罗景赠兴

团结共荣：龙齿逃生(6)

2011-03-30T20:11:00.002-07:00

结语

美国独霸的时代已经临近结束，随着中国的崛起，继美苏争霸后世界将会再一次进入两强争霸的时代。在这样一个时代里，非主流国家的责任就是选边站。曾经一些不愿选边站的国家发起了不结盟运动，但是众所周知这个运动的影响力其实是微不足道的。即使再不愿意，表现得再怎么样中立，选边站还是一个避无可避的问题，而她们无论做何选择开罪另一方也是必然的结果。这些二三线国家如要避免把自己置于一个这样进退两难的局面，唯一的方法就是团结自强。就如战国时期的纵横家苏秦所提倡的合纵之法，今天中国周边的亚太各国就犹如战国时的六国，如果不愿合作根本就不可能有能力独自面对中国这个强大的秦国。各自为战就如同自取灭亡，被秦国逐一吞并只是时间的问题。

团结共荣：龙齿逃生(5)

2011-03-30T20:11:00.001-07:00

共荣之路

路是看到了，但是这一条路绝对不会是一条平坦的路。亚太这个广泛的区域本身就是一个复杂的地区。除了各自文化上的差异，各国之间在政经方面的发展程度也不尽相同。有经济发达的也有发展中的国家，有民主国家、半民主国家、独裁政权甚至军政府。要在这样一个龙蛇混杂的区域搞一个类欧盟的合作联盟绝对要比在欧洲艰难得不下十倍而这条路也注定是崎岖难行的。但是难行并不代表不行，一切都是事在人为。

在实现亚太地区的大融合之前，应该首先把此联盟即将涵盖的亚太区域划分为北、中、南三个主要组成部分。北即东亚：由日本、台湾和韩国组成；中即东南亚：由东盟十国组成；南即大洋洲：由澳州和纽西兰组成。在达成整个区域的大范围的合作和融合以前，如上所分的北、中和南三区应先自行扩大和加强各自区域内各国小范围的合作关系并争取在最短的时间内促成三区在各方面的实力能够达到一个平衡点。此一平衡将会是整个计划赖以成功的重要关键，如果区域之间不能在各方面的实力都达致一个大家都不相上下的水平，那样比较发达的一区就不会愿意加入一个令它施多于受的联盟。

若以三区为各自的比较标准，完成区域性融合的难度在北区是属于中等的难度。即处在中区之前，南区之后。历史因素加之领土主权纠纷是北区三国建立全方位合作体系所面对的主要绊脚石。得益于“明治维新”而能够快速实现现代化的日本帝国在经历了“中日甲午战争”以及“日俄战争”的洗礼后，凭借在这两场战争中取得的大胜而得以奠定了其在亚洲大陆上雄霸一方直到二战战败方才被终结的霸主地位。和其同时代的竞争者一样，为了资源和市场的需要，在实现现代化后工业日益发达的日本便也开始了其外扩的殖民主义征途。在日本殖民政策向其周边区域的步步进逼下，台湾和韩国都双双成为了当时日本殖民政策的受害者。在日本几十年的殖民统治和压迫下，这种由殖民统治时期就遗传下来的恩怨情仇也令到今天的韩国以及台湾在和日本的关系上基本是不咬弦的。除此之外，殖民统治也为日本和其余两国之间留下了领土主权上无止境的纠纷：和台湾有钓鱼台主权的纷争，和韩国则为独岛主权而时常争论不休。今天三国看似平静友善的外交关系其实除了仰赖于美国这个“老大哥”居中的协调外，这当中还有一个最重要的因素就是她们都有一个共同需要优先对付的假想敌—中国。有鉴于此，北区的成败关键就在于能不能使三国在没有美国这个“和事佬”兼“老大”从中调和的情况下放下对彼此的成见。当然最重要的就是与此同时要把中国这个假想敌对三国所带来的威胁最大化并有效地应用此一课题作为团结三国的基础。

中区当属三区之中最为复杂和最难处理同时也是中国发展其后花园最理想的区域。这个区域中的所有国家除泰国之外都是二战后才独立的前殖民地，此区域同时自越战后再也不属于任何列强绝对的势力范围之内，所以这里的政治环境是属于一种高度自主和半开发的一种。在这个小小的区域里就包含了包括不稳定民主政体、不完全民主政体、独裁政权乃至军政府在内的各类政体，真可谓是一应俱全。虽然如此，东南亚却享受了比北区东亚三国来得高的自主权。在不愿受外力干预和束缚的情况下，美国在本区域所倡导的类北约的“东南亚条约组织”就是在本区域各国的冷漠态度下而不得不于1977年正式解散。除了相对高的自主权，本区域还享有另外一个优势--东盟。东盟可以说是为本区域达成最终的融合提供了一个完美的基石。把东盟发展为一个类欧盟的组织一直是东盟各国的主要目标。但是就如前所论，在不同的体制下再加上各国都有各自重大的内政问题要面对的情况下，东盟自其成立之后的发展可谓是举步维艰。其次就是东盟对所有的加盟国而言就有如一战之后所成立的国际联盟。除了在固定的时期里召集各国开一些漫无目的的会议外，东盟可以说是一无用处。更甚的是许多东盟的决定往往都会被个别不愿执行的国家弃置一旁。这就显示了东盟的对其加盟国根本就毫无约束力可言。有别于欧盟对其加盟国的选择性，东盟则是来者不拒并且还往往对其加盟国的为所欲为而无能为力。当有呼声要东盟对缅甸军政府采取行动时，有自知之明的东盟明白沉默是金的道理所以就明智地含糊其辞来把问题带过。所以队本区域的结论可以概括为三点：善用东盟几十年建立下来的合作机制、强化东盟在各层面对区域控管的作用尤其是对其加盟国所应有的约束力到最后就是建立一个以东盟为主体的中央集权式的集体领导联邦制。

南区就是三个区域里要完成区域融合工作最为简单的一区。无论在地理位置还是历史背景，澳洲和纽西兰彼此间一直都有着密切的外交关系。同是英语系的国家并且同为英国的殖民地，纽西兰虽然在独立时选择了不加入独立的澳大利亚联邦，但是两国自独立起就一直相扶相持。从两次的布尔战争到两次的世界大战，澳洲和纽西兰的部队作为共和联邦的一分子就曾经不止一次的一起并肩地站在了一起。这种亲密的关系随着1983年两国之间的自由贸易协定的签署更是向前跨出了一大步。但是即便如此，澳纽两国还是对同为英语系的美国过度依赖。许多两国的外交政策都是以美国为准，尤其是澳洲更是一直以来都有利用美国来对抗中国以实现其称霸亚太的企图和野心。所以此区的问题并不同于先前的另外两区即如何令两国放下对彼此的戒心或认真地去扩大加强彼此间的合作同盟关系，因为要令这两国扩大她们的合作关系并建立一个彼此间广泛的政治联盟并不难。问题的核心就在于如何令两国自愿放弃其与欧美的传统关系，服从联盟的集体领导并一切以亚太地区的大融合为重。

在各小区都完成了各自的融合与联合并把各自区域内的整体国力都带到一个平衡点上，带到同一个高度上之后，那样就是亚太区大整合的阶段的开始。虽然这时最基本的条件已经准备完善并且时机也业已成熟，但是整合的工作还是需要按部就班地进行而不能操之过急。就好比人们对一个政权的评估往往是以其在经济领域的表现为准，所以整合的过程应该以建立和完善三个区域之间的经济联系为先。时间将会是整个整合计划在开始阶段的关键因素，三区必须在尽量短的时间内完成三区的经济融合并为整个联盟区域的经济带来一些显著的推进。这主要是因为要推动此一大规模的区域整合计划，一个牵涉到将近八亿人口的计划，定必会遭到来自各方不同的反对声浪，而平定这些反对声音最好的方法就是让人民最关心的经济能在此一体系下表现出快速发展的迹象。天性使然，如英国前首相帕莫斯顿勋爵所说的：“世界上没有永远的盟友，也没有永远的敌人，只有永恒的利益。”，只有在有利可图的情况下人才会愿意合作共事，政治上的友谊永远都必须建立在利益的基础上。当然经济的融合的最终目的是为了要把三个区域紧紧地绑在一起。就好比欧盟任一加盟国在离开欧盟的经济共同体后就只能艰难前行一样，唯一能够将一个广泛区域的人都团结到一个集体领导的旗帜下的最佳方法就是通过经济融合一途。也就是要把大家都放到同一条船的时候，人才会意识到团结和服从的重要性。在没有一个结实的经济基础作为纽带的情况下，所有的所谓文化交流和进一步建立对区域身份的认同感都只能是空谈。

在建立了一个共同的经济体系后，就是进一步扩大合作层面的时候，而在经济之后的当然是“兵”这个国之大事。一个共同的强大的军事体系将是整个联盟建立威信的起点。以东亚和大洋洲尤其是日本的军事科技和技术、东南亚丰富的天然资源和整个区域联合起来庞大的经济和人力资源，在联盟内建立一支高度现代化甚至核子化的军事部队并不是一件难事。只有在建立起足够强大的军事打击力量之后，联盟才能在主权独立和自我保护方面有一个坚实的保障并同时排除任何外力对联盟进行干预的企图。当然除了作为军事实力的表现外，这支军事部队将会是联盟跻身世界政治领导行列的跳板。军事巨著《战争论》的作者克劳塞维茨有这样一句名言：“战争是政治以另一种形态的延续。”所以一个国家的军事实力就是其政治实力最佳的体现。历史上能够对世界政治起到举足轻重作用的无论是过去各式各样的欧亚帝国抑或是近代的苏联、美国和中国主要靠的就是她们强大的军事力量所带来的威吓力。所以如果要令到联盟能够崛起成为一个新兴力量并在世界政治上占一席之地，单凭经济这个和平的实力是稍显不足的，与此同时一支强大的军事力量是必不可少的辅佐力量。但是建立这样一支庞大的联合部队也会对联盟的团结带来一定的风险，其中最为关键的就是指挥体系的问题。如果各国不能就指挥体系达到共识并开始对指挥权展开争夺，争端一起就如同这个联盟被宣判死刑。

要建立一个如此庞大的区域政治联盟无疑将会是一件困难的事。虽然在这个区域缺乏类似促成欧盟成型的历史因素，但是欧盟可供参考的成功经验却为这个区域联盟的发展省却了许多不必要的试验阶段。即使是在再要好的邻居之间争端的发生也是无可避免的事情，只要彼此都秉持互相妥协和礼让的精神再加上良好的沟通，争端自然就会迎刃而解。

团结共荣：龙齿逃生(4)

2011-03-30T05:13:00.000-07:00

共荣共享

在面对这个高度全球化并竞争日益激烈的世界，个别的国家尤其是小国所面对来自外界的压力也日益的强烈。如前所述，为了适应这种环境许多国家都选择了依靠一个强权来对抗另一强权的挑战。也如前所述，这种策略在今天可以说是已经彻底的破产。但是曾经被用作为侵略战争口号而声名狼藉的“大东亚共荣圈”却为今天的亚太地区指出了另一条可行的道路。

“大东亚共荣圈”最初的构思是一个包含东亚、东南亚和大洋洲诸国的一个新的合作体系。从政治、经济乃至文化的交流到融合以建立一个以日本为领导并把欧美势力排除在外的政治经济共同体。虽然这个计划因其侵略的本质而在当时遭到了彻底的失败，但是它的提出却能够为亚太区将来的合作和融合提供一个大致可参考的蓝图的框架。

有别于原本的构思，亚太区未来的合作方向在以此构思为基本蓝图的同时也需要相应地对其做一些更改和修正。当然最主要的就是要改变原构思中一国独大的设想，集体领导必须是此一共同体的要领所在。欧盟的成功之处就在于它成功地把欧洲带到了一个集体领导的体制之下。虽然德国和法国是欧盟无可否认的主要掌舵人，但是欧盟各国还是要服从于集体的领导并为任何联盟的决定集体负责。此一共同体最基本的目的是要亚太地区建立一个共享共荣的联盟而不是建立另外一个苏联。

其次就是要把中国排除出这个合作架构以外而只包含东亚的日本、台湾和韩国、东南亚诸国以及大洋洲的澳洲和纽西兰。这主要是因为让中国加入这个以集体领导为本的合作架构就好比把俄罗斯引进欧盟，在实力超群的情况下，中国绝对会开始尝试操纵整个共同体的运作以为其本身的利益和目的来服务。这种一人独大的尝试只会为整个共同体带来无止境的分裂并继而将其完全瓦解。当然中国或许也会不屑于参与到此一共同体中，毕竟作为一个习惯了一人独大的区域的独裁强权，要她去服从于集体领导，去听一些小国的声音对中国来说肯定是一件异常困难的事情更何况中国本身已经能够在不依靠其周边国家的情况下独立生存。

除却其侵略的本质，“大东亚共荣圈”所提倡的和以平繁荣富强、睦邻友好和互利共赢为目的的一个共同体正好符合了今天亚太各国所需。除此之外，其所提倡的要把一切外来势力排除在此共同体之外的目标更应该被当作重点政策。与其当列强的傀儡看列强的脸色，倒不如自强独立。而亚太列国要做到这一点就只有合作团结一途。

团结共荣：龙齿逃生(3)

2011-03-29T09:20:00.000-07:00

引强制强

在历史和政治因素的反复作用下，中国和其亚太邻国之间的关系一直都是存在着互相的猜疑和不信任。尤其自二战后的冷战时期在美国所谓第一岛链的战略部署再加上不断被夸大的意识形态的争端的催化之下，亲美阵营国家与中国之间的这种相互的猜忌更是达到了一个新的高峰。即使是在同一个政治理念和旗帜下展开斗争的邻国共产越南也在中苏的纠纷当中选择了苏联而不是这个曾经占领并统治了她数百年的强邻。

得利于作为邓小平所提出的“四个现代化”主张当中的四个组成部分之一，高强度的军事发展已经成为了中国每年最为重要的基本国策之一。从上个世纪八九十年代开始中国核子打击力量以及陆军得到快速的发展到今天其面世曾大大震撼世界军事界的歼-20战斗机和正在赶建中并且将会打破欧美国家面对中国时所仅剩的军事专利的航空母舰等等都昭示着中国已经把其军事发展的重心从单以陆军为主体的守势转变为今天三军齐步的攻势。在被动挨打了几十年后，今天的中国已经成功跻身于世界军事强国之列。亚丁弯猖獗的海盗更是为中国进一步提供了一个自明朝郑和下西洋后再次出兵远洋的机会。可以说今天的中国已经完全具备了争霸世界并和欧美一争长短的能力，中国的再崛起已经势不可挡。

彼此之间的猜疑再加上历史的恩恩怨怨和领土纠纷（主要是钓鱼台与南沙群岛的主权纠纷），中国这个日益壮大的强邻已经引起了亚太地区各国的不安。虽然中国一直都在强调其和平外交的政策不会随着其日益壮大的军事力量而有所改变并一再宣称中国绝对不会搞霸权主义，但是多年来的不信任并不是三言两语所能够释疑的。作为相应的应对手段，过去几年许多亚太国家都加强了各自的军购力度。在这当中又以与中国就南沙群岛主权一直争论不休而军事力量又稍显不堪一击的东南亚国家为最甚。根据斯德哥尔莫国际和平研究院的统计，自2000年起，东南亚各国在军事上的花费已经比以往提高了整整50%。其他地区除了台湾自民进党政府起就一直在为美国军售案努力不懈而韩国也在最新的统计中名列前茅外，日本也正在积极寻求逐步废除自二战后就对其军事力量实行限制的条约和法律。区域各国的神经已经随着中国的军事快速的发展而紧绷起来，这种竞相武装自己的军备竞赛最坏的结果当然就是令到区域争端的暴力化。

除了加大自身的军购力度以期在短期内重新现代化武装自己之外，亚太各国另外一个应对中国的手段就是“以强制强，引强制强”。在无力和中国单独对抗的情况下，东亚以及东南亚国家都纷纷选择了强化和美国之间的军事同盟合作关系。这当中除了日本、韩国、新加坡和菲律宾有美国不同程度的长期驻军以外，近来许多东南亚国家都有把美国重新带回南中国海海域以达致区域实力平衡的意图。其中最为鲜明的例子当属曾经在五十年代到七十年代期间的越南战争当中打个你死我活并在这之后就不再有任何军事往来的美国和越南在2010年所举办的两国史上首次的联合海上军事演习。紧接着在2011年在泰北清迈也跟着举行了代号为“金色眼镜蛇2011”，有美国、泰国、印度尼西亚、新加坡、日本、韩国和马来西亚七国参与的年度联合军事演习。自2010年6月开始到最后的“金色眼镜蛇2011”为止，美国已经和亚太区国家举行了不少于20次的联合军事演习。这除了说明美国正在积极整顿其在亚太地区的战略利益和部署外，也显示了美国已经被亚太各国当成了和中国对抗时的靠山。

虽然把美国重新带回南海会有助于达到区域军事力量的平衡并对中国起到一定的阻吓作用，但是对美国的依赖也实非长远之计。自进入冷战时期以来，大国与大国之间其实已经形成了一种行动上的默契。为了避免双方的直接冲突，往往只要一方率先出手干预，另一方就会自我克制尽量置身事外。如俄罗斯在科索沃问题上的立场。虽然俄罗斯在此冲突期间一直都积极地为其传统的保护国南斯拉夫联盟寻求和解的出路和方案并大力谴责北约的侵略行为，但是由始至终俄罗斯都不曾考虑过要诉诸武力。一直到最近的俄罗斯对格鲁吉亚采取的军事打击，虽然世界各国都同声谴责，但是采取行动却是另一回事。即便是另一方逼不得已要插手，所有其所提供的援助也只会是间接和象征性的，就好比苏联对北越的援助以及美国对阿富汗反苏叛军的支持。这种大国之间博弈的游戏规则自冷战时期起就一直延续到今天。倘若今天中国真的有所行动，美国这个靠山到底靠不靠得住，到底有多稳也还是一个未知数。

除此之外，美国对其所谓盟友的真诚度也是值得商榷的。在必要的时候美国时常会断然地弃她的“盟友”于不顾，而这种对“盟友”的背叛已经成为美国在其近代政治外交史上一种司空见惯的行为。以越战时对西贡南越的支持为例：当国内的反战声浪越发不可控制时，美国就很潇洒地离曾经与她一起站在反共第一线，曾经与她齐心协力一起阻止共产“瘟疫”在亚洲蔓延的“盟友”而去，让南越这个她花费了无数心血一手扶植的政权自生自灭。再来就是随着苏联焦头烂额地撤出阿富汗时，美国再一次遗弃了被她利用来进行反苏战争的阿富汗“盟友”，这也是许多来自世界各地的回教反苏战士在战后愿意加入拉登麾下的“卡伊达”以参加其向美国发动的圣战的重要因素之一。一直到日本地震所引发的核危机，美国这种对待其同盟的利己背信本质也再一次地被暴露了出来。在日本面对自二战以后最为严重的危机之时，美国无事时在周边海域到处耀武扬威的在日驻军却以安全为由在没有参与太多的救援行动后就迅速地撤出了日本。在面对可控制的自然灾害局面时尚且如此，如果面对一个真的动用核武器的中国时，还可以指望美国来提供保护吗？由此可见把其未来和生存的希望都寄托在这种建立于不可靠的利害关系之上的安全合作保障体系中对亚太国家来说并非长久之计也决非明智之举。就好比东欧对苏联的作用，对美国来说亚太国家只不过是其本土战线的一个前沿阵地，一个用于拖延敌人并为自己腾出时间准备本土防御的阵线。亚太地区遭到毁灭与否并不重要，重要的是美国本土的安全。对美国来说一切应以美国本土利益为本，没有什么是不可牺牲的。

“独木难支”可以说是目前亚太国家在面对中国这个强邻的崛起的最佳写照。和中国这个综合国力日渐强盛的强国单打独斗地进行竞争和对抗对亚太所有国家来说已经无异于一场不公平的竞赛和一种不明智的自杀行为。再加之美国这个不怎么靠谱的靠山，亚太国家无论是最近才和美国走得很近的东南亚还是美国传统的控制区（东亚的日本、台湾和韩国）的“以强制强”的策略都可以说是遭到彻底的破产。亚太各国也是时候为自己寻找另一条出路。

团结共荣：龙齿逃生(2)

2011-03-28T17:53:00.000-07:00

龙腾世纪

法国军事政治家兼法兰西帝国的缔造者拿破仑曾经对当时虚弱不堪的中国下过这样一个有远见的评论：“让她继续沉睡吧！当她醒来之时，世界将会为之一震。”今天就如这位伟大的政治家所预言的那般，中国这个近年来迅速崛起但尚睡眼惺松的巨人已经震动了整个世界。

从近先代历史的规律中我们不难看到，伴随着一个强权的崛起的往往是其向外扩张和建立霸权的野心。这都可以从欧洲主导时代的殖民势力之间的争夺，到二战后的美苏之间的全球争霸一直到最后苏联解体美国一人独大所搞的全球霸权主义时代当中看得一清二楚。强权的这种霸权野心往往会令到其周边区域乃至世界范围内无数个个别相对落后的区域与国家成为他们你争我夺的牺牲品。屈服于这些强权坚船利炮之下的亚、非、美洲大陆上无数的前殖民地以及后来分别被美国和苏联视为后花园的南美、拉丁美洲、东欧和中亚各国就是最好的例证。

如前所述，当一个强国在各方面自我过度膨胀到一定的程度，到她本身的国界都容纳不下时，她就会开始寻求向外扩张和输出自身影响的机会。作为东方世界的一个传统大国，中国历朝历代在其浩瀚漫长的历史上并不乏怀有此等外扩国家版图以至征服天下的野心的统治者。开创汉唐盛世的汉武帝和“天可汗”唐太宗以及在位其间四方征战的“十全老人”乾隆皇帝就是当中最为人所津津乐道的表表者。历史上对高丽和扶桑日本多次的远征讨伐；对越南和与其接壤的东南亚小国的占领统治以及多次对西域的兼并战争等等更是再再地显示了中国在其国力强盛时期对其周边区域都会起到一种不容忽视的威胁。

除了对历史经验的总结之外，其次就是中国共产党一党专政式的独裁政权也是对亚太区域形成威胁和不安的一个重要因素。有别于一般的民主政权，一个独裁政权的最大特点应该就在于其秘密性与不可预估性。当一般的民主政权的未来走向和施政方针可以依照其国家的人民意愿或执政政党的特性来做相对准确的判断的时候，在中国共产独裁政权成立六十多年以来，几乎所有对中国政策走向的评论都会多少持有保留的态度。最新的例子当属世界主要媒体都对温家宝所提出的政改建议将信将疑。再来就是一个独裁政权在未来可能兑变为一个极端政权的机率也相对的比一般的民主政体来得高。一个独裁政权的权力传承就好比古代封建皇朝的权力交接，大部分人对新的领导人一般都是一知半解甚至完全没有头绪。中国虽然在过去一直都在奉行着邓小平所提倡的和平主义的主要为韬光养晦的对外政策，但是这种政策会不会被中国未来的领导人在国力日渐强盛的情况下一直贯彻执行下去也是一个未知数。尤其是当中国就南沙群岛的问题向美国喊话说亚洲人的事务亚洲人会自行解决时，这一类似“门罗宣言”的警告更是进一步地加深了此一疑虑。如果此一外交政策的不到延续，那么在中美争夺世界霸权的情况下，亚太地区势必会如冷战时期的东欧首当其冲。

二十一世纪无疑将会是中国的世纪，今天这个沉睡了多年的古老巨人已经逐渐地苏醒了过来，世界也必将在继苏联的解体后风云再起。要如何应对这个古老文明大国的再崛起将成为本世纪世界尤其是中国周边会直接受到冲击影响和威胁的亚太地区国家的焦点课题。

团结共荣：龙齿逃生(1)

2011-03-28T07:12:00.000-07:00

新旧交替

作为对当今世界影响深刻的一个时期，第二次世界大战可以被视为两个时代的分水岭：一个由新世界取代旧世界所主导的时代、一个由新秩序取代旧秩序的时代，也就是这个世界从此进入了一个合作协商的种子开始萌芽并逐步取代恶性竞争和冲突的时代。在这一个由新秩序所主导的新世界里，全球化就是此种转变最直接的表现。在全球化的冲击之下，锁国已经成为一个不实际的神话而合作才是世界各国在当今这个时代赖以生存之道。即便极端政权如朝鲜也需要小心维护其与中国的伙伴关系以便能够继续其与欧美国家的较量。

在这之中要以欧洲国家对合作的重要性体会最深。自近代民族主义的抬头和民族国家的建立起一直到二战的结束，战争的阴云就一直笼罩着欧洲这片大地。由开始的欧洲本土的领土纠纷到后来对殖民地和世界霸权的争夺都为欧洲成为两次世界大战的触发点埋下了导火线。虽然在美国的锁国政策之下，欧洲得以勉强的在一战之后保住了其对世界的主导权，但是随着美国政策的改变，由欧洲主导的时代在二战后正式划上了句号。

千万条性命的牺牲和过千亿元的经济损失是多年的争端所遗留给欧洲最大的“遗产”，而这当中又以二战所带来的破坏性和毁灭性最为惨烈。原子弹的使用和其所拥有的前所未有的，长规武器所不能匹敌的破坏力更让欧洲列强开始察觉到现代战争为欧洲带来的将会是彻底的毁灭。可以说二战后欧洲对欧盟的大力推动和发展就是对此觉悟的一种最直接的表现。

欧盟的成立除了最终驱散了笼罩欧洲数百年的战争乌云和平息了弥漫欧洲多年的硝烟使欧洲大陆得享前所未有的和平和稳定之外，它还是欧洲在战后得以持续平稳发展的重要因素之一。除了在早期阶段得益于在两次大战中大发战争财的美国的经援（马绍尔计划），欧洲在后期的发展主要还是依靠欧洲一体化的进程。欧洲一体化的推动尤其是欧元区的成立使到各加盟国开始被置于同一管理体系之下，在分享着共同的利益的同时也承担着对联盟共同的义务。在此种凝聚力和互助体系的作用下，欧洲各国对危机的抗压能力在目前可以说是处于领先世界的地位。这种应对危机能力的加强可以从最新的经济危机中看出。当许多人都以为“猪猡四国”尤其是希腊的债务危机会导致欧元体系的彻底崩溃时，欧洲团结的力量却在成功地挽救了欧元区免遭此一灾难性结果之余，也让欧盟在面对新一轮的经济危机时始终能够保持区域起码的稳定发展。

除了对欧洲稳定发展作出不可估量的贡献之外，欧盟的成功也为许多区域或政治体提供了一个学习和模仿的楷模，成功地引领了世界新一波的政治潮流。诸如非盟、东盟乃至新近的南美洲国家联盟都在以成立或自我转型成一个类欧盟的组织为其终极目标而努力不懈。这同时也可以说是为亚太地区未来的发展方向点了一盏指路明灯。亚太地区的融合其实已经不是新近才被提出来的主张。早在日本发动侵华战争以后的1938年，时任日本帝国首相的近卫文麿就曾在其著名的《近卫声明》中首先提出过“大东亚共荣圈”的设想。但是由于在当时此构思被日本帝国用于粉饰太平以掩饰其军国主义侵略行为，所以自其被提出以来，“大东亚共荣圈”这个构思和政治号召就注定要恶名昭着。但是时移势易，当初此构思所倡导的亚太地区各国间大范围的合作与融合模式正是今天需要直接面对崛起中的中国其周边的亚太国家未来发展所应该专注的大方向。

The Jewish Phantom

2011-02-18T19:23:00.000-08:00

The fucking Americans are telling the shameless Israelis, 'You must stop stealing the Palestinians' land. No, no, no!!! I didn't mean it's illegal but you have to stop it for our sake. The whole world is against this stealing.'

PM: Israel never said no to freeze - Middle East - Al Jazeera English

2011-01-03T19:26:00.000-08:00

PM: Israel never said no to freeze - Middle East - Al Jazeera English

It's like a thieve who say that he never want to steal but it's the enforcers' failure to press him and hence stop him from continue doing so. What a bullshit.

如何应对中国崛起所带来的威胁

2010-10-31T13:46:00.000-07:00

当自身的国界再也容纳不下过度的自我膨胀时，一个大国就会开始向周边的区域输出它的影响并加以控制以形成区域霸权。这种“后院文化”已经成为了近代新兴大国的共同特征。美国有拉丁美洲，昔日的苏俄有东欧和中亚，今天的中国就有三个可能的发展方向：东（东亚），西（中亚）或南（东南亚）。向东，日本和南韩是硬骨头难啃。向西，可能会引起与俄罗斯的利益冲突。向南，这个尚处于半混乱状态而其他势力又没有明确利益的区域就完全符合被发展成“后院”的条件。日前中国向美国喊话称南海诸岛的争端和美国无关，让其不要多管闲事。这次的喊话和著名的门罗宣言如出一辙。应付此种威胁的传统手段就是“以强制强”，引来另一强权来达致区域的平衡。这就是日韩和近来加强和美国的合作关系的东南亚各国反制中国的策略。但是此等策略也非长久之计，因为在不符合自身利益的情况下，所有的承诺和保证都有跳票的可能。在没有任一周边国家有能力单独对抗中国的情况下，只有广泛的合作关系才是抗衡这个崛起中的极权强国的唯一出路。以东南亚为中心，联合北边的日本，韩国和台湾，南边的澳大利亚和纽西兰，进而形成一个区域性合作联盟来遏制中国霸权的扩张。在加强和欧美合作关系的同时也要排除欧美势力对联盟事务的干预以保证联盟在区域的自主权。中国崛起所带来的威胁不容忽视，无视这个威胁将会等同于坐以待毙。

Conversion for Development

2010-08-08T03:18:00.000-07:00

If murder of an ethnic group is ethnic cleansing and genocide, force conversion is nothing different. What a paradox when the people need to beg the government for their deserved benefit, what an ironic fact when the real natives are blackmailed by the counterfeit natives.

Gun on the Negotiation Table

2010-06-10T04:06:00.000-07:00

When Iran showed willingness to negotiate, it was preparing weapon because Iran did not want to negotiate with it. When the weapon is ready in its hands, it says the weapon is to get the Iranians back to the negotiation table. After it was refused of any involvement in the game, it comes again, this time with weapon, to force everyone to sit down and join its game.

The Self-Defense Invader

2010-06-05T05:19:00.000-07:00

They attacked the civilian convoy on international sea and they killed under the pretext of 'self-defense'. But the main question here is who is attacking and who is defending? How miracle it is when the Jews can always make themselves look like the victims when they themselves are actually the criminals.

