Tuesday, September 27, 2011

不准“Undilah”,怎么民主化?


http://lengkekmun.blogspot.com/2011/09/undilah.html

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2011



最近阅读新闻,常常怀疑到底是我自己精神分裂,还是记者精神分裂,抑或是政治领袖精神分裂?

前几天才读到首相矢言政府要把马来西亚打造成“世界上最民主的国家”,相继就发生NTV7描述东马贫困现况的《我要上学》记录片被腰斩、以及由大马音乐人张子夫制作的Undilah(投票吧)”短片被禁止在电视台播放

我上网观赏了“Undilah”短片。如果是专为反对党宣传的作品,被禁止登上电视荧幕早已是我国政府的标准作业程序之一。问题是,短片由头到尾都没有呼吁观众支持哪一个阵营,而只是鼓励大家登记成为选民,并投下手中一票,以决定国家的未来。

这个讯息,有什么问题?

根据报道,大马多媒体与通讯委员会指示寰宇电视和首要媒体集团不准播放这个短片的原因是,巫统话望生国会议员东姑拉沙里在片中指称,大马目前面对很多问题,人们应该以投票来解决这些问题

这个讯息,又有什么问题?

政府是不是认为马来西亚目前没有面对任何问题、举国河清海晏、人人幸福美满,所以任何指称国家面对很多问题的言论,都是谎言,所以不准在电视上播放?

还是政府认为,呼吁人民以投票来解决问题是大逆不道的谋反作乱,所以不能让短片登堂入室?

由上述两道问题所衍生的另外两道问题是,第一,政府难道认定自己是这个国家问题丛生的罪魁祸首?第二,人民如果都以投票来解决问题,被“解决”的一定是政府吗?

如果答案都是否定的话,那为何政府还要禁播“Undilah”

当然,我们的政府向来行事果断,不是所有事情都要向人民交代、解答的。问题是,通常奉行真正民主原则的政府都不会这样。

在高谈什么十万八千里外的“世界上最民主国家”美梦之前,不如先上一堂民主精神的基本课,学习一下开阔自己的心胸,别动不动就搬出一个“”字。我们不奢求成为世界上最民主,以目前的情况来看,只要可以达到民主的合格水平,就值得谢天谢地了。

我是谁?

My Photo
全职良好市民,兼职市场经理,业余专栏作者。

Thursday, September 22, 2011

应该感谢709大集会!


http://lengkekmun.blogspot.com/2011/09/709_19.html



净选盟709大集会落幕两个多月后的今天,目睹一系列后续发展,经过两个月的沉淀反思,你会对它作出怎么样的评价?反对、谴责;还是赞成、感谢?

先来更新一下记忆:

大集会前,马华公会呼吁群众:“以大集会方式抗议,会导致我国陷入动荡,从而影响国家经济。国人应该反对且拒绝参与这集会,千万不要给有心人利用。”除了促请党员不要参与集会,甚至有人建议对参与集会的党员采取纪律行动。

巫统领袖,从首相、副首相到各部长则众口一词:“有人想通过这项集会颠覆社会安全,以夺取国家政权。 ”除了国阵领袖,警方更是从不间断地以逮捕手段来警告群众切勿参与这项集会。

认定709大集会是邪恶大联盟的不明事理者,恐怕不在少数。

两个多月后,首相纳吉民调支持率下降,首相署部长许子根解释:“这是因为警方应对709大集会的手法,引起民众反感。”随后,首相宣布废除内安法令,内政部长希山慕丁解画:“我们花了2年才走到这儿。国内外示威、辩论及净选盟709游行等,促成了首相今晚的宣布。”

咦,净选盟709大集会不是会造成国家陷入动荡的吗?如果是这样的话,应对大集会不是应该打压得越用力、人民就越支持的吗?怎么原来打压709大集会反而引起民众反感、甚至导致首相民调下降?怎么709大集会反而会促成首相宣布废除政府沿用了数十年的恶法?

如此一来,我们应该感谢、还是谴责709大集会?

