无意间看到已故开国先贤敦陈祯禄的孙女 Tan Siok Choo 的一篇评论，尝试翻译如下，供各位网友参考：
(先声明，波力的英文水平有限，若有任何误译或翻译得与原文不符，还请各位不吝指正)

作者：陈淑珠(译音) - 敦陈祯禄之孙女，敦陈修信之女

十八世纪初期，撰写《格利佛游记》的爱尔兰作家，也是著名的政治讽刺作家庄拿登.史维兹写过这么一句话：「没有人比不想看见的人更盲！」

当我阅读巫统升旗山区部主席拿督阿末依斯迈的言论时，这句话不禁涌进了我的脑海里，他在文告中一再重声报章记者对他所说的言论断章取义，并声称在国家独立之前，「华人的确是外来移民」，只是在独立之后才获得公民的身份，他也自称他的言论已得到马来回教徒的强力支持，所以他并不需要向任何一个人作出道歉。

先勿论阿末依斯迈的声明是否成立，有一些不变的事实倒是必须向所有政客阐明的，这无关种族划分或政治的从属关系问题。

首先，政治的基本规则是极其微妙的。举个例子，要求阿末依斯迈针对其寄居论做出道歉，正如国内任何一位政客都懂的，所谓的道歉可分为两种。

一个人可针对所发出的言论道歉，除此，他亦可为其言论所引起的伤害表示遗憾，即是说，这人依然坚持自己的立场，但对其言论可能导致他人受到伤害或不适而表示歉意，这提供了当事人一个表示歉疚并尝试修正的表象，对改善受到困扰的感觉而言，看起来似乎有诚意，而且往往可被接受。

第二，在一个像马来西亚这样的多元种族的国家里，如果政治工作者想要获得成功，借用一句环保人士的惯用信条，必须先做到：「无伤害」。有些政客也许会感觉到长久以来他们都得到本身族群的支持，根本不会在乎其他族群受辱的感受。

这些政客显然被政治健忘症所困，他们早已将选民在308大选捎来的强烈信息都淡忘了。国阵代表的高傲及不屑的态度的确让人厌烦，数量庞大的华裔及印裔选民已将手中的选票投给来自公正党及回教党的马来候选人，同时，深感不满的马来选民也将选票投给了行动党。

部份巫统槟州的区部领袖也许还对他们在槟州保住的席位沾沾自喜，这是非常短视的，因为民联是一个多元种族的联盟，也因为三位反对党领袖之中有两位是马来人，无论是马来人选区或是其他状况，事实上再也没有一个席次是安全的，他们是否已忘记在308大选中失去席位的巫统大将了呢？

提及华裔马来西亚人，即使是指华人在我国历史上曾经只是寄居者，也是一项无理的攻击。这就像当人们在介绍全世界最富有的企业钜子比尔盖茨时，坚持为他打上「辍学生」的标签一样。

而且，对于一些像我一样的华裔马来西亚人而言，被称为「寄居者」是一种侮辱。我的祖先自公元1771年来到马六甲，即便是在1957年八月的国家宣布独立之时，我的家族也已经在马六甲居住了186年之久，试问有多少马来西亚人可拥有这么长的居留历史？

第三，在还不到两星期前，全国正在欢庆国家独立日，有些政客竟然可以如此轻易的就忘记了我国的独立，是经由巫统、马华及国大党的先贤领袖携手合作而共同达致的。事实上，这个多元共治的模式，也正是英国殖民政府同意我国独立的先决条件。

第四，这项令人担忧的极端种族主义事件理应引起适当的政治警觉，除了首相拿督斯里阿都拉巴达威，副首相拿督斯里纳吉及内阁部长如拿督斯里纳兹里和拿督沙里尔，还有一些其他的马来领袖，无论是来自国阵或是反对党，都必须趋前向阿末依斯迈的态度发出挑战。

身为民联的领导、一位来自槟城的政治工作者、及一位扬言要废除新经济政策并基于族群需求扩展经济政策的人，安华至今都不曾针对此事表明立场，他的沉默让人感到失望。这也让那些歌颂民联为「种族政治终结者」的政治评论家感到尴尬及迷惑，所谓的大马政治「曙光」，也许将成为大马政治的「输光」。

最终，这个课题将使到一些相信只有通过投选反对党才能改变国家政局的评论家的信念大为折价，无论是来自政府的后座或反对党的议员，只要固执己见，都将成为政治的瞎子与音痴。

[按此阅读英文原文]


POLITICALLY BLIND AND TONE DEAF
Author：TAN SIOK CHOO
(grand-daughter of Tun Tan Cheng Lock and daughter of Tan Siew Sin)

IRISH author of Gulliver’s Travels and the foremost political satirist of the early 18th century, Jonanthan Swift once wrote: "There’s none so blind as they that won’t see."

