Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info

Sumber Asal Berita :-

Posted: 27 Sep 2013 01:32 AM PDT

The Sulu terrorists who were shot dead by our security forces when they made the incursion into Lahad Datu earlier this year were also buried on Malaysian soil. Did they deserve that? Did they deserve it more than Chin Peng, who fought for our country's independence, whereas they came to seize our land?

Kee Thuan Chye

The dignity of man. That was what Chin Peng bargained for at the Baling Talks held in 1955 with Tunku Abdul Rahman, David Marshall and a few others in a bid to negotiate peace. And because they would not grant him and his comrades of the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) that, because they would not accord them dignity but instead insist that they surrender and subject themselves to detention, the talks failed.

I have read the transcript of the Baling Talks several times, and can vouch that Chin Peng was serious about peace and about coming out of the jungle to participate in the ensuing legitimate democratic process. He also appeared genuine in his intent and dignified in his approach to the negotiations. If you don't believe what I say, do read the transcript. It will open your eyes.

You will see that Chin Peng and his comrades were willing to lay down their arms and take their places in society. He asked for the CPM to be allowed to take part in democratic elections, but although the Tunku admitted that the CPM's manifesto was "quite good", it could not do so. It had to be disbanded.

Chin Peng agreed to compromise. But when he asked how he and his comrades would be treated when they came out of the jungle, the Tunku told him they would be detained "for a certain period" and investigated.

Asked how long the detention would be, the Tunku did not give a specific answer. "The length of detention will only be for as long as is necessary to carry out the investigation" was all he would say.

To Chin Peng, however, "this question of restriction of freedom … is a question of principle". And he, therefore, could not accept it.

He added: "For the dignity of man, if this principle is insisted upon, then we can only carry on with the struggle."

Marshall then asked him: "… but what are you struggling for?"

"It is very simple," Chin Peng reiterated, "just for the dignity of man."

Marshall failed to understand what Chin Peng meant by "the dignity of man". Chin Peng clarified it for him: "While we are in the jungle, we are free. Why should we come out to be detained?"

But more than that, I think "the dignity of man" also included social justice, which was one of the ideals upheld by the CPM. Furthermore, Chin Peng was not willing to submit himself and his men to what was still not a liberated Malayan government. Let's not forget, it was 1955 – internal security and national defence were still under the British, which meant that the CPM, on surrendering, would be detained under their control. He probably didn't trust the British to accord the CPM due respect.

He promised the Tunku that when the latter's Malayan government were given charge of internal security and national defence, the CPM would no longer call itself "National Liberation Army". The CPM's fight was "for the independence of Malaya", he said, so once the Malayan government was independent, the CPM would no longer fight against it.

That being so, Chin Peng again made a case for no detention, no restriction of movement. He asked that he and his comrades be allowed to go home. If this was granted, it would be acceptable for the Government to investigate them. "But if we were to be enclosed in one place and investigations are carried out, that amounts to surrender," he said.

Again, he showed he was willing to compromise. But as it turned out, the Tunku was not. He insisted that "as far as restriction of movement is concerned, we must have it". He also repeated at the end of the talks the sentiment he had expressed at its beginning: "Unfortunately, although you do not like the word 'surrender', I have got to be frank with you and say that you have got to surrender."

This left Chin Peng with no choice. He had already stated: "If you demand our surrender, we would prefer to fight to the last man." So he left the talks a disappointed man.

But what about the Tunku? Was he disappointed?

According to journalist Said Zahari, who was covering the talks for Utusan Melayu, he managed to ask the Tunku that question after the proceedings had ended. Only he and Umno man Syed Jaafar Albar were present when the Tunku replied, "No, no, not at all. I never wanted it to be a success."

Only recently – a few years ago – Said came out to reveal this. He did not include what the Tunku said when he wrote his report in 1955, because Syed Albar advised him against making it public. So we never got to know the Tunku's real intent.

In hindsight, however, we can now infer that the British were dead against recognising the CPM and allowing it to be part of the Malayan political landscape because that might have jeopardised their economic interests, and the Tunku was using the talks to prove to the British that he could be uncompromising with the CPM as this would favour him in his negotiations for independence, which he flew to London for right after Baling.

Whetever it was, Chin Peng got played out.

And although he was to be played out again a few times afterwards, for example, when he made numerous unsuccessful attempts to settle in Malaysia after the Government had signed a peace agreement with the CPM in 1989, it seems he never compromised his dignity.