身为民主社会的一份子,如果你还相信人民才是真正当家作主的,那你就必须先了解一个永恒的事实:执政者不会主动向民意低头,除非他感受到民意的压力。

你要执政者听到你的声音,先确保你的声音够响;你要执政者看到你的立场,先确保你的动作够大

709之后,政府首次正视净选盟的诉求、总算同意来届大选使用不褪色墨汁、终于宣布废除内安法令。。。怎么样,你是不是应该感谢在709为你走上街头去嗅催泪弹捱化学水泡的那5万人?

Sunday, September 18, 2011

看到两线竞争的好处了吗?

http://lengkekmun.blogspot.com/2011/09/blog-post_1037.html

SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 2011


首相纳吉在大马日前夕宣布,政府将废除一系列钳制人权的恶法,包括恶名昭彰的《内安法令》。

这项宣布,只要是脑筋正常的国民,都不会反对。然而,你越是赞同这项宣布,就越是应该在被一些国阵成员党急着献出的鲜花和掌声迷惑之前,梳理出为何政府会做出这个决定的理由?同样的理由,将是为你我开启更多公民权利的钥匙。

当然,民联领袖会落力宣传,这是反对党及民间团体多年来对政府施压的成果。同时间,国阵成员党会极力辩称,这项决定无关选举、无关政治,更无关反对党施压,纯粹是因为现任首相开明理智。

到底谁对谁错?民众无须过于陷入朝野的口水战,而是应该运用本身独立的思考进行分析。

民众首先必须了解民主体制内权力游戏的逻辑。民主体制建立的前提在于对人性的不信任。也正因为不相信政客中会有天使,更不相信掌握权力者会在无须顾虑失去权力的情况下自动自发推动利民政策,尤其是必须以削弱当权者权力为代价的利民政策,所以我们才需要朝野轮替执政的两线制。

不需要把政客摆上神台,他们和你我一样,都是凡夫俗子,自然也超脱不了凡夫俗子的局限。

民联提出“橙皮书”联合政纲和“百日新政”惠民政策,当然是为了赢取民心,赢得选票,进而赢下政权。政党若不想赢得政权,倒不如转型为非政府组织?

同样的,国阵愿意放下身段,俯顺民意废除恶法,当然也是为了留住民心,留下选票,进而留守政权。国阵若不是为了保住政权,难道是承认自己历届首相都是不解民心,只有现任一人懂得体恤民情?

朝野实力的拉近,才是人民真正当家作主的时刻。有望夺下政权的一方,会极力靠拢民意,提出民之所欲的政策;可能失去政权的一方,也会被逼重新正视民意,跟进政敌提出的利民政策。

虽然《内安法令》还未真正废除、虽然即将有两项替代的“新法令”让人民不能开心得太早,但是我们仍然应该为所有曾为促成两线制而付出过努力的民间组织、平民百姓给于一个鼓励的掌声。

掌声之后,再相互提醒,两线制现在仅是雏形,格局随时会打回原形。既然看到了前方的好,就不要再走回头路了。
 
稿投中国报《凌志纵文》

Wednesday, September 7, 2011

鄭丁賢‧馬來西亞交易


http://opinions.sinchew-i.com/node/20805

朋友剛從澳洲回來;他捎回來的消息是,澳洲正在掀起大馬熱。
不過,不算是好消息。
當地最熱門的話題,是澳洲和大馬交換難民計劃;澳洲人稱之為“馬來西亞交易”(Malaysian Deal)。
在這項交易下,澳洲和大馬將交換難民;大馬準備收容滯留在澳洲的800難民,澳洲則將審核接納滯留在大馬的4千難民。
洲總理吉拉德推動這項交換計劃,大馬也欣然接受。


