Thursday, September 10, 2009

Mutual Respect: : Let us stop refering to Indonesians as 'Indons" . it is an offensive term

Mutual respect is needed by both Malaysians and Indonesians. Unknowingly, many of us have been very disrespectful in our calling of Indonesians - "Indons". They do not like it at all.

I was recently reprimanded by an Indonesian friend when I used the word, 'Indon'. She angrily told me that for Indonesians, that term is derogatory. She said that we should just call them Indonesians. 'Do not call us 'Indons' .

Our government also said that it will stop using that term - but alas some of newspapers still use that term...

I just did some research on this, and true enough what she said was true.

An offensive term used by Malaysians. It is even used by the government, signifying the biased opinions of the Malaysian Government. Used in the same context as 'nigger', offensive only if used by Malaysians.

"I'm jealous of those rich indons" - Malay person. - Urban Dictionary
In fact, the Indonesian government has also formally requested that Malaysians do not use the term 'Indon' anymore.

AND the Malaysian government have also called on every one to stop using the term, 'Indon'
Malaysian Information Minister Datuk Seri Zainuddin Maidin said he had called on Malaysian citizens and media not to use the term 'Indon' for Indonesia. "I have made an appeal to the Malaysian media and people not to use terms which could slacken the relations between Malaysia and Indonesia which have been good so far," the Malaysian Minister told ANTARA on the sidelines of a conference of ASEAN Ministers Responsible for Information (AMRI) here on Thursday. He said Malaysia understood that the use of the word 'Indon' hurts the feelings of the Indonesian people so that on Wednesday he called on the Malaysian public not to use the term. "We only provided directives and would not take sanctions against those who still use the term 'Indon'," he said. He said that there were a lot of non-obligatory but firm advices that were applied in social intercourse in Malaysia. "If they violate the directives we will summon them and remind them again," Datuk Zainuddin Maidin said. - Antara News, 24/5/2007, MALAYSIANS TOLD TO STOP USING 'INDON' F0R INDONESIANS


""Indon politicians in bitter dispute,"" read the headline of a widely circulated Malaysian newspaper. ""Najib: Don't abuse Indon workers,"" read another. A third headline in The New Straits Times read, ""INDONESIA: Advertisers desert Indon playboy,"" while Starbiz wrote, ""Telekom wins bid for Indon celcom"".

The term Indon, referring to Indonesia or Indonesias, has become more popular among Malaysian people, whether it is used as an insult or not.

Indeed many Indonesians living in Malaysia feel extremely irritated when the term ""Indon"" is aimed at them, particularly when it is used in a scornful tone. They have complained to the Malaysian government regarding this.

Why should Malaysian people continuously use this term when referring to Indonesian nationals? Should Indonesians simply accept this? If not, what should they do?

It is interesting to observe how major newspapers in Malaysia (some of which are published in Singapore) are willing to introduce such a derogatory term in addressing their neighboring nation. - Jakarta Post, 1/10/2007, Should we retaliate by calling them Malokai?

Sementara itu, Hamka mengatakan di Indonesia, istilah 'Indon' tidak pernah digunakan oleh rakyat Indonesia sendiri.

"Walaupun Indon hanya istilah, rakyat Indonesia menganggapnya sebagai martabat, harga diri dan identitas sebagai satu bangsa yang berdaulat. Oleh karena itu, kami minta rakyat Malaysia memahami dan menghormati perasaan rakyat Indonesia sebagai rekan yang berkongsi budaya, agama serta sejarah sama," ujar Hamka. - Antara News

Tuesday, September 08, 2009

Cow-Head Protest - They must be charged under section 298 and/or 298A of the Penal Code NOT for illegal assembly ...not under the Sedition Act

If those involved in the said 'cow-head protests' are to be charged in court they should be charged under section 298 and/or 298A of the Penal Code - not for illegal assembly...definitely not under the Sedition Act.

We have been calling for the repeal of all laws that criminalize freedom of assembly..., and that is why we must not at all be happy that the Attorney General have decided the said cow-head protesters under Section 27(5) of the Police Act 1967 for illegal assembly - we must protest this.

Likewise, his decision to charge for an offence under Sedition Act. Remember this is an evil act that we have always been campaigning for its repeal.

The truth is that we have section 298 of the Penal Code - and, if these persons are to be charged for any offence, it must be under section 298 of the Penal Code. Section 298A may also be relevant.

298. Uttering words, etc. with deliberate intent to wound the religious feelings of any person.

Whoever, with deliberate- intention of wounding the religious feelings of any person, utter any word or makes any sound in the hearing of that person, or makes ant gesture in the sight of that person, or places any object in the sight of that person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.


298A. Causing etc, disharmony, disunity, or feelings or enmity, hatred or ill-will, or prejudicing, etc., the maintenance of harmony or unity, on grounds of religion.

(1) Whoever by words, either spoken or written or by signs, or by visible representations, or by any act, activity or conduct, or by organising, promoting or arranging, or assisting in organising, promoting or arranging, any activity, or otherwise in any other manner-

(a) causes, or attempts to cause, or is likely to cause disharmony, disunity, or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will; or

(b) prejudices or attempts to prejudice, or is likely to prejudice, the maintenance of harmony or unity,

on grounds of religion, between persons or groups of persons professing the same or different religions, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term of not less than two years and not more than five years.

(2) Sections 173A and 294 of the Criminal Procedure Code (F.M.S. Cap. 6) shall not apply in respect of an offence under subsection (1).

(3) Where any person alleges or imputes in any manner specified in subsection (1)-

(a) that any other person, or any class, group or description of persons, professing any particular religion;

(i) has ceased to profess that religion; or

(ii) should not be accepted, or cannot be accepted, as professing that religion; or

(iii) does not believe, follow, profess, or belong to, that religion; or

(b) that anything lawfully done by any religious official appointed, or by any religious authority established, constituted or appointed, by or under any written law, in the exercise of any power, or in the discharge of any duty, or in the performance of any function, of a religious character, by virtue of being so appointed, established or constituted, is not acceptable to such person, or should not be accepted by any other person or persons, or does not accord with or fulfil the requirements of that religion, or is otherwise wrong or improper,

he shall be presumed to have contravened the provisions of subsection (1) by having acted in a manner likely to cause disharmony, disunity or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will, or likely to prejudice the maintenance of harmony or unity, between persons or groups of persons professing the religion referred to in the allegation or imputation.

