馬來西亞應向新加坡學習

　　8月11日口譯文章：馬來西亞應向新加坡進修

　　50年前，馬來西亞將新加坡驅趕出馬來西亞聯邦，兩個實體今後各奔前程。時任新加坡首席部長的李燦爛(Lee Kuan Yew)其時如斯悲哀，以致於他初次——也是漫長而不凡的政治平生中末了一次——在公共場所落淚。半個世紀後，墮淚的應當是馬來西亞人。

　　新加坡無疑有它的題目。其獨有的威權指引成長模式帶來了繁華，創作發明了天下上最高效的都會國度。但很多新加坡人認為，他們身處的受控社會是出缺失的，而這類缺失是經濟增加彌補不了的。但是，不管新加坡面臨甚麽艱苦，這些艱苦與馬來西亞比擬其實算不了甚麽。馬來西亞正在閱歷多年來最嚴格的政治危急，原由是該國總理納吉布拉紮克(Najib Razak)的銀行賬戶不知怎樣多出了數億美元。更緊張的是，馬來西亞正走在歷久的下坡路上，自自力以來支持著該國的政治、宗教和民族“左券”在本身釀成的緊張抵觸下一發千鈞。

　　只管有各類疑慮困擾著新加坡(從民主體系體例到生齒構造)，這個都會國度還是一個使人難以置信的勝利故事。其5.6萬美元的名義人均海內臨盆總值(GDP)，是馬來西亞1.1萬美元的五倍多。

　　沒錯，在後李燦爛時期，改過加坡自力以來一向在朝的國民行為黨(PAP)落空了絕對準確的光環。在近期的推舉中，近40%的新加坡人投票否決該黨。但是，國民行為黨仍被廣泛以為是老實和醒目的。如許的評價不實用於在馬來西亞抱住權位近60年不放的馬來民族同一機構(UMNO，中文簡稱：巫統)。其引導人如今卷入了觸及當局投資基金——背負110億美元債務的“1MDB”(1Malaysia Development Berhad)的醜聞。該國反腐爛機構否定了有關納吉布賬戶上的6.75億美元來自1MDB的媒體控告;該機構稱這筆錢來自一中東救濟者，但未表露姓名。納吉布否定本身有任何欠妥行動。然則，不管該案的青紅皁白若何，巫統都歷久引導著一個完全腐爛的政治體系體例。馬來西亞"大眾,"意想到這一點。在2013年的推舉中，巫統在票數上敗北，但借助一套對其有益的推舉軌制委曲持續掌權。自那以來，每每已成為巫統同義詞的馬來西亞當局對否決黨開刀，以雞奸罪名羈系否決黨引導人安瓦爾易蔔拉欣(Anwar Ibrahim)。

　　在某種意義上，比較這兩個國度是不公正的。生齒僅500萬的新加坡是一個都會。陸地面積是新加坡450倍、生齒3000萬的馬來西亞明顯更難管理。3月逝世的新加坡建國總理李燦爛以整體上善良的手段緊緊掌管著國度。很丟臉出如許的微觀治理能在一個大很多的國度見效。

　　話雖如斯，這兩個國度都存在輕易發生辯論的多民族題目。新加坡借助說話、知人善任和廉明軌制，在營建公正和民族聯結意識方面做得更好。馬來西亞則以掩護馬來工資名明確切行輕視政策，搞成為了一個裙帶本錢主義國度。馬來西亞應當進修新加坡的履歷。它應當表示出對腐爛的零容忍，從納吉布開端，他必需要末證實本身明凈，要末下台。厚待馬來人的政接應該被撤消，當局應當出台民族聯結政策，而不是基於宗教或馬來族裔的決裂政策。新加坡夯實了一個讓國度可以或許向前邁進的堅固基本。馬來西亞必需刮骨療毒，不然就大概災害性地向後倒退。

　　【參考譯文】

　　Fifty years ago, Malaysia expelled Singapore from the federation and the two entities went their separate ways. So distraught was Lee Kuan Yew, then Singapore’s chief minister, that he shed tears in public for the first and last time in his long and extraordinary career. Half a century later, it should be Malaysians who are crying.

　　Undoubtedly, Singapore has its problems. Its brand of authoritarian guided development has delivered prosperity and produced the world’s slickest city state. But many Singaporeans feel something is missing in their controlled society, a hole that cannot be filled by economic growth. Yet whatever difficulties Singapore faces, these pale in comparison with those of Malaysia. Not only is Malaysia going through its worst political crisis in years after hundreds of millions of dollars found their way into the bank account of Najib Razak, the prime minister. More critically, Malaysia has been undergoing a long-term meltdown in which the political, religious and ethnic compact that has underpinned the country since independence groans under its own rotten contradictions.

　　For all the doubts that nag at Singapore, from democracy to demography, the city has been an incredible success. Its per capita gross domestic product, $56,000 in nominal terms, is more than five times that of Malaysia’s $11,000.

　　True, in the post-Lee era, Singapore’s People’s Action party, which has held power since independence, has lost its aura of infallibility. Nearly 40 per cent of Singaporeans voted against it in the last elections. Yet, the PAP is still widely regarded as honest and competent. The same cannot be said for the United Malays National Organisation, which has clung on to power for nearly six decades. Its leader is now embroiled in a scandal linked to state investment fund 1Malaysia Development Berhad, which has racked up $11bn in debt. The country’s anti-corruption agency has denied media allegations that $675m in Mr Razak’s account came from 1MDB — it says the money came from an unnamed Middle East donor. Mr Razak denies any wrongdoing. But whatever the truth in that case, UMNO has long fronted a thoroughly corrupt political system. Malaysia’s public senses this. In the 2013 election, UMNO lost the popular vote but scraped into power thanks to an electoral system stacked in its favour. Since then, the state, too often synonymous with UMNO, has turned its guns on the opposition, jailing its leader Anwar Ibrahim, on charges of sodomy.

　　In one sense comparing the two countries is unfair. Singapore, with a population of only 5m, is a city. Malaysia, with 450 times the land area and a population of 30m, is harder to govern. Lee, Singapore’s founding father who died in March, held Singapore tightly in his mostly benevolent grip. It is hard to see how such micromanagement could have worked in a much bigger country.

　　Still, both countries have potentially combustible ethnic mixes. Singapore has done better at forging a sense of fairness and national unity, through language, meritocracy and incorruptibility. Malaysia, in the name of protecting Malays through positive discrimination, has by contrast created a crony capitalist state. It should learn from Singapore. It should show zero tolerance for corruption, starting with Mr Najib, who must clear his name or step down. Preferential treatment for Malays should be phased out and the government should forge policies of national unity, not ones of division based on religion or Malay ethnicity. Singapore has created a strong foundation from which it can move forward. Malaysia must stop the rot, or slip disastrously backwards.