Testing SiputMoci Point Checking embed

大学固打制是我国社会公平正义的缩影

 近来因首相安华在槟城的一场与学生对话会里回应一位印裔学生的提问，而再次把大学和预科班（Matrikulasi）固打制课题搬出台面。看似老掉牙的课题，安华的回应居然没有不同，还是以前国阵的论述和戏码！相信这让很多支持者失望，尤其是期盼这位据称有改革理想的首相会遵循他以往的政见。

这位勇敢的年轻学生问道：何时可废除固打制并以绩效制取代？她看到待遇的分别只基于土著身份。她希望可以不逃避但公开讨论这敏感问题。她的提问频频被打断，但勉强举例她所看到的不公平现象：获7A的印裔友人不得以进入大学预科班，获8A的友人则须提出上诉后在第二轮入学才被录取，但却有人凭著一两个A就可在首轮被录取了。

安华回答：必须看待历史脉络和“社会契约”；若上诉个案处理，他和部长可以帮忙，这比较容易办，但若要改变政策（废除固打制）会导致他们败选给国盟的伊斯兰党和土团党，非土著的权益情况会更糟。他继续批评绩效制不公平，因为城乡经济能力和教育水平有差距。他甚至抛书包提及美国哈佛政治学教授桑德尔（Michael Sandel）的著作力证绩效制大有问题，因此美国需根据肤色有扶弱政策确保有一定人数的非裔国民入学，保障少数民族的利益。为了扶弱（affirmative action），安华以此为例辩护固打制存在的需要。

我国有的是联邦宪法，当然宪法也是当初独立时期，马来西亚联邦成立和受近代政治历史影响的立国文件。宪法不曾提过有“社会契约”甚至土著（Bumiputera）字眼。宪法确实在第153条文里提及马来人和东马土著（Natives）特别地位，包括确保公务员和教育机构入学的名额。

首先，联邦宪法也不该一成不变，应根据社会发展情况的需求修宪与时并进。政府和社会各界热切期盼能修宪允许海外大马籍妈妈能自动传承公民权给孩子就是一个最好的例子。

若谈历史，我们不能忘记草拟联邦宪法的莱德委员会曾建议过有关第153条文在每15年应重视检讨一次，国会应决定保留、或减少甚至废除固打。然而，政府和国会有做到吗？

引用例子不贴切

即使因为政治局势先不要修宪（不然政治对手或说这会“动国本”），不代表政府不能在确保马来人和东马土著特别地位同时改进固打制的录取方式、名额和其他条件，确保能贯彻更为进步和公平的新政策和思想，如另设以需求为本（Needs-based）的条件和名额。

固然我曾撰文认同说绩效制不是一个最好和公平的政策和解决方案，安华对绩效制的批评没错，但问题是，它不是一个能为目前设定的固打制辩护的好理由。

安华引用美国例子不贴切的关键在于美国扶弱保护少数，以及还确保有多元民族的入学名额，而我国扶弱政策的对象是谁？目前还是弱方吗？如何定义扶弱？政府有如安华所说般，根据需求条件（家庭经济和地理）制定下名额录取学生吗？安华在对话会里指示教育部长研究入学大学预科班的学术资格资料，我呼吁政府不仅公布那组数据，也希望能有家庭收入和地理或城乡分布数据，以正视听。

再说那位印裔女生在场提问，并不为了仅要解决她看到和经历的个案，而是宏观地看待不公平的政策。最令我喷饭的是，安华竟然要求学生和家长们上诉，认为个案处理比较好！相信很多人，特别是非土著同胞，这一辈子至今都一直重复听到如此的论述。

过去马华帮忙处理上诉个案的戏码每年都上演，许多人很不满也厌倦这样的做法，因为这绝对治标不治本，其实根本就是人治政策——通过政治人物上诉得直获得学额的学生要心怀感恩上报示人，这些人也只是少数幸运的学生。