Shameless Terrorist Country

2010-06-01T05:44:00.000-07:00

It is a barbaric act, an act of terrorism!!!
This is nothing different from piracy. No one can deny others' right of using the international water.
They seized Palestine and now they are trying to starve the Palestinians. What a shameless terrorist country.
There is no Israel, there is only Palestine. Palestine for Palestinians!!!

Abused Victims who are Abusing

2010-05-30T06:32:00.000-07:00

Can we blame Hitler for his Jewish policy? No! What the Israelis are doing today tell us that they deserve it. They don't deserve any sympathy. What Hitler failed to do is that he failed to solve these fucking problems from the root!!!

Lying Nation

2010-05-28T01:54:00.000-07:00

This is the common practice. Like the past the Israel can always easily deny any allegation made on them with their so called 'proof'. If the Israel has the right to blockade the entrance of Gaza, then why the Egypt could not deny its use of Suez Canal? Why Egypt was blamed when it blockaded the Gulf of Aqaba? What a bunch of bullshit from those fucking Israelis.

UN--> United Nonsense

2010-05-24T11:23:00.000-07:00

Let see how ridiculous can the UN be. How can it separate the Shebaa Town from Shebaa Farm? And furthermore how can it draw a demarcation line across the middle of a village? Besides this, the UN is just as useless as its predecessor, the short life League of Nations, in preserving peace. It is only a tool for those great powers. It is only used by those powers, especially the US, to justify their action but no more. If people ask what is UN? The best answer can be the world largest reports publisher.

Robert Lee's Invasions to the North (Part 2)

2010-05-23T00:59:00.000-07:00

Pennsylvania Campaign

i) Background

Lee planned his second invasion on May 1863 after his triumph at Chancellorsville. With this second invasion, Lee again sought to keep the initiative gained and strike a fatal blow on the Union in order to finish the war immediately with the foreign recognition of the Confederacy.
‘The position occupied by the enemy opposite Fredericksburg being one in which he could not be attacked to advantage, it was determined to draw him from it’ Lee held in his battle report, ‘It was thought that the corresponding movements…of the enemy to which those contemplated by us would probably give rise…a fair opportunity to strike a blow at…General Hooker, and that in any event that army would be compelled to leave Virginia, and, possibly, to draw to its support troops designed to operate against other parts of the country.’ This statement shows that, as the previous year Maryland Campaign, Lee had again tried to relief Virginia from any direct threat. Furthermore, Lee had also expected that his move to the North would help to divert the enemy troops especially from the Western theatre where the Confederate army was in the danger of collapse after General Grant’s great success in his Mississippi Campaign.
With the objectives to save the Confederacy and to end the war immediately, Lee moved again towards the North. With his highest dignity and fame gained from his greatest victory of Chancellorsville, Lee was marching towards his greatest defeat throughout the whole war.

ii) The Campaign

After the regrouping and reorganisation of his army, Lee decided to start moving his army on June. His first objective point is Culpeper locates North of Fredericksburg where he could come into help if A.P. Hill was attacked by Hooker or Richmond was attacked by the Federal army at peninsula. By leaving General A.P. Hill’s corps at Fredericksburg to face with General Hooker at opposite bank of Rappahannock, Longstreet’s, Ewell’s infantry and Stuart’s cavalry corps was ordered to move to Culpeper on 3rd June. When Hooker aware that only A.P. Hill was left to face him at the opposite bank, Hooker had asked for permission to cross the river to attack the Confederate army and further on marched towards Richmond after the victory. Due to the danger of their right flank being outflanked by Lee as in Second Bull Run as Lincoln said, ‘I would not take any risk of being entangled upon a river like an ox jumped half over a fence and liable to be torn by dogs front and rear without a fair chance to gore one way or kick the other.’ This suggestion was then rejected.
The first battle was fought at Brandy Station, east of Culpeper on 9th June, between the Confederate and Federal cavalry corps under Stuart and Pleasonton respectively when Hooker tried to acquire Lee’s intention with this offensive reconnaissance operation. Even though it was claimed as a Confederate’s victory, Stuart was caught with surprise by the attack as one of his officers wrote that ‘the cavalry fight at Brandy Station can hardly be called a victory. Stuart was certainly surprised and but for the supreme gallantry of his subordinate officers and the men in his command it would have been a day of disaster and disgrace.’ With this failure to break the screen of the Confederate cavalry, Hooker remained unknown of Lee’s intention.
Soon after the attack of Brandy Station, Ewell was ordered to start moving north to clear the road entering Pennsylvania and collect supplies. Ewell took Winchester on 15th June after defeated the Federal army under General Milroy. Lee here again took a very daring movement where he had divided his three infantry corps into three parts at three different places. Henceforth Lincoln treated this as a good chance to destroy Lee’s army as he told Hooker, ‘if the head of Lee’s army is at the Martinsburg and the tail of it on the Plank road between Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville, the animal must be very slim somewhere.’ Hooker had, nevertheless, refused to attack in order to save Winchester before he was satisfied as to the enemy’s whereabouts. ‘To proceed to Winchester,’ Hooker reiterated, ‘and have him (the enemy) make his appearance elsewhere, would subject me to ridicule.’
After knowing that Lee was moving north into Pennsylvania, Hooker started moving his army while A.P. Hill was also ordered to join Longstreet at Culpeper and start advancing into Pennsylvania. As vanguard of Lee’s army, Ewell kept advancing into Pennsylvania before the other two corps where wide discretion was granted to him where Lee said, ‘if Harrisburg comes within your means, capture it.’ Stuart at this early stage of advancement had done a good job in screening the army where he had defeated three enemy’s attempt reconnaissance on Lee’s movement at Aldie, Middleburg and Upperville. Stuart was later ordered by Lee to take a long raid, and at Longstreet’s request, around the enemy’s rear by leaving two of his brigades with Lee to join Ewell at the far front.
When Ewell reached Carlisle and prepared to invade Harrisburg, Lee and another two corps was at Chambersburg. The Federal army crossed the Potomac on 28th June and Lee was shock by this rapid movement of Federal army. Hence, Lee ordered a move towards Cashtown and Gettysburg while Ewell was also recalled from Carlisle. When being informed Gettysburg was controlled by Federal army on 30th June, Lee ordered an attack on the town the next day. The Federal army retreated from the Gettysburg on 1st July and formed a defensive line at Cemetery Hill and Culp’s Hill. As described by Fitzhugh Lee, the geographical feature of this area had allowed the Federal army to control the interior line where General Meade could ‘rapidly re-enforce along his rear the threatened points’ when Lee’s smaller and ill-supplied army had the ‘longest line’ and faced with ‘a superb defensive position.’ Nonetheless, Lee was still confident with his army’s ability to break the Federal’s line and so took the initiative on the next two days.
With the help of this strong defensive position and the superiority on men and weapon, as Longstreet held that the enemy could easily bring new artilleries to replaced the ones being driven off and his supply of ammunition was so short that his batteries could not reopen on the decisive day of 3rd July, two Confederate’s attacks launched respectively on 2nd and 3rd July were pushed back and heavy loss was suffered. After the unsuccessful final attack on 3rd July, Lee’s army was too weak to continue fighting and retreatment order was issued. Lee’s second invasion end with the greatest defeat he had ever suffered.

iii) Why it Fail?

As the previous Maryland Campaign, this campaign was also an ill-prepared one. Like the previous year, the army was still lack of good shoes and there is also a great shortage of regular issue uniform. Beside this, the Confederate also lack of sufficient ammunition where they only ‘had ammunition enough for one good fight, and in a victory would capture enough for the next.’ Furthermore, the Confederate great size trains were also unable to meet Lee’s army’s supply needs in marching north. As a result of this vulnerable situation, Lee had tried to rely on the rich agricultural resources of Shenandoah and Cumberland Valleys to supply his army on his way marching to the North. This reliance on enemy’s resources for his army’s supplies had become the main reason behind his tactical mistake in diverting Stuart and Ewell from the main army, which would fail him in the campaign.
Ewell’s 2nd Infantry Corps was given this mission to clear the way to North and to collect the supplies on the way. As stated before, Ewell was given a great discretion to act and no clear and certain order was issued for his destination. This had caused the fast moving of Ewell’s corps while the main body of Lee’s army was far behind. This finally led to the decision to send Stuart to join Ewell with a long raid. After Stuart’s departure, Lee was left in a total blind of the enemy’s movement. As Walter Taylor, Lee’s staff officer, mention that Lee ‘was much disturbed by his (Stuart’s) absence, having no means of information about the movement of the enemy’s forces.’ This explained why great surprise was brought when Lee was informed of the rapid movement of the Federal army. When Lee had to rush his army into concentration from different places, Meade’s men were able to first reach Gettysburg and have control of all the strategic points especially the Cemetery and Culp’s Hill at the south of Gettysburg, which would contribute so much on Lee’s defeat.
Overconfidence of his own army also contributed to Lee’s failure in this campaign. E.P. Alexander, Longstreet’s colonel of artillery, had recalled in one of his letter that ‘the great condition to assure its defeat was to force it to attack General Lee.’ Lee, however, would never wait the enemy to strike first. As he predicted in a conversation that the enemy ‘would come up…into Pennsylvania. I shall throw an overwhelming force on their advance.’ Waiting the enemy to take the initiative was incompatible with Lee’s active defensive tactic where he believes that a defensive battle can only be won with exploitation of initiative. After the succeed conquest of Gettysburg, Lee should have waited the Federal to take the next move rather than continue his attack as he did in facts. This is because he was at the time facing with a greater enemy who held a very strong defensive position. Even after his great losses after the offensive of 2nd July, Lee was still, as Alexander again alleged, had the chance to take ‘the defensive and forced Meade to assault us, and to have given him a crushing defeat.’ This overconfidence as he showed on D.H. Hill’s division at the previous campaign had brought disaster on 3rd July when Lee decided to launch his attack even though he was strongly opposed by Longstreet. Half of Pickett’s division, which was ordered to make the offensive, was captured by the overwhelming enemy. Here it was shown that the loss of Jackson at Chancellorsville was critical to Lee.
When Lee was greeted with his so called greatest victory at Chancellorsville, it was actually a draw or a defeat. This is because Lee had suffered an irreparable loss of ‘Stonewall’ Jackson, his most reliable and trusted commander. A victory in the cost of a great general’s life can never be a victory. If Jackson was there to advise Lee to call off the offensive on 3rd July, the history might be different today. Lee had once given up his intention to outflank enemy right flank during the final stage of the battle of Antietam when Jackson advised him that it was impossible to do so with their weakened army. Nonetheless, when Longstreet appeared to advise Lee to give up his third offensive plan in Gettysburg, Lee was more confident with his own judgement rather than Longstreet’s who was not his ‘right hand’ as he called Jackson.

Bristoe Station

i) Background and Movement

After retreated from Pennsylvania after the battle of Gettysburg, Lee based his army at the Orange Court House along the Rapidan River. ‘The enemy state that they had heard a great reduction in our forces here,’ Lee stated in his letter to his wife, ‘and are now going to drive us back to Richmond.’ In believing in the Federal would take the first move, Lee decided to wait this time.
After three weeks waiting, Lee again decided to take the initiative to drive the Federal army out of the Culpeper House with Ewell’s and A.P. Hill’s corps on 9th October 1863. When the Confederate army reached the Culpeper House, Meade had crossed his army back to the Northern Rappahannock. Lee then essayed another movement to cross the Rappahannock and forced his way to Auburn, Warrenton Junction and Bristoe where he could strike any Meade’s movement to the South. Meade at the moment had moved his army back to Culpeper House after Lee’s departure and recross to North Rappahannock only after aware of Lee’s movement.
Nonetheless, Meade was able to pass beyond Lee to reach these places when Lee had to slow his movement due to short of rations. Ewell and A.P. Hill was sent on 14th October via Auburn and New Baltimore respectively to Bristoe to struck Warren. The attack of A.P. Hill’s two brigades on the head of Warren’s column was repulsed and heavy loss was suffered. Meade afterwards fell back to Centreville and its vicinity and waited for Lee’s offensive. Without any hope to achieve a decisive victory as Lee saw ‘no chance of bringing him (Meade) to battle’, Lee finally retired back to Rappahannock on 19th October.

ii) Why it Fail?

Again, the main reason behind the failure of this campaign is due to the lack of supplies. As Lee himself said in his letter, ‘if they (Confederate army) had been properly provided with clothes I would certainly have endeavoured to have thrown them (Federal army) back north of the Potomac.’ After the great defeat in Gettysburg, Lee this time had decided not to bring his army off the country.
A.P. Hill was also blamed to responsible to the defeat. He was criticised as ‘impetuously attacked the Federals without first pausing to reconnoiter the ground.’ This can be seen when he had started attacking Warren’s Second Corps with only two of his brigades. Without knowledge of the enemy’s artillery strength, these two brigades had suffered heavy loss.

Conclusion

The succeeded repulsing Lee’s three invasions had inevitably saved the Union’s war cause. Although the Confederate was finally defeated, General Lee had shown his ability as a great military commander. His skill, boldness and intelligence were the main reason why the Confederate could hold for a period of 5 years when facing with a far more superior enemy. The North won the war but the South gained Robert E. Lee.

Robert Lee's Invasions to the North (Part 1)

2010-05-23T00:57:00.000-07:00

Introduction

The American Civil War is a milestone in the American history when it was deemed as a just war for the Black liberation. Nonetheless, it had deeper means for the American because it was the war to preserve the unity of their country. Three invasions towards the Northern territories were launched by General Robert E. Lee during the year of 1862 to 1863. Even though these campaigns had failed to achieve their objectives, the reasons behind their failure were still worth to be examined.

Maryland Campaign

i) Background

Soon after his victory over General Pope in the battle of Second Bull Run, General Lee, the King of Spade, had decided to launch an offensive in invading the Maryland with the initiative gained rather than pulled back for reinforcement and wait for another Union’s attack as the Confederate did after First Bull Run. This idea of Maryland Campaign was introduced by Lee to President Davis through a letter dated 3rd September 1862 where he based his hope of success on the estimation that ‘The two grand armies of the United States that have been operating in Virginia, though now united, are much weakened and demoralized. Their new levies, of which I understand 60,000 men have already been posted in Washington, are not yet organized, and will take some time to prepare for the field.’
General Fitzhugh Lee, nephew and also a cavalry officer of Lee during the war, has suggested three Lee’s belief, which had encouraged him to bring out the campaign: first is that Lee believed that the decisive victory of this campaign could lead to a far-reaching effect, which included the fall of Washington and Baltimore. Second is because the campaign would relieve the Confederate Quartermaster’s Department from supporting his army for a time. Finally is that Lee believed that the large accession of his decimated accession would be obtained from those Marylanders who sympathised his cause. As Lee held in his battle report, ‘it was hoped that military success might afford us an opportunity to aid the citizens of Maryland in any efforts they might be disposed to make to recover their liberties.’
These can be deemed as legitimate expectations since Maryland at the moment was a slave state with possibility of secession and its secession would cause the isolation of the Washington from others Union states. Even a decisive victory could not be won at a short period or the Maryland refused to secede, strategic advantage still could be gained by bringing the war into enemy’s land and release Virginia especially Richmond from any direct pressures of invasion.

ii) The Campaign

After acquired the Presidential consent to act, Lee’s army started crossing the Potomac River from Leesburg on 4th September. His first objective point after entering the Maryland is of the Frederick City rather than Washington when, as Fitzhugh Lee claims, his army ‘were too small to encounter the fortifications and large force assembled for their defence.’
Since there was no evacuation of enemy from Martinsburg and Harper’s Ferry as predicted following the capture of Frederick City, Lee immediately issued the famous Special Order 191 for the capturing of Harper’s Ferry with three out of his four columns of army after regrouping on 9th. The capture of Harper’s Ferry is important because it would not only open the Confederate’s communication with Shenandoah Valley but also could be used as a jumping point for any possible invasion of Pennsylvania. General Longstreet who was in charge of the remaining column was, as opposed to the original plan to stay at South Mountain with D.H. Hill, ordered to move to Hagerstown where it was believed as being selected by Lee as advance base for operation towards Susquehanna while a large supply of flour and some other military supplies were also believe to be there. General D.H. Hill was leaved at Boonsborough at the South Mountain in order to block the possible retreat direction of Federal troops from Harper’s Ferry and to halt McClellan’s army. Frederick City was hence abandoned and its abandonment was fatal to Lee’s army since a copy of the SO 191 was found in D.H. Hill’s camp in the city and Lee’s operation plan was exposed to McClellan.
With the awareness of Lee’s plan, McClellan accelerates his marching and shock Lee who was at the time in Hagerstown. Longstreet was ordered to reinforce D.H. Hill to halt an enemy with overwhelming superiority in order to gain time for Jackson’s offensive on Harper’s Ferry and the evacuation of Lee’s trains in Boonsborough. After a serious engagement on 14th, Lee agreed with Longstreet’s intention to retreat and form a line at Sharpsburg because, as Lee stated in his report, the deployment of Confederate troops at this town would enable them to cover McLaws who was attacking the Harper’s Ferry from the threat of Federal troops and it is also the shortest available distance for Jackson to reunite with the rest of the army after capturing Harper’s Ferry.
The battle of Antietam was fought on 17th. Since McClellan had overestimated the strength of Lee’s army as he said when order No.191 was presented to him, ‘…this rebel army, which I have good reason for believing amounts to one hundred and twenty thousand men or more…’ Offensives were launched separately on left flank, central and right flank of Lee’s army with large reserve held by McClellan at rear to respond any unexpected circumstances. This had allowed Lee to concentrate his army on a hard-pressed direction from others relatively quiet sectors. Henceforth, Lee’s army was saved by these separate offensives even though they were facing with 80,000 enemy troops with only 35,000 men. This bloodiest day of the American Civil War was end with a total loss of over 22,000 men from both sides, Lee’s army was seriously weakened after these battles as Longstreet held that their ‘ranks were too much thinned to warrant a renewal of the conflict.’ Evacuation was ordered on 18th September and the Maryland Campaign was over with Lee’s failure.

iii) Why It Fail?

The loss of the SO 191 to McClellan is commonly treated as the main reason, which failed Lee in this campaign. The effect of this event on Lee’s failure of the campaign may, however, be overestimated. McClellan had personally assumed the command of the Union army without any Presidential authority, he had ‘fought the battle with halter on his neck.’ Only a victory could save him from acting without order, which probably would bring him a death sentence. Besides the self-saviour, he was also at the same time under the pressure from the government to cover the Washington from any Lee’s possible offensive. These had undoubtedly strengthened his already cautious characteristic, as Lee stated that ‘he is an able general but a very cautious one.’ Together with the overestimation of Lee’s strength and his previous experiences of Lee’s offensive spirit in Seven Days Battle, McClellan had moved his troops slowly and cautiously. This had enabled Lee to possess the initiative during the campaign while he was able to choose the attacking or battle points while McClellan was only following his steps throughout the whole campaign. Even Sharpsburg as the place for final battle was also Lee’s choice rather than McClellan’s even though Lee had fell into defensive position at this period. Accordingly, besides the plan leakage, the loss of this SO 191 contributed no more to Lee’s failure in Maryland. This is because the cautious McClellan had not exploited this invaluable free gift to regain his initiative and achieve decisive victory with the total destruction of Lee’s army with his far more superior army as he intended.
The main reason behind the failure of this campaign should lie on the ill prepared of the Confederate army before the invasion. Lee himself also admitted to Davis that ‘the army is not properly equipped for an invasion of an enemy's territory. It lacks much of the material of war, is feeble in transportation, the animals being much reduced, and the men are poorly provided with clothes, and in thousands of instances are destitute of shoes.’ The lack of shoes was especially serious as Douglas Freeman alleged that ‘never before had so many men become shoeless.’ At the same time Lee also faced with the problem of rations supply. As encouraged by the success experience of previous battles and Longstreet, Lee ordered his army to live for time being with green corn while marching to Maryland. Nonetheless, many of those who ate too freely of the corn developed a serious diarrhea which weakened them and caused much absence without leave. Besides this lack of supply, Lee also decided to start the campaign before a proper reinforcement and regrouping of his army. Even though he was reinforced by McLaws’ and D.H. Hill’s divisions and Walker’s division with half strength, these troops could only enough to cover his loss in the previous battle of Second Manassas. The main consequence of this moving without proper supply is that there were ‘stragglers fell out by the thousand during the next few days’ after crossing the Potomac. Even though Lee was at the time in possessed of the initiative, he was unable to maximise the use of this initiative with his limited and insufficient troops, which were some more weakened due to the lack of supply.
The decision taken by Lee to divert a large portion of his men to Harper’s Ferry and Hagerstown while leaving only D.H. Hill at Boonsborough could be also too risky a move. It may be argued that these moves were failed by the loss of SO 191 otherwise it would be a perfect plan with McClellan’s cautiousness. Nevertheless, Longstreet had criticised Lee’s decision on these occasions in his article wrote after the campaign, in which he held that ‘our army consisted of a superior quality of soldiers, but it was in no condition to divide in the enemy's country.’ Divide army especially an army far smaller than the enemy on enemy’s hinterland can never be a good idea. When capture of Harper’s Ferry is to clear the communication route with Virginia, the move of Longstreet’s corps to Hagerstown that is not under any direct threat can be deemed as an unnecessary move since this would leave only D.H. Hill’s division alone at Boonsborough to face any possible superior enemies who might come in two different directions, which was impossible to halt with its strength. When D.H. Hill was attacked, Lee would need time, as in facts, to concentrate his army to halt McClellan but at the same time large part of his army was engaging at Harper’s Ferry. Lee’s strategic failure here is that he had tried to concentrate at too much goals, which beyond the strength of his army at the same time as Hitler did in Russia.
Failure to inspire the Marylander also contributed to Lee’s defeat in this campaign. A proclamation was issued by Lee on 8th September in order to inspire the Marylanders. ‘Marylanders shall once more enjoy their ancient freedom of thought and speech’ Lee said, ‘this army will respect your choice whatever it may be.’ Nonetheless, most of the Marylanders had less enthusiasm to join the Confederate for its cause. The Marylanders informed Lee that the Maryland would not secede unless Confederate occupation would be prolonged. This lukewarm response was fatal to Lee since Lee had relied on the Marylanders’ cooperation with their resources and manpower in order to prolong his stand on Maryland and relief Virginia from direct threat of invasion. Without this resources and manpower, Lee would have to rely on the supply from Virginia and even their purchase of supplies with Confederate scrip in Maryland did not win popularity as well. Even though there were still Southern sympathisers in the state, without the support of the Maryland State with her manpower and resources meant that Lee had to bring on the war with his small army with limited supply.

The Real Losers

2010-05-22T13:52:00.000-07:00

The life of several generations are ruined.No one had won the war but they are the real losers and only victims.

Broken Souls of a Broken Nation

2010-05-22T08:05:00.000-07:00

"After his education, he will wear the machine gun and liberate his country."
"We Palestinians were barred from certain professions..."
"It will probably take me three years for the equipment (a camera)..."

The Trouble Maker

2010-05-21T01:22:00.000-07:00

When Iran showed willingness to negotiate and there is a chance of peaceful settlement, the fucking American just denied all the effort made. If they want to sanction Iran because of its nuclear program then why not the Israel? Why there are different approaches in dealing with a Muslim country and a non-Muslim country? Furthermore, the American has also promised to assist Israel to develop its rocket system. Do the American want peace? No, they want WAR!!! Iran is safe now, thanks to Iraq and Afghanistan.

"Born in Gaza"

2010-05-12T01:57:00.000-07:00

This is only one single case out of thousand of them. How many heart broken parents are there? The Israel always talks of humanity and civilization while they are acting like a cold-hearted barbarians where they never respect and care of the human life. Security reason? BULLSHIT! Can a two years old baby with two holes on his heart to carry out an attack in Israel? A baby who can be saved easily with an operation was killed, not by his own sickness but by the fucking delay caused by the FUCKING Israelis. Sometimes what the fucking Israel did just make me feel so sick that I feel that they deserve what Hitler had done on them. If they think the Arabs' life are not respectable, so do they.

Tet Offensive

2010-05-10T23:38:00.000-07:00

After the victory at Dien Bien Phu, as a result of fearing the destruction of the balance of Cold War, Ho Chi Minh was forced by his supreme in Soviet Union to agree with a settlement where he would be given the north and the France to the south of Vietnam until a general election. This general election, however, would never come when, as President Eisenhower said, Ho Chi Minh would have gotten 80% of the vote if free election had been held. ‘Elections are very good, as long as they serve to elect governments that are friendly to the US. But if they do not, they are not to be recommended’. A puppet government was installed and the American had involved in this Vietnam civil war after they found out that the South Vietnam would unable to hold the North Vietnam Communist without their assist. The war reached the stalemate at 1967 when the guerillas in the South started losing their bases areas and were slowly pushed back. Henceforth, General Vo Nguyen Giap, the commander of the North Vietnamese Army (NVA), decided that something need to be done in order to keep the morale of the troops. As a result of this need, one of the greatest campaigns in the military history was planned and launched on 31st January 1968, before the start of the Tet New Year for the Vietnamese.

From the effect of this offence, we can easily observe the increase importance of the television as a source of information for the public and the crucial role played by the television in a major war for the first time. This importance showed when the NBC’s Huntley-Brinkley Report enjoyed the largest audience share, some 20 million viewers, during the year of 1968 at a time when the New York Times was not able to distribute nationally on the day of publication. A good example of this increase influential is shown when footage of an execution of a Vietcong sympathizer by General Nguyen Ngoc Loan, the Chief of Police of the South Vietnam, during the Tet Offensive come out in television news, which had shocked many American and changed their views on the war while the Congressman Henry Reuss said that he thought they were winning the war. Professor Bruce Southard, who was a graduate student at the time, stated that, ‘…It was unlike anything that I had seen before…After that I decided what we were doing in Vietnam was wrong…After that I became active in the antiwar movement’. Besides the effects on the public opinion, the television had also influenced the US decision maker at the time, President Johnson, at some level. ‘To say that we are closer to victory today is to believe, in the face of the evidence, the optimism who have been wrong in the past’, said by Walter Cronkite in his special broadcast on Tet Offensive, ‘…it is increasingly clear to this reporter that the only rational way out then will be to negotiate, not as victors, but as an honorable people who lived up to their pledge to defend democracy, and did the best they could’. This Cronkite special was deemed by some historians as the most influential one which had affected President Johnson most on his withdrew from the presidential race and call for a negotiation with the North Vietnam. This influence showed when President Johnson told his press secretary, George Christian, that if he had lost Walter Cronkite he had lost the American. Harry McPherson, the counsel to Johnson, also feels that the Cronkite special had huge impact on the President when he feels that Johnson trust Walter Cronkite very much. Nonetheless, this influence from the television on the public opinion and the decision maker may still in doubt. Daniel Hallin had rejected the claim that television was the first domino which changed the public opinions and the images of the war. He insists that demonstrating television’s impacts on the public is not related to what people think they remember. George Herring, also insists that the direct link between television reporting and public opinion cannot be established. David Culbert also put doubt on whether the impacts of the execution of the Vietcong sympathizer are come from the photo or the video footage. However, the effect of the television cannot be ignored. A photo provides an image and produce memory but moving images provide additional surprise and shock that a photo unable to and hence produce a deeper memory. Like Professor Bruce Southard’s words, ‘…then I saw the blood coming out of the guy’s head…It really turned my stomach’. The impact may not lay on the public’s memory but it will lay on the public’s knowledge that their sons, husbands or fathers may be subject to same ruthless treatment.

The US documents during this period of time also reveal to the historians with the weakness of the US intelligence especially its failure in anticipating the Tet Offensive, which had been planned for several months. Even though the NVA had brought out a huge infiltration into Saigon during this period of time, the US and South Vietnam had failed to detect these infiltrations and the plans behind. The seriousness of this failure can be seen in a 1968 CIA report where it stated that ‘the intensity, coordination and timing of the attacks were not fully anticipated’. William Jorden of the National Security Council Staff also alleged that ‘we didn’t have one single attack thoroughly anticipated’. General Wheeler, the Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, had afterward said that infiltration is easy to be brought out in a city like Saigon. This, however, is not a valid reason to justify the US intelligence failure. There is no reason for their failure in detecting infiltrations and offensive plan in such an important city like Saigon, which should be the city with the best security. Several factors behind this failure in anticipating the Tet Offensive have been listed by Glenn Helm. Among the reasons listed, the most important factors should be the inability and inefficiency of the South Vietnamese officer. An American advisor remarked that the attitude of ‘let the Americans do it’ is always prevailed among the Vietnamese while they are sleeping day and night. Another American advisor also made complain on the quality of the Vietnamese naval units when they spent several hours daily on inspecting a fishing fleet in the same place on a regular basis. These remarks are, however, contradict with Westmoreland’s statement where he had told the Deputy Commander of the Military Assistance Command, Vietnam in a telegram that the South Vietnamese are getting stronger, more effective and able to shoulder a larger share of the war. The remarks of the advisors will be of higher creditability since Westmoreland was only there to make decision while the advisors were the one who directly in touch and working with the South Vietnamese. The reason behind this ineffective may because of the South Vietnamese’s policy as William Thomas Allison alleged that the South Vietnamese leaders knew that they could not survive without the presence of US and the US would begin to withdraw if their result in the military effectiveness is too good. Another reason for this intelligence failure may because of the confusion and difference of the information analysis. In a memorandum to Johnson, the President’s Special Assistant, Rostow, had stated that different outcome had been achieved when the Saigon and the CIA were asked to analyse the same captured documents where both had different view on the decisiveness of a predicted NVA winter-spring campaign. This means that the US had had acquired sufficient information on a possible military campaign a year earlier. Despite whether this information had attracted the attention of the US commanders, Westmoreland had mistakenly put his focus on the base in Khe Sanh which was so important for the US for three reasons, as Westmoreland informed the Joint Chiefs of Staff, where it is the western anchor of the US defense of the Demilitarised Zone, its abandonment would bring enemy into area contiguous to the highly populated and important coastal area and its abandonment would constitute a major propaganda victory to the enemy and seriously affect the Vietnamese and US morale. General Giap had afterwards held that Khe Sanh was not as important for North Vietnam as for US. This might not be true since the base on Khe Sanh was a threat towards the Ho Chi Minh Trail and as General Bui Tin held, ‘…block the Ho Chi Minh Trail, the Hanoi could not have won the war’. Despite its importance to the North Vietnam, when NVA had built up forces in the outpost of Khe Sanh and put the base under constant rocket and mortar fire, the North Vietnamese had been on a more advance situation. The North Vietnamese could bring out either campaigns of Saigon or Khe Sanh depends on the US deployments and both would result a great shock toward the American.

