Sahabat Rakyat akan mengemukakan pendapat khusus mengenai situasi politik di negara kita selepas "Rampasan kuasa Sheraton" pada 9 September 2020 untuk tatapan rakan semua bangsa dan semua strata yang komited terhadap reformasi demokratik tulen negara kita. Kami bersedia bertukar pendapat dan saling belajar dengan semua rakan-rakan sehaluan.


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

 photo 2021.png

人民之友恭祝各界2021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! 抗拒'马来霸权统治'! 丢掉幻想,阻止马哈迪主义复辟!

 photo mahathir_PRU14_1.png


 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


 16 Anniversary.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。



Saturday, 29 December 2012

MAY 13, KAMPUNG MEDAN – NEVER AGAIN! 513事件、甘榜美丹事件 - 悲剧绝不允许重演!

By Dr Kua Kia Soong, SUARAM adviser, 18 December 2012

The launch of “Violence against an Ethnic Minority in Malaysia: Kampung Medan 2001 by S. Nagarajan & K. Arumugam is a wake-up call for Malaysians to get wise to the Malaysian state’s attempts to portray racist/fascist pogroms against ethnic minorities in Malaysia as so-called “racial riots” that came about “naturally” because of social conditions and dissatisfaction. This is the first book written to put the record straight on the racial violence against ethnic Indian Malaysians at Kampung Medan in 2001. For this racial violence to happen more than thirty years after “May 13” is a scandal and an indictment of Malaysia’s modern day institutions which are still steeped in racism and racial discrimination.
My 2007 title, “May 13: Declassified Documents on the Malaysian Riots of 1969” challenged the official version that the violence (in which the victims were mainly ethnic Chinese) was the result of “riots” between “Malays” and “Chinese” who had been provoked by irresponsible opposition politicians. The official version of the Kampung Medan violence in 2001 was that the “riots” had been sparked by incidents which ignited “naturally” in a neglected urban ghetto.

The facts on May 13 point to an orchestrated pogrom in which a complicit state allowed the violence to drag on until July 1969, before the security forces demonstrated their full capacity to restore order. As documented in Nagarajan & Arumugam’s new book, the Kampung Medan violence, which started on March 8, 2001, was allowed to continue over a number of days in a relatively small enclave of Petaling Jaya – with the last tragic incident occurring on March 23.

This delay in taking action reveals a serious credibility problem surrounding our law enforcement and security forces. How is it that these forces failed in their duty to apprehend the thugs who unleashed the racial violence and also failed to investigate those who had organized the violence? Eye witness accounts show that in some of the racial attacks there, the police just stood by without stopping and apprehending the thugs. This was the same observation noted during the “May 13” pogrom, namely, the security forces did not play the professional role expected of them.

Just as in 1969, these incidents were not “racial clashes” between ordinary Malays and non-Malays. In this record of Kampung Medan, it is clear that the people within this community were of diverse ethnicity and that between them there was the sort of camaraderie evident in Kampung Baru in May 1969.

The culprits who were responsible for the violence were fascist thugs from outside these communities who had been brought there by “hidden hands”. It is the duty and responsibility of the police and security forces to apprehend the thugs and to unmask the hidden hands and reveal their agenda. After all, our Malaysian Police Force pride themselves on being one of the best in this part of the world, having been trained by the British colonial power to handle the Emergency during the fifties. Note the speed with which they execute ISA operations and their alacrity in breaking up civil demonstrations of thousands!

Racism against Ethnic Indians

The purposeful stereotyping of the Chinese and Indian Malaysians as the “immigrants who should know their place” as distinct from those defined as “bumiputeras” (“princes of the soil”) by the state and the Malay far-right is intended to justify “Malay dominance”. Thus the “May 13 Incident” has been frequently used as a deterrent to any challenge to the status quo, whether during a general election or simply a challenge to an unjust UMNO policy. In recent years, a pattern has emerged in which ethnic Indians, who are a minority community in this country (of less than 10% of the total population) finding themselves the majority in official statistics on deaths in police custody and victims of police shootings. These shocking facts reflect the racist portrayal of the marginalized Indian community in the state institutions. Through the years, we have also witnessed many cases of racial slurs against ethnic Indians in the mainstream media and school textbooks.

Even though biologically, there is no such basis for a category known as “race”, the social construction of race is ever present in this country. Racism and racialization came about during the period when the different communities were under the dominance of British colonialism. In the circumstances of that time, it suited the dominant group to legitimise dominance by a divide and rule strategy that viewed minorities as “non-indigenous” who required assimilation.

