The following article, which was written for an international
conference recently in Bangkok, has been published in Suara PRM. It is
reproduced here in connection with the Human Rights Day.
By Dr Syed Husin Ali
The Malaysian State is becoming increasingly authoritarian. Although
regular elections are held to elect parliament, yet genuine democracy and
justice have been slowly reduced to naught, making the government
almost dictatorial. Power is concentrated almost in the hands of PM Dr
Mahathir Mohamad, who has ruled for twenty years. The three important
pillars of democracy, namely the judiciary, media and police have been
reduced to becoming no more than tools to be manipulated by the leader for
his own advantage and to perpetrate his rule.
During the last half a year the government, using the police, have
arrested and detained under the Internal Security Act (ISA) nearly thirty
reformist and political activists from opposition political parties as
well as from the NGO. Several youthful leaders of the Justice Party
(keADILan), involved with open politics and exercising their rights to
organise and participate in peaceful assemblies or demonstrations, have
been arrested and subsequently served the order of detention for two
years without trial under the ISA by the Home Minister. The police
arbitrarily accused them of being involved
in illegal attempts to topple the government by force.
In addition, a number of equally young activists from the Islamic Party
(PAS) have received similar order of detention. They were accused of
being involved in a militant Islamic organisation, dubbed as KMM, again
alleged with the familiar objective of trying to bring down the
government by illegal means. In both cases, the police and the Home Ministry
have not provided an iota of evidence to support their actions. They feel
safe to do so, knowing that the detainees cannot resort to the court of
law, and that they can extend the detention order indefinitely after
every two years.
To stop any party or organisation from organising protests against or
giving explanations on the unjust actions of the government, the police
have now banned public gatherings or rallies by opposition parties (but
not the government ones). Any gathering attended by more than four
persons can be considered illegal in the eyes of the police, and those
involved, even for purpose of giving talks in private land or homes, have
been arrested or faced with stern actions.
At the same time, while opposition views and activities are denied
access through the government owned or controlled media, the Home Ministry
has banned several tabloids (such as Detik, Ekslusif and Wasilah) that
courageously take independent (not even anti-government) positions, set
limits to the publication of opposition newspapers, and refuse
publishing permits to some opposition parties. The government is also riding
high in dominating the judiciary, since the days Mahathir succeeded to
remove the Lord President Tun Salleh Abbas and three judges, who were
known to be quite open and independent minded.
Following the terrorist attacks on the WTC and Pentagon, and the
formation of the US-led coalition against terrorism, Mahathir has been trying
to take advantage of the situation. For a long time his government has
been criticised locally and overseas for the use and abuse of the ISA,
which is considered to violate fundamental human rights. Mahathir
appears to make a breakthrough in establishing better relations with the US,
by condemning the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington and
supporting the international co-operation to fight against terrorism.
He is trying hard to convince critics among his people and in the West,
particularly the US, that the use of the ISA is justifiable because it
is aimed at curbing so-called “terrorism” in the country. In fact, to
defend the ISA, the government-controlled media are spreading the
Malaysian government propaganda that the US is trying to imitate it by
introducing an act similar to the draconian ISA for the purpose of combating
terrorism. But the truth of the matter is that the ISA is being used
presently, as it has often been used in the past, to spread the
psychology of fear among the people, and weaken the opposition in order to
perpetrate the rule of the government in power.
The present situation political situation in Malaysia certainly did not
come out of the blue. Many political developments in the past have
helped to shape it. It is not possible here to present a comprehensive
treatise tracing all these developments. What I intend to do is to focus
only a few historical “happenings” which I consider to be highly
relevant in influencing to shape Malaysian politics today. I concentrate on
independence, Indonesian confrontation, 13th May racial conflict, Baling
peasant “uprise”, Operation Lalang and the Anwar saga.
1. Merdeka (Independence)
Malaysia (then Malaya) gained independence from the British in 1957. At
the beginning, led mainly by the MNP (Malayan Nationalist Party) and
CPM (Communist Party of Malaya), the struggle was for total independence,
free from colonial vestiges in the political, economic, social and
other spheres. Theirs followed a tradition that manifested itself in
antagonistic means of struggle against the British colonialists.
