MONTHLY - AliranAliran Monthly : Vol.31(8) Page 6 Permatang Pauh, Penang. According to the blogger, of the 64 voters, 51 are Malays and the rest Indians. Following Perisik’s disclosure,

Aliran Monthly : Vol.31(8) Page 1PP3739/12/2011(026665) ISSN 0127 - 5127 PP3739/12/2011(026665) ISSN 0127 - 5127 PP3739/12/2011(026665) ISSN 0127 - 5127 PP3739/12/2011(026665) ISSN 0127 - 5127 PP3739/12/2011(026665) ISSN 0127 - 5127 RM4.00 RM4.00 RM4.00 RM4.00 RM4.00 2011:Vol.31No.82011:Vol.31No.82011:Vol.31No.82011:Vol.31No.82011:Vol.31No.8For Justice, Freedom & SolidarityFor Justice, Freedom & SolidarityFor Justice, Freedom & SolidarityFor Justice, Freedom & SolidarityFor Justice, Freedom & Solidarity

MONTHLYMONTHLYMONTHLYMONTHLYMONTHLY

Aliran Monthly : Vol.31(8) Page 2

hen the Prime Ministerannounced the settingup of a ParliamentarySelect Committee on 15

August 2011, a friend rang up toask me what I thought of it. Myimmediate response was, “It is atactic to delay, deny and confuseMalaysians!”

What has transpired since thenonly seems to confirm this obser-vation.

The onus is with the governmentnow to dispel this notion. And the

only way to do it is to give a pub-lic pledge to the nation that par-liament will not be dissolved anytime before the PSC completes itswork and presents its findings toparliament to put in place the ref-ormation that is urgently requiredto ensure free and fair elections.

This undertaking is absolutelynecessary to convince Malaysiansthat there was sincerity and com-mitment on the part of the PM insetting up this PSC. We need to beassured that the Barisan Nasionalgovernment will go all the way to

implement the reforms that aredemanded by the people.

But what was confusing to Ma-laysians was the statement madeby the PM nine days later that thenext general election can be heldanytime and will not be bound bythe findings of the PSC on elec-toral reforms. This is perplexing!

In order to call for elections, par-liament has to be dissolved andwhen that is done the PSC lapses.He would have effectively scuttledthe PSC and sent it into oblivion.

A tactic to delay, denyand confuse?

COVER STORY

WWWWW

Parliamentary Select Committee:

by P Ramakrishnan

History would suggest that the BN has no intention ofintroducing any meaningful reforms

Prime Minister Najib.Prime Minister Najib.Prime Minister Najib.Prime Minister Najib.Prime Minister Najib. The Opposition Leader is of equal status with the PM.The Opposition Leader is of equal status with the PM.The Opposition Leader is of equal status with the PM.The Opposition Leader is of equal status with the PM.The Opposition Leader is of equal status with the PM.


In the aftermath of Bersih 2.0, recent weeks haveseen one irregularity after another in the electoralprocess being exposed.

P Ramakrishnan looks at some of these dubious dis-crepancies and tactics and concludes that no realchange is possible unless the Election Commissionis disbanded and replaced and a new governmentcomes to power. We also take a look at the irregu-larities found in the 1990 general election rolls. His-tory would suggest that the BN has no intention ofintroducing any meaningful reforms.

Meanwhile, M N D’Cruz raises the alarm over theLynas rare earth refinery in Pahang and says it isthe duty of every Pahang resident to oppose theplant. Over in Penang, Lim Mah Hui raises a highlyrelevant question: what type of development do wewant? Is it sustainable and balanced developmentor rampant and unchecked development?

Charles Hector alerts us to attempts to amend theEmployment Act, which could fundamentally di-lute or obscure the employer-worker relationshipthrough the use of labour outsourcing contractors. .

The Foreign Spouses Support Group has urged thegovernment to review the policy for foreign spousesto provide for the stability ad well-being of their fami-lies, including their Malaysian children.

Was Malaya ever colonised. Most definitely, accord-ing to Tommy Thomas, and by not one but four dif-ferent colonial powers. Finally, S Arutchelvan paystribute to Tan Jing Quee, who served as a bridgelinking his generation and the struggles of that erawith ours.

C O N T E N T S

EDITOR'S NOTE

COVER STORYCOVER STORYCOVER STORYCOVER STORYCOVER STORY••••• A Tactic To Delay, Deny AndA Tactic To Delay, Deny AndA Tactic To Delay, Deny AndA Tactic To Delay, Deny AndA Tactic To Delay, Deny And

Confuse?Confuse?Confuse?Confuse?Confuse? 22222••••• Electoral Fraud - Part And ParcelElectoral Fraud - Part And ParcelElectoral Fraud - Part And ParcelElectoral Fraud - Part And ParcelElectoral Fraud - Part And Parcel

Of Our Election ProcessOf Our Election ProcessOf Our Election ProcessOf Our Election ProcessOf Our Election Process 55555

FEATURESFEATURESFEATURESFEATURESFEATURES••••• Irregularities On The Electoral RollsIrregularities On The Electoral RollsIrregularities On The Electoral RollsIrregularities On The Electoral RollsIrregularities On The Electoral Rolls 88888••••• Najib Visits Vatican; MalaysiansNajib Visits Vatican; MalaysiansNajib Visits Vatican; MalaysiansNajib Visits Vatican; MalaysiansNajib Visits Vatican; Malaysians

Write To PopeWrite To PopeWrite To PopeWrite To PopeWrite To Pope 1 11 11 11 11 1••••• Lynas: A Colossal CatastropheLynas: A Colossal CatastropheLynas: A Colossal CatastropheLynas: A Colossal CatastropheLynas: A Colossal Catastrophe

Waiting To HappenWaiting To HappenWaiting To HappenWaiting To HappenWaiting To Happen 1 51 51 51 51 5••••• Stop Lynas Protest In AustraliaStop Lynas Protest In AustraliaStop Lynas Protest In AustraliaStop Lynas Protest In AustraliaStop Lynas Protest In Australia 1 91 91 91 91 9••••• Bersih Rally, English Riots:Bersih Rally, English Riots:Bersih Rally, English Riots:Bersih Rally, English Riots:Bersih Rally, English Riots:

A Crucial DifferenceA Crucial DifferenceA Crucial DifferenceA Crucial DifferenceA Crucial Difference 2 32 32 32 32 3••••• On Sustainable DevelopmentOn Sustainable DevelopmentOn Sustainable DevelopmentOn Sustainable DevelopmentOn Sustainable Development

For PenangFor PenangFor PenangFor PenangFor Penang 2 42 42 42 42 4••••• Tribute To Tan Jing QueeTribute To Tan Jing QueeTribute To Tan Jing QueeTribute To Tan Jing QueeTribute To Tan Jing Quee 2 62 62 62 62 6••••• Sacking Of Judges: Bar DismayedSacking Of Judges: Bar DismayedSacking Of Judges: Bar DismayedSacking Of Judges: Bar DismayedSacking Of Judges: Bar Dismayed 2 82 82 82 82 8••••• Review Policy For ForeignReview Policy For ForeignReview Policy For ForeignReview Policy For ForeignReview Policy For Foreign

Spouses Of Malaysian CitizensSpouses Of Malaysian CitizensSpouses Of Malaysian CitizensSpouses Of Malaysian CitizensSpouses Of Malaysian Citizens 3 13 13 13 13 1••••• 1Factory 1Employer, Please1Factory 1Employer, Please1Factory 1Employer, Please1Factory 1Employer, Please1Factory 1Employer, Please 3 33 33 33 33 3••••• Remembering 500 Years OfRemembering 500 Years OfRemembering 500 Years OfRemembering 500 Years OfRemembering 500 Years Of

ColonialismColonialismColonialismColonialismColonialism 4040404040

REGULARSREGULARSREGULARSREGULARSREGULARS••••• Current ConcernsCurrent ConcernsCurrent ConcernsCurrent ConcernsCurrent Concerns 2 12 12 12 12 1

OTHERSOTHERSOTHERSOTHERSOTHERS••••• Subscription FormSubscription FormSubscription FormSubscription FormSubscription Form 3 83 83 83 83 8

Printed by Konway Industries Sdn. Bhd.Plot 78, Lebuhraya Kampung Jawa, 11900 Bayan Lepas, Penang

Published byPublished byPublished byPublished byPublished byPersatuan Aliran Kesedaran NegaraPersatuan Aliran Kesedaran NegaraPersatuan Aliran Kesedaran NegaraPersatuan Aliran Kesedaran NegaraPersatuan Aliran Kesedaran Negara

(ALIRAN)(ALIRAN)(ALIRAN)(ALIRAN)(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

Email: [email protected]: [email protected]: [email protected]: [email protected]: [email protected] indicate if it is a letter to the editor

Homepage : http://www.aliran.comHomepage : http://www.aliran.comHomepage : http://www.aliran.comHomepage : http://www.aliran.comHomepage : http://www.aliran.com

Aliran is an organisation for ‘social democraticAliran is an organisation for ‘social democraticAliran is an organisation for ‘social democraticAliran is an organisation for ‘social democraticAliran is an organisation for ‘social democraticreform’. We advocate freedom, justice andreform’. We advocate freedom, justice andreform’. We advocate freedom, justice andreform’. We advocate freedom, justice andreform’. We advocate freedom, justice andsolidarity; comment critically on social issues, offersolidarity; comment critically on social issues, offersolidarity; comment critically on social issues, offersolidarity; comment critically on social issues, offersolidarity; comment critically on social issues, offeranalysis and alternative ideas keeping in mindanalysis and alternative ideas keeping in mindanalysis and alternative ideas keeping in mindanalysis and alternative ideas keeping in mindanalysis and alternative ideas keeping in mindthe national and global picture based on universalthe national and global picture based on universalthe national and global picture based on universalthe national and global picture based on universalthe national and global picture based on universalhuman rights and spiritual values. We are listedhuman rights and spiritual values. We are listedhuman rights and spiritual values. We are listedhuman rights and spiritual values. We are listedhuman rights and spiritual values. We are listedon the on the on the on the on the roster of the Economic and Social Council ofroster of the Economic and Social Council ofroster of the Economic and Social Council ofroster of the Economic and Social Council ofroster of the Economic and Social Council ofthe United Nations. Founded in 1977, Aliranthe United Nations. Founded in 1977, Aliranthe United Nations. Founded in 1977, Aliranthe United Nations. Founded in 1977, Aliranthe United Nations. Founded in 1977, Aliranwelcomes all Malaysians above 21 to be members.welcomes all Malaysians above 21 to be members.welcomes all Malaysians above 21 to be members.welcomes all Malaysians above 21 to be members.welcomes all Malaysians above 21 to be members.Contact the Hon. Secretary or visit our webpage.Contact the Hon. Secretary or visit our webpage.Contact the Hon. Secretary or visit our webpage.Contact the Hon. Secretary or visit our webpage.Contact the Hon. Secretary or visit our webpage.


The truth of the matter is that thelife of the PSC doesn’t go beyondthe life span of the current parlia-ment. When that is the case, thenwhat is the purpose in setting upthe PSC to look at the necessaryelectoral reforms?

By dissolving parliament beforethe PSC completes its duties en-trusted to it, the PM will immedi-ately deny all Malaysians the elec-toral reforms that were promisedby setting up the PSC. Not onlythat, he will inevitably delay thepromised reforms indefinitely.

History would suggest that the BNhas no intention of introducingany meaningful reforms. Sincethe last Bersih Rally in 2007, theBN had two years to rectify thisproblem. The four demands ofBersih in 2007 were:

• The use of indelible ink (whichwas already been agreed to bythe Electoral Commission, butlater scrapped);

• A clean-up of the registeredvoters’ roll;

• Abolition of postal votes; and• Access to the government-con-

trolled print and broadcastmedia for opposition parties.

The BN government did nothingto address these issues. And thesefour demands have now becomepart of the eight demands of Bersih2.0.

In reality there were only four newdemands in 2011:

• A minimum 21-day campaignperiod;

• The strengthening of publicinstitutions;

• An end to corruption; and• An end to dirty politics

Together with the previously ig-nored four demands of 2007, thesenew demands took the tally toeight demands under Bersih 2.0.

There is serious doubt that the BNgovernment is sincere in wantingto reform the electoral process.

On 1 February 2008, the ElectionCommission deputy chairmanwas quoted as saying that for the2008 general election, it wouldneed 48000 bottles of the indelibleink. This would cost RM2.4m andthe whole procedure would takeless than RM1m to implement.

It was on this basis the indel-ible ink was bought in readinessfor the 2008 general election. Butat the eleventh hour, for somemystifying reason, this proce-dure was abandoned. If itwasn’t, the tsunami that sweptthrough the country would haveprobably swept away the BNfrom Putrajaya and would havein all probability installed a newgovernment!

Another valid point to support oursuspicion about the outcome ofthe findings of the PSC is its com-position. The PM has announceda nine-member PSC comprisingfive from the BN, three from theOpposition and one from the In-dependents.

This clearly favours the BN. It is adeliberate decision to guaranteethat the views of the BN will pre-vail in the end simply because theyare in the majority. When put tovote, the outcome would be either5-3 or 5-4 depending on how theso-called Independent wouldvote. In fact, there is no Indepen-dent MP in Parliament. What wehave are BN-friendly Indepen-

dents which means the votingcould also be 6-3 in favour of theBN.

The PM has made sure that theBN’s interests would be safe-guarded come what may. In theend, in spite of travelling aroundthe country seeking various con-cerned views, involving huge ex-penditure and many weeks of timeput in, the outcome would stillfavour the BN’s position. Thatwould be presented as a demo-cratic decision compelling adher-ence to this position. It would be afait accompli! The whole exercisewould turn out to be a farce.

The PM cannot on his own de-cide the composition of the PSCwithout consulting the Opposi-tion. After all, they are the gov-ernment-in-waiting. The Oppo-sition Leader is of equal statuswith him. The Leader of the Op-position is seen as the alterna-tive Prime Minister. Mature de-mocracies accept this realityand accord due respect and rec-ognition to the Leader of theOpposition. As such, consultingthe Opposition would have as-sisted in arriving at an amicabledecision. The PM cannot riderough-shod and ignore the ex-istence of the Opposition Leader.

