Wednesday, 26 June 2019
<星洲日报>副总编辑林瑞源撰文:马哈迪玩死希望联盟?
<星洲日报>副总编辑林瑞源撰文:
马哈迪玩死希望联盟?
来源:<星洲网>/<星洲日报>(马来西亚)
改朝换代一年多后,朝野两大阵营的气势有所改变,希盟有分裂的隐忧,而巫统与伊斯兰党则扫除合作的障碍,越走越顺。
先谈巫伊合作,原本伊党基层有强烈的抗拒心态,伊党精神领袖聂 阿兹在世时,极力反对巫伊合作,目前在伊党主席哈迪阿旺的强势领导下,反对的声音已经被压下。哈迪在刚落幕的第65届代表大会豪气的说,不接受伊党与巫统合作的领袖及党员可以选择退党,他们退出将会让两党的合作更顺利进行。
伊党代表大会一致通过与巫统合作的提案,惟要求党领袖及长老协商理事会,在与巫统及其他政党展开政治合作前,必须先签署合作指南、条件及界限。
巫伊全面合作相信将在马来社会掀起千层浪,威胁希盟的政权。
巫统和伊斯兰党抱团取暖是大势所趋
事实上,在国阵濒临死亡及敦马哈迪的围堵策略下,巫伊合作是大势所趋。反贪会日前在反洗黑钱法令下入禀吉隆坡高庭,申请向41个单位及个人追讨被一个马来西亚发展有限公司(1MDB)滥用发出的2亿7000万令吉,其中巫统区部占了约2亿1200万令吉,就被巫统领袖视为意图对该党“赶尽杀绝”。
希盟青年团已向社团注册局投诉,要求严惩巫统,因此一些巫统领袖抱着最坏的打算,其中柔佛州主席哈斯尼表示,如果政府解散巫统,他们可能成立新政党或加入现有政党。
若巫统被令解散,最大得利者是伊党,但伊党也不能高枕无忧,因为反贪会主席拉蒂法可能重新调查伊党领袖涉嫌收取巫统9000万令吉政治献金一案。
巫伊抱团取暖,马来票是他们反击的最大利器,而伊党也试图利用土团党及公正党的矛盾,实施反间计。
希盟成员党的权力斗争逐渐浮出台面
和巫伊为了生存及复仇而团结的情况比较,希盟成员党则显得可以共患难,不能同富贵,权力斗争逐渐浮出台面。
敦马有意无意在一些人事任命上采取分而治之的手段,以巩固领导地位,却削弱盟友之间的互信,增添了猜疑。
“男男性爱短片”风波更牵扯各种阴谋论,有人怀疑是土团党人士所为,以分裂公正党,也有人揣测是公正党内部的计谋,阻止经济事务部长阿兹敏接任首相。
安华不断重申对马哈迪将会守诺交棒让他出任第8任首相一事,没有任何怀疑,但是最近一则报道却耐人寻味,《路透社》引述马哈迪身边人士消息指出,马哈迪准备履行诺言,如果希盟或者人民想要别人,那就不同了。何谓希盟或人民想要别人当首相,这是不是说安华接任首相会有变卦?
而土团党也有不少不喜欢安华的领袖,例如该党最高理事莱士雅丁指“没有白纸黑字”证明安华是出任首相的人选,他认为马哈迪属意的接班人是阿兹敏。这类谈话旨在煽风点火,不是要 捍卫希盟政府。
到底敦马何时交棒?从2年、2至3年,到最新的3年内退位,一直没有明确的时间表。如果敦马要维持希盟政府的稳定,应该与盟友达致协议,公布时间表,避免希盟自分派系,以及外界的诸多猜疑。
安华无法接任的糟糕局面出现又如何
假如最终出现安华无法接任的糟糕局面,那么不只是失信于民,希盟政府也可能面临瓦解,被迫提早举行大选。希盟没有兑现竞选承诺、振兴经济、改善治理,就仓促大选,很可能会拱手让出政权给巫统与伊党。
如果敦马有足够的时间及精力,完成权力交接的部署,或许希盟可以消除矛盾、化险为夷,但令人担心的是人算不如天算,一旦发生意外,分裂的希盟将无法应对巫伊所挑起的种族和宗教议题,造成局势紧张。
希盟的未来就看敦马的意愿,他没有遏止内部权势欲望的扩张,究竟在打什么算盘?
希盟走在钢索上,自造可能摔下的危机,将让巫伊看到迈入布城的机会,人心毕竟难测。#
Tuesday, 25 June 2019
英国学者马丁·雅克 谈香港发展的困境 British scholar Martin Jacques talks about the development dilemma of Hong Kong
英国学者马丁·雅克
谈香港发展的困境
British scholar Martin Jacques talks about
the development dilemma of Hong Kong
[附:英语视频 • 中英字幕]
来源: <腾讯视频>youtube.com/watch?v=FAKE_IMzT2s
[香港近日的风波渐渐平息,但从中能够看出香港社会面对困境,依然撕裂;面对内地,依然纠结。<观察者网>专栏作者马丁·雅克(英国剑桥大学政治和国际研究系教授, 复旦大学中国研究院访问教授)曾在视频中点出了香港困境的关键原因所在,并给出了自己的对策。
<观察者网>特整理视频文字稿,网络首发全文,以飨读者。]
现在香港有这么一种看法,说1997年以前,香港经济繁荣是因为它很聪明、很自由,因为它可以顺应形势,因为它被英国管辖等等。
我认为在很大程度上,这是对历史的一种严重误解。香港在上世纪70年代末和1997年回归之间表现不错,那仅仅是因为它走运了。
我为什么这么说?
说它幸运,是因为中国内地从1978年起开始实施改革开放,一点点一步步,一直到2001年中国加入WTO后,才完全开放。所以在中国内地缓慢开放的过程中,香港自然而然地承接了中国内地本应该可以做的很多事情。
香港就像是内地的前方办公室。所以香港从这段历史中获益良多。
其中之一,假如你是一家西方公司,不管是欧洲的,还是美国的,还是日本、韩国的,你想进入中国内地市场,最便捷的落脚点肯定是香港。
所以香港的腾飞并不是因为它很聪明,而是因为太走运了。他们的运气不是英国人给的,而是因为中国在国际舞台上的作用。
加入WTO后,中国内地慢慢开始融入。如果你想进入内地市场,你还会绕道香港吗?香港变得不重要了。
如果你想开拓内地市场,你可以去上海、北京、广州或深圳,想去哪里就去哪里,你肯定不会去香港。
所以使香港在过去成功的因素,不复存在了。香港必须在1997年以后重新找到自己的定位。
它的落寞不是中国内地的错,而是因为内地和香港的关系发生了变化。英国还无端指责,认为1997年以后香港出现问题——比如香港前总督彭定康就会说——是因为中国没有在香港实现真正的民主。
在我看来,这种说法是典型的英式虚伪。
英国统治香港155年来,我告诉你,香港人连民主的影子都没见到过。
他们给了香港人民普选权吗?他们跟香港人探讨过普选权吗?一点儿都没有。
直到中国开始收回对港主权的时候,他们才开始叫嚣,香港必须采取西方民主体制。太虚伪了。
那么香港今后该怎么做呢?
我认为“一国两制”是解决香港问题非常智慧的方案。只有文明型国家才会想出用这种办法来解决问题,民族国家绝不可能这么想的。
但到底什么是“一国两制”,怎样保持“一国”和“两制”之间的平衡?
这个方案的长远目的,是为了维护国家的长期统一,而不是加剧分裂。
我认为中国现在面临的一个难题是,它对香港回归的反应。记住,那时是1997年,中国那时才刚刚对世界开放,还有很多声音质疑中国政府会怎样掌控香港等。所以那时中国政府最自然的反应是要强调“两制”。
香港回归后,我在香港呆了两年半的时间。我非常惊讶地发现,唯一能体现香港属于中国的证据,是在港口某大楼上的五星红旗。其他的几乎没有任何变化。一切都跟原来一模一样。
这其实会带来两个问题。
第一,香港的治理源自殖民政府。它的机构架设都是殖民化的,是执行层面的,并没有强有力的政治领导。殖民政府对香港的政治治理方向并不关心,因为这就不是一个殖民政府该操心的事。在以前,这都是伦敦的事。
但回归之后呢?香港特区政府的形式,跟以前几乎一模一样。
第二个问题是香港的经济。
相反地,一直以来英国喜欢吹嘘香港的经济是多么繁荣,富有竞争力,但这都是胡说。
香港是一个典型的殖民地经济,没什么竞争力,是一个垄断型的经济。几个商界巨头垄断了香港经济。比如在香港最赚钱的房地产领域,利润就在他们几个之间分。
这种少数垄断或者独断的经济,必须改变。可惜的是,这样的改变还没有发生。
所以必须要打破香港现状,允许香港对上述两个问题做出必要的改变,采取另一种管理方式,采取一种更开放的经济模式。
我们可以比较一下香港和深圳的命运。邓小平特意提出深圳特区的想法,深圳是毗邻香港的小渔港,与香港距离很近,深圳可以学习香港经验、香港模式。
现在我们可以对比一下今天的香港和深圳。深圳的变化可以说是天翻地覆,它现在是中国的技术中心,在科技竞争力和创新方面仅次于硅谷,而香港,什么进步都没有。
香港人讨论过这些发展方向,但完全没有任何进步。
我认为香港人民应该迫使中央政府,把它纳入总体发展规划当中。香港不应该让自己游离在外,而是应该积极地把自己当成中国的一部分。
他们不少人认为自己不一样,“我们不是中国人”。在过去的155年里,他们从未了解过中国。没错,他们说的是中国的方言粤语,但他们确实对中国一点都不了解,对香港的“北方”很无知。他们一直都是向西看,向英国看,向美国看,然后是加拿大等等。但他们从未向北看,向内地看。#
Thursday, 20 June 2019
Hindraf Urgently Needs to Produce True Leaders, Fighting Alone Will Not Extricate from Its Dilemma - Sahabat Rakyat's interview with Uthayakumar, the key leader of Hindraf Rally on 25 November 2007 (Part 2)
Hindraf Urgently Needs to Produce True Leaders,
Fighting Alone Will Not Extricate from Its Dilemma
- Sahabat Rakyat's interview with Uthayakumar,
the key leader of Hindraf Rally on 25 November 2007 (Part 2)
◆ Organised and reported by Nyam Kee Han ◆
Part 2: Sahabat Rakyat and Uthayakumar exchanged views about the way out of the oppressed nation in the days to come
[Sahabat Rakyat Editor’s Note]
Sahabat Rakyat Working Committee (hereinafter referred to as "Sahabat Rakyat") had two exclusive interviews with Uthayakumar to explore the encounters and tendency of the Hindraf. The first was held on 17 March 2018 before the "509" general election was held. The delayed publication of this interview is in accordance with Uthayakumar's personal consideration and decision. After discussion, we chose to publish the exclusive interview “The Malay Hegemonic Ruling Clique Should be the Main Target of Hindraf Struggle” on the eve of this year's May 1 International Labor Day.
This is the report of Sahabat Rakyat’s second interview with Uthayakumar. This interview was conducted on 22 December last year, after the 509 General Election. The contents of this interview include:
(1) Message conveyed by Sahabat Rakyat in the first interview with Uthayakumar
(2) The plan of activities launched by Uthayakumar in the name of Hindraf 2.0
(3) Exchange of views between Sahabat Rakyat and Uthayakumar on Parliamentary elections and social reforms
(4) Sahabat Rakyat shared with Uthayakumar some experience of the struggles for the equal rights of the Chinese and Indian communities
(5) How do other Hindraf leaders see the Hindraf rally on 25 Nov 2007 and the deeds of Waytha Moorthy?
(6) Conclusion: Hindraf rally on 25 November 2007 was merely an incident rather than a movement
The first interview and the second interview are interrelated. The first interview was a prelude, the second interview was a follow-up, and the two parts should combine and become one.
