Changing Truth(s) in Batang Kali
Future generations rewrite history and facts, and as a result, truth changes, sometimes for the better. The Malayan Emergency version of the My Lai massacre is being re-evaluated on its facts that the counter-insurgency sweep of Batang Kali, Selangor, in 1948 was (not) a massacre of unarmed villagers. Whether the villagers were indeed Communist fighters by night was irrelevant as justice was about whether disproportionate and extreme force was unnecessarily used. At a less extreme level, the Guildford Four and Maguire Seven are infamous examples of governments overzealously locking up people and throwing away the key to show that justice is served. That is the thing with security action in times of supposed crisis when there are exceptions to the rule of law. Whether these exceptions are justified and can be rigorously substantiated still when placed under current and future public scrutiny is hard to say. Some might still and some might not. Looking back at Singapore’s history in fighting communism, what can we say?
Malaysia massacre fight goes on
Wednesday, 29 April 2009 17:31 UK
By Robin Brant
BBC Malaysia correspondent
The UK government is to review evidence about a massacre of unarmed Malaysian villagers by British troops in 1948.
At the time, Britain was war weary. But in thick, humid jungle at the end of a peninsula near the equator in South-East Asia, British soldiers still faced fierce fighting.
What was then called Malaya was a crucial source of tin and rubber for Britain’s crumbling empire.
It was on the rubber estates where an uprising was under way.
Some of the ethnic Chinese were angry at increasing unemployment.
They also resented the way they were being treated by the government of a country where they had led a resistance against the Japanese occupying forces.
An insurgency was born.
They were allied to communists in China who were on the brink of victory in a civil war.
They focused their attacks on tin mines and rubber plantations; the engine of the Malayan economy.
The Malaya Emergency lasted 12 years. Thousands died in a war which eventually ended when the Communist insurgency was quashed.
The conflict was not formally halted until a peace agreement in 1989.
The British strategy to win the conflict has gone down in the annals of military history. It was cited by advisors working with the US forces in Iraq as it tackled a growing insurgency after 2003.
But in the village of Batang Kali on 11 and 12 December, 1948, that sophisticated combination of military capability and diplomatic skill was nowhere to be seen.
A platoon of Scots Guards raided the village just outside of Kuala Lumpur.
There had been intelligence suggesting ‘bandit’ activity in the area. The British were reeling from an attack a few days earlier which left three soldiers dead.
The men of the village – unarmed – were separated from the women and children. All were questioned. It is not clear that they were ever identified as insurgents.
It ended with 24 of them being shot dead. Only one man escaped. The village was set on fire. It is claimed some of the victims were beheaded after they had been killed.
Official version
That the men were killed by the British soldiers is not disputed. Why and in exactly what circumstances they were killed is still not clear.
The official version of events claimed that the patrol of mostly newly-arrived British conscripts had no option but to shoot the men to prevent them fleeing when they tried to run into the jungle.
The unofficial version suggested that the soldiers were ordered to ‘wipe out’ the villagers. It is also claimed this may have been in retaliation for the murder of three British soldiers a few days earlier.
It was a brutal event which marked the beginning of a long campaign.
It was claimed that there was a military investigation in the immediate aftermath of the killings. All the soldiers were vindicated, but there was never a broader inquiry into any wrongdoing.
Little was known publicly about the events in that tiny village on the edge of a rubber estate until a British newspaper published in 1970 harrowing testimony of some of the soldiers who took part.
Four of the Scots Guards gave sworn testimony, confirming that the shootings took place, confirming that the victims were unarmed.
Britain’s defence secretary ordered a police investigation. That investigation was halted after a change of government in a general election later that year.
In 2008, a fresh campaign was launched for a public inquiry into what happened.
Tham Yong is at the forefront of that campaign, as she has been for previous efforts over five decades.
She was 17 when her brother-in-law was among those killed. She witnessed some of the shooting. Her husband was the only man to escape.
She wants an independent public inquiry to establish why it happened and to try to clear the names of the dead. Along with relatives of some of those who died, she also wants compensation and an apology from the British government.
Early this year, the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office said there would be no inquiry.
They said there was no new evidence and no need for further investigation beyond what had been carried out both in the days after the attack in 1948/49 and in 1970.
Now Tham Yong and the relatives have turned to the English courts. They want a judicial review of that decision.
As they await the outcome of that process, the government has decided to review all the evidence relating to the shootings.
