student political organization, the Socialist Club, must remain anonymous. At the time the interview was taken it was not yet known when -or for that matter, if -- the elections would take place.
The Malayan militant has not had the opportunity to edit the text before its publication.
INPRECOR tai Socialis Rakyat (PSR -- Peoples Socialist party). Except for the PSR, all these parties were formed for the purpose of the elections, the Pekamas and Kita, for example. The DAP came out of a split in the Peoples Action party of Singapore, based among the Chinese community.
The PSR is the only one of these parties that has existed for a long time, and it is also the only one to openly defend a leftist, socialist orientation in Malaya.
In fact; the "National Front" should win nearly all the seats.
The alliance, or more precisely the UMNO, controls all the mass media. It began its campaign well before the election period was officially declared. It is likely that it will call the elections precipitously, with two weeks notice at the most, so as to make it impossible for the other parties to organize any real campaign. Such is the situation.
Q. What are all these parties based on? What are their policies?
MALAYA A. Most of these parties are based on chauvinism. (The Malayan population is about 48% Malayan and 42% Chinese; most of the remainder is of Indian origin -- INPRECOR.) The UMNO is based on Malayan chauvinism, while the MCA is controlled by the Chinese comprador bourgeoisie and is Chinese chauvinist. The Pan Islamic party bases itself on the Malayan Muslim population, as does the PPP. The Gerakan is also based on the Chinese community. They all exist on the racial question. The real opposition to the regime, as explained by Prime Minister Tun Abdul Razak himself, comes from three sources: militant communism (which operates underground), the PSR, and the "extremists" (this most likely being a reference to the far-right, ultrachauvinist Malayan forces). Q. The racial problem, then, occupies a central place in the political life of the country? A. Yes, absolutely. The alliance in power divides the population by means of the racial question. It was for this reason that there were violent riots in the center of Kuala Lumpur just after the 1969 elections. The project of the ruling group is to try to create a new Malayan middle class. Currently, more than 60% of the economy is controlled by Anglo-American capital, about 20% by Chinese compradors, about 2% by the Malayan bureaucratic compradors, and about 1% by the Indian community. (The rest is under the control of the state or of Malayan or other ethnic groups -- INPRECOR.) The program of the UMNO. which has declared a "new economic policy, "is aimed at achieving a redistribution so that by 1990, 30% of the country will be controlled by Malayans, 30% by non-Bumiputra (non- Malayan) groups, and 30% by foreign capital. The non-Malayan races are badly discriminated against because of this policy. And this fosters misunderstandings. The Malayans believe that economic power is held by the Chinese. The Indians believe that the Malayans, who hold the political power, now want to capture economic power as well. The Chinese believe that the Malayans want to take away what they themselves now possess. All this nurtures racial antagonism, while in fact the real problem -- the control of the economy by Anglo-American and Japanese capital -- is never raised for discussion among the population. That problem is hidden by the racial antagonisms. That is why our principal objective today is to show who is really carrying away the riches of the country. I am sure that when the population begins to understand who the real, common enemy is, our task of exposing the ruling parties will become easy. The new ruling parties are the ones that cooperate with the British, Americans, and Japanese in exploiting the riches of the country. And I have confidence. that in the future the new generation will begin to question foreign domination and foreign investment. Q. The bourgeois press tells us that Malaysia is the only contry in the region that has preserved a parliamentary system, that it is a democracy. But this does not seem to be the case in reality. Could you tell us something about the repression the opposition suffers? A. Malaysia is in fact an interesting case, for it is the only country in the area that formally retains a so-called democratic and representative regime. But for us, the Tun Abdul Razak regime is not different in character from the Suharto regime in Indonesia or the Marcos regime in the Philippines. In my country we find the same fascist repression against the people. For example, in 1969 the leftist opposition was quite strong, with the Labor party having some 50, 000 members and the PSR being very large. The Labor party called for a boycott of the 1969 elections, explaining that it was impossible for it to participate in the campaign in view of the fact that a large number of its cadres and local members had been arrested. As for the PSR, many of its members and sympathizers are likewise in prison. In 1969 two of the PSR's candidates were elected to the state assembly. They were then arrested and held without trial! One was released after two or three years; the other remains in jail to this day! The number of political prisoners in Malaysia is very high. There is a law, called the Internal Security Act, that allows the ministry of the interior to imprison any person for two years without trial. And, if a person is held for two years, the case is then reviewed and the internment can be extended -- still with no trial. Besides the Internal Security Act, there is something called "banishment. " A person is picked up and is "permitted" to emigrate to the country of his choice. If no country chooses to accept him, he is remanded to prison, where he remains until some country decides to let him in! "Banishment" can therefore easily amount to a life sentence in jail. Recently, the government carried out mass arrests among the members of cultural organizations that wanted to promote a popular culture in the cities. A man named Ku Iliam, formerly a student in New Zealand, was arrested. He had been active