Quek's Blog

交待终身学习的现状

noreply@blogger.com (郭義民 Quek Ngee Meng) — Tue, 18 May 2010 10:34:00 +0000

这一段日子媒体上有多篇关于终身学习的文告和新闻，这些报导也许让人产生混淆，许多关心终身学习的人士也不了解到底终身学习计划和终身学习中心的命运如何。因此我想借这篇文章说明这件事情，以避免因为讯息混乱而发生误解的情况。

1) 提呈马华会长理事会的报告
马华社区教育发展局主任拿督尤绰韬于4月30日告知说马华会长理事会将针对终身学习以及浮罗交怡计划进行检讨。随即，终身学习秘书处着手准备相关报告，并在5月6日召开终身学习中心会议。分布全国的7间中心的负责人均出席了该会议。

会议上各终身学习中心负责人认为中心是马华接触民众的有效平台。经过这一两年的努力耕耘，逐渐在当地建立了基础和口碑。因此各中心负责人一致认为，马华领导层应该继续支持中心的运作以及协助强化，让中心可以拥有更大的发挥空间。

秘书处在收集意见后，准备了一份提呈马华会长理事会的报告及建议书，其主要内容如下：
（一）继续支持终身学习中心并强化之；
（二）若马华领导层决定停止终身学习中心，建议所有中心维持运作至2011年2月，不管其合约是否在此之前届满，并在2010年12月进行总检讨。

2) 5月11日马华会长理事会的决定
马华总会长拿督斯里蔡细历在5月11日会长理事会后的记者招待会上表示“所有的终身学习中心在2年合约届满后，将自力更生，党不会再为它们提供任何津贴，若它们要津贴就要致函申请。”（马新社，2010年5月11日，http://mandarin.bernama.com/v2/updatenews.php?id=55478）。

换言之，这7间中心将从今年6月30日开始到明年2月陆续面对期满、必须自资运作的挑战。

3) 终身学习秘书处提呈的建议被否决
终身学习秘书处在提呈会长理事会的报告中建议马华领导层继续支持，并且进一步加强终身学习中心的运作。同时，秘书处也建议如果党决定不再资助中心的运作，应让全部中心继续维持运作并支持其经费至2011年2月，也即是最后一间中心合约到期为止。然而，这些建议被否决了。

4）终身学习中心的合约问题
5月11日会长理事会决定按合约所说的让中心独立运作而总部不再在经费上援助。马华中央宣传局副主任卢诚国在5月16日的文告也重申此点，即领导层是根据终身学习中心的设立手册所阐明的“中心在2年届满后必须独立维持营运”。

在2008年中设立终身学习中心时，秘书处所拟定的合约确实是给予每间中心为期2年的经费资助。日前当卢诚国和我联络时，他说明马华领导层的决定是基于秘书处并未建议修订“中心的设立手册”里的2年赞助期限。

就这一点我想说明的是秘书处所提呈的建议书上，已经明确请求党领导层继续支持及强化中心的运作，并列举要求继续支持的原因。而在设立中心的手册上也说明“委任期届满后，若符合马华终身学习所制定的标准则将获得延长”。

5）终身学习秘书处和终身学习中心的运作
秘书处的主要工作范畴包括策划及推广新计划，协调与监督各终身学习中心的进展运作，主办各类型的活动以及和其他团体/友好伙伴建立合作关系。终身学习中心则负责在当地推展与举办各类型的学习活动。

终身学习计划首阶段
马华终身学习运动自2004年10月推动，在翌年3月在马华总部设立秘书处。秘书处负责策划与执行所有马华推动终身学习的计划。

首阶段的策略是醒觉运动，由秘书处策划并配合马华各层级组织一起在各地举办讲座等，将终身学习重要性的观念介绍给各地区的公众，希望改变公众认为离开学校就不必再学习的心态。经过2年的经验累积，终身学习运动于2007年至2008年初迈入第2个阶段，也就是在社区扎根，具体提供学习课程。

终身学习计划第2阶段
第2个阶段的重点是在社区扎根，以便为民众提供一个长期运作，并且拥有各项学习资源的专门中心，这也就是于2008年中开始落实并在全国各地设立的终身学习中心的宗旨。这些中心的设立与运作经费是从一笔特设的拨款直接下放。秘书处在过去2年也进行评估中心的表现并探讨继续资助中心经费的事宜。

同时，为配合当时的马华总会长拿督斯里翁诗杰希望将马华大厦13楼转为活动中心的策略，秘书处也自2009年开始在马华大厦13楼长期并固定举办短期课程、读书会和讲座。

6）终身学习计划过去5年的成果
2009年初到2010年3月，终身学习计划（中心及秘书处）在全国共举办了560项活动及拥有52，074人次的参与。

在终身学习计划的首阶段，通过秘书处、马华区会、终身学习中心、拉曼大学教育延续中心 (CEE) 与拉曼学院专业教育延续中心（CPE）等不同组织的努力，共开办2100项短期课程与活动，吸引101,613人次。

7）终身学习计划将会如何？变相的关闭
5月11日的马华会长理事会也没有给予设立在马华总部的终身学习秘书处任何常年运作经费。简单而言，马华总部不再资助合约到期的终身学习中心，而设立在总部的秘书处也将在2010年7月开始不获得经费。

秘书处如往年一样在去年年杪提呈2010年财政预算，请求党总部给予30万令吉的运作经费。在2010年通过的各项财政预算，没有将终身学习秘书处所申请的经费纳入其中。

终身学习秘书处于2008年以前获得党总部每年10万令吉的预算，在2009年于前任总会长拿督斯里翁诗杰任内全年经费预算提升至30万令吉。

总会长拿督斯里蔡细历表示原安排到今年7月的活动可以如计划进行，但是秘书处到底能否继续运作，则留在6月再作讨论。

因为没有获得常年拨款以及6月以后再作讨论，这样的方式影响了秘书处的运作机制，一来即无法增设新活动，对未来定位也没有明确的决定。因此，对我而言，这样的决定如同变相的关闭。
8）为何终身学习中心应该加强
马华终身学习中心及其所举办的活动是马华与民众/其他团体建立联系的前线。终身学习中心扮演着与当地民众/草根组织互动沟通的联系平台。中心所举办的活动以符合当地民众的学习需求为主。

中心的负责人以及秘书处所收到的公众回馈，都显示了公众对于终身学习中心及活动的积极回应，并认为这些可以协助人民的活动应该继续进行。

9）终身学习计划的命运和未来
党说明没有关闭或停止终身学习中心或活动，但是，马华总部将不会主动提供中心及秘书处任何资助。如果中心需要经费可以个别致函提出申请。

我个人希望，既然党总部并非要中止终身学习计划，就应以实际具体的行动支持，即在财务上支援终身学习计划，包括提供秘书处常年财务运算及资助中心的运作。

10）我的决定
自2004年终出任终身学习执行主任以来，我全力以赴的在全国各地甚至有几年放下个人事业而全职的投入推动终身学习计划。这是因为我相信终身学习对马华对人民都是一项好的计划，因此一路走来，我义无反顾地带着强烈的信念和热诚，希望马华终身学习计划可以树立在国内建立良好的典范，造福人民。

除非被要求在之前就离开，无论终身学习计划的将会如何，我将负责执行秘书处的任务直到今年7月。同时，我也将尽力协助丹绒比艾终身学习中心继续运作，以便该中心可以继续在当地为民服务（它在6月30日合约期满，是第一间总部停止财务支援的中心）。

过去5年投入了大量的心血和时间，一步一脚印走来，我和许多参与终身学习计划的同志和同仁们，从当初摸索的阶段，跌跌撞撞，得到不少有心人和同道的协助与指导。终身学习计划由零开始，逐渐茁壮成长，在全国各地设立了一些站点，我们正式建立了马来西亚首个长期并拥有执行单位的终身学习计划，也为马华在各地方提供了学习型的活动，拉近了马华与民众的距离。

过去几年我负责推动终身学习计划，并且也身体力行的参加许多终身学习计划举办的活动和短期课程，个中有许多宝贵的经验与学习。

来到这个阶段，对我个人而言，这应该是告一个段落的时候。我将在2010年7月开始正式卸下马华终身学习执行主任一职。

从巫统大会重思马华路线

noreply@blogger.com (郭義民 Quek Ngee Meng) — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 01:56:00 +0000

巫统似乎在锐变当中！

刚落幕的巫统代表大会不像是华社所熟悉的单一族群峰会。往年常见的偏激、狭隘、倒退与零和等论调，在今年众巫统领袖与代表的辩词内不复见。反之，在首相那吉的强势领导下，一个强调包容、接受、多元与开放的全民路线轮廓，正以劲弩待发之势，向国民展现巫统正准备走向锐变，成为服务全民的政党。

这个改变并不停滞于口号。近来，巫统领袖主导的部门都直接与华团接触，聆听华社民愿。从内政部批准华裔公民权、首相署与财政部不再执着于土著固打及不断开放经济领域等事宜分析，如今的巫统部长可直接向华社“交货”，而无须通过华基执政党，使之似乎只扮演次要角色。

对选民而言，执政党的责任是传递（delivery）,俗称“交货”；反对党则扮演监督的角色。因此，巫统众部长若能在其掌管的部门内，直接做出利于华教、华商及华人文化与福利的政策，华社自然不需通过华基执政党这一道桥梁。近来，有一位贩总领袖更直言：“解决华社问题，直接找首相与巫统更有效。”

这对马华是一记警钟！当那吉领导的巫统欲彰显一个全民马来西亚，并淡化宪法152条马来语是官方语文与宪法153条马来人特殊地位的斗争时，马华又怎能只抓着维护华人权益这个基调呢？

犹记得70年代敦拉萨在联盟惨败后，扩大政党结盟网络，组成国阵。约40年后的今天，其儿子那吉也依样画葫芦采取父亲的策略精神，试图将巫统扩大成为走全民路线的政党，直接争取各族群选民支持。

巫统做得到吗？只要有政治决心能持之以恒就可以。莫忘了1947年的巫统是由多个有共识的马来非政府组织所组成，而今天的巫统在那吉强势的领导下，也或能在一个全民马来西亚的共识中，晋升成为全民政党。

马华在紧急法令实施8个月后成立。当年援助身处水深火热的华人之时，定下走亲民服务的政治路线。在尔后的联邦宪法制定过程中，马华为争取华裔公民权与平衡族群间的权益，奠定其作为政党执政的格局。这一甲子走来，马华虽愿真诚地在执政体内制争取华社的权益，但像是诅咒般的无奈，马华总是规律性的跌入内斗内耗的深渊中；也总是在争取华社权益的博弈中，肘制于巫统的态度，难以摆脱执政小弟的宿命。

马华领导层在省思308的重创后，就议决走全民路线。前任领导层的九大政纲的活动纲领与现任领袖的三拼策略，都是一个全民马来西亚的精神与实践路线。马华迄今不乏口号、策略与纲领，所缺的是强势集体领导、持续与深入的实践工作以及无私奉献的志愿精神。

当巫统正大力吹着落实锐变成为全民政党号角之时，当国阵成员党旧有的分工争取选票机制逐步退化之际，马华若不立即重整步伐，落实为全民服务的工作，朝向选举时可以展现其更具魄力与耐力的政治角色、自立更生的目标，则马华的前途可谓十分堪虑。

马华为民的斗争平台，并不属于任何领袖的专利权。当众领袖陷入迷思，捆缚在特大、党章与道德诠释的内耗中，马华干部都应立即担挑起落实强党利民的工作。若马华干部们也意兴阑珊时，马华基层党员们更应马上就位填补为民服务工作的真空。这工作刻不容缓！

此稿同时刊登于星洲日报·言路，2009年10月20日

新闻稿:追讨英军屠杀罪行工委会法律诉讼

noreply@blogger.com (郭義民 Quek Ngee Meng) — Sat, 09 May 2009 15:24:00 +0000

英外交部与驻马最高专员曾在1月21日分别致函谭蓉代表律师与工委会，针对要求设立公共调查委员会、道歉及赔偿的请愿，做出拒绝的决定，即英外交部以前两次调查显示没有足够的证据采取刑事提控为由，在缺乏新证据的情况下，英政府不会重新翻案。

在4月1日，谭蓉代表律师向英外交部与国防部发出的司法行动预告书，控状重点如下：

1.英政府决定不进行听证会，调查和补偿的理由是非法及不理智的

2009年1月21日的官方信件中透露了两个不进行调查的主要原因是，

第一、“前两次的调查显示没有足够的起诉证据”
第二、“这次也没有呈上任何新的证据”

