YPSEA Malaysia Seminar on Climate Change and the Role of Young Progressives

For more details, please visit: http://ypseamy-climatechange.blogspot.com/2010/07/ypsea-malaysia-seminar-on-climate_5566.html

IUSY Statement on the Global Day of Action for Burma

27 May 2010

Statement on the Global Campaign for Burma and to Condemn the Upcoming Undemocratic Elections of the Military Regime

Today, the International Union of Socialist Youth (IUSY) and all member organizations reaffirms its support to Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, our Burmese comrades and to all the people of Burma who have been struggling for more than two decades to restore democracy, peace, and justice to their motherland. We offer our support by launching a global campaign to democratize Burma and in the immediate to condemn the upcoming military-led elections—a process which we believe together with the Burmese people is a sham as it closes all available avenues for the country to realize genuine democracy and national reconciliation.

Moreover, today, the 27th May, we celebrate the 21st anniversary of the election of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, which saw the Burmese people voting for peace, justice and democracy. Despite the unparalleled showing of the Burmese electorate for Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and the National League for Democracy, the Burmese military disregarded the outcome of the elections and instead incarcerated Daw Aung San Suu Kyi together with thousands of political activists. The regime repressed all the democratic oppositions including ethnic nationalities by committing severe human rights violations in order to silence the voices of the democratic movement and the peoples of Burma. And now, it is planning yet another bogus election not only to further entrench its military rule in Burma but more importantly, to create a facade of consent for its continuing brutal dictatorship in the eyes of the international community.

In order to entrench its military rule, in 1993, the regime has implemented its so-called road map to “disciplined democracy.” It laid down the principles for a new constitution at a pseudo-national convention and endorsed this constitution through a fraudulent referendum which was held during a national disaster when Cyclone Nargis destroyed the lives of hundreds of thousands of Burmese in early May 2008.

The said constitution exempted army personnel and officials from persecution for high crimes they committed against their own people. Furthermore, it granted the Burmese army the illegitimate mandate to lead the country's political, social and economic life. As such, under this constitution, Burma will continue to be a military state and any political exercise conducted under its auspices such as the coming elections will never reflect the Burmese people’s genuine sentiment.

The Burmese government up to now is a military dictatorship regime, cut from the same glass as the previous military governments, which emerged in Asian and Latin American countries during the 70s, despotic governments which were toppled by successive people’s revolts. The Burmese military regime has no place in the current world. The atrocities they commit do not belong to our time, lest we allow it. No regime-led elections can legitimize its continued power over the people. Results of an election conducted under an environment of fear and oppression, conducted over hostilities to ethnic minorities, conducted without the release of political prisoners can never be recognized.

The military junta despite international clamor continue to its show arrogance and mindfulness over its tyranny and totalitarianism. Proof of which was the report of the Special Rapporteur Tomas Quintana on the human rights situation in Burma in March this year. Quintana delivered his report to the Human Rights Council on his return from his third mission to the country. He concludes his report with an endorsement for an investigation into crimes against humanity committed by the military junta.

We earnestly call on governments and the international community to support the recommendation of the Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in Burma to establish a commission of inquiry with a specific fact-finding mandate to address the question of crimes against humanity and at the same time acknowledge that the upcoming elections which exclude all democratic forces and parties, held under a military-favored constitution will not be credible.

Present in over 100 countries worldwide, we initiate and will continue to mount through our member, fraternal and partner organizations series of actions to expose the deceptive Burmese military-led elections, to pressure our respective parties and governments not to recognize its results, and to recognize the democratic leadership of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and other elected leaders as well the role of ethnic nationalities that the Burmese people upheld two decades ago.

www.iusy.info

The Battle for Thailand (by Walden Bello)

The Battle for Thailand

By Walden Bello*

Nearly a week after the event, Thailand is still stunned by the military assault on the Red-shirt encampment in the tourist center of the capital city of Bangkok on May 19. Captured Red-shirt leaders and militants are treated like POWs and the lower class Red-shirt mass base like an occupied country. No doubt about it, a state of civil war exists in this country, and civil wars are never pretty.

The last few weeks have hardened the Bangkok middle class in their view that the Red Shirts are “terrorists” in the pocket of ousted Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, at the same time convincing the lower classes that their electoral majority counts for nothing. ”Pro-Thaksin” versus “Anti-Thaksin”: this simplified discourse actually veils what is--to borrow Mao's words--a class war with Thai characteristics.

