Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info

Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

---

• Looking Beyond The Storm In The Teacup
• How long must the Rakyat continue to subsidise Mahathir (and his many cronies?)
• Hang Jebat was a Buddhist
• The SPAD Has Spoken
• What we can do to sail through stormy time ahead
• Project Malaysia: Belong or 'Lelong'?

Looking Beyond The Storm In The Teacup Posted: 08 Sep 2011 06:33 PM PDT By Lim Chee Wee, President, Malaysian Bar The storm in the teacup over the Prime Minister having tea with judges of the Malaysian Judiciary at their recently-concluded Judges Conference risks diverting attention away from more fundamental issues regarding the administration of justice in Malaysia. From any perspective, the head of the executive branch of government cannot be the head of the judicial branch in a properly functioning democracy. It is an error to say that the Prime Minister is the head of the Judiciary for administrative purposes. The doctrine of separation of powers between the three branches of government, namely, the Judiciary, Legislature and Executive, is essential to, and inherent in, a modern democracy that professes and abides by the rule of law. However, the Federal Court decided by a majority in PP v Kok Wah Kuan [2008] 1 MLJ 1 that, "The doctrine is not a provision of the Malaysian Constitution even though it influenced the framers of the Malaysian Constitution." The judgment, written by then-President of the Court of Appeal Abdul Hamid Mohamad, goes on to say, "The extent of the powers of the courts depends on what is provided in the Constitution. In the case of the two High Courts, the Constitution provides that they 'shall have such jurisdiction and powers as may be conferred by or under federal law.' Therefore, reference must be made to the federal law to know the jurisdiction and powers of the High Courts." Contrast this with the dissenting judgment of Richard Malanjum, Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak, who said, "Accepting the proposition that with the amendment to art 121(1) of the Federal Constitution the courts in Malaysia can only function in accordance with what has been assigned to them by federal laws, would be contrary to the democratic system of government wherein the courts form the third branch of the government and function to ensure that there is 'check and balance' in the system including the crucial duty to dispense justice according to law." His Lordship went on to say, "The amendment to art 121(1) should by no means be read to mean that the doctrines of separation of powers and independence of the Judiciary are now no more the basic features of the Federal Constitution. The amendment did not cause the courts to become servile agents of a Federal Act of Parliament and to only perform mechanically any command or bidding of a federal law." International bodies, such as the United Nations Human Rights Council's Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, have questioned the independence of the judiciary in Malaysia in a situation where there is no clearly accepted principle of separation of powers. They have expressed concern at the current state of affairs. It is therefore encouraging to read the report in The New Straits Times of 8 Sept 2011 quoting the Prime Minister, Najib Razak, as saying in his speech during his visit to the Palace of Justice that, "My administration is committed to an independent judiciary, which is an essential ingredient in nation building . . . The relationship must not only be proper, it must be seen to be proper." The report further stated that the Chief Justice, Zaki Tun Azmi, had emphasised that "…the judiciary was [sic] an important organ in the separation of powers and each branch – executive, judiciary and legislature – must ensure that respect and non-interference existed". It is important to differentiate between judicial reforms that make the administrative processes efficient on the one hand, and reforms to overcome problems, perceived or otherwise, with judicial integrity. Some may hold the view that it is not objectionable per se for the respective heads of the three branches of government to have official meetings or to socialise occasionally. This may very well be true where the respective institutions are strong and independent, and are perceived to be so, thereby enjoying public confidence. Public disquiet over a tea party may be seen as an indication that our institutions do not yet enjoy the fullest confidence. It is therefore timely and imperative that the recommendations in the report of the Royal Commission of Enquiry on the Video Clip Recording of Images of a Person Purported to be an Advocate and Solicitor Speaking on the Telephone on Matters Regarding the Appointment of Judges dated 9 May 2008 be immediately acted upon, and given effect to, by the government. The report recommended, inter alia, that article 121(1) of the Federal Constitution be re-amended to its original form "so that the Judiciary is free once again to live up to the highest expectations of society for all time. There will be no room for concern on the judicial power issue." It quotes Professor Emeritus Dr Shad Saleem Faruqi as saying, "The amendment to article 121(1) has created the wrong perception that the Malaysian Executive wishes to silence the Judiciary. All Judges feel humiliated. Some have accepted their truncated role as mere agents of Parliament and not as independent pillars of the Federal Constitution. Others insist that their review powers are intact. There is division within the ranks." It is now incumbent on the Prime Minister and the government to put powder and shot in the former's declared commitment to an independent judiciary, and assertion that the relationship between the various branches of government must not only be proper, but must also be seen to be so. The Malaysian Bar likewise looks to the Judiciary to strengthen its independence, and to work to return the doctrine of separation of powers to its rightful place within the framework of the Federal Constitution and Malaysian law.

