Wednesday, May 16, 2007

Rusuhan 13 Mei atau peristiwa 13 Mei


Generasi ketiga yang juga dikenali Gen-3 tidak melalui apa yang disebut sebagai Peristiwa 13 Mei atau yang lebih tepat dipanggil Rusuhan 13 Mei. Bagi generasi kedua atau Gen-2, peristiwa tersebut sepatutnya menjadi penanda aras masa depan negara ini selepas 12 tahun Merdeka, kerana ada buruk dan ada baiknya.

Apa pun kajian dibuat atas rusuhan itu, ini tidak memberi apa-apa faedah kepada perkembangan generasi ke 4 dan seterusnya. Bagi menyalahkan setiap orang belum pasti ada kebenaran mahupun membenarkan sesuatu keadaan itu juga belum dipastikan betul.

Sebenarnya tidak ada sebab untuk mendalami punca rusuhan tersebut. Yang pasti kerana kesilapan istilah yang menjadikan isu ini isu perkauman. Jika peringkat awal pihak berkuasa menggunakan istilah "rusuhan" dan bukannya "peristiwa" 13Mei 1969, kemungkinan besar, isu tersebut tidak membawa pengertian perkauman sebaliknya dia hanya sekadar satu isu politik ketika itu.

Mencari punca akan berlaku rusuhan itu, tidak memerlukan kenyataan yang berbelit atau pun memerlukan penelitian khusus atas kertas-kertas rahsia sama ada dalam negeri atau pun sampai ke United Kingdom. Puncanya ialah mudah kerana Perikatan masa itu di bawah pimpinan Tunku Abd Rahman tidak menerima akan keputusan demokrasi akan kekalahan kerajaan dalam pilihan raya umum 1969.

Disebabkan UMNO sebagai Parti teras, Perikatan sudah ditolak oleh rakyat bukan sahaja kawasan-kawasan para pengundi Cina yang menjadi majoriti tetapi juga kawasan Melayu 100%. Ini ditambah pula dengan kehilangan kuasa satu pertiga di Perak dan Selangor serta kekalahan di Kelantan dan Pulau Pinang. UMNO lah yang menggunakan sentimen Melayu bagi membakar perasaan rakyat, dan sentimen hanya laku di Penang, Perak, Selangor dan sedikit di Negeri Sembilan dan Johor tetapi tidak melibatkan negeri di Pantai Timur.

Ketegangan itu berpunca dari kelewatan penubuhan kerajaan negeri dan persekutuan walaupun keputusan PRU sudah muktamad pada 11hb Mei 1969, kerajaan negeri masih belum lagi wujud termasuk penubuhan kerajaan Persekutuan. Sementara itu YTM Tunku Abd Rahman Putra sendiri telah menghadap Yang Dipertuan Agong pada 14hb Mei 1969 dan hanya memohon mengisytiharkan Perintah Darurat dan tidak menubuhkan kerajaan. Kesimpulannya dalam sejarah Malaysia hanya PRU 1969 satu kerajaan ditubuhkan atas bidang kuasa Yang Dipertuan Agong mengikut Perlembagaan dalam bidang kuasanya. Peristiwa itu memberi contoh bahawa Yang Dipertuan Agong mempunyai bidang kuasa untuk melantik sesiapa sahaja menjadi Perdana Menteri termasuk seorang Pengarah bagi satu kerajaan darurat yang dipanggil Majlis Gerakan Negara.

Sekiranya YTM Tunku Abd Rahman dengan segera mengangkat sumpah sebagai Perdana Menteri pada 11hb Mei 1969 dan juga Menteri Besar Perak dan Selangor yang mempunyai “simple” majoriti dalam Dewan Negeri, kemungkinan besar Rusuhan 13Mei boleh dielakkan. Tetapi atas kelemahan dan juga terlepas pandang akan perkara itu, maka sebilangan besar rakyat tidak berdosa telah membayar dengan darah dan nyawa.

Mereka-mereka yang berminat dalam sejarah dan juga hendak menyiasat punca yang menyebabkannya rusuhan 13Mei. Siasatan mestilah juga melihat dari segi perspektif perpaduan kaum di Malaysia. Sebenarnya tidak timbul isu perkauman apa yang menyebabkan rusuhan 13Mei itu dan jika dikatakan Tun Razak Hussein yang merancang peristiwa tersebut bagi merampas kuasa, itu adalah satu kajian berdasarkan kepada "pendengaran" sahaja sebaliknya jika mahu disalahkan mungkin kesalahan boleh diletakkan ke atas "polis" pada masa itu.

Kenapa tidak? Sekiranya Polis tidak mengambil tindakan mengejar orang menconteng di jalan raya di Kepong dan kemudian polis diserang sehingga menyebabkan terbunuh salah seorang dari mereka, sudah pasti tidak akan ada perarakan mayat. Sejarah membuktikan bahawa antara orang yang berjuang untuk perarakan mayat itu adalah Syed Hamid Bin Syed Ali yang juga Presiden Persatuan Penuntut Universiti Malaya. Maka bererti perarakan mayat itu bukan mesti dilihat atas sifat perkauman sebaliknya atas sifat tindakan polis menembak mati seorang yang menconteng di jalan raya dan kemudian diburu untuk penangkapan, itu betul atau tidak?

Begitu juga dalam soal Parti Gerakan Rakyat Malaysia - PGRM, ia juga bukan parti yang diasaskan kerana perkauman sebaliknya ada berapa orang Melayu yang menyertainya dan termasuk yang menang bertanding atas tiket PGRM. Maka jika dilihat keseluruhannya ,apa parti pun sama ada Democratic Action Part i- DAP dan Progresif People Parti - PPP mereka tidak merangsang soal-soal isu perkauman dalam masa PRU 1969 sebalik parti-parti itu membangkitkan isu-isu yang menyentuh kepada semua golongan rakyat yang ditindas dalam sistem kapitalis menjadi pegangan UMNO masa itu dan sehingga hari ini.

Rusuhan 13Mei bagi generasi ketiga dan seterusnya mestilah dilihat dari sudut pandangan yang berbeza. Insiden rusuhan itu juga membawa implikasi ke arah penyatuan bangsa Malaysia. Ia mestilah melihat pada masa rakyat dalam kebodohan, mereka boleh berfikir panjang. Mereka menggunakan hak mereka, untuk membuat keputusan yang menguntungkan generasi mereka. Sebilangan mereka menolak parti Perikatan dalam PRU itu. Walau hari ini Perikatan telah berubah ke Barisan Nasional tetapi banyak perjuangan memperkukuhkan perpaduan kaum oleh bangsa Malaysia telah berjaya, termasuk kepada soal kepentingan orang Melayu.

Ini memberikan gambaran, yang membawa isu perkauman sempit adalah UMNO itu sendiri. Mereka ketakutan akan kehilangan kuasa dalam masa sama dia cuba membina UMNO sebagai satu entiti berjuang untuk Melayu tetapi bilangan Melayu yang berkhianat kepada Melayu banyak terdapat dikalangkan orang yang memakai lencana UMNO.

Semenjak UMNO dipimpin oleh dua orang anak Ahmad, seorang sebagai Presiden UMNO bernama Abdullah Hj Ahmad dan seorang sebagai Setiausaha Agong bernama Radzi Seikh Ahmad, dan kedua Ahmad mempunyai latar belakang agama Islam yang agak baik jika bandingan dengan yang lain, tetapi kedua anak mereka yang memimpin UMNO berlawanan dengan ajaran Islam itu sendiri.

Bila Abdullah Hj Ahmad menyamakan dirinya dan keluarganya dengan YTM Tunku Abd Rahman Putra menjual harta benda seperti rumah dan tanah, dia mengatakan dia juga begitu, ada harta bapaknya terjual kerana UMNO. Tunku Abd Rahman Putra meninggal dunia tanpa meninggalkan harta, dia tidak menggunakan jawatan Perdana Menterinya untuk menebus harta yang digadaikan untuk UMNO dan tidak menggunakan UMNO untuk mencari kekayaan dirinya atau anak dan menantunya. Sebaliknya Abdullah Hj Ahmad, atas sumbangan bapaknya menjual harta untuk UMNO sekarang ditebus dengan memberikan kepada anak dan menantu perniagaan dan kontrak lebih dari yang dikorbankannya. Maka sewajarnya tidak perlu berucap di mana-mana untuk menceritakan perihal penjualan tanah bendang untuk UMNO itu, rakyat telah menebusnya dengan memberi anaknya Kamalludin dan menantunya Khairy bermacam-macam perniagaan walaupun tidak ada kerelaan.