At this critical moment, the PM isobliged to give his word of honourthat the 13th general electionwould only be held after the re-forms have been put in place. Oth-erwise, this PSC would become asham committee, making a mock-ery of the democratic system.

Would the Opposition want tobecome part of the national shameby associating itself with thiscomic opera? q


llegations of electoralfraud - and the ElectionCommission’s complic-ity in this fraud - are not

something that is new or recent.Such allegations have been partand parcel of every election thathas taken place.

If anything, these allegations havebecome credible because irrefut-able evidence of fraudulent regis-trations have been unearthed inthe electoral roll. What we haveseen exposed are not few and mi-

nor incidences that may be ex-plained away quite easily.Clearly, these are rampant and,therefore, disturbing. (See accom-panying article on page …)

The late P Patto who lost to SamyVellu in the Sungai Siput contestin 1990 by a narrow margin of1763 votes revealed why he lostthat year during a forum at thePenang Chinese Assembly Hall.He explained that Indian voters

were registered at Chinese resi-dences when there were no ten-ants living there; others were reg-istered at non-existent addressesand some addresses attributed tocertain voters turned out to be atthe cemetery! He also revealedthat voters were brought fromKlang in buses to cast their votesin Sungai Siput. These are seriouscases of electoral fraud.

This is a story that goes back to1990 – 21 years ago! But the pat-tern persists even today.

The blog Perisik Rakyat, run by aKelantan-based blogger, revealedthat 64 names were registeredunder one address – No 1138,Kampung Bagan Serai,

COVER STORY

Electoral fraud - part and parcelElectoral fraud - part and parcelElectoral fraud - part and parcelElectoral fraud - part and parcelElectoral fraud - part and parcelof our election processof our election processof our election processof our election processof our election processThe present EC is not capable of conducting free and fairelections. It must be disbanded and a new Election Commissioninstituted comprising people of impeccable integrity

by P Ramakrishnan

AAAAA

Dubious voters

64 voters registered at this address: 1138 Kampung Bagan Serai64 voters registered at this address: 1138 Kampung Bagan Serai64 voters registered at this address: 1138 Kampung Bagan Serai64 voters registered at this address: 1138 Kampung Bagan Serai64 voters registered at this address: 1138 Kampung Bagan Serai

P PattoP PattoP PattoP PattoP Patto


Permatang Pauh,Penang. Accordingto the blogger, of the64 voters, 51 areMalays and the restIndians.

Following Perisik’sdisclosure, anotherblogger Milo Suamfurther revealed thatanother 88 “ghost”voters were also reg-istered under oneaddress - No 1155,Kampung BaganSerai, JalanSembilang, SeberangJaya, Permatang Pauh, Penang.These 88 voters comprise Malays,Chinese and Indians – men andwomen. According to Milo Suamthe address belonged to a “smallwooden house just a few metresaway from the other address” thatpurportedly housed the 64 voters.

This seems to indicate that AnwarIbrahim’s constituency is being tar-geted to defeat the Oppositionleader in a concerted manner.Anwar is seen as the greatest threatto the survival of the BN and there-fore he has to be defeated.

It is also learnt that a similar scamhas been uncovered in one of theaddresses in the Tambun con-stituency in Perak.

According to Malaysiakini, a per-manent resident by the name ofMismah was registered as a voterand when this was exposed shemysteriously became a citizenfour hours later!

Pas reported a total of 1,597 simi-lar cases nationwide and 1,100 inSelangor alone. Is this part of thedesign to realise Najib’s declara-

tion that the BN would “get backSelangor at any cost”? Pray tell,at what cost, Mr PM? By sacrific-ing democracy at the altar of ex-pediency and ignoring the prin-ciples of justice and fairness?

It is also discovered that some twodozen spouses of military person-nel were found to have registeredusing their spouses civilianMyKad thus qualifying them-selves for double votes. Whywould these spouses want an ex-tra vote?

The DAP revealed its largest haulof electoral discrepancies yet with234 voters having identical oldidentity card numbers. “Thesenumbers are in pairs, with 117 ofthe voters matching their ‘twins’despite having different namesand new identity card numbers.”said PJ Utara MP Tony Pua.

These are not isolated cases. Theyare wide-spread and come acrossas common features in opposi-tion-controlled constituencies.There seems to be a concerted andconsistent attempt to inject dubi-ous voters into opposition con-

stituencies pavingthe way for the BNto recapture theseconstituencies andspring back intopower.

What has been re-vealed is only the tipof the iceberg. If thesystem had allowedfor greater scrutiny,without doubt manythousands of fakevotes would havebeen revealed.

At the moment theparties are given only one week toobject after the electoral roll hasbeen revised and that doesn’t giveanyone sufficient time to scan theroll with a fine tooth-comb. If theEC expects help from the politicalparties it must be seen to be seri-ous about it. It must give the par-ties concerned at least two monthsto ferret out the phantom voters.

While the ‘dirty’ electoral roll isone aspect of the election processthat has always been an obstacleto free and fair elections, there arealso other disadvantages that theopposition has to contend with.

Postal votes have saved the BN onmany occasions. There have beenmany rumours that top military,police and security leaders haveplayed a vital role in postal votes.It has been bandied about thatthey instruct their personnel tovote for the BN.

Recently some former militarypersonnel have revealed howthey were instructed to vote for theBN on behalf of the entire contin-

Shady postal votes

88 voters registered at this address: 1155 Kampung Bagan Serai88 voters registered at this address: 1155 Kampung Bagan Serai88 voters registered at this address: 1155 Kampung Bagan Serai88 voters registered at this address: 1155 Kampung Bagan Serai88 voters registered at this address: 1155 Kampung Bagan Serai


wholly denied.

While the EC may claim with cer-tain justification it has no author-ity to demand equal coverage forthe opposition, surely on moralgrounds it can publicly condemnthe unfair practice that gives theBN undue advantage. This couldhave some effect in forcing the BNto yield at least some coveragetime.

Another diabolical favouritemethod of campaigning is to dishout goodies in an outlandishmanner. Roads are tarred, drainsare repaired, handouts given,projects announced, voters threat-ened that they will be denied de-velopment in their areas - all theseclearly constitute election of-fences. When anything is given orpromised during the campaignperiod to induce the voters to votein favour of certain parties, that isdefinitely wrong and an offenceunder the election laws.

But the EC had never taken the BNto task for their unethicalbehaviour. This is why the EC isseen as pro-BN and never as pro-democracy.

The present EC is not capable ofconducting free and fair elections.It must be disbanded and a newElection Commission institutedcomprising people of impeccableintegrity. Only then will electionsbe meaningful.

For this to take place, a new gov-ernment is necessary; otherwise,it will be the same rotten deal for-ever.

gent. As no political agents arepermitted to be present while thepostal voting process takes place,nobody actually knows how thisvoting is conducted.

It is also common knowledge thatcertain constituencies have seena surge in postal votes. An entiremilitary contingent can be postedanywhere without any questionsbeing asked thus giving the BNan undue advantage. It was thisruse that won for Lee San Choonthe Seremban parliamentary con-stituency in April 1982. He justmanaged to defeat DAPstrongman Chen Man Hin in hisstronghold by 845 votes.

Now this is being deployed quitebrazenly. Reports have pointed toan increase in postal votes inNegeri Sembilan and in Penang.These are allegedly found in cer-tain constituencies held by theopposition which the BN hopesto capture.

On top of this, spouses of militarypersonnel have now opted forpostal voting in Penang. Whilethey were ordinary voters in thepast, why is it necessary to regis-ter as postal voters? What schemeis being hatched for the 13th Gen-eral Elections?

Strangely, however, all Malay-sians living abroad are not en-titled to postal votes even thoughthey are registered voters. Onlymilitary personnel, public ser-vants, full time government-spon-sored students and their spousesare allowed to vote under the “Ab-sentee-Voters” category.

Why are the others (who do notfall in these categories) deniedtheir right to vote? Is it because

they are seen as not inclined to-wards the BN? It is difficult tocome to any other conclusion.

Gerrymandering is anothermethod adopted to favour the BN.The manner in which certain con-stituencies are drawn up indeeddefies logic. Opposition-con-trolled constituencies are allowedto remain as a single huge con-stituency when they could verywell be divided into two or threeconstituencies which can be ser-viced responsibly by their respec-tive representatives.

Bersih 2.0 has pointed out thisdisparity recently. Kapar con-stituency has 112,224 registeredvoters while many rural seatshave voters in the region of 50,000.The Putrajaya seat, mainly com-prising civil servants, has a mere7,000 voters.

Such glaring disparities are delib-erately created so that the opposi-tion can never win any more par-liamentary seats than what can-not be helped. More rural seatsmeans a greater advantage for theBN – that seems to be the rule tobe followed!

Yet there is another unethical andimmoral practice that is resortedto by the BN without a whimperfrom the EC. The way the print andelectronic media is abused to thegreater advantage of the BN to theextent of denigrating and de-meaning the opposition is totallyunbelievable in a democracy. In atrue democracy, the oppositionshould get equal time to propagatetheir party platform. This is

Abuse of the media

Election offences

Time for change

G e r r y m a n d e r i n g

q


condition for elections tobe fair is that the electoralrolls containing the listof people eligible to vote

must be clean. Numerous com-plaints concerning the electoralrolls used for the General Elec-tions held on October 20-21, how-ever, put to question how cleanthe rolls were. Some complainthat though they had registeredduring the voter registration exer-cise in March, their names couldnot be found on the official lists ofelectors used during poll-ing. These omissions de-prived countless eligiblevoters of their right tochoose representatives forParliament and State As-semblies.

Slightly more mystifyingwas the problem of ‘phan-tom voters’. For instance,an Indian lady fromAmpang, Selangor receivedfour voting cards (inform-ing voters where theyshould go to vote) that weresent to her house bearingmessages to vote Barisan;the curious thing was thatthe cards were addressed toMalay names though no one withsuch names had lived in the housefor the 21 years she had beenthere. There are many other re-

ports of people registered as elec-tors with a certain address thoughthese persons do not actually livethere.

These ‘phantom’ include a list of17 names registered as living atthe address of a factory in Penang.

The existence of phantom voterson the rolls was one of thegrounds for which Haji Sulaimanbin Kamaruddin sought an orderfrom the High Court to instruct the

Election Commission to rectify therolls for the parliamentary con-stituency of Sepang and theSelangor State Assembly seats ofDengkil, Sg. Pelek and Batu Laut.

The judge threw out the applica-tion, ruling that the matter had tobe first brought to the attention ofthe Election Commission andHaji Sulaiman had not done so.However, in his judgment Mr. Jus-tice Datuk Wira Wan YahyaPawan Teh said “the facts in thecase (are) startling”.

One of the things that must havestartled the judge was that therewere 30 names listed as electorsliving at 1 Bandar Baru Bangi

though this is a fictitiousaddress. (See Table 1 for alist of these names). Therewere another 38 nameslisted under the “2 BandarBaru Bangi”, which is an-other address that cannot befound. Neither does “3Bandar Baru Bangi” exist,though it has 32 names ofelectors who are supposedto be living there. The listgoes on from 4 to 14, BandarBaru Bangi, each addresslisted as having from 26 to39 voters. None of these ad-dresses exist. Their appear-ance on the electoral roll re-sults in a total of 405 phan-

tom voters for this area.

Haji Suhaimi also submitted to thecourt a list of 573 entries on theelectoral rolls where the same IC

PAGES FROM THE PAST

Irregularities on theelectoral rolls

Elections 1990

AAAAA


number appears more than once,usually with different names. Theproblem of multiple entries on theelectoral rolls for the same ICnumber is not confined to theSepang area. The Election WatchThe Election WatchThe Election WatchThe Election WatchThe Election WatchSecretariatSecretariatSecretariatSecretariatSecretariat also obtained a list forthe Sungei Siput parliamentaryconstituency where there are 289cases of the same IC number ap-pearing more than once on therolls. Table 2 is an extract fromthis list. It will be observed, for

instance, that the bottom threeentries are different names withthe same IC number for the samepolling station, Legap.

The tables presented here are ex-tracts of lists prepared after com-puters were fed with the particu-lars of all those registered as elec-tors in the respective constituen-cies and then programmed to printout the relevant irregularities. Onthe official rolls, the names are not

in the same order as in these tablesand hence it is impossible at aglance to spot these problems onthe rolls used for polling.

These facts are not just startling,they are disturbing. Why are thereso many phantom voters and somany cases of multiple entries ofIC numbers? The lists make onewonder how many other constitu-encies have electoral rolls whichare similarly defective. Just before


elections are called, the PrimeMinister himself announced thatUmno was trying to trace phan-tom voters in Kelantan; later itwas disclosed that an estimated27,100 such voters were on theKelantan rolls.

The Election Commission al-lowed the country to go to thepolls knowing that the electoralrolls were defective. Why did itprepare the new rolls in suchhaste that they contained all theseproblems? Arguably, the Com-mission should have been morethorough in checking the rolls andonly issued the new set when itwas sure that these rolls con-

tained no major defects. Was thehasty preparation of the rolls theresult of being pressured into get-ting the rolls ready quickly for asnap general elections? The Com-mission chose to go ahead withthe elections even for seats forwhich it had evidence that the listof electors was defective. Was itmore interested in quick electionsrather than clean rolls and fairpolling? These troubling ques-tions leave one wonderingwhether the independence of theCommission is as nominal as thatof the Judiciary.

At the end of the day, electors areleft asking whether the represen-

tatives chosen would have beenthe same had the electoral rollsnot been defective. Did each voterhave an equal opportunity forchoosing his representative, ordid the preferences of some countfor more than one? Were the elec-tions fair? An independent Elec-tion Commission should not haveacted in a manner that allowedthese questions to arise. For thepublic to be assured that all elec-tors had an equal say in voting,we need an Election Commissionthat is answerable to the King andthe people, and does not appearto be under any undue pressurefrom any branch of the govern-ment. q


The letter in full:

His Holiness Pope Benedict XVIApostolic Palace00120 Vatican City

Via His Grace ArchbishopLeopoldo GirelliApostolic Delegate to Malaysia55 Waterloo Street #06Singapore 1877954

Your Holiness

Recent Political and Social Devel-opments in Malaysia: Towards aMore Comprehensive Under-standing of the Realities in Ma-laysia

We are a group of Catholics andsome from other Christian de-nominations in Malaysia. Malay-sia, a Muslim-dominant country,has a population of 28 millionpeople with 2.2 million registeredas Christians, of whom an esti-mated 850,000 are Catholics.

