Interlok: Time to make a stand

As the drama over the Interlok textbook issue continues to unfold, it is important for Malaysians to understand the context and the stakes involved, and to make a stand.
There are some defenders of the book who have argued that withdrawing or even just editing it will rob Malaysian writers of their artistic freedom and integrity. To these people, I would like to say “hello, where have you been” – Interlok has already been edited twice, in 2005 for Edisi Pelajar and in 2010 for Edisi Murid. Its literary integrity was already compromised by the shedding of some 85 pages even before this latest controversy.

In fact, copyright for the edition distributed free to schools no longer belongs even to Abdullah Hussain but to Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka.

Hence Education Minister Muhyiddin Yassin’s statement that his ministry “will ensure that any amendments made will not affect the storyline of the novel and the noble message that the author wants to convey” is nothing short of whitewash. According to reports, Muhyiddin is not permitting anything beyond deletion of the word ‘pariah’.
This concession is like slicing off one tentacle from a hundred-headed hydra – a totally pointless exercise. Make no mistake; Interlok is a work that must not be permitted into the nation’s class rooms as a compulsory literature text. Anything less is a vital failure to grasp the gravity of the threat it poses.

The quarrel is not merely with vocabulary or spelling (for example, of ‘tali’ vs ‘thali’) but the overall suitability of the novel with its overt and covert racial messages as a school text.

Starting ‘em young and younger

Concern by many Malaysians that Interlok has been intentionally selected by the authorities to fulfill the Umno/Biro Tata Negara objective of indoctrinating young minds with a warped worldview and national view is hardly misplaced.

Before these concerns are dismissed as imaginary or overwrought, let us not forget that education has long been and continues to be the most politicized sector of the country. Far from being neutral institutions, many of our public sector colleges and universities consciously and consistently promote a narrow nationalism.

It is in the educational sector where proponents of the Ketuanan Melayu dogma have sought to impose their will and polarize our communities.

Their missionary zeal focuses on use of race-based criteria at all levels and in all aspects. It is no surprise therefore that the propagation of the ideology of super-ordination and subordination has now been extended to the schools, and to the curriculum and text books.
As has been pointed out by those who have analysed the Interlok content, why are all the villains and nasty characters Chinese and Indians? One of the key plots turns on the rapacious Chinese merchant swindling the easily duped Malay of his inheritance.

Touted as a ‘historical novel’, Interlok is constructing a version of BTN history and racial stereotypes to influence young minds. Its government-mandated and authorities-supported dissemination and circulation appears to further a carefully thought-out agenda to fan racial animosity.

Drawing line in the sand

Because Interlok is the first round battle (in tandem with the History curriculum revamp), it is important for conscientious objectors to send a strong signal to the Education Minister and his bureaucratic and academic cronies that Malaysians will not be cowed into acquiescence.

We must exercise our right to openly discuss, criticize and protest on this crucial matter. To remain mute will only embolden the apologist wolves wrapped in their sheep clothing of educational good intention and defense of literary freedom.






by Dr Lim Teck Ghee 
Director for CPI

MIC silent as Speaker throws out Pakatan's Interlok motion

The Interlok issue is still burning hot among the Indians but the amazing thing is that MIC has not voiced out their objections on this matter, accused Pakatan Rakyat parliamentarians.

DAP MP for Teluk Intan M Manogaran raised the Interlok issue for debate in the august House today, but it was rejected by the Speaker on the basis that although it was specific and of public interest, it was not urgent.

 

At a press conference in the Parliament lobby, Pakatan leaders Sim Tong Hin, Charles Santiago, M Manogaran and Nizar Jamaluddin expressed disappointment at the Speaker's high-handedness.

They also slammed the MIC for remaining silent and not appealing to the Speaker for the subject to be raised.

Referring to the recent Kuala Kubu Baru incident where 3 students were questioned for 10 hours at a police station for returning the Interlok novel to the school principal, they accused the MIC of being under Umno's thumb.

According to them,  MIC MP for Hulu Selangor P Kamalanathan even instructed the students to apologise to the school principal instead of demanding an apology from the principal and the police.

"I am really surprised that the MIC MP could resort to such a move.  Where is his voice in this matter?" Manogaran told Malaysia Chronicle.

Support undeserved

The novel, while telling a story of a past era in the 1920s, contains a reference to the Indians as "pariah". It has riled the community but despite the animosity, Prime Minister Najib Razak has refused to order the book be dropped from schools' reading lists.

