We can't whaaaaat?
Read my (err...) lips!!
Altantuya...
Altantuya...
Altantuya...
Altantuya...
Altantuya...
Altantuya...
Altantuya...
Altantuya...SHAARIIBUU!!!!
（nenebubu!)
The police have come to a new low. Do they actually have the power to do that? To refrain politicians from mentioning She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named? I don't think so. In fact they cannot refrain anyone from saying anything unless it is defamatory or, in Malaysia's case, sensitive. But is it sensitive? Or is the police too sensitive over this being sensitive?
And how come I never hear police refraining BN candidates from mentioning about the arse of Anwar?
Police must act according to law. The role of police is to maintain order according to the laws set out in our constitution and laws that are enacted through our parliamentary process. And may I ask which part of our law prohibits us from mentioning She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named?
Oh sure, the police might say that by mentioning She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named will cause disorder. What disorder? More like displeasure! Displeasure to the high ranking politicians in BN. Perhaps Najib may not have really met She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named, but after this favor from the police, I think there is more to this than what it seems.
For those of you who still believe that there is hope in UMNO, forget about it! And for that matter, forget about MCA and MIC too. If they have the guts, they would voice their displeasure over this decision by the police openly in the press. But I'm 200% sure that they won't do it. (Surely, they might say that they have no control over what the police do and therefore could not stop police from issuing restraints like this. But at least, they can voice they displeasure?)
And I'm also so sick of the many people whom I know who disagrees with this. You are either ignorant, uneducated or corrupted like BN. (Note：'Educated' means you know about the political process, separation powers, role of police and all. 'Educated' does not mean phD in engineering and know all about partial differential equations but do not know whether our police has the power to interpret law).
