是永垂不朽的。”敌人见无法使他屈服，经请示玻利维亚总统和美国驻玻使馆同意，于10月9日下午杀害了格瓦拉。

　　1967年10月15日，古巴当局证实了格瓦拉罹难的消息，并将10月15日定为“游击队员日”。10月18 日，古巴群众在革命广场悼念格瓦拉。古巴共产党中央委员会第一书记和革命政府总理菲德尔-卡斯特罗致悼词，高度评价了格瓦拉的一生，称他是“一个无与伦比的战士”、“一个无与伦比的领导人”。

More reports on 528 Bloody Sunday public inquiry

“528反燃油漲價示威事件”聽證會

多名證人證詞：直升機低飛很危險
CHINA PRESS(吉隆坡6日訊）

“528反燃油漲價示威事件”聽證會今日進入第2天，多名證人表示，當局出動直升機低飛越過群眾，是項具非常危險性的行為。

這項集會主講人之一哈達醫生和劉天球說，當時，他們可見到有直升機低飛而過，並且不斷在空中盤旋，干擾他們致詞，也聽不清楚台上其他人的談話內容，現場非常喧吵。

今日依序受大馬人權委員會傳召出席聽證會的證人，包括：被列為第3證人納扎魯丁（聯邦后備隊攝影師）、第4證人葉韋寬（人民公正黨黨員）、第5證人哈達醫生（回教黨總財政）、第6證人林仕妝（學運代表），以及第7證人劉天球（民主行動黨非政府組織局主任）。

出席旁聽者包括公正黨副主席西華拉沙律師、警察總長秘書阿勞丁阿都瑪吉、大馬人民之聲協調員鄭立慷等。

當人權委會委員拿督霍拉提及，何以使用“危險”字眼形容當時的場面時，哈達醫生說，他真的對直升機低飛一事感過擔憂，因為兒童也聯同大人一起出席集會。

沒聽到警方警告

詢及有否聽到警方發出警告，要求人群疏散時，劉天球指出，他只聽到吵雜聲，沒聽到警方警告，因為直升機當時低飛，太過靠近，非常危險。

劉天球進一步地說，當直升機從樹上低飛而行時，他見到樹枝搖晃，如果1棵樹有4層樓高，他估計當時直升機離開群眾只有8層樓高。

他認同霍拉指直升機干擾其致詞的說法，因為每當直升機低飛而過時，他必須停止演講。
其他引導證人供證的人權委會委員，包括拿督朱紹駒、拿督楊元慶和拿汀巴杜卡再頓奧瑪。

劉天球促執法者值勤時展示名牌

民主行動黨非政府組織局主任劉天球促請警員和聯邦后備隊，在值勤時應在制服上展示名牌，以便群眾辨認他們的身份。他表示，聯邦后備隊成員值勤時，皆穿上夾克，以致看不到制服上的名牌，這是他最不能接受的。“除非他們戴上頭盔，才知他們是來自聯邦后備隊，而且他們都長得非常高大，連他們的眼睛也看不到。”

劉天球供證時建議：“警員遵守條規，必須向群眾說清楚本身將會採取行動，不能任意驅趕群眾。”

被列為第7證人的劉天球，也希望大馬人權委員會賦予群眾集會的自由，同時可自由向媒體發言，不會受到准證所限制。

“528示威事件”聽證會

3證人：沒發出充份警告 警方暴力鎮壓公眾
SINCHEW updated:2006-10-07 14:16:34 MYT

（吉隆坡訊）行動黨國際秘書劉天球、回教黨財政哈達及學運國內事務秘書林仕妝均認為，警方及聯邦後備隊在“528示威事件”中使用暴力驅散參與抗議油價調漲的人群前，並沒有發出充分的警告。他們3人都是集會的演講人，週五（6日）分別向人權委員會，在“528示威事件”聽證會上不異而同表示，當局動用直升機在人群上盤旋，干擾示威行動。

直升機低飛盤旋公眾上空

劉天球說，有關當局根本沒有遵從法律，清楚向示威者發出至少3次的驅散令，甚至讓直升機低飛，盤旋在公眾上空。“我們根本聽不到有關當局在集會時說了甚麼，接著水炮、警員的警棍就落在我們身上。”

劉天球也建議人權委員會要求聯邦後備隊及警員在值勤時配戴證件，讓受到暴力對待的公眾人士可以追查施暴者，以免冤枉錯人。

哈達表示，他們已向警方表明這是第四次，也是最後一次的和平集會，不過警方仍然使用暴力鎮壓公眾。

林仕妝也表示，警方及聯邦後備隊使用暴力驅散人群前，曾經在遠處與演講人劉天球同時發表演說，不過由於直升機低飛時所發出的巨大聲響，人群根本無法聽清楚。

聯邦後備隊代表：集會者沒過激行為

代表聯邦後備隊作證的29歲納沙魯丁說，據他的觀察，“528示威事件”的集會公眾保持安寧，並沒有表現過激的行為。

在當天負責拍攝的納沙魯丁向人權委員會呈交長達17分鐘的錄像帶，顯示鎮暴隊在5月28日的抗議燃油漲價集會中，向和平集會者發射水炮、使用警棍毆打人群和逮捕20名集會者。 （星洲日報‧2006/10/07）

BMC Lantern protest : Samy Vellu! Buka Jalan!

I have attended a special lantern protest organised by the Bandar Mahklota Cheras Free Access Action Committee at the Mahkota Walk a few hours ago.

Some two to three hundred men and women, young and old, have participated in the lantern protest despite of the haze. The boys and girls were chanting," Samy Vellu, Buka Jalan!" throughout the procession. ( The small boy walking beside me was one of those who shouted "Buka Jalan" enthusiastically through the loudhailer.) We have put our unhappiness and worries aside for a while and I believe that all participants have had a good time.

In my briefing to the residents, I told them to continue the struggle until the access road is open.

I also told the residents that the action committee have met the representatives of LLM ( Malaysian Highway Authority), Grand Saga (Toll concessionaire) and Narajaya ( Developer,The Lion Group) seperately over the last two weeks.

We now have a clearer picture after reading various letters and documents, and the next course of action would be setting up a meeting between LLM, Grand Saga, Narajaya and the action committee. We may include the MPKj if necessary.

DAP Cheras MP YB Tan Kok Wai, the Chief Coordinator appointed by the committee, is now trying his best to fix a meeting. Such meeting is important and necessary because the different parties were now having different interpretations over the same clauses in the same approval letter.

We also informed the residents that we will demand for the removal of barricades first while negotiation betwen the various parties can proceed simultaneously. The traffic congestion has become very serious and unbearable for the residents of BMC and Bandar Sg Long. The residents here should not suffer any further just because the Government "fails to act as a government".

