Di sebalik resolusi Perhimpunan Agung MCA

Dr Mohd Ridhuan Tee Abdullah

14 MAC — Dalam kekusutan dan kekecohan MCA berhadapan dengan masalah dalamannya, Perhimpunan Agung Tahunan MCA (AGM) Ke-56 yang berakhir pada 7 Februari 2010, meluluskan lima resolusi merangkumi 16 perkara di bawah usul politik, hal ehwal kerajaan, pendidikan, sosial dan ekonomi serta budaya. Antara resolusi yang diluluskan sebulat suara yang menarik perhatian saya adalah mengenai penambahan bukan Melayu dalam perkhidmatan awam, perubahan dan inovasi pengkongsian kuasa Barisan Nasional (BN), penambahan sekolah vernakular dan pengiktirafan Sijil Peperiksaan Bersepadu (UEC) di semua sekolah persendirian Cina. Satu lagi resolusi yang paling saya tidak dapat terima ialah campurtangan mereka dalam hukuman sebat yang telah diputuskan oleh mahkamah syariah. Sikap mencampuri urusan rumah tangga orang lain boleh dikira biadab ketika mana rumah tangga sendiri berantakan. Tidakkah mereka sedar bahawa selama ini umat Islam di negara ini, tidak pernah campurtangan sama sekali dalam urusan orang bukan Islam. Licik sungguh mereka ini, sesuatu yang dirasa ‘menggugat’ kedudukan mereka didesak habis-habisan manakala yang boleh diambil kesempatan dan peluang disokong tanpa berbelah bahagi seperti gagasan 1Malaysia, yang pada pandangan mereka berasaskan konsep sama rata dan sama rasa.

Termenung seketika memikirkan tuntutan sebegini setelah sekian lama bersama BN dan berkawan dengan UMNO. Kawan tidak menjaga kawan, kadangkala jadi lawan. Ketika kawan lemah, ambil kesempatan, bertindak seperti gunting dalam lipatan. Serba sedikit saya dapat membaca maksud tersirat dan tersurat permintaan dan desakan mereka itu. Saya telah ulas panjang lebar mengenai kedudukan bukan Melayu dalam perkhidmatan awam, mungkin mereka boleh baca apa yang telah saya tulis sebelum ini (Mingguan Malaysia, 14 Februari 2010). Tidakkah kita dapat melihat ramainya orang Islam (Melayu) dalam perkhidmatan awam dan pembolotan bukan Melayu dalam ekonomi sebagai situasi menang-menang atau win-win? Kenapa masih belum puas?

Mengenai inovasi dan perubahan struktur perkongsian kuasa dalam BN, saya dapat melihat mereka mahukan jawatan tinggi dalam BN seperti pengerusi BN, timbalan BN, setiausaha agung BN, bendahari BN dan jawatan penting lain BN digilirkan. Selepas itu, jawatan-jawatan ini akan digunakan sebagai batu loncatan untuk mendapatkan jawatan-jawatan penting dalam kabinet termasuk jawatan PM dan TPM dan sebagainya di kemudian hari. Perkara ini bukanlah isu baru, ia telah dibangkitkan sekian lama oleh parti ultra kiasu yang lain, cuma masih belum menjadi realiti.

Sejak dahulu lagi perjuangan mereka tidak pernah padam. Jika dahulu jawatan menteri kewangan pernah disandang oleh mereka. Hari ini mereka mahu kembali mendapat jawatan tersebut dan jawatan yang lebih senior. Cuma, saya menyeru nilaikanlah toleransi yang berlaku, berapa ramai calon bukan Melayu yang telah dilantik menjadi senator dan diberikan jawatan menteri, walaupun mereka kalah dalam pilihan raya. MCA pula begitu beruntung kerana mereka menang pilihan raya di kawasan majoriti Melayu. Saya akan tabik MCA dengan sepuluh hari jika MCA atau Gerakan dapat mengalahkan parti ultra kiasu dalam pilihan raya di kawasan majoriti bukan Melayu.

Jika parti-parti komponen BN ini boleh menang, ketika itu mereka mungkin wajar mendesak dan mengemukakan tuntutan kepada kerajaan. Jika tidak, tak payahlah kemukakan tuntutan sedemikian, jagalah masalah dalaman parti terlebih dahulu. Janganlah hendak menjadi jaguh ketika sokongan bukan Melayu telah beralih kepada ultra kiasu. Saya begitu teruja untuk melihat parti komponen BN ini dapat merebut kembali Pulau Pinang jika mereka mampu. Saranan bekas presiden Gerakan ada betulnya. Parti-parti politik ini perlu menumpukan perhatian untuk membina kekuatan dalaman dan meraih sokongan dahulu sebelum bercita-cita tinggi untuk merampas Pulau Pinang daripada ultra kiasu. Apapun, mereka masih tidak rugi apa-apa kerana pulau tersebut masih lagi berada dalam genggaman orang yang sama kerana tindakan dan desakan mereka tidak banyak beza.