The following is the full content of Part 2 -
(1) Message conveyed by Sahabat Rakyat Working Committee in the first interview with Uthayakumar
Sahabat Rakyat: Our first interview was conducted on 17 March 2018 (Sunday), before the "509" general election. At that time, you made it clear that you are not willing to publicly express any opinions before the election, but you will carefully observe the development of the political situation in Malaysia. Today is 22 December 2018 (Sunday), our second interview with you. We noticed that you issued three statements in the name of Hindraf 2.0 after the "509" general election, mainly to convey the voice about “The Pakatan Harapan (PH) government has fulfilled almost zero percent of its promise to the Indian community” to Dr. Mahathir, who becomes the prime minister for the second time. Therefore, this second meeting is timely.
For us, we mainly want to brief you on two things. Firstly, our first interview report has been completed. We will send it to you for proofread and review twice, after the completion of the first draft of the Chinese and English rendition, and also after finalization of the article. Secondly, in this interview, apart from getting your confirmation that our understanding of the first interview with you is correct, we would also like to understand some of your views on the political situation after PH government came into power and the future path of Hindraf. We will reflect your actual views comprehensively in the reports of these two interviews. At the same time, we will also express Sahabat Rakyat’s understanding on the issues of Hindraf and even the Indian ethnic community. Let’s exchange our views and let our ideas collide. Let our understanding about the democratic reform movement in Malaysia verified by practice.
The second interview with Uthayakumar (3rd right) was held on the afternoon of 22 December 2018 at Cafe Bonda, Kajang. 2nd right is Arivom Namasivaya, a friend of Uthayakumar. The representatives of Sahabat Rakyat Working Committee are: (From the left) Nyam Kee Han, Tan Seng Hin @Chen Xin, Choo Shinn Chei. First from the right is Ravi Sarma, who is well versed in Chinese, Tamil, and English languages. Ravi is a democrat who devoted himself to the revolutionary struggle of Malaya (including Singapore) in the early years and is now a businessman. He joined this interview upon the special invitation of Sahabat Rakyat Working Committee. His participation had helped and added splendor to the communication and idea exchange in this interview.
Uthayakumar: Why are you or your organization interested to know the truth?
Sahabat Rakyat: From our point of view, Hindraf is a new emerging force resisting the Malay hegemonic rule. This is because the Chinese and Indian communities have been facing the same situation all the while – being oppressed and discriminated by the British colonial rule and the Malay dignitary rule. However, the encounter of the Chinese community is not as bad as the Indian community. Before this, the Chinese society had non-governmental organisations (NGOs) such as Dong Jiao Zong (DJZ) which served as the core force against racial discrimination. However, on the Su Qiu incident in 1999, when Mahathir deployed high-handed measures, they backed off and no longer take a clear-cut stand to fight for the equal rights of Chinese community in Malaysia. We are glad that group like Hindraf emerged in 2007 to fight against racial discrimination and oppression suffered by the Indian community all the while. We are of the view that Hindraf is a product of the struggle of the Indian poor community to change their unfortunate encounter at present phase. It is the fruit of the struggle of the Indian community especially the Indian poor, it should not be plundered by some opportunist careerists who claim themselves as the “leader”. How will the Hindraf go on in the future? This is a question that the Indian ethnic group should ponder, and a question that all democrats and democratic parties and organisations in our country should be concerned of. That is the main reason why we want to meet you, to understand more about Hindraf from you.
As an independent and autonomous NGO in our country, before and after the "509" national election, we have clearly expressed to the people of all ethnicities, our political position and political proposition towards the 3 original parties of PH, Mahathir and his Parti Pribumi Bersatu Malaysia (PPBM). Therefore, we will not repeat ourselves here.
Before the "509" general election, some influential democratic parties and organizations and their advisers, regarded "509" as a key opportunity for our country to go through a "change of regime (ubah)". They pinned their hopes of "ubah”on: (1) the awakening of the Malays – some leaders of the democratic parties and organizations were of the view that, as long as they could awaken the Malays who supported the UMNO-BN in the past turned to support PH, PH will be in power; (2) Mahathir’s leadership - some leaders of the democratic parties and organizations believed that Mahathir is the only and most suitable candidate who can “Save Malaysia” after leading PH to overthrow Najib and UMNO and become Prime Minister again. It has been more than half a year now (22 December 2018) since PH came to power, and the people of the entire nation have had experienced it themselves.
The results of the "509" general election shows that PH took power by getting simple majority of the Parliamentary seats (113 out of 222 seats). But Mahathir and his PPBM did not play the “significant role” in awakening the Malays (especially Malays from Felda areas) as what some of the PH leaders and their trumpeters boasted. The Malay ballots nationwide were actually split among UMNO, PAS and PH. Mahathir did not gain as much support as some PH leaders and their trumpeters expected from Felda areas. After the election, not only UMNO and PAS work closely together and intensify racist political propaganda, hoping to consolidate and further expand their political power, Mahathir, on the other hand, as the commander-in-chief of PH, quickly arranged his preferred candidates to control the important government departments and state machinery after coming into power, in order to continue the “Mahathirism” hegemonic rule of emphasizing "Malay sovereignty" and "Malay supremacy". Therefore, rather than saying the "509" general election is a "change of regime," in essence it is still the racial hegemonic rule, it is just old poison in the new bottle.
Waytha Moorthy (right) publicly announced before the "509" election that he could shift 20% - 30% of the Indian votes to Pakatan Harapan (PH) to win the election. He intentionally planned to approach PH (actually is to stay close to Mahathir) so that he can get a minister position in Mahathir’s government. After Mahathir became the “twice-cooked prime minister”, he also needs an "ethnic representative" from the Indian ethnic group who would listen to him, with a view to strengthen the political status of Mahathir himself and PPBM in PH. Also, he can then directly control the political movement of the most oppressed and most discriminated ethnic group in the country. To the Indian community and the people of the whole country, both of them are "jackals from the same lair."
Before the "509" general election, Waytha Moorthy used his best endeavours to disguise himself as "the supreme leader of Hindraf" and "the representative of the Indian ethnic community" and declared that he was ready to stand in the camp of PH, and could contribute to the victory of PH. In our view, the two main political parties of the PH, namely Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) and Democratic Action Party (DAP) already have many Indian leaders. Parti Amanah, as a Muslim-based party, will also not welcome careerist like Waytha Moorthy. Therefore, Waytha Moorthy had no choice but to please Mahathir and accept his appeasement.
To Mahathir, he needs to consolidate and expand his and PPBM’s political status and influence after he takes power. He needs politicians like Waytha Moorthy who obeys to his order to decorate his political facade. Hence only Waytha had the opportunity to be appointed as the Senator and National Unity and Social Wellbeing Minister under the Prime Minister’s Department. Therefore, we can say that Waytha actually deceived the Indian people. He used the name and status as the "Supreme Leader of Hindraf" and "Representative of the Indian Ethnic Group" to deceive Mahathir. On the other hand, Mahathir also used Waytha’s opportunistic to deceive the Indians and other ethnic groups. The truth will eventually be revealed.
Uthayakumar: To the people, politicians like Waytha Moorthy and Mahathir are always the takers of interests and never the givers -- Politicians’ specialization is to fish people’s votes in order to gain power and plunder wealth. I would say both Mahathir and Waytha Moorthy are using each other. Waytha Moorthy will be finished without Mahathir.
(2) The plan of activities launched by Uthayakumar in the name of Hindraf 2.0
Sahabat Rakyat: We know that you have issued three statements in the name of Hindraf 2.0. We wish to understand about the upcoming plan of Hindraf 2.0 or yourself?
Uthayakumar: Before I answer your questions, I want to explain a little more. You may not believe that, before the Hindraf Rally on 25 November 2007, in terms of leadership, it was almost a one-man show. Nobody wanted to join me. I can swear that if I didn’t proactively involve in the planning and leadership, the rally would not take place. But if you take out Waytha Moorthy or any of the other 4 leaders, the rally would still take place if I persisted. Now, I count my blessings. I could do it at that time, but if you ask me to do it again now (initiating the rally), I think I cannot. I also cannot see that it will happen again in future. I won’t jump into the field again unless there is concrete support. So, currently I take very cautious moves.
Secondly, you asked about Hindraf 2.0. During all my life, I realise the problems of the Indians – how UMNO (the ruling clique) split the Indians that reflected in how Sammy Vellu and Subramaniam fought each other. UMNO (the ruling clique) made Indians fight with the Indians, and generally diverted the Indians from their main problems (namely being oppressed and discriminated by the hegemonic rule). UMNO (the ruling clique) is the real culprit. For me, my mind is very clear that no Indian is my enemy. Furthermore, how can I fight my own brother? I do not want to lose the fight for the basic rights of the Indians because I fight against my brother.
The best platform I can use now is “Hindraf”. But Waytha Moorthy and I are using “Hindraf” together, which is which? Therefore, I named mine Hindraf 2.0. Indirectly, I am telling UMNO or the other Malay ruling clique: the Hindraf rally in 2007 may happen again. But in my heart, I know it is difficult, unless there is another “miracle”.
So, the main reasons I am using Hindraf 2.0 are: (i) to distinguish myself from Waytha Moorthy; and (ii) to send a message to UMNO and other Malay ruling clique that I will continue the struggle. The real change must include extricating the Indian poor from their predicament. That is why I focus on Indian poor. I admit that I lost the battle for Indian poor. As I have told you in the first meeting, when I just came back from London, I saw serious problems faced by the Indian poor but nobody was doing anything.
I wondered why as there are so many Indian doctors, lawyers and etc but rarely saw those people working to help the Indian poor. I tried to look for guidance from people like you (referring to Chen Xin and Ravi Sarma) in the Indian community as I did not know how to start (the struggle). My father did not have political background and he voted for BN in his entire life. So, how do I get guidance? I had no choice but to use my brain and enthusiasm to jump-start the Indian issue. The reason I did it because I don’t want my children and grandchildren to blame me for not doing anything for a better future of the next generation during my lifetime. So, I have done my part before (I was then jailed). But now I have very little energy, no resources and no financial backups. Therefore, I just want to focus on Indian poor with whatever little strength that I have.
(3) Exchange of views between Sahabat Rakyat and Uthayakumar on Parliamentary elections and social reforms
Uthayakumar: After almost 20 years of social work, from Police Watch to Hindraf rally in 2007, I could say that I have done my best to bring forward the Indian issues nationwide and even internationally as serious issues to be resolved without delay. But, after coming out from Penjara Kajang, the people seemed to lose confidence on me. I only got 3% vote when I stood for election in 2013. I cannot claim myself as a Hindraf leader, nor the Indian community leader or the “Lim Kit Siang” of Indian leaders. The election result means that the Indian community does not want me, not that I do not want them, or I do not want to be Hindraf or Indian community leader. So, if you (Waytha Moorthy) want to hijack Hindraf, you do what you want. I will do whatever minimum work that I can.
For me, it’s very simple. Mahathir can control the whole country with only 13 parliamentary seats. Out of the 13 parliamentarians, 11 are Ministers and Deputy Ministers. According to a calculation that I did in Kamunting, which is stated in my book (Malaysian Indian Political Empowerment Strategy – The Way Forward), I have identified 15 parliamentary and 38 state assembly seats out of the 222 parliamentary and 576 state assembly seats in Malaysia. These seats have about 20% to 46.2% Indian voters and are located in 9 states including Kuala Lumpur based on the 8 March 2008 General Election’s electoral roll. This can be referred in the “Changing the Political Landscape” article from page 32 to 42 in the book. I have also outlined 6 steps towards changing the political landscape, as follows:
- Step 1 – One Indian voter brings two Indian voters to register at preferred constituency;
- Step 2 – All (Indian) voters register in state seat;
- Step 3 – Promote the registration of unregistered (Indian) voters;
- Step 4 – Promote the registration of qualified new (Indian) voters;
- Step 5 – Voter registration campaign;
- Step 6 – Elect the best Indian candidates.