The earlier claims made by Works Minister S. Samy Vellu do not seem to hold water. The access is not illegal since the developer has obtained an approval prior to construction. And there were no clauses to state clearly that Grand Saga has the right to put up the barricades. Even the question of the so-called compensation is in a limbo.

Samy Vellu has promised the Opposition Leader Lim Kit Siang that he will find a solution during the last Parliamentary debate. We hope he would not drag his feet any longer.

The action committee should be commended for coming up with a VCD with the help of the DAP Sg Long Branch within a short time. It consists of parliamentary speeches and video clips of various protests and outings, including the protest outside the toll gate and the office of Grand Saga. It is priced at RM6 per copy and all proceeds will go back to the action committee. The VCDs could be obtained from members of the action committee and leaders of the DAP Sg Long Branch.

The committee may pay Samy Vellu a visit during his Deepavali open house if his department has yet to get a date firm up for the all-parties meeting. We may even pay the Prime Minister a visit if his minister fails to act within a reasonable time frame.

Justice delayed is justice denied. The residents of BMC and BSL want the access road NOW!

Ong Ka Ting, where's the RM4 million?

100 units of Jet Ski overpriced by more than RM4 million: Ong Ka Ting should explain

Media statement by Ronnie Liu Tian Khiew, DAP CEC member and NGO bureau chief on Saturday, October 07, 2006 in Petaling Jaya

A concerned citizen sent the DAP an email today, detailing how 100 units of Jet Ski bought by Ong Ka Ting’s ministry were overpriced by more than RM4 million. And moreover, these Jet Skis were not fully utilized at many fire stations where they were kept because they did not have the facilities to lift them up and down according to the Audit Report 2005.

We want Ong Ka Ting to explain what has happened as the allegation made by the concerned citizen was very serious.

Here are the relevant info provided by this concerned citizen and readers can see for themselves why Ong Ka Ting ought to explain.

A:From Audit Report 2005:-

The Department had acquired 100 units of Jet Ski, valued at RM7.91 million and 21 Rapid Intervention Motorcycles valued at RM10.63 million. However, both these vehicles were not fully utilized due to lack of competent personnel to operate them. In the case of Jet Skis, it was not fully utilised at many fire stations where it was kept because they did not have the facilities to lift them up and down.

B:Original selling price for Sea-Doo GTX 4 TEC for 2002:

There were apparently two versions, the Blue and the Red.
According the the ABOS Marine Blue\nBook, the original MSRP's ("Approx. Retail Price New"), without trailer, were:Blue version - $9,499.00Red version - $9,899.00

According the the ABOS Marine Blue Book, the original MSRP's ("Approx. Retail Price New"), without trailer, were:
Blue version - $9,499.00

So, the US dealer suggested retail price for the GTX 4-Tec in 2002 was 9499$ or 9899$ depending on the model variation.

C:Foreign Exchange Rate in year 2002 was USD9899 x 3.8 = RM37,616.20 but Ong’s ministry bought it for RM 79,100 per unit.

So, where is RM41,483.80 (per unit) went to? It’s more than RM4 million if you add up for all the 100 units!

The concerned citizen argues that the above prices are retail prices at US, so it is impossible to reach RM 79,100 per unit even with the transportation costs.

There was a statement issued by the department on the issue but the explanations were far from satisfactory. That’s why we need Ong to explain to all concerned citizens.

Please read the news reports by Sinchew, The China Press and Nanyang at the following links listed below for a clearer picture:-

http://www.sinchew.com.my/content.phtml?sec=1&sdate=2006-10-05&artid=200610042957
http://www.chinapress.com.my/content_new.asp?dt=2006-10-05&sec=mas&art=1005mc56.txt
http://www.nanyang.com/index.php?ch=7&pg=10&ac=654829

Another report on '528' Bloody Sunday public inquiry

“血腥星期天”第二场听证会 证人指镇暴队打了人就跑
MALAYSIAKINI.COM 实习记者黄思颍Oct 6, 06 7:33pm

举办5月28日和平集会的“抗议燃油涨价联盟”总协调哈达南利（Hatta Ramli）在今日的第二场听证会中向人权委员会供证时表示，他亲眼目睹集会者遭警方暴力对待。他以“警方来到，打伤人后就离开”来形容当天的情景。

“我看到公正党副总秘书查希哈山（Zahir Hassan）躺在马路上，可是却没有目睹他被殴打的经过，因为查希被一些警方人员包围着。”

人权委员会是从昨日起，传召“血腥星期天”事件的目击者供证，以彻查这宗发生於今年5月28日的警方暴力案件。聆审这项听证会的4位人权委员是卡兰占沃拉、朱绍驹、杨元庆和再顿奥曼。

哈达南利指出，除了查希外，另一名伤势相当严重的集会者便是安兰（Amran Zulkifli），因为后者满脸都是血。“我看他伤势不轻，所以便赶快叫别人送他去附近的诊疗所接受治疗。

”警方无须动用暴力镇压和平集会哈达强调，该和平集会中的集会者都非常安分守己，并没有作出行动导致警方需要使用暴力进行镇压。“最多也只是重复性地呼喊口号，并没有造成混乱。但是，一位镇暴队成员却对我说：'你还是回去吧！这样让国家难堪！”

另一名公正党党员叶韦宽也是其中一位被警方现场逮捕的集会者。叶韦宽在供证时讲述，他目睹查希在离他约8尺的地方被镇暴队包围，查希遭到其中一位镇暴队员拳打脚踢，后者腰部也被踢伤。“查希被逮捕，带到警局时，我看见他满嘴是血。”

录影出现间断画面昨日向人权委员会提呈集会现场录影的证人－－镇暴队巡伍長纳沙鲁丁，也在今日再次受传召询。聆审听证会的4位人权委员要求重看纳沙鲁丁提供的录影，并再次向他查询有关涉及侵犯人权性质的画面，以确认当日的情形。现年29岁的纳沙鲁丁，是在事发当天负责拍摄整个事件过程的唯一警方人员。该长达17分钟的录象带显示镇暴队在5月28日的抗议燃油涨价集会当中，向和平集会者发射水炮、使用警棍殴打人群和逮捕20名集会者，可说是人权委员会目前掌握警方的确有动用暴力对待示威者的最有力证据。针对录影画面有间断一事，纳沙鲁丁解释，他是为了确保录影机的电力充足，所以才间中关机以保留电力。

