Two Countries, Different Aims
By Shashi TharoorSunday, August 24, 2008; B02
It has become rather fashionable these days to speak of India and China in the same breath. These are the two big countries said to be taking over the world, the new contenders for global eminence after centuries of Western domination, the Oriental answer to generations of Occidental economic success. Some even speak of "Chindia," as if the two nations were joined at the hip in the international imagination.
But if anyone wanted confirmation that such twinning is preposterous, all they'd have to do is look at the medals tally at the Beijing Olympics. China ranks first, with a glittering stash of 47 gold medals. You have to strain your eyes past such stepchildren of the global family as Jamaica, Belarus, war-torn Georgia, collapsing Zimbabwe and even what used to be called Outer Mongolia before you stumble across my native India, in 50th place as of this writing with precisely three medals, one gold and two bronze.
This is no surprise. China has set about systematically striving for Olympic success since it re-entered global competition after years of isolation, but India has remained mostly complacent about its lack of sporting prowess. Where China lobbied hard for the right to host the Olympics within two decades of its return to the Games, India has rested on its laurels after hosting the Asian Games in New Delhi in 1982. This is widely believed to leave it even farther behind in the competition for Olympic host-hood than it was two decades ago.
Where China embarked on what its sports leaders call "Project 119," a program devised specifically to boost the country's Olympic medal standings (the number 119 refers to the number of golds awarded at the 2000 Sydney Games in what Sports Illustrated calls "the medal-rich sports of track and field, swimming, rowing, sailing and canoe/kayak"), Indians wondered whether they'd be able to crack the magic ceiling of two, the highest number of medals their giant country has ever won. Where China, eyeing the number of medals awarded in kayaking, decided to create a team to master a sport hitherto unknown to the Middle Kingdom, India didn't even petition successfully to have the Games include the few sports it does play well, such as polo, kabbadi (a form of tag-team wrestling) or cricket, which was played in the Olympics of 1900 and has been omitted ever since. Where China has maintained its dominance in table tennis and badminton and developed new strengths in non-traditional sports such as rowing and shooting, India has seen its once-legendary invincibility in field hockey fade with the introduction of AstroTurf, to the point that India's team failed to even qualify for Beijing.
Forget "Chindia" -- the two countries barely belong in the same sporting sentence.
What has happened at the Olympics speaks to a basic difference in the two countries' systems. China, as befits a communist autocracy, approached the task of dominating the Olympics with top-down military discipline. It determined its objective, drew up a program, brought considerable state resources to bear, acquired state-of-the-art technology and imported world-class foreign coaches. India, by contrast, approached these Olympics as it had every other, with its usual combination of amiable amateurism, bureaucratic ineptitude, half-hearted experimentation and shambolic organization.
That's simply the way we are. It's the creative chaos of an all-singing, all-dancing Bollywood musical vs. the perfectly choreographed precision of the Beijing Games' opening ceremonies. If China wants to build a new six-lane expressway, it can bulldoze its way past any number of villages in the thing's path; in India, if you want to widen a two-lane road, you could be tied up in court for a dozen years over compensation payments. In China, the government establishes national priorities, then funds them; in India, priorities emerge from seemingly endless discussions and arguments among myriad interests, and funds have to be scrounged where they might. China's budget for preparing its athletes for these Games alone probably exceeded India's expenditure on all Olympic training in the last 60 years.
But where China's state-owned enterprises remain the most powerful motors of the country's development, India's private sector -- ducking around government obstacles and bypassing the stifling patronage of the state -- has transformed the fortunes of the Indian people. So it proved again in Beijing: The wrestlers, tennis players, boxers and weightlifters who made up the bulk of the Indian contingent, accompanied by the inevitable retinue of officials, returned with two bronzes among them, while the country's only gold -- in men's 10-meter air-rifle shooting -- was won by a young entrepreneur with a rifle range in his own backyard who had no help whatsoever from the state. Abhinav Bindra is, at 25, the CEO of a high-tech firm, a self-motivated, bespectacled sharpshooter and an avid blogger. He is, in short, a 21st-century Indian. At one level, it's not surprising that he should have won India's first individual gold in any Olympics since a transplanted Englishman competed in Indian colors in the 1900 Games. India is the land of individual excellence, despite the limitations of the system. In China, individual success is the product of the system.
My fellow Indians excel wherever individual talent is given free rein. The country has produced world-class computer scientists, mathematicians, biotech researchers, filmmakers and novelists, but the only Indian sportsmen who have worn the title of world champion in recent years have been a billiards cueist and a chess grandmaster.