How long must the Rakyat continue to subsidise Mahathir (and his many cronies?) Posted: 07 Sep 2011 07:39 PM PDT UPDATED WITH VIDEOS Francis also made a gaffe when he said that it was ok working with the former Prime Minister because all Mahathir did was to take 30%. It was more than a Freudian slip as Francis specifically said "HE taxes 30%" and not that it was taxed by the government. By Jeffrey Ong Recently, I was shocked to watch the Bloomberg interview with Francis Yeoh where it was revealed by Haslinda Amin that Francis Yeoh has benefitted so much from "his friend in powerful places" that today "more than 70% of YTL profits come from the power plants". Francis also made a gaffe when he said that it was ok working with the former Prime Minister because all Mahathir did was to take 30%. It was more than a Freudian slip as Francis specifically said "HE taxes 30%" and not that it was taxed by the government. It is also disgusting to see how much money this crony of Mahathir has siphoned off to Singapore until today. According to Haslinda Amin, Francis now owns more than a third (ie 33.3%) of the power generation capacity in Singapore. So much of the hard earned money of Tenaga Nasional has been used to pay this crony until Tenaga is in the red despite raising tariffs and passing all the charges to all of us, the innocent helpless users of electricity.  So much subsidy is being given to the IPPs by way of the special gas prices, and to top it all, Mahathir has forced TNB to buy back the electricity at fixed prices with a sinful margin of profit to Francis (so Mamak Mahathir uses a greedy Christian to suck the blood of his own people). As for Francis, how can such a cheat profess to be a Christian when one of the Ten Commandments clearly states "Thou Shall Not Steal" (in this case, mainly from the poor Malays). Perhaps Francis has a eleventh commandment which says it is alright if you steal for The Mamak. While the old folks and the needy are all suffering in Malaysia, this hypocrite Francis said that he has taught his children the importance of the language of God. The only language these people know is the language of songlap money. When the present government loses the next election, we should string them up by their short and curlies to show the world what a bunch of mean, heartless, blood suckers Mahathir and Yeoh have been. We would love to see them doing The Jailhouse Rock with their billions hanging from their b*lls. Now that I have seen the pictures of Yeoh's children on Bloomberg, I will know in which direction I will spit at, the next time I bump into them in their Lot 10, Marriot, Ritz Carlton, Vistana and all these ill gotten properties from the IPP rip-off, planned by Mahathir the hypocritical Muslim, carried out by crony Francis whose self-proclaimed commandment "I shall steal and use God's name in vain." Vote these people out the next coming elections or we will have to continue to stomach their fart face, nonsensical arrogance. We are paying through our noses for higher and higher electricity bills for their extravagant life-styles. I was at Mahathir's open house in Seri Kembangan on Sunday, just to see what type of person he is and you know what? He is two faced; pretending to smile, pretending to listen, pretending to care for the future of Malaysia when in fact all he is doing is trying to save his image, which we all know today is nothing but a farce. Mahathir's true friend are Daim who raped the nation of billions, Tajudin Ramli who plundered MAS and the nation of more billions, Syed Mokhtar who was practically given control of the nation's rice bowl to siphon more easy billions. And this bunch of idiots are still in the country. Let's make the Opposition win the election and throw all these shit bags in jail where they rightly belong. I was told by the CEO of MRCB that Daim has in fact whispered to Mahathir that UMNO needs to use the MyKad to register as voters all the Indonesians and other immigrant Muslims so that they can try to cheat in the coming election. In return, Mahathir has told Francis to use the "YES" network. 4G means "For Goreng" so that they can spy on all the youngs' emails correspondence. For a start, we say "no" to Francis' 4G so that they cannot spy on what we are emailing or talking through our devices and apps. Just ask ourselves a simple question: Can we believe that Francis the f*ck face is a good man and really wants to help Malaysia, or is he a running dog of Mahathir to give him all our hard earned money, and all our private information?" After all, Francis did give the interview in Singapore in the Singapore flyer with Haslinda Amin, and not in Malaysia, both smiling across the Singapore skyline and saying how clever they are and how dumb the Malaysians are. Having lived abroad myself, I have never encountered such a display of self-glorification when he should know darn well the only reason he is rich is because he sucks Mahathir's b*lls and they both cheat the Rakyat. As a lying, stealing, fake Christian by any counts, he should be the first to be thrown into Hell when his day of rekoning is here. All Malaysians should ask why the heck am I paying so much for my electricity bills so that these Nimcompoops can go around as high fliers? Why the heck was the interview held in Singapore? Francis can't even be proud to be Malaysian. We are so dumb to be cheated day and night by these idiots! A reassessment is needed of Mahathir Mohammad who is nothing more than the worse human being ever brought to this planet earth. The late Hussein Onn made the bloody mistake of choosing this mamak and sidelined Razaleigh, that's why when in Onn's later years he chose to join Pakatan Semangat 46. Najib nearly joined 46 but as a hen-pecked lalang, what do you expect? Muhyiddin, a racist by definition is nothing more than Syed Mokhtar's puppet, and by extension Mahathir's puppet. Zahid has no brains. Hishammuddin, nothing between his ears, should refrain from using his father's name or grandfather's name in vain because if UMNO is to benefit these fake Christians like Francis Yeoh, when there are so many other better and true Christians in Malaysia being thrown the petrol bomb in their church by people inspired by Perkasa, which is Mahathir again! So there you have it, there is no one worth our while in this God forsaken, beer drinking government. So, the new Ten Commandments for a better Malaysia : - 1.       "Bersih bills" - protest with a new round of Bersih your electric bills unless you have no problems giving your hard earned money to Mahathir. 2.       Boycott yes 4 Goreng 4G – keep your info private. 3.       Cancel your yes 4G if you did not know their true intentions. 4.       Boycott all their shopping malls or hotels – do this from today. 5.       Tell your best friends about this crook Mahathir Mohamad. 6.       Read in Malaysia Today about San Mirzan and his beer land grabbing plot – tell  50 friends each about this and spread the gospel. 7.       Remember that this mamak family drinks beer and not teh tarik when you go to their open house. 8.   Spit at their children when you see them – whether mamak's kids, Francis' kids, or Daim's kids, and continue to expose these blood suckers. Do not let their children have half a chance to pretend to be able to live like quasi aristocrats when they are children of crooks. 9.       Put them in jail, not Anwar. 10.   Register now to vote for a new government and a real future for our country. ******************************************** Tan Sri (Dr) Francis Yeoh on Bloomberg's "High Flyers" 1-uTZ-xrYQU  pK7DofssyMY  hH7PNNpSqu4

Hang Jebat was a Buddhist Posted: 06 Sep 2011 01:08 PM PDT By John Doe Sometimes, pictures speak a thousand words. Let us look Hang Jebat's Grave:       There is no such architecture in Malaysia. Since UMNO decided to add the Jawi words on top of the architecture, let us assume that they are indeed endorsing this as THE authentic graves of the Hang Brothers.   Let us also take a look at Hang Tuah's (fake grave) located in Kampong Keling.     Why I said "fake grave", is because of the inscription by Tourism Malaysia, on the panels which you can clearly see at the back.  "This was a large grave, therefore, it must have been of an important person, therefore, it is Hang Tuah's". That is fantastic logic. They could have at least said that it was a Sultan's Grave or something, and we would have had much less to gripe about. But why did they not say so? Why is there not a single grave of any Malaccan Sultan? While you are pondering, let me take you to Thailand. To a place called Lopburi. And take a look at King Narai's Palace:     Unlike Malacca, Lopburi has many many many buildings and artefacts to look at. The below is but one of several hundred in the vicinity.     All the red dots (on the left) show temples like the one above:     So, where, oh, where, is the evidence for the Malaccan Sultanate? Yes, one Chinese Collar, and an Indian knife, and some loose change? Come on!! You have to do better than that!! And while you are, let me pose you another question. Was Hang Jebat a Thai from Lopburi, or was he from Sri Lanka? While you ponder on that, let me bring you to Sri Dalada Maligawa. This is where they kept Buddha's Tooth. Their official website is found here: http://daladamaligawa.org/     http://daladamaligawa.org/ So, have you decided if Hang Jebat was a Thai, or a Sri Lankan? This puts a very interesting twist to the entire History of Malacca. Important to note, that while there is plenty of evidence of foreign occupation, there is none on the actual Sultanate itself. Sejarah Melayu (download from HERE) (Dear Saiful, it is pronounced ANNAL, and NOT Anal.) For those who insist that Muslims can be buried in such a grave, I contest Fat Lady of Putrajaya (FLOP) to put herself in a grave much like any of the Hangs'. Heck, I'd even be glad to pay for it, and bring in the experts from both Sri Lanka and Lopburi to build it for you. So, the Hangs were Buddhists? And they were from where again? Lopburi? Sri Lanka? Or are these actually the graves of the Hang Brothers at all? Maybe the graves belong to the Sultans? Maybe the graves belong to some rich Sri Lankan who lived in Malacca and had posthumously converted to Islam, as according to JAIS, and JAKIM? Oh, didn't you know? Non-Muslims are allowed to convert to Islam AFTER they die!! That saves you a lot of hassle of having to snip your dick, pay Zakat or pray 5 times a day. Just convert to Islam AFTER you die. And, the bonus is, after you die, you can never convert out of Islam, so Apostacy is completely out of the question for you. But make sure that you have divided all your property before you die, because it might completely belong to JAIS, despite what your will reads. I have a truly honest question: "Why was Prophet Muhammad never circumcised?" (http://www.google.com.my/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=prophet+circumcised) Btw, there's a new story floating around that Hang Tuah was captured by Zheng He, and taken back to China to be beheaded by the Ming Emperor, but I have yet to see any solid evidence for that yet.

