MALAYSIA: POWER STRUGGLE BETWEEN RULING BN AND OPPOSITION PR

THE NEEDS OF THE WORKING CLASS AND YOUTH ARE SIDELINED

Najib Razak became the Prime Minister of Malaysia in April this year. Since then, he has been using two approaches to strengthen his party UMNO (United Malays National Organisation) and the government of the BN (Barisan Nasional or National Front), in which it plays the major role, since they came out of the last General Election considerably weakened. The first is to demonstrate some reforms and to promise some economic 'goodies' by using populist rhetoric to regain the support of the voters. The second is to continuously undermine and discredit the opposition PR (Pakatan Rakyat - People's Coalition) by using allegations of corruption, money politics and other things through the state apparatus such as the police, the courts and the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC).

BN's two-faced behaviour

With a weaker government after the unprecedented losses in the last General Election, Najib and the BN government are under pressure to make some adjustments in government policies in order to increase his credibility of running the government. This is also to counter the economic agenda of Anwar Ibrahim and the PR that is supposedly for "equal distribution of wealth", by implementing further liberalisation of the economy.

But the question is how far Najib can go in his "reform" which is also linked to how soon Malaysia could recover from the uncertainties in the current global economy. In an export-oriented economy, the external conditions will be the driving factor in Malaysia's economic outlook, with risks stemming from the duration of the global recession, financial markets and commodity prices.

For the first five months of the year, FDI (Foreign Direct Investment) totaled only RM4.2 billion compared to RM46 billion last year, as foreign companies cut back on capital and other types of investment. In order to be competitive, Najib has no other way than to liberalise financial services. He has also ended some regulations binding companies to 30 percent Malay ownership, partly dismantling a 40 year-old policy introduced by his father, Razak Hussein, the second prime minister of independent Malaysia. These measures are intended to give greater flexibilities for the multinational capitalists to exploit the resources and labour in this country; but for FDI to come in, it still depends on the demands and economic performance of countries such as the US, Japan and China and those in the European Union.

Nevertheless, Najib's economic "reforms" have not yet dismantled the government patronage system and the protectionist measures that exist to safeguard the national capitalists and GLCs (government linked companies). The patronage practices, such as handing out government contracts to UMNO cronies, go ahead unhindered; because of this there is not much defiance from UMNO members against Najib's moves. "UMNO has to follow through on the government's economic liberalisation policy but it still needs to keep its Malay base loyal," said Ibrahim Suffian, director of Merdeka Center, an independent pollster. As well as creating a class of Malay capitalists, government contracts are the lifeblood for more than 30,000 contractors, most of whom are grassroots UMNO officials, whose support is widely sought after by party leaders. Therefore, the Malay capitalists, as well as the GLCs, are still protected under these arrangements of economic liberalisation.

Undoubtedly, behind the scenes, the BN is still practicing "divide and rule" racial politics to uphold the patronage system while cynically propagating the "one Malaysia" concept, articulating that every Malaysian, regardless of race, is equal. Now, Najib's slogan - "One Malaysia, People First, Performance Now" - has become the mantra that is propagated through every branch of the public media to every government function. This rhetoric is mainly designed to recapture the non-Malays' support.

On completing his 100 days in office, Najib has also introduced populist measures to regain support by promising that his administration "will give priority to fighting crime, fighting corruption, improving education, upgrading low-income households, upgrading rural basic infrastructure and upgrading urban public transport to ensure everyone benefits". Such promises are not new and were also made during Abdullah Badawi's tenure and it led to his political demise by the failure to "walk the talk".

Other promises of Najib, like introducing laws with real power to reform the judiciary and the police, have not been met and corruption and mismanagement of funds are still prevalent. Meanwhile issues such as the PKFZ (Port Klang Free Zone) RM12 billion Scandal- in which the port development project was awarded without any competitive bid to well-connected political cronies of the UMNO and MCA (Malaysian Chinese Association), the two biggest components of the BN - up to the BN power grab in Perak state, are still unresolved. All these show that Najib's government is not much different from past administrations - abundant with rhetoric, bankrupt in implementation.

Najib's 'One Malaysia' concept will be more political rhetoric and will not succeed to "distribute the wealth equally regardless of race" as long as there is exploitation and prejudice executed by this pro-capitalist government. The working class and the poor are continually suffering under this profit-oriented system as their needs and rights are being marginalised.

Although, since the last General Election, the PR has won all by-elections in West Malaysia, it has not yet been truly tested in the BN strongholds of states like Johor, Melaka, Pahang and in East Malaysia (Sabah and Sarawak). So, whether the PR is capable of winning the next General Election, is still uncertain as this still depends on factors such as: the economic conditions, the performance of Najib and the BN government in fulfilling some of their promises in the next one or two years and whether PR can solidly build its coalition as an alternative to the BN.

However, the Merdeka Center's poll in July showed that Najib's approval rating is 65 percent, a jump up from 42 percent just before he became the country's sixth prime minister under a cloud of allegations of corruption and murder. The improvement in the approval rating is mainly because the failure of PR to come out with concrete measures to counter Najib's rhetoric as well as to put forward a clear alternative to challenge the profit-oriented system and raise and safeguard the basic living standards of the ordinary people.

Discrediting PR

Undoubtedly, since Najib came into power, he and the BN have viciously planned to undermine the PR and its leaders by using every possible avenue, including the state apparatus such as the police, courts, laws and other things. The government bringing a second case against the PR leader, Anwar Ibrahim, for sodomy is one example that shows that the Najib government is going all out to discredit Anwar and to suppress his involvement in politics. This is mainly aimed at splitting the PR coalition partners who have bonded together because of the leadership of Anwar.

There are also attempts by the BN government to destabilise PR-controlled state governments by luring some PR state assemblymen towards them. Najib, who has succeeded with this tactic in the state of Perak is now trying to do the same in other PR states like Kedah and Selangor.

The death of Teoh Beng Hock, a 30-year old political aide to a Selangor State Executive Committee member, when he was under investigation by the MACC, has infuriated many and undermined the credibility of MACC and the BN government. The continued persecution of PR politicians shows the vicious attempts of BN to undermine the PR. Contrarily, many UMNO and BN politicians who are blatantly corrupt and abuse power have not been investigated or charged by MACC.

Democratic Rights

This shows that Malaysian politics is not on an even "playing field", with the ruling parties always having the upper hand over the opposition parties. The BN has been in power more than 50 years and its autocratic rule has been favourable to the desire of national and international capitalists to maximize their profits. In that process, democratic rights and the fundamental needs of ordinary people have been diluted and suppressed. Consequently, most of the time ordinary people have to fight to defend their rights and fulfill their basic needs.

The PR opposition is against the undemocratic actions of the BN government, but consistently supports free market capitalism.

The exploitative nature of the capitalist system encourages governments to use unjust measures to fulfill the needs of the profit system. The state is just a tool for capitalists to fulfill their desire to maximize their profits. Therefore the struggle for democratic rights must be carried out together with the struggle against capitalism.

PR inconsistency

The People's Alliance (PR) with its rhetoric about 'People Power' has no perspective of strengthening the real majority - the working class, youth, students, poor farmers and others - but merely crying foul against the undemocratic persecution of the government against them. At the same time, the social and economic issues that have angered ordinary people, and which were highlighted during the March 2008 election, are continually being ignored.

Anwar Ibrahim and other PR leaders will say, "We will prove that we can be better at governing when we take over at federal level". Basically they are promoting a two party system to safeguard capitalism as in the US (Democrats and Republicans) and in the UK (Labour and Conservative).

This shows that there are no clear alternatives for the working class and youth. The BN and PR clearly support the free market system of capitalism with just minor differences between them with the latter arguing for more transparency and getting rid of corruption in the government. Nevertheless, the PR state governments, most of the time, end up working towards fulfilling the desires of the profit-mongers - developers and investors - rather than fighting to satisfy the needs of the working and poor people.

The recent issue relating to Buah Pala village in Penang, which is under the rule of a PR state government, is one such case. Lim Guan Eng, the PR chief minister of Penang, has shown himself incapable of safeguarding the ancestral homes of the villagers from demolition threats by a developer, resulting from the treacherous policies pursued by the previous BN state government. In this dispute Lim is only able to show that he is good as a mediator between the people and the developer, but the negotiation is ultimately more favorable to the developer who is going to reap billions of ringgits profit. Lim and the PR government demonstrate that they have no political will to challenge the developer and the fraud incurred in order to safeguard this centuries-old cultural and historical heritage in favour of the ordinary people.

