Stop%2BRestoration%2Bof%2BMahathirism.png

Bersatu padu, mempertahankan reformasi demokrasi tulen, buangkan khayalan, menghalang pemulihan Mahathirism.

Stop%2BRestoration%2Bof%2BMahathirism.png

Bersatu padu, mempertahankan reformasi demokrasi tulen, buangkan khayalan, menghalang pemulihan Mahathirism.

 photo 2019.png

人民之友恭祝各界2019新年进步、万事如意!在新的一年里,联合起来,坚持真正的民主改革! 丢掉幻想,阻止马哈迪主义复辟!

 photo 2014-03-08KajangByElectionPC.jpg

2014年加影州议席补选诉求 / Tuntutan-tuntutan Pilihan Raya Kecil Kajang 2014

 photo mahathir_PRU14_1.png

人民之友18周年(2001—2019)纪念,举办一场邀请4名专人演讲的政治论坛和自由餐会,希望通过此论坛激发更多的民主党团领导、学者、各阶层人士,共同为我国民主改革运动做出更大的努力和贡献。

 photo LimChinSiongampArticle.jpg

林清祥《答问》遗稿片段

 photo 513StudentMovement.jpg

新加坡“5•13学生运动” 有/没有马共领导的争论【之一】与【之二】

 photo the-new-phase-of-democratic-reform-reject-state-islamization.jpg

马来西亚民主改革的新阶段 / The New Phase of Democratic Reform in Malaysia / Fasa Baru Reformasi Demokratik di Malaysia

 photo Bannerv2blue_small.jpg

 photo Banner%2BForum.jpg

 photo Banner_WorkReport2016.jpg

人民之友为庆祝15周年(2001—2016)纪念,在2016年9月上旬发表了最近5年(2011—2016)工作报告(华、巫、英3种语文),并在9月25日在新山举办一场主题为“认清斗争敌友,埋葬巫统霸权”的论坛。

 16 Anniversary.PNG

人民之友16周年纪念,针对即将来临的全国大选发表专题文章,供给我国民间组织和民主人士参考,并接受我国各族人民民主改革实践检验。

509.png

人民之友根据2017年9月24日发表的《人民之友 对我国第14届大选意见书 》的内容与精神以及半年来国内和国外的政治形势,对5月9日投票提出具体意见,供全国选民参考。

Hindraf.png

《人民之友》2019年国际劳动节发表对2007年兴权会游行示威的重要领袖乌达雅古玛(Uthayakumar)的专访(第一部分)。这次专访的主题是:兴权会的主要斗争对象乃是马来霸权统治集团。

Wednesday, 30 July 2008

308人民要求改革风暴

作者/杨培根 Jul 30, 2008 11:37:34 am

http://www.merdekareview.com/news.php?n=7312

按:本文是作者以柔佛州人民之友工委会代表的身份本月12日应邀出席砂拉越民主行动党美里支部庆祝火箭登陆砂州30周年纪念晚会的演讲部分内容。

【培根说法/杨培根专栏】2008年3月8日第12届全国大选,人民要变天,选民面对执政党百般刁难,仍不怕威迫利诱,把五州政权交到人民联盟手中,包括最富有的三州(槟城、雪兰莪、霹雳)。吉隆坡联邦直辖区12个国议席中的11席,也落入民联手中。严格说来,联邦管治的吉隆坡也是由民联执政了。

沉睡了几十年的人民觉醒了,其力量锐不可挡。执政党被自己严密控制的大众媒体蒙在鼓里,在野党这边厢也几乎没察觉到:人民已行动起来,要求大改革,而不仅仅是满足于打破国阵的国会三分之二多数议席的垄断而已。

有人把这次“人民要求改革大风暴”形容为“政治海啸”,另一些人则认为这是一场“大地震”。“海啸”或“大地震”确实具有很大的破坏性,这些是贬义的词语。对执政党国阵来说,这次的政治风暴的确起着摧毁性的作用,就像一场海啸或大地震那样,震撼了他们的根基。

但 是,对广大人民来说,这次人民要求改革,是件天大好事。这些贬义的词语,用在争取公平、正义、民主人权的广大人民身上,似乎不大恰当。所以,对人民来说, 应采用较具有鼓舞性质的正面字眼,如:“人民要求改革风暴”等类似较为正面的词语;比起“海啸”或“大地震”,这些字眼更能反映人民力量,也反映了人民为 公平、正义、民主人权而奋斗的的政治意愿。

朝野政党始料未及

“3月8日大选”发生的人民要求改革风暴,是朝野政党所始料未及的事。

大选前,执政党国阵还大言不惭地说,取得国会三分之二多数席完全没有问题;国阵还扬言一举收复失地,即回教党执政的吉兰丹州。

在野党则认为,这次大选要打破国阵长期垄断的国会三分之二多数席,比登天还难;所以若真能打破国阵的三分之二优势,就心满意足了。

出乎执政党和在野党意料的是,人民己醒悟过来了;广大选民排除一切威迫利诱,不畏恐吓威胁,勇敢地投下了反对国阵的一票,促成今天一片大好的局面。

在 马来西亚13州内,人民联盟执政了五州(槟城、雪兰莪、霹雳、吉打、吉兰丹),还在吉隆坡联邦直辖区12个国会议席中,夺取了11席,只差一席就囊括所有 议席。在国会议席方面,全国222席中,民联获得82席,国阵只得140席。如果不是东马斩获52席的支持,国阵今天已沦为在野党了。

国阵惨败原因

在 本届大选,国阵为什么被广大选民唾弃呢?这当然有其内在和外在因素,例如:巫统种族主义发展到登峰造极的地步,狂傲之至,不把任何人放在眼里,连国阵成员 党的话都不屑一顾,还咄咄逼人。几十年来,朋党主义泛滥、贪污舞弊风气盛行、无司法独立可言,民主社会的三权分立基本原则被抛到九霄云外,导致司法危机等 等。

大选前,人民要求改革的风暴己有迹可循,但大家都未察觉到其深度和广度。这里只能简单地谈两、三件具体事件,那就是净选盟(BERSIH)及兴都权利行动力量(HINDRAF)等事件。

(一)净选盟和平集会大游行

今 年大选前几个月,发生了干净与公平选举联盟(BERSIH,净选盟)和平大游行;这就是2007年11月10日的吉隆坡10万人大游行,目的是为了争取改 革不健全的选举制度。这是我国历史上规模非常大的和平集会游行,其深长意义在于:人民敢于行使他们的宪赋和平集会自由的权利。《联邦宪法》阐明,不持武器 举行和平集会,是人民的基本人权。这是人民要求改革大风暴的先声。

马来西亚人权委员会(SUHAKAM)在其报告书中也承认这一点,主张举行和平集会只需通知警方即可,无需向警方申请准证;但是,警方总是要利用国会通过的《警察法令》约束我国大法,即《联邦宪法》保障的基本人权──人民的和平集会自由。

结果,根据非主流媒体实地调查所作的统计,有四万人出席了这场为争取干净和公平选举制度的示威大游行,打破以往游行示威的人数,堪称我国人民近年来的一个创举。

不过,政府控制的主流媒体报道的官方数字,则只有四千人而已;相信将来我国的历史记载会根据官方报道,宣称只有四千人参加这场游行。

(二)兴都权利行动力量三万人大游行

2007年11月25日,我国长期最受打压的印度人社群,为了争取他们的利益,响应兴都权利行动力量(Hindraf)的号召,多达三万人从四面八方集中到吉隆坡参加示威大游行。领导这次示威大游行的是身为知识分子的律师群。

事前警方发出多次严厉警告,恐吓印度人族群,且粗暴对付参加和平示威的人群.这一切都无法吓倒情绪高昂的群众。这是我国历史上从未发生过的事。

(三)两千名律师和平游行

大选前爆发“林甘短片”丑闻,揭发多年来一直都在发生的司法丑闻,使我国司法危机曝光。马来西亚律师公会为了表达多年来对司法丑闻的不满,于2007年9月26日号召两千名律师走上街头,参加和平游行。这是我国有史以来规模最大的一次律师和平游行。

“司法危机”:国阵危机因素之一

“官逼民反”确实是至理名言,它导致了国阵危机。3月8日大选犹如另一次民权起义,人民为了争取应有利益,作了明智选择,让后来被称为“人民联盟”(民联)的在野党联盟获取五州政权,而国阵只掌控其他八州政权。

统治阶层及其朋党损害人民利益的行为,导致司法危机、贪污舞弊现象、油价物价高涨、百姓怨声载道,这些反过来促使国阵面对危机。这也应验了另一句至理名言,即:“搬起石头砸自己的脚“。

