2 pengedaran risalah: "Serangan Terhadap Hospital Kerajaan" dan "Perbincangan Pendidikan di Ladang Boh"

27 Februari 2009

Kali ini, kami telah membuat 2 pengedaran risalah dalam masa 2 hari. Risalah-risalah ini adalah berkenaan Pengswastaan Sistem Kesihatan Malaysia (27 Feb) dan Perbincangan Pendidikan di Ladang Boh (26 Feb). Pengedaran risalah memang amat kurang dibuat di Cameron Highlands oleh kami. Ini adalah kerana kekurangan tenaga. Namun, kedua-dua pengedaran kali ini telah dibantu oleh beberapa tenaga muda Cameron.

Edaran risalah pada 27 Feb adalah berkenaan SERANGAN PENGSWASTAAN TERHADAP HOSPITAL KERAJAAN. Risalah ini diterbitkan oleh Gabungan Membantah Penswastaan Perkhidmatan Kesihatan. Pengedaran risalah ini dibuat serentak di seluruh Malaysia. Kandungan risalah tersebut akan diterbitkan di 'blogspot' ini tidak lama lagi. Pengedaran risalah telah dijalankan di

1. Pejabat Tanah & Daerah
2. Pejabat JKR
3. Kawasan Mahkahmah Majistret
4. Jabatan Kebajikan Masyarakat
5. Pejabat MARA
6. Majlis Daerah
7. Jabatan Kesihatan
8. Pejabat Haiwan
9. Jabatan Pendaftaran Negara
10. Sekitar bandar Tanah Rata

Respons yang diberikan oleh penduduk adalah cukup meberangsangkan. Ramai yang bertanyakan kandungan risalah dan meminta kami mengedarkan di lebih banyak tempat.

Risalah yang diedarkan pada 26 Feb ialah berkenaan Perbincangan Pendidikan yang akan diadakan di Ladang Boh pada 1 Mac 2009. Tujuan perbincangan ini adalah untuk mencungkil idea-idea baru untuk menolong pelajar-pelajar di Ladang Boh. Perbincangan ini terbuka kepada semua kaum di Ladang Boh; iaitu Melayu, India dan Asli. Sambutan yang diterima ketika pengedaran ini juga amat baik.

Suresh Kumar
PSM Cameron

MPR Ke-5 Membincangkan Isu Ekonomi

21 Februari 2009

Pada hari ini, perjumpaan MPR yang ke-5 telah diadakan. Banyak isu telah dibincangkan seperti:

1. kempen tandatangan meminta kerajaan masuk campur memulihkan perkhidmatan bas awam Cameron.
2. forum POLIS DAN HAK-HAK ASAS ANDA yang akan diadakan tidak lama lagi.
3. Majlis Makan Malam PSM yang akan diadakan pada 16 Mei 2009.
4. pusat pembelajaran yang akan cuba diwujudkan di Ladang Boh tidak lama lagi.
5. kempen pengedaran risalah Menentang Pengswastaan Sistem Kesihatan Awam

Tetapi yang lebih rancak dibincangkan pada akhir ialah isu ekonomi meleset yang sedang melanda seluruh dunia pada masa sekarang. Pendapat rakyat yang hadir telah ditanya mengenai apakah kesannya kepada penduduk di Cameron Highlands. Banyak idea telah diutarakan seperti:

1. harga sayur yang rendah.
2. kos membeli racun dan baja yang semakin bertambah. Ketika harga petrol naik, harga barangan ini telah naik 50%. Tetapi selepas harga petrol turun, hanya 5% harga barangan ini turun.
3. pemandu 'land-rover' yang kehilangan kerja akibat kerja diberikan kepada pekerja asing. Pekerja asing sanggup memandu untuk gaji yang jauh lebih rendah.
4. lesen tanah pertanian yang baru atau lama yang tidak ingin diberi oleh Pejabat Tanah Cameron walaupun sudah berkebun begitu lama.

Kami juga telah mendapat lawatan Sdr Arumugam, seorang aktivis dari Kuala Lumpur. Beliau juga telah dijemput memberikan sepatah-dua kata. Di dalam ucapannya, beliau telah menekankan beberapa perkara seperti:

1. inilah masanya untuk pemuda/i turun dan bergiat dalam aktiviti sosial kerana keadaan ekonomi dan politik yang begitu dinamik.
2. semua rakyat negara ini perlu menanggap bahawa ini adalah negara kita; dan oleh sebab itu, kita harus mempertahankan hak kita dan rakyat yang lain apabila ia terancam.

Suresh Kumar
PSM Cameron

Rakyat Itu Raja!

Berikut adalah artikel yang telah ditulis oleh Farish Noor pada tahun 2007. Walaupun ia mungkin terlambat untuk diterbitkan sekali lagi buat masa sekarang, namun konteks artikel ini ada berkait mengenai Isu Kerajaan Negeri Perak yang sedang berlaku sekarang.