(4) (a) Where, on any ground of a religious character, any person professing any particular religion uses for burial or cremation of any human corpse a place other than one which is lawfully used for such purpose by persons professing that religion, he shall be presumed to have contravened the provisions of subsection (1) by having acted in a manner likely to cause disharmony, disunity or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will, or likely to prejudice the maintenance of harmony or unity, between persons or groups of persons professing that religion.

(b) Where any person, on any ground of a religious character, counsels, advises, instigates, urges, pleads with, or appeals or propagates to, or in any manner or by any means calls upon, whether directly or indirectly, any other person or persons professing any particular religion-

(i) to use for burial or cremation of any human corpse a place other than one which is lawfully used for such purpose by persons professing that religion; or

(ii) not to use for burial or cremation of any human corpse any place which is lawfully used for such purpose by persons professing that religion; or

(iii) not to use for worship any place which is lawfully used for such purpose by persons professing that religion,

he shall be presumed to have contravened the provisions of subsection (1) by having acted in a manner likely to cause disharmony, disunity or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will, or likely to prejudice the maintenance of harmony or unity, between persons or groups of persons professing that religion or different religions.

(5) Where any person who is not a religious official appointed, or a religious authority established, constituted or appointed, by or under any written law purports to exercise any power, or to discharge any duty, or to perform any function, of a religious character, being a power, duty or function which can be lawfully exercised, discharged or performed only by a religious official appointed, or a religious authority established, constituted or appointed, by or under any written law, he shall be presumed to have contravened the provisions of subsection (1) by having acted in a manner likely to cause disharmony, disunity or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will, or likely to prejudice the maintenance of harmony or unity, between persons or groups of persons professing the same or different religions.

(6) The foregoing provisions of this section shall not apply to-

(a) anything done by any religious authority established, constituted or appointed by or under any written law and conferred by written law with power to give or issue any ruling or decision on any matter pertaining to the religion in respect of which the authority is established, constituted or appointed; or

(b) anything done by any person which is in pursuance of, or which accords with, any ruling or decision given or issued by such religious authority, whether or not such ruling or decision is in writing, and if in writing, whether or not it is published in the Gazette.

(7) It shall not be a defence to any charge under this section to assert that what the offender is charged with doing was done in any honest belief in, or in any honest interpretations of, any precept, tenet or teaching of any religion.

(8) If in any proceedings under this section any question arises with, regard to the interpretation of any aspect of, or any matter in relation to, any religion, the Courts shall accept the interpretation given by any religious referred to in subsection (6), being a religious authority in respect of that religion.


I am saddened that sometimes when angry we forget .... and start calling for others to be arrested and charged for illegal assembly...arrested under the ISA... whipped...

We should be driven by principles...and this must be constant - and, as such we must protest the charging of people under illegal assembly laws...or even that draconian Sedition Act. More so, in this case where the Penal Code provides very clearly for such offences...

It is the act of dragging along the cow's head...the stomping on the cow's head... acts that is totally insensitive and disrespectful to our Hindu brethren, for whom the cow is very sacred.

I must state that I am very proud with my fellow Malaysians of the Hindu faith for their patience and calm in this issue.

The newspaper report about what the protesters may be charged with is as follows:-

The cow’s head protesters are likely to be charged with sedition and illegal assembly today.

Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail confirmed in a statement issued yesterday that the protesters in the controversial demonstration against the relocation of a Hindu temple in Section 23 in Shah Alam on Aug 28 would be hauled to court.

He said: “I have decided to charge those who carried and spoke while stepping on the cow’s head under Section 4(1) of the Sedition Act alternatively Section 298 of the Penal Code.

“They, as well as the other demonstrators, will also be facing another charge under Section 27(5) of the Police Act 1967 for illegal assembly.”

Those charged under Section 4(1) of the Sedition Act are liable to a fine not exceeding RM5,000 or jail terms of not more than three years or both, while under Section 298 of the Penal Code, offenders can be jailed up to a year and/or fined.

For illegal assembly, the punishment is a fine of between RM2,000 and RM10,000 and a jail term of up to one year.

Abdul Gani said the police had personally submitted the investigation papers to him yesterday afternoon, and “I am satisfied that the demonstrators should be taken to court”.

Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Musa Hassan said police were serious about taking action against protesters who offended the people of other faiths.

“We will not tolerate such incidents that can spark racial tension. We are pushing for deterrent sentences.”

On Aug 28, some 50 people, led by residents of Section 23, marched some 300m from the state mosque to the gates of the State Secretariat building to protest against the relocation of the 150-year-old Sri Mahamariamman temple from Section 19 to Section 23.

They carried a cow’s head and stepped on it, kicked it and spat on it during the protest.

They also warned of further action if the temple was built in their area.

The manner of the protest drew heavy criticism from various parties for insulting religious sensitivities as cows are considered holy by Hindus.

Last week, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak said he would leave it to the A-G to determine if there were any violations of the law when the residents staged the protest.

Home Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Tun Hussein also met with Section 23 residents representatives to resolve the issue.

In an immediate response to the A-G’s decision, Hindu Sangam adviser Datuk A. Vaithilingam said: “The move to charge the culprits is a good step.”

Coalition of Malaysian Indian NGOs secretary Gunaraj George said the decision to prosecute would help ease the hurt felt by the Hindu community.

Chairman of the Section 23 action committee for the protest, Mahayuddin Manaf, said he respected the decision taken by the A-G to prosecute those responsible for incident.

Malaysian Indian Associated Indian Chamber of Commerce and Industry president Datuk K.K. Eswaran welcomed the decision to charge the protesters.

“This is a stern reminder that the Government does not condone actions which disrupt harmony among the various races in the country,” he said. - Star, 8/9/2009, Protesters to be charged with sedition and illegal assembly


By not charging them just under section 298 and/or 298A of the Penal Code - I wonder what is the message that the government is sending...

It seems to be that old message that they are AGAINST the freedom of assembly, freedom of expression...

That is so wrong - the message that should be clearly sent is that government is against such behaviour that was insulting and hurtful to our Hindu brethren...our Buddhist brethren and other Malaysians....and that is why they must ONLY be charged under section 298 and/or 298A of the Penal Code.

Arrest, charge and try 'dirty cops' in the same way as other persons in Malaysia. Art 8 - Equality and Equal Protection of the Law should apply to ALL

Like UMNO, it seems that the Malaysian police is also above the law....maybe not the correct phrase. It seems that the law for every other person just do not apply to the Malaysian police.