The SPAD Has Spoken Posted: 06 Sep 2011 12:55 PM PDT By Tony Pua The Land Public Transport Commission (SPAD) has finally admitted land underground can be acquired under the National Land Code without affecting existing landowners in the cases affected by the MRT tunneling project. The Chief Executive Officer of SPAD, Mohd Nur Kamal has conceded as much in its letter to The Malaysian Insider where "all affected individual land owners [can] apply for stratum titles to be issued to the Government". As highlighted many times during the controversy, this is because the National Land Code 1965 had been specifically amended in1990 to allow for the acquisition of underground land without affecting surface property by inserting Part Five (A) (section 92A to 92G) under Clause 3. The amendment enables the disposal of "underground land", which can then either be alienated or leased for the use to construct tunnels, car parks and to lay pipes. SPAD then claimed in its letter that in the interest of expediency - "criticality of the project timetable, the benefit of the Government instead of each individual owner handling the process" – the Government has chosen to acquire all land first, and decide whether to return the surface land later. SPAD emphasized specifically that the government "is in no position to make guarantees of the return of these properties". Hence it is clear from the above admission and convoluted explanation that the Government's actions stink of bad faith and ill-intent. When the law clearly enables the Government to acquire the stratum or underground land without affecting the surface, it still chooses to acquire all land – surface and underground – at one go. Expediency is not a valid reason to abuse the law, especially when the rights of the property owners are significantly jeopardized. On top of that, on the one hand, SPAD argued that the acquisition process is just a matter of convenience. But on the other it says that it may not want to return the land after acquiring it – how more hypocritical can one get? The reasoning provided that what was most important was that the government had "listened" to feedback from the affected parties and had agreed to a mutually acceptable outcome rang completely hollow in the light of the above, as it showed that the "listening" was just merely a public relations exercise. All the various untenable excuses being raised leads only to a single possible conclusion – the land acquisition exercises proposed in Chinatown, Bukit Bintang and other prime locations are nothing but poorly masked attempts at profiteering and land grab. They are in breach of the spirit of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 where the Government is only to acquire private land, and only that which is necessary for public use and benefit, and not for profit. SPAD should stop tunneling a deeper hole for itself and stick to its role of independently regulating and ensuring an efficient and effective public transport system. It should not become a partner-in-crime for the Government to justify its "land grab" exercises, which is completely irrelevant to the planning and design of the MRT system.   TONY PUA

What we can do to sail through stormy time ahead Posted: 06 Sep 2011 12:31 PM PDT By Thomas Lee Seng Hock We are all set for a hard time in the almost immediate future, with some of us becoming unemployed, others underemployed, and a few facing the prospect of becoming bankrupts. So, the immediate measure is to cut our spending. I suggest taking the following steps: (1) stop subscription to paid TV (saving at least RM100 a month), (2) cut fixed phone line and use only prepaid HP (saving at least of RM50 a month), (3) don't buy newspapers, read news online (saving at least RM60 a month, (4) have only one dish for each meal, instead of the current three or four dishes (saving of at least RM10 a day, which works out to RM300 a month), (5) have only two meals a day -- brunch and dinner (saving at least RM10 a day or RM300 a month), (6) drink only boiled water, no need for other beverages (saving at least RM3 a day, i.e. RM90 a month), (7) don't eat out -- take food and drinking water to work (can save RM10 a day or RM300 a month), (8) cut down on driving, reducing petrol cost, toll charges and parking fees (saving of about RM200 a month), (9) reduce 50% use of shampoo, toothpaste, etc (saving of RM2 a day, i.e. RM60 a month), (10) Use handkerchieves, instead of buying tissue papers (saving at least RM1 a day, i.e. RM30 a month), (11) forgo new clothing for Christmas and New Year, etc (saving at least RM500 for a family of four), (12) cut down on expenses for festivals and celebrations (like birthdays) and save at least RM100 a month, (13) go to government hospital for treatment and medication, instead of visiting private clinics or hospitals. I save nearly RM200 a month on my daily medication using the Klang general hospital, and (14) Vote Pakatan Rakyat at next general election to save the country from bankruptcy caused by a corrupt administration.

