Freedom, GEABSOLUTE POWERS CORRUPT ABSOLUTELY, General Election (GE15), Malaysia, Politics, polling Nov 19: Destroy Umno for the betterment of Malaysia, race, religion, Solidality, support Aliran for Justice

Share This

Thursday, 10 May 2012

America, a "Generation of Sissies"

The “elephant in the room”— one big question in the minds of so many Americans is—“Why has the middle class in America lost so much ground, and when will it recover to earn better wages (and close the gap between the top earners and the middle class)?”   The answers are brutally simple:  ”Because America’s middle class became non-competitive globally,” and, “Not until American middle class workers—and the kind of work they do—become globally competitive again”   There are two huge problems facing the America in the future:  one is demographic, the other is cultural.
America
America (Photo credit: acb)

1)  “Baby Boomers” are retiring from the work force at the rate of 10,000 per day, and will do so for 17 years.  Most of them don’t have enough pension or 401(k) assets to support retirement for their life expectancy (15-20 years).  Too few employers will hire these older folks, with their potential problems of age—reduced stamina and more health-related problems (and higher health care costs).

2) In recent decades, American parents have raised a “Generation of Sissies”—of spoiled, lazy, pampered and over-rated youth—who are highly educated, but in things that the world doesn’t value very much (and thus won’t pay for).  The top 25% may be as good, as bright, as motivated as ever, and will likely be as successful as ever.   The vast majority of this generation consists of formally educated, but spoiled, soft post-adolescents, who will struggle to be self-sustaining as adults.  Because of this, they will not be able to support the massive wave of retired “Boomers,” who will be going broke in their later years.  In eras past, the elderly were supported by the coming younger generation(s).  Those days are gone.

Members of this “Generation of Sissies” have been the victims of being coddled, babied, pampered, misled, misguided, and under-educated so badly that their “take care of me” upbringing cannot be sustained as they move into adulthood.   The parents, who did this, also share in the responsibility for the failure of America’s educational system.

I won’t lay all the “blame” for these failures on American youth—although they have been willing accomplices.  Parents and educators failed to prepare them for adult life in the cold harsh world, and where they must compete for gainful employment.  Then the youth chose easy and fun majors in college; not the ones in that are in demand by employers.  Thus they can’t find jobs, or certainly not good paying jobs.

For too long, American parents have also abdicated the responsibilities for educating and raising their children to a cadre of teachers and educational institutions ill suited for the task at hand.  Parents used to prepare children to take care of themselves—sort of an apprenticeship in becoming an adult.  Along the way, they used to teach them, and demand of them, that they learn critical personal skills, and useful, responsible habits—like earning your own way in life.  Not any more.

Now, because of globalization the jobs have gone to wherever qualified workers will do them for the least pay.  American workers have fallen behind global competitors.  Thus, the American middle class, now and for the foreseeable future, will have to “play catch up” —learning new skills and how to apply them—and then employers will have to regain the work that provides the jobs.  Otherwise, the middle class will continue to languish with subpar wages—at least until it becomes competitive again, if that ever happens.  The only part of the middle class with growth prospects are employees of new, small businesses that grow–when they are not stifled by an oppressive government regulations.

Worse yet, is the untimeliness of this “Generation of Sissies,” who think that there are no winners or losers.  They learned this because everyone got rewarded just for participating. Trophies no longer represented hard work and winning to them.  Success meant just being involved and  “showing up”—and sometimes, not even that.  News flash for Americans of this Generation of Sissies: In the cold, harsh world of 21st century global business there ARE winners and losers—and YOU are losing!

The “Generation of Sissies was victimized by too-busy parents, who abdicated their responsibilities, and tried to pass them off onto schools and teachers.  The teachers were not prepared to handle these new responsibilities.   Add to this the expectations that have been created: “free meals” (government funded, means “free”) that go far beyond the old school lunches; “free transportation” (or being driven to school);  “free extracurricular activities,” and much more.   And for this, all they had to do was“show up.”  Even grades are no longer a dose of reality.  Kinder words replace letter grades, to soften the truth of impending mediocrity.

Schools now teach “softer studies” (some of which used to be taught at home by parents) make up over 1/3 of total credits: 21st century life,” or “career-technical education, or “health, safety, & physical education,” or “visual & performing arts,” and “language arts literacy.”  Many students can’t write a grammatically correct sentence, and some don’t even see the point in learning to write (cursive) at all.  They use Text-messages and Tweets.   Signatures are nearly obsolete.

Schools still require a modicum of Math and Science, but not enough to meet todays employment demands.  In many cases, one 3-credit course (out of 110 credits) is offered on financial, economic, business, and entrepreneurial topics. Teachers are not held to the highest standards either, since doing so would require compensating the best ones more, and removing the worst ones—and teachers’ unions (and tenure) simply won’t allow that.  Today’s youth learn that being late, or absent isn’t so bad, because there is always an “excuse.”  But when they get in the world of work, employers expect employees to show up, on time, every day, and actually work all day.

Then parents pay a fortune (instead of putting it away for retirement) for college because it used to be a sure path to a decent job  (Now students graduate deeply in debt—over $1 Trillion and rising).  A degree in the arts or humanities may have once been the ticket to a job, but it’s not any more!   The youth of today and the adults of tomorrow simply have not been educated in the reality, the necessary skills and the knowledge they need to be competitive and self-sufficient.  Many do not have a clear understanding of how much hard work and  commitment they must invest to ensure their own future.

Too many people  feel sorry for these “underachievers,” even though part of the failure is their own fault.   The “Occupy movement” is filled with members of this “Generation of Sissies.”  They expect someone to “take care of them” and give them what they cannot or are unprepared to earn for themselves.   Who has what that they want?  The very people who worked hard to get a good education, studied, learned, applied themselves and learned to compete.


There will be negative comments about my title: “Generation of Sissies”—as being demeaning.  These comments will come mostly from the very same segment of society that helped create these problems—and still condones them.  To them I say, “Prove me wrong.”  Right now, the results confirm what I have written.  Until America puts the onus for education back onto the people where it belongs—first on youth and their parents, and next on quality schools and good teachers—the American middle class is doomed to remain stuck where it is.  Any other outcome is a delusion.

Can these problems be fixed?  Yes, but it took an entire generation or more to create them, so the fix will be slow and painful–as it is proving to be right now.   There is an even larger question.  It is not, ” WILL AMERICA COMPETE in the global economy of the 21st century?  It is, “DO AMERICANS HAVE THE WILL TO COMPETE?   Will Americans take the necessary actions to make themselves and future generations competitive.  We can only hope that the answer to this question is YES!

By  John Mariotti, Forbes Contributor
John Mariotti is an internationally known executive and an award-winning author. His newest book, co-authored with D. M. Lukas, Hope is NOT a Strategy: Leadership Lessons from the Obama Presidency is available now at www.amazon.com  in paperback and Kindle, and in other e-book formats at www.smashwords.com 
Newscribe : get free news in real time

American mounting student loans a 'debt bomb' waiting to explode! Inside America’s Student Loan Bubble!