Epic Tragedy

No doubt there will be stories told about the eight weeks of the 'Bangkok Commune.' As in all epic tragedies, truth will be entangled with myth. But of one thing there will be no doubt: that the government’s decision to order the Thai military against civilian protesters can never be justified.

The casualties of the last week are still being counted. Government sources say some 52 people were killed in the week of clashes that climaxed on May 19. Bodies are, however, still turning up, including about nine that rescue workers discovered on Friday at the massive Central World shopping mall at the Rajprasong Intersection, which was torched by protesters. The final count is likely to be much higher. One soldier, for instance, claims to have counted 25 dead bodies on May 20 as he went with his unit on a room-to-room operation to flush out suspected Red-shirt protesters in the Siam Square area.

Red-shirt sympathizers accuse the military of indiscriminate shooting, pointing to six medical personnel who were shot by high-powered rifles outside the temple Wat Pathum Wanaram, where thousands of Red-shirt supporters took refuge. A report by Thai academic Pipob Udomittipong documented in painstaking detail a military unit’s unprovoked firing at a medic’s van near the Red-shirt stronghold at Lumpini Park a few days before the May 19 assault.

While the Red Shirts count their dead, the Bangkok middle classes dwell on the 39 establishments and buildings that were burned down on May 19. The anti-Red Shirt Bangkok Post editorialized: “City residents will rebuild and prove that the collective good is a force greater than the terrorists who laid waste to our homes and businesses.”

Class War

The local and domestic media have portrayed the Red Shirts as a lower class peasant rabble from the country’s impoverished Northeast invading Bangkok . This is a distortion, claim many Red Shirts. Some estimate that the masses that made up the Red- shirt demonstrators and sympathizers during the two-month long mobilization were 70 per cent from Bangkok and its surrounding provinces, and 30 per cent from the Northeast. Those who resisted the armed assaults at the key Red-shirt fortifications and refused the Red-shirt leadership’s advice to disperse peacefully before the military operation were mainly young people from Bangkok ’s lower class districts such as Klong Toey. One cannot deny that while it may not be the classic class war that is probably only found in Marxist theoretical writings, there is a strong class element in the struggle between the Red Shirts and the Yellow Shirts that are the government’s mass base.

Taxi drivers are mainly a Red-shirt lot, and in the aftermath of May 19, they are eager to blast the government and the Bangkok rich and middle classes to anyone willing to listen. Given the way that the Red Shirts and hundreds of their lower-class sympathizers not only in Bangkok but throughout Thailand have been attacked, arrested, and imprisoned in the last week, there is no reason to doubt the words of one driver that, “When the curfew is lifted, Thailand will witness deeds that have not been seen before in this country.”

Who Ordered Whom?

Prime Minister Abhisit Vejajeva ordered the assault, but the question for many is who gave Abhisit, whom they see as responding to powerful figures within the Thai elite, the green light? The army command apparently did not favor an assault on civilians, and neither did the police, who largely favored the Red Shirts. “Prem,” say many Red Shirt partisans, referring to Gen. Prem Tinsulanonda, the most influential figure in the Royal Privy Council. Some Red Shirts may well believe that Prem, whom they see as a master of intrigue, is the villain of the piece. Some Red Shirts may well believe that Prem, whom they see as a master of intrigue, is the villain of the piece, but, according to some Thai analysts, what other Red Shirts mean by “Prem” is actually the aging King, who has been largely invisible during the two-month crisis and is said to be ailing. The monarch, whose role cannot be discussed openly in public given the country’s strict lese majeste laws, is said to be deeply against Thaksin, whom he views as having upset Thailand ’s traditional order centered on reverence for the monarchy.

This is a view that would be vehemently disputed by Anand Panyarachun, a highly respected political figure. Anand said that in his experience as prime minister twice, the King always observed the constitutional rules of the game. He only provided advice “on request” and left it up to the political players to decide what to do. 'This is what happened in May 1992, when he brought Chamlong and Suchinda [the warring leaders] together and said it would be desirable for them to do what was in the best interest of the people. He never specifies what is to be done."