In 1948, following guerilla attacks in rubber plantations by members of
the CPM, the British declared a state of Emergency. Both parties and a
number of smaller others were declared illegal, and thousands of their
leaders and members were arrested and detained for years without trial.
Some members of the MNP later joined and cooperated with CPM members
who had gone into the jungle (or underground).
A political vacuum was thus created. The British encouraged some Malay
bureaucrats serving under colonial administration to form UMNO, which
the British supported. With colonial encouragement too the MCA, led
largely by businessmen, was formed. Together with the MIC, which had
existed earlier under the leadership of Indian professionals, they formed the
Alliance.
The Alliance followed the tradition of struggle that was
non-antagonistic, in fact collaborating with theBritish in the fight against the
communists.
It was willing to negotiate for political independence that allowed for
continued dominant British role in the economic and military spheres
especially. It was to the Alliance that the British rulers handed over
independence (Merdeka).
Tunku Abdul Rahman, the UMNO leader who led the Alliance campaign for
Merdeka, promised not only to release the detained nationalists, but
also to abrogate the emergency regulation and replace it with another
law. But three years after Merdeka, the Tunku introduced the ISA, which
contains all the draconian powers of the Emergency, particularly
arbitrary detention without trial.
Contrary to his promise, he retained and never abrogated the emergency
regulation. The ISA exists until now, in fact, made worse with several
obnoxious amendments, like mandatory death sentence for possession of
arms and denial of habeas corpus. As for the emergency regulation, it is
still very much with us. In fact, at present there are four emergency
declarations that exist simultaneously with the ISA.
2. Malaysia and Indonesian Confrontation
At the beginning of the sixties, Tunku broached the idea of forming
Malaysia, consisting of Sabah, Sarawak, Singapore and Brunei. The
opposition parties in Malaya then, especially the Socialist Front (SF) and
the PAS opposed this project. They considered it as a neo-colonial
project of Britain and the US, to turn Malaysia into a “huge floating
battleship” that could point its guns at Indonesia, then under the strongly
anti-imperialist President Sukarno, and Vietnam, whose southern half was
waging a liberation struggle against US imperialism.
In 1963 Malaysia was formed and subsequently Sukarno declared
Konfrontasi against it. Several Malayan opposition leaders were accused of
collaborating with Indonesia and planning to establish an exile government.
These allegations, though not fully proven, were used to legitimise the
arrests of hundreds of leaders and members of SF, PAS and some other
smaller parties, and their subsequent detentions under the ISA, for long
periods without trial.
Meanwhile, as has been exposed now with revealing documentary proofs,
the
British and US governments, through their diplomatic and intelligence
operatives under the CIA particularly, helped Sukarno’s opponents,
especially those in the army, to overthrow the president. This they
succeeded in doing after a massive massacre of about a million people
suspected or accused of being communists.
Meanwhile, in Singapore Premier Lee Kuan Yew waged the “battle for
merger”. After detaining more than a hundred leaders and cadres of the
opposition, particularly from the Barisan Sosialis (BS), he forced a
referendum that gave the people no choice but to support Singapore’s entry
into Malaysia.
Ironically, about a couple of years later, the Tunku, who was
personally dissatisfied with Lee’s repeated antics to oppose the Malaysian
government and cause inter-ethnic conflicts, booted Singapore out of
Malaysia.
It is interesting to note that in Vietnam the communists and the
liberation forces finally triumphed over the US. But in Indonesia, as we
know, General Suharto became president, and his military regime was
strongly backed by the US for more than 30 years. Together with Sukarno’s
overthrow, a number of radical political parties associated with or
supporting him were closed down. In Singapore, the progressive or leftist
political and labour movements were crippled, after their political
parties were practically outlawed and their leaders incarcerated in jail for
long years.
The same happened in Malaysia. The emergency declaration together with
the ISA were brutally and effectively used to ban or curtail opposition
political parties and detain hundreds of their leaders or members. The
demise or weakening of progressive multiethnic political parties, such
as the SF, which was made up of the Labour Party (LPM) and the
People’s Party (PRM), opened the way for narrow ethnic and religious politics
to rear their ugly heads in Malaysia.