This legacy of racism, which has been further institutionalised since independence, is not only evident in school textbooks but also in media discourse and everyday conversation. My writings on press coverage of ethnic affairs since the Eighties (eg. “Media Watch: The Use and Abuse of the Malaysian Press”, SCAH 1990) have shown that ethnic minority groups tend to be reproduced in the Malay-language press in stereotypical, blatantly racist terms. Thus, minorities are associated with problems and conflict and then portrayed as a threat to the dominant Malay population. Topics tend to focus on “aliens”, “them versus us”, crime and cultural differences are interpreted negatively. The message is clear: “Immigrants must adapt or else…”, “Indians must behave…”Today, this blatant racism has become second-nature to the Malay-language press and media watching is no longer an art in Malaysia!

‘1Malaysia’ Forces UMNO to Outsource Racism to Far-Right

State complicity is evident not only in the negligent role of the security forces but also in its tolerance of the far-right and their racist taunts. Fascism has a knack for appearing in capitalist crises. At the time when the racial violence happened at Kampung Medan in 2001, the so-called “Malay Action Front” provocatively waved the keris and pledged to defend “Malay ethnic supremacy”. Such racist provocation and UMNO’s manipulation of Malay sentiments serve to ensure UMNO’s monopoly of political power and their ability to reap the fruits of Malay-centrism. In the process, such racist propaganda serves to divert the attention of the Malay poor from their real problems and the ruling elite responsible for them.

Since the 2008 political tsunami and UMNO’s attempts to win back Non-Malay support through such ploys as the “1Malaysia” slogan, it appears that UMNO Youth’s traditional role of racial breast-beating has been outsourced to the far-right groups. UMNO soon learnt that the spectacle of “Kerishamudin” playing the Malay warrior at the 2006 UMNO general assembly had cost them too many non-Malay votes in the 2008 general election.

The Umnoputras, in their pursuit of political and economic power, are not interested in solving the social problems that have resulted from the neo-liberal and discriminatory policies which they have put in place. The far-right is there to ensure that the Malay working class and middle class are wooed by the “Malay-centrist” ideology in an effort to prevent them from joining the growing movement against the present unjust system. As has happened in the history of capitalism, fascists only offer racism and violence as a solution to people’s desperation.

Outlaw Racism, Racial Discrimination & Hate Crimes

“Hate crimes” are criminal acts committed as intimidation, threats, property damage, assault, murder or such other criminal offence. The negative impact of hate crimes on the greater community cannot be emphasized enough. In order to nip this tendency in the bud, “Incitement to racial hatred” needs to be made a criminal offence. Under the British Criminal Justice & Public Order Act 1994 for example, publication of materials that incite racial hatred is an arrestable offence. These include deliberately provoking hatred against a racial group; distributing racist material to the public; making inflammatory public speeches; creating racist websites on the internet; inciting inflammatory rumours about an individual or ethnic group, in order to spread racial discontent.

The UK Public Order Act 1986 defines racial hatred as “hatred against a group of persons defined by reference to colour, race, nationality or ethnic origins”. Section 21 of the Act makes “incitement to racial hatred” an offence to publish or distribute material which is threatening or abusive or insulting if intended to stir up racial hatred…” In Malaysia, the proposed Equality Act and Equality & Human Rights Commission (see below) should likewise specifically deal with hate crimes and incitement to racial hatred.

Never Too Late for Truth & Justice

Although this is more than ten years after the Kampung Medan incident, it is never too late for the truth to be spoken and justice to be despatched to the victims of organized racial violence. There is simply no cut-off point in the struggle for truth and justice. The British government is currently being forced to carry out a judicial review of the Batang Kali massacre that happened in 1948. When my book on “May 13” was published in 2007, I called for the formation of a Truth & Reconciliation Commission so that the nation can know the truth about the pogrom of 1969 when hundreds of ethnic Chinese Malaysians were killed. Forty three years have passed, and we still do not know the identity of the victims and the “hidden hands” who orchestrated that “May 13 Incident”.