好不容易替换了一党独大长期执政的国阵，现在代表改革派和“希望”的安华还提同样的做法和政策？“社会契约”也是以前国阵特别是巫统领袖一直提醒我们的事，但似乎没人说得出是谁代表缔约，有合法合理代表性吗？还合适宜吗？

破旧立新

还有，所谓的政治近代史都是由联盟+国阵胜利者撰写的历史，“改朝换代”后难道不能破旧立新，随著社会局势演变而改变政策吗？即使不能一朝一夕改变，但至少能不能不要守旧，特别是那些自己早已不能认同的事？

说穿了，安华在场自己承认他的政治考量：目前正面临6州选举，如果他回答说要废除固打制，他担心会败选给国盟，特别是对手会借机渲染这课题。这不就是政治化教育课题？莘莘学子的教育机会还要被现时政治需求绑架，难道这样对他们公平和正义？

然后安华还需要用这平台妖魔化政治对手，政治恐吓在场的非土著学生吗？国盟也曾执政过，想问现在的团结政府在教育政策方面与过去的国盟政府有何不同？我认为，安华可以不用说要废除固打制，甚至不赞成绩效制，但他绝对可以说他和政府会改进目前的固打制以反映当下的社会需要，让它更公平云云。

看到现在的安华以首相身份回答这位印裔年轻女学生的表现，我不禁回想起当初安华喊出的两个口号：“我们都是一家人”，还有“马来人、华人、印度人、伊班人、卡达山人的孩子都是我的孩子”时，究竟家庭成员和孩子们之间的关系是如何？其实这才是关键。

刊登于《東方日報》《群議良策》專欄2023年8月9日 

東方臉書鏈接

State polls: Overhaul Penang’s public transport and end mega-reclamation (3 Aug)

 I represent Penang Forum, a coalition of key civil society organisations and individuals in Penang to support Bersih’s #VoteLokal campaign.

This is indeed a great call; we thank Bersih for initiating this campaign to highlight local and state issues.

For the current state election campaign, Penang Forum would like to call on all contesting parties and candidates to talk about their policy ideas and solutions to the longstanding local and state issues and to stop greenwashing the issues – green as in environmentally green and green as in fearmongering about the political “green wave”.

We want real and practical solutions for sustainable development; we can no longer accept the type of plan that sacrifices local communities to vested interests. Please put the interests of the people first, not your developer friends.

The traffic congestion is worsening due to the still broken public transport system in Penang, despite three terms of uninterrupted 15 years of DAP-led Pakatan Rakyat and then Pakatan Harapan state government.

We also lost a decade of opportunity to properly develop our public transport after Halcrow’s transport masterplan was released and endorsed by the state government in 2013.

Why? The subsequent “Penang South Reclamation” plan by SRS Consortium, favoured by the state government, is a colossal mistake and a disaster in the making. Though reduced from three islands to one, Penang is still threatened with a very large island reclamation project in the south of Penang Island – and this has nothing to do with public transport anymore!

We understand that the caretaker government should not make major policy decisions during the election campaign. Nevertheless, projects which contradict the electoral promises of sustainable development should indeed be abolished!

Now that the controversial Petaling Jaya Dispersal Link (PJD Link) highway in Selangor has been cancelled, we demand that the new government cancel the “Penang South Island” land reclamation project entirely.

The new state government should also think beyond the Kuala Lumpur public transport model of “LRT” [overhead light rail] and monorail to solve Penang’s traffic problems. Even the MRT [mass rapid transit] has not saved KL!

Shockingly, so-called progressive Penang is the last state in Malaysia without a single gazetted local plan for either Penang Island or Seberang Perai. Penang voters and the general public want to have a greater say and better participation in the formulation of the local plans. Judge your politicians and governments not by what they say but by what they do!

And Penang voters, please ask the candidates important and difficult questions, and make a rational decision to cast your votes accordingly. The party logo itself is not the answer, we must do our own homework.

