Thursday, November 26, 2009

The Terrifying Voyage of Burma's Boat People

The terrifying voyage of Burma's boat people

Next month thousands of young Burmese Muslims, persecuted in their own land, will attempt to voyage across the sea to a better life – but a sinister fate awaits them. John Carlin investigates

Tuesday, 24 November 2009

Of the 30,000 people living in the Kutupalong refugee camp, a third are children under 10Of the 30,000 people living in the Kutupalong refugee camp, a third are children under 10

more pictures

Here's a formula for making a killing in times of crisis. Go to the south-eastern tip of Bangladesh, on the border with Burma, and buy an old fishing boat. It'll cost 100,000 taka, or about £900. Then budget 450 pounds, for rice and drinking water, and maybe another £450 for bribes. Then head off and trawl for clients among the most destitute communities in Bangladesh – a country so densely populated country and so poor that for Britain to be on similar economic terms it would have to have a population of 200 million with an average income around four per cent of what a Briton's is today,

But the target market we are looking at here is several times more impoverished than that. We are talking about quite possibly the most neglected people in Asia, or anywhere else. They call themselves Rohingyas, a Muslim minority from Burma, 30,000 of whom have been so cruelly persecuted by their country's military junta, in large measure because of their religion, that they have chosen to flee over the border to live in a refugee camp that they themselves built, without the help of the United Nations or anybody else. It is on a little hillside that is so hot, cramped, stinking, hungry and disease-ridden that, by contrast, the neighbouring string of squalid Bangladeshi fishing villages feels like the Costa del Sol.

Of the 30,000 people living in the Kutupalong refugee camp, a third are children under 10. They laughed and horsed around when I visited them accompanied by a photographer and an aid worker. They would not have laughed had they had any sense of the possible destiny awaiting them, just around the corner. When the mothers get desperate, when no other possibility of survival exists, they sell their children off, usually to become slaves; sex slaves, if they are little girls.

But these are not the clients that the region's investors-in-people most are interested in. What they look for is young men, typically between 16 and 25 years old, who dare to dream of a future brighter than the best that Bangladesh has to offer them – which is to pedal day and night as rickshaw drivers, earning just enough crumbs to allow their bodies to keep pedalling the day and night after that.

For these young men, the promised land is Malaysia, an Asian Tiger of shimmering skyscrapers, vast bridges and smooth motorways that is 1,000 miles south of Bangladesh but felt – when I arrived there on a Malaysian airlines Airbus 330 – like another world, in another century. There is no Airbus option for the Rohingyas, who do not have passports, not being considered citizens in their own land.

This is where the fishing boats, the rice, drinking water and the bribes come in. The canny entrepreneur, who regards himself as a sort of travel agent, offers these ambitious young men a sea trip to Malaysia for a fee the equivalent of £180 a head. The boat, about 60ft long, would usually hold a dozen fishermen. But for this kind of voyage the aim is to carry up to 100 people. That means an income of £18,000 on an outlay of £1,800: a profit approaching 1,000 per cent.

One limitation of the business is that it is only feasible at year's end. December is the time to set sail, when the storms in south-east Asian waters abate, and the currents and the winds are favourable for Malaysia. As I write, boats are being bought and packages sold – as they were a year ago when more than 1,000 Rohingya refugees set off from the Bangladeshi coast.

I spoke separately to half a dozen of these sea-faring adventurers; the stories of three of them are recorded here. Storms, starvation, disease, thirst, beatings, jail was what befell them. At several steps along the way they lived with what seemed then the certain knowledge that they were to die slow and terrible deaths.

Another type of slow death was what they had fled from in Burma. The travellers' stories of life in their home country matched those I heard from a group of Rohingya elders at the Kutupalong camp, painting a picture that suggested images of the slave era in the Americas during the 18th and 19th centuries.

The Rohingyas live in north-west Burma, in a state called Arakan, a name that sounds like a beautiful fairyland in a C.S. Lewis Narnia story, but in this case one ruled without respite by a regime almost as darkly impenetrable as North Korea's. Since its government refused to accept the results of the last democratic elections in 1990, Burma has been a country closed to foreign journalists. Talking to the Rohingyas, one can understand why. They are discriminated against because they are Muslims in a Buddhist country; because they tend to have darker skin than most Burmese (a senior Burmese diplomat described them recently as "dark brown" and "ugly as ogres"), and because of a complex history of resistance to central control (they sided with the British in the Second World War instead of the Japanese, whom the majority of Burmese favoured). They find themselves stateless slaves in the country where they were born. They cannot move from one village to another without permission from the local military authorities; they cannot marry or have children without permission; they are helpless to resist as their land is confiscated bit by bit and given to Buddhist settlers brought in from the cities; they are forced to work the land that has been stolen from them, without pay; they are forced to do all the menial labour that the military might require, from building roads to cutting grass; and they are not allowed to worship freely. After nightfall, when their religion demands that they go to the mosque and pray, they are not allowed to leave their homes. And there is a policy clearly aimed at the erosion of Islam in Arakan state: anyone who is caught performing any repairs on a mosque, from fixing a roof to painting a wall, is punished with jail and a fine.

"They tell us it is their country, not ours," said one of the Rohingya boat people I spoke to, a gentle, devoutly religious boy of 19 called Mohammed. The eldest of eight siblings, his father marked him out as the family's saviour. His his mission was to set off for Malaysia, find a job and send money back home. "My father was terribly sad but he said I was the only hope the family had."

Made aware, through a relative in Bangladesh, of the going rate for the trip to Malaysia, Mohammed's father sold two bullocks and half an acre of land for the equivalent of the £180 that the supposed ticket to paradise cost. The boy tramped over the mountains to Bangladesh where, before boarding a boat in December along with 82 other Rohingya men and boys – the youngest 12, the oldest 60, most about 18 – he made a call on his relative's mobile phone to his family. "I had a feeling that I was leaving my family forever, that I would never see them again."

Salim – thin, small, neat, reedy-voiced – is the second of the travellers in this story. Seventeen when he left Arakan last year, he has four brothers and four sisters. "My elder brothers were forced to cut the lawns of the soldiers, collect firewood for them, clean their houses. They were like slaves," he explained to me "I saw that my future was dark and I decided to leave and find another life." He made it to Bangladesh, found some human-smugglers, as he calls them, and contacted his family to tell them how much money he needed. "They sold their paddyfields: all the land they owned."

Moniur, older than the other two at 23, had left Arakan 10 years earlier and had worked as a rickshaw driver, one of thousands you see swarming the roads of south-eastern Bangladesh. He had the gaunt, grim-set face of all the rickshaw drivers, men forced to push the boundaries of the physically possible, with minimal food.

The three set off on separate boats along what was supposed to have been the same scheduled route: south down the Bay of Bengal to the Sea of Andaman, skirting the west coast of Thailand; then on to the Straits of Molucca, passing Indonesia to the west, before finally making landfall somewhere in the northern Malaysian province of Penang. The voyage was 1,500 kilometres long; the quantity of food provided and the conditions on the boats responded in each case to one simple purpose: maximising the traffickers' profits.

They were not shackled, they were there of their own will, but their plight recalled that of the Africans transported across the Atlantic on the slave-traders' ships. The measure of the despair driving them to seek better lives was that they did not flee for home on seeing and smelling the vessels they had been allotted. Take the case of Salim, crammed along with 107 others into the reeking hold of a fishing boat – the place the fish were usually stored before the boat headed for shore during the long years of the wooden vessel's working life. The men were packed in so tightly that they could not budge an inch. Some were seasick and vomited; all had to urinate and defecate, where they sat.