Project Malaysia: Belong or 'Lelong'? Posted: 06 Sep 2011 12:12 PM PDT By SABM I am lucky to have a father who taught me early in life that diversity is something beautiful. I grew up in an environment that was colourful. But the colours that I saw growing up were predominantly a short spectrum consisting of three main colours. Each corresponded to distinct faces and features that I found out later had ethnic identities - Melayu, Cina, India.   Some years later, as I peeked at the forms being filled in by my father to enroll me in primary school, I noticed the existence of another colour given the name of 'Dan Lain-Lain'.   I soon learned that there was more to the spectrum than what I had known back then.   Despite the convenient label of 'Dan Lain-Lain', each one of those colours matters and makes up Malaysia.   Each one belongs here.   This Hari Malaysia, why not take a look again at our Project Malaysia?   Let's see if our Project Malaysia is truly one that is inclusive and nurtures a sense of belonging in our hearts.     Or is it a Project that focuses on selling off every particle that is beautiful and ours in a truly wholesale manner, 'Lelong' style.   Let's lift the label 'Dan Lain-Lain', look underneath and talk to a segment of our community that has been conveniently sidelined and its rights 'lelong'ed alongside ours.   This 16th September evening, at our Rumah, we'll be screening the short film that won the 2010 Freedom Film Fest organised by Pusat KOMAS.   'Hak Dinafikan' is the story of Orang Asal and was created by the Orang Asal themselves. The screening, which begins at 7 pm, will be followed by a discussion with the directors, Abri and Shafie, and also young activists from Sabah and Sarawak.   It's high time we learn their story and understand that it is our story as well.   We have a few other activities planned for the day. The details of the event will be announced in a couple of days.   For now, please reserve time for Hari Malaysia 2011, this 16th September, 7pm, at Rumah Anak Bangsa Malaysia.     Jumpa di sana ya?       Dengan ikhlas, Nanda __________________________________________________________________   Are you amongst the 3,973,032 eligible but as yet unregistered to vote? Do you know of someone who can but hasn't yet registered?  Register now and get every unregistered voter you know to do the same, if we are to have a chance for change come the 13th General Election.  Register as a Voter today! http://www.inorout.my/index.php/pages/about

You are subscribed to email updates from Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.	Email delivery powered by Google
Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info

Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

---

• Review of Palace, Political Party and Power
• The case of CPM (1948-1960) – a Special Branch perspective
• Rahsia ahli Umno no. # 000006
• Malaysia and the The Global Competitiveness Report 2011-2012
• GO or no GO, Zarinah and SC under scrutiny
• All rogues lead to SC
• Mat Indera & Mat Silam
• Outrage as Taib’s Ta Ann Files Losses in Tasmania
• Demand for democracy follows socio-economic transformation
• Not only the voting processes is screwed up, but the whole world too (dwi bahasa)
• Scholars’ views on nationalists and their struggle for Merdeka

Review of Palace, Political Party and Power Posted: 08 Sep 2011 10:28 PM PDT Never in Malaysian history had there been such a popular uprising against Malay royals as the ensuing protests. This video provides a hint of the likelihood that in a new Malaysia the most significant threat to the Malay rulers' fetish for power will come not from the United Malays National Organisation (UMNO) but from ordinary Malays. Kobkua Suwannathat-Pian serves as professor of history and senior fellow in the Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities of the Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris.  She ranks among the most renowned and respected historians of modern Thailand.  The latest of her many books, Palace, Political Party and Power: A story of the Socio-Political Development of Malay Kingship, sees her turn her attention to the history of modern Malaysia to provide a cogent analysis of the relationship between UMNO and the Malay rulers in their common quest for power. The book's timing is opportune, as it comes at a moment at which each of these institutions, UMNO and Malay kingship, confronts a decline in its legitimacy within a seriously divided Malay community.  Palace, Political Party and Power represents a valuable addition to the literature not only on the relationship between the Malay rulers and UMNO, but also on that between the Malay rulers and UMNO on the one hand and their "subjects" – the Malays of Peninsular Malaysia – on the other. Even more significantly, it treats an important and neglected dimension of Malaysian politics – the impact of the Malay rulers on the country's affairs. Palace, Political Party and Power traces the socio-political development of the institution of Malay rulership, from the beginning of colonial times, when the Malay rulers lost power but not prestige; through the Japanese Occupation, when they lost both; to the restoration of the rulers' prestige – thanks to the new Malay elites – at independence; and in the ebbs and flows since. In narrating this story, the book achieves three principal ends. First, it reaffirms conventional analysis holding that the British residential system in colonial Malaya had great significance in modernising the institution of Malay rulership towards the constitutional monarchy of today's Malaysia. Second, it argues persuasively that it was the Japanese Occupation of Malaya that provided the platform for new Malay elites – whose members would become the leading lights of UMNO – to take the leadership of the Malay masses away from the Malay rulers but in the process also to restore the prestige of those rulers. Third, and most important, almost seventy  percent of  Palace, Political Party and Power focuses on the complex relationship – one of competition for and cooperation in power – between the country's two leading Malay institutions, UMNO and the rulers. Kobkua Suwannathat-Pian's central argument is that the Japanese Occupation of Malaya and Japanese policies towards the Malay rulers, the new Malay elites, and the Malay community had, more than any other factor, the effect of stripping the Malay royal institution of its "aura", "mystique", "grandeur" and "authority." In consequence, Malay rulership no longer commanded the fear or undisputed reverence of members of the post-1945 Malay elite. Malaya's Japanese occupiers, through their treatment of the Malay rulers, revealed those rulers' impotence, their inability to defend themselves, and also their lack of the capacity to defend the interests of their subjects – the rakyat. This reality made clear to the burgeoning new Malay elite, which the Japanese also developed, that the existence of Malay royal institutions depended very much on the good will of those in power. It provided that new elite with a valuable lesson for dealing with difficult members of the royalty during the post-1945 period. Furthermore, Palace, Political Party and Power argues, Japan's policy of inculcating Malay society with a certain variant of Japanese values through education had the unintended effect of strengthening the Malays as one community, sharing one language and one religion. Many Malay youths were sent to schools – ordinary schools, teacher training schools, and leadership schools (kurenjo). In the leadership schools, Malay students were taught by means of an exhausting daily routine to appreciate and to live by Nippon seishin, or the Japanese spirit. This exposure to Japanese values had the profound effect of changing some Malays' outlook on life, and above all of exorcising the narrow socio-political parochialism that had previously divided the Malays into subjects of different rulers owing allegiance to different sultanates. The Japanese Occupation of Malaya also toughened members of the new Malay elite, as both the British and the Malay rulers would learn so dramatically after Imperial Japan's defeat. READ MORE HERE

