On my way back from office last night, I received sms news: “Sin Chew Daily News reporter Tan Hoon Cheng arrested at her home in Bukit Mertajam at 8:30pm”. She was later confirmed to be detained under ISA.

It is widely believed that Tan Hoon Cheng was arrested due to her honest and verbatim reporting of the infamous “Chinese squats (tumpang) in this country” statement uttered by an ultra extremist Ahmad Ismail.

I received many sms later. All cried about foul play and abuse of power of the authority. Members of the public were absolutely shocked and dissatisfied with the arrest of a reporter, who was merely performed her duty diligently and professionally. Any reporter, regardless of race and religion who has been assigned with tasks, will report the statement made by speakers of the event. Using the standard of the excuse given for the arrest, it would only mean that more journalists who carry out their jobs dutifully could be detained under the ISA. Many reporters are living in fear, wary about they may be the next target of ISA. Perhaps, this is the scare tactic used by those who are desperate. Only desperate men will act unreasonably and recklessly, and even resort to the extreme measures.

A leader who is unable to command his/her subordinate is considered as a desperate man. For example, after Ahmad Ismail’s ultra statement was made public, the Prime Minister and the UMNO President Abdullah Badawi did instruct Ahmad Ismail to explain and apologise. However, Abdullah changed his mind and softened his tone later after chairing the Penang UMNO State Liaison meeting—as he witnessed Ahmad, the local UMNO strongman was backed staunchly by the 12 UMNO Divisions. Being the leader of Barisan Nasional, Abdullah has placed his fellow partners within the coalition in a hostile position. In struggling to survive for the remaining 2 years within UMNO, it seems that Abdullah has chosen to sacrifice the interest of Barisan Nasional as a whole.

Despite his later effort to punish Ahmad Ismail by suspending the latter’s membership of UMNO for 3 years, his good deed was buried altogether with the blunder that he made in arresting the innocent reporter.

Tan Hoon Cheng was released today, after MCA President Ong Ka Ting intervened in this matter. The public was relieved. However, image of Barisan Nasional administration has suffered an irreparable damage. Some people told me that nothing could be worst than having Pak Lah to head the administration and they started to consider Pakatan Rakyat as a realistic alternative.

Besides being an indecisive leader, the public simply could not take Abdullah’s words seriously. His word cannot be bonded. Few incidents such as he assured that Parliament would not dissolve in near future but he changed his mind just the next day; his Minister publicly denied an increase in petrol price and the next day he overruled by allowing the highest hike of petrol price. As a Prime Minister, his credibility has been severely tarnished.

After suffering a crushing defeat in the political tsunami of March 8th, I was relieved when Abdullah conceded to a 2-year power transition plan, i.e. by June 2010. He claims that he has many pending jobs to be completed such as reforming the judiciary, setting up the IPCMC and implementing the Economic Corridor projects.

3 months passed after the countdown begins; the ordinary folks have been experiencing the worst inflation and, with no salary increment. Moreover, the public is pessimistic over the economic outlook. Most are living in a very difficult time. The Economic Corridor projects are simply a far-fetched idea that is impossible to relief the immediate hardship suffered by the people.

As a matter of fact, it will be wiser for Abdullah if he choose not to talk about judiciary reform and IPCMC from now on. He has resorted to an evil law ISA to detain an innocent reporter and DAP MP Teresa Kok without putting them into trial. Until now, we are still uncertain as to the supposed guilt of Teresa Kok given that the Masjid and residents have refuted any involvement of Teresa Kok on the issue of azan matter. In fact, Teresa has denied firmly any involvement on azan matter and intended to sue Khir Toyo, the maker of the allegation. Just like many others, I am not convinced on the excuse given to detain Teresa.

Detention without trial under ISA is definitely an insult to the judiciary system. It brushes aside the adjudicate function played by the judiciary, a core mechanism for a democracy country. Being a lawyer and an officer of court, I firmly disagree with the use of such draconian law.

ISA gave absolute power of arrestment and detention to the police. It is a Pandora box which allows the floodgate of power abuse. Even the implementation of the so-called IPCMC, if it could be materialized, would not be able to curtail any police power exercisable under ISA.

