2011年7月29日星期五

人才辈出,百年难得一见的极品

极品是肯定的啦!。。。。。

畸品?嫉品?稽品?祭品?殛品?鸡品?誋品?讥品?你自己看咯。。。


鸡品咯!








讥品咯!








畸品咯!










积品咯!










集品咯!








稽品咯











激品咯!









饥品咯!









忌品咯!







祭品咯!










疾品咯!

2011年7月16日星期六

官职病毒

马来西亚政坛有一种独特的病毒,只要你有了官职,你会变得愚蠢愚昧无比;目​光短浅,同时以为别人比自己笨;大话精,马不知脸长,拒绝事实,厚脸皮,不知羞,总之就是丑态百出。

但是,当这人从官职退下来,他的病,就会自动无药自愈。

至少,周美芬​现在说的东西,明智多了,不是吗?

当然,也有在位太久,中毒太深,永远不痊愈的,也大有人在。

转载:道不远人:落实才是上策●周美芬

“以民为本,立即行动!”口号已喊得震天价响,讲多无谓,认认真真落实才是上上之策!~ 周美芬

2011年7月14日星期四

当你被当众捉包光着屁股时

廖:死咯!死咯!这次讲骗话被人捉个正着!怎么办?

蔡:定一点,骗话支吗!没有事的!

廖:我拍过胸口保证‘大马正暴队’没有暴力入侵医院捉人和向医院发射催泪弹和水炮,照片和录像tak boleh pakai。后来,很多照片和录像出现。

蔡:是阿!我不是帮了你咩!说是摄影角度,造成假象咯!我就晒厉啦!还顺便提醒大家,这种媒体太没品了,如果他们喜欢一个人,每次登有关他的新闻的照片都是笑笑的。如果他们不喜欢,每次那个人的照片都是脸臭臭的。

廖:(超........U, 难道每次登你的照片,还要特别拍一张3D-玉浦团的造型相咩!).....

蔡:虾?你讲什么?

廖:哦,没有没有。。。。。我看这些照片和录像太厉害了,说不过去的,所以我不是已经说是医院开会后的说法,我只是像白痴酱,不经大脑,照着讲咯。白痴就白痴,过到关就好。碎甭之,11个医生发宣誓书,证明我乱乱讲,死咯死咯!

蔡:哎呀!你定一点我,我们可能输剩一条底裤,但是我们的‘天下无敌软骨缩骨牛皮脸神功’没有那么容易倒的。you see,我自己的春宫事件,没事啦!

廖:(妖........u).....

蔡:那个燕燕妹的环游世界事件,面书事件,不是没有事,过一些,那些白痴大岭x人民就会忘记的啦!(佻........u.......我被人看完都没事啦,你这算什么。酱小胆,你是不是不想捞?你不做我自己上也可以的)。

廖:(死春宫佬,你给我记住,是我帮你才有今天的)。老板,你就给我多一点方法咯,等下我被媒体问到口哑哑就没有瘾咯,是不是!

蔡:哎呀,看你籘鸡样,酱咯,你自己选啦。
1。老马神功第1式,屈这11个医生是犹太人或基督教十字军的代理。
2。老马神功第2式,说他们是反对党同情者。
3。吾毒散招,说他们受了安华的钱,无赖政府。
4。印度神功,look like me, sound like me, but is not me!
5。找医院一个董事来吃死猫,说没有查清楚,误导了部长,部长也是受害者。
6。警察找两条kelefe,说是受到回教党指示,旨在破坏警察和政府形象。
7。Sami Velu 法,说你不是神,没有办法控制。
8。Abdullah 法,说是为了保护医院病人,不过这个我帮你讲了啦。
9。大不了,就说交给警方调查。10 年8年,到时大家不记得啦!
10。不然你自己去问‘那剂’咯,他老婆一定帮到你的。

廖:......................

******************************************************************
链接:Doctors say cops fired tear gas into Tung Shin compound



转载:11名医生联署声明驳斥廖中莱证实警方向医院射水炮催泪弹

同善医院被射水炮与催泪弹风波出现新进展,尽管卫生部长廖中莱与同善医院董事局异口同声否认此事,不过一批医生今晚联署声明,证明709当天镇暴队的确曾向同善医院与华人接生院的范围发射催泪弹及水炮。


这批医生也证实,警方的确曾在709当天,进入医院的建筑物内,以搜查709的和平游行者。

他们对于当日的事情,乃至后来有关当局的回应,感到愤怒。

这份声明共有11名医生联署,通过其中一名医生慕沙诺丁(Musa Mohd Nordin)所发出。其他联署者包括了妇产科顾问Ng Kwee Boon、儿科顾问Low Paik See、小儿心脏科顾问玛兹尼(Mazeni Alwi)、心脏科顾问David Quek、妇产科顾问赛佐哈里(Sheikh Johari Bux)、整形科顾问Steve Wong、心脏外科顾问阿末法鲁克(Ahmad Farouk Musa)、心脏科顾问Ng Swee Choon、麻醉科顾问Mary Cardosa与内科顾问杰菲里(Jeffrey Abu Hassan)。