纳沙鲁丁：多数镇暴队员持有枪械

问及当天约有多少位镇暴队成员在场时，纳沙鲁丁表示，当天约有40名镇暴队成员在场。他也提及，多数的警员们都持有枪械，包括M16机关枪、点三八手枪和催泪弹。“不过，我没有想过他们会发射水炮。当他们向群众发射水炮时，在场的人群都感到惊惶失措。”

纳沙鲁丁提供的录影中，出现一幕便衣警察踩住一名集会者的画面。当委员们向他求证此事时，纳沙鲁丁表示，警方正在逮捕该名人士，但是他却无法认得该名被逮捕的人士。

当博大学生林仕妆被传召入聆审室时，她向委员们表明，她是当天集会的其中一名演讲者，并透露她曾被镇暴队员用护身罩暴力推挤。“我的朋友李发成担心我会受伤，便叫镇暴队停止推挤的举动。他也很明确的告诉镇暴队成员：'我们很快便会离开现场'。但是，其中一名镇暴队员不但不领情，反而敲打发成的额头，导致他跌倒在地，额头也肿了。”她也向委员们提及另外两位伤势较严重的集会者，即安兰和赖康辉。李发成和赖康辉将在接下来的听证会上供证，以协助调查此暴力事件。

刘天球：警方直升机危险低空盘旋

今天的最后一位证人，也是“抗议燃油涨价联盟”成员之一的民主行动党非政府组织局主任刘天球，则提出了另一个论点。

“警方驾驶的直升机飞得很低，仅在大树的顶端。这是非常危险的，万一有什么突发事件，下面的人群肯定没机会逃脱。”他认为，直升机不断低空盘旋，其实是企图干扰该和平集会，不要让群众聆听演说者发表的言论。“

我看到镇暴队使用警棍殴打某些集会者，有些集会者也遭暴力推挤及殴打，但是我不能认出他们的身份。我也看见一些集会者被警方逮捕后，便被拖至警车附近。”“我认为他们这样的做法是不对的。我在演说时，就被他们以水炮瞄准发射。他们应该发出警告后，让我们有足够的时间离开现场，而不是用暴力解决。不但如此，他们其实应该明确地告诉我他们的意愿，而不是在其他地方大声呼叫！”

Complaints and suggestions I made to Suhakam yesterday

I have raised a few matters as a witness with the Suhakam commissioners headed by former judge KC Vohrah in the public inquiry held yesterday.

1.Freedom of assembly is part of freedom of expression and Suhakam should help to see that Malaysians have the freedom to assemble with or without the police permit so long as law and order were maintained. Just a notification to the police will do for those who want to organise gatherings.
2.All police personnels must wear their name tags on duty for identifacation purposes and to prevent abuses of power.
3.Warnings must be given clearly by the police before they could call off any assembly.
4. Helicopters must not be allowed to hover dangerously above the protesters in future.
5. The police must refrain from using brutal force in carrying out their duties.

Dr Hatta Ramli of Pas was also there to give his testimony as the coordinator of the event organised by Protes, a coalition consists of NGOs and political parties over the issue of petrol and diesel hikes.

Here's a report by Merdekareview.com...

　直升机低空盘旋干扰 并未听见警方解散指示

■日期／Oct 06, 2006 ■时间／08:01:56 pm
■新闻／家国风云 ■作者／郭华盈 -MERDEKAREVIEW


【本刊郭华盈撰述】今天出席人权委员会528抗议石油涨价集会公听会供证的四名证人，一致指出，从集会一开始到警方采取行动发射水炮，都没有出现群众失序的场面。此外，他们也一致指出低空盘旋的直升机，导致他们没有听见或无法清楚听见警方发出的解散命令或其他指示。

民主行动党中委刘天球（左图）指出，但他发现警方开始有所行动，联邦后备队开始动员，不过直升机低空盘旋发出巨大噪音，无法听见内容。

也是528集会的第三位发言人的刘天球形容，本身与集会协调人哈达哈欣都对低空盘旋的直升机赶到非常担忧，担心随时出现意外，坠落在人群里。哈达哈欣也是回教党总财政，以及机会当天的第一位发言人。

刘天球指出：“直升机飞得很低，购物中心周围树木的树枝与叶子都在摆动。我猜想离开地面只有7、8层楼高而已。”

他指出，他个人的发现是，直升机每到演讲时刻，都会在演讲者头上低空盘旋。

被问及直升机低飞的目的，刘天球指出，事实上好几次的抗议油涨价集会，都出现类似情况，至于低飞的原因，他相信，是制造噪音，干扰演讲的顺利进行，让群众听不清楚演讲内容。

528事件被普遍称为“血腥星期天事件”（Bloody Sunday）。5月28日上午10时左右，大约300名公众聚集在吉隆坡双峰塔阳光广场前，抗议政府在2月27日晚上宣布燃油涨价，导致后来电费高涨及通货膨胀的连环效应，加重人民负担。

这项集会由“抗议燃油涨价联盟”（PROTES）举办，警方在民主行动党非政府组织局主任刘天球演说时，向人群发射水炮，镇暴队冲向人群殴打参与者，最严重的受害者安兰（Amran Zulkifli）为保护10岁的儿子而被镇暴队打破头，伤口缝了五针。

马来西亚人权委员会5月28日反对石油起价示威暴力事件公听会，将会连续进行8天，即10月5日、6日、11日、12日、13日、16日、17日以及18日。人权委员会将传召12位证人，今天有五位证人供证，他们是联邦后备队伍巡长纳沙鲁汀哈欣（Nasurudin Hashim）、刘天球、回教党总财政哈达哈欣（Hatta Hashim）、集会参与者杨韦宽与林仕妆。

听审的四位委员包括霍华（K.C. Vohrah）、杨元庆、再顿奥斯曼（Zaitoon Othman）与朱绍驹。霍华是委员主席。今天出席旁听的观察员除了来自律师公会的代表，还是国家警方总部秘书处的代表阿劳汀阿都玛吉（Alaudeen Abdul Majid）。

哈达：直升机低空盘旋发出吵闹声

回教党总财政哈达哈欣表示，他在演讲一开始就强调这是一场和平集会，也是抗议油涨价的最后一场示威集会。非政府组织与在野党之前共发动了三场抗议示威。

哈达指出，由于低空盘旋的直升机发出吵闹声，所以即使民主行动党代表刘天球站起来发言时 ，也无法听得清楚。哈达也是该集会的协调人。

他同时指出，他发现站在指挥车上的警官正在发言，但是由于直升机发出太大的嘈杂声，而无法清楚听见。

他表示，警方发射水炮与展开逮捕行动后，他看见其中一位示威者安兰（Amran）衣服沾满鲜血，有人告诉他，安兰被踢了。

他也指出，在场的群众，在聆听演讲时高喊口号，不过场面平和。

叶韦宽：看见扎希尔被踢

集会参与者叶韦宽（右图）指出，他在聆听演讲时，隐隐约约听见联邦后备队发出一些指示，但是无法听见指示的内容，原因是在演讲人演讲现场上空盘旋的直升机发出巨响，造成干扰。

