INTEGRATING OUR SCHOOLS: Red Herrings & Sensible Solutions

INTEGRATING OUR SCHOOLS:

Red Herrings & Sensible Solutions

By Dr Kua Kia Soong, Director of SUARAM, 5 November 2009

Single stream schools for promoting integration have commonsensical logic to them. They were officially proposed by the British colonial Barnes Committee in 1951 although they were then intended to be single-stream English schools. Ever since the Razak Report of 1956, it has been “the ultimate objective” of UMNO policy to have only single stream schools.

At Independence and even at the time of the Education Act of 1961, “single stream” in fact meant English stream. Since the seventies, single stream has come to mean education in Bahasa Malaysia. But by a twist of irony created by flip flopping politicians, we may be moving back to a single stream in the English language!

The racial politics throughout post-Independent Malaysia has revolved around this intractable problem. Recently, Professor Khoo Khay Kim and former Prime Minister Dr Mahathir have once again called for single stream schools in order to integrate Malaysians. Single stream of course means the abolition of Chinese and Tamil schools.

Prof. Khoo’s line of thinking is understandable for a Malaysian who did not undergo mother tongue education but that is his problem. Dr Mahathir’s attitude toward the Chinese-language schools is well-known – throughout his 22-year reign as prime minister he did not entertain a single cordial dialogue with the Chinese educationists. In 1975, when he was Education Minister, he threatened the leaders of Dong Jiao Zong with dire consequences if they went ahead with the Unified Examination Certificate of the Independent Chinese secondary schools.

Dr Mahathir further provoked the 1987 crisis by sending non-Mandarin qualified teachers to the Chinese schools which then allowed him to unleash Operation Lalang and the subsequent assault on the judiciary. The Chairmen of Dong Zong and Jiao Zong, in their sixties and seventies respectively in 1987, were detained under the Internal Security Act together with me.

During the interminable interrogation sessions while under solitary confinement in 1987, the Special Branch operatives kept badgering me about why I couldn’t be more like Prof. Khoo Khay Kim in my thinking. My deadpan response was: “You already have one Khoo Khay Kim…Why do you need another one?” (See Kua Kia Soong, “445 Days Behind The Wire”, 1989: 42)

A 200-Year Heritage to be Proud Of!

Chinese schools of Malaysia represent a community-based heritage that goes back nearly two hundred years. They have helped to nurture Malaysian talents and subsidized the national education budget many times over. The pen drive you use has been invented by a graduate of the Malaysian Independent Chinese Secondary Schools. These are achievements all Malaysians can be proud of.

The “Fifth Happiness School” in Penang was founded in 1819. Chinese and Tamil schools thrived largely on self-help during colonial times:

“British colonial administrators were so impressed by the high level of organization among the Malayan Chinese that they left them virtually alone to manage their own affairs.” (Kua Kia Soong, “The Chinese Schools of Malaysia: A Protean Saga”, 2008: 16)

Not many people realize that at Independence, there were more Chinese and Tamil schools than there are today! Yes, in 1957 we had 1,342 Chinese primary schools and 86 Chinese-stream secondary schools for an ethnic Chinese population of 2.3 million in the peninsula alone. Today, we only have 1,280+ Chinese primary schools and 60 Independent Chinese secondary schools for an ethnic Chinese population of more than six million throughout Malaysia. The statistics for Tamil schools show the same decline from more than 700 in 1957 to just more than 500 today. That’s how far we have regressed!

Far from being segregationist, Chinese schools of Malaysia have been steadily attracting non-Chinese pupils even as the Government has restricted any further increase in the number of these SRJK schools. There are now more than 60,000 non-Chinese pupils studying in Chinese schools, adding to the critical shortage of space in these schools.

Grossly Overcrowded Schools

The overcrowded conditions in many of these SRJK schools have been created by a vindictive government policy that will not allow any further increase in the number of these schools. My children went to our local Chinese New Village primary school that enrolls more than 2000 pupils in one acre piece of land! Fifty pupils in one class are not abnormal in the Chinese schools. Is this the enlightened education policy the BN government talks about? It is a marvel that such schools still manage to produce professionals for the country but for sure there are even more sacrificial lambs that end up at the bottom of the heap.

There is no racial discrimination against any ethnic community even though the competition for places in Chinese schools is keen because of the desperate shortage of Chinese schools especially in the urban areas. The Chinese school at Frasers Hill is almost wholly filled by ethnic Indians while the Chinese school at Hulu Langat provides assistance to the Orang Asli children!

In contrast, we have national institutions such as MARA science schools and UiTM supported totally by public funds which discriminate against Non-bumiputras. Are these not single stream institutions and do they promote integration? Somehow, we do not hear the strident condemnation of such blatant racially discrimination and segregationist policies by Prof Khoo or Dr Mahathir!

A Sensible Solution to Integrate Our Schools

The right to mother tongue education is an internationally recognized human right. The UN even recognizes “International Mother Language Day” on February 21^st. Knowing the protean saga these Chinese schools of Malaysia have been through and having been part of this movement for nearly thirty years, I dare say UMNO would be dicing with political suicide if they persist in their quixotic “ultimate objective”. If UMNO’s “ultimate objective” to have only a single stream in the education system of Malaysia ever comes about, MCA and Gerakan would be totally irrelevant, if they are not already!

So why don’t we put our energies into more sensible solutions rather than destroying another Malaysian heritage that has served the nation well and creating another crisis such as we saw in 1987 and at other junctures in our history?

The efforts to promote integration among the peoples of Malaysia must never cease. During the Eighties, the Chinese educationists agreed to an “Integrated Activities” programme among the different streams but then the Mahathir administration conveniently ignored the initiative after it had been agreed upon.

The Chinese educationists opposed Mahathir’s “Vision Schools” mainly because these put the three language streams under the hegemony of the Malay-language school. The Chinese and Tamil schools in these “Vision Schools” were strictly relocated schools and were by no means new schools.

Let Local Education Authorities Decide

A sensible solution would be to build more new schools for all streams. At Independence, we had elected local government which solved educational needs at the local level through “local education authorities”. That way, we can take politics, especially racial politics out of education policy. The local education authority surveys and assesses the objective needs of the community and allocates appropriate funding for the various school streams through the local government budget.

Integrated School Complex

In order to promote integration and to make the most of scarce resources, the different streams could be built close to each other so that they can share scarce quality resources and facilities such as library, playing field, park,

sports complex, stadium, computer labs, etc. The annual sports day and other competitions could be jointly organized. The same can be done for artistic and cultural events. This will not only promote integration but will surely improve the quality of our athletes and performing artistes.

This concept is very different from Dr Mahathir’s “Vision Schools”. Each stream in the “Integrated School Complex” maintains its autonomy, with its own administration and each school in this complex is a new school, not a relocated school.

It is time that the Government starts treating the Chinese and Tamil schools as part of the national education system and not their fabled step children. We have wasted years of neglect of these schools mainly because of the currency of the now discredited “Melting Pot” thesis practiced in the United States in the past.

UMNO has to come round to the fact that the Chinese and Tamil communities will not be duped by slogans such as “1Malaysia” so long as they see continual unfair allocation for Chinese and Tamil schools by the Government. Nor are they amused by yesterday’s men throwing up old red herrings about Chinese and Tamil schools being segregationist.

INTEGRATING OUR SCHOOLS:

Red Herrings & Sensible Solutions

By Dr Kua Kia Soong, Director of SUARAM, 5 November 2009

Single stream schools for promoting integration have commonsensical logic to them. They were officially proposed by the British colonial Barnes Committee in 1951 although they were then intended to be single-stream English schools. Ever since the Razak Report of 1956, it has been “the ultimate objective” of UMNO policy to have only single stream schools.