Come up with a challenge that requires high levels of organization, strict discipline, sophisticated equipment, systematic training and elastic budgets, and Indians quail. This remains as true inside the Olympic stadium as outside it. When China built the massive Three Gorges Dam on the Yangtze River, it created a 400-mile-long reservoir that necessitated displacing a staggering 1.2 million people, all accomplished in 15 years and without much fuss (except for the usual silenced naysayers and jailed malcontents) in the interests of generating electricity; in attempting its Narmada Dam project, aiming to bring irrigation, drinking water and power to millions, India has spent 34 years (so far) fighting environmental groups, human rights activists and advocates for the displaced all the way to the Supreme Court, while still being thwarted in the streets by protesters from nongovernmental organizations such as the Save Narmada Movement.
That is how it should be: India is a fractious democracy; China is not. China will win the Olympic medals for many Games to come. But India, perhaps, might win some hearts.
tharoor.assistant@gmail.com
Shashi Tharoor is a former undersecretary general of the United Nations and the author, most recently, of "The Elephant, the Tiger, and the Cellphone: Reflections on India in the 21st Century."
Sunday, August 24, 2008
必读这篇
August 24, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist
Melting Pot Meets Great Wall
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Beijing
The Olympics may just be a sporting event, but it is hard not to read larger messages into the results, especially when you see how China and America have dominated the medals tally. Both countries can — and will — look at their Olympic successes as reaffirmations of their distinctly different political systems. But what strikes me is how much they could each learn from the other. This, as they say, is a teaching moment.
Call it: One Olympics — two systems.
How so? You can’t look at the U.S. Olympic team and not see the strength that comes from diversity, and you can’t look at the Chinese team and not see the strength that comes from intense focus and concentrated power.
Let’s start with us. Walking through the Olympic Village the other day, here’s what struck me most: the Russian team all looks Russian; the African team all looks African; the Chinese team all looks Chinese; and the American team looks like all of them.
This is especially true when you include the coaches. Liang Chow, the coach of the Iowa gymnast Shawn Johnson, was a popular co-caption of China’s national gymnastics team in the 1980s before he emigrated to West Des Moines. The U.S. women’s volleyball team was coached by a former Chinese player, Jenny Lang Ping, when it defeated China a few days ago. Lang, a national hero in China, led the Chinese team to a gold medal in the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics. It would be like Michael Jordan coaching China’s basketball team to a win over America.
The Associated Press reports that there are 33 foreign-born players on the U.S. Olympic team, including four Chinese-born table tennis players, a kayaker from Britain, seven members of the track-and-field team — as well as Lopez Lomong, one of the Lost Boys of Sudan’s civil war, who was resettled in the U.S. by Catholic Charities, and Leo Manzano, the son of an illegal immigrant Mexican laborer. He moved to the U.S. when he was 4 but didn’t gain citizenship until 2004.
It is amazing that with our Noah’s Ark of an Olympic team doing so well “that at the same time you have this rising call in America to restrict immigration,” said Robert Hormats, vice chairman of Goldman Sachs International. “Some people want to choke off the very thing that makes us strong and unique.”
China could learn something from our Olympic team as well: the power that comes from a strong society, woven together of many strands from the bottom up. For instance, it’s hard to drive around Beijing these days and not enjoy the thinned-out traffic and blue sky — which are largely the result of China ordering drivers off the roads and closing factories — and not wonder how these can be sustained after the Olympics. Many Chinese I have spoken to have asked: How can we keep this? Now that we have seen how blue the sky really can be, we don’t want to give it away.
The problem for China, though, is that environmentalism is a bottom-up movement in the rest of the world. While it requires a strong government to pass regulations from the top, it also can’t work without a strong, independent civil society acting as a watchdog, spotlighting polluters and suing businesses that do not comply. China can be green for the two weeks of the Olympics from the top down, but it can’t be green for the next 20 years without more bottom up.
That said, there are some things we could learn from China, namely the ability to focus on big, long-term, nation-building goals and see them through. A Chinese academic friend tells me that the success of the Olympics is already prompting some high officials to argue that only a strong, top-down, Communist Party-led China could have organized the stunning building projects around these Olympics and the focused performance of so many different Chinese athletes. For instance, the Chinese have no tradition of rowing teams, but at these Games, out of nowhere, Beijing fielded a women’s quadruple sculls crew that won China’s first Olympic gold medal in rowing.