Mrs Tham is approaching 80 and dying of throat cancer. Her testimony is among those which will be reconsidered by the British government.
Her memory of the event is still vivid. Her resentment of the British soldiers is still strong.
‘Terrified’
Last year she told the AFP news agency: “The soldiers came in the evening as we were preparing our meal.
“They rounded us all up and we were terrified.
“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 women and children were herded into a truck and driven away the next morning. They heard gunshots as they were driven away and knew the men had been killed, she claimed.
“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 British government hopes to conclude its reconsideration of the decision to deny a public inquiry in a few months time.
In a letter sent to Tham Yong’s lawyers, it emphasised that the decision to reconsider should “not be taken as any indication, one way or another, whether an inquiry will be established”.
It is all about the Gays?
If what we read in the internet is true, the Christian Taliban have taken over AWARE and they are out to get the gays. This inference is made because some, but not all, of its prime members have openly voiced anti-gay sentiments. The inference is made also because it was assumed that AWARE would besides having an interest in women’s rights, would now also have the time to bash gay activism. The inference is made because gay kingpins like Alex Au voiced concerns and speculation of anti-gay activism became fact of anti-gay activism. The inference is made because the Straits Times planted seeds in the readers minds that AWARE was being hijacked. Suddenly the Straits Times was to be trusted categorically. But credit must be given to those in AWARE who are unseated. Over the weekend of the ST report, they managed to rally the gay community and bloggers to paint the new AWARE committee as devious and anti-gay. The new AWARE committee must have been alarmed at the just as sneaky counter-attack to their conniving attack.
President: Claire Nazar (has since quit the post)
Vice-president: Charlotte Wong Hock Soon
Honorary secretary: Jenica Chua Chor Ping
Assistant honorary secretary: Sally Ang Koon Hian
Honorary treasurer: Maureen Ong Lee Keang
Assistant honorary treasurer: Chew I-Jin
Committee member: Caris Lim Chai Leng
Committee member: Catherine Tan Ling Ghim
Committee member: Josie Lau Meng Lee
Committee member: Lois Ng
Committee member: Irene Yee Khor Quin
Committee member: Peggy Leong Pek Kay
I also think people are missing the big picture and should not focus on the anti-gay conspiracy shaped by the gay community. Furthermore, obviously people who never attended any AGMs at all would be shocked but this is what happens during AGMS from condos to country clubs whenever there is a power grab. It is legitimate and actually crafty politiking – if those in power can’t see it coming, they don’t deserve to be in power. The issue in this ousting is instead about how once the results of “democracy” don’t turn out in the way one expects, there would be cries of unfairness and distasteful underhand power games. This is to be expected of course as the losers always have an excuse, and a way to get back.
Unknowns knock out veterans at Aware polls
Caught off-guard by big turnout, longtime members lose to fresh faces
Wong Kim Hoh
April 10, 2009 Friday
SINGAPORE’S best-known women’s group, the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware), has seen a dramatic changing of the guard – which some members are describing as nothing short of a leadership grab.
When Aware held its annual general meeting on March 28, everyone expected the usual: No more than 30 or 40 members would turn up at its Dover Crescent centre, and a prepared slate of candidates would be voted into office easily.
Instead, more than 100 people came, the majority of whom had joined Aware only in recent months.
And when the election of office bearers began, almost every position was challenged by new faces, who won by wide majorities.
In the end, nine out of 12 executive committee spots went to the newcomers.
One older member who won without a contest was Mrs Claire Nazar, a former corporate counsel nominated to be president by outgoing Aware chief Constance Singam.
But barely a week into her new term, and before making her first statement as president, Mrs Nazar quit suddenly this week.
She confirmed that she had resigned, but declined to say any more when reached by The Straits Times.
It is not known who will now become president.
Longtime members took two other positions: Chew I-Jin as assistant honorary treasurer and Caris Lim Chai Leng was elected a committee member.
The election results have left longtime Aware members in shock.
Former president Tan Joo Hymn, 38, told The Straits Times the big turnout at the AGM surprised her.
‘I arrived at the meeting late and found out that I was No. 100 on the attendance list. I’ve been a member for 10 years, and never before has there been such a turnout,’ said the former lawyer who is now a full-time mother.
Another former president, writer Dana Lam, 57, said: ‘There were many faces I had not seen before, and I found that very strange.
‘In previous years, even if there were new members, they would be known to one or more of the older members.’
The first indication that something was afoot came when Ms Chew, an Aware veteran, was challenged and defeated handsomely by new member Charlotte Wong Hock Soon for the post of vice-president.
