How Dangerous Is U.S. Government Debt?

The Risks of a Sudden Spike in U.S. Interest Rates
Francis E. Warnock
June 2010

INTRODUCTION
In 1961, the Belgian economist Robert Triffin described the dilemma faced by the country at the center of the international monetary system.1 To supply the world’s risk-free asset, the center country must run a current account deficit and in doing so become ever more indebted to foreigners, until the risk-free asset that it issues ceases to be risk free. Precisely because the world is happy to have a dependable asset to hold as a store of value, it will buy so much of that asset that its issuer will become unsustainably burdened. The endgame to Triffin’s
paradox is a global, wholesale dumping of the center country’s securities. No one knows in advance when the tipping point will be reached, but the damage brought about by higher interest rates and slower economic growth will be readily apparent afterward.For a long time now, the United States has seemed vulnerable to the fate that Triffin predicted.

Since 1982 it has run a current account deficit every year but one, steadily piling up obligations to foreigners. Because foreigners have been eager to hold dollar assets, they have willingly enabled this pattern, pouring capital into
the United States and financing the nation’s surplus of spending over savings. The dollar’s status as the world’s reserve currency has become a facet of U.S. power, allowing the United States to borrow effortlessly and sustain large debt-financed military commitments.

Capital has tended to flood into the United States especially readily during moments of geopolitical stress, ensuring that the nation has had the financial wherewithal to conduct an assertive foreign policy precisely at moments when crises demanded it. But the capital inflows associated with the dollar’s reserve-currency status have created a vulnerability, too, opening the door to a foreign sell-off of U.S. securities that could drive up U.S. interest rates and render the nation’s formidable stock of debt far more expensive to service.

Late last year, this potential danger came close to becoming reality. Largely thanks to homegrown pressures, unrelated to Triffin’s dilemma, the world’s risk-free asset, the ten-year U.S. Treasury bond, was sagging.

With sizeable budget deficits, the prospects of an ever-increasing amount of government debt, the end of the Federal Reserve’s crisis-driven program of accumulating Treasury bonds, and an uptick in inflation expectations,
the ten-year Treasury yield increased by fifty basis points from 3.25 percent to 3.75 percent. And further increases were likely. Such increases would not only substantially raise the cost of future government borrowing, but would also threaten any recovery in housing and other interest-rate-sensitive sectors.
At the same time, moreover, foreigners seemed poised to drive U.S. borrowing costs higher. The dollar was falling sharply. Early in 2009 it fetched almost eighty euro cents in Frankfurt or Athens; by autumn it was worth sixty-seven euro cents.

Foreign investors, who held more than half of the U.S. Treasury market, were
getting nervous. Luo Ping, a director-general at the China Banking Regulatory Commission, summed up the angst:

Except for U.S. Treasuries, what can you hold? Gold? You don’t hold Japanese government bonds or UK bonds. U.S. Treasuries are the safe haven. For everyone, including China, it is the only option . . . . We know the dollar is going to depreciate, so we hate you guys, but there is nothing much we can do.

2 Was Triffin’s endgame—sudden reserve diversification, or the act of foreign governments abruptly shifting their funds from dollars to other currencies—about to become a reality? If so, the likeliest benefactor was the eurozone. Prominent economists opined that the euro would become the world’s reserve currency by as
early as 2015.

3 Through the first half of 2009 global investors seemed to agree: net inflows into eurozone debt instruments—that is, the rest of the world’s purchases of eurozone bonds less euro-area purchases of 2 foreign bonds—surged to record levels. The related plummeting of the dollar relative to the euro added to the
fear that global investors were abandoning the center country.

But then began the eurozone phase of the global financial crisis. This has provided the U.S. government with a timely respite from both domestic forces and Triffin’s endgame. U.S. policymakers need to understand that this is not a reset, not a new beginning; it is a lucky break. How the United States uses this reprieve will affect the nation’s ability to borrow for years to come, with broad implications for the sustainability of an active U.S. foreign policy.
In what follows we will walk through the domestic pressures on U.S. long-term interest rates, the role of global investors, the respite provided by the eurozone crisis, and policy implications. The story will be told primarily through pictures. For those interested in the methodology used to measure foreign official flows and a more detailed perspective on U.S. capital flows, a box and appendix are also provided.


DOMESTIC PRESSURES ON LONG-TERM RATES
In the autumn of 2009 at least three factors were weighing heavily on U.S. Treasury bond prices, driving interest rates (or “yields”) upward. Significantly, none of the three factors has diminished.

The first factor is the hangover from the financial crisis. On top of tax cuts and spending increases over the past decade, the stimulus spending and the decline in tax revenues resulting from the recession worsened the U.S. fiscal situation.

The budget deficit reached 10 percent of potential GDP in 2008, and even the baseline Congressional Budget Office forecast, which must include the implausible assumption that Congress will allow various “temporary” tax relief measures to expire, has U.S. public debt skyrocketing toward 100 percent of GDP (Figure 1, left panels).


4 Various economic theories provide a link from increases in either government debt (a stock figure) or budget deficits (a flow) and increases in interest rates, be it through the crowding out of private investment or through Keynesian increases in demand. Whatever theory one prefers,
Thomas Laubach showed that for each percentage point rise in the projected deficit-to-GDP ratio, longer term interest rates increase by about twenty-five basis points (or 0.25 percent); alternatively, each percentage point rise in the public debt-to-GDP ratio increases long rates by three to four basis points.5 Combining deficit (or debt) projections with the Laubach analysis, one might expect the fiscal situation to lead to a full percentage point (or even much greater) increase in long rates.

The second domestic factor exerting upward pressure on long rates is that demand from one source—the Federal Reserve—is likely to be scaled back. In 2009, the Fed purchased $300 billion in long-dated treasuries (Figure 1, right top panel). To the extent this put downward pressure on rates, the cessation of the Fed’s credit-
easing policy might be expected to lead to higher long rates.

A third factor on the radar screen is inflation expectations. An increase in inflation expectations can have a one-for-one impact on long-term nominal interest rates. Longer-term inflation expectations (Figure 1, right bottom panel) have been on a post-crisis upward march, putting yet more upward pressure on long rates.
In the autumn of 2009, the one domestic factor that was pulling rates lower was anything but comforting: concerns about a potential double-dip recession. As the U.S. recovery has strengthened, this factor has grown less significant. The result is that the balance of domestic forces in the United States now points to higher borrowing costs for the U.S. government. Adding together the pressure from large deficits, the cessation of the Fed’s crisis-response policies, and rising inflation expectations, one might expect the ten-year Treasury rate to
be at least one hundred basis points higher than it was a year ago. Oddly, and perhaps ominously, the actual ten-year Treasury rate at the start of June 2010 languishes at 3.4 percent, roughly unchanged from a year ago,
implying plenty of room for an upward spike.



THE ROLE OF GLOBAL INVESTORS
Not too long ago many were skeptical that foreign accumulation of U.S. debt securities materially affected U.S. rates. The view that such intervention did not matter was summed up concisely by the chief economist of an investment bank: “U.S. bond yields . . . have fluctuated over a wide range in response to many factors . . .but foreign buying . . . ha(s) simply not had much impact. Foreigners don’t have much influence . . .”6
At a July 2005 briefing, Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL) asked Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan of foreign flows could affect long-term U.S. interest rates. In Greenspan’s response to the senator, he noted that while foreign accumulation probably lowered long-term U.S. interest rates, the effect was likely small, and so the unwinding of those positions, were it to occur, would only add a small amount to long rates. But at that time no one had a good sense of the dynamics of foreign demand for U.S. bonds. To calculate the effect of this demand on Treasury rates, economists seek to isolate the portion of foreign demand that comes from governments: Unlike private foreign purchases, which may fluctuate in response to Treasury rates, foreign government purchases are presumed to be insensitive to Treasury rates, so that changes in those rates can be presumed to be driven by government buying rather than the other way around. Greenspan’s
response to Senator Shelby was based on calculations that used data on bonds held at the New York Fed on behalf of foreign governments. But, while governments use the New York Fed’s custodial services for some purchases, they also hold U.S. bonds elsewhere, so the analysis was based on partial data. And while there have been many user-friendly improvements over the past few years, international capital flows data remain
hard to navigate. (For a discussion of various sources of data on foreign governments’ purchases and sales of U.S. securities, see Box 1).
However, a 2005 Federal Reserve discussion paper pointed to a better answer than the one that was generally accepted at the time of Shelby’s question.7 The paper began by showing how reported capital flows data could be adjusted for use in empirical analysis. Briefly, because of a bias in the Treasury International Capital data collected by the U.S. government, flows from foreign official institutions were often reported as being
from private investors. Infrequent but high-quality snapshots of stocks (as opposed to flows) do not suffer from this bias (although they are subject to a less severe bias, described in the box) and so can be used to correct flows data. Armed with such data, the authors found that foreign official purchases of treasuries had little if any impact on shorter-term U.S. rates (which are well anchored by the Fed Funds rate) but a substantial impact on U.S. long-term interest rates. The accumulation of U.S. treasuries (and near substitutes) by foreign official institutions, then running at about $400 billion per year, lowered long-term U.S. interest rates by anywhere from fifty to one hundred basis points; if foreign governments ceased adding treasuries to their portfolios, U.S. long-term rates could spike upward by the same amount. The increase would be much greater
if foreign governments actively sold existing Treasury positions. Equally, a cessation of purchases or a sell-off by foreign private investors could add even more to the upward pressure on U.S. interest rates, since foreign private investors remain large buyers.
The potential impact on the United States resulting from a sell-off has not diminished since the original discussion paper calculations, because foreigners have not reduced the size of their positions. Foreigners now hold over half of the Treasury bond market and almost a fifth of the corporate debt market.



6
T H E N E A R M I S S O F 2 0 0 9
The large foreign holdings of U.S. assets presented in Table 1 are only a threat to the United States if there is a risk that foreigners might abandon past patterns and decide to put their money elsewhere. In 2009, with domestic conditions pointing toward a surge in Treasury yields, major investors were thinking aloud about doing just that—witness the concern expressed by China’s Luo Ping that his country’s accumulation of riskfree
dollar assets was anything but risk-free. At the same time, other senior foreign officials were actively debating the future of the dollar as the global reserve currency. On a visit to Beijing in May 2009, Brazil’s president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, picked up on his hosts’ frustration with the U.S. currency. Calling for a “new economic order,” he suggested that it was time to stop denominating trade in dollars.
Sure enough, foreign flows into U.S. Treasury bonds declined steeply in the first months of 2009. Yet they remained positive, and recovered in the second half of the year (Figure 2). While not as pronounced as in 20032004, foreign appetite for the reserve asset remained at a high level.


Even though foreign appetite for U.S. treasuries remained healthy, this did not eliminate the risk to the United States. The reason was that U.S. debt issuance was increasing sharply, and foreigners were holding a 7 smaller share of outstanding U.S. bonds. This raised the specter of a future in which the United States would likely have to issue more and more bonds, but foreign demand might not keep pace.
In 2009 foreign official inflows either decreased or increased, and the amount of inflows was as high as $448 billion or as little as $36 billion. Nor is this extraordinary discrepancy confined to 2009. For 2010,such data as are currently available suggest that foreign official flows have either surged or plummeted.
Which is it?
Foreign Official Flows ($billions, annual averages)
20042007 2008 2009 2010
BEA’s Quarterly Balance of Payment (BOP) Data
Foreign official flows into the United States 406 487 448
U.S. Treasury securities 173 478 490
Short-term bills and certificates -7 272 63
Medium-to-long-term bonds and notes 181 205 427
U.S. agency securities 133 66 -39
Other foreign official inflows 100 -56 -4
13
Treasury’s Monthly TIC Data
through
March
Foreign official flows into the United States 213 158 36 -38
U.S. Treasury securities 82 336 238 2
Short-term bills and certificates -3 259 76 -28
Medium-to-long-term bonds and notes 86 77 161 30
U.S. agency securities 66 -32 -43 -4
Other foreign official inflows 64 -147 -159 -36
memo items: Selected Federal Reserve adjustments
Treasury bonds, foreign official flows 113 198
Treasury bonds, private flows -75 -104
New York Fed’s Weekly H.4.1 Custodial Data
through
May
Foreign official flows into the United States 253 383 418 319
Change in holdings of Treasury securities 116 203 543 304
Change in holdings of agency securities 137 180 -125 14
Annual averages, except for partial 2010 data.
The three data sources conflict because of different methodologies. The monthly TIC data “identifies” foreign
official flows as those that originate from a recognized foreign official institution. Any transaction run through a shell company or even a non-U.S. intermediary shows up in the TIC data, but not as a foreign official flow. That is, the TIC data on foreign official flows should be viewed as a lower bound. Hence, in Figures 2 and 6 both “identified” foreign official flows and total foreign flows are shown; true foreign official
flows are likely somewhere between the two lines.
One read on the extent of private flows that should be “shuffled” into foreign official flows is provided by Federal Reserve adjustments.

11 Those adjustments, shown in the “memo items” listed under the TIC data in
the above table, shift roughly $100 billion a year from private to foreign official inflows. These adjustments are, however, also partial, as they are based on a reconciliation of the monthly flows with annual snapshots of custodial holdings. That is, they replace a severe transaction center bias with a much less severe custodial
center bias.

12 While this is an improvement, even this adjustment cannot be viewed as complete as any foreign official institution that wants to mask its holdings can do so by using a foreign custodian.

13 The different reported amounts of foreign official inflows can be reconciled. The New York Fed’s H.4.1 data, the most timely, is custodial based and for only one custodian, the New York Fed. If foreign central banks choose not to utilize the New York Fed, or move bonds from their accounts at the New York Fed to other custodians, the H.4.1 data will not provide an accurate read of foreign official inflows. The TIC data by itself has a transaction center bias that in some cases will cause foreign official flows to be reported as private flows. Federal Reserve adjustments, by making monthly flows consistent with annual data on positions, transform this transaction center bias into a more benign custodial center bias (and also correct for some other problems with the flows data). The Bureau of Economic Analysis moves last and thus can incorporate all of these sources into what should be the most comprehensive view of foreign official flows into the United States. That view shows that foreign official inflows maintained a high level of over $400 billion per year during the financial crisis, although the composition changed dramatically.

In particular, foreign official institutions no longer accumulate agency and corporate bonds, instead focusing their purchases on Treasury securities.
To date in 2010, by focusing solely on TIC’s reported foreign official flows, one would conclude that foreign governments have greatly reduced their demand for U.S. Treasury securities. But, recognizing that many foreign official flows are not identified as such in the TIC data, and that (1) total foreign flows into
treasuries remain strong. Foreign governments’demand for U.S. Treasury securities remains as strong as ever.