The case of CPM (1948-1960) – a Special Branch perspective Posted: 08 Sep 2011 09:44 PM PDT This paper incorporates the contemporaneous views of the Malayan Special Branch that have not been recorded previously. It also examines the role of Lawrence (Lance) Sharkey, the acting Secretary-General of the Australian Communist Party, who was in Singapore en route back to Australia after attending the February 1948 Conferences in Singapore, in allegedly passing instructions to the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) to revolt against the British colonial government in Malaya. The essay1 will conclude that there is little evidence of any direct Soviet intervention in the decision made by the CPM to revolt, and it will argue that the decision to resort to armed conflict was made after its failure to establish a Communist People's Democratic Republic by "open front" activities. The background   The academic world and the intelligence community have long debated the origins of the 1948-1960 communist uprising in Malaya. Was the decision to raise the standard of revolt in June 1948 part of a global revolutionary movement orchestrated by the Soviet Union as part of the Cold War in Asia, or was it instead arrived at by the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) based on the local situation in Malaya?2 Or was it rather a mix of both? Many thousands of words have been written on these questions in the intervening years, but a definitive answer will likely have to await the release of the Soviet Union documents. 3 Meanwhile, this paper presents the viewpoint of a Special Branch officer who served as a Malayan Police Special Branch officer during the Malayan Emergency (1948-1960) and who participated in the discussions (referenced later) that took place at Federal Special Branch headquarters in Kuala Lumpur during the early 1949. These discussions concerned the origins of the uprising of the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) against the government. Firstly, we summarise the background. The first question postulated above takes its starting point from Andrei Zhdanov's well-known speech at the inaugural meeting of the Cominform on 27 September 1947. Zhdanov argued that the world had been polarised into two opposing camps, that is, the communist bloc led by the Soviet Union and the Western capitalist countries led by the United States.4 His speech encouraged a militant approach by worldwide communist parties to propagating revolution in the Third World. The same line was repeated by E.M. Zhukov, who had attended the inaugural meeting of the Cominform with Zhdanov, in his article in the December 1947 issue of the Bol'shevik that referred to the "sharpening crisis of the colonial system" (author's emphasis) being "perhaps one of the most significant efforts to apply Zhdanov's doctrine to Asia".5 On this basis, a Soviet Conspiracy Theory has been developed that postulates that the Soviets had in some way transmitted "instructions" to the representatives of Southeast Asian communist parties attending the Communist Youth Conference, held from 19-24 Feb 1948 in Calcutta, to take advantage of the unstable conditions prevailing in Southeast Asia at the end of the Second World War to rise up against their colonial rulers.6 British forces responded by airlifting supplies to the city, and the blockade was eventually lifted in May 1949.   There were two Communist conferences held in Calcutta in February and March 1948. The first was the Communist Youth Conference, held from 19 February 1948 to 24 February 1948, which was sponsored by the World Federation of Democratic Youth (WFDY) and the Conference of Youth and Students of South-East Asia fighting for Freedom and Independence.7 The other was the 2nd Congress of the Communist Party of India (CPI) held from 28 February 1948 to 6 March 1948. The conferences were well attended by a wide range of communist delegates from Vietnam, Indonesia, Ceylon, Burma, India, Pakistan, Nepal, the Philippines and Malaya, with observers from Australia, Korea, Mongolia, Soviet Central Asia, Yugoslavia, France, Hungary, Canada, Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union. According to what Chin Peng, Secretary-General of the CPM, told the author in Canberra in February 1999, the CPM did not receive an invitation to attend either of the Calcutta conferences,8 although Lee Soong, General Secretary of the Malayan WFDY, received an invitation to attend the Youth Conference.9 The CPM's Central Executive Committee approved Lee's attendance at the Conference.10 Lee was a Singapore-Chinese of CPM State Committee rank who, like many Singapore-Chinese, was fluent in English, the language used at the conference. Returning to the Soviet Conspiracy theory, the best known exponents of the theory are probably the US scholars Walt W. Rustow, A. Doak Barnett, and Frank N. Trager, who argued that instructions to start armed uprisings had been passed on from the Soviet "centre" to representatives of the Southeast Asian communist parties attending the Calcutta conferences.11 The leading proponent of the opposite school of thought was Ruth T. McVey, who called into question whether the Soviet Union had issued any such instructions. Over the years many, other historians followed this critical path, with Anthony Stockwell's paper "Chin Peng and the Struggle for Malaya" (2006) as a recent example.12 In her 1958 study, McVey had summed up the situation by saying that in the unsettled conditions that prevailed in Southeast Asia after the Japanese surrender at the end of the war, "it does not seem likely that the two-camp message [sic] lit the revolutionary spark in Southeast Asia though it may well have added the extra tinder which caused it to burst into flames".13 In his classic study of the Emergency, The Communist Insurrection in Malaya, Anthony Short was rather more circumspect, and while he did not specifically support the Soviet Conspiracy Theory, he reasoned that while the "(Calcutta) conference did not openly declare for insurrection its mood was one of extreme belligerence towards colonial rule".14 This is undoubtedly correct as it reflects the standard communist line, and in fact during the post-war period, even the US, the leader of the Western capitalist countries, expressed reservations about the continuation of British, French and Dutch colonial rule in Southeast Asia.15 Professor Mary Turnbull's essay in The Cambridge History of Southeast Asia (1992) came out clearly against the "Soviet Conspiracy Theory" in the following words: "In fact the period was one of confused ambitions for the communists. Their various revolts and wars in Indonesia, Malaya, Vietnam and Burma, were not part (author's emphasis) of a grand pre-planned Soviet strategy, such as Lenin's dream of communist revolution in Asia or the Comintern's ambitious design to use China in the 1920s as the means of realising this dream. While the Soviet Union had shown little interest in Southeast Asia, apart from the 1920s Comintern interlude, the Chinese Communist Party posed a more immediate threat." 16 As of 2007 however, it was clear that the controversy was still attracting scholarly attention, as the subject was discussed again in Philip Deery's paper "Malaya, 1948: Britain"s Asian Cold War'17, which was the focus of an interesting H-Diplo review article by Karl Hack. In his review article, Karl Hack argued that the "Soviet role needs to be given at least some weight within nuanced, multi-causal models of the outbreak of the "Asian Cold War", and that the MCP did have a programme intended to end in armed revolt within months, even though the British precipitated this'.18 Nevertheless, the debate appears to have largely overlooked the fact that The Times (London) had long ago (June 1948) taken the view there was little evidence of direct Soviet intervention in the rise of revolutionary movements then taking place in Malaya and other parts of Southeast Asia, though The Times conceded that several of the revolutionary leaders, such as Aliman of Indonesia and Ho Chi-Minh of Indo-China, had spent several years in Russia or in communist service abroad.19 The Times considered instead that communist parties were taking advantage of the unsettled conditions prevailing throughout the area at the end of the war, identifying themselves with nationalist anti-West feelings and opposing landlords and factory managers as well as the colonial governments in power.20 READ MORE HERE