in the movement against the Indochina war and was in charge of the international work of the Union of New Zealand Students. Three years ago, when he returned to Malaysia (he is of Malayan nationality), he was immediately arrested and detained for one week. He was then released in custody of his family. But now, three years later, he has been arrested again and sent to a concentration camp on the charge of having tried to join the Malayan liberation movement. In fact, we do not know the real reason for his arrest. This is but one example. In reality, there is no way to tell how many people are under detention or where they are being held. The government operates discreetly, arresting people in predawn hours. As for the Labor party and the PSR, before 1969 they were the main opposition parties and formed a real parliamentary opposition called the Socialist Front. But since 1969, after the repression they have suffered, the Labor party has publitly recognized that elections are not the road. Q. Could you go back a little over the history of the opposition, the real opposition, that is, in Malaya? A. To retrace this history you have to keep in mind that Singapore was once part of Malaya. In fact, it was the main city during the period of direct colonial rule by imperialism. During the 1930s and 1940s the opposition was very strong and demanded real independence. At that time, the influence of Indonesian nationalism was quite strong, especially among the students of the SIT college. Indonesian leaders like Ali Min, Sukarno, and Tan Malaka were in contact with these students, particularly with Ibrahim lako, who was later banished from Malaya for "communism. " The SIT was located on mainland Malaya. But in Singapore also, the Chinese popula-
MALAYA tion was demanding real independence. To counter all this, the British created an elite school for the instruction of children of the aristocracy, the bureaucracy, and the feudalists. Most of the members of the group now in power are graduates of this British school, which was called the "Eton of the East. " In 1941 the Japanese invaded Malaya. The left parties were then reorganized and formed the Malayan Peoples Anti-Japanese Army (MPAJA). This was a real united front of all nationalities, all races, with people of all walks of life, trade-unionists, peasants, and so on, struggling together. At the time, the Malayan Communist party had a clear line of being the spearhead of the MAJA; the British furnished arms in order to drive the Japanese out. After the defeat of the Japanese, the Malayan CP did not hand in its arms, but kept them in the jungle. The British returned to take over the country. In 1948 the Malayan CP called for armed struggle to liberate Malaya from the British. The CP had a mass influence then. Its leadership was active in the trade unions and the rubber estates. The struggle was then clearly for independence and it unified all the left parties. But in 1957 the Malayan CP suffered a setback when the British granted purely formal independence. The masses of people believed independence was real. But in fact, the regime was formed of lackeys of British imperialism, mostly feudalists. At the same time, Singapore was separated from Malaya. Singapore has great strategic importance in Southeast Asia and throughout all Asia. Several British bases are located there. But even after 1957, the opposition remained quite strong. In Singapore the left party, the Barisan Socialists, were very powerful, while on mainland Malaya the PSR and the Labor party refused to accept the sham independence. The socialists continued to coordinate their activity, and the national movement continued. The British consequently intensified their repressive policy. In 1963 the imperialists decided to create the Malaysian federation, rejoining Singapore to mainland Malaya and adding Sabak, Sarawak, and Brunei (situated on the northern part of the island of Borneo). Before 1963 there had been broad opposition to the British plan. At the time, the Sukarno government in Indonesia initiated the policy of "Confrontation" with the Malaysian federation. The British policy was essentially based on opposing Indonesian nationalism. In Singapore in 1963 hundreds of leftist militants were arrested in a sweep known as Operation Cold Storage. Some of them are still in jail. In mainland Malaya, the Labor party and the PSR called for the reunification of Malaya and Singapore but were opposed to the inclusion of Sabak and Sarawak in the federation. Nevertheless, the imperialist plan succeeded. In 1966, however, Singapore broke with the Malaysian federation and formed a so-called independent state. And Lee Kuan Yew crushed all forms of political opposition, creating a one-party state around his Peoples Action party, transforming Singapore into a real police state. Such is the history of the two periods, that of direct colonial rule and that of neocolonialism. But progressive militants of Singapore and Malaya continue to consider themselves as belonging to the same country and call for reunification. The ruling parties refuse to tolerate this. For example, my university is called the University of Malaya. They wanted to change the name. They do not want people to remember that Malaya was once a single country and that "Malaysia" today is no longer Malaya. The government does not allow the PSR to call itself the PSR of Malaya and does not let progressive militants open their meetings with the words "Malayan people. " The very idea of Malaya, of Singapore as