国阵在本届大选面临危机,当然是多种内外因素所促成,但可以肯定地说,我国长期以来形成的司法危机,是促成国阵大选失败因素之一。

在本届大选中,大部分中上阶层和知识阶层关注的是,统治集团的朋党主义和贪污舞弊。种族主义者的狂傲到了不可复加的地步,巫青团长希山慕丁于2004、2005及2006年,连续三年在巫统大会上“三次亮剑“,令人对其狂傲态度厌恶至极。

林甘短片暴露资深律师插手参与委任法官,正好体现了统治集团朋党主义,贪污舞弊,狂傲等行为。

许 多下层人民则较为关注民生的问题,国阵对民生漠不关心,几乎到了无视民生的地步;燃油价格暴涨(2006年,破天荒涨了30分,远远超过往年的增涨幅 度)、过路费几乎每隔一两年都调高、粮食价格也跟着上涨等等,广大民众已不堪负荷。这些内外因素导致“人民要求改革的大风暴”的到来。

印度人族群一路来都被认定支持国阵,但在本届大选却一反常态,把大部分选票投给在野党,国阵因而损失了不少席位。

反对票大幅度提高

2008大选的特点之一,就是各族群投给在野党的选票,普遍比往年增加了不少。根据统计,各族群投给在野党的票数比率是:华人65%、印度人52%、马来人42%。

2004年,首相阿都拉刚上台时,国阵所得国会议席是91%;但是,2008年,人民要求改革风暴的大趋势令国阵所得议席突然降至63%。

虽然2008年国阵获取了63%的国会议席,但他们所得总选票只占50.8%(刚刚超过总票数一半而已),两者差距颇大,比率是63%(议席)比50.8%(总票数);这是因为我国选举制度不健全所致。

在全国222个国会议席中,国阵只获取140个,不到总议席的三分之二。在野党(民联)则取得82席,等于他们在2004年大选所得国会议席的四倍(400%);在野党增加的国会议席确实惊人。

国阵在半岛只得48.7%选票

如果只计算西马半岛的国会议席,那就更惊人了。西马半岛共有165个国会议席,国阵只得85席,另80席由在野党斩获,国阵只多了五席。

然而,如果以总票数计算,国阵已输给在野党了。国阵所得总票数只有48.7%(不到总票数的一半),反观民联所得总票数却超过一半(51.3%)。表(一)说明如下:

表(一):2008年西马半岛选举成绩

政党

执政党

在野党

总选票

48.7%

51.3%

- 2.6%

国会议席

85

80

+ 5

我国选举出现畸形现象

这意味着,以西马半岛的情况而言,我国已第一次出现取得少数选票的执政党,反常地掌控政权;而取得了多数选票的政党,却屈居在野党!这种异乎寻常的现象,早期在英国也曾发生。这是我国不健全的选举制度所致,这种选举制度不符合民意,是不合理的。

22 年前(1986年8月27日),我曾经为《南洋商报》法律专栏撰写一篇文章《我国选举制度应遵循一人一票原则》,指出:我国选举制度有一大缺陷,将来可能 产生畸形现象,那就是,在野党候选人所得的选票,过于集中在某些选区。结果,虽然他们在全国范围内,所获取的总票数占多数,但所得的席位却占少数。相反 地,执政党(由于巧妙地利用选区划分手段)虽所得的总票数占少数(少过在野党所得的票数),反而能取得多数的国议席。

我当时还以英国1951年选举曾出现畸形现象说明这点,在那年大选,以全国总票数来说,英国工党虽占多数,但屈居在野党。我还指出,这或许是个极端的实例,但是绝不可等闲视之,它也可能在我国发生。(见杨培根着《法律常识》第四集,第三版,1995: 69-70)

没料到只隔了22年的今天,这个畸形现象竟然在我国出现了!1951年英国选举出现的怪现象,以表(二)说明如下:

表(二):1951年英国选举结果

政党

执政党(保守党)

在野党(工党)

总选票

47.9%

48.8%

- 0.9%

国会议席

321

295

+ 26%

即使国阵把东马(沙巴和砂拉越)所得选票加到西马来,国阵在整个马来西亚所得总票数也只有50.8%(刚过半数)而已,而在野党联盟所得总票数高达49.2%,执政党和在野党所得票数相差只是1.6%罢了。国阵作为执政党所得的多数票,真是少得可怜。

但是,国阵所得国会议席却多达140席,而在野党只获得82席;比较起来,国阵和民联的国会议席比例相差太远了!两者的总票数差距只区区1.6%,但国会议席的落差却高达26%!为方便理解,以表(三)说明如下:

表(三):朝野政党所得总票数与国议席的差距

政党

执政党(国阵)

在野党(民联)

总选票

50.8%

49.2%

1.6%

国会议席

140

82

58

百分比

63%

37%

26%


这种畸形现象怎能反映民意呢?民间社会组织(如净选盟等)必须快马加鞭,据理力争,乘着目前有利的条件,尽量争取抛弃我国现有不健全的“领先者当选制“,采用较为公平合理的“比例代表制”取而代之,这是广大民众对他们的殷切期望。

大选特征之一:投废票历来最高记录

本 届大选的特征之一,也是另一件引人注目的事,是全国投废票率非常高,创下几十年来的最高记录,多达32万2461张废票。这个异常现象令《新海峡时报》专 栏作者佐翰嘉化(Johan Jaafar)都感到惊奇,令他更感诧异的是,柔佛州竟是全国投废票率最高的一州,多达5万4165张。这表明了选民对国阵厌恶之情。

一 名刊物编辑陈淑珍(Tan Siok Chin,译音)在一篇评述大选的文章中指出:“国阵的狂傲和自负也是(惨败)因素之一。……选民下定决心,毫不犹豫地向国阵传达了一个讯息:在2004 年大选中,虽然国阵取得历来最辉煌的胜利,但这不是一张空白支票,可任由他们填写金额。”

过去,执政党常大言不惭地宣称,选民年年都投票选他们当政府,他们就可为所欲为。这样的时代,已一去不复返了。

陈 淑珍说,32万多张废票和七万多张未投入票箱的选票(unreturned ballots)加起来,比历届大选的废票都高得多。投废票和未投入票箱的选票,绝大部分是国阵的支持者,他们对这些年来国阵的施政和表现极端不满,但是 又不愿意把选票投给在野党,如:不愿意投“月亮“和“火箭”等。百般无奈的他们投下了废票,以发泄对国阵的不满情绪。

废票影响15个国议席

根据统计,在本届大选,废票影响了15个国会议席的成绩。“值得注意的是,在这15个国会议席中,有14席的废票超过当选者的多数票。另一席(即雪兰莪乌鲁冷岳国会议席)的废票,加上未投入票箱的选票,超过了回教党(在野党)赢得的多数票。”

在 这15个国议席中,民联取得九席,国阵获得六席。如果没有废票(加上未投入票箱的选票)的话,国阵可以多赢九个国议席。如果加上原有的140席,国阵能在 全国222席中夺得149席。这么一来,国阵就能保住国会中三分之二多数议席。(见《大选前后文集》,Tipping Points, 2008:101)为方便理解,以表(四)说明如下:

表(四):废票对大选成绩的影响

国阵

废票损失

应得国议席

140

9

149

───────────────────────────-

应得国会议席

全国议席

149

222

67%(超过三分之二多数)


值得注意的另一点,是在本届大选中,国阵东马成员党是为国阵打下江山的大功臣,但他们却连一个部长的职位都分不到,因为所有部长职位都由西马成员党(尤其是巫统)独揽或垄断了。

可见,一党独大的巫统虽在大选中惨败,却仍不把为国阵立下赫赫战功的东马成员党放在眼里,这显示巫统霸权与朋党主义已发展到了何等严重的地步。

结语:人民要求改革风暴

2008 年大选显示,在政治上,选民们已成熟多了,当政者的威迫利诱起不了多大作用。“马车前吊着的胡罗卜”已失去效用,国阵历来采用的“稳定,安全”的口号也失 灵了。人民已掌握了“选党不选人“的选举规则,所以几乎把“国阵良知”扫入历史垃圾堆。单元政治种族主义口号,看来也没多大市场了。

人民要求改革的意愿,谁也不容忽视。那些希望争取到广大人民支持的政党,必须时时刻刻关注人民的诉求和动向。唯有走向群众、深入民间,了解大众的苦疾,才能感觉到民众脉膊的跳动,不至于被人民远远抛在后头,自己还被蒙在鼓里。只有这样,才能和人民一同走向改革的正确道路。


Tuesday, 22 July 2008

[information] Bahasa Ibunda bagi Sains, Matematik

http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/86487

Bahasa ibunda bagi Sains, Matematik
Jul 21, 08 4:34pm
Kementerian Pelajaran "sengaja melengah-lengahkan masa dan bersikap acuh tidak acuh" menukar kembali pengajaran Matematik dan Sains dalam bahasa ibunda daripada bahasa pengantar dalam Inggeris sekarang, kata sekumpulan badan bukan kerajaan (NGO).