他还表示，本身亲眼看见一名示威者扎希尔哈山（Zahir Hassan）的腰部被一位联邦后备队员用脚踢，复跌倒在地上，他脸上还流了血。叶韦宽因为拒绝离开演讲现场，被警方逮捕。

林仕妆：看见五分钟手语

布特拉大学生，也是当天出来代表学生演讲的林仕妆指出，她看见站在指挥车上的警官与其中一位示威群众通过手语对话，该位警官出示了五根手指，表示“五”，她猜想应该是主办当局向警方要求五分钟的集会时间。

不过，不到两分钟的时间，林仕妆（左图）指出，警方就向群众发射水炮。她同时指出，本身亲眼看见同学李成发在解散时要求联邦后备队员不要以盾牌推挤他们，他们会解散时，招徕联邦后备队员用警棍当头打下，复不支倒地。

“他的额头肿了起来，后来他去警察局报案，也和其他在示威时受伤的同僚拍摄了照片存档。”
今天继续供证的联邦后备队摄影师纳沙鲁汀提供的录像带中，也出现了金马区警区主任卡玛与联邦后备队指挥官布斯巴拉占（Pusparajan）出示五根手指，表示五分钟的画面。

昨天，证人之一巴哈鲁（Badrul Hisham Shahrin）表示，他与卡玛通过手语沟通，双方达成共识，让集会继续进行五分钟后解散。

四位委员今天逐幕重看联邦后备队提供的录像带，以及要求摄影师纳沙鲁汀附加解释影像内容。
从影像录制时间的跳脱，委员与在场旁听的观察员，发现影像中出现多次的暂停录制的情况。
录像带出现的镜头包括警方发射水炮，导致群众四处跑散、警方逮捕示威者、被逮捕的示威者蹲在地上、机会发言人发言等画面。

被问及影像跳脱的原因时，纳沙鲁汀表示：“我是为了节省电池才这样做。”他否认影像经过删减处理。

他也表示，发射水炮的命令由站在指挥车上的联邦后备队指挥官布斯巴拉占，通过对讲机发出。他同时指出，本身听见布斯巴拉占向群众发出解散的命令；不过，整个行动的最高指挥是金马区警区主任卡玛。

他同时指出，他听见布斯巴拉占发出“即刻解散，否则（警方）将采取武力对付”的命令；而当时群众还在聆听演讲，场面没有失序。

他也听见“逮捕”的命令被下达，之后，水炮就被发射，导致地面都湿透。影像显示部分人群散去，警方开始拖走聚集的人士、进行逮捕行动，被逮捕者逐一蹲在地上等待被带回警察局。

其中一幕影像也显示联邦后备队与便衣警察一起围捕移民示威群众，其中一名便衣警察还用脚踩或踢该名示威者；联邦后备队员则驱赶前来拍摄照片的摄影记者或记者。

多次被问及在场群众的情绪是否高昂与激动时，他都表示，群众表现平和，即使在演讲开始进行，群众的情绪都没有出现激昂或者场面没有失序。

纳沙鲁汀同时指出，当天，联邦后备队员各个佩戴M16手枪、点38短枪与催泪弹。

建议执勤警员佩戴证件

另一方面，刘天球希望通过，人权委员会建议，联邦后备队还是警方，在执行任务时，应该佩戴证件（name tag）

因为戴上头盔的联邦后备队员，还是只穿便衣或穿上背心的警员，无法让公众人士辨认，特别在发生警员暴力对待时，我们根本无法辨认对方是谁。”

他还建议，警方应该展示给公众知道，发出解散警告的程序，“肯定不是从远处高喊，结果群众也听不见。警方应该直接告诉主办当局，这是一个非法集会还是什么的，然后给群众多少时间离开现场。”

Muhyiddin, dedahkan cara pengiraan ikuiti anda

Adakah Muhyiddin mampu mendedahkan cara pengiraan ekuiti Bumiputera yang dikatakan pada tahap 18.9% itu?

Kenyataan media Ronnie Liu Tian Khiew, Ahli Pusat Tertinggi dan Ketua Biro NGO DAP Kebangsaan pada 5 Oktober 2006 di Petaling Jaya.

Mengikut satu lapuran hari ini dari Muar, Johor, Naib Presiden Umno, Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin menafikan kenyataan sebuah kumpulan penyelidik pertubuhan bukan kerajaan (NGO) bahawa orang Melayu kini sudah menguasai 45 peratus kekayaan ekonomi di negara ini.

Sambil menyifatkan laporan yang disiarkan dalam sebuah akhbar tempatan bukan berbahasa Melayu (The Sun) semalam sebagai mengelirukan, beliau yang juga Menteri Pertanian dan Industri Asas Tani berkata, orang Melayu hanya mencapai 18 peratus penguasaan ekonomi.Muhyiddin Yassin telah membuat satu kesilapan yang besar kerana nampaknya beliau terkeliru dengan perbezaan di antara ekuiti bumiputra dengan kekayaan ekonomi, walaupun ekuiti merupakan sebahagian daripada kekayaan ekonomi.

Apa yang dibentangkan oleh ASLI adalah ekuiti bumiputra telah mencapai 45% pada tahun 2005, dan bukannya 18.9% yang dikatakan oleh kerajaan BN dalam RMK 9. ASLI juga memdedahkan cara pengiraan yang digunapakai untuk menyokong dakwaan mereka.

Muhyiddin juga berkata, peratusan itu tidak berganjak sejak Dasar Ekonomi Baru (DEB) tamat pada 1990 iaitu kira-kira 16 tahun lalu, berbanding bukan bumiputera yang menunjukkan peningkatan.

Jika ini benar, apakah kerajaan BN yang didominasikan oleh UMNO sendiri sudah gagal selama ini? Apakah UMNO selama ini tidak mampu ataupun kurang ‘idea’ untuk membantu kaum Bumiputra dalam usaha mempertingkatkan ekuiti mereka?

Kami juga tidak bersetuju dengan komen beliau kerana beliau mendakwa bahawa kenyataan yang dikeluarkan itu seolah-olah cuba menunjukkan bahawa orang Melayu di Malaysia sudah cukup kaya dan mendapat banyak kuasa ekonomi di negara ini.