By following the steps above, we can create 15 parliamentary seats by making the “identified areas” into Indian-majority areas. For example, if one Indian voter from Lunas can invite at least two Indian voters from any part of Kedah and Perlis to register as voters in Lunas, then we can easily have an Indian-majority parliament constituency (whereby the constituency’s existing Indian voters is about 20% in average). Similar case can be applied in Kedah, Padang Serai, Penang, Batu Kawan, Ipoh Barat, Kota Raja, Cameron Highland, Port Dictson and etc. If this theory of mine doesn’t happen, the Indians are finished. I wrote in one of my article, “The Indians are finished unless we have a Malay or Chinese ‘Abraham Lincoln’”. However, I think the only way forward is to create the Indian-majority areas (as mentioned above). Because if you have the votes, you have the power. This is the reality. Today, Mahathir cannot shake Lim Guan Eng because he (DAP) won 42 parliamentary seats, which means he (DAP) won the Chinese votes.
Sahabat Rakyat: We will seriously ponder for what you have just expressed, "(1) establish Indian-majority constituencies to enhance the political representation of the Indian ethnic group via 6 steps; (2) if it is impossible to put (1) into practice, the Indians have no future," and then choose an appropriate time to discuss with you in depth. Now, let us express some preliminary comments for the time being.
We understand and respect your aspiration and proposition that "the creation of Indian-majority constituencies to enhance the political representation of the Indian community." We are of the view that the size of the constituencies in our country and the structure and number of voters have been determined and divided according to the political needs of the UMNO hegemonic ruling group since the independence of Malaya till the formation of Malaysia. Therefore, in the parliamentary elections in this country, there exists unfair situation where “Malays or other bumiputras-majority rural constituencies” (the number of voters can be as few as just over ten thousands only) electing the “Malays or bumiputras’ representatives” whereas “Chinese-majority urban constituencies” (the number of voters can be as many as 150,000) electing the "Chinese’ representatives." You (Uthayakumar), represent the Indian community to voice up for the creation of Indian-majority constituencies to enhance the political representation of the Indian community while PH government comes into power, can be deemed as a legitimate, just and reasonable aspiration and proposition. However, before the organized forces of the oppressed ethnic communities and the oppressed classes in our country (such as workers, peasants, women, youth movements, etc.) are formed, and while the Malay hegemonists of the ruling clique are still holding sway, your aspiration and advocacy above can hardly be materialized. It can only play a role in educating, organizing, and mobilizing the masses.
We may somewhat hold different views from you regarding the future path of Hindraf 2.0. First of all, we believe that the ideology and actions of “struggle against the oppressors” expressed via the 2007 Hindraf rally are still legal, valid, effective and appropriate. The marginalization of the Indian ethnic group in our country is the result of the discrimination and exclusion of the Indians from the enslavement and squeezing of the Indian ethnic group by the British colonial rulers before the independence of Malaya, to the UMNO-led Perikatan and the BN ruling group who succeeded the British colonialists after independence. Hindraf leaders should pay more focus to propaganda and education, so that the broad masses of the Indian ethnic community understand their status and their rights, and unite to continue to struggle against the oppressors, and fight to change their predicament of being oppressed and discriminated.
Secondly, the history and the facts at hand show that the broad Indian masses hope (more accurately "harbor the illusion") that their leaders will free their ethnic group from the plight and try to improve their lives. But majority of the Indian leaders active in party politics are also mostly opportunistic politicians who will accept appeasement and enlistment of the ruling clique in power, by becoming the tool of the ruling clique to deceive and oppress the Indian and other communities, for their own glory and wealth.. Therefore, the vast majority of Indian mass must learn from the lessons of repeated deception, and should realize that:
- The people can only change their fate of being oppressed and discriminated by uniting among themselves, instead of pinning hope (more accurately illusion) on those opportunistic careerist who fish for fame or covet power and position;
- Leaders and the people cannot be separated, but should be part of the people. If the leader is divorced from the masses and used as a tool of the ruling clique, it can then not be included;
- Social reform requires leaders to play his/their role, but the people are the decisive factor in creating history. We should emphasise the "people's masses" and never emphasise "leaders."
To be more specific, in order to consolidate the Malay racist hegemonic rule, Mahathir will definitely adopt “divide and rule” strategy to counter the DAP that is supported by 95% Chinese votes, like what UMNO did to Malaysian Chinese Association (MCA), Malaysian Indian Congress (MIC) for 50 years ago when they were in power. The Chinese community will also be split as in the past. (Uthayakumar: Within DAP?) Yes, DAP will also split into 2 factions, namely, pro-Mahathir dignitaries (also known as “protectionist”) and anti-Mahathir democratic faction (also known as “reformist”). This schism will definitely occur (Uthayakumar: You are saying “now:?) We are not saying “will develop into schism now”, but “the schism will surface soon”. By then, Lim Guan Eng will also be shaken. (Uthayakumar: Like Waytha Moorthy, very obvious) Yes, social reform movement normally will split into two after a tide, this is the result of the ruling clique splitting the reforming force. Just like what you said, Mahathir and the Malay ruling clique will break up the democratic reform movement of the people sooner or later. This is because they (Mahathir and the Malay ruling clique) will not allow the development of the reform force of all ethnic communities (mainly the Chinese and Indian communities). (Uthayakumar: Yes, agreed.)
We think the danger that the Chinese community of our country is facing today is a lot of Chinese harbour illusion about the DAP leaders, including Lim Kit Siang and Lim Guan Eng. These DAP top leaders might not be reliable leaders for the people. They may want to maintain high officials, enjoy the wealth, and be willing to succumb to the control of Mahathir or other Malay ruling elites and betray their original political position and mandate of the people. The Chinese community may repeat the same mistake.
Uthayakumar: There are none Indian who thinks like you among the Indians. I would say that I will have no successor when I die. I admitted that I did not win much in my past struggles, but I don’t want to give the Malay Supremacy government a walkover. I know most Indian elites and professionals work very hard in the office, save a lot of money and send their children to private universities or overseas. In their mindset, they are not capable to fight for anybody. Therefore, they only fight and take care of their own family, which is within their control. Even though it’s sad to have such scenario, I still want to try my best. I don’t want my children and grandchildren to blame me for not doing anything for the better of their life.
Sahabat Rakyat: We understand your thoughts. You have expressed the difficulties of your struggle for the equal rights of the Indian community based on your experience. Moreover, you feel that you are almost on your own in leading the struggle. In your opinion, no one in the Indian community will truly stand by the Indian poor and fight for their rights as you do. Despite the fact that no one is willing to fight alongside you in the struggle to solve the plight of the Indian poor, we still believe that organizing and educating work of the Indian masses is crucial. It is right that you are currently making a public statement and directly targeting the "primary figures of the government." However, you must also let the Indian community understand your ideas and actions, and try your best to influence the masses so that they will spontaneously organize and mobilise themselves, only then the struggle for equal rights of the Indian community will move forward. We firmly believe that the people masses are the only driving force for social reform and the creation of history; leaders are part of the people, leaders are from the masses, and cannot be divorced from the masses; the role of leaders is to enable the masses to understand their own interests and unite to strive for their own interests. We can understand your present difficulty in fighting alone. Therefore, we will try to do all we can to support you on your way forward. We can't do it for you but we can work with you to help translating statements/articles, we can also as far as possible, contact some NGOs (especially Chinese-based organizations), and hope that more people can better understand you. Because, if you continue to fight alone without the support of the people, sooner or later you may collapse and Hindraf will not advance.
Waytha Moorthy announced at a rally on 7 March before the 14th general election that he welcomed Mahathir’s announcement that the “Hindraf” led by him had officially become a strategic partner of the PH and he promised “Hindraf” leaders and cadres will guarantee the victory of PH candidates. However, at that time, there were not many party or organization members and public who noticed the difference between the “Hindraaf” that he claimed and the original “Hindraf”. Therefore, neglecting the meaning and this motive of changing from the original “Hindraf” to “Hindraaf” (picture above shows Hindraaf with an additional "a").
You used the word "hijack" to describe the relationship between Waytha Moorthy and Hindraf, and we agree with you. We noticed that Waytha Moorthy in many occasions showed that the organization he leads is “Hindraaf” (having an additional letter “a”). We asked him why he changed “Hindraf” to “Hindraaf”? He simply responded that it is because of the superstitious beliefs of his people that single “a” is unlucky whereas double “a” is auspicious. We listened with doubts, but then he diverted the topic without giving further explanation. You said that you will not give up Hindraf, you said that you will persist as long as there is some support. However, you do not dare to say firmly that you represent Hindraf, represent the Indian community (or represent the Indian poor).
Your statements are contradictory. We understand that you were saying that your participation in the Kota Raja Parliamentary seat in 2013 general election did not win the support of the Indian voters. Yet, in our view, (i) whether a person can represent the broad masses, is not reflected in the number of votes he gains from the parliamentary election, but whether his speeches and actions represent the interests and aspirations of the people, and whether or not he really struggles for the fundamental interests of the people; (ii) To win the support of the masses, we must truly safeguard the interests of the broad masses and solve the living and work problems of the people. A leader of the ethnic group or the people, does not necessarily become an official or a minister, but to serve the people wholeheartedly.
We must believe that the eyes of the masses are discerning, and they will soon be able to recognize the difference between you and Waytha Moorthy. As long as you keep going, you will surely gain the trust and support of the broad masses. If Waytha continues to follow his old path, he will be dumped into the garbage of history.
(4) Sahabat Rakyat shared with Uthayakumar some experience of the struggles for the equal rights of the Chinese and Indian communities
Arivom Namasivaya: We appreciate your willingness to help Uthayakumar to translate his articles into Chinese language. By doing so, you may have the Chinese community to read and sympathize the dilemmas of Indians. My question is, would the Chinese community fight for the cause of the Indians? Do we (the Indian and Chinese) have the common cause to fight together? From what I understand, both had the common cause to fight for only in the era when the Communist Party of Malaya led the people in the struggle against British colonial rule. (Sahabat Rakyat: The common cause is we want equal rights in this country.) There is already Article 8 (in Federal Constitution) mentioning about equality.
Uthayakumar: I think there are two issues here. (i) Article 8 is subject to another law, Article 153; (ii) Article 153 is supposed to offer equal rights to all. However, there are two parts of Article 153: first, the special position of the Malay and the natives of Sabah and Sarawak should be safeguarded by Agong; second, the legitimate interest of other communities should be safeguarded by Agong. So, I also fight for the legitimate interest of the Indians on the basis of “legitimate interest of other communities should be safeguarded (by Agong)” stated in Article 153. However, I have repeatedly suffered setbacks and failed. For example, if I score 10As in SPM, I deserve a place in local university. That is my right. But the fact is, the government has unilaterally emphasized that the "Malays have special position" as stated in Article 153 of the Federal Constitution and deliberately ignored the legitimate rights of other ethnic communities. As a result, it is not surprising that that the non-bumiputra students are rejected by the local universities despite their excellent test result.
Lately there is another incident that has irritated the Indian community. The forced eviction and relocation of the Sri Maha Mariamman Devasthanam Hindu Temple in Seafield, USJ 25, Subang Jaya, the activity centre of the Indians in the past 128 years is a typical example of the government neglecting the historical facts that the temple has existed for more than 100 years and the ruthlessly depriving the legal rights of the Indian community. Looking after and protecting the existence and development of Hindu temples is supposed to be the legitimate rights and interests of the Indian ethnic group safeguarded under the provisions of the "Federal Constitution". The cruel reality however is that the Federal Constitution is interpreted in favour of those in power to prolong their regime, it is completely unfavorable to other minorities other than the Malays.