Another issue raised from this offensive is the main objective of this military operation when the North Vietnamese achieved a political victory rather than a military victory. Many historians generally agree with the official held objective of this offensive, which is to annihilate and cause the total disintegration of the puppet army and overthrow the puppet government, cause huge destruction to the US war equipment and troops strength in order to disable them from carrying out further military or political operation and force the US to accept defeat in Vietnam, to achieve immediate goal of revolution and further achieve unification. Ronnie Ford, however, held that the offensive was never meant to be a “go for broke” effort to quickly win the war but rather a “continual process” of attacks and uprisings to gain strength as the war entered a fighting-while-negotiating phase. This claim is somehow different as in the sense that whether to have a great impact on the US public and forcing the war into a fighting-while-negotiating phase is one of the objectives of this offensive. In an interview with Stephen Young, a human right activist, General Bui Tin, the former Colonel of the NVA, held that General Giap has later told him that Tet has been a military defeat but they had gained the planned political advantages when Johnson agreed to negotiate and withdrew from the election. General Giap himself also pointed out afterwards that they have no such thing of single strategy and their operations were always of the multiple objectives, which are military, political and diplomatic. The credibility of these statements may in doubt since they were made only after the end of the operation and the results are clear. The planner of this offensive, however, might at the beginning expect some sort of impacts on the US public but it could be sure that the effects resulted are totally out of their expectations. This can be seen when General Tran Do, the operational planner in South Vietnam, suggested that the main objective of the offensive is to undermine the South Vietnamese military and government and having an impact in the United State had been an unintended and fortunate consequence. Henceforth the main objective of this military operation should largely be of the military rather than the political one, it can be said that the huge impacts on the US public is unexpected by the North Vietnamese.

Another issue in doubt is that of the casualties and damages caused to the NVA as a result of this operation. The estimation of NVA casualties is around 45,000 to 50,000. This estimation, however, may be untrue since, as Walter Cronkite said, an exact count is impossible when the dead were buried randomly at the ruins. The damages suffered by the NVA as a result of this attack are also unsure even to the American. This can be explained when General Westmoreland requested a large number of reinforcement in order to meet the growth of strength of the enemy after the attacks. The Military Assistance Command, Vietnam (MACV), however, claimed that 32,500 NVA regular armies, 65% of its strength, gone as a result of the attack. General Wheeler, even though with a more conservative figures, still believed that one-fifth of the NVA strength was destroyed. If any of these predictions are true, this request of reinforcement has contradicted with the earlier prediction of Westmoreland with ‘evidence’ where he believed manpower problems are emerging in North Vietnam. The only explanations of this contradiction are either the MACV and Wheeler had overestimated the proportion of North Vietnamese who had participated the attacks or Westmoreland had misjudged the situation after the attacks as a result of shock.

Accordingly, Tet Offensive had provided not only a great effect to the Vietnam War but also much of uncertainty. When Tet offensive had been treated as turning point of the Vietnam War, the doubt left behind will remain arguable.

Atomic Bomb and the World

2010-05-10T00:38:00.000-07:00

Introduction

Soon after the end of the Second World War, the world has entered a new era of Cold War. It is not a war of general definition but rather a series of conflicts, mainly and mostly political and limitedly military. It is a ‘war’ for ideology, between the capitalism and communism. The main feature of this era should be the entry of the world into the new atomic and nuclear age with the Superpowers possession of a large amount of atomic and nuclear weapons, which capable to destroy the whole human civilizations. Nonetheless, these horror weapons brought not only threat; they were also of critical importance in several means for the world during this era of Cold War.

Prevent the Immediate Spread of Communism in Asia

In August 6 and 9, 1945, two atomic bombs were dropped on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, two purely ‘military target’ as President Truman called them, respectively. The reasons behind the use of these two bombs were of essence since it not only concern with the strategic purpose but also the change of attitude of the US foreign policy. Three general reasons of the using of the atomic bomb are suggested by Walter Lafeber as the weapons were developed with the expectation that they should be used, the planned invasion of Japan mainland will be costly and finally are to exclude Soviet from the Japan. Besides the legitimate expectation, when it is common for both sides in war to use the most powerful weapons they possessed, the use of the bombs may also as a practical testing of the bombs. Although the bomb was successfully tested, it is still in doubt on how powerful the bomb is and the real damages it could cause. It was "conservative" estimates by the scientific groups that the bomb at least equivalent to 10,000 tons of T.N.T. When these scientists were ordered to visit the family nearby the test field to determine the effect of radiation on this family, different stories were reported back. When the US first possessed this terrible weapon, they were at that moment like a kid who could not wait to play with his new toy and the Japan had unfortunately become the only target of this terrible ‘toy’. Lafeber suggests that the primary target of the atomic bomb was the Nazis Germany rather than the Japan. This might not be true since it would be ‘immoral’ for the US to drop such a mass destructive weapon on a ‘white’ country that damaged almost the whole Europe. But it would be ‘moral’ if the target was a ‘yellow’ country that bombed the Pearl Harbor, as Truman himself put it, ‘when you deal with a beast you have to treat him as a beast’. Even the Germany was the first victim of the atomic bomb; the Japan would still be the victim of the second. This is because the separation of Germany into different occupied zone is an inevitable result of the war and it is also impossible to exclude the Soviet from the Europe land when they bared the main losses in the war with Nazis Germany while the US was the main force who fought with the Japanese on the Pacific. The use of the bomb rather than conventional invasion of the Japan mainland will help to shorten the war and reduce the US casualties and most importantly is that the Soviet can only be excluded from the Japan mainland only when the Japan surrender as soon as possible.
When the war came nearer to the end, the honeymoon between the West and Soviet was flown in the same direction when they had lost their common enemy and interests. Several disputes had been raised among the Superpowers as on the issue of the Europe after the Germany surrendered especially issues regarding to the Poland. The Soviet’s aggressive policy in East Europe and the possessed of the atomic bomb which would enable the US to defeat Japan without the assistance from Soviet had caused the US to change its foreign policy from desire to cooperate with the Soviet to the fear of Soviet intervention and the spread of Communism especially in the Asia. This can be seen during the Yalta Conference, President Franklin Roosevelt had promised Premiere Stalin with several territories request in Asia, mainly in China, in order to urge Soviet to enter into war with Japan in 2 or 3 months after the Germany surrender. However, when the Big Three came together again in Potsdam Conference, the final terms of the agreement reached regarding to the Japan had mentioned nothing on the Soviet’s entry into war against Japan. The US won its first anti-communism war with the assistance of the atomic bombs when the Japanese finally surrendered under their second atomic bomb and before a Soviet attack was launched on the Japan mainland. The atomic bomb was important for the US at this final stage of Second World War and the beginning stage of Cold War as in the sense that it had stopped the immediate spread of the communism on the Asia land, even though China, North Korea and Vietnam would later fall into the hand of ‘evil’ communists as in the mind of the West. Otherwise there may be a North and South or East and West Japan today as a result of the Soviet invasion and the necessity of balance of power.

Achieve Balance of Power and Uphold General World Peace

Additionally, the US monopoly on this super weapon at the early age of Cold War had also prevented the further fall of the West Europe into the hand of Soviet’s influence. This can be seen as the State Department informed Truman in 1945 that the Soviet was ‘not too greatly concerned about the development in West Europe so long as the Western European countries do not show signs of ganging up on them’. Stalin was also at the same time unwilling to pay full support to the French Communists with the fear that the fall of the French into Communist might break the balance of power between the West and the Communist Bloc and cause a direct conflict with the US. This doctrine of balance of power is of the essence in the age of Cold War while it had helped to uphold the general even not a total peace of the world. Before the Soviet’s possession of the atomic bomb, the aggressiveness and the desire to use force to drive Soviet out from the East Europe and to stop Soviet atomic development were high among the Washington policy makers and the militants. ‘Give me the order to do it’, General Orvil Anderson said, ‘and I can break up Russia’s five A-bomb nests in a week’. The basic US policy of this time can be seen in the Byrnes’ speech to the Cabinet on April 1946 where he held that the attempt to buy off the Soviet had worked no better than the Washington’s vague hope that the atomic bomb might somehow make them more “manageable”. Truman had also stated that it is certainly a good thing for the world that Hitler’s crowd and Stalin’s did not discover the atomic bomb. This statement is partly true as to the aspect of Hitler but not Stalin when Hitler’s policy was to conquer while Stalin’s was to self-protect.
The Soviet’s possession of atomic bomb is of the highly importance for the Cold War years. It had helped to promote a balance of power, which Churchill had treated as unsound for the Cold War year. Nonetheless, the importance and effect of the balance of power on the world order and the general world peace has never diminished as Churchill thought. Woodrow Wilson once said that only a peace between equals can last. Malenkov, the new Soviet Premier after Stain’s death, in his 1955 New Year’s Day speech also announced that the Soviet possession of hydrogen bomb made peaceful coexistence ‘necessary and possible’. This peaceful coexistence is ‘necessary and possible’ because there is a fear of a total atomic war, which the civilized world can never survive of. As the Baruch Plan described, now ‘we must elect world peace or world destruction’. And this fear of the use of atomic bomb had forced these superpowers to make the decision, which is a general peace with limited but not direct military conflict. This had prevented the break out of the total war between the superpowers but rather transformed the war into limited and proxy war where the wars were fought on others’ land on their behalf with their weapons.
Nevertheless, John Mueller had insisted that the great losses suffered as a result of First and Second World War have deterred the great powers from ever using force against each other hence the atomic and nuclear weapons are essentially irrelevant to the stability of the international system during the Cold War. This argument is quite true but it will only applicable to the immediate post-war years. The impact of a war never last long in human’s mind and this is why war forms essential part of human history and it never stops until today. The impact of the First World War only lasted for 21 years. John Mueller said that the First World War was not so catastrophic to make Second World War unthinkable. Was a war which took away almost 10 million lives not catastrophic enough? The main factors behind the Second World War are not of the First World War not catastrophic enough but because of the forgetful, selfish and risk-taking human nature. After 21 years of time, Germany had almost recovered from the damages caused by the First World War especially after the abolishment of the Versailles Treaty by Hitler, which is the main cause of the collapse of German economy. These economic and military recoveries had encouraged Hitler to continue with the second part of the war where Germany was defeated in 1918 to achieve his personal ambition. A country takes years to recover from destructions caused by conventional war and it is still reparable but a total atomic or nuclear war can cause irreparable and absolute destruction to the human civilizations. As Eisenhower put it that a nuclear war would mean the ‘probability of civilization destroyed-the annihilation of the irreplaceable heritage of mankind’. It is not the Second World War, which was so catastrophic to make Third World War unthinkable but the destructions of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were so catastrophic to make the Third World War unthinkable. ‘War today is unthinkable with the weapons which we have at our command’ Churchill had once commented that, ‘if the Kremlin and Washington ever lock up in a war, the result are too horrible to contemplate’. This can explain why the US and the Soviet had tried not to get involve in the same country as during the Korean War when the US informed Soviet of their action in Korea, Soviet had responded that the Korean War was a civil war and Soviet could do nothing. In the further Vietnam War, Afghanistan War, Berlin Crisis and Cuban Missile Crisis, both sides had tried to avoid involving in a direct conflict with each other while both also tried to avoid the use of atomic or nuclear bombs. The best example could be seen when the French was trapped in Dien Bien Phu, the US Air Force Chief of Staff Nathan Twining had had a ‘good idea’ to drop three small tactical atomic bombs on Dien Bien Phu, which is a so called ‘isolated area’ in Twining’s definition with no great town around but only communists and their supplies to save the French from this crisis. This suggestion, however, was rejected by President Eisenhower. There might be two reasons behind this rejection with two consequences. If the Soviet militarily reacted to the use of atomic bombs in Vietnam, it would be an atomic war and the US would have to take heavier responsibility to the world destruction rather than the Soviet who acted as a protector of the weaker. Even the Soviet stood by when the bombs were used, the US would have created the precedent of using atomic bomb in a limited and proxy war. The US would subsequently suffer a great moral pressure and also lose its voice to object further Soviet’s use of atomic bombs. Henceforth, this balance of power based on the fear of direct atomic and nuclear exchange had upheld at least the general peace and saved the world from a total atomic and nuclear war and further total destruction during the Cold War period.

Arm Race and Creation of New World Order

Another significance of the atomic or nuclear weapons to the Cold War is that it brought both the US and Soviet into an endless arm race. This arm race had its origin even before the end of the Second World War when Stalin aware of the existence of the Manhattan Project, which the West tried to keep secret from the Soviet. The use of the atomic bombs on Japan was treated by the Soviet leader as a pressure and military threat on the Soviet to demonstrate that the US is willing to use the atomic bomb as Molotov later recalled that ‘the bombs dropped on Japan were not aimed at Japan but rather at the Soviet Union’. ‘Single demand of you, comrades’, Stalin said in a meeting with the scientists who in charged of the Soviet atomic project, ‘provide us with atomic weapons in the shortest possible time…provide the bomb-it will remove great danger from us’.
The development of these weapons with mass destruction, however, had later shifted from its military necessity into political chips for negotiation purpose as Malenkov put it in a speech on August 1953 that the Soviet had successfully tested a hydrogen bomb and with the break of the US monopoly on this weapon, the Soviet stood ready to negotiate on the European problem. Security reason is always the pretext used to justify the development of the nuclear weapons. Nonetheless, it can be sure that once the US monopoly on atomic and nuclear weapon was broken, a war with direct atomic and nuclear exchange had appeared ridiculous and impossible for both camps since the use of these weapons will probably mean a whole destruction of the world, which is an unwanted result where both camps had tried very hard to avoid. ‘The war of the future would be one in which man could extinguish millions of lives at one blow, demolish the great cities of the world, wipe out the cultural achievements of the past-and destroyed the very structure of a civilization that has been slowly and painfully built up through hundreds of generations’, Truman said in his final State of the Union massage, ‘such a war is not a possible policy for rational men’. Besides this, the decision makers from both sides were also clear that the development of these weapons could never guarantee the safety of their countries as Eisenhower bitterly held that ‘the US is piling up armaments which it well knows will never provide for its ultimate safety’. Henceforth, the main objective for both powers to go into this endless arm race can be deemed intending to uphold the nuclear threat and to buildup a superior power to overwhelm each other when ‘conventional wisdom still held that armaments chiefly determined influence’. As Trout put it, the weapons bring not a ‘danger of war’ but rather a ‘threat of a danger of war’. Leo Szilard, one of the foremost scientists in the development of the American bomb also with the view that ‘the Russian can affect the political attitude of Western European just by threatening to bomb them’. With the upholding of this threat, both the US and Soviet would able to keep their allies around them and uphold their influences on the world events. This had led to the two camps age where the world especially those new emerging countries during this time would have to choose between the West and Communist Blocs in order to be protected from the atomic and nuclear threat.
Nonetheless, as the arm race kept going on and the more powerful thermonuclear weapons kept appearing, these countries found that they were not safe anymore to side with any camp and this had led to a change of their policy. Like Dulles’ own words, the hydrogen bomb was ‘driving away our Allies away from us. They think we are getting ready for a war of this kind. We could survive, but some of them would be obliterated in a few minutes’. This fear of total destruction in ‘a few minutes’ and the change of policy as a result of this fear had encouraged the non-aligned movement among the new emerging countries and finally brought the Bandung Conference into place in 1955. The Bandung Conference is of essence for either the Cold War or modern history since it is an important step towards the crystallization of the international organization of Non-Aligned Movement. Even though this organization is an UN-like organization, which is useless and senseless in protecting its members and solving disputes, its foundation remain important for the development of Cold War age. It had created a third way to the new emerging countries and released them from a dilemma where they were forced to oppose either side of the powers. This creation of Third World had broken the two camps age and created a new world order while to some extent it had eased the tension of the Cold War when the economic cooperation and benefit rather than the nuclear threat had become the main factor to attract these countries to side with these two super powers.

Conclusion

Even though the atomic and nuclear weapons had put the human into a fear of total annihilation for almost fifty years, it is important for the world as it had helped to save the human civilizations and created a new world order. These weapons are still important for today’s world of the same reason. This is because the Cold War had never ended after the disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991. It only shifted the opposing camps from the US-Soviet into US-China and possible US-China-EU. Once the Cold War was started, it will not end until the next great hot war. The Third World War with nuclear exchange is inevitable; the world is now waiting for another global dispute, which is sharp enough to overcome the fear of total annihilation.

American and the Vietnam War (Part 2)

2010-05-09T01:22:00.000-07:00

1963-1969: Break the Dilemma

Lyndon Johnson was in power after the assassination of Kennedy in 1963 and here came the one who finally acquired the Congressional approval to act with the famous Tonkin Gulf Resolution. Johnson administration had succeeded the government at the most sensitive time of election year of 1964. As his predecessor Kennedy, who had a withdrawal plan in mind in order to save himself from the image of being a President leading the country to war during the election year, Johnson had adopted a lukewarm policy on Vietnam in his first year of administration after succeeded Kennedy. The amazing election year again paralysed the American government with the political consideration and reality.
When the American actions in Vietnam were restricted by its democracy in 1964, North Vietnam had increased the tension of their activities in South Vietnam with not only South Vietnamese but also American as their target. The Viet Cong had attacked an American advisory compound at Kontum City o 2nd February when a bomb was exploded in the Capital-Kinh Do Theatre when it was known to be occupied only by America a few days later on 7th February. Besides these partly civilian targets, attacks were also lunched on the American military build up in South Vietnam. For example, an American airbase at Bien Hoa near Saigon was mortared by the Viet Cong on 1st November, which killed four Americans, destroyed five B-57 bombers and seriously damaged eight other aircraft. Among these attacks launched, the most important and influential is of the Tonkin Gulf Incident, which had led to the Tonkin Gulf resolution where Congressional approval was finally granted to the President to take military action in Vietnam.
On 2nd August 1964, an American destroyer, Maddox, was attacked by the North Vietnamese torpedo boats at the Tonkin Gulf when it was on an intelligence mission. Two different view points were held on this attack. One argues that it is logically for the North Vietnamese to assume that the destroyer was trying to attack the North Vietnam coastal installations when another operation conducted by the South Vietnamese to raid the North Vietnamese coastal installations was brought out on 31st July. It is also argued that the instruction to approach no closer than 8 nautical miles to the North Vietnam coast would result in the violation of North Vietnam’s definition of coastal wasters, which believed to be 12 nautical miles from its coast. The other side, however, argues that the North Vietnamese should not have to attack the Maddox until they make sure that Maddox is the one that conducted the operation on 31st July. This argument is quite a ridiculous one. This will be like asking the British Navy to confirm that the U-Boats they met have had intention to attack them or have had attacked any British convoy before they could sink them. When the Iranian air bus was shot down by the American missile cruiser in 1988 when it was misidentified as an Iranian F-14 Tomcat Fighter and caused the death of 290 civilians, the captain’s argument that he has the responsibility to protect his crews when the identity of incoming air craft was unknown and might caused harm to his ship was received by the US Navy authority as valid defence. Hence, it is also the North Vietnamese’s duty to protect their coastal water from unknown warships and it is also reasonable to use force on them. Two days later when Maddox was back to the gulf for same operation with another ship named Turner Joy, an ‘attack’ was reported. The existence of this second attack is in doubt. When the ‘attack’ was reported, the aircraft had called in and held that he saw no enemy boats or any wakes of such craft and even Captain Herrick of the task force also reported that the ‘entire action leaves many doubts except for apparent attempt to ambush at the beginning.’ Nonetheless, these attacks despite the doubts were enough for the Johnson to acquire the invaluable Congressional approval to act in Vietnam.
The important Tonkin Gulf Resolution was presented to the Congress after the American warships were twice ‘attacked’ by the North Vietnamese in ‘international water’. Section 1 of the resolution would grant the President power to ‘take all necessary power to repel any armed attack against the forces of the United States and to prevent further aggression’ while section 2 would grant the President to commit arm forces in Southeast Asia under the provisions of SEATO. This resolution was passed overwhelmingly in the Congress with only two objective votes from Earnest Gruening and Wayne Morse. Gruening, a Democrat from Alaska, had strongly opposed the great Presidential authority to be granted to commit American troops in all the SEATO nations ‘in which we have no business, which is not our war, into which we have been misguidedly drawn, which is steadily being escalated.’ ‘This resolution is a further authorisation for escalation unlimited’ Gruening said, ‘I am opposed to sacrificing a single American boy in this venture. We have lost far too many already.’ Besides these two Congressmen, the Undersecretary of State, George Ball, who is an experienced diplomat and had observed firsthand the French defeat in Indochina as a counsel to the French embassy, also objected a direct military commitment in Vietnam later in 1965. As opposed to a ‘war between the US and a large part of the population of South Vietnam, organised and directed from North Vietnam and backed be the resources of both Moscow and Beijing’, Ball preferred a civil war where he suggested that General Westmoreland should be strictly restricted from directly throwing his men into military operation or widening the range of bombardment to Hanoi-Haiphong area or Chinese border while the US troops should remain as advisors and trainers of South Vietnam rather than combat forces. Ball also treats the result of sending American troops to Vietnam as an ‘open-ended commitment of US forces, mounting US casualties, no assurance of satisfactory solution, and a serious danger of escalation at the end of the road.’
These dissent voices, nevertheless, had only little influence on Johnson. Johnson could be the most innocent President during this period of times where he was set up by Kennedy’s policy of limited war. Kennedy’s death had succeeded his political life while the dilemma left by Kennedy had also ruined his political life. When he faced with the dilemma of going in or out, Johnson had preferred the latter. Nonetheless, the political realities had stopped Johnson from withdrawing. These include the ‘lost’ of China, the ‘dominoes theory’, the prestige of America and the necessary toughness to be shown against the Communist expansion. Most importantly is that, as Johnson had told Richard Russell during their personal conversation, ‘everybody I talk to says you got to go in….including all the Republicans....and I don’t know how in the hell you’re gonna get out unless they tell you to get out.’ He needs the Republican support for the construction of his welfare state. When the situation in South Vietnam kept deteriorating, Johnson decided to bet his luck and presidency on the Tonkin Gulf Resolution as he once told Russell that ‘I don’t see any other way out of it.’
The war was now entered a new page. It was finally internationalised following the Tonkin Gulf Resolution. Even though Johnson had tried to force the North Vietnamese to give in with the American supreme air power without ground invasion, which might provoke the China as in Korea, the Americans had at last directly involved in the conflict. A war cost the over fifty thousand Americans’ lives and Johnson’s political life was now agreed to fight. When a quick collapse of North Vietnamese was expected following the introduction of American ground troops and the heavy air bombardment of North Vietnam, Johnson did not aware that he was getting into a hopeless gamble where he would lose all his chips in the Tet Offensive.

1969-1973: Abandon of the Cornerstone of Free World

The disaster of Tet Offensive in 1968 had not only pulled down Johnson from the peak of his political life, but also completely destroyed the American willingness to continue this unwanted war. When Richard Nixon took office in 1969, ‘peace with honour’ is the theme of his Vietnam policy. This means surrendering South Vietnam honourably without damaging the American prestige as he told a journalist in 1969, ‘we would destroy ourselves if we pulled out in a way that wasn’t really honourable.’ This damages to American prestige would express in the sense, as Nixon held in his 1969 speech, that ‘a nation cannot remain great if it betrays its allies and lets down its friends, our defeat and humiliation in South Vietnam without question would promote recklessness in the councils of those great powers who have not yet abandoned their goals of world conquest, this would spark violence wherever our commitments help maintain the peace.’ This policy of ‘peace with honour’ had unnecessarily prolonged the war for another 5 years until the Congress prohibited any American military involvement in Vietnam after 15th August 1973.
In order to achieve his honourably peace, Nixon had adopted the tactic of Vietnamisation. This tactic includes the build up of South Vietnamese troops and a renewal effort on national building. This tactic was aimed to create a strong South Vietnam government that able to uphold itself from the North and further to allow the withdrawal of the American troops from Vietnam and also to force the North to accept American peace terms in the conference. Meanwhile, the South Vietnam army had undergone a steady extension during this period of time. The South Vietnamese soldiers were increased from 820,000 in 1968 to about 1,000,000 in 1970 while thousand of heavy weapons and million of rifles were poured into South Vietnam to equip the its army. Even though many efforts were put on the build up of this army, it would be proven later that all of these efforts are just a waste. With this superiority in weapons and men, the Saigon government was still being defeated by the North Vietnam in 1975.
While the Vietnamisation was in progress, Nixon had more concern on the coming election on 1972 and the end of the American commitment in Vietnam rather than the South Vietnamese ability to sustain the Communist aggression. When he was the leading man who blamed Truman on the ‘lost’ of China, he was now, ironically, preparing to be the one to ‘lose’ the Vietnam to Communist even though the American never ever owns China and Vietnam. In order to ease the tension of the anti-war protest and to secure his re-election, Nixon announced the first American troops withdrawal in June 1969 with the return of 25,000 out of 550,000 Americans. Another 25,000 men were withdrew later that year and the total American troops remained in Vietnam a year later were of 335,000. Following with the withdrawal, the strategy of the American troops in Vietnam was also changed. General Creighton Abrams, the successor of Westmoreland, had abolished his predecessor’s strategy of engaging American troops in massive fire-power warfare but adopted the strategy of small-unit patrolling and pacification. When all the American projects were in progress, another major attack after Tet Offensive was launched by North Vietnam on 30th March 1972. Even though American had responded the attack forcefully with heavy bombardment, this so called Easter Offensive had strengthened the American determination to get out from Vietnam. Under the American initiative, peace conference was held and the Paris Agreement was signed in 1973. Nixon had finally achieved his ‘honourable’ extrication. This Paris Agreement not only represents the American disengagement from the war but also the abandonment of the ‘cornerstone’ of the free world, which the American had spent billion of money and thousands of lives to uphold, for its own faith.
The reduction of the American forces and the change of strategy with the collateral policy of Vietnamisation had slowly restored the war of its characteristic as a civil war. Nonetheless, before the sign of Paris Agreement and the total evacuation of the American troops from Vietnam, this war still remained its characteristic as an international conflict no matter the foreign troops had lost their will to continue this meaningless fighting and had limited their scope of action.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the American policy was the main factor which turned the characteristic of the war as a civil war into an international conflict. The ideological bias had brought this unnecessary war into exist. Millions of lives were taken away as a result of suspicion and bias among the super power.

American and the Vietnam War (Part 1)

2010-05-09T01:14:00.000-07:00

Introduction

The Vietnam War is a milestone of twentieth century with a result of American’s first setback they never suffered before in their long history. This war contains of two different characteristic as a civil war at the beginning stage and also an international conflict after the increase American intervention. The following discussion will focus on the examination and analysis of the American policy adopted in this conflict at different period of presidency in order to identify when, how and why this conflict between Vietnamese was internationalised.

1954-1961: National Building and United Action

The year of 1954 is of the significance in the Vietnamese history. The end of the First Indochina War and the start of the Second Indochina War had happened in this same vulnerable year. The fall of Vietnam into the Vietnamese Communist under Ho Chi Minh after the fall of China into the Chinese Communist under Mao Tze Dong was deemed by the American as an unacceptable aggressive expansion of the Communist dictatorship. This has justified President Eisenhower’s famous ‘falling domino’ theory as the President himself put it in a press conference, ‘you have a row of dominoes set up, you knock over the first one, and what will happen to the last one is the certainty that it will over very quickly.’
In order to prevent the falling of the following dominoes, there was a necessity to install and preserve a ‘free’ South Vietnam in opposing with the Communist North Vietnam. Henceforth the Vietnamese history entered a new era of American intervention. The first problem faced by the American in South Vietnam is of the candidate of its Premiere who could handle the challenges from the North and the general election proposed by Geneva Accord in 1956. Unlike its Northern neighbour, who is systematically led by the Communist under Ho Chi Minh, what remained in the South after the Geneva Accord are chaos and nothing more. As Dulles report to the Congressional leaders after the Geneva Convention that ‘there was little effective leadership in Vietnam and although…that Bao Dai was not an impressive leader there was no one else whom the French had developed who could take over.’ Ngo Dinh Diem, who even though is not a wholly satisfactory choice for the Washington, was finally chosen and installed as the Premiere of South Vietnam because of his strong anti-communist characteristic. This characteristic nonetheless is not enough to cover his incompetence in other aspects. Robert McClintock, the American ambassador in Saigon, had once held that Diem is like a ‘messiah without message’ with ‘narrowness of view’ while his only ‘formulated policy is to ask immediate American assistance in every form.’ This alleged dependant on America had pointed out the second phase of the national building of South Vietnam, the large amount of American economic assistance.
In order to uphold the invasion of a far stronger North Vietnam, large amount of economic aid was poured into South Vietnam to assist its national building especially the building of a strong army. From 1956 to 1960, the total American economic assistance to the South Vietnam is $1,387.2 million plus additional $500 million of military hardware and supplies. Among these large aids, at least 75% of them have been spent by the South Vietnam for the military purpose. Besides these financial aids, military advisers were also sent to South Vietnam to conduct the training of the South Vietnamese army. A puppet country of South Vietnam was built with the power of US dollar on the Asia continent to stop the Communist expansion. Nonetheless, inefficiency and misuse of the funds had undermined the American affords in creating a self-sustained South Vietnam. Three-fourth of the American aids was used to import the consumer goods or raw materials for consumer goods, which do not result in capital growth, rather than go into the industry and agriculture, which is the lifeline of the South Vietnamese economy. A better living standard in South Vietnam had been resulted following these imports while this prosperity can only last for long time provided the American money is pouring into the country unlimitedly. The ‘freedom’ in South Vietnam is preserved with the attrition of the American financial power. As Milton Taylor’s words, ‘the American is building a castle on sand.’
Short before the end of the battle of Dien Bien Phu, the America had considered a direct involvement in the Vietnam to survive the French army from collapsing. In a conference with the Congress members and leaders on April 3rd, Secretary Dulles had asked for an allowance from the Congress to grant power to the President to use any sea and air power in the area when he felt it necessary to safeguard the national interest. The Congress refused to grant any power in this nature unless others allies can be brought into a united action, as Senator Knowland said, ‘we want no more Koreas with the United States furnishing 90% of the manpower.’ The President himself also with the view that the American ground and air forces must be kept out from the Vietnam as he believed that ‘united action by the free world was necessary, and in such action the US roe would not require use of its ground troops.’ With this condition attached by the Congress and his own belief, President Eisenhower started his fruitless struggling for a united action.
The first attempt to get an ally in this unwanted war is made on UK, who remained as the sole colonial power within Southeast Asia at the moment. Most importantly, it also faced with a Communist threat in Malaya during this period of Malayan Emergency. In his letter dated next day after the conference to Churchill, Eisenhower reminded Churchill with the direct Communist threat towards Malaya, Australia and New Zealand where the British basic interests lays as a result of the fall of Vietnam. The President, however, had failed to persuade the British to commit in the conflict. The main reason may because of the possibility of an infinite involvement in the mud of Vietnam, which would drain the British already vulnerable economy as a result of the World War II. Another reason why the safety of its colonies in Southeast Asia could produce no effect on Churchill is because it was clear that the Communist threat in Malaya is so small and could bring no serious threat. Communism has only very little attraction towards the Malay who is the main race and majority on the land and even the Malaya Communist Party was also formed mainly by the Chinese on the land. Hence, it will be unreasonable for the Britain to make this unnecessary commitment in Vietnam when the situation in its Southeast Asian colonies was still under its control. Furthermore, when the Communist can be halted on the Malaya, Australia and New Zealand will be free from the direct Communist threat.
When the UK refused to commit itself in this conflict and the France has no more desire to continue it, as Eisenhower stated, which ‘has been bleeding them for eight years’, the American first try to internationalise the war and halt the Communist expansion on Asia had failed. After the disappointing Geneva Conference, the American has made their second attempt to internationalise the war, which is with the creation of Southeast Asia Treaty Organisation (SEATO). Dulles has held, in his press statement, that this military alliance is to protect those lands where the American ‘has no direct interests but feel a sense of common destiny’, the ‘common destiny’ of destroying the national liberation and unification of Vietnam under Ho Chi Minh. The members of this NATO like organisation includes United State, Australia, New Zealand, Philippines, Thailand, Pakistan and most importantly Britain and France. There are also another three protocol states of South Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia when they were prohibited by the Geneva Accord to join this military alliance. Nonetheless, as the reasons given and since also because it is not a binding defence pact like NATO, Britain and France had less enthusiasm to commit in or continue this conflict any farther under this military alliance. As Lyndon Johnson later bitterly alleged in his report on the situation on Asia to President Kennedy, ‘the SEATO is not now and probably never will be answer because of British and French unwillingness to support decisive action.’ When the French finished their evacuation from South Vietnam in 1956, the American was left there for their unilateral action. Eisenhower administration had failed again in their second attempt to internationalise the Vietnam conflict with their important allies. Nonetheless, the creation of this military alliance had provided a basis for the American intervention.
Due to the American failure to achieve a united action with its allies to acquire the Congressional approve to act in Vietnam, the conflict within the Vietnam still barely equal to a civil war during the Eisenhower presidency. Despite the financial aids and the military advisory to the South Vietnam, the American had less directly involved in this conflict during Eisenhower’s time when the advisers in Vietnam throughout his presidency also never exceeded 700.

