An Act that will fix the racists

http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/106869


An Act that will fix the racists
Kua Kia Soong | Jun 20, 09 6:31am
Anyone who had attended the talk by Prof Aneez Esmail on ‘Race Relations in Britain’ organised by Kita (Institute of Ethnic Studies) in UKM will be left in no doubt as to the efficacy of the Race Relations Act 1976 in dealing with racism and racial discrimination in Britain.
MCPX

malaysians 050905Twenty-four years ago, I wrote in The Star, “The need for race relations legislation” (Nov 28, 1985) because there was an alarming incidence of “institutional racism”, a point stressed by Aneez.

In that article, I elicited many examples of racism and racial discrimination in Malaysia which could be dealt with if such an Act existed in our country.

It was not taken seriously for the obvious reason that if we had such a law, many Umno politicians including the present prime minister would have been dealt with under such a law; many policies such as the enrolment of “bumiputera only” students into institutions - for example, UiTM - would have been declared racially discriminatory long ago.

The British Race Relations Act 1976 has a section on ‘Incitement to racial hatred’ which said:

“A person commits an offence if he publishes or distributes written matter which is threatening, abusive or insulting; or he uses in any public place or at any public meeting words which are threatening, abusive or insulting, in a case where, having regard to all the circumstances, hatred is likely to be stirred up against any racial group…”

In 1987, Umno Youth organised a rally at the Jalan Muda Stadium in Kuala Lumpur at which banners read: ‘May 13 has begun: Soak the keris in Chinese blood’, among others.

This is not the invention of the opposition. It can be corroborated in the government white paper, ‘Towards Preserving National Unity’, 1988. It was also covered by the Chinese-language press at the time.

Play transcript of Najib’s 1987 speech

On stage to fan the flames of such flagrant racism during that fateful rally was the Umno Youth chief and present prime minister.

Of course, he has denied in Parliament that he uttered the exact words as those on the banners. But as the police often warn us, the organisers must bear the responsibility for any utterances and banners displayed.

If we had a Freedom of Information Act, we would be asking for a transcript of the Umno Youth chief’s speech at that rally.

Since we do not have a FoI Act, the prime minister can try to clear his name by asking the authorities to make public the transcript of his 1987 speech. At least, if no one else, our Special Branch should have a copy. They told me during my ISA detention that they were one of the best intelligence outfit in the world and their library had more information than any other resource centre in the country.

Is there any wonder why such a FoI Act will meet the same fate as a Race Relations Act under such a government?

No action was taken against the main rabble rousers on stage at that rally. The main targets of the police were people like me who had nothing to do with this racist rally. More than a hundred of us were subsequently arrested and detained without trial under the ‘Operation Lallang’.

Since then, we have been treated to nauseating racist taunts by delegates at the Umno general assemblies and the ritualistic flaunting of the keris by the Umno Youth chief.

I remember a few years ago, an education minister tried to play to the gallery at an Umno general assembly by saying that, as long as he was the education minister, he would not allow a single non-bumiputera to be admitted into UiTM.

This is the reality of racial discrimination in this country. When we bear in mind that UiTM has a total enrolment of some 100,000 students and that it is a public-funded institution, it is shocking that the government can get away with such blatant racial discrimination by justifying it as “affirmative action”.

If we had a FoI Act, we would be able to get the statistics on other areas of such blatant racial discrimination.



Set up a Race Relations Court too

The statistics I got in Parliament in 1990 were as follows - an average of 90 percent of loans for polytechnic certificate courses, 90 percent of scholarships for diploma of education courses, 90 percent 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 80s, 95 percent were bumiputeras; the enrolment in Mara Lower Science College, Maktab Sains Mara was almost 100 percent bumiputera throughout the 80s... do you call this affirmative action?

Is there any wonder the government has not ratified the United Nations Convention Against Racial Discrimination up to the present day?

A Race Relations Court will be able to determine and define the legality or illegality of such actions and a Commission for Racial Equality could be formed to work toward the elimination of racism and racial discrimination; promote equality of opportunity and harmonious ethnic relations, and keep under review the workings of the Act.

I concluded my article of Nov 28, 1985 thus:

“While such a Race Relations Act may not strike at the roots of racial polarisation, at least it should ensure that the limits of the implementation of government policies are scrupulously delineated, and just as importantly, the Malaysian public is not treated to racist garbage, which should be spurned with all the contempt it deserves.”

KUA KIA SOONG, a director of Suaram, is former Petaling Jaya Utara MP. He was arrested in 1987 under the Internal Security Act and detained for 14 months. He is author of ‘445 Days Behind the Wire’.

Read More

Lossing our mangrove

Losing our mangroves
Stories by HILARY CHIEW

Various development projects in Johor have carved up pristine mangroves.

IN 1980, a special report to the then Science, Technology and Environment Ministry recommended a conservation strategy through rationale use of Sungai Pulai mangrove forests in Johor. It called for a Mangrove National Park because the area is important for fisheries and is a food production zone under the National Agriculture Policy.

Some forms of conservation efforts were implemented when the Johor government in 2003 nominated Tanjung Piai, Pulau Kukup and Sungai Pulai in south-west Johor for the Ramsar list – a global initiative to conserve wetlands of international importance.

Once a sleepy hollow, south-west Johor is seeing the development of a modern township and is poised to be the jewel of the Iskandar Development Region, one of five economic regions unveiled by the Government last year.

But what is one of the country’s most productive and pristine riverine mangrove ecosystems is now being carved up for a port, power plant and soon, two petrochemical hubs. In the late 1990s, vast tracts of land on the west bank of Sungai Pulai was cleared for the Port of Tanjung Pelepas (PTP), followed by reclamation of 400ha of mangroves for the Tanjung Bin coal-fired power plant on the opposite bank. Public-listed Malaysian Mining Corp (MMC) holds a 70% equity in PTP and operates the power plant through its sister company Malakoff Bhd.

The latest development is an integrated petrochemical facility on 40.5ha of reclaimed island at the estuary by Asia Petroleum Hub. When it opens next year, it expects 2,000 vessel calls and will handle annually 60 million tonnes of petroleum products – industrial and marine fuel oils, diesel, jet fuel and biodiesel.

MMC, through its subsidiary Seaport Worldwide, will clear a further 902ha of mangroves for a petrochemical and maritime centre on the east bank.

The comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the project was approved last July. But critics, who said that there was no public comment and expert panel review, urged for a detailed EIA, given the project size and the area being a Rank 1 “environmentally sensitive area”. Such a ranking allows only low-impact nature tourism, research and education, not development, agriculture or logging.







A fishing jetty in one of the tributaries of Sungai Pulai in south-west Johor. The reclamation of 902ha of mangrove forests along the river for a petrochemical hub is likely to affect the livelihoods of at least six riverine communities that have for the longest time enjoyed the bounty of the rich ecosystem. In the background are high tension wires that transmit electricity from the Tanjung Bin coal-fired power plant.

Safeguards

Johor executive councillor for environment Tan Kok Hong points out that the area is designated for petrochemical industries under the Pontian District Structural Plan (2002-2015) and PTP had acquired the land in 2001. He says the project proponent is required to replant cleared mangroves and a task force will ensure that development is carried out in a sustainable manner as the Iskandar Develop ment Region is envisioned as a green city.

PTP chairman Datuk Mohd Sidik Shaik Osman, speaking on behalf of Seaport, says the comprehensive EIA approval came with 62 conditions to safeguard the environment.

“We recognise the area has certain ecological sensitivities and we have to fulfil the conditions. Half of the land is sacrificed as a buffer between the project site and the Ramsar area, villages and rivers. As a master developer, we’ll develop the land responsibly. The individual companies will have to prepare detailed EIAs,” he says, stressing that all legal requirements are being observed.

Sidik, a director of MMC, explains that growth is imminent due to the huge demand for industrial land in the vicinity of PTP, owing to its strategic location in a busy international shipping lane.

Inaccurate claims

Criticising the EIA report, Save Our Seahorses (SOS) co-ordinator Choo Chee Kuang says the document misidentified species and lacked mitigation measures.

He says the sole seahorse species found in Sungai Pulai – the spotted seahorse (Hippocampus kuda) – was misidentified as the pygmy seahorse (Hippocampus denise). And instead of Rhizophora apiculataand R. macronata, the dominant mangrove tree species was named theAvicennia lanata.

EIA consultancy Hijau Sekitar refused comment, citing client confidentiality.

Choo argues that further disturbance in the estuary could lead to local extinction of endangered species such as the seahorse and dugong.

“The type of heavy industries proposed could cause irreversible damage to the Sungai Pulai ecosystem that harbours the country’s most extensive seagrass bed, the densest seahorse population, productive fish and shellfish nursery grounds.

“The consultant’s estimation of loss at RM4mil over 99 years has severely under-estimated the economic value of the mangrove forest. According to the United Nations Development Programme, the output of mangroves in terms of fisheries alone would amount to US$215,000 per hectare per year. That is RM200mil per year from the area earmarked to be cleared. Will the country experience more loss than gains in the long run?” he asks.



Aerial view of the Port of Tanjung Pelepas in Johor (file photo). In the late 1990s, vast tracts of land on the west bank of Sungai Pulai was cleared to build the port.

In the picture

While SOS is petitioning against further large-scale development in the area, another conservation group is collaborating with PTP. The Johor branch of the Malaysian Nature Society (MNS) has received RM60,000 to document the natural and cultural heritage of Sungai Pulai in a coffee-table book.

It will also work with researchers from Universiti Teknologi Malaysia to analyse water samples and map the Merambong seagrass meadow and its biodiversity.

MNS president Anthony Sebastian says the partnership compels PTP to protect Sungai Pulai and the seagrass bed: “Through engagement, the MNS is part of the process and hopes to make things better, as opposed to choosing not to participate.”

PTP’s Sidik says: “We agreed to fund research for the seagrass bed although it isn’t within our port limit. The coffee-table book is to kick-start the collaboration that will inc lude other research and awareness activities.

“We want our business to grow but we’re also willing to sit down with concerned parties to mitigate the impacts – as a responsible corporate citizen way of approaching development,” he adds.

Read More

HRSC: Petrochemical Industry issue at Tanjung Bin, Pontian

反对静悄悄砍伐红树林！

发展石油化学工业触犯政策和法令，

大马人民之声（新山支会）敦促有关当局回答人民的疑惑。

【大马人民之声（新山支会）2009年6月10日文告】

http://www.merdekareview.com/news/n/9912.html

柔佛州务大臣在丹绒宾煤碳发电厂主持开展“种植红树林运动”仪式的两个星期后，便开始砍伐计划将让路给发展石油化学工业的913公顷红树林。有关当局静悄悄砍伐红树林是不听取龟咯实叻角居民的心声之举。同时，也凸显了所谓的“种植红树林运动”作为表示柔佛政府其实有爱护及维护大自然的讯息或意识只是一种欺骗人民的手法。



2009年6月8日，下午5时30分左右，约50名居民挺身而出参与500米的游行至已遭砍伐的红树林地点表示抗议。参与和平集会的人士不单单只有成年人，其中还包括小孩们。他们的脸上彩绘各种海产的图样如鱼、海马、乌龟等等；有的出席者身上挂上海牛、海草等幅画；有的幅画明显传达停止砍伐红树的讯息。居民再次高举写着“我们支持种植红树；我们反对砍伐红树”的横幅，希望有关当局能听到他们的心声。





有关当局必须回答以下问题。其中包括：-

问题一：蒲莱河在国家自然计划中，已经被列为一级环境敏感地带。因此，那是不可以用为任何涉及砍伐、大规模发展计划用途。可是为何发展石油化学工业会被获准呢？



问题二：在环境法令里，任何超过500公顷的湿地发展计划都必须呈交详细环境评估报告（DEIA）。请问详细环境评估报告在哪里？



问题三：在《1985年鱼业法令》，受威胁动物如海牛、海马必须受到保护。发展大型工业如蒲莱河流域发展石油化学工业将会销毁红树和海草。红树林以及海草床都是属于各种海产的生境，受到破坏最终会导致稀少的海牛和海马灭种。那么，如何保障这些受威胁的动物和柔南的源海得到保护和恢复呢？



问题四：石油化学工业将带给附近居民（大约1公里）巨大的环境及健康影响，尤其是排出的多环芳香警烃（polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH)）和各种毒物。为什么石油化学工业要兴建在与龟咯实叻角居民区区只有1公里的范围内？