Nizar, the PAS MP for Bukit Gantang, told Malaysia Chronicle that there are other more suitable books that could be used as Literature text and suggested 'Ranjau Sepanjang Jalan'.  According to him, this book was used in schools in the olden days right up to the late 1980s.

Nizar also questioned the motive of the Education Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin in allowing this book to be used as Form 5 Literature text, when students' minds were still impressionable.

"This issue has dragged on long enough. The government keeps saying that a panel has been set up to look into it each time this topic is being brought up and they have been giving that answer since the dawn of time, but till now, there has been no concrete solution.  It is always the same old answer: 'a panel has been set up to look into it'," lambasted Nizar.

"It is amazing that MIC has allowed UMNO to bully them into silence, acquiescence and obscurity.  MIC always proclaims that they are the only ones who can champion the cause of the Indians but their silence shows otherwise. Have MIC washed their hands off this matter?  Is MIC so fearful and so subservient to UMNO that they let UMNO treat them in such a way?"

As the book also portrays the Chinese in a bad light, the Pakatan leaders also asked where was the MCA?

 

"It is forbidden in Islam to ridicule another race and PAS never does that," added Nizar.

The Pakatan leaders also said it was poignant to note that the Indian vote started to return to BN at the point of the Hulu Selangor by-election when the community gave strong support to Kamalanathan, yet this was how he and the MIC repaid them.

by  Selena Tay

Malaysia Chronicle

Anwar, Najib Vie for International Cred

Facing challenges at home, Najib attempts to repair his overseas image to match the opposition leader's.

Since becoming prime minister, Najib Tun Razak has faced serious challenges at home in trying to rebuild the image of his ruling Barisan Nasional coalition amidst the schisms and controversies that have afflicted the three main coalition parties. His task of strengthening and revitalising his coalition has been made much more precarious by the political pressure he has been subjected to by the Anwar Ibrahim-led opposition.

While trying to keep up his political momentum at home, Najib has been trying to also juggle the task of rebuilding his image on the international stage, especially vis-à-vis that of Anwar, who continues to enjoy the international image of both a moderate Muslim and an opposition figure who has been grievously wronged by two trials regarded overseas as trumped up in the attempt to drive him from politics or worse. And if recent events are any indication, as in the domestic controversies that have off-and-on gripped Najib’s government, Anwar is not likely to cede much ground on the international stage either.

Anwar’s international reputation and credibility, particularly in the West, were cemented during his days as finance minister much of the 1990s, which culminated in his falling-out with the former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad. Back then he quickly came to embody the image – at least among those sympathetic to the so-called Washington consensus - of a moderate with a learned appreciation of the intricacies of maneuvering through an international financial crisis.

Between his release from prison in 2004 and winning his current parliamentary seat, Anwar Ibrahim reaffirmed his ties and visibility abroad. Perhaps this was to be expected given he was forbidden by Malaysian law from immediately jumping back into the political fray and running for office. The period coincided with lecturing stints at Georgetown and Johns Hopkins Universities in the US and Oxford University in the UK, not to mention that they took him to familiar locales (especially Washington, D.C.) and among some friendly circles.

It was also during this period that Najib’s star within Umno was on the ascendency. By the time the 2008 general election rolled around in March, then-prime minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi was already mired in a serious internal political struggle within Umno and the political assault from Mahathir did not help Badawi’s attempts to move Umno and the country beyond the politically crippling grip of the former premier, who rarely passed up an opportunity to indulge in Washington-bashing; or for that matter, being his prickly self toward the West. To be sure, most of this sentiment was tailor-made for domestic political consumption.

As the handwriting on the wall for Abdullah Badawi became apparent following the Barisan’s meek performance in the 2008 general election, Najib, the prime minister-in-waiting, also found himself in the dubious position of being propped up by his political mentor and anti-Washington demagogue, Mahathir.

Already having been embroiled – and internationally tarnished – by allegations over the gruesome murder of Mongolian translator Altantuya Shaaribuu in 2006 by two of his bodyguards and by allegations of corruption over the purchase of French submarines, Najib’s close political links to Mahathir may have helped consolidate his political stake within Umno, but it would be safe to say it hardly helped to make Najib a sweetheart in either Washington or other western capitals.

