The rat race part v - the malaysian rat race

[pywong]

THE RAT RACE PART V – THE MALAYSIAN RAT RACE CHAPTER 1

We are recording the count-down to the crisis to see when is the tipping point
Financial Crisis End-game (http://tindakmalaysia.com/tm_forums2008/index.php/topic,662.0.html)
We expect that it will take place by the end of 2009 with disastrous results for Malaysia. By then UMNO will fall.

Similar articles appear in:
A look at Malaysian history beyond race and religion (http://www.malaysia-today.net/2008/content/view/7934/84/) 25 May 08
and usj.com.my (http://www.usj.com.my/bulletin/upload/showthread.php?t=22866) 11 May 08

Chapter 1: Introduction & Review

We hope these articles can help us look beyond race and religion, to truly see ourselves as Rats and to recognize that our problems are class-related. We need to accept the idea that we are Rats caught in a Rat Race. If we cannot, then it is advisable to review the earlier articles or to skip and move on.

We have presented four Parts, I to IV, to explain the Rat Race, our roles, how we are exploited by the Ruling Class at the apex of the Pyramid power structure. We need to consider the situation from a global perspective to learn how to understand our situation within Malaysia. The reasons are:

• Secrecy and misinformation surrounding events here. On a global basis, especially in the US, more information and analysis is available. All Ruling Classes exchange information and techniques for mass control as they are linked to the Global Pyramid. What is used in the US will be used here albeit in a different form. The challenge is to learn to recognize it.

• The opportunity for us to view global events dispassionately. Emotions colour our perception and understanding. Again, looking at the US, what seemed to confuse most Americans, is very obvious to us. Eg. The US Invasion of Iraq. (http://www.helium.com/items/88957-commentary-the-us-invasion-of-iraq)

A quick review of the previous articles in these series:
THE RAT RACE PART I: WE ARE DOING WELL! (http://tindakmalaysia.com/tm_forums2008/index.php/topic,601.msg2336.html#msg2336) is just a wake-up call. This was first published in Malaysia-Today on 19 Feb 2008, just before the Mar 08 2008 General Elections.

THE RAT RACE PART II – THE SYSTEM (http://tindakmalaysia.com/tm_forums2008/index.php/topic,601.msg2337.html#msg2337) is a description of the Rat Race. Part II appeared in Malaysia-Today on 20 Feb 2008.

RACE PART IIIA - HOW THE SYSTEM WORKS? (http://tindakmalaysia.com/tm_forums2008/index.php/topic,601.msg2367.html#msg2367) introduces the concept of mental model no. 1 - The Pyramid and explains how the system works.

THE RAT RACE PART IIIB: MENTAL MODEL NO. 2 – THE CIRCLE (http://tindakmalaysia.com/tm_forums2008/index.php/topic,601.msg2404.html#msg2404) explores the Pyramid in more detail, discusses the strategies used by the Exploiter and introduces mental model no. 2 – The Circle. (In Malaysia-Today on 25 Feb 2008.)

The Rat Race Part IV – The Pyramid (http://tindakmalaysia.com/tm_forums2008/index.php/topic,626.0.html) studies the Pyramid in detail, identifies those at the top of the Global Pyramid (the Financial Class & Ruling Class), the possibility of the existence of a conspiracy to control the world, the concept of money and financial control. This article appeared after the Mar 08 Elections so it is useful to bear that mind while reading it.

To supplement these articles and to flesh out certain principles not covered there, refer to the Finance & Economics Board (http://tindakmalaysia.com/tm_forums2008/index.php?board=4.0). A sample list of relevant articles are shown below: (Note: We suggest you read the Rat Race Part V first before exploring the Board as there are quite a lot of material there and it can take a few days to read. We never said it would be easy. :)

We started to alert our readers about the coming crisis here
Financial Crisis from 8 Apr 2008 (http://tindakmalaysia.com/tm_forums2008/index.php/topic,10.0.html)

We tried to explain why the crisis occurred here
Understanding the Financial Crisis (http://tindakmalaysia.com/tm_forums2008/index.php/topic,314.0.html)

We are recording the count-down to the crisis to see when is the tipping point
Financial Crisis End-game (http://tindakmalaysia.com/tm_forums2008/index.php/topic,662.0.html)
We expect that it will take place by the end of 2009 with disastrous results for Malaysia. By then UMNO will fall.

We discussed the issue of petrol & diesel prices here:
Petrol & diesel prices (http://tindakmalaysia.com/tm_forums2008/index.php/topic,153.0.html)
and the issue of the global food crisis here:
Aliran: Global Food Crisis Review (http://tindakmalaysia.com/tm_forums2008/index.php/topic,616.0.html)

Here is an explanation on what we can do to protect our assets:
Relationship between gold & the USD (http://tindakmalaysia.com/tm_forums2008/index.php/topic,24.0.html). The reason this is important is the USD is the global reserve currency and almost every nation have their foreign reserves in USD as a major component.

Here is an explanation on how to buy precious metals to protect ourselves:
How to buy precious metals (http://tindakmalaysia.com/tm_forums2008/index.php/topic,99.0.html)

Although they appear to be disconnected, economics, finance and geopolitics are vital components of the Rat Race System used by the Ruling Class to exploit us. Readers can refer to the Conspiracy Board for relevant articles.
Conspiracy Theory (http://tindakmalaysia.com/tm_forums2008/index.php?board=42.0)

Conceptually, as Rats, we are caught in a constant struggle for survival that appeared as a never-ending cycle. We work for pieces of paper called money issued by the Ruling Class who could print any amount at will. For the Ruling Class, money was free but the Rats had to work for it. This is even worse than slavery. At least, slaves were fed and clothed by their masters.

Part V is posted in chapters to provide for discussion and comments. This is going to be the most difficult part of the series because of the emotions associated with race and religion. We hope readers can put aside the lens of race and religion, and look at the issues dispassionately from the perspective of the Rat Race System. For a lot of us, it will be very difficult to let go but unless we do, we will not be able to understand and internalize the concepts. Without that understanding, it will be hard for us to get out of the Rat Race.

**IMPORTANT PRINCIPLE** We are Rats divided by class. Our labels, of race or religion, are irrelevant. Those labels are useful for the Ruling Class to divide us, control us and manipulate us. They apply psychological warfare on our minds to manipulate our emotions, to make us do their bidding, to pit one group of Rats against the other. Part of their strategy is to champion one race or religion and use them against the others. When it comes to rewards, the Ruling Class will keep the bulk, leaving the crumbs for the rest. Such deception can continue indefinitely. It is still ongoing.

The System is neutral and considers every Rat as an economic digit.

The Ruling Class does not operate alone. They have the intelligence services who serve them in spying on and waging psychological warfare against us - attacking our emotional vulnerability. We must recognize the tactics and strategies to understand how it works. The ideas presented below seemed very far fetch when they first appeared but today, many of them are routinely applied:

Please read: 1984 (http://www.george-orwell.org/1984/index.html)
and Animal Farm (http://www.george-orwell.org/Animal_Farm/index.html)

Watch: The Matrix (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0133093/)
and V for Vendetta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_for_Vendetta_(film))

Next - Chapter 2: The Social Contract - How We Got It All Wrong!

[pywong]

THE RAT RACE PART V – THE MALAYSIAN RAT RACE
(A look at Malaysian history beyond race and religion)

Chapter 2: The Social Contract - How We Got It All Wrong!

THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE!

For 50 years both sides of the political spectrum believed they were right, blissfully unaware that they were conned as Rats!

We have to break free from the mental cage of race and religion and learn to look at our situation through the concept of class division and as Malaysians. Until we do, we will never be free.

As explained earlier, the Global Rat Race System (GRSS) is an attempt to explain the world around us using a mental model. This mental model consists of several mental sub-models –

Model no. 1 The Pyramid
Model no. 2 The Circle

Within the GRSS there are smaller pyramids within each country that co-exist and support the GRRS, eg The Malaysian RRS (MRRS) and the Malaysian Pyramid.

On the surface it may look complex but once we grasp the principle ideas, it is actually quite easy. The key to the mental model is simplicity and flexibility. And the primary driving forces are greed and fear. The objective is power and wealth. This is achieved by stealing the Rats’ time and state resources. In every situation, always remember the objective of the Ruling Class – power and wealth. Don’t be confused by words or actions.

Also note that there are collaborators of the Ruling Class even among the opposition ranks. The skillful ones are very difficult to detect. We can try to do so by observing the consequences of their actions, not their acts, not their words. At times, they may even appear to be a victim of the Ruling Class, such is their mastery of subterfuge. In case of doubt, assume they are collaborators. It is better to err on the safe side. (09/02/09: The current debacle in Perak should be very enlightening. We can identify easily who are the collaborators.)

From here onwards, we shall try to use the MRRS to explain historical events and see how it fits in. If it can explain more than 70% of the major incidents, we can consider it workable. Bear in mind, it will not be 100% accurate. It cannot be because it behaves as a living organism, able to mutate and change to suit the external environment. To understand inside (Malaysia), we usually look outside (world). The reason is the secrecy that surrounds many government decisions in Malaysia due to the Official Secrets Act (OSA) and Sedition Act.

Royal Professor Dr. Ungku Abdul Aziz said on 12 May 2008: No such thing as social contract (http://dinmerican.wordpress.com/2008/05/12/ungku-abdul-aziz-no-such-thing-as-social-contract/). But Mahathir disagreed, (http://malaysiakini.com/news/82665)
saying:

“Tunku gave one million citizenship to the Chinese, in return, he expected the Chinese would give some support to the demand for independence and to the sharing concept. He didn’t spell it (the contract) out 100 per cent, but there was this understanding, not written,” he said.

http://i416.photobucket.com/albums/pp242/tindakmalaysia/rat%20race%20part%20IIIA/Merdeka1957tunkuabdulrahman.jpg
Merdeka 1957 tunku abdul rahman

It is good to pause here and ask ourselves: Who is more believable?

The words of Tunku who is no longer around?
The words special position in the Constitution?
The recommendations of the Reid Commission?
Or Mahathir?

Will this be the end of the debate? Absolutely not! People will believe what they want to believe, and If a lie is repeated often enough, eventually people will accept it as the truth (http://cittanupassana.blogspot.com/2006/02/if-you-repeat-lie-often-enough.html). We are seeing the success of mass propaganda at work. The Ruling Class and the secret service attack the Rats’ emotions and senses to make them believe their story. And it has worked successfully for more than 50 years.

There are a few “truths” that the Ruling Class (UMNO) holds true.

1. UMNO believed they inherited Malaya from the British. In other words, they own Malaya.
2. UMNO have been taught by the British to always ensure they retain power, even to the extent of cheating during elections. To them, it is just a strategic procedure.
3. Elections are merely a fig-leaf, held to demonstrate to the world that Malaysia practises democracy.
4. What the Ruling Class fear most is the Rats uniting and turning against them.
5. Among the Ruling Class and their collaborators, we can observe all races and religions co-operating together because they are bound by the common objective of greed.

Once we know these “truths”, UMNO’s behaviour is easily understood. Please refer to the books Animal Farm (http://www.george-orwell.org/Animal_Farm/index.html) and 1984 (http://www.george-orwell.org/1984/index.html). Use them as a manual to interpret UMNO’s actions.

Now, let’s look at a subset of the GRRS – The MRRS. First a short history:

Post WW II, 1947 to 1957 (http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/wars_malaya.html):
The End of Empire and the Making of Malaya by Timothy Norman Harper (http://books.google.com.my/books?id=6qRc-Q3fO7oC&pg=PA352&lpg=PA352&dq=malay+special+rights+&source=web&ots=OTTGBVS7k1&sig=kNnsUDJAEHwiZRBgYqzgFNJ5KzU&hl=en#PPA92,M1)

The biggest problem facing the British government following the end of World War 2 was the restoration of civil government. Because the Japanese had been removed with violence Malaya had suffered little loss of life or damage to its towns and cities but many of its tin mines and plantations had been destroyed to prevent the Japanese using them, so the Malayan economy was slow to recover after the war. The Japanese occupation had also sown the seeds of future unrest. They had pursued a policy of divide and conquer by favouring the Malays while persecuting the Chinese who were already anti Japanese due to the Japanese actions in China. This resulted in some violence in the period between the Japanese leaving and the British returning. (This is what UMNO had continually played on to frighten the Malays ever since)

Exhausted by WW II, under pressure from the US to dismantle the British Empire, economic costs of fighting the Malayan Communist Party who claimed to be fighting for independence, the British were ready to withdraw from Malaya. During that period, the British were the Ruling Class supported by an expatriate bureaucracy assisted by the local civil service. They controlled the major rubber estates, tin mines, import agencies, business trading houses, banks and Shell, in effect, probably up to 80% of the economy.

In their plans for withdrawal, the British had several considerations:

Transfer of power & protection of their assets:
Old habits die hard. They have been in the colonial game for centuries and had got it down to a fine art. Looting colonies was a very profitable business, much better than slogging in the miserable British climate back home. If they could manage it, they would rather continue to control Malaya, albeit from behind the scenes. Deviousness was an inherent characteristic of the British. All they had to do was to persuade a couple of the top people in UMNO to buy into their scheme. From their perspective as the Ruling Class, they had decided that they could do business with the aristocratic Malays heading the party, notably Tunku Abdul Rahman and Tun Razak. It was just a matter of “transfer” of power from one class to another.

When they leave, the British would be leaving behind substantial assets that they still wanted to retain control over. From a business point of view, it made sense to maintain those assets and continue to generate wealth from it.

Their Immigrant Rats (coolies) or Pendatang:
What to do with the 2.5 million immigrants they imported from China and India to man their rubber estates and tin mines?

They could send them back to their home countries. But they had just granted independence to India and unfortunately, the natives proceeded to slaughter each other during the partition (http://www.english.emory.edu/Bahri/Part.html) with Pakistan. So India, being dirt-poor as it is, was not in a position to absorb another half a million repatriated Indians from Malaya. In any case, there was this delicate matter of which country (India or Pakistan) these people really belonged to, after having left India for more than a generation.

Then, there was China, almost destroyed during WW II under Japanese occupation, and now having a civil war between the Chinese Communist Party and the Kuomintang (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuomintang). Sending 2 million Malayan Chinese back to a war zone was political suicide.

Repatriation cost:
Next there was the cost of repatriation that would have to be borne by the British, which could amount to a few hundred million dollars. The British, at that time heavily in debt to the US, certainly was in no position to take on such a burden.

Residual management:
Finally, there was the matter of who would help them run their Malayan businesses if all the immigrants left. They could not rely on the locals who were happy staying in the kampongs, planting padi or fishing. In fact, that was the reason why the Chinese and Indians were brought here in the first place. If the immigrants abandoned Malaya, the economy would collapse.

Neo-colonialism:
Their solution was neo-colonialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neocolonialism#Pan-African_and_Nonaligned_movements). They figured that if they offered to hand power over to the Tunku in return for citizenship for the immigrants as a quid pro quo, their dilemma would be solved and they could continue to exercise economic control even after independence.

Getting the Tunku onboard:
The problems related to the immigrants and the advantages of retaining those Rats in Malaya were explained to the Tunku. The Tunku was no fool. Coming from a royal family, he was raised in the shadow of power and had seen how the British built Malaya with the immigrants. He fully appreciated the advantages of having a couple of million of hard-working Rats under his control and helping him run the country. Being of a fun-loving nature, he certainly did not relish the prospect of working his head off trying to build a country with his own people, who were known to be easy-going and laid-back. It was much better getting those immigrant Rats to do the hard work. And they had such low maintenance, being fully self-sufficient. They even built and ran their own schools. Who could ask for more? The clincher was, he did not want to inherit a bankrupt country, which would be the case if the immigrants abandoned the country.

Coming from the aristocratic class, a Rat was a Rat. It did not particularly bother him what colour the Rat was. As the incoming Ruling Class, he quickly saw the advantages of offering citizenship to the immigrants to retain them as Malayan Rats. Naturally, such a deal could not be disclosed to the locals. This had already caused an uproar in 1946 over the issue of citizenship for the immigrants under the Malayan Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malayan_Union). But it was different this time. They were talking about acquiring power and 2.5 million assets (Rats) to go with it. This was a management takeover.

Social Contract (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract_(Malaysia)):
So the British and the Tunku worked out a deal whereby the immigrants were offered citizenship in exchange for the locals being recognized as having a special position in the Federal Constitution under Article 153 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_153_of_the_Constitution_of_Malaysia). The MCA and the MIC were roped in to convince the immigrants, which they did admirably. The Reid Commission (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_Commission) had recommended that a sunset clause of 15 years be included in the constitution on the special position, as a safeguard against abuse. The various parties agreed verbally but due to the sensitivity of the issue, it was not written officially into the Constitution.

Then UMNO went round the countryside selling the idea of independence to the Malays, special rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bumiputra#Legitimacy_of_special_rights). UMNO cynically misled (http://cittanupassana.blogspot.com/2006/02/if-you-repeat-lie-often-enough.html) the simple folks about what was provided for in the Constitution. The Malays trusted UMNO, accepting them as their protector since UMNO had successfully spear-headed the opposition to the Malayan Union in 1946 leading to its dissolution in 1947. To their minds, therefore special position was special rights. To the immigrants, special position was that described under Article 153. Thus was formed the Federation of Malaya, born of a lie and on which laid the seeds of racial discord that lasted to this day. But everyone forgot that it was just a new Ruling Class taking over from an old Ruling Class.

There was no Social Contract! It was a handover of power from the British Ruling Class to the UMNO Ruling Class. And that is why UMNO believes and behave as if they own the whole country!

For 50 years both sides of the political spectrum believed they were right, blissfully unaware that they were conned as Rats!

We have to break free from the mental cage of race and religion and learn to look at our situation through the concept of class division and as Malaysians. Until we do, we will never be free.

[pywong]

THE RAT RACE PART V – CH. 3: A REVIEW OF MALAYAN HISTORY
3.1: PRE-INDEPENDENCE (BEFORE 31 AUG 1957) – THE EVENTS

During our younger days, we found history deathly boring. We did not realize then that history was a very powerful tool used by the Ruling Class for indoctrination, manipulation, propaganda, misinformation and spreading of lies.

George Santayana (Spanish-born American Philosopher, Poet and Humanist) said:

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. (http://thinkexist.com/quotation/those_who_do_not_learn_from_history_are_doomed_to/170710.html)

And Hitler’s Minister of Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels (http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/goebmain.htm)said:

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” Repeated Lies. (http://thinkexist.com/quotation/-if_you_tell_a_lie_big_enough_and_keep_repeating/345877.html)

Naturally, nowadays, we don’t use such titles anymore. So we have Minister of Information, often supported by the Minister of Home Affairs. Their jobs are to lie to the public to keep them quiescent. Still, Goebbel’s Principles of Propaganda (http://www.psywarrior.com/Goebbels.html) are constantly referred to by those distinguished people.

In studying history, it is not important that we know the names, the precise dates and who did what to whom. What is more important is to understand the sequence of the events, the results and their patterns. That will enable us to create the mental models to process new information and assess the impact on the future.

This is the key point: The mental model enables us to assess new information quickly and to decide whether it is important or relevant to us. If not, we discard it. That way, we reduce our information load. Important information, once it is absorbed into our mental model in a pictorial form, is more easily remembered and retrieved for future reference. That anchors us on a more solid foundation and helps us to resist the manipulation of the politicians.

Later, we will demonstrate how knowledge of history can be used to interpret claims made by politicians based on historical events.

Let us consider four major periods of our past up to Merdeka in 1957. Then we will study the structure of the Malayan Pyramid. For background, please refer to the following:

1. History of Malaysia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Malaysia)

2. Rustam A. Sani’s in Social Roots of the Malay Left (http://buy.merdekareview.com/1334_Social-Roots-of-the-Malay-Left.html) and Amirmu Blogspot #2 of 60, 9 May 2008 (http://amirmu.blogspot.com/)

3. Malay Nationalism before UMNO (http://www.malaysia-today.net/blog2006/books.php?itemid=963)

4. 1947 Hartel (http://salinankarbon.com/2007/10/23/good-news-really/). This is an award-winning film that must be viewed by all Malaysians. Download it!

5. British Malaya, 1946 – 1957 (http://www.zum.de/whkmla/region/seasia/malaya19461957.html)

6. Aliran Human Right article (http://www.aliran.com/oldsite/hr/tt1.html)

7. Emergency Propaganda (http://books.google.com.my/books?id=wDdFuZVcQIAC&pg=PA268&lpg=PA268&dq=unions+in+malaya+between+1945+to+1957&source=web&ots=579Xfin6dw&sig=QCMtemzjCwgQd-Z7-Y9V9w7sKEE&hl=en#PPP1,M1)

8. Malayan Emergency (http://www.answers.com/topic/malayan-emergency)

9. The Penang Story: Secret Societies (http://www.scribd.com/doc/40535/Secret-Societies-and-Politics-in-Colonial-Malaya-with-Special-Reference-to-the-Ang-Bin-Hoey-in-Penang)

But do this later at your leisure as there is quite a fair bit of reading to do. However, if we really wish to understand that period from 1900 to 1957 it will be worthwhile to do so.

Malayan history before the British arrival (pre-1786):

Malaya as an entity did not exist. There were some minor sultanates and kingdoms who ruled their states under a feudal system.

2nd Century AD: Langkasuka (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langkasuka) was founded in old Kedah.
AD 634: Kedah kingdom founded by Maharaja Derbar Raja of Gemeron, Persia.
AD 1136: Kedah Sultanate founded.
AD 1402: Melaka Sultanate founded by Parameswara.
AD 1511: The Portuguese conquered Melaka. The Sultan’s family fled and eventually set up the Johore Sultanate and the Perak Sultanate.
AD 1528: Johore Sultanate founded.
AD 1641: The Dutch won Melaka from the Portuguese with the help of Johore. Their control was confined solely to Melaka. With the Dutch’s help, Johore established hegemony over Negri Sembilan & Selangor. Perak remained independent. The northern states, Patani, Kedah, Kelantan, Perlis and Terengganu were vassals of Siam.

British Colonial History, 1786 - 1942

AD 1786: Kedah turned to the British for protection from the Siamese. To entice the British, the Sultan of Kedah leased Penang and Province Wellesley to them. But still the British did not offer the protection that Kedah sought.

AD 1819: The British governor, Stamford Raffles, acquired Singapore from the Sultan of Johore.

AD 1824: The British took over Melaka from the Dutch under the Anglo-Dutch Treaty in exchange for Sumatra. The Dutch renounced all interest in the Malayan peninsula. The British now had a free hand in Malaya to extend their influence.

AD 1826: Burney Treaty signed between Siam and the British. Siamese claim over Kedah, Kelantan, Perlis and Terengganu was acknowledged. British ownership of Penang was confirmed and given rights to trade with Kelantan and Terengganu.