Mohammed, Salim and Moniur knew they were taking a gamble, but they had no idea just how loaded the dice were against them. On Mohammed's and Salim's boats, the food and water ran out after 10 days; on Moniur's, after eight. In each case they were still some 500 kilometres short of Malaysia, and for two days they sailed without anything to eat or drink. Reaching their destination ceased to have any significance; survival was all that mattered. "All we saw was water and more water", said Mohammed, "but none that we could drink."

Moniur's boat ran into some Thai fishermen, who gave them water but then handed them over to the Thai navy, who took them to shore and arrested them; Mohammed's and Salim's boats made it to shore in Thailand, but they and all their fellow passengers were immediately arrested. All of them were transported to a town called Ranong by road; in Moniur's case, crammed into a garbage truck. They had lost whatever minimal control they might have managed to retain over their lives.

Mohammed told his story vividly, giving free vent to his sorrow and despair; Moniur, older and toughened by the life of the urban rickshaw driver, had an extraordinary memory for detail, but remained stiffly detached, like a police detective describing a crime scene; Salim, the youngest of the three, was contained and precise, but struggled to maintain his poise during the more harrowing parts of his narrative. None of them, in the six hours I spent with them overall, ever smiled. What happened to them, happened to hundreds of other Rohingyas.

According to the only organisation in the world that takes a sustained interest in documenting the plight of the Rohingyas – a one-woman NGO called the Arakan Project run by a Belgian woman, Chris Lewa – at least 1,195 of the refugees left Bangladesh bound purportedly for Malaysia on at least 10 boats in December 2008. Of those, 859 are today accounted for; the rest, more than 300 people, are missing, presumed dead, from drowning, or starvation and thirst on the high seas. The stories of Mohammed, Moniur and Salim, whose survival was in each case providential, offer vivid insights into the probable circumstances of those who remain unaccounted for.

Moniur and Mohammed were taken by the Thai army from Ranong to Koh Sai Dang, which is also known as Red Sand Island – "a hill on the sea", as Moniur described it.

"What struck us first was the number of shoes we saw lying on the beach – hundreds of them," said Mohammed. "Since they were the type that our people wear we feared the owners had been killed and that that would be our fate too."

The Thai military kept the Rohingya men on the island for 15 days, routinely beating them. "There were many more of us than the soldiers, so it must have been to intimidate, to control," explained Mohammed. Then a military boat and a ferry arrived, and took them back to four of the the same boats they had come ashore in. "We found when we got on that they had taken out the engines. Then they connected the four boats with ropes and one of the military boats towed us all out to sea. They told us they were taking us to Malaysian waters. But after a day and half they cut the ropes and abandoned us, drifting in the high seas".

"It was then," continued Mohammed, "that we understood that the promise of Malaysia had been false and we all began to cry. The four boats were taken by the currents in different directions, until ours was alone. We were certain we would die." Moniur, on another of the four boats, had an identical tale to tell.

Their stories have been corroborated by Chris Lewa's exhaustive research, and the Thai government has even owned up. Prime Minister, Abhisit Vejjajiva, was forced to admit that in "some instances" such events had taken place. Though, as far as anybody knows, no official inquiry has taken place.

Should there be such an official investigation, the upshot would probably have to be charges of murder and attempted murder on a massive scale. There were 575 people on the four drifting boats. On Moniur's, the largest, there were 152. After 10 days of lacerating tropical sun and 10 nights of darkest despair, people began to die. "We had no food or water; 19 people died," said Moniur, in his staccato manner. "We threw the bodies overboard. All the rest of us could do was wait for our turn to die too."

Mohammed's boat was luckier, at first. It took just five days for rough seas to sweep them towards some Thai fishermen, who fed them and led them to shore, where the Thai military again arrested them, then handcuffed them, blindfolded and interrogated them. They had drifted far south, to near Bangkok, but were loaded onto lorries and then a military boat which delivered them once more to Red Sand Island.

He and 200 others ("lots of the people there had sores on their backs from sitting crammed on the boats") were kept on the island for a month. "Then they loaded us onto a big barge and towed us out to sea, this time with food – seven sacks of rice and two drums of water. But they took our engine out again," Mohammed said, "and after two days and one night, again, they cut us loose and left us.

"We drifted for 14 days. Many of us got sick, many lost consciousness. I had no doubts I would die. There was no hope of land or rescue. We had no energy even to talk any more." But then it rained, they gathered the water in the plastic sheeting, and hope returned. On the 16th day they saw land, and at dawn the next day they awoke to discover they were surrounded by fishing boats. They were not Thais this time. The fishermen took them ashore to their home, a place called Idi, in northern Indonesia.

Moniur meanwhile reached land after 14 days adrift. "We found water to drink, wild fruit to eat," he recalled, "and we walked, stumbling through the bush, from nightfall to dawn. We saw some markings on a tree, which told us, to our joy, that this was a deserted island. We kept walking, with new energy now, and found some villagers who gave us tea and bananas... This was India. The Andaman Islands." The former rickshaw driver spent the next nine months in an Indian detention centre.

Mohammed did make it to Malaysia, to Penang province, where I interviewed him. Following his rescue by Indonesian fishermen he awoke, after two days unconscious, in an Indonesian hospital bed. Then he met an Indonesian policeman who, instead of beating him, took him home and, together with his wife, nursed and fed him back to health. Two weeks later he moved to a refugee camp, where he stayed for six months.

Every Friday he was allowed out to visit the policeman and his family, until one day the policeman helped him realise his dream, giving him the money and the means to cross illegally, but safely ,through the Straits of Molucca into Malaysia.

Salim was not set adrift on an engineless boat. After spending 21 days in the immigration detention centre in Ranong in Thailand he was put on a fully-functioning boat that, he was told, would take him up the coast to Burma.

He was landed, instead, on the Thai coast and handed over by the Thai immigration authorities to Thai traffickers – one of numerous examples I came across during my interviews with Rohingyas, and confirmed as pattern by Lewa, of collusion between people-smugglers and Thai officials. "They packed 10 of us into a hidden compartment underneath a van and drove us to a rubber plantation," recalled Salim. "They took us to a long house there, where there were lots of other people like me, who had tried to get from Bangladesh to Malaysia. They asked us for the phone numbers of friends or relatives in Malaysia. They said that if we gave them the numbers they would phone and ask for the price of getting us over the border into Malaysia."

"I had no friends or relatives in Malaysia, and I said as much," Salim continued. "But they did not want to believe me. They beat me with a cane, every day for 10 days." At which point the traffickers conceded defeat. The frail boy, 18 years old now and hardly bigger than an average 13-year-old in Europe, had been the pride and hope of his family in Burma, but that was the extent of his worldly connections. So the traffickers put into action their 'Plan B': they delivered Salim and nine other Rohingyas to a Thai fishing harbour and handed them over to a trawler.

"At first I was happy. It was very hard work. Just three days off in the month. We left for sea at five in the afternoon and worked till 10 next morning, casting the nets, pulling in the fish, cleaning the nets, cleaning the boat. We slept from 10 in the morning till four in the afternoon."

He paid less than £1 a day for his expenses and he awaited eagerly his pay packet at the end of the month.But then he saw, when the end of the month came, that the Thai fishermen on the boat got paid and he did not; that they went off to shore to see their families but he was not allowed off the boat.