Begitu juga Setiausaha Agung UMNO yang juga Menteri Hal Ehwal Dalam Negeri, khabarnya sudah berkata dengan orang yang bertanya, kenapa dia tidak mengindahkan arahan Najib Tun Razak dalam soal kelulusan pekerja asing. Jawapan bahawa dia tidak bekerja dengan Najib Tun Razak, dia bekerja dengan Abdullah Hj Ahmad dan tambahnya dia tidak mahu menjadi Menteri jika Najib Tun Razak menjadi Perdana Menteri. Soalnya pekerja asing dan isu terlibat Radzi Sheikh Ahmad yang menggunakan proksi akan ditulis selengkapnya pada rencana akan datang. Bayangkan setiap pekerja asing terpaksa membayar wang rasuah... opppp bukan wang "goodwill" kepada orang tertentu sekurangnya RM1,000 (satu ribu) dan bayangkan kalau dua juta orang diluluskan, berapa jumlahnya wang tidak masuk dalam akuan kerajaan.

Sang Kelembai: Masih ingat lagi peristiwa 13hb Mei di depan Jalan Raja Muda, Kampong Baru dan masih terbayang Dato Harun Idris berucap di atas bumbung Bas Sri Jaya. Pembohongan besar jika dikatakan pada petang itu tentera telah masuk ke Kuala Lumpur hanya selepas darurat diisytiharkan lalu RAMD membuat khemah di dua buah bulatan di Jalan Ipoh iaitu persimpangan Jalan Pekeliling dan Jalan Pahang persimpangan Jalan Tuanku Abd. Rahman. Elok rasanya kerajaan lepaskan rakaman filem rusuhan 13Mei yang tersimpan di Filem Negara Malaysia untuk tayangan umum... segalanya ada di situ.

22 comments:

joe penang said...

saudara!
Sayang sungguh jika sejarah dicatat hanya untuk menunjukkan bahawa Perikatanlah yg betul. Inilah kali pertama saya mendengar bhw TAR tidak menubuhkan kerajaan Federal & State(negeri berkenaan) selepas PRU 1969.
Sedih kerana ianya tak tercatat dalam sejarah.

Teruskan berkarya. Biarlah blog ini menjadi salah satu catatan sejarah Malaysia

-thethinker- said...

saya generasi ke-3 ... tak banyak yg saya tahu mengenai peristiwa 13 Mei melalui buku-buku tulisan Malaysian .. boleh tak jelaskan lebih lanjut mengenai ayat ini : "Pembohongan besar jika dikatakan pada petang itu tentera telah masuk ke Kuala Lumpur hanya selepas darurat diisytiharkan lalu RAMD membuat khemah di dua buah bulatan di Jalan Ipoh iaitu persimpangan Jalan Pekeliling dan Jalan Pahang persimpangan Jalan Tuanku Abd. Rahman"

freelunch2020 said...

this is a comment. :)
what a great post.
it's really a refreshing take to know that tunku did not form the federal and state government. i dunno for what except to horse-trade some seats.
din know that harun idris's speech was on film. it woul d be good to get it.
may i interview you? i am compiling eye-witness accounts. would appreciate it if you would email me at freelunch2020@gmail.com. :)

Anonymous said...

assalamualaikum pak cik,saya tak berapa tahu sangat kisah 13 mei itu,kerana saya belum lahir lagi waktu kejadian,namun saya berminat juga mengetahui apa yang terjadi waktu itu,terima kasih kerana beri penerangan panjang lebar mengenai 13mei,
13mei tidak penting lagi sekarang berbanding isu kenaikan harga tepung dan berbagai-bagai harga barang keperluan kini.baru dengar nak menyemak kenaikan gaji pekerja kerajaan ,barang dah naik.. apa kejadahnya ni????susahnya nak hidup dibawah pemerintahan pak lah ni.. lemah betul pentadbiran pak lah sehingga di buli dan di perkudakan oleh pengedar2 gula,minyak dan tepung..

anduka said...

Tuan,

Saya tak mengalami peristiwa 13 Mei kecuali mendengar cerita dari pada yang tua. Terima kasih di atas penerangan yang diberikan. Saya banyak membaca di blog-blog lain mengenai buku 13 Mei ini dan kebanyakan komen-komen yang ditulis oleh beberapa tukang komen menjurus kepada betapa buruk lakunya kaum melayu dan RAMD. Pada saya 13 Mei adalah satu sejarah hitam tetapi tidak perlulah kita cuba mengulangi sejarah dengan menuding jari kepada sesiapa yang salah. Seeloknya ia dijadikan iktibar untuk mewujudkan toleransi yang lebih baik.

Kalau nak kata melayu & RAMD jahat, macamana pula dengan komunis?

Sungguh merisaukan membaca komen-komen orang yang tidak memikirkan akibat yang boleh terjadi disebabkan komen tersebut.

zaharin mohd yasin said...

Thethinker,
Saya memberi jawabpan kepada satu tulisan fasal 13Mei mengatakan bahawa tentera terlibat sama dalam rusohan kaum pada 13Mei 1969. Satelah diperkenan pengistiharan dharurat dan perentah berkurong diKuala Lumpur baru tentera kelihatan diKuala Lumpur ditempat yang saya nyatakan itu. Memang dalam ingatan saya askar itu dari Regiment Askar Melayu Diraja. Bagaimana pun satelah aduan diterima atas kebimbangan orang bukan Melayu, askar RAMD tidak berlaku adil, tempat RAMD diambil alih oleh Pasokan Renjer yang sebilangan besar anggotanya dari orang Iban dan Dayak dari Serawak. Dan memang ada berlaku askar renjer ini menembak ke arah tempat penembak curi tetapi dan juga menembak ke udara dikawasan-kawasan mudah tersinggong( sensitev) untok menakutkan kumpulan-kumpulan yang cuba membuat huruhara atau melanggar perintah berkurong tampa mengira kaum, cuba tanya pendudok tua diKg Pandan Dalam, masih ingat tidak mereka macam mana askar renjer mengawal kampong itu. tkasihh

ghostrider said...

yg dah lepas tu biar lah berlalu jd kenangan..persoalan utama mcmana nak ajar BN/UMNO ni supaya jgn putar belit sejarah dan kebenaran semata-mata nak kekalkan kuasa...rakyat sudah mual dengar isu2 bangsa ni...isu bangsa isu lapok...skrg ni kita kena sokong org yg boleh tadbir negara dengan bagus je agar rakyat senang..sbb semua kaum pun terasa kesengsaraan hidup skrg

Berita dari gunung said...

Sdr,

Tak heran sangat tentang Setiausaha Agong. Banyak sangat bitterness dalam dirinya.

Sebenarnya tak ada benda apa pun yang dia nak settle. Nothing!

When i look at some of them, i see nothingness. I see Zero. I see Sifar. And it wont be long before everything will be emptied. Be ready, we are heading towards uncharted water!!

hawaiichee said...

Just preview for bloggers for quick info ….

*What actually happened during the 1969 tragedy** *

*May 11, 07 1:11pm*

* *

* *

* *

The series of events surrounding the ‘May 13′ riot has been documented by Dr
Kua Kia Soong in his latest book *May 13: Declassified Documents on the
Malaysian Riots of 1969* which will be launched on Sunday in conjunction
with the 38th anniversary of the tragedy.

This compilation, based on various sets of foreign dispatches and
confidential reports at the time - which were declassified recently and made
available at the Public Records Office in London - has been dubbed as the
first credible account on the incident.

“The real circumstances surrounding the worst racial riot in the history of
Malaysia have so far not been made available to the Malaysian public. The
official version is fraught with contradictions and inadequacies to which
few pay credence,” Kua wrote in the book.

Below are excerpts and summary of the chronology of events based on the
declassified documents taken from Kua’s book:

*May 10:*

The ruling Alliance Party suffered a major setback in the general election
although it had managed to retain a simple parliamentary majority. They had
lost Penang to the Gerakan Party; Kelantan to the Pan-Malaysian Islamic
Party while Perak and Selangor were at the brink of falling into the
opposition’s hands.

*May 11 and May 12:*

On both nights, the opposition celebrated their victory. A large Gerakan
procession was held to welcome the left-wing Gerakan leader V David back
from winning the federal seat in Penang.

*May 13:*

The MCA which had suffered badly at the polls, announced that it would
withdraw from the cabinet while remaining within the Alliance.

A dispatch from a foreign correspondent showed it is evident that there was
a plan for youths mobilised by Umno elements to assemble at then Selangor
menteri besar Harun Idris’ residence in the late afternoon. A retaliatory
march had been planned although police permission was withheld.

