14 theSun | TUESDAY APRIL 28 2009

speak up!

letters
letters@thesundaily.com

Base conclusions on hard evidence

“THE challenge of interpreting histo-
ry” (Letters, April 21) opens the way,
for the first time, for a serious debate
between conventional historians and
social scientists who choose to write
on Malaysian history.
Perhaps influenced by his own
discipline, Dr Collin Abraham uses
words and concepts loosely. He is
happy to assume instead of basing
his conclusions on hard evidence.
He also does not want to differenti-
ate between the “denotation” and
“connotation” of a word or concept.
Therefore, he is not against drawing
conclusions based on impressions or
assumptions. Broad generalisations
do not trouble him.
To say, eg, by studying British
policy in India (he called it the
“classic” case), we would know Brit-
ish policy in Malaya is to say that the
two situations were in fact identical;
also, therefore, the two societies
were identical. Yet a British official
in this country once told the Colonial
Office: “We do not want the Malays
to be like the Bengali Baboos.”
It is well known that the British
used Punjabi troops to help conquer
India. In Malaya, Punjabi troops were
also used to quell anti-British upris-
ings. Could the situation here be said
to be identical to that in India?
To Abraham, there was no dif-
ference between “Protected Malay
States” and “British Crown Colony”
(the Straits Settlements). It was also
immaterial that the British repre-
distinction between those who came tegrating those from other countries historians lacking a social science 1939 in Kuala Lumpur, the Penang
from India or China and the locals until 1943. With the change of policy knowledge base “… were unable Malays Association and the Kes-
(Malays), referred to as subjects of they initiated attempts to integrate to grasp and understand the indig- atuan Melayu Muda were not invited
the rulers and, in the 1931 Census the people. First they established the enous nationalist consciousness and – why?
Report, they also distinguished be- Communities Liaison Committee aspirations of Malaysians for political I can go on and on but there is no
tween “Malays” and “Malaysians” (January, 1949) which was chaired independence from day one of the space. I am not aware that Abraham
(not non-Malays but those who by E.E.C. Thuraisingham (a Cey- imposition of British colonial politi- has done intensive research work
came over from the Netherlands lonese) to assure the larger ethnic cal dominance.” in the field of Malaysian history.
East Indies). Special privileges were groups that the chairman would not I am afraid I cannot grasp what Has he, eg, read the large corpus of
not granted to the latter. be partisan. This was followed by he means by “indigenous national- British secret and confidential docu-
For Abraham’s information, the the Barnes Education Report which ist consciousness and aspirations ments as many Malaysian historians
British could easily (but not without called for a single stream of schools of Malaysians”. Social scientists have? And has he also read the large
permission) bring workers from but the local residents themselves seem to have this habit of not call- amount of English newspapers
India; however, they had difficulty rejected it. ing “a spade a spade”; they prefer published in this country – in 1896
doing so in the case of those who And although the British felt that to call it “an instrument of manual there were four but, by 1915, there
wanted to come over from the NEI the rulers and their subjects were the husbandry”. When Abraham says were eight. Is he saying that it is not
people that they were “indigenous” who is he referring necessary to do so? That by reading
And although the British felt that obliged to negotiate to and when he says “Malaysians” the general he already knows the
the rulers and their subjects were with as regards the what does he mean? If he means specific?
establishment of a “Malaysians” “from day one of the The problem with the social
the people that they were obliged nation-state, they pre- imposition of British colonial po- sciences is that they tend to ape the
to negotiate with as regards the ferred that the three litical dominance”, I am perplexed. physical sciences. But, unfortunately,
establishment of a nation-state, they major ethnic groups Even if he means “Malayans” rather in the physical sciences, a theory has
preferred that the three major ethnic should jointly take than “Malaysians”, he should still to be first tested under “controlled
control of the coun- be aware that citizenships were not conditions” before it can be ac-
groups should jointly take control of the try but the Malays open to non-Malays in the Malay cepted. In the social sciences, this
country but the Malays should not lose should not lose out states before Feb 1, 1948. is not possible. The result is that
out in their own country.” in their own country. He seems to have no knowledge often the conclusions are primarily
Hence, the Alliance of Chinese and Indian political speculative. Therefore, unless social
because while the British ruled Memorandum to the Reid Commis- activities in the Peninsula. Does he scientists are able to gather sufficient
India, the permission of the Dutch sion which formed the basis for the know what group of Chinese first hard evidence, they run the risk of
was needed to bring workers from Malayan constitution. brought anarchism and what group making very wild speculations.
the NEI. This was certainly not “divide first brought Communism to this
Abraham seems unaware that and rule” because, by the end of the country? Prof Khoo Kay Kim
in India, the British progressively war, Britain was under pressure When the first All-Malaya Malay Kuala Lumpur
obliterated the Maharajahs and their from the US to pull out of all the ter- Congress was held in
domains, and they demolished the ritories which they
monarchy in Burma (Myanmar) controlled. It
too, but in the Malay Peninsula, they was a strategy