3. Racial Conflicts: 13th May Incident
On several occasions, in various parts of this country, racial tensions
have led to conflicts resulting in untold deaths and destruction.
During British colonialism the country was open to foreign immigrants,
largely Chinese, Indians and Indonesians. A plural society emerged here.
The various ethnic groups were not only separated socially and
culturally, but they also had different and often conflicting economic and
political interests.
Colonialism took advantage of this to carry out the notorious “divide
and rule” policy. In fact this colonial policy was continued and
perpetrated by the local ruling elite after independence.
One of the worst inter-ethnic outbreaks experienced in this country
occurred for a number of days beginning 13th of May 1969, and for that
reason it has often been referred to as the 13th May Incident. Conflicts
were confined mainly to Kuala Lumpur (and Selangor). Actually it began
just a day after the general elections. During the long election
campaigns, much ethnic heat was generated through claims and counter claims of
ethnic injustices, discriminations, exploitations and uneven
concentration of economic and political powers. The circumstances were already
created, and they were waiting only for
an event to cause an ethnic eruption.
The election results were the worst for the Alliance’s since
independence.
It so happened that in Selangor there was a tie between the opposition
parties, which happened to be mainly Chinese-based, and the ruling
Alliance, which was largely dominated by the Malay party, UMNO. There were
strong racial overtones in the post-elections rhetoric and
celebrations. The Selangor UMNO, led by a fiercely racial Chief Minister, was
terribly afraid of loosing power, as jeered crudely by some Chinese
supporters of the opposition. The belief is that some leaders of the ruling
party precipitated racial killing in order to invite a state of emergency.
Indeed emergency was soon declared and the Parliament as well as the
State Legislatures were suspended for about two years. A National
Operations Council (NOC) was set up with the Deputy Prime Minister Tun Abdul
Razak as Director and made up of a small number of leaders from the
government, military and also the bureaucracy. A New Economic Policy (NEP)
was instituted, with the prime objectives of alleviating poverty and
restructuring society, to promote national unity.
A National Consultative Council (NCC) was also formed, including
representatives from government and opposition parties, as well as some
professionals, academicians and leading citizens as members. When
civilian rule was later restored, the Alliance was expanded to form the
National Front (Barisan Nasional – BN), which accommodated several of the
opposition parties that participated in the NCC.
4. Peasant Uprise; Baling Incident
Towards the end of 1974, a number of “hunger marches” were carried out
by thousands of rural folk in Baling, a small town in the northern part
of the country. At that time the price of rubber had fallen to a steep
low. Many rubber tappers did not earn enough incomes to feed their
families regularly with rice, the staple food.
The irony was that at this time Parliament passed a regulation to
increase the monthly allowances of its members. To make matters worse, there
was widespread rumour that a couple of children had died after eating
certain poisonous tubers that were not properly processed, because their
parents could not afford to buy rice.
The people of Baling, consisting mainly of peasants, continued to hold
daily demonstrations for a number of days. There was almost total
blackout in the media about these “hunger marches”. When students in the
University of Malaya got wind of them, they in turn organised peaceful
meetings in support of the peasants. Soon more students from various
institutions of higher learning joined, culminating in a series of
demonstrations in Kuala Lumpur and Petaling Jaya. As usual the police used water
cannons and canes to disperse them.
There were at least two significant things about this development.
Firstly, the “hunger marches” were participated mainly by poor Malays
protesting against a Malay dominated government. Secondly, it was
significant that large numbers of students from all races came out in support of
the poor peasants, thus forging a very important alliance that never
happened before.
The conflicts were not racial but bore a class content.
Of course the government did not like it and so came down with a heavy
hand.
Following a huge demonstration in the centre of the capital city of
Kuala Lumpur, more than a thousand students were rounded up by police.
Most of them were released after one or two days, but over forty students
and lecturers (including Anwar Ibrahim and myself) were detained under
the ISA.
Almost immediately the police entered the university and occupied it
for a few days.