我们不认为以上论点在法律上能构成足够理由，同时我们也认为以上论点是非法及不理智的。

首先，进行公众听证会的目的，不仅仅是为了搜集证据及作出控诉的决定。这从英国2005年听证会法令及过去法庭的判例中可略见一二。在一场听证会中，与普通审讯及案件调查不同的是，除了当事人本身之外，其他受案件影响的社群和受害者的亲属，都能够积极地参与听证会。因此官方在作出是否进行听证会之前，绝对有必要咨询此案受害人的家属。此案的家属们从来没有从律政处和警方获得任何有关调查的报告和结果。

即使有关当局已针对此案作出无懈可击的调查以及对家属们作出报告，但是由于此案乃全国和国际社会高度关注的事件，因此国家和公众仍需通过听证会来进一步了解此案。官方的决定完全忽略了这方面的考量。

我们接受之前的调查是重要的，因为之前的调查曝露了更多的案件疑点。如，警方决定前去马来西亚进行实地调查和咨询主要涉案人物后，却突然被指示停止调查；总监曾经指出两名警察的供词难以理解，因为其中一名警察嘉化泰益（JAFFAR BIN TAIB）宣称见证了屠杀事件；官方完全没有尝试去调查1948年和1970年两份供词之间的差异，尤其是已经有证据证明1948年的供词有企图掩盖事实的嫌疑。

至于官方解释“没有任何新的证据”，我们认为那是偏离基本法则的理由。身为决策者，政府应该针对此案进行完整的调查，才能作出一个理智的决定。

官方完全没有兴趣去了解有关此案现有人证和物证的情况，也完全不关心是否还有现存的证据仍未被发掘。实际上，我们发现警方有关此案的档案已经遗失了，多年来也没有人（包括国防部的官员）有兴趣重组仅存的档案。我们也发现政府完全没有尝试联络涉案部队的存活者和兰西（Ramsay）上校（指示巡逻部队清洗村庄的长官），更别说联络此案其他的关键证人。

很明显的，假如官方认真地作出正规的调查，以下重要证据是必须被考虑的：-
一．谭蓉的宣誓词；
二．目击证人的供词，如嘉化泰益；
三．此案关键人物的供词；
四．由马来西亚皇家警察于1993年搜集的资料。

官方的答复从一开始即排除收集所有尚存的证据以及使用现代科学鉴证法的可能性，使到村民是否逃跑的提控一直无法得到证实。

即使听证会并不能定下任何人的谋杀罪名，但是至少我们可以通过听证会鉴定部队是否使用过度的暴力来杀害24名村民。

2.官方没有充份考虑其决定对于种族关系的冲击

根据几名涉案士兵的供词，部队袭击受害人并非因为村民们涉及恐怖活动，而是因为村民们的肤色以及工作地点。这一点在1948和1949年间，造成巨大的社会舆论，即使到了现代这舆论的压力仍然存在。英军人涉及射杀以及英政府不愿调查或赔偿的态度只会日益加深外交和种族关系的紧张。当时负责调查此案的殖民地官员，甚至在公函中记录说对村民以公开处决置理是有其价值性的。更糟糕的是，官方文件也可以证明，英最高专署在1970年间多次以偏差性和种族性言论质疑马来西亚证人的个性，真实性与记忆能力，不鼓励搜集马方目击证人的证供。

简单来说，这次听证会的决定，官方并没有考虑到英国1976年种族关系法令第71条文所提及的，“有需要增进不同族群间的良好关系”。

英政府在作出决定前，必须充份地考虑所有改善种族关系的因素。以此案看来，英政府在这方面是忽略了这个义务。

3.官方拒绝理由不充足

官方若决定不设公共调查需要给予足够的理由。若欲仰赖之前的调查则须清楚的列明报告要点、解释之前调查报告有什么是可依赖与凭证足够等。同样的在本案件中，已有充分的证据显示英军使用过度的暴力，因此英政府须给予清晰的解释为什么没有给予任何的赔偿。

英政府于1月21日过于简略的回复简直就是一种藐视。英政府根本没有提到如何赔偿，这是不合法的。

4.普通法要求调查与赔偿，以便落实国际惯例法

在本案件中，当国际惯例法要求全面的调查以及告知有关赔偿的决定时，这将在3个方面影响司法检讨英政府拒绝的决定：

第一：法庭设下的审查裁决对有关决定与理由的标准；

第二：限制本属于决定者的自由裁决权。在本案中，英政府选择不回复公共调查与赔偿的要求是不合法的。

第三：在特殊案件中，当合理的选择是遵守国际惯例法时，法庭的角色是确保该选择得以落实，本案就是如此。英政府应全面的调查以及认真的考虑赔偿。谭蓉等将通过律师寻求一项强制性质的庭令要求赔偿。

因此，谭蓉等要求英外交部与国防部：

1.答应成立公共调查以便裁决峇冬加里惨案的真相与有任何历史教训须吸取；

2.同意调查委员会有权力因英军在1948年12月11日与12日违反人道主义与人权法律而须作出赔偿，或通过公平的方式鉴定赔偿数额；

3.制定以上要求的时间进度表。

义务律师召集人，郭义民律师与卢律融律师启
2009年4月29日

Press Statement in relation to the UK Government reconsidering the Action Committee’s requests

noreply@blogger.com (郭義民 Quek Ngee Meng) — Sat, 09 May 2009 15:19:00 +0000

Press Statement in relation to the UK Government reconsidering the Action Committee’s requests

1. While the Action Committee Condemning the Batang Kali Massacre welcomes the sensible move made by the UK Secretary of State for Foreign and Secretary of State for Defence to withdraw their 21/1/09 refusal and reconsider the surviving families’ requests for setting up a public inquiry, it is cautious about the relevant authorities may intentionally drag all efforts during the restoration of truth to the detriment of the families.

2. Tham Yong, one of the surviving families, has on 1/4/09 through her lawyers, Bindmans LLP, issued letter before claim to the Secretaries of State stating categorically that the refusal on public inquiry and reparation requests are unlawful for the following reasons:-
a. the explanation for not undertaking an inquiry or further investigation is unlawful and irrational;

b. failure to have due regards to the race relations implications of the decisions;

c. the reasons for the decisions are inadequate; and

d. in the circumstances of the present case, an adequate inquiry and reparation are demanded by the common law to give to customary international law.

3. Tham Yong and the remaining surviving families are demanding the following from the Secretaries of State:-
a. agree to constitute a public inquiry with the terms of reference to determine the reasons for the killings at Batang Kali and to identify the lessons that should be learned;

b. include in the inquiry’s remit the power to make recommendations as to redress, or establish an alternative fair mechanism for determining the amount and form of redress for breaches of humanitarian and human right laws that occurred at Batang Kali on 11 and 12 December 1948; and

c. set out provisional timetable for progressing the above and agree to consider representations from Tham Yong and others about it.

4. Secretaries of State’s solicitor requested for an extension to reply until 24/4/09 and agree that Tham Yong may issue claim on or before 8/5/2009.

5. On 24/4/09, Secretaries of State decided to reconsider its decision of not holding a public inquiry or further investigation into this matter and requested for “few months” to make up their mind. This request is not accepted by Tham Yong and the Committee. We are of the view that such a long and uncertain period of determination is either a genuine typo error on the part of the Secretaries of State or they are simply dragging time unnecessary to the detriment of the surviving families.

6. Tham Yong’s lawyer has made clear on 27/4/09 that the reconsideration process must be completed within 6 weeks because most of the materials are exclusively records of the Secretaries of States, which presumably they must have already considered.

7. There is an absolute urgency on this matter as most of the witnesses may not be able to wait for the justice to be restored. For example, one of the eye witnesses, Wong Kum Sooi, who was 11 at time of killings, passed away on last Friday. He was the eldest son of Huang Ren and nephew to Huang De-Feng, both of whom were killed by the British Army on 12 December 1948 at Batang Kali. JUSTICE DELAYED IS NONE OTHER THAN JUSTICE DENIED. In the circumstances, the Committee urges the Secretaries of State involved agreeing to the request of the surviving families for an inquiry and reparation consistent with international humanitarian standards.

8. The Committee wishes to state in no uncertain term that the only lawful decision as a result of the reconsideration exercise by the Secretaries of State is to hold an inquiry and make reparations either immediately or in the light of that inquiry’s findings.

Quek Ngee Meng
Halim Hong & Quek
For and on behalf of
The Action Committee Condemning the Batang Kali Massacre

FREE WONG CHIN HUAT

noreply@blogger.com (郭義民 Quek Ngee Meng) — Thu, 07 May 2009 01:21:00 +0000

I have not been updating my blog since Chinese New Year. But this is the platform that I can voice up my absolute anger with the recent unwarranted actions taken by the police.

I disagree with and strongly condemn the arrest of Wong Chin Huat and those who supported him during the candlelight vigil. Such arrest, which based upon an ambiguous law of seditions and an unconstitutional police power to clamp down peaceful appeal, is totally unwarranted and irrational.

Ambiguous Sedition Charges
It is alleged that Wong Chin Huat has been violated Section 4(1) of the Sedition Act, 1948, where he has uttered and published words of seditious tendency. Seditious tendency is defined under Section 3 as follow:-

a. bring hatred against Government (means Federal or State) or against any Ruler (means Yang di-Pertuan Agong, Ruler or Governor of any State);

b. excite someone to bring unlawful alteration of the Government or Rulers;

c. bring hatred against the administration of Justice;

d. raise discontent or dissatisfaction amongst the subjects of the King and Rulers or among the inhabitants of Malaysia;

e. promote feeling of ill-will and hostility between different races;

f. question right, status, position, privilege or prerogative protected by Part III (Citizenship), Art. 152 (National Language and learning of other languages), Art. 153 (Reservation of quotas pertaining to services, permit etc for Malay and natives of Sabah and Sarawak), and Art. 181 (Rulers’ sovereignty) of the Federal Constitution.

At time of writing, it is unclear which provision that the police is relying on to charge Wong.
However, it is believed that the arrest is connected with the campaign spearheaded by Wong to question the legality of the new Perak Government. Besides targeting at Prime Minister Najib, it is reported that Wong is striving for a new state election in Perak.

On the face of the reported news, it can be hardly convinced that Wong is liable for sedition charges. In my opinion, he has not said any words which are contravened to any item stipulated under Section 3 above. He is merely questioning the constitutionality of the present State Government and wishes that the people/voters be the ultimate arbiter of this issue. The general public is of the view that only with a fresh State Election, the dispute between political parties will be settled once and for all. In fact, Section 3(2) of the Sedition Act allows for these exceptions.

Bearing in mind that the case of who is the legal MB has yet to decided prior to Wong’s arrest. It is perfectly legal for Wong to defend what he perceived to be his constitutional rights and request the power to decide the MB (via barisan/party which win the most seats in the election) be rested with the rakyat.

Charging Wong under the Sedition Act is a clear act of suppressing expression which is guaranteed by Article 10(1)(a) of the Federal Constitution.

Unconstitutional Police Power

The police have always abused their power purportedly granted under Section 27 of the Police Act, 1967 to arrest peaceful assembly and procession of more than 3 persons. This power is unconstitutional because it runs foul of Article 10(1)(b) of the Federal Constitution, which confers the rights to assembly peaceably and without arms.

Section 27 is in contradiction to Section 141 of the Penal Code as well. The Penal Code disallows participation in a public or private gathering if a gathering of 5 or more persons has the common object to commit criminal conducts, which make sense to any ordinary people. We just can’t figure out correctly why on earth the police need to clamp down peaceful assembly!

The police should concentrate their limited resources in camping down those criminal who violated the Penal Code and do their best endeavour to reduce the crime rate, instead of arresting peaceful assembly under the Police Act. We must strongly censure such abusive power exercise by the police, which will bring darkness to the nation building.

Consistency of Principle

I met Wong in 1999 when I supported the BN during the General Election. We have heated argument but I salute him for his persistency and consistency in holding the principles that he believed. He has impressed me as a lobbyist for the betterment of our nation. He disagrees with BN for abusing the draconian law of ISA. He condemns Anwar who initiated the immoral hopping of wakil rakyat. He promotes local council election, and for that matter, a fairer and more transparent election. Our country needs more rakyat like Wong who, in line with the Federal Constitution, stands firm and fight hard for what he believe in.