After the arrests made on Friday night, I can see no valid reason for Abdullah Badawi to remain as the head of Barisan Nasional and the Prime Minister. His prolong staying as leader of the coalition party will only disintegrate the entire Barisan Nasional. Abdullah should step down with immediate effect. He should be replaced by someone who is more focus, decisive and can lead the government with direction.

308大选，马华遭受最大的重创。而选民在不久前落幕的峇东埔补选中，仍然拒绝国阵候选人。面对近月来的重大政治变化，一些时事评论人、马华同志纷纷要求与提出马华退出国阵的言论。

马华及巫统结盟不是这一两年，也不是近一两届大选的事。历史根源要追溯到56年前：1952年吉隆坡市议会选举。当时雪兰莪马华有两个选择，一是加入由Dato’ Onn领导标榜多元族群政党的独立党(IMP)；二是与走单元族群路线的巫统结盟。李孝式领导的雪州马华基于单一族群更能有效代表华人，加上当时IMP的多元族群路线还模糊不清，因此最后马华选择了吉隆坡巫统。这个结盟模式也一直保持到今天。

这一段历史的真谛在于当年和巫统结盟是最有效捍卫华社权益的方式。如今，站在这个基础上，马华与巫统及其他成员党共处的国阵是否还有空间让马华继续捍卫及弘扬华社权益？这空间是否只有在剥夺马来人或巫统既有的利益，即是典型的零和游戏规则才能开拓？

想要开拓新局面，就必须先熟悉了解现有局面的根源。 1957年独立宪法赋予种族政治舞台的条文，主要是第153条的马来人与土著特殊地位及第4条的回教是国教。当时制定宪法的5名英联邦最顶尖的法律、宪法专家都认为协助马来人在经济教育及就业方面的扶弱政策是过渡性的。当时的副首相敦拉萨曾以口头建议方式，向宪法制定委员会建议扶弱政策条文只维持15年；同时，有关条文也只放在宪法的过渡性篇章，不具永久性的法律地位；过渡性篇章的条文在简单多数票（simple majority）的情况下就可以删除。但是，这已成为历史。无论如何，宪法第153条的马来人特殊地位经已是放在永久性篇章，任何有关更改必须获得超过2/3的多数票及州苏丹们一致同意。

制定宪法的法律专家们都强调在经过过渡期协助弱势族群之后，新兴成立的马来亚必须迈向追求基本自由的普世价值，这包括人身自由、人人平等、言论、集会及结社自由、宗教自由、教育权利，这些都涵盖在宪法第2篇。

从另一个角度来看，在建国过渡时期我们注重的是平衡各族群的集体利益，而长远目标则应该是追求个人的权益，也就是人民的权益与愿景。马华总会长黄家定曾在国会演词中强调几个重点：肃贪、成立独立司法委员会与司法改革、教育、经济、社会治安、非穆斯林的宗教信仰与两性课题等，这些都是赋权予人民的基本自由。

马华应该从现在起突显它在捍卫人民权利益的政治立场。这包括说服国阵友党们，尤其是巫统，贯彻这些维持人民权利的基本立场。若巫统领袖们有所改变，但改革速度不够快，并在大选失败下野，马华应承担作为巫统伙伴的义务，一起与巫统成为在野党。可是，若巫统并没有在贯彻人民基本自由权利方面作出改变，这就违背了马华创办人及宪法制定人的初衷。马华也因此不必执著于履行当初订下作为巫统的政治伙伴的义务，也可以自此与巫统分道扬镳。

但是，更重要的是，在还未要求别人改革以前，马华党领导与同志们也应该先问自己是否已经作出改变？反思自己是否有赋予人民基本自由的政治意愿？是否已经迈向贯彻“全民共治，各族分享”目标？是否坚持走向落实“民主、民权、民生、民愿”这四个价值？当自己还没有站稳改革步伐，还未见到改革的曙光，就很难以相等的标准要求别人改变或作出改革。

对马华新领导人的要求，不仅仅是思考或争论留在国阵与否而已，更重要的是必须做到改革马华，把马华引领到一个具有战略地位与前瞻性的方向。

所以，我认为，马华改革比退出国阵更关键。

从法律观点而言，阿末的“寄居论”已触犯煽动法令1948年的第3（1条）条款，即质疑马来西亚华人于联邦宪法第3篇所赋予的公民权地位与权益。阿末较后解释他是在讲述历史，没有质疑华人公民权的意思。煽动法令的罚刑属严格责任(Strict Liability)，涉及发表煽动言论者的意图完全不被考量（见第3（3）条款），检控官只需要证明阿末的言论具有煽动性的趋向，就可以证明煽动罪名成立。