When people were still assembling for the parade, trouble broke out in the
nearby Malay section of Kampung Baru, where two Chinese lorries were burnt.
The ensuing carnage at Kampung Baru and Batu Road quickly spread elsewhere
in Kuala Lumpur.

The foreign correspondent noted the curfew that was imposed was not fairly
applied to all.

“In the side streets off Jalan Hale, I could see bands of Malay youths armed
with *parangs* and sharpened bamboo spears assembled in full view of troops
posted at road junctions. Meanwhile, at Batu Road, a number of foreign
correspondents saw members of the Royal Malay Regiment firing into Chinese
shophouses for no apparent reason.”

Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman immediately attributed the violence as
triggered off by the behaviour of opposition supporters after the election
result announcement while his deputy Tun Abdul Razak pinned the blame on the
communists.

*May 14: **
*
The riots continued but on a smaller scale. The curfew was only lifted in
staggered hours in various districts to allow people to buy food. The police
called out all possible reserves and handed over the northern part of the
city to the army.

Police put casualties for the previous night incident at 44 killed and about
150 injured. Another dispatch showed the casualties were mainly Chinese as
it stated that out of 77 corpses in the morgue of the General Hospital on
May 14, at least 60 were Chinese.

The government’s attempts to blame the communists for the riots were however
not taken seriously by the officials at the British High Commission (BHC)
who could see that the Tunku was not prepared to blame his own people for
the riots, nor was he going to blame it on the Chinese “as a whole”.

*May 15: **
*
The King proclaimed a state of emergency. The National Operations Council
headed by Tun Razak was formed. Tun Razak was still responsible to the
Tunku, but all the powers under Emergency Regulations were vested in him.

The curfew had been lifted temporarily in Kuala Lumpur that morning but the
situation had rapidly worsened and more sporadic fighting had broken out.
Curfews were re-imposed but food was very short.

The local press was suspended until censorship regulations could be drawn up
but no attempt was made to supervise reports sent out by foreign
correspondents.

*May 16:*

The situation was still tense in Selangor with cars and houses being burned
and fatalities rising. Death tolls had risen to 89 with over 300 injured. 24
hour curfew remained in force in Selangor and had also been imposed in
Malacca. In Penang and Perak, the situation had improved although the curfew
remained in force.

Tunku made a broadcast in which he announced the setting up of a National
Defence Force to be manned by volunteers. The new information minister
Hamzah Abu Samah and Tun Razak gave a press conference pinning the blame for
the riots on communist infiltration of the opposition parties.

There were reports of looting by the largely Malay military and their bias
against the Chinese Malaysians. Number of refugees were increasing.

*May 17:*

From a BHC telegram, it showed there were skepticism among British officers
toward the official figures for fatalities and the preponderance of Chinese
casualties among the dead. The police estimated the deaths at about 100 now
while British officers estimated the proportion of Chinese to Malay
casualties is about 85:15.

The press censorship invited criticism not only from the local press but
also in diplomatic circles especially when official statements lacked
clarity and credibility.

In a confidential BHC memorandum to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office
(FCO), the *coup d’etat* has been acknowledged and it has effected the
transfer of power not only to “Malay hands” but also to the security forces.
The latter’s professionalism is questioned.

The BHC also noted the Federal Reserve Unit, which at the time was
multiracial in composition, was the more impartial of the security forces
while the Malay troops were discriminatory in enforcing the curfew.

“Discriminatory takes the form, for example, of not, repeat not, enforcing
the curfew in one of the most violently disposed of the Malay areas in Kuala
Lumpur (Kampung Baru) where Malays armed with *parangs,* etc continue to
circulate freely; with the inevitable result that gangs slip through the
cordon round the area and attack Chinese outside it. In Chinese areas, the
curfew is strictly enforced.”

*May 18:*

The Tunku qualified his earlier assertion that the disturbances were caused
by communists, putting the blame instead on assorted “bad elements”. He also
announced the deferment of the Sarawak elections and the continuance of the
restrictions on the movement of foreign journalists.

The situation was still unsettled in some parts of the capital city.

*May 19:*

Less than a week after the riots, the reins of power had effectively passed
to Tun Razak, indicating that there had been a plot to bring about the *coup
d’etat. **

*”The exact relationship between Tun Razak and the Tunku is not clear. In
public Tun Razak says he is directly responsible to the Tunku but he has
made it clear privately that he is completely in charge of the country. This
could mean the beginning of a process of withdrawal by the Tunku as an
effective PM”.

There are some 10,000 reported refugees. The local press was allowed to
publish under censorship while foreign journalists had their curfew passes
withdrawn. Some opposition politicians were arrested.

*May 20:*

In a meeting, an Australian High Commissioner had suggested the opposition
leaders should be given a role as peace maker but Tun Razak and Ghazali
Shafie were firmly against this. “They considered opposition leaders would
simply use such an opportunity to promote their own political views.”

The Malaysian Red Cross Society is continuing its daily feeding programme
for refugees in various places and over 5,000 had received food supplies.

*May 21:*

The official statistics of casualties at this juncture were 137 killed (18
Malays), 342 injured, 109 vehicles burned, 118 buildings destroyed and 2,912
persons arrested who were mostly curfew breakers.

*May 23:*

The declassified documents reveal that Malay troops were not only
fraternising with the Malay thugs but were discharging their firearms
indiscriminately at Chinese shophouses as they went through the city.

“When confronted by foreign correspondents with reports of racial
discrimination, Tun Razak flatly denied them. Following this, curfew passes
issued to foreign journalists were withdrawn and reporters were ordered to
remain indoors ‘for their own safety’.”

A foreign correspondent’ s report showed the Malay hooligans were detested by
the law-abiding Malays of Kampung Baru.

Internal security and home minister Tun Dr Ismail indicated that the
Internal Security Act would be in future amended to “counter changing
communist tactics”. It was disclosed that of the 3,699 arrested during the
crisis, 952 were members of secret societies.

*May 24:*

Law and order has been re-established in Kuala Lumpur and the atmosphere in
the town had improved. People were going back to work (in non-curfew hours)
and the government offices were limbering into action. The curfew remained
in force (from 3pm to 6.30am of the following day). The government was not
ready to admit that it was armed Malay youth who had caused the
disturbances.

*May 27:*

The Tunku was under pressure to resign as he was clearly incensed by foreign
journalists’ speculations about his weakening position and got his private
secretary to write a protest note to the BHC.

*May 28:*

A confidential report by the BHC to the FCO on this day observed the
government’s attempts to blame the communists for the disturbances were an
attempt to justify their new authoritarian powers.

*June:*

The riots had been under control but they were still sporadic outbreaks of
civil disturbances. A BHC report noted violence erupted again in one part of
Kuala Lumpur on the night of June 28 and 29, a number of houses were burnt
and the casualties were officially given as five killed and 25 injured. Some
disturbances toward the end of June also involved ethnic Indians.

*July*:

Renewed trouble in which one policeman was killed was quickly stopped from
spreading in Kuala Lumpur by positive police action.

Tun Ismail’s firm stand in ordering the security forces to act firmly
‘without favour or discrimination’ to any communal group and the Tunku’s
announcement of a National Goodwill Committee made up of politicians of all
parties went some way toward allaying the fears of the people.

Tun Ismail also revealed the total arrests since May now stood at 8,114,
comprising people “from all the major racial groups”. Of these, 4,192 had
been charged in court, 675 released on bail, 1,552 unconditionally released
and 1,695 preventively detained.

Situation in the Peninsula had improved substantially but tension remains
high in sensitive areas of Malacca, Perak and Selangor.

Tension had begun to ease until Malay agitation connected with Tunku’s
return to a position of influence and the removal of Dr Mahathir Mohamad
from Umno’s general committee on July 12 had heightened it again. Malay
university students petitioned for Tunku’s resignation and demonstrated on
the campus.