26 part of Malaya, must be eliminated, because the real history of Malaya is the history of the left. The UMNO was created only to be handed power by the British. Malaya stands for the independence struggle that was waged both in Singapore and on mainland Malaya up until the setback of 1957. Q. We understand the history of the struggle waged by the people of Malaya against the artificial creation that British imperialism called the Malaysian federation. But today it is not only Anglo-American imperialism that dominates Malaya. Japanese capital is now invading the country at a rapid pace. We have heard that the Malayan student movement has been in the vanguard of the struggle against Japanese penetration. What has been the role of the student movement? A. I think the Malayan student movement has played a direct and important role throughout the period of transition from colonial to neocolonial rule. Many students gave their lives in the struggle against direct colonialism, and many have been imprisoned since then. Now that the government has formed the "National Front" to eliminate all opposition, what remains? Simply the voice of the students. The tendency taking root among the students now is to become conscious of foreign domination. Most of the demands of the students today deal with the necessity of nationalizing all foreign capital without compensation. This demand arose after the waves of nationalization in Algeria and other third world countries and after the Lahore conference of Islamic countries, which called for such nationalizations. There is no doubt that the government and the university administration will continue to justify reliance on foreign capital as necessary for developing the country. But we will answer this government propaganda by showing how foreign capital leads not to development but to backwardness. I think that this question is becoming clear among students and youth today. This struggle against foreign domination can develop in two counterposed directions -- a patriotic one or a chauvinist one. But you can be sure that when we demand nationalization, for us it is not a matter of doing it within the present social structure of the country. It must be carried out in another context, within a different social structure. We use this demand to expose the real nature of the system and the alliance between the ruling parties and the foreign investors in their efforts to plunder the riches of the country. But we cannot nationalize today. If that were done, most likely the Malayan bourgeoisie would take control of the foreign capital. That would be to jump out of the mouth of the tiger only to fall into the jaws of the crocodile! As for the Japanese, after the mass boycott of Japanese products organized in Thailand by the National Student Center, the mobilization of the population around this problem spread to Singapore and Malaysia. A whole propaganda campaign was organized, with many mass meetings, to explain how Japanese investors were trying to gain control over the couhtry. And during the 1973 trip of Japanese Prime Minister Kakuei Tanaka through Southeast Asia, the union of students at the University of Malaya, along with other student organizations, protested against the visit, demanding explanations from Tanaka about his policy of export of capital. For its part, the Socialist Club of the University of Malaya demonstrated at the Kuala Lumpur airport and condemned Tanaka's visit as a symbol of the economic aggression of Japanese imperialism.
We want to be very clear about one point. In struggling against Japanese imperialism we are not ignoring American and British imperialism. The American and British imperialists would be only too happy if we were content simply to attack their Japanese competitors and left them alone! We are struggling against all imperialisms, but we concentrated our action on the problem of Japan because of Tanaka's visit. Q. Could you explain a little about the Socialist Club? A. I am a member of the Socialist Club. It is a legally registered political organization. Its aim is to propagate the ideas of socialism on the campus of the University of Malaya, where it was formed in 1968. An earlier Socialist Club had been formed at the University of Singapore. Some of its members are now in prison. Others have disappeared. The whole history of the struggle for real independence in Singapore has been marked by the imprint of the Socialist Club. Our aim is to develop a broad patriotic sentiment against foreign domination and to hold discussions on political perspectives with a more restricted milieu. Within the Socialist Club itself, we study what socialism is, the theory of socialism, and why we defend the socialist alternative to the present system. In other universities in Kuala Lumpur and Pinang there are two additional clubs of the same nature, although they are not called by the same name. Because of the activities of these three groups, we are now playing a leading role in the student movement in Malaya. The leadership of the Malayan Student Union is composed of members of these three groups. But as to the real breadth of our influence, this is more difficult to measure. To be sure, we can be proud of the fact that our militants were elected by majority vote to positions of responsibility. But we cannot ignore the problem of those that did not vote, those who said neither "yes" or "no. " We are not completely sure of the situation. That is why we always consider the question, Do we really have the support of the students or are we only a leadership without a real solid base? That is the problem we are always discussing. As a political organization oriented to the left we have many enemies: the chauvinist groups, reactionary groups, the government. All these forces are able to unite to fight against us. That was the case during the last elections at the University of Malaya, in which they campaigned against us not only on the campus but in the national press as well, denouncing the left movement and especially the Socialist Club. We know that in the future things will not be any easier for us; in fact, they will be more difficult because of the growing American investment here. We are all aware of this. That is why we want to strengthen our political understanding and our implantation on the campus. That is why we must deepen our understanding of socialism in order to comprehend why we are being attacked this way. For us, the youth of the courtry who are fighting for our mother country, Malaya, this is a responsibility that is at the same time heavy and very honorable. Q. As leaders of the Malayan student movement, you have participated in various international activities, notably in the Asian Student Association (ASA). This group held one conference in Bangkok. Just recently, a second conference was held in Australia. What can you tell us about this group?