Rahsia ahli Umno no. # 000006 Posted: 07 Sep 2011 07:30 PM PDT Ketika jejak sejarah SAMM ke Johor baru ini, telah bertemu dengan perbagai orang dan meneliti perbagai bahan berkaitan sejarah. Kami telah menemui bukan sahaja sejarah Bukit Kepong malah lebih dari itu. Sememangnya banyak sangat yang dipendam dari pengetahuan umum. Salah satunya ialah rahsia ahli nombor 6, ketika penubuhan Umno itu sendiri. Umno telah ditubuhkan dengan keahlian bukan Melayu. Ahli nombor 6 ini seorang doktor perubatan dan bukan Melayu. Dia merupakan anak kepada British and Indian descendants, berasal dari Alor Gajah, Perak. Sedikit latar belakang, Sir Harold McMichael pada tahun 1945 telah ditugaskan oleh 'London' untuk mendapatkan tandatangan semua raja-raja Melayu tetapi bila bertemu dengan DYMM Sultan Ibrahim (Johor), baginda Sultan telah tidak mahu menandatangani perjanjian tersebut. Tanpa tandatangan Sultan Ibrahim sudah tentu perjanjian tersebut tidak bernilai. Perbagai helah digunakan termasuk mempengaruhi anak Sultan Ibrahim. ketika inilah ahli pengasas Umno dengan keahlian nombor 6 itu muncul. Sultan sememangnya berkeras tidak mahu menandatangani perjanjian tetapi Dato' Onn pengasas Umno berusaha bersungguh - sungguh memujuk Sultan Ibrahim sehingga menggunakan Dr. Paglar yang sememangnya rapat dengan Sultan. Read more at: http://chegubard.blogspot.com/2011/09/rahsia-ahli-umno-no-000006.html

Malaysia and the The Global Competitiveness Report 2011-2012 Posted: 06 Sep 2011 07:29 PM PDT Apart from providing statistical data,  the index also features data from the Executive Opinion Survey carried out by the World Economic Forum. The 2011 Survey captures the perceptions of over 13,000 business leaders from the featured 142 economies. The full version of the Report can be read online at THIS LINK. This year, Switzerland tops the overall rankings in The Global Competitiveness Report 2011-2012. Singapore overtakes Sweden for second position. Northern and Western European countries dominate the top 10 with Sweden (3rd), Finland (4th), Germany (6th), the Netherlands (7th), Denmark (8th) and the United Kingdom (10th). Japan remains the second-ranked Asian economy at 9th place, despite falling three places since last year. The statistics show that even though advanced economies have stagnated in competitiveness over the past seven years, the performance of many emerging markets has improved leading to more stable growth and in tandem with the shift in economic activity from advanced to emerging economies. Key findings from the report can be viewed HERE. The latest Global Competitiveness Report this year shows that Malaysia has  improved  by five places among 183 countries. Last year, Malaysia was in the 26th spot but now, it is in the 21st spot  having scored an overall 5.08 out of the maximum seven points for "improvements across the board". Its previous score was 4.88. In the area of financial market development, Malaysia is also ranked third among the world's economies - trailing behind Singapore and Hong Kong. In the  highly efficient goods market, Malaysia is in 15th place. In the Asean region, Malaysia has been gauged as the second most competitive economy and sixth among Asia-Pacific economies. The report also stated that Malaysia's progress had been particularly noteworthy under the forum's pillars on institutions and macroeconomics as well as in several measures of market efficiency. If you scrutinize the report for the section on Malaysia (Section 2.1, page 248), the population of Malaysia is listed as 27.9 million with a GDP of USD238 billion and a per capita GDP of USD 8423. According to the report, the most problematic factors for doing business in Malaysia include:   READ MORE HERE.

GO or no GO, Zarinah and SC under scrutiny Posted: 06 Sep 2011 07:24 PM PDT Sime Darby only purchase 30% stake in E&O from vendors Datuk Tham Ka Hon, Tan Sri Wan Azmi Wan Hamzah and GK Goh Holdings Ltd. The usual practise to require a Mandatory General Offer (GO) is 33% or more. However there is more to it than just that. Our highlight of the possibility of an insider trading infringement yesterday here by E&O Chairman and "Mrs Zarinah", Dato Azizan Abdul Rahman and long time business associate, Dato Kalimullah's ECM Libra attracted an interesting view from an anonymous commentator. There is the possibility that Azizan and Kalimullah's ECM Libra with their associates is taking a lucrative greenmail ride to cash out on a GO by Sime Darby. This leads to the game Dato Nazir Abdul Razak's CIMB is playing. Have this big bad 'I Banker" been ethical in this dealing?   READ MORE HERE.

All rogues lead to SC Posted: 06 Sep 2011 07:19 PM PDT Azizan is the chairman of E & O. He was not party to the sale but considering that other E & O board members who were party to the sale had also bought E & O shares from the open market, one is left wondering: Did the Board members know of the coming "windfall"?   Surprisingly, Azizan also emerged as a substantial shareholder of Kencana Petroleum Bhd in July, just days after an offcer was made to take over the company at RM3 a share! Wonder how shareholders of Ramunia Bhd felt upon finding out that their chairman was a substantial shareholder of a rival oil and gas firm?     READ MORE HERE.

Mat Indera & Mat Silam Posted: 06 Sep 2011 04:21 PM PDT Mat Indera played a prominent role in the 1950 attack on the Bukit Kepong police station. The incident was eventually immortalised in a movie played by the legendary P Ramlee. In the movie, the policemen were portrayed as heroes who fought against the communists. Mat Indera was allegedly a communist cadre. A book by the Johor government in 2004 names insurgent Mat Indera as a freedom fighter and lists him as a celebrated Johor hero. Who really is Mat Indera? Apparently, both Umno and PAS want a debate on this issue. Both parties idolise Mat Silam (historical past) more than what's current and urgent. It is a fact that politicians and their inability to move forward and take the society through a quantum leap are to be blamed for a lack of vision, vigour and good ideas in the country. Both PAS and Umno should start a more poignant debate and discourse on what form and shade the country should take in the next three to five years. How can Malaysia recapture its lustre? I am sure politicians in this country should be contented by keeping silent on an allegation made by an Indonesian envoy that Malaysia has lost its lustre. Both Khairy Jamaluddin and Mat Sabu should put their talents to use by debating on the best ideas and solutions to address the country's economic woes and its fading competitiveness. It is difficult to accept that politicians are so keen to debate the past but allow the future to slip away from our grasp. Contentious issues that refuse to go away Most of the contentious issues that refused to go away, such as race supremacy, basic constitutional freedom and nationhood, are directly caused by the refusal of our politicians to accept a steady change and evolution of a society. There is little surprise why some ethnic communities are still being considered as migrants - after being here for more than 500 years. The social lenses they used to view interracial relations, nation-building, fundamental rights and governance are causing stagnation and a lack of direction in the country. Malaysia is a nation without a soul. READ MORE HERE