"When I asked for my wages I was told, 'No, you are not like the rest of the crew. Your wages are paid elsewhere'. They said I had been sold, that my boss took all my money. I asked who my boss was and they told me the name of the Thai trafficker who ran the rubber plantation with the Sikhs." What did he feel at that moment? "I suddenly felt the whole sky fall on my head: I could not move for a long time. They told me nothing more. I thought I was sold for the rest of my life. I believed I was sold forever. I cannot remember a day for the rest of the time I was there that I did not weep silently."

There was no prospect of escape, he said. "I heard stories of others like me who had been thrown overboard because they tried to get away." Nine months into his captivity on the boat, to his utter surprise, some people came in a van, employees of the trafficker who "owned" him and took him on a long journey over the border into Malaysia. "They are cruel people, they beat people, they buy and sell people, they are killers, but with me they were true to their word. My nine months of work had paid the money it would have cost to get me over the border if I had had relatives to pay."

It was a peculiar case of honour among thieves. They dropped him off at a mosque inside Malaysia's Penang province, where once it was revealed that for all the callousness in the world there is also kindness. Salim, whose life had been held to ransom, met an elderly man at the Malaysian mosque who took him under his wing. "He gave me a phone to call my family; he gave me some work to do, and paid me some wages, then he gave me some money to go on a bus south to Georgetown – a big city where I hoped to find steady work, which I soon did."

He succeeded where Moniur, older and tougher, failed. Back in Bangladesh where I interviewed Moniur just a month after his return from India, he allowed himself just one moment of weakness, when I asked him if he would contemplate setting sail for Malaysia again?

"Look," he said, "many times, many times I thought I would die. Many times. So, no. No, no. I will not try again. I will stay now and always in Bangladesh. Life is hard here, but it is life."

The Kutupalong refugee camp itself is life too. It is a pretty bright and cheery sort of life after you've emerged out of the dark places that Moniur, Mohammed and Salim descended into. Almost bright and cheery, if you hold your nose and shut out your eyes to the misery all around – to the open hillside gutters and the baking-hot shacks with mud floors and black plastic roofs – and if all you do is look at the smiles on the faces of the 10,000 children there.

They mob us foreign visitors, whose every gesture they find hilarious. One girl, of maybe 11, wearing violet-blue glass earrings, struck us as strikingly beautiful. We took photographs of her, for which she posed with confidence, but as we left the camp, we feared for what the future might hold for her. The thought passed through one's mind that if sex traffickers were as active here as the people-smugglers, which we were told was the case, then what hope for this girl?

And even if she were lucky and escaped the clutches of evil men – who reportedly sell Rohingya girls to places as far away as China – what kind of a future could she hope to have?

The children's smiles and laughter were little different to those of children with access to soap and water and food and education and Nintendos in the greenest suburbs of Surrey. But fast-forward a decade in your imagination and the little girl with the violet-blue earrings transforms into Nur Ayesha, a woman of 23 I met inside a sweltering shack.

Nur, a woman of delicate features in a hard face, told me she had left Arakan four years ago to get married, as she and the man she loved lacked the marriage licence money that the Burmese military demanded of them (assuming they would have been lucky enough to have secure official permission to marry).

But after a year of life in Kutupalong, her husband decided to set off alone in search of a better life for them both. She did not know, or would not tell, whether he had gone on a boat to Malaysia or tried to get there overland, as some also did. But the fact was that he never returned.

She assumed he had died, leaving her with a two-year-old child for whom she could not care. "I was sick and so was the child. I had no money for treatment. I was hungry and had no money to buy food," she told me, bringing to mind an image I had seen at a nearby port of another young woman, waist deep in water with a child in her arm, begging for fish from an arriving boat.

So Nur took the option of last resort. "I was told that there were people who bought little children. I sold my two-year-old boy to some people who said they were from the city."

Nur tells herself that the people who bought the child will rear him well; that they bought him because they were unable to have children themselves. Workers for NGO's who know Bangladesh well say this is unfortunately unlikely to be true; that the mother is either deceiving herself or lying. The child, they assured me, is condemned to a life of slavery, possibly even sex slavery. I asked Nur how much she had sold her child for. She replied, registering no horror or sense of injustice, as if the price had been fair one, that she had sold him for 500 taka – about £4.

"I am sad, I will always be sad, but what could I do?" She might have avoided the need to do that had her husband made it to Malaysia and sent money back to her in the refugee camp. But, was life really better for the Rohingyas in Malaysia? Was the pursuit of that dream worth the cost and the sacrifice and the risk?

Mohammed and Salim, having made it there, seemed to think that, on balance, the answer was yes. Mohammed had found some occasional work on a building-site, and has met up with a small Rohingya community and found a little mosque where he can pray in peace, whenever he wants. His regret is that he has not managed to live up to his family's hopes yet, and has not been able to send any money home.

Salim, who has found a job in a tea shop, has sent money home, only to discover that a third of it is immediately lifted in "tax" by the local Burmese military who exercise such close Big Brother control over the Rohingya population that they can detect, through phone-tapping and spies, when a family acquires new money.

Did he consider himself, nonetheless, fortunate? Salim thought long and hard before answering. "I consider myself fortunate that I was let go from the boat and brought here, and that many died and I survived. But my greatest fear is that I will be arrested here and end up working as a slave on a fishing boat again, and that then I may not be so lucky, that I might have to do that forever."

I asked him if he would ever return to Burma. "I would like to see my family again," said small, neat, deliberate Salim, a bright boy with dark sad eyes who at 18 has already lived a thousand lives. "But how? No, it is not possible. This is my life now."

It is his life now, just at it is the life of some 25,000 Rohingyas who have found a precarious home in Malaysia.

I went to a school in Penang province, or rather a little house, where a dozen or so Rohingya children spent their days doing what the children at Kutupalong wished they could do: learning writing, maths, English, the Koran. On a wall there was a chart with the flags of all the countries of the world on it. I asked a teacher to point out to me his flag. I asked a child. I asked all the children. Each silently and without hesitation placed their finger on the flag of Burma, a country from which they have fled, that does not want them and that humiliated and exploited them every day of their lives.

Monday, November 23, 2009

Helping the help

Sunday November 22, 2009

Helping the help

By HARIATI AZIZAN


With cases of maid abuse threatening to rattle ties between Indonesia and Malaysia, the Government is resorting to measures like random checks on homes to curb the problem. Will these ‘friendly visits’ work?

IN less than 10 days, the “Maid Police” will start going from door to door nationwide to check on foreign domestic workers and their bosses.

The authorities involved in the special operation – the Labour and Immigration Departments – have been diligently preparing for the task and are now raring to go.

Tell-tale injuries: Indonesian maid Modesta Rengga Kaka, 25, showing the injuries she suffered as a result of the alleged abuse by her employer. Cases of workers being abused are rattling Indonesian- Malaysian ties.

However, the mood on the ground is still mixed about the ambitious programme and many are sceptical about its effectiveness in addressing the root of the problem.

A maid agent who only wants to be known as Low recalls a similar nationwide programme that was mooted in 2001.

“The Government came up with the same plan to conduct routine checks on maids at their places of work to ensure they are not being mistreated.”

However, it was shelved not long after that, she adds. “The original plan was abandoned because of manpower shortage. There are around 300,000 maids (in approximately 250,000 households) in Malaysia. Do they have enough people to conduct the visits now?”

