Yes, but the question is how? (UPDATED with Chinese Translation)

Let us discuss the salient points in these two Election Manifestos, though not in order of priority or importance (since each person will have different priorities on what they expect from life). And the first item would be the issue of abuse of power, corruption, cronyism, nepotism, mismanagement of the country’s wealth, and so on.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

I have been observing with interest without much comment since the announcement of the dissolution of Parliament and thought that maybe today I would write something as food-for-thought for Malaysia Today’s readers.

You may have noticed that I like to write controversial pieces and would usually take the opposing side in a debate or argument just so that, as I always say, I can throw the cat amongst the pigeons. For example, when people take a stand opposing the Islamic Sharia law of Hudud, I take a stand supporting its implementation and when people take a stand propagating that law I take a stand opposing it.

People ask me why I do that. Well, I suppose it is in my genes. It is what I do. More importantly, however, it teaches people to think and if they disagree with my stand then they would be forced to argue their case in defense of their stand. No doubt this does not always work as planned. In some instances, when people do not have the ability to debate with decorum and civility, they resort to name-calling, swearing and cursing.

I suppose we can only blame these people’s parents who did not bring them up the right way. I remember my teenage days when I visited the homes of my Chinese school-friends. The whole family would be playing mahjong and the children would scream tiu niamah in front of their parents whenever they got a weak ‘card’.

Hence, when children scream tiu niamah over the mahjong table in front of their own parents you can imagine why they are so coarse and rude when they comment in Malaysia Today. It is the way they were brought up by their parents.

Anyway, that is not the point of what I want to say today. What I do want to talk about is the promises made in the run-up to the coming general election, which some call Election Manifesto and some call Akujanji (I promise).

There appears to be some confusion or misunderstanding about the meaning and implication of an Election Manifesto. In the past, the Bahasa Malaysia translation of Election Manifesto was Manifesto Pilihanraya. Now that it is being called Akujanji makes it even more confusing, especially since Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim, the Selangor Menteri Besar, said that an Election Manifesto is not a promise.

The voters need to be told whether this is a firm commitment or merely an aspiration. And they also need to be told that there is a difference. For example, I aspire to become rich but since I am unemployed and am surviving on welfare that aspiration will remain unrealised. However, if I borrow a million dollars from the bank and I invest this million together with another million of my own money into a business that can turn water into oil, then definitely that aspiration will become reality.

The thing is, I may aspire, but the question is how do I plan to meet that aspiration? That is what appears missing in these election promises being made by both sides of the political divide.

Hindraf says that Pakatan Rakyat stole their Manifesto while Pakatan Rakyat says that Barisan Nasional stole theirs. In that case I need not address the Pakatan Rakyat and Barisan Nasional Election Manifestos separately since both are duplicates of each other.

Let us discuss the salient points in these two Election Manifestos, though not in order of priority or importance (since each person will have different priorities on what they expect from life). And the first item would be the issue of abuse of power, corruption, cronyism, nepotism, mismanagement of the country’s wealth, and so on.

Now, while everyone claims that reducing or eliminating corruption is going to be one area of priority, can we be told how this is going to be done? The aspiration of attacking corruption is commendable. How we are going to achieve that is more important.

For example, are we going to send convicted corrupt government officials and politicians to the firing squad like they do in China? Or are we going to execute them by chopping off their heads like in Saudi Arabia? Or maybe cut of their hands like in Afghanistan?

You see: corrupt people do not fear God. In fact, they may not even believe in God. Hence it is pointless to try to put the fear of God in them. We need a stronger fear factor. And a bullet in their head or their head chopped off or their limbs severed may be a stronger deterrent to corruption.

And how do we gain a conviction? Most times, just from their lavish lifestyle, we know these people are corrupt. But to prove it in court is another thing. Less than 1% of corrupt people actually get sent to jail. Can we, therefore, do what they do in Iran (or used to do back in the days of the Revolution of 1979)? In Iran, they torture (or tortured) suspects to gain a confession and after they confess to these crimes these people are executed.

So you see, we need to know the modus operandi that is going to be applied. Having an aspiration to reduce or eliminate corruption is one thing. Being able to achieve it is another thing altogether. So we need to know how this is going to be achieved. And that is missing from the election promises.

The next thing is about the people’s welfare. This, of course, would involve a few things such as education, health, safety, quality of life, and so on. We will need details on how the people’s welfare is going to be taken care of. And if we talk about change then we need to be brave (plus honest) and talk about a paradigm shift. And if we are not brave enough in committing ourselves to this ‘revolutionary change’ then nothing much is going to change.