The lesson for us is surely not that we need authoritarian government. The lesson is that we need to make our democracy work better. The American men’s basketball team did poorly in the last Olympics because it could not play as a team. So our stars were beaten by inferior players with better teamwork. Our basketball team learned its lesson.
Congress has gotten worse. Our democracy feels increasingly paralyzed because collaboration in Washington has become nearly impossible — whether because of money, gerrymandering, a 24-hour-news cycle or the permanent presidential campaign. And as a result, our ability to focus America’s incredible bottom-up energies — outside of sports — has diminished. You see it in our crumbling infrastructure and inability to shape a real energy program. China feels focused. We feel distracted.
So, yes, America and China should enjoy their medals — but we should each also reflect on how the other team got so many.
Op-Ed Columnist
Melting Pot Meets Great Wall
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Beijing
The Olympics may just be a sporting event, but it is hard not to read larger messages into the results, especially when you see how China and America have dominated the medals tally. Both countries can — and will — look at their Olympic successes as reaffirmations of their distinctly different political systems. But what strikes me is how much they could each learn from the other. This, as they say, is a teaching moment.
Call it: One Olympics — two systems.
How so? You can’t look at the U.S. Olympic team and not see the strength that comes from diversity, and you can’t look at the Chinese team and not see the strength that comes from intense focus and concentrated power.
Let’s start with us. Walking through the Olympic Village the other day, here’s what struck me most: the Russian team all looks Russian; the African team all looks African; the Chinese team all looks Chinese; and the American team looks like all of them.
This is especially true when you include the coaches. Liang Chow, the coach of the Iowa gymnast Shawn Johnson, was a popular co-caption of China’s national gymnastics team in the 1980s before he emigrated to West Des Moines. The U.S. women’s volleyball team was coached by a former Chinese player, Jenny Lang Ping, when it defeated China a few days ago. Lang, a national hero in China, led the Chinese team to a gold medal in the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics. It would be like Michael Jordan coaching China’s basketball team to a win over America.
The Associated Press reports that there are 33 foreign-born players on the U.S. Olympic team, including four Chinese-born table tennis players, a kayaker from Britain, seven members of the track-and-field team — as well as Lopez Lomong, one of the Lost Boys of Sudan’s civil war, who was resettled in the U.S. by Catholic Charities, and Leo Manzano, the son of an illegal immigrant Mexican laborer. He moved to the U.S. when he was 4 but didn’t gain citizenship until 2004.
It is amazing that with our Noah’s Ark of an Olympic team doing so well “that at the same time you have this rising call in America to restrict immigration,” said Robert Hormats, vice chairman of Goldman Sachs International. “Some people want to choke off the very thing that makes us strong and unique.”
China could learn something from our Olympic team as well: the power that comes from a strong society, woven together of many strands from the bottom up. For instance, it’s hard to drive around Beijing these days and not enjoy the thinned-out traffic and blue sky — which are largely the result of China ordering drivers off the roads and closing factories — and not wonder how these can be sustained after the Olympics. Many Chinese I have spoken to have asked: How can we keep this? Now that we have seen how blue the sky really can be, we don’t want to give it away.
The problem for China, though, is that environmentalism is a bottom-up movement in the rest of the world. While it requires a strong government to pass regulations from the top, it also can’t work without a strong, independent civil society acting as a watchdog, spotlighting polluters and suing businesses that do not comply. China can be green for the two weeks of the Olympics from the top down, but it can’t be green for the next 20 years without more bottom up.
That said, there are some things we could learn from China, namely the ability to focus on big, long-term, nation-building goals and see them through. A Chinese academic friend tells me that the success of the Olympics is already prompting some high officials to argue that only a strong, top-down, Communist Party-led China could have organized the stunning building projects around these Olympics and the focused performance of so many different Chinese athletes. For instance, the Chinese have no tradition of rowing teams, but at these Games, out of nowhere, Beijing fielded a women’s quadruple sculls crew that won China’s first Olympic gold medal in rowing.
The lesson for us is surely not that we need authoritarian government. The lesson is that we need to make our democracy work better. The American men’s basketball team did poorly in the last Olympics because it could not play as a team. So our stars were beaten by inferior players with better teamwork. Our basketball team learned its lesson.
Congress has gotten worse. Our democracy feels increasingly paralyzed because collaboration in Washington has become nearly impossible — whether because of money, gerrymandering, a 24-hour-news cycle or the permanent presidential campaign. And as a result, our ability to focus America’s incredible bottom-up energies — outside of sports — has diminished. You see it in our crumbling infrastructure and inability to shape a real energy program. China feels focused. We feel distracted.