In an effort to improve his overseas image and to seek to blunt Anwar’s, Najib even before he took office had the government contract with the international public relations powerhouse Apco at a cost of RM28 million That has backfired to some extent through Anwar’s and the opposition’s allegations that Apco also does work for the Israeli government.

It is against this backdrop that there was much hullaballoo made in the state-controlled media of Najib’s ‘Kodak moment’ during his meeting with President Barack Obama during the nuclear security summit in Washington, DC in April. While it symbolized Najib’s stepping out on his own on the international stage – and out of the shadow of his anti-western political mentor – it arguably enabled the prime minster to appear, after all, less a novice, at least vis-à-vis Anwar, especially in Washington.

Piggy-backing on this encounter with Obama, the prime minister’s wife, Rosmah Mansor, too was the beneficiary of some apparent international notoriety as she was honored with the International Peace and Harmony Award. Given some of the critical coverage that the prime minister’s wife had attracted in the alternative media, such international exposure for the couple – at least on the home front – helped provide a favorable narrative internationally.

For his part Anwar, having become embroiled in another sodomy trial, has been diligent about helping to keep some of the international community’s attention on Najib’s government by stressing the issue of political persecution in Malaysia. This is evident in how his legal team has sought to portray the sodomy case.

Beyond this, Anwar has continued to cultivate his international links. Just as the hoopla from Najib’s trip to the United States was winding down, Anwar was to feature at the Oslo Freedom Forum in late April. More recently, he renewed old and enduring ties with associates in the United States during a visit centered around a presentation on Islam and democracy in Southeast Asia delivered at the Woodrow Wilson International Center in Washington, D.C.

Anwar will continue to rely on his international reputation and image as a credible democrat – and a moderate, internationally renowned Muslim figure to sustain his domestic political ambitions. It is, incidentally, also in this light that we can interpret Anwar’s recent ‘regret’, as reported in a Washington Post article, for invoking the reference of ‘Zionist aggression’ in his characterization of the flotilla incident off the coast of Gaza. Surely, Anwar must have realized that he had stepped just a bit too far and can ill afford to compromise his credentials in the international community as a moderate.

Just as Anwar sees the inherent value of his international goodwill both for himself and for the prospects for democratic reforms in Malaysia, Najib has also revealed his intentions by retreating from the anti-Washington rhetoric that was his political mentor’s signature and simultaneously repair his own international image, whilst hoping to lessen the overwhelming advantage and goodwill Anwar continues to enjoy in the West.




Asia Sentinel

To the critics of Hindraf and Uthayakumar

Haris Ibrahim alleges 'communalism' and was quoted as saying he was particularly turned off by Uthaya's e-mail statement on the shooting of Aminulrasyid.



Looking through the Human Rights Party (HRP) website, I found these statements below; Uthaya's article headlines within inverted commas and my comments added in brackets.

(1) 'No justice for six Indians shot dead by police in one transaction. Policeman shot dead Malay-Muslim in a rare case instantly prosecuted'. [Can readers name another Indian besides Kugan who has been a victim of police brutality? They're largely namelesss to the mainstream media and yet according to Suaram director Dr Kua Kia Soong, 'Indians are a minority in this country but they form the majority when it comes to statistics on deaths in police custody or police killings.']

(2) 'Murder probe for odd Malay youth shot dead by police, criminal tag for hundreds of Indian youths killed by police!' [Exaggerated maybe, but is the 'criminal' tagging true though?]

(3) 'Deputy Home Minister visits Aminulrasyid's home. But zero such visits to any Indian shot dead by police & murder in police custody case.'

(4) 'Shot dead by police Home Ministry panel at work and media headlines. But zero for Indians victims.' [Last November, five Indian youths were shot dead by police in Klang. Of these 'suspected armed robbers' aged between 17 and 24, three were brothers. If you can't picture their mother's grief at three coffins lying side by side, perhaps you might recall the fourth victim's sister who committed suicide by drinking paraquat. Her name was Seetha.]

I won't refute that Uthaya has been race-specific in his crusade to highlight grievances but would it do justice to the real situation if he hadn't, and instead employed a blanket description of 'Malaysian' shot dead?

Kua summed up Suaram's 'Policing the Malaysian Police' 2005 report, a portion of which found, 'The marginalised Indians who make up some of the poorest and most oppressed sections among West Malaysians have been portrayed in a racist light. Yet Indians have been the main victims of racial killings such as at Kampung Medan in 2001, deaths in police custody as well as trigger-happy police shootings.'

