External News

MUKAH, Oct 2 — Chief Minister Datuk Patinggi Abang Johari Openg stressed that his announcements of high impact projects costing millions are not empty promises but ones that can be fulfilled.

He said allocations were set aside before the projects including bridges, roads and water treatment plants were announced.

“Don’t worry, we have the money for these projects and that is why I make the announcements,” he said at a meet-the-people session here last night.

“If you see what people have posted on social media, you would read all sorts of claims and allegations, asking if the state GPS (Gabungan Parti Sarawak) government has the money for the big projects or whether we are mere telling lies to the people.

“If we don’t have the money, then I will not be making the announcements,” Abang Johari said, adding that the state government has various sources of income, including the 5 per cent sales tax imposed on the export of petroleum and petroleum products.

He said the state government is expected to receive over RM3 billion from the sales tax this year.

The chief minister said he will chair the state development coordination committee later today to analyse reports and feedback on the status of high impact projects launched by the state government over the last two years

“Sometimes, if we don’t go to the ground we don’t know what are happening to these projects,” he said, adding the meeting will be attended by state ministers, State Secretary Datuk Jaul Samion, his three deputies and directors of state departments and agencies.

He said yesterday he visited many projects in Mukah that he announced and were now under construction, including the upgrading of the water treatment plant.

“When I see all the projects that have approved in Sarawak over the last two years, which are now being constructed on schedule, we will not hesitate to increase the allocations for more projects with high impact under the 12th Malaysia Plan, beginning next year,” he said.

Apabila kerajaan Pakatan Harapan mula mentadbir negara, antara perhatiannya adalah menyusun semula kewangan negara. Antara asasnya ialah pembersihan dalam menguruskan kewangan negara supaya dapat mengelak penyelewengan, ketirisan dan pembaziran. Bukan saja hendak menjimatkan wang negara tetapi lebih tinggi lagi melakukan urus tadbir baik. Ia juga selaras dengan Manifesto PH.

Seperti menguruskan syarikat, apa yang perlu dilakukan ialah konsolidasi terhadap pentadbiran kerajaan, apa yang perlu dilakukan adalah menutup agensi yang tidak perlu, serta menggabungkan badan yang peranannya bertindan.

Maka arahan dikeluarkan kepada semua kementerian supaya mengkaji semua badan di bawahnya dan membuat perakuan yang mana patut ditutup atau digabungkan.

Oleh kerana penulis lebih hampir dengan agensi perbukuan dan komunikasi massa, maka desas-desus mengenai agensi yang berkaitan dengan industri ini diketahui dahulu.

Antara cadangan yang kedengaran ialah Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka (DBP), Institut Terjemahan dan Buku Malaysia (ITBM) dan Kota Buku hendak digabungkan kerana peranan mereka bertindan. Begitu juga ada desas-desus Radio Televisyen Malaysia (RTM), Pertubuhan Berita Nasional Malaysia (Bernama) dan Jabatan Penerangan digabungkan.

Tetapi semua desas-desus itu tidak berlaku kerana tentunya ia menerima bantahan bukan saja daripada kakitangan yang mungkin kehilangan jawatan tetapi juga ia pasti dijadikan isu politik oleh pihak pembangkang.

Apatah lagi jika badan di bawah Majlis Amanah Rakyat (Mara) hendak digabung atau dibahagi-bahagikan, pasti ia menjadi isu politik yang besar. Begitu juga jika ada cadangan untuk menggabungkan Yayasan Dakwah Islamiah Malaysia (Yadim) dan Institut Kefahaman Islam Malaysia (Ikim) beserta Radio Ikim ke dalam Jabatan Kemajuan Islam Malaysia (Jakim) dengan TV Hijrah.

Maka polisi konsolidasi bukan saja sukar tetapi dalam banyak keadaan tidak dapat dilaksanakan kerana realiti politiknya yang tidak termampu untuk kerajaan melawannya.

