16 Anniversary.PNG


 photo 2018.png


 photo 2014-03-08KajangByElectionPC.jpg

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

 photo ForumKrisisPerkataanAllah.jpg

“阿拉风波•宪法权利•宗教自由”论坛 / Forum "Krisis perkataan Allah • Hak berperlembagaan • Kebebasan beragama"

 photo LimChinSiongampArticle.jpg


 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


Thursday, 22 January 2015

New Oxfam report says half of global wealth held by the 1%

New Oxfam report says 
Half of global wealth held by the 1%

Source: The Guardian

Pic source: Trak.in
Billionaires and politicians gathering in Switzerland this week will come under pressure to tackle rising inequality after a study found that – on current trends – by next year, 1% of the world’s population will own more wealth than the other 99%.

Ahead of this week’s annual meeting of the World Economic Forum in the ski resort of Davos, the anti-poverty charity Oxfam said it would use its high-profile role at the gathering to demand urgent action to narrow the gap between rich and poor.

The charity’s research, published on Monday, shows that the share of the world’s wealth owned by the best-off 1% has increased from 44% in 2009 to 48% in 2014, while the least well-off 80% currently own just 5.5%.

Oxfam added that on current trends the richest 1% would own more than 50% of the world’s wealth by 2016.

Winnie Byanyima (left), executive director of Oxfam International and one of the six co-chairs at this year’s WEF, said the increased concentration of wealth seen since the deep recession of 2008-09 was dangerous and needed to be reversed.

In an interview with the Guardian, Byanyima said: “We want to bring a message from the people in the poorest countries in the world to the forum of the most powerful business and political leaders.

“The message is that rising inequality is dangerous. It’s bad for growth and it’s bad for governance. We see a concentration of wealth capturing power and leaving ordinary people voiceless and their interests uncared for.”

Oxfam made headlines at Davos last year with a study showing that the 85 richest people on the planet have the same wealth as the poorest 50% (3.5 billion people). The charity said this year that the comparison was now even more stark, with just 80 people owning the same amount of wealth as more than 3.5 billion people, down from 388 in 2010.

Pic source: Trak.in

Byanyima said: “Do we really want to live in a world where the 1% own more than the rest of us combined? The scale of global inequality is quite simply staggering and despite the issues shooting up the global agenda, the gap between the richest and the rest is widening fast.”

Separate research by the Equality Trust, which campaigns to reduce inequality in the UK, found that the richest 100 families in Britain in 2008 had seen their combined wealth increase by at least £15bn, a period during which average income increased by £1,233. Britain’s current richest 100 had the same wealth as 30% of UK households, it added.

Inequality has moved up the political agenda over the past half-decade amid concerns that the economic recovery since the global downturn of 2008-09 has been accompanied by a squeeze on living standards and an increase in the value of assets owned by the rich, such as property and shares.

Pope Francis and the IMF managing director Christine Lagarde have been among those warning that rising inequality will damage the world economy if left unchecked, while the theme of Thomas Piketty’s best-selling book Capital was the drift back towards late 19th century levels of wealth concentration.

Barack Obama’s penultimate State of the Union address on Tuesday is also expected to be dominated by the issue of income inequality.

He will propose a redistributive tax plan to extract more than $300bn (£200bn) in extra taxes from the 1% of rich earners in order to fund benefits specifically targeted at working families.

However, the odds of the White House having any success persuading Congress to adopt the plan, given the Republicans’ new grip on both chambers, are extremely long. But Obama’s embrace of what he calls “middle-class economics” – as opposed to the trickle-down economics of the Republicans – is likely to ensure that inequality remains a pivotal theme of the 2016 presidential campaign.

Oxfam said the wealth of the richest 80 doubled in cash terms between 2009 and 2014, and that there was an increasing tendency for wealth to be inherited and to be used as a lobbying tool by the rich to further their own interests. It noted that more than a third of the 1,645 billionaires listed by Forbes inherited some or all of their riches, while 20% have interests in the financial and insurance sectors, a group which saw their cash wealth increase by 11% in the 12 months to March 2014.

These sectors spent $550m lobbying policymakers in Washington and Brussels during 2013. During the 2012 US election cycle alone, the financial sector provided $571m in campaign contributions.

Byanyima said: “I was surprised to be invited to be a co-chair at Davos because we are a critical voice. We go there to challenge these powerful elites. It is an act of courage to invite me.”

Oxfam said it was calling on governments to adopt a seven point plan:

• Clamp down on tax dodging by corporations and rich individuals.

• Invest in universal, free public services such as health and education.

• Share the tax burden fairly, shifting taxation from labour and consumption towards capital and wealth.