>http://www.malaysia
kini.com/
news/67096
>
>Unveiling the ‘May 13′ riots
>Beh Lih Yi May 11, 07 12:52pm
>
>”While people were still assembling for this parade, trouble broke out in
>the nearby Malay section of Kampung Baru, where two Chinese lorries were
>burnt…
>
>By 7.15pm, I could see the mobs swarming like bees at the junction of Jalan
>Raja Muda and Batu Road. More vehicles were smashed and Chinese shophouses
>set on fire.
>
>The Chinese and Indian shopkeepers of Batu Road formed themselves into a
>’district defence force’ armed with whatever they find - parangs, poles,
>iron bars and bottles…
>
>When the Malay invading force withdrew as quickly as it had arrived, the
>residents took their revenge. Shop-fronts and cars suspected of being
>Malay-owned were smashed or burnt…
>
>The police arrived at about 9pm but did not remain in the area. Later,
>truck-loads of Federal Reserve Units (riot squads) and the Royal Malay
>Regiment drove past…”
>
>(Excerpts taken from a dispatch by Far Eastern Economic Review
>correspondent
>Bob Reece narrating his eyewitness account on May 13, 1969 after a group of
>young Malays gathered outside the Selangor Menteri Besar Harun Idris’
>residence in late afternoon)
>
>It has been almost four decades since the May 13 racial riots broke out.
>
>What had prompted the worst riots in Malaysia’s 50-year history that cost
>the lives of 196 persons (according to official records) however remained
>shrouded under a veil of secrecy, although there are several versions on
>the matter so far.
>
>The ‘official version’ of it has always been the violence was triggered off
>by the Chinese-dominated opposition supporters’ provocation in celebrating
>their electoral victory which saw the ruling Alliance Party suffered a
>major setback.
>
>’Full of nonsense’
>
>This version, however was consistently rebutted by the opposition group
>who claimed otherwise. Other theories also suggested that the riots was
rather
>a planned attack to oust then premier Tunku Abdul Rahman.
>
>The lack of accessible information in the public domain has been a
stumbling
>block for those who intend to uncover the episode but a set of
>newly-declassified documents in London gave sociologist Dr Kua Kia Soong a
>thorough glimpse of the event.
>
>Late last year, the principal of New Era College took a three-month
>sabbatical leave to the Public Records Office in London to study records
>and declassified documents on the May 13 incident after a 30-year secrecy
rule
>over these documents lapse.
>
>His findings based on the declassified documents - which have been
>compiled into a new book to be launched on Sunday - found the entire May 13
riots
>were by no means a spontaneous outburst of racial violence, as it has been
>portrayed to the Malaysian public.
>
>”The (official) history of May 13 is full of nonsense, it doesn’t reveal
>anything. It pins the blame on the opposition party which was not true,
>they were not the responsible party,” Kua told malaysiakini in a recent
>interview.
>
>”My book shows the responsible party were those ascendent state capitalist
>class (in Umno), elements within that gave rise and implemented this plan.
>There was a plan based on the people who assembled at the (Selangor)
>menteri besar’s house.
>
>”There are correspondences and intelligence reports which showed that.
>Official history has to reveal that truth and not to pin the blame on
>everybody around who are not to be blamed,” the educationist and social
>activist stressed.
>
>Kua maintained the May 13 incident was a coup d’etat against the Tunku by
>the then emergent Malay state capitalists - backed by the police and army
>- to seize control of the reign of power from the old aristocrats to
implement
>the new Malay agenda.
>
>A plot to oust Tunku
>
>He opined the riots were works of “Malay thugs” orchestrated by politicians
>behind the coup.
>
>For instance, he said the “group of hoodlums suddenly appeared from all
>over the place” on the day of May 13 to gather at Harun’s residence and the
>questionable conduct of the police and army to just stood by and watch.
>
>He added that documents showed less than a week after the riots, then
deputy
>premier Tun Abdul Razak who headed the National Operations Council was
>already in full control of the country - an indication that there had been
a
>plot.
>
>On top of that, discussions for future plans had already been carried out.
>
>”For example the National Cultural Policy (announced in 1971) burst in the
>80s, it was already been thought of one week after (the May 13 incident),”
>Kua noted, referring to the controversial policy which placed emphasis on
>the ‘indigenous culture’ and Islam.
>
>A secret document from the British cabinet office featured in the book
>showed that barely a week after the riots broke out, the Central
>Intelligence Agency had figured out what Tun Razak was planning - “to
>formalise Malay dominance, sideline the Chinese and shelve the Tunku”.
>
>The role of the security forces in the May 13 bloodshed was also
>questioned in Kua’s findings.
>
>”Even at that time, people in the diplomatic core (were wondering) how
>come the day the riot broke out, Razak met with the chiefs of the police
and
>army but they did not do anything,” he said.
>
>Interestingly, Kua pointed out the Malaysian security forces had been
tested
>and tried during the war against the communist insurgency between 1948 and
>1960 and earned their reputation.
>
>”They are one of the most effective in putting down the communist
>insurrection that is a far, far more difficult operation than putting down
>riot, but they could not put down (such riot) in 1969 for days, for
>weeks,” he questioned.
>
>It thus brought to Kua’s conclusion: “The May 13 was a pretext for staging
>that coup… I am not the first person who said it was a coup d’etat but I
>am providing the documents to show how it was a coup d’etat.”
>
>Exact fatality number unknown
>
>The declassified documents have included reports fielded by foreign
>correspondents who were in Kuala Lumpur at the time, dispatches by the
>British High Commission personnel who closely followed the event and
various
>other confidential reports from the diplomat circle.
>
>It is considerably the first time a complete recount of the tragedy is made
>available to the Malaysian public, as many foreign correspondent reports
>were previously banned while local documents are inaccessible.
>
>However, what could not be established in the book is another secrecy, the
>real number of deaths.
>
>Official figures said the May 13 riots claimed 196 lives, 180 were wounded
>by firearms and 259 by other weapons, 9,143 persons were arrested out of
>whom 5,561 were charged in court, 6,000 persons rendered homeless, at
>least 211 vehicles and 753 buildings were destroyed or damaged.
>
>The declassified documents and international correspondents at the time
>nevertheless have calculated a much higher number of fatalities but an
>exact number could not be ascertained, although it was common knowledge the
>victims are majority ethnic Chinese.
>
>Kua said it is his hope to smash two myths with the publication of the
>book.
>
>”One is racial riot will occur when the Malays are not happy, that’s why
you
>need the New Economic Policy, affirmative action policy et cetera,
otherwise
>the Malays will be unhappy and there will be riot.
>
>”This is the first myth we should dismantle as documents showed some people
>were involved in making it (the May 13) happened with the connivance of the
>police and army,” he stressed.
>
>The second myth, Kua said, is academicians and pluralist theorists who
>uphold the views that riots and conflicts will occur naturally in
multi-racial country.
>
>”I am questioning this. The role of the state is very important at a
>particular historical conjuncture. Malays, Chinese and Indians don’t
>suddenly decide to fight in conflict, it doesn’t happen like that,” he
said.
>
>Asked on whether there is any fear that the authorities might move to ban
>the publication of the book, as in the case of a recent ban slapped on a
>book about the Kampung Medan clashes, Kua responded:
>
>”In the age of the internet, what does banning a book mean? We can put it
>on the Web, you can’t do anything.”

hawaiichee said...

On the NEP and the special position of the Bumiputera ...

Please read the following blog by a famous and intelligent lawyer about the special position of the Malay and bumiputera as mentioned in Article 153.

http://www.malikimtiaz.blog...

"I say this to lay foundation for the question of whether the Federal Constitution does provide for a privileged existence in the manner suggested at the general assembly.

The constitutional provision pivotal to any discussion of this subject is article 153. It refers to the ‘special position’ of the Malays and the natives of Sabah and Sarawak and declares that it is the responsibility of the Yang Dipertuan Agong to safeguard these communities and the legitimate interests of other communities. It does not describe this ‘special position’ as a privileged status.

The founders of the nation did not at any point in time contemplate the creation of a two-tiered society such as some of some might have us believe. They contemplated the possibility that due to historical factors there might be a need to introduce certain measures so as not to allow for the dislocation or marginalizing of certain communities. This was not intended to translate into a promotion of particular communities to the detriment of others.

For this reason, article 153 recognises the legitimate interests of other communities. Further, it provides the means to ensure an adequate balance in the way protection measures are deployed. It is in this light that provision is made for reservation of positions in the public service and of scholarships, exhibitions and other similar educational or training privileges or special facilities given or accorded by the Federal Government and permits and licences where such are required under federal law. This balance is guaranteed further by the express declaration that the provision is not aimed at empowering the restriction of business or trade solely for the purpose of the protective measures. In short, there is no basis for wholesale reservations or quotas.
"
http://www.malikimtiaz.blog...

"Put another way, despite suggestions to the contrary the Federal Constitution does not lend itself to any notions of a privileged existence for any community. It does however envisage a protected status for the Malays and the indigenous which allows for selective measures to be taken fairly and reasonably to a particular end. Any policy of the Federal Government aimed at achieving this end, whether the National Economic Policy, the New Development Policy or otherwise, cannot be seen as vesting greater rights than those contemplated under Article 153. Any other reading would allow for the kinds of abuses that are apparent.

