page 12

Malaysian Students Demand Democratic rights

Salient: What was the purpose of the tour?

Pui: It was to discuss with students in other New Zealand universities the significance of the student demonstration on June 6 against the arrest of Khoo Ee Liam and the subsequent arrest of another student Wong Siong Seng.

This was also in response to the tremendous support given by Vic students for the cause of democratic rights in Malaysia. Kirk's announcement of the new policy on admission of Malaysian students increased the importance of carrying out the speaking tour while events were still fresh in students' minds. The response at all the universities proved the value of this tour.

What is the significance of the demonstration?

Khoo's arrest merely highlights the basic issue of lack pf democratic rights in Malaysia. The lack of freedom of belief and expression is clearly shown by the charges against Khoo relating to his activities in NZ and Australia. The issue remains unchanged in spite of the recent Australian press report that the Malaysian Government may drop these particular charges. If this report is correct it confirms that they have actually been pressed against Khoo. It will also be a great victory for Malaysians in their struggle for freedom in that the government has at least conceded defeat in its attempts to apply its laws here. Thanks are due to NZUSA and all those who have come out in strong support of our cause. For the first time Malaysian and NZ students have united and openly protested against the oppressive rule of the Malaysian Government. Malaysian students in Australia, Britain, Canada, Japan and the USA are actively campaigning for more democratic rights. The Federation of the MSA in North America has come to the fore, being led mainly by Malay students who have disregarded the question of race in the more basic fight for freedom. Malaysians at home have protested against government service corruption.

What has been the response to your tour?

The response has been very enthusiastic and encouraging. In all centres many Malaysian students turned up. This ranged from 50 students at Waikato, to over 200 at Auckland, and 300 people at Vic. The meetings began with Alick Shaw and myself outlining the Malaysian Government's role in Khoo and Wong's arrest and its relevance in NZ. In Auckland the meeting lasted over four hours with many students speaking openly and calling for action against the home government. A resolution calling for the abolition of the Malaysian Internal Security Act was passed unanimously. Two other resolutions calling for the release of Khoo and a stop to surveillance of Malaysian students by the High Commission were also passed with many students speaking for and against the government on mainly economic issues, particularly on the question of foreign investment.

In Otago there was a solid turnout of Malaysian students at an evening meeting lasting 3% hours. Among the resolutions passed was one calling for the Malaysian Government to ratify the UN universal declaration of human rights.

During the discussion, mention was made of a "Jack de Silva" cup donated by the High Commissioner for the annual Malaysian Cross Country race. The point was raised that no one should 'sweat' for the honour of winning this trophy as the patron was a person who does not act in our interests. The night after my talk, a SGM was held to discuss if the cup should be sent back to Malaysia or to the High Commissioner for his own use. I hear that the OMSA committee executive has gone ahead with the race, against the wish of the majority of its members. However, the reaction is in the right direction. For years Malaysian students have been known for their industriousness and unquestioning attitude to any form of authority. Whereas in the past people have been too scared to speak out, now the silence has been broken. This is very important in itself. This means the home government can no longer shut up its citizens for ever, no matter how oppressive it becomes.

Students have now awakened to the fact that getting a degree is not the only important thing in life. It is also important to be more critical politically and exercise what freedom they have here at least, in deciding and controlling their own destiny. Malaysian citizens must decide what the government should do on their behalf, not the other way round.

This is just the beginning. Malaysians cannot change the political situation at home over night. We must go on discussing the problems of Malaysia for it is through discussion that we will understand the problems and find solutions.

Any negative response to the tour was confined to petty arguments largely diversionary in nature. A few took a defeatist approach. This attitude may be summed up by a letter to the Otago Overseas Student Forum in which Malaysian students air their opinions freely. The letter was by a first year student "There has been a lot of talk about what we Malaysians can do for ourselves to secure our basic human rights But the question is how are we going to do it. We all know what our government's policies are. Won't we be better off to keep our mouth shut rather than joining Khoo Ee Liam in a Malaysian prison?"