*************************************
Voldemort, the evil character in Harry Potter is the one that He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named. Maybe our high ranking police officers were too engulfed in reading the novel that they felt compelled to create a 'wife' for Voldemort, called She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named. Together, they are called They-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named. I had hoped they used their creativity somewhere else.
Bravo Malaysia, Bravo!
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Monday, March 30, 2009
谁有举证/论证的责任？
（2月离开台湾时，我在桃园飞机场就开始写这个帖。可是一直到现在才有时间将它完成。）
***********************************************************************
刚刚从台湾回来。
在那里遇到了郭宇宽、付欣、执中、思渊等人真的很开心。没想到，到了英国深造还会有一个这么样的机会去参与华语辩论比赛。尤其，在最后一晚和付欣聊天的时候，更是感触甚多。
在这次的比赛中，马大止步于半决赛。3-2的票数。这个赛果的其中关键理由就是在于举证的责任。究竟在奥瑞岗赛制里，正方会有所有的举证责任吗？得到利益的那方才有举证的责任吗？这种举证的责任是自动的还是在某方的要求下才成立的呢？听过了几场比赛的评审评语后，他们对举证的责任大概就有这几个观点。
每一个辩论比赛都有自己的规则。每个评判也都会有自己对这些规则的诠释。因此，辩论比赛是避免不了某一程度的主观性和区域性（不同区域的评判会有不同的要求）。作为一个“玩”着传统赛制长大的辩手，我是这么想这一个游戏规则的：
辩论是一个无止尽问WHY的游戏。基本上，任何一个问题，加上一个WHY，另一方可能就有解释的必要。除非，加上了WHY以后，那个问题就变得可以用常理或经验法则去判断（或则是彻底地无聊）。换句话说，辩论就是看哪一方，在不断地问WHY的过程中，可以更快速地到达评判心目中所谓的“经验法则”或“常理”。
问题是，什么是常理，也是见仁见智。
如果正方提出的议案是“我国应该实行鞭刑”。反方反问，“提高薪资，提升经济以及普及教育在某一种程度上都能减低罪行，那为什么要实行鞭刑呢？”这是不是常理？正方有必要反驳吗？正方这时候有责任举证证明薪资，经济以及教育跟罪行一点关系都没有吗？
反驳是一定要的。只是，要反驳到什么程度才能满足评判的“常理”需求呢？如果评判认为“经济提升能够减少罪行”是荒唐的，那么揶揄一句“对方真的认为更高薪资能够让强奸犯不去强奸？真幽默！”也许就够。但是，如果评判认为这可能有点道理，那么正方就要花更多口水去反驳了。
如果正方这时已经证明了鞭刑对特定的罪犯，如强奸犯，是有效果的，这样的举证足够吗？若是证明了在实行鞭刑后的很短时间内，强奸案有显著的下降，这是否足够证明鞭刑的有效性呢？
正方这么回答，看似有点逃避。因为，反方问的是薪资、经济和教育，正方却提出另一个鞭刑有效的数据。反方可以再追问，“那时候的犯罪案下降有没有可能是因为经济、薪资和教育的因素呢？”
加了一个“可能”，论证责任似乎完全落在正方的身上。正方尽管能够提出理由说经济和减低犯罪没有关系，反方（在没有太多准备，纯粹利用常识的情况下）还是可以提出更多可能导致犯罪案下降的原因（和可能性）。在奥瑞岗赛制里，正方有更重的举证责任。正方必须论证，而反方（似乎）只须要否定或提出质疑。在这样的要求下，反方这种问题前面加个“为什么”或“可能”的做法就已经做到质疑的功能了。那么是不是正方有必要针对这所有的可能性作出完整的否定才能有胜算吗 ？
如果是的话，恐怕正方会有无限的论证责任。如果正方的论证责任是要排除一切的可能性，那么恐怕国会（法庭式辩论的正方）不可能可以通过任何的法律条规。
E.g.
应该实行环保 – 但是有科学家认为全球暖化只是一种自然现象。虽然他们不是主流，但数量不少。那么有没有可能是主流的科学家错了？（谁来论证这个？）