Even now, after his death on September 16, the dignity appears intact. In his farewell letter to his comrades and compatriots published by Malaysiakini, he wrote: "… I wish to be remembered simply as a good man who could tell the world that he had dared to spend his entire life in pursuit of his own ideals to create a better world for his people. It is irrelevant whether I succeeded or failed, at least I did what I did."

This is the kind of dignity that the Malaysian Government cannot profess to have. It dishonoured the terms of the 1989 peace agreement by, first, not allowing Chin Peng to come home the numerous times he applied to do so, and now it shows lack of dignity for not even allowing his ashes to be brought back.

For this deplorable display, it has rightly earned the criticism of former Inspector-General of Police Rahim Noor, who headed the Malaysian team that negotiated the peace agreement. In barring Chin Peng's ashes from being brought back, he said, "we are making Malaysia a laughing stock to the whole world".

To make matters worse, the ruling party propaganda rag Utusan Malaysia came out last weekend with a story speculating that Chin Peng didn't die on September 16. Based on the say-so of an anonymous source, it said he had actually died the day before and "certain parties" had manipulated it such that his death would be commemorated with the birth of Malaysia! The report is unsubstantiated, and the anonymous source could be anyone just saying it.

To spin it further, Utusan quotes the source as saying that Chin Peng's farewell letter is dangerous because its call to youths to "struggle for idealism" may bring "more (security) threats to the country, especially among the youths". That's a laugh. Why doesn't the source interpret Chin Peng's call as a positive one instead, seeing idealism as something young people should always strive for? When has idealism become a negative and dangerous value?

This is the sort of sentiment that informs the stand of the Government in not allowing Chin Peng's ashes to be brought into the country, as expressed last week by Home Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi and his deputy, Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar. They are afraid that supporters will build a shrine where the ashes are buried and it will spark a revival of communism in Malaysia.

This is not only almost as ridiculous as the claim made by the Utusan's so-called source; it also shows what an insecure government we have.

Noordin Top was a Jemaah Islamiah terrorist who masterminded the bombings that led to the deaths of innocents in Jakarta and Bali, but his remains were allowed to be brought home in 2009 to be buried in Pontian. Was the Government not afraid that his burial ground would become a shrine to Muslim extremism?

The Sulu terrorists who were shot dead by our security forces when they made the incursion into Lahad Datu earlier this year were also buried on Malaysian soil. Did they deserve that? Did they deserve it more than Chin Peng, who fought for our country's independence, whereas they came to seize our land?

Is it not enough that our government lacks dignity? Must it also lack logic? Where is its sense of social justice, its kinship with the dignity of man?

* Kee Thuan Chye is the author of the new book The Elections Bullshit, now available in bookstores.

The three stars: Chin Peng, Najib and Dr M

Posted: 26 Sep 2013 03:17 PM PDT

If communism is so bad, why does the Malaysian government entertain China, whilst demonising the CPM and mistreating Malaysians of Chinese origin?

Malaysian schoolchildren are not taught that British forces funded, trained and supplied arms to Chin Peng during World War Two. The combined effort was to liberate the country from the Japanese aggressors. A few years after WWII, the communists waged war on the British because the CPM wanted to free Malaysia from British colonial rule.

Mariam Mokhtar, FMT

It is communism which bonds the late secretary-general of the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) Chin Peng, former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad and Umno Baru president, Najib Tun Razak.

Members of CPM cadres wear a jungle green uniform complete with a cap sporting a badge of three red stars. These three stars signify the three main races in Malaysia – Chinese, Indian and Malay, much like Najib's '1Malaysia'.

Chin Peng preached communist ideology, but the Malaya he envisioned was a country where the races were equal, unlike the Ketuanan Melayu concept of the Umno Baru elite, where Malays reign supreme.

Over the last few days, Malaysians have found a reason to rejoice. Former prime minister, Mahathir has recovered from a bout of amnesia, which marred his performance at the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Project IC, in Kota Kinabalu.

Last week, during a press conference, at the International Youth Centre in Cheras, Mahathir reminded Malaysians that Chin Peng wanted to make Malaysia a communist state.

Amazingly, Mahathir remembered Chin Peng, but it is hardly surprising that he was critical of the communist leader. He is keen to deflect criticism as a prime minister who does not honour agreements.