Bar Council Human Rights committee member Renuka T. Balasubramaniam shares Low’s scepticism, revealing that her records show that the Labour Department has only around 295 officers nationwide.

“It is clear that the ministry is understaffed compared to the number of domestic workers in Malaysia. And this is one of the reasons why they are not able to handle the claims and other cases made to them. So, to go to 250,000 houses is mission impossible. They have to get real,” she opines.

When contacted, an officer who declined to be named says the number will be made up by personnel from the Immigration Depart­ment. Records show that it has more than 11,000 officers of varying ranks nationwide.

Still, says Renuka, it will be a challenge for the authorities to maintain the exercise over time.

“To be effective, it has to be continuous but if they are shortstaffed, they are not going to manage it. I don’t think it will be an effective way to cut out maid abuse anyway. But because so few measures have been implemented by the ministries to deal with this problem, we don’t want to shoot it down.

“Who knows, they may chance upon a domestic worker who is being abused and will be able to save her.

“If anything else, at least the officers conducting the checks will get some insights into the real conditions that these domestic workers have to face,” she opines.

No confidence

As announced by the Human Resources Minister Datuk Dr S. Subramaniam, the house visit would be a friendly public relations exercise during which ministry personnel will inspect the home conditions as well as interview the maid and employer.

With the visits, it is hoped that early signs of mistreatment can be detected and employers can be prevented from further abusing their help.

Currently, ministry sources say, they are finalising the standard operating procedures (SOP) and other guidelines to ensure that the checks will be conducted legally and properly.

Tenaganita director Dr Irene Fernandez believes the exercise would only be a waste of public resources.

“We will waste funds and energy while not achieving anything much. Do they think the maids are going to let them in, what more give them an honest answer when they turn up at their door?” she says, stressing that most of them will be frightened at seeing the officers.

Employers, meanwhile, will put up a facade to show that nothing is wrong, she adds.

Migrant Care Malaysia country director Alex Wong agrees, saying that while the intention is commendable, door-to-door checks are not realistic.

“It’s not going to be easy to get the full cooperation of the maids and the employers. They are also scattered all over the country and 250,000 is a huge number of households,” he adds.

Wong proposes a weekly community meeting as a better alternative.

“Instead of going to homes, the authorities can get everyone to attend a compulsory meeting at the community centre. Their officers can still speak to the maids as well as provide check-ups and counselling for them without invading people’s privacy,” he says, proposing registration with the local Rukun Tetangga as another option.

Doreen Gomez, who has employed the same domestic worker for five years, feels that it is the responsibility of the neighbourhood to ensure that no abuse happens in their community.

“What is there to stop abusive employers from pretending or hiding their abuses when they are inspected? It is more effective if everyone in the neighbourhood look out for any abuses in their community and report them to the authorities,” she says.

Many other employers feel that the Govern­ment’s checks will be futile.

Chow L.J. calls it a knee-jerk reaction on the authorities’ part.

“It is ridiculous and is obviously the Govern­ment’s PR (public relations) plan to improve our relations with Indonesia. I am scared that the opposite will happen; it might push the guilty employers over the edge and make the situation worse instead,” she says.

Rahmah Harun feels that it is unfair to generalise that all employers are abusing their hired help.

“There is enough evidence to show the authorities that most maids are treated well while working in Malaysia. So, just because of a few cases of bad employers, it is highly unfair to treat all employers as criminals or with criminal potential,” she says.

Rahmah, who has been employing foreign maids for almost 10 years, says that on the whole, most of them are good and carry out their duties sincerely and diligently.

But there are those who cannot do their work, and as we all know, each maid comes with high all-in costs, she notes.

Salman Ahmah opines that the “inspections” would create various security problems.

“How can they assure the safety of our families? Many years ago, there was a trend for thieves and robbers to pretend to be salesmen or meter readers. They forged identification cards and had fake uniforms and badges. What if someone takes advantage of this operation?” he argues.

He adds that he would instruct his maid not to open the door to any stranger.

Another party that should be held accountable for maid abuse is the maid agency, says Wong.

“They are responsible because they earn a lot of money from the foreign domestic workers whom they treat like human commodity. Some agents from both sides of the border are unscrupulous – they charge a lot of money and to meet the market demand, a few get girls from the village, clean them up and send them over without training. This is when problems arise,” he says.

The agencies need to monitor the situation and conduct regular checks on the maids they bring in, he stresses.

Numbers do not lie

Malaysian Association of Foreign Maid Agencies (Papa) president Alwi Bavutty admits that Papa is responsible for the maids.

“We bring them over, so if something happens here and we don’t take care of them, we will lose our partnership with our business counterparts in Indonesia.

“But we don’t have any enforcement power so the Government needs to take action, such as blacklisting employers who mistreat their maids.”

He points out that Papa recently proposed for regular visits to be made to their clients’ houses to ensure that the workers are well.

But many employers refused or barred their maids from contacting them, he says.

Indonesian media reports have claimed that up to 150 complaints of abuse, overwork, ill treatment and unpaid salaries are lodged by maids each month.

However, the question has to be asked: How rampant is maid abuse, and does it warrant such a massive exercise?

Of the 300,000 foreign maids in Malaysia, Indonesians make up more than 90%; 15,000 are from the Philippines and there are between 1,000 and 2,000 each from Thailand, Myanmar, Vietnam and Cambodia.

According to Deputy Home Minister Datuk Wira Abu Seman Yusop, cases of Indonesian maids being abused by their Malaysian employers constitute 0.05% of the total number of them in the country.

Seven such reports were lodged with the police this year, five of which are being investigated by the police, he says.

Police figures show that up to 39 cases of maid abuse were reported in 2005, 45 in 2006, 39 in 2007 and 42 last year. Since the beginning of this year, there have been less than 10 victims.

Records show that between 2006 and last year, there were six cases of maids being injured while trying to flee employers, and one case of a maid found dead by hanging in 2008.

However, as Indonesian NGO Migrant Care policy analyst Wahyu Susilo stresses, the number is not the issue.

“Even if there is only one death, the issue needs to be taken seriously. It concerns human life.”

He adds that he does not think the Indonesian press is blowing the issue out of proportion.

“I admit that this issue is sensitive in Indonesia, especially when it is related to Indonesian/Malaysian ties,” he says.

“It is not only targeted at the Malaysian government but also the Indonesian government because we don’t think they are doing enough to address it.”

Alwi agrees, saying that the seemingly “low” number of maid abuse incidents does not mean it should be tolerated.

“We cannot tolerate this because it involves human lives. The Government has to take this seriously.”

SOCIALISM 2009 MALAYSIA – A REVIEW

SOCIALISM 2009 MALAYSIA – A REVIEW

This year socialism was attended by a broad range of people from students, leftists, activists, liberals, progressives as well as the hardcore. The seats were always packed, the discussions were always hot and the environment was red. Maybe the topic chosen by the organisers and its timing was the pulling factor – 2 Party System in Malaysia, A Critical Analysis.

The first panel who discussed on the theory of 2 party system and the experiences of other countries basically did not have anything good to say about the 2 party systems. For example Harris was quite critical about the existing situation in Malaysia where we have both Barisan Nasional & Pakatan coalitions as ruling party for the first time in history. He was off the view that rhetoric alone is not going to save Pakatan and they need to work hard to bring reforms, otherwise a third force driven by ‘rakyat’ is the solution to bring real changes desired by people in the 2008 election.