上述联署者之中,一些是来自同善医院与华人接生院的医生。

炮轰警方妄顾病人安全

他们炮轰警方,当日向两家医院发射催泪弹与水炮的做法,妄顾病人、医护人员及公众的安全。

“医院应该被视为是安全的庇护所,就算是在战争时期亦是如此。但这个神圣的庇护所,却在当天下午被国安部队所冒犯。”

“警方甚至进入医院建筑物,以搜查其中一些和平游行者。一些示威者进入医院不过是要逃避催泪弹及水炮,然而许多人目睹并感到最为震惊的是,警方却于医院范围内,在没有受到挑衅的情况下,粗暴攻击及逮捕数名示威者。”

抨击否认者毫不知廉耻

声明说,最让人无法接受的是,尽管已经有数不清的照片、短片、目击者及独立观察员的声明,但理应保障弱势及需要社群的有关当局,却仍然不知廉耻地公开否认当天所发生的事情。

声明说,其中一些联署的医生当时身处两家医院中,非常愿意挺身而出,包括立下法定宣誓书,以说出真相。

声明表示,他们本来不希望卷入净选盟2.0游行的争论,但随着事态的进展,有必要出来道出事实。

廖中莱:不要引用照片

前日,卫生部长廖中莱巡访同善医院后,与医院董事局异口同声表示,调查发现,镇暴队并没向同善医院发射水炮或催泪弹。

他说,本身已经向院方求证,网上的言论并不正确。

他声称,警方只曾向医院前的大路发射水炮及催泪弹,以驱散709净选盟集会的集会者。

至于水炮,他则说,由于镇暴队是以45度发射水炮,因此不排除一些水,落到医院的范围。

廖中莱与同善医院董事主席黄茂桐也双双否认,警方曾进入同善医院范围,逮捕集会者。反之,两人声称,警方只是把一些受了轻伤的“示威者”,送进医院接受治疗。

询及网上流传的照片和短片与他所称的不符,廖中莱说:“不要再引用照片及短片作为证据,院方已经证实此事。”

2011年7月12日星期二

首相/菜细历先生,你们真的很叫人失望!

作为首相,你咬牙切齿的扬言,你随时可以动员百万人游行的行径,叫我感觉不可思议。同样的,马华菜先生大概是响应首相,要沉默的人们表态,还之颜色, 同样叫我说不出话。菜先生说,动员5万人游行有什么大不了“我随时可以召集5万人游行”。

想起一个关于哥仑布的故事。在哥仑布新发现美洲大陆后,他在西班牙马上走红,一些人却对于他的发现大陆的功绩,认为是言过其实的荣耀,没什么大不了。一天哥仑布挑战这些批评者把蛋站立在桌面,经过一些尝试,没有成功。哥仑布一手拿了蛋,轻轻敲破蛋壳一边,蛋就站立在桌上。他说“对!当我做了一次示范,以后的人照做,又有什么难!”

菜先生,当净选盟号召的马来西亚人民,冒着政府警方媒体,日夜的阻拦,恐吓,干扰和逮捕。结果还是迎来5万人民,709展示高度的自制,高度成熟的公民意识,没有暴力,没有破环,没有恶言,没有垃圾的和平游行诉求。这之后,你要照着做,又有什么难?真的不难。

但是请问你,当我们需要你的时候,马华,你在哪里?

沙巴的709 (2)-- I have done my march

709 的前一天晚上,沙巴净选盟宣布没有任何礼堂/会堂/体育馆愿意租借来办709集会,所以只好求其次,呼吁大家参与沙巴进步党在709办的网络视频电台的推展礼。

除了约150进步党党员穿着鲜黄的制服外,还有把小小的地区团团围着的警察,后备队,Rela以及好多好多的政治部便衣。和生园停车场停了两部大警察卡车,设立了临时帐篷。他那特大条的横幅,写着网络视频电台外,已全黄色为背景,写了“Bersih, Berani, Benar“(洁净,勇敢,正确),大概是叫全部人精神紧张紧绷的原因吧?[在我写这报告的时候,FB的朋友说,亚庇市政厅找来了消防队,硬把横幅拆了下来,原因是:黄色太耀眼,妨碍驾驶人士,可能造成车祸!]

