PP3739/12/2002 ISSN 0127 - 5127 / RM3.00 / 2002:Vol.22No · The Tamil schools, meanwhile, continue...

Aliran Monthly : Vol.22(5)

PP3739/12/2002 ISSN 0127 - 5127 / RM3.00 / 2002:Vol.22No.5


hen I was asked to writea piece on the quality ofeducation in Malaysia,my thoughts immedi-

ately swung to private higher edu-cation, an area of research that Ihave been working on for the pastten years. The quality of privatecolleges has always been an issueto students, parents, Ministry ofEducation officials, and employ-ers. But what do we mean by thequality of education? It can meandifferent things to different peo-ple. To the students, it may mean“Can I follow the lessons?” or “Arethe lessons interesting?” and tothe parents it may be “how longis the programme?”, “how much

does it cost?” and “would mychild find a job after the pro-gramme?”. The Ministry officialswould ask questions like “Doesthe programme meet all the Na-tional Accreditation Board’s (com-monly known as LAN) require-ments?” “Does the college pos-sess the required facilities and ap-propriate teaching staff?” Theconcerns of employers would in-clude “can the graduate do thejob?” and “how much do I haveto pay him or her?” There is yetanother group of people who arealso concerned about the qualityof the programme and these arethe faculty members of other uni-versities, particularly foreign part-ner universities that will be re-ceiving the students in the later

part of their study in twinningprogrammes, credit transfer pro-grammes or even post-graduatestudies. In short, differentstakeholders use different critieriato measure the quality of educa-tion.

The idea of quality may be a con-tested concept but there should bea philosophical view on qualityin higher education. What are thequalities that are inherent in theeducative process? What do wehope our students will achieveafter going through our educationsystem? A very fundamental goalof education is to help an indi-vidual to develop his or her fullpotential. In the context of highereducation, this developmentalapproach is aimed at helping stu-dents to develop their intellectual,physical, and interpersonal abili-ties, and attain intellectual andpersonal maturity. The quality ofhigher education can be demon-strated in the nature of the intel-lectual development that takesplace in the students’ minds, inthe depth and breadth of under-standing that students achieve, intheir ability to be self-critical, andin their capacity to think for them-selves so as to be able to stand ontheir own feet. Students shouldalso develop integrity and be moresocially aware and responsible.

COVER STORY

Education In CrisisWe need to overhaul the whole system and not just tinker withcertain parts

by Molly Lee

The Idea Of Quality

WWWWW


No Twin Towers, Multimedia Super-whatever, orAku Janji can ensure a country’s progress and de-velopment. At the end of the day, it is the educationof a people which provides the foundation for a coun-try’s wellbeing and sustainable development.

In our cover story, Molly Lee is alarmed at the crisisbrewing in Malaysian education, which has becomeincreasingly politicised. We have been overly con-cerned with providing greater accessbility to edu-cation at the expense of improving quality. She ar-gues that a total revamp is needed.

Expressing similar concerns, Maznah Mohamadcalls for a debate on the optimal mix of meritocracy,national unity considerations and democratisationin ecucation.

P Ramakrishnan focuses on the frustration that hasoverwhelmed the teaching profession. Policies aremade on the run by politicians, without consultingthe teachers, the students, their parents, and thepublic.

The Tamil schools, meanwhile, continue to be ne-glected, writes K Arumugam. If only there was moregovernment and community support, pupils in theseschools might progress further.

A short report by G Lim on a round-table discussionon parliamentary reforms is also included. The con-sensus was that there will only be reforms if therakyat take the initiative.

Our back cover story by Muzaffar Tate focuses onthe flagging fortunes of the reformasi movement,which appears to have lost its sense of purpose. Isthis perhaps the result of an error in strategy, i.e.transforming a movement for democratic reform intoan organisation seeking political power via elec-tions? There is much food for thought in this impor-tant piece.

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

••••• Education In CrisisEducation In CrisisEducation In CrisisEducation In CrisisEducation In Crisis 22222

••••• On Balance, Is It Better?On Balance, Is It Better?On Balance, Is It Better?On Balance, Is It Better?On Balance, Is It Better? 66666

••••• Educational PoliciesEducational PoliciesEducational PoliciesEducational PoliciesEducational Policies

And The TeacherAnd The TeacherAnd The TeacherAnd The TeacherAnd The Teacher 88888

••••• The Cinderella OfThe Cinderella OfThe Cinderella OfThe Cinderella OfThe Cinderella Of

Malaysian EducationMalaysian EducationMalaysian EducationMalaysian EducationMalaysian Education 1 11 11 11 11 1

FEATURESFEATURESFEATURESFEATURESFEATURES

••••• Kg. Sg. Getah 2: The SequelKg. Sg. Getah 2: The SequelKg. Sg. Getah 2: The SequelKg. Sg. Getah 2: The SequelKg. Sg. Getah 2: The Sequel 1 41 41 41 41 4

••••• Apply Universal StandardsApply Universal StandardsApply Universal StandardsApply Universal StandardsApply Universal Standards 2 62 62 62 62 6

••••• Semiconductor IndustrySemiconductor IndustrySemiconductor IndustrySemiconductor IndustrySemiconductor Industry 2 82 82 82 82 8

••••• Parliamentary WoesParliamentary WoesParliamentary WoesParliamentary WoesParliamentary Woes 3 73 73 73 73 7

••••• The 11th HourThe 11th HourThe 11th HourThe 11th HourThe 11th Hour 4 04 04 04 04 0

REGULARSREGULARSREGULARSREGULARSREGULARS

••••• Current ConcernsCurrent ConcernsCurrent ConcernsCurrent ConcernsCurrent Concerns 1 71 71 71 71 7

••••• Talking AllowedTalking AllowedTalking AllowedTalking AllowedTalking Allowed 1 91 91 91 91 9

••••• LettersLettersLettersLettersLetters 3 03 03 03 03 0

OTHERSOTHERSOTHERSOTHERSOTHERS

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


The question is what is the qual-ity of Malaysian education?

In general, the quality of privatehigher education does vary fromcollege to college and from pro-gramme to programme. Todaythere are more than 600 privatecolleges offering all kinds of pro-grammes ranging from pre-uni-versity level to post-graduate leveland the private education indus-try is highly competitive in termsof demand and supply. On thedemand side, higher education isno longer a luxury item. With theincreasing importance placed onpaper qualifications, a post-sec-ondary credential is becomingmore like an essential item in mod-ern living. Parents would wanttheir children to obtain some kindof post-secondary qualificationsby all means. If they cannot getadmission to a reputable univer-sity or cannot afford the more ex-pensive programme, they wouldbe quite happy to go for the nextbest college or programme. Withthe ever-increasing demand forhigher education, it is not surpris-ing to find all sorts of colleges andprogrammes in the market.

Although there are some veryreputable private colleges anduniversities in the country, thequality of education provided bymany of the private educationalinstitutions is questionable. Weoften come across private collegesthat are operating in small shoplots with bare minimum facilities.As for teaching staff, there is anacute shortage of qualified aca-demic personnel. Many of the firstdegree programmes are taught byfirst degree holders and many of

the lecturers in private colleges arepart-timers. Appropriate studentsupport services are found lack-ing in many of the smaller col-leges. In order to cut costs, thelength of many programmes isshortened by having classes allyear round. It is possible for a SPMstudent to obtain a first degree intwo and three-quarter years insome of the private colleges,which may be to the parents’ de-light - but the employers may findthis young graduate too immatureto be employed.

When we talk about the quality oflocal graduates, we should in-clude all the graduates from ourlocal public universities. Todaythere are about 44,000 localgraduates who are unemployedwhich is causing much concernto the government. Of course, theoptimists will just attribute theproblem to the country’s economicslowdown and hope that the prob-lem will go away by itself whenthe economy picks up again. Buta closer look at the problem showsthat there is a band of graduateswho always have problems in ob-taining full-employment (that is,pay and job equivalent to that of agraduate) irrespective of the eco-nomic situation in the country.The majority of this group of un-employed are Arts graduates ma-joring in either the Malay lan-guage or Islamic studies showinga mismatch between the kind ofhuman resources that is neededby the economy and what is be-ing produced by our universitiesand colleges.

A quick survey of the employersin the private sector, in particular

the multinational corporations,shows that they prefer to hire over-seas graduates rather than localgraduates. Among the reasonsgiven: our local graduates are notwell-versed in English; they donot know how to communicate ef-fectively; they do not know howto think independently and takethe initiative. They may be goodin following instructions but theylack the confidence to carry out acomplex task on their own.

This is probably true because oureducation system does not trainour students to think analyticallyand creatively, not to mention criti-cally. Most of our students arevery good at note-taking and rote-learning. They memorize their lec-ture notes and regurgitate themduring the examinations. Theyseldom read beyond their lecturenotes. They do not know how toask the right questions and arealways trying to look for the cor-rect answers. At this point, weneed to ask what is wrong withour local universities?

There are many things that do notseem to be functioning properlyin the universities. First and fore-most, the universities have ex-panded rapidly to the extent thatmany of the older universities arebursting at the seams. Ten yearsago there were only about 13,000students in my university but to-day the number has increased toabout 24,000 and the number isstill increasing. This huge in-crease in student intake hascaused great strain in the univer-sity system in terms of facilitiesand academic staff. Today it is notsurprising to find students sittingon the steps of lecture halls due toa lack of space or to have as manyas 50-60 students in one tutorial

Quality Of LocalG r a d u a t e s

Quality Of PrivateHigher Education


group due to a lack of teachingstaff.

In my school/faculty itself, aboutone third of the academic staffhave only a master’s degree. Thisbecomes problematic when post-graduate students are supervisedby non-PhD holders. It is quitecommon to find lecturers who donot make the cut, especially thosewho were recruited during theNEP period. They are the“kangkung professors” who usu-ally give very high grades to stu-dents so that the students wouldnot complain about their poorquality lectures. So examinationgrades do not mean a thing ifthere is no check and balance.

Another contributing factor is thequality of student intake into thelocal universities. In the past, ouruniversities were elitist and selec-tive – only the creme-de-la-cremewere admitted. But today with thedemocratization of education,more and more students are giventhe opportunity to further theireducation after obtaining theirSPM. Therefore, the universitiesadmit a wider range of studentswith diverse capabilities. Thisproblem is further compoundedby the fact that admission to pub-lic universities is based on thequota system as well as selectionbased on the results of two differ-ent types of examination, that is,the STPM and matriculation.Those of us who have taught inthe universities know that, nomatter what the authorities say,these two examinations are notequivalent to one another. Stu-dents from the matriculationclasses are definitely of lowerquality. There is no way to com-pare the matriculation examina-tion results with the STPM results,

especially after the matriculationhas been shortened to a 1-yearprogramme whereas the STPMcontinues to be a 2-year pro-gramme.

In talking about the quality of stu-dents taken into universities, wehave to look at the quality ofschooling that they have experi-enced in their secondary and pri-mary schools. No doubt there arequite a number of good schoolswhich produce straight A’s stu-dents in the UPSR, PMR, SPM andSTPM examinations, but there arealso many schools which farepoorly in these public examina-tions. These are the rural schoolsor schools located in areas withworking class families. Theseschools usually lack facilities,have many disciplinary problemsand are staffed with teachers suf-fering from low morale.

Our school system has alwaysbeen criticized for being too exami-nation oriented to the extent thatstudents are spoon-fed by teach-ers and drilled to get good gradesfrom examinations. Instead oflearning to be inquisitive, to thinklogically, to reason for themselves,and to write expressively andcreatively, students spend most oftheir time memorizing revisionnotes and practise answeringquestions from past year exami-nation papers. Most teachers areovertly concerned about coveringthe syllabuses for the public ex-aminations instead of engagingstudents in meaningful learning.

The teaching profession is indeep crisis these days, for it can-not attract talented young adultsto join the profession. Having

Quality Of Schooling

worked in the field of teacher edu-cation in the past 20 years, I canbear witness that very often youngpeople decide to take up teachingonly when they cannot find em-ployment in the other sectors.With the low quality of studentintakes, there’s little that one cando in a 9-month teacher-trainingprogramme. Most of these stu-dents are very weak in their sub-ject content areas. Nowadays it iscommon to find English teacherswho do not use correct grammar,mathematics teachers who do notknow their sums, history teacherswho do not know their facts, andscience teachers who do not un-derstand basic scientific concepts,all, teaching in the classrooms.This is going to be a vicious cyclethat will be difficult to break be-cause these teachers with theirhalf-baked knowledge will teachthe young ones who in turn willbecome our future teachers.

In sum, when we talk about thequality of education we have tolook at the input, processes, andoutput of the education systemand to realize that the output ofone education level becomes theinput of the next level. To improvethe quality of education, we needto overhaul the whole system andnot just tinker with certain partsof the system. If we want to ex-pand the system and to improveits quality, then we have to in-crease its resources. Malaysia isnot short of resources. The prob-lem lies in how these resourcesare managed and utilized. Arethese resources directed to the es-sence of education - which aimsat the development of an all-round individual who has intel-lectual autonomy, emotional ma-turity, critical awareness andhigh morality? q


ne of the rewards of na-tional independencewas the opportunity tore-fashion an inherited

educational system — an out-moded one, according to many, asit favoured the furtherance of co-lonial rather than local interests.But at the end of colonialism, thehistory of our educational re-vamping was actually fraughtwith many irreconcilable compro-mises. Many are not sure whetherwhat we have now is better thanwhat we had before.

Nevertheless the majority ofMalaysians accepted the idea thatracial unity through schoolingwas necessary, that educationmust be made widely accessiblefor the masses and that educationmust be geared for economic andsocial progress.

Hence, political attention given tothe education issue was intense.The survival of our ethnic-basedpolitical parties dependedstrongly on how they articulatedand promoted the cause of educa-tion in their campaigns. Unfortu-nately, this resulted in the educa-tional system being a reflection ofthe political accommodations,negotiations and bargains struckbetween political interest groups,rather than of competent and care-ful technocratic planning.

There were clashing concerns oc-cupying politicians and educa-

tionists in their struggle to reformeducation. One was the obsessionto use education as a basis for eth-nic, and thereby national unity.The other was the competition bymany parties to look upon theeducation system as safeguardand promoter of cultural and reli-gious traditions.

Education was also looked uponas an instrument of social mobil-ity. The expansion of schoolingwas one of the top policy concernsof the post-colonial government.In Malaysia, every level of school-ing from primary to tertiary wasexpanded, resulting in a tremen-dous increase in the number ofschools and student enrolment.

The NEP speeded up the aboveprocess. Educational places, as-sistance, scholarships and spe-cial schemes were made widelyavailable to the Bumiputra. Withthe scrapping of ‘qualifying’ ex-aminations at the standard six andForm Three levels more and morepeople were also able to remainin school for a much longer pe-riod. This is known as the democ-ratization aspect of education, inwhich the benefits of schoolingwere spread out among a largerpopulation.

The social and economic disparitybased on ethnicity, which was pre-viously reinforced through a colo-

nial education system was in manyways narrowed through these edu-cational ‘democratization’ proc-esses. But the question of nationalintegration remains an uncertainissue, if not an obscure goal.