Sehubungan itu, 10 NGO tersebut yang semuanya dari Johor bercadang menghantar memorandum pada 4 Ogos depan mendesak kementerian menyegerakannya.

"Kementerian Pelajaran kelihatan seperti langsung tiada apa-apa jalan penyelesaian yang kukuh terhadap pelaksanaan dasar ini.

"Namun, ia tidaklah terlalu janggal kepada kita kerana umum mengetahui bahawa dasar ini (menggunakan bahasa Inggeris untuk mengajar-belajar dua subjek tersebut) merupakan satu keputusan yang dilakukan secara tergesa-gesa, bersifat politik dan tiada perancangan yang sistematik," kata kumpulan itu dalam satu kenyataan hari ini.

Kumpulan yang bergelar 'Jawatankuasa Bertindak Mengembalikan Bahasa Ibunda dalam Pengajaran dan Pembelajaran Sains dan Matematik (JKBI) berkata memorandum itu disertai soal selidik dalam kalangan pelajar dan guru dari sekolah rendah aliran Cina dan Tamil.

"JKBI setakat ini telah berjaya memperolehi sokongan daripada hampir 30 pertubuhan badan bukan kerajaan, persatuan agama, persatuan murid, parti politik dan sebagainya dan sokongan ini telah diterjemahkan oleh mereka dengan menandatangani memorandum yang kami sediakan," kata penyelarasnya Nyam Kee Han, yang juga penyelaras Suara Rakyat Malaysia (Suaram) Johor.

JKBI antaranya menuntut:

menghentikan Dasar Pengajaran dan Pembelajaran Sains dan Matematik dalam Bahasa Inggeris di peringkat sekolah rendah dengan serta-merta,

mengembalikan penggunaan bahasa ibunda sebagai bahasa pengantar dalam pengajaran dan pembelajaran Sains dan Matematik, dan

menghormati hak asasi rakyat untuk mendapat pendidikan di dalam bahasa ibunda masing-masing.

Monday, 21 July 2008

JKBI Akan Menghantar Memorandum pada 4hb Ogos 2008

[Kenyataan Akhbar Jawatankuasa Bertindak Mengembalikan Bahasa Ibunda Dalam Pengajaran dan Pembelajaran Subjek Sains dan Matematik (JKBI), Tarikh: 21 Julai 2008]

JKBI sebagai gagasan yang dianggotai oleh 10 badan bukan kerajaan (NGOs) dan parti politik yang aktif di negeri Johor akan menghantar memorandum kepada Kementerian Pelajaran Malaysia mengenai isu “Mengembalikan Bahasa Ibunda Dalam Pengajaran dan Pembelajaran Subjek Sains dan Matematik di Peringkat Sekolah Rendah” pada 4hb Ogos 2008 ini. Kami mengharapkan lebih ramai NGOs dan parti politik untuk menyokong dan menandatangani memorandum ini.

Kami berpendirian tegas bahawa pengajaran dan pembelajaran subjek Sains dan Matematik di peringkat sekolah rendah mesti dikembalikan penggunaan bahasa ibundanya sebagai bahasa pengantar. JKBI telah berjaya melaksanakan kajian soal selidik terhadap para pelajar dan juga guru dari sekolah rendah berlainan aliran di sekitar negeri Johor berkenaan keberkesanan Dasar Pengajaran dan Pembelajaran Sains dan Matematik dengan menggunakan Bahasa Inggeris (PPSMI). Kami juga akan menyertakan laporan kajian bersama-sama dengan memorandum ini kepada Kementerian Pelajaran Malaysia (KPM) pada tarikh yang telah disebutkan.

JKBI setakat ini telah berjaya memperolehi sokongan daripada hampir 30 pertubuhan badan bukan kerajaan, persatuan agama, persatuan murid, parti politik dan sebagainya dan sokongan ini telah diterjemahkan oleh mereka dengan menandatangani memorandum yang kami sediakan. Kami berharap untuk mendapatkan lebih banyak sokongan daripada mana-mana individu ataupun organisasi yang sama-sama berkongsi aspirasi dengan perjuangan rakyat ini.

Menurut laporan Bernama pada 16hb Jun 2008, Kementerian Pelajaran Malaysia (KPM) melalui Timbalan Menteri-nya menyebut bahawa mereka belum lagi membuat keputusan sama ada ingin meneruskan ataupun tidak penggunaan Bahasa Inggeris bagi pengajaran dan pembelajaran subjek Sains dan Matematik di sekolah rendah. Keputusan Ujian Pencapaian Sekolah Rendah (UPSR) pada tahun ini (2008) akan dijadikan penanda aras bagi KPM untuk menentukan masa depan bagi dasar ini.

Akan tetapi, satu kenyataan media yang kontradiksi dengan yang sebelumnya telah dikeluarkan oleh Menteri yang berwajib pada 15hb Julai 2008. Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein menyebut bahawa keputusan Ujian Penilaian Sekolah Rendah (UPSR) 2008 bukan penentu kepada PPSMI, sebaliknya hanya tempoh yang ditetapkan oleh kementerian, untuk memutuskan sama ada meneruskan atau membatalkan program itu. Beliau turut berkata, Kementerian Pelajaran masih perlu menjalankan pelbagai kajian dan mendapatkan pandangan pelbagai pihak sebelum membuat keputusan kerana ia membabitkan pelaksanaan dasar kementerian.

JKBI berpendapat bahawa KPM sengaja melengah-lengahkan masa dan bersikap acuh tidak acuh dalam menjaga kepentingan dan survival pendidikan rakyat negara sendiri. KPM kelihatan seperti langsung tiada apa-apa jalan penyelesaian yang kukuh terhadap perlaksanaan dasar ini. Namun, ianya tidaklah terlalu janggal buat kita kerana umum mengetahui bahawa dasar PPSMI merupakan satu keputusan yang dilakukan secara tergesa-gesa, bersifat politik dan tiada perancangan yang sistematik. Justeru, lahirlah keadaan yang kontradiksi sepanjang tempoh perlaksanaanya.

Kami berpendapat bahawa KPM seharusnya membuat keputusan dengan serta merta iaitu dengan membatalkan dasar PPSMI di peringkat sekolah rendah, dan membuat perjanjian bahawa pengajaran serta pembelajaran Sains dan Matematik di peringkat sekolah rendah mesti dikembalikan penggunaan bahasa ibunda sebagai bahasa pengantarnya.

Ringkasnya, ingin kami tegaskan sekali lagi di sini bahawa tuntutan kami adalah:
I. Menghentikan Dasar Pengajaran dan Pembelajaran Sains dan Matematik dalam Bahasa Inggeris di peringkat sekolah rendah dengan serta-merta;
II. Mengembalikan penggunaan bahasa ibunda sebagai bahasa pengantar dalam pengajaran dan pembelajaran Sains dan Matematik;
III. Menghormati hak asasi rakyat untuk mendapat pendidikan di dalam Bahasa Ibunda masing-masing.

JKBI seterusnya menyeru agar mana-mana pertubuhan, NGO ataupun parti politik yang berkongsi rasa dan bersetuju dengan pandangan kami, untuk menyertai gagasan ini dan memberikan sokongan anda kepada tindakan susulan kami.

