MARCH 21 — The Lincoln and Douglas Illinois senatorial race of 1858 may be an odd place to begin a discussion about the collapsed effort to enforce a Generational End Game (GEG) here in 2023, but hear this out.
3 月21 日--以1858 年林肯和道格拉斯在伊利諾伊州的參議員競選開始討論2023 年在這裡實施"世代終結遊戲"（GEG）的崩潰努力，可能是一個奇怪的地方，但請聽我一一道來。
That contest between two behemoths of pre-civil war America was seen as a precursor to the presidential election two years later.
內戰前美國兩大巨頭之間的這場較量被視為兩年後總統大選的前奏。
But far more radical, it provided a series of debates about slavery, over a century and half before Abolition in the United States. It was and still is a provocative yet succinct method to examine social progression — when to have it.
但更激進的是，在美國廢除奴隸制之前的一個半世紀，它提供了一系列關於奴隸制的辯論。它過去是，現在仍然是一種具有挑釁性的、簡潔扼要的審視社會進步的方法--何時擁有它。
Enforce social change when people are ready or to force it upon them on the basis it is a moral decision?
是在人們準備好的時候實施社會變革，還是在人們做出道德決定的基礎上強行實施社會變革？
Stephen A. Douglas felt citizens have to be brought along when possible but by large the collective will must be respected.
史蒂芬-A-道格拉斯（Stephen A. Douglas）認為，在可能的情況下，必須讓公民參與進來，但總的來說，必須尊重集體意願。
Abe Lincoln had no doubt that the curse of slavery had to end even if voters opposed hard shifts and therefore denied him elections.
林肯毫不懷疑奴隸制的詛咒必須終結，即使選民反對艱難的轉變，並因此剝奪了他的選舉權。
The sheer repugnance of slavery in any era notwithstanding, the argument on whether to enforce morality on citizenry is fraught with landmines.
儘管奴隸制在任何時代都令人深惡痛絕，但關於是否對公民實施道德規範的爭論卻充滿了地雷。
Malaysia’s GEG proposal inspired by New Zealand’s 2022 success was designed to get the moral support of 222 MPs rather than factor how voters reacted to it, let alone gather their support.
受紐西蘭2022 年成功的啟發，馬來西亞提出了"GEG "提案，旨在獲得222 名國會議員的道德支持，而不是考慮選民的反應，更不用說爭取他們的支持了。
The intention? To stop the future smoking whether it likes it or not. Because it is the right thing, to have a society that does not smoke and does not burden the health system RM5 billion annually.
目的是什麼？讓未來的人不再吸煙，不管他們喜歡與否。因為這是一件正確的事情，一個不吸煙的社會不會給衛生系統帶來每年50 億令吉的負擔。
This column previously expanded on the principle contradiction to punish future voters but not to burden present voters with the same demand as hypocritical. It’s rich to have moral pretensions for our children but not ourselves.
本專欄先前曾闡述這樣一個原則性矛盾：懲罰未來的選民，卻不給現在的選民增加負擔，這樣的要求是虛偽的。對我們的孩子有道德要求，卻不對自己有道德要求，這是很富有的。
Unsurprisingly, New Zealand last year removed its crown as the first country to ban future generations smoking when its new government announced measures to reverse the policy.
不出所料，紐西蘭新政府去年宣布了扭轉這項政策的措施，因此摘掉了第一個禁止後代吸菸國家的桂冠。
If Malaysia did not decouple GEG from the Control of Smoking Products for Public Health Bill 2023, then it will today be the only country in the world to ban future generations smoking.
如果馬來西亞不將GEG 與《2023 年公共衛生吸菸產品管制法案》脫鉤，那麼它將成為當今世界上唯一禁止後代吸菸的國家。
在政府嘗試大膽的措施（如在一代人的時間內完全禁煙）之前，它可能需要先維護現有的規則。 - 圖片：Farhan Najib
Legislation without engagement is trouble
沒有參與的立法是麻煩
The usual way to make fun of despotic nations is to poke fun at their laws. Sudan imprisons its homosexuals up to eight years, and North Koreans are required to vote in elections despite only one name on the roll.
取笑專制國家的通常方式是嘲笑他們的法律。蘇丹將同性戀者囚禁長達八年，而北韓人儘管只有一個名字，卻必須在選舉中投票。
They are punching bags for functioning democracies.
它們是正常運作的民主國家的出氣筒。
Those democracies take pride in how social progress faces greater rigour. If it is right then it should be done right, not forced through.
這些民主國家對社會進步如何面對更嚴格的要求感到自豪。如果是正確的，就應該正確地去做，而不是強行通過。
Seed the idea, encourage public discourse about it with the role of media, and stage by stage means test it. Just because it is slower it is not inferior. Laws are respected more if they emanate from the people rather than laid thick on the people.
播撒想法的種子，利用媒體的角色鼓勵大眾討論，並透過階段性手段進行測試。不能因為速度慢就低人一等。如果法律源自於人民，而不是強加於人民，就會得到更多尊重。
To circumvent the people and to decide purely at forums like Parliament is disingenuous. Which is how GEG was intended to be passed in Malaysia, through MPs and not the people.
繞過人民，純粹在議會這樣的論壇上做出決定是不誠實的。在馬來西亞，透過國會議員而不是人民來通過GEG 就是這樣的意圖。
The adage that people vote in politicians and therefore should trust their judgement is true to a point. MPs cannot refer back to their voters daily to know their thoughts on Bills and resolutions in select committees and floor debates.
人們投票選舉政治家，因此應該相信他們的判斷，這句諺語在某種程度上是正確的。國會議員無法每天向選民了解他們在專責委員會和會場辯論中對法案和決議的想法。
Any voter can write in, and that voter’s view would be considered but MPs are not in a position to canvas views for everything, they’d end up spending their time asking voters rather than legislating in the Dewan Rakyat.
