Wednesday, November 30, 2005

Pemansuhan AUKU, MPMUM harus bersetuju sepenuhnya.


DAPSY menyeru Majlis Perwakilan Mahasiswa Universiti Malaysia (MPMUM) untuk mengenali kenyataan bahawa AUKU merupakan satu akta yang bersifat kezaliman dan perlu menyokong pemansuhan AUKU sepenuhnya, dan bukannya mengeluarkan kenyataan yang mengelirukan iaitu bahawa MPMUM membantah pemansuhan AUKU tetapi menyokong pemindaan AUKU supaya mahasiswa-mahasiswi boleh diberi lebih banyak ruang kebebasan untuk berpersatuan.

Yang Di-Pertua MPMUM sessi 2005/2006 Effendi Omar pada 29hb November 2005 telah menyatakan pendirian MPMUM kepada Malaysiakini.com versi Mandarin bahawa MPMUM bersetuju untuk memberi lebih banyak ruang berpersatuan kepada mahasiswa-mahasiswi di dalam kampus tetapi berpendapat ruang kebebasan untuk aktiviti luaran perlu disekatkan kerana ianya akan menjejaskan prestasi akademik mahasiswa-mahasiswi.”

DAPSY memang amat memepertikaikan logik di sebalik kenyataan. Bagaimana pula kebebasan berpersatuan untuk mahasiswa di luar kampus boleh menjejaskan prestasi akademiknya? Kalau seperti itu, bukankah prestasi akademik mahasiswa akan turut merosot apabila mereka ini dibenarkan kebebasan berpersatuan di dalam kampus? Apakah pula perbezaan di antara kebebasan berpersatuan di dalam dan di luar kampus? Mengapakah pula mahasiswa tidak mempunyai hak sebagai seorang rakyat Malaysia untuk berpersatuan walaupun mereka diberi kebebasan yang sama di dalam kampus?

DAPSY ingin mengulas pendirian bahawa AUKU yang diluluskan pada tahun 1970-an bukan sahaja merupakan sebuah akta yang usang, tetapi juga satu akta yang zalim. Ianya tidak harus dikekalkan dengan pindaan tetapi mesti dimansuhkan sama sekali.

Pemansuhannya adalah untuk membebaskan mahasiswa dan para akademik daripada kekangan birokratik, supaya mahasiswa-mahasiswi dan ahli-ahli akademik dapat mempelajari ilmu dan menjalankan kajiselidik terhadap ilmu alam semesta dalam suasana yang bebas. Pemansuhannya juga membolehkan mahasiswa-mahasiswi untuk lebih mendekati apa yang berlaku di luar menara gading, dan seterusnya dapat memperbaiki keadaan di dalam masyarakat apabila tamat pengajian nanti.

Oleh itu, sekatan dan kekangan yang keterlaluan terhdapa hak berpersatuan mahasiswa bukan sahaja akan mambantut keprihatinan mereka terhadap perkembangan semasa masyarakat, malahan juga akan memutuskan rangkaian di antara mahasiswa dengan masyarakat. Hakikatnya, mahasiswa akan menjadi ukat buku dan tidak dapat memainkan peranan memimpim dalam memperbaiki keadaan masyarakat. Ini merupakan satu bentuk pembaziran, malahan graduan yang menganggur juga merupakan satu beban ekonomi yang tersirat terhadap masyarakat.

Effendi Omar juga menggunakan contoh mahasiswa berdemonstrasi di Indonesia sebagai merosakkan imej negara, sekaligus menjejaskan kemasukan pelaburan asing. Walaupun begitu, Effendi Omar harus bijak membezakan di antara demonstrasi keganasan dan perhimpunan aman kerana kedua-duanya adalah dua perkara yang berlainan. Apa yang merosakkan imej negara ialah demonstrasi keganasan dan bukannya perhimpunan aman. Selain ini, demonstrasi keganasan bukanlah agenda perjuangan untuk memulihkan demokrasi kampus dan hak mahasiswa.

Selain itu, DAPSY juga menyeru MPMUM supaya mempamerkan automoni badan itu sebagai perwakilan mahasiswa dan bukannya menjadi jurucakap kepada pihak pengurusan universiti. Walaupun markah UM pada ranking THES tahun ini lebih tinggi daripada tahun yang lepas, tetapi kedudukan UM memang sudah merosot dan ini adalah satu kenyataan yang tidak boleh dinafikan. Kedudukan dalam ranking selalunya dilihat sebagai satu perbandingan relatif dan bukannya perbandingan yang mutlak. Fenomena ini menunjukkan kadar kemajuan UM jauh lebih rendah daripada universiti-universiti yang lain. Apa yang sepatutnya dilakukan ialah mencari kelemahan-kelemahan diri yang menyebabkan kemerosatan ini dan bukannya mengheboh-hebohkan markah yang diperolehi untuk menutup kelemahan-kelemahan sendiri. Dalam perkara ini, MPMUM wajar bercakap benar terhadap pihak pengurusan universiti dan bukan sebalikanya menjadi jurucakap kepada pihak pengurusan!

Lau Weng San
30hb November 2005.

废除大专法令-马大学生代表理事会应举手举脚赞成。


马大学生代表理事会应该认清事实,搞清楚《大专法令》的恶法本质,举手举脚赞成废除大专法令,而不是发表莫棱两可、自相矛盾的言论,即反对废除《大专法令》,也不赞成修改《大专法令》让学生在校外拥有更大的结社空间。

甫上任的马来亚大学2005/06学年学生代表理事会主席依芬迪奥马在11月29日向《当今大马》表示该立场,并指出“赞成松绑学生在校园内的结社权利,但是学生在校园外的结社自由仍然应该受到限制,因为那会影响学生的学术表现。”

该言论背后的逻辑非常令人质疑。我们要质问的是:到底给予学生校外的结社自由是如何必定影响学生的学术表现?难道校内的结社自由就不会导致学生的学术表现下滑吗?到底校内和校外的结社自由又有什么不同?为何一旦学生能够享有校内的“结社自由”之后,就不能继续享有校外的结社自由?

70年代制定的《大专法令》不仅是一条过时的法令,而且也是一条恶法。其最终的命运就是要予以废除,而不是进行一些修修补补。

废除大专法令的原因就是要把大专生及学生人员从层层官僚约束解放出来,让学生和学生人员能够在自由的环境之下钻研学问。废除大专法令,给予大专生校外的结社自由不仅能够让学生参与社会、了解社会,甚至在毕业后能够通过种种管道改善社会。

反之,如果对大专生的结社自由多加限制,这将扼杀他们的社会关怀,也无法与时代接轨。这最终把大专生沦为读书机器和考试高手,但对改善社会的运作却无法扮演领航的角色。这不仅是一种浪费,而且因此失业的大专生更是社会的一种无形经济负担。

依芬迪奥马引用印尼大专生的例子来表示示威学生为破坏国家的形象,直接造成外资裹足不前。然而,依芬迪奥马应该分辨何谓和平示威和暴力破坏。争取校园民主和学生结社自由的斗争与暴力破坏是截然不同的两件事情。只有暴力破坏才会损坏国誉,但是暴力破坏从来不是这项斗争的议程。

此外,马大学生代表理事会理应能够展示学生会的自主性,而不是为马大校方背书,沦为校方的傀儡。虽然马大的得分比去年高,但是马大的整体学术排名下滑,这是不争的事实。排名永远是相对性的,而不是绝对性的,如果其他大学进步的速度比马大快,那么马大当局应该了解本身的弱点对症下药,而不是患上否定症候群。在这方面,马大学生代表理事会应该了解真相,并勇于向大学当局说真话!

刘永山
2005年11月30日

Saturday, November 26, 2005

Mahasiswa Jumpa Kokus Hak Asasi Parlimen Tidak Melanggari Prosidur.

Perjumpaan di antara mahasiswa-mahasiswi dengan Kokus Hak Asasi Parlimen tidak menyalahi mana-mana prosidur, MPMUPM harus menghormati hak berpersatuan mahasiswa dan tidak secara unilateral menganggap SMM sebagai sedang memperalatkan mahasiswa.

Kenyataan oleh MPMUPM kelmarin jelas sekali lagi menunjukkan hujah mereka itu dikeluarkan tanpa menganalpasti fakta dan kebenaran terlebih dahulu. Mahasiswa-mahasiswi yang datang pada hari itu untuk berjumpa dengan Kokus Hak Asasi Mahusia Parlimen yang diketuai oleh Menteri Di Jabatan Perdana Menteri Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz tidak seharusnya disifatkan sebagai “mencerobohi” Parlimen kerana perjumpaan ini diaturakan melalui surat rasmi yang dihantar oleh Solidariti Mahasiswa Malaysia (SMM) kepada Kokus berkenaan. Tarikh dan masa perjumpaan juga diaturkan atas persetujuan bersama. Oleh itu, penggunaan perkataan “menceroboh” adalah tidak wajar, tidak adil dan tidak matang sekali.

Dalam perjumpaan itu, mahasiswa-mahasiswi telah mengatakan dengan jelas bahawa dalam perjuangan untuk mengembalikan pilihanraya kampus yang adil, demokratik dan saksama, mereka pernah meminta untuk berdialog dengan pihak universiti tetapi permintaan mereka terus tidak dilayani. Misalannya, mahasiswa UPM Kong Wei Cheng pernah mengatakan bahawa mereka pernah menghantar memorandum kepada pihak TNC HEP berkenaan dengan beberapa kes aduan terhadap pihak universiti berkenaan dengan pilihanraya kampus. Oleh kerana mereka tidak mengiktiraf keputusan pilihanraya kampus, maka secara automatik mereka juga tidak mengiktiraf kesahihan MPMUPM. Dalam perjumpaan dengan kokus itu, seorang mahasiswa daripada UM juga mengadu bahawa beliau pernah dikasari oleh pihak universiti apabila beliau sedang mengedar handbill. Beliau telah membawa kes ini kepada pihak universiti tetapi aduan beliau tidak dilayani. Oleh yang demikian, mereka ini terpaksa menuntut keadilan melalui saluran di luar kampus.

Memang dari segi prosidur, mahasiswa seharusnya dan seboleh-bolehnya menyelesaikan masalan mereka dalam kampus dengan pihak universiti. Walaupun begitu, mahasiswa juga harus diberi kebebasan untuk menuntut keadilan melalui saluran-saluran luaran yang sah untuk memperjuangkan hak mereka, sekiranya mereka berpendapat bahawa saluran-saluran sedia ada di dalam kampus sudah tidak dapat melindungi hak mereka.

Lebih-lebih lagi, sepertimana yang dinyatakan oleh Datuk Seri Nazri, adalah merupakan hak mahasiswa-mahasiswi untuk pergi ke Parlimen, SUHAKAM dan kementerian Pengajian Tinggi bagi menyerah memorandum mereka. Mengapakah mahasiswa-mahasiswi tidak boleh berjumpa entiti-entiti ini sedangkan kesemua entiti ini merupakan entiti yang sah dari segi undang-undang?

Parlimen merupakan badang perundangan tertinggi di Malaysia. Memang merupakan tanggungjawab dan tugas Ahli-ahli Parlimen untuk memperjuangkan kepentingan rakyat. Mahasiswa-mahasiswi juga merupakan sebahagian daripada rakyat yang mempunyai kuasa mengundi. Mengapakah mereka ini tidak berhak untuk datang ke Parlimen untuk menyuarakan perasaan tidak puas hati mereka apabila mereka ditindas oleh pihak universiti?

Apa yang lebih penting ialah, mahasiswa-mahasiswa menyuarakan perasaan tidak puas hati mereka dengan aman dan bukannya melalui cara kekerasan, sekiranya pihak MPMUPM merasakan bahawa perbuatan sebegini adalah tidak bersesuaian, maka ini menunjukkan pihak MPMUPM sendiri juga tidak menghormati hak asasi mahasiswa.

Selain itu, DAPSY juga amat kecewa dengan hujah MPMUPM yang seringkali menggunakan AUKU untuk menakut-nakutkan mahasiwa. Memang menjadi kanyataan bahawa AUKU merupakan satu akta yang draconian, maka apabila MPMUPM menggunakan akta draconian untuk menakut-nakutkan mahasiswa, maka mereka secara tidak langsung juga merupakan sebahagian daripada yang menindas. Lebih-lebih lagi, pihak MPMUPMsendiri mungkin tidak sedar bahawa mereka juga melanggari AUKU.