Rebutting the 'communalism' accusation generally, R Shan in an earlier article in the HRP website wrote: 'Whenever an Indian issue is raised, it is classified as racist and not as a community issue, even when it is the truth and reality.'

Shan also pointed out that the first case handled pro bono by Uthaya on custodial death was 10 years ago – KL High Court civil suit (SI-21-61-2000) – for Mohd Anuar bin Sharip's family who approached Hindraf as a last resort. Hindraf's next case was the second postmortem of Ho Kwai See who died after eight days in police detention.

In the latter half of its story, Malaysiakini quoted blogger Salahuddin Hisham as saying, 'When you [Uthaya] highlighted the plight of the estate workers, do you know that there are also Javanese and Chinese workers in the estates? There are also the Chinese, Malay, and people of other races who are poor, not just Indians.

I'm presuming the Javanese he mentions are Indonesian. Whereas the Malay First-ers crave a monopoly on victimhood, poverty and suffering, Hindraf's harshest critics are the nationality-loving Malaysian First-ers who discount that race matters.

To Salahuddin's contention that it is not just the Indian community that needs special attention, I would counter that their urgent distress signal is not getting the attention it deserves.

Salahuddin is indeed correct that there are the poor from every community. However, the Malays live on land that belongs to them and they have their kampung to call home or return to, and there is Malay Reserve Land. On the other hand, when the plantations were dismantled, Indians who lost their estate jobs were turned out homeless to become urban squatters. They have not been the beneficiaries of government land programmes such as Felda, Felcra, Risda and others.

Unlike Malays, the Indians have no social safety net and receive little notice or help from the welfare departments. Furthermore, what is the evidence of your own eyes? I see vagrants sleeping on the five-foot way and they have consistently been Indian men.
I see Indian small vendors selling newspapers and sweets, and what they sell in sidewalk stalls fetch meagre profit like flowers and jasmine garlands at RM1 a strand.

I see that road sweepers, car washers and parking attendants are Indians, garbage collectors are Indians (and Indonesians), cleaners and labourers are Indians (and Indonesians). The Indians have been in this land for generations and their status no better than illegal immigrants.

The primarily English-speaking Malaysian First-ers like to think they are superiorly beyond or above ethnicity and choose to hold themselves aloof from Hindraf. They complain that Hindraf is confrontational, abrasive, hyperbolic, sectarian and always talking about Indians alone, plus the clincher – 'Hindraf is racist'.

Nonetheless, I would urge Malaysians to reassess this 'racist' label that they apply so cavalierly as well as to put Hindraf's struggle in proper context.

Our Malaysian constitution has Article 153 guaranteeing the Malay special position and granting quotas. The Umno-led government has since Independence (Mara was established before 1969) unremittingly implemented NEP-like policies that favour solely one race. This race-oriented structure of state has ultimately stranded Indians at the bottom of the heap.

While one may question his methodology like Haris does, still, Uthaya has spent a lot of time pondering on the Indian condition during his ISA detention of more than 500 days.

For his dues paid in Kamunting, surely we can give Uthaya this much, that is to weigh the substance, ie, merit of the argument and not be too distracted by the form. The form of Hindraf is arguably narrow – Hindu Rights Action Front – but then again, people don't similarly demand that Sisters in Islam must take up the cudgels for Christians, Buddhists, Sikhs, etc or fight for men's rights in order to be viewed as inclusive.

I'm well aware that Hindraf does not endear itself to Malaysians who prefer politically correct posturing such as Yasmin Ahmad's huggy-feely Petronas ads or Anas Zubedy's feel-good publicity campaigns. But if Hindraf's critics are really so Malaysian-First, why do they read foremost in English? If one were to read more in Malay, you'd realise how negative and belligerent the stereotyping has been of Indians in our unique 'agama dan bangsa'-permeated environment.

Uthaya reluctantly agreed to came to the BUM gathering – which he already anticipated to be 'hostile' – to try to dispel the entrenched prejudices. What eventually transpired can only convince HRP that they're banging their heads against a wall of indifference.

It's undeniable that Uthaya and his colleagues have alienated even 'friends' (individuals, organizations and alternative media) sympathetic to the Indian cause. This being the case, perhaps we would all be better off going our separate ways whilst minding the Indian saying – 'If you can't help, don't hinder'.