A. The Asian Student Association was formed only recently: We must first of all take a look at the stages of its creation. Earlier, there had been the International Student Conference (ISC), which sought to organize the student movements in Asia and link them to the Western bloc. In 1968 it was revealed that this organization was being financed by the CIA. The scandal broke out first in France, where articles showed that certain American and British organizations had been funded by the CIA. Then the scandal spread and we learned that the same was true of the ISC. It was very embarrassing for. the world student movement and the ISC was dissolved. At that time the National Union of Malayan Students (PKPM) was controlled by progressive students, and it initiated the formation of the ASA. The first conference was held in Kuala Lumpur. The first secretariat of the ASA was also located there. But in 1970 the government refused to register the organization or to allow it to keep its offices open. For this reason, after the Bombay conference of 1972, the seat of the secretariat was transferred to Hong Kong. The association coordinates all the various national student unions, such as the PKPM, the National Student Center of Thailand, the Australian Union of Students, the National Council of Indian Students, the Federation of Students of Hong Kong, as well as the student unions in Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Bangladesh, and Pakistan. The principal goal of the ASA is to exchange information and coordinate the various national unions in such a way that each union understands what is happening in the other countries and all the unions can support one another. For example, during the recent "economic" conference in Bangkok (held on the eve of Tanaka's visit to Southeast Asia -- INPRECOR), Japanese and American domination was discussed. I think this was the first attempt to really discuss foreign domination in many countries. The annual conference was held a bit later (July 1974 -- INPRECOR) in Melbourne, The students at this conference represented vary varied currents of opinion. The student movements of the Fiji islands and Papua New Guinea, for example, were formed very recently and did not thoroughly grasp the tendencies of the 1970s, that is, the struggle of peoples against imperialism. As for India and Bangladesh, probably because of the economic situations in these countries, their representatives also did not really understand the dynamics of world development today. Others, such as the Hong Kong Student Federation, the Australian Union of Students, the associations of Pakistan and Lebanon, the General Union of Palestinian Students, and the Malayan PKPM generally had a common outlook. The struggle against imperialism and the understanding of the role of the conference was the same, based on the necessity of struggling against foreign domination. And this took very concrete forms. The association created an economic committee, the Asian Student Economic Commission, based in Thailand and directed by the NSCT. It will centralize the information sent to all the student associations on the means of foreign domination in each country. Second, the conference formed a committee on educational reform, the Asian Education Committee, which is based in Australia and will discuss and demand changes in the bourgeois educational system, which functions in the service of the capitalist system. Third, a commission on repression was set up, the Student Political Suppression Committee, which will deal with the repression that is becoming a trend today, for example in South Korea and Malaysia. Unfortunately, the student associations lack precise information on the situation in South
27
MALAYA Korea, the Philippines, and Indonesia. That is why this commission was formed, with the aim of putting out an information bulletin. The ASA discussed all these things during its conference. There was also a project to turn toward the countryside to try to understand the problems of the rural population. This will probably be taken in charge by the NSCT. There were, unfortunately, many unproductive discussions, because of the varying degrees of political understanding. Asian students as such do not yet have a common political orientation. Many things depend on who will be in the leadership of the association. Will it be the far right? The bourgeois democrats? So far as we are concerned, we will try to endow the ASA with the spirit of the Asian third world, that is, to make sure that a progressive group directs the ASA and makes it into a united front of all Asian students against imperialism. But in view of the size of the association, the problem of how to implement the resolutions adopted will be especially difficult to resolve. That has always been one of the problems of international student associations. This problem is aggravated by the fact that the student movement lacks a coherent political orientation. As the years go by the leadership changes. One year an organization can be led by a progressive group and the next year by far rightists or reactionaries who will not apply the resolutions. These difficulties are inevitable if the ASA is to represent all the national associations. It is different from a politically homogeneous grouping of student movements. Q. What do you think will be the orientation of the ASA in the near future? A. I think that during the two coming years the ASA will be directed by a student of Malayan origin who was active for a long time in the Australian Union of Students. I think he is a