大马人民之声（新山支会）敦促有关当局必须向人民解答以上的问题。因为，发展石油化学工业触犯了联邦政府和地方政府的政策和法令，即包括保障原始来源和附近居民的健康。



我们认为一切发展必须回归到实叻角人民或渔民的利益。我们认为不应该只单单考量到集团的利益，不顾依斯干达经济特区里的发展计划所将带来的健康问题。



我们呼吁有关当局让居民和渔民直接参与丹绒宾的发展计划以作为保障和捍卫他们的基本利益和权力。



最后我们吁请各阶层人士、非政府组织和政党继续关注发展石油化学工业所将带给实叻角居民和渔民的种种问题。





*此文告随同附录照片

1) Himpunan aman sebelum perarakan

2) Perarakan bermula

3) Pemusnahkan pokok bakau telah mula dijalankan

4) Penduduk berdiri diatas tempat penebangan

5) Anak-anak sekolah turut sama menyertai himpunan aman







大马人民之声（新山支会）

柔佛州人民之友工委会

2009年6月10日

Read More

ChinaPress.Com: 將毀1000個足球場大紅樹林,建石化廠破壞生態.

http://www.chinapress.com.my/content_new.asp?dt=2009-06-10&sec=local&art=0610lj01.txt

更新: June 9, 2009 17:41

將毀1000個足球場大紅樹林
建石化廠破壞生態

獨家報導：戴秀音
攝影：王永明

逾20名環保人士及甘榜村民，高舉橫幅和齊喊口號，反對砍伐紅樹林。
（笨珍9日訊）丹絨賓即將建設的大型石油化學工業區帶來甚大破壞，整個工程足以毀滅相等于1000個足球場的紅樹林，嚴重破壞海洋生態環境，影響漁民生計。

繼東南亞最大的燃煤發電廠在丹絨賓落成，當地也將開發建設一座大型石油化學工業區；據了解，自兩周前，工人陸續到距離發電廠不到500公尺處，大量砍伐紅樹林，以鋪設一條可通往工業區的道路。

參與者在臉上彩繪各種海產的圖樣，冀喚醒大眾，時時愛護我們的海洋。小圖為這位村民額頭上涂上一只藍色的海豚，是頻臨絕種的海洋生物之一。
據觀察，有關道路鋪設工程，從路邊衍生出埔萊河，目前已建設約一公里；隨著工程進行，不僅大片紅樹林將遭砍伐以建設通道，兩旁的紅樹林盡管未遭砍伐，也將受影響。

據悉，上述整體工程將導致913公頃、相等于1000個足球場的紅樹林毀滅，不僅進一步破壞海洋生態環境，漁獲也將銳減，影響漁民生計。

最讓村民擔心的是，石化工業區與甘榜區相距僅僅3公里，日后釋放的化學廢料及氣體，很可能對人體健康造成影響，甚至影響甘榜下一代。

灌輸人民環保意識

有關當局已展開工程，在紅樹叢林間，建設一條道路通往石油化學工業區。
配合“世界海洋日”，環保分子連同丹絨賓甘榜村民，昨日傍晚到當地石油化學工業區施工地段和平請愿，反對砍伐紅樹林，并聲聲高喊“我們不要石油化學工業”。

環保組織特到丹絨賓發起上述覺醒活動，冀村民了解環境破壞帶來的種種惡果。

大家紛紛在臉上彩繪上各種瀕臨絕種的海洋生物圖案，到施工地點拉起寫著“我們支持種植紅樹，我們反對砍伐紅樹”的橫幅，高喊“我們排斥石油化學”口號，也喊出熱愛大自然，熱愛家園的單純心聲。

較后，海馬拯救學會、大馬人民之聲（新山支會）、馬來西亞環境之友及馬來半島漁民學會，也到龜咯島，與島民交流傳達環保意識。

擔心危及村民健康

環保人士也在現場，分發印上拯救海馬圖樣的徽章。
居民擔心石油化學工業區，危及甘榜村民健康，希望政府及相關企業正面看待村民的不滿。

他們也促請當局盡速提供“應當給予”的資訊，包括石化工業將帶來的負面后果。

有村民指出，當局的舉措以個人利益為先，不僅不顧及村民利益，更罔顧海底生物安危。

另外，嘉馬魯丁也指出，盡管沒有研究顯示，石化工業會造成人體健康受影響，但中國的實例已經告訴，居住在石化工業附近范圍的民眾，有40%莫名的患上各種癌症，孩子不足月出生的情況也更普遍。

而朱及光指出，冀望透過此次請愿，提高村民及各界對環保的覺醒，因砍伐紅樹林將帶來深不見底的連鎖效應，其中，大片的海草受到威脅，連帶殃及其他珍貴海產如海馬、螃蟹、海牛（儒艮）等的居住環境。

＊紅樹林的重要性＊

紅樹林濕地內匯集河川上游及海洋帶來的豐富無機鹽及有機物，而紅樹林植物本體的枯枝落葉經過分解，也使得區內沉積了大量的有機養分。

這些養分藉著漲退潮，帶給沿岸的一些浮游生物利用，也因其底泥沉積了大量有機物，成為一些底棲動物最佳生存環境，而構成完整的碎屑食物網。

因此紅樹林與其濕地除了提供魚、蝦、蟹、貝、鳥類等生物豐富的食物來源及棲息場所，也構成一個具有高度生產力之生態系，所以紅樹林生態系可說是聯結陸地與海洋的重要媒介。

在環境保護方面，紅樹林可以攔截淤泥、擴大灘地，也可保護海岸，減低強風大浪對于海岸的直接衝擊力，之外，近年來的研究更顯示，濕地是各種有毒物質的過濾器及營養貯存場所，為大自然最佳的濾水系統。

此外，紅樹林具有多種經濟功能，除了其樹皮可以提煉單寧及染料之外，木材也可供為建材及薪炭材之來源。

（注，資料源自網絡）

＊參與和平請願的組織和人士＊

海洋生物學家朱及光

大馬人民之聲（新山支會）執行秘書嚴居漢

半島漁民行動網主席嘉馬魯丁

海馬拯救學會

馬來西亞環境之友

馬來半島漁民學會

以及20余名環保分子、漁民和村民

丹絨賓紅樹林“變形”

漁獲銳減、閃電水災頻密、強風吹襲陸地、河岸土地侵蝕加速，丹絨賓紅樹林遭砍伐負面影響陸續“現形”。

半島漁民行動網主席嘉馬魯丁指出，丹絨賓有4個主要甘榜，包括甘榜雙溪迪納、甘榜雙溪博、甘榜雙溪成吉及甘榜雙溪山，總人口逾萬人。

他說，發電廠工程開發后，當地漁獲已經銳減50至70%，若再進行石化工業工程，后果無法想象。

“以往漁夫出海半天，可捕獲14至16公斤豐富海產，如今耗盡整天，只能捕獲不到3公斤魚蝦，足見生態環境遭嚴重破壞。”

另外，一些村民也說，當地紅樹林被大量砍伐后，沿岸防護不再“嚴密”，甘榜水災發生得更為頻密，常令人措手不及。

不僅如此，一些沿岸居民的住家屋頂，數周前更被強風刮起，這都是以往不曾發生。

最令人擔心的是，居住在河流沿岸的居民說，河岸泥土陸續崩塌，土地遭侵蝕，以致住家與河流距離日趨拉近，日久家園隨時“失守”。

無獨有偶，有龜咯島居民也指出，當地海面風浪同樣變大，夜間急促的海浪拍打岸邊發出的巨響，以及強風發出的呼嘯聲常令人不安，有島民甚至要誦經念佛來定神。

款項來歷不明
250漁夫獲撫恤金

部分漁民兩周前獲發數額不等的“撫恤金”，卻對款項來源及用意一無所知。

丹絨賓的部分甘榜居民受詢時指出，兩周前，即有關石化工業區鋪路工程未展開前，有人到村里分發“撫恤金”，而根據名單，只有250名全職及兼職漁夫獲得款項。

村民說，全職漁夫每人獲1萬令吉，兼職漁夫則獲2000令吉，惟漁民都未取得款項的總額，到手的數額都被“扣除”數十或數百令吉。

“我們無法確定有關代表來自哪個單位，更不清楚款項是政府發出亦或是企業分發，也不知道款項的用意何在，只好視之為‘撫恤金’。”

此外，部分漁民也說，在領取款項時，無需簽署任何文件，對一切都是一知半解。

“事實上，從建設發電廠工程開始，我們對一切都是懵懵懂懂，當局未曾向我們解說，或征求甘榜村民的同意，便建設發電廠或石油化學工業區。”

峇株智能氣功協會開辦課程

（峇株巴轄9日訊）峇株巴轄智能氣功協會將從本月22日（星期一）至7月2日（星期四），連續11天開辦第2期氣功康復班兼新班。

該會自今年4月開辦第1期康復班，治病療效顯著，循眾要求再開第2期康復班兼新班，特邀來自中國的氣功師于洪濤老師主持午班和晚班的學習及治療課程。

康復班／新班分為午間班（下午2時30分至5時）及晚間班（晚上8時至10時），地點：47, Jalan Budaya, Taman Bandar, Batu Pahat（峇株巴轄智能氣功協會會所）。

練功內容包括習練捧氣貫頂法、揉腹、蹲牆、抻氣、開合拉氣、內氣治病法、外氣治病法、混元靈通治病法及話療。

外埠學員可獲該會提供住宿。有興趣者請向聯絡人索取報名表格：莊坡治（012-7237815）、邱佳祝（012-7595818）、楊棉棉（012-7197581）、顏惠珍（012-7317535）、陳秀成（013-7440310）、張美華（012-7255501）。報名截止日期：本月21日。

勿隨意砍伐
郭琇瑩（48歲，龜咯國家公園資料中心管理員／島民）

一顆紅樹，要經歷80年方能長大，并發揮防護海岸的作用，十分珍貴，輕易砍伐是要不得的行為。

而紅樹林除了有穩定泥土，防止土地流失，和阻擋海浪的功能，其浸泡在水中的樹根，也是許多魚蝦蟹寄居、產卵及覓食的地方，少了紅樹林，將有大批海產生計受影響。

實施上，近年來海水污染，已導致許多紅樹林枯死，加上人工砍伐，更加速紅樹林的毀滅。

土地侵蝕嚴重
諾愛妮（30歲，村民）

大片紅樹林遭砍伐后，本地風勢變大，近日還發生河邊的房屋屋頂被強風刮起事件。

淹水情況也變得嚴重，以往只有大漲潮的日子，甘榜才會淹水，如今閃電水災常在毫無防備下來襲，讓村民覺得失去了防護。

最糟糕的是，我家前方河岸的土地侵蝕現象加速，擔心不久將來，土地侵蝕情況將蔓延到家門前。

冀關注各族群
阿查里（30歲，散工）

盡管有關當局曾派員到村內派發補助金給漁民，但其他人就不需要被照顧了嗎？

而獲得款項的村民，也不知道款項由哪個單位發出，有關人士也未給予任何說明，或要求簽署任何文件。

提升環保意識
嚴居漢（大馬人民之聲（新山支會）執行秘書）

透過到龜咯島及丹絨賓一代派發傳單，我們發現許多居民對于石化工業工程及其帶來的影響都一知半解，因此希望透過覺醒運動，提高人民這方面的知識，也希望在環保方面盡綿力。

人民之聲也認為，當局上月進行的種植紅樹計劃，只是在做表面功夫，畢竟，相較工程所砍伐的，當局所種植的5公頃紅樹林，簡直小巫見大巫。

忽視村民利益
阿吉爾（38歲，待業）

早在發電廠工程展開時，當局承諾會預留30%職位空缺給村民，但在施工階段，村民只以合約形式參與建筑的工作。其后，只有少過5%的村民，獲得廠內工作機會，顯現當局并未兌現承諾，村民也覺得被人利用進行建設工作。

此次，當局在進行建設石油化學工廠，也未事先知會村民，讓我們覺得甘榜村民的利益，從來未被重視。

影響漁民生計
阿都哈密（48歲，漁民）

自祖父時代開始，我們已居住在丹絨賓的甘榜成吉，以捕魚為生，但自從本地開發發電廠，紅樹林遭砍伐后，海洋生態環境遭破壞，漁獲至少減少70%，嚴重影響生計。

盡管當局有分發補貼金，但不足夠，也無法補償自然界被破壞的損失。再者，若即將開發的石油化學工業，對甘榜村民及下一代的健康帶來影響，再多的錢也無補于事。

And insert the rest of it here.

