Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News
Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News |
- Demands for seats increase not as rational as they sound
- Anything But Umno
- Opposition parties still jostling for seats
- Re-examining the 1948 revolt of the MCP in Malaya
| Demands for seats increase not as rational as they sound Posted: 09 Sep 2011 06:23 PM PDT
I agree with Lajim. What we Sabahans should be thinking about now is not more seats, but a fairer share of the parliamentary seats among the Peninsular, Sabah and Sarawak regions, as was originally agreed during the formation of Malaysia. In the original arrangement out of the total number of 222 parliamentary seats, 25 percent was allotted EACH for Sabah and Sarawak. DANIEL JOHN JAMBUN We have noticed that for a while now there has been a lot of proposal to increase the number of parliamentary and state seats, with most of the opposition as well as the ruling coalition members supporting the move. Only Datuk Lajim Ukin has so far expressed disagreement with his colleagues' proposal. He said this doesn't make sense because the number of voters in some seats are too small, e.g. his Beaufort parliamentary constituency is only about 28,000 while the Sipitang and Kimanis parliamentary constituencies have only about 22,000 each.
I agree with Lajim. What we Sabahans should be thinking about now is not more seats, but a fairer share of the parliamentary seats among the Peninsular, Sabah and Sarawak regions, as was originally agreed during the formation of Malaysia. In the original arrangement out of the total number of 222 parliamentary seats, 25 percent was allotted EACH for Sabah and Sarawak. Meaning, the Peninsular got 50 percent and the Borneo states had 50 percent, in consideration for the Peninsular having a much larger population, and despite the larger geographical areas of the Borneo states.
Unfortunately, this is no longer reflected in the balance of seat in the Malaysian Parliament today, where the number of seats allotted to the Borneo states stands at 57 including the one held by the Federal Territory of Labuan. Peninsular Malaysia now has 165 seats, i.e. more than two-thirds of the total (two third would be 148 seats), and thereby depriving Sabah and Sarawak any possible veto power in cases of legislations which would derail their interests in the federation. It must be understood however that 18 of the seats held by Peninsular Malaysia in fact should belong to Sabah and Sarawak as the balance due to us after the departure of Singapore. The rot set in when Singapore's exit from Malaysia saw Peninsular Malaysia taking half of the 15 seats held by the island in Parliament. This altered the previous balance in Parliament between Peninsular Malaysia on the one hand and, on the other hand, Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak collectively. If we had our fair share of seats the Peninsular would be having 147 seats, i.e. one short of the two-thirds of the total.
Johnny Mositun, as a senior leader in PBS, should rethink his priority in this matter, and fight for a fairer share of seats for Sabah, and not more seats for the whole of Malaysia. For all we know, if there is an increase in seats, there will be even a bigger percentage share of seats for the Peninsular than it already enjoys now. We can believe that this strategy is already in the minds of many Peninsular leaders this very moment! And in that case, how will an increase in seats benefit Sabah and Sarawak? PBS should look at the interests of Sabah (and Sarawak) in the whole scheme and not have the shortsighted view of just increasing seats for the sake of increasing, and supposedly getting more development allocations.
Also, an increase of parliamentary seats in Malaysia will most likely lead to a repeat and worsening of another famous problem – gerrymandering! The federal leaders would definitely want to work in cahoots with the Election Commission to ensure the redelineation will maximise the Barisan Nasional's prospect to hold on to power and reduce as much as possible the opposition's chances of taking over the government. The PBS should realize that it is in a classic dilemma over this prospect – it will help the BN (and PBS) remain in power, but it will also further reduce the position of the KDMs in the BN coalition. So in reality, by proposing an increase in seats, the PBS, Upko and PBRS are actually putting the KDMs in worse political situation than they already are!
And imagine this: What if the federal leaders say that since the Peninsular has five times more population than Sabah and Sarawak combined, then the Peninsular, "to be fair", should have five times more seats than the two Borneo states (combined)?