车子是没有办法停在这地方,所以我把车停在200米外海外天餐厅旁。朋友们,尤其是在吉隆坡那又催泪弹又水炮的,请不要见笑我这儿的平淡和小儿科。

在我身穿黄色上衣,不属于进步党或任何政党,那一步一步的走到这横幅的前面时,我的每一步,害怕吗?老实说,是有一些的。虽然孤单,虽然只有象征性意义,但我知道,这每一步是坚定的,就像KL的朋友们一样;我们都怀着一个梦想坚定不移地走下去,一个更公平,更自由,更美好的马来西亚。

站在横幅的下面,围绕在政党黄色制服中,我不停的遥望站在周边,穿插在警察戒备线围观的人们,我知道,这大约40-50人,有穿黄衣和其他衣服的朋友们就是你。你们也有父母家人,你们也挣扎过吧?这就是沙巴709的勇士们了。我给你们敬礼。

走到车子的路上,脑海里回响着那象征性,警察还来不及反应就结束,喇叭对着和生园停车场大声的2分钟开麦广播,“我们需要一个洁净和公平的选举。。。推举一个by the people and for the people 的政府”。

朋友们,那每一步,我尽了我的责任。

Son,on the day of 709, I have done my march。

2011年7月11日星期一

沙巴的709 (1)

暂时还是搞不懂为什么没办法上载照片,没办法说说沙巴这的709。

但是先给大家转载网友大佬的沙巴709报告,看了很感慨。

这儿的709 游行很孤单,虽然没有呛人的催泪弹烟雾和水炮;这里没有浩浩荡荡的队伍和口号。但是我可以肯定的告诉大家,这儿的热血没有比半岛的冷。这儿的勇敢和勇气,没有比半岛少,哪怕是一点点;这儿的709还要有一份过人的坚持。是的,同样的澎湃。

给这儿的勇士们喝彩!

***************************************************************************
转载:对大佬穿BERSIH黄衣的评论

重振以前的大佬风范,我还是凑709 BERSIH 2.0热闹,披上黄衣骑上电单车,步上自己安慰自己爽的BERSIH一日游。出门前,一个同屋看到我,就来一句“哇,大佬,你要这样猛咩!”,哈哈,多谢他赞我猛。

途径里卡士Jln Tun Fuad的交通圈,那边有一群老衰守候,看到大佬我穿黄衣,就大喊大叫,却没有采取任何逮捕行动,因为黄衣没有Bersih字眼呱。

先去上班,同事看到大佬,先是目瞪口呆,过后就一人一句地奚落我“你做么今天穿黄衣,不怕被警察捉啊。”“有胆就走去警察面前给捉。”“给捉进监牢吃咖哩饭啦(我又可以省早餐咯)”。放工前,我闲黄衣太单调,就为它配上“BERSIH 2.0 请支持大佬屌秤砣”,有位好心的同事,还帮我拍照留念。

中午,去和生园住宅区找朋友,就看到沙巴进步党的党所搞活动,又有一群老衰和RELA看场,搞到很塞车。为了不连累朋友,大佬我暂时外穿黑衣出去看热闹,进步党高喊一大堆口号,包括“Malaysia Boleh、Sabah Boleh、SAPP Boleh、Polis Boleh。”搞不搞笑?还听说参与进步党集会的会有两百块入袋,不知是真是假。朋友告诉大佬我,他从亚庇市区回来,市区更塞车,他的车也被塞住几个小时,游行搞不成,却又很多人被老衰逮捕。

下午转移地方去丽都住宅区会合那边的一群老友喝茶,他们都赞许大佬我穿BERSIH黄衣的行动。一个说我这类年轻人是应该关心政治多参与政治活动,像外国那样在大学集合一群大学生搞示威对抗腐败的政府。一个又问我从哪里拿到黄衣。另一个又说“你穿黄衣会不会引一大群警察来捉我们”。还有一个说“你刚才在进步党党所应该脱掉黑衣显示BERSIH黄衣,到时肯定抢完老杨的光,老衰捉你连进步党也不放过你,肯定逼你这类勇士填表格入党”。

晚上去里卡士某公共场所参与一场合法活动,全部人看到大佬我穿BERSIH黄衣也大惊一场,那个说我猛的同屋看到我就说“刚才没有看到你回家,还以为你被警察捉了。”其它两个同屋就用很歧视的眼光看着我,是不是很不抵得我穿BERSIH黄衣而老衰却持双重标准不捉大佬我啊。那些小孩和青少年看到大佬我穿BERSIH黄衣,也很惊奇,“哇,BERSIH黄衣”,有些还哈哈大笑,有些说画工很好也有说画工很差,更有要与我合拍一张照的,也有问我听说穿黄衣会被警察捉为何大佬不会被捉。有个中年人看了,称赞大佬我勇敢,过后大屌老衰封路,大屌政府的腐败与不公。

散会前,有个中年04,尽然对大佬我说“敢穿BERSIH黄衣,是最好给老衰捉去掴几巴掌,关进监牢几天。如今又不是没有得吃没有得住,却吃饱饭没事做,搞什么示威,搞出现在的乱局。搞政治是有钱人才搞的,被政党误导搏出位,丢了条命都活该。”

更可悲的,有位马来朋友,竟然因为大佬我的面书头照挂上BERSIH牌,而屌我支持BERSIH羞辱马来人而在面书unfriend我,BERSIH是各族同胞共同争取公平选举的集会,这样又失去一个马来朋友了。

其实,大佬我穿BERSIH黄衣,只是认同BERSIH的斗争,要一个公平的选举。完全没有支持任何政党,却被某些人奚落,当成是被误导要搏出位搞政治的。大佬我虽然对政治冷感,但不代表我对政治冷漠。我没有参与政治活动,却有关注政治动向,如果这样也被歧视和奚落,难怪现今如此多的青年是政治文盲。

最后,致老衰哥,你们在这场逮捕BERSIH集会者特别任务,应赚的津贴也不少呱。响应你们拿鸡的感恩论,有没有感恩BERSIH啊?