The letter raises important questions which I hope to answer afterwards. However it must be contrasted with those who realise the dilemma they are in but fear to speak out because of the threat of reprisals or harassment by the government against their families once they go home.

Have I been painting a very bleak picture of Malaysia? It is bleak enough for many Malaysians to emigrate to obtain freedom. Some critics prefer to see their country as a lush tropical paradise. Fair enough. But while protecting their economic and class interests they ignore the poverty of the majority of the Malaysians. Over 50% of the Malaysian population live on a subsistence level. This is the picture they do not want the world to see. They are unable to accept the reality of the situation and an over-sensitivness to criticism directed at the heart of the problem i.e. who owns most of the country's wealth?

Attempts at character assassination have been made on me, by people who cannot present objective arguments in defense of their government. Speaking words such as 'leftist' and 'liberal opportunist' mean little. New Zealand politicians have stood up for democratic rights. They must therefore be 'leftists'. How can I be 'opportunist' if I am calling the wrath and vengeance of the government upon myself. Their wrath will without doubt descend on me. It probably would be a long term stint in Batu Gajah prison or some such Institution for politics prisoners.

What has been the reaction of the Malaysian High Commission so far on your speaking tour?

Mr de Silva has recently stated clearly that any activities by Malaysians here or elsewhere relating to the political situation at home will be subject to Malaysian law. This is no doubt intended to further intimidate students into silence.

Although it is encouraging that a lot of Malaysian students have spoken out, this announcement may dampen further discussions. It will not intimidate me into silence as I have already said enough to put me in jail for life if the government chooses to do so. Maybe it could prove me wrong by leaving me alone. But lite would probably still be pretty unpleasant with harassment such as not being able to get a job or travel freely. Returning graduates already find it hard enough to get jobs let alone "those who have been politically active.

You have been called a lackey of NZUSA and NZUSA has been accused of interfering in Malaysian affairs. How true are these allegations?

Calling me a 'lackey' of NZUSA has been one of the least useful counter arguments so far. I speak my own mind and on my own accord. NZUSA does not tell me what to say. We say similar things but it does not mean we think alike. When I first spoke out, it was from my conviction that something about home politics stinks. I pursued my own independent course of action. I gave a talk at a Catholic Society meeting on its invitation. I requested VUWSA to let me hold a forum after Mr Kirk's new policy on the admission of Malaysian students here was announced. When NZUSA learned of this they disagreed with this show of independence.

After the show of student support at that forum where donations were generously given for a speaking tour I proposed to take. NZUSA came around to my point of view and extended its help with the tour. Alick Shaw and Graham Clarke sacrificed a lot of their time in travelling around with me and in explaining the association's stand on the campaign for democratic rights.

Whether NZUSA is 'infringing' the integrity and sovereignty of Malaysia is a matter of opinion. I am not sure whether Malaysia displays much integrity in the way the government rules much less the way the High Commissioner conducts himself. One of the reasons NZUSA stepped into the picture was because as it maintained all along, that by charging Khoo with his allegedly subversive activities here (and in Australia) the Malaysian government was Infringing the sovereignty of NZ. The NZ Associate Minister of Foreign Affairs has said as much.

Whether foreigners should interfere with domestic affairs of a country becomes a moral issue where the question of basic human rights arises. The NZ Government may not Interfere as such but its citizens can decide for themselves whether they will speak out against what is happening in Malaysia. I wonder how your government justifies its condemnation of racial discrimination in South Africa and the French bomb tests?

You have been talking about the oppressive rule of the government and lack of democratic rights what do you mean by these?

Citizens are deprived of their basic democratic rights such as freedom of expression, and thought in the political and cultural spheres of life. They are implicitly and expressly intimidated by the laws of the country.