It doesn't make sense to increase our number of parliamentary seats, also because if we look at India, a sub-continent with a total population of 1.189 billion (of which 714 million are voting citizens), and yet it only has 545 Members of Parliament! Compare this to Malaysia with a population of only 28 million people and having 222 MPs (0.0008% of the population)! Are we saying that if we had a population of one billion (like India) we should have 8,000 parliamentary seats (0.0008% of the population)? In such a scenario we will need a parliament hall 36 times the present size!
What we also need to realize is that Sabah has a population of 3.2 million while Sarawak has around 2.5 million, but Sabah, disproportionately, has only 25 seats while Sarawak has 31 seats. Maybe this needs to be rectified first. But then again, Sabah's population has been increased artificially with a purposeful injection of illegals, many of whom could be voting as phantoms voters. Therefore, an increase in seats could also mean an increase in the opportunity to use phantom voters, which is not good for Sabah?
As such the issue should not be to increase parliamentary seats, but to clean up the electoral rolls. And next to that it the cleaning up of the election process as envisaged by Bersih's eight-point demand for electoral reform. These are the most rational and necessary things to seek and ask for at this point in time. Unfortunately, the KDM-based BN component parties have no courage to support Bersih's demand because they would be seen as going against the government. Almost anything to do with yellow is now taboo, no matter how good it is for the people! Some day, maybe eating rice will also be taboo because some idiots out there made rice a symbol of a perfectly rational, pro-people, struggle! The KDM BN leaders are making a lot of noise about increasing parliamentary seats just because they want to be seen to be doing something positive, as if they are using their brains, whereas they in reality fail to see the negative possibilities of what they are asking for.
|
| Posted: 09 Sep 2011 06:12 PM PDT
We can only surmise that Gani Patail has enough to sink Umno dulu, kini dan selamanya. Just like probably VK Lingam knew too much that he could not be charged with subverting justice by trying to influence in the appointing of judges and just like how Tajudin Ramli knows enough about the backroom deals to warrant the government asking GLCs to stop litigation against him. Ali Kadir, The Malaysian Insider Raja Petra Kamarudin (RPK), the blogger, is right. We don't know if Pakatan Rakyat will be able to govern our beloved country responsibly or walk the talk. But we do know that they will not be worse than the plundering and blundering hordes of Umno. I say Umno and not BN because in reality the BN component parties such as the MCA, MIC, etc are subsidiaries of Umno. They may have a different flag, motto and even president but their mission statement is to be subservient to Umno. The elections are around the corner. How do we know that? Simple, the clamour for allocations and funds is getting louder in Umno. Soon, we will be asked to make a choice and by my reckoning the choice is clear: Anything But Umno. Just let us examine what these Umno types have done to our country. I have no doubt that the likes of Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun Dr Ismail, Hussein Onn, Tan Siew Sin were men of integrity and served the rakyat. But from the Mahathir era onwards it has been looting, corruption and using race and religion to divide Malaysians. We are sliding down a slippery slope in this country and we have a choice to either go with the flow and do nothing or change the direction of this country. Please don't expect Najib Razak and Umno to do anything. Najib is too weak-willed to ever be a reformer, and plus he seems to be caught by institutional paralysis. What he or any Umno president of late is doing is governing the country for the party and its crony capitalists. It is an open secret that the biometric scanning system deal benefited an Umno minister, the son-in-law of a top Umno leader and businessmen close to Putrajaya. And now we are told of the secret plan to privatise IWK by 1MDB and Puncak Niaga. So secret that even the minister in charge did not know about it. As reported in The Malaysian Insider, this deal was given the greenlight by the Economic Council. Then you have the PM saying that a good portion of MRT contracts will be set aside for Bumiputera contractors. This is an euphemism for Umno warlords and contractors connected to the party. The plundering does not stop there. National Service camps are given to Umno politicians and their supporters and smaller contracts are farmed out to Class F contractors, nearly 90 per cent of them Umno members. The government-sanctioned looting has reached such a crazy stage that members of the inner circle of PM and supporters linked to Muhyiddin Yassin are fighting over the economic largesse. I have not even touched on the notoriety of the First Family and their friends and hangers-on. Some people may think that excesses are okay as long as the economy is growing. Well, it is not and nothing can justify expensive shopping trips or diamond rings in a country where many still find it hard to make ends meet. Malaysia must be the only country in the world besides Zimbabwe where a top government official can remain in his job despite facing countless allegations which strike at the core of the man's honesty. The man in question is the Attorney-General Gani Patail. He has been accused of fabricating evidence, of hiding corruption cases involving Umno politicians and every dastardly act by a former senior police officer. The correct thing for the government to do would be to set up an inquiry and examine if the allegations are true. This man is after all the top legal officer. Instead the Najib administration just keeps silent and ignores all this incriminating evidence.