So, yes, America and China should enjoy their medals — but we should each also reflect on how the other team got so many.
Sunday, May 18, 2008
308大选是照妖镜
民政黨代主席丹斯里許子根在本月17日主持中委會會議後，在新聞發佈會上指出，3月8日全國大選後，巫統的態度有所改變，在處理國陣成員黨關係方面已有所改進。
他披露，國陣最高理事會和國陣最高的行政議員在過去兩個月已開會3次，比在大選前的2年，溝通已更為頻密。
“國陣成員黨的領袖都有機會非常坦誠的發言，而且大家，包括巫統都以比之前更加開明的態度來接受批評。”
在这之前，該黨全國顧問拿督斯里林敬益此前接受《星洲日報》專訪時，坦承在過去50年，國陣一直是巫統一黨獨大，其他成員黨在國陣內的地位猶如“乞丐”，常常必須以乞求的方式與巫統合作的言論。
我不知道许子根讲这些话的目的是什么，或许他是要向人们解释民政党不退出国阵的借口。但是，许子根的谈话至少有两点值得辩驳。
首先，在过去，国阵成员党，特别是马华、民政党领袖时常会批判反对党联盟是“乌合之众”或是“Marriage of convenience”，不像国阵这样，是一个长期合作的伙伴关系。
但是，现在看起来国阵内的小成员党在阵线内备受欺负，地位比“乌合之众”还不如，308政治大海啸已经证明了这点。唉，大选是照妖镜！
还有，巫统态度的改变是否就能够确保非马来人的权益不受到进一步说的蚕食呢？马华、民政党领导能否保证巫统领导不会故态复萌，气焰嚣张呢？所谓“江上易改，本性难移”！
说开了，过去50年来，国内非马来人地位一天不如一天，在很大的程度上国阵成员党领袖为巫统背书，粉刷太平所带来的伤害。历史要好好的交代。
他披露，國陣最高理事會和國陣最高的行政議員在過去兩個月已開會3次，比在大選前的2年，溝通已更為頻密。
“國陣成員黨的領袖都有機會非常坦誠的發言，而且大家，包括巫統都以比之前更加開明的態度來接受批評。”
在这之前，該黨全國顧問拿督斯里林敬益此前接受《星洲日報》專訪時，坦承在過去50年，國陣一直是巫統一黨獨大，其他成員黨在國陣內的地位猶如“乞丐”，常常必須以乞求的方式與巫統合作的言論。
我不知道许子根讲这些话的目的是什么，或许他是要向人们解释民政党不退出国阵的借口。但是，许子根的谈话至少有两点值得辩驳。
首先，在过去，国阵成员党，特别是马华、民政党领袖时常会批判反对党联盟是“乌合之众”或是“Marriage of convenience”，不像国阵这样，是一个长期合作的伙伴关系。
但是，现在看起来国阵内的小成员党在阵线内备受欺负，地位比“乌合之众”还不如，308政治大海啸已经证明了这点。唉，大选是照妖镜！
还有，巫统态度的改变是否就能够确保非马来人的权益不受到进一步说的蚕食呢？马华、民政党领导能否保证巫统领导不会故态复萌，气焰嚣张呢？所谓“江上易改，本性难移”！
说开了，过去50年来，国内非马来人地位一天不如一天，在很大的程度上国阵成员党领袖为巫统背书，粉刷太平所带来的伤害。历史要好好的交代。
Sunday, May 11, 2008
马华百万大军与改革
308大选惨败后，马华的百万大军又再次的成为评论焦点。
马华公布的党员人数超过110万，以大马华人人口600万为准，再除掉东马砂拉越和未足龄而没有资格入党的华人，那么，我们可以说平均每四个华人就有一位是马华的党员。至于每四个华人中的一位马华的党员是否就是堂堂正正的马华党员就值得商榷了。
308大选的成绩或许可以为有兴趣知道答案者提供一个较为科学化的答案。
其实，大家都知道这所谓的110万百万大军都是虚有其表的。也因为这样，很多人都鼓励马华要向台湾的国民党学习，为党员再登记。国民党在2000年总统败选之后，痛定思痛，号称250万党员经过重新登记后只有不到100万党员。
有趣的是，民进党在最近败选后，同样的有人提到了“人头党员”的问题。该党的前文宣部主任，陈芳明就这样的认为：“改革的第一步，就是要解决人头党员的问题”。陈认为要重新办入党手续，因为这些人头党员，其实跟养小鬼根本没什么两样。”（见《新新闻》1099期）
