为什么马华不支持旅居海外的马来西亚公民在海外投票的做法？

马华中委余金福（乍看之下，还想为什么新加坡名人余福金会评论马来西亚的事务）日前语出惊人。他说，马华不支持旅居海外的马来西亚人在海外投票的做法，是因为这些“马来西亚公民已经跟国家脱节，无法实际掌握大马的情况和议员的素质”。

他还说，一些长期旅居海外的公民“数年来已跟国家失联，他们甚至不晓得国内发生的事”，大多数旅居海外的大马人“只是从具争议的源头获得信息，而它可能没有反映国内的真正情况”。

他认为，马来西亚的前途应该由留在国内的公民来决定。

我想，马华中委的这一番话到底说出了什么，什么话是没说出口。

很显然，马华担心的是在海外的公民接触到的“不良”资讯。

这些资讯为何不良？在这个一切以互联网挂帅的年头，当人不在自己的祖国时，互联网就是接收资讯的主要管道。互联网上的资讯来源可多的是——传统媒体的新闻网站、新媒体的网站、各种分享user-generated content的社交媒体。理论上，旅居海外的公民若要知道祖国的资讯，可接触的资讯管道，和身在祖国的公民是一样的。两者的唯一差别是，身在海外的公民无法亲身体会祖国的政治与社会环境。

事实上，正因为身不在祖国，公民取得祖国资讯的渠道可能一般比身在祖国的公民更广。

互联网传播的资讯是很容易让在执政者感到头痛的，因为互联网传播的信息多元化，执政者难以审查。

旅居西方国家的马来西亚公民甚至可能因为长期接触西方民主思想，对民主精神的看法肯定和国内选民不一样，这对执政联盟和在野联盟都构成另一股压力。国阵执政超过50年，在人心思变的时代，国阵肯定面对更大的压力。

目前的估计是，旅居海外的马来西亚公民有近百万人，选民人数不容小觑，分分钟成为某个选区的造王者。而且，对于当中一大部分马来西亚人离乡背井的原因，大家都是心照不宣的。国阵和马华自然知道这些理由足以让这些选民投反对票。

余先生这番“骇人听闻的谈话”马上引起反弹。净选盟立即反击马华的言论，相信坊间也有不少无法接受的声音。马华大佬蔡细历隔天马上出面消毒，承认余金福的说法“有欠妥当”，澄清马华并不反对海外马来西亚人的投票权。

蔡总淡化余金福的论调，表示马华主要担心技术性问题，包括选委会能否准备800个投票箱给散居世界各地的马来西亚选民投票、候选人的见证人见证投票过程、如何验票等。事实上，国阵也抱有类似的看法。

由此可见，海外选民是执政联盟心头的一根刺。除非执政联盟的支持率回升，否则估计海外选民短期内都无法在驻外使馆投票。虽然高等法庭已准许六名海外选民挑战选委会不允许海外投票的起诉，但估计此案无法赶在下一届大选前审结。

理论？别太在意！

著名国际关系学者罗伯特·考克斯（Robert W. Cox）有一句名言：“理论总为某些人，为某些目的服务”。一头栽入国际关系课程11个星期后，开始对这句话有一些体会。

国际关系确实有各种各样的理论体系，从最初的自由主义和现实主义，到近期的环境主义，都可以作为探讨国际关系的理论和工具。

作为人文科学中的一门学科，国际关系其实是政治学的其中一个分支。国际关系的探讨和建立始于第一次世界大战之后，在二战后取得更大进展。如今随着全球化的脚步，更是获得西方和东方国家的重视。我也因为这样，而在考虑该朝什么方向进修时，选择了这门学科。

有人或许会问，究竟国际关系的研究范畴是什么？是不是公共关系？其实，说开了，国际关系就是研究国与国之间的互动，甚至预测国家行为的学科。

在一战之前，欧洲的国与国之战一般只造成军人的伤亡，很少涉及平民。随着武器技术的进步，平民在一战中的死亡率大大提高。战争结束后，时任美国总统威尔逊有感于一战的血腥，提出十四点和平原则，带领参战国家成立国际联盟，希望建立一个持久和平的新世界秩序。威尔逊总统秉持的国际主义过于理想化，未能解决当时的一些问题。国际联盟未能发挥应有的功能，未能避免二战的爆发。