Konsolidasi di Kementerian Pendidikan adalah lagi penting dan lebih kompleks, terutama pengajian tinggi. Perkembangan universiti di negara ini berkembang pesat, daripada Universiti Malaya Kuala Lumpur hingga berkembang dengan memiliki lima universiti iaitu Universiti Malaya (UM), Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM), Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM), Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) dan Universiti Pertanian Malaysia (UPM).

Perkembangan selanjutnya begitu pesat hinggakan banyak pihak menimbulkan isu mengenai mutu lulusannya. Bukan saja universiti swasta bercambah dengan banyak tetapi institut pengajian tinggi awam bertaraf kolej universiti ditubuhkan.

Institut Teknologi Mara (ITM) menjadi Universiti Teknologi Mara (UiTM). Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman (Utar) ditubuhkan dan beberapa tahun kemudian Kolej Tunku Abdul Rahman (TARC) dinaikkan taraf menjadi Kolej Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman (Taruc).

Setiap negeri kemudiannya mempunyai universiti. Sementara kolej-kolej universiti awam juga dinaikkan taraf. Maka Terengganu pun mempunyai dua universiti, Universiti Malaysia Terengganu (UMT) dan Universiti Sultan Zainal Abidin (UniSZa).

Maka baru-baru ini Kementerian Pendidikan memutuskan supaya UMT dan UniSZa digabungkan kerana tentunya berhubung dengan proses konsolidasi sumber. Pastinya kenyataan kementerian itu menerima bantahan terutama dari tenaga pengajar. Bagi mereka yang terlibat, penggabungan tempat mereka bekerja tidak dapat diterima. Sementara bagi pihak luar, penggabungan itu sesuatu yang rasional. sementara pihak yang melihat dari sudut politik akan menimbangkannya mengikut kepentingan mereka.

Penggabungan universiti mempunyai sensitivitinya tersendiri tetapi ia lumrah berlaku di seluruh dunia. Umpamanya di Singapura, kerajaannya menggabungkan Universiti Singapura dan Universiti Nanyang untuk menjadikan Universiti Nasional Singapura.

Bukan saja penggabungan universiti menghadapi masalah. Untuk menyatukan kampus pun menerima bantahan. Contohnya apabila Universiti Tenaga Nasional (Uniten) membuat keputusan untuk menyatukan kampusnya di Bandar Muadzam dengan induknya di Bangi. Uniten sebagai universiti swasta tentu juga mahu melaksanakan konsolidasi yang akan menjimatkan kos.

Tetapi langkah Uniten juga menghadapi tentangan terutamanya dari penduduk Bandar Muadzam. Ini kerana kehadiran Uniten di Bandar Muadzam memajukan kawasan itu. Ekonomi tempatan terpacu dengan adanya para pelajar di situ. Dengan tiadanya kampus itu, ia akan menyepikan bandar itu.

Uniten hanyalah satu contoh bagaimana universiti memberikan sumbangan pada pembangunan sesuatu kawasan. Akibatnya pembinaan sesuatu universiti awam di negara ini amat berkait dengan kepentingan politik.

Walaupun Uniten bukanlah universiti awam, tetapi ia dimiliki oleh syarikat berkait kerajaan iaitu Tenaga Nasional. Sementara syarikat berkait kerajaan pula berada pada pengaruh politik.

Maka kehadiran kampus Uniten di Bandar Muadzam adalah juga akibat pengaruh politik daripada sesiapa yang ada kuasa dari kerajaan ke atas syarikat berkait kerajaan yang memilikinya. Ahli politik berkenaan tentunya mahu memajukan ekonomi kawasannya dengan membawa projek kampus universiti ke tempat yang mereka mendapat undi. Sama ada tindakan ini beretika atau tidak, itu memerlukan perbincangan lain. Tetapi apabila ahli politik itu sudah tiada, pemilik universiti merasakan kepentingan mereka menghendaki supaya kampus itu dipindahkan kepada induknya.