I have written about all these issues more than once in the past so I do not think I need to repeat myself here. Nevertheless, at the risk of boring you with the ‘same old story’, allow me to summarise the issues as briefly as I can (and being brief is not something within my nature, as you may well be aware).

Will all Malaysian citizens irrespective of race, religion and gender be guaranteed a place in school, college and university?

Will all Malaysian citizens irrespective of race, religion and gender be guaranteed financial assistance to attend school, college and university if they deserve and require financial assistance?

Will the poverty level be reset at a more realistic level — say RM2,000 for the big towns and cities and RM1,500 for the rural areas — and will all those families living below this poverty level be guaranteed financial assistance to attend school, college and university if they deserve and require financial assistance?

Will a National Health Trust be set up so that all Malaysian citizens can receive good and free healthcare even in private hospitals, the cost to be borne by the National Health Trust?

Now, these are just some of the issues and certainly not the only ones. However, to me, education, health and the safety and welfare of our citizens take priority over all other issues. Hence we need a strong welfare, education and healthcare system to achieve this. And of course someone has to pay for this ‘welfare state’, if that is what you would like to call it.

Petronas brings in billions in revenue. The states receive only 5% of this while 95% goes to the federal government. Say the states’ share is increased to 20%, as what Pakatan Rakyat promises. Can, say, 5% be paid to a National Health and Education Trust so that all Malaysian citizens living below the poverty level can receive free education and healthcare without exception?

A law can be passed in Parliament, say called the National Trust Act, where Petronas, by Act of Parliament, pays 5% of its oil revenue to this Trust. This National Trust then pays for the cost of education and healthcare to those registered with the Welfare Department. They are then given a National Trust Registration Number where with this they can qualify for free education and healthcare.

Of course, we need to fine-tune the mechanics to weed out those who do not qualify or who no longer qualify because their income has already exceeded the poverty level. Whatever it may be, the system must be colour-blind. If you deserve it you get it, never mind what race, religion and gender you may be. And that would automatically make the New Economic Policy irrelevant without even needing to officially abolish it.

Note that the points above are just examples of some of the issues and in no way make the list complete. If I want to cover every issue then this piece needs to run into 20 pages. Nevertheless, I trust this demonstrates the point I am trying to make in that the aspirations in the Election Manifesto is only the skeleton and what we now need to see is some meat on that skeleton.

*****************************************************

是的，但問題是，我們應該怎麽做？

現在，讓我們來談談這兩份宣言的重要事項。請記住，我的論點是不按重要性來分先後的（因爲重要性的先後是人人不同，很客觀的。而我要談的第一點是和濫權相關的（如貪污、裙带关系、不當管理財政等。

原文：Raja Petra Kamarudin

译文：方宙

自從國會解散后，網絡上出現了很多有意思的爭論，而今天我想就這些爭論上提出看法，希望我的看法能夠成爲MT讀者們的‘思想糧食’。

你們可能注意到，我會常寫些具爭議性的文章，且我經常會為反方站臺。如，儅人們反對落實回教法時我會提出贊同的言論。別人問我為何會那麽做，我想這可能是我的基因吧，這就是我的作風。但更重要的，我希望人們會動腦筋思考。如果他們想反駁我的話，他們必須提出論據。然而並不是每一次他們都會這樣的，有些人詞窮時會用罵髒話、詛咒等來回應。

我想可能是他們父母沒把他們教好吧。我記得我年輕時去拜訪我一個華人同學，當時他們家人正在打麻將。那些小孩在摸到一手坏牌時會儅他們長輩面前大罵‘屌你老媽’！所以你在此可以想象爲何他們可以如此粗魯的在網絡上發言了；他們的父母是如是教養的。

話説回來，這不是我今天的重點。我今天要講的是大選宣言（或有些人會稱爲 Akujaji）内的承諾。

很多人誤解了大選宣言的目的。之前大選宣言的馬來文翻譯是Manifesto Pilihanraya，但現在的Akujanji 這個翻譯把它的意思搞得更加亂（尤其是在雪蘭莪大臣Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim表明大選宣言並不是承諾后）。

選民們有必要被告知那些宣言到底是個承諾還是個心願，他們也必須被告知這兩者的不同。打個比方，我現在失業，很窮，但我有要成爲有錢人的心願。如果我靠福利金苟且度日的話，那我的心願就不會實現。反過來，如果我從銀行借了1百萬來做生意而賺取了另一個1百萬，那我的心願就會實現。