But all these efforts will be in vain if the rest of the Malaysian society does not learn the lessons of this episode. We have to redress the human rights issues that have still not been resolved in this country and reform the institutions to ensure that “Kampung Medan” and “May 13” never ever happen again. Such steps include:
·         Forming and swiftly deploying a Special Multi-Ethnic Peace-Keeping Force to keep order if  such incidents occur in future;
·         Establishing, with urgency, a neutral Commission of Inquiry into any such incidents and charging the culprits responsible for murder.
·         Implementing the Independent Police Complaints & Misconduct Committee;
·         Ensuring that recruitment into the police and armed forces and career advancement are based on merit;
·         Enacting an Equality Act to promote equality and non-discrimination irrespective of race, creed, religion, gender or disability with provision for an Equality & Human Rights Commission;
·         Institutionalising equality and human rights education at all decision-making levels, including state and non-state actors/ institutions;
·         Ratifying the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD).

No Platform for Racists & Fascists

Clearly, far right racial supremacists who rail about the dominance of their “race” would be reined in by an Equality & Human Rights Commission and dealt with under an Equality Act. Any government that has credibility must implement a policy of “Zero Tolerance for Racists” and “No Platform for Fascists”. Freedom of expression does not extend to the right to violence, incitement of racial or religious hatred. Indeed, it is the freedom of expression for the majority of humanity that fascists threaten. Fascism must not be allowed to infect the democratic space built by our fore fathers. The publication of this book is another positive contribution to the peoples’ history, the struggle against racism and fascism in Malaysia and a further advancement of the ever growing civil society movement in this country. 

Monday, 24 December 2012



我们经常听到巫统必须“捍卫马来人的权利”的叫囂。这些叫囂来自捶胸咆哮的极端右派种族主义者,更多的是来自历届的巫统大会。巫统高层领袖们和主流媒体,甚至那些更了解情况的人,似乎沒有兴趣纠正这些人滥用“马来人权利”的词语。恰逢世界人权日即将到来,我们借此机会,好好弄清楚 “权利”和“优惠”两者之间的差异。









最高元首必须确保“在公共服务的职位……、奖学金、助学金和其他类似的教育或培训优惠、或联邦政府所赐予的特殊设施、联邦法律下所需要的贸业或商业准证或执照等方面,保留元首认为合理比例(笔者强调)的份额,给马来人和婆罗洲土著(始自1963年)…… 。”























1990年是新经济政策实施的最后期限。这个期限已过,我国早就应该实施一个达致社会公正、以阶级或需要为根基的扶弱政策。因此,如果马来人主要从事于农业领域,我们所实施的政策,应有利于贫困的马来农民阶级,而不是有利于富有的马来地主阶级。只有通过这样的非种族性政策,政府才可以向人民证明,它推崇社会公正、公平、民主, 并确实在实践“一个马来西亚”的承诺。





- 纠正现行的经济和教育政策,一切特别优惠政策必须以需要、领域或阶级为根基,而不以种族为根基;原住民、被边缘化和贫困的群体应享有优先权;
- 实施根据绩效(而不是根据种族)招聘和录用民事服务和武装部队人员;
- 正式签署《消除种族歧视国际公约》(CERD)。

Sunday, 9 December 2012

各族人民紧密团结起来 开创民主人权的新时代






在《宣言》发表了64年之后,也就是马来亚国家独立了55年之后,一个在国内被边缘化的族群的代表组织——兴都权益行动力量(兴权会)在12月7日发表了一篇题为“兴权会庆祝国际人权日” (HINDRAF TO CELEBRATE INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS DAY) 的声明。兴权会在声明中引述我国第一任首相东姑阿都拉曼于1957年9月12日写给英国最高专员 G.W Tory 的信件内容:“我很高兴确认,马来亚联合邦政府同意阁下的信内所提出的条款。这个答复将成为两国政府之间的协议”。





Saturday, 8 December 2012



Hindraf invites all Malaysians who cherish and belief in the true principals of Human rights to join us in this event which is celebrated worldwide. Details are as follows: 

Date   : 10.12.2012
Time   : 7.30 pm
Venue : Dataran Merdeka Kuala Lumpur.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted in France on 10th December 1948 directly resulting from the experience of the Second World War. It was resolved that the only way to avoid any such future conflict among mankind was to affirm the rights that every human are inherently entitled. Thus the formulation of the 30 Articles in the Declaration which guarantees every human being their inherent rights.

At the time of the adoption of the declaration by the United Nations Malaysia was not an independent country and the United kingdom Government undertook to ratify this declaration on behalf of the then Malaya and assured the UN Secretariat that these principals would be adopted in Malaya.

Malaya achieved independence on 31st August 1957. However nowhere in the Federation of Malaya Independence Act 1957 which was passed by the UK Parliament these crucial principals and laws were adopted.