Mengikut AUKU, mana-mana mahasiswa tidak dibenarkan untuk mengeluarkan kenyataan kepada pihak luar tanpa kebenaran daripada pihak TNC HEP ataupun mana-mana pihak yang dikuatkuasakan oleh TNCHEP. Pihak MPMUPM baru-baru ini begitu giat mengeluarkan hujah dan menyerah memorandum kepada pihak luar, maka memang menjadi tanda soal sama ada mereka ini mendapat kebenaran bertulis daripada pihak TNCHEP atau tidak kerana selama ini mereka tidak menunjukkan sebarang bukti bahawa mereka ini berhak berbuat demikian.

Oleh itu, pihak MPMUMP harus berhenti daripada mengacau di air keruh apabila mereka seringkali menggunakan AUKU untuk menakut-nakutkan mahasiswa. Sebaliknya, mereka ini perlu mengeluarkan fakta dan kenyataan yang beasas pada masa depan.

Lau Weng San
26hb November 2005.

与人权委员会会面-大专生并未违反程序。

大专生与国会人权委员会会面并没违反程序,博大学生代表理事会应尊重大专生自由结社的权力,而不应武断认为大马大专生团结阵线在利用学生。

博大学生代表理事会的言论再次显示他们是没有详细了解实况下随意向外界发表言论。当天前来国会会见由首相署部长纳兹理领导的国会人权跨党派论坛的学生并不是“闯入”国会,而是通过正式公函接洽,并且是在双方同意的日期和时间下召开对话会。

学生已经清楚表明,在争取公平民主的校园选举的路途上,他们曾经要求与校方进行对话,但一直无功而返。例如博大学生江伟君表示他们在选举前就已经针对校园内所发生的不公事件向学生事物署副校长提交备忘录。由于他们不承认校园选举的成绩,因此他们也自动不承认学生代表理事会的合法性。当天另一名马大学生也曾经针对校方人士在他派发传单时粗暴对待他而作出投诉,但却不得要领。因此,他们被迫通过校园外的管道争取学生应享有的权益。

从程序上来说,虽然学生应该通过校园内的管道解决校园内的问题,但是如果学生觉得校园内的所有管道已经无法有效地解决他们的问题,那么学生有权力使用校园外的程序替他们伸张正义。

更何况,正如首相署部长纳兹理所言,学生前往国会、大马人权委员会以及高教部提呈备忘录是符合宪法精神的活动。更甚的是,国会、大马人权委员会以及高教部都是合法的机构。既然是合法的机构,为何学生不能接见这些机构获组织?

国会也是国家最高的立法机关,国会议员的职责理应就是代表人民在立法的程序时发言。学生也是具有投票权的人民,为何当他们面对校方打压的时候,他们没有权力向国会申冤?

更重要的是,学生是以和平的方式来表达他们的意愿,而不是以暴力的方式展示他们的不满,如果博大学生代表理事会连这些也觉得不应该,那么该学生会未免也不太尊重学生的人权。

另外,社青团对该理事会一直以大专法令来威吓学生表示失望。大专法令本来就是一条恶法,使用大专法令来威吓学生无疑是在助肘为虐。更重要的是,学生代表理事会可能也不知道自己已经触犯大专法令。

大专法令有清楚阐明任何学生如果要向外界发表谈话,必须得到学生事物副校长(Timbalan Naib Canselor Hal Ehwal Pelajar)获者是其授权人物的批准。有鉴于此,该学生代表理事会近来接二连三的举动,如向报界发言、向首相署提呈备忘录,以及过后向政府高官和国会议员呈交“不承认全国大专生团结阵线”的副本备忘录等等在法律上是触犯大专法令的,除非他们能够证明他们得到校方的书面批准。

因此,该学生代表理事会不应继续自相矛盾地以大专法令来狐假虎威,反之应该摆事实,讲道理,而不是向外界发表不正确的言论。

刘永山

Friday, November 25, 2005

Mengecam tindakan Pemuda MCA yang tidak ikhlas

Ketua Pemuda MCA Liow Tiong Lai kelmarin mengatakan kepada pihak media bahawa Pemuda MCA hanya akan membantu 6 orang mahasiswa yang akan menghadapi tindakan tatatertib oleh pihak universiti, apabila pihak universiti selesai dengan semua proses prosiding.

Tindakan dan hujah Pemuda MCA ini perlu dikecam sehebat-hebatnya kerana ianya menunjukkan Pemuda MCA langsung tidak ikhlas dalam menghulurkan bantuan kepada mahasiswa-mahasiswi. Malahan ini juga menunjukkan bahawa Pemuda MCA tidak bersedia untukn mengolak langkah bermakna dalam memulihkan demokrasi di kampus universiti-universiti tempatan.

Hujah-hujah sebegini juga menunjukkan sikap hipokrit Pemuda MCA. Sekiranya Pemuda MCA ikhlas dalam memperjuangkan hak asasi mahasiswa di dalam kampus, maka Pemuda MCA dengan segala tenaga dan sumber yang mereka ada, termasuk empat orang Ahli Parlimen di Dewan Rakyat perlu menonjolkan keprihatinan mereka, termsuk membela nasib mahasiswa-mahasiswi mengambil bahagian dalam perbahasan Bajet 2006 Peringkat Jawatankuasa apabila sudah sampai giliran Kementerian Pengajian Tinggi.

Adalah sukar untuk memahami mengapa Pemuda MCA boleh mengeluarkan kenyataan hipokrit sedemikian apabila Menteri dalam Jabatan Perdana Menteri merangkap Pengerusi Kokus Hak Asasi Manusia Parlimen, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz yang mewakili Kokus berkenaan telah sudah memberi sokongan kepada sekumpulan mahasiswa daripada Solidariti Mahasiswa Malaysia (SMM) yang mana beliau berjanji akan membincangkan isu ini dengan Menteri Pengajian Tinggi dan menyeru beliau untuk menarik balik segala tindakan tatatertib yang dikenakan terhadap mahasiswa-mahasiswi ini.

Ini sememangnya tidak setimpal dengan peranan perintis Pemuda MCA dalam perjuangan politik tanahair. Pemuda MCA seharusnya mengikuti jejak-jejak positif Pemuda MCA, dan bukannya bersikap regresif dalam hal ini.

Sementara itu, Kementerian Pengajian Tinggi harus menarik balik semua dakwaan tatatertib terhadap keenam-enam mahasiswa UPM ini memandangkan pihak Kementerian sedang mengkaji semula Akta Universiti dan Kolej Universiti. AUKU sebenarnya merupakan satu akta yang regresif, out-dated, melanggari hak asasi manusia dan Perlembagaan Malaysia, maka AUKU harus terus dimansuhkan.

批评马青后知后觉,甚至是毫无诚意的言论。

本人批评马青总团团长廖仲莱昨日向报界发表的谈话,即马青将会在校方完成一切必要的程序之后才会通过其他管道协助涉嫌违反大专法令而被指示出席校方听证会的博大生。

马青总团的这种态度不仅突显马青的后知后觉,甚至也告诉我们马青在争取校园自治,恢复校园民主的斗争上并没有展现应有的诚意。

马青表示要等待校方完成所有程序之后材决定通过各项管道协助这群大专生。这无疑是把这些大专生现送上绞刑台,待他们人头落地之后,马青才出来假仁假义地说“力助大专生”。

马青的这种言论是懦弱胆怯的言论。如果马青果真的是当家又当权,如果马青还有一丝的诚意,那么马青应该立即以实际的行动在国会内外为这群学生伸张正义,尤其是马青在国会下议院拥有四位国会议员,理应能够在现在的财政预算案高等教育部拨款辩论的委员会阶段时向高教部声援这群大专生,而不是表现出畏首畏尾的态度。

马青应该了解,昨日首相署部长兼国会人权跨党派论坛(Parliamentary Human Rights Caucus)主席拿督斯理纳兹理在接见全国大专生团结阵线(Solidariti Mahasiswa Malaysia)时也很清楚地表示将会积极向高教部要求撤销所有控状,并且将会以国会人权跨党派论坛主席的身份希望高教部能够允许学生在校园选举进行自由、公正和平等的选举。马青应该向纳兹理以及其所领导的国会人权跨党派论坛所展现的积极态度看齐。

令人无法理解的是,既然由国阵领袖领导的国会人权跨党派论坛都能够有积极的表现,为何口口声声说是华社急先锋的马青,其表现不仅后知后觉,反而还与其“急先锋”的角色相违。

另外,在高教部已经开始研究修改大专法令的当而,校方和高教部应该撤销所有针对这六名大专生的控告。大专法令是一项落伍、违法人权和抵触国家宪法的法令,其根本就应该被废除,而不是继续为害大专生。

刘永山

与其送出学额,不如优惠本地学生?

高教部长拿督斯理沙菲益沙礼日前表示,政府为了鼓励外国学生前来我国留学,因此将会在明年开始提供15份奖学金给成绩优异的外国学生进修首个学士学位。部长也表示,除了首相署经济策划单位和公共服务局所推动的奖学金计划以外,政府也将会推动更多津贴予外国学生。

国油也承诺在国外探索期间,为当地优秀生提供奖学金前来国油大学就读。金希望(Golden Hope)也将会推行类似奖学金计划以吸引更多外国优异生前来大马留学。除了提供优惠和奖学金,高教部也将会分配5%重要学士学位给外国学生。

很明显地,当马大在《泰晤斯报》全球200名大学排行榜下滑80位后,这是高教部为应对外界严厉抨击之后所作出的权宜政策之一。实行这项决定的主因乃是要提升本地大学的外国留学生比例,进而协助本地大学提升排名。

虽然政府愿意腾出一部分的学士学位,甚至是提供奖学金予外国留学生,以尽快实现大马作为本区域高教中心的远景,但是高教部不能因此忽略国立大专所面对的问题。

第一、本地大学学额有限。大马并不像新加坡大学一样拥有充裕的学位提供给外国留学生。提供5%的学位给外国留学生必定间接降低本地学生,尤其是优秀生在本地国立大专升学的机会。这是不争的事实,除非政府能够在短期内增加国立大专的学位,要不然本地学生报读国立大专的机会肯定会遭侵蚀。更甚的是,如果有关学位是理工或医药科系等重要学位,那么在短期内增加学位几乎是不可能的事。

第二、本地国立大专经费乃90%政府津贴,以为着其学费是由国人支付。因此政府若开放5%的学士学位予外国留学生,这意味国人每年承担这5%外国留学生的学费。英国政府每年将会发放各类奖学金给海外学生,尤其是来自第三世界国家的贫穷学生到英国升学。著名的Chevening奖学金是其中一个著名的奖学金之一。先进国家发放奖学金予第三世界国家的学生乃基于富国协助穷国的简单原理,但大马并不是富裕之国,无需故意打肿脸皮充胖子,承担富裕国家所应承担的责任。

第三、高教部的焦点应放在如何提升大马的高教水平。提供学位给外国留学生的政策如果只纯粹为了提升排名,那这是没有意义的。《泰晤斯报》全球200名大学排行榜并不是一场“世界大学选美比赛”,而是希望各大专能够通过改排行榜努力改善各自大专的不足之处。

名列前茅的大专并非在每一项领域都领风骚,一些大学在一些特定的领域排名比第三世界国家的排名还要低。对这些大学来说,这个现实恰好提醒他们必须要在有关领域加倍努力。其最简单的道理莫非如此。

面对如雷般的批评,高教部此时此刻不仅不应该逃避现实,反之更应该勇敢面对现实,针对问题的根源给予解决方案。如果高教部仅仅为了排名而制定不实际的政策,其不仅不能解决问题,反之可能引发更多的问题。
刘永山

Wednesday, November 23, 2005

Behave yourself, our Monyet Deputy Minister!

[For those who wish to follow what really happened in the House on that day, you can follow this link.]

It was a pleasant morning in the Parliament.

And we have a group of European Union MPs paying their visit to the Parliament.

It was question time and M. Kayveas, Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister Department was answering a question from Tan Sri Law Hieng Ding [Sarikei] on the number of backlog civil and criminal cases and actions taken to tackle it, and whether the government will set up different classes of courts as a solution.

DAP MP for Batu Gajah, Fong Po Kuan stood up to ask a supplementary question on the how long is the longest backlog civil or criminal cases in the court. It was a simple question but M. Kayveas went around the world without giving any answer to such a simple and direct question.