Despite their differences with Anand, academics favorable to the Red Shirts share with him the impression that the King speaks in very general terms, indeed in enigmatic sentences. Said one academic: “He did not say to Abhisit: crush them. He most likely simply said, ‘You know what needs to be done.’”

Whatever was the role of the King in the recent tragedy--if indeed he had any role at all—there is now more explicit discussion on the role of the monarchy, something that used to be shrouded with vague allusions. One taxi driver, for instance, said that the Queen was “simply stupid.” He continued: “Frankly, if you ask me, the royals have become more or less irrelevant to us and our needs.” But what about the King’s 3000 rural projects, a friend asked. Did they not benefit the poor? His answer: “They have only served the interests of the cronies of the royalty.”

How did it all come to this?

Democracy and its Discontents

Perhaps a good starting point is May 1992, when the dictatorship of General Suchinda Kraprayoon gave way to a new era of democratic governance. Between 1992 and 1997, elections produced three coalitions, but these were parliamentary formations dominated by traditional party bosses and elites who delivered command votes, particularly in the rural areas, owing to their control of economic and bureaucratic sources of wealth. Little was done to addresses the social grievances of the urban and rural poor.

As parliamentary democracy lost its luster, the economy barreled along, with the Bangkok metropolitan area rapidly integrated into the global economy via financial and production networks. The 10 per cent GDP growth rate between 1985 and 1995—the highest in the world, according to the World Bank-- seemed impressive, until one discovered that it masked deepening inequalities, between Bangkok and the rest of the country, between the city and the countryside, among social classes. Between 1988 and 1994—the height of the boom that made Thailand Asia’s “fifth tiger”---the portion of household income going to the top 20 per cent of the population rose from 54 per cent to 57.5 per cent while that going to the lowest 20 per cent fell from 4.6 per cent to 4 per cent. Whereas in the 1960’s, the income of the agricultural worker was one sixth that of workers in other sectors, by the early 1990’s, it was down to one twelfth. Poverty became, as one economist said, “almost entirely a rural phenomenon.”

The IMF and the Democratic Crisis

However, the rural poor were suddenly joined in the ranks of the marginalized by almost one million Thais, a great many of them members of the urban working classes, when the bottom fell off the Thai economy during the Asian financial crisis of 1997-98. And as globalization went awry, parliamentary democracy fell into severe disrepute as Thai governments seemed powerless to protect the people they were elected to serve from the International Monetary Fund (IMF). In return for providing a $72 billion fund to pay off the country’s foreign creditors, the IMF imposed a very severe “reform” program that consisted of radically cutting expenditures, decreeing many corporations bankrupt, liberalizing foreign investment laws, and privatizing state enterprises.

When the government of Chaovalit Yongchaiyudh hesitated to adopt these measures, the IMF pressed for a change in government. The second Chuan Leekpai government complied fully with the Fund, and for the next three years Thailand had a government accountable not to the people but to a foreign institution. Not surprisingly, the government lost much of its credibility as the IMF demand-reducing measures plunged the country into recession and stagnation.

The Two Faces of Thaksin

It was at in these circumstances that Thaksin Shinawatra, a talented manager, adept political entrepreneur and an extremely effective communicator, achieved ascendancy. Though Thaksin as a businessman had benefited from globalization owing to his firm’s monopolistic position in private telecommunications, one of the economy’s most globalized sectors, he sensed that the financial crisis catalyzed popular fears about free-market globalization, smoldering resentment at the urban and rural elites that seemed to be cornering the country’s wealth, and anger at the international financial institutions. Upon becoming prime minister in 2001, Thaksin made a number of dazzling moves. He paid off the country’s IMF loan and kicked the Fund out of Thailand , initiated a universal health care system that allowed people to be treated for the equivalent of a dollar, imposed a moratorium on the payment of farmers’ debts, and created a one-million baht fund for each village that villagers could invest in whichever way they wanted.

That was the side of Thaksin that won him a mass following among the country’s poor, marginalized, and economically precarious sectors. But there was another side to Thaksin, the side that most of his urban and rural poor followers chose to ignore. A billionaire, Thaksin literally bought his political allies, constructing in the process a potent but subservient parliamentary coalition. He used his office to enhance his wealth and that of his cronies, seeming to lack an ability to distinguish the public interest from private gain.