We at Hindraf strongly belief these fundamental principals were deliberately left out to protect the UK economic and defence interests and there was a strong collusion between UMNO leaders and the UK Government. Hindraf reiterates it has these evidence in its possession and hence the class action against the UK Government.

Vide a letter dated 12th September 1957 Tunku Abdul Rahman the first Malaysian Prime Minister entered into a binding agreement with the UK Government to respect and apply all International obligations and responsibilities of the Government of UK to Malaya which arose from any valid International instrument that UK was a party to (and that it signed on behalf of Malaya pre-independence) are, as from 31st August 1957 assumed by the Government of Malaya.

Tunku's reply to the then UK High Commissioner His Excellency Mr. G.W.Tory  is quoted herewith;

“I have pleasure in confirming that the Government of Federation of Malaya are in agreement with the provisions set out in Your Excellency's letter and this reply shall constitute an agreement between the two Governments”.

After 55 years of Independence it is clear that the Government of Malaysia has reneged on its promises and its International obligations and the standards of Human Rights in Malaysia has deteriorated. Its time Malaysians are reminded that we deserve our inherent rights as enshrined under the universal Declaration of Human rights.

It is timely this agreement is brought to the attention of all Malaysians and Hindraf on its part would distribute copies of this agreement letter at Dataran Merdeka on the 10th December 2012.  

P.Waytha Moorthy

Friday, 7 December 2012

"美国梦"变成了虚幻的神话! ——国际金融危机严重冲击了"美国梦"


来源:求是理论网 >> 《红旗文稿》 >> 2012 >> 2012/21 >> 正文
“美国梦”一词,1931年5月由詹姆斯•特拉斯洛•亚当斯在其所著《美国的史诗》中第一次提出,并在随后变得家喻户晓。虽然1931年正处在 1929-1933年世界经济危机及其引发的大萧条的关键时刻,但亚当斯在这部关于美国历史的著作中,还是怀着充沛的乐观进取精神写道:这本书的主题是 “让我们所有阶层的公民过上更好、更富裕和更幸福的生活的美国梦,这是我们迄今为止为世界的思想和福利作出的最伟大的贡献”。他还说,这种认为明天将会比今天更好的“梦想或希望,从一开始就已经存在了”。







但在另一方面,《独立宣言》又用有关权利和平等的抽象议论掩盖了现实生活中的种族矛盾、阶级矛盾:首先,在当时的北美殖民地生活着的,不仅有从英国和欧洲其他国家去的移民,而且有以此为生活栖息之地的土著的印第安人。但在欧洲移民到来,用血与火把他们征服之后,又把他们排除在《独立宣言》所说的 “被创造出来时就是平等的”“所有人”之外。据统计,在1492年,美洲的印第安人有120万,在被欧洲来的移民杀戮、驱赶、强迫迁移到所谓“保留地” 后,到1910年时仅剩22万,直到1924年,印第安人才获得美国公民的资格。




从1803年到1867年间,美国先后以极其低廉的价格从法国、英国、墨西哥和俄罗斯手里购买到路易斯安那、北达科他、阿拉斯加和阿留申群岛等大批土地,又从西班牙手中夺取了佛罗里达,使美国的版图由宣布独立时的400万平方公里扩大到930万平方公里,随后就掀起了向西迁移的移民运动,仅 1860年以后的40年内,美国西部的新垦地就达到2.52亿英亩。在这个过程中,林肯签署的几个法案发挥了重要作用。












在个人的发展机遇方面,和那些在种族、宗教等方面有严格等级和界限的地方相比,美国无疑为个人的发展提供了更多的机遇,但也不像它所标榜那样,真是实现了什么“人人生而平等”了。因为资产阶级执掌政权以后,在消灭等级之间的旧的差别和一切依靠专横而取得的特权的时候,只是用金钱的特权去取代封建主的一切个人特权和世袭特权。在这个方面,美国的资产阶级并不是例外。据有关方面的概率估计,在美国,中产阶层出身的人,顺着阶梯上升和下滑的,各占一半;低收入家庭出身的人,由贫到富的,极为罕见;出身贫寒者,可能一直如此。又有估计说,处于顶层那1/5的家庭出身的人,在成年以后属于中产阶层的,占 75%;处于收入水平底层那1/5的家庭出身的人,成年后取得中产阶层地位的,仅占35%。