1861 – 1874: Malay chiefs brought in Chinese Triads to mine tin in Perak. Turf wars started among the various groups for control over the tin. Eventually the British were called in to keep peace.

AD 1873: Negri Sembilan accepted British Resident to enforce peace after a civil war over tin taxes.

AD 1874 Treaty of Pangkor: Perak became a British colony and accepted a British Resident.

AD 1875: Selangor Sultanate accepted British Resident.

AD 1888: Pahang accepted British Resident.

AD 1889: The British established the Federal Council to administer the Federated Malay States, Perak, Selangor, Negeri Sembilan and Pahang were placed under a British Resident-General, making them de-facto colonies.

AD 1909 Anglo – Siam Treaty: Perlis, Kedah, Kelantan and Terengganu taken over by British from Siam. Siam retained Patani, Jala, Satun and Narathiwat.

AD 1914: The Unfederated Malay States, Kedah, Kelatan, Perlis, Terengganu and Johore were governed by the British Residents through the Sultans. The whole peninsula was now under British hegemony.

The Straits Settlement, Penang, Melaka and Singapore were a Crown Colony, ruled by a Governor under the supervision of the Colonial Office in London. All residents, half of them Chinese, were British subjects.

AD 1930: Malayan Communist Party formed to end British colonial rule.

AD 1931: A census showed that the Malays constituted less than 50% of the population in Malaya.

AD 1938: Kesatuan Melayu Muda (KMM) formed from the peasant class. These were led mainly by the Malay-language teachers & journalists with strong socialist affinity.

The British started to incorporate English-educated Malays from the aristocratic class in the bureaucracy.

Japanese occupation of Malaya 1942 - 1945 (http://www.zum.de/whkmla/region/seasia/malaya19421945.html)

AD 1942: Japanese over-ran Malaya and Singapore, breaking the myth of the invincibility of the white man. They treated the Malay intellectuals, the Malay civil service and the Sultans relatively well, regarding them as a colonial people whom they had liberated. The KMM leaders were released. So the Malays collaborated with them. The Japanese treated Chinese as enemy aliens and killed 40,000 of them in Malaya and Singapore, resulting in the Chinese supporting the Malayan People’s Anti-Japanese Army (MPAJA) to resist the Japanese.

AD 1945: By 1945, the Japanese knew they were losing the war. They planned to grant independence to the Malays of Malaya and Indonesia in Aug 1945. Atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan that same month. After that Japan surrendered unconditionally. The independence plan of Malaya & Indonesian was aborted. But the Japanese Command in Malaya still did not wish to give up. They made overtures to Chin Peng, the leader of the MCP, to join up to fight the British. However, Chin Peng refused to take up their offer.

These events are important and have an important impact on our history. Unlike what UMNO would like us to believe, history did not start in 1946 upon the formation of UMNO.

Post-war history until Merdeka, 1945 - 1957

Aug to Sept 1945: Between the surrender of Japan and the return of the British to Malaya, there was a period of lawlessness during which there was a lot of settling of scores, both inter-racial and intra-racial. That gave rise to a lot of bad blood. (In the bigger scheme of things, this is only a minor event in our history. Vengeance after a war is common and we can see it in France, Italy, China and elsewhere after the end of WWII. It has nothing to do with race. But UMNO kept on playing it up as a racial event to divide the people)

Sept 1945: British returned to Malaya to accept the Japanese surrender. Partai Kebangsaan Melayu Malaya (PKMM) set up by ex-leaders of KMM.

1 Apr 1946: Malayan Union formed with 2 basic principles – sultans’ power to be curtailed, jus soli principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli), Head of State changed from Sultan to President. Malays opposed vigorously. The Union was abrogated shortly thereafter.

May 1946: UMNO formed by Dato Onn Jaafar in Johore Bahru. They were supportive of the British and not really interested in independence. The leaders were the sons of the aristocratic class and tribal chiefs that the British had taught in English schools from young and were well-known anglophiles.

Dec 1946: Leftist non-Malay political bodies set up AMCJA formed to oppose the Federation of Malaya plan.
.
Aug 1946: MIC formed to fight for Indian independence from the British. After India gained independence, they shifted their focus to fight for independence for Malaya.

Feb 1947: Left wing Malay parties form Pusat Tenaga Rakyat (PUTERA).

AD 1947: PUTERA-AMJCA launched the People’s Constitutional Proposals for Malaya in opposition to the Federation of Malaya agreement. The British ignored them. In response, PUTERA-AMCJA planned a general strike in protest.

20 Oct 1947: Hartal – general strike led by PUTERA-AMCJA (http://bolehland.com/2007/09/21/remembering-the-hartal/)

Fahmi Rezas Film on 1947 Hartal (http://anilnetto.com/2007/09/22/fahmi-rezas-outstanding-film-on-the-1947-hartal/).

Download from DVD quality film here: 1947 Hartal (http://salinankarbon.com/2007/10/23/good-news-really/)

This film demonstrated how the various communities, especially the working class, united in their fight against the British for Independence and clearly showed that there was no racial problems nor was it UMNO who alone fought for Independence. This was what UMNO did not want the public to know.

An indication of the importance of this event is that UMNO has consistently tried to suppress public knowledge of it. Mind you, this happened before UMNO even came to power! Do not miss this show!

1 Feb 1948: The British rode roughshod over all opposition to form the Federation of Malaya with the support of UMNO. By now, the British had decided to use UMNO as their front to continue their control after granting independence to Malaya.

18 Jun 1948: Malayan Emergency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malayan_Emergency) declared to fight the MCP. At the same time, the British detained the leaders from the leftist parties such as API, PKMM, Bisbul Muslimin, as well as the unions, to pave the way for UMNO to take power. Many unions were controlled by the MCP and the leftist parties were sympathetic or linked to the unions as well. These unions were used by the MCP to foster strikes that disrupted the economy drastically and were part of the MCP’s campaign to destabilize Malaya in readiness for a takeover.

Feb 1949: MCA formed by Kuomintang members with support from the British.

26 Aug 1951: Dato Onn Jaafar left UMNO to form the Independence of Malaya Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_of_Malaya_Party) (IMP) to fight on a multi-racial platform. Although the British supported him vigorously, he did not receive much public support. His later Malay-communal Parti Negara was equally unsuccessful.

Tunku Abdul Rahman, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunku_Abdul_Rahman) a Kedah Prince, took over as President of UMNO with the active encouragement of Abdul Razak.

1951 Winning Hearts and Minds: The British resettled the Chinese to new villages to deny the MCP access to food and logistics support. They further granted the Chinese citizenship and the right to own land to win them over. Malays were provided food and medical aid. Without the support of the Chinese, the MCP effectively lost the war.

1952: UMNO teamed up with MCA to contest Kuala Lumpur municipal elections.

1954: Alliance of MCA, MIC and UMNO formed. State Elections – Alliance won 226 out of 268 seats.

1955: Federal Legislative Council Elections – Alliance won 51 out of 52 seats.
Baling Peace Talks between the Alliance and the Malayan Communist Party – unsuccessful.

Jan 1956: Independence talks in London between the British and the Alliance

1956: Reid Commission to assist in drafting of the Federal of Malaya Constitution.

31 Aug 1957: Merdeka. Political power was handed over to UMNO giving them control of the intelligence services (Special Branch), the police, the army, the bureaucracy in particular the National Registration Department in charge of citizenship. The mantle of “protector” of the Malay rights passed from the British to UMNO. MCA and MIC were retained as junior partners to control the Chinese and the Indians. They were left in charge of the economy. But the real masters were the British who controlled 80% of the economy and had stationed a Commonwealth army to fight the MCP. So, the British found a new formula to continue their control of Malaya with UMNO replacing the sultans as the new figurehead - neocolonialism. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neocolonialism)

[pywong]

An interesting snippet on Dato Onn Jaafar and his efforts to form a multi-racial party before 1957.

A few points to note:
1. He was a Johor aristocrat and a noted Anglo-phile. As such, the British supported him strongly. It is important to note that the UMNO leaders were from the same stock - aristocrat, educated in English schools and Anglo-philes.

2. The British were very keen to retain the Chinese and Indians in Malaya, hence their efforts to get Dato Onn to open up UMNO to the non-Malays. They were not doing it for altruistic reasons as discussed in Chapter 2, the Social Contract. Rather, they wanted to keep their cheap and reliable labour around. Just like what we are doing with our foreign labour today, because they are cheap, hardworking and reliable. The new "Malaysians" are too lazy to do the dirty work.

3. The British never put all their eggs in one basket. To hedge their bets, they got help from the KuoMinTang (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuomintang) to organise some locals to set up the MCA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysian_Chinese_Association), to counter the Malayan Communist Party.

Coming back to the present, Kadir Jasin is or was an UMNO hack. So we have to read his writings with the proper lens and watch out for his spin.

Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Dawn Or Dusk For Multiracial Parties?

A Kadir Jasin

The idea of a multiracial party is not new. The first to promote it was the founder president of Umno, Datuk Onn Jaafar, a Johor Malay aristocrat.

He founded Umno in May 1946. In 1951, at the behest of the British, he proposed opening Umno membership to the immigrant races. At that time, the Chinese and Indians, most of whom were indentured labourers, were yet to be accorded Malayan citizenship.

The Malays objected and Onn, being an honourable person, left Umno and Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra took over the fledgling party.

Onn went on to pursue his dream of a multiracial party by forming the Independence of Malaya Party (IMP). The IMP became the first political movement to oppose the concept of Malay dominance.

Ironically, neither the Chinese nor the Indians, despite the promise of equality and citizenship, found the IMP convincing. Instead, the Chinese-based Malayan Chinese Association (MCA) and the Indian-based Malayan Indian Congress (MIC) opted to form an alliance with Umno.

In 1952, Umno and the MCA contested the Kuala Lumpur Municipal election and won 11 out of the 12 seats. The Alliance was formalised in time to contest the 1955 Malayan Legislative Council elections with the MIC as a third member. It won 51 out of 52 seats. Pas won a solitary seat.

Undeterred by the dismal failure of IMP, Onn started another multiracial party called Parti Negara in 1953. He found some success among the Malays but again failed to get Chinese and Indian support.

The only parliamentary seat ever won by Parti Negara was by Onn himself in the 1959 general election in Terengganu. With his death in 1962, Parti Negara came to a natural end.

More… (http://kadirjasin.blogspot.com/2009/02/dawn-or-dusk-for-multiracial-parties.html)

[pywong]

Some useful historical background on the negotiations and events relating to the sultans leading to Merdeka in 1957.

Lessons From The Past
Past experiences have shown that it was rare for the sultans to emerge from these political crises with their reputations enhanced, or the institution of royalty strengthened. Even when the sultans emerged as heroes, they exposed their blemishes. Raja Azlan needs to be extra diligent to make this episode the exception. Thus far it has not been promising.

Consider the Malayan Union fiasco in 1946. The sultans meekly agreed to the British “suggestion” of turning the country into a dominion. Whether it was British perfidy or the sultans’ stupidity, the result was the same. The price tag too was modest: piddling pensions and perfunctory visits to Buckingham Palace for the sultans. As a sweetener, just in case, they were awarded the knighthood of some medieval English order.

Fortunately their subjects, then almost exclusively Malays, were not as meek, or easily hoodwinked and cheaply bought. Under the leadership of the late Datuk Onn Jaafar, the Malay masses, on the pretext of paying homage, descended upon the palace in Kota Baru where the rulers had gathered. They effectively prevented the sultans from leaving the premise to ratify the agreement with the new British governor, effectively scuttling the treaty. Thus ended the brief and naked British power grab.

It was also a devastatingly effective demonstration of the halus (refined) ways of our culture. Fortunately the sultans correctly read the subtle message from their rakyats. Good thing too, for had it not been for those village peasants intervening, our sultans would today be reduced to the status of the Sultan of Sulu. Today’s highflying sultans must be reminded of this – and often – lest they forget, as they are wont to.

Less than a decade later with the Federation of Malaya (replacing the 1946 Malayan Union), and with the sultans securely ensconced in their palaces, this delicate balance between the ruler and the ruled would once again be tested, this time in the negotiations for independence. It turned out that our sultans were less than enthusiastic with the idea, at least initially. Not an unreasonable posture, considering the fate of their brother hereditary rulers in independent India and Indonesia.

Fortunately the sultans again correctly read the rakyats’ mood. After all, the pro-independence Alliance coalition scored a near unanimous victory in the 1955 general elections. Despite that, those rulers did not give in easily. They demanded – and received – assurances that their royal status would be enhanced. Indeed the Reid Commission tasked with drafting a constitution for the new nation codified the role of the sultans beyond their being mere feudal heads of their respective states.

The new constitution provided for a new national body, The Council of Rulers, headed by a “King” to be chosen from among his brother rulers. Unlike real kings however, the new Agong would, apart from being “elected,” have a limited tenure of only five years – unheard of for any royalty anywhere. Further, this Council would have veto authority on legislations passed by the bicameral (House and Senate) Parliament.

Functionally this Council of Rulers would thus be a Third House of Parliament, a miniature House of Lords but with an exclusive membership of only nine sultans. This enhanced status of the sultans also satisfied the Malay masses, feeding their vanity patriotism of Ketuanan Melayu.

More… (http://dinmerican.wordpress.com/2009/02/11/bakri-musa-on-perak-and-politics-this-power-struggledeeply-polarizes-malaysians/#comments)

[pywong]

The Orang Asli and the natives of Sabah and Sarawak live off the land. As such, they are not fully in the Rat Race. This is anathema to UMNO and BN. Therefore their strategies through the decades is to marginalize and evict them from the land, by granting the land to loggers and plantation operators.

The PR Perak Govt has taken big steps to rectify the past injustice. But this is likely to be reversed now that BN is back at the helm.

Batang Ai will be an opportunity for the Ibans to show who they want to lead them.

http://www.thenutgraph.com/orang-asli-in-perak-apprehensiveMore… (http://)

[pywong]

Farish Noor provides a good theoretical and historical basis to explain how the British developed race-based policies and labelling as a divide-and-rule tactic over the peoples of Malaya. The British used many repressive policies, laws and government instruments such as the police and the army to suppress the locals. These tactics were carried over by the post-colonial inheritors of the British system - namely UMNO.

If we are interested to understand where we went wrong, this is an important article to study.

here (http://www.projectmalaysia.org/2008/09/the-lost-tribes-of-malaysia-the-construction-of-race-politics-from-the-colonial-era-to-the-present-part-two/all/1/) and here (http://www.projectmalaysia.org/2008/09/the-lost-tribes-of-malaysia-the-construction-of-race-politics-from-the-colonial-era-to-the-present-part-two/all/1/2008/09/the-lost-tribes-of-malaysia-the-construction-of-race-politics-from-the-colonial-era-to-the-present-part-one/).

[pywong]

Shades of 1984. (http://www.george-orwell.org/1984) Big Brother is still trying desperately to control the thoughts of the Rats. UMNO just won't understand that those are the tactics of the 20th Century and tak pakai in the 21st.

"Allah" in Christian publications not prohibited, court told

KUALA LUMPUR (Feb 27, 2009): The High Court was told today that the use of the word "Allah" in publications relating to Christianity is no longer prohibited due a new order gazetted by the Home Minister early this year.

Senior federal counsel Nizam Zakaria, for the Attorney-General's Chambers, informed the court that the Home Minister, as the first respondent in the judicial review proceeding initiated by the Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur, had gazetted the order dated Jan 21, 2009, entitled 'Internal Security (Prohibition On Use of Specific Words on Document and Publication) Order 2009'.

The gazette says: 'The printing, publishing, sale, issue, circulation and possession of any document and publication relating to Christianity containing the words Allah, Kaabah, Baitullah and Solat are prohibited unless on the front cover of the document and publication are written with the words 'FOR CHRISTIANITY".

More… (http://sun2surf.com/article.cfm?id=30544)

[pywong]

In waging psychological warfare against the Rats, a favourite tool of the Ruling Class through the ages is religion. Only fools will allow themselves to be manipulated that way.

More… (http://mt.m2day.org/2008/content/view/18613/84/)

[pywong]

Discussion of the Social Contract by Mavis Puthucheary and Mahathir here (http://mt.m2day.org/2008/content/view/18946/84/)

[pywong]

My Friday sermon: The Federation of Malaya Agreement 1948

Posted by admin
Friday, 13 March 2009 00:00

“With the removal of this barrier, it was possible to admit approximately one million new citizens within 12 months of Merdeka and, of this number, roughly 800,000 were Chinese,” said Tun Tan Siew Sin.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Many Malaysians comment (verbally or in Blog postings) based purely on their personal opinions but totally devoid of facts. Now, I am not saying that you are not entitled to your opinions. After all, opinions are like assholes -- everybody has one. But if you have to express an opinion just please make sure it is based on historical background. Therefore, research first before you open your gap.

Let us look at just one issue (there are of course many issues that are bones of contention to Malays as well as non-Malays alike) that has split this country into racial compartments and has been a constant stumbling block in our effort to propagate the ideals of a one race, one country. And that one needling issue is about Malay Rights and Special Privileges.

I am, according to the Federal Constitution of Malaysia, Malay. That is also what Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad said in his Aljazeera interview recently when asked whether he considers himself Malay. But this does not mean I support any and all policies that favour Malays above others. Hell, even Islam is opposed to racial discrimination -- according to Prophet Muhammad in his last Friday sermon in Arafah. So, being Muslim, should I not also put Islam above race, in keeping with the tenets of Islam?

Malays consider me a traitor to my race. I have been called many worst things before so that is the least of my worries. The problem is, I really don’t know what race I am although, according to the Malaysian Constitution, I am considered Malay. Can I be not Malay? Can’t I just be a plain and simple Malaysian? What is so wrong if I refuse to be Malay and instead be just a Malaysian?

Anyway, this article is not about me. It is about Malaysians, in particular those who are not Malay, commenting about issues that irk them but their comments do not take into consideration the background of the entire scenario. Now, before you go for my jugular, please don’t misinterpret this as me supporting the pro-Malay policy. I do not. What I am saying is: first understand the issue before commenting on it.

Of course you can disagree with certain policies and situations. After all, we did not create them but merely inherited them. No one is saying you must accept the situation without protest. You are also at liberty to fight and struggle against what you disagree with in your effort to bring about changes. In fact, that is our duty, especially for Muslims -- because Islam makes it mandatory to oppose persecution, discrimination, injustice and whatnot. But how do you fight for change when you first of all do not even understand why the situation is what it is?

We have such a thing called the Federal Constitution of Malaysia. How, in the first place, did we get to own a written Constitution? The Constitution was the result of the 1948 Federation of Malaya Agreement. Now, remember, in 1948, Malaya was still under the British Colonial Government. Malaya was not granted Merdeka until 1957. So, this whole thing is a British doing, in spite of the fact that Britain itself does not have a written Constitution. And the Federation of Malaya Agreement of 1948 was not only the basis of our Constitution but also the terms of Merdeka.

Okay, against that backdrop, read the following pieces below and then, and only then, let us debate the issue of Malay Rights and Special Privileges in a matured and intelligent manner, minus the outbursts, name-calling, insults and emotions devoid of substance.
**********************************

When negotiating the terms of independence before that date, the MCA had asked that every Chinese who could legitimately claim to be regarded as a citizen should be allowed to become a citizen with the achievement of independence. It is a tribute to the farsighted statesmanship of UMNO and its leaders that they reacted sympathetically to this request. To give effect to this sympathy, a provision was inserted in the constitution itself to the effect that “good character” meant any person who had not been in jail during the period of three years preceding his application for citizenship.

This was the main stumbling block to the acquisition of citizenship in colonial days. With the removal of this barrier, it was possible to admit approximately one million new citizens within 12 months of Merdeka and, of this number, roughly 800,000 were Chinese. If the Malays had been against giving a fair deal to the Chinese in the matter of citizenship, they would not have allowed such a situation to develop.

The next major issue was the one concerning the special position of the Malays. Not many people are aware that this provision was inserted in the 1948 Federation of Malaya Agreement as part of the special responsibilities of the High Commissioner in the following terms: The safeguarding of the special position of the Malays and of the legitimate interests of other communities.

It will be seen that this simple phrase could mean nothing. It could also mean everything. It was vague, it was also comprehensive, and it was comprehensive enough as to be capable of being interpreted in a way which could mean the virtual elimination of Chinese economic interests in important sectors of the economy. Here again, with independence, this omnibus provision was scaled down to a precise definition so that it will be clear to all what this provision means. You will find it in article 153 of the Constitution. I have no time in a speech of this nature to tell you exactly what it means or what it does not mean, but very briefly, the effect of this provision is that, firstly, all existing rights are preserved; secondly, no citizen can be prohibited from engaging in business activity or deprived of his right to engage in business activity merely because he is a non-Malay.

Tun Tan Siew Sin in his speech at the Delegates’ Conference of the Hokkien Association of Malaysia in Kuala Lumpur on 22nd May 1965.
**********************************

THE REID COMMISSION

Report of the Federation of Malaya Constitutional Commission 1957
(London: Her Majesty’s Stationary Office)
Colonial No. 330

THE SPECIAL POSITION OF THE MALAYS

163. Our terms of reference require that provision should be made in the Constitution for the “safeguarding of the special position of the Malays and the legitimate interests of other Communities”. In addition, we are asked to provide for a common nationality for the whole of the Federation and to ensure that the Constitution shall guarantee a democratic form of Government. In considering these requirements it seemed to us that a common nationality was the basis upon which a unified Malayan nation was to be created and that under a democratic form of Government it was inherent that all the citizens of Malaya, irrespective of race, creed or culture, should enjoy certain fundamental rights including equality before the law. We found it difficult, therefore, to reconcile the terms of reference if the protection of the special position of the Malays signified the granting of special privileges, permanently, to one community only and not to the others. The difficulty of giving one community a permanent advantage over the others was realized by the Alliance Party, representatives of which, led by the Chief Minister, submitted that – “in an independent Malaya all nationals should be accorded equal rights, privileges and opportunities and there must not be discrimination on grounds of race and creed…” The same view was expressed by their Highnesses in their memorandum, in which they said that they “look forward to a time not too remote when it will become possible to eliminate Communalism as a force in the political and economic life of the country”.

164. When we came to determine what is “the special position of the Malays” we found that as a result of the original treaties with the Malay States, reaffirmed from time to time, the special position of the Malays has always been recognized. This recognition was continued by the provisions of clause 19(1)(d) of the Federation Agreement, 1948, which made the High Commissioner responsible for safeguarding the special position of the Malays and the legitimate interests of other communities. We found that there are now four matters with regard to which the special position of the Malays is recognized and safeguarded.