At Independence and even at the time of the Education Act of 1961, “single stream” in fact meant English stream. Since the seventies, single stream has come to mean education in Bahasa Malaysia. But by a twist of irony created by flip flopping politicians, we may be moving back to a single stream in the English language!

The racial politics throughout post-Independent Malaysia has revolved around this intractable problem. Recently, Professor Khoo Khay Kim and former Prime Minister Dr Mahathir have once again called for single stream schools in order to integrate Malaysians. Single stream of course means the abolition of Chinese and Tamil schools.

Prof. Khoo’s line of thinking is understandable for a Malaysian who did not undergo mother tongue education but that is his problem. Dr Mahathir’s attitude toward the Chinese-language schools is well-known – throughout his 22-year reign as prime minister he did not entertain a single cordial dialogue with the Chinese educationists. In 1975, when he was Education Minister, he threatened the leaders of Dong Jiao Zong with dire consequences if they went ahead with the Unified Examination Certificate of the Independent Chinese secondary schools.

Dr Mahathir further provoked the 1987 crisis by sending non-Mandarin qualified teachers to the Chinese schools which then allowed him to unleash Operation Lalang and the subsequent assault on the judiciary. The Chairmen of Dong Zong and Jiao Zong, in their sixties and seventies respectively in 1987, were detained under the Internal Security Act together with me.

During the interminable interrogation sessions while under solitary confinement in 1987, the Special Branch operatives kept badgering me about why I couldn’t be more like Prof. Khoo Khay Kim in my thinking. My deadpan response was: “You already have one Khoo Khay Kim…Why do you need another one?” (See Kua Kia Soong, “445 Days Behind The Wire”, 1989: 42)

A 200-Year Heritage to be Proud Of!

Chinese schools of Malaysia represent a community-based heritage that goes back nearly two hundred years. They have helped to nurture Malaysian talents and subsidized the national education budget many times over. The pen drive you use has been invented by a graduate of the Malaysian Independent Chinese Secondary Schools. These are achievements all Malaysians can be proud of.

The “Fifth Happiness School” in Penang was founded in 1819. Chinese and Tamil schools thrived largely on self-help during colonial times:

“British colonial administrators were so impressed by the high level of organization among the Malayan Chinese that they left them virtually alone to manage their own affairs.” (Kua Kia Soong, “The Chinese Schools of Malaysia: A Protean Saga”, 2008: 16)

Not many people realize that at Independence, there were more Chinese and Tamil schools than there are today! Yes, in 1957 we had 1,342 Chinese primary schools and 86 Chinese-stream secondary schools for an ethnic Chinese population of 2.3 million in the peninsula alone. Today, we only have 1,280+ Chinese primary schools and 60 Independent Chinese secondary schools for an ethnic Chinese population of more than six million throughout Malaysia. The statistics for Tamil schools show the same decline from more than 700 in 1957 to just more than 500 today. That’s how far we have regressed!

Far from being segregationist, Chinese schools of Malaysia have been steadily attracting non-Chinese pupils even as the Government has restricted any further increase in the number of these SRJK schools. There are now more than 60,000 non-Chinese pupils studying in Chinese schools, adding to the critical shortage of space in these schools.

Grossly Overcrowded Schools

The overcrowded conditions in many of these SRJK schools have been created by a vindictive government policy that will not allow any further increase in the number of these schools. My children went to our local Chinese New Village primary school that enrolls more than 2000 pupils in one acre piece of land! Fifty pupils in one class are not abnormal in the Chinese schools. Is this the enlightened education policy the BN government talks about? It is a marvel that such schools still manage to produce professionals for the country but for sure there are even more sacrificial lambs that end up at the bottom of the heap.

There is no racial discrimination against any ethnic community even though the competition for places in Chinese schools is keen because of the desperate shortage of Chinese schools especially in the urban areas. The Chinese school at Frasers Hill is almost wholly filled by ethnic Indians while the Chinese school at Hulu Langat provides assistance to the Orang Asli children!

In contrast, we have national institutions such as MARA science schools and UiTM supported totally by public funds which discriminate against Non-bumiputras. Are these not single stream institutions and do they promote integration? Somehow, we do not hear the strident condemnation of such blatant racially discrimination and segregationist policies by Prof Khoo or Dr Mahathir!

A Sensible Solution to Integrate Our Schools

The right to mother tongue education is an internationally recognized human right. The UN even recognizes “International Mother Language Day” on February 21^st. Knowing the protean saga these Chinese schools of Malaysia have been through and having been part of this movement for nearly thirty years, I dare say UMNO would be dicing with political suicide if they persist in their quixotic “ultimate objective”. If UMNO’s “ultimate objective” to have only a single stream in the education system of Malaysia ever comes about, MCA and Gerakan would be totally irrelevant, if they are not already!

So why don’t we put our energies into more sensible solutions rather than destroying another Malaysian heritage that has served the nation well and creating another crisis such as we saw in 1987 and at other junctures in our history?

The efforts to promote integration among the peoples of Malaysia must never cease. During the Eighties, the Chinese educationists agreed to an “Integrated Activities” programme among the different streams but then the Mahathir administration conveniently ignored the initiative after it had been agreed upon.

The Chinese educationists opposed Mahathir’s “Vision Schools” mainly because these put the three language streams under the hegemony of the Malay-language school. The Chinese and Tamil schools in these “Vision Schools” were strictly relocated schools and were by no means new schools.

Let Local Education Authorities Decide

A sensible solution would be to build more new schools for all streams. At Independence, we had elected local government which solved educational needs at the local level through “local education authorities”. That way, we can take politics, especially racial politics out of education policy. The local education authority surveys and assesses the objective needs of the community and allocates appropriate funding for the various school streams through the local government budget.

Integrated School Complex

In order to promote integration and to make the most of scarce resources, the different streams could be built close to each other so that they can share scarce quality resources and facilities such as library, playing field, park,

sports complex, stadium, computer labs, etc. The annual sports day and other competitions could be jointly organized. The same can be done for artistic and cultural events. This will not only promote integration but will surely improve the quality of our athletes and performing artistes.

This concept is very different from Dr Mahathir’s “Vision Schools”. Each stream in the “Integrated School Complex” maintains its autonomy, with its own administration and each school in this complex is a new school, not a relocated school.

It is time that the Government starts treating the Chinese and Tamil schools as part of the national education system and not their fabled step children. We have wasted years of neglect of these schools mainly because of the currency of the now discredited “Melting Pot” thesis practiced in the United States in the past.

UMNO has to come round to the fact that the Chinese and Tamil communities will not be duped by slogans such as “1Malaysia” so long as they see continual unfair allocation for Chinese and Tamil schools by the Government. Nor are they amused by yesterday’s men throwing up old red herrings about Chinese and Tamil schools being segregationist.

3 Nov 2009

The People Nobody Wants

Rohingya refugees in the Nayapara camp
(cc) Ruben Flamarique/Austcare/flickr

The plight of the Burmese Rohingya made headlines in early 2009 when Thai security forces were accused of pushing migrant boats out to sea. With ASEAN establishing a new human rights body and a US delegation visiting Burma, what chance is there for improvement for a stateless people? Simon Roughneen writes for ISN Security Watch.

By Simon Roughneen for ISN Security Watch

---

At its 15th summit held in Thailand two weeks ago, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations inaugurated the ASEAN Intergovernmental Human Rights Commission. It is the first time that the 10-state bloc has given institutional recognition to human rights.

What that means in practice is unclear. The body will merely promote human rights, and cannot sanction offenders or protect victims. With the Burmese junta nominating a representative to the 10-member commission, along with states such as Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos, which have less-than-stellar records in this area, it seems the new body is there to pay lip service rather than act decisively.