The analysis offered above is not a difficult one. Article 153 is clear. It lends itself to affirmative action where such action is needed. Political expediency has resulted in the provision being mischaracterized and used to particular ends. This in itself is not surprising as politicians will operate as politicians do. What is of interest to me is how and why the characterization has been permitted by Malaysian society to perpetuate to the extent that as we come into our 50th year as an independent nation, the ‘two-tier’ notion has become so entrenched in our social landscape. And why is it that even as the notion continues to divide us, we insist on describing what happens in the country as being a part of a democratic process?

One of the principal reasons for this sad state of affairs is the nurturing of a climate of fear. Laws that allow for preventive detention without trial like the Internal Security Act, that stifle free expression such as the Sedition Act and the Printing Presses and Publications Act and which impede necessary access to vital information such as the Official Secrets Act have kept many Malaysians in the dark and in fear. If they have not been directly threatened or attacked, these laws have allowed the unscrupulous to demonize concerned Malaysians as being anti-Malay or anti-constitutional. They have allowed for the perversion of the social contract theory.

Additionally, a conservative Judiciary which has shied away from developing a strong civil rights tradition in our legal system has perhaps unwittingly allowed for the concomitant undermining of the rule of law. This has weakened our sense of right and wrong.

In this way, policy stereotypes have been permitted to develop and in effect become the law. Our claims to social integration are a hollow boast. Harmony cannot be found at the bottom of the gun barrel that supremacist Malay thinking is pointing at all others including non-extremist Malays.

If UMNO is serious about making amends for what transpired at the general assembly, let us hear then from its leaders of a plan by which the Federal Government intends to take us back to the spirit of protection and the dismantling of the ‘privilege’ mindset. Let us hear an admission of how the climate of fear has led to the development of racist tendencies that no amount of platitudes will help us deal with.

Until then, Malaysians should be forgiven for thinking that they have arrived at the beginning of the end."

I support the Constitution of the special position of the Malay, the role of the Sultan, the preservation of the Malay language and culture. I am glad of the identity of Malaysia so far being rich in culture and having the Bahasa Malaysia language and an official religion of Islam. This are all symbols to celebrate the rich diversity we have. Also it is meant to ensure the Malay culture does not go extinct. This is important as in other countries, the red indians or the Hawaiians fear the loss of their culture, and affirmative action is in place to safe guard against that.

So the special position of the Malays in getting training and in giving them aid when they need it is praise worthy. But, what is to be scorned at:

1. Bumiputera getting housing discount of houses above RM300,000.

2. Bumiputera getting contracts when they are not capable to do it.

3. Chancellors of Universities being elected even when they are not capable.

4. Professors who are not Bumiputera do not get recognized encouraging brain drain in Malaysia and the status of Malaysian universities dropping drastically to a pathetic state losing to all Asian countries.

5. Corruption in the UMNO politicians.

6. Corruption in the Badawi family.

hawaiichee said...

Wahai rakyat Malaysia

Thesis utama Dr Kua dalam bukunya Mei 13 adalah untuk menyebarkan rancangan dan konspirasi Tun Abdul Razak dan Harun Idris yang ingin merancangkan koup de tat supaya memulakan NEP dan isu-isu ketuanan Melayu. Ini bermaksud tanpa rancangan sedemikian, peristiwa Mei 13 akan dapat dikawal dengan bantuan polis. Mungkin hanya kes-kes terpencil mati 1-2 orang saja yang akan berlaku. Ini akan dapat dikawal dengan serbuan polis yang tidak berat sebelah.

Tapi, dengan rancangan dan konspirasi dipenuhi Agenda Melayu - polis dan tentera membenarkan peristiwa ini supaya Tun Abdul Razak dapat naik takhta dan memulakan Agenda Melayu.

Ini menunjukkan bahawa rakyat Malaysia hari ini yang sudah matang tidak akan MENGAMUK lagi apabila NEP dibubarkan. Rasa TAKUT adalah tidak rasional dan tidak harus dijadikan alasan untuk melambatkan pemodenan Malaysia.

hawaiichee said...

Just preview for bloggers for quick info ….

*What actually happened during the 1969 tragedy** *

*May 11, 07 1:11pm*

* *

* *

* *

The series of events surrounding the ‘May 13′ riot has been documented by Dr
Kua Kia Soong in his latest book *May 13: Declassified Documents on the
Malaysian Riots of 1969* which will be launched on Sunday in conjunction
with the 38th anniversary of the tragedy.

This compilation, based on various sets of foreign dispatches and
confidential reports at the time - which were declassified recently and made
available at the Public Records Office in London - has been dubbed as the
first credible account on the incident.

“The real circumstances surrounding the worst racial riot in the history of
Malaysia have so far not been made available to the Malaysian public. The
official version is fraught with contradictions and inadequacies to which
few pay credence,” Kua wrote in the book.

Below are excerpts and summary of the chronology of events based on the
declassified documents taken from Kua’s book:

*May 10:*

The ruling Alliance Party suffered a major setback in the general election
although it had managed to retain a simple parliamentary majority. They had
lost Penang to the Gerakan Party; Kelantan to the Pan-Malaysian Islamic
Party while Perak and Selangor were at the brink of falling into the
opposition’s hands.

*May 11 and May 12:*

On both nights, the opposition celebrated their victory. A large Gerakan
procession was held to welcome the left-wing Gerakan leader V David back
from winning the federal seat in Penang.

*May 13:*

The MCA which had suffered badly at the polls, announced that it would
withdraw from the cabinet while remaining within the Alliance.

A dispatch from a foreign correspondent showed it is evident that there was
a plan for youths mobilised by Umno elements to assemble at then Selangor
menteri besar Harun Idris’ residence in the late afternoon. A retaliatory
march had been planned although police permission was withheld.

When people were still assembling for the parade, trouble broke out in the
nearby Malay section of Kampung Baru, where two Chinese lorries were burnt.
The ensuing carnage at Kampung Baru and Batu Road quickly spread elsewhere
in Kuala Lumpur.

The foreign correspondent noted the curfew that was imposed was not fairly
applied to all.

“In the side streets off Jalan Hale, I could see bands of Malay youths armed
with *parangs* and sharpened bamboo spears assembled in full view of troops
posted at road junctions. Meanwhile, at Batu Road, a number of foreign
correspondents saw members of the Royal Malay Regiment firing into Chinese
shophouses for no apparent reason.”

Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman immediately attributed the violence as
triggered off by the behaviour of opposition supporters after the election
result announcement while his deputy Tun Abdul Razak pinned the blame on the
communists.

*May 14: **
*
The riots continued but on a smaller scale. The curfew was only lifted in
staggered hours in various districts to allow people to buy food. The police
called out all possible reserves and handed over the northern part of the
city to the army.

Police put casualties for the previous night incident at 44 killed and about
150 injured. Another dispatch showed the casualties were mainly Chinese as
it stated that out of 77 corpses in the morgue of the General Hospital on
May 14, at least 60 were Chinese.

The government’s attempts to blame the communists for the riots were however
not taken seriously by the officials at the British High Commission (BHC)
who could see that the Tunku was not prepared to blame his own people for
the riots, nor was he going to blame it on the Chinese “as a whole”.

*May 15: **
*
The King proclaimed a state of emergency. The National Operations Council
headed by Tun Razak was formed. Tun Razak was still responsible to the
Tunku, but all the powers under Emergency Regulations were vested in him.

The curfew had been lifted temporarily in Kuala Lumpur that morning but the
situation had rapidly worsened and more sporadic fighting had broken out.
Curfews were re-imposed but food was very short.

The local press was suspended until censorship regulations could be drawn up
but no attempt was made to supervise reports sent out by foreign
correspondents.

*May 16:*

The situation was still tense in Selangor with cars and houses being burned
and fatalities rising. Death tolls had risen to 89 with over 300 injured. 24
hour curfew remained in force in Selangor and had also been imposed in
Malacca. In Penang and Perak, the situation had improved although the curfew
remained in force.

Tunku made a broadcast in which he announced the setting up of a National
Defence Force to be manned by volunteers. The new information minister
Hamzah Abu Samah and Tun Razak gave a press conference pinning the blame for
the riots on communist infiltration of the opposition parties.

There were reports of looting by the largely Malay military and their bias
against the Chinese Malaysians. Number of refugees were increasing.

*May 17:*

From a BHC telegram, it showed there were skepticism among British officers
toward the official figures for fatalities and the preponderance of Chinese
casualties among the dead. The police estimated the deaths at about 100 now
while British officers estimated the proportion of Chinese to Malay
casualties is about 85:15.

The press censorship invited criticism not only from the local press but
also in diplomatic circles especially when official statements lacked
clarity and credibility.