Although Hindraf and its political arm HRP might be unpalatable to you, nonetheless the issues they raise are entirely valid. Once you grasp the gravity of the message, you could perhaps get some inkling as to why the messenger has lost patience with Malaysians. The official set-up of this country assuredly makes us one of the most race-obsessed in the world but it is paradoxically Hindraf and not bumiputera-ism that is taken to task.




Helen Ang

Malaysia's Submarine Scandal Surfaces in France

Murky arms deal linked to international pattern of kickbacks

A potentially explosive scandal in Malaysia over the billion-dollar purchase of French submarines, a deal engineered by then-Defense Minister Najib Tun Razak, has broken out of the domestic arena with the filing of a request to investigate bribery and kickbacks from the deal in a Paris court.

Although the case has been contained for eight years in the cozy confines of Malaysia's courts and parliament, which are dominated by the ruling National Coalition, French lawyers William Bourdon, Renaud Semerdjian and Joseph Breham put an end to that when they filed it with Parisian prosecutors on behalf of the Malaysian human rights organization Suaram, which supports good-government causes.

Judges in the Paris Prosecution Office have been probing a wide range of corruption charges involving similar submarine sales and the possibility of bribery and kickbacks to top officials in France, Pakistan and other countries. The Malaysian piece of the puzzle was added in two filings, on Dec. 4, 2009 and Feb. 23 this year.

For two years, Parisian prosecutors, led by investigating judges Francoise Besset and Jean-Christophe Hullin, have been gingerly investigating allegations involving senior French political figures and the sales of submarines and other weaponry to governments all over the world. French news reports have said the prosecutors have backed away from some of the most serious charges out of concern for the political fallout.

The allegations relate to one of France's biggest defense conglomerates, the state-owned shipbuilder DCN, which merged with the French electronics company Thales in 2005 to become a dominant force in the European defense industry. DCN's subsidiary Armaris is the manufacturer of Scorpene-class diesel submarines sold to India, Pakistan and Malaysia among other countries. All of the contracts, according to the lawyers acting for Suaram, a Malaysian human rights NGO, are said to be suspect.

With Najib having moved on from the defense portfolio he held when the deal was put together in 2002 to become prime minister and head of the country's largest political party, the mess has the potential to become a major liability for the government and the United Malays National Organisation. Given the power of UMNO, it is unlikely the scandal would ever get any airing in a Malaysian court, which is presumably why Suaram reached out to French prosecutors.

"The filings are very recent and have so far prompted a preliminary police inquiry on the financial aspects of the deal," said a Paris-based source familiar with France's defense establishment. "There isn't a formal investigation yet. The investigation will most likely use documents seized at DCN in the course of another investigation, focusing on bribes paid by DCN in Pakistan.

The source said police have confined their inquiry to bribery allegations so far and have not looked into the 2006 murder of a Mongolian woman in Malaysia who was a translator on the deal for Najib and his friend, Abdul Razak Baginda, during a visit to Paris.

There have been numerous deaths involving DCN defense sales in Taiwan and Pakistan. Prosecutors are suspicious that 11 French submarine engineers who were murdered in a 2002 bomb blast in Karachi – first thought to have been the work of Al Qaeda – were actually killed in retaliation for the fact that the French had reneged on millions of dollars in kickbacks to Pakistani military officers.

The Malaysian allegations revolve around the payment of €114 million to a Malaysia-based company called Perimekar, for support services surrounding the sale of the submarines. Perimekar was wholly owned by another company, KS Ombak Laut Sdn Bhd, which in turn was controlled by Najib's best friend, Razak Baginda, whose wife Mazalinda, a lawyer and former magistrate, was the principal shareholder, according to the French lawyers.

"Over the past years, serious cases have been investigated in France by judges involving DCN," lawyer Renaud Semerdjian told Asia Sentinel in a telephone interview. "This is not the first case of this kind that is being investigated. There are others in Pakistan and there are some issues about India. To a certain extent, every time weapons of any kind have been provided, suspicion of violation of the law may be very high.

As defense minister from 2000 to 2008, Najib commissioned a huge military buildup to upgrade Malaysia's armed forces, including two submarines from Armaris and the lease of a third, a retired French Navy Agosta-class boat. There were also Sukhoi supersonic fighter jets from Russia and millions of dollars spent on coastal patrol boats. All have come under suspicion by opposition leaders in Malaysia's parliament but UMNO has stifled any investigation. Asked personally about the cases, Najib has responded angrily and refused to reply.