This paper has zeroed in on a particular type of capital flow: foreigners’ purchases (and sales) of U.S. Treasury secAP urities. But it is also useful to keep the broader picture in mind. Thus, the appendix provides a broader (but
cursory) view of U.S. international capital flows, primarily through an annotated table of U.S. capital flows, which will be updated each quarter.
Net financial flows into the United States (line 7) slowed only slightly during the financial crisis, even as foreigners sharply curtailed their purchases of U.S. securities (included in line 15). Reason: At the same time, U.S. investors ceased their purchases of foreign securities (line 10). But in 2009, foreigners’ demand for U.S. securities remained tepid and U.S. investors’ purchases of foreign securities resumed to some extent, and thus net financial inflows into the U.S. slowed substantially. Things to consider over the rest of 2010: Will foreign
official institutions (line 16) maintain their large flows into the United States? Will FDI (line 24) and equity flows (line 25) into the United States maintain their recent levels and perhaps even increase? Will U.S. corporate bonds (line 30) become a desirable asset class once again? And will U.S. investors step up their diversification into foreign markets?
An oddity in recent BOP data is U.S. government assets abroad (line 14). Most years these flows are approximately zero, but in 2008 they were very large. Reason: Included in this category are the currency swaps initiated by the Fed. When they were put on (in 2008), they were recorded as large outflows; as they were undone n 2009, a large inflow was recorded. Over time these currency swaps are designed to sum to zero in BOP terms.
16

17
Endnotes
1. Robert Triffin, Gold and the Dollar Crisis: The Future of Convertibility (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1961).
2. Henny Sender, “China to Stick with U.S. Bonds,” FT.com, February 11, 2009.
3. See http://content.ksg.harvard.edu/blog/jeff_frankels_weblog/2008/02/23/the-euro-could-surpass-the-dollar-within%2010-years/.
4. The baseline CBO forecast must assume policies remain as they currently are, which means that temporary spending provisions are assumed
to expire, even if in practice they are often extended. For a discussion of various deficit and debt forecasts, see Alan Auerbach and William Gale,
“Déjà Vu All Over Again: On the Dismal Prospects for the Federal Budget” (Brookings Institution mimeograph, 2010), which notes that the
main concern is not in deficits over the next year or two, but medium- and long-term deficits.
5. Laubach’s analysis is explicitly about five-year projections of deficits (and debt), so one should caution against using it to make statements
about the impact of cyclical deficits. It is more appropriate for longer-term fiscal trends. See Thomas Laubach, “New Evidence on the Interest
Rate Effects of Budget Deficits and Debt,” Journal of the European Economic Association, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 858–885.
6. David Malpass, chief economist of Bear Stearns, quoted in “Their Money, Our Strength,” Wall Street Journal, August 5, 2004.
7. See Francis E Warnock and Veronica Cacdac Warnock, “International Capital Flows and U.S. Interest Rates,” Journal of International Money
and Finance, vol. 28 (2009), pp. 90319.
8. For a more eloquent discussion of salient features of the U.S. Treasury market, see Brian Sack, “Dollar Asset Markets: Prospects after the Crisis,”
remarks at the ACI 2010 World Congress, Sydney, Australia, March 26, 2010.
9. See, for example, Jacques Delpla and Jakob von Weizsäcker, “The Blue Bond Proposal,” Bruegel Policy Brief 2010/03.
10. See Sack, “Dollar Asset Markets.”
11. These adjustments, developed by Charles Thomas, Francis E. Warnock, and Jon Wongswan in “The Performance of International Equity
Portfolios” (NBER Working Paper 12346, 2006) and refined by Carol Bertaut and Ralph Tryon in “Monthly Estimates of U.S. Cross-Border
Securities Positions” (FRB International Finance Discussion Paper No. 910, 2007), are updated each year on http://www.federalreserve.gov/
pubs/ifdp/2007/910/default.htm.
12. The transactions center bias in the TIC data on long-term securities flows derives from the fact that the respondents are asked to identify the
country through which the transaction was made, which can differ from the country of the ultimate buyer (in the case of inflows) or of the issuer
(in the case of outflows). Liabilities data collected on a custodial basis can also have a bias if the custodian and ultimate investor reside in different
countries. To see that the Federal Reserve adjustment is largely a removal of the transaction center bias, note that for Treasury bills, which are
collected by the TIC system on a custodial basis, the discrepancy between TIC and BOP data is quite modest.
13. Note that even with all available information, there is nothing pristine about transactions-based international capital flows data collected for
BOP purposes. A fundamental difficulty with such a data collection system is that it asks reporters to submit data that they would never collect on
their own. A financial intermediary would not naturally care about the residency of the parties on either side of a trade, but that is exactly what
BOP accounting rules ask them to do. More natural might be to obtain higher frequency reads on cross-border positions, something naturally
collected by custodians, and use them to calculate flows.
18
About the Author
Francis E. Warnock is Paul M. Hammaker associate professor of business administration at the Darden
Business School, University of Virginia, research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research,
senior fellow at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas’s Globalization and Monetary Policy Institute, and research
associate at Trinity College Dublin’s Institute for International Integration Studies.

2008 GE12 results

Banner King

2011年1月23日 星期日
2008年马来西亚第12届全国大选最新成绩(国席)

玻璃市：
No 选区 中选者 得票 得票率(%) 对手 对手得票 多数票 废票 投票率(%) 选民人数
1 P1 巴东勿剎 (PADANG BESAR) (国阵巫统) 阿兹米卡立 16,991 57.97 (回教党) 朱卡南 11,643 5,348 674 80.05 36,613
2 P2 加央 (KANGAR) (国阵巫统) 拉西 23,821 68.49 (公正党) 东姑阿都拉曼 10,150 13,671 808 80.17 43,591
3 P3 亚娄 (ARAU) (国阵巫统) 依斯迈拿卡欣 16,451 49.57 (回教党) 哈仑汀 16,151 300 586 83.23 39,877



吉打：
No 选区 中选者 得票 得票率(%) 对手 对手得票 多数票 废票 投票率(%) 选民人数
1 P4 浮罗交怡 (LANGKAWI) (国阵巫统) 阿布峇卡 13,762 59.26 (公正党) 旺沙列 8,792 4,970 670 78.55 29,567
2 P5 尤崙 (JERLUN) (国阵巫统) 慕克力马哈迪 19,424 52.16 (回教党) 依德利斯阿末 17,219 2,205 599 81.83 45,513
3 P6 古邦巴素 (KUBANG PASU) (国阵巫统) 佐哈里 24,179 57.26 (回教党) 依沙依斯迈 17,119 7,060 928 79.19 53,323
4 P7 巴东得腊 (PADANG TERAP) (回教党) 莫哈末纳希 15,003 49.34 (国阵巫统) 卡查里 14,634 369 770 86.00 35,403
5 P8 波各先那 (POKOK SENA) (回教党) 马夫兹 29,687 54.29 (国阵巫统) 阿都拉曼依布拉欣 23,956 5,731 1,039 79.44 69,631
6 P9 亚罗士打 (ALOR SETAR) (国阵马华) 曹智雄 20,741 48.17 (公正党) 魏晓隆 20,557 184 1,757 73.28 58,957
7 P10 吉打港口 (KUALA KEDAH) (公正党) 阿末卡欣 35,689 54.28 (国阵巫统) 哈欣耶也 28,671 7,018 1,385 79.08 83,132
8 P11 本同 (PENDANG) (回教党) 莫哈末哈耶迪 27,311 52.99 (国阵巫统) 罗再沙菲岸 23,238 4,073 991 84.19 61,346
9 P12 日莱 (JERAI) (回教党) 莫哈末费道斯 26,510 51.19 (国阵巫统) 峇达鲁丁 24,211 2,299 1,070 78.78 65,739
10 P13 锡 (SIK) (回教党) 仄乌达仄聂 16,864 49.96 (国阵巫统) 奥士曼帝沙 16,383 481 505 86.15 40,339
11 P14 傌莫 (MERBOK) (公正党) 拉昔丁 25,541 51.78 (国阵巫统) 达祖乌鲁斯 22,443 3,098 1,338 77.15 64,443
12 P15 双溪大年 (SUNGAI PETANI) (公正党) 佐哈里阿都 33,822 57.08 (国阵巫统) 再努丁麦丁 24,441 9,381 986 77.84 76,284
13 P16 华玲 (BALING) (回教党) 泰益阿占慕丁 36,074 54.92 (国阵巫统) 阿都阿兹拉欣 28,461 7,613 1,154 83.74 78,784
14 P17 巴东色海 (PADANG SERAI) (公正党) 哥巴拉克里斯南 28,774 61.13 (国阵马华) 梅振仁 17,036 11,738 1,259 79.58 59,218
15 P18 居林万拉峇鲁 (KULIM-BANDAR BAHARU) (公正党) 朱基菲里诺丁 22,255 55.71 (国阵巫统) 阿都阿兹 16,672 5,583 1,022 77.28 51,995



吉兰丹：
No 选区 中选者 得票 得票率(%) 对手 对手得票 多数票 废票 投票率(%) 选民人数
1 P19 道北 (TUMPAT) (回教党) 卡玛鲁丁查化 36,714 56.41 (国阵巫统) 阿斯拉夫华迪 27,337 9,377 1,032 81.49 80,072
2 P20 彭加兰吉巴 (PENGKALAN CHEPA) (回教党) 阿都哈林 26,763 62.56 (国阵巫统) 拉欣奥斯曼 15,452 11,311 564 82.23 52,350
3 P21 哥打峇鲁 (KOTA BHARU) (回教党) 旺阿都拉欣 32,129 59.97 (国阵巫统) 法米仄沙列 20,841 11,288 609 78.68 68,261
4 P22 巴西马 (PASIR MAS) (回教党) 依布拉欣阿里 28,673 58.26 (国阵巫统) 罗斯迪玛哈末 19,682 8,991 864 82.74 59,640
5 P23 兰斗班让 (RANTAU PANJANG) (回教党) 茜蒂再拉 19,344 54.69 (国阵巫统) 莫哈末阿芬迪 14,858 4,486 837 78.11 45,384
6 P24 古邦阁亮 (KUBANG KERIAN) (回教党) 沙拉胡丁阿约 27,179 61.28 (国阵巫统) 阿都甘尼玛末 16,537 10,642 638 83.14 53,496
7 P25 万捷 (BACHOK) (回教党) 纳沙鲁丁 28,835 51.88 (国阵巫统) 阿旺阿迪 25,934 2,901 811 85.98 64,808
8 P26 格底里 (KETEREH) (公正党) 阿都阿兹 21,738 49.33 (国阵巫统) 安努亚慕沙 21,338 400 993 84.95 52,240
9 P27 丹那美拉 (TANAH MERAH) (公正党) 安南甘尼 17,554 48.72 (国阵巫统) 沙哈里哈山 15,970 1,584 1,064 81.46 44,347
10 P28 巴西富地 (PASIR PUTEH) (回教党) 莫哈末胡欣 28,365 52.87 (国阵巫统) 安兰末诺 24,397 3,968 886 83.52 64,393
11 P29 马樟 (MACHANG) (公正党) 赛夫丁 21,041 50.86 (国阵巫统) 沙兹米 19,581 1,460 748 84.41 49,157
12 P30 日里 (JELI) (国阵巫统) 慕斯达法 17,168 56.52 (回教党) 莫哈末阿邦迪 12,732 4,436 474 84.18 36,298
13 P31 瓜拉吉赖 (KUALA KRAI) (回教党) 莫哈末哈达南利 23,562 54.93 (国阵巫统) 仄慕沙 18,578 4,984 756 82.32 52,250
14 P32 话望生 (GUA MUSANG) (国阵巫统) 东姑拉沙里 14,063 58.06 (回教党) 祖基菲莫哈末 9,669 4,394 489 83.77 28,986



登嘉楼：
No 选区 中选者 得票 得票率(%) 对手 对手得票 多数票 废票 投票率(%) 选民人数
1 P33 勿述 (BESUT) (国阵巫统) 阿都拉辛 29,376 60.16 (回教党) 胡辛阿旺 18,786 10,590 668 84.49 58,353
2 P34 士兆 (SETIU) (国阵巫统) 莫哈末基汀 26,610 56.83 (回教党) 莫哈末宝兹慕达 19,378 7,232 833 85.88 54,520
3 P35 瓜拉尼鲁斯 (KUALA NERUS) (国阵巫统) 莫哈末纳西依布拉欣 26,439 50.60 (回教党) 慕哈曼苏克里姆 25,098 1,341 713 85.83 61,214
4 P36 瓜拉登嘉楼 (KUALA TERENGGANU) (国阵巫统) 拉查理依斯迈 32,562 49.25 (回教党) 莫哈末沙布 31,934 628 931 82.45 80,325
5 P37 马江 (MARANG) (回教党) 哈迪阿旺 33,435 51.49 (国阵巫统) 阿末兰兹 30,688 2,747 806 86.89 74,813
6 P38 乌鲁登嘉楼 (HULU TERENGGANU) (国阵巫统) 莫哈末诺奥斯曼 27,784 60.64 (回教党) 卡玛鲁查曼阿都拉 17,324 10,460 709 87.54 52,515
7 P39 龙运 (DUNGUN) (国阵巫统) 马督里迪祖索 29,264 53.73 (公正党) 三苏依斯干达尤斯里 24,270 4,994 930 83.98 64,851
8 P40 甘马挽 (KEMAMAN) (国阵巫统) 阿末沙比里 37,199 59.24 (公正党) 法里兹慕沙 24,516 12,683 1,077 83.82 75,006



檳城：
No 选区 中选者 得票 得票率(%) 对手 对手得票 多数票 废票 投票率(%) 选民人数
1 P41 甲拋峇底 (KEPALA BATAS) (国阵巫统) 阿都拉 23,445 64.63 (回教党) 索比利莫哈末亚尔沙 12,199 11,246 634 84.45 43,018
2 P42 打西汝莪 (TASEK GELUGOR) (国阵巫统) 诺莫哈末 20,448 55.34 (回教党) 依斯迈沙烈 15,901 4,547 600 87.98 44,466
3 P43 峇眼 (BAGAN) (行动党) 林冠英 33,748 73.06 (国阵马华) 宋彩苓 11,678 22,070 766 77.84 59,385
4 P44 峇东埔 (PERMATANG PAUH) (公正党) 旺阿兹莎 30,338 64.01 (国阵巫统) 菲道斯 16,950 13,388 110 81.10 58,449
5 P45 大山脚 (BUKIT MERTAJAM) (行动党) 章瑛 37,882 72.51 (国阵马华) 王嵣荃 13,431 24,451 931 79.31 64,080
6 P46 峇都交湾 (BATU KAWAN) (行动党) 拉玛沙米 23,067 61.86 (国阵民政党) 许子根 13,582 9,485 640 78.70 47,378
7 P47 高渊 (NIBONG TEBAL) (公正党) 陈智铭 20,210 53.02 (国阵巫统) 再纳阿比丁 17,123 3,087 784 80.20 47,540
8 P48 升旗山 (BUKIT BENDERA) (行动党) 刘镇东 31,243 66.45 (国阵民政党) 谢宽泰 15,131 16,112 642 72.98 64,545
9 P49 丹绒 (TANJONG) (行动党) 曹观友 28,248 73.11 (国阵民政党) 许文思 9,759 18,489 631 72.80 53,188
10 P50 日落洞 (JELUTONG) (行动党) 黄泉安 30,493 65.77 (国阵民政党) 涂仲仪 14,247 16,246 743 74.56 61,181
11 P51 武吉牛汝莪 (BUKIT GELUGOR) (行动党) 卡巴星 35,140 70.32 (国阵马华) 郭家驊 14,125 21,015 707 76.16 65,614
12 P52 峇央峇鲁 (BAYAN BARU) (公正党) 再林 27,618 61.56 (国阵马华) 黄秀金 16,589 11,029 655 73.90 60,713
13 P53 浮罗山背 (BALIK PULAU) (公正党) 尤斯马尼 15,749 50.17 (国阵巫统) 诺莱莎 15,041 708 601 77.40 39,765



