Wednesday, April 21, 2021

無關標籤,只談態度

 最近關心民主行動黨的朋友對許多標籤感到迷惑。不管是否是黨員,大家都很好奇地問:到底我要如何把我認識的行動黨議員或領袖進行歸類。很可惜的是,大家到最後都是無功而返,因為貼標籤的人物從來都不會為這些標籤進行一定程度的定義或詮釋。

既然沒有定義,那麼要依靠這些標籤行走江湖的人物就可以長期輕易地遊走於灰色地帶。這種操作方式尤其是在選舉期間更為明顯。最終,爭論淪為互扣帽子。

說明白,這和行動黨的鬥爭路線或主義完全沒有關係。這些標籤之所以會出現,純粹是選舉考量所在。有了這些標籤,操弄者就可以淡化所有關於個人的操守和行為問題。

因此,只要我們把這些貼上去的標籤拿走,反而正視或監視貼標籤者的過去和現在的言行舉止,反而更容易看清事實的全部。

例如:選民或黨員若要更精準地評估政治人物(包括我自己)的表現,更好的標準應該是監視這個政治人物在掌握權力和職位的時候做過和說過什麼話,而不是在這個政治人物下野或不掌控權力或職位時說過或做過什麼東西。

你會發現有些人之前位高權重,其言論的花兒當時開得大,但是後來的行為結果卻非常小。

他們在位時若有東西是他她答應了,卻辦不好或辦不成,他或她是否曾經道歉和解釋為何辦不成?如果有,他或她的理由是否合理?大家得到的教訓是什麼?日後如果有機會再來一次,我們要如何避免重犯?如果有政治人物能夠如此坦誠對待大家,我相信這也沒有什麼好爭議的。

對於現在我們看到的標籤。如果再把時間再拉長和拉遠一點來看,你會發現貼標籤的人過去也曾經說過同樣的言論。就拿“多元化”來說,有者認為多元化是應該凸顯多元族群色彩,讓大家看到各族群的色彩是同等鮮明。持不同論述的人則認為必須突出弱勢族群的色彩來對比強勢族群。

這樣一看,到底誰是誰非呢?其實是看不出對錯的,但是如果同一個人在不同的時間或空間曾經前後不一,那就非常有趣了。

因此,與其爭論何者論述更為正確,(而這樣的爭論也是沒有意義的),倒不如監視為何有人前後不一?到底他們葫蘆裡賣甚麼藥?就好比之前我提到,有人似乎非常喜歡消費馬哈迪來抬高或突出自己“反馬”的形象。事實是,希盟已經決定支持安華出任首相,幹嘛還拿馬哈迪來消費?

這裡面完全和路線或標籤沒有關係,只有心態正確與否的問題。
 
劉永山

Wednesday, April 14, 2021

希盟必須認清誰是敵友

 最近傳出安華與巫統主席扎希的電話錄音,引起眾人與媒體矚目。在政治圈,尤其是馬來社會的政治圈,朝野領袖一般的社交互動確實是相當頻密,但是問題在於安華和扎希兩人是否已經達致某種程度的默契來推翻國盟政府,然後在大選以後掌控足夠的議席共同執政,這乃問題的關鍵。

因此,政治上朝野博弈到底如何較勁,最終還是有可為有可不為。希盟是否要和巫統合作,首先須看到底是如何合作?換句話說,就是如何定義“合作”?

因此,希盟除了必須加快步伐為來屆全國大選做準備,也必須先解決關於和希盟以外黨團人士“合作”的問題。合作是否等同於共組聯盟?如果是,那麼巫統是否願意接納希盟的鬥爭原則與議程?如果是,巫統是否真心誠意地接納希盟的鬥爭議程與原則?希盟必須從過去與土團黨和伊斯蘭黨的合作經驗來決定如何處理和巫統的關係。

如果合作不一定等同於共組聯盟,那麼還有什麼合作方式?大選時分開對打國盟,大選後來拿各自贏取的議席再回到談判桌討論?這樣的做法是否會因政治不確定而讓國家經濟陷入更不穩定的局面?

希盟在最近結束的幹訓營表示將會以人民利益以及烈火莫熄議程和原則和希盟以外的任何人士協商與合作。這個議決案為未來的合作模式的立下一個很清晰穩固的基礎。

希盟領導層會有這樣的議決案,乃因為種種客觀環境顯示僅靠希盟三黨現有的能力不足以拿下大多數的國會議席執政聯邦政府。希盟需要盡快鑑定敵人與盟友。如果敵友不分,來屆大選可能陰溝裡翻船。

希盟也必須處理好議席談判。如果來屆大選出現的是三國鼎立的競爭局面,那麼希盟只需決定如何分配土團黨遺留下來的空缺。在沙巴,希盟應該繼續維持與民興黨的合作。如果民興黨真的西渡半島,那麼希盟也可能必須和民興黨進行這方面的談判。在砂州,希盟繼續上屆的選舉策略。然而在這樣的情況之下,到底以民主行動黨和人民公正黨為骨幹的砂州希盟能夠從砂盟手上拿下多少個國會議席?