Article 8 of the Malaysian Constitution says that all persons are equal before the law and that there may be no discrimination against citizens on grounds of religion, race, descent or place of birth in law, except as expressly authorised by the constitution. The constitution expressly entrenches the following provisions that:

1) The King has a divine right to rule; 2) The Bumiputras (natives of Malaysia) have special privileges; 3) "Malay" is the national language; 4) "Islam" is the national religion.

In the language and religions provisions it asserts the superiority of one culture and it promotes the interests of one group by giving it favoured treatment in government employment,. educational and business opportunities.

While the provisions may have been designed to place one community on an equal footing with the others, only the political and business elite of this group have benefited from them. They have also placed other communities at a disadvantaged position. The constitution fails to aid the development of an integrated multiracial state.

All Malaysians including members of Parliament are prohibited by the Sedition Act 1969 (amended 1971) from discussing these so called 'sensitive issues'. This means they will probably remain unsolved for many years to come.

Our colonial masters did not teach us how to practice democracy—but they did teach us how to rule through fear and oppression. The British left behind a political and legal system based on the principle of "divide and rule". The Malaysian constitution divides the people and the Government rules through oppressive laws.

What are these oppressive laws?

These laws are directed at controlling the people through fear and intimidation. The Sedition Act which I have already mentioned prohibits the discussion of 'sensitive issues'.

S. 3 (1) of the Art defines such activities as having a 'seditious tendency'. "A tendency to raise discontent or disaffection among the subjects of the King or ruler of any state or among the inhabitants of Malaysia or any state."

The Prime Minister of Malaysia himself has helped propagate terror in the people by saying:

"Whoever talks or takes any steps which reveal that they have subversive and treacherous intention, then we shall take the action against them as we did the communists. I would like to see if we can make an example of these traitors."

The Prime Minister is known to stand by his words and this displays the mentality of the Malaysia government which entertains no opposition. This approach has effectively stifled any meaningful discussion by Malaysian citizens on a wide range of issues.

Could you tell me more about the Internal Security Act?

The Internal Security Act is the main weapon of control. The Act gives wide powers to the government to restrict or prohibit a whole range of human activities in Malaysia. These include cultural activities, participation in public meetings and gatherings and the publication of written, pictorial or printed matter. Under section 8 of this act a person whom in the government's opinion is anti-national may be arrested and imprisoned without trial for two years. After this period he may be imprisoned again on the original charge or in addition new charges brought against him. These have effectively silenced any opposition to the government tor many years.

The law has been applied indiscriminately to people of all shades of political opinion particularly those of the opposition At least 2500 political prisoners are still detained without trial. Some of them have been imprisoned for over 10 years.

page 13

Among those detained are members of opposition parties, elected city councillors, elected MPs, lawyers, doctors, students, Malay peasants, trade unionists, school teachers and businessmen who contribute financially to the opposition parties.

Missionaries and foreign teachers have not escaped this law. They are regularly deported. The most recent examples ere two European University lecturers who did not criticise the government. They were merely known for their progressive ideas Even the US Peace Corps has not escaped this oppression. They made themselves unpopular by teaching school children the meaning of 'democratic ideas'.

The Univeresities and University Colleges Act prohibits students from taking part in political activities Any student found guilty of this offence is liable to a fine of $(M)1000 or six months in jail, or both. It is not surprising therefore that students fear to speak out, especially in view of de Silva's recent press statement. All these laws can be arbitrarily applied and it is the abuse of them which has given rise to much dissatisfaction with the home government.

In what other ways has the Malaysian Government acted to deny citizens democratic freedom?

It has resorted to unconstitutional rule since 1969. After the riots the Sedition Act was amended without the consent of Parliament which was out of session at the time. The general opinion among academics is in agreement that this was a political move by the ruling party to stay in power when it did not get the votes it expected in the 1969 election. Elections expected to be held this year have been postponed twice. In the case of Ningkan v. the Federal Government of Malaysia, the Federal Government changed the state constitution of Sarawak to remove popularly elected Chief Minister Dato Ningkan when he failed to toe the government line. He was replaced by a man with no opinions except those of the government The opposition has now been left with no other means to exist except by joining the government. Since the formation of Malaysia, the major opposition parties have been absorbed into the government in a conglomeration of parties.

