Thesun 2009-04-28 Page14 Base Conclusions On Hard Evidence
This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA
Overview
Download & View Thesun 2009-04-28 Page14 Base Conclusions On Hard Evidence as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 2,361
- Pages: 1
14
theSun
| TUESDAY APRIL 28 2009
speak up! letters
[email protected]
Base conclusions on hard evidence “THE challenge of interpreting history” (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 differentiate 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 British 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 uprisings. Could the situation here be said to be identical to that in India? To Abraham, there was no difference between “Protected Malay States” and “British Crown Colony” (the Straits Settlements). It was also immaterial that the British representative to the Straits Settlements was called a governor whereas the same person was a high commissioner to the Malay states. And Abraham 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 Settlements 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
distinction between those who came from India or China and the locals (Malays), referred to as subjects of the rulers and, in the 1931 Census Report, they also distinguished between “Malays” and “Malaysians” (not non-Malays but those who came over from the Netherlands East Indies). Special privileges were not granted to the latter. For Abraham’s information, the British could easily (but not without permission) bring workers from India; however, they had difficulty doing so in the case of those who wanted to come over from the NEI
tegrating those from other countries historians lacking a social science 1939 in Kuala Lumpur, the Penang until 1943. With the change of policy knowledge base “… were unable Malays Association and the Kesthey initiated attempts to integrate to grasp and understand the indig- atuan Melayu Muda were not invited the people. First they established the enous nationalist consciousness and – why? Communities Liaison Committee aspirations of Malaysians for political I can go on and on but there is no (January, 1949) which was chaired independence from day one of the space. I am not aware that Abraham by E.E.C. Thuraisingham (a Cey- imposition of British colonial politi- has done intensive research work lonese) to assure the larger ethnic cal dominance.” in the field of Malaysian history. groups that the chairman would not I am afraid I cannot grasp what Has he, eg, read the large corpus of be partisan. This was followed by he means by “indigenous national- British secret and confidential docuthe Barnes Education Report which ist consciousness and aspirations ments as many Malaysian historians called for a single stream of schools of Malaysians”. Social scientists have? And has he also read the large but the local residents themselves seem to have this habit of not call- amount of English newspapers rejected it. ing “a spade a spade”; they prefer published in this country – in 1896 And although the British felt that to call it “an instrument of manual there were four but, by 1915, there 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 obliged to negotiate to and when he says “Malaysians” the general he already knows the And although the British felt that with as regards the what does he mean? If he means specific? the rulers and their subjects were 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, major ethnic groups Even if he means “Malayans” rather in the physical sciences, a theory has establishment of a nation-state, they should jointly take than “Malaysians”, he should still to be first tested under “controlled preferred that the three major ethnic control of the coun- be aware that citizenships were not conditions” before it can be acgroups 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 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 I REFER to “Spat between NUBE and dept have abdicated her responsibility to carry would like to quote W.G.A. Ormsby- as it was felt takes twist” (April 22). It is amazing, if not out an impartial investigation. The second Gore, British parliamentary under- that it could be astonishing, that the director-general of is that she could be ignorant of the law and secretary for the colonies who, after effectively used trade unions (DGTU) has chosen to make a third is that she intends to intimidate, harass, a tour of the Peninsula in 1928, wrote to check the inpolice report against NUBE on issues that fall embarrass and humiliate the union. in his report about the Malay states: trusion of comsquarely within her powers to investigate In relation to the protest /appeal to the “They were, they are, and they must munism. The and act on. human resources minister, my advice to the remain Malay states. They were, principal aim of The Trade Unions Act 1959 provides wide union is not to expect a response. I have at the time our co-operation in the Communist powers to the director-general to investigate heard of a case when due to the minister’s government was invited, Moham- International any offence committed by a trade union. failure to respond to a letter for about five medan monarchies and such they was to establish This includes powers of entry and search months, that a union wrote a complaint to are today. We have neither the right a Communist (S64), powers to order banks not to make the prime minister, whose department, in nor the desire to vary this system of World Order. any payments from union accounts (S54) mid-December 2008, requested the mingovernment.” The US made and obtain injunctions to freeze trade union ister