大佬
10-7-2011

小心!小心!鬼上那疾身!

又哄又骗又威胁,又拦路又警告又喊打喊杀,又威胁开除处分罚款监禁,
还是迎来709, 5万勇敢的马来西亚人,高度自制的和平游行诉求。

看着他咬牙切齿,激动且急着想要展示巫统和国阵也可以展示肌肉的讲话。好激啊!你是不是首相来的哦?不得了了,土头土脑土霸王依不啦衅阿莉还没死,这么会上了“那疾”的身?

听着伟大祖国国歌的原始版本,Mamula Moon!我是毛骨悚然!

(就是上不了照片和视频,谁可以帮帮忙?)

2011年7月9日星期六

亚庇,你不知道那里黄?

转载: Let us fight against Electoral Corruption

We come to you today to give this statement on the latest development.

Over the past week, the MCLM Ad Hoc committee has been denied the police permits, facilities and venues to hold Bersih 2.0 Sabah. We have been denied our civil rights.

We would like to call all our supporters to continue to be brave and not to be discouraged. This is not the end of our fight. It will be ongoing. It will be continuous.

As previously stated, we will be joining the SAPP’s launching of their RadioSabahTV.net in their [SAPP, Bornion]HQ at 1.30pm tomorrow [9th July 2011] and we welcome your presence there to show of solidarity.

Therefore our message is: 'Lets live to fight another day".

By Atama @ Andrew Ambrose Mudi is Co-ordinator Chairman for Bersih Sabah

转载:一个简短的祈祷和诗

献给那些脚踏在土地,用血肉追求自由公平的人们,
我只祈求你一定要平平安安的上街,平平安安的回到家里。

也给那些值班,执行任务的警察和联邦后备队们,
我只祈求上苍的慈悲和怜悯会在你的行为举止体现。
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“May the universe
be kind
merciful
pour forth thy tears
cool those heartless
hearts
May raindrops
fall on parched lips
drench those empty souls
Wind,
blow mighty, swift
wrap those angry bodies
make them warm
Sun, shine brilliant
bright
blot out those cruel
minds
fill their thoughts
with love
for freedom
Shine! glitter! blaze!
Blur their vision
Until they see
nothing
but a sea of change
sweeping the whole city
CLEAN”.

by Susan Loone. Penang, Jul 9, 1.24am.

2011年7月8日星期五

难道偷窃人民的意愿就是合法吗?

看见马来西亚皇家警察到处设路障,到处捉支持诉求的人民;陆路交通局拒绝发出临时巴士准证,运动场拒绝租场地,报章媒体一面倒的为执政者制造恐慌,大标题刊登镇暴演习和防暴车的照片;我心中没有害怕,只有对这个彻底腐败的政权感到厌恶,为这些干为压迫政权的执法人员感到彻底失望。

沙巴许多“捧大脚有为青年”和自认社会代表的老不死,告诫人民不要涉及非法集会!
内政部长说净选盟是非法组织!
警察说因为净选盟是非法组织,所以一切有关的衣服也是非法的!
"法律部长”说没有选择性执法啦,巫青的“爱国者”组织也是非法的!
看见你们的热忱告诫,我困惑。

那,
通过变相买票贿选的“你帮我,我帮你”,这就不非法吗?
通过变相买选票,说是“竞选人员”的工资,这就是不非法吗?
通过变相派礼品礼物,说是一个大马组织活动,“恰好”派礼物,这不非法吗?
通过变相的派发援助金,说是政府部门“恰好”在补选时安排到选区,这不非法吗?

难道,偷窃人民的意愿和委托,这样就不非法吗?
你们为什么不热心的为人民发声和争取?

为你自己的丑态惭愧吧!为你的爱财爱权而奉承权贵,不惜助纣为虐,忏悔吧!

2011年7月6日星期三

转载:毫不留情:吔!吔!我们赢了!……呃……真的吗?

抄录自:西西留博客站

净选盟2.0今天在国家皇宫觐见最高元首后表示,将会在体育馆举行一场为了选举改革的集会,而不是在街上。净选盟2.0主席拿督安美佳(Ambiga Sreenevasan)对记者表示,「我们接受政府的提议,在体育馆举行这场示威,我们将不会在街上举行。」

拿督:丹斯里!

丹斯里:镇定点,拿督……吵什麽?什么事?

拿督:丹斯里,我有些好消息。

丹斯里:啊~这次又是什麽搞头?安美佳已经移民?已经申请澳洲公民权了?