It’s a vicious cycle. Many families in this country cannot afford the skyrocketing cost of higher education without student loans. But many graduates cannot find a job and cannot pay off the loans. As a result, they wind up in a much deeper hole (as the interest and collection fees accrue) with no way out.

Student loan debt in the U.S. now totals more than $1 trillion. That’s more than all the outstanding credit card debt in the country.

A recent report by the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys found that both students and parents are borrowing at record rates.

College seniors who graduated with student loans in 2010 owed an average of $25,250, up five percent from the previous year. Parents had an average of $34,000 in student loans for their children. The report says the number of these parental loans has jumped 75 percent since 2005-2006.

“These are enormous numbers,” says Ike Shulman, a bankruptcy attorney in San Jose, Calif.  “They’re basically setting us up for having a large number of fellow citizens become economically non-functional for the rest of their adult lives.”

Growing numbers of people are being crushed by this debt -- unable to pay and unable to get relief. A recent nationwide survey of bankruptcy attorneys by NACBA found that most (81 percent) had seen a spike in the number of people with student loan debt looking for help. But in most cases, there is nothing a lawyer can do.

Current law makes it almost impossible to discharge student loan debt through bankruptcy. And unlike other unsecured debt, there is no statute of limitations on student loans. Lenders can pursue borrowers to the grave.

“It’s not fair and it needs to be corrected,” says NACBA president William Brewer. “It is a debt bomb that could cripple our society.”

The association’s report says the country faces a serious economic threat from this growing mountain of student debt, one that could be every bit as devastating as the mortgage meltdown.

“This will be a drag on the economy for the foreseeable future,” warns John Roa, an attorney with the National Consumer Law Center and NACBA’s vice president.

It’s a problem for students and parents who co-signed loans Dave Ingham, a disabled Vietnam veteran who lives in Minneapolis, fears he could lose his savings and his house because he co-signed student loans -- now in default -- for his son. Ingham is being sued by collectors.

His son Shannon has been unable to find work since October 2009. He’s now been diagnosed with acute anxiety disorder and depression. He’s still looking for work, but his father says the loan defaults keep him from getting hired.

“It seems that whenever he comes close to a job interview, they run a credit check, see his loan defaults and the interview does not proceed,” Ingham said at a recent telephone news conference arranged by NACBA.

Can something be done? With student loans backed by the federal government, someone in trouble can try to get the payments deferred or modified. There are even loan forgiveness programs.  With private loans, it’s pay or end up in default.

The National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys wants a “safety net” under student loans, just as there is for other consumer lending.

If you start a business that fails, they point out, you can file for bankruptcy and go on with your life. But college students -- or their parents -- don’t have the same protection.

“We need to make some common sense reforms, something like creating an escape valve to relieve some of the pressure before the whole thing blows sky high,” says NACBA vice president John Roa. “There’s no way to diffuse this bomb if the status quo remains the same.”

NACBA wants Congress to roll back the bankruptcy code to 1978, when borrowers who couldn’t pay off their student loans (private or government-guaranteed) could discharge that debt in bankruptcy.

Rep. Steve Cohen, (D-Tennessee), has introduced a bill, H.R. 2028: Private Student Loan Bankruptcy Fairness Act, which would treat private student loan debt the same as other consumer debt.

Congressman Cohen says his bill would “restore fair treatment to Americans in severe financial distress” and give “an honest but unfortunate debtor a chance for a financial fresh start.”

The bill is supported by the American Association of Community Colleges, the American Association of State Colleges and Universities, the American Council on Education and the American Federation of Teachers, as well as various consumer groups. There is currently no formal opposition.

The idea of making it easier to discharge student loan debt via bankruptcy will not sit well with those who backed bankruptcy reforms passed in 2005. Clearly, getting the law changed is a long-shot.

Dave Ingham says he doesn’t know how to solve the current situation. But he believes something should be done before others face the same financial ruin he does.

“It’s something that’s really out of control,” Ingham says. “There are thousands and thousands of us out there who need help with this situation. Please do not give up on us.”

By Herb Weisbaum, The ConsumerMan MSNBC.com

Unforgiven: Inside America’s Student Loan Bubble

by Ben DeMeter

Rickina Velte was four classes away from earning her bachelor’s degree before mounting student debt and the difficulty of raising a family as a student forced her to drop out. “I now am over $65,000 in debt with payments spiraling towards $400 a month,” she says. “I’ve consolidated at least twice, but I can’t keep track of where the payments are going. I can’t see a light at the end of the tunnel. My job barely pays enough to cover childcare and school expenses for my boys. I’m considering filing for bankruptcy, but I know that my student debt won’t be included. And on top of that, my husband is in the military and a bankruptcy could damage his security clearance. I’m at my wits’ end.”

Rickina’s story is tragic, but it’s just one of many. These days, tales of suffocating student debt are a dime a dozen. The national student debt now officially stands just shy of $1 trillion, and default rates for some loans are as high as 20% in some areas of the country. It’s easy to see that there’s something wrong with the way we pay for college.

But while media outlets continue to churn out reports on an impending student loan crisis, nobody has bothered to stop and wonder how exactly we got here in the first place. There’s been no talk of where or why things went wrong. We’d like to fix that. In this article, we’ll review the history of student lending and explore how unchecked enthusiasm for college, combined with an unregulated industry, has lead to the biggest financial crisis we’ve experienced since the housing collapse of 2008.


Sowing the Seeds of Student Aid

Let’s start at the beginning.The idea of financial aid for college students was introduced by the Indiana General Assembly in 1935. The assembly awarded college fee remissions to students who scored the highest on a variety of competitive tests. The pursuit of discounted college tuition quickly became so popular that the state created the Indiana State Financial Aid Association to oversee the distribution of scholarships at state schools like Indiana University.

The program was well-run, and as a result, many colleges in neighboring states elected to join the ISFAA as well. However, despite the ISFAA’s success, the program would remain relatively small until after World War II, when the race against the Soviet Union for global superiority drove the United States to push for higher education harder than it ever had before.

The U.S. government started looking for a way to get more of its citizens into college when the baby boom took off in the years following World War II. When the USSR successfully launched Sputnik in 1957, the U.S finally took action. In 1958, Congress passed the National Defense Education Act. The act set up a loan specifically designed to help students from lower-income families pay for college. The loan carried a 5% interest rate, and students had 10 years to pay if off after graduation. Believe it or not, this loan still exists today, though it’s now known as the Federal Perkins Loan.

The National Defense Education Act proved to be a rousing success. Over the next two decades, the government introduced numerous bills and programs designed to make the dream of higher education attainable by any citizen from any social class. These include the College Work-Study program (which allowed students to take co-ops to help subsidize the costs of their degrees), the Educational Opportunity Grant Program (which allowed exceptional students from low-income families to attend college for free) and the Middle Assistance Act, which removed the income on limit federal aid programs in order to make loans more available to America’s emerging middle class.

By 1983, the Department of Education had paid out more than $6 billion in student loans. Thanks to the availability of financial aid, America’s colleges and universities were enrolling over 10 million students annually. As a result, the perception of higher education changed.