The other panel member, Dr. Kumar from PSM quoted experiences of countries like Britain, Sri Lanka, India, Chile, Soviet Union including the situation in Perak. His conclusion is that “would there be a real change, when we are just replacing Pepsi with Coke?” Anyway, in Malaysia’S context it took 50 years to change from Pepsi to Coke. That definitely says something!

He recommended that we read a book written by Lenin on State and Revolution which argues that as long as there is state, there will be suppression even if it is a Workers State as they need to get rid of the capitalist. But he also mentioned that Soviet Union has proven that you don’t need the capitalist to run the economy, the question now is do you need them to save democracy!

Meanwhile our comrade from Thailand, Vipar Daomanee gave her country situation – not 2 party system but 2 colours, Red and Yellow. The marginalised and the poor are with the ‘red’ faction while the rich and the bourgeoisie are the ‘yellow’ faction. So, which side would you chose?

From the theory, the discussion went to another REALl subject “BN vs. PR: Future of 2 party system in Malaysia” and the panels were quite representative – PY Wong (on behalf of Saifuddin from PKR), Khalid Samad from PAS and Wong Chin Huat representing the civil society. Lots were said and many contradictions as well. For example between the fundamental right to choose and the right to stand in election vs. the so called spoilers! These ‘spoilers’ could be any third force reps including PSM or independent candidates who has genuine intention or concrete programme to bring changes compared to PR. Thus, one of the proposals from the panel was Proportional Representative System. The argument was this would allow more parties or candidates to contest and it gives added balance instead of forcing the voters to choose between two parties as in for example USA.

In Malaysia context, the issue is what does Pakatan has to offer when their policies are very similar to BN. Clearly to woo the voters! Can Pakatan beat the BN in pouring ‘cashes’? Pakatan does not have clear stand on fundamental issues like neo-liberal policies and privatisations. It appears they welcome it! We have 4 states under Pakatan for the past 1.5 years, yet each one are with their own policies and programmes – we don’t see them using their strength or solidarity to bring fundamental changes, for example in restoring Local Council Elections.

We don’t deny the fact that Pakatan Government has taken a lot of initiative to ‘clean up’ BN’s dirty work in terms of money wasted on incompetent contractors and extravagant projects that damages environment and misuse of tax payers money. The marvellous work of Pakatan ‘selected’ city counsellors who are only getting pittance must be applauded too. But the question is ‘are the rakyat happy with what is being done?’ or is the Pakatan government effectively doing ‘what is expected by the grassroots?’

The third panel discussion on THIRD FORCE once again put Pakatan on the spot especially their role in bringing social justice to the nation. The organisers had 3 prominent speakers for this topic, Toh Kin Voon (former Gerakan State Assemblyman), Muhammad Sabu (PAS CC member) and Arul (PSM’s Sec Gen).

Dr. Toh, the first speaker was emphasizing on the failure of existing government to bring social justice to people, the ever growing rich and poor gap, the fear in the rakyat’s mind as well as the need for progressive groups including PSM to build the third force. He also suggested that PSM should work with Pakatan but at the same time retain its independence.

As usual Saudara Sabu, the great orator entertained the audience with his many remarks that was funny yet very significant. Merdeka Review carried on of his annotations “Religion is the opium of the masses”. Mat Sabu also thanked Chin Peng for killing Henry Gurney who was the main character in displacing the Palestinians. Those who were at the forum would not have forgotten his brave remarks, if ever Chin Peng were allowed into the country, his first speech should be held in Sitiawan and 100 thousands will be there. I just want to be the MC”. He called on for the demands to be rewritten.

Another remark he made about the changes brought by the people in 2008 election is an indication that the people would not hesitate to change any government including Pakatan if they fail to deliver. He was very optimistic. He also stressed that as PSM believes in Socialism, PAS believes in Islamic ideology to bring social justice to all regardless race or religion and they should continue to work towards it.

S. Arutchelvan PSM Secretary General was one of the panels and he humbly said that PSM is not done enough to be the third force at this moment. At the same time the party does not have any illusion about 2 party systems. He said that the immediate task at hand is to build the workers force and we should use this moment to radicalise the people and not to give ‘hand-outs’.

The organisers had an open forum the following day at a Chinese Temple opposite Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall in order to give way to PRM Annual Congress at the Assembly hall. PSM felt that since PRM was an older party, it is only honourable to allow it to use the Assembly hall.

The second day forum was on the Impact of Neo-liberal policies and building resistance against neo-liberal offensive. There was good number of foreign and local popular panellists such as Dr. Farish Noor, Charles Santiago, Francisco Dodong from Philippines & many others.

Only again chairs had to be added as the crowd kept coming in.


Comrade Dominggo, the first panellist from Indonesia was very distressed with the fact that more informal sectors (about 70%) causing weakening of unionization among workers. More workers in the industrial site getting laid off and in the labour market, the supply is more than the demand. So, wages goes down, quality of live goes down, education and health goes down but inflation kept growing and so does consumption. Meaning people can’t save and they are embedded with debt. He said that 115 million people in Indonesian surviving with less that USD2 a day. Why? Neo-liberalism

Our second panellist Comrade Dodong spoke more about his government’s involvement in implementing Neo-liberal policy and it seems Philippine is the first country to embrace neo-liberalism in the region. Obviously, since they have ‘special relationship’ with the Americans. He is furious with the national bourgeoisie who were given tons of money by the government took a shortcut by becoming sub-contractors to many industries established overseas and they failed to build technology in their own country. There is imbalance between domestic capital going out and foreign investment coming in. When a nation is highly dependent on foreign investment, it has direct impact on their sustainability.

Our third speaker, comrade Charles expanded the discussion to international level e.g. the Free Trade Agreement bilateral and unilateral dialogues that is currently going on in the region. He also reminded the audience of how much privatisation in Malaysia e.g. water, rice, electricity, health and so on is burdening the grassroots. While on the other hand, government is absorbing loss of the corporate sectors who lacks expertise in the industries they invested and making huge loss. And yet the government reduce the tax of the corporate sectors from 40% (1988) to 26% (2009) while planning to implement Goods and Service Tax that was suspended 2 years back. Meaning the public, 25 million Malaysians will pay tax for every single thing purchased. It’s not a problem at all for the 6% richest in the country, it is certainly too much for the 70% poor and the middle class!

Our last speaker for the first panel, Comrade Farish took us to the global arena. His point of view is that War on Terror is strongly linked to Neo-Liberalism. How? Terrorism is basically a form of resistance. The impact of free market since the 1970’s and the intervention of the FDI – foreign direct investment as well as Structural Adjustment Policies introduced by IMF and World Bank led to social upheaval to many countries in SEA. In order for capitalism to grow, the unions and the leftist who were against the free market were squashed. He says, the resistance also came in the form of ethno nationalist and religio-communalist! The suffering from the neo-liberal policies are immeasurable thus the resistance is growing and how do you counter it? Anti-terrorist campaign of US and its cronies get full support from the ASIA countries as well.

After hearing about the evil of neo-liberal economics, we were introduced to another group of panels, Comrade Mahendra from Indonesia, Vipar from Thailand, Teodorico from Phillipines and Sivarajan from Malaysia. They spoke about “Building Resistance against Neo-liberal Offensive”.

Number of propositions prompt from this discussion – building workers force, working class party, factory occupations and workers self management, joint campaign by SEA left groups, creating the hegemony through various party e.g. Islamic groups, green movement and the socialist. There was strong recommendation that we should be upfront in countering capitalist hegemony and called for class consciousness in the region to fight these emerging trends of capitalism.