This had cuased impatience from DAP MPs and they wanted the Deputy Minister to directly answer their question without wasting the time of the house. It was at this moment when M. Kayveas shooted the word "Monyet [Monkey]" and he described DAP MPs as Monyet when DAP MPs pushed him to answer the question directly.

Kayveas even called as satu monyet di hadapan [One monkey in front - he was referring Lim Kit Siang] dan satu monyet di belakang [and another one behind - he was referring Fong Po Kuan].

Don't forget, the EU MPs were all sitting behind watching the whole proceeding of the house this morning. I wondered what will they think about Malaysian Parliament, or to put it more precise, what will they think of the standard of debate potrayed by our Deputy Minister.

So, the quarrel continued. DAP MPs asked Kayveas to withdraw the word "Monyet", else they will refer him to the Committee of Privilege. The Speaker agreed and advised Kayveas not to use such word in the House and it is better to withdraw it.

Kayveas replied that he was not describing DAP MPs as monyet, but merely said that DAP MPs macam Monyet (are like monkeys). DAP MPs were not satistified with his reply and argued. Kayveas then refused to withdraw the word.

Po Kuan then stood up with Peraturan Mesyuarat [Point of Order] to refer M. Kayveas to the Committee of Privilege for yelling DAP MPs as Monyet [Monkeys]. Parliament-jester, MP for Jerai, Badruddin also referred Po Kuan to Privilege Committee for not respecting the Speaker, as he said the Speaker knew what should be done.

The Speaker then managed to calm the House and again requested M. Kayveas to withdraw the word Monyet. He said he was willing to withdraw the word monyet if DAP MP stopped behaving like monyet.

So, Kayveas lost the battle! But he had damaged the image of the Parliament in front of not any commoners, but MPs from the European Union!

The morning in the Parliament today is not longer pleasant!

Tuesday, November 22, 2005

Ministers, you’ve got mail...

Ministers, you’ve got mail...
Claudia TheophilusNov 22, 05 6:55pm

Are Malaysian cabinet ministers hiding their e-mail address from the public or are they simply ignorant of the importance of communicating with the public?

Forget the Multimedia Super Corridor - our ministers should first learn to respond to email, says a political aide.
  • Bounced e-mails
  • Unresponsive ministries

Tsu Koon - tunjukkan keikhlasanmu!!

Koh Tsu Koon harus menunjukkan keikhlasannya kerana beliau perlu menyatakan dengan jelas kepada semua media dan bukannya secara selektif kepada media Bahasa Mandarin sahaja, bahawa beliau menyokong kajian semula dasar pengajaran mata pelajaran Sains dan Matematik dalam Bahasa Inggeris.

Tsu Koon juga harus memperjelaskan kepada media bahawa pendirian beliau itu adalah berasaskan sudut pandangan dari segi pendidikan, dan bukannya berdasarkan mana-mana pertimbangan chavaunisme. Dengan itu, Tsu Koon perlulah memberanikan diri untuk menjelaskan kepada media dan bukan sebaliknya tunduk kepada sebarang tekannan, khususnya tekanan daripada bekas Perdana Menteri Tun Doktor Mahathir dan Timbalan Ketua Pemuda UMNO Khairy Jamaluddin, sehingga beliau terpaksa melarikan diri daripada prinsip dan pendirinya ataupun mengelakkan daripada menyinggung perasaan pemimpim-pemimpim UMNO dengan hanya membuat kenyataan kepada media secara selektif.

DAP Selangor juga amat kecewa dengan pendirian keseluruhannya MCA, Gerakan dan SUPP dalam perkara ini. Perlu diingatkan bahawa pengajaran Sains dan Matematik dalam Bahasa Inggeris berkait rapat dengan kualiti pendidikan yang bakal diterima oleh generasi-generasi yang akan datang. Ianya tidak seharusnya diperbincangkan secara “tutup-pintu” atau secara dalaman, tetapi perlu dibawa untuk diperbincangkan secara terbuka dan rasional. Pemfokusan harus diberi kepada pelbagai kesan terhadap kepentingan orang ramai, masa depan dan daya saingan antarabangsa negara.

Perbincangan terbuka harus diadakan dengan semua rakyat Malaysia daripada pelbagai latar belakang, sama ada kaum, agama, pendidikan dan budaya dan bukannya secara tertutup seperti yang diperlihatkan dalam stail BN dan Pemuda BN.

Tindakan UMNO untuk menakut-nakutkan orang lain daripada membincangkan isu ini adalah amat tidak rasional dan tidak wajar kerana kita perlu berfikir secara rasional wajarkah dasar ini diteruskan dan apakah kesan-kesan negatifnya yang akan dibawamya terhadap taraf pendidikan negara kita.

Lau Weng San
22hb November 2005

许子根不应模棱两可

为展示诚意,身为民政党署理主席兼槟州首席部长的许子根应该就检讨以英文教导数理的争议向所有媒体表示他支持检讨该方案的看法,而不应模棱两可地只向中文媒体发表谈话。

许子根更应向所有媒体解释,即他本人的立场纯粹是出自教育观点,而不是基于任何沙文主义考量。因此,许子根应该勇于向媒体澄清立场,而不应向压力低头,或者是让前首相或巫青团署理团长凯里欺侮,以致他对其原则避而不谈,或者是选择性的向媒体发表谈话,以免触怒巫统的领袖。

雪州民主行动党也对马华、民政以及人联党在这课题上的立场表示失望。英文教数理关系下一代的教育素质,因此不能以闭门协商,或者以寡头政治来处理,而必须以该政策在施行三年以后所带来的各种影响、全民的利益与国家的前途和未来的竞争力作为考量点。

由于其关系重大,因此有关课题必须得到不同族群、宗教、教育和文化背景的大马人民的充分讨论,而不是以国阵和国青团的“闭门协商”方式来处理这项问题。

因此,巫统威吓其他人士停止讨论有关课题是极之愚昧的做法,反之我们应以理性的方式思考有关方案的落实是否有必要继续,以及其对我们下一代的教育素质将会造成什么影响。

此外,雪州民主行动党也全力支持董教总在12月举办“反对数理英化”大会,并在此促请政府恢复各源流小学继续以母语作为数理科的教授及考试媒介语文。

刘永山
(2005年11月22日)

Monday, November 21, 2005

Who can tell me the email addresses of Hishammuddin Tun Hussein Onn and Abdullah Zin?

For the past few days, I have been searching for the email addresses of both Education Minister Dato’ Hishammuddin and Minister in the PM Department, Dato’ Abdullah Zin, which bears no fruitful results. I had once contacted the assistant of Abdullah and is promised a return call which is not returned to date. As for Education Ministry, I have been contacting the ministry but I am still no where to reach his PA or secretaries for the answer.

Such phenomenon is totally unthinkable in information era. Do our Ministers really IT-savvy? Why do they have to hide away their email addresses? The PM had called for a people-oriented and clean government, but are we any nearer to his pledge when some Ministers tend to hide their email address from public domain?

The Parliamentary Opposition Leader YB Lim Kit Siang had on 8th November emailed all Cabinet Ministers on the Higher Education crisis that this country is facing. In order to confirm that each and every Minister have received the email, I had first emailed all Cabinet Ministers also on 13th November. In the email, I have requested the Minister to confirm receipt the previous emails sent by YB Lim Kit Siang.

A few of the emails were then bounced back due to errors and over quota. These included emails addresses of the Second Finance Minister Nor Mohd Yakcop (
mk2@treasury.gov.my), Minister of Rural and Regional Development, Dato’ Aziz Samsuddin (aziz@rurallink.gov.my), Minister of Domestic Trade and Consumers Affairs Dato’ Shafie Apdal (shafieapdal@kpdnhep.gov.my) and Minister of Higher Education, Dato’ Shafie Salleh (shafie@mohe.gov.my).

As such, I had on 19th November 2005 emailed these for the second time which to my dismay were bounced back again by email account of Nor Mohd Yakcop and Shafie Apdal. As for Aziz Samsuddin, my emails finally reaches his inbox when he has replied my email yesterday, probably because he was bombarded by YB Lim Kit Siang in the Parliament last week related to this issue.

Utilization of email address is certainly something should be put on higher scrutiny by the Prime Minister himself. It is for sure that there are certain Ministers who are not so keen in utilizing their own email address, which can be witnessed by “errors and over-quota” if Ministers seldom check and read emails sent to their inboxes.

While continue to check whether the email addresses of Nor Mohd Yakcop and Shafie Apdal are functional or not, I will, as for Dato’ Hishammuddin and Dato’ Abdullah Zin’s email addresses, continue to follow up today and if there is no answer from their assistants or secretaries, I will consider to lodge an official complaint with the authority.

Lau Weng San

教长及阿都拉辛的电邮是什么?

过去数日,本人一直查询教育部长和首相署部长阿都拉辛的电邮地址,但却无功而返。本人也曾一度联络上阿都拉辛的助理,但其助理仅表示将会致电本人。迄今该助理还没有告诉本人部长的电邮地址。至于教育部的电话,本人一直联络不上,也无法联络教长的助理或秘书。

这种现象在资讯世界里是完全无法想象的。到底我们的部长是否真正理解资讯世界的运作?为何部长的电邮地址必须隐秘起来?首相在初上台时要求部长高官落实亲民廉政的作风,但是现在部长却把电邮地址隐秘起来,这又如何称为“亲民廉政”呢?

国会反对党领袖林吉祥是在11月8日针对我国所面对的高教危机再次寄发第二封电邮给所有的部长。为确保有关电邮顺利寄送到各部长的电子邮箱,本人在11月13日致第一封电邮给所有部长。在电邮中,本人希望他们能够回邮表示已经收到林吉祥的电邮。

当时有数封电邮回弹。这包括第二财政部长诺奥玛耶谷(mk2@treasury.gov.my)、乡村与区域发展部部长拿督阿兹三苏丁(aziz@rurallink.gov.my)、贸消部部长拿督沙菲益阿普达(shafieapdal@kpdnhep.gov.my)以及高教部部长(shafie@mohe.gov.my)的邮箱。

有鉴于此,本人在11月19日再次发出第二封电邮。此次回弹之电子邮箱还是第二财长诺奥玛以及贸消部部长沙菲益阿普达的电邮。乡村与区域发展部部长拿督阿兹三苏丁经过多次回弹之后,似乎已经开始检查邮箱了,因为部长在作日已回邮本人表示已经收到林吉祥的电邮,或许这是因为上周林吉祥在国会针对此事轰炸阿兹三苏定所致。高教部长的正确电邮地址为drshafie@mohe.gov.my。

首相此时此刻应该加紧关注部长对电邮的使用。很肯定的,我们有一小撮内阁部长并不热衷于使用电邮信箱。这可从一些部长的电子邮箱出现塞满的现象而看得出来。因为信箱塞满乃因为一些部长没有定时检查电邮信箱所致。

除了继续查询沙费益阿普达和诺奥玛耶谷的电邮地址出现什么问题,本人将会在今日继续追问教育部长希山慕定和首相署部长阿都拉辛的电邮地址。如果一直没有答案,本人将会考虑采取进一步行动,包括向有关部门作正式投诉。

刘永山

Saturday, November 19, 2005

The Thais are catching up!


(Ten of thousands of people attend the ‘Muang Thai Rai Sapda’ show by Sondhi Limthongkul at Lumpini Park after reports that the government would shut down his website and his programmes on cable television.)

It was another day in Malaysia and things were certainly quite different in Bangkok yesterday when thousands of Thais yesterday moved to Lumpini Park in Bangkok to listen to Sondhi Limthongkui’s rally against Thai PM Thaksin. Those who couldn’t make their way to Lumpini Park stayed in their home and watch the live telecast from ASTV1 cable channel broadcast via satellite.

Sondhi, boss of the Manager Group, has launched what seems to be a solo campaign to oust Thaksin’s dictatorship. He first banked on the theme of “Fighting for His Majesty the King” to create a movement to oust the Thaksin regime and to write a new constitution. He has been now shifting his strategy of exposing the government’s conflicts of interest via business dealings and shady privatisation deals.

The government’s attempt to silence Sondhi from slamming the premier has been futile in the face of new, sophisticated technologies that are proving to have a profound impact on the Thai political landscape.

The government may control the broadcast media, but it has yet to effectively control the proliferation of the local cable news networks and the Internet, which has become a fertile ground for anti-Thaksin campaigning.