• Introduce minimum wages and move towards a living wage for all workers.

• Introduce equal pay legislation and promote economic policies to give women a fair deal.

• Ensure adequate safety-nets for the poorest, including a minimum-income guarantee.

• Agree a global goal to tackle inequality.

Speaking to the Guardian, Byanyima added: “Extreme inequality is not just an accident or a natural rule of economics. It is the result of policies and with different policies it can be reduced. I am optimistic that there will be change.

“A few years ago the idea that extreme poverty was harmful was on the fringes of the economic and political debate. But having made the case we are now seeing an emerging consensus among business leaders, economic leaders, political leaders and even faith leaders.”

The video released by Oxfam that gives you an overview of such an unequal world we live in!

Wednesday, 21 January 2015

明年全球最富有的1%人口的财产 将超过其余99%人口的财富总和
















Monday, 19 January 2015

世界经济论坛期待中国 贡献解决全球挑战方案





















Wednesday, 14 January 2015

Does it matter if Lim Chin Siong was a communist? / 即使林清祥是共产党人,那又如何?

Does it matter if Lim Chin Siong was a communist?
Author / Source: Teo Soh Lung / The Real Singapore

Teo Soh Lung introduced the book Youth On Trial to an old-left who attended the 60th (1954 - 2014) Anniversary of Singapore's “May 13 Incident” Commemoration.

[Sahabat Rakyat Editor's Note] Teo Soh Lung, the author graduated from the University of Singapore with a Bachelor of Laws (LLB Hons) in 1973. While she was practising as a lawyer, she set up her own law firm. She is also an activist who has been pro-actively involved in the democratic and human rights movement in Singapore. She was arrested and detained without trial under the ISA together with the others for purported involvement in a “Marxism conspiracy” in May 1987. She was arrested under the “Operation Spectrum” and released after 4 months. However, she was arrested and detained without trial again in 1988 for upholding her positions. She was finally released in 1990.

Teo Soh Lung published her memoir Beyond the Blue Gate: Recollections of a Political Prisoner in 2010 and was one of the editors of Our Thoughts Are Free: Poems and Prose on Imprisonment and Exile in 2009.

Teo Soh Lung is also one of the founding members and leaders of a non-government organization (NGO) called “Function 8” (https://fn8org.wordpress.com) in Singapore. She is more enthusiastic in promoting democracy and human rights movement in Singapore after her retirement. She said she never read about Marxist theory, nor participated in any of the activities related to Marxism or communist party. Her dedication in pursuing democracy and her emphasis on unity work made her one of the important driving forces in the 60th Anniversary of Singapore's “May 13 Incident” commemoration and the publication of the book entitled Youth On Trial.

Many of those who have been showered in the glory of left-wing movement but now busy expressing positions and views of “no relevance to Malayan Communist Party (MCP)" might feel ashamed after reading Teo's stance and opinions on the corresponding problems expressed in this article.

This is the English translation of Sahabat Rakyat Editor's Note released in Chinese on 10 Jan 2015.

PM Lee Hsien Loong’s observation of the Battle for Merger exhibition (https://www.facebook.com/leehsienloong) is just an attempt to defend his father’s wrong doing.

For more than half a century, Singaporeans have been told that communists were dangerous people and that they indulged in violence. The government conveniently omit to tell us that it was the communists who fought and died for Malaya (which included Singapore) during World War II and that Chin Peng was honoured by our colonial master soon after the war.

The CPM was the first anti-colonial organisation and not the PAP. If Lim Chin Siong and his friends were communists, they were also the founding members of the PAP. They fought alongside the PAP and helped it win the general election in 1959. Without them, where will the PAP be today?

Lee Kuan Yew had worked with Lim Chin Siong and other alleged communists who he later expelled from the PAP. Lee should know and not just allege that Lim Chin Siong and his friends were communists who advocated violence and instigated riots. He should have charged them in open court and produce evidence to secure their convictions. The PAP should not be cowards by simply claiming immunity from prosecution by using the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance and later, the Internal Security Act.

In my conversations with the late Dr Lim Hock Siew, Dr Lim repeatedly said that his party, the Barisan Sosialis believed and took the constitutional path in challenging the PAP. They were confident of winning the 1963 general election and had taken steps to avoid giving any opportunity for the PAP to accuse them of creating trouble. They even cancelled a National Day rally in 1962. Dr Lim in answering a question from the audience in 2011 said:

“… on 3 June 1962, we wanted to celebrate National Day, PAP came into power on 3 June 1959. We were given permission with lots of conditions. You could not speak on this or that or they would come and interfere. We knew if we held that rally, there would be provocation from the PAP and there would be trouble. Then they would use that to suppress us. So we had a last-minute cancellation of that rally.