The latest statistics showed thatonly 2% of Chinese primary-school-going children are in na-tional schools. This speaks loudlyabout the shortcomings of the eth-nic unity function of schooling.

Furthermore, between using edu-cation as leveler of socio-economicopportunities and as the ‘theoreti-cal’ basis for national integrationthere emerged a social trade-off,even an economic cost. What wasoverlooked in educational policiesaimed at achieving the goals of in-tegration and democratizationwas the question of quality of edu-cation.

The measure of education stand-ards of excellence was seldomdeliberated as a variable in edu-cational planning. It was eithertreated as something that wouldnaturally ensue with educationalexpansion or that it was a concernthat could be postponed to a laterperiod.

Three decades after the NEP andseveral educational legislationslater, we are forced to debate the

COVER STORY

On Balance, Is It Better?Gains and Losses in Malaysian Education:

by Maznah Mohamad

OOOOO

D e m o c r a t i z a t i o n

W h i t h e rNational Unity?


fundamental issues of education;something basic but which wasprobably heresy before.

The questions that need to be ad-dressed by the government of theday are, first, whether, and howfar, meritocracy should be used ascriterion for educational place-ment and achievement.

The second question is whether,and how much, to restore Englisheducation to keep up with so-called “global competitiveness."

The third question is whether, andhow, to produce high qualitygraduates with technological, sci-entific, creative and innovativeskills but who should never becritical and autonomous at thesame time.

On the other hand, and as if toundermine the above there arestill other parties who are con-cerned that educational reformsshould largely enhance the valuesand identity of each individualcommunity.

Today, even when Malay is alreadyaccepted as a medium of instruc-tion in national schools, the wide-spread Islamization process hasspurred Islamic educationists tostill aim for more within the educa-tion system. There is a continuingstress that the national curriculummust reflect a more moralistic andIslamic-based education.

Similarly, an argument can bemade for Chinese educationistswho used to defend the preserva-tion of Chinese medium schoolsas a continuation of a cultural tra-dition. However, today, the sym-bol of Chinese education maystand for something else – could

it be that it is being defended as abetter alternative to quality edu-cation than what is provided bynational schools?

Or, could it be that non-Malaysare running away from nationalschools which they see as beingincreasingly “mono-ethnicized”rather than universalized? If so,there is an irony to this situation.If national schools fail to providea common and universal platformfor unity and integration they willultimately lead to the creation ofmore mono-cultural edifices.

Added to the above difficult de-mands is the pressure for institu-tions of tertiary education to op-erate as profit-making businessentities. More and more high qual-ity education is becoming anunaffordable commodity. Soon,education will cease to be what itwas meant to be – the means forsocial mobility, bridging the ‘ris-ing expectation’ divide betweenthe rich and the poor. Alreadythere an emerging ethnic dividein the enrolment of students inpublic and private universities,with the latter heavily skewed to-wards the non-bumiputra.

Our education system is thus tornin many directions – it is expectedto be the leveler of socio-economicand racial disparity, while at thesame time be maintained as thesite for all manner of culturalclaims and finally as a ‘factory’which churns out high productiv-ity human resource.

But yet, analyzing deeper, oureducational system is not muchdifferent from that offered undercolonialism. Schools continue tobe the mainstay of ethnic-segrega-tion, high quality tertiary educa-

tion is only affordable by the elitesand the poorest and disadvan-taged population, regardless ofrace, are still betrayed by the prom-ise of education as their stepping-stone out of destitution.

Do we know, as Malaysians whatwe really want out of the educa-tion system? How many peopleare concerned that schools shouldbe a place where true learning canbe done, where the mind can beleft unfettered to explore and en-quire, and where the full poten-tial of every individual (for crea-tivity, intellectual developmentand scientific excellence) can berealized?

Some solutions to the presentmalaise in the educational sys-tem should be expected to beharsh and unpleasant. The re-introduction of English as amedium of instruction in someschools and universities mightbe unavoidable but problematicand unpopular.

Some solutions should be metwithout sacrificing the ideals ofequity and balance. Places foruniversity and special schoolentrances can be awarded bothon the basis of merit and af-firmative-action – this time notbased on racial but on socio-eco-nomic criteria.

Some solutions are long overdue.Mediocrity in our educational in-stitutions bred out of excessive po-litical control and interventionmust make way for the principleof meritocracy. In assessments, inexaminations, in employment,and in promotions, allMalaysians deserve no less thanto be rewarded and recognized fortheir real achievement and not bevictimized (or deluded into falsegrandeur) by ascription and pa-tronage.

U n a n s w e r e dQ u e s t i o n s

Not Much DifferentFrom Colonial Days?

q


f Malaysian educationalpolicies are in a mess, asmany Malaysians be-lieve them to be today, it

is not the teachers whom weshould blame.

For the Malaysian educationalsystem’s unenviable and worry-ing state, it is the ruling coalition’spoliticians we should thank.

To begin with, it has always beenthe politicians who determinedwhat Malaysian education was allabout. From painful experiencewe now know that Ministers ofEducation come and go, but toooften their personal whims weretranslated into indefensible poli-cies that almost stayed forever.

Especially in primary and second-ary education, where the abilityof our young is critically shaped,there has rarely been serious andopen policy discussion, let alonemeaningful consultation with theteachers.

Instead, one man’s fancy can sud-denly become the basis for far-reaching policy change. Today wehave the example of the move toemphasise the importance of the

English language. On 6 May, 2002,Prime Minister Dr MahathirMohamad publicly floated theidea of reintroducing English-me-dium schools ‘if the people wantit’, as if the people had a choice.Four days later, the UMNO Su-preme Council rejected this ideabut recommended that Scienceand Mathematics be taught inEnglish starting from StandardOne.

Hence, in the Barisan Nationalmode, the Prime Minister floateda political balloon one day, hisUMNO Supreme Council punc-tured the balloon a few days later… but suddenly a suggestion by apolitical party – albeit the rulingparty – becomes new policy that

overturns longterm teaching prac-tice. So, now, Science and Math-ematics will be taught in Englishnext year.

Did it occur to any of these plan-ners of our future to seek a publicdebate or discussion of a policythat they had so hastily formu-lated? Did it occur to any of thesetop leaders to consult the educa-tors before mysteriously wrappingup their decision-making process?

As a former teacher with over 30years of teaching experience, I canconfidently testify that it is exactlythis kind of haphazard decision-making that has brought ruin toour educational system and dam-aged its credibility.

COVER STORY

Educational PoliciesAnd The TeacherReward dedication not politics

by P. Ramakrishnan

IIIII

Policy Or Balloon


Let us think back on theKurikulum Baru Sekolah Rendah(KBSR) that was implemented inthe early 1980s. The KBSR was in-troduced as a pilot project in 87schools. Everyone who was in-volved was assured that KBSR’seffectivemess would be evaluatedat the end of the first year of itstrial implementation. This assess-ment of KBSR, we were promised,would be seriously conducted todetermine its suitability for na-tion-wide implementation.

The promise came to nothing. Be-fore anyone could benefit from asystematic evaluation of its sup-posed effectiveness, KBSR wasimplemented nation-wide withdisastrous consequences whichdeserve recalling.

Strange at it may sound to peoplewho think new policies and newsystems must contain real sub-stance, KBSR at its core entailedendless meetings and meaning-less paper work. In theory, KBSRmonitored each student’sprogress meticulously: every skillthat was taught and every bit ofproficiency achieved by an indi-vidual student was recorded.

In practice, that was what KBSRwas about: records, more recordsand better records! Typically ateacher was compelled to keepcareful records to convince offi-cialdom that he or she was ahard-working teacher. The de-mands of KBSR record-keepingwere such that many teachersplaced ‘files before students’, at-tended meetings instead ofclasses, or completed enormousamounts of paper work in theirclassrooms.

From an educational perspective,the teachers shouldn’t have both-ered. The paper work accom-plished nothing. Nor was anyonetruly concerned with it. In the end,even if most teachers and bureau-crats had to pretend otherwise,KBSR was just a mammoth but de-moralizing bureaucratic ‘project’.Introduced with much fanfare,KBSR ended up being full of soundand fury signifying nothing!

Take a much publicised aspect ofKBSR – the introduction of MoralEducation which was presentedas a commendable effort to incul-cate good values among students.When it came to examinations,however, Moral Education becamea joke. No student was allowed tofail the subject even if he or shedidn’t deserve to pass. The ridicu-lous rationale for this unconscion-able assessment was that a stu-dent was immoral if he or sheshould fail in the subject! Howanyone in any position of respon-sibility could reconcile this ab-surdity with the high-soundingpronouncements on KBSR’s MoralEducation is best left unexploredhere.

Yet, had anyone in a position ofpower sincerely wanted to, he orshe could have heard all aboutthe teachers' KBSR woes. For in-stance, the June 1990 issue ofGuru Malaysia, the organ of theNational Union of the TeachingProfession (NUTP), noted that,‘The actual cause of the poor per-formance is the weakness or fail-ure in the implementation of cer-tain aspects of the KBSR systemat various levels right from thetop.’

The NUTP was being diplomatic!The teacher training colleges wereill-prepared for KBSR. The sylla-bus wasn’t available to the col-leges which produced the teacher-trainees who handled KBSRclasses. To add insult to injury, anew syllabus, which had nothingto do with KBSR, was introducedto the colleges.

It wasn’t only KBSR that becamepolicy without prior consultationwith the classroom teachers whoare the real practitioners and im-plementers of educational poli-cies. Integrated Science and Mod-ern Mathematics shared KBSR’sfate of being introduced withoutadequate discussion with orproper feedback from educatorsand educationists. Should any-one be astonished then that theteaching of these subjects couldn’tstand the test of even our laxMalaysian time?

Meanwhile, other badly neededmeasures are half-heartedly im-plemented. As an example, wearen’t any nearer the full imple-mentation of a system of single-session schools than when theirintroduction was first mooted.Here we don’t need lengthy de-bates on the compelling advan-tages of single-session schools inour kind of tropical climate. Yethow many single-session schoolsstill await implementation, notbecause ours is a poor country, butthe political will to realize theproper set of priorities in educa-tion just isn’t there.

Perhaps only when policy-mak-ers are directly held accountablefor the failures of their ill-con-

Look Back In Anger

Moral EducationOr Joke?

And Those WhoC a n ’ t Teach?


ceived policies, or their abject fail-ure to implement good policies,will they be inclined to consultwith those who have more expe-rience and wisdom in the field.

But the situation won’t change solong as the attitude of our top lead-ers is summed up by DrMahathir’s jaundiced perspectiveon teachers. Dr Mahathir has al-ways been very fond of sayingthat ‘Those who can do, thosewho can’t teach’. He must haveinfected most of his political andbureaucratic subordinates with alack of regard for people who helpto nurture the minds of youngMalaysians.

If one were not contemptuous ofteachers, if one listened humblyto them, one would hear their frus-trations and understand their de-moralization. Unlike the teachersof old – including Dr Mahathir’sown father – most hard-workingand dedicated teachers today feelthat they receive neither recogni-tion nor just compensation fortheir efforts.

Their workloads are heavy be-cause smaller classroomenrolments are still a pipe dream,talked about for decades withoutresulting in measurable improve-ments. The teachers know thatsmaller class sizes are basic tohigher quality education, moreattention to students and betterpreparation by teachers. Butthey’ve come to realize that noone’s seriously solving this basicproblem of ‘teaching excellence’.

Nor are teachers’concerns ad-dressed by the system of perform-ance evaluation that goes under

the name of Sistem Saraan Baru(SSB). Just one decade into its im-plementation, SSB has causedharm to the teaching profession.There is a lot of anger and frustra-tion among deserving teacherswho have been bypassed for pro-motion and other benefits undera system they commonly call SayaSuka Bodek.

It is widely perceived by teachersthat SSB rewards the grovellingcronies of heads of schools whoabuse their authority under SSBto reward loyalty and obedience.As with the trend of centralizedauthority in our political system,heads of schools tend to show offtheir power, as happened at a staffmeeting I attended when SSB wasintroduced.

When my Guru Besar spoke of hispower to determine a teacher’sannual increments, he practicallyboasted, ‘Even your relationshipwith the head counts.’ For thisGuru Besar, and many like him, ifthe widely told stories are evenhalf accurate, the teacher’s workis no longer a matter of conscience,and the teacher’s reward has lit-tle to do with genuineperfomance.

After decades of teaching, of ex-changing experiences with nu-merous colleagues and personalreflection, I even consider nowthat good teachers stand a betterchance of being properly recog-nized if they are directly and demo-cratically assessed by their peersand their students for certainawards, such as Tokoh Guru.

Right now, there is no transpar-

ency to the Tokoh Guru nomina-tions and awards. Hardly any-one knows how the candidatesare nominated and what crite-ria are set for their selection.Hence, when the Tokoh-tokohGuru are announced, their selec-tion frequently surprises boththeir peers and their students astoo many of the recipients arenot known for notable contribu-tions to the cause of teaching.

It appears that the Tokoh Guruhonour has been habitually re-served for former heads ofschools at the expense of teach-ers who have served the profes-sion selflessly. Were it not so,many Brothers and Sisters fromthe mission schools would havebeen conferred this honour be-cause of their unsurpassed dedi-cation to the noble calling of theteaching profession.

Our educational system has notbeen appreciative, generous orcaring towards the really goodteachers who have put in yearsand years of dedicated butpoorly-remunerated service. Toobserve this truth – a problemthat remains uncorrected al-though many Ministers of Edu-cation have come and gone – isnot just to express the selfishinterests of the teaching profes-sion.

It is to sound a warning about thestate of demoralization of theteaching profession which puts atrisk the well-being of our childrenand the future of this nation. Ourpoliticians who love to monopo-lize decision-making should beforewarned. They may make poli-cies, but ‘Teachers make theschool, and the students make thenation’.

Siapa Selalu BodekTokoh Guru And

T r a n s p a r e n c y

q


ne of the most controver-sial debates about theTamil schools system is,to have it, or not to have

it. Shoes went flying in a meetingsome 30 years ago, when an un-suspecting scholar, then the headof Indian Studies Departmentcalled for the closure of the Tamilschools as an alternative to sav-ing the children.

The Tamil language, rooted in an-tiquity and which flourishedsome 2,500 years ago, is one of theoldest surviving languages. Inter-woven in the culture and religion,the language has become theemotional make-up and identityof the Tamil masses. The Tamilschools form part of a struggle bycultural/language advocates inMalaysia to sustain and maintainthat history, arguably at a heavycost to the development of the hu-man capital.

In his pioneering work in 1987, T.Marimuthu, calling the Tamilschool the Cinderella of the wholeMalaysian educational system,sums it up as follows:

‘ .. children of the plantation poor,schooled in the neighbourhood Tamilschool, have not been able to use the

COVER STORY

The Cinderella OfMalaysian Educationby K. Arumugam

OOOOO

Tamil Schools:


school as an avenue of educationaland social mobility. This is due to thehost of socio-economic and culturalfactors originating from the home aswell as the low quality ofschooling…failure (of the children)is individualized and not external-ized. The individual takes the blame.In the world of work, .. (they) fill theunskilled, slightly skilled and semiskilled occupational categories.. Nowthe wheel completes full circle; the sonof a plantation worker becomes a bet-ter plantation worker.’

