PP3739/12/2002 ISSN 0127 - 5127 / RM3.00 / 2002:Vol.22No · back to Sejarah Melayu, that for-bade...

Aliran Monthly : Vol.22(1)

PP3739/12/2002 ISSN 0127 - 5127 / RM3.00 / 2002:Vol.22No.1


hen historians, politicalscientists and journalistsevaluate the perform-ances of political parties,

they typically measure the parties’successes or failures against theirideological platforms. They fre-quently assess the parties’ strate-gies and tactics by measuringrises and falls in the latter’s popu-lar appeal.

Such evaluations all too often ex-pose huge gaps between idealsand realities, shortfalls betweenaspirations and limitations, anddifferences between ideologiesand practices.

It is plausible to read much of his-torical writing, academic theoriz-ing or journalistic reporting alongthose lines thus: the history ofpolitical parties is the history ofbetrayal – of big and small betray-als.

If one doesn’t think that this gen-eralization is much too sweeping,one can quickly identify all kindsof parties that began by promis-ing liberation and ended by im-posing tyranny. There are manyhorrific examples of such parties

COVER STORY

Can There Be ReformasiBeyond BA?

by Khoo Boo Teik

Unkept Promises

Reaffirm the continuing relevance of reform

WWWWW

in the post-colonial or post-revo-lutionary states of Africa, Asiaand Latin America.

But they aren’t the only parties toprofess one thing and do some-thing else. They aren’t the onlyones to have been nobly conceivedonly to grow up delinquent.

Look at the Republican Party inthe USA, for example, a party stillcalled GOP by its nostalgic sup-porters. This ‘Grand Old Party’, abastion of unchecked corporate

wealth and ill-concealed classprivilege, is the standard bearerof George Bush Jr’s either-you-are-with-us-or-against-us ‘newimperialism’. Yet this GOP wasonce Abraham Lincoln’s party forabolishing black slavery and re-building post-Civil War America,‘with malice toward none, withcharity for all’, as Lincoln envis-aged it shortly before his assassi-nation.

Meanwhile the labour and so-cial democratic parties of west-


The BN's victory in Indera Kayangan was alreadyobvious to most observers even prior to the by-elec-tion. September 11 had sent shivers down the backsnot only of Americans but of non-MuslimMalaysians as well, what with one after anotherround of KMM arrests. Reading the writing on thewall even earlier, the DAP pulled out from the BA.Then came KeADILan's internal squabbles.

In this issue Khoo Boo Teik tries to explain the dis-mantling of BA which he attributes to "issues ofpower". But he also hastens to reaffirm the continu-ing relevance of reformasi which for him createdways for people to talk to one another: Malays tonon-Malays, non-Muslim to Muslims, those whowrite to those who surf, between OKTs and thosestill free, etc. Take heart, Khoo seems to say.

But the piece by Mustafa Anuar on The Sun's poten-tial takeover by Nexnews Bhd, seems to suggest thatthings might get worse. For it appears that The Sunwill be downgraded to a `breezier' tabloid, furtherrobbing readers of any kind of choice.

We continue our ISA Watch. Tian Chua's fiancee,Mabel Au, describes how she was deported whenshe tried to enter Malaysia to visit him.

Perhaps then there will be some cheer reading twoseemingly innocuous pieces. One is by KumpulanKemajuan Masyarakat on how villages have beenbattling a Kedah politician for water and electricitysupply for years. The other is by S. Arutchelvanabout the struggle by two groups of urban pioneersin Ipoh and Klang who converged in front of BukitAman to demand justice. There is a silver lining inthe dark clouds gathering above, surely.

Make what you can of the situation. Have a mean-ingful Chinese New Year.

C O N T E N T S

Printed by Angkatan Edaran Enterprise Sdn. Bhd. Lot 6, Jalan Tukang 16/4,Seksyen 16, 40000 Shah Alam, Selangor Darul Ehsan.

EDITOR'S NOTE

COVER STORYCOVER STORYCOVER STORYCOVER STORYCOVER STORY••••• Can There Be Reformasi Beyond BA?Can There Be Reformasi Beyond BA?Can There Be Reformasi Beyond BA?Can There Be Reformasi Beyond BA?Can There Be Reformasi Beyond BA? 22222

FEATURESFEATURESFEATURESFEATURESFEATURES••••• Protest At Bukit AmanProtest At Bukit AmanProtest At Bukit AmanProtest At Bukit AmanProtest At Bukit Aman 88888

••••• Villagers In The DarkVillagers In The DarkVillagers In The DarkVillagers In The DarkVillagers In The Dark 1 01 01 01 01 0

••••• The One-eyed Man Is KingThe One-eyed Man Is KingThe One-eyed Man Is KingThe One-eyed Man Is KingThe One-eyed Man Is King 1 51 51 51 51 5

••••• After After After After After The SunThe SunThe SunThe SunThe Sun Takeover Takeover Takeover Takeover Takeover 2 32 32 32 32 3

••••• 13 Hours In Airport Lock-up13 Hours In Airport Lock-up13 Hours In Airport Lock-up13 Hours In Airport Lock-up13 Hours In Airport Lock-up 2 52 52 52 52 5

••••• Anwar Should Be Out On BailAnwar Should Be Out On BailAnwar Should Be Out On BailAnwar Should Be Out On BailAnwar Should Be Out On Bail 3 33 33 33 33 3

••••• Congratulations, AmericaCongratulations, AmericaCongratulations, AmericaCongratulations, AmericaCongratulations, America 3 43 43 43 43 4

••••• Indonesia Won't Drop Its AchehIndonesia Won't Drop Its AchehIndonesia Won't Drop Its AchehIndonesia Won't Drop Its AchehIndonesia Won't Drop Its Acheh 3 63 63 63 63 6

••••• Stop Bullying USM StudentsStop Bullying USM StudentsStop Bullying USM StudentsStop Bullying USM StudentsStop Bullying USM Students 4 04 04 04 04 0

REGULARSREGULARSREGULARSREGULARSREGULARS••••• Thinking AllowedThinking AllowedThinking AllowedThinking AllowedThinking Allowed 1 91 91 91 91 9

••••• Current ConcernsCurrent ConcernsCurrent ConcernsCurrent ConcernsCurrent Concerns 3 13 13 13 13 1

OTHERSOTHERSOTHERSOTHERSOTHERS••••• Reaffirming Religious FreedomReaffirming Religious FreedomReaffirming Religious FreedomReaffirming Religious FreedomReaffirming Religious Freedom 1 41 41 41 41 4

••••• Be Fair In ReportingBe Fair In ReportingBe Fair In ReportingBe Fair In ReportingBe Fair In Reporting 1 71 71 71 71 7

••••• Subscription FormSubscription FormSubscription FormSubscription FormSubscription Form 1 81 81 81 81 8

••••• BN Determined To Strangle DissentBN Determined To Strangle DissentBN Determined To Strangle DissentBN Determined To Strangle DissentBN Determined To Strangle Dissent 2 42 42 42 42 4

••••• No Place In No Place In No Place In No Place In No Place In The SunThe SunThe SunThe SunThe Sun 2 72 72 72 72 7

••••• ALIRAN's ISA WatchALIRAN's ISA WatchALIRAN's ISA WatchALIRAN's ISA WatchALIRAN's ISA Watch 2 82 82 82 82 8

ALIRANALIRANALIRANALIRANALIRAN is a Reform Movement dedicated to is a Reform Movement dedicated to is a Reform Movement dedicated to is a Reform Movement dedicated to is a Reform Movement dedicated toJustice, Freedom & Solidarity and listed on theJustice, Freedom & Solidarity and listed on theJustice, Freedom & Solidarity and listed on theJustice, Freedom & Solidarity and listed on theJustice, Freedom & Solidarity and listed on theroster of the Economic and Social Council of theroster of the Economic and Social Council of theroster of the Economic and Social Council of theroster of the Economic and Social Council of theroster of the Economic and Social Council of theUnited Nations. Founded in 1977, Aliran welcomesUnited Nations. Founded in 1977, Aliran welcomesUnited Nations. Founded in 1977, Aliran welcomesUnited Nations. Founded in 1977, Aliran welcomesUnited Nations. Founded in 1977, Aliran welcomesall Malaysians above 21 to be members. Contactall Malaysians above 21 to be members. Contactall Malaysians above 21 to be members. Contactall Malaysians above 21 to be members. Contactall Malaysians above 21 to be members. Contactthe Hon. Secretary or visit our webpage.the Hon. Secretary or visit our webpage.the Hon. Secretary or visit our webpage.the Hon. Secretary or visit our webpage.the Hon. Secretary or visit our webpage.

Published byPublished byPublished byPublished byPublished by

Aliran Kesedaran Negara (ALIRAN)Aliran Kesedaran Negara (ALIRAN)Aliran Kesedaran Negara (ALIRAN)Aliran Kesedaran Negara (ALIRAN)Aliran Kesedaran Negara (ALIRAN)103, Medan Penaga, 11600 Jelutong,103, Medan Penaga, 11600 Jelutong,103, Medan Penaga, 11600 Jelutong,103, Medan Penaga, 11600 Jelutong,103, Medan Penaga, 11600 Jelutong,

Penang, Malaysia.Penang, Malaysia.Penang, Malaysia.Penang, Malaysia.Penang, Malaysia.

Tel : (04) 658 5251 Fax : (04) 658 5197Tel : (04) 658 5251 Fax : (04) 658 5197Tel : (04) 658 5251 Fax : (04) 658 5197Tel : (04) 658 5251 Fax : (04) 658 5197Tel : (04) 658 5251 Fax : (04) 658 5197

Homepage : http://www.malaysia.net/aliranHomepage : http://www.malaysia.net/aliranHomepage : http://www.malaysia.net/aliranHomepage : http://www.malaysia.net/aliranHomepage : http://www.malaysia.net/aliran


ern Europe have been busily dis-mantling the welfare systemsthat were forged during WorldWar II to rally their people tofight Nazism and fascism. In theUK, for instance, perhaps theonly ‘new’ thing about TonyBlair’s Labour Party (Baru?) isthe sophistry it’s used in sellingout British labour.

Lest we can’t see the ‘elephant inour eye’ … let’s ask if things arethat different at home.

Embarked on its ‘historic mis-sion’ of Malay nationalism, doesUMNO’s current vision of‘Malay unity’ contain anythingnobler than a ‘corporate mis-sion’ to protect the party’s eco-nomic empire? Should one re-gard MCA as being more selflessthan a latter-day Kapitan Chinafirmly casting its eyes on thekapitan’s interests?

Hasn’t Gerakan shredded its plat-form of ‘social democracy’ andgiven up its self-proclaimed roleof being the ‘conscience of theBarisan Nasional’? Couldn’t PBSthink of a better way of repayingthe heroism of Tambunan thanreturning to BN? And so on.

To see things plainly, ask DrMahathir Mohamad. He’s saidbefore that any smart politicianwill promise more than he or shecan or will honour. Then, askyourself: don’t you know of ‘hon-ourable men and women’ who selltheir souls to ‘serve the people’,evidently by serving themselvesin positions of power?

To put matters starkly, politicalparties, if needs be, compromise

their platforms and renege ontheir vows. They spurn loyal fol-lowers and turn their backs onneedy constituencies. It’s secondnature to them to sell their sup-porters long on hope and short onrealization.

Hence, this much may be true forpolitical parties that last longenough to have a record worth ascrutiny: Betrayal is the name of thegame.

I’m not suggesting here that we’venever had honest and dedicatedpoliticians at all. I’d most defi-nitely remember the late Tan CheeKhoon, and consider the persever-ing Syed Husin Ali, and my goodand indefatigable friend,Jeyakumar Devaraj as exemplaryspecimens of the scrupulous andprincipled politician.

Nor do I cynically suggest that weshould, therefore, helplessly wel-come any party or its politicianshowever dishonest they turn outto be, willfully or otherwise.

But I think that a sober awarenessof the ‘likelihood of betrayal’ willhelp us retain a critical ability toface up to murky twists and turnsin the ‘art of the possible’.

I may be completely mistaken, butit seems to me some such aware-ness may be acutely needed byMalaysians who are apt to lamentthat our politics has entered a dis-mal post-Barisan Alternatifphase.

Elaborate arguments can wait forthe moment. Still, no one shouldsuffer any delusion: BarisanAlternatif is no more.

DAP’s unceremonious with-drawal from BA has torn the op-position coalition formed in 1999.PAS’s failure to broaden its appealwithout delay has left it with aquantitative, not quality, claim tothe leadership of the opposition.Keadilan’s police-battered andinternally divided house is in dis-order. PRM is stuck between fur-ther marginalization and an un-fulfilled merger.

How then should one positiononeself if one had shared andshowed an empathy with thepost-2 September 1998 movementfor social change, political reformand institutional cleansing?

One can, of course, be resigned:déjà vu, ‘been there, done that’. Orone can be philosophical: ‘themore things change, the more theyremain the same’. To one degreeor another, these two attitudesspell a moral defeat that will cutmore deeply than just BA’s unrav-elling.

A third stance is possible and pref-erable. One can refuse to composean epitaph to Reformasi, no matterwhether we live in post-Novem-ber 1999, post-September 11, 2001,or post-BA times.

To do so in defiance of so mucheffort to discredit Reformasi, to pro-nounce it ‘dead before arrival’,and to bury its blossoming of so-cial criticism and political dissent,we must, however, renew our un-derstanding of Reformasi.

We must recollect how Reformasibegan and what it meant in thecritical period of 1998-99. In otherwords, we must reaffirm the con-

After BATetap Reformasi

Name Of The Game


tinuing relevance of Reformasi be-yond BA’s dismantling.

Let’s begin with what Reformasiwas not.

Reformasi in Malaysia was not anideological or political importeven if some of its concerns ech-oed those of the Indonesian move-ment against Suharto and his NewOrder regime. It was not an alienkomplot hatched by the Interna-tional Monetary Fund (whateverits offences against humanitymay be), or goaded by Al Gore(whatever his self-serving motiveswere when he last spoke in KualaLumpur).

Reformasi was not an unsavourypolitical dish cooked and servedsingly or collectively by the BAparties, indeed because Reformasiinspired the formation of BA andnot the other way around.

And Reformasi was not aimed atthe violent overthrow of electedgovernment, despite barefaced at-tempts to link its protests, ceramah,websites, and pre- and post-elec-tion campaigns with dark andnever-to-be-proven allegations ofmilitancy, extremism and con-spiracies.

What, then, was Reformasi?

Reformasi began unexpectedlywhen huge numbers of ordinarycitizens chose to stand by AnwarIbrahim soon after Mahathir dis-missed his ‘anointed successor’and UMNO expelled its twice-elected deputy president. There-

after, Anwar’s defiance ofMahathir, UMNO and his otherdetractors spawned large andlargely unorganized pro-Anwarand anti-Mahathir demonstra-tions.

Within a short space of time,Reformasi came to stand for a fun-damental and popular rejection ofcertain betrayals exposed byAnwar Ibrahim’s fall.

The Malay community rejectedthe reasons offered for Anwar’sflaying by the government,UMNO and the media. Anwar’saib (shaming) became the com-munity’s humiliation. It becameproof of Mahathir, UMNO andthe government’s betrayal ofMalay cultural norms, and a‘Malay social contract’, goingback to Sejarah Melayu, that for-bade rulers from shaming theruled.

Broader sections of Malaysiansociety refused to condone themanner of Anwar’s prosecutionand police assaults on legiti-mate protests. They regardedthose events as betrayals of thetenets of democratic govern-ment. In response, they rejectedthe involvement of key institu-tions – the media, police, judici-ary, and election commission,among others – in partisan poli-tics. This they condemned as abetrayal of the requirements ofimpartiality and professional-ism basic to any honest and de-cent exercise of power.

However, Reformasi wouldn’thave progressed had it been lim-ited to a bunch of ‘nots’ andnegativities. In fact, it was a lot

more ‘positive’.

The first waves of Reformasisupporters – ordinary people,students, women, civil servants,and NGO types – did not(thankfully) have uniform viewsimposed by party whips or partylines. Instead (and thankfully),a host of mostly politically un-affiliated writers, commentators,artists, cartoonists, and internetsurfers emerged who trans-formed the deep sense of betrayalinto new views of Malaysia’ssocial and political problems.

Naturally old prejudices could notbe easily discarded. But they weresignificantly moderated. Anwar’splight made nonsense of ‘racialpolitics’. His prosecution and con-viction, when linked to Lim GuanEng’s earlier conviction oncharges of sedition, made it feasi-ble for Reformasi’s unofficialagenda to include a multiethnicdefence of civil liberties and hu-man rights.

Malay opposition to the betrayalof their ancient social contractoverturned what was assumed tobe an implicit Malay loyalty toUMNO no matter how convulsedby crises this ‘party of the Malays’may be. Some UMNO rank and filemembers, Anwar supporters orjust disgusted members, becameinactive. Some followed Dr WanAzizah to form Keadilan. Otherscrossed over to PAS; hence, duluUMNO, sekarang PAS.