应该民主自由 – 也有国家，如新加坡和中国，能够在相对不自由不民主的情况下迅速发展。而且强调民主自由的西方国家，原本经济上就已经是比其他国家强。那些原本经济不强的国家，实行了民主还是一样的穷和乱。那么民主自由所带来的稳定发展有没有可能是一种侥幸/偶然？（又是谁来论证？）
（尤其是念了博士以后我发觉）世间上没有一个观点是统一的。任何一个观点，只要不无聊，必定会有反对的意见。没有任何一方应该背负着完全否定对方所有质疑的责任。正方的责任是要论证辩题，不是要反对反方（注意，这两者有差别）。
回到之前的题目，提出“提升经济”有可能减低罪案的反方是否有责任要论证以下呢？这个责任是自动的还是在正方要求下才成立的呢？（注：自动就是说正方完全没有提出要求但是评判会自动要求反方提出举证）
有一位评判说，“得利者，有举证责任”说得最恰当 。如果不是这样的话，反方（只须要质疑的那一方）不断地提出很多的可能性要求正方解释或是不断地在问题前面加个WHY，那么对正方就太不公平了。提出“薪资的提高有助于减少犯罪案所以不须要鞭刑”明显反方是得利者。因此，反方应该举证。
我认为不管是奥瑞岗还是传统赛制，我们应该以一贯对传统赛制的打法去应对。这不仅是为了符合游戏规则，而且对辩论员的成长也是有益的。如果，我们的辩手在技术训练时老是强调这是你的还是我的举证责任，那么辩论到最后就只剩下技术，一个只有辩论员看得明白的技术竞技。而圈外人，看了不会明白也不会感兴趣。这种“看是谁的举证责任”的技术，到辩论比赛结束后不会有太多的内容和争锋。因为大家对举证责任推来推去，辩论比赛将会沦为一场没有挥过拳头的拳击赛，大家“点到即止”。这是对辩论的倒退。而且，老是强调举重责任，到最后只会让做反方的辩论员变得更怠惰。因为，他们不须要准备太多，就不断地抛为什么和可能性，从头质疑到尾就会有胜算的机会了。这样的比赛，就算是圈内的人看了，也觉得不好看。
***********************************************************************
刚刚从台湾回来。
在那里遇到了郭宇宽、付欣、执中、思渊等人真的很开心。没想到，到了英国深造还会有一个这么样的机会去参与华语辩论比赛。尤其，在最后一晚和付欣聊天的时候，更是感触甚多。
在这次的比赛中，马大止步于半决赛。3-2的票数。这个赛果的其中关键理由就是在于举证的责任。究竟在奥瑞岗赛制里，正方会有所有的举证责任吗？得到利益的那方才有举证的责任吗？这种举证的责任是自动的还是在某方的要求下才成立的呢？听过了几场比赛的评审评语后，他们对举证的责任大概就有这几个观点。
每一个辩论比赛都有自己的规则。每个评判也都会有自己对这些规则的诠释。因此，辩论比赛是避免不了某一程度的主观性和区域性（不同区域的评判会有不同的要求）。作为一个“玩”着传统赛制长大的辩手，我是这么想这一个游戏规则的：
辩论是一个无止尽问WHY的游戏。基本上，任何一个问题，加上一个WHY，另一方可能就有解释的必要。除非，加上了WHY以后，那个问题就变得可以用常理或经验法则去判断（或则是彻底地无聊）。换句话说，辩论就是看哪一方，在不断地问WHY的过程中，可以更快速地到达评判心目中所谓的“经验法则”或“常理”。
问题是，什么是常理，也是见仁见智。
如果正方提出的议案是“我国应该实行鞭刑”。反方反问，“提高薪资，提升经济以及普及教育在某一种程度上都能减低罪行，那为什么要实行鞭刑呢？”这是不是常理？正方有必要反驳吗？正方这时候有责任举证证明薪资，经济以及教育跟罪行一点关系都没有吗？
反驳是一定要的。只是，要反驳到什么程度才能满足评判的“常理”需求呢？如果评判认为“经济提升能够减少罪行”是荒唐的，那么揶揄一句“对方真的认为更高薪资能够让强奸犯不去强奸？真幽默！”也许就够。但是，如果评判认为这可能有点道理，那么正方就要花更多口水去反驳了。
如果正方这时已经证明了鞭刑对特定的罪犯，如强奸犯，是有效果的，这样的举证足够吗？若是证明了在实行鞭刑后的很短时间内，强奸案有显著的下降，这是否足够证明鞭刑的有效性呢？
正方这么回答，看似有点逃避。因为，反方问的是薪资、经济和教育，正方却提出另一个鞭刑有效的数据。反方可以再追问，“那时候的犯罪案下降有没有可能是因为经济、薪资和教育的因素呢？”
加了一个“可能”，论证责任似乎完全落在正方的身上。正方尽管能够提出理由说经济和减低犯罪没有关系，反方（在没有太多准备，纯粹利用常识的情况下）还是可以提出更多可能导致犯罪案下降的原因（和可能性）。在奥瑞岗赛制里，正方有更重的举证责任。正方必须论证，而反方（似乎）只须要否定或提出质疑。在这样的要求下，反方这种问题前面加个“为什么”或“可能”的做法就已经做到质疑的功能了。那么是不是正方有必要针对这所有的可能性作出完整的否定才能有胜算吗 ？
如果是的话，恐怕正方会有无限的论证责任。如果正方的论证责任是要排除一切的可能性，那么恐怕国会（法庭式辩论的正方）不可能可以通过任何的法律条规。
E.g.