At present the Tamil schools ac-commodate almost 50% of school-going Indian Malaysian children.This article takes a glance at thehistory and status, the trend andthe hope in the Tamil school sys-tem.

The first Tamil school was set upat the beginning of the 18th cen-tury. The Penang Free School, setup by Rev. R. Hutchings in 1816,was reported to contain a class toconduct ‘formal’ Tamil educationin the Straits Settlement. The 1912Labour Ordinance compelled theplanters to set up ad-hoc schoolsfor children of the plantation la-bour. The number of schools in-creased to 333 in 1930, 547 in 1938,741 in 1947 and to its maximumof 888 in 1957. After the country’sindependence, the shift in educa-tion policy and the labour migra-tion led to the closing down ofmany schools. In 1963 there were720 such schools. By 2000 therewere only 526.

The setting up of the Tamil schoolsand some Telugu schools was pri-marily meant for the childrenfrom the labour class. The major-ity of the schools were set up inthe plantations merely to fulfil the

statutory requirement more thanto provide a meaningful educa-tion. Termed as partially fundedschools, these schools did not fallwithin the government’s publicspending expenditure. Located inprivate lands, they lacked infra-structure, trained teachers and re-sources, materials and books.

There have been many studies onthe Tamil school system - allpointing to the Tamil school sys-tem being weak, lacking in facili-ties with the highest drop out rateand poor performance. None ofthe studies thus far has put theproblem of the Tamil schools inthe right perspective. If socio-eco-nomic inequality is the determin-ing factor for a child’s perform-ance then what happens to the po-sition of similar children in main-stream education. If the mediumof instruction is the main culpritfor poor performance, then onewill find it difficult to explain thegood performance of the Chinesemedium children.

Without exhaustive analysis ofinternal and external factors, it ispremature for anyone to suggestthat Tamil education is a waste.

In an unpublished paper,R.Thillainathan, an economist,cautioned in 1988 that for theTamil children from poor homesit is either ‘Tamil education or noeducation’. He linked factors suchas mother tongue language as animmediate communication tool,proximity of schools and culturalshock for Tamil-speaking childrenfrom poor homes in a non-Tamilspeaking environment. This no-tion was not completely wrong.From 1990 to year 2000, the enrol-

ment in Tamil schools declinedboth in relative terms as well as inreal numbers.

The year 1993 recorded the high-est enrolment of about 104,600children enrolling in the Tamilschools. However, this numberdropped to about 90,280 in year2000. The drop is despite the factthat during the same period therewas an increase in the school-go-ing population. A quantitative es-timate of children in the schoolsystem for the year 1998, showedsome 15,000 Indian children in theage range of 6 to 11 were not en-rolled in the school system. It isunlikely that these children be-longed to any other group but theworking class.

One plausible explanation couldbe that the period 1990 to 2000marked an era of rapid develop-ment of the economy, in particu-lar the development of agricul-tural land banks. This led to largescale migration of plantation la-bour to urban areas, causing anacute drop in the enrolment in theTamil schools in the plantations.This did not lead to a correspond-ing increase in the urban schoolenrolment. This meant that these15,000 children were not in theschool system mainly due to theunavailability of Tamil schools inthe urban setting. One can alsoask, why were they not in themainstream schools?

One of the strongest advocates ofTamil education is the MalaysianIndian Congress (MIC). Pointingto the continued existence of theTamil school system as itsachievement (if not for the MIC,there will not be any Tamil

History And Status

Tamil EducationOr No Education

Political DilemmaAnd Drama


schools), the MIC has done itsgreatest disservice to the poor In-dians. The MIC thrived on theweaknesses of the Tamil schoolssystem by co-opting the teachersand headmasters as its members.The culture of paternalism andrhetoric ruled the day. The chil-dren never saw the light at the endof the tunnel. It is a trend that thevotes of the Indians became an es-sential bargaining tool in obtain-ing federal and state subsidies forthe upkeep of the schools. The to-tal weakness of the schools andthe lack of governmental interven-tion is a reflection of the MIC’sweak bargaining power withinthe ruling party.

To date there has not been enoughserious effort by the MIC to ad-dress the basic issues related tothe Tamil schools. It seems reluc-tant to allow the community theoption of confronting the govern-ment of the day to do somethingabout the plight of the Tamilschools. Public spending on Tamilschools to date has been woefullylacking.

However, the politics of confron-tation, if it can be interpreted assuch, helped the Tamil schoolsduring the period 1990 to 1995.M.G. Pandithan, an axed MICleader who went on to establishthe Indian Progressive Front (IPF),which was part of the oppositioncoalition in 1990, created a splitin the Indian votes.

The government, perhaps fearingpotential vote swings in a numberof parliamentary and state seatswhere Indians voters made up atleast 10% of the electorate, de-cided to look at the Tamil schoolproblems a little more closely. Theallocation under the 6th Malay-sia plan (1990-1995) was an un-

precedented RM 27,042,000,about 2.14% of the total allocationfor education. However, whenthings returned to normal,Pandithan choosing to supportthe BN and the MIC thriving onthe handouts and allocations, theIndians voted without any reser-vations for the BN. The resound-ing BN victory in 1995, ended theedge gained by political bargain-ing. The budget allocation forTamil schools in the 7th Malaysiaplan (1996-2000) was reduced tohalf, only RM 10,902,000 or about1.02% of the total allocation foreducation.

The allocation for the Tamilschools in the 8th Malaysia planis expected to far exceed previousamounts primarily due to the in-creased bargaining power gainedby the MIC by virtue of the devel-opment of opposition politics andthe activism and demands of theNGOs.

Are the academic performance ofthe children and the medium ofinstruction inter-related? Oftenthe Tamil schools bear the bruntof the blame for the poor perform-ance of the children. R.Santhiramtends to argue that the socio-eco-nomic status of the children ismore significant than the mediumof instruction. His research on se-lected children from poor socioeconomic backgrounds in bothnational schools and Tamil

schools did not reveal any signifi-cant difference in their perform-ance, except in the Malay lan-guage subject.

N. Iyngkaran, supports the argu-ment that there is no relative dis-advantage in going to Tamilschools. By comparing the UPSRresults for the year 2000 and 2001,Tamil school children performedalmost at par with the national av-erage in Mathematics, Scienceand English, the three commonsubjects for all the mediums. (SeeTable)

However, the poorer performancein the Malay language subjectcompared to the national mediumand Chinese medium schoolsplaced the overall pass rate of theTamil schools among the lowest.In the year 2001, in the BahasaMelayu Penulisan (Malay lan-guage - written) and BahasaMelayu Pemahaman (Malay lan-guage - comprehension) papersthe Tamil schools recorded 40%and 55% respectively. For thesame subjects, the Chinese schoolsposted 57% and 66% and the Na-tional schools 84% and 88% re-spectively.

A strong advocate of Tamilschools, Iyngkaran argues thatTamil schoolchildren are not to beregarded as weak in the light oftheir improved performance in

The Performance

Tamil National Chinese

2000 2 0 0 1 2000 2 0 0 1 2000 2 0 0 1

Mathematics 74 74 7 5 76 9 1 90

Science 74 8 3 78 78 84 8 5

English 46 5 2 5 7 5 8 6 3 6 2

Table: Performance in UPSR for the different medium schools (%)

Continued on page 16Continued on page 16Continued on page 16Continued on page 16Continued on page 16


hen the villagers ofKampung Sungei Getah2, who are being deniedelectricity, piped water

and telephone services by a localpolitician, took their plight to themedia, they did not expect thestrong reactions from certainquarters. A senior aide to theKedah Menteri Besar told one of theworkers that he cannot help themas their news was carried by theInternet media (to quote him: whydon’t you ask the Internet people tohelp you?).

Since their failed attempt to meetwith him on 30 December 2001, thevillagers have sent five five five five five letters to theMenteri Besar asking for his inter-vention and help that was prom-ised during the meeting with hissenior aides. There has been abso-lutely no response from the MenteriBesar. The villagers are persistingand are asking for an appointmentto meet with him directly.

However Bukit Selambau assem-blyman and Kedah State Excomember, Dato’ V. Saravanan is es-pecially upset over the media cov-erage given to the villagers’ ver-sion of their plight. His first re-sponse (through the mainstreamTamil newspapers) was to lay theblame entirely upon the villagers.He accused them of being illegal

squatters and of being stubbornand unreasonable in not accept-ing the landowner’s generous re-duction in land rent. He also sug-gested that the people of Kg. Sg.Getah 2 were an ungrateful lot ashe had arranged free water sup-ply for them.

The villagers’ response to theabove statement was sent to all theTamil newspapers; only a localTamil monthly carried it (see pressstatement below). In an immediateresponse, again through themainstream Tamil newspapers,Saravanan threatened to take le-gal action against any parties thatmentioned his name in the news-papers in relation to the Kg. Sg.Getah 2 issue. What was truly

amazing was that in the verysame press article, the landowner,K.S. Govindan also threatened le-gal action against any parties thatdefamed him in the newspapers.He also indicated that he was notwilling to meet the villagers forany discussion unless they paidup the land rent and arrears first.

Two days later, the villagers of Kg.Sg. Getah 2 had another rudeshock. Three unsavoury charac-ters turned up in the village un-announced and went from houseto house asking questions aboutwho was responsible for the pressstatement and generally intimi-dating the people. The villagersdecided to lodge a police reportover this intimidation and since

COMMUNITIES

Kg. Sg. Getah 2: The SequelIntimidation and harassment follow media exposure

by Kumpulan Kemajuan Masyarakat

WWWWW


e refer to the press state-ments on Kg. Sg. Getah2 by YB Datuk V.Saravanan, Kedah

State MIC Chairman and Excomember on 1 January 2002 and8 February 2002. We hope thatyou will allow us to tell our sideof the story as we are poor peo-ple who are being blamed for ourown suffering.

We do not have electricity andpiped water in our houses be-cause the landowner, Mr. K.S.Govindan, JP (MIC Chairman Sg.Getah and former MunicipalCouncillor Sg. Petani) has sent le-gal notices to JKR and TNB disal-lowing these agencies from con-

Press statement by the villagers of Kg. Sg. Getah 2, Sg. Lalang, Bedong,Kedah : February 2002

Please Do Not Blame Us For Our Suffering

q

Kumpulan KemajuanMasyarakat (Community De-velopment Group) is a grass-roots support group workingamong marginalised commu-nities. Their first article onKpg Sg Getah 2 “Villagers inthe Dark” appeared in AMVol 22. No.1

WWWWW necting these amenities.

Between 1995 and 2002,Saravanan has held only two for-mal meetings with us and thelandowner present, certainly notten or six meetings.

The first meeting was held at theDewan JKKK Bukit Lembu on 15December 1995. At this meeting,Mr. K.S. Govindan demandedland rental of RM4 per month perhousehold and arrears of 35 yearsrental amounting to RM1,680 perhousehold. It is true that throughthe intervention of Saravananand the District Officer (En.Haniffa), Govindan agreed to re-duce the amount to RM10 per

month per household and arrearsof RM400.

However, it is important to notethat we did not agree to this be-cause Govindan insisted that hewas going to impose land tenancyconditions that he will only revealafter we pay him the money. Howcan we expect to agree to such anunreasonable condition? Between1995 and 1999, despite many re-quests to both Datuk Saravananand Govindan, we were not in-formed of the tenancy conditionsset by the landowner.

The second meeting was arrangedby the Unit Perancang EkonomiKedah (Kedah Economic Plan-

then there has been no further har-assment. Key members of the Vil-lage Committee, however, still faceoccasional harassment from indi-viduals who are unhappy withtheir independent efforts on behalfof the villagers.

At a recent JKKK meeting in BukitLembu, Saravanan mentionedthat he is unable to help the vil-lagers of Kg. Sg. Getah 2 as theywere “illegal squatters”. He alsomentioned that the Menteri Besaragrees with him and has alsomentioned that he will not helpthe villagers. Furthermore, ac-cording to him, these people wereunder the influence of NGOs, sowhy should he help them? Thevillagers have written to theMenteri Besar asking him to con-firm the validity of this statementattributed to him and asking him

yet again for an appointment tomeet him directly.

The events of the last two monthshave been an eye-opener for thevillagers. The complicity betweentheir elected representative andthe landowner in denying thembasic amenities is now very clearand out in the open. Their veryown elected representative is nowthreatening legal action if they somuch as mention his inability tohelp them. They are also unableto understand why the MenteriBesar, who promised to help them,is now strangely silent. Is it be-cause the Menteri Besar is unableor unwilling to go against thewishes of his MIC exco member?That says a lot for Barisan Na-tional solidarity but does not im-press the villagers who have tostruggle daily without electricity,

piped water or even a public tel-ephone.

The villagers are not daunted bythe indifference of the State gov-ernment, the threat of legal actionby their elected representative orby the harassment and intimida-tion. If anything, their resolve hasbeen strengthened and they arenow planning to take their plightto the Federal government.


ning Unit) and held at the LabourOffice Sg. Petani on 10 August1999 and was chaired bySaravanan. This meeting was ar-ranged after we went to theMenteri Besar’s office on 28 July1999 to ask him to intervene di-rectly in our problem.

At this meeting, Govindanchanged his demands againand asked for land rental ofRM8 per household (accordingto him each family is occupyingtwo houses!) and arrears for 35years (RM3360). He also set outthe land tenancy conditionsthat we have to agree to. Theseinclude changing the name ofthe village to Ladang K.S.Govindan, no fencing aroundour houses, no rearing of ani-mals, no cultivation and no re-pairs or renovation to ourhouses. He also claimed that allour houses belong to him andwe cannot sell or rent ourhouses. We agreed to pay RM4per household and arrears for astatutory period of 6 years aswell as accept all reasonabletenancy conditions stipulatedby law. There has been no re-sponse from both Saravananand Govindan to our offer.

It is therefore not true that we arerefusing to pay anything. Whywould we want to be stubbornand prolong our suffering? Wehave met the representatives of theKedah Menteri Besar four times be-tween 1998 and 2001. All fourtimes, we were promised that theState government would inter-vene and find a solution just asSaravanan promised when hecampaigned twice in Kg. Sg.Getah 2 in 1995 and 1999.

At the last meeting with the

Menteri Besar’s Political Secre-tary and Private Secretary on 30December 2001, we were toldthat Mr. Govindan plans to de-velop a housing project in thevillage. It is now clear that he isnot sincere in negotiations withus and is not serious about re-solving our problem. His inten-tion seems to be to evict us bydenying us basic amenities andthat is why he keeps setting un-reasonable conditions that can-not be met.

Saravanan must surely knowabout Govindan’s plans. Yet hekeeps blaming us as being unco-operative and unwilling to settlethe problem. We are surprisedwhy the villagers in the otherplaces mentioned by him such asSg. Para, Bukit Lembu, Tye Seng,Kongsi 6 and Kongsi 14 did nothave to pay these land rentals andagree to tenancy conditions to en-joy basic amenities.