Tujuan kenyataan itu ialah menunjukkan ekuiti Bumiputera telah mencapai matlamat DEB, iaitu 30%, maka DEB tidak haruslah dilanjutkan lagi.

Tiada sesiapa yang katakan semua orang Melayu ataupun Bumiputera sudah cukup kaya. Tentu ada yang kaya dan ada yang miskin dalam setiap kaum di Malaysia. Tentunya YTL, Lim Goh Tong dan Ananda Krishanan bukannya orang Melayu dan Datuk Syed Mokhtar Al Bukhary dan Datuk E, Datuk K dan Datuk R bukannya orang Cina atau India.

Dakwa Muhyiddin juga tidak tepat apabila beliau katakan ‘‘penyelidik NGO yang tidak perlu saya namakan itu memberikan contoh syarikat-syarikat milik kerajaan (GLC), yang kita sedia maklum ia adalah milik kerajaan dan bukannya orang Melayu kecuali Permodalan Nasional Berhad (PNB) dan Perbadanan Usahawan Nasional Berhad (PUNB) yang sememangnya ditubuhkan untuk membantu orang Melayu.”

Ini adalah kerana ASLI tidak pernah mengambil kira bahawa semua ekuiti dalam GLC adalah 100% dimiliki Bumiputera. Hanya separuh ekuiti dalam GLC dianggap sebagai ekuiti Bumiputera. Adakah Muhyiddin anggap semua ekuiti dalam GLC dimiliki oleh bukan Bumiputera ataupun orang asing?

Sebenarnya, mengikut ASLI, jika ekuiti dalam GLC tidak diambil kira, ekuiti Bumiputera sudah pun mencapai tahap lebih daripada 30%.

Bagaimanapun, kami bersetuju dengan cadangan Muhyiddin bahawa memandangkan laporan yang dibuat oleh kumpulan penyelidik itu telah dihantar kepada kerajaan, maka perkara tersebut perlu diperjelaskan semula oleh kerajaan atau agensi yang bertanggungjawab seperti Unit Perancang Ekonomi.

Kami tidak pernah mempertikaikan usaha kerajaan membantu kaum Melayu. Pada masa yang sama, kerajaan harus membantu semua lapisan masyarakat dan golongan miskin tanpa mengira kaum dan latarbelakang mereka.

Masalah DEB ialah dasar ini telah diimplimentasikan khas untuk golongan yang sudah kaya ataupun golongan yang rapat dengan kuasa pemerintah.

Golongan yang kaya dan berkuasa ini terdiri daripada tokoh-tokoh politik dan ahli-ahli perniagaan yang rapat dengan pemimpin UMNO, MCA, MIC, PBB, Gerakan dan SUPP. Rakyat jelata di akar umbi terus merana kerana mereka tidak mendapat apa-apa bantuan yang signifikan seperti golongan atasan.

Dan ‘mental subsidi’ yang tidak sihat juga dilahirkan kerana pelaksanaan DEB yang kurang tepat dan berkesan dan ini sudah menjadi satu halangan yang besar untuk kaum Bumiputera sendiri.

Kita perlukan satu dasar ekonomi yang lebih baik dan berkesan untuk semua lapisan masyarakat di Malaysia, baik miskin mahupun kaya. Rasa tidak puas hati di kalangan bukan Melayu pasti akan tercetus di negara ini jika DEB diteruskan walaupun ikuiti Bumiputera telah melebihi 30%.

DAP masih menunggu pihak kerajaan memberi penjelasan bagaimana (dengan pendedahan cara pengiraan) mereka mendapat angka ikuiti Bumiputera yang dikatakan hanya pada tahap 18.9% itu.

/ Ronnie Liu Tian Khiew

烟霾笼罩的下的马来西亚，路在何方？

烟霾笼罩的下的马来西亚，路在何方？

在一场由民主行动党主办的时事座谈会上，大约两百人挤满了加影新纪元学院四零五号讲堂，与主讲人林吉祥，林冠英，黄进发硕士和胡逸山博士和‘临时嘉宾’ 杨白杨进行了非常热烈的交流。这场讲座主题为“拉伯- 大选是唯一出路？” ，由张念群律师主持。

向来点子丰富的黄进发不按牌理出牌；他将主题改为‘大选-马来西亚人的出路’ ，并点出六大原因，说明为何马来西亚人应该在来届大选寻求突破。他认为在经济，廉政，教育，治安，环境和自由的六大层面，马来西亚政府节节败退，人民有必要站出来寻求出路，否则前途未卜。(他甚至大胆提出反对党应该集中火力攻打州政权的设想，值得探讨。)

我完全同意，拉伯是否能够通过‘闪电大选’ 来削弱前首相对他个人威胁，好让他和家族继续在政坛和商场上呼风唤雨，不是我们最应该关心的事。如果能够通过手中的神圣一票，改变巫统一党坐大，种族主义横行无忌的局面，那才是我们所应该追求者。

今天整个马来西亚的天空，被浓浓的烟霾所笼罩，而马来西亚的政治，不也被浓浓的种族主义色彩所围困住吗？评论人杨白杨认为一切的问题，源自极端的种族主义政治格局，是非常精确的论断。

他认为所有的反对党，都应该以破除种族主义政治为大前提，将种族主义者的气焰扑灭下来，一起来‘救救马来西亚’ 。

行动党秘书长林冠英鼓励人民拒绝乞丐政治和糖尿病政治，果敢地争取基本权益，值得各族人民深思和有所改变。他点出国阵领袖所谓的‘各族分享权力’是虚伪的假象。

反对党领袖林吉祥促请人民不要再对阿都拉存有幻想是正确的；他点出首相的许多施政弱点，譬如肃贪无心，改革警队无力，完全不能彰显所谓的‘全民首相’ 风范。他认为首相任由自己的女婿发表煽动种族情绪的言论，也是一大败笔。

胡逸山举出一些成熟的民主国家的典范，令出席者非常向往；不说不知，印度的首相曼莫汉是锡克教徒，总统是回教徒，虽然大部分的人民是兴都教徒。出席者不免会想，什么时候，马来西亚也可以真正的选贤与能，不再以一个人的种族或宗教为考量？

依我看来，反对党的支持者受到砂劳越州选举成绩的鼓舞，另一方面又看到阿都拉政府被前首相攻击得手忙脚乱，而国阵成员党之中又出现好像凯里这样的‘乱人’ ，再加上普通老百姓开始对经济不景气和通货膨胀发出怨言，因此对于来届大选的期望已经相对提高。

但是他们眼看首相已经准备提早大选，而反对党还是不能同声同气，心里不免开始焦急起来。他们都在担心，万一反对党再闹分裂，就会再次错失凝聚力量，狠狠地教训国阵的机会。

许多反对党支持者都希望，反对党之间能够在人民共同利益的大前提下，将各自的差异和矛盾放在一旁，一起迎头痛击国阵。

当然，要反对党将彼此的差异和矛盾放在一旁谈何容易，能否让各层次的人民接受反对党的合作却是一个非常大的考验。

行动党果敢地在1999年和回教党联手对抗国阵得到部分人民的接受，却同时流失了许多原有的支持者。仍有部分支持者直到今天还不肯谅解行动党。

无论如何，反对党有必要认清事实，人民也要谅解反对党的苦心，了解反对党必须合作的政治事实，除非有人愿意永远受制于种族主义者的气焰下，过着没有尊严和自由的生活。

"Is a snap election the only way out for Pak Lah?"