(1) In most of the States there are extensive Malay reservations of land, and the system of reserving land for Malays has been in operation for many years. In every State the Ruler-in-Council has the power to permit a non-Malay to acquire a piece of land in a Malay reservation but the power is not used very freely. There have been some extensions of reservations in recent years but we do not know to what extent the proportion of reserved land has been increasing.

(2) There are now in operation quotas for admission to the public services. These quotas do not apply to all services, e.g., there is no quota for the police and, indeed, there is difficulty in getting a sufficient proportion of non-Malays to join the police. Until 1953 admission to the Malayan Civil Service was only open to British subjects of European descent and to Malays but since that date there has been provision for one-fifth of the entrants being selected from other communities. In other services in which a quota exists the rule generally is that not more than one-quarter of new entrants should be non-Malays.

(3) There are not also in operation quotas in respect of the issuing of permits or licenses for the operation of certain businesses. These are chiefly concerned with road haulage and passenger vehicles for hire. Some of these quotas are of recent introduction. The main reasons for them appear to be that in the past the Malays have lacked capital and have tended to remain on the land and not to take a large part in business, and that this is one method of encouraging the Malays to take a larger part in business enterprises.

(4) In many classes of scholarships, bursaries and other forms of aid for educational purposes preference is given to Malays. The reason for this appears to be that in the past higher education of the Malays has tended to fall behind that of the Chinese, partly because the Chinese have been better able to pay for it and partly because it is more difficult to arrange higher education for Malays in the country than for Chinese in the towns.

165. We found little opposition in any quarter to the continuance of the present system for a time, but there was great opposition in some quarters to any increase of the present preferences and to their being continued for any prolonged period. We are of opinion that in present circumstances it is necessary to continue these preferences. The Malays would be at a serious and unfair disadvantage compared with other communities if they were suddenly withdrawn. But, with the integration of the various communities into a common nationality which we trust will gradually come about, the need for these preferences will gradually disappear. Our recommendations are made on the footing that the Malays should be assured that the present position will continue for a substantial period, but that in due course the present preferences should be reduced and should ultimately cease so that there should then be no discrimination between races or communities.

166. With regard to land we recommend (Art. 82) that, subject to two qualifications, there should be no further Malay reservations, but that each State should be left to reduce Malay reservations in that State at an appropriate time. Land is a State subject and we do not recommend giving overriding powers to the Federation in this matter. We do not think that it is possible to lay down in advance any time when a change should be made because conditions vary greatly from State to State. The two qualifications to the rule that there should be no further reservations are: first, that if any land at present reserved ceases to be reserved, an equivalent area may be reserved provided that it is not already occupied by a non-Malay; and, secondly, that if any undeveloped land is opened up, part of it may be reserved provided that an equivalent area is made available to non-Malays.

167. The effect of our recommendations (Art. 157) is that with regard to other preferences to Malays no new quota or other preference could be created. These preferences can only be lawfully created or continued to the extent to which that is specifically authorized by the Constitution. With regard to the existing quotas which we have referred to above we recommend that the Malays ought to have a substantial period during which the continuance of the existing quota is made obligatory, but that, if in any year there are not enough Malay applicants qualified to fill their quota of vacancies, the number of appointments should not be reduced and other qualified applicants should be appointed in sufficient numbers to fill the vacancies. We recommend that after 15 years there should be a review of the whole matter and that the procedure should be that the appropriate Government should cause a report to be made and laid before the appropriate legislature; and that the legislature should then determine either to retain or to reduce any quota or to discontinue it entirely.

http://mt.m2day.org/2008/content/view/19174/84/

[pywong]

The biggest danger we must watch out for is the hypocrisy of UMNO and Mahathir with respect to history. They twist history to suit their agenda and to put the non-Malays on the defensive. That is part of their propaganda warfare against the Rats.

History, as I see it

Posted by admin
Friday, 17 April 2009 16:53


The British were superb diplomats. And they understood the meaning of ‘gunboat diplomacy’. Would you argue with a Kwailo whom had twenty large ships with big cannons anchored in your harbour?

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Dr M: The young needs to be taught country’s history

Former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad said today the young generations, especially the independence generations, should be taught the country’s history to ensure that they do not repeat past mistakes.

More… (http://mt.m2day.org/2008/content/view/20738/84/)

[pywong]

Sounds like the Rat Race. Useful history lesson post-1957.

More appropriate title should be ... How UMNO cheats?

Government vs Mafia
22 Apr 09 : 8.30AM By Wong Chin Huat

WE are now told by the new Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak that by-elections are bad because they distract us from dealing with the economic crisis.

This aversion towards elections is nothing new to Malaysia. In the spirit of learning our national history, let's revisit some past decisions made by Alliance/Barisan Nasional (BN) leaders.

The BN's track record

In March 1965, Tunku terminated local elections, which were mostly won by opposition parties, especially in the urban centres. Tunku promised to restore local elections once the Indonesian Confrontation was over. Of course, he never did. Neither did his five successors. Their reason?
Elections are a waste of money.
http://www.dapmalaysia.org/all-archive/English/2002/oct02/bul/bul1778.htm

In August 1965, Tunku expelled Singapore from the federation of Malaysia because Singapore Premier Lee Kuan Yew - like Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim 43 years later - was actively courting East Malaysians to challenge Umno rule. To be fair to Tunku, his Umno colleagues actually wanted a more repressive solution - Internal Security Act (ISA) detention for Lee and his People's Action Party lieutenants.

In 1966, Sarawak Chief Minister Datuk Stephen Kalong Ningkan - from the Sarawak National Party (SNAP) - was ousted unconstitutionally following dubious defections, much like Perak's Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin 43 years later. When the Borneo High Court ruled to reinstate Ningkan, he wanted to let the people decide. http://www.dailyexpress.com.my/news.cfm?NewsID=62626

However, before Ningkan could dissolve the legislature, the Tunku administration proclaimed emergency rule in Sarawak. The Federal and Sarawak constitutions were amended so that a motion of no-confidence could be passed and a more compliant chief minister appointed.

The late Tun Mustapha Harun was allied to Tunku and also avoided elections in Sabah. In 1969, when the Malaya Alliance struggled to hold onto power, Mustapha's Sabah Alliance bagged the state's 16 seats through "walkovers". In later years, he even contemplated making himself a sultan.

Tun Abdul Razak also had his moments in outmanoeuvring the electoral process. He expressed an aversion to "politicking" and preferred to focus on administration and development. After 1969, he gradually co-opted all but two parliamentary opposition parties, DAP and SNAP, first into coalition governments and later in 1974 into the BN.

His reward? A total of 47 walkovers or 31% of parliamentary seats in the 1974 elections.

In 1974, Razak also carved Chinese-Malaysian-majority Kuala Lumpur out of Selangor presumably to ensure that opposition parties like the DAP could never capture the state. The new Federal Territory was not to have its own state government, or any elected government for that matter.

Razak's successor, Tun Hussein Onn, took a slightly different tack when faced with political difficulties. For example, he declared an emergency and imposed direct rule in Kelantan in 1977 when PAS, then a member of BN, tried to oust their own menteri besar, Datuk Mohamad Nasir, who was much-liked by Umno. Hussein lifted the emergency and went to polls four months later when Umno had strengthened its base. Umno and Nasir's splinter party, Berjasa, eventually thrashed PAS in the election.

While elections under Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad were arguably never free or fair, he was particularly innovative in his own party's elections. In 1988, he effectively purged Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah's supporters, by triggering the deregistration of Umno and the creation of Umno Baru. To protect the incumbents, Mahathir introduced the quota for nominations for the presidency and other senior positions, which Najib now proposes to remove.

In 1994, Anwar, then deputy prime minister and Umno deputy president, brought down the Parti Bersatu Sabah (PBS) state government through mass defections of lawmakers within a month after elections. Denying the use of financial inducement and coercive measures, Anwar recently reiterated that he merely "invited" those defectors. Of course, no fresh elections were
called.

One BN leader who made markedly different decisions was former Deputy Prime Minister Tun Musa Hitam. As the acting prime minister in 1985, he prevented Tun Mustapha's plot to install himself as Sabah chief minister despite not having a legislative majority, through - yes, even then - a palace coup.

But Musa's decision can be seen to be the exception rather than the rule in the BN's elections track record.

In February 2009, Najib orchestrated the downfall of Perak's elected government and installed Datuk Seri Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir as menteri besar.

While Anwar's Pakatan Rakyat (PR) has no legal or moral ground to protest the defections in Perak, why didn't the BN subsequently allow for a fresh poll?

Their answer is the usual - elections are disruptive and wasteful, and now bad for the economy.

Why are elections a must?

Why must we have elections to decide our governments?

Why can't we opt for horse-trading among lawmakers; palace coups; the rule of judges; military coups; mutinying police officers; mutinying bureaucracies; or mob rule à la Thailand's People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) as alternatives to topple and install governments?
__________________________________________________

PAD supporters armed with makeshift batons and golf clubs, 2008
http://www.thenutgraph.com/user_uploads/images/2009/04/21/220409-US-pad-demonstr\
ation.jpg
__________________________________________________

Provided the people do not protest, these methods may well be much smoother, more efficient, peaceful and attractive to certain types of investors.

So, why must the so-called liberal democrats and constitutional monarchists protest?

The answer, in a nutshell, is that elections distinguish a government from a mafia or triad.

A state is similar to the underworld in three senses: (a) they extract money; (b) they control territory; and (c) those living on their territories cannot opt out from being their subjects.

Why do governments fight against foreign countries (war-making), suppress domestic rebels and outlaws (state-making) and offer law and order for their subjects (protection)? So that they may have the power to extract their subjects' resources (extraction).

Charles Tilly, the American sociologist, called a spade a spade: war-making and state-making are but organised crimes. Four centuries before him, Tang Zhen, a Chinese thinker in Imperial China, called emperors thieves who fed on their subjects.
https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/rohloff/www/war%20making%20and%20state%20making.pdf

It is clear that in political theory, there is only a thin line between a government and a mafia or triad. While a government collects "taxes", a mafia or triad collects "protection fees". Sometimes, the mafia or triad is the government and carries out most governmental functions. For example, Kapitan Yap Ah Loy was both in 19th-century Kuala Lumpur.

So, what is the real thin line between a government and a mafia or triad? sentation", which ignited the American Revolution.

No mafia or triad will allow their subjects to elect their Godfather or Patriarch. You only have a duty to pay protection fees, but no right to elect your protector.

In a civilised world, a state must not be like a mafia or triad. That's why electoral processes and elected governments must not be subverted.

This month, when you pay your income tax, remember to cherish elections. Without elections, what you pay is only protection money.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A political scientist by training and a journalism lecturer by trade, Wong Chin Huat is based in Monash University Sunway Campus. He hopes his home state will soon cease to be a kleptocracy propped up by unelected institutions. If democracy can only be restored with two more by-elections in Perak, he would appreciate any act of God.

Link (http://www.thenutgraph.com/government-vs-mafia)

[pywong]

There is no democracy with monopoly of power

Posted by admin
Thursday, 23 April 2009 10:04

It is not surprising that the new fangled concept of “One Malaysia”, just like its now neglected predecessor “Hadhari” and the even more famous one before that – “Vision 2020”, cannot but be machinations of a political party intent on holding on to monopoly of power. Where does democracy stand in all of this? UMNO democracy in my view is just the threadbare clothes that hide the nakedness of absolute power of the emperor using cheap slogans to fool the rakyat.

By Batsman

In terms of nation building Malaysia faces more problems than most. Most people grew to nationhood by the efforts of a population that shared a common culture and language. Unfortunately colonialism left us (as it did other poor countries as well) with a diverse mix of people with vastly different cultures and languages. Our history was interfered with and manipulated at the pleasure of our masters. This monopoly of power has not disappeared with independence but has instead been passed on to UMNO (this fact alone explains why UMNO is on such warm and friendly terms with our “wicked” colonial masters). This is our lot and we have to grapple with it, problems and all.

UMNO has monopoly of power, but like its masters it likes to deal with illusions. It therefore pretends that its power legitimately derives from the people in democratic fashion and it conducts elections more or less regularly.

The fact of the matter is somewhat different. UMNO has placed its cronies and henchmen in all the positions of power and influence in our civil service, judiciary, law enforcement and military. Not contented with this, UMNO plays the colonialist tricks of “divide and rule” which it learnt to perfection from our former colonial masters as well as passed on the nation’s wealth to privatised crony businesses and GLCs where CEO’s earn obscene salaries and bonuses to manage what are basically commodities and monopolies. These are the characteristics of not just a monopoly of power, but one which is intent on keeping it.

More… (http://mt.m2day.org/2008/content/view/20988/84/)

[pywong]

No history of pre-merdeka Malaysia is complete without listening to the Communist Party of Malaya's side of the story.

Here's a few to check out:

Today, April 30, is Hari Parti Komunis Malaya.

It’s timely too that a member of the Communist Party of Malaya has a blog. In it, is a blog (http://www.matamin.blogspot.com/) post on the CPM’s comic book (http://matamin.blogspot.com/2009/04/komik-perjalanan-yang-cemerlang-1930.html) depicting the story of their 50 years struggle from 1930-80.

I guess you won’t read this in the papers. So, I am telling it here.

20 years ago, the Haadyai agreement between the Communist Party of Malaya and the government to abandon arms struggle was inked, with much pomp and fair.

However, the existence of these soldiers who fought for Merdeka/Independence of Malaya continue to be ignored, news about them,totally black-out from the media until today.

More… (http://sloone.wordpress.com/2009/04/30/cpm-starts-own-blog-to-tell-its-side-of-history/)

[pywong]

THE RAT RACE PART V – CH. 3: A RAT’S LOOK AT MALAYAN HISTORY
3.2: PRE-INDEPENDENCE (BEFORE 31 AUG 1957) – A RAT’S INTERPRETATION.

FROM BEGINNING TO 1942

We are now ready to examine ourselves based on the ideas that had been developed in the Rat Race series. Most of us go through life stuck in the Rat Race, focused solely on making money without being aware of the larger development around us - developments that have a greater impact on our lives, namely how the Ruling Class manipulate and exploit us.

The manipulation revolves around an attack on our minds, in particular our emotions of fear and greed. Other emotions come into play as well – hatred, envy, dog-in-the-manger attitude (if I cannot have it, you shall not have it). Basically it can be classified as craving and aversion at the subconscious level. For the purpose of these Rat Race series, we shall focus on the coarser emotions as they are easier to recognize.

Pre-British history before 1786:
The Dutch were in control of Melaka because of its central position as a port in South-East Asia. They were not so interested in the hinterland of peninsula Malaya. Malay society revolved around isolated sultanates with the sultan who individually ruled over disparate states such as Johore, Perak, Kedah, Selangor, etc.

The Pyramid model was very simple. The Sultan represented the Ruling Class and he had the aristocracy to support him. Beneath that was a sprinkling of traders followed by farmers and peasants. It was a feudal society (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism). The Sultan had the power of life and death over his subjects and loyalty to the sultan was absolute.

British Colonial History from 1786 to 1942
The British had a more comprehensive strategy than the Dutch. From their experience in British India, they first concentrated on securing access to island ports. They made use of the superior naval force to take over land from the sultans or pit one claimant to the throne against another. At later periods, they would make use of civil unrest in the states to get the sultans to submit to their power.

Penang Island 1786:

The British tricked the Kedah Sultan into leasing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Malaya) Penang to them in return for protection from the Siamese. Later they reneged on their promise. Next they attacked Kedah and forced the sultan to lease both Penang and Prai for an annual rent of 10,000 Spanish pesos.

Tumasek (Singapore) 1819:
6 Feb 1819, Sir Thomas Stamford Raffles backed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_of_modern_Singapore] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hussein_Shah_of_Johor, Hussein Shah[/color] as the pretender to the Johore throne against his younger brother, the legitimate Sultan. In return, Hussein Shah signed a treaty to lease Tumasek to the British East India Company to enable them to develop it as a trading post and settlement. Raffles's deputy, William Farquhar, oversaw a period of growth and ethnic migration. The British India office governed the island in 1858. Eventually Singapore was made a British crown colony, answerable directly to the Crown, in 1867. More... (http://games.sgforums.com/forums/10/topics/318667?page=2)


Melaka 1824:
The British took control of Melaka from the Dutch in exchange for Batavia in Sumatra under the Anglo-Dutch Treaty.

British Expansion in Malaya:
With three bases secured in Malaya, the British decided during the later part of the 19th Century to take over Malaya to secure the supply of raw material and to enhance security of the peninsula. They proceeded to take over the sultanates one by one through a strategy of forcing the sultans to sign treaties giving them the power to appoint British Residents to advise the sultans, which advice the sultans were obliged to accept. By 1909, they had secured total control over the whole of Malaya and Singapore.

Developing the Economy & Immigration:
The British considered Malaya as primarily an economic concern. They considered that the Malays were not reliable workers so they imported Indian indentured labour to work their rubber estates and got the Chinese Triads to supply the coolies for the tin mines, mills and docks. The British considered the Chinese ideal workers…. if only they could control their unruliness. Still they were able to overcome their scruples as the Chinese were so productive and able to work independently with minimum supervision. As a result, they were brought in by the hundreds of thousands. There was also a push factor as China at that time was undergoing civil war and millions of Chinese were impoverished by the turmoil.

British Administration:
There were 3 groups of territories under British control:
A. Straits Settlements:
Singapore, Melaka and Penang. These territories did not have a sultan and were Crown Colonies ruled by a British Governor. This is the Pyramid:

http://i416.photobucket.com/albums/pp242/tindakmalaysia/rat%20race%20part%20IIIA/RatRacePartVCh3_2PyramidStraitsSett.jpg

With the major economic activity in ports and trading, there was a big influx of immigrants, especially Chinese. Soon the Malays were a minority in these regions.

B. Federated Malay States (Perak, Selangor, Negeri Sembilan and Pahang)
The Ruling Class consisted of a Federal Council headed by a British Resident-General.

http://i416.photobucket.com/albums/pp242/tindakmalaysia/rat%20race%20part%20IIIA/RatRacePartVCh3_2PyramidFederatedMa.jpg

The discovery of tin in Perak, Selangor and Negri Sembilan attracted the Chinese Triads who were invited by the Malay Chiefs and the British to extract tin on their behalf. The work was dirty and extremely tough and only the Chinese coolies could do it. These coolies were practically slaves, caught in a web of opium addiction, gambling, prostitution and debt. Most were enslaved for life without having any chance of escaping from the trap. So lucrative was the trade that there was a big demand for the import of Chinese coolies. (These are our original foreign workers.) Very soon the immigrants started to out-number the natives.

The immigrant policy of the British had a significant effect on the racial composition of the colony:

Race…………………....1911……………......1921…………............ .…….1931
Malays………………...58.6%................54%........... ................49.2%
Chinese……………….29.6%................29.4%.......... ..............33.9%
Indians………………..10.2%................15.1%......... ...............15.1%
Others…………….…....1.6%...................1.5%...... ...................1.8%

Economic power was in the hands of the British with some held by the Chinese. The Malays by and large were happy to remain as peasants and fishermen in the countryside.

C. Unfederated Malay States (Kedah, Kelantan, Perlis, Terengganu and Johore).
The British only managed to take over these states in the late 19th century and early 20th century. Johore was the last hold-out. The British maintained the façade of the Sultan as the Head of State. In reality, the de-facto head was the British Residents whose advice the Sultans was obliged to accept. Except for Johore, very little immigrants were brought into these states as there were not so much economic opportunities to be exploited. Nor were there minerals like tin. By and large the natives were left to continue with their old way of life.

http://i416.photobucket.com/albums/pp242/tindakmalaysia/rat%20race%20part%20IIIA/RatRacePartVCh3_2PyramidUnfederated.jpg

By the 1930s, the Malays realized with alarm that they were a minority in Malaya. This was a period of great uncertainty for the Malays. They were fearful of being swamped by the economically-aggressive Chinese immigrants, who had left their homeland penniless and were determined to make good.

The aristocratic Western-educated Malays reacted by setting up societies to protect their rights. Most of these were state-based as their loyalties were to the sultans whose authority covered their respective states only. Their ideology was Malaya for the Malays. They were quite content to let the British continue with ruling Malaya. The Chinese and Indian immigrants were regarded as aliens without any rights to citizenship or land. This was cause for great dissatisfaction among the local-born Chinese and Indians as they felt that they had contributed to the development of the country and deserved a stake in it.

Through long years of conditioning the Malays grew to depend on the British for protection and regarded them as their masters. In sympathy, the British started to admit into the bureaucratic middle and upper ranks large numbers of English-educated Malays from the aristocratic class.

In 1938, from the peasant class, another organization arose, the Kesatuan Melayu Muda (KMM). These were led mainly by the Malay-language teachers & journalists with strong socialist traits. They had an anti-colonial nation-wide vision and were working towards union with Indonesia. Their aim was freedom for all the oppressed people. The British realized that the KMM was a threat and detained their leaders.

So there were two groups of Malays that were developed in the 1930’s. One group was the rightist Western-educated Malay aristocratic class, which collaborated with the British to govern Malaya. This group regarded the British as their protectors. In return, the British favoured this group. (From this class would later be drawn the leaders of UMNO.)

The other was the leftist peasant society that sought union with Indonesia and to overthrow the British.

Such was the situation until the Japanese invasion which drove out the British and destroyed the old power structures together with the myth of White Supremacy.

[pywong]

THE RAT RACE PART V CH. 3: A RAT’S INTERPRETATION OF MALAYAN HISTORY
3.3: 1942 to 1945 World War II – Japanese Invasion of Malaya

War is a powerful factor in redefining a Pyramid and shocking the Rats out of their old mindsets. The years of conditioning are destroyed overnight and the Rats wakes up to a new and painful reality. Such was the effect of WW II on Malaya.

Japan, in her drive to industrialize, needed raw materials. As she had started her development much later than the Western powers, she found her access to such material blocked by the colonies held by the West. She resorted to invading Korea and China, the two remaining countries in Asia not fully in Western hands. So started the Japanese East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. As in all wars, this war was over power and resources.

Next she trained her sights on South-East Asia, which had abundant oil, rubber and tin. While Britain was busy fighting Germany in Europe, Japan decided to grab Malaya and South East Asia.

Japanese Occupation from 1942 to 1945
The Japanese invaded Malaya from Southern Thailand and Kota Bahru on 10 Dec 1941, 2 days after they had crippled the American fleet at Pearl Harbour in Hawaii. So successful was her campaign that she reached Singapore in less than 2 months by Feb 1942. The native Malayans realized with a shock that the invincibility of the white man was a myth. They saw over-night how the Whites went from Tuan to prisoners of war (POW) that were treated worse than rats. The British Pyramid was shattered. A new Pyramid came into being.