Contrarily, in relation to a similar issue in Bukit Cina in the 1980s, when Lim was in opposition to the BN Melaka state government, he fought for the rights of the residents until succeeding in saving Bukit Cina from being demolished by BN. At the 'Save Bukit Cina' 20th Anniversary Dinner in 2004, Lim said, "It shows the importance of preserving our important cultural and historical heritage over [the interests of] development projects for the sake of private gain. Both the BN and the MCA saw only ringgit signs when they proposed leveling the oldest Chinese cemetery in Malaysia to build houses, small shops and shopping complexes."

One of the villagers in Kg. Buah Pala shouted angrily: "When Pakatan (PR) was not in the government it claimed that it was with the people, but when it is in the government it does nothing to safeguard the interests of ordinary people!". This issue demonstrates the inconsistent role of pro-capitalist parties and those parties who have succumbed to the rule of capitalism when they have come to power. In these circumstances, the ordinary people have no other way than to fight for their rights with their own forces.

Such inconsistent politics on the part of the Pakatan coalition partners could weaken the support base that they gained in the last General Election.

Recently, PAS (the Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party) advocated banning the SIS (Sisters in Islam) - an NGO that is fighting for the rights of Muslim women against unjust laws and regulations. But, at the same time, it campaigns against the undemocratic law and policies of the BN government. Even some of its leaders are keen on collaborating with UMNO to strengthen Malay/Muslim political domination, although PAS is formally a member of the PR that is supposed to promote multi-racial politics.

PAS' slogan, "PAS for All", is intended to attract non-Muslim voters. But, at certain times, it stirs up issues that are sensitive to Muslims, using them against non-Muslims to maintain its Malay/Muslim base. Such acts create conflicts between PAS and the Democratic Action Party (DAP) who are based on the Chinese community. The internal squabbling between them undermines the credibility of the PR coalition.

This shows why it is crucial for socialists and trade unionists to maintain an independent working class position and to be critical of the populist rhetoric of both the PR and the BN in order to strengthen working class struggles and organisations against hypocritical pro-capitalist parties.

Working class alternative

The bickering between the ruling BN and the opposition PR is leading to personal attacks and this is increasingly frustrating the ordinary people - the working class and youth. They are more concerned with improving their fundamental conditions and rights, but neither the ruling BN nor the opposition PR is representing the needs of this class.

Recently, some leaders of a movement called HINDRAF (Hindu Right Action Force) launched new Indian party after declaring that the PR had failed to fight for the rights of the marginalised Indian people. There is some truth in their claims, but initiating another race-based party is not going to solve the social and economic issues of working class and poor Indians. Most of the issues highlighted by HINDRAF, such as Indians being alienated from mainstream development, are caused by the pro-capitalist policies and neo-liberal agenda of the BN government and the PR has failed to address these class issues. Some of the issues also affect the Malay and Chinese working class and youth. In short, the common "enemy" is the same for the whole working class and all youth, regardless of their race or religion. For this reason, an independent working class party to unite workers and youth, regardless of race and religion, is the only way forward.

Some on the Left and also trade union leaders are supporting the PR with the hope that when it comes into power, better conditions and rights can be won, as well as there being more democratic space. Some reforms could be won under pressure from below, but this is not guaranteed, since the new government would also be under the domination and pressure of capitalism.

However, growing numbers of youth and workers who have lost hope in the PR with its own pro-capitalist agenda are supporting the ideas of building a working class alternative. This should be armed with socialist ideas and perspectives in order to counter the limitations of capitalism. This is the only way to go towards building a just, democratic and equal society:- a socialist society to fulfill the needs of the majority - the working class and youth - regardless of race and religion.

Ravichandren, CWI Malaysia

A H1N1: PROFIT SYSTEM PUTS PEOPLE AT RISK

SWINE 'FLU (Influenza A H1N1) is rapidly spreading. A vaccine to prevent infection is urgently needed but it will be next year before there are sufficient supplies to protect everyone in Britain. Eventually half the population may be infected.

Fortunately, for most people the infection is unpleasant but not serious. The number of people developing complications or dying does not seem to be higher than normal seasonal flu. But 'flu viruses are unpredictable because they can quickly change. It could become more serious as a result.

Flu pandemics - affecting much of the world - occur every few decades. Scientists have been warning of a new one for several years. The outbreak of bird flu in 2005 could have been the beginning, but that virus was not particularly infectious to humans.

The pharmaceutical industry has had plenty of time to get ready, so how prepared is it to meet the demand for billions of doses? Flu vaccines cannot be developed in advance, because of the way the virus changes. Neither can a production line simply be switched on, as the vaccines involve growing a modified form of the virus, which takes at least 12 weeks and may take months.

Safety trials should be carried out, in case of side effects. But there needs to be factories ready to start production as soon as the development work has been done.

Around 300 million doses of seasonal flu vaccine are produced globally each year. If manufacturers were to switch to producing a single pandemic strain vaccine, they might triple the number of doses to around 900 million.

The World Health Organisation said up to 4.9 billion doses could be produced in 12 months. But if more than one shot per person is needed (two are likely) and production yields are lower than for seasonal flu vaccine, far fewer people would have access to protection.

US manufacturer, Baxter International, said on 23 July that it has taken orders from five countries, including Britain, Ireland and New Zealand, for a total of 80 million doses of vaccine and will not take any more. It will manufacture these in new factories in the Czech Republic and Austria.

Baxter could take $30-$40 million in revenue from these contracts, according to the Chicago Tribune. That's 50 cents a dose - about 30p. In the second quarter of this year, Baxter made $587 million profit - 8% up on last year. Dividend payments rose 13%.

Another company benefitting from the flu scare is GlaxoSmithKline (GSK). Sales of the company's Relenza inhaler, an alternative to Tamiflu used by pregnant women among others, are expected to top £600 million. This figure could be boosted by up to £2 billion once deliveries of its vaccine begin in September.

"We are not trying to generate some crazy level of profit," said GSK chief executive Andrew Witty. "Equally our shareholders wouldn't want us to do it for anything other than a return."

GSK and other pharmaceutical companies won't build and maintain expensive factories that might not be needed for many years, just to be ready for a pandemic when it arrives. That's why the pressure to bring out a swine flu vaccine quickly threatens normal production of seasonal 'flu vaccines. The same production facilities may be needed.

The US government has just awarded a $35 million contract to Protein Sciences Corporation. This company is developing a new and quicker way to make vaccines, using insect cells in which to grow viruses, rather than the conventional hen's eggs. Only the day before the contract was made, the company was on the verge of bankruptcy!

Developing and producing vaccines should not be left to the whim of corporations run for profit. A publicly owned and democratically controlled pharmaceutical industry would put the necessary resources into pandemic preparation, even if these were not needed for many years.

It would also ensure that there was capacity to manufacture enough doses for everyone at risk, including those living in countries where most people have no adequate health services. The speed with which this virus spread from Mexico shows that an international plan to fight such infectious diseases is needed.

Since 9/11 the US has spent over $864 billion on war in Afghanistan and Iraq. It would probably cost under $10 billion to produce sufficient flu vaccine for the whole world. There is no doubt which expenditure would make us all safer.

Jon Dale, CWI

 

IRAN: REPRESSION WILL NOT END CRISIS

Deepening divisions in ruling regime

Events in the run-up to Ahmadinejad's formal swearing-in for a second term as Iranian president on 5 August have displayed again the deep splits within the ruling elite which the mass movement after the disputed 12 June election revealed. Significantly, this has been despite only limited street protests taking place recently.

While the ruling group may hope that a combination of increased repression and Ahmadinejad's confirmation as president will end the turmoil that has gripped that country since mid June, this is by no means assured.

The sudden start of two trials of Ahmadinejad's opponents is clearly an attempt to suppress opposition. But it is already clear that any thought that the fact that the protests against the official result of June's election are at a lower ebb will bring stability to Iran has proved unfounded. On the contrary, the events of recent weeks have actually more openly revealed the deepening divisions between the different groupings within the ruling elite.