若要确定阿末的言论也不难，因为他是在群众大会发表“寄居论”。只要传召目击证人，包括在场的副首相纳吉，就可以佐证及还原星洲日报刊登阿末的煽动言论。

煽动法令属于规范社会操守的刑事法令，阿末在法律面前，人人平等的原则，必须面对刑罚。同时，阿末所属的巫统，也是国阵成员党之一。一般上，依社团法令注册的团体都制定一套规范会员的行为守则。然而，国阵章程并无管制成员党底下会员的机制。

国阵的最高领导架构是最高理事会，由各成员党分别派出3名代表所组成。除了涉及成员党的纪律与诠释章程条文课题，只要简单多数票议决，其余的事项最高理事会的决定必须是一致的。每个成员党只能够拥有一票（见国阵章程12条）。换言之，国阵章程赋予14名成员平等地位，绝无一党独大的架构，除非成员党自我矮化或边缘化。

国阵最高理事会有权针对任何损及国阵整体利益的成员党采取纪律行动，这包括冻结或开除会员籍（见国阵章程14条）。国阵最高理事会曾于1977年开除回教党，2003年陈清凉与林武灿在槟城州议会弃权表决事件，当时首相以国阵最高理事会有权力向马华采取纪律行动来促使马华领导层必须对陈、林两人采取纪律行动。陈、林过后被冻结党籍长达7个月。

阿末的“寄居论”以及煽动巫统州领袖侮辱成员党领袖已严重损害国阵作为代表全民福祉利益的政治组织及形象，巫统必须对阿末采取纪律行动。若巫统不顾整体国阵的利益，超过三分一的其他成员党可联合要求召开特别会议，依据国阵章程，以纪律采取行动对付巫统。

国阵章程虽然精简，但也提供了一套解决争议与矛盾的机制。也因为国阵具有解决争端的机制，它才能务实与有效的自1974年以来凝聚了多个不同理念的成员党。国阵并不像民联那样组织松散或没有一套针对成员党的纪律争议的处理机制。

所以，若因为巫统没有对付阿末而要求马华与民政退出国阵，是一个本末倒置的论点。现有国阵与民联的对立恰好是促成两线制雏形逐渐成体的好时机，为更完善的民主体制奠定良好根基。马华退出国阵将摧毁两线制的基础。

国民的焦点不应模糊。谁犯错，就应该惩罚谁；不管是针对阿末、巫统主席或是巫统本身。也不应该把现有的争端解决机制搁置一旁，情绪化的以阿末“寄居论”事件来草率鲁莽退出国阵。

巫统在峇东埔补选的其中一张文宣

峇东埔补选对国阵确实是一个极大震撼。对我而言，不是因为公正党获胜而让马华同志感到惊讶，也非因为安华的多数票增加而感到无所适从。让我深感疑虑震撼的有两件事：
（一）在峇东埔补选期间，马华在打击安华方面的宣传策略，还是围绕在他十年以前掌权时，尤其是他担任财政部长及教育部长时代对华教及华社作出的不利偏颇政策，以突显安华为了迎合选民而说出不同的话，是典型的双面人。但是这一次的补选，选民对这样的老调显然已经反感。同时，协助国阵助选的党同志告诉我，安华无论是在马来选区或是华人社群，都说一样的话。他向马来群众说明优秀的华人也应该如马来人一样可以到玛拉就读。因此，选民也亲耳听到安华一致的言辞。

有位马华同志告诉我说，听了安华的一番跨族群的演讲后，也很难叫华裔选民不把票投给他。相对的，马华的宣传策略并没有因为３０８冲击而改变，在竞选期间还是以餐会歌舞等娱乐节目来吸引群众。 选举就是要听政党领袖及候选人阐述政纲及愿景，而歌唱娱乐节目随时都可以打开电视观看。也难怪马华会沿用同样的竞选模式，因为区会的领导层、地方领袖，还是同样一批人。

