narrativeautumn

These two days have been crazy for me. I didn’t know how I actually did this, but the magic seems to be happening automatically–when I’m sitting in front of my laptop, my mind will usually be switched to the I-wanna-get-this-done mode, and the translation flow just comes up naturally. Every Chinese word that I read on the computer screen, the most suitable, if not perfect, English word will just pop up in my mind simultaneously.

This 11830-words-in-two-days record comes with a price though. I guess I’ve been typing too much for years and my fingers are now suffering from numbness. Is this an indication that I should play guitar more often while I’m taking a rest once every two hours? If it is so, the numbness of my fingers isn’t a bad sign after all–it reminds me of my guitar, which has been standing aside for more than 48 hours. Perhaps I should sing my guitar “Always Somewhere” of Scorpions:

Always somewhere, miss you where I’ve been. I’ll be back to love you again.

亟需糾正的腐化司法制度

“Deal with the rot, not the tape” by M. Bakri Musa

M Bakri Musa
Sep 28, 07 11:41am
If Chief Justice Ahmad Fairuz has any sense of personal honour and professional integrity left, he should resign immediately. If Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi has even the slightest responsibility for leadership and moral duty to the citizens, he should not extend the Chief Justice’s contract, due to expire this October. If the Malaysian Bar Council has any credible principle of societal obligation and self-policing ethics of a profession, it would disbar the lawyer making that phone call shown in the infamous video clip exposed by former deputy premier Anwar Ibrahim.

Alas, judging from past performances, expect none of these. That is the unfortunate reality of Malaysia today. What remains then would be for the King to withhold consent for extending Fairuz’s contract, thereby precipitating an unnecessary and distracting constitutional crisis the nation could ill bear.

The Bar Council had an emergency meeting, but instead of initiating the necessary disciplinary proceedings on the involved lawyer (which would definitely be within its power) it decided instead to march at Putrajaya and hand a petition to the prime minister demanding for a Royal Commission. Next those lawyers would be demonstrating on the streets. So Third World, a la Pakistan! I would have thought those smart lawyers would have concocted some novel legal theory on which to sue the government into action.

Meanwhile Abdullah Badawi was “disappointed,” not at the explosive contents of the video but the fact that it was released. Wake up, Mr Prime Minister! The rot is the Malaysian judiciary, not the taping. If Abdullah does perk up from his slumber, he would probably order the arrest of Anwar Ibrahim!

Chief Justice Fairuz, taking a leaf from the prime minister’s notorious “elegant silence,” issued a terse, “No comment!” It was neither elegant nor silent; instead it was ugly and spoke volumes.

Motive for taping
The quality of the recording is such that it is unlikely to be a fake. With today’s forensic capabilities, it would be foolish for anyone to even attempt this. The lawyer concerned was speaking on his cell phone, meaning, there will be the inerasable digital trail. My monthly cell phone bill details my outgoing and incoming calls. Because of the quality, the video could not be shot surreptitiously as with a cell phone a la the earlier “nude ear squat” episode. Besides, such a device was probably unavailable back in 2002.

The intriguing question then is why the taping was made in the first place. Dispensing with the most common and obvious reason – stupidity – I posit a few.

One is that basic human emotion: vanity. The bragging rights of accumulating the next million after you have already acquired a few declines very rapidly. You need some other trophies, like an embellished royal title or additional wives (for Muslims). If you already have those, or cannot acquire them, then the next intoxicating fantasy would be to be a kingmaker, or fancying yourself as one.

For a lawyer to be able to brag that you could “handle” senior judges must be the ultimate high. If also considerably enhances your ability as rainmaker. Years later in your old age, your skeptical grandchildren might attribute your boasts to nothing more than the rambling of a senile mind, unless of course you have the video to prove it!

Closely related to vanity is arrogance. Humility is when you could manipulate the nation’s judiciary and have the quiet satisfaction; arrogance is when you flaunt it. This lawyer Lingam was certainly flaunting it!

Alternatively, I do not put it below this shyster to put on this monologue with an imagined targeted senior judge at the other end, a la Lat’s old cartoon, and then purposely “leaked” the tape out. It would certainly be a headline grabber. As for a motive, rogues are known to do this to each other when they have a falling out. There is one quick way to check this: examine the tape to determine when it was manufactured.

The last possibility is that this could be an insider’s job, perhaps an employee’s scheme to get even with his or her boss just in case he would get nasty in future. Knowing how law firms’ employees are treated in Malaysia, this is a real possibility.

No remedy
After much delay and amidst speculations, Abdullah finally appointed, apparently at the Ruler’s insistence, Justice Hamid Mohamed as President of the Court of Appeal, and Justice Alauddin Sherif as Chief Justice of Malaya. The two are highly regarded for their integrity as well as for being apolitical and independent minded. No wonder they were not Abdullah’s initial choice!

Abdullah also appointed a private lawyer Zaki Tun Azmi directly to the Federal Court. He was on Umno’s “Money Politics” disciplinary board. Lately he was known more for dumping his young Thai bride (his second, third, fourth?) and then asking her to burn their wedding certificate that was issued in Southern Thailand. Such personal integrity! The surprise is that the Council of Rulers consented to the appointment.

Perhaps Zaki Azmi was Abdulalh’s ideal choice for a future Chief Justice. That would of course reflect on Abdullah.

The rot in the judiciary predates Abdullah. However, he had the opportunity to reverse the trend or at least stem the decline with these new appointments, but as with the massive electoral mandate he received in 2004, he squandered it.