To that extent, we were very restrained. We wanted to preserve our strength for the general election.”

Such restraint was deliberately not appreciated by the PAP and the British because they knew the Barisan would win the election if the leaders were not put behind bars. Operation Coldstore took place on 2 Feb 1963. One hundred and thirty three law abiding members of opposition parties, including Lim Chin Siong who were looking forward to the general election that year, were arrested and imprisoned without trial, many for decades. This surely is the most shameful part of the PAP history. That operation wiped out a credible opposition for which Singapore is still suffering today. Incidentally, Operation Coldstore is not listed in the “Timeline of Events” at the Battle for Merger exhibition.

The general election was held on 21 Sept 1963, seven months after Operation Coldstore. The PAP need not brag about its victory for we all know what they did.

“What we need to know is whether Lim Chin Siong and his colleagues committed any acts of violence and acted against the interest of Singapore.”

But honestly, I don’t care if Lim Chin Siong was a communist or a CPM member. After all, the PAP does lots of business with communist Russia and China. What we need to know is whether Lim Chin Siong and his colleagues committed any acts of violence and acted against the interest of Singapore. The PAP government has never disclosed any evidence proving that Lim Chin Siong instigated any violence. The PAP repeatedly blamed the communists for causing riots, even for those racial riots that took place during the time when Singapore was part of Malaysia and after separation, when all the opposition leaders were still in prison. Why does the PAP refuse to admit that the riots had nothing to do with the so called communists? Their intention is clear, to cast blame on the communists and instil fear on the people of Singapore.

Lim Chin Siong was incarcerated without trial both by the British and the Lim Yew Hock government (26 Oct 1956 – 4 Jun 1959) and the PAP government (2 Feb 1963 – 1969). I understand he suffered severe depression in prison and was exiled to Britain in 1969. His career as a promising political leader (many think that he was better than Lee Kuan Yew) was terminated by the ruthless and violent acts of the British and the PAP. And Lim Chin Siong was not the only victim of the PAP. Many others – Dr Chia Thye Poh, Dr Lim Hock Siew, Ho Piao, Lee Tee Tong, Said Zahari, Dr Poh Soo Kai and many more were imprisoned without trial for decades by the PAP.

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong should follow the example of President Obama who investigated the CIA and made public the report of unlawful imprisonment and torture committed on captured prisoners at Guantanamo. Open up the archives of the ISD and search for the truth instead of simply believing what the ISD and his father tell him.

Convene an independent Commission of Inquiry while his father is alive, produce all documents justifying the imprisonment without trial of thousands of Singaporeans and exiles and let his father’s victims tell their side of history. We do not have much time, for the number of victims of Operation Coldstore is fast dwindling. Dr Poh Soo Kai is already in his 80s. I strongly urge the prime minister to act speedily and fairly, and not simply rely on the ISD to tell the history of Singapore.

Saturday, 10 January 2015

即使林清祥是共产党人,那又如何?/ Does it matter if Lim Chin Siong was a communist?



张素兰向出席新加坡“5•13”事件60周年(1954年—2014年)纪念活动的老左推介 “5.13”纪念文集。


张素兰在2010年出版了她的(英文本)回忆录:《跨越蓝色大门:一名政治被拘留者的回忆》(The Blue Gate: Recollections of a Political Prisoner)。她也是以英文出版的《我们的思想是自由的:2009年在监牢和被放逐的诗歌和散文》(Our Thoughts Are Free: Poems and Prose on Imprisonment and Exile in 2009.)的编辑之一。

张素兰是新加坡的一个称为“功能8”[Function 8 (fn8org.wordpress.com)]的非政府组织的发起人和领导人之一。她在退休后,更加热衷于推动新加坡民主人权运动的发展。张素兰说,她没有读马克思主义理论,也从来没有参加过跟马克思主义或共产党有关的任何活动。她对追求民主的执着,他对团结工作的重视,驱使她成为去年(2014年)新加坡“5•13”学生运动60周年纪念活动和文集出版的一个重要推手。


以下是张素兰在The Real Singapore网站发表的全文内容的华文译稿————















Monday, 5 January 2015

Do away with Bumiputera agenda, prominent economist tells Putrajaya

Do away with Bumiputera agenda, prominent economist tells Putrajaya

Source / Author: The Malaysian Insider / Anisah Shukry

Economist Tan Sri Kamal Salih says ethnicity is no longer the basis of inequality. – The Malaysian Insider pic by Seth Akmal, January 2, 2015

The Bumiputera agenda has been the backbone of the Barisan Nasional (BN)-led government’s economic plans since 1969, its pro-Malay policies justified for decades by the economic backwardness of the Malays as a result of the British colonial policy of divide and rule.