At the top of this Pyramid was the Japanese Army Command.
Below that was the Bureaucracy staffed by Japanese and aided by Malays, who were treated better by the Japanese compared to the Japanese treatment of the Chinese. This was a classic divide-and-rule tactic which split the two races and created a lot of bad blood between them.
The Lower Class was occupied by the Malay peasants, Indian and Chinese immigrants.

And at the very bottom were the newly-created slaves. These were the Prisoners of War and the conscripted labour from the conquered territories. The Japanese were absolutely brutal in their treatment of the Malayan people, in particular the Chinese. About 200,000 of these slaves including 42,000 prisoners of war were packed off to work on the Death Railway from Siam to Burma. Nearly half died.

The harsh treatment of the Chinese by the Japanese caused many of them to flee into the jungles to fight the Japanese under the Malayan People Anti-Japanese Army, led by Chin Peng. UMNO take note!

By Aug 1945, after 2 atomic bombs were dropped on Japan, the Japanese in Malaya surrendered. For 4 or 5 weeks until the British arrived to take over Malaya again, the country was ruled by the MPAJA and the Malayan Communist Party. This was a period of revenge killings between the different participants of the war, mainly between Chinese and Malay. The British arrived in Sept 1945 to retake Malaya. The Japanese Pyramid disappeared and the British set about building a new Pyramid.

[pywong]

THE RAT RACE PART V CH. 3: A RAT’S INTERPRETATION OF MALAYAN HISTORY
3.4: World War II – The Clash of Pyramids

INTRODUCTION:
War is a period when great changes are wrought on nations and on history. World War II will go down in history as a period when the greatest devastation was visited on the whole world. It is estimated that 72 million people perished. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties) Empires changed hands. The spoils of war go to the victors.

Let us examine WW II from the perspective of the conspiracy theory by the Financial Class. We will see that war is merely a clash of the Ruling Classes of different Pyramids. They have been playing this game profitably since the late 1600’s. Their objective is the control over land and resources.

BACKGROUND:
At the dawn of the 20th Century, the old Western powers and the US controlled most of the resources and colonies in the world. For the past 500 years, the European powers that have coastlines along the Atlantic Ocean have expanded into Africa, Asia and America conquering and colonizing the native population. Great Britain had the British Empire straddling the globe, in which it was claimed that the sun never set. France, Holland, Belgium, Spain and Portugal each had a share of the spoils. Russia had a free hand to expand eastwards into the Eurasian landmass. Only the late-comers, the newly-emerging powers of Germany and Japan, found their quest for resources and power blocked. All the colonies were taken up. Even China had been carved up among the European powers and the US.

Germany, after the humiliating treaty to signal the end of World War I, was determined to rebuild her military. The Western Bankers have identified Adolf Hitler as their proxy to control Germany. So they financed his grab for power in the 1920’s and to rebuilt his arm forces. This triggered an arms race with the other European powers which were fearful of Germany’s rise. This was good business for the Financial Class and the Military Class as money and weapons were required on both sides of the divide.

Similarly, the Financial Class was financing the Military Class in Japan. They found their expansion blocked in South East Asia by the French (Indochina), the British (Malaya and North Borneo), the US (Philippines) and the Dutch (Indonesia). That left only China which had been weakened by centuries of misrule by the Qing Dynasty and the subsequent revolution that overthrew it. The warlords and the Western Powers who have carved up China into spheres of influence, had made China very weak. So the Japanese military, against the wishes of the Japanese government, attacked China through Manchuria in 1931 - Mukden Incident. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mukden_Incident) From then on, they proceeded to invade China.

Meanwhile, in Europe, the European Pyramids were squaring up for war. Germany had completely rearmed by 1939 and was ready to expand eastwards into Poland and Czechoslovakia. That triggered WW II and the conquest of Western Europe by Germany. Later Germany attacked the Soviet Union even though they had already signed a peace treaty.

When Japan attacked the US at Pearl Harbour in preparation for the invasion of South-East Asia, the US was drawn into the war. Being far away from the battle zone, the US was able to produce arms in peace and this she used to supply Britain. But she demanded payment in gold. That set the stage for the US to become the largest holder of gold in the world.

END OF WW II
After the war was won by the Allies (US, Britain, France, China and the Soviet Union), the Pyramid structures were totally changed.

Britain’s status as a global empire was finished. The war had drained all her resources and she was in debt to the US to the tune of billions of pounds. Most of her gold had been transferred to the US. 44 countries among the Allies, had agreed to subordinate their currencies to the USD with its value guaranteed at USD 35 to 1 oz of gold, at Bretton Woods, USA in July 1944. This set in motion the domination of the US Financial Class over the “Free World”. Meanwhile, the Soviet Union, had taken over most of Eastern Europe including East Germany. She had in place another Pyramid – one based on communism.

POST WW II
Post-war, two ideologies were competing with each other – Capitalism led by the US and communism led by the Soviet Union. Although it appeared that the competition was political in nature and presented as a fight between the “Free World” and the “Oppressed Peoples” of the Soviet Union, in reality, it was a battle over control of resources in the 3rd World countries. Behind it all were the Financial Class in the US and Britain. They were the ones pulling the strings behind the scenes and controlling the Pyramids.

One of the demands of the US on Britain was that she gave up her colonies as the US wanted access to the colonies’ markets and resources. Britain was loath to give up Malaya as she was one of the largest dollar earners among all her colonies. So she devised a strategy to appear to relinquish Malaya to satisfy the US, without really giving up control. Thus was born the idea of the Malayan Union.

But Britain forgot one thing. The Japanese invasion of Malaya had destroyed the British-Malayan Pyramid. The colonized people had woken up to the reality that the White Man was not invincible and that they had survived through 3 terrible years without the White Man in control. Their desire to be free had been awakened and they were not prepared to be subjugated again - Except for the Western-educated Malay class drawn from the sons of the Aristocrats and the chiefs. These people still yearned for the security of the White Rajah.

Next:
Chapter 3.5: 1945 to 1957 How UMNO Sold Out to the British.

[pywong]

THE RAT RACE PART V CH. 3: A RAT’S INTERPRETATION OF MALAYAN HISTORY
Chapter 3.5: 1945 to 1957 How UMNO Sold Out to the British.

INTRODUCTION:
At the start of this thread, we said:
Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. George Santayana.

Another truth: History is written by the victors.

If the Japanese had won World War II, we would be speaking Japanese, their collaborators would have been heroes. Instead, the Japanese lost and those who resisted the Japanese became the heroes

Who were these heroes of World War II? You won’t find it from our current history books. They were the Malayan people led by the Malayan Communist Party leaders in the Malayan People’s Anti-Japanese Army (MPAJA). (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malayan_People%E2%80%99s_Anti-Japanese_Army) The majority was Chinese with significant numbers of Malays and Indians. Where were our UMNO heroes? Most of them were probably working for the Japanese.

Do we condemn them? No! During war, the over-riding emotion is fear and fear makes us do things, anything, just to survive. It takes great courage to over-come our fear and fight tyranny, especially if the enemy has control over over-whelming force and we have only our bare hands.

Readers may have noticed that this segment of history seems to be repeated in our discussions. The reason is that our past has been so distorted and we have been subjected to so much psychological warfare that getting at the truth is very difficult. So we have to study it from different angles.

One version was presented in: THE RAT RACE PART V – THE MALAYSIAN RAT RACE Chapter 2: The Social Contract - How We Got It All Wrong! (http://tindakmalaysia.com/tm_forums2008/index.php/topic,718.msg3004.html#msg3004)

That Chapter is important because it helps us to see through the lies of politicians about the Social Contract (which did not exist in the first place).

But knowing too much history can itself be very confusing. That was why we developed the concept of the Rat Race System, the Pyramid and the Circle to provide us with some simple templates to evaluate the past and project our understanding into the future - to deal with new information or events that happen around us. After the momentous event on Mar 8, 2008 General Elections, this is even more critical as we can see desperate attempts by politicians trying to confuse and sway us to their agenda and machinations.

THE RETURN OF THE BRITISH
Malaya was the jewel in the crown of the British Empire. She was the largest dollar earner in the British Empire. After the devastation of World War II, Britain was desperate to extract wealth from the colonies to repay her debts to the US, to rebuild her destroyed industries and to rebuild the lives of her people who had suffered through 6 years of war. To the British Ruling Class, all these acts were important steps to maintain their hold on power. Interestingly, Winston Churchill, the British wartime prime minister, promptly lost the elections after the war. The US Ruling Class was pressurizing the British to relinquish her colonies, to open up the market to American products. Fortunately for Britain, she had a reprieve – the communist threat from the Soviet Union.

The Soviet Union had risen from the ashes of World War II to become the second most powerful military nation after the US and she was challenging the US for global power. Britain leveraged on this threat against the US, to gain some breathing space to retain her colonies. In other words, the US was prepared to allow Britain to delay her programme for decolonization in exchange for support in the fight against the Soviet Union.

Although the battle was presented as a fight between “good” (the free world) against “evil” (the communist countries), in reality, it was a fight over global resources. Ideology was secondary.

CONSOLIDATION
Before the war, Britain had 3 different Pyramids (Chapter 3.2) - one for the Straits Settlement (Singapore, Malacca & Penang) under direct rule of a Governor, one for the Federated Malay States (Negri Sembilan, Selangor, Pahang, Perak) with a British Resident General advising all the Sultans, and one for the Unfederated Malay States (Johore, Trengganu, Kelantan, Kedah and Perlis) each with a British Resident advising the Sultans individually. Of all the states, the most powerful was the Johore Sultan as he was the last to accede to British rule and secured the most favourable terms (1914). The Johore Malay civil service (drawn from the Western-educated Malay aristocratic class) had a lot of power and privileges.

When Britain returned to Malaya in September 1945, she planned to annex Malaya and consolidate her rule into a Unitary State (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_state) through the Malayan Union. The Sultans meekly signed away their powers after a bit of brow-beating by the British.

THE MALAYAN UNION (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malayan_Union) (1 Apr 1946)
We have now reached a most crucial part of Malayan history. Please read the book “Where Monsoons Meet – A history of Malaya” by musimgrafik for more details.

The terms for the Malayan Union were:
a. 11 states on the peninsula to be amalgamated under the rule of a British Governor,
b. Singapore spun off as a crown colony because of the large Chinese population and the naval base,
c. Sultans to have no more power except for authority over Islamic matters,
d. Citizenship to non-Malays under the Jus Soli (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli) principle, (the British needed them as their work force in the business sector, banks, trading houses, rubber estates and tin mines),
e. No provision for self-determination or self-rule for the Malayans.

The Malays opposed the Malayan Union due to:
The strong-arm method used by the British to secure the Sultans’ signatures,
The reduction of the Sultans’ powers,
The excision of Singapore from Malaya,
The granting of citizenship to non-Malay immigrants, especially the Chinese,
The Malay civil service feared that their economic and political future would be jeopardized.
The communists, some Chinese and Indians opposed because there was no provision for Independence. Most Chinese and Indians were apathetic and focused on their home countries instead.

In May 1946, the Malay civil servants led by Dato Onn bin Jaafar, the son of a former Mentri Besar of Johore, set up UMNO during the Third Malay Congress in Johore Bahru at the Sultan’s palace. Together with other Malay leftist parties, they protested vigorously against the Malayan Union.

Surprised by the strong opposition and civil disobedience throughout the country, the British made a tactical withdrawal and agreed to abrogate the Malayan Union that same year. As a reward for his efforts, Dato Onn was made Menteri Besar by the Johore Sultan. Radical reforms under Malayan Union. (http://31august1957.blogspot.com/2007/07/radical-reforms-under-malayan-union.html)

From this event, UMNO took on the mantle of defender of the Malay’s rights. This is how history wants us to believe. The other Malay parties were ditched.

The Rat Race Perspective
The British Ruling Class had decided to set up a Pyramid that looked like this.
http://i416.photobucket.com/albums/pp242/tindakmalaysia/rat%20race%20part%20IIIA/RatRacePartVCh3_5PyramidMalayanUnio.jpg

FEDERATION OF MALAYA 1948
The British developed a new plan – form the Federation of Malaya (FoM). They decided to use divide-and-rule tactics to win over the Malays. Dato Onn, the leader of UMNO, was an avowed anglophile. He was more interested in maintaining the status quo with the aristocratic Malays enjoying their special position and power, and retaining the British in Malaya. The leftist Malay parties from PUTERA were determined to kick the British out, as were the leftist non-Malay party AMCJA, the MIC and the communists. Given these sentiments, the British decided that UMNO would be easy to manipulate. PKMM did not agree with the formation of the FoM and walked out of the pact with UMNO.

The terms of the FoM restored the power of the Sultans, imposed more restrictions on the conditions of citizenship on the non-Malays and more importantly, offered UMNO the chance to share power with the British. To clear the way for UMNO, all the leaders of the other parties were detained under the Declaration of Emergency in 1948 and the British took action to eliminate their biggest threat - the Malayan Communist Party. The rural peasants and the working class were no better off than before.

http://i416.photobucket.com/albums/pp242/tindakmalaysia/rat%20race%20part%20IIIA/RatRacePartVCh3_5PyramidFederationo.jpg

PUTERA-AMCJA launched the People’s Constitutional Proposals for Malaya as a counter-proposal to the FoM. Details are shown in 10 tahun sebelum merdeka or 10 years before merdeka. (http://tindakmalaysia.com/tm_forums2008/index.php/topic,725.0.html)

So the FOM was signed between the British, the Sultans and UMNO. Although there is no document in the public domain to show it, it was obvious from the Pyramid model that all three parties realized the economic importance of retaining the Chinese and Indian immigrants in Malaya to open up and develop the country. They knew that without the immigrants the country would be bankrupt. The only thing that could induce the immigrants to stay was to offer them a stake in the country.

The question was how to sell the idea to the rural Malays? They opposed the Malayan Union precisely over the issue of citizenship for the immigrants. Now that UMNO had the chance to take power from the British, they went along with the British’s insistence on citizenship for the immigrants. The Malay civil service was very supportive of UMNO. Civil servants were given leave to attend UMNO meetings. Even the leaders like Tunku Abdul Rahman and Tun Abdul Razak were allowed to resign from the civil service with full pensions to enable them to take over UMNO when Dato Onn Jaafar left in 1952.

Wages for workers were very low, leading to wide-spread unhappiness in the post-war period. In frustration, PUTERA-AMJCA launched the HARTAL (a general strike) throughout the country on 20 Oct 1947. The country came to a standstill. This shook the British as it showed the power of the masses once they can focus on a common issue. The British took steps to castrate the opposition by jailing the leaders of the leftist parties and the unions. Till today, our unions are kept very weak.

In 1948, the MCP launched an armed rebellion to drive the British from Malaya. The British declared an Emergency. They also encouraged the Kuomintang sympathizers in the Chinese business class to form the Malayan Chinese Association (MCA), to co-operate with UMNO to contest in the local municipal elections.

Over the next 4 years, the British with their superior fire-power could not make any headway against the MCP due to Chinese support in the countryside. In 1952, in desperation, the British granted citizenship and land to win over the Chinese peasants, relocated them to New Villages and fenced them up behind barb wires. The support for the MCP was cut. Their source of food was stopped. This broke the back of the Emergency. The British used the Emergency to retain their soldiers in Malaya and to continue to rule unchallenged.

The British set about their long-term plan to continue the control Malaya behind the façade of UMNO. They did not trust the Chinese with power or arms as they were worried that the Chinese would support the largely-Chinese Malayan Communist Party. So the British started training UMNO to take power. They were allowed to take over the army, the police, the Special Branch, the bureaucracy, in particular the National Registration Department, which had control over the issue of citizenship.

Throughout the period up to Merdeka in 1957, UMNO was especially anxious to prove their loyalty to the British to ensure their continued support. So much so, that in the Baling Talks in 1955 with Chin Peng of the MCP, Tunku Abdul Rahman refused to agree to allow the MCP to register as a legitimate party in exchange for the ending of the Emergency. Had the Tunku done so, that would have saved the country millions of Ringgit and many lives.

The final step to granting of independence to Malaya was the drafting of the Federation of Malaya (later Malaysia) Constitution. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Malaysia) The Reid Commission was set up to make a study to ensure that the three major races were fairly treated. The most contentious point was Article 153 on the special position of the Malays. The Reid Report on this can be found here: Federation of Malaya Constitutional Commission, 1956-57 Report. (http://www.accin-badailies.org/Reid%20Report%20on%20the%20special%20position%20of %20the%20Malays.pdf) The key issue was an expiry date for the special position. UMNO got the MCA and MIC to agree not to insert the expiry date into the constitution based on a verbal agreement of expiry. This was the start of many UMNO tricks on their partners. Anything that was not written down, they ignored later. Through this was laid the seeds of the divide-and-rule strategy that UMNO had so successfully implemented to this day. For a better understanding, please read “Malay nationalism will fail”. (http://www.malaysiawaves.com/2008/06/malay-nationalism-is-doomed-to-fail.html) See also Chapter 2 of Part V of the Rat Race – The Social Contract.

On 31 Aug 1957, a new feudal Ruling Class took the place of the British – UMNO. The British continued to rule behind the scenes and they did for the next 9 years.
Some other thoughts. (http://www.press.umich.edu/pdf/0472098985-ch3.pdf)

THE RAT RACE PART VI – MALAYSIA: HOW DID UMNO STAY IN POWER FOR SO LONG? (http://tindakmalaysia.com/tm_forums2008/index.php/topic,907.msg3876.html#msg3876)

[pywong]

THE RAT RACE PART V CH. 3: A RAT’S INTERPRETATION OF MALAYAN HISTORY
Chapter 3.5: 1945 to 1957 How UMNO Sold Out to the British.

INTRODUCTION:
At the start of this thread, we said:
Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. George Santayana.

Another truth: History is written by the victors.

One version was presented in: THE RAT RACE PART V – THE MALAYSIAN RAT RACE Chapter 2: The Social Contract - How We Got It All Wrong! (http://tindakmalaysia.com/tm_forums2008/index.php/topic,718.msg3004.html#msg3004)

That Chapter is important because it helps us to see through the lies of politicians about the Social Contract (which did not exist in the first place).

But knowing too much history can itself be very confusing. That was why we developed the concept of the Rat Race System, the Pyramid and the Circle to provide us with some simple templates to evaluate the past and project our understanding into the future - to deal with new information or events that happen around us. After the momentous event on Mar 8, 2008 General Elections, this is even more critical as we can see desperate attempts by politicians trying to confuse and sway us to their agenda and machinations.


The question was how to sell the idea to the rural Malays? They opposed the Malayan Union precisely over the issue of citizenship for the immigrants. Now that UMNO had the chance to take power from the British, they went along with the British’s insistence on citizenship for the immigrants. The Malay civil service was very supportive of UMNO. Civil servants were given leave to attend UMNO meetings. Even the leaders like Tunku Abdul Rahman and Tun Abdul Razak were allowed to resign from the civil service with full pensions to enable them to take over UMNO when Dato Onn Jaafar left in 1952.

We have said before. A proper understanding of history is necessary to avoid being manipulated by politicians for their own agenda. Read the article on Zaid Ibrahim below and understand why.

Utusan considers the Chinese asking for equal rights as racism. They can't understand that it is part of human rights to be treated equally.

They now twist the British/UMNO agreement on citizenship rights of the immigrant Indians and Chinese as a generous offer by UMNO. Hello! if this was not agreed to, the British would not have granted Malaya independence. We can understand why by reading The Rat Race Part V Chapter 2 - The Social Contract.

Zaid torches Utusan for stoking racial flames
Jun 1, 09 7:00pm
Former Umno leader and minister Zaid Ibrahim has lashed out at Malay daily Utusan Malaysia for playing up racial sentiments.

He said the articles which appeared in the daily's Sunday edition reminded him of how far removed the paper is from the reality of life in Malaysia.

"This is probably the reason why its readership is on the decline. It's theme and main plot is race, race and race," he added in a blog posting.

Zaid cited a particular article with the heading 'Melayu dikhianati?' (Malays betrayed) penned by Awang Selamat.

In the article, the former Umno leader said, the writer lamented that he is hurt by the demands, which reek of racism, of the non-Malays since the last general election.

"In other words, Malaysians must not hurt the feelings of Awang Selamat because when Awang Selamat is hurt, Umno is hurt and when Umno is hurt, the Malays are hurt.

"This is the logic of Awang Selamat," he added.

Zaid said the writer made no mention of the 'extreme' demands made by the non-Malays in his article.

"If they (the non-Malays) are asking about scholarships, land allocation and employment opportunities, can't these questions be addressed rationally and based on facts?

"Why get hurt so easily?" he asked.

Are all their demands baseless?

The former de facto law minister also questioned if all the demands of the non-Malays, whose rights are enshrined under the Federal Constitution, were baseless?

According to Awang Selamat, he said, this appears to be the case because "50 years ago Umno and the Malays were generous enough to offer citizenship to their (non-Malays) ancestors."

"Since Umno had been [b]gracious in according them citizenship, their descendants should never make any demands because they must always be grateful to Umno," he added.

Zaid pointed out that this is the exact mindset which is no longer viable and has been rejected by all races.

When a citizen, be it a Malay, Chinese or Indian, asks for something, he said it is the duty of the government and the media to evaluate it in order to grant the request.

"If the demand is excessive, explain but don't raise history to cover up shortcomings. Do not get angry always, threaten and dish out pieces of incomplete history for political mileage," he said.

Zaid also reminded that the country obtained independence because the British agreed with the alliance on the terms. "When we agree, we must honour the agreement," he said.

In view of this, he said there was no reason to state that "we were being generous in granting citizenship to the Chinese and Indians."

"The fact is, that is the term we agreed to. At the time, it was impossible for the British to relinquish Malaya if the issue of citizenship for Chinese and Indians was not resolved.

"The British were strict on this issue and Umno agreed. That is the price which the Alliance accepted with an open heart. Does Utusan have different historical facts?" he added.

Zaid said even if one went by the perception that Umno was generous in giving citizenship to non-Malays, there is still no room for Awang Selamat's 'feudalist mindset' in a modern nation.

Those with 'blind hearts'

Meanwhile, he said another article by senior writer Zulkiflee Bakar had advised Utusan readers not to be 'historically blind'.

"I suppose Malays like myself are historically blind. But history is not difficult to learn and I am interested in knowing more.

"However, the most unfortunate people are those whose hearts are blind. When our hearts are blind, no amount of facts or knowledge can fill the void," he added.

Zaid said instead of stoking racial sentiments, Utusan should help the prime minister find ways to develop the economy via pragmatic and just policies.