Parti itu juga menggesa kerajaan mengiktiraf Sijil Peperiksaan Bersepadu (UEC) yang ditawarkan semua sekolah persendirian Cina selain menyediakan peruntukan kepada sekolah terbabit supaya lebih ramai pelajar yang berbakat dapat dipupuk. Kerajaan juga digesa untuk terus mengamalkan dasar pendidikan yang lebih liberal dan berbilang kaum supaya lebih banyak sekolah vernakular boleh ditubuhkan dan dimasukkan ke dalam program pembangunan nasional. Persoalannya bakat dan pembangunan nasional bagaimanakah yang ingin dipupuk? Di manakah bakat-bakat tersebut? Apakah mereka berperanan besar dalam pembinaan sebuah negara bangsa? Rujuk artikel saya pada 31 Januari 2010 dan 22 November 2009. Kenapa tidak dibincangkan langsung akan kepentingan sekolah satu sistem (SSS) yang mana semua pelajar dapat dikumpulkan dalam satu tempat tanpa menafikan hak untuk belajar bahasa ibunda? Saya fikir sudah tibanya parti-parti politik ini berbincang akan modus operandi dan operasi SSS demi masa depan negara. Jangan ketepikan langsung kepentingan SSS dalam pembinaan negara bangsa, berbanding dengan hanya kepentingan bangsa. Saya akan bersetuju dengan pengikhtirafan sijil ini jika banyak masa diperuntukan untuk pengajaran dan pembelajaran yang mengutamakan bahasa kebangsaan.

Berapa banyakkah lagi sekolah seperti ini hendak dibina? Buatlah kajian dahulu tentang keberkesanan, kebolehan dan pencapaian BM dalam peperiksaan dan komunikasi. Begitu juga dengan semangat cintakan kepentingan nasional sebelum mendesak kerajaan bina yang baru. Setelah menonton rakaman debat antara ketua pemuda MCA dan Khoo Kay Kim, baru saya sedar betapa kiasunya parti ini seolah-olah tidak bezanya dengan parti ultra kiasu yang satu lagi. Sebagai timbalan menteri pelajaran beliau sepatutnya berhujah dengan lebih akademik bukannya beremosi. Hujah yang mengatakan pelajar sekolah vernakular hanya enam tahun berada di sekolah rendah, berbanding mereka lebih lama di sekolah menengah dan institusi pengajian tinggi adalah hujah yang ultra kiasu. Seolah-olah kita menyalahkan orang lain atas kegagalan sendiri. Apakah kita tidak belajar psikologi atau terlebih belajar sains? Tanyalah kepada sesiapapun, zaman kanak-kanak adalah tahap yang paling kritikal. Pepatah ada menyebut melentur buluh biarlah dari rebungnya. Mungkinkah dia berpegang kepada melentur buluh biarlah dari buluhnya. Hujah menegakkan benang yang basah ini tidak akan menyelesaikan masalah.

Saya ingin mengajak mereka yang kiasu ini supaya datang ke sekolah saya dan lihat bagaimana keadaan pelajar di sekolah di sini setelah dilentur sejak kecil di sekolah vernakular. Buat pemerhatian ke atas kelas peralihan, penguasaan BM dan pergaulan mereka. Saya tidak faham adakah mereka yang pandai berkata-kata pernah pergi ke sekolah yang di bawah seliaannya sendiri. Jangan asyik pergi ke sekolah sendiri sahaja. Sudah sampai masanya kajian secara akademik dibuat secara telus akan keberkesanan semua sekolah ke arah pembinaan negara bangsa berasaskan perlembagaan negara. Sebenarnya, kajian telahpun dibuat, tetapi kita mengambil sikap endah tak endah sebab hasil kajian tidak menyebelahui kita. Apapun selesaikan dahulu masalah dalaman parti, selepas kita boleh berbincang dan berdebat di tempat yang agak neutral.

Yours is a world of fun with the new Dell™ Inspiron™ 14!

Saya tidak nampak ada masalah dengan pengikhtirafan ke atas UEC. Mungkin mereka agak sukar untuk mereka mencari pekerjaan di sektor awam, tetapi pengambilan mereka ke dalam sektor swasta boleh dikatakan tidak ada halangan langsung, walaupun mungkin mereka gagal dalam BM. Mereka ibarat kek panas, maklum sahajalah sektor swasta tidak memerlukan kelayakan BM untuk bekerja di sana, terutama akhbar-akhbar ultra kiasu. Apakah mungkin perkara ini juga yang menyebabkan bilangan mereka tidak bertambah di sektor awam? Pendek kata, sama ada sijil UEC ini tidak ikhtiraf atau tidak, tidak banyak bezanya. Sikap menambah yang telah dapat, patut dipuji, tetapi janganlah ditambah sehingga membukit mengakibatkan orang lain merasa diketepikan? Buatlah kajian sama bagaimana sekolah jenis ini boleh meningkatkan idealism pembinaan negara bangsa.