計劃在大馬沒有成為課題(主要是人們摸不清楚究竟在搞甚麼),在澳洲卻是大件事。
澳洲人群起反對,根據一項調查,有78%人民反對這項交換。
報章上是一片撻伐,大城市如悉尼和墨爾本等,還有反對和抗議的布條。
吉拉德的出發點,是解決澳洲最棘手的海上難民問題,也要平息澳洲人對難民湧入的不滿。
幾年前,澳洲工黨上台之後,採取比較寬鬆和人道的難民政策,接納一些外國難民。
這項改變,吸引了很多伊拉克、伊朗、阿富汗、巴基斯坦等中亞國家的人民,前去澳洲。
他們不具備合格的難民身份,不能通過正常管道進入澳洲。既然不能從前門進去,就採取了偏激的走後門途徑。
他們乘坐船隻,來到澳洲水域,強行登陸,或是自行沉船,等待救援。澳洲海防隊不能見死不救,只好把他們帶上岸。
幾年來,240艘船隻達到目的,送進了至少1萬2千海上難民。
這種冒死和以死相逼的手法,澳洲政府束手無策,人民也氣得牙癢癢。
澳洲的人權法律,卻也阻止政府將這些海上難民遣送回原國;於是,一些人獲准居留,一些則被扣留。
在“大馬交易”計劃下,一些海上難民準備送到馬來西亞,交換在大馬滯留,申請第三國收容的合格難民。
吉拉德政府希望計劃一旦落實,可以阻嚇海上難民。嘿嘿,以後再自行沉船,就把你們送到馬來西亞,看你們怕未!
吉拉德以為澳洲人會感激她的做法,但是,計劃宣佈之後,引來相反的反應。
很多澳洲人擔心,這些海上難民被送到大馬,將會遭到“非人道對待”;澳洲的人權組織,更把大馬扣留營許多惡劣記錄公開,嚇壞了很多澳洲人。
民眾的心理,從排斥海上難民,轉為同情他們的遭遇,紛紛為他們請命,反對吉拉德把他們送到大馬。
這股反對浪潮成形,吉拉德的形象大跌,被視為一個“缺乏道德感”的總理。
人權組織還告到法院,控告吉拉德政府違反人權。
澳洲法院判決政府違法,無權把難民遣送到大馬。民間大為歡喜,吉拉德面對垮台。
這是澳洲人可愛之處。談到人權和人道,自己的問題都丟到腦後。
從另一個角度來看,這也看出澳洲人對大馬的印象,哀哉!(星洲日報/馬荷加尼‧作者:鄭丁賢‧《星洲日報》副總編輯)