|
| Opposition parties still jostling for seats Posted: 08 Sep 2011 09:57 PM PDT
With their sights locked on Putrajaya, the opposition parties are hustling to contest more seats in the next general election, writes ZUBAIDAH ABU BAKAR Azmin has come out in defence of his party's decision to field candidates in seats that slipped from its hands due to defections, insisting that PKR could assure its allies that the candidates identified to contest those seats were credible, having gone through strict screening to avoid a recurrence of "jumping ship". Zubaidah Abu Bakar, New Straits Times AT the Pas annual assembly in June, a delegate from Terengganu called on the Islamist party to ensure a fair allocation of parliamentary and state seats according to the relative strengths of the opposition coalition's components. Fielding candidates in the impending national polls, which opposition leaders believe will be called this year, has increasingly become a concern among the three component parties, given the changing political scenario. Seat negotiations in several states, including Penang, Johor and Perak, have moved at a snail's pace as each party stakes out its claims. A circular containing guidelines on negotiations, signed by Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) secretary-general Saifuddin Nasution Ismail, his Pas counterpart Datuk Mustaffa Ali and DAP Socialist Youth chief Anthony Loke for the DAP, was issued to state chiefs of the three parties. Penang Pas deputy commissioner II Dr Mujahid Yusof also expressed the hope of seeing his party contest in more than the two parliamentary and five state seats it was handed in 2008, angering Penang PKR information chief Johari Kassim.
|
| Re-examining the 1948 revolt of the MCP in Malaya Posted: 07 Sep 2011 03:39 PM PDT
C.C. Chin, CPI Yesterday's introduction to this article by CPI and Richard Mason of UKM's Institute of Occidental Studies can be read here. This paper brings forward the idea of Malayan Communist Party's (MCP) plan for the revolt by examining various MCP documents at that time and oral history records of several important senior MCP cadres in order to determine its rationale. The MCP original document, especially those resolutions passed during the Central Committee Meetings suggest that the MCP did have a plan for revolt. An analytical approach of the MCP documents will help to determine whether the action taken by the MCP was simply an inevitable action against British repression rather than an act that took place because of external forces. Within the MCP, there were also arguments and debates regarding the revolt. Was the revolt necessary and were constitutional means completely exhausted? Could lack of alertness and adventurism be blamed for the ill-prepared revolt? The paper also examines if the Cold War setting in Asia was intentional on the part of the British. By examining British and Australian archival sources and CIA reports, we can determine to what extent the British in collaboration with the Australians and Americans, acted intentionally to extend the Cold War to Asia and create a confrontational situation in order to contain Southeast Asian communism. In short, were the imperialists responsible for the armed revolts in Southeast Asia? Introduction There are different schools of thought1 as to whether the Malayan Communist Party (MCP) revolt in 1948 was engaged in upon advice from Moscow obtained through the Calcutta Conference in February 1948, whether it was simply the local situation whereby the British engaged in severe repression of the MCP labour movement and other actions that had triggered the revolt, or whether the MCP had been planning for a revolt? This paper, on the basis of various MCP contemporary documents and the oral history accounts of several important senior MCP cadres at that time, suggests that the MCP had their own plans for revolt. The original MCP documents, especially those resolutions passed during the Central Committee meetings of the crucial period, does suggest that the MCP did have a plan for revolt. By analysing the MCP documents, we can see why the MCP took the actions it did. The armed revolt was an inevitable action in response to British repression in accordance with essentially local conditions rather than in response to external forces. However, it is obvious that the Zhdanov doctrine issued at the inauguration of the Communist Information Bureau (Cominform) in late 1947 did influence the MCP. The victorious of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in the Chinese civil war also encouraged the MCP to a certain extent. There is no doubt, however, that the MCP over-estimated its own strength vis-à-vis the British, on the basis of their experiences during the guerrilla warfare against the Japanese during the Second World War. Within the MCP itself, there were also arguments and debates as to whether revolt was necessary and whether the