Resolusi yang menggesa semua jabatan kerajaan seperti Kementerian Pelajaran dan Biro Tata Negara (BTN) mengubah suai silibus mengikut fakta sejarah dan menyerapkan konsep 1Malaysia ke dalam kurikulumnya juga tidak dapat lari dari sikap ultra kiasu. Resolusi ini memperlihatkan bahawa selama ini sejarahawan kita telah memutar-belitkan sejarah Tanah Melayu dan Malaysia. Saya ingin bertanya, di bahagian manakah yang telah diputar-belitkan. Selaku pensyarah dalam bidang politik dan kerajaan yang berkait rapat dengan sejarah, saya teramat ingin melihat fakta sejarah manakah yang didakwa diselewengkan? Adakah kita mempunyai niat tersembunyi untuk mengubah fakta sejarah supaya lebih berpihak kepada kita? Sejarah tetap sejarah, ia akan terus kekal sampai bila-bila. Janganlah diubah fakta tersebut semata-mata untuk menggembirakan diri sendiri. Susah-susah sangat, tanyalah Khoo Kay Kim. Beliau adalah pakar daripada segala pakar dalam bidang sejarah. Malangnya pakar sejarah ini ditolak sama sekali oleh mereka yang banyak bercakap ini.

MCA turut meminta kerajaan menilai semula hukuman fizikal terhadap golongan wanita beragama Islam dan bertindak atas dasar pertimbangan kemanusiaan dengan mematuhi persetujuan yang diterima pakai “Konvensyen Penghapusan Semua Bentuk Diskriminasi Terhadap Wanita” (Cedaw). Nasihat saya, MCA tidak perlu gatal tangan untuk campurtangan dalam hal ehwal agama Islam, kerana orang Islam lebih arif dengan kehidupan mereka sendiri. Jagalah rumahtangga sendiri dahulu yang sedang berantakan. Lagipun orang Islam tidak pernah sama sekali campurtangan dalam urusan orang lain. Kenapa perlu menyakitkan hati orang Islam?

Jauh sungguh bezanya sokongan mereka terhdap gagasan 1Malaysia. Bila dirasa menguntungkan maka disokong tanpa berbelah bahagi. Namun sebaliknya bila dilihat ada kerugian dan pengurangan, maka akan ditentang habis-habisan. Sikap ultra kiasu ini tidak ada bezanya langsung dengan parti ultra kiasu. Logo sahaja berlainan, perjuangan tetap sama. Suara mereka tetap tidak berubah. Ini yang saya selalu katakan bersatu dalam senyap. Di luar ada yang lantang mengkritik, di dalam ada yang memujuk, laksana adik-beradik. Strategi inilah yang telah mencairkan parti politik yang memerintah. Mungkinkah selepas ini mereka akan menyokong pula cadangan untuk mengadakan pilihan raya majlis perbandaran seperti yang dicadangkan oleh negeri yang perintah oleh ultra kiasu itu? Maklumlah kawasan bandar lebih ramai dihuni oleh pengikut-pengikutnya.

Saya yakin selepas ini parti-parti komponen BN yang lain akan membuat tuntutan yang hampir sama atau mungkin lebih ekstrim, jika kita terus melayan tuntutan dan desakan parti yang sedang berkecamuk ini. Kadangkala simpati saya terhadap Umno, selaku parti tunggal Melayu Islam, mereka terpaksa mendengar dan menerima semua desakan dan rintihan parti-parti komponen BN yang rata-ratanya tidak Islam. Siapakah sebenarnya yang akan mendengar dan melayan rintihan Umno yang ada berkeinginan untuk menegakkan kepentingan bangsa dan agamanya? Apakah mungkin PAS dan PKR mahu mendengar dan berkongsi beban ini atau terus-menerus mahu menuduh dan menyalahkan Umno?