"To Utusan, the Malays fail because of the Chinese and Indians. Wake up Utusan, non-Malays and Malays themselves can tell the difference between the Malay race and Umno, they know that when an Umno policy is criticised, it is not challenging the Malays but Umno.

"Much effort is being put into creating friction between the Malays and Chinese. Believe me, racial flames will not burn as brightly as before," he said.

"The Malay mindset has changed. They know the challenges that lie ahead in the world and the changes which they must make. Only Utusan has not realised this," he added. Link here… (http://malaysiakini.com/news/105600)

[pywong]

THE RAT RACE PART V – THE MALAYSIAN RAT RACE
(A look at Malaysian history beyond race and religion)

Chapter 2: The Social Contract - How We Got It All Wrong!

THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE!

For 50 years both sides of the political spectrum believed they were right, blissfully unaware that they were conned as Rats!

We have to break free from the mental cage of race and religion and learn to look at our situation through the concept of class division and as Malaysians. Until we do, we will never be free.

Monday, June 01, 2009 Charles Hector
Social Contract - True or False?

UMNO - fought British for Independence, or just a British crony? Time to re-discover the truth..

With the independence of Malaysia, there was a 'social contract' between the various ethnic groups in Malaysia. The native Malays agreed to the granting of citizenship to the Chinese (and Indians), and the Chinese (and Indians) agreed to the granting of special privileges to the native Malays.

The existence of this 'social contract', in this particular form, has been disputed - and over the past months, the UMNO-led BN government have been trying to repeatedly drum in this 'social contract' into the minds of Malaysians - so that ultimately everyone will believe this as the truth...the real truth.

Sadly, there is NO documentary proof of this 'social contract' - and hence, the only agreement that we can rely on is the Federal Constitution - and that is it. More… (http://charleshector.blogspot.com/2009/06/social-contract-true-or-false-umno.html)

[pywong]

THE RAT RACE PART V – THE MALAYSIAN RAT RACE
(A look at Malaysian history beyond race and religion)

Chapter 2: The Social Contract - How We Got It All Wrong!

THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE!

For 50 years both sides of the political spectrum believed they were right, blissfully unaware that they were conned as Rats!

We have to break free from the mental cage of race and religion and learn to look at our situation through the concept of class division and as Malaysians. Until we do, we will never be free.


Stronger, faster, better

http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/index.php/opinion/yusseri-yusoff/28742-stronger-faster-better

JUNE 6 — For the sake of not arguing, let’s take a few things as given.

What things, you ask?

Well, let’s take it as a given that the Malays were here first, and so were the Melanaus, Bajaus, Ibans, Dayaks, other indigenous people and Lee Kuan Yew’s great-great-grandparents.

Let’s also take it as a given that prior to independence, there was a condition set by our then colonial masters[1] regarding the issue of citizenship for the ‘immigrant’ races.

Next, take it as given that a ‘social contract’ was made, even though it was never written down or signed by anybody.

We can’t, however, take it as a given what this social contract was, precisely because it was never written down. As it stands, the contents of this contract is down for anyone to interpret as long as it’s the same as Umno’s interpretation.

Other fixed assumptions that we can make include the acceptance that the struggle for the independence of Malaya involved all the three main races then, and that the inclusion of Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore into the Federation of Malaysia was made with the broad agreement of the peoples of the three states (the Konfrontasi notwithstanding).

Further, prior to independence, it was written into the constitution that there will be a ‘special position’ for the Malays, in cognisance of the fact that the Malays, as the de facto indigenous race in Malaya were rather economically behind the main immigrant race, the Chinese.

Over time, as we know, this ‘special position’ morphed into ‘special rights’, with nary a change made in the constitution to reflect this new misunderstanding[2].

So pervasive has this (deliberate) misunderstanding been that almost no one bothers to correct those who say it, and even those you’d think would know better seem to not to.

We know and accept as fact that on the 13th of May, 1969 racial riots broke out in Kuala Lumpur and a few other towns in the west coast of Peninsula Malaysia. It happened, and Malaysians died. The interpretations for the cause of the fighting, however, were varied.

Nonetheless, 12 years after independence, 6 years after the formation of Malaysia, and 4 years after Singapore was divorced from the Federation, the Malays were killing the Chinese, the Chinese were killing the Malays and the Indians were somehow implicated in the event (the cause of it even, according to a former Minister of Information).

We understand that as one of the outcomes from the 13th May incident, the New Economic Policy was formulated, the main aim of which was to eradicate poverty for all Malaysians, to redress the economic imbalance especially between the de facto indigenous race(s) as compared to the Chinese. The Indians and the Dan Lain-lain were also scheduled to benefit, of course.

This was accepted by all the main players in the government of the day then and even most in the opposition, largely because the incident was the closest that this young nation ever came to a ‘civil war’ and it was already too awful to bear.

Now, the NEP was to last 20 years, and technically it did. It was then supplanted by the National Development Policy, and quite possibly the National Vision Policy. However, given that the core aims of the two succeeding policies were more or less the same as the NEP, just about everyone still calls it the NEP. Including those who were involved in formulating the NDP and NVP.

And here we are. 52 years after the poncy English gave us back our country, 40 years after the terrible events of 13th May and 39 years after the implementation of a policy intended to last 20 years.

Today, after all that, we’ve got a ruling coalition still smarting from a bloody nose given to it by Malaysians at the last General Elections — a coalition that continues to consider itself as the best option for the country, even as its components try their best to implode without any outside help whatsoever.

We’ve got an opposition coalition that consists of social democrats, Islamists and a slightly schizo, not to mention nepotistic, bunch of centrists — a coalition that somehow continues to defy common sense and continues to hold together[3].

Where am I going with all this?

Well, of late we’ve got some people ‘reminding’ the post-13th May, post-NEP generation that they should be mindful of history, of how this nation was born and the pains it had to go through in order to remain a nation.

As one of these ‘post’ generation ingrates, I just thought I’d put down those bits. To remind those reminding me that I can read. And so can a score of others in the ‘post’ generation.

Also of late, we have a local daily ‘reminding’ us that the Malays made a magnanimous gesture way back when 52 years ago in granting citizenships to a bunch of people who, apparently, couldn’t even speak the Malay language and these ‘immigrants’ should be ever grateful and to never betray the Malays. Oh yes, to never betray.

These ‘reminders’ were made, I suspect, partly to justify the continuing affirmative action policies in favour of the majority race, ostensibly so that they[4] can eventually become competitive against their fellow Malaysians.

I say ‘partly’ because at the same time, the reminders also sounded a warning to the other races that there are certain ‘rights’ provided under the aforementioned constitution that for all intents and purposes is to stand in perpetuity.

What those doing the reminding don’t seem to understand is that for the ‘post’ generation who were actually born in this country, none of that should really hold water any more.

Because we cannot keep looking into the past such that we forget to look into the future.

Learning from history so that we don’t repeat the mistakes is one thing, but paralysing ourselves from moving forwards because we’re afraid of making another set of mistakes is even worse.

And therein lies the saddest aspect of this whole thing. Because of what has happened in the time of our fathers, we now have a set of policies that has gradually resulted in pitting us against one another.

We have a set of policies that, instead of raising the standards of every Malaysian, has managed to ferment an environment of mistrust, suspicion and casual racism.

And before it gets any worse, we need to dismantle it, or at the very least, de-construct it and deform it into something new that would actually reach towards a point where it could someday be consigned as a footnote in history.

Because as it stands, we’re all losing out. Even the Malays. Probably, especially the Malays.

As a result of this policy, many in the ‘post’ generation of Malays have suddenly found themselves wondering if anything they’ve ever achieved could have been achieved without the nudging of the policies[5].

Furthermore, they’re not the only ones asking themselves. The other races and even the other Malays question the achievements.

And when Malays like me raises this, there would always be other Malays ‘reminding’ us that we, too, are beneficiaries of this seeming largesse.

That we too, have progressed and been uplifted by the affirmative action policies. That we, too, should not be ungrateful enough to even have the temerity to suggest that the very policies that have helped us to be where we are today, be removed.

How could we suggest that, they ask? How could we want to have the advantages given to us be denied to those other Malays that come after us?

How could we deny the ‘rights’ of the younger generation, of our own children?

Well, because we should wish for a nation that doesn’t fight with itself.

Because we should wish for the succeeding generation to think of themselves as Malaysians first. Because, having been given a leg-up in the world, having reached the panacea of the middle-class, the advantaged Malays should already be able to push and nudge their young themselves, without having to rely on uneven policies. Because socio-economic disadvantage is colour-blind, and so should we be too.

As for me, I wish for the next generation of Malays to be stronger than me, faster than me.

I wish for them to be better than me, so that they won’t need this leg-up. So that they won’t need to be assisted to claim their place in the nation, along with their fellow Malaysian brothers and sisters.

Given the way we as Malaysians seem to be going, I may, however, be asking too much.

Endnotes:

[1] To which I am reminded of a scene in the movie Trainspotting(1996), where Mark ‘Rentboy’ Renton went on a rant to his friend Tommy, the middle of which went: “Some hate the English. I don’t. They’re just wankers. We, on the other hand, are colonised by wankers. Can’t even find a decent culture to be colonised by. We’re ruled by effete a***h***s. It’s a s***e state of affairs to be in, Tommy, and all the fresh air in the world won’t make any f*****g difference!” Quite.

[2] Article 153, in case you didn’t know already.

[3] Very much like Malaysia itself, as had been observed many times before. We are a country that seems to exist in spite of our best efforts to destroy ourselves.

[4] By which I mean ‘we’, since I am of that majority race.

[5] Something already pointed out oft enough by many other chinwags.

(This polemic is brought to you today by the letter ‘R’ and the words reform, rebrand, rejuvenate, relevant, remind and remand.)

Yusseri Yusoff is an engineer by training, a consultant by accident and a company man by necessity. He wishes that people would stop calling him to sell life insurance. It's death insurance he's looking for. He writes rubbish at http://www.mentera.org/ and pretends to be an intellectual at http://www.othermalaysia.org/

[pywong]

THE RAT RACE PART V – CH. 3: A REVIEW OF MALAYAN HISTORY
3.1: PRE-INDEPENDENCE (BEFORE 31 AUG 1957) – THE EVENTS

AD 1909 Anglo – Siam Treaty: Perlis, Kedah, Kelantan and Terengganu taken over by British from Siam. Siam retained Patani, Jala, Satun and Narathiwat.

Interesting fact relating to Southern Siam that ties in with a corresponding part of Malaysian history:

The southern region was an autonomous Malay Muslim sultanate until Thailand annexed it in 1902, provoking decades of tension, with the most recent period of unrest erupting in January 2004. -- AFP More… (http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/SE%2BAsia/Story/STIStory_389148.html)

[pywong]

RPK provides more background on the period between 1946 and 1957 to show how UMNO rewrote history. There was no fight for Merdeka, merely a management takeover by UMNO from the British. That is why til today, UMNO behaves as if they own the country.

Is it UMNO or MCKK that should be credited?

Posted by admin
Friday, 10 July 2009 16:49

The Merdeka movement or UMNO was not a ‘peoples’ movement but an elite class movement. And this is something not only the Malays but all Malaysians as well need to understand.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

We hear a lot of chatter about how Umno ‘fought’ for Merdeka or independence in 1946. Well, if there really was a ‘fight’ as they claim, it was a bloodless fight and it was not until 11 years later in 1957 that Malaya actually saw Merdeka. In the other countries around us they saw Merdeka a decade earlier because they spilled blood to gain independence. That proves you just can’t fry the egg unless you break the shell. Sometimes bloodshed is necessary to achieve the result.

Anyway, whatever UMNO might say, it was not ‘the people’ who ‘fought’ for Merdeka. 99% of ‘the people’ were farmers, fishermen and kampong (village) folks. Most never went to school and even if they did (some like the late Tun Gaffar Baba did go to school) it was to a Malay school and only until standard six (like Tun Gaffar). There were no Malay secondary schools at that time and certainly no colleges or universities.

So, who ‘fought’ for Merdeka? No, it was not ‘the people’. ‘The people’ were mostly uneducated and quite ignorant about matters of government, independence and so on. ‘The people’ would accept anyone who ruled the country whether it were the sultans, the Thais, the Portuguese, the Dutch, the British or the Japanese. They would kowtow to any ‘ruler’ and call all of them ‘tuan’.

The real ‘fighters’ of Merdeka was the intelligentsia -- the writers, the poets, the journalists, the civil servants and the elite or aristocracy -- in short, the educated class. In fact, most of the early UMNO leaders were orang istana (palace people) like Onn Jaafar, Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun Razak, Hussein Onn and whatnot. And these people were not only associated with the palace but received an English education as well.

In short, the majority of the ‘Merdeka fighters’ were ‘brown Englishmen’ who spoke English better than Englishmen. Malaysiatoday.... (http://mt.m2day.org/2008/content/view/24169/84/)

[pywong]

KMM: The Young Malay Union (1938.) : part 1

Posted by admin
Monday, 13 July 2009 00:00

Mustapha Hussain: Malay Nationalism Before UMNO

THE MEMOIRS OF MUSTAPHA HUSSAIN, 1910-1957

Even sadder, Malays could not count on the educated Malays to fight their case as most members of the new Malay elite had become Westernised. Thus, lower rung Malays were helpless to defend their lost rights and could do little to halt the economic onslaught by others.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

KMM, or the Young Malay Union, was founded by a group of radical left nationalists in their late twenties. Influenced by world events and by political events in Turkey in particular, they desired a political body similar to the Young Turks. The word ‘young’ did not preclude acceptance of members of any age group so long as they were “young in spirit.”

KMM wished to enter the arena of local politics as the saviour of nusa dan bangsa (country and people) before the axe of destruction could annihilate them. Homeland Tanah Melayu (The Malay Land), with Malays as its rightful owners, has already been renamed Malaya by the British, with ‘Malayan’ nationals about to inherit what Allah had bestowed on the Malays.

These young nationalists despised every form of colonial oppression. The British, initially accepted as protectors and peacekeepers, had become unbridled oppressors, like other European colonisers. Through their Residential System, policies were subtly introduced from London without giving the Malay Rulers much voice.

One bone of contention was the British policy of allowing tens of thousands of ‘others’ into Malaya. To administer Malaya, the British colonialists brought in educated foreigners from Ceylon, India and Hong Kong to help them exploit Malaya’s economic wealth. They also introduced uneducated workers from China and India. To maintain security, they imported troops from India and Burma. Why did the British not employ more Malays in both government and private sectors? Given a chance, they too would have proven progressive and capable! British excuses that Malays were unqualified and lazy did not hold water. Malaysiatoday.... (http://mt.m2day.org/2008/content/view/24202/84/)

[pywong]

Part 2:

“Independence”, “Freedom” and “Malay pre-eminence” were words which cropped up frequently in our conversations and discussions. But this exhilarating nationalistic awakening among KMM members could not be injected into the veins of the Westernised Malay bureaucrats who felt most uncomfortable discussing Malay poverty and backwardness. KMM resolved to shake them out of their wealth induced dreams.

KMM subscribed to “Equality, Fraternity and Liberty”, principles already preached by Prophet Muhammad (Praise Be Upon Him) in his time and again by French politicians in the 16th century. KMM members were already calling each other Saudara (‘friend’ or ‘brother’ in Malay), brother, comrade and ikhwan (‘brother’ in Arabic). Malaysiatoday.... (http://mt.m2day.org/2008/content/view/24203/84/)

[pywong]

KMM: The Young Malay Union (1938.) : part 3

Posted by admin
Tuesday, 21 July 2009 00:00

Mustapha Hussain: Malay Nationalism Before UMNO

THE MEMOIRS OF MUSTAPHA HUSSAIN, 1910-1957

Dr Burhanuddin was a remarkable religious figure, who combined the logic of science and Islam most effectively. Before World War II, he was a schoolteacher in Singapore and dabbled in politics from a distance.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Dr Burhanuddin Al Helmi

Dr Burhanuddin, a colossal name in Malay left politics, was not a KMM member. KMM only contacted him a week after the fall of Singapore. Ibrahim Yaakub and I interviewed him before suggesting that the Japanese Military Administration employ him as Advisor on Malay Customs and Religion. Dr Burhanuddin accepted the post graciously. Had he declined, KMM would have brought in Ustaz Abu Bakar Al Baqir, founder of the religious institute, Madrasah Maahad Il Ihya Assharif in Gunung Semanggul, Perak. Malaysiatoday.... (http://mt.m2day.org/2008/content/view/24204/84/)

[pywong]

Wasiat! What's that?

Good try, UMNO. What matters is the Constitution.

Merdeka and the Malay rulers
17 Aug 09 : 8.00AM

By Clive Kessler
editor@thenutgraph.com

LOOKING forward, at the conclusion of the Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka's recent Prof Syed Hussein Alatas Memorial Seminar, to Merdeka Day, the Raja Muda of Perak recalled another anniversary.

On the threshold of independence on 5 Aug 1957, the Malay rulers issued a declaration, their last political testament before the nation and their subjects achieved national sovereignty.

Consenting to Merdeka

The constitution of the emerging independent nation had already been formally enacted by legislation in the British Parliament and the Federal Council of Malaya. But on 5 Aug, the nine Malay rulers agreed to affix their signatures signifying their assent to the new constitutional arrangements. In doing so, they issued their wasiat, meaning primarily a legal will or testament, but also with connotations suggesting a sacred heirloom or legacy.

They bestowed this wasiat, they said, upon the Malay rakyat, their original subjects. In it they affirmed several points. The name of the land was Persekutuan Tanah Melayu; one-half of that land would be set aside for Malay Reservation; the Malay Regiment would be their instrument to protect the Malay future, their subjects' and their own; they guaranteed the sovereignty both of the government and their own royal position; Islam was to be the religion of the new federation; Malay was to be its language; and the rulers undertook to guarantee the special position of the Malays, together with the legitimate rights of the nation's other citizens. These points from Raja Nazrin Shah's speech on 6 Aug were the front-page highlight in Utusan Malaysia the following day. The full text appeared on the editorial page.

This wasiat was issued on the rulers' initiative to assert the historical continuity of Malay political power and sovereignty residing with them and now through them within the new nation.

Whatever the original legal standing of this royal affirmation, issued after the formal enactment of the constitutional instruments of Merdeka, it has now been declared sacrosanct. Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak announced that solidarity between rulers and rakyat was inscribed within Malay history itself. Umno vice-president and Defence Minister Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi characterised the wasiat as the pre-independence rulers' last word and binding injunction to the entire people, non-Malay as well as Malay.


Raja Nazrin Shah (Public domain)It was different and distinct from any negotiated intercommunal "social contract". Barisan Nasional-installed Perak Menteri Besar Datuk Seri Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir insisted that, as the foundation of nationhood, this wasiat is itself the basis of any "social contract". Any attempt to deny it would imperil national stability.

Consent in context

One may read the rulers' wasiat literally, in isolation. This view would imply that Merdeka could not have been achieved without the issuing of the wasiat signifying the rulers' consent. National sovereign independence exists only by virtue of royal grace, favour and beneficence. Yet where its words correspond with those of the constitution these matters were already decided, and where they do not (as when they declare that Islam is the religion, not the "official religion", of the federation) the constitutional wording is authoritative.

But the royal wasiat cannot be read simply in its own terms, literally and out of context. It came at the very end of, even after, a long process. Initially the rulers had been wary of Merdeka. They feared for their standing as heads of the Islamic religion that underpinned their position in their separate states.

Very late in the process, they accepted assurances that their accustomed positions would not be diminished by the creation of an independent national federation with Islam as its official religion. Satisfied that Merdeka would not encroach upon their prerogatives as state heads of Islam, they agreed to the constitutional proposals that emerged from the Reid Commission. The British government was delighted (published documents note) that, late in the day, the rulers had "changed their tune" on these matters, ensuring a smooth process of political evolution.

New power, and old

The British government had made it clear to the rulers that power was shifting from them. Britain was now dealing with the popularly supported leaders of a new and prospectively modern nation. The rulers were given to understand that they had a clear choice: to go along with the creation of a new political order or to be sidelined.

The issuing of their wasiat, once they had agreed to terms on the virtual eve of independence, was the proud action of dignified, tradition-conscious men in the face of the inevitable, of dramatic and far-reaching changes. Britain had no objection, or any interest in preventing its declaration. Nor, from Britain's standpoint, did it have any constitutional status.

The formal statements of such focal people carry great cultural weight and authority. Their wasiat affirming their consent and giving their blessing to Merdeka was stamped at the time with their great prestige. It can still be made, by contemporary politicians, to convey great force even today.

Malaysian flag billowing in the wind
(Pic by Chris2K / sxc.hu) Clarifying the foundations of nationhood

But if the Malay rulers' final pre-independence admonition is to enjoy the great prestige, and carry the enormous political weight today that some political leaders now wish it to bear, it is strange that until now it has remained so little known. Raja Nazrin's recent reminder sent leading historians scurrying to their documentary sources, fruitlessly.

The royal wasiat does not appear in the published British archival sources of key documents on the "Merdeka process". Its omission is not surprising. In the independence negotiations, Britain was mainly concerned to resolve technical constitutional matters, including such questions as nationality, citizenship and legal appeals as well as defence arrangements. It preferred not to become involved in "local matters". These it left to be worked out by the local players themselves. They could be settled in open politics between Umno and its Islamic and radical Malay rivals; and more politely between Umno and its Alliance partners, especially the MCA, in intercommunal matters, and between the Umno leadership and the Malay rulers over matters of Malay political tradition.

Those who now wish to invoke the 1957 wasiat and make it render important political service might well make that document, its provenance and transmission and all relevant related materials publicly available. That would allow all Malaysians to fully comprehend the processes that led to this nation's independence and the role that the Malay rulers played towards achieving it. The foundations of modern nationhood cannot be left shrouded in mystery.

Clive Kessler co-authored Sharing the Nation together with Norani Othman and Mavis C Puthucheary. He is Emeritus Professor of Sociology and Anthropology at the School of Social Sciences and International Studies at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia. The Nut Graph.... (http://thenutgraph.com/merdeka-and-the-malay-rulers)

[pywong]

THE RAT RACE PART V – CH. 3: A REVIEW OF MALAYAN HISTORY
3.1: PRE-INDEPENDENCE (BEFORE 31 AUG 1957) – THE EVENTS

During our younger days, we found history deathly boring. We did not realize then that history was a very powerful tool used by the Ruling Class for indoctrination, manipulation, propaganda, misinformation and spreading of lies.