A college degree was no longer considered an exceptional achievement, but a mandatory benchmark in a young person’s career. This, in turn, created an increased demand for graduate degrees, so Congress passed the Student Loan Consolidation and Technical Amendments Act, which allowed students pursuing a Master’s or PhD to consolidate their new loans with their existing ones into a Guaranteed Student Loan with a 10% interest rate.

At the time, the emphasis on higher education made sense. Between 1984 and 2008, unemployment peaked at 7.5% and was sometimes as low as 4%. People with college degrees were expected to earn 75% to 100% more in their lifetimes than people who only had a high school diploma. So where did things go wrong?

A State of Calamity

When we examine the student loan situation today, it looks like the garden we planted during the Cold War has grown out of control. Tuition has risen by 3,400% since 1972. The average student debt is now sitting at $25,000, up 25% in 10 years. The interest on loans guaranteed by the government-sponsored enterprise Sallie Mae is currently 3.4%, but it is set to double in July 2012. If it does, students will incur an additional $6.3 billion in debt over the 2012-2013 school year. Overall, national student debt is expected to exceed $1 trillion by the end of the year.

And of course there are the horror stories, the suicides and the tales of people like Bob Johnson, who took on student debt not once but twice in order to find work in an ailing market and who are now struggling just to stay off welfare. After graduating in 1987 with a BA in journalism, the NYC native struggled to find work. By the time he got a job that paid about $800 a month, he had already been forced to defer his loans twice. When he was laid off in the mid-’90s, he decided to go back to school for his MFA in theatre management, believing that it would increase his chances for employment. “I went back to school,” he says, “and foolishly took out more loans.”

Bob was laid off again when the recession struck in 2008. He has since struggled to find work. He’s managed to stay off of welfare by picking up odd jobs that run the gamut from photography and video production to apartment painting and social media coaching. In the meantime, his student debt has grown from less than $100,000 to several hundred thousand dollars. “The money coming in is not great,” he says. “I currently have $700 or so in the bank, $400 in a drawer and $5K in a retirement account that will probably eventually be seized by the student loan people. It eats at me every day. I don’t ever see myself getting out of debt. I worry about my future.”

Young professionals aren’t the only ones struggling with student debt, either. For every self-made baby boomer who is sick of hearing kids complain about their debt, there’s another for whom the dream of a lucrative post-college career turned sour. At the moment, people 60 and over owe more than $36 billion in student loans, and people aged 40-49 account for 15% of all student debtors.

“I didn’t understand at the time what I was signing or the consequences,” says Faith, who is still paying off her student loans at 44. “I didn’t understand about compound interest. I’ve tried to negotiate with them. I’ve begged for help from them. All Sallie Mae says is, ‘You’ll have to pay it back no matter what.’ But I can’t. I’ll probably die with this debt, and I’m just about to give up and stop even trying.”

A college degree was once the key to a brighter future. Now it’s more like a financial prison sentence for so many Americans. Where did things go wrong?

A Two-Headed Snake

Many people blame the job market, and on the surface, it makes sense. According to the Economic Policy Institute, the unemployment rate for Americans aged 16-24 is the worst it’s been in the 60 years that the institute has been monitoring the data. This is especially true for minorities. While the unemployment rate for white college graduates sits at 8.4%, it pales in comparison to the 13.8% unemployment rate for Latino college graduates and the 18% rate for black graduates. While the terrible job market certainly exacerbates the student debt crisis, it doesn’t explain why so many students have come to struggle with such significant debt.

When we trace the evolution of the student loan crisis, we see two major forces at work. The first is the ever-growing importance that we place on having a college degree, even though the majority of Americans have their doubts as to what higher education can actually provide for their children. For example, a study by Pew Research found that 57% of Americans think that college is not a good value, and 75% believe that it is too expensive for most people to afford. And yet, in a separate study, Pew discovered that 94% of parents still expect their children to go to college.

In many ways, it seems like a natural expectation. Think about what your grandfather did for a living, then what your father did, and then what career your parents expected of you. As a parent, you want your child to have a better life than the one you were able to provide for them. Unfortunately, this becomes exponentially harder to do with every generation, since the number of available “good” jobs is shrinking and becoming increasingly specialized. The Bureau of Labor Statistics states that “mid-skill” jobs – jobs that require less education than a bachelor’s degree – will account for 45% of the available work in 2014. But the rate of enrollment for trade and tech schools isn’t trending that way.

College students from middle-class families enter the system expecting to earn a certain amount of money for a certain career. When things don’t work out that way, life becomes difficult. Saddled with debt and in search of meaningful work, they’re forced to move back home and take a minimum-wage or part-time job that can barely pay for the grocery bill. And according to a Brookings Institution study, the odds that they’ll ever get a job related to their degree shrink with every month that passes.

Thomas J. Fox, the community outreach director at Cambridge Credit Counseling in Cambridge, MA, has seen this disconnect between expectations and reality all too often in his line of work. “Like many people in my generation, I was raised with the advice that securing a degree is the key to prosperity in America,” he says. “For the better part of a century, that logic has held true. However, things have changed. No longer is a degree itself a guarantee of success […]. Many students I’ve worked with have an unrealistic expectation on earnings. Many think they’ll enter the workforce making $80,000, with no experience. More alarmingly, others believe they’ll make a YouTube video that will go ‘viral’ gaining them fame and fortune, or develop the next Instagram.”

Lending Left Unchecked Goes Haywire

Many students enroll in expensive four-year universities without considering their future earning potential, and that certainly contributes to the student loan crisis. But it’s the unregulated lending industry itself that bears much of the blame for the skyrocketing debt. Mitchell D. Weiss, a professor of finance at the University of Hartford and the author of “Life Happens – A Practical Guide to Personal Finance from College to Career” sees the student debt crisis as an example of predatory lending gone out of control.

“I counsel a fair amount of students who are struggling with very large levels of debt and the stories are disturbingly similar,” he says. “Many of them were the first in their families to go to college. Mom and Dad didn’t have a lot of money, and they weren’t well versed when it came to financial matters. So, they left it up to Junior to figure out how to make that side of things work.”

Since the typical college student doesn’t know how to get a loan, Weiss says, they tend to lean on university-appointed loan officers for help. From there, the lenders are free to sign the student up for any sort of loan they please and pass it off as a “discounted” rate.

“Not only were the loans pretty easy to get,” Weiss says. “They didn’t have to be paid back until after Junior was done with school. In the meantime, though, the college got its money, the lenders – both government and private – are getting their interest and Junior’s living in Mom and Dad’s basement because the magnitude of his loan payments preclude his ability to afford a place of his own. Adding up the pieces, you have an educational failure that’s compounded by an alignment of interests between the schools and the lenders that runs contrary to those of the student borrower.”

The degree to which the lending industry’s interests have “conflicted” with those of America’s students is staggering. Testifying before Congress in a 1991 hearing, Senator William Roth stated that the Department of Education had an “abysmal record” in providing oversight to university lending policies.