Sahabat Rakyat: We understand that the Chinese community has accumulated some experience and learned some lessons in the entire process of the constitutional struggle of our country. We would hence like to introduce you Lim Lian Geok, a prominent leader who fought for the survival and development of the Chinese society and Chinese mother tongue education since 1950s. He came to the Peninsula Malaya from China in 1925 to work in education field. He had always been a poor teacher. Before Malaya went independence, the British colonial government colluded with the then Malay political elites and put forward "Barnes Report" aiming at continuing the oppression and assimilation policy of the British colonial government and eradicating the Chinese and Tamil education. This report set "abandoning own mother tongue" and "accepting English education" as the standard of "loyalty to the country" and "consider for the interests of a unified society." In 1951, Lim was the chairman of United Chinese School Teachers’ Association (UCSTA) Kuala Lumpur. He was obliged to lead the UCSTA nationwide and held the UCSTA Congress in Malacca to strongly oppose this report. This set off a wave of vigorous Chinese education movement. Lim Lian Geok's contribution to Malaya (Malaysia) Chinese education is widely recognised by the Chinese community, perhaps based on the consideration that "language is the soul of a nation", he was honored the "soul" of the Malaysian Chinese community.
What worth noting is that Lim Lian Geok and the Chinese education leaders then understood very well that it was insufficient to rely solely on the force of the Chinese community to oppose the British colonial government who colluded with the Alliance government to continue their oppression and assimilation policies on the Chinese and Indians in Malaya. It is necessary and right to join hand with the Indian community to fight together. Lim mentioned the demand of making Chinese and Tamil as official languages, (Bahasa Rasmi). There was a joint declaration by UCSTA and The Selangor Tamil School Teachers’ Association on 9 September 1956, putting forward 3 recommendations:
- Every community shall use its mother tongue as the medium of instruction;
- Every community shall enjoy equal treatment as well as equal opportunity for normal development of education;
- The language of the three communities shall be regarded as official language.
The cruel fact is, to the Chinese society, since the era of Lim Lian Geok until today, our tone, our way of expression, our demand, has been reducing. Today, nobody in the Chinese community dares to say “we want Chinese language as an official language”. And also, nobody dare to question it. (Uthayakumar: You are talking about Chinese as an official language? For me, the Indian community pressingly needs birth certificate and the chance for their children to go to school and further their studies. Your problem and my problem is different you know? Your fight and my fight are very far. Yours is above water issue. We are fighting below the water.) Yes, we understand that, but then we can find common ground. The principle and the root cause of our agony is the same, we all have been discriminated and oppressed by the Malay hegemonic rule.
Since the independence of Malaya in 1957, a lot of the Chinese had the wishful thinking of “easier to get things done if one has the representative in the government”. Thus they hoped that the MCA could speak and act for the interests of the Chinese community in the government, and therefore voted for MCA again and again. However, after taking up officials, the leaders of the MCA succumbed to the domination and control of UMNO racist politics and became the dependency of the UMNO ruling clique, and eventually became the accomplices of the UMNO in bringing calamity to the nation. From the results of the 2008 general election, the Chinese community had then realized that they could no longer harbour anymore illusions about MCA. We believe that Hindraf rally on 25 November 2007 is a very important catalyst that has generally awakened the Chinese community from the young to the old.
More than half a century ago, the situation of the Chinese on the citizenship issue was the same as the situation of the section of Indians with citizenship issue that you are dealing with: a large number of people (most of them were born locally) lost all rights that a citizen should enjoy because they had no citizenship. At the time, some of the Chinese in Malaya (including Singapore), although not born and raised locally, they gave birth and raised their children here and prepared to live in this land they loved for generations. The prominent Chinese leaders such as Lim Lian Geok in Malaya and Tan Lark Sye in Singapore who understood the importance of political rights via the struggle against British colonial rule and the struggle for the independence of the nation, urged all the Chinese compatriots (whether native or not), to register or apply to become citizens of this newly established country, thereby enjoyed the rights enjoyed by citizens and fulfilled the obligations of citizens.
However, these two leaders who were highly looked up by the Chinese community consecutively being persecuted by the then ruling dignitary: On 12 August 1961, Lim Lian Geok’s citizenship was deprived by Tunku Abdul Rahman ruling clique Malaya for fake accusation for : (i) deliberate misrepresentation and inversion of government education policy; and
(ii) emotional appeals of an extremely communal nature calculated to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races in the Federation likely to cause violence”. In fact, this happened because of Lim’s strong opposition against the 1960 Rahman Talib Report and the 1961 Education Act. His teaching license was then revoked on 22 August. On the other hand, Tan Lark Sye’s (founder of Nanyang University Singapore) citizenship was revoked by Lee Kuan Yew ruling clique the next day right after the election result was released (22 September 1963) by accusing him of “being used by the Communist Party to carry out anti-national activities”. In fact, this happened because of Tan’s support for Nanyang University graduates to participate in the 1963 Singapore election. The contributions and sacrifices of these two outstanding late leaders in protecting and promoting the survival and development of the Chinese mother tongue education were held in high esteem by anyone of any ethnic community who has self-dignity and sense of justice!
Uthayakumar: Now, approximately 98% of Chinese citizenship issues have resolved, but about 350,000 people in the Indian society do not have identity cards (IC) yet. Malaysian Indians have a population of about 2 million. Therefore, it can be said that 15%-17% of the Indian population do not have an IC. Born locally, without an IC, is equivalent to non-citizen, they also lose all rights enjoyed by citizens. The IC issue of 350,000 people (that is their citizenship issue) urgently needs to be resolved. (Sahabat Rakyat: This maybe because there is no Lim Lian Geok in the Indian community.) Yes, you are correct. (Sahabat Rakyat: That is why we hope you (Uthayakumar) can be like Lim Lian Geok.) But why me alone? The Indian “Lim Lian Geok” have all become careerists. They don’t want to become Uthayakumar. (Sahabat Rakyat: You are right. If Lim Lian Geok and Tan Lark Sye accepted appeasement in the past, there would be no Chinese society and Chinese education today. Therefore, there is a saying: without Lim Lian Geok in Malaya, there would be no Chinese secondary schools, without Chinese secondary schools, there would be no Chinese colleges and universities, and Chinese education would naturally die out. This situation is then not far from the current situation of the Indian ethnic community.)
(5) How do other Hindraf leaders see the Hindraf rally on 25 Nov 2007 and the deeds of Waytha Moorthy?
Sahabat Rakyat: In our first interview, you said: (i) You were the main target of the government’s arrest after the “11•25” Hindraf Rally; (ii) In order to avoid highlighting your leadership position, and to facilitate the split within Hindraf, they (police) deliberately arrested four more people and made five people in the same position; (iii) You seemed to imply that one of the four people was even assigned by the Special Branch to divide you all to facilitate the domination of Hindraf; (iv) You also slightly hinted at the swaying position of the five leaders, including your brother Waytha Moorthy, on the mass rally. We want you to further confirm that the above 4 points were the correct messages you want to convey. Now, almost all the people in the country have learned from the media that there are 6 leaders in Hindraf. You want people to believe that you are the only leader who “initiated and led the Hindraf rally.” We believe that it is necessary for you to announce the real situation that happened among the leaders a week before the 2007 Hindraf rally, such as who persisted, who had shaken and ultimately who decided to carry on the rally as scheduled. This is to give an account to the people, and to the history.
Uthayakumar: For your information, there were arrests here and there one week before the Hindraf rally. We knew we were going into trouble. I still remember the last meeting that I called for in my house. Those who attended included P. Waytha Moorthy, V. Ganapatirau, M. Manoharan, R. Genghadaran, T. Vasanthakumar and V. Ganapatirau’s driver (V. Ganapatirau was arrested when he was on the way. So, his driver was there for the meeting just to report what happened.) Technically, there were 6 presence including myself, plus 1 in attendance, sum up to 7 person. 5 were detained out of the 7. At the meeting, Waytha and Genghadaran were very junior compared to the others. They wanted us to call off the rally because they were frightened by the police crackdown at that time, only Manoharan supported me. He was very excited to go to the public because it would attract publicity, not for himself but the Indian poor.
So, obviously, I was the final decision maker. The first fact is, the reason I called for that meeting with 5 of them was to seek for second opinion. You can check with Manoharan separately about this. He was the one who reminded me about the calling off of the rally by Waytha and Genghadaran during the meeting. I did not write all these in my book because I do not want to make Waytha looks bad. The second fact is, Waytha ran away to oversea, but I penned this as “move to the struggle abroad” to cover him. The book has 99.9% truth except these 2 parts which I covered up for Waytha.
Uthayakumar and his book "November 25th Hindraf Rally 2007". In this interview, he said that other than the motive or intention of Waytha Moorthy be in exile, balance 99.9% of the contents in the book are true. This 400-page English book is the second book he wrote when he was detained for one and a half year under the Internal Security Act (13 December 2007 to 9 May 2009). It was published on the 3rd anniversary of Hindraf Rally (25 November 2010). This is the only book written by someone who had personally experienced the Hindraf rally on 25 November 2007. No matter what kind of opinion that other readers have on this book, it is Uthayakumar’s personal view after all, which would serve as the reference of others.
Other incidents to prove me as the only leader of Hindraf rally were (i) New Straits Time interviewed me just one day before the Hindraf rally. They want to know whether the rally would really go on. The question was spotted on me but not the other 5 leaders. So, who do you think is the decision maker? (ii) All Hindraf’s operation was from my legal firm office in Bangsar, not the other leaders’ office. (iii) Al Jazeera, an international broadcaster based in Doha interviewed me on the same day of Hindraf rally, but not the other 5 or 6 leaders (including Waytha Moorthy).
But having said so, Waytha was charged in court and he didn’t win the bail. Therefore, he was in the Sungai Buloh jail from 23 to 25 Nov 2007 (3 days). He may argue that the press interviewed him because he was in jail for participating in the operation. For me, there is only one person who can write the book on 25 November 2007 rally because it’s all in my brain.
To be fair, the idea of filling the case in London court is Waytha Moorthy’s idea. (Sahabat Rakyat: We have some opinions about this strategy.) I accepted that strategy to file the case in London court considering we can get international attention for the tragic encounters of the Indian community in Malaysia. Honestly, it worked in terms of the effect of propaganda. It was something very new to me, and even among the Indians. But, in my heart, the real “taiko” (culprit) of pushing the Indian community to the tragic position was the UMNO government and now it is the Pakatan Harapan government.
Sahabat Rakyat: We basically agree with your saying that raising a lawsuit in the London court can draw the attention of the international community to the issue of Malaysian Indians. We had also done everything we could to propagate this litigation. However, after careful observation and reflection on Waytha Moorthy’s words and deeds in this respect, we believe that Waytha deliberately diverted the enemy (the object of struggle) in the reality namely the UMNO ruling group to the British colonial government of the history. In other words, he only chose to target on the British colonial government of pre-independence of Malaya (Malaysia) (1957), and renounced the UMNO-dominated Alliance government (1957-1969) and the BN government (1969-2018) that inherited the British colonial government after independence. He had his own motives in doing so:
- Gain international public opinion support through his litigation actions abroad, to achieve his goal of pressurising the UMNO-BN government to let him end his life in exile and return to the home country and curry favour the masses;
- Through his litigation actions, the Indian masses in the country who have been suffering cruel oppression all this while will harbour illusion on him personally, and achieve his purpose of controlling the Indian community for his own use;
- Through his strategy of diverting the object of struggle, he placed himself in a prominent and safe position and then accepted the appeasement and enlistment to realize his dream of enjoying the prosperity as the minister.
On 4 November 2016, Uthayakumar answered question from The Malaysian Times that, "Najib killed me politically by turning my blood brother (P. Waythamoorthy) against me and persuading him to join BN.” “They tried to do so many things to bring me down, but I was persistent in fighting for the Indians in Malaysia”. He also said that “I believe that the Indians in Malaysia have given the mandate to Pakatan Harapan to represent them and voice out their problems.” When asked on his relationship with his brother Waythamoorthy, Uthayakumar claimed that the two have not met in the past 5 years.