Despite efforts to bury it, the case achieved considerably notoriety after the murder of Altantuya Shaariibuu, a 28-year-old Mongolian translator and Razak Baginda's jilted lover, who participated in negotiations over the purchase of the submarines. By her own admission in a letter found after her death, she was attempting to blackmail Razak Baginda for US$500,000.

She was shot in October 2006 and her body was blown up with military explosives by two bodyguards attached to Najib's office after Razak Baginda went to Najib's chief of staff, Musa Safri, for help in keeping her away from him. Not long after being acquitted in November 2008 under questionable circumstances of participating in her murder, Razak Baginda left the country for England. The bodyguards were convicted but no motive was ever established for their actions despite a confession by one which was not allowed in court, but which said they would be paid a large sum of money to get rid of her.

The submarine deal was never brought up in court during a months-long murder trial that was marked by prosecutors, defense attorneys and the judge working studiously to keep Najib's name out of the proceedings. A private detective hired by Razak Baginda to protect him from the furious Altantuya filed a statutory declaration after the trial indicating that Najib had actually been the victim's lover and had passed her on to Razak Baginda.

The detective, P. Balasubramaniam, said later that he was unceremoniously run out of Kuala Lumpur. He eventually emerged from hiding in India to say he had been offered RM5 million (US$1.57 million) by a businessman close to Najib's wife to shut up and get out of town. He also said he had met Nazim Razak, Najib's younger brother, and was told to recant his testimony.

In the current complaint in Paris, the issue revolves around what, if anything, Razak Baginda's Perimekar company did to deserve €114 million. Zainal Abidin, the deputy defense minister at the time of the sale, told parliament that Perimekar had received the amount – 11 percent of the sale price of the submarines – for "coordination and support services." The Paris filing alleges that there were neither support nor services.

Perimekar was registered in 2001, a few months before the signing of the contracts for the sale, the Paris complaint states. The company, it said flatly, "did not have the financial resources to complete the contract." A review of the accounts in 2001 and 2002, the complaint said, "makes it an obvious fact that this corporation had absolutely no capacity, or legal means or financial ability and/or expertise to support such a contract."

"None of the directors and shareholders of Perimekar have the slightest experience in the construction, maintenance or submarine logistics," the complaint adds. "Under the terms of the contract, €114 million were related to the different stages of construction of the submarines." The apparent consideration, supposedly on the part of Perimekar, "would be per diem and Malaysian crews and accommodation costs during their training. There is therefore no link between billing steps and stages of completion of the consideration.

"As Asia Sentinel reported on April 1, services for the subs are being performed by a well-connected firm called Boustead DCNS, a joint venture between BHIC Defence Technologies Sdn Bhd, a subsidiary of publicly-listed Boustead Heavy Industries Corp Bhd, and DCNS SA, a subsidiary of DCN. Boustead's Heavy Industries Division now includes Perimekar as an "associate of the Group. PSB is involved in the marketing, upgrading, maintenance and related services for the Malaysian maritime defence industry," according to Boustead's annual report.

Originally Boustead told the Malaysian Stock Exchange that the service contract was for RM600 million (US$184.1 million) for six years, or US$30.68 million annually. However, the contract later ballooned to RM270 million per year. Boustead Holdings is partly owned by the government and has close connections with UMNO.

"There are good grounds to believe that [Perimekar] was created with a single objective: arrange payment of the commission and allocate the amount between different beneficiaries including Malaysian public officials and or Malaysian or foreign intermediaries," the complaint states






AsiaSentinel.com

Flinging the racist Label at Hindraf

Listen all you people who have been flinging the ‘Racist’ label at Hindraf – if the 25 November 2007 uprising organized by Hindraf had not happened, we would not have had a political tsunami on 8 March 2008!

We can flail our arms and criticize the Hindraf leadership all we want but let us be “politically correct” about racism and who the racists are in Malaysia. Yes! It’s important to be politically correct on this issue because otherwise our political analysis becomes erroneous, leading to incorrect practice and more importantly, we let off the real villains!

Indians a Specially Oppressed Section
Hindraf happened because the marginalized Indians in this country are a specially oppressed section of the working class. It is an oppression that has taken on a racist character through the years, so much so that even middle class Indians; especially the youth have also become the victims of police brutality.

The Indian working class is among the poorest in the country and they do not have the benefit of affirmative action because they have been classified as “Non-bumiputera” . Indians are a minority in this country but they form the majority when it comes to statistics on deaths in police custody or police killings.