应该实行环保 – 但是有科学家认为全球暖化只是一种自然现象。虽然他们不是主流，但数量不少。那么有没有可能是主流的科学家错了？（谁来论证这个？）
应该民主自由 – 也有国家，如新加坡和中国，能够在相对不自由不民主的情况下迅速发展。而且强调民主自由的西方国家，原本经济上就已经是比其他国家强。那些原本经济不强的国家，实行了民主还是一样的穷和乱。那么民主自由所带来的稳定发展有没有可能是一种侥幸/偶然？（又是谁来论证？）
（尤其是念了博士以后我发觉）世间上没有一个观点是统一的。任何一个观点，只要不无聊，必定会有反对的意见。没有任何一方应该背负着完全否定对方所有质疑的责任。正方的责任是要论证辩题，不是要反对反方（注意，这两者有差别）。
回到之前的题目，提出“提升经济”有可能减低罪案的反方是否有责任要论证以下呢？这个责任是自动的还是在正方要求下才成立的呢？（注：自动就是说正方完全没有提出要求但是评判会自动要求反方提出举证）
有一位评判说，“得利者，有举证责任”说得最恰当 。如果不是这样的话，反方（只须要质疑的那一方）不断地提出很多的可能性要求正方解释或是不断地在问题前面加个WHY，那么对正方就太不公平了。提出“薪资的提高有助于减少犯罪案所以不须要鞭刑”明显反方是得利者。因此，反方应该举证。
我认为不管是奥瑞岗还是传统赛制，我们应该以一贯对传统赛制的打法去应对。这不仅是为了符合游戏规则，而且对辩论员的成长也是有益的。如果，我们的辩手在技术训练时老是强调这是你的还是我的举证责任，那么辩论到最后就只剩下技术，一个只有辩论员看得明白的技术竞技。而圈外人，看了不会明白也不会感兴趣。这种“看是谁的举证责任”的技术，到辩论比赛结束后不会有太多的内容和争锋。因为大家对举证责任推来推去，辩论比赛将会沦为一场没有挥过拳头的拳击赛，大家“点到即止”。这是对辩论的倒退。而且，老是强调举重责任，到最后只会让做反方的辩论员变得更怠惰。因为，他们不须要准备太多，就不断地抛为什么和可能性，从头质疑到尾就会有胜算的机会了。这样的比赛，就算是圈内的人看了，也觉得不好看。
Saturday, March 28, 2009
冲凉
告诉你一个秘密：我不喜欢冲凉/洗澡！
我总觉得冲凉很浪费时间。但是今天不知为何，我打算把我自己洗得干干净净。就这样，在冲凉房里呆了很久。
突然间，在我脑海里出现了一个画面。是一个人在洗澡的画面（不是3级片啦）。那个人是我，是3岁的我。起初，画面是模糊的。经一番努力，不断地往大脑里挖掘后，才发现那个是我爸妈正帮我冲凉的画面。
小孩子总爱玩，不爱冲凉。尽管玩得全身是污垢也觉得自己很干净。妈妈总是喜欢叫我涂上肥皂，然后冲水时叫我留意那个卷入洗水盆的水是多么地肮脏。她会说：“你看！黑黑的。”不知道为什么，觉得这很温馨。忽然间，也开始幻想起我帮我自己的孩子洗澡时的情景会是怎么样。
我觉得帮小孩子冲凉你就会感受到父母的伟大和细心。很多人都会忽略这个看起来很简单而且每天都需要做的动作。但是，仔细想想后，你就会发现这是一个只有你与你最亲密的人才能够一起做的事情。从小到大，教你洗澡的人只有可能是你奶妈，你爸妈或是你自己。学会自己洗澡后（大约3-4岁），你就再也不会跟另一个人一起洗澡--（可能，直到你有女朋友/老婆为止）。可是，那时你已经无法改变你的洗澡习惯了。所以我相信，我们每个人都有独特自己洗澡的方法，而这个方法就是爸妈小时候帮你洗澡时，培养出来的习惯。极有可能，每个人的洗澡习惯都是代代相传的祖宗秘方！
这种记忆一般都埋在我大脑海里的深处，我的意识不容易发现它。况且我本人已经要接近‘3张’，这种3岁的事情为什么会突然浮现我也不清楚。但是随着年龄的增长，人的感触会越来越多，想回往事的频率也越来越高。小孩子期待的是明天，他们不会回想过去。比较年长的我，还会偶尔看看昨天。过去很多看似很琐碎的事，如今回首时却有很多感觉。
最后，我也在想，如果有一天爸妈已经不能自己洗澡时，我又会不会帮他们呢？
我总觉得冲凉很浪费时间。但是今天不知为何，我打算把我自己洗得干干净净。就这样，在冲凉房里呆了很久。
突然间，在我脑海里出现了一个画面。是一个人在洗澡的画面（不是3级片啦）。那个人是我，是3岁的我。起初，画面是模糊的。经一番努力，不断地往大脑里挖掘后，才发现那个是我爸妈正帮我冲凉的画面。
小孩子总爱玩，不爱冲凉。尽管玩得全身是污垢也觉得自己很干净。妈妈总是喜欢叫我涂上肥皂，然后冲水时叫我留意那个卷入洗水盆的水是多么地肮脏。她会说：“你看！黑黑的。”不知道为什么，觉得这很温馨。忽然间，也开始幻想起我帮我自己的孩子洗澡时的情景会是怎么样。
我觉得帮小孩子冲凉你就会感受到父母的伟大和细心。很多人都会忽略这个看起来很简单而且每天都需要做的动作。但是，仔细想想后，你就会发现这是一个只有你与你最亲密的人才能够一起做的事情。从小到大，教你洗澡的人只有可能是你奶妈，你爸妈或是你自己。学会自己洗澡后（大约3-4岁），你就再也不会跟另一个人一起洗澡--（可能，直到你有女朋友/老婆为止）。可是，那时你已经无法改变你的洗澡习惯了。所以我相信，我们每个人都有独特自己洗澡的方法，而这个方法就是爸妈小时候帮你洗澡时，培养出来的习惯。极有可能，每个人的洗澡习惯都是代代相传的祖宗秘方！
这种记忆一般都埋在我大脑海里的深处，我的意识不容易发现它。况且我本人已经要接近‘3张’，这种3岁的事情为什么会突然浮现我也不清楚。但是随着年龄的增长，人的感触会越来越多，想回往事的频率也越来越高。小孩子期待的是明天，他们不会回想过去。比较年长的我，还会偶尔看看昨天。过去很多看似很琐碎的事，如今回首时却有很多感觉。
最后，我也在想，如果有一天爸妈已经不能自己洗澡时，我又会不会帮他们呢？
Sunday, March 22, 2009
war on terror...the board game
Propaganda? Or Fun?
Yes, your eye did not play trick on you. It's the 'official' board game for "WAR ON TERROR".
I can imagine the squares on the board are like...
Roll double 6 and you get to invade another country...
Roll a 4 and you land on the square that 'gives' you Gitmo...