I humbly appeal to the Prime Minister, the Minister of Home Affairs and those who believe in safeguarding every provisions of our Constitution, use you power/influence to free WONG CHIN HUAT immediately.

Action Committee Condemning Batang Kali Massacre Demanding Public Inquiry

noreply@blogger.com (郭義民 Quek Ngee Meng) — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 08:24:00 +0000

The Action Committee Condemning Batang Kali Massacre hold a Press Conference on 30 January 2009 in response to the British Government's reply on the petition. Following is the full text press statement:

1. Following the petitions submitted by the Action Committee Condemning the Batang Kali Massacre on both 25 March and 12 December 2008, the British High Commissioner, HE Boyd McCleary, being the representative of HM Queen Elizabeth II in Malaysia, has been directed to reply to the petitions on 21 January 2009.

2. The British Government claims that they have carefully considered the petitions and concludes that “in view of the findings of 2 previous investigations that there was insufficient evidence to pursue prosecutions in this case, and in the absence of any new evidence, regrettable we see no reason to reopen or start a fresh investigation.” It is understood that the 2 previous investigation referred to the 1949 and the 1970 investigations.

3. The Action Committee is disappointed and absolutely not convinced with the British Government reply because the latter has not taken into account the inherent unsatisfactory and incomplete nature of the previous 2 investigations. Instead, the British Government has taken into account an irrelevant consideration of pursuing criminal prosecution, which is not intended or demanded by the surviving families of the massacre.

4. There were 4 sworn statements from the soldiers involved confirming that they had misled the 1949 investigation. The soldiers admitted there was an intentional killing and the unarmed civilians were not trying to escape. The sworn statements were not rebutted. As such, the credibility of the 1949 investigation has been put into doubt.

5. As for the 1970 investigation, the then Director of Public Prosecution, who instructed to halt the 1970 investigation prematurely, admitted that there was a substantial conflict of evidence amongst the soldiers involved, and no statement or interview was ever taken from the Malaysian witnesses, such as the survival of the massacre, Chong Foong and his wife Tham Yong. In addition, no process of body exhumation and forensic examination were ever conducted. We submit that the 1970 investigation is incomplete and certainly inconclusive.

6. In view of the above, we can’t help but to conclude that the British Government has failed to read and consider the petitions submitted by the Action Committee carefully and with due weight. They have used the “1970 standard format reply”, which is obviously outdated. We have the statements from the Malaysian eye-witnesses. Further, the remains of the massacre were lying at the cemetery of Ulu Yam, Batang Kali. These are credible evidence for the case which have never been considered by the British authorities.

7. Let’s be very clear. The surviving families are not seeking any criminal trial of the soldiers involved. They are requesting a thorough and an independent investigation via the setting up of a public inquiry so that the historical truth can be discovered. The surviving families, who lost their bread earners for the past 60 years, have been living in a dismal plight. It is only reasonable for them to request an official apology, compensation and construction of a memorial for their love ones from the authority who had committed an atrocity.

8. The surviving families’ lawyer in UK will write a formal letter to the British Government (known as Pre-Action Protocol letter) setting out the reasons that the decision taken by the British Government is unlawful, and inviting them to reconsider their position before we ensue with legal proceeding.

9. Meanwhile, the Action Committee will be seeking a meeting with the Malaysian representative of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association for purpose of persuading the Malaysian MP to seek redress for the surviving families within the Commonwealth network.

10. We sincerely hope that in the interest of both UK and Malaysian community, the British Government will accede to the request of setting up a public inquiry on the Batang Kali massacre.

Quek Ngee Meng
Coordinator, Voluntary Lawyers
The Action Committee Condemning the Batang Kali Massacre
30 January 2009

Menegakkan Kebenaran Terhadap Pembunuhan Kejam Askar-Askar

noreply@blogger.com (郭義民 Quek Ngee Meng) — Fri, 26 Dec 2008 08:49:00 +0000

My friend Yew Chien told me that there was an article published in Utusan Melaysia on 22 December.
This article-- published in the form of Letter from Reader--miscontrued our efforts to address the historical injustice committed by British Army as an effort to rectify the Communist movement during the Emergency.
As the article is baseless and rely on wrong facts, I have therefore responded to the article via Utusan Malaysia Forum.
Below is my response to it:

Menegakkan Kebenaran Terhadap Pembunuhan Kejam Askar-Askar UK

Pembangunan yang berterusan oleh negara kita sedang berhadapan dengan satu masalah besar. Sesetengah suku masyarakat kita masih dibebani dengan pemikiran stereotaip yang gemar untuk melabel pihak yang tidak bersetuju sebagai pelampau atau “extremist” tanpa sebarang asas atau justifikasi. Seorang yang dikenali sebagai “Tan” termasuk di dalam kategori ini apabila beliau mempamerkan permikiran yang sempit dan kolot di dalam artikel beliau yang bertajuk “Usaha pinda fakta sejarah iktiraf perjuangan PKM” (Utusan, 22/12/08).

Tan telah membuat beberapa kesilapan fakta dan asas di dalam artikelnya apabila beliau mendakwa individu-individu yang mengetuai kempen menuntut pembetulan untuk keluarga-keluarga pihak yang terselamat di dalam pembunuhan beramai-ramai di Batang Kali, seolah-olahnya cuba untuk menyatakan yang pergerakan Komunis adalah wajar, yang mana dakwaan tidak berasas ini adalah disangkal dengan keras.

Terdapat bukti-bukti yang kukuh untuk membuktikan yang askar British telah melakukan pembunuhan beramai-ramai yang tidak berperikemanusiaan terhadap 24 orang awam yang tidak bersenjata di Batang Kali pada 11 dan 12 Disember 1948. Pengakuan-pengakuan bersumpah oleh 4 orang askar yang terlibat di dalam pembunuhan itu kini disimpan di Arkib Kebangsaan UK di Kew. Pernyataan-pernyataan tersebut mendedahkan yang pasukan patrol mempunyai arahan awal untuk menghapuskan kampung tersebut; penduduk-penduduk kampung telah ditembak tanpa cubaan untuk melarikan diri; dan terdapat konspirasi untuk mengelirukan soal siasat pada 1949.

Pernyataan saksi-saksi yang terselamat daripada pembunuhan tersebut juga selaras dengan pengakuan askar-askar British berkenaan. Malahan, terdapat 3 orang saksi yang masih di awal usia remaja dan kanak-kanak sewaktu berlakunya pembunuhan tersebut, turut berarak bersama-sama badan perwakilan ke Kedutaan British sempena ulang tahun ke-60 kejadian pembunuhan beramai-ramai tersebut. Ini adalah untuk menyangkal dakwaan Tan yang kononnya tiada ahli perwakilan itu yang telah menyaksikan sendiri pembunuhan beramai-ramai tersebut.

Satu penyiasatan jenayah yang telah dijalankan pada 1970 telah mendedahkan bukti-bukti yang bercanggah di kalangan askar-askar. Walaubagaimanapun, penyiasatan tersebut telah dihentikan secara mendadak oleh Parti Kerajaan Konservatif UK hanya 10 hari selepas mereka memenangi pilihanraya umum. Terdapat juga bukti yang menunjukkan Kerajaan UK telah mencuba untuk melindungi reputasi askar-askarnya yang sedang berhadapan dengan masalah besar di dalam konflik Ireland Utara dan oleh yang demikian, telah menghentikan siasatan pembunuhan beramai-ramai Batang Kali dengan terburu-buru.

Ramai ahli-ahli sejarah dan penulis-penulis telah mempersoalkan rekod-rekod rasmi Kerajaan UK. Di dalam sebuah buku sejarah bergambar yang telah ditulis oleh Lt Col (R) Mohd Azzam Mohd Hanif Ghows bertajuk “The Malayan Emergency Revisited 1948-1960”, terdapat penjelasan mengenai pembunuhan yang telah dilakukan oleh Askar British di Batang Kali pada 12 Disember 1948. Ia menyatakan bahawa “suspicious remained about a possible government whitewash. Indeed later, in 1969 [should be 1970], following the international outcry over the My Lai massacre in Vietnam, claims in British newspaper forced a new investigation, but a change in government in Britain led to the enquiry being aborted, despite sworn statements from participants and a lone survivor that a deliberate massacre had taken place.”

Sebagai tambahan, laman web ensiklopedia, Wikipedia, juga ada menyatakan mengenai Pembunuhan Beramai-ramai Batang Kali: “Early reports claimed the men had run into the soldiers’ gunfire. In contrast, later reports stated that the soldiers gave chase and opened fire on the fleeing villagers. The official account is that the men tried to escape into the jungle after being warned they would be shot if they ran. No one disputes the fact that all the victims were unarmed. Nevertheless, the charge of a massacre has never been thoroughly investigated by either the Malaysian or British governments. The British troops and locals involved were never charged over the killings.”

Syak wasangka yang sama juga boleh didapati di dalam buku yang ditulis oleh dua ahli sejarah dari Universiti Cambridge, “Forgotten Wars – The End of Britain’s Asian Empire.” Di dalam artikel Tan, beliau nampaknya telah terlalu bergantung kepada cerita yang diberikan oleh Chin Peng tanpa melakukan kajian yang sempurna.

Jelas di sini, Jawatankuasa yang menuntut keadilan untuk mangsa-mangsa bukanlah mempersoalkan keesahan Darurat atau perperangan gerila itu sendiri. Walaubagaimanapun, tiada siapa yang boleh bertoleransi dengan kekejaman yang telah dilakukan oleh mereka yang bersenjata dan bertindak ganas terhadap orang awam yang tidak berdosa dan tidak bersenjata. Ini adalah nilai diri asas yang diperjuangkan oleh rakyat Malaysia dan generasi muda. Nilai diri yang menghormati maruah manusia, nilai diri yang mana kebenaran dan kejujuran adalah asas masyarakat yang sivik dan maju, dan nilai diri yang mana pesalah akan dipertanggungjawabkan. Tidak terdapat had masa yang menghalang nilai-nilai ini untuk berkembang, dan juga tidak terdapat apa-apa perberzaan prinsip untuk nilai-nilai ini ditegakkan di mana-mana bahagian di dunia ini.

Ia dipercayai secara luasnya bahawa sesetengah suku masyarakat mempunyai niat untuk menyembunyikan kebenaran dan menyeleweng masyarakat umum dan juga komuniti antarabangsa, termasuk Kerajaan UK dan Tan. Oleh itu, usaha untuk membetulkan kesalahan sejarah tentang pembunuhan beramai-ramai Batang Kali telah dibangkitkan secara tegas daripada MCA, PKR, dan DAP bersama-sama 553 Persatuan dan NGO Malaysia.

Quek Ngee Meng
Kuala Lumpur

Original article by Tan (Utusan, 22/12/2008)
Source:

Usaha pinda fakta sejarah iktiraf perjuangan PKM

SEKUMPULAN aktivis Cina yang disokong oleh DAP telah menuntut kerajaan Britain membayar dosa tenteranya yang didakwa telah membunuh 24 penduduk keturunan Cina di sebuah kampung di Batang Kali, Selangor.

Kumpulan tersebut menuntut pampasan sebanyak 80 juta pound (RM425 juta) kerana kononnya tentera yang dibunuh itu bukan pengganas komunis seperti yang didakwa.

Tunjuk perasaan telah diadakan di hadapan pejabat Pesuruhjaya Tinggi Britain di Kuala Lumpur baru-baru ini disusuli dengan penyampaian memorandum tuntutan itu.

Isu tersebut juga pernah diperjuangkan oleh DAP di Parlimen.

Anggota kumpulan aktivis tersebut tidak pernah menyaksikan sendiri peristiwa pembunuhan itu tetapi membuat tuntutan berasaskan fakta sejarah yang memihak kepada mangsa seperti yang ditulis oleh pemimpin Parti Komunis Malaya, Chin Peng dalam memoirnya, My Side of History.

Chin Peng mendakwa mangsa pembunuhan itu bukan pengganas tetapi orang awam dan beliau menyamakan tindakan tentera British itu seperti peristiwa My Lai yang berlaku 19 tahun kemudiannya di Vietnam iaitu pada 16 Mac I968 di mana tentera Amerika melakukan pembunuhan orang awam secara beramai-ramai.