Both Mahathir and Najib are conscious of their public image. Neither men like being known as untrustworthy. The timing is critical as Mahathir has an election to manage, in which he will back his favourite contender; his son, Mukhriz.

Mahathir tried to project the image of a government that was magnanimous and would help rehabilitate former communist guerrillas. When the 1989 Hadyai treaty was signed, guerrillas voluntarily surrendered and their arms and stockpiles of weapons were destroyed.

However, Chin Peng was barred from entering Malaysia and when he died, his ashes are also prevented from being interred at his family grave near Lumut, for fear that a memorial to honour Sitiawan's former son would be built.

Mahathir had no intention of honouring the peace treaty. His word is as good as Najib's "Janji di tepati".

Mahathir criticised Chin Peng for his communist ideology, but failed to note that Malaysia has become a closet dictatorship, in which the sons of past prime ministers, are groomed, in exactly the same manner as the North Korean communist dynasty.

At least, in a communist state, the financial and social status of peasants is elevated to that of the middle classes, and the upper classes are brought down to the financial and social status of the middle classes.

Everyone is made (almost) equal. In communism, production is controlled by the state and the state owns everything.

In Malaysia's dictatorship, most of the wealth is in the hands of Umno Baru politicians, their cronies and the government controlled GLCs. In Sabah and Sarawak, the wealth from these oil and timber rich states is inaccessible to the ordinary folk.

The communist threat

Chin Peng may have wanted a communist state but in 2001, it was Mahathir who declared Malaysia an Islamic state. He tried to convince Malays that the Islam preached by Umno Baru was more acceptable than PAS's brand of conservative Islam. He erased Tunku Abdul Rahman's secular vision of Malaysia.

If Malaysia was democratic, as Mahathir claims, the rakyat would have been able to throw off the yoke of oppression in GE13, when 51% of the electorate, voted for the Opposition. Yet, the nation is still saddled with the oppressive regime of Umno Baru.

After World War II, countries were rebuilding and Malaya's riches from rubber and tin, were needed to fund the reconstruction of Britain. In war-scarred Malaya, factories were rebuilt, estates started producing and mines resumed operations. The output was twice what it had been before the war but workers wages were still depressed.

Food was in short supply and the suffering of the people was compounded by the discovery that Japanese war-currency was useless. Malayans were destitute.

Chin Peng's efforts to obtain better conditions and wages for the workers were futile. He encouraged strikes which turned nasty. His excuse was that he was fighting for the people. At least, he did not commit treason by giving ICs and citizenship to illegal foreigners.

Some people might wonder what Malaysia would be like as a communist state, and make comparisons with the People's Republic of China's (PRC).

The economic output of the PRC helps keep the economies of many countries alive. PRC nationals form the highest numbers of tourists to many destinations around the world. Singapore is attracting PRC nationals to work and live on the island, to the detriment of its own citizens. The rate of millionaires and billionaires being formed in PRC is high.

If communism is so bad, why does the Malaysian government entertain the PRC, whilst demonising the CPM and mistreating Malaysians of Chinese origin?

Malaysian schoolchildren are not taught that British forces funded, trained and supplied arms to Chin Peng during World War Two. The combined effort was to liberate the country from the Japanese aggressors. A few years after WWII, the communists waged war on the British because the CPM wanted to free Malaysia from British colonial rule.

READ MORE HERE

An analysis of arrogance

Posted: 26 Sep 2013 11:57 AM PDT

One of them is the deputy high priest of Malay rights, Zulkifli Noordin, who was 101 per cent confident of securing the Parliamentary seat for Shah Alam. In a pre-election interview, he adamantly boasted to a reporter that he will absolutely win the elections. No hypothetical situations were allowed to be imagined. He was arrogant even before the elections.

Aerie Rahman, MM

Malaysian politicians are unique beings. It is difficult to find this breed in other democracies. The public statements made are remarkable, not for its wit but for its reeking arrogance. In most democracies, it is a norm for public figures to conceal their arrogance under a facade of conviviality. But in Malaysia, the arrogance of our politicians is ostensible.

Take for example what Nazri Aziz said when questioned about his son's position at his Ministry. Along with saying that his son wasn't under the government's payroll, his riposte was that his critics were stupid. This is no different from Zahid Hamidi who suggested that Malaysians who are disillusioned with the political system should leave the country.

Moral superiority is displayed by these ministers who belittle their critics.