Yet a more far-reaching change inpolitical consciousness was aMalay readiness to ‘think the un-thinkable’ (AM, 19:5, 1999), thatis, a non-UMNO-led government.Thus did Reformasi force open aspace for the very idea of an ‘al-

What ReformasiWas NOT

Rejections Of Betrayal

P o s i t i v i t i e s


ternative’ coalition before the 1999general election.

Some quarters and observers willno doubt object to what seems likean attempt here to reinterpretReformasi’s significance by virtu-ally divorcing it from BA.

And yet for some time betweenlate 1998 and early 1999, the op-position parties tailed behindReformasi. At the very least theywere hesitant to accept an ex-foeas an icon of dissent. But everysubsequent development that af-fected Anwar’s person – his as-sault in jail, conviction after hisfirst trial, and alleged arsenic poi-soning – intensified Reformasi’ sferment.

In that sense, it fell to Reformasito compel the opposition partiesto jump into the fray to harnessthe dissenting moods. They didso for Anwar and for reforms,but also for party interests, how-ever the parties defined their in-terests.

To their credit, the BA partieswere courageous enough to ex-periment with a multiethnic andmultireli-gious ‘second coali-tion’ that could house differentplatforms. BA, as its Joint Mani-festo proclaimed, could accom-modate PAS’s Islam, DAP’s‘Malaysian Malaysia’, PRM’ssocial democracy, andKeadilan’s ‘social justice’.

In electoral terms, although BNwas returned to power with an-other two-thirds majority in Par-liament, BA’s success was re-flected in UMNO’s severe losses,including, crucially, popularMalay support.

For a while, even after the Novem-ber 1999 election, BA partiesstrove to establish commonalitiesinstead of differences, and to offeran alternative vision of howMalaysian society should be re-formed and governed. Their sig-nal achievement in 2000 was PASand Keadilan’s combined refusalto join UMNO’s attempt to inten-sify interethnic politics via its‘Malay unity’ calls. Their highpoint was Keadilan’s victory inthe Lunas by-election.

We must recall these social andpolitical developments which aresignificant to Malaysian politicsin the long run. Otherwise it’svery easy to be persuaded by themedia - local and international -and by politicians, BN and oppo-sition, that the so-called ‘Islamicstate’ controversies were the rootcause of BA’s breakup.

Even in early 2000, DAP andPAS had started a few uneasyarguments over some of PAS’sstatements and policies. By andby, those arguments were exac-erbated by the Al Maunah trial,the ISA detention of alleged‘Malaysian Mujahidin’, the Sep-tember 11 attacks on New Yorkand Washington, and the USA-UK’s assault on Afghanistan.

Even so, it wasn’t ideological in-compatibility that did BA in. Ulti-mately BA came to grief over is-sues of power, specifically thestark imbalance of power withinthe coalition after the 1999 elec-tion.

In principle, BA parties wouldshare power as a coalition. BAwon 40% of the popular vote. But

from a field that everyone knewwasn’t level, BA’s harvest ofpower was lean: 42 seats againstBN’s two-thirds majority in Par-liament.

Any BA claim to power was lim-ited to the state governments ofKelantan and Trengganu. Couldthose governments have func-tioned then as ‘BA govern-ments’? Perhaps it could have ifBA was an established coalition,and DAP, Keadilan and PRMhad significant, if minority, rep-resentation.

In Parliament, PAS had 27 seats,DAP ten, and Keadilan five.Could they not have functionedas a BA Opposition? They couldhave so long as it was acceptedthat the leadership of the parlia-mentary opposition had been de-livered to PAS.

PAS’s power was severely limited.In Kelantan and Trengganu PAScould only rely on meagre stateresources while facing hostilityfrom the federal government. Infact it had no chance to implement‘pragmatic’ , ‘ investment-friendly’, or ‘growth-facilitating’policies. PAS could do no morethan to offer moral succour to itsfaithful. It could do no less sinceit took its electoral gains, not un-reasonably, as proof of the voters’support for its Islamic pro-gramme.

All that didn’t pre-empt warn-ings or predictions that a ‘partyof Islam’ would soon sweeppower through the ‘northernstates’, ‘the Malay heartland’,and so on. Perhaps in their eu-phoria some PAS leaders be-

Issues Of Power

PAS ’ s P rob l ems

Enter BA


lieved it themselves and thoughtit not too soon to push their pro-gramme a bit more. To say thatthey became quite insensitive to‘liberal Muslim’ or non-Muslimsentiment is to accuse them of toomuch. It’s enough to say that mostof them couldn’t remember orchose to ignore PAS’s not so bril-liant record as a political party.

It is a fine principle that mem-bers of a coalition should be‘consultative’ and ‘sharing’ .However, the practice is alwaysconditioned by numbers: Howmany seats do you have, should youhave, can you win?

DAP had ten seats. The resultwas a mixed performance: onebetter than in 1995, but fourteenand ten less than what DAPcommanded in 1986 and 1990.More dismaying was Lim KitSiang’s successive loss inPenang (significantly at the par-liamentary level) and the failureof other DAP leaders to recoupthe party’s losses from 1995.

A non-partisan analyst mighthave drawn three inferencesfrom these results. First, DAPstill enjoyed a core of support.Second, the famous ‘pendulum’that some believed to swing be-tween DAP and BN in alternateelections could well stop swing-ing, to DAP’s detriment. Third,the party could no longer counton free admission into the bigurban constituencies that onceelected and re-elected their lead-ers regardless of what they didor didn’t do.

A hard-nosed post mortem by theparty would have sought plain

answers to tough questions.Where were the party’s weak-nesses now that its fortunes hadtwice fallen? Should the party stillbe led by losers? What had theparty to do to revitalize itself?

To say that DAP afterwards fas-tened on non-Muslim fears of animpending ‘Islamic state’ as thecause of the party’s decline is toaccuse them of baselessly turninga friend into a foe. It’s sufficient tosay that DAP ran out of ideas forreinventing itself. And withKeadilan pushing its claims in by-elections against DAP’s, and get-ting them, BA held little attractionleft for DAP.

If it seems too simple to reduceBA’s end to power considerations,side-stepping ideological matters,let’s recall that a previous coali-tion (Gagasan Rakyat) disap-peared after the 1990 election.DAP, having the highest numberof parliamentary seats, wentabout its ways as the leader of theOpposition.Tengku RazaleighHamzah’s disappointed S46 wentaway.

Then there was no whiff of an ‘Is-lamic state’ controversy. ThenDAP was highly optimistic, asPAS seems to be today. In 1995,DAP went all out to win Penangon its own, and went down spec-tacularly.

Until July 1997, UMNO was simi-larly riding high on the 1995 elec-tion. But the global turbulence ofthe 1997 East Asian financial cri-sis provoked the domestic crisisof Anwar’s sacking. To that mustnow be added the shock waves of

September 11, 2001 and the de-mands of American unilateralism.Predictions are hazardous underthese conditions.

What we do know is what we’veknown since Reformasi worked itsway into our society, producingdeep changes and fragmenting‘public moods’ along unforeseenlines. By now, it’s banal to say thatparties (and coalitions) shouldreinvent themselves or become ir-relevant.

Indeed, can UMNO regain he-gemony via ‘Malay special privi-leges’? Can DAP find renewedglory in ‘non-Malay rights’? CanPAS expand by building Islamfrom two impoverished states?

In a sense, we can leave them totheir arguments, polemics anddebates. Political parties speak inmany tongues – race, class, reli-gion, development, ‘our values’,etc. Mostly they speak to highlightdifferences and erect barriers tocommunication.

That BA parties now bicker ratherthan talk is a pity. But it isn’tReformasi’s tragedy.

Reformasi created ways for peopleto talk to one another – Malays tonon-Malays, non-Muslims toMuslims, those who write to thosewho surf, those who were free tothose who were OKTs, those whoremain free to those who are in de-tention, and so on.

It may not sound much but itkeeps faith with Malaysian soci-ety. It may not bring anybody topower. But it isn’t a betrayal.

Hazards OfP r e d i c t i o n s

And ReformasiOnce Again

DAP ’ s P rob l ems

q


“Police+Developer = The peoplesuffer”. These were the words dis-played on a banner by the farm-ers from Ladang Bukit Tinggi infront of Bukit Aman today.

The banner sums up the main rea-sons why around 50 people fromLadang Stratshila, Ipoh andLadang Bukit Tinggi, Klang con-verged at Bukit Aman to make acomplaint about the role playedby the police.

Prior to this, the workers fromLadang Stratshila had lodgedmore than 80 police reportswhile the Bukit Tinggi farmershad lodged around 46 police re-ports. All the reports do notseem to have worked. In recentweeks, 27 arrests have takenplace in both these areas: 5 inLadang Stratshila and 22 inLadang Bukit Tinggi. Both situ-ations are almost similar.

In each of the two areas, there is acourt case pending in court. Thenthe legal system takes a back seat.The Developer comes in with pro-tection of the police to do work inthe disputed land. The peopleprotest as the developer has nocourt order. The police interveneaggressively, ganging up with the

MARGINALISED COMMUNITIES

Protest At Bukit AmanUnder threat from developers trying to pre-empt pending courtcases, besieged communities gathered at Bukit Aman on 23 Janto protest at what they perceive to be a lack of impartiality onthe part of the police

by S Arutchelvan


developer and arresting the peo-ple. Two against one, at times us-ing gangsters making it threeagainst one. The people thenlodged reports and even spoke tothe Deputy CPO of Perak and theOCPDs of Klang and Ipoh, butthings on the ground did notchange. The police were blatantlymisusing their power and hadbecome the judge, jury and theexecutioner.

Feeling dejected and frustrated,both these communities decidedto go to the Central Commandin Bukit Aman to get redress. AtBukit Aman, which literallymeans “Peaceful Hill”, thingswere rather peaceful at the be-ginning. The people gatheredoutside the main entrance.There were Light Strike Force(LSF), another ten policemen inuniform. One police officer saidthat they were arranging forsomeone to collect the memoran-dum. The spokesperson from thecommunities told the police of-ficer that they were there tolodge an official complaint un-der the Disciplinary Unit OfBukit Aman and were not thereto send a memorandum or toseek a meeting with the IGP (In-spector General of Police).

S Arutchelvan is pro-temS Arutchelvan is pro-temS Arutchelvan is pro-temS Arutchelvan is pro-temS Arutchelvan is pro-temsecretary general of thesecretary general of thesecretary general of thesecretary general of thesecretary general of theyet-to-be-registered So-yet-to-be-registered So-yet-to-be-registered So-yet-to-be-registered So-yet-to-be-registered So-cialist Party of Malaysiacialist Party of Malaysiacialist Party of Malaysiacialist Party of Malaysiacialist Party of Malaysia

While the people were waitingpatiently carrying two banners toexpress their grievances, sud-denly one Chief Inspector Baderulalong with another Inspector Tancharged into the people with theLSF. They wanted to take away theharmless banners. This resultedin chaos as people held on to theirbanners and a confrontation en-sued.

Timely intervention by Superin-tendent Jamshah from BukitAman saved the image of the po-lice. Comrade Dr. Nasir Hashim(PSM Chairperson) feeling veryannoyed said, “We have hadenough of the police, we camehere to seek redress and is this thekind of treatment we get?”

Supt. Jamshah was equally an-noyed with Chief InspectorBaderul, reprimanded him andinstructed him to take orders fromhim. The Light Strike Force in theircharging mood were confusedwith the differing orders from theirsuperiors. Supt. Jamshah thentold the LSF that there was noth-ing and told them to back off.

After this, things went onsmoothly. PSM leaders NasirHashim, Sec. Gen S.Arutchelvan

and Central Committee memberV.Selvam negotiated with the po-lice and finally five people led byDr. Nasir and M. Saraswathywent inside Bukit Aman to lodgethe report.

The police recorded the discipli-nary report, which took more thantwo hours. Outside, the peoplefrom both communities held apress conference.

ASP Muthusamy, who was lead-ing the Bukit Aman investigationteam assured the people that thepolice would do all that theycould. He even said that the po-lice should not have intervenedwhen the matter is in court. Hetold the people to continue to makepolice reports and that theywould do all that they could. LaterJody, Chairperson from LadangStratshila and A.Thevindranbriefed the people on what hadhappened inside.

M. Saraswathy said that the po-lice even suggested civil action butshe said that they are poor peopleand they want a clean police force.Let’s clean the dirt first in the de-partment. Nasir ended the brief-ing by saying, “We have come thisfar, but the fight on the ground hasto go on, we cannot relax; if theycome again, we have to fight on.”This drew a loud applause andboth communities left Bukit Amanto go back to their respective ar-eas as the struggle on the groundis far from over. q


village without accessto piped water, electric-ity or even a public tel-ephone in the Prime

Minister’s home state, Kedah?Impossible? Take a look atKampung Sungei Getah 2, locatednear Sg. Lalang, about 15 km fromthe booming town of SungeiPetani in Kedah. It has the dubi-ous distinction of being probablythe only settlement in Kedah with-out access to these basic ameni-ties.

The 31 households remainingthere seem to be caught in a timewarp. Children study under kero-sene lamps and women fetch wa-ter in pails just like their parentsand grandparents did 60 yearsago.

The villagers are mostly poor eth-nic Indian rubber tappers, factoryor contract workers. Their dilapi-dated houses stand in stark con-trast to the shiny new housingprojects being developed just out-side their village. The remnants ofthe only Malay family in the vil-lage moved out after the 75-year-old mother died from a snake bitein 1999, without ever having en-joyed access to electricity.

The village is an island of dark-ness and deprivation amidst thebooming development in the par-

liamentary constituency of formerfinance minister Tun DaimZainuddin. How this situation isallowed to persist until today is abizarre story of feudal politicsand connivance among the politi-cally well connected.

Sg. Getah 2 does not have basicamenities because one K.S.Govindan PPN, JP, a MalaysianIndian Congress (MIC) branchchairman and former municipalcouncillor, is said to have refusedto give permission to the relevantauthorities to connect water, elec-tricity and telephone lines to thevillagers’ homes.

He allegedly demands (but not inwriting) that the villagers pay hima monthly land rent, including

arrears of rent for 35 years, as wellas agree to a set of tenancy condi-tions before he will allow the au-thorities to provide basic ameni-ties to what he claims is his land.

These conditions include achange of name for the village toLadang K.S. Govindan, no fenc-ing around the houses, no rear-ing of animals, no cultivation andno repairs or renovation.

Govindan also claims that all thehouses belong to him and thehouses therefore cannot be sold orrented. From his demands, itwould appear that Govindan isactually not very confident of hisclaim of ownership of the landand is attempting to armtwist thevillagers into a ground tenancy

MARGINALISED COMMUNITY

Villagers In The DarkKedah politician denies water and electricity to 200 villagers

by Kumpulan Kemajuan Masyarakat

AAAAA


arrangement that will strengthenhis legal position.

The village lies on what was for-merly the labour lines of AberfoylePlantation. The 200 residents ofthe village are mostly the childrenand grandchildren of former es-tate workers. Like many frag-mented estates in Kedah, the own-ership of the land has changedhands many times.

According to the villagers, sometime in the 1960s the owners/em-ployers then got into financial dif-ficulties and verbally told the peo-ple that they would be givingthem the houses in lieu of anycompensation. The people contin-ued staying on in the houseswhile more recent migrants hadpurchased or rented their housesfrom previous owners.

Govindan was one of the estateworkers living in Kg. SungeiGetah 2 and still lives there. In1989, he became one of the regis-tered landowners of the landthrough an exparte originatingsummons that resulted in an or-der by the Alor Setar High Courton the grounds that the originalland titles were lost.

What is pertinent to note is thatGovindan owns only 3/20 of theSg. Getah land, with the rest be-ing held by Beh and Mohd.Ghouse both of whom have con-sented in writing to allow basicamenities to be connected to thevillagers. However Govindan’s3/20 portion of the land is exactlywhere the houses of the villagersare located.

In other words, Govindan tooklegal posession of his portion ofthe land knowing very well thatpeople have already been livingthere for three generations. Assoon as he registered his claim, hetermed the villagers as ‘squatters’and insisted that they compensatehim for living on his land for freeall these years!

He justifies his claim of 35 yearsarrears in land rental on the basisthat he is an aggrieved landownerwho is unable to enjoy any rev-enue from his investment. So es-sentially what Govindan is do-ing is holding the people of Sg.Getah 2 to ransom; agree to hisunreasonable demands or live indeprivation. His strategy is to in-directly evict the people throughdenying basic amenities and thisstrategy is working well as over10 families have already movedout in the past five years.

The question that springs to mindis the stand of the government inthis dispute between a seniorBarisan National politician (anda Justice of the Peace and Munici-pal Councillor at that) and 200poor villagers without access towater and electricity.