Monday, August 29, 2011

Kenny Has LFC Back At Rafa’s Level


Kenny Dalglish – the man who, along with Damien Comolli, ‘wasted millions of pounds’ this summer – has put the smile back on our faces.
Aside from those of us who thought it, who’d have thought it?
As one pundit on Sky’s Sunday Supplement put it just a couple of weeks ago, the Reds ‘collapsed’ under Dalglish at the end of last season (losing two games; the world’s smallest ever collapse?), and the club overpaid on a load of average players this summer. And remember, preseason results were sure to have us doomed.
So to have seven points in August – when it took until the end of October last season to reach that mark – is a sign of the club being back on track. And to my mind, that means being back at the level that Rafa Benítez had the club for the majority of his time at the helm.
As ever, some vindictive things were said in the media in relation to Liverpool’s recent history. A fine win against Bolton was used by the ESPN commentator John Champion to criticise Benítez; in reference to a woman in the crowd who was caught yawning near the end of the game, he said “under Rafa, she’d have been asleep 60 minutes ago”.
Benítez was also criticised for failing to get the best out of Lucas, never mind that he bought him as a 20-year-old for just £6m and persisted with him when those too blind to see his quality (i.e. not most of this site’s members) had it in for the lad; not to mention that – funnily enough – young players get better with time and experience (and with the exit of players with bigger reputations, out of whose shadow they can emerge).
Had a player Arsene Wenger bought evolved in the same way, then even had the manager left the club, Wenger would be labelled a genius for finding and helping to develop that talent. Lucas is now some player, and Rafa deserves a large chunk of credit.
By contrast, to the mass media, when it comes to Liverpool’s recent history, Roy Hodgson simply never existed; at least as far as criticism is concerned. He worked miracles at West Brom last season in a short space of time, and fully deserved all the plaudits he got for a remarkable turnaround; but he managed Liverpool for a longer period of time, and yet that gets brushed under the carpet as ‘too little time to make a difference’. Except he did make a difference, for all the wrong reasons.
A more obvious comparison for John Champion to make would have been thelast home game against Bolton, less than nine months ago, to show the dramatic change. On New Year’s Day, at the same late stage in the game, Liverpool were only drawing 1-1 against the Trotters, in front of 10,000 empty seats on one of the traditionally best-attended days in the football calendar. Joe Cole nudged the ball an inch over the line at the death, but it was only papering over the cracks. People weren’t yawning; they simply weren’t attending.
Interestingly, it’s like Hodgson never existed at Liverpool, either. Not one of his six summer 2010 signings has made the starting XI in the Premier League, with most either up for sale, or already sold. Only Raul Meireles – now a squad player – remains part of Kenny’s plans, although he was his only relatively expensive signing. (That said, he did try to get Joe Cole, Paul Konchesky and Christian Poulsen into his first XI.)
This season’s side – and indeed, the match-day 18 – has been comprised of roughly a 50-50 mix of Benítez and Dalglish purchases. Bought by the former were Reina, Agger, Kuyt, Lucas, Skrtel, Maxi, Shelvey, with Spearing and Kelly given debuts by the Spaniard a few years ago. When fit, Glen Johnson will slot back into the XI.
That said, this is clearly becoming Kenny’s team. In have come Suarez, Carroll, Adam, Downing, Enrique, Doni and Henderson.
All the good results since January, and we’ve yet to see Steven Gerrard beyond a handful of the manager’s games. If he can find his old form, then how he links with the incredible Suarez will be fascinating to watch.
Jamie ‘Literally, Top Top Top Literally’ Redknapp is another whose first post-match words of analysis about Liverpool almost always refer back to Benítez; he “overcomplicated” the game, said a man who gives the impression that a lot of things (including finding trousers that fit) are too complicated for him. (Note: it may be that, as a bald 40-year-old, I’m just jealous of his looks. This is true. Of his intelligence, not so much.)
I fully agree that we need to constantly refer back to the recent past to make comparisons. But surely it’s only right to do so with accuracy and fairness? – after all, we’ll never know how far we’ve come if we cannot work out our starting point.
This notion that Liverpool fans were bored by Benítez continues to irritate me. At times, yes, the team could be below par, just as any team can be, and clearly not every fan bought into his approach. (Those who believed the mass media, mostly.)
However, the idea of negativity at home – as espoused by Champion and Redknapp – is belied by the fact that the Reds hold the record winning margin in the Champions League (8-0), and also put four past Real Madrid and Arsenal at Anfield in the same competition. Do dull, methodical teams really do that?
Of course, this was in the Champions League; Benítez ‘wasn’t very good at the domestic stuff’. (Never mind that he averaged 72 points a season, an improvement of seven points a season on his predecessor.)
At times Rafa’s teams took their foot off the gas in league games when winning, but with tough midweek European games coming thick and fast, the need was to balance resources that were not as deep as those of the richer big clubs. That was never going to be a concern against Bolton this weekend, although, of course, Luis Suarez needed removing for his own good (as part of not overdoing it post-Copa America).
Having researched Liverpool’s home goalscoring record since 1998, it’s interesting to see patterns that totally correlate with my preconceived ideas, and, surprise surprise, seem to go against those of the mass media: that Benítez and Dalglish had/have the team scoring lots of goals at home, and that Houllier and Hodgson (whose approaches were similar to one another) performed far worse in this regard.
The samples are still quite low for Hodgson (10 home league games) and Dalglish (11). But as 10 games is more than half a season’s worth of home matches, it’s not insignificant.
It’s fascinating to see that Hodgson and Houllier have identical records: an average of just 1.7 goals per game at home. (Houllier’s record starts from 1999/00, his first full season in charge.)