We should be glad the Hindraf uprising happened and the political ripple it created after the 2008 general elections. Credit should be given to their leaders for achieving this feat and for breaking the decades of MIC patronage and pacifism.

The uprising certainly did not happen through the MIC nor did it happen through the other political parties in this country no matter what they say now. It is pointless being wise after the event or to advertise your pristine party – the fact is, HINDRAF succeeded where the other political parties failed to do, namely, to mobilize the Indian masses to come out in revolt on 25 November 2007.

Right to Separate Organisation
Being a specially oppressed and marginalized section of the masses, it is the right of the Indian masses to organize separately just as the Black Movement developed in the West during the sixties. Similarly, women have the right to organize separately through their special circumstances as an oppressed section of the population.

But to then say that Indians or Blacks are “racist” or that feminists are “sexist” is to expose your own shortcoming and more importantly, to let off the culprits who cause racial oppression and gender oppression in our society.

Racism and Racial Discrimination in Malaysia
Racism or more specifically, “Bumiputeraism” has been the dominant ideology of the Malay capitalist class ever since May 13, 1969. It has been practiced under the guise of the “New Economic Policy” and that racism has been covertly disseminated through state institutions such as the Biro TataNegara all these years. It is a marvel that it has taken so long for this racist garbage perpetrated through the BTN to be exposed! Before long, we will hear of racist propaganda in other state institutions especially schools and hostels since the seventies.

In 1986, this racism was flagrantly espoused by Abdullah Ahmad in his infamous “Malay Dominance” speech in Singapore but the cat was let out of the bag when Mahathir had a spat with Nazri recently and they were calling each other ‘Racist’…

More recently, we have seen the formation of Perkasa, which is none other than UMNO’s alter-ego. It has been delegated the role of the racist lobbyist traditionally played by UMNO Youth while UMNO tries desperately to change its spots to win over the Nons after the 2008 debacle.

The stereotypes created by this “Bumiputraist” racism to justify the New Economic Policy remain in circulation: We recently heard Perkasa shouting the old refrain that “the Chinese” still dominate the Malaysian economy. It was a cue for UMNO to continue the NEP in another guise, the New Economic Model. While this has populist appeal to win over the Malay voters, the main beneficiaries are the well-connected capitalists of diverse ethnicities under UMNO hegemony.

The marginalized Indians who make up some of the poorest and most oppressed sections among West Malaysians have been portrayed in a racist light. Thus Indians have been the main victims of racial killings such as at Kampong Medan in 2001, deaths in police custody as well as trigger happy police shootings. (See Policing the Malaysian Police, SUARAM 2005)

Our indigenous peoples and migrant workers have also been portrayed in a racist light and the recent historic uprising by our Orang Asli community was truly uplifting.

WHITHER HINDRAF?
Having a separate organization does not of course guarantee that its leadership will be necessarily progressive. Since 2008, we have seen the Hindraf leadership split into various factions.

It is in the common interest of all communities to fight racism on a class basis. In this day and age, affirmative action is not justifiable for any ethnic community which has undergone class differentiation. Thus, I would think that neither the Malay, Chinese, Indian, Kadazanmurut nor Iban communities can justify any affirmative action. However, communities that are not yet class differentiated such as the Orang Asli and Penan communities may justify affirmative action as a particular community.

The best non-racist approach to progress is still affirmative action based on class or sector.

All progressive Malaysians must unite around their struggles and stop flinging the ‘racist’ label about. The racists are the Umnoputras who control the Malaysian state.

We hope that the true Hindraf leaders will stay faithful to their just cause and correctly identify the primary role of capitalism and the state in causing racial oppression suffered by the Indian masses. The struggle against the Malaysian state can only succeed if it is anti-racist.

At the same time, Hindraf must also work alongside other campaigns for justice, democracy and human rights. We can only mobilize the whole masses if we fight on all fronts, against all oppressions and against the divisions within the masses. As the Black Panthers said in the sixties:

“We do not fight racism with racism…
    We fight racism with solidarity”.






Dr Kua Kia Soong
Director of SUARAM

Are we one screwed up nation?

Aliran president writes Malaysia is perceived to be one screwed up nation. There is no doubt about it. It is difficult to fathom what is our priority and what we should be concerned about. Should our priority be safeguarding secrets or exposing corruption?