Just as Thaksin appeared to have created the formula for a long stay in power supported by an electoral majority, he overreached. In January 2006, his family sold their controlling stake in telecoms conglomerate Shin Corporation for $1.87 billion to a Singapore government front called Temasek Holdings. Before the sale, Thaksin had made sure the Revenue Department would interpret or modify the rules to exempt him from paying taxes. This brought the enraged Bangkok middle class to the streets to demand his ouster. Feeling mortally threatened by Thaksin’s effort to redraw the landscape of Thai politics, the Thai establishment jumped onto the anti-corruption bandwagon. Unable to break Thaksin’s parliamentary majority or to achieve a critical mass on the streets to sweep him from power, the establishment, apparently with the blessing of the Palace, pushed the military to oust Thaksin in September 2006.

Coup and Continuing Crisis

Thaksin’s recalcitrant mass base, along with its own mistakes, prevented the military from restabilizing the country, causing it to sour on direct rule. When the post-coup military-sponsored regime exited, elections brought two pro-Thaksin parliamentary coalitions to power. Frustrated at the polls, the elite-middle class alliance resorted to direct action, the most infamous of which was the anti-Thaksin’s Yellow Shirts’ seizure of the new Suvarnabhumi International Airport in December 2008. At the same time, judicial measures were used to dissolve the dominant pro-Thaksin party and a combination of bribery and coercion was used to detach some of its members and get them to join a new coalition centered around the minority Democrats headed by Abhisit.

At that point Thaksin’s followers realized that only by mounting a show of force on the streets like the Yellow Shirts did could they restore their political position as the country’s majority force. Street warfare in the spring of 2009, which resulted in the embarrassing cancellation of the ASEAN Summit in Pattaya, during which some heads of state had to be evacuated by helicopter, failed to dislodge Abhisit, but it proved to be a valuable dress rehearsal of the massive Red-shirt push that began the middle of March this year.

Within an Inch of Victory?

To many observers, the Red Shirts were within an inch of victory two weeks ago, when they managed to elicit a five-point reconciliation plan from Abhisit that included the promise of a dissolution of Parliament in September and elections in November. The government says hardliners among the Reds sabotaged the agreement by demanding new conditions aimed at making key government leaders accountable for 20 plus deaths in an earlier clash that took place on April 10. The Red-shirt leadership, on the other hand, claimed that the haste with which the government took back its offer and ended negotiations showed it had been merely using the negotiations to buy time for the military crackdown, which came on May 19.

What is certain is that the surrender of the Red-shirt leadership and the repatriation of thousands of rural folk to their provinces will not end the Red-shirt challenge. According to one pro-Red-shirt academic, the disaffected military, police, and government personnel that played a prominent role in the recent mobilizations will create a potent underground network that will provide the leadership for the next phase of the struggle.

But the main push will come from the people themselves. Thailand , it is clear, will never be the same. A taxi driver summed up where things stand at this point: “The Bangkok rich think we are stupid people, who can’t be trusted with democratic choice. We know what we’re doing. So yes, they say Thaksin is corrupt. But he’s for us and he’s proven it. The Bangkok rich and middle classes see us as their enemy. If they think we’re finished, they should think again. This is not the end but the end of the beginning.”

*FPIF Columnist Walden Bello, who has just returned from Thailand , is a member of the House of Representatives of the Philippines (Akbayan! Citizens' Action Party) and author of A Siamese Tragedy: Development and Disintegration in Modern Thailand (London: Zed, 1998). He can be reached at waldenbello@yahoo.com.

(From www.erapakatan.com) > Memorandum to Suhakam: Khaled Nordin challenged to meet Students

from www.erapakatan.com

By Roziyah Mahamad

KUALA LUMPUR: Various Malaysia Student Association today sent a memorandum to Suhakam that the rights of students to be prosecuted by the Court of Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM) will receive appropriate attention.

The memorandum was submitted to the Secretary of Suhakam, Hashimah Hashim.

Hashimah Then said he will review the memorandum but almost not a guarantee can be given to that effect, but further investigation will be conducted the Suhakam to ensure rights of all parties.

One of the students who will be prosecuted, Hilman Idham in that sad because he could not be taken by the defense of the university.

"I can not be represented by lawyers and can only be represented by university employees or other students alone.

"We also direct the accused was not given a copy of the discipline. Should we need to know prosuder trial," Hilman said in a media statement after the submission of the memorandum.