Ms Chew was later elected unopposed as assistant honorary treasurer.
‘It was alarming,’ said Ms Lam. ‘How could a new member who had just joined for a couple of months, and whom we knew nothing about, be picked over someone who has been with Aware for more than 15 years?’
Some of the older members immediately began checking the attendance list.
Ms Tan said: ‘We found that about 80 of the 102 who turned up were new members who joined between January and March this year.’
Aware, a feminist group that has prided itself on being ‘all inclusive’, has never vetted the people who apply to be members.
Men can join too, as associate members.
As it dawned on them that a leadership grab was imminent, some older members at the AGM tried asking the newcomers who they were, what they stood for, and why they wanted to be in charge.
They got only the briefest answers, they said.
Ms Lam said she tried suggesting that new members serve a stint on Aware’s various sub-committees before standing for election to leadership positions.
But such suggestions went unheeded as the election proceeded, with more newcomers winning executive committee positions by landslide margins.
Ironically, the old guard at Aware had been working towards changing their Constitution to make it a rule that only those who have been members for at least a year would be eligible to join the ex-co.
There is currently no rule to bar a brand new member from seeking office, and that was what happened at the AGM.
Ms Tan said: ‘We were simply outnumbered. Technically, they got in legitimately.’
She added that the way the election proceeded was so unusual, it was hard to imagine that the takeover was not a planned effort.
‘It could not be pure coincidence,’ she said.
But little is known of Aware’s new leaders, aside from the fact that they include women from the corporate sector, lawyers, company directors and academics.
Older members said the newcomers spoke well but would not elaborate on their plans for Aware.
‘When asked if they believed in equality, they kept repeating they were there to support women and to make sure they got ahead and got all the opportunities given to them,’ Ms Lam said.
Older members were keen to know if the newcomers shared Aware’s vision and values, including equality for all regardless of race, religion or sexuality.
But one outspoken new member from the floor, who identified herself as Angela Thiang, said questions about the new office bearers’ religion and their stand on homosexuality were not relevant.
Former Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) Braema Mathi, a two-term president of Aware, told The Straits Times that she, like many other members, was concerned.
‘If you are keen to serve, you don’t challenge every position. We do not know who they are,’ said the former journalist who is now in Bangkok doing consultancy work for international women’s group Unifem.
‘It is very troubling, more so because I’ve heard the new president has resigned.’
Almost a fortnight into their new roles, the new leaders of Aware were not entertaining calls from the media this week.
New honorary secretary Jenica Chua Chor Ping told The Straits Times a press release would be issued ‘in a few days’ and added that until then, the committee would not answer any questions.
A check showed that some of those at the AGM and on the new committee have appeared in The Straits Times Forum Page.
Ms Chua, Ms Thiang and Dr Alan Chin, a male member of Aware who attended the AGM and supported the newcomers, all wrote letters to this newspaper between August and October 2007.
In a letter on Oct 17 that year, Ms Chua said NMP Siew Kum Hong had overstepped his non-partisan role and advanced the homosexual cause by tabling a petition in Parliament to repeal Section 377A of the Penal Code which criminalises homosexual sex between consenting men.
In another letter on Oct 25, she took issue with a Straits Times report which said NMP Thio Li-Ann had been ‘visibly distraught’ when she opposed Mr Siew’s petition vigorously.
Ms Chua said Ms Thio had dealt with several points succinctly, with humour and passion.
Dr Chin and Ms Thiang both wrote letters to caution against the risks of promoting the homosexual lifestyle.
Meanwhile, news of Aware’s AGM has spread among older members who did not attend the meeting, as well as civil society groups.
The most frequently-asked questions: Who are the new women in charge, why do they want the leadership, and what are their plans for Aware?
Ms Mathi said: ‘The building of an institution takes many years; building its value system is even harder.
‘Why can’t they come in and be part of the process, and build it together and in a more evolutionary manner? That way, the comfort level will be high for everyone.’
Former newspaper editor and media consultant Peter Lim, a longtime associate member of Aware, said he was very surprised to learn what had taken place.
Asked why he thought a group of newcomers would want to take control, he said he did not know if it was an orchestrated effort.
But he thought Aware would be attractive to those seeking to be in charge of an established institution. Setting up a new outfit would take too much time and trouble.
‘Aware has built up its credentials over the years and achieved more than a few things,’ he said.
