This piece, written by a Jewish writer, talks of Malaysia and the leadership of Tun Dr Mahathir. The gist of it is about a Malaysia that has progressed from the social, economic and political foundation built by Tun Abdul Razak's post-May 13th, 1969 policy. The hallmark of an independent nation with the confidence to seek its own solution continued into the Tun Dr Mahathir era, as reflected in the financial crisis of 1997/98.
---
January 25, 2003
The Malaysian Solution
by Dr. Israel Shamir
The Writings of Israel Shamir
Take a country populated by diverse communities, the indigenous and immigrant, of roughly equal size. These communities profess different religions and ply different trades. The immigrants are better at business; the natives prefer to till their soil. It could be a description of Palestine with its native Palestinians and the immigrant Jewish communities. But here the comparison ends. In Malaysia, the communities live in peace without UN peacekeepers, they pursue their cultural and religious interests without submitting to bleaching multiculturalism, their country prospers while rejecting the IMF recipes, and it is a native son of soil who stands at the helm of good ship Malaysia.
On a less formal note, Malaysia is warm, wet and exotic. On the monsoon-swayed shore of Andaman Sea, a long-tailed, lithe monkey throws coconuts from the heights of a palm tree, flying fishes jump out of the warm blue sea and splash back, a white triangular sail rises on the horizon. Indians serve their sweet and punchy tea, teh tarik, pouring it with gusto in pulling motion, and neatly place curry on ecologically-sound banana leaves. Malay fishermen unload their haul on the shore and sort it under a broad banyan tree. At night, hundreds of stalls open at the Night Bazaar, feeding, dressing and entertaining locals and tourists.
In Malacca, the oldest-in-East-Asia Catholic church stands next to the Great Mosque next to a Vishnu temple next to a Taoist pagoda. The Dutch-built austere Town Hall is surrounded by spacious British colonial mansions. Narrow streets preserve the charm of the Seventeenth Century, when the Malaccan sultanate was the hub of commerce. Many of its denizens bear proud Portuguese names, but in appearance they do not differ from other residents.
In Penang, old Hakka smugglers warm their bones on the wooden jetties that form a floating island off Georgetown. Tamils sell junk on Armenian street, next to the most advanced chip plant, home to Athlon microprocessor. Yuppies have not taken over all of the Old City, and it reminds of Jaffa as it was before 1948: a modest, humane Eastern city. The glorious Oriental Hotel preserves the days of Somerset Maugham and the Straits' Settlements. Delightful and modish Chinese girls flock out of the convent school. Native Malays carry on their unruffled life in peaceful villages, happily serve in the army and provide the backbone of the administration.
Islam is the state religion, as it had been in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries, when it peacefully seeped in and eventually became preferred to the older Hindu beliefs. Brought by the traders, Malay Islam is exceedingly tolerant, local, thoroughly adjusted to the place, as it is practically everywhere but on the pages of the New York Times. The girls do not cover their faces, but often wear a scarf, like religious Jewish women. On Fridays, men like to go to a mosque for prayer, the great social unifier and integrator. As Communism was always frowned-upon in Malaya, Islam is the preferred style of social movement.
Prosperity is ubiquitous: perfect roads, new cars, brushed-up and restored relics of the past. There are no beggars, no striking poverty. Malaysians live well: they have given up home cooking and eat out in countless restaurants and at the stalls, where one dollar buys a square meal. Neighbouring Thais and Indonesians flock in and to cook their national dishes. The Twin Towers in the centre of futuristic Kuala Lumpur are the tallest in the world. 9/11 did not happen here, and the hotel security's main worry is Durian, strong-smelling fruit the tourists are prone to smuggle in, disregarding the "No Durian beyond this point" signs.
It is a peaceful land: one rarely sees a policeman or a soldier. There are no security guards in the shopping centres, no visible tension, no American troops or bases, no prostitution, gambling and narcotics. Evening open-air parties, much swimming in the warm sea, friendly chat, unrushed small trade: in short, a relaxing spot. How come . why do they not fight, these people of different backgrounds?
The secret of the Malaysian success was given away by their Prime Minister, Dr Mahathir bin Muhammad, whom local newspapers affectionately call 'Dr M': "It is better to share a pie than to have all of no pie." In the 1960s, Malaysia was torn by strife, for the native rural Malays felt threatened by the economic success of the Chinese and Indian immigrants, city dwellers with a long tradition of market economy. Numerically, the natives were hardly a majority, rather a plurality, of citizens. Economically, they were nowhere. Riots were frequent, and destruction appeared imminent. A pie was there to share: mineral resources, oil deposits, tin and rubber, an educated work force, a relatively small population; but the same is true for many countries that nevertheless came to grief.
Where others failed, the Malaysians succeeded: they pursued a New Economic Policy (later called a New Development Policy), aimed to correct imbalances in agreement between the communities. That the pie of national economy should grow and the respective shares of the communities should be increasingly equalised was the idea of NEP and NDP. The prospering immigrant communities understood that disparity can ruin their good life, and agreed to affirmative action in the interest of the indigenous people. The indigenous Malays acquiesced to this relatively slow process.
The affirmative action is not too radical: a Malay student has priority if he wants to study medicine or business management, as before the NEP there were just a few Malay doctors, businessmen, administrators. The native Malay gets a five percent discount when he buys an apartment. Malay businesses have some small tax breaks. In new developments, the developers have to secure 10 percent of flats and houses for the Malays, in order to avoid ghetto formation. Malay is the national language, but there are street signs in Chinese and English; Islam is the state religion, but there is full freedom to practise other religions as well.
A guest from distant Palestine, I cried: Eureka! If we, Israelis and Palestinians, would learn from the Malaysian success, establish equality and take affirmative action to ensure a fair share for each community, Palestine would be at least as prosperous and happy as Malaysia. Even the notorious Jewish settlements would cause little irritation if their founders would ensure a fair share of Palestinian residents. (Nowadays, a Palestinian is not allowed even to tread on their fenced grounds.) Malaysia is an example to emulate. Let us follow the Malaysian way, erase partition, restore broken unity, return refugees home and live together happily ever after. Wealthy and privileged minorities can impose their will for a while, but in the long run, only agreement and fair sharing a la Malaysia will work.
Not only in Palestine: This is a general panacea against the malady of inequality and national strife. In the Twentieth Century, the Masters of Discourse promoted their own patent medicine: partition and transfer. Liberally applied in Greece and Turkey, on the Indian subcontinent, in the Middle East, in the Balkans and Eastern Europe, in the former Soviet Union, and this has already ruined half a planet. Nowhere had it improved things. Subcontinent Muslims I meet regret the day Pakistan was torn off India. From Tajikistan to Belarus people dream of returning of the Soviet Union. Hungarians and Czechs feel nostalgia for …sterreich. Ravaged Smyrna, devastated Sudetenland and bleeding Palestine confirm that partition wounds do not heal for centuries, and that population transfer ensures future massacres. It should be undone.
The Malaysian way of integration had an alternative, the way of partition, and it was pursued by Singapore, a splinter Overseas-Chinese city-state at the tip of the Malay Peninsula. It has some similarities to the Jewish state: authoritarian rule, vast employment of foreign guest workers, aggressive stance towards their integrated neighbours. A great friend of Israel and the Far East base of Mossad, the Israeli intelligence service, Singapore is an important link in the global system of currency trading, an integral part of the New World Order, a supporter of the US and Australia. Singapore is better than Israel: it did not expel its native Malays, did not conquer the Peninsula, did not launch aggressive wars. It could be a free and peaceful city-state, but the dynamics of partition made it a potential source of trouble. By taking a leaf from Israel's book, Singapore declared its 'right' to wage war on Malaysia if the country hikes the price of the water it sells to the island.
Singapore poisons the minds of the Malaysian Chinese and encourages their immigration to the island. It is a very unnecessary thing, for the Malaysian Chinese community is well integrated in their country. In Penang, there is a Chinese Prime Minister, and, despite affirmative action, the Chinese retain commanding heights in the economy. What is worse, Singapore politicians try to influence decision-making of in the People's Republic, the economic giant with little political will of its own. It is proof that the evils caused by choosing the partition model do not stop at partition but have lasting, damaging effect on the world.
How the Malaysians did it
The ruling block of moderate nationalist Malays and its Chinese and Indian counterparts have managed the country since the 1960s, and Dr M, actually a medical doctor by profession, has served as the Prime Minister for over twenty years. Next year he will retire at the ripe age of 78. He came to power as a young radical and Malay nationalist, expressing the natives' disappointment over the too-slow progress in levelling economic misbalance between the communities. His victory scared the immigrant communities and made them more amenable to Malay demands. But Dr M carried out reforms gradually and gently. Under his rule, Malaysia became a prosperous industrial nation, a leader in computers as well as in traditional pursuits. Even more important, it is a rather happy land of contented people.
Malaysia rejected the Western idea of nation-state, as it accepted the many-coloured mosaic of its communities. They are not three, but rather thirty-three. The Chinese form many communities of various languages, cultures and religions. There are Cantonese, Swatow, Hakka, Hokkien, as distinct as Sicilians and Swedes. Indians are equally diverse: Muslim and Hindu, Punjabis, Tamils, Bengalis. The native Malays also form various tribes and ethnic units. The oldest inhabitants of the Peninsula, the orang asli or `original men', Negroid tribes akin to Australian aborigines and Indian Dravidic people, still roam the jungles. Europeans and their descendents (of mostly mixed marriages) live in Malacca, Penang and Kuala Lumpur.
Malaysia rejected the idea of the `melting pot' as well. Communities are not asked to integrate and assimilate; they are encouraged to keep their identity and may attend schools in their native tongues while keeping the same curriculum. They do not fall for the trap of multiculturalism, either. The uncomfortable part of multiculturalism as preached by New York is the removal of the backbone of the nation: the rejection of the original religion and culture of the majority. As I watched CNN on pre-Christmas days, I noticed their fear of actually referring to the Christian holiday without balancing it by an example of Hanukkah or Kwanza. Not so in Malaysia: there is a state religion and a state language, and tolerance of minorities.
Most importantly, Malaysia rejected the faith of Neo-Liberalism. Together with Castro and the Pope, Dr M is an outspoken critic of the Chicago School. He does not want to sell assets to the highest bidder, nor thereby to impoverish people and create a new class of super-rich. Food and housing are inexpensive and often subsidised. Dr M is not a socialist. He prefers a strong middle class, but he was taught enough Mencius (Mengzi), the Second Sage of Confucianism, to know of the obligation of rulers to provide for the common people.
The Neo-Liberalists tried to devour Malaysia. The Scourge of Nations, the Imperial Wizard [See Heather Cottin, `George Soros, Imperial Wizard', CovertAction Quarterly, No 74, Fall 2002.] George Soros, a mysterious man with unlimited resources and strong ties to the Israeli intelligence service Mossad, who broke the Bank of England, ruined Taiwan, South Korea and Thailand, attacked Malaysia, too. His financial offensive wiped out ten years of Malaysian development and ten years of 20 million men's labour: a cool $30 billion of damage. The country would have been devastated but for Dr M, who slammed currency controls into place.
After the Soros plague, Malaysia asked for help from the IMF and the World Bank, and was told that aid is conditional upon acceptance of IMF rules, including lifting of currency controls. Ostensibly, that was the purpose of Soros's raid: to break the country, to send it running to the IMF and to turn it into a vassal of the New World Order. All nations that accepted IMF rules were ruined: from Argentina to Bulgaria, from South Africa to Russia.