JKBI juga dengan sukacitanya menjemput mana-mana individu ataupun pertubuhan yang berpendirian sama dengan kami untuk menandatangani memorandum dan menyertai program penyerahannya pada tarikh yang telah disebutkan sebelum ini.. Kepada mana-mana pihak yang ingin memberikan sokongan, sila hubungi Setiausaha Kerja JKBI seperti berikut: Sdr. Norman (013-7674339) dan Sdr. Nyam Kee Han (016-7782707)

PERSATUAN, ORGANISASI, NGO DAN PARTI POLITIK YANG MENYOKONG SERTA MENANDATANGANI MEMORANDUM INI:

1) Suara Rakyat Malaysia (Cawangan Johor Bahru)
2) Dewan Pemuda PAS Negeri Johor
3) Persahabatan Semparuthi (Johor)
4) Yayasan Amal Malaysia (Johor)
5) Teras Pengupayaan Melayu Johor (TERAS)
6) Persatuan Ulama Malaysia (Johor)
7) Gabungan Mahasiswa Islam SeMalaysia (GAMIS) Zon Selatan
8) Friends of SUARAM (Johor)
9) Pusat Aduan Rakyat Zon Kempas
10) Jabatan Amal Negeri Johor
11) Kelab Usahawan Muslim Johor
12) Gabungan Profesional Anak Johor
13) Ikatan Mahasiswa Islam Johor
14) Universiti Teknologi Malaysia Chinese Student Council (UTM-CSC)
15) Kelab Penyokong PAS Johor (India)
16) Angkatan Muda Keadilan (Johor)
17) Parti Keadilan Rakyat Johor
18) Jawatankuasa Perhubungan Parlimen Gelang Patah DAP
18) Jawatankuasa DAP Negeri Johor
20) Parti Rakyat Malaysia
21) Parti Sosialis Malaysia
22) Malaysian Tamil Education Research & Development Foundation
23) Persatuan Tamil Neri Malaysia
24) Education Welfare Research Foundation
25) Persatuan Pemandu Teksi dan Kereta Sewa India Johor
26) Persatuan Artis Tamil Malaysia Negeri JOHOR
27) Persatuan Penduduk Tamil Taman Bukit Indah



恢复母语教数理行动委员会,延迟至8月4日呈交备忘录。

【恢复母语教数理行动委员会文告 2008721日】

我们,"恢复母语教数理行动委员会",是由柔佛州近10 多个非政府组织以及政党所组成的行动委员会。我们原定721日呈交备忘录的行动將延迟至8月4日呈交恢复母语教数理备忘录。我们希望更多的民间团体和政党支持和签署这份录忘录。

我们坚持各源流小学的数学与科学科目,必须恢复以母语母文作为教学媒介语。针对英语教数理的政策, 我们已经完成了对柔佛州内各源流小学师生进行的问卷调查。<问卷调查报告>將连同我们的备忘录,呈交教育部, 要求恢复以母语教数理的合理政策, 放弃以英语教数理的不合理政策。

到目前为止,我们已获得将近30个来自非政府组织,宗教团体,学生团体,政党等签署备忘录。由于还有某些团体需要多一些时间,因此我们决定延迟呈交备忘录的行动。我们希望更多民间团体能签署这份备忘录,体现更广大的反对声音。

今年616,马新社报道,教育部副部长表示,教育部还没有决定是否继续推行小学数理英化政策.教育部将根据2008年小六评估测验的成绩, 来作出决定。

然而,今年715日,教育部长山慕丁又发表了另一份与上诉内容相左的文告。他表示,2008年小六评估测验的成绩, 并不是数理英化政策的决定因素。此政策的持续与否将由教育部再恰当的时间决定。他同时表示,由于牵涉到政策的实施,教育部还需要进行各种研究, 与收集各方意见。

我们认为,教育部似乎只是在拖延时间。教育部针对英语教数理政策, 似乎沒有一套完善的措施。由于英语教数理政策是一项仓促的决定,计划也不周详,所以才会出现目前举棋 不定的局面。

民间长期以来坚决反对小学数理英化政策,但是, 教育部根本不重视和尊重民意。

我们认为,教育部应该即刻宣布废除小学数理英化政策,并保证将以母语母文作为各源流小学数理科目的教学媒介语。

我们要求教育部:

) 立刻废除"小学数理英化政策"

) 在各源流小学恢复以母语母文教授数理科。

三)尊重人民接受母语母文教育的基本权利。

我们吁请更多的政党和民间团体,能加入我们的行动委员会,支持我们的行动。

恢复母语教数理行动委员会诚意邀请各党团,签署这份备忘录,并踊跃参与呈交备忘录的行动。有意支持这项行动的人士,请联络委员协调员——严居汉(016-7782707)或Nazman(013-7674339).

签署备忘录的社团、组织与政党如下:

1)大马人民之声(新山支会)Suara Rakyat Malaysia (Cawangan Johor Bahru)

2)柔佛州马来核心组织 Teras Pengupayaan Melayu Johor (TERAS)

3)大红花之友(柔佛)Persahabatan Semparuthi (Johor)

4)回教党志工队(柔佛)Yayasan Amal Malaysia (Johor)

5)柔佛州回教党青年团Dewan Pemuda PAS Negeri Johor

6)大马回教宗教司协会Persatuan Ulama Malaysia (Johor)

7)全马回教大学生联合会(南区)Gabungan Mahasiswa Islam SeMalaysia (GAMIS) Zon Selatan

8)柔佛州人民之友工委会Friends of SUARAM (Johor)

9)Pusat Aduan Rakyat Zon Kempas

10)Unit Amal Malaysia (Johor)

11)Kelab Usahawan Muslim Johor

12)Gabungan Profesional Anak Johor

13)Ikatan Mahasiswa Islam Johor

14)工大华裔学生理事会Universiti Teknologi Malaysia Chinese Student Council (UTM-CSC)

15)柔佛州(印裔)回教党支持者俱乐部Kelab Penyokong PAS Johor (India)

16)柔佛州人民公正党青年团Angkatan Muda Keadilan (Johor)

17)柔佛州人民公正党Parti Keadilan Rakyat Johor

18)民主行动党振林山国会选区联谊会Jawatankuasa Perhubungan Parlimen Gelang Patah DAP

18)柔佛州民主行动党委员会Jawatankuasa DAP Negeri Johor

20)马来西亚人民党Parti Rakyat Malaysia

21) 马来西亚社会主义党Parti Sosialis Malaysia

22) Malaysian Tamil Education Research & Development Foundation

23) Persatuan Tamil Neri Malaysia

24) Education Welfare Research Foundation

25) Persatuan Teksi dan Kereta Sewa India Johor

26) Persatuan Artis Tamil Malaysia Negeri JOHOR

27) Persatuan Penduduk Taman Bukit Indah


Monday, 14 July 2008

美里民主行动党支部:庆祝民主行动党登陆砂拉越州30周年纪念千人晚宴


美里民主行动党支部:庆祝民主行动党登陆砂拉越州30周年纪念千人晚宴

************************************************************************************

愿与砂州同志们合作,共同为民主人权奋斗!

[大马人民之声(新山支会)文告]

行动党美里支部于2008712日在美里富丽华大酒家举行30周年纪念千人晚宴,筵开130席,盛况空前。此次的晚宴,是反对党北砂区有史以来最大型的活动。受邀出席主讲者共有9位,除了人民公正党美里分部主席张有庆因置身外坡而无法出席外,其余8人包括行动党美里支部主席房保德、行动党砂联委会妇女主任林素均、大马人民之声执行秘书严居汉、本岭州议员杨薇伟、柔佛州人民之友工委会署理主席兼法律顾问杨培根律师、霹雳野郎州议员梁美明、雪州高级行政议员郭素沁,及行动党砂联委会主席黄和联都有出席。由于场空间有限,8名主讲人分别在2 楼及3楼以轮值方式,在台上发言。

以下是本人严居汉代表大马人民之声(SUARAM)新山支会、柔州人民之友工委会在千人晚宴上发表讲话内容:——


我和杨培根律师,代表大马人民之声(
SUARA RAKYAT MALAYSIA,简称SUARAM)新山支会和柔佛州人民之友工委会出席这个晚会并有机会发表讲话,是有下列意义的:

1)对SUARAM JB与柔佛州人民之友来说,其意义是,我们几年来在新山以至柔佛州所作的点点滴滴的工作,不但对柔佛州(尤其是新山)的反对霸权统治、争取民主人权的运动有着些微的作用,而且也可以对美里和砂州民主行动党和人民反对霸权统治、争取民主人权的工作,发挥一定程度的影响;

2)对美里以至砂州行动党来说,其意义是,你们在美里以及砂州的反对霸权统治、争取民主人权的斗争,将与柔佛州(特别是新山)以及全马(半岛)的反对霸权统治、争取民主人权的斗争更好地联系起来,砂州人民将与新山以至全国进步党团与人士,互相给予更多支持与合作,争取更大的斗争成果。