We write to you with regards toour prime minister Datuk SeriNajib Tun Razak’s official visit tothe Vatican on 18 July 2011. Weare anxious about recent develop-ments concerning questions ofdemocratic rights and religiousfreedom in Malaysia. In our letterwe highlight these issues in orderto help Your Holiness understandmore critically and comprehen-sively the political and social re-alities in our country lest you are

presented with a one-sided viewof developments in Malaysia.

The Malaysian media has re-ported that the visit of our primeminister to the Vatican is a ‘wa-tershed’ that foreshadows the es-tablishment of diplomatic rela-tions between Malaysia and theHoly See.

We believe that the establishmentof diplomatic ties between theVatican and Malaysia is a good

step forward; after all, Malaysiais one of only 17 countries in theworld that does not yet have dip-lomatic ties with the Holy See. Ourconcern is that of the timing inestablishing these ties, on whichwe elaborate below.

Church sources in Malaysia in-form us that the visit also has todo with the Holy Father’s desireto promote Christian-Muslim dia-logue, an initiative that you

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

Najib visits Vatican;Malaysians write to Pope

Some 340 Catholics and other Christians in Malaysia, in-Some 340 Catholics and other Christians in Malaysia, in-Some 340 Catholics and other Christians in Malaysia, in-Some 340 Catholics and other Christians in Malaysia, in-Some 340 Catholics and other Christians in Malaysia, in-

cluding a string of priests and religious, signed a joint lettercluding a string of priests and religious, signed a joint lettercluding a string of priests and religious, signed a joint lettercluding a string of priests and religious, signed a joint lettercluding a string of priests and religious, signed a joint letter

to Pope Benedict XVI expressing their concern over Primeto Pope Benedict XVI expressing their concern over Primeto Pope Benedict XVI expressing their concern over Primeto Pope Benedict XVI expressing their concern over Primeto Pope Benedict XVI expressing their concern over Prime

Minister Najib Razak’s official visit to the Vatican on 18 JulyMinister Najib Razak’s official visit to the Vatican on 18 JulyMinister Najib Razak’s official visit to the Vatican on 18 JulyMinister Najib Razak’s official visit to the Vatican on 18 JulyMinister Najib Razak’s official visit to the Vatican on 18 July

2011 in view of recent developments in the country.2011 in view of recent developments in the country.2011 in view of recent developments in the country.2011 in view of recent developments in the country.2011 in view of recent developments in the country.

A watershed

C h r i s t i a n - M u s l i md i a l o g u e


wisely began to undertake begin-ning from 2005, shortly after youassumed the papacy. It might bethat you find this sixth prime min-ister of Malaysia an attractive dia-logue partner given that he goesaround the globe promoting him-self as the leader of a moderateMuslim country made up of vari-ous ethnic groups. As well, he hascalled for the formation of a ‘Glo-bal Movement of the Moderates’and that it ought to take centrestage in the international arena.

We believe that there are lessonsthat one can draw from the Ma-laysian experience. For ordinaryMalaysians of different races andfaith are respectful of oneanother’s beliefs and customs,and have learnt to co-operate andlive peacefully side-by-side. How-ever, this is so in spite of theshameful conduct of some of ourpolitical leaders who have un-abashedly manipulated ethno-re-ligious sentiments all these years,and mobilized on ethno-religiousgrounds in order to stay in power.

Indeed, the conduct of prime min-ister Najib and his BarisanNasional (BN) government athome, at least recently, has beenanything but moderate! In ourMalaysian colloquialism, wemight say of the prime ministerthat dia cakap tak serupa bikin,meaning that ‘he does not dowhat he preaches’, or that ‘he doesnot walk the talk’!

In this regard, we are very con-cerned about the timing of this of-ficial visit which follows immedi-ately after recent repression ofcivil society groups which are

fighting for clean and fair elec-tions. We are also deeply con-cerned that some top leaders ofthis democratic initiative havebeen painted unjustly as ‘anti-Is-lam’ by the authorities withoutany basis whatsoever. Below wehighlight a few recent events andepisodes.

Just last week on July 9, 2011, thereoccurred the controversy-ridden‘Walk for Democracy’ that wasinitiated by the coalition of 62NGOs calling themselves Berish2.0 (bersih meaning ‘clean’ inMalay, our national language).The coalition had wanted to holda peaceful street walk in supportof an 8-point program to institu-tionalize clean and fair elections.Numerous glaring incidencesthat have occurred in past elec-tions as reported in themedia, and recountedand confirmed in stud-ies by major research-ers, have indicated thatMalaysia’s electoralsystem and the conductof these elections havenot been free and fair.Significantly, Malaysiahas been ruled by asingle party – the BNcoalition dominated byNajib’s United MalaysNational Organisation(UMNO) – since inde-pendence in 1957, morethan 54 years ago!

It was on account offrustrations arisingfrom these inadequa-cies in the electoral sys-

Cakap takserupa bikin

N a j i b ’ sheavy handed

response to theWalk for Democracy

tem that Bersih was formed.Among others, the respected Ma-laysian Consultative Council ofBuddhism, Christianity, Hindu-ism, Sikhism and Taoism, ofwhich the Catholic church of Ma-laysia is a part, affirmed Bersih’sright to conduct this peacefulwalk for what it considered ‘justdemands’.

In deference to the king, who in-tervened to head off a potentialconfrontation between Bersihsupporters and its extremist de-tractors including from UMNOYouths, Bersih opted to hold arally in the Stadium Merdeka. YetNajib’s BN government declaredthat Bersih was ‘an illegal orga-nization’ and its proposal to holdthe gathering in the Stadium wasrejected by the authorities. On theeve of the gathering, a court orderwas obtained to ban 91 leaders ofBersih and the Opposition (andalso those from anti-Bersihgroups) from entering those parts


of Bersih supporters who camefrom all ethnoreligious back-grounds.

Yet, prime minister Najib hasclaimed that the police had actedprofessionally, and condemnedBersih and the Opposition for tar-nishing the image of the country.We urge you Holy Father andyour Vatican officials to view thevideo clips that were taken of thegoings-on. Significantly, the BarCouncil of Malaysia has com-mented that the police had ‘usedforce excessively’.

Tellingly, two days before the July9 event, Najib had addressed agathering of Malay silat (martialarts) exponents whence, report-edly, he suggested that the silatgroups could be mobilized as athird line of defence against en-emies from within and outside thecountry.

More than this, on July 2 in a gath-ering of about 20,000 people in thetown of Kota Baru, Najib, in a livebroadcast over Radio Malaysia,described Ambiga Sreenevasan,the chairperson of Bersih, as ‘athreat to Islam’ for the watchingbrief she held as the then presi-dent of the Bar Council in the LinaJoy case a few years earlier.

Lina Joy was a Muslim womanwho converted to Catholicism be-fore marrying a member of thefaith. She filed against the Regis-tration Department for registeringher religion as ‘Islam’ in herMyKad (identity card) althoughshe had converted out of the reli-gion.

In spite of the dismissal of hercase, it was popularly understoodby many Malaysians, especiallynon-Muslims, that this was a vio-lation of the freedom of religionguaranteed in the Federal Consti-tution. Najib’s labeling Ambiga asa threat to Islam is a deliberatedistortion of her professional roleas legal counsel in the Lina Joycase.

In the event, this Lina Joy casearises from a conflict between twolegal jurisdictions – the civil lawversus shariah law – that haveemerged in Malaysia. In recentyears, a number of cases involv-ing the conversion of minors toIslam without the knowledge ofthe other spouse; the custody ofchildren and/or the question ofmaintenance following the con-version to Islam of one spouse; thequestion of inheritance and evenfuneral arrangements followingthe death of a spouse who hadpurportedly converted to Islamwithout his family’s knowledge,have been highly controversial. Inthese cases, the non-Muslim liti-gants often found themselveshelplessly trapped between orconfined to only one of concurrentjurisdictions since they do nothave locus standi in the shariahcourt.

Mention should also be made of

Freedom of religion

Detained under the Emergency OrdinanceDetained under the Emergency OrdinanceDetained under the Emergency OrdinanceDetained under the Emergency OrdinanceDetained under the Emergency Ordinance

M a n i p u l a t i n ge t h n o r e l i g i o u s

s e n t i m e n t s

of Kuala Lumpur around StadiumMerdeka under threat of ‘arrest onsight’.

Earlier, Najib’s government hadeven banned the wearing of yel-low Bersih T-shirts. The Bersihoffice was raided and six of theiroffice workers were arrested.Bersih supporters who partici-pated in ‘roadshows’ to publicisethe upcoming event were also ar-rested. Six of them, also membersof the Parti Sosialis Malaysia,were subsequently detained un-der the Emergency Ordinance (aDetention without Trial law) andare now held under solitary con-finement. A leading lawyer hasdescribed these developments assignifying Malaysia’s descentinto ‘a police state’.

In the event, the police came downhard on Bersih supporters whoturned up for the gathering inKuala Lumpur on July 9. The po-lice set up road blocks and barb-wire fences manned by hundredsof policemen thus creating hugetraffic jams throughout the city. Todisperse the Bersih supporters,the police resorted to use of watercannons and fired tear gas into thecrowd, as though the people werethe enemy. A total of 1,667 peopleincluding 151 women and 16 chil-dren were arrested. What was sin-gularly laudable was that therewas no incidence of violence onthe part of the tens of thousands


the Court case between the Catho-lic church and the Malaysian gov-ernment regarding the church’suse of the word Allah in the Catho-lic weekly The Herald. The gov-ernment had ruled that the wordAllah should be confined to useamong Muslims only. At thispoint, a final decision has yet tobe made by the Court.

Related to the above was the con-troversy over the importation anddistribution of the Malay bibleswhich contained the word Allah.One shipment of these Bibles washeld back by the Home Ministryauthorities for several years andthe matter was taken to Court. Al-though the Bibles were releasedin early 2011, unnecessary condi-tions have been imposed on theirimportation into peninsula Ma-laysia, to the dissatisfaction ofChristians.

We highlight these episodes toyou Holy Father because youhave made the defence of the free-dom of religion an importantplank of your papacy.

Finally, there is concern among usthat Najib is also reaching out tothe Holy See at this juncture inorder to secure popular supportin the forthcoming general elec-tion due by early 2013. In the pre-vious 2008 election, the multira-cial, multireligious Oppositioncoalition in Malaysia performedvery well and succeeded in deny-ing the BN government a two-thirds’ majority in parliament(which had previously allowedthe BN government to freelyamend the Federal Constitution atwill). The Opposition coalition

multireligious multiethnic so-cieties, nonetheless, we arewary about the timing of thisvisit by prime minister Najibto the Vatican.

• We are concerned that foreigngovernments and leaders whohost him in his travels mightbe influenced by his pro-nouncements which extol thespirit of moderation, whereasin fact his government hasused unnecessarily excessiveforce time and time again, thelatest being its undemocratictreatment of civil societygroups in Bersih’s Walk forDemocracy episode.

• We wish to highlight, too, howprime minister Najib and otherBN leaders, in trying to stemthe popular support forBersih’s call for clean and fairelections, have manipulatedethnoreligious sentiments irre-sponsibly and attempted todemonise Bersih leaders asanti-Islam.

• We also highlight how therehave been curbs to freedom ofreligion in fact, although thisfundamental human right isguaranteed in the Federal Con-stitution of Malaysia.

• We are also suspicious thatthere is a hidden politicalagenda to win electoral sup-port among the Christians ofSabah and Sarawak in thisvisit to the Vatican.

• We pray therefore that the HolySee will consider these con-cerns seriously and be guidedby the Holy Spirit in its deal-ings with the Malaysian gov-ernment.

Visiting the Vatican tostay in power?

q

also won an unprecedented 5 outof the 13 state governments. Infact, the BN government lost thepopular vote to the Opposition inpeninsula Malaysia.

The reason why the BN was re-turned to power in the 2008 elec-tion was because it had securedvirtually all the parliamentaryseats in the states of Sabah andSarawak located on the island ofBorneo. In other words, the victoryof the BN (as well as for the Oppo-sition) in the upcoming electionwill depend on how well it per-forms in those two states.

In this regard, it is significant tonote that Christians constituted43 per cent of the population inSarawak in 2000, and 28 per centof the population in Sabah as re-corded in the 2000 Census. We aresuspicious that this official visitby Najib and his BN colleagues tothe Holy See will be used by theBN leaders politically i.e. to securevotes for the BN from the Chris-tians in Sabah and Sarawak. It isnot inconceivable that photo-graphs of Najib standing along-side the Holy Father will be widelydistributed throughout the twostates, particularly in the rural ar-eas where the Christian indig-enous people predominate, in therun-up to the next election.

It is with the concerns describedabove that we submit this letter toyou Holy Father.

• While we welcome the estab-lishment of diplomatic rela-tions between our country Ma-laysia and the Holy See, andwe do believe that Malaysia’sexperience in inter-religiousliving and cooperation has les-sons to offer to other

This article and the names ofthe signatories can be viewedat the Aliran webpage.


am writing this as aconcerned citizen, livingin Kuantan for the pastsixty-odd years. My con-

cern is not about my personalsafety or health, as I am well intomy eighties and the call may comeanytime sooner than later. May Ialso add that I have no politicalagenda in this matter and I am nota member of any political party,BN or Opposition.

But my real concern is about thesafety and health of generationsof our children to come, as well asthe expanding population thathas to work, live and perhaps diein the vicinity of the proposedplant. This vicinity includesKuantan Town, Beserah, BatuHitam, Jabor, Balok, SungeiKarang, Cherating and othersettlements along the coast, rightup to Kemaman and may be fur-ther on into the neighbouringstate of Terengganu.

Most of these villages are wellpopulated and growing. The pro-ponents of this project and thosein the authority of the state/Fed-eral Governments now have a sol-

emn duty to ensure the health andsafety of the people in these re-gions for generations to come. ButI am really concerned that what-ever assurance they may give ver-bally or in writing may not holdgood for ever. Nobody, except God,can predict natural disasters like vol-canic eruptions, tsunamis, tidalwaves and floods, which may strikeanytime.