Many are advocating for an independent Judicial Commission to deal with judges’ appointments and promotions. I disagree. Judges and the judiciary generally must be accountable to the public. While I would not have judges be elected, as in some jurisdictions in America, the current system with judges appointed by the prime minister and consented to by the Council of Rulers is a good substitute. There is no point wasting time and effort tinkering with the current system.

What is needed instead is for the prime minister to be wise in his appointments and to open the field as wide as possible. In America, federal judges are nominated by the President and then consented to by the Senate, after a public confirmation hearing. If the president were stupid enough to nominate someone equally stupid, the Senate would not hesitate to deny the confirmation, after the appropriate public humiliation of the hearings. Additionally, the Bar Associations, legal scholars, and editorial boards would never shy from voicing their opinions.

The prime minister cannot abdicate his responsibility in selecting judges. If Abdullah needs guidance (he obviously does!), I suggest that he reads Lee Kuan Yew’s memoirs. If he finds the volumes too thick and tedious, I can help Abdullah by referring him to the relevant few pages.

Waiting from directive
Elsewhere I commented on the intellectual and experiential insularity of Malaysian judges. They are almost exclusively drawn from the civil service, with minimal or no outside experience in academia, private sector, or elsewhere. They follow directives only too well.

I was stunned that Chief Justice Fairuz, when confronted with the evidence that he had promoted judges who had been delinquent with their written judgments, would write to the prime minister instead of handling the issue himself. Presumably Feiruz was awaiting arahan (directive) from the prime minister. So much for his appreciation and understanding of the concept of separation of powers!

That more than anything reflects the caliber of Fairuz. Don’t get me started on the quality of his legal writings and commentaries!

In the end it does not matter what system you have if those responsible for selecting our judges do not do the job responsibly. The rot in our judiciary is not with the system but with the personnel. The system has produced such judicial luminaries as Tun Suffian and Raja Azlan Shah. It could do it again.

亟需纠正的腐化司法制度
M Bakri Musa原著，姚文傑翻譯
07年10月9日 晚上8:09

LINK: http://www1.malaysiakini.com/columns/73417

如果首席大法官阿末法魯斯還存有任何個人榮譽和職業操守意識，他應該立刻辭職。如果首相阿都拉對自己的領導和道德還負有些許責任，他不應該延長首席大法官即將在十月期滿的合約。如果大馬律師公會對社會還負有法律上的義務，以及自我監督的專業，在前首相安華公佈公佈臭名昭彰的林甘影片之後，他們將會取消林甘的律師資格。

唉，從過去記錄來看，不要期望這些，這是大馬無可奈何的現實。延長法魯斯的合約是國家經不起的憲法危機—這突如其來的憲法危機是不必要且令人困惑的，現在只好等最高元首拒絕延長法魯斯的合約。
律師公會召開了緊急會議，但並沒有採取公會許可權之內的紀律行動懲罰涉案的律師，反而選擇遊行到布特拉再也行政中心，然後將請求設立皇家調查委員會的請願書交給首相。接下來他們將會走上街頭示威。非常第三世界，跟巴基斯坦沒有兩樣！我以為那些聰明的律師會編制一些法律論說起訴政府。

首席大法官學「幽雅的沉默」

與此同時，首相阿都拉「很失望」——因為這件事曝光而失望，並非為影片的爭議性內容覺得失望。醒一醒吧，首相先生！腐敗的是大馬司法制度，不是曝光的影片。如果首相從睡夢中振作起來，他大概會下令逮捕安華！

首席大法官法魯斯學了首相聲名狼藉的「幽雅的沉默」姿態，只簡短地講了「無可奉告」。其實這並非幽雅或沉默，反而暴露了其醜陋的一面。

以該影片的錄音品質來看，那不可能是假的。以現在的偵察技術來說，任何嘗試這樣造假的人都很愚蠢。涉案的律師用手機撥電話，意味著將有不可刪除的通話記錄。我每個月的手機帳單清楚標示撥出和接聽紀錄。以該影片的品質來說，這不可能像是早前在我國發生的「裸蹲案」（nude ear squat）事件那樣被偷拍的。再說，在2002年或許也沒有那樣的儀器。

拍攝影片的動機：虛榮心作怪
既然是那樣的話，有趣的問題就是：為何要拍那影片？除卻最顯而易見的原因——愚蠢，我假設其它一些原因。

一個原因是基本人類情緒：虛榮心。如果你已經擁有了好幾百萬，當你賺取下一個一百萬時，你也就沒有什麼好吹噓的了。你需要一些戰利品，例如拿來裝飾的王室頭銜，若是回教徒就多討幾個老婆。如果你已經擁有這些戰利品，或者無法擁有，那另一個使人陶醉的夢幻就是成為一個有權支配高官的人，或者憑空幻想自己是有那般能耐的人。

身為一個律師，如果你有能力操縱高級法官的律師並且一直拿來吹噓，那你肯定是很高階的，這也加強你當超級說客的能力。除非你有影片證明自己的當年勇，否則當你年老時，你的孫子會以為你只不過患了老人癡呆症在吹牛而已。

跟虛榮心緊密相關的就是自大。所謂的謙虛，就是你能利用不當手段操縱國家司法制度而不吭聲；所謂的自大，就是你將之炫耀。涉案的林甘律師肯定是在炫耀！

或者，我不會像Lat的漫畫那樣，將這不擇手段的律師，和另一位想像中的某個大法官放進這長篇大論的文章裡，然後想像他們故意讓該影片「曝光」。這肯定可以上報章頭條。至於個中動機，眾所周知，當一群無賴有衝突時，他們常常互暴醜聞。有一個快捷的辦法可以調查：調查該影片以確定那是何時製作的。