Eduardo Galeano, the noted Uruguayan writer, in a recent interview, said: "Argentina did everything it was ordered to do by the International Monetary Fund and it's destroyed. The lesson is not to buy into IMF discourse, which leads not only to the extermination of national economies, but to horrific consequences that are not only economic. A discourse that not only translates into mass impoverishment and an offensive concentration of wealth, but into slaps in the face, the daily insults that are the ostentation of the power of the few, in the face of the helplessness of the many... It discredits democracy. Nowadays, it is identified with corruption, inefficiency, injustice, which is the worst thing that could happen to democracy. Another tremendous injury is the great damage that the culture of solidarity has suffered all these years. Right now the predominant culture is that of "every man for himself," and if you fall, you're screwed.
The new name for the financial dictatorship is the "international community" ; anything that you do to defend the little that remains of your sovereignty is "an attack against the international community", rather than an act of legitimate defence against the usury practiced by the banking system that rules the world, in which the more you pay, the more you owe. That is why in a country like Argentina everything has been dismantled: the economy, the state, the collective identity of a people who no longer know who they are, from where they came or where they are going.."
The stubborn old man, Dr M refused to accept the IMF diktat, and Malaysia retained its prosperous independence. It did not go under as Russia and Argentina, because its ruler was a determined man who deeply felt his solidarity with his people. But it was not an easy feat: Dr M had to fight a to-the-last-man-standing battle with his Deputy Prime Minister, Anwar Ibrahim, the IMF supporter in Kuala Lumpur. Anwar Ibrahim used the Soros-inflicted depression and stirred unrest. A weaker man, a Gorbachev, would have collapsed and vacated his seat, plunging the country into chaos. Dr M is made of sterner stuff: he deftly dealt with the Neo-Liberal by using some old and not-too-liberal laws against homosexuality. That was a correct if difficult decision: In similar vein, the Americans had sent Al Capone to jail on a trumped-up charge of small tax evasion, as they could not make other charges stick. An IMF supporter is no better than a gangster.
However, for many Malaysian intellectuals this was a traumatic experience: they would have preferred correct results to be obtained by correct means. "Dearie, don't we all! But we can't put 'IMF support' into the penal code", I said to them. "The ruler has a duty to his people to protect them from neo-liberal wolves, and this obligation precedes his personal ethics."
Soros retained a menacing presence in Malaysia. He paid for a Web magazine and repeatedly tried to buy a newspaper to brainwash Malaysians, as he does elsewhere, notably in Russia. In a Kuala Lumpur hotel, I met Malaysian fellow journalists who expectedly complained about another very non-Western Malaysian precept, that of government-controlled media. This would have been an embarrassing moment for me if I had not heard this complaint twelve years ago, in the offices of Russian newspapers. The Russians had no Dr M of their own; they privatised their media. It was snatched up by a bunch of moguls and turned into subversion tools against Russia. Now, almost all Russian media belongs to a galore of Israeli citizens.
That is why I told my Malaysian colleagues: "Sorry, guys. If you had had it your way and made your newspapers and TV independent of government, you would have had a lot of fun for a whole week. One week later, your media would have been bought by George Soros, the man who preaches of the advantages of open society to oysters. As long as a wolf roams outside, a clever sheep sticks to its shepherd".
This week, Dr M had an unexpected reason for joy: a French court found Soros guilty of insider trading. Its small fine of $2 million means little for a man who makes $1 billion a day, but it is satisfying to see him branded a thief. I would not be amazed to learn that the terrible excesses of the Zionists in Palestine were arranged as a diversion of attention away from their Globalist brethren. While Zionists ruin a village, Soros and the IMF ruin a country.
Together with Castro, Dr M understood that the source of their power lies in the overvalued US dollar. Since 1972, the US freely issued green bucks no longer tied to gold. This financial swindle, the biggest in the history of mankind, brought enormous wealth to some people, and ruined a lot more. That is why Malaysia is the brain and the engine of an ambitious plan to create a stable currency, the golden Dinar. It is also called the 'Islamic Dinar', as Islamic Law forbids usury and interest, and the Dinar will bear zero interest. (A similar step was taken by Solon the Wise in Sixth Century BC Athens: he cancelled debts, zeroed interest and made people free. A hundred years later, Athens ushered in its Golden Age.) This year, the Dinar will become the currency to settle deals between Malaysia and some Arab countries.
Currency trading, the pet tool of Soros, should be banned, thinks Dr M: "The traders sell huge sums of currency they do not have to buyers who are members of the same circle. The buyers in turn sell this fictitious currency to others, force down the value and buy at the depressed prices. Short selling has been taken to the ultimate level. The currency trading is many times bigger than total world trade."
The New World Order has in Dr M a most outspoken enemy. He views it as a continuation of old colonialism by new methods: "Free trade had always been the war cry of the Europeans. In the 19th century they used gunboats to open East Asia for trade. They went to war when they were not allowed to supply opium to China. Now, the gunboats have disappeared, but the pressures are no less effective. An occupation army cannot colonise more effectively than the economic arm-twisting used by the West. Now international institutions are used to open up the countries for 'free trade'. Once the countries are opened up, the big corporations and banks would move in, and the locals will be swallowed up."
Dr M has not mellowed with years. His thinking has become even more striking and extraordinary. While visiting Japan, he called upon the Japanese to reject the Western model as it is sure to ruin their achievements: Japanese system worked very well for the Japanese. It made Japan the second most powerful economy in the world. It may not be the Western way, but it can't be all wrong if it can achieve so much.
In Dr M's view, Japan should return to strong government involvement in economy, and take up its leading role in Asia, for "East Asia and the world need Japan, its dynamism and its single-minded dedication". For Dr M, as for many important politicians in Asia, WWII was not a war between ultimate good and ultimate evil. "The success of the Japanese army in the early days of the war finally broke the spell cast by the Europeans. East Asians learned that their European overlords could be defeated." Similar sentiments are voiced in Iran and in Arab countries, where anti-British resentment brought nationalist leaders to seek help of the Axis Powers.
Malaysia is an 'alternative' country where many Western ideas were found wanting and were rejected. We are used to frequent changes of prime ministers and presidents and see it as a success of democracy. But Dr M, this benevolent king-philosopher in Plato's mould, disagrees. It takes many years for policies to produce fruits, he says. First year in power, the ruler learns to be addressed and to address others properly. Next year, he forms his opinions. Then he makes decisions, and only in a few years can we judge his decisions properly. He succeeded because he had enough time, he says.
This idea is unusual for us, but as the matter of fact, three of the most charismatic and extraordinary statesmen of our days, Dr M, Dr Fidel Castro and the Pope, persist in power for tens of years with great success. Commercial companies, nowadays as powerful as any state, also do not change their helmsmen without urgent need.
Surely, if a statesman like Dr M were to lead Japan, (or China, or Russia, or, indeed, the EU) the world would be different. Many things have changed since WWII, and Europeans, together with ordinary Americans, are now experiencing the brunt of the same policies Asia suffered in its colonial past. 'The Open Society' has become the tool for robbery brought home, as the New World Order is the colonisation of Europeans and Americans by their new financial elite.
Dr M is a strict opponent of the American War on Terror. For him, "terrorism never dies until the causes for terrorism are eliminated". He speaks against the impending Anglo-American aggression in Iraq, he refuses to accept the rant of 'Islamic terror'. Dr M supports the much-suffering people of Palestine without the caveats usually produced by his meek-hearted colleagues in Europe. His voice is heard, for Malaysia has not surrendered its discourse to its enemies.
Malaysia reminded me of Cuba, the Island of Freedom in the Caribbean Sea. It is also an alternative society where highly educated men map a different future for mankind, for "today's world is in shambles. The abuses of the free trade system, the unlimited greed of speculators, have resulted in the world losing its way", in the words of Dr M. Similar ideas are expressed in Castro's speeches. The two politicians met a few times and expressed mutual admiration, despite their huge ideological differences: Castro the Communist and Dr M the Nationalist. In Cuba and in Malaysia, one can read a newspaper or watch TV without nausea. These two small countries have much for us to learn from.
---
Israel Shamir is a critically acclaimed and respected Russian Israeli Writer and Journalist. He wrote for Haaretz, BBC, Pravda and translated Agnon, Joyce and Homer into Russian. He lives in Jaffa and has become a leading champion of the 'One Man, One Vote, One State' solution in all of Palestine/Israel. His writings are mostly in English but you can also read some of his articles translated into Arabic, French, Hungarian, Italian, Norwegian, Polish, Turkish, Russian and Spanish.
Enver Masud, "A Clash Between Justice and Greed," The Wisdom Fund
Enver Masud, "Deregulation Fiasco, Red Flag for Developing Countries," The Wisdom Fund
Enver Masud, "Corporate Globalization Threatens World's Poor, Middle Class," The Wisdom Fund
Heather Cottin, "George Soros: Imperial Wizard/Double Agent," Covert Action Quarterly, December 9, 2003
Jane Perlez, "New Premier of Malaysia Gets Mandate All His Own," New York Times, March 22, 2004
[Malaysia's highest court today overturned the sodomy conviction of former deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim and freed him after six years of what has widely been condemned as a "political" imprisonment.--" Malaysian ex deputy PM freed from 'political' sentence," Guardian, September 2, 2004]
Jumaat, 22 Jun 2007
Selasa, 19 Jun 2007
Menjawab "May 13": Adakah Utusan Melayu Dilarang Menerbit Buku Tunku dan Laporan MAGERAN?
Malaysiakini.com melaporkan Perdana Menteri memberi jaminan Buku "May 13" tidak akan diharamkan pengedaran dalam menjawab soalan dari Ahli Parlimen DAP Chow Kon Yeow di Parlimen Jun 18hb, 2007. Kenyataan itu tentu sekali menyangkal pelbagai kata-kata dan andaian akan pengharaman buku ini oleh media alternatif dan blog-blog tertentu.
Pendirian kerajaan untuk membiarkan orang ramai membincangkan peristiwa ini dengan lebih terbuka dan jujur amatlah disanjungi dalam mendukung kebebasan bersuara. Namun, buku yang jelas sekali begitu perjudis kesimpulan dan olahan perbincangannya terhadap orang Melayu dan pemimpin Melayu tidak harus dibiarkan tersebar, tanpa penerangan dan pembetulan sewajarnya.
Membiarkan anggapan yang salah untuk tersebar ditakuti membangkitkan prasangka lama dan menjejaskan muhibbah antara kaum. Buku ini akan dianggap sebagai satu dokumen yang sah untuk memberi mereka legitimasi dan alasan untuk menyangkal dan menentang apa sahaja polisi-polisi yang dibina dari zaman pemerintahan Tun Abdul Razak.
Jelas sekali, tidak ada usaha dari pihak kerajaan dan parti pemerintah untuk membetulkan kesalahan buku ini. Tidak kedengaran suara bantahan dari ahli politik Melayu, suara gesaaan Pemuda UMNO dan NGO-NGO Melayu terus menikus. Seminar Legasi Tun Abdul Razak anjuran Akademi Pemuda UMNO pada Jun 15 dan 16 baru-baru ini pun tidak dilihat untuk menyangkal tuduhan Dr Kua Kia Soong.
Cara yang paling senang untuk menjawab adalah dengan menerbitkan balik buku-buku "Mei 13: Sebelum dan Selepas" oleh Allahyarham Tunku Abdul Rahman dan "The May 13 Tragedy: A Report By National Operations Council." Kedua-dua buku ini adalah terbitan Utusan Melayu dan dengan penerbitan semula buku-buku ini sudah pasti akan menunjukkan betapa cetek pangkal maklumat dan rujukkan buku "May 13".
Sekiranya pelbagai pihak mahu rakyat membuka minda dan mendengar satu pandangan lain, mengapa Utusan Melayu tidak bersedia untuk memberi pandangan yang sedia ada untuk di rujuk kembali oleh orang ramai dan membolehkan mereka membuat perbandingan?