The previous State Assemblymanfor Bukit Selambau, an UMNOpolitician managed to get kampungstatus for Sg. Getah 2 from theRural Development Ministry aswell as an allocation of RM244,000for water and electricity supply tothe village. Through his efforts, healso managed to get main waterpipes laid to the village (but nowater supply) much toGovindan’s extreme displeasure.Unfortunately he was droppedand Datuk V. Saravanan, theKedah MIC Chairman and now

state exco member, replaced him.

Saravanan made a pre-electionpromise in 1995 that he wouldresolve the plight of the villagersas soon as he was elected. He andGovindan apparently go back along way in MIC politics andGovindan, who is also a close as-sociate of Dato Seri Samy Vellu,must have been pleased with theway things turned out.

Saravanan managed to “convince”his friend to meet the villagers andthrough his influence, the landrental arrears were reduced fromRM1,680 per household (calcu-lated at RM4 per month for 35years) to an arbitrary sum ofRM400 and this was agreed by thevillagers. However, Govindanstated that the villagers had to paythe money beforehand after whichhe would impose a set of tenancyconditions that he has refused todivulge. By adopting this ex-tremely unreasonable position, hestymied the entire process.

Obviously he had no intention ofresolving the matter and wasmerely playing games. It is perti-nent to note that he has not sent asingle letter or legal notice to anyof the villagers asking for landrent. Nor has he stated in writinghis tenancy conditions.

Until today, both Saravanan andGovindan keep referring to this1995 offer that they had made tothe villagers and the ingratitudeand arrogance of the villagers innot accepting this offer.Saravanan has never made a sin-gle reference to the tenancy con-ditions imposed by the land-

A Pre-ElectionP r o m i s eFrom Villagers To

‘ S q u a t t e r s ’ O v e r n i g h t


In July 1999, the PWD activated awater standpipe in the village; onthe evening before the villagerswent to the Menteri Besar’s officefor the second time in an attemptto meet him!

Following that meeting with theDirector of the State EconomicPlanning Unit, Saravananchaired a meeting held at theSungei Petani Labour Office inAugust 1999. At that meeting,all the heads of department ofthe relevant agencies andGovindan were present. It wasan extremely important meetingfor the villagers as it was thefirst time that Govindan publiclystated his demands of landrental at RM4 for a total of 80houses (based on his calcula-tions of two houses per house-hold!) and the tenancy condi-tions.

The villagers agreed to pay landrental of RM4 per household ashe had requested and arrears fora maximum period of 6 years in-stead of the 35 years that he wasasking for. They also agreed toabide by all reasonable tenancyconditions within the law.

At that meeting, Saravanan prom-ised that the relevant governmentagencies would investigate theactual number of houses in Sg.Getah and the status of the land.The findings of this investigationwere to be submitted to the StateLegal Advisor together withGovindan’s demands and theState Legal Advisor was to studyand table a report to the State Excofor a decision.

The villagers were satisfied withthe outcome of this meeting andthey also managed to secure a sec-ond water standpipe for the vil-lage.

After a frustrating three-monthwait for a response and with thegeneral election around the cor-ner, the villagers decided to go tothe Menteri Besar’s office for athird time in November 1999 to tryto get a direct response from TanSri Sanusi Junid.

After waiting for more than fivehours, they managed to meet theState Legal Advisor who told

Another Pre-electionP r o m i s e …

owner that remain the real stum-bling block.

However he refers to the villag-ers as unreasonable squattersand accuses them of living onGovindan’s land for free. Thequestions of social and legal eq-uity of the people who have livedthere for 60 years do not botherSaravanan. His position is thatGovindan’s rights as landownerare paramount and must be ac-cepted by the villagers withoutany question while Govindan’sactions and demands are per-fectly right under the law.

Since 1990, the villagers havesent more than 80 letters andmemorandums to their electedrepresentatives, the KedahMenteri Besar, the relevant gov-ernment agencies and nationalpolitical leaders including thePrime Minister.

The villagers have gone to WismaDarul Aman three times between1998 and 1999 to try to meet TanSri Sanusi Junid, the then KedahMenteri Besar; each time they havefailed to meet him and have comeaway with promises of action. Atevery meeting with officials of theState government, they were toldthat the state is concerned abouttheir predicament and will inter-vene to find a solution.

The efforts of the villagers havebeen successful to some extent.After the first meeting with theMenteri Besar’s officials in May1998, the Public Works Depart-ment installed two water tanks inthe village and supplied thesetanks via water trucks. For the firsttime in 50 years, the villagers fi-nally had access to clean drink-ing water!


them that their situation was ac-tually discussed at the State Excotwice and Govindan was directedto meet with the State Legal Advi-sor to draw up a tenancy agree-ment with the villagers. Unfortu-nately Govindan and his lawyersrefused to meet him and more per-tinently Saravanan informedSaravanan informedSaravanan informedSaravanan informedSaravanan informedhim that the matter had been re-him that the matter had been re-him that the matter had been re-him that the matter had been re-him that the matter had been re-solvedsolvedsolvedsolvedsolved.

On the eve of the 1999 election,Saravanan and his entouragecame to the village (for the first visitsince he was elected) and onceagain (in the presence ofGovindan) he promised to resolvethe matter within three months ifhe was re-elected. He asked thepeople to leave the matter entirelyin his hands and not send lettersto or contact any other parties. Healso got the PWD to pave the dirtroad leading to the village.

After much deliberation, the vil-lagers agreed to his rather unu-sual request and waited for a re-sponse from him. They discoveredto their chagrin that onlyGovindan’s house in the villagereceived electricity supply afterthe elections.

Saravanan refused to respond toall their letters and refused tohave a meeting with them. Healso found a new issue to vilifythe villagers; that they refusedto pay for the water supplied bythe two PWD standpipes. Henever explained that the PWDdid not instal water meters, norsend water bills nor put in placeany mechanism to determinehow much water each house-hold consumed.

The villagers finally realized thatthey had been hoodwinked a sec-

ond time and wrote to the MenteriBesar. To their surprise, the newMenteri Besar, Datuk Seri SyedRazak actually replied to their let-ter indicating that action wouldbe taken. However, Saravanan in-tervened in the process again, mis-led the Menteri Besar’s Office andlaid the blame squarely on the vil-lagers.

The villagers decided to go toWisma Darul Aman for a fourthtime in December 2001 in an at-tempt to meet the Menteri Besardirectly and to highlight the linkbetween Saravanan andGovindan. Again they did notsucceed but met with his seniorofficials who have agreed to in-tervene. They also discoveredfrom the Menteri Besar’s officialsthat Govindan was actually plan-ning to evict them to develop ahousing project in the village!

Saravanan in the meantime is ex-tremely agitated that the villagershave gone to the Menteri Besar’soffice to complain against himand made veiled threats in thepress that water supply to thestandpipes would be discon-nected.

Predictably, his public statementsblame the villagers. And in an at-tempt to distance himself from thesituation, he says that the Stategovernment cannot intervene un-less “the squatters resolve their prob-lem with the landowner”. True toform, he has not mentioned any-thing at all about his friend’splans to develop the land nordoes he think that it is his respon-sibility as the elected representa-tive to ensure that the people af-fected by the development receiveadequate compensation and alter-native housing.

A Big Let-down

KKM (Community Devel-KKM (Community Devel-KKM (Community Devel-KKM (Community Devel-KKM (Community Devel-opment Group) is a grass-opment Group) is a grass-opment Group) is a grass-opment Group) is a grass-opment Group) is a grass-roots support group work-roots support group work-roots support group work-roots support group work-roots support group work-ing among marginaliseding among marginaliseding among marginaliseding among marginaliseding among marginalisedcommunities.communities.communities.communities.communities.

The villagers have now lost allfaith in Saravanan and are insist-ing that the Menteri Besar handletheir issue directly. Not only hasSaravanan associated withGovindan in misleading the Stategovernment and the public, he hasalso consistently defendedGovindan’s interests and his so-called rights as a landowner.

It would appear that the MIC’sself-proclaimed role as “cham-pion of the Indian community” isonly for the well connected andinfluential and not for poor villag-ers without basic amenities. Thevillagers have heeded SamyVellu’s advice in 1998 “to be hum-ble as they are staying on the owner’sland”.

In the same press statement, SamyVellu said that he knew Govindanand “will direct him to meet the vil-lagers” saying “I know what to dowith him if he refuses to do this”.

Now, more than three years later,they have realized that their hu-mility has been mistaken as a signof powerlessness. They have real-ized that their struggle for waterand electricity has become a fightfor their homes and their veryright to live in Sungei Getah 2.Unfortunately, their elected repre-sentatives and the very peoplewho claim to defend their inter-ests are aligned against them inthis fight. q


e, the Malaysian Con-sultative Council of Bud-dhism, Christianity,Hinduism and Sikhism

view with great concern andalarm the recent developments inthe country, the statement of theHonourable Prime Minister thatMalaysia is already a model Is-lamic State and Parti IslamSemalaysia (PAS) about to issueits version of an Islamic State forMalaysia and therefore wish toreiterate our DECLARATION ONFREEDOM OF RELIGION OR BE-LIEF AND ON THE ELIMINA-TION OF INTOLERANCE ANDOF DISCRIMINATION BASEDON RELIGION OR BELIEF firstadopted and released to the pub-lic on 22 June 1988.

When Malaya and later Malaysiawas founded there was a socialcontract among the different com-munities of different races and re-ligions on the type of constitutionthe country shall be governed by.Such social contract was then en-shrined in our Constitution andcannot be changed without con-sultation and consent of all thecommunities that make up Malay-sia.

Both the Federation of MalayaConstitutional Commission 1956- 1957 (commonly known as theReid Commission) and the Com-mission of Enquiry, North Borneo

and Sarawak, 1962 (commonlyknown as the Cobbold Commis-sion) have reported that the posi-tion of Islam being the religion ofthe Federation shall not imply thatMalaya and Malaysia is not asecular state. In other words, Ma-laya and Malaysia is a secularstate. The Reid Commission is thebody that framed and drafted theConstitution of the Federation ofMalaya after consulting all thecommunities of Malaya while theCobbold Commission was formedto seek the views of the communi-ties of Sabah and Sarawak.

The Constitution of our countryprovides that the Constitution isthe supreme law of the countryand any law passed which is in-consistent with the Constitutionshall to the extent of the inconsist-ency be void. State legislatures

may only pass laws with regardto any of the matters enumeratedin the State List of the Ninth Sched-ule of the Constitution, of whichSyariah Law, applicable to per-sons professing the religion of Is-lam, is one of the matters. HenceState Legislatures and Parliamentin respect of the Federal Territo-ries derive their authority to makesuch laws from the Constitution.

In 1988, we deemed it necessaryto come out with a declaration.More than thirteen years later, weare of the view the situation hasbecome worse and therefore findit appropriate to reiterate ourstand and urge the Federal andall State Governments to respectthe rights of every person to free-dom of religion and recognise thatMalaysia is constitutionally asecular State.

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

Reaffirming FreedomOf Religion

Most Reverend Anthony Soter Fernandez, D.D.President

Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity,Hinduism and Sikhism

31 January 2002

WWWWW


am of the opinion thatMalaysians are nowmature enough to readand then make proper

assessment of the news or state-ments that appear in the Press.One of the observations that wasmade recently by the Committeeto Protect Journalists (CPJ) (1999“Attacks on the Press” Report)stated that:

“On May 3, World Press FreedomDay, 581 journalists presented anunprecedented petition to DeputyPrime Minister and Home AffairsMinister Abdullah AhmadBadawi, calling for an end to pub-lishing restrictions. ‘I shall read it.I will let you know,’ Abdullah toldthe group. It was the last theyheard from him on the matter.

Also on World Press Freedom DayCPJ announced it was puttingPrime Minister MahathirMohamad on its list of the 10Worst Enemies of the Pressin1999. CPJ cited Mahathir’sstranglehold on the Mainstreammedia, as well as the Mahathirgovernment’s efforts to stifle thehandful of opposition organs thatare allowed to publish.”

The Honourable Prime Ministeralways has an answer to everyproblem or question. In this re-gard, Dr. Mahathir had clarifiedthe doubts and instituted the

policy way back in 1985 via hiskeynote address at the Openingof the World Press Convention inKuala Lumpur on 18 Sept 1985.His address reflected the percep-tual and conceptual position ofseveral government officialswithin the region as evident in thetitle “The social role of the MassMedia”.

It is useful to remember that in PPv Ooi Kee Saik (1971), 2 MLJ 108,Raja Azlan Shah J (as HRH thenwas) said, “The right to freedomof speech is simply the rightwhich everyone has to say, writeor publish what he pleases so longas he does not commit a breach ofthe law”. About 15 years later,HRH Sultan Azlan Shah, Sultanof Perak, reckoned that althoughthe free speech right in Article10(1a) does not mention the Rightto Information, the fundamentalright would be meaningless if thepublic lack the necessary informa-tion on which they could expresstheir views. (“The Right to Know “[1987] I MLJ ccxxxvi – ccxlv, Pub-lic Lecture delivered at USM,Penang, on Dec. 19, 1986.)

Some of you may remember FrankVogl ([email protected]) [of Trans-parency International, and Infor-mation and Public Affairs Direc-tor at the World Bank 1981-1990]who recommended the establish-ment of a well-funded, independ-

ent judicial system. He noted,“Without independent judgesearning decent incomes, and cou-rageous public prosecutors, wewill not see the media doing itsjob, however well-intentionedowners and editors may be.”

Islam does not permit the curtail-ment of information. On the con-trary, to seek knowledge is an ar-ticle of Faith. Not only the seek-ing, but also the use of truth is pre-scribed. The Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) was quoted as saying, “Thebest form of jihad (struggle) is toutter a word of truth to a tyranni-cal ruler.” And according to theHoly Qur’an (Verse 148 of Chap-ter 4), the only restrictions on free-dom of speech is the utterance “ofevil words, except by one who hasbeen wronged.” In addition, theIslamic notion of syurah (the build-ing of consensus) that is achievedthrough discussions and debatepresupposes the faithful as hav-ing proper information.

MEDIA

Why politicians fear information and knowledge

by Dato’ Syed Ahmad Idid

IIIII

The One-eyed Man Is King


Is there freedom to utter words,express oneself and publishthoughts, ideas and views in Ma-laysia? DYMM Sultan AzlahShah’s edict, both as a judge andruler, had not taken roots. It wouldbe instructive to note that the fol-lowing Acts or Regulations seemto have entangled people in themedia:

1 .1 .1 .1 .1 . Printing Presses and Publica-Printing Presses and Publica-Printing Presses and Publica-Printing Presses and Publica-Printing Presses and Publica-tions Act, 1984 (Act 301).tions Act, 1984 (Act 301).tions Act, 1984 (Act 301).tions Act, 1984 (Act 301).tions Act, 1984 (Act 301). PP vPung Chen choon (1994) I MLJ566. In Pakistan, this is thePress and Registration ofBooks Act, 1867.

2.2.2.2.2. Official Secrets Act, 1972 (ActOfficial Secrets Act, 1972 (ActOfficial Secrets Act, 1972 (ActOfficial Secrets Act, 1972 (ActOfficial Secrets Act, 1972 (Act88).88).88).88).88). See Aliran (1990), Issues ofthe Mahathir Years.

3 .3 .3 .3 .3 . Sedition Act, 1948Sedition Act, 1948Sedition Act, 1948Sedition Act, 1948Sedition Act, 1948. MarkKoding v PP (1982) 2 MLJ 120.

4.4.4.4.4. Internal Security ActInternal Security ActInternal Security ActInternal Security ActInternal Security Act.5 .5 .5 .5 .5 . Evidence Act 1950Evidence Act 1950Evidence Act 1950Evidence Act 1950Evidence Act 1950 (See Sec-

tions 123 and 124. CompareB.A. Rao and Ors v Sapuran Kaurand & Anor (1978) 2 MLJ 146and Takong Tabari… JefferySatuk Gabaar v Govt. of Sarawak(1995) 1 CLJ 403 (1994)3 AMR2768 .

6.6.6.6.6. Police Act 1967 (Act 344).Police Act 1967 (Act 344).Police Act 1967 (Act 344).Police Act 1967 (Act 344).Police Act 1967 (Act 344). ThePolice will regulate, restrict orprevent assemblies or gather-ings. Hence, nobody couldspeak at “illegal” spots. (Arti-cle 10(1)(b) Section 27(8),Madhavan nair v PP (1975) 2MLJ 264, P. Patto v CPO Perak &Ors (1986) 2 MLJ 204 and otherlatest cases.

7.7.7.7.7. Penal CodePenal CodePenal CodePenal CodePenal Code. See Pakistan’s Ch.Zahur Illahi v Zulfikar AliBhutto which held that if thePrime Minister’s speech preju-diced pending proceedings orcontained veiled threats to theCourt, that amounted to con-tempt of Court.