马华的这些为数110万的真真假假党员散布在西马及沙巴各地，有心的区部领导人就是凭借这些真真假假的党员继续“为民服务”。因此，如果说马华在败选后要重新出发，要呈现新人新作风，如果没有从区会开始，谈何容易。
马华公布的党员人数超过110万，以大马华人人口600万为准，再除掉东马砂拉越和未足龄而没有资格入党的华人，那么，我们可以说平均每四个华人就有一位是马华的党员。至于每四个华人中的一位马华的党员是否就是堂堂正正的马华党员就值得商榷了。
308大选的成绩或许可以为有兴趣知道答案者提供一个较为科学化的答案。
其实，大家都知道这所谓的110万百万大军都是虚有其表的。也因为这样，很多人都鼓励马华要向台湾的国民党学习，为党员再登记。国民党在2000年总统败选之后，痛定思痛，号称250万党员经过重新登记后只有不到100万党员。
有趣的是，民进党在最近败选后，同样的有人提到了“人头党员”的问题。该党的前文宣部主任，陈芳明就这样的认为：“改革的第一步，就是要解决人头党员的问题”。陈认为要重新办入党手续，因为这些人头党员，其实跟养小鬼根本没什么两样。”（见《新新闻》1099期）
马华的这些为数110万的真真假假党员散布在西马及沙巴各地，有心的区部领导人就是凭借这些真真假假的党员继续“为民服务”。因此，如果说马华在败选后要重新出发，要呈现新人新作风，如果没有从区会开始，谈何容易。
Sunday, May 4, 2008
家定在国会发言后
马华总会长黄家定第一次获得机会动议感谢国家元首施政御词。NST在其新闻报道中强调这是国阵看重马华。
黄家定在国会演讲后，前卫生部长蔡锐明认为这是“马跑了才关马廊，为时已晚。”（lock the stable door after the horse has fled）。换言之，他是在说黄家定早就应该仗义执言。
其实，以目前的情形来看，问题的关键不在迟或早。而是当权的巫统要如何在回应黄总在国会的发言。
程序上，首相及各有关部门的部长都可以有机会在国会回应黄家定所提出的各项问题，当然他们也可以选择不要回应，毕竟后座议员在国会的谈话只是建议，除了是身为议员者的职责之外，也是言论自由的一部分。同样的，首相及部长们也有自由不要“闻问”。
在308政治大海啸之后，国阵内的两个华基政党都在谈论着“巫统需要”改革的问题，特别是巫统要如何改变及善待马华民政党。一些党内消息甚至扬言要給巫统一到两年的时间，如果再不改变就要退出国阵了。
总会长已经替马华、华人发出了肺腑之言，现在就要看首相如何在国会上回应，还是更不幸的拒绝回应或是采取“不闻不问”的态度。
另外，我一直在关注STAR如何报道总会长在国会的演讲，可惜，STAR的报道不太多，相反的星洲日报就有不少的报道。
黄家定在国会演讲后，前卫生部长蔡锐明认为这是“马跑了才关马廊，为时已晚。”（lock the stable door after the horse has fled）。换言之，他是在说黄家定早就应该仗义执言。
其实，以目前的情形来看，问题的关键不在迟或早。而是当权的巫统要如何在回应黄总在国会的发言。
程序上，首相及各有关部门的部长都可以有机会在国会回应黄家定所提出的各项问题，当然他们也可以选择不要回应，毕竟后座议员在国会的谈话只是建议，除了是身为议员者的职责之外，也是言论自由的一部分。同样的，首相及部长们也有自由不要“闻问”。
在308政治大海啸之后，国阵内的两个华基政党都在谈论着“巫统需要”改革的问题，特别是巫统要如何改变及善待马华民政党。一些党内消息甚至扬言要給巫统一到两年的时间，如果再不改变就要退出国阵了。
总会长已经替马华、华人发出了肺腑之言，现在就要看首相如何在国会上回应，还是更不幸的拒绝回应或是采取“不闻不问”的态度。
另外，我一直在关注STAR如何报道总会长在国会的演讲，可惜，STAR的报道不太多，相反的星洲日报就有不少的报道。
Sunday, April 27, 2008
槟马华不应该参与
光华有这样的一则新闻：
“槟乡委受促总辞 马华缺席汇报会
二零零八年四月二十六日 晚上十一时四十五分