Menurut Chin Peng, sebuah akhbar mingguan popular British, The People telah mendapat maklumat tentang peristiwa yang sama berlaku di Malaya semasa darurat dan menjalankan siasatan dengan menemu ramah bekas tentera yang berkhidmat pada masa itu dan mendedahkannya di muka hadapan The People keluaran 1 Februari 1970.

Pendedahan itu berkata: "It flatly charged that on December 1948, the Scots Guards platoon had perpetrated a cold blooded massacre civillian workers at Batang Kali."

Menurut Chin Peng lagi, semua fail polis mengenai Batang Kali masih dirahsiakan sehingga hari ini. Beliau menyifatkan dakwaan British terhadap mangsa pembunuhan itu sebagai 'pengganas' adalah emotive terminology yang digunakan supaya tidak berlaku pendewaan terhadap perjuangan PKM. Beliau mengemukakan hal itu sebagai satu kes 'sejarah disunting' atau dipinda atau diputarbelitkan.

Perjuangan menuntut pampasan bagi kejadian Batang Kali telah dibuat berulang kali lama sebelum Hindraf menuntut ratusan juta ringgit pampasan daripada kerajaan Britain kerana tidak menjaga kebajikan orang India sebagai pendatang dan buruh di bawah pemerintahan penjajahan British.

Yang tidak menuntut pampasan daripada kerajaan British ialah orang Melayu kerana mereka merasakan bahawa dengan pemberian kemerdekaan negara ini maka British tidak lagi berhutang kepada mereka.

Kemerdekaan inilah pengiktirafan terhadap ketuanan mereka tetapi pihak lain harus menghalalkan perjuangan yang haram bagi mengesahkan ketuanan dan hak mereka ke atas negara ini.

Itulah kehendak PKM yang telah menegakkan pemerintahan Bintang Tiga beberapa hari selepas kekalahan Jepun dan sebelum anggota MPAJA atau PKM lari ke hutan untuk meneruskan perjuangan bersenjata bagi menegakkan pemerintahan Cina di Malaya pada tahun 1948.

Nampaknya buku sejarah perjuangan PKM yang ditulis oleh pemimpin-pemimpinnya sama ada yang masih hidup atau telah mati sedikit sebanyak berjaya menjadi isu kontroversi di negara ini setelah PKM dikalahkan dan dihapuskan.

Golongan cauvinis Cina di Malaya mahu meneruskan perjuangan yang gagal itu.

Jika kerajaan Britain bersetuju membayar pampasan itu maka bererti pengiktirafan terhadap perjuangan PKM dan banyak lagi pembunuhan pengganas akan dituntut untuk diiktiraf sebagai pembunuhan awam dengan bukti daripada bekas pemimpin PKM dan juga orang yang bersimpati dengan mereka di luar negara.

Tidak hanya Ching Peng yang menulis memoirnya tetapi Rashid Maidin dan Shamsiah Fakeh dan beberapa orang lagi bekas pemimpin PKM berketurunan Melayu juga menulis kisah masing-masing untuk mengesahkan perjuangan mereka.

Harus diingat jika PKM berjaya, negara ini tidak lagi mempunyai orang Melayu sebagai raja dan Yang di-Pertuan Agong, juga tidak ada lagi perbincangan mengenai ketuanan Melayu.

Sesungguhnya bukan sukar untuk meminda sejarah kerana Singapura telah pun berjaya melakukannya dan di Malaysia usaha secara terancang sedang berlaku sekarang.

TAN

Melaka

Malaysia's Last Witness to 1948 Massacre Calls for Justice (AFP法新社)

noreply@blogger.com (郭義民 Quek Ngee Meng) — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 07:53:00 +0000

AFP (法新社)coverage on the Batang Kali Massacre, which was published this morning. Full text as follows:

BATANG KALI, Malaysia (AFP) — Tham Yong is elderly and infirm, but the sole living survivor of Malaysia's 1948 Batang Kali massacre says she still vividly remembers what she calls "the day the British killed our men".

"After so much time, it still hurts me every time I talk about it, I remember it just like yesterday," she says, tears streaming down her cheeks as she recounts the slaying of 24 unarmed villagers by Scots Guards troops.

The 77-year-old former rubber tapper has spent decades fighting for compensation over the terrible events in the village of Batang Kali on December 11 and 12, 1948.

But as she succumbs to throat cancer, the campaign is being taken up by a new generation of activists and politicians who have demanded an apology from Britain and 80 million pounds (149 million dollars) in compensation.

The leader of the campaign, 40-year-old lawyer Quek Ngee Meng -- whose father lives in Batang Kali -- marched with a small band of supporters to the British High Commission on Friday to mark the 60th anniversary of the event.

The group presented a memorandum condemning the massacre to High Commissioner Boyd McCleary, who came out to the embassy gates to meet with the protesters.

"We are asking for a proper public enquiry to be held... I think it's a fair request," Quek told AFP.

"Let us show our evidence and if we have proven our case, then meet our demands. If the outcome favours the British government, then we will stop this protest," he said.

In June 1948, the British authorities declared a state of emergency in the colony then known as Malaya, which was overrun by communist insurgents engaged in a violent and brutal guerrilla war that would last 12 years.

The Chinese community in the multiracial nation were suspected of supporting the communists, as most of the insurgents were ethnic Chinese upset over a lack of rights that saw them endure appalling working conditions.

Many were unhappy that after World War II, in which the Chinese communists put up the only effective resistance in Japanese-occupied Malaya, they were now being offered only limited citizenship in the country they had fought for.

This, in addition to a post-war regional economic slowdown that brought massive unemployment, led many to join the communists in a campaign to oust the British colonial rulers.

To contain the insurrection, the authorities used British troops to carry out anti-guerrilla operations although many were raw recruits as most of the soldiers who had fought in World War II had been demobilised.

Batang Kali, which lies just outside the modern capital Kuala Lumpur, remains much like it was on the day when 14 British soldiers opened fire on unarmed men and torched the village.

Tham Yong still lives there, in a spartan house with cement floors, a single lightbulb and only a few sticks of furniture.

"The soldiers came in the evening as we were preparing our meal," said the elderly lady, who because of surgery for her throat cancer has to press closed a hole in her throat in order to speak.

"They rounded us all up and we were terrified," she said.

"Even though we said we were not communists and we had no weapons, they killed one of the young men in cold blood in front of my eyes because he had a permit to collect durians, written in Chinese."

"I think the British soldiers must have thought it was a communist document," she said.

"The soldiers then told him to run away but he didn't want to, but they pushed him and when he did run, they shot him from the back."

Tham Yong said the soldiers then locked the men, women and children in a small room overnight.

"The next morning they loaded the women and childen in a truck and just after we were out of view we heard many shots and we knew the men were dead," she said.

"We were kept away for a week and when we returned we found the bloated bodies, half eaten by animals with most of them looking as if they were running away when shot. Even today when I think of what happens, it hurts so much."

The shooting was quickly explained away by the local government, with the then Malayan attorney general saying an inquiry had been held and the troops vindicated, although no trace of this investigation has been found.

The guerrilla war left thousands dead and formally ended only in 1989 with the signing of a peace treaty with the Malayan Communist Party.

The massacre lay forgotten until Britain's People newspaper in 1970 published an explosive account of the killings, publishing sworn affidavits by several soldiers involved who admitted the villagers were shot in cold blood.

The soldiers said in the statements -- now on record in British archives -- that the villagers were forced at gun-point to run, and then killed in a bid to make it look like an escape attempt.

Some of the soldiers said they were ordered to kill the villagers as a desire for revenge brewed among senior officers after several communist insurgents killed British and local security personnel weeks before.

The revelations caused major ripples in Britain just ahead of national elections, with then defence secretary Dennis Healy promising a full investigation.

However, plans for the enquiry were dropped after the Conservatives took power.

It was not until 1992, when a BBC documentary reminded Malaysians of the killings, that interest was revived, but demands for an inquiry have failed to make any headway.

Cabinet minister Ong Tee Keat, who is head of the main Chinese component party in Malaysia's coalition government, said recently that the history of the guerrilla war should be accurately portrayed.

"(The Batang Kali killings) have been glossed over by the colonial government administration. This has been kept under the rug for so long," Ong told AFP.

"What these people are seeking really is historical redress as those that were killed have long been described as bandits and Communist sympathisers," he said.

For Tham Yong, the feelings of injustice remain raw.

"I'm still angry because these were innocent persons but labelled as bandits and communists, when all they were doing was collecting durians and not supplying food to the communists," she said.

"My advanced cancer means I will not around much longer, but I hope people remember what happened here so that those who were killed here are never forgotten."

View Larger Map

Submit Memorandum at British High Comm on Batang Kali Massacre

noreply@blogger.com (郭義民 Quek Ngee Meng) — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 04:59:00 +0000

We have submitted a copy of the Memorandum to the British High Commissioner, HE Mr. Boyd McCleary CVO this morning, 12 December 2008. Mr. James Paver, Head of Political, Economic & Public Diplomacy Section was present as well.

A delegation of about 100 representatives from Malaysian NGOs, political parties, surviving family members and the members of the Action Committee gathered in front of the British High Commission at Kuala Lumpur around 10:45am. The procession was not able to proceed as planned because the police only allowed a small group of not more than 5 persons to walk to the High Commission, with no marching and no banner / placard displaying.

At the High Commission, the police permitted us to complete the ceremony to pay respect to the victim within 10 minutes. Mourning statement was read and bouquets of white chrysanthemums were delivered at the front of the High Commission.

A delegation of 5 persons met with the High Commissioner, namely:-
1. Quek Ngee Meng, Head of Signature Campaign;
2. Mr. Leon Lu, Voluntary lawyer;
3. Mr. Michael Chong, Head of Public Services and Complaints Bureau of Malaysian Chinese Association;
4. Mr. Tian Chua, Member of Parliament, People Justice Party; and
5. Mr. Tan Chai Ho, Central Committee of MCA.

We summarised the contents of the memorandum submitted to HE Queen Elizabeth II. The High Commissioner gave an expected reply that the London FCO office is looking into this matter and he will forward our memorandum to the London office.

On our request to conduct a public inquiry to investigate this matter, the British High Commissioner seemed receptive to this idea. He was for the idea to close this issue once and for all. However, he emphasized that there must be evidence to warrant a public inquiry.

We brought to the High Commissioner attention that the investigation conducted by the British authorities was incomplete. There was no statement taken from the Malaysian eyewitnesses, nor was there any process of body exhumation and subsequent forensic examination. The High Commissioner was keen to read the sworn statements of the sole survivor and the eyewitnesses. We were more than willing to cooperate at appropriate timing and forum.

The meeting lasted for about half an hour.

We also sought help from the political parties, both MCA and People Justice Party. We hope that they can contact their counterparts in UK or via Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (CPA), where a Malaysian MP is the Chairperson, for purpose of reviving public interest over this issue in UK.

Local press was present to cover this event, but it is not easy to attract attention of the international media. BBC, Al-Jazeera and Reuters were not present despite much effort was put to invite them. AFP special write-up on the Batang Kali massacre will publish on this Sunday instead.

12月12日请愿行动-到英国最高专员署呈交备忘录

noreply@blogger.com (郭義民 Quek Ngee Meng) — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 16:34:00 +0000

12月12日是峇冬加里屠杀案60年忌日。《追讨英军屠杀工委会》联同华团代表、朝野政党代表及殉难者家属，一起到英国最高专员署呈交请愿书以及自8月开始所收集全国社团签名盖章的支持书。原本的流程是在马华大厦门口集合，再一起步行到英国最高专员署进行追悼仪式和呈交备忘录。
当时在马华大厦驻守的警察超过20人，而英国最高专员署前还有联邦储备队。由于警方要求十分严格，每次只允许不超过5个人一起走，并且每组的距离也必须相当远，结果严重拖延了集合时间。因此，原本计划集合所有人才进行仪式的安排被逼临阵改变，而必须先进行仪式，部分参与者才陆续抵达。
在和其他四名代表进入最高专员署呈交备忘录后，就移步到大同皇朝餐馆进行记者招待会及移交备忘录给政党的仪式。
以下为我在仪式上的讲词：
1. We have today, on the 60th Anniversary of the Batang Kali Massacre, submitted a memorandum to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. This Memorandum was received by the British High Commissioner.
2. In the Memorandum, the Action Committee Condemning the Batang Kali Massacre urges Her Majesty to assert her vast influence on the UK Government to act honourably. We are demanding a thorough and independent investigation via a public inquiry on the Batang Kali Massacre be conducted as a matter of the utmost urgency.