Deepening divisions

Ahmadinejad's first choice of Mashaie as vice-president provoked deep turmoil. For nearly a week, Ahmadinejad hesitated before accepting the demand of Ayatollah Khamenei, the Supreme Leader, that Mashaie should not be vice-president. Eventually, Ahmadinejad was publicly forced to back down, although he then appointed Mashaie as his personal chief of staff. This may be one factor in the apparent awkwardness between Khamenei and Ahmadinejad at the Supreme Leader's endorsement ceremony.

The Mashaie issue provoked a clash in Ahmadinejad's outgoing cabinet which resulted in the sacking of the Intelligence Minister. The whole Mashaie incident serves as an illustration of the deep tensions even amongst the "winning group" of the ruling circles.

The rushed televised start of the main trial of around 100 opponents is clearly an attempt to intimidate the opponents prior to the inauguration. Just days before the trial opened, the government indicated that around 20 would be in the dock. Instead, it is a much larger affair with apparently no defence lawyers and no independent media access. Clearly it has the character of a "show trial" with state TV later broadcasting the confessions of two of the accused, one a former vice-president and the other a former deputy interior minister.

This trial has again revealed the profound divisions reaching right into the very top of Iranian society with former ministers amongst the accused and opposition leaders openly denouncing the trial and making accusations that torture had been used on the defendants. The family of Abtahi, the former vice-president who was shown on television "confessing", issued a statement stating that "we do not accept the confession".

Society in ferment

Every part of Iranian society is in ferment; even amongst the religious leaders there are open divisions with, for example, the Association of Scholars and Researchers of Qom Seminary casting doubts on the legitimacy of Ahmadinejad's new administration. At the same time, the dispute around Ahmadinejad's choice of Mashaie revealed divisions amongst the president's own supporters. There is open discussion about the difficulties Ahmadinejad may face in forming a new government.

The death in prison of Mohsen Rouholamini, an advisor to the conservative former Revolutionary Guard leader Rezai who was one of those standing against Ahmadinejad, showed that being the son of one of Iran's top scientists, and also a conservative, was no protection from the brutality of Ahmadinejad's crackdown.

But this situation is not simply a crisis at the top over the future for Iran both internally and internationally.

Fundamentally, this crisis is the result of the impact of the huge struggles of June. Despite the current relative lull in protests, Iran has been completely changed by the first steps of the youth and broader layers into mass activity. Far from the lava of revolt cooling and setting into stone, it is still bubbling and can explode once again.

For many in Iran, Ahmadinejad's government has no legitimacy and Ayatollah Khamenei's swift and complete backing for the official result of the June 12 election has made many Iranians question the Supreme Leader's own position.

The fact that there has been open criticism of the trial from many within the elite illustrates the fact that this crisis will not go away.

Amongst activists and others there will be debate on what is to be done. Many will look to what lessons can be drawn from the 1978/9 revolution, in particular how mass strikes and protests brought down the then Shah's once brutally efficient repressive apparatus. Amongst activists conclusions will be drawn that a similar struggle will be needed now to win democratic rights, economic and social demands.

But to be successful such a movement would also need to learn from how, tragically, the 1978/9 revolution did not ultimately achieve its popular aims of winning full democratic rights and establishing what was then seen as a "republic of the poor".

The underlying crisis in Iran is the result of a combination of political, economic and social issues. At the start of this year, before the real impact of world economic crisis struck, Iran was suffering an inflation rate of nearly 30%, 21% general youth unemployment and 25% unemployment amongst graduates.

The high rate of youth unemployment is a particularly sharp issue given the fact that 60% of Iran's nearly 73 million population are under 30 years old. This can only add to the grievances of the many youth who feel stifled and repressed by the system.

Against this background it is highly unlikely that Ahmadinejad will be able to enjoy a lasting stability. During his first term in office, Ahmadinejad was able to carry out some populist measures that undoubtedly won him support. But now the room for this will be limited in the new period of world economic crisis, particularly as trade, mainly oil, accounts for well over 50% of Iran's GDP. It is possible that Ahmadinejad may attempt to use foreign policy issues - Israeli or US threats against Iran - or take populist measures to gain support. Action could be taken against rival elements within the elite, but none of these measures will meet a situation where, for example, it is estimated that 1.6 million jobs need to be created annually just to provide jobs for young people looking to start work.

Independent movement of workers and youth needed

Because the fundamental roots of Iran's crisis lie within the capitalist system the question of building an independent movement of workers and youth is critical. A determined mass struggle can win free elections, democratic rights and other concessions. But limited only to this it would be a political revolution, welcome in making some gains, but leaving control of society in the hands of the capitalists and the elite even if some elements are purged. However, as was seen after 1979, without the establishment of a workers' and poor peasants' government that begins the socialist transformation of Iran, the country's economic and social crisis will not be resolved.

Providing an independent socialist alternative is also necessary to win over those who have been seduced to support Ahmadinejad through his populist polices and thinly veiled anti-corruption attacks on opponents like former president Rafsanjani.

A key propaganda card in Ahmadinejad's hand is the continuing threat of western imperialism towards the Iranian regime. It is no accident that in the latest mass trial accusations of being agents of foreign powers have been levelled. British imperialism has been signalled out both for historical reasons - its role in bringing the former Shah to power and in the 1953 overthrow of Mossadeq - and to leave some space open for possible future deals with Obama.

There is no doubt that US and British imperialism want to try to help establish an Iranian regime that is more friendly to them. They are seeking both to exploit illusions that may exist in the west and pose as supporters of "democracy". That is why the western media are giving publicity to the crisis in Iran. But Iranians fighting for democratic rights should have no illusions in the imperialist powers. Just look at Washington's support for the feudal autocracy in Saudi Arabia and Mubarak's authoritarian rule, and ballot-rigging, in Egypt.

Organise for socialist change

For socialists the immediate political demands in Iran focus now around the struggle for new elections for a revolutionary Constituent Assembly that can decide Iran's future and the formation of democratic bodies, like committees or councils, that can both organise the struggle and ensure that elections are genuine and free from rigging. At the same time socialists need to explain that capitalism cannot develop the country or permanently raise living standards and why a workers' and poor peasants' government that starts a socialist transformation is necessary.

The huge mass movement against the rigging of June's election has opened a new period in Iran. Ahmadinejad may enjoy his inauguration, but his second term will be far more stormy than his first. His position is weakened by the open divisions within the ruling elite, his authority is rejected by many Iranians and he fears a renewal of mass protests. These fears are justified; Iran's overwhelmingly young population will not tolerate the current situation indefinitely. The challenge is to build a movement that goes beyond protest and strives for socialist change.

Robert Bechert, CWI

 

ISA- AKTA ZALIM KELAS PEMERINTAH

Semenjak perjuangan kelas bertapak dimuka bumi ini, 10000 tahun lalu, berbagai undang-undang atau pendekatan zalim telah dipergunakan oleh kelas pemerintah untuk mempertahankan kuasa pemerintahannya supaya tidak digugat oleh rakyat biasa. Di zaman perhambaan, tuan-tuan hamba dengan kejam mengongkong hamba-hamba supaya mereka mematuhi arahan tuan-tuan hamba. Manakala di era feudalisma, golongan pemerintah - raja, tuan-tuan tanah dan pemimpin-pemimpin gereja- menggunakan berbagai undang-undang dan fatwa untuk mengerah petani-petani miskin mengerjakan tanah-tanah yang sama sekali tidak dimiliki oleh golongan miskin ini.

Manakala sistem kapitalisma yang bermaharajalela semenjak 500 tahun yang lalu, dengan sewenang-wenangnya mengeksploitasi warga pekerja dan rakyat biasa untuk keuntungan maksima. Maka hak dan demokrasi golongan tertindas hanya akan diperolehi melalui perjuangan menentang golongan yang menindas. Perjuangan kelas ini akan berterusan sehingga adanya golongan tentindas dan golongan menindas.

ISA untuk mempertahankan kuasa

Akta atau undang-undang yang diperkenalkan oleh kelas pemerintah adalah semata-mata untuk memperkasakan kuasa dan mempertahankan keistimewaan yang dikecapi oleh mereka. ISA- Akta Keselamatan Dalam Negeri- adalah salah satu akta zalim yang bermatlamat untuk memperkukuhkan kuasa kapitalisma di Malaysia. Ketika darurat 1948 hingga 1960, British dengan sokongan pemodal-pemodal antarabangsa melancarkan penahanan tanpa bicara ke atas ahli-ahli Parti Komunis Malaya (PKM). PKM yang berlandaskan kepada idea-idea Maoisma dan Stalinisma, telah menggunakan taktik perang gerila untuk mendapatkan kemerdekaan daripada kerajaan British di Malaya. Ketika itu, British berjaya menggunakan Ordinan Darurat untuk melemahkan PKM. Manakala kelemahan dan kekeliruan dalam perspektif perjuangan PKM telah menyisihkan PKM daripada warga pekerja dan rakyat biasa dan ini seterusnya memperkukuhkan kuasa pemerintah.