DGTU has wide powers

sentative to the Straits Settlements
was called a governor whereas the
same person was a high commis-
sioner to the Malay states. And Abra-
ham does not bother that those born
in the Straits Settlements between
1867 and 1941 were automatically
British subjects (incidentally Chin
Peng was born there) but those born
in the Malay states were not.
In fact, the Dinding (in Perak)
once presented an interesting case.
Incorporated into the Straits Settle-
ments since 1826, it was returned to
Perak in the early 1930s. If he had
read the local newspapers of that
time, he would have come across
complaints from many of those
born in the Dinding that from being
British subjects they had suddenly
become stateless citizens.
What about the people resident in
the Peninsula? The British made a
preserved and nurtured the Malay to encourage
kingdoms. the growth of
For the benefit of Abraham, I n a t i o n a l i s m
would like to quote W.G.A. Ormsby- as it was felt
Gore, British parliamentary under- that it could be
secretary for the colonies who, after effectively used
a tour of the Peninsula in 1928, wrote to check the in-
in his report about the Malay states: trusion of com-
“They were, they are, and they must munism. The
remain Malay states. They were, principal aim of
at the time our co-operation in the Communist
government was invited, Moham- International
medan monarchies and such they was to establish
are today. We have neither the right a Communist
nor the desire to vary this system of World Order.
government.” The US made
The British felt that having con- the first move by
cluded treaties with the rulers which freeing the Phil-
enabled them to administer the Ma- ippines in 1946.
lay kingdoms on behalf of the rulers, I am particu-
they were duty-bound to protect the larly intrigued by
Malay kingdoms. They did not seri- Abraham’s re-
ously consider the possibility of in- mark that some
I REFER to “Spat between NUBE and dept have abdicated her responsibility to carry
takes twist” (April 22). It is amazing, if not out an impartial investigation. The second
astonishing, that the director-general of is that she could be ignorant of the law and
trade unions (DGTU) has chosen to make a third is that she intends to intimidate, harass,
police report against NUBE on issues that fall embarrass and humiliate the union.
squarely within her powers to investigate In relation to the protest /appeal to the
and act on. human resources minister, my advice to the
The Trade Unions Act 1959 provides wide union is not to expect a response. I have
powers to the director-general to investigate heard of a case when due to the minister’s
any offence committed by a trade union. failure to respond to a letter for about five
This includes powers of entry and search months, that a union wrote a complaint to
(S64), powers to order banks not to make the prime minister, whose department, in
any payments from union accounts (S54) mid-December 2008, requested the min-
and obtain injunctions to freeze trade union ister to act promptly. However, until now, I
funds (S53). There is no requirement in the understand the minister has not made any
law for the director-general to make a police response. The issue in that matter relates
report but there is a right to prosecute the to the registration of the union, began in
union for any breach of rules. November 2007, on which the DGTU has
To make matters worse, the director- not acted according to S12 of the Trade
general has made a police report before Unions Act.
even concluding her own investigations. By I am also amazed that MTUC is yet to
right, she could prosecute the union if her make a statement on this issue which is so
investigations reveal any wrongdoing by the much to the detriment of a member union.