Roll a 3 and you will lie about Iraq having WMD...
Roll a double 1 and you get kicked off by Obama!!
I would never imagine this game sold in Malaysia and I still wonder who would want to play this game in the UK.
What would it be like if a similar game were sold in Malaysia? The title could be...
"Perak - the War"
"The road to March 8"
Or
"Najib vs Anwar"
Monday, March 16, 2009
what thestar taught us on money and demonstrations
Recently, I read with displeasure two articles titled, “Sick and tired of disruptive demonstrations” and “Worry about the economy, please” on thestar.com.my.
1.
The first one stated that he/she was stucked in the demonstrations therefore he/she was very unhappy. Is his/her displeasure more important than the freedom of speech? Perhaps he/she would argue that such ‘disruptive’ demonstrations have nothing to do with freedom of speech. But I think it is more likely that because he/she was less interested in the content of the demonstration than his/her family’s nice trip to the city center at that time.
The demonstration was about the teaching of science and maths in English. Perhaps to him/her, family is important but the education of his/her children is less important? Or perhaps he/she could afford private schools so it didn’t matter? Or maybe because he/she believes that the medium of teaching is irrelevant to education of Malaysian’s next generation?
But what if one day he/she had encountered a serious matter that afflicted his/her family but the government turned a blind eye or was slow to take response? What if the lawmakers are not taking you seriously? What if the media is not giving you and your family enough coverage on this matter that you take it so seriously because it mattered to your family very much? What if street demonstration is the only way you can raise awareness and bring this issue to the attention of the public? Would you do it?
What it does not matter to you, does not mean it does not matter to the country or other people living in this country. On the microscale it's called being considerate; on the macroscale it's called the preservation of freedom of speech.
Also, the author implied that demonstrators should never go against the advice of the police when they are ordered to disperse. He/she even drew analogy of this with robbers and Mat Rempit who defies the police. Would you listen to the police if, for example, they pulled you over and issued you a saman for a crime that you did not commit? Would you listen to the police, if he/she had not acted according to the powers given to them? Would you listen to the police, even if they violated the constitution? The constitution that gave us the freedom of speech and the right to street demonstrations?