He said he had this to drafkan Tuanku Chancellor of UKM to discuss this matter and will seek the views Tuanku Chancellor on this matter.

President of the Student Solidarity Malaysia (SMM), Mohd Munir Shazni Ithin who were present said, if all the closed-door discussion, the students will do mobilasi to gather undergraduates during the trial of this case took place.

Mohd Aizat representing the combination of Islam Se-Malaysia (GAMIS) is currently working to collect signatures online and manual to be sent to the Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE).

"We hope this is the last case occurring on college students," says Aizat.

Higher Education Minister also asked the students come face to discuss this matter because direction is out of his own.

"We ask Datuk Seri Khaled Nordin courage to deal with students to resolve issues that have triggered KPT own.

"Students are not afraid to deal with the KPT so we dare to hope that the KPT is also facing the student. Datuk Seri Khaled should not be afraid to talk to the students," says Secretary of SMM, Ridzuan Mohd Othman said in a press conference.

Earlier, four college students majoring in Political Science who is also a member of the Supreme Council of SMEs in Political Science Club, Hilman Idham (President), Ismail Aminuddin (Vice President), Azlin Shafina Adzha (Secretary General) and Woon King Chai (Exco) has been detained by the Police in the general election (election) Hulu Selangor parliamentary ago but was released without any charge.

However, four students will be charged in court on the charge of UKM University of offense against the laws of section 15 (5) (a) of the Universities and University colleges in 1971.

They will be charged at different dates. Hilman will be charged on June 2, 2010, while others will be indicted on 3 June 2010.

Translated from the original as at: http://www.erapakatan.com/berita/memorandum_diserah_ke_suhakam_khaled_nordin_dicabar_bertemu_mahasiswa

Urgent Appeal on UUCA arrests - Malaysia

URGENT APPEAL

23rd May 2010

To all,

Withdraw University & University College Act 1971 (UUCA) Charge on Muhammad Hilman bin Idham, Muhammad Ismail bin Aminuddin, Azlin Shafina Mohamad Adzha & Woon King Chai Immediately

The students above, Muhammad Hilman bin Idham, Muhammad Ismail bin Aminuddin , Azlin Shafina Mohamad Adzha and Woon King Chai are second year Political Science students from Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM) has been charged by university authority because they were found to be in the vicinity of the Hulu Selangor by-election and allegedly for showing support, sympathy or opposition towards political parties in Malaysia. They are required to attend university disciplinary proceeding on the following date:

2^nd June (Wednesday) : Muhammad Hilman bin Idham

3^rd June (Thursday) : Muhammad Ismail bin Aminuddin

Azlin Shafina Mohamad Adzha

Woon King Chai

9.00am at Bilik Mesyuarat Canselori, Aras 6, Bangunan Canselori.

We strongly feel that the UUCA charge should be withdrawn because:

1. These 4 students are second year Political Science students with good academic achievements, who are in the vicinity of the Hulu Selangor by-election to observe the campaigning for academic research purposes
2. Article 119 of Federal Constitution in Malaysia specifically states that every citizens above the age of 21 is qualified to vote, which is a form of expression and participation in politics. Thus, the provisions under Section 15(5)(a) of the University & University College Act 1971 which disallows students from expressing support and participating in politics is in direct contradiction with the Federal Constitution of Malaysia.
3. These 4 students have shown genuine efforts in improving the standings of the university rankings through academic achievements and thus their efforts in observing the Hulu Selangor by-election for academic purposes must not be demonised and punished by their own university

Background of the incident:

On 22/4/10, Muhammad Hilman bin Idham, Muhammad Ismail bin Aminuddin, Azlin Shafina Mohamad Adzha and Woon King Chai were travelling in 2 different vehicles, a van and a sedan, with 3 other members of the public in Hulu Selangor to observe the by-election campaigning process.

1. The van carrying Muhammad Ismail bin Aminuddin, Woon King Chai and friends were stopped by the police at a road block in Ampang Pecah, Kuala Kubu Baru at around 11:00am. They were held at the road-block for more than an hour until the arrival of UKM’s Student Affairs Department officials, who immediately accused the Muhammad Ismail bin Aminuddin and Woon King Chai of participating in politics and expressing support or sympathy towards political parties who were contesting in the by-election.