But "who cares about Pak Lah?" seems to be the reaction of the audience.

They are hoping that the coming general election will serve as an opportunity to teach Abdullah a lesson because he has failed miserably as a Prime Minister.

So many things have gone wrong under his administration and he seems to have no more control, not even his own son-in-law.

Saya disapina oleh Suhakam pada 6 Oktober

Saya menerima sepucuk surat daripada Suhakam beberapa hari yang lalu untuk hadir dan memberi keterangan di hadapan Suhakam mengikut Sekyen 14(1)(c) Akta Suhakam 1999 (Akta 597). Saya akan hadir pada 6 Oktober 2006 (Hari Jumaat) sebagai seorang saksi. Surat ini ditandatangani oleh Haji Ahmad Yusuf Haji Ngah, Setiausaha Suhakam.

Sebelum ini, saya telah memberi keterangan kepada pegawai Suhakam kerana saya merupakan orang yang pertama di tangkap oleh polis pada insiden berdarah hari Ahad, di mana Sdr Amran dan lain-lain dibelasah dengan begitu teruk olen FRU.

Saya ditangkap tanpa sebarang amaran apabila saya sedang berucap di depan KLCC/ Petronas tentang isu kenaikan harga petrol/ diesel/ gas / elektrik, dalam satu perhimpunan secara aman anjuran Protes, satu gabungan NGO dan parti politik pembangkang.

Hak perhimpunan adalah satu hak asasi manusia. Rakyat berhak mengudarakan sebarang bantahan tentang polisi atau langkah kerajaan yang dianggap kurang munasabah ataupun tidak adil kepada rakyat. inilah maksud demokrasi yang sebenar.

Tugas polis adalah menjaga keselamatan dan keamanan. Keganasan dan kekerasan polis memang tidak boleh diterima oleh masyarakat umum.

Mudah-mudahan mereka yang menyalahgunakan kuasa akan dibawa ke mahkamah selepas "public hearing" yang dijalankan oleh Suhakam.

Be fair to our people back home

Be fair to our own people back home.

We need not care too much of what others have said about us so long as we were doing the right things.

The best defense for PM Abdullah is to build a truly just, liberal, free, democratic, progressive and prosperous Malaysia.

Media statement by Ronnie Liu Tian Khiew, DAP CEC member and NGO bureau chief on Wednesday, 3 October 2006 in Petaling Jaya.

I have earlier commented that I did not expect PM Abdullah to write a letter to Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew for a clarification on his controversial remark, where he said that “Malaysian Chinese were systematically marginalized”.

And I subsequently suggested to him not to collect the letter to save him some embarrassment.

But all that were not necessary now that MM Lee has writen a letter and decided to release his letter for all to read.

MM Lee has chosen to release the letter probably because he was afraid that what he said in his letter could be twisted by the Malaysian authority for propaganda.

And true enough.

If you read his letter carefully, you will know that MM Lee did not apologize for what he had said earlier. He did not retract a single thing he has said in the international dialogue.

He went further to say that Singapore never protested over the racist remarks made by various UMNO leaders in the past. He even provides an annex of past remarks as evidence.

MM Lee appears as saying “Do not unto others what you don't want others do unto you".

So, it is merely a personal apology to PM Abdullah for causing a great deal of discomfort to him.

In addition, MM Lee uses the opportunity to attack former PM Mahathir Mohamad. He is doing this to settle the score over the crooked bridge controversy.

He also took the opportunity to insinuate the behavior of some UMNO politicians in his letter: "And from time to time, when Malaysian politicians attack Singapore fiercely over some bilateral issue, some of them tell us privately that we should just accept this as part of Malaysian politics and not react to these attacks."

After reading his letter, we can safely say that MM Lee’s remark was aiming at explaining to the Americans and other foreigners why Singapore needs a strong government with little or no opposition.

One Malaysiakini reader, in his comment over the letter, has put it pretty well and I quote, “LKY’s statement, in essence, was his ongoing propaganda to the people of Singapore to rally round the PAP flag.

“He was justifying why Singapore needs a repressive government and why LKY will not accept any coalition nor brook any strong opposition. He asserts he is able to say no to Malaysia over bilateral issues not considered favorable to Singapore because of a strong PAP-led government. Any weakening of the government by the emergence of an opposition will undermine the ability of Singapore to say no to Malaysia and erode its bargaining power.”

“He was justifying his intolerance of opposition ideas in Singapore to an international audience because the suppression of the rights of Singaporeans to demonstrate during the IMF Conference had been highlighted by the international media and was a hot issue. Lee Kuan Yew’s justification, and certainly not for the first time, was to point out that he has to keep the opposition under the PAP’s jackboots lest his Malay neighbors undermine Singapore’s sovereignty."

“Knowing that the US needs Singapore in its China containment policy, such an appeal would have gone down well with the US and its allies in the audience and clouded the issue of the rights of Singaporean’s to oppose the PAP. Never mind that it will be viewed as being mischievous and certainly not welcomed by his neighbors, Malaysia and Indonesia.”

MM Lee is sorry to hurt PM Abdullah’s feelings but still stands by what he said. It’s therefore wrong and unprofessional for Barisan Nasional-controlled newspapers to headline their front pages in a manner as if MM Lee has apologized to Malaysia (which he clearly did not).

He has once again demonstrated his skill, i.e. “to say 'No' in a very quiet, polite way that doesn't provoke them into doing something silly."

MM Lee stood up for what he said and what he said is the truth. He only apologizes for causing Abdullah Badawi discomfort for telling the truth.

We noticed that Foreign Minister Syed Hamid Albar was unable to respond to MM Lee’s letter. He wanted to wait for PM Abdullah to say his piece first.

PM Abdullah is now reported as “unimpressed with MM Lee’s reply” in an AFP report today, I wonder how the Government-controlled newspapers are going to report in their headlines tomorrow.