Selepas merdeka pula, kerajaan Perikatan (dan seterusnya BN) telah mengikut pedoman yang ditunjukkan oleh British untuk mempertahankan kuasanya dengan melancarkan berbagai-bagai akta dan undang-undang, dan ISA adalah salah satunya. ISA yang telah dipertahankan oleh kerajaan Barisan Nasional semenjak 1960 semata-mata untuk memperkukuhkan kuasa pemerintahannya. Semenjak itu akta 'Ikut Suka Hati' ini telah dipergunakan untuk menahan sesiapa sahaja yang dianggap menggugat kuasa pemerintahan BN. Ini termasuk pemimpin pekerja dan kesatuan sekerja, pemimpin parti pembangkang dan pelajar yang memperjuangkan hak demokrasi dan hak asasi kemanusian yang lain. Selain daripada ISA, akta-akta lain seperti Akta Kolej dan Universiti (AUKU), Akta Percetakan dan Penerbitan, Akta Rahsia Rasmi, Akta Hasutan, Akta Polis, Ordinan Darurat, Akta Buruh, Akta Kesatuan Sekerja dan lain-lain telah digunakan untuk melumpuhkan hak dan demokrasi tulen.

Undang-undang Kapitalisma

Golongan kapitalis nasional dan antarabangsa yang mengongkong sebahagian besar ekonomi Negara dan mengaut keuntungan maksima, sehingga kini amat selesa dengan peranan Kerajaan BN yang terus menerus mempertahankan Sistem Pasaran Bebas dan agenda-agenda Kapitalisma. Manakala warga pekerja dan rakyat biasa yang diancam oleh agenda-agenda Kapitalisma seperti neo-liberalisma pula, tidak dapat menikmati keperluan-keperluan asas mereka dengan sepenuhnya disebabkan kerakusan untuk memaksimakan keuntungan oleh golongan kapitalis.

Dengan perkataan lain, kerajaan BN hanyalah 'pak turut' golongan kapitalis tersebut. Segala undang-undang atau polisi-polisi yang dilancarkan oleh kerajaan BN adalah semata-mata untuk memenuhi kehendak golongan kapitalis tempatan atau antarabangsa. Justeru itu, kerajaan BN mempergunakan akta-akta kejam ini untuk memperkukuhkan kuasa mereka sekaligus mempertahankan agenda-agenda kapitalisma.

Walaubagaimanapun, pemodal-pemodal nasional dan antarabangsa hanya akan menyokong BN jika ianya dapat mempertahankan 'demokrasi kapitalisma' yang dicanang-canangkan selama ini. Ini seperti politik di Amerika, jika Parti Republican hilang sokongan rakyat, maka kelas kapitalis akan mendokong Parti Demokrat, dan jika parti Demokrat pula hilang sokongan rakyat, maka parti Republikan pula akan dimanja-manjakan. Asasnya kedua-dua parti Demokrat dan Republican adalah penyokong kuat Sistem Pasaran Bebas dan kapitalisma di Amerika.

Oleh itu, jika BN kehilangan sokongan majoriti rakyat, kemungkinan besar pemodal-pemodal nasional dan antarabangsa di Malaysia akan mengalihkan sokongan mereka kepada Pakatan jika ianya mendapat sokongan majoriti rakyat. Ini kerana Pakatan Rakyat juga adalah pendokong setia Sistem Pasaran Bebas Kapitalisma. Ini bermakna Pakatan juga terpaksa menjadi 'pak turut' baru kapitalisma di Malaysia jika ianya menjadi parti pemerintah. Ketika itu, hak dan demokrasi yang sedang dilaung-laungkan oleh pemimpin-pemimpin Pakatan akan terencat jika iannya menggugat agenda-agenda kapitalisma untuk mengaut keuntungan maksima.

Sosialisma untuk demokrasi tulen

Manakala golongan yang tertindas di bawah sistem kapitalisma ini terpaksa memperjuangkan untuk mempertahankan hak mereka yang semakin terhakis. Kemenangan-kemenangan hak dan demokrasi yang diperolehi oleh warga pekerja, anak muda dan rakyat biasa adalah melalui perjuangan kelas tertindas tersebut. Tetapi selagi ada sistem kapitalisma hak dan demokrasi yang telah dimenangi akan dicabuli oleh pemerintah apabila kapitalisma tergugat.

Maka perjuangan untuk demokrasi tulen dan pemansuhan akta zalim seperti ISA haruslah dilakukan bersama-sama dengan perjuangan terhadap sistem kapitalisma. Ini kerana, penindasan dan akta-kata kejam ini adalah seperti 'isi dan kuku' sistem kapitalisma. Alternatif kepada sistem kapitalisma adalah sistem sosialis yang berlandaskan demokrasi tulen dan sistem ekonomi terancang. Sistem sosialis menitikberatkan keperluan-keperluan majoriti warga pekerja, anak muda, pelajar dan golongan tertindas yang lain. Justeru itu, perjuangan kearah membentuk sistem sosialis di Malaysia dan serantau/sedunia adalah penting untuk membina kesejahteraan umat manusia dan alam persekitaran di Malaysia dan sejagat.

 

CWI SUMMER SCHOOL 2009

The Committee for a Workers' International (CWI) held its world Summer School from 12-18 July, in Belgium. Over 300 people attended the event from all across Europe and there were also visitors from other parts of the globe, including Brazil, Quebec, Kazakhstan, Malaysia and Australia. Below are reports of some of the main discussions at the School.

• World Economy and Perspectives
  
• Africa
  
• Asia
  
• Middle-east
  
• Latin America
  
• Europe
  
• 1989 – The consequences and lessons of the fall of the Berlin Wall
  
• Youth
  
• Transitional Programme
  
• US under Obama
  
• Racism and far-right
  

WHY WOMEN DON'T HAVE REAL EQUALITY?

Sir Stuart Rose, executive chair of Marks and Spencer proclaimed in the Observer recently that women have got "more equality than you ever can deal with". According to Sir Stuart: "There are really no glass ceilings, despite the fact that some of you moan about it all the time".

Eleanor Donne looks at the reality women face in Britain and asks: Have women really 'made it'? Do we now live in a 'post feminist' society and what are the roots of women's oppression?

It is true that there have been significant changes in the lives of women over the last 35-40 years. Most of the direct discrimination has been removed and women have equality with men, in the eyes of the law at least.

Women make up at least half of the workforce and half of university graduates (up from one third in 1970) and girls are outperforming boys in nearly all subjects at school and university. Access to contraception and safe abortion is no longer restricted to wealthy women, as in the past. The dramatic rise in numbers of women in work, albeit mostly in part-time, low-paid work, has been significant in itself in raising women's confidence and expectations. Yet clearly women do continue to suffer discrimination.

Women at work

Rather than having to deal with 'more equality' as Stuart Rose of Marks and Spencer suggests, there is evidence that women are already being disproportionately affected by recession - losing full-time jobs at twice the rate of men.

The overall pay gap between men and women increased last year for the first time since the Equal Pay Act came into force in 1975.

Although men and women graduates in their 20s earn about the same, having children (which women are doing later and later) still results in a significant drop in earnings for women in their 30s and 40s, compared to men.

An estimated 30,000 women a year are sacked for being pregnant (although this is of course illegal) and there is an indication that this is increasing on the basis of the recession. The government has now shelved plans to extend paid maternity leave to a year, paternity leave to up to 26 weeks and flexible working to parents of children over six years old because this may be 'burdensome' to business during a recession.

Around 70% of women in Britain now work outside the home, including many with small children. This significant social change has been against the backdrop of rampant, neoliberal capitalism, which has led to increased commercial exploitation of all aspects of life.

Women have been a source of cheap and flexible labour, which was exploited by the capitalist economy in the west and in the developing world.