Uthayakumar: When I was in Kamunting, my brother Waytha Moorthy and I had discussed about forming a political party to fight for the cause of the Indian community. I wrote him a note when he was still in London, telling him that we must create Indian-majority constituents as the only way to move forward. I was still naive at that time. Waytha replied my note, “No, this one you must come out and do it yourself.” He was smart (for rejecting me) because it was not a winnable game. He knew that his reputation (popularity) together with Hindraf’s popularity will go down if he had done it, as people would perceive it as just a political act. That’s why he didn’t want to do it. For me, we missed the opportunity.
We just want Indian-majority seats. I was forced to do it when I came out from Kamunting because Waytha did not do what he was supposed to do. It was too late and I failed. That is why you said he told you that he is representing Hindraf while I am in HRP. He uses Hindraf in his favour. The reality is, everybody (Indian) wants to claim as Hindraf leader because of the glory of Hindraf rally in 2007. But, as I have mentioned, that rally would not take place without me. As for HRP, we could not register the party since day one as our application was rejected and we failed (to appeal) from High Court to Federal Court. In fact, Waytha’s Hindraf (refers to Persatuan Hindraf Malaysia) was registered before the 13th “505” General Election preparing himself to accept appeasement from the then Prime Minister Najib which was rapidly approved by the UMNO-BN government.
(6) Conclusion: Hindraf rally on 25 November 2007 was merely an incident rather than a movement
Sahabat Rakyat: Finally, let us summarize it. From the first and second interview with you, we came to the conclusion that: the Hindraf rally on 25 November 2007 was merely a moving “Incident” where the Malaysian Indian masses courageously vented their resentment to the ruling group that crushed them. It has yet become a "Movement" with a clear struggle program, outstanding leaders, concrete action plans, and massive mass support. Do you agree?
We should apologize to you. In the past, we made a very serious cognitive mistake as being deliberately misled by Waytha Moorthy. We erroneously regarded Waytha as a leader of “Hindraf movement”- although in the last few years we finally recognized his true colours (as an "opportunistic politician") and criticized him. We respect your statements in the first and second interviews, although our working committee may have different opinions, we will truthfully publish your views, and will truthfully express our feelings so that the people of all ethnic groups can correctly understand and master the actual situation of Hindraf, thus promoting its normal growth and expansion in the future.
Uthayakumar: Yes, I agree with your conclusion that Hindraf rally in 2007 is just an incident, not a movement. When this incident took place, there was no Hindraf website, there was only the Police Watch website doing the propaganda work and I was the one running the Police Watch. The Hindraf website only appeared after the Hindraf rally. If you ask me why Hindraf succeeded, because there was only one leader, there was no confusion and there was zero politicking during the rally.
Sahabat Rakyat: Thank you for accepting our interviews twice.
兴权会亟需产生真正的领袖, 孤军作战无法摆脱本身窘境 ——专访2007年11月25日兴权会大集会 重要领袖乌达雅古玛(Uthayakumar)之二
兴权会亟需产生真正的领袖,
孤军作战无法摆脱本身窘境
——专访2007年11月25日兴权会大集会
重要领袖乌达雅古玛(Uthayakumar)之二
◆ 严居汉整理、报道 ◆
Hindraf Urgently Needs to Produce True Leaders,
Fighting Alone Will Not Extricate from Its Dilemma
- Sahabat Rakyat's interview with Uthayakumar,
the key leader of Hindraf Rally on 25 November 2007 (Part 2)
Hindraf Urgently Needs to Produce True Leaders,
Fighting Alone Will Not Extricate from Its Dilemma
- Sahabat Rakyat's interview with Uthayakumar,
the key leader of Hindraf Rally on 25 November 2007 (Part 2)
第二部分:人民之友与乌达雅古玛交流今后国内被压迫民族的出路问题
[<人民之友>编辑部按语]
人民之友工委会(以下简称“人民之友”)为了探索兴权会的遭遇和动向而先后对乌达雅古玛作了两次专访。第一次是在去年(2018年)“509”全国大选之前的3月17日举行。这次的专访报道延迟发表是遵循乌达雅古玛的个人考虑和决定。我们经过讨论后,选择在今年的“5•1”劳动节前夕发表了一篇题为<兴权会的主要斗争对象乃是马来霸权统治集团>的专访报道。
人民之友工委会(以下简称“人民之友”)为了探索兴权会的遭遇和动向而先后对乌达雅古玛作了两次专访。第一次是在去年(2018年)“509”全国大选之前的3月17日举行。这次的专访报道延迟发表是遵循乌达雅古玛的个人考虑和决定。我们经过讨论后,选择在今年的“5•1”劳动节前夕发表了一篇题为<兴权会的主要斗争对象乃是马来霸权统治集团>的专访报道。
本文是人民之友对乌达雅古玛的第二次专访报道。这次的专访是在去年“509”全国大选之后的12月22日举行。这次的专访内容包括:
(1)人民之友对乌达雅古玛的首次专访所传达的讯息;
(2)乌达雅古玛以兴权会2.0的名义展开活动的计划;
(3)人民之友与乌达雅古玛对议会选举和社会改革的看法交换意见;
(4)人民之友与乌达雅古玛分享华印族争取平等权利的点滴经验;
(5)其他兴权会领袖如何对待 “11•25兴权会大集会”和瓦达穆迪的作为;
(6)结论:“11•25”兴权会大集会,只是一个事件,不是一个运动。
第一次专访和第二次专访是互相关联的。第一次专访是前奏,第二次专访是后续,前后两个部分是结为一体的。
以下是第二部分的全部内容——
1. 人民之友工委会对乌达雅古玛的首次专访所传达的讯息
人民之友:我们第一次的专访是在“509”全国大选之前的2018年3月17日(周日)进行的。当时你清楚表示你不愿意在大选之前公开发表任何看法,但是你会细心观察马来西亚政治局势的发展。今天是2018年12月22日(周日),是我们的第二次对你的专访。我们发现你在“509”全国大选之后以兴权会2.0的名义发表了三份声明,主要是向第二次重任首相的马哈迪医生传达“希盟政府对印裔族群的承诺兑现几乎是0巴仙(即zero percent,注:“巴仙”是percent的音译,马来西亚华人习惯地用音译的“巴仙”来表示汉语的“百分比”)”的心声。因此,我们的再次会面正合时宜。
对我们来说,主要向你交代两件事情。其一、我们第一次的专访记录已经完成,我们会在完成中英文初稿之后和最后定稿之后,分开两次传送给你校阅、审核;其二、此次的专访,除了请求你确认我们对你的第一次专访谈话的理解正确无误之外,我们很想了解你对希盟政府上台后的政治局势和兴权会应该何去何从问题的一些看法,我们会在两次专访的报道里,全面如实反映你的见解,同时,我们也会表达人民之友对兴权会以至印裔族群问题的理解,让双方的意见进行一一次碰撞、交流,让实践来检验我们对马来西亚民主改革运动的理解。
第二次专访乌达雅古玛(Uthayakumar,右3)是2018年12月22日下午依旧在加影Cafe Bonda进行,右2为乌达雅古玛的伙伴,Arivom Namasivaya律师。人民之友工委会代表是:(自左起)严居汉、陈辛(成兴)、朱信杰。右1为深谙华语、淡米尔语和英语,早年曾献身马来亚(包括新加坡)的革命斗争而今经商的民主人士拉维沙尔玛(Ravi Sarma),他是应人民之友工委会特别邀请而参与这次专访,给这次专访在沟通和交流上增添了不少助力和光彩。
乌达雅古玛:是什么原因,让你们或你的组织一直要了解事实真相?
人民之友:在我们看来,兴权会是一股反抗马来霸权统治的新生力量。这是因为,我国社会的华裔族群与印裔族群一直以来都同样遭遇英殖民统治和马来权贵统治的压迫和歧视。可是,华人社会所遭遇的情况并不如印裔族群所遭遇的情况那么严重。在这之前,华人社会有董教总这样的民间组织作为反对种族歧视的核心力量。但是,在1999年的诉求事件上,由于马哈迪采取高压手段对付,他们退缩了,不敢再旗帜鲜明地争取华人族群在我国应享的平等权利了。可喜的是,2007年出现了兴权会(Hindraf)这样的组织,来反抗印裔族群长期以来遭遇的种族歧视和迫害。我们认为,兴权会是贫困的印裔族群在现阶段为改变不幸遭遇而抗争的一个产物,它是属于印裔族群特别是印裔穷人的斗争果实,不应该被某些冒称为“领袖人物”的机会主义政客所掠夺。兴权会今后如何走下去?这是印裔族群必须思考的问题,也是我国所有民主人士和民主党团必须关注的问题。这也就是我们一直要会见你,向你了解兴权会的更多情况的主要原因。
回头看“509”大选前,一些具有影响力的民主党团领袖和他们的谋士们都把“509”全国大选看成是我国“改朝换代”的关键时机,而且把“改朝换代”的希望寄托在:(1)马来人的觉醒——一些民主党团领袖认为,只要唤醒一些过去支持巫统国阵的马来人转过来支持希盟,希盟就能上台执政;(2)马哈迪的领导——一些民主党团领袖认为,马哈迪是领导希盟打到纳吉推翻巫统之后、重新担任首相以“拯救马来西亚”的不二人选。希盟上台执政迄今(2018年12月22 日)已逾半年,全国人民也开始有了亲身的体会。
“509”大选结果显示,希盟获得113/222简单多数国会议席上台执政,但是马哈迪和他的土著团结党并没有如一些希盟领袖和他们的吹鼓手所吹嘘的对马来人(尤其是垦殖区的马来人)的觉醒的“伟大作用”——全国马来选票实际上却由巫统、伊斯兰党和希盟三分天下,马哈迪并没有如一些希盟领袖和他们的吹鼓手所预期的获得垦殖区马来人的支持。大选后,不仅巫统和伊斯兰党紧密联手、变本加厉进行种族主义政治宣传,以期巩固并进而扩大他们的政治力量,而作为希盟统帅的马哈迪上台后便迅速通过自己属意的人选掌控重要的政府部门和国家机器,以便延续以他(马哈迪)的霸权思想为特色、强调“马来人主权”与“马来人至上”的“马哈迪主义”的霸权统治。因此,“509”大选说是“改朝换代”,而实质上还是不折不扣的种族霸权统治,名号改换罢了。
瓦达穆迪(右)在“509”大选前公开宣称他可以转移20%—30%印裔选票支持希望联盟赢得大选的胜利,处心积虑靠拢希望联盟(实际上是靠拢马哈迪),以便他在马哈迪政府里谋得一个部长的高位。而马哈迪当了回锅首相之后,他也需要一个来自印裔族群,愿意听他使唤的“族群代表人物”,一来借此加强马哈迪本人和土著团结党在希望联盟的政治地位,二来可以让他直接更好掌控国内最受压迫、最受歧视的族群的政治动向。对于印裔族群和全国人民来说,他们两人都是“一丘之貉”。
瓦达穆迪在“509”大选之前,处心积虑把自己装扮成“兴权会最高领袖”和“印裔族群代表人物”,并宣称他准备站到希盟的阵营里去,并可以为希盟赢得大选作出贡献。在我们看来,希盟的两个主要政党即人民公正党和民主行动党,都已经有了不少的印裔领袖人物,国家诚信党作为一个以穆斯林为基础政党也不会欢迎像瓦达穆迪这样的政客,因此,瓦达穆迪只有投马哈迪所好而受马哈迪收编一条路可走。
而对马哈迪来说,他需要在执政后巩固和扩展他本身和土著团结党的政治地位和影响,他需要像瓦达穆迪这样的听他使唤的政客来装饰他的政治门面,瓦达穆迪于是才有机会受委任为上议院议员和首相署之下的国民团结部部长。因此,我们可以说,瓦达穆迪实际上是欺骗了印裔群众,他利用了他在“兴权会最高领袖”和“印裔族群代表”的名义和地位去欺骗马哈迪,而马哈迪也利用了瓦达穆迪的投机来欺骗印裔族群和其他各族人民。这些事实终究会揭露出来的。
乌达雅古玛:像瓦达穆迪和马哈迪这样的政客,对人民来说,他们是利益的获取者,从来不是利益的提供者——政客的专长就是如何骗取人民的选票以便掌握权位、掠夺财富。依我看,瓦达穆迪和马哈迪两人之间的关系是互相利用,瓦达穆迪没有马哈迪撑腰的时候就是他的穷途末路了。
2. 乌达雅古玛以兴权会2.0的名义展开活动的计划
人民之友:我们了解到你目前以兴权会2.0 的名义发表了3份声明。我们想了解兴权会2.0或者是你本身接下来的计划是什么?