3. We have compelling evidence to prove that the British army committed a brutal massacre of 24 unarmed civilians at Batang Kali on 11 and 12 December 1948. This evidence includes but not limited to the eye-witnesses statements and the confession of soldiers involved under oath. However, we know that the United Kingdom’s official records state that these 24 unarmed civilian were trying to escape whilst under the soldiers’ custody. These civilians were later alleged as “bandits” and “terrorists”. We strongly and firmly deny the UK Government’s official account.

4. The UK Government’s official conclusion was reached with an absolutely incomplete investigation. There is no statement taken from the Malaysian eye-witnesses and their relatives; nor is there any process of exhumation and forensic examination. As such, while the non-UK official communities are clearly aware of the stubborn fact that the Batang Kali Massacre has indeed taken place, we opine that the most convenience forum to find out the historical truth is to go through a public inquiry under the UK Inquiries Act, 2005.

5. The proposed public inquiry must be empowered to make recommendations to expeditiously address the consequences of the Massacre such as meeting the demands of the surviving families, namely an official apology, financial compensation and construction of a memorial for the victims. This public inquiry ought to be led by senior judge of UK or European Union.

6. Thus far, our experience in dealing with the UK Government often met with silence and passive reply. We must continue to assert influence and pressure from various angles on the UK Government for purpose of addressing this historical wrong.

7. We are lobbying the Malaysian Members of Parliament and Political Parties. They have their network and connection with their counterparts within the Commonwealth countries, in particular the UK MP and Political Parties. We hope to woo the hearts and sympathy of the politicians because it is an integral part of our struggle to rectify the continuing injustice.

8. We must have the continuous and unreserved support from the local and international NGOs, which form the core of a civic society. In any civic society, there is an absolute prohibition of torture and the right not to be arbitrarily deprived of life. The Batang Kali Massacre is a clear violation of this right. We must express our sincere gratitude toward 553 Malaysian NGOs and Societies which have endorsed their full support on the cause of seeking redress for the massacre victims.

9. We need local and international media to help in our struggle. Our voice is lesser in power if compared to the mighty State. The investigative coverage given by the media will create appropriate public pressure on the UK Government to accede to our request.

10. Last but not the least, we must thank the surviving families and their relatives, for their patient for the past 60 years. They have told me that they are prepared to forgive the inhumane act of the soldiers, but they will not forget the brutal killings of their love ones. They are determined to seek a full explanation of the reasons for what occurred along with a meaningful apology and redress for the surviving family members. The Action Committee Condemning the Batang Kali Massacre and its committee members as well as volunteers are with you.

Thank you.

哀悼党的楷模 - 李成材同志

noreply@blogger.com (郭義民 Quek Ngee Meng) — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 05:32:00 +0000

今早接到电话与短讯，成材同志去世了！这是一个晴天霹雳的恶讯，让我今早上的心情直跌到谷底。

早在80年代末与90年初，我开始接触马华活动与翻阅政治新闻，我就知道李成材这一位马华/马青教育局的苦干型党员。有不少和我年龄相近的党员就因为参与成材所推动的教育局活动，被他对教育的执着与对党的忠诚所感染，选择在大专毕业后加入马华的工作队伍。

与成材有着面对面接触，更多的互动是自2004年11月，我全面投入参与马华终身学习运动起。

成材深信推广阅读的重要，因此我们曾一起为雪州教师举办3天2夜的引导学生阅读计划。

成材对数据和文字的认真也让人钦佩。在举办马华九大政纲时，他对马华在教育方面的贡献的文献说明，非常认真与细心、并要求尽善尽美。相信这是因为他受党委托执行党的教育工作，因此，对于这份责任尽其所能，全力以赴的完成。

成材也展现个人的魄力，扛起田野调查式的收集全国1200多间华小校地的调查。我与几名律师朋友曾一起协助校对与审核调查所收集的全国华小校地资料。当时我曾对他说：“只有你亲自出马，才能把全国华小的实况资料一一收集与分析。这工作不是一般人所能做的。”

我亲睹成材对华文教育状况了如指掌的熟悉，我感受到他对发展华文教育的执着，我也对他默默地为马华作出实际的贡献而肃然起敬。

成材同志，你是我参与马华公会的楷模。你虽然走了，但你认真、实事求是、忠诚为党、不计较官职与党职的态度与精神，是塑造一个强盛马华公会的基石。我会以你的精神为个人生涯发展的指标。

在韩新传播学院教书

noreply@blogger.com (郭義民 Quek Ngee Meng) — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 11:04:00 +0000

与有缘结下师生缘的二甲学生的合照

时间过得真快。转眼间，我自9月在韩新新闻传播学院执教的日子已在上星期五步入尾声。随着一星期的考试周，我在2008年第3学期的执教生涯正式闭幕。

面对着约50名二甲班的学生，我尝试将我所知道关于联邦宪法与新闻法规的知识和这些学生们分享。抛开之前的演说经验，这是我第一次长时间及有规划的教授两门法律课程。这在耐力、规划、沟通等各方面，都是一种挑战。

希望经过3个月的分享与相处，二甲班的韩新学生能对基本的联邦宪法与新闻法规有初步的认识。我相信有些学生还挺喜欢这看似沉闷，但却与生活息息相关的法律课程。

预祝二甲班学生考试顺利。

这两门课的课程纲要：
http://tommyqnm.googlepages.com/ConstitutionalLaw-CourseOutline.pdf

http://tommyqnm.googlepages.com/MediaLaw-CourseOUtline.pdf

马华中央党职排阵的3个讯息

noreply@blogger.com (郭義民 Quek Ngee Meng) — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 08:26:00 +0000

马华总会长翁诗杰在星期二所公布的中央党职排阵，所产生的回响反应不一。在惊讶、赞许、批评声音交杂中，这个名单传达了3个明确与清晰的讯息：

（1）改革的讯息：强调要改革党组织的虚胀、解决幽灵党员及假党员问题的决心。虽然过去几年陆续处理已经逝世的党员名单，并与国民登记局的记录对照核查，但是这样的复审机制进度缓慢。因此，这一次由两名年轻领袖出任组织秘书和副组织秘书，希望他们展现最大的魄力和执行力，解决那些充斥着马华各级组织的结构问题。新人虽然没有太多的经验，因此也不会有积累多年的旧包袱，所以也可以下更大的决心进行革新。

（2）不粉饰太平：显然的这个阵容告诉我们，翁诗杰并不粉饰太平。毫不掩饰的，就把马华不同理念、不同路线的派系及领袖之间的矛盾完全浮上台面。没有选择安抚某派某系，或是为了宣示党内上下一片祥和气氛而以安插分配职务的方式掩饰既有的矛盾。如此的党职安排，确实赤裸裸地把马华派系间的矛盾呈现出来，但是也让党员思考及必须面对这样的事实，即在不粉饰太平的情况下，翁诗杰如何领导马华继续迈进。

（3）重视道德：有道德缺陷的领袖将不会委派成为党领导组织的前线。这是翁诗杰为马华党组织立下的道德准绳。

翁诗杰时代所掀开的第一章，确实是遵守他本身的竞选承诺，那就是改革党组织。改革必须抛开旧包袱，敢于开创新途径，才能带来一番新气象。

继续播制《你怎么说》

noreply@blogger.com (郭義民 Quek Ngee Meng) — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 05:03:00 +0000

《你怎么说》在没有预先通知之下，突然停播。

新闻部长阿末沙比里解释这是因为节目收视率低而腰斩，副部长陈莲花则说这是因为RTM2要进行节目重组，所以把节目停掉。

部长说该节目在周日黄金档只有18至19万的观众是浪费钱。可是国营电视台不应该以收视率作为决定节目的命运的主要考量。《你怎么说》提供辩论与探讨社会时事课题的平台，部长本身也是赞成与曾经参与辩论的人。而陈莲花副部长所说的也无法让人信服，毕竟若要进行节目重组，应该是要事先规划和铺排，而非仓促之下先把现有的节目去掉再决定下一步行动。因此我认为这个节目的停播，必然是政治的压力。

这个突如其来的决定，围绕着几件事情而发生，也凸显了国内当前的局势和执政者所面对的问题。
（一）停止《你怎么说》这个国营电视台唯一的华语清谈节目，新闻部已经失去收集民意的管道，尤其是华社的意见。不仅是政府没有办法从中了解民意，也使得人民无法了解广大社会的意见。了解民意是一个趋势，既然没有办法通过电视了解，许多人就转向其他资讯管道如互联网甚至是手机短讯。308大选就印证了愈是压制民意和新闻讯息，就愈让人民想要获得资讯。

（二）《你怎么说》两位主持人林猷荃和李晓蕙以及制作单位都是认真尽责的做节目。持平而论，《你怎么说》节目兼顾朝野不同立场，甚而有时因为如此而导致节目出现沉闷的情况（让不同立场的人有平等发言的机会）。

我曾上过这个节目多次，了解到他们秉持着节目不偏颇的大方向，主持人也发挥了应该要有的客观及开放的态度主持节目，并传达政府资讯。可是如今停播的决定，无论是是那个决策单位或负责人下达的指令，都是抱着一种鸵鸟心态。

今天没有了免付费节目《你怎么说》，喜欢观看清谈节目的观众可能就会转看付费的节目。而这些付费电视台往往以刺激收视率为制作节目的主要考量点，使得节目内容在客观和包容性上有所偏差。那些以为把节目停掉就可以杜绝民意散播、自欺欺人的做法，不过是让人民少了一个接受公正与开放资讯的管道。

（三）贸然仓促及在欠缺合理的情况下把《你怎么说》停播，必然让国阵与成员党付出代价。这个决定也看出国阵/UMNO决策者保守与落后的心态，更重要的是未能从教训中反省学习。真理是越辩越明，民意必须要尊重。试图消音或压制，都是不敢面对客观事实的鸵鸟心态，也阻碍了国家社会进步开放的步伐。

感谢《你怎么说》的主持人及制作单位一直认真并秉持着公正客观的立场制作这个节目。我认为这个节目不可以被停止而必须继续，并且要做得更好。

注：

当今大马：“收视率远较其他语文清谈节目更高，部长腰斩《你怎么说》理由遭质疑”
http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/92514

独立新闻在线：“与各语言清谈节目不相上下，《你怎么说？》收视率不低”http://www.merdekareview.com/news.php?n=8043

接受成绩，加快转型步伐

noreply@blogger.com (郭義民 Quek Ngee Meng) — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 16:38:00 +0000

从下午3点左右协助马华党选的计票过程。从计算中委选票开始（63名候选人选出25人），经过冗长且费神的过程后，再到副总会长，接着就是压轴的署理总会长及总会长的计票工作。

开票结果有意料中事，有的则是心中已经有所准备的结果。翁诗杰的中选是意料中事。因为马华处于非常时期，我们需要像翁诗杰这样的非常之人才可以让马华从谷中弹跳出来。而翁诗杰捍卫华社权利的形象也深入民心。因此，他是掌舵马华的最佳人选。加上昨晚看NTV7蔡锐明的总会长候选人政见发表，内容沉闷而毫无创意的政见，让人更坚定的支持翁诗杰。

选举成绩让人欣慰的是新一代的马华干部如李伟杰、何国忠、颜炳寿、李成材、王乃志、尤绰韬、黄日升、颜天禄、廖润强及卢诚国等人都高票跨入中委门槛，他们也将是马华走向转型的干将。

当然，我必须接受黄家泉落选的事实。他是一位有经验的团队工作者，若他当选马华转型的步伐将更一致。但是，他落选了。

作风强硬、主见意识极强的蔡细历在选后向媒体说他会与翁诗杰配合一起转型，但愿如此。毕竟陷入最低潮的马华已经没有内耗的本钱。

党选已经落幕，转型工作必须立即开始。我愿与这个新领导团队一起重振马华，富国强民。

“圆起圆步”篆书结业课程展欢迎词

noreply@blogger.com (郭義民 Quek Ngee Meng) — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 02:56:00 +0000

我的习作-“奋进”

马华终身学习在10月10日到12日一连3天在马华大厦底层的拉曼学院延续教育中心举办“圆起圆步”篆书课程结业展。我也参加了这个篆书密集课程，3个月来跟着老师和一班同学一起学习篆书。从对于书法毫无认识到今天略懂一些欣赏书法的知识,这课程加强了我对中华文化根源的了解，也是在推动终身学习工作上一个充电的机会，并开拓了我进入文化艺术世界的一扇门。虽然文化艺术属于冷门的活动，然而在未来的日子，我仍然会持续推动中华文化有关的课程及活动，因为在忙碌于生活找生计的同时，也不可以忽略了人文素养。