George Santayana (Spanish-born American Philosopher, Poet and Humanist) said:

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. (http://thinkexist.com/quotation/those_who_do_not_learn_from_history_are_doomed_to/170710.html)

And Hitler’s Minister of Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels (http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/goebmain.htm)said:

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” Repeated Lies. (http://thinkexist.com/quotation/-if_you_tell_a_lie_big_enough_and_keep_repeating/345877.html)

Naturally, nowadays, we don’t use such titles anymore. So we have Minister of Information, often supported by the Minister of Home Affairs. Their jobs are to lie to the public to keep them quiescent. Still, Goebbel’s Principles of Propaganda (http://www.psywarrior.com/Goebbels.html) are constantly referred to by those distinguished people.

31 Aug 1957: Merdeka. Political power was handed over to UMNO giving them control of the intelligence services (Special Branch), the police, the army, the bureaucracy in particular the National Registration Department in charge of citizenship. The mantle of “protector” of the Malay rights passed from the British to UMNO. MCA and MIC were retained as junior partners to control the Chinese and the Indians. They were left in charge of the economy. But the real masters were the British who controlled 80% of the economy and had stationed a Commonwealth army to fight the MCP. So, the British found a new formula to continue their control of Malaya with UMNO replacing the sultans as the new figurehead - neocolonialism. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neocolonialism)

What Independence?

by William Leong Jee Keen, MP Selayang.

On this August 31st, we shall celebrate the 52nd anniversary of the British leaving our country. I did not say we are celebrating the 52nd anniversary of our independence. This is because our people have not enjoyed real liberty, democracy or justice. Without liberty, democracy or justice there is no independence.

In these 52 years the oppressive rule of a foreign colonial master has been replaced by the oppressive rule of a local master. They rule with an iron fist. They use the same instruments of oppression as the British did. They use the ISA, the Sedition Act, the Printing Press & Publications Act and detention without trial. The freedom of assembly, the freedom of expression and the freedom to live a life of dignity free from fear and oppression are illusions.

In these 52 years the yoke of a foreign colonial master has been replaced by the yoke of a local master. They use the same policy of “divide and rule”. They survive by feeding off racialism. They survive by fostering divisiveness. They survive by preaching religious intolerance.

What Teoh Beng Hock died for

Malaysians will not know real independence, will not be free and will not enjoy democracy unless this oppressive regime is thrown out. They must be thrown out just like Teoh Beng Hock was thrown out from the 14th floor of the MACC office. We must not forget Teoh Beng Hock. We must not forget what he stood for. More importantly, we must not forget what he died for. He lived to help Malaysians in the struggle against corruption and oppression. He died so that our struggle can live. He died fighting for justice.

What Justice?

Without justice we cannot say we have liberty or democracy or equal rights. We cannot say we have liberty or freedom when Tamil schools have no tables and chairs. When in Sabah and Sarawak, schools have no electricity. A child that is illiterate is not free. We cannot say we have democracy or equal rights for women, when a Chinese girl with 9A1s cannot enter a university. A girl without a job has no rights. We cannot say we have freedom of choice when a man cannot feed his family. A starving man has no choice.

Liberty, democracy and freedom are meaningless words when there is no justice. Justice is political liberty. Justice is economic independence. Justice is equality. There is no political liberty when you vote out of fear. There is no economic independence when you give your support out of fear your son’s scholarship will be withdrawn or your license will be withdrawn. There is no freedom of choice when you elect a party out of fear for your contract or your business. This is what has been happening in these 52 years and this will continue if we do not act. There will be many more Teoh Beng Hocks and many more Port Klang Free Zones if we do not stop them.

What One Malaysia?

Najib says he wants One Malaysia. Teoh Beng Hock’s death has shocked us back to reality. We cannot just listen to rhetoric. We must look at the deeds. When we look, we see what has been done, is a far cry from what has been said. The Perak government has been stolen from its people. Najib has now declared his intention to grab the Selangor government.

The MACC is a tool. It is used to de-stabilize the Pakatan Rakyat government. Teoh Beng Hock was interrogated throughout the night. He was grilled for buying RM2,400 worth of Malaysian flags. No one has been grilled when PKFZ loss RM12.6 billion. The MACC officers are raiding the Pakatan Exco members’ office so often they are becoming fixtures. Cars and cows and Malaysian flags have become a fixation of the MACC. MACC has not shown the same enthusiasm when it comes to BN assemblymen who used up their annual allocation of RM500,000 in 2 months before the general elections. The MACC has also not shown any interest in the trips by the former chief minister and his family to study the river system in Disney Land. There is no investigation into how the former chief minister can afford to purchase a multi-million ringgit mansion that is beyond the means of a chief minister’s salary.

Barisan Nasional machinery is now on the move. Books attacking Anwar Ibrahim and Khalid Ibrahim are being distributed. The authors of these books are sowing the seeds of hatred and contempt. They desecrate the Hindu’s sacred cow in a protest filled with bigotry. They protest against a Hindu temple built 150 years ago when the area was a plantation that today, just like its devotees, the estate workers, had been left behind by development. They have forgotten Muslims were invited to practice their religion amongst the people of Yathrib. They are beating the drums of race and religion and the tone is becoming harsher with each beat.

The people must now decide. There cannot be any fence sitters. There is no middle ground.

When Teoh Beng Hock was thrown out, the people of Malaysia was thrown together with him into the sea of political troubles. Whether Malaysia will sink or swim is now up to the people. The people must decide once and for all what is right and what is wrong. There cannot be a neutral ground.

Dante said:

“ The hottest place in Hell is reserved for those who remain neutral in times of moral crisis.”

Today in Malaysia there is no place for neutrality. Malaysians must make their choice now.

If we want to know what is evil and what is right, we must use our moral compass. It is only when we know the direction where justice lies can we know where we must stand. Do we want to choose liberty and justice which are always right or do we want to choose corruption, hatred, arrogance and oppression which are always wrong? The choice is clear. Every Malaysian must make his stand.

When you stand for liberty we stand with you.

I want to tell you that when you stand for liberty, we will stand with you. When you defend democracy, we will be your shield. When you fight for justice, we will be your sword. We will always be with you.

They assaulted Anwar Ibrahim. They threw him in jail for 6 long years. They call him a traitor and worse. But Anwar will always be here to fight for you.

They hounded and harassed Lim Kit Siang. They detained him in Kamunting. But Lim Kit Siang will always be here to stand by you.

They attacked Tok Guru Nik Aziz and try to humiliate him. But Tok Guru Nik Aziz will always be here to protect you.

We have been tested. They have thrown everything they have at us but we are still standing and we are still here.

We were here in November 2007 when a sea of yellow marched for a free and fair election. This was BERSIH. We were here in December when thousands in orange marched for equality. This was Makal Sakthi. This was the ripple that started the tsunami. Barisan Nasional was swept out of 5 states. Since then Barisan Nasional has become more extreme in their policies. They have become more brutal with the people.

When we Hope

So on 1st August, the lovers of justice and liberty marched again. Again Barisan Nasional responded with violence and brutality. 638 people including women and children were arrested. Despite the police shutting down the city, despite the many road blocks and barricades, despite the arrest of those wearing black, the number who succeeded in gathering far exceeded my expectations. But the size of the gathering cannot be bigger than my hope for Malaysia. My hope is for every one that braved the tear gas and water cannons there will be many thousands more. We want hundreds of thousands to march with us. We will march from under the shadow of fear into the light of justice. My hope is that the flame burning in each who gathered that day will kindle the hearts and minds of many thousands more. Malaysians will find the courage to stand up for principles and convictions. We must stand up for what is right.

This is my hope and this is the hope of all Malaysians. Truth, love and justice will prevail over the forces of hate and oppression. This will only happen when the silent majority refuses to remain silent anymore. This will only happen when the voice of the majority is finally heard. We must be confident that oppression and corruption cannot endure. We must take comfort that truth and justice will always prevail. But this can only be achieved if we fight for it. We must fight today for a better tomorrow.

Looking Back in the Future

Do not let our children look back and say that these are dark days. Let them say that these are great days. These are the most glorious days that our country ever had. These days will be remembered as the days when we were called, we answered. We stood up. We stood together shoulder to shoulder irrespective of race or religion. We fought and we prevailed. Each of us played our part according to our strengths. Our children and their children will look back on these days and celebrate it as the days we became ONE NATION. These days will be etched in our Nation’s history as the days we won over injustice and oppression. These will be the days we celebrate THE TRUE MERDEKA.

Thank you, Xie xie , vanakam.

William Leong Jee Keen
29th August 2009.

[pywong]

THE RAT RACE PART V – CH. 3: A REVIEW OF MALAYAN HISTORY
3.1: PRE-INDEPENDENCE (BEFORE 31 AUG 1957) – THE EVENTS

George Santayana (Spanish-born American Philosopher, Poet and Humanist) said:

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. (http://thinkexist.com/quotation/those_who_do_not_learn_from_history_are_doomed_to/170710.html)

And Hitler’s Minister of Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels (http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/goebmain.htm)said:

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie.

This is the part of history that UMNO does not want us to know about.

Deleted from victors' history: The other freedom fighters
K Kabilan, Aug 31, 09

At midnight on Aug 30, 1957, millions of Malayans rejoiced the momentous occasion of the nation's father Tunku Abdul Rahman replacing the Union Jack with the Malayan flag.

About 450 kilometres away, deep in a thick jungle at the border of Malaya and Thailand, a smaller band of brothers (read: armed comrades) was huddled in front of a fire, pondering what would that act of lowering the Union Jack mean to them.

Fifty-two years on, they are all bitter that the truth about their role in gaining independence for the country remains unrecognised, and are worried that it would die with them.

This group of men and women – all members of the fearsome 10th Regiment of the Communist Party of Malaya led by Abdullah CD – have been based in this border area since the end of 1953 following a continuous onslaught against them by the British forces.

Numbering about 550 people, these guerrilla fighters had waged a war to get rid of the British since the formation of their regiment on May 21, 1949. They were part of a larger CPM war unit under its Malaya National Liberation Army which had about 8,000 fighters at its peak.

However, with the declaration of Emergency in 1948, the party was banned and for the next 12 years, they were in constant battle with the authorities (first the British, then the Malayans with the help of the British) who were adamant about getting rid of the communist guerrillas.

The resulting offensive drove many communist guerrillas into the Thai-Malaysian border, where the subsequent Malaysian government continued their attacks until a peace deal was struck in 1989.

By 1989, the strength of the CPM had dwindled and following the peace agreement, they settled in four 'peace villages' in southern Thailand.

What remains now is a history in the perspective of the victors where these CPM guerrilla's are demonised as terrorists.

In view of the nation's 52nd Merdeka, Malaysiakini recently visited one such communist 'peace village' in Sukhirin, southern Thailand, to talk to some of these battle-hardened “communist insurgents” on their role in gaining independence.

The village – Kampung Chulaborn 12 – is home to about 460 people, made of the families and extended family members of the original Regiment 10 members.

It had about 260 people – mostly ex-communist members – when it was established in 1989. Today, the remaining war veterans include Abdullah CD, his wife Suriani Abdullah and about 20 of his comrades.

People were suffering under the British

The 10th Regiment was established in Temerloh by Abdullah CD and as such most of its members had come from Temerloh and other parts of Pahang.

One of them is Shukor Ismail, now 80, who was taken in by the communist ideology in 1948 and was a pioneer member of Regiment 10.

“At that time the people suffered under the British rule. We had just come out of the Japanese occupation, which was also a painful period. Many had already started feeling that we did not need the British to rule us,” he recounted outside his attap house in the peace village.

“The farmers were feeling the economic pinch as they were not getting enough. It seemed as though all our hard work and money was being shipped off to London for the empire.

“I started my war against them because of this – they took what's mine to enrich themselves,” said Shukor, whose body was clearly showing the evidence of hardship it had undergone.

He added that the people of Temerloh had an early start in nationalism as a result of the anti-British war initiated by Dato Bahaman in 1891 to 1895.

“His failure was the key to our struggle. The descendants of Dato Bahaman in Temerloh always knew that we had to get rid of the British and we managed to do that with CPM and our regiment.”

Shukor also had no doubt over the role played by his comrades in freeing this nation from the occupiers.

“This was our revolution and we were successful, despite what the rulers of Malaysia say today.

“It was our campaign which brought about the change in the mindset of the people that they could self-rule and that they could chart their own future without any outside interference.

“What had the others done actually? They were colluding with the British. And now they are denying us of our role,” he said with a tinge of anger in his voice.

'We drove them away'

Shukor went on to say that it was a falsehood to state that Malayan independence was gained without shedding a drop of blood.

“That makes no logic at all for the politicians to say we gained our independence peacefully. For me, the price of independence came with our blood being shed.

“We drove the British away. They left because they couldn't outwit us in jungle warfare and they were defeated as they knew they could never stop us from attacking them. They did not want to continue with that burden so they handed the country to Umno, knowing that the armed struggle would be between Malayans after that.

“And even when they gave the country to Umno, the British were still holding much influence, be it in security matters or in financial matters. They were also reaping the benefits of our economy,” he added.

He said that it was never the intention of the communist to fight among Malayans. The enemy was the British and “their stooges”, he added.

“I'm sad that the people in Malaysia today are unaware of this truth. They only believe in what has been told to them by the present rulers, who find it suitable to give prominence to whatever role they played in getting the independence.

“The present government is still living in that lie. It's in the history books, it's in their national monument... look at Tugu Negara. What do you see? You see British soldiers kicking local fighters. That does not reflect the correct historical fact,” said the former guerrilla who spent 40 years in jungle.

He also added that he felt independence was not fully attained by the people of Malaysia as “the residues of British rule are still prevalent in our system”.

“When it comes to political power in the nation, it is still a leftover of the British concept of race-based rule. Are the people fully empowered to do what they want for the nation? Is everyone equal in Malaysia today?

“What is different from the British divide-and-rule policy? Economically, is everyone well-to-do? Who is controlling the economy? Just like the British period, it is still in the hands of a group of people, not with the rakyat,” he noted.

The victor's version is skewed

This was a point which was agreed to by his colleague Awang Yaakob, a former team leader of the 10th Regiment.

The 75-year-old born in Temerloh, who goes by the name Hatta, joined the movement at the age of 15 in 1949.

He lamented that the youth of today had no inkling of the role played by his comrades in gaining independence.

“Our revolution was a success and it brought about independence for the nation but sadly our role is being kept in the dark by the politicians who ultimately benefited from our struggles,” said the pint-sized but valiant-hearted man with plenty of battle scars in his body.

“The younger generation today have no way to find out about the respective roles played by CPM, Umno and other nationalists in gaining independence because what we have now is only the version of one party - Umno.”

However, he said that he was glad that his family back in Temerloh and other friends knew the truth.

“My family back in Temerloh applaud me for that. Forget the politicians, for the rest, we have done a service for the nation,” he said.

Like his comrade Shukor, Hatta too spent almost 40 years in the jungle for which he bears many scars from gun-shot wounds on his body as evidence of his part in getting the British out.

“Of course we killed them (the British), but they also killed us. Don't just blame us for the all the atrocities. It was a war, you had to kill to stay alive and to keep up your struggle,” he said without a hint of regret.

“We were clear in what we wanted and we had achieved that,” he said wile insisting that it was time for the Malaysian government to reveal the truth about the roles played by his communist comrades.

“The government is just fearful that its influence will wane if the people know the truth,” he said.

Women fought just as fearlessly

Another former communist guerrilla, Siti Mariam Idris, 83, meanwhile said it was the independence movement mooted by the Malay nationalists, who later joined the CPM, that paved the way for women participation in politics.

“In CPM we had so many women leaders, people such as Shamsiah Faker, Zainab Baginda and Suriani to name just a few.

“They played a big role in emancipating the kampung women on issues of being independent and free.

“Are these facts reflected in the history today? Are these heroines mentioned anywhere by the government?” she asked.

Siti Mariam, known as Atom among her comrades, joined the revolution in May 1949.

She hails from a little waterhole called Lubuk Kawah, the hotbed of nationalism in Temerloh at that time.

Atom was a section leader and was involved in major fights “with the enemy”, especially in Bukit Tuel and Bukit Rambutan in 1968/69.

Her ever-smiling face and down-to-earth persona clearly masks the fortitude she had in carrying firearms for the sake of her nation.

“I took up arms to free my nation, for my race and religion. I have no regrets for doing that.

“Women fought just as fearlessly for our ideologies as we had an equal role to play and were accorded the same level of support and respect.

"My only regret is that our fight for independence is being sidelined by the others,” she said.

Nowadays Atom is much more interested in mundane matters such as getting a new broom instead of tackling enemies.

But never for a moment can one dismiss this as a mark of people like Atom having forgotten their cause and revolution. That spirit of loving their nation is still pretty much burning bright in their hearts. Malaysiakini. Subscription required. (http://malaysiakini.com/news/111764)

[pywong]

There's another part to this story - the pragmatism of the Thai government. They let the communists stay in Southern Thailand and in northern Thailand, north of Chiangmai, they let the remnants of the Chinese Kuomintang, who fled China, stay and open up the land.

Why we stay here, even when we love home

K Kabilan, Aug 31, 09

Kampung Chulaborn 12, or Ban Chulaborn Patana 12, in Thailand is no ordinary village. It is located deep in a jungle with the nearest town Shukirin about an hour's drive.

The distance to this village from the border town of Golok is some 70 kilometres but the rugged terrain and poor road conditions mean a travel time of almost two hours.

The residents of this village are also a group of 'special visitors of the Thai government' for they are all members of the 10th Regiment of the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM).

This village used to be their base camp and after the 1989 peace agreement between the CPM, the Thai government and the Malaysian government, these former members of the party were permitted to remain living there.

When it started, the village had about 260 people, most of whom were CPM members and their families, who had agreed to lay down their weapons. They were led by their revered leader Abdullah CD and his wife, Suriani Abdullah.

Today their number stands at about 460 – including extended families and outsiders, and they are still under the watchful eye of their 'protectors', Abdullah and his wife.

“This is beautiful, peaceful village. We have what we want here. The crime rate is almost non-existent. We are a close community,” said 52-year-old village head and ex-communist Dome Za, a Malay-speaking Thai.

“Although I'm the village head, we still seek advice from Abdullah and Suriani on the running of the village,” he added.

About 20 veteran communist leaders, all peers of Abdullah, are still living in this village. Almost all of them were from Malaya originally.

They had joined the 10th Regiment in May 1949 and then moved to the Thai-Malaya border in 1953, to remain in the jungles until the peace deal was signed in 1989.

But why didn't these former guerrilla fighters return to their homeland?

'Guiding lights' of the regiment

Abdullah and Suriani, who had visited Malaysia a several times, including a visit to the Perak Sultan, were adamant in remaining in the village.

“We have our home here... our family is here, our friends are here,” Abdullah told Malaysiakini.

“Also I'm against the Internal Security Act as well as a host of other laws in Malaysia. I don't want them to catch me using any small excuse,” he said with his trademark laughter and slap on the thigh.

The influence of this couple is visible in the village but that is understandable as they were the guiding lights of the regiment during their war years in the jungle.

“We realise that it is time for the younger generation to take up the leadership role. We also realise that both Abdullah and Suriani are getting older and are not as healthy as they once were,” said Dome.

“We will surely miss them when they are no longer with us but I think we can manage somehow.”

For others, such as veteran guerrilla fighter Asi (left in photo), Abdullah and Suriani are like his parents.

“I joined the movement at the age of 11 and I have known them since I was 13,” said the 70-year-old Sungai Siput-born man of Indian parentage.

He is also the only remaining Indian communist left. (His story will be published tomorrow).

“I can't imagine my life out of this village,” said Asi, who is married to a Thai communist and has a daughter.

After the peace agreement, each communist member who wanted to return to Malaysia was given RM300 per month for three years by the Malaysian government.

Those who elected to stay put at the village got a Thai government financial assistance of 540 baht (about RM54) per month for three years, a house and six acres of land.

First batch of university graduates

“The Thai government has helped us a lot and continues to support us,” said the village head.

He added that the Thai princess Chulaborn Mahidol adopted the village in 1993 until 2004 and during that period, the village was supplied with electricity and water supply.

Today almost all houses have a television set with their distinctive long antennas to get better access. One or two houses even have Internet access using a satellite receiver.

There is a government clinic for the villagers with a hospital attendant on stand-by on all working days.

A museum to highlight the historical moments of 10th Regiment is a must-see at this village but it is in need of financial aid to continue running.

They also have a primary school attended by children from the village and other neighbouring villages. This year's intake stands at 88 pupils.

“We also have six of our young ones studying in universities in Thailand. They are our first batch of university students. We also have about 100 of our children studying in secondary schools outside of this village, either in Narathiwat or elsewhere in southern Thailand,” said Dome, whose son is one of the pioneer batch of undergraduates from the communist village.

'We don't want to return home'

Most of the villagers tend their plot of land with rubber or fruit trees but complain of a low return due to over-supply of fruits and low yield of rubber due to the climate.

“But I guess we will still call this place home. Back in Malaysia, we have nothing... only bad name perpetuated by the government's lies against our contributions although we had fought so hard for the sake of Malaya in the first place,” said veteran guerrilla fighter Shukor Ismail, 80.

“Even though I have no blood relations here... these are all my comrades, my friends and I want to be with them until the end. Not with some strangers, though relatives, in Malaysia,” he added, with a touch of irony.

“Malaya is still my country. I still have feelings for it. I love Malaysia, or I would not have struggled and sacrificed my life for it. However it just makes better sense to live in Thailand now.

“Not just because they have taken better care of us but also because of the fear of how we will be looked at if we return home,” added Shukor.

“For that reason, we don't want to return to Malaysia, our beloved homeland,” he said with a tinge of sadness and regret in his voice.

And this sums up the sentiment of almost all communist veterans in this village although some of them are in regular contact with their families in Malaysia. Malaysiakini. Subscription required. (http://malaysiakini.com/news/111765)

[pywong]

The last pickings of race ideology - Ooi Kee Beng (http://themalaysianinsider.com/index.php/opinion/breaking-views/36835-the-last-pickings-of-race-ideology--ooi-kee-beng-)

SEPT 4 - Thanks to the bloody war against Nazi Germany, Britain evolved in the history books from being a global empire that rationalised its conquests with ideas of racism into being the destroyer of racism.

This is one of the greatest paradoxes of modern history, and there is certainly a lot we can learn from it about the writing of history and about how global paradigms actually do shift, especially when blood has flowed.

After the horrors of racism came home to roost in Europe in the 1930s and 1940s, and tens of millions had died in the process, European mainstream politics could no longer make use of the notion of "race".

>From 1945 onwards, little support could be gained for arguments about purity of blood, and the notion of race in general. "Race" quickly became a political taboo in the continent of its birth.

In sync with the fall of racism and the discrediting of racialism, the empires of the West crumbled like black-and-white domino bricks. Throughout the world, once-inferior groups rose to take the reins of power and to rule themselves.

Although these empires easily disintegrated into states, the ethnic mix that commonly populates such structures would not separate as readily.