霹靂：
No 选区 中选者 得票 得票率(%) 对手 对手得票 多数票 废票 投票率(%) 选民人数
1 P54 宜力 (GERIK) (国阵民政党) 陈莲花 12,526 62.23 (回教党) 莫哈末诺 6,953 5,573 649 78.13 26,229
2 P55 玲瓏 (LENGGONG) (国阵巫统) 三苏安华 10,992 63.26 (回教党) 莫哈末祖基菲 6,073 4,919 311 75.08 23,223
3 P56 拉律 (LARUT) (国阵巫统) 韩沙查鲁汀 15,878 52.00 (回教党) 莫哈末达里 13,967 1,911 687 77.06 39,697
4 P57 巴里文打 (PARIT BUNTAR) (回教党) 慕加希 21,221 59.76 (国阵巫统) 阿都拉曼苏丽曼 13,670 7,551 618 78.71 45,219
5 P58 峇眼色海 (BAGAN SERAI) (公正党) 慕辛法兹利 18,943 53.12 (国阵巫统) 再纳阿比丁辛 15,530 3,413 1,186 76.92 47,111
6 P59 武吉干当 (BUKIT GANTANG) (回教党) 罗斯兰 20,015 49.80 (国阵巫统) 阿欣查比迪 18,449 1,566 851 72.65 55,471
7 P60 太平 (TAIPING) (行动党) 倪可敏 28,098 60.41 (国阵进步党) 卡维斯 16,800 11,298 1,612 71.52 65,889
8 P61 硝山 (PADANG RENGAS) (国阵巫统) 纳兹里 9,830 53.80 (公正党) 阿里亚斯再润 8,081 1,749 362 75.21 24,397
9 P62 和丰 (SUNGAI SIPUT) (公正党) 再也古玛 16,458 49.93 (国阵国大党) 三美威鲁 14,637 1,821 1,001 69.91 47,424
10 P63 打捫 (TAMBUN) (国阵巫统) 阿末胡斯尼 27,942 54.34 (公正党) 莫哈末阿斯里 22,556 5,386 927 75.17 68,966
11 P64 怡保东区 (IPOH TIMOR) (行动党) 林吉祥 37,364 69.85 (国阵马华) 刘文汉 15,422 21,942 707 70.45 76,647
12 P65 怡保西区 (IPOH BARAT) (行动党) 古拉 32,576 64.57 (国阵马华) 易沛鸿 17,042 15,534 829 72.58 69,773
13 P66 华都牙也 (BATU GAJAH) (行动党) 冯宝君 39,922 71.13 (国阵马华) 谢玉权 15,295 24,627 911 72.78 77,313
14 P67 江沙 (KUALA KANGSAR) (国阵巫统) 拉菲达 10,735 52.66 (回教党) 凯鲁丁 9,277 1,458 373 73.34 28,325
15 P68 木威 (BERUAS) (行动党) 倪可汉 15,831 51.53 (国阵民政党) 郑可扬 14,003 1,828 889 71.22 43,273
16 P69 巴力 (PARIT) (国阵巫统) 莫哈末尼沙 12,399 54.98 (回教党) 娜芝哈 9,526 2,873 628 78.30 28,859
17 P70 金宝 (KAMPAR) (国阵马华) 李志亮 20,126 52.14 (行动党) 龚明勋 17,429 2,697 1,048 65.16 59,784
18 P71 务边 (GOPENG) (公正党) 李文材 29,696 55.71 (国阵马华) 林熙隆 22,328 7,368 1,279 71.70 74,344
19 P72 打巴 (TAPAH) (国阵国大党) 沙拉瓦南 14,084 52.53 (公正党) 陈升德 11,064 3,020 1,662 70.12 38,236
20 P73 巴西沙叻 (PASIR SALAK) (国阵巫统) 达祖丁 16,928 52.71 (公正党) 慕斯达化卡米尔 14,240 2,688 950 75.20 42,712
21 P74 红土坎 (LUMUT) (国阵马华) 江作汉 25,698 48.50 (公正党) 苏华迪沙夫万 25,400 298 1,884 72.81 72,766
22 P75 峇眼拿督 (BAGAN DATOK) (国阵巫统) 阿末扎希 13,115 53.86 (公正党) 马兹哈山 10,423 2,692 814 70.42 34,670
23 P76 安顺 (TELUK INTAN) (行动党) 马诺佳能 18,486 50.43 (国阵民政党) 马袖强 17,016 1,470 1,153 70.17 52,354
24 P77 丹绒马林 (TANJONG MALIM) (国阵马华) 黄家泉 21,016 55.37 (公正党) 莫哈末阿兹曼 15,594 5,422 1,344 71.25 53,481



彭亨：
No 选区 中选者 得票 得票率(%) 对手 对手得票 多数票 废票 投票率(%) 选民人数
1 P78 金马崙高原 (CAMERON HIGHLANDS) (国阵国大党) 迪温玛尼 9,164 55.89 (行动党) 亚巴拉三美 6,047 3,117 1,186 70.14 23,461
2 P79 立卑 (LIPIS) (国阵巫统) 莫哈末沙仑 12,611 58.26 (回教党) 莫哈末聂南 8,474 4,137 561 76.55 28,425
3 P80 劳勿 (RAUB) (国阵马华) 黄燕燕 18,078 52.68 (行动党) 阿布巴卡 15,326 2,752 915 74.18 46,454
4 P81 而连突 (JERANTUT) (国阵巫统) 东姑阿兹兰沙 19,543 51.47 (回教党) 韩沙惹化 17,597 1,946 829 78.01 48,812
5 P82 英迪拉马哥打 (INDERA MAHKOTA) (公正党) 阿占依斯迈 19,823 50.43 (国阵巫统) 沙拉蒙阿里 18,796 1,027 688 77.44 51,235
6 P83 关丹 (KUANTAN) (公正党) 傅芝雅 18,398 51.69 (国阵马华) 胡亚桥 16,572 1,826 623 74.92 47,745
7 P84 巴耶勿沙 (PAYA BESAR) (国阵巫统) 拿督阿都马南 19,355 62.75 (公正党) 莫哈末杰菲里 10,852 8,503 637 77.45 39,882
8 P85 北根 (PEKAN) (国阵巫统) 纳吉 36,262 76.63 (公正党) 凯鲁安华 9,798 26,464 1,261 82.23 58,217
9 P86 马兰 (MARAN) (国阵巫统) 依斯迈慕达利 15,868 62.01 (回教党) 纳斯鲁丁 9,227 6,641 495 78.95 32,517
10 P87 瓜拉吉挠 (KUALA KRAU) (国阵巫统) 依斯迈莫哈末赛 16,165 58.69 (回教党) 卡马沙利 10,900 5,265 479 80.83 34,139
11 P88 淡马鲁 (TEMERLOH) (国阵巫统) 赛夫丁 21,381 51.84 (公正党) 阿末尼占 18,940 2,441 924 76.37 54,010
12 P89 文冬 (BENTONG) (国阵马华) 廖中莱 25,134 64.44 (公正党) 波罗沙美 12,585 12,549 1,285 73.01 53,651
13 P90 百乐 (BERA) (国阵巫统) 依斯迈沙比利 18,051 54.59 (回教党) 马兹兰阿利曼 14,230 3,821 783 76.91 42,993
14 P91 云冰 (ROMPIN) (国阵巫统) 贾马鲁丁 21,308 65.04 (回教党) 马兹兰耶欣 10,629 10,679 824 79.04 41,701



雪兰莪：
No 选区 中选者 得票 得票率(%) 对手 对手得票 多数票 废票 投票率(%) 选民人数
1 P92 沙白安南 (SABAK BERNAM) (国阵巫统) 阿都拉曼 12,055 51.33 (公正党) 峇鲁阿敏 10,720 1,335 711 75.00 31,381
2 P93 大港 (SUNGAI BESAR) (国阵巫统) 诺丽雅 16,069 57.83 (回教党) 奥斯曼沙布朗 11,060 5,009 656 81.69 34,073
3 P94 乌鲁雪兰莪 (ULU SELANGOR) (公正党) 再纳阿比丁 23,177 48.67 (国阵国大党) G.巴拉尼威 22,979 198 1,466 74.89 63,593
4 P95 丹绒加弄 (TANJONG KARANG) (国阵巫统) 诺奥玛 16,073 55.42 (回教党) 莫哈末哈尼巴 12,253 3,820 674 79.83 36,391
5 P96 瓜拉雪兰莪 (KUALA SELANGOR) (回教党) 祖基菲里阿末 18,796 49.96 (国阵巫统) 阿兹再也 17,934 862 894 79.81 47,203
6 P97 士拉央 (SELAYANG) (公正党) 梁自坚 30,701 50.60 (国阵马华) 李丽友 27,134 3,567 1,506 76.57 79,557
7 P98 鹅嘜 (GOMBAK) (公正党) 阿兹敏阿里 40,334 54.05 (国阵巫统) 赛安华 33,467 6,867 820 76.26 99,153
8 P99 安邦 (AMPANG) (公正党) 祖莱达 26,995 52.98 (国阵巫统) 阿兹曼 23,319 3,676 636 73.70 69,132
9 P100 班登 (PANDAN) (国阵马华) 翁诗杰 25,236 52.24 (公正党) 赛沙希尔 22,275 2,961 798 74.90 64,497
10 P101 乌鲁冷岳 (HULU LANGAT) (回教党) 茦罗斯利 36,124 50.24 (国阵巫统) 马基曼 34,379 1,745 1,401 80.02 90,319
11 P102 沙登 (SERDANG) (行动党) 张念群 47,444 62.48 (国阵马华) 何啟利 26,419 21,025 2,072 80.35 94,877
12 P103 蒲种 (PUCHONG) (行动党) 哥宾星 35,079 60.77 (国阵民政党) 卢永平 22,486 12,593 158 78.44 75,625
13 P104 格拉那再也 (KELANA JAYA) (公正党) 罗国本 30,298 51.77 (国阵马华) 李华民 25,267 5,031 1,065 73.61 79,649
14 P105 八打灵再也南区 (PJ SELATAN) (公正党) 许来贤 28,598 54.44 (国阵马华) 林祥才 22,892 5,706 1,044 71.91 73,192
15 P106 八打灵再也北区 (PJ UTARA) (行动党) 潘俭伟 37,851 67.28 (国阵马华) 周美芬 17,879 19,972 527 73.47 76,618
16 P107 梳邦 (SUBANG) (公正党) 西华拉沙 35,024 53.54 (国阵国大党) 慕鲁根山 28,315 6,709 2,079 78.02 84,414
17 P108 沙亚南 (SHAH ALAM) (回教党) 卡利阿都沙末 33,356 57.36 (国阵巫统) 阿都阿兹三苏汀 24,042 9,314 749 77.47 75,334
18 P109 加埔 (KAPAR) (公正党) 马尼卡瓦沙甘 48,196 55.30 (国阵国大党) 柯玛拉 35,899 12,297 3,064 78.10 112,224
19 P110 巴生 (KLANG) (行动党) 查尔斯圣地亚哥 37,990 64.05 (国阵马华) 庄祷融 20,289 17,701 1,036 76.23 77,816
20 P111 哥打拉惹 (KOTA RAJA) (回教党) 希蒂玛丽亚 38,630 67.39 (国阵国大党) 威尼斯瓦兰 17,879 20,751 814 79.74 71,887
21 P112 瓜拉冷岳 (KUALA LANGAT) (公正党) 阿都拉沙尼 26,687 50.55 (国阵巫统) 哈芝苏莱曼 25,698 989 407 79.37 66,515
22 P113 雪邦 (SEPANG) (国阵巫统) 莫哈末欣 26,381 53.83 (回教党) 莫哈末玛奇 21,532 4,849 1,099 79.20 62,044



吉隆坡联邦直辖区：
No 选区 中选者 得票 得票率(%) 对手 对手得票 多数票 废票 投票率(%) 选民人数
1 P114 甲洞 (KEPONG) (行动党) 陈胜尧 35,552 74.90 (国阵民政党) 刘开强 11,704 23,848 212 78.10 60,775
2 P115 峇都 (BATU) (公正党) 蔡添强 29,785 58.71 (国阵民政党) 林时彬 20,330 9,455 614 72.72 70,544
3 P116 旺沙马朱 (WANGSA MAJU) (公正党) 黄朱强 19,637 49.74 (国阵马华) 姚长禄 19,487 150 357 73.01 54,509
4 P117 泗岩沫 (SEGAMBUT) (行动党) 林立迎 25,046 58.38 (国阵民政党) 马伟祺 17,314 7,732 541 72.93 59,690
5 P118 斯迪亚旺沙 (SETIAWANGSA) (国阵巫统) 朱哈斯南 25,489 58.24 (公正党) 依布拉欣 17,355 8,134 918 76.56 57,161
6 P119 帝帝皇沙 (TITIWANGSA) (回教党) 洛洛莫哈末卡扎里 17,857 52.62 (国阵巫统) 阿兹加马鲁丁 15,885 1,972 191 68.01 49,892
7 P120 武吉免登 (BUKIT BINTANG) (行动党) 方贵伦 26,811 67.35 (国阵马华) 李崇孟 12,534 14,277 466 66.37 59,986
8 P121 班底谷 (LEMBAH PANTAI) (公正党) 努鲁依莎 21,728 52.62 (国阵巫统) 莎丽扎 18,833 2,895 239 72.88 56,650
9 P122 士布爹 (SEPUTEH) (行动党) 郭素沁 47,230 81.23 (国阵马华) 周紫琳 10,738 36,492 174 75.70 76,891
10 P123 蕉赖 (CHERAS) (行动党) 陈国伟 39,253 77.81 (国阵马华) 吴心一 10,953 28,300 244 73.58 68,725
11 P124 敦拉萨镇 (BANDAR TUN RAZAK) (公正党) 卡立依布拉欣 28,123 51.66 (国阵马华) 陈财和 25,608 2,515 707 75.72 72,628



布城联邦直辖区：
No 选区 中选者 得票 得票率(%) 对手 对手得票 多数票 废票 投票率(%) 选民人数
1 P125 布城 (PUTRAJAYA) (国阵巫统) 东姑安南 4,038 75.06 (回教党) 莫哈末诺 1,304 2,734 38 81.96 6,608



森美兰：
No 选区 中选者 得票 得票率(%) 对手 对手得票 多数票 废票 投票率(%) 选民人数
1 P126 日叻务 (JELEBU) (国阵巫统) 莱士雅丁 19,737 68.93 (回教党) 诺曼依彬 8,127 11,610 769 75.05 38,682
2 P127 仁保 (JEMPOL) (国阵巫统) 利拉耶辛 25,294 64.33 (回教党) 茜蒂玛丽亚 12,974 12,320 1,054 73.53 53,478
3 P128 芙蓉 (SEREMBAN) (行动党) 约翰费南迪 32,970 51.32 (国阵马华) 尤绰韜 29,022 3,948 2,248 76.10 84,675
4 P129 瓜拉庇劳 (KUALA PILAH) (国阵巫统) 哈山马力 20,417 64.34 (公正党) 安华莫哈末沙烈 10,409 10,008 908 74.79 42,328
5 P130 亚沙 (RASAH) (行动党) 陆兆福 34,271 60.49 (国阵马华) 姚再添 21,120 13,151 1,261 78.56 72,115
6 P131 林茂 (REMBAU) (国阵巫统) 凯里 26,525 54.82 (公正党) 巴都鲁希山 20,779 5,746 1,086 77.75 62,896
7 P132 直落甘望 (TELOK KEMANG) (公正党) 卡玛鲁巴哈林 23,348 50.99 (国阵国大党) 索迪纳登 20,544 2,804 1,299 77.45 60,186
8 P133 淡边 (TAMPIN) (国阵巫统) 沙兹曼 24,022 66.58 (回教党) 拉查吉 10,943 13,079 1,115 76.24 47,655