乌达雅古玛:在我回答你们的问题之前,我想要再说明一点。或许你们不会相信,在2007年11月25日兴权会大集会之前,在领导工作上,几乎都是我一个人在演独角戏(one-man-show),没有人愿意与我并肩作战。我可以发誓地说,如果没有我的积极参与策划和领导工作,那次大集会就不会发生;如果你拿掉瓦达穆迪或其他4位领袖人物,只要我不弃不离,那次大集会仍然会发生。我感到非常荣幸,我在当时可以这样做(发动那一次大集会)。但是,如果你们要我现在再做一次,我想我不能。我也看不出它将来会再次发生。除非有了具体实在的支持,否则我不会再次跳入战场。因此,我目前采取非常谨慎的步骤。
其次,你们问关于兴权会2.0。在我的一生中,我体会到我国印度同胞的问题反映在巫统(统治集团)如何利用三米威鲁与苏巴马廉的互斗来分裂印裔族群。巫统(统治集团)制造印裔族群内部斗争,并借此转移他们对主要问题(即遭受霸权统治的压迫和歧视)的视线,巫统(统治集团)是真正的罪魁祸首。对我来说,印裔同胞不是我的敌人,我的头脑是清醒的,我怎么可以跟我的兄弟互斗呢?我不想要因我跟自己兄弟互斗而造成印裔族群为争取基本权利的斗争失败。
我目前可用的最好平台就是“兴权会”了,但是,瓦达穆迪也在使用“兴权会”的称号。谁是谁呢?很难分辨,所以,我把我使用的称为“兴权会2.0”。我有意间接告知巫统或其他马来统治集团:2007年的兴权会大集会可能再度发生。但我内心了解这是困难的,除非另一个“奇迹”发生。
因此,我使用“兴权会 2.0”的主要原因是:(i)将我自己与瓦达穆迪区别开来; (ii)向巫统和其他马来统治集团发送讯息,我将继续斗争。真正的改革必须包括让印度穷人摆脱困境。这就是我关注印度穷人的原因。我承认我在为摆脱印度穷人困境的斗争中失败了。正如我在第一次会谈告诉你们的那样,当我刚从伦敦回来时,我看到了印度穷人面临的严重问题,但没有人(为印度穷人)做任何事情。我想知道为什么有这么多印度医生、律师等等,却很少看到这些人为解救印度穷人而献身工作。我尝试在印度社群中寻找像你们中的这样的人 [指陈成兴(陈辛)和拉维沙玛(Ravi Sarma)],对我们的工作提供指导意见,因为我不知道如何开始(斗争)。我的父亲没有政治背景,他一生都投票支持国阵。那么,我如何获得指导?我别无选择,只能用我的大脑和热情来推动摆脱印度穷人困境的斗争。我之所以这样做,是因为我不希望我的孩子和孙子们因为我一生中没有为下一代的更美好未来做任何事情而责怪我。因此,我之前完成了一些工作(我因而被囚禁牢狱)。现在我的精力有限,没有资源,没有财政后备。因此,我只想利用我的微薄力量,把工作重点放在印度穷人身上。
3. 人民之友与乌达雅古玛对议会选举和社会改革的看法交换意见
乌达雅古玛:从“警察观察”开始到2007年兴权会大集会,经历了几乎20年的社会工作,我可以说我已经尽我所能,在全国范围内以至在国际上,把我国印裔族群面对的问题作为一项刻不容缓、亟需解决的严重课题提了出来。但是,我发觉,当我从加影牢狱走出来以后,人民似乎对我失去了信心。2013年我参加了哥达拉惹(Kota Raja)国会议席竞选,我只赢得3%的选票。我不能宣称我是兴权会的领袖,也不能宣称自己是印裔族群的代表,或者是印裔族群的“林吉祥”。那一次我参与的国会议席竞选的结果,也许说明了我国印裔社会不要我,而不是说明,我不要他们(印裔族群),也不是说明我不想成为兴权会或印裔社会领袖。所以,如果瓦达穆迪要劫持兴权会,就让他去做他想要做的事,而我呢,会做我所能做的一些工作。
对我来说,这是很简单的。只有13个国会议席,马哈迪可以控制整个国家。在13名国会议员中,有11名是部长和副部长。根据我在甘文丁扣留营期间所作的计算,在我撰写的《马来西亚印度人的政治赋权策略——前进之路》(Malaysian Indian Political Empowerment Strategy – The Way Forward)说明了这一点,在马来西亚的222个国会议席和576个州议席中,有15个国会议席和38个州议席,这些议席选区里有大约20%至46.2%的印裔选民。根据2008年“308”大选的选民名册,上述印裔选民占可观比例的选区,分布在9个州和直辖市吉隆坡。这可以参考书中第32页至42页的《改变政治格局》一文。我在这本书中,还概述了朝向政治格局的改变的6个步骤如下:
- 第一步 – 一名印裔选民带动两名印裔选民到属意选区登记;
- 第二步 – 所有(印裔)选民在州议席登记;
- 第三步 – 推动未登记的(印裔)选民进行登记;
- 第四步 – 推动合格的新(印裔)选民进行登记;
- 第五步 – 展开选民登记活动;
- 第六步 – 推选最佳印裔候选人。
通过以上步骤,我们可以通过将“确定的区域”纳入印裔选民占多数的地区来创建15个国会议席。例如,如果来自鲁乃(Lunas)的一名印裔选民可以邀请至少两名来自吉打和玻璃市任何地方的印裔选民在鲁乃登记为选民,那么我们可以很容易地拥有一个印裔选民占多数的议会选区(该选区的现有印裔选民大约平均20%)。类似的案例可以应用于吉打、巴东塞莱、槟城、巴都卡万、怡保西区,哥打拉惹,金马仑高原,波德申等。如果我的这个理论无法实践,印裔族群就没有前途。我在我的一篇文章中写道:“除非我们有马来人或华人的“亚伯拉罕•林肯”(“Abraham Lincoln”),否则印裔族群就没有前途了”总之,我认为,印裔族群向前迈进的唯一途径就是建立印裔选民占多数的选区(如上所述)。这是因为如果你有选票,你就有权力。这是现实。今天,马哈迪不能动摇林冠英的地位,因为林冠英(民主行动党)赢得了42个议会席位,这意味着林冠英(民主行动党)赢得了华人选票。
人民之友:对你刚才所表达的“(1)通过六个步骤,建立印裔选民占多数的选区,以增强印裔族群的政治代表性;(2)如果无法实践(1)项所述,印裔族群就没有前途。”的论说,我们将会认真思考,然后在选择一个适当时间与你进行深入交流。现在,我们暂且向你表达一些初步意见。
我们对你之所以表达“建立印裔选民占多数的选区,以增强印裔族群的政治代表性”的愿望和主张是理解的,也是尊重的。我们认为,在我国的选区范围的大小以及选民结构和人数的多少,自建国以来都是根据巫统霸权统治集团的政治需要来决定和划分的。因此我国的议会选举出现了“马来人或其他土著占多数的乡村选区”(其选民人数,少的只有1万几千人)选出“马来或土著代议士”和“华人选民占多数的城市选区”(其选民人数,多的甚至高达15万人)选出“华裔代议士”的不公平现象。你(乌达雅古玛)在希盟政府上台执政之际,代表印裔族群发出要求建立印裔选民占多数的选区以增强印裔族群的政治代表性的呼声,是一项合情合理合法的愿望和主张。但是,在我国被压迫族群和被压迫阶级的有组织力量(如工人、农民、妇女、青年运动等)尚未形成,而统治集团的马来霸权主义者依然当道之际,你的上述这种愿望和主张,是很难实现的,它只能对教育、组织和动员群众发生作用。
我们对兴权会2.0今后走向跟你的看法或许有些不同。首先,我们认为,2007年兴权会大集会所表达“向压迫者抗争”的思想和行动,仍然是合法有效、适当可取的。印裔族群在我国被边缘化是英国殖民统治者在马来亚独立以前对印裔族群的奴役和压榨,以及巫统主导的联盟和国阵统治集团在独立以后,继承英殖民主义者的衣钵,对印裔族群的歧视和排斥所造成的苦果。兴权会领袖应该注重宣传教育,促使广大印裔族群认识自己的地位和自己的权利,并团结起来,继续向压迫者进行抗争,为改变被压迫被歧视的处境而奋斗。
其次,过去的历史和眼前的事实说明了,广大的印裔群众大都对寄望(准确地说是”幻想”)他们的领袖解脱他们族群的困境,并设法改善他们的生活,但是,活跃于政党政治的印裔领袖也大都是热衷于权位的机会主义政客,为了自己的荣华富贵而接受当权统治集团的收编和招安,成为当权统治集团利用来欺骗和压迫印裔族群和各族人民的工具。因此,广大的印裔群众必须吸取屡次受骗的经验教训,应该认识到:
- 人民群众想要改变被压榨被歧视的命运,只有依靠本身的团结力量做到,不能寄望(准确地说是幻想)那些沽名钓誉、觊觎权位的机会主义政客;
- 领袖和人民群众不能分开,而是人民的一部分。如果领袖脱离人民群众,作了统治集团的利用工具,那就不能包括;
- 社会改革需要领袖发挥他(们)的作用,但是,人民群众才是创造历史的决定性因素。我们应当突出“人民群众”,决不要突出“领袖”。
就拿你刚才所提的马哈迪不能动摇林冠英地位的谈话来说吧。你说,这次的“509”大选,95%的华人选票都投给了民主行动党,作为民主行动党秘书长的林冠英因此当上了财政部长,马哈迪是无法动摇林冠英的地位的。而我们对此,却有不同的看法(乌达雅古玛插话:马哈迪怎么动摇林冠英呢?)。在我们看来,只要马哈迪不放弃他终身一贯的“马来人至上”和“马来人主宰”的思想理念,在他紧握首相大权完成了全面招安收编和稳固政治地盘的时候,就是林冠英的财政部长地位被马哈迪“动摇”(也就是收拾)的时候了。
具体地说,马哈迪为了巩固马来种族统治霸权,势必采取“分而治之”的策略对付这个由95%华人选票支持的民主行动党,就像巫统在逾半个世纪以来支配马华公会(MCA)和印度国大党(MIC)那样。华人社会也将像过去一样,呈现分裂的状态。(乌达雅古玛插话:在民主行动党内部也发生吗?)是的,民主行动党也将会分裂成两派即亲马哈迪的权贵派(或者称之为“保皇派”)和反马哈迪的民主派(或者称之为“改革派”)——这种分裂的状况情况一定会发生(乌达雅古玛插话:你们是说“现在”)我们不是说“现在就分裂了”,而是说“分裂的状况不久就会表面化”——到那时,就是林冠英“动摇”的时候了!(乌达雅古玛插话:就像瓦达穆迪那样,非常明显)是的,社会改革运动在一个高潮之后往往就会分裂为二,这是统治集团成功分化改革力量的结果,就像你所说的那样,马哈迪和马来统治集团一定会分裂我国人民当下进行的民主改革运动。这是因为他们(马哈迪和马来统治集团)决不允许国内各民族(主要是华族和印族)改革力量的发展壮大(乌达雅古玛插话:是的,我同意。)。
我们认为,有许多华人对包括林吉祥、林冠英在内的民主行动党领袖抱有幻想,这是我国华人社会面对的危险。这些最高层的民主行动党领袖,对于人民来说,他们未必是可靠的领袖人物,他们可能想要保持高官厚禄、享受荣华富贵,甘愿屈服于马哈迪或其他马来统治精英的掌控和支配,而背叛自己原来的政治立场和人民对他们的委托。华人社会或将重犯同样的错误。