While you can read more from
The Nation, one thing that I am certainly sure is that such gathering was a rare occasion on Malaysia. Are Malaysians not brave enough to voice out their dissatisfaction against government irregulaties and unjust in this nation? Or Malaysians are too generous that they can easily forgive the authority?

Civil awareness is always directly proportionate to how advanced a country is, although this is not a scientific way to measure it. But the high civil awareness of Thais has already proven that they are on the right track to overtaking their neighbours – The Malaysians – in more areas in time to come.

Opposition leader yesterday has blogged that “Thailand is fast catching up from behind, having edged out Malaysia in automotive industry and established itself as the “Detroit of the East”. The latest bad news for Malaysia is that for the first time also, Thailand’s Chulalongkorn University has bested University of Malaya in the World’s Top 200 Universities Ranking!

Thailand is now challenging Malaysia on IT and if we do not watch out, Thailand may one day even beat Malaysia in the population’s mastery and use of English, the international language, a notion which would have been completely unthinkable two, three decades ago.

With this, I remember last year when I was working in a Malaysia-Thai JV gas platform offshore Kota-Bharu/Songkhla when I was first alerted of the openness of Thai Media, I immediately had an instinct that the Thais are catching up. Immediately when I came back, I have shared this views with others and some of my friends commented that the Thais are still lagging behind in terms mastery and use of English, which is a major stumbling block for Thais to move any further to overtake Malaysia.

Within one year, the Thais are moving fast. And they almost outdo us in almost every aspects. Look at sport, Thai female weightlifter, Pawina Thongsak created three world records (snatch, clean & jerk and mixed events) in World Weightlifting Championship in Doha on Saturday. While we are still dreaming for our first Olympic gold metal, the Thais have already grabbed several Olympic gold metals and Pawina is one of the Thai gold metallist.

Do you know the Thais are catching up?

Friday, November 18, 2005

Majlis Perwakilan Mahasiswa UPM harus dibubarkan


Majlis Perwakilan Mahasiswa UPM harus dibubarkan dan digantikan dengan nama Kelab Penyokong HEP Mahasiswa UPM kerana kenyataan MPMUPM tidak dapat lagi diyakini ramai bahawa ianya satu badan yang mewakili mahasiswa-mahasiswi UPM, malahan MPMUPM seolah telah menjadi “jurucakap” kepada pihak HEP UPM.

MPMUPM telah mengadakan satu sidang media dua hari yang lepas bahawa mereka akan menyerah satu memorandum kepada YAB Perdana Menteri terhadap tindakan Solidariti Mahasiswa Malaysia (SMM) di kampus UPM. Yang Di-pertua MPMUPM Manaf telah menyatakan bahawa “seorang Ahli Parlimen DAP yang berucap pada perhimpunan haram di kampus UPM pada 11 November 2005 telah mengganggu persediaan para mahasiswa UPM untuk menghadapi peperiksaan” dan beliau meminta pihak berkuasa untuk “menyiasat serta mengambil tindakan terhadap mahasiswa-mahasiswi dan pemimpim Solidariti Mahasiswa Malaysia (SMM)” serta “meminta pemimpim-pemimpim Persatuan Mahasiswa Islam UPM untuk letak jawatan kerana telah melanggar AUKU”.

Naib Yang Di-pertua MPMUPM Hafiz turut mengatakan kepada Malaysiakini.com (Versi Bahasa Mandarin) bahawa apabila pihak pengurusan/pemimpim ingin meminda AUKU, maka ianya perlu dipinda. Kami tiada cadangan, semua terserah kepada pengurusan/pemimpim/”

Hafiz turut mengatakan bahawa mahasiswa tiada suara untuk meminda AUKU, hanya pihak pengurusan/pemimpim sahaja yang berhak untuk berbuat demikian. Kami percaya selama ini pihak pengurusan/pemimpim telah menjaga hak mahasiswa dengan baik. Sekiranya ianya adalah bermanfaat kepada mahasiswa, maka kami akan menerimanya.”

Adalah menjadi pendirian DAPSY bahawa kenyataan yang dikeluarkan oleh barisan pemimpim MPMUPM ini amat membimbangkan kita semua. Mahasiswa merupakan harapan kepada masyarakat kita dan emreka seharusnya mempunyai untuk memperjuangkan hak dan autonomi mereka sebagai mahasiswa. Walaupun begitu, adalah mengesalkan apabila MPMUPM boleh mennyatakan bahawa hak mereka boleh diserahkan kepada pihak pengurusan/pemimpim. Apakah perbezaaan perbuatan mereka ini dengan pengabdian dan penghambaan mahasiswa kepada pihak HEP?

Kenyataan ini telah menimbulkan persoalan kepada kita semua, iaitu adalah MPMUPM ini masilh lagi memperjuangkan hak mahasiswa di UPM? Adakah mereka betul-betul mewakili mahasiswa ataupun mereka telah membelot mahasiswa? Sekiranya tidak, maka tiada sebab untuk MPMUPM untuk terus wujud di bumi ini. Adalah lebih baik MPMUPM ini dibubarkan sahaja dan digantikan dengan nama “Kelab Penyokong HEP Mahasiswa UPM” supaya ianya dapat menunjukkan muka sebenar mereka dan tidak lagi menyalahgunakan nama “Majlis Perwakilan Mahasiswa”.

Selain itu, adalah lebih baik sekiranya MPMUPM ini mendapat fakta yang benar dan kukuh sebelum melemparkan sebarang tuduhan songsang kerana tiada seorang Ahli Parlimen yang hadir di perhimpunan di kampus UPM pada 11hb November 2005. yang menghadiri perhimpunan pagi itu ialah ADUN Lobak (Negeri Sembilan) merangkap Ketua Pembangkang DUN Negeri Sembilan YB Loke Siew Fook dan ADUN Sungai Pinang (Selangor) merangkap Ketua Pembangkang DUN Selangor YB Teng Chang Khim, yang mereka YB Loke Siew Fook dan YB Teng Chang Khim masing-masing merupakan Setiusaha Kebangsaan DAPSY dan bekas Ketua DAPSY.

Mereka menghadiri perhimpunan berkenaan atas nama ADUN dan mereka tidak dihalang oleh Pegawai Keselamatan UPM apabila mereka memasuki kampus UPM dengan plat kereta yang memaparkan Identiti ADUN mereka. Malahan apaibila kedua-dua daripada mereka sedang berucap, mereka juga tidak diganggun oleh pegawai keselamatan UPM dan pasukan polis. Tuduhan MPMUPM bahawa tindakan mereka memberi ucapan di khalayak ramai dalam kampus telah menggangu emosi mahasiswa-mahasiswi UPM yang perlu menduduki peperiksaan pada hari itu adalah tidak adil terhadap mereka dan DAPSY dan kami berharap pihak MPMUPM dapat memperjelaskan kenyataan mereka, malahan meminta maaf daripada DAPSY.

Lau Weng San
18hb November 2005.

博大学生代表理事会应该自我解散。

博大学生代表理事会应该自我解散,然后改名为博大校方学生啦啦队,因为其言论已经无法让人相信它是代表博大生的合法组织,反而已经沦为傀儡组织,成为校方的传声筒。

博大学生代表理事会是在前日通过报界表示将准备备忘录提呈给首相。该学生会主席玛纳夫表示当天“在校园发表演讲的一名行动党国会议员已经破坏博大生之间的和谐”、要求当局测查和对大专生团结阵线(SMM)的学生和领袖采取行动,以及要求支持该阵线的博大穆斯林学生会领袖引咎辞职,因为他们已经触犯大专法令。

该理事会副主席哈菲兹翌日更向《当今大马》表示,“如果领袖们认为需要检讨法令,那就应该检讨,反之亦然,我们没有任何的建议,由领袖们去决定”。

哈菲兹更表示:“学生没有资格建议如何修改法令,只有领袖们才有资格那么做,我们相信领袖们一直以来都在维护学生的福利。只要是有利于学生福利的,我们都乐于接受”。

社青团认为,博大学生代表理事会的言论也令人感到汗颜。大专生作为时代的眼睛,理应该积极争取自身的权益,但是号称代表全博大生的博大学生代表理事会竟然表示权益可以“交由领袖决定,并且相信领袖能够为学生维护学生的福利“。

这种言论不禁令人怀疑,到底博大学生代表理事会是代表博大校方还是代表博大学生?所谓名不正则言不顺。如果该理事会已经无法代表学生向校方争取权益,那么该理事会的存在已经没有意义。与其继续挂羊头卖狗肉地以博大学生的名义到处招摇撞骗,该理事会应该自我解散,然后组成博大校方学生啦啦队(Kelab Penyokong HEP Mahasiswa UPM),因为这才更能突显其现在的精神面貌。

此外,该理事会应该应该掌握真相才向外发言。当天并没有任何一名行动党的国会议员在校园内演讲。当天出席的行动党议员是森美兰州罗白区州议员(兼森州州议会反对党领袖)陆兆福和雪兰莪州双溪槟榔区州议员邓章钦(兼雪州州议会反对党领袖)。他们两人分别是社青团现任总秘书以及社青团前任团长。

他们是以州议员的名义,没有被校园保安阻挠下,堂堂正正挂着州议员的车牌驾驶进入校园。既然在驱车进入校园没有保安阻挠,演讲时更没有保安的干扰,博大学生代表理事会指控行动党议员扰乱当天博大生的应考情绪对行动党来说是不公平的。我们希望该理事会能够对此作清楚交代,甚至向社青团致谦。

刘永山

Wednesday, November 16, 2005

Immediately withdraw all disciplinary charges against six UPM students.


There should be no obstacles from the government to stop UPM students from meeting outsiders especially local community leaders when the students plan to have briefings and dialogue with them on the disciplinary cases charged against them by the authority. The campus authority should also immediately withdraw all the disciplinary charges against the six students as the charges are all of arbitrary charges with ill intentions to create a culture of fear among students in standing up for truth and students rights in the campus.

It has been highlighted in the press that the briefing organized by UPM Students Progressive Front (Gerakan Mahasiswa Maju UPM) with Seri Kembangan Small and Medium Industries Federation had to be called off at the eleventh hour due to interference from Special Branch from Bukit Aman Police Headquarters that such briefing, which is scheduled to be held in the office of Seri Kembangan Small and Medium Industries Federation, is an illegal gathering.

Such interference from Special Branch (which is another state machinery) other than the campus authority is indeed another ill-intention effort to kill off the struggle of students rights struggle in the campus.

Such interference from the Special Branch must be strongly condemned as we must regard these UPM students are also mature citizens whose constitutional rights are preserved and protected by the Federal Constitution. The members of the Seri Kembangan SMI Federation are also taxpayers like other normal Malaysians whose money are utilized to support all expenses in UPM. It is their constitutional right to know what exactly are happening in the campus.

More importantly, if campus authority keep suppressing the genuine struggle from the students for their rights as citizen of Malaysia, manipulating students representatives election and resort to various suppressive and oppressive methods to threathen students, what are the difference between our universities with secret societies? What is the difference between our Vice Chancellors and Deputy Vice Chancellors with the Tai Ko in secret societies?

And it is very disappointing that the Special Branch of Police Headquarters in Mukit Aman even went further to deny the rights of commoners and members of public to understand the real situations taken place in the campus. As such, there is no reason for us not to feel worried, especially on the future development of human rights in Malaysia.

Is the campus authority of UPM trying to ‘bonzai’lised our students? Or they merely want students nowadays to be quiet followers? Else, UPM should not only allow members of public to attend the disciplinary proceeding of the six, allow the six to bring in their lawyers, but also to immediately withdraw all disciplinary charges against them, while there should be no interference from the police against any briefings or dialogue organized by the students with outsiders.

The police should to uphold and not to suppress the struggle for justice.

Lau Weng San

立即撤销对6名博大生的纪律控状

政府应该正视博大生作为大马公民的权益而不应阻挠大专生对外交流,并且谕令博大立即撤消对6名博大生的纪律控状。

媒体日前报道11月15日八时正,假史里肯邦岸中小型工商业联合会会所、由博大前进阵线主办的“博大校园打压事件”的汇报会被迫展延。因为史里肯邦岸中小型工商业联合会在当天早上接获武吉安曼警察总部政治部的来电,并以未获得准证为由,企图阻吓该会对学生的热心帮助。

大马人民强烈谴责武吉安曼警察总部政治部的干预。博大生是大马的合法公民,而博大的拨款也是来自大马人民的税收,因此,身为纳税人之一的史里肯邦岸中小型工商业联合会有权了解博大校方压迫学生权利的来龙去脉。这是他们身为纳税人和公民的权益。

更重要的是,大学就是社会的缩影,如果大学当局一味压迫学生,操控学生会选举,并且使用种种威吓的方式来压制学生,我们的大学和黑社会有什么分别?大学的校长副校长又和黑社会老大又何不同?