马六甲：
No 选区 中选者 得票 得票率(%) 对手 对手得票 多数票 废票 投票率(%) 选民人数
1 P134 马日丹那 (MASJID TANAH) (国阵巫统) 阿布瑟曼尤索夫 21,582 68.31 (回教党) 阿都甘尼 9,297 12,285 717 78.10 40,606
2 P135 亚罗牙也 (ALOR GAJAH) (国阵马华) 冯镇安 26,354 63.08 (行动党) 陈丽香 13,470 12,884 1,953 77.37 54,097
3 P136 冬牙峇株 (TANGGA BATU) (国阵巫统) 伊德利斯哈仑 30,460 61.32 (公正党) 再农嘉化 15,960 14,500 3,255 82.53 60,188
4 P137 武吉卡迪 (BUKIT KATIL) (国阵巫统) 末西蜡阿布 30,975 50.48 (公正党) 卡立耶化 29,217 1,758 1,173 81.92 75,777
5 P138 马六甲市区 (KOTA MELAKA) (行动党) 沉同钦 38,640 57.38 (国阵马华) 王乃志 27,250 11,390 1,448 79.57 84,805
6 P139 野新 (JASIN) (国阵巫统) 阿末韩查 27,838 63.02 (公正党) 祖吉菲礼 15,348 12,490 990 78.72 56,121



柔佛：
No 选区 中选者 得票 得票率(%) 对手 对手得票 多数票 废票 投票率(%) 选民人数
1 P140 昔加末 (SEGAMAT) (国阵国大党) 苏巴马廉 15,921 53.61 (行动党) 彭学良 12,930 2,991 847 72.96 40,708
2 P141 士基央 (SEKIJANG) (国阵巫统) 巴哈仑 17,979 67.30 (公正党) 祖基菲沙烈 8,112 9,867 622 76.03 35,138
3 P142 拉美士 (LABIS) (国阵马华) 蔡智勇 13,658 56.82 (行动党) 张颖群 9,564 4,094 816 71.95 33,468
4 P143 巴莪 (PAGOH) (国阵巫统) 慕尤丁 21,028 69.49 (回教党) 莫哈末罗查礼 8,447 12,581 787 75.70 40,042
5 P144 礼让 (LEDANG) (国阵巫统) 哈敏 25,319 56.96 (公正党) 刘德海 17,702 7,617 1,433 75.99 58,501
6 P145 峇吉里 (BAKRI) (行动党) 余德华 21,051 49.02 (国阵马华) 郑贝川 20,329 722 1,561 76.55 56,372
7 P146 麻坡 (MUAR) (国阵巫统) 拉查里 16,986 56.22 (公正党) 娜布汀 12,325 4,661 902 73.81 41,019
8 P147 巴力士隆 (PARIT SULONG) (国阵巫统) 诺莱妮 26,066 65.88 (回教党) 费沙阿里 12,467 13,599 1,033 78.91 50,234
9 P148 亚依淡 (AYER HITAM) (国阵马华) 魏家祥 20,230 73.68 (回教党) 胡申苏嘉 6,321 13,909 907 78.98 34,805
10 P149 四加亭 (SRI GADING) (国阵巫统) 莫哈末阿兹士 19,641 67.39 (公正党) 阿里玛贡 8,767 10,874 738 79.43 36,845
11 P150 峇株巴辖 (BATU PAHAT) (国阵巫统) 莫哈末卜艾 32,461 60.13 (公正党) 莫哈末阿都拉 19,757 12,704 1,768 77.21 70,069
12 P151 新邦令金 (SIMPANG RENGGAM) (国阵民政党) 梁德明 16,450 63.34 (回教党) 阿丹贡邦 8,597 7,853 924 74.58 34,859
13 P152 居鑾 (KLUANG) (国阵马华) 何国忠 27,970 51.76 (行动党) 黄南华 24,189 3,781 1,884 76.60 71,233
14 P153 森波浪 (SEMBRONG) (国阵巫统) 希山慕丁 17,988 71.54 (公正党) 李尚 6,418 11,570 739 75.98 33,181
15 P154 丰盛港 (MERSING) (国阵巫统) 阿都拉迪夫 20,116 73.54 (回教党) 沙哈尔阿都拉 6,380 13,736 857 75.59 36,445
16 P155 东南镇 (TENGGARA) (国阵巫统) 哈丽玛 19,031 75.08 (回教党) 沙烈法敏 4,982 14,049 1,336 78.49 32,297
17 P156 哥打丁宜 (KOTA TINGGI) (国阵巫统) 赛哈密 22,682 83.83 (回教党) 翁嘉化 3,721 18,961 653 79.29 34,190
18 P157 边佳兰 (PENGERANG) (国阵巫统) 阿莎丽娜 不战而胜 33,002
19 P158 地不佬 (TEBRAU) (国阵马华) 邓文村 30,860 63.51 (回教党) 罗斯来尼 16,202 14,658 1,525 77.73 62,505
20 P159 巴西古当 (PASIR GUDANG) (国阵巫统) 莫哈末卡立 35,849 64.44 (公正党) 末尼占莫哈末沙曼 18,568 17,281 1,211 76.71 72,862
21 P160 新山 (JOHOR BAHRU) (国阵巫统) 沙里尔 43,143 69.22 (人民党) 哈山卡林 17,794 25,349 1,391 69.59 89,725
22 P161 埔来 (PULAI) (国阵巫统) 诺加兹兰 38,036 67.08 (回教党) 阿都拉 17,587 20,449 1,079 71.42 79,622
23 P162 振林山 (GELANG PATAH) (国阵马华) 曾亚英 33,630 55.45 (公正党) 查丽哈 24,779 8,851 2,244 77.19 78,676
24 P163 古来 (KULAI) (国阵马华) 黄家定 32,017 59.71 (行动党) 吴柏松 20,273 11,744 1,327 79.69 67,358
25 P164 笨珍 (PONTIAN) (国阵巫统) 阿末玛士兰 23,121 70.48 (公正党) 莫哈末安努亚 8,677 14,444 1,008 75.83 43,264
26 P165 丹绒比艾 (TANJONG PIAI) (国阵马华) 黄日升 23,302 65.92 (行动党) 阿末顿 10,931 12,371 1,117 77.35 45,701



纳闽联邦直辖区：
No 选区 中选者 得票 得票率(%) 对手 对手得票 多数票 废票 投票率(%) 选民人数
1 P166 纳闽 (LABUAN) (国阵巫统) 尤索夫玛哈 10,471 75.32 (独立人士) 刘成吉 2,014 8,457 311 68.08 20,783



沙巴：
No 选区 中选者 得票 得票率(%) 对手 对手得票 多数票 废票 投票率(%) 选民人数
1 P167 古达 (KUDAT) (国阵巫统) 阿都拉欣巴克里 17,634 66.72 (公正党) 耶也奥曼 7,739 9,895 1,058 66.98 39,643
2 P168 马鲁都 (KOTA MARUDU) (国阵团结党) 麦西慕 12,028 54.25 (公正党) 安东尼曼帝奥 7,830 4,198 748 69.51 31,938
3 P169 哥打毛律 (KOTA BELUD) (国阵巫统) 阿都拉曼达兰 17,842 52.93 (公正党) 沙依帝西莫依 14,822 3,020 1,046 78.27 43,071
4 P170 斗亚兰 (TUARAN) (国阵民统) 威弗烈邦布琳 17,645 57.80 (公正党) 安沙里阿都拉 11,023 6,622 979 74.89 40,761
5 P171 昔邦加 (SEPANGGAR) (国阵沙进步党) 依力马贞文 16,884 62.99 (公正党) 莫哈末依巴拉欣 5,423 11,461 790 68.76 39,251
6 P172 亚庇 (KOTA KINABALU) (行动党) 邱庆洲 9,464 33.89 (公正党) 刘静芝 9,358 106 340 64.09 43,714
7 P173 布达丹 (PUTATAN) (国阵民统) 马京马古斯莫吉高 13,737 60.90 (公正党) 少吉那尤索夫 7,292 6,445 608 66.68 34,935
8 P174 兵南邦 (PENAMPANG) (国阵民统) 柏纳东博 13,400 52.80 (公正党) 爱尔文波西 10,337 3,063 540 70.84 35,821
9 P175 吧巴 (PAPAR) (国阵巫统) 罗丝娜拉西 15,352 62.72 (公正党) 瓦合依德利斯 5,778 9,574 651 75.84 32,276
10 P176 金马利 (KIMANIS) (国阵巫统) 阿尼法阿曼 10,242 59.03 (独立人士) 查阿法依斯迈 4,789 5,453 500 78.09 22,239
11 P177 保佛 (BEAUFORT) (国阵巫统) 拉京奥津 14,780 76.47 (公正党) 拉津尤索夫 3,866 10,914 681 72.22 26,788
12 P178 实必丹 (SIPITANG) (国阵巫统) 沙巴威阿末 11,905 65.43 (公正党) 卡林达欣 5,759 6,146 531 75.00 24,145
13 P179 兰瑙 (RANAU) (国阵民统) 系林安古巴 14,074 63.49 (公正党) 佐纳丹耶辛 6,823 7,251 653 72.06 30,810
14 P180 根地咬 (KENINGAU) (国阵团结党) 拜林吉丁岸 14,958 56.84 (公正党) 杰菲里吉丁岸 10,334 4,624 464 73.97 35,578
15 P181 丹南 (TENOM) (国阵巫统) 莱米翁吉 9,535 60.76 (公正党) 安德利斯达利宾 2,652 6,883 523 75.20 20,874
16 P182 冰厢岸 (PENSIANGAN) (国阵人民团结) 佐瑟古律 不战而胜 19,712
17 P183 柏鲁兰 (BELURAN) (国阵巫统) 罗纳建迪 7,090 57.58 (独立人士) 兰沙达欣 2,738 4,352 468 64.00 19,181
18 P184 里巴兰 (LIBARAN) (国阵巫统) 朱斯里阿基罗 13,668 66.93 (公正党) 阿末丹林再尼 6,139 7,529 613 65.33 31,435
19 P185 巴都沙比 (BATU SAPI) (国阵团结党) 蒋国华 9,479 59.32 (独立人士) 钟广维 5,771 3,708 730 63.06 26,004
20 P186 山打根 (SANDAKAN) (国阵自民党) 刘伟强 8,297 41.50 (行动党) 章翠玲 8,121 176 644 61.00 32,847
21 P187 京那巴丹岸 (KINABATANGAN) (国阵巫统) 邦莫达拉丁 8,507 66.50 (公正党) 阿末阿都 2,181 6,326 589 66.00 19,554
22 P188 诗南 (SILAM) (国阵巫统) 沙礼卡比 18,111 66.05 (公正党) 哈斯布拉奥亨 8,319 9,792 989 63.37 43,488
23 P189 仙本那 (SEMPORNA) (国阵巫统) 沙菲益阿达 19,419 87.44 (公正党) 阿基斯阿都哈密 1,957 17,462 832 63.07 35,216
24 P190 斗湖 (TAWAU) (国阵沙进步党) 蔡顺梅 13,943 51.58 (行动党) 陈泓縑 9,076 4,867 735 63.52 42,560
25 P191 加拉巴干 (KALABAKAN) (国阵巫统) 阿都嘉夫 不战而胜 36,018



砂拉越：
No 选区 中选者 得票 得票率(%) 对手 对手得票 多数票 废票 投票率(%) 选民人数
1 P192 玛士加汀 (MAS GADING) (国阵民进党) 迪奇拉菲 8,551 57.89 (国民党) 巴岛鲁必士 4,250 4,301 188 67.37 21,968
2 P193 山都望 (SANTUBONG) (国阵土保党) 旺朱乃迪 15,800 79.39 (公正党) 拉末艾迪尔 3,855 11,945 248 64.73 30,836
3 P194 柏特拉再也 (PETRA JAYA) (国阵土保党) 法迪拉 19,515 78.39 (公正党) 莫哈末佐希 5,118 14,397 263 61.74 40,533
4 P195 古晋 (BANDAR KUCHING) (行动党) 张健仁 22,901 63.45 (国阵人联党) 沉耀荣 12,949 9,952 242 68.13 53,216
5 P196 实旦宾 (STAMPIN) (国阵人联党) 杨昆贤 21,966 50.51 (行动党) 温利山 18,896 3,070 428 65.31 67,257
6 P197 哥打三马拉汉 (KOTA SAMARAHAN) (国阵土保党) 苏莱曼泰益 15,559 72.61 (公正党) 胡先阿波 4,148 11,411 823 75.14 28,517
7 P198 曼旺 (MAMBONG) (国阵土保党) 詹姆士达弗 14,182 63.94 (公正党) 玛仁邦约 7,525 6,657 473 61.71 36,147
8 P199 西连 (SERIAN) (国阵人联党) 里察烈 15,793 85.41 (国民党) 柏拉勇阿纳查央 2,366 13,427 332 66.36 27,901
9 P200 峇丹砂隆 (BATANG SADONG) (国阵土保党) 南茜苏克利 8,183 73.65 (公正党) 毕依琳 2,758 5,425 170 66.21 16,794
10 P201 峇丹鲁巴 (BATANG LUPAR) (国阵土保党) 罗哈妮 11,015 76.59 (回教党) 阿邦依迪 2,923 8,092 193 64.21 22,417
11 P202 斯里阿曼 (SRI AMAN) (国阵砂人民党) 玛瑟古札 9,700 63.16 (独立人士) 古波阿纳鲁西 5,448 4,252 211 59.70 25,724
12 P203 鲁勃安都 (LUBOK ANTU) (国阵砂人民党) 威廉雅劳 6,769 56.28 (独立人士) 尼克拉斯巴威尔 5,159 1,610 99 69.97 17,190
13 P204 木中 (BETONG) (国阵土保党) 道格拉斯 13,708 85.93 (国民党) 史登里朱戈 1,999 11,709 246 72.22 22,088
14 P205 砂拉卓 (SARATOK) (国阵民进党) 惹拉因末萨 12,470 75.80 (公正党) 莫哈末耶也 3,764 8,706 218 68.66 23,982
15 P206 丹绒玛尼斯 (TANJONGＭANIS) (国阵土保党) 诺拉阿都拉曼 不战而胜 17,052
16 P207 伊干 (IGAN) (国阵土保党) 瓦合杜拉 不战而胜 15,735
17 P208 泗里街 (SARIKEI) (国阵人联党) 陈冠勋 10,588 47.98 (行动党) 黄华西 10,537 51 176 69.68 31,675
18 P209 如楼 (JULAU) (国阵砂人民党) 佐瑟沙朗 10,351 77.83 (公正党) 安布鲁斯拉邦 2,767 7,584 182 65.50 20,306
19 P210 加拿逸 (KANOWIT) (国阵砂人民党) 艾伦达干 不战而胜 17,613
20 P211 南兰 (LANANG) (国阵人联党) 张泰卿 19,476 56.71 (行动党) 黄培根 14,612 4,864 253 69.54 49,530
21 P212 诗巫 (SIBU) (国阵人联党) 刘会洲 19,138 52.61 (行动党) 黄和联 15,903 3,235 526 67.77 53,679
22 P213 沐胶 (MUKAH) (国阵土保党) 廖迈克 10,090 70.05 (独立人士) 海宾玛拉威因 3,792 6,298 521 63.17 22,851
23 P214 实兰沟 (SELANGAU) (国阵砂人民党) 佐瑟恩都鲁 不战而胜 20,057
24 P215 加帛 (KAPIT) (国阵土保党) 阿歷山大南达林奇 不战而胜 22,723
25 P216 乌鲁拉让 (HULU RAJANG) (国阵砂人民党) 比利阿必佐 6,590 59.08 (独立人士) 乔治拉贡 4,426 2,164 139 63.09 17,696
26 P217 民都鲁 (BINTULU) (国阵民进党) 张庆信 23,628 72.53 (行动党) 林素均 8,663 14,965 288 64.98 50,404
27 P218 实务地 (SIBUTI) (国阵土保党) 阿末莱 8,238 63.27 (公正党) 张有庆 4,590 3,648 192 58.84 22,143
28 P219 美里 (MIRI) (国阵人联党) 陈华贵 19,354 57.32 (行动党) 房保德 14,138 5,216 273 60.70 55,963
29 P220 峇南 (BARAM) (国阵民进党) 耶谷沙岸 7,996 66.00 (独立人士) 哥宾旺 3,952 4,044 167 49.65 24,425
30 P221 林梦 (LIMBANG) (国阵土保党) 哈斯比哈比波拉 6,427 52.29 (公正党) 刘烈贵 5,751 676 113 60.94 20,315
31 P222 老越 (LAWAS) (国阵土保党) 亨利宋艾贡 8,526 91.27 (公正党) 查巴苏友 734 7,792 82 59.44 15,717
发贴者 malaysia888 时间： 下午9:23
通过电子邮件发送
BlogThis!
共享给 Twitter
共享给 Facebook

0 评论:

发表评论


较新的帖子 较早的帖子 主页
订阅： 帖子评论 (Atom)
Malaysia777.com 大马最佳在线娱乐
以假筹码玩百家乐,2大马男子新国被控
还记得易胜博网站吗?
马六甲首长效应，地方政府严打非法马机
大马网球公开赛·锦织圭闯16强 达夫仁戈苦战晋级
疑遭内鬼爆料，扫荡15跑马机中心仅捣破1间
关注者

博客归档
▼ 2011 (14)
► 九月 (3)
► 八月 (1)
► 七月 (1)
► 六月 (4)
► 五月 (1)
► 四月 (2)
▼ 一月 (2)
2008年马来西亚第12届全国大选最新成绩(州席)
2008年马来西亚第12届全国大选最新成绩(国席)
► 2010 (1)
我的简介

malaysia888
查看我的完整个人资料
由 Blogger 强力驱动.
Malaysia888.com: 马来西亚人的赌博资讯网 - Malaysian Online Betting Guide
M88明陞:请您看张学友演唱会
2012年F1赛历:马来西亚第2站,新加坡第14站
水上德士直通金沙赌场!
Bodog博狗即将推出全新体育平台
一代千王"肥吕"走了

The Origins and Obligations of Sharia Law

The origins and obligations of Sharia law

Sharia is the body of Islamic religious law based on the Qu'ran and the words and actions of the prophet Mohammed and his followers.