The police then conducted a search of the van which revealed several wrapped and sealed packets of fliers placed at the back of the van by a member of the party, who accompanied the group of students to tour the Hulu Selangor by-election area and was travelling in a separate car because their own car could not fit the fliers. Even though the fliers and video CDs do not belong to the students but the university assumed this to be of expressing support or sympathy towards political parties.

The police and university officials immediately assumed that these fliers belonged to the students and brought the students in to the Hulu Selangor Police Headquarters for questioning and to record their statements. They were held in the police station for 9 hours before finally being released on bail. They were to report in on 5/5/10 at Kuala Kubu Baru but before reaching that date, the students were told by the Investigating Officer that the police no longer want to pursue this matter and have dropped the investigation.

2. Muhammad Hilman bin Idham and Azlin Shafina Mohamad Adzha were travelling in a black sedan with another member of the public and was stopped by the police at around 12:30pm while they were eating. They were stopped at Pekan Rasa, Jalan Kuala Kali and were held by the police until the arrival of the university’s Student Affairs Department, who then immediately recognized them as students of UKM and accused them of participating in politics and expressing support or sympathy towards political parties who were contesting in the by-election.

The police then conducted a search of the black sedan which revealed fliers and video CDs that was placed there by a member of the party, who was accompanying the group students to tour the Hulu Selangor by-election to observe the campaigning process. Even though the fliers and video CDs do not belong to the students but the university assumed this to be of expressing support or sympathy towards political parties.

The police and university officials immediately assumed that these fliers belonged to the students and brought the students in to the Hulu Selangor Police Headquarters for questioning and to record their statements. They were held in the police station for 9 hours before finally being released on bail. They were to report in on 5/5/10 at Kuala Kubu Baru but before reaching that date, the students were told by the Investigating Officer that the police no longer want to pursue this matter and have dropped the investigation.

On 13/5/10, Muhammad Ismail bin Aminuddin received a letter, sent by the university by hand through a representative of the Student Affairs Department requiring him to attend university disciplinary proceedings on the 3rd of June (Thursday), 9.00am at Bilik Mesyuarat Canselori, Aras 6, Bangunan Canselori. He is being charged by the university with Section 15(5)(a) of the University & University College Act 1971, which prohibits students from participating or expressing sympathy or support for any political parties. He has been charged by the university prior of any investigations by the university, without his knowledge. He is not allowed to be represented by a lawyer during proceedings and can only be represented by himself, or another student or a staff of the university.

On 14/5/10, Muhammad Hilman bin Idham received a letter, sent by the university by hand through a representative of the Student Affairs Department requiring him to attend university disciplinary proceedings on the 2nd of June (Wednesday), 9.00am at Bilik Mesyuarat Canselori, Aras 6, Bangunan Canselori. He is being charged by the university with Section 15(5)(a) of the University & University College Act 1971, which prohibits students from participating or expressing sympathy or support for any political parties. He has been charged by the university prior of any investigations by the university, without his knowledge. He is not allowed to be represented by a lawyer during proceedings and can only be represented by himself, or another student or a staff of the university.

On 16/5/10, Azlin Shafina Mohamad Adzha received a letter, sent by the university through registered mail requiring her to attend university disciplinary proceedings on the 3rd of June (Thursday), 9.00am at Bilik Mesyuarat Canselori, Aras 6, Bangunan Canselori. She is also being charged by the university with Section 15(5)(a) of the University & University College Act 1971, which prohibits students from participating or expressing sympathy or support for any political parties. She has been charged by the university prior of any investigations by the university, without her knowledge. She is not allowed to be represented by a lawyer during proceedings and can only be represented by herself, or another student or a staff of the university.

On 18/5/10, Woon King Chai received a letter, sent by the university through registered mail requiring him to attend university disciplinary proceedings on the 3rd of June (Thursday), 9.00am at Bilik Mesyuarat Canselori, Aras 6, Bangunan Canselori. He is being charged by the university with Section 15(5)(a) of the University & University College Act 1971, which prohibits students from participating or expressing sympathy or support for any political parties. He has been charged by the university prior of any investigations by the university, without his knowledge. He is not allowed to be represented by a lawyer during proceedings and can only be represented by himself, or another student or a staff of the university.