Kita sepatutnya belajar daripada strategi orang lain. Apa jua masalah yang melanda, suara dan desakan mereka tetap senada. Berbeza sungguh dengan parti-parti Melayu. Bergaduh seolah-olah tidak ada noktahnya, sehingga terlepas pandang agenda bangsa dan agama. — Mingguan Malaysia

* Dr. Mohd Ridhuan Tee Abdullah, Pensyarah Kanan, Universiti Pertahanan Nasional Malaysia merangkap Setiausaha Agung Dewan Perdagangan Islam Malaysia. Penulisan ini adalah pendapat peribadi penulis

* This article is the personal opinion of the writer or publication. The blog owner does not endorse the view unless specified. To share the above article, please click the followings:

 

 

MCA’s harakiri and its repercussions on the Chinese

CPI Writings

WRITTEN BY DR LIM TECK GHEE

FRIDAY, 12 MARCH 2010 15:30

MCA is an ineffective political force in part because it has long played only a marginal role in the previous Malaysia Plans — implemented by the Umno-aligned, Malay dominated civil service — that have shaped socio-economic development in the country. The Malaysian public, especially the Chinese, must be wondering if MCA can ever get its house in order so that it can attend to the important affairs of state, especially the economy. Besides the economy which affects the wellbeing of all households in one way or another, there are many other issues that should occupy the time and attention of the party. Rising religious tensions; increasing intolerance of Islamic zealots; growth of rightwing Malay NGOs and extremism; lack of education opportunities for young Chinese and other Malaysians – the list is formidable. Many of these issues have implications not only for the Chinese but for the whole country. The Najib administration’s New Economic Model (NEM) is being touted as the way forward. Do the MCA leaders know or even care what is in the model? Should the New Economic Policy (NEP) be a key part of the NEM as suggested by some Umno leaders? NEP was a policy that was supposed to have ended in 1990 but has in fact been continued with new labels during the past 20 years. Is there a danger that NEM will in fact be a retreat to the obsolete NEP strategy as demanded by Perkasa? Will there be a continuation of the crony capitalism that has blighted the earlier economic model? The Deputy Prime Minister has said that no Malaysian will be sidelined by the NEM and that “every Malaysian will be given the opportunity to look at what is being proposed and can provide their input”. Can the MCA vouch that the interests of all the communities will be safeguarded in the NEM? Can MCA assure the party members and public that they have not only closely monitored the drafting of the soon to be unveiled NEM but also contributed to its final form? If so, what are the inputs the party has provided or has this crucial strategy been left to others to formulate while the party has been twiddling its thumbs in between the preoccupation with party games. It will be interesting to know not only the party’s inputs but also the specific suggestions for the economic transformation of the country provided by the contenders jostling for party leadership. Input to economic planning There has been absolutely no word on NEM from MCA’s rival factions, so the public can be forgiven if they assume that these factions are either clueless or couldn’t give a damn as to what is in the new model. The concern is not only with regard to NEM but more immediately, the 10th Malaysia Plan, which will decide on how public expenditure is to be spent during the next five years. What is the specific input of the MCA to this national blueprint? For example, has the party consulted the best experts as well as the affected businesses on how to get the small and medium scale enterprises (SMEs) out from their low-value-added, low-wage and low-productivity structure? And again, what inputs (assuming that the party leadership has been furnished with early drafts of the 10th Malaysia Plan by the Economic Planning Unit) have MCA provided on the plan? Presumably MCA has access to a wide range of expertise available from the Chinese business community and intelligentsia. This feedback if collated should be useful in providing pragmatic guidance on how to achieve a breakthrough in the many challenges we face. For the coming MCA elections on March 28, the party members should insist that each of the candidates contesting key positions provide a full report card on their views on the NEM and 10th Malaysia Plan and how they intend to ensure that their policy proposals are taken up by the party and government. This report card, including their record of service and accomplishments at the community and national level – rather than the dinners and other perks aimed at wooing supporters –should be the main focus of their campaign. A disclosure of the candidate’s policy position on the major economic, social and political challenges that the country faces is the first step to realizing the party’s aspiration to be a credible political force. Marginalizing itself or being marginalized? The consensus of analysts is that the MCA has been an ineffective political force in part because it has only played a marginal role in the previous Malaysia Plans that have shaped socio-economic development in the country. Because of Malay dominance of the civil service and the close relationship between Umno and the civil service, past development plans, for example, have been skewed against vernacular schools and education for the children of minority communities. At the same time, billions of dollars have been disproportionately spent on Mara junior science colleges and other Bumiputra elitist educational institutions. Some of the outcomes of the earlier economic model and past development expenditure have been the failure of the country to grow to its full potential; the economic dominance of Umno- and MCA-affiliated tycoons and business interests; the widening income inequalities within all communities; and the extraordinary growth of a super rich and wealthy class. The resulting inequalities and persistence of Bumiputra poverty is now unfairly blamed on the ‘greed’ of the ‘pendatang’ community by extremist Malay and Umno quarters seeking a continuation of NEP and Malay-oriented development policies. Quite apart from concern over how the national economic cake is being shared, surely the party must be fully aware that among our neighbours such as China, India, Vietnam, Indonesia, the Philippines and Thailand, Malaysia’s real GDP growth in the last three years was the second lowest at 5.5 percent. Or that private sector investment has stagnated and in some cases even regressed. If the party is aware of the bleak economic scenario facing Malaysians, what key proposals has it formulated to reenergize the swooning Malaysian economy and how have these been incorporated into the 10th Plan? The ongoing power struggle Junfa, or its English equivalents ‘warlords’ and ‘warlordism’, when used in the context of Chinese polity and society during the first part of the twentieth century, are pejorative expressions….The warlord era was marked by constant warfare, thrusting China into perpetual economic and political instability…. Official history …denounces warlords and characterizes the era as reactionary to China's endeavour toward national unity and progress. Both Chinese and English scholarship describe the warlords as regional militarists, possessing personal armies that they constantly strove to expand and heavily relied on to advance their own interests in power and money. — Excerpt on Chinese ‘warlordism’ which is found in the New Dictionary of the History of Ideas (2005) by Yu Shen Over the last 18 months, we have seen the leaders of this communal component of the BN coalition engage in bitter and open conflict, mainly due to personality clashes and craze for power that has made the party a laughing stock. MCA has become a subject of derision to non-members and a cause for heartburn among the party supporters. We are all aware that most politics in Malaysia begins and ends with personal interests, especially for those individuals who belong to the top echelons of the ruling parties. There are of course the ethical few who see political power as a moral calling to serve the nation and who dedicate their life to doing the best for their constituents and the nation. The endless squabbling for positions in the MCA has led to the perception that the party has very few leaders of integrity and more than its fair share of opportunists. Even the top man, Ong Tee Keat has gone on record in his presidential speech at the previous annual general meeting to state that his attempt at party reformation had caused discomfort to some people, especially opportunists. The MCA’s lowered standing after 56 years of existence is not only a view held by the general public or the opposition parties. Its partners in BN are shaking their heads in despair or privately crowing with glee as the spectacle of infighting and backstabbing intensifies. As for the future, it is the ultimate indictment of MCA that its President has had to publicly apologize several times for the so-called aggressive investigation of the Port Klang Free Trade scandal, in which various leaders and associates of the party have been implicated. The question that comes to mind is why should Ong apologize for seeking the truth on the scandal and in the process stirring a hornet’s nest? Is this apology a result of pressure from party leaders and members that the MCA should see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil? Is the President sending out a message that the party should condone what has taken place? Or that he should hide from the public the truth on cronyism, corruption, mismanagement, inefficiency and abuse of power? If this is the logical conclusion, then the sooner the party is consigned to the dustbin of history, the better.