Action for sure is needed. Malaysia does not recognize refugees as a category; communist Vietnam continues to make life hard for religious groups; and the majority of Burmese struggle under a military dictatorship.

Standing out for the wrong reasons

But of all the ethnic groups in the region perhaps one stands out as suffering the most. The Rohingya are a Muslim minority in western Burma, living mainly in Rakhine State close to the border with Bangladesh. Muslims make up around 4 percent of the country's total population, and a majority of Burmese Muslims describe themselves as 'Rohingya.'

The Rohingya number about two million people. Approximately 800,000 remain in Burma and 200,000-400,000 in Bangladesh. An estimated half million live in the Middle East as migrant workers, with around 50,000 in Malaysia.

Some are thought to be descendants of migrants who came east from what is now India and Bangladesh during British colonial rule. Others believe the Rohingya descend from Arab traders who settled in Rakhine more than 1,000 years ago. It is impossible to say exactly who came from where and when, but the Burmese junta maintains that the Rohingya are not among the country's 135 recognized ethnic groups.

Since 1982, Rohingya have been denied citizenship. The Rohingya do not have an automatic right to education or work. They need permission to travel even a few miles between villages in Rakhine, much less move freely around Burma. The junta throws a cascade of red tape around marriage, requiring Rohingya to obtain a variety of authorizations before being issued a ‘marriage permit,’ which may take years.

It doesn't end there. Burma's army has targeted almost all of the ethnic groups living along the country's mountainous borderlands, from the Wa and Karen near Thailand, to the Shan on the Chinese frontier, to the Chin living close to India and Bangladesh. These groups have all established powerful militias that have carved out de facto autonomous zones for themselves, in many cases funded by smuggling and drug trafficking, and have to some extent, been able to protect their people from the army.

Defenceless and nowhere to go

However, the Rohingya have remained defenseless. Multiple accounts of torture, summary execution, arbitrary arrest and detention, rape, destruction of homes, forced relocation and eviction, confiscation of land and property and so on, have been given by refugees fleeing to Bangladesh, Thailand and Malaysia.

The situation for Rohingya gets worse, as the junta's resource wealth increases. Since the early 1990s, the number of battalions in western Burma has jumped from three to over 40. The soldiers often live off the land, expropriating property and implementing forced labor projects. The region is close to offshore oil and gas fields, which the junta needs to boost revenues and fund its military expansion. The junta has the biggest army in Southeast Asia, despite having only around one-fifth the population of Indonesia's estimated 250 million, by far the largest country in the region.

The most important new development is the Shwe gas field off the coast of western Rakhine. In December 2008, the Chinese energy company PetroChina signed a 30-year lease with the Burmese to buy natural gas piped from this field, in a consortium involving Indian, Thai, South Korean, Chinese and Burmese interests. Moreover, another pipeline will run from the coast, into western China, transporting crude oil from the Middle East. China wants that pipeline to avoid sending all its oil traffic from the Middle East and Africa through the Straits of Malacca, which it feels are vulnerable to pirates, and to US naval blockade, should relations between Washington and Beijing get testy.

Bangladesh hosts 28,000 Rohingya in two refugee camps supervised by the UN. An estimated 200,000 – 400,000 live outside camps without access to international protection or humanitarian assistance. Many Rohingya have been pushed back into Burma, only to return to Bangladesh.

In recent weeks, a maritime and land border dispute between Burma and Bangladesh has reopened. The Burmese junta is building a border fence between the two countries, and in a cruel twist, is coercing Rohingya into building the fence. According to Bangladeshi media, the junta is hoping to keep the Rohingya that have fled to Bangladesh from being pushed back by Dhaka.

K Mrat Kyaw, editor of Narinjara, a Bangladesh-based news service, told ISN Security Watch that “Bangladesh authorities would like to push back the Rohingya to Burma before the fence is completed.”

Precarious survival conditions in Bangladesh and the closure of other migration routes to the Middle East have resulted in Rohingya moving by boats toward Malaysia via Thailand. This has led to international outcry over reports that Thailand's ‘push-back’ policy involved security forces pushing boat loads of Rohingya into international waters. Indian and Indonesia naval vessels later found drifters and survivors who said they were sent to sea by Thai security officials.

Thailand believed the Rohingya to be economic migrants, rather than refugees, and many of the men were fined for illegal entry as they had no papers – which of course they could not get in the first place given that Burma does not grant them citizenship.

Malaysia is listed by the US State Department as one of the world's places of concern for human trafficking and refuses to sign any refugee conventions. However, it is the destination of choice for Rohingya fleeing Burma, and that Rohingya are willing to pay to be smuggled there says a lot.

As Shu Shi of Malaysian human rights group SUARAM put it to ISN Security Watch, “Basically, the Malaysian authorities treat all the refugees equally badly.”

Little hope

Chris Lewa, director of the Arakan Project, which lobbies for the Rohingya, tells ISN Security Watch that she “hopes the Rohingya issue will be addressed” when a high-level US delegation visits Burma on 3 and 4 November as part of the new 'engagement' policy with the junta.

ASEAN passed the buck on this issue at its 14th summit in February 2009. With ASEAN chair Thailand in the spotlight over the ‘push-backs,’ the bloc delegated the Rohingya issue to the Bali Process, a regional forum on human trafficking and related issues. However, this grouping has not come up with any solutions so far.

The recent 15th ASEAN summit in Thailand made no mention of the Rohingya issue, which could return to the international spotlight soon. Seasonal winds make it easier to travel from Bangladesh and Burma to Thailand by boat from October onward. It is likely that more Rohingya will arrive on Thailand's shores in the coming months, given the border wrangles between Burma and Bangladesh. However, it is not clear whether neighboring states will be more welcoming of Rohingya this time around.

Despite ASEAN’s new human rights commission, member-states Thailand, Malaysia and Burma have not ratified the UN Refugee Convention nor enacted domestic refugee legislation. The same applies to Bangladesh, which is not an ASEAN member.

This means these host countries do not abide by the principle of non-refoulement – which stipulates that refugees cannot be sent back to their home country if it is clear that they face persecution.

Chris Lewa told ISN Security Watch, “I have little hope that the ASEAN human rights body will make any difference to the Rohingya, or to human rights in general in Southeast Asia – at least not for the foreseeable future.”

---

Simon Roughneen is an ISN Security Watch senior correspondent, currently in Southeast Asia. His website is www.simonroughneen.com.

ISA: 'I Say Abolish!'

ISA: 'I Say Abolish!'

Kua Kia Soong
Oct 27, 09
11:19am

On this 22nd anniversary of Operation Lalang and with the Barisan Nasional government at its most defensive over the continued use of this indefensible suppression apparatus - the Internal Security Act - we would do well to ensure there is no compromise on the call by civil society for its total abolition.

Whenever the BN government has run out of justifications for its continued use of the ISA, it has sounded out its intentions to "review" this vile piece of legislation.

Thus, after the Communist Party of Malaya had signed the peace treaty with the Malaysian government in 1989, the then Deputy Prime Minister Abdul Ghafar Baba announced the intention for "ISA to be reviewed" (The Star, 1.12.89).

Again in 1996, after the concerted campaign by SUARAM society, the BN government announced that "the ISA would be amended to reduce the mandatory term of two years to maybe six months." (The Sun, 16.2.96)

In the current session of Parliament, we understand the government is attempting to introduce a bill to amend the ISA instead of abolishing it altogether in view of the indefensible record of the ISA since its enactment in 1960.

This law has been a too convenient a tool for the Barisan Nasional and its predecessor, the Alliance to put away opposition leaders and other dissidents, allowing the Special Branch to torture detainees with impunity all these years.