“Putrajaya must go for the national agenda and create a national policy that is more inclusive. And if it does that properly, and avoid the pitfalls of the past, then I think it can achieve its economic goals, without having this red flag of being a ‘Bumiputera agenda’.

“If you are trying to reduce inequality and reduce the gap between the rich and the poor, the beneficiaries will be largely Bumiputeras anyway.

“So why go through the pain of being accused of being racist, when you can achieve the same goals without being racist?” Kamal, an adjunct professor of Economics and Development Studies at Universiti Malaya, told The Malaysian Insider in a recent interview in Kuala Lumpur.

Last November, the New Straits Times had reported that the government had spent RM46.5 billion to boost the Bumiputera economy through 23 programmes since September last year.

Bumiputera Agenda Steering Unit (Teraju) chief executive Husni Salleh, who is also Bumiputera Economic Council (MEB) secretary, said that all 23 ministers, secretaries-general and GLCs now have key performance indicators on Bumiputera economic programmes, monitored by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak.

At last year’s Umno general assembly, the party’s deputy president, Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin, had proposed that a “new” National Economic Policy (NEP) be created to turn the Bumiputera economic agenda into a national agenda.

However, Kamal, who has dedicated his career to policy research, noted that inequality was more prominent within ethnic groups, rather than between them, and poverty could no longer be defined along racial lines.

“Ethnicity is no longer the basis for inequality. It has now become (defined) by income and the disparity between the rich and the poor, the gap between the CEO and the ordinary worker. So the whole thinking must change.”

This was evident in the recently launched Human Development Report 2013, which Kamal had authored with Dr Muhammad Abdul Khalid and Dr Lee Hwok Aun.

Among the report’s findings was that since 1970, inequality between ethnic groups has decreased and contributes only about 4% to Malaysia’s overall inequality in 2009.

In terms of relative poverty, it noted that the rate among the Malays was at 19.1%, followed closely by the Chinese at 17.9% in 2012.

However, race aside, the average Malaysian wage earner has to work 98 years to obtain the same earnings of an average CEO in 2011, according to the report, which was commissioned and published by the United Nations Development Programme.

Roughly one out of two Malays, non-Malay Bumiputera, Chinese and Indians also have no immediate liquid financial assets, making them vulnerable in the event of an employment or income shock.

In the meantime, the government’s pro-Bumiputera New Economic Policy (NEP) had stirred up resentment among the non-Malays against the Malays, and had not reached its 30% Bumiputera economic participation target, Kamal said.

“When the Malays keep getting these benefits in the NEP, or the policies are created in the name of the Malays, the non-Malays in the long run begin to resent it even though they had initially agreed to it. And the problem is not solved.

“The Malays, too, are envious that all the money only goes to a small group of people. Neither the Malays nor the non-Malays are happy,” he said.

Kamal said that affirmative action policies should stay, but they should be targeted based on the groups that needed it, rather than the entire Malay race as a whole.

“Some affirmative action policies should be state-oriented; some policies have to be more focused on rural areas than urban. The policies could be (targeted at) certain populations, social groups, or a territory.”

He cited as an example the Bumiputera poor of Sabah and Sarawak, or the entire state of Kelantan.

The Malaysia Human Development Report stated that households in the richest state, Kuala Lumpur, earn about 2.7 times more income than Kelantan, which is the poorest, with the gap between the two amounting to RM5,418.

Malaysians living in urban areas earned about 55% more than the average wealth per capita of the rural Malaysian, it said.

“The government of the day must not be discriminating against rural or opposition-led states,” he said.

“We need to review this allocation mechanism, otherwise the lesser developed states will never catch up.”

He added that the government must also balance affirmative action with merit-based action, otherwise it would discourage Malaysians from working hard and becoming independent.

“That kind of method of improving people’s lives through direct allocation sometimes creates not only a dependency but the opportunity for corrupt practices where those who are more connected and powerful get the advantage,” he said.

Kamal’s statement may not go down well with right-wing Malay groups, many of whom believe that the government should continue providing preferential treatment to the Bumiputeras, citing Article 153 the Federal Constitution.

In their calls for pro-Bumiputera policies to be enhanced, the right-wing groups have often maintained that Malays are under threat in their own country and must be protected by the government.

“‘Malays under threat’ is a negative statement,” said Kamal.