When there is evidence of them being corrupt, they may not get arrested, detained, charged in court, tried and sentenced if found guilty. (Apparently, there is a 'secret' procedure that takes place and if found 'guilty', they only get warned, fined, sacked...and if there is insufficient evidence, they just get sacked..is this not a violation of the Federal Constitution - Article 8 of the Federal Constitution guarantees that all persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law). I say secret because the public may not be aware of the fact that this or that 'corrupt' cop is being investigated and what happens... The 'secrecy' also may not serve as a deterrent ...or as motivation for others to provide evidence/complaints about other corrupt cops.

I am still waiting for the police (or MACC) to charge that UMNO big-wig who was found 'guilty' of money politics (i.e. corruption, in my books), so guilty that he was disallowed from continuing his quest to become a top leader of UMNO....

There is less corruption in the police force now, said Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Musa Hassan.

Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission statistics from 2000 to May 2009 made available to the New Sunday Times show that in the last three years, arrests of policemen by the MACC decreased from 158 in 2006 to 117 last year.

In the first five months of this year, only 46 arrests have been made. In the last 10 years, 942 policemen were arrested. Of the number, 225 have been charged, and 250 are awaiting charges.

In addition, 227 policemen, who could not be taken to court due to insufficient evidence, were referred to the police disciplinary division and sacked.

There was a dramatic peak in 2006, with 158 arrests, up from 56 the previous year.

“In 2006 it went up because at that time I encouraged whistle-blowers,” said Musa, whose contract has been renewed for one year from Sept 13.

Up till then, the arrest figures had been declining. But after 2006, the number fell again.

He said the second decline was due to a drop in corruption among policemen.

“There are black sheep in any organisation, but we don’t want bad hats in the force. We want to clean our house.”

However, corruption is but one element of a lack of integrity.

From 2002 to May this year 2009, there were 7,157 cases of disciplinary offences involving policemen.

A total of 3,300 of these concerned insubordination and irresponsibility accounted for 2,126 cases.

More serious offences like subordinating public duty to private interest and using public position for personal interest were fewer in number (24 and 115 respectively).

Of these, 7,157 cases that went up to the disciplinary division, 7,136 have been dealt with.

A total of 3,600 policemen were warned, 2,305 fined, and 440 sacked.

The remainder received penalties ranging from forfeiture of emoluments to a reduction in rank. Only 217 were absolved of wrongdoing.

Former Transparency International Malaysia president Tan Sri Ramon Navaratnam said:of the figures, “Statistics are statistics. It’s a question of interpretation.

“Even if the statistics show an improvement, the public’s perception has not improved.

“Although it takes two hands to clap, the people in authority have got to exercise greater integrity because they hold the public’s trust.”

The adviser to the Selangor Crime Prevention Foundation said: said the people’s perception of the police being selective in nature did not help bolster build up the image of public confidence in them.

“Sometimes, the police take very heavy-handed action; sometimes they take only light action and sometimes they just stand by watching and do nothing.”

He said with the extension to the IGP’s contract, Musa hads the “golden opportunity to be tough and crack the whip”.

“I hope Musa will be able to give the final blow to knocking down the crime rate.”

He said to show their commitment to keeping a clean police force, all top police officers should declare their assets and liabilities every year.

The declaration should either be done publicly , or confidentially to a body of eminent persons.

Further declarations should also be made as and when an officer acquired an asset or liability.

“The best way to get the ball rolling is for the IGP himself to come out and declare his assets and liabilities.,” said Navaratnam.

“If subordinates know their leader is tolerates ant of corruption, they will take the risk of being corrupt.

“But if the subordinates know their leader is intolerant of corruption, they will not dare to be corrupt.” - New Straits Times, 6/9/2009,
‘Dirty’ cops feel the heat



MCCBCHST: THERE MUST BE ONE RULE FOR ALL MALAYSIANS - refering to the cow-head incident, etc

MALAYSIAN CONSULTATIVE COUNCIL OF BUDDHISM, CHRISTIANITY, HINDUISM, SIKHISM & TAOISM MEDIA STATEMENT

THERE MUST BE ONE RULE FOR ALL MALAYSIANS

http://harmonymalaysia.wordpress.com/2009/09/07/there-must-be-onerule-for-all-malaysians/

MCCBCHST (Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism & Taoism) notes with deep concern that the cowhead incident in Shah Alam is not an isolated case. Another recent example of this kind of insensitivity was when the Holy Eucharist was desecrated when certain persons went to a church, took the consecrated bread and spewed it out.

Such irreverent and sacrilegious conduct should not be condoned and allowed to be repeated with impunity. In seating the organisers of the recent demonstration in Shah Alam to his right and left during his press conference, the home affairs minister seemed to have bestowed honour to the perpetrators of a gravely offensive and dangerous event whereby seditious speeches accompanied by the stepping on the severed head of the cow were made. What signals would this send to the people?

Not surprisingly, therefore, the same disrespectful, unruly and unwilling to listen behaviour on the part of some rendered the town hall meeting between the Menteri Besar and Section 23 residents to discuss the issue on September 5 2009 unmanageable and unproductive.

The same rules must apply to all.

MCCBCHST is concerned that wheareas in the August 28 2009 Shah Alam incident the police had stood by while the demonstrators desecrated the cow head and made seditious speeches, the police acted strongly against would-be candlelight vigilers in the vicinity of Dataran Merdeka on September 5 2009. Also, Malaysiakini has now been warned by MCMC (Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission) not to make the video showing the terrible acts in the Shah Alam incident available for viewing to their readers. Thinking Malaysians will rightly raise the question: Which comes first- the act or the video which exposes the act? How do we as a country go about resolving our problems? In this case, stopping the video of the act will not unmake the act. We must surely first prevent the act and the video would not have existed.

For the sake and good of all Malaysians and peace and order in Malaysia, consistent, fair, just and rational measures should be applied regardless of religion, ethnicity, culture, gender or political connection.

There must be one rule for all Malaysians.

All who incite ill feelings amongst religious communities, denigrate any religion, desecrate the religious symbols of any religion or threaten to commit violence against others must be promptly deterred and held accountable. They must face charges and given a fair trial in a court of law.

Sacrilegious acts committed by adherents of any one religion upon another religion must never be condoned. We hold to the principle that all human beings and communities have a sacred right of freedom of choice as far as their religious belief and practice is concerned.

We stand with Malaysians of all religious and political persuasions who were outraged by the flagrant disregard for the sensitivities of others shown by the Shah Alam demonstrators.

We welcome the partnership of all Malaysians of goodwill. Together we can weather the mischief and bigotry of those who seek to drive a wedge between us and divide rather than unite the people of this land.