How can there be social justicewhen poor villagers like us whohave lived for three generations inKg. Sg. Getah 2 are termed assquatters who have to pay hugesums of money that we cannot af-ford before we can enjoy electric-ity and piped water?

If Saravanan is sincere about help-ing us, he should use the powersof the State government to acquireland to provide the necessary in-frastructure for our houses. Heshould also ensure that we receiveadequate compensation and alter-native housing or land in caseGovindan decides to evict ussoon.

V. Subramaniamon behalf of Kg. Sg. Getah 2

Residents Committee

recent times. Given their handi-capped position and their socio-economic status, the Tamil school-children have the potential to evenout perform their peers in the othermedium, if the prerequisites interms of governmental interven-tion and community support.

Tamil schools are bound to stay.They are a matter of pride and dig-nity for more than half of IndianMalaysians. To them, the need foran unpolarised system of educa-tion bridging the gap of unity andracial understanding is rhetoric.It is also not possible to dismantlemother tongue education, withoutdisrupting the cultural and reli-gious fabric that has providedidentity and belonging.

If only unity among the variousethnic groups was a question ofmere language! Perhaps, a newdimension in understanding theeconomic, social and culturalrights of individuals and commu-nities within a frame work of re-specting, promoting, protectingand fulfilling such rights shouldbe recognized. It should lead to adiscovery of the inner potential ofhumankind to harness the pur-pose for life and living - which,one supposes, is the real goal ofeducation.

K. Arumugam is a coordi-K. Arumugam is a coordi-K. Arumugam is a coordi-K. Arumugam is a coordi-K. Arumugam is a coordi-nator of the Group of Con-nator of the Group of Con-nator of the Group of Con-nator of the Group of Con-nator of the Group of Con-cerned Citizens, an In-cerned Citizens, an In-cerned Citizens, an In-cerned Citizens, an In-cerned Citizens, an In-dian-based lobby groupdian-based lobby groupdian-based lobby groupdian-based lobby groupdian-based lobby groupformed to initiate discus-formed to initiate discus-formed to initiate discus-formed to initiate discus-formed to initiate discus-sions on various inter- andsions on various inter- andsions on various inter- andsions on various inter- andsions on various inter- andintra-community issues.intra-community issues.intra-community issues.intra-community issues.intra-community issues.

Future OfTamil Schools

q

Continued from page 13Continued from page 13Continued from page 13Continued from page 13Continued from page 13


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 flabbergasted that oppo-sition politician Lim Kit Siang hasbeen arrested for distributing leaf-lets, an activity that is not life-threatening to the nation nor pos-ing any serious security problems.

We are amazed that Malaysianscan’t walk peacefully (as evidenton May Day) or distribute in-formative leaflets freely (as evi-denced in the case of Kit Siang).

If fundamental rights are deniedto Malaysians, what freedom isthere left to celebrate democracyin Malaysia?

Aliran is disturbed that the insti-tution of the police has beenturned into a political tool of op-pression. Sometimes it seems thatin their enthusiasm to play thisrole, the police act even whenthere is no justifiable grounds asrevealed in Kit Siang’s case.

We understand that at first Kit

Siang was arrested for distrib-uting leaflets without a permit.Later, we are made to under-stand that the arrest was for dis-tributing leaflets which alleg-edly contained seditious ele-ments that criticised Prime Min-ister Mahathir Mohamad’s dec-laration that Malaysia is alreadyan Islamic state.

Aliran condemns such totallyunjustified high-handed action,which unnecessarily harasseswell-meaning Malaysians whomean well for the country.

It shows that the Malaysian gov-ernment can only maintain itsgrip on power through intimida-tion of the people. It is throughintimidation that the culture offear is being vigorously inculcated.Without resorting to fear, it wouldappear that the Barisan govern-ment is not capable of respond-ing to challenges involving jus-tice, freedom and solidarity.

P RamakrishnanPresident

5 June 2002

Ki t S iang’s Arres t :Governing Through

I n t i m i d a t i o n ?

Only lies

need

to be

defended

by force;

the truth

defends

itself.

fromThe Water Margin

An invasion

of armies

can be

resisted

but not

an idea

whose time

has come.

Victor Hugo

Q Q Q Q Q


“Libertyof thought

meansliberty

to communicateone's thought.”

AM 2002: 22(5)

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

ALIRAN MONTHLY SUBSCRIPTION FORM

AM 2002: 22(5)

AM 2002: 22(5)

AM 2002: 22(5)

A GIFTof one publication

of your choiceif you subscribe to

AliranMonthly

N O W(Tick one)

PandanganALIRAN

The NEP:Development andAlternativeConsciousness

RM

RM

RM


Aired May 16, 2002 - 12:30:00 ET

ZAIN VERJEEZAIN VERJEEZAIN VERJEEZAIN VERJEEZAIN VERJEE, CNN anchor: Wel-come to Q&A. I’m Zain Verjee inWashington.

With me is Malaysia’s Prime Min.Mahathir Mohamad. Thank youso much, sir, for agreeing to speakwith us on Q&A. Thank you.

MAHATHIR MOHAMADMAHATHIR MOHAMADMAHATHIR MOHAMADMAHATHIR MOHAMADMAHATHIR MOHAMAD,Malaysian Prime Minister: You’rewelcome.

VerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjee: Let me start by asking you,how successful has your trip toWashington been?

MahathirMahathirMahathirMahathirMahathir: I would say very suc-cessful. I’ve been able to meet mostof the government leaders and the

TALKING ALLOWED

CNN Used Dirty Tactics,Says Mahathir

SEPANG: Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad accused CNNof using “dirty tactics” to deny him the chance to give hisviews on important issues regarding the country’s domesticaffairs during his interview in Washington on Wednesday.

Questioning the objectivity of CNN when it comes to report-ing on Malaysia’s domestic development, he said the inter-viewer manipulated to deprive him of the opportunity to giveproper answers.

“The CNN interviewer adopted the same approach as theothers before her, which was to make a long statement accus-ing us of this and that and then put forward a question whichwas unrelated to the earlier statement. This is to make it seemas if we are in agreement with the statement made.

“This is a dirty tactic employed by the CNN, in not allowingme the opportunity to answer, whereas they were the oneswho had invited me for the interview,” he told reporters at theKL International Airport upon his return from a three-dayvisit to Washington yesterday.

Dr Mahathir said he did not understand why the networkhad invited him for the interview if it was not interested in hisreplies. He said if viewers cared to observe the interview care-fully, they would have realised that the interviewer was keeneron expressing her own opinion about Malaysia rather than tohear what he had to say on the same issue.

“If she had wanted only to express her views, then why inter-view me?” he said.

Asked to comment on accusations by foreign media that Ma-laysia was undemocratic towards the opposition, Dr Mahathirsaid: “If we want to, we can point out to them how mercilessother countries are towards their opposition.”

Source: http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2002/5/18/nation/odcnn&newspage=Search Saturday, May 18, 2002

Q&A WITHZAIN VERJEE

Read and judge for yourself


president, senators, and congress-men, business-people and themedia. They have given me a goodwelcome, reception.

VerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjee: What were some of thethings you discussed with Presi-dent Bush?

MahathirMahathirMahathirMahathirMahathir: Terrorism, of course.On how we perceive terrorismand the way to handle it.

VerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjee: What about other issues,like trade?

MahathirMahathirMahathirMahathirMahathir: Yes, trade, a little, notthat much. Then there is the situ-ation in southeast Asia, Indone-sia, Myanmar.

VerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjee: Many people are lookingat this visit, and they see it as avisit to mend relations with theUnited States. How do you see it?

MahathirMahathirMahathirMahathirMahathir: In a way, yes. But Ithink it has already mended. Af-ter the 11th of September, the per-ception of Malaysia has changed,and people have begun to under-stand why it is necessary for us toalways be vigilant and to takemeasures that will ensure that ourcountry remains stable and peace-ful.

VerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjee: Why do you think thatSeptember 11th was such a turn-ing point for Malaysia?

MahathirMahathirMahathirMahathirMahathir: Because what hasplagued Malaysia before seems tobe affecting other countries aswell.

VerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjee: Like what?

MahathirMahathirMahathirMahathirMahathir: Like the possibility ofacts of terror, disruption, peoplewho may be professing to exercise

their rights, but in theend they actually en-croach or deny therights of the majority.

VerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjee: What a lot ofpeople suggest andsay is that youcracked down on sus-pected terrorists afterSeptember 11th. TheUnited States, pleased with thekinds of moves you’ve made.You’ve come out as a moderateleader in the Islamic world,again, a good reception by theUnited States for some of thethings that you’ve been sayingand doing, particularly sinceyou were more or less shunnedand relations were strained bythe United States after 1998, af-ter the trial and conviction ofAnwar Ibrahim.

Are you bemused in any way thatat first the United States rejectedyou, shunned Malaysia, and nowthere’s an embrace of Malaysiapost- September 11th?

MahathirMahathirMahathirMahathirMahathir: We did not act againstthe suspected terrorists after Sep-tember 11th. It was before that,long before that, when we discov-ered what they were up to. We in-vestigated and found who theywere.

We had already acted againstthem, the terrorists, and interro-gated them. But when September11th came it was suddenly whatwe were doing in Malaysia be-came relevant to what is happen-ing in other parts of the world,and we were able to provide someinformation about the activities ofthis group in Malaysia and theirpossible link to other groups out-side Malaysia.

That, of course, helps people tounderstand, especially in theUnited States, about what is hap-pening in Malaysia and how itrelates to what is happening in theUnited States.

VerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjee: I’d like to touch on that alittle more in just a moment, butfirst, still on the United States,does your — have you changedyour perception of the UnitedStates? Has your relationship al-tered your views?

MahathirMahathirMahathirMahathirMahathir: Well, of course, whenthe United States began to showsome understanding of what hasbeen happening in Malaysia,naturally we changed our percep-tion on the United States as well.

VerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjee: You’ve been fairly criticalin the past of the United States.

MahathirMahathirMahathirMahathirMahathir: Yes, we were critical,because the United States wasvery critical of us.

VerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjee: Let’s talk a little bit thenabout the war on terror, some ofthe things that constituted yourdiscussions with President Bush.How serious a threat is terrorismin the region of southeast Asia?And does it offer a fertile groundfor terrorists to operate?

MahathirMahathirMahathirMahathirMahathir: It has not yet becomevery serious. We can still handle


it. But if we are lax, and we don’ttake certain measures, I am quitesure it will become a very seriousthreat to our country and to theregion.

VerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjee: You’ve signed an agree-ment recently with Indonesia andthe Philippines. How effective doyou think that is going to be? Andin particular, are you frustrated byIndonesia’s apparent unwilling-ness to crackdown on extremists?

MahathirMahathirMahathirMahathirMahathir: I think the agreementbetween us is very good, becausewe have a need to exchange infor-mation, and to try and locate peo-ple who are involved, whereverthey may be, in our three countries.

I’m not frustrated with Indonesiaor with the Philippines, becausethey have their own situation tohandle, and they cannot handleit in the same way we handle thesituation in Malaysia. They haveproblems of strength of the sup-port for the government.

VerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjee: Let’s talk about the situa-tion specifically, then, in Malay-sia. There’s a connection betweenal Qaeda, September 11th, andMalaysia. The suspected 20th hi-jacker, Zacarias Moussaoui, be-lieved to have met two of the Sep-tember 11th hijackers in Malaysia.How concerned are you that thisis evidence that shows that Sep-tember 11th, or at least some of it,was planned in Malaysia?

MahathirMahathirMahathirMahathirMahathir: I don’t think they wereplanned in Malaysia. From whatwe have discovered, they functionas cells which do not know whatthe other cells are doing.

I doubt whether they reveal thethings they want to do to each

other. Each one has apparently gotits own mission, and those inMalaysia were mainly concernedabout how to overthrow our gov-ernment.

Of course they may have met, butI don’t know whether they actu-ally discussed the attack on theWorld Trade Center.

VerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjee: But the extent of that sortof operation going on in Malay-sia, September 11th hijackers arecoming and going out of Malay-sia. It would suggest that Malay-sia appears to be some sort of ter-rorist hub.

MahathirMahathirMahathirMahathirMahathir: No. They were in Swit-zerland. And I think if you wantto find a hub, it is here, in theUnited States, because they havebeen training here for a year, I amtold, in the United States.

So it is here that they planned theaction they were taking. It’s not inMalaysia, I think.

VerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjee: On the one hand, though,you say Malaysia isn’t a hub or ahaven, as you are saying, for ter-rorists, yet you keep arresting peo-ple, alleging that they are terror-ists. So that seems a bit contradic-tory.

MahathirMahathirMahathirMahathirMahathir: It’s not contradictory atall, because these are the cells thatare tasked with taking action inMalaysia. From the informationwe gathered from them, their mainconcern is how to overthrow theMalaysian government. Theydon’t seem to be concerned aboutother countries.

VerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjee: But how do you knowwho is a terrorist and who isn’t?You know, who is trying to over-

throw the government and whoisn’t? Because in a lot of instances,we’ve seen you arrest people, butnot come out with evidence.

MahathirMahathirMahathirMahathirMahathir: When we arrest peo-ple, we don’t just detain them. Wearrest people because we want toknow what they were doing, andwe have to rehabilitate them. Andthese people, when they were ar-rested, not only confessed, theyactually boasted about their plansto overthrow the government byforce of arms and how they weregoing to.

VerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjee: Many of them now saythese were forced confessions,when they’re in jail, that they’retortured, brutalized, forced tomake a confession and thenthrown back.

MahathirMahathirMahathirMahathirMahathir: Well, that is an as-sumption that is always madeabout these natives who do notknow how to obey the rule of law.

In Malaysia, we uphold the ruleof law, although we may not beconsidered among the civilizednations of the world.

VerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjee: Skeptics, though, havewondered that in your pursuit ofdefying terrorism, of pursuing itdown, you actually used it as anexcuse to silence your critics, todiscredit your opponents.

MahathirMahathirMahathirMahathirMahathir: I don’t have any needto. I have 3/4 majority in parlia-ment. We have won elections, fairelections, all the time, and we havelost elections, too. Two of our statesare with the opposition.

So we don’t have to bother abouttorturing people and forcing themto confess and the like.


Of course, with skeptics, you cansay anything you like. They aregoing to doubt it. They are goingto say what they think happened,because they are skeptics.

VerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjee: I’ll touch on a little moreabout what those skeptics are say-ing in just a moment, but anotherconnection that’s just come up inrecent days between Malaysiaand al Qaeda has been focused ona Web site. And this is a Web sitethat is showing pictures of Osamabin Laden, posting documentsand articles signed by al Qaeda.It’s also a Web site that is show-ing videos of the last moments ofSeptember 11th hijackers, sayingthat they have 18 more videos.

CNN has just traced the host com-panies of this Web site and it turnsout that there are two in Malay-sia. Do you know anything aboutthis? And if you do — if you don’t,what’s your reaction?

MahathirMahathirMahathirMahathirMahathir: I don’t know aboutthat. But I think quite a lot of Websites originate in America actu-ally.

VerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjee: But specifically, this onehas been traced to Malaysia.

MahathirMahathirMahathirMahathirMahathir: Well, you can say thatof Malaysia. You can say the samething of America.

VerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjee: Will Malaysian authori-ties investigate this seriously?

MahathirMahathirMahathirMahathirMahathir: We find that it is verydifficult to trace people who usethe Internet to distribute a lot offilth.

VerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjee: Sir, in more than 20 yearsin power, you’ve got your share ofsupporters and you’ve got your

share of critics. You’ve been de-scribed in a number of ways. Hereare some.

“Mahathir Mohamad is on theblacklist of every major humanrights group in the world.”

The Committee for the Protectionof Journalists says you are the“worst enemy of the press.”

The State Dept. Human RightsReport says — it talks about theerosion of judicial independenceunder your leadership.

A fair amount of criticism leveledat you. Your response.

MahathirMahathirMahathirMahathirMahathir: Well, I criticize thepress and the media, and some ofthe NGOs, and I don’t expectthem to say nice things about me.And I don’t care as to what theysay about me.

What is important is that the peo-ple in Malaysia believe in me, andthey vote me to power each time Iface an election, and I have facedfive elections so far.

VerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjee: Much of the criticism thathas provided the basis for thatkind of accusation to be leveledagainst you surrounds what isknown as the Internal SecurityAct. There are questions and con-cerns about that; about how youuse it, when you’re in trouble,how you’re use it to keep yourselfin power, how you use it againstyour opponents, and that it basi-cally gives you a green card to in-voke it and silence your opposi-tion.

MahathirMahathirMahathirMahathirMahathir: Well, that’s what theywould like to say, but if you lookedat the way the Internal Security

Act was implemented — when Ibecame prime minister, somethinglike 800 people were released un-der my onus, including some ofthe people who were detained bymy predecessors.

If I fear these people, I wouldn’trelease them. And I have no ne-cessity to do this. You can seeevery election, I have won withvery little difficulty. There havebeen attempts, of course, to pushme aside and take over the presi-dency of my party. They havefailed.

VerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjee: Why would you arrest,put political opponents, in jail.

MahathirMahathirMahathirMahathirMahathir: I don’t.

VerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjee: Why would you detainthem without trial.

MahathirMahathirMahathirMahathirMahathir: I don’t.

VerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjee: ... without due process.


MahathirMahathirMahathirMahathirMahathir: Which political oppo-nent?

(Crosstalk)

VerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjee: There are six oppositionmembers that you arrested, I be-lieve, in April last year, and they’recoming out, saying we’ve not beengiven due process, there is no war-rant that we were given to put us— and there is no reason except,they say, Mahathir Mohammaddoesn’t want us around, and he’susing the Internal Security Act tosilence us.

MahathirMahathirMahathirMahathirMahathir: These are minorleagues in the opposition, in anycase. And of course they....

VerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjee: If they’re so minor, whywould you do it?

MahathirMahathirMahathirMahathirMahathir: Because they havedone something wrong. They havebroken the law, or they have donesomething which puts them un-der suspicion of doing somethingthat is not good for the country.

VerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjee: But not a single one ofthem has been charged.

MahathirMahathirMahathirMahathirMahathir: Of course they are notcharged.

VerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjee: No details have been...

MahathirMahathirMahathirMahathirMahathir: Because the law — thelaw says that there is no charge tobe preferred because this is a de-tention, an act of detention. A pre-ventive act. A preventive act is anact that is carried out before acrime is being committed.

VerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjee: Isn’t that what they saythe whole problem of the law isabout? It allows you to, they say,to be very non-democratic.

MahathirMahathirMahathirMahathirMahathir: Of course they will sayso. But if they get into power,they’re going to use the same law.

VerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjee: But the fact of the matteris, you’re in power, and you areusing that law, and the six ...

MahathirMahathirMahathirMahathirMahathir: The law was there. Thelaw was there, and it was used bythe first prime minister, the sec-ond prime minister, the thirdprime minister. And they usedthose laws much more often thanI do. And you can check on therecords.

VerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjee: But does that make it right,even though, that you use it? Thatpeople calling for the...

MahathirMahathirMahathirMahathirMahathir: I have a responsibilityfor the country, and the law isthere in order to protect the inter-ests of the country, not my inter-ests.

VerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjee: Don’t you have a respon-sibility, though, also, to promotedemocracy in your country andallow people due process, to al-low people their right to a trial.

MahathirMahathirMahathirMahathirMahathir: There is due process.When we put persons on trial,again, the accusation is that wemanipulated the judiciary. So youcannot get it right, you know.These people, if you show a pieceof paper that is white, and you saythis is white — no, no, no. It isblack. How do you answer suchpeople?

VerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjee: Those six political detain-ees made a statement recently. Itwas quoted in Human RightsWatch. They said that AnwarIbrahim, your former number two,is in jail, in critical condition. Theysay he’s suffering from a serious

spinal injury from brutal beatings,and they say...

MahathirMahathirMahathirMahathirMahathir: Of course. And you be-lieve that?

VerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjee: No, I want you to respondto that. They say they want AnwarIbrahim to go for medical treat-ment abroad. Will you allow thatto happen?

MahathirMahathirMahathirMahathirMahathir: There was a doctorwho came more than a year ago,who said that unless AnwarIbrahim is released and taken outof the country for treatment in Eu-rope, he would die.

Now it’s more than a year, he’sstill walking around.

VerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjee: But the fact of the matteris that this man also was, they say,your political opponent, had nodue process - the process was veryflawed, and that you really used,again, the opportunity here to getrid of someone you thought was athreat to you. What’s your re-sponse?

MahathirMahathirMahathirMahathirMahathir: He is not a threat to me.


VerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjee: Was he a threat to you?

MahathirMahathirMahathirMahathirMahathir: No, he was not a threatto me.

VerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjee: Then why not allow himto speak freely and say what hewants?

MahathirMahathirMahathirMahathirMahathir: He can say — he’s beenwriting on the Internet all kindsof scurrilous stories about the gov-ernment. We have never evenstopped him.

VerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjee: Let’s move on to the Mid-dle East, an issue where you havecome out fairly strongly. You’vebeen complimented by the UnitedStates for promoting a moderatevoice in the region, for criticizingsuicide bombings.

What do you feel needs to be donein the Middle East to find a wayout?

MahathirMahathirMahathirMahathirMahathir: We must attend to thecauses of the way people behavethere. Why do these people com-mit, or rather carry out, suicidebombings? We have to determinethe causes, remove the causes.

We have to move in — the UNshould move in and separate thecombatants, and the border be-tween Israel and Palestine mustbe identified and the state of Is-rael, as well as Palestine, must berecognized by everyone.

VerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjee: Why haven’t we heardfrom other moderate Muslim lead-ers? Where are those moderatevoices?

MahathirMahathirMahathirMahathirMahathir: They are, but it’s nogood they are saying those things,because they may not be sup-ported by their own people.

VerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjee: Do you think, then, thatAmerican support for authoritar-ian Muslim governments effec-tively hurts its efforts to reach outto those moderate voices?

MahathirMahathirMahathirMahathirMahathir: I have no comments tomake.

VerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjee: Do you think, though, thatthe United States could do a bet-ter job of reaching out to thosemoderate voices?

MahathirMahathirMahathirMahathirMahathir: People always can dobetter than what they are doingnow, everybody...

VerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjee: You’re the leader of anIslamic country. How muchdoes it concern you when yousee other Muslim leaders notspeaking out against suicidebombings as strongly as youhave? Or using the Israeli-Pal-estinian issue to defect fromtheir own problems at home?Does that concern you? What doyou think about that?

MahathirMahathirMahathirMahathirMahathir: Well, I don’t make com-ments about other people. Theymay have their own problems.

VerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjee: But you have a view.

MahathirMahathirMahathirMahathirMahathir: I have a view, that I ex-press about Malaysia and itsstand.

VerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjee: So you don’t think thatthere’s anything more that theycould do to lean on the situationin the Middle East?

MahathirMahathirMahathirMahathirMahathir: Probably.

VerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjee: Probably, yes, there ismore they can do?

MahathirMahathirMahathirMahathirMahathir: Yes, yes.

VerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjee: Like what?

MahathirMahathirMahathirMahathirMahathir: Like, they can have acommon stand on this issue, anddecide.

VerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjee: How do you see your roleas a leader in the Islamic world? Imean, do you see that you canbring that moderate voice that willlead somewhere, to the crisis inthe Middle East?

MahathirMahathirMahathirMahathirMahathir: I don’t consider myselfas a leader in the Islamic world.I’m a leader in Malaysia. I don’thave ambitions.

VerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjee: Let’s talk about theeconomy a little in Malaysia. Ma-laysia has forecast 3.5 percentgrowth. Is that still on track?

MahathirMahathirMahathirMahathirMahathir: Yes, I think so. Otherpeople believe that we will do bet-ter, but we still maintain that a 3.5percent growth will be achievable.

VerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjee: What did you learn fromthe Asian financial crisis? Andwhat conclusions did you drawfrom that, in ’97? And how devel-oping or emerging countriesshould deal with a situation likethat?

MahathirMahathirMahathirMahathirMahathir: I learned not to followother people’s advice withoutscrutinizing it very carefully. Andas a result, we found that the ad-vice was defective, and we had todevice our own way of dealingwith our problem.

VerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjee: Recently, you’ve been ona bit of an arms buying spree.You’ve ordered Polish tanks,French submarines. Last monthyou bought defense systems fromBritain and Russia, and there wastalk on your trip here to the United


States, you wanted to buy UnitedStates fighter jets.

Now, the scope and the scale ofthese purchases suggest that youwant to expand some kind of re-gional influence. They suggest,some analysts say, look, a strongmilitary could add weight to Ma-laysia’s economic strength.

Why are you making these moves?

MahathirMahathirMahathirMahathirMahathir: You know, we aremerely upgrading our armamentsin increments. And because nowwe have more money than we hadbefore, obviously we are going tobuy the latest, and we’re going tobuy more. It’s a question of howmuch money you spend. Ourbudget for defense is very low. InMalaysia, 20 percent of ourbudget goes to education, whichis our priority, not arms.

VerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjee: How concerned are you,though, about the rise of China asa potential superpower in the re-gion?

MahathirMahathirMahathirMahathirMahathir: Not at all concerned.We are very good friends of China.

VerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjee: Do you think the UnitedStates should maintain a militarypresence in the region?

MahathirMahathirMahathirMahathirMahathir: I don’t believe that hav-ing a military presence there isgoing to help. You are merely go-ing to make the Chinese nervous.You are going to make them feelthat they are the future enemy. Andwhen you treat people as your fu-ture enemy, they will become yourpresent enemy.

VerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjee: There’s been a crackdownby Malaysia on illegal workers inthe country. It’s been in the press

reports over the last few weeks.Why are you doing that now?

MahathirMahathirMahathirMahathirMahathir: Because there are nojobs in Malaysia. They are in Ma-laysia illegally. And when theyhave no jobs, some of them resortto crimes, and there is no reasonwhy we should allow them to stayin the country when they are aburden to the community and athreat to peace.

VerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjee: Some suggest, though,that you need those workers.

MahathirMahathirMahathirMahathirMahathir: Well, we need some ofthem, but not all.

VerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjee: There are also reports thatsuggest that you’ve been ratherviolent in the way you’re treatingthe illegal immigrants.

MahathirMahathirMahathirMahathirMahathir: Yes, that is the usual.

VerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjee: ... brutal about the wholemanner in which you’re...

MahathirMahathirMahathirMahathirMahathir: We go around hammer-ing everybody, as you can see. Youare welcome to go and see thesepeople being hammered. It’s open.

VerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjee: You seem to take offensein a way at some of the criticismsthat are leveled to you, both in thisinstance as well as earlier — wewere speaking about the InternalSecurity Act, about AnwarIbrahim. Obviously it’s a sore spotwith you, a sensitive issue, thatyou keep addressing.

Why do you think so much criti-cism is leveled at you if there is notruth to it at all?

MahathirMahathirMahathirMahathirMahathir: Because we criticizepeople who tell lies, tell lies aboutus. And because of that, they get

very angry.

For example, two newspaperskeep on repeating, every time theymention Malaysia, they say,“where the press is controlled bythe government.” And yet, thosenewspapers, “The Herald Trib-une” and “The Asian Wall StreetJournal,” are printed in Malaysia,distributed in Malaysia, and in theregion, and we have never, nevercensored them or touched them.And yet, they say “where the pressis controlled.” And they refuse tosee that there are so many news-papers in Malaysia which con-demn the government.

VerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjee: Final question — we justhave a few moments left. You’vebeen the leader of your country for21 years. Looking back on yourleadership, on a personal level, isthere anything you wouldchange? Is there anything youwould do differently?

MahathirMahathirMahathirMahathirMahathir: Not much. I think Iwould have done the same all overagain.

VerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjeeVerjee: That’s Q&A, from Wash-ington. We’ve been speaking toMalaysia’s Prime Min. MahathirMohammad.

Source: http://www.cnn.com/TRAN-SCRIPTS/0205/16/i_qaa.01.html

Journalists holding up the covers ofbanned and suspended publications

q


mnesty Internationalhas just released its an-nual global country-by-country review of human

rights abuses. The content ismostly predictable - a litany ofabuses from the US to Fiji to China.What is different this year, is theimpact of September 11 and the“war against terrorism”. In thename of security, many countrieshave ignored respect for humanrights. The subjective yardstick of“terrorism” has been misused tosilence dissent, detain people atrandom, often on the basis of theirreligion or appearance, and to le-gitimise repression.

Responding to the horror of Sep-tember 11, many governmentsrushed through draconian lawsin the hope of, or in the name of,catching a “terrorist”. They for-mulated new crimes and bannedorganizations, curbing civil liber-ties and weakened internationaland domestic safeguards againsthuman rights violations built upover many years.

Powerful governments seekingnew allies have turned a blind eyeto human rights abuses. The samegovernments that denounced thehuman rights abuse of women bythe Taleban in Afghanistan re-main silent about the plight ofwomen in Saudi Arabia. Thosewho condemn human rights vio-lations in Iran or demand the re-lease of political prisoners inCuba, do not protest against hu-man rights violations by Russiantroops in Chechnya or focus onthe detention of peaceful govern-ment critics in Malaysia.

In China, the government is us-ing the “war against terrorism” tojustify the harsh repression of eth-nic Uighur Muslims who they ac-cuse of being “separatists”, “ter-rorists” or “religious extremists”.But the Chinese authorities’ un-derstanding of “separatism” caninclude Koran study groups,peaceful opposition or dissent.Hundreds of Uighurs accused ofbeing involved in “terrorist” or“separatist” activities have beenexecuted since the mid-1990s,thousands of others have beendetained, imprisoned and tor-tured, and growing restrictionshave been placed on the Islamicclergy and the practice of Islam inthe region.

The recent Organisation of Is-lamic Conference (OIC) meeting inKuala Lumpur struggled to agreeon a definition of “terrorism” -

highlighting the threat to humanrights posed by a variety of sub-jective yardsticks.