This quotation comes to mind when I read the flurry of statements commenting on Bukit Bendera Umno division chief Datuk Ahmad Ismail’s multiple claims – that his statement "the Chinese are immigrants" was taken out of context by newspaper journalists because he was referring to time when the community were squatters before being granted citizenship during independence; that he has received tremendous support from Malay-Muslim groups; and that he does not owe anyone an apology.

Regardless of the truth or otherwise of Ahmad’s multiple claims, there are several facts that should be noted by all politicians, regardless of ethnicity and political affiliation.

First, a basic rule in politics is subtlety and nuance. Take for example, the suggestion that Ahmad should apologise for his statement on the Chinese being squatters. As every politician in this country should know, there are two types of apologies.

A person can apologise for the statement made. Alternatively, he or she can express regret for the hurt caused by the statement. This means the person implicitly stands by what was said but apologises if the statement was regarded by some as hurtful or offensive. Provided the person trying to make amends is sufficiently contrite and is seen as sincere in trying to ameliorate ruffled feelings, this apology is usually accepted.

Second, borrowing from the credo of environmentalists, the mantra of a politician who hopes to be successful in a multi-racial country like Malaysia should be this: do no harm. Politicians may feel that so long as they have the unswerving support of their own community, the outraged feelings of those from other ethnic groups are irrelevant.

These politicians clearly suffer from political amnesia. They have forgotten the resounding message sent by voters during the March 2008 general election.

Fed up by the arrogance and uncaring attitude of Barisan Nasional (BN) representatives, a significant number of Malaysian Chinese and Malaysian Indians voted for Malay candidates from Keadilan and PAS. Similarly, disgruntled Malays also voted for the DAP.

Some Penang Umno division leaders may take comfort from their success in retaining their seats at state level. This stance is myopic. Because PR is multi-racial and because two out of three leaders of opposition parties are Malays, no seat – whether Malay-majority or otherwise – is safe. Have they forgotten the roll call of Umno luminaries who lost in the March general election?

Reminding the Malaysian Chinese that they were once squatters – even if this is historically accurate – is gratuitously offensive. It is like tagging the words "college drop-out" whenever anyone refers to Bill Gates, the world’s richest man and founder of corporate giant, Microsoft.

And for some Malaysian Chinese like myself, to be called a "squatter" is an insult. My forefathers came to Malacca in 1771. Even in August 1957, my family had been living in Malacca for 186 years. How many other Malaysians can claim this long period of residence?

Third, less than two weeks ago, the whole country was celebrating Merdeka. What some politicians have conveniently forgotten is Independence was won by the leaders of Umno, MCA and MIC working together. Indeed, the British made this multi-racial cooperation an essential pre-requisite for granting Independence.

Fourth, an issue that should be about politeness and political sensibility has assumed an alarming racist overtone. Apart from Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Badawi, Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib and cabinet ministers like Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz and Datuk Shahrir Samad, few other Malay leaders – whether from the BN or opposition – have stepped forward to challenge Ahmad Ismail’s stance.

As PR leader, a politician from Penang, and a man who says he will abolish the New Economic Policy and by extension an economic policy based on racial requirements rather than need, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim has yet to take a public stand on this issue. His silence is disappointing. It also suggests political analysts who laud PR as breaking the mould of racial politics are deluding themselves. What was heralded as a "new dawn" in Malaysian politics may well turn out to be a "false dawn".

Finally, this issue underscores the belief of some analysts who believe that political change in this country can be effected only by voting out of office politicians – whether from the government backbenches or from the Opposition – who stubbornly persist in being politically blind and tone deaf.

外加波力两句话：关于陈女士所写 "even if this is historically accurate – is gratuitously offensive." 波力并不苟同，毕竟在马来西亚正式宣布独立之前根本就不是"国家"，那时被英国殖民的只是一块没有完整行政权，支离破碎的土地，真正的"我国历史"应该是在独立之后才能算数。

再者，阿末依斯迈只是外来移民的第二代，哪里懂得什么我国历史？我阿公打日本仔的时候他老爸还在印尼呢，谁才保卫过这片土地？谁才为国家独立尽过力？这也难怪他对国民团结及这片土地的安定一点都不在乎！