人民要求改革的风暴已经来临

大马人民之声(SUARAM)是我国的一个民间人权组织。自1989年成立以来,一直为民主人权而奋斗。我们每年都对我国的人权状况进行观察和研究,并提出报告和意见。我们认为,我国已经独立了50年,先是由"联盟"、后是由"国阵"掌握政权,实施的都是照顾和维护朋党利益的霸权统治,公民应有的自由和权利不断遭受剥夺和侵占。近年来,我国广大各阶层人民,特别是印度族同胞,为摆脱水深火热的痛苦生活而群起抗争,国阵政府为了维持它的霸权统治,除了继续援引《内安法令》来拘捕群众领袖以镇压反对力量,援引《1984年印刷和出版法令》、《1948年煽动法令》、《官方机密法令》来打压言论自由,利用国家机关如警队和镇暴队来剥夺人民和平集会的权利等等,甚至连"司法独立"这层外衣也不要了,直接把他们的统治魔掌伸到了司法界。

但是,古往今来的霸权统治,面临人民团结力量和反抗斗争,必然会动摇根基而最终走向灭亡,相信国阵政府的命运也不能例外。自独立以后50年来,我国各阶层人民第一次向以巫统为主导的国阵霸权统治集团发出了怒吼:在第12届全国大选中,作出以下的选择和行动:投反对党支持票,表示人民要求改革之心,或者是投执政党废票,表示对统治集团政治伎俩的厌恶之情。就是在200838日人民要求改革的风暴下,由民主行动党、回教党、人民公正党、社会主义党所派出的候选人,纷纷中选成为议员,进入国会和州议会,国阵因此丧失了除原已丧失的吉兰丹州政权以外的槟城、吉打、霹雳、雪兰莪4州政权,也丧失了在国会中长期垄断三份之二议席的优势,国阵的主要成员党即巫统、印度国大党以及两个华基政党即马华和民政党,因遭受前所未有的失败而四分五裂、互相倾轧。这是一个人民敢于向霸权集团叫板较劲的好榜样!这是我国各民族选民团结合作痛击国阵统治集团的好榜样!

这次人民要求改革的风暴,能够震撼以巫统为主导的霸权集团的统治根基,除了以上所述广大各民族各阶层人民的政治觉醒和团结合作的因素以外,所有的反对党包括民主行动党、回教党、人民公正党、社会主义党以及马来西亚人民党,在大选中采取"消除分歧,共同对敌"(主要是一对一,对垒国阵竞选)策略而发挥重要作用,是一个极其重要的因素。另外一个同样重要的因素是,我国的许多非政府组织(尤其是与人权有密切关系的非政府组织)以及印度族同胞的维权组织的领袖和干部,大都积极参与了这次反对霸权集团的选举斗争,并且作出了不可磨灭的贡献。

"非政府组织"实际上就是民间组织

我们所说的"非政府组织",就是英文"NON GOVERNMENT ORGANISATION,简称NGO"的翻译,实际上就是我们平常所说的"民间组织"(就是由人民按照本身的需要和意愿而不是由政府按照法令和政策而组织的社会团体)。所谓"非政府组织",它是相对于政府或政府组织的概念而言,"非政府组织"就是为人民利益而存在的民间组织。我国现有至少90个各种类型与人权有亲密关系的非政府组织,其中较活跃的有:妇女组织、环保组织、原住民组织等等。

我是来自其中的一个人权组织即"大马人民之声"SUARAM)。因此,我根据杨培根律师所写文章《我国人权组织的目标和展望》的资料,在此简单介绍我国的人权组织(但重点阐述大马人民之声的任务和活动概况)。我国目前存在着三个最主要的人权组织,那就是:

1) 国家人权委员会(SUHAKAM),是一个政府(官方)组织。

2) 全国人权委员会(HAKAM),是一个非政府组织。

3) 大马人民之声(SUARAM),也是一个非政府组织。

国家人权委员会(SUHAKAM)是一项国会法令的产物。为了成立这个组织,国会特地通过了一项法令叫《1998年马来西亚国家人权委员会法令》,于199941日生效。实际上,SUHAKAM是一个官方(政府)组织。因此,它在监督和捍卫民主人权议题上,由于有着它的局限性而备受人们质疑。

全国人权委员会(HAKAM)则是一个民间组织。它是在1991614日,在《社团法令》下注册的社团。它是在一个由马来西亚律师公会主办的"纪念《世界人权宣言》40周年研讨会"时,正式宣布筹组"全国人权组织"。由于它的成立背景,其成员大多是知识份子,所以在吸收其他阶层的成员方面进展非常缓慢。但是,这个组织,在舆论工作方面,尤其针对国家突发事件发表的评论文章及声明,常受到政府关注。

SUARAM是一个全国性的人权组织

大马人民之声(SUARA RAKYAT MALAYSIA,简称 SUARAM)的产生,和1987"茅草行动"大逮捕有亲切关系。在当年的"茅草行动"大逮捕中,共有106个社会知名人士如社会工作者、宗教师、教育工作者以及反对党领袖在严厉残酷的《内安法令》下,没有经过审讯而遭受逮捕和扣留。这些被扣者的家属连同律师、关心人士、支持者,为了援助被扣者,不分种族,结合起来,组织了一个"扣留者家属支援团" FAMILY SUPPORT GROUP)。为了支援和关心被扣者和他们的家属,在那段时期,他们到处奔波,互相照顾和慰问。隔了两年,被扣者都陆陆续续被释放了。

经过两年的互相关怀、鼓舞,家属们都已建立起深厚的真挚感情。大家都认为,就这么解散一个"支援团",实在是太可惜了。于是,大家决定注册一个团体,继续为保护和促进我国的人权事业而作出努力。"大马人民之声"就是在这样的环境下产生的。由于某些客观因素,他们决定在《商业法令》下注册为一个合法团体。

SUARAM是一个全国性的人权组织,是一个独立自主的团体。它作为一个人权组织,关心的是一切的社会问题。它关心政治,但超越政党政治。它不附属于任何政党。只要是和人权有关的课题,它都愿意参与或提出来探讨或批评。不论是政治、经济、文化、教育方面的课题,只要涉及人权或人民利益,它都会关注。只要是保护和促进人权的团体,它都给予配合。凡是反对人权,侵犯人权的组织或个人,SUARAM将提出看法和批评。近年来在全国非政府组织的活动中扮演着越来越重要的角色。

SUARAM 不仅在负起社会批判和舆论的工作,也重视草根性的工作。成立至今,SUARAM已经发展了两个支会,一个在槟城(半岛北部),一个在新山(半岛南部)。SUARAM的总部设在吉隆坡。希望今后在全国主要城市都设立支会。

在柔佛新山,我们于1999年由一批关心社会、愿意为柔佛州人民贡献些微力量的年轻人(主要是工大生)宣布成立大马人民之声(新山支会)。为了适应形势的需要,我们经过一个时期的酝酿与筹备,于200199日在新山广场(Menara LandMark),正式成立了一个草根性组织——"柔佛州人民之友工委会",走进社区,深入民间。"人民之友"就是"为人权而奋斗"WORKING FOR HUMAN RIGHTS)的自愿工作者。柔佛州工委会成员,不分高低,不为私利,不为官职,不为酬劳,而自愿地用集体的智慧和力量来做事。经过周详的考虑和策划,我们于200781日正式成立"人权支援小组",每逢星期四下午2时至6时在人民之声新山支会联络所开放服务中心柜台。"人权支援小组"的主要工作,除了处理人权被压迫案件以外,每逢周末也会在附近社区的夜市街道派发传单、人民之友会讯、专题小册等宣传品,以推广人权意识及促进社会醒觉。目前,我们处理过不少个案如警察暴力事件、扣留所死亡案件、劳工纠纷、居民农作物被损毁案件等等。

我们就我国当前的民主人权状况,多次举办讲座会、交流会等活动,与柔佛州内各阶层人民交流意见;我们也多次将活动的成果,集合起来,出版小册子;或就各项关系人民生活的重大议题印制传单,分发到柔佛州内以至全国各地,引起广泛的关注。总之,在柔佛州推广人权意识与促进社会醒觉方面,我们取得了些少的成绩,我们还要作出更多更大的努力和贡献。

我们对非政府组织的意见和愿望

我谨代表大马人民之声新山支会和柔佛州人民之友工委会,在此郑重提出以下几点意见和愿望,与在场的诸位和全砂以至全国的同道和朋友们共勉:

一、 只要大方向一致,无论是个人或是团体都应该组织起来,为维护民主人权和争取社会公正而共同奋斗。公民社会需要为人民利益而奋斗的政党,也同时需要为人民利益而工作的非政府组织。

二、 非政府组织和政党不同的地方在于:执政党掌握着国家权力,反对党则希望有朝一日推翻执政党而夺取国家权力,而非政府组织则不同,其奋斗目标是为民主人权和社会公正,不是为掌握或夺取国家权力。

三、 非政府组织的性质和地位不会因不同政党执政而改变或有所不同,在国阵执政下是非政府组织,在民联或其他政党执政下也还是非政府组织。非政府组织,永远是站在人民立场上为人民利益做事。

四、 只要是维护和促进人权的亲人民政党,非政府组织一定给予支持与合作。一旦任何政党掌握国家权力而走向霸权专制反人民道路,非政府组织将与广大人民一起加以反对与制止。

最后,我们希望砂州特别是美里的同道和朋友们,能与我们加强联系(我们的电邮地址是sahabatrakyat.my@gmail.com,部落格是http://sahabatrakyatmy.blogspot.com,总部的网页是http://www.suaram.net ),大家互相支持与合作,共同为民主人权而奋斗!