We're also familiar with those in power who summarily dismisses the reasonable complains of the public by giving us ridiculous advice. Let's not forget the people who said "If the price of ______ (fill in the blanks with chicken, property, vegetables etc) is too expensive, don't buy it".

These statements smack of arrogance as it shows that those in power do not intend to delve into the problems of average people like you and me. Dismissing them is a lot easier than trying to justify and address the problems. It gives them a bit of spotlight as well.

An arrogant attitude is unbecoming of members of a civilian government.

But why are they arrogant?

Narcissism

Arrogance has many permutations and nuances. These forms of arrogance are a lived reality – affecting our everyday lives.

In the Romantic philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau's polemical The Social Contract, he wrote that the people of England are only free during election time. When MPs are elected, slavery overtakes society.

What he meant was that politicians would be servile only during election time, promising the moon and stars to garner votes. But as soon as their position is secured, they won't give a damn about us common folk.

While this may be true with most politicians in Malaysia, there are some who deem themselves as masters even before winning the elections.

One of them is the deputy high priest of Malay rights, Zulkifli Noordin, who was 101 per cent confident of securing the Parliamentary seat for Shah Alam. In a pre-election interview, he adamantly boasted to a reporter that he will absolutely win the elections. No hypothetical situations were allowed to be imagined. He was arrogant even before the elections.

He lost the elections, yet gained a whopping 38,000 votes.

Zul Noordin's vanity is a form of arrogance which is due to him constructing and construing himself as an object of desire. For some reason, he zealously believed that he was wanted by others and as such, had the capacity to be arrogant. He is deluded about his self-worth and projected his sphere of influence far beyond reality.

This form of arrogance is common among the bourgeoisie as well. Just look at high flying financiers and footballers who ask for high wages and respect, believing that they are in high demand.

Concealing shame

Shame is a concept that is common among the bourgeoisie where in their worldview, status and position in society is essential. For those who are in abject poverty, shame is present, but is not as accentuated as how it is among the bourgeoisie.

Shame is an inescapable torment for the bourgeoisie whenever they commit some transgression – this is especially true for our politicians who live under the scrutiny of the court of public opinion. They can't get rid of it; it hangs above them like the sword of Damocles.

Even in feudal societies, shame is an integral element within the aristocracy. The nobility is expected to be chivalrous and honourable. In medieval Japan, the Samurai, a class above traders and farmers would commit seppuku if they committed a dishonourable act.

Such is the power of shame.

But in Malaysia, when blamed for incompetency, politicians disguise their feelings of shame by lashing out at others or try to appeal to some crass nationalism. They impose their authority by using their repository of power and influence. This ends up with a projection of arrogance. Arrogance is used to divert the shame that burns a gaping hole in their pride.

Instead of shame having power over the politician, the politician uses his power to control shame.

Another example would be those in the financial sector. During the 2008 financial meltdown, large banks in the States needed to be bailed out. The CEOs of big banks were blamed for the failures of the banks. Nevertheless, without any sense of honour, they demanded huge sums as golden parachutes for their services. They did so because they had power.

No contrition was expressed. Without a doubt these bankers must have felt ashamed of themselves. Yet, securing an opulent future was more important.

The omniscient government

In Malaysia, the mindset that the government knows best is still prevalent despite Najib Razak's claims. This arrogant attitude has more to do with institutions than individuals – a sort of governmentality if you will. It stems from intellectual superiority, where the institution believes that it has the ability and technique to organise the masses, without needing to consult them.

The worst form of arrogance manifested itself with AUKU, where the government believed it was superior to students and entitled to impinge on student freedoms – by painting students as volatile and impressionable. Thankfully, that vile law has been scrapped.

However, the status quo of the government knowing best is still present. Take a look at the TPPA and the secrecy surrounding it. So many details are hidden from us and we are kept in the dark.

The lack of transparency and accountability only serves to confirm the enduring era of arrogant governance.

Zero tolerance on arrogance

Having explored the various types of arrogance that is pervasive in Malaysian society, the best course of action is to reprimand our leaders whenever arrogance rears its ugly head. Show your disapproval. Petition them. Respond. Resist the arrogance.

Never forget that they once and will always think that they are better than you – when in fact they are only just skilful in political manoeuvring.

We need to have a zero tolerance attitude towards arrogance. We are the masters of our country, and our politicians are our servants.

Put them in their rightful place.

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Jumaat, 27 September 2013

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

0 ulasan:

Catat Ulasan