Traditional gender roles, reinforced under capitalism, are used to excuse low pay and casual work for women because their primary role is defined as bringing up the family and 'keeping house'.

Whilst there are now more women than men qualifying as solicitors, the majority of working-class women are still concentrated in 'the three Cs' - caring, childcare and cleaning, which are seen as an extension of what they do in the home and therefore relatively 'unskilled' and low status jobs.

Sexism

Women and girls daily are bombarded with images of women from advertisements, magazines and the tabloids, telling them how they need to look to be successful in love and life generally.

The message that women are judged more by how they look than what they do or think is still loud and clear, constantly played on by a multimillion pound 'beauty' industry. No wonder then that only 1% of young women feel 'completely happy' with the shape of their body and more than half of ten to 14-year-olds girls are worried about being fat.

The sex industry has increasingly entered 'mainstream' society, with lap dancing clubs frequented by celebrities - men, and sometimes women keen to show how 'broad minded' they are. The playboy bunny now even adorns children's pencil cases and lunchboxes.

The porn industry has grown, fed by easy access for consumers via the internet and a 'supply' of desperately poor women, particularly from the ex Soviet Union countries. Individual women and men are often directly exploited in the production of pornography. But it also has wider implications for women as a whole, as in the context of a capitalist society with structured inequality for women, it reflects and reinforces stereotypical views of women as sexually available, and reduces them from whole beings to body parts. Commercial exploitation of sex is the opposite of genuine freedom of sexual expression for both men and women.

It is important to challenge sexist images and attitudes, but they are a symptom of women's oppression, not the root cause. This goes back to early history and the development of class society and the family.

The role of the family

The word 'family' to most of us means our relations, parents, partners, and children - people we may have close personal relationships with. However, to governments and the ruling class 'the family' is also a vital social institution. They use it to pass on and consolidate their property and wealth, to reinforce their ideas and 'values'.

Most importantly for a capitalist system, the family is an economic unit. Under a capitalist economy, big business shareholders and their apologists in government want to maximise profits by keeping their costs to a minimum. This applies not only to actual wages but also to what is known as the 'social wage' - the tax cost of feeding, clothing, housing and educating a new generation of workers. They do this by offloading these costs as much as possible onto individual families.

Margaret Thatcher during the recession of the early 1980s said: 'there is no such thing as society, only individual families'. The government used this idea of the family as a provider of services to justify cuts and hospital closures and blamed social problems created by their economic policies on the 'breakdown' of the family.

This process is likely to be repeated in the current recession. The Financial Times reported that councils in England have axed about 10,000 jobs, with 70% expecting further losses due to the recession. Cuts in social and health care services affect women especially, as workers, but also because they will be expected to 'take up the slack' as carers in the home.

The family is also used as a means of reinforcing the hierarchy in society in many ways. This may not seem so obvious now as in Victorian times or under a feudal system when men's authority as 'head of the household' had the full weight of the law and the church behind it.

After all, in Britain we are generally free to choose our partners and to end relationships. Women can no longer be imprisoned for adultery or locked up in mental institutions as degenerates for having 'illegitimate' babies (which happened here as late as the 1960s).

However, it was only less than 20 years ago that law lords finally ruled that marital rape was illegal. The idea of 'conjugal rights' can still give many men a sense of entitlement to sex, as statistics on rape indicate. The legal right of husbands to beat their wives was removed 150 years ago, but domestic violence continued to be viewed as a private matter, generally ignored by the police and useful in keeping women in 'their place'.

Today, home office statistics show that, on average, two women a week are killed by their partner and one in four women will suffer violence from a partner or boyfriend at some point in their lives.

Nature or nurture

It is in the interests of the ruling class in society to promote the idea that their system, the way society is organised, including the family, is a reflection of the 'natural order' of things rather than something that they have imposed. Religion played a key role in this, but an emerging capitalist class also misused science, medicine and psychiatry to 'prove' the inferiority of non-white races, women, the lower classes and 'sexual deviants'. Homosexuality was made a crime in 1885. Women, it was said, were designed only for childbearing, domesticity and looking decorative, and attempts by them to enter politics or public life would result in anything from a withered womb to mental illness.

The ruling class imposed their model of personal relationships, the 'bourgeois family' - with male breadwinner and dependant wife and children, onto society as a whole. This was what the working class should aspire to, even though in reality they rarely had the financial resources to allow a 'stay at home' wife and mother. In most families even the children had to work.

This ideology was challenged, most notably by Friedrich Engels, Karl Marx's closest collaborator. Anthropologists had found, often to their surprise and sometimes disgust, that women in 'primitive societies' had a degree of status and sexual freedom that was unheard of in the capitalist societies.

Using the best evidence available at that time, Engels explained that the oppression of women, far from being natural and timeless, was very recent in human history. For 90% of our time on the planet men and women lived in groups in what are usually known as hunter/gatherer societies, where resources were shared and children were the responsibility of the whole group.

Men and women often had different roles, but this division of labour did not mean that the tasks women undertook were less valued. Women were as free as men were to pair up and separate and there were no economic implications to this for them or any children they had.

The patriarchal family with the man as ruler of the household, and with it the institutionalised domination of men over women, became a feature of human society about 10,000 years ago, when it was possible through agriculture and later, trade, for some groups to produce more than subsistence levels of food, clothing etc. This type of work was mainly the preserve of men, so the wealth and status generated was closely associated with men, a minority of whom rose above society and became a political elite.

The issue of inheritance became important and therefore, for the first time so did paternity, as men wanted to pass on their wealth and needed to know which children in the group were theirs. Monogamy for women was strictly enforced by new structures of society and women were no longer free to end their marriage.

Whilst women's sexuality became tightly controlled, men were free to take 'mistresses'. This established a double standard between male and female sexuality that still exists, with women judged much more harshly for being sexually 'promiscuous'. This whole process took place over thousands of years, but by the time of early Roman societies the patriarchal family was well established along with slavery.

The development of private ownership, concentration of wealth in the hands of male elites, and the passing of wealth through the male rather than female line, led to a loss of status and freedom for women which Engels called the "world historical defeat of womankind".

Class and gender

Initially the women most affected by the rise of class society were those in the groups who were accumulating wealth and power and rising above the rest. So they benefited materially from the process even though as women they lost freedom and rights.

This contradictory process still applies today, as women of the ruling class and upper middle class experience domestic violence, rape, sexual harassment and cultural stereotyping in common with women of other classes.

But to end women's oppression means ending the class system that gave rise to it and this brings about a conflict between the interests of their gender and their class. Some privileged women are drawn into campaigns on specific issues, such as domestic violence and abortion rights.

However, for such campaigns to succeed in the long run it is vital to link these to the overall struggle to change society. This means finding common cause with working class men, as it is only a united working class that is capable of getting rid of the current economic and social system, which is underpinned by and reinforced by women's oppression.

Whilst it could be argued that all men benefit to some extent from patriarchy which gives them power and status within the family, the vast majority of men also lost power and status in society as a whole with the development of class society because they became the slaves, serfs and workers.

Women in struggle

Whether it is Mr 5% cuts or Mr 10% who wins the next election, the scale of public debt means that public services and public sector workers face a massive attack. Women will be in the forefront of the coming fight to defend public sector jobs and against cuts in services.

Past experience shows that, when women workers move into struggle, they become more conscious of their exploitation as women and demand that they be able to play a full role in the fightback.

It is no accident that the biggest movements of women, the early 20th century campaign for the vote and the 1970s women's movement, emerged at a time of heightened class struggle when there was a growing feeling that the working class needs, and can achieve, a fundamental change in society. The ruling class try to divide workers along gender and race lines, to undercut wages and to weaken opposition to their system. The Socialist Party, being Marxist, has always argued for maximum unity of the working class, whilst recognising the importance at times for specially oppressed groups of workers to organise round their specific demands.

If the Tories win the next election it is very likely that abortion rights will come under attack again and the Socialist Party will renew its call for the trade union movement to take up this issue, including mobilising for a national demonstration.

The need for socialism

Ros Coward, active in the women's movement of the 1970s and 1980s, concluded by the late 1990s that 'feminism has achieved its aims'. Liberal feminists were always prepared to limit their demands to those that could be accommodated within capitalism.

Yet it is now clearer than ever as the global economic crisis bites that the struggle for equality, and even more so for the true liberation of women and men, also means a struggle to overthrow the current economic and social system. In the process of such a struggle many of the existing prejudices and assumptions, the ideology that plays a crucial role now in reinforcing and legitimising women's material inequality, will be undermined.