大马人民之声(新山支会)

(严居汉)

执行秘书

20087 14





The So-called "Social Contract": A Class Perspective

By Dr Kua Kia Soong, Director of SUARAM

(Paper presented at the Bar Council forum on 28 June 2008)

“Social contract” and “Ketuanan Melayu” are terms introduced by communalist politicians in recent years and it is worth taking note of the origin and the illegitimacy of their coinage. “Ketuanan Melayu” or Malay Dominance can be traced to the infamous speech by Abdullah Ahmad, then UMNO Member of Parliament in Singapore in 1986. (1) The emergence of this concept of a “social contract” which presumes that there was a trade-off between granting citizenship for the Non-Malays and special privileges for the Malays by the representatives of the different communities at Independence is harder to trace. Its routinised usage today, however, does not mean that its legitimacy should not be challenged.

This paper sets out to put history in its proper perspective. Official Malaysian history is written from the ruling class’ point of view. It is the premise of this paper that the Independence agreement has to be understood in class terms – the ruling class in the making represented by UMNO, MCA and MIC on the one side and the truly anti-colonial forces in the PMCJA-PUTERA coalition representing the workers, peasantry and disenchanted middle class on the other. Thus the so-called “social contract” would have looked very different if the “Peoples’ Constitution” of the AMCJA-PUTERA coalition had won the day.

In contrast to the standard pluralist analysis of Malaysian society, this paper maintains that divisions along ethnic lines are not based on a difference of culture but on class oppression. Communalism based on “bumiputraism” is an ideology of the ruling class produced under concrete historical circumstances and by social classes. (2)

The pertinence of class analysis is often a bone of contention in academic circles but lawyers in Malaysia will have no problem in seeing the recent cunning Lingam act as class collaboration in flagrante delicto!

This paper emphasizes the fact that this so-called “social contract” was the product of colonial manipulation of the constitutional proposals, from the Malayan Union to the final Merdeka Agreement. Furthermore, it has in fact undergone three transformations since Independence: the post-Independence situation before May 13; post- 1969 Malaysian society, and the attempt to rationalize “Malay dominance” since the Eighties.

The Class Forces at Independence

The UMNO leadership after the Second World War represented the interests of the Malay aristocracy. They were by no means anti-colonial and were prepared to establish a neo-colonial Malaya with British interests intact. Malaya was still very much dependent on export commodities, largely rubber and tin. The industrial base was narrow and based on these two commodities while the problem of the peasantry since colonial times was still unresolved.

The mass-based anti-colonial movement, on the other hand, had very clear policies based on self-determination, civil liberties and equality. The workers’ movement (3) was the main threat to colonial interests and the Federation of Malaya proposals culminating in the Merdeka Agreement were intended to deflect the working class revolt by introducing racialism in the Independence package.

The Emergency (1948-60) was as much a crackdown of the workers’ movement as it was a war against the anti-colonial insurrection. The subsequent “Alliance Formula” comprising the Malay aristocratic class and Non-Malay capitalist class was designed to deal with the workers’ revolt and put in place a neo-colonial solution. (4)

The post-colonial Malayan economy saw a neglected peasantry while the crucial questions of neo-colonial exploitation, land ownership and size of landholdings of the Malay peasantry (for which the Malay aristocracy was responsible) were deflected into grievances against the Non-Malay middlemen.

The Malayan Union proposal by the British in 1946 was opposed by the political left and right in Malaya for different reasons. The peoples’ anti-colonial forces opposed it because it did not propose self-rule and no elections were contemplated. Singapore was also to be excluded from the federation. The Malay aristocracy opposed it because they wanted to transfer the sultans’ jurisdiction to the British and abolish the need for royal assent to legislation. The post-war Labour Government in Britain had to grant basic civil rights, including citizenship for the Non-Malays as in elsewhere in the post-war world, but the Malay elite were opposed to this.

In their demonstrations against the Malayan Union, UMNO carried banners calling for, among other things: “Malaya belongs to the Malays – We don’t want other races to be given the rights and privileges of Malays”; “Reinstate British Justice”; “Father protect us till we grow up…” (5) UMNO’s opposition to the Union had been mainly provoked by the brusque manner in which the British had forced the sultans to sign the treaties.

By contrast, the Malay Nationalist Party (MNP) called for, among other things: the right to self-determination of the Malayan people; equal rights for all races; freedom of speech, press, meeting, religion; improving standard of living of all the people; improving farming conditions and abolishing land tax; improving labour conditions; education reform on democratic lines; fostering friendly inter-racial relations. (6)

On 20 October 1947, the AMCJA-PUTERA coalition launched a general strike and economic boycott or hartal to protest against the constitutional proposals. It brought the country to a complete standstill. It also called on all parties to boycott the Federal Legislative and State Councils.

Realizing the different class forces opposing the Malayan Union, the British did a volte face and began to consult only with the Malay elite to the exclusion of all the other interest groups. The colonial power again used its divide and rule strategy to put the anti-colonial forces on the defensive by tightening up citizenship rules from five to fifteen years’ residence under the Federation of Malaya proposals of 1948; Singapore was to be excluded from the federation and no representative democracy was considered.

The constitutional crisis and labour unrest led to the Emergency being declared on 17 June 1948. During the period from 1948 to 1960, thousands were deported to China while some 500,000 were displaced into “New Villages”. (7)

In looking at the citizenship issue, it is worth noting that by 1947, three-fifths of Chinese and one-half of Indians in Malaya were local born but in 1950, only 500,000 Chinese (one-fifth of the total) and 230,000 Indians had Malayan citizenship. (8)

The 1952 Kuala Lumpur Municipal Council elections which saw the successful application of the Alliance formula gave the British colonial power an indication of the political forces to back for the neo-colonial solution. The 1955 federal elections confirmed their choice of the Alliance and when the Alliance reneged on its amnesty proposals for the guerrillas at the Baling talks in 1955, the British were assured of the Alliance’ reliability as the custodians of British interests.

When the Constitutional (Reid) Commission was considering the provision for Malay special privileges, it made the following comments:

Our recommendations are made on the footing that the Malays should be assured that the present position will continue for a substantial period, but that in due course the present preferences should be reduced and should ultimately cease so that there should be no discrimination between races or communities.” (9)

The proposal to review Malay special privileges after fifteen years by the legislature was opposed by UMNO and they got their way. The jus soli principle was applied for all born after 1957; citizenship was granted to all over 18 years of age, who were born in the country and had lived five out of seven years in the country and knew elementary Malay. For those born outside the country, there was a condition of eight out of twelve years’ residence in the country. (10)

The Alliance formula of three racially-based parties made up of the Malay ruling class and the Non-Malay capitalist class was plainly the neo-colonialist alternative to the truly Malayan nationalist movement grounded in the workers’ movement. The Alliance won the upper hand mainly through the help of British colonial repression of the mass-based nationalist movement and the failure of the latter to mobilize the Malay peasantry.

Three Transformations of the So-called “Social Contract”

This so-called “social contract” has in fact undergone three transformations since Independence:

(i) After Independence in 1957, the affirmative action policy was sparingly used according to Article 153;

(ii) After May 13 in 1971, while the country was still under Emergency decree, Article 153 was amended to introduce the so-called “quota system” allowing wider affirmative action policies but still within stipulated conditions;

(iii) Then in 1986, Abdullah Ahmad’s infamous “Ketuanan Melayu” speech was actually a declaration of the new status quo, routinizing the racial discrimination through the abuse of Article 153 since 1971.