I am sure those who built theplants in the Three Mile Island inUSA (1979), Chernobyl (1986) andFukushima (2011) had taken ut-most precautions to prevent disas-ters and yet they happened. Thou-sands of people died in these di-sasters and thousands more arestill suffering the after-effects ofthese disasters. Do we want to havea similar situation in this country?

The biggest question is ‘Why do wewant this plant in Gebeng or for thatmatter anywhere in Malaysia’?

Are we so hard-up for FDI that weare prepared to accept a backyardindustry, rejected in its own coun-try? Western Australia has all therequired facilities, viz. less popu-

lated region, accessibility to sea-water and port, good transportsystem and infrastructure. So whydo they want to come to Gebeng to dothis job?

According to Datuk Seri AdnanYaakob, “the state government didnot approve the project and it had nopower to stop it…”

“When Lynas first proposed theproject, International Trade and In-dustry Ministry had given the projectto Terengganu . However, due to de-lays (or rejection by Terengganu?) theMinistry asked us to consider hav-

ENVIRONMENT

Lynas: A colossal catastropheLynas: A colossal catastropheLynas: A colossal catastropheLynas: A colossal catastropheLynas: A colossal catastrophewaiting to happenwaiting to happenwaiting to happenwaiting to happenwaiting to happenDuty of every concerned resident of Pahang tojoin hands and stop Lynas from operating itsrare earth processing plant in Gebeng

by M N D’Cruz

IIIII

Datuk Seri Adnan YaakobDatuk Seri Adnan YaakobDatuk Seri Adnan YaakobDatuk Seri Adnan YaakobDatuk Seri Adnan Yaakob


ing the plant in Gebeng” (Press re-port, 20 April 2011).

Does it mean the state governmenthas no power to refuse permissionfor the plant to be built in Gebeng?Land usage is a state matter andthe state should have the last sayin such matters. So it is surpris-ing to note the Ministry of Inter-national Trade and Industry hasforced the Lynas Gebeng Project,down the state’s throat.

“Atomic Board has limited jurisdic-tion” (press report).

Does it mean that in matters out-side its jurisdiction, it can washits hands and put the blame onother agencies like the MalaysianNuclear Agency, the Departmentof Environment and even the StateDevelopment Corporation?

“A full operational licence will notbe issued if Lynas does not meet therequirements that have been set”(press report, 23 April 2011).

So, if the requirements are not metwith, will the RM700 millionLynas plant under constructionnow become a white elephant?

“Lynas, which hopes to begin opera-tion in September 2011, expects tobring in RM8 billion a year from2013 that too tax-free, based on cur-rent prices.”

Who are the real beneficiaries ofthe RM8bn a year income – thestate government, Lynas Austra-lia, the federal government, Lynas(M) Sdn Bhd?

I understand there is LYNAS (M) SdnBhd in existence.

Who are the directors, sharehold-

ers and stakeholders of this com-pany?

It has been reported that a delegationof state exco reps visited the Lynasheadquarters in Australia.

Who sponsored their visit? Didthey see any plant in operationthere? What technical or scientificexpertise did the members of thedelegation have to do an objectivestudy of the pros and cons of op-erating such a plant? Who paidfor their expenses? – Lynas or thestate government?

The raw-material is to be importedfrom Lynas Australia.

Why bring the raw-materials fromAustralia, when it could safely beprocessed there? Is it because the41 safety and health regulationsby the Australian government aremore stringent than whatever con-ditions we may impose in Malay-sia?

According to some experts the‘public is already exposed to natu-rally occurring and ionising ra-diation. Do we need an extra doseof radiation?

The finished products will be takenback to Australia but the ‘tailings’will be ‘safely’ left behind in Gebeng.

Why should we hold on to thistoxic waste for many, many years,even if they are deposited under-ground?

Isn’t it true that there is no ‘safe’level of radiation, as far as its ef-fects on the health of the people isconcerned? (Letter to the Press byMr David K C Quek dated 27 May20 1 1 ) .

Do we want a repeat of BukitMerah, Perak, where the JapaneseCompany which ran the rare-earth plant is spending RM300mto do the clean-up and even aftermore than 25 years, they have notsucceeded in cleaning up, leavingbehind those with birth defectsand eight leukemia cases - sevenhave since died (New York Times,8 March 2011)

“Chinese farmers in China pay theprice for rare-earth addictive” (pressreport)

According to this report, peasantfarmers living near the dumpingground for rare-earth waste inDalahai have –”lost their teeth”,“lost their hair”, “eat contami-nated food”, and “destroyed theircrops”. Do we want any such di-saster to strike us? Do we wantour future generations to blame usfor their sufferings?

“Lynas report will take time” (pressreport 27 April 2011)

“The Panel tasked with review-ing the health and safety aspectsof Lynas (M) Sdn Bhd is expectedto present its report within a year.”(Datuk Fadillah Yusof, DeputyDatuk Fadillah YusofDatuk Fadillah YusofDatuk Fadillah YusofDatuk Fadillah YusofDatuk Fadillah Yusof


Science, Technology and Innova-tion Minister). In the same news-paper International Trade andIndustry Minister Datuk SeriMustapa Mohamed is reported tohave stated “the Panel wouldcomplete the task in a month”.Whom are we to believe?

In the same report it was stated “AnEIA was approved by the Pahang De-partment of Environment on 15 Feb-ruary 2008 and was carried out ac-cording to the highest standard”.

(i) Who were those experts in-volved in carrying out ‘the as-sessment according to thehighest standards’;

(ii) If the EIA was approved in Feb-ruary 2008, why did the au-thorities keep it under wrapsand only now (23 May 2011)bring it out for public displayat a few selected places?

That too, after an article in the NewYork Times dated 8 March 2011exposed the inherent toxic effectson the safety and health of thepeople living around this hugecomplex built over 50ha of land.It is in the interest of the real stake-holders, viz. the ordinary citizensof Kuantan, that the authorities

concerned provide truthful an-swers to points raised in this ar-ticle.

As early as 21 May 2011, Lynas Ltd(Australia) issued a statement that allnecessary safety measures had beenundertaken.

Was it meant to pre-empt the find-ings of the then newly appointedinternational panel of experts?

Lynas review panel must be reformed(press report 23 May 2011)

En S M Mohamed Idris and theorganisations he represents –Consumers Association ofPenang and Sahabat Alam Malay-sia - are internationally knownand well-respected entities. Wecan ill-afford to ignore his com-ments. The state and federal au-thorities should address his com-ments since the review involvesenvironment, public health, radia-tion and safety issues……. Theyare not independent as made outto be. Four (plus one) of the ninepanel members are staff of theIAEA.

Lynas: It is safe to transport rare-earth(press report, 23 May 2011)

If rare-earth is so safe as claimedby Lynas, Australia, why bring itto Gebeng, where the people haveno need for its final product or thetailings. Why not keep it in Aus-tralia and enjoy all the benefits itmay bring? “Charity begins athome.”

It has been reported that a peti-

tion containing 52,000 signaturesof the people expressing their con-cern and protesting against theLynas Gebeng Plant, which theKuantan Member of ParliamentYB Fuziah Salleh tried to submitto the panel, was rejected on thegrounds that it was ‘immaterial’.

Local Agenda 21 clearly statesthat for any sustainable develop-ment to take place, people mustbe consulted and must participatein decision making that is relatedto the development. Yet the Panelblatantly refused even to accept itfor its consideration /deliberation– (press report, 31 May 2011). Noone knows why.

This could best be described ashooliganism by highly emotionaland impressionable youths of aparticular political party, with apolitical agenda orchestrated byinterested parties, bent on gettinginterested parties, bent on gettinginterested parties, bent on gettinginterested parties, bent on gettinginterested parties, bent on gettingthe plant operated, at any cost.the plant operated, at any cost.the plant operated, at any cost.the plant operated, at any cost.the plant operated, at any cost. Itis easy to identify the youths bytheir behaviour in blocking oppo-sition Members of Parliament and

Petition signed by52,000 residents

protesting the buildingof the plant

Datuk Seri Mustapa MohamedDatuk Seri Mustapa MohamedDatuk Seri Mustapa MohamedDatuk Seri Mustapa MohamedDatuk Seri Mustapa Mohamed YB Fuziah SallehYB Fuziah SallehYB Fuziah SallehYB Fuziah SallehYB Fuziah Salleh

The demonstrationsat Hotel Hyatt,

Kuantan on two days


to imagine how nearly 2,000 con-struction workers of all gradesworking feverishly could be laid-off temporarily for an indefiniteperiod.

It is remarkable for the Panel Mem-bers to have completed the sitevisit of the sprawling constructionsite in less than two hours. If theiraim was to study the safety as-pects of the factory being con-structed, nothing much couldhave been achieved. Yet let ushope for the best.

The very fact even the press wasdenied entry to accompany thepanel members raises further con-cern about the safety aspects of theplant. And once in operation,what’s going on inside would beanyone’s guess.

The input given to the Panel byLynas officials and governmentdepartment representatives are

State Assembly members from en-tering the hotel.

An MCA youth was roughed up,camera crew from the presshandled roughly and threaten-ingly, while the security forceavailable failed miserably to con-trol the situation.

The Chairman of the Pro-TermCommittee of ‘Save Malaysia,Stop Lynas’ resigned because ofoutside pressure, which he feltwas threatening his safety andthat of his family. The Vice-Chair-man decided to skip Lynas meet-ings because he too feared for hispersonal safely. (press report 1June 2011).

It is hoped the assurances givenby the Minister of InternationalTrade and Industry and alsovoiced by the panel is being trans-lated at the ground level. It is hard

Why should Lynaswant the plant

in Gebeng?

Suspending theconstruction of the

Lynas plant in Gebeng

Site visit by panelm e m b e r s

certain to be biased towards theproponents of the project andtherefore may not be objective.

An article by Azmi Sharom (pressreport, 2 June 2011) highlightedvarious reasons as to why LynasAustralia wants the biggest rare-earth plant in the world (outsideChina) to be built in Gebeng andnot in their own country. As thewhole issue concerns the safetyand health of thousands of peopleliving in the vicinity of the plant,there should be full and open dis-closure of all the facts regardingthe safety and health of the people.Unfortunately, so far this has notbeen done.

Finally, I strongly feel it is the dutyof every concerned citizen ofPahang, especially those living inKuantan, irrespective of race, reli-gion or political affiliation to joinhands as a united force andstruggle to stop Lynas from oper-ating this rare-earth processingplant in Gebeng. We owe this tofuture generations of our childrenand grandchildren, whose healthand safety are at risk.

It is also my fervent hope andprayer that politicians and politi-cal parties will not highjack theLynas issue for their own politi-cal agenda. Save Malaysia, StopLynas!

After 30 years of service with theMinistry of Education, D’Cruzhas written a host of books onMalaysian labour law. He was amember of the Panel of the Indus-trial Court Malaysia from 1973 to1989.Pro-Lynas protestPro-Lynas protestPro-Lynas protestPro-Lynas protestPro-Lynas protest q


PHOTO STORY

Protesters performed a skit in Perth depicting a van‘decorated’ to represent Lynas Corp being blocked by a wallof protesters lying on the road

Stop Lynas protest in AustraliaStop Lynas protest in AustraliaStop Lynas protest in AustraliaStop Lynas protest in AustraliaStop Lynas protest in Australia



Dr Jeyakumar Devaraj and the restof the PSM 6 were released at 5.30pmtoday. A couple of hours before theywere released, Aliran had issued thefollowing statement:

Aliran is alarmed and seriouslyconcerned over the possible con-sequences to Dr Jeyakumar’s

health resulting from his hungerstrike undertaken yesterday.

His health has not been reallygood. He was hospitalized twicewithin the first two weeks of de-tention. His heart condition is ofgrave concern to the thousands ofMalaysians and friends from allover the world.

His hunger strike will further take

a toll on his health. His health isbound to deteriorate endangeringhim.

The Barisan Nasional govern-ment has driven him to take thisdrastic action as an ultimate stepto proclaim to the world his inno-cence against the diabolical lieslevelled at him for his totally un-justified detention. He is puttinghis faith in God and putting hislife on the line to state that the ac-cusations against him are noth-ing but blatant lies.

This is the only choice left ulti-mately for the brave and the inno-cent who are persecuted by a bru-tal government. This is a moralstand, in keeping with theGandhian principles of non-vio-lence that challenges the conscienceof the BN to prove their false accu-sations and charge him in court.

There comes a time in the life ofthe brave when a moral personchooses to “stand tall and deliverrather than stoop on bended kneescowering for forgiveness of the lifehe has chosen to live”. Kumar haschosen a path that paves the wayfor the downtrodden to walk withdignity. That is a noble path andthere is no reason to renounce it.

If anything untoward were tohappen – God forbid – we inAliran as well as all Malaysianswill not forgive the BN. This cruelgovernment will be held respon-sible for this. The backlash aris-ing from this unspeakable tragedywill punish the BN severely at thenext polls. Yes, and mercilesslytoo!

P RamakrishnanPresident

29 July 2011

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.

Kumar’s hunger s tr ike:a moral stand


The six Parti Sosialis Malaysiamembers who were freed on 29July after 33 days of solitary con-finement are to be charged tomor-row at the Butterworth court. Thiscomes as a complete surprise tomany Malaysians.

Some of the detained PSM activ-ists in a police truck

Considering the fact that all thesesix citizens were accused of veryserious offences in the first in-stance and subsequently cleared,this news that they will be chargedtomorrow is disturbing to Malay-sians.

The police initially accused themof treason, which if proven wouldmake them traitors to the country.This is a terrible accusation. One

G o v e r n m e n ttrivialises human

t r a f f i c k i n g

would think that without solidproof this accusation would notbe levelled against them.

Mysteriously, this accusationsimply disappeared into thin air.Next they were accused of posinga threat to public order. This,again, is a serious offence. Malay-sians were anxiously waiting tobe convinced in what ways thesesix were a threat to public order.Strangely, nothing was producedto support the police claim.