以下为我在书法展开幕礼的欢迎词：
马华终身学习举办书法课程，目的是推广人文艺术活动，并希望通过鼓励学习书法而认识中华文化，加强华社弘扬传统文化的热忱。文化艺术活动在马来西亚相对的冷门，因此推广工作必须从不同层面与通过不同的活动切入，以动态与多元的活动吸引更多人一起参与其盛。在成功举办为期三个月的书法篆书密集课程后，马华终身学习决定举办结业展览，通过展览学员的习作以及配合一连串的书法活动，让书法从一个人的静态学习成为充满互动与有趣的学习。

学习书法普遍上被定位为休闲型活动，然而书法乃是蕴藏数千年中华文化的精华瑰宝，书法的形体与经典作品展现了中华历史与文化的深邃，因此学习书法是走入浩瀚中华文化的一扇门。

我们常说中华文化渊源流传数千年，博大精深，产生了许多思想哲学及经典文学史著。要进入中华文化的大观园，有的人从四书五经入门，有的人浸淫在经典文学和诗词的世界，我认为书法也是一个可以亲近中华文化的好方法。比起研读经典或是文学作品这些要求深厚语文水平的，书法比较“平民化”，因为只要会写中文，以及肯下功夫，基本上就可以写书法，而不需要高层次的文化语文要求。

学习书法都从临帖书法大师的经典著作开始。在临帖过程中，依着大师的笔墨一笔一字的学习，除了熏陶于文字艺术之美外，更是一个向经典、大师学习的过程，并从中领略其思想智慧，提升个人的人文素养。

三个月以来，这群来自不同工作领域的学员们跟着郭温和导师一笔一划的从基础开始学习。他们从书法门外汉到今天逐步领略书法的文化脉络，尤其掌握篆书这个悠远的古文字体，并有信心的展现自己的作品，这印映了只要认真用心学习，任何一个人都可以写书法。

展览学员作品也是希望传达书法艺术展览不仅局限于大师名家，只要认真学习并有信心，就可以呈献学习的成果，进而鼓励更多人学习书法，打破学习书法是艰涩难学的迷思。

这项展览展出了130余幅由篆书密集课程班18名学员所写的作品。这些作品都是学员学习过程的见证，也展现了学习所得的成就与自信。

感谢开幕嘉宾高等教育部副部长何国忠博士、现场挥毫的书法家李永和先生及余斯福先生、郭温和导师及筹备此项展览的工委会成员。

马华政治定位：尊重基本人权价值

noreply@blogger.com (郭義民 Quek Ngee Meng) — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 09:33:00 +0000

奕翰在本部落格提出许多对于马华及国内政经发展的看法，有几点我是认同的，这包括:

（一）马华在过去50年中，确实是捍卫着华社的政经文教的权利。以贴近现实情况而言，马华并没有在华社权益上冲锋陷阵，直捣龙门，反而是扮演着守龙门的角色。守龙门的角色，也许不是队伍中最耀眼的一员，可是绝对是不可或缺的一角。马华坚持守卫着任何可能侵蚀华社权利的大门，因此无论是经过了多少内外的政治经济挑战，华族在这片土地上，仍然可以在政经文教各个方面都有持续稳健的发展，并延续传承文化。

（二）我们应把华文教育归为全民教育，把印度人的贫穷问题当作是国家全民的问题，把马来人的社会问题视为全民必须共同解决的挑战。只有在这样的情景出现，才是符合全民追求的目标，这也是马华创党人陈祯禄的愿景。

当年制定宪法都是由各族群的精英代表各自的族群谈判协商，他们都背负着为自己族群权利争取最有利地位的责任。而负责起草宪法的几位宪法专家也了解强调平衡各族群的权益只是过渡性的安排，而更关键的长远建国路线图则是重视个人基本自由与权利。

我们必须努力朝往尊重人权与个人基本自由的价值，因为这里头存在一个核心，那就是向善、追求自由的普世价值。

发生在上两周的引用ISA逮捕记者陈云清的事件，获得社会人士朝野各界的回响，大家都共同鞭鞑驳斥逮捕陈云清的行动与当局所给予的荒谬理由。在陈云清的事件上，我们都可以感同身受，是因为一个执行任务的专业记者竟然受到对付，这犹如给新闻言论自由下了一道符咒，破坏了原有的空间。基本上，ISA已被滥用，也没有执法标准了。这也愈发突显执法当局对言论自由的极度不尊重与多方钳制。也许像你我一样在部落格写一些感想看法的人，也会是下一个被捕者。

同样地，郭素沁被捕，也是显示了我们执法当局的不专业与滥权。只是因为一篇报章的报道和引述一两个人的谈话，未调查整件事情的真相以前，就贸贸然的动用ISA条文把人扣押。

执法单位的执行偏差与滥权等让人诟病的形象，也一再在年度的总稽核司报告书中一一曝露，林甘短片的爆发更是显现了我国司法界的荒谬。年复一年，贪污滥权问题犹存，也让人民对国阵政府失去信心。这些让人诟病厌恶的事件，基本上和族群肤色无关，这都是全民感到反感，共同唾弃的。因此，马华在这些事件上的立场应该是明确没有妥协之处，并且应该以全民的诉求作为政治斗争的方向。

（三）基本上，我的立场是支持马华留在国阵，以维持一个良性的两线制。可是，阿都拉必须赶紧下台。他近期的决定与领导已显示他无法有效管理这个国家，比如对国阵州政府、公务员包括警察等失去控制的威信。而动用ISA抓人是明显没有经过深思熟虑而仓促作出的决定。昨天槟州13个区会挺阿都拉担任巫统主席的新闻，也似乎告诉了大家阿都拉是为了年底的巫统党选而引用ISA抓人以求自保。他不惜作出对国阵友党不利的决定，因为党选及己益，让国阵成员党陷入为难及无法哑忍的窘境。

马华总会长黄家定两周前在柔佛代表大会上就强烈反驳阿都拉说马华及华人不可能因为别人要我们闭嘴不说，我们就会乖乖噤声。日前黄家定也明确表明马华不会承担那些不是由国阵成员党集体决策的政策，也就是马华不必要承担“白狗偷吃，黑狗当灾”的责任。因此，若阿都拉继续领导，马华很难与巫统继续真诚的合作；我也大胆预言，国阵必然会瓦解。

It’s time to quit as BN head, Abdullah

noreply@blogger.com (郭義民 Quek Ngee Meng) — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 13:50:00 +0000

On my way back from office last night, I received sms news: “Sin Chew Daily News reporter Tan Hoon Cheng arrested at her home in Bukit Mertajam at 8:30pm”. She was later confirmed to be detained under ISA.

It is widely believed that Tan Hoon Cheng was arrested due to her honest and verbatim reporting of the infamous “Chinese squats (tumpang) in this country” statement uttered by an ultra extremist Ahmad Ismail.

I received many sms later. All cried about foul play and abuse of power of the authority. Members of the public were absolutely shocked and dissatisfied with the arrest of a reporter, who was merely performed her duty diligently and professionally. Any reporter, regardless of race and religion who has been assigned with tasks, will report the statement made by speakers of the event. Using the standard of the excuse given for the arrest, it would only mean that more journalists who carry out their jobs dutifully could be detained under the ISA. Many reporters are living in fear, wary about they may be the next target of ISA. Perhaps, this is the scare tactic used by those who are desperate. Only desperate men will act unreasonably and recklessly, and even resort to the extreme measures.

A leader who is unable to command his/her subordinate is considered as a desperate man. For example, after Ahmad Ismail’s ultra statement was made public, the Prime Minister and the UMNO President Abdullah Badawi did instruct Ahmad Ismail to explain and apologise. However, Abdullah changed his mind and softened his tone later after chairing the Penang UMNO State Liaison meeting—as he witnessed Ahmad, the local UMNO strongman was backed staunchly by the 12 UMNO Divisions. Being the leader of Barisan Nasional, Abdullah has placed his fellow partners within the coalition in a hostile position. In struggling to survive for the remaining 2 years within UMNO, it seems that Abdullah has chosen to sacrifice the interest of Barisan Nasional as a whole.

Despite his later effort to punish Ahmad Ismail by suspending the latter’s membership of UMNO for 3 years, his good deed was buried altogether with the blunder that he made in arresting the innocent reporter.

Tan Hoon Cheng was released today, after MCA President Ong Ka Ting intervened in this matter. The public was relieved. However, image of Barisan Nasional administration has suffered an irreparable damage. Some people told me that nothing could be worst than having Pak Lah to head the administration and they started to consider Pakatan Rakyat as a realistic alternative.

Besides being an indecisive leader, the public simply could not take Abdullah’s words seriously. His word cannot be bonded. Few incidents such as he assured that Parliament would not dissolve in near future but he changed his mind just the next day; his Minister publicly denied an increase in petrol price and the next day he overruled by allowing the highest hike of petrol price. As a Prime Minister, his credibility has been severely tarnished.

After suffering a crushing defeat in the political tsunami of March 8th, I was relieved when Abdullah conceded to a 2-year power transition plan, i.e. by June 2010. He claims that he has many pending jobs to be completed such as reforming the judiciary, setting up the IPCMC and implementing the Economic Corridor projects.

3 months passed after the countdown begins; the ordinary folks have been experiencing the worst inflation and, with no salary increment. Moreover, the public is pessimistic over the economic outlook. Most are living in a very difficult time. The Economic Corridor projects are simply a far-fetched idea that is impossible to relief the immediate hardship suffered by the people.

As a matter of fact, it will be wiser for Abdullah if he choose not to talk about judiciary reform and IPCMC from now on. He has resorted to an evil law ISA to detain an innocent reporter and DAP MP Teresa Kok without putting them into trial. Until now, we are still uncertain as to the supposed guilt of Teresa Kok given that the Masjid and residents have refuted any involvement of Teresa Kok on the issue of azan matter. In fact, Teresa has denied firmly any involvement on azan matter and intended to sue Khir Toyo, the maker of the allegation. Just like many others, I am not convinced on the excuse given to detain Teresa.

Detention without trial under ISA is definitely an insult to the judiciary system. It brushes aside the adjudicate function played by the judiciary, a core mechanism for a democracy country. Being a lawyer and an officer of court, I firmly disagree with the use of such draconian law.

ISA gave absolute power of arrestment and detention to the police. It is a Pandora box which allows the floodgate of power abuse. Even the implementation of the so-called IPCMC, if it could be materialized, would not be able to curtail any police power exercisable under ISA.

After the arrests made on Friday night, I can see no valid reason for Abdullah Badawi to remain as the head of Barisan Nasional and the Prime Minister. His prolong staying as leader of the coalition party will only disintegrate the entire Barisan Nasional. Abdullah should step down with immediate effect. He should be replaced by someone who is more focus, decisive and can lead the government with direction.