* This article is the personal opinion of the writer or publication. The blog owner does not endorse the view unless specified. To share the above article, please click the followings:

 

 

First movement of multi-movements

Dr Daphne Loke 

COMMENT Three school girls from the Chung Hwa High Chinese School stayed back at least three times a week after school for band rehearsals.

Yen had to refine her handling of the baton – throwing it into the air then catching it again, while marching. May was the trumpeter and Fei, my little girl, was the flutist. Mom, the driver designate, never heard her utter a word of complaint about her team members in the rehearsals.

Besides being members of the school band, the three girls had other things in common: top scorers in the same class, all had passed piano grade 8, idealistic, artistic and very demanding of their own performance.

How many pieces of musical instruments are needed to compose a school band? 20? 30? Or more!

The basics:

They vied to be in the school band because they shared the same love for music. They qualified because they have the basic training in music, the same temperament of being patient and willing to help team members so that the whole band could harmonize in symphony. The reward was the opportunity to perform in public, perhaps less than sxi times in a year – in top form - representing the school.

Synchronize or be ostracized :

Chung Hwa High, being a top-notch Chinese school in town was never short of candidates for the school band. So if the student wanted to be in public performance, perfection, unison, and excellent team work were the imperatives.

Could anyone of the band members dislike a note in any of the tunes they played? How many times could a member boycott rehearsals? Or not take care of the musical instruments assigned to them? The Band Master was a renowned composer in the country. How many of the band members would be in a position to tell him to change his formation? The degree of tolerance of being out of tune was zero.

Highest level of social organisation:

Eusociality is a term to represent the highest level of social organisation in a hierarchical colony - this time it is about insects such as bees, ants and even termites. In an insect colony, how many worker ants mutate to become drones?

If a band member were to tell the band master he/she would not want to play a certain tune, that member would straight away be replaced. That is because the choice of songs was not a mere minnie-minnie miney-mo affair. Each member's capability to contribute needed to be carefully evaluated for the best rendition. Who would take the lead position in the march depended on how well the members behind him or her could follow .

Dealing with waywardness:

I have stated earlier that in the case of the school band, a wayward member would be replaced. In the insect colony, the units from the back would merely stomp on those who boycott advancement, or refused to, or did not progress. Their organisations had no choice but to relinquish such dissidents and advance with the demands of a progressive society. Not even the termite colony could contain such wayward action, as the speed of destruction of the building would be side-stepped.