Malaysia is just one of a numberof governments which embracedthe “anti-terrorism” bandwagonand won praise from the US gov-ernment for its “handling” of ter-rorism. Years of governmentabuse of the draconian InternalSecurity Act (ISA), including thearbitrary detention and the ill-treatment or torture of peacefulpolitical dissenters, has been ob-scured by the arrest of over 50 al-leged members of the MalaysianMujahideen Group or KMM. TheUS has downgraded AnwarIbrahim on their political agendaand the plight of six prisoners ofconscience, mainly leading mem-bers of the Keadilan oppositionparty, has been largely ignored.

This shift in position was keenlyobserved by Prime MinisterMahathir during his recent visitto the USA. “He (Bush) did notraise anything about democracyor human rights in Malaysia,”Mahathir told reporters after see-ing Bush. “By and large, I thinkother members of the US govern-ment understand the way we dealwith our problems in Malaysia,”Reuters reported. Malaysian offi-cials went as far as to claim thatthe US Patriot Act, which Am-nesty International has criticisedfor allowing the detention of non-US citizens for seven days with-

HUMAN RIGHTS

AAAAA

Apply Universal StandardsThe use of “terrorism” and “security” undermineshuman rights safeguards, says Amnesty International

Draconian LawsAfter Sept 11


out charge, was an “endorse-ment” of the ISA. However the ISAis a very different Act; it is with-out critical judicial safeguards,and allows for indefinite deten-tion without trial of anyMalaysian citizen.

The only way to counter this sub-jective yardstick of “terrorism”, bywhich states condemn the vio-lence of their opponents and con-done that of their allies, is to standup and defend universal, objectivestandards of human rights andinternational law.

It is clear then that since Septem-ber 11 is politically easier for lead-ers, including Dr Mahathir, to besupportive of human rights forsome and not for others. On theone hand there is support for thehuman rights of the Palestiniansand the detainees in Camp X-raybut for their own citizens, a differ-ent set of standards apply.

Dr Mahathir has condemned theinhumane treatment of prisonersin Guantanamo Bay but allows alaw which has facilitated the ill-treatment of peaceful political dis-senters in his own country.

Amnesty International will con-tinue to pressure the Malaysianand other governments to applyuniversal standards of humanrights. Until this is done, the useof “terrorism” and “security”threatens to undermine criticalhuman rights safeguards andsmacks of political expediency.

Devadass GnanpragasamDevadass GnanpragasamDevadass GnanpragasamDevadass GnanpragasamDevadass Gnanpragasamis the Asia Pacific Devel-is the Asia Pacific Devel-is the Asia Pacific Devel-is the Asia Pacific Devel-is the Asia Pacific Devel-opment Officer in Amnestyopment Officer in Amnestyopment Officer in Amnestyopment Officer in Amnestyopment Officer in AmnestyInternational’s Hong KongInternational’s Hong KongInternational’s Hong KongInternational’s Hong KongInternational’s Hong Kongoffice.office.office.office.office.

The independence of the new-est nation in the world, EastTimor, is a moment for joyouscelebration and for remember-ing those who have given theirlives for liberty and freedomfrom fear.

During the independence cel-ebrations in the capital city,Dili, a special tribute wasgiven to the fallen heroes ofEast Timor.

One of the faces projected ongiant television screensviewed by 200,000 people, themedia, officials and dignitar-ies from 90 countries, was 20-year old Kamal Bamadhaj, aMalaysian human rights ac-tivist shot dead by Indonesiansoldiers in Dili on 12 Novem-ber 1991.

The tribute also included soli-darity groups, includingMalaysian NGOs who hostedthe ill-fated Asia Pacific Con-ference on East Timor (APCET)in Kuala Lumpur in 1996,which was broken up by

thugs and hired goons fromthe youth wings of the rulingcoalition, and the RoyalMalaysian Police Force.

We can be consoled that thegovernment and people of EastTimor have not forgottenKamal; unlike the Governmentof Malaysia who chose to ig-nore the fact that a Malaysianhad been murdered in thehands of the then Suharto gov-ernment.

We wonder if the Malaysiangovernment representatives,including the Foreign MinisterDatuk Syed Hamid Albarpresent at the ceremony, real-ised or even recognised thatamong the heroes given duerecognition was a Malaysiancitizen.

It is a great honour for Kamaland Malaysian NGOs to be ac-knowledged, in East Timor’s20 years of struggle for rightagainst might, even if our gov-ernment has chosen to forgothim.

In the season of joy, remem-brance and reflection, it wouldbe opportune for theMalaysian government to be-stow official recognition toKamal Bamadhaj and his fam-ily.

Elizabeth WongInternational Committee

SUARAM

Malaysian Recognised As`Hero’ Of East T imor

q


n response to the an-nouncement on March20 by the SemiconductorIndustry Association

(SIA) that it would “conduct a pre-liminary review to determine if itis possible to conduct” a study ofhealth risks in the semiconductorindustry, a broad coalition ofhealth, environment and workeradvocates blasted the further de-lays and called for several imme-diate concrete actions to addressthe growing health problems inthe industry:

• Release the full report of therecommendations from the Sci-ence Advisory Committee;

• Promise not to shred or destroyany health or exposure docu-ments;

• Undertake comprehensivehealth monitoring and surveil-lance starting now;

• Conduct an independentstudy of the health of semicon-ductor workers;

“We expect much more from thestate-of-art high-tech electronicsindustry,” said Ted Smith, Execu-tive Director of Silicon ValleyToxics Coalition. “What we havehere is a state-of-the art stall job.What has the Science AdvisoryCommittee been doing the past

two years? Now is the time to un-dertake a comprehensive epide-miological study of the semicon-ductor industry, and to commenceimmediate health monitoring toprotect the workforce from harm-ful exposures to the many toxicchemicals used in chip produc-tion.

“We’ve known for more than threedecades that the manufacturing ofcomputer chips requires manytoxic chemicals and that workershave been getting sick from expo-sure to those chemicals” said Dr.Joseph LaDou, a University ofCalifornia occupational physi-cian who has been treating elec-tronics workers since the 1970’s.“The semiconductor industryneeds to support a thorough andunbiased scientific study to deter-mine the extent of the health haz-ards. Unfortunately, this an-nouncement by the SIA appearsto be an evasion of its responsibil-ity to protect workers from undueharm.”

“Cancer’s timetable won’t waitfor the SIA’s delaying tactics”,said Mandy Hawes, a San Jose

attorney who represents hun-dreds of electronics workers andtheir families who are sufferingfrom cancer, birth defects and otherserious illnesses. “People whohave been exposed to cancer-caus-ing chemicals can’t wait foreverfor the problems to be corrected.More and more workers are dy-ing and many others are develop-ing new cancers and we need dra-matic action to save lives now, notseveral more years from now.”

“We have already witnessed seri-ous cancer clusters among semi-conductor workers in Scotlandand in the United States,” saidJohannes Ignacio, Executive Di-rector of the Santa Clara Center ofOccupational Safety and Health.“We have seen cancers amonghigh-tech workers at IBM, Na-tional Semiconductor and othermultinational companies. The in-dustry isn’t looking very far orhard to find the evidence. Howmuch more of a body count dothey want? If the health and safetyof their workers has been a prior-ity, their actions don’t indicate it.”

“The Communications Workers ofAmerica is outraged with the re-sponse from the SemiconductorIndustry Association (SIA) that itwould conduct a preliminary re-

HEALTH

Semiconductor Industry HealthProblems Continue To MountIndustry response called ‘State of the Art’ Stalling

by Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition

IIIII

C a n c e r - c a u s i n gChemicals In

Electronic Industry


Many known carcinogens are used in the manufacture ofsemiconductor chips, and some very worrisome findings havebeen reported; yet no broad epidemiological study has beenconducted to define possible risks. The American semicon-ductor industry has not been supportive of efforts proposedby researchers, the health issues in microelectronics have notbeen studied in Japan, and European countries have paidlittle attention to the issues of occupational health in theworkforce of this growing industry. Many of the older tech-nologies are exported to newly industrialized countries asnewer technologies are installed in the more highly devel-oped industries of Japan, the United States, and Europeancountries. Thus there is particular concern about the manyworkers, mostly in countries that are still industrializing, whohave inherited jobs that use chemicals, technologies, andequipment that are no longer in use in developed countries.

The industry is now quite large, with more than a millionworkers worldwide, so that any increase in the risk of occu-pation-related health problems should be a matter of broadand deep public health concern.

Source: http://www.svtc.org/hu_health/calltoact.pdf

WORRISOME FINDINGS CAUSE FOR CONCERN

Silicon Valley Toxics Coali-Silicon Valley Toxics Coali-Silicon Valley Toxics Coali-Silicon Valley Toxics Coali-Silicon Valley Toxics Coali-tion (SVTC) is a San Jose,tion (SVTC) is a San Jose,tion (SVTC) is a San Jose,tion (SVTC) is a San Jose,tion (SVTC) is a San Jose,California-based diverseCalifornia-based diverseCalifornia-based diverseCalifornia-based diverseCalifornia-based diversegrassroots coalition that forgrassroots coalition that forgrassroots coalition that forgrassroots coalition that forgrassroots coalition that foralmost twenty years has en-almost twenty years has en-almost twenty years has en-almost twenty years has en-almost twenty years has en-gaged in research, advocacy,gaged in research, advocacy,gaged in research, advocacy,gaged in research, advocacy,gaged in research, advocacy,and organizing associatedand organizing associatedand organizing associatedand organizing associatedand organizing associatedwith environmental and hu-with environmental and hu-with environmental and hu-with environmental and hu-with environmental and hu-man health problems causedman health problems causedman health problems causedman health problems causedman health problems causedby the rapid growth of theby the rapid growth of theby the rapid growth of theby the rapid growth of theby the rapid growth of thehigh-tech electronics indus-high-tech electronics indus-high-tech electronics indus-high-tech electronics indus-high-tech electronics indus-try.try.try.try.try.

Source: http://www.svtc.org/hu_health/stalljob.htm

view to determine whether it ispossible to conduct a study ofhealth risks in the semiconductorindustry,” said David Le Grande,Director of Occupational Safetyand Health. “For many years,labor and public safety andhealth activists have known thatemployment within this industryinvolves work with and exposureto many toxic and, often, carcino-genic substances. In turn, therehave been many, many cases ofworker health problems related tothese exposures”, he continued.“The SIA’s action is another wayto keep from taking responsibilityfor the harm the semiconductorindustry has done to the exposedworkers who have developed orwill develop often life-threateninghealth problems.”

Jim McCourt of Phase II, a healthand safety organization in Scot-land that is working with Scot-tish employees of National Semi-conductor who are sufferingfrom cancer echoed thesethoughts, “I think the SIA isplaying for time. We were ableto get a health study done herein Scotland, and it proved thatthere are high cancer rates. If wecan do it here, I don t see whythe SIA can’t make it a priorityto undertake a similar study andmake it a priority to bring forthall the health data they currentlyhave”. McCourt went on to say,“The semiconductor industrymust face up to the fact that theirworkers are dying. By not beingforthcoming, they are furthertarnishing the industry’s repu-tation. We implore the regulatorsin the US to undertake a com-prehensive, definitive healthstudy of exposed workers.”

In 1999 the SIA announced thatthey would appoint a ScienceAdvisory Council (SAC) to makerecommendations for action onhealth risks. The SAC finallymade its recommendations to theSIA in October of 2001, but the re-sults of this committee have stillnot been made public. “All we seeis the SIA press release and a briefsummary of the recommenda-tions,” concluded attorneyHawes. We demand to see the fullSAC recommendations. As it isnow, the SIA does not say when, ifever anything specific will hap-pen, the lines of responsibility, thebudget and the oversight. I don’tsee any urgency in their press re-lease or specific recommendationsfor medical surveillance. It is a

matter of urgency, for my clientsand for the other workers whosehealth could still be protected.”q

Playing for Time


For many years now, concernedMalaysians (especially parentswith children studying in our lo-cal schools and universities) havecome to realise that many thingsare not right in our system of edu-cation. However, they would notcome out and talk openly aboutthese problems, for fear of beingbranded as “anti-national” by selfappointed “experts”. However,this whole matter was brought outinto the open when our PrimeMinister, Dr Mahathir, called forthe views of the Malaysians onthe matter of the re-introductionof English-medium schools in thecountry. This opened the flood-gates and parents and teachers ofvarious organisations responded.Their response was loud and

Letters must not exceed 250 words and must include the writer'sname and address. Pseudonyms may be used. Send letters to :Editor, ALIRAN MONTHLY, 103, Medan Penaga, 11600 Penang,Malaysia or e-mail to : [email protected] Viewsexpressed need not reflect those of Aliran. If you are sendingby e-mail please include your message in the e-mail body itself.We do not open attachments to avoid viruses.

The Case ForE n g l i s h - M e d i u m

S c h o o l s

clear - bring back English-mediumschools.

Over the years, the standard ofEnglish had begun to drop. Tocorrect this situation, the time al-located for the teaching of Englishin our schools was increased overand over again. Schools organ-ised “Speak English Weeks” andEnglish literature was introducedas a subject in our schools. Fur-thermore, English had alwaysbeen one of the subjects in ourschools and one of the subjects inthe various public examinations.Even then, the standard of Eng-lish continued to drop. The rea-son for this situation was a lackof interest in the language amongthe students themselves. Therewas no sincere and sustained ef-fort on the part of the governmentto improve the standard of Eng-lish. Even though students sat for

English in the public examina-tions, they knew that it was not acompulsory subject. This wasenough reason for them not to paymuch attention to the study of thelanguage and for the teachers notto take the teaching of the lan-guage seriously.

As a result, the students and eventhe teachers in our schools are notable to communicate effectively inEnglish. A survey of the answers,written or spoken, in our publicexaminations will show the veryunsatisfactory standard of Eng-lish among our young people.There have been cases where stu-dents sitting for public examina-tions have handed in blank an-swer sheets when they were re-quired to write the answers inEnglish. It has been noticed thatmany of our delegates attendinglocal and overseas seminars andforums do not want to participatein debates because of their poorcommand of English. It has beenreported that there are about29,000 unemployed graduates,mostly bumiputras; most of themare not employed because they arenot able to communicate effec-tively in English. It is a fact thatemployers look for workers whocan communicate in English.

This situation would have goneunnoticed and uncorrected had itnot been for various factors: theintroduction of globalisation andthe K-economy with its emphasison English, the increasing use ofthe Internet as a tool for educationand the fact that the latest litera-ture in Science, Mathematics, En-gineering, Medicine, Law andCommerce is only available inEnglish. Furthermore, more andmore overseas universities are in-troducing off-campus courses inEnglish through colleges and uni-


versities in the country. To expectMalaysian students to make useof these facilities with a very lim-ited command of English is ex-pecting too much from them. Evenreference books found in the li-braries of our public universitiesare mostly in English. All thismeans our students are deprivedof a vast amount of knowledgethat would otherwise have beenavailable to them had they beensufficiently proficient in English.