8.8.8.8.8. Defamation Act, 1957Defamation Act, 1957Defamation Act, 1957Defamation Act, 1957Defamation Act, 1957. SeeShaila Koshy’s “Not CourtsFault – Rais: Judges awardwhat they feel is proper in defa-mation suits”. (The Star, April

3, 2000). Several Singaporeopposition figures had beenpolitically destroyed by defa-mation suits. (Sunday Star, Nov.4, 2001, “Down Under”). ThePhilippines libel case ofBORJAL v Court of Appeals(1999) GR No. 126466 Jan. 4,1999 is instructive and US Su-preme Court’s New York Times vSullivan 376. US 254 (1964),p.18.

9.9.9.9.9. Legal Profession Act 1976Legal Profession Act 1976Legal Profession Act 1976Legal Profession Act 1976Legal Profession Act 1976. See“Sivarasa allowed to file pa-pers for Bar elections” (TheStar, 31 Oct 2001).

1 0 .There are other Acts that seemto stifle attempts to search forinformation. Refer toMalaysian CommunicationsMalaysian CommunicationsMalaysian CommunicationsMalaysian CommunicationsMalaysian Communicationsand Multimedia Commissionand Multimedia Commissionand Multimedia Commissionand Multimedia Commissionand Multimedia CommissionAct, 1998 (Act 589)Act, 1998 (Act 589)Act, 1998 (Act 589)Act, 1998 (Act 589)Act, 1998 (Act 589). See relatedActs thereunder. See article on“The Challenges and PossibleRemedies of the 1998 Act” inthe Malayan Law Journal (2000)4 MLJ clxxxii.

Why do politicians fear informa-tion and knowledge? Simply put,it is the ancient belief in “The OneEyed Person in the Land of theBlind becomes King”.

Since mid-1996, tremendouschanges have taken place. Thanksto information, knowledgegained, and data retrieved, manyoutside of the Government haveachieved doctorates, businessacumen, political savvy and PRexpertise. If the Government isunable to better the trend, it canlose more seats. Just like the Brit-ish, our Malaysians are also tough(except for those who are greedyfor money and luxuries and wantleisure and pleasure).

The media can be free or be cur-tailed, restricted, controlled oreven suppressed. Our environ-

ment is not yet like that in LatinAmerican democracies wherefrom 1990, “2,000 media employ-ees have been killed, 100 of themin Columbia, Guatemala andMexico (Mafia, drug traffickersand other criminals often abettedby politicians, the police and ju-dicial authorities have taken overthe job of silencing curious report-ers).

In September, Canadian journal-ist Murray Hiebert’s two-year bat-tle to avoid jail sentence endedwhen the Far Eastern Economic Re-view correspondent was sen-tenced to six weeks in prison (heserved four weeks) for a story hewrote that was critical of theMalaysian judicial process. Ma-laysia thus became the first Com-monwealth country in 50 years tohave jailed a reporter for contempt,sparking international condem-nation.

The other danger is that newspa-pers, TV and other media areowned by interested parties. Usu-ally governments want only theirview to be conveyed or aired. Butif they cannot own the media,their political parties can buythem. And in this way the rulingparty can impress upon the read-ers, listeners and audience theirideology and agendas.

In a seminar on the role of the pressin Malaysia in Kuala Lumpur on17 June 1974, opposition politi-cian Tan Chee Khoon had fore-seen that “UMNO mengawalakhbar kita melalui pihak ketiga”(UMNO controls our pressthrough third parties), and eventhen said that Pernas “cubamembeli saham akhbar Cinatempatan seperti Sin Chew Jit Pohdan Nanyang Siang Pau” (is tryingto buy shares in local Chinesenewspapers such as Sin Chew JitPoh and Nanyang Siang Pau).

Twin Dangers


Since I quoted the late opposi-tion figure, I now quote formerInformation Minister Dato (nowTan Sri) Mohamed Rahmat atthe opening of a seminar on“Asian Values in Journalism”on 24 Aug 1995. He said, “Me-dia organizations are beingswallowed up whole by corpo-rations whose only loyalty is tothe bottom line.” The seriousdanger is that the journalistmust ask himself or herselfwhether he/she is willing tosubscribe to the values of theBoardroom rather than thenewsroom. It is perhaps wise torecall the words of US SupremeCourt Justice Louis Brandeiswho noted: “We can have de-mocracy or we can have the con-centration of great wealth in thehands of the few. We cannothave both.”

The sum total of our discussion isthat the more progressive we wantto be, the more open (or free) wemust be with sharing information.Isn’t knowledge like cow-dung?If we “menabur” (sow) it, it helpsseeds to sprout and plants togrow! The days of Goebbels areover though during wars so manylies via all sources are bandiedabout. Truth is sacrificed. But be-tween an elected government andthe citizens, a smooth exchangeof information and data is essen-tial. The press and other mediahave to be credible and the popu-lation at large must be sufficientlyeducated to be able to assess andmake proper analyses and deci-sions.

The Constitution is the promise of

C o n c l u s i o n s

Dato Syed Ahmad Idid is aDato Syed Ahmad Idid is aDato Syed Ahmad Idid is aDato Syed Ahmad Idid is aDato Syed Ahmad Idid is aformer judge of the Highformer judge of the Highformer judge of the Highformer judge of the Highformer judge of the HighCourt (Borneo and Malaya).Court (Borneo and Malaya).Court (Borneo and Malaya).Court (Borneo and Malaya).Court (Borneo and Malaya).

Be Fair In ReportingBy-election Campaign

harter 2000, a Malaysiancitizens’ media initia-tive, takes note of DeputyPrime Minister Abdul-

lah Badawi’s reminder to the lo-cal media of the importance of ‘in-tegrity, honesty and fairness’ intheir coverage of current develop-ments.

His reminder is nothing newand is likely to pass unheeded.The principles he mentioned areof course essential for mediacredibility. But we regret thatthey are not being put into prac-tice by the mainstream media.Their coverage of the ongoingIndera Kayangan by-electioncampaign, for instance, hasbeen totally biased, one-sidedand unjust.

a better tomorrow and its observ-ance is the concerted activity of allvoters and families acting undera disciplined and professionalExecutive, always protected by animpartial Judiciary.

So long as laws are used to pro-tect the Nation (and not misusedfor political or partisan pur-poses), then the little informa-tion essentially required for se-curity must be kept secret. I amof the opinion that everyonewith nothing to hide will nothide it. Both locals and foreign-ers alike will accept, under-stand and appreciate this.

The media, both print and elec-tronic, have shamelessly ignoredtheir social obligation to reportfairly and truthfully. Their use ofinformation and communicationstechnology (ICT) and state-of-the-art printing facilities certainlycannot compensate for their lackof credibility and fairness in re-porting.

Sufficient space must be given toviews and opinions that also rep-resent the interests and concernsof ‘diverse social and politicalbackgrounds’.

We demand that the mainstreammedia provide fair and balancedcoverage of the Indera Kayanganby-election campaign. The mediamust report fairly not only on the

Barisan Nasional’s campaign butalso on the opposition’s. Only inthis way can the playing field beconsidered level.

Television stations too mustavoid biased and distorted cov-erage of events. Local televisionstations must stop distortingwhat the opposition stands for.They must also stop showingthe clip that mischievously as-sociates the Taliban of Afghani-stan with the Malaysian politi-cal opposition.

The media should stop mockingthe intelligence of ordinary citi-zens through the use of crasspropaganda that reveals a men-tality that is vehemently opposedto fairplay and justice.

Joint CoordinatorsCharter 2000

16 January 2002

q

CCCCC


“Libertyof thought

meansliberty

to communicateone's thought.”

AM 2002: 22(1)

Send this form andpayment to

ALIRAN DISTRIBUTIONBUREAU

103, MEDAN PENAGA,11600 JELUTONG,PENANG, MALAYSIA

Salvador de Madariage1886 - 1973

Spanish diplomat, writer, critic

Please send this gift subscription to :

Mr./Ms.

Address

Profession Tel. No.

SubscriptionSubscriptionSubscriptionSubscriptionSubscription 1 year1 year1 year1 year1 year AIRAIRAIRAIRAIRfor 11 issuesfor 11 issuesfor 11 issuesfor 11 issuesfor 11 issues 2 years2 years2 years2 years2 years SEASEASEASEASEA

I enclose money order / postal order / cheque for the above order

amounting to RM payable to Aliran.

This gift subscription is paid for and presented by:

Mr./Ms.

Address

Date Signature

ONE YEARONE YEARONE YEARONE YEARONE YEARRM25.00

S $ 2 8AIRAIRAIRAIRAIR

US$25US$28

US$30

SEASEASEASEASEAU S $ 2 1U S $ 2 1

U S $ 2 1

TWO YEARSTWO YEARSTWO YEARSTWO YEARSTWO YEARSRM50.00

S $ 5 0AIRAIRAIRAIRAIR

US$44US$50

US$54

SEASEASEASEASEAUS$38US$38

US$38

SUBSCRIPTION RATESCOUNTRYCOUNTRYCOUNTRYCOUNTRYCOUNTRYMALAYSIA

SINGAPORE & BRUNEI

ASIA & THE PACIFICEUROPE & EGYPT

AFRICA, NORTH AMERICA,SOUTH AMERICA, HAWAII

GIFT SUBSCRIPTIONORDER FORM

Mr./Ms.

Address

Profession Tel. No.

SubscriptionSubscriptionSubscriptionSubscriptionSubscription 1 year1 year1 year1 year1 year AIRAIRAIRAIRAIRfor 11 issuesfor 11 issuesfor 11 issuesfor 11 issuesfor 11 issues 2 years2 years2 years2 years2 years SEASEASEASEASEA

Donation for Aliran ..............................................Donation for Aliran ..............................................Donation for Aliran ..............................................Donation for Aliran ..............................................Donation for Aliran ..............................................

TOTAL Enclosed : Money Order / Postal Order / Cheque

(No. ) payable to Aliranpayable to Aliranpayable to Aliranpayable to Aliranpayable to Aliran

RM

RM

RM

ALIRAN MONTHLY SUBSCRIPTION FORM

AM 2002: 22(1)

AM 2002: 22(1)

AM 2002: 22(1)

A GIFTof one publication

of your choiceif you subscribe to

AliranMonthly

N O W(Tick one)

PandanganALIRAN

The NEP:Development andAlternativeConsciousness


In not so many years past, wehave seen the emergence of“Reaganomics” associated withformer American presidentRonald Reagan while the IronLady across the Atlantic thosedays gave birth to “Thatcherism”.Here in Malaysia, a professor ofeconomics at a local university,with no hint of irony, proposed thenew field of “Mahathirnomics”.This is quite well taken except Iwould suggest the more mne-monic term Mahanomics. Truly, the

Malaysian premier has over theyears through sheer constancy ofthought, perseverance of purposeand steadfastness of practicecrafted a species of Malaysian eco-nomics that bears a uniquenesswhich can only be associated withthe man.

Early in the days of his premier-ship, he tilted the country East-wards with the policy called“Look East”. He even succeededin marrying Japanese work ethicswith Islamic economics, as wit-nessed by the setting up of the Is-lamic Bank and various other Is-lamic institutions, under his tute-lage. Mahathir is also among theforemost proponents of “Asianvalues” in which the economicspertain to a rejection of Westerninstitutions such as the IMF.Wasn’t it Mahathir who has takenup the cudgels against the impo-sition of excessive IMFconditionalities in the Asian fi-nancial crisis and spurred themovement toward a new financialarchitecture for the worldeconomy.

Yes, Malaysians, it’s time to hon-

our our premier with the creationand anointment of a new aca-demic discipline of Mahanomics!We should also have UniversitiMalaya’s economics faculty con-fer an economics prize forMahanomics every year. Perhapswe could make it attractiveenough for renown foreign econo-mists from abroad to compete forthe award and in time to come itwould rival the Nobel Prize. We’llcall it the Maha Prize for econom-ics.

Let me now proceed to show youhow Mahanomics continues toreign supreme in the manner inwhich Malaysia deals with eco-nomic problems today.

The first matter that springs tomind is the protean MAS rescueefforts. The latest move is a clas-sic maneuver of Mahanomics.Many, many moons ago the gov-ernment rescued MAS from itserstwhile CEO Tajudin Ramli bybuying his RM3-plus shares atRM8. Since that rescue and all therestructuring and hiking up ofairfares, et cetera, we are now toldthat the MAS debt has ballooned

M a h a n o m i c s

Q Q Q Q Q

Private Profits,Publ i c Debt –

All Over Again!

Time to create a new academic discipline:Mahanomics

MAS rescue a classic maneuver ofMahanomics.


to some RM9.2 billion! Note, mydear reader, that’s some nine thou-sand million Ringgit. Hardly any-one bats an eyelid now when as-tronomical debt figures are re-vealed. What is the difference be-tween 3 or 9 billions – samenumber of zeros! I recall thatwhen Tajuddin unloaded MAS onthe Government, the debt stoodonly around M2.7 million. Sowhat’s the plan, now?

The new plan would result in theMinistry of Finance (MOF) own-ing 100% equity in MAS, from29% now. The other prominentshareholders, Pension Fund, EPFand the public will now hold 51%of shares to be issued to a newcompany (Newco) yet to be givena definite name. The new ‘privatelimited’ will be given MAS’ prof-itable undertakings and will in-stantly be relieved of its debts, tobe fully taken over by MOF.Wouldn’t one call this a master-stroke of Mahanomics? You maywant to ask, who eventually paysfor the RM9.2 billion? Surely notTajuddin Ramli or anyone cur-rently responsible for MAS, likeCEO Md. Nor Yusof. Instead, theMOF is supposed to buy the carri-er's properties and aircraft andlease them back to the airline. It’llbe a huge debt that will stay withyou and me – the Malaysian tax-payer – for life and beyond. If youwere smart, you’d line up for astake in the Newco, the allegedmoney-making arm of MAS. Butthen again, who’s to know it won’tgo down the tubes like before?

Malaysia’s copious employment

of foreign labour can also be seenas an important aspect ofMahanomics. For a relativelysmall country of some 23 million,we now have guest workers (awonderful euphemism!) number-ing anywhere upwards to 2 mil-lion, legal and illegal. Latest sta-tistics show that foreign residentsnow exceed the Indian minorityin Malaysia. And now, with a de-clining Chinese population toothers (only some 26%), it maywell be that in the future, non-In-dian and non-Chinese minoritiesof larger number will come topopulate Malaysia.

Be that as it may, we now seem tohave a “problem” of foreign la-bour blown up daily in our me-dia. Moves to revoke the PR sta-tus of Indonesian workers in par-ticular have become a hot issue af-ter incidents where rioting brokeout in a textile factory in Nilai.Another incident supposedly in-volved Achehnese at an Indone-sian bazaar at Kampung Manisin Sepang.

The fact of the matter is that therecent prosperity of Malaysia hasbeen due to the influx of guestworkers.

Let me try to apply a bit ofMahanomics here. In the boomyears of the nineties just prior to1997, guest workers came by thedroves especially from Indone-sians because we had a labourshortage or full employment situ-ation in the Malaysian economy.These workers filled the vacanciesin the industrial and plantationsectors, while allowingMalaysians to move up the scaleinto the service sector and to con-tinue increasing their numbers inthe professions. Domestic helpers

or maids freed many a housewifefrom the chores of homemakingand allowed for the ballooning ofdouble-income families. A figureof 567,000 was cited in a localdaily as the total number of Indo-nesian guest workers currently,down from about 900,000 in boomdays. To cut a long story short, allof this meant that the GDP grewby leaps and bounds. By the lookof things even post 1997-crisis,Malaysia continues to employlarge numbers of guest workers tokeep its economy bubbling, if notreally growing. This is the plusside of Mahanomics – keep foreignworkers when you need them, re-trench them when you don’t.

But there’s a downside. Whentimes are bad or economic condi-tions decline as they have today,the first people to lose their jobsand what little security they havewill be guest workers. Could oneblame these workers for feelingtotally exploited? And now itseems all too convenient to expelforeign labour on the grounds ofminor incidents of protest andunrest, some of which could wellbe justified given the shoddy treat-ment of many of these workers byMalaysian employers. A moreethical Mahanomics would re-quire strict adherence to legal con-tracts for guest workers where theobligations of both parties areclearly spelled out. Malaysia hasyet to develop a proper overallscheme for guest workers, allow-ing for basic labour rights. Do wesee a prospective Maha Prize win-ner here, soon?

Moving on, we notice recently

Q Q Q Q Q

Guest Worke r s –Use Them,

Expel Them!

Q Q Q Q Q

Team A / Team BPolitical Syndrome


how the political disease of TeamA versus Team B has infected vir-tually all Malaysian political par-ties, be they in the government oropposition. The syndrome had itsgenesis in the mid-eighties whenUMNO provided us with themother of all Team A –Team B con-flicts. This was when Ku Li chal-lenged Che Det and was defeatedby a razor-thin vote for presidencywhich wags till today argue was“manipulated”. Team B becameSemangat 46 and the rest is his-tory – sort of.