Are you in the right colony?

MCA is a hierarchical organisation. Those vice-presidents, the chairmen of the Youth and the Wanita factions are high up in this hierarchy within the party. This recent declaration of boycotting events organised by the president and deputy president is simply shocking behaviour per se of the 13 members in the party. Yes, they have down-graded themselves from the level of leaders to mere members, who may not lead, perhaps, may not even know how to follow in the first place.

Their declaration of boycott, was not a mere announcement. Rather it was a call for other members to join in the boycott. How should we look at this type of action?

In labour terms, the act of boycott falls under a category of industrial action which this country has an Act of Parliament to deal with. So what action should the party take in this case?

I remembered Fei's piano teacher telling her that all great musical compositions were created with passion. Ants have the passion to construct. Termites have the passion to destroy. Are you in the right colony?

NOTE: Sonata, the very popular musical form is referred to as the First Movement of Multi-movements

* This article is the personal opinion of the writer or publication. The blog owner does not endorse the view unless specified.

Road to Independence (2): MCA’s missed opportunity

History

Written by Lee Kam Hing

Why did Umno and MCA to work together? Why did Tan Cheng Lock break off with Onn Jaafar? Could the whole political scenario for the country have taken a different direction in the early 1950s? Local elections: The demise of the IMP and the emergence of the Alliance Party, 1952 In late 1951, local elections were introduced in Malaya to prepare the country for self-government. The first election was in Penang in December 1951. But it was in Kuala Lumpur, the federal capital and where IMP was contesting for the first time, that the elections in February 1952, attracted wide interest. The Independence of Malaya Party (IMP) which fielded candidates in all 12 wards seemed formidable, having on its side Onn Jaafar, founder-leader of Umno, and Tan Cheng Lock, founder-leader of the MCA. Several other senior MCA leaders including Tan Siew Sin, Khoo Teik Ee and Yong Shook Lin were with the IMP too. The IMP was also supported by the MIC. Selangor MCA, then headed by H.S. Lee, reached an agreement with Dato Yahya Razak, chairman of KL Umno’s election committee to field a single slate of candidates. Lee’s election manifesto which was released on 3 January stated that “the MCA Selangor Branch are also of the opinion that the interests of members of other communities should also be represented”. This had attracted Yahya’s attention. He thereupon contacted a former school-mate Ong Yoke Lin, another MCA leader, who then fixed a meeting of representatives from Umno and MCA. On 7 January both sides agreed to fight jointly in the elections. The alliance fielded 5 Malays, 6 Chinese, and 1 Indian.12 The KL electoral pact was an entirely local initiative but the alliance drew strong criticisms not only from IMP but also from some MCA and Umno national leaders. Yahya Razak’s own division head Datin Putih Mariah resigned on 10 February just days before elections in protest at the pact. There were objections from other branches and Yahya was accused of selling out the Malays by working with a Chinese party. On the MCA side, two senior leaders Tan Siew Sin and Khoo Teik Ee declared during the elections campaign that the party’s central working committee had not approved the Umno-MCA merger and both instead called for support of the IMP. For MCA this was its first experience in participating in elections while for Umno it needed to improve on its Penang performance where it won only one seat. Both Lee and Yahya saw the elections initially as a battle for control of the KL Municipal and focused on local issues. But the elections turned out to be a test of strength between Onn Jaafar’s multi-racial IMP and the communally-based Umno and MCA, and soon questions of self-government and larger political concerns were raised.13 To the surprise of some observers, the Umno-MCA alliance defeated the IMP by winning 9 of the 12 seats at the KL elections. Contemporary commentaries while suggesting that the “MCA-Umno victory is superficially proof that the Malays and the Chinese can work together for political ends” noted that voting was along ethnic lines for both parties.14 Although the electorate numbered only about 11,000 and turnout was 75%, the result was a major boost to the new alliance and it marked the beginning of IMP’s demise. The new alliance of Umno-MCA maintained its winning momentum and swept municipal elections held in the rest of the country later that year. Formalising inter-ethnic cooperation in the Alliance, 1952-53 As observed, inter-ethnic cooperation in Malaya could have taken either the multi-racial IMP form or in the form of a coalition of communal-based parties. Tan Cheng Lock, on his part, remained cautious about an Umno-MCA alliance. He believed that several important issues had to be resolved before he was agreeable to formalising Umno-MCA collaboration. He wanted to find out whether Tunku Abdul Rahman, the new leader of Umno, accepted jus soli in relation to the citizenship issue and the concept of a Malaya for Malayans. Writing to H.S. Lee on 29 February Tan explained that “there must be communal equality in the Federation involving equality of opportunity