此外,希盟比須盡快敲定誰是希盟首相人選。目前希盟已經決定繼續支持安華成為希盟的首相人選。這是希盟一大好事,可是既然已定,希盟內的有心人士實在沒有必要在這個課題上添亂。

這是因為有者現在還一直對敦馬窮追猛打,似乎把敦馬看成是希盟的首相人選。此乃轉移視線之舉,並且有企圖借攻擊敦馬來抬高自己的形象。這樣的做法不僅沒有必要,也是自私的,畢竟希盟已經議決由安華出任首相。

既然安華將出任希盟首相,如果他能夠讓希盟三黨達成共識組成影子內閣。雖然從現在到來屆大選時日不多,長則一年半載,短則半年左右,但是希盟如果能夠在這個時候端出一個影子內閣,以更有效的方式制衡國盟,相信將會對國盟政府構成更有威脅力的攻擊,讓國盟政府以更快的速度自我瓦解。時不予己,希盟和安華必須快馬加鞭!

劉永山

Monday, April 12, 2021

ECRL3.0 – Why the silence on Azmin Ali, Ahmad Yunus Khairi and Dr Xavier Jayakumar?

Media statement by PH-DAP ADUN for Banting, Selangor LAU Weng San on 12th April 2021 in Banting:

It comes as a total shock to the people of Selangor and Kuala Langat when Minister of Transport Wee Ka Siong arbitrarily announced on 5th April 2021 that the Federal Government has that Section C of the ECRL from Mentakab to Port Klang has been reverted to the original Northern Alignment as proposed in 2016.

It was also reported that this is following the cabinet's decision on 2nd Sept 2020, which approved the alignment, and in another meeting on 31st March 2021, pushed for immediate implementation of the northern alignment project, which connects Mentakab to Port Klang through Bentong, Gombak and Serendah.

I wonder if the former Menteri Besar of Selangor Azmin Ali, who was part of the Cabinet meeting on 2nd Sept 2020 and 31st March 2021, could shed some light on such decision as the state government under his leadership in 2016 and 2017 has been extremely critical and was in disagreement of the Northern Alignment.

The Southern Alignment was proposed and adopted by both Selangor state government and the then Pakatan Harapan federal government after 2019 when Azmin Ali was the then Economic Affairs Minister.

Ironically, after the fall of Pakatan Harapan federal government in February 2020, the turncoat minister, who managed to retain his cabinet position, has not been shedding a light at all on how the Section C Alignment can be reverted to the 2016 Northern Alignment.

Together with about 31 photos and slides posted by Wee Ka Siong in two Facebook postings dated 5th and 6th April 2021, there are very little credible information on hand to support Wee’s statement that the Northern Alignment with minor amendments is a better alignment.

The Southern Alignment will benefit mostly the people of Sijangkang in specific and the people of Kuala Langat in general. Therefore, I also urge PAS Selangor Assemblyman for Sijangkang, Dr Ahmad Yunus Khairi and Kuala Langat MP, Dr Xavier Jayakumar, who is now an independent MP supportive of the Federal Government under the leadership of Perikatan Nasional not too long ago, to also come forward to explain to the people of Kuala Langat on why a sudden charge of alignment. Their collective silence on this matter is clearly deafening.

The questions or concerns they should answer or assist the Ministry of Transport to answer are:

1.    Little information available on Northern alignment in public domain. Justification with solid researches and feasibility studies are needed as ECRL has never been an affordable project in the first place.

Despite all the slides published by the Minister in his social media platform, no further citation was quoted to reflect and strengthen their arguments. In short, what Wee Ka Siong said publicly or posted in social media are bare talks or political rhetoric.

For example, Northern Alignment could have affected less residential area, less Orang Asli/Malay reserve land and less land acquired but it does not reveal the number of houses or households affected.

It does not reveal the acreage of the size of reserve land affected. For Southern Alignment, most of these works are almost completed and the figure presented are close to accurate. The same cannot be said for the Northern Alignment.

There are also saying that the Northern Alignment can further spur the capacity of ECRL as it is estimated that ECRL3.0 can carry 26 million tonnes of cargo even in the first year of its operation, which is more than 4 times of KTMB’s current nationwide cargo transportation capacity. The logic behind it is that Serendah Bypass could serve more cargo from northern Peninsula.

However, one must not forget that Penang Port is currently the third largest deepwater seaport in Malaysia and is handling about 1.5 million TEUs containers annually (full capacity of a twenty-foot container is about 50,000 lb or 23 metric tonnes), which is on an increasing trend since ten years ago. The Ministry of Transport must explain how these figures can be translated into 26 million metric tonnes of cargo annually in 2027?

2.    Serious doubt on cost justification – There will be more civil engineering works under the new version of Northern Alignment, which includes tunneling cost and the construction of the two draw bridges linking Jalan Kastam station with both North Port and West Port.