Incongruent with society

Anything short of abolition to outlaw detention without trial will not be congruent with "a society at peace with itself", those fluffy words in "Wawasan 2020". We base our case on the following:

1. There is no emergency situation

Although we know that none of the four Emergencies declared since Independence has been annulled, the fact remains that ever since the end of The Emergency in 1960, we have not faced any emergency situation "threatening the life of the nation".

The only crisis faced by the BN Government seems to be the possibility of losing control of the federal government after the severe drenching by the rakyat during the political tsunami of 2008.

It is perhaps the biggest scandal of post-Independence Malaysia that we have allowed one of the most draconian legislations in the world to be used for nearly fifty years during peace time.

It is ironic that the butcher of the Emergency, Gerald Templar had suggested the Emergency regulations be annually renewable or they should lapse automatically.

And even during the worst days of Apartheid, Nelson Mandela was allowed due process of the law; there was judicial review in South Africa all that time.

Then again, during the troubles in Northern Ireland in the seventies, the British government's detention of IRA suspects for seven days was ruled unlawful by the European Court of Human Rights.

Here we have had to endure the ISA that allows sixty days of solitary confinement when the detainee is at the mercy of the Special Branch with a renewable two-year detention orders.

An ISA detainee just released had been detained for eight years. Another released in 1987 had been detained for 16 years!

2. No justification for interim measure of review

In a moment of political gaucherie, Suhakam in its 2003 "Review of the Internal Security Act" suggested interim recommendations "in light of the possibility that the enactment of such a comprehensive legislation will take time..."

Interim measures needed

We know that the Attorney General's office works in mysterious ways; they can be quicksilver swift when it comes to laws the government wants to introduce quickly, yet painstakingly slow when it comes to legislation that does not fit their agenda.

For now, we do not expect the government to reinvent the wheel.

There exists in many countries today comprehensive legislation to deal with terrorism - the US, UK, Spain, Turkey.

All the government needs to look out for are the bits in their legislations that do not meet international human rights standards.

We are gratified, for example, to read the reformed former Prime Minister Dr Mahathir's recent denunciation of US treatment of their detainees.

The government can take the cue from Dr Mahathir and improve on any new comprehensive anti-terrorism legislation.

Suhakam has suggested various interim measures including reducing the two-year mandatory detention orders to three months.

We believe such amendments will only serve to prolong the injustice of detention without trial and simply allow the BN government to use the ISA in its new form.

3. Anti-Terrorism Laws in US and UK

Since September 11th 2001, the BN government has tried to justify the continued use of the ISA by pointing to anti-terrorism laws in the West, especially the US and the UK.

First of all, we should note that while these countries have experienced cases of terrorist bombings, Malaysia has not suffered any such incidents.

Still, these countries have not declared emergencies in the aftermath of the bombings.

Secondly, the US Patriot Act is only targeted at non-citizens. While it also introduced measures that erode the civil liberties of US citizens, detention without trial would certainly not be accepted by US voters.

'Not charged in open court'

In the UK, the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Subversion Act of 2001 was also targeted only at foreigners.

After it was rendered unlawful by the European Court of Human Rights, the UK Government replaced it with the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005.

Under this law, suspects are placed under "control orders" (more like house arrest) rather than detention orders.

And while ISA detainees are held for up to sixty days in solitary confinement, the limit on holding is 28 days in the UK, 2 days in the US, 5 days in Spain and 7 ½ days in Turkey.

4. ISA is punitive, not preventive

It speaks volumes that Noordin Mat Top the Malaysian who was alleged to be responsible for the Bali bombing and killed recently by the Indonesian authorities had never been arrested under the ISA.

At the same time, out of the 10,000 plus Malaysians who have been detained under the ISA since 1960, how many have been subsequently charged in an open court of law? We don't recall any.

This simple fact shows that the ISA has been used all along as a convenient yet insidious suppression apparatus of the BN government.

As a former ISA detainee and having undergone harrowing sessions with the Special Branch, it was clear that our detention under Operation Lalang was purely punitive and a deterrent to further involvement in social and political activism.

It could not have been preventive and I could not have been "rehabilitated" after 445 days of detention for the simple reason that I have spoken up and written more than I did twenty years ago.

Licence to torture

The whole notion of ISA detention being "rehabilitation" of the detainee is complete fantasy. You either come out of Kamunting Detention Camp broken or you come out more together, more determined to put an end to injustice and exploitation.

5. Ratify the Convention Against Torture

The current Parliament should instead be looking at the question of abuse of powers by the police and other enforcement officers especially after the demise of Teoh Beng Hock.

Suaram's 2007 Human Rights Report documents two cases of deaths during interrogation by the MAAC.

So Teoh's case is by no means unusual.

When so many cases of torture of ISA detainees by the police have been exposed and the latter still gets away with impunity, we can say the ISA gives the police a licence to torture.

The prime minister should prove his credibility as a reformer by implementing the most important of the recommendations by the Royal Commission on the Police, namely establishing the Independent Police Complaints Misconduct Committee.

More than that, his government should ratify the Convention against Torture to ensure that there is accountability and transparency in Malaysian law enforcement.

Without doubt, the ISA has been the most loathed law in Malaysia for nearly fifty years. The government would be misjudging the peoples' patience by amending it to another form.

"I Say Abolish" the ISA simply because detention without trial diminishes the rights of all citizens by giving the state powers that cannot be reviewed by the courts and corrupting standards central to the administration of justice.

KUA KIA SOONG is the director of human rights movement Suaram. He was detained under ISA in 1987 and wrote about his experience in '445 Days Behind the Wire'.

Security Tight for ASEAN Summit

Security Tight for ASEAN Summit

2009-10-23 11:1522

E-MAIL THIS

20,000 security personnel are in full force as ASEAN meetings commence in Thailand’s Hua Hin.

The ASEAN secretary general says they are not expecting any disruptions.

[Surin Pitwuwan, ASEAN Secretary General]:
“I have been demonstrated the activities that the security apparatus have put up, with all units from the police to the army to the navy to the air force. They have integrated their activities very very well, very impressive. I don't think there is any concern.”

Checkpoints are set up along the main road leading to the summit venue to ensure there is no disruption during the meeting.

Army bomb squads and sniff dogs have been conducting regular checks around the venue.

Navy vessels patrolled the Hua Hin coast and army helicopters circled above the town.

An internal security act has been imposed to allow soldiers to restrict protesters from gathering near the summit venues through Tuesday.

Thailand has tightened security and is not taking any chances. At the ASEAN summit in Pattaya back in April, hundreds of anti-government protesters broke through security barriers. The meeting ended abruptly and some leaders fled by helicopter.

Trade ties, regional security, disaster relief and human rights will dominate the talks of ASEAN leaders this week.

Rakyat digadai ! Keuntungan diutamakan !

KENYATAAN AKHBAR : 27 OKTOBER 2009

Belanjawan 2010

Rakyat digadai ! Keuntungan diutamakan !

Parti Sosialis Malaysia amat kecewa dengan Belanjawan 2010 yang dibentangkan oleh YAB Perdana Menteri pada Jumaat 23hb Oktober 2009. Nampaknya Kerajaan BN masih belum belajar daripada krisis kewangan yang melanda dunia tahun ini. Krisis ekonomi sedunia dengan jelas membawa kita kepada tiga hakikat -

1. Sistem pasaran bebas tidak mampan kerana ianya di acu oleh ketamakan badan-badan korporat dan akan menyebabkan kegawatan ekonomi dan kesengsaraan rakyat awam dari masa ke semasa.

2. Ketamakan kaum korporat telah mengurangkan gaji pekerja di seluruh dunia dengan kaedah-kaedah seperti "outsourcing", "sistem kontrak", kegunaan pekerja migran dll. Ini telah mengecutkan permintaan kasar (aggregate demand) - suatu punca utama yang mencetuskan krisis ekonomi 2008.