Time to time and each speaker almost stressing on the same issue – build the third force driven by the masses by radicalising them and that would able them to make informed decision in determining who hold the power in the government – Islamists, capitalists, liberalists or socialists.

Released by,

Letchimi Devi

Sunday, November 22, 2009

US 'to miss Guantanamo deadline'

US 'to miss Guantanamo deadline'

About 220 detainees remain in the Guantanamo Bay prison camp on Cuba [GALLO/GETTY]

Barack Obama, the US president, has admitted that his administration will miss the January 2010 deadline set for closing the Guantanamo Bay military prison in Cuba.

Obama said on Wednesday that a new deadline would not be set for the facility, which still holds more than 200 detainees, but does expect it to be shut down at some point in the new year.

"Guantanamo - we had a specific deadline that was missed," he told US-based NBC television from Beijing, which he is visiting as part of an Asian tour.

Obama had vowed during his first week in office in January 2009 that he would close Guantanamo within a year of taking office, saying that the prison does not adhere to US standards on human and civil rights.

The White House has said that it will continue to push for the facility's closure, and is moving to repatriate some of the detainees who have been cleared for release, while seeking countries willing to provide asylum to others.

'Disappointment'

In video


Al Jazeera's Rob Reynolds reports on the US missing its deadline to close Guantanamo Bay

Christopher Anders, the senior legislative counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union, said that the organisation was "disappointed" that the deadline would not be met.

"But what is more important than meeting the deadline is getting it done and getting it done the right way," he told Al Jazeera.

"That means defendants should be charged in a civilian criminal court, as the alleged 9/11 are being charged, and people who are not being charged with crimes should be cleared and resettled or repatriated in places where they are happy they are ouit of danger of being tortured or abused.

"We should not have more people being sent to military trials and we should not have people continue to be detained indefinitely without charge," Anders, who served as a human rights observer at the US military commission hearings at Guantanamo Bay, said.

In a separate interview with CNN on Wednesday, Obama also said US citizens should not be "fearful" about the decision to put five men accused of organising the September 11, 2001 attacks on trial in New York City.

In depth

Guantanamo conditions 'deteriorate'
9/11 suspects face New York trial
Timeline: Guantanamo Bay prison

The announcement last week that the defendants would be moved from Guantanamo Bay to New York sparked angry reactions from some victims' families and Republican politicians.

John McCain, a Republican senator and rival for the presidency, said the decision sent "a mixed message about America's resolve in the fight against terrorism".

"We are at war, and we must bring terrorists to justice in a manner consistent with the horrific acts of war they have committed," he said.

But Obama told CNN: "I think this notion that somehow we have to be fearful, that these terrorists possess some special powers that prevent us from presenting evidence against them, locking them up and exacting swift justice, I think that has been a fundamental mistake".

'Obtaining justice'

Eric Holder, the US attorney who made the decision to bring the men to trial, said he would not "cower in the face of this enemy".

"At the end of the day, it was clear to me that the venue in which we are most likely to obtain justice for the American people is in federal court," he told a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in Washington on Wednesday.

"By bringing prosecutions in both our courts and military commissions, by seeking the death penalty, by holding these terrorists responsible for their actions, we are finally taking ultimate steps towards justice," he said.

Officials are considering whether some of the deatinees can be moved to a prison in rural Illinois, but previous attempts to discuss transferring the prisoners to the mainland US have been met with resistance from politicians.

"It's hard not only because of the politics. People I think understandably are fearful after a lot of years where they were told that Guantanamo was critical to keeping terrorists out," Obama told another interview with Fox News.

"So, I understood that that had to be processed, but it's also just technically hard - I just think as usual in Washington things move slower than I anticipated."

Thursday, November 19, 2009

Fact Sheet and Calls for International Solidarity for the Tamil’s Asylum Seekers in Indonesia

Revised: 18 November 2009

Working People’s Association

Fact Sheet and Calls for International Solidarity for the Tamil’s Asylum Seekers in Indonesia

Profile

Some 255 asylum seekers from Sri Lanka since 11 October 2009 still live in a wooden boat leaning on Harbor Indah Kiat, Merak, Banten. Merak in Banten Province is a small city 120 km or about 3 hours drive from Jakarta. The wooden boat they use is about 100 feet2 (30.48m2). On the ship they share a place among 195 men, 29 women, one of them is 5 month pregnant, and 31 children. They are Tamil who came from some areas in Sri Lanka such as Jaffna, Batticaloa, Mullaittivu and Colombo. They left their home country, Sri Lanka, a result from prolonged conflict between the government and LTTE armed groups. There are six main reasons why they left Sri Lanka: Racial Discrimination, oppression by LTTE to join them, genocide, persecution, kidnapping and murder. Now in Sri Lanka over 250,000 people are suffering in so-called refugee camps, which are in fact torture camps. In all parts of Sri Lanka Tamil-speaking people have been arrested and killed.

The Travel of Asylum Seeker

In Malaysia

The Asylum Seeker leaved Sri Lanka not at the same time then meets in Malaysia. In Malaysia they stay at detention center. Some of them managed administer their refugee documents in the UNHCR Malaysia office. The total number of person who has Refugees Document from UNHCR is 109 people. Another 24 have UNHCR letters stating they are in the final stages of refugee determination. However, because Malaysia has not signed the 1951 Refugee Convention, they cannot get their rights as refugees. Among those rights are the right to work and the right to a decent livelihood. Another problem in Malaysia is: the health service came late despite being sick. It is hard and sometime they do not get medical services from the hospital, despite brought the documents required and also the lack of education for their children. They stated also that the Sri Lanka Government belief that Tamil people residing in Malaysia is involved with the LTTE. Because of that condition, they decided to flee from Malaysia on October 1, 2009 to continue the journey to Australia in the hope for a better life.

In Indonesia

By using wooden boat they began to depart from Malaysia to Australia. On October 10, 2009, they were intercept by the Indonesian Navy, and force them to dock at the port of Indah Kiat, Merak, Banten, Indonesia. Since then, they were in detention Indonesian Navy. Next the authority was switch to the Banten Immigration Office and also the Ministry of Foreign Affairs with the help from IOM (International Organization on Migration).

They refused to leave the ship and to be moved to a building near the port which is provided by the immigration authorities because of fears of arrest, deported back to Sri Lanka. They worry that there is no guarantee of fulfillment and protection of human rights, including rights to health and education for their children. Indonesia hasn’t signed the UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugee.

The desire of the Asylum Seeker

They refuse to be send to their home country Sri Lanka. Fears of persecution by the Government of Sri Lanka became the main reason for the rejection. They also didn’t want to meet with representative from Sri Lanka Embassy. For fearing of their identity might be known by the Sri Lanka government and it will affect their relatives in Sri Lanka.

They also requested that the Government of Indonesia does not hold them, and to release or let them continue their journey.

They want the UNHCR to visit them as soon as possible to discuss the fate and the protection of their rights as asylum seekers/ refugees.

They wanted to be in a contry that can give assurance of their life existence as Tamils ethnic. They wanted a better life especially for the economy, education, health, and other fundamental rights for their children in countries that have the ability to fulfill it. Like Australia, Canada, New Zealand, etc.