to act promptly. However, until now, I The British felt that having con- the first move by funds (S53). There is no requirement in the understand the minister has not made any cluded treaties with the rulers which freeing the Phillaw for the director-general to make a police response. The issue in that matter relates enabled them to administer the Ma- ippines in 1946. report but there is a right to prosecute the to the registration of the union, began in lay kingdoms on behalf of the rulers, I am particuunion for any breach of rules. November 2007, on which the DGTU has they were duty-bound to protect the larly intrigued by To make matters worse, the directornot acted according to S12 of the Trade Malay kingdoms. They did not seri- Abraham’s regeneral has made a police report before Unions Act. ously consider the possibility of in- mark that some
DGTU has wide powers
America haunted by torture 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, Afghanistan 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. President 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 intelligence 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 “waterboarding” (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 suspects, 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 second 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
even concluding her own investigations. By right, she could prosecute the union if her investigations reveal any wrongdoing by the union. 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 favourite “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 Hussein, it tried to torture an admission of these non-existent links from its captives. The Senate reported CIA and Pentagon 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 Soviet KGB instructors. KGB’s favourite tortures in the 1930’s
I am also amazed that MTUC is yet to make a statement on this issue which is so much to the detriment of a member union.
and 40’s were merciless beatings, confinement in refrigerated cells, week-long sleep deprivation, and endless interrogations. The CIA and US military copied these, but added contorted positions, and nakedness and humiliation, techniques, reportedly copied from Israeli interrogators who used them to blackmail Palestinian prisoners into becoming informers. 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 independent judicial commission. Now, Obama claims he won’t prosecute the torturers
David Kanagaraj Via email
because they were following proper legal advice and orders. So did Nazi officials who killed millions. Nazi lawyers legally dismembered Germany’s Weimar democracy and imposed Nazi dictatorship 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 contributing editor to the Toronto Sun chain of newspapers, writing mainly about the Middle East and South Asia. Comments: [email protected].
theSun
| TUESDAY APRIL 28 2009
speak up! letters
[email protected]
Base conclusions on hard evidence “THE challenge of interpreting history” (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 differentiate 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 British 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 uprisings. Could the situation here be said to be identical to that in India? To Abraham, there was no difference between “Protected Malay States” and “British Crown Colony” (the Straits Settlements). It was also immaterial that the British representative to the Straits Settlements was called a governor whereas the same person was a high commissioner to the Malay states. And Abraham 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 Settlements 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
distinction between those who came from India or China and the locals (Malays), referred to as subjects of the rulers and, in the 1931 Census Report, they also distinguished between “Malays” and “Malaysians” (not non-Malays but those who came over from the Netherlands East Indies). Special privileges were not granted to the latter. For Abraham’s information, the British could easily (but not without permission) bring workers from India; however, they had difficulty doing so in the case of those who wanted to come over from the NEI
tegrating those from other countries historians lacking a social science 1939 in Kuala Lumpur, the Penang until 1943. With the change of policy knowledge base “… were unable Malays Association and the Kesthey initiated attempts to integrate to grasp and understand the indig- atuan Melayu Muda were not invited the people. First they established the enous nationalist consciousness and – why? Communities Liaison Committee aspirations of Malaysians for political I can go on and on but there is no (January, 1949) which was chaired independence from day one of the space. I am not aware that Abraham by E.E.C. Thuraisingham (a Cey- imposition of British colonial politi- has done intensive research work lonese) to assure the larger ethnic cal dominance.” in the field of Malaysian history. groups that the chairman would not I am afraid I cannot grasp what Has he, eg, read the large corpus of be partisan. This was followed by he means by “indigenous national- British secret and confidential docuthe Barnes Education Report which ist consciousness and aspirations ments as many Malaysian historians called for a single stream of schools of Malaysians”. Social scientists have? And has he also read the large but the local residents themselves seem to have this habit of not call- amount of English newspapers rejected it. ing “a spade a spade”; they prefer published in this country – in 1896 And although the British felt that