A socialist society, where the economic resources would be owned and controlled collectively through a planned economy, could use these resources to provide services such as decent childcare for parents that want to use it, socialised laundry and ironing services, cheap, but good-quality restaurants. Hours at work could be reduced with no loss of pay so that men and women get to spend time with each other, their children and friends.

Access to affordable housing and a decent income, either through benefits or work, would allow women economic independence and mean that ending a relationship would not lead to poverty and social exclusion as is often the case now.

Such a society would ultimately provide the opportunity to develop personal relationships free from the pressures not just of poverty and overwork, but also from structured gender inequality.

From The Socialist, CWI Britain and Wales

 

HONDURAS COUP

A WARNING TO WORKERS IN LATIN AMERICA

On Sunday 5 July Manuel Zelaya, the President of Honduras who was overthrown in a coup a week earlier, attempted to return to Honduras. The Honduran military blocked the airfield refusing to let him land. The army then started to fire live ammunition at the unarmed men, women and children gathered outside the airport, hoping to welcome Zelaya home. Zelaya was forced to retreat, and is now reduced to appealing to the US government to resolve the situation.

Half of the population of Honduras lives below the poverty line. The official unemployment rate stands at 28%. More than one million of the 7.8 million population have had to emigrate to the US to try and find work.

Manuel Zelaya, a wealthy landowner, was elected as President in 2005 representing the centre-right Liberal Party. Once in power, however, impelled by pressure from below, he implemented a number of reforms to assist the poorest in society, most notably a 60% increase in the minimum wage. Having started as a supporter of US imperialism and the North America Free Trade Agreement he moved towards the left, and last year took Honduras into the regional alliance promoted by Venezuela, the Bolivarian Alternative of the Americas (ALBA). He has also ended the monopoly of the multinational on the importation of fuel through an agreement with Venezuela.

All of these actions enraged the Honduran ruling class. Historically the Honduran ruling class have been completely tied to US imperialism, with a long history of military coups when Presidents even mildly threatened the interests of US capitalism. In the 1980s it was the main base for the reactionary paramilitary, US-backed Contras, that fought to defeat the revolution in Nicaragua.

It was Zelaya's move to try and change the constitution, which proved the final straw which led to the coup. On the day he was overthrown a non-binding referendum was due to be held to gauge popular support for the formation of a national constituent assembly to draft a new constitution. Had a majority supported the proposal Zelaya had declared that a referendum would be held on the same day as the 29 November elections. The Supreme Court, the right wing dominated Congress, and the military, which is responsible for organising election in Honduras, all opposed the referendum. When Zelaya refused to retreat, they overthrew him.

Supporters of the coup claim that Zelaya's main motivation was to change the constitution so that he could run for a second term. Zelaya has denied this. It seems clear that the real fear of the Honduran ruling class and state apparatus was that Zelaya, mild as his reforms have been, was threatening their interests and that the call for a Constituent Assembly could, in an echo of Bolivia, raise the hopes of the masses that more fundamental social change is possible.

Reforms

The coup organisers' claim that they stood for democracy is blatant hypocrisy. Peaceful pro-Zelaya protesters have been fired at. Some trade union leaders have been arrested. During the five hours of the coup all power was cut so that no media could report what was taking place. Since power resumed most TV stations have just been playing soap operas and cartoons. The few that have reported what is taking place have been ordered to 'moderate their coverage' by the military.

The international capitalist powers, including US imperialism, have verbally condemned the coup and are anxious not to be seen as supporting a return to the 'bad old days' of military dictatorships in Central and Latin America. However, the US has de-facto accepted the coup, by insisting on keeping relations with the new regime open and up until now, more than a week after the coup, has not met Zelaya. In reality, the position of the majority of the imperialist powers was summed up by an editorial in the Spanish newspaper El Pais which declared, "we reject the coup, but we support its aims."

Honduras is a warning to all left governments, including Venezuela and Bolivia. As long as capitalism remains in place it's leading representatives will attempt to reverse any reforms that threaten their interests. As was shown by Pinochet's bloody coup in Chile in 1973 the representatives of capitalism will be prepared when necessary to use the state, including the army, which ultimately act in the interests of the dominant class in society, in order to brutally defend their system.

In 2002 a 'Honduran style' coup was attempted against Chavez in Venezuela. The poor masses of Venezuela rose up and reversed the coup. Zelaya, a politician from a right wing background who has shifted left under pressure, does not have the same popular base as Chavez in 2002. However, the masses of Venuezuela heroically showed the limits of the power of the capitalist and landowning classes, even when backed by US imperialism.

A general strike is now needed in Honduras. Such a movement would also need to make an appeal to the rank-and-file of the army, who are overwhelmingly from poor backgrounds. Other demands that would politically arm the movement would be for the development of a revolutionary constituent assembly to determine the future of the country and for the establishment of a workers' and peasants government standing for a decisive break with capitalism and the development of a democratically planned socialist economy.

Hannah Sell, CWI

SRI LANKA: “WAR VICTORY” CELEBRATED

NATIONAL QUESTION REMAINS UNRESOLVED

The war between the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) and the Sri Lankan government's armed forces has come to an end. It went on for close to 30 years and originated from the unresolved national question in relation to the minority Tamil population. Government forces were able to defeat the 'Tigers', kill its top leaders, including Velupillai Prabhakaran, and capture all the territory held by the LTTE.

There were organised celebrations in the south of the country to mark the war victory and also a campaign to show that there is no more national problem. However it will now become more complex in the near future than it was 60 years ago. In the ceremonial speech made by the president in parliament, declaring the war victory on 19 May, the president said, "There are no minority communities any more in this country. There are only two communities. One that loves this country and another that does not". But the national conflict in Sri Lanka has a long history; it is by no means resolved by Rajapaksa's so-called military victory.

History of the national question in Sri Lanka

After the winning of independence from British imperialism in 1948, the new Sri Lankan government wanted to replace the English language, which had been at the helm up to then, with the Sinhala language, which was the language of the majority Sinhalese. They promised to give a comparable status to the Tamil language but it never became a reality. Instead they attacked the rights of Tamil plantation workers and later signed an agreement with India and repatriated tens of thousands of workers and their families. The Tamil leaders in the early period tried to act in co-operation with the Sinhala bourgeois. Indeed those Tamil leaders believed that they could resolve the problems affecting the Tamil community through dialogue with Sinhalese leaders. But that belief gradually faded away. The decisive role in this connection was played by Soloman (SWRD) Bandaranayaka in 1956.

In 1952 Bandaranayaka had resigned from the United National Party which was in power at that time and moved towards a Sinhala nationalist position in order to win political power. For that purpose he built a nationalist force comprised of Buddhist monks, native physicians, teachers, peasants and workers – the Sri Lanka Freedom Party. He pledged that the Sinhala language would be made the official language within 24 hours after him becoming prime minister. Only the leaders of the Lanka Sama Samaja Party (LSSP) and Communist Party (CP) campaigned and voted against the Sinhala Only Act in the parliament.

In the parliamentary debate in 1956. Colvin R de Silva, a Sama Samajist (socialist/Trotskyist) leader of the time, proclaimed the famous phrase: 'one language two countries, two languages one country'. Some in the left movement who previously fought for the rights of the Tamil-peaking people later became identified with the Sinhala communalism by embracing cross-class coalition politics. When the UNP Government of Dudley Senanayaka brought in the Tamil Language Special Provision Act, supposedly to give some concessions to the Tamil people through the Dudley-Chelva Agreement of 1965, the left leaders of the Sama Samaja and Communist parties disgracefully held demonstrations together with Sirima Bandaranayaka of the SLFP (Sri Lanka Freedom Party) against the government, taking a communalist position.

A Buddhist monk, Dhambarawe Rathnasara, was shot dead by the police on 8 January 1968, while on one of these anti-Tamil demonstrations. The coalition of the SLFP with the Lanka Sama Samaja party (LSSP) and the Communist Party swept to power in 1970 and one of the reasons for the victory was basing themselves on that Sinhala Buddhist sentiment. Previously the LSSP had mass support among a wider layer of Sinhala, Tamil and Muslim workers and among the Hill Country Tamil plantation workers. Such was the support for genuine socialist ideas, that the LSSP and CP often came second in elections. However, as the LSSP leaders began to look to the parliamentary road, seeking concessions and negotiating reforms, their commitment to mass revolutionary struggle waned.