Tetapi jika dilihat kedudukan universiti awam, ternyata ada pengaruh kepentingan politik tempatan. Secara tradisinya, universiti terletak di bandar utama negara. UM ditubuhkan kerajaan kolonial British di Singapura, bandar utama British Malaya. Apabila ditubuhkan Persekutuan Tanah Melayu, maka ditubuhkan UM di Kuala Lumpur. USM adalah asalnya Universiti Pulau Pinang kerana Georgetown adalah bandar kedua utama kedua Malaya.

UTM dan UPM ialah penaikan taraf Institut Teknologi Kebangsaan (ITK) dan Kolej Pertanian Serdang yang asalnya ditubuhkan oleh pentadbir kolonial. Tetapi kampus UKM dibina di Selangor adalah kerana pengaruh kuat Menteri Besar Harun Idris sebagai pemimpin Umno yang popular. Sementara kampus UTM dibina di Johor ketika Hussein Onn yang berasal dari Johor menjadi perdana menteri. Masa itu tidak timbul lagi konsep universiti awam negara berada di negeri. sebab itu UTM tidaklah bernama Universiti Johor dan Universiti Pulau Pinang ditukar nama menjadi USM. Oleh kerana pada masa universiti dinamakan menurut bidang, maka muncullah nama USM, UTM dan UPM.

Maka apabila Dr Mahathir Mohamad mahu membina universiti di Kedah, ia dinamakan Universiti Utara Malaysia (UUM), maknanya bukan saja untuk Kedah tetapi untuk negeri di utara Semenanjung. UUM menawarkan kursus-kursus pengurusan. Tetapi tidakkah lebih baik universiti yang menawarkan kursus korporat dibina di tengah-tengah kota dan bukannya berada di hutan. Tetapi kehadiran universiti menyumbang kepada pembangunan tempatan.

Bukan saja universiti, keberadaan kampus cawangan, institut, kolej malah sekolah berasrama penuh akan memacukan kawasan di mana mereka berada.

Cuba perhatikan di mana kampus universiti itu dibina dan kaitkan dengan ahli politik yang menjadi wakil rakyat di kawasan pilihan raya berkenaan. Sepanjang 60 tahun Umno memerintah, pembangunan pusat pendidikan berkait rapat dengan sokongan pengundi tempatan.

Di penghujung pentadbiran Umno, Bandar Universiti Pagoh mula didirikan ketika Muhyiddin Yassin menjadi menteri Pendidikan. Bandar itu menaikkan nilai kawasan itu dan penduduk tempatan yang merupakan pengundi beliau memperoleh manfaat daripadanya.

Apa yang beliau lakukan itu tidak salah sepanjang pentadbiran kerajaan BN kerana ia merupakan amalan dan budaya yang dapat diterima. Tetapi sama ada dalam pentadbiran PH, amalan dan budaya seumpama itu boleh diteruskan, tentunya ia akan didebatkan. Bagi penulis, pembangunan pendidikan hendaklah ditimbangkan menurut kepentingan nasional dan bukan mengikut kehendak pengundi ahli politik berkenaan yang bernasib baik memegang sesuatu potfolio berpengaruh.

Artikel ini adalah pandangan penulis dan tidak semestinya mewakili FMT.

WASHINGTON: Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison has confirmed that US President Donald Trump asked him to help gather information for an inquiry into Robert Mueller’s investigation of Russian meddling in the 2016 election.

The New York Times, citing two unidentified US officials, earlier reported the request to assist in the investigation – which aims to discredit the Russia probe – was made during a recent telephone call between Trump and Morrison.

An Australian government spokesman confirmed on Tuesday that the request was made, saying in a statement Australia “has always been ready to assist and cooperate with efforts that help shed further light on the matters under investigation”.

“The PM confirmed this readiness once again in conversation with the President.”