Adakah Utusan Melayu diarahkan supaya tidak menerbitkan dan menjawab balik buku-buku ini? Biar saya majukan persoalan ini kepada seorang ahli Lembaga Pengarah Utusan Melayu dan juga seorang blogger untuk menjawab pendirian Utusan Melayu dalam hal ini? Sekiranya ada arahan sedemikian, ini bermakna kerajaan mahu isi kandung buku "May 13" oleh aktivis cauvanis Dr Kua Kia Soong dibiarkan sebagai kebenaran.
Ini tentu sekali amat merisaukan penulis, kerana sudah bertambah kuat desas desus bahawa usaha Tun Abdul Razak dalam ekonomi, pelajaran, dan sosial akan di kuburkan, dan Dasar Ekonomi Baru akan dirungkaikan. Malah, penulis mengesaki Artikel 153 pun akan dikajisemula kerana penggunaan meluas istilah kontrak sosial yang diperkenalkan oleh Khairy Jamaluddin menggantikan jus soli memberi implikasi ianya boleh dibincang semula.
Rabu, 13 Jun 2007
Tun Hanif Omar on 13 May 1969: Facts Don't Lie
Tun Hanif Omar made comment on Dr Kua Kia Soong's attempt to slant history for his racist chauvanistic purpose in his May 13 book. An extract of his June 3rd, 2007 regular column Point of View in The Star entitled Facts Don't Lie is cut and paste below:
"I remember how, even after the May 13, 1969 racial incident in Kuala Lumpur, a Muslim group, since branded deviant, had propagated a very restrictive interpretation of the halal doctrine so that Muslims would switch from patronising non-Muslim goods and food for those that they were selling.
At the same time, some Chinese groups propagated the boycott of Malay goods including batik shirts and durians.
Thank God, we had all come out of that post-1969 mutually destructive boycott syndrome to resume our march towards common sense and a common nationhood. We must not allow ancient animosities and fears to prejudice this march.
I was taken aback by the statement of Dr Kua Kia Soong at the launching of his new book on the May 13, 1969 incident based on the reports of British Embassy personnel to the British Foreign Office that the incident was engineered by Umno members who were out to topple Tunku Abdul Rahman. He asked for a commission to be set up to get to the truth. Shockingly he is alleged to have added that, unless this is done or unless the truth is out, there cannot be national unity, or something to that effect.
At 38 years old, I think this is too “ancient” an animosity to be allowed to hold national unity to ransom. Should the past be allowed to destroy our future? This is not to trivialise the incident, the deaths of about 189 people, mostly innocent, I believe, and the injuries to many more. The figures can be obtained from the Tun Abdul Razak, Director of Operation’s, National Operations Council (NOC) Report, The May 13, 1969 Incidents.
The report also gave the more immediate reasons why and how the outbreak started and its consequences. Actually, the racial animosity had been building up seriously from as far back as 1964 as a result of racial politics – Chinese education issues, Chinese stateless-persons issue, land titles to new villagers, land for expansion of new villages, the Malaysian Malaysia concept where non-Malay leaders challenged the bumiputra status of the Malays. Of course, Malay politicians did not take all these lying down and the debates and public accusations and counter-accusations in Parliament, state assemblies and at the open-air public rallies of those days poisoned national unity.
Is the NOC Report accurate without touching on the plot to topple Tunku? To me it is. The unhappiness that some Umno members had with Tunku by 1969 was real but it did not feature as a cause of the May 13, 1969 incident.
The incident, however, sharpened the unhappiness of the Malays with Tunku and fuelled the movement to replace him with his deputy, Tun Abdul Razak.
As the coordinator of the Special Branch investigations into the incident, and having read all the statements from eye-witnesses which formed the basis of the NOC Report, I am convinced of its accuracy.
The statistics couldn’t be wrong because Tun Razak, appalled by the casualty figures reported in foreign broadcasts and newspapers, appointed a Chinese Minister, Khaw Kai Boh, former Director of the Singapore Special Branch to be in charge of collecting and accounting for the dead bodies. The police in turn appointed Chief Inspector Pang of the KL courts to be in charge of the burials of all the dead.
When the draft of the NOC Report prepared jointly by me, Encik (now Datuk) Hamzah Majid, then seconded to NOC from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Colonel (later General Tan Sri and Chief of the Armed Forces) Ghazali Che Mat, PSO Military on NOC Staff, was first presented to the Director of Operations and members of the NOC, Datuk (now Tan Sri) Hamzah Abu Samah, the new Minister of Information and a president of the sessions court before that, expressed his reluctance to accept it. “I will not lend myself to a fabrication,” he said, because the draft exonerated Datuk Harun Idris. Tun Sambanthan supported him. The Minister of Home Affairs, Tun Dr Ismail Abdul Rahman suggested, “Since Hamzah and Sambanthan are the Doubting Thomases, let’s make them joint-chairmen to go through all the evidence with Hanif and his boys, and come up with their findings.”
This was agreed to and the drafting team found ourselves closeted with these two members of NOC.
The outcome was that the draft came out unscathed and the Doubting Thomases declared that they were happy to accept the Report as it was. Then it was shown to Eric White & Associates for advice. They suggested that certain relative adjectives such as “very” be dropped. We had no quarrel with that. They suggested that perhaps the number of dead and injured could be jazzed up to bring it closer to foreign press speculations. This, we refused to accept. Facts are facts. If people wouldn’t believe them then it was just too bad. "
The fascination for conspiracy theory to some is unavoidable for there exist those that believe that no event and happenings can be so obvious and in simple common sense based on facts and figures. They believe that the course of world event is determined runs in a cloak and dagger fashion. It is though events and happenings can be conveniently conjured to meet a certain pre-meditated outcome.
I was walking along the KLCC today as a young man passed by while talking aloud on his handphone. He was telling his friend to get this book and read it for he claims it to be the truth. Lets ponder this remark and the danger this book is creating. Based on documents and information with uncertain intentions, he made certain assumptions and opinion on the past without the person in question around to defend the allegation. Lets not even fathom should any racial prejudice has develop within him that an incident could conveniently turn into hate and trigger insults leading to violence towards a certain race and a group of people.
This book makes for a convenient conspiracy theory without the responsibility of its impact on society and security. It is becoming more crystal clear that Dr Kua Kia Soong is not out to pursue truth and racial unity but is a fabricator of conspiracy out to poison the public's mind to serve his own self serving chauvanistic purpose. And, it is not for National interest.
Ahad, 10 Jun 2007
Pemikiran 13 Mei: Menafikan Melayu Sebagai Penduduk Asal Tanah Melayu
Semasa Singapura menjadi sebahagian dari Malaysia dalam tahun 1963-65, Lee Kuan Yew pernah mempertikaikan kedudukkan dan sejarah orang Melayu sebagai penduduk asal Tanah Melayu atau Malaya di Parlimen.
Penulis ingin melampirkan dua artikel untuk menjawab sebarang dakyah nukilan Lee Kuan Yew. Pertama adalah berita dari Berita Harian bertarikh sekitar Julai 24hb, 2006.
Menjejak Melayu
Oleh Saufi Hamzah dan Mona Ahmad
BENARKAH selama ini Orang Asli dan orang Melayu wujud dari rumpun atau keturunan yang sama?
Jika diamati kajian bertajuk Analisis DNA Mitokondria (MtDNA) masyarakat Melayu Moden dan Orang Asli di Semenanjung yang dihasilkan penyelidik Pusat Pengajian Sains Kesihatan, Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM), Dr Zafarina Zainuddin, mendapati bahawa keadaan sebaliknya berlaku di mana Orang Asli dan orang Melayu berasal dari keturunan berlainan.
Berdasarkan data DNA Mitokondria (MtDNA) yang dikumpulkan dalam kajian itu, orang Melayu Moden dipercayai berasal dari populasi `Austronesian' (atau Selatan Mongoloid) manakala Orang Asli pula adalah saki baki manusia moden dari populasi `Australoid'.
Hasil kajian itu juga disokong oleh kajian linguistik yang menyatakan terdapat dua penghijrahan pra-sejarah utama berlaku di Asia Tenggara.
Gelombang penghijrahan pertama yang berlaku kira-kira 40,000 tahun membawa kemasukkan populasi `Australoid' purba ke kepulauan Indo-Malaysia, yang seterusnya bergerak dan menetap di Australia dan New Guinea.
KAJIAN Dr Zafarina dan Dr Mohd Fadhli yang diserahkan kepada
Gelombang populasi kedua dipercayai berasal dari Fujian atau Zhejian (juga dikenali sebagai Selatan Mongoloid atau Austronesian), yang menetap di sekitar kepulauan Asia Tenggara dan tanah besar kira-kira 4,000 ke 6,000 tahun dulu.
"Kita tidak ubah sejarah, sebaliknya kita sedang mendokumentasikan sejarah. Orang Asli memang lebih tua daripada orang Melayu. Ada banyak orang yang datang ke Malaysia dan banyak yang sudah bercampur," katanya selepas majlis penyerahan dua tesis kepada Jabatan Hal Ehwal Orang Asli (JHEOA) di Bilik Persidangan USM, Georgetown, baru-baru ini.
Satu lagi tesis bertajuk Variasi Pergigian Dalam Populasi Malaysia untuk aplikasi pengecaman identiti manusia yang dihasilkan pensyarah Pengajian Sains Pergigian, Dr Mohd Fadhli Khamis.
Secara umum, kajian bertajuk Analisis DNA Mitokondria (MtDNA) masyarakat Melayu Moden dan Orang Asli di Semenanjung itu adalah untuk mendapatkan maklumat mengenai `genetik make-up' dan pembangunan pangkalan data bagi DNA mitokondria bagi masyarakat Melayu dan Orang Asli.
Pembangunan pangkalan data penting sebelum analisis DNA mitokondria dapat diaplikasi dalam kes-kes forensik yang membabitkan kedua-dua populasi.
Secara tidak langsung, maklumat yang diperolehi dapat digunakan dalam kajian genetik populasi yang membawa kepada penemuan yang menunjukkan perbezaan ketara di antara masyarakat Melayu Moden dan Orang Asli.
Sehingga ke hari ini, belum ada kajian penuh dan menyeluruh berkenaan konstitusi genetik Orang Asli yang dilakukan oleh saintis dari Malaysia.
Dr Zafarina berkata, kebanyakan kajian yang sudah dibuat oleh saintis Barat lebih bersifat untuk mendapatkan informasi berkenaan profil genetik Orang Asli kerana mereka ini adalah antara manusia moden yang tertua yang masih wujud di atas muka bumi.
Kajian berkenaan masyarakat Orang Asli dari Semenanjung Malaysia oleh saintis barat sudah berjaya membawa kepada penemuan beberapa rumusan penting mengenai sejarah pergerakan manusia moden di atas muka bumi ini.
Antara penerbitan terbaru saintis Barat yang menggunakan maklumat daripada kajian Orang Asli adalah rumusan mengenai penyebaran manusia moden dari Afrika ke Asia Tenggara kemungkinan besar berlaku melalui laluan pantai menerusi India dan seterusnya ke Australasia.
Pergerakan itu dikatakan berlaku kira-kira 65,000 tahun dulu.
FAKTA NOMBOR
Sampel DNA
102 - Melayu moden
58 - Orang Asli
FAKTA
Orang Melayu
Teori Yunan
Orang Negrito
Penduduk paling awal di Kepulauan Melayu. Dikatakan ada di sini sejak 1,000 tahun Sebelum Masihi berdasarkan penerokaan arkeologi di Gua Cha, Kelantan. Daripada orang Negrito diperturunkan orang Semang yang mempunyai ciri-ciri fizikal berkulit gelap, berambut kerinting, bermata bundar, berhidung lebar, berbibir penuh, serta saiz badan yang pendek.