In a confidential BHC memorandum to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office
(FCO), the *coup d’etat* has been acknowledged and it has effected the
transfer of power not only to “Malay hands” but also to the security forces.
The latter’s professionalism is questioned.

The BHC also noted the Federal Reserve Unit, which at the time was
multiracial in composition, was the more impartial of the security forces
while the Malay troops were discriminatory in enforcing the curfew.

“Discriminatory takes the form, for example, of not, repeat not, enforcing
the curfew in one of the most violently disposed of the Malay areas in Kuala
Lumpur (Kampung Baru) where Malays armed with *parangs,* etc continue to
circulate freely; with the inevitable result that gangs slip through the
cordon round the area and attack Chinese outside it. In Chinese areas, the
curfew is strictly enforced.”

*May 18:*

The Tunku qualified his earlier assertion that the disturbances were caused
by communists, putting the blame instead on assorted “bad elements”. He also
announced the deferment of the Sarawak elections and the continuance of the
restrictions on the movement of foreign journalists.

The situation was still unsettled in some parts of the capital city.

*May 19:*

Less than a week after the riots, the reins of power had effectively passed
to Tun Razak, indicating that there had been a plot to bring about the *coup
d’etat. **

*”The exact relationship between Tun Razak and the Tunku is not clear. In
public Tun Razak says he is directly responsible to the Tunku but he has
made it clear privately that he is completely in charge of the country. This
could mean the beginning of a process of withdrawal by the Tunku as an
effective PM”.

There are some 10,000 reported refugees. The local press was allowed to
publish under censorship while foreign journalists had their curfew passes
withdrawn. Some opposition politicians were arrested.

*May 20:*

In a meeting, an Australian High Commissioner had suggested the opposition
leaders should be given a role as peace maker but Tun Razak and Ghazali
Shafie were firmly against this. “They considered opposition leaders would
simply use such an opportunity to promote their own political views.”

The Malaysian Red Cross Society is continuing its daily feeding programme
for refugees in various places and over 5,000 had received food supplies.

*May 21:*

The official statistics of casualties at this juncture were 137 killed (18
Malays), 342 injured, 109 vehicles burned, 118 buildings destroyed and 2,912
persons arrested who were mostly curfew breakers.

*May 23:*

The declassified documents reveal that Malay troops were not only
fraternising with the Malay thugs but were discharging their firearms
indiscriminately at Chinese shophouses as they went through the city.

“When confronted by foreign correspondents with reports of racial
discrimination, Tun Razak flatly denied them. Following this, curfew passes
issued to foreign journalists were withdrawn and reporters were ordered to
remain indoors ‘for their own safety’.”

A foreign correspondent’ s report showed the Malay hooligans were detested by
the law-abiding Malays of Kampung Baru.

Internal security and home minister Tun Dr Ismail indicated that the
Internal Security Act would be in future amended to “counter changing
communist tactics”. It was disclosed that of the 3,699 arrested during the
crisis, 952 were members of secret societies.

*May 24:*

Law and order has been re-established in Kuala Lumpur and the atmosphere in
the town had improved. People were going back to work (in non-curfew hours)
and the government offices were limbering into action. The curfew remained
in force (from 3pm to 6.30am of the following day). The government was not
ready to admit that it was armed Malay youth who had caused the
disturbances.

*May 27:*

The Tunku was under pressure to resign as he was clearly incensed by foreign
journalists’ speculations about his weakening position and got his private
secretary to write a protest note to the BHC.

*May 28:*

A confidential report by the BHC to the FCO on this day observed the
government’s attempts to blame the communists for the disturbances were an
attempt to justify their new authoritarian powers.

*June:*

The riots had been under control but they were still sporadic outbreaks of
civil disturbances. A BHC report noted violence erupted again in one part of
Kuala Lumpur on the night of June 28 and 29, a number of houses were burnt
and the casualties were officially given as five killed and 25 injured. Some
disturbances toward the end of June also involved ethnic Indians.

*July*:

Renewed trouble in which one policeman was killed was quickly stopped from
spreading in Kuala Lumpur by positive police action.

Tun Ismail’s firm stand in ordering the security forces to act firmly
‘without favour or discrimination’ to any communal group and the Tunku’s
announcement of a National Goodwill Committee made up of politicians of all
parties went some way toward allaying the fears of the people.

Tun Ismail also revealed the total arrests since May now stood at 8,114,
comprising people “from all the major racial groups”. Of these, 4,192 had
been charged in court, 675 released on bail, 1,552 unconditionally released
and 1,695 preventively detained.

Situation in the Peninsula had improved substantially but tension remains
high in sensitive areas of Malacca, Perak and Selangor.

Tension had begun to ease until Malay agitation connected with Tunku’s
return to a position of influence and the removal of Dr Mahathir Mohamad
from Umno’s general committee on July 12 had heightened it again. Malay
university students petitioned for Tunku’s resignation and demonstrated on
the campus.

>http://www.malaysia
kini.com/
news/67096
>
>Unveiling the ‘May 13′ riots
>Beh Lih Yi May 11, 07 12:52pm
>
>”While people were still assembling for this parade, trouble broke out in
>the nearby Malay section of Kampung Baru, where two Chinese lorries were
>burnt…
>
>By 7.15pm, I could see the mobs swarming like bees at the junction of Jalan
>Raja Muda and Batu Road. More vehicles were smashed and Chinese shophouses
>set on fire.
>
>The Chinese and Indian shopkeepers of Batu Road formed themselves into a
>’district defence force’ armed with whatever they find - parangs, poles,
>iron bars and bottles…
>
>When the Malay invading force withdrew as quickly as it had arrived, the
>residents took their revenge. Shop-fronts and cars suspected of being
>Malay-owned were smashed or burnt…
>
>The police arrived at about 9pm but did not remain in the area. Later,
>truck-loads of Federal Reserve Units (riot squads) and the Royal Malay
>Regiment drove past…”
>
>(Excerpts taken from a dispatch by Far Eastern Economic Review
>correspondent
>Bob Reece narrating his eyewitness account on May 13, 1969 after a group of
>young Malays gathered outside the Selangor Menteri Besar Harun Idris’
>residence in late afternoon)
>
>It has been almost four decades since the May 13 racial riots broke out.
>
>What had prompted the worst riots in Malaysia’s 50-year history that cost
>the lives of 196 persons (according to official records) however remained
>shrouded under a veil of secrecy, although there are several versions on
>the matter so far.
>
>The ‘official version’ of it has always been the violence was triggered off
>by the Chinese-dominated opposition supporters’ provocation in celebrating
>their electoral victory which saw the ruling Alliance Party suffered a
>major setback.
>
>’Full of nonsense’
>
>This version, however was consistently rebutted by the opposition group
>who claimed otherwise. Other theories also suggested that the riots was
rather
>a planned attack to oust then premier Tunku Abdul Rahman.
>
>The lack of accessible information in the public domain has been a
stumbling
>block for those who intend to uncover the episode but a set of
>newly-declassified documents in London gave sociologist Dr Kua Kia Soong a
>thorough glimpse of the event.
>
>Late last year, the principal of New Era College took a three-month
>sabbatical leave to the Public Records Office in London to study records
>and declassified documents on the May 13 incident after a 30-year secrecy
rule
>over these documents lapse.
>
>His findings based on the declassified documents - which have been
>compiled into a new book to be launched on Sunday - found the entire May 13
riots
>were by no means a spontaneous outburst of racial violence, as it has been
>portrayed to the Malaysian public.
>
>”The (official) history of May 13 is full of nonsense, it doesn’t reveal
>anything. It pins the blame on the opposition party which was not true,
>they were not the responsible party,” Kua told malaysiakini in a recent
>interview.
>
>”My book shows the responsible party were those ascendent state capitalist
>class (in Umno), elements within that gave rise and implemented this plan.
>There was a plan based on the people who assembled at the (Selangor)
>menteri besar’s house.
>
>”There are correspondences and intelligence reports which showed that.
>Official history has to reveal that truth and not to pin the blame on
>everybody around who are not to be blamed,” the educationist and social
>activist stressed.
>
>Kua maintained the May 13 incident was a coup d’etat against the Tunku by
>the then emergent Malay state capitalists - backed by the police and army
>- to seize control of the reign of power from the old aristocrats to
implement
>the new Malay agenda.
>
>A plot to oust Tunku
>
>He opined the riots were works of “Malay thugs” orchestrated by politicians
>behind the coup.
>
>For instance, he said the “group of hoodlums suddenly appeared from all
>over the place” on the day of May 13 to gather at Harun’s residence and the
>questionable conduct of the police and army to just stood by and watch.
>
>He added that documents showed less than a week after the riots, then
deputy
>premier Tun Abdul Razak who headed the National Operations Council was
>already in full control of the country - an indication that there had been
a
>plot.
>
>On top of that, discussions for future plans had already been carried out.
>
>”For example the National Cultural Policy (announced in 1971) burst in the
>80s, it was already been thought of one week after (the May 13 incident),”
>Kua noted, referring to the controversial policy which placed emphasis on
>the ‘indigenous culture’ and Islam.
>
>A secret document from the British cabinet office featured in the book
>showed that barely a week after the riots broke out, the Central
>Intelligence Agency had figured out what Tun Razak was planning - “to
>formalise Malay dominance, sideline the Chinese and shelve the Tunku”.
>
>The role of the security forces in the May 13 bloodshed was also
>questioned in Kua’s findings.
>
>”Even at that time, people in the diplomatic core (were wondering) how
>come the day the riot broke out, Razak met with the chiefs of the police
and
>army but they did not do anything,” he said.
>
>Interestingly, Kua pointed out the Malaysian security forces had been
tested
>and tried during the war against the communist insurgency between 1948 and
>1960 and earned their reputation.
>
>”They are one of the most effective in putting down the communist
>insurrection that is a far, far more difficult operation than putting down
>riot, but they could not put down (such riot) in 1969 for days, for
>weeks,” he questioned.
>
>It thus brought to Kua’s conclusion: “The May 13 was a pretext for staging
>that coup… I am not the first person who said it was a coup d’etat but I
>am providing the documents to show how it was a coup d’etat.”
>
>Exact fatality number unknown
>
>The declassified documents have included reports fielded by foreign
>correspondents who were in Kuala Lumpur at the time, dispatches by the
>British High Commission personnel who closely followed the event and
various
>other confidential reports from the diplomat circle.
>
>It is considerably the first time a complete recount of the tragedy is made
>available to the Malaysian public, as many foreign correspondent reports
>were previously banned while local documents are inaccessible.
>
>However, what could not be established in the book is another secrecy, the
>real number of deaths.
>
>Official figures said the May 13 riots claimed 196 lives, 180 were wounded
>by firearms and 259 by other weapons, 9,143 persons were arrested out of
>whom 5,561 were charged in court, 6,000 persons rendered homeless, at
>least 211 vehicles and 753 buildings were destroyed or damaged.
>
>The declassified documents and international correspondents at the time
>nevertheless have calculated a much higher number of fatalities but an
>exact number could not be ascertained, although it was common knowledge the
>victims are majority ethnic Chinese.
>
>Kua said it is his hope to smash two myths with the publication of the
>book.
>
>”One is racial riot will occur when the Malays are not happy, that’s why
you
>need the New Economic Policy, affirmative action policy et cetera,
otherwise
>the Malays will be unhappy and there will be riot.
>
>”This is the first myth we should dismantle as documents showed some people
>were involved in making it (the May 13) happened with the connivance of the
>police and army,” he stressed.
>
>The second myth, Kua said, is academicians and pluralist theorists who
>uphold the views that riots and conflicts will occur naturally in
multi-racial country.
>
>”I am questioning this. The role of the state is very important at a
>particular historical conjuncture. Malays, Chinese and Indians don’t
>suddenly decide to fight in conflict, it doesn’t happen like that,” he
said.
>
>Asked on whether there is any fear that the authorities might move to ban
>the publication of the book, as in the case of a recent ban slapped on a
>book about the Kampung Medan clashes, Kua responded:
>
>”In the age of the internet, what does banning a book mean? We can put it
>on the Web, you can’t do anything.”