The syndrome has continued intothe nineties and manifested itselfin the Anwar episode and the for-mation of Parti KeADILan. PKNitself seems to now have a TeamA-Team B problem with the sug-gestion that the ABIM group hasbeen marginalized in the latestepisode of internal bickering. TheDAP has also similar problemsup till today basically revolvingaround the dominant personalityof Lim Kit Siang.

However, the party that has emu-lated UMNO par excellence is theMCA. Problems have been brew-ing at the top levels of leadershipsince Ling Liong Sik’s ruse of

briefly withdrawing as partyleader not so long ago and hisbouncing back since then. In anycase, the lines have now beenclearly drawn between the LingTeam A and its factions and theLim-Chua-Chan Team B. In amove clearly orchestrated by TeamA in the run-up to the party con-gress in June this year, members'lists have been vetted and scruti-nised to prepare all and sundryfor a Battle Royale. If you’re apunter, put your bet on Team A.The reasoning is simple, UMNOis MCA’s role model.

In the most recent episode of TeamA /Team B outbursts, east of thePeninsula, we have two “chiefs”declaring themselves as presidentof the Parti Bersatu Rakyat Sabah(PBRS), Joseph Kurup, the incum-bent, and Jeffrey Kitingan, the al-legedly aggrieved, deposeddeputy leader. The party congressturned into a fiasco whenKitingan’s group took over themeeting and elected him as presi-dent. Meanwhile, assemblymenaligned to Kurup re-elected himin their own meeting. A royalmess!! Needless to say the matterwill have to be resolved in thecourts. This reminds me of an oldMalaysian ditty:

Court, court, court, my darlingCourt is not a jokeIf you want to challenge me, darlingCome to the Supreme Court!

But jokes aside, there’s a simpleexplanation as to why Malaysianpolitics is continually plaguedwith the Team A/Team B disor-der. It can be summed up in onephrase — politics based on per-sonalities. Malaysian politicalculture is essentially immatureand allows for a politics where

issues and concerns based ongenuine intellectual differencesare absent. This is especially trueof the mainstream parties, whichare usually no more than vehiclesfor strong personalities camou-flaging as champions of ethnicgroups. Worse, the syndromeleads inevitably to cronyism;when you have a Team A and aTeam B in a party, need we imag-ine how spoils will be divided?

The controversy raging across theStraits of Johor over the Singaporegovernment’s ban on the tudungin schools has clearly irked manyMuslims on this side of the Straits.The issue has become public be-cause four Muslim primaryschoolgirls opted to don thetudung to school. At the time ofwriting three girls (or could wesay, their parents) continue to defythe ruling. They are being per-suaded to follow the ruling orabandon formal schooling. Onemay opt for home schooling.

Muslim groups are perhaps justi-fied in criticising the impositionof a “secular” dress code on thosewho would for religious reasonsprefer a “non-secular” dress code.One could argue that it’s every-one’s right to choose their ownform of dress as long as this doesnot obstruct the process of learn-ing or education. However, onedoes have to make a distinctionbetween public and privateschools. Public schools are ad-ministered by the government ofthe day which in practice can andwill introduce various regulationswith regard to dress code and

Q Q Q Q Q

Tu DungOr Not Tu Dung?

Ku Li defeated by a razor-thin vote forUMNO presidency


other matters. The Singapore state,having a multicultural popula-tion (and presumably multicul-tural policies) has chosen to im-pose such a ruling on publicschools and this is clearly withinits jurisdiction.

Malaysian Minister for Womenand Social DevelopmentShahrizat Jalil grudgingly ac-cepted the right of the Singaporeauthorities to make such a rulingthough she disagrees with it. Logi-cally for Muslims in Singaporewho dislike such a dress code,they should then opt for privateor home schooling.

But let me now turn to Malaysia.Isn’t it a practice in all publicschools today that Muslim girlsshould also be free to choosewhether they don the tudung ornot? However, Muslim girls gen-erally have to dress in a bajukurung. Increasingly of course so-cial pressure has meant that mostMuslim girls will don the tudungas well. Even though we don’timpose absolute rules, society,such as it is, tends to do the need-ful. Thus the freedom of mostMuslim girls or their parents tochoose a more “secular” dressform has virtually disappeared inthese days of high religiosity.

Would it be too much to ask for afree choice of dressing with somereasonable guidelines as is prac-tised in many liberal countriesnow? That way, those want todon tudung, can do so and thosewho don’t, do not. The current fet-ish for uniforms is indicative of arigid uniformity with little roomfor flexibility.

D.L. Daun.

Looks like the big guns in the gov-ernment sector were very much ina hurry to pledge their loyalty tothe government of the day by sign-ing their Akujanji. Recently, wesaw on TV heads of departmentssigning their pledge without bat-ting an eye. Worse still, the topbrass of the armed forces were alsoseen signing their pledge.

As if not to be outdone, the viceChancellors of the country's pub-lic universities hurriedly assem-bled in KL to sign their pledges inthe presence of the EducationMinister. Of course, subsequentlythis pledge will have to be forcedon the lecturers as well as stu-dents.

What has become the bone of con-tention here is whether the pledgeof loyalty should be made to thegovernment of the day, or in thename of the King and country?After all, governments come andgo (at least in the cases of Kelantanand Terengganu). And govern-ments can also do things that runagainst the collective interests ofthe rakyat and of the country.

But why this Akujanji business?Well, it boils down to a govern-ment that feels insecure in the faceof growing resentment among thepeople, especially after the Anwarsaga. So this is a mechanism thatit intends to use to force a pledgeof loyalty to the government, nomatter how contrived the janji is.This also explains the promise ofUMNO Youth to come up with alist of `naughty' lecturers and stu-dents. It even suggested, as con-curred by certain vice chancellors,that students should spy on theirlecturers and that these ̀ loyal' stu-

A k u j a n j i

Q Q Q Q Q

A Wiff Of Fresh Air

Q Q Q Q Q

dents would be assured of theirconfidentiality and safety. Boy,what a way to run universities.Academic excellence anyone?

Have you sensed that wiff of freshair amidst us? Have you watchedyour TV and noticed the differ-ence? And have you been read-ing your newspapers with per-haps a little more interest since it'sa little less predictable?

Yes, he's on leave. And for a wholemonth. Turn on the TV chancesare nobody will be lecturing ustonight. Yes, Rais is trying hard toimitate his master's voice but he'sa poor imitation.

Why you might be able to catchNajib over the air. Wonder what'sbecome of him. Maybe they'll giveus a dose of Samy? Or KY Lim?Better them for a change I reckon.

But Pak Lah had better watch hissteps and what he says. The lastthree deputies were also given achance to act PM and look whathas become of all of them? In thisregard, Pak Lah should keep inmind the advice Musa offered himwhen he first assumed the depu-ty's post. Remember, Musa de-clared, that you're just "numbertwo", not the incoming "numberone" and never ever part of a two-some as in "the 2-M government".At some point musa had thoughthe was one of the 2-Ms and hecouldn't have fallen faster.

So no holiday for you Pak Lah. Beon guard if you know what's goodfor you.

Q Q Q Q Q


exnews Berhad, prima-rily a jewellery company,is reportedly planning tomove into the media

business via a proposed acquisi-tion of the troubled daily, The Sun,and the business weekly, TheEdge.

The acquisition of The Sun wassaid to be valued at RM40 millionwhile The Edge at RM14 million.Under this new corporate arrange-ment, business bigwig Tan SriVincent Tan Chee Yioun, whocontrols The Sun media group,will be appointed as chairpersonof Nexnews while Nexnews’ chiefexecutive officer (CEO), formerbanker Tong Kooi Ong, will be thedeputy chairperson as well asCEO (NST Business section, B1, 23Jan. 2002).

This takeover is expected to pro-vide the necessary financial shotin the arm to the apparently finan-cially weakened tabloid. The Sunmanagement had recently re-trenched more than 40 of its edi-torial staff in a move that was pur-portedly aimed at reducing oper-ating costs and overall corporateexpenditure. The Sun was reportedto have incurred a loss of RM200million over the years.

While the financial burden borneby The Sun management is gener-

ally appreci-ated, certainquarters, in-cluding some ofthe daily’s jour-nalists, how-ever, nurseds u s p i c i o n s .They felt thatthe company’sfinancial woeshad providedan excellent op-portunity andexcuse for themanagement toretrench anumber of ‘recalcitrant’ journal-ists who might have ruffled feath-ers with their reporting.

The acquisition could lead to TheEdge lending a helping hand by,for instance, sharing its pool ofwriters and journalists with TheSun, which could be a means ofcutting costs though it couldstretch resources in The Edge. Atthe very least, this would help TheSun overcome its current depend-ency on Bernama, the nationalnews agency, for much of its newscoverage of local and nationalevents and developments.

So would this proposed acquisi-tion auger well for journalism inThe Sun in particular and in theMalaysian press in general? The

takeover is bound to raise fearsthat the ownership of the nation’smainstream media is becomingincreasingly concentrated in thehands of a few, especially thosewho are close to the powers thatbe.

Such concentration would alsonarrow down the choice of main-stream English language dailiesto three, minus the business pub-lications available in the market.And this situation would be madeeven worse should The Sun bedowngraded to a ‘breezier’ tab-loid, as has been predicted by cer-tain media observers.

Some cynics have even arguedthat such a corporate measure isbeing made in preparation for the

MEDIA

After The Sun TakeoverIncreasing concentration of media ownership

by Mustafa K. Anuar

NNNNN


next general election to ensure thatthe mainstream press’ coveragewould remain “Barisan Nasional-friendly” to a large degree - whichmeans that ‘editorial aberrations’would not be tolerated.

In real terms, given the bitter ex-perience of the sacked Sun jour-nalists, this corporate move sug-gests that journalism in the re-vamped Sun may not necessarilyimprove Malaysian journalism,particularly investigative journal-ism, nor would it result in a morebalanced treatment of issues.

Given the politics of the mediaand especially of the Malaysianmedia, when the interests of themedia owners often coincide withthose of the powers that be, unfa-vourable reports pertaining tothose interests are likely to beheavily edited, if not spiked com-pletely.

Worse, the journalists concernedare often left to fend for themselvesif and when their reporting ap-pears to threaten those interests.

That is why the controversy sur-rounding the retrenchment of TheSun journalists should not be seenmerely as a bread-and-butter is-sue, as the National Union of Jour-nalists seems inclined to do. Forthe shabby treatment of the jour-nalists by the management haswider implications for the socialand professional standing ofMalaysian journalists as well asfor press freedom in the country.q

Mustafa K. Anuar, joint-Mustafa K. Anuar, joint-Mustafa K. Anuar, joint-Mustafa K. Anuar, joint-Mustafa K. Anuar, joint-coordinator of Chartercoordinator of Chartercoordinator of Chartercoordinator of Chartercoordinator of Charter2000, a Citizens’ Media2000, a Citizens’ Media2000, a Citizens’ Media2000, a Citizens’ Media2000, a Citizens’ MediaInitiativeInitiativeInitiativeInitiativeInitiative

BN Govt DeterminedTo Strangle Dissent

liran is shocked thatthere has been no let-upin the use of the InternalSecurity Act, which al-

lows indefinite detention withouttrial, to crack down against theBarisan Nasional’s political op-ponents.

The government seems to be de-termined to destroy whatever lit-tle resistance there is to the BN’shegemony. It will come as no sur-prise that the remnants of opposi-tion leaders and vocal activists arepicked up and put away in thenear future for daring to speak outagainst and stand up to the BNgovernment’s high-handed rule.

The sudden re-arrest this morn-ing of Dr Badrul Amin Bahrom, a40-year old motivational expertlinked to the opposition party,Keadilan, is the latest sign that theBN is riding roughshod over hu-man rights and natural justice.

Badrul was first detained underthe ISA on 20 April last year andthen released on 3 November withsevere restrictions on his civil andpolitical rights.

He was scheduled to appear incourt on 5 March to find out if hewould be charged for violatingthose restrictions.

Aliran fails to understand why heshould be sent back to theKamunting Detention Camp. If hehad violated any laws, he shouldhave been charged in court, where

he would havehad an opportu-nity to defendhimself.

The BN govern-ment’s use of the

ISA and its continued total disre-gard for the rule of law shows thatit cannot tolerate any form of dis-sent. It also reveals an increasinglyauthoritarian streak.

This alarming tendency can beenseen in its latest attempt to curbfreedom of expression - the moveto extend the strict PrintingPresses and Publications Act tocover the Internet. It shows thatthe BN government is determinedto remove whatever little roomthere is left for dissenting voices.

One wonders whether this clamp-down is aimed at silencing criti-cism of the government at a timewhen several corporate scandalshave surfaced. The governmentdoes not want to be held account-able for these privatisation disas-ters and therefore has to crush dis-senting voices.

Let’s be clear: Mahathir is nodemocrat. He is an authoritarianleader who will brook no chal-lenge or dissent from any quarter.Malaysians should ask them-selves what role they have playedin allowing this state of affairs tocontinue.

Aliran Executive Committee31 January 2002

Badrul’s Re-arrest

AAAAA


“There are many people outsidemy office, I think they are police-men here to arrest me. My col-league will call you later. Pleaseinform my father. Take care.”

Those were Tian Chua’s lastwords before he was arrested on10 April 2001. Five minutes laterWai, Tian’s colleague, called andtold me Tian was arrested underthe Internal Security Act (ISA).

I asked him who those peoplewere, whether they had any proofof identity and had shown anywarrant.

Wai told me Tian was taken awayby eight people but only one ofthem was in police uniform. Theplainclothes police did not show

any proof of identity or document.They only told Wai that Tian wasbeing arrested under the ISA andtold him to inform Tian’s family.

After the phonecall, I was com-pletely lost. I was confused by theloose procedure of the arrest. Tome, the police force is only an ex-ecutive body of the legal system;they have to operate according toa set of legal procedures. TheMalaysian police do not seem tobe very familiar with this princi-ple. If the police, being part of thelegal system, should fail to respectthe rule of law, how can we trustthem to defend law and order insociety?

Given such unprofessional prac-tices, how can Malaysia claim tobe a modern state? How can itsleader claim to be the leader of otherdeveloping countries? This confu-sion was only the beginning; moreridiculous things happened thatmade me feel like I had been takenback to a feudal society.

On 10 April, Tian disappeared. Toget more information of the arrest,the families of other detainees andI ran to the police station, the highcourt and the national humanrights commission (Suhakam).

Sadly, despite all this effort, thepolice would not release any in-formation to us. We did not evenknow where our family memberswere. When I expressed my con-cern over Tian’s health, the policeassured us that “all the detaineesare in good health”.

However, as everyone knew, Tianhad been beaten up at every ar-rest since 1998. He has also suf-fered from asthma attacks fromtime to time. Nobody can assureme of his well-being until I see himfor myself; but I was denied ac-cess to him during the first 60 daysof the detention.

Like all other families of detain-ees, our right of access to our lovedones was taken away by the heart-less authorities. The torture wasnot only on the detainees but alsoon the families. Who will com-pensate us for all this agony? Thepolice, the home affairs ministeror the prime minister?

After the arrest, the police accusedTian and the other four ISA detain-ees of ”allegedly planning to use

ISA

13 Hours In Airport Lock-upTian Chua's fiancee refused entry into Malaysia,denied food and water and deported the next day

Even MurderersHave A Right

To Lawyers

by Mabel Au


militant means and violent streetdemonstrations to topple the gov-ernment”. The police claimed thatthey had strong evidence to backthe accusation, but they did notcharge the detainees in court.

Everywhere in the world, evenmurderers have the right of accessto lawyers and a chance to defendthemselves in court. Doesn’t Tian,a person who has never commit-ted any crime but who has foughtfor justice and democracy in soci-ety, deserve a fair trial? Why arethe authorities so afraid of takingTian to court? Do they lack confi-dence in the court or do they lackconfidence in themselves?

The Malaysian judicial systemhas been disappointing. Univer-sally, the court must be fair andimpartial. The job of the judge isto listen to the statements of theprosecutor and the defence law-yer and then to make an impartialjudgement.

I had a very strange experience inthe Malaysian court, however. Icould not differentiate betweenthe judge and the prosecutorwhen I was sitting in court to wit-ness Tian and the other four ISAdetainees’ application for habeascorpus.

The judge seemed more keen onchallenging our lawyer than theprosecutor. How could we, ordi-nary citizens, win in such a situa-tion? Not surprisingly, our appli-cation was dismissed. Having satin the Malaysian court, I felt sorryfor the Malaysians.

How can they live in a peacefulsociety when they have to contendwith such people in the judicial

system? What would happen ifsome day people lose confidencein the courts and refuse to respectlaw and order? Who would be re-sponsible?

Since Tian was arrested and de-tained, I have tried all means tovisit him. On 10 June 2001, 60 daysafter his arrest, I finally managedto visit him for the first and lasttime.