Melayu Proto
Perpindahan orang Melayu Proto ke Kepulauan Melayu dikatakan berlaku pada 2,500 tahun Sebelum Masihi. Mereka mempunyai peradaban yang lebih maju daripada orang Negrito, ditandai dengan kemahiran bercucuk tanam.
Melayu Deutro
Perpindahan orang Melayu Deutro adalah gelombang perpindahan orang Melayu kuno yang kedua yang berlaku pada 1,500 Sebelum Masihi. Mereka adalah manusia yang hidup di pantai dan mempunyai kemahiran berlayar.
Teori Nusantara
Teori ini adalah disokong dengan alasan seperti di bawah:
Satu lagi artikel adalah adalah satu sumbangan dari penulis Mansal Damha, yang merupakan Penasihat Prowaris, ke laman web UMNO Reform dalam menangkis gaungan kata-kata Lee Kuan Yew dikalangan orang Melayu.
Ingatlah kita bahawa ini adalah kata-kata Lee Kuan Yew yang menimbulkan kemarahan orang Melayu dan berakhir menjadi peristiwa 13 Mei 1969. Kita mesti sentiasa bersedia dengan hujah-hujah kita supaya kebenaran tidak dikaburi.
Tujuan penafiannya adalah menentang hak keistimewaan orang Melayu dalam Perlembagaan dan seterusnya ingin melihat orang Melayu terus tertindas dan miskin. Ini telah dilakukan terhadap orang Melayu Singapura.
Hak keistimewaan orang Melayu yang termaktub di dalam Artikel 152 Perlembagaan Singapura tidak dihirau dan dimanipulasi definasi dan implementasinya. Dr Lily Zubaidah, cucu Presiden Singapura pertama ada menulis buku berkenaan cara orang Melayu ditindas secara sistematik.
Sikap Lee Kuan Yew masih belum berlembut. Malah, suara gaungan Lee Kuan Yew banyak kedapatan di komen-komen dalam portal dan blog tertentu. Baru-baru ini blogger Nuraina Samad telah menerbitkan salah satu komentatorrnya bernama Bergen berkenaan buku baru terbitan ISEAS Singapore berjodol Contesting Malayness oleh seorang Professor dari NUS. Sila baca di sini.
Sikap Lee Kuan Yew masih belum berlembut. Malah, suara gaungan Lee Kuan Yew banyak kedapatan di komen-komen dalam portal dan blog tertentu. Baru-baru ini blogger Nuraina Samad telah menerbitkan salah satu komentatorrnya bernama Bergen berkenaan buku baru terbitan ISEAS Singapore berjodol Contesting Malayness oleh seorang Professor dari NUS. Sila baca di sini.
Penulis ingin melampirkan dua artikel untuk menjawab sebarang dakyah nukilan Lee Kuan Yew. Pertama adalah berita dari Berita Harian bertarikh sekitar Julai 24hb, 2006.
Menjejak Melayu
Oleh Saufi Hamzah dan Mona Ahmad
BENARKAH selama ini Orang Asli dan orang Melayu wujud dari rumpun atau keturunan yang sama?
Jika diamati kajian bertajuk Analisis DNA Mitokondria (MtDNA) masyarakat Melayu Moden dan Orang Asli di Semenanjung yang dihasilkan penyelidik Pusat Pengajian Sains Kesihatan, Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM), Dr Zafarina Zainuddin, mendapati bahawa keadaan sebaliknya berlaku di mana Orang Asli dan orang Melayu berasal dari keturunan berlainan.
Berdasarkan data DNA Mitokondria (MtDNA) yang dikumpulkan dalam kajian itu, orang Melayu Moden dipercayai berasal dari populasi `Austronesian' (atau Selatan Mongoloid) manakala Orang Asli pula adalah saki baki manusia moden dari populasi `Australoid'.
Hasil kajian itu juga disokong oleh kajian linguistik yang menyatakan terdapat dua penghijrahan pra-sejarah utama berlaku di Asia Tenggara.
Gelombang penghijrahan pertama yang berlaku kira-kira 40,000 tahun membawa kemasukkan populasi `Australoid' purba ke kepulauan Indo-Malaysia, yang seterusnya bergerak dan menetap di Australia dan New Guinea.
KAJIAN Dr Zafarina dan Dr Mohd Fadhli yang diserahkan kepada JHEOA di Georgetown, baru-baru ini.
Gelombang populasi kedua dipercayai berasal dari Fujian atau Zhejian (juga dikenali sebagai Selatan Mongoloid atau Austronesian), yang menetap di sekitar kepulauan Asia Tenggara dan tanah besar kira-kira 4,000 ke 6,000 tahun dulu.
"Kita tidak ubah sejarah, sebaliknya kita sedang mendokumentasikan sejarah. Orang Asli memang lebih tua daripada orang Melayu. Ada banyak orang yang datang ke Malaysia dan banyak yang sudah bercampur," katanya selepas majlis penyerahan dua tesis kepada Jabatan Hal Ehwal Orang Asli (JHEOA) di Bilik Persidangan USM, Georgetown, baru-baru ini.
Satu lagi tesis bertajuk Variasi Pergigian Dalam Populasi Malaysia untuk aplikasi pengecaman identiti manusia yang dihasilkan pensyarah Pengajian Sains Pergigian, Dr Mohd Fadhli Khamis.
Secara umum, kajian bertajuk Analisis DNA Mitokondria (MtDNA) masyarakat Melayu Moden dan Orang Asli di Semenanjung itu adalah untuk mendapatkan maklumat mengenai `genetik make-up' dan pembangunan pangkalan data bagi DNA mitokondria bagi masyarakat Melayu dan Orang Asli.
Pembangunan pangkalan data penting sebelum analisis DNA mitokondria dapat diaplikasi dalam kes-kes forensik yang membabitkan kedua-dua populasi.
Secara tidak langsung, maklumat yang diperolehi dapat digunakan dalam kajian genetik populasi yang membawa kepada penemuan yang menunjukkan perbezaan ketara di antara masyarakat Melayu Moden dan Orang Asli.
Sehingga ke hari ini, belum ada kajian penuh dan menyeluruh berkenaan konstitusi genetik Orang Asli yang dilakukan oleh saintis dari Malaysia.
Dr Zafarina berkata, kebanyakan kajian yang sudah dibuat oleh saintis Barat lebih bersifat untuk mendapatkan informasi berkenaan profil genetik Orang Asli kerana mereka ini adalah antara manusia moden yang tertua yang masih wujud di atas muka bumi.
Kajian berkenaan masyarakat Orang Asli dari Semenanjung Malaysia oleh saintis barat sudah berjaya membawa kepada penemuan beberapa rumusan penting mengenai sejarah pergerakan manusia moden di atas muka bumi ini.
Antara penerbitan terbaru saintis Barat yang menggunakan maklumat daripada kajian Orang Asli adalah rumusan mengenai penyebaran manusia moden dari Afrika ke Asia Tenggara kemungkinan besar berlaku melalui laluan pantai menerusi India dan seterusnya ke Australasia.
Pergerakan itu dikatakan berlaku kira-kira 65,000 tahun dulu.
FAKTA NOMBOR
Sampel DNA
102 - Melayu moden
58 - Orang Asli
FAKTA
Orang Melayu
Teori Yunan
Secara keseluruhannya alasan yang menyokong teori ini adalah seperti berikut:
- Kapak Tua yang mirip kepada Kapak Tua di Asia Tengah ditemui di Kepulauan Melayu. Perkara ini menunjukkan adanya migrasi penduduk daripada Asia Tengah ke Kepulauan Melayu.
- Adat resam bangsa Melayu mirip suku Naga di daerah Assam (berhampiran sempadan India dengan Myanmar).
- Bahasa Melayu adalah serumpun dengan bahasa di Kemboja. Penduduk Kemboja mungkin berasal dari Dataran Yunan dengan menyusuri Sungai Mekong. Perhubungan bangsa Melayu dengan bangsa Kemboja sekali gus menandakan pertaliannya dengan Dataran Yunan.
- Teori popular yang diterima umum. Contohnya, dalam buku Teks Pengajian Malaysia, ada menyatakan "nenek moyang" orang Melayu berasal dari Yunan.
Orang Negrito
Penduduk paling awal di Kepulauan Melayu. Dikatakan ada di sini sejak 1,000 tahun Sebelum Masihi berdasarkan penerokaan arkeologi di Gua Cha, Kelantan. Daripada orang Negrito diperturunkan orang Semang yang mempunyai ciri-ciri fizikal berkulit gelap, berambut kerinting, bermata bundar, berhidung lebar, berbibir penuh, serta saiz badan yang pendek.
Melayu Proto
Perpindahan orang Melayu Proto ke Kepulauan Melayu dikatakan berlaku pada 2,500 tahun Sebelum Masihi. Mereka mempunyai peradaban yang lebih maju daripada orang Negrito, ditandai dengan kemahiran bercucuk tanam.
Melayu Deutro
Perpindahan orang Melayu Deutro adalah gelombang perpindahan orang Melayu kuno yang kedua yang berlaku pada 1,500 Sebelum Masihi. Mereka adalah manusia yang hidup di pantai dan mempunyai kemahiran berlayar.
Teori Nusantara
Teori ini adalah disokong dengan alasan seperti di bawah:
- Bangsa Melayu dan Bangsa Jawa mempunyai tamadun yang tinggi pada abad ke-19.
- Taraf ini hanya dapat dicapai selepas perkembangan budaya yang lama. Perkara ini menunjukkan orang Melayu tidak berasal dari mana-mana tetapi berasal dan berkembang di Nusantara.
- Bahasa di Nusantara (Bahasa Austronesia) mempunyai perbezaan ketara dengan bahasa di Asia Tengah (Bahasa Indo-Eropah).
- Masyarakat Orang Asli adalah komuniti kecil di Malaysia dan penduduk pribumi negara ini.
- Orang Asli adalah masyarakat yang mempunyai beberapa suku kaum yang berbeza-beza.
- Secara rasminya masyarakat Orang Asli dibahagi kepada tiga kumpulan yang terbesar iaitu Negrito, Senoi dan Melayu Asli.
- Suku Senoi dan Negrito pula diklasifikasikan kepada enam suku kecil. Suku Melayu Asli dipecahkan kepada tujuh suku kecil.
- Disebabkan pelbagai suku kaum di kalangan masyarakat Orang Asli, terdapat banyak perbezaan dari segi cara hidup dan pertuturan bahasa yang digunakan.
- Kebudayaan dan adat resam mereka juga berbeza-beza dan mempunyai keunikan yang tersendiri.
Satu lagi artikel adalah adalah satu sumbangan dari penulis Mansal Damha, yang merupakan Penasihat Prowaris, ke laman web UMNO Reform dalam menangkis gaungan kata-kata Lee Kuan Yew dikalangan orang Melayu.
Assalamualaikum wbkt.
Saya cuma ingin mencelah sedikit tentang sesetengah orang yang mendakwa bahawa orang Melayu adalah bukan penduduk asli negara ini.
Di sini saya ingin cuba mendefinisikan siapa sebenarnya "Melayu" itu?
Pada hemat saya, Melayu adalah terdiri daripada mereka yang bermastautin di alam dan di sekitar gugusan kepulauan Melayu, termasuklah Indonesia, Brunei, Singapura, Filfina, Surinam, kepulau Austrolasia dan yang berhampiran dengannya.
Rizal yang mempelopori kemerdekaan Filifina adalah seorang "Melayu;" walaupun orang "Jawa" tidak mahu dianggap seabgai Melayu, kerana makna Melayu kepada mereka ialah orang yang "lari."
(Memangpun orang Melayu dan yang serumpun dengannya sering "lari" ke sekitaran kepulauan mereka).