The Times said the White House had restricted access to the transcript of the call, in a similar way to its handling of Trump’s recent call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

That call – during which Trump asked Zelensky to investigate his potential 2020 Democratic presidential opponent Joe Biden – has led to the opening of an impeachment inquiry in the Democratic-led House of Representatives.

The Washington Post reported separately that Attorney General Bill Barr has had multiple meetings overseas with foreign intelligence officials in an effort aimed at undermining US intelligence’s conclusion that Russian interference helped Trump to victory in the 2016 presidential election.

In addition to contacting the Australian leader, Barr has met with British intelligence and last week was in Italy, together with US Attorney John Durham, asking for Rome’s help in revisiting the 2016 Russia investigation, according to the newspaper.

The Post said Barr risked appearing to use his powers as head of the US Justice Department to help Trump politically when he is facing impeachment and, potentially, removal from office for abuse of power.

DOJ probing ‘political witch hunt’

Former special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe into Russian interference in the US election was completed in March with the identification of numerous acts of collusion or attempted collusion between the Trump campaign and Moscow.

But after Mueller ruled there was not enough material for criminal charges, Trump called for another investigation into what he called the Russia “political witch hunt” and “hoax.”

The Justice Department chose Durham to examine the roots of the Mueller probe, including the evidence that led the CIA, FBI and other intelligence agencies to declare that Russia did in fact interfere in 2016 to boost Trump.

Australia and Britain were both important because the original FBI Russia meddling probe was launched in July 2016 after the bureau received a tip from an Australian diplomat in Britain about a meeting between people tied to Russian intelligence and a Trump campaign official.

But Barr’s involvement in the Durham investigation has raised questions that it is a partisan political probe.

In a statement, the Justice Department defended the contacts abroad and said Trump’s and Barr’s role was to help Durham make contacts.

“Mr Durham is gathering information from numerous sources, including a number of foreign countries,” said Justice Department spokesperson Kerri Kupec.

“At Attorney General Barr’s request, the president has contacted other countries to ask them to introduce the attorney general and Mr Durham to appropriate officials,” she said.

KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 1 — 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) lost a total of US$1.367 billion (RM5.72 billion) in deposits to a fake British Virgin Islands company named Aabar Investments PJS Limited while raising funds in two quick-fire deals handled by businessman Low Taek Low’s associates, 1MDB’s former CEO told the court yesterday.

Datuk Shahrol Azral Ibrahim Halmi said he did not suspect anything amiss when the company was told to pay a total of US$1.367 billion through two separate transactions — US$577 million and then US$790 million — to the fake company that had a strikingly similar name to the actual Abu Dhabi firm Aabar Investments PJS.

Shahrol yesterday gave a shocking account of how 1MDB was tricked into paying the fake company that was incorporated in the British Virgin Islands, and which resulted in the money never being returned to 1MDB but channelled to Low-controlled accounts. The money allegedly made its way to Datuk Seri Najib Razak eventually.

Based on Shahrol’s testimony in the High Court in Najib’s corruption trial, elements that repeatedly popped up in the account of how 1MDB lost the US$1.367 billion that it had borrowed include: the pressure to be quick with the deals given the supposed veneer of their being government-to-government (G2G) deals and Najib’s alleged approval for the related financial decisions.

The first takeover deal: Project Turin

Shahrol said he had proposed that the Finance Ministry-owned 1MDB enter into the energy sector by taking over independent power producer Tanjong Energy Holdings Sdn Bhd (TEHSB), claiming that Low had also conveyed positive feedback from Najib who also purportedly wanted 1MDB to be a major IPP like France’s EDF.

According to Shahrol, the 1MDB board of directors had on February 8, 2012 approved the company’s subsidiary 1MDB Energy Sdn Bhd’s proposed 100 per cent acquisition of TEHSB for RM10.6 billion, with Najib also signing off the next day on behalf of 1MDB special shareholder Minister of Finance (MOF) Incorporated to approve the idea.