As I am not a Malaysian citizen, Icannot stay in Malaysia for morethan 30 days at any one time. Overa month later, on 21 July 2001, Iflew from Hong Kong to Malay-sia for the second visit, but theMalaysian immigration deniedme entry.

After I demanded an explanationseveral times, the immigration of-ficer told me: “Your name is on ourlist. The computer shows thatyour status is national security”.

I demanded to call my lawyer andmy embassy, the embassy of thePeople’s Republic of China, but allmy demands were rejected. Theimmigration then put me in thelock-up at the airport for 13 hours.

I was denied water and food inthe lock-up. Luckily, other womenin the lock-up kindly shared theirwater and food with me. Most ofthe women were having variousimmigration problems; all of themhad complaints about theMalaysian immigration.

An Indonesian woman with tearsin her eyes complained that shecould not even make a phonecall

to her Malaysian employer toprove her identity as a migrantworker.

A pregnant Bangladeshi womanfelt sick as there was no furniturein the lock-up and everybody hadto sleep on the hard floor.

Others alleged they had beenasked for bribe or that they hadbeen sexually harassed.

The Chinese women alleged theywere all slapped in the face oncethey were brought to the lock-up.They said to me: “I have neverimagined the situation in Malay-sia can be as bad as what I experi-enced in these few days. I can tellyou there are no human rightshere.” Even a mainland Chinesecomplained about the humanrights situation in Malaysia. Howironic that is!

I was deported back to Hong Kongthe next day. As the prison au-thority in Malaysia censors allmail, I have not been able to com-municate with Tian since then.

I have no regrets, however. The 13-hour detention in Malaysia pro-vided me with an opportunity toexperience the vulnerability of anindividual when the people inpower do not respect human rights.Once again, it reaffirmed Tian’sbelief in the continuous struggle forhuman rights and justice. He un-derstood very clearly that he mighthave to sacrifice his individual free-dom to fight for his belief.

Being his girlfriend, I understoodthis well. I remembered Tian ask-ing me what I would do if he be-came a political detainee one day.My answer was: “I will continue

“ Your Status IsNational Securi ty”


with my work and my life asusual. Then you do not have toworry about me. You can do what-ever you have to do for thereformasi movement. Do you haveanything special you expect me todo for you?”

Tian thought for awhile and said,“Nothing. I believe you can takecare of yourself. I shall be happyas long as you enjoy a happy life.”

My heart sinks whenever I recallwhat he said. All I wish is that hecan keep up his spirit and stay ingood physical and psychologicalhealth, in order to continue thestruggle.

After 30 April 2001, the oppositionparties, 75 (now 81) NGOs and thefamilies of ISA detainees formed acommittee and launched the AIM— Abolish ISA Movement. Duringthe AIM campaign, I met a lot ofISA ex-detainees. They were union-ists, workers, students and NGOactivists. They came out to supportAIM and tell people about the tor-ture they had experienced.

Their accounts of their personalexperience prove that the ISA is apolitical tool to suppress the voiceof the people, by allowing the au-thorities to detain anybody with-out trial and without a time limit.As an activist and on behalf of thefamilies of the detainees, I sin-cerely invite people from all walksof life to support the AIM cam-paign.

Mabel Au Mabel Au Mabel Au Mabel Au Mabel Au works with theCommittee for AsianWomen, Bangkok.

ISA A Political Tool

harter 2000 (A Malay-sian citizens’ media ini-tiative) views with deepconcern the recent sack-

ing of some 40 journalists andother employees by the English-language daily tabloid, The Sun.

The abrupt sacking of such a largenumber of journalists is disturb-ing. Among those sacked werethose who were promiment in ex-pressing their displeasure overthe suspension of several key edi-torial staff (following a controver-sial Christmas Day front-pagestory “Plot to Kill PM”) and thedelay in paying out staff bonuses.

To us, it appears that these jour-nalists have been victimised forhaving plucked up the courage topicket and protest against themanagement.

The Sun is third in terms of circula-tion among the English-languagedailies, behind The Star and theNew Straits Times. Unlike The Starand the NST, both of which arelinked to ruling coalition parties,The Sun is owned by a firm control-led by a well-connected tycoon.Though all three are consideredmainstream, The Sun had pre-sented a relatively broader rangeof views and reported extensivelyon a factional split within a partyin the ruling coalition.

The management’s high-handedaction will be seen as a warningto other journalists that they willhave to pay a high price shouldthey decide to cross the line. Per-haps this development shouldalso be seen in the light of the au-thorities’ “toe-the-line-or-else”policy towards civil servants.

But whatever the reason may befor this high-handed action, sack-ing journalists en masse is not theway to go about it. In fact, it iscounterproductive and may evenseal the newspaper’s fate.

A newspaper can only build cred-ibility if it reports accurately andfairly while presenting a broadrange of views, including dissent-ing opinions. Credibility cannotbe achieved overnight; it takesyears of painstaking work tobuild. Cosmetic changes or thehiring of journalists whose prin-ciples are “flexible” cannot im-prove the credibility of news re-porting.

With this sorry episode, the fate ofmainstream media freedom in Ma-laysia is almost sealed. The sagaof The Sun shows that even re-motely independent journalism inthe mainstream media cannot betolerated - and therefore cannotsurvive - in Malaysia.

The sacking of so many journal-ists should be of utmost concernnot only to the National Union ofJournalists and other journalistsbut also to all freedom-lovingMalaysians who cherish the rightto freedom of information.

Meanwhile, the prospects for the“new” Sun look far from rosy. In-deed, the daily could well findthat there is no more room underthe sun for yet another main-stream newspaper spouting theofficial line.

Dr Mustafa Anuar and Anil NettoJoint Coordinators

Charter 2000 - Aliran14 January 2002

Independent Journalism:

No Place In The Sun

CCCCC

q


AL IRAN’s I SA WATCHList of known detainees as at 31 January 2002

KDC - Kamunting Detention Centre in Taiping, Perak *Released (3 Nov 2001)

Name of DetaineeName of DetaineeName of DetaineeName of DetaineeName of Detainee Brief BackgroundBrief BackgroundBrief BackgroundBrief BackgroundBrief Background Date of arrestDate of arrestDate of arrestDate of arrestDate of arrest Current StatusCurrent StatusCurrent StatusCurrent StatusCurrent Status

Norman Basha Construction worker 13 Oct 2000 Sent to KDC on 12 Dec 2000Sent to KDC on 12 Dec 2000Sent to KDC on 12 Dec 2000Sent to KDC on 12 Dec 2000Sent to KDC on 12 Dec 2000

Zainal Talib Businessman 13 Oct 2000 Sent to KDC on 12 Dec 2000Sent to KDC on 12 Dec 2000Sent to KDC on 12 Dec 2000Sent to KDC on 12 Dec 2000Sent to KDC on 12 Dec 2000

Tian Chua Vice President, keADILan 10 Apr 2001 Sent to KDC on 2 JuneSent to KDC on 2 JuneSent to KDC on 2 JuneSent to KDC on 2 JuneSent to KDC on 2 June

Mohd Ezam Mohd Noor Head, KeADILan Youth 10 Apr 2001 Sent to KDC on 2 JuneSent to KDC on 2 JuneSent to KDC on 2 JuneSent to KDC on 2 JuneSent to KDC on 2 June

Haji Saari Sungib former president, JIM 10 April Sent to KDC on 2 JuneSent to KDC on 2 JuneSent to KDC on 2 JuneSent to KDC on 2 JuneSent to KDC on 2 June

Hishamuddin Rais Media columnist and 10 April Sent to KDC on 2 JuneSent to KDC on 2 JuneSent to KDC on 2 JuneSent to KDC on 2 JuneSent to KDC on 2 June

social activist

Dr. Badrul Amin Motivational expert, keADILan 20 April Released Nov 2001;

activist Rearrested Jan 2002

Lokman Nor Adam Executive Secretary, 24 April Sent to KDC on 13 JuneSent to KDC on 13 JuneSent to KDC on 13 JuneSent to KDC on 13 JuneSent to KDC on 13 June

keADILan Youth

Murad Halimmuddin Not Known May/June Sent to KDC on 11 Aug 2001Sent to KDC on 11 Aug 2001Sent to KDC on 11 Aug 2001Sent to KDC on 11 Aug 2001Sent to KDC on 11 Aug 2001

Hassan

Muhammad Azian Not known May/June Sent to KDCSent to KDCSent to KDCSent to KDCSent to KDC

Abdul Rahman for 2-yr detentionfor 2-yr detentionfor 2-yr detentionfor 2-yr detentionfor 2-yr detention

Mohamat Iqbal Ustaz 30 June Served 2-yr detentionServed 2-yr detentionServed 2-yr detentionServed 2-yr detentionServed 2-yr detention

A. Rahman order on 22 Augorder on 22 Augorder on 22 Augorder on 22 Augorder on 22 Aug

Mohd Rashid Ismail Electrical technician in Sabah, 26 July Not knownNot knownNot knownNot knownNot known

from Sungai Siput

Jaafar Karamah Gems trader, Tawau 26 July Not knownNot knownNot knownNot knownNot known

Ahmad Tajuddin Youth chief, Larut (Perak) PAS 2 August Sent to KDC on 25 SeptSent to KDC on 25 SeptSent to KDC on 25 SeptSent to KDC on 25 SeptSent to KDC on 25 Sept

Abu Bakar

Solehan Abdul Ghafar Ustaz/activist, PAS welfare 2 August Sent to KDC on 25 SeptSent to KDC on 25 SeptSent to KDC on 25 SeptSent to KDC on 25 SeptSent to KDC on 25 Sept

unit, Kuala Terengganu

Alias Ngah Activist, PAS welfare unit/ 2 August Sent to KDC on Sept 25Sent to KDC on Sept 25Sent to KDC on Sept 25Sent to KDC on Sept 25Sent to KDC on Sept 25

Secretary, Syura Rakyat

Committee, Kuala Terengganu

Zainun Ismail @ Former PAS branch exco 2 August Sent to KDC on Sept 25Sent to KDC on Sept 25Sent to KDC on Sept 25Sent to KDC on Sept 25Sent to KDC on Sept 25

Cikgu Nan member from Baling, Kedah

Ahmad Pozi Darman PAS supporter from 2 August Sent to KDC on Sept 25Sent to KDC on Sept 25Sent to KDC on Sept 25Sent to KDC on Sept 25Sent to KDC on Sept 25

Hulu Tiram, Johor

Abu Bakar Che Doi Branch member, Kg Tembok 3 August Served 2-yr detentionServed 2-yr detentionServed 2-yr detentionServed 2-yr detentionServed 2-yr detention

PAS, Baling, Kedah order on 30 Septorder on 30 Septorder on 30 Septorder on 30 Septorder on 30 Sept

Asfawani Abdullah Branch member, Kg Tembok 3 August Served 2-yr detentionServed 2-yr detentionServed 2-yr detentionServed 2-yr detentionServed 2-yr detention

PAS, Baling, Kedah order on 30 Septorder on 30 Septorder on 30 Septorder on 30 Septorder on 30 Sept


AL IRAN’s I SA WATCH


Mohamed Lothfi Ariffin Baling PAS youth exco member 3 August Served 2-yr detentionServed 2-yr detentionServed 2-yr detentionServed 2-yr detentionServed 2-yr detention

order on 30 Septorder on 30 Septorder on 30 Septorder on 30 Septorder on 30 Sept

Nik Adli Nik (Kelantan Chief Minister Nik 4 August Served 2-yr detentionServed 2-yr detentionServed 2-yr detentionServed 2-yr detentionServed 2-yr detention

Abdul Aziz Aziz’s son) Branch member, order on 23 Septorder on 23 Septorder on 23 Septorder on 23 Septorder on 23 Sept

Pulau Melaka PAS, Kota Baru

Ariffin Jusoh (Md Lothfi’s father) Kuala Ketil, Kedah 2 Sept In police custodyIn police custodyIn police custodyIn police custodyIn police custody

Md Maliki Ariffin (Md Lothfi’s brother) Kuala Ketil, Kedah 6 Sept In police custodyIn police custodyIn police custodyIn police custodyIn police custody

Khairuddin Saad Religious teacher, Sekolah Menengah 10 Oct Sent to KDCSent to KDCSent to KDCSent to KDCSent to KDC

Agama Sungai Petani, Kedah

Mohamad Zulkifli Religious teacher, Madrasah Islahiah 10 Oct Sent to KDCSent to KDCSent to KDCSent to KDCSent to KDC

@ Pak Su Md Isa Dinniah, Kpg Memali, Baling, Kedah

Mohamad Zulkifli Religious teacher, Sekolah Pokok Kiam, 10 Oct Sent to KDCSent to KDCSent to KDCSent to KDCSent to KDC

Mohamad Zakaria Manjong, Perak

Mohd Salleh Said Religious teacher, Sekolah Raja 10 Oct Sent to KDCSent to KDCSent to KDCSent to KDCSent to KDC

Perempuan Ta’ayah, Ipoh, Perak

Hazmi Ishak Businessman/ Exec. Sec, Kelantan 10 Oct Sent to KDCSent to KDCSent to KDCSent to KDCSent to KDC

Religious Teachers Co-op

Yazid Sufaat Businessman, Kedah 9 Dec 2001 In Police CustodyIn Police CustodyIn Police CustodyIn Police CustodyIn Police Custody

Mohd Sha Sarijan Manager, Selangor 29 Dec 2001 In Police CustodyIn Police CustodyIn Police CustodyIn Police CustodyIn Police Custody

Abu Samad Shukri Mohd Accountant, Selangor 29 Dec 2001 In Police CustodyIn Police CustodyIn Police CustodyIn Police CustodyIn Police Custody

Ahmad Sajuli Abd Businessman, Kuala Lumpur 29 Dec 2001 In Police CustodyIn Police CustodyIn Police CustodyIn Police CustodyIn Police Custody

Rahman@Fadlul Ahmad

Ahmad Yani Ismail Bank Officer, Kuala Lumpur 29 Dec 2001 In Police CustodyIn Police CustodyIn Police CustodyIn Police CustodyIn Police Custody

Abd Razak Baharuddin Headmaster, Selangor 29 Dec 2001 In Police CustodyIn Police CustodyIn Police CustodyIn Police CustodyIn Police Custody

Suhaimi Mokhtar Businessman, Kuala Lumpur 29 Dec 2001 In Police CustodyIn Police CustodyIn Police CustodyIn Police CustodyIn Police Custody

Shukry Omar Talib Businessman, Selangor 1 Jan 2002 In Police CustodyIn Police CustodyIn Police CustodyIn Police CustodyIn Police Custody

Shah Rial Sirin@ Taxi driver, Selangor 2 Jan 2002 In Police CustodyIn Police CustodyIn Police CustodyIn Police CustodyIn Police Custody

Syah Rial Sirin

Mohamad Faiq Hafidh Businessman, Selangor 2 Jan 2002 In Police CustodyIn Police CustodyIn Police CustodyIn Police CustodyIn Police Custody

Dr Abdullah Daud Geo-info Lecturer, UTM Johor 3 Jan 2002 In Police CustodyIn Police CustodyIn Police CustodyIn Police CustodyIn Police Custody

Muhamad Ismail Taxi driver, Johor 3 Jan 2002 In Police CustodyIn Police CustodyIn Police CustodyIn Police CustodyIn Police Custody

Anuwarul

Shahril Hat Teacher, Johor 3 Jan 2002 In Police CustodyIn Police CustodyIn Police CustodyIn Police CustodyIn Police Custody

Mohammed Kadar Trader 5 Jan 2002 In Police CustodyIn Police CustodyIn Police CustodyIn Police CustodyIn Police Custody

Zuhar Saad Factory Operator, Kedah 6 Jan 2002 In Police CustodyIn Police CustodyIn Police CustodyIn Police CustodyIn Police Custody

Nordin Ahmad Production Executive, 9 Jan 2002 In Police CustodyIn Police CustodyIn Police CustodyIn Police CustodyIn Police Custody

WRP Asia Pacific Sdn Bhd


AL IRAN’s I SA WATCH


Abd Nasir Anuwarul Director of Gulf Shores Sdn 9 Jan 2002 In Police CustodyIn Police CustodyIn Police CustodyIn Police CustodyIn Police Custody

Bhd Singaporean (Malaysian PR)

Mohd Nasri Ismail Accountant/Owner of Mnz 11 Jan 2002 In Police CustodyIn Police CustodyIn Police CustodyIn Police CustodyIn Police Custody

Assoc. Management Services

Othman Mohd Ali Asst Enforcement Officer, Kuala 12 Jan 2002 In Police CustodyIn Police CustodyIn Police CustodyIn Police CustodyIn Police Custody

Langat Municipal Council

All Bakry Mohamed Alias Klang/Shah Alam District Engineer 12 Jan 2002 In Police CustodyIn Police CustodyIn Police CustodyIn Police CustodyIn Police Custody

Roshelmy Md Sharif UTM Lecturer 12 Jan 2002 In Police CustodyIn Police CustodyIn Police CustodyIn Police CustodyIn Police Custody

Abdullah Minyak Silam Trader, Indonesian (Malaysian PR) 14 Jan 2002 In Police CustodyIn Police CustodyIn Police CustodyIn Police CustodyIn Police Custody

Idrus Salim ITM Lecturer 21 Jan 2002 In Police CustodyIn Police CustodyIn Police CustodyIn Police CustodyIn Police Custody

Held for alleged involvement in:Held for alleged involvement in:Held for alleged involvement in:Held for alleged involvement in:Held for alleged involvement in: EndEndEndEndEnd 3 July3 July3 July3 July3 July NovNovNovNovNov

20002000200020002000 2 0 0 12 0 0 12 0 0 12 0 0 12 0 0 1 2 0 0 12 0 0 12 0 0 12 0 0 12 0 0 1

Bringing in illegal immigrants . 2 1 2 1

Spreading Shia teachings . 3 -

Al Maunah arms heist . 1 5 1 5

‘Militant’ reformasi activities . 6 5

Free Acheh Movement . 4 3

Firearms offences . 3 3

Counterfeiting . 1 0 8

Falsifying documents . 7 7

“International terrorism” . - 3

“Malaysian Mujahidin Group” . - 1 3

Total 40 69 7 8

No. Of ISA Detainees In Kamunting

Targeted groupTargeted groupTargeted groupTargeted groupTargeted group PeriodPeriodPeriodPeriodPeriod No.No.No.No.No. No.No.No.No.No.

heldheldheldheldheld releasedreleasedreleasedreleasedreleased

Reformasi Activists April 2001 1 0 5

University Students July 2001 2 2

“Militants/terrorists” May - July 2001 6 1

“KMM members” August 2001 1 0 1

“KMM members” Sept - Oct 2001 8 1

“KMM members” Dec 2001 - Jan 2002 1 3 0

“KMM members” Jan 2002 1 0 0

Total since April 2001 5 9 1 0

Waves Of ISA Arrests Since April 2001

Placard reads“Rakyat Tutup Kamunting”

Anti ISA protest at Kamunting


A record of A record of A record of A record of A record of Aliran'sAliran'sAliran'sAliran'sAliran's stand on current affairs. stand on current affairs. stand on current affairs. stand on current affairs. stand on current affairs.