In the West, Sharia has become synonymous with the brutal punishments meted out in Islamic states, but the majority of laws are to do with everyday issues, ranging from personal hygiene to banking.

Hard line Muslim leaders claim that Sharia is eternal and can never be changed, while moderates argue that it is not a strict set of laws but should be open to interpretation.

Sunni and Shia Muslims follow different schools of thought in interpreting the Sharia laws, but all Muslims are required to live according to Sharia wherever they are.

Islamic countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran have implemented Sharia as the legal system of the country, but in Britain it has no legal standing, despite the introduction of Sharia-compliant banking and food.

Examples of obligatory laws

• Earnings must be lawfully obtained

• Food must be halal

• Personal hygiene must be of a very high standard

• Couples must have a full bath in flowing water after intercourse

• The body must be covered modestly

• Prayers must be said five times a day

• Believers must fast during Ramadan


By Clare Dwyer Hogg and Jonathan Wynne-Jones, The Telegraph

*******************************************
Sharia is an Arabic word meaning "the right path". The Sharia comes from the Qu'ran, the sacred book of Islam, which Muslims consider the actual word of God. The Sharia also stems from the Prophet Muhammad's teachings and interpretations of those teachings by certain Muslim legal scholars.

Muslims believe that Allah (God) revealed his true will to Muhammad, who then passed on Allah's commands to humans in the Koran.

Since the Sharia originated from Allah, Muslims consider it sacred. Between the seventh century when Muhammad died and the 10th century, many Islamic legal scholars attempted to interpret the Sharia and to adapt it to the expanding Muslim Empire.

The classic Sharia of the 10th century represented an important part of Islam's golden age. From that time, the Sharia has continued to be reinterpreted and adapted to changing circumstances and new issues. In the modern era, the influences of Western colonialism generated efforts to codify it.

Following Muhammad's death in A.D. 632, companions of the Prophet ruled Arabia for about 30 years. These political-religious rulers, called Caliphs, continued to develop Islamic law with their own pronouncements and decisions. The first Caliphs also conquered territories outside Arabia including Iraq, Syria, Palestine, Persia, and Egypt.

As a result, elements of Jewish, Greek, Roman, Persian, and Christian church law also influenced the development of the Sharia.

Islamic law grew along with the expanding Muslim Empire. The Umayyad dynasty Caliphs, who took control of the empire in 661, extended Islam into India, Northwest Africa, and Spain. The Umayyads appointed Islamic judges, kadis, to decide cases involving Muslims. (Non-Muslims kept their own legal system.) Knowledgeable about the Koran and the teachings of Muhammad, kadis decided cases in all areas of the law.

Following a period of revolts and civil war, the Umayyads were overthrown in 750 and replaced by the Abbasid dynasty. During the 500-year rule of the Abbasids, the Sharia reached its full development.

Under their absolute rule, the Abbasids transferred substantial areas of criminal law from the kadis to the government. The kadis continued to handle cases involving religious, family, property, and commercial law.

The Abbasids encouraged legal scholars to debate the Sharia vigorously. One group held that only the divinely inspired Koran and teachings of the Prophet Muhammad should make up the Sharia. A rival group, however, argued that the Sharia should also include the reasoned opinions of qualified legal scholars. Different legal systems began to develop in different provinces.

From this very brief history of the Islamic empire and the development of the Sharia, some scholars argue that the Sharia evolved over time and transformed to meet the needs to society during their respective times. In other words, the Shariah was not static but dynamic.

Other scholars argue that the Sharia was already present during the time of the Prophet and was already fully developed by the time the Prophet died. In other words, this was what was laid down by the Prophet and merely continued after the Prophet died (meaning, the Sharia did not evolve or transform over time). This argument is to support the theory that the Sharia came from God and was not ‘invented’ by man over hundreds of years following the death of the Prophet.

In an attempt to reconcile the rival groups, a brilliant legal scholar named Shafiee systematized and developed what were called the "roots of the law". Shafiee argued that in solving a legal question, the kadi or government judge should first consult the Koran. If the answer were not clear there, the judge should refer to the authentic sayings and decisions of Muhammad. If the answer continued to elude the judge, he should then look to the consensus of Muslim legal scholars on the matter. Still failing to find a solution, the judge could form his own answer by analogy from "the precedent nearest in resemblance and most appropriate" to the case at hand.

This clearly shows that even the scholars themselves could not agree on whether the Sharia is God’s law or man’s creation based on interpretation of the Koran and the teachings (examples) of the Prophet.

There are five laws under the Sharia law. Basically, these are:

1. ibadah (ritual worship)
2. mu'amalat (transactions and contracts)
3. adab (morals and manners),
4. i'tiqadat (beliefs)
5. 'uqubat (punishments).

There are three categories of crimes in Sharia law. These are:


1. qisas
2. hudud
3. tazir.

Qisas involves personal injury and has several categories: intentional murder (first-degree), quasi-intentional murder (second-degree), unintentional murder (manslaughter), intentional battery, and unintentional battery.

A qisas offense is treated as a civil case rather than an actual criminal case. If the accused party is found guilty, the victim (or in death, victim's family) determines the punishment, choosing either retribution (qesas-e-nafs), which means execution in the case of intentional murder, imprisonment, and in some cases of intentional battery, the amputation of the limb that was lost; or compensation (diyya) for the loss of life/limb/injury.

The sharia judge (or, in modern sharia systems like those of Iran or Iraq, the state) can convict for and legally punish only qesas crimes on his own authority. However, the state itself may prosecute for crimes committed alongside the qisas offense. If the victim's family pardons the criminal, in addition to the sharia punishment he would normally receive a tazir prison sentence (such as ten to twenty years in prison) for crimes such as "intentional loss of life", "tazir assault and battery" "disturbance of the peace", and so forth.

The second category of crimes is hudud (or hadd). Hudud crimes are crimes whose penalties were laid down by the Qu'ran and are considered to be "crimes against God". The hudud crimes are:

1. adultery (zina), which includes adultery, fornication, incest/pedophilia, rape, and pimping
2. apostasy/blasphemy
3. defamation (meaning false accusation of any of these things)
4. sodomy/lesbianism (or sodomy rape)
5. theft
6. use of intoxicants (alcohol/drug use)
7. "waging war against God and society" (rebellion)

Hudud, therefore, is merely one part of the very broad laws that come under the Islamic Sharia. However, this appears to be the only focus for debate, in particular in Malaysia.

Thus, the current brouhaha about Hudud is only a small part of a very vast Sharia system. In reality, we already have the Shariah in Malaysia. The only thing we do NOT have yet is the Hudud part of Sharia.

Upon closer inspection, the ISA is worse than Hudud. Under the ISA you can be detained BEFORE you commit a crime. That is why the ISA is called a 'preventive law'. Under the Shariah you CAN'T be punished for a crime you have not committed yet. The Sedition Act, Criminal Defamation, etc. are more draconian than Hudud by far.

If we compare apples to apples, there are many elements of the Sharia which are fairer than common laws, and vice versa of course. So we can't say Hudud is better or common law is better. It all depends on specifics. Maybe the one bone of contention is the punishment for theft (hand cutting). If we resolve that one needling issue then the rest is not that much an issue.

Are we opposed to Hudud because it is 'ISLAMIC LAW" OR BECAUSE IT IS UNJUST?

What if it was not called Hudud or Sharia but called 'Common Law'? Would it be acceptable then? For instance, if the Parliament amends laws that decree the punishment for the crime of corruption is firing squad (like China) but it is not called Shariah/Hudud would that be acceptable?

What if Parliament passed a law that the punishment for rape is castration? But this is NOT Islamic law and the word Hudud would not appear. Would many support it then? I would!

Can we disagree that rapists and murderers should not be punished? In fact, many feel Hudud is not even severe enough and they want it more severe. What many do not realise is that the hand cutting punishment is not an automatic thing. The criminal must first be assessed as to why he or she stole. And if it is because of poverty, then instead of cutting off the thief's hand, he or she has to be put under welfare and be taken care of by the state. In fact, the head of the welfare department instead would be punished for neglecting the poor and destitute that resulted in them having to steal to survive.

The issue is the word ISLAM in that law of Hudud, which, as you can see, is a SMALL part of the Sharia.

So what is really happening in the debate? Is hudud being used again by DSAI to curry favor with PAS and as a leverage against DAP to bargain for seat allocation? He expresses his PERSONAL opinion, and then claims he will consult PKR on it later (read more here).

We cannot afford to be battling on such issues and lose sight of the REAL BATTLE before us - winning the next GE! Politics and religion do not mix. Religion should not be used as a subject for political debates or policy decisions. Nip the problem in the bud before this issue brings about the downfall of PR! Let's keep our focus and fight the real enemy!

I suppose, this is Malaysia for you. Malaysians would debate till the cows come home about the Internal Security Act (ISA) whereas the ISA is just one small part of many things that is wrong with the Malaysian justice system and the Malaysian judiciary.

Written by Raja Petra Kamarudin and Masterwordsmith

*This post was written as a result of a discussion on hudud via Skype chat on 23rd September from 5pm to 7.30pm. Masterwordsmith acknowledges with grateful thanks the guidance and input of RPK on this topic.
___________________
Further reading:

1. Stoning Women to Death in Iran and Afghanistan

不应放过每一个能帮助别人的机会

不应放过每一个能帮助别人的机会



那是一位老师告诉我的故事，让我自己明白在人世间，其实不应该放过每一个能够帮助别人的机会，也许你早已忘记，但这种光，却可以温暖一个个冷漠的心灵。

也许你只付一点点微不足道的爱，就可改变人的一生。星星之火，可以燎原，而且星星之火，也可以照亮人的整个生命，也许就是一个不起眼的瞬间，奇迹发生了。

多年前的一天，这位老师正在家里睡午觉，突然电话铃响了，她接过来一听，里面传来一个陌生粗暴的声音：“你家的孩子偷书，现在被我们捉住了，你快来啊!不然……”

她回头望了一眼正在看电视的唯一女儿，心中立即就明白过来，肯定是有一位女孩因为偷书被售货员抓住了，而又不肯让家人知道，所以，胡扯了一个电话号码，才碰巧到这里。犹豫了片刻之后，她问清了书店的地址，匆匆忙忙赶了过去。

正如她预料的那样，在书店里站着一位满脸泪痕的女孩，而旁边的大人们，正恶狠狠地大声斥责着。她一下子冲上去，将那个可怜的小女孩搂在怀里，转身对旁边的售货员说：“有什么事就跟我说吧，我是她妈，不要吓着孩子，事已经发生了，我们要静心地处理”。

在售货员不情愿的嘀咕声中，她交清了28元的罚款，将小女孩领到家中，好好清洗了一下，什么都没问，就让小女孩离开了。临走时，她还特意叮嘱道：“如果你要看书，就到阿姨这里，里面有好多书呢”。

惊魂未定的小女孩深深地看了她一眼，便飞一般地跑掉了，从此便再也没有出现。

多年以后，有一天中午，门外响起了一阵敲门声。当她打开房门后，看到了一位年轻漂亮的女孩，露着满脸的笑容，手里还拎着一大堆礼物。

“你找谁?”她疑惑地问着，但女孩却激动地说出一大堆话来，原来她就是当年的那个女孩，现在已经大学毕业，特意来看望这位老师。

女孩眼睛泛着泪光，轻声说道：“虽然我至今都不明白，你为什么愿意充当我妈妈，解脱了我，但我总觉得，这么多年来，一直好想喊你一声妈妈”。

老师的眼睛也开始模糊起来，她有些好奇地问道：“如果我不管你，会发生怎样结果呢?”

女孩的脸上变得阴沉起来，轻轻摇头说：“我说不清楚，也许就会去做傻事，……甚至去死?”