In the 1957 Constitution, Article 153 was framed simply as follows:

It shall be the responsibility of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to safeguard the special position of the Malays and the legitimate interests of other communities in accordance with the provisions of this Article…and to ensure the reservation for Malays of such proportion as he may deem reasonable of positions in the public service…and of scholarships, exhibitions and other similar educational or training privileges or special facilities given or accorded by the Federal Government and, when any permit or licence for the operation of any trade or business is required by federal law…Nothing in this Article shall operate to deprive or authorize the deprivation of any person of any right, privilege, permit or licence accrued to or enjoyed or held by him…” (11)

Sheridan & Groves commentary on Article 153 is as follows:

This article had its inspiration in the protective discrimination provisions of the Indian constitution; but it is fundamentally different from those provisions because the largest class in whose favour the discrimination operates in Malaysia is the class which possesses political control, the Malays…” (12)

After Independence in 1957, the Malayan economy was largely unchanged from its colonial pattern showing a great regional disparity – an urbanized largely non-Malay west coast and a neglected Malay peasant economy along the east coast. Agriculture took up almost 50 per cent of the GDP and 60 per cent of the labour force, predominantly Malay were concentrated in the agricultural sector. Poverty was blamed on the Chinese middlemen rather than the structure of neo-colonial exploitation and the exploitation by large landowners and the feudal aristocracy.

The Tunku’s government did implement import-substitution industries which included production of food, beverages, tobacco, rubber and chemical products, cosmetics, toiletries and paints to cater for the growing middle-class home market. Most of these industries were foreign owned which came to take advantage of the comparatively lower local wages. Thus, post-colonial developments were leading to discontent among not only farmers but also workers and the middle class.

In the sixties, the increasing public development spending began to whet the appetite of the Malay state capitalist class: The First Five-Year Plan (1956-60) spending of RM 1 billion rose to RM 2.6 billion under the Second Five-Year Plan (1961-65) and to RM 3.6 billion under the First Malaysia Plan (1966-70). There were two Malay economic congresses in 1965 and 1968 which called for greater state intervention to assist the development of Malay capital. RIDA, MARA and Bank Bumiputra all grew during the sixties. (13)

My latest publication (14) maintains that the race riots of May 13, 1969 actually camouflaged a coup detat by the then emergent Malay state capitalist class against the traditional Malay aristocratic class headed by the Tunku and that the riots were orchestrated by elements within UMNO. The police and the army were not impartial – Razak met with the Chiefs of the Army and Police soon after the riots broke out. Tunku has been quoted a saying:

You know Harun was one of those – Harun, Mahathir, Ghazali Shafie – who were all working with Razak to oust me…” (15)

The ideology of the new Malay ruling class is based on “bumiputraism” and this has been imprinted into the New Economic Policy, the New Education Policy and the National Cultural Policy which were raised barely a week after May 13, 1969. Through the NEP, the interests of the Malay state capitalist class have expanded immensely. From 1971 to 2000, public development spending has exceeded RM 300 billion. The NEP has largely been funded by the discovery and exploitation of offshore oil, which in 1985 contributed 26 per cent to all government revenue. (16)

The So-Called “Quota System”

Article 153 was amended in 1971 (while the country was still under Emergency decree) to introduce the so-called “quota system” which has become a carte blanche for gross racial discrimination in education policy. The implementation of the quota system has evoked this comment from Visu Sinnadurai, Professor of Comparative Law and Dean of the Faculty of Law, University of Malaya in the Eighties:

“Article (8A) makes it clear that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong can only order a reservation of a proportion of such places for the Malays. It would therefore mean that the quota system is applicable only on a faculty basis and more importantly every faculty or institution should reserve places for students of every race. No faculty or institution under this provision could cater for the Malays alone to the exclusion of the other races…

“It should be pointed out that though these changes were made purportedly under the direction of the Yang di Pertuan Agong, the writer is unable to trace any such Order being made by His Majesty nor does there seem to be evidence of any such order being gazetted. It appears that such a directive has been made by the officials of the Ministry of Education. This lack of notification has caused some uncertainty especially in the validity of the implementation of some of the policies. It is not clear whether the quota system is made applicable on an institutional basis or on the basis of the total number of places available in a particular course of study of all the universities in the country…To apply the quota system on the total number of places available in any particular university will again be a wrong interpretation of the provisions of the Constitution. (17)

Sinnadurai adds:

Article 153 (8A) does not authorise the administrators of any university to refuse admission to any student of a particular race. It only allows a proportion of the places to be reserved for Malay students. On such a reasoning, the constitutionality of institutions like the Asasi Sains in the University of Malaya or Kursus Sains matriculasi Sidang Akademik of the Universiti Sains Malaysia which cater only for Bumiputra students is doubtful...Furthermore, the Constitution of the University of Malaya expressly prohibits discrimination on grounds of race for the admission of any student to any faculty or institution of the university. In this context too, the constitutionality of other institutions which admit students of a particular race only to the exclusion of other races is also doubtful as it may violate the equality provision of Article 8.”(18)

From the above, it is clear that the question of the constitutionality of the quota system as it has been practised since 1971 especially in totally Bumiputera institutions has never been tested. We know what the original intentions of the “Malay Special Privileges” provision in the Merdeka Constitution were, but to maintain that it is a carte blanche for all manner of discrimination based on the Bumiputra/ Non-Bumiputra divide is certainly straining credibility:

By 1990, the realities of the racially discriminatory quota system in education were as follows: An average of 90 per cent of loans for polytechnic certificate courses, 90 per cent of scholarships for Diploma of Education courses, 90 per cent of scholarships/loans for degree courses taken in the country, almost all scholarships/loans for degree courses taken overseas were given to Bumiputeras. Regarding the enrolment of students in residential schools throughout the Eighties, 95 per cent of these were Bumiputera. The enrolment in MARA’s Lower Science College, Maktab Sains MARA was almost 100 per cent Bumiputera throughout the Eighties.” (19)

Under Mahathir, we have seen the transfer from State to private Malay capital under his privatization programme and the proletarianisation of the Malay peasantry. Corporate wealth has spread among Malays through release of shares from profitable state enterprises into unit trusts for bumiputras. The Umnoputras have been the best placed to take advantage of these opportunities. In 1986, for example, 4 per cent of ASN holders owned more than 70 per cent of the ASN, while 80 per cent owned less than 500 shares each. (20) Cronies were chosen to head UMNO-linked corporations and to benefit from controversial privatization projects.

In recent years and especially since Abdullah Ahmad’s infamous speech in 1986, there have been vain attempts by the ruling party to rationalise this racist notion of “Malay dominance” (Ketuanan Melayu) with the so-called “social contract” at Independence.

Since the racial violence of 1969, there has been a trend toward fascist methods to intimidate any challenge to this status quo. We saw this in 1987 during the build-up to Operation Lalang when the rally organized by UMNO displayed racist and blatantly seditious banners; in 1996 when a mob from the ruling party violently disrupted the Second Asia-Pacific Conference on East Timor; in 1999, they threatened staff of the Selangor Assembly Hall; in 2001, when six people were killed and over a hundred mainly ethnic Indians were injured in Kampong Medan; in 2004, 2005 and 2006, when the UMNO Youth Chief waved the keris at the UMNO general assembly to flaunt “Malay dominance”.

Conclusion: Non-Racial Alternatives to National Development

Despite the compromises made to civil liberties by the British colonial power under the 1957 Federal Constitution, we should still abide by that Independence Agreement rather than its subsequent amendments. Our fundamental liberties are inscribed in that Federal Constitution which confers upon every citizen basic rights we all enjoy as citizens.

The Malaysian Judiciary is the interpreter of the Malaysian Constitution and as far as we know, extraneous concepts such as “social contract” and “bumiputera” cannot be found in the Constitution. The very idea of “Malay dominance” is repugnant to a civilized world united against racism and racial discrimination. The abuse of the quota system ever since the 1971 constitutional amendment remains to be challenged in court.

Racism and racial discrimination have dominated Malaysian society for far too long. Now that the Malay ruling class already controls the commanding heights of the Malaysian economy, it is high time for a new consensus based on non-racial factors such as class or sector in need to justify affirmative action. Any ethnic community that has undergone class differentiation can hardly qualify for positive discrimination. This applies to the Malay, Chinese, Indian and even the Iban and Kadazan communities. Affirmative action may be justified for communities such as the Orang Asli and the Penans which are still fairly homogeneous.