We Malaysians live in a pluralistic society and accordingly we must respect our neighbours and endeavour to learn about their beliefs, customs and sentiments. It is upon such understanding of others and what is dear to them that our nation can be firmly rooted and grow strong and united.

The way to manage our differences is not by creating enclaves whereby Malaysians will be segregated and separated from one another but through understanding and respect. Let us live together next to one another rather than to live apart. Each succeeding generation of Malaysians should grow closer rather than to be pulled apart.

The site chosen in Section 23 of Shah Alam for the Hindu temple to be relocated to complies with local government conditions. It is over 300 meters away from any housing area, six times more than the 50-meter requirement. If the authorities accept the objection to it by certain quarters, the social dynamics of Malaysian life will be affected and the consequence on national integration will be very serious indeed.

We must not subscribe to the view of thinking about Malaysians as majorities and minorities, and majorities versus minorities.

MCCBCHST therefore calls upon all Malaysians of goodwill to be in earnest prayer for the peaceful and just resolution of the issue. Those in authority at the community, religious and governmental level must be firm to unequivocally reject unreasonable, unfair and anti-social behaviour and demand.

Rev. Dr Thomas Philips


MCCBCHST President


7 September 2009


Saturday, September 05, 2009

2 migrants fell sick and died at the KLIA Immigration Depot. Could death have been avoided if the required healthcare was available?

More deaths of migrants in Detention Centres, and this time it is happening at the KLIA Immigration Depot.

Recall, that on 23/5/2009, a joint statement entitled "DEATH OF 2 BURMESE INDICATIVE OF STATE OF DETENTION PLACES IN MALAYSIA DENIAL OF HEALTHCARE IS A VIOLATION OF RIGHT TO LIFE" was issued, which is currently endorsed by 127 groups/organisations. [See:126 groups:- Death of 2 Burmese Indicative of State of Detention Places in Malaysia - Denial of Healthcare Is a Violation of Right to Life ]

In May, two Burmese migrants died in the Malaysia’s Juru Immigration Detention Centre from Leptospirosis, a disease that is usually caused by exposure to water contaminated with the urine of infected animals, such as rodents, cattle, pigs, horses, dogs and wild animals.

What was the cause of death of the 2 at the KLIA Immigration Depot? Leptospirosis? H1N1? Was it a disease whereby death could have been avoided if there had been the required healthcare?

DETAINEE DEATHS: Don’t make it No 3 says NGO

No one should go into a centre healthy and leave sick or worse, dead, says Tenaganita

Friday, September 4th, 2009 07:18:00

Non-governmental organisation Tenaganita has called on Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak to investigate the health crisis at the KL International Airport Immigration depot in Sepang, where two detainees have died so far.

It was time the government took a stronger stand to ensure detention centres are kept clean and detainees healthy, it said.

Tenaganita coordinator Aegile Fernandez said it was wrong for anyone to die while under government custody. She also felt the country lacked the political will to make changes.

“Once again, we see deaths and illnesses in detention camps. This has been going on for years. Malaysia should follow international standards and keep detention centres- Malay Mail, 4/9/2009,

See also:- SUHAKAM reiterates 1,300 dead in 6 years in detention places - "...medical care overiding reason..."

Thursday, September 03, 2009

Penang State Government has GREAT powers and it come to the assistance of the people of Kg Buah Pala

Kg Buah Pala - some say that the fight for justice has come to an end after the courts have heard the dispute and decided against the families of Kg Buah Pala..

Some say why the people are being stubborn and not moving out...

But, the truth of the matter is that the State Government , i.e. that Pakatan Rakyat State Government has got a lot of power and do the needful to ensure that justice be done...

The State Government ... and Lim Guan Eng has the power to do justice to the suffering people of Kg Buah Pala... The State can take back the land and give it to the people..

The State can cancel development permits... impose all kinds of conditions..

Demolitions need State Government and/or Local Council and/or Department of Occupational Safety and Health permits...

Health Ministry... Public Health Department can step in to stop demolition exercises when the people are still living there...

Heritage site .... Maybe even good for State Tourism ...with that cattle and all...

The people are watching - and they want to know whether Pakatan Rakyat is with the 'rakyat' or is it on the side of the Developer?

Is the Pakatan Rakyat on the side of the weak and oppressed...the minority or what...

1Malaysia - The People come first... so is Najib is going to give meaning to that slogan, and put the people of Kg Buah Pala first??




Kg Buah Pala: We are talking about homes and also the 'living environment' - and as such demolishing homes of those who accepted offer not OK (Updated

Some of them may have accepted the Developers' offer, and may have already left their houses in Kg Buah Pala, and these may be the houses that the Developers would want to demolish first...

Our homes are always in an area where there are other homes - and the demolition of even one of the homes in a giving living area is definitely going to impact on the living environment, and that is why there should be no demolition until the matter of Kg Buah Pala has been completely resolved for all who is there.

Demolition of some houses also creates the problem of dust and other risks/hardships for the adjacent homes. Children and people do play and walk in areas around their homes, and would not a rubble increase risk to health .... What about asbestos poisoning - let us not forget about that as many old houses use asbestos ceilings/roofs.

Why do they want to just demolish some of the houses now? Why? Reasonably, it is of no use to the developer for they cannot do anything until they have successfully evicted and demolished all houses there. Well, the reason is really psychological aimed at destroying the will of the people of Kg Buah Pala from further fighting to save their current homes and living space... After all, demolition of a few houses will also destroy the beauty of the area... making it look like a 'war-zone'...

What are your attitude about Kg Buah Pala? It is sad that many are now are against the people of Kg Buah Pala now because their leaders in their political parties have taken that position now... If it was not happening in a Pakatan rakyat ruled State, and if maybe Pakatan Rakyat was not governing any States, things may have been different, and we would have seen better support from leaders of DAP, PKR and PAS... but now things are very different. Changed situation gives rise to different considerations...and different stances taken now on certain issues. How sad..

One Kampung Buah Pala resident's house was demolished this morning after the owner accepted compensation and handed over the keys to the developer.

Under the watchful eye of the police and the residents association committee, a demolition team to moved in to tear down the house.

Last night, Kampung Buah Pala Residents Association chairperson M Sugumaran held state government for the imminent destruction of their village.

He said Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng had in many meetings and media conferences repeatedly stated the state government would not give consent to the developer to demolish the village.

"If the state government had not given the consent to the developer to demolish the village, how can the demolition team now come to tear down our houses?

"Is this just another lie by the state government?" he asked, at a late night press conference at the village yesterday.

The village faces eviction to make way for a lucrative project called the Oasis.