马华改革比退出国阵更关键

noreply@blogger.com (郭義民 Quek Ngee Meng) — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 01:00:00 +0000

308大选，马华遭受最大的重创。而选民在不久前落幕的峇东埔补选中，仍然拒绝国阵候选人。面对近月来的重大政治变化，一些时事评论人、马华同志纷纷要求与提出马华退出国阵的言论。

马华及巫统结盟不是这一两年，也不是近一两届大选的事。历史根源要追溯到56年前：1952年吉隆坡市议会选举。当时雪兰莪马华有两个选择，一是加入由Dato’ Onn领导标榜多元族群政党的独立党(IMP)；二是与走单元族群路线的巫统结盟。李孝式领导的雪州马华基于单一族群更能有效代表华人，加上当时IMP的多元族群路线还模糊不清，因此最后马华选择了吉隆坡巫统。这个结盟模式也一直保持到今天。

这一段历史的真谛在于当年和巫统结盟是最有效捍卫华社权益的方式。如今，站在这个基础上，马华与巫统及其他成员党共处的国阵是否还有空间让马华继续捍卫及弘扬华社权益？这空间是否只有在剥夺马来人或巫统既有的利益，即是典型的零和游戏规则才能开拓？

想要开拓新局面，就必须先熟悉了解现有局面的根源。 1957年独立宪法赋予种族政治舞台的条文，主要是第153条的马来人与土著特殊地位及第4条的回教是国教。当时制定宪法的5名英联邦最顶尖的法律、宪法专家都认为协助马来人在经济教育及就业方面的扶弱政策是过渡性的。当时的副首相敦拉萨曾以口头建议方式，向宪法制定委员会建议扶弱政策条文只维持15年；同时，有关条文也只放在宪法的过渡性篇章，不具永久性的法律地位；过渡性篇章的条文在简单多数票（simple majority）的情况下就可以删除。但是，这已成为历史。无论如何，宪法第153条的马来人特殊地位经已是放在永久性篇章，任何有关更改必须获得超过2/3的多数票及州苏丹们一致同意。

制定宪法的法律专家们都强调在经过过渡期协助弱势族群之后，新兴成立的马来亚必须迈向追求基本自由的普世价值，这包括人身自由、人人平等、言论、集会及结社自由、宗教自由、教育权利，这些都涵盖在宪法第2篇。

从另一个角度来看，在建国过渡时期我们注重的是平衡各族群的集体利益，而长远目标则应该是追求个人的权益，也就是人民的权益与愿景。马华总会长黄家定曾在国会演词中强调几个重点：肃贪、成立独立司法委员会与司法改革、教育、经济、社会治安、非穆斯林的宗教信仰与两性课题等，这些都是赋权予人民的基本自由。

马华应该从现在起突显它在捍卫人民权利益的政治立场。这包括说服国阵友党们，尤其是巫统，贯彻这些维持人民权利的基本立场。若巫统领袖们有所改变，但改革速度不够快，并在大选失败下野，马华应承担作为巫统伙伴的义务，一起与巫统成为在野党。可是，若巫统并没有在贯彻人民基本自由权利方面作出改变，这就违背了马华创办人及宪法制定人的初衷。马华也因此不必执著于履行当初订下作为巫统的政治伙伴的义务，也可以自此与巫统分道扬镳。

但是，更重要的是，在还未要求别人改革以前，马华党领导与同志们也应该先问自己是否已经作出改变？反思自己是否有赋予人民基本自由的政治意愿？是否已经迈向贯彻“全民共治，各族分享”目标？是否坚持走向落实“民主、民权、民生、民愿”这四个价值？当自己还没有站稳改革步伐，还未见到改革的曙光，就很难以相等的标准要求别人改变或作出改革。

对马华新领导人的要求，不仅仅是思考或争论留在国阵与否而已，更重要的是必须做到改革马华，把马华引领到一个具有战略地位与前瞻性的方向。

所以，我认为，马华改革比退出国阵更关键。

以国阵章程惩罚巫统/阿末

noreply@blogger.com (郭義民 Quek Ngee Meng) — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 07:57:00 +0000

从法律观点而言，阿末的“寄居论”已触犯煽动法令1948年的第3（1条）条款，即质疑马来西亚华人于联邦宪法第3篇所赋予的公民权地位与权益。阿末较后解释他是在讲述历史，没有质疑华人公民权的意思。煽动法令的罚刑属严格责任(Strict Liability)，涉及发表煽动言论者的意图完全不被考量（见第3（3）条款），检控官只需要证明阿末的言论具有煽动性的趋向，就可以证明煽动罪名成立。

若要确定阿末的言论也不难，因为他是在群众大会发表“寄居论”。只要传召目击证人，包括在场的副首相纳吉，就可以佐证及还原星洲日报刊登阿末的煽动言论。

煽动法令属于规范社会操守的刑事法令，阿末在法律面前，人人平等的原则，必须面对刑罚。同时，阿末所属的巫统，也是国阵成员党之一。一般上，依社团法令注册的团体都制定一套规范会员的行为守则。然而，国阵章程并无管制成员党底下会员的机制。

国阵的最高领导架构是最高理事会，由各成员党分别派出3名代表所组成。除了涉及成员党的纪律与诠释章程条文课题，只要简单多数票议决，其余的事项最高理事会的决定必须是一致的。每个成员党只能够拥有一票（见国阵章程12条）。换言之，国阵章程赋予14名成员平等地位，绝无一党独大的架构，除非成员党自我矮化或边缘化。

国阵最高理事会有权针对任何损及国阵整体利益的成员党采取纪律行动，这包括冻结或开除会员籍（见国阵章程14条）。国阵最高理事会曾于1977年开除回教党，2003年陈清凉与林武灿在槟城州议会弃权表决事件，当时首相以国阵最高理事会有权力向马华采取纪律行动来促使马华领导层必须对陈、林两人采取纪律行动。陈、林过后被冻结党籍长达7个月。

阿末的“寄居论”以及煽动巫统州领袖侮辱成员党领袖已严重损害国阵作为代表全民福祉利益的政治组织及形象，巫统必须对阿末采取纪律行动。若巫统不顾整体国阵的利益，超过三分一的其他成员党可联合要求召开特别会议，依据国阵章程，以纪律采取行动对付巫统。

国阵章程虽然精简，但也提供了一套解决争议与矛盾的机制。也因为国阵具有解决争端的机制，它才能务实与有效的自1974年以来凝聚了多个不同理念的成员党。国阵并不像民联那样组织松散或没有一套针对成员党的纪律争议的处理机制。

所以，若因为巫统没有对付阿末而要求马华与民政退出国阵，是一个本末倒置的论点。现有国阵与民联的对立恰好是促成两线制雏形逐渐成体的好时机，为更完善的民主体制奠定良好根基。马华退出国阵将摧毁两线制的基础。

国民的焦点不应模糊。谁犯错，就应该惩罚谁；不管是针对阿末、巫统主席或是巫统本身。也不应该把现有的争端解决机制搁置一旁，情绪化的以阿末“寄居论”事件来草率鲁莽退出国阵。

丑陋的巫统竞选伎俩

noreply@blogger.com (郭義民 Quek Ngee Meng) — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 11:14:00 +0000

巫统在峇东埔补选的其中一张文宣

峇东埔补选对国阵确实是一个极大震撼。对我而言，不是因为公正党获胜而让马华同志感到惊讶，也非因为安华的多数票增加而感到无所适从。让我深感疑虑震撼的有两件事：
（一）在峇东埔补选期间，马华在打击安华方面的宣传策略，还是围绕在他十年以前掌权时，尤其是他担任财政部长及教育部长时代对华教及华社作出的不利偏颇政策，以突显安华为了迎合选民而说出不同的话，是典型的双面人。但是这一次的补选，选民对这样的老调显然已经反感。同时，协助国阵助选的党同志告诉我，安华无论是在马来选区或是华人社群，都说一样的话。他向马来群众说明优秀的华人也应该如马来人一样可以到玛拉就读。因此，选民也亲耳听到安华一致的言辞。

有位马华同志告诉我说，听了安华的一番跨族群的演讲后，也很难叫华裔选民不把票投给他。相对的，马华的宣传策略并没有因为３０８冲击而改变，在竞选期间还是以餐会歌舞等娱乐节目来吸引群众。选举就是要听政党领袖及候选人阐述政纲及愿景，而歌唱娱乐节目随时都可以打开电视观看。也难怪马华会沿用同样的竞选模式，因为区会的领导层、地方领袖，还是同样一批人。

（二）在面对巫统使用极端、以粗糙的种族性诉求，马华并没有及时反击，也许是担心影响选情，或以为这只是说给马来选民听而可以在华人群众中筑起一道围墙，以为言论可以隔离。这些丑陋的玩弄族群情绪的政治双面伎俩，已很明显的被选民唾弃。
马华应该站稳本身的立场，在要求自己不强调种族民粹主义时，也必须立即反击巫统使用丑陋的种族煽情诉求。不管是面对选举期间所使用的政治语言，还是在首相及副首相面前，也必须保持立场一贯性。一贯性的站稳立场，是华社对马华的基本要求。

Upholding The Value of Human Dignity

noreply@blogger.com (郭義民 Quek Ngee Meng) — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 05:33:00 +0000

On 20th Aug morning, we had a Launching Ceremony of the Signature Campaign Condemning the Batang Kali Massacre held in the Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall. As a Head of the Signature Campaign and one of the volunteer lawyers involved in the legal suit against the British Government, I urge members of public could come forward and give us a strong support by signing the endorsement letter. The month-long nationwide Signature Campaign will end on 20th Sept. All the endorsement letters collected will be sent to Britain, as an evidence that show Malaysians' stance on this case.

Below is the speech I delivered in the Launching Ceremony:

Upholding The Value of Human Dignity

1. We can easily find out the story of the Batang Kali Massacre in bookstore or internet. For example:-

a. In a pictorial history book authored by Lt Col (R) Mohd Azzam Mohd Hanif Ghows entitled “The Malayan Emergency Revisited 1948 – 1960”, we learn about the atrocity committed by the Malayan Communist Party. But at page 55, there is an account of killing committed by British Army in Batang Kali on 12 December 1948. It stated that “suspicions remained about a possible government whitewash. Indeed later, in 1969 (should be 1970), following the international outcry over the My Lai massacre in Vietnam, claims in British newspapers forced a new investigation, but a change in government in Britain led to the enquiry being aborted, despite sworn statements from participants and a lone survivor that a deliberate massacre had taken place.”

b. Similar suspicious can be found in Wikipedia, the website encyclopedia.

Therefore, unless and until the truth is revealed, the Batang Kali Massacre will always haunt the reputation and goodwill of the British Army, if there is any. As Malaysians, we have a duty to find out the truth and seek for justice for those who had sacrrified and suffered during the time of terror.

2. Together with other voluntary lawyers, I went to the National Archives of UK. We discovered the sworn statements of confession made by ex-Scot Guards, the British Army who involved in the Batang Kali Massacre, in 1970. They revealed the following essential evidence:

a. the patrol had prior instruction to wipe out the village;
b. the men were shot without trying to escape; and
c. there was a conspiracy to mislead the inquiry.

Despite the investigation carried out in 1970 revealed contradictory evidences, the Conservative Party Government aborted the investigation barely within 10 days after they have won the general election. We are not convinced with the reasons given by the Tory Government.

3. Aborting an investigation in such a hasty manner would only give rise to more doubt. There is no dispute that the 24 victims were unarmed and they were killed by the British Army. Based on the confession made by the ex-Scots Guards, a massacre had indeed taken place. It is a crime against humanity.

4. Let’s be clear. We are not questioning the legality of the Emergency or the guerilla warfare itself. However, we cannot tolerate any atrocity committed by those who were armed and asserted brutality on the innocent and unarmed civilians.

5. We have no doubt that there were inquiry initiated by the British Government over the Batang Kali massacre, but we strongly believed that certain quarters had an ulterior intention to conceal and cloud the truth, and misled the public including the international community.

6. The families of the massacre victims have no intention to take revenge by seeking criminal punishment on those soldiers involved in the brutal killing. But the families want justice to be done. These include the following:

a. the massacre victims were not bandits or terrorists. They were fellow Malayan residents who have contributed toward the economic wealth of our nation. Their family members want an apology from the UK Government;

b. the families are seeking monetary compensation for loss of their bread winners during the massacre and hardship that the families had suffered after the killing; and

c. a memorial to be built for the massacre victims because their unattended bodies had been remained exposed for more than a week. There is no value of human dignity accorded to the victims.

7. These are the sublime values that the Malaysians and younger generation are striving for. A value that respect human dignity, a value that true and honesty are foundation of a civic and progressive society, and a value that wrongful perpetrator will be held accountable. There is no time limitation restricting these values to flourish, nor is there any standard variation for these values to be upheld in different part of the worlds.

8. The Action Committee Condemning the Batang Kali massacre had submitted a petition to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II via the British High Commission on 25 March 2008. There is no response from the UK Government.

9. As such, we need to press on. The Action Committee is mainly made up by the Ulu Yam residents. To the British authority, the Committee may not be strong enough to even warrant a response from the UK Government. In order to intensify the Committee’s effort in seeking justice for massacre victims, the Committee needs support from more Malaysia NGOs and Societies, irrespective of races, religions and background, so long as they subscribe to the values that the Committee is striving for.

10. This is the reason that we are organizing a signature campaign by Malaysian Societies and NGOs to condemn and censure the Batang Kali Massacre. We hope to achieve the following objectives during this signature campaign:
a. uncover the truth and rectify an historical injustice; and

b. enhance a value of upholding human dignity within the Malaysian society.