constitutional avenue had been completely exhausted. There were also accusations that they were ill-prepared for a revolt due to lack of vigilance and errors of "Left adventurism". The argument reflects the MCP critical review of their democratic endeavour during the Peace period. The MCP revolt in Malaya cannot be looked at in isolation as the entire Southeast Asia region was in turmoil at that time. How the regional revolutions affect the MCP especially when the MCP had looked upon its own disbandment of the Malayan Peoples' Anti-Japanese Army (MPAJA) was indeed an act of right deviationist capitulationism. This right capitulationist political line was condemned few months later after the abscondence of Loi Teck. There was also question that whether Chin Peng a radical leader who, after being elected as the Secretary-General in May 1947, forced the MCP to take the route of armed revolt? It is also important to examine British, CIA and Australian report to determine if the Cold War situation in Southeast Asia was created intentionally by the British. By examining the British records and other newly-released archival materials, we can examine whether the British in collaboration with the Australians and Americans, acted intentionally to extend the Cold War to Asia and create a confrontational situation in order to contain Southeast Asian Communism. Were the imperialists responsible for the armed revolts in Southeast Asia? This is a question for others to examine. This paper will rather concentrate on the role of the MCP itself. How did the Emergency start in Malaya?
Why did the MCP begin its armed revolt in June 1948? Who initiated the armed conflict? Was it the British colonial regime or the MCP which fired the first shot? Did the Calcutta International Youth Conference convened in February 1948 allow the transmission of instructions from the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) which instigated the communist uprisings in Southeast Asia? Was the Malayan case different from the rest? Was the revolt a product of the MCP's own initiatives in response to the British repression of the MCP, its trade unions and its united front activities? The so-called orthodoxy was that the MCP acted in response to the CPSU instructions issued at the Calcutta conference and for a long period of time this was the official propaganda of the British imperialists and their local agents in Malaya. It was in fact the dominant western Cold War interpretative orthodoxy that the communist parties in Southeast Asia were instigated by a CPSU directive to extend the Cold War to Asia. This was based mainly on the "Two-camp" theory put forward in Zhdanov's famous speech made during the inauguration of Cominform in September 1947. This interpretation was widely accepted, especially by various government administrations. A different school of thought was put forward by some academics suggesting that the Calcutta Conference played an insignificant role in the revolts which occurred in Southeast Asia, and particularly in respect of the MCP uprising in June 1948. This school considered that the local social and political situations were much more significant. There is no doubt that MCP activities were part of the world communist movement coordinated in Asia by the Far East Bureau of the Communist International (Comintern) based in Shanghai. In the early stage, the MCP looked toward the guidance of the CCP and the CPSU, particularly in reference to the style and method of the CCP struggle in China. In examining the MCP documents, it is very clear that the Zhdanov speech did influence the MCP in its doctrine. 2 The characteristics of the MCP were determined by the fact that it evolved from the CCP's Nanyang Branch.3 Thus, the MCP was greatly under the influence of the CCP and followed the CCP tactics in its political struggle. It is most unlikely that the MCP would simply act in accordance with CPSU instructions, as the MCP followed Mao's teaching that each individual party had to observe closely its own situation and decide its own course of action. Confrontational situation and the MCP own initiative In view of the intensified British repression of the MCP, its trade unions and united front activities during the period of peace prior to the 1948 revolt, the MCP feared that the British would eventually ban the party and terminate the constitutional avenues means of the MCP. The radical faction of the Party suggested the resumption of armed struggle.4 Chin Peng was in Hong Kong during June 1947 and in contact with the CCP Southern Bureau. There were discussions as to whether the MCP should engage in armed struggle. The answer later received from Zhou Enlai was that the MCP should make the decision based upon the local conditions.5 The British, on the basis of international intelligence reports and analysis no doubt believed that the Russians were moving the Cold War toward Asia by provoking armed