In many cases, the resulting nation-states had to come into being bloodily. The most dramatic of these was the partition of British India into the republics of India and Pakistan in August 1947 which left a million dead and displaced countless millions.

In some colonised areas, the Ideology of Racial Hierarchy was easily abandoned. However, white supremacy clung on, for example in regions like the breakaway Southern Rhodesia (1965-1975). It took its most prominent and disdainful form in South Africa, under the apartheid system that lasted from 1948 to 1993.

In British Malaya, one may say that the separation of Malaysia and Singapore in 1965 was necessitated by ethnic differences, in keeping with post-colonial trends elsewhere.

In order to neutralise ethnic tensions and put them out of play, Singapore took the short cut of strictly classifying ethnic groups so as to guarantee the right for each to learn its mother tongue, and for prevent residential segregation along ethnic lines.

In Malaysia, affirmative action in favour of the majority Malays was implemented in 1970 to correct socio-economic imbalances. However, this initiative has been warped to institutionalise racialist thought over the years, and its time limit discarded.

The Ideology of Racial Hierarchy, now backed by religious arguments, thus managed to survive in Malaysia, which thus has the dubious distinction of being perhaps the last bastion of a divisive principle of social organisation imported once upon a time into the region by colonial conquerors.

Thus, Malay supremacists can be seen freely expressing their racism in the mainstream press in a way that would lead to immediate and harsh government sanction in most other parts of the world.

Given the historical presentation above, we are hopefully seeing the tail-end of this overextended global phenomenon.

The swiftness with which the discourse of race was thrown into the rubbish heap of history, at least in Europe, was aided by the ideological dynamics of the Cold War that immediately followed the Nazi defeat.

The paradigm of class struggle rapidly and thoroughly came to define international relations for half a century.

With the end of the Cold War in the late 1980s, global capitalism took over as the discursive solvent of ethnic differences, wherewith the absorption of all human economies in the global melting pot is assumed to hold the potential to defuse group tensions.

For now, the main challenge to global economism - aside from its periodic collapses and increasing environmental destruction - seems to be the various forms of religious extremism that have sprung up in recent decades all over the world.

Malaysia's position today in this evolution of political thought is determined by its sad inability to discard past mistakes. Not only did it keep alive the institution of detention without charge or trial used half a century ago against communist insurgents, it has also continued practicing the Ideology of Racial Hierarchy as if it were indigenous to the region.

Mahathir Mohamed once boasted that the West had to learn detention without trial or charge from Malaysia after the 9/11 bombings in New York. Hopefully, the West will not seek to re-import racist discourse from the country as well.

As it is, great interest has been shown by black-majority South Africa in Malaysia's New Economic Policy and its applicability there. Hopefully, the South Africans will be vigilant enough to note the sad tendency that affirmative action that is aimed at benefiting the ethnic majority holds to evolve into counterproductive and archaic racism. - opinionasia.com
----------------------------------------------------------
Ooi Kee Beng is a Fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS), Singapore. His latest book is titled, Arrested Reform: The Undoing of Abdullah Badawi (Refsa; Kuala Lumpur, 2009).

[pywong]

THE RAT RACE PART V – CH. 3: A REVIEW OF MALAYAN HISTORY
3.1: PRE-INDEPENDENCE (BEFORE 31 AUG 1957) – THE EVENTS

During our younger days, we found history deathly boring. We did not realize then that history was a very powerful tool used by the Ruling Class for indoctrination, manipulation, propaganda, misinformation and spreading of lies.

20 Oct 1947: Hartal – general strike led by PUTERA-AMCJA (http://bolehland.com/2007/09/21/remembering-the-hartal/)

Fahmi Rezas Film on 1947 Hartal (http://anilnetto.com/2007/09/22/fahmi-rezas-outstanding-film-on-the-1947-hartal/).

Download from DVD quality film here: 1947 Hartal (http://salinankarbon.com/2007/10/23/good-news-really/)

This film demonstrated how the various communities, especially the working class, united in their fight against the British for Independence and clearly showed that there was no racial problems nor was it UMNO who alone fought for Independence. This was what UMNO did not want the public to know.

An indication of the importance of this event is that UMNO has consistently tried to suppress public knowledge of it. Mind you, this happened before UMNO even came to power! Do not miss this show!

More background on the 1947 Constitution: http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/echoes_of_the_past/first_all_race_political_action_and_the_peoples_co nstitution.html

[pywong]

THE RAT RACE PART V – THE MALAYSIAN RAT RACE
(A look at Malaysian history beyond race and religion)

Chapter 2: The Social Contract - How We Got It All Wrong!

THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE!

For 50 years both sides of the political spectrum believed they were right, blissfully unaware that they were conned as Rats!

We have to break free from the mental cage of race and religion and learn to look at our situation through the concept of class division and as Malaysians. Until we do, we will never be free.

Who needs a social contract?

Posted by admin
Sunday, 06 September 2009 11:52

By Kee Thuan Chye, The Sun

It is merely a ploy to remind certain groups that they should know their place and therefore not make any demands. Thus, to give attention to such a ploy and go through the rigmarole of working out a social contract would be to engage in a messy – and unnecessary – exercise.
LAST week, I heard on BFM Radio an interview with a Malaysian about the meaning of Merdeka. When he was asked about the so-called “social contract” that was supposedly made by our founding fathers, and whether he believed it existed, he said that if it didn’t, why don’t we make one now?

Who needs such a social contract? Why should there be one 52 years after our nation attained independence? You mean, after all these years of Malaysian citizens living together and co-developing this blessed land, we still need a social contract? Whatever for? Because we don’t trust one another? We need something akin to a pre-nuptial contract? Hey, brother, the wedding took place 52 years ago! Malaysiatoday.... (http://mt.m2day.org/2008/content/view/26518/84/)

[pywong]

Natives living off the land are outside the Rat Race and can't be exploited so easily. The solution for the Ruling Class is to drive them off the land. Hence all those land-grab cases in Sabah & Sawarak.

http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/2009/08/2009829113154312206.html

Spears versus bulldozers in Borneo

By Jonathan Gorvett in Sarawak State, Borneo
Thursday, September 03, 2009, 06:50 GMT

The Penan in Long Deloh say the land around their homes has belonged
to them for generations
http://english.aljazeera.net/mritems/Images//2009/8/27/200982785935739797_8.jpg

In the jungles of central Borneo, loggers and native tribes,
environmentalists and plantation companies, rights lawyers and
government developers are now locked in an increasingly desperate
battle.

The future of one of the world's last great rainforests is at stake.

The outcome of this fight could determine much beyond Borneo's borders
too, as environmental scientists become increasingly alarmed at the
effect deforestation taking place here is having on the world's
weather.

The current front line in this confrontation lies about 160km inland
from the town of Miri, in the Eastern Malaysian state of Sarawak on
the island of Borneo.

In recent days a string of barricades have gone up in this region, the
Upper Baram river, as native tribespeople try to prevent logging and
plantation companies entering what the tribesmen see as the last
remnants of their land.

Spears and machetes

One such barricade is outside Long Deloh where, across a narrow
logging track in the heart of the Borneo rainforest, a thin line of
Penan tribesmen defend a makeshift blockade with spears and local
machetes, known as parangs.

"This has been our land for generations and now they are trying to cut
down what little we have left," says Jackson Luhat Paren, the headman
of the village of Long Deloh, whose inhabitants built the barricade.
__________________________________________________ ______

"We are here because we want to preserve our land for the
next generation. Without our land we are nothing and we
will defend it with our lives if necessary"

- Jackson Luhat Paren, headman of Long Deloh
__________________________________________________ ______

"We are here because we want to preserve our land for the next
generation. Without our land we are nothing and we will defend it with
our lives if necessary."

The Penan claim that the land around their long houses is their Native
Customary Rights (NCR) land.

This is land that native people can claim under Sarawak law as their
own, if they can prove that they have cultivated it prior to 1958.

Yet the once-nomadic Penan have few documents to prove anything - some
even lack identity cards or birth certificates.

"This is where the whole problem lies," says Baru Bian, a lawyer based
in the Sarwak capital of Kuching, who has worked on the NCR issue for
many years.

"It is quite a challenge to prove a claim to NCR [land] in court,
while in the meantime, the government has gone ahead and issued
licenses to logging and plantation companies to work this disputed
land."

Oil palm plantations

While logging has continued in Sarawak for decades, it is the recent
growth of the oil palm industry which has become an overshadowing
threat for the Penan.

The government plans to have allocate one million hectares to oil palm
plantations by 2010. Oil palm trees provide a source of food and a
potential source of bio-diesel.

Yet many environmental scientists are alarmed by the effect of
replacing natural forest growth with a single species of tree.

"This is really the big story in climate change," says Lois Verchot,
the principal scientist for Climate Change at the Jakarta-based Centre
for International Forestry Research.

"One of the key problems in carbon emissions comes from cutting down
the rainforest. Perhaps 40-50 tonnes of carbon per hectare is stored
in an oil palm plantation, while 150-400 tonnes of carbon is stored in
a hectare of natural rainforest.

"You cut down the rainforest to plant oil palm, you release a huge
amount of carbon. Plus many animals can't live in oil palm
plantations. Orangutans, for example, need a completely different
forest habitat to survive."

Yet the state government of Sarawak argues that developing this land -
by logging, clearing and then planting for oil palm - is the best
chance the people of the state have for future prosperity.

Fighting poverty?

"The economics of it are simple," says Abdullah Chek Sahmat, the
general manager of Sarawak's Land Custody and Development Authority.

"The traditional way to use forest land maybe provides about 500kg of
rice a year, using slash and burn farming techniques that are also
environmentally damaging," he says.

Cutting down natural rainforest releases "huge amounts of carbon", says
Verchot

"This 500kg of rice is worth about $142 per hectare per year. If you
put the same land under oil palm, you'll make $3550 per hectare per
year at current prices."

"If you want people to get out of poverty, which way makes the most
sense?" he asks.

Meanwhile, the Penan, who are among some of Sarawak's poorest
inhabitants, are facing their own bleak battle for survival.

The 100 or so inhabitants of Long Deloh were nomadic until a few
generations ago, when they settled in two long houses at a remote bend
in the River Patah.

"The hills around here were deeply forested and full of animals,"
recalls Along Hot, a Long Deloh inhabitant and hunter.

"You could find leopards, wild boar and orangutans. The water in the
river was clear and you could drink it, you could use a net to catch
fish there were so many."

All that changed, these Penan say, when the logging companies arrived.

Water 'polluted'

"There were a lot of illnesses from drinking the water after the
logging company came," says Jackson.

"The animals started disappearing too, scared away by the chainsaws.
We also lost a lot of our fruit trees and fish ponds that became
filled with rubbish from the logging."

Some of the Penan are now facing severe shortages of food and drinking
water.

On August 23, the Catholic Church in Sarawak appealed for aid for a
number of Penan communities in the region.

A bad drought has exacerbated existing shortages.

Modernisation as a solution

The government, meanwhile, says that such crises can only be averted
if the Penan move out of the forest and into modern settlements.

"The Penans need education and medical care as part of the development
process," says local state assemblyman Nelson Balang, a member of
Malaysia's ruling Barisan Nasional group.

"Some Westerners want the Penan to stay as they are, in poverty," adds
Chek Sahmat of the Land Custody and Development Authority.

"But we must do what is in the interests of our own people, or we will
not be a free country."

The Penan, however, stand defiant.

"We have no choice but to defend this barricade," says Jackson.

"We are trying to defend our culture, our whole way of life. If we
lose this, what will be left for our children and our children's
children?"

Source: Al Jazeera
____

VIDEO: Plight of Borneo's Penan
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia-pacific/2009/09/20099352351871968.html
____

http://anilnetto.com/development-issues/penan-resist-logging-plantation-giants/

Humble Penan resist logging, oil palm giants
5 September 2009 at 1.31pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7w2otctyynE&feature=player_embedded

Penan forest inhabitants are battling to save their ancestral lands
from the might of plantation and timber companies, who have already
stripped most of the primary rainforests in Sarawak.

Whatever happened to the much touted "sustainable forest management"?
How were primary rainforests flattened for acacia tree and oil palm
plantations, dealing a devastating blow to biodiversity?

Look at the greed of these logging and plantation firms. And when it
comes to the interests of these giant firms vs those of ordinary
people (like the Penan, in this case) - you know whose side the
politicians will be on, as usual.

Check out this Aljazeera article here as well.
http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/2009/08/2009829113154312206.html
____

http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/111796

Natives given tips on how to defend their land
Joe Fernandez | Sep 1, 09 6:48am

Native landowners in Sabah have only themselves to blame if they eventually
end up landless and are forced to seek refuge in the shanty towns littering
urban areas.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse and inaction in the face of encroachments
onto their land is the sure path to landlessness.

This is the stark reminder that land rights and green activist, Kong Hong
Ming, has for participants at well-attended training workshops and seminars
for native landowners conducted by Pacos (Partners of Community
Organisations) Trust Sabah.

Kong was also briefly a state minister during the PBS administration
(1985-1994) and is presently the Sabah PKR deputy chief.

"Simply doing nothing and hoping that those who want to take your land away
will disappear one day is not an option," said Kong at the end of a two-day
Pacos workshop over the weekend in Kota Kinabalu for 200 native landowners
from all over the state and a delegation of Orang Asli from Perak.

"You as the native landowners must take the initiative and fight for your
land and rights. Don't expect someone else to do it for you. That will prove
very costly in the long run."

Kong, a senior practicing lawyer himself and formerly an engineer with the
government for 10 years, advised native landowners not to immediately seek
the help of lawyers or the courts to press their land claims. These are the
last options, not the first, added Kong.

"Even worse, there are people who keep running to this legislator or that
legislator, getting them to write letters here and there. Nothing will come
from all this. Don't go to the political parties and waste your time. They
are not familiar with the issues involved."

Fought many legal battles, won only one

Citing from his own experience as a lawyer, he said that he had fought many
battles in court on behalf of native landowners and lost every single case
except one - the Rambilin case.

In this case, justice Ian Chin ruled in favour of his client Madam Rambilin
Binte Ambit, a widow left some land by her late husband.

"This is the first time that a big company lost against a small landowner,"
continued Kong. "Justice Ian Chin was the same judge who had ruled against
my clients in almost all my previous native land cases.

"The difference between the Rambilin case and the other cases is that in the
former I based it on common law from Malaysia, from Australia and many other
countries. In the other cases, I based it on the Land Ordinance, which is a
deadender for native landowners when it comes to taking on the big
companies."

Kong cautioned against native landowners rushing to judgment by using common
law arguments but rather consider it as the last resort assuming other
aspects of their cases are in order.

Kong explained that to establish native customary rights (NCR) over land
that doesn't belong to a private party or the state, a claimant must have
had a house erected on the land in question and dwelt there for at least
three years, undertaken agricultural activities for a similar length of time
and planted at least 50 trees to a hectare.

"This is all you need to do to establish your claim as natives to NCR,"
explained Kong who fears at the back of his mind that somehow things may be
too late for far too many people in the state. "NCR land can also be passed
down under Section 15 of the Land Ordinance.

"Remember that you (native landowners) have been here in Sabah long before
Malaysia, before the British, before the British North Borneo Chartered
Company and certainly before any government was formed. You have your 'adat'
(customary rites) to protect you. The constitution allows space for 'adat'."

Establishing NCR claims is not enough however, warned Kong, "and constant
and consistent efforts must be undertaken to maintain the validity of any
such claims in the face of encroachments by other individuals, companies and
even the government. There will be attempts to divide you. Stay united and
think of the future of your children, grandchildren and generations to
come."

Practical steps to hold on to NCR land

Three steps must be taken to ensure that NCR claims are not eroded by the
passage of time, encroachments and inaction on the part of native
landowners, according to Kong:

1. 'Bantahan' (protest) to the Land Office in the case of encroachment by
parties who don't have a NCR claim to the land in question;

2. Ask the Land Office officially in writing, as per the proper format, for
a 'siasatan awam' (public inquiry); and

3. As a last resort approach the courts.

"Get the Land Office to acknowledge receipt of every written communication
with them," advised Kong.

"Files and documents can go missing and Land Office staff may be on the take
from others who are after your land. This has been proven in many cases in
the past."

The Land Office, said Kong, can and may ignore requests for a public inquiry
"owing to ignorance, apathy, pressure from people after NCR land or because
of its reliance on the Land Ordinance only."

However, native landowners need not worry. All they need to do is to make
three attempts, at three-month intervals, to have a public inquiry held and,
in the event of repeated failure, approach the courts.

"There are lawyers who can help you with matters like these," said Kong. "I
myself have handled many cases. In none of the cases have I taken even a
single sen - the kampung people are too poor - nor taken even an inch of
land in return."

Kong rushed to assure the surprised gathering that his only interest in the
matter, as a social activist, was "to ensure that the natives don't end up
losing their land to become refugees in their own country and squatters in
the shantytowns in urban areas populated by illegal immigrants".

"All this will happen, if they are not already happening, if you are not
very careful," predicted Kong bleakly.

"In the worst case scenario, short of the confiscation of your land without
anything in return, you are entitled to compensation under the law."

'You're nothing without your land'

Kong doesn't encourage the acceptance of compensation, however, "since land
is forever - unless the government acquires it for a public purpose - and
you are nothing without your land".

The lawyer's best advice to the gathering was to "protect themselves from
themselves" and join forces to request the assistant collector of Land
Revenue to establish a communal title to NCR land.

"Communal titles will be held in trust for the people by the
assistantcCollector of Land Revenue and cannot be sold, exchanged or given
away to anyone," stressed Kong. "Communal titles can be passed on and, if
necessary, even subdivided at some point in time in the future into
individual titles."

During question time, at the end of his almost two-hour briefing, Kong was
peppered with questions from landowners from Pensiangan, Nabawan, Tenom,
Sook, Beluran, Kudat, Pitas, Ranau and Nabalu, among others.

One questioner surprised the gathering when he came armed with documents
showing that police in Beluran, along the east coast, had taken it upon
themselves to call for a meeting on July 16 in Telupid of native landowners
and a company, accompanied by its lawyers, who was after their land.
http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/103984

"This is nothing but abuse of power," said Kong.

"What have the police got to do with this case? They are probably trying to
assist the company involved to frighten the native landowners into
submission. Such things should never happen. Action can be taken against the
police officers involved since they minuted the meeting and there's ample
evidence."
____

Respect native rights verdicts to end Baram blockades
http://www.aliran.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1018:respect-judicial-decisions-on-native-rights-to-end-baram-blockades&catid=83:2009&Itemid=48

Global scrutiny of Penan blockades
http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/111892

[pywong]

This may not be apparent to many but this is an indication of the consequences of the Ruling Class trying to drive the natives off the land and forcing them into the Dollar Economy, whereby they have to work for pieces of paper printed by Bank Negara.

Human beings have the capacity for great evil if there is no accountability.

Gov't report confirms Penan girls were raped
Keruah Usit, Sep 9, 09

The government has made public a shocking report on sexual abuse of Penan girls and women by logging camp workers in Baram, Sarawak.

Women, Family and Community Development Minister Shahrizat Abdul Jalil yielded to pressure from civil society groups to investigate the claims. Malaysiakini. Subscription required. (http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/112450)

[pywong]

For the historical record.

Proof of betrayal

Collin Abraham
Sep 9, 09
1:29pm
It is important to emphasise that Tunku's 'promise' (statement of intent) of further peace talks after Baling prompted Chin Peng to make the unprecedented offer to 'lay down arms'. Indeed this offer so surprised Tunku himself that he requested the former during the talks to repeat it. Malaysiakini. Subscription required. (http://)

[pywong]

THE RAT RACE PART V CH. 3: A RAT’S INTERPRETATION OF MALAYAN HISTORY
Chapter 3.5: 1945 to 1957 How UMNO Sold Out to the British.

INTRODUCTION:
At the start of this thread, we said:
Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. George Santayana.

Another truth: History is written by the victors.

One of UMNO's tactics to control power is to create a monolithic race through constitutional fiat, that they can control using propaganda and religion. Michael Chick describes below their ludicrous attempts at doing so.

It also involves UMNO stealing a lot of Indonesia's cultural heritage and claim it as their own. This has created another crisis of its own - Indonesian Vigilantes Prepare For Battle in Malaysia . (http://mt.m2day.org/2008/content/view/27445/84/)


Identity Crisis

Posted by admin
Saturday, 03 October 2009 11:26

By Michael Chick

Malaysia is an interesting Lab Rat. These experiments are carried out by a herd of Migratory Half-Breeds who claim to be "Sons of the Soil". In fact, the citizens call them "The Government". And these interesting experiments are about seeking an identity, which UMNO (The Government) does not seem to quite grasp. Of course, the Citizens love them to death. Identity Crisis . (http://mt.m2day.org/2008/content/view/27440/84/)

[pywong]

When you don't have your own history, create it or better still, steal it. That has been UMNO's strategy over the past 6 decades. Indonesia is of course, fed-up with UMNO's thievery. So the need to assuage the Indonesian's anger.

Jakarta KL to hold history dialogue. (http://themalaysianinsider.com/index.php/malaysia/39479-jakarta-kl-to-hold-history-dialogue)

[pywong]

This is a useful perspective given by Tengku Razaleigh on our early history leading to the drafting of the Constitution. It should be clear that UMNO, in their obsession with maintaining their hold on power, has broken the Social Contract and violated the Constitution. The only option for us to regain our rights and freedom is to sack UMNO during the next elections.

Razaleigh on Chinese funerals and escaped crocs

16 Oct 09

The following is an abstract of the keynote speech by Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah in the launch of the book Multi-ethnic Malaysia.

I am honoured that you have asked me to address you today. I am not a scholar. All I can offer today are the personal views of a Malaysian who has seen a little of the history of this marvelous country, and tried to play my part in it.

I say a marvelous country, because Malaysia, for all its frustrations and perils, is truly special, truly beautiful. We are a coming together of communities, cultures, traditions and religions unlike anything anywhere else.It is not in political sloganeering or in tourist jingos that we find our special nature. We recover it only by paying attention to the concrete details of our everyday life and our particular history. Wonder is found in the details.

Let me tell you a story:

I grew up in Kota Bharu. My father was fond of Western cuisine and had a Hainanese cook who prepared the dishes he enjoyed.

One day, while the cook was feeding the tigers in our home, a piece of meat got stuck in between the bars of the cage.

(I should explain that we had a mini zoo in our home. My father was fond of animals and we shared a home with tigers, a bear, crocodiles and other creatures in the compound. The animals were very fond of my father. The tigers would come up to him to have their backs stroked. The bear would accompany him on his walks around the garden. The crocodiles made their escape in one of Kota Bharu's annual floods, which I always remember as a happy time because of the water sports it made possible. My father sent us out to look for them. What he expected us to do when we found them I am not sure.)