We understand that in the papersthat were served on them theywere accused of being prime mov-ers of Bersih 2.0. But where is theevidence? Those responsible forthe Bersih 2.0 ‘Walk for Democ-racy’ were 62 NGOs. No politicalparty was part of the Bersih 2.0Steering Committee. These six aremembers of a political party. Howthen could they have been primemovers of Bersih 2.0?

One accusation after another wasresorted to in the vain attempt toincriminate the six. Some wouldeven say that lie after lie were con-cocted to fix them. Unfortunatelyfor the police, nothing worked forthem.

Because the police were unable toproduce an iota of evidence, theywere compelled to release the sixunconditionally.

As far as thinking Malaysians areconcerned, that was the end of thestory. The six were free to go with-out being further harassed. Thestate had nothing against them.The state had no hold over them.This is why it is difficult to under-stand why the police would nowwant to charge them. Is this thevengeance of the state for failingto incriminate them?

P RamakrishnanPresident

2 August 2011


es, the ministers andtheir hangers-on willpoint to the English (it’snot just London) riots as

a hopelessly stupid reason for thecrackdown on Bersih.

What they miss is the fundamen-tal difference between Bersih andthe English riots. Bersih was ademonstration of hope — andhope, as some wise person oncesaid, is a memory of the future.

The English riots were the con-verse – a demonstration of hope-lessness, and the absence of fu-tures worth contemplating, madeworse by the expenditure cuts tosatisfy the “market”, namely, therich. It was all right to incur hugedeficits to bail out the fat cats, who– as was clear from the reaction tothe Federal Open Market Commit-tee of the Federal Reserve’s an-nouncement on 9 August 2011 –want more bailouts for them-selves. But when it comes to cuts,it is cut taxes, and cut social ex-penditure. As Joseph Stiglitz putit, we are in a regime of the 1 percent, for the 1 per cent, by the 1 percent (at the top of the income dis-tribution).

However, let’s not beguile our-

selves. Inequality in England ex-ploded in these past three de-cades, starting with Thatcher’s(infamous) declaration that thereis no such thing as society.

Over here, these past three de-cades, concentrated on rightinginter-ethnic inequality, were alsoat the same time creating widen-ing inequalities overall. Today,we have an unemployment rate ofaround 18 per cent amongst ouryoung people aged 15-19, up fromaround 8 per cent in the 1990s;amongst 20-24, it’s a still high 9per cent, not as bad as in Englandor in the US, but still bad.

Meanwhile, although technicallymeasured inequality does not ap-pear to have worsened – whereasit clearly has in England – the ab-solute income gap between the topand bottom has widened.

At the same time, we are increas-

ingly or daily reminded on televi-sion and in the media that weshould define ourselves as con-sumers: we are what we consume,so that those without the where-withal to consume become “los-ers”, “zeroes”, “nothings” orwhatever names the relativelyprivileged arrogantly and igno-rantly choose to call them.

And, as everywhere, the rulers lookto blame “social media” when itaffects them. Fascinating, isn’t it?When it happens in Egypt, “socialmedia” is celebrated in the westand castigated by Egypt’s rulers,but when it happens in England“social media” is castigated byEngland’s rulers, while those inthe ex-colonies might even join inthe blind condemnation of the ri-ots. The old colonial mindset re-mains with us, but even more, theold class divisions and the invis-ibility of the poor and lower classesremain, until they erupt.

FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY

Bersih rally, English riots:A crucial differenceBersih was a demonstration of hope while the English riotswere the converse – a demonstration of hopelessness, notesour special correspondent

by our correspondent

YYYYY

q


would like to touch onthe issue of what type ofdevelopment is Penang,in particular Penang is-

land, heading towards.

Let me begin with an anecdote.Last week I had dinner with MrRamesh Chander who was a ChiefStatistician in the Department ofStatistics of Malaysia in the 1970swho then went to work for theWorld Bank and is an advisor tomany countries in setting up theirstatistics department. He was hereon a visit from Washington DC toadvise SERI, now Penang Insti-tute, on improving their data col-lection. He said the last time hecame to Penang was about threeto four years ago and the thing thatstruck him the most this time wasthe enormous number of high-riseand tall buildings all over PenangIsland. He is not the only one tosay this. Many other visitors haveobserved the same thing. And hecontinued he fears that we areheading towards a housing andconstruction bubble.

The present state government isright to say that it wants GeorgeTown to be an international live-

able city and to be a magnet to at-tract talent to this city. In its rushto achieve this goal, it has openedthe flood-gates to developers tobuild as much and as fast as pos-sible: more houses, more high-riseapartments, more shopping mallsand more commercial offices. Ifthis is not properly planned andcontrolled we could end up de-stroying the unique charm ofPenang island.

One reason why George Townwas awarded world heritage citystatus is because Penang has thelargest stock of prewar houses inSouth East Asia. Indiscriminatelyallowing high-rise buildings tosprout anywhere and everywhere,particularly in areas where thesurrounding buildings are low-rise and historical (not necessar-ily heritage) will kill the goose thatlays the golden egg. Internationaltourists come to Penang not to seemore tall buildings; that they canfind in Hong Kong, New York andSingapore. They come to experi-ence the historical heritage of notonly the heritage zone but thewhole city.

The intention of the recent state

government policy of increasingthe plot ratio from 1:1 to 2.8:1 orthe density to 87 units per acre isto increase the supply of more af-fordable housing. This intentionis good. However, it is unclearwhether that objective can beachieved under this policy with-out fine-tuning.

I have often been told that we needmore housing because there arenot enough houses in Penang andby increasing the density ratio wecan supply enough houses tobring down the prices to afford-able levels. How true is this argu-ment? Is it based on facts? The2010 Population and HousingCensus of Malaysia showed thatthere are 385,658 households and468,278 housing units in Penangstate, an excess of 82,620 housingunits. In plain language, there are21 per cent more housing unitsthan there are households.

The problem of affordable hous-ing is very complex and I cannotoffer a full explanation here. It isgood that the state has asked thePenang Institute to undertake adetailed and proper study. Goodpolicies must be based on proper

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

On sustainabledevelopment for PenangWhat type of development do we want for Penang? Is itrampant and unbalanced development or is it sustainableand balanced development, asks Lim Mah Hui

IIIII


and thorough studies; they can-not be rushed into.

But briefly we can say the hous-ing problem is not that there arenot enough housing units inPenang. The problem is too manyof these housing units are built tocater to a small group of rich localand international investors andspeculators who view Penangproperty prices as still cheap byinternational standards andwhose demand is pushing upprices beyond the reach of the av-erage income earner in Penang.Many own multiple units. Thestate has to come up with a betterpolicy to address this issue.

With increased permissible den-sity, land suddenly becomes evenmore valuable and landownerscan demand higher land prices.Developers, sensing there is moremoney to make, rush to purchaseland with expectation of makinghigher profits. Of course, theywould then want to build up tothe maximum limit and tomaximise their profits. That is thenature of their business.

It is, however, the responsibilityof the state – the politicians, thecouncillors, the civil, the policymakers to provide the checks andbalances, to protect public inter-est, to come up with sensible poli-cies to ensure we have sustainabledevelopment. The increased den-sity ratio is a blunt policy instru-ment for a good objective. Policyplanners and implementers mustimplement it judiciously and notindiscriminately.

Indiscriminate approval for de-

velopers to build to the maximumof 87 units per acre without dueconsideration of ample greenspaces, adequate sunlight and airflow, fields and trees, publicamenities, traffic congestion, andavailability of good transport net-work will destroy our liveable en-vironment. A liveable city has toenhance rather than degrade thenatural environment.

We recently read in the papersabout plans to build 30- to 40-storey high-rise (buildings) inCantonment Road, Burma Roadand Jelutong Road with little re-gard for the traffic impact in thesealready overloaded areas. If wecontinue to indiscriminately ap-prove high-rise and developerscontinue to buy up every plot ofavailable property to build to themaximum density ratio, we willend up like Hong Kong city withhigh-density development andover crowding without the publicinfrastructure to support it.

I am not against development. Theimportant question we need to askis what type of development? Is itrampant and unbalanced develop-ment or is it sustainable and bal-anced development? The adjectiveis more important than the noun.

I am afraid our concept of devel-opment is simply too propertycentric. Can we learn any lessonsfrom the over development ofproperty in Dubai that has col-lapsed? Do we have enough pub-lic parks, green spaces, recre-ational facilities, good publictransport system to sustain a live-able city? Too much emphasis hasbeen placed on property develop-ment and not enough emphasisis given to these other aspects of

development.

Town planning must take intoaccount the use of land space, thenatural and cultural environment,the community needs, the amountof walkways and streets, the fieldsand trees, the movement of people,the type of buildings – do theyblend or clash with the environ-ment? It cannot be just about put-ting up more bricks and mortar.

Let me quote a definition of townplanning as the “ordering ofbuilding and land use accordingto a visually pleasing but practi-cal scheme for the economy, andachieving convenience andbeauty by ensuring accessibilityand managing resource use whileavoiding land use conflict”.

Finally I would like to put for-ward a proposal for consider-ation. We know that the trafficimpact studies for big construc-tion projects have not been effec-tive. One reason is because con-sultants are hired by developers. Isuggest that developers pay to apool to be managed by MPPP tohire its own independent consult-ants. This will reduce any elementof conflict of interests. It will alsoenable a more integrated ap-proach to traffic impact studiesbeyond single projects.

Too property centric

Dr Lim Mah Hui, anDr Lim Mah Hui, anDr Lim Mah Hui, anDr Lim Mah Hui, anDr Lim Mah Hui, anAliran member, is aAliran member, is aAliran member, is aAliran member, is aAliran member, is aCounci l lor with theCounci l lor with theCounci l lor with theCounci l lor with theCounci l lor with thePenang Island MunicipalPenang Island MunicipalPenang Island MunicipalPenang Island MunicipalPenang Island MunicipalCouncil (MPPP). He pre-Council (MPPP). He pre-Council (MPPP). He pre-Council (MPPP). He pre-Council (MPPP). He pre-sented the above addresssented the above addresssented the above addresssented the above addresssented the above addressat a full council meetingat a full council meetingat a full council meetingat a full council meetingat a full council meetingof the MPPP on 26 Au-of the MPPP on 26 Au-of the MPPP on 26 Au-of the MPPP on 26 Au-of the MPPP on 26 Au-gust 2011 .gust 2011 .gust 2011 .gust 2011 .gust 2011 .

q


e did not know theyounger Jing Quee: theJing Quee who was theeditor of Fajar – the Uni-

versity Socialist Club organ, northe Jing Quee, the trade unionistof Satu (Singapore Association ofTrade Unions), nor the Jing Queewho was a Barisan Sosialis can-didate or Jing Quee the politicalprisoner or detainee….

We knew the older Jing Quee andeven that was only made possiblebecause it was he who reached outto us and said, “We will have tosupport you, because you are stillfighting for social-ism.” We in PSMcame across JingQuee only six yearsago– it was in 9-11September 2005,when PSMorganised its first in-ternational confer-ence called Social-ism 2005. It was ahuge success andmany people weknew and did notknow came along.One such couplewas Jing Quee andRose. I spotted Jing

Quee when he looked so passion-ate and brimming with pridewhen the Internationale was sungat the conference. I thought hemight be an old retired comrade.

During one of the sessions, whentwo of the international guestswere debating on who is the moreleft or purist among them, JingQuee stood up and critiqued themas splitting hairs and said thereare more important things that theleft must look at. “Let’s not wasteour time with your hair-splittingdefinitions!” He received loudapplause from the rest and for

putting things back on track.

Jing Quee, as we observed, wasmost of the time quiet but whenhe was not happy, he would standup and make his point. Duringanother debate in 2008, while aforeign speaker was branding theMCP as misled Maoists, Jing Queecame to their defence. He was an-noyed with people labelling with-out understanding the circum-stances. In the same conference,he came to the defence of the newly

elected Maoist Party inNepal. He said that weshould give them achance as we don’tseem to know what theiractual situation is.

From 2005, Jing Queeand Rose were alwayspresent at our socialismfunctions. Jing Queesaid he felt at home be-cause there were stillpeople out there talkingabout socialism. Hecalled this his annualpilgrimage. It was thenthat we slowly got to

OBITUARY

Tribute to Tan Jing Quee( 1 9 3 9 - 2 0 1 1 )He was in fact the bridge linking us with his generation andtheir struggles

by S Arutchelvan

WWWWWA bridge frompast to future


it would be the last time I wouldsee him again.

Then again, Jing Quee against allodds appeared at the ChineseAssembly hall in May to launchthe book, ‘The May 13 Genera-tion’ and ‘The Mighty Wave’.Partially paralysed and havinglost his sight, Jing Quee nonethe-less spoke at the launch and re-sponded to questions. His pointswere sharp and he made sense allthe way. It was a tremendous featof will power and a testament towhat the man was made of.

On Tuesday, 14 June, I received arare email from Rose: Jing Queehad passed away. Visiting him topay our last respects yesterday (17June 2011), it struck me thatthough we may only have knownhim for six years; it seemed as if Ihad lost a very old comrade. Itseemed as if we had known himfor such a long time.

Jing Quee, in the six short yearswe had known him, had been agreat mentor and an inspirationto people like us. Jing Quee al-ways talked about being practical,about being ideological and theimportance of doing work. Therewas this thing about him – hiswitty comments, his tough state-ments, his laughter and his hu-mility. His willingness to shareand listen and his principleswhich would not to be compro-mised. Jing Quee has left a lastingimpression on us.

Rose – his partner for life and com-rade-in-arms - is a great womenwith a big heart. Even yesterday,she was full of life, trying to keepeveryone happy and telling us

know the man and his history. Hewas always humble and alwaysprepared to discuss and listen.Unlike many people in his gen-erations who have retired, JingQuee kept going on, always in-spiring us by telling us that PSMwas doing the right things whilelistening to as well as cautioningus.

His memory and recollectionswere fantastic and he, along withPoh Soo Kai and Kay Yew, amongthe people we got to know throughhim, would relate to us the storiesof the past with such precision asif it had just happened yesterday.Jing Quee was in fact the bridgelinking us with his generation andtheir struggles. He kept telling usthat the story of Singapore andMalaysia is one nation, one his-tory and one struggle.