Read More

HRSC: Petrolchemical Industry issue at Tanjung Bin, Pontian

Bantahan penebangan pokok bakau secara senyap-senyap!

SUARAM cawangan Johor Bahru mendesak pihak berkuasa wajib menjawab persoalan yang dibangkitkan berikutan cadangan pembangunan industri petrokimia dan industri maritim yang melanggar polisi dan akta-akta.

[kenyataan akhbar SUARAM caw. JB pada 9hb Jun 2009]



Dua minggu selepas MB Johor Datuk Abdul Ghani melancarkan program penanaman anak pokok bakau di Stesen Janakuasa Tanjung Bin, Pontian, penebangan hutan paya bakau seluas 913 hektar untuk memberi laluan kepada pembangunan industri petrokimia telah bermula sepertimana yang telah dirancangkan. Tindakan pihak berkuasa yang tidak mempedulikan suara penduduk sekitar Mukim Serkat sebelum ini jelas apabila mereka mula menebang pokok bakau secara senyap-senyap. Ini juga jelas menunjukkan bahawa program pelancaran penanaman anak pokok bakau hanyalah suatu sandiwara pihak berkuasa untuk menipu rakyat bahawa kononnya kerajaan negeri Johor mencintai dan memelihara alam sekitar.


1) Himpunan aman sebelum perarakan



2) Perarakan bermula


3) Pemusnahkan pokok bakau telah mula dijalankan


Pada 8 Jun 2009, lebih kurang jam 5:30 petang, kira-kira 50 orang penduduk kampung telah hadir dan mengadakan perarakan sejauh 500 meter ke tempat penebangan pokok bakau untuk membuat bantahan. Mereka yang menyertai himpunan aman ini bukan sahaja terdiri dari orang dewasa, bahkan turut disertai oleh anak-anak sekolah. Muka mereka dilukis dengan pelbagai imej spesis hidupan laut seperti ikan, kuda laut, penyu dan sebagainya. Ada juga yang memakai kad-kad dengan gambar ikan dugong, rumpai laut dan ada juga kad yang memaparkan mesej supaya penebangan pokok bakau ini dihentikan. Kain pemidang dengan perkataan “Kami SOKONG tanam Pokok Bakau, Kami BANTAH tebang Pokok Bakau” sekali lagi direntang oleh penduduk kampung dengan tujuan agar tuntutan mereka didengar oleh pihak berkuasa.


4) Penduduk berdiri diatas tempat penebangan



5) Anak-anak sekolah turut sama menyertai himpunan aman



Pelbagai soalan perlu dijawab oleh pihak berkuasa. Antaranya termasuk:-

Soalan Pertama; Kawasan Sungai Pulai yang diitakrifkan sebagai Kawasan Sensitif Alam Sekitar (KSAS) tahap pertama tidak boleh digunakan untuk sebarang penebangan, pembalakan dan projek besar-besaran, tetapi bagaimana cadangan pembangunan industri petrokimia ini boleh diluluskan?



Soalan Kedua; pembangunan projek mega yang memerlukan penebangan hutan paya bakau melebihi 500 hektar perlu menjalankan kajian Detail Environmental Impact Assessment (DEIA), tetapi dimanakah kajian DEIA?



Soalan Ketiga; perlindungan kepada haiwan terancam seperti dugong dan kuda laut adalah wajib dibawah Akta Perikanan 1985. Pembangunan industri-industri berat seperti kilang petrokimia dan maritim di Sungai Pulai akan memusnahkan pokok-pokok bakau dan rumpai laut yang merupakan habitat bagi pelbagai hidupan laut, dan haiwan-haiwan yang mengalami kepupusan seperti dugong dan kuda laut. Apakah jaminan keatas pemulihan haiwan terancam dan pembekalan sumber laut di selatan Johor?



Soalan keempat; industri petrokimia memberi kesan ketara terhadap kesihatan penduduk yang tinggal berhampiran (lingkungan kurang dari 1km) akibat pelepasan polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) dan bahan toksik lain, Mengapa industri tersebut dicadangkan untuk dibina di lokasi kurang dari 1 km dari kawasan kampung di Mukim Serkat, Pontian?



SUARAM cawangan Johor Bahru mendesak kepada pihak berkuasa agar persoalan-persoalan diatas wajib dijawab kepada rakyat kerana cadangan projek petrokimia dan industri maritim di Sungai Pulai telah melanggar polisi dan akta-akta institusi kerajaan Persekutuan dan Negeri yang dirangka untuk menjamin perlindungan sumber asli dan kesihatan penduduk sekitar.



SUARAM cawangan Johor Bahru berpendapat bahawa segala pembangunan perlulah mengutamakan kepentingan rakyat dan juga nelayan-nelayan sekitar Mukim Serkat dan bukan hanya untuk kepentingan pihak korporat semata-mata serta tidak mempedulikan risiko kesihatan yang bakal timbul akibat aktiviti-aktiviti pembangunan Wilayah Pembangunan Iskandar yang diwar-warkan.



SUARAM cawangan Johor Bahru juga menyeru agar pihak berkuasa melibatkan peranan penduduk kampung dan nelayan secara langsung dalam segala proses perancangan pembangunan perairan Tanjung Bin supaya kepentingan dan hak mereka dapat dipertahankan.



Akhirnya kami menyeru kepada semua lapisan masyarakat, badan-badan NGO, parti-parti politik dan pihak media agar terus memberikan tumpuan kepada masalah-masalah akibat pembangunan Industri Petrokimia dan Industri Maritim ke atas penduduk kampung dan nelayan-nelayan sekitar Mukim Serkat.



Gambar-gambar seperti berikut:-

1) Himpunan aman sebelum perarakan

2) Perarakan bermula

3) Pemusnahkan pokok bakau telah mula dijalankan

4) Penduduk berdiri diatas tempat penebangan

5) Anak-anak sekolah turut sama menyertai himpunan aman



SUARAM cawangan Johor Bahru

Jawatankuasa Sahabat SUARAM negeri Johor

09 June 2009

Read More

New Era College row: The betrayal of DJZ, Pt 4

New Era College row: The betrayal of DJZ, Pt 4
Kua Kia Soong | Jun 3, 09 10:27am

http://www.malaysiakini.com/opinions/105686

This New Era College (NEC) controversy has another aspect which may be of interest to political scientists and sociologists. It has divided the old left movement in Malaysia. Now, ever since the end of the armed struggle by the Left in this country, they have put their efforts into the Chinese education movement.
MCPX

Those who critically follow the developments in the Dong Zong and New Era College secretariats know what's going on. But there are others who unthinkingly consider Dong Jiao Zong as inviolate without questioning the actions of the leadership.

During the controversy, certain statements by certain former leftist leaders have created consternation among others on the Left. The article by Fangshan (published in Chinese by Merdeka Review on December 12, 2008) apologised for Yap and his cronies by arguing that this "new stage of development for Chinese education" involves compromising with the ruling coalition.

kua kia soong launch new book 230509 01.jpgThe glorious history of the Left in this country must not be smudged by such renegade or otherwise unthinking left who have chosen to take a reactionary position in this controversy. Yap himself has tried to make use of his "leftist" past and to try to influence the former lefties who have joined the Chinese education movement since their retirement from active politics.

We have also seen another so-called lefty and Chairman of the KL/Selangor Old Friends' or ex-detainees' Association sabotage NEC in his attempt to discredit me by saying that only one course had been approved by MQA (See Chapter 2). One of Yap's mercenary writers is also supposed to be a former lefty but has shown his true colours by employing a MCA lawyer to sue me for defamation.

There are other lefties who say they are "neutral". If they are neutral in this controversy, can they claim to be lefties? If they cannot make out the facts and see what's just and unjust, what's democratic and what is not, who's reactionary and who's progressive...can they still be considered lefties?

If these are lefties, then who needs rightists? They would like the status quo in Dong Jiao Zong (DJZ) to prevail but it is a status quo that allows Yap to execute his agenda, i.e. get rid of Bock and Kua and to hell with all the young people who want to leave DJZ. This reminds me of a South African song in the seventies:

"There are those who cry out for peace
But do not cry out for justice...
We want peace
But we also want justice!"

The real and democratic Left should instead be asking for the truth and the democratisation of the Chinese education movement. Asking our heads of departments to leave the Board meeting in the name of "legalism" and "professionalism" is right wing reactionary ideology.

Save the Chinese Education Movement

All that Yap can show for his three years as Dong Zong chairman is his successful purging of Bock and Kua from the secretariats of Dong Zong and New Era College. Instead of seizing the opportunities afforded by the March 8, 2008 general elections and learning from the vision of great leaders such as Lim Fong Seng to forge a more democratic society and a brighter future for mother tongue education, Yap has chosen instead to launch his putsch. This has sapped the energy and time of the whole community throughout much of 2008. Nor does his collusion with the MCA augur well for the erstwhile non-partisan and fiercely independent Malaysian Chinese education movement.

The Board's function is to help fund-raise and to plan the development of the college. They have failed and the college has faced a crisis of space toward the end of 2008 while the Board has been idle over the Sepang project since 2000. The momentum of development of the college has thus suffered.

Year 2009 sees the beginning of a movement to ‘Save the Chinese Education Movement'. We want leaders who are visionary, principled, who cannot be compromised by the ruling coalition, and who have an inclusive attitude to all who can contribute to the movement. Corrupt leaders and saboteurs of the movement will be toppled and be held to account.

Unless these unprincipled leaders are replaced, the Chinese education movement will not be able to attract the talented young activists we have seen since the Lim Fong Seng era. The vision of a unique and multi-lingual community-run university will not materialise and even the reputation of the Unified Examination Certificate will be in question ... It will be the beginning of the end of our erstwhile incomparable Malaysian Chinese education system, one of the largest community-run mother tongue education systems in the world.

Read Part One, Part Two, and Part Three


DR KUA KIA SOONG was the principal of New Era College (2000- 2008). He has also been opposition Member of Parliament for Petaling Jaya (1990-95); political detainee under the ISA (1987-89) and academic adviser to Dong Jiao Zong (1983-85). He is the author of ‘May 13: Declassified Documents on the Malaysian Riots of 1969' and ‘New Era College Controversy: The Betrayal of Dong Jiao Zong'

Read More

New Era College row: The betrayal of DJZ, Pt 3

New Era College row: The betrayal of DJZ, Pt 3

http://www.malaysiakini.com/opinions/105639

Kua Kia Soong | Jun 2, 09 2:14pm
This book on the New Era College (NEC) controversy details how Dong Zong chairperson Yap Sin Tia executed ‘Operation Axe Kua’ in their attempt to discredit and oust me as the college principal.
MCPX

It reveals his control strategies and hidden agendas and ultimately the erosion of confidence in his leadership.

On Oct 20, 2006, Goh Kean Seng, the Confucian school headmaster confided in me that Yap had asked his opinion about me since my annual contract was nearing renewal.

yap sin tian djz chairman hq 030805Yap (right) had indicated to Goh that I was “a bit of an impediment”, and had been going round saying that he was the chairperson of the board but had no power to touch NEC funds.

I told Goh that Yap had not divulged the real story. What had happened was that at one board meeting, Yap had wanted to use the college Endowment (sponsors’) Fund for the use of the parent company, DJZ Higher Learning Centre Bhd (DJZHLC).

I had opposed this because, I said, this was a breach of sponsors’ trust who had donated specifically for the college use. Again, this became another example used by the directors to say that the CEO had too much power, even more powerful than the chairperson of the Board

Through their sabotage in casting doubt on the management of the college, Yap and his cronies have done irreparable harm to the college. The enrolment this year has dropped. Many donors have indicated that they will not donate any more funds. Yap and the other directors had destroyed the principles of the college even before I left.

1. The whole controversy exploded because Yap ordered our heads of department out of the June 14 meeting of the Board of Governors. This was a breach of the democratic practice of not only the college but also the whole Chinese education movement.