（二）在面对巫统使用极端、以粗糙的种族性诉求，马华并没有及时反击，也许是担心影响选情，或以为这只是说给马来选民听而可以在华人群众中筑起一道围墙，以为言论可以隔离。这些丑陋的玩弄族群情绪的政治双面伎俩，已很明显的被选民唾弃。
马华应该站稳本身的立场，在要求自己不强调种族民粹主义时，也必须立即反击巫统使用丑陋的种族煽情诉求。不管是面对选举期间所使用的政治语言，还是在首相及副首相面前，也必须保持立场一贯性。一贯性的站稳立场，是华社对马华的基本要求。

On 20th Aug morning, we had a Launching Ceremony of the Signature Campaign Condemning the Batang Kali Massacre held in the Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall. As a Head of the Signature Campaign and one of the volunteer lawyers involved in the legal suit against the British Government, I urge members of public could come forward and give us a strong support by signing the endorsement letter. The month-long nationwide Signature Campaign will end on 20th Sept. All the endorsement letters collected will be sent to Britain, as an evidence that show Malaysians’ stance on this case.

Below is the speech I delivered in the Launching Ceremony:

Upholding The Value of Human Dignity

1. We can easily find out the story of the Batang Kali Massacre in bookstore or internet. For example:-

a. In a pictorial history book authored by Lt Col (R) Mohd Azzam Mohd Hanif Ghows entitled “The Malayan Emergency Revisited 1948 – 1960”, we learn about the atrocity committed by the Malayan Communist Party. But at page 55, there is an account of killing committed by British Army in Batang Kali on 12 December 1948. It stated that “suspicions remained about a possible government whitewash. Indeed later, in 1969 (should be 1970), following the international outcry over the My Lai massacre in Vietnam, claims in British newspapers forced a new investigation, but a change in government in Britain led to the enquiry being aborted, despite sworn statements from participants and a lone survivor that a deliberate massacre had taken place.”

b. Similar suspicious can be found in Wikipedia, the website encyclopedia.

Therefore, unless and until the truth is revealed, the Batang Kali Massacre will always haunt the reputation and goodwill of the British Army, if there is any. As Malaysians, we have a duty to find out the truth and seek for justice for those who had sacrrified and suffered during the time of terror.

2. Together with other voluntary lawyers, I went to the National Archives of UK. We discovered the sworn statements of confession made by ex-Scot Guards, the British Army who involved in the Batang Kali Massacre, in 1970. They revealed the following essential evidence:

a. the patrol had prior instruction to wipe out the village;
b. the men were shot without trying to escape; and
c. there was a conspiracy to mislead the inquiry.

Despite the investigation carried out in 1970 revealed contradictory evidences, the Conservative Party Government aborted the investigation barely within 10 days after they have won the general election. We are not convinced with the reasons given by the Tory Government.

3. Aborting an investigation in such a hasty manner would only give rise to more doubt. There is no dispute that the 24 victims were unarmed and they were killed by the British Army. Based on the confession made by the ex-Scots Guards, a massacre had indeed taken place. It is a crime against humanity.

4. Let’s be clear. We are not questioning the legality of the Emergency or the guerilla warfare itself. However, we cannot tolerate any atrocity committed by those who were armed and asserted brutality on the innocent and unarmed civilians.

5. We have no doubt that there were inquiry initiated by the British Government over the Batang Kali massacre, but we strongly believed that certain quarters had an ulterior intention to conceal and cloud the truth, and misled the public including the international community.

6. The families of the massacre victims have no intention to take revenge by seeking criminal punishment on those soldiers involved in the brutal killing. But the families want justice to be done. These include the following:

a. the massacre victims were not bandits or terrorists. They were fellow Malayan residents who have contributed toward the economic wealth of our nation. Their family members want an apology from the UK Government;

b. the families are seeking monetary compensation for loss of their bread winners during the massacre and hardship that the families had suffered after the killing; and

c. a memorial to be built for the massacre victims because their unattended bodies had been remained exposed for more than a week. There is no value of human dignity accorded to the victims.

7. These are the sublime values that the Malaysians and younger generation are striving for. A value that respect human dignity, a value that true and honesty are foundation of a civic and progressive society, and a value that wrongful perpetrator will be held accountable. There is no time limitation restricting these values to flourish, nor is there any standard variation for these values to be upheld in different part of the worlds.

8. The Action Committee Condemning the Batang Kali massacre had submitted a petition to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II via the British High Commission on 25 March 2008. There is no response from the UK Government.