Even that, though, is an understatement. Since the Department of Education became the officiating body in charge of overseeing university lending policies, it has given lending agency executives free reign over the system, and they’ve used their power to squeeze America’s college students for every penny they’re worth. According to Citizens for an Educated and Democratic Republic co-founder Peter O’Lalor, “Predatory lending has been found to be widespread throughout the industry in both nonprofit and for-profit student loan companies. One student loan collection company even went so far as to install a 4,000-gallon shark tank in their headquarters.”

Even the nonprofits are getting in on the action. A 2007 investigation into PHEAA, Pennsylvania’s state lending agency, revealed that executives of the nonprofit had used the income they gained from jacking up interest rates to 9.5% to reward themselves with luxuries like a $45,000 Learjet rental, spa treatments, limousine rides and falconry lessons. Yes, falconry lessons. Further inquiry revealed that PHEAA had been using a legal loophole to overbill the government, and therefore the taxpayers, for $15 million.

In that same year, an investigation led by New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo revealed that the country’s largest lenders had made illegal arrangements with the loan officers at more than 100 colleges and universities across the country, including Johns Hopkins, Columbia and Syracuse. In exchange for lavish vacations and cash bribes, the officers agreed to put banks like JPMorgan Chase on their school’s list of “preferred lenders.”

And what has the government done to curb this rampant corruption? The late Ted Kennedy probably said it best when he addressed Congress in 2004. “A year ago, Senate Democrats proposed legislation to shut both [lending] loopholes down once and for all. The Senate Republicans did not act on that proposal, did not introduce their own legislation, and did not hold a single hearing. They asked no oversight questions of the Bush Administration. In short, they did nothing.”

Sallie the Jailer 

The most disgusting part about the entire student loan crisis is that the agency created to keep student loans in check has done more than anyone else to guarantee that student debt remains a get-rich-quick scheme for industry executives. Founded in 1972, Sallie Mae is the government-sponsored enterprise tasked with backing, managing and collecting student debt. Since it was given that authority, it has systematically stripped student borrowers of every protection they have ever enjoyed.

In 1996, Sallie Mae led the charge to get student loans exempted from the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. In 1998, it worked with the Consumers Banking Union to lift the statute of limitations on student loans in an amendment to the Higher Education Act. Through these two acts, the heads of Sallie Mae guaranteed that student loans could never be charged off in bankruptcy and that they could never expire. Then, in 2003, Sallie Mae bragged to shareholders that it was able to increase its profit margins by 29% (compared to the previous year’s profits) thanks to the increased amount of debt money it was able to collect under the new legislation.

Under Sallie Mae’s guidance, student aid has become one of the most dangerous loans in the country. These days, when a student takes out a Sallie Mae-backed loan, they’re stepping into a scary financial labyrinth. No matter how old the loan is or how few assets a graduate has, they must still pay their debts – and if they don’t, they’ll be subjected to relentless harassment by debt collection agencies, not to mention lawsuits.

To compound the problem, the average default rate for student loans – 80% of which are backed by Sallie Mae – is 8.8% as of last September. In some states like Missouri, that number can be as high as 20%. 

But if you ask any Sallie Mae employee, they’ll tell you things are just peachy. “The economy poses a significant challenge, but the overwhelming majority of our customers are successful in managing their obligations,” Spokesperon Patricia Christel told the Washington Post this March. “Only 3.5 percent of our private education loans default and no one benefits in that situation. That is why we work so diligently to reach customers and counsel them.”

The For-Profit Sham

But if Sallie Mae is bad, then for-profit colleges are worse. These schools – which include the Art Institutes, DeVry University and other online colleges – have been involved in numerous scandals over the past few years. Fueled by the renewed interest in trade careers, many for-profit colleges charge exorbitant fees in exchange for enrollment in career-specific classes. But often, a student can attend such classes through a local tech school for far less.

The for-profit industry has gotten so out of control that one former student loan executive said this to Congress: “In the trade school system, what you sell are dreams. If the student breathes, can write, and is over 18, he is qualified to become a student and to get a loan”.

Due to the low quality of the education that many students receive, the default rate on loans issued by for-profit colleges is disturbingly high. In an investigation into the industry, Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) found that nearly half of all federal student loan defaults occur at for-profit colleges, even though these schools only enroll 10% of the higher-education student population. Currently, the default rate for all loans issued by for-profit schools is sitting at 15%, much higher than the national average.

A Bubble, or Something Worse?

Now that student debt is pushing $1 trillion, some experts like Robert Reich have begun to throw around the word “bubble” in their articles, likening student loans to the subprime mortgages that collapsed the housing market and triggered the recession in 2008. In many ways, it’s a fair comparison to make. College students are the ultimate subprime borrowers. They have limited, if any, credit history and very little experience with loans – and in many cases the amount of money they’re being handed by Sallie Mae and other lenders is on par with a mortgage. But could the bursting of a student loan bubble really be as catastrophic as the one that toppled the housing market?

Not quite. While some experts are sold on the idea of a bubble, just as many are convinced otherwise. According to For Student Power spokesman Patrick St. John, the structure of student loans inherently prevents them from exploding the way mortgages did in 2008. “The student loan bubble will not burst in the same way the housing market’s bubble burst,” he says. “Federal student loans are fully insured by the federal government, so if a student refuses or is unable to pay, the private loan provider is fully compensated. Because of this ‘built-in bailout’ there won’t be a crisis point like there was with housing.”

However, just because student loans might not be subject to a burst-bubble effect, that doesn’t make them any less problematic. The de-facto bailout that loan companies enjoy may keep the industry from collapsing, but it also makes overhauling the system that much harder – and for every day that passes without reform, our children’s future grows that much bleaker.

“We’re talking about a generation of young men and women who are losing hope of attaining anything close to what their parents have realized for themselves,” says Weiss. “This isn’t only economic in the form of diminished consumerism and the accumulation of wealth, it’s social. Take away the hope for a better tomorrow and the unrest that’ll ensue will, in my opinion, be no less convulsive than what my generation lived through in the late ’60s.”

Fox agrees. “As more people struggle with debt,” he says, “it will make the appeal of college less alluring. We already suffer from a lack of suitable individuals to fill positions. In the end, unchecked student loan debt will diminish our economic leadership position.”

To Forgive or Not to Forgive

Although awareness over an impending student loan crisis is at an all-time high, the debate continues to rage over the best way to fix it. The popular opinion seems to be that we should reinstate student debt forgiveness. Before Sallie Mae had its way with the legislation, the statue of limitations on student loans expired after seven years. They could also be forgiven through bankruptcy. At the moment, the legislators pushing hardest for loan reform believe that rebuilding these escape routes is the best way to ease the burden on America’s students and taxpayers.

Currently, Majority Whip Richard Durbin – creator of the Durbin amendment – is sponsoring legislation that would reinstate the borrower’s right to charge off private student loans in bankruptcy. Though the borrower would still have to pay their federal loans, the amendment would give distressed graduates a little more wiggle room than they currently enjoy. “The student debt crisis in this country is largely ignored by Congress,” he told Congress in a hearing. “There are a lot of lives that are being changed.”