新自由主义者往往把“美国梦”归结为纯粹个人的事情,这是与事实不符的,因为在实际上,恰恰是政府让个人的“美国梦”具有了实现的可能。 2012年7月2日,美国《时代》周刊发表乔恩•米查的《美国梦的历史》一文指出:在“关于美国粗犷的个人主义故事的平民版本中缺少了一个角色:政府。正是政府使得个人的崛起成为可能。美国人从来都不愿意承认,我们现在称之为公共部门的机构,一直是使私营部门取得成功的不可或缺的因素”。







那么,出现次贷危机时的情景到底是怎么样的呢?在次贷危机发作时的2008年,据一家房地产研究所的报告显示,全美至少有750万户房主背负 “负资产”,即由于他们房屋的当前市场价低于其住房贷款总额,因而即使卖掉房屋,房主还必须垫付更多的钱才能还清贷款,这一类背负负资产的人占到美国拥有房屋者总数的18%,另有210万购房者处于背负“负资产”边缘,其房屋市价仅比贷款高出不到5%;而据美国有线电视新闻网(CNN)的估计,全美可能有多达1200万户房主背负“负资产”。

这里,以美国俄亥俄州的克利夫兰为例,来展示次贷危机给美国带来的危害。克利夫兰是美国俄亥俄州最大的城市,在1851年通铁路以后,成为五大湖区和大西洋沿岸间的货物转运中心。克利夫兰以钢铁工业为首要产业,又在此基础上建立庞大的制造业,使它在美国工业史上辉煌了100多年,到上世纪中叶,其经济实力跻身于美国城市的前五位。克利夫兰有1/3的面积被公园绿地覆盖,素有“森林之城”的美誉,并与匹兹堡一起被列为美国“最佳居住城市”。在华尔街的金融机构放松风险控制、慷慨借贷时,克利夫兰成了“次贷之都”。在次贷危机爆发之前,金融机构和购房市民都认定克利夫兰的房地产价值、价格将与时俱增,但危机一来,房价却一落千丈,而房产税赋、贷款利息却并未减少,在危机深重之时,连四五百美元一栋的房屋也无人问津。于是,一些无力偿还房贷和房产税的房奴,便选择了“断供”,举家弃屋、逃之夭夭。2010年2月16日《克利夫兰老实人报》的社论披露,该市的空房已逾一万多套,这意味着全市已有1/8 的家庭弃屋而去。这些弃屋出走的居民,状况好一点的在亲友家借宿,大部分或栖身于桥洞巷角,或在郊外支个帐篷度日。于是,在克利夫兰街头,失业者、无家可归者四处游荡;教堂或慈善机构的门口,贫穷的人们排队等候领取免费食物;寻找就业机会和求助的市民挤满了政府的援助办公室。而在另一方面,因房主弃屋逃亡而空置的房屋,又成了消耗市政资源的巨大包袱。如该市有一座两层楼的住宅,因其市值不到应交税赋的1/3而被弃置,但由于长期空着无人看管,以致发生管道煤气泄露爆炸,还伤及邻居。




据世界银行的数据,美国经济的年增长率,在1950年以后的半个世纪里,一直在3.3%以上,如1950—1959年间和1970—1979年间,美国经济的年均增长率都是3.7%,1980—1989年间为3.5%,1990—1999年间为3.3%,1960—1969年间曾达到5%。但在进入21世纪以后,美国经济的年均增长率开始下降到2%左右,而在次贷危机爆发以后,美国经济的年均增长率在2008年为0.0%,2009年为 -2.6%。走出衰退以后,美国经济的年均增长率一直处在2%左右的低迷状态。


在经济低迷、失业率高企的情况下,美国家庭的收入2010年比1999—2001年减少7.1%;贫困人口直线上升,以四口之家年收入不低于 22025美元为准,2008年美国的贫困人口为3980万;2009年攀升到4360万,占美国人口总数的14.3%;2010年更攀升到4620万,占美国人口总数的15.1%。据美国农业部的数据,在2011年,美国有1800万个家庭吃不饱饭;领食品券的人,在2009年1月为3200万,到 2011年6月跃升为4670万。特别是生活在贫困中的18岁以下儿童,在2007年是1330万,2008年上升到1410万,现在更上升到儿童总数的 1/5。另一个受到伤害的弱势群体是老年人,早在2008年10月,美国预算局就估计,国际金融危机已经使美国的退休金账户缩水2万多亿美元,使养老金缺口达1000亿美元,从而迫使许多已经退休的老年人不得不再出去工作,以维持生活。