任何選民都可以寫信，選民的意見會被考慮，但國會議員不可能事無鉅細地徵求意見，他們最終會把時間花在詢問選民上，而不是在民聯中立法。
But when there are monumental decisions which alter society profoundly, then the people need to be actively engaged.
但是，當做出深刻改變社會的重大決定時，人民就需要積極參與。
In the GEG instance, none of the three coalitions involved bothered to ask the Malaysian people their opinion specifically about it? I’d wager more than half the country is ignorant about GEG, let alone possess opinions about it.
在GEG 事件中，三個相關聯盟中沒有一個去詢問馬來西亞人民對此的具體意見？我敢打賭，全國有一半以上的人對GEG 一無所知，更不用說對此有什麼看法了。
Was there a government survey?
政府是否進行過調查？
Or better, at the next general election add a GEG referendum. That would better guide our MPs.
或者最好在下一次大選時增加一次GEG 全民公投。這將更好地指導我們的國會議員。
The failure to bring people on board
未能讓人們參與進來
The government has made it illegal to smoke in public spaces, like bars, restaurants and mamak since January 1, 2019.
自2019 年1 月1 日起，政府規定在酒吧、餐廳和mamak 等公共場所吸煙為非法行為。
More than five years later, it's lip service only.
五年多過去了，這只是嘴巴說說而已。
This column is presently written in a bar with smoking patrons. The memo never reached them. Half a decade later, they are oblivious they are breaking the law.
本專欄是在一家有吸煙者的酒吧寫的。他們從未收到備忘錄。半年過去了，他們仍然對自己的違法行為渾然不覺。
They don’t care. The bar staff certainly don’t since they place ashtrays on each table. The owners long ago forgot about the rule. Perhaps with the same minister, Dzulkefly Ahmad, back in the portfolio, the health ministry will look at more practical gains for the rakyat by enforcing smoke-free zones before grandstanding with generational bans.
他們根本不在乎。酒吧的工作人員當然也不在乎，因為他們在每張桌子上都放了煙灰缸。店主們早就忘了這項規定。也許在同一位部長Dzulkefly Ahmad 重掌部長一職後，衛生部在譁眾取寵地頒布世代相傳的禁令之前，會考慮透過實施無菸區來為人民帶來更多實際利益。
At the mamak, where infringers fervently seek to break personal stick per day records.
在mamak，侵權者熱衷於打破個人的每日點擊記錄。
At the MRT bus stop, where Rapid KL drivers between shuttle drives puff away so commuters can fully access secondary smoke.
在地鐵巴士站，吉隆坡捷運公司的司機在穿梭巴士間隙時會抽一口煙，讓乘客充分享受二次煙霧。
Long before the government tries bold measures like completely ending smoking in a generation it may want to cut its teeth by upholding the present rules first.
在政府嘗試大膽的措施，例如在一代人的時間內徹底禁煙之前，不妨先從維護現有規則入手。
The rules are a basis to promote public discourse.
規則是促進公共討論的基礎。
New Zealand’s failed GEG arrived 18 years after they banned smoking in public spaces, just like Malaysia.
紐西蘭和馬來西亞一樣，在公共場所禁煙18 年後才開始實施失敗的GEG。
The major difference being in New Zealand it is respected, and in Malaysia, not at all.
主要區別在於，在新西蘭，它受到尊重，而在馬來西亞，則完全不受尊重。
For us not to do the basic, like battle people who resist public smoking rules but instead opt for a catch-all law is bizarre.
我們不做最基本的工作，例如與抵制公共場合吸煙規定的人戰鬥，卻選擇制定一項包羅萬象的法律，這太奇怪了。
Generations in motion 運動中的世代
It happens a lot. Father walks with child in tow, casually smoking while fulfilling his parental role.
這種情況經常發生。父親牽著孩子走在路上，一邊履行父母的職責，一邊隨意地抽著煙。
Many Malaysians are unaware that small children with small lungs suck in more second-hand smoke from parents. Nor do they care if the man next to their table puffs away, blowing ring shapes as halos for their children.
許多馬來西亞人不知道，肺部小的孩子從父母那裡吸入的二手菸更多。他們也不在意鄰桌的人是否在吸二手煙，為他們的孩子吹出環形光環。
Here is where the government has to act. Not handcuff parents or take children away from them, but to confront those parents or patrons, inform them, and warn them of such behaviour. These are uncomfortable conversations, and often end confrontational.
這就是政府必須採取行動的地方。不是給家長戴上手銬，也不是把孩子從他們身邊帶走，而是與這些家長或顧客面對面，告知他們並警告他們不要有這種行為。這些談話會讓人感到不舒服，而且往往以對抗告終。
The path to normalise discussions about smoking begins with restricting it first.
要使吸煙討論正常化，首先要限制吸煙。
Ending it in our society is a long way off.
要在我們的社會中杜絕這種現象，還有很長的路要走。
A focus on an improbable immediate end dampens efforts to practical first steps which lead to eventual erosion of the smoke culture. One is fanciful, and the other a firm path to change, though eventually.
如果只專注於不可能實現的近期目標，就會削弱邁出切實可行的第一步的努力，最終導致煙霧文化受到侵蝕。一個是幻想，而另一個則是堅定的改變之路，儘管最終會改變。
Or more pointedly, between the two, one can save or extend lifespans of people, and the other is only good for virtue-signalling.
或者更確切地說，在這兩者之間，一個可以拯救或延長人們的壽命，而另一個只能用來宣揚美德。
* This is the personal opinion of the columnist.
* 這是專欄作家的個人觀點。