老师的心中猛地一颤，望着女孩脸上幸福的笑容，她也笑了。

“但行好事，莫问前程”。从我们自己做起吧。



　

野百合也有属于自己的春天
瞎子老鼠
达真堪布：末法时期要把握听经闻法的机会
只要多说一句话,就能种下很多善果
伸出援助的手
成功属于有心人
机遇有时就差那么一点点
求人办事的技巧
净空法师：要为众生,要为正法久住
一碗白饭的恩情
人与人之间要有一份和敬
口诵而不解其义
伐树取果
还款之德,还子之义
放逸的祸害
傲慢与偏见
用心诚恳
女子出定
紫磨金盘
拔提释王作比丘缘
几位古大德的大悲咒感应
丈夫的木讷
无着得道
救人就是救己
都是归于你
百忍成金

真实的唐三藏--玄奘大师

真实的唐三藏--玄奘大师




曾经统治古代印度的戒日王向全印度发出敕命，命印度知识界、学术界、思想界、宗教界的一切有识之士，共赴曲女城，参加他亲自举办的无遮大会。这个大会是为来自中国的一名僧人举行的。无遮大会，就是无论僧俗、贵贱，一律平等参加的大会。在这个大会上，任何人都可以自由发表自己的见解，只要他得到公众的认可，他就会成为法会之主，从而成为印度宗教界的领袖。这名中国僧人是这个无遮大会的论主。这意味着，他将接受来自个整个印度的所有学有专长，身怀绝技的人们的挑战。古代印度是佛教的发源地，到戒日王时期，佛教得到了充分地发展，高僧辈出，弘法遍及印度各地。在这样的情况下，一名中国僧人要想获得全印度的承认，摘取无遮大会的法主桂冠，谈何容易。

敕命颁布之后，过了近一个月，全印度的有识之士纷纷来到曲女城，参加无遮大会。五印度的十八国王全部到会，著名的印度佛教圣地那烂陀寺也派千余名高僧参加法会。此时，曲女城内人声鼎沸，参加法会的达一万多人。

佛教历史上著名的无遮大会就这样开始了。

按照惯例，这种大会，会期为十八天。在十八天中，只要有人对论主提出的众多论点中的一个论点提出疑问，并能够把它驳倒，论主就必须当场割掉舌头，向众人谢罪。参加大会的众人，也都是带着要向论主提出挑战的想法来到曲女城的。

这位中国僧人将自己所写的包含法相唯识精义的《会宗论》和《制恶见论》用大字书写，高悬于会场之上，接受众人的提问。在这十八天中，印度各地的高明人士向这名中国僧人提出了一个又一个的问题，中国僧人引经据典，侃侃而谈，把这些问题一一做了圆满的解答。

无遮大会结束了。这名中国僧人终于被整印度人所接受，成为来自异邦的佛教领袖。举行大会的戒日王非常高兴，赏赐给参加大会的众人许多财物。又命几个大臣，拿着这名中国僧人袈裟，到各地巡游，演唱宣传，把中国法师在曲女城大会的空前成就宣告众人。这时印度各派僧人共同欢庆，祝贺佛法大兴。大乘教派的僧人们，给这名中国僧人共同加了个称号——“大乘天”；小乘教派则称其为“解脱天”。声誉之隆，无可复加。

这位扬名异域的中国僧人，就是唐初的著名僧人，中国佛教四个译经师之一，被尊为“三藏法师”的玄奘。

玄奘俗姓陈，原名祎，洛州缑氏县游仙乡凤凰谷陈村(今河南偃师县陈河村)人。隋开皇二十年，出生在一个官宦之家，祖上几代，都曾在朝庭为官。祖父陈康，曾做北齐的国子博士，父亲陈惠，也曾任隋朝的江陵县令，后解职还乡玄奘五岁时，母亲即已去世。

玄奘兄弟四人，他排行最末。他的二哥陈素，早年出家，法名长捷。二哥精通佛典，又熟读老庄，人称“释门栋干”。玄奘十岁时，父亲病故。第二年，玄奘随二哥长捷一同到净土寺。

玄奘幼年时就聪明异常。进净土寺后，在哥哥的指导下学习佛经。他聪明好学，十一岁时就能背诵《经摩经》、《法华经》。而且懂得了持律自守。

一天，净土寺的众僧在诵经做功课，时间一长，僧人们就走了神。此时又赶上住持不在，众僧于是放下手中的佛经，谈论起一些有趣的事来。正当众僧谈得兴致浓厚，吵闹声不绝于耳时，只听得有一人高声断喝：

“佛经上不是说过吗？出家人要远离世俗，追求佛法。你们怎么能做这种游戏呢？这真是一种极大的浪费!”

众僧抬头一看，只见他们面前站着一个神色凛然，面容清峻的男孩。众僧都为此而羞愧不已。顿时谈笑之声消失，众僧又认真地读起经来。

此时，东都洛阳大兴佛法，有许多法师到此宣讲佛经。玄奘每讲必听不误，听完之后就认真思索。在众人还对所讲佛经有所疑惑时，玄奘却能够升座讲法，而且解释经理头头是道，众人对他赞叹不已。

炀帝大业末年，饥荒连年，又加上炀帝骄奢淫逸，各地起义不断，天下大乱。洛阳成为当时混乱的中心地区。于是玄奘和哥哥长捷法师离开了洛阳，向西行进。

玄奘和长捷走到长安时，听说京中的道基的道法高深，于是他们前去投奔，住在长安的庄严寺，向道基学习佛法。玄奘的聪明和智慧使道基非常吃惊。道基常叹息说：

“我过去曾经到过许多讲经之处，从来就没有见过如此聪明的少年！”

也就是从这时起，玄奘开始了周游各地，学习佛经的漫漫旅程。

玄奘和长捷在长城听说蜀地比较安宁，且聚集了许多高憎。

他们就沿着当年诸葛亮修建起来的剑阁楼道，历尽千辛万苦，来到成都。到成都时，隋已被大唐所灭。

在成都，玄奘听法师讲阿毗昙论，一听不忘，被当时的人们称为奇迹。玄奘每说出话来，都表达了深刻的佛理，就同修行了多年的高僧一样。婆沙论，杂心论等，在东方流传很广，而且版本众多，每论大约有十多种。玄奘对这些不同的版本都能熟记在心，不会产生丝毫的混乱，而且他能够论述每个版本论述佛理上的得失。众僧对他的超常的智慧感到惊奇。

在蜀地，有一个高僧，名叫景，精通摄论，人们称他为“难加人”。拜他求学的人众多。但他所讲述的摄论之义有十二种之多。他讲经的习惯是，他边讲边让众人修炼阅读。然而经义繁杂，听讲者都感到很混乱，可玄奘一听就记住了，而且没有一点儿错误。当玄奘上座讲述时，引用摄论中的论述不用看书，好象他已研究了很长时间。

武德(唐高李渊的年号)五年，玄奘在成都受了具足戒，正式出家为僧，这时他二十一岁。

玄奘在蜀地遍求佛法，名声大振，但他对此并不满足。他立志要学遍华夏大地，以求得正法。他曾说：

“学经贵在理解经的奥妙之义，重在修持求证。如果只在一个地方学习，是不能求得经的精髓的。”

于是玄奘决定离开巴蜀，去其它各地继续学法。他的哥哥长捷法师深知玄奘的远大志向，对他的决定表示赞同。玄奘辞别众人，沿着大江和峡谷走出巴蜀。沿途走过荆州、杨州，接着又北上燕赵。他先后向道深、慧休等人学习佛法。玄奘每到一处，他的名声就在那里传播。

后来，玄奘又到京师向道岳法常和僧辩学习佛法。在向法常学法时，玄奘一次向他提出了十个问题。这十个问题，个个切中佛经的奥妙之义。玄奘又一次名振京师。

仆射宋萧璃非常佩服玄奘的才华，他奏请皇帝，让玄奘住在庄严寺。这也并非玄奘的本意。玄奘对他说：

“我周游吴蜀，走遍燕赵，历访周秦各地，为的是学习佛法。中国现在流行的佛法，我已蕴藏于胸中。但我国法师，所说义理，往往各执己见，派别分争激烈，对于佛法的流传非常不利。而且各种佛经的译文又欠缺完备。我想亲自读一读那些原始的佛经版本，然后再返回中土来传播。这样才能够使佛法得到振兴。我为此已将生命置之度外，誓死求得正法。”

玄奘于是开始了西去求法的准备工作。他先是在京城各处向各蕃地的人学习他们的语言，接着又向朝庭奏请西行，但没有得到批准。但玄奘并不灰心，而一边静坐修炼，一边等待西去的时机。

贞观（唐太宗年号）三年，霜害成灾。太宗传旨，让百姓自谋生路。玄奘借着这个机会，开始西去求法的艰难而漫长的征程。

玄奘先到姑臧，然后到敦煌。玄奘从敦煌要向西行时，只见眼前沙海茫茫，无边无际。玄奘只得绕道到高昌（今新疆吐鲁番一带)，打算从高昌西行。

这天晚上，高昌王麹文泰领着妃子和众大臣，在殿前等待玄奘的到来，高昌王的母亲也出来迎接玄奘。高昌王信奉佛教，商人和旅客们早把玄奘的名声传到了西域。当他得知玄奘要到高昌时，就亲自来迎候这位来自东土的高僧。

高昌王和众人手举着火把，静静地伫立在大殿的院子里，人们的眼睛都注视通往东方的大道。半夜时分，玄奘进入高昌城。这时，高昌城内，被千万个熊熊燃烧的火炬照得如同白昼。众人簇拥着衣衫褴褛、面色憔悴的玄奘走向大殿。高昌王急忙走上前去，拉住玄奘的手。此时的玄奘，衣衫被流出的汗水浸湿，上面沾满了灰尘。但玄奘神情振奋，两眼炯炯有神。高昌王激动不已：

“久闻大师法名，今日与大师相见，真是三生有幸。”

国母、众王妃以及诸大臣都前来与玄奘相见，高昌城内欢声笑语，人们在欢迎着这位东土高僧的到来。

玄奘向高昌王讲明自己西行的目的，高昌王和众人感动不已。高昌王希望玄奘地高昌呆一段时间，玄奘想到要为继续西行做更充分的准备，就答应了高昌王的请求，在高昌开讲法席。高昌王的母亲非常喜欢这位佛法高深，品行端正的高僧，就认玄奘为自己的儿子，高昌王认玄奘为自己的弟弟。玄奘在高昌给僧俗开讲了仁王等佛经，听讲者塞满了寺庙的院子。他的讲述，条理清晰，能够揭示佛经的微妙含义，听讲的人都说这是前所未闻的。高昌五和众人都希望玄奘留下来，在高昌弘扬佛法。玄奘对高昌王说：

“我离乡背井，不惜生命，是为了西行求得正法。如果我留在此地，求法之愿不能实现，如不让我西行，我宁愿死在此地。”

玄奘为此而三天不食，以示自己的决心。高昌王知道玄奘的志向不可动摇，就答应了玄奘西去的请求。高昌王为玄奘西行进行了充分地准备。高昌王赠给玄奘黄金一百两，银钱三万，绫帛五百匹，作为一路的费用。为了使玄奘路途顺利，高昌又写了二十四封书信，每信附赠绫一匹，给玄奘所要经过的二十四个国家的国王，让他们为玄奘西行提供方便。当时，西突厥叶护可汗的势力遍级大雪山以北六十多国，高昌想到玄奘西行不能没有他的关照。高昌王又特备绫绢五百匹、果味两车，让玄奘带上，做为献给叶护牙的礼物。并让六十人陪同西行。

玄奘要走了，王母和高昌王领着众妃子和大臣为他送行，高昌国的众僧俗也都出来向这位令人尊敬的东土高僧道别，送行的队伍有数里长。人们送了一程又一程，离别的泪水洒了又洒。在将要分手的时候，激动不已的王母上前紧握着玄奘的手，哽咽而语：

“这次与法师相遇，一定是前世结下的因缘。法师如能求得正法，返回东土时一定要到高昌来，为我们讲经说法。……。”

玄奘郑重地点了点头，然后转过身来，向着茫茫的西方毅然走去。

叶护牙因为受高昌王这托，又接受了玄奘带来的丰厚礼物，因而传所属各国，为玄奘西行提供方便。玄奘每到一处，人们往往举城出迎，盛况空前，宛如皇帝出行。

玄奘一行从高昌到铁门，经过了十六个国家；从铁门到印度边境，又经过了十三个国家，这些国家，风土人情各异。路途中，有高山、雪岭、大河。这些国家中，大都信奉佛教，其中有许多佛教的遗迹。

大雪山中有一个梵衍国，国中有僧人几千人，学习小乘佛教的出世部佛法。在都城的北面山中有站立的佛像，高五百一十尺。城中有卧佛像，长一千多尺。城中的寺院用黄金珠宝装饰，庄严华贵，光彩耀眼，人们无不称奇。国中还有佛的牙舍利，有长约五寸的初劫时缘觉者牙齿，还有金轮王的三寸多长的牙齿。又有商那和修(罗汉名)的钵及其九绦衣，九绦衣的颜色仍鲜艳如初。

梵衍国的东面有迦毕试国，国中信佛教的人很多，僧人有六千多，奉大乘教经典。国王每年都要用银铸造佛像，佛像铸成之后，邀请远近各国的人前来观看。国中有如来为菩萨时的牙齿，长约一寸，文有如来的发引，约一尺长，呈螺旋状。

玄奘一行从迦毕试国自东走七百里，到达滥波国，滥波国位于印度的北部。印度是天竺的正名。印度北靠雪山，三面临海，南部地形狭窄如弦月，平原广阔，国境线长达九万里。国境内曾有七十多国家，这些国家时分时合，现在已统一为一个王国。

从滥波国向东走，玄奘到了伽罗曷国。玄奘在此参拜了许多佛教遗迹。佛经中记载的布发掩泥的事就发生在这个地方。国中有佛的头顶骨，周围长三寸，形状仰平，就象天穹一样；还有佛的头骨，形状象荷叶；佛的眼睛，圆而透明，形状象柰许，澄净而富有光彩。还有佛的衣服、佛的锡杖。这五种圣迹同在一城，是伽罗曷国的镇国之宝。这座城北临突厥，过去突厥曾入侵，要抢夺这些佛宝？可每次都不能到达藏宝所在，不得不撤兵回国。

这几件佛宝灵验无比，可以预示人的未来形象。大月支王想知道自己的来世的样子，烧香来拜佛宝，佛宝向他显示马的形象。这当然不符合他的期望。于是月支王大加布施，并忏悔自己的罪过。再次取香观看，佛宝现出狮子的形象。狮子虽是百兽之王，但毕竟还是野兽。月支王于是归依佛门，持守戒律，这时佛宝才向他显示了人的形象。月支王这才回国。使用这种佛宝的惯例是，看王相的人，要花一枚金钱；看自己相的，花十枚金钱。玄奘奉旨前来拜佛宝，所以不必交钱。

玄奘双手执香，虔诚而恭敬地走向佛宝。想到自己历尽艰险，是为求得正法，亲睹佛的遗迹。而今，自己能够去参拜佛宝，怎能不百感交集呢？玄奘恭恭敬敬地向佛宝施了大礼，然后站立一边，注视着佛宝的变化。立刻佛宝显示出前所未有的吉兆，玄奘感动得泪流满面。

玄奘从伽罗曷国到达建驮罗国。国中的佛寺有一千多个，国中的人都信佛教。国都中有钵庙，庙中曾供有如来的钵，现在钵已被移到波斯王宫中供奉。城东有迦腻王大塔，塔基周长达一里米。其中有佛骨舍利一斛，高高地放在塔中，塔的九轮上下共五百尺，象征二十五重天火之灾。这也就是世人所说的雀离浮屠。北魏的灵太后胡氏深信佛教，派僧人道生送来长幡，长达七百多尺，披挂在塔上，一直缠到塔基。塔的旁边还有很多遗迹，如世亲创作俱舍论处、千眼佛眨眼奉双亲处、须大拏太子修菩萨行处、仙裨女乱而转化成鬼处等。阿育王在这些地方都立有标志之塔。

玄奘就这样在佛教的故乡印度的大地上行走着。这个路途中，他克服了无数了无数的艰难险阻，有时甚至是死里逃生。所凭借的，就是他那一颗真心向佛的赤诚之情。

玄奘一行从羯若鞠阇国向东南走二千多里，经过了四个国家。这天，玄奘正带领众人顺着一条河继续行走。忽然，从对面杀出一队人马，他们把玄奘等人团团围住。就听见领头的那个面貌凶恶的家伙说：“哈哈！真是苍天有眼，我正愁找不到祭天的供品，却遇到你们这群秃驴。快，都给我绑上！”玄奘等八十多人被这群人用绳子捆住。

原来，这群人是打家劫舍的贼人，他们正想杀人祭天。贼人在这八十人中挑来挑去，挑中了玄奘做为祭天的供品。贼人在船上设了祭坛，把玄奘放在坛中。他们想先把玄奘生吃一部分，然后再用锅把剩下的那部分煮熟。此时，无人能够解救玄奘。

玄奘面无惧色，他轻轻地闭上眼睛，心里想着慈悲的弥勒佛、如来，暗自发誓说：“如果我的生命还不该结束，那么就请诸佛解救我。如果我的生命已对弘法无用，那么我就死而无憾了。”

同行的众人看见贼人要杀玄奘，他们一齐放声大哭。

突然，河岸的狂风铺天盖地刮来，狂风挟带着沙宿向贼人的船刮去。顷刻间，贼人的船翻了，船上的木板被风吹折，贼人们恐怕地睁大了眼。与玄奘同来的人对贼人说：

“这法师不辞劳苦，历经魔难，就是要专心求法，为边陲的人们谋利益。你们如果杀了他，就会有弥天的大罪，会受到上天的惩罚，我们愿意为他而死。”