You mentioned that there is cultural repression in Malaysia, what form does this take?

Salient and other student newspapers have given extensive coverage in this respect, namely the closure of the Chun Lei Cultural Show in April this year under the Internal Security Act. Over 600 Malaysians of differing political views involved in organising the show were arrested ostensibly on the grounds that the show was not in the nation's interest.

Cultural repression extends to New Zealand where Jack de Silva strongly condemned last year's Eastern Cultural concert as 'subversive'.

There is no freedom of the press either. A glance at the "Straits Times" and other Malaysian newspapers would show a strong bias towards government news, One seldom finds criticism of the government in these papers. Indeed, one publication "Truth" which dared to do so was closed down under the Internal Security Act after seven editions. "Truth" was published by two Malay lecturers, educated in the US.

What about economic repression?

Economic repression is evidenced by the imprisonment of the courageous Malay leader Hamid Tuah who led a group of landless Malay peasants to occupy and cultivate unused government land. It takes an indirect form where people have been put in 'new villages' an idea which has been adopted in South Vietnam This creates great difficulties for peasants involved who have restricted movement to and from work.

The more direct economic repression is carried out on behalf of foreign interests by the government against its people. It has always been argued that the Chinese in Malaysia are better off than the other races but it has never been pointed out that foreign interests own 70% of the country's wealth and they should be blamed for the poverty of many.

The country has been made totally dependent on foreign investments and Malaysians have been deluded-into believing that this is necessary. Meanwhile, wages have remained on the same level over the last ten years while countries like Britain gained 300 million pounds in revenue from Malaysia last year. It has been calculated that every Malaysian owes S500 to foreign interests. At the rate things are progressing we will be forever in debt.

The question is therefore, is Malaysia really independent? Unless and until it is free from all forms of foreign control, it will not be. The Victoria University Students Association will be inviting Mr de Silva to debate with me on this point some time before the close of the second term, if he fails to reply, as is his habit, the invitation to debate is extended to any Malaysian who wants to defend his government.

Talking about da Silva's habit of not "replying", has ha yet replied to the NZ government's initial inquiry about the fate of Khoo?

No, Recently he made a statement in the Auckland press. Referring to this point, he said the Malaysian Government will reply to the NZ government in its own good time through the NZ representative In Kuala Lumpur. This was outright rudeness to the NZ Government, constituting a serious breach of diplomatic protocol—as it was over six weeks since the inquiry was made.

Why do you think the Malaysian Government is silent on the issue?

Basically, it does not have a strong case to answer. All channels of inquiry were exhausted before NZUSA brought the matter to a head with the demonstration. The government also prefers to lock people up without publicity and fuss, which would also be brought about if trials were held. This is the hall mark of a police state. If the charges against Khoo are true, according to Malaysian laws, the government has a strong case as far as they relate to Malaysia itself and he should at least be given an open and fan trial. Under the Internal Security Act, the government need not bother after all its intention is to put away its opponents.

If the charges against Khoo relating to "communist activities" in Malaysia are true does this not invalidate the arguments you have put up so far?

Not at all As I have repeatedly said, the basic issue is the lack of democratic rights People raise "the spectre of communism" to block any such thoughts. The fact that communism exists in Malaysia indicates that at least a faction of its population actively disagrees with the present government. This is a problem created by the British who refused to recognise the communists as a legal political body although the latter helped most in the fight against the Japanese during the war. Alter the war the British recognised a government formed by people who sympathised with the Japanese invaders.

What is Jack de Silva's role in the schema of things?