For PSM – a young party trying tofight it out in the post-cold warera in a sea of capitalism – JingQuee was an inspiration. He al-ways took the trouble to meet upwith us and encourage us: he kepttelling us that the path of social-ism is the right path. Never oncedid he surrender his ideologicalpositions or his ideals. He alwaysspoke about the future with hope.He and Rose together made a for-midable team. They always hadthis youthfulness in them andwere always full of energy andfire.

When we heard and learned of hisprostate cancer and when I vis-ited him with some comrades, JingQuee still had his sense of humour- but he was starting to look quiteill. In December 2010, when I vis-ited him, it struck me that JingQuee was really ill. I left his homethen with the feeling that maybe…

An inspiration

S Arutchelvan is secretaryS Arutchelvan is secretaryS Arutchelvan is secretaryS Arutchelvan is secretaryS Arutchelvan is secretarygeneral of Parti Sosialisgeneral of Parti Sosialisgeneral of Parti Sosialisgeneral of Parti Sosialisgeneral of Parti SosialisMalaysia.Malaysia.Malaysia.Malaysia.Malaysia.

how we should preserve historyand help the older comrades.

PSM pays tribute to Tan JingQuee. His contribution will go along way and inspire future gen-erations to come. Our heartfeltcondolences to his family, hisfriends and to our comrade Rose.The Fajar Generation has contin-ued to give us the dawn we al-ways needed. We will fight on ...for a better world and a better so-ciety.

What then is the truth ?What then is the truth ?What then is the truth ?What then is the truth ?What then is the truth ?

A generation trapped in liesWho rushed to defend, to justifyNever to listen, see or speak out.Only when we open our heartsConfront this barbarismCan we truly exorcise our fears,Finally emerge as a free people,A liberated society.

(The last paragraph from JingQuee’s poem, ISA Detainee)

Farewell, comrade. q


he Bar Council is dis-mayed at the recommen-dation of the Tribunalthat YA Tan Sri Wan

Suleiman and Datuk George Seahbe removed from office on groundsof alleged Judicial misbehaviour.

On a preliminary reading of theReport and the legal argumentsmade on behalf of the Judges, theBar Council is of the opinion thatthe recommendation of the Tribu-nal is unsustainable as againstTan Sri Wan Suleiman and DatukGeorge Seah.

The Bar Council finds it shockingthat theTribunal failed to dealwith and consider the most obvi-ous question before it, namely thatthe representation against, inter-alia, YAA Tan Sri Abdul Hamid,

the Acting Lord President whowas then a Respondent in the pro-ceedings brought by Tun SallehAbas, and that this factor woulddisqualify him from participatingin any matter connected with theproceedings involving Tun SallehAbas.

It is a basic principle of law that alitigant should not appoint theJudges to decide a case in whichhe is involved.

In this regard the Bar Councilfinds inexplicable the reasoningof the Tribunal that Tan Sri WanSuleiman should have contactedthe Acting Lord President andshould have asked “that he be ex-

cused from going to Kota Bharu”.The Tribunal’s conclusion that“this would have been a valid ex-cuse for staying away from KotaBharu” defies accepted normsthat a litigant should not be con-sulted about any matter relatingto his own case.

In the same vein, the Tribunal’sfinding in respect of Datuk GeorgeSeah is equally unsustainable.The Tribunal had concluded thatDatuk George Seah ought to havegiven priority to the Acting LordPresident’s directive to remain inKota Bharu instead of the direc-tive from Tan Sri Wan Suleimanthat he should return to KualaLumpur to attend an anticipatedurgent sitting in connection withthe Tun Salleh matter. The Tribu-nal had ignored the fact that it

PAGES FROM THE PAST

We carry below the full press statement of the Bar Council ofMalaysia on the report of the Tribunal which sacked 2 SupremeCourt Judges and reinstated 3 others. The statement was madeby Bar Council President, the late Raja Aziz Addruse - Editor

Sacking of Judges:Bar DismayedSacking of Judges:Bar DismayedSacking of Judges:Bar DismayedSacking of Judges:Bar DismayedSacking of Judges:Bar Dismayed

I n e x p l i c a b l er e a s o n i n g

TTTTT

Datuk George SeahDatuk George SeahDatuk George SeahDatuk George SeahDatuk George SeahTan Sri Wan SulaimanTan Sri Wan SulaimanTan Sri Wan SulaimanTan Sri Wan SulaimanTan Sri Wan Sulaiman


would have been clearly wrongfor Datuk George Seah to complywith the directive of the ActingLord President because it wascoming from a litigant who wasinvolved in the likely proceedingsin Kuala Lumpur.

The matter is compounded by theglaring omission of the Tribunalto decide on the proper interpre-tation of Section 9(i) of the Courtsof Judicature Act, 1964. This wasthe crux of the whole matter, andit was incumbent on the Tribunalto come to a decision on the inter-pretation of this section beforethey could determine whether ornot the judges were wrong to haveacted as they did under that pro-vision of the law.

It should have been manifestlyobvious to the Tribunal that theActing Lord President becameunable to act to schedule a sittingon the Tun Salleh case by reasonof his being a Respondent in thatcase. It follows that the powernaturally devolved on Tan SriWan Suleiman under Section 9 asthe next senior most SupremeCourt Judge, since the Chief Jus-tice of Borneo was also a Respon-dent in the Tun Salleh proceed-ings.

The Tribunal took the stand that“it is not constitutionally empow-ered to interpret Section 9(i) au-thoritatively” and “that functionbelongs to the Supreme Courtalone”. In failing to give a deci-sion on the proper interpretationof Section 9 (i) the Tribunal failedto answer a question that was cru-cial to the whole case. Thus theTribunal misdirected itself whenit thought it was not empoweredto give an interpretation to Section9 (i). In this regard they had mis-

judged or avoided the significanceof Section 9 (i).

It is surprising that having cometo the conclusion that the viewtaken of Section 9 (i) by the Judgeswas “not unreasonable”, the Tri-bunal should yet find the twoJudges guilty of judicialmisbehaviour for staying awayfrom Kota Bharu and conveningthe sitting in Kuala Lumpur. It istrite law that where there are twoprovision of law, the one morefavourable to the Respondentmust be adopted.

In this context it is even more sur-prising that the Tribunal couldhave come to the conclusion thatTan Sri Suleiman did not hold thehonest belief that he could cancelor adjourn the proceedings inKota Bharu. The Tribunal referrdto Section 39 (2) which says that“the Lord President may cancel orpostpone any sitting of the Court”and went on to state that the lan-guage of Section 39 (2) is unam-biguous.

It is obvious that the Tribunal hadoverlooked its earlier conclusionthat it was not unreasonable forTan Sri Wan Suleiman to havetaken the view that he could exer-cise the powers under Section 9(i). Surely the right to exercise thepower under Section 9 (i), in thecirumstances, where the ActingLord President was disqualifiedon account of being a litigant inthe proceedings would includethe right to exercise the functionsunder Section 39 (2), namely, theright to cancel or postpone a sit-ting of the Supreme Court. There-fore the findings of the Tribunalthat Tan Sri Wan Suleiman couldnot have held the honest beliefwas untenable and unjustified.

At this juncture, the Bar Councilcan only confine its comments onthe above aspect of the Tribunal’sReport. It will issue a further state-ment after it has obtained all theevidence and documents onwhich the Report has been based.

In view of certain specific findingsof the Tribunal and on evidencepresently available to it, however,the Bar Council feels compelled tomake the following observationsin respect of the representationsmade by Tan Sri Hamid Omar, theActing Lord President, to His Maj-esty the Yang Di Pertuan Agongon July 5, 1988.

It is plain from the evidence thatthe representations were factuallyinaccurate in a number of respects.The representations were hastilydrafted and omitted relevant facts.

In his representations the ActingLord President stated that Tan SriWan Suleiman had failed to leaveKuala Lumpur for Kota Bharu to-gether with Datuk George Seahand Datuk Harun Hashim eventhough he had been booked on thesame flight. However, the evi-dence of Datuk Harun Hashimclearly showed that as early asJune 30, 5 days before the repre-sentations were drafted, Tan SriWan Suleiman had arranged totake the later evening flight.

In paragraph 4 of the representa-tions, the Acting Lord Presidentstated that he was informed of TanSri Wan Suleiman’s absence onDatuk Harun’s arrival at KotaBharu on the morning of July 1.The evidence shows that DatukHarun only informed the ActingLord President of Tan Sri Wan

Factually inaccurate


Suleiman’s absence in the eveningat about 5 pm.

These discrepancies are indica-tive of haste and failure on the partof the Acting Lord President toproperly verify the facts whichformed the basis of his serious al-legations against the five Judges.

In his representations the ActingLord President said that he “neverallowed or was informed or hadany knowledge of the sitting con-vened by Tan Sri Wan Suleiman”on July 2. The evidence of EncikHaidar, the then Chief Registrar,shows that as early as 8.30 am, onthe same day the Acting LordPresident had anticipated thepossibility of Tun Salleh’s coun-sel making urgent application tothe Supreme Court and had in-structed Encik Haidar that theRegistry of the Supreme Courtwas not to take any action on anysuch application without first tak-ing directions from him.

Later at about 12 noon, upon be-ing informed by Encik Haidar thatan urgent application had beenmade to the Supreme Court, theActing Lord President instructedhim that the Court staff should notbe involved and the Court roombe not made available to the fiveJudges. Tan Sri Hamid bin Omarfurther expressly instructed EncikHaidar to keep the Supreme Courtseal under lock and key.

In this light it would seem that itwas less than forthright on thepart of Acting Lord President tostate that he was “never allowedor informed or had any knowl-edge of the sitting convened”when he had not only anticipatedthe sitting but also taken steps toobstruct the said sitting of the Su-

preme Court.

In his representations the ActingLord President seems to have theimpression that the five SupremeCourt Judges had given a final or-der as opposed to an interim or-der prohibiting the Tun Salleh Tri-bunal from giving His Majesty theYang Di Pertuan Agong its Report.

Contrary to the allegation that theJudges “took the seal from the Su-preme Court Registry even thoughthe office was closed and the of-ficers had gone home” the evi-dence before the Tribunal estab-lished that the Judges in fact hadnever gone into the Registry or inany way handled the seal.

The Acting Lord President fruthergave the impression that Tan SriWan Suleiman’s personally sign-ing the Order was improper.Clearly this was designed to indi-cate bias on the part of Tan SriWan Suleiman towards the Ap-plicant. However, it is widely ac-cepted that in urgent cases, it isnormal for judges to do so. In thisregard, even the allegation thatthe convening of the SupremeCourt within half-hour was im-proper reflects poorly on Tan SriHamid as it is a fundamental andobvious principle of law that mat-ters of urgency must be dealt withexpeditiously.

It is apparent that the groundsupon which the Acting Lord Presi-dent relied to found the allegationof conspiracy were misconceived.Even giving the worst possibleconstruction to the facts, therecould be no basis to support suchan allegation.

Paragraph 7 of the representa-tions also contained reference torules of procedure in relation toAppeals which were alleged tohave been breached. It did notmention that the sitting was inresponse not to an appeal but anurgent application. This repre-sentation was, therefore, notonly incorrect but also insuffi-cient as it failed to refer to therelevant rules in relation to ur-gent applications.

On the face of it, it is clear that inmaking the representations, TanSri Hamid failed to exercise thecaution and prudence expected ofa holder of high judicial office.

As already mentioned, the ActingLord President was a litigant inthe application before the Su-preme Court and that despite this,having anticipated the applica-tion, he took active steps to ob-struct the due process of law.

The Bar Council also notes thatin the Tribunal, Tan Sri Hashimbin Yeop Abdullah Sani dis-qualified himself on the groundsof likelihood of bias, therebyadding weight to the BarCouncil’s objection to Tan SriHamid’s involvement in theproceedings concerning TunMohd Salleh hin Abas.

In the circumstances it is theview of the Bar Council that TanSri Hamid’s continued presenceas a member of the Bench is un-healthy and seriously compro-mises the integrity of the Judi-ciary. The Malaysian Bar reaf-firms its call for Tan Sri Hamidto immediately resign his posi-tion as Acting Lord President,Chief Justice and Judge of theSupreme Court of Malaysia.

Reflects poorlyon Tan Sri Hamid

q


ith increasedg l o b a l i s a t i o n ,transnational marriagesare more widespread,

necessitating a good governancepolicy for foreign spouses of Ma-laysian citizens.

Foreign spouses should be treatedas part of the Malaysian familyframework, considering that theyare the key care givers and pro-viders for their Malaysian fami-lies, who are their direct benefi-ciaries.

Income earned by foreign spousesis spent on their Malaysian fami-lies within the country and thereis no ringgit outflow to other coun-tries. Foreign spouses of Malay-sians, however, are treated as for-eigners and subject to laws thatgovern foreigners.

Under the current Home Minister,the backlog of Permanent Resi-dence applications has beencleared. But much remains to bedone to improve the plight of for-eign spouses married to Malay-

sian citizens. Arguably, there arestill areas that need serious con-sideration.

Without PR status, mere day today living becomes a challenge forforeign spouses of Malaysian citi-zens. They face severe difficultyin gaining employment in certainsectors such as in law, finance,banking, insurance and other sec-tors such as serving dentists andarchitects, where a licence isawarded to permanent residentsor citizens of Malaysia.

Do bear in mind that permanentresidency is merely the right toreside and does not allow for vot-ing rights. Some countries evenprovide for PR immediately uponmarriage, and citizenship withintwo years of that. Malaysia hasyet to provide a visa policy forpartners in a relationship.

Payment of EPF contributions byemployers for foreign spousesshould be made mandatory.

Unemployed foreign spouses facedifficulty accessing banking facili-ties such as the ability to open abank account in one’s own nameand credit card facilities. Cur-rently foreign spouses are re-quired to deposit RM10,000 tohave access to credit cards, andunemployed spouses are unableto open a bank account in theirname.

Accessibility and same charges forhealth care services as Malay-sians – let it be known that for-eign spouses currently pay doublethe charges to deliver their Malay-sian babies at government hospi-tals. Sometimes, as foreigners, wehave difficulty even admitting ourchildren into hospital, withoutthe presence of our Malaysianspouses.