Democracy in UKM

Students as one of the stakeholders of a university should be given opportunity to exercise academic freedom in the pursue of knowledge and academic research. Thus, as students of Political Science, Muhammad Hilman bin Idham, Muhammad Ismail bin Aminuddin, Azlin Shafina Mohamad Adzha and Woon King Chai should be not be demonised and punished by the university for exercising their academic freedom and the right to pursue knowledge and academic research in the field of election analisis.

Aside from that, the university is charging these students with Section 15(5)(a) of the University & University College Act 1971, which prohibits students from participating or expressing sympathy or support for any political parties. However, this is in DIRECT CONTRADICTION with Article 119 of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia, which guarantees all Malaysian citizens above the age of 21 the right to vote in elections, which is a form of expression and participation in politics. This is a blant disregard and disrespect of the Federal Constitution by the university.

These 4 Political Science students, who are being charged by the university are top students in their own fields of studies. Muhammad Hilman bin Idham, Muhammad Ismail bin Aminuddin, Azlin Shafina Mohamad Adzha and Woon King Chai have achieved a high CGPA of 3.51/4.00, 3.49/4.00, 2.97/4.00 and 3.79/4.00 respectively. Thus, with their genuine efforts in improving the university’s standings through academic achievements and research, they should not be demonised and punished by the university for their pursue of knowledge in observing the Hulu Selangor by-election.

Demands

Hence, we would like to call upon Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia’s authority and Student Affairs Department to immediately drop the charges and call off the disciplinary proceedings against Muhammad Hilman bin Idham, Muhammad Ismail bin Aminuddin, and Azlin Shafina Mohamad Adzha and Woon King Chai. We urge the university to grant these students the academic freedom to do research and pursue knowledge in their own field of studies. Above all else, drop the charge of Section 15(5)(a) of University & University College Act 1971 which is in direct contradiction with Article 119 of the Federal Constitution.

What Can You Do?

1. Call UKM authority to ask about the case and protest towards the UUCA charge on Muhammad Hilman bin Idham, Muhammad Ismail bin Aminuddin, Azlin Shafina Mohamad Adzha and Woon King Chai.

1. Pejabat Naib Canselor

Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia

Tel : 03-8921 5001 / 03-8925 0399

2. Pejabat Timbalan Naib Canselor (Hal-Ehwal Pelajar dan Alumni)

Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia

Tel : 03-8921 5094 / 03-8925 0718

3. Pusat Perkembangan Pelajar

Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia

Tel : 03-8921 3141

2. Fax, e-mail or mail the sample letter below to UKM authority immediately.

Prof. Tan Sri Dato’ Dr. Sharifah Hapsah Syed Hasan Shahabudin

Naib Canselor UKM

Pejabat Naib Canselor

Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia

43600 UKM Bangi, Selangor

Tel : 03-8921 5001 / 03-8925 0399

Faks : 03-8921 4242

E-mel : ncukm@ukm.my

Prof. Dato' Dr. Mohamad Abdul Razak

Timbalan Naib Canselor (Hal-Ehwal Pelajar dan Alumni)

Pejabat Timbalan Naib Canselor (Hal-Ehwal Pelajar dan Alumni)

Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia

43600 UKM Bangi, Selangor

Tel : 03-8921 5094 / 03-8925 0718

Faks : 03-8921 4062

E-mel : tnchepa@ukm.my

Prof. Madya Dr. Kadderi Md. Desa

Pengarah Pusat Perkembangan Pelajar

Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia

43600 UKM Bangi, Selangor

Tel : 03-8921 3141

Faks : 03-8925 8431

Released by,

Solidariti Mahasiswa Malaysia (SMM)

Heng Lung (Coordinator)

016-411 4147

lucasheng19@gmail.com

Notes:

- Both, organisation or individual are encourages to sign and sending this letter of appeal as to show the strong of our solidarity as well as how firm our stand on this matter.

- Kindly to extend your hand to this campaign so that it will reach and gain more supports in short time by helping us disseminating or forwarding this email, or by personally urging as many individual or organisations around you to sign and send this letter.

- You may also publish this appeal in your websites, blogs, mailing-lists, online forum sites, and etc.

- It would be great if you or your organisation will be able to release media statement as to show your concern on this matter. If so, we really appreciate it and kindly send us copy of your statement.