However, some experts believe that Durbin isn’t taking reform far enough. Senator Hansen Clarke (D-MI) is working in conjunction with Student Loan Justice, a nonprofit organization, to push the Student Loan Forgiveness Act of 2012. The act would allow people with student debt to be forgiven of it if they agree to pay 10% of their discretionary income for a period of 10 years. Furthermore, anyone who takes out student loans after the bill is passed would be eligible for the same deal, with a cap at $45,520 – the average cost of obtaining a four-year degree. Currently, an online petition supporting the bill has more than half a million signatures.

While the debate continues to rage over how much we should forgive student debt, Weiss says that there are plenty of ways that students can lessen their debt burden. These include testing out of as many courses as possible via CLEP and AP exams in order to reduce enrollment fees. Students can also start out at a community college and then transfer credits to a four-year university after two years. Another strategy is to take winter and summer sessions at schools that are less expensive.

Final Thoughts

The student loan crisis is every American’s problem, regardless of our political leanings. Our unyielding infatuation with the four-year college degree and an unchecked and unscrupulous lending industry have together created an abscess on our economy. Every year, student loans get more expensive. Every year, more and more college graduates are forced to default on their debt in the face of an uncertain job market. And every year, scores of retirees are reminded that no matter what they do, there is no escaping a student loan.

It’s a hard sell, since even loan forgiveness offers no guarantee that the buck won’t simply be passed on to the next generation. But the need for change – some change, any change – in the lending industry is no less dire. Something needs to be done, and both parties can agree on that. Regulations need to be tighter on for-profit colleges. We must place an emphasis on making accredited two-year schools just as attractive as traditional universities. Most of all, students need to be well-educated about college debt before they apply to school, not after they graduate from it. Anything at all to get us off this road to calamity we’re headed down.

Related posts:
American Student Loan Debt: $1 Trillion and Counting
A "great haircut" for U.S. growth

Pit bull Terrier, a restricted breed; Time to regulate pet shops!

Cross-bred bull terrier a restricted breed, says vet dept D-G

PETALING JAYA: The dog that attacked and killed 74-year-old Yip Sun Wah is a miniature bull terrier cross which is a restricted breed in Malaysia.

Restricted breeds were not suitable as household pets, said Veterinary Services Department (DVS) director-general Datuk Dr Abdul Aziz Jamaluddin.

Such breeds, he added, were only meant for the use of military and enforcement agencies and not to be kept as pets.

He added that bull terriers were allowed to be kept as guard dogs providing they were given proper training and schooling.

“When an application is made to the local council for a licence for a restricted breed, the municipal agency will only issue the licence based on our recommendation,” said Dr Abdul Aziz. He said the DVS has published a guidebook to outline breed classification.

The guidelines can also be obtained at http://www.dvs.gov.my/web/guest/listband.

Dr Abdul Aziz also said restricted breeds were not supposed to be sold in pet shops.

He added that the DVS was currently doing a trace to determine the supplier and find out how a restricted breed could have been made available to the owner.

“I will instruct our enforcement unit to check all pet shops to see if they are selling banned and restricted dog breeds,” said Dr Abdul Aziz.

Meanwhile, dog trainer Wellington Ho said bull terriers have very powerful jaws.

“There is a mechanism in the jaw which tends to lock up when it is clamped shut,” he said.

However, Ho was quick to point out that he personally knew of domesticated bull terriers that have been properly socialised.

“They have very sweet temperaments once they are properly socialised,” he said.

The dog that killed Yip had a valid licence issued by the Subang Jaya Municipal Council.

The case will be investigated by the police under Section 304(a) of the Penal Code for causing death by negligence, which carries a maximum of two years' jail, a fine or both. - The Star


Images for the american pitbull graphics

Time to regulate pet shops, say canine welfare groups

By WANI MUTHIAH wani@thestar.com.my

PETALING JAYA: Canine welfare groups are outraged over the death of 74-year-old Yip Sun Wah after he was mauled by a miniature bull terrier cross.

They claimed that one of the reasons behind Yip's death was the poor regulation of pet shops, which sell restricted breeds suspected of being obtained from backyard breeders.

Save a Stray founder Jacqueline Tsang said Yip's tragic death was due to irresponsible breeders who did not ensure the bull terrier's owner had the expertise to handle the dog.

“I also hold the enforcers liable for not ensuring the restriction (on restricted breeds) was being properly implemented,” said Tsang.

Canine rescue project Malaysian Dogs Deserve Better coordinator Irene Low said it was time for the authorities to seriously regulate pet shops that sold such animals.

“Only then can backyard breeders, who carry out unethical breeding, be put out of business as they would not have a platform to sell their dogs and puppies,” she said.

According to Low, unethical breeders also had a tendency to cross-breed dogs that were not compatible with each other.

“When indiscriminate cross-breeding is done, it can seriously affect the dogs' temperament,” she said.

Furry Friends Farm founder Sabrina Yeap said the temperament of a dog was usually influenced by the environment it was brought up in.

“Whatever the breed, what matters most is the upbringing. I personally know of bull terriers that are loving family pets,” said Yeap.

KL Pooch Rescue co-founder Shannon Lam said the loss of a father and husband to any violent attack was unspeakable.

“Equally tragic is a society that seeks to punish a beast for behaving as such rather than punishing those who are behind its aggression,” she added.

Meanwhile, sources say several rescue groups are getting together to request the authorities not to euthanise the dog.

Dog trainer and G-Pet Boarding and Training Centre Carlos Huertez said he would take the dog in if the authorities were willing to hand over the bull terrier.

Related posts/stories:
American Pit Bull Kills Jogger !
Killer dog's owners make appearance at victim's funeral

Wednesday, 9 May 2012

American Pit Bull Kills Jogger !

SUBANG JAYA: A man who just turned 74 a few days ago was killed by a american pit bull while jogging in his housing area.


Yip Sun Wah died at the scene after the dog bit him on the neck and almost tore off his left ear in the 9.50am incident in Jalan SS19/5B, about 1km from Yip's house here.

The dog ran out of its owner's house and attacked Yip for almost four minutes before returning home.
A car salesman, who only wanted to be identified as Addy, 44, said he was on his way to meet a customer when he saw Yip being attacked by the dog.


Deadly bite: A family member mourning over Yip’s body in front of a house in SS19, Subang Jaya yesterday.
 
He said he tried to hit the dog with his umbrella but it was too aggressive and only stopped attacking after Yip was motionless.

It is learnt that the owner had just got the animal about three months ago after her house was robbed.

Subang Jaya OCPD ACP Yahaya Ramli said the 25-year-old female accountant had bought the animal from a private kennel. He said she has a licence to keep the dog.

“We have released her after recording her statement,” he added.

ACP Yahaya also said the dog had escaped from the house through the rubbish compartment door which was not properly secured.

The victim's body was sent to the University Malaya Medical Centre while the dog is now with the Shah Alam Municipal Council.

ACP Yahaya said the animal would be tested to ascertain if it has any disease.