Abdullah reiterated his view that the comments from MM Lee were "uncalled for and not appreciated" and risked inflaming racial tensions in the multicultural country.

But we have no clues of what Abdullah would do next or simply leave the matter to rest.

I like to put it to MM Lee that two wrongs do not make one right.

Allow me to say this to MM Lee: “You do not make such remark simply because your counterparts in another country have accused you for marginalizing your own citizens based on ethnic background.

You have made such remark because you know you were right. It is unnecessary for you to retaliate with the annex of remarks made by UMNO leaders in the past. You have the right to do so but by putting in the annex, you have given others an impression that “I do this because you have done that to me”, rather than “what I have said earlier was correct.”

You may have apologized to PM Abdullah for causing him a great deal of discomfort, but I’m afraid your letter has actually caused more headaches for him. Your decision to release the letter publicly has shown that you do not trust him very much. That’s one of the reasons why he was not impressed with your letter. But what did he expect in the first place?

You may have saved him the trouble of “whether to tell or not to tell” Malaysians about what you have said in your letter, but he is now trapped in a position- “whether to reply or not to reply” to your letter”. Just expressing his displeasure and dissatisfaction with the letter was surely not sufficient to put the dispute to rest.”

I doubt PM Abdullah has very much grounds to rebut whatever said by MM Lee. But how could he keep mum when MM Lee has not retracted a single word he said about the marginalization?

And I doubt very much the boys on “tingkat empat” (4th floor) could help writing a “good enough” letter to save the elegant grace of PM Abdullah. This is not as easy as making money out of restructuring of GLCs.

And I sincerely hope that Malaysian politicians would refrain from saying how Singapore has been marginalizing the Malays there for “two wrongs do not make one right”.



The best answer PM Abdullah could give will be proving MM Lee wrong by dismantling all race biased policies like the NEP and put forward more color-blind policies in the near future.

We need not care too much of what others have said about us so long as we were doing the right things back home.

We must be fair to our own citizens regardless of their race, religion and creed. ‘Malaysian First’ should be our attitude and spirit at all times.

The best way to defend Malaysia is to build a truly just, liberal, free, democratic, progressive and prosperous Malaysia.

韩春锦毫无建树 若开除毫不足惜

韩春锦一再出卖华教
若被开除毫不足惜

民主行动党全国中委兼非政府组织局主任文告-2006年10月3日八打灵再也

马华公会中央宣传局在十月二日发表文告，指责民主行动党领袖林吉祥公然促请教育部长希山慕丁革除副教育部长韩春锦的职位，是怀有不良议程的邪恶意图。

该局今天发表的文告极力吹捧韩春锦，提出了一大堆尚未成功或落实的所谓“努力” 譬如争取复办假期师训班，解决华小师资不足的问题，并且将所有的迁校计划视为韩春锦的功劳，令人啼笑皆非。

众所周知，自从韩上任以来，不但增建华小有气无力，迁校又慢吞吞，造成许多严重缺乏华小的城镇，如蒲种，双溪龙，旺沙马朱，皇冠城，首邦市，沙亚南，新山，吉隆坡，槟城等地，久久未能解决。根据董教总的数据，全国缺乏至少134间华小。

更令人愤慨的是，韩春锦不分青红皂白，只因为同僚周美芬同意关闭白小原校，同时说服了林良实和黄家定，就允许白小原校被无理关闭，结果在华社掀起千层浪，迄今拖了2098天仍未解决。韩因此成为众矢之的，到处被华人指指点点，韩难道忘记了吗？

韩春锦对华社极力反对的宏愿学校计划大力支持，对于不利华教长期发展，甚至可能令华小变质的243方案，韩也是模糊其词，何来功劳之有？

至于指“民主行动党一贯奉行以华制华政治竞争手段” ，更是毫无根据的诬蔑，不值一驳。
反观马华，自从成立到现在，从独立谈判的那一天，就开始出卖华社。如果不是前首相东姑阿都拉曼在英文星报专栏文章里，提到马华的陈东海(身为联盟秘书) 将华人的总要求备忘录丢进废纸萝，根本没有将它提到伦敦的谈判桌上，华人到今天还被马华蒙在鼓里呢！

马华创党人兼总会长陈祯禄曾经要求华社全力支持马华，同时答应为华社争取应有的权益，可是在紧要关头(伦敦独立谈判) ，却不被马华派为代表，反而让李孝式和陈东海代表华人，结果华人的权益没有受到保障，马华迄今没有作出明确的交待。华人有理由相信，马华打算出卖华人权益，才不让陈祯禄代表华人。

马华后来在华文中学改制事件，再次出卖华人，这是许多华教人士迄今不愿原谅马华，也不敢忘记的铁一般的事实。后来前马华署理总会长李孝友(也是前副教育部长)临终之前公开向华社道歉和忏悔，难道马华领袖都忘记了吗？

坦白说，华教的最大隐忧，其实是243方案；因为到了2008年，万一政府一意孤行，将英文列为六年级考试媒介语，而且只承认英文作答的考试成绩，又不承认华文作答的成绩，华小很快就会变质了。到时即使再多建几件华小，还有什么意义呢？

如果华小和国小的分别，只在于一科华文，华小还成华小吗？万一在国小列华文为正课的试验(今年起在150间国小开始实行)获得成功，华小和国小的唯一分别也没有了，都成了如假包换的英文小学，华小不是被名正言顺地消灭了吗？韩春锦对这个事件的发展只字不提，他有什么功劳可言呢？

所谓真理越辩越明，我们希望马华不要打退堂鼓，继续和行动党公开辩论母语教育权利的课题，一切让华社去评论和判断好了。

/ 刘天球

生日快乐！HAPPY BIRTHDAY！

十月一日是中华人民共和国诞生的大日子，恰好是我的长子尊宪的生日。

正当中国十三亿人欢庆国庆日，似乎也同时为今年十八岁的他庆祝生日，难怪他有点洋洋得意。
回想当年(一九八七年)茅草行动，长子尚未出世，我由于为了营救同志早日重获自由，到处奔波走动，一直还未为他命名，结果拖到他出世的那一天，有感于国阵政府违反宪法，滥用权力，逮捕了一百多位异议份子(单单民主行动党就有16位同志被扣)， 故此为他取名为“尊宪”，反讽国阵违宪！

转眼之间尊宪已经十八岁了，马来西亚的人权纪录一直未能改善，令人失望。

我们这一代人受到打压，当然不想下一代也继续受到打压，唯有奋力进行改革，希望国家有朝一日，变得更加自由，民主和开放。

中国近年来经济发展迅速，只是政治开放和人权纪录犹嫌不足，希望中国领导人勇于革新，大步走向民主自由和开放之路。

祝福你，中国！ 祝福你，刘尊宪！ 生日快乐！HAPPY BIRTHDAY！

Bumi equity- 18.9% or 45%?