There are people who may feel thatthe re-introduction of English me-dium schools is against the bestinterests of the country. They fearthat the introduction of such Eng-lish medium schools would resultin the loss of importance of BahasaMalaysia. These people must betold that the position of Bahasa Ma-laysia is firmly entrenched in theConstitution of this country. Noone is contesting this.

There are others who fear that there-introduction of English me-dium schools would result in there-colonisation of our country bysome foreign powers (as if theMalaysians could just look onand let this happen.) There maybe others who would want all theliterature in English to be trans-lated into Bahasa Malaysia. Con-sidering the vast amount of suchliterature that is available, wouldit be possible to translate all of itinto Bahasa Malaysia? Do wehave the personnel, the time andthe financial resources to makethis possible?

There are others who wonder howwe can get enough teachers to teachEnglish. It is suggested that weleave this matter in the capablehands of Education ministry offi-cials. We can ask retired teachersof English to return to the class-

rooms. It has also been suggestedthat we bring in teachers from Eng-lish-speaking countries to train ourteachers in local teacher-trainingcolleges. Maybe, this will take sometime, but it is better than not doinganything at all.

That said, what is the present po-sition in the debate on the re-in-troduction of English-mediumschools? To date, Malaysians ofall races have come forward tosupport the proposal. A poll con-ducted by a local newspaper in-dicates that 97 per cent of the peo-ple who participated in this pollare in favour of the proposal tochange the medium of educationto English.

It was at this point that UMNOYouth rejected the proposal for there-introduction of the Englishmedium schools, and instead sug-gested that Mathematics and Sci-ence be taught in English. Wouldthe teaching of these two subjectsin English, with its own vocabu-lary of scientific and mathemati-cal terms, bring about a generalimprovement in the standard ofEnglish? Furthermore, what isthere to stop teachers from con-tinuing to teach these two subjectsin Bahasa Malaysia and get awaywith it? After all, weren’t therecases of teachers teaching the Eng-lish language by using BahasaMalaysia as the medium?

Once the stand of the UMNOYouths was made known, therewas a hush. The excitement dieddown, for the people could fore-see the results. True enough, theDeputy Prime Minister said thatthe government would acceptUMNO Youth’s proposal that thetwo subjects, Mathematics andScience, be taught in English. Thisis in spite of the earlier assurance

given by the Prime Minister thatthe wishes of the people would beimplemented. It looks as if thewishes of the majority of the peo-ple will be set aside in favour ofUMNO Youth’s stand. It was witha deep sense of frustration that thepeople accepted the outcome.However while a proper systemis being put together, would it notbe possible to require studentstaking public examinations (espe-cially PMR and SPM) from thisyear onwards to obtain a credit inEnglish before they can be deemedto have passed these public ex-aminations? Such a move willspur these students to take the lan-guage more seriously.

S. Francis XavierPenang

In the recent controversy overwhether to base university intakeon meritocracy or the racially dis-criminatory quota system, thepublic has been subject to theusual obfuscation by blind statis-tics and either/or choices.

Firstly, the Government’s recentstatistics showing thatbumiputras are better off under“meritocracy” fail to qualify thefact that many non-bumiputrashave lost faith in the STPM as amode of entry into Malaysian pub-lic universities. They have alsobeen excluded by the racially dis-criminatory intake into Matricu-lation classes. Others have al-ready pointed out that the differ-ent criteria for basing universityentry on STPM and Matriculationare non-transparent. The authori-ties have also not provided uswith satisfactory explanations ofhow non-bumiputras with

University IntakeC o n t r o v e r s y


straight As have been denied uni-versity entry and scholarships.

The racially discriminatory quotasystem implemented since 1971 isnot acceptable in an anti-racistworld community. It is time forMalaysians to reaffirm the non-discriminatory basis of the Fed-eral Constitution and to upholdhuman rights principles whichare strictly anti-racist. This is es-pecially vital after the World Con-ference Against Racism and Ra-cial Discrimination held in Dur-ban last May.

Article 8(1) of the Malaysian Con-stitution clearly spells out the prin-ciple of equality of all Malaysianswhile Article 12(1) allows no dis-crimination against any citizenson the grounds of religion, race,descent or place of birth.

Article (8A) makes it clear that onlythe Yang di-Pertuan Agong canorder a reservation of a proportionof such places for the Malays. Itwould therefore mean that thequota system is applicable only ona faculty basis and more impor-tantly every faculty or institutionshould reserve places for studentsof every race. No faculty or institu-tion under this provision couldcater for the Malays alone to theexclusion of the other races.

Years after the implementation ofthis racial quota system there wasno trace of any such order beingmade by His Majesty nor wasthere evidence of any such orderhaving been gazetted. Such a di-rective would thus seem to havebeen made by the officials of theMinistry of Education.

Thus, it is not clear whether thequota system is made applicableon an institutional basis or on the

basis of the total number of placesavailable in a particular course ofstudy of all the universities in thecountry. To apply the quota sys-tem on the total number of placesavailable in any particular uni-versity will again be a wrong in-terpretation of the provisions ofthe Constitution.

Article 153 (8A) does not author-ise the administrators of any uni-versity to refuse admission to anystudent of a particular race. It onlyallows a proportion of the placesto be reserved for Malay students.On such a reasoning, the consti-tutionality of institutions whichcater only for Bumiputra studentsis doubtful.

Furthermore, the Constitution ofthe University of Malaya ex-pressly prohibits discriminationon grounds of race for the admis-sion of any student to any facultyor institution of the university. Inthis context too, the constitution-ality of other institutions whichadmit students of a particular raceonly to the exclusion of other racesis also doubtful as it violates theequality provision of Article 8.

From the above, it is clear that thequestion of the constitutionality ofthe quota system as it has beenpractised since 1971 especially intotally Bumiputra institutions hasnever been tested.

International law sets major lim-its on affirmative action measures.Notably, affirmative action poli-cies must be carefully controlledand not be permitted to under-mine the principle of non-dis-crimination itself nor violate hu-man rights. Holding the equalityprinciple uppermost, the raisondetre and reasonables for differen-tial treatment must be proven.

Another important criterion toensure successful affirmative ac-tion and synomymous with inter-national law is that such specialmeasures should be introducedfor a limited duration as was sug-gested by the Reid Commission inits Report of the Federation ofMalaya Constitutional Commis-sion 1957.

A consequence of the so-called af-firmative action policies up tonow is that for the poor of all eth-nic communities, including theindigenous peoples in Malaysia,these objectives of wealth redistri-bution for their benefit have notbeen met. Worse, the poorest com-munity remains the Orang Asli ofPeninsula Malaysia, the OriginalPeople of Malaysia who are noteven considered “Bumiputra” un-der the Federal Constitution.

Affirmative action must be basedon Merit and Need. The poor andneedy of every ethnic communityin this country must be the onlybeneficiaries of affirmative actionpolicies. At the same time, aca-demic standards cannot be com-promised, otherwise it defeats thepurpose of education if our aca-demic qualifications are not rec-ognised as a result of that com-promise.

The poor and needy must be givenfirst priority in access to scholar-ships and loans and be providedwith facilities for helping themcope academically, physicallyand mentally. There is absolutelyno justification for the rich mid-dle class of any ethnic commu-nity to be given special preferenceswith regard to university entry orsocio-economic activities.

Kua Kia SoongDirector of SUARAM


Pax Romana ICMICA Asia-Pacificwelcomes the meeting betweenPope John Paul II of the Holy Seeand Prime Minister MahathirMohamed of Malaysia that willtake place on 7th June 2002. It iswith great anticipation that weawait the outcome of this historicmeeting.

The meeting is historic as Malay-sia does not have any diplomaticties with the Holy See. The Popehas been able to visit neighboringcountries like Singapore, the Phil-ippines and Indonesia but has yetto receive an invitation from Ma-laysia for a visit here. We hope thiswill pave the way for the Pope’svisit as well as other religiousleaders of the different religionsin Malaysia, in the future.

In anticipation of the meaningfulvisit, it is worthwhile to recall thewords of the Pope during The Dayof Peace in Assisi With World Re-ligious Leaders on 24th January2002, in which he identified “..thetwo 'pillars' upon which peace rests:commitment to justice and readinessto forgive.” The Pope also furtherdeclares that “Justice, first of all,because "there can be no true peacewithout respect for the dignity of per-sons and peoples, respect for the rightsand duties of each person and respectfor an equal distribution of benefitsand burdens between individuals andin society as a whole. It can never beforgotten that situations of oppres-sion and exclusion are often at thesource of violence and terrorism.”

Pax Romana ICMICA Asia-Pacificcalls upon Pope John Paul II tobring the essence of human dig-nity which he emphasized duringThe Day of Peace in Assisi to theattention of Dr Mahathir. This isnecessary as under the present

Government there are many po-litical prisoners and many de-tained under the infamous Inter-nal Security Act which detainspeople without trial in Malaysia.Reverence for the dignity of theperson must be invoked on thisauspicious occasion.

On the issue of terrorism it mustbe reiterated that using their ter-rorism card as a political tool foroppression must be stopped byall. In Malaysia, many Muslimsare detained without trial on sus-picion of being militant, yet noproof has been put before the pub-lic. Human dignity goes hand-in-hand with the respect for humanrights. We therefore appeal that allissues be discussed from a humanrights perspective.

The Israel-Palestinian conflictmust also take on a human rightspoint of view. This may take theconflict away from the purelyMuslim-Jew religious paradigm.The right to self-determination,which is at the heart of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, is embeddedin all United Nations Declara-tions and Conventions. It is alsothe very foundation of humandignity. The struggle of the Pales-tinian people must be resolvedwith urgency and sincerity. We ex-pect the coming meeting will bringabout positive results.

Malaysia, being a multi-religiouscountry, has much to offer as amodel for inter-religious dialogue.True inter-religious dialogue canonly work when the right to reli-gious freedom is protected andpromoted in any country. Malay-sia must adhere to this in spiritand in action.

The politicization of religions forpolitical ends makes a mockery ofreligions and instils fear and sus-picion amongst the peoples of Ma-

laysia. The recent announcementby Mahathir that Malaysia is anIslamic State whereas it has al-ways been , since independence,a secular state is a case in point.This jostling between UMNO (theruling Malay party) and PAS (theleading Islamic opposition part)as to which of the two is the true"champion of Islam" makes inter-religious efforts even more diffi-cult. The state has also not pro-vided equal opportunity andspace to all religions in terms ofreligious education in schools, ac-cess to national media for reli-gious programmes, availability ofland for burials and the buildingsof Churches and temples.

While many religious groups tryto convert the Orang Asli (the In-digenous Peoples of PeninsularMalaysia), the Government ofMalaysia has an unofficialIslamisation policy for the Indig-enous peoples and this puts tre-mendous pressure on on them topreserve their traditional prac-tices and way of life. The unoffi-cial policy also limits their accessto opportunities to develop. Wecertainly hope that these issues,within the context of the protec-tion of rights of all religions inMalaysia, will be addressed at themeting in Vatican

Pax Romana ICMICA Asia-Pacificreaffirms its belief that inter-reli-gious dialogue is the way of lifein Malaysia and must be en-hanced. We encourage meetingssuch as this in the future. This firststep must pave the way for greaterrespect for pluralism –irrespectiveof religious, cultural, political orideological beliefs.

Jerald JosephCoordinator

Pax Romana ICMICA Asia Pacific (International Catholic Movement

for Intellectual and Cultural Affairs)

Mahath i r ’ s Meet ingWith The Pope


the religion of his choice, to be ablefreely to express his opinions, toparticipate in assemblies, to formassociations, and to enjoy freedomof movement, the right to fair trialif accused of breaking the law, andfreedom from arbitrary arrest.

As we all know, these basic ingre-dients of democracy no longer ex-ist in this country or have becomeso completely circumscribed orcircumvented as to be virtuallymeaningless. In other words, inMalaysia power no longer resideswith the citizens of the country butwith a self-appointed - after all,did not Dr Mahathir and all ourpolitical leaders choose to enterpolitics of their own volition? -self-renewing and self-perpetuat-ing elite This is not exactly whatwe set out to achieve when wegained our independence in thePeninsula in 1957 and in Sabahand Sarawak in 1963, is it?

For many people, however, thewhittling away of our democraticrights is a matter of little concern.For them, what matters is that thepresent regime has fulfilled twoprimary roles of government. Ithas provided political stabilityand stimulated economic growth.Malaysia’s growth and develop-ment and its ability to handle theaffairs of a multi-ethnic societywithout violence and bloodshed(with the one major exception of13 May 1969, from which the na-tion recovered quickly) is withoutquestion a remarkable achieve-ment. Surely the curtailment ofour liberties is a small price to payfor such peace and progress?

Maybe. But what if your husband,

or cousin brother, or sister-in-law’s husband has been arrestedunder the ISA on charges againstwhich he is not given the chanceto defend himself in open courtand is held in detention indefi-nitely? The Government will tellthe world that he has been ar-rested as a threat to national se-curity. But are you going to takethe Government’s word for it?After all the half-truths putthrough the media? After all thescandals involving people in highplaces? After the endless revela-tions of mismanagement and de-falcations in the world of high fi-nance, business and commerce?After all the shabby manipulationof justice in our courts which hasmade a mockery of our system ofjustice in the eyes of the wholeworld?

In other words, the blatant abuseof democratic principles and theobvious lack of democratic prac-tice in our society are undeniable.Any thinking person is wellaware of this patent lack of democ-racy - this lack of control whichwe as citizens have over ourelected representatives, and inturn their lack of control over thePrime Minster and Cabinet, andfinally the lack of control of themembers of the Cabinet them-selves over the Prime Minister,whereas in a democracy power issupposed to reside in the handsof the people as individual mem-bers of society. But here in thiscountry, it is all the other awayaround. Ask Musa Hitam. AskSalleh Abas. Ask Anwar Ibrahim.Ask Azalina Othman. All of us,from the humblest citizen to themost privileged party supporterwho are not members of the privi-leged circle of the elite are in factdependent on the patronage and

good will, direct or indirect, ofthose who hold the reins of powerin the Government.

There are many factors which ac-count for this loss of democraticcontrol over our own governmentin our own country within a gen-eration of achieving independ-ence from colonial rule. Spacedoes not allow for discussion ofthese factors here. However, in thepresent political context, one fac-tor deserves special mention,namely a basic error in politicalstrategy adopted by the Reformasimovement, which emerged spon-taneously from the public reactionto the arrest, detention andcharges against Anwar Ibrahimin September 1998. The catalystfor this sudden clamour for re-form and change was AnwarIbrahim himself and the outrageat the manner in which he wasforced out of office, detained andput on trial.

However, Reformasi was, and isstill, an expression of much morethan mere outrage at a despicablepolitical manoeuvre. It alsosprang from a long pent-up desirefor decency, transparency, and ac-countability in Government - af-ter two decades of king-size po-litical and economic scandals -and for the restoration - or moreaccurately, introduction - of thebasic democratic rights which areenshrined in our Constitution butwhich have never been truly re-spected. Above all, Reformasi wasinspired by a deep desire amongstprogressive and liberal-mindedpeople to open up a new ap-proach to politics based on prin-ciple, in place of the horse-deal-ing communal politics which we

Error In Strategy

THE ELEVENTH HOUR Continued from page 40

A Self-PerpetuatingE l i t e


continue to endure based on ex-pediency.