Outrage as Taib’s Ta Ann Files Losses in Tasmania Posted: 06 Sep 2011 03:11 PM PDT Ta Ann is the world's biggest hardwood timber company in terms of market capitalisation, achieving a revenue of over 800 million ringgit last year, a 25% increase on the year before.  The company has also declared a 25% profit margin in its latest Annual Report. Yet, to the fury of environmentalists, the company managed to extract massive public subsidies to set up business inTasmania.  It is now extracting timber from the remaining wild forest areas, amid huge controversy.  And, despite those subsidies the company has just announced further losses.  Yesterday the senator stated: "Since it began operation in Tasmania, Ta Ann has made a net loss of about $18 million, despite receiving $10 million in direct public subsidies and being housed in premises which cost Forestry Tasmania $22 million and which it runs at a loss….When public money is poured into poor business models in forestry, we have less to spend on our hospitals, schools and national parks" [Senator Bob Brown] Australians overwhelmingly reject logging The protest comes hard on the heals of a recent opinion poll conducted by the Green Party, showing just how unpopular logging is in Australia.  88% of people surveyed said they want all logging of their wild jungle stopped immediately and that the 570,000 hectares of native forests in Tasmania should be turned into a National Park. The Greens are therefore demanding to know why an apparently powerful lobby has nevertheless managed to extract such subsidies for Ta Ann and gain the company access to the state, only to see the money wasted?  The poll was carried out late last month:   READ MORE HERE.

Demand for democracy follows socio-economic transformation Posted: 06 Sep 2011 02:40 PM PDT Although J. S. Furnivall first coined the term in his study of British and Dutch colonialism in Southeast Asia, most researchers ignore the fact that he discusses the emergence of 'plural societies', which he defines as lacking a common sense of cultural belonging, within the context of the rise of capitalism in colonial societies, dominated by a colonial power. Put another way, Furnivall situates his 'plural society' in the context of a changing society and economy. 'Plural society' explanation inadequate In this regard, although these researchers use the notion of plural society, in fact, their perspective is more closely related to the American anthropologist Clifford Geertz's notion of 'primordialism' which refers to strong ineffable sentiments and attachments based on the 'social givens' of human existence, like blood relations, kinship, tribe, race, language, dialect, religion, social customs and region. For Geertz, primordialism is invoked to provide meaning and solace to ordinary people when their societies are undergoing rapid change. In multi-ethnic societies like Malaysia, however, primordialism can lead to a heightening of ethnic group consciousness that threatens the nation-building process. Hence, an 'integrative revolution' that ushers in 'civic politics' is required, in order to prevent the break-up of these multi-ethnic nations. In Geertz's perspective, politics in a plural or multi-ethnic society is fractured along ethnic lines, and ethnic-based communities with recognisable leaders as well as common political interests and goals quite naturally emerge. It follows that electoral politics, too, is presumed to be ethnically determined and that voters, invariably, vote along ethnic lines. In a nutshell, the ethnic order of things is a 'given', almost natural. 'Consociationalism' explanations also inadequate To explain why the Barisan Nasional (previously the Alliance), a coalition of ethnic-based political parties, has ruled Malaysia since Merdeka in 1957, these researchers emphasise, or even essentialise, the BN parties and their leaders as inherently more moderate in outlook and more prepared to share power than their Opposition counterparts, who are characterised as extremist, narrow-minded and unwilling to share power. This is why the BN has come out tops time-and-time again. This is the 'consociational model' of politics, wherein the masses in a plural society are awash with communalism, the Opposition leaders are extremist and exclusivist in their views, and political stability and economic development can only be attained because of the altruistic and tolerant BN ruling elites. The theme of consociationalism is very popular, too, among researchers. Thanks to the propaganda disseminated via our schools, the mainstream media and the BN parties, the impression of a moderate BN and an extremist Opposition (Pas, DAP, PKR, PSM, etc) has also penetrated into the popular imagination of ordinary Malaysians Such a perspective underscores explanations of the BN's domination of Malaysian electoral politics. Often, references are also made to specific issues, episodes and events that occur when elections are held to explain variations in the BN's victories, sometimes spectacular, other times less so. For instance, the BN's narrow victory in the 1999 general election was attributed to the 'dual crises' which occurred in the run up to that election viz. the regional financial crisis of 1997/98 and the political crisis resulting from then deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim's sacking from Umno, both contributing towards a reformasi movement. In 2004, the BN's spectacular victory was explained in terms of the 'Pak Lah factor', namely, the ascendancy of Abdullah Badawi as Malaysia's new prime minister just prior to the 2004 polls, replacing Dr Mahathir Mohamed who had been at the helm for 22 years. It was Abdullah who led the BN into the 2004 polls and, apparently due to his more endearing political style and several reform initiatives, ensured a spectacular victory for the BN. Many Christians seemed to be taken up by the fact the Malaysian PM had for the first time sent Christmas greeting cards to church leaders. Many Malaysians were also enamoured by his catchy slogans such as "Work with me; not for me".   READ MORE HERE.