and treatment and in shouldering the duties and in sharing the rights of Malaya Citizenship among all the domicile communities making up the population of Malaya.”15 Tan and other mainly Western-educated MCA leaders had initially embraced Onn’s non-racial IMP and saw it as moderate compared to Umno. In particular Tan appreciated Onn’s willingness to stake his position as Umno president by insisting on liberalising citizenship requirements and opening the party to non-Malays. It would appear that in 1952, the IMP with its multiracial platform as well as the quiet backing by the British was the preferred party to work with for some of the senior leaders of MCA. The IMP too was supported by the MIC. Many MCA leaders were unsure of the untested Tunku who had taken over Umno in August 1951. Then why did Tan break off with Onn? Some studies criticized Tan for letting Onn down. If Tan and the MCA had sided with IMP instead of Umno, could the whole political scenario for the country have changed? Could we have a situation of a dominant or competing multi-racial parties instead of a coalition of ethnic parties leading the independence movement. H.S. Lee favoured expanding the Umno-MCA alliance. In the weeks after the KL elections, Lee was in regular contact with the Tunku. The Tunku was the first to congratulate Lee on the KL election results. On 22 February Lee informed Tan that the Tunku favoured enlarging the alliance into a nation-wide organisation and that the Umno leader would be asking party heads to contact the various local MCA branches.16 H.S. Lee’s role in events affecting Umno-MCA alliance was crucial. He was worried about the continued association of Tan Cheng Lock with the IMP. On 22 March 1952 he wrote to Tan that senior MCA state leaders had expressed to him their deep concern about Tan calling an inaugural IMP Malacca meeting, and there was a possibility that he would be made state chairman while still leader of the MCA. More importantly, Lee wrote, “They feel that if you accept the Presidency of the IMP in Malacca, it might not be conducive for frank discussions with the Umno in the future.”17 Unwilling to abandon Onn and the IMP, Tan proposed giving MCA branches the right to work with either IMP or Umno. Speaking to the press on 18 February 1952, Tan declared, “I support the principle of IMP-MCA-Umno cooperation”.18 To Lee on 22 February he explained, “You are materially aware that influential members of the MCA want cooperation with IMP. So probably the MCA is divided on this question”.19 Umno, which regarded IMP as its main rival, would certainly not have accepted Tan’s proposition. And neither did Lee and the more politically conservative Chinese. Writing to Tan on 1 March 1952 Lee revealed that the Tunku indicated to him privately that he accepted jus soli although there was a minority within Umno strongly opposed to such a concession. It might have been, as some writers had argued, that Lee preferred an Umno-MCA alliance because he and Onn were not on good personal terms. But correspondence at the end of 1951 showed that there was cordiality between the two leaders and even after IMP’s inaugural meeting Onn again invited Lee to join IMP.20 Rather, Lee did not believe that the multi-racial IMP could get popular support. On 18 February 1952, Lee wrote that “...it seems unlikely that the IMP will be able to achieve any success elsewhere. Indeed they have obtained the two seats [in Kuala Lumpur] by a very small margin (50 odd votes)...” 21 Lee’s stand was more likely influenced by his association with groups in the MCA which were worried about the future of Chinese education, language, and citizenship. These groups believed that the Chinese were politically weak and divided, and a distinctly Chinese party was therefore needed to safeguard the community’s interest especially at a time when British policies were interpreted as anti-Chinese. They therefore believed that MCA’s future could best be pursued by retaining its identity, and therefore an alliance with another communal party like Umno was a more suitable and workable option.22 Lee managed to eventually bring Tan to his viewpoint. On 5 March, Lee alerted Tan to the Select Committee’s Report on the Immigration Ordinance of 1950. Onn was a signatory to the Majority Report with recommendations unfavourable to the Chinese and this was opposed by Chinese members of the Legislative Council. Lee therefore raised doubts in the mind of Tan about Onn’s commitment to multi-racial fairness.23 Eventually, Tunku and Tan Cheng Lock met on 18 March. After several more rounds of talks involving other MCA leaders, a nation-wide Umno-MCA alliance was institutionalised. Consolidating inter-ethnic coalition, 1953-55 The Umno-MCA alliance could have turned out to be no more than a temporary arrangement of convenience. Given that the first real electoral contest took place in Kuala Lumpur which was largely Chinese-majority, Umno found it necessary to work with MCA to defeat its rival, the IMP. Had elections been held elsewhere where Chinese votes were insignificant, there might not have been a reason for Umno to seek a Chinese electoral partner. Nevertheless 1952 it was more than just electoral battles that led Umno and MCA to work together. They now had to forge a common front to negotiate with the British on constitutional change.24 In March 1953 the coalition declared that its aim was to achieve self-government and eventual independence in Malaya. As a first