The late 1960s and early 1970s marked a turning point in Sri Lankan politics because of the betrayals of the leaders of the traditional left parties in joining the capitalist coalition government and abandoning the class struggle. This paved the way for petit bourgeois movements starting both in the south and in the north at the same time. The rebellion in the south under the leadership of the People's Liberation Front (JVP) was launched and the guerrilla movement led by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) came into being almost simultaneously

The UNP and SLFP representatives of the Sinhalese capitalist-landlord class had ruled the country up to then, but now even the 'left' leaders, had degenerated in the process of bourgeois parliamentary politics. The coalition government of 1970 with the so-called left leaders, initiated a process to draft a new constitution and the Tamil leaders again attempted to get the national aspirations of the Tamil people incorporated into the new constitution. The Constitutional Council rejected all the demands put forward by the Tamil leaders. Buddhism, which is the religion of the majority Sinhalese, was made the official or state religion under this constitution. It was enacted under the same Colvin R. de Silva, the prominent leader of the LSSP, then in the government. Tamil people, who were first marginalised by the Sinhala Only Act of the Bandaranayaka government in 1956, were thus dismissed outright by even the so-called left leaders in the 1970 Popular Front government. In the absence of working class alternative that would unite all workers in the struggle for winning equal rights, oppressed Tamils looked for other means to take their struggle forward. Tamil leaders then stepped in to fill the vacuum.

The background was thus created for the formation of the Tamil United Front encompassing all the Tamil political parties. Due to the Sinhala Only Act, after 1956 a considerable number of Tamil public servants were forced out of the public service on the basis that they were not proficient in the Sinhala language. The new generation of Tamil youth were thus shut out of public service. All the expectations of the Tamil people to go up in the social ladder were dashed by this process.

Except for a cement factory in Kankasunthrai and a chemical factory at Paranthen, no major industry was established in the north by successive Sinhalese-led governments after independence. Even these two industries only came into being because of the pressure from Tamil-speaking people. Tamil Congress leader, GG Ponnambalam, was forced to take an initiative. He was the minister of industries in the 1947 UNP government and represented Jaffna, the main town in the North. In that context, the only hope of the Tamil people to have a decent life was through education. This gave them a bigger incentive than the Sinhalese to get an English education.

Youth becoming leaders of Tamil struggle

Tamil leaders who were part of the ruling class held sway among Tamil people up to the 1980s. Ponnambalam Ramanathan in the 1920s and GG Ponnambalam (who initiated the '50:50' campaign at the time of British rule in the 1940s) represented one line of the aspiring capitalist class. SJV Chelvanayagam, who founded the Federal Party in 1949, and A. Amirthalingam in the 1970s and early 1980s, were another trend among Tamil leaders. The Tamil youth movement which was challenging the established leadership came into being against this backdrop. Tamil bourgeois leaders, who claimed that they were following the non-violent methods of Mahatma Gandhi (leader of Indian freedom struggle), sought to have a policy of negotiation in order to solve the Tamil people's grievances. They were challenged by emerging Tamil youth leaders, amongst them, a group called "Tamil Tigers" as early as 1972. This changed the political pattern in the north.

There were several armed youth groups in the north till the late '80s. The Tamil Eelam Liberation Organisation (TELO), People's Liberation Organisation of Tamil Eelam (PLOTE), the Eelam Revolutionary Organisation of Students (EROS), the Eelam People's Revolutionary Liberation Front (EPRLF) and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). India assisted in training all these groups in the initial period as they all stood for a separate Eelam state and nothing less. This shows the intense stage that the national aspirations of the Tamil-speaking people had reached in that period. The LTTE came to prominent partly through their attacks on military targets and partly through physically annihilating the other groups. Despite this, the LTTE managed to win the support of Tamil youth and students as their discontent against the Sri Lankan government continued to increase.

JR Jayawardana, leader of the UNP when it came to power in 1977, took steps to abolish 'standardisation' as part of implementing neo-liberal policies. Standardisation was introduced by the previous Sirima Bandaranayaka government. (Under this policy, Tamil middle level students, were discriminated against in favour of Sinhala middle level students when entering the university.)

By the time Sinhalese leaders began to recognise the Tamils' right to use their own language and take action to alleviate the injustices inflicted on them, the national struggle of the Tamil people had heightened to a stage where they demanded equal justice. They would not be reconciled to accept such petty gestures. It is very clear that Tamil-speaking people had more than enough reasons to loose all confidence in Sinhala capitalist leaders when you look at this short history.

'Black July' in 1983 - the carnage carried out against Tamils by the worst elements of the Jayawardena regime - was the turning point in the Tamil national struggle. Hundreds of innocent Tamils who lived in Colombo and other cities of the south were killed in the streets and burnt alive in their houses. All of their properties were looted and destroyed by Sinhala chauvinist gangsters. The police and the Sri Lankan Army did not interfere to stop any of these activities. But there were some Sinhalese who heroically took Tamil people into their homes to protect them from the pogrom.

By then some Tamil youth had embarked on armed struggle based on the method of individual terrorism and the case for that struggle was argued on a national and international level. From then on a bloody war ensued, which claimed more than 100,000 lives.

Military solution to the National Question

The war with the LTTE dragged on for nearly 30 years. Although unable to achieve decisive victory against the Sri Lankan state, and establish Eelam, nevertheless, by the end of the millennium, the LTTE had established almost complete control in the north and parts of the east. Not only did it have its own army, navy and even a small-scale air force, it had its own courts, taxation system, border posts and acted as a state within the state. However, the LTTE's failure to involve the masses in a democratic manner meant that splits would inevitably appear in their organization.

The defection to the side of the government in 2004 of the eastern Tiger commander, Karuna, with thousands of cadres, dealt a mortal blow to the LTTE. This combined with massive support from regional powers such as China, India and Pakistan meant that Rajapaksa was able to conduct a major offensive from 2006 onwards. Finally, the Sri Lankan army was able to capture all the territory previously controlled by the Tamil Tigers and to kill all their leaders, including Prabhakaran.

But nobody can say that the struggle, emanating from injustices inflicted on a community for decades is now over because of the Sri Lankan Army's military defeat of the Tamil Tigers.

The Sri Lankan government leaders have been boasting again and again that they have been able to bring the country, which was divided hitherto, under one national flag. In reality it is nonsense to say that, given that hundreds of thousands of Tamil people are imprisoned in open-air camps in the north and that the captured areas are deserted without any population.

No real solution can be achieved without the support of the Sinhala, Tamil, Muslim and other minorities in the country. But Rajapaksa wants to create a unitary country, on his terms only, without organising any democratic measures of consulting ordinary working and poor people. The sinister motives of the Rajapaksa government can be understood from the fate that has befallen the All Party Representative Committee (APRC) which was appointed by Rajapaksa soon after he became president for the purpose of finding a political solution. Rajapaksa was repeatedly saying that he would put forward a proposal-solution within a few weeks.

The chairman of the APRC, Tissa Witharana, who is a cabinet minister and the leader of the rump LSSP, stated more than a year ago that the APRC has finalised more than 90% of its proposals. The government, while trumpeting that the war is over, keeps mum about any solution said to be presented by the APRC. It seems farcical that the APRC has now passed away without any notice being taken.

There is no way this government will address the national question without putting forward at least a framework of proposals to the Tamil people, especially against the background of its stated claim of wiping out the Tiger rebels. Through that, the government may have won over some Tamil people to their side. But the reality is that the Rajapaksa administration is fully dependent on extreme Sinhala communalists for its survival. Therefore it would be a Herculean task to get consensus among constituent partners of the ruling party for any kind of proposal which would take account of the wishes of the minorities.

President Rajapaksa stated in January 2007 that he is prepared to fully implement the 13th Amendment to the constitution. (This amendment was introduced by the Rajiv-J.R. Pact, also known as the Indo-Lanka Accord, of 1987, signed between the leaders of India and Sri Lanka. It proposed the establishment of provincial councils and the election of chief ministers in each province. Under this constitution the North and East provinces were merged into one province. Even though the chief minister was elected, in reality he did not have any power. Provinces came under the control of the executive presidency in Colombo who appointed governors.) Rajapaksa has now put a full stop to talk of that kind of thing. Even Rajapaksa's best allies are in a campaign not to implement the 13th amendment.