我可以有心願，但問題是我要怎麽實踐呢？這就是雙方大選宣言裏邊沒有提到的。

Hindraf 已説明了，民聯的宣言是抄他們的，而民聯則說囯陣的宣言是抄民聯的。因此，我並不需要個別説明，因爲無論是民聯或囯陣，他們的宣言都是一樣的。

現在，讓我們來談談這兩份宣言的重要事項。請記住，我的論點是不按重要性來分先後的（因爲重要性的先後是人人不同，很客觀的）。而我要談的第一點是和濫權相關的（如貪污、裙带关系、不當管理財政等）。

所有人都宣稱打擊貪污是他們的首要任務，那他們能否告訴我們要怎樣來實踐呢？打擊貪污這個理念是很可取的，但如何達到目的才是更爲重要。

我們是否應該像中國一樣，把貪官污吏捉去槍斃？還是仿效沙特判他們斬首示衆？還是像阿富汗剁他們的手？

你應該明瞭，那些貪贜枉法的人是不怕上帝的。事實上，他們可能根本都不信有上帝這囘事，所以你根本不能用上帝這個名號來嚇阻他們。我們需要一個更有效的嚇阻方法。在他們頭顱上打一槍或讓他們斷手斷腳可能會有效。

我們又能怎樣更有效的制裁他們呢？大多時候我們是從他們那奢侈的生活方式來斷定他們是有貪污的，但要在法庭内將他們定罪又是另一回事。目前只有少過1%的貪污人士被送進監牢裏。那麽我們又能否仿效伊朗般呢？在伊朗他們會折磨嫌犯，讓他們屈打成招，然後再將他們處決。

所以你看，我們必須知道及擁有一個執行方式。擁有一個心願是一回事，實踐又是另一回事。我們必須知道實踐的方法，而這正是那些大選承諾裏所沒談及的。

我要講的下一個課題是福利（牽涉到的計有教育、醫療、治安、生活素質等）。我們必須知道人民的福利會怎樣地被照顧。如果我們所談到的是改變，那我們就應該勇敢的（和誠實的）談及典範轉移。如果我們不能夠很徹底地做出革命性的更改，那很多事情就只會維持原貌。

我之前已經提及很多次了，其實我並不需要重復。但在此容我再重復一遍，給你一個很簡短的總結（其實簡短並不是我的作風，你們應該是很了解的）。

所有馬來西亞人，無論種族、宗教、性別，是否能有保障性地進入學校，學院和大學求學？

所有馬來西亞人，無論種族、宗教、性別，在符合條件下，是否能有保障性地得到財務資助進入學校，學院和大學求學？

贫困线會否被調整至一個合理的底綫—-即大城市的2000馬幣和鄉村地區的1500馬幣—-而那些窮困學生是否能有保障性地得到財務資助進入學校，學院和大學求學？

‘國家醫療基金’會否被成立以幫助所有大馬人得到免費而有素質的醫療服務（甚至涵蓋私人醫院的醫療費用）？

這只是所有問題裏的冰山一角，但對我而言，教育、醫療、治安、和人民福利就現在而言是最爲緊要的。所以現今我們需要的是一個很好的福利、教育、與醫療系統。當然背後必須得有人為這個‘福利社會’買單。

囯油每年進帳上億，產油州只抽取那其中的5%，而95%則進入中央政府的口袋。就如民聯應承般，讓20%的盈餘給州政府好了，那就是否能抽取5%放進‘國家醫療及教育基金’中來幫助窮苦人士得到教育與醫療服務呢？

或者福利部可以通過審查來登記那些有需要且符合資格的窮苦人士，然後國會可以通過‘國家信托法’勒令囯油把5%的盈餘用在此信托中以支付那些窮苦人群的教育與醫療費用。

當然，我們必須要有一個很好的檢查方式來排除掉那些沒資格或那些之前有資格但現在已經脫離贫困线的人。底綫是這個系統必須是色盲的。無論你的種族、宗教、性別是什麽，只要你符合條件，你就有資格得到援助。若這個計劃能夠落實，那NEP將會自動地失去用處，我們根本就不必特意地去廢除它。

以上的幾點只是一小撮的例子，要我現在把所有課題都列出來，那是不可能的；我可能需要20多頁才能擧列完畢。我希望在此你們能夠看見我所要表達的意思：大選宣言裏的理念其實只是骨头架子而已，而我們現在要看到的是骨頭上的肌肉。