Bumi equity: 18.9% or 45%?

Media statement by Ronnie Liu Tian Khiew, DAP CEC member and NGO bureau chief on Sunday, October 01, 2006 in Petaling Jaya.

The 9MP claims that in 2004, the Bumi equity stays at 18.9%, and the Chinese owns 39%, Indians 1.2%, nominee companies 8%, others 0.4% and foreigners 32.5%.

Khairy Jamaluddin and other UMNO leaders talks of the failure of the New Economic Policy(NEP) to fulfill its objective of 30% Bumi equity compared with the 18.9% in 2004 and that the Ninth Malaysian Plan(9MP) is the final chance to achieve it.

Prof Dr Lim Teck Ghee of Centre for Public Policy Studies (CPPS), an independent think-tank, argues with facts and figures and even the methodology the centre uses to state that the Bumi equity has reached some 45%.

We have yet to hear from Khairy or any other UMNO leaders that the figure quoted by ASLI was incorrect.

So far, we only hear some disagreement from one or two academicians. But none of them have put forward any argument.

Teras, a Malay NGO, now questions the motive of CPPS for doing such study. The organization did list some arguments but somehow has failed to prove the 18.9 % claim right or prove the 45% figure wrong.

I agree with Teras that the Government should seriously look into the disparity of income within the same ethnic groups rather than only focus on the disparity of income between the different races. We do not want to see any of our Malaysian community being marginalized in our own country.

We hope the Prime Minister could share with us the methodology used by his administration to reach the 18.9% figure, now that the figure has been seriously challenged by ASLI and other prominent academicians.

Meanwhile, Prof Dr Lim has openly requested those who disagree with the CPPS findings could challenge them with facts and figures and the methodology applied.

In February 2006, Professor Dr Lim Teck Ghee submitted a report that showed as at 30 September 2005, Bumi ownership of shares in Bursa Malaysia amounted to 45% or RM 325.08 billion out of the market capitalization of RM 715 billion. The CPSS is set up by the independent think-tank Asian Strategy and Leadership Institute as an independent research group, headed by Professor Dr Lim Teck Ghee. Professor Dr Lim indicated that if the Bumi had not sold off their shares, their equity stake would easily have been higher than the 45%. An estimated 40% of the preferential shares given to Bumis were sold by them for profit gains.

On the other hand, DAP Secretary General Lim Guan Eng believes that the 18.9% figure was incorrect because “the 18.9% Bumi equity is based on par value of share capital of limited companies.”

He said “the value of share capital is a false reflection of the real or true worth of the company. A more accurate assessment, though not the most comprehensive and objective test, would be to take the market value of Bumi equity of all listed companies in Bursa Malaysia (BM).”

Lim further argues that “the more important question then is therefore not attaining 30% Bumi equity which has been achieved but who amongst the Malays owns the 45% Bumi equity of BN based on market capitalization.”Lim also argues that the Barisan Nasional Government should adopt the correct macroeconomic policy and discard nationally divisive and outdated policies of quotas and subsidies.

“Such racial policies like the NEP must be replaced by those which forges national unity and encourages competition, value creation and meritocracy.” He argued.

Lim has urged all Malaysian to abandon the racial premise of the NEP and its false pursuit of 30% Bumi equity.

/ Ronnie Liu Tian Khiew

Chinese marginalized: Kuan Yew Vs Abdullah

I did not expect our PM actually wrote a letter to Minister Mentor of Singapore Lee Kuan Yew for clarification on "systematic marginalization"

Media statement by Ronnie Liu Tian Khiew, DAP CEC member and NGO bureau chief on Saturday, 30 September 2006 in Petaling Jaya.

According to a report by The Straits Times, Singapore's Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew has written to Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi over his recent remarks about the Chinese being marginalized in Malaysia.

Lee told a forum on good governance in Singapore on Sept 15 that the attitude of Malaysia and Indonesia towards the republic was shaped by the way they treated their Chinese communities.

"My neighbours both have problems with their Chinese. They are successful, they're hardworking and therefore they are systematically marginalized, even in education.

"And they want Singapore, to put it simply, to be like their Chinese - compliant," Lee had said.

His press secretary, YY Yeong said the letter was now with the Singapore High Commission in Kuala Lumpur. I did not expect Abdullah to write to Lee for clarification over the controversial remarks.

That’s because I’m afraid that MM Lee may decide to give evidences and example to illustrate or prove his point, and that would be even harder for Abdullah to stomach.

For instance, what if MM Lee decides to cite some of these examples…

· Under the NEP, many non-Malays have been deprived of their rights in many fields, such as scholarship, licenses, privatization projects and allocation of shares, making the NEP looks like Not Equal Policy.
· Every year, more than 3,000 best students graduated from various Chinese Independent High Schools (including Foon Yew High School, Johor Bahru) were recruited by Singaporean universities and colleges as their qualification were not recognized by the Malaysian authority.
· Very little chances of promotion for the non-Malays in the civil service.
· No non-Malays make it to the top in police and armed forces and public universities.
· Only less than 4 percent of the total allocation for primary schools went to the non-Malays.
· No new Chinese/ Tamil schools policy since the eighties.
· No new licenses to operate petrol stations for the non-Malays.
· 8 out of 10 banks were in the hands of Malays although most of the banks were founded by the non-Malays.
· Non-Malays have to build their own temples and churches.
· Non-Malays have no chance to take up senior portfolios in the Cabinet like before ( such as Trade and Industry, Finance, Education)
· No more non-Malay state Governors ( Leong Yew Koh was the first Governor of Melaka)
· Not a single District Officer (DO) is a non-Malay.
· As an unstated policy, all contracts awarded by Petronas must go to Malay-owned companies.
· All Government printing jobs must go to Malay printers.
· More than 90% of the Universiti Malaya medical faculty seats were given to matriculation students (few were non-Malays).
· Only a fraction of the fund for religious purposes was given to non-Malays.
· No Chinese/Tamil subtitles were allowed for Chinese/ Tamil TV commercials.
· Chinese/ Tamil characters for outdoor advertising billboards were not allowed.
· No religious programs other than Islam were allowed over TV and Radio Malaysia.

These are just a few examples MM Lee could have cited. He may have many other examples and evidences he could give.

My suggestion to the Prime Minister is not to collect the letter written by MM Lee in order to save him from some embarrassment.