乌达雅古玛:在印裔社会中,没有一个人像你们一样思考。我似乎感觉到我死后没有人继承我未能完成的工作。我承认在过去的斗争中,我没有赢得多少,但是,我就是不愿意让马来霸权统治集团轻易得胜。我所知道,大多数的印裔精英和专业人士,他们在办公室里非常努力工作,积累了很多钱,并且将他们的孩子送进国内私立大学或送到海外深造。在他们的思维里,他们只努力于照顾自己的家庭——这是他们所能支配的范围,他们认为本身没有能力为他们的家庭以外的任何人而斗争。尽管我面对上述情况而感到悲痛,我还是要尽我的最大努力,我不希望我的儿孙们因我没有尽力为他们争取美好生活而责备我。
人民之友:我们理解你的想法,你根据你的经验表达了你为印裔族群平等权利的斗争是非常艰难的,而且,你感觉自己在领导斗争上几乎是孤军作战的。据你所说,在印裔族群里面没人任何人可以像你这样真正站在印裔穷人的立场而斗争。尽管真的如你所说没有人愿意在为解决印裔穷人痛苦遭遇的斗争中与你并肩作战,我们还是认为组织和教育印裔群众的工作是至关重要的。你目前公开发表声明并直接对准“政府首要人物”的做法是对的,但是,你也要让印裔群众认识和理解你的主张和做法,想方设法让群众能够受到你的影响而自动自发的组织起来,印裔族群争取平等权利的斗争才会向前发展。我们坚信:只有人民群众才是社会改革和创造历史的动力;领袖是人民群众的一部分,领袖是来自人民群众、不能脱离人民群众的;领袖的作用就是使到群众认识自己的利益,并团结起来,为自己的利益而奋斗。我们可以理解你目前孤军作战的困难,因此,我们希望在你前进的道路上尽我们的绵薄之力,我们不可能代替你做,我们可以配合做的包括协助你翻译声明文章之外,我们也尽可能跟一些非政府组织(特别是华裔组织)联系,希望借此可以让更多人更好的了解你。因为,如果你继续孤军作战,没有人民群众支持,你个人是迟早有一天会倒下来的,兴权会也是不会发展起来的。
瓦达穆迪在第14届大选前的3月7日一个集会上宣称,他欢迎马哈迪宣布他所领导的“兴权会”已经正式成为希望联盟的战略伙伴,他允诺“兴权会”领袖和干部将保证希望联盟候选人的胜利。但是,当时没有多少党团人士和公众注意到他所宣称的“Hindraaf”跟原先的“Hindraf”的区别,因而漠视了他把原来的“Hindraf”改变为“Hindraaf”(上图所示名称多了一个英文字母“a”)的含义和动机。
你用了一个“骑劫”的字眼来形容瓦达穆迪和兴权会的关系,我们认同你的这个观点。我们注意到,瓦达穆迪在很多场合展示他所领导的组织是“Hindraaf”(多了一个“a”的字母),我们曾向他提问,为何把“Hindraf”改为“Hindraaf”?他只是简单回应说是因为他们族人的迷信观念认为:单a不吉利,双a才吉利。我们听了,疑惑犹存,但他却转移话题,不作进一步的解释了。你表示,你本身不会放弃兴权会,你说只要有人支持,你一定坚持下去。但是,你本身又不敢理直气壮地说你代表兴权会、代表印裔族群(或者说是代表印裔穷人)。你的说法是矛盾的。我们理解你指的是当年(2013年)竞选哥达拉惹(Kota Raja)国会议席没有得到印裔选民的支持。但是,在我们看来,(i)一个人是否能够代表人民群众,不是在于他参加议会选举获得多数的选票上,而是在于他的言论和行动是否代表广大人民的利益和愿望,他是否真正为广大人民的根本利益而斗争;(ii)要得到群众的支持,就要真正的为群众谋福利,解决群众的生活和工作的问题。作为族群或人民领袖,不是一定要当官做部长,而是要真心诚意为人民服务。
我们必须相信人民群众的眼睛是雪亮的,他们很快就能够认识到瓦达穆迪和你的区别。只要你坚持走下去,你必定会得到广大群众的信任和支持。瓦达穆迪若是继续沿着他的老路走下去,一定会被抛到历史的垃圾堆里去。
4. 人民之友与乌达雅古玛分享华印族争取平等权利的点滴经验
Arivom Namasivaya:我很高兴你们主动表示愿意协助乌达雅古玛将他的文章翻译成华文,让华裔族群阅读从而了解并同情印裔族群的困境。我要问的是:华人群体会为印裔族群的事业而斗争吗?我们(指印度人和华人)有共同的理由一起战斗吗?据我所知,华人和印度人只有在马来亚共产党领导人民反抗英殖民统治的斗争时代曾经一起战斗过(人民之友插话:共同战斗的理由是:我们都要在我们的国家里享有平等权利。)是的,马来(西)亚<联邦宪法>第8条文就提到关于平等权利。
乌达雅古玛:我认为这里有两个问题:第一,第8条文受另一项条文即第153条文的约束;第二,第153条文应该给予所有人平等权利。但是,第153条文有两个部分:其一是国家元首必须保护马来人及沙巴或砂拉越土著的特殊地位;其二是国家元首也必须保护其他民族的合法权益。因此,我是在第153条文中关于“其他民族的合法权益必须受到(国家元首)保护”的规定的基础上,为印裔族群争取合法权益。但是,我屡屡受到挫折而失败。举个例子来说吧,如果我在马来西亚教育文凭考试(SPM)中获得10个A的成绩,我应该在本国大学获得一个学额,那是我的权利。实际上,政府却片面强调<联邦宪法>第153条文中“马来人有特殊地位”而蓄意忽视其他民族应享有的合法权利,结果自然是非土著学生虽然考试成绩优异,却被拒于国内大学的门外。最近又发生了一件让印裔族群非常气愤的事,一所1891成立于雪州梳邦再也25区Seafield地点,迄今128年以来一直是印裔族人活动中心的“斯里马哈马里安曼兴都庙”(The Sri Maha Mariamman Devasthanam Temple)被逼拆迁的事件,也是说明政府完全漠视该兴都庙宇已经存在了100多年的历史事实以及无情剥夺印裔族群的合法权利的典型例子。照顾和保护兴都庙宇的存在和发展,理应是印裔族群在<联邦宪法>的规定下应享有的合法权益,而残酷的现实是,对<联邦宪法>的诠释,都是为了适应执政者维护其政权的需要而对马来人以外的其他少数民族完全不利的。
人民之友:我们了解,华人社群在我国宪制斗争上经历了一个过程,也累计了一些经验教训。我们想向你介绍一名在上世纪50年代就开始为华人社会和华人母语教育的生存和发展而斗争的杰出领袖林连玉。他在1925年从中国来到马来亚半岛从事教育工作,他一直是一个穷教员。当马来亚走向独立之前,英国殖民政府串通了当时的马来政治精英,抛出了一个旨在延续英殖民政府的压迫和同化政策、消灭华印语文教育的<巴恩报告书>。这份报告书将“放弃本身母语”、“接受巫英语文教育”作为“效忠国家”和“为统一社会利益着想”的标准。1951年,林连玉担任吉隆坡华校教师公会主席,他义不容辞地率领全国各州华校教师公会,在马六甲召开全马华校教师公会代表大会,极力反对这份报告书,掀起了轰轰烈烈的华教运动的浪潮。林连玉对马来(西)亚华文教育的贡献受到华人社会的肯定,或许是基于“语文是民族的灵魂”的考虑,他被华人社会尊为“族魂”。
值得我们特别关注的是,林连玉和当时的华教领袖们非常明白,反对英殖民政府与联盟政府互相勾结延续他们对马来亚的华族和印族的压迫与同化政策,单靠华裔族群的力量是不够的,必须联合印裔族群共同斗争,才是正确的。他提到应该提出把华文和淡米尔文列为官方语文的要求。1956年9月9日,林连玉领导的马来亚联合邦华校教师总会(简称“教总”)(The United Chinese School Teachers’ Association, Federation of Malaya—UCSTA)与雪兰莪淡米尔学校教师公会签署了一份联合声明,提出3项建议:1、每个族群社区必须使用它们自己的母语作为教学媒介语;2、每个族群社区必须享有平等待遇以及教育正常发展的平等机会;3、必须把3个族群社区的语文当做是官方语文。我们从这个历史事实,就可以看出,当时生活在马来亚的华人和印度人的命运是共同的,当时少数的华社和华教的领导人早已认识到与印裔族群联合斗争的重要性。但是,“争取华印语文列为官方语文”的斗争终究是失败了。
残酷的事实是,对华人社会来说,从林连玉年代到今天,我们的诉求,以及诉求的方式和音调,已经减少并且降低了。今天,华人社会没有人提问关于“列华语华文为官方语文”的史实,也没有人敢说“我要华语华文作为一种官方语文”。(乌达雅古玛插话:你们是在说关于华语华文作为官方语文的事吗?对我来说,印裔同胞迫切需要的是公民权证书和他们的子女的入学和深造的机会。你们所要解决的问题跟我所要解决的问题是不同的,你们懂吗?你们的斗争道路和我的斗争道路的差距是很远的,你们是在水面之上的课题进行战斗,而我呢,正在水面之下战斗。)是的,我们了解,我们之间是有差异的,但是我们可以找出共同立场。造成大家都痛苦的主要祸根是一样的,我们大家都同样遭遇马来霸权统治的压迫和歧视。
自1957年马来亚独立以来,华人社会大都出于“朝里有人好办事”的良好愿望,寄望马华公会能够在政府中代表华人社会的利益说话和做事,一次又一次地把选票投给了马华公会。但是,马华公会的领袖们做官当老爷之后就屈服于巫统种族主义政治的支配和控制而沦为巫统统治集团的附庸,而最后变成巫统祸国殃民的帮凶。从2008年的全国大选的结果来看,华人社会到那个时候已经领悟到再也不能对马华公会存有丝毫幻想了。我们认为,2007年兴权会“11•25”游行示威是促使华人社会从年轻人到老年人都普遍觉醒的一个重要的催化剂。
在逾半世纪前,华人在公民权的处境就跟你目前所面对的一部分印度人所遭遇的公民权处境一样:为数不少的人口(他们绝大部分是在本地出生),因为没有公民权证书而丧失作为公民应该享有的一切权利。在当时,马来亚(包括新加坡)的华人,虽然有一些不是土生土长,但他们都在这里生儿育女,准备世世代代生活在这片他们所热爱的土地上。在反抗英殖民统治、争取国家独立的斗争实践中体会政治权利的重要性的华人杰出领袖,在马来亚的林连玉和在新加坡的陈六使等人都义无反顾号召所有华族同胞(不论是土生的,或是非土生的),都登记或申请成为这个新成立的国家的公民,从而享有公民所享有的权利并承担公民所应尽的义务。
可是,这样的两位令华人社会敬仰的领袖,都先后遭到当时的统治权贵的迫害:林连玉因强烈反对<1960>和<1961>,在1961年8月12日被马来亚阿都拉曼统治集团套上“故意歪曲与颠倒政府教育政策”和“发表含有极端种族性质和造成骚乱动机的言论”的罪名而褫夺其公民权,随后在8月22日撤销其教师注册证。而陈六使(他是新加坡南洋大学的创办人)因支持南洋大学毕业生参加1963年新加坡大选,在大选结果揭晓的隔天(即9月22日)被新加坡李光耀统治集团套上“被共产党利用来进行反国家活动”的罪名而褫夺其公民权。这两位已经作古的杰出领袖在维护和推动华人母语教育的生存和发展上所作出贡献和牺牲,是会让任何民族有自尊心和正义感的人士肃然起敬的!