拿督:不是啦,丹斯里,比这个还要好的消息。

丹斯里:还有什麽比安美佳离开大马还要好的消息?

拿督:净选盟大游行没了……取消了。

丹斯里:嗯嗯……这当然是个好消息,怎么会这样?

拿督:安美佳今天下午觐见最高元首,结果净选盟决定取消街头游行,同时以体育馆集会取代。

丹斯里:陛下同意会见安美佳?

拿督:是的。

丹斯里:这既表示陛下承认了净选盟?

拿督:看来是这样。

丹斯里:也即是说,我们再也不能禁止净选盟了。

拿督:为什麽不可以,丹斯里?

丹斯里:哎呀……如果陛下已经正式会见净选盟,这将表示陛下承认了净选盟。

拿督:然后?

丹斯里:然后,这就表示我们不能禁止净选盟,如果不是这样,陛下就犯了与非法组织合谋的罪状,我们就得使用内安法令逮捕陛下。

拿督:哦……我没想过这点。

丹斯里:是啊……这就是为什麽你只是一个拿督,而我是丹斯里。

拿督:这也表示我们不能宣称净选盟是由共产党和犹太人在背后发起的,要不然陛下就犯了与共产党和犹太人合作的罪状。

丹斯里:现在你明白啦,这怎么可以当成是好消息呢?

拿督:陛下没想过吗?哎呀……怎么这么笨?

丹斯里:喂!这是叛国罪,你不能说最高元首笨。

拿督:不,我不是这个意思,我是说我们怎么这样笨,让最高元首会见安美佳。

丹斯里:可是,是我们把最高元首拖下水的,我们怎能防止最高元首会见净选盟呢?

拿督:是咯,我们犯下的大错是最高元首发出的声明。

丹斯里:喂!讲话小心一点!

拿督:对不起,我的意思是说,叫最高元首发出这个声明是一项大错。

丹斯里:这还差不多,别说是我们替最高元首写的这篇声明。

拿督:OK啦,可是至少街头游行取消了……现在缩小到只剩下体育馆的集会。

丹斯里:你认为会有多少人参与这个集会?

拿督:不肯定,也许有十万人……也可能是二十万。现在这再也不是非法集会了,因此再也不会被逮捕,应该会有更多人出来。那些原本害怕出来的人现在会出来,因为安全了。谁知道?也可能会是三十万人。

丹斯里:三十万人要如何把它们的车子停泊在体育馆?

拿督:喔……不行啦,停车场容纳不下三十万人,他们必须把它们的车子停泊在别处,再步行到体育馆……或搭乘公共交通。

丹斯里:也即是说,他们要到体育馆就将得步行,对吗?

拿督:对啊~

丹斯里:这既是说,他们将游行到体育馆,而不是最高元首的皇宫,对吗?

拿督:是的,是这样……喔……我明白你的意思了。

丹斯里:是的,这就是我的意思。结果,游行还是照跑,只是现在变成了合法游行,而不是非法游行,他们将游行到体育馆,而不是皇宫,而我们什麽也不能做,因为最高元首已经同意了这件事,我们再也不能逮捕游行者。

拿督:哎呀!这是一场灾难,我们被骗了。怎办?丹斯里。

丹斯里:我们能做什麽?最高元首已经让净选盟合法化,双方也同意在体育馆举行合法聚会,因为也许会出现大量的群众,他们无法驾驶到体育馆,可是将会穿着黄衣步行到体育馆。

拿督:死咯!

丹斯里:是的,死定了。更糟的是,如果他们照原定计划,我们能禁止净选盟,并宣布它危害社会和对国家安全造成威胁,可是,现在我们不能碰它们,我们甚至不能在7月9日逮捕任何人,因为这场集会是合法的,而更多人会出来,他们再也不害怕,而巫青团和土权不能因为反对净选盟而去街上示威,如果他们这样做就会遭到逮捕。

拿督:阿拉妈,我们不能碰净选盟的游行队伍,可是却需要逮捕巫青团和土权的游行队伍,而凯里已经说过,如果净选盟取消街头游行,他将准备与他们合作,结果,巫青团现在必须支持净选盟在体育馆的集会了。

丹斯里:完全正确,现在你知道为什麽我是丹斯里,而你只不过是一个拿督了吗?

拿督:这意味这我们也不能要求最高元首剥夺安美佳的公民权了。

丹斯里:要怎样剥夺公民权?因为听从最高元首的话,取消街头游行,并在体育馆聚会?就像纳吉叫他们做的那样吗?