然而,从整个群体来说,受国际金融危机冲击最重的,当数美国的中产阶层。中产阶层曾经推动了美国经济的蓬勃发展,他们使美国人相信这里是遍布平等与机遇的沃土,他们也是“美国梦”的主体。关于美国中产阶层的生活,有一段典型的描绘:住在郊区,有一幢分期付款的带两间至四间卧室的房子,两三个孩子,一只狗,两部汽车。丈夫每天辛勤工作,妻子在家带孩子做家务,拿薪水后马上开出15张以上的支票付账(房、车、水、电、煤气、电话、有线电视、分期付款的大件商品、5件信用卡的账单、孩子牙医的账单、医疗和人寿保险,等等)。平时看电视脱口秀,周末借两盘录像带,边看边喝可口可乐、吃爆米花,每年圣诞节扎圣诞树,妻子和丈夫都在发胖。但是,在国际金融危机爆发以后,他们的生活水平开始下降,机遇也越来越少,美国中产阶层的规模和财富发生了双缩水。皮尤研究中心2012年8月22日公布的研究报告称,在2011年,美国的中产阶层占成年人总数的51%,而在1971年则为61%。其年均收入10年间下降了5%,从7.2956万美元降至6.9487万美元;而其资产则减少了28%,从12.5982万美元减至9.315万美元。在40年前,中产阶层占有全国财富的62%,今天则仅占有45%。在报告所调查的1287名成年人中,85%的人认为现在比10年前更难维持自己的生活水平。美国萧条的现状吞噬了经济扩张的空间,馅饼没有变大反而在萎缩,生存竞争又愈益剧烈,这就使许多中产阶层感觉到好像被困在一个房间里,四面墙在压过来,没有门窗,没有出口, “美国梦”渐渐变成了美国噩梦。






By Dr Kua Kia Soong, SUARAM Adviser 6 December 2012

We hear this often enough from breast-beating far-right racists but more so at UMNO general assemblies, namely, the call for UMNO to “safeguard Malay RIGHTS”. The top UMNO leaders and the mainstream press and even those who should know better do not seem to be interested in correcting them on their loose usage of “Malay rights”. As Human Rights Day approaches, we will do well to be clear about the difference between RIGHTS and PRIVILEGES.

All peoples have rights – Malays, Chinese, Indians, indigenous peoples and all other ethnic communities are entitled to the same human rights. These rights are enshrined in Part II of the Constitution under “Fundamental Liberties”. They are inalienable, independent of the government-of-the-day. Thus, apart from the fact that they are guaranteed in our Federal Constitution, they are also part and parcel of the United Nations Human Rights instruments.

Now, do Malays in this country have any special RIGHTS on account of the fact they are “Malay” as stipulated under Article 153 of the Constitution?

Rights and Privileges

A RIGHT is defined as an entitlement, very different from a privilege or a licence granted by the Constitution. All Malaysians are entitled to liberty of the person; equality; freedom of movement; freedom of speech, assembly and association; freedom of religion, and other rights.

PRIVILEGES, on the other hand, are not rights. They can be revoked because they are conditional. Once the intended results have been met, privileges can be taken away but rights cannot be taken away.

“Special Position of the Malays”

Nowhere in Malaysia’s constitution will you find any reference to “Malay rights”. Article 153 mentions “the special position of the Malays”. The main purpose for including Article 153 in the Constitution was to rectify the perceived weakness of the Malay community in the economic field, the public service and the problem of Malay poverty at the time of Independence. (Tun Mohamed Suffian bin Hashim, “An Introduction to the Constitution of Malaysia”, KL 1972:245)

The first clause of Article 153 states:
“It shall be the responsibility of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to safeguard the special position of the Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak and the legitimate interests of other communities in accordance with the provisions of this Article.”

The second clause of Article 153 stipulates that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall ensure the reservation for Malays and since 1963, for natives of Borneo “of such proportion as he may deem reasonable (my emphasis) 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…any permit or licence for the operation of any trade or business is required by federal law…”

Clause 4 expressly states that: “In exercising his functions under this Constitution and federal law…the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall not deprive any person of any public office held by him or of the continuance of any scholarship, exhibition or other educational or training privileges or special facilities enjoyed by him.”

The Abused “Quota System”

As a result of the racial violence of May 13, 1969, the country was presented with a fait accompli by the new ruling class in UMNO who were keen to propagate their “bumiputraist” ideology as a populist ploy. Again, you will not see any mention of “bumiputera” (the “princes of the soil”) in the Malaysian constitution.