1MDB, which had no money of its own to invest, needed money to buy electricity producer TEHSB and decided to borrow more money to do so. (Najib who was also finance minister gave his written approval for 1MDB to borrow more).

Following the takeover deal’s financial adviser Goldman Sachs’ advice, 1MDB took on RM11.4 billion more debt: namely a RM6.17 billion loan from Maybank and RHB Bank, and by issuing US$1.75 billion of bonds through 1MDB’s Labuan-based offshore company 1MDB Energy Limited (1MEL) that was guaranteed by Abu Dhabi’s International Petroleum Investment Company (IPIC).

For the US$1.75 billion bonds, 1MDB Energy Limited had given Aabar Investment PJS Limited a call option, where it had the right to take up 49 per cent of shares in the former.

Out of the RM11.4 billion raised, 1MDB in the end used only RM8.5 billion to pay for TEHSB as it took on the latter’s RM2.1 billion existing debts.

The first switcheroo: US$577 million

Shahrol said 1MDB’s lawyer Jasmine Loo had asked him to sign documents to justify the transfer of US$577 million as “security deposit” to IPIC’s purported subsidiary Aabar Investments PJS Limited. (This was however the fake firm based in BVI).

Believing IPIC’s bond guarantee to involve G2G Abu Dhabi-Malaysia ties and alleged direct negotiations between Najib and Abu Dhabi’s crown prince as allegedly impressed on him by Low, Shahrol said he was not suspicious and did not ask to check the terms when signing this collaboration agreement between 1MEL and Aabar Investments PJS Limited (BVI) dated May 21, 2012.

Shahrol said he confidently signed the agreement as it used the correct office address for Aabar which is in a government building in Abu Dhabi, noting that the short form for the company used in the deal was only “Aabar Investments.”

“Therefore I did not realise at all that it is a different company which is Aabar Investments PJS (British Virgin Islands). After the ruckus on the 1MDB issue involving Aabar, then only I realised that there is a difference between the actual Aabar and the BVI-based Aabar which is only the word at the end, which is ‘Limited’,” he said.

Shahrol said he had unsuspectingly signed transaction documents given to him by 1MDB deputy chief financial officer Terence Geh, although he remarked that the US$577 million — which is one-third or almost 33 per cent of the US$1.75 billion raised — that he signed off to be sent to Aabar BVI was relatively large.

“I do not know who set the remittance at US$ 576,943,490 which to my opinion is a very huge amount compared to the overall amount of bonds issued with a total value of US$1.75 billion,” he said, noting that it was never presented to him or 1MDB’s directors.

“However, I was not suspicious and did not question it because at the time I believed it was something already agreed by Najib and IPIC based on the action plans and discussions I had with Jho Low,’’ he said.

On May 22, 2012 when part of the money raised from the US$1.75 billion bonds came into 1MEL’s Falcon Bank account in Hong Kong, the almost US$577 million was transferred out on the same day to the fake Aabar’s BSI account in Lugano, Switzerland.

While he did not suspect any irregularities and had taken it all “in good faith”, Shahrol also said he believed then that the security deposit would be returned when 1MEL went through an initial public offering (IPO) to be a listed company on Bursa Malaysia.

“However, I find that the security deposit money was never returned to the company although no IPO was successfully done,” Shahrol said, adding that he would certainly not have approved the US$577 million if he knew the funds would be misappropriated.

It was only after 1MDB investigations that Shahrol said he discovered that this security deposit was “arranged by Jho Low to enable 1MDB funds to go into accounts controlled by him for the purposes of misappropriation.”

The second takeover deal: Project Greyhound

On June 21, 2012, the 1MDB board approved yet another proposal to take over an IPP — a purchase of 100 per cent stake in Mastika Lagenda Sdn Bhd, which held a 75 per cent stake in Genting Sanyen Power Sdn Bhd that owns the Genting Sanyen Kuala Langat Power Station.