America haunted by torture union.

by Eric S. Margolis
NATIONS that use torture
disgrace themselves. Armed
forces and police that torture
inevitably become brutalised
and corrupted. “Limited” use
of torture quickly becomes
generalised. “Information”
obtained by torture is mostly
unreliable.
I learned these maxims
observing or covering dirty
“pacification” wars, from
Algeria to Indochina, Central
and South America, southern
Africa, the Middle East, Af-
ghanistan and Kashmir.
All this historical evidence
notwithstanding, the Bush
administration encouraged
torture of anti-American
militants (aka “terrorists”)
after the 9/11 attacks. The full
story has not been revealed,
but what we know so far is
revolting and shameful.
Many Americans want the
Bush administration officials
who employed and sanctioned
torture to face justice. Presi-
dent Barack Obama hinted
the US attorney general might
investigate this whole ugly
business.
Republicans, who have
become America’s champion
of war and torture, are fiercely
resisting any investigation,
and lauding torture’s benefits.
So, too, some senior intel-
ligence officials.
Torture is a crime under
US law. It is a crime under
the Third Geneva Convention,
and the UN’s Anti-Torture
Convention, both of which
the US signed. Kidnapping
and moving suspects to be
tortured in third countries is
a crime. Torture violates core
American values.
In 1945, the US hanged
Japanese officers for war
crimes for inflicting “water-
boarding” (near-drowning)
on US prisoners – exactly
what the CIA inflicted on its
Muslim captives. FBI agents
rightly refused to take part in
the torture of Al-Qaeda sus-
pects, warning that it violated
US law and could make them
subject to future prosecution.
Republicans and even
Obama’s intelligence chief,
Admiral Dennis Blair, claim
some useful information was
obtained by torture. That
depends on what you call
useful. Al Qaeda is still in
business. Osama remains at
large. Iraq and Afghanistan
became monstrous fiascos
costing US$1 trillion (RM3.58
trillion). Torture did not
protect America from a sec-
ond major attack. 9/11 was a
one-off event, and Al Qaeda
only a handful of extremists.
Administration claims about
dirty bombs and germs were
lies.
CIA’s “useful” torture
information came from
two suspects: Khalid Sheik
Mohammed was tortured by
near drowning 183 times – six
times daily for a month; and
Abu Zubaydah, 83 times in
In view of this, the director-general’s
report to the police could have been mooted
by three issues. The first is that she could
August, 2003. Give me Dick
Cheney, a power drill (a fa-
vourite “investigative” tool of
America’s Iraqi Shi’ite allies)
and thirty minutes, and I’ll
have him admit he’s Osama
bin Laden.
A US Senate report just
revealed that after the Bush
administration could not find
the links it claimed between
Al Qaeda and Saddam Hus-
sein, it tried to torture an ad-
mission of these non-existent
links from its captives. The
Senate reported CIA and Pen-
tagon torture techniques were
adopted from torture methods
North Korea used in the 1950’s
to compel American prisoners
to admit to lies about germ
warfare.
North Korea learned its
torture techniques from So-
viet KGB instructors. KGB’s
favourite tortures in the 1930’s
and 40’s were
merciless beatings, confine-
ment in refrigerated cells,
week-long sleep deprivation,
and endless interrogations.
The CIA and US military cop-
ied these, but added contorted
positions, and nakedness
and humiliation, techniques,
reportedly copied from Israeli
interrogators who used them
to blackmail Palestinian pris-
oners into becoming inform-
ers. Hence all the naked photos
from Abu Ghraib prison.
Torture was authorised by
President George W. Bush, VP
Dick Cheney, secretaries Don
Rumsfeld and Condoleeza
Rice. Four lickspittle lawyers
and two bootlicking attorneys
general provided sophistic
legal briefs sanctioning torture.
All should face an independ-
ent judicial commission.
Now, Obama claims he
won’t prosecute the torturers
David Kanagaraj
Via email
because they were follow-
ing proper legal advice and
orders. So did Nazi officials
who killed millions. Nazi
lawyers legally dismembered
Germany’s Weimar democ-
racy and imposed Nazi dic-
tatorship in only two months
after the “terrorist attack” on
the Reichstag in Feb 27, 1933.
When I served in the US
Army, I was taught that any
illegal order, even from the
president, must be refused.
Have we learned nothing
from the 1940’s? Show the
world America upholds the
law and rejects these foul
violations of human rights
and decency.
Eric S. Margolis is a contribut-
ing editor to the Toronto Sun
chain of newspapers, writing
mainly about the Middle East
and South Asia. Comments:
letters@thesundaily.com.