Three former Aware presidents – Ms Claire Chiang, Dr Kanwaljit Soin and Ms Mathi – have served as NMPs.
‘Aware is a brand name and most people regard it as the leading voice of the feminists and modern women in Singapore,’ said Mr Lim.
Keep Your Friends Close
And your enemies closer. This was the first thing that jumped to my mind ever since former Malaysian Prime Minister rejoined UMNO. The former PM quit the party last year as a political gambit after years of bitterness with his hand-picked protege Abdullah Badawi who became premier in 2003. Both did not see eye-to-eye politically on Malaysia’s direction, and retired, cut-off Mahathir was ever on the sidelines undermining Abdullah. Abdullahism was in stark contrast to Mahathirism. Under the former’s rule, Malaysia enjoyed more political liberalisation in a way that backfired on Abdullah – Anwar Ibrahim was released and Malaysia’s internet activism expanded despite the occasional crackdown. The irony of Anwar’s release and wrath was significant. It was Mahathir who put the former DPM in jail and it was Abdullah who released Anwar. However, Anwar could only lash out at Abdullah. Anyway, Mahathir would not have been so tolerant as Abdullah. March 2008 was the beginning of the end of Abdullah’s term when Barisan Nasional lost Perak, Penang, Selangor, Kedah and Kelantan.
Najib Razak, Malaysia’s 6th PM, released 13 ISA detainees as a populist measure and down payment for his supposed goodwill and promise of reforms. Malaysian pundits are watching this move cynically as should any political pundits. From rumours of being implicated in the sensational murder of a Mongolian woman, Najib Razak is not a simple man and neither are his enemies, current and future. The former PM Mahathir is back in UMNO supposedly to strengthen the party weakened during the Abdullah years. Najib saw what trouble Mahathir was during Abdullah’s reign and is keeping a watchful eye on the former PM. The latest Malaysian PM wants everybody to start on the same side when BN tackles the by-elections ahead.
April 5, 2009
Mahathir rejoins UMNO
PUTRAJAYA – FORMER Malaysian prime minister Mahathir Mohamad rejoined Umno on Saturday, a year after quitting in a huff over the way his successor was running the government.
He returned to the party a day after Datuk Seri Najib Razak took over from Tun Abdullah Badawi as the new Prime Minister.
On Saturday, Tun Mahathir handed his application form along with the requisite RM2 (80 Singapore cents) membership fee to Mr Najib, the party president. Dr Mahathir’s wife, Tun Dr Siti Hasmah Mohd Ali, and their son Datuk Mokhzani followed suit.
The former premier told reporters he was happy to be back and urged those who had left along with him to return as well. ‘The image of Umno has suffered somewhat in the last few years. The first thing to be done is to clean up the image of Umno,’ he said. ‘I am prepared to help Umno regain the people’s trust.’
The first test would take place tomorrow, when he goes out to help canvass for votes for the ruling Barisan Nasional coalition in two by-elections – in Perak and Kedah – on Tuesday.
‘I believe his return will be an encouragement to Umno and will help us to rebuild the party,’ Mr Najib said of Dr Mahathir.
The latter resigned as prime minister in 2003 after 22 years in power, hand-picking Mr Abdullah as his successor.
But within a year, he turned against Mr Abdullah after the new leader overturned many of his pet projects. ‘Although I was out of Umno, my heart and soul were in Umno,’ Dr Mahathir said.
He added there was no need for any formal party or government positions for him and that the criticisms he had hurled at the party were intended to strengthen it, not destroy it.
Asked whether he would continue to be just as vocal during Mr Najib’s administration, he said : ‘I was critical whenever Umno went wrong.’ — REUTERS, BERNAMA, AFP
Shadow Cabinet, When?
Gerald Giam brought this up about Gregory Hunt, a Shadow Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Urban Water from Australia who is visiting Singapore. Unfortunately for Singapore, there is not enough opposition in parliament to create a real shadow cabinet to rightly or wrongly challenge the existing policies of the various ministries. There are only 2 opposition MPs and one opposition NCMP, the consolation parliamentary prize given to the opposition. Why is this so? Simply because citizens did not vote in enough opposition.
Something else about our Westminster parliamentary roots that did not take root in Singapore. The quaint gracious official title of the opposition in the UK i.e. the losers of the last election, is “Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition”. The word “Loyal” is to remind parliament and the people that the opposition’s cabinet is a shadow one, not a shadowy one. This is also something that the PAP should drum into their heads.