拿督:我有自觉,我觉得我们会被……开除。

丹斯里:哎呀……出去出去,我想冷静一下。我需要准备好辞职信。

拿督:我该怎办?丹斯里。

丹斯里:我建议你去写好辞职信,这件事之后纳吉会要我们两人的人头。

出处∶Malaysia Today
原题∶No Hold Barred∶Yeh! Yeh! Kita menang!…hmm…or did we?
作者∶拉惹柏特拉
日期∶06-07-2011
翻译∶西西留

2011年7月5日星期二

转载:纠正一些关于净选盟的批评

这是一篇严谨敏锐思考,写得干净利落的好文章。没有谩骂,没有以牙还牙,没有以野蛮还之野蛮。只有清晰的思路,平实的文笔。请慢慢品尝。

Debunking the Bersih 2.0 critics
by Pak Sako

A number of political commentators have criticised Bersih 2.0 in the news media and blogs. Among these critics are Chandra Muzaffar, Anas Zubedy, Ahirudin Attan (Rocky’s Bru) and Mahathir Mohamad.

Their comments would have been welcome if they were honest and holistic assessments of Bersih 2.0. It would have been nice to see the use of sound reasoning. Instead we have faulty argument upon faulty argument, in article upon article.

This is regrettable not just for the dubious ethics with which personal political interests are advanced. It is also unfortunate because the trusting reader becomes confused as to what is true or false and becomes prone to accepting questionable statements and conclusions as truthful.

Misleading arguments and suggestions should not be left standing without a challenge. Here I show seven types of faulty arguments that have been made against Bersih 2.0 and comment on specific examples. It is hoped that the reader would be able to identify them on his own in the future, and be inspired to debate the critic to discover the truth or the best way forward for a given policy.

A. The middle ground

In dealing with what they see as a problem, the critics usually begin with an appeal to the middle path or ‘third way’. This is in spite of the fact that a middle ground might fly in the face of logic. They propose a fallacious kind of give-and-take — sacrifice a wheel or two here so as to keep a radiator or fan belt running there. This makes no sense when, for a policy choice or reformist action to truly work or have its intended effect, like a car you need to retain all of its necessary parts. Have yourself a very effective Bersih 2.0 rally, says one commentator, but do it in the pits of Putrajaya where no one hears you (Anas Zubedy in ‘Bersih 2.0 — is there a third alternative?’, The Malaysian Insider, June 23). Why rally, asks another commentator, when you can have dialogue with the Election Commission and national government — the very same parties that had four years since the first Bersih rally of 2007 to improve the electoral system but did very little (Chandra Muzaffar in ‘Understanding the context’, The Star, July 3).

The progressive option is not about having Bersih 2.0 or not having it. The progressive option is to reach an immediate agreement for commencing the reform of electoral processes, failing which a Bersih 2.0 march would proceed to inspire change through other mechanisms such as the ballot box. The Agong’s call for negotiations should be seen in this positive light. The government should take this as a golden opportunity to wrest the advantage. There is still time for half a week of intensive dialogue between Bersih, the Election Commission and the government to reach an agreement on reform action before 9 July.

B. Exaggeration

The critics also commonly play up unsubstantiated dangers and costs (e.g., by appeal to threat) and play down benefits and mitigating facts (the ignorance of counterevidence). Consider the following commentators’ statements pertaining to physical injury and business cost.

"In the first Bersih demonstration on November 10 2007, a number of people were injured. There were similar casualties in the Hindraf demonstration… in the same year.” (Chandra Muzaffar)

He reports not how many people were injured (10, 100 or 1,000), what kind of injury was sustained (scratches and scrapes or bullet wounds) and why (whether due to Bersih or Hindraf demonstrators quarreling among themselves or they were hurt as a result of unnecessary, heavy-handed police action). There is also a failure to properly discuss the desirability of the freedom to express fair demands and upholding democratic principles given the risk of scrapes, bruises and such.

It is also difficult to ascertain whether the commentator is sincere in his concern for the marchers and others nearby. Assuming that the planned march goes ahead, he does not ask for the authorities to fully cooperate with the Bersih 2.0 organisers to ensure safety and order. He does not ask of the police to refrain from possibly hurting the marchers. He does not suggest to the authorities to control or remove potential troublemakers such as Perkasa and their 'war general' Ibrahim Ali who openly threatened chaos. The commentator did not even encourage a peaceful, celebratory atmosphere.

“Traders and taxi drivers in the affected areas will inevitably suffer a loss of income. Here again, the past is a good teacher. In previous demonstration in Kuala Lumpur, people in various walks of life had to pay the price.” (Chandra Muzaffar)

“Merchants and business organisations need sales during the weekends to survive and make a profit to continue providing employment to the thousands under their care. We cannot afford to lose millions of ringgit every time the rakyat gather to voice concerns.” (Anas Zubedy).

Certain traders and taxi drivers might lose their regular daily income for that day fully or partially, but others at slightly different locations in Kuala Lumpur could benefit. The above two commentators refuse to see that benefits could also accrue to the shuttle-bus, energy, merchandise and food and beverages businesses as a result of there being a mass concentration of consumers about town.

There are also those benefits that are unquantifiable in monetary terms: the camaraderie between participants of different races and beliefs; the greatly broadened public awareness about the importance and urgency of electoral reforms; and the sense of empowerment people feel about being able to shape their collective destiny in pressuring reluctant national institutions to peacefully push through needed electoral improvements.