最後一個可能性是：這可能是內鬼所為，也許是一個職員在自己還沒有窮途末路之前事先陷害雇主的詭計。看看我國律師樓是如何對待職員的，這可能性或許就可以成立。

委任巫統律師任法官惹猜疑
經過一番拖延和猜測當中，以及在王室統治者的堅持之下，阿都拉終於委任哈密莫哈末（Hamid Mohamed）法官為上訴法庭主席法官和阿拉勿丁沙裡夫（Alauddin Sherif）法官為馬來亞大法官。這兩位大法官的道德感和不涉及政治的獨立作風，向來備受尊崇。難怪他們不是阿都拉最初的選擇。

阿都拉也委派一個私人律師查基（Zaki Tun Azmi）到聯邦法院。他是巫統“金錢政治”的紀律委員會。他最近比較有名的事情是和一個年輕泰國小妾（不知道是第幾個小妾？）離婚，聽說他還要那小妾把他們在泰南簽署的結婚證書付之一炬。這種個人道德！令人訝異的是，統治者委員會竟然批准該項委任。

也許查基是阿都拉在未來的理想大法官人選，這當然會為阿都拉招致非議。

在阿都拉成為首相之前，司法制度早就腐化了。無論如何，他有機會扭轉乾坤，或至少透過新的委任來遏止司法制度繼續往下沉淪，但他辜負了選民在2004年大選中所賦予他的強力支持。

很多人提議成立一個獨立司法委員會來處理法官委任、升等事宜，我並不同意。法官和司法制度要對大眾負責。在美國的司法制度底下，我沒有法官可選。但對我而言，一個好的替代方式就是現在這個由首相提名，然後由統治者通過的制度。浪費時間來馬虎將就地修改現有制度是毫無道理的。

現在迫切需要的事情反而是首相委任法官時要放聰明一點，並且盡可能開放競爭。在美國，聯邦法官由總統提名，然後在公共聽證會之後，參議院才會批准。如果總統很笨，委任一個跟他一樣笨的人選，參議院在經過公共聽證會的聽證和公開羞辱之後，會毫不猶疑地拒絕批准該提名。另外，律師公會、法學學者和輿論也不會羞於表達他們的意見。

首相不可以放棄他遴選法官的責任。如果阿都拉需要指導（很顯然的，他需要），我建議他讀李光耀回憶錄。如果他覺得那本書太厚、太冗長乏味，我可以告訴他該參考哪幾頁。

等待首相指示處置失職法官？
我曾在別處評論過大馬法官的智慧和偏狹的經驗。他們幾乎沒有公共服務經驗，學術、私人界或其它領域的經驗也少得可憐，甚至掛零。他們非常遵從指示。

當大法官法魯斯發現他提拔了在書寫判決書方面失職的法官時，他沒有自己處理這問題，反而竟然還寫信問首相。這讓我覺得非常驚訝。他大概是在等待上頭指示吧。他真瞭解並且維護三權分立啊！

以上幾點就反映出他的能力。不要讓我開始評論他法學文章和評論的素質！

如果有權遴選法官的人沒有盡責，到頭來不管我們擁有什麼制度都是枉然。我們的司法制度並沒有腐化，腐化的是當中的人事。這制度曾經培養出司法界裡非常傑出的人物，例如敦蘇菲安（Tun Suffian）和阿茲蘭莎蘇丹（Raja Azlan Shah），現在當然也可以再度出現司法泰斗。

Article 153 on ‘special position’ of the Malays and other natives: The way forward
WRITTEN BY ART HARUN
WEDNESDAY, 17 MARCH 2010 11:12
LINK: http://english.cpiasia.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1883:article-153-on-special-position-of-the-malays-and-other-natives-the-way-forward&catid=207:art-harun&Itemid=156

In my article, Visiting the Malay ‘Rights’ (the Bahasa Malaysia version can be read here), I had commented on article 153 of the Federal Constitution. I stated that under its provisions, the Malays in fact do not possess any special ‘rights’.
There is only the special ‘position’ of the Malays and the natives of Sabah and Sarawak. In general, this special position does not confer any right which is recognised by law to the Malays.
Specifically, what is contained in article 153 is the power vested in His Majesty the Yang di Pertuan Agong to ensure that places in the civil service and institutions of higher learning are reserved for the Malays and the natives of Sabah and Sarawak as His Majesty deems reasonable.
Additionally, His Majesty is also given the power to reserve a quota for the Malays and the natives of Sabah and Sarawak in the allocation of scholarships, and permits or licences required for business and trade. This power is similarly to be exercised by His Majesty as His Majesty deems reasonable.
A few fundamental premises should be examined and borne in mind regarding the provisions contained in article 153. They are:
They do not confer any rights to the Malays and the natives of Sabah and Sarawak. For example, article 153 does not state that the Malays are entitled (as a matter of rights) to 30% or 50% of scholarships disbursed by the government every year;
The special position is not only conferred to the Malays but also the natives of Sabah and Sarawak;
The power (enabling the quotas) belongs to His Majesty the Yang di Pertuan Agong;
His Majesty is to exercise the powers under article 153 as His majesty deems reasonable. This means the power cannot be exercised arbitrarily.