Maka itu sehingga hari ini terdapat suku kaum Melayu di Pontianak, Kalimantan, Indonesia, yang terkenal dengan nama orang Sambas. Mereka tetap bertutur dalam bahasa dan berloghat Melayu, mempunyai makam kesultanannya, walaupun mereka menjadi sebahagain daripada "Indonesia." Demikianlah halnya dengan para penduduk di kepulau Riau, Sumatra.
Hakikatnya ialah bahawa para penduduk di sekitar gugusan pulau-pulau Melayu dan Australasia ini adalah "serumpun."
Pada zaman silam, kepulauan Melayu ini dikenal sebagai Pulau-pulau Perca, seperti carikan-carikan "pulau-pulau" kain.
Cina punya tanah besar mereka. Begitu juga dengan orang-orang India, dengan benua Indianya; dan samalah dengan orang-orang Afrika, Europah, Amerika dan Australia.
Hanya kita, rumpun Melayu ini digolongkan dalam golongan penduduk benua Asia Tenggara.
Kalau dulu orang-orang Melayu ini pindah dari kepulauan sekitarnya, (walaupun sekarang mereka ingin dikenal sebagai orang Indonesia, Brunei, Singapura, Filifina, dll.) mereka tetap akan dianggap sebagai "orang Melayu" juga. Samalah seperti orang China. Kalau mereka berpindah dari Hong Kong, Macau, Taipei dan negeri-negeri yang berdekatan dengannya, mereka tetap akan dianggap sebagai orang Cina. Orang Indonesia, kalau datang ke Malaysia, misalnya, tidak seharusnya dianggap sebagai orang "mendatang". Demikianlah sebaliknya. Kerana mereka masih tinggal bersama dengan "rumpunnya."
Istilah yang diberikan kepada orang Indonesia sebagai "orang asing" adalah ciptaan manusia dan penjajah yang merupakan tinggalan sejarah.
Sepertimana yang saya sering katakan bahawa orang Melayu tidak ada negeri lain selain daripada Tanah Melayu yang tercinta ini.
Selepas meredekapun ia dikenal sebagai Persekutan Tanah Melayu - bukannya MALAYSIA - dan inilah tanah tumpah darah mereka yang asal.
Nama yang diberikan sekarang kepada beberapa negara di sekitar kepulauan gugusan Tanah Melayu ini adalah merupakan nama "celupan" selepas masing-masing merdeka dan bebas daripada belenggu pejajah.
Walau apapun nak dikata, mereka tetap "serumpun" sepertimana serumpunnya orang China dengan "sepupu" mereka Korea, Jepun, Mongolia, dan Tibet.
Juga India dengan "sepupu" mereka Bengali, Tamil, Bangladash, Pakistan, Seri Langka, yang kini dikenal dengan Asia Selatan.
Jadi jangan ada sesiapa yang menidakkan bahawa negara Malaysia ini adalah kepunyaan dan berasal daripada penduduknya yang terdiri daripada orang yang berketurunan "Melayu" yang serumpun dengan orang-orang yang tinggal di seluruh gugusan kepulaun Melayu, atau nusantara ini.
Sekarang bolehlah kita umpamakan orang Melayu dengan orang Indonesia, Brunei, Singapura, Patani, Kemboja, dll di sekitar nusantara ini sebagai "sepupu" (kalau kita ingin "merenggangkan" kedudukan perhubungan kita sesama Melayu.)
Segala perbezaan yang terdapat sekarang hanyalah perbuatan manusia dan penjajah.
Seperti kata seorang kenalan, Allahyarham Sdr Zain Mahmud,(mantan Pengarah RTM), bahawa asal usul orang Melayu ini kebanyakan berasal daripada Selatan negeri Cina, iaitu daripada Annam, (yang merupakan sebahagian daripada negeri Cina), Champa, Langkasuka, dan sebagainya.
"Andaikata pada bila-bila masa negeri atau orang-orang Cina hendak mendakwa bahawa Tanah Melayu ini "kepunyaan" mereka, kita juga boleh mendakwa bahawa negara Cina "kepunyaan" kita", kerana kita datang daripada wilayah negara mereka.
Ini adalah hakikat sejarah; dan kata-kata Allahyarham itu hanya untuk tujuan berhujah saja.
Wallahu'alam.
mansal damha
Ingatlah kita bahawa ini adalah kata-kata Lee Kuan Yew yang menimbulkan kemarahan orang Melayu dan berakhir menjadi peristiwa 13 Mei 1969. Kita mesti sentiasa bersedia dengan hujah-hujah kita supaya kebenaran tidak dikaburi.
Khamis, 7 Jun 2007
Agenda Tersirat Disebalik Buku "May 13" Dr Kua
Oleh Biggum Dogmannsteinburg
Ini perkembangan selanjutnya setelah artikel “Peristiwa 13 Mei dilawati semula” yang disiarkan di blog BigDogDotCom, www.bigdogdotcom.wordpress.com. Satu komen ditulis oleh seorang mantan pegawai tinggi Kerajaan Persekutuan yang terlibat secara langsung dengan soal keselamatan Negara. Dipetik dari ruangan komen:
Penjelasan para kedua itu memang tepat. Ada pihak mengambil peluang dan mengeksploitasi kelemahan UMNO dan Parti Perikatan. Sentimen dan emosi rakyat sengaja dibiarkan dieksploitasi tanpa batas.
Dewasa ini, timbul phenomena terkini melibatkan anasir anasir sehaluan dengan mereka yang menimbulkan kemarahan dan lantas kekacauan peristiwa berdarah 13 Mei. Keterbukaan keadaan zaman maklumat ini diguna dan eksploitasikan semaksima agar konsep konsep menentang (dengan bertopengkan “perbincangan dan meneliti semula”) perkara perkara yang hak dan asas kepada orang orang Melayu dalam Negara ini seperti penakrifan ‘Bangsa Melayu’, Dasar Ekonomi Baru, Ugama Islam sebagai ugama rasmi Negara (dalam konteks kebebasan berugama) dan kedudukan Raja Raja Melayu sebagai kuasa mutlak soal ugama dan adat dan istiadat orang orang Melayu.
Golongan ini mengunakan cara cara ilmiah dan proses undang undang untuk mengkaji, menentang, menafikan dan menghina apa yang dianggap sebagai utama dan sensitif kepada orang orang Melayu, terutama dari konteks kebebasan memilih ugama, hak asasi manusia, nilai nilai sejagat dan asas asas demokrasi serta hak hak mereka yang kunun kununya dinafikan selama ini.
Usaha terancang dan berstruktur ini diberikan begitu banyak perhatian dan bantuan NGO NGO dari luar negara, termasuk liputan media dan wang Ringgit.
Usaha dan gerakan ini tidak boleh dilihat tanpa ditafsirkan sebagai “Kurang Ajar” kepada mereka yang sengaja mencari pasal dan bergerak untuk menentukan kestabilan, harmoni, perpaduan dan kesefahaman yang ujud hampir 40 ini terancam, tergugat dan akhirnya, mereka mengangguk diair keruh dan akan menyebabkan kepentingan majoriti terabai dan sebaliknya kepentingan minority diutamakan dari semua segi.
Ini perlu dipertahankan. Ini sebenarnya ancaman penjajahan semula dari anasir anasir dalaman yang selama ini kita ambil sebagai ‘rakan kongsi dan mereka yang wajar diberikan hak sama rata’.
Peristiwa berdarah 13 Mei 1969 tidak wajar diungkit semula, atas apa alasan sekali. Tiada yang positif yang boleh diperolehi dari penilitian semula insiden itu. Sebaliknya, perlu kita berwaspada dan bersungguh sungguh mempertahankan apa yang ada pada kita hari ini agar ‘tidak terlepas’ atas mainan agenda licik golongan tertentu.
Witches in the Air by Goya 1797-98 Museo del Prado, Madrid
Ini perkembangan selanjutnya setelah artikel “Peristiwa 13 Mei dilawati semula” yang disiarkan di blog BigDogDotCom, www.bigdogdotcom.wordpress.com. Satu komen ditulis oleh seorang mantan pegawai tinggi Kerajaan Persekutuan yang terlibat secara langsung dengan soal keselamatan Negara. Dipetik dari ruangan komen:
“Kesah peristiwa 13 Mei tidak perlu diungkit ungkit disamping tidak juga wajar dilupai kerana ia banyak mengandung kesilapan kesilapan yang boleh dipelajari untuk dihindari. Pengkajian semula peristiwa ini tidak mungkin dapat menemui satu penyelesaian oleh kerana siapa juga yang menjalankan penyelidikan sudah tentu berpendirian yang tidak berkecuali. Oleh yang demikian mereka akan hanya melihat dari sudut yang menyebelahi sentimen mereka seperti apa yang Kua Kia Soong dapat kumpul dari laporan laporan pihak British yg biasanya berat sebelah.Memang tepat apa yang dinukilkan ini. Tidak mungkin ada mana mana pihak yang boleh membuat analisa tanpa bias keatas peristiwa berdarah ini. Memang semestinya analisa maklumat melalui agensi negara luar seperti Britain bermotifkan agenda tertentu.
Peristiwa 13 Mei berlaku oleh kerana berbagai penyebab dari kelemahan dalaman UMNO, Bahagian bahagian memberi analisa kedudukan yang kurang tepat, rebutan kerusi dikalangan Perikatan, parpol parpol yang pro-Komunis atau puak kiri mengambil kesempatan kepincangan dalaman parti parti dalam Perikatan di samping PKM membuat persediaan untuk memulakan kegiatan bersenjata mereka pada hujung tahun 1968. Pergolakan pergolakan ini adalah diantara beberapa penyebab yang mencetuskan pergadohan ketika suasana perhubungan kaum sedang meruncing. Pokoknya Mei 13 69 meletup oleh kerana pemimpin parpol semua pihak TIDAK MEMPERDULIKAN sentimen dan kelohan rakyat ketika itu sekaligus membiarkan arus provokasi bermaharajalela
Ada setengah orang lama khuatir perkembangan dan pergolakan masa kini dirasai mirip sebelum mei 13 69 - nauzubilah min zaliq.
Tidak ada faedah yang nyata untuk di ungkit ungkit malapetaka yang berlaku ketika itu melainkan bagi memenuhi strategi atau agenda untuk menggoncang suasana ketenteraman Malaysia mungkin juga bagi kepentingan orang lain.
Ini adalah kerana banyak perkara yang sedang berlaku dilihat atau dirasai mempunyai muslihat demi kepentingan luaran. Melayu tidak bersatu ketika itu dan apakah ada persamaan situasi ketika ini?”
# Glossary: Parpol = Parti Politik
Penjelasan para kedua itu memang tepat. Ada pihak mengambil peluang dan mengeksploitasi kelemahan UMNO dan Parti Perikatan. Sentimen dan emosi rakyat sengaja dibiarkan dieksploitasi tanpa batas.
Dewasa ini, timbul phenomena terkini melibatkan anasir anasir sehaluan dengan mereka yang menimbulkan kemarahan dan lantas kekacauan peristiwa berdarah 13 Mei. Keterbukaan keadaan zaman maklumat ini diguna dan eksploitasikan semaksima agar konsep konsep menentang (dengan bertopengkan “perbincangan dan meneliti semula”) perkara perkara yang hak dan asas kepada orang orang Melayu dalam Negara ini seperti penakrifan ‘Bangsa Melayu’, Dasar Ekonomi Baru, Ugama Islam sebagai ugama rasmi Negara (dalam konteks kebebasan berugama) dan kedudukan Raja Raja Melayu sebagai kuasa mutlak soal ugama dan adat dan istiadat orang orang Melayu.