It should be noted that the LSSP and the CP welcomed this Indo-Lanka Pact with open arms. Even the so-called revolutionary Nava Sama Samaja Party which had broken away from the coalition politics of the LSSP, supported this pact between two capitalist parties and welcomed the Indian Peace-keeping Force entering the north and east to implement it. This, as the minority in the NSSP (who stayed with the CWI) had warned, ended up going against Tamil aspirations and paved the way for the Indian armed forces being used against the Tamil population in the north. The CWI grouping, with a clear Marxist understanding of the issues and forces involved, were the only ones to oppose the IPKF being brought into the country.

Muslims and the war

Pro-government Muslim leaders endeavor to show that there is no direct link between Tamil-speaking Muslims and the war in the north. They are trying to portray that normal life in the east has resumed after it was re-captured from the Tamil Tigers. One of the main demands of the LTTE was to accept the North and East as a Tamil homeland. Nevertheless the experience of the formation of the Eastern provincial council in 2008 shows the attitude of the Rajapaksa government towards undermining the national and religious sentiments of the Muslims in the east. He openly breached the promise he had given to Hisbullah (the Muslim leader from the ruling People's Alliance who contested in the east) that he would be appointed as chief minister in the event of the ruling party winning the election of the eastern province.

Sinhala bourgeois leaders always use Tamil and Muslim people as pawns in their political games and it is evident from this experience in the East and situation in the north. The opportunistic role of the Thondeman 'leaders' of the Hill Country Tamils, of Douglas Devananda and of Karuna (former LTTE leader in the east) is a clear indication of this. At the beginning of the Tamil armed struggle, the majority of the ordinary Muslim people in the east were supportive of it as it was seen as a challenge from the oppressed to the oppressor. But the expulsion of Muslims from the north and east provinces by the LTTE in 1990 alienated the Muslim population. Towards the end of the war, a vast majority of Muslims were opposed to the LTTE and its struggle and acquiesced to the chauvinist Rajapaksa government in the south mainly because of the blunders and mistakes of the LTTE.

Now, Muslim leaders and Muslim people are alleging that the Rajapaksa government is in the process of establishing Sinhalese colonies in traditional Muslim areas. At the same time Muslims are on the receiving end of attacks as the government has failed to arrest the deteriorating law and order situation. Equally important is the charge that regulations have been enacted to curtail the freedom to observe and practice their religion. In this manner, the traditions and sentiments of Muslim people are being challenged by the Sinhala – Buddhist hegemony. Though the education ministry has permitted female Muslim students to wear the head scarf, along with their traditional clothes, when attending school, there were reports in some schools in Colombo to the effect that school authorities have tried to prevent, or at least discourage, Muslim school girls from wearing that attire. As the principals were not amenable to their demands, the parents moved to organising agitational campaigns. Sinhalese communalists have begun a vicious campaign against that just demand of Muslim parents.

This shows the desire of these communalist–nationalist elements for hegemony, not allowing any ethnic group to go beyond the limits imposed by them. Their chauvinist hatred, going even beyond the basic laws of the country, should be defeated at the earliest opportunity. Otherwise we cannot discard the possibility of Muslim people being driven to take a reactionary Muslim religious stand against these communalist chauvinists.

Marxism and LTTE

With the military defeat of the Tamil Tigers, discussion of the Tamil national question will reach new dimensions. We as Marxists have time and again questioned the methods of the LTTE. Our criticism was that armed struggle without engaging the masses would never bring any liberation to the Tamil people. However Marxists supported and defended the Tamils' right to strike against the oppression unleashed on the Tamil people by the Sinhalese state.

Despite an early inclination to the ideas of socialism, the Tigers did not have any confidence in an awakening or a rising struggle of the oppressed masses. They carried out a campaign to physically eliminate all those people and organisations who did not subscribe to their ideology. Hence there was nothing left for the Tamil people other than to support the LTTE as the only organisation that would bring them liberation. The LTTE, while taking forward the Tamil national struggle to a level which would attract international attention, did not allow any other leadership to emerge from the Tamil community in the north and east.

They managed to get considerable fiancial and political support from abroad, especially from the extensive Tamil Diaspora. Because of the authoritarian approach of the Tigers' leadership under Prabhakaran, they did not follow through on several important opportunities which came their way to push for their full demands.

During the period that the cease-fire agreement was in operation, from 2002 to 2004, the LTTE had ample opportunity to allow a democratic discussion and debate within the Tamil community and become their leaders with their approval. But the Tigers were very much opposed to such a course of action and did not permit any democratic practice within their territory. At the same time there was also ample opportunity for them to start a dialogue with leaders of the southern working class who were defenders of the rights of Tamil people. The Tigers neither tried to organise such a thing nor did they appear to be concerned whether Marxist or workers' organisations in the south were supporting the right to self-determination. They even attacked and killed Tamil socialists.

At the same time the LTTE's response to the atrocities of the government forces in the north was to carry out military attacks and sometimes kill and terrorise southern innocent Sinhalese people. They effectively closed any opportunity for the southern Sinhala people to raise their voice in support of the Tamil struggle. The LTTE created this atmosphere because of their rejection of the struggle of the oppressed masses in the south to overthrow capitalism and build a socialist society.

It has become a very difficult task to campaign for the Tamil people's right to self-determination in southern Sinhala society due to this situation. Even under very difficult situations, the southern Marxist movement has fought for the right to self-determination of the Tamil people. What the LTTE wanted to show to the world was that there was not a single Sinhalese who is supportive of the Tamil national struggle.

The Tamil people's struggle for their freedom and liberation would unfold, in a third world country such as ours, through joining it with the struggle of the working class and poor oppressed masses - of Sinhalese people, Tamils and Muslims - to overthrow this parasitical capitalist system.

Truth unpalatable to the majority.

The period after independence aptly shows the sinister, fraudulent and deceitful nature of the Sinhalese capitalist ruling class on the Tamil national question. It is mainly due to the weak and parasitical nature of Sri Lankan capitalism, as in many other under-developed countries. Both the UNP and the SLFP (at present the People's Freedom Alliance) have always set their eyes on majority Sinhala Buddhist votes to come to power and do not have any other objective. It is therefore very clear they would and could not provide any solution to the problems faced by Tamil and Muslim people.

There are various so-called liberal people giving free advice to the government about providing a solution in a post-LTTE era. These layers express their opinions on the basis that the Rajapaksa government is capable of solving these problems. The true nature of those so-called radicals who wear garbs of liberalism or non-violence has come out only after Rajapaksa's so-called war victory.

Here we have to understand that what developed to the level of a horrendous war was the national struggle of the Tamil people which was soaked with their blood. It cannot be lightly dismissed as mere terrorism. It is difficult to say at this moment how the Tamil liberation struggle will develop or what shape it will take in the next period.

However the reality is very clear for workers and young people to see. An unprecedentedly large number of Tamil people across the world have rallied round the national liberation struggle of the Tamil people in Sri Lanka. This points to an internationalisation of that struggle, including into Tamilnadu in India, rather than an ending of the war, as claimed by the Sri Lankan government. Ironically, even Jayalalitha Jeyaram, the opposition leader in Tamilnadu, who is staunchly anti-LTTE, has stated that there is no other solution to the problems of Tamils in Sri Lanka other than Eelam – a separate country.

Finally it is very clear that the Tamil national question in Sri Lanka cannot be resolved within the limits of capitalism. Democratic control of the resources for the benefit of all, regardless of ethnicity, religion, sex and caste, is the only way forward for the poor and workers in Sri Lanka. To achieve that, a fight against capitalism is crucial. Capitalism always plays a divisive role to intensify the exploitation of the ordinary working masses.

It has been borne out, as advocated by Marxists, that national liberation cannot be won through the method of isolated individual terrorism. Liberation of the Tamil people can be achieved only through the fusion of the struggle of workers and other oppressed masses in the south to overthrow the capitalist system and address the problems of Tamils and of Muslims.

The armed conflict in the north and east, which lasted for close to 30 years, claiming countless precious lives, has finally taught us this bitter lesson. It is an important lesson not only for the Tamils in the north but also for the Sinhalese in the south.

Siritunga Jayasuriya, United Socialist Party (CWI, Sri Lanka)