二战之后，E.H.卡尔和摩根索等人以现实主义解释国与国之间的关系——国际社会是一个弱肉强食的社会，国际上没有任何权力更大的机构或制度，可以有效管束各个国家，所以国家为了生存，就必须尽最大的努力保障自己的利益和追求最大的权力。

自此，这两派学者展开了无穷尽的辩论，在这个基础上建立更完善、科学化的理论。长江后浪推前浪，一些不服气的新生代学者则提出新的观点和批判，尝试建立一套理论来取代前人的智慧。

而现在我们这些国际关系学生，就得阅读各门各家的观点。也因为这样，我可以体会到“理论总为某些人，为某些目的服务”的真谛。

可不是吗？威尔逊提出他的和平原则，为的是能够让美国一步登上世界舞台，推广美式民主和资本主义信条。奈何，国会和他不咬弦，让他一气之下中风倒地，美国也没有加入国际联盟，没有及早成为“世界领袖”。

我们同学之间闲聊时，认为现在的一些学者在提出观点或批判时，目的似乎更多是为了立言，以求在学术界建立名声和提高身价。有些学者在著书撰文时，总是连篇赘言，啰啰唆唆，仿佛是为了达到某个字数底限。刚开学的时候遇上这样的文章，还真的让人越读越泄气，几乎就想放弃退学了。不过，有时却又遇上一些能以简洁的文字阐述观点和理论的文章，让人如沐春风，茅塞顿开。

也是世界知名国际关系学者的邝云峰教授在某一堂课上就问我们：“知道国际关系学者和记者的最大差别是什么吗？”

他的回答是：“记者的文笔要好得多。”

Why is there no Chinese IR theory?

1. Why is there no Chinese IR theory?

Because China did not have the space and opportunity to develop a full fledge and complete IR theoretical framework throughout its 5000 years of history. As compared to the Renaissance, Reformation, Enlightenment and French Revolution that brought about waves of emancipation of thinking, flourishing of philosophies and finally led to the development of various theories and methods to describe and predict inter-European states’ behaviour; China had seen a vacuum, in terms of development of new philosophies, from Spring and Autumn and Warring States Era to contemporary China. It has been vacuum for the last 2500 years. The Confucianism and Taoism attracted much concerns nowadays are in fact ancient philosophies that are 2500 years old. China had not been able to produce new philosophies, but only refining these philosophies.

2. Why was there not space and opportunity for China to do so?

Because the ancient China had been able to unify itself more than 2000 years ago and China was hardly a fragmented nation throughout its classical history. Furthermore, the ancient philosophy of Chinese politic was about cultural imperialism and not political imperialism. The emperors view themselves as the “Sons of God” (Tian Zi, 天子), which were the rulers of the entire world/universe. In the eyes of the emperors, there were not other nation-states; “Middle Kingdom” (Zhong Tu, 中土) was the only nation-state. Since the unification of ancient China under Qin Shi Huang, the philosophies that developed in Spring and Autumn, and Warring States Era, were further developed for the emperors’ use to rule the country, not to deal with neighbouring states. Geographically, China was a rather isolated nation-state throughout its 2000 years of history. It rarely had opportunity to deal with “other” states in the world, until westerners came with vessels and knocked on its door with guns and cannons in the Qing Dynasty. China did not have the opportunity and necessity to develop its ancient philosophies, such as Taoism and Confucianism, into IR theories and methods. Many would argue that tributary system is way China dealing with its neighbouring states. I would however argue that the Chinese emperors viewed themselves as the Sons of God and China being the Middle Kingdom, the emperors did not regard the nomadic tribes that harassing ancient Chinese people as another nation-state or neighbouring state. Such Chinese view can also be applied to the Japanese, which in the eyes of Chinese were pirates (Wo Kou, 倭寇) who kept harassing Chinese coastal cities.