Thus, in early 1971 the Constitution (Amendment) Act was passed adding a new clause (No. 8A) to Article 153:
“…where in any university, college and other educational institution providing education after Malaysian Certificate of Education or its equivalent, the number of places offered by the authority responsible for the management of the university, college or such educational institution to candidates for any course or study is less than the number of candidates qualified for such places, it shall be lawful for the Yang di-Pertuan Agong by virtue of this Article to give such directions to the authority as may be required to ensure the reservation of such proportion of such places for Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak as the yang di-Pertuan Agong may deem reasonable (my emphasis); and the authority shall duly comply with the directions.”

This is the “quota system” we have lived with for the last forty years or so and which has created so much controversy for that length of time. Strictly speaking, if we were to go by UMNO’s oft-repeated “social contract” at Independence in 1957, that “social contract” certainly does not include Clause 8A of Article 153.

And if we scrutinize this clause more closely, we will see that it is definitely not a carte blanche for the blatant racial discrimination as is the case of enrolment at institutions such as UiTM. At the 2004 UMNO general assembly, you may recall then Higher Education Minister Shafie Salleh declaring:
"I will not compromise on this matter…there will not be a single non-bumiputera allowed to enroll!”

So, if any aggrieved party took the government to court for its enrolment policy at UiTM or any other MARA institutions, how do you think any judge would interpret clause 8A of Article 153, ie. “…to give such directions to the authority as may be required to ensure the reservation of such proportion of such places (my emphasis) for Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak as the yang di-Pertuan Agong may deem reasonable…”

The 100 per cent bumiputera enrolment policy at UiTM makes a mockery of the quota system and the justification of any affirmative action in any country!

Principles and Purpose of “affirmative” action
Compared to the affirmative action policies elsewhere, for example the United States, we find some glaring inconsistencies in this country:

Principle 1: Affirmative action in the US was implemented to rectify the glaring discrimination experienced by historically marginalized groups such as the black minority in the US; In contrast, affirmative action in Malaysia is driven by the politically dominant and majority Malay elite and directed at the Malay community as a whole, as the beneficiary group, regardless of wealth and position.        

Principle 2: Any preferential treatment for any group should be followed by specific goals, quotas and sunset clauses as is the case in the US rather than the “Never Ending Policy” of the NEP in Malaysia;

Principle 3: Affirmative action policies in the US are fundamentally not “special rights” as they are portrayed in Malaysia but rather, policy adjustments to rectify social inequality with a time limitation once the objectives have been reached;
Principle 4: The definition of the main target group in Malaysia, namely, “the Malays” is imprecise and allows confusion when any Muslim who is not ethnically Malay can claim to be a beneficiary;

Principle 5: In the US, affirmative action is extended into all discriminated groups, for example, women, Hispanics and other minority groups; whereas in Malaysia, only the “bumiputeras” (the “princes of the soil”) are included, while the poorest and most marginalized group, arguably the original people of this land, the Orang Asli, have been excluded from this policy.

Contrasts in affirmative actions

The contrasting origin of affirmative action in the US and Malaysia is worth noting. While in the US, it came about as a result of the civil rights movement in the 1960s by the downtrodden blacks, Malaysia’s “special privileges of the Malays” had its origin in colonial policy of divide-and-rule. The British strategy propped up the Malay feudal elite and divided the people into the “native Malays” versus the “Chinese and Indian immigrants”.  Thus, Malays were given priority in civil service employment and the Chinese and Indians were also excluded from the political arena until an accommodation with the Chinese and Indian capitalist class was found during the Emergency.

The political machinations by the British colonial power during the post-war constitutional crisis from the Malayan Union (1946) through the Federation of Malaya Agreement (1948) to the Independence Agreement (1957) led to the inclusion of Article 153 in the federal constitution pertaining to “the special position of the Malays.”

In strong contrast to the US, affirmative action in Malaysia covers not only higher education but also land reservation, quotas in public service, licences, permits, scholarships and grants. The most glaring inequity is seen when bumiputeras can buy houses costing more than a million ringgit and still claim a discount from the market rate. Can a black in the US do the same?

The New Economic Policy of 1971 has led to a carte blanche for the ruling Umnoputras to control the commanding heights of the Malaysian economy, including banks, plantations, oil & gas, properties and other sectors. Furthermore, several of these bumiputera-controlled sectors are monopolies. You certainly do not find such a situation with the blacks in the US.