今天,武吉安曼的警察总部竟然连校外人士-史里肯邦岸中小型工商业联合会-要求了解校园状况的权利也要否决,这让我们不能不对大马的人权状况感到担忧。难道博大校方和武吉安曼要把大专生变成盆栽(bonzai)不成?难道他们要大专生变成一群唯唯诺诺的应声虫?

如果不是,那么博大校方允许公众人士出席听政会,允许6名博大生的代表律师进入听政会,甚至应该立即撤销对6名博大生的纪律控状。警方更应该允许社会人士与大专生交流,而不是与博大校方助肘为虐。

Monday, November 14, 2005

IPTAs- Do away with denial syndrome!

There must be courageous actions from local public universities, especially University of Malaya to do away with denial syndrome, which is the first crisis of higher education in Malaysia, in order to rectify its problem to improve its ranking in the Times Higher Education Supplement, so that there could be meaningful efforts launched to proceed with real reform on higher education in Malaysia.

Being listed as the first 200 universities, and being placed at the 45th, 82nd and 83rd place in Art/Humanities, Biomedicine and Social sciences respectively does not qualify the erections of 7 giant billboards and at least 150 buntings in the campus of University of Malaya, which is clearly an syok sendiri boastful act.

This clearly shows that the UM Authority is infested with serious denial syndrome, and it is spreading fast in Malaysia as a epidemic disease until Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia yesterday published a full page advertisement in page 7, News Straits Times yesterday, not only to commemorate the 35th anniversary of the university but to also celebrate UKM being enlisted as top 100 science universities in the world.

Such act should not be made as example to other public universities in Malaysia, in fact, civil societies and alumni of all public universities should push campus authorities to confess their shortcomings in running the universities and take concrete actions to improve performance of their universities in different aspects. To do away with denial syndrome will be the first and foremost efforts in dealing with the alarming crisis facing our public universities.

The Ministry of Higher Education should also be alerted on the continued portray of denial syndrome by our administrations in the campus. When UM VC openly claimed that he is not worried with the declining ranking of UM in Time Higher Education Supplement 2005 Report, it is clear that he himself also doesn’t even aware of the seriousness of the situation and he should be expelled from his current position as he himself is also infested with acute denial syndrome which will be a stumbling stone for UM to face its own weaknesses and to proceed with real reform on higher education.

Only with their (universities administrators who failed to realized the seriousness of the crisis) removal, then can our universities move forward for greater achievement in various aspect, including the revival of campus autonomy to enable academicians, administrators and students in the campus to play proactive and leading role in determining the future and the direction of the universities without political and bureaucratic interferences.

Lau Weng San
14th November 2005.

摒弃否定症候群是打造世界级大专教育的第一步。

要提升大马大专在《泰唔斯报》高教大专排行榜,各国立大专,尤其是马大必须有勇气面对自身的弱点。各大专首先必须检讨的就是摒弃泛滥成潮的否定症候群,作为迈向世界级大专教育的第一步。

马大校方近来由于名列世界首200名大专,以及在人文艺术、生物医学以及社会科学科系方面排名第45、82和83名而沾沾自喜,以致在校园各处树立7个大型广告牌以及多达150个布条,以宣扬其在改该排行榜的排名。

马大校方的这种举动,突显马大校方患上严重的否定症候群。而这个否定症候群正在泛滥为害,以致在昨日的《新海峡时报》,国大也在第7页刊登一幅全版广告,以欢庆该大学成立35周年,并在《泰唔斯报》高教大专排行榜名列世界100名大学科学大学。

马大和国大的这种举动实不应成为一种典范,反之公民社会和各大专毕业生应该要求有关大学用于承认自己的不足之处,并且勇以卧薪尝胆,大力提升各大专在各方面的表现。正视自身的弱点,勇以抛开否定症候群正是我国大专教育的第一危机。

高教部也必须正视这种否定症候群的泛滥。马大校长对马大排名的滑落竟然可以表示“不担忧”,这是令人垢病的态度。社青团呼吁高教部应该开除马大校长,因为马大校长显然无法正视马大排名滑落的严重性。这清楚显示马大校长已经患上严重的否定症候群,如不将之革职,必将严重拖慢大马高教的改革步伐。

只有将患上严重否定症候群的校方管理人员革除,校方才能拟定各方面的措施,包括恢复校园自主,让校园内的学术人员、行政人员和大专生在大学的各项事务扮演领导的角色,而不是让官僚制度和政治影响在校园内到处为害。

刘永山
(2005年11月14日)

Saturday, November 12, 2005

IIUM should promote a true spirit of Malaysia.

I am sure some of us may have heard of a recent incidence whereby a Chinese law graduate from International Islamic University of Malaysia (IIUM) was barred from attending her convocation as IIUM rules all female gradutes is compulsory to wear tudung as part of the official convocation suit.

The graduate is FooYueh Jiin and with the helps of Parliamentary Opposition Leader and DAP MP for Batu Gajah YB Fong Po Kuan, who is also a law graduate from IIUM, held a press conference in the Parliament yesterday to openly lament IIUM as insensitive to the feelings of non-muslims.

Below is her statement:

IIUM should promote a true spirit of Malaysia

It is most regrettable that the decision of the Cabinet in its Wednesday meeting regarding the International Islamic University of Malaysia (IIUM) regulation requiring non-Muslim students to wear a tudung especially during the convocation ceremony was not made clear to the press and thus created unnecessary confusion among the Malaysian society at large.

Yesterday, the New Straits Times reported that according to several ministers, Cabinet reached a consensus that students, regardless of their religion, should not be coerced into wearing the tudung. It quoted one minister as saying that the Cabinet has also agreed that the tudung should be made optional at graduation ceremonies or convocations.

This is in direct conflict with the The Star report, where the Higher Education Minister, Dr Shafie Salleh was quoted at his post-cabinet briefing as saying that the IIUM convocation garments which comprise tudung are compulsory attire for all female graduates. Dr Shafie Salleh also added that for non-Muslim, they are not required to wear tudung litup (a cloth covering the whole head) but scarves will do.

The same was reported in the Malay Mail, the Berita Harian and Sin Chew Jit Poh, where tudung is described as part of the official dress code for female graduates - either Muslim or non-Muslim - during convocation. Nanyang Siang Pau on the other hand reported Dr Shafie as saying that non-Muslim students are not compelled to wear tudung during the convocation.

We do not know what the Cabinet has actually decided on Wednesday and this is most regrettable in view of the importance of the issue.

The compulsory donning of tudung rule is most insensitive to non-Muslim with regard to their religions, customs and cultures. Since wearing tudung is a distinct symbol of Muslims women in our country, forcing non-Muslims to don a tudung is imposing Islam the religion onto the non-Muslims, and such arbitrary act will not help in promoting a peaceful and tolerance plural society that we so cherish.

Speaking from my personal experience, I was required to wear a proper tudung in the first two years of my studies and a scarf in the later two years. The change from donning a tudung to a scarf came only after the issue of non-Muslims being forced to don a tudung in campus was made public in the Parliament.

There was no option available to me however when the convocation ceremony was held in August this year. All female students were provided with a tudung and whoever that refuses to wear it are not allowed to go into the Hall to receive her scroll. I missed my convocation because I refused to submit to such arbitrary rule.

According to the Rector of IIUM, Prof Dr Mohd Kamal Hassan, non-Muslims female students are required to wear a scarf as “a sign of respect to the religion and the university”. Sadly, by imposing Islamic attire on the non-Muslims, the professor is in fact demanding respect instead of showing the spirit of mutual respect. As long as we dress decently and respect each others’ sensitivities, an attitude all non-Muslims students in IIUM always abide to, we cannot be said to have shown “disrespect” to another by not wearing a tudung. In fact, IIUM as a public institution should be sensitive towards its non-Muslim students, who are the minority in the campus, by demonstrating its openness and inclusiveness according to the true spirit of Islam.

We can see the example in the Cambridge University, where a graduate may request the authority to omit the citing of Trinitarian Formula (a Christian prayer) when his turn come to receive his scroll at the graduation ceremony. Such request is in no way a show of disrespect towards the university, and the University does not suffer from any disrespect when its students of different faiths made such request.

I truly hope that IIUM will review its arbitrary rule and make the donning of tudung during convocation and within the campus an option for its students especially the non-Muslims. This will help in promoting the true spirit of Malaysia as a multi-religion, multi-culture and multi-ethnic society.

Foo Yueh Jiin
11/11/05
Parliament, Kuala Lumpur

国际回教大学应该展示真正的马来西亚精神

针对一名国际回教大学华裔毕业生通过国会反对党领袖揭发该大学强制性要求所有非穆斯林女毕业生在出席毕业典礼上台领取毕业状是必须佩戴头巾。

该名法律系毕业生符月瑾昨日通过国会反对党领袖林吉祥和华都牙也区国会议员冯宝君的协助下在国会召开记者招待会,正式对该大学这项不合理的条规表示不满。

以下是符月瑾的文告:

国际回教大学应该展示真正的马来西亚精神

针对国际回教大学要求非穆斯林学生,尤其在出席毕业典礼时佩戴头巾,内阁周三的决定并没有得到报章清楚的报道,因此在大马社会引发不必要的混淆。这是非常令人遗憾的。

昨天的《新海峡时报》引述一些部长的谈话,即内阁已经达致一项共识,即学生们不管其宗教信仰,是不应该被强制行地佩戴头巾。该报章引述一名部长的谈话,表示内阁赞成在毕业典礼佩戴头巾应只是一项选择。这则报道却与《星报》的报道大相径庭,因为高教部部长沙菲益沙礼博士在其内阁会议后指出国际回教大学要求毕业生在毕业典礼时佩戴头巾是所有女毕业生的正式服装。沙菲益沙礼博士也指出穆斯林学生无需佩戴tudung litup(一种完全把头部遮盖的头巾),而只需佩戴一般头巾。同样的报道也出现在《马来邮报》、《每日新闻》以及《星洲日报》,即头巾在毕业典礼时是女毕业生(不管是穆斯林还是非穆斯林)的官方服装之一。南洋商报则引述沙菲益沙礼博士的谈话,指穆斯林毕业生无需在毕业典礼时佩戴头巾。

我们不知道到底内阁在周三的会议里作出什么决定。有鉴于此事的重要性,这种状况是非常令人遗憾的。

强制性要求非穆斯林学生佩戴头巾对她们的宗教、习俗和文化来说来说是极之敏感的事。尤其是当佩戴头巾是大马穆斯林女性的服装象征,因此强制要求非穆斯林佩戴头巾无异于把伊斯兰元素强加在非穆斯林的身上。如此不合情理的做法对促进一个多元社会的和谐与容忍来说是百害无一利。

以我本人的经验来说,我在第一年和第二年的大学生涯时必须佩戴象样的头巾,在尔后的两年学涯中,我佩戴的是一般的头巾。如此的改变是因为非穆斯林学生在校园需强制性佩戴头巾一事在国会被提起。

然而,在今年8月举行的毕业典礼,我没有其他选择。校方为所有非穆斯林女毕业生提供一件头巾。如果没有佩戴这头巾,那么该名学生将不允许步入礼堂接获毕业证书。由于拒绝从令,我错过我的毕业典礼。

根据国际回教大学校长,拿督莫哈末卡玛哈山博士的谈话,强制非穆斯林女生佩戴头巾“对宗教和该大学来说是一种尊敬”。令人悲哀的是,该教授如此说法与其展示一种互相尊重的精神,其实他是要求得到别人的尊重。只要我们的穿着端庄,并且互相尊重大家的敏感度(这也是所有在国际回教大学的非穆斯林学生),我们不能因为没有佩戴头巾而被说成是“不尊重”其他人。其实,国际回教大学作为一个公立大学应该依循伊斯兰的真正教义,即展示其开放性和包容性,进而对校内少数的非穆斯林学生的感受保持敏感。


我们可以看见在剑桥大学的例子中,当一名毕业生上台领取毕业证书时, 他/她可以要求校方免除念读基督教讼词。这种要求并没有被视为对该大学的不敬,而大学也不会因为不同信仰的毕业生作出如此要求而觉得不获尊敬。

我真诚希望国际回教大学能够重新检视这项不合情理的规则,并且把强制性要求女毕业生在毕业典礼和校园内佩戴头巾改为选择性,尤其是针对非穆斯林。这样才能协助打造真正的马来西亚精神,即马来西亚是一个多元宗教、文化和族群的多元社会。

符月瑾
2005年11月11日
吉隆坡

Unjustifiable Tariff Hike.