Suresh Kumar
PSM Cameron


By Farish A. Noor

It has, for reasons best known to some, become rather trendy to talk about the restoration of power to the King these days. Looking around the troubled landscape of Malaysia at the moment one does understand how and why the frustration of many could have led them to the conclusion that some higher form of intervention is badly needed at the moment. After all, four years on after the victory of the BN parties at the last polls it would appear as if none of the reform measures promised by the current administration have borne fruit: None of the major corruption cases have been resolved in court; reported incidents of abuse by the police have only increased; there is still talk of racial and religious communitarianism in our midst and the fanciful ego-trips of some politicians have compelled them to reach for the keris again and again in public.

By all accounts, it would appear as if the country has regressed over the years and we seem even closer towards sliding into the deeper morass of religious and racial sectarian politics. As if the divide-and-rule rhetoric of the race-based BN parties was not enough, now we are told that there will be a Muslim workers movement to rival the MTUC, which can only serve to divide the workers of Malaysia along religious sectarian lines even further.

This can only add to the weakening of the workers movement in Malaysia, to the benefit of the established powers-that-be whose own divisive sectarian politics have brought us to where we are today.

So indeed, some kind of intervention is timely and badly needed, but from where, and who should be the actors and agents of change here?

One can point to legal and constitutional guidelines about the powers and responsibilities of the rulers of Malaysia. One can also highlight the fact that the Agong is technically the head of state and head of the armed forces. But to fall back on such a position in times of crisis would be akin to handing the country over to the UN when Malaysia’s problems are really its own doing, and those who are really responsible for turning things around happen to be us, the Malaysians themselves.

Our concern over the recent appeals for some form of royal intervention stems from an informed cynicism about the role of the royalty worldwide, and the knowledge that the differences in the respective subject-positions assumed by royals and citizens are bound to differ. It is true that there can be times when instrumental coalitions can be formed for the sake of a singular political goal; but how long can such coalitions be maintained when the class differentials and interests of the two groups can only collide in the long run?

As a counter-factual example to illustrate this point, it would pay to take a short trip back to the history of our neighbouring country, Thailand.

Some of us may recall that Thailand experienced its first democratic revolution in 1973, when the student forces of the country, working with the urban workers movement and middle-class, toppled the colonels’ regime that had been installed and backed by the United States of America. (Thailand was at the time a front-line state in the war against Communism, and thus a key strategic ally to the USA. It was during this time that US intervention in Thailand was at its peak, which led to a corresponding increase of student activism directed against the military government and its American backers.)

The King of Thailand played a crucial role in the 1973 revolution: Just when the conservative elements of the Thai elite and army were about to crush the student movement, the King opened the gates of his palace and allowed the students to seek refuge there. Protected by the King, the student revolution managed to gain strength and finally led to the election of democratic leaders like Seni Pramoj and Kukrit Pramoj. For a period of three years Thailand experimented with its democratic reform process which led to serious attempts to control the army and police as well as a public anti-corruption campaign.

However, by 1976 it became clear that the democratic revolution was not about to stop with the reform of the army and police, and would ultimately lead to the democratic reform of the whole political and economic system. It was then that the Thai business and political elite turned tails, and began to work with the more conservative elements of the Buddhist sangha. The King of Thailand was in turn persuaded to abandon the student movement, as he was warned that most of the democratic activists and reformers were Left-leaning unionists and communist sympathisers who would ultimately reduce the powers of the King as well.

Thus in 1976 the King turned a blind eye when a vicious and barbaric counter-coup was launched by the army, police, Buddhist conservatives and right-wing middle-class; leading to the storming of the campuses of Chulalongkorn and Thammasat universities and the massacre of students there.

There were even reports of student leaders being executed and having their heads chopped off and mounted on the gates of the universities by right-wing thugs. Where was the benevolent King of Thailand then, whom many had applauded as the hero and saviour of democracy in 1973?

If there is a lesson to be found in all this, it is that a democratic reform process can only begin from below, and never above. Kings and Monarchs do not good democrats make, for they are the first who need to be taught the value of citizenship and civic responsibility. Furthermore any democratic reform must take into account the will of the demos- the people themselves- and give voice to the masses and not the elite.

And so it is with this painful lesson in mind that we take the recent calls for royal intervention with a bucketful of salt. Facing a government as inept, incompetent and clueless as we have at the moment is a task in itself; but it need not be made even more difficult by replacing one regime with another. In the end, the only maxim we ought to adhere to today is the clarion call of the 1940s, when Malaysians cried out: Raja itu Rakyat, Rakyat itu Raja! (The King is a citizen, And the citizens are King!)

End.