贼人听到这话，纷纷扔掉兵刃，以礼相待，对玄奘忏悔自己的罪过，把玄奘等人放走。

玄奘每到一处，都要拜谒当地的佛教遗迹，这些遗迹是先辈的佛家高僧大德们留下的。他们仿佛是要感谢这位来自异邦的虔诚求法者，纷纷向他显现出灵异的瑞像。

在印度中部，有一个摩揭陀国，国中有一座山，名叫伽耶山，世人又称之为名山。这座山是自古国王登临敕封的地方，如来佛离俗成道就是在这个山。在山上有著名的大菩提寺，是狮子国的国王出钱兴建的。此国的十二月三十日，即唐的一月十五日，国人称之为神变日。到这天晚上，会出现吉祥的光，同时天空中会飘下奇异的花，落在树上和院子里。

玄奘来到大菩提寺，看到经书中记载的这些遗迹就在眼前，他感慨颇多。他遗憾自己生在末世，不能亲睹佛的真颜。玄奘觉得，自己虽然见了圣迹，却还没有看到吉祥之景，他决定留下来，以自己的诚心来感动上天，显示吉景。玄奘在寺中打坐修炼，与高僧谈论佛理。一天晚上，玄奘正在听一个居士讲瑜伽师地论，突然，灯灭了，身上佩带的珠宝璎珞都失去了光彩，但却有光明照耀内外，只是不知光明来自何方。居士和玄奘都感到奇怪。他们走出屋子看菩提树，只见一个僧人手拿舍利，大小象人的手指，在树下举着给人看。舍利放出的光，明照天地，众人兴奋不已，远远地向舍利参拜行礼。只到清晨，光才消失。

玄奘在印度境内走过了几十个国家，终于到达他此次西行的目的地——那烂陀寺。

那烂陀寺是印度最大的佛寺，唐人称其为无厌。这个寺院由五个国王共同出资建造，寺庙的供奉丰厚，衣食不愁，因此有“无厌”之称。那烂陀寺有五个院子，五个院子有一个共同的大门，周围有四重内门，外面有三重围墙。院中有水流过，水沟极深，院内种有花，色彩艳丽无比。寺中居住着一万多僧人，全部由国家供养。寺中有无数的佛象和各种各样的佛教遗迹。此国有一个惯例，对于那些德高望重、受人尊敬的法师，国王都要给他们封侯，赏给他们十城。后来逐渐减少赏赐的数量，但也不会少于三城。高僧大德们只在寺中讨论佛学，因而寺中的高僧道法高深。那烂陀寺每年要接收来自各国的学法者。那烂陀寺的住持叫戒贤，年纪已有一百零六岁，其道法高深无比，人称正法藏。正法藏博闻强记，内外大小一切书都能通晓。戒日王把十个城邑的税收全部送给他。

玄奘西行求法的风声早已传到了那烂陀寺。那烂陀的众僧听说玄奘快要到了，先派出四十多人去迎候。玄奘到达寺中的那天，寺中僧人二百人，俗人二千人，推着车，撑着伞盖，拿着鲜花，前去迎接，那烂陀寺内外，人潮如涌，伞盖如云，好象是在欢庆什么重大的节日。众人把玄奘领到寺中，与众僧相见。然后给他安排住处，待遇与寺中大德一样。接着，有人领玄奘前去拜见戒贤。

玄奘走到戒贤的住处，对着高居于座上的戒贤深施一礼。戒贤命就座，然后问道：

“法师从何而来？”

“弟子久闻贵寺大名，从支那而来，欲学瑜珈等论，以期求得正法。”

戒贤听完玄奘的话，忽然掩面而泣。众人面面相觑，都感有些惊异。戒贤好一会儿才住了哭泣，然后又向玄奘施一谢礼：

“感谢法师，前来救我疾苦。我三年前得了病，疼得如同刀割一样，我当想不食而亡，以结束这种难耐的痛苦。就在这时，我梦见有金人对我说：‘你不要死，这种痛苦是对你前世做国王时所做坏事的报应，你应当自我悔过，怎么能死呢？现在有一个支那僧人到此学法，他正在途中，三年后会到这里。你要教给他佛法，然后让他把佛法再传到他的国家去，你的罪就免除了。我是曼殊室利，特地来劝你。'”

戒贤又问玄奘已走了多长时间，玄奘答说三年，这和梦中金人所说完全一致，戒贤此时悲喜交加，再次向玄奘施礼致谢。

那烂陀寺中设有十个“法通三藏”的称号，赐给那些学通经藏的高僧大德，是寺中的最高荣誉，现在已有九个人被授此称号。玄奘来到后，寺中把这一称号授予了他。对法通三藏者，寺中每日给上等佳肴两盘，大人米一升，还有槟榔、豆蔻、龙脑、香乳、酥蜜等。每人有四个净人婆罗侍候，出入乘象，三十个随从。大人米是一种梗米，大得象乌豆一样，做饭时香气可飘百步，只有这里出产。这种米是专供国王和知法者食用的。

玄奘请戒贤给他瑜珈论，和玄奘一起听讲者达数千人，十五个月讲究一遍，第二遍又讲了九个月。此后，玄奘又学习顺理、显扬、对法等经论，并不断地向戒贤请教。对于瑜珈论，玄奘认真研究了五年，朝夕不停。

这天，戒贤收到了统治印度的戒日王的来信。戒日王此时正在讨伐乌茶国的途审，信中说，一个南印度的灌顶师名叫般若毯多，通晓正量部，做了篇百颂的《破大乘论》。许多小乘论师向戒日王推荐此论，要与大乘教决一胜负。戒日王让那烂陀寺派出四个内外大小皆通的论师，到戒日王行军之处，与小乘论师进行辩论。戒贤于是派海慧、智光、师子光和玄奘四人为应辩之人。四人正在做出发的准备，那烂陀寺的外边一片混乱。立刻有僧人向戒贤禀报，有一个顺世外道的人写出了四十条，贴在那烂陀寺的门上，要与那烂陀的僧人进行辩论。并扬言，如果有人能把他驳倒，他就用自己的头来谢罪。他的论证、细密，很难找出破绽。而且寺中众人对这种外道了解得并不很多。众僧对能否可以辩胜表示怀疑，都默然不语，无人出去辩论。这个地方有一个风俗，如双方辩论后，输的一方要骑在驴背上，人们把粪尿从他的头上贯下去，然后在公众面前表示服从，做胜方的奴隶。

玄奘让人把那四十条抄回来，自己认真研究了一番，对众人说：

“我要与他辩论，我们怎么能受他的污辱呢？请诸位给我做旁证。”

经过几番辩论，对方辩解无路，理屈词穷，神情沮丧，立即爬在地上表示降伏。众僧欢呼雀跃，有人要对此人履行前约，把他斩首。玄奘制止道：

“不可。佛法博大宽容，并不主张刑罚。我们要让他接受佛法，就象奴卜侍奉主人那样信奉佛法，这不是很好吗？”

这个外道留在寺中，归依了佛门。找来小乘教论师的《破大乘论》，研究其中时谬误，以备前去论辩之用。玄奘问归依佛门前外道：

“你知道乌茶小乘论师的《破大乘论》吗？”

外道答道句：“曾有所耳闻，我对他们的学说很了解。”玄奘让他讲述了乌茶小乘教的学说，了解其主要的理论。玄奘用大乘教的思想批判乌茶小乘论师的观点，写出了一千六百多颂的《制恶论》，并把它送给戒贤等大德，众大德说这篇论可以横扫天下的敌人，没有人能够阻挡。

玄奘在那烂陀寺研习了五年的佛法，他觉得自己还有很多的东西要学，想留下来继续学习。此时，戒贤对玄笑说：

“学习佛法，贵在交流，独自一人学习是不行的，你应该到其它地方去学一学，不然就会失去良好的时机。然后，你要及早返回你的国家，去弘扬正法。你不惜生命前来求法，难道不是为此吗？智慧是无边的，只有佛才能穷尽它。人的生命就象朝露一样，或早或晚，它是要消失的。你万万不可延迟。”

玄奘从那烂陀寺出发，在印度境内拜谒佛寺，学习道法。他先后经过伊烂拏、三摩呾吒、乌茶、僧伽罗、憍萨罗等国。玄奘在这些国家中，学习道法，参拜遗迹。

在钵伐多国，有几个高僧，学识渊博，可以为师，玄奘在那里停留两年，学习正量部的根本论、摄正法论、成实论等。

在杖林山有一个胜军论师，是刹帝利人，他学遍内外五明，而在林中援徒讲经。从他学法的人日益增多，国王也曾前来拜见他，并封给他城邑，做为供养，玄奘向他学习唯识抉择论、意义论和成无畏论等。一共学习二年。

一天夜晚，玄奘在胜军论师处的寺庙中做梦，他梦见寺院内外和树林被火烧成灰烬，又在梦中见到一个金人，金人告诉他：“十年以后，戒日王一死，印度就会大乱，就象现在燃烧的大火一样。”

玄奘醒来后向胜军说明此事，并下了回去的决心。

玄奘又回到那烂陀寺，向戒贤辞行。戒贤赠给玄类许多经书。玄奘想从北边回国，为的是路经高昌，好实现当年自己的诺言。

玄奘在回国的途中，像来时一样，一边走，一边参拜遗迹，学习佛法，同时他还把自己所学到的佛法在各地弘扬。玄奘又一次在印度的土地上，留下了他光辉的足迹。

在东印度的迦摩缕多国，人们信奉外道。国王童子王事奉天神，喜爱各种各样的道法。只要是富有智慧，他不问正邪，都予以尊敬。玄奘要在此国中，用佛法来扫除外道，因此而开讲法席。听讲者在国王面前称赞玄奘神思敏捷。童子王听后非常兴奋，想面见玄奘。他派人去请玄奘，玄奘推辞再三，才去会见国王。一见面，俩人都觉得似曾相识。二人谈起佛法来，兴致颇浓，忘记了时间。此时，国内有许多外道异术之人在国王的身边，他们要与玄奘辩论，让国王判定，佛法与外道谁优谁劣。外道者和玄奘辩论了不长时间，就全部败下阵来。国王对玄奘更如敬重。当国主问玄奘信奉佛有何益处时，玄奘称如来三身利物，并写了三百颂长的《三身论》赠给国王。中王说，这是他生平未曾看到的，于是他开始全心信佛。

戒日王起初统治的是一个边陲小国羯若鞠阇国。戒日本是佛家的谥号，应是人死之后，据其功德而追赠的。羯若鞠阇国的大德们，在国王刚一扬名天下时，就赠给他戒日的称号，是为了避免死后赠名的虚假不实。当时，势力最大的是商佉王，此人酷虐无道，摧残佛教。他命人拔掉菩提树，毁掉树苗，把三百多名大德活埋，其余的变成奴隶。戒日王在这个时候，准备起兵反对商佉王。戒日王和他的臣子们到拔掉菩提树的地方，对着树地发誓：

“如果我能有幸统一天下，定要重建佛法。希望我佛助我一臂之力，让菩提树从地下长出，以示灵验。”

说完，菩提树就慢慢拱土发芽，坑中长出。戒日王大受鼓舞，立刻带兵前往商佉的住处，一举灭掉商佉。戒日王由此对佛教更加诚信不移，又领着八万象兵，开始了征服整个印度的伟大事业。大军所向披靡，所到之处无不归依。这完全是因为戒日王信奉佛教而产生的威力。戒日王统率的军队不吃肉，每到一处，如果有羊，一定买来送给僧人，供他们食用乳酪。每五年，戒日王都要进行一次大的施舍，把他所收藏的东西全部施舍出去。

玄奘在迦摩缕多国弘扬佛法的事，早已传到了戒日王的耳中。戒日王对这位来自大唐的高僧已仰慕多时。戒日王的臣下对戒日王说:“东面的童子王那里有支那的高僧，大王应该把他请来。”戒日王说:“ 这正是我的想法。我已经邀请过他几次，可他总是推辞不来。” 戒日王再次派使臣前去请玄奘，请童子王把玄奘送来。

童子王命令一支一万人的象兵，乘三万支船，送玄奘与戒日王会面。戒日王与臣下一百多人，领着一万多人顺河东下，去迎接玄奘。只见河面上旌旗飘扬，万人攒动，两支庞大的船队相向而行。犹如两支即将在海上展开恶战的两支舰队，但船上的人们兴高彩烈，精神振奋，显然面临是一件重大的喜庆之事。玄奘与戒日王一见面，戒日王就行大礼参拜。随从的人撒花唱颂，场面庄严而隆重。戒日王对玄奘说：

“弟子以前屡次邀请，大师为何不来呢？”

玄奘说:“我当时学法未成，所以延误了王命。”

戒日王问：“你们国家有个秦王，能征善战，精于歌舞。秦王是一个什么样的人，他的美名为什么会传播得如此遥远呢？”

玄奘答道：“秦王就是大唐现在的天子，是大圣人。他平息动乱，恩泽六方，所以人们都歌颂他。”

“这是天让他做物主啊！”戒日王感叹说。

戒日王请玄奘入宫相谈，玄奘给戒日王讲《制恶见论》。戒日王对他的臣子门说：

“日光出来，烛光就要消失。大师一到，那些佐道都将被击破。”

戒日王说:“此论虽好，可却没有被更多的人所知，我想在曲女城开大会，让五印度的能言善辩和知识渊博的人都到会，让他们都知道这篇论。使邪道从正，众僧舍小乘而从大乘，不是很好的事吗?”