2. Yap, as chairperson of the Board of Directors, had shown contempt for the Board of Governors by failing to schedule any meetings since August 2008, despite the need to approve urgent college agenda. Even though the Board of Governors is the only college body recognised as accountable by the Higher Education Ministry and therefore we could have easily obtained an injunction against the directors, we chose not to, in deference to an appeal by our elder, Sim Mow Yu.

3. Yap has taken away the checks and balance from the college governors by concentrating the power to sign cheques in the hands of the directors of the parent company. He has destroyed a democratic practice established in 1998. There is now no transparency and accountability. Three years ago, I prevented Yap from using the Endowment Fund of the college for the purposes of the DJZHLC.

4. Yap has violated the autonomy of the campus by overriding the CEO of the college and demanding a head of department to ‘show cause’ as to why he sent an email to the press. As in Dong Zong, Yap has interfered in the running of the college. According to the spirit of the Instrument of Government of the college, the CEO is in charge of the college. The Private Higher Education Institution Act 1996 stipulates that the CEO is responsible to the Registrar-General.

5. Yap and the directors have, for the first time in the history of the Chinese education movement, compromised its cherished political independence, through their actions regarding the college. First they allowed the MCA, through the deputy minister of higher education, to intervene in the NEC controversy with various offers to me and my heads of department, and saying that the government has the right to intervene.

The lawyer he has employed to sue Goh is a MCA lawyer. His apologist in the parent company’s Higher Education Committee is Chua Yee Yan, another MCA man. But their historic compromise was seen in their joint caper with the MCA leaders and then Selangor Menteri Besar Dr Mohd Khir Toyo just before the last general election when they signed a MOU on the Sepang project.

6. As soon as the new principal assumed office in mid-January this year, he changed the weekly management review meetings into monthly meetings. This is in line with the disempowerment of the heads of department started by the directors last June. Thus, decisions are no longer collectively and democratically made. Worse, he has even given over the power to decide on minor posts (e.g. transferring a technician to another department) to the chairperson of the Board.

Account for Sepang campus

The Sepang project has been dragging on since 2000 when Hong Leong announced that it was donating a 100-acre piece of land to NEC. At the time, we all supported Quek Suan Hiang, the Dong Zong chairperson, for accepting the offer mainly because Hong Leong was fully supporting us – they actively raised funds for us, putting donation boxes in all their branches and they were the manager of the project. They even invited Andy Lau to come for a fund-raising concert in 2001 when RM2 million was raised.

However, in 2001, after the authorities had ordered the cancellation of the launching ceremony of the Sepang project, Hong Leong began to pull back. They stopped raising funds for us and also pulled out as project manager.

When it came to the renewal of the contract, we decided that we could not accept the contract as it stood, because this would mean we would be raising funds on our own and we would have to have the land in our name before the public would donate to the project. The negotiations over the contract have continued since then.

At the end of 2004, we faced a crisis over whether to proceed with the Sepang project. There were problems over extending the agreement. It was risky because the agreement was not in our favour. Hong Leong had backed out of being the project manager and wanted us to take full responsibility for this. They also wanted us to foot the bill for the infrastructural work.

On the Sepang project, it must be put down on record that in the January-February 2007 report of the parent company DJZHLC, the contract had been almost fixed. At the Feb 5, 2008 Executive Directors’ meeting, the Sepang contract had already been accepted and the directors were ready to sign the new contract.

selangor adun ceremony 220408 khir toyoOn Feb 19, 2008 at Wisma MCA, Yap signed the MOU with Vintage Heights together with MCA ministers and Khir (left), with Quek as witness. It was front page news in all the Chinese dailies. It was clearly an orchestrated press event to give the impression that the MCA/BN was supporting Dong Jiao Zong and the college. The MOU stipulated that the contract would be signed within three months.

It was obviously an attempt by the BN with the cooption of Yap and the other Dong Jiao Zong leaders to try to swing the Chinese votes to the BN during the March 2008 general election.

At the April 28, 2008 Executive Directors meeting, it was minuted that the Sepang contract would be signed before May 19, 2008.

After the college management had expressed our opposition to the terms of the new contract that had been negotiated by the College ‘legal adviser’, the June 6, 2008 Executive Directors’ meeting expressed the view that they could not accept the contract stipulation that construction of the campus had to be completed within 15 years and that each phase had to be completed within 3-5 years.

education quek hin siang farewell 080805 talkingOtherwise, Vintage Heights had the right to take back the land or buildings that had not yet received the Certificate of Fitness. The meeting resolved to write to Quek (right) for assistance.

Then at the June 14, 2008 Board of Directors meeting, I pointed out that the college must have the right to develop anywhere it likes apart from Sepang. At this meeting, I pointed out that I had already submitted to the board the City Campus concept with the Kajang campus as its centre. This would have the advantage of attracting more students since it is nearer to KL and the transportation routes.

At this meeting, it was resolved that it should be left to a committee of professionals to evaluate the Sepang project and the result should be reported to the public. The problem with the Sepang campus is not only that of the quality of the Sepang land but also the problem of attracting students to such a distant campus and the feasibility of development there.

The meeting resolved to let a committee comprising the three organisations, ie. Dong Zong, Jiao Zong and Merdeka University Bhd, follow up with Vintage Heights before deciding what to do with the land.

It is now nearly a year and Yap has still not accounted to the Chinese community on the Sepang project.

At the June 9, 2007 Board of Directors meeting, I pointed out that the Sepang contract had been dragging on long enough with new problems being raised every time. As such, it would be more advisable for us to consider a ‘city campus’ concept around Kajang. The meeting requested I put forward a concrete proposal.

We put forward this more practical ‘city campus’ project which Yap had refused to discuss. Our development plan around Kajang is popular among stakeholders as it increases our accessibility, deepens our community involvement and requires a lighter investment from the Chinese community.

Yap must explain why he does not want to discard the Sepang project. Does he have any personal interest in this?

The four-part series will conclude tomorrow.

Read Part 1 and Part 2

KUA KIA SOONG was the principal of New Era College (2000- 2008). He has also been opposition member of parliament for Petaling Jaya (1990-95); political detainee under the ISA (1987-89) and academic adviser to Dong Jiao Zong (1983-85). He is the author of ‘May 13: Declassified Documents on the Malaysian Riots of 1969' and ‘New Era College Controversy: The Betrayal of Dong Jiao Zong’.



SMS News Alerts
Maxis users
- Type "BUY MKINI" and send to "26000" (RM 5.00 per month)
- Type "BUY WMKINI" and send to "26000" (RM 1.50 per week)
Umobile users
- Type "ON NW MKINIENG" and send to "28118" (RM 5.00 per month)
Digi users
- Type "ON MKINI" and send to "2000" (RM 5.00 per month)
Share your views

Got a short comment or two on our reports/articles? Send it over to Vox Populi, a free forum for readers to air their views on Malaysiakini’s news reports, columns, opinions, letters and analyses. Please keep your comments brief and provide a pseudonym if you so wish. Vox Populi differs from Letters to the Editor in that it caters specifically for brief, to the point comments. Do please indicate which report/article you are referring to. Send your Vox Populi comments to: editor@malaysiakini.com

» RELATED STORIES

ADVERTISEMENT
Diy Day Banner

Advertise here ( RM15/day )

Advertise here ( RM15/day )

Diy Day Banner

And insert the rest of it here.

Read More

New Era College row: The betrayal of DJZ, Pt 2

New Era College row: The betrayal of DJZ, Pt 2
Kua Kia Soong | Jun 1, 09 12:36pm
Quek Suan Hiang, the Dong Zong chairperson from 1993-2005, can be credited for his role in raising funds for the two new buildings of the New Era College (NEC) and for leading the way to China and Taiwan in 1997 to seek partnership of their top universities.
MCPX

He was very appreciative of the leadership of Bock Tai Hee as CEO of the Dong Zong secretariat throughout much of his term - after Bock retired in 1999, Quek have him a five-year contract in 2001.

dr yap sin tianIn contrast, the next chairperson Yap Sin Tia (left) gave me a contract from 2005-2008.

But Quek’s first major failure in his leadership of the Chinese education movement was his capitulation to Umno Youth during the Suqiu affair in 2000.

Although the Chinese Associations’ Suqiu Working Committee meeting had decided not to give in to the threats, Quek went against the decision by acceding to Umno Youth leader Hishammuddin Hussein’s demand that several of the demands be retracted. No Chinese educationist leader from the time of Lim Lian Geok had ever shown such weakness.

Quek’s second failure of leadership of the Chinese education movement was seen during the 2004 general election when he expressed the position that we were “neutral” in the elections. For the first time in Malaysia’s post- Independence history, the Chinese education movement did not present any demands to the ruling coalition.

From then on, Quek’s relationship with Bock deteriorated. He no longer confided in Bock as he became closer to the MCA. He would go with the Jiao Zong chairperson Wang Zhaoqun whenever he wanted to discuss educational or political issues with the MCA leaders. The Jiao Zong chairperson’s close relations with the MCA leaders are well known!

During the earlier part of his term, Quek had always been appreciative of the fact that whatever praise he received did not accrue from personal achievements, but his position as Dong Zong chairperson. However, toward the end, he developed delusions of grandeur especially being awarded honourary doctorates and professorships by Chinese universities.

Quek’s attitude to Bock changed critically. This was when Quek attempted to push through a research project with Xiamen University - this did not succeed because the college academic committee had considered it too expensive and there was no real advantage for the college.

The college would have had to share the cost of RM300,000 for the first stage of the project alone and the college would merely have the role of collecting material for the Xiamen University researchers.



quek sin hiangAt the decisive meeting, Quek (right) expressed his dissatisfaction with us because he had unilaterally agreed to this joint research project when he had attended the Xiamen meeting in his capacity as a director of that university. It was a question of losing face more than anything else. We had no option because we put the college interests and capacity first. At the time, the college budget was still in question and there was no indication of where this research allocation would come from.

Bock was mainly going by our democratic decision which had been reached after much discussion. But I remember Quek’s angry remark at the end of the meeting: “…And I never thought that even you, Bock, would oppose this project!”

After that, Quek’s relationship with Bock went downhill. At his farewell speech on 2006, he specifically called on the new directors of Dong Zong to reconsider the role of the CEO in the Dong Zong secretariat: “The CEO has too much power!” he insisted.

After his retirement, Quek played mentor to Yap, who took over. Yap’s subsequent actions to override Bock can be traced to Quek’s farewell speech in 2006. Quek’s loud silence throughout the NEC controversy of 2008 should be seen in the light of what I have revealed above.

A hidden agenda

How did the Chinese education movement with its history of illustrious leaders produce a leader like Yap? This is a question our children will ask and which the movement will have to answer.

Some have put it down to his inferiority complex, hence the need to acquire so many dubious PhD titles and the obsession to get rid of Bock and myself, who he claimed “look down on him”. My wife Anne puts it down to the possibility that he lacked maternal love!

Whatever the reason, Yap’s unsuitability for the post of Dong Zong head can be seen from his actions. His integrity and academic capability are in doubt from his acquisition of dubious PhDs.
In education, there are no shortcuts to success and recognition.

Amassing questionable PhDs only lead to cynicism and invites derision. Someone who has so little regard for academic honesty can hardly lay claim to be the chairperson of the Board of Governors of such an institution as NEC which aspires to be a ‘world-class tertiary institution’.

Yap’s political agenda can be seen as early as the 1998 Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall (SCAH) elections when he sided with the pro-BN Liu Panshi (who had organised a tea-ceremony for premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad in 2001) and who tried in vain to form a breakaway ‘Kuala Lumpur Assembly Hall’. Many of the leaders in the SCAH have not forgotten how he sold them out.

In December 2004, MCA leaders had a closed-door dialogue with DJZ leaders. Among other things, MCA leaders complained about the “Opposition sympathies” of some of our lecturers, mentioning Pan Yongqiang in particular, who had written an article in the press criticising MCA’s ‘Lifelong Learning Campaign’.

Soon after, when Pan was selected to represent NEC at a conference in Guangzhou, he was supposed to go with Yap and the Jiao Zong chairperson Ong. The two were not happy with the choice of Pan and asked why he was representing NEC and were against him presenting any papers at the conference.

When Pan heard about this, he refused to go. This was another example of how the DJZ leaders had violated the NEC principle of academic freedom.

In another incident in August 2008, Yap telephoned the organiser of a conference on Malay-Chinese translation demanding to know why he had invited NEC’s head of research centre, Zheng Wenquan. Apparently, Zheng’s paper had been critical of some translations which happened to include Yap’s but the criticism had been totally academic in spirit.