1961-1963: The Dilemma

When Kennedy came into office in 1961, the situation in South Vietnam was seriously deteriorated as a result of Communist insurgency. This can be seen when the assassination of the South Vietnamese officials rose from 239 in 1959 to over 1,400 in 1961. In order to have a clearer scene and the best available advice, General Maxwell Taylor, a well honoured general, was sent to Vietnam to explore what could be done by the America to save the South Vietnam.
From his report, General Taylor had recommended a dispatch of American forces to Vietnam in the form of flood relief task force which he emphasised that, ‘I do not believe our program to save South Vietnam will succeed without it.’ Nonetheless, as oppose to this suggestion to send in American ground forces, the possible negative effects of this commitment suggested by Taylor at the beginning of this report had more attention from Kennedy. These include an indefinite commitment which requires a large American ground forces and the risk of escalating the conflict into a major war in Asia. These are the most unwanted result for the President who had just experienced an ill-fated Bay of Pig invasion on Cuba and also because possibility of Chinese commitment is high as an experience from Korea War. As Russell said, ‘it’d be Korea in much bigger scale and worst scale.’ The President himself had also personally told his confidant, Arthur Schlesinger, that sending American forces to Vietnam will equal to an alcoholic’s first drink. ‘The troops will march in,’ the President said, ‘then we will be told we have to send in more troops. It’s like taking a drink, the effect wears off, and you have to take another.’ Instead of sending in fighting troops to directly involve in the war, Kennedy had rather to strengthen the American indirect commitment. The Americans in Vietnam was rose from 900 in 1961 to 11,326 in 1962 while the Military Assistance and Advisory Group (MAAG) was also redesignated as Military Assistance Command, Vietnam (MACV) in order to widen the operational task of the American advisors and pilots in South Vietnam. Under this new strategy, the American advisors in Vietnam were now permitted to take part in limited military operation for the purpose of self-defence.
Henceforth, it can be seen that the Kennedy’s policy in Vietnam is controversy in nature as he tried to defeat the North Vietnam without using serious force. When he, in his NBC interview, denied any reduction of aids to South Vietnam which would produce a result like China in 1949, he had also refused any direct, formal and total commitment in the Vietnam with the introduction of American fighting forces at the same time. When one of his legs is now stuck in the mud, he has refused to pull out his leg while he also tries to prevent another leg from being dirtied. Unlike Eisenhower, who had a clear objective to acquire united action and congressional approval to act, Kennedy was stuck in a dilemma of complete commitment or withdrawal. Nonetheless, this dilemma was preserved rather than broken by the president with his thought of limited engagement, which denies either situations but limited involvement with increasing aids and advisors, and this dilemma was left to his successor after his assassination.
Up until the assassination of Kennedy and the end of his administration, the conflict in Vietnam starts losing its characteristic as a civil war. This is because the American ‘advisors’ are no more of pure advisory role and purpose; their functions are slowly transforming when they are now allowed to take limited military action with their South Vietnamese comrades.

To What Extebt the First Crusade a Colonial Venture? (Part 2)

2010-05-08T15:24:00.001-07:00

The Crusaders

There were two categories of people who had taken up the cross for this journey to the East as crusaders: the aristocrats and the laypeople. As a result of the involvement of this huge number of people, the crusaders’ intentions in taking up the cross to the East are much more complicated to be examined. As an Italian priest held when he was asked why there had been such a great response to Urban II’s appeal for a crusade, ‘different people give different reasons for this journey.’
Whether the crusaders were inspired by the spiritual or material reason has raised some debate among the historians. As Thomas Asbridge has suggested that greed cannot be a dominant motive among the crusaders due to the expedition which is utterly terrifying and cripplingly expensive. This is because every single crusader who had intended to take the cross and go to the East would have to pay for their horses, equipments, supplies and also servants. Some of them even have to raise a fund five times their annual income in order to pay for the expenses. This had led to a massive sales and mortgages of property by the landed crusaders in order to raise the adequate fund. The well known example can be seen on Robert of Normandy’s vifgage of his duchy to his brother, William II, and Raymond of St. Gilles’s giving up of his wealthy county of Toulouse. The sales during this period of time were so massive that had caused the value of goods in Francia fell. However, it may be argued that the crusaders had given up their properties at the West not because they had intended for any wealth or material gain from this expedition but to find themselves a new land at the East to settle through this expedition. Nonetheless, this argument of land hungry is comparatively weak since the landed crusaders had given up their lands at homeland in order to fund their trip. The best examples can be seen when Raymond, as the master of thirteen counties at the Southern France, had given up his ancestral land in Southern France which had been scattered into other hands and had spent him thirty years to reassemble, and Bohemond of Taranto who had given up his hard won foothold in Southern Italy after he was disinherited. Some of the crusaders like Robert of Normandy also stated clear in his contract with his brother with his intention to go back to Europe after the end of the expedition. Furthermore, it must also be bore in mind that it was a time when most of the crusaders had never travelled more than 100 kilometres out from their home and this idea of expedition to the far away unknown land at the East had paralysed many of them with fears. Henceforth, it would be unreasonable to assume that the land hungriness is so great a temptation for the crusaders, especially those landed princes and knights, and enough to overcome their fears and further to inspire them to leave their homes and give up everything they already possessed at their homeland to settle on a totally unknown land 3000 kilometres away from their homeland Europe at the East.
However, there might be colonial intention possessed by some of the crusade leaders. As Georges Duby has suggested that the crusade had offered the reward of new land and wealth at the East which had inspired the younger sons of the landed families, who were dispossessed by the feudal system of passing land to the eldest son, to join the crusade. The best examples can be given to support this point of view are Godfrey of Boulogne, who couldn’t succeed the Boulogne county from his father as a younger son and only gained the title of Duke of Lower Lotharingia as designated heir of his childless uncle, and Bohemond of Taranto, who, even though was the eldest son of his father, had lost his inheritance in South Italy since his father had divorced his mother soon after his birth. Both Bohemond and Godfrey had declared themselves as the ruler of Antioch and Jerusalem respectively on the Eastern land. The stronger will to develop a settlement at the East might be shown by Bohemond since he had led his father’s invasion of the Byzantine Albania in 1080 and was left to inherit this conquered territory and being carved out from the inheritance in South Italy. When Albania was soon retaken by the Byzantine Empire and Bohemond found out he himself was disinherited in Italy, it was believed that the main reason for Bohemond to take the cross is to gain principality in expense of the Byzantine Empire who had taken away the lands he should have been enjoying in Albania. When the leading crusaders were asked by Alexius I to take oaths in promising to hand back the lands liberated by the crusaders to the Byzantine Empire, great unwillingness was shown especially by Godfrey who had confronted the Byzantine Emperor even with the use of force. This might further strengthen the argument that some of the leading crusaders had taken this expedition to the East as a chance to gain them principality on the new lands. Even though it is argued by historians that Bohemond had not intended to claim Antioch for himself and he only did so when it was clear that the Byzantine Empire was not prepared to take sufficient risk for its return, Bohemond had declared himself as the Prince of Antioch. This attachment of the title of prince with a territory is a common practice in Southern Italy to exclude any possible laity influence, here the Byzantine Empire, on one’s ruling status at the named territory, Antioch in this case, and admitted no lay overlord other than the see of St. Peter. Besides this, Godfrey had also never hesitated in claiming Jerusalem and the conquered area around the holy city as his and his follower’s rewards for the formation of his Kingdom of Jerusalem. Accordingly, it can be seen that some of the crusade leaders might have taken this expedition as an adventure to conquered lands and to develop their own principality at the East.
Besides the crusade leaders, the intention behind their feudal dependants and the second rank crusade leaders who followed their lords’ step to the East is also worth examining. As their lords, the intentions behind these second rank crusade leaders were also complicated one. Most of these crusaders had taken the cross not always because of their desire of land. Riley-Smith has suggested that these crusaders had settled themselves at the East mainly because their leaders had settled. This can be seen when Godfrey’s government of his Kingdom of Jerusalem had been formed mainly based on his own household he brought together with him to the East from Europe. At the same time, there were also only very little number of the crusaders had chosen to settle at the East. As Fulcher of Chartres reported that in 1100 there were no more than 300 knights left at the East to guard the Kingdom of Jerusalem. Many of these crusaders had treated this expedition as an armed pilgrimage to the holy city. This was shown when Robert of Normandy, the Duke of Normandy, and Robert of Flanders, the Count of Flanders, were both eager to return to Europe after the conquest of Jerusalem by the crusaders where they considered that their vows and their Christian duty were fulfilled. Besides those who had decided to settle at the East by following their lords, some of them had also decided to stay only temporary at the East for a short period of time such as Swabian Frederick of Zimmern who had followed Godfrey to Jerusalem and stayed at the holy city just for a short time before he returned to Europe with Bohemond in 1105. Nonetheless, there were still some who had intended to settle at the East among these second rank crusade leaders. The well known example should be Tancred, Bohemond’s nephew and later the Prince of Galilee. Tancred after leaving his uncle who decided to stay behind at Antioch had continued his journey to Jerusalem with the crusade with a section of Bohemond’s army under his command. By thinking of his independent status from Godfrey, the ruler of Jerusalem, Tancred had marched north from Jerusalem and conquered Bethsan and was later enfeoffed by Godfrey with Tiberias and all Galilee which was still under the Muslim’s control. As what his uncle did, Tancred had declared himself as the Prince of Galilee after his conquest of this territory. This declaration, however, was not aimed at the Byzantine Empire as his uncle intended but to show that his suzerain was not Godfrey but Patriarch. As stated before, this expedition might be taken by some of the crusaders as a personal adventure to fulfil their ambitions. Even though the majority of these second rank crusade leaders had not intended to stay or only stay by following their lords’ decision to stay, it is still not difficult to find out some of them who had shown an interest in the settlement at the East to develop their principality.
Besides the princes and knights, Urban II’s appeal to the East also received great response from the ordinary laypeople. The intention behind these laypeople who had taken the cross to the East is the hardest to be determined due to the lack of records and references made on this category of crusaders. Nevertheless, the intention behind these laypeople may be identified through the policy and action adopted by those leaders of this grand campaign. It is always believed that Urban II had not only pure military purpose in his mind when he preached for the crusade to the East. This can be seen since Urban II had allowed the women to join in this journey if proper escort can be provided. Besides this, this idea of military expedition with the pilgrimage was also combined through the promise given on the remission of sins for those who had taken the cross to the East with single hearted devotion. The reason why Urban II had preached this crusade in the form of an armed pilgrimage is because, as Walter Porges opines, the pilgrimage was the only ‘large-scale, long-distance expedition with which he was familiar’. Therefore, the spiritual inspiration might be the main factor which had encouraged the participation of the large number of the laypeople in this expedition. This can be explained when the crusade had attracted a large number of non-combatants especially the women, children, infirm and the olds which had forced Urban II to limit the number of these laypeople, who always a burden for the expedition as non-combatants, in the crusade through the supervision of their selection. Urban II had reminded his bishops that they should be careful ‘not to allow their parishioners to go without the advice and the foreknowledge of the clergy’. Nonetheless, the number of these laypeople from many different waves of reinforcements attached to the crusade until the end of the journey was still estimated at an amount over 100,000. Besides this, those who took their journey through Italy had identified themselves more closely with the pilgrim tradition where they had considered their vows were fulfilled after they had worshipped at St. Peter's. Accordingly, it was shown that the idea of crusade had been taken by many of the laypeople as a normal pilgrimage to the holy land rather than a serious military expedition.
However, some of the poor people might have taken the cross with an intention to settle at the East in order to escape from their terrifying life at their homeland in Europe. ‘It was easy to persuade the western Franks to leave their farms,’ Ekkehard of Aura said, ‘for Gaul had been afflicted for some years, sometimes by civil war, sometimes by famine, sometimes by an excessive death rate.’ These terrifying conditions of life become worse by 1096 when several years of drought had led to poor harvest and an excessive death rate caused by eating the bread made from rye which had not had ergot removed from it. The land ‘flowing with milk and honey’, as described by the scripture, might have inspired these poor people to leave their homeland to escape from their terrible life and at the same time to get themselves a better opportunity of surviving. When most of them had gone back to Europe after the journey, it may be argued that there was no such colonial intention. However, these crusaders who chose to go back to Europe might not always because of the lack of intention to settle at the East. As Riley-Smith put it, ‘it does not, of course, follow that all of those who returned to Europe had never had the intention of acquiring land-some may not have liked what they found when they arrived, some may have doubted the ability of the new settlement to survive.’ Most of them might have been disappointed by the differences between what they actually saw and experience at the East and their imagination of the land ‘flowing with milk and honey’. They might have found out after their arriving that the chance of surviving at this Eastern territory was not as good as what they had in mind.

Conclusion

As a conclusion, the large number of people involved in this grand campaign had made it difficult to identify the colonial characteristic of this campaign. Nonetheless, it can be held that this grand campaign of crusade is a partial colonial venture. Even though it can be believed that the main architect of this grand operation, Pope Urban II, did not have a colonial intention other than restoration of the papal prestige, the intentions of the crusaders who had taken the cross had at least showed some sign of colonial venture.

To What Extebt the First Crusade a Colonial Venture? (Part 1)

2010-05-08T15:19:00.000-07:00

Introduction

Whether the First Crusade is a colonial venture is always an arguable topic among the historians. This is because there were several groups and a large number of different participants who had taken the cross and involved in this eastern expedition while some of them had chosen to stay and others had gone back to their homelands. In order to determine the real characteristic of this expedition, it is necessary to examine the intentions behind the participants, namely the Pope and the crusaders, who had either preached for or had directly taken part in this grand campaign to the East.

Pope

The First Crusade has its root in the church reformation during 11th century. As a result of laity intervention on the papal appointment and the appointment of incompetent Pope in the office, the papal office had become, by 1040s, scarcely more than a local bishopric with little influence outside the city of Rome itself. In order to restore the church prestige as the ruler of Christian states, series of reformation were brought out by the Pope.
The climax of reformation reached at Pope Gregory VII’s times where he had fought harder than any other previous Pope to restore the ruling status of the church and to reunify the Western and Eastern Church under the banner of Rome. This had led to a great dispute between the papal office and King Henry IV of Germany and also Alexius I, the emperor of Byzantine. Urban II, the author of First Crusade, succeeded the papal office in 1088 after the death of Gregory VII who had died in exile after being defeated by Henry IV. With his far better diplomatic skill than his predecessor’s, Urban II chooses cooperation rather than confrontation with the secular power in his reformation progress. As a result of this change of policy to a more flexible approach of reformation, the tension between the papal office and the secular power was eased. As a result, a fateful embassy was able to be sent by Alexius I to meet Urban II in order to ask for a military assistance and recruitment from the West to defend the Byzantine Empire from the Islamic expansion at the East. The opportunity was presented and Urban II made his first preaching for the crusade during his tour to France at Clermont in 1095 and this great campaign to the East was started.
There were two suggested goals for this expedition, the liberation of the Eastern Church and the conquest of the holy land. Gregory VII had planned to launch a grand expedition to the Eastern Mediterranean as early as 1074 to ‘reinforce the papal sovereignty’. This expedition, however, had failed due to the increasing dispute between the papal office and Alexius I. As a strong supporter of Gregory VII like Urban II himself told the German who supported him, ‘Believe about me just as about the most blessed Gregory. I want to follow wholly in his footstep.’ Urban II had renewed this idea to the East. Henceforth, it is reasonable to believe that Urban II’s main intention in preaching for this expedition should be to restore the papal prestige rather than as a colonial venture. This can be supported with Urban II’s intention to keep this expedition under his legate’s control rather than the leading crusaders’. Furthermore Urban II had also intended and succeeded in imposing on the majority of the Crusading leaders an oath of homage which bound them to keep for themselves no territory which they might conquer which had once been part of the ancient territories of Byzantium. It is suggested that Urban had planned the crusade as an essentially Christian undertaking, in which the clergy were to play an important part from start to finish. This intention was shown in his letter to the crusaders dated December 1095 where Urban II had urged those who intended to join the expedition to comply with ‘Adhemar, Bishop of Puy, leader of this expedition and undertaking in our stead.’ Besides this, Urban II also warned that the journey would have no spiritual value for those who went without the permission of their bishop or abbot. This is to keep the recruitment process under control where the flood of recruitment left unchecked it ‘would be prejudicial to order and the necessary control of the Crusade by the clergy.’ With a successful campaign led by the papal legate to the East in freeing the Eastern Church, the papal office will not only able to open the door of reunion with the goodwill shown by this aid to the Eastern co-religionists but also will rebuild its prestige in its competition with the laity power especially the King of Germany who had just defeated Gregory VII. This rebuilt prestige will give huge contribution to the papal office in winning its ‘battle for independence from the secular authority’.
Nonetheless, Robert the Monk, a possible eyewitness in the council of Clermont, had recalled Urban II’s speech at Clermont twenty-five years after the speech, ‘…this land which you inhabit, shut in on all sides by the seas and surrounded by the mountain peaks, is too narrow for your large population; nor does it abound in wealth; and it furnishes scarcely food enough for its cultivators…wrest that land from the wicked race, and subject it to yourselves…’ This is the only version of the speech which suggests that Urban II had urged the crusaders to settle at the East as reward of their expedition. The trustworthiness of this recollection, nonetheless, may be of low credit due to the lapse of time. Despite this lapse of time between the making of this recollection and the actual speech, this part of speech may also be an add-in by Robert the Monk himself. This might because of his intention to urge another expedition to the East for the assist of the Crusader States which were unable to defend themselves due to the short of manpower while a new threat from Turks was also arisen at this period where the Antiochenes were just defeated by the Turks on 1119.
The goal to conquer Jerusalem may be argued as an intention for colonial venture. The conquest of Jerusalem is not necessary equal to an encouragement of settlement at the holy city. This goal to conquer the holy city can be deemed as part of the propaganda to boost up the crusaders’ spirit and enthusiasm to take up the cross. As Andrew Jotischky claims, it will be difficult to interest the crusaders with such a mass number to go into war with the Turks at the East just to defend the Eastern Christianity. Under this period of time where there wasn’t any suspicion on the existence of the god, the liberation of the holy city from the pagan, no doubt, will serve the best purpose as propaganda to inspire the people to take up the cross. This is because it provided a clearer aim than the defence of the Eastern Christianity when the crusader aware of their destiny. Besides this, Urban II also rejected the request of Raymond of St. Gilles, Count of Toulouse, to be the chief commander of the crusader army but intended to put the army under the command of Byzantine Emperor after its arrival at Constantinople. By putting this army under the command of Byzantine Emperor, the Byzantine Empire would be allowed to have a legitimate claim on the lands including the holy city recover from the Turks while indirectly denying the crusaders’ chance to take the lands as reward. To avoid the crusaders from taking up the cross for material reason, Urban II also promised the crusaders that the remission of penance will only be limited to those who crusaded not for ‘earthly profit but only for the salvation of their soul and the liberation of the Church’.
Furthermore, Urban II might have preached for this expedition with the intention to show the ability of the papal office in raising its own army and also to take the chance to develop a regular army for the papal cause. The papal office had long relied on the unreliable secular power for its protection. In order to release himself from this reliance and to defend the papal reformation against secular intervention especially from the King Henry IV of Germany, Gregory VII extended the system of military recruitment for the papal cause developed by his predecessor, Alexander II, into a network named fideles Sancti Petri to cover a large area of Europe. Urban II must aware of the necessity of having an army for Pope when he had experienced how his predecessor was defeated by Henry IV due to the lack of military might but only could confront the secular power with moral censure. With this expedition, Urban II not only could show his ability in raising an army to confront with the secular power but more importantly an opportunity was also provided for Urban II to develop and form an army for his cause. Accordingly, it would be unreasonable for Urban II to urge the crusaders to settle at the East. This situation would be like sending out an army which would never return home and the whole purpose of raising a large army like this would be ruined.
It was also later added by Urban II that the local bishop should be responsible for the safekeeping of the participants’ belongings and should return them intact when the warrior came home. Guibert de Nogent, an abbot who attended the Council of Clermont, also recorded that Urban II had promised the crusaders that their family and property would remain unmolested during their journey to the East as the Pope said in his speech, ‘the Pope condemned with a fearful anathema all those who dared to molest the wives, children, and possessions of these who were going on this journey for God.’ This promise not only can be deemed as an encouragement to inspire the crusader to take the cross but also can show that Urban II had not intended that the crusaders would settle themselves at the East as a result of the journey. By promising the safety of their properties and families, Urban II had shown an expectation that the crusaders would return to the West after the end of their journey. Also with this given promise, Urban II might also have intended to put this army under the papal authority by putting papal office and the church under a responsibility to provide protection to the crusaders’ properties and families during their absent. The crusaders were now become the army of God while Pope was its protector and ruler under the God’s will.

The Greatest Leader Ever

2010-05-08T11:19:00.000-07:00

He was and still is blamed for his cruelty but please bear in mind that it is his cruelty which saved the Soviet Union and the Allied from collapse and also the world from Axis. Furthermore, he had spent his whole life working for his country, when he died he had left behind only his commodities, notebooks and small amount of savings but nothing valuable. He might be cruel and ruthless but this will not obliterate the fact that he is one of the greatest and most important leader ever exist in the human history.

等死的老人，出位的言论

2009-11-23T05:58:00.000-08:00

邱博士又一次难耐寂寞开口抨击华教。对于此等到了等死阶段而又不甘寂寞以致时不时要大言不惭以引人注意的老人我们应该给予无限的同情，因为这毕竟是他人生最后的娱乐。当然，既然邱博士的一番话那么有points我们也不妨来研究研究。

首先邱博士问了一个很有意味的问题，‘請看看本地的華校子弟，有多少個是知名的科學家，或會研發產品’？的确，好像，应该，据我所知是没有。但是国小又有培养出过什么惊天地泣鬼神的知名科学家吗？哦，原来一直以来我们政府引以为荣的国产车技术不是从日本那里抄袭来的。原来微软是一个国小生叫比尔盖兹的人创办的。

华小数理科比国小强是一个不争的事实，甚至今天连恨华教入骨的教育部长都不耻的承认和研究。读死书不是华小的问题，这是很多东方国家教育的问题。难道国小就不是在读死书吗？取长补短，学习好的摒弃坏的才是自强之道。为了一己的偏见而不肯对外学习，洋务运动就是这样毁在这种人的手上。

再来就是不是华小培养不出知名科学家，而是那个那个培养的空间根本不存在。如果你问一个小孩长大后的志愿是什么？他说科学家，你第一个反应就是好笑，没‘钱’途。好不容易这个小孩坚持到了读大学，他发现这次是没机会。这个系额满了，要保留给土著。那个也是，不好意思。最后这个科学家被派到了园艺系，之后他就变成了花圃里的爱因斯坦。

一个成功的教育体系就是一个可以容纳百川，一个可以互相取长补短的体系。偏见不会带来进步而只会带来毁灭。

信用的破产，无头的公案

2009-11-21T05:55:00.000-08:00

经过多番的争辩和折腾之后，庞缇终于得以为赵明福进行二度验尸。挖坟开棺一直都是华人的大忌，人死了入土也不得为安。但是为了讨回一个公道，赵家最后还是答应了开棺进行二度验尸。

这次验尸最精彩的地方不是挖坟开棺那一部分，而是这次的验尸工作将会交给一个外国人。这表示什么？这表示人民对政府的不信任已经去到了一个极限，去到了一个对所有和政府有关的部门都不再信任的地步。现在的马来西亚人宁愿相信一个外国人也不敢相信自己人。因为他们不知道到底这群为政府工作的人说的话可不可信，来到这个地步就表示这个政府已经信用破产。

对公务员的不信任感已经极为普遍。谈到公务员，人们的第一个印象就是贪污。当然不只贪污，我们的公务员在没有效率和懒散方面的成就也是在世界上首屈一指的。现在最糟糕的是搞到连法官也不足为信了。法官现在的工作就是为政府作的决定寻找法律依据然后作出政府已经为他们设定好的裁决。还是那句老话，一个人治的社会，一个倒退的社会。

这次庞缇能否找到更多的线索已经不重要。即使找到又如何？这些线索能改变什么吗？只要有人死不承认，有人多番推卸，再有人全面包庇，最后法庭就会依例判处一个无罪释放。可能连无罪释放都省回因为被告是谁都不知道。又一宗无头公案，邪又一次战胜了正，邪不胜正已经过时了。

这个故事教训我们在马来西亚不要随便杀人，除非你有权或者钱。这个故事也教训我们只要有了以上两样东西的其中一样，你就可以在马来西亚为所欲为。杀人放火，作奸犯科？不要紧，因为很多政府高官和人员都在作着同样的事。只要有权或钱，法律是愿意为你服务的。

神奇的国度

2009-11-20T12:44:00.001-08:00

林吉祥促政府保障巴拉安全以让其能够回国以和盘托出他掌握关于阿尔丹杜雅命案的真相。为什么一个国家的公民需要政府的保证才能安全回国？很显然可以看出，现在马来西亚这个国家最危险的已经不再是罪犯这种小儿科了。现在马来西亚人民面对的最大危险是来自一个控制着几万个制服打手的国家机构—政府。

在这个国家里已经再也没有道德公义可言，有的就只是权力和腐败。有权，可以在杀人之后逃过法律的制裁。有权，可以在还没洗脱嫌疑前就得到国家最高的权力。有权，可以让别人去当替死鬼然后自己到英国去逍遥。何以权力可以如此被滥用？因为在这些罪犯的背后有一个腐败的国家机器在支撑着。

马来西亚现在已经实实在在的变成了一个警察国家，而控制着这个警察国家的就是一个有着谋杀案共犯嫌疑的人。在这里警察已经不再独立，警察已经变成了一种政治工具，警察已经变成了当权者的私人工具以便被用来进行一些当权者不便出面的犯罪活动。这种景象就好比当年的苏联，现在我们就是生活在一个披着民主糖衣的独裁的国家里而更糟糕的是控制着这个国家机器的是一个谋杀嫌疑犯。

一个法制的社会也已经在同时离我们远去。现在决定一个人有罪与否已经不再是法律的范畴，这个权限已经被转移到了政府的手里。法庭现在只不过是一个用来宣布政府决定的部门。三权分立在马来西亚已经被破坏殆尽，剩下的就只有一个假民主的独裁政权。当三权不再分立，就表示我国已经进入人治的时代。法律和宪法已经如同废纸，当权者的话就是法律。

现在这个国家仿佛已经变成了一个罪犯的乐园。在这里贪污，滥权甚至杀人都已经获得合法化。这个国家也已经变成一个充满欢乐的国家，只要有权或者钱，你准可以在马来西亚找到任何你想要的欢乐。法律？Lick my ass!!!