Up to date de Silva has actively conducted "red scare" campaigns to divert the attention to the public from examining the basic political issues of Malaysia. The collaboration between low grade newspapers and his office is clear. The latest attack on the campaign for democratic rights comes from the editor of the "Tablet". This bitter attack is similar to the other news smears, essentially that this is a communist plot conducted by the People's Republic of China The editor there emphasised the 'violence" created by a 'turbulent mob' m breaking one window He revealed that he has been to Kuala Lumpur and seen the results of the damage done by the communists from the military operations room of the government. But de Silva and his collaborators have been discredited on two occassions. The first was when the Prime Minister of Malaysia denied his allegation of communist subversion in Parliament last December. The second, when Mr Kirk concluded that the High Commission was speaking through a hole its window when an attempt was made to link the demonstration to the Embassy of the People's Republic of China. This was detrimental to the recent establishment of diplomatic relations between the two countries.

Jim Crichion. President of NZUSA, has written to all newspapers concerned about the seriousness of their allegations. But their failure to publish his letter so far indicates the extent to which papers are willing to publish lies in defence of an authoritarian government. In the "Tablet's" case the editor supports is a regime which regularly denies renewal of Catholic priests and brothers' permits to preach their Faith.

The editor of "Tablet" should spend some time researching the plight of Catholic priests and brothers in Malaysia before he takes any stand at all. Having been educated in a Catholic school I can understand his rigid views about communism, a philosophy which the Vatican strangely enough, claims a close affinity in a statement made last year. However, there are two types of Catholics, the first to which the editor of "Tablet" belongs, the second with whom I align myself (not being able to get away from them) it the VUW Catholic Society. My good friends in this society have taken the correct stand in supporting our struggle for democratic rights. Mr de Silva is also a Catholic, regretably of the old school. Having said a fair bit about Catholics, I make it clear here that this is in no way an attack on anyone else's religion. I have been accused of doing this in a letter mysteriously connecting me with the Virgin Mary in which the writer concluded that I was attacking his religion via the discussion on the language issue. How he came to this conclusion is beyond me. How could I call for democratic rights and at the same time deny religious freedom to others? This is incompatible and illogical to my thinking.

Apart from the obvious intimidation by de Silva what other examples of intimidation do you know of?

I know that returning students are frequently interrogated by the secret police. The most obvious form of intimidation is the threat of imprisonment under the Internal Security Act. The secret police have consistently put this to good use as I have already pointed out. Students are also questioned and warned by the secret police before they come here. The parents of blacklisted overseas students studying in NZ are also often visited and questioned by the secret police regarding the activities and behaviour of their children.

Another method of restriction takes the form of an identification card which every citizens must carry for life from the age of 12. If a person is found without his card he is guilty of a criminal offence. During the emergency he was liable to be executed, This is one of the most effective ways in which the Malaysian Government controls its citizens. It was also introduced by the British alter the war.

Is it true that the Malaysian government carries out surveillance on its citizens?

One of the main reasons why Malaysian students have been afraid to speak out openly is the fear that they are being spied upon. The High Commission and some students proved this suspicion to be true when they had a field day taking photos of all the students at the demonstration. The extensiveness and depth of surveillance carried out by the Malaysian Government is indicated in the charges against Khoo.

That even the freedom of privacy is denied is shown by these charges. The refer to detailed knowledge of his activities such as his reading material during his school days in Australia. That was many years ago—but this has all come to the surface now, revealing the efficiency of its suveillance.

In Australia, the situation appears to be no better. The most recent case of intimidation was reported in the Christchurch Press on June 13, 1974. Here a Melbourne student Michael Yeoh was visited by Malaysian officials He was questioned about statements he had made asking the Malaysian Government to give assurances that it wouldn't spy on students. Students over there are now reacting against this sort of intimidation.

Do you think the New Zealand Government plays any part in the surveillance of students?

This is quite possible. A positive impression is created by the fact that students applying for permanent residence have their past activities here scrutinized before they get permission to stay. The Australian example where its security service was giving more information to its "allies" than to its own government rests uneasily on my mind. It may be possible therefore that the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service may do likewise with the Malaysian Government as regards students. Both the New Zealand and Malaysian Governments have collaborated very closely in security matters.