Another identical record is that of Benítez from 2006 to 2010 (his last four seasons) and Dalglish since his return: 2.18 goals per game.
Both men took over teams that were averaging 1.7 goals a game and improved the scoring rate by a massive 30%.
If most managers improved their team’s home scoring record by 30%, you’d expect them to be lauded. Dalglish is receiving a lot of praise, and quite rightly so.
Of course, this is just 2006-2010 for Benítez; add his first two seasons (in which the Champions League and FA Cups were won) and the home league goals tally drops; his full six-year average is 2.01 goals per game. (Still a 20% improvement on Houllier’s record.)
(As a quick aside, Benítez lost key goalscorer Michael Owen before his first league game, and inherited Djibril Cissé and Milan Baros, two unpredictable strikers. His first expensive striker signing was Torres in 2007, three years into the job. Houllier made his first expensive striker signing in 2000 – Heskey – and Dalglish made two in his first transfer window. In his defence, Hodgson did not get to buy an expensive striker, but did inherit Fernando Torres, who up until then had a terrific scoring record. In today’s money (TPI©), Heskey, Cissé and Torres cost in between the £22.8m paid for Suarez and the £35m paid for Carroll.)
What’s also interesting is that the home league goalscoring record in all six of Benítez’s seasons is identical to Arsenal’s in their five most recent seasons.
Arsenal are seen by all and sundry as the paragons of attacking football, and although they were not at their pre-2004 best in that time, they continued to gain plaudits for their style.
As both Liverpool and Arsenal had squads of similar value – well below those of Chelsea and Manchester United – then the comparison seems valid. (Of course, when Benítez pitched up, Arsenal were miles ahead of the Reds. Liverpool scored just 31 home games in Houllier’s final season, at 1.63 per game, and just 32 the season before that.)
Right now, Liverpool are back in the goalscoring groove at home. My overriding sense that the Reds were in fact far more tedious under Houllier and Hodgson is borne out by the stats. They were the managers whose style was too cautious.
Apparently it’s easy to forget how good Liverpool’s attacking play was with Torres, Gerrard, Alonso, Benayoun and Kuyt tearing holes in defences. Thankfully, while there are some differences in the style, it’s a joy to once again see footballers at the top of their game dragging centre-backs out of position and passes cutting right into the heart of the opposition back line.
It’s not just the scoring of goals. If Liverpool fans were yawning under Benítez, how did he improve the club’s home points haul so significantly? Unsurprisingly, the ability to score goals correlates quite nicely with the ability to win games, even though in theory you could need just 19 goals to win all 19 home games.
In fairness to Hodgson, he wasn’t that much of a disaster at Anfield; it was away where most of the horrors occurred, with just a single win (again, against Bolton).
But even so, Hodgson’s average of 2.oo was worse than Benítez’s poorest season (2.11), and nowhere near the Spaniard’s best (2.53). It was better than Houllier’s worst (1.79 in his final season), but yet again, the two H-men are virtually identical with their overall average: 2.00 of Hodgson to 1.97 of Houllier. Is this all coincidence?
At the moment, Dalglish is averaging 2.40 points per home game, which is not quite up with Rafa’s best of 2.53, but slightly better than his six-year average of 2.29.
The problem under Benítez was the away form, which was inconsistent. A couple of the seasons were poor, although another couple (2005/06 and 2008/09) were amongst the very best in the club’s history (2008/09 equalled the club record for number of wins, 13 games).
Resurgence
As has been documented, Dalglish has spent quite a lot of money to provide this resurgence, but it’s not been without losing good players, too, to help rebuild. If he’d spent £100m but been able to keep Torres as well (and had him scoring goals at the three-in-five rate the Spaniard briefly delivered under him), then you’d have more right to expect a title challenge.
As it is, Chelsea, Man United and Man City have been spending lots of moneywithout recouping much from sales. They’ve been strengthening without losing anything, although United did prune the squad of some older stars and lose their goalkeeper. I stagger to think what City’s wage bill is right now, but it’s something Liverpool cannot get remotely close to. In time, with the club now being better run, and the FFP rules due to arrive, things might level out a bit.
All Liverpool can do is look to improve, and that’s what the Reds are doing. The new signings are playing their part.
Despite apparently ‘overpaying for his services’, Stewart Downing has looked excellent in every game he’s played. Liverpool ‘needed the winger they lacked under Benítez’, but it’s been his ability to move infield that has caught the eye, rather than anything near the touchline. (Lee Dixon, one of the few pundits I tend to agree with, praised Downing for constantly drifting into areas the full-back hated to travel into. So, rather than supply width, he’s been an out-to-in winger.)
Downing has popped up in central or inside-left and right goalscoring positions on numerous occasions, and forced great saves against Arsenal and Bolton, and hit the bar against Sunderland. But in tandem with the equally impressive Enrique, it seems that one area where the Reds are now better than in recent memory is on the left flank.
(A major journalist, who just happens to have been one of Rafa’s biggest critics, labelled Enrique as slow when Dalglish purchased him. This is also someone who said that Hodgson would turn Liverpool into a great attacking team to banish the boredom seen under Benítez. For the record, Enrique chose football over becoming an Olympic sprinter.)
The good news is that, just as they were for almost all of Rafa’s tenure, the Reds are back in the top four, and look capable of putting up a good fight to stay there.
Liverpool had their faults under Benítez, just as they did under all of their managers (even Shankly). But being boring at home was surely not one of them.
In Rafa’s final three seasons the Reds averaged 2.23 goals a game at Anfield, scoring more than 40 in each campaign and never winning fewer than 42 points, and we’d all settle for that this season.