3. Sistem pasaran bebas tidak boleh dipercayai untuk menjamin kesejahteraan rakyat jelata, ataupun menjaga alam sekitar dunia.

Malangnya, kerajaan kita langsung tidak ambilkira hakikat-hakikat ini dalam merancangkan Belanjawan 2010. Kerajaan meneruskan pendekatan sektor korporat antarabangsa dimana penjanaan terpenting adalah dalam perkembangan ekonomi Malaysia. Memang, slogan Perdana Menteri sedap didengar – “Rakyat didahulukan, pencapaian diutamakan”. Malangnya cakap tak serupa bikin. Wujudnya beberapa strategi utama dalam Belanjawan yang menjejaskan kepentingan rakyat awam. Menimbulkan persoalan Rakyat tergadai , Untung diutamakan

Kami menimbulkan 5 isu penting intisari belanjawan 2010 iaitu

I. Meningkatkan usaha untuk menarik lebih ramai pelabur asing untuk datang dan melakukan pelaburan di Malaysia. Satu antara usaha ini adalah untuk meliberalisasi ekonomi dan menghapuskan sekatan yang sedia ada berkaitan pelaburan asing.

II. Meneruskan dengan dasar penswastaan walaupun pengswastaan kemudahan awam membebankan rakyat.

III. Menggalakkan pelancongan kesihatan dengan memberi insentif mengurangkan cukai pada hospital-hospital swasta yang berjaya menarik lebih ramai lagi pesakit daripada negara lain ke Malaysia.

IV. Mengurangkan kadar cukai pendapatan untuk kumpulan yang terkaya di Malaysia.

V. Meneruskan dengan rancangan untuk melaksanakan suatu jenis cukai yang membebankan rakyat jelata ia-itu cukai “GST” – cukai terhadap segala barangan dan perkhidmatan yang dibeli oleh rakyat biasa.

Penglibatan kerajaan Malaysia dalam perebutan persaingan dengan Negara jiran untuk menarik pelabur asing ke negara ini telah dan sedang membawa beberapa kesan buruk kepada rakyat biasa kita. Pelabur asing mahu sesebuah negara di mana gaji adalah rendah, pekerja mudah dikendalikan, kesatuan pekerja lemah dan tidak berkesan dan undang-undang yang melindungi pekerja adalah hanya seperti melepaskan batuk di tangga.

Oleh kerana kerajaan Malaysia telah menjadikan pelaburan asing (FDI) suatu aspek utama dalam strategi pembangunan ekonomi Negara, kerajaan kita sanggup mewujudkan suasana seperti ini untuk menarik pelabur koporat asing.

Oleh ini terdapatlah di Malaysia gaji harian serendah RM 16 sehari, 3 juta pekerja migran yang sanggup berkerja dengan gaji yang murah rendah dan juga usaha-usaha yang berterusan untuk melemahkan lagi undang-undang yang melindungi pekerja daripada dimangsakan oleh majikan mereka.

Kaum pelabur tidak suka dicukai. Untuk menarik lebih banyak pelaburan asing ke Malaysia kerajaan kita telah menurunkan cukai terhadap korporat dari 40% pada 1988 dan telah menurun ke 26% pada masa ini. Dalam belanjawan ini, cukai terhadap individu yang kaya di Malaysia dikurangkan juga ke 26%. Pada takat ini, cukai terhadap korporat dan individu telah menyumbang RM 47 billion kepada pendapatan kerajaan pada tahun 2009. Bila cukai terhadap lapisan kaya dikurangkan, pendapatan kerajaan juga akan berkurangan. Oleh itu kerajaan terpaksa mengurangkan pembekalan kemudahan asas kepada rakyat ataupun akan memindahkan beban cukai ke atas rakyat biasa dengan melaksanakan cukai “GST”. Kedua-dua langkah ini tentu akan menyusahkan rakyat biasa – tetapi kita diberitahu rakyat didahulukan”!

Cadangan dalam belanjawan 2010 untuk mempergiatkan lagi pelancungan kesihatan adalah suatu bukti lagi bahawa kerajaan kita ini tidak mempedulikan kebajikan rakyat biasa. Memang jelas kepada semua pemerhati bahawa masalah utama di Hospital Awam di Malaysia adalah kekurangan doktor pakar . Terlalu ramai doctor pakar telah berhijrah ke sektor swasta kerana pendapatan di Hospital Swasta jauh lebih lumayan. Perkembangan perniagaan hospital swasta yang akan dijanakan oleh pendatangan lebih ramai pesakit asing ke Malaysia akan mempercepatkan lagi penghijarahan doktor pakar ke sektor swasta. Inikah ertinya “Rakyat didahulukan”?

Adakah Perdana Menteri tidak menyedari kontradiksi antara slogan manis beliau dan cadangan-cadangan spesifik yang terkandung dalam belanjawan 2010? Ataupun adakah cogan kata manis itu hanya untuk memesong rakyat jelata sambil beliau bertungkus lumus membantu pihak korporat, lapisan kaya dan para kroni BN?

Dikeluarkan Oleh

Dr. Jeyakumar

Ahli Jawatankuasa Pusat PSM

Ahli Parlimen Sungai Siput

Tel : 019-5616807

Southeast Asia, iincluding Myanmar, to launch human rights watchdog at annual summit

By Denis D. Gray, Ap

October 19th, 2009

Southeast Asia to have rights monitor

BANGKOK — Southeast Asian nations unveil a landmark human rights watchdog this week, but critics charge that it will be both toothless and include in its membership one of the world’s worst human rights offenders — military-ruled Myanmar.

Myanmar is sure to prove a burden again as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations holds its annual summit, undermining the bloc’s international standing and efforts to forge free trade areas with the United States and Europe.

“While ASEAN may try to move ahead, Burma remains the elephant in the room. It absolutely undermines the spirit of what ASEAN could ever do,” says Debbie Stothard, an activist with the Alternative ASEAN Network on Burma, as the country is also known.

The new body, the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights, is unlikely to set free Myanmar’s 2,000 political prisoners, including democracy icon Aung San Suu Kyi, or curb other violations: It cannot punish member nations, and focuses on promotion rather than protection of human rights.

ASEAN leaders realize it’s just a start but say the commission can be given more teeth later.

And while members of the 10-nation bloc have recently escalated their criticism of Myanmar, the ASEAN summit will again act by consensus, avoid confrontations and maintain that the group’s engagement approach to Myanmar works better than the West’s sanctions and threats.

The three-day conference, which begins Friday, will also include talks with leaders of China, Japan, South Korea, India, Australia and New Zealand. Preliminary meetings begin Wednesday.

On the agenda are discussions on how to achieve a European Union-style community by 2015, cooperation on education, food security and bio-energy development and the signing of an ASEAN Declaration on Climate Change.

The Thai government has thrown a security cordon around the summit venue, a beach resort 200 kilometers (120 miles) south of Bangkok, to prevent anti-government demonstrations.

Government spokesman Supachai Jaisamuth said Tuesday that about 18,000 policemen and soldiers would be deployed during the summit.

In April, protesters stormed an Asian summit in the seaside city of Pattaya, shutting down the meeting and forcing the evacuation of several leaders by helicopter and boat.

This time around, security forces have been empowered to impose curfews and restrict freedom of movement around Cha-Am resort and Bangkok.

Myanmar, which joined the 42-year-old bloc in 1997 despite international outrage, comes to the summit having recently released some political prisoners and allowed Suu Kyi to meet with Western diplomats and a government minister.

In a sharp break with former policy of shunning Myanmar, the U.S. government has announced it would engage the junta in direct, high-level talks while continuing its longtime economic sanctions.