Lim Chee Han is a Penang Forum steering council member. He delivered this address at the launch of Bersih’s “#VoteLokal” campaign

https://aliran.com/coalitions/penang-forum/state-polls-overhaul-penang-public-transport-overhaul-and-end-mega-reclamation

‘NHI too costly’ - (June 2)

 Extracted from an interview article featuring also a proponent for the social health insurance.

The article title and URL link:   National health insurance the way forward, says academic

 

‘NHI too costly’

However, Dr Lim Chee Han, a senior researcher for the non-profit Third World Network, is opposed to the implementation of a NHI scheme.

Lim said the administrative cost of managing the scheme would be hefty – at least RM3.9 billion.

“This is more than the estimated RM2.4 billion for the health ministry’s management costs under the 2023 Budget.

“If the country switches to a NHI, it will cost RM 1.5 billion more,” he said.

Lim said Malaysia already had a good public healthcare system financed by general taxes and that it would be better to improve the public healthcare services instead.

The government should source revenue from the capital gains tax, goods and services tax, sin tax or a small percentage of income tax earmarked for healthcare, he suggested.

He said cost escalation was a concern under NHI if patients were prescribed unnecessary procedures and medication, especially by private healthcare providers. To control such costs, he said, a mechanism would have to be set up, adding another layer of cost to the healthcare system.

“If healthcare costs fail to be controlled, the NHI authority will have to increase the premiums that people pay,” he said, adding that Taiwan, South Korea and Germany were struggling to control costs and were constantly pressured to increase premiums.

Lim said the current public-funded healthcare system gave “no incentive” to anyone to overtreat a patient and if there was a shortfall, the health ministry could request for additional funds.

He acknowledged that an advantage in a NHI system was that patients would have access to private healthcare facilities besides public ones.

“But patients will have to pay extra if the charges go beyond the limit covered, either by paying it themselves or by private insurance,” he said.

What to look for in an assemblyman (31 July)

 

Will you vote in the state elections? Are you worried about the so-called “green wave” and the fall of the federal government as a result? Have you been told how to vote and have you already made up your mind before you even know the candidates? Don’t let yourself be swayed by the negative campaign of fear and vilification being waged by some parties.

The fear that some quarters are spreading may not be rational or even relevant to the state elections. This article aims to raise voters’ awareness of what is important in the state elections, what issues and policies voters should be asking about and educating themselves on, so that they can make a rational and good choice of who to vote for.

Firstly, voters need to understand that electing an assemblyman and a state government is different from electing a member of parliament and the federal government. Fundamentally, the federal and state governments have different but also overlapping jurisdictions of power, as stated in the ninth schedule of the Federal Constitution.

What a state government can do is set out in Lists II (State List) and III (Concurrent List). This means that voters should be concerned about the policies that the candidate and his party would propose on matters of state land, religion, agriculture and forestry, local government, permits and licences, social welfare, public health, town and country planning, housing, drainage and irrigation, libraries and museums, preservation of heritage and many more.

Voters should not forget to evaluate the performance of the caretaker state government as well as the opposition and its representatives. Was there a controversial plan or policy that was announced in the last term and supported by the current candidate seeking another mandate?

For example, if the representative had voted for an environmentally destructive and socially unjust plan, such as land reclamation, mining licenses, or building a highway through a densely populated neighbourhood, then his credibility as a defender of the public interest should be examined. 

Also, did the assemblyman attend all the meetings when the state assembly was in session? Did he ask the right questions on behalf of the people and participate in the debates to scrutinise policies?

This information would help voters to know how competent, dedicated, and professional the state representative was and decide whether to re-elect him regardless of party affiliation. In any case, one should judge whether the candidate has ideas to improve the wellbeing of the constituents and how he can bring changes to the state as an assemblyman.The candidate must show good knowledge as well as the right attitude for dealing with people and their demands. 