Law is not the boundary between what is right and wrong. Thinking that whatever that violates law is morally wrong is a mistake that we still teach our young students in school today. While law, in theory, should not be morally wrong, in reality it isn't so. Laws are made by lawmakers for the benefit of the country but sometimes law becomes obsolete and go against our common sense. As in this case when Malaysian law prohibits a gathering of 3 or more people and yet at the same time paradoxically say we have freedom of speech. So please do not even suggest that peaceful street demonstrations are akin to Mat Rempit as there is no where in our constitution that even comes close to agreeing with their actions.
Disruptive demonstrations like the recent ones in Bangkok or Pakistan is bad. But what we have here in Malaysia is nothing close to that. It only look bad because our government made it so - by abusing the power of police and spreading false propaganda through the government controlled media. Shame on you thestar.com.my!!
2.
On the second article and I quote, "It’s irrational for our politicians to be more preoccupied with fighting for power rather than fighting to stave off the financial tsunami and saving the jobs of Malaysians."
I have just one question for you: How important is money to you?
Is there nothing more important than money and economy during the time of recession like now that we should put a hold on everything else? Even ideologies that define us as men and women?
Is it ok for us to go back to the brutal feudal times when the King has absolute power and you have absolutely no human rights but you are given a big cottage house next to the beach instead?
There are things that more important than money. Dignity is one of them. Human rights another. But even if you do not believe in these, please believe that without fundamental human rights your wealth will be shortlived.
The power struggle happening now is not just a struggle for power, but it is a struggle for the hope of many people to achieve equality and to finally have our fundamental human rights where it is suppose to be after more than 50 years of independence. I do not pretend that PKR will surely deliver this to us, but at least there is hope. With BN, there is no hope, not at least for another 50 years.
Sure, we all hope that both PKR and BN can come to terms and work together for the economy. But I reckon that this is not possible. We'll just have to accept the fact that short-term sacrifices are inevitable for a better future in the long run. Recession comes and go, but this chance, this one chance that we've waited for so long to topple the tyranny of BN does not come very often.
Sure, money buys us food and other needs. And it is also true that according to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs that if physiological needs such as food and clothing are not fulfilled, humans would not be bothered with ideologies such as freedom and knowledge. But is our current recession, the greatest recession since the great depression in 1930s, really stripping us off our basic physiological needs such as food and clothing? Or are we just ‘downgrading’ from buying branded foreign cars to taking public transport? Or perhaps ‘downgrading’ from eating French cuisine to nasi lemak? Are we at a state so poor that we need to let go our pursuance of ideologies?
Not all power struggles are bad. Many power struggles in the annals of our history are something that we look back and be proud of - power struggle that toppled the corrupted Roman Catholic Church in the 16th century, power struggle that overthrew the Apartheid Government in South Africa, or even the power struggle that got us our independence in 1957. Our current struggle is a struggle for freedom and equality. And it should be something that we take pride in.
There are things that are more important than money and economy. Love and faith is one. Perhaps you should also consider putting freedom and equality in the list too.
1.
The first one stated that he/she was stucked in the demonstrations therefore he/she was very unhappy. Is his/her displeasure more important than the freedom of speech? Perhaps he/she would argue that such ‘disruptive’ demonstrations have nothing to do with freedom of speech. But I think it is more likely that because he/she was less interested in the content of the demonstration than his/her family’s nice trip to the city center at that time.
The demonstration was about the teaching of science and maths in English. Perhaps to him/her, family is important but the education of his/her children is less important? Or perhaps he/she could afford private schools so it didn’t matter? Or maybe because he/she believes that the medium of teaching is irrelevant to education of Malaysian’s next generation?
But what if one day he/she had encountered a serious matter that afflicted his/her family but the government turned a blind eye or was slow to take response? What if the lawmakers are not taking you seriously? What if the media is not giving you and your family enough coverage on this matter that you take it so seriously because it mattered to your family very much? What if street demonstration is the only way you can raise awareness and bring this issue to the attention of the public? Would you do it?