It is time for all Malaysians who hunger for peace and freedom to outlaw racism and racial discrimination from Malaysian society once and for all and to build real unity based on adherence to human rights, equality and the interests of all the Malaysian masses. We require non-racial institutions, including: (21)

1. A Race Relations Act and an Equal Opportunities Commission to combat racism, racialism, and racial discrimination in all Malaysian institutions;

2. Elected local government so that problems of housing, schools, etc. can be solved in non-racial ways;

3. An Independent Broadcasting Authority which is fair to all ethnic communities in Malaysia

4. Government policies aimed at reducing income disparity between the rich and poor regardless of race, religion, gender, disability or political affiliation;

5. Special assistance based on need and NOT on race;

6. A means-tested sliding scale of education grants and loans for all who qualify to enter tertiary institutions regardless of race, religion or gender…

NOTES:

(1) See K.Das: Malay Dominance? The Abdullah Rubric”, K.Das Ink, 1987)

(2) The central thesis of my PhD thesis. See “Class and Communalism in Malaysia” aka Hua Wu Yin, Zed Press, London 1983

(3) See Stenson, MR, Industrial Conflict in Malaya, London 1970

(4) Hua Wu Yin, 1983: 94-98

(5) Utusan Melayu, 22 December 1945 quoted in Khong Kim Hoong, “Merdeka!”, Insan 1984:83

(6) Ibid, pp 87-88

(7) Anthony Short, “The Communist Insurrection in Malaya”, 1975 London

(8) M.V. de Tufo, “A Report of the 1947 Census of Population” quoted in Hua Wu Yin 1983:101

(9) Report of the Federation of Malaya Constitutional Commission 1957, Government Press, para 165, p.72

(10)Khong Kim Hoong, 1984:200

(11) Sheridan, L.A. & Groves, H.E. “The Constitution of Malaysia”, Malayan Law Journal, Singapore 1979: 382

(12) ibid, p.385

(13) Hua Wu Yin 1983: 144-47

(14) Kua Kia Soong, “May 13: Declassified Documents on the Malaysian Riots of 1969”, Suaram 2007)

(15) Kua Kia Soong ed: K.Das & The Tunku Tapes, SIRD 2002

(16) Hua Wu Yin 1983:183

(17)Rights in Respect of Education under the Malaysian Constitution” in F.A. Trindade & H.P. Lee, ‘The Constitution of Malaysia, Further Perspectives and Developments’, Fajar Bakti, Petaling Jaya 1986: 49)

(18) ibid, p.50

(19) Reply to parliamentary questions in Kua Kia Soong, “Reforming Malaysia”, 1993 Oriengroup, Tables 1-9

(20) Kua Kia Soong, “Polarisation in Malaysia: The Root Causes”, K.Das Ink 1987:61

(21)See Kua Kia Soong, ‘Racism & Racial Discrimination in Malaysia’, Paper submitted to the World Conference against Racism & Racial Discrimination at Durban, 3 September 2001, in “Malaysian Critical Issues”, SIRD 2002

通告 Notification


成立18周年纪念,9月21日举办论坛

我们决定举办“‘509改朝换代’马哈迪当政,民主改革运动前进抑或倒退?”论坛与自由餐会,作为我们今年(2019年)纪念人民之友成立18周年的活动内容。以下4名专人欣然接受作为论坛的主讲人:
  • 兴权会2.0领导乌达雅古玛 (P. Uthayakumar)
  • 人权律师西蒂卡欣 (Siti Kasim)
  • 自由撰稿人及评论人唐南发(Josh Hong)
  • 媒体工作者及评论人蓝志锋(Lum Chih Feng)
4名主讲人将针对论坛主题分别出具论文,发表讲话,并回答现场问题。我们会在论坛过后,将主讲人的专题文章和讲话视频,上载到人民之友部落格(sahabatrakyatmy.blogspot.com),供公众阅览。我们希望通过此论坛激发更多的民主党团领导、学者、各阶层人士,共同为我国民主改革运动做出更大的努力和贡献。

论坛举办日期:2019年9月21日(星期六),时间:下午2:00—5:30时分,地点:柔佛古来,新国泰餐馆。论坛结束后才进行简单的自由餐会,同时进行互相交流。我们欢迎关心我国政治发展的公众人士前来聆听论坛主讲人的演讲并参加自由餐会(入场免费,但请事先报名参加,以便准备食物。有意参加者请填上表格https://forms.gle/SWbjEaiwNikEUiKF6或联系以下负责人)。

9月9日张贴一篇具参考价值英译文章

我们已在今年9月9日(成立纪念日)这天,发表人民之友秘书处委派人员翻译的一篇新加坡前工会领袖庄明湖2013年所撰写的《廿世纪六十年代新加坡左派工运遭遇问题探索(续篇)》(原是华文版)的英文译稿,作为人民之友18周年纪念的一个献礼——提供一个新马人民反殖独立运动遭遇敌人从内部破坏的历史殷鉴,为在9月21日举行的论坛所探索的现实课题,增添一份具有启示意义的参考材料。

“人民之友”是一个着重促进我国民主人权运动的思想交流平台。人民之友工委会都是义务的自愿工作者,我们坚持独立自主的立场,我们采取自力更生、节约苦干的方针,为推动我国民主人权运动朝向正确方向发展而奋斗。我们欢迎“有心人”赞助我们的这项活动及其他工作,有意赞助者请联系:

(1)朱信杰 017-7721511
(2)钟立薇 012-7177187
(3)吴振宇 013-7778320


Forum to be held on 21 September in commemoration of 18th anniversary

We will be organising “Mahathir returns to power after regime change in the 14th General Election, A progression or regression of the democratic reform movement?” forum cum buffet in commemoration of our 18th Anniversary. The following 4 experts have accepted the invitation to become our panel speakers:
  • P. Uthayakumar – Leader of Hindraf 2.0
  • Siti Kasim – Human rights lawyer
  • Josh Hong - Freelance writer and commentator
  • Lum Chih Feng – Media worker and commentator
All 4 panel speakers will present papers, deliver speeches and answer questions on the theme of the forum. After the event, we will also be uploading the paper and video of the speeches of the panel speakers to Sahabat Rakyat blog(sahabatrakyatmy.blogspot.com)as reference material for the public. Through this forum, we hope to inspire more leaders of democratic parties, organisations, scholars and peoples of all walks of life to make more contribution to the democratic reform movement of our country.

Particulars of the event are as follows:
Date: 21 September 2019 (Saturday)
Time: 2:00pm – 5:30pm
Venue: Cathay Restaurant Kulai, Johor
Buffet will start upon the completion of the forum, concurrent with the sharing session
. We welcome all who are concerned with the political developments in Malaysia to attend this event and join the buffet meal. (Admission is free, but please register in advance so that we can make necessary arrangement for food. If you are interested, please fill in https://forms.gle/SWbjEaiwNikEUiKF6or contact person in charge below)

9 September - Published the English rendition of an article of value for reference

On 9 September this year (the actual day of our anniversary), we had published an English rendition of the "Probing into the sufferings of Singapore's left-wing labour movement in the 1960s (Part II)" originally written in Chinese by Chng Min Oh, a former trade union leader in Singapore on Sahabat Rakyat blog, as a gift of our anniversary. This English rendition was translated by personnel delegated by the Secretariat of Sahabat Rakyat. This article provides a historical lesson learned about the destruction bore from within of the anti-colonial independence movement of the people of Malaya and Singapore plotted by the enemy, and constitutes revelatory reference material to the realistic issues that this coming forum is probing into.

Sahabat Rakyat is an ideological exchange platform that focuses on promoting democratic human rights movement in our country. All committee members of Sahabat Rakyat are volunteers. We adhere to the stance of being independent and autonomous, we adopt the principle of being self-reliant, thrifty and hard work, and strive to promote the development of the democratic human rights movement toward the right direction.
We welcome those who are generous hearted to sponsor this event and other work that we carry out. For those who are interested to sponsor, please contact:

(1)Choo Shinn Chei 017-7721511
(2)Cheng Lee Whee 012-7177187
(3)Ngo Jian Yee 013-7778320


此外,现居新加坡的庄明湖已将他在《人民之友》发表的《20世纪60年代新加坡左派工运问题探索》(正篇)一文的英文译稿传送到编辑部,因原文中所述人物的姓名或者是党团工会组织的全称或简称,在译文中尚未解决或有待查证,需要一些时日来完成——人民之友工委都是自愿挤出时间来进行工作的,因而无法很快完成。经过一番努力,我们终于在9月30日刊出,为我们的17周年纪念增添光彩!

值得在此一提的是,庄文所述的20世纪60年代新加坡工运遭遇问题(除了遭受来自外部的镇压,还要遭遇来自内部的破坏)的见解,或许能为一些读者(特别是不谙华文和不懂新马历史的读者)思考马来西亚民主改革运动在当前阶段面临马哈迪主义复辟的问题,提供一个历史殷鉴,或者是一个新的启示。


Malaysia Time (GMT+8)