The victim's eldest son Hon Mun, 51, said he was informed of the incident by an eyewitness who called him using his father's mobile phone.

“I rushed to the scene immediately but my father was already dead,” he said, adding the victim had been jogging in the area for the past 20 years.

The case is being investigated under Section 304(a) of the Penal Code for causing death by negligence which carries a maximum two years' jail sentence or a fine or both.

Meanwhile, Subang Jaya Municipal Council director Dr Roslan Mohamed Hussin said it had started checking residential areas in the township for breeds that were said to be aggressive and dangerous.

“Seven dog breeds, namely Akita, Neapolitan Mastiff, American Bulldog, Dogo Argentino, Fila Brasileiro, Japanesa Tosa and American Pit Bull are predisposed to aggressive or dangerous behaviour,” he said.

The council is also enforcing a directive from the Selangor Veterinary Department to ban these “unmanageable or possibly dangerous” breeds.

By RASHITHA A. HAMID rashitha@thestar.com.my

Pit Bull Kills 74year old Jogger in Subang Jaya
Dangerous animal: The pit buill being taken away by a man believed to be a family member of the dog owner.



Images for the american pitbull graphics

Tuesday, 8 May 2012

Batang Kali massacre: British soldiers admitted unlawful killings

Lawyers for relatives of those who died in the 1948 mass killing disclose soldiers' accounts given during police interviews in 1970
Relatives of Malaysian rubber plantation workers killed in Batang Kali arrive at the high court
Loh Ah Choi (L), Chang Koon Ying (C) and Lim Ah Yin (R), relatives of unarmed Malaysian rubber plantation workers killed in Batang Kali in 1948 arrive at the high court. Photograph: Kerim Okten/EPA

Scots Guards soldiers admitted unlawfully shooting dead 24 Malaysian villagers then covering up the massacre, the high court has been told.

Calling for an official inquiry into the mass killing during anti-insurgency operations in 1948, lawyers for relatives of the victims disclosed for the first time the soldiers' accounts given during police interviews.
The statements were taken in 1970, when the then Labour government ordered an investigation into the deaths.

Six of the eight soldiers interviewed under caution by detectives corroborated accounts that the villagers had been unlawfully killed, Michael Fordham QC, counsel for the Malaysian relatives, told the court.

One member of the Scots Guards platoon, Alan Tuppen, maintained that a sergeant had said beforehand: "The (villagers) were going to be shot and we could fall in or fall out."

William Cootes, another soldier, told detectives he saw as another sergeant "motioned to (a) youth to run and then he shot him".

George Kydd, also a member of the Scots Guards patrol, recalled in 1970 that: "The bandits were then shot but I'm sorry I must tell you the truth, they were not running away.

"There was an inquiry later on and I've got to go along with this, we were told before going in to tell the same story, that is that the bandits were running away when they were shot … I don't remember who told us to tell this story but it was a member of the army."

The police investigation was launched after a newspaper carried some of the soldiers' accounts of what had happened 22 years earlier.

The probe was abruptly cancelled, however, in June 1970 after the Conservatives won the general election.

An internal police report by Detective Chief Superintendent Frank Williams, who led the police investigation, contradicted official explanations that there was insufficient evidence.

His report, disclosed to the high court, said: "At the outset this matter was politically flavoured and it is patently clear that the decision to terminate enquiries in the middle of the investigation was due to a political change of view when the new Conservative government came into office after the general election."

Relatives of those killed in Batang Kali, who have twice petitioned the Queen, are challenging the government's continued refusal to hold an inquiry into the incident.

Judicial review of the decision will continue until Wednesday.

Judgment is expected to be reserved.

The Ministry of Defence and Foreign Office maintain that it is too late for lessons to be learned from any inquiry and that most of the witnesses are no longer alive.

Agony of British Massacre Victims' Descendants in Batang Kali, Malaysia

They want proper closure and compensation.

 The Batang Kali killings have been compared with the My Lai massacre, which prompted outrage over the U.S.military campaign in Vietnam

NOTHING can shatter one’s world as much as the brutal murder of a loved one. The tragic account of beheaded headman Lim Tian Swee is one that still remains fresh in the memory of son Lim Kok – even 64 years after the horrific massacre that took place on Dec 21, 1948, in Batang Kali, Selangor.



Lim Kok was about nine years old when he received news from other villagers that his father had been decapitated and his head thrown into the river.

“My father was working as headman of a rubber tapping estate – which was managed by a distant granduncle – who paid salaries to the workers and looked after their welfare,” says Lim, 73. “He was my family’s sole breadwinner. Life became tough for us all after father was gone. My mother had to seek the help of friends and relatives to raise the rest of us. I was sad, yet I was also too little to understand any fear that came from the implications of my father’s killing.”


Chong Koon Ying at her father’s grave.
 
After the murder, Lim, who is the eldest of he children, went to stay with the granduncle in Kuala Lumpur where he studied. His mother, however, stayed behind in Ulu Yam Baru to look after her other children. The granduncle helped subsidise Lim’s living expenses and studies and the boy would return on and off to Ulu Yam Baru to see his mother and siblings.

“Thanks to some funds and assistance from this granduncle too, we managed to provide my father with a proper burial according to Buddhist rites ... even if the head could not be traced.”

Lim returns to the burial ground every year to offer prayers to his father during Qing Ming (a festival during which people pay respect to their ancestors).

He is one of four descendants who left Malaysia for London to attend today’s judicial review test case to hear a proper investigation into the massacre by British soldiers of 24 unarmed villagers at Batang Kali in 1948.

Wong Then Loy was just a child when he helped his father collect the victims’ bodies for burial.

“My only wish is for the trial to grant us sufficient compensation and a proper apology for the misdeed that was unleashed against the 24 people.

“Coming back to Batang Kali is a grim reminder of the suffering and misery that we had to endure and the poverty that my siblings, especially, had to grow up with – after all these decades, we are hopeful that fairness and justice will prevail,” he said before leaving for London.

Ulu Yam Baru village headman cum the Action Committee Condemning the Batang Kali Massacre chairman Chin Fo Sang recalls listening to stories of how the villagers were rounded up and divided into five different groups before being executed. “After they were all killed, some of the bodies were left by the riverside and others placed in groups inside plantations.”

Chin, 64, was only about two months old when the episode unfolded back in December 1948. Many of the tales were related to him by his parents, relatives and villagers much later.

The clear gentle waters of the river into which Lim’s father’s severed head was thrown belie the horror swept away by torrents of time. The head, says Chin, was washed down to a Malay village where it was discovered by horrified local women. “They threw it back into the river and it was never seen again. This is why till today, Lim’s father is without a head,” says Chin.

That serene-looking river is where Lim Kok’s father’s head was thrown into.
 
Chin leads us back a short distance away where a single wooden house stands amidst thick foliage and shrubs mixed with a few banana trees. “This is the site where the first victim, Luo Wei-Nan, was executed. The story goes that the soldiers herded him here before shooting him in the back. The bullet penetrated through the body and left such a gaping puncture that his internal organs all spilled out,” Chin says softly, the horror still clear in his voice.