9. As such, we need to press on. The Action Committee is mainly made up by the Ulu Yam residents. To the British authority, the Committee may not be strong enough to even warrant a response from the UK Government. In order to intensify the Committee’s effort in seeking justice for massacre victims, the Committee needs support from more Malaysia NGOs and Societies, irrespective of races, religions and background, so long as they subscribe to the values that the Committee is striving for.

10. This is the reason that we are organizing a signature campaign by Malaysian Societies and NGOs to condemn and censure the Batang Kali Massacre. We hope to achieve the following objectives during this signature campaign:
a. uncover the truth and rectify an historical injustice; and

b. enhance a value of upholding human dignity within the Malaysian society.

11. We must give our special thanks to journalists who had relentlessly searching for the truth of this Batang Kali massacre i.e. the “People” Newspaper in 1970 and BBC Documentary “In Cold Blood” in 1992. Local journalists deserved special thanks as well because they have stirred public awareness on this historical injustice within our society so that younger generation can pursue further in seeking justice for the massacre victims.

12. We wish to express our sincere gratitude to the Societies and NGOs who have affixed their signature on the endorsement letters, in support of this signature campaign. We must also thank the ruling and opposition political parties which have provided the necessary backing to this exercise of seeking justice for the massacre victims.

今天上午举行了《追讨英军罪行·全国社团盖章签名运动》的推介礼。我负责协调这个签名运动，目的是吁请国人支持”追讨英军罪行工委会”为死难者家属向英国政府讨回公道，并通过签名盖章展现国民与民间组织的立场。这是一个由当地社区居民以及许多自愿义务人士与团体发起的运动，并将在9月20日活动截止后把所收集的支持书送到英国。

以下为我在推介礼的演讲摘要：

身为较年轻的一辈，我们欲了解60年前24名乌鲁音村民在峇冬加里被屠杀的惨案并不难。只要通过输入关键词：“峇冬加里屠杀惨案”就可以在书本与网站世界略知这是怎么一回事。

无论是书本、报章与网络的资料，它们都有一个共同点，即质疑英军宣称死者是恶匪或恐怖份子是否属实。在英国与本地媒体充分发挥揭露弊端与历史冤案的努力下，峇冬加里屠杀惨案的真实情节逐渐还原。1970年的英国报章报导、1992年的英国广播电视纪录片、英军亲口承认屠杀惨案的宣誓书、屠杀惨案唯一生还者与目击者的口供，工委会律师团在英国国家档案局所收寻的资料，都显示屠杀惨案确实发生。

英国政府承认英军杀害24名手无寸铁的平民，但英政府唯一合法化屠杀的理由是这24名平民尝试逃跑。但，自1970年起揭发的证据，我们有很强的理由不相信英政府的藉口。我们能证明英军不只有意图的屠杀平民，也刻意误导较后成立的调查委员会，蒙蔽惨案事实的真相。很明显的，英国政府已犯下侵犯人权与生命尊严的罪刑。

《追讨英军罪行工委会》的目标明确：绝不能容忍强权者向手无寸铁的平民实施暴行。我们不否认英国政府曾针对峇冬加里屠杀惨案展开调查，但我们相信有一小撮有权位者刻意掩盖事实的真相，企图误导国际社会。

据我所知，死者家属无意向谋害他们亲人的英国士兵采取报复行动。但死者家属坚决向英国政府讨回公道。这包括：
1. 殉难者不是英国政府所抹黑的恶匪或恐怖份子。他们多是胶工，对我国经济发展做出了贡献。英国政府须向殉难家属道歉。
2. 殉难死者都是家庭经济生活的支撑着，因此，殉难家属要求英国政府赔偿他们失去养家糊口的依靠。
3. 殉难死者在屠杀后被曝尸超过7天，全无人性尊严可言。英国政府应为死者家属设立纪念塔以还殉难死者的尊严。

尊重人权与生命尊严的价值是马来西亚年轻一辈追求的目标。这个价值涵盖尊重生命的可贵、强调公民社会是建构在诚实与真实的基础，以及施暴行者须负上历史与社会责任。这些价值都不会因为时间而流失，也不会在不同国家有着不一样的标准。

《追讨英军罪行工委会》曾在2008年3月25日通过英国大使馆向英女王呈交请愿书，但至今并无任何回应。因此，工委会需要更大与更广的社会资源与网络，共同声讨英军屠杀罪行，让英政府感受到全马社团响应尊重人权的呼吁，以及民间伸张正义的团结力量。