“You can’t feel threatened in a place where you are the largest community, and have all the institutions and even the constitution to protect your interest.” 

通告 Notification

人民之友 对我国下届大选意见书
(华 巫 英)3种语文已先后贴出

作为坚守“独立自主”和“与民同在”的立场的一个民间组织,人民之友在今年9月24日对即将来临的第14届全国大选投票,发表了一篇以华文书写的“意见书”,题为:投票支持"反对国家伊斯兰化的候选人": 反对巫统霸权统治!莫让马哈迪帮派"复辟"!

这篇意见书的英文译稿(标题是:Vote for “candidates who are against State Islamisation”: Oppose UMNO hegemonic rule! Prevent “the return to power of Mahathir’s faction”!)已于10月22日张贴在本部落格。马来文译稿(标题是:Undilah "calon yang membantah pengislaman negara": Menentang pemerintahan hegemoni UMNO! Mencegah puak Mahathir kembali kepada kuasa!)也已接着在11月13日在此贴出。



Pandangan Sahabat Rakyat terhadap PRU akan datang telah diterbitkan dalam tiga bahasa (Melayu, Cina dan Inggeris)

Sebagai sebuah pertubuhan masyarakat yang berpendirian teguh tentang prinsip "bebas dan berautonomi" dan “sentiasa berdampingan dengan rakyat jelata”, Sahabat Rakyat telah menerbitkan kenyataan tentang pandangan kami terhadap Pilihan Raya Umum ke-14 yang bertajuk "Undilah calon yang menentang Pengislaman Negera: Menentang pemerintahan hegemoni UMNO! Jangan benarkan puak Mahathir kembali memerintah! " (投票支持"反对国家伊斯兰化的候选人": 反对巫统霸权统治!莫让马哈迪帮派"复辟"!)dalam Bahasa Cina pada 24hb September 2017.

Penterjemahan Bahasa Inggeris kenyataan tersebut yang bertajuk Vote for “candidates who are against State Islamisation”: Oppose UMNO hegemonic rule! Prevent “the return to power of Mahathir’s faction”! telah diterbitkan dalam blog kita pada 22hb Oktober 2017 manakala penterjemahan Bahasa Melayu telah diterbitkan pada 13hb November 2017.

Selain daripada itu, Sahabat Rakyat juga akan menyebarkan kenyataan ini seluas mungkin kepada pertubuhan dan individu semua bangsa, strata, profesyen dan agama seluruh Negara melalui email, wechat, whatsApp dan pelbagai saluran lain. Kami amat mengalu-alukan pertubuhan dan individu yang berpendirian dan pandangan sama dengan kami untuk turut menyebarkan kenyataan ini kepada lebih ramai orang!

Kami berharap pendirian dan pandangan kami berkenaan pilihan raya kali ini yang dinyatakan dalam kenyataan tersebut dapat disebarkan dengan tepat dan meluas untuk diuji dalam kalangan rakyat semua bangsa semua strata sosial melalui penglibatan mereka dalam amalan pelbagai parti politik dalam pertempuran pilihan raya umum kali ini mahupun amalan masa depan.

The Chinese, English and Malay renditions of Sahabat Rakyat’s opinions about next election have been published consecutively

As an NGO which upholds “independent and autonomous” position and "always be with the people" principle, on 24 September 2017, Sahabat Rakyat had released a Chinese-written statement of views with regard to the voting in the upcoming 14th General Election, entitled “Vote for candidates who are against State Islamisation: Oppose UMNO hegemonic rule! Prevent the return to power of Mahathir’s faction!” (投票支持"反对国家伊斯兰化的候选人": 反对巫统霸权统治!莫让马哈迪帮派"复辟"!)

The English rendition of this statement entitled "Vote for “candidates who are against State Islamisation”: Oppose UMNO hegemonic rule! Prevent “the return to power of Mahathir’s faction”!" and the Malay rendition entitled "Undilah "calon yang membantah pengislaman negara": Menentang pemerintahan hegemoni UMNO! Mencegah puak Mahathir kembali kepada kuasa!" had been released on 22 October and 13 November respectively.

Apart from that, Sahabat Rakyat will also make every effort to disseminate this statement as widely as possible to organizations and individuals of all ethnic groups, religions and all walks of life throughout the country via email, WeChat, WhatsApp and other channels. We welcome organizations and individuals with the same position and views to spread this statement to more people!

We hope that our position and views pertaining to the next General Election expressed in the statement will be accurately and widely disseminated and also examined by the popular masses of various ethnicity and social strata through their involvement in the struggle of the next General Election carried out by various political parties and their practices in all fields in future.

Malaysia Time (GMT+8)