Aliran is concerned that the Inter-nal Security Act has once againbeen used to detain Malaysianswithout trial - this time, 13 peopleallegedly belonging to a new wingof the so-called MalaysianMujahidin Group (KMM). Seriousallegations have been levelled

against the 13, who are said tohave taken instructions from twoIndonesians (now alleged to beon the run) from the so-called In-donesia Militant Group. One ofthe 13 is alleged to have linkswith Al-Qaeda. Police say theyare also checking alleged linkswith cells in neighbouring coun-tries.

The 13 detained are:

Malaysians are entitled to seewhat kind of evidence the policehave against these individualsand whether it can stand up inan open court of law. Without anindependent trial in court, theseallegations will only raise alarmand fear. They may even scareaway much-needed investors andtourists in the same way that theSun’s controversial Dec 25frontpage story “Plot to Kill thePM” was said to have done.

So far, the United States has beenpushing the theory of an interna-tional terrorist network in South-East Asia. It appears that theMalaysian government sub-scribes to this theory. If indeed theproblem is as serious as it is madeout to be and there is indeed sucha terrorist network, then it canonly be defeated if the governmentwins the hearts and minds of thepeople. But for the government togain public confidence, it has topresent evidence to support itsallegations in open court. Suchevidence should go beyond thelevel of the sweeping allegations

“ K M M ” I S A A r r e s t s :Prove Allegations

In Open Court

NameNameNameNameName AgeAgeAgeAgeAge OccupationOccupationOccupationOccupationOccupation LocationLocationLocationLocationLocation Date detainedDate detainedDate detainedDate detainedDate detained

Yazid Sufaat 3 7 Businessman Kedah 9 Dec2001

Mohd Sha Sarijan 48 Manager Selangor 29 Dec 2001

Abu Samad Shukri Mohd 4 2 Accountant Selangor 29 Dec 2001

Ahd Sajuli Abd Rahman @ Fadlul Ahmad 3 9 Businessman Kuala Lumpur 29 Dec 2001

Ahmad Yani Ismail 3 3 Bank Officer Kuala Lumpur 29 Dec 2001

Abd Razak Baharuddin 4 2 Headmaster Selangor 29 Dec 2001

Suhaimi Mokhtar 3 6 Businessman Kuala Lumpur 29 Dec 2001

Shukry Omar Talib @ Shukry Omar 3 4 Businessman Selangor 1 Jan 2002

Shah Rial Sirin @ Syah Rial Sirin 3 8 Taxi driver Selangor 2 Jan 2002

Mohamad Faiq Hafidh 4 3 Businessman Selangor 2 Jan 2002

Dr Abdullah Daud 47 Lecturer Johor 3 Jan 2002

Muhamad Ismail Anuwarul 4 1 Taxi driver Johor 3 Jan 2002

Shahril Hat 2 3 Teacher Johor 3 Jan 2002


spouted in the international andregional media.

We recall that when reformasi ac-tivists were detained under theISA in April 2001, the authoritiesalleged that they were planningto topple the government usingmilitant means. Yet, in all casesthat we are aware of, none of thedetainees was interrogated aboutthese allegations and no evidenceto support these allegations hasbeen provided to the public.

One also wonders if the timing ofthe latest arrests has anything todo with the Jan 19 by-election inIndera Kayangan in Perlis, whereabout half the electorate are non-Muslims.

Aliran urges the police to chargethe 13 individuals in court if theyhave evidence of their involve-ment in terrorist groups. Other-wise, they should be released im-mediately and unconditionally.

Executive Committee5 January 2001

Aliran is deeply disturbed tolearn that someone masqueradingas Dr Patricia Martinez, a wellknown Universiti Malaya spe-cialist in Arabic and Islamic stud-ies, had circulated via the Internetan inflammatory article entitled“Why Malaysia is already a Chris-tian State”.

Dr Martinez, who has just chaireda public forum on the issue of an‘Islamic state’ in Malaysia, be-lieves that the preposterous attri-

bution of that fakearticle to her au-thorship was not aprank. She consid-ers it to be thehighly mischie-vous act of an ut-terly irresponsibleimpostor whichcould jeopardisethe state of ethnicrelations and inter-religious un-derstanding in our country.

On her part, Dr Martinez actedresponsibly by attempting to alertthe police to the potentially dan-gerous article that was posted inher name. In accordance with lawand acting out of a sense of civicresponsibility, Dr Martinez wentto a police station to lodge a re-port.

However, we are given to under-stand, the police refused to takeher report - which resulted in DrMartinez’s wasting a day. Finally,she was instructed to file a reportin Port Dickson because that waswhere she had first read theInternet attack on her reputation.

We believe that Dr Martinez’s pre-dicament deserved an immediateresponse from the police so as todefuse any tension or misunder-standing that might arise fromthat fabrication. Hence we find itincredulous that the police offic-ers Dr Martinez first met shouldhave given her the run aroundinstead of treating the matter witha sense of urgency.

In this day and age when the gov-ernment ceaselessly urges citizensto become computer-literate andInternet-savvy, are we to under-stand that a citizen responding toa piece of potentially dangerous

cyber-fabrication cannot be per-mitted to lodge a report at anypolice station?

Does it make any sense in this dayand age of borderlesscybercommunication that DrMartinez’s report could not beaccepted by a police station inKuala Lumpur? On what basis inlaw or understanding of the stateof communications technology to-day did police officers in KualaLumpur insist that Dr Martinezhad to travel all the way to PD tomake her report?

In the public interest, and so asnot to discourage public-spiritedcitizens from alerting the policewhen they are aware of somethingthat is wrong and threatening thepeace of this country, Aliran callson the Inspector General of Police(IGP), Tan Sri Norian Mai, toclarify the following:

1 . Why was Dr Martinez’s reportnot accepted or not acceptablein Kuala Lumpur?

2. Were the police officers she metin Kuala Lumpur guilty of adereliction of duty in refusingto accept her report?

3 . Did and do the police considerthis issue to be both seriousand potentially dangerous?

Aliran Executive Committee10 January 2001

Where To LodgeA Police Report?In Cyber Space?


Anwar Should Be Out On Bail

Justice delayed is justice denied.In Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’scase, there is no doubt in theminds of many that he is a victimof both the delay and the denial.

It is very disconcerting to our no-tion of justice and fairness that hisappeal that was scheduled for 14January 2002 has once again beenpostponed without a new datebeing fixed. This is the third timethat his appeal has been post-poned.

It is very disturbing that neitherAnwar nor his lawyers were noti-fied of the reason for the deferment.It is even more alarming that thisapplication for the postponementwas not made in open court onthe date set for the appeal. If it hadbeen, it would have enabledAnwar’s lawyers to consider themerit of the application or to ob-ject to it on the grounds that it couldbe frivolous. Arguments submit-ted would certainly have put thedeciding authority in a better lightin considering this application fora postponement. Under the cir-cumstances, any decision so madewill be viewed with suspicion by

the discerning public.

As it is, it is very regrettable thatthis postponement is treated likean administrative decision andconveyed to Anwar’s lawyers byfax on 11 January 2002. It is ratherunfortunate that the courts deal-ing with Anwar’s case comeacross in the eyes of the public asbeing particularly harsh and cruelto Anwar:

• His is a bailable offence; yet,the court had refused him bail.

• His sentencing did not com-mence from the date of deten-tion but from the date of con-viction, making his incarcera-tion intolerably longer.

• 28 days of evidence adducedin open court that could havefavoured Anwar was ex-punged from the records.

• The present postponement isgranted without any cogentreason being disclosed.

• The appellant’s lawyers weredenied the opportunity to ob-ject to and oppose the applica-tion for deferment.

The courts should be very con-

cerned with the liberty of a per-son and ensure that no man isdeprived of even a single mo-ment of that precious libertywithout a just cause. It’s thecourt’s responsibility to safe-guard and protect the freedomof an individual under all cir-cumstances.

It is totally unfair to delayAnwar’s appeal and to prolonghis incarceration. It appears thathe is already being punishedwhen he has not exhausted all hislegal remedies. His solitary con-finement is an on-going punish-ment that he has to suffer and en-dure.

Anwar’s denial of bail deservesto be reconsidered. The environ-ment and conditions that existedthen which contributed to the re-jection of Anwar’s bail are nolonger present or threatening. Anydecision to detain Anwar any fur-ther is certainly cruel and bereftof any humanity.

Aliran calls upon both the courtsand the AG’s Chambers to reviewthe issue of bail sympatheticallyand positively. This will be verymuch in keeping with the much-heralded slogan of a caring soci-ety that we are so fond of propa-gating.

It is in this spirit that we appeal tothe authorities to release Anwaron bail.

P RamakrishnanPresident

17 January 2002

The courts should be very concerned with the liberty of a person


hackled, hooded, se-dated. Taken to a remotecorner of the worldwhere they may be ex-

ecuted, where the laws of humanrights are suspended. Sounds tome like the Middle East. Shackled,hooded, threatened with death by“courts” that would give no lee-way to defence or innocence. Infact, it sounds like Beirut in the1980s.

I’ve written this story before. Lasttime, I remember writing about thethreats to my kidnapped journal-ist friend Terry Anderson of theAssociated Press, tied up, hooded,always threatened by his “Islam-ist” captors in Lebanon. That wasbetween 1986 and 1991 and Terry– let us remember this distinction– was no man of violence. He wasa journalist, a comrade, a friend.But he was most cruelly treated,allowed no contacts with his fam-ily, held in cold confinement,threatened with death every bit asabsolute as the American militarycourts that know they hold the fateof al-Qa’ida’s men in their hands.And then I remember the revolt-ing prison of Khiam where Israellocked up its Lebanese adversar-ies – real and presumed, nonetried by a court – and where pris-

oners were brought,shackled, hooded, se-dated, for questioning.Their interrogation in-cluded electric torture –electrified metal attachedto penis and nipples(there were women pris-oners, too) – which couldnever happen atGuantanamo Bay, asAmerica’s Israeli alliestaught their Lebanesemilitia men in 1980. Theyin turn taught it to theirLebanese Shia militia en-emies who used electric-ity on their captives.

America, Israel’s friend, couldhave closed down this sick, dis-gusting prison if it had insisted.But Washington remained silent.The Lebanese Shia prisoners wereleft to face the men who appliedelectrodes to their testicles. Thenation that would later declare awar of good against evil didn’t seemuch wrong at Khiam.

And now, a trip down memorylane. In the 1980s, when I was cov-ering the war in Afghanistan be-tween the brave mujahedin guer-rillas and the Soviet occupiers,

Arab fighters – armed by theAmericans, paid by the Saudisand the West – would occasion-ally be captured by the Russiansor by their Afghan communistsatrap allies. For the most part, theArabs were Egyptians. Theywould be paraded on Kabul tel-evision and then executed as “ter-rorists’’. We called them “freedomfighters”. President Reaganclaimed that their masters werenot unlike the Founding Fathers.

From time to time, these revolution-ary forces would sally forth acrossthe Amu Darya river to attack theSoviet Union itself. The “Arab” Af-ghans would attack a foreign

INTERNATIONAL

Congratulations, America

by Robert Fisk

SSSSS

You have made bin Laden a happy man

Kidnap In Lebanon

Terrorists OrFreedom Fighters?


country from Afghanistan. Theywould do so in their war againstoccupation. We supported them.For, yes, they were “freedom fight-ers”. Now, having opposedAmerica, having dared to opposeUS forces inside Afghanistan, inorder to destroy US forces “occu-pying’’ part of the Arab world –in Saudi Arabia, in Kuwait – theyhave become “unlawful combat-ants’’, “battlefield detainees’’.That, in essence, is what the Rus-sians called them in the 1980s. Itjustified their detention in the hid-eous Pol e-Chowkri prison outsideKabul, their incarceration like ani-mals – partly exposed to the ele-ments – before their appearancein front of unfair, drumheadcourts.

Minus the torture, the UnitedStates is now doing what mostArab regimes have been doing fordecades: arresting their brutal “Is-lamist” enemies, holding them in-communicado, chained andhooded, while preparing unfairtrials. President Mubarak of Egyptwould approve. So would KingAbdullah of Jordan. So would theSaudis, whose grotesque, hope-lessly unfair system of Islamic“justice” would be familiar toAmerica’s prisoners. The jails ofSaddam would be far worse - letus keep things in proportion – butin most of the Arab world andIsrael, al-Qa’ida would receivesimilar treatment.

And whether we like it or not,many Saudis believe that Ameri-can troops are occupying theircountry, that the very presence

of US soldiers in the Kingdom isa crime. King Fahd, of course, in-vited the Americans into SaudiArabia in 1990, after Iraq’s in-vasion of Kuwait. PresidentBush senior promised the Arabsthey would leave when thethreat of Iraqi occupation wasover. But they are still there. Sev-eral years ago, I reported in TheIndependent that Crown PrinceAbdullah – the effective rulernow that the King is so badly in-capacitated – wanted the Ameri-cans to leave. Much jeering therewas from American commenta-tors. But now the WashingtonPost, no less, has reported thatthe Saudis want the Americansto quit and the commentators aresilent. Not so US Secretary ofState Colin Powell. For him, theAmerican presence in SaudiArabia may last until the worldturns into “the kind of place wedreamed of’’. American troopsin Saudi are not only a deterrentto Saddam, he said at the week-end, they are a “symbol’’ ofAmerican influence.

Could al-Qa’ida have a more po-tent reason for continued resist-ance? The “occupation” ofSaudi Arabia remains the cor-nerstone of Osama bin Laden’sbattle against the United States,the original raison d’être of hismerciless struggle againstAmerica. And here is Mr Powellproving, in effect, that Washing-ton had ulterior motives forsending him into the Gulf.When he added that “weshouldn’t impose ourselves onthe Government beyond the ab-solute minimum requirementthat we have”, the phrase “be-yond the absolute minimum”

tells it all. The United States willdecide how long it stays in SaudiArabia – not the Saudis; whichis exactly what Mr bin Ladenhas been saying all along.

Now we learn that US troops ar-rested six Arabs when they werereleased from a prison in Bosnia.The Bosnians announced that,since the Americans would notdisclose the evidence that mightbe used against them in a trial –to protect US “intelligencesources’’ – the men should bereleased from their Bosnianprison. Which they were – onlyto be seized by the Americans.And what did the WashingtonPost tell us in all seriousness?That, the operation was report-edly conducted by US troops act-ing independently of the Nato-led force (in Bosnia).’’