About two years later, not long after the death of Tun Razak, the
second Premier, there was power struggle within the leadership of UMNO. The
ambitious Home Minister then, was plotting to be Deputy PM and clear
the way to succeed Tun Hussein Onn to become the fourth PM. In Singapore
at this time, there was a crackdown of a number of people alleged to be
“Marxists”. Some of them confessed of having connections in Malaysia.
Soon there was a similar crackdown under ISA in Malaysia. A number of
people, including two Deputy Ministers, senior newspaper editors and
leaders of the opposition were detained. They were accused of having
links with communists merely because, among other things, they warned of
possible domino effects on Southeast Asia, following the defeat of US in
Vietnam. The Home Minister, tried to stage almost a “coup” by trying
implicate the present PM, who was then DPM, with those arrested and also
with the communist underground and by so doing hoping to remove him
from office. But he failed.
5. Operasi Lalang Arrests
Internal conflicts within the UMNO leadership continued, but with
different actors. At the beginning of the eighties, Malaysia was undergoing
a serious recession, which badly affected the prices of agricultural
commodities and the incomes of their rural producers. Owing to the
economic downturn, there was not enough “cake” to go around; it was divided
mainly among those close
to the government top leadership. A lot of discontent was voiced
through leaders of a certain faction of the UMNO leadership who were deprived
of any share of the cake.
The economic downturn also gave rise to dissatisfactions that were
racial in nature. It was easy for the Malays to blame the Chinese for the
difficult economic conditions because of the latter’s perceived economic
control, just as it was not difficult for the Chinese to blame the
Malays, whom they saw as being responsible for government and its
discriminatory policies.
The inter-ethnic tensions became exacerbated by the growing controversy
on Chinese educational rights, and the apparent attempt by the
government, which was perceived as being pro-Malay, to control the
administration of Chinese schools. At the same time, as the government became more
repressive by introducing new acts, like the Official Secrets Act (OSA)
and Society’s Act, many NGOs became openly critical of government.
The situation became very uncertain when his Finance Minister, Tengku
Razaleigh, challenged PM Mahathir as President in an election held
during an UMNO General Assembly in 1986. Mahathir won with a small margin
of 37 votes.
But, following a suit that was brought up owing to the presence of
unqualified branches in the assembly, the court took the decision to
close down UMNO.
Mahathir quickly moved to form a new UMNO to replace the old one.
Internal conflicts finally led to the split of UMNO.
In order to perpetrate itself, the government again resorted to the ISA
by launching “Operasi Lalang” in 1987 to arrest not only some
politicians from
the government and opposition, but also educational, social and
religious (particularly Christian) activists. The faction in UMNO that split
later formed a party and established a new opposition coalition to face
the elections in 1990. Interestingly, for the first time, this provided
a good opportunity for developing a “two front” system, which was
multi-ethnic. But unfortunately the opposition front cracked, partly under
the strain of ethnic politics. Finally, the splinter UMNO group
rejoined its parent organisation.
6. The Anwar Saga
In the middle of 1997, the Asian economic crisis began to be felt in
Malaysia and affected the ruling party. Mahathir saw his Deputy Anwar
Ibrahim, who had different ideas from him on how to overcome the
economic downturn, as mounting a challenge against him. On the bases of
allegations for corruption and sexual misdemeanour, Anwar was brought to
court. At the same time Mahathir took the opportunity of removing Anwar
from government as well as the party.
Anwar accused Mahathir of conspiracy. Mahathir acted entirely on the
basis of allegations made against Anwar by a woman of doubtful repute and
repeated in a book that did not provide any shred of evidence. The
affidavits against Anwar were made public by the police even before they
reached the court.
The judge blatantly showed his own bias, by accepting prosecution
evidence even when the time and place relating to Anwar’s alleged sodomy was
changed three times. Now Anwar is suffering under a 15-year jail
sentence.
About two weeks after his dismissal, Anwar launched a series of public
campaign all over the country, which drew enormous number of people. He
accused Mahathir of cronyism, nepotism and corruption, and launched the
Reformasi movement, quite similar to the one in Indonesia. On the night
of 20th September 1999 the police arrested Anwar for alleged criminal
acts.
That same night he was beaten almost to death by the head of the police
force.