There should be a more consider-ate policy towards foreignspouses facing domestic violenceand estranged, divorced, andwidowed spouses of Malaysiancitizens who are parents of theirMalaysian children.

PR AND CITIZENSHIP

Review policy for foreignspouses of Malaysianc i t i z e n sA comprehensive immigration policy would provide for thestability and well-being of the foreign spouses, theirMalaysian children and the family unit

by Foreign Spouses Support Group

WWWWWSerious difficulties


Spouses in this category are onlygiven six-month visas, which pro-hibit them from employment inMalaysia. How are they then toprovide for their children andthemselves? This deprives thefamily of stability, their right tolivelihood and a life of dignity.

Spouses who may have the en-dorsement to work will have thisprivilege withdrawn when theirMalaysian spouses fail to renewtheir visas. This happens introubled and estranged marriagesor when the Malaysian spousehas unfortunately passed away orwhen our spouses do not followus to immigration to renew ourvisas.

Thus a parent who may have beenworking to support the childrenwill be given a renewable sixmonth visa, but this visa prohib-its employment, and thesespouses will not be able to workand provide for their children andthemselves.

Moreover in a custody battle, themother may be given custody ofthe child on condition that shedoes not take the child out of thecountry. The irony is that she willbe given a visa that does not al-low her to work and support her-self and her children! Thesewomen are left with the most in-appropriate option of abductingtheir own children to their homecountry.

It is believed that these spousescannot apply for PR if their Ma-laysian spouses do not put intheir application. Even their ownMalaysian children upon attain-ing age 21 years are unable to ap-

ply for PR for their non-citizenparent. Therefore these foreignspouses will have to remain in thiscountry on six-month visas untildeath. Remember that one cannotseek employment under the six-month visa.

Many of us spouses have been liv-ing in Malaysia for decades, Ma-laysia is our first home; we hardlyhave family and support systemsback in our home countries.

How can a spouse in a domesticviolence situation or a divorceeask their Malaysian spouses toapply for PR status? Widows/widowers with children will havetheir PR application withdrawnand cannot seek employment norprovide for their Malaysian chil-dren and themselves unless thereis an intervention by the HomeMinster. A Malaysian wife whois seeking alimony from her non-citizen spouse has to pay for hisjail sentence at RM38 per day ifhe is sentenced in court!

What desperate situations are weputting these spouses into? Theybecome vulnerable and are keptin a state of dependency and indomestic violence situations. Wehave a system which is rigid inawarding the right to reside anddoes not accommodate spouses insuch troubled and traumatic situ-ations, causing severe stress andimpediment to the family unit.

Let us not deprive them of theirbasic human rights. It is perhapstimely for the immigration policyfor foreign spouses to be reviewed.

The eligibility of foreign spouses

for PR should be within threeyears of marriage, inclusive of anapproval time-frame of not morethan one year. This should alsobe extended to spouses who arewidows, divorced or estrangedwith Malaysian children and whohave resided in the country. Thisis in the best interest and welfareof the Malaysian children and thefamily unit. Additionally, it willfacilitate custody and visitationrights for both parents.

Administrative policy that is gen-der biased should be immediatelyreviewed and eliminated, such asthe letter of permission to work bythe Malaysian husband to be pro-vided by wives for the endorse-ment to work. The Malaysian wifehas to show proof of financial sup-port of RM2,000 for her non-citi-zen husband. Malaysia being asignatory to Cedaw should nothave room for such gender dis-criminatory practices.

There needs to be a clear and trans-parent policy and guidelines on thelegal and bureaucratic require-ments for obtaining PR. Theseshould stipulate the time limits forreview of applications, reasonsfor rejection and judicial reviewprocedures for PR.

A comprehensive immigrationpolicy for foreign spouses of Ma-laysian citizens would providefor the stability and well-beingof foreign spouses, their Malay-sian children and the familyunit. This would be in line withinternational protocols and thegovernment’s vision to propelMalaysia towards a high-in-come developed nation, to pre-vent a brain drain and to retaintalent and income within thecountry.

Desperate situations

Review immigrationp o l i c y

q


he Barisan Nasionalgovernment once againshows itself as beinganti-workers and anti-

unions, by trying to change thevery nature of employment rela-tionships in Malaysia.

They are trying to ‘save’ compa-nies and corporations from the‘burdens’ of being employers.They are trying to free them fromtheir obligations as employers toprovide for the welfare and rightsof the workers who work for them– the same workers who producethe products or carrying out theservices that earn these employ-ers their profits.

If you do not have employees,then you do not have to worryabout any unions, collective bar-gaining agreements, employmentagreements, getting rid of work-ers, rest day, annual leave, sick/hospitalisation leave, maternityleave, retirement age, social secu-rity schemes (Socso/Workmen’sCompensation), contributions toemployees provident funds (EPF)or other retirement schemes,Labour Department complaintsand cases by your worker-em-ployees, Industrial Relations De-partments or courts, levy pay-ments, lay-offs and retrench-

ments. If you want to get rid of aworker, just pick up the phone andcall their ‘employer’ and ask themto take the worker away – noworry about due process, domes-tic inquiry, termination notices,and wrongful dismissal allega-tions.

The situation in Malaysia todayis that already many workers inmany factories and workplacesare already not being consideredas employees of the factorieswhere they work. Instead, they areconsidered to be ‘outsourcedworkers’ – employees of theagents or companies that supplythese workers to the factory (the

principal).

One interesting phenomenon isthat factories are not just usingone supplier of workers, butmany different suppliers eachsupplying a certain number ofworkers. Hence, we have work-ers in the factory, some still di-rect employees of the factory,while the others are employeesof many different employers. Ifthis trend continues, then soonthe majority, if not all, workersin a factory may no longer beemployees of the factory but em-ployees of external third-partyemployers, whose business isjust supplying workers.

WORKERS RIGHTS

1Factory 1Employer, pleaseOppose the Employment (Amendment) Bill 2011, which couldfundamentally change the nature of the employer-workerrelationship

by Charles Hector

TTTTT


Even though, in my opinion, thisis illegal and contrary to the lawsin Malaysia, especially the Em-ployment Act 1955, the Malaysiangovernment seems to have chosento ignore this breach in law – andis once again trying to legalise thisby amending the Act. The latestattempt is through the Employ-ment (Amendment) Bill 2011 thatwas tabled in Parliament on 21June 2011.

It becomes very important for usto remind ourselves what an em-ployment relationship is, andwhy it must be a direct relation-ship between the owner/operatorof a factory (the principal) and theworkers that work in the factoryproducing the products that earnprofits for that factory. Thereshould never be some third partyinserted into this current relation-ship or partnership.

On the one hand, there is the per-son/entity that has the capitaland owns the means of produc-tion (the factory, plantation, con-struction company and work-place). To carry out production orservices, this entity needs labour,and this is provided for by humanworkers.

A relationship or partnership isthus created between the entitythat owns the means of produc-tion and the workers who can pro-vide the required labour. This re-lationship justly has been an em-ployer (the principal)–worker re-lationship, which naturally al-ways is an employer-employeerelationship.

The employer (the principal)

thus enters into a contract of ser-vice with its workers. For thework done, workers are paidwages and provided other ben-efits and rights including restdays, annual leave, public holi-days, paid medical/hospitali-sation leave, maternity benefits,social security, retirement pro-visions, and bonuses.

In the determination of this con-tractual relationship between theemployer and workers, negotia-tions and interaction between theworker/s and the employer on allaspects related to the work, in-cluding wages, better and saferworking conditions and otherbenefits will take place.

To better negotiate with the em-ployer in a more just manner,workers can and will likely doso collectively as a trade unionor as a workers association. Thestrength or power that a workerhas in this negotiation processis of course the capacity for col-lective worker actions, whichcould include joint demands,protests, pickets, strikes, go-slow actions and other forms ofcollective action. This is the onlybargaining strength that aworker has, and the lawrecognises these rights includ-ing the right to strike.

To protect this right, there are lawsthat guarantee freedom of associa-tion and the right to form tradeunions and take workers’ action.Employers by law are prohibitedfrom impeding this right to asso-ciate and form trade unions. Em-ployers are clearly prohibited fromgetting rid of workers who try toform unions.

Realising also that workers gen-

erally are in a less favourable bar-gaining position compared toemployers, governments havestepped in with laws, like our Em-ployment Act 1955, that stipulatesthe minimum rights that workersare entitled to, and employers areobliged to provide. This law alsoclearly provides that “any termor condition of a contract of ser-vice… which is less favourable toan employee than a term or con-dition of service prescribed by thisAct…shall be void and of no ef-fect to that extent and the morefavourable provisions of this Act….shall be substituted there-fore….”

If there is a breach by the employeror the worker-employee (or theirunions), the law has set up mecha-nisms or avenues for justice, in-cluding the Labour Department,Industrial Relations Department,Labour Courts, Industrial Courtsand other civil courts.

This employment relationshipalso goes beyond contractual andlegal obligations. Better employ-ers will reward workers with bo-nuses, employee outings and holi-days when the business is doingwell. Worker-employees also donot just do the work but also de-velop a sense of responsibility,belonging, care and pride in be-ing part of the company. A rela-tionship that goes beyond merelya ‘work-for-pay’ relationship alsoencourages better productivityand an improved relationship be-tween the factory and workers,akin to a family. It is also not un-common for workers, when times

An employmentrelationship beyond

contractual and legalo b l i g a t i o n s

1 Factory, 1 Employer,1 Union


are bad, to agree to take part-payfirst until the situation improvesor even work overtime and on restdays when there is a need. Sportsand other social activities de-velop this kind of environment.Workers develop a sense loyaltyand will generally stay on work-ing for the factory until retirement.Good employers reward this loy-alty with wage increments andbetter benefits.

This was how a employment re-lationship was and should al-ways remain – and this is also re-flected in the employment laws ofMalaysia that provide for in-creased entitlement for longer ser-vice, like annual leave and medi-cal leave. Length of service is alsoa consideration when it comes tocalculating termination and lay-off benefits.

This employment relationship hasa humane caring element about it,and this is good. It was neverdriven just by profits and losses,and it should never be so since weare dealing with human beings.

Sadly, our current BarisanNasional government seems to bedetermined to destroy this justemployment relationship, by theintroduction of third parties intowhat should be a two party rela-tionship. The government is try-ing to make new employers out ofsuppliers of workers to factories,by legalising ‘contractors forlabour’. This was something that, I believe, was intentionally leftout from the Employment Act

1955 by earlier law-makers.

In July 2010, the government triedto amend our Employment Act(vide Bill DR 25/2010). They triedto clearly and transparently ex-tend the definition of “employer”to include also “any person whosupplies or undertakes to supplyany employee engaged by him toany employer, principal, contrac-tor or sub-contractor”. This Bill,after much protest was with-drawn in October 2010.

Now in June 2011, they have in-troduced again the Employment(Amendment) Bill 2011(DR152011E), but this time theyhide the intention to make the sup-plier of workers employers.Again, they try to introduce the“contractor for labour”, and thatsame new section 33A, whichstates “a contractor for labourwho intends to supply or under-takes to supply any employee”,which from the wording used canimply that after the worker is sup-plied to the factory by the ‘contrac-tor of labour’, that worker maystill remain the employee of thesupplier – and not the employee

of the factory. They are still tryingto make ‘suppliers of workers’ intoemployers, even after the workerhas been accepted by the factoryand started working there.

This is wrong, for once a factoryaccepts the worker, it should bethe factory that becomes the em-ployer, and the ‘supplier’ shouldcease to be in the picture.

One of the main objections in 2010was about the introduction of this‘contractor for labour’, but some-how this BN government does notlisten to workers, their unions andothers.

Because they have the majority ofMembers of Parliament (MPs), andgiven the fact that BN MPs do nothave the guts or the freedom tovote against Bills put forward bythe government, these Bills arepushed through and made law.As an example, the last so-called‘minimum wage’ Bill, was tabledon 21 June, debated for about fourhours and passed in less than 10days. There was no time for pub-lic consultation, let alone time forMPs to even study the Bill and getG o v e r n m e n t

out to destroy juste m p l o y m e n t -r e l a t i o n s h i p s


feedback from their constituents.

Well, the current Employment Actrecognises the ‘sub-contractor forlabour’, who can only supplyworkers to contractors and sub-contractors but not the principal(being the factories, plantationsand workplaces). This was inten-tional to ensure that as far as prin-cipals are concerned, there willonly be one kind of employmentrelationship, that is the one be-tween the principal and the work-ers that work for them – an em-ployer-employee relationship.

Contractors and sub-contractors,are those who are given certain,usually short term, contracts atthe premises/workplaces of theprincipal - generally nothing todo with the usual work/businessof the principal. This work wouldbe maybe some electrical/pipingwork or repair, painting, someconstruction work, and the dura-tion that they generally need work-ers is usually significantlyshorter. Of late, some kinds ofwork, again not related to actualproduction, like security andcleaning services have also beencontracted out – or rather‘outsourced’ to some securitycompanies or cleaning/mainte-nance companies. There is adoubt whether these security andcleaning companies would comeunder the original meaning in-tended for the words contractor orsub-contractor that is found in theEmployment Act.

Malaysian law already allows forthe private employment agencythat “acts as intermediary for the

purpose of procuring employmentfor a worker or supplying aworker for an employer”, but thisis very different from what the‘contractor for labour’ is expectedto do. They would not be supply-ing workers for an employer,rather supplying their own em-ployees to work for the employer(principal), and this is very differ-ent. There is really no need for‘contractors for labour’ – for theproblem of finding workers can al-ready be handled by these privateemployment agencies.

Now, employers (principals) canalways use agents to assist themin certain aspects of recruiting,housing and management ofworkers, but these will always bethe employer’s agents, and theultimate responsibility of beingthe employer rests with the prin-cipal. The government did stateonce that they never wanted‘outsourcing agents’ to be the em-ployers – but alas, lack of enforce-ment of the law has allowed manybad employers (principals) to tryto evade/disguise employment re-lationships with workers in theirown factory, claiming that work-ers supplied by these‘outsourcing agents’ (contractorsfor labour) are not their employ-ees.

How will this affect unions andbargaining powers?