(北海26日讯)乡村暨区域发展部长丹斯里莫哈末泰益指示由于国阵政府委任的槟州千余名乡委会成员总辞，以便为重新受委JKKP(联邦乡村发展协调委员会)。
部长是于今日上午11时，在威北柏淡千禧年礼堂会见来自槟州约千余名的乡委会成员时，作出上述的呼吁。陪同出席的槟州国阵领袖计有丹斯里许子根博士及前槟副首长拿督阿都拉昔等。
另一方面，相信是争取更多的配额谈判没有进展，来自槟州马华的乡委会成员没有出席今日举行的部长与乡委会成员汇报会。”
我认为槟马华这样做是对的。
目前槟马华必须好好的思考，要怎样才能突破从1969以来，自从民政党加入国阵后在槟州政坛沦落为第三、第四的角色，除了看巫统的脸色之外，又处处受制于民政党。
很多马华元老认为308的政治海啸对槟马华是好事，因为马华可以和民政党从新在同样的平台出发。
问题是两方面，第一是马华中央的态度。在过去，马华中央有一个看法，特别是在99年夺权失败之后，那就是槟城让民政党来主导，马华则注重在中央。第二呢，则要看槟马华是否能够洗心革面，来一个大换血。如果，槟马华还是同一批人马在搞，那么，可以预见的是党争将连绵不断，这些老同志只有兴趣党职，特别是区会主席，因为大家还是为了“KING MAKER”而沾沾自喜呢！
年轻的仲莱，要看你了！预先祝福你！
“槟乡委受促总辞 马华缺席汇报会
二零零八年四月二十六日 晚上十一时四十五分
(北海26日讯)乡村暨区域发展部长丹斯里莫哈末泰益指示由于国阵政府委任的槟州千余名乡委会成员总辞，以便为重新受委JKKP(联邦乡村发展协调委员会)。
部长是于今日上午11时，在威北柏淡千禧年礼堂会见来自槟州约千余名的乡委会成员时，作出上述的呼吁。陪同出席的槟州国阵领袖计有丹斯里许子根博士及前槟副首长拿督阿都拉昔等。
另一方面，相信是争取更多的配额谈判没有进展，来自槟州马华的乡委会成员没有出席今日举行的部长与乡委会成员汇报会。”
我认为槟马华这样做是对的。
目前槟马华必须好好的思考，要怎样才能突破从1969以来，自从民政党加入国阵后在槟州政坛沦落为第三、第四的角色，除了看巫统的脸色之外，又处处受制于民政党。
很多马华元老认为308的政治海啸对槟马华是好事，因为马华可以和民政党从新在同样的平台出发。
问题是两方面，第一是马华中央的态度。在过去，马华中央有一个看法，特别是在99年夺权失败之后，那就是槟城让民政党来主导，马华则注重在中央。第二呢，则要看槟马华是否能够洗心革面，来一个大换血。如果，槟马华还是同一批人马在搞，那么，可以预见的是党争将连绵不断，这些老同志只有兴趣党职，特别是区会主席，因为大家还是为了“KING MAKER”而沾沾自喜呢！
年轻的仲莱，要看你了！预先祝福你！
应该登在星报
马华总会长在接见全国基层领袖的同一天通过《新洲日报》（四月二五日）接受专访。
老实说，家定的谈话很好，开诚布公，难得一见。可惜的是这些言论只出现在华文报。马华控制THE STAR，我也曾经在一个场合听到THE STAR负责人说马华应该珍惜该报的控制权，不可以随便出卖。根据这位拿督级的编务负责人，巫统领袖也就是国家领袖都看英报，特别是THE STAR，该报的报道会受到重视，相反的，不管华文怎么大篇幅的报道，巫统领袖是看不到了。
既然是这样，那么黄家定的重要谈话，特别是目前他谈到的不认同“马来主权”更应该让巫统知道，马华应该利用THE STAR 的方便，把全文刊登在THE STAR。
老实说，家定的谈话很好，开诚布公，难得一见。可惜的是这些言论只出现在华文报。马华控制THE STAR，我也曾经在一个场合听到THE STAR负责人说马华应该珍惜该报的控制权，不可以随便出卖。根据这位拿督级的编务负责人，巫统领袖也就是国家领袖都看英报，特别是THE STAR，该报的报道会受到重视，相反的，不管华文怎么大篇幅的报道，巫统领袖是看不到了。
既然是这样，那么黄家定的重要谈话，特别是目前他谈到的不认同“马来主权”更应该让巫统知道，马华应该利用THE STAR 的方便，把全文刊登在THE STAR。
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