1MDB’s board approved the buying of Mastika Lagenda at RM2.75 billion and to again raise funds by borrowing more money, which Najib personally approved in August 2012 as finance minister by signing a letter to Shahrol to allow 1MDB to take up to RM1 billion in loans and to issue another US$1.75 billion of bonds.

Eventually borrowing RM700 million from Affin Investment Bank, 1MDB also issued US$1.75 billion of bonds via 1MDB Energy (Langat) Limited (1MELL) with IPIC guaranteeing the bonds and the actual Aabar given the right to take up a 49 per cent stake in 1MELL’s subsidiary 1MDB Energy (Langat) Sdn Bhd.

The second switcheroo: US$790 million

Just like before, Shahrol signed an agreement on October 19, 2012 between 1MDB Energy Holdings Limited and the fake Aabar that justified a security deposit payment to the latter.

Shahrol again signed on with the purported IPIC subsidiary as he said its name did not have very significant differences with the real Aabar’s name.

On the same day of the October 19, 2012 agreement signing, a sum of US$1.64 billion from the US$1.75 billion bond went into 1MELL’s account also at the Falcon Bank in Hong Kong, but this was paid out on the same day in two transactions: US$692,174,991 or over US$692 million to Genting Power Holdings for the IPP takeover, and US$790,354,855 as security deposit to the fake Aabar.

(This time the US$790 million, which Shahrol had again remarked to be a relatively huge sum, is 45 per cent or almost half of the US$1.75 billion raised.)

Having again believed that Najib and IPIC had already agreed on the security deposit, Shahrol said he thought the US$790 million would be returned when an IPO was held, but noted the money was never returned even after 1MDB failed to list its energy business on the stock market.

“After investigations were carried out, only then did I know that this security deposit was arranged by Jho Low to enable 1MDB funds to enter into accounts controlled by him for the purpose of misappropriation that was then transferred into accounts belonging to Datuk Seri Najib,” Shahrol said.

On Day One of Najib’s ongoing corruption trial involving 1MDB funds, the prosecution had said these two IPP takeover deals by 1MDB subsidiaries represent the second phase of an elaborate scheme which allegedly resulted in money being diverted to Najib.

The prosecution had said it would show a total of US$30 million flowed through Aabar before allegedly reaching Najib’s account in 2012 under this second phase of the alleged scheme.

Haste

Shahrol suggested the short time given for 1MDB deals to be pushed through may have led to his unsuspecting signing of money away to the fake Aabar.

“The speed element has always been there, so when we were moving at speed, we had entrusted each of the working parties to do their bit and to do so in the best interests of the country and company. So had we been given more time, then we would probably have questions raised on the peculiar names of the companies,” he said.

For the first IPP takeover, Shahrol also explained that Low had injected a sense of urgency to sign the agreement to allegedly prevent the Abu Dhabi government from walking away from the deal.

Shahrol also highlighted how Najib as finance minister had approved just three days later 1MDB’s initial letter dated March 23, 2012 in relation to the first IPP takeover, noting that the speed “underscores the urgency that the government and the minister of finance is placing on this” deal.

Previously, Shahrol had spoken of how hasty timelines had seen 1MDB losing borrowed money, including how US$700 million of a US$1 billion “investment” was diverted to Good Star Limited, which he said did not know then belonged to Low.

Shahrol had also said how 1MDB had continued to borrow money for further investments after zero returns from the US$1 billion effort, with US$330 million of the new borrowings again channelled to Good Star with 1MDB not suspecting anything amiss then.

The alleged associates

Shahrol said Loo was formerly an officer in Low’s firm UBG and that he had asked Low if she could join 1MDB as he was impressed with her performance, while Geh was recommended by Low to join 1MDB.