But the ruling generals have also arrested more dissidents in recent weeks, and made it clear that nobody will dictate their course, not even its staunchest ally China, with which relations have soured since August when the junta launched an offensive against ethnic minorities along the Chinese border.

“Some powerful nations are resorting to various ways to pressure and influence our nation under various pretexts. However, the (military) government does not get frightened whenever intimidated,” said junta leader Senior Gen. Than Shwe last week.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon last month urged ASEAN to take a tougher line with Myanmar. But in the end, ASEAN leaders are only likely to prod their fellow member to accelerate its so-called “road to democracy,” which includes elections in 2010.

“It is obvious that ASEAN is incapable of making any positive political change in the country. I don’t have any high hopes,” said Nyan Win, spokesman for Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy party in Yangon, Myanmar.

ASEAN consists of Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam.

1 MALAYSIA – BEYOND THE HYPE

1 MALAYSIA – BEYOND THE HYPE

by Kua Kia Soong, Director of SUARAM, 20 October 2009

The defensive stance of Najib at the recent UMNO general assembly was not lost on most observers. He started off by saying, “We are not racist…” Since the launch of “1Malaysia”, the prime minister has asked for suggestions on how we can attain this elusive objective – what I call Malaysia’s “Year Zero” target.

Towards Year Zero

I often say that we in Malaysia have not even reached “Year Zero” for real nation building to begin. We have to first reach Year Zero when race-based political parties no longer exist in this fair land of ours before we can develop as a nation. Successive Barisan Nasional governments have dreamed up one caper after another to justify their racialist rule and the latest “1Malaysia” is yet another hollow hype.

Everyone can see that the race-based political parties in the Barisan Nasional are the biggest anachronism in a country that claims to aspire to be “1Malaysia”. Where else in the enlightened world community do you find political parties that discriminate against other “races” such as we find in UMNO, MCA and MIC? The floundering of these race-based parties since March 8^th 2008 is an indication that the hour of their extinction is nigh…

Can a Chinese Malaysian join UMNO? No! Can a Malay Malaysian join MCA? No! Can a non-Indian join MIC? No! Is this not racial discrimination?

But can a Malay Malaysian enroll in a Chinese-language school? Yes! Can a Chinese Malaysian enroll in a Tamil school? Yes! And there are more than 60,000 non-Chinese in Chinese primary schools of Malaysia today. The Chinese primary school at Fraser’s Hill is almost all Indian! There is no racial discrimination in these schools.

Do you remember the UMNO Minister of Higher Education who told the UMNO general assembly a few years back that as long as he was the minister, he would not allow a single Non-Bumiputra to be admitted to UiTM? That’s blatant racial discrimination in 21^st century Malaysia. Has this policy changed at UiTM with 1Malaysia?

Ratify the Convention against Racial Discrimination (CERD)

A simple test of whether or not the latest “1Malaysia” slogan is just another BN caper is for the Government to ratify the International Convention against all forms of Racial Discrimination. For a country that has chaired the UN Human Rights Commission and now espouses a “1Malaysia” slogan, there should be no problem for the government to take this first step on the path to non-racial redemption.

Racism and racial discrimination have been part of Malaysian political, economic, social and cultural realities ever since colonial times. Today, race has been so deeply institutionalised that it is a key factor determining benefits from government development policies, bids for business contracts, education policy, social policy, cultural policy, entry into educational institutions, discounts for purchasing houses and other official policies. Practically every aspect of Malaysian life is permeated by the so-called “Bumiputra policy” based on Malay-centrism. This is unabashedly spelled out by political leaders in the daily mass media in Malaysia.

Racism is an integral part of the Malaysian socio-political system. The ruling coalition is still dominated by racially-defined component parties, the United Malays National Organisation, the Malaysian Chinese Association and the Malaysian Indian Congress. These parties compete for electoral support from their respective “racial” constituencies by pandering to “racial” interests. Invariably, their racist inclinations are exposed at their respective party congresses.

Some opportunistic Opposition parties likewise pander to their constituencies using racialist propaganda to win electoral support and they have also contributed to the vicious circle of racial politics which has characterised Malaysian politics all these years.

UMNO, the ruling party continues to insist that “Malay Unity” and even “Malay Dominance” are essential for National Unity. “Malay dominance” is invariably used interchangeably with “Malay Privileges”, which these ruling Malay elite justify in the Malaysian Federal Constitution.

Would the UMNO leaders continue to use such racist concepts such as “Malay dominance” once we have ratified the CERD? Maybe that explains why Malaysia has up to now not yet ratified this basic international convention.

Consequently, we have witnessed the periodic controversies over the alleged “challenges to Malay Special Privileges” every time sections of Malaysian society call for non-racist solutions to Malaysian problems.

Class Interests in Affirmative Action

The ruling party UMNO prides itself on the supposedly “successful” affirmative action in favour of ‘bumiputras’. This has been the cornerstone of development plans since the New Economic Policy which started in 1971.

Consequently, while this populist “bumiputra” policy has been applied to the benefit of “bumiputras” as a whole, the new Malay ruling elite is strategically placed to reap the full benefits of this racially-based policy. Totally committed to capitalism and to privatisation, this policy has ensured that the Non-Malay local and foreign elite have also gained from the New Economic Policy since 1971. This class cohesion among the Malaysian ruling elite underpins the racialist politics which has characterised Malaysian society since Independence.

Non-discriminatory basis of the Constitution

It is time for Malaysians to reaffirm the non-discriminatory basis of the Federal Constitution and to uphold human rights principles which are strictly anti-racist.

Article 8 (1) of the Malaysian Constitution clearly spells out the principle of equality of all Malaysians while Article 12 (1) allows no discrimination against any citizens on the grounds of religion, race, descent or place of birth.

Article 153 on the special position of Malays was inspired by the affirmative action provisions of the Indian Constitution to protect the minority under-privileged class of harijans. Ours is fundamentally different from those provisions because the ethnic group in whose favour the discrimination operates in Malaysia happens to be the one in political control, the Malays.

At the time of Independence in 1957, four matters in relation to which the special position of Malays were recognised and safeguarded were: land; admission to public services; issuing of permits or licences for operation of certain businesses; scholarships, bursaries or other forms of aid for educational purposes.

The Federal Constitution certainly does not adhere to any notion of “Ketuanan Melayu” (Malay Dominance), which is a totally racist concept.

When the Constitutional (Reid) Commission was considering whether such a provision should be included in the 1957 Constitution, it made the following comments:

“Our recommendations are made on the footing that the Malays should be assured that the present position will continue for a substantial period, but that in due course the present preferences should be reduced and should ultimately cease so that there should be no discrimination between races or communities.” (Report of the Federation of Malaya Constitutional Commission 1957, Govt Press, para 165, p.72)

The UMNO leaders have often tried to accuse critics of the New Economic Policy of being against Malay special privileges. In fact, they are ignoring the fact that these racially discriminatory policies did not exist in pre-1971 Malaysian society even though Malay special privileges were in existence between 1957 and 1971.

Affirmative Action Must be Transparent and Accountable

After the Tunku was deposed in 1971, the new Malay ruling elite felt that adequate opportunities had not been made available to them, especially in education and that there should be a larger proportion of Malays in the various sectors. Thus, in 1971 and under Emergency conditions, Article 153 was duly amended to introduce the quota system for Malays in institutions of higher learning. Clause (8A) specifically provided for the reservation of places for Bumiputeras in any University, College and other educational institutions.

Nevertheless, the quota system was not intended to be the totally non-transparent and non-accountable and unfair system we know it today:

Firstly, Article (8A) makes it clear that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong can only order a reservation of a proportion of such places for the Malays. It would therefore mean that the quota system is applicable only on a faculty basis and more importantly every faculty or institution should reserve places for students of every race. No faculty or institution under this provision could cater for the Malays alone to the exclusion of the other races. The existence of institutions such as UiTM and other junior colleges which have been practicing blatant racial exclusion is actually a wild aberration from Article 8A.