工委会决定举办“全国社团签名盖章运动”，共同谴责英军屠杀罪行，希望引起国际社会的关注，将历史真相还原，纠正历史冤案以及共同塑造一个尊重人权的社会。

我们感谢国内外媒体工作者自1970年起不断的挖掘事实真相，使到峇冬加里屠杀惨案的真相有朝一日能够浮现。除此，我们感谢社团与非政府组织，共襄盛举，盖章签名声讨英军屠杀罪行。我们也感谢朝野政党同意成为工委会为殉难者寻求公道的坚决后盾。

工委会谨此呼吁，全国社团与非政府组织积极响应“全国社团签名盖章运动”。我们将在一个月内赴全国各地，将收集到的请愿书通过英国大使馆呈交给英女王，为这历史冤案平反。

（上图左起）工委会成员魏春萍及陈观添、目击证人罗亚才、黄金水及我。
谭蓉，78岁，罹患喉癌十余年，健康状况每下愈况。

上周六上午在乌鲁音举行了一场记者招待会。4家中文报的记者加上马新社电视，都到了乌鲁音这个小地方，而记者招待会的地点是一个住家–一个叫做谭蓉，今年78岁的老人家的家。

这个记者招待会是有关于60年前在此地发生的一场屠杀事件。1948年12月12日，英国殖民政府军人在Batang Kali开枪射杀了24名手无寸铁的平民。事后英政府解释为这些遇难者都是共产党。事实上，许多证据与目击者的口供显示，这些无辜失去生命的平民，根本就未曾反抗或是试图逃跑，可是他们却被蓄意的杀害。

谭女士是当时的目击证人，她已经过世的先生则是此惨案的唯一生还者。另外两名出席记者招待会的是罗亚才先生和黄金水先生，他们也是在年少的时候目睹了自己的亲人被杀害。这件事件多年来曾经受过关注，可是并未真正进入法律诉讼程序。

今年初，当地一群热心人士组成了一个“追讨英军罪行工委会”，希望可以通过法律程序替死者家属讨回一个公道，并在3月提成备忘录给英女皇，要求英政府作出赔偿与道歉。可是，之后全无音讯。

我在今年4月加入成为义务律师团成员之一，并在7月初到英国伦敦进行法律诉讼工作的研究与前置作业。与当地律师的研讨后，我们知道这个案件的胜诉机会高，可是所需的法律费用却高达马币100万元以上。其后，我们知道原来这些受难者的家属可以通过英国政府的法律援助基金，以获得经费进行法律诉讼。 这些家属收入不高，有些年龄虽然颇大，但仍然继续工作维持生活。其中，更有如谭蓉女士这样罹患喉癌十多年，并无分文收入之余还要负担医药费，儿女的经济状况相当拮据。

因此，申请英国法律援助基金是最佳的方法。可是，我们也从英国律师那里得知，英国官员认为马来西亚华人经济富裕，因此不应该获得法律援助基金。对于英国官员的这种刻板印象，我觉得是一个严重的偏见，也是具有种族歧视的言论。事实上，这些家属完全符合获得法律援助基金所订下的2大条件，即经济状况无法负荷法律诉讼的费用，以及本案深具胜算。

面对历史真相的是非，作为一名律师，我责无旁贷的协助家属们进行这场法律诉讼。我也希望可以通过国内各社团的关注与集体支持，吁请英国政府正视此事，并让这宗发生了60年的悲剧，可以获得平反。同时，也让现代的年轻人知道我们的前辈曾经有过一段苦难的日子，毕竟这是我们在这片土地上走过的痕迹。

这次马华区会的党选，我竞选武吉敏登区的中央代表，希望可以成为该区会17名中央代表的其中一位。参加武吉敏登区会已经几年，主要原因是马华总部及我的律师楼，都在这个区会内。

马华中央代表大会由2218名中央代表组成，他们拥有在中央选举的投票权以及参与中央职位的竞选资格。遴选中央代表的程序是先从马华4千多个支会中选出区会代表，这些代表在区会选举中选出中央代表。每个区会的中央代表人数是按照区会党员人数比例，因此以武吉敏登区为例，47个支会选出326名区会代表，这326名区会代表在区会选举中选出17名中央代表。这是马华民主选举的制度。