Questionable stance

Yap’s position during the March 2008 general election was highly questionable. Unaware of the political tsunami that was coming, he announced that DJZ was taking a neutral stand.



As the leader of the Chinese education movement, he failed to put forward the demands of the community, like Quek in the 2004 election. Worst of all, he worked hand in glove with the MCA and Umno Selangor menteri besar by signing the MOU on the Sepang project, an attempt to give the Chinese community a signal that the BN was working for the good of Chinese education. Now, nearly a year later, the MOU promise that the Sepang contract would be signed within three months has still not been kept!

new era college yap sin tian beaten 110109Again, in the NEC controversy, we see that Yap’s lawyer in the defamation suit against Goh Kean Seng is MCA’s Chan Tse Yuen, while the apologist for his dubious PhDs is MCA academic Chua Yee Yan. Chan was again heading the panel of lawyers issuing threats to our head of drama and film department Sun Chunmei, warning her not to comment on the Yap’s ‘bloody nose’ incident.

As chairperson of Dong Zong, Yap has filled the Board of Directors and Governors with his cronies even if they know nothing about higher education. If one looks at the members of the Board of Directors of DJZHLC and the Board of Governors of NEC, we would be hard pushed to spot any academic among them.

Worst of all, Yap has displayed a lack of courage and accountability. This is uncharacteristic of a Chinese education leader. He failed to show up at any of the forums called by the members of the community, including the series of 18 public events in October 2008, all of which I attended.

He even failed to organise the open forums that he had promised the public when the controversy first started. Nor has he accepted my challenge to debate the controversy on radio or television.

Repeatedly, he avoided facing the people at important events where he, in his leadership role, was expected to attend viz the NEC annual general meeting on June 29; Khoo Siong Chi’s memorial on Dec 7; and Lim Lian Geok’s memorial on Dec 14, all held last year.

Unlike previous Dong Zong heads who ran their businesses from offices elsewhere, Yap did not have any business office. He began to play the role of ‘executive director’ by setting up office in the Dong Zong secretariat and by over-riding Bock by directly giving orders to heads of departments.

If he was a sincere and competent leader, he would have invited Bock to discuss how the latter could contribute to the movement after retirement. Instead, his sole objective seemed to be to make sure that Bock would no longer play a role in the Duzhong working committee.


http://www.malaysiakini.com/opinions/105538

Despite the efforts by veteran educationists such as Lee Ban Chen and Low Sik Thong to work out an amicable solution, Yap chose to mount a whisper campaign against Bock and to avoid discussing a post-retirement role for him. I leave the writing of this sordid affair to Bock.

Part 3 of the four-part series will appear tomorrow.

Read Part 1 here


KUA KIA SOONG was the principal of New Era College (2000-2008). He was opposition member of parliament for Petaling Jaya (1990-95); political detainee under the ISA (1987-89) and academic adviser to Dong Jiao Zong (1983-85). He is the author of ‘May 13: Declassified Documents on the Malaysian Riots of 1969' and ‘New Era College Controversy: The Betrayal of Dong Jiao Zong’.

Read More

New Era College row: The betrayal of DJZ, Pt 1

http://www.malaysiakini.com/opinions/105438

New Era College row: The betrayal of DJZ, Pt 1
Kua Kia Soong | May 30, 09 11:14am
The New Era College controversy raged in the Malaysian Chinese press throughout the second half of 2008. There were occasional reports in the English-language press but it made headlines in all the Malaysian and Singapore media when the Chairman of the Board of the college was given a bloody nose by a graduate of the college during the graduation ceremony on 11 January 2009.yap sin tian new era college punched in the nose by student 130109 06


MCPX


This chronicle of the controversy counts as the memoirs of my last year of service at the Dong Jiao Zong-run New Era College. It will be of interest to those who are concerned with the affairs of the Malaysian Chinese community, in particular, the Chinese education movement. Among other things, this controversy revolved round the issue of the termination of my contract as principal of New Era College.

In the process, it split the Chinese education movement as well as the remnants of the former left movement in Malaysia. It even split families within this left movement. Dong Zong, the United School Committees Association of Malaysia had to call an unprecedented Emergency General Meeting over my contract, the first time in all its 54 years of existence.

I joined the movement in 1983 when I had just returned to Malaysia from my studies abroad. The visionary leader of the movement at the time, Lim Fong Seng invited me to serve in the organisation and it was my honour and pleasure to be in his team. Throughout the eighties and nineties, the Chinese education movement faced numerous obstacles put in its way by the ruling party, UMNO.

While every leader of the Malaysian Chinese education movement has stoically faced sabotage from this external force, from 2005 onward, the secretariat of Dong Zong began to face internal dissension when the new Chairman of Dong Zong, Yap Sin Tian took office. In 2006, he terminated the service of Bock Tai Hee, the CEO of the Dong Zong secretariat who had led the secretariat since the eighties. This led to the departure of nearly twenty committed and talented young activists from the movement. This new leader of the Chinese education movement appeared to have a new agenda of his own, quite different from his predecessors.

Once Yap had completed this operation in the Dong Zong secretariat, he turned his sights on New Era College, the other organisation run by Dong Jiao Zong (Jiao Zong is the United Chinese School Teachers Association of Malaysia) on the same campus in Kajang, south of Kuala Lumpur. (See Kua Kia Soong, "The Chinese Schools of Malaysia", 2008; "The Malaysian Civil Rights Movement", 2005)



I had been principal of the college since 2000 and as can be seen in Chapter One, our goal was to create a unique college that nurtured independent-minded, service-oriented students. Three of our graduates actually got elected as members of the federal and state parliaments under Opposition banners in the 8 March 2008 general elections. However, I had been a fairly well-known dissident ever since the eighties and in 1987, I was detained for 445 days without trial under the infamous Internal Security Act during Operation Lalang.

The "New Era College Controversy of 2008" will go down in history as the darkest hour of the Malaysian Chinese education movement. Our children will ask:

* How did we allow someone with three dubious PhDs become the Chairman of the Board of New Era College which has a vision of being a world-class tertiary-level institution?


* How did we allow someone who lacked leadership qualities, with his own hidden agenda, get rid of some of the most committed and competent activists in the movement?


* How did the Chinese community and mainstream Chinese-language press allow such a leader and his cohorts to execute dirty tricks comparable to the Watergate scandal and get away with it?


This chronicle of my last year at New Era College (NEC) is intended to serve as a wake-up call to the Chinese community, to alert them to the fact that "the barbarians are not at the gates", the barbarians are WITHIN our gates"! New Era College is being destroyed before your eyes - the ten years of constructing a vibrant sustainable campus culture based on campus autonomy, academic freedom and student self-governance have been methodically destroyed.



kua kia soong last day in nec 311208 jolokNow, those who think that I (left) had wanted to stay on as principal as long as possible should think again. Ever since my return to Malaysia in the early eighties, my actions have been decided by the collective decisions of my comrades and colleagues in the movement. Hence, there were at least three important reasons why I decided to stay on as principal of NEC:

* My management team in NEC and I had witnessed the destruction of the Dong Zong secretariat ever since Yap became the Dong Zong chairman in 2005 and we had decided to put our foot down and defend NEC. When the challenge came on 14 June 2008, we had even greater resolve to see through this battle. My total support for my heads of department the following day was the most natural thing to do.
* The management team of NEC had been concerned about the lack of initiative in planning for the college expansion which had reached a crisis in 2008. We had come up with a preferable "City Campus" plan.
* As the controversy unfolded, it was clear that the staff, students and parents all wanted me to stay on as the principal to complete the task at hand.


But the biggest loss to the Chinese education movement is not the purging of Bock Tai Hee from the Dong Zong Secretariat nor the ousting of Kua Kia Soong from the NEC top line-up, but the departure of more than twenty of the most competent and committed young activists who have served the movement since the eighties and nineties. They have left in protest against the blatant destruction of the democratic traditions and working methods of the movement built up by the former Dong Zong Chairman Lim Fong Seng since the seventies.

The other serious consequence of Yap's operations against Bock and I is that the MCA, the component party of the ruling coalition has now got more than a foot in the movement. Yap has destroyed the independence of the movement by his collusion with the MCA, as we shall see below.

Leadership of the Chinese Education Movement

Lim Lian Geok, acknowledged as the soul of Malaysian Chinese education, had a well-known rallying cry to the community which was: "The best antidote to sabotage is to construct." Throughout the fifties and sixties, Malaysian Chinese education faced incessant sabotage from the ruling party, UMNO, and Lim Lian Geok paid the price of adhering to his principles by losing his teaching permit and even his citizenship.


Later, Lim Fong Seng, the father of the Unified Examination Certificate and the Independent Chinese Secondary Schools Movement, ignited the campaign to construct Merdeka University. In the eighties and nineties Lim was leader of the Malaysian Chinese Civil Rights movement and he too paid a high price for holding firmly to his principles, by losing business opportunities and suffering detention under Operation Lalang in 1987.

Sim Mow Yu, in the same steadfast manner did not flinch in his belief that Mandarin should be an official language of Malaysia. He too paid for his principles by being charged under the Sedition Act in the seventies and losing his freedom during Operation Lalang in 1987 together with Lim Fong Seng and the author.

Inspirational leaders such as Lim Lian Geok, Lim Fong Seng and Sim Mow Yu adhered strongly to their principles. And they stood out because they walked their talk! They had a vision of upholding and developing mother tongue education into a complete and excellent educational system in the country. Leaders such as Lim Fong Seng inspired confidence among all sections of the community. Above all, he welcomed intellectuals and professionals into the movement on an inclusive basis. Likewise, his vision for a Merdeka University and his defence of our civil rights through a two-front political system was unflinching.

Leaders like Lim Lian Geok, Lim Fong Seng and Sim Mow Yu had character and character includes honour, integrity and a deep respect for others. Such leaders stand out as having vision which allows them to transcend the "small mind" mentality. They were not men who hankered after titles or other superfluous status; they had a sense of serving their historic destiny. These leaders had an authentic presence and were able to connect with their team through dialogue. Such competent leaders command respect and history has accorded them due recognition.

Now the movement has, at its helm, a visionless leader with a questionable agenda that betrays the trust placed in him by the college stakeholders, thousands of parents and their children. There is no longer a positive and exciting environment that can attract young talented activists. The Malaysian Chinese education movement is today faced with a crisis that is unprecedented and that has been created by its own leaders!

To understand how this has come about, one has to go back at least to the nineties to see how the Chinese associations have been steadily infiltrated by members or supporters of the ruling coalition ever since Lim Fong Seng stepped down as the Dong Zong chairman in 1990. Things had begun to change during the term of Quek Suan Hiang, Yap's predecessor.

Part two of the four-part series will appear tomorrow.


Dr Kua Kia Soong was principal of New Era College (2000- 2008). He has also been opposition Member of Parliament for Petaling Jaya (1990-95); political detainee under the ISA (1987-89) and academic adviser to Dong Jiao Zong (1983-85). He is the author of ‘May 13: Declassified Documents on the Malaysian Riots of 1969' and ‘New Era College Controversy: The Betrayal of Dong Jiao Zong'.