Well, if there is a significant num-ber of workers working in a fac-tory who are not employees of thefactory, that will certainly dimin-ish the bargaining power of theunions. Why? Because if there isto be a union action like a protest,go-slow or even strike, it will notaffect the factory much as opera-tions can still proceed with the

other workers who are not em-ployees of the factory.

The factory will be practising a‘divide-and-rule’ policy, and thiswill seriously jeopardise workers’struggles for better working con-ditions, rights and benefits in thefactory.

In fact, even the desire to join orform such a weakened union willdecrease. As it is, when employ-ers were allowed to avoid secu-rity of tenure for employees by re-sorting to the use of workers un-der fixed duration contracts andmore recently that new class of‘part-time employees’, interest inunions diminished significantly.The worry of fixed-term employ-ees has always been that their con-tracts would just not be renewedif they joined unions or startedclaiming rights.

As it is, the number of tradeunions and workers who aremembers of unions is already verylow, about 8 per cent of theworkforce. Apparently, only 3.2per cent of private sector workersare unionised. The reason for thishas not only been the difficultiesin organising and forming unionsthat have been imposed by law,but also the new employmenttrends that our pro-employer gov-ernment have been adopting. Theentry of migrant workers, fixed-term contract employees and part-time employees has already af-fected trade unions. Soon, if we donot manage to stop it, we will seethe emergence of a situationwhere in a factory, there will be alarge number of workers who arejust not employees of the factory,

MTUC and the tradeunion movement

Why the objectionabout ‘ contrac tors

f o r l a b o u r ’ ?


but employees of many different‘contractors for labour’. That maybe the last nail in the coffin thatwill put many unions in Malay-sia to rest.

The problem of these ‘contractorsfor labour’, if they are to belegalised, is that they supplybatches of workers to different fac-tories and workplaces. As such,their own ‘employees’ not onlywould not be able to physicallymeet each other, organise andform unions – but they may alsonot be able to be part of any cur-rent national, state or regionaltrade unions that are all sector-based. The ‘contractor for labour’may be supplying 500 workers tothe plantation sector, 200 to theelectronic sector, 200 to the textilesector – so, which national, stateor regional unions will the em-ployees of these proposed ‘con-tractor for labour’ come under –the National Union of PlantationWorkers? The Regional Union ofElectronic Workers? The TextileWorkers Union? How then dothey enter into collective agree-ments that deal with work condi-tions – for their working condi-tions will certainly differ depend-ing on where they actually work.(Our proposed ‘contractor forlabour’ really will not have anycontrol about working conditionsin the factory, would they?)

Will the rights and welfare ofworkers and their families be ourpriority?

Well, the problem in Malaysia isthat workers’ rights and concernscertainly have not attracted muchmedia attention, and one wonderswhether the government had ahand in this. We do not see thePrime Minister or ministers visit-

ing workers at their workplaces,listening to their grievances anddoing something about them.Likewise, alternative media alsodo not give much coverage toworkers’ issues. Sadly, there isalso no regular workers’ magazineor periodical – and for this, maybethe bigger national unions, in-cluding the MTUC, have to bearpart of the blame. Building upworkers’ awareness and union-building activities is also muchlacking.

What is sad is that at one time,the workers’ movement was avery influential player in society,and governments and politicalparties struggled to get their sup-port, and to do that workers’rights and welfare were a prior-ity on the political agenda. To-day, let us not forget that thereare still more than 10 millionworkers in Malaysia, and theyconstitute a large percentage ofthe electorate who vote in parlia-mentarians and the government;so maybe there must be a renewedinterest in matters affecting work-ers and their unions.

There is an urgent need for not justpoliticians, but all justice-lovingMalaysians to come together indefence of workers and theirunions. Maybe the first thing thatwe need to do is to lobby and en-sure that the new Employment(Amendment) Bill 2011 does notget passed. We have to lobby forthe maintaining of a just employ-ment relationship, so that in a fac-tory, there will only be one em-ployer and all workers workingthere are employees of that oneemployer. We have to lobbyagainst the turning of ‘suppliersof workers’ or ‘contractors forlabour’ or ‘outsourcing compa-

Aliran member CharlesAliran member CharlesAliran member CharlesAliran member CharlesAliran member CharlesHector is a lawyer with anHector is a lawyer with anHector is a lawyer with anHector is a lawyer with anHector is a lawyer with aninterest in human rightsinterest in human rightsinterest in human rightsinterest in human rightsinterest in human rightsand workers’ issues.and workers’ issues.and workers’ issues.and workers’ issues.and workers’ issues.

nies’ into employers.

Some may not be bothered becausethey believe that all this will onlyaffect migrant workers – but it isalready affecting local Malaysianworkers, who are already todaybeing supplied by ‘outsourcingagents’ to factories, who do notregard them as employees of thefactory. Some believe that it willonly affect the private sector, andagain they would be wrong: if theact is amended, then sooner orlater, those working in govern-ment establishments may also endup not being employees of the gov-ernment – but some third party‘contractor for labour’. Many civilservants were indifferent whenthey started ‘fixed-term contracts’in the private sector, but alas to-day, governments also are usingworkers employed on fixed-termcontracts.

This is an issue that concerns allworkers, now and in the future,and all Malaysians need to pro-test at our current Barisan Na-tional government’s attempts todestroy just employment relation-ships - which will be highly detri-mental to all workers and theirfamilies. Given the state of affairsin our Malaysian Parliament,maybe we may need to come outagain in large numbers in peace-ful assemblies, as was done re-cently with regard to free and fairelections, to effectively communi-cate the position of Malaysians onthis issue that will affect workersand their unions. q


Mr./Ms.

Address

Occupation Tel. No.

Email

Subscription (11 issues per year)Subscription (11 issues per year)Subscription (11 issues per year)Subscription (11 issues per year)Subscription (11 issues per year)

1 year 2 years 1 year 2 years 1 year 2 years 1 year 2 years 1 year 2 years

Donation to Aliran ..............................................Donation to Aliran ..............................................Donation to Aliran ..............................................Donation to Aliran ..............................................Donation to Aliran ..............................................

TOTAL Enclosed : Money Order / Postal Order / Cheque

(No. ) payable to: Persatuan Aliran Kesedaran Negara.payable to: Persatuan Aliran Kesedaran Negara.payable to: Persatuan Aliran Kesedaran Negara.payable to: Persatuan Aliran Kesedaran Negara.payable to: Persatuan Aliran Kesedaran Negara.

AM 2011: 31(8)

Please send this gift subscription to :

Mr./Ms.

Address

Occupation Tel. No.

Subscription for 11 issues 1 yearSubscription for 11 issues 1 yearSubscription for 11 issues 1 yearSubscription for 11 issues 1 yearSubscription for 11 issues 1 year 2 years 2 years 2 years 2 years 2 years

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

amounting to RM payable to:

Persatuan Aliran Kesedaran NegaraPersatuan Aliran Kesedaran NegaraPersatuan Aliran Kesedaran NegaraPersatuan Aliran Kesedaran NegaraPersatuan Aliran Kesedaran Negara

This gift subscription is paid for and presented by:

Mr./Ms.

Address

Date Signature

ONE YEARONE YEARONE YEARONE YEARONE YEARRM30S$40

U S $ 3 5US$30US$40US$45

TWO YEARSTWO YEARSTWO YEARSTWO YEARSTWO YEARSRM60S $ 7 5

US$60US$52U S $ 7 1US$82

SUBSCRIPTION RATESCOUNTRYCOUNTRYCOUNTRYCOUNTRYCOUNTRYMALAYSIASINGAPOREJAPAN, AUSTRALIA, NEW ZEALANDOTHER ASIA PACIFIC COUNTRIESEUROPE, RUSSIA, CENTRAL ASIA, MIDDLE-EASTNORTH AMERICA, SOUTH AMERICA, AFRICA

GIFT SUBSCRIPTION ORDER FORMGIFT SUBSCRIPTION ORDER FORMGIFT SUBSCRIPTION ORDER FORMGIFT SUBSCRIPTION ORDER FORMGIFT SUBSCRIPTION ORDER FORM

ALIRAN MONTHLY SUBSCRIPTION FORM

RM

RM

RM

Be aBe aBe aBe aBe aconcernedconcernedconcernedconcernedconcerned

Malaysian,Malaysian,Malaysian,Malaysian,Malaysian,Subscribe toSubscribe toSubscribe toSubscribe toSubscribe to

AliranMonthly

N O WAM 2011: 31(8)

Send this form and payment to

ALIRAN103, MEDAN PENAGA,

11600 JELUTONG,PENANG, MALAYSIA

“We must learnto live together

as brothers,or we are

going to perishtogetheras fools”

Martin Luther King Jr


In the 446 years between 1511 and1957, Malaya was colonised bythree European powers and oneAsian. The Portuguese colonisedMalacca from 1511 to 1641 andthe Dutch from 1641 to 1824. TheBritish were in Malaya from 1786to 1941 when the Japanese in-vaded and took over until 1945.The British then returned to con-tinue its rule over Malaya until1957, when the country gained in-dependence. Additionally, for aperiod of 38 years between 1786and 1824, two European powersruled parts of Malaya – the Brit-ish over Penang and the Dutchover Malacca.

Malaysia’s colonial history wasprobably unique in the annals ofimperialism in that we werecolonised by four different foreignpowers. Does this suggest that wewere a valuable colony. Beingwary of different forms of colonial-ism and standing united againstforeign occupation, rather thanjingoism that pits the differentraces against each other in ourplural society, is true nationalism.However critical we may be of ourgovernment and institutions, atthe end of the day, we must begrateful that Malaysia is an inde-pendent, sovereign nation whichjustly has a place in the worldcommunity.

Likewise, however critical one isof colonial rule, it must be con-ceded that colonialism had someredeeming factors. Thus, Malay-sia benefited from some coloniallegacies such as the civil serviceand the educational, transporta-tion and legal systems, parliamen-tary democracy and the Englishlanguage. How enduring the ef-

fect of empire is, is difficult to mea-sure because Malaysians were re-silient to foreign influence, hav-ing retained our religions, culture,food, dress and other aspects ofour identity, despite the presenceof various colonial powers and theduration of colonialism.

Since Merdeka, Malaysia enjoysthe best of relations with the fourcolonial powers. Should we seekreparations from each of them orat least a public apology are mat-ters worthy of public debate.There is no threat of Malaysia be-ing colonised again through bru-tal invasion by any of its fourformer colonisers. However, it isa terrible regret that colonialismof this nature still exists in the 21stcentury. The US is the most dan-gerous colonial power in the 21stcentury. Since September 11, 2001the US has invaded and occupiedtwo sovereign states – Iraq and Af-ghanistan in the old-fashionedway. Both countries remain

New forms ofi m p e r i a l i s m

Tommy Thomas is anTommy Thomas is anTommy Thomas is anTommy Thomas is anTommy Thomas is anadvocate and solicitor.advocate and solicitor.advocate and solicitor.advocate and solicitor.advocate and solicitor.

colonised, even though Osama binLaden has been executed and thepublic justification for invadingAfghanistan has disappeared.There was none for Iraq.

Malaysia is fortunate in that weare not deemed to be of strategicimportance to the policy-makersin Washington and hence, Malay-sia is not likely to be occupied bythe US. Malaysians must counttheir blessings that in the geo-stra-tegic plans of the Pentagon andthe CIA, we are low down in theradar, particularly sinceneighbours like Singapore, thePhilippines and Thailand aremore supportive of US interests.

Over time, new forms of imperial-ism have developed. Thus, finan-cial, economic and cultural impe-rialism have emerged. Holly-wood films and an obsession withEnglish football are subtle typesof contemporary cultural imperi-alism which Malaysians are ad-dicted to.

It is vital for public discussion totake place on the effects of empireand imperialism. It is not healthyto pretend that we were never un-der colonial yoke, and that ourhistory only began with Merdekain 1957. Can the debate begin?

Editor's noteThis article effectively rubbishes theclaim of academician Zainal Klingand historian Khoo Kay Kim thatMalaya was never colonised by theBritish.

REMEMBERING 500 YEARS OF COLONIALISM Continued from page 40

Cheng HoCheng HoCheng HoCheng HoCheng Ho

q


he Malay Peninsula wascolonised 500 years agothis year, and its signifi-cance in our history

should be marked in some way byuniversities and scholars. Weshould be having public semi-nars and academic conferences toremember and discuss this aspectof our history in its 500th anni-versary. I am surprised thatnearly half a year has passed, andno University has publicly an-nounced any such initiative.

Remembering that the Malay pen-insula was colonised half a mil-lennium ago is one way to remindthe post-independence genera-

tion of Malaysians to be gratefulfor Merdeka. It is critical to teachthe present generation about thedangers of empire and colonial-ism so that we can celebrate whatindependence means and paytribute to the people who foughtfor it. Parts of the Malay Penin-sula have only experienced 54years of self-governance since1511 when the Portuguese in-vaded and colonised Malacca.Soon after the founding of Mal-acca by Parameswara in 1403, itrapidly developed into a majorentrepot in South-East Asia, withtraders from the Indonesian archi-pelago, China, India and Arabiacrowding its market-place. Admi-

ral Cheng Ho led the then great-est naval expedition to Malaccaand could have easily taken Mal-acca by force. The Chinese did notdo that : instead, they were con-tent to allow Malacca to governitself through the Malacca Sultan-ate. Hence, throughout the 15thcentury, no foreign powercolonised Malacca.

Vasco da Gama’s arrival inCalcutta in 1498 after discoveringthe Cape of Good Hope route sawthe first European presence in In-dia, from which the Portugueselaunched their violent takeover ofMalacca in 1511. The Portuguesewere not content to trade in themarkets of Malacca like all theother traders. The urge to domi-nate, combined with their senseof racial superiority, led the Por-tuguese to use force to conquerMalacca. Control and monopolyof the lucrative spice traded in themarkets of Malacca was a primaryobjective of the Portuguese.

HISTORY

R e m e m b e r i n g500 years of colonialismIt is vital for public discussion to take placeon the effects of empire and imperialism

by Tommy Thomas

TTTTT

Four differentcolonial powers

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

Documents

MONTHLY - AliranAliran Monthly : Vol.31(8) Page 6 Permatang Pauh, Penang. According to the blogger, of the 64 voters, 51 are Malays and the rest Indians. Following Perisik’s disclosure,