It was in the context of this ideal-ism and the euphoria it engen-dered in late 1998 that the deci-sion was taken to convertReformasi from a non-alignedmovement for democratic reform(that aroused a popular enthusi-asm and support which cutacross racial, religious and cul-tural lines) into one which as-sumed the traditional form of apolitical organisation directly in-volved in the political arena (inthe struggle to seek political powerin order to carry out its pro-gramme).

Although at the time this decisionmight have appeared to those in-volved as being the most obviousand viable one to make, in hind-sight it has proved to have been agrave tactical error. It was a deci-sion that inevitably clouded thebasic purpose of the Reformasimovement, which should havebeen focussed solely on bringingtogether under one banner allthose - regardless of race, religionor political background - who aregenuinely concerned with the re-instatement and maintenance ofthe basic principles of democraticgovernance. It should not have in-volved itself in the labyrinthine

twists and turns of party politicsand particular interests, whereeveryone has his or her ownagenda.

For by entering directly into thepolitical area, the Reformasi move-ment could no longer confine it-self to its principle purpose - therestoration of democracy and hon-est government - but had to par-ticipate in the process of bargain-ing and compromise, both inter-nally amongst its own membersand externally in its relations withits former allies, now potential ri-vals, in the quest for power. Thisinevitably has underminedReformasi’s unity of purpose toachieve its initial and basic aimof restoring (or introducing) genu-ine democracy in the country. Bythe same token the Reformasimovement now stands in dangerof forfeiting the support of thatlarge constituency of Malaysianvoters from both the left-wing andthe right, and from all the mainethnic groups who have so eagerlyresponded to the emergence ofthis movement in defence of de-mocracy.

In other words, by abandoning itsposition as a non-party politicalpressure group in favour of demo-cratic reform and opting for trans-forming itself into a political party

itself, the Reformasi movement haslost much of its credibility. A non-aligned movement, such asReformasi initially set out to be,must be based on principles, noton political expediency, and itsappeal to its supporters is derivedprecisely from the fact that it tran-scends the narrow agendas ofpolitical self-interest.

The proof of the pudding is in theeating. Whether its supporters likeit or not, the movement as repre-sented specifically by KeADILanand more generally by the conceptof the Barisan Alternatif coalitionhas inevitably been dragged intothe vortex of party politics and ri-val interests, having to seek com-promises with PAS and the DAP,no longer seen as good compan-ions in a common cause but nowrivals for political influence andpower, with different and conflict-ing agendas of their own.KeADILan’s attempts to serve asmediator between its coalitionteam-mates has not met with suc-cess. There has also followed theinevitable acrimonious debatesamong members of the BarisanAlternatif over the allocation ofseats to be contested in elections,besides the difficult negotiationsto seek a common stand on a vari-ety of contentious issues.

As a result, although the on-go-ing euphoria for democracy heldthings together for some time, aunited front of BA members hasbecame increasingly difficult tomaintain. Its victory at Lunasmarked the high point in the BA’sbid for political influence andpower, a success, however, whichwas probably as much due to in-eptitude on the part of the BN cam-paign as anything else. However,the Lunas victory has so far not

Lost Sense OfP u r p o s e


been repeated. In fact, since themit has all been downhill for the BA,with continual bickering over is-sues which form no part of thebasic Reformasi agenda.

All this has provided much gristto the Mahathir regime’s mill andprovided it with a host of oppor-tunities to sabotage the BarisanAlternatif’s appeal for a large pro-portion of the electorate. Togetherwith the quite fortuitous and un-foreseen, episode of 11 September2001, all this has put Mahathirand his cohorts onto a new high,and has placed KeADILan, theBarisan Alternatif and theReformasi movement as a wholeinto a most disadvantageous po-sition.

As a result, the Reformasi move-ment has come close to losing itssense of purpose and direction, tothe bitter disappointment of thatlarge constituency of Malaysiansof all ages, political affiliations,ethnic origins and occupationalgroups who yearn for democraticreform and an end to the corrup-tion, cronyism and money politics.

The only conclusion that one candraw at this juncture - if the move-ment for restoring democracy isever to succeed - is for the Reformasimovement to re-invent itself andreturn to its beginnings. In otherwords, the movement must resumeits original role as a pressuregroup* (See Box at the end of arti-cle) - not seeking power for itselfbut working with single-mindedpurpose for the reinstatement ofthe basic principles of democracyin this country.

The nucleus for such a restorationis already present in the existenceof Aliran and Suaram - both of

which are organisations promi-nent, active and articulate in theirefforts to educate public opinionin the principles of democracy.These two non-communal NGOs,also have the kind of experiencedleadership that the situation de-mands. They should take this op-portunity to convene a grand as-sembly to launch a People’s Pactfor Democracy, so as to rallyaround them all true lovers of de-mocracy and create a powerfulpressure group which can mobi-lise popular opinion for the causeof democracy per se, regardless ofparty affiliation.

For, in truth, only a pan-Malaysian movement based onprinciple and not political expe-diency has any chance of restor-ing democracy to this country.Only such a pressure group - withno ties or links with any particu-lar party but with supports frommembers from all of them - canserve as a rallying point for thehundreds of thousands of citizensof this country who are waitingfor a such a lead in order toachieve such an end. This vast,untapped reservoir of support in-cludes professionals and busi-nessmen, artists and academi-cians, government servants andofficers and men of the Police andof the Armed Forces; white- collaremployees in commercial firms,

shop assistants and workers in allforms of industry. Good Muslimsand good Buddhists, Confucian-ists, Taoists, Hindus and Chris-tians; Sabahans and Sarawa-kians, be they Kadazan, Murut,Bajau, Bidayuh, Iban or Penan(etc.); Malays, Chinese, Indiansand Orang Asli - all form part ofthe great, silent majority who canbe counted upon to rally to the callto claim the democratic rightswhich belong to all of us; providedthey see that they have leadersdedicated and competent enoughto enable them to achieve this end.

Democratic values are universalhuman values recognised and re-spected by all mankind. They arenot the creation of East or West,North or South, but are inherentin our nature as rational humanbeings, as a guarantee of our indi-vidual rights and a guide to ourobligations to society. The threatto that democracy, which is asmuch the heritage and birthrightof all of us in Malaysia, as muchas in other countries in the world,is very real. It is getting late. Theevents of September 1998 are fastreceding from the popularmemory. The problem of the lossof our democracy to a self-ap-pointed elite remains, but thechance to redeem it will not lastfor ever. We are at the eleventhhour. It is time to act.

R e i n v e n t i n gR e f o r m a s i

* The writer of this article, in arguing that it is only through a massmovement of all citizens, not of political parties, that can really savethe day as far as democracy in this country is concerned, does notwish to imply in any way that political parties do not have a role toplay, or that Parti KeADILan Nasional, in particular should dis-solve itself. Once the ground rules of democracy have been re-estab-lished in our political system, the political parties should be free toplay their roles, and there is certainly room for a secular, non-com-munal, middle-of -the-road party such as KeADILan to represent themiddle-of- the-road voter.

q


n May 7th, the Demo-cratic Action Party(DAP) held a roundtablediscussion at the Grand

Continental Hotel, Penang on thetheme of ‘Parliamentary Reform’.In a packed conference room,members of the public and thepress heard speeches from fivespeakers covering issues fromwomen’s rights and parliament tothe Anwar Ibrahim episode.

The speakers were:• Aliran President, P. Rama-

krishnan,• Women’s Crisis Centre (WCC)

consultant, Dr Prema Devaraj,• Political scientist from

Universiti Sains Malaysia, DrLim Hong Hai,

• Keadilan MP for Kemaman,Abdul Rahman Yusof and

• DAP National Chairman, LimKit Siang.

Ramakrishnan opened the confer-ence with a speech concentratingon the recent amendments to theElections Act. This latest piece ofundemocratic legislation, that vir-tually sneaked passed parlia-ment, tilts the balance of the par-liamentary system even more inthe BN’s favour.

Under the new act, the electoralrolls, once gazetted, are legally

DEMOCRACY

Parliamentary WoesWe cannot expect Parliament to reform itself;we have to pressure it to change

OOOOO

Undemocratic Law

by G. Lim

unchallengeable in any Court.This means that the ElectoralCommission is now above the lawand, apparently, infallible. Evengenuine mistakes, never mind de-liberate manipulations, cannot becorrected in the courts.

Ramakrishnan also highlightedthe financial aspects of theamendments. Under its provi-sions, the deposit to stand as a elec-tion candidate is raised fromRM5,000 to RM20,000, with anadditional RM10,000 deposit toensure prompt removal of postersand other materials after the elec-tion. The limits on election spend-ing have also been more than tre-bled.

The intentions of the amendmentsto the Elections Act are clear,Ramakrishnan suggested. By in-creasing the financial resourcerequired to contest election andallowed for campaigning, theamendments clearly favour thewell financed candidates over theless well financed. No one needask, of course, which parties arebetter financed…

Prema Devaraj spoke on the sub-ject of women’s rights and par-liamentary reform. Parliament,she reasoned, is the highest bodyin the land, and thus must take

the lead in implementing and re-specting women’s rights.

Yet, whilst parliament has ratifiedinternational conventions on therights of women, it has only doneso with some astounding reserva-tions. At the most fundamentallevel of equality, the governmentexpressed reservations over anumber of Articles in the UN Con-vention on the Elimination of AllForms of Discrimination AgainstWomen. This included Article5(a), which obliges the govern-ment to ‘take measures to modifysocial and cultural patterns ofconduct of men and women toeliminate prejudices and prac-tices, which are based on the ideaof inferiority or superiority of ei-ther sex’. Apparently, even thisfundamental statement of sexualequality is against governmentpolicy.

In its own legislation, parliamentalso continues to deny womenequal rights to men. Children bornabroad of Malaysian mothers, forinstance, are not allowed auto-matic citizenship. Those withMalaysian fathers are. Similarly,the foreign husbands ofMalaysian women are not af-forded the same rights as the for-eign wives of Malaysian men.

Even if this were not bad enough,Prema drew attention to the ap-

Women's Rights


palling regard for women’s rightsdemonstrated in parliament itself.The conduct of many MPs – bothmale and female – towards wom-en’s right is frequently abysmal,with female MPs being addressedas ‘cute’ or ‘gorgeous’. Whatwould the reaction be, Premaasked, if Dr Mahathir was ad-dressed in such terms?

The next speaker was Lim HongHai, an associate professor withthe School of Social Sciences atUSM. The focus of Lim’s talk wasthe failure of parliament in its roleas a check on the executive. He alsoplaced the Malaysian case withinan international context.

Lim noted two broad internationaltrends that have compromised par-liament’s role. The first is simplythe increasing workload of minis-ters, making it impossible for par-liament to keep track effectively.Secondly, he noted the tendencytowards the centralisation of powerin the hands of the executive.Whilst these trends may be particu-larly marked in Malaysia, evencountries like the United Kingdomare suffering these problems.

Nonetheless, he noted that anumber of initiatives to overcomethese problems are underutilised inMalaysia. This includes the use ofparliamentary select committees,made up of a group of MPs fromboth the government and opposi-tion, which review governmentperformance on a given issue, suchas health or the environment.

Lim also noted that parliamentarychecks are also often controlled bygroups or individuals sympa-thetic to the government. In most

countries, for instance, the PublicAccounts Committee (POC) – theparliamentary body which moni-tors government expenditure – ischaired by a member of the oppo-sition. Here, however, a BN mem-ber chairs the committee.

Abdul Rahman Yusof, theKeADILan MP for Kemaman, wasthe next speaker, kindly standingin for Keadilan President Dr WanAzizah Wan Ismail, who had beenunable to attend.

Abdul Rahman’s speech focussedon the need for reform of the legalsystem, in particular the repeal ofundemocratic and repressive leg-islation. He reminded the audi-ence of the continuous abuse ofthe Internal Security Act (ISA) bythe government, from its use in thearrest of Anwar Ibrahim to the de-tention of 10 reformasi activists inApril last year.

Finally, DAP National ChairmanLim Kit Siang spoke on a widerange of issues relating to parlia-mentary reform. He began by ex-amining the relationship betweenthe human rights commission,Suhakam, and parliament. Par-liament, he said, has ‘failed to giveall necessary support toSuhakam’. Parliament has virtu-ally ignored Suhakam when it hasreported, and when it has failedto report, parliament has showna distinct lack of interest as well.

The case of Suhakam is importantin that it illustrates the impotencyof parliament when it is over-stuffed with MPs from the govern-ment party. Not only does thismean that parliament is not in-clined to debate and scrutinise

government policy and actions,but it also means that the Execu-tive has no reason to pay any morethan lip service to parliament.

BN domination of parliament hasmeant that Malaysia has laggedbehind other Commonwealthcountries in the reform of parlia-ment. Opposition days, parlia-mentary standing committees toshadow each ministry, an effectivePrime Minister’s Question Time –all these things have been intro-duced in many Commonwealthcountries, but not in Malaysia.

Finally, Kit Siang called for reformof the Dewan Negara. TheMerdeka Constitution allowed forthe introduction of an elected ele-ment in the Dewan Negara, and itis time for this to be introduced.

The debate covered a wide rangeof issues and proposals, but onecommon theme came out time andagain. We cannot expect parliamentto reform itself, it is up to us to forceit to change. As Prema Devaraj saidin her concluding remarks, we canall start tomorrow, by finding outwho our MP is and going to speakwith him about our concerns.

Failure To Check

I m p o t e n c e

q


or those of us who loveour country and also arefirm believers in democ-racy as the best form of

government for it, these are sadtimes indeed. Although the ReidConstitution of 1957 was based ondemocratic principles, it was rid-dled with escape clauses whichsuccessive administrations havemade full use of to evade the spiritand block the purpose of thedemocratic system. As a resulttoday we are living in a countrywhere democracy virtually nomore exists except in name.

As in the case of all theories con-cerned with the political organi-sation of the State, the central is-sue in democracy is the issue ofpower. In a genuine democracyultimate power and authority isvested in the citizens of the nation,not in the Government of the day,nor even in Parliament, the cham-ber of the people’s elected repre-sentatives. It rests in the hands ofits citizens, is exercised throughregular elections and safeguardedby certain institutions such as aneutral civil service, a non-politi-cal police force and armed serv-ices, and an impartial and inde-pendent judiciary. It is also apower exercised through the rightof the individual citizen to follow

DEMOCRACY

The Eleventh HourWith its momentum flagging, reformasi has to reinvent itself asa pan-Malaysian movement based on principle rather thanpolitical expediency

by Muzaffar Tate

FFFFF

Continued on page 34Continued on page 34Continued on page 34Continued on page 34Continued on page 34

PP3739/12/2002 ISSN 0127 - 5127 / RM3.00 / 2002:Vol.22No · The Tamil schools, meanwhile, continue...

Documents

Transcript of PP3739/12/2002 ISSN 0127 - 5127 / RM3.00 / 2002:Vol.22No · The Tamil schools, meanwhile, continue...