step, the Alliance called for elections to the Federal Legislative Council and for at least 60 per cent of seats be elected directly by the people. Up until then, Council’s members had all been nominated The Alliance leaders encountered resistance from the British over their demands for political reforms. The British still favoured the non-communal IMP and disregarded the political strength of the Alliance as revealed in the elections. Furthermore, some colonial administrations were not convinced that Malaya was ready for independence and they anticipated a long period of British mandated rule. On 1 February 1954 the committee set up by the colonial administration to look into federal elections recommended that only 44 of the 92 members of the Federal Legislative Council, or less than half, would be elected. Significantly too, the committee did not recommend early elections. On further discussions, the number of elected seats was raised to 52 out of 98 seats. But Alliance leaders rejected the proposal and sent a delegation to raise the matter with the Secretary of State for Colonial Affairs, Oliver Lyttelton. The Secretary of State turned down the request for 60 per cent of elected members. In reaction, the Alliance called for an independent commission to consider constitutional reforms, failing which they would carry out a boycott of the government and withdraw all its representatives from the legislature, municipal, and town councils. This request was rejected and the Alliance members went ahead with the boycott. They organised a nation-wide demonstration and also met the Malay rulers to get support. The boycott forced the British to come to a compromise. The Colonial Office proposed that five seats that would have been nominated by the High Commissioner should now be decided by the majority party in the Council. These five seats could then ensure an elected majority at the Federal Legislative Council.25 In July 1955 the first federal elections were held. Dato Onn had disbanded the IMP and formed Parti Negara to contest the elections. The inter-ethnic Alliance coalition fielded candidates in all seats and in its manifesto promised that it would seek early independence. Now joined by the MIC, the Alliance won 51 of the 52 seats. It formed the first locally-elected government with Tunku Abdul Rahman as the first Chief Minister. After the elections, the Alliance called on the British Secretary of State, Alan Lennox-Boyd, to set up an independent commission to draw up a Constitution as a step towards independence for Malaya. Lennox-Boyd soon afterwards invited the Alliance to send a delegation for discussions in London. Alliance leaders gained national support and prominence from the 1955 elections and won the right to negotiate for independence. They had enhanced their political position by taking a strong stand together against the colonial administration over the issue of federal elections. They were willing to risk detention by their boycott of the representative bodies. In the end they succeeded because of the evolving inter-ethnic solidarity and by showing that they could act together. The experience created a bond of friendship and this enabled them to resolve contentious matters during negotiations for a new constitution and independence. Part 3 will appear tomorrow; Part 1 ‘Birth of Umno and Malayan Union’ appeared yesterday. Dr Lee Kam Hing’s essay is originally titled ‘Forging Inter-ethnic Cooperation: The Political and Constitutional Process towards Independence, 1951-1957’ and published in the book Multiethnic Malaysia — Past Present and Future (2009). CPI with permission from the author is reproducing his essay in three parts for online reading in our website. Today’s Part 2 is as above. Dr Lee is research director at Star Publications. He was visiting Harvard-Yenching research scholar at Harvard University, and visiting scholar at Wofson College, Cambridge University. He was previously history professor of Universiti Malaya. Footnotes: [12] Malay Mail. 15 February 1952 [13] Straits Times, 20 January 1952 [14] Singapore Standard, 19 February 1952 [15] Tan Cheng Lock to Col. H.S.Lee, 29 February 1952, Malacca, in unpublished H.S.Lee private papers, Kuala Lumpur [16] H.S.Lee to Dato Sir Cheng Lock Tan, 5 March 1952; H.S.Lee to Tengku Abdul Rahman, 7 March1952, both letters in unpublished H.S.Lee private papers, Kuala Lumpur. [17] H.S.Lee to Dato Sir Cheng Lock Tan, 3 March 1952, Kuala Lumpur, unpublished HS.Lee private papers, Kuala Lumpur [18] Straits Times, 19 February 1952 [19] Tan Cheng Lock to Col H.S.Lee, 22 February 1952, Singapore, in unpublished H.S.Lee private papers, Kuala Lumpur [20] Dato Onn Jaafar to Col H.S.Lee, 4 September 1951, Kuala Lumpur, Unpublished H.S.Lee private papers, Kuala Lumpur. [21] H.S.Lee to Dato Sir Cheng Lock Tan, 18 February 1952, in unpublished H.S. Lee private papers, Kuala Lumpur [22] Straits Times, 20 January 1952 [23] H.S.Lee to Dato Sir Cheng Lock Tan, 5 March 1952, Kuala Lumpur, in unpublished H.S.private papers, Kuala Lumpur [24] Heng Pek Koon, Chinese Politics in Malaysia: A History of the Malaysian Chinese Association, Singapore: Oxford University Press, 1988, pp.179-220 [25] Joseph M.Fernando, The Making of the Malayan Constitution, Kuala Lumpur: Monograph No 31 of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, 2002, pp 35-63

* This article is the personal opinion of the writer or publication. The blog owner does not endorse the view unless specified.