Visu Sinnadurai (“Rights in respect of education under the Malaysian Constitution” in Trindade & Lee edited ‘The Constituion of Malaysia’) has observed:

“Years after the implementation of this racial quota system, there was no trace of any such order being made by His Majesty nor was there evidence of any such order having been gazetted. Such a directive would thus seem to have been made by the officials of the Ministry of Education.”

Thus, it is not clear whether the quota system is made applicable on an institutional basis or on the basis of the total number of places available in a particular course of study of all the universities in the country. To apply the quota system on the total number of places available in any particular university will again be a wrong interpretation of the provisions of the Constitution.

Article 153 (8A) does not authorise the administrators of any university to refuse admission to any student of a particular race. It only allows a proportion of the places to be reserved for Malay students. On such reasoning, the constitutionality of institutions like UiTM, the Asasi Sains in the University of Malaya or Kursus Sains Matriculasi Sidang Akademik of the Universiti Sains Malaysia which cater only for Bumiputra students is doubtful.

From the above, it is clear that the question of the constitutionality of the quota system as it has been practised since 1971 especially in totally Bumiputera institutions has never been tested.

Affirmative Action Not a Carte Blanche for Racial Discrimination

We know what the original intentions of the “Malay Special Privileges” provision in the Merdeka Constitution were, but to maintain that it is a carte blanche for all manner of racial discrimination as we have witnessed since 1971 is a violation of the spirit of the Malaysian Constitution.

International law sets major limits on affirmative action measures. Notably, affirmative action policies must be carefully controlled and not be permitted to undermine the principle of non-discrimination itself nor violate human rights. Holding the equality principle uppermost, the raison detre and reasonableness for differential treatment must be proven.

Another important criterion to ensure successful affirmative action and synonymous with international law is that such special measures should be introduced for a limited duration as was suggested by the Reid Commission in its Report of the Federation of Malaya Constitutional Commission in 1957.

A consequence of the so-called affirmative action policies up to now is that for the poor of all ethnic communities, including the indigenous peoples in Malaysia, these objectives of wealth redistribution for their benefit have not been met. Worse, the poorest community remains the Orang Asli of Peninsula Malaysia, the Original People of Malaysia who are not even considered “Bumiputra” under the Federal Constitution.

Just 10 years after the NEP was implemented, the 1980 Census showed that more than 80 per cent of al government executive officers were Malay; Malays held 75 per cent of the publicly-funded tertiary education places; and 96 per cent of FELDA settlers were Malay. By 1990, it was widely held by observers that the wealth restructuring policy objective was very much on target if nominee companies listed under “other Malaysians” were analysed. It is also well-known that many of these nominee companies have been formed by the bumiputra elite.

Elite Cohesion in the Barisan Nasional

All the same, these figures showing ownership of equity capital, however distorted, also reveal that the rich Non-Malay elite have done quite well under the NEP. This perhaps accounts for the elite cohesion which has held the Barisan Nasional coalition together for so long. The evidence further shows that the NEP’s “wealth restructuring” has mainly resulted in increased wealth concentration and greater intra-ethnic inequality.

By the mid-Eighties, it was found that the top 40 shareholders in the country owned 63 per cent of the total number of shares in public companies; the top 4.4 per cent of investors in the Amanah Saham Nasional had savings amounting to more than 70 per cent of ASN’s total investments.

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

Racial discrimination in the realm of culture is seen not only in education policy but also in the discrimination against Non-Malay cultures and religions in the National Cultural Policy. Non-Muslims face obstacles in their freedom to build places of worship and access to burial grounds, among other complaints.

Policy Proposals for 1Malaysia

Racism and racial discrimination have dominated Malaysian society for far too long. Now that the Malay ruling elite has clearly gained control of the Malaysian economy, it is high time for a new consensus based on non-racial factors such as class, sector or need to justify affirmative action.

It is time for all Malaysians who hunger for peace and freedom to outlaw racism and racial discrimination from Malaysian society once and for all and to build real unity based on adherence to human rights, equality and the interests of the Malaysian masses.

These proposals which I submitted to the World Conference against Racism and Racial Discrimination in Durban, 2001 are still applicable today, an indication that we have not yet reached “Year Zero”:

· Non-Racial Solutions to Malaysian Political Institutions

1. Political parties formed on the basis of “race” to further the interests of their respective “races” should be outlawed as such practices are inconsistent with international conventions against racism and racial discrimination;

2. Ratify all the international covenants and UN Conventions that have not been ratified by the Malaysian Government to ensure that all legislations in the country abide by international human rights standards;

3. Enact a Race Relations Act and institute an Equal Opportunities Commission to combat racism, racialism, and racial discrimination in all Malaysian institutions;

4. Delineation of constituencies must be based on the principle of “one person, one vote” and there should not be wide discrepancies between the number of voters in different constituencies;

5. Reintroduce elected local government so that problems of housing, health, schools, public order, etc. can be solved in non-racial ways;

6. Ensure that there is no racial discrimination in the Civil and Armed Services and every ethnic community has equal chance of promotion;

7. Establish an Independent Broadcasting Authority which is fair to all ethnic communities in Malaysia;

· Non-Racial Solutions to Malaysian Economic development

8. Full transparency and accountability to ensure that contracts and shares are not dispensed on a racial basis through nepotism, cronyism or corruption;

9. No bailing out of failed private businesses under the guise of affirmative action;

10. Reduce income disparity between the rich and poor regardless of race, religion, gender, disability or political affiliation;

11. Develop small and medium industries, the backbone of national industrialization without racial discrimination;

12. Support all sectors including pig farmers during times of crisis;

13. Distribute land equally to farmers of all ethnic communities;

14. Replace the racially-based quota system with a means-tested sliding scale mechanism to award deserving entrepreneurs;

Ø Non-Racial Solutions to Malaysian Social Development

15. Modernise the 450 or so New Villages in the country which have existed for more than 50 years, in which many of our small and medium industries are located and where basic infrastructure is inadequate;

16. Improve the living conditions (eg. a guaranteed minimum monthly wage) and basic amenities such as housing, education and health facilities of plantation workers;

17. Ratify the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of all Migrant Workers and members of their families;

18. Set up an Equal Opportunities Employment Commission to address all forms of discrimination in the workplace;

19. Gazette all communal lands of the Orang Asli and other indigenous peoples so that they can control their own land resources and choose their own way of life;

20. Enact laws to confirm the rights of urban settlers and obligations of developers to provide fair compensation and alternative housing to urban settlers;

21. Cater to the special needs of women, children, senior citizens and the disabled;

22. Provide more recreational facilities for the youth regardless of race to allow them to develop positive and healthy lifestyles and to encourage tolerance and awareness of cultural diversity and equality;

23. Establish a housing development authority to direct construction of low and medium-cost public housing for the needy irrespective of race;

24. Poverty eradication programmes to benefit the poor of all ethnicity;

Ø Non-Racial Solutions to Malaysian Education

25. Special assistance based on NEED by under-privileged sectors and CLASS and NOT on race;

26. Institute a means-tested sliding scale of education grants and loans for all who qualify to enter tertiary institutions regardless of race, religion or gender;

27. Recognise educational certificates, diplomas or degrees based on strictly academic grounds and to be dealt with by the National Accreditation Board and not politicised;

28. Build more schools using the mother tongue of Malaysian minorities as long as there is a demand for them in any catchment of these ethnic communities and provide financial allocations to these fairly;

29. Establish a long-term solution to the crisis of teacher shortage in the Chinese and Tamil schools;

30. Amend the Education Act 1996 to reflect the national education policy as originally stated in the Education Ordinance 1957 ensuring the use, teaching and development of the mother tongue of all Malaysian ethnic communities;

31. Make available compulsory Pupils’ Own language (POL) classes within the normal school curriculum as long as there are five pupils of any ethnic community in any school;

Ø Non-Racial Solutions to Malaysian Cultural Policy

32. Promote knowledge, respect and sensitivity among Malaysians on cultures, religions and ethnicity;

33. Gazette all places of prayer and worship for all ethnic communities in their areas of domicile free from any encumbrances or arbitrary restrictions;

34. Include all works by Malaysians regardless of the language in which they are written in national artistic and literary awards and scholarships;

35. All ethnic Malaysian cultures to be fairly represented in official cultural bodies and the media.

Malaysian police shoot dead armed Thai woman

Asia-Pacific News

Oct 14, 2009, 10:00 GMT

Kuala Lumpur - Malaysian police shot and killed a Thai woman believed to be part of a criminal gang wanted for armed robberies, kidnappings and arms smuggling in the northern state of Penang, police said Wednesday.