Read More

新纪元学院事件与董教總的變質（下）

新纪元学院事件与董教總的變質（下）
特约评论 | 5月20日 傍晚5点16分
文：柯嘉逊

http://www.malaysiakini.com/columns/104723

叶新田的性格和其隐议程

“人们不重视头衔，只重视勇气。”

——（引自影片《英勇的心灵》中威廉.华勒斯之言）

华教运动有着一大批杰出的领袖，怎会培养出一个像叶新田这样的人物？

bookcover kua kia soong new era college 190509有人说，是他的自卑心理在作祟，所以需要弄几个博士学位来壮胆，并执意要除掉莫泰熙和柯嘉逊。他说，这两人“看不起我”！我妻子则认为，他缺乏的是母爱！

不管是基于什么理由，人们可以从叶新田所采取的行动看出，他已经不再适合坐上董总主席的位置。

叶新田想方设法提高自己的形象，包括委托中国的“教授”为他写自传。为此，他究竟花了多少代价？

叶新田的政治议程，可以从他在1998年雪兰莪大会堂选举中，看得出来。他在这场选举中，站在亲国阵的刘磐石一边。刘磐石就是当年在华社众目睽睽下，向马哈迪敬茶的人。雪华堂众多领导人不会忘记，刘磐石是如何出卖他们的。

2004年12月，马华公会领袖和董教总领导人进行了一次闭门对话。其间，马华领袖埋怨我们的研究员潘永强“同情反对党”。因为他在报章上，写了一篇文章，批评马华的“终身学习计划”。

不久，潘永强被选为新纪元代表，要和叶新田和王超群一同去出席广州的一个华文教育研讨会。这两位董教总的主席对这点感到不高兴。他们追问，为什么由潘永强代表新纪元，并且还说，他在会议上不得提呈任何论文。潘永强听了这些话以后，决定不去。这表明，董教总领导人是如何侵犯新纪元学术自由的原则。

2008 年9月，发生了另一件事。叶新田打电话给举办“第一届华马翻译与文化互动研讨会”的负责人。他要知道为什么邀请新纪元学术研究中心主任郑文泉，只不过因郑文泉所提呈的论文中有评论了一些人的翻译着作，恰好也包括叶新田的译著。其实，这些评论纯粹是学术性的。郑文泉实际上曾经把他的论文事先交给叶新田过目。这件事也表明，叶新田本人缺乏学术修养。

在谈到董教总领导人的虚荣心时，我不得不对2008的一段插曲。当时教总出版一本《沈慕羽画册》。新纪元讲师廖文辉为它写了一篇序言。这本书印妥后，王超群质问为什么不由他来写序言，而是由廖文辉来写，继而阻止这本书的销售。廖文辉不同意把他所写的序言抽掉。于是，王超群加上了自己的序言，那本书才可销售。

在2008年3月大选中，董教总所采取的立场令人感到非常可疑。董教总对即将来临的政治海啸茫然无知，竟然宣布采取中立的立场。作为华教运动的领袖，有如2004年郭全强那样，他没提出华教与华社的诉求。

mca new era collegue allocation 190208 mou.jpg最糟的是，大选前的2月份，他和马华和巫统的雪兰莪州务大臣合作无间，签署〈雪邦计划谅解备忘录〉，企图昭示华社，国阵真正是在为华教出力。〈备忘录〉中，双方竟然互相承诺：“雪邦计划”的正式合约将在三个月内签署。至今，过了一年，这份合约幸好还未签妥。

在新纪元风波中，为他的博士学位而辩护的，是马华的前学术人员蔡维衍。我们又看到，叶新田起诉吴建成诽谤的代表律师，还是马青前领导人的陈思源。还是同一个陈思源带领一个律师团，发出警告信给戏剧系主任孙春美，不许她对“一拳打伤叶新田鼻子”的事件继续作出评论（见2009年1月16日，《星洲日报》）。

在他就任董总主席期间，叶新田尽量安插他的朋党到董事会和理事会中。这些朋党其实对高等教育不甚了了。如果你留意一下，董教总教育中心董事会成员和新纪元学院理事会成员之中，我们要找出一个学术人员，确实难之又难！

最糟的是，在整个新纪元事件中，叶新田显得懦弱胆怯。这不是作为一个华教领导人所应具有的个性。2008年10月至12月间，全马各地华教团体所举办的18 次新院事件说明会或论坛，每一次他都没出席，也不派代表出席，或干脆以倒叶丶反董教总的理由而拒绝出席。虽然风波一发生后，他曾经作出承诺，会举办这类论坛，但他也始终没举办过什么公开论坛说明新纪元学院事件。他也不敢接受我的挑战，在广播电台或电视台进行辩论。这表明，他对华教领导人应具有的负责任态度，完全不当一回事。

除了这些，他本应在重要场合和众人见面，但他总是避而不见。以下几项重要集会，他也没出席：
1、2008年6月29日新纪元和董总赞助人常年大会；
2、2008年12月7日丘祥炽的逝世追悼会；
3、2008年12月14日林连玉逝世周年纪念。

叶新田的“莫黑行动”

damansara school temp classroom dismantle 220409 mo tai xi2006年，叶新田担任董总主席的第二年。他在他的议程中所做的第一件事就是利用年轻丶执着丶有才能的积极分子，与年纪较大的冗员之间的矛盾，进行“莫黑行动”。

他开始扮演“执行董事”的角色，在董总秘书处设立自己的办事处，目的在于跨越董总秘书处首席执行主任，直接向各部门主任发号施令。叶新田的商业活动没有办事处，因此，在董总秘书处设立一个办事处，也兼顾他自己的商业活动。

如果他是一个具有诚意的，能干的华教领导人，他大可以和莫泰熙坐下来谈，商议他的退休事，以及莫泰熙退休后，如何为华教育运动继续做出贡献。但是，他并没有那么做。他唯一的目的就是要确保，莫泰熙不在独中工委会中扮演任何角色。虽然一些华教工作者，如李万千丶刘锡通和吴建成等，在这方面作出种种协调的努力，但是，叶新田却使用他的一贯手法，对莫泰熙退休后所能扮演的角色一事，避而不谈，但私底下已表明莫泰熙必须离开董总。

叶新田的“伐柯行动”

有一天（2006年10月20日），尊孔独中校长吴建成向我透露，在处理莫泰熙的去留问题时，叶新田征求过他的意见。叶说，我逐年更新的合约快到期了。我的问题更加麻烦，因为我不是一个人，而是一批人。叶新田一直在向他人申诉，他是董事主席，但是，他却没有权力动用新纪元的钱财。

我告诉吴建成，叶并没说明事情真相。事情是这样的：在一次董事会议上，叶新田要把“新纪元学院赞助人基金”转给母公司（董教总教育中心）使用。当时，我反对这么做。我说，新纪元赞助人的捐款只能用之于学院，不然，就是失信。这事件又被董事们利用来证明，我作为学院院长的权力太大了，甚至超越董事主席的权力。

毁新纪元隠议程成事实

new era college 211108 02柯嘉逊不再是新纪元院长以后，新纪元会不会变质呢？

通过对学院的管理层凭空制造疑问，危言惑众等的破坏行动，叶新田和他的朋党已给新纪元带来了无法弥补的损失。一些赞助人已表明，不会再捐款给新纪元。

本人还未离开新纪元学院，叶新田和他的党羽就已加速破坏了创办新纪元学院的基本原则：

1. 整个新纪元风波之所以会爆发，是在6月14日的新纪元理事会议上，学院各系主任依照惯例列席会议，但是叶新田却把他们赶出会议门外。这是完全违反新纪元学院的民主惯例，同时，也违反了整个华教运动的民主惯例。

2. 从2008年8月过后，学院的一些紧急议程正待理事会批准，作为董教总教育中心董事主席的叶新田，就没召开过任何理事会（新纪元管理层）会议。这表明，叶新田对理事会采取的是藐视的态度。要注意的是，新纪元理事会是唯一受政府承认，必须向政府高教部负责的学院管理层单位。理事会本可诉诸法律行动对付董事会。但是，在沈慕羽老先生的劝解下，院方的理事会代表放弃了这项决定。

3. 目前，叶新田已把支票簿和存款，从新纪元理事会（管理层）手中拿走了。他把签署支票的权力操纵在母公司的董事手中，破坏了新纪元自1998年成立以来所建立的民主惯例。

4. 叶新田违反校园民主。他无视学院院长的权力，直接要行政主任解释，为什么发出文告给报馆。他干预新纪元学院的日常事务，就像他在董总那样，随时可以指挥各局的行政主任。根据政府私立大专高等教育的管理章程的精神，任何一所私立大专学府都是应由行政执行长或院长管理。新纪元学院管理规章便是在《1996年私立高等教育学府法令》下注册。在这项法律下，行政执行长得向政府注册官负责。

5. 叶新田和他的朋党，通过他们对新纪元所采取的措施，作出政治性妥协。这是在华教运动史上，首次在政治独立性作出的妥协。首先，通过高教部副部长，他们让马华公会有机会插手新纪元风波。高教部副部长向柯嘉逊和他几名系主任提出形同收买的建议。叶新田的朋党说，政府有权干预新纪元事务。为了起诉吴建成，叶新田所聘请的是马华的律师。叶新田在母公司（董教总教育中心）高等教育谘询委员会的辩护士则是蔡维衍。他也是马华的成员。他们这次历史性的妥协，发生在308 大选前，他们和马华领袖丶巫统雪兰莪州务大臣基尔合作无间！

没清楚交代“雪邦校园计划”

雪邦计划，从2000年起，一直拖到现在。当时，丰隆集团宣布，他们要捐献100亩地给新纪元学院。那个时候，我们大家都支持董总主席郭全强，接受献议，主要是因为丰隆集团当时全力支持我们。他们积极为我们筹款，在他们所有的分行，设置乐捐箱。他们也是这计划的工程策划经理。在2001年，他们甚至邀请香港影星刘德华前来参加筹款晚会的表演，当晚共筹得200万。

但是，在2001年，当局下令取消雪邦计划动土典礼后，丰隆集团开始打退堂鼓。他们停止为我们筹款，同时不再担任工程策划经理。

到了要续约的时候，我们已作出决定，不接受这份合约的内容，因为我们得自己负责筹款。那地段必须转到我方的名下，民众才愿意为这计划捐款。从那时候起，为了合约的内容，双方谈判似乎永无止境。

到了2004年杪，对是否应该继续进行这项雪邦计划，成了我们所要面对的危机。续约的事产生了许多问题。合约内容对我们很不利，要继续签约的话，就必须冒风险。丰隆集团反而要我们负起全责。基础设施的费用，也要由我们付给。这一切，和原有的计划大相径庭。

其实，根据2007年1月到2月间，董教总高等教育中心关于雪邦计划的报告，对合约内容一事，几乎已敲定了。

2008 年2月5日召开的执行董事会议，决定接受雪邦计划的合约。邝其芳和饶仁毅做报告说，合约已随时可以签署。就在308大选前，2008年2月19日，在马华大夏，叶新田和VINTAGE HEIGHTS公司签署了一份“备忘录”。当时在场的有：马华四位部长和雪兰莪州务大臣基尔，以及丰隆主席郭令灿和他们的代表经理十多人。他们见证了这个签约仪式。

所有的华文报章，都把这个事件当成头条新闻。这项新闻的发布，显然是事先安排好的。他们想要制造一个假象，即马华／国阵是支持董教总的。“备忘录”中说明，正式合约将在3个月内签妥。

显而易见，在叶新田和其他董教总领导人的通力合作下，国阵企图使华人选票转向，在308大选中，投给国阵。

2008年4月28日，董教总执行董事会议记录中，有一项目，即雪邦合约将在5月19日以前签署。

对于新纪元“法律顾问”饶仁毅谈商所达致的新合约条件，我们表示反对。2008年6月6日召开的执行董事会议，也表达我们不能接受合约条文的内容。我们不能接受的是，除了雪邦校园，不准在其他地方发展或建立分校；校园建设必须在15年内完成，而每一期的建设必须在3年到5年之间完工。不然，丰隆集团的 VINTAGE HEIGHTS公司有权收回土地，或还未取得入伙纸的建筑物。会议议决，写信给丰隆老板郭令灿，要求他帮助。

2008年6月14日召开的董教总董事部会议中，我指出，除了雪邦以外，新纪元应有权在任何其他地方发展。在这会议中，我也指出，我已经向董事部提呈了以加影校园作为中心的“城市校园计划”的概念。这项计划有利于吸引更多学生，因为地点较靠近吉隆坡市区和交通运输网络。

在会议上，吕兴先生表达了他的看法。他认为，我们必须在我们能力范围内进行发展。我们应重新考虑雪邦计划。叶新田则说，目前政治局势有利于发展雪邦计划，所以我们不应该放弃这项计划。邹寿汉则补充说，董事部将作最后的决定。

7 月22日召开的董事部会议，会议议决应交由一个专业小组去评定雪邦计划，然后才向公众人士作出报告。雪邦校园的问题，不只是局限在雪邦地段的性质问题，而是牵涉到如何吸引学生到这么遥远的校园去，以及校园在该地发展的可行性问题。会议议决在还没有决定如何处理这块地段以前，交由3个团体组织成立的一个小组，和VINTAGE HEIGHTS公司接触谈商。这3个团体就是董总丶教总和独大有限公司。