他风光的来了,但是赖死不走

2009-11-20T08:43:00.000-08:00

1969年4月28日，法国总统戴高乐宣布了他辞去总统一职的消息以履行他对宪改公投不过他就辞职的承诺。就这样这位被誉为法国最后的荣耀的政治家就头也不回地潇洒地从这个权倾法国的职位上退了下来。这一切都展现了他作为一个政治家该有的风骨和气度。

四十年后的今天，在马来西亚我们却看到了一个政客如何为了一党之首在和他的对手拼的你死我活然后又情同手足。也为了这个一党之首，他又如何背信弃义，甘愿把过去的假面具都撕破。当初的风骨和气量变成了今天的奸诈和无耻。

他想要领导党，但自己却不服从党的领导。他为保权力而滥用权力。他说要顺从民意自己却在玩弄民意。为了那微不足道的权力和一己的私利他甘愿做一个无耻兼不守信的人。当初他风光的来了现在他却赖死不肯走。

权力会令人腐化，但同时也会熔化一个人的假面具。政治家和政客的区别就在于一个为大我而一个为小我，一个说到做到而一个讲讲就算。戴高乐走了，他赢得了世界的尊重。有人留下来了，他却失去了最起码让人尊重的人格。当然，拿戴高乐和这样一个无耻的政客做比较是有辱了这位伟大的政治家。

还历史一个真相，还马共一个清白

2009-05-25T10:45:00.001-07:00

莱益斯雅丁恫言要对付鼓吹共产主义的部落客，又让我们看见了国阵政府霸道的极权领导方式。如果共产主义不值得歌颂，那样他们那群种族主义奴才所信奉的温和纳粹主义就值得推崇吗？

马共残害我国人民？为了国家主权和独立，马共和日本侵略军对抗，万死不辞。种族主义分子们那时在哪里？同样为了国家主权和独立，马共被英国的殖民主义者出卖，被迫从公开转入地下，从城市走入森林。他们是在为自己而战吗？其实不然，他们所做的一切都是在为国家和民族，都是为了一个理想。结果血流了，汗也干了。到头来胜利却被抢走了，家门也进不了了。

反观今天我国政坛上的那一大堆的垃圾，有哪一个是真正的在为国为民的？他们在意自己的利益和权势更甚于国家和人民。现在我国的政坛就是充斥着一大堆这些在政治中找生活的垃圾，包括那一堆堆所谓的精英。

贪污腐败，朋党成群。国家每年多少钱被用来中饱私囊，被用来养肥那群国家高层和他们的狐群狗党。橡胶园的印度同胞的经济问题这群废物有关心过吗？当他们的州首长到澳洲看牙医时，这群垃圾有想到过沙砂两州的原住民吗？即使马共真的在一些方面作出过伤害人民的事，但是和这群豺狼相比他们简直是小巫见大巫。

共产主义表现的是一种崇高的理想，一个没有剥削并且拥有真正的自由，民主和平等的社会的理想。姑且不谈基于人类的本性这个理想的实现有多么的困难，难道它所代表的不也是一个伟大的思想吗？和这群种族主义奴才所信奉的温和纳粹主义相比共产主义绝对是值得鼓吹和追求的。如果共产主义没有存在的价值，那样这群祸国殃民的白痴更没有存在的价值。

不和共产主义妥协？对，就不和温和的纳粹主义分子和种族主义的奴才妥协。陈平回国有理，还原历史真相。社会主义万岁，共产主义万岁！

新白色恐怖时代

2009-05-25T05:36:00.000-07:00

警察，国家主要的执法机关，一个理论上应该超越政治，不偏不倚并且独立行事的机关。但是放眼我国，情况却是恰恰相反。警察已经变成了一种政治工具，一种用来打压异己的工具。

自马共的威胁解除以后，白色恐怖的时代并没有随着离去，取而代之的只是新白色恐怖时代。警察被政府用来镇压异己的例子在我国可谓比比皆是，1988年的茅草行动，安华的逮捕到现在的干涉人民集会的自由和拉惹柏特拉的自我流放都再再地显示了我国的警察是何其的不务正业。

当警方时常诉苦说警力不足，打击犯罪比较困难时，他们为何又时常有大把的人来做这些“不等使”的事情。要他们抓罪犯就警力不足，无精打彩。抓集会的人，搜办公室的时候就虎虎生威或者可以说是狐假虎威。

这些都一再地显示了法治在我国只是一个自欺欺人的幻想，一个空壳。归根到底我国也只不过是一个实实在在的人治国家。没有独立的司法机关，没有独立的执法机构，有的只是一群已经彻底腐化，信奉朋党至上，膜拜种族主义的决策人。这一群垃圾就是我国最高的统治者，一群穿着民主外衣的独裁者。

白色恐怖的时代并没有结束，让我们一起来迎接新白色恐怖时代的另一个“高潮”吧！

吃得咸鱼就要抵得渴

2009-05-22T06:03:00.000-07:00

不吊销你的执照，不要你的道歉也不要你的钱，就是要一次过“撬”起你。翁总发威果然不同凡响，看来其他国阵的领袖应该多向翁总学习学习。吊销执照和要求赔偿道歉已经是过时了，今天让翁总教大家什么是一不做二不休，一劳永逸。

笔者有幸拜读过那三篇在翁总看来是胡言乱语，足以构成刑事诽谤罪的文章。在翁总看来写它的人更加是大逆不道，万恶不赦。但是真的有那么严重吗？放眼望去就不过是几篇政评而且里面的内容没有人身攻击，没有揭人隐私，都是一些连路边社都讲到不要讲，讲多几次都觉得口臭并且还是有根有据的东西。不懂翁总这样算不算是小事化大，大事化灰，要给你来一个灰飞烟灭，永世不得翻身。

平时满口仁义道德，捍卫什么新闻自由，什么言论自由。结果烧到头上时就翻脸不认人。看来政客的话真的是信一成都会死。广东话有一句俗语说得好，吃得咸鱼就抵得渴。身为世界上第二大的华人政党的老总，何其威风。但是不要忘记你威风的时候人家也有在看你的表演。政治就是这样的一种游戏，要玩就预了要给人“插”。又要玩又不要给人“插”，有这么便宜的事吗？要吃政治这口饭你就要耐“插”。

有时做人不应该自视过高，并不是全世界都要认同你。批评只会让你学得更多，让你有机会看清自身缺点毕竟人非完人。而且有人批评总比没人批评好，至少代表你还有一点地位值得人家去批评。我也想人家特地写一篇文章来批评我，须知文章可不容易写啊。

最后还是一句，玩不起就不要玩，不要随随便便就“发烂渣”。须知凡事留一线，日后好相见。

老总的烦恼

2009-05-21T06:52:00.000-07:00

巴生自贸区的稽查报告的公布可谓一波三折，现在还搞到连执行主席林添祥都要请辞。犹记得当初我们的翁总上任时是何其的有自信地拍心口保证一定会尽快解决这个困扰大家已久的问题。结果现在这个保证却变成了我们尊贵的翁总的烦恼。

匆匆的一年有多过去了。问题还是问题，报告还是千呼万唤不出来。延迟又延迟，食言又食言。是因为牵连太广不可透露还是别的什么原因暂且不理，一个国家的政府部门居然用了一年多的时间连一份报告也给不出来！有时真的很难明白到底这一群人每天都在做些什么。

或许是最近部长的署理有点烦，所以部长要先安内而无暇督促部下。这大家可以明白，毕竟老总这个位子油水何其的丰厚，权位何其的大。所谓人不为己，天诛地灭。既然会被诛被灭这么“大锅”，这样大家是可以明白的。

还是因为报告的结果牵连太广，一经公布分分钟会令到许多人身陷万劫不复的境地甚至还会牵连到权力核心，所以需要在公布之前先讨论修改一番。其实部长也没有必要这么在意，毕竟这在我国已经不是什么新闻了。大家也只不过是想得个知字，最少以后走投无路的时候还可以有一份名单来尝试一下借钱。

当然部长不要公布就一定有他的原因，我们一定要相信这个世界第二大华人政党，自称代表马来西亚几百万华人的老总的话。不要问，只要信，“荷兰”离我们不远了。

回家真难

2009-05-21T05:41:00.001-07:00

马共分子，一群在马来西亚充满传奇性但又无比稀嘘的人。他们的传奇皆因他们的“危险”，他们的稀嘘皆因他们的不幸。不幸何来？从他们党的成立到结束都是一篇着着实实的“出卖史”。宁我负天下人，莫天下人负我。他们没有负过天下人但天下人却一次又一次的负了他们。他们被自己的总书记出卖过，他们也被虚伪的英殖民政府出卖过，但是最悲哀的莫过于到最后连他们自己的国家也出卖了他们。

日据时期因为总书记的出卖，多少的党员因此而丧命。当他们还在浴血奋战时，那些所谓的联盟政治精英在哪里？为了赶走侵略者，他们流血了，但是他们的血却是白流的。因为历史被“胜利者”歪曲或者至少是掩盖起来了。

结果日本人走了，那个不战而弃我们而去的英国人又以胜利者的姿态回来了。既然敌人已经不存在了，那样这一群人在英国殖民主义者眼中就再也没有任何存在的价值了。结果一群战时的伙伴，曾经被邀请到伦敦授勋的战友现在变成了敌人。很快的这一群人就被朔造成了恐怖分子。

从抗日到抗英，从战后短暂的合法时期到最后走进森林，他们都没有退缩过。为的是什么？就为了国家的独立，人民的主权。但是因为意识形态的斗争，英殖民主义者便对他们百般打压。最后英殖民主子选定了它的继承人，那个不费一枪一弹，单凭协商取胜的“胜利者”出现了。那群为国家流过血流过汗的人被放弃了。

今天匆匆几十年过去了，但是还是有一些心胸狭窄之人，不守协议之人把仇恨记在心中。他们不但盗窃了别人的果实篡改了历史抹杀人家的贡献，到最后甚至还把人家赶出了家门不让他们回家。

真的想不到在这个年头想要回家也变得这么难了。

历史不会遗忘

2009-03-27T04:50:00.001-07:00

种族主义大会开了也有好几天了，几天以来不出所料的，从他们的狗嘴里果然没有说过什么好话。讲了几天，说来说去还是离不开马来种族主义的论调。捍卫马来主权，捍卫皇权，真的是听到都有一点‘绞胃’。

马来主权，修改宪法限制州国首长只能由马来人出任。可见这群人的目光和心胸是多么的狭窄。主权？他们还有主权吗？他们的主权不是老早就出卖给了殖民主义者了吗？五十多年都过去了，但是这群种族主义的奴才始终不能摆脱用狭隘的马来种族视野来看问题的陋习。他们始终抱着那狭隘的马来民族主义，大马来沙文主义不放。他们时常谴责在野党制造种族分裂，但是又是谁每天在鼓吹所谓的马来主权。难道华印裔就没有主权吗？

更有甚者建议公民分等级，一个多么伟大又有建设性的建议。这样一来非巫裔就无话可说了，谁叫你不是一等公民，下一辈子投胎看清楚再来。然后再进一步返回到奴隶制，彻彻底底地剥夺非巫裔的经济政治权利，看你们这群外来人还敢吵，多么有远见的建议。不知道阿拉同不同意这个伟大的意见？但愿上苍保佑。

“想推翻苏丹先跨过巫统尸体！” 多么激动人心的一句话。看来苏丹不封回一个拿督给他就真的说不过去，毕竟人家这么支持。看来这群人果然是实实在在的奴才，除了降服于种族主义之外，他们还拜倒在皇权之下。统治者，只不过是一群曾经出卖过国家主权给殖民主义者的人的后裔。他们只不过是历史的遗留物，总有一天历史会回来拿回它忘记带走的东西。

继续呐喊吧，种族主义的奴才们，历史也不会忘记你们的存在。

外劳等于犯罪？？？

2009-03-21T05:22:00.001-07:00

外劳可以说已经成为了我国的一大族群。当他们为我国带来莫大的经济利益时，当他们被百般剥削时，当我国正在享受这些外劳血汗所结成的果实时，人们往往关注的却是他们所带来的社会问题。

把外劳和犯罪挂钩已经变成了我国人民的普遍思维。难道所有的外劳都是天生的犯罪分子吗？在非难他们之前，我们是不是应该要想一想这会不会是过度剥削和压迫所带来的反弹。当我们住在那一间间安逸的房子里时，我们有否想过这就是被百般剥削甚至过着非人生活的外劳双手的产品。

再来就是我国立法和执法单位的失败。外劳在我国几乎没有受到任何应有的保护。他们就仿佛是一只只待宰的羔羊，任人摆布而‘公平公正’的法律却视若无睹。当他们被雇主自由地百般欺压和剥削时，他们还要面对那些拿正牌的执法单位的压迫。但是有人关心过这些吗？那群禽兽不如的执法人员和过分剥削外劳的雇主不也是活得好好的吗？

或许外劳之中的确是有害群之马，但是我们不能一竹竿打翻一船人。在咒骂外劳的同时请不要忘记现在你住的房子可是他们被剥削的双手所建造起来的。他们有得到他们劳动之后所应得的东西吗？是谁负了谁？

光明就在前方

2009-03-20T00:42:00.001-07:00

社会主义在我国一直都难有立足之地。这无他，一来它和‘恐怖’的共产主义有所联系，让人敬而远之。二来它较高深难明，在面对那些廉价易懂的种族主义政治思想的竞争时，它毫无疑问的是处于不利的地位。再来它也受到当局的压迫，难以发展。种种不利之下，社会主义在我国可谓已经是早早就被宣判了死刑。

但是我国也还是有过不怕死的人，但是这些老前辈已经随着社阵的没落而离开了政治舞台。之后的马来西亚社会主义阵营可谓无以为继。标榜社会主义的民主行动党已经被同化，同时党内的权力斗争已经够他们烦的了。多少的人材因党内斗争而离开了民行？未打先乱，难成气候。内外争权，难成大器。

社会主义党虽还年幼，但却是唯一可靠的社会主义政党。或许它难以撼动马来西亚那个脏乱不堪的政坛，但是它却能够起到宣传使人民逐渐觉醒的作用。人民党虽说历史悠久，但也已经风烛残年。人去楼空之后，几个坚持理想的人选择了留下来独守空屋。要重整旗鼓并非不可能，但是下一个布斯达曼在哪里？与其苟延残喘，不如丢弃空壳，加入社会主义党，和别的社会主义者团结在一个旗帜下继续打拼。

多年的冬天之后，社会主义的春天还会远吗？虽然路途是遥远的，但是只要路还在就要走下去，没路了就给它开一条路。维护劳工利益，反对劳动力剥削，真正的平等，自由和民主就在前方。

又一纸国际空谈

2009-03-01T04:58:00.001-08:00

东盟一体化，又一项“伟大”的抄袭。概念是对，但是根本没有实行的基础。这就是为什么我们会落后人家几十年，因为我们只会照抄并且往往还只抄个形而遗弃了那个实。

在一个没有人权的区域却大谈人权。很多人都把人权议题棘手的原因归咎于缅甸和柬埔寨。但是这仿佛高估了其余国家的人权记录。别的尚且不说，只是讲我们自己这个“民主和文明”的国家就已经可以编成一本书了。再加之那个所谓的人权机构也只是有名无实，没有审判权和制裁权，到头来就变成了一个名副其实“报告机构”。既然如此，又何必花钱去维持一个空壳，就把面具撕下，示人以真面目。

再来就是在一个不懂得尊重民主的区域却要政治一体化。在一个拥有共产和军人独裁政权，伪民主政权的区域，一群不是用民主来掩饰独裁就是动不动就政变的国家，大家可以是好朋友但是决不会是好的合作伙伴。当两个国家为了建一条桥也可以争的面红耳赤时，我们还可以期望十一个国家的合作吗？

接着是不稳定的政治局势，当一个成员国一年就换了五六个政府，还能指望政策可以得到贯彻吗？当一个成员国要忙着和国内的恐怖份子周旋时，它还有心情理会那些多少事不关己的事吗？当一个成员国的政府正忙着争权夺利时，它还得空“鸟”你吗？

的确是要合作，但是时机并不成熟，在国内问题还没解决的时候就谈国际合作，还要是大范围的合作，这就是本末倒置。欧盟是一个可以牵制它的成员国的共同体，达不到要求就免谈成员资格，违反规矩就罚。但是我们的构思却是，不论什么狗屎垃圾都先让它进来，然后才来希望它们会改，到头来所谓的协定又变成了一纸空文。

一群疯狗，一群奴。

2009-02-27T10:41:00.000-08:00

为了私人恩怨，纠众到国会闹事。不让国会议员进入国会，在大庭广众，众目睽睽之下泼婦骂街，动手动脚。这就是一群所谓的马来精英所为，仿如一群疯狗。这类事件已经不是首次发生，这群疯狗也不是第一次做这种事，一群大马来主义的种族主义份子。

从这件事我们可以清楚看到什么叫有恃无恐。这一群疯狗之所以如此放肆，原因无它。政府是他的后台，警察是他的奴隶，法律是他的玩物。如果要解释什么是人治，我国就是一个最好的样板。

纳粹在二战时屠杀犹太人是一种极端病态的种族主义的表现。而在我国也存在着这样一个政党。巫统其实就是纳粹，纳粹其实就是巫统。分别是巫统是温和的纳粹，纳粹是极端的巫统。

当这群疯狗拥抱着种族主义这个廉价政治资本不放的时候，他们已经成为了种族主义的奴才。只要主子被遗弃，这一群奴才就会万劫不复。他们已经把自己交给了种族主义，他们别无出路，只好誓死捍卫。但是这群奴才还是有本事，因为他们找了另外一群人来当他们的奴才。这群奴才的奴才为了高官厚禄，丰厚的油水，甘愿给奴才做奴才。

不知何时何日，这群疯狗和这群奴才才会在我国成为绝唱。但愿不会长唱长有。

民主文明的野蛮国

2009-02-25T03:06:00.000-08:00

因为一些芝麻绿豆的小事，北大生朱国伟无缘无故被控。只不过是发起网上签名运动反对巴士涨价就搞到好像杀人放火那样。反对这些不合理的涨价难道有错吗？像阿扁说的，难道我错了吗？

和我们政府做事情的惯例一样，北大和巴士公司的合约也是没有公开的。难道是因为有见不得光的利益瓜葛所以北大校方才如此光火还是因为又签了什么“老衬”合约不得已要加价，这时候又一个不识死的来“卡卡叫叫”所以就杀一儆百。如果真的是签过就拿出来给大家看，当给一个交代，何必那么认真，反正我们又不是第一次做“老衬”。

叫叫嚷嚷，一年又一年，这类压制言论自由的恶法还是不知能横行到几时。一边就知错不改，是没有希望的一群。一边就拖拖拉拉，要改不改，是给你希望但永远不实现它的一群。结果这两群人就坐在国会里互相人身攻击，讲废话。然后又在国会外，又人身攻击，讲大话。到头来，律师信横飞，官非多多，动不动就几千万上下，何其壮观。

从这件事我们也看到了文明与野蛮的差别。我们从英国人那里获得独立了，之后我们就照单全收，只字不差的抄袭人家的政制。结果我们什么都不用做就坐享了人家几百年政治斗争，改革和革命的成果。但是在一群没有完全开化的野蛮人手上，民主的政制并不民主。这群依然处在封建思想的野蛮人只会利用民主来掩饰他们的企图，愚弄人民。笔者现在英国求学，笔者所在的小镇的巴士都只开到晚上六点，这多少对学生造成不便。因此一些学生曾经逐家逐户的上门要签名以便要求巴士公司延长营业时间，结果现在的巴士都开到六点半。这就是文明和野蛮的差别。文明的人会尊重人和不同的意见，野蛮的人只会要别人遵照他的意见。如果发起网上签名就这么“大锅”，逐家逐户要签名不就罪可致死。

唉，有时真的想不通我们到底落后了人家多少年。人家长说裹着糖衣的毒药，我们的就是裹着民主文明外衣的野蛮国家。

无语

2009-02-17T02:58:00.001-08:00

金钱已经成为政治不可缺少的元素，揭露私隐已经成为了政治斗争的必杀手段。是文明正在倒退，还是道德正在泯灭。

当人类社会越来越文明，人类就越来越堕落。为了达到目的，不择手段。为了财富，不知廉耻。不择手段者，为求打击对手，越卑鄙无耻的手段就越合他们意。不知廉耻者，金钱到理想皆可抛，只求一己之利不顾人民之福。

当今的政坛，此二类豺狼横行，如入无人之境。人民于他们已如粪土，民意于他们已如垃圾。对他们来说，人民亲不如自己荷包亲，人民重不如自己的利益重。人民可弃，民意可踩，荷包不可轻。

如此美丽的国家但是却配有一群如此不堪入目的禽兽，着实是无语了。

废物，垃圾，狗官

2009-01-25T02:34:00.000-08:00

新年快乐，但是快乐的起来吗？金融风暴，裁员减薪，人心惶惶，到最后还要借贷过节。快乐就当然快乐，不过只是那些狗官和无良的大资本家，那些失业人士和被百般压迫的工人快乐的起来吗？那些无依无靠的弱势群体快乐的起来吗？

没有最低薪要求，任由那些工人被剥削被压迫。没有失业补助金，任由那些资本家的牺牲品自生自灭。现在还要搞到举债过节，然后有一些狗就出来讲三思而后行，饭都没有的吃还要三思，真的是富官不知“贫”民苦。没有完善的福利制度，任由那些弱势群体无依无靠。一个七八十岁的老人要靠捡破烂来维持生活，有时还要养一个智障的孩子这类新闻时有所闻。但政府做过什么吗？有，当报纸报道的时候那些部长还是什么鬼大粒人不就去拍下照，出下镜。等下一单的时候不就又去拍照出镜。这些的仿佛在我国都是理所当然的现象，那个垃圾政府和它的废物部长到底在做什么。

那个人力资源部长更搞笑，五千万来进行再培训。五千万？买那些“唔等使”的潜艇和直升机就亿亿声，要他们救人就五千万。现在是没有的贪就不要放钱？还是马来西亚的人命真的是不值钱？每个月五百块津贴，五百块能够做什么？还只可以给三个月到六个月，之后就你死你贱。当然还要算执行时的偏差，说不定申请到来人都“瓜了老衬”。自己就高薪厚职，这不要紧，还不做事。到底这班狗官还有没有人性，还有没有羞耻心。

新年快乐？快乐个屁。看到那一堆狗官的所做所为和受苦的弱势群体就快乐不起来。那些狗官可能会讲政府没钱，没钱选举的时候又有钱派？没钱又有钱买那些烂铁？贪少点不就有钱咯。一群废物，一群垃圾，一群狗官。

废物

2009-01-23T05:08:00.001-08:00

一群又一群的外劳，一次又一次的由于找不到工作而滞留大马，过着非人的生活。问题一直都在，但是当权的却视若无睹，仿佛事不关己所以可以高高挂起。

这类事件已经不是首次发生，但是政府却从来没有着手解决问题。或许这是孟加拉政府无能，眼睁睁看着自己国民在异乡被糟蹋也不当一回事。但是难道我们就没有责任吗？当政府实行着一个鼓励引进外劳的政策时，却没有相对地控制。那些经纪公司拼命地从外国引进外劳，从而欺骗他们的血汗钱之后就弃之不顾。政府有采取过行动对付这些无良的经纪吗？没有！政府就是这样，没事发生就麻木不仁，事情发生了才来后知后觉，后知后觉之余还草草了事不寻解决之道。

事件见报了，那个什么外劳资源局的废物副局长就出来说他们会帮那些外劳在农历新年之后安排工作。那样农历新年期间又如何？就让他们继续在那里自生自灭吗？这个垃圾副局长还说大部分外劳原本已有工作，只是态度问题才被辞退。先不管谁说假话，大部分有工作就表示小部分没有，他的意思应该就是我找来了一百个外劳，只要五十一个有工作我就尽了我的责任，其余的就与我无关。这就是没有管制的后果，那些无良的经纪公司就一直拼命的引进外劳大发不义之财，然后把那些外劳弃之不理。等到发生了社会问题，政府才珊珊来迟。废物副局长还说一天供应一餐是为了避免外劳们好吃懒做，照此说法他应该也是对他的孩子一日一餐以免孩子好吃懒做。这是什么歪理，把别人骗来大马然后不安排工作还恶劣对待，到头来却变成了是为了人家好。听起来仿佛那些外劳还要向他道谢，这就是真正的废物讲废话。

人离乡贱，这就是活生生的例子。在为这些不幸的人感到悲伤同情之余，我们也要为自己国家这个如此不负责任的政府感到可耻。放任那些无良的作为，对受害者视若无睹，不思解决之道只知争权夺利，不顾公众利益只为朋党服务。难道这四百人和其余未知受害者的就不是人命吗？希望那些高官不要只把自己和朋党当人看。

马来西亚就是这样一个国家，没问题就治国有方，有问题就推搪塞责，不思进取，毫无廉耻，麻木不仁。有时真的想知道到底那个他妈的政府和那些废物部长在做什么，永远就只会讲从来都没有做，讲就天下无敌做就有心无力或者连做也不要做。除了废物我实在不知该如何形容这班人和他们的政府。

最后当然要祝贺大道公司起价快乐，这个国家的政府和人民很好坑吧。

路的尽头

2008-12-29T07:34:00.001-08:00

“路的尽头，还是路，只要你愿意走”，日前在网上看到了这么一句话让笔者联想到我国的概况。

当我国争取独立时，英国殖民主义者为了维护他的利益和在他的走卒间取得平衡，他指明了一条种族主义的路给他们。在这条种族主义道路的尽头，我国走到了马来主权的结论。之后我国就一直停留在这个死胡同里，没有人愿意抑或不敢再往前走。或许是出于对政治现实的考量也可能是对个人得失的顾虑。

当今天我们虽然看到了所谓多元政治抬头的契机，但是整个的政治环境还是停留在种族主义道路的尽头。马来特权还是首要考量，马来主权还是不容侵犯的定律。没有一个政治人物或是政党愿意再往前面那未知的道路走去，当他们高喊着打破种族政治时，他们却一直在这条道路的尽头继续玩他们的政治游戏，继续争他们的权夺人民的利。

或许有的政治人物尝试过要向前走，但是他们往往会在政治现实下，在种族主义者的叫喧下，改口又改口，到最后喊冤被误解。生活毕竟还是比理想重要。既然无利可图，又何必太过认真坚持。就这样，我国就一直停留在那个大家不想逾越的尽头，没有人愿意再往前走，大家都遵守游戏规则安分地扮演自己的角色。

路的尽头的确还是路，但是似乎没有多少人愿意再往前走，毕竟人的顾虑实在是太多了。

从仇恨中解脱

2008-12-23T07:55:00.001-08:00

李敖曾经在台湾的立法院里批评过台湾政府的仇共政策。仇共，结果两岸不能统一。仇恨，同祖同宗的同胞变成了潜在的敌人。

马来西亚的政策就是台湾的翻版。种族主义的政策不断在种族间制造仇恨，仇恨不断分化种族关系，分化带来了种族主义政治在我国的“长治久安”，造就了种族主义者五十年不败的“神话”。

当他们实行固打制时，他们在非巫裔同胞间撒下不满的种子。当他们要消灭民族教育时，他们误导说反抗他们无理行为的人是种族沙文主义者，进而挑拨种族关系。当他们要上位时，他们就适时的发表一些种族性言论，不要让种族间的不和谐降温。最后大家壁垒分明，楚河汉界，都上了人家的当。

种族主义在我国政坛是潮流，一种历久不衰的潮流。在面对着一个打正种族主义招牌的对手时，不知不觉间很多当初口号响亮的政党都不知觉的跟随了种族主义的步伐。这是迫不得已也是无可奈何。要在一个这样的大环境中继续生存，只有两条道路，要不就改变这个潮流，要不就随波逐流在仇恨中找生活。结果大部分都选择了后者。

要改变潮流就需要一个稳守方向的使命政党，亦即不求席位但求理念获得传播的政党。种族主义可以横行多年主要在于它容易被接受，非我族类其心必异。至于社会主义还是诸如此类的思想都较难被理解也没有多少人愿意去理解。即使理解，为了席位或利益，还是种族对立比阶级对立令他们觉得更值得依靠。

这个过程是艰辛的，但是不入虎穴焉得虎子，今天的牺牲是为了明天的解脱和进步。前路虽漫漫，但我们有责任不让国家的未来继续建立在仇恨之上。

生活与理想

2008-12-22T07:40:00.001-08:00

陆老一招“狂风扫落叶”干净利落地离开，不推卸责任借口多多，不模糊焦点让“有心人”有机可趁。相比之下，我国许多的高官显要就相形失色。

或许这就是理想和生活的对立。陆老为华教奔波一生劳碌一世，今天虽然因为私德的缺陷而成为众矢之的，更成为一些走卒和其想毁灭华教的主子兴风作浪大肆批评的对象，但是这一爽快的离去却足以证明陆老心中还有华教这个理想，不要让外界的焦点被模糊了。

相比起一些高官显要，这种爽快的负责任文化仿佛根本就是天方夜潭，他们会的就只是耍太极和“卸膊”。每每有弊案被揭发，他们就会有一大堆的理由，一大堆的委员会，一大堆的争执到最后一大堆的空头支票。负责任就等于要他们把饭碗丢掉，负责任就等于要他们自断财源。拖一拖，马来西亚的人民是很善忘的。

这就是我国政治的现象，就好像戴高乐说的那样，“在法国政坛有太多在政治找生活的人”。今天的马来西亚不也是吗？政治在马来西亚已经不再是为理想而参与而奋斗的工作，政治已经转变成了一种找钱找生活的工具。巴节，朋党，暗杠，中饱私禳……这些都是公开的秘密，但是有谁负过责任？

一个人为理想可以来去如风，一个人为生活可以厚颜无耻。政治往往就充斥着后者。

令人作呕的教科书

2008-12-15T05:46:00.000-08:00

当帝国主义者被打得脸青鼻肿时，它被当成了自己人。当军国主义者完蛋时，它却摇身一变被当成了万恶不赦的魔头。当它奋斗的果实被人窃取时，它的人连家也回不了。

马共，一个被“胜利者”的教科书宣传成恐怖组织的政党，一个被视为破坏国家和谐的恐怖组织。但是这些“胜利者”的胜利就是建立在这些“恐怖分子”的尸体上。

当“恐怖分子”在抗日时，那群“胜利者”则在当着日本人的县长并愚蠢到相信日本军国主义者会给予他们独立而和日本侵略者合作。当走了军国主义者又回来一个曾经被打得报头鼠窜的帝国主义者时，那群“胜利者”又转而对帝国主义者欢呼。

当帝国主义者开始打压那些曾经被视为伙伴并且在抗日战争中流过血流过汗的“恐怖分子”时，“胜利者”正在向帝国主义者靠拢。当“恐怖分子”在为赶走帝国主义者以争取国家独立而战时，这群不要脸的“胜利者”则在和帝国主义殖民者勾肩搭背，或许更确切的应该是磕头示忠。

帝国主义者走了，国家“独立”了，“恐怖分子”奋斗一生的果实被“不流血”地窃取了，“胜利者”却依然在为帝国主义主子的反共卖命，制造白色恐怖。终于和平了，那些为国抛头颅撒热血戎马一生的“恐怖分子”却被拒于国门之外而必须寄人篱下。

“不流一滴血，谈判得来”，这就是教科书对于国家独立的说法。真的不流一滴血吗？血流了，但却被人为地忽视了。奋斗了，却被诽谤性地遗忘了。当我们谴责日本篡改教科书时，应该也要自省，毕竟我们自己的教科书里对“胜利者”的歌功颂德也是挺令人作呕的。