To return to my story, one day the cook was feeding the tigers, and a piece of meat got stuck between the bars of the cage. The cook tried to dislodge it. As he did so, he failed to notice the tiger. The tiger swatted his hand. Within 24 hours, our poor cook was dead from the infection caused by the wound.

Our family was in grief. He was dear to us all. He had no known relatives. So my father took it upon himself to arrange a full Chinese funeral for the cook, complete with a brass band and procession, and invited all the cook's friends. We children followed in respect as the process wove its way through the town.

Your own stories, if you recall the actual details, will be no less strange than my own. Some of the details here might scandalise people in these supposedly more enlightened times. They don't fit into the trimmed down, sloganised narratives of who we are and how we came to be.

This is over the years we have allowed politics to tell us who we are and how we should remember ourselves. We have let political indoctrination, jingoism, and a rising tide of bad taste overcome our memory of ourselves. We have let newspapers, textbooks and even university courses paint a crude picture of who we are, what we fear and what we hope for.

This depletes our culture, but there is also a political consequence. The picture that our current politics paints of us is devoid of wonder, and therefore of possibility.

Our politics has become an enemy of our sense of wonder. Instead it has sown doubt, uncertainty and fear. These are disabling emotions. It is not by accident that authoritarian regimes everywhere begin their subjugation of people by cutting them off from their past.

Systematically, they replace the richly textured memories of a community that make people independent, inquisitive and open with prefabricated tales that weaken them into subjugation through fear and anxiety. They destroy the markers of memory, the checks and balances of tradition and institution, and replace them with a manufactured set of images all pointing to a centralised power.

Our path to the recovery of a sense of nationhood is not through an equally crude reaction, but through a retrieval of our personal and collective memory of living in this blessed land and sharing it each other. The work done by the contributors to this volume are part of a civilising project to bring to light the fine detail of who we are, against the politicised and commercialised caricatures that have made our racialised politics seem natural and inevitable.

Our own stories, individually and as a country, are full of curious processions, walking bears, and escaped crocodiles. We should begin to wonder again at this amazing country we find ourselves sharing. In that wonder we shall recover what it is we love about being who we are, who we are amongst, and we shall more fiercely defend not just our own, but each others' freedoms.

Our constitution a Western imposition?

One place for us to begin this process together is our federal constitution.

The spirit in which Malaysia came to be is captured in our constitution. At the moment of our independence, Malaysia possessed firm foundations in the rule of law and was permeated with a spirit of constitutionalism.

The constitution is the ultimate safeguard of our fundamental liberties. These are liberties which cannot be taken away.

One view put out by those who are impatient with these safeguards is that our constitution is an external and Western imposition upon us, that it is the final instrument of colonialism. People have drawn on this view to subject the constitution to some higher or prior principle, be it race, religion or royalty.

Of course, the proponents of such views tend to identify themselves with these higher principles in order to claim extra-constitutional powers. These are transparent attempts at revisionism which erode the supremacy of the constitution. We should have the confidence to reject such moves politely but firmly, whoever advocates them, whatever their social or religious status.

The truth is that our constitution was built by a deliberately consultative process aimed at achieving consensus. The Reid Commission was proposed by a constitutional conference in London attended by four representatives of the Malay rulers, the chief minister of the federation, Tunku Abdul Rahman and three other ministers, and also by the British high commissioner in Malaya and his advisers.

This conference proposed the appointment of an independent commission to devise a constitution for a fully self-governing and independent Federation of Malaya. Their proposal was accepted by the Malay rulers and Queen Elizabeth.

The Reid Commission met 118 times in Kuala Lumpur between June and October 1956, and received 131 memoranda from various individuals and organisations. The commission submitted its working draft on Feb 21, 1957, which was scrutinised by a working committee. The working committee consisted of four representatives from the Malay rulers, another four from the Alliance government, the British high commissioner, the chief secretary, and the attorney-general.

On the basis of their recommendations, the new federal constitution was passed by the Federal Legislative Council on Aug 15, 1957, and the constitution took effect on Aug 27.

As you can tell from this narrative, the commission solicited the views of all sections of our society and had, throughout, the support and participation of the Malay rulers and the Alliance government. The process preserved the sovereignty of the Malay rulers.

The resulting document, like all things man-made, remains perfectible, but most certainly it is ours. It brought our nation into being, and it is our document.

The question of whether the federation should be an Islamic state, for example, was considered and rejected by the rulers and by the representatives of the people. Had we wanted to be ruled by syariah, the option was on the shelf, so to speak, and could easily have been taken, because prior to this the states were ruled by the sultans according to syariah law.

The fact that we have a constitution governed by common law is not an accident nor an external imposition. We chose to found our nation on a secular constitution after consultation and deliberation.

Our country was built on the sophisticated and secure foundation of a constitution that we formed for ourselves. For us to continue to grow up as a country we need to own, understand and defend it.

Sadly part of the memory we have lost is of our constitution and of the nature of that constitution. Today, in the aftermath of the scene-shifting election results of March 2008, people are restless and uneasy about the ethnic relations, and about their future. There is a sense of anxiety about our nation that is often translated into fear of ethnic conflict.

I think we should not fear. On an inviolable foundation of equal citizenship, the rights of each and every community are protected. These protections are guaranteed in the constitution. What we should be uneasy about is not so much ethnic discord, which is often manufactured for political ends and has little basis in the daily experience of our citizens, but the subversion of our constitution. Such subversion is only possible if we forget that this constitution belongs to us, protects us all, and underwrites our nationhood and we fail to defend it.

Our country had a happy beginning in being built on firm foundations in the rule of law. A strong spirit of constitutionalism guided our early decades. The components of that spirit are respect and understanding for the rule of law, and the upholding of justice and liberty.

That spirits is antithetical to communal bickering and small-minded squabbling over fixed pie notions of education, economy or whatever. That spirit has declined and with it has come all kinds of unease. It is time we recovered it. With its recovery will come our confidence as a nation once more.

The political framework of this country cries out for reform. But reform is not about the blind embrace of the new. That would be to fly from disorder to confusion. Our path to reform must come from a recovery of the "old" living spirit of constitutionalism, and the "old" values of freedom and justice, and the "old" memories each of us carries in themselves of what is good about our nation.

The power of the free vote

I have warned that Umno, like any other political party that has been in power for so long, must reform, or it will be tossed out by the people. The people themselves have had a taste of the power of their free vote.

They know that parties and governments answer to the people, and not vice versa, they want a repeal of draconian laws, and they have lost patience with corruption. They seek accountability, justice and rule of law. The people are ahead of the government of the day, but the principles they want to see applied are universal, and they are enshrined in our constitution.

It is not just Umno that needs to reform. The entire political system needs to change, to be in greater conformity with our constitution and in the spirit of the Rukun Negara, which says from these diverse elements of our population, we are dedicated to the achievement of a united nation in which loyalty and dedication to the nation shall over-ride all other loyalties.

We should not expect our political parties to reform of their own accord. Leaders who owe their position to undemocratic rules and practices are the last people to accept reform. The people must demand it. I say we need a movement embraced by people at all levels and from every quarter of our rakyat, to establish a national consensus on how our political parties should conduct themselves from now on.

What we need now is the rise of an empowered public. Democracy in Malaysia is fragile so long as public opinion remains weak. Our hope for a more democratic future depends on our ability to build a strong public opinion. It's good news that a vigorous body of public opinion, aided by information and communication technologies, is in making on the Internet. I myself rely on it through my blog. If not for my blog, what I say would scarcely get out in the mainstream media.

We need a freedom of information act, and I call for the repeal of the Printing Presses Act. It is silly that we limit the number of newspapers while every person with a blog or a twitter account can publish to the world. In limiting the printed media we have only succeeded in dumbing it down, so that those who rely only on the printed mass media and the terrestrial broadcast channels are actually the poorer for it.

Stopped from entering posh restaurant

Let me end by returning to the theme of racial harmony. I repeat: the constitutional guarantees are ironclad. We ought to feel secure in the constitution's protections of our rights. A free people must be a secure people.

Another story:

In 1962, when I was a delegate to the United Nations, the late Tun Ismail and I went out one evening to a posh restaurant on New York's East Side. The maitre d' turned us away firmly. No, he said, the restaurant was closed for a private function. We could see clearly that the restaurant was open. We understood that we were being denied entry because were “coloured”. This is despite the fact that our reservation had been made through UN's offices.

Today, in 2008, an African American man is president of the United States. He has just won the Nobel Peace Prize. In 46 years, and well within my lifetime, how far things have come. Had you told me in 1962, after that incident, that a black man would be president in my life time, I would not have believed you. This change did not happen without struggle.

From Leo Tolstoy to Henry Thoreau to Gandhi to Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela, we see a thread of conviction about the overriding ethical claim of our common humanity. It is more important that we are alike in being sons and daughters of God than that we are different. This is also the thread of a spirit and method of resistance. Where all reasonable persuasion fails, the final "No" to wrongdoing, the place at which the citizen stands up to defend something fundamental, is through peaceful resistance.

I allude to this only as a reminder of the final redoubt of the free citizen. Things may or may not have come to such a bad state that we must rise in this fashion, but let us be conscious of the power we hold in knowing just who we are and what we are capable of as ordinary citizens.

If the authorities do what is unjust, ride roughshod over constitutional rights and deny the sovereignty of the rakyat and the primacy of our constitution, we rest secure in the knowledge that history shows us that the just cause, defended stoutly, persistently and peacefully, will prevail. And sooner than we might expect.

TENGKU RAZALEIGH HAMZAH, Gua Musang MP, is a former finance minister and former Umno vice-president. Malaysiakini. Subscription required. (http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/115217)

[pywong]

Many East Malaysians have been clamouring around August every year for Sept 16 to be made a National Day without knowing or understanding the vagaries of history and the issues and complexities surrounding the formation of Malaysia.

Let me, as an amateur historian, go back to first principles.

In July 1955, the Alliance, comprising Umno, MCA and MIC won 51 out of the 52 seats of the Malayan Federal Legislative Assembly and effectively attained 'self-rule' in colonial Malaya.

On Aug 31, 1955, at the Umno General Assembly following the Alliance's electoral triumph, a resolution was proposed to urge the party leaders to seek political independence from the British colonial power "within two years".

Another delegate was reported to have amended the resolution by the addition of 'insyallah' (God willing) at the end of the resolution as according to him, to demand independence within a strict time frame was arrogant and not in keeping with the psyche of the humble Malays.

With great amusement, the amendment was accepted and the resolution passed by acclaim.

And so it was that the Merdeka Mission set sail for London in December 1955. That mission was a success and Tunku Abdul Rahman (right)came back in January 1956 and fittingly announced the "end to more than 400 years of foreign subjection" (in Melaka, where in 1511, the country first fell to foreign domination) on Aug 31, 1957, in accordance with the Umno General Assembly resolution.

The tonal significance of that date was soon explained to Tunku by his Chinese friends to be sang yet fatt (Cantonese pronunciation for 318) which could be homophonous with prosper from birth. That fact was never lost on the Tunku.

When the concept of an enlarged Federation of Malaya was publicly mooted (actually forced by the British, effete after a debilitating global conflict called WWII, wanting to shed its responsibilities for far-flung territories that were not of strategic importance) by Tunku in a speech in Singapore in May 1961 to the Foreign Correspondents Association of Southeast Asia, it was very readily accepted by Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew (left), who, without Malaysia, would have had his fragile PAP government overthrown by Lim Chin Siong's Barisan Sosialis.

Popular misconception by East Malaysians

With the British twisting his arms, Tunku was forced to accede to many demands including the 18/20 safeguards, which were to have been transitional provisions to protect the more backward East Malaysians from the more advanced and aggressive people from Singapore and Semananjong.

This gave rise to the popular misconception by many East Malaysians that during those negotiations, the Federation of Malaya was of standing as equal partners of the Crown Colony of Singapore, the State of Sarawak, the State of North Borneo and that the four equal entities joined to form the Federation of Malaysia.

These East Malaysians failed to distinguish substance from form. In substance and in effect, the Federation of Malaya was to take on three new member states to add to the 11 it already had. The 11-point star on the flag was amended to 14. The 11 stripes were raised to 14.

It was synonymous with the growth of the USA from the original 13 states, culminating in the joining of the 50th state of Hawaii in 1959. When that happened, the number of stars on the US flag was increased to 50.

The slight name change from Malaya to Malaysia has also been erroneously cited to bolster the notion that four equal parties, Singapore, Sarawak, North Borneo and the Federation of Malaya came together to form a new political entity.

Whilst the first three were then colonial possessions of the British Government, the Federation of Malaya was already an independent nation with membership in the United Nations Organisation (UNO).

Many East Malaysians still harbour the misconception that Tunku, a prince and the Prime Minister of an independent country was talking to Lee Kuan Yew and the community leaders in Sarawak and North Borneo as equals.

He was simply and plainly coerced (by the British for its defence) to make Malaysia happen even if it meant acceding to demands and conditions (which became part of the 18/20 points in the Malaysia Agreement).

Threat from Indonesians

The various background paperwork and enabling acts and ordinances in the legislatures of Britain, Malaya, Singapore, Sarawak and North Borneo to bring about the establishment of Malaysia were all dated Aug 31, 1963 (Tunku never wavered in his love for the sang yet fatt homophone).

Don't take my word for it ... go to the archives and see for yourselves.

Alas, trouble beckoned from next door. Indonesia's Sukarno, wishing to avert attention from the ill-effects of his rule, started ranting about neo-colonialism and questioned the verity of the new enlarged entity called Malaysia.

To appease a close neighbour, Tunku agreed to a fact-finding mission to be sent by U Thant, then secretary-general of the UNO to ascertain the wishes of the people of Sarawak and North Borneo.

In the event, due to problems such as transport and the far-flung nature of these two huge states, U Thant's mission could not issue its report in time for the Aug 31 deadline and reluctantly, Tunku had to postpone the proclamation of Malaysia to a later date some two weeks after the scheduled Aug 31.

Throughout the history of modern Malaysia, the Sept 16 date has been treated as an unintended aberration and in future years, the annual celebration date reverted to Aug 31.

Be that as it may that Sept 16, 1963 was historically the correct date of the entry of Singapore, Sarawak and North Borneo into Malaysia, it shouldn't be the case that it should now be celebrated as the Independence Day.

When Hawaii joined the United State on Aug 21, 1959, it did not demand that henceforth the rest of USA should abandon the Fourth of July and celebrate National Day on Aug 21.

Any Cantonese will tell you 169 sounds like yet loke kaw or 'play all along the way'. No wonder Tunku never ever wanted to celebrate Sept 16.

I have great sympathy for the grouses of East Malaysians. Everything seems to cost more than in Semananjong. Compared to tiny Brunei, the only one of the Borneo threesome to opt out of joining Malaysia, they seem to be lagging behind.

But the answer to their woes is definitely not getting Sept 16 recognised as National Day.

Thus rejoicing at yet another holiday would seem to me as pandering to the irrelevant or much ado about nothing.

Footnote: The Federation of Malaya, surrounded by a belligerent Indonesia, was most vulnerable in defence and Britain used the continued defence umbrella by itself and the Commonwealth (read as Australia and New Zealand) to coerce the Tunku to take in Singapore, Sarawak, North Borneo and Brunei.

Uncle Yap is a retired Chartered Accountant who spends quite a fair bit of his time reading old newspapers in the National Archives in pursuit of his interest in Malaysian history. He also runs BeritaMalaysia, a free Internet news service catering for the happenings in Malaysia and its immediate neighbours. Malaysiakini. Subscription required. (http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/115626)

[pywong]

Sunday April 6, 2008

Ruling the Rulers

In the first of a two-part series, Wide Angle columnist Huzir Sulaiman looks at the challenges faced by our Sultans throughout history.

IN 1779, the Dutch Governor of Malacca commissioned a study of Malay court ceremonies. The scribes took as their source a learned mosque official named Abdulmuhit who knew of the traditional ways of the Malacca Sultanate two centuries past. The resulting manuscript, the Adat Raja-Raja Melayu, mentions the ritualised insolence of the Prime Minister towards the Sultan.

According to the commentary of Prof Panuti Hudjiman of the University of Indonesia, when the Sultan summons the Bendahara, or royal Prime Minister, to attend a betrothal ceremony, “the Bendahara has a peculiar way of responding to this royal summons. When the messenger approaches him for the first time, he replies, ‘Datanglah kita mengadap’ (We will come).

“Instead of going straight away to the palace, the Bendahara takes a bath. Again a messenger is sent, only to be told by the Bendahara to return to the palace, as the Bendahara is coming. The Bendahara lets people wait for him: he gets dressed, and waits for a third summons before he obeys.?

“This is to show his position in relation to the king: the Bendahara is chief advisor to the king and is regarded as the power behind the throne. The use of the pluralis majestatis “kita” (the royal “we”) must be an assertion of superiority or arrogance.”

This is not just an isolated case being reported; the Bendahara repeats this ritualised show of arrogance when a new Sultan is crowned and the Bendahara is called back to serve, refusing to approach until the third summons.

We can see from the Adat Raja-Raja Melayu that the tensions between the Malay ruler and his powerful ministers were already encoded in the culture of Malay kingship at the time of its early flowering in the Malacca Sultanate – and I would argue that we are seeing echoes of it today in the recent standoff between Seri Paduka Baginda Yang di-Pertuan Agong, who is also Sultan of Terengganu, and the Prime Minister.

It’s tempting to interpret the degree of interest shown by Their Highnesses the Sultans in the recent selection of Mentris Besar as a sudden flowering of royal activism, to be viewed with either glee or concern, depending on your attitude towards the Federal Government.

Seen from a historical perspective, however, this supposedly new royal intervention in the political arena is just the latest recurrence of the natural and understandable desire of the Malay ruler to actually do a bit of ruling once in a while – a desire that in the last 100 years has been continually constrained by the demands of British imperialists and Malay nationalists alike.

We should not be surprised that the Malay Rulers are making noise now; rather, we should be shocked that they have been quiet for so long. Much as they once had to deal with a ritually rude Bendahara, Their Highnesses have been obliged to accept as graciously as possible the interference of others.

In the colonial period, in the years before World War II, the Unfederated Malay States of Kedah, Perlis, Kelantan, Terengganu, and Johor had British Advisors who in the course of their “advising” attempted with varying degrees of success to govern indirectly.

From 1896, the Federated Malay States of Perak, Selangor, Negri Sembilan, and Pahang had British Residents imposed on them by treaty, and who governed quite directly, making proclamations and decrees that began with the famously offensive formula “The British Resident is pleased to?”.

The Japanese Occupation of Malaya saw some Sultans deposed by the new invaders, and others intimidated into cooperation. After the Japanese surrender, the British Military Administration presented itself to the Malay Rulers as the sole authority capable of recognising them as legitimate. If the Rulers were deemed to have collaborated with the Japanese or, more crucially, if they were not prepared to sign a new set of treaties turning over all their authority to Britain, they would be removed.

Brigadier H.C. Willan’s report on the Sultans on Oct 7, 1945, is a chilling example of the cynical exercise of power:

“In my view it would be wise to approach the Sultan of Johore first with regard to the negotiations for the new treaties. I think in his present state of mind he will sign. He is a realist and is fully aware that he is dependent on H.M.G.’s support ?

“(The Sultan of Selangor) is a pleasant person with not a very strong character and at present is so overjoyed at the return of the British and re-recognition of himself as Sultan, that in my view, he will sign the new treaty ?’’

“In my view the Yam Tuan of Negri Sembilan should be approached next. In his present state of mind he is somewhat depressed and appears to me to be perplexed as to how his State can recover itself and would welcome directions rather than advice?.”

In the end, on pain of being deposed in favour of someone more accommodating, all nine Malay Rulers signed the MacMichael treaties, giving up virtually all their sovereign powers, except those relating to religion and Malay culture.

This first step towards Britain’s planned Malayan Union angered the burgeoning Malay nationalist movement, but scholars have pointed out that it was not so much the curtailment of the Malay Rulers’ powers that affronted Datuk Onn Jaafar and his comrades, as it was the British proposal that citizenship be granted to non-Malays born in Malaya.

It was the perceived threat to the powers of the Malay community, as opposed to the Malay Rulers, that truly galvanised the nationalists. (Indeed, Onn was arguably ambivalent about the Sultans, having in his younger days written newspaper articles critical of the Sultan of Johor.)

On March 30, 1946, the Malay Rulers were gathered in Kuala Lumpur to attend the installation of Sir Edward Gent, the new Governor. As Harry Miller tells it in his biography of Tunku Abdul Rahman, “That afternoon Onn personally conveyed to the Rulers a message from the United Malays National Organisation that it was the ‘desire of their people’ that they should not attend the Governor’s installation, and, indeed, they should ‘desist from taking part in any function connected with the Union.’

“The message went further: If the Rulers insisted on meeting the Governor they would be disowned by the people, who were determined to boycott the Malayan Union.”

Thousands of demonstrators gathered in front of the hotel where the Sultans were staying, shouting “Daulat Tuanku!” and “Hidup Melayu!”

As Miller puts it, “The Rulers walked down to the great crowded porch to receive the obeisance of the demonstrators. This was also a touching scene, although the more unyielding of the leaders in the U.M.N.O. said later, ‘We brought them down those stairs to teach them a lesson. They were lucky we did not destroy them completely for having signed the MacMichael treaties. As it was, we told them we would support them.’”

Caught between the “rock” of the British colonial authorities and the “hard place” of the angry Malay nationalists, the Malay Rulers complained to London that they were coerced into signing the MacMichael treaties, boycotted the Governor’s installation, and maintained a distance from him in public (while maintaining warm and cordial relations in private) until the British realised that the groundswell of opposition to the Malayan Union was too strong, and backed down.

The Federation of Malaya, the compromise constitutional scheme reached in 1948, saw Britain appointing Advisors who were truly advisory, with the states’ executive powers passing to the Mentris Besar.

Nonetheless, it appears clear that the Malay Rulers still feared that they would be emasculated by Umno, and Onn could not entirely reassure them.

As Sir Malcolm MacDonald wrote to Sir Henry Gurney on Dec 15, 1949, “In my talk with him on December 12th, Dato’ Onn told me of his recent talk with the Mentris Besar ? They asked him whether he proposed that the Rulers should be ousted in the near future. He replied emphatically in the negative. He said that probably in due course at least many of the Rulers would be abolished, because the Malays themselves would wish this. But that would not happen for a long time and depended on Malay public opinion.” (Emphasis mine.)

For Malaysians of my generation, who have grown up conditioned by the Sedition Act to not entertain the slightest republican thought, it is shocking to hear the founder of Umno coolly tell the Sultans’