The project developer Nusmetro Venture (P) Sdn Bhd warned that the demolition start any time after Sept 1 to demolish the village, although the federal court order was only for vacant possession.

Sugumaran blasted Lim for 'washing his hands off the issue', slamming the Malacca-born Chief Minister of being responsible for the villagers' predicament.

"If he had not washed our hands, we would not have sought the premier's help to resolve the issue. Even Lim needs to meet the Prime Minister for projects such as the second bridge," he said.

'Lim has let us down'

He said when the villagers met Lim in his Komtar office on March 13 last year, five days after the last general election, Lim welcomed us with open arms.

"He told us that he would not have become the Chief Minister if not for our votes. He promised to protect and safeguard our land provided the land had not been transferred," Sugumaran said.

However, Sugumaran said Lim accepted the balance RM2,247,000 land premium from the buyer - Koperasi Pegawai Pegawai Kanan Kerajaan Pulau Pinang - on March 14, and transferred the land to the cooperative society on March 27.

Sugumaran refuted Lim's claim that the state government had no choice but to approve the land transfer due to past affirmative deals carried out by the previous Barisan Nasional state administration.

Sugumaran said under the National Land Code, an approval to a land alienation lapses automatically within three months if the buyer did not pay up the balance premium.

In the Kampung Buah Pala case, the premium deposit of RM963,000 was paid by the cooperative society on May 22, 2007.

"Why did Lim approve the land deal after it had lapsed automatically for eight months . . . that too, the very next day after he promised us not to do so?" asked Sugumaran.

Kampung Buah Pala is commonly known as local Tamil High Chaparral, replicating the popular 1960s western television series, for its large population of cowherds, cattle, goats, live stocks, hilly natural environment and lively Indian features and festivities.

About 24 houseowners in the village have accepted the double-storey offer made by Nusmetro.

Sugumaran said although the house owners have signed the offer letters, 20 were united not to let the village to be demolished without the state government undertaking constructive measures to end their predicament.

He said the villagers who signed up were offered RM8,000 ex-gratia compensation by Deputy Chief Minister 2 P Ramasamy to move out from the village.

'We could end up on the streets'

He said the villagers were told to vacate their houses first and only then the state government would hold negotiations to provide them with alternate houses for free.

"Can we rely on such a deal? We should be offered constructive deals before we can move out from our own land. We have seen so many projects in the past that have ended up abandoned.

"We could end up on the streets with nothing," said Sugumaran, adding the villagers would put up stiff resistance to stop the demolition team.

Nusmetro, accompanied by a large police squad, has twice failed to evict and demolish the houses last month.

Sugumaran said Lim had managed to manipulate the media and turned the public against the villagers by telling a different story to newsmen, especially the Chinese newspapers.

Sugumaran said Lim lied to the Penang people about the offers made to the villagers such as RM500,000 and RM350,000 when no such offers were ever tabled to us.

"We have been asking only for village homes and part of the land from beginning. But Lim is portraying us as greedy people making unreasonable demands.

"This is a blatant lie," said Sugumaran, calling on all 82 Pakatan Rakyat parliamentarians to declare their stand on the crisis.

"Where are the Pakatan MPs, especially Anwar Ibrahim who promised to save this village before the election? Before the election, Pakatan leaders knew where was Kampung Buah Pala.

"But now they don't visit us anymore," said Sugumaran. - Malaysiakini, 3/9/2009,
Demolition of Kampung Buah Pala begins

Happy Onam (2nd September 2009 - Day 1)

Happy belated Onam to all Malaysian Malayalees. It is a multi-racial multi-religious celebration of all Malayalees.

People now referred as Malaysian Indians - are actually persons whose forefathers come from India, and they are from different ethnic groups, who also do have different languages with their very own writing and cultures. The biggest group are Tamils, but there are also many Malayalees (from Kerala State generally), Telugus, Goanese, Punjabis, Gujeratis, ...

Onam Festival is celebrated in the beginning of the first month of Malayalam Calendar (Kolla Varsham) called Chingam. This month corresponds to August-September in Gregorian Calendar and Bhadrapada or Bhadon in Indian (Hindu) Calendar.

When is Thiru Onam?
Onam carnival continues for ten days, starting from the day of Atham and culminating on Thiru Onam. Atham and Thiru Onam are the most important days for Onam festivities. The day of Atham is decided by the position of stars. Onam festival commences from lunar asterism (a cluster of stars smaller than a constellation) Atham (Hastha) that appears ten days before asterism Onam or Thiru Onam. Atham is regarded as auspicious and holy day by people of Kerala. Thiru Onam corresponds to the Shravan day in the month of August or September, hence it is also called Sravanotsavam.

At this time sun is in the Zodiac sign of Leo (Simha rasi), which happens to be the sun's house as well.

Significance of Onam Day in Mythology
The dayof Onam is decided in accordance with the legend of King Mahabali in whose honor Onam is celebrated. People believe that it was this particular day in the month of Chingam when Lord Vishnu took his fifth avatar as Vaamana, appeared in the kingdom of King Mahabali and sent him to nether world.

People believe that it is on the last day, Tiruonam that the spirit of King Maveli visits Kerala, hence the day is marked by feast and festivities. Devotees of Maveli celebrate the golden era witnessed in Maveli's reign during Onam. To welcome their revered ruler, people lay flower mats (Pookalam) in the front courtyard, prepare a grand meal (Onasadya), dance, play and make merry. All this is done to impress upon King Mahabali that his people are prosperous and happy.

A Brief History of Onam
It is believed that Onam celebrations started during the Sangam Period. Record of celebrations can be found from the time of Kulasekhara Perumals (800 AD). At that time Onam celebrations continued for a month.

Harvest Time
As it is a harvest season, the beautiful state of Kerala can be seen in its magnificent best. Weather is pleasantly sunny and warm calling for mirth and celebrations. Fields look brilliant as they glow with golden paddy grains. It is also the boom time of fruits and flowers. After the month of deprivation, Karkidakam (last month of Malayalam Calendar), farmers are happy with a bountiful harvest and celebrate the festival to the hilt. - SCFI Onam Festival Website

Protest using a cow's head was very wrong. Remorse and apology is what we need from the protesters...and also the police.

What they did was very wrong...but alas, some are treating that this was a little matter...it is not. What the said group of residents need do is to apologize for their actions that was very disrespectful to Hindus in Malaysia...and others.

Khairy, I must state, got it right when he immediately condemned their actions...

Umno Youth chief Khairy Jamaluddin has strongly condemned the protest against the relocation of a Hindu temple where angry residents paraded a severed cow's head this afternoon.