无遮大会就这样，在戒日王的操办下，在印度曲女城召开了。

无遮大会圆满结束后，当时的人们已都承认，玄奘的学识已超过了他的老师戒贤，成为全印度的第一高僧。

玄奘向戒日王请求东归，戒日王让他主持了七十五天的大施场。此事完毕后，玄奘再次请求回国。戒日王命所属部下送玄奘出境。戒日王赠给数万金钱和许多头青象。这种象，形体圆大，高约三丈，长约二丈多，上面可坐八人，并放置一些物品。象行走起来，就象空身而行，坐在象背上感到很安稳，不会掉下来。玄奘不想接受金钱和青象。诸僧都劝玄奘留下青象。

“这是佛法兴盛的象征。自佛涅槃以来，各国国王虽崇敬佛法，布施种种物品，但还没有听说有赐给青象的事，因为青象是极为珍贵的国宝。现在戒日王赠给您青象，说明国王对您崇敬至极。”

玄奘于是收下青象。因为青象形体大，每天要吃四十多个草料饼，又三斛料。戒日王为此下令所属各国，要随供给玄奘草料。

戒日王等十八国国王，都来相送，执手垂泪，依依惜别。

此后的路程，玄奘昼夜兼程，极少休息。经过了卑利、于活、摩悉铁、商弥、竭盤陀、乌锻、于遁等国。途中的劳苦艰辛自不必说。

玄奘在越过葱岭后，就派人上书太宗皇帝。

贞观(太宗年号) 十九年正月二十四日，京城西郊，人流始涌，僧俗摩肩接踵，几十万人聚集在这里，迎接从西土取经归来的玄奘。从旧城西到京城朱雀门二十多里的道路上，站满了人。道路被阻，玄奘无法进城，只得在郊外的馆驿中休息。虔诚的人们守在馆外，通宵站立。

玄奘第二天把带来的经书、佛象送往弘福寺。京城中众僧竞相列帐支车，帮助玄奘运送。人声鼎沸，甚嚣尘上。天空一轮明日的周围，出现了彩色的云朵，佛像放射出红白相间的轮光。众人对此赞叹不已。从午时佛像入弘福寺的晡时，瑞像一直存在。

京中万民因玄奘回都而停业五天，众多的人归依佛门。对玄奘的隆重迎接，可以说是千古罕见。

那时，太宗正在洛阳。玄奘就从京都到了洛阳。玄奘把各国带来的奇珍异宝进献给太宗，太宗请玄奘入宫，与他见面。太宗与玄奘在宫中促膝交谈，从卯时一直谈到酉时，并不觉得时间过了很长。等到敲响出征的战鼓时，才结束了谈话。当时，太宗正带兵去讨伐辽左的叛乱。太宗请玄奘与他同行，玄奘因旅途劳累，又加上要翻译佛经，因而推辞不去。太宗传旨给留守京城的梁国公房玄龄，让他派人保护玄奘，且供给一切费用。

接着，玄奘又上表太宗，请求翻译佛经之事，并要选择贤能的人和他一同翻译。太宗说：

“法师唐梵皆通，词理通敏，恐怕再找的人，也是孤陋寡闻之徒，他们是不适于翻译圣典的。”

玄奘说:“过去二秦之时翻译佛经，门徒有三千人。即使是这样，还恐怕后代无人知晓佛典，而去信奉邪道。如果现在不召集许多有贤能的人同时翻译，仅凭我一个人的为量是不行的。”后来，玄奘又多次奏请，太宗批准了。

玄奘返回京城后，密集僧人慧明、灵润等为证义，沙门行友、玄赜等为缀缉，沙门智证、辩机等为录文，沙门玄模为证梵语，开始的中国佛教史上规摸空前的佛经翻译事业，先翻译了《太菩萨经》二十多卷，接着又翻译了《显扬圣教论》二十卷，《大乘对法论》十五卷，稍有空闲，又翻译了《西域传》十二卷。此后又译了《佛地六门神呪》。

从前代以来，翻译经文，大都是先谈梵文经典，然后根据对梵文经的理解，再写成汉文。这种汉文经书，和原来的经书相比，增添的或丢失的东西很多。现在玄奘却是从梵文直接译出，意义和原经相符。玄奘翻译佛经，出口成章，录者随写就行。吴魏时所翻译的经书，只是看重梵文的表面形式，注重文词的钩锁联类和重叠布置。这样译成的经书，显得冗长繁杂。玄奘因此让词工做贯通词义和节俭文字的工作，译出的经书语言简练而意义完备。

太宗讨贼回到京城后。玄奘上表，请太宗为所译经书写序。太宗说：

“法师您行为高洁，已出于尘世之上，泛宝舟而登彼岸。我才能浅薄，对俗事尚且不能通达，何况是玄妙的佛理呢?”

玄奘认为，弘扬佛法，必须借助帝王之力。因此，玄奘又再次上表：

“奉您的旨意和奖喻，我才得以翻译佛经，传播佛法。我本来学识浅陋，却有幸参拜九州高僧，向他们学习佛法，又凭着您的英名而远涉他国学习佛法。弘扬佛法，所依赖的是朝庭的教化。我从天空得到的经论，奉旨翻完，只是还没有序。陛下您的智慧如白云遮日，英才超越千古，威名高过百王。我认为佛法无边，不是具有神思的人，不能够解释它的道理，圣教玄远，不是圣人的文词，是不配序写它的来源的。所以我敢冒犯您的威严，让您为圣经做序。帝王之言影响深远，您就不要再谦虚了。教化众生在于日积月累，如果只是观望等待，就会失去时机。”

玄奘上表之后，太宗答应为他作序。太宗对附马高履行说:“你以前曾请我为你的父亲写碑文。但我现在的气力已不如从前，我要给玄奘法师作序，不能给你的父亲写碑文了。你要理解我的用意。”太宗在明殿写出了中国佛教史上著名的《大唐三藏圣教序》。

序文写成后，太宗让弘文馆学士上官仪对群臣朗读此序。百官听后，纷纷称赞。玄奘又上表谢太宗。

从此，朝庭众臣纷纷读经，佛法得到空前弘扬。玄奘经常被留在宫中，皇帝不断向他询问佛法。玄奘仍继续翻译佛经，为的是不错过这个好时机。太宗赐给玄奘云纳一领，又传旨让天下寺院，各自再度五人出家。皇帝在京城东北造弘法院，让玄奘长住其中，又在曲池为文德皇后建慈恩寺，让玄奘成为住持，并度三百人到寺中。又在慈恩寺的西北建翻经院，送给他新出家的弟子十五个。唐高宗永徽二年，玄奘上表请求建梵本佛经台，得到批准。

高宗显庆元年正月，为皇太子在慈恩寺设大斋，朝中众臣都来到寺中。黄门侍郎薛元超、中书郎李义府说:“译经是佛法中的大事，但不知我们这些人在这中间有什么用呢?”

玄奘说:“你所问的，也是许多人所感到疑惑的。译佛虽是僧人的事，但它最终要凭借朝中权贵的力量。就象前秦时鸠摩罗什依靠安成侯姚嵩、元魏时菩提流支依靠侍中崔光禄，贞观初年波颇译经，仆射萧瑀、太府萧琼、庶子杜生正伦等为他阅稿一样。现在没有这些人，弘扬佛法就会受到阻碍。又承蒙圣上在大慈恩寺中发慈悲之心，建造了壮丽辉煌的寺院。要赞美这种德行，最好的方法是把它刻写在碑上，使之流传后代。现在二公相问，我想如果做了这二件事，就会流芳于古今了。” 二人答应了这两件事。第二天早晨，皇帝派人来传旨，说所需帮助译经的大臣己安排好了，立碑的碑文皇帝亲自撰写。

玄奘自从东归之后，就积极致力于翻译佛经和弘扬佛法。有生之年，玄奘共译佛经七十三部一千三百三十卷, 成为中国佛教史上的四大译经师之一。玄奘又充分借助帝王之力，使佛法的弘扬空前绝后。

玄奘入佛门以来，总是希望自己能够死后升往弥勒天。在游西域时，他又听说无著兄弟都升到了弥勒天，于是他更加频繁地发愿请求，每次都有所感应。

高宗麟德元年，玄奘告诉和他一起翻译的僧人和弟子:

“有为之法都是会灭的幻影，形体这种虚幻的东西是不能长久的。我到六十五岁时，一定会死的，现在谁有问趣，可速来问。”

“年纪未到耆耋，为什么要这样说呢?”听到人惊奇地问。

玄奘答道:“此事我自己知道。”

玄奘于是前去向佛像告别。有门人要外出的，玄奘对他们说:“你去吧，我现在就与你告别了。你再也不用来见我了，来了也见不到我。”

正月九日，玄奘告诉寺中的僧人：

“我要死。经里说，身体是可恶的，就象死狗一样。我死已后，把我的尸体在接近官寺的安静之处下葬。”

说完就躺下来，闭眼睁眼，只看到大莲花，鲜艳洁白，又看到自己高大的身相。玄奘知道是自己将要升天的时候了。玄奘让僧人们读他所翻译佛经的名称，他感到很欣慰。玄奘把寺中门人全部召集起来说:“无常将近，快来相见。”并在嘉寿殿的香木上挂菩提像，向它施礼，并再次向众僧告辞，而且留下了给皇帝的表奏。然后他自日默念弥勒，让旁边的人人念：

“南无弥勒如来应正等觉，愿与含识速奉慈颜；南无弥勒如来所居内众，愿舍命以必生其中。”

到二月四日，玄奘右手支头，身体侧卧，寂然不动。门人问他:“这是什么姿式呢?” 玄奘说:“不要问，妨碍我的正念。”五日中夜，弟子问:“和尚一定能生弥勒天吗?”玄奘回答说:“一定能。”说完就断了气。玄奘死后两个月，尸体形色如常。

玄奘死后，皇帝下诏入葬，并让京中僧尼制作幢盖前往送行。只见送葬的队伍中，素盖白幢，如白云浮动，哀乐之声响彻云霄，令人神动。四俗为他悲痛，七众对他的死表示惋惜。玄奘下葬在白鹿原，在方圆四十里的地方，僧俗两众充满其间。后来，皇帝又下诏把玄奘改葬于樊川，把玄奘的尸体从地下抬出来，其面色就象没死时一样。众人叹奇异。如果玄奘不是愿力持久之人，怎么能这样呢?

玄奘默默地来到世上，轰轰烈烈地过了一生，在华夏文明史上留下了光辉的一页。


看下一篇:[佛教故事] 看上一篇:不应放过每一个能帮助别人的机会 卍文章欢迎转载流通 卍站长QQ:345888863
把这篇文章添加到收藏夹分享到QQ空间分享到新浪微博分享到百度空间腾讯微博百度搜藏开心网人人网复制网址
　

莲宗祖师颂
认识圣严法师
一次施舍的福德
本焕长老与印顺法师开解众生疑惑
圣严法师的学思历程
明证法师简介
演培法师《弘一律师对地藏菩萨的礼赞》
净慧法师《心经与玄奘法师的殊胜经历》
为法忘躯的玄奘大师
荣辱不惊的老子
法照大师得文殊菩萨开示念佛法门
凤凰卫视与苏州弘化社采访传印长老
虚云老和尚《上海玉佛寺禅七开示》
海涛法师《历代祖师念佛开示菁华》
海涛法师《历代祖师大德谈放生》
对「攀缘」意义的误解
一休晒经
染布的譬喻
宁搅千江水,莫动道人心
只要有力气、有想法，幸福一定会来临
几位古大德的大悲咒感应
改变一生命运的微笑
渡河
茶杯与茶壶
同学聚会聚的是什么
亲自去咀嚼
哑和尚悲心掘井除干旱
最重要的时光和最重要的人
世上两种人
挂着花鬘的羊

916 NINE ONE SIX

I turned on the TV and listened what PM DS Najib for repealing the draconian yet protective law - ISA (1960), Printing Act - for its gross approval instead of yearly renewal. Najib chose this time to announce the above. Its not coincident and accidental, especially the coming of GE soon.

Najib demonstrated a galvanized yet forward looking performance on political reforms. Some may say Najib has acted differently from what Dr Mahathir's reacted. For a 2nd generation and leading to the third generation - thus comparing with their predecessors; different social condition and political environment depicts the decision.

Najib has demonstrated a paradigm shift - the transformation program - that inducing the sector to participate actively while the government involves only in modeling the activities. At the time of the reading of the statement, he is still not sure what to do to improve the living standard by increasing the living quality and to reduce the cost of living.

Najib has forgotten the way and which it has spent their monies in modeling the change. It has never sat down as the Selangor Government did - to improve the country balance of payment, the current account position and sectoral improvement.

Najib has denied the trend of cost reduction by changing the platform of working. Eg ... Most offices in Putrajaya cost dearly to maintain. Well, with a country of only 28 million population, its not eligible if we spend such heavy expenses...

The expectation of the people - to live a better life via reasonable cost of living and moderate quality of life. They do not want a nice and elegance buildings in Putrajaya. They are not interested in how proudly they are when the ministers shows the Putrajaya offices to the neighboring colleagues. Its not Najib's fault of the heavy expenses due by the heavily previous spending. Mahathir decided it during the 90s. It was part of the plan, to coincide with the refreshing of capital facelift. It was necessitous to work on the change - remodelled the country from an agricultural and under developed nation to an organized, developed and modern nation. Mahathir has forgotten, being the hardware modeling, it should coincide with the change in mindset, the paradigm shift, and in short the change of living method.

For instance, its no longer work with the way such as cover up and cover up; and shoot down the opposition. Instead, the administrator/ministers should listen to the views of their opposition. Someone has claimed that the repealing of ISA - a proposal of the opposition. And Najib should not do what the opposition said. That it will lose face over it...My opinion, Najib do what must and what want.

Barisan Nasional is determined to "fight back"....
And this time, they are more willing to listen to the people...
They are not acting as "Administrator" and instead they are more friendly now...
Anyway, its too late to change now. Because everyone has changed their mind.

The people change their mindset. They believe in the fairness, cleaner and more transparent management system. They want a change in management style from bureaucratic to a moderate yet dynamic system. They demand a people orientated government. They demand a change of facelift - from the racial polarized to racial(less) society.

/to be continued ....hahaha hahahahah

大清王朝灭亡的三大原因

大清王朝灭亡的三大原因
by Kc Chia on Friday, September 16, 2011 at 3:56pm
近来，国内网上流传民国时跨越政学两界著名学者于右任的一篇文章——《亡国三恶因》，于右任列有三点大清必然会灭亡的原因。于右任先生的《亡国三恶因》发表于《民立报》上，全文百余字，至今已近百年，如今重读此文，深感当年于右任之远见卓识，确非常人所能及。好在文章长，现录全文如下，以供人们分析研究。

民穷财尽，社会破产，国家破产。
国有金，吝不与人，为他人藏。此其一。

善不能举，恶不能退，利不能兴，害不能除。
化善而作贪，使学而为盗。此其二。

宫中、府中、梦中，此哭中、彼笑中，
外人窥伺中、霄小拨弄中，国际侦探金钱运动中，
一举一动，一黜一陟，堕其术中。此其三。

以上于右任所说三点，非常具体而清楚地说明了清王朝灭亡的原因。其实不只是清王朝，任何一个政权，无论他多么貌似强大，只要具备了上述三点，决不会逃出灭亡的命运。

第一，说的是老百姓贫穷，读不起书，看不起病，住不起房，物价飞涨，社会呈败落之象。老百姓为什么贫穷？因为”国有金，吝不与人”，财富不往普通人手里流动，国家与民众争利。财产归权贵私有，日夜不停地盗卖国家资源。劳苦民众虽竭尽劳作，所得不足以维持生计，两极分化严重。

第二，行善的不能受到褒扬，作恶的不能受到制止，社会道德急剧下滑。官员虽多，但不作为，忙于吃喝嫖赌，聚敛财富，使”利不能兴，害不能除”.善恶本人兼而有之，好的社会制度能使坏人变好，坏的社会制度却把好人变坏。所以于右任说”化善而作贪，使学而为盗”，其实都是制度造成的。其中的”化”、”使” 两个动词很生动地说明了官员普遍贪腐、社会道德败坏原因。

第三，说的是腐败政权只能用卖国的手段来维持自己的统治。贫富不均、两极分化、财产聚于权贵之家，才会有”此哭中、彼笑中”的现象。”外人”指列强，”窥伺”中华大地，伺机捞起好处；”霄小”指内奸，挑动拨弄，出卖国家利益。搞金钱外交，用通商拉拢外国政要”助纣为虐”，维持其祸国殃民的统治。” 侦探”渗透国外华人社区，”金钱”收买外国政要，甚至行为举止，罢免升迁，都以金钱利益为动因，用这样方法维持其统治岂能不使社会败亡？

于右任从以上三点看到了一个政权必然灭亡的趋势，结果被他说中了，这篇文章发表后不到一年，貌似强大无比，繁荣昌盛的满清”盛世”就轰然倒台了。

月晕而风，础润而雨，君子见微而知著。如果不能根据一些现象而分析出时局的走势，知识分子也就徒具”知识”之名。鼠目尚有寸光，动物尚能在大难来临之际有所警觉，现在一些号称有知识的”饱学”之士，眼睛只盯在利益上，想到的就是自己一家人的幸福安逸，甚至连”鼠目寸光”都不能做到，连动物本能都不具备，就更不用说象于右任一样为时局把脉了。

世界上的事情就是这样奇怪，有些东西你越是想得到，就越是得不到。那些只顾眼前利益，甚至为了一点利益出卖人格良心的人，为独裁者唱赞歌，到头来不仅得不到想要的利益，还会把自己搭进去，落得个身败名裂的下场。同样，当政者迷恋特权，以为只要牢牢掌握暴力和谎言，就能使江山永固，子孙万代永享奴役别人的幸福，这样做的结果只能得到接受民众审判的下场。