Often, people confuse the assemblyman’s role with that of a local councillor and expect him to solve local problems. But honestly, who can blame them? It is well known that the state government appoints local councillors who suit its political interests. This has been the case since local elections were suspended in the 1960s.

Therefore, it is in the best interest of the people if the candidates and their parties will commit to reinstating local government elections, thus bringing back accountability to the currently politically controlled and democratically deficient local councils.

Campaigners, including leaders of the federal government, should refrain from threats or insinuations of non-cooperation or punishment if the electorate picks the other side. Usually, the message is spun to persuade the voters that having the state and federal governments on the same side can facilitate better “help” for the people. I urge the federal government to respect the democratic outcome based on the general will and wishes of the majority of voters.

Voters should also understand that in an electoral democracy, every political party and every individual has the right to stand but every vote they canvass for is earned on their own merits. They do not “split” votes so they should not be called “spoilers”. Parties who feel affected by the loss of votes should hold a post-mortem to find out how they failed to persuade some sections of the electorate. It is bad politics to blame others for one’s failures and disregard other people’s democratic rights.

Voters also need to realise that tactical voting would lead to a more polarised “us-versus-them” political mentality, which is not conducive to building a democratic, progressive, and harmonious society. Voters need to understand what they are voting for in the state elections, which is separate from the general election. This separation of federal and state elections is a new phenomenon, which is good for bringing more clarity to what a state government means to the electorate. 

165th article for Agora@TMI column, published on The Malaysian Insight, 31 July 2023 

州選舉投票需有什麼考量？(8月2日）

 

策略性投票會導致「我們對壘他們」的兩極分化政治思維，墜入大黨派嘗試營造的政治敵對和仇恨。這其實不著邊際，無關公共利益和權利，也不利於建設一個成熟民主、進步和諧的社會。當下，州選舉與聯邦大選是分開的，這是二〇一八年第十四屆全國大選後出現的新現象。這實際上有利於讓選民更清楚地了解州政府的權力與功能，並且拋開過去與聯邦選舉捆綁在一起的「大局」情緒包袱，理智地作出判斷和選擇。

---

【文／林志翰】

你是六州選舉的選民嗎？你擔心所謂的「綠潮」來襲或導致聯邦政府倒台嗎？是否有人嘗試告訴你要如何投票，而你在候選人名單出爐前就已有了決定？

且慢，請不要因某方極力製造恐懼而左右你的選票。那些被煽動的政治恐懼氛圍或不理性，甚至與州選舉無關！本文旨在提高選民的醒覺意識，了解州選舉中的重要事項，包括選民應詢問和了解的相關課題和政策，從而理性而正確地投票。

首先，選民需明白，投選州議員及州政府，與投選國會議員和聯邦政府有所不同。聯邦政府和州政府的權力管轄範疇也不同，兩者亦有重疊，並且列明在《聯邦憲法》第九附表中的清單 II（州政府清單 State List）和清單 III（並行清單Concurrent List）。

這意味著，參與州選的選民應關注候選人及其政黨在州土地事務、伊斯蘭宗教事務、農業和林業、地方政府、各種相關許可證和執照、社會福利、公共衛生、城鄉規劃、住房、排水和灌溉、圖書館和博物館、遺產保護等方面的政策倡議。

選民應當評估和檢討上屆州政府及州議員的表現。任何再次尋求委託的候選人，其過往的表現都必須受到評估。例如，其是否在任內支持有爭議性的計劃或政策、公開支持對環境造成破壞或對受影響社區的計劃等。這可以是填海計劃、頒發採礦許可證，又或者修建一條穿過人口稠密社區的高速公路。

同時，所有候選人在維護包括少數群體在內的公眾利益記錄是否良好，都必須受到選民的檢視。此外，在州議會召開期間，前任議員的議會出席記錄如何？他們是否代表選民勤力問政，並積極參與辯論以審查所有政策？這些信息將有助於選民了解該名重新參選的候選人能力及專業態度。