Minister of Energy, Water and Telecommunications Datuk Seri Lim Keng Yaik has on yesterday hinted that there could probably a tariff hike next year and that he can only guarantee that tariff will remain unchanged only until the end of this year.

Though Lim Keng Yaik has raised the issue of tariff hike which will create an adverse impact on the country’s economic, fariff hike for Tenaga is not justifiable as the root cause of the problem is the high payment given by Tenaga to Independent Power Producers (IPPs) which lowers the profit margin of Tenaga.

Currently, Tenaga’s payments to Independent Power Producers (IPP) comprising 40.5% of its total costs. Besides, staff (9.9%), fuel (19%) and depreciation (17%) are the other main components of costs.

It is clear that the high and unreasonable payments to IPPs are the main obstacles to higher net profits for Tenaga.

The government should review agreements between IPPs and Tenaga which were made not for the benefit of Malaysians but for the few cronies of BN, in which Tenaga has to purchase power from IPPs and guarantee payments for power generated that Tenaga does not need, which is proven by Tenaga’s reserve margin of 40%, amongst the highest in the world.

IPPs also enjoy subsidized rates for purchase of gas from Petronas, resulting in Petronas subsidizing RM 14 billion for such IPPs. Since May 1997, Petronas has supplied processed gas to Tenaga and the independent power producers (IPPs) at a regulated price of RM6.40 per mmbtu (British thermal unit) as compared to the current market price of more than RM 30.

As IPPs are private companies enjoying special rates for generating electricity that Tenaga is forced to purchase, there is no reason for IPPs to enjoy such huge subsidies of RM 14 billion to profit at Tenaga and Malaysians’ expense. All these have even allowed some IPPs to enjoy rates of return of more than 12% much higher than Tenaga’s 5.2%.

Therefore, tariff hike for Tenaga is not justifiable as the root cause of the problem is the high payment given by Tenaga to Independent Power Producers (IPPs) which lowers the profit margin of Tenaga.

Instead of asking consumers to pay more, Tenaga should ask the government to review these unfair compulsory power purchase agreements contracted at higher than market rates to make it fairer and more balanced to both parties.

(7th November 2005)

国能提高电费不合理。

能源、水供和电讯部部长拿督斯理林敬益昨日暗示电费明年可能会调涨,并表示他只能保证电费只在今年尾维持不变。

林敬益所提出的电费调涨将肯定对大马经济造成巨大的影响,社青团因此认为国能欲调高电费是不合理的,而其中最大问题的根源是国能现在付还过高的费用给独立发电站,导致国能的盈利大打折扣。

国能现在付还独立发电站的费用占国能的整个运作成本的40.5%。除此之外,员工、燃料以及贬值也是运作成本的主要部分,分别占了运作成本的9.9%、19%以及17%。

很明显地,付还予独立发电站的高额款项是国能不能创造更高盈利的主要阻碍。

政府应该检讨国能与独立发电站的协约,因为这些协约并不造惠大马人民,而只是让少数国阵朋党受益的协约。国能因为这样而被迫向独立发电站购买国能并不需要的电力。这可以从国能逾40%后备电力(可说是其中世界储备电力最高)看得出来。

独立发电站也享有国油的津贴天然气,造成国油必须津贴独立发电站逾140亿令吉。自1997年5月以来,国油已经供应每MMBTU马币RM6.40的控制价格售卖天然气予国能和独立发电站。而市场价格是超过30令吉。

既然独立发电站享有特别燃料价格以生产电力,而国能有必须以更高的价格来购买这些电力,因此在牺牲国能和大马人民的利益的当而,独立发电站理应不能再享有140亿令吉的燃料津贴。就因为这些事件导致一些独立发电站享有高达12%的回酬率,远远比国能的5.2%来得高。

因此,国能要申请调高电费的决定是没有道理的,因为根本原因就是国能必须偿还高数额的费用予独立发电站,影响国能的盈利幅度。

与其要求消费人付还更高的电费,国能应该要求政府检讨其与独立发电站的不公平合约,公平对待国能和大马电力消费者。

2005年11月7日

Ministers' email address must be published and easily found and not hidden in the website.

IT Bureau Chief of Ministry of Rural and Regional Development Isa yesterday claimed during an interview with a Mandarin Press that his Ministry’s website does have a public complaint portal and consultation system whereby internet surfers can lodge complaints online. There lies the question of whether it is sufficient only for ministries to have such system incorporated in the official websites of ministries.

One must admit that we are living in the era of internet, whereby information is transferred within seconds. This is well-described by the phrase “one click away”. Under such scenario, providing online public complaint portal is not much different from attending conventional counters, except that people nowadays do not have to go straight to the ministry’s office to lodge report.

Disclosed Ministers’ email addresses, let internet users to directly interact with Ministers.

Broadband internet service has been picking up its popularity among internet users nowadays, people have been doing away with the conventional dial-up internet connection slowly. One can say that data transmission speed do determine the quality of one’s works and one’s efficiency. If public complaints cannot be directly conveyed to the ministers, and if the complaint lodged through the ministry’s website have to go through all the conventional bureaucratic filters, then it will be meaningless to set-up such facility.

What is needed by the rakyat is to convey their message directly to the mailbox of the Ministers in lightning speed, in order to enchance the interaction between government officers, Ministers, Deputy Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries with the Rakyat, especially when it has been the ambition of the government to turn Malaysia into a IT Hub with MSC. Furthermore, Ministers are also wakil rakyat who are also directly answerable to the Rakyat.

The Press Secretary of Minister of Energy, Water and Communications Datuk Seri Dr Lim Keng Yaik, Mr Tan Chuan Koon yesterday issued a statement to demand an apology from Lim Kit Siang for “saying Lim Keng Yaik does not have an email address. There is no ground in Tan Chuan Koon’s demand as Minister would be reasonably doubted of whether they have their own email addresses, when one has been trying to search the website upside down, just to look for their email address, which has ended up in failure!

Tan Chuan Koon must do his homeworks first.

Tan Chuan Koon should at least have a read on Lim Kit Siang’s official blog statement before he demanded an apology. Another good thing he should have done first is to visit at least 2 websites. The first one is DAP official website (http://www.dapmalaysia.org/), the second one is Lim Kit Siang web-blog (http://www.limkitsiang.blogspot.com). If possible, Tan Chuan Koon should follow the following link (http://limkitsiang.blogspot.com/2005/11/some-10-years-after-msc-most-ministers.html) to personally understand who Lim Kit Siang means.

In the first and the second paragraph of his posting entitled “Some 10 years after MSC, most Ministers still don’t use email”, he said, “It is unbelievable that some ten years after the Multimedia Super Corridor (MSC) initiative, most Ministers still don’t use email. It has been quite a hassle just to get the email addresses of the Ministers of our jumbo Cabinet.

Tan Chuan Koon should also read the last paragraph which sounds,

It is clear that there are at least four categories of Ministers with regard to use of email:
(1) Ministers who have no email address for the public to access.
(2) Ministers whose public email are not functional.
(3) Ministers who do not open their own email.
(4) Ministers who do not open their own email or read the email opened for them


In the first and second paragraph, it is mentioned that “most Ministers still don’t use email”, and “it is quite a hussle to get their emails addresses”. “Don’t use email” should not be equalized with “not using email addresses”. The last paragraph also narrates different conclusions of how Ministers use emails in our government.

It is clear that Lim Kit Siang did not mention anything like “Lim Keng Yaik does not have email address”. And the main focus should go back to whether any commoner can easily search for the email addresses of Ministers’ email addresses in their official websites? Why can’t the Ministers just publish their email addresses on their official websites? Are email addresses of Ministers an official secret which are not allowed to be disclosed publicly?

Therefore, Tan Chuan Koon should be amply prepared before he demand anyapology from anybody else. As such, he should withdraw all his allegations and his demand for apology.

Welcome Tan Yew Chong to email me

Principal Private Secretary of the Minister of Plantation Industries and Commodities (Datuk Peter Chin Fah Kui), Mr Tan Yew Chong informed that his email address is available online, but I am personally interested to know from Tan Yew Chong of the URL of the websites? Tan can personally email me the URL my email address is lauwengsan@gmail.com or lauws@dapmalaysia.info.

Email addresses of DAP leaders are easily found.

In fact, Cabinet Ministry should somehow follow the comparatively easier and simple web design of DAP website, and everybody can find email addresses and other contact details of DAP leaders from the following hyperlinks:
1. DAP Central Executive Committees, (http://www.dapmalaysia.org/english/cec04-07.html)
2. DAPSY National Executive Committees, (http://www.dapmalaysia.org/english/dapsy05-07.htm).
3. Member of Parliaments (http://www.dapmalaysia.org/english/mp.html)
4. State Assembly persons (http://www.dapmalaysia.org/english/sa.html)

Lau Weng San
9th November 2005.

Wednesday, November 09, 2005

公开部长的电邮地址,让网民能够直接与部长交流。

乡村和区域发展部资讯工艺组主任依萨昨日表示该部门的网站设有公共公共投诉与咨询系统。然而,大马人民必须质问的是,内阁部门如果仅仅在官方网站上提供公共投诉与咨询系统是不足够的。

在这个资讯高度发达的爆炸时代,仅仅提供在网络上提供一般的门面投诉设施与一般的柜台投诉并没有什么两样,不同的只是人们无需前往部门的柜台作投诉。

公开部长的电邮地址,让网民能够直接与部长交流。

随着宽频的逐渐普及化,网络技术已经远远抛弃90年代中期的拨号上网技术。速度可说是决定效率的先决条件。如果公众的投诉不能直接向部长反映,反之必须通过种种官僚过程来过滤,那么设立部门网站无意是没有意义的。

公众人士需要的是能够快捷地利用网络世界的便利把意见和看法直接传到部长的电子邮件信箱,以促进部长、部门、官员和人民之间的互动,尤其是政府正要雄心蓬勃要把大马打造成一个世界级的资讯工艺中心(IT Hub)。

能源、水务及通讯部长拿督斯里林敬益医生新闻秘书陈全坤昨日发表文告要求林吉祥针对所谓的“林敬益没有电邮一事”而道歉一事是毫无根据的,因为这些部长的电邮地址确实无法在部门的网站中搜寻得到,以致让人质疑到底这些部长是否使用电邮。

陈全坤应该了解:如果连部门的官方网站也没有刊登部长的电邮地址,难道人们不能质疑:到底部长是否拥有或使用他的电邮地址?

陈全坤应先做足功课

本人奉劝陈全坤应该先阅读林吉祥的正式文告,才来要求别人道歉。本人也建议陈全坤在要求他人道歉之前,应首先浏览至少两个网站。第一个就是行动党的正式网站(
http://www.dapmalaysia.org/),第二个就是林吉祥的个人部落格(http://www.limkitsiang.blogspot.com)。如果可以的话,陈全坤应该按此连接,亲自到林吉祥的个人部落格文章(http://limkitsiang.blogspot.com/2005/11/some-10-years-after-msc-most-ministers.html),以亲自了解林吉祥的意见,

如果陈全坤能够查询清楚,林吉祥在其部落格提到:

“It is unbelievable that some ten years after the Multimedia Super Corridor (MSC) initiative, most Ministers still don’t use email. It has been quite a hassle just to get the email addresses of the Ministers of our jumbo Cabinet.(第一和第二段)”

以及最后一段,

“It is clear that there are at least four categories of Ministers with regard to use of email:

(1) Ministers who have no email address for the public to access.
(2) Ministers whose public email are not functional.
(3) Ministers who do not open their own email.
(4) Ministers who do not open their own email or read the email opened for them”

林吉祥在第一段和第二段表示一些部长还是没有用电邮(“还没有用电邮”并不表示“部长没有电邮地址”),因此必须大费周章搜寻部长的电邮。林吉祥的最后一段则针对部门在运用电邮方面所持有的态度而列出各项结论。

显而易见,林吉祥并没有表示林敬益没有电邮地址,而问题也不是部长有没有电邮地址,而是到底为何部长的电邮地址无法在部门的官方网站中轻易地搜寻得到?为何部长不把电邮地址直接刊登在部门的网站上?难道部长的电邮地址是官方机密以致不能随便泄漏?