Indonesian Government Policies

The existence of diplomatic agreements related to immigration flows between the Government of Indonesia and Australia’s "Indonesian solution", pointed out as a major factor for the detention of this asylum seekers from Sri Lanka. Related to these asylum seekers, Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, has requested the help of the Government of Indonesia to continue holding asylum seekers in Indonesia. For these purposes, the Australian Government would provide the budget.

On the other hand, Indonesia does not have a framework for dealing with asylum seekers or refugees. Indonesia also hasn’t sign the UN Convention on Refugee Status. This resulted in lack of clarity about the fate of asylum seekers and refugees. Fundamental rights, of those are guaranteed by the civil rights and political covenant, as well as covenants of economic rights, social, and cultural became ignored. The asylum seekers cannot obtain a decent living in this country. More severe, asylum seekers are often classified as illegal immigrants in the context of Indonesian law that can be detained and treated as criminal immigration, which then leads to the arrest and deportation. Such policy is clearly a threat to asylum seekers, as well as refugees.

What We Do?

We consolidate several organization to build a coalition, those organization are: Confederation Congress of Indonesia Union Alliance, Jakarta Legal Aid Institute, Legal Aid Institute Foundation and Human Rights Working Group. And we named our coalition: Civil Society Solidarity for Asylum Seeker and Refuges. We have visited the refugees three times. The last one is with Indonesia Human Rights Commission. We have also had a meeting with UNHCR.

In the meeting with UNHCR, they said that Indonesia UNHCR is maintaining a silent publicity. This is due to Indonesia hasn’t sign the UN Convention. UNHCR also stated that they have been asking for an access from the Foreign Ministry. But their request was rejected.

In a meeting between the Asylum Seeker, Working Peoples Association, Indonesia Human Rights Commission and our coalition, the Human Rights Commission promises several things: they will contact the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights to provide better basic needs and they will contact the Foreign Ministry to pressure them in finding a solution for the Asylum Seeker.

On Sunday, 15 November 2009, Working Peoples Association with Confederation KASBI visited Merak again for the purpose to giving several goods that they need but not provided by the IOM. Among other things are; mirror, comb, SIM card, mobile phone, laptop and some Indonesian currency to be exchange with the foreign currency they have. The other is to ask what other things they need but not being given by IOM. From our campaign some of Working Peoples Association members and other peoples have given donation. But we are forbidden to enter the area. On Tuesday, 17 November 2009, PRP and Coalition held press conference urging the Indonesian government to give access to Indonesian people’s solidarity, UNHCR and other humanitarian aid.

The condition of the Asylum Seeker

They perform daily activities in the wooden boat ranging from bathing, washing, cleaning, cooking, eating, drinking, playing, etc. They have to take turns to sleep on the narrow deck. International Organization on Migration (IOM), Indonesia became the supplier of their basic needs while they dock in Merak, Banten. Under the coordination of the Merak Immigration, IOM distributed staples such as water, food, and some other needs.

On 26–30 October 2009, the distribution of their basic needs was stopped. This is done to force them to move from the ship and live in buildings that have been provided. However, the Asylum Seeker stays and refused to move. The Merak immigration authorities denied that they stop the supply of basic needs for the asylum seekers. Although they acknowledge the facts about the supply of basic needs was stopped and implicitly that the termination came from initiative of the Government. They stated that it would be better that asylum seekers living in the building provided by the immigration authorities.

IOM and the Indonesian government give them 3.000 liter water a day, one t shirt and one shorts for male and a set of cloth for women. Pillow only for women and children and one mat for two people. The refugees complaining that the food had worm, needle and small stone in it and all the 31 children is losing weight.

After Working Peoples Association last visit with the Civil Society Solidarity for Asylum Seeker and Refugees and Indonesian Human Rights Commission, the refugees was called by Indonesian Navy guarding them. A Colonel, named Irawan, socialized government decision to state the area as a restricted area and not to allow UNHCR and media to go to the area. Later when we came we know that Indonesian people’s solidarity was also forbidden to enter the area.

Heavy rain since couple of days has complicated the asylum seekers condition, especially women and children. The boat only use tarpaulin roof that torn in several spot and doesn’t cover all the room. Children are infected with pneumonia, fever and diarrhea. On Saturday, 14 November 2009, there was an incident: The conditions of the refugees are deteriorating because of the weather and the Indonesia government attitude in stalling the time in giving proper solution for the Refugees. Deteriorating condition causes one woman fainted and unconscious. Panic and tension then happen when International Organization of Migration (IOM) is disincline to come to the boat and treat the woman. After some time finally the woman was taken to Krakatau Steel Hospital. Now International Organization on Migration, who previously distributing daily needs given by the Indonesia government, moved outside Indah Kiat Harbor area. The generator that supplies electricity for the refugees is also taken by IOM. Often the asylum seekers are starve because of the food that deliver by Indonesia Navy was late (after IOM pull back). They also have to use their own money to pay for ambulances to transport sick and unconscious people to hospital.

We are calling all International Organization

  1. To support the Asylum Seekers and our demand:

a. The Indonesian government must immediately open humanitarian aid access from the people of Indonesian to the Asylum Seeker.

b. The Indonesian government must stop banning media to cover the Asylum seeker condition.

c. The Indonesian government must immediately give access to UNHCR.

d. The Indonesian government must stop becoming a puppet regime for the Australian government’s “Indonesia Solution”.

e. The Indonesian government must give protection and humanitarian aid to the Asylum seeker in the form of:

i. Protection and accommodation while they are in Indonesian territory.

ii. No limitation for their rights of mobilization.

f. The Indonesian government must signs the UN Convention on Refugees.

  1. By giving urgent action; letters, fax, phone call, lightning action, etc in the Indonesian embassy.
  2. By holding a demonstration at the Indonesian embassy on your country on the 5th December 2009.


Ign Mahendra K

Vice Chairperson of International Department


--

Socialism, The True Liberation for Working People!
Socialism, The Solution for Global Crisis of Capitalism!
Unite, Build Working Class Party!

Working Peoples Association
工友联盟
Ассоциация Трудящихся
l'Association des ouvriers
काम पीपुल्स एसोसिएशन
تعمل رابطة الشعوب
Trabalho Associação dos Povos
作業人民協会
Asociación de Trabajadores

Jalan Kramat Sawah IV No 26 RT 04/ RW 07, Paseban, Jakarta Pusat
Phone/ Fax: +62-21-3917317
Email: komite.pusat@prp-indonesia.org/ prppusat@gmail.com/ prppusat@yahoo.com
Website: www.prp-indonesia.org

Thursday, November 12, 2009

973 Tear-gas Canisters Used To Disperse Anti-ISA Protestors

973 Tear-gas Canisters Used To Disperse Anti-ISA Protestors

KUALA LUMPUR, Nov 11 (Bernama) -- A total of 973 tear-gas canisters costing RM89,000 were used to disperse the anti-Internal Security Act (ISA) illegal demonstrations on July 31.

Home Minister Datuk Seri Hishamuddin Tun Hussein said 663 policemen were deployed during the demonstrations while 442 were on standby at various locations around Kuala Lumpur.

He said 182 Federal Reserve Unit members were also tasked with dispersing the demonstrators, while 22 traffic police officers and members were assigned to control the traffic flow at the locations identified.

"There were also 187 members of uniformed bodies on duty because of the demonstrations on that day," he said in his written reply to Teo Nie Ching (DAP-Serdang) in the Dewan Rakyat Wednesday.