What it does not matter to you, does not mean it does not matter to the country or other people living in this country. On the microscale it's called being considerate; on the macroscale it's called the preservation of freedom of speech.
Also, the author implied that demonstrators should never go against the advice of the police when they are ordered to disperse. He/she even drew analogy of this with robbers and Mat Rempit who defies the police. Would you listen to the police if, for example, they pulled you over and issued you a saman for a crime that you did not commit? Would you listen to the police, if he/she had not acted according to the powers given to them? Would you listen to the police, even if they violated the constitution? The constitution that gave us the freedom of speech and the right to street demonstrations?
Law is not the boundary between what is right and wrong. Thinking that whatever that violates law is morally wrong is a mistake that we still teach our young students in school today. While law, in theory, should not be morally wrong, in reality it isn't so. Laws are made by lawmakers for the benefit of the country but sometimes law becomes obsolete and go against our common sense. As in this case when Malaysian law prohibits a gathering of 3 or more people and yet at the same time paradoxically say we have freedom of speech. So please do not even suggest that peaceful street demonstrations are akin to Mat Rempit as there is no where in our constitution that even comes close to agreeing with their actions.
Disruptive demonstrations like the recent ones in Bangkok or Pakistan is bad. But what we have here in Malaysia is nothing close to that. It only look bad because our government made it so - by abusing the power of police and spreading false propaganda through the government controlled media. Shame on you thestar.com.my!!
2.
On the second article and I quote, "It’s irrational for our politicians to be more preoccupied with fighting for power rather than fighting to stave off the financial tsunami and saving the jobs of Malaysians."
I have just one question for you: How important is money to you?
Is there nothing more important than money and economy during the time of recession like now that we should put a hold on everything else? Even ideologies that define us as men and women?
Is it ok for us to go back to the brutal feudal times when the King has absolute power and you have absolutely no human rights but you are given a big cottage house next to the beach instead?
There are things that more important than money. Dignity is one of them. Human rights another. But even if you do not believe in these, please believe that without fundamental human rights your wealth will be shortlived.
The power struggle happening now is not just a struggle for power, but it is a struggle for the hope of many people to achieve equality and to finally have our fundamental human rights where it is suppose to be after more than 50 years of independence. I do not pretend that PKR will surely deliver this to us, but at least there is hope. With BN, there is no hope, not at least for another 50 years.
Sure, we all hope that both PKR and BN can come to terms and work together for the economy. But I reckon that this is not possible. We'll just have to accept the fact that short-term sacrifices are inevitable for a better future in the long run. Recession comes and go, but this chance, this one chance that we've waited for so long to topple the tyranny of BN does not come very often.
Sure, money buys us food and other needs. And it is also true that according to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs that if physiological needs such as food and clothing are not fulfilled, humans would not be bothered with ideologies such as freedom and knowledge. But is our current recession, the greatest recession since the great depression in 1930s, really stripping us off our basic physiological needs such as food and clothing? Or are we just ‘downgrading’ from buying branded foreign cars to taking public transport? Or perhaps ‘downgrading’ from eating French cuisine to nasi lemak? Are we at a state so poor that we need to let go our pursuance of ideologies?
Not all power struggles are bad. Many power struggles in the annals of our history are something that we look back and be proud of - power struggle that toppled the corrupted Roman Catholic Church in the 16th century, power struggle that overthrew the Apartheid Government in South Africa, or even the power struggle that got us our independence in 1957. Our current struggle is a struggle for freedom and equality. And it should be something that we take pride in.