Golongan ini mengunakan cara cara ilmiah dan proses undang undang untuk mengkaji, menentang, menafikan dan menghina apa yang dianggap sebagai utama dan sensitif kepada orang orang Melayu, terutama dari konteks kebebasan memilih ugama, hak asasi manusia, nilai nilai sejagat dan asas asas demokrasi serta hak hak mereka yang kunun kununya dinafikan selama ini.
Usaha terancang dan berstruktur ini diberikan begitu banyak perhatian dan bantuan NGO NGO dari luar negara, termasuk liputan media dan wang Ringgit.
Usaha dan gerakan ini tidak boleh dilihat tanpa ditafsirkan sebagai “Kurang Ajar” kepada mereka yang sengaja mencari pasal dan bergerak untuk menentukan kestabilan, harmoni, perpaduan dan kesefahaman yang ujud hampir 40 ini terancam, tergugat dan akhirnya, mereka mengangguk diair keruh dan akan menyebabkan kepentingan majoriti terabai dan sebaliknya kepentingan minority diutamakan dari semua segi.
Ini perlu dipertahankan. Ini sebenarnya ancaman penjajahan semula dari anasir anasir dalaman yang selama ini kita ambil sebagai ‘rakan kongsi dan mereka yang wajar diberikan hak sama rata’.
Peristiwa berdarah 13 Mei 1969 tidak wajar diungkit semula, atas apa alasan sekali. Tiada yang positif yang boleh diperolehi dari penilitian semula insiden itu. Sebaliknya, perlu kita berwaspada dan bersungguh sungguh mempertahankan apa yang ada pada kita hari ini agar ‘tidak terlepas’ atas mainan agenda licik golongan tertentu.
Selasa, 5 Jun 2007
Why Was The "May 13" Book Written?
Datok Ruhanie Ahmad, former Press and Political Secretary to the then Home Minister, Tun Musa Hitam has a lot of questions and observations on the reasons this dreadful book is published and the timing of its publication. This is taken from his blog RocCyberPrince and MayaPutera.
Sunday June 3 2007
May 13 Tragedy: A Coup D’etat?
Ruhanie Ahmad
The May 13 - a new book being written based on information purportedly obtained from the British Public Records Office, at the Kew Garden, London, is a gross misrepresentation of history.
Therefore, it is important for us to find out why such a book is being written at this very point of time and what are the motives behind it.
We have to ask these questions because Malaysia currently seems to be facing several onslaughts from certain quarters especially concerning the fact that Islam is the official religion of the country and also about the status, rights and privileges of the bumiputera as being instituted in the Federal Constitution.
The emergence of this new book - May 13 - in the market should therefore be examined whether or not it forms as part and parcel of such onslaughts. Or, is it just an isolated and uncoordinated move, but could still be construed as part of the same game?
More significantly, why is this book being published now - in the year when we are celebrating our 50th Independence celebration? Any specific reasons for this? Why is it not being written and published in 1999, soon after the public records which form the basis of the book were being declassified by the British authorities?
Why does the book claim that the May 13 riots of 1969 “were carefully planned and organized” by a group of people categorized as “the then emergent Malay capitalist class” to enable “a coup d’etat” and a regime change in Malaysia because the Prime Minister at that time, Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra, “represented the outdated Malay aristocracy”? Does it mean to imply that the bloody incidence was created to justify the formulation and the implementation of the New Economic Policy?
Subvert Solidarity
Why publish the book now when several super powers are seen to be most active in their efforts to establish hegemony and dominance in south east Asia since they launched the so-called war on terror against the Muslims and several Muslim countries in central and west Asia beginning 2001?
Is the book aimed at subverting the unity, solidarity and resilience of the multi-ethnic Malaysians in the face of the mounting subtle pressures from some neo-imperialist powers and its staunch allies in the region?
Is the book aimed at instigating certain quarters in Malaysia to revolt against the government through the general elections which is about one year away from now?
Does the writer intend to revive the old provocative slogan of “blood for blood” as being propagated by elements of the Communist United Front (CUF) on the polling day of the May 1969 general elections?
I know the writer of May 13. He was a one-term Malaysian member of parliament (DAP-Petaling Jaya) - from 1990 to 1995. I am familiar with his prejudices, political bias, attitude towards the government of Malaysia, perceptions about the west, statements about the New Economic Policy and remarks about the Malays and Bumiputera in general.
But, I am not sure if he is a friend of the imperialists, neo-imperialists or even their allies in this region. Neither do I know whether he is a communist sympathizer or not. But, how do we describe a writer who attempts to re-write the May 13 history in Malaysia purely and solely based on the perceptions of British diplomats in Malaysia who claimed to have put their ears “close to the ground” during the May 13 incidence; based on the accounts of a British journalist who claimed to be an eyewitness during the curfew; based on intelligence gathered by diplomats from Australia and New Zealand; based on the observations of white man diplomats stationed in Singapore and Indonesia; based on remarks by a Singapore leader who propagated the Malaysian Malaysia concept; as well as based on reports by a foreign magazine which was widely believed to have intimate association with the CIA?
Historical Data
If the writer is dead serious to write about his allegation that the 13 May 1969 incidence purportedly aimed at deposing Tunku Abdul Rahman as the prime minister in the early era of independent Malaysia, why only now he writes about it? Why does he totally ignore historical data, facts and figures found in Malaysia?
We may say that the writer wants to wait for the secret records about the May 13 in the British Public Records Office to be declassified so that he can have a full access to them. But, aren’t the records already being declassified in 1999? Then, why does he wait until eight years after the records were being declassified? Because the writer thinks now is the most opportune time to launch a pro-Chinese propaganda aimed at evoking a fresh anti-Malay feeling to a new height in Malaysia? Why, to eradicate what the writer believes as the dominance of the Malay power in this country?
So, what actually is the true and ultimate objective behind the publication of this book? To ridicule the wisdom of Malay leaders in handling a crisis like the May 13, 1969? To blame the Malaysian Armed Forces for allegedly being anti-Chinese? To amplify the prejudice of the British colonialists and neo-colonialists on the independent and sovereign Malaysia? To belittle Malaysis’s 50th Merdeka celebration? To further the interest of certain foreign powers, especially those who are allegedly buying into some Malaysian GLCs through proxies?
I tend to agree with the writer on one thing - the May 13 riots “were by no means a spontaneous outburst of racial violence in a multi-racial society.” However, I am in total disagreement with him that the riots “were carefully planned and organized and that they were an excuse for the new regime to declare an emergency to effect the regime change.”
Malaysian leaders are not like US President, J W Bush, who needed a 911 tragedy to launch pre-emptive wars on Afghanistan and Iraq which had blatantly killed hundreds of thousands of civilians and destroying the heritage of independent nations. As such, Malaysian leaders did not need to plan a bloodshed to formulate the New Economic Policy.
Violence
In the context of the May 13 1969 incidence in Malaysia, no democratic Malaysian leaders had ever chosen to resort to violence in order to obtain absolute powers in this country.
But, according to a white paper - The Path Of Violence To Absolute Power - being tabled in Parliament by Tun Abdul Razak Hussein, on 8 November, 1968, it was elements of the CUF which had planned to resort to violence in order to achieve an absolute power in Malaysia in 1970s.
That was why several elements of the CUF had decided to boycott the 1969 general elections. And, it was during the 1969 general elections that the CUF elements played its central roles to disrupt the parliamentary democracy in this country.
The National Operations Council cited one example of such disruption on May 10, 1969 - the polling day for the 1969 general elections. The disruption came in the form of a mass funeral procession. The police had earlier permitted the procession to be held on May 9, 1969. But, the CUF elements illegally held the procession on May 10, 1969, to coincide with the polling day.
The report said: “These (CUF) elements defied Police instruction and organized a large parade in which an estimated number of ten thousand persons took part and marched through the centre of Kuala Lumpur, flouting every Police instruction. They chanted Maoist slogans, sang “the East is Red”, and displayed portraits of Mao Tse-Tong and the Red Flag. The parade passed through the heart of Kuala Lumpur and tied up traffic in almost every major street in the city, and provoked Malay bystanders with shouts of “Malai si!” (Death to the Malays!) and “Hutang Darah bayar darah (Blood debt will be repaid with blood).”
I am very sure the writer of the May 13 knows about the above procession. But, I wonder if any records about the same procession are being kept by the British Public Records Office. I also wonder if the British Public Records Office keeps newspaper reports about the same procession and its related background information.
Instigation
Well, if the records are there, why does the writer choose to write that the May 13 riots “were carefully planned” coup d’etat? If the records are there, why does the writer put the blame on the Malaysian government for what had happened? Why does he put the blame on Tun Razak for being “in complete control from the start of the riots and with the emergency in place, had a free hand in planning the post-1969 political makeup with the backing of the armed forces”? Does he expect the Malaysian government to just keep quiet and see that the country being torn to pieces?
Anyway, this game of blaming the Malaysian government for what had happened in May 1969, as being voiced out by the writer of The May 13, is actually almost similar in tone to the voice of the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) in June 1969.
A white paper - The Resurgence Of Armed Communist In West Malaysia - being tabled by Tun Dr. Ismail Abdul Rahman, in the Dewan Rakyat on October 1, 1971, stated that in June 1969, the CPM had issued one statement accusing “the Rahman-Razak complot to blatantly killing the people of Malaysia, especially the Chinese” to enable them enforce a “fascist military rule” in Malaysia. The CPM statement also urged Malaysians not to forget the “blood for blood” slogan and those responsible for the bloodshed, i.e. the so-called (Rahman-Razak complot).
So, do we trace any similarity about what is being stated in the above white paper with this book May 13 book? If you don’t, please refer to page 65 of the book and read this statement: “The 1969 riots were the works of Malay thugs orchestrated by politicians behind the coup d’etat.”
When the CPM accused that it was the so-called “Rahman-Razak complot” which was responsible for the 1969 bloodshed, the CPM said it with an intention to instigate Malaysians, especially the Chinese, to go on with its struggle against the Malaysian government.
So, when the writer of May 13 says that it was the so-called Malay thugs being backed by Malay politicians who started the bloodshed in 1969, what does he have in mind? Does he want to instigate another ethnic riot in Malaysia?
Historical Amnesia
At the same time, why writer does not say about the activities of the CUF, about the subversive activities of the communist elements in some of the opposition parties in 1969, about the provocations “death to the Malays” on May 10, 1969, and about the maoist elements who held illegal procession on the polling day of May 1969 general elections?
Yes, what about all those facts Mr. Kua Kia Soong? Don’t tell us that you are suffering from a very acute historical amnesia syndrome? Or, have you forgotten the meaning of a Malay saying that you learnt in Batu Pahat that “terlajak perahu boleh diundur, terlajak cakap parah padahnya”?
Mr. Kua Kia Soong, the May 13 incidence is not as what you have said - a coup d’etat. Neither it is as what you want to portray - being started by Malay thugs backed by politicians behind the so-called coup d’etat. The May 13 incidence is the end game of neo-imperialism, chauvinism, extremism and communism - all in one, one in all.
Sunday June 3 2007
May 13 Tragedy: A Coup D’etat?
Ruhanie Ahmad
The May 13 - a new book being written based on information purportedly obtained from the British Public Records Office, at the Kew Garden, London, is a gross misrepresentation of history.
Therefore, it is important for us to find out why such a book is being written at this very point of time and what are the motives behind it.
We have to ask these questions because Malaysia currently seems to be facing several onslaughts from certain quarters especially concerning the fact that Islam is the official religion of the country and also about the status, rights and privileges of the bumiputera as being instituted in the Federal Constitution.
The emergence of this new book - May 13 - in the market should therefore be examined whether or not it forms as part and parcel of such onslaughts. Or, is it just an isolated and uncoordinated move, but could still be construed as part of the same game?
More significantly, why is this book being published now - in the year when we are celebrating our 50th Independence celebration? Any specific reasons for this? Why is it not being written and published in 1999, soon after the public records which form the basis of the book were being declassified by the British authorities?