To be complete about it, there are other costs in the form of inconveniences to the public as a result of congestion. But these are not different to the price that Malaysians pay day in and day out when trapped in traffic jams and when having to shove about to board infrequent, jam-packed commuter trains.

It is difficult to imagine the catastrophic net business costs assumed by the second commentator as a result of a couple of hours of orderly marches (endangerment to “thousands” of jobs and losses running “in the millions”). Businesses have ample time to plan and prepare for contingencies, if any (Bersih announced the march many weeks ago). Businesses could also imagine that it is a public holiday. Would they complain so loudly about having to close shop if the sudden death of a monarch imposes an immediate one-day public holiday and road closures for processions?

C. Scaremongering

If middle-ground diplomacy and mild exaggeration do not compel the desired outcome, scare tactics might be used. Abusive ad hominems, straw-man attacks and deliberate omissions can be combined to make the following type of political statements:

“Anwar… [a] deeply flawed politician… the de facto leader of Bersih… wants to become prime minister… and will resort to any means to achieve his ambitions”; “PAS and DAP are also driven by the desire to gain power through the quickest route. For them also the end justifies the means.” (Chandra Muzaffar)

Observe the manipulation of emotion by using subjective statements such as “deeply flawed” and speculation (“will resort to any means”). There is little concern for providing evidence. We have also partial reporting; only opposition political parties are mentioned when all Malaysians, including the ruling Barisan Nasional supporters, were invited to join the Bersih march to advocate and demand for electoral reforms. The above commentator also ignores the fact that all rational political parties do seek power, and they do wish to attain it with the least possible cost or resistance, without recourse to violent acts or breaches of trust.

“If the stadium option had materialized, certain elements in Bersih, it is alleged, would have turned the stadium to a Tahrir Square, with demonstrators camping there day and night for weeks on end.” (Chandra Muzaffar)

Here we see the non-reporting of sources (“it is alleged”). Alleged by whom and upon what basis, we are not told. An honest commentator would just say he “fears” or “has a gut feeling that there might be” long-standing protests. Moreover, asserting a Tahrir Square scenario is, on its own, a domino fallacy (i.e., the unproven assumption that a particular event is the first in a series of steps that will inevitably lead to some specific, undesirable consequence).

D. Dishonest or incomplete assessment

The critics refrain from thoroughly evaluating the worthiness of the goals and possible impact of the Bersih 2.0 gathering. They stray to secondary issues such as the support of opposition parties for Bersih 2.0. These detractors do not discuss whether, in the first place, the Bersih principles are fair for all (given the condition that you do not know whether you will be on the winning or losing side) or whether the underlying goals of electoral reform will be more effectively galvanised this way or not. With regards to Bersih’s eight demands for electoral reforms, we see lazy dismissals such as this:

"The last three demands have nothing to do whatsoever with "clean and fair election", which is what Bersih was supposed to be about.'6. Strengthen public institutions', '7. Stop corruption' and '8. Stop dirty politics' are not within SPR's job scope. A 6-yr old can tell you that." (Ahirudin Attan/Rocky’s Bru, in his blog post entitled, ‘Anwar Ibrahim’s 8 demands to the Agong’).

What a 6-year old might tell this commentator is to read up the details. According to Bersih, ‘Strengthening public institutions’ is a call for the Election Commission to “perform its constitutional duty to act independently and impartially… [and that it] cannot continue to claim that [it has] no power to act, as the law provides for sufficient powers to institute a credible electoral system”. ‘Stopping corruption’ and ‘stopping dirty politics’ involves taking action against offences such as personating (the phantom voter problem) and making promises to “help you if you help me” — the offering of money or other concessions in exchange for votes. These offences are stated in the Election Offences Act 1954. They are perfectly within the purview of the Election Commission which is mandated to carry out this law. Perpetrators, however, still roam free.

Ahirudin Attan also snubs the demand to use indelible ink as a method for preventing voter fraud during elections. He pronounces instead his support for the use of biometry for this purpose. But he fails to discuss the relative merits of biometry and indelible ink (whether or not indelible ink would be a superior option given that it is highly effective and cheap, or whether those who have control over the electronics and data of biometry could manipulate it to perpetrate fraud without detection).

E. False comparison

Chandra Muzaffar alleges that Bersih intensifies the ‘polarisation’ of partisan politics, and compares the situation to the politics of Thailand. The title of Muzaffar's article purports to give an 'understanding of context', but he overlooks the fact that the matter in Thailand itself involves a different context from that of Bersih 2.0. He uses the loaded word ‘polarisation’ when the more accurate term would be 'differentiation', that is, differentiated politics. He does not mention that having space for different political positions can be a healthy development in politics. For example, if the Germans had not flocked under Hitler but were differentiated in opinion due to a countervailing political bloc that was a force of reason against the Nazi party’s ideology, so much suffering could have been avoided.