The NEP’s 30 per cent bumiputera equity share target by 1990 had clearly been reached but there seems to be no end to a policy that allows the UMNO elite to continue reaping the benefits of the policy. Besides being onto a good thing, such a discriminatory policy has populist appeal to win over the Malay vote by portraying non-Malay citizens as “immigrants” who cannot enjoy these privileges”.

Clearly, affirmative action cannot be justified for communities that are thoroughly class differentiated, such as the Malays, Chinese and Indians in Malaysia. The Orang Asli are a community that has not undergone class differentiation on a scale similar to the other ethnic communities in Malaysia but they enjoy no such privilege!

A New Affirmative Action Based on Class or Need

In Malaysia, since the passing of the deadline for the NEP in 1990, it is high time for a new socially just affirmative action policy based on need or class or sector. Thus, if Malays are predominantly in the rural agricultural sector, we should create policies that benefit the poor Malay farmers and not  the rich Malay land-owning class. Only such a race-free policy can convince the people that the government is socially just, fair and democratic and walks the 1Malaysia talk.

The cost and consequences of the racially discriminatory policy in Malaysia have been immense, especially since the NEP in 1971. It has caused crippling polarization of Malaysian society and costly brain drain. While the working class Chinese in Malaysia have largely adapted to this discrimination in the public sector by trying to make a living in the private sector, many working class Indians in Malaysia have not been so fortunate and have found themselves marginalized especially with the destruction of the traditional plantation economy. The phenomenon of the Hindraf movement which erupted in 2007 is a warning of social problems waiting to explode. The cost of preferential treatment has also seen greater intra-community inequality, with the higher class members creaming off the benefits and opportunities.

Thus, on Human Rights Day 2012, Malaysians should try to reclaim their inalienable rights and understand the transient nature of privileges. For a truly “1Malaysia”, let there be no more obfuscation about “rights” of any particular ethnic community but a commitment to unite all Malaysians by eradicating institutional racism through:
- Corrective action in all economic and education policies based on need or sector or class and not on race with priority given to indigenous people, marginalised and poor communities;
- Implementing merit-based recruitment in civil & armed services;
- Ratifying the Convention on the Eradication of Racial Discrimination (CERD). 

Saturday, 1 December 2012

அம்னோவின் ஆதிக்கத்தைத் தகர்த்து, நிலையான ஜனநாயக முன்னணியை உருவாக்குவோம்! ஜொகூர் மாநில மக்களுக்கு அரசு சார்பற்ற இயக்கங்கள், வலியுறுத்தும் 3 கோரிக்கைகள

அம்னோவின் ஆதிக்கத்தைத் தகர்த்து,
நிலையான ஜனநாயக முன்னணியை உருவாக்குவோம்!
ஜொகூர் மாநில மக்களுக்கு அரசு சார்பற்ற இயக்கங்கள்
வலியுறுத்தும் 3 கோரிக்கைகள

Komik: Buangkan BN ke Tong Sampah Sejarah!Oleh: Ah Pei

通告 Notification


人民之友工委会2020年9月27日常月会议针对徐袖珉(英文名: See Siew Min)半年多以来胡闹的问题,议决如下:



[ 漫画新解 ]




尤其是在新冠病毒疫情(COVID-19)课题上,她公然猖狂跟人民之友的政治立场对着干,指责人民之友服务于中国文宣或大中华,是 “中国海外统治部”、“中华小红卫兵”等等等等。她甚至通过强硬粗暴手段擅自把我们的WhatsApp群组名称“Sahabat Rakyat Malaysia”改为“吐槽美国样衰俱乐部”这样的无耻行动也做得出来。她的这种种露骨的表现足以说明了她是一名赤裸裸的“反中仇华”份子。



[ 漫画新解 ]

注:这“漫画新解”是与<人民之友>4月24日转贴的美国政客叫嚣“围剿中国”煽动颠覆各国民间和组织 >(原标题为<当心!爱国队伍里混进了这些奸细……>)这篇文章有关联的。这篇文章作者沈逸所说的“已被欧美政治认同洗脑的‘精神欧美人’”正是马来西亚“公知”及其跟班的精神面貌的另一种写照!

[ 漫画新解 ]

编辑 / 来源:人民之友 / 网络图库

注:这“漫画新解”是与《察网》4月22日刊林爱玥专栏文章<公知与鲁迅之间 隔着整整一个中国 >这篇文章有关联的,这是由于这篇文章所述说的中国公知,很明显是跟这组漫画所描绘的马来西亚的“舔美”狗狗,有着孪生兄弟姐妹的亲密关系。


Malaysia Time (GMT+8)