The law required him to be brought to court within 24 hours, but
because of his serious injury, the police used their power to detain him
under the ISA,so that he could be held initially for up to sixty days
without trial. Two coalitions of opposition political parties together with
some NGOs, called GAGASAN and GERAK, were formed to oppose the
draconian ISA and the unjust treatment meted out to Anwar. Within the next few
days a number of Anwar’s lieutenants and supporters were also detained
under the ISA. But almost all of them were released within the first
two months.
Owing largely to the strong campaign mounted especially by GERAK,
Anwar’s ISA detention was revoked after a week, and he was brought to court
to face criminal charges. But Anwar’s black eye was very clear for the
world to see. This created uproar among the people. For a number of
weeks peaceful demonstrations were held by thousands of people who had
spontaneously continued the reform movement that was begun by Anwar. The
police suppressed them by resorting brutal means and thus provoked some
violence. Hundreds of people were arrested.
Anwar’s followers initially formed an NGO called ADIL, and later
established a political party known as the Justice Party (KeADILan) in 1999.
Soon it took the initiative of calling a meeting of the main opposition
parties to form a coalition to be known as the Alternative Front (BA)
consisting of PAS, Keadilan, DAP and PRM. This front was multi-ethnic
and multi-religious in composition. Again there was an opportunity of
establishing a two-front system in Malaysian politics.
The BA produced a common manifesto entitled “Towards a Just Malaysia”
and stood united against the ruling coalition (BN) in the 1999 general
elections. It failed to deny BN two-thirds majority in Parliament. Now,
owing to differences between the DAP (Democratic Action Party) and PAS
over the issue of Islamic State, the DAP has decided to leave the BA,
and thus weakened it and at the same time strengthened the BN
government.
Conclusion
The political history of Malaysia is interspersed with almost regular
repressive periods during which the ISA and/or the emergency
regulations are used to detain people and curb fundamental freedoms. Very often
these periods are preceded by or coincide with growing economic crisis,
inter-ethnic conflict and split within the ruling elite which can
threaten the government losing power.
By its own admission the government has found the ISA as one of the
most effective instruments for undermining growing opposition as well as
public dissent for perpetrating itself. The use of the ISA to detain
individuals is always justified by the need to protect public order and
security. But in actual fact it is often abused to weaken the opposition
as well as public dissent.
During interrogations, the police always try to coerce detainees
through methodical physical and mental tortures into confessing whatever they
have been accused of and also to cooperate with the government or
police. The detainees are considered to have been “rehabilitated” when they
submit to do so. With the rehabilitation, they are likely to be
released early. The stubborn ones will have to languish in detention for much
longer periods.
Indeed, as has always happened, the police, obviously under the
direction of the government, always try to link the alleged activities of
those already detained with opposition parties and other groups, in order
to undermine their position and even lay the grounds for ultimately
banning them. Such “dirty tricks” have been used before, for example to
destroy the once influential SF, and there is a danger that they will now
be used against the existing opposition parties, following the
government desperate attempt to restore its waning influence.
The ISA was originally introduced for the declared purpose of fighting
militant communism. With the global decline of communism and the end of
communist insurgency in Malaysia, it has actually outlived its purpose.
Further, there are numerous laws in this country that can deal with all
kinds of illegal activities, such as possession and use of firearms,
sedition, demonstrations and so forth. But the government still prefers
the ISA because it helps them to get away with false allegations and
not having to prove their case in the open court.
The ISA is obviously violates fundamental human rights. Above all it is
against the teachings of major religions that do not allow for unjust
punishment by detaining people indefinitely without trial. But
Mahathir, who has now lost majority support from the Malays, the traditional
base of UMNO, has threatened and in fact promised to continue using the
ISA.
There are signs that Mahathir will use the present US-led
anti-terrorist campaigns to justify him to continue using the ISA against all those
whom he considers to be undesirable because they threaten his own
position of power. He can just easily brand them as “militants”,
“terrorists” and a threat to public security. In the past, thousands of people
have been detained without trial because they were accused of being
comminist or conniving with communist. But now, hundreds may be arrested and
detained because they are blamed to be involved in ‘reformasi’ and
‘millitant’ “Islamic” movements.