We are taken aback by the NST report on Sept 19 – 'Probe into expose of port govt secrets' – that investigations are underway to determine who was responsible for leaking the cabinet papers on the PKFZ that were posted on the Malaysia Today website.

The information contained in the 18-page document that was made available by this website for the benefit of the public could potentially implicate the cabinet and put the blame squarely on ministers and prime ministers.

This information throws light on why the cost escalated and how the project was grossly inflated. The Port Klang Free Zone project has squandered billions of ringgit of public money and has seemingly received the blessings of people who have been entrusted to be guardians of our finance. People who were expected to be accountable, transparent and responsible have failed us miserably.

It is these failings that they want to keep hidden by going after those who had a hand in revealing their complicity in this sordid affair.

They are not interested in investigating the element of corruption that is raised in this expose but they are only intent on punishing those responsible for leaking the corruption involved in the PKFZ project.

Is this why the OSA was legislated - to protect the corrupt and the guilty?

Shouldn’t the investigation focus on the incriminating contents of the document and bring to book all those who are guilty of corruption?

But the police and the Attorney-General are allegedly directing their energy elsewhere to nail those who had the audacity to expose this corruption.

Shouldn’t what was exposed be of interest to the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission? Wouldn’t this be of vital importance in their investigation?

But let it be known that history has shown that the messenger may be stopped but the message can never be suppressed.






P Ramakrishnan
President
Aliran

Lies about Malaysian Universities - Stupid move by government

There are three kinds of lies; Lies, LIES and STATISTICS.

And yes, I am calling the OIC University Ranking given in Parliament by the Minister above as LYING STATISTICS, because it gives an impression that the OIC ranking are ACCEPTABLE comparison against the THES statistics. I implore the readers to ignore the final half of the video, which was reported widely (the use of bad Tamil word, and Gobalakrishnan's whisper). Listen carefully to the BN Minister.

Here goes.

The world-wide recognized higher education ranking system, the Times Higher Education QS World Ranking, gives the following results for Universities ranking for 2007, as quoted by the Minister above:

UM is 246
UKM is 309
USM is 307
UPM is 364

Now, he claims that this is not too bad, because among OIC countries, the SESRIC body for the OIC reports

UM is 14
UKM is 12
USM is 41
UPM not ranked

The TRUTH is, our Malaysian Universities are unable to compete in the professional league. So we went and created our own league; the OIC league, an idea mooted by...who else? Malaysia!

The JOKE is, this Minister is either lying by omission, or he is ignorant.

Because the ACTUAL TRUTH is the following:
1. In the OIC ranking, there were only 84 Universities surveyed, because of "unavailability" of data from the possible list of 322 Universities. So we are top 50 of 84 Universities!
2. In the OIC ranking, the top 11 ranked Universities above UKM are
(1) University is Quaid-e-Azam, Pakistan
(2) Koc Univ, Turkey
(3) Razi Univ, Iran
(4) Tarbiat Modares Univ, Iran
(5) Univ Tabriz, Iran
(6) Hacettepe Univ, Turkey
(7) Istanbul Univ, Turkey
(8) American Univ Beirut, Lebanon
(9) United Arab Emirates Univ, UAE
(10) Suez Canal Univ, Egypt
(11) Kuwait Univ, Kuwait

Now, lets cross reference these Universities against the THES top 400.

What do we find? An earth-shattering news for those in the higher education ministry!NONE of these Universities are in the THES top 400 ranking!

The only "Istanbul" found is for Istanbul Technical University ranked at 390! But this is a different University than the one listed at number 7. I finally found Istanbul University at the 401-500 listing.

So I demand an explanation from the Higher Education Ministry:
1. Why are we worse off than the Universities ranked even worse in the THES system?
2. Why is the minister duping the MPs in Parliament by bringing up OIC ranking, when a pathetic 84 Universities took part in the survey?
3. How can the Minister blatantly give a FALSE impression that OIC ranking can be compared against THES, all in one single breath? These two rankings are worlds apart, in terms of the sample size, scientific methodologies, integrity and international acceptance!

Please answer ASAP. This is a subject of national interest.

Because if we keep going on like this, by comparing ourselves against the worst, instead of the best, our Universities will soon be kicked out of the top 500 list! Especially since NUS, which was part of UM before the separation of Malaysia-Singapore is at 33, while UM has been flushed down to 246!





Tides of Change
Rantings and Raving about Things That Matter!