The injection of the element of ‘reasonableness’ in article 153 brings an element of dynamism in the implementation of the powers under article 153. This is because what was reasonable back in 1969, for instance, may no longer be fitting in 2010 and so forth.
A starting point towards dissipating the dissatisfaction currently felt by all parties (whether the Malays or non-Malays) over article 153 is, I believe, to commence a rational discussion to determine what is held to be ‘reasonable’ at this point.
Thereafter, I feel, the implementation of those facets of article 153 can then be carefully planned by incorporating whatever equitable formula guaranteeing the element of ‘reasonableness’ in time to come.
In this way, there will be no need for all of us to have shouting matches, wield the keris and to ready the arena for a silat fight here and there every time there is doubt that the economic balance between the races falls short of the ideal in our country.
Malaysia has our fair share of the intelligentsia and learned economists. Dr Jomo Sundram, for example, is a senior official the United Nations secretariat. We even have our very own astronaut. We have submarines in our naval fleet. Why don’t we just employ the wisdom and expertise which we possess to resolve this matter of article 153?
Lately, the issue has raised a lot of hackles and even been distorted by those who appear to be ignorant of its provisions. The trite rhetoric daily purveyed by the mass media is bereft of academic credentials and far from factual. The cheap politicking and parochialism emanating from this rhetoric is so pungent as to be nauseating.
One of the popular assertions is that article 153 cannot be amended. This claim is, in my humble opinion, very confusing and merely reflects ignorance of the Federal Constitution.
According to article 159 of the Federal Constitution, article 153 can in fact be amended on the condition that the amendment is supported by two-thirds of the members of the Lower and Upper Houses in its second and third reading. If this support is obtained, the amendment may only take effect after it is approved by the Council of Rulers.
Therefore, if there is anyone who insists article 153 cannot be amended, I would be glad to be proven otherwise.
We as Malaysians should be more sensitive to any efforts made to gain a deeper understanding of various matters because it is only through knowledge can we arrive at the truth. Don’t simply swallow wholesale what people say. On the subject of article 153, there is a lot we can learn from history.

So let’s revisit history on it.
It is common knowledge that a commission was established to draft our constitution. This commission is known as the Reid Commission (named after its head, a renowned English judge, Lord Reid).
In drawing up the Federal Constitution, the Reid Commission was assigned the task to ensure that the position of the Malays was safeguarded. Its report says:

“Our terms of reference require that provision should be made in the Constitution for the ‘safeguarding of the special position of the Malays and the legitimate interests of other Communities’.”

Nonetheless, the commission found it difficult to give a special preference to any single race permanently because such a special preference is contrary to the principle of equality in the eyes of the law. The Reid Commission reported:

“We found it difficult, therefore, to reconcile the terms of reference if the protection of the special position of the Malays signified the granting of special privileges, permanently, to one community only and not to the others.”

The Alliance front led by Tunku Abdul Rahman had also wanted independent Malaya to confer equal rights, privileges, and equal opportunities to all its citizens regardless of race or religion. Additionally, the Council of Rulers had hoped too that the concept of communalism would be eventually eradicated from the country’s political and economic spheres. In relation to this, the Reid Commission reported:

“The difficulty of giving one community a permanent advantage over the others was realised by the Alliance Party, representatives of which, led by the Chief Minister, submitted that in an independent Malaya all nationals should be accorded equal rights, privileges and opportunities and there must not be discrimination on grounds of race and creed …’ The same view was expressed by their Highnesses in their memorandum, in which they said that they ‘look forward to a time not too remote when it will become possible to eliminate Communalism as a force in the political and economic life of the country’.”

Such was the hope and good intentions of our forefathers in their common struggle to obtain independence from British colonialism. The Federal Constitution was formulated in cognizance of these intentions and aspirations.
This notwithstanding, the Reid Commission was presented with yet another difficulty. What was in actuality the special position of the Malays that was to be preserved? Where was the special position to be found? What guidelines should they have used to determine and establish this special position?
Their search ended when it was discovered that the Malays had always enjoyed a special position even from the start of British colonisation. This special position was already affirmed by the British in their earlier treaties with the Malay rulers. This culminated in the recognition of the said special position in clause 19(1) (d) of the Federation of Malaya Agreement 1948. It was explained as below:

“When we came to determine what is ‘the special position of the Malays’ we found that as a result of the original treaties with the Malay States, reaffirmed from time to time, the special position of the Malays has always been recognised. This recognition was continued by the provisions of cl 19(1)(d) of the Federation Agreement, 1948, which made the High Commissioner responsible for safeguarding the special position of the Malays and the legitimate interests of other communities.”

They found that the Malays had always enjoyed a special position in four areas:
Reserve land,
Quota in the civil service,
Quota in permits and trading licences, and
Quota in scholarships and education.

When they visited Tanah Melayu to solicit the views of the various parties before proceeding to draft our constitution, the Reid Commission did not meet with any objections from any parties for this special position to remain although there were some quarters that objected to it being extended for a long period of time.
After studying the special position of the Malays and the circumstances of the Malays who at that time were lagging behind the other races in the economic and education sectors, the Reid Commission decided to retain the Malay special position in the constitution that they drafted.
This is the background and rationale behind article 153 that we have with us today. The question now is whether it is true that the provisions of article 153 were meant to be maintained for perpetuity.

馬來「特權」非永恆不可變
當今特約 | 4月4日 下午2點14分
文：阿哈倫；譯：姚文傑
LINK: http://www.malaysiakini.com/columns/128285

我曾在〈探索馬來人「權利」〉一文中評論了聯邦憲法第153條文。我在該篇文章中指出，根據該條文，馬來人其實並沒有任何特別「權利」。
憲法只是闡明，馬來人與沙巴砂拉越土著擁有特別「地位」。總的來說，這個特別地位並未賦予馬來人任何受法律承認的權利。
具體來說，憲法第153條文所涵蓋的是賦予最高元首的權力：在陛下認為合理的情況之下，最高元首有權確保公共服務、高等教育機構保留名額給馬來人與東馬土著。
此外，在獎學金、准證、執照的分配方面，陛下也有權確保馬來人與東馬土著享有固打名額。同樣地，當最高元首認為合理的情況之下，陛下有權執行這項權力。

153條文的四個前提
我們必須檢視、牢記憲法第153條文的基本前提：
該條文並沒有將任何權利賦予馬來人與東馬土著。舉例來說，憲法第153條並沒有闡明：馬來人每年有權獲得三成至五成的政府獎學金；
除了馬來人之外，該條文也將特別地位賦予沙巴與砂拉越土著；
最高元首擁有禦准固打的權力；
當最高元首認為合理的情況之下，陛下有權執行這項權力。換句話說，陛下不可任意執行這項權力。

扶弱政策需有「合理」元素
憲法第153條文中的「合理」元素，為該條文的執行注入了彈性。理由很簡單，在1969年合理的事情，在2010年或以後都未必合理。若想要消弭馬來人或非馬來人對憲法第153條文的不滿，我們必須理智地討論：在目前的大環境裡，何謂「合理」？
在未來的日子裡，我們必須謹慎地執行憲法第153條文，並將任何公平的方程式納入其中，以確保該條文的執行是「合理」的。
如此一來，每當各族群之間出現經濟地位不平衡的爭議時，大家就無需舉劍激辯了。
大馬擁有相當多的知識份子與經濟學家。舉個例子，佐摩教授目前擔任聯合國秘書處的高級官員；我國甚至出了個太空人、海軍艦隊也有潛水艇。為何我們不善用我們的智慧與專長來解決憲法第153條文的爭議呢？
這課題在近來惹惱了好多人，有些人不瞭解該條文的規定，結果將之曲解了。媒體每天重複的老套陳述，根本就沒有學術根據，也不符合事實。政治手段如此低劣，從這種老套論述衍生出的目光如豆，實在是讓人覺得反胃。

憲法當然可以在國會被修訂
大家一般普遍主張憲法第153條文是不能被修訂的。據我愚見，這是一個混淆視聽的主張，並且盡顯對憲法的無知。根據憲法第159條文，只要國會上下議院在二讀、三讀時有三分之二的議員支援修訂法案，憲法第153條文其實是可以被修訂的。若得到上下議院三分之二議員的支援，那麼在統治者會議批准之後，該項修訂法案方才生效。
因此，若有任何人堅持認為憲法第153條文是不可被修訂的話，我很樂意證明他是錯的。
我們嘗試瞭解不同事物的努力，國人應該更謹慎看待之，因為唯有通過知識，我們才能找到真相。對於別人所說的一切，切莫囫圇吞棗。有關憲法第153條文的議題，我們其實可以回顧歷史，從中學習。
就讓我們一起回顧歷史吧。

擬憲委會瞭解扶弱有違公平
眾所周知，英殖民地政府曾設立一個委員會草擬我國憲法，那就是一個以知名英國法官里德為名的委員會。
里德委員會（Reid Commission）在草擬我國憲法時，被委以保障馬來人地位的任務。其報告指出：
「我們受到委託，以在憲法中規定「保障馬來人特別地位，以及其他族群的法定權益」。」
然而，該委員會發現到，要永遠特別優惠特定族群，是相當困難的，因為這違背了法律上的公平原則。里德委員會在報告中指出：
「保障馬來人特別地位若是預示著允許一個族群，而不是其他族群長久享有特別優惠，我們發現到，要調和這項委託是相當困難的。」

統治者會議要種族主義絕跡
以國父東姑阿都拉曼為首的聯盟，亦要求獨立的馬來亞不分種族、宗教，讓人民享有平等的權利、優惠和機會。此外，統治者會議也希望種族主義最終可以在政治、經濟領域中絕跡。關於這點，里德委員會指出：
「讓一個族群比其他族群更優先，並且長久享有特別優惠，聯盟黨也發現到這是很困難的。由首長領軍的聯盟黨代表也認為，在獨立的馬來亞，所有國民都享有平等權利、優惠與機會，不容出現以種族、宗教信仰為由的歧視….」王室成員亦在備忘錄中表達相同的看法：「我們期望在不久的將來，我們可以在我國政治、經濟領域中杜絕種族主義」。」
這就是我國建國先賢向英殖民地政府爭取獨立時的美好願景，聯邦憲法也是在對這些抱負有所認知的情況之下制訂的。
儘管如此，里德委員會面臨另一個難題：在現實中，馬來人有什麼特別地位是需要被保護的？特別地位是存在的嗎？建構這特別地位的準則是什麼？

馬來特殊地位表現在四領域
當該委員會發現到馬來人自從英國殖民馬來亞就享有特別地位之後，他們就停止尋找答案了。這特別地位是英國人和馬來統治者簽署協定時制訂的，結果馬來亞聯邦1948年協定第19(1) (d)條款承認了這項特別地位。該委員會解釋：
「當我們要決定何謂「馬來人的特別地位」時，我們發現到：根據英國跟馬來州屬的協定，馬來人特別地位一直都是受到承認，當局亦不時重申這件事。馬來亞聯邦1948年協定第19(1) (d)條款中延續了這項認可，保障馬來人特別地位與其他族群權益的責任就落在最高專員署身上。」
該委員會也發現到馬來人在這四個領域享有特別地位：
* 保留地
* 公共服務機構的固打名額
* 准證與商業執照的固打名額
* 獎學金與教育領域的固打名額
里德委員會草擬我國憲法之前，曾經拜訪馬來亞以彙集各方意見。雖然有些團體反對長久延續馬來人特別地位，但是里德委員會到訪期間，並沒有碰到任何人反對延續馬來人特別地位。
該委員會繼而考察馬來人特別地位、馬來人在經濟與教育領域落後於其他族群的情況，後來決定在草擬憲法時保留馬來人特別地位。這就是憲法第153條文的歷史背景與根源。現在的問題是，我們必須決定這是不是真的：憲法第153條文中的規定應該永遠維持不變。

編按：本文譯自政策創議中心（CPI）特約馬來撰稿人阿哈倫（Art Harun）的文章〈Article 153 on ‘special position’ of the Malays and other natives: The way forward〉；姚文傑負責翻譯。

原文：Mariam Mokhtar；翻譯：姚文傑

Link: http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/124652

Malaysia’s brain drain appears to be picking up speed. According to a recent parliamentary report, 140,000 left the country, probably for good, in 2007.

Between March 2008 and August 2009, that figure more than doubled to 305,000 as talented people pulled up stakes, apparently disillusioned by rising crime, a tainted judiciary, human rights abuses, an outmoded education system and other concerns.

The general assumption is that Chinese and Indian Malaysians form the majority of those abandoning the country of their birth because ethnic Malays consider them ‘pendatang’ – aliens in a Malay land, regardless of how long they have been in the country.

However, increasing numbers of Malays have already emigrated as well, or are seriously thinking it, dismayed by corrupt practices as well as the rigid confines of Islam and the rise of fundamentalism embodied in the revelation on Wednesday by Home Minister Hishammuddin Hussein that three Muslim women had been caned in Kajang Prison in Selangor on Feb 9 for having had illicit sex under shariah law.

In 2000, according to figures compiled in 2007, 40 percent of Malaysian emigrants headed for Singapore – at the same time Singaporeans are headed somewhere else. By one estimate, the number who put the Lion City behind them is as high as 15 percent of annual births. In 2006, the Transport Minister, Raymond Lim, expressed concern that 53 percent of Singaporean teens would consider emigration.

One website survey put Singapore’s average outflow at 26.11 migrants per 1,000 citizens, the second highest in the world – next only to East Timor.

Of the other émigrés, 30 percent go to OECD countries (Australia, New Zealand, the United States, Canada and Britain) 20 percent to Asian countries (Brunei, Philippines, Indonesia) and the rest of the world (10 percent). Malaysian Employers Federation executive director, Shamsuddin Bardan, said in an interview that 785,000 Malaysians are working overseas. Unofficially, the figure is well over 1 million.

Nor are people all that is leaving. Asia Sentinel reported that there has been an exodus of money from Malaysia on a scale which surpasses that which occurred during the Asian crisis. The decline is also reflected in a sudden decline in base money supply – even while, thanks to Bank Negara, broader M2 has continued to grow modestly.

A major problem is the flight of graduates. As early as 2004, former premier Abdullah Ahmad Badawi was becoming concerned, pointing out that as many as many as 30,000 thought to be working in foreign countries, many of whom had held scholarships in top universities from the Malaysian government but chose to stay overseas at the end of their studies.

Former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad demanded that other countries pay Malaysia for having seduced them to stay, “since, by right, the graduates’ training and knowledge should be called intellectual property.”

The typical reasons are well-documented: improved employment and business prospects, higher salaries, better working environments, greater chances of promotion and a relatively superior quality of life.

Three personal stories

Three Malay women put a personal face on statistics in conversation with Asia Sentinel, sharing their decisions to emigrate. Two are graduates of overseas universities, the third is from a local school. Their decisions to leave were made, they say, after a lot of soul searching. But for these women, money and economic incentives were not the end-all. Their names have been changed to protect them.

Anita claims to have left because of her sexuality. She graduated from a university in the United Kingdom but continued with a post-graduate degree course. At the end of her studies, she worked in a multinational corporation in London and is now a department head. She was recently married, in a civil ceremony, in the UK.

A Malay, Anita is naturally Muslim. Her partner is another woman, Nadia, an Iraqi Jew. They met as undergraduates. For a decade, the two made the annual pilgrimage to Malaysia to visit Anita’s ageing parents, Anita says. When in Kuala Lumpur, they are regular patrons of lesbian joints in Bangsar. After the Malaysian National Fatwa Council issued an edict banning lesbianism in 2008, Anita travelled alone.

Nadia dislikes the risk of being ‘caught’. The clues to their sexuality are their short cropped hair, Doc Marten shoes, preponderance of masculine clothes and, on closer inspection, their identical wedding rings with each other’s names inscribed. Anita is in self-imposed exile because her partner will not be allowed to reside in Malaysia.

Although male homosexuality is illegal in Malaysia and sodomy incurs a punishment of 20 years jail, Malaysia’s civil code does not ban lesbianism. Malaysian men are just so big-headed that they cannot imagine any woman not wanting to sleep with a man.

“It is unacceptable to see women who love the male lifestyle including dressing in the clothes men wear,” said Abdul Shukor Husin, the Fatwa Council chairman.

Perak mufti Harussani Idris Zakaria says that the council’s ruling was not legally binding as it had not been passed into law. He wants tomboys to be banned because their actions are immoral. “It doesn’t matter if it’s a law or not,” he says.

Living in a goldfish bowl

In 2000, Malaysia had around 80,000 official expatriates. By 2008, this figure had shrunk to 38,000 as the collapsing global economy cut into trade and thus trade and Malaysian exports.

When Bibi worked in an electronics factory in north Perak, little did she foresee marrying her expatriate quality control engineer. After his conversion to Islam and their subsequent marriage, he attempted unsuccessfully to gain permanent residence.

He claims to have spent a small fortune on lawyers, on ‘proof’ and photographs for the application process, and several trips to the immigration offices to be ‘verified’. He claims that one low ranking government official even offered him a birth certificate for RM60,000, as a pre cursor to a ‘red’ identity card, which would help facilitate the permanent resident status.

When Bibi’s husband’s work permit expired, he attempted to form a trading company. He travelled to the border every few months to renew his immigration-social visit pass, while he explored this avenue.

He was ineligible for a sole proprietorship and although he could form a limited company with 51 percent bumiputra ownership, he found that for one reason or another, it was not viable. Local partners wanted maximum profits for little or no work. A Caucasian, he was seen as a cash cow, he says.

In addition, the Perak town they lived in was very provincial. Had he lived in Kuala Lumpur or Penang, he could be anonymous, like the expatriates married to Malay women in these cities.

As an expat convert in his local town, the Malays expected him to uphold Malay values and scrutinised his every move, right down to his religious obligations. He was disillusioned with living in a goldfish bowl and both he and Bibi left for Europe.

40% of M’sian experts work in US

According to one local daily, the number of Malaysian researchers, scientists and engineers working overseas exceeds 20,000 with 40 percent of them in the United States and 10 percent in Australia.

When Ida graduated from Australia with a chemical engineering degree, she worked in a chemical plant in Selangor. Her friendship with a chemist blossomed into love, with talk of marriage. There was one problem – Anthony was a Catholic.

He dutifully presented himself at the mosque for ‘agama’ lessons in preparation for his conversion. The imam never appeared for their pre-arranged appointments. Frustrated with being let down repeatedly, he stopped going. His lucky break came when he was offered a job in a neighbouring country. Ida joined him.

She was free from parental and family pressures, he from the religious zealots. They married. He retained his faith, she remained a Muslim. They started a family and have since emigrated to New Zealand. Recently, she embraced Catholicism.

Malaysian emigration has critical policy implications. There are questions over what will happen when overseas students receive employment offers in the country where they are studying, when skilled people leave Malaysia, when pensioners retire abroad (the silver economy) and the nation registers an increase in unskilled foreign workers but a decrease in skilled expatriates.

The challenge for policymakers is to harness the economic and political potential of this largely ignored diaspora. There is no point pretending Malaysia does not have a serious problem. The
incentives to reverse the brain drain and attract those who are abroad must be reviewed, as they are currently ineffective.

For many like Anita, Bibi and Ida, it is not just politics and racial discrimination but also religious and social pressures that drive them away.

LINK: http://www.malaysiakini.com/columns/125189
馬來西亞似乎有越來越多人才外流了。根據最近一份國會報告，2007年有14萬人離開大馬。他們或許就此一去不回頭。
在2008年3月至2009年8月之間，移民人數增加超過一倍，達到30萬5千人。很明顯地，他們之所以收拾包袱離開故鄉，是因為對犯罪率上升、腐敗的司法制度、侵犯人權、過時的教育制度等等現狀覺得大失所望。
大家一般的印象是：離開祖國馬來西亞的大多是華裔和印裔，因為不論他們在這裡住了多久，馬來人還是會認為他們是外來移民（pendatang）——馬來領土上的外國人。

回教極端化讓馬來人也移民
然而，與此同時，我國也有越來越多馬來人移民，或者考慮著要移民。看著國內貪污成風、一成不變地限制回教、原教旨主義崛起的情況，他們灰心了。上星期三，內政部長希山慕丁披露，三名回教徒女子涉及通姦，觸犯了回教法，而於2月9日在加影監獄被鞭笞。這意味著原教旨主義的崛起。
根據2007年的資料，四成的大馬移民移居新加坡，與此同時，新加坡人卻移居其他國家。根據估計，離開獅城的人數相等於該國一年新生嬰兒的百分之十五。在2006年，多達百分之五十三新加坡青少年考慮要移民，新加坡交通部長林雙吉（Raymond Lim）亦曾關注此事。
有一個網路民意調查顯示，在新加坡，每一千人就有26.11人移民，移民率之高在全球僅次於東帝汶。

國外工作大馬人達百萬之眾
大約30%的大馬移民在經濟合作與發展組織國家（OECD countries）定居，例如英美紐澳加；20%移民到亞洲國家，例如汶萊、菲律賓、印尼；10%則移居其他國家。馬來西亞雇主聯合會執行董事三蘇丁峇丹在一項訪問中透露，在國外工作的馬來西亞人有78萬5000人。至於非官方資料，則預測在海外工作的國人遠遠超過一百萬人。
想要離開我國的，其實並不只是人才，就連鈔票也想要跑路了。根據《亞洲前哨報》（Asia Sentinel）報導，我國資金外流程度超越了亞洲金融風暴的水準。貨幣供給遽減反映了資金外流現象，然而，多虧國家銀行撐腰，貨幣供給依然持續適度成長。

留學生選擇滯留海外不歸
在海外留學的大馬人選擇不回國確實是個大問題。早在2004年，前首相阿都拉也曾關注此事。他表示，我們有多達30萬國人在海外工作，其中有很多人是領著大馬政府獎學金出國深造的，但是在畢業後選擇留在國外工作。
前首相敦馬哈迪曾要求其他國家，必須因吸引我國人才留在當地而付錢給我國，理由是「大學生的培訓與知識也應被視為智慧財產權」。
我國人才留在國外的原因，大家都再熟悉不過了：就業前程似錦、更多商機、待遇更優渥、工作環境更好、晉升機會更多、生活素質更高。

三個心路歷程故事
《亞洲前哨報》曾訪問三個馬來女子，讓她們敘述自己為何要移民。其中兩人在外國大學畢業，另一個女子則在本地大學畢業。她們表示，經過了一番自我探索之後，她們決定要離開大馬。對她們而言，金錢與經濟因素都不是主因。為了保護她們，她們的名字都已被修改了。
安妮達是因為自己的性取向而離開的。她在英國某大學畢業後，繼續攻讀博士課程。博士班畢業之後，她在倫敦一家國際機構工作，目前擔任部門主任，最近也剛結了婚。

性向被排斥只有選擇離開
身為一個馬來人，她一出生就是回教徒。她的伴侶名為納迪雅，是一個來自伊拉克的猶太女子。她倆是在大學時代認識的。這十年以來，她倆每年都會回到大馬探望安妮達的年邁雙親，也常出入孟沙的女同性戀者場合。當全國回教法規委員會（National Fatwa Council）在2008年禁止女同性戀之後，安妮達就獨來獨往，免得引人注意。
納迪雅不喜歡冒著「被逮捕」的風險。透露她們性取向的裝扮，通常是留短髮、穿馬丁靴、多數穿男裝，她們的結婚戒指也都刻著對方的名字。安妮達的伴侶不可居住在大馬，因此她必須自我放逐。
雖然男同性戀在大馬是違法的，肛交的刑罰是坐牢20年，但是我國民事法典並未明文禁止女同性戀。大馬男人太自負了，他們無法想像世上有女人不想跟男人睡覺。
「女子偏愛男子生活方式、穿男裝，這是很難令人接受的，」全國回教法規委員會主席阿都舒庫爾胡先說道。
霹靂州宗教司哈魯沙尼表示，該理事會的規定還未在國會通過成為法律，因此都沒有法律約束力。但是，「不管合法與否」，他都要禁止男人婆，理由是他們的行為舉止不道德。

社會處處排斥外國女婿
在2000年，我國有8萬名外派雇員。到了2008年，我國貿易與出口受到次貸金融風暴影響，外派雇員人數就下跌至3萬8千人。
當碧比在霹靂州北部一家電子廠工作時，她根本沒想過自己會嫁給來自國外的品質控制工程師。那位老外工程師皈依回教之後，他倆就共結連理，但是男方還是無法取得永久居留權。
律師費、申請過程的「證據」和照片、到移民廳來回好幾趟的過程必須被「審核」，這些都是他破費的雜事。有一個低階官員曾跟他開價，以6萬令吉換取一張出生證明書。有了這張出生證明書，他就可以申請紅色身份證，如此一來，他就能得到永久居留權了。
碧比丈夫的工作準證逾期之後，他曾嘗試開貿易公司。在這段期間，他每隔幾個月就得出入境一次，以更新旅遊觀光簽證。
他並不符合經營獨資企業的資格。雖然他知道自己可以開一家擁有51%土著股權的有限公司，但是不管怎樣，他知道這是行不通的，因為本地夥伴希望工作少，最好是不用工作，但又要求賺最多錢。他說自己身為一個洋人，在這裡被視為一棵搖錢樹。
此外，他倆住在霹靂州一個偏遠小鎮。如果他住在吉隆玻或檳城，他就如同在這兩座城市里跟馬來女子結婚的外派雇員一般，沒有什麼特別。
像他這般的外派雇員入鄉隨俗之後，同鄉的馬來人都期望他維護馬來社會價值觀。他的一舉一動、有否履行宗教義務，都被村人監督。他覺得失望透頂，就帶著碧比遠赴歐洲了。

希望皈依回教卻困難重重
根據一份本地報章，在海外工作的大馬研究員、科學家、工程師超過兩萬人，其中有四成在美國工作，一成落戶澳洲。
依達在澳洲考獲化工學位之後，任職於雪州一家化學工廠。她跟一位化學師墮入愛河，後來談婚論嫁時面對一個問題：他的先生安東尼是一個天主教徒。
他盡責得很，出席了準備皈依回教的宗教課程，雖然已經事先預約好了，但是宗教司並不曾赴會。宗教司爽約好幾次之後，他就不再出席了。後來，多虧幸運之神眷顧著他，他在鄰國找到了一份工作，依達就跟隨他遠走高飛。
從此以後，依達從父母與家庭的壓力中解脫了，安東尼則擺脫了宗教狂熱份子。他倆結為夫婦之後，安東尼就重歸天主教懷抱，依達則依然是個回教徒。這個新家庭後來移居到紐西蘭，最近依達也信奉天主教了。
大馬人移民的現象將產生重大政治影響。當海外大馬學生選擇留在國外工作，當技術人員離開我國，當銀髮族在外國退休（影響我國銀髮經濟），當非技術勞工大舉湧入我國而高技術的外派雇員卻減少了，我國屆時將會發生什麼事？
這個移民潮現象被忽略了，控制移民潮所產生的政治、經濟影響，是我國政策決策者的挑戰。假裝馬來西亞沒有面對什麼嚴重問題，是無濟於事的。既然現有的吸引大馬專才回國計畫不見效，當局就必須檢討現有的獎勵計畫，以扭轉人才外流的劣勢。
有些人也跟安妮達、碧比和依達面對相同窘境，對她們而言，迫使她們決定離去的原因，除了政治與種族歧視之外，也還有宗教與社會觀感壓力的因素。