hawaiichee said...

Saya amat menyesali kelakuan ramai yang mempunyai pandangan myopic atau visi pendek dan fikiran cetek. Jika Malaysia bertanding dengan negara-negara lain dalam dunia globalisasi ini, siapakah yang akan berdagang dengan Malaysia jika 70% aktiviti ekonomi tertumpu kepada Bumiputera atau lebih menonjolkan lagi sepuak bangsa Melayu yang tamak haloba dan bukan semua Bumiputera yang layak menerima bantuan dari DEB.

DEB hanya untuk tempoh sementara untuk membina landasan pembangunan bangsa Melayu. Ia dirancang selama hanya 20 tahun sejak dilancarkan pada tahun 1970. Rancangan DEB semoga bangsa Melayu dan Bumiputera dapat berdikari selepas itu kerana DEB bukan satu-satunya kaedah pengagihan sumber yang efisyen. Ia tidak telus dan tidak menggalakkan penggunaan sumber yang efisyen. Tetapi, DEB sekarang sudah melepasi tempohnya dan digunakan oleh segelintir bangsa Melayu yang mencampuradukkan politik UMNO untuk mengaut kekayaan Malaysia dan merompak dari usaha-usaha dari masyarakat yang lain.

Inilah sebabnya Malaysia tidak mengecapi kejayaan seiras Singapura. Negara-negara lain seperti India, Vietnam, Thailand kian maju bertanding dan mungkin melepasi Malaysia sebelum 2020. Malah dikhuatari Malaysia tidak dapat mencapai Visi 2020 jika diteruskan perkembangan ekonomi yang tidak rancak kini. Perkembangan di bawah 6% yang dialami 2-3 tahun sekarang sudah tentu tidak cukup untuk mencapai Visi 2020.

Inilah masanya bangsa Melayu bangun untuk menyahut cabaran untuk berdikari. Inilah masanya bangsa Melayu tidak bergantung kepada susu ibu lagi. Sudah masanya untuk makanan orang dewasa. Jika 20 tahun masa yang lama, berapakah lamanya lagi nak jadi bayi? Sudah 36 tahun DEB bergiat menghabiskan kekayaan negara dengan tidak menggalakkan pertandingan sewajarnya.

Biarlah 31 Ogos 2007 - tahun kelahiran Malaysia 50 tahun sebagai waktu membangunkan diri dan bebas dari DEB.

Semua hak-hak bangsa Melayu tetap di dalam Perlembagaan Malaysia tetapi bukan DEB. Bangsa Melayu dan Bumiputera sepatutnya diberi peluang pendidikan dan biasiswa tetapi tidak diberi lulus peperiksaan semata-mata dan kemasukan ke dalam universiti secara buta tuli. Kedudukan sultan dijaga tetapi kedudukan Perdana Menteri dan kabinet lain dibuka kepada mereka yang berwibawa tidak kira bangsa dan agama. Agensi kerajaan ditubuhkan supaya lebih giat memberi pinjaman dan nasihat untuk golongan peniaga Bumiputera tetapi tidak membenarkan mereka mengaut projek kerajaan melalui amalan tidak telus, tidak halal dan tidak adil. Inilah masanya bangsa Melayu menyahut cabaran globalisasi sebelum terlambat.

Mansurkan DEB Dasar Ekonomi Baru sebelum terlambat. Jika nak pandai, kita harus mengajar memancing dan bukan memberi hasil tangkapan beribu-ribu ikan. DEB hanya memberi projek kerajaan buta tuli dan mereka yang tidak mampu mengendali projeknya hanya menjadi penjaga tol untuk mengaut kekayaan tanpa sebarang kerja dan usaha. Ini tidak halal dan tidak menggalakkan pembangunan bangsa Melayu.

Mansurkan DEB Dasar Ekonomi Baru sebelum terlambat. Mansurkan DEB sebelum ulangtahun 50 hari jadi Malaysia 31 Ogos 2007.

UMMU FATIMAH said...

"Kedudukan sultan dijaga tetapi kedudukan Perdana Menteri dan kabinet lain dibuka kepada mereka yang berwibawa tidak kira bangsa dan agama".

Merujuk kepada cadangan hawaiichee yang di atas, saya sebagai seorang melayu kurang bersetuju. ini berdasar apa yang terjadi di singapura, bagaimana orang melayu akhirnya dipencilkan di bawah pemerintahan PM dan kabinet yang rata-rata berbangsa Cina. Kedudukan agama Islam juga terancang. Ditambah lagi dengan kelantangan pemimpin DAP sekarang misalnya tentang azan yang dikatakan sebagai gangguan bunyi. Bagaimana saya sebagai seorang Melayu Islam dpt membenarkan perkara itu berlaku. Kalau hawaiichee katakan bhw kedudukan sultan yang dikekalkan akan memberi jaminan bahawa amalan agama kami tidak terancam, bukankah kita semua maklum yang sultan walaupun ada di takhta masing-masing, tetapi tidak mempunyai kuasa kabinet. katakanlah sebuah parlimen yang dikuasai orang bukan Islam mahu menyuruh kami azan diam-diam sedangkan azan itu syiar agama kami, dan diluluskan oleh parlimen undang2 itu,apa yang sultan boleh buat dibawah kuasa yg mereka pegang sekarang???