選民易混淆議員權責劃分

無論如何，選民應以候選人的競選宣言或公開聲明，判斷其政治意願，再了解其如何通過州議員角色為該州帶來進步和改善。候選人必須在處理人民的要求、訴求和回應時展現良好的知識基礎和表達正確友善的態度。

選民常會混淆州議員與地方議員的職責，期望州議員能夠解決地方問題。但說實話，這又能怪誰呢？選民沒有投選過市議員，也不熟悉自身所處地區的市議員，而是投選過州議員。透過州選舉執政的州政府，其再根據成員黨各自的政治利益分配及委任市議員。這是自一九六〇年代暫停地方選舉以來即是如此。因此，若參選黨派和候選人能承諾恢復地方政府選舉，這將符合人民的最佳利益。

此外，一般來說，政客都會巧妙包裝州政府和聯邦政府同一陣線即可有更好發展的說法。從國陣執政時期，聯邦政府領導人就經常操作如此的論述，對有意支持在野黨的選民喊話，希望當中有人會回心轉意。因此，我敦促聯邦政府應該撥亂反正，尊重大多數選民的政治意願以及產生的選舉民主結果，一視同仁協助在野黨執政的州屬人民。

聯邦政府以及各看守州政府也不應在競選期間，以及州議會解散前的至少一個月推行派「糖果」政策或作出重大決策。掌權和掌握資源的政治人物和政黨會因這些政策宣佈，而吸引選票，甚至影響選情，這正是他們想要達到的效果。若一個關懷人民的政府擁有長期一致的表現記錄，為何需要在競選期間和前夕通過這樣的方式拉抬選情？首相安華（Anwar Ibrahim）在二〇二三年七月二十七日宣佈分派一百令吉電子錢包給所有B40和M40成年人，安華本身和淨選盟皆不認為這是賄選行為，而認為這是聯邦政策且無條件分派給全國人民。但根據前述的定義，我仍認為安華此時有選舉拉票的意味。另外，雪蘭莪看守州務大臣阿米魯丁（Amirudin Shari）在二〇二三年七月三十一日毫無預警之下，發文告宣佈取消八打靈再也疏散大道（PJD Link）計劃的申請。其實為何非得要在這個時間點宣佈，而看守大臣真的有權作出如此大的決策？

選民的兩極化思維

選民們也該明白，在民主選舉中，每個政黨甚至每個選民，只要符合資格都有權參與民主選舉。他們所爭取和尋求支持的每一票都是根據自己的能力，成功說服選民而應得的。他們並沒有「分裂」選票，也不應被視為「攪局者」。那些因流失選票而受影響的黨派應檢討自己為何未能說服部分選民。一味將自己的失敗歸咎於他人，不尊重民主且多樣的聲音，這些都不是良好成熟的政治表現。

選民還需體認，策略性投票會導致「我們對壘他們」的兩極分化政治思維，墜入大黨派嘗試營造的政治敵對和仇恨。這其實不著邊際，無關公共利益和權利，也不利於建設一個成熟民主、進步和諧的社會。我勸請選民能冷靜地獨立思考，認真檢閱每一位候選人和其代表政黨，再作投票決定投給最佳人選。有鑒於州議員更貼近處理民生課題，若只認黨徽投票，最後得出一個政治應聲蟲和服務態度惡劣的議員，這都將直接影響你的社區未來五年的發展和治理。

當下，州選舉與聯邦大選是分開的，這是二〇一八年第十四屆全國大選後出現的新現象。這實際上有利於讓選民更清楚地了解州政府的權力與功能，並且拋開過去與聯邦選舉捆綁在一起的「大局」情緒包袱，理智地作出判斷和選擇。

原文鏈接：http://contemporary-review.com.my/2023/08/02/1-533/