to call it “an instrument of manual there were four but, by 1915, there 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 obliged to negotiate to and when he says “Malaysians” the general he already knows the And although the British felt that with as regards the what does he mean? If he means specific? the rulers and their subjects were 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, major ethnic groups Even if he means “Malayans” rather in the physical sciences, a theory has establishment of a nation-state, they should jointly take than “Malaysians”, he should still to be first tested under “controlled preferred that the three major ethnic control of the coun- be aware that citizenships were not conditions” before it can be acgroups 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 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 I REFER to “Spat between NUBE and dept have abdicated her responsibility to carry would like to quote W.G.A. Ormsby- as it was felt takes twist” (April 22). It is amazing, if not out an impartial investigation. The second Gore, British parliamentary under- that it could be astonishing, that the director-general of is that she could be ignorant of the law and secretary for the colonies who, after effectively used trade unions (DGTU) has chosen to make a third is that she intends to intimidate, harass, a tour of the Peninsula in 1928, wrote to check the inpolice report against NUBE on issues that fall embarrass and humiliate the union. in his report about the Malay states: trusion of comsquarely within her powers to investigate In relation to the protest /appeal to the “They were, they are, and they must munism. The and act on. human resources minister, my advice to the remain Malay states. They were, principal aim of The Trade Unions Act 1959 provides wide union is not to expect a response. I have at the time our co-operation in the Communist powers to the director-general to investigate heard of a case when due to the minister’s government was invited, Moham- International any offence committed by a trade union. failure to respond to a letter for about five medan monarchies and such they was to establish This includes powers of entry and search months, that a union wrote a complaint to are today. We have neither the right a Communist (S64), powers to order banks not to make the prime minister, whose department, in nor the desire to vary this system of World Order. any payments from union accounts (S54) mid-December 2008, requested the mingovernment.” The US made and obtain injunctions to freeze trade union ister to act promptly. However, until now, I The British felt that having con- the first move by funds (S53). There is no requirement in the understand the minister has not made any cluded treaties with the rulers which freeing the Phillaw for the director-general to make a police response. The issue in that matter relates enabled them to administer the Ma- ippines in 1946. report but there is a right to prosecute the to the registration of the union, began in lay kingdoms on behalf of the rulers, I am particuunion for any breach of rules. November 2007, on which the DGTU has they were duty-bound to protect the larly intrigued by To make matters worse, the directornot acted according to S12 of the Trade Malay kingdoms. They did not seri- Abraham’s regeneral has made a police report before Unions Act. ously consider the possibility of in- mark that some
DGTU has wide powers
America haunted by torture 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, Afghanistan 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. President 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 intelligence 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 “waterboarding” (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 suspects, 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 second 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
even concluding her own investigations. By right, she could prosecute the union if her investigations reveal any wrongdoing by the union. 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 favourite “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 Hussein, it tried to torture an admission of these non-existent links from its captives. The Senate reported CIA and Pentagon 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 Soviet KGB instructors. KGB’s favourite tortures in the 1930’s
I am also amazed that MTUC is yet to make a statement on this issue which is so much to the detriment of a member union.
and 40’s were merciless beatings, confinement in refrigerated cells, week-long sleep deprivation, and endless interrogations. The CIA and US military copied these, but added contorted positions, and nakedness and humiliation, techniques, reportedly copied from Israeli interrogators who used them to blackmail Palestinian prisoners into becoming informers. 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 independent judicial commission. Now, Obama claims he won’t prosecute the torturers
David Kanagaraj Via email
because they were following proper legal advice and orders. So did Nazi officials who killed millions. Nazi lawyers legally dismembered Germany’s Weimar democracy and imposed Nazi dictatorship 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 contributing editor to the Toronto Sun chain of newspapers, writing mainly about the Middle East and South Asia. Comments: [email protected].
Related Documents
Conclusions
April 2020 11
5 Dimensions Evidence Base
November 2019 4
Conclusions
May 2020 8
Conclusions
November 2019 20
Conclusions
November 2019 20More Documents from ""