Chong Koon Ying was 11 when her father Chong Man was shot. “We heard a lot of gunshots – the booming noise they made – but we were not allowed to see what happened. I could see thick smoke billowing about right after, though.

“Later, a lorry whisked all the women and children away and we were not allowed to even go back to our houses to collect any of our clothes or belongings.

“We were left homeless overnight after our village was set ablaze. Some people who saw us seated aimlessly on the streets (in the nearby town they had been taken to) took pity on us and found us a decrepit house for shelter.

“Because there were so many families cramped into one small space, the children had to sleep on the floor while my mother slept seated on a stool.”

Choking with emotion, Chong says she was married off at 16 while her siblings had to be given away for adoption as her family had nothing to survive on.

“We had to be split up when food and everything else became scarce,” says Chong, now 73. “I tried finding my sister but to no avail. And when I found my brother, he was badly beaten up. I could never forget how my heartbroken mum died when she found out.”

Chong who is now living in KL, having shifted after her marriage, says her children and grandchildren have been told of this savage murder that tore families apart and left traumatised women and children incapacitated.

“What else can I ask for now except for cash compensation. My parents are gone; at the very least, monies should be paid for the hardships and our pain, although no amount can bring them back.”

There is an interesting story surrounding the last surviving witness to the massacre, Tham Yong, who died in 2010. Her fiance was one of the 24 shot dead while his brother was the victim who fainted and happened to survive the massacre. Tham Yong later married him and son Chong Nyok Keyu is now taking up the fight following her passing.

Another witness is Wong Then Loy who was just eight when he helped his dad to collect the corpses, a week after the massacre.

“The bodies had rotted, some had dried up; some even had huge maggots crawling out,” recalls Wong, 73. “As a kid, I wasn’t afraid of seeing the worms since I was used to following my father deep inside the jungle before we were chased out to stay in the new villages.

“Of course, I also didn’t know exactly what had happened except that they were dead bodies. My father related to me the stories later while I also gathered bits of excerpts from wives of the deceased and some neighbours.”

His father helped to engrave names on the tomb stones after the dead had been identified by their relatives. Some remained unidentified and unclaimed so they were buried together in one plot – Wong recalls some of these were young men, barely 20.

“The poorer families could not afford coffins so their loved ones were buried without any, while some others made the funerary box by nailing planks together,” he remembers.

The original victims are long gone, but the voices of these departed souls have certainly not been silenced. Their next-of-kin are determined to secure justice for this massacre that took place in the jungle a whole lifetime ago.

Representing them are four claimants at today’s judicial review application in London: Chong Nyok Keyu, Loh Ah Choi (nephew to the first victim to be shot, Luo Wei-Nan), Lim Kok, and Wooi Kum Thai.

By MARTIN VENGADESAN and LIM CHIA YING
star2@thestar.com.my

This article, together with a video documenting the Batang Kali massacre site and interviews with the descendants, can be downloaded from The Star Apps’ May 2 issue.

Related posts/articles:

Batang Kali massacre by the British: justice for the dead!

More than 60 years after British troops killed 24 villagers at Batang Kali, Selangor, the case against the soldiers is going to be heard in the British courts today. 

IN 1948, the Malayan Emergency was just heating up. The country may have been weary of four brutal years of Japanese occupation during World War II, but the brief post-War dominance of the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) was clearly at odds with the desire of the British authorities to reclaim a territory whose raw materials would help rebuild Britain itself.

By 1948, this had erupted into an undeclared war that would be waged until 1960. British forces sought to subdue the Communists, who had gained a degree of popularity for their resistance towards the Japanese. It didn’t help that in China, Mao’s Communist Party was on the verge of defeating the Kuomintang nationalist party.

Uneasy lie the dead: This cemetery in Batang Kali, Selangor, is where about half of the massacred victims were buried.
 
It was against this backdrop that the 7th Platoon of G Company, of the second battalion of Scots Guards unit of the British Army, belied its centuries-long reputation for honour. On Dec 12, 1948, under the leadership of Sgt Charles Douglas, the Guards surrounded a rubber estate near Batang Kali, Selangor. Looking for Communist guerillas who habitually moved in and out of the local population, they shot and killed 24 ethnic Chinese villagers before razing the village.

The next day, The Straits Times carried a report stating “Scots Guards and Police were today reported to have shot dead 25 out of 26 bandits during a wide-scale operation in North Selangor.” It called the killings the “biggest success as yet achieved in one operation in Malaya since the Emergency began.”

It was a bold-faced lie. The troops may have been acting on false information or may have panicked but there is little doubt that many innocent people were killed. Worse still, the incident was hushed up, only surviving as whispers through time.

There were, however, some survivors. One man fainted and was presumed dead, while some women and children of the men killed lived to tell the tale. According to them the Scots Guards had separated the men to be interrogated before the situation turned into a rampage of indiscriminate shooting.

This lush green spot is where dark deeds took place 64 years ago today.
 
“At the time we didn’t hear much,” recalls Prof Emeritus Tan Sri Dr Khoo Kay Kim. “We just heard some rumours. I would not call it the norm, but no doubt there was tension. What happened at Batang Kali was part of the complexity of society which can lead to such tragic situations. It is almost unavoidable in times of conflict and when there is hatred between ethnic and territorial groups. I see it as a conflict of cultures.

“From what I understand, they were innocent men. But the Chinese may well have reacted in a peculiar way that would have seemed suspicious to the British, who were paranoid and ignorant of local ways. The British always had problems with the Chinese community.

“That is why Governor Sir Shenton Thomas tried to come up with a programme to Anglicise the Chinese, but they were not easily controlled. At that point (in 1948) the Chinese were under the influence of the leftists and the secret societies. They were themselves enemies and in some ways it mirrored the conflict in China between the Kuomintang and the Communist Party.”

Prof Datuk Dr Shamsul Amri Baharuddin laments the tragic loss of life. “At the time the British would have had their own people on the ground. But informers can make the biggest mistakes, sometimes even on purpose. It is possible that the informer didn’t like these people. In this case, it is likely that the British acted on wrong information.

This is apparently the tombstone of the first victim, Luo Wei-Nan.>
 
“It is difficult to be an informer/undercover agent because both sides will crucify you. In fact in the 1940s, the leader of the Communists, Loi Tak, was a triple agent, a Vietnamese who worked for the Japanese and the British while leading the CPM!

“The conditions of war generates different dynamics, which we can still see today in Afghanistan and Iraq where there are many vendetta killings and economic killings done under falsified circumstances.”

Leon Comber played a critical role in the formative years of the Malaysian police force’s Special Branch and spent many years countering the Communist insurgency. The author of Malaya’s Secret Police, 1945-1960: The Role Of The Special Branch In The Malayan Emergency has no light to shed on the Batang Kali incident but does concede that, at the time, there was much mistrust between the Chinese community and the British.

Comber had come over to Malaya as part of the re-occupying forces that took over as the Japanese surrendered. In 1946 he was appointed to the police force in Malaya. He served as OCPD (Officer in Charge of Police District) KL South; at that time KL was divided into north and south zones for policing.