到目前为止，已将近一年了。但是，叶新田仍然没向华社清楚交代雪邦校园计划的内容。不过，我们已揭露了雪邦计划合约中的不合理条件。

叶新田曾在2008年9月18日召开全院教职员讨论雪邦校园计划。他的动机是什么？他的目的是什么？至今还不清楚。他是不是想证明，他已“民主地”召开会议，和民众进行讨论过？

可行的“城市校园计划”

2007年6月9日召开的董事会议中，我指出，雪邦合约已拖拉太久了，每次都会出现新的问题。因为雪邦地点太远了，所以，应该考虑在加影附近落实“城市校园”的概念。

会议要求我提出一个具体的计划。于是，我们提出了一个实际可行的“城市校园计划”。可是，叶新田断然拒绝讨论这项计划。其实，我们建议在加影附近进行发展的计划，受到加影社区人士的热烈欢迎。这是因为，对华社来说，这项计划需要比较少的资金，并且能扩大社群的参与，并且方便社群接近学院。既然如此，叶新田就有责任向民众解释，为什么他不放弃雪邦计划。他在雪邦计划中，是不是存在着不能说明的隐议程？

变质前左派分子为虎作伥

我国的左派有一页光辉的历史，不应该让一些糊涂的老左派把它玷污。在这次风波中，这些变质的左派人士采取了反动的立场。叶新田试图利用他过去的左派背景，影响前左派分子。我们见证了杨进来如何破坏新纪元。（注：杨进来是隆雪老友联谊会主席）他说，国家学术鉴定局只认证新纪元学院的一项科目，目的是要玷辱我的名誉。

其中一个“要饭的文棍”，也算是前左派分子。他聘请了一名马华的律师，起诉我诽谤他！我们也阅读了“21世纪老友”领导人方山的文章，竟然对新纪元的办学路线指指点点。（这篇文章发表在2008年12月12日的《独立新闻在线》）。

如果这些人还可配称为左派的话，我们那里还需要右派呢？他们想要平息新纪元事件，但是，他们的做法却是为虎作伥，是对叶新田的姑息养奸，任由他为所欲为。

这些变质的前老左们帮助叶新田除掉莫泰熙和柯嘉逊，以及他们的年青团队，造成华教队伍的严重分裂，更是对华教运动年青新生力量的斲丧，是难以弥补的损失。

这种情况，令我想起70年代在南非流行的一首歌：

“那些高喊和平的人
并不是为正义而呼喊”


编按：

本文为柯嘉逊即将面世的新书《新纪元学院事件：董教总的变质》导言部分的下篇。欲阅读上篇可点击此处。

该书出版社东方企业将在2009年5月22日（星期五），晚上八点正，假隆雪中华大会堂二楼礼堂举行新书发布会。在该发布会上，博特拉大学中文组讲师庄华兴、著名的政治诗人郑云城，和新山人民之声执行员严居汉受邀讲评这本新书。

Read More

新纪元学院事件与董教總的變質（上）

新纪元学院事件与董教總的變質（上）
特约评论 | 5月19日 下午4点18分
文：柯嘉逊


http://www.malaysiakini.com/columns/104639



“有人认为，靠不住的领袖，就好像公司主席那样，会写一张便条训令人事部经理：‘从公司内部，搜索出那些既机灵，又有进取心，并且有能力取代我的年轻领袖。一经寻获，立刻开除他们!’”
——翰C.麦斯威，《360度的领袖》


“2009年新纪元学院事件”将成为大马华教运动史中黑暗的日子。我们的子孙后代将会提出质疑：

“我们怎么能够让一个缺乏领导能力，又心怀隠议程的人，轻易除掉华教运动中最优秀的积极分子呢？”

new era college dispute forum 181208 kua kia soong ke jia xun 02我们又怎么能够让一个拥有３个可疑博士学位的人，当上新纪元学院董事主席呢？特别是当新纪元正有希望成为一个具有世界水平的高等学府。

华社怎能让这么样的一个领袖及其同谋者，玩弄肮脏的伎俩，而他们竟然却能消遥自在，不受制裁？他们这些肮脏的伎俩，可以和美国水门丑闻（WATERGATE SCANDAL）匹比。

以下是我在新纪元学院最后一年的工作纪录。我写出这些工作纪录，是为了提醒华社，要注意“野蛮的侵略者不仅仅是兵临城下而已”…“这些野蛮的侵略者早已打进了城门”!

10年建设毁于一旦

我们眼看新纪元学院正在遭受摧毁。这10年来所建设起来的，有活力的丶可持续发展的校园文化，已遭到有计划的破坏。这个校园计划的办学理念是:“校园自主，学术自由，学生自治”。学生与家长们对叶新田的领导已失却信心。

有些人以为，我想要长期担任新纪元院长，那是大错特错的想法。其实，我是因为受到志同道合的朋友和同事们的热忱所感染才留下。至少有3大重要理由，促使我决定留下来当新纪元院长：

new era college 131108 the stone 01（i）自从叶新田于2005年，当上董总主席以后，我和管理新纪元的团队见证了他如何摧毁董总秘书处。所以，我们下定决心，必须捍卫新纪元。2008年6月14 日，当叶新田向我们提出挑战时，我们更加坚定立场，准备斗争到底。第二天，我完全支持各系主任的行动，那不在话下。

（ii） 新纪元管理团队表示关心：董事会在策划校园发展计划时，缺乏主动性，所以，去年（2008）激化成一个危机。为此，我们提出了一个较为可取的“城市校园计划”。

（iii）显而易见，新纪元风波的发展过程表明，学院教职员，学生和家长们，都希望我留任院长，好完成迫在眉睫的任务。

年轻积极分子被排挤

不过，华教运动所遭受的最严重损失，还不是董总秘书处的莫泰熙和新纪元领导层中的柯嘉逊遭到清除，而是超过20名最优秀，忠于职守的年轻积极分子的离职。实际上，自从80年代开始，这些年轻积极分子，就开始服务于华教运动。

他们的离去，是为了抗议叶新田等人，肆意破坏华教运动民主传统和运作的行为。这个华教运动的民主传统和运作，是前董总主席林晃升所建立起来的。

叶新田的“莫黑行动”和“伐柯行动”的严重后果是，马华公会有机可乘，而插足华教运动。因此，叶新田和马华的联合行动，已破坏了华教运动的独立性。

目前，叶新田在学院行政机构中，安插了莫顺宗。他在整个新纪元风波中的表现，确实令人置疑和足以引起怀疑。莫顺宗和高教部马华副部长的联系，将导致马华进一步插足新纪元事务。

。 华教运动的领导层

djz lim lian yu forum speaker talks 3被公认为大马华文教育的灵魂人物林连玉，有一句号召华社行动起来的名言：“对破坏者最好的答覆，就是建设”。在20世纪50-60年代，华文教育一直不断地受到巫统主导的国阵政府的破坏。林连玉因坚持原则，失去教师执照和他的公民权，付出了极大的代价。

接着，“独中统考之父”林晃升，当上华文独中运动的领导人。他点燃了创建独立大学运动的火炬。20世纪80-90年代，他也成了大马华社推展民权运动的领导人。他毫不动摇地坚持原则。为此，他付出了昂贵的代价，失去了许多商机，还在1987年的“茅草行动”中遭到扣留。

沈慕羽当时采取同样的坚定的立场。他坚信，华文应该成为马来西亚的官方语文。他也为了坚持原则而付出代价：在1987年的“茅草行动”中，失去自由。

林连玉丶林晃升丶沈慕羽这些精神领袖，毫不犹豫地坚持原则。他们言行一致，因而备受尊崇！他们具有维护和发展母语教育的愿景，使华文教育发展成为我国完整和优良的教育体系。

lim huang sheng book像林晃升等那样的领导人，能给予华社各阶层以信心。更重要的是，他能包容知识分子和专业人士，随时欢迎他们加入华教运动的队伍。同样地，他们锲而不舍地为实现独立大学的愿景而努力，并计划通过两线制，为捍卫我们的民权而作出努力。

华社应认真考虑，他们需要的是能指引华教运动正确方向的领袖。林连玉丶林晃升丶沈慕羽等领袖都有骨气。这种骨气包括尊严丶正直不阿，以及对他人表示极其尊重。他们具有远大的眼光，使他们远离“小人”的视野。他们不追求浮名，也不希罕什么地位。他们有的是使命感。他们真正具有领袖的风范，能和团队交流融洽，打成一片。

当华教运动出现一个没有远见的领袖来领航的时候，振奋人心的优良环境将不复存在，并且很难吸引年轻，又有才干的积极分子。如果这类领袖又有私自的隠议程，华教运动将面临恶运！

在这本书的结语中，我们会认真思考，一名华教领导人应具有哪些领导素质。

郭全强领导的後遗症

郭全强担任董总主席至2005年退休為止，他做了不少工作，並努力为新纪元两栋新建筑物筹款。1997年，他带领团队到中国和台湾着名大学去，争取和它们挂钩。本来，他非常尝识莫泰熙的领导能力。当时，莫泰熙担任董总秘书处首席行政人员。1999年，莫泰熙已达退休年龄，但郭全强让他续约5年。叶新田从 2005年到2008年期间，只规定我每年续约一次。

suqiu 190706 umno youth pointing finger不过，在领导华教运动期间，郭全强首次的严重败笔在于，他在2000年“诉求事件”中，屈服于巫统青年团的淫威。虽然华团诉求工委会在会议中，已决定不为巫青团的威胁所屈服。但是，他向巫青团妥协，屈服于巫青团领袖希山慕丁的威吓，同意收回几项诉求。这事件发生过后，莫泰熙让郭全强了解我们这些民权运动分子的担虑。我也写了一篇文章，批评有关华团领袖，因为他们令华社感到失望。

当时，我还草拟了一份〈大马公民社会大选诉求〉，让董教总参考。然而，郭全强认为“这些诉求，已在我们过去的〈诉求〉文件中提过了，所以没有必要再签署。”在大选前向政府提出诉求，是华教运动领导层对国家和华社所应负起的责任。郭主席不愿负起这项责任，我们通过莫泰熙表达了我们的失望。从那个时候开始，郭全强和莫泰熙之间的关系就恶化了。郭全强不再信赖莫泰熙。他和马华公会的关系反而变得更加密切了。跟马华讨论教育或政治课题时，郭全强总是由教总主席王超群一人，陪同他一起去。教总主席王超群和马华领袖的关系密切，那是众所周知的。

领导后期开始疏离

郭全强在他担任董总主席初期，比较谦虚。当他得到表扬或获取任何颁赐，他都不会归功于他自己，而归功于他作为董总主席的关系。然而，到了他任职末期，他开始受到他所处的领导地位所迷惑。尤其是，在他获得几所中国大学颁赐名誉博士和名誉教授衔头以后，情况更加严重。

天津科技大学颁赐名誉博士衔头给我和他两人。他有意思要我和他一同去接受这份荣誉。但是，我个人不接受。此后，他对我的态度就开始转变，变得冷漠。这个名誉博士衔头交易中的“中介人”，就是王瑞国。

博士的荣誉不是别人施舍的，必须经过一番勤奋努力取得。我说过，我唯一能接受的荣誉，是确认我在学术方面贡献的荣誉。其他荣誉，我一概不接受。

厦门大学研究计划引发不满

bookcover kua kia soong new era college 190509当我们不同意郭全强推动与厦门大学合作的研究计划时，他对莫泰熙的态度就起了重大转变。原因是，新纪元的学术委员会（ACADEMIC COMMITTEE）考虑到，这项计划费用太高了。并且，这项计划对新纪元的学术也没有什么好处。可是，学院必须分担高达马币30万的开支，这仅仅是计划第一阶段的开支。学院所能扮演的角色，也只是在为厦门大学研究人员收集资料而已。

在这项决定性的会议上，郭全强对我们表示不满。原来，他早些时候，出席厦门召开的会议时，就以他厦门大学的董事身份，单方面同意参与这项合作研究计划。这可能涉及面子问题，而不是什么其他问题。我们无能为力，因为我们先考虑的是，新纪元学院的利益和能力。当时，新纪元学院财政状况仍是一个问题。

我还清楚记得，郭全强在会议结束后流露出不满的情绪。他对莫泰熙说:“我没有想到，老莫，你也反对这项计划！”