Dan saya petik satu contoh keadaan yang pernah saya alami:

Satu peristiwa di kelas sarjana di UM dulu apabila pensyarah timbulkan isu berapa kali Malaysia pernah dijajah, penuntut Cina, India dan lain semua ketawa semasa membilang berapa kali Malaysia pernah dijajah oleh Portugis, Belanda, Jepun dan Inggeris. Yang tak ketawa hanyalah anak-anak Melayu. Dalam kes itu saya pula yang berasa diketawakan, kerana ini tanah nenek-moyang saya dan yang pernah dijajah itu nenek-moyang saya juga. Kalau betul orang-orang berbangsa lain sensitif terhadap tanah air ini, bagaimana mereka boleh ketawakan hal itu? Kadang-kadang saya jadi tertanya tentang kasih sayang mereka pada tanah air ini. Kalau tidak apa lagi makna ketawa mereka itu? Perkaumankah dan rasiskah bila hati saya panas mengenang peristiwa itu?

UMMU FATIMAH said...

"Kedudukan sultan dijaga tetapi kedudukan Perdana Menteri dan kabinet lain dibuka kepada mereka yang berwibawa tidak kira bangsa dan agama."

memetik apa yang hawaichee sebut di atas, saya sebagai org melayu kurang bersetuju dengan cadangan di atas.Kalau orang cina menjadi pm dan memegang kuasa parlimen dan kabinet misalnya, saya tidak yakin kedudukan islam akan terjaga seperti sekarang. Lihat saja komen pemimpin cina sekarang misalnya tentang suara azan yang dikatakan mengganggu, bagaimana kalau kuasa membuat undang2 ada dlm tgn mereka, adakah mereka akan masih benarkan azan berkumandang seperti sekarang. Lihat pula bagaimana keadaan singapura yg diperintah bangsa lain, tlah ada satu cara sistematik untuk meminggirkan org melayu singapura.

dan saya juga mahu bawa contoh satu keadaan yang saya hadapi sendiri:

dalam satu peristiwa di kelas sarjana di UM dulu apabila pensyarah timbulkan isu berapa kali Malaysia pernah dijajah, penuntut bangsa lain semua mengetawakan hakikat Malaysia pernah dijajah oleh Portugis, Belanda, Jepun dan Inggeris kecuali anak-anak melayu sahaja tidak ketawa. Saya waktu itu berasa diketawakan dan sgt marah, kerana yang dijajah itu tanah air saya dan nenek-moyang saya, mungkin bukan tanah-air orang2 lain yang ketawa itu? kerana itu saja kesimpulan paling lojik yang dapat saya buat - dan ini menunjukkan betapa tidak sensitif bangsa lain dengan perasaan org melayu.Perkaumankah dan rasiskah saya bila hati panas mengenang peristiwa itu?

UMMU FATIMAH said...

dan juga, kenapa buku kua kia soong tidak menyebut tentang perarakan orang cina yang membawa gambar mao zedong dan juga membawa sebuah penyapu besar yang membawa makna mahu menghalau orang2 melayu di bandar kembali ke ceruk kampung?

ini bermakna buku kua kia soong adalah pandangan sepihak yang hanya mahu membersihkan orang-orang cina dan mengkambing hitamkan tun abdul razak dan orang melayu?

Anonymous said...

Saya kurang pasti tentang beberapa sudut pandangan sesetengah pihak tentang rusuhan tersebut..namun ada juga sesetengah pendapat mengatakan bahawa sesetengah orang cina yang agak keterlaluan semasa perarakan mengatakan bahawa "Melayu ancak lancau"(atau dalam erti kata yang lebih sopan...Melayu tolong lancapkan zakar orang Cina). Saya rasa ini akan membangkitkan perasaan marah mana mana kaum di dunia ini. Ada juga pendapat bahawa orang bukan Melayu di Malaysia walaupun orang Malaysia sebenarnya berpaksikan negara lain samada Taiwan, Singapura dan banyak lagi negara lain...

lacrymossea said...

sy baru membaca satu buku bertajuk peristiwa 13 mei, lupa siapa pengarangnya sebab buku itu baru dibeli, hakikatnya yang membuka mata sy terhadap 13 mei , iaitu rusuhan berbunuh-bunuhan itu disebabkan kaum cina tidak berpuashati kerana mereka yg banyak menyumbang ekonomi pd tanah melayu tetapi tidak mendapat tempat yg sewajarnya kata mereka namun kaum cina sebelum itu meminta diberi kerakyatan dn tanah melayu tidak membenarkan dan atas dasar 'tolak ansur' org melayu khususnya mmbenarkn mereka bertapak dn mendiami di sini. berikutan kejadian itu, sy terbaca satu petikan yang benar-benar juga menghiris hati iaitu 'tempat ini china punya, kita mahu halau org melayu' dari tanah kami sendiri jadi dlm soal ini sy berpendapat orang melayu sebenarnya adalah bangsa yg terbaik didunia kerana mengamalkn tolak ansur dn bersabar namun kesabaran itu tidak kekal apabila petikan seperti itu dilemparkan, walhal, sebelum itu kaum cina sudah berjanji mahu mematuhi undang undang yang dikenakan. sekian.....

lacrymossea said...

sy baru membaca satu buku bertajuk peristiwa 13 mei, lupa siapa pengarangnya sebab buku itu baru dibeli, hakikatnya yang membuka mata sy terhadap 13 mei , iaitu rusuhan berbunuh-bunuhan itu disebabkan kaum cina tidak berpuashati kerana mereka yg banyak menyumbang ekonomi pd tanah melayu tetapi tidak mendapat tempat yg sewajarnya kata mereka namun kaum cina sebelum itu meminta diberi kerakyatan dn tanah melayu tidak membenarkan dan atas dasar 'tolak ansur' org melayu khususnya mmbenarkn mereka bertapak dn mendiami di sini. berikutan kejadian itu, sy terbaca satu petikan yang benar-benar juga menghiris hati iaitu 'tempat ini china punya, kita mahu halau org melayu' dari tanah kami sendiri jadi dlm soal ini sy berpendapat orang melayu sebenarnya adalah bangsa yg terbaik didunia kerana mengamalkn tolak ansur dn bersabar namun kesabaran itu tidak kekal apabila petikan seperti itu dilemparkan, walhal, sebelum itu kaum cina sudah berjanji mahu mematuhi undang undang yang dikenakan. sekian.....

hawaiichee said...

Yang pastinya - jika ahli Kabinet dipilih, bukan atas bangsa atau ras - tetapi atas kebolehan mewakili rakyat untuk memastikan keperluan rakyat dijaga dan masyarakat Malaysia yang seimbang dan berlandaskan prinsip-prinsip adil, baik dan murni. Jika berbalik kepada prinsip-prinsip usaha yang halal dengan bantuan kerajaan untuk mendorong yang miskin dan golongan bumiputera, negara akan dapat terus maju. Tetapi, jika mana-mana dasar disalahgunakan untuk memperbesarkan mana-mana EGO parti atau bangsa dengan pentadbiran yang tidak telus, tangisan dan sengsara mereka yang merana akan didengari oleh Allah S.W.T.

DAN MINTALAH PERTOLONGAN (KEPADA ALLAH) DENGAN JALAN SABAR DAN MENGERJAKAN SEMBAHYANG. DAN SESUNGGUHNYA SEMBAHYANG ITU AMATLAH BERAT KECUALI KEPADA ORANG-ORANG YANG KHUSYUK. (Surah al-Baqarah ayat 45)

Bukankah bulan puasa ---- bulan Sabar?

1. Sabar dalam menunaikan segala fardu dan kewajipan.
2. Sabar dalam meninggalkan segala maksiat
3. Sabar dengan tidak berebut jawatan tetapi menunggu nikmat Allah S.W.T. atas usaha yang halal

Anonymous said...

Saya tak ambik port sangat dalam rusuhan tu. Tapi oleh kerana ia melibatkan perubahan sejarah politik negara terhadap orang melayu, saya rasa ia perlu diperjelaskan oleh kerajaan. Siarkan saja pita rakaman rusuhan tersebut. Bukankah media kita selalu menyiarkan rusuhan kat negara lain?. Lagi satu biar orang Ci** dan Ind** kat negara ni sedar..ANAK MELAYU PANTANG DICABAR!!

zarin said...

camner nk tgk pita rakaman rusuhan tu? tolong lah...
zarin_azhan@yahoo.com

Kerajaan Tiga Beranak
Imam Besar Mahzab Islam Hadhari
Solidariti bersama bloggers Malaysia