Really? Is the Washington Postthat stupid? Are we? Is thatwhat law and order is all about?Yes, the West is fighting a cruelenemy. Anyone who has read thefull video statement by Osamabin Laden in December must re-alise that the war against him –indeed the conflict in Afghani-stan – has only just begun. Butalready we are turning our-selves into the kind of deceitful,ruthless people whom Mr binLaden imagines us to be. Shack-led, hooded, sedated. Preparedfor a trial without full discloseof evidence. With a possible deathsentence at the end, we are nowthe very model of the enemies Mrbin Laden wants to fight. He mustbe a happy man.q

Source: The Independent, UK, 22 January 2002

Saudi ArabiaO c c u p i e d


n a remote area of NorthAceh, the month of De-cember has been a livinghell.

An armed struggle for independ-ence has been raging in Aceh, themost northwestern province inIndonesia, since 1976 between theANSLF (Free Aceh Movement)and the security forces of the Re-public of Indonesia. Ostensiblythe police have the mandate forsecurity in the province; the mili-tary’s role being merely one of sup-port. It appears the TNI (Indone-sian military) have adopted a pro-active role in terms of terror andintimidation toward unarmed ci-vilians. They view it as the neces-sary strategy to “exterminate theindependence movement”.

Indonesian President MegawatiSukarnoputri’s human rights cre-dentials are facing a severe test inAceh, as the demand for inde-pendence keeps growing strongeras time passes. Already, humanrights monitors are pointing to thehigh death toll in that northwest-ern Indonesian province as a re-vealing indicator of politics underMegawati, who took over the In-donesian presidency just a littlemore than five months ago.

During 2001, Aceh experienced

one of its bloodiest years, withclose to 1,700 people being killedin separatist-related violence, ac-cording to human rights workers.Aceh’s 2001 fatalities count isdouble that of the previous year.An estimated half of the deathstook place after the Megawati ad-ministration began its term. Theothers were killed during thepresidency of AbdurrahmanWahid, who was ousted frompower in late July 2001 on chargesof corruption and incompetence

Grave human rights violations,“including torture and unlawfulkillings continue to take place ona daily basis”, said Lucia With-ers, of the London-based globalhuman rights lobby Amnesty In-ternational (AI). Acehnese civil-ians “are frequently subject to col-lective punishments” by the Indo-nesian security forces followingattacks on the government’stroops by the Free Aceh Move-ment (GAM), she added.

In December, the local TNI fromDenRudal paid two visits to thepeople of Simpang Rambong,close to Kreung Tuan in AcehUtara (North Aceh). SimpangRambong is located in an areaknown to be an ASNLF strong-hold. The area is accessible onlyby unpaved and extremely roughroad and most Acehnese areafraid to venture there, so the story

of Simpang Rambong was slowto emerge.

The first episode in SimpangRambong happened early in De-cember. The villagers allege thatthe TNI arrived in Panther armedvehicles at around 6 pm. Evidenceof large vehicles having been thereis visible in the trail of destructionthey left. There are many potholesin the earth, trees were damagedin the attack, and many houseshave holes in the walls and win-dows, suggesting indiscriminateshooting and possibly the use ofdisproportionate force. On thatparticular visit to the tiny village,the military burned 10 houses.Many villagers told the same storyof an unprovoked attack, but wereunwilling to be quoted for fear ofreprisals.

Not so in the case of UsreAbdullah, who asked that hisphoto be taken in what remainsof his house in order to make peo-ple aware of what happenedthere. “I don’t know why theycame and burned my house,” hesaid. “Now I live with my familyand I have nothing.”

In the same attack several wereinjured. With no health clinic ordoctor in the village many of the

REGIONAL

Indonesia Won't Drop Its Aceh

by Lesley McCulloch

IIIII

Megawati's CredibilityWhy Did They

Burn My House?

Deteriorating human rights situation


wounds remain untreated. Thevictims are too afraid to speakpublicly as Acehnese that havedone so in the past have beenkilled or driven from the provinceby the security forces.

The general mayhem and paniccaused by this first attack wascompounded during a repeat visitby the TNI only one week later.This time, the villagers allege thatover 200 hundred TNI arrived inarmored cars. Once again, therewas indiscriminate shooting.

In this second incident, Ridwan,aged 13 years, was killed as hetook cover inside his house withhis mother Raliah. Raliah said shedoesn’t know why they came toher house. But they shot at it sev-eral times and the timber houseafforded little protection. “My sonRidwan was killed as he tried totake shelter in the house, but wehave only two rooms,” she said.“There was nowhere for Ridwanto go.” The military shot throughthe window, smashing the mirrorinside and killing him. Aroundthe house lie the bullet casingsfrom the attack, the supplierclearly marked as PT Pindad; sup-plier to the military.

Many injuries were from bayo-nets, as the military’s common tac-tic of “attack first, ask questionslater” was pursued. In this inci-dent two motorcycles were takenand the two local shops looted.The feeling of terror that such at-tacks leaves with the local popu-lation affords the military someprotection. To speak out bringsonly more terror.

There are many stories such asthis throughout Aceh. In such re-

mote areas the people can do noth-ing but try to survive each day andhope that they will be left in peace.But the military is forever active.If there is peace for the people ofSimpang Rambong then there isdanger for villagers elsewhere.

The Indonesian government saysthat it is committed to a peacefulsettlement to this dispute, but theevidence suggests otherwise.Many Acehnese are asking howit is possible to pursue parallelsolutions - working toward peace-ful dialogue while at the sametime perpetrating murder andmayhem. It seems a not unreason-able question.

The answer lies in the contribu-tion that resource-rich Acehmakes to the Indonesianeconomy; in the lucrative “busi-ness ventures” in which the mili-tary and policed stationed thereare involved; in the deals struckin Jakarta with the military asMegawati came to power in Au-gust, and in the president’s will-ingness to allow the military topursue its own solution in Acehto prevent the further disintegra-tion of the republic.

“This is a daily reality whichwould surely damage anyone’sdemocratic credentials,” saidWithers, who monitors rightsabuse in the Indonesian archi-pelago for AI. “The situation inAceh is no worse and no bettersince Megawati took over thepresidency.”

Since GAM began its secessionistcampaign in 1976, more than10,000 people have been killed inAceh, say human rights activists.

The activists describe Megawati’sstance on that strife-torn provinceas being similar to those pursuedby Wahid and his predecessor, BJHabibie, both of whom initiallyshowed concern over politicalviolence, but who later failed tofollow through with the necessaryaction to stop the bloodshed.“Like former president Wahid andpresident Habibie before him,soon after taking office PresidentMegawati apologized to theAcehnese for human rights viola-tion committed by past govern-ments,” said AI’s Withers. “And,just like the two former presidents,President Megawati has not fol-lowed through her words withactions.”

Worse, Megawati’s recent state-ments seem to indicate a harden-ing of her position. On December29, she remarked in a speech tocelebrate Indonesia’s Army Daythat the country’s soldiers have aprimary duty to defend the coun-try and should not worry aboutcharges of human rights abuse.“Armed with the soldiers’ oathand existing laws, carry out yourduties and responsibilities in thebest possible manner withouthaving to worry about humanrights abuse,” Megawati wasquoted in the media as havingsaid during her speech. Suchblessings in support of an armythat has a record of oppressionwere swiftly condemned by localhuman rights groups.

Indonesia’s Commission for Miss-ing Persons and Victims of Vio-lence (Kontras) joined other rightsadvocates in accusing Megawatiof colluding with human rightsabusers. They singled out her fail-ure to deal with the unlawful kill-ings and torture in Aceh as a casein point. “The government has

Attack First

More Than10,000 Killed


failed to show its commitment toseriously processing humanrights violations,” Ori Rahman ofKontras said.Megawati’s willing-ness to use Indonesia’s militaryto crush secessionist movementsin Aceh and other provinces withsimmering rebellions may be be-cause she wants to keep the re-public the same way it was whenit was still headed by her father,Indonesia’s founding presidentSukarno, decades ago.

“She is a committed Indonesiannationalist,” said Arif Rusli, theIndonesia project coordinator forthe Bangkok-based human rightsgroup Forum-Asia.

“Since taking power she hasmade it clear that protecting In-donesian territory is important.”But he said that such thinking iscommon in Jakarta, noting: “Thepolitical establishment in Jakartahas always maintained this posi-tion. They want to control the prov-inces.”

The international community,which has in the past suppliedthe equipment now used againstcivilians in Simpang Rambong,should note that this was notmerely an isolated incident. Allover Aceh there is evidence of simi-lar patterns of behavior by themilitary. Most suppliers of thetransportation and small armsand light weapons used so effec-tively against the Acehnese willnot accept that the equipment isused in such a way. The evidenceis compelling, but most will neverventure to areas such as SimpangRambong to hear the stories first-hand.

The international community

should hold the Indonesian gov-ernment accountable for theabuses being perpetrated in Aceh.One way of doing this is for theUnited States to maintain its armsembargo and for the EuropeanCommunity to impose such anembargo. These (and other states)should also put pressure on othersuppliers such as the Chinese andRussians to cease all suppliesuntil those responsible for abusesare brought to justice.

Forum-Asia’s Rusli is dismissiveof Jakarta’s efforts to appease thecries for political freedom in Aceh.He points out that when Jakartawent ahead last year to give Aceha special autonomy package,“there was little euphoria” amongthe Acehnese. This was despitethe fact that the package was inmarked contrast to the mannerAceh and other provinces like EastKalimantan and Irian Jaya werebrought under Jakarata’s controlas part of the Indonesian repub-lic. The people of these provinceshave had little say in the way theirland and resources were used andthey lost their rights to pursuetheir domestic political agenda.Under the special autonomy pack-age, Aceh was promised greaterfreedom over its land, including agreater say over its oil and natu-ral gas reserves, among otherthings.

On January 1, Aceh, which has apassionately Muslim population,also implemented Islamic Sharialaw, as part of the autonomy deal.But Islamic scholars there appar-ently found little reason to cel-ebrate. They told the media thatthe Sharia, an Islamic legal codeprescribing religious duties forMuslims and also approving thedeath penalty and amputation oflimbs as forms of punishment,

had been practised by Acehnesefor years.

A UN human rights expert faultsJakarta for refusing to acknowl-edge a people’s right to self-de-termination. “Many conflicts inthis region have emerged due tosuch a refusal,” said Hina Jilani,a Pakistani lawyer serving asthe UN secretary-general’s spe-cial representative on humanrights defenders. “The strugglewill not go away due to suppres-sion,” she said.

“Democracy and human rights ina country are incomplete untilthese issues are addressed.”

In Aceh, to speak out is to bewiped out. Several recent high-profile killings are testimony tothis. It has become increasinglyobvious that the government inJakarta is either unable or un-willing to address this problemin any meaningful way. Yet inAceh the international monitor-ing team called for by civil soci-ety groups there is conspicuousonly by its absence, the Jakartagovernment having repeatedlydenied such requests. What is itthat the Indonesian governmentis afraid the international com-munity will find there?

In the meantime, the people ofSimpang Rambong can only sitand wait. Of one thing they areconvinced - that more attacks bythe TNI will surely come.

Source: Source: Source: Source: Source: Asia Times4 January 20024 January 20024 January 20024 January 20024 January 2002http://www.atimes.comhttp://www.atimes.comhttp://www.atimes.comhttp://www.atimes.comhttp://www.atimes.com

q

Control The Provinces

S e l f - d e t e r m i n a t i o n


participated in a second ‘illegalgathering’ on 1 August 2001 infront of the Student Affairs De-partment building within the USMcampus. This occurred when adisciplinary hearing was beingconducted against four other PBTstudents (who had participated ina debating contest in Singaporewithout obtaining prior permis-sion. On that occasion, all fourstudents were found guilty, givenstern warnings, and fined RM150each). On this occasion almost 50people had gathered or passed byin a show of moral support forthose attending the hearing. On 6February, yet another 33 studentswill be brought before the disci-plinary board for having done thesame.

Her third infringement was thatshe had been disrespectful to thehead of USM security in not at-tending a meeting that he hadscheduled. In fact, Lee and othersin the PBT had had earlier meet-ings with the security officersprior to this particular additionalone. Lee had explained that theyhad refused to attend further meet-ings because the security person-nel had increasingly harassedthem at their cubicle on severaloccasions and by investigating allkinds of other matters unrelatedto the specific charges. In fact, weunderstand, the Special Branch ofthe police force was even broughtinto the investigations conductedby the USM security personnel.This matter was brought to theattention of the vice chancellor.His deputy had looked into thematter and it was presumed set-tled. Yet this charge has re-sur-faced confirming the harassmentof the PBT and its members by theUSM security.

Universities are the very placeswhere critical thinking, exchangeof opinions, new ideas, indeeddifferences ought to be encour-aged and inculcated. Expressionsof these views whether in the formof artistic presentations or gath-erings should be tolerated as longas they are expressed peacefully.Many USM lecturers, administra-tive officers and even those whoare now in USM leadership oncehad held critical views of the ISA,perhaps even participated in anti-government, anti-ISA demonstra-tions during their time as stu-dents. They should be well placednow to appreciate and under-stand the development process ofthe individual in the university.But, apparently, they are not. Eventhe mere possession of a badgethat displays a dissenting opin-ion is deemed an offence with direconsequences. It’s really flabber-gasting!

It is a sad commentary that theprocess of justice is being short-

Dr Kua Kia SoongDirectorSuaram

P. RamakrishnanPresident

Aliran

Raja Aziz AddrusePresidentHakam

circuited. If the ultimate punish-ment were to be eventually im-posed, then that punishmentmust wait until after due processof appeal has been completed. Inother words, it is premature to barthem from sitting for their exami-nation on 18 Feb before they haveexhausted all avenues of naturaljustice.

We believe that the USM studentswho have been victimised will berequesting the help of SUHAKAMto look into this blatant case of bul-lying and denial of rights. We urgeSUHAKAM to respond immedi-ately so that the affected studentscan sit for their final examinations.

In the meantime we publicly ap-peal to Dato Prof. Dzulkifli AbdulRazak, vice-chancellor of USM, toallow these students to take theirexaminations. We urge the univer-sity to show its magnanimity andreveal its compassion by respond-ing positively and sympatheti-cally to our call.

6 February 2002

STOP BULLYING ... Continued from page 40


he USM Student AffairsDepartment should stopbullying and victimisingtheir own students.

Almost on the eve of final exami-nations, which will start on 18February 2002, four USM under-graduate students have been sus-pended from the university. Threeof them, Lee Yen Ting, Choo ChonKai and Loke Chee Hoo are finalyear students and have effectivelybeen ruled ineligible to sit for theirfinal graduating examinations.Although technically suspendedfor one semester, the three will ac-tually be delayed from graduatingby a whole year. Most of thecourses which they are currentlyenrolled in, and which are re-quired for their graduation thissemester, will not be taught andexamined again until the secondsemester of the next academic year2002-2003. A fourth student, FatinNor Suhana, a second year stu-dent, is also suspended for a se-mester.

And what might be the infringe-ments that they are supposedlyguilty of?

1. Loke Chee Hoo, Fatin NorSuhana and Lee Yen Ting havebeen found guilty of participatingin an ‘illegal demonstration’ pro-testing the Vision Schools thatwas held in Jalan Sungai Dua, justoutside the USM campus.

This demonstration occurred on17 November 2000! We wonderwhy it is only now, 14 monthslater, that punishment is beingmeted out?

We’re not suggesting that morestudents ought to have been pun-ished, not in the least. But whywere these three students singledout for selective punsishmentwhen some 70-80 other studentswere involved in this protest? Thedemonstration had involved bothChinese and Malay students -something that reform-mindedMalaysians would find most en-couraging though those con-cerned with ‘security’, apparently,found it alarming and threaten-ing.

2. The infringement committed byChoo Chon Kai would have beenhilarious if not for the fact that thesecretary-general of the Persatuan

Bahasa Tionghai (PBT) will nowbe delayed from graduating foranother year. He was deemed tohave sold an anti-ISA badge to aUSM security guard who had ap-proached him to buy one while inmufti, under false pretences. Hisother infringements are that hehad in his posession nine othersimilar badges and that he hadput up an anti-ISA poster in thePBT cubicle. The USM securityofficers and authorities have noevidence that Choo was respon-sible for putting up the poster andhe has strenously denied havinganything to do with it.

3. One of the infringements of LeeYen Ting, the president of PBT,was her participation in the 17November 2000 anti-VisionSchools demonstration. Besidesthis, she was supposed to have

EDUCATION

Stop Bullying And VictimisingUSM Students!

TTTTT

Continued on page 39Continued on page 39Continued on page 39Continued on page 39Continued on page 39

USM: Show your magnanimity and reveal your compassion

PP3739/12/2002 ISSN 0127 - 5127 / RM3.00 / 2002:Vol.22No · back to Sejarah Melayu, that for-bade...

Documents

Transcript of PP3739/12/2002 ISSN 0127 - 5127 / RM3.00 / 2002:Vol.22No · back to Sejarah Melayu, that for-bade...