The Malaysian people also have the fundamental right to choose. Preventing people from having political alternatives or choosing between political alternatives is, in one word, oppression, whatever the excuse proffered. Differentiation in politics has the benefit of deepening the value of political discourse. Differentiation encourages the comparison of policies that competing political groups offer. It encourages the questioning, as opposed to the blind acceptance, of what is foisted upon them. This would represent a desirable drift towards issues-based politics, away from purely racial or religious politics.

F. False association

"Its objective is to tarnish the government’s name and the police, and with that the opposition parties will win… It is an attack on the government because it is claiming that the government is not doing things… The purpose is political… precisely for PR (Pakatan Rakyat)… It is not about whether the election is clean or not… that is secondary… they want to paint the government black and therefore, although you are gray, you look more white." (Mahathir Mohamad, 'Dr. M: Bersih not seeking reforms but political tsunami', The Malaysian Insider, 2 July).

It is true that a movement like Bersih would make a government that is unwilling to enact electoral reforms look bad. It is also true that any party that puts its weight behind electoral reforms will look better. These are all fair assumptions for which this commentator should be given credit. But he appears to erroneously convey the impression that governments are irreproachable, or even untouchable. Governments are, after all, for the people to criticise or replace when they do not perform satisfactorily or when they fail to uphold the principles that underlie their mandate, such as ensuring that democratic processes are not in a state of compromise. Love for the country and its people is patriotism. Love for the government is mere partisanship.

G. Biased citation of studies to support an argument

Chandra Muzaffar asserts that elections in Malaysia have been “largely fair and just — given that no electoral system in the world is totally devoid of flaws”. He cites only one source to justify his claim, Election Watch, a group to which he himself belonged. He does not cite peer-reviewed studies by local or foreign social scientists that give evidence to the contrary, that “the country’s record on free and fair elections has been abysmal” (see a review of the evidence by the Centre For Policy Initiatives, entitled ‘Academic consensus on unfair elections: reinforcing the case for Bersih’s march’). Muzaffar also commits the logical error of concluding that elections have been “large fair and just” based on an inferior and unacceptable criterion (that there are flaws in all electoral systems everywhere).

These are just a selection of numerous argumentative tactics employed by political commentators to safeguard or further their partisan interests. The Bersih 2.0 debate is only one of the many victims.

The public should be inoculated against such insidious tactics aimed at shaping public opinion and political outcomes. I would propose that the news media endeavour to solicit alternative viewpoints to debate about an issue rather than limiting themselves to publishing only one side of the story. This would curb the incentive to brazenly use faulty arguments and deceptive logic. Avenue for reply would also allow for quick rebuttal. It would bring out quality discussions. Online news media such as The Malaysian Insider should be commended for allowing space for opposing views and giving both equal prominence. The mainstream news media such as The Star have yet to show that they are capable of this higher level of discourse.

2011年7月1日星期五

当执法者用从政者的口吻说话

“ 这一切(709大游行)都是为了政治议程,我劝告安美嘉,远离政治人物。如果要搞政治游行,就注册为政党,那么人民才不会对净选盟的角色感到混淆。。。。。。攻击选委会有何用处?可以让人憎恶国阵政府。看起来这招相当有用,现在我国发生的所有事情,都有其政治议程。”~~~ 选委会副主席旺阿默怒斥反对党借大游行造势意图夺权,报道
首先,再一次确认,净选盟的8点诉求是:
1。“清洗”选民册;
2。改革邮寄选票制度;
3。使用不褪色墨水;
4。最少21天竞选期;
5。媒体自由与公平地报道朝野政党新闻;
6。强化选委会、反贪会、总检察署、警方与司法机构等公共体制;
7。停止贪污贿选;
8。停止肮脏政治。

选委会副主席,啊选委会副主席,请问那一条诉求有政治议程了?请问那一条让人民混淆了?是不是你自己混淆了自己应该独立公正的身份?

攻击选举委员会?哦!你做得不是很好,人家诉求,你认为是攻击你。那你扣心自问,你做好自己的本分和责任了吗?

(1)问你,选举时派礼物派物资是不是贿选行为?被捉包后,说是自发支持国阵的一个大马俱乐部,与政党无关,说你自己无能为力!所以要改咯,不是吗?

(2)问你,选举时首相说“你帮我,我帮你”是不是公开威胁和贿选?你说无能为力!所以要改咯,是不是?

(3)问你,电台广告和报章成版的广告和天价竞选经费是不是违反选举法?被捉包后,他说是支持者自发刊登的,你说非能力可及!所以需要改咯,对吗?

(4)问你,一面倒的媒体报道和资讯传递是不是违反公平原则?你说无能为力!所以要确保你可以做到这样咯,是不是?

憎恨不憎恨执政党,为什么人们憎恨执政党,轮到你来说吗?轮到你来管吗?维护执政党的良好感觉,是你选委会副主席的任务和责任吗?你的责任是什么?

当执法者用从政者的口吻说话,我们还可以期望公平公正和独立的执法吗?