Towards the end of Qing Dynasty, China was so weak that the revolutionists and even the senior officials were overwhelmed by the Western advancement. The Qing government sent young Chinese to study in Europe and America. There were social movement promoting science and democracy by the revolutionists. Qing Dynasty was so weak to the extent when it was overthrown the revolutionists virtually gave up entirely the ancient Chinese philosophies that had governed China for more than 2000 years. Three Principles of the People (San-min Doctrine), which was borrowed from the West, was introduced by Sun Yat-sen. At the same time, Mao Zedong brought Marxism into China.

While opportunity arose for China to participate in the process of development of contemporary IR theories in the interwar years, China slumped into civil war between KMT and Communist Party. Mao Zedong’s Three Worlds Theory budded only in the post WWII 1940s, took shape in the 1960s and presented to the world in the 1970s. If Three Worlds Theory was the first Chinese IR theory, it was 20 or 30 years behind the West. The Cold War had in fact encouraged the further development of Western IR theories. On the other hand, China was again slumped into various political struggles from 1950s to 1970s. It again missed the opportunity of participating the process.

The social aspect of China also did not allow it to cultivate a new pool of philosophers, much less the IR theorists. Throughout the history, China had produced a lot of poets, writers, artists, and inventors, but not philosophers.

3. What could falsify my hypothesis?

There were 45 years in Song Dynasty where the Chinese had to deal with the Mongols, who established Yuan Dynasty after the end of Song Dynasty. However, the Mongols were so strong that Song officials rarely had chance to develop theories and methods to deal with the Mongols before it was eliminated.

“一个马来西亚需要你的一票”，这就是拉票口号嘛！

开始觉得988这个电台很亲政府，竟然公开喊“一个马来西亚需要你的一票”的口号，这不是摆明在为纳吉政府拉票吗？正因为幕后老板是马华，电台管理层更应该谨慎，更独立。你可以不再批评马华，但不应该成为政党工具。

听了这几天的“街头早点UP档案”，有一种闻鸡起舞的感觉。这几天的档案是内安法即将撤销的专题报道，访问曾经被关押的陈凯希。至今，专题给人的感觉是批判内安法。这不禁让我好奇，电台过去是不是持这样的立场？如果电台在这个课题上是没有立场的，或者立场可以随着政府的立场改变而改变，那电台宁可不要做这个专题报道，因为这只会让人觉得，这个节目在马后炮。

Some observations

Are Universities Obsolescent? | Stephen M. Walt

It is interesting to read a prominent IR professor's reflection on how ivory tower will be transformed by IT.

In fact, I experience cultural shock when I come back to NTU for my masters program after completing my basic degree more than a decade ago. Everything is highly networked and IT connected. The entire campus is covered by WiMax (I supposed this is the technology adopted in campus, and not the more common Wi-Fi). We are required to download lecture notes of first and second week lessons from Blackboard Learning, which was not even born back in 1999, the year I finished my basic degree. Everything is done through online, including matter as petty as booking of and paying for monthly season parking.

The most shocking experience is in fact digitization of all journals. During the orientation, we are taught how to use library resources. I don't remember any such specific orientation back at my engineering days. It is indeed amazing because through the online journal collections, we are able to read something published during, as far back as, interwar years.

I used to work as a librarian assistant earning some pocket money. The main working place is main library which is located at North Spine. Back then, main library was filled with books and magazines and therefore studying desks were limited. Two weeks ago, I happened to bring a Malaysian friend to tour around NTU. To our surprise, or at least to my surprise, most of the book shelves are gone. The space where used to be book shelves are now filled with computer terminals. It shouldn't be that shocking in the sense that when everything is available online, book shelve is the first thing gone. We observed a group of students having discussion in a little corner in the library. Their microsoft word was projected on the screen. The students could highlight the text on the screen with some kind of pen. They were so used to that kind of discussion and equipment. It's like throwing "this is how we study from the very beginning of our life" at my face.

Every lecture theatre is equipped with computers, audio visual equipment and centralized control of lightings, audio and etc. Back in the old days, we were simply using overhead projector. We had to write or print on transparent films that were then projected through OHP onto the screen.

I would really like to see how lectures will be carried out 10, 15 and 20 years later.