Calling on the protesters to reflect on their action, he asked: "How would you feel if the proposal to build a mosque in a non-Muslim area - which is already happening - leads a group of non-Muslims to burn and stomp on the Quran?"

"Would not the Malays rise with anger? If yes, then parading with a cow's head is just as insulting?" he added.
...The Umno Youth leader added that he was saddened that the protest was done in the name of Malay non-governmental organisations and after Friday prayers in the month of Ramadhan.

"I believe this is not an action condoned by Islam, a religion which espouses humility and respect for other religions. This act is surely to anger the Hindus," he said.

"Where is the spirit of 1Malaysia, especially among the Malay Muslims who are the majority in this country. I pray that this incident does not lead to anything more serious," he added. - Malaysiakini, 28/8/2009,
Khairy: What if they burn the Quran over a mosque?
I believe that all many seek is remorse...an apology and an assurance that such behavior will not be repeated in the future.

And we need this apology both from the protesters...and from the police, who were present and permitted such conduct to continue...

I believe that there is no need for us to charge them in court...we all know it was wrong. We do not need our Attorney General to tell us that it was wrong...

The Government will let the police and the Attorney-General’s Chambers decide whether the group that protested against the construction of a Hindu temple in Shah Alam recently had violated any laws under the Sedition Act.

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak said the authorities would determine if there were any violations of law when residents of Section 23 Shah Alam staged the protest.

“We will leave it to the police and the A-G to decide on this, but most Malaysians regret the act,” he told reporters here yesterday.

Last Friday, about 50 people gathered at the gates of the Selangor state secretariat building here carrying a cow’s head and warned of further action if a temple was constructed here. - Star, 3/9/2009, Let the A-G and the police decide over protest, says Najib

From this report and others, it is not clear as to whether our Prime Minister Najib is angry about the action of these protesters or not...The same also with Hishamuddin, our Home Minister, But then, in the past, they too have done acts that 'angered' people of other ethnic backgrounds and religions in Malaysia..

Some say that a temple should not be build there because it is a Muslim majority area...What do you mean? Are you saying that temples should only be build in Hindu majority areas? If that is the case, then there will no places of worship build for minorities anywhere...and that is so wrong.

TOLERANCE... that is not the value that should be promoted. What we need in Malaysia is RESPECT..not tolerance.


Wednesday, September 02, 2009

Labour Party of Malaya - the Socialist Front - the threat removed through ISA and DWT laws, and ...

Independence...Merdeka... is a word that has been given a different meaning in Malaysia.

31-8-1957 - What independence did the people of Malaysia really achieve...save from being directly ruled by colonial Britain...to now being ruled by a coalition of a Malay party (UMNO), a Chinese party(MCA), and an Indian party (MIC). The British chose to whom and when power was going to be handed over, and to whom.

Taking over the baton from the colonialist, this coalition government led by UMNO set out to ensure that it will continue to remain in power...

Opposition movements and political parties that gained ground ...support from the people were quickly 'killed' and suppressed...and literally 'wiped-out' from history and the memory of its people. What happened to those opposition political parties? We have to struggle to find out what really happened... We know that many leaders were arrested and detained under Detention Without Trial Laws like the ISA and the Emergency Ordinance. We know that many Divisions and branches of the Opposition parties were 'shut down' by the government.

Of course, the government also makes it near impossible to set up political parties. It controls publications like newspapers/magazines and also the printers themselves. It is literally difficult to be able to have public rallies. There is almost no access to the media, i.e. the print media, television and radio. Hence, the Opposition parties were cut off from getting opposing/different views to the people...whilst the UMNO-led coalition utilized not only mass media but also education curriculum to paint not only their version of things...but to also black-out certain historical facts.

From Indepndence, even when it comes to seat, one should realize that the UMNO-led-coalition slowly lost the support of the people, and even when their strongest opposition, i.e. the Socialist Front, stayed away from the elections, the UMNO-led Alliance suffered its worse defeat in 1969. One wonders whether it would have been the end of governance of UMNO-led coalitions if the Socialist Front parties contested in 1969.
1955 General Election Alliance won 51 out of 52 seats contested (98%)
1959 General Election Alliance won 74 out of 104 seats contested (71%)
1964 General Election Alliance won 89 out of 104 seats contested (86%)
1969 General Election Alliance won 74 out of 144 seats contested (51%)
'It must be noted that the then popular Labour Party boycotted the 1969 GE. The Labour Party of Malaya (LPM). With Parti Rakyat, the LPM formed a coalition, the Malayan People’s Socialist Front (SF), which was the second legal alliance to transcend communal differences. The SF’s 1959 policy statement, also named as Towards a New Malaya, laid out its position on the national language, art and literature, education, the Orang Asli, Malay reservation land, plantations and mines, fisheries, labour and social welfare, and defence and foreign policy.

In the 1960s, the ISA was widely and indiscriminately used to detain hundreds of LPM and SF leaders and members in Taiping, Batu Gajah and Muar. Repeated repression of this sort undermined the LPM and SF’s organizational effectiveness. The detentions of Ishak bin Hj. Mohammad, Abdul Aziz bin Ishak and Datuk Kampo Radjo on untried charges of setting up a government-in-exile during Konfrontasi with Indonesia were attempts to repress the Malay Left.

In 1965, key SF leaders, such as Chairman Hansul bin Abdul Hadi, Secretary-General Tajuddin Kahar and Assistant Secretary-General Tan Kai Hee were arrested to foil a demonstration called for 13 February, the SF’s Human Rights Day, to commemorate the second anniversary of Ahmad Boestamam’s internment. '-The Labour Party of Malaya, 1952–1972 (ALIRAN)


The Alliance boasted that it could easily win more than two thirds of the 144 seats in the Dewan Rakyat or about two thirds of the 104 Peninsular Malaysia seats, capture Kelantan, and retain control of all the other state legislatures.

But that confidence was shattered in the early hours of May 11, 1969 when the results of the May 10 elections were known.

The Alliance had won only 66 seats, down from the 89 it won in 1964. It also lost Penang, failed to capture Kelantan, and came close to losing Perak, Selangor, Kedah and Terengganu.

The Opposition was surprised, too. The DAP, which reconstituted itself from the People’s Action Party (PAP), won 13 seats when the Singapore-based party had only one in 1964. PAS got 12 seats, an increase of three; PPP won four, an increase of two; while the new party Gerakan won eight.

Even though the Alliance had not lost power – and Sabah and Sarawak had yet to decide – the Malays were alarmed.
They felt that the government they had dominated all this while was going to collapse.