我是这次34名角逐中央代表的其中一名候选人，结果被挤出局。竞选失败，我坦然接受这个事实。但是在竞选过程中身历其境、亲身参与的经验，深深发现这个选举制度出现很大的弊病。甚至可以说，这不是一场真正公平与透明的选举。为了让马华民主更深化，我提出个人的观察以及认为需要改进的选举制度，希望马华的民主选举程序真正的可以达到透明化与公平竞争。

弊病（1）：“山头”势力蔓延的支会
马华常号称有百万党员并有4千多个支会的强大地方组织网络分布在全国各地。可是，这些党员人数与支会组织，有不少是“失功能”的，助长了“山头”势力的根深和蔓延。

区会的层级，派系壁垒分明，各据一方，非支会的掌权人根本就无法得知谁是区会的代表，而这些区会代表的名单也不对党员公布。若以一个支会主席平均可以影响8个区会代表，其他人就几乎无法知道这8个党员的资料包括名字与连络方式。换句话说，若不属于竞选队伍菜单内的独立党员，根本是无法掌握代表名单，也很难进行竞选拉票工作。

幸运的如果拿到这些区会代表的名字与住址，也许可以登门拜票。可是短短４天的竞选期，要到这些分布雪隆各地的区会代表的家拜访，还真的是时间不够用。更离谱的是，有些代表的地址是对不上的，有的是同一个地址就住了多达5、6个不同姓氏的代表，这明显是借用地址。另外，也有的是地址不正确，或是通过地图或GPS系统也找不到的地点。

弊病（2）：劣质的菜单文化
竞选期间面对了问题，导致候选人资料无法有效的传达。选举当天虽然可以自由派发宣传品，可是投票时，大部分区会代表还是按着“菜单”照单填选。甘德政就在我的部落格内留言提到他亲眼看到区会代表如何依照“菜单”画葫芦，而不管其他非菜单内的候选人是何许人。
说到菜单的威力，从当天和我一起竞选中央代表的一位朋友的例子就能显现出来。这位朋友在投票当天还告诉我说他认为自己不可能赢，因为现场大部分区会代表都不认识他，也不知道他的名字。而我在选举的当天积极拜票，努力竞选及分发宣传单。可是当选举成绩出来后，这位仁兄竟然获得超过140张选票而中选为中央代表，我仅有99张票。两者不同之处是－－他是菜单内的人马，区会代表照菜单投票。

为根除以上弊病，我建议推动区会选举直选以及废除支会的改革。

改革（１）：区会选举直选
已经有党领袖提出直选总会长的建议了，但我认为直选的建议应从区会直选开始。
直选可以杜绝不健康的桩脚现象，因为若是区会直选其涉及人数众多，无法通过控制桩脚选出菜单，同时也可以提高候选人的素质。换句话说，直选就是大家真正公开竞选，而不是通过掌控桩脚的暗箱作业方式操纵的游戏。当然，要落实这项机制以前就必须先将党员名单在党内公开，甚至可以是重新计算与登记有效党员。

改革（２）：消除内耗根源
熟悉马华组织的人都知道，要壮大个人派系势力就必须从控制大支会开始，因为一切源头就是支会产生的区会代表。这偏离了支会成立的目的，原本是要通过密集的地方基层组织帮助马华在地方发展与活动，却因为个人权力利益考量，而使得支会变成党组织的畸形产物。有不少支会往往是因为派系斗争以及为了掌控资源而出现。若支会仍然是个人派系操控区会代表的土壤，那支会是马华内耗的根源，支会也因此应该被废除。

党选过后我和一些马华基层党员交换意见，都认为马华必须改革现有的选举制度。这项改革必须由上而下的政治决心推动执行，而难以依赖山头势力根深蒂固的地方基层来推动。

简言之，马华的选举制度是生病了。衷心希望10月中央党选后的新领导班子或是任何即将被赋予重任的马华领导人与干部，正视这些问题，并真正推动改进的方案。否则，马华只有年复一年的内耗，因为党内的山头主义蔓延，而阻碍真正有为者融入主流，让外界对马华的负面影响加深，并与民意渐行渐远。只有革除现有的弊病，把被扭曲的制度导向正面健康的机制，马华才可更有乐观条件在国内政治生态的演化中继续发展。