Tuesday, August 16, 2011

The Economist: Malaysia’s Penang state Getting back its mojo

http://www.economist.com/node/21525968

After a slump, an early engine of globalisation is thriving again
IF YOU are going to have a heart attack, have it in Penang. So one might think, to the see the hospitals in George Town, the capital of this north-western Malaysian state. Patients are flocking in. Ted Mohr, the head of the venerable Penang Adventist Hospital says that he will admit 70,000 medical tourists this year. The hospital specialises in heart procedures and it will perform roughly 23,000 of them this year, including 550 open-heart operations. Such is the demand that the hospital is doubling its number of beds.
Mr Mohr gives two main reasons for Penang’s success with the coronary crowd. First, it is relatively cheap. Open-heart surgery that would set you back $100,000 in America costs only about $10,000 in Penang. Second, Penang’s hospitals are as well-equipped as many in the West.
The combination of low cost and high technology is the main reason why industries across the state of Penang, made up of the original island and a larger bit of the mainland, are prospering again after more than a decade of decline. Their revival is important to Malaysia’s economy—Penang and the surrounding region account for 21% of the country’s GDP. But the renaissance could also have important political consequences for the country. Since 2008 Penang has been one of only four states (out of 13) run by an opposition party. If its politicians can claim the credit for the recent success, that should greatly help the opposition in the next general election, expected within the year.
Penang was founded as a free port by the British in 1786. Occupying a position between India and East Asia, the island drew merchants and middlemen keen to make their fortunes. Chinese, Indians, Armenians, Arabs and more all traded alongside each other. With its racial and religious mix, and dedication to the pursuit of free trade, Penang was in many ways the first custom-made city of globalisation.
The island’s fortunes sank as it lost business to its arch-rival, Singapore. In the post-colonial period Penang fell victim to the rise of nationalism. The region’s freshly minted republics chose to develop their own ports. Penang enjoyed a revival during the 1970s with the setting-up of Malaysia’s first free-trade zone (a “free port” by another name); this attracted big names in electronics, like Intel and Bosch, which built some of the first offshore assembly lines. But this boom was founded on cheap labour, and as Malaysia became richer other emerging economies, such as China and Vietnam, drew the assembly work away.
To recover its prosperity, Penang has sought to reinvent itself. With the rise of India and China, Penang’s location again looks very handy to foreign companies as a place to invest, as in the 18th century. It is relatively close to both big markets—yet offers advantages that trump Asia’s giants’.
Penang’s own “Silicon Valley” companies know that the rule of law in Malaysia gives them the sort of protection for patents and intellectual property they would not enjoy in China, and an ease of doing business that they could not find in India. Wages are higher than they were, but no more so nowadays than on the Chinese seaboard. The federal government has also spent liberally on bridges and the airport, making Penang better connected to the rest of Asia. And old George Town has been smartened up, which helps to bring in foreigners to live, work—and have surgery.
The result is another boom. Last year more investment poured into the state than any other in Malaysia. Scores of new electronics firms have swooped in to join the pioneers, along with an expanding cluster of 20 or so medical-device manufacturers. Crucially, most of the new jobs are in research and development rather than assembly. An American chip-designer, Altera, has a new facility with 1,100 workers in Penang, 800 of them engineers. Its head says that almost all the engineers are locals—which is good for Malaysia.
Whom to thank?
When the Democratic Action Party won the state’s legislative assembly three years ago, it became the first opposition party to triumph in Penang in more than 40 years. The victory presented a direct challenge to the Barisan Nasional (BN) coalition that has ruled the country continuously since independence in 1957. Penang’s new leader, Lim Guan Eng, says that the federal government has an “ambivalent” attitude towards him, cutting off some funding but not undermining his authority. “They don’t want us to get any credit, but they can’t afford to see us fail”.
The revival of Penang was already under way in 2008, but Mr Lim’s new policies have helped it along. He has become the first governor in Malaysia to open up all state tenders to competition. This has entailed dismantling the special preferences for ethnic Malays that have underpinned the BN’s rule since the early 1970s. That was when the Malay majority institutionalised affirmative action for themselves, to the disadvantage of ethnic Chinese (a majority in Penang), who were perceived to have got unduly rich. Mr Lim claims that by reforming the system he has ended the cronyism and corruption that wasted money under previous regimes.
Adapted to the national stage, such policies could transform the way that the Malaysian federal government conducts business. Mr Lim says that the savings he has made by ending the “old systems of patronage” allow him to spend money on new social programmes instead, such as modest handouts for the elderly. These policies are popular, and the assault on corruption pleases foreign investors. Little wonder, then, that Penang has become a political weathervane as much as a lesson in economic development.