Police had cornered the suspect following a high-speed car chase late Tuesday, when the 34-year-old woman began firing at officers, state police chief Ayub Yaakob said.

'When she was asked to surrender she shot at police and police returned fire and shot her dead,' Ayub was quoted as saying the official Bernama news agency.

He said police found a pistol and several rounds of ammunition in the suspect's car, adding that the woman was believed to be linked to the gang's leader.

'Investigation also revealed that the gang travelled frequently to the neighbouring country and were believed to bring in arms. They are a dangerous gang and would do anything as they had firearms,' Ayub said.

He said police were tracking down four other gang members.

Myanmar: Burmese migrants struggle in Malaysia

Friday, October 16, 2009

By IRIN

In the tourist city of Penang in northern Malaysia, the Buddhist temple has become the locus of social and economic support for migrants from Myanmar.

"l was a contractor at home, but left Burma [Myanmar] 19 years ago, arriving in Malaysia after crossing from Thailand," said Aung Tin, a foreman on the construction site of a new pagoda.

Penang is one of Malaysia's main economic and industrial centres, and the Burmese Buddhist temple provides social and religious support for the Burmese community.

At the construction site, all 14 staff supervised by Aung Tin - who would only talk to IRIN using a pseudonym - are Burmese migrants.

"I left as soon as I could after the 1990 elections," said Aung Tin. "The economic situation in the country was bad for years before then, and I had not been able to generate enough work. When I saw that the army was going to keep things the same, it became clear that I could not make a living,"

In 1990, Aung San Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy (NLD) won the last election held in Myanmar, but the military rulers overturned the result, and have run the country since.

Aung Tin left behind a wife and two sons, whom he has not seen since. His boys are now grown up, and like their father, want to leave their home country.

When Cyclone Nargis devastated Myanmar in 2008, his family's home was one of more than three million destroyed. "All my money was sent home to help repair my house," he said.

Employment magnet

Myanmar is one of the most impoverished countries in the region, and ranks 138 out of 182 countries surveyed in the UN Development Programme's (UNDP) 2009 Human Development Report.

Limited employment prospects encourage many to look for opportunities in neighbouring countries. Thailand is the main destination for Burmese workers, but Malaysia is also favoured, along with Bangladesh and India, according to a 2008 UN report on migration in East and Southeast Asia.

Accurate figures of how many Burmese are leaving Myanmar are difficult to obtain because much of the movement is irregular, say civil society groups.

Malaysia is heavily dependent on foreign labour for its construction and plantation industries, and is a magnet for migrant workers in the region. According to government statistics, there were 92,020 registered Burmese workers in 2006, comprising 5 percent of the total registered workers.

Rights groups, however, say there are also thousands of unregistered Burmese in the country; the Kuala Lumpur-based Burma Workers' Rights Protection Committee estimates there are about 500,000 registered and unregistered migrants from Myanmar in Malaysia.

And as of May 2009, the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) said it had registered 50,000 people of concern from Myanmar, including refugees and asylum-seekers.

Under threat

Aung Tin's story is similar to those of many migrant workers in Malaysia. He had a work permit originally but has veered back and forth between legal and illegal status since.

Many Burmese find work at construction sites, factories and food outlets, according to Malaysian rights groups. If they were recruited or brought in to work at factories, they are often provided with accommodation. But while some employers provide proper living facilities, others force their workers to live in overcrowded and cramped conditions.

Rights groups say many Burmese migrants as well as refugees do not carry legal documents, and face arrest, detention and deportation by the Malaysian authorities.

Deportees, both migrant workers and refugees, are then vulnerable to human traffickers at the Malaysia-Thailand border, who demand huge sums of money to help them get back into Malaysia, they say.

"Another problem that the Burmese face is extortion from the police," said Temme Lee, refugee coordinator for Malaysian rights group Suaram.

"Due to their lack of proper documentation, Burmese are often stopped by police. The police threaten to arrest them and demand money from them," she told IRIN.

Despite his perilous and often haphazard situation, Aung Tin is one of the better-off migrants. He earns 50 Malaysian ringgit (US$14.80) per day as foreman at the construction project.

"The monks look after us here, and try to give us work," he said.

sr/ey/mw

We say it again: Support for Porr project wrong

We say it again: Support for Porr project wrong

SM Mohamed Idris
Oct 12, 09
5:42pm

We refer to the letter Porr: Penang gov't still listening.

Cheong Yin Fan, press secretary to the Penang chief minister, protests too much when she chides CAP for criticising the CM Lim Guan Eng for his stance on the Penang Outer Ring Road (Porr) project and advises CAP to 'rely on facts and not hearsay, substantiated reports and not superficial conclusions'.

It is an incontrovertible fact that Lim has all along supported the Porr project. When the project was shelved in 2008 by the federal government, Lim protested strongly against this decision and mounted a campaign to revive the project.

When on March 3 this year, the then prime minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi replied in parliament in response to a question by Lim that, of the three projects in Penang shelved by the federal government (the monorail, Porr and the Mengkuang Dam), only the last was being revived, a disappointed Lim issued a press release stating that 'As chief minister, I feel the failure of the federal government to implement the ring road will bring difficulty to the people by letting traffic congestion become worse, especially as the Second Penang Bridge is to be built by mid-2012.'

When the project was recently revived by the federal government, he again expressed support for the project. According to a report in The Edge Financial Daily (Sept 9): 'Asked if the state government was in favour of the project, Lim said the state government welcomed any project which would help reduce traffic congestion and generate economic growth and revenue for the state'.

It is this same report which highlighted Lim's views on public consultation on this project. Asked whether the state government would consult the public on Porr, the report quotes Lim as saying that 'public consultation had already been held, and there were differing views. We do not want to have a closed mind on such projects. Let us have our discussion with the federal government first,' he added.

If after all this strong expression of commitment to this project and single-minded pursuit of it by Lim, Cheong is now trying to persuade us that the Penang state government has yet to decide whether to proceed with Porr and that Lim has reaffirmed that public consultation would still continue (notwithstanding the report to the contrary), she has a lot of persuading to do. Especially the claim that the state government does not 'have a closed mind on such projects.'

Let us be clear here of the real issue. The issue is not the terms imposed by the federal government for the project, but the project itself, which will result in more motorised traffic being brought on to the island.

We reiterate that Penang does not need the Porr or another road project that is going to compromise sustainable transport options. There must be a comprehensive and rational transport strategy for Penang. The thrust must be on reducing private vehicles on the island instead of encouraging the same.

We believe that our vision for a sustainable transport system can be realised if there is political will to do so.

The writer is president, Consumers Association of Penang.