1961>1960>
乌达雅古玛:到目前,近乎98%的华人公民权课题已经解决了。而印裔社会大约还有35万人没有身份证。马来西亚印裔人口大约200万人,因此,可以说15%-17%的印裔人口没有身份证。在本地出生,没有身份证,等于非公民,也就丧失公民所享有的一切权利。这35万人的身份证问题(也就是他们的公民权问题)是亟需解决的。(人民之友插话:或许这是因为印裔社会没有林连玉的缘故。)是的,你们说得对。(人民之友插话:这就是为什么我们希望你可以像林连玉一样)但是,为什么只是我一个人呢?印裔社会的“林连玉”都变成政客去了!他们都不要成为乌达雅古玛。(人民之友插话:你说的没错,假如当年林连玉、陈六使被招安收编了,就没有今天的华人社会和华文教育了。因此,曾经有人说:马来亚没有林连玉,就没有了华文中学,没有华文中学,就没有华文高等院校,华文教育就自然消亡。这种状况就跟印裔族群目前的遭遇相差不远了。)
5. 其他兴权会领袖如何对待 “11•25兴权会大集会”和瓦达穆迪的作为
人民之友:你在我们的第一次专访中说:(i)政府在“11•25”兴权会大集会之后采取逮捕行动主要是对付你;(ii)为了避免突出你的领导地位,也为了便于分化兴权会,他们(警方)刻意逮捕多4个人,让5个人居于同等地位;(iii)你似乎暗示在4人之中有1人甚至是政治部派来分裂你们,以便支配兴权会;(iv)你也略略暗示包括你弟弟瓦达穆迪在内的5名领袖对大集会的动摇立场。我们想要你进一步确认以上4点是你所要传达的正确讯息。现在,几乎全国人民都从媒体得知兴权会有6位领袖,你要人们去相信你是 “发动和领导兴权会大集会” 的唯一领袖,我们认为,你就有必要针对2007年“11•25”兴权会大集会前一个星期各个领袖之间,谁是坚持者,谁是动摇性者,最终谁来决定兴权会大集会如期举行的事实公布出来,给人民一个交代,也给历史一个交代。
乌达雅古玛:让你们了解一些情况,在“11•25”兴权会大集会之前一个星期,警方这里那里到处抓人,我们知道我们将会遇到麻烦的事。我还清楚记得,我最后一次在我家召开的会议。出席者包括瓦达穆迪(P. Waytha Moorthy)、嘉纳帕提劳(V. Ganapatirau)、马诺哈兰(M. Manoharan)、肯加哈兰(R. Kengadharan)、华山达古玛(K. Vasanthakumar)以及嘉纳帕提劳(V. Ganapatirau)的司机(嘉纳帕提劳在他前来开会的途中被捕,他的司机前来列席报讯)。因此,这次会议的出席者(包括我在内)6人,另加列席者1人,共7人(7人之中5人被逮捕)。瓦达穆迪和肯加哈兰两人,跟其他几人比较,阅历很浅。当时他们两人由于警方镇压行动而感到惊慌,要求将大集会取消。其他人没有表态或犹疑踌躇,我坚持按照原定计划进行,只有马诺哈兰支持我的果敢决定。他感到非常兴奋能够为印度穷人而不是为自己,参加这个很受人关注的大集会。
由此可见,我是“11•25”兴权会大集会的最终决策者。第一个事实是,只有我一个人自始至终负责推动这个兴权会大集会,我之所以在大集会之前召集他们5人举行会议,是寻求“第二意见”(seek for second opinion)。你们可以单独向马诺哈兰查问此事,他是在会议上提醒我关于瓦达穆迪和肯加哈兰两人要求取消兴权会大集会的人——我没有在我撰写的《2007年11月25日兴权会大集会》(November 25th hindraf Rally 2007)一书中写下上述情况,是因为我不想造成瓦达穆迪给人很坏的形象。第二个事实是,面对政府镇压行动,瓦达穆迪逃到海外避难,我把他的逃亡写成“转移到国外斗争”来维护他。除了我替瓦达穆迪掩盖的这两个事实,这本书的内容99.9%是真实的。
乌达雅古玛和他的著作:《2007年“11•25”兴权会大集会》(November 25th Hindraf Rally 2007)。他在这次的专访中说,除了述说瓦达穆迪的逃亡没有反映瓦达穆迪本人的真正动机或意图以外.这本书的内容99.9%是真实的。这本厚达400页的英文书,是他在《内部安全法令》下的长达1年6个月(2007年12月13日至2009年5月9日)的无审讯拘留期间撰写的第2本书,而在兴权会大集会的3周年纪念日(即2010年11月25日)出版。这是唯一一本由一名亲历者亲自撰写的关于2007年“11•25”兴权会大集会的专书,不管什么人对此书有什么样的见解,它终究是乌达雅古玛的“一家之言”。
此外,还有一些事实足以说明我是“11•25”兴权会大集会的唯一领袖。(i)<新海峡时报>在大集会前一天采访了我。他们想知道大集会真的会进行吗?他们的问题都抛在我的身上,而不是向其他5位领导人提出,像这样,你认为谁是决策者呢?(ii)兴权会的所有行动指示都是发自我的律师事务所,而不是其他领袖的办公室;(iii)半岛电视台(Al Jazeera),一家以卡塔尔首都多哈为基地的国际电视台,在大集会当天采访了我,而不是其他5名或6名(包括瓦达穆迪)领导人。
话说回来,瓦达穆迪被控上法庭,他没有获得保释。因此,瓦达穆迪在2007年11月23日至25日在双溪毛洛(Sungai Buloh)监狱服刑(3天)。瓦达穆迪可能会争辩说,媒体也有采访他,也是因他参与有关行动而被判坐牢的。但是,对我来说,(他从桌面上拿起他出版的上述著作)只有我本人才能写出这样的内容的一本书,因为这一切都在我的脑海里。
乌达雅古玛:公平地说,入禀伦敦法庭起诉英国政府的想法是瓦达穆迪的想法(人民之友插话:我们对这样的做法有些意见)。我接受了在伦敦法庭提起诉讼的策略,因为我考虑到通过这样做可以引起国际社会对印裔族群在马来西亚的悲惨遭遇的关注。老实说,这个诉讼行动的确收到很好的宣传效果,对我个人而言,也是一件非常新颖的事情,对很多印度人来说,也是如此。但是,在我的心里,把印裔族群推到悲惨处境的罪魁祸首是巫统政府,现在是希望联盟政府。
人民之友:我们基本上同意你所说的通过在伦敦法庭提起诉讼可以引起国际社会对马来西亚印裔族群课题的关注——对你们的这项诉讼行动,我们也尽我们所能做了一些宣传工作。但是,经过仔细观察和思考瓦达穆迪在这方面的言行之后,我们认为,瓦达穆迪刻意把敌人(即斗争对象)从现实中的巫统统治集团转移去历史上的英殖民政府。换句话说,只选择在马来(西)亚独立(1957年)之前的英殖民政府,而放弃在独立之后继承英殖民政府衣钵的巫统主导的联盟政府(1957年—1969年)和国阵政府(1969年—2018年)作为起诉对象。他之所以这样做是有其用心的:
- (i)通过他在国外的诉讼行动博取国际舆论支持,达到他施压巫统-国阵政府让他结束流亡生活、回到国内哗众取宠的目的;
- (ii)通过他的诉讼行动让国内长期以来遭受残酷压迫的印裔群众对他个人寄予幻想,达到他掌控印裔群众为己所用的目的;
- (iii)通过他的转移斗争对象的策略,把自己放在显著而安全的地位然后接受招安收编,实现他做部长享受荣华富贵的梦想。
人民之友:最后,我们有一个问题。过去,瓦达穆迪告知我们,你们两兄弟是分工合作的。你搞人权党(Human Rights Party),他搞兴权会(Hindu Rights Action Force)。现在,我们听了你的述说以后,你似乎放弃了人权党的筹组工作,为什么?而另一方面,瓦达穆迪接受马哈迪收编以后正在迅速筹组一个新的政党。这样的状况出现,我们是否可以理解为,实际上你们两兄弟已经从“貌合神离”演变到“分道扬镳”的地步了?
乌达雅古玛在2016年11月4日回答媒体《马来西亚人时报》(The Malaysian Times)询问说,“巫统对我的主要打击是,纳吉成功拉拢了我的胞弟瓦达穆迪跟我分离、对立而后接受国阵政府的招安收编。”“他们用尽办法来摧毁我,但我还是坚持为马来西亚印裔族群而斗争。”他当时还说,“我相信马来西亚印裔族群将会委托希望联盟代表他们发出他们(印裔族群)的心声”。他回答媒体追问他和他的胞弟的关系,说“两人在过去的5年里没有见面了。”
乌达雅古玛:当我在甘文丁扣留营的时候,我和我的弟弟瓦达穆迪讨论了关于创立一个政党来为印裔族群权益而斗争的问题。当他还在伦敦的时候,我给他写了一张短信,告诉他我们必须争取创造印裔选民占多数的选区作为我们前进的唯一途径。那个时候我还是很天真。瓦达穆迪回信说,“不,这个工作必须由你本身出来做。”他聪明地拒绝了我的要求,因为这不是一个可以赢得胜利的游戏。他了解,当人民将它视为一种政治行为,如果他去做了,他个人的声望(受人欢迎的程度)以及兴权会的声望(受人欢迎的程度)将会下降。这就是他不要去做的原因。对我来说,我们错过了这个机会。
我们只想要印裔选民占多数的议席。因为瓦达穆迪没有去做他本应由他去做的工作,当我从甘文丁扣留营出来的时候,我被迫去做这项工作。但为时已晚,我失败了。这就是他告知你“他是代表兴权会,而我是在人权党”的原由。他使用兴权会的名义对他有利,现实的情况是,每个(印度)人都想要宣称他是兴权会领袖,因为2007年兴权会大集会有光彩。但是,就如我所说的,没有我的发动和领导,”11•25”兴权会大集会就不会发生。因为我们的申请遭到拒绝,人权党一开始就无法注册。我们从高等法院到联邦法院的上诉,都失败了。其实,瓦达穆迪的兴权会(指的是马来西亚兴权会组织)是他在第13届“505”全国大选为了他个人准备接受时任首相纳吉的招安才进行注册并获得巫统国阵政府迅速批准的。
6. 结论:“11•25”兴权会大集会,只是一个事件,不是一个运动。
人民之友:最后,我们概括一下。从你的第一次和第二次的谈话,我们得出这样的结论:2007年“11•25”兴权会大集会只是马来西亚印裔族群勇敢地向压榨他们的统治集团宣泄他们的愤懑的激动人心的一个“事件”(Incident)而已,它还不能成为一个有明确的斗争纲领、有杰出的领袖人物、有具体的行动计划、有大规模群众支持的“运动”(movement)。我们想知道,你是否认同?
我们应该向你表示歉意,我们过去是在被瓦达穆迪蓄意误导的情况下,犯上了一个颇为严重的认知错误,即我们把瓦达穆迪当成是一个“兴权会运动”的领袖——虽然在最后几年认清了他的“机会主义政客”的本来面目并批判了他。我们尊重你在第一次和第二次专访中的述说,尽管我们的工委或许有不同的意见。我们将如实地发表你的谈话,我们也如实发表我们的感受,让各族人民正确认识和掌握兴权会的实际情况,从而促进它今后的正常成长和壮大。
乌达雅古玛:是的,我认同你们的结论:2007年“11•25”兴权会大集会,只是一个事件,不是一个“运动”。这个事件发生时,没有兴权会的网站,只有“警察观察”做些宣传工作,而我就是操作这个网站的人。兴权会网站在大集会之后才出现。如果你问我,“11•25”兴权会大集会为什么会成功呢?我就回答说,因为只有一个领袖发动和领导,当天没有混乱事情发生,没有为个人利益的政治活动。
人民之友:谢谢你接受我们两次的专访。
