During the Alliance meeting held to assess the results, a number of Malay representatives blamed the losses on the MCA which saw 20 of its 33 candidates defeated. Hurt and weak, the MCA announced on May 13 that it would not participate in the government at federal and state levels. - The Sun, 26/7/2009, The tragedy of May 13, 1969


"Labour Party -formed in 1950's, formed the Malayan Peoples' Socialist Front ( or just Socialist Front) on 26/8/1958 with the Partai Rakyat (later known as the Parti Rakyat Malaysia). The SF further consolidated its gains in municipal elections including the City Council of George town, Penang where it won 14 of the 15 seats in the Council during the 1961 Local Elections..." - Of past elections & 'historical facts' in Malaysia - the 'brain-washing'..

The Labour Party of Malaya, 1952–1972
Friday, 20 February 2009 19:08

The rise and demise of the Labour Party of Malaya was an important experience of socialist politics in Malaysia. Mistakes were made and many leaders and members paid a heavy price for them. Even so, their courage, commitment and sacrifices before and after independence cannot be denied a proper historical appreciation, observes Tan Kim Hong in tracing a brief history of the party.

The Labour Party of Malaya (LPM) was a multi-ethnic socialist party of the 1950s and 1960s. Its political origins lay in the ‘New Trade Unionism’ of the Cold War period. Before Merdeka, the anti-communist International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU), with the support of the colonial government, encouraged the formation of a non-militant trade union movement and moderate Labour Parties located in different regions of the country. Yet, the LPM grew into a mass radical political party whose rise and fall were crucially shaped by circumstances often beyond its control.


Regional labour parties

The first regional Labour Parties shared some characteristics of organisation and ideology. Their leaders were English-educated leaders of the Malayan Trades Union Congress. Their members were largely Indian and Malay members of public service unions. The parties were modelled on the British Labour Party, having democratic socialism and multi-culturalism as guiding principles.

However, they were different in policy formulation and execution. The Penang Labour Party spoke earnestly of moulding national consciousness and instituting administrative reforms to help the down-trodden. It paid some attention to the issue of self-government but steered away from the core question of ending colonial rule. On the other hand, the Selangor Labour Party expressly aimed to achieve independence through constitutional means. Its other important objectives were economic egalitarianism, the socialization of the means of production, equitable income and wealth distribution, and political liberalization.

The colonial government tacitly supported the involvement of such regional Labour Parties in elections but prohibited them from expanding beyond their geographical boundaries. Thus, the Labour Parties operated in restricted spaces. Their leaders could only conduct limited discourses with their small membership. Besides, it was difficult for them to transcend existing language barriers to disseminate ideas of social justice and political equality to the masses.

On 26 June 1952, the Pan-Malaya Labour Party (PMLP) was formed from the amalgamated membership of the Penang, Selangor and Singapore Labour Parties. With Mohammad Sopiee as its National Chairman and Osman Siru as his deputy, the PMLP was more a liaison organization than a structured party. The party did not admit individual members but accepted all democratic labour and socialist organizations as members. Its formation was expedient, to take advantage of early electoral politics; yet, it was a pioneering attempt to galvanize workers’ support in impending municipal elections.

The PMLP’s constitution had two main objectives: to co-ordinate labour and socialist organizations to achieve national independence, social justice, and political, social and economic emancipation; and to cooperate with labour, socialist and other organizations in Malaya and elsewhere to promote a higher standard of social and economic life for workers.

The PMLP’s first policy statement, Towards a New Malaya, passed in September 1952, laid out much of its programme which included democratic socialism, workers’ participation in industrial policy-making, land for the peasants, and provisions for social welfare, medical and health services, and social security and pension schemes for all. In economic management, the PMLP wanted to check industrial and commercial monopolies, provide agricultural subsidies to farmers, enlarge the acreage of rubber small holdings, manage the rubber industry, reform the salary structure of workers, and revamp the taxation system.

In 1953, sixteen intellectuals including D.S. Ramanathan, Tan Phock Kin, N. Patkunam, Lee Kok Liang, C.Y. Choy, Tan Chong Bee and V. Veerapan from the Fabian Society of Penang joined the PMLP. These professionals and teachers, all social democrats, moved to immerse themselves in politics, offering analyses, recommendations, and political participation vastly different from those of the moderate trade unionists favoured by colonial officials. By early 1954, the PMLP had come to resemble the British Labour Party, advocating gradual economic nationalization and a welfare state.


Pan-Malaya Labour Party


On 5 June 1954, the PMLP took the new name of the Labour Party of Malaya (LPM). With the election of Lee Moke Sang as its Chairman, the LPM proclaimed itself a political organization to unite the workers and peasants of Malaya and struggle for a united, independent and democratic nation. The LPM’s manifesto for the 1955 Federal Election was inclined towards socialist reforms. (See box for details)

On the eve of Merdeka, LPM gained from the Chinese school students’ movement and the national workers’ movement; the organizational collaboration between an emerging Socialist Youth League and the Pan-Malaya Union of General Workers; and cooperation with Partai Rakyat (founded in December 1955).

These developments brought LPM victory in the George Town Municipal Council election of 1957. The party won five out of the nine contested seats, a result that strengthened the party’s multi-ethnic mass base in Penang, and gave a leading role to the Penang Division in the LPM’s national structure.

The Socialist Front

Merdeka Day was a turning point in LPM’s history. With Parti Rakyat, the LPM formed a coalition, the Malayan People’s Socialist Front (SF), which was the second legal alliance to transcend communal differences. The SF’s 1959 policy statement, also named as Towards a New Malaya, laid out its position on the national language, art and literature, education, the Orang Asli, Malay reservation land, plantations and mines, fisheries, labour and social welfare, and defence and foreign policy.

In subsequent local government elections, the SF won control of the City Council of George Town, and the local councils in Jinjang, Serdang, Tanjung Sepat, Pengkalan Titi and elsewhere. In George Town, the SF fulfilled some of its campaign promises, for example, by implementing low-cost housing projects such as the People’s Court in Cintra Street and the Kampong Selut scheme in Jelutong.

In the 1959 General Election, the SF progressed in mixed constituencies in Selangor, Johore and Penang: it gained 34.6 per cent of the popular vote cast in the constituencies it contested. The SF was poised to be a non-communal socialist alternative in Malayan politics during the 1960s.

The issue of ‘Malaysia’


The SF confronted a huge political obstacle, however, in the ‘Grand Design’, previously conceived by Britain, and promulgated as ‘Greater Malaysia’ by Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman in May 1961.