陈全坤应该先查询清楚、做足功课,而不是在毫无查证之下胡乱要求他人道歉。因此,陈全坤应该收回他要求林吉祥道歉的言论。

欢迎陈耀宗电邮本人

至于种植与原产业部长拿督陈华贵私人秘书陈耀宗受报界访问是表示部长拥有本身官方邮址,而且也有在官方网站上公开。本人非常有兴趣进一步向陈耀宗进一步询问,到底刊登部长电邮地址的网页URL是什么?如果可以的话,本人欢迎陈耀宗能够亲自电邮有关URL到本人的电子信箱:
lauwengsan@gmail.com或lauws@dapmalaysia.info。

行动党领袖电邮地址一目了然

其实,内阁部门应该效仿行动党的网站。行动党网站设计相对简单,也轻易让网民搜寻行动党各级领袖和代议士的电邮地址、通讯地址、电话号码以及传真号码。:
行动党中央领袖(
http://www.dapmalaysia.org/english/cec04-07.html
社青团全国领袖(
http://www.dapmalaysia.org/english/dapsy05-07.htm
国会议员(
http://www.dapmalaysia.org/english/mp.html
州议员(
http://www.dapmalaysia.org/english/sa.html

刘永山
(2005年11月9日)

所有政府官员,包括部长的电邮地址必须公开予公共领域。

所有部长、副部长,政务次长、政府总秘书以及总监的电邮地址必须公开予公共领域,以方便公众人士可以针对政府政策向有关部长直接反应看法,而不是把有关电邮地址收藏起来。

本人于昨日以一天的时间来收集所有内阁部长的电邮地址,以便反对党领袖林吉祥能够直接电邮部长们,以告诉他们马大和理大在2005年《泰晤斯报》大学排行榜的排名剧降的事件中必须承担集体的责任。

整个搜集电邮地址的过程是非常耗费时间的。第一个方法就是尝试从首相署网站中收集所有部长的电邮地址,因为本人记得该网站曾经刊登部长的电子邮件。

本人从32名部长中成功收集22名部长的电邮地址,这包括首相和副首相的电邮地址。本人过后立即把所收集到的电邮地址电邮给国会反对党领袖。

当时还有10名部长还没有得到他们的电子邮件。这10名部长是拿督阿都拉辛,拿督沙菲益阿普达,拿督希桑慕丁,拿督斯理林敬益,拿督斯理赛哈密阿巴,拿督斯理黄家定,拿督威拉冯镇安,拿督斯理拉菲达以及拿督陈华贵。

为了得到这10名部长的电邮地址,本人在早上11时继续尝试从各自部门的网站亲自搜寻他们的电子邮件。首先本人尝试能够在首半小时之内进行一个短小的搜寻,这包括拿督威拉冯镇安的个人网站(http://www.fong.net.my/)。本人还是无法搜寻他们的电邮地址。

本人过后决定致电逐个部门,希望籍此能够与他们的个人助理或高等机要秘书通电,以便能够得到他们的电邮地址。反对党领袖林吉祥也在中午12点致电本人以亲自致电每个部门,以便能够得到部长的电子邮件。

这也是另外一个艰巨的工作,因为大部分部门的电话号码仅仅是该部门的主要电话号码。如果该部门的电话接线员请假,那么有关电话将无法接通。一些部门的电话号码甚至已经不复存在。有鉴于此,本人唯有通过首相署和国会的网站来搜寻所有内阁部长和国会议员的联络资料。

而以下就是本人的搜寻记录:
- 拉菲达的办公室本来只愿意提供其办公室的电邮地址予我,即pejmenteri@miti.gov.my。今天,其部门致电行动党总部,并告诉我们部长的电邮地址是raziz@miti.gov.my。该部门致电的原因是为了要避免任何误会。
- 林吉祥致给拿督慕斯达化和拿督阿兹三苏丁的电邮弹回来。本人然后致电慕斯达化的助理法奥西亚。她表示部长的电邮地址出现问题,并建议本人也把有关电邮再传给她。阿兹三苏丁的办公室则没有任何回应。
- 本人成功在下午联络上高教部部长的办公室。其中一名职员告诉本人部长的电邮地址是drshafie@mohe.gov.my但是本人还是无法与他的助理联络,以确保该电子邮件能够顺利寄送到部长的电子邮箱。当《南洋商报》今天刊登部长的电邮地址时,本人才惊觉部长的电邮地址却变成shafie@mohe.gov.my.
- 至于能源、水供和通讯部部长拿督斯理林敬益医生,本人成功联络上部长办公室,但是其办公室也仅仅提供其助理的电邮地址,即kmlim@tak.gov.my。跟我谈电话的官员表示他不知道部长的电邮。直至今天,本人从《南洋商报》才知道原来部长的电邮是lims@ktak.gov.my 。
- 本人也联络上种植工业和原产业部(部长拿督陈华贵),但是本人也只是得到其助理的电邮地址: pybm@kppk.gov.my
- 房屋与地方政府部部长拿督斯理黄家定的秘书告诉本人部长的电邮地址是menteri@kpkt.gov.my,但是他也建议本人把林吉祥的电邮传真到他的部门。本人过后照办。
- 贸消部部长沙菲益阿普达的助理只愿意告诉本人他的电邮地址,即izhar@kpdnhep.gov.my,并拒绝提供部长的完整电邮地址予本人。
- 至于人力资源部,该部没有任何人士接听本人的电话,而本人在该部的网站只得到ksm@mohr.gov.my的这个电邮地址。至于刊登在《南洋商报》的电邮地址,即fongco@mohr.gov.my,本人无法在该部或部长个人网站中搜寻得到。
- 教育部的网站(http://www.moe.gov.my/)拥有一个称为电邮通讯录(webmail directory)的特别连接(http://10.22.70.10/direktori/carian2.cfm),但是这个连接却是一个无法展示任何内容的网页(dead-link)。
- 至于首相署部长拿督阿都拉辛,本人周一一整天无法接通其办公室的电话。

至于其他本人成功获得部长电邮地址的部门,本人也尝试致电到部长办公室以确保他们确实收到有关电子邮件。虽然如此,很多时候本人的电话如果不是接不通,要不然相关人士还在放假,或者是部长的特别助理暂时跑开一会儿。

一些部门的网站与其把部长的电邮地址刊登在网站内,他们选择开始另一个网页以让浏览者通过该网页把意见和联络资料输入该网页,然后交由网站负责任处理。本人唯一成功的例子只有第二副财长诺莫哈末耶谷,即其助理正式向本人确实在周一已经收到林吉祥的电邮。

在今日早上,本人继续尝试联络教育部、外交部以及首相署部长拿督阿都拉辛的办公室。本人最后只联络上外长拿督斯理赛哈密的助理。其助理只愿意提供他的电邮(ahamed@kln.gov.my),但却不愿意透露部长的电邮地址。这是预料中事。至于阿都拉辛的电邮地址,本人手上拥有其办公室的三个号码,但是这三个号码都无法接通。其中一个更直接转入留言箱(Voicemail)。

这整个过程是一项烦琐的经验,因为大部分部门的官方网站都没有刊登部长的电邮地址。内阁部长应该以身作则,身体力行地配合首相的呼吁,那就是要缔造一个开放、透明和亲民的政府,这首先应从部门的官方网站刊登部长的电子邮件。

刘永山
2005年11月8日

Email addresses of all government officers including Ministers should be published in public domain.

Email addresses of all Ministers, Deputy Ministers, Parliamentary Secretaries, Chief Secretaries (Ketua Setiausaha), Director-General (Ketua Pengarah) should be published in public domain for members of public to drop in any comments and opinions related to their jobs, and should not be hidden away from the public.

I had on yesterday spent one whole day to collect email addresses of all Cabinet Ministers for Parliamentary Opposition Leader, Lim Kit Siang to send an email to them, highlighting to them that they have collective responsibility for the disastrous plunge of University of Malaya (UM) and Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM) in the Times Higher Education Supplement (THES) World University Ranking 2005 on the Top 200 Universities.

It was altogether a time-consuming effort. My first try was to collect those email addresses from the Prime Minister’s Office website as I recall that most Minister’s email addresses are published in that website.

I managed to collect 22 email addresses from a total of 32 Cabinet Ministers, including the Prime minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, which I immediately emailed to Opposition Leader.

The other 10 ministers are Datuk Dr. Abdullah bin Md. Zin, Dato’ Shafie bin Haji Apdal, Dato’ Hishammuddin bin Tun Hussein, Dato’ Seri Dr. Lim Keng Yaik, Datuk Seri Syed Hamid bin Syed Jaafar Albar, Dato’ Dr. Haji Mohd. Shafie bin Salleh, Dato’ Seri Ong Ka Ting, Datuk Wira Dr. Fong Chan Onn, Dato’ Seri Rafidah Aziz and Dato’ Peter Chin Fah Kui.

It was about 11am when I then continue to try my luck with the websites of all these ministries. I spent about half an hour to do a quick check on their websites, including the personal website of Datuk Wira Dr Fong Chan Onn (
www.fong.net.my). Their email addresses remained unavailable.

I then decided to personally called-up their offices with hopes to get their Personal Assistants (PAs) or SUSKs (Setiausaha Sulit Kanan) for the email addresses. Opposition Leader Lim Kit Siang called me at 12noon to instruct me to call them also.

It was another heavy task as telephones numbers obtained from ministry websites are merely main lines for the respective ministries. Nobody will answer the call if the receptionists are on leave. There are also a few ministries whereby the numbers are no longer exist, as such I have to either look up for another numbers with PMO website or the Parliament Website, which keep also keep a records of all contact details of Cabinet Ministers and MPs.

So, these are the results:
- Rafidah’s office was only willing to release this email address to me:
pejmenteri@miti.gov.my. Her office just called me up and informed that Rafidah’s email is raziz@miti.gov.my to avoid any misunderstandings.
- Emails to Datuk Mustapa and Dato’ Abdul Aziz bin Shamsudin were bounced back. And I took up the matter to call both Ministers’ PA. Datuk Mustapa’s PA, Fauziah said there is some problem with his email (
datopa@epu.gov.my) and advised me to forward the email to her as well at fauziahmad@epu.jpm.my. There was no response from Aziz Shamsudin’s office.
- I managed to ring up Ministry of Higher Education in the afternoon. An officer gave me Shafie’s email address (
drshafie@mohe.gov.my) but his PA remained unavailable for me to confirm whether they received the email or not. I am shocked today that Nanyang Siang Pau managed to get his email address to be shafie@mohe.gov.my.
- It is the same for Ministry of Energy, Water and Communications (Datuk Seri Lim Keng Yaik) whereby I only managed to get his officer in his office only gives me his PA’s email address (
kmlim@tak.gov.my). The officer does not know the complete email address of the Minister. I only know about the Minister email address from today Nanyang Siang Pau (lims@ktak.gov.my)
- I called up the Plantation Ministry (Peter Chin Fah Kui) as well but I was only given his PA’s email address:
pybm@kppk.gov.my.
- Ong Ka Ting’s secretary only gave me
menteri@kpkt.gov.my but advised me to fax the the email to him. I faxed it out accordingly.
- Shafie Apdal’s PA only gave me his email address (
izhar@kpdnhep.gov.my) and refused to give me the minister’s full email address.
- Nobody from Ministry of Human resources picked up my call and
ksm@mohr.gov.my is the only email address published on their web. The email address published in today Nanyang Siang Pau, fongco@mohr.gov.my is neither found in the ministry’s website nor his personal website.
- Ministry of Education website (
http://www.moe.gov.my) appears to have a special link (http://10.22.70.10/direktori/carian2.cfm) for webmail directory but it is a dead-link unfortunately
- Nobody from Education Ministry, Foreign Affairs Ministry and Datuk Abdullah Mohd Zin (Minister in the PMD) answered my call yesterday.

For the rest of the ministries which I managed to get their ministers’ email addresses, I did a follow up call but there was either no response, probably their staffs are still on leave or the PAs were unavailable for confirmation.

Instead of publishing ministers’ email addresses on the web, some ministries prefer to ask visitors to leave their contact details and complaints with the ministries' websites.The only success that I have so far is Nor Mohamed Yakcop, whereby his PA confirmed yesterday that they had received the email. The only positive news so far.

This morning, I continue to call the Education Ministry, Foreign Affairs Ministry and Datuk Abdullah Mohd Zin (Minister in the PMD). I only managed to talk to Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar’s PA, Hamed. I am only given his email address,
ahamed@kln.gov.my. As expected, he refused to give me Syed Hamid Albar’s full email address. I have on my hand three numbers on Abdullah Zin but there is no response on calls made to these numbers. One of the numbers even went straight into voicemail.

It was althogether a troublesome and hectic experience as most ministries do not publish minister’s email address on their official websites. Prime Minister’s call for an open, transparent and people-oriented government should be echoed well by Cabinet Ministers by publishing their email addresses in the public domain, in particular their ministries official website.

Lau Weng San
(8th November 2005)

Friday, November 04, 2005

Antara Kayveas, PBT dan Kongsi Gelap.



I found this article in Utusan Kota dated 21st October 2005. The article was written by Radzuan Hassan in his column Macam-macam hal.

In his article, Radzuan condemned the attitude of local councillors of not sensitive to the problems faced by the people.

He described this councillors as "Pak Angguk".

I would like to share a few para of what he said. Those who wish to have a detailed reading can refer to his article published on the day.

Wednesday, November 02, 2005

Aduan terhadap MPPJ kerana gagal mempertahankan kepentingan para pembayar cukai.

Saya telah pergi ke Biro Pengaduan Awam pada pagi ini dan membuat satu laporan aduan denagn BPA berkenaan dengan kegagalan MPPJ untuk mempertahankan kepentingan para pembayar cukai MPPJ. Surat berkenaan adalah seperti di bawah:

=====================================================================

KETUA PENGARAH,
BIRO PENGADUAN AWAM,
JABATAN PERDANA MENTERI,
ARAS 6, BLOK B1,
PUSAT PENTADBIRAN
KERAJAAN PERSEUTUAN,
62502 PUTRAJAYA. 2hb NOVEMBER 2005

Tuan Pengarah,

ADUAN TERHADAP KEGAGALAN MPPJ UNTUK MENJAGA KEPENTINGAN PEMBAYAR-PEMBAYAR CUKAI.

Kami sebagai pembayar-pembayar cukai Majlis Perbandaran Petaling Jaya (MPPJ) ingin membuat aduan rasmi dengan Biro Pengaduan Awam terhadap MPPJ berkenaan dengan kegagalan MPPJ untuk memastikan pegawai-pegawai dan ahli-ahli majlisnya supaya mematuhi undang-undang yang diperuntukkan dalam merancang projek-projek pembangunan di sesuatu tempat

Mahkamah Tinggi Shah Alam pada hari Isnin yang lepas memutuskan bahawa MPPJ perlu membayar pampasan kepada sekumpulan 86 penduduk dari Taman Desaria, Petaling Jaya akibat arahan daripada Hakim Datuk Alizatul Khair Osman Khairuddin apabila MPPJ mengeluarkan kebenaran pembangunan kepada Mentari Properties Sdn. Bhd untuk membina dua blok rumah pangsapuri kos rendah dan gerai-gerai di Taman Desaria, Petaling Jaya.

Antara keputusan-keputusan penting Hakim Alizatul Khair Osman Khairuddin ialah:

1, Keputusan MPPJ untuk memberi kebenaran pembangunan tanapa mengadakan perjumpaan bantahan (objection hearing) dengan penduduk setempat adalah tidak sah dan perjumpaan-perjumpaan seterusnya tidak boleh digunakan untuk mengesahkan kebenaran ini.
2, Perjumpaan bantahan (objection hearing) bukanlah satu formaliti semata-mata tetapi merupakan satu platform yang penting untuk penduduk-penduduk terjejas untuk menyuarakan pendapat-pendapat mereka.
3, Bahawa Majlis Tindakan Ekonomi Selangor (MTES) hanya merupakan satu jawatankuasa di bawah kerajaan negeri dan dengan itu tidak mempunyai kuasa untuk mengeluarkan sebarang pengecualian di bawah Akta Perancangan Bandar dan Desa.
4, MPPJ adalah diarahkan untuk membayar kerugian dan kosnya perlu ditanggung bersamaoleh Mentari Properties Sdn Bhd, defendan yang kedua. Kerugian ini dinilai pada satu tarikh yang akan ditentukan kemudian.

Kami yang juga merupakan pembayar-pembayar cukai kepada MPPJ amat prihatin terhadap kes ini dan kami berpendapat bahawa pampasan MPPJ itu tidak seharusnya datang daripada poket pembayar-pembayar cukai MPPJ, tetapi ianya mesti dibayar oleh mereka yang bertanggungjawab dalam meluluskan projek pembangunan ini.

Dalam satu kolum yang ditulis oleh R.Nadeswaran (The Sun, 25 Oktober 2005), telah dilaporkan bahawa mesyuarat untuk membuat keputusan bagi meluluskan kebenaran pembangunan ini dipengerusikan oleh Yang Di-Pertua MPPJ pada masa itu, Datuk Abdul Karim Munisar dan lima orang lagi ahli-ahli majlis iaitu Dr Wong Chee Yong, Yusoff Hanif, N. Krishnan, Nor Azman Mohd Nor dan Fauziah Mohd Shani. Turut menghadiri mesyuarat itu ialah Pengawai Undang-undang MPPJ Abdul Mutalib Abdul Ali dan Pengarah Perancangan Bandar Sharpiah Marhaini Syed Ali.

Kami berpendapat bahawa pegawai-pegawai dan ahli-ahli majlis di atas yang perlu memikul tanggungjawab yang paling besar kerana kesilapan mereka telah menyebabkan MPPJ terpaksa membuat pampasan kepada penduduk-penduduk ini, yang mana pampasan yang diarahkan oleh Mahkamah Tinggi Shah Alam itu tidak seharusnya ditanggung oleh para pembayar cukai di Petaling Jaya sekiranya pihak MPPJ ingin menjelaskan bayaran pampasan itu dengan menggunakan duit pembayar-pembayar cukai dan bukannya duit daripada mereka yang melakukan kesilapan ini.

Kejadian ini juga merupakan satu lagi contoh di mana ahli-ahli majlis tempatan yang dilantik tidak kompeten dalam melaksanakan tugas mereka sebagai ahli majlis tempatan. Ini disebabkan mereka ini tidak memikul sebarang mandat daripada rakyat melalui pihanraya majlis kerajaan tempatan.

Berkenaan dengan kes ini, Menteri di Jabatan Perdana Menteri, Datuk Seri Mustapha Mohamed telah mencadangkan dalam sidang Dewan Rakyat pada 26hb Oktober 2005 bahawa pembayar-pembayar cukai MPPJ boleh membuat aduan kepada Biro Pengaduan Awam dan beliau juga bersetuju akan melihat ke dalam perkara ini.

Dengan itu, kami berharap pihak Biro Pengaduan Awam dapat menjalankan siasatan terhadap perkara ini dan mengarahkan tindakan diambil terhadapmana-mana pegawai atau ahli-ahli majlis yang melakukan kesilapan ini.

Siasatan segera pihak tuan amat dinantikan dan dihargai. Sekian, terima kasih.

Lau Weng San
Pengerusi PJ Action Team, merangkap Setiausaha Publisiti DAP Selangor.

投诉八打灵再也市议会无法保护纳税人的利益。

我在今天早上前往布城首相署公共投诉局,以针对八打灵再也市议会无法保护纳税人的利益而正式向该局投诉灵市再也市议会。以下是我的投诉信的内容:

=====================================

布城联邦政府行政中心
首相署公共投诉局总监 2005年11月2日

总监先生,

无法保护纳税人而针对八打灵再也市议会作正式投诉。

我们作为一群八打灵再也市议会的纳税人,谨此向公共投诉局投诉八打灵再也市议会,因为八打灵再也市议会无法确保其属下的官员和市议员在规划某一个地方的发展时遵守现有的条规和法令。

在上周一,莎亚南高等法院法官拿督阿利查图·凯尔·奥斯曼在一件由灵市Taman Desaria一群86名居民所发起的案件中判决八打灵再也市议会败诉,并且指示灵市市议会必须赔偿居民的损失。法官是判决灵市市议会给予Menteri Properties私人有限公司在一块(供国能兴建转驳站及一间母语学校)的保留地上兴建两幢廉价组屋及摊位的发展指示为不合法。

法官的判决重点是:

一、八打灵再也市政局(MPPJ)在没有召开反对听证会下给予规划批准是不合法的,过后的听证会并不能使它合法化。
二、听证会不应是应景的官式礼仪,而是一个真正让受影响的居民有机会表达他们心声的平台。
三、即雪州经济行动理事会是一个附属于州政府的委员会,因此它没有权力发出任何豁免城乡策划法令约束的指示。
四、MPPJ被令作出赔偿,而赔偿金将由第2答辩人的 Menteri Properties分担。赔偿金额将在较后时估计。

我们身为灵市市议会的纳税人非常关心此事,因为我们认为灵市市议会所必须作出的赔偿不应该由我们这些无辜的纳税人去承担,而应该由那些负责策划和批准这个发展计划的官员和市议员去负责。

在英文《太阳报》撰写专栏的R·Nadeswaran在其2005年10月25日的专栏中报道指出当时在会议上负责通过这项计划的包括当时主持会议的市议会主席Datuk Abdul Karim Munisar以及其他5名市议员,即Dr Wong Chee Yong、Yusoff Hanif、N. Krishnan、Nor Azman Mohd Nor以及Fauziah Mohd Shani。一起出席该会议的还包括灵市市议会所法律官员Abdul Mutalib Abdul Ali以及城市规划总监Sharpiah Marhaini Syed Ali。


我们认为以上的官员和市议员应该负上最大的责任,因为就是他们的失误导致市议会被莎亚南高庭判为败诉,而且被迫作出赔偿。这项赔偿不应由无辜的灵市市议会纳税人来承担,而应该由这些失误的官员和市议员来承担。

这起事件也是另外一个地方议员在履行任务时失责与疏忽的最佳例子。这是因为他们本身并不受人民的委托,而是通过走后门的方式进入地方议会。

针对此事,首相署部长拿督斯理慕斯达化在2005年10月26日在下议院的一项回答中建议灵市市议会的纳税人向公共投诉局投诉,并答应将会亲自处理这项问题。

因此,我们希望公共投诉局能够针对此事进行调查,并指示有关方面采取行动对付任何任何被发现失责和疏忽的市议会官员和市议员。

我们谨此希望您方能尽速调查此事。谢谢。


刘永山 谨启
八打灵再也火箭行动队主席
兼雪州行动党宣传秘书

Tuesday, November 01, 2005

MPPJ must explain reasons for the delay of the Jalan Universiti road upgrade project

I had on 29 October 2005 faxed and emailed a letter to the YDP of Majlis Perbandaran Petaling Jaya (MPPJ), Dato’ Ahmad Termizi requesting him to explain the delay of the road upgrade project along Jalan Universiti, Petaling Jaya.

The project, which involves the design, construction and completion of an elevated junction at Bulatan Universiti and involving Jalan Dato’ Abu Bakar (Jalan 16/1), Jalan Universiti and Jalan Kemajuan, was started on October 2003 and was expected to be completed by October 2005. However, the project has been idle since one year ago.

DAP Selangor and several PJ branch members have been visiting that area regularly and discovered that the situation is worsening where the left-behind construction site is now covered with grass and trapped water can be seen in many spots along the road where the road widening is supposed to take place.

We have raised this issue with MPPJ and we believe that the current site is an eyesore to Petaling Jaya, especially when PJ will be declared a “city” next year. In view of this, Ahmad Termizi must give a full explanation as to why the project was left idle. Is there any compensation paid by the contractor IJM Construction Bhd to MPPJ for the delay? Or is there any variation order (VO) issued by the contractor, which would prolong the whole construction process? And if so, will there be any temporary precautions taken by the contractor to ensure the safety of road-users?

These questions have to be answered by MPPJ as soon as possible. Most newspapers last Sunday carried reports that work will continue after Hari Raya and that a budget has been approved by the authority to remove underground pipelines and cables. But DAP Selangor has yet to receive any response from MPPJ. We call on the MPPJ to ensure the prompt resumption of the construction work and to give a proper written reply on the delay.

Lau Weng San