从此以后，郭全强和莫泰熙的关系每况愈下。2006年，他卸下董总主席职。在敍别会的谈话中，他特地提醒董总新届董事们，要重新考虑，董总秘书处行政主任所扮演的角色。他强调：“秘书处行政主任的权力太大了！”当时，我写了一篇关于华教行政主任已成为一种濒临绝种的物种。

郭全强退休后，还继续扮演着新任主席叶新田的顾问角色。他对莫泰熙和我的偏见，相信对叶新田产生相当的影响。

编按：

本文为柯嘉逊即将面世的新书《新纪元学院事件：董教总的变质》的导言部分，在此分成上下两篇，连续两天刊登。

该书出版社东方企业将在2009年5月22日（星期五），晚上八点正，假隆雪中华大会堂二楼礼堂举行新书发布会。在该发布会上，博特拉大学中文组讲师庄华兴、著名的政治诗人郑云城，和新山人民之声执行员严居汉受邀讲评这本新书

Read More

[HRSC] 笨珍丹绒宾砍伐913公顷的红树林兴建石油化学工业中心

大马人民之声（新山支会）呼吁有关当局关注3大诉求
以解决蒲莱河流域发展石油化学工业的问题
【大马人民之声（新山支会）2009年5月17日文告】

2009年5月17日，大约早上11时，柔佛州务大臣在丹绒宾煤碳发电厂主持开展“种植红树林运动”仪式。此举似乎要传达出柔佛政府其实有爱护及维护大自然的讯息或意识。据马拉夫（Malakoff）集团派发的册子显示，他们未来将计划在旗下的丹绒宾煤碳发电厂邻近一块占地4公顷的土地上种植超过9千300珠红树苗。

但据我们了解，从丹绒柏勒巴斯港（Pelabuhan Tanjung Pelepas）的兴建，直到2100兆瓦的丹绒宾煤碳发电厂，今年起，还会砍伐913公顷的红树林让路给石油化工中心。更糟糕的是，此工业将兴建在与龟咯实叻角居民非常接近的地点，即区区只有3公里的范围内。

1971年至1990年在台湾高雄进行的研究显示，位于10岁到19岁患上骨癌、脑癌和尿道癌的居民，就是因为长期接触到三有毒C废料。面临最高健康风险者便是附近的居民。各种健康风险还包括各种癌症、骨头疏松症、神经受损、肾受损、半生不遂等等。


http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/104530

http://www.merdekareview.com/news/n/9661.html

因此，超过15人群分别来自龟咯实叻角渔民、非政府组织和政党也于当天中午1时召开记者招待会表达立场。代表出席支援的人士包括嘉马鲁丁（沿海渔民理事会全国主席）、严居汉和杨秀丽（大马人民之声（新山支会））、查峇（反被压迫人民联盟工委）和阿都哈林（回教党实叻角支部）。

大马人民之声（新山支会）支持布条上的标语即“我们支持种植红树；我们反对砍伐红树”。它清晰地传达了他们反对柔佛州政府、环境局以及涉及集团的矛盾行动。

我们认为一切发展必须回归到实叻角人民或渔民的利益。我们认为不应该只单单考量到集团的利益，不顾依斯干达经济特区里的发展计划所将带来的健康问题。

因此，我们呼吁有关当局关注3大诉求，以解决蒲莱河流域发展石油化学工业的问题。
那就是：-

一、 反对砍伐红树林，维护丹绒宾的自然生态。
二、 中央政府（环境部）必须公布丹绒宾的石油化学工业的环境评估报告（EIA）；州政府（州务大臣）必须公布石油化学工业造成的环境污染和工人以及公众的健康的研究报告。
三、 让渔民参与丹绒宾的发展计划以作为保障和捍卫他们的利益和权力。

最后我们吁请各阶层人士、非政府组织和政党继续关注发展石油化学工业所将带给实叻角渔民的种种问题。


*此文告随同附录照片
前排左起：阿都哈林、查峇、嘉马鲁丁和严居汉。



大马人民之声（新山支会）
柔佛州人民之友工委会
2009年5月17日

Read More

HRSC: 3 tuntutan utama untuk menangani masalah pembangunan industri petrokimia Tanjung Bin, Pontian

SUARAM cawangan JB menyeru pihak berkuasa memberi perhatian kepada tiga tuntutan utama untuk menangani masalah pembangunan industri petrolkimia di Daerah-Aliran Sungai Pulai, Johor.
[kenyataan akhbar SUARAM caw. JB pada 17hb Mei 2009]


Menteri Besar Negeri Johor Datuk Abdul Ghani telah melancarkan penanaman anak pokok balau di Penjana kuasa Tanjung Bin pada 17 Mei 2009 jam lebih kurang 11pagi. Pelancaran ini kononnya supaya memberi satu messege dan pandangan bahawa kerajaan negeri Johor mencintai dan memelihara alam sekitar. Mengikut buku edaran Malakoff, rancangan menanam 9300 pohon pokok anak bakau yang meliputi seluas 4 hektar di kawasan berhampiran dengan Penjana kuasa Tanjung Bin pada masa akan datang.

Namun, setahu kami, akibat pembangunan Pelabuhan Tanjung Pelepas dan Penjana kuasa 2,100 MV berasaskan arang di Tanjung Bin, penebangan 913 hektar hutan paya bakau untuk pembinaan suatu Pusat Petrokimia akan dijalankan pada tahun ini. Yang lebih teruk ialah penetapan pembangunan itu adalah berhampiran dengan kampung-kampung nelayan di sekitar mukim serkat daerah pontian iaitu hanya dalam lingungan 3 KM sahaja.

Kajian dari tahun 1971 hingga 1990 di Taiwan mengesahkan bahawa remaja-remaja berumur di antara 10 hingga 19 tahun mengalami jangkitan penyakit kanser otak dan pundi kencing disebabkan pendedahan terhadap bahan kimia petrokimia. Risiko-risiko kesihatan bakal ditimpa oleh penduduk yang berhampiran adalah sangat tinggi. Antaranya termasuk pelbagai jenis kanser, penyakit tulang, kerosakan system saraf, kerosakan ginjal, pertumbuhan terencat dan sebagainya.





Dengan itu, sekumpulan nelayan-nelayan sekitar mukim serkat, NGO-NGO dan parti politik melebihi 15 orang telah mengadakan satu sidang akhbar pada pukul 1pm pada hari yang sama. Wakil-wakil yang hadir termasuk Sdr. Jamal Jamaludin selaku pengerusi antarabangsa Jawatankuasa bertindak nelayan-nelayan pantai (JARING), nelayan-nelayan sekitar mukim serkat, Sdr. Nyam Kee Han dan Yong Siew Lee dari SUARAM cawangan JB, Sdr. Zaaba selaku AJK Jaringan Rakyat Tertindas (JERIT) Johor, wakil PAS cawangan serkat Sdr Abdul Kadir turut hadir memberi sokongan kepada nelayan-nelayan.

SUARAM caw. JB sokong sepenuhnya dengan banner berslogan “Kami Sokong Tanam Bakau; Kami BANTAH tebang Bakau” yang disediakan oleh nelayan-nelayan. Ia telah memberi messege yang jelas kepada pihak kerajaan negeri Johor, Pejabat Alam Sekitar dan korporat-korporat bahawa mereka menolak segala tindakan yang bersifat kontroversi.

SUARAM caw. JB berpendapat bahawa segala pembangunan perlulah diutamakan kepada kepentigan rakyat atau nelayan-nelayan sekitar mukim serkat dan bukan hanya untuk kepentingan korporat semata-matanya serta tidak pedulikan kesihatan-kesihatan yang bakal timbul akibat aktiviti-aktiviti pembangunan wilayah pembangunan Iskandar yang dikibar-kibarkan.

Dengan itu, SUARAM cawangan JB menyeru pihak berkuasa memberi perhatian kepada tiga tuntutan utama untuk menangani masalah pembangunan industri petrolkimia di Daerah-Aliran Sungai Pulai, Johor. Iaitu;-

I. Bantah tebang hutan bakau, pelihara alam Tanjung Bin.
II. Kerajaan Persekutuan (kementerian alam sekitar) mesti umumkan laporan EIA tentang pelan petrolkimia Tanjung Bin; Kerajaan negeri (Menteri Besar) mesti umumkan hasil kajian kesan pelan industri petrolkimia terhadap alam sekitar dan kesihatan pekerja dan orang umum.

III. Libatkan nelayan dalam segala proses perancangan pembangunan perairan Tanjung Bin supaya kepentingan atau hak nelayan dipertahankan.

Akhirnya kami menyeru semua lapisan masyarakat, badan-badan NGO, parti-parti terus memberi penumpuan keatas masalah-masalah akibat pembangunan Industri Petrokimia keatas nelayan-nelayan sekitar mukim serkat.


*Kenyataan disertakan dengan gambar-gambar.
Dari kiri: Sdr. Abdul Kadir, Sdr. Zaaba, Sdr. Jamal Jamaluddin dan Sdr. Nyam Kee Han



SUARAM cawangan Johor bahru
Jawatankuasa Sahabat SUARAM negeri Johor
17 Mei 2009

Read More

谴责警方展开具有政治动机的恶意逮捕行动。以人民意愿相对的政权，必定走向灭亡道路。

谴责警方展开具有政治动机的恶意逮捕行动。

以人民意愿相对的政权，必定走向灭亡道路。

【人民之声新山支会文告2009年5月8日】



大马人民之声（新山支会）严厉谴责警方近日展开的逮捕行动，并视之为具有政治动机的恶意行动。巫统/国阵政府自从去年11月从民联政府夺取霹雳州政权以后，我国陷入了最为严重地政治干预司法的危机，比1988年前首相敦马哈迪医生开除6位最高法院法官，更为凸显巫统/国阵政府的政治霸权和腐败。“干净与公平选举联盟”（简称：“净选盟”或BERSIH）为哀悼“民主死亡”日，发动全国人民于5月7日穿黑衣运动，嘲讽首相纳吉的新政权为“一个黑色马来西亚”，批评国阵无顾听取民意策动霹雳夺权。



巫统/国阵政府滥用国家机器，展开镇压行动。5月7日当天，警方无论是在公共或私人场所，不但没有出示逮捕令还手拷手无寸铁的人民。警方甚至将一些正在享用早餐的人士加以逮捕，迫使营业者不得不关门停业。警方还闯进了州议会，把还在法庭上争议着的合法议长西华古玛强行拉走。履行任务的律师们也成为警方的逮捕对象。从5月7日集会之前到之后的民间声援活动，警方前后最少逮捕了80人包括各州各地的民联国州议员、律师、媒体工作者、社运分子、甚至支持“一个黑色马来西亚”的支持者等等。



我们认为，警方的行动严重超越了行政的权限，此猖狂行动必须立刻停止！警方的责任是保护人民的安全、保障人民的权利，而不是成为巫统/国阵政府的政治武器，压制宪法保障人民的言论自由、结社自由以及和平集会的权利。我国政权长期由单一执政集团垄断，在议会里一党独大，行政权日趋膨胀的问题，加上我国承续西敏寺议会民主，立法与行政同时由同一个政党掌控，形成了行政-立法合一的政治霸权。若要确保我国民主符合三权分立为大原则，司法成为了抗衡该政治霸权的唯一权力机关。因此，推动司法改革，才能终止政治霸权。



我们认为，308大选后，国阵政府施政依然故我，继续沿着贪污、腐败、滥权的道路滑落下去，导致各族人民对巫统种族霸权统治展开更多更大的抗争。面对各族人民要求改革的强大压力，又处于统治集团内部矛盾激化的窘境，巫统种族霸权领导人为了保住政权，又再发出“华教团体才是实行种族隔离者” ，“ 华教分子是种族主义者”叫嚣企图挑起种族冲突进行全面镇压，这项阴谋诡计失败后，又在此次的霹雳政权事件上进行逮捕恐吓，制造白色恐怖，转移人民视线，打压改革运动。



我们认为，巫统/国阵政府继续走向专制和霸权，不以人民意愿为依归或违反人民的意愿执政，必然引起人民的反抗，最终走向灭亡。我们呼吁警方立刻无条件释放所有被扣者。巫统/国阵政府必须立刻放弃强硬镇压人民争取权益的自由，将霹雳政权的问题转回到霹雳子民的意愿去，才是最明智最民主的做法。





大马人民之声(新山支会)

柔佛州人民之友工委会

2009年5月8日

Read More