Not only the voting processes is screwed up, but the whole world too (dwi bahasa) Posted: 06 Sep 2011 01:29 PM PDT Saya terpegun tatkala membaca siding akhbar saudara Anthony Loke hari ini yang mendedahkan isteri anggota tenteta membawa IC berakhir dengan nombor ganjil (yang memang ditetapkan untuk golongan lelaki) dan mempunyai tarikh lahir yang sama dengan suami mereka. Sekiranya berlaku sekali dua kali, mungkin boleh dianggap sebagai kesilapan atau kebetulan namun mengapakah berpuluh-puluh kejadian ini menjelma serentak dalam suku tahun 2 2011 tatkala ura-ura pilihanraya akan diadakan? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/174945 They use the ordinary ICs of their husband to register but under the wives' names - a wife could still have the ordinary voter's right so she might be able to vote twice," exclaimed Loke in a press conference called to reveal the discrepancies. "The IC numbers definitely belong to men as these numbers are odd numbers, while female IC numbers are even numbers, and this clearly states that she is a voter in Rasah in the army camp," said Loke. For example, Noor Atikah Zakaria holds a male's MyKad, 840306-02-5561, and the army officer believed to be her husband, Mohd Hasbullah Abdul Wahab, has an army MyKad, T1140868 - where both are registered with the same date of birth, locality and voting district. "All these are new registrations, it can't just be a normal mistake. The roll has been updated so 19 incidents in one constituency can't be a mere coincidence," said Loke ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Are there similar cases in army camps all over the country? Call me a cynic but this looks more like systematic design rather than honest error. And EC and possibly JPN have hell a lot to explain. Adakah kes-kes seumpama ini berlaku di semua kem tentera seluruh negara? Keadaan ini nampaknya seperti hasil daripada rancangan yang teratur dan bukanlah kesilapan yang tidak disengajakan. SPR dan mungkin JPN perlu membuat penerangan teliti kepada rakyat Malaysia. And to think the big general asking his troops and the rakyat to be loyal to something that is proven to be tarnished? Ingat tak rayuan seorang jeneral besar baru-baru ini supaya tentera dan rakyat taat kepada sesuatu yang kini nampaknya sudah tercemar? Ordinary folks might shrug and say, "Oh yea, what is new? Does not impact me directly wat!" Orang ramai mungkin kurang peka terhadap keadaan ini dan tanya apakah pula hubung kait dengan hidup seharian mereka. Let's explore the possible consequences should a person can turn up with such I.C.to vote as well as other places that you and me visit on a daily basis.  Who should feel afraid, very afraid? Marilah kita merenung sejenak siapakah yang harus rasa bimbang atau tertekan kini kerana sekiranya seseorang itu boleh muncul mengundi dengan IC palsu, maka beliau boleh juga bawa I.C. palsu ke merata-rata tempat (sekiranya I.C. palsu ini wujud) Bankers I can imagine bankers getting jittery. Already required by law to monitor money trails to detect money laundry activities, people running to them with fake I.C. to open bank accounts will hardly make the banks' jobs' easier. Criminals would be encouraged to commit more fraud as they can dupe people to deposit money into bank accounts controlled by them but not registered under their names. The Bank Negara Governor would be hard pressed to look respectable in international conferences that she attends. Pihak Bank Para bank harus takut kerana mereka diwajibkan undang-undang mengesan aliran wang haram. Kini dengan adanya orang membuka akaun bank dengan IC palsu, pemantauan mereka bertambah sukar. Para penjenayah pun digalakkan melakukan lebih banyak penipuan kerana mereka boleh menipu orang ramai memasukkan wang dalam akaun bank yang dikawal oleh penjenayah tetapi bukan bawah nama mereka. Gabenor Bank Negara pun tertekan tatkala menghadiri siding-sidang yang berkenaan di liar negara nanti Credit card companies It is so easy to obtain credit card nowadays so if a person with a fake I.C. can also come up with some fake payslips to dupe credit card companies into granting credit cards. The higher risk and instances of default will force the credit card companies to pass such cost of business to the genuine and law abiding credit card holders. This would create also, wide spread uncertainty to merchants accepting payments from credit cards too. Read more at: http://wangsamajuformalaysia.blogspot.com/2011/09/i-am-shocked-beyond-words-when-i-read.html#more

Scholars’ views on nationalists and their struggle for Merdeka Posted: 06 Sep 2011 12:18 PM PDT In this and subsequent posts, the Centre for Policy Initiatives reproduces various key articles written by authoritative scholars and academicians on the events and some of the main protagonists engaged in the struggle for the country's independence. I am grateful to the editorial board of the journal, Kajian Malaysia, and Penerbit Universiti Sains Malaysia as well as to the authors of the various pieces – C.C. Chin, Richard Mason, Leon Comber and Abdul Rahman Ismail for their permission to have their work featured in this CPI series. Other articles will be included in the series once permission has been obtained from their authors and publishers. I hope that the scholarly work provided here and from other sources can serve as the basis for more informed and historically truthful interpretations of the period leading to and immediately following the independence of Malaya in 1957 and the role of the major actors and political forces. ******************************* Revisiting 1948 insurgencies and the cold war in Southeast Asia   By Richard Mason In 1948 left-winged insurgencies broke out in Malaya, Burma, Indonesia and the Philippines. These insurgencies continued to leave their imprint on the region today. The papers in this volume discuss the significance of these insurgencies in the course of Southeast Asian history, with particular reference to the Cold War in the region. These papers are part of a larger collection that were presented at a Roundtable on the Sixtieth Anniversary of 1948: Reassessing the Origins of the Cold War in Southeast Asia, organised by the Asia Research Institute (ARI), National University of Singapore (NUS), 10-11 July 2008. The central concern of the Roundtable was to discuss the significance of 1948 in Southeast Asian history and to determine "in what way 1948 was – or perhaps was not – 'the beginning of the Cold War' in Southeast Asia." Were the seemingly simultaneous left-winged insurgencies that broke out in the region in 1948 Soviet-directed as part of the Cold war in Asia or did the insurgencies emerged from local circumstances affecting the strategies of the struggles of these left-wings movements in the respective counties concerned? How important were the insurgencies in affecting the course of Southeast Asian history? Did 1948 constitute a watershed in Southeast Asian history? The papers in this volume address these issues among many others. Were the left-winged insurgencies which broke out in Malaya, Burma, Indonesia and the Philippines in 1948 directed by the Soviet Union as part of the Cold War in Asia? Known as the "Soviet Conspiracy Theory", the starting point for this postulation is Andrei Zhdanov's speech at the inaugural of the Cominform in September 1947 which argued that the world had been divided into two opposing camps: the Western capitalist countries led by the United States on the one hand, and the communist bloc led by the Soviet Union on the other. Zhdanov advocated that foreign communist parties should be in vanguard of spreading communism throughout the world. This line was repeated by E.M. Zhukov in an article published in the December issue of Bol'shevik, which advocated propagation of revolutions to the colonial areas. According to proponents of this Soviet Conspiracy Theory, it was at the Communist Youth Conference at Calcutta, convened 19-24 February 1948 that the Soviets passed on the "instructions" to representatives of Southeast Asian communist parties to seize the opportunity of the unstable conditions prevailing in Southeast Asia to rise against their colonial rulers. In March, left-winged insurgency broke out in Burma, followed by British Malaya in June, and Indonesia in September. Consistent with the thesis of monolithic communism, the conventional orthodox interpretation of these uprisings has it that they were Soviet-directed as part of the Cold War in Asia. Soviet interest in Southeast Asia had been notably absent before the Pacific War but by 1947 there were discernable evidence of Soviet's growing interest in the region. In 1947, the Soviet Union opened an embassy in Bangkok and this was shortly followed by the Communist Youth Conference at Calcutta in February 1948, and the subsequent the outbreak of the Southeast Asian insurgencies later that year. According to this school of thought, that these left-winged Southeast Asian insurgencies broke out almost simultaneously indeed suggest actions in response to instruction from Moscow. Predictably, both the United States and Great Britain immediately assumed that these insurgencies were Soviet-directed and formulated their responses accordingly.1   READ MORE HERE.

You are subscribed to email updates from Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.	Email delivery powered by Google
Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net