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。
More......
2010-05-18
交待终身学习的现状
2009-10-20
从巫统大会重思马华路线
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
More......
2009-05-09
新闻稿:追讨英军屠杀罪行工委会法律诉讼
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
More......
Press Statement in relation to the UK Government reconsidering the Action Committee’s requests
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
More......
2009-05-07
FREE WONG CHIN HUAT
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.
More......
2009-02-07
Action Committee Condemning Batang Kali Massacre Demanding Public Inquiry
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
More......
2008-12-26
Menegakkan Kebenaran Terhadap Pembunuhan Kejam Askar-Askar
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
More......
2008-12-14
Malaysia's Last Witness to 1948 Massacre Calls for Justice (AFP法新社)
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
More......
Posts