representative type of the AUS, a democrat by nature. He will not take a very offensive attitude and will be tied to the whole student movement, but he will not make reactionary or rightwing decisions. That was, I think, the general tendency during the latest conference of the ASA; it was a generally favorable tendency. Q. Nevertheless, in Thailand there has been an accelerated polarization of the student movement. The NSCT is now supporting the Sanya government (formed after the overthrow of the military dictatorship last October -- INPRECOR) and the police forces. It has been transformed into a sort of pressure group on the government. On the other hand, the FIST (Federation of Independent Students of Thailand) and others are struggling against this tendency. Such polarization may be manifested in other countries too. What do you think of this? A. We in Malaya have always been conscious of this problem. That is why the Socialist Club and other such groups were formed: to make our orientation more clear and to avoid having our action be dependent on control of the student union. We want to be able to continue under any and all circumstances. The case of the Philippines is a good illustration. After the mass demonstrations, Marcos declared martial law and most of the students had to go underground. Such situations will exist elsewhere, my country included. 28
We want to aid the development of massive struggles against. the regime so that the masses of students understand what the alternatives are. We know that the students by themselves will not provide any alternative. In the Philippines they demonstrated massively, sang songs in the streets, and threw Molotov cocktails. Marcos, however, remains in power. What we want is for the maximum number of students to understand through mobilizations what the real alternative is. This has not happened yet in Thailand or Malaya. We hope that this tendency will manifest itself. Splits in the student movement are common things. We cannot hope to always be united around the same objectives of struggle. If that were true the struggle would be very easy. We think that the splits are necessary, because not everybody holds the same perspectives. In Thailand, for example, the FIST did not exist before the October 1973 uprising. But the problem was already posed and after the uprising there was the split between the FIST and the NSCT. The FIST has its own orientation. The NSCT, lacking a correct orientation, is buffeted back and forth from left to right. The same thing can be seen in Malaya. The Union of Malayan Students changes as its leadership varies. But our organization remains with a constant policy. At any moment we could be ejected from the leadership of the union. But we will continue with our own movemen! Q. In relation to this, we have the ASA on the one hand, which is coordinating the various student unions. But if the political situation heats up, a very clear political orientation will be needed, which the ASA cannot provide. To strengthen our anti-imperialist struggle we will need a solidarity organization on an Asian scale capable of fighting for such a clear orientation. We are just now beginning discussions, and we will have to continue them. What is your view of the necessity of creating a movement of youth and students that will be able to fulfill this function? A. We have already thought about this problem, for we are convinced of the necessity for a clear orientation to continue the struggle. I think that the '74 Asian Youth Conference is a concrete example of calling upon Asian students to come together to discuss and think about what will be the next step in the organization of Asian students on a clearly and directly anti-imperialist line. We must be capable of continuing the struggle until the liberation of our country. And after this liberation, we must continue to affirm our solidarity with the other anti-imperialist struggles. •
MOZAMBIQUE september 7: by TONY SOUTHALL The agreement signed on September 7 in Lusaka between FRELIMO representatives led by Samora Machel and a Portuguese government delegation headed by Foreign Minister Mario Soares is a landmark in the development of the struggle to liberate the entire African continent from the rule of colonialism and racism. On September 25 the guerrilla movement founded ten years ago to fight Portuguese control of Mozambique will assume two thirds of the posts in and provide the prime minister for a government which is to preside over a transition period to the full independence slated for June 25, 1975. Three months ago the Portuguese government leader Spínola gave out a formula which sought to frustrate the process of decolonization through the maneuvers embodied in his "blueprint" for the advance to self-rule. A direct handing over of power to the liberation movements was to be avoided by "self-determination based on the full functioning of a democratic system" which was to follow a cease-fire. The aim was first to disarm the freedom fighters and then to encourage the emergence of groups -- particularly from among the African petty-bourgeoisie -- willing to make concessions to Portuguese and international imperialism. These groups would compete in the "democratic arena" with the liberation movements. A maneuver fails Now, this formula has been completely junked for Mozambique. Prime responsibility for its defeat rests with the leadership of FRELIMO who, instead of falling for Spínola's ploy, responded by stepping up the war. A new front was opened in the crucial Zambezi province, which incorporates some of