Why does the book claim that the May 13 riots of 1969 “were carefully planned and organized” by a group of people categorized as “the then emergent Malay capitalist class” to enable “a coup d’etat” and a regime change in Malaysia because the Prime Minister at that time, Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra, “represented the outdated Malay aristocracy”? Does it mean to imply that the bloody incidence was created to justify the formulation and the implementation of the New Economic Policy?
Subvert Solidarity
Why publish the book now when several super powers are seen to be most active in their efforts to establish hegemony and dominance in south east Asia since they launched the so-called war on terror against the Muslims and several Muslim countries in central and west Asia beginning 2001?
Is the book aimed at subverting the unity, solidarity and resilience of the multi-ethnic Malaysians in the face of the mounting subtle pressures from some neo-imperialist powers and its staunch allies in the region?
Is the book aimed at instigating certain quarters in Malaysia to revolt against the government through the general elections which is about one year away from now?
Does the writer intend to revive the old provocative slogan of “blood for blood” as being propagated by elements of the Communist United Front (CUF) on the polling day of the May 1969 general elections?
I know the writer of May 13. He was a one-term Malaysian member of parliament (DAP-Petaling Jaya) - from 1990 to 1995. I am familiar with his prejudices, political bias, attitude towards the government of Malaysia, perceptions about the west, statements about the New Economic Policy and remarks about the Malays and Bumiputera in general.
But, I am not sure if he is a friend of the imperialists, neo-imperialists or even their allies in this region. Neither do I know whether he is a communist sympathizer or not. But, how do we describe a writer who attempts to re-write the May 13 history in Malaysia purely and solely based on the perceptions of British diplomats in Malaysia who claimed to have put their ears “close to the ground” during the May 13 incidence; based on the accounts of a British journalist who claimed to be an eyewitness during the curfew; based on intelligence gathered by diplomats from Australia and New Zealand; based on the observations of white man diplomats stationed in Singapore and Indonesia; based on remarks by a Singapore leader who propagated the Malaysian Malaysia concept; as well as based on reports by a foreign magazine which was widely believed to have intimate association with the CIA?
Historical Data
If the writer is dead serious to write about his allegation that the 13 May 1969 incidence purportedly aimed at deposing Tunku Abdul Rahman as the prime minister in the early era of independent Malaysia, why only now he writes about it? Why does he totally ignore historical data, facts and figures found in Malaysia?
We may say that the writer wants to wait for the secret records about the May 13 in the British Public Records Office to be declassified so that he can have a full access to them. But, aren’t the records already being declassified in 1999? Then, why does he wait until eight years after the records were being declassified? Because the writer thinks now is the most opportune time to launch a pro-Chinese propaganda aimed at evoking a fresh anti-Malay feeling to a new height in Malaysia? Why, to eradicate what the writer believes as the dominance of the Malay power in this country?
So, what actually is the true and ultimate objective behind the publication of this book? To ridicule the wisdom of Malay leaders in handling a crisis like the May 13, 1969? To blame the Malaysian Armed Forces for allegedly being anti-Chinese? To amplify the prejudice of the British colonialists and neo-colonialists on the independent and sovereign Malaysia? To belittle Malaysis’s 50th Merdeka celebration? To further the interest of certain foreign powers, especially those who are allegedly buying into some Malaysian GLCs through proxies?
I tend to agree with the writer on one thing - the May 13 riots “were by no means a spontaneous outburst of racial violence in a multi-racial society.” However, I am in total disagreement with him that the riots “were carefully planned and organized and that they were an excuse for the new regime to declare an emergency to effect the regime change.”
Malaysian leaders are not like US President, J W Bush, who needed a 911 tragedy to launch pre-emptive wars on Afghanistan and Iraq which had blatantly killed hundreds of thousands of civilians and destroying the heritage of independent nations. As such, Malaysian leaders did not need to plan a bloodshed to formulate the New Economic Policy.
Violence
In the context of the May 13 1969 incidence in Malaysia, no democratic Malaysian leaders had ever chosen to resort to violence in order to obtain absolute powers in this country.
But, according to a white paper - The Path Of Violence To Absolute Power - being tabled in Parliament by Tun Abdul Razak Hussein, on 8 November, 1968, it was elements of the CUF which had planned to resort to violence in order to achieve an absolute power in Malaysia in 1970s.
That was why several elements of the CUF had decided to boycott the 1969 general elections. And, it was during the 1969 general elections that the CUF elements played its central roles to disrupt the parliamentary democracy in this country.
The National Operations Council cited one example of such disruption on May 10, 1969 - the polling day for the 1969 general elections. The disruption came in the form of a mass funeral procession. The police had earlier permitted the procession to be held on May 9, 1969. But, the CUF elements illegally held the procession on May 10, 1969, to coincide with the polling day.
The report said: “These (CUF) elements defied Police instruction and organized a large parade in which an estimated number of ten thousand persons took part and marched through the centre of Kuala Lumpur, flouting every Police instruction. They chanted Maoist slogans, sang “the East is Red”, and displayed portraits of Mao Tse-Tong and the Red Flag. The parade passed through the heart of Kuala Lumpur and tied up traffic in almost every major street in the city, and provoked Malay bystanders with shouts of “Malai si!” (Death to the Malays!) and “Hutang Darah bayar darah (Blood debt will be repaid with blood).”
I am very sure the writer of the May 13 knows about the above procession. But, I wonder if any records about the same procession are being kept by the British Public Records Office. I also wonder if the British Public Records Office keeps newspaper reports about the same procession and its related background information.
Instigation
Well, if the records are there, why does the writer choose to write that the May 13 riots “were carefully planned” coup d’etat? If the records are there, why does the writer put the blame on the Malaysian government for what had happened? Why does he put the blame on Tun Razak for being “in complete control from the start of the riots and with the emergency in place, had a free hand in planning the post-1969 political makeup with the backing of the armed forces”? Does he expect the Malaysian government to just keep quiet and see that the country being torn to pieces?
Anyway, this game of blaming the Malaysian government for what had happened in May 1969, as being voiced out by the writer of The May 13, is actually almost similar in tone to the voice of the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) in June 1969.
A white paper - The Resurgence Of Armed Communist In West Malaysia - being tabled by Tun Dr. Ismail Abdul Rahman, in the Dewan Rakyat on October 1, 1971, stated that in June 1969, the CPM had issued one statement accusing “the Rahman-Razak complot to blatantly killing the people of Malaysia, especially the Chinese” to enable them enforce a “fascist military rule” in Malaysia. The CPM statement also urged Malaysians not to forget the “blood for blood” slogan and those responsible for the bloodshed, i.e. the so-called (Rahman-Razak complot).
So, do we trace any similarity about what is being stated in the above white paper with this book May 13 book? If you don’t, please refer to page 65 of the book and read this statement: “The 1969 riots were the works of Malay thugs orchestrated by politicians behind the coup d’etat.”
When the CPM accused that it was the so-called “Rahman-Razak complot” which was responsible for the 1969 bloodshed, the CPM said it with an intention to instigate Malaysians, especially the Chinese, to go on with its struggle against the Malaysian government.
So, when the writer of May 13 says that it was the so-called Malay thugs being backed by Malay politicians who started the bloodshed in 1969, what does he have in mind? Does he want to instigate another ethnic riot in Malaysia?
Historical Amnesia
At the same time, why writer does not say about the activities of the CUF, about the subversive activities of the communist elements in some of the opposition parties in 1969, about the provocations “death to the Malays” on May 10, 1969, and about the maoist elements who held illegal procession on the polling day of May 1969 general elections?
Yes, what about all those facts Mr. Kua Kia Soong? Don’t tell us that you are suffering from a very acute historical amnesia syndrome? Or, have you forgotten the meaning of a Malay saying that you learnt in Batu Pahat that “terlajak perahu boleh diundur, terlajak cakap parah padahnya”?
Mr. Kua Kia Soong, the May 13 incidence is not as what you have said - a coup d’etat. Neither it is as what you want to portray - being started by Malay thugs backed by politicians behind the so-called coup d’etat. The May 13 incidence is the end game of neo-imperialism, chauvinism, extremism and communism - all in one, one in all.
Sabtu, 2 Jun 2007
Asyik Mereka Tolak, Kita Beransur?
Utusan Malaysia 12 Jun 2003
Tolok Ansur dan Saingan Kaum
Seorang penggusti Sumo ditolak hingga keluar gelanggang
SERING kita mendengar orang berkata bahawa penduduk pelbagai kaum atau bangsa, agama, budaya dan bahasa di Malaysia selama ini dapat hidup "bersatu padu, aman dan damai'' kerana adanya semangat ``tolak ansur''. Siapakah yang bertolak ansur dan siapakah yang tidak bertolak ansur atau yang menjadi mangsa tolak ansur itu - isu ini makin terasa sejak mutakhir ini.
Sebenarnya, tolak ansur ini merupakan salah satu "formula khusus'' yang dipersetujui antara orang Melayu dengan kaum-kaum lain semasa Persekutuan Tanah Melayu hendak mencapai kemerdekaan dahulu. Formula itu ialah, orang Melayu bersetuju untuk memberikan hak kerakyatan kepada kaum-kaum bukan Melayu yang berada di Tanah Melayu berdasarkan prinsip jus soli. Sebagai balasannya, kaum-kaum lain itu diminta menerima bahasa Melayu sebagai bahasa kebangsaan dan bahasa rasmi negara ini, bersetuju supaya Islam dijadikan agama rasmi negara, dan menerima beberapa "hak istimewa'' Melayu, misalnya dalam bidang perkhidmatan awam.
Sebenarnya, istilah "hak istimewa'' orang Melayu itu tidak sesuai digunakan, kerana istilah ini boleh membayangkan atau boleh disalahtafsirkan oleh orang lain bahawa orang Melayu telah mengisytiharkan dirinya sebagai bangsa yang "istimewa'', sebagai golongan kelas pertama, manakala kaum-kaum lain jatuh ke tahap kelas kedua dan ketiga.
Padahal apa yang dikatakan "hak istimewa'' orang Melayu itu adalah "hak'' yang diwarisi oleh bangsa Melayu dalam sejarahnya sejak ratusan tahun dahulu, sebelum kedatangan bangsa-bangsa lain di rantau Melayu ini. Misalnya, bahasa Melayu sudah menjadi bahasa kerajaan Melayu, bukan sahaja di Tanah Melayu bahkan di seluruh rantau yang disebut rantau kepulauan Melayu ini sejak sekurang-kurangnya abad ke-12 lagi. Agama Islam juga adalah agama yang dominan di rantau ini.
Jadi, apa yang berlaku ialah warisan atau sejarah ini dikekalkan dalam negara Melayu yang merdeka, yakni yang dibebaskan daripada penjajahan British. British menjajah Tanah Melayu, negeri dan kerajaan Melayu dan bangsa Melayu, bukan negeri, kerajaan dan bangsa bukan Melayu. Hal ini memang disedari oleh kaum-kaum bukan Melayu, maka kerana itulah apabila orang Melayu bangkit menentang gagasan atau muslihat Malayan Union dalam tahun 1946-1948, kaum-kaum lain tidak menyokong atau tidak ikut menentangnya; mereka menganggap bahawa Malayan Union itu adalah masalah antara orang Melayu, kerajaan Melayu, raja-raja Melayu, dengan kerajaan British, bukan masalah mereka. Lagipun, pada masa itu mereka bukan rakyat Tanah Melayu, yakni bukan rakyat raja-raja Melayu, jadi tentulah rasa taat setia kepada kerajaan atau raja Melayu tidak ada dalam hati mereka. Mengapa mereka mesti menentang British untuk mempertahankan kedaulatan raja-raja Melayu?