Monday, August 15, 2011

鄭丁賢‧真正的冠軍

http://opinions.sinchew-i.com/node/20500
2011-08-15 09:06
已經是凌晨4點了,我還在電視機前,為在倫敦舉行的世界羽球錦標賽而不眠。
場內是林丹對彼德蓋特,兩人打了兩局,各贏一局,相持不下。
林丹依然是超級丹,那麼的強勢凌厲,像是草原上的獅王,準確的抓住每一個機會,無情的獵殺對手。
此刻的丹麥人彼德蓋特,就像是一隻被追擊的羚羊,只能奮力的搏鬥。
35歲的彼德蓋特,以一般運動員的年齡衡量,已經是老人家,早就應該退休,改坐在教練席或觀眾席。
但是,他還在球場上堅持,對抗年輕強悍的對手,對抗侵蝕體能的歲月。
在激烈的球場上,他用盡了每一分氣力,搶救每一個險球,抓緊每一個進攻的機會,抗衡超級丹狂風暴雨式的衝擊。
電視上出現彼德的特寫,臉露青筋,但是依然堅毅。
超級丹面對不放棄的彼德,一時無措,不再得心應手。
到了第三局下半,超級丹加快速度,球路更加詭異,逐漸把彼德甩開,最終贏了比賽。
敗下陣的彼德,露出微笑,高舉雙手向觀眾致謝。
再一次,他戛然而止,未能攀上最高峰。以運動員生涯計算,他或許再也上不了最高峰,而是逐漸從山峰上滑落下來。
但是,每一次,他依然堅持的要攀上去。
這一夜,我不在乎林丹或李宗偉誰能稱霸,心目中,彼德已經是冠軍。
是甚麼力量,讓他和歲月抗衡?
是哪來的意志,讓他在一次又一次的失敗之後,繼續走下去?
這應該是一種真正的運動員精神。
在丹麥,羽毛球不再是強項;民間追捧足球,冷落了羽球,企業熱衷贊助足球,忽略了羽球。
彼德和其他羽球員,並沒有獲得特別的照顧;有時候要集訓或出國比賽,還得自行找贊助商才能成行。
然而,彼德和他的同僚們,基於對羽球運動的熱愛,以及對本身選擇的堅持,而沒有後悔放棄。
球壇,一如人生。
如果害怕失敗,就會選擇放棄和逃避。像是彼德,乃至眾多沒沒無聞的選手,如果沒有他們的參與,羽壇上就只有林丹和李宗偉,那就不叫體育,而是競技。
同樣的,生活上,有很多永遠不可能成為冠軍的人,因為他們熱愛工作和生活,享受參與,積極努力,才有社會整體的進步。
彼德是冠軍運動員,在於他熱愛羽球,享受比賽,在球壇發出光和熱,而不是抱怨對手太強,埋怨國家不支持他,遺憾自己年齡漸高。
人生的真正冠軍,不在於擊敗對手,而在於能夠接受挑戰,超越自己,為家庭和社會付出心和力。