Following a Five-State Socialist Conference of the proposed Malaysian territories, held in Kuala Lumpur in January 1962, the LPM moved to accept Malaysia in principle at its 9th Annual Conference in August. The LPM’s new Secretary-General, Lim Kean Siew, maintaining that the merger of Singapore with Malaya was inevitable, nonetheless warned that ‘unless our thinking is radically changed and the inconsistencies of the Malaysian concept are removed, ultimate conflict and disintegration is inevitable.’

However, the party rank and file became bitter over the ‘Malaysia issue’ after the detention under the Internal Security Act of Lim Chin Siong and the Barisan Sosialis and SATU leaders in Singapore under Operation Coldstore in February 1962. The use of the ISA there, coupled with the arrest of Parti Rakyat Chairman, Ahmad Boestamam in Malaya, was seen as a move to repress the left in Malaya and Singapore. From then on, the SF’s relationship with the regime badly deteriorated.

SF’s decline


The SF’s performance in the 1964 General Election was adversely affected by two major factors. First, allegations had been made from June 1963 of malpractices in the City Council of Georgetown and other SF-controlled local councils. Second, the Alliance, the People’s Action Party, and the United Democratic Party – respectively led by the Tunku, Lee Kuan Yew and Dr. Lim Chong Eu – vehemently attacked the SF as the ‘fifth column’ of Indonesia.

Despite SF’s repeated acceptance of Malaysia and a 5-Point Plan to secure a truce between Britain and Malaysia, and Indonesia, the SF and LPM fell victim to the psychological manipulation of voter sentiments and suffered their worst defeats, even in their own electoral bastions.

It is quite likely that some LPM cadres and functionaries were convinced then to adopt a ‘hard line’ vis-à-vis the regime. Soon they found other reasons to be so.

In the 1960s, the ISA was widely and indiscriminately used to detain hundreds of LPM and SF leaders and members in Taiping, Batu Gajah and Muar. Repeated repression of this sort undermined the LPM and SF’s organizational effectiveness. The detentions of Ishak bin Hj. Mohammad, Abdul Aziz bin Ishak and Datuk Kampo Radjo on untried charges of setting up a government-in-exile during Konfrontasi with Indonesia were attempts to repress the Malay Left.

In 1965, key SF leaders, such as Chairman Hansul bin Abdul Hadi, Secretary-General Tajuddin Kahar and Assistant Secretary-General Tan Kai Hee were arrested to foil a demonstration called for 13 February, the SF’s Human Rights Day, to commemorate the second anniversary of Ahmad Boestamam’s internment.


Radicalisation under repression


The pace of radicalisation intensified. The SF’s Perak Division hailed the ‘February 13 Incident’ in Kuala Lumpur as an epochal event in the struggle against neo-colonialism, and an instructive lesson in class struggle. The LPM division in Perak went on to develop a theory of shili douzheng (militant struggle).

A different kind of problem developed after Singapore’s separation from Malaysia on 9 August. Within the SF, the LPM and Parti Rakyat diverged, principally over the issue of official language. In December, Parti Rakyat resolved to break away from the SF while Lim Kean Siew announced that the coalition would end on 16 January 1966. At this juncture, internal quarrels terminated the SF’s control of George Town City Council and LPM lost a most important political platform.

Between July 1964 and June 1965, LPM Assistant Secretary-General Dr. M K Rajkumar had warned the party of the infiltration of agents provocateur who would create internal confusion and division. The Perak Division’s stance was part of a smear campaign against the ‘rightist’ LPM leaders, five of whom resigned in March 1966.

An ad hoc Central Secretariat now led the party towards more strident radicalization in ideology and tactics with worsening repercussions. An Anti-US Imperialism Campaign resulted in the mass arrests of cadres, members and supporters. The LPM Central Secretariat called an Extraordinary National Delegates Conference on 24–25 September 1966 that resolved to expedite ‘anti-imperialism, anti-colonialism, anti-feudalism and anti-Malaysia’ struggles.’ While combining ‘mass struggle’ with ‘constitutional struggle’, the Conference placed the former ahead of the latter as a strategy to wrest political power.

The end of the LPM

In October 1967, the 13th National Delegates’ Conference in Penang passed ‘ultra leftist’ resolutions on such matters as US imperialism, Soviet revisionism, the Cultural Revolution in China, the Vietnam War, ISA, worker-peasant united front, mass organizations and revolutionary strategies.

The LPM now initiated regular street demonstrations all over the country which culminated in the Penang hartal of 24 November 1967 in response to the unpopular devaluation of the Malaysian currency. The regime’s response was more repression with ISA and other measures. The party was crippled when divisions in Penang, Johore and Malacca, and 36 branches in the country were proscribed.

The Kedah Division’s call for a boycott of the 1969 General Election was endorsed on 29 September 1968 by an Enlarged Central Committee Meeting comprising three de jure members and several other divisional representatives. By the end of the year, in protest against another wave of arrests on 9 November, LPM councillors at all levels had resigned from their positions. And, after ‘May 13’, 17 other LPM branches were banned and over a hundred members were detained.

In September 1969, an accord of understanding was reached between LPM’s Lim Kean Siew and Dr. Rajakumar and Parti Rakyat’s Kassim Ahmad and Syed Husin Ali to hold to ‘scientific socialism’, ‘working class solidarity’ and ‘the unity of the people of all nationalities’ against ‘chauvinism and narrow nationalism’. No steps were taken to work towards such objectives.

Three years later, in September 1972, the Registrar of Societies deregistered the LPM on account of its failure to submit annual reports for several years.

The rise and demise of LPM is an important experience of socialist politics in Malaysia. Mistakes were made and many leaders and members paid a heavy price for them. Even so, their courage, commitment and sacrifices before and after independence cannot be denied a proper historical appreciation.

LPM Manifesto for 1955 Federal Elections

  1. To implement planned economy to fulfill needs of the Malayan people. All exploitation of the workers should be stopped and all monopolies and inefficient industries should be nationalized;
  2. To amend the Labour Law and the Trade Union Ordinance. All unions to enjoy the full rights of free assemblies and political participation;
  3. To provide the poor with legal assistance;
  4. To solve problems of unemployment, and to enforce minimum wage and parity for women workers;
  5. To resolve issues of land indebtedness and to assist peasants with land, agricultural cooperatives, agricultural banks and collective farms;
  6. To promote local industries with tariff protection;
  7. To establish a Central Bank to regulate circulation of money and
  8. To implement compulsory free primary education, and to develop secondary schools and tertiary education.