Tetapi oleh kerana salah satu isu yang dibangkitkan oleh pihak British ialah isu perpaduan kaum setelah pihak British meninggalkan Tanah Melayu (seolah-olah semasa British memerintah negeri ini, kaum-kaum itu bersatu padu) maka orang Melayu dan pemimpin kaum-kaum lain bersetujulah mencari 'formula'nya. Dari situlah timbulnya semangat tolak ansur tadi, dan sebahagian daripada formula tolak ansur ini dimaktubkan dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan Tanah Melayu yang digubal oleh Suruhanjaya Reid yang anggotanya semuanya orang luar, dari England, dari India, Pakistan dan Australia - tidak ada seorang pun wakil Melayu atau wakil kaum-kaum lain yang duduk dalam suruhanjaya itu.
Selain formula yang diperlembagaankan itu, terdapat pula tolak ansur lain, misalnya, kuasa politik dan pemerintahan Persekutuan Tanah Melayu hendaklah dikongsi oleh orang Melayu dengan orang bukan Melayu. Maka dibentuklah Parti Perikatan UMNO-MCA-MIC yang memerintah negara ini dari tahun 1957 hinggalah ke hari ini. Teras parti atau kerajaan Barisan Nasional yang ada sekarang ialah perikatan UMNO-MCA-MIC yang dahulu itu.
Jadi kalau Malaysia mahu terus menjadi negara yang dikatakan "aman dan damai'', penduduk pelbagai kaumnya hidup "bersatu padu'', maka formula tolak ansur yang asal itulah yang patut dipertahankan dan dihormati, jangan dipersoalkan, dijadikan isu lagi dan dicairkan dengan pelbagai tuntutan dan desakan yang lain, atau dimusnahkan dengan pelbagai tolak ansur lain yang dibuat oleh mana-mana kaum berdasarkan kepentingan politik, budaya dan ekonomi etnik masing-masing.
Istilah tolak ansur ini, dari segi maksud harfiahnya, boleh ditafsirkan berdasarkan perasaan dan kepentingan pelbagai pihak, dan orang tidak semestinya selama-lamanya menerima "formula'' yang asal itu. Cuba kita lihat ragam-ragam makna dan implikasi psikologi istilah ini yang boleh timbul dalam situasi perhubungan etnik, politik, budaya dan sosial di negara ini.
Istilah tolak ansur terdiri daripada dua perkataan yang mempunyai makna yang berlainan, iaitu "tolak'' dan "ansur'', Perkataan "tolak'' bermacam-macam maknanya. Makna asasnya ialah 'mendorong' atau 'menyorong'. Apabila kita menolak sesuatu, kita menggerakkan sesuatu itu dari tempat asalnya ke tempat lain, atau kita mengalih kedudukannya. Misalnya, menolak kereta yang enjinnya tiba-tiba mati kerana bateri lemah, atau menolak meja atau kerusi. Tetapi perbuatan ini tidak sampai menyebabkan benda yang ditolak itu tumbang atau jatuh. Tetapi perkataan "menolak'' juga bererti perbuatan yang boleh menyebabkan sesuatu atau seseorang jatuh, tersungkur, tumbang, dan tergolek. Misalnya, kita boleh menolak seseorang yang sedang berada di tepi parit atau di tepi kolam, sehingga menyebabkan dia jatuh ke dalam parit atau kolam itu. Tolak juga boleh bererti 'mengurangkan'. Misalnya, "10 tolak 8'' jadi 2. Dalam bahasa Melayu, makna ini digunakan dalam ilmu kira-kira. Maknanya sama dengan perkataan Inggeris minus atau subtract, lawannya 'campur' atau 'tambah' (dalam bahasa Inggeris plus atau add).
Perkataan tolak dalam bahasa Melayu juga boleh bererti 'tidak mahu menerima sesuatu' atau 'membuang sesuatu'. Misalnya, 'pinangannya ditolak orang', atau 'permohonannya untuk mendapat pekerjaan itu ditolak kerana dia tidak fasih berbahasa Inggeris', 'calon itu ditolak pengundi', 'menolak rezeki', dan lain-lain lagi. Perkataan ini juga digunakan secara metafora atau kiasan, misalnya dalam ungkapan seperti 'menolak ombak' dan 'menolak angin' (maksudnya, melakukan kerja yang sia-sia). Simpulan bahasa "tolak tepi'' bererti tidak dipedulikan orang, atau dipinggirkan.
Lawan perkataan tolak ialah perkataan "tarik''. Apabila kita menarik sesuatu kita melakukan perbuatan menghela sesuatu itu supaya bergerak ke arah kita. Simpulan bahasa "tarik tali'' bererti sekejap mahu mengalah, sekejap tidak.
Perkataan "ansur'' pula bererti 'sedikit demi sedikit', misalnya dalam ayat seperti 'keadaan ekonomi negara beransur baik', 'hutang kereta (atau rumah) dibayar secara beransur-ansur tiap-tiap bulan'. Perkataan ansur juga bererti bergerak meninggalkan sesuatu tempat sedikit demi sedikit, yakni tidak serentak, misalnya 'para tetamu mulai beransur meninggalkan majlis'.
Jadi, kalau kita melihat makna istilah tolak ansur ini berdasarkan makna kata-kata yang membentuk istilah ini, bermacam-macam maknalah yang dapat kita berikan kepada istilah ini. Istilah ini baru wujud dalam bahasa Melayu. Menurut kamus, ungkapan ini bermakna 'saling menuruti atau saling memberi, atau berkompromi. Maksudnya barangkali sama dengan maksud ungkapan bahasa Inggeris give and take, makna harfiahnya ialah, memberi dan menerima, tetapi makna simpulan katanya ialah 'beralah' atau 'mengalah'. Kata akarnya ialah "alah'' yang bermakna kalah atau tewas.
Tidak merugikan
Apabila seseorang itu beralah atau mengalah, dia menyerahkan kehendaknya kepada kehendak orang lain. Si suami boleh jadi mengalah kepada kehendak isterinya, boleh jadi kerana si suami itu terlalu menyayangi isterinya, lalu beralah atau mengalah kerana tidak mahu menyakiti hati isterinya dalam hal-hal tertentu. Orang yang berasa dirinya tidak akan rugi kalau dia beralah kepada orang lain, misalnya dalam pertengkaran atau perbahasan, maka dia akan beralah. Dalam hal ini, beralah belum tentu bererti 'kalah'. Orang yang beralah itu boleh jadi hanya pura-pura "mengalah''. Tetapi "mengalah'' boleh bererti mengaku kalah.
Bertolak ansur, kalau menurut makna asalnya, boleh bermakna "beralah'', dan boleh juga bererti "mengalah''. Dalam perundingan diplomasi, misalnya, sering berlaku perbuatan 'sorong tarik'; satu pihak cuba mempertahankan pendiriannya, pihak yang lain cuba memujuk untuk mendapatkan sedikit sebanyak 'konsesi'. Biasanya, pihak yang berasa dirinya kuat, tidak mahu mengalah, malah tidak mahu beralah. Pihak yang lemahlah yang biasanya selalu beralah dan akhirnya mengalah. Tolak ansur "yang adil'' hanya berlaku antara pihak-pihak yang berasa bahawa tolak ansur itu tidak akan merugikan pihak masing-masing. Jika satu pihak berasa dirinya kuat, yang satu lagi lemah, tolak ansur selalunya akan menguntungkan pihak yang kuat itu. Pihak yang lemah tidak ada kuasa dan pengaruh untuk memaksa pihak yang kuat supaya beralah atau mengalah kepadanya. Contoh yang baik ialah, konfrontasi Amerika terhadap Iraq atau terhadap Saddam Hussein: Apa pun kehendak Amerika, termasuk kehendaknya yang terang-terang jahat, Iraq tidak mempunyai kuasa tentera untuk menentang kehendak itu. Beralah dia rugi, mengalah lebih lagi ruginya. Seperti kata pepatah Melayu, menang jadi arang, kalah jadi abu.
Jadi, soal menang kalah dalam dunia hari ini tidak lagi bergantung pada taktik tolak ansur tetapi bergantung pada kuasa, kekuatan (baik kekuatan politik, ekonomi, mahupun kekuatan tentera dan senjata perang) dan daya saingan. Di Malaysia sekarang, kita perhatikan bahawa orang Melayu tidak dapat dikatakan bangsa yang mampu bertolak ansur lagi, kerana sebagaimana kita tahu, masalah yang dihadapi oleh orang Melayu hari ini, dalam hampir semua lapangan, makin lama makin serius. Setelah sekian lama merdeka - kemerdekaan yang dituntut oleh orang Melayu setelah mereka menentang Malayan Union - orang Melayu masih lemah dalam bidang ekonomi, berbanding dengan kaum-kaum lain. Bangsa Melayu tidak menguasai sektor swasta - sektor pembangunan negara ini. Pengaruh sektor awam atau sektor pentadbiran awam yang masih didominasi oleh orang Melayu tentunya bergantung pada kecekapan dan keberkesanan birokrasinya untuk mengawal kuasa sektor swasta yang kian berpengaruh dalam menentukan kemajuan kaum-kaum di negara ini dalam bidang ekonomi, perniagaan dan teknologi.
Dalam bidang pendidikan, masalah orang Melayu tidak habis-habis. Walaupun kemajuan orang Melayu dalam bidang ini sudah jauh lebih baik daripada keadaannya sebelum kemerdekaan, tetapi jurang ketidakseimbangannya dengan kemajuan kaum-kaum lain dalam bidang ini makin lama makin meluas. Dalam bidang politik kuasa demokrasi Melayu tidak lagi sekuat dahulu. Para pemimpin politik Melayu sendiri mengakui keadaan ini apabila mereka berkata bahawa orang Melayu terpaksa bergantung kepada undi bukan Melayu untuk terus berkuasa atau berkongsi kuasa di negara ini. Dalam BN hanya ada parti UMNO sahaja, tidak ada parti Melayu lain. Ini bererti, lemah UMNO lemahlah kuasa politik dan kuasa pemerintahan Melayu. Apakah ada alternatif lain?
Dalam situasi seperti ini, gagasan bahawa orang Melayu mesti mengekalkan "ketuanan''nya atau menjadi bangsa contoh di negara ini, tidak akan bermakna lagi. Akibatnya nanti, formula tolak ansur yang dipersetujui dalam tahun 1957, seperti yang tersebut di atas, boleh sahaja ditolakansurkan lagi melalui persaingan yang lebih pragmatik. Bangsa yang lemah tidak mampu bertolak ansur secara beralah atau secara mengalah. Mereka akan menghadapi masalah untuk mengekalkan apa jua hak yang masih ada padanya dalam dunia yang nasibnya tidak lagi dapat diselamatkan melalui ideologi tolak ansur yang formal itu, melainkan diselamatkan melalui kecekapan bangsa itu, melalui daya saingnya dalam segala bidang, dan lebih penting lagi melalui kecekapan dan kebijaksanaan para pemimpinnya. Para pemimpin yang tidak mempunyai mutu moral yang tinggi, para pemimpin yang korup, misalnya, pasti tidak akan dapat menyelamatkan bangsanya.
Walhasil, tolak ansur tidak sama dengan perbuatan sorong papan tarik papan atau seperti permainan tarik tali, satu pihak melonggarkan tarikan talinya, yang satu lagi menarik tali yang sudah longgar itu. Jika "permainan diplomasi'' seperti ini terus berlaku di negara ini, belum tentulah perpaduan antara kaum akan dapat berkekalan.
* DATUK Dr. HASSAN AHMAD ialah Ketua Eksekutif Yayasan Karyawan Malaysia. Beliau boleh dihubungi di alamat e-mel hasmad@tm.net.my.
Langgan:
Catatan (Atom)