There are things that are more important than money and economy. Love and faith is one. Perhaps you should also consider putting freedom and equality in the list too.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
台湾、家、英国
很久没有在这里留言了。自2月尾，我离开了英国足足两个星期。回到英国以后又非常忙碌，所以无法在我自己的博克留言。
在这短短的两个星期，我从英国飞到了台湾，再到吉隆坡，然后又回到英国。可以说是环绕了半个地球。这一次的“旅行”让我感触很多。但一时不知道要怎么表达而且现在的生活非常忙碌，所以在这里只做了一个简单的记载。
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
去了台湾。
带领马大辩论队闯关是我的兴趣。只可惜，止步于半决。虽然没领奖，但是这一次的台湾之旅有2大收获。
第一，是刚好遇到台湾的228，让我了解了许多关于台湾的过去。同时，也让我想起我国的513事件什么时候才能像228一样，建一个纪念馆把事情的真相全部都说出来。
第二，是在最后一天跟付欣聊天。这一次的谈话中让我发现我们俩人的共同点实在是太多了。从辩论，到恋爱，婚姻和事业，我们无所不谈。只可惜时间有限。
这一别以后，恐怕我们俩人难以再见面了。他5月份就要到加拿大去。而我现在在英国。这段友情始于2001。现在，我们一个一个地离开。晓欢在香港/上海，付欣到加拿大；锦添在新加坡，我在英国。真希望，10年，20年后，我们所有人又能够在某一地方重遇并且聊个痛快！
付欣，保重了！
回家的感觉真好。
吃妈妈的菜，听爸爸的话，和哥哥聊电脑游戏 - 这个感觉是多么地熟悉，多么地舒服。这一次以后，我们一家就很难再一次如此相聚。我哥哥要移民到新加坡了，我又会回到英国继续念我的博士学位。真的很担心我爸妈。自从我哥哥出世以后，他们就不曾过着二人世界的生活。 30多年以来，他们已经习惯了家中有孩子的声音。如今，家里又再次地回到从前的安静。也许，只有农历新年吧，我们一家4口才有机会好好地相聚。但是啊，ba, ma, 不要因此而害怕。我们并没有离开你们。我们会保持联络的。而且你们身体还很健康又有许多朋友。要好好地把握时间和生命，享受生活！不要让你们的事业停下来，记得：一定要keep yourself occupied! 人，是不会变老的 - 直到你承认你是老为止。
爸、妈、哥、想念你们啊。。。
回到英国生活变得很忙碌。
由于已经“缺课”两个星期，不能再怠惰了！
在这短短的两个星期，我从英国飞到了台湾，再到吉隆坡，然后又回到英国。可以说是环绕了半个地球。这一次的“旅行”让我感触很多。但一时不知道要怎么表达而且现在的生活非常忙碌，所以在这里只做了一个简单的记载。
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
去了台湾。
带领马大辩论队闯关是我的兴趣。只可惜，止步于半决。虽然没领奖，但是这一次的台湾之旅有2大收获。
第一，是刚好遇到台湾的228，让我了解了许多关于台湾的过去。同时，也让我想起我国的513事件什么时候才能像228一样，建一个纪念馆把事情的真相全部都说出来。
第二，是在最后一天跟付欣聊天。这一次的谈话中让我发现我们俩人的共同点实在是太多了。从辩论，到恋爱，婚姻和事业，我们无所不谈。只可惜时间有限。
这一别以后，恐怕我们俩人难以再见面了。他5月份就要到加拿大去。而我现在在英国。这段友情始于2001。现在，我们一个一个地离开。晓欢在香港/上海，付欣到加拿大；锦添在新加坡，我在英国。真希望，10年，20年后，我们所有人又能够在某一地方重遇并且聊个痛快！
付欣，保重了！
回家的感觉真好。
吃妈妈的菜，听爸爸的话，和哥哥聊电脑游戏 - 这个感觉是多么地熟悉，多么地舒服。这一次以后，我们一家就很难再一次如此相聚。我哥哥要移民到新加坡了，我又会回到英国继续念我的博士学位。真的很担心我爸妈。自从我哥哥出世以后，他们就不曾过着二人世界的生活。 30多年以来，他们已经习惯了家中有孩子的声音。如今，家里又再次地回到从前的安静。也许，只有农历新年吧，我们一家4口才有机会好好地相聚。但是啊，ba, ma, 不要因此而害怕。我们并没有离开你们。我们会保持联络的。而且你们身体还很健康又有许多朋友。要好好地把握时间和生命，享受生活！不要让你们的事业停下来，记得：一定要keep yourself occupied! 人，是不会变老的 - 直到你承认你是老为止。
爸、妈、哥、想念你们啊。。。
回到英国生活变得很忙碌。
由于已经“缺课”两个星期，不能再怠惰了！
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