The Emergency was a savage war in which an estimated 12,000 people died. Did Comber ever have to do anything he was ashamed of?

File photo from May last year when four claimants, (from right) Wooi Kum Thai, Loh Ah Choi, Lim Kok and Chong Nyok Keyu announced that they had been granted funds by the United Kingdom Legal Service Commission to take their case to British courts. Today, the four are in London for the beginning of their case.
 
“Personally I didn’t, nor did I order any men under my command to do so. But I certainly heard rumours about dubious interrogation techniques. Apparently the head of the Special Branch, Richard Craig, issued a pamphlet which referred to undesirable methods of obtaining information. I was taken aback when I heard that. But if my fellow colleagues knew anything, they kept it to themselves.”

Indeed, secrecy was very much the order of the day as the colonial government maintained strict control over the media to ensure that only their viewpoint got through to the people. Little was known at the time of the Malayan Emergency’s many flash points like the standoff in Bukit Kepong, Johor, on Feb 23, 1950, between police officers and Communist guerillas that ended with more than 20 fatalities on each side. Across the pond, on Dec 3, 1949, the British governor of Sarawak, Sir Duncan Stewart, was stabbed to death by teenage Malay nationalist Rosli Dhobi.

A few years after the Batang Kali massacre, the Briggs Plan was put in place to win the hearts and minds of the local population. Devised by General Sir Harold Briggs shortly after his appointment in 1950 as the Emergency’s director of operations, the plan comprised the forced resettlement of rural Chinese population into “New Villages” where education, health services and homes with water and electricity were provided. Even as the Emergency continued and news remained tightly controlled, the Batang Kali massacre reared its ugly head from time to time. Soon after the incident, in 1949, an investigation by the Attorney General, Sir Stafford Foster-Sutton, concluded that the villagers would have escaped with their lives if not for the soldiers opening fire – yet, no action was taken.

In fact, only the soldiers themselves were questioned as witnesses; no villager was asked for testimony. The cover-up echoed that of another British colonial massacre in Amritsar, India, in 1919 when Colonel Reginald Dyer ordered the shooting deaths of hundreds of unarmed Indian civilians.

Following the My Lai massacre in the late 1960s during the Vietnam War, when US troops unable to distinguish friend from foe slaughtered all the villagers in My Lai, the Batang Kali incident was revisited by British newspaper The People. Then British Secretary of State for Defence (from 1964 to 1970) Denis Healey set up a team to investigate the incident. But the case was soon dropped for “lack of evidence”, despite statements made from former members of the patrol that made it clear they had been ordered to lie about the killings during the 1949 investigation.

Still later, in 1992, In Cold Blood, a BBC documentary was aired about the killings, making it obvious that a travesty had occurred, not just with the killings but with the cover-up that followed. Journalists Ian Ward and Norma Miraflor also painstakingly put together Slaughter And Deception At Batang Kali (Media Masters, 2009), another work that endorses this viewpoint.

MCA Public Services and Complaints Department head Datuk Seri Michael Chong became involved with the case during the filming of In Cold Blood.

“It is not only me who is fighting this case,” he says. “Over the years many fought it. Even (Malaysia’s first Prime Minister) Tunku Abdul Rahman fought it before independence. But when I came to it in 1992 it had been forgotten. All the time there had been a ding-dong and finally after a change of government in the UK, the case was closed.

“In late 1992, a group of BBC journalists came down with a few ex-Scot Guards who were all in their 70s or 80s. They were not involved in the massacre but had been asked by their Commanding Officer to help with the post-massacre clean-up. They came and asked the villagers to remove the bodies. After so many years they felt bad.”

Chong was outraged by the injustice and decided to act. “Along with the lawyers Vincent Lim and Datuk Lim Choon Kin, I took an interest. We went to see the place and met the survivors. In 1993 we called a press conference and, with the victims’ descendants, we lodged a police report in Batang Kali.

“After that, we drafted a letter to Her Majesty the Queen to investigate this old case and seek for justice. We went to see the then High Commissioner, H.C. White, and were given assurances that the letter would be passed to her. Meanwhile, we also worked with the police. I was cautioned by the Malaysian police not to stir up this sentiment.

“To be very frank, some leaders also asked me why I wanted to bring up this old matter. They neither supported me or were against me at first. But later on they gave me their moral support.

“For me, this has never been about the publicity. I just want justice for the victims. I want the British Government to recognise and admit that such an incident happened. They were all shot in the back of the head from a close distance. This is cold-blooded murder. They were never Communists, but simple rubber-tappers. They were not even sympathisers.”

Eventually, through the perseverance of people like Chong, the British Government relented and agreed to hear the case.

Lawyer Quek Ngee Meng is part of a new generation of Malaysians who feel that there is no statute of limitations on justice.

“Back in 2004 my father, the late Quek Cheng Taik, used to visit the hot springs in Ulu Yam near Batang Kali to treat an illness. He used to go from Serdang to that area and eventually bought a house in Ulu Yam. He listened to the stories of villagers.

“It is still a talked-about topic there more than 60 years on. Those killed were from Ulu Yam. If you go there you won’t miss the cemetery. Every Qing Ming (a day to pay respect to one’s ancestors) they go back.

“They still feel it. It is still a stigma. The official account says they were suspected of being bandits. When we followed the case, we found a lot of cover-ups.”

But what can be accomplished after so many years?

“I think the first thing is an admission and an apology” says Quek. “The victim’s families also lost their bread-winners so we are also seeking compensation.

“Over here there are still about five witnesses to what happened. In Britain some soldiers are still alive. I think there are more than 10 on the British side. There are many who have passed away in Malaysia, most recently Tham Yong in 2010. But we documented their testimony.

“When pursuing this case, the famous human rights law firm Bindmans backed us and were willing to procure legal aid. Before they (the United Kingdom Legal Service Commission) granted us that aid, though, they checked that we needed the funds. They also checked if there was any merit in the case. Their estimate is a 50% to 60% chance,” says Quek.

Today and tomorrow, the team in London will be applying for a judicial review to quash the earlier decision by the British Government not to investigate the tragedy.

Quek says incidents like Batang Kali were not necessarily unique at the time. “There are many other cases of injustice during the Emergency. You must understand, this was at a time when the British thought all Chinese were Communists. The Chinese had to prove they were not Communists.

“But even in such circumstances you must follow the rule of law. If they are identified by informers they should have been detained and questioned. But they were not.”

Quek makes a final point about the upcoming trial. “We made a lot of progress with the (British) Labour Government, but since the Conservative-led coalition took power, they have not been so straightforward with us.

“They have made a lot of representations using technical points trying to claim that it was the Selangor Government who had jurisdiction and we should take action against the Sultan instead of them!

He adds that, “This is a landmark case with an individual suing the British Government, and I am looking forward to the trial.”

It remains to be seen if justice will indeed finally be served.

By MARTIN VENGADESAN and LIM CHIA YING
star2@thestar.com.my


Related articles/Posts: