Mengupas hujah (UPDATED with Chinese Translation)

Now, using what many of you will now say is my warped logic (and you say so only because you cannot find any argument to counter this argument), if the NEP should be abolished because, as you say, it is being abused by those people in high places to benefit themselves, should not other things be banned as well for that very same reason?

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

I am sure, as a Malaysian citizen who should be able to speak the national language, Bahasa Malaysia, you know what ‘mengupas hujah’ means. If you don’t then you really do not deserve Malaysian citizenship. I mean, even here in the UK, before you are given British citizenship, you need to first pass your English test. And if you can’t speak English then you do not get British citizenship.

Anyway, I would like to kupas some of your hujah that you have bandied about the last few weeks. One of these hujah, of course, is regarding the New Economic Policy (NEP) where you have concluded that the NEP is being abused by certain people in power and hence should be abolished.

Actually, that is not something new. I and other members of the Malay Chamber of Commerce have said the same thing 30 years ago back in the mid-1980s. Some of you who are younger than 30 were not born yet at that time while you who are in your 40s were still in primary school in the 1980s and, as the Malays would say, belum sunat lagi.

So perish the thought if you feel clever about coming out with that statement. You are not the inventor of that statement and neither are you the first to utter it. It is an old and expired statement that we used to throw into Umno’s face and is now as basi as the word Umnoputera, which I can proudly claim to have been the inventor of during a seminar around the same time, the mid-1980s, that I wrote about a couple of weeks ago.

So you want the NEP to be abolished and your reason for wanting so is because it is being abused by certain people in high places. That is the same reason being applied by the anti-gun lobbyists in the United States. They want guns banned because they say that the US has a very high rate of deaths/murder due to guns. The pro-gun lobbyists, however, oppose this and say that it is their right to bear arms, as guaranteed in the American Constitution, and that it is not guns but people that kill.

In other words, their argument is that people and not guns are bad. And it is people and not guns that kill. So why should guns be banned because of the fault of the people. You should not punish guns for the crime committed by people.  Cars kill more people every year than guns do. Hence should not cars be banned for causing the death of people? Why should guns be banned but cars are not banned?

Incidentally, in the US, there are 12.3 road fatalities per 100,000 inhabitants compared to only 3.59 per 100,000 inhabitants for the UK. In Malaysia it is 24.1 per 100,000 inhabitants, twice that in the US and about seven times that of the UK. By 2015, it is expected that traffic accident related deaths would be lower than gun related deaths in the US because of a large drop in traffic accident deaths. (SEE CHART BELOW).

Okay, in the US, cars kill more people than guns do and yet you want to ban guns but not cars. And since your argument for wanting to ban guns is because guns kill, then cars should also be banned for that very same reason.

Now, using what many of you will now say is my warped logic (and you say so only because you cannot find any argument to counter this argument), if the NEP should be abolished because, as you say, it is being abused by those people in high places to benefit themselves, should not other things be banned as well for that very same reason?

Many of you say that the Malaysian Election Commission (SPR) is being abused by people in power to remain in power. The general elections are not fair, you say. There is rampant fraud and blatant gerrymandering. Chinese-majority seats see voters as high as 120,000 while Malay-majority seats see voters as low as 5,000. Hence 70% of the seats are Malay-dominated seats while the non-Malay seats are in the minority. The ruling party needs to win only 45% of the votes to remain in power while the opposition needs to win 60% or so of the votes to form the federal government.

That is what you say and you are not terribly wrong. The election process is being abused, just like the NEP is, by those in power to immorally and unfairly stay in power. The people/voters are being cheated by those who walk in the corridors of power. The election process merely legitimises an illegitimate government.

Hence, since there is rampant and blatant abuse of the election process, just like in the case of the NEP, should not general elections be abolished, just like what you propose for the NEP? Anything that is being abused by those in power for their own benefit should be abolished, as what you argue.

We all lament about the Malaysian Cabinet. Those members of the Cabinet, the Ministers, abuse their power and perpetuate corruption to enrich themselves, their families, and their friends. Malaysia, it seems, has lost billions because of this corruption and abuse of power. And it is still going on even as you read this. The latest is the ‘nationalisation’ of the IPPs to the tune of tens of billions of Ringgit.

Do we, therefore, need a Cabinet? Should we not abolish the Cabinet and save the country hundreds of billions of Ringgit? If we abolish the Cabinet and there are no more Ministers, who is going to run the country? I do not know who is going to run the country but for use we will be saving hundreds of billions because there will be no more Ministers to abuse their power and corruptly spend the country’s money.

Another two very abused agencies are the PDRM and MACC, Malaysia’s police force and anti-corruption commission. As what many of you have said, these two agencies appear to be serving Umno’s interest rather than serving the nation. Hence these two agencies serve no purpose other than to keep Umno in power. If Malaysia did not have any PDRM and MACC then there would be no one to serve Umno. And maybe then we will be able to kick Umno out.

So it is in the interest of the ABU movement that we abolish the PDRM and MACC. What will Malaysia do if it did not have a police force or an anti-corruption commission? I am not sure what we would do but for sure it may be easier to kick out Umno without a police force and an anti-corruption commission that props up Umno.

And now we come to the legal system (the courts and the AG Chambers) and all those other agencies that serve Umno’s interest…and not forgetting the worst one of all, religion.

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

@font-face { font-family: “宋体”; }@font-face { font-family: “Calibri”; }@font-face { font-family: “SimSun”; }p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; line-height: 115%; font-size: 11pt; font-family: “Times New Roman”; }a:link, span.MsoHyperlink { color: blue; text-decoration: underline; }a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed { color: purple; text-decoration: underline; }div.Section1 { page: Section1; }

Mengupas hujah

现在，应用回这个你们称之为‘有漏洞的逻辑’（你们会这样讲，是因为你们根本就找不到论点来反驳我以上讲的），NEP因被滥用而应该被废除，那是不是代表其他被滥用的政策也应该被废除呢？

原文：Raja Petra Kamarudin

译文：方宙

我相信，身为马来西亚人的你应该精通马来文，所以你应该懂‘mengupas hujah’是什么意思。 但如果你不懂，那你根本没资格自称是大马公民。在英国，如果你没通过英文考试的话，你是拿不到英国公民权的。

话说回来，我在此想kupas 你们在过去几个星期的hujah。其中一个hujah就是有关NEP的；你们争议NEP因被有心人骑劫而应该被废除。

早在30年前我就和其他马来商会会员提起这点了。你们当中有人当时根本还没出生，而对于现在40岁的读者，你们当时还是，套一句马来文，‘belum sunat lagi ’的小学生呢。

所以说，如果你因这个论点而洋洋自喜，那就得了吧！你们根本就不是第一个提出那个论点的人。那个论点基本上已经‘过期’了，就如Umnoputera这个词一样（我上个星期就提起了，我是这个词的发明者，而我为此感到很骄傲）。

你们现在呼吁NEP因被高层人士骑劫而应该被废除。这个论点和美国的反拥枪主意是一样的。他们认为美国现时的高死亡/谋杀率是和枪械有直接关系的。而赞同拥枪主意的则说拥枪权是美国宪法所保障的，再者，杀人的是人，不是枪。

换句话说，他们争议的是人，而不是枪械的错，那为什么我们就应为人的错而去抵制枪械呢？车子每年比枪械致死更多人，那是不是我们就应该抵制用车呢？为什么我们要抵制拥枪而不是汽车呢？

在美国，每年每10万人内就有12.3人在公路上死亡，英国则是3.59。大马的死亡率是24.1人，是美国的两倍，英国的七倍。预测显示，在2015年，车祸死亡的个案总数会将会低过因枪械死亡的个案总数（请看以上英文版内的图表）。

在美国汽车每年比枪械致死更多人，然你要抵制枪械而不是汽车。你的论点是，因为枪支会致死所以我们必须抵制枪支。那照理来说，汽车也应该被抵制，因为因汽车致死的人更多。

现在，应用回这个你们称之为‘有漏洞的逻辑’（你们会这样讲，是因为你们根本就找不到论点来反驳我以上讲的），NEP因被滥用而应该被废除，那是不是代表其他被滥用的政策也应该被废除呢？

你们讲说选举委员会（Malaysian Election Commission，SPR）是在权人士滥用来巩固自己地位的。大选是不公平的，贿选和傑利蠑螈是司空见惯的。华人选区的选民数可以高达12万人，而有些马来人选区的选民数可以低达5千人，所以，有70%的议席都是来自马来人选区。而执政党只需45%的选票就能进驻布城，但反对党则需60%以上才能。

你所讲的没错，我们的选举制度，正如NEP，是被在权人士滥用。人民/选民都被那些走在权利走廊上的人欺骗。我们的选举制度所做的只是在合法化一个不合法的政府。

所以，既然我们的选举存在着显而易见的，猖獗的滥用（正如NEP），那我是不是应该废除选举呢？所有被在权人士所滥用的东西应该被废除，这正是你所争论的。

我们也为我们的内阁哀叹。我们的部长们都通过滥权和贪污而让他们自己，家人，朋友等暴富。我国为此损失了上百亿。最新的就是牵涉上百亿的独立发电厂的国有化课题。

所以我们需要内阁吗？我们是否要摒弃内阁以便国家可以不用花那上百亿的冤枉钱呢？但如果我们放弃内阁的话，请问我们该找谁来打理国家呢？我不知道这个问题的答案，但可以肯定的是，我们会因那些贪官的不存在而为国家省下了很多钱。

还有两个经常会被滥用的是我们的警队和反贪局。你们说这两个机构是为巫统而非国家服务的，所以他们是没有存在的必要性，因为他们只会巩固巫统的权利。只要没有了警队和反贪局那巫统就没了‘走狗’，而我们就会有机会把巫统踢出局。

即是说，解散警队和反贪局将会对ABU（Asalkan Bukan Umno）运动大大有利，但一个没有警队和反贪局的大马将是个怎样的国家呢？我也不知道这个问题的答案，但也可以肯定的是，没了这两个机构的保护，我们将会更容易得铲除巫统。

我们将进而谈到废除我们的司法和其他被巫统滥用的机构。。。。到最后，我们将会碰到最为棘手的问题—-宗教。