11. We must give our special thanks to journalists who had relentlessly searching for the truth of this Batang Kali massacre i.e. the “People” Newspaper in 1970 and BBC Documentary “In Cold Blood” in 1992. Local journalists deserved special thanks as well because they have stirred public awareness on this historical injustice within our society so that younger generation can pursue further in seeking justice for the massacre victims.

12. We wish to express our sincere gratitude to the Societies and NGOs who have affixed their signature on the endorsement letters, in support of this signature campaign. We must also thank the ruling and opposition political parties which have provided the necessary backing to this exercise of seeking justice for the massacre victims.

一场尊重人权价值的推动

noreply@blogger.com (郭義民 Quek Ngee Meng) — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 11:37:00 +0000

今天上午举行了《追讨英军罪行·全国社团盖章签名运动》的推介礼。我负责协调这个签名运动，目的是吁请国人支持"追讨英军罪行工委会"为死难者家属向英国政府讨回公道，并通过签名盖章展现国民与民间组织的立场。这是一个由当地社区居民以及许多自愿义务人士与团体发起的运动，并将在9月20日活动截止后把所收集的支持书送到英国。

以下为我在推介礼的演讲摘要：

身为较年轻的一辈，我们欲了解60年前24名乌鲁音村民在峇冬加里被屠杀的惨案并不难。只要通过输入关键词：“峇冬加里屠杀惨案”就可以在书本与网站世界略知这是怎么一回事。

无论是书本、报章与网络的资料，它们都有一个共同点，即质疑英军宣称死者是恶匪或恐怖份子是否属实。在英国与本地媒体充分发挥揭露弊端与历史冤案的努力下，峇冬加里屠杀惨案的真实情节逐渐还原。1970年的英国报章报导、1992年的英国广播电视纪录片、英军亲口承认屠杀惨案的宣誓书、屠杀惨案唯一生还者与目击者的口供，工委会律师团在英国国家档案局所收寻的资料，都显示屠杀惨案确实发生。

英国政府承认英军杀害24名手无寸铁的平民，但英政府唯一合法化屠杀的理由是这24名平民尝试逃跑。但，自1970年起揭发的证据，我们有很强的理由不相信英政府的藉口。我们能证明英军不只有意图的屠杀平民，也刻意误导较后成立的调查委员会，蒙蔽惨案事实的真相。很明显的，英国政府已犯下侵犯人权与生命尊严的罪刑。

《追讨英军罪行工委会》的目标明确：绝不能容忍强权者向手无寸铁的平民实施暴行。我们不否认英国政府曾针对峇冬加里屠杀惨案展开调查，但我们相信有一小撮有权位者刻意掩盖事实的真相，企图误导国际社会。

据我所知，死者家属无意向谋害他们亲人的英国士兵采取报复行动。但死者家属坚决向英国政府讨回公道。这包括：
1. 殉难者不是英国政府所抹黑的恶匪或恐怖份子。他们多是胶工，对我国经济发展做出了贡献。英国政府须向殉难家属道歉。
2. 殉难死者都是家庭经济生活的支撑着，因此，殉难家属要求英国政府赔偿他们失去养家糊口的依靠。
3. 殉难死者在屠杀后被曝尸超过7天，全无人性尊严可言。英国政府应为死者家属设立纪念塔以还殉难死者的尊严。

尊重人权与生命尊严的价值是马来西亚年轻一辈追求的目标。这个价值涵盖尊重生命的可贵、强调公民社会是建构在诚实与真实的基础，以及施暴行者须负上历史与社会责任。这些价值都不会因为时间而流失，也不会在不同国家有着不一样的标准。

《追讨英军罪行工委会》曾在2008年3月25日通过英国大使馆向英女王呈交请愿书，但至今并无任何回应。因此，工委会需要更大与更广的社会资源与网络，共同声讨英军屠杀罪行，让英政府感受到全马社团响应尊重人权的呼吁，以及民间伸张正义的团结力量。

工委会决定举办“全国社团签名盖章运动”，共同谴责英军屠杀罪行，希望引起国际社会的关注，将历史真相还原，纠正历史冤案以及共同塑造一个尊重人权的社会。

我们感谢国内外媒体工作者自1970年起不断的挖掘事实真相，使到峇冬加里屠杀惨案的真相有朝一日能够浮现。除此，我们感谢社团与非政府组织，共襄盛举，盖章签名声讨英军屠杀罪行。我们也感谢朝野政党同意成为工委会为殉难者寻求公道的坚决后盾。

工委会谨此呼吁，全国社团与非政府组织积极响应“全国社团签名盖章运动”。我们将在一个月内赴全国各地，将收集到的请愿书通过英国大使馆呈交给英女王，为这历史冤案平反。

60年前的屠杀案，追讨英军罪行

noreply@blogger.com (郭義民 Quek Ngee Meng) — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 16:44:00 +0000

（上图左起）工委会成员魏春萍及陈观添、目击证人罗亚才、黄金水及我。
谭蓉，78岁，罹患喉癌十余年，健康状况每下愈况。

上周六上午在乌鲁音举行了一场记者招待会。4家中文报的记者加上马新社电视，都到了乌鲁音这个小地方，而记者招待会的地点是一个住家--一个叫做谭蓉，今年78岁的老人家的家。

这个记者招待会是有关于60年前在此地发生的一场屠杀事件。1948年12月12日，英国殖民政府军人在Batang Kali开枪射杀了24名手无寸铁的平民。事后英政府解释为这些遇难者都是共产党。事实上，许多证据与目击者的口供显示，这些无辜失去生命的平民，根本就未曾反抗或是试图逃跑，可是他们却被蓄意的杀害。

谭女士是当时的目击证人，她已经过世的先生则是此惨案的唯一生还者。另外两名出席记者招待会的是罗亚才先生和黄金水先生，他们也是在年少的时候目睹了自己的亲人被杀害。这件事件多年来曾经受过关注，可是并未真正进入法律诉讼程序。

今年初，当地一群热心人士组成了一个“追讨英军罪行工委会”，希望可以通过法律程序替死者家属讨回一个公道，并在3月提成备忘录给英女皇，要求英政府作出赔偿与道歉。可是，之后全无音讯。

我在今年4月加入成为义务律师团成员之一，并在7月初到英国伦敦进行法律诉讼工作的研究与前置作业。与当地律师的研讨后，我们知道这个案件的胜诉机会高，可是所需的法律费用却高达马币100万元以上。其后，我们知道原来这些受难者的家属可以通过英国政府的法律援助基金，以获得经费进行法律诉讼。这些家属收入不高，有些年龄虽然颇大，但仍然继续工作维持生活。其中，更有如谭蓉女士这样罹患喉癌十多年，并无分文收入之余还要负担医药费，儿女的经济状况相当拮据。

因此，申请英国法律援助基金是最佳的方法。可是，我们也从英国律师那里得知，英国官员认为马来西亚华人经济富裕，因此不应该获得法律援助基金。对于英国官员的这种刻板印象，我觉得是一个严重的偏见，也是具有种族歧视的言论。事实上，这些家属完全符合获得法律援助基金所订下的2大条件，即经济状况无法负荷法律诉讼的费用，以及本案深具胜算。

面对历史真相的是非，作为一名律师，我责无旁贷的协助家属们进行这场法律诉讼。我也希望可以通过国内各社团的关注与集体支持，吁请英国政府正视此事，并让这宗发生了60年的悲剧，可以获得平反。同时，也让现代的年轻人知道我们的前辈曾经有过一段苦难的日子，毕竟这是我们在这片土地上走过的痕迹。

区会直选的建议

noreply@blogger.com (郭義民 Quek Ngee Meng) — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 15:16:00 +0000

这次马华区会的党选，我竞选武吉敏登区的中央代表，希望可以成为该区会17名中央代表的其中一位。参加武吉敏登区会已经几年，主要原因是马华总部及我的律师楼，都在这个区会内。

马华中央代表大会由2218名中央代表组成，他们拥有在中央选举的投票权以及参与中央职位的竞选资格。遴选中央代表的程序是先从马华4千多个支会中选出区会代表，这些代表在区会选举中选出中央代表。每个区会的中央代表人数是按照区会党员人数比例，因此以武吉敏登区为例，47个支会选出326名区会代表，这326名区会代表在区会选举中选出17名中央代表。这是马华民主选举的制度。

我是这次34名角逐中央代表的其中一名候选人，结果被挤出局。竞选失败，我坦然接受这个事实。但是在竞选过程中身历其境、亲身参与的经验，深深发现这个选举制度出现很大的弊病。甚至可以说，这不是一场真正公平与透明的选举。为了让马华民主更深化，我提出个人的观察以及认为需要改进的选举制度，希望马华的民主选举程序真正的可以达到透明化与公平竞争。

弊病（1）：“山头”势力蔓延的支会
马华常号称有百万党员并有4千多个支会的强大地方组织网络分布在全国各地。可是，这些党员人数与支会组织，有不少是“失功能”的，助长了“山头”势力的根深和蔓延。

区会的层级，派系壁垒分明，各据一方，非支会的掌权人根本就无法得知谁是区会的代表，而这些区会代表的名单也不对党员公布。若以一个支会主席平均可以影响8个区会代表，其他人就几乎无法知道这8个党员的资料包括名字与连络方式。换句话说，若不属于竞选队伍菜单内的独立党员，根本是无法掌握代表名单，也很难进行竞选拉票工作。

幸运的如果拿到这些区会代表的名字与住址，也许可以登门拜票。可是短短４天的竞选期，要到这些分布雪隆各地的区会代表的家拜访，还真的是时间不够用。更离谱的是，有些代表的地址是对不上的，有的是同一个地址就住了多达5、6个不同姓氏的代表，这明显是借用地址。另外，也有的是地址不正确，或是通过地图或GPS系统也找不到的地点。

弊病（2）：劣质的菜单文化
竞选期间面对了问题，导致候选人资料无法有效的传达。选举当天虽然可以自由派发宣传品，可是投票时，大部分区会代表还是按着“菜单”照单填选。甘德政就在我的部落格内留言提到他亲眼看到区会代表如何依照“菜单”画葫芦，而不管其他非菜单内的候选人是何许人。
说到菜单的威力，从当天和我一起竞选中央代表的一位朋友的例子就能显现出来。这位朋友在投票当天还告诉我说他认为自己不可能赢，因为现场大部分区会代表都不认识他，也不知道他的名字。而我在选举的当天积极拜票，努力竞选及分发宣传单。可是当选举成绩出来后，这位仁兄竟然获得超过140张选票而中选为中央代表，我仅有99张票。两者不同之处是－－他是菜单内的人马，区会代表照菜单投票。

为根除以上弊病，我建议推动区会选举直选以及废除支会的改革。

改革（１）：区会选举直选
已经有党领袖提出直选总会长的建议了，但我认为直选的建议应从区会直选开始。
直选可以杜绝不健康的桩脚现象，因为若是区会直选其涉及人数众多，无法通过控制桩脚选出菜单，同时也可以提高候选人的素质。换句话说，直选就是大家真正公开竞选，而不是通过掌控桩脚的暗箱作业方式操纵的游戏。当然，要落实这项机制以前就必须先将党员名单在党内公开，甚至可以是重新计算与登记有效党员。

改革（２）：消除内耗根源
熟悉马华组织的人都知道，要壮大个人派系势力就必须从控制大支会开始，因为一切源头就是支会产生的区会代表。这偏离了支会成立的目的，原本是要通过密集的地方基层组织帮助马华在地方发展与活动，却因为个人权力利益考量，而使得支会变成党组织的畸形产物。有不少支会往往是因为派系斗争以及为了掌控资源而出现。若支会仍然是个人派系操控区会代表的土壤，那支会是马华内耗的根源，支会也因此应该被废除。

党选过后我和一些马华基层党员交换意见，都认为马华必须改革现有的选举制度。这项改革必须由上而下的政治决心推动执行，而难以依赖山头势力根深蒂固的地方基层来推动。

简言之，马华的选举制度是生病了。衷心希望10月中央党选后的新领导班子或是任何即将被赋予重任的马华领导人与干部，正视这些问题，并真正推动改进的方案。否则，马华只有年复一年的内耗，因为党内的山头主义蔓延，而阻碍真正有为者融入主流，让外界对马华的负面影响加深，并与民意渐行渐远。只有革除现有的弊病，把被扭曲的制度导向正面健康的机制，马华才可更有乐观条件在国内政治生态的演化中继续发展。