insurgencies in Southeast Asia. Therefore they prepared through large-scale repression. The MCP thereby found no hope in its constitutional endeavours, when appeared doomed by British repression. They instead came to see armed revolt as the inevitable solution.6 Conflict was inevitable by 1948. Any serious provocation such as the Sungei Siput incident,7 could have triggered off the war and both sides were prepared for conflict. As such it is immaterial who fired the first shot, as rivalry and potential military contention was already well entrenched. One key omission of most studies is the lack of MCP documents evidence. This is perhaps due to the inaccessibility of the MCP documents and language barriers. Did the MCP have a plan for armed revolt? Right after the Japanese surrender, in the name of the MCP Central Committee, Loi Teck instructed the MPAJA to surrender their weaponry and hand them over to the British for marginal compensation of USD300 each person. However, almost all of the MCP State Secretaries and the rank and file were unwilling to comply with the order. Loi Teck finally agreed to a compromise of surrendering half of the less-efficient weaponry to seen as preparation for an armed revolt should there be such a necessity. This can be considered as an element of an indefinite MCP plan for an armed revolt against the British. Loi Teck asked the MCP State Secretaries to submit to him the maps of the weaponry dumps but this request was refused by them. In view of the increased suppression by the British imperialists, in early April 1948 the MCP convened a Politburo Meeting in Saleng, Johor. This was a follow up to the MCP Enlarged Central Committee Meeting held in March 1948 when a statement was issued declaring that the people's war was inevitable. 8 The Politburo meeting was intended to discuss in detail the action plan for the revolt. Subsequently, an order requiring the digging up of the weaponry kept secret following the Japanese surrender was issued and the ex-MPAJA rank and file was to be summoned in preparation of the uprising planned for September 1948. The formation of the MPABA9 was then formalised; certain units in Johor and Perak organised Min-Yuan operations and began collecting subscriptions and making food storage arrangements. However, no official order was issued requiring provocation. While the MCP Politburo meeting initiated the action plan for the revolt, the British were also, on the basis of reports received, preparing for a major offensive. But it was to be the local MCP units that took the initiative in provocation. The actions were not those of armed revolt but were simply an act of intimidation against the British planters. Nevertheless, the British took the incidents seriously and capitalised on the opportunity to immediately carry out a major offensive against the MCP, initiating well-planned mass arrests and declaring an Emergency.10 In fact, the British had cultivated the situation and had been expecting an armed revolt. Since late 1947, the success of the AMCJA-Putera Hartal 11 believed to be organised and backed by the MCP, had induced tremendous concern amongst the colonial officers. The British responded with a two-pronged strategy: they stamped over the democracy that they always claimed for but instead ignoring the Malayan people's demand for a rightful independence and denying the proposed People's Constitution, and secondly, against the Malayan People's will installed the Federation Constitution that was negotiated with the feudalistic sultans and their representative party Umno. In order to corner and cut off the MCP from the various fronts of open and constitutional struggle, the British had escalated their repression by means of arrests, banishment and implementing a new Society Ordinance aimed at eliminating and controlling trade unions and other left-wing cultural societies and organisations. These measures were aimed at driving the MCP toward a more radical reaction. In retrospect, the author sees the intensified hostile repression was, in fact, a well-planned tactic by the British to provoke the MCP to resort to armed struggle. Did the MCP have a plan for the revolt? The answer is yes. In response to the growing repression by the British, the MCP had analysed the situation as reflected in its documents during this period. Listed below are the MCP documents issued between December 1947 and February 1948 that relate to the objective and plan of an armed revolt. In some texts, the theme is relatively subdued and carefully worded in such a way that the constitutional struggle might still be seen as the key element. These documents reflected the critical review process taking place within the Party, specifically condemning the Loi Teck political line and reassessing the political situation and the Party's leadership in the overall political movement of the time.
|
| 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 | |