For example. New Zealand has given $7,000 to Malaysia as internal security aid and sent tracker dogs to Malaysia. New Zealand also has a defence arrangement with Malaysia.

My conclusion is that such close collaboration does not end there.

Granted that spying is a fact of life for Malaysians, the issue has created suspicion and mistrust among Malaysians. This is an undersirable result as people give way to emotional thoughts rather than objective thinking. This impedes any sensible discussion when some students come forward to defend their government, rightly or wrongly, they have been yelled down. This is very unfair to this section of Malaysians who should be allowed to air their views. Another effect is that suspicion and mistrust is also created on the part of Malaysians against some New Zealanders. The Malaysian Government must come out to assure its citizens here that it will stop playing big brother with them.

What is the New Zealand government's stand as regards Malaysia?

The New Zealand Government takes a very questionable stand in at least two aspects of its foreign policy—political asylum and racial discrimination. In the first case, the New Zealand Government readily grants asylum to political refugees from communist countries, yet it is very hard for political refugees from countries as repressive as communist countries are considered to be, to get asylum here. Politically active people are not welcome in New Zealand. This is so in the case of some Malaysian students so far to my knowledge. Students who are politically active find it hard to obtain political asylum here. At least one has since been deported. The easier way to get permanent residence here would be for one to be docile and unquestioning Even then only those with degrees required here need apply. So much for democracy and foreign aid self righteousness of some local politicians. I needn't stress their lack ol concern for Malaysians who have little democratic freedom. The New Zealand Government must therefore make its stand clear on these matters. This is an issue which reflects poorly on the NZ political system which now appears to give little allowance to the tradition of liberalism and western democracy with its "I'm all right Jack" attitude.

As regards racial discrimination, the Labour Party in its manifesto declared that "all doctrines of racial superiority are totally rejected". The Labour Government has put this into effect by consistently refusing sporting contacts with South Africa, but it quietly condones this policy in Malaysia, especially in reference to the recent policy to use the Malay language test as a criteria of admission to study here. The language may be relevant at home, but has no relevance in NZ. This matter is being taken up by the universities here.

This policy is yet a further step by the Malaysian Government to deprive its citizens of their basic human rights. It suits the New Zealand Government's immigration policy at the same time, in restricting the number of Malaysian students coming here. In the Khoo case, the Malaysian government was denied the right to extend its laws here, in the new policy New Zealand has agreed to this without fuss.

What do you hope to achieve in speaking out?

Malaysians are aware of the injustices at home. It is for them to bring about peaceful changes and progress. Pressure may be built up from abroad to make the Malaysian Government change its policies. This will take time but the time for action is now or it will be too late. We must not think solely about our Own welfare but that of future generations. Students must start to explore seriously peaceful and suitable means of achieving this object. They can do so by discussing the problems at home and attempt to find solutions to them.

What further action would you suggest students should take?

Action that would bring New Zealanders to a closer understanding of their Malaysian fellowmen. The most immediate in my mind is to draw up a petition on the things I have discussed in the form set out by the Federation of Malaysian Students in North America. This could be signed by both New Zealanders and Malaysians here and copies sent to the United Nations and the New Zealand Government to draw their attention to the political situation in Malavsia. A similar copy could be sent gome home calling on the government to change its policies and clarify on Khoo's and Wong's fate among others.

At the first forum I held, the idea of forming a committee for democratic rights was brought forward. There have been words of encouragement and I am hoping to get more positive and concrete offers to help. I invite those students who are serious about this idea to get in touch with me and perhaps we could arrange for a meeting to discuss things further. In Auckland the response to this idea appears to be more positive and I think a committee is now in the process of being formed.

The next course of action is very important. This is a conference to be held on August 30 and 31 where hopefully all people no matter what their political views are welcome to express their opinions. The High Commissioner should be invited to join as representative of his government. The conference will be open to everyone interested in Malaysia.