Shahrol also said Goldman Sachs Asia’s then CEO Tim Leissner, who was involved in 1MDB’s IPP takeover deals, was Low’s friend.

Shahrol will continue testifying today in Najib’s trial, which is being heard before High Court judge Collin Lawrence Sequerah.

Najib’s ongoing 1MDB trial involves 25 criminal charges — four counts of abusing his position for his own financial benefit totalling almost RM2.3 billion allegedly originating from 1MDB and the resulting 21 counts of money-laundering.

PETALING JAYA, Oct 1 — Fifty years later, film producer Tham Seen Hau recently discovered that her deceased family members, who were victims of May 13 riots, are still recorded as “active” or “alive” with the National Registration Department (NRD).

Tham, who is the third generation of the Ng family, was recently at the NRD with her mother and extended family members to extract a copy of their birth certificates.

Based on checks with the department, Tham discovered that her grandmother, great grandmother, aunt and two uncles who perished in the May 13, 1969 riots were never recorded as deceased in the system.

“I am hoping that the government would at least release a list of people who had died during that period of the riots.

“That is the simplest form of justice they could do for the deceased and their family,” Tham told Malay Mail when met after the screening of her documentary 50 Years of Silence at the Freedom Film Festival 2019 over the weekend.

Tham said this proves that May 13 victims have been totally disregarded.

The film producer said this is one of the reasons why she produced the documentary, which records the May 13 accounts, to remind Malaysians about the tragic incident which contributed to change in the country’s history and the inheritance of racial tensions.

“It should have been made a lesson, instead, politicians are manipulating the incident as a bargaining chip to threaten voters,” she said.

In a scene from the documentary, Tham’s uncle, only known as Uncle Chau recalled how they found the dead body of their 14-year-old younger brother, Ng Cheng Chuan, in their burnt down house in Kampung Baru.

Chau said what remained of his brother was his upper-body skeleton and a skull.

“That was the first thing which we saw as we entered the house (upon returning after curfew was lifted over a week later).

“Initially we were not sure. But what told us that was our brother, was his blue shorts and shoes,” said Chau in the documentary.

Tham’s mother was filmed as saying that she wanted to do this so that she could bring justice for those who died, by telling the truth of what had happened on that day.

But she was met with resistance from her older sister, who did not want to relive those memories.

“But if you don’t say anything now, no one will ever know, and our family will forever be faceless, nameless and nobodies in the Malaysian history — given what they went through,” said Tham’s mother, who eventually managed to convince her sister to recount the tragic memories in the documentary.

Tham’s aunt till today has nightmares of the horrors of May 13, 1969.

Today, she isn’t able to tolerate crowded or noisy places as it reminded her of the noises made by the rioters.

“We hid in the house. But eventually, the rioters demanded for us to come out. Then, they snatched each of us — that was how we were separated.

“I don’t know how many people were on the streets back then, but the streets were filled with rioters.

“Today, people asked me to join Bersih rallies, but they reminded me so much of the riots, so I would never agree to participate in any kind of rallies,” said Tham’s aunt.

Through making this documentary, Tham finally realised how much the incident has affected her family.

“I told myself that I’d stop mentioning the words ‘May 13’ to my family after uncle Chau told me to stop talking to him about anything regarding that day. He said he could not sleep for a month after I had interviewed him,” she said.        

It was for the first time in 48 years that Tham’s mother was looking at photos of her family again (during her interview sessions). These were keepsakes that were salvaged from their burnt down house.  

When asked if she would bring the documentary elsewhere, she said this is the first time she was showing the documentary of her family of May 13 to a public audience.

“The reason why I have decided to do this through the Freedom Film Festival is because my family and I felt this is a safe space.

“But they’ve refused to watch it, even though I invited them to be here today.

Tham’s mother said as closing remarks of the documentary: “How can it be that people who died 50 years ago is still ‘alive’ in the system. Maybe it’s better to remember them this way. It would mean that they will live eternal lives.”