合作的年代

2008-12-11T10:48:00.001-08:00

在这个全球化的时代里，再也没有任何一个国家可以离开群体单独面对这个竞争益发激烈的世界。所谓的孤立主义再也不能使一个国家可以独善其身，而独立于外界，即使可以也只会使国家原地踏步甚至为国家带来倒退。

在这种避无可避的情况下，进而又要面对外面如此激烈的竞争，合作毫无疑问的就成了这个时代的生存之道。这对于那些诸多的小国而言，合作更加是减少依赖列强进而防止被列强剥夺的不二法门。

目前世界上最成功的合作模式当属欧盟这个经济政治共同体。一个庞大的内需市场，共同的经济政策，这些都在在的提高了各加盟国的竞争力和面对冲击时的承受力。当然在政治上或许德法英这些大国或许会占便宜，但是对于那些小国而言，它们所得到却往往会比它们所失去的多。这使到在这一即使是资本主义的合作模式下，人权也得到了高度的保障。

当全球性的危机威胁着各国的生存时，独自面对所带来的伤害往往会比集体承受来得重。有鉴于此，在东南亚各国间建立一个类似的联盟可谓有其必要性。一个涵盖中南半岛和南洋群岛的经济共同体，一个横跨雅加达到河内，马尼拉到仰光的区域政治联盟。在东南亚，这种合作模式的优势可以说是更为显著。此乃因为在这一区域里没有像欧洲那样存在着德法英这些占绝对优势的大国。在这种各国之间相较来讲更平等的基础上，合作关系会更容易维持。

当然这种合作并不容易实现。首先这种合作必须是建立在社会主义基础之上的欧盟，而这除了将会为各国的政治带来很大的冲击外，障碍也是显而易见的。这些困难的克服还待有志之士的努力。再来就是目前东南亚政治的乱像，在这个不大的区域里却有着各式各样的政治模式，有军人独裁，有民主式的独裁，有种族主义政治，再加之一些国家持续的动荡，都使到在目前这种政局不稳定并人权被践踏的情况下很难达成合作。接着值得一提的是，不爱遵守游戏规则和喜欢单打独斗的亚洲人也是一个障碍。当看见那个有名无实的东协在苟延残揣时，这种更进一步的合作关系似乎更难建立。

虽然困难重重，但是在国内我们要为社会主义的目标奋斗，在国际我们要为区域社会主义的合作而努力。只有合作才能打破西方的垄断，建立东西方的平衡。只有合作才能确保社会主义的成长。

致走狗的一封公开信

2008-12-08T12:13:00.001-08:00

致丹斯里邱:

阁下一篇“妥协论”可谓大开笔者的眼界。想必阁下和李光耀应该会是不错的kawan，因为两位都实在够力忘本。

阁下认为身为少数的华印裔应该面对现实，接受妥协。那样阁下是不是就认为在世界各地受到压迫的少数民族就应该对他们的不幸妥协？二战被惨无人道般屠杀的犹太人应该妥协，因为他们是少数民族。美国的黑人应该为他们受到歧视妥协，因为他们是少数民族。照阁下所说的那样，既然少数民族连受母语教育的机会都不该有，又实在是不值得可怜。

阁下认为国家发展落后于他国是教育制度的问题难免有一些牵强甚至可说是离谱。官僚作风，贪污滥权，朋党主义。。。难道这些都不才是国家发展落后的原因吗？接受母语教育如果是国家发展的障碍，那样何以我们连今天的日本，韩国，德国，法国等等这些民族国家的尾巴也够不上？

今天国家竞争力日益低落的原因不在于多元流教育，而在于华印裔同胞受到不平的对待。当大学只为那些不够格的人保留位子时，每年有多少华印裔子弟被迫留学海外。当学成回国不计前嫌地想要为国效劳时，高职却往往不计才干地保留给某种颜色。难道阁下认为这种状况会在实行单元流的教育体制后解决吗？阁下不批政府政策之不公，却把过错评为民族教育之过失，实在是有吃软怕硬之嫌。

语文是一个民族的根，当自我放弃自身文化时，这个民族就不配再受到尊敬。Bahasa Jiwa Bangsa 不就是这个意思吗？难道“丹斯里”的勋衔摧毁了阁下的独立思考能力？还是摧毁了阁下的人格，使阁下干为民族走狗。

不愿做走狗的人上

回应Magic Kuching君的“忘根主流论”(载于malaysiakini.com读者来函)

2008-12-06T07:10:00.000-08:00

华教在我国挣扎求存那么多年，在先辈的努力下走过了那么多的风风雨雨。有多少次它临危被救，有多少年它受压而坚持不懈。什么原因？就为把根留住。

但是，悲哀啊！今天连它自己的孩子也唾弃它，连它自己的传人也呼吁放弃它。是因为不入流吗？看来应该是有人的心胸太狭窄了！

只要忘根，背弃自身文化就能进入“主流”？可是这可不是一厢情愿的事，你不认祖不认宗并不代表别人就会当你自己人。与其要自己的民族做一个忘根的孬种，为什么不要求政府给予华教同等的待遇？这难道不是一种向强权低头的胆小行为吗？难道接受同化就能进入“主流”吗？看一看印尼的华人，他们有被真正地接受过吗？

进独中的人就一定要到国外升学？这并不然，如果政府承认独中文凭，国立大学开放给独中文凭，问题不就解决了吗？当外国大学这些“外人”都承认独中文凭时，独中文凭却被“自己人”嫌弃。笔者也是独中生，笔者也正在国外升学。难道笔者是一个富家子吗？难道出国升学是笔者所愿吗？都不然，就一句话，有头发谁想做瘌痢。

更何况在政府中学就读的华裔生也不见得有多“主流”。每一年都有一大堆成绩优秀的华裔生被拒于大学门外或者被派到那些冷死人的科系去就为了所谓的土族固打，这也叫主流？放弃自身文化为的就这种“主流”？

主不主流这个问题不是看你从什么学校出来，而是看你生到什么颜色。不好采生到黄色的，就算忘祖忘宗后的你依然是subject to quota。

资本主义的危机，社会主义的契机

2008-12-03T08:33:00.001-08:00

当经济一片欣欣向荣时，资本家就肆无忌惮地剥削工人以创造更多的利润和资本。当经济衰退不景气时，工人往往会首先成为资本家们首选的牺牲品。这就是资本主义的自由，一种任意剥削的自由，一种践踏工人的自由。

劳动既是生活，但是在资本主义底下，劳动不再是一种天赋人权也不再是一种对生存的保障。在资本主义底下，劳动变成了积聚资本和创造利润的手段。而劳动力的拥有人——工人则成为了创造资本的工具。他们的工资永远被压低到仅仅能够让他们那个因劳动而失去灵魂的躯体继续得以生存下去的最低水平。当工人不能再提供剩余价值以帮助资本家创造更多的利润和资本时，当他们成为资本家的累赘时，当外国劳工要求相对低的薪资时，他们就会毫不留情地被放弃掉。他们进行劳动的权力，生存的权力就这样一并地被放弃掉。

在此种“自由”的社会底下，投机也相对的蓬勃。多少的土地掌握在了那些投机者的手里？当一些农民无地耕作时，这些投机者则任由其手中的土地荒废掉。当他们迫于无奈而向这些投机者租借其土地时，他们只好成为这些投机地主的剥削对象。

此次全球性的经济衰退对资本主义的社会带来一次危机，当然马来西亚也不例外。但是这一次的资本主义危机也为社会主义带来了一次把社会主义理念灌输给劳动群众这些无产阶级和农民这些小资产阶级以取代深深扎根于他们心中的种族主义思想并把他们团结在社会主义周围的契机。不要期望资本主义政府会照顾工农群众，工农群众依靠社会主义者，社会主义者决不能去依靠一个资本主义同时也是种族主义的政府。当然同时也不要满足于国会的代表席位，毕竟在现阶段国会只不过是一个宣传理念的论坛。

把握机会，传扬社会主义理念，壮大无产阶级和社会主义阵营。开步迈向社会主义社会，资本主义的审判日终会到来。

好一只猪

2008-12-02T13:00:00.001-08:00

党选将至，又是种族主义一下的季节。种族主义一下，前程似锦。讲一点小鸟话，前途无量。试问一下，何乐而不为呢？

既然人家是在为前途打拼，又何必要苦苦相逼呢？毕竟这也是人家党的传统，人家也不想的。为了未来前途的着想，没办法啦，得罪也要的啦，多多包涵啦。

既然是人家的话被误解了，又何必硬要人家磕头认错呢？怪都怪那些媒体记者，每天都误解我们尊贵的国会议员和部长的话，弄到尊贵的议员和部长们每天都被误会和冤枉。混了这行那么久，多多少少都应该要知道我们尊贵的议员和部长们都是学问渊博，高深莫测的。以后就不要乱乱报道了，问清楚人家想要表达的意思才写，不然搞到人家又要出来申明自己的意思被误解了，很麻烦的。

既然都是自己人，又何必要报警？反正都是自己人在作秀吧了嘛，好像人家那些在野党还是什么华团还是那些没鸟的部长和大粒人这样，发一发文告，随便谴责一下，不就好了咯。干嘛要麻烦我们的警察叔叔，人家还要忙着找咖啡钱，很忙很不得空的。如果怕全部人包括自己人都在做同样的事而突出不了自己，就拉队去人家选区搞事啦，马华周大姐教条明路给你也不会走。当然事先记得要沟通一下，大家自己人，他们应该也会配合一下的。

反正马来西亚一年都有不下一百几十个人发表此类的言论来搏取上位，身为马来西亚的寄居者你就要学会对这些事一笑置之，何必太认真。给他讲就当做尊重言论自由咯，毕竟猪也有发声的权利，更何况当讲话的那一只猪的爸爸还是大有来头的时候，就给脸猪爸爸啦，大家找吃吧了嘛。

打倒种族主义和宗教极端主义，向社会主义建设前进

2008-11-29T07:06:00.001-08:00

马来特权，一只纠缠了马来西亚过半个世纪的阴魂。一个殖民主义者分而治之政策的遗毒，种族主义的象征，右翼掌权人士妥协的后果。

当这样一条条文被允许存在于我国宪法里的那一刻起，这部宪法就已经变成了一叠废纸。当一部宪法居然把一个民族归为拥有特权的特权阶级并承认此种特权时，难道这不是在鼓吹种族沙文主义吗？当我们的代表在联合国里要求把实行种族隔离的南非开除时，我国在当时就应该以身作则，率先退出联合国以作为对奉行一部鼓吹种族主义的宪法的负责任表现。

种族主义毫无疑问的在国内已经是一种主流的政治思想，拥有一种不容质疑的地位。当一众的在野党还是执政党都在呼吁多元族群政治时，他们始终不能走出种族主义的框框。马来特权依然是马来政治人物赖以取胜的手段，而非马来政治人物则始终不敢越雷池半步。

如此的现象在奉行种族主义的国阵固然是如此，但是以改革姿态取信于民的民联也是始终不敢或不想去改变这一个不公的宪法和现象。这或许无他，就因为这样一种不平等已经被认为是一种正常的现象，就像拉惹纳兹林所说的是一种平衡。是民联不敢去打破这个平衡以达到真正的全民平等以免开罪我国主要的选票来源抑或在民联的马来领袖内心的深处也是已经被种族主义填塞满了所以不想去打破这个平衡。而以社会主义政党自居的民行应该很想才对，但是问题是他们不敢，当有幸作为一州之首，任谁也不甘再去冒1969年的险。

在民联里如果就算没有或只有极少的种族主义成份，回教极端主义也始终是一颗定时炸弹。政治和宗教根本就是两码子风马牛不相干的事，但是宗教却往往被硬扯到政治里去。作为一种信仰，宗教应该处于一种超然的地位。当政治被宗教化或宗教被政治化，它们只会把彼此带到一条歧型以及极端的发展道路上去进而把整个社会和国家也带到那条死路上去。

当下的形式显示，我国社会主义建设的最主要障碍不是资本主义，而是种族主义者和极端宗教主义的咆哮。只要这两样障碍物不除，资本主义者就可以一直以此为屏藏匿其后。只要这两样障碍物一日不除，它们就会被当成是反对社会主义建设的现成口号。

要达成以上的目标，社会主义就必须像已故拉惹古玛医生所说的那样“深入甘榜”。除此以外就是要“走入校园”，与其去试图改变那些已经思想成型并择恶而从的人，还不如把希望寄托在还没完全被污染的人身上。

走在灭亡的路上

2008-11-27T13:56:00.000-08:00

森州摄政王突发其想，要求恢复皇室的司法豁免权并美其名曰让统治者更好地发挥监督作用。无论目的为何，这一个带领我国走回到封建复辟道路上去的建议都是要不得的。

十六年前，政府好不容易才从所谓的统治者，亦即我国最大的特权阶级手里把司法豁免权这把剑抢掉。十六年后，这一位在我国享尽种种特权的特权阶级人士居然还敢旧事重提。

所谓的统治者都只不过是历史的产物。他们的祖先赋予了历史不同的意义，历史就赋予了他的家族不同的地位。但是这些都不会是永恒的。这些特权阶级不能永远依靠祖先的庇佑而免于覆灭，总有一天他们总归是会被毁灭的。当真正的自由平等到来时，他们覆灭之期就会随之而来。

历史造就了这些和那些的特权阶级，但是有一天历史也是会通过人民的手来清除它。就在阶级分歧被消灭的那一天，就在真正的自由平等到来的那一天。人人生而平等，难道不应该是这样的吗？

狗养的议员，他妈的臭嘴

2008-11-27T12:33:00.000-08:00

口出狂言，大放有色笑话，侮辱女性，侮辱自己的母亲，妻子，女儿再进而间接侮辱自己，然后自以为很幽默的事件在我国的最高议事殿堂-国会里已是见惯不怪的事情。

好歹也算是一个公众人物，但是这些拥有一流身份的人却往往有着九流的人格。这些就是塞满在我国国会里边的所谓人民代议士，一群没文化没教养的政客。

或许他们真的以为自己很有幽默感。但是希望他们知道，这些不是幽默，是下流，贱格和无耻。当阿拉看到自己的信徒如此无耻还每天自称回教徒要维护这维护那时，不知道会不会觉得自己很失败而无地自容，还是会气到想一巴打歪他的死人嘴。

有时我们也不能要求太多，毕竟这也不过是一群狗养的猪和他们那群没鸟的狗所组成的集合。人家说狗嘴长不出象牙，我们还能从猪嘴里期待什么？或许人家就是不喜欢在外面玩，喜欢快快进去出水，你吹呀！

固打制+种族主义=一堆垃圾

2008-09-30T03:41:00.001-07:00

五十多年来华教在我国的地位是有目共睹。不受承认，百般打压，好像凡华小独中毕业者其心必异。甚至到最后连国立大学的门都没有资格摸，只可以去摸那个马华为之甘愿在国阵里忍辱偷生也要保住的拉曼大学。但是连警队这些政府部门都不接受其毕业生的国立大学，连经费也要向华社要的国立大学，还是国立大学吗？看来马华一直拿来做政治资本的拉曼到头来也是“有限”大学——“好打都有限”。

想想既然华校毕业如此没有前途，一些家长就把孩子送到国小国中去就读，想要孩子以后踏入国立大学的殿堂时不会遇到阻力。但是在国中的情况又变成“非我族类，其心必异”。然后就每年一大把所谓的非土著优秀毕业生被拒于国立大学门外，或有幸进到去的也会时常被派到一些“冰箱系”去。为什么？固打制是也，我也没变。

既然自己的国家都容纳不了自己继续升学，那样就只好去那些反而能够容纳自己的“外国”。然后就好像做了什么坏事那样，为了一纸准证，什么都要给人家看，身家财产，只差不需要脱衣脱裤给他们验明真身，看有没有欺骗性别。读书还要读到如此“折堕”实属悲哀！

唉，呜呼哀哉！美其名曰公民，但却实为二等公民，或者连二等也够不上。在马来西亚这个国家就是这样，先看颜色后看才干，甚至不看才干，一切以颜色为准。然后每一年我国那些优秀的国立大学就培养出一大堆失业大军。

时常讲什么人才外流，什么不爱国，旨在要人家在被他们的所谓固打制拒于国立大学门外后，然后在国外学成后回国为他们效力。但是用屁股想一想也知道，不是不爱国，是你不仁在先，我又何必对你有义。就算回来了又如何？在这个被种族主义腐蚀了的国家也是永远难有出头天，因为在你上面最高职位的那个一定要是所谓的土著，非我族类是做不起的。

固打制，种族主义——这些都是造成我国今天那些made in Malaysia 的并且受到百般呵户的土著大学生“好打都有限”的原因。土著？我出生在这里难道我还不是土著吗？为什么我却得不到我应有的权利？

三线制？？？

2008-09-29T21:14:00.000-07:00

在本届的我国普选之后，很多有志之士都乐见两线制雏形形成。之后随之而来的就是夺权之说，沙砂两州的国会议员更成了兵家必争之人。

照笔者愚见，沙砂两州的政党应该趁此机会结成第三势力，和民联以及巫统抗衡。这样无论在大我还是小我方面都可以起到一定的积极作用。

就大我而言，这就会促成我国政坛三线制的形成。这不但可以让人民有多一个的选择，即使是三个烂苹果，选民还是可以多一个比较来安慰自己，起码那个苹果没有其他两个烂。除此以外，三线制更可以起到多一层的制衡作用，防止一党独大或一盟玩完的局面。这样法令的制定就不再是依个人喜好或政党的政治意图而得以在国会里横行无阻。没有卖点的建议？那样就拿回家煲汤去。

就小我而言，沙砂第三势力的形成就可以更好的维护沙砂两州人民的利益。沙砂两州不说别的，但是石油一年就为我国带来可观的收入。但是，沙砂两州的人民却由始至终都没有分享过这些他们州的经济蛋糕。既然是沙砂的石油，笔者实在是看不出为什么沙砂要把这些属于自己的东西交给人家然后才来乞求多一点点的石油税。这仿佛就是沙砂两州被中央骑劫了财产然后乞求中央留回一点给他们。

现在正是沙砂第三势力成型的契机，如果沙砂政治人物是有良知并有心为人民谋福利的话，不妨就来一个大转变。让那些以君临天下之势，目中无人，并把国家的未来纳入自己的政治议程的人知道，国家不是他们的玩具，不是他们说了算。

肚懒一下

2008-09-26T07:54:00.001-07:00

看了赖昭光在《当今大马》中《霸王请客》专栏的文章《玛诺哈兰一定很肚懒》后，觉得很肚懒的一定不只玛诺哈兰一个人。

和玛诺哈兰相比，拉惹柏特拉应该会更肚懒。一直以来拉惹柏特拉在协助民联打击巫统方面都不遗余力。蒙古女郎一案的内幕，抨击国阵政府的弊病的力度。当安华惹上鸡奸疑云时，缅甸医生的报告和宣誓书。为民联出力了那么久，搞到自己最后还要被捕被扣留。但是民联对他的关注和郭高级行政议员比简直是天渊之别，甚至当郭高级行政议员被释放后好像就没多少“自己人”记得他，不肚懒就假。

现任哥打阿兰莎的州议员玛诺卡兰的心应该也是很肚懒。当他的州议会议席对执政雪州的影响不大时，那些他在州议会里的同僚们就随随便便通过一个议案，敷衍一下要营救他的事。如果今天他的议席对雪州的执政权很重要，就好比在霹雳州的情况，那样情况会怎样？他的同僚们能不救他出来吗？想到这里，玛诺卡兰应该已经很肚懒了。

再下来玛诺哈兰的女儿应该也是同样的很肚懒。每次都被人家搬出来演悲情戏，但每一次都没有人要理她。自己的父亲讲就好听，是英雄。但是没好处的时候记得他的人却没几个。当看到自己的父亲被当成工具来利用，真的是佛都有火，不肚懒就有鬼。

除此以外，赛哈密应该也很肚懒一下。如果不是赛哈密的一意孤行，会造就今天民联有那么多的话题来发表一下己见吗？帮助了民联他们造神，造出了郭高级行政议员这个反《内安法令》的神，还要给民连骂到狗血淋头，句句针锋相对。帮助了如此不知感恩的人能不肚懒吗？

所有的肚懒都因《内安法令》而起，只要朝野双方一天没法或不肯废除此恶法，我们就要，套一句赖昭光的话，继续肚懒，一起肚懒。

够了！！！

2008-09-26T06:48:00.001-07:00

经济低迷，投资外流超越流入外资，马股欲振乏力。这些都不重要，现在我国朝野双方的眼睛都被权力给蒙蔽了。

那边巫统有人逼宫，这边马华又因为党选而抹黑讯息信件满天飞。这边厢为了逼宫，一星期开了三次的最高理事会。接棒计划改了又改，换了又换，然后那边自己人又批评这样批评那样。反观那边厢，为了那个虽在大事无权决定但却掌握着全党油水走向的总会长而明争暗斗。一会儿那个“敢怒敢言”的“翁大侠”又批评人家这个，批评人家那个。一会儿那个“性爱老人”又讲人家抹黑他，又讲什么第二个性爱光碟将会面世，然后搞到要去报警。一场党选下来，全党和气尽失，大家反目成仇。

然后这边的民联也“不执输”，打铁趁热地推出了他们的夺权大计。可是九一六过后又九二三，到头来还是什么也没有发生。但是民联还是在不断的给希望大家，不断的“死鸡撑饭盖”，不断地说变天在即。既然事实如此，民联倒不如专心一点搞好州内事务，不要再去想太多无谓事。如果做得好难道下一届还怕没人支持吗？现实点吧，九一六已过，不要再疯狂了，回去做事吧。

这里在自己人打自己人，那里又在高喊“夺权，夺权”。到头来为了权，人民就这样白白地被他们牺牲了。有时真的是想知道如果有第三个选择，现在他们还有得争吗？

满意吗？

2008-09-23T07:22:00.001-07:00

日前郭素沁被释放后曾经就扣留营的膳食太差而和首相署部长（忘记什么名字的卒仔）见面会谈。会谈过后部长说会改善，郭高级行政议员说满意会谈。如果这一声满意是出于礼貌，那样无可厚非。但是如果郭高级行政议员真的是这样子就满足的话，那样就是胡说八道。

要求改善膳食是无可厚非，也算是现阶段唯一能够为正在里面受苦的人士作的事。但是如果把这个定为最后目标，那样就有本末倒置之嫌。只是说一说会改善，尚未付诸实行就很满意。如果真的没有食言不就是高兴到哭？

即使是真的改善了我们也不应该满意。只要那些恶法一天不除，我们都不应该满意。只要那些无辜的人一天不获释放，我们都不应该满意。只要言论自由一天被踩在脚下，我们都不应该满意。只要各源流教育还没平等，我们都不应该满意。只要种族主义政治一天没有消失，我们都不应该满意。

我们应该满意的时候应该是当我们拥有完全独立的反贪和司法制度的时候。当我们完全真正享有我们的自由和权益的时候。当我们拿回身为老板的权益的时候。当我们能够有一个平等和谐的社会的时候。当那些种族主义的猪再也没有市场的时候。

这些都是讲易做难的事情。几十年的奋斗下来还是在为以上这些和几十年前先贤同样的目标努力。方法错了吗？可能。或许应该换一换手段，至于什么手段，天晓得。

自我作贱

2008-09-23T06:29:00.000-07:00

槟城一间陶瓷店昨天无缘无故遭受了无妄之灾。一群官员忽然闯进店内没收了一批有中国进口的陶瓷，理由是陶瓷上的火焰图像和不懂什么经文还是什么“阿拉”的字眼相似。一个不成理由的理由，一个荒谬到极点的理由。

或许我国是一个不适合抽象派画家生存的地方。因为这些人画的东西没有多少人看得懂。万一有一个不懂装懂的人看了，说某某部分很像不懂什么经文还是什么标志。作品被没收事小，万一给人家告上法庭还是用《内安法令》来扣留了，那时候事情就大“碌”了。

照店主所说，他的店也有不少马来顾客，但从来也没有马来顾客和他投诉过什么。但是就是不知道这些得空过头的执法人员为什么就是这样“鸡婆”，正事不做跑来做这些无聊透顶的东西。还是因为店主赚到钱忘记了“还神”，所以才惹来横祸。

尤记得那个马来人经济组织联盟不知道什么职位也忘记了什么名字的家伙前几天说过，马来同胞之所以被视为土著是因为他们较原住民先建立了文明。照他所说的看来，这个文明也不见得有什么可取之处。

在这个文明之下，政治的弊端暂且不说，单单就极端宗教狂热就足够让人诟病个一辈子。不许这样，不许那样。这样又不符合回教教义，那样又侵犯阿拉。有时更甚的是一种宗教教义会有几十种诠释方法，各师各法，都不懂孰真孰假。

有时就是这样，不是非回教徒排斥回教，是那些极端分子令到非回教徒厌恶回教。看一看基督教或者华裔同胞那道佛不分的宗教，何尝有试过强制性的要别人皈依。当有人拿宗教来开玩笑时，基督教徒和那些道佛不分的信徒又何尝有讲过要动刀动枪，还要格杀勿论。脱离回教又要打要杀，仿佛信奉回教是有进没出，一辈子的事。难道这样勉强人家会有幸福的吗？还是因为想当初默罕默德也是如此对待皈依回教的异教徒的？阿拉或者默罕默德看到他们的弟子今天这幅德性不知道会不会气得捶胸顿足，患上高血压。

以后如果家有小孩爱乱画也要小心一点才行。万一有人说那一堆鬼画符侵犯了回教还是阿拉而惹来官非，那样就够力了。总之在马来西亚很多东西都是很敏感的，处处炸弹，一不小心就炸你个粉身碎骨，死了还不知道发生什么事。

屎坑的胜利

2008-09-23T05:45:00.000-07:00

《内安法令》毫无疑问的又为国阵政府赢得了一场“漂亮”的胜利。让国阵政府可以向世人展示一下在马来西亚这个所谓民主的国家，在马来西亚这个有所谓人权委员会的国家里反对国阵政府，揭国阵政府的疮疤将会得到什么下场。

这一次的受害者拉惹柏特拉为何而惨遭毒手相信不需要多说。延长扣留两年就搞到拉惹柏特拉的家人泪洒法庭。或许当他们意识到两年之后还可以两年这样无限期延长扣留期时，他们会马上昏厥过去。哭也没用，反正国阵政府对这些伎俩已经麻木不仁，可以冷血以待。不然的话他们也不会看着兴权会几次搬出其中一名扣留者的孩子出来也无动于衷。既然哭也没用，那样就要表现的坚强一点不要让那些猪看衰，看死。

三权分立？在马来西亚没有这一回事。司法检验？在马来西亚部长就是最高的权威。官要民死，民不得不死。部长要你三更死，不得留人到五更。马来西亚继承了前殖民地主子的政治和司法制度，但是也只限于坏的那一部分。人家有所谓的司法检验（judicial review）以便能够审视执法单位的行动并以法院的裁决为最后决定。但是我们的政府却很聪明，他们认为他们部长都是英明到不行的，所以他们制定了司法无从插手的《内安法令》，为他们的滥权铺路。但是即使是能够让司法插上一手，也很难想象公正会不会出现在我国这些出了名的法庭里。

此种现象正好显示我国已经不再是一个法治的国家，反倒是一个彻彻底底人治的国家。法律不再是最高权威，首相才是最后的决策人。在我国，那些公务员不再受制于法律，反倒是公务员控制了法律。所以那些公务员才是我国最高的权威，他们说的话就是法律。克林顿曾经这样说过“是美国人管理美国总统，不是美国总统管理美国人”。但是在我国的情况恰恰相反，更甚的是在我国你连讲的权利也没有。

其实我国的害群之马就只是那些死抱种族主义不放，想要搞霸权主义，搞民主式独裁政权的猪。与其号召到挂国旗（侮辱了全国人，包括那些有良心的国民），不如就把那些罪魁祸首的相片粘在屎坑，至少在满肚火要去嗬屎嗬尿时，心里会得到些许的平衡。至于粘谁就视个人爱好而定，或者可以找一张内阁图来，那时候一泡尿一笃屎就“喂”完全部人，一定爽到不得了。

马来西亚的林肯，杰佛逊和杜鲁门在何方？？？

2008-09-22T01:19:00.000-07:00

曾经看过这样一篇文章，文章的内容大致是说每一个人都有两个口袋，一个在前，一个在后。在前的装着的是别人的过失，而在后的则装着自己的过失。每一个人前面的那一个口袋就是别人后面的那一个口袋，而民主就是让大家都有机会揭开对方后面的那一个口袋也就是自己前面的那一个口袋。反过来，专制则是只允许大权在握的人揭开自己前面的口袋而把别人前面的口袋封闭起来。

看了这篇文章之后，笔者觉得不然。有时并不一定都是专制的政权才会封闭别人前面的口袋，不让别人揭自己的短处。有一些假借民主之名来搞专制的国家也是会把所有国民前面的那个口袋封起来，而且封得更凶更狠。

美国人民的言论在今时今日能够如此自由原因无他，就因为他们曾经出现过许多尊重人民言论自由的总统。林肯，杰佛逊，杜鲁门等等等的总统都是其中的代表。当人民大众对他们百般挑剔，诸多批评时，他们并不曾为之而懊恼也不曾尝试阻止人民的批评。

或许这就是领袖的艺术。当一个人位高权重时，他每一个的决定都会决定着国家的未来，决定着人民的未来。所以每一个决定都必然会有人反对有人支持，这是再正常不过的现象。你是领导并不表示你所作的一切都是对的，或许人民的声音当中有存在着许多你没有看到的问题。

但是在我国情况却不然，政府永远也不容许别人的反对。在马来西亚，政府的每一个决定都是百分百的正确，而不同于它的声音则是百分百的谬论。更深这是当我国政府需要一样东西来维护它的政权时，他就把它标签为敏感课题，动者格杀勿论。这就是为什么我国许多问题都不能获得有效地解决。种族课题，敏感不可碰。宗教课题，敏感不可谈。因为这样，我国的种族关系才闹得如此的僵。问题就在那里，但是基于政治考量，就不准人民去触碰和解决。问题就永远是问题。

当《内安法令》此等恶法还能够在一个独立了五十一年的国家肆虐，真想慨叹我国的林肯，杰佛逊或杜鲁门几时才出现？打压言论自由的猪几时才死绝？

新的玩法，一样的目的

2008-09-17T08:53:00.001-07:00

我国的首相和副首相可能看见近来我国的股市缺少利好因素，搞到一蹶不振所以就决定打算玩一玩新花样——对调职位以便显示国阵政权稳定以图救市。

或许这也是一个不是办法的办法。因为这样就能够向大家表示我们国阵的政权还很稳，大家放心，我们现在不正是很steady地在进行着政权转移的工作吗？所以安华所言全为一派胡言。但是当他们还没坐暖他们对调后的位子，向世人展示他们政权很稳还不够一天，那个沙巴进步党又来搞破坏。又把那个人家千辛万苦设计出来的政权很稳的假象给擢破了。明天我国股市又重挫，沙巴进步党实在是难辞其咎。

也有人说这是阿都拉试图拉拢纳吉，以便在明天的最高理事会得到他的支持。但是现在的情形是对换职位，不是给纳吉一个人作完三个职位。纳吉还是出着两份粮，不知道纳吉赚到了什么？赚到了财政部长必为首相的神话？但是安华事件前车可鉴。财政部有更多油水？或许，但这是秘密。抑或是纳吉算错数，做了阿都拉的“水鱼”还不自知。

还是因为像另外一些人说的这样，阿都拉想要控制兵权以防万一，所以才要谋纳吉这个职位来做。但是国防部长好像并没有任何兵权可言。根据宪法，最高元首才是三军的统帅，那样试问阿都拉这个国防部长又如何控制兵权？或者阿都拉眼看大家逼宫逼得如此厉害而纳吉又是他党内的主要对手，所以他就一不做二不休以身犯险，混进国防部找纳吉痛脚，来一个绝地大反攻。该不会是阿都拉误会了国防部长掌握着军权而自己算错数了吧。

总括来说，他们对调职位，我们得到什么？没有。国家得到什么？没有。他们得到什么？不懂，此乃国家机密。所以到头来还是为他们自己，对国对民来说都是白做。

马来西亚的改革开放

2008-09-17T08:53:00.000-07:00

在邓小平的改革开放下，中国有了今天的国际地位。处于今天如此乱像的马来西亚或许也需要一次改革开放。政治改革，思想开放。

英国的议会民主制算是目前世界上最受到推崇的政治制度。也因为如此，柏杨曾经表示盎格鲁撒克逊人是历史上最有贡献的民族。作为大不列颠帝国的前殖民地，马来西亚当然是毫无选择的继承了英国人的议会民主制。当这一套政治制度被硬搬到马来西亚来实行时，马来西亚这个过去从来没有经历过民主进程并作了几个世纪殖民地的国家就好像一个被浸在一桶水里的水绵一样，毫无选择性地就把所有的净水和污水吸收干净。

这个遵循两院制的制度本身就存在着一定的缺点。这其中最明显弊病的就莫过于实行委任制的上议院。一直以来都被“喻”为橡皮图章，上议院是“当之无愧”的。这可以从它是一个有会议但没讨论，有讨论但没意见的议院当中看出来。上议员的职位一直以来都是被当成一种表示感谢的政治酬劳来分配。所以上议院的意见大部分时候就是没意见，既然都是自己人，所以就“易话为”。政府的提案就一一通过，在野党的提案就悉数搁置，不管提案内容为何。所以上议院里的上议员都只不过是一群认人不思考的傀儡，而我国就每年却花不少的薪金或津贴来养这些“为民服务”的“扯线公仔”。再者就是即使上议院是由独立的议员组成而变得相对的较为独立，最后的决定权还是牢牢地让下议院掌控在手里。

对于改善如此情况，有人建议实行两院选举制或比例代表制以增加上议院的独立性和反对声音。但是还是老话一句，决定权不在上议院手中。即使两院分别被不同的政党所控制，但是天下始终在掌控下议院的政党手中。如此看来上议院只不过是一个鸡肋议院，不控可惜，控来无味。既然如此何不干脆把这个形同虚设的议院废除掉改为单院制。或许有人会认为上议院多少会有监督国会的功用，但是既然下议院可以在上议院的反对下强行通过提案，那样又何来监督。监督国会滥权？

虽然如此，上议院还是有其好处在。这可以从委任上议员出任部长当中看出来。或许某人的能力（当然不是贪污的手法特别高明）是国家所需要的，但是却碍于不是国会议员的身份而不能出任政府官职，这个时候就是上议院发挥作用的时候，后门就在上议院。但是这并不表示上议院就可以有免死金牌。可以在国会里多设立几个空位，当真的是有此需要时就可以由内阁委任此人为国会的特别议员，进而出任官职。当然此类的特别议员只可以在真正有此需要时才可获委任并且还不能拥有任何的表决权。

再来就是所谓的党鞭。在英国的政党政治中当然也有所谓的党鞭，但是在被马来西亚化之后，党鞭已经变成为了一种控制议员自由的手段。在这个制度下，议员已经完全没有自主权，党的意志就是议员的意志。议员在这种情况下又变成了“橡皮人”，一个认党不认提案的“橡皮人”。

在这一方面，美国的政治制度却有着一套较为完善的制度。在美国的制度下，不论众议院或参议院的议员都是个别独立的。总统是总统，议员是议员。你是我党的同僚不代表我就要买你的账。这也给了议员一个自由的空间，至少它们不需要昧着良心或盲目地对任何提案给予支持。当然党鞭是有它存在的价值（就好像有某位仁兄认为《内安法令》有其存在的价值），但是这并不表示政党就可以胡乱地应用党鞭来控制议员的自由和观点。议员不是政党或更确切地说应该是政党领袖的狗，他们是有独立思想的人，但是党鞭却在马来西亚被政党或政党的领袖错误应用来把他们的议员驯服成他们的狗。放松对议员的管制是制造更民主空间的决定性手段。

这些都是在我国现有的政治制度底下进行的轻微改革，如果真的要有大动作就不妨想一想共和制。想归想，不要胡思乱想。因为苏丹会生气，种族主义者会煽动，警察会工作，监牢会为你而开。

开放思想，开放什么思想？就是把人民的思想从种族主义的荼毒中解放出来。在独立这么多年以后，人民当中依然充斥着种族主义的思想代表着这么多年来国家并没有进步过。

当有人认为零八年的大选成绩表明人民已经逐渐抛弃种族主义政治，那只不过是一种猜测。这种情况的出现其中肯定另有缘由。一来马来社会的种族贫富差距愈加扩大，这造成了一部分马来同胞的不满，而安华的出现更是给了这一群马来同胞一个新的寄托。如果换成别的华裔或印裔领袖，或许他们会选择让这样的情形继续下去毕竟他们还是信不过别的种族的领袖。至于华人和印度人同胞更不用讲，心淡如水，投个希望。如果这一次大选成绩真的如这些人所说的反映了种族政治逐渐被抛弃，别忘了还是有一大堆人投国阵的票。这种情况下的种族主义真的被抛弃了吗？即使到今时今日，只要你看一看和问一问你身边的人你就会有答案。有哪一个种族不都还是认为对方是猪？

归根究底，这些都是英国人长期实行分而治之的殖民政策所带来的后果。在英殖民帝国主义者种下这个祸根之后，他们又在施舍我国独立时培养起了我国的种族主义势力。因为这些摇着尾巴向他们乞讨独立的狗将会是他们在我国独立后的利益代言人。接下来的时间国阵的种族主义就大行其道，在我国政坛如入无人之境。在国阵种族主义的“教化”下，我国各族之间的种族关系都一直保持在一种互不顺眼但又不至于起冲突的平衡之中。但是这颗计时炸弹也还是爆炸过几次，最著名的当然是“五一三”事件。

要解决这一问题当然要依赖教育。既然上一代的种族主义思想已经根深蒂固，哪样也就只好“来者犹可追”，不要让下一代也受到此等垃圾思想的荼毒。还原历史真相，还原左翼尤其是马共的历史定位，让大家知道各族对这个国家的贡献。让大家知道谁曾经为国家的独立而牺牲，而又是谁才是英国人的走狗进而夺走独立的功劳并篡改历史再用种族主义思想荼毒马来西亚几十年。让马来西亚是马来西亚人的马来西亚的观念在马来西亚年轻的一代之中散播开去。

所以种族之间的隔膜真的消除了吗？看来不然，如果民联（不用指望国阵会作）真的有心要完成这个打破马来西亚种族主义政治的历史性任务，路途还很遥远。希望有一天我国选区的选民分配表不再以种族的巴仙来区隔，而是以政治的左中右所占巴仙来区分。

狐狸和狗

2008-09-16T06:48:00.001-07:00

再益为了原则而摘下乌纱帽的举动获得了多数人的激赏。说多数人是因为到现在还是有不少“择恶而固之”或难忘权与利的人。

“择恶而固之“的当然是那些巫统的死硬派。在他们看来引用《内安法令》此等恶法来践踏人权并无错，就算有错也不过是那些企图挑战国阵独裁式政权或公然指出国阵错误的人的错。就好像柏杨所说的那样，当权者不喜欢别人讲出他们的错误因为他们认为没人讲出他们的错误他们就没有错。在他们看来国阵才是这个国家唯一的领导者，他们从来也不愿去接受别人对他们的批评。他们唯一肯虚心受教的时候就是大选的时候，但也不过是左进右出，右进左出。然后如果有些人“三分颜色上大虹”，那样接着就是那些诸类恶法和国阵走狗（警方）登场表演的时间。

如果问马华存在的目的为何？为国为民？讲都没人信。为全为利为荷包？满分的答案。以前的不说，就说最近的“阿末门”事件马华那“勇敢”的表现大家也讲了不少遍，也痛心疾首了不少回。在接下来上演的《国阵滥权记——言论自由的悲歌》里，身为主角之一的马华也没有摆多少的心思下去“演”。只有当人家问到的时候，他们就随便附和几句说“反对，反对”然后就不当一回事。原因为何？因为党选在即，总会长的职位怎样都是大过天的。毕竟总会长的职位代表着财源滚滚来，“钱”途无量。国家人权和荷包？当然荷包重要。人权？去你的，不要阻扰老子找吃！还是老话一句，万事等我当选为总会长再说。

一群想要独霸马来西亚的狐狸。一群只会摇尾乞讨和自私自利的狗。一个由一群狐群狗党组成的政府。一个被如此政府管理了五十多年的国家。一群在此等国家活了五十多年的人。光是想都心寒。

“挺”起你们的“春”来吧！！！

2008-09-15T08:36:00.000-07:00

经过多年的“缩春”以后，国阵终于又出现了一个敢表达和坚持自己意见并说到做到的硬汉。或许过去他也有无能和同流合污的时候，但是今天的再益却显示出了许多到今天依然像狗那样的国阵议员所没有的勇气。

这可以从在“阿末门”事件的期间，那些一直高喊离开国阵的政党到头来还是没有违抗国阵和放弃本身权位的勇气。从联盟到国阵政府，《内安法令》何止一次被应用来破坏国家的民主和人权以及被用来维护联盟或国阵政府的政权。难道马华，民政，国大党以及其他一切的国阵成员党不知道这是不对的吗？他们知道，但是他们缺乏反抗的勇气。一来他们之中一些政党本身已经不再被本身的种族所接受，他们需要靠巫统的帮忙来维持他们的地位。二来他们在国阵所谓的“政权共享”的模式下也尝到了不少甜头，大家荷包满满。既然是如此又何必要讲多多来惹怒巫统“大哥”，万一以后“无啖好食”岂不得不偿失。

再益这一次的公然“叛变”或许也是一种好的现象。至少再益做到了为自己言论负责。一直以来我国的政客都是“乱嗡当秘笈”之流，时常说话不经大脑然后又死不认错，死不承认，说人家误解他的意思。搞到人民有时真的不知道他们这些白痴到底哪句真哪句假。再益这一次至少表现了给他们看什么是负责任的表现，身为部长说话不是闹着玩的，要说到做到。

不管他意图为何，我们都应该为再益这一次的不畏强权和敢说敢当鼓掌。毕竟我们的政府也很久没有出过如此有种的人了。既然有人开了一个头，那些人还等什么？“挺”起你们的“春”来吧！一起做个好汉！

去死吧，垃圾!!!

2008-09-12T18:17:00.000-07:00

二零零八年版本的“茅草行动”或许正在酝酿之中。继明显和国阵“不妥”的拉惹柏特拉以及因为尽了记者责任而惹毛国阵政府的陈云清之后，政府现在居然连雪州的高级行政议员郭素沁也引用《内安法令》把她给扣留了。

拉惹柏特拉三番四次的爆国阵的“大锅”，这一次为何而“死”还算是心里有个谱。陈云清身为一名新闻从业员却忘记了身为马来西亚一名新闻从业员的基本守则——报喜不报忧，对政府歌功颂德。反倒去大肆报导不利政府的新闻，也着实是“死有余辜”。而郭素沁为何而被捕？或许是因为最近那个爱哭的男人所挑起的回教堂播音事件。但是回教堂的秘书不是已经表明没有这回事并且还报警备案了吗？

自己“周身屎”又不给人批评。明明自己人做错了又不想给人知道，人家尽一名媒体工作者的责任却变成了罪过。自己讲错话收错风又变成是人家的错。接受选举制却又不接受政党轮替，一心想要霸着政府来做。给了清楚的讯息他们，他们依旧我行我素。看来这一群人已经忘记了他们只不过是高级的公务员，他们也是在打着人民的工。但是现在这批公务员却玩起了霸权主义来，他们打算把马来西亚变成他们的帝国，讲白一点他们就是要建立一个国阵独裁的马来西亚。如此主仆不分的现象是我国政坛长久以来的现象也是我国最大的悲哀和罪过。

白色恐怖业已出现。这也是国阵一贯的手法。当人民不再寄望于他们时，来硬的恐吓人民已经是他们的独门秘方。但是时移势易，如此的手段应该难再收效。当五十多年过去了，政府却没有与时并进依然是那个霸道的政府实在是国家的不幸。当五十多年过去了，国家依然被诸多的恶法钳制实在是国民的悲哀。

现在笔者唯一的寄望就是变天成功，因为不愿再等另一个五年了。手段不光明也好，至少能够先把现在这个垃圾政府和那些恶法一并送到地狱去解决掉。最后当然是希望民联不会是另一个国阵。

又被捅了一刀的言论自由

2008-09-12T07:58:00.001-07:00

要组成一个真正民主的国家，自由的媒体是非常重要的一环。这是因为媒体的报导不但是国民资讯的主要来源，媒体同时也在监督政府施政方面起着重要的作用。从《华盛顿邮报》的两个记者揭露了“水门案”从而导致尼克逊总统下台的事件中，媒体对一个国家的责任和重要性就显露无遗。

但是毫无疑问的是一直以来我国的媒体不自由是不争的事实。但是像这次这样利用到《内安法令》的恶法也确实是少见。有人发表歪论而报章如实报导就叫做无中生有，煽动。反倒是发表此番言论的白痴却变成了受害者。那些撕人家照片死不认错的人是英雄，而那些如实报导的媒体却成了罪犯。我们政府如此颠倒是非的功力在世上相信已经无人能及。

利用如此反动的措施来钳制言论自由着实令人反感。这种行为无疑是把全国的人民都当成零思考和判断能力的白痴。随随便便就可以被人家蒙骗，随随便便就可以被人家煽动起来。如果人民真的是如此白痴，那样那些成天在国会里面光说废话毫无建树的人就全部都是智障儿了。如果人民当真如此白痴，那样这一群管理了我国几十年的智障儿就好快点死开和让位，毕竟这些所有的白痴都是他们的教育政策下的产品。

在这里促请那些本身有智障的人士不要当人民是白痴。人民绝对有能力去分辨对错，不需要这些多事的人来管，来教我们如何去分辨对与错，真与假。当那些发表极端言论的人的言论自由都受到了重视，那样政府还凭什么干涉媒体的报导自由。如果如实报导的媒体有错，那样干涉媒体报导以及言论自由的政府的内阁成员就应该全部被抓去枪毙而且他们全部都是死有余辜的。

《华盛顿邮报》的两个记者因为他们的不畏强权和尽责而获得了尊重。但是媒体在马来西亚的处境却是完全的颠倒过来。媒体永远都是那些没脑的政客的代罪羔羊。在马来西亚不需要如实报导，只需要歌功颂德。歌国阵的功，颂国阵的德。所以现在当我们笑人家的国家独裁时，我们也应该好好反省一下自己国家的处境是不是真的比别人好。

垃圾政府的垃圾法令

2008-09-11T09:34:00.001-07:00

拉惹柏特拉的《今日大马》和一些过去被禁的网站或部落格获得了政府的解禁得以重见天日。但是这并不是代表着言论自由获得了胜利，相反的政府表示将会使用极度反动的《内安法令》来对付那些口多多的网站和部落客。这一次一众的网站和部落客非但没有赢得更多的言论空间，反倒是国阵政府还加大了干涉网络言论自由的力度。

当所有的主流媒体都被出版准证控制但是网络空间却又不受控制的当儿，政府终于想到了一个完全摧毁我国那仅剩的一点的言论自由空间的方法。这个国阵政府的万全之策就是那个万试万灵的恶法——《内安法令》。

今后的网络再也不是一个安全的空间。政府已经在部署要把他们控制言论的魔爪伸向这最后一片言论自由的空间。以后的以后我国就再也不会有不同于政府的论调，所有的一切言论都将会成为为政府歌功颂德的论调。如有违者，《内安法令》侍候。

《内安法令》已经在我国肆虐了几十年，一次又一次的呼唤，此恶法在我国的地位依旧稳如泰山。这无它，因为此恶法在捍卫国阵的种族主义政府方面贡献良多。一次又一次的“救驾”于危难之中，叫国阵政府如何舍得让它离去。

自己做得烂又不准人家批评，人家批评又要把人家关起来。国阵政府应该知道，在这个人权高涨的年代，《内安法令》已经起不了多少的作用。有本事你就抓，相信没多少人会怕，至少现在已经有一个不怕的人。有一个垃圾政府就会有这种垃圾法令。好好反省吧，垃圾！！！

唉，没种又贪权的民族“捍卫者”！！！

2008-09-10T17:46:00.000-07:00

在被巫统冻结党籍三年后，“阿末门”总算告一段落。在最高理事会宣布了冻结阿末党籍的决定之后，阿末愤愤不平地表示许子根赢了这场游戏。但是赢了的真的是许子根吗？其实不然。

这一次事件中真正的胜利者应该是巫统。在被百般凌辱后，民政和马华以然后着脸皮留在了国阵之内。这足以表示在现阶段民政和马华绝对不敢离开国阵的阵营，因为他们还十分需要巫统“老大哥”的关照。另一个胜利者就非马哈迪莫属。当阿都拉和纳吉连一个区会也控制不了的时候，这证明巫统内部阿都拉的敌对势力还是非常强大的。而这些强大的反阿都拉势力将会让马哈迪有机会侍机而动展开他一连串的报复行动。再来的胜利者当然是阿末本人。从始至终阿末都没有为这件事道歉。在国阵乃至全马的压力之下，他依然是能够坚持己见。最后他赢了，因为连巫统也拿他没办法而只能暂时冻结他的党籍，让大家都有一个冷静的机会。

在这场游戏之中，最大的失败者当属民政和他们的主席许子根。当民政连同他们的主席被阿末批得体无完肤之时，他们依然还是没有执行他们一直在那边叫嚷的离开国阵的口号的决心。或许这就是软弱的许子根领导下的民政。当巫统最高理事会冻结阿末的党籍三年后，民政诸公已经高兴得睡不着觉因为他们的“老大哥”帮他们出了一口气，他们还是受到“老大哥”的宠爱的。但是冻结了一个阿末，民政能保证巫统这个已经被种族主义高度腐蚀的政党里面不会有第二个阿末吗？难道等到下一次又被人家踩上头的时候，又去和“老大哥”哭诉？再下来阿都拉和纳吉这一次也输得不轻。当阿末不受控制之时，就表示巫统内部倒阿都拉的实力何其庞大，达到连区会主席也肆无忌惮的地步。如果不是肆意包庇，阿都拉也应该是时候好好自省为何连自己的同僚也要反自己了。

当然马华很幸运的，由于党选的关系，无暇和阿末纠缠才得以免去了黄家定相片被撕的不幸。如果处于同样的处境，马华应该也不会有什么大动作。最多也只是跑去和巫统“老大哥”哭诉，毕竟他们现在有几个部长职在手，傻的才退出国阵。但是他们也是输了，因为人民终于看到一直说要改变的马华始终还是比较热衷于争权夺利。万事等我当选为总会长再说。

一个没种，一个贪权。唉，前路在何方？

考察“吃风团”

2008-09-10T07:08:00.000-07:00

在这一段期间，“阿末门”已经牢牢的吸引住了我国国民的关注和视线。导致之前深受媒体“爱戴”的安华变天计划都要暂时让出它在报纸雄霸了一时的版位。

现在甚至连我们大批的国阵议员出国考察都显得异常的不受关注。名为出国考察团，实为国阵议员高级豪华“吃风团”。国会议员到台湾去考察农业技术？考察目的为何？难道是因为不久的将来将会有一个关于农业的法案通过，而首相有鉴于我国的“巴杀”议员时常在国会辩论时不是无言以对就是只能以发表一些白痴言论来敷衍过去，所以首相这一次就要他们做好准备以让人们眼前一亮，挽回一些声望。抑或是首相担心这些议员以后退休后想要从事一些有关农业的活动但又不知从何开始，所以首相就为他们预先铺排好一切。

无论如何，诸如此类的所谓考察团在我国只可以用五花八门来形容。每一天都有一大堆的政府人员被委派到外国去考察，每一年我国花费在这一方面的金钱相信可以建多几间大学有多。当钱花了，但是我们什么也没有得到。出国考察过了，但是还是没有大的转变。或许当我们问那些有份出国的官员他们在考察团中得到或学到了什么，他们的答案应该是他们“执”到了一次免费出国吃风的机会，其余就没什么特别。

当人民每年从辛劳的所得之中扣税缴交给政府，而我们的政府问都没有问一声，连谢谢也没有就把大把的钱拿来供人家出国吃风。人民死省烂省，连吃都要“度”过，但是我们的政府想都不用想就每年把大笔的钱用在无谓的地方。如此浪费人民血汗钱的人真的应该抓去枪毙!!!

屎中找财，“寄居论”中看自由

2008-09-08T08:20:00.000-07:00

阿末已经成为了脱缰的野马（或许说他是马还有点抬举了他），贵为一国之相的阿都拉都控制不了他了。这里吩咐不要再提不堪的往事，那里就马上有记者会并公然出现内斗的现象。

“不要效仿犹太人来搞政经兼掌。捅出乱子你（许子根）和民政要负责。”这是阿末最新鲜出炉，给许子根和民政的警告。当然同时也是给全马那些他口中的非土著的寄居者的忠告。或许我们应该听一听阿末的忠告，不然我们有可能随时会激怒阿末和他的拥护者。到最后就像许子根的相片那样，死无全尸。

如果照他的说法那样来做的话，事情就容易解决了。以后大选只可以由马来同胞参选，国家的政治就只可以由马来同胞执掌。而反过来，以后所有的商业活动就只可以由非马来同胞来参与。这样事情就解决了。权归你，财归我，大家各取所需互不相干，河水不犯井水。等到国庆还是什么节日的时候，大家才出来一起扮亲切和团结给别人看，然后自我安慰一番，我国是一个团结的国家。或许这就是“大嘴”末心目中的乌托邦。

其实“大嘴”末道不道歉已经无关紧要，既然人家有这样的想法，那样我们就应该尊重他。毕竟我们时常讲要言论自由，那样我们就从“大嘴”末开始做起。如果逼到人家最后心不甘情不愿的道歉，人家还可能反咬一口说我们不尊重他的言论自由。既然是这样，以后我们万一因为什么行差踏错而被援引煽动法令控上庭，我们还可以多一个自辨的理由。“阿末也是这样讲的”，“阿末可以为什么我不可以”，“我的话的内容和阿末的也相差无几啊”……

既然这是人家的政治思想的一部分，那样我们就应该尊重人家。如果这种政治思想有市场而人家又得到人民的支持，那样我们就祝福他。自由嘛，就从阿末做起好了。让这一次的事件为我们带来一些正面的意义也未尝不是一件好事。

不要让种族主义的猪看死！！！拿出胆来做个有种，有尊严的人！！！

2008-09-08T07:37:00.001-07:00

如果问什么是嚣张，不用想，看一看我们巫统的一区会之首阿末就自然懂得答案。首相叫他道歉，他失踪。副首相代他道歉，他开记者会说他没错。民政和马华大力抨击他，他睬你都傻。许子根讲多两句，相片也被拿来当众撕了，同僚也没面子给。

这一次的“阿末门”事件，可说是丢尽了我们首相的脸。刚开始首相他老人家还大义禀然的要阿末道歉。接着或许是碍于党选和党内势力的挑战，首相他老人家就立场软化，叫大家不要再提这些“伤心事”以免伤害了种族和谐（当然同时也是为了要避免损害了他的声望，毕竟一党的主席居然拿一个区会的主席没办法是几丢脸一下的事来的咯）。

最后搞到民政和马华出到最后一招，威胁要退出国阵，“英雄”阿末还是无动于衷。结果搞到人家马华和民政不但话讲了不能收回，还要搞到人家要退出又不敢，不退出话又讲过了头。真的是有覆水难收之叹。

当然和马华相比之下，民政更没面子，居然连主席的相片都给人给撕了。这就好比跑去人家大使馆外面烧人家的国旗。这一撕，仿佛就是在挑战民政“有种就推出国阵啦，笨！”。现在的民政可以说是被逼上了墙角。不退出嘛，人家都踩到头上来了。退出嘛，以后何去何从。或许这样搞一搞，马华诸公就会稍微收敛他们的气焰，以免重蹈民阵的覆辙。

阿末敢以一人之力力抗国阵实在是“有魄力”兼“勇气可嘉”。或许教科书可以把这一次的“阿末门”列入其中，以便把阿末在这一次事件所表现出来的坚持到底，至死不渝的精神教导给学生。标题可以是《现代马来英雄阿末》，《小刀剧大树——阿末单刀力抗国阵》，《当勇敢的阿末遇上没种的马华和民政》，《强硬的阿末和软弱的阿都拉》等等标题，视乎课文内容是在讲述着在此次事件里阿末哪一段的“威水史”。

既然被人家看死没有种，既然连自己人都受到如此对待，既然都毫无地位可言，那样马华和民政尤其是民政又何妨做一次好戏给大家看。这样做至少还能够保有自己的尊严，赢得别人的尊重。如果之前的叫喧都只是在做戏（或者这根本就是国阵自导自演并由马华民政主演来转移人们视线的闹剧），或者为了权位马华和民政甘愿忍辱偷生，那样他们就连最后的那一点尊严都没有了，最少在笔者眼中他们还贱过地底泥。对，离开它，外面的世界还很广阔，不要让那些种族主义的猪（把如此之人比做猪实在有点对不起猪）看死

酒馆关门了，是时候收声了

2008-09-08T06:28:00.000-07:00

自阿都拉政府执政以来，马哈迪那个老家伙就变得很不得空。只要一有机会这个老家伙就要大力抨击阿都拉，甚至到最后不惜退党威胁（或许他以为他是拿督翁，但是似乎除了他儿子之外巫统内部并没多少人愿意或根本不想理他）。软弱，不民主，经济衰退，贪腐再加上最新的罪名—为了他族利益而背弃马来人的利益（以示对阿末伊士迈的支持并同时要求“他族”为那些他们曾经发表的，在他看来是种族主义的言论道歉），又一番种族主义到极点甚至讲到别人都有点麻木了的言论。

当老家伙对阿都拉诸多批评时，他似乎没发现他的“成就”和他所批评的阿都拉是不能同日而语的。而日久有功，老家伙二十多年所累积下来的“成就”当然要比我们的伯拉要强得多。

因为他的荣誉心和一意孤行，我国有了国产车。有了年年亏损的国产车，我国每年需要补贴好几十亿以便挽救老家伙的得意做。因为他的急功近利，我国陷入了泡沫经济到现在也不能自拔。因为他的突发奇想，我国二十年的学子的前程都成为了英语教数理的实验品。因为他的种族主义思想，坚持了几十年的华教差一点就在他的手上毁于一旦。因为他的自卑情结，我们有了普特拉再也，一个花了好几百亿但是设计得一无是处的新行政中心。这是对国。

对党，因为他的恋权，巫统党选出现了他现在一直大力抨击为不民主的提名固打制（一个曾经在帮他压制党内异议人士并保住他的地位方面“贡献”良多的制度现在却被他批评得一无是处）。因为他的霸道独裁，国阵一党独大的现象被发展到了最高峰，使到马华和民政这些国阵“小弟弟”现在被人家唾弃。

当然老家伙的“贡献”还有很多，要尽列出来也实属不可能。只希望老家伙能明白不在其位，不谋其事的个中道理。就好像丘吉尔下台时说的那样，酒馆关门了是时候离开了。对，既然酒馆都已经关门了，老家伙又何必还要赖死不走，在那里数臭那些自己遗留下来的弊病。

移民何苦为难移民！！！

2008-09-05T07:10:00.001-07:00

阿末伊斯迈果然够“姜”，当我们那个曾经要用华人的血来染红马来短剑的副首相纳吉都低声下气的代他道歉消毒时，他却依然我行我素，坚持己见。他还表示他所说全部属实，独立前华人的确是寄居者，外来移民。

如果要说华印同胞是寄居者，那样马来同胞也不枉多让，一样是寄居者，同样是这个国家的外来移民。当他们以土著身份自居时，他们应该没有想过他们那引以为荣的马六甲皇朝的祖先也只不过是来自于印尼的外来移民。一个打算暂居马来半岛却又误打误撞建立了马六甲皇朝的印尼移民。

当他们以土著自居时，那样那些真正的原住民，这一些真正的土著是什么？这种自居土著的行为难道不是喧宾夺主，夺人国土主权的行为吗？要高喊马来主权论，那些原住民不是比他们更有资格吗？

当国家已经踏入独立五十一周年之际，国家依然还充斥着拥有如此种族主义思想的人实属国家的不幸。这些自己喧宾夺主在先，又尔后称别人是外来移民，是寄居者的人，真的是要为他的短见和无知感到可悲和可笑。当一个人会为国家带来不幸并令到人家要为他感到可悲和可笑时，真的是活着也没意思。

总括一句，移民何苦为难移民。当然我们不应该被这些无知的言论转移了视线，在批判这些短见的同时，朝野两派的政绩才是我们更应该注重的重点。

人命何价，负责任文化何在？？？

2008-09-01T06:18:00.000-07:00

人命何价？这个问题很难给答案，通常人们的答案都会是无价。但是在马来西亚人命却是有价的。根据最新的“市价”显示，我国现在一条人命只值十六万马币多。（妈妈赔了命，孩子变成智障，算毁了半生。赔二十五万了事。二十五万除以一点五得出以上“市价”。）

一次又一次，一条又一条人命。诸如此类的医疗疏忽案在我国已是见惯不怪的事情。即使把此类案件诉诸法律也的确只能赔偿了事，法律提供保护予医生这类较为特殊的专业行业的确是无可厚非。许多国家的法律都是如此。

但是这一层保护伞在我国却逐渐被滥用了，负责任文化已经完全崩溃了。医生不需为任何的疏忽负责，不需要处分，也不需要吊销执照。一切有医院做主。死了人吗？医院赔钱。要处分他吗?给他一个机会。总之一切的一切都显示负责任的文化已经在医生这个行业里消失了，没有了。或者更确切的说是被摧毁了。

除此之外，人民连知道的权力也没有了。哪一间医院？不知道，报纸没写或者不准写。哪一个医生？不知道，医院一意包庇。对，不用怀疑，你就是没有权力知道即使现在他正拿着手术刀站在你旁边。如果你遇到他是你倒霉，你家的事。

当人们以为卫生部会站出来主持公道或至少会有什么高见时，卫生部长就说他们会设立专案小组来调查。真的是“荣幸”，居然还要劳烦到卫生部特地设立专案小组来调查。但是说了等于没说，做了等于没做。设立什么专案小组啦，什么调查委员会啦，都已经成了政府部门推卸责任的官腔。什么事情都设立调查小组，然后就推出一大堆的报告，再然后就拿报告的调查来炯炯而谈，再然后就没有一回事。

可以不拿人命当一回事并且如此不负责任者，如果把他们归类为禽兽还侮辱了禽兽，这类人充其量只不过是人渣。我们居然活在一个随时都可能把生命交给一个人渣的国家，真的想到都心寒。当然除了心寒，也要同时为国家那些一向自负的大学培养出如此“优良”的学生感到可悲（为人民）和可笑（为他们的自负）。

受了伤的心，不再讲话的人

2008-08-28T05:54:00.000-07:00

想不到一番爱出风头与自大论竟然伤透了我们雪州行政议员刘天球的心。使到我们这个想当初意气风发，舍我取谁的行政议员现在意志消沉。可见刘议员那脆弱的心灵已经大受打击，饱受创伤。

日前当被要求对某市议会高价租借电脑的事情发表看法时，刘议员已经表示他不会再插手其他事情除非发表这一番言论的人向他道歉。哇，果然好大的官威！

想不到被批评居然成了一名议员，还要是州政府的行政议员不再管事的借口。看来这一次刘议员真的袋了不少钱进国阵议员和他的同僚的口袋。如果以后有人胆敢再冒犯官威就来一个罢工抗议，看你们这些嘴巴不会停的小人物还敢不敢一直讲，乱乱讲，不会停。

由此可见当民联不断在鼓吹言论自由时，它的议员却一点也不自由。或许在刘议员心目中的言论自由是和国阵相同标准的，就是只可以讲我的好绝不可以批评我的坏。

有批评就必然是有了出错的地方。既然有问题就应该找出问题所在，不是在那里拿人民的利益来斗气。身为一名政治人物被人家批评已经是家常便饭，如果被这样批评一下就讲心灵受创，那样被在野党批评了五十多年的联盟和现在的国阵党员不就已经全部自杀死光光了。当然你也可以讲他们之所以没有这样做是因为脸皮够厚，油水够丰。

如果认为自己没有错，那就应该坚持到底，何必在意别人的话语和看法。这一点刘议员就应该向国阵的议员多多学习。虽然搞种族政治被批评了几十年，接着在今年的大选和刚刚的补选又被刮了一记重重的耳光，但是国阵党员还是毫不气馁的发表了新的“寄居论”，势要为种族政治力拼到底，至死不渝。

还媒体一个自由，还言论自由一个公道

2008-08-27T07:51:00.000-07:00

“忍耐是有限度的”这句话我们时常都听人说，拉惹柏特拉终究还是触碰到了政府忍耐的底线。在忍耐了那么长的一段时间之后，国阵政府终于动手对付这个一直对政府喋喋不休并不时爆政府“大锅”的部落客。

当报章的言论自由受到出版准证的钳制时，国阵政府现在又尝试控制网络的言论空间。国阵政府的下一步应该就是要建立一个完全有利于自己的言论空间，一个永远不会批评只会赞扬国阵政府的马来西亚。

人之所以有别于动物是因为人有思考的能力。思考就自然会带来观点，不同的思考模式就必然会带来不同的观点。人非圣贤，没有可能每一件事情都可以设想的百分百完美。别人的意见就是一面最好的镜子。就好比在美国民主党的总统决不会打压亲共和党的报刊，而相同的共和党的总统也不会打压亲民主党的报刊。

至于揭政府伤疤这类的行为更值得鼓励。媒体的职业道德就是如实报道，把那些见不得光的是报道给民众知道，维护民众知道的权利。如果为了官官相护而打压媒体的报道空间，这不但无益于民主的发展，也只会令到人民反感。而今天国阵政府对待媒体的政策就是在向这条死胡同前进。

这样的政策是一种倒退的政策，一种意图把人类“兽化”成零思考零判断的动物的政策。就好像张念群在一篇社论中提到的那样，人民绝对有能力判断对错，不需要政府帮我们决定我们应该看什么和不应该看什么。当然，政府也绝对没权决定。

从峇东埔“赢”来希望

2008-08-26T06:28:00.000-07:00

世纪补选以安华的大胜告终，多元政治路线又一次的打了一场漂亮的胜仗。多元政治路线又一次的证明了它是被马来西亚人民所接受的。

这也一再的显示了国阵种族政治的破产。玩弄种族情绪，派“糖果”，人格谋杀等等等诸如此类的国阵惯招都已经不再奏效。这正是人民思想日趋成熟的一种可喜现象。

现在补选赢了，如果所言非虚，那样接下来就会是民联夺权的好戏。一次我国政治史上前所未有的政党交替。

当然，如果民联果真能如其所言般在九一六组织新政府，那样希望民联不会忘记他们对民的承诺。振兴经济，言论自由，恶法的废除，铲除朋党主义，解决贪污问题，司法独立……这些他们一直以来所大力批评的问题。民联若果真的当政，希望他们不会忘记或者自身深陷其中而不自知。

当然在夺权以前民联也要先稳定他们内部自己的合作关系。不要在日后因为政见不合而搞到撕破脸皮，各奔东西。到时候不但亲者痛仇者快，并且还给国阵种族政治一个反击和死灰复燃的机会。

虽说以这种手法夺权有违反民意之嫌。但是如果民联真的能为国家带来改变和前进，那样相信也没有多少人会介意民联这种夺权的手法。

希望九一六不是一个“车大炮”的政治谎言。当然也希望民联如果真的当政能为国家带来改变。无论如何，民联这个政府还是值得期待的。至少它代表了一个希望，一个能够带来改革和更美好的未来的希望。如果发现民联当政并不是那样一回事，那时才来“解决”掉它也不迟。都给了国阵五十年了，为什么不给民联五年试一试？

还钱来！！！

2008-08-25T08:33:00.000-07:00

选举就好比一场比赛，一场政党与政党之间的比赛。就好比两支球会的比赛，公平竞争是最基本的原则。但是看我国的选举，独立五十一年来，又哪一届的选举是公平过的吗？

每一次的选举，每一次派出去的“糖果”，最少都是用百万计。钱从哪里来？这都是国阵从执政的便利当中获得的好处。即使国会与内阁已经解散，国阵成员党的候选人还是能够以部长自居并动用国家资源来资助他们的选举。

这种以政府名义来“派钱”以便愚弄选民的行为在补选更是明目张胆。每一次派出去的“糖果”都是以政府部门的名义来派，难后又说“不是啦，不要多心。”是不是多心，明眼人心中自有份数。

这种现象正反映了我国党政不分的现象。一直以来，人民的观念就是国阵是政府，政府是国阵。国阵选举以政府名义派“糖果”是指定动作，以政府的名义来“派钱”也是理所当然。国阵的政党动用国家的钱，政府的钱，人民的钱来资助它们在选举中的一切经费包括“糖果”费已经变成一种习惯。

当民联政党说他们不会派“糖果”时，或许是出于无奈的话语。如果真的要派，民联拿什么来派？就算是以五州政府的财力来和国阵都派也不够他派。看人家多豪爽，一张身份证就派一百块，安华赢少过一万票就每个人两百块……这样豪爽你民联拿什么跟我斗？拿命来斗啊？

不过回头想一想，党政不分不就表示那些钱就是政府的钱，政府的钱就是人民的钱，人民的钱就是我们的钱。居然拿我们的钱来助选，把钱还来!!!要派就用你们自己“吞”了的那些来派，取自社会用自社会这样简单的道理还不懂吗？

多派点“糖果”，少讲点废话——“糖果”照收，反对票照投

2008-08-22T06:06:00.001-07:00

鸡奸，鸡奸，鸡奸。这个词眼仿佛已经变成了国阵的口头禅。见面讲鸡奸，演讲讲鸡奸，仿佛什么事都和鸡奸有关。

自巴东埔选战开打以来，国阵的策略除了诽谤就是诽谤。一会有人去回教堂发誓，一会又有人站出来暗示这样暗示那样，一会又有人怀疑为什么要带“咖啡童”出国。他们每一天在做的就只有不断地进行诽谤。

讲了那么久，国阵完全没有提到任何的政治或治国方针。或许他们自己也知道讲来也是多余的，一来他们做不到，二来他们应该也明白到他们讲了也没人会再相信。当然他们除了诽谤之外也不会忘记激起种族情绪，说什么民联执政就“猪化”马来西亚。何必等民联执政，像这种素质能讲出这种话的种族主义思想的议员已经“猪化”了我国的国会几十年。

当然除了以上两招，国阵还有一招“派糖果”。纵观三种方法，还是“糖果”比较实际一点。诽谤人家，大家听了等于没听，又没证没据，讲了一大堆到底干我何事？挑起种族情绪更不用讲，照国阵的惯例，内安法令是也。不好意思，忘记了内安法令是国阵的专利，只用来对付意图不利国阵或其“老大”巫统的人。

到头来还是“糖果”较实际一点，毕竟钱进了口袋就没得拿回。现在还派出了汽油降价这种新款的“糖果”，所以说何乐而不为？反倒是听他们讲那些诽谤性和种族主义的废话，听了不但回家要洗耳朵，生活也不见好转连一个希望也没有得到这样才够力，最后甚至连洗耳朵的水费都还要亏给他们。

所以以后再有什么竞选，国阵就废话少说，只要致力于派“糖果”就好了。毕竟这是国阵唯一有功于民的地方。他们也没损失，他们只是把“吞”了的还给人民而已。人民也不要觉得你不投他就受之有愧，那些都是你的，现在只是还回给你。所以“糖果”照吃，反对票照投。

“吹水”群英会

2008-08-21T05:55:00.001-07:00

日前国阵在巴东埔一场补选集会上的言语让我们又有机会见识见识国阵党员大放厥词而又面不改色的绝技。

先说我们“敬重”的驸马爷，驸马爷说反贪局这次在霹雳州的行动证明什么？证明贪污的不是政府也不是国阵而是公正党。咋听下去好像很有道理，但是驸马爷好像没有想到国阵在贪腐这个领域的“成就”也非泛泛。巴生码头事件，学校拨款干捞事件，驸马爷有份主演的登州风帆杯事件等等等这些讲也讲不清的国阵“威水史”。空穴来风未必无因，如果反贪局真的查下去，恐怕……自己都“周身屎”还要拿这些课题来批评人家，有一句客家俗语说得好“狐狸不要骂猫”。

再说“遵规”的副首相，副首相亲自颁发三十万奖金与李宗伟，难后说什么非土著受到重视并受到善待。真的是只可以用一派胡言来形容副首相这一番肤浅的话。这三十万是李宗伟应得的，给他是道理不给他，在巫统看来或许也是道理。非土著受到善待？学校要拨款要生要死也要不到，要创办华文大学也不行，每年一大把优秀生在报纸哭生哭死才进到大学。哪里受到善待了？难道真的好象那个什么贸合部长说的那样，有经商和受教育机会就是受到善待了？

三说阿力夏，一个会讲华语然后又不断吹嘘自己这项“特技”的国阵候选人。仿佛会讲两句华语就很了不起，就是一种丰功伟绩。那样会讲三语和一些方言的华裔或印裔同胞岂不是神。语言并不重要，人民要的不是一个在拨款给华小的时候拒绝用马来话发言然后又不断强调自己是受华文教育会唱华语歌的领袖，现在不是选秀或才艺表演。不要会两句华语就把自己当成是华裔的保护神，华社也被不少说华语的自己人出卖了几十年。

期许，失望？？？

2008-08-20T00:02:00.001-07:00

虽然反贪局近来频频出动，但是反贪局在逮捕霹雳州两名公正党行政议员涉嫌收取大型房屋计划贿款的行动里，行动之快可谓破天荒，甚至可以被列入大马纪录大全里。又一项“Malaysia Boleh”的表现。

这里有人举报那里就马上抓人。先不管这次的行动有没有政治动机，光是反贪局如此高效的行动已经可谓前所未见，“可喜可贺”了。

反倒是在前几次的事件里例如甲洞高架天桥龟裂，登州风帆杯驸马爷被举报涉贪，学校拨款被干捞，巴生码头事件……在这些数也数不清的糊涂案里，反贪局都未曾显示过他们办事是如此之高效。政治动机会不会是其中鞭策反贪局高效工作的因素？谁晓得。

当然如果以上的议员的确是有做过，那样反贪局的确应该尽速采取行动，他们也应该受到他们应受的惩罚。只是希望反贪局不会成为某些人或政党打压政敌的工具，当然也希望反贪局在行动时不会持双重标准。

最后还有一个期望就是以上被引为例的事件能够调查清楚，抓几条大鱼让大家高兴高兴，这也不失为一个让人民能够苦中作乐平衡一下心理的好方法。当然笔者也知道这些期望都是有些不切实际或可以说是虚无缥缈的。但是人活着不也是为一个希望吗？

派糖果的季节

2008-08-19T18:03:00.000-07:00

当国阵的一方不断的批评安华制造补选是劳民伤财之举时，补选真的是对人民只有百害而无一利吗？

其实不然。当补选宣布以来，巴东埔地区已经有五所小学接收到拨款。一百二十万的糖果已经被派了出去。当那些部长不断的辟谣说拨款无关补选，不是补选糖果时，那样为什么又会无独有偶的所有拨款都是给巴东埔一带的华小？其实有些东西不用讲大家都是肚皮里点灯。

在平常时候，华小不要讲是一百二十万，就算是区区的一百二十块都要不到政府的。那些马华部长说什么自力更生啦，政府没钱啦，政策问题啦。但是当一受到补选的眷顾时，忽然之间钱就像雪花般飞来，想挡也挡不了。就有如我们的魏副部长很自豪的表示那样，支票在四十八小时就准备好了。

所以谁敢说补选只会带来百害而无益于民？至少补选能一直提醒傲慢的国阵政府谁才是老大。若果日后有哪一所小学缺经费而又苦等不到政府的拨款，他们大可以如法炮制，要求该区议员tolong tolong，辞职以制造补选，那时候那些钱不用你开口那些部长都会纾尊降贵亲自送上门。

当然最重要的还是钱照拿，票照投。不要觉得那是国阵的恩惠，我们只是在拿回我们应得的钱。

论公民与权利

2008-08-18T09:07:00.000-07:00

“土著的始终要给回土著。土著和非土著之间原本就有两套不同的制度，既然非土著有经商和受教育的机会就应该知足不要得寸进尺。”——“敬爱”的贸合部长诺奥马语。

又一番可以被列为18PL级但是却又确确实实的道出了我国国情的种族性言论。照尊贵的部长的话语来看，仿佛非土著要为能够拥有经商和受教育的机会而庆幸，至于公平的对待最好不要妄想。

在我国每个人的身份证上都有注明warganegara的字眼，既然是公民那样经商和受教育的机会原本就是公民的基本权利，有必要为获得这些基本的权利而高兴吗？既然同是公民又为何会有两种制度？或许政府应该在身份证的warganegara字眼后面加上I和II，以作为对一等公民和二等公民的识别。

当国阵政府说要做全民政府时，他的议员却始终抱持种族性思想不放。或许国阵政府应该直接如上所述来区分公民，那样问题就可以一劳永逸，毕竟一等公民比二等公民享有多一点的福利又有何不可？

“耀”言惑众

2008-08-16T07:00:00.000-07:00

日前新加坡的李资政又不失时机地发表了一遍伟论。他表示马来西亚变天只会使到局势更混乱，并表示政治改革不应该在牺牲所有原有领导的情况下进行，就好像新加坡不能够由人民行动党的“甲级”领导人以外的“乙级”领导人领导一样。因为这些他口中的“乙级”领导人还不够班，他们的领导只会把新加坡带到“荷兰”。而政府能做的就是让他们在国会里有多一点的反对声音。他还表示人民行动党政府已经在计划以便“施舍”多一点国会的席位给反对党。

李资政果然口才了得，连这些似是而非的东西也可以给他讲到像对的一样。有如国阵政府在马来西亚，人民行动党在新加坡一党独大几十年根本就是政治上一种不健康的现象。但是李资政却把这种变相的独裁统治合理化，仿佛新加坡没有了人民行动党就会失去一切。想当年李资政口口声声说共产党政权是独裁的政权，难到现在他不也是正在为人民行动党想要建立的独裁政权辩护吗？差别只在于人民行动党的独裁是有一层民主的糖衣包裹着。

李资政也提到他所谓的“甲级”和“乙级”领导人。他把人民行动党的“优良”领袖归纳为“甲级”的人物，只有他们才能带给新加坡未来。而那些反对党的“乙级”领导人就只配在国会里吵一吵。其实在这里只想问一问李资政，到底他有什么资格为一个人定等级，而他的标准又在哪里？如果是以党派为标准，那样在笔者心中他还勉强及格。但如果以人格人品为标准，那样他就连级数也没有。

再来就是李资政可怜那些万年反对党，表示会施舍多一点国会席位给他们，让他们在国会可以大声点。一个靠出卖，欺骗和肮脏手段来获得政权的政党现在居然还倒回来可怜他的对手。也许那些反对党的领袖应该不计前嫌，感谢李资政的大量，乖乖接受，不要再搞什么花样，以答谢李资政的厚爱。或许新加坡也可以改一改选举制度，以后每逢选举就让人民行动党自动胜出，然后才由人民行动党施舍一些席位给别的政党。

其实也不能怪李资政的这番“伟论”，毕竟马来西亚人民在本届大选的改变所带来的影响实在太大了。也许李资政害怕被他蒙骗了多年的人民会怕输也跟着要求改变，那时候他辛辛苦苦建立的李氏皇朝就“冻过水”了。

让沙文主义和种族主义的猪去地狱！！！

2008-08-13T21:22:00.000-07:00

雪州大臣一席开放玛拉学额的言论，看似平凡无奇的言论却引起了一堆种族主义分子的不满。还搞到要到雪州政府大厦示威抗议，开记者会批评卡立哗众取宠。

玛拉是属于土著的大学，学额绝对不能开放给别的种族。咋看下去，这是多么激情昂然的话语，说出此话之人仿佛是民族的捍卫者。但是实际上这只不过是一个彻头彻尾的种族主义者的彻头彻尾的种族主义，大沙文主义思想的表现。

当华社要创办本身的大学时，政府百般阻绕。当那些沙文主义者霸着一所大学不放时，政府说这是土著特权。反正都是，政府大可以把这种特权扩大。设立诸如土著医院，土著巴士站，土著菜市场，土著中小学……让那些沙文主义的猪来掌管，要是非土著踏入以上任何一个地方的范围就来一个格杀勿论，毕竟非土著在他们眼里只不过是二等公民，少一点未尝不是好事。

最后就让我们为卡立的仗义执言鼓掌。虽然他提议的十巴仙不算多，但是最少他说了一些自称民族保护者几十年来不敢说的话。当然也要为那些读太多书搞到脑袋闭塞的人悲哀。

医者父母心？？？

2008-08-09T10:24:00.001-07:00

日前又一位小孩成为了医疗疏忽的受害者。由于被注射过多的镇静剂，这名不幸的男孩就这样变成了植物人，还没来得及在人生的路上留下脚印就这样被无辜的毁了一生。

这一类的新闻在我国已经可以说是见惯不怪。一次又一次的疏忽，一个又一个无辜的生命。到底是医生的医德有问题还是医生的医术不精抑或是我国的人命不值钱可以任意践踏。

当眼睛都还没来得及开来看这个世界就被人家搞到连手也没了，赔偿了事。输血无辜染上爱滋病，赔偿了事。人们时常说钱不是万能，但是在我国看来钱的确是万能的，因为在钱的面前人命就如同杂草。当人们要求让疏忽的医疗人员负责时，得到的答案往往是给他们一个机会。但是又有谁给那些无辜的受害者一个机会。如此包庇之下，又如何培养出有医德者。

我国的大学在招收学生方面一向来都实行固打制，尤其以医科最常出现配额不足的情况。照理医科生应该都是万中选一，每个都是顶呱呱的才对，但是又为何时常出现医疗人员疏忽的问题。还是因为固打的原因，所以一些明明不符资格的学生也被吸纳以便填满固打配额。如果固打制下真的出现如此滥竽充数的问题，那样固打制就应该被丢进垃圾桶，不用再循环直接进焚化炉。

接二连三的疏忽事件已经使到我国医生的能力受到了质疑。相信有不少人都会担心自己走着进去，被他们的“妙手”不小心弄一弄就变成躺着出来。

给安华一个机会给国家一个希望，让阶级对立取代种族对立

2008-08-08T08:50:00.001-07:00

在我国以种族性来区分政治派系已经是一种不成文的习惯。自我国独立那天起，我国就在种族主义的荼毒下走过了五十个年头。

当国阵政府在大力渲染其管理下的国家所呈现的种族和谐，歌舞升平的假象时，国家是不是真的如其所说的那样，大家都心中有数。种族之间虽然说不至于仇视，但是彼此之间不咬弦已经是一个公开的秘密。但是在我国这个秘密却是一个禁忌，一个国阵政府不愿面对也不让人去触碰的禁忌。

这个公开的秘密之所以会成为禁忌，最主要的原因莫过于种族之间的不和谐正是国阵政府五十年屹立不倒的支柱。种族主义的思想一直以来就植根在国人的心中。在种族主义思想的荼毒下，人民都相信只有属于自己种族的政党才能保障自己的权益不受伤害。而这也在种族之间形成了一种平衡，巫裔同胞让别的同胞权力共享，别的同胞则承认巫裔同胞的特权。

但是在安华提倡的多元政治底下，这个平衡开始被打破。巫裔同胞开始反思马来主权论下的真正受益者，别的族裔的同胞则开始唾弃有名无实的权力共享。虽然说万一安华夺权后他未必会坚守这条多元政治的路线，但是他却是现在多元政治的唯一希望。既然我们都给了那么多次机会国阵，不妨给一次机会安华，毕竟他和国阵相比还是比较值得期望的。况且他是靠多元政治路线起家，维护多元政治路线也是理所当然。

一直以来，以阶级而不是以种族来区分政治上的敌友才是健康的政治。而安华的成与败将会在向阶级对立前进还是向种族对立后退的问题上起着关键作用。给安华一个机会就当是给国家一个希望。

一朝得志……

2008-08-08T05:27:00.001-07:00

如果权力会腐化一个人，那样名利就会使一个人迷失本性。

日前某位尊贵的国会议员被邀请出席一间小学的宴会，席间由于校方邀请了他在大选时的手下败将上台演说而没邀请他，使到我们这位尊贵的议员大为不满。事后这位心有不忿的议员便在本身的部落格大力抨击校方不尊重他，不给他面子。

当这位议员在大放厥词时，他应该抚心自问，他到底为学校做过什么。学校邀请他出席宴会已经是给足面子了，毕竟学校根本没有邀请他出席的必要。如果他认为自己身为国会议员就很了不起，请他不要忘记如果没有大家的支持他这个大选长败军根本什么都不是。

或许他认为成王败寇，败军之将没有资格讲话，要讲也应该让他讲。选到如此没肚量之人来当人民的代表，不知是他幸运还是人民不幸运。

有一句广东俗语说得好“面是人家给，假是自己丢”。今天校方已经给足面邀请你出席，你就有肚量一点给回一点面子人家。何苦要挖破脸皮，搞到最后还不是自己丢自己的脸。与其浪费时间在这些无谓的意气之争，为何不花多一点时间为人民谋福利。为人民谋了福利下一次你要讲几久都可以，没人会反对。

“一千步”笑“五十步”

2008-08-05T22:47:00.000-07:00

有时真的不得不佩服国阵党员的高明，连公正党保安向摄记动粗事件居然也可以被他们拿来和补选联系在一起。

当民政党员要求选民用选票来拒绝公正党的所谓“暴力”时，他们应该没有看到本身政党所组成的政府在这方面的“成就”是有过之而无不及的。

如果普通的推撞就是暴力，那样用内安法令来扣留异议者并对其百般虐待，这岂不是残暴。如果要我们用选票来拒绝暴力，那样我们更应该用选票来反对暴政。

事件发生之后，公正党的领导人都纷纷道歉了，甚至旺阿兹莎还亲自致电道歉。但是国阵政府又何时向那些曾经被内安法令摧残过的人道歉？

但是也难怪民政党员，毕竟从曾经的高高在上到今天的一无所有，不适时的发表一些高论以保持曝光机会，又怎样可以重整旗鼓，卷土重来。所以我们也不能怪他们拿着路牌到处挂又发表一些似是而非的高论，这些都是失意者为了挽回民心而不能自控的表现。

劳多一次为改变，伤多一次为未来

2008-08-04T09:51:00.000-07:00

纷纷扰扰了那么久，安华终于在千呼万唤下公布了补选区。在种种的猜测下，安华还是选择了巴东埔作为他重回国会的踏脚石。

当安华宣布补选区后，不出所料，国阵方面有不少人都不失时机地发表了一些伟伦以便提高见报机会。当中当然不乏指责安华为重回国会而不惜劳民伤财者。

无论如何，安华这一次重回国会是绝对值得期待的。如果安华没有“车大炮”，真的能在九一六组成新政府，那样这个新政府更值得期待。

安华是目前我国民主政治向前迈进的重要一环。如果安华能够促成我国自独立以来第一次的政党交替，虽然手法不怎么光明，但对我国来说已经是一个大跃进。他不仅能帮助人民接受国阵以外的政府，并且还能在政党之间制造良性竞争毕竟已经不是大权在握能够为所欲为的年代了。

总而言之，安华一定要赢，民联政府一定要组。反正都已经被劳了五十多年，被伤了五十多年，来多一个补选又有什么关系。

两个都没资格，争什么争！

2008-07-16T22:52:00.000-07:00

两个最被看好的未来领袖，两种不同的指控，一个祸首—“色”。是应该慨叹色字头上一把刀好呢，还是慨叹英雄难过美人关。

虽说如此，两位不仅极力否认，各自阵营还拿刀互捅，亏对方作了不敢认，还挑战这样挑战那样，仿佛国家最高的议事殿堂是他们互摆擂台的地方。

以目前走势来看，当权派的一边还稍占上风，毕竟他们还有警方和个别政府部门的鼎力支持。在野派这一边也不差，最少他们每次动不动就搞什么集会示威还是吸引到不少人到场。

这里在玩权，那里在示威，人民在受苦。在这场较量中无论谁胜谁负，到头来输的还是人民。

当然，最惨的还是莫过于人民居然把国家未来的希望寄托在两个刑事罪嫌疑犯的身上。呜呼哀哉。

恋权毁党

2008-06-28T23:51:00.000-07:00

阿都拉在不久前表示了将会逐步完成巫统的权力交替，让纳吉接任他的位子。接着黄家定也表态不再在下一届党选寻求蝉联。现在纵观国阵三大成员党就只有三美大叔还不言倦，誓要干到底。

相比起三美大叔，阿都拉和黄家定真的是要自叹不如。自大选以后，阿都拉就一直面对内忧外患，对他的批评从未终止过。搞到阿都拉每天都穷于应付这些党内外的流言蜚语。而黄家定方面，想要重整党威，又被自己人暴搞三人小组并且还被来了一场反黄救党运动，虽不至于倒台但也颜面尽失。反观三美大叔，虽然在大选输了连同国大党也要输到干干净净了，但是三美大叔的党主席宝座还是稳如泰山，动摇不得。

三美大叔的成功之道应该在于他成功把自己朔造成印裔同胞不可替代，唯一的代表。纵观我国现在的政坛，能够为人熟知的印裔政坛领袖除了三美还是三美。如果现在说出其中一名三美大叔之外国大党领袖的名字，相信不少人都不会知道他是“乜水”。这使到三美大叔仿佛成了印裔同胞的品牌代言人和唯一代表，这也是为什么二十多年来三美大叔在国大党的地位难以被取代并且可以在党内只手遮天的原因。

三美大叔的年纪也不小了，他的时代也已经过去了。三美大叔必须知道，长江前浪推后浪，如果他再不及早培养接班人，国大党恐怕总有一天会毁在他手上。苏联之所以解体，和其领袖忽略培养年轻接班人的重要性不无关系。同是在共产党领导下的中国自所以能有今天的成就关键就在于邓小平明白到个中的道理。

机不可失

2008-06-27T07:16:00.000-07:00

自三零八大选以来，我国政坛剧场可谓好戏连场，令广大的观众目不暇给。当大家都把注意力放在一直扬言要夺权的“主角”安华身上时，其实还有另一位“主角”也占戏不少，那就是我们尊贵的副首相纳吉。

自三零八大选以来，纳吉的见报次数并不亚于其余的政坛人物。这其中最大的功劳当属老马。当看见国阵输到“一扑一碌”时，老马就建议纳吉推翻首相阿都拉。当老马发现纳吉不买他的帐时，他又建议让别人取代纳吉因为纳吉只不过是阿都拉的应声虫。这样一来一往，让纳吉占了不少报纸版位，获得免费宣传。

当老马的三声屁不臭后，又杀出一个拉惹伯特拉，令到声势稍有回软的纳吉又顿时火红起来。这一次还连带带红了纳吉夫人罗斯玛，真的是一举两得，“益晒”纳吉夫妇。

其实纳吉并不需要为这些事情烦恼，毕竟他堂堂副首相，说不定眨个眼他就成为了首相，我们那些远近驰名，吃软怕硬并且完全被玩弄与鼓掌之中的法官大人又能怎样。纳吉应该趁此机会，看准时机加足马力为自己还有顺便为自己夫人好好宣传一番。