Teo wanted to know the number of tear gas canisters fired during the anti-ISA demontrations and the cost incurred by the government, and the strength of the security forces and enforcement bodies involved in handling the demonstrations.

-- BERNAMA

Thursday, November 05, 2009

INTEGRATING OUR SCHOOLS: Red Herrings & Sensible Solutions

INTEGRATING OUR SCHOOLS:

Red Herrings & Sensible Solutions

By Dr Kua Kia Soong, Director of SUARAM, 5 November 2009

Single stream schools for promoting integration have commonsensical logic to them. They were officially proposed by the British colonial Barnes Committee in 1951 although they were then intended to be single-stream English schools. Ever since the Razak Report of 1956, it has been “the ultimate objective” of UMNO policy to have only single stream schools.

At Independence and even at the time of the Education Act of 1961, “single stream” in fact meant English stream. Since the seventies, single stream has come to mean education in Bahasa Malaysia. But by a twist of irony created by flip flopping politicians, we may be moving back to a single stream in the English language!

The racial politics throughout post-Independent Malaysia has revolved around this intractable problem. Recently, Professor Khoo Khay Kim and former Prime Minister Dr Mahathir have once again called for single stream schools in order to integrate Malaysians. Single stream of course means the abolition of Chinese and Tamil schools.

Prof. Khoo’s line of thinking is understandable for a Malaysian who did not undergo mother tongue education but that is his problem. Dr Mahathir’s attitude toward the Chinese-language schools is well-known – throughout his 22-year reign as prime minister he did not entertain a single cordial dialogue with the Chinese educationists. In 1975, when he was Education Minister, he threatened the leaders of Dong Jiao Zong with dire consequences if they went ahead with the Unified Examination Certificate of the Independent Chinese secondary schools.

Dr Mahathir further provoked the 1987 crisis by sending non-Mandarin qualified teachers to the Chinese schools which then allowed him to unleash Operation Lalang and the subsequent assault on the judiciary. The Chairmen of Dong Zong and Jiao Zong, in their sixties and seventies respectively in 1987, were detained under the Internal Security Act together with me.

During the interminable interrogation sessions while under solitary confinement in 1987, the Special Branch operatives kept badgering me about why I couldn’t be more like Prof. Khoo Khay Kim in my thinking. My deadpan response was: “You already have one Khoo Khay Kim…Why do you need another one?” (See Kua Kia Soong, “445 Days Behind The Wire”, 1989: 42)

A 200-Year Heritage to be Proud Of!

Chinese schools of Malaysia represent a community-based heritage that goes back nearly two hundred years. They have helped to nurture Malaysian talents and subsidized the national education budget many times over. The pen drive you use has been invented by a graduate of the Malaysian Independent Chinese Secondary Schools. These are achievements all Malaysians can be proud of.

The “Fifth Happiness School” in Penang was founded in 1819. Chinese and Tamil schools thrived largely on self-help during colonial times:

British colonial administrators were so impressed by the high level of organization among the Malayan Chinese that they left them virtually alone to manage their own affairs.” (Kua Kia Soong, “The Chinese Schools of Malaysia: A Protean Saga”, 2008: 16)

Not many people realize that at Independence, there were more Chinese and Tamil schools than there are today! Yes, in 1957 we had 1,342 Chinese primary schools and 86 Chinese-stream secondary schools for an ethnic Chinese population of 2.3 million in the peninsula alone. Today, we only have 1,280+ Chinese primary schools and 60 Independent Chinese secondary schools for an ethnic Chinese population of more than six million throughout Malaysia. The statistics for Tamil schools show the same decline from more than 700 in 1957 to just more than 500 today. That’s how far we have regressed!

Far from being segregationist, Chinese schools of Malaysia have been steadily attracting non-Chinese pupils even as the Government has restricted any further increase in the number of these SRJK schools. There are now more than 60,000 non-Chinese pupils studying in Chinese schools, adding to the critical shortage of space in these schools.

Grossly Overcrowded Schools

The overcrowded conditions in many of these SRJK schools have been created by a vindictive government policy that will not allow any further increase in the number of these schools. My children went to our local Chinese New Village primary school that enrolls more than 2000 pupils in one acre piece of land! Fifty pupils in one class are not abnormal in the Chinese schools. Is this the enlightened education policy the BN government talks about? It is a marvel that such schools still manage to produce professionals for the country but for sure there are even more sacrificial lambs that end up at the bottom of the heap.

There is no racial discrimination against any ethnic community even though the competition for places in Chinese schools is keen because of the desperate shortage of Chinese schools especially in the urban areas. The Chinese school at Frasers Hill is almost wholly filled by ethnic Indians while the Chinese school at Hulu Langat provides assistance to the Orang Asli children!

In contrast, we have national institutions such as MARA science schools and UiTM supported totally by public funds which discriminate against Non-bumiputras. Are these not single stream institutions and do they promote integration? Somehow, we do not hear the strident condemnation of such blatant racially discrimination and segregationist policies by Prof Khoo or Dr Mahathir!

A Sensible Solution to Integrate Our Schools

The right to mother tongue education is an internationally recognized human right. The UN even recognizes “International Mother Language Day” on February 21st. Knowing the protean saga these Chinese schools of Malaysia have been through and having been part of this movement for nearly thirty years, I dare say UMNO would be dicing with political suicide if they persist in their quixotic “ultimate objective”. If UMNO’s “ultimate objective” to have only a single stream in the education system of Malaysia ever comes about, MCA and Gerakan would be totally irrelevant, if they are not already!

So why don’t we put our energies into more sensible solutions rather than destroying another Malaysian heritage that has served the nation well and creating another crisis such as we saw in 1987 and at other junctures in our history?

The efforts to promote integration among the peoples of Malaysia must never cease. During the Eighties, the Chinese educationists agreed to an “Integrated Activities” programme among the different streams but then the Mahathir administration conveniently ignored the initiative after it had been agreed upon.

The Chinese educationists opposed Mahathir’s “Vision Schools” mainly because these put the three language streams under the hegemony of the Malay-language school. The Chinese and Tamil schools in these “Vision Schools” were strictly relocated schools and were by no means new schools.

Let Local Education Authorities Decide

A sensible solution would be to build more new schools for all streams. At Independence, we had elected local government which solved educational needs at the local level through “local education authorities”. That way, we can take politics, especially racial politics out of education policy. The local education authority surveys and assesses the objective needs of the community and allocates appropriate funding for the various school streams through the local government budget.

Integrated School Complex

In order to promote integration and to make the most of scarce resources, the different streams could be built close to each other so that they can share scarce quality resources and facilities such as library, playing field, park,

sports complex, stadium, computer labs, etc. The annual sports day and other competitions could be jointly organized. The same can be done for artistic and cultural events. This will not only promote integration but will surely improve the quality of our athletes and performing artistes.

This concept is very different from Dr Mahathir’s “Vision Schools”. Each stream in the “Integrated School Complex” maintains its autonomy, with its own administration and each school in this complex is a new school, not a relocated school.

It is time that the Government starts treating the Chinese and Tamil schools as part of the national education system and not their fabled step children. We have wasted years of neglect of these schools mainly because of the currency of the now discredited “Melting Pot” thesis practiced in the United States in the past.

UMNO has to come round to the fact that the Chinese and Tamil communities will not be duped by slogans such as “1Malaysia” so long as they see continual unfair allocation for Chinese and Tamil schools by the Government. Nor are they amused by yesterday’s men throwing up old red herrings about Chinese and Tamil schools being segregationist.