It is public knowledge that tunneling cost is always an expensive elements in any civil engineering works. Also, land acquisition for the Northern Alignment largely consists of residential, commercial and industrial lands whereas there are more agriculture lands on the Southern Alignment.

Until and unless the Ministry of Transport reveals more information, the statement that the cost of ECRL2.0 to cost only RM50 billion is lower than the cost of ECRL2.0 through Southern Alignment and the construction of Serendah Bypass combined does not hold water.

One should not forget the strategic position of Nilai to serve as an equivalent important inland port and cargo hub for the southern part of the Peninsula. In addition to that, KLIA Sepang and Putrajaya are located within the vicinity of ECRL3.0 to boost connectivity. Ideally speaking, the construction of Serendah Bypass and ECRL2.0 passing through Nilai will be the best available option

3.    Land acquisition cost – If Selangor State Government were to assist in the land acquisition on behalf of the Federal Government now, then the cost estimation will be based on current value, which will be much higher as compared to the Southern Alignment. Moreover, technical studies, including feasibility studies, cost and survey for land acquisition for Southern Alignment has commenced since 2019 and are based on land value two years ago.

Since the Federal Government has decided to accelerate the progress of the construction of Section C of ECRL, then the natural option will be picking up an option to avoid cost increment due to unforeseen circumstances, which are highly possible in many mega projects. With Southern Alignment, MRL can immediately roll into action without further delay. Given that time is of essence and this project cannot sustain any cost overrun due to time delay, is it not advisable to take the Southern Alignment rather than to risk more uncertainties with Northern Alignment?

Azmin Ali, Ahmad Yunus Khairi and Dr Xavier Jayakumar have not uttered a single word on ECRL3.0 for one week since its announcement on 5th April. I wish that they could break the deafening silence and provide the people of Kuala Langat the long awaited answers.

LAU Weng San.
Member of Selangor State Legislative Assembly for Banting, Kuala Langat.

Wednesday, April 07, 2021

外交場合無大哥小弟之分

外交場合並沒有所謂的大哥小弟或大姐小妹之分,只有大國或小國之分。

日前後門政府的外交部長,即巫統黨籍的希山慕丁在一場和大陸外交部長王毅的記者會上以幾近嬉皮笑臉的方式公開稱呼王毅是“我的大哥”,掀起風波。

希山慕丁被批評為矮化馬來西亞作為一個主權國家的地位,甚至王毅也不好意思回應“我們是兄弟”。言下之意,就是說,“不,我們之間哪有大哥小弟之稱,都是兄弟之情。”

希山慕丁在國際場合丟失禮儀,回到國內僅僅草草回應了事。這是非常不負責任,也影響馬來西亞外交部工作人員的士氣。

所謂君子無戲言,在外交場合也是這樣。在任何一個外交場合,並不存在個人感情,而是大小國家之間在利益上的相互制衡。

什麼是大國或小國?這在國際法律上並沒有統一的定義。大國可以是一個國土遼闊、經濟、科技、軍事實力雄厚或文化語言底蘊深厚的國家。

什麼是小國?我們可不可以說:凡是沒有擁有大國條件的國家,一律都是小國?

雖然國際場合並無大小兄弟之分,但是因為有了不同大國的出現,小國則必須依靠許多國際公約來約束大國的行為,維護小國的合法權益。

《1961年維也納外交關係國際公約》第14條文闡明三種外交使節。第一就是各國派遣的外交大使,第二就是各國元首或政府首腦,第三就是各國負責掌管外交事務的部長。

在任何的國際社交場合或會議,這三類外交使節都是各國的官方代表,也享有某種程度的免控權。希山慕丁是馬來西亞外交部長,他在所有國家場合代表的不是他自己,而是馬來西亞。他的所有談吐與言行舉止都是實實在在地反映馬來西亞的官方立場。

我還記得三年前當希盟上台,當時的首相馬哈迪在和大陸總理李克強在討論如何重組所有在國陣時期簽署的大型基本建設項目後出席記者會。當時馬哈迪說:“國際之間要有自由貿易之外,也得要公平貿易” 。他的這番話代表馬來西亞的官方立場,因為我國必須重新和大陸談判這些價格過高的基建項目,保護我國人民的利益。

當時的李克強當然不會公開稱呼馬哈迪是他的大哥,甚至是他的爸爸,因為馬哈迪代表的不是一個芳齡九十多歲的長者,而是一國政府之首腦。現在看回希山慕丁,他稱呼王毅是“我的大哥”肯定是過度熱情,有失國際禮儀之嫌。

馬來西亞如果要在國際場合獲得有尊嚴的待遇,不能對大國阿諾奉承、唯唯諾諾或畢恭畢敬,或是對關係本身主權問題出現模棱兩可的立場,反之必須在必要的時候挺直腰骨,捍衛權益和立場。

既然王毅是希山慕丁的大哥,請問大陸當局針對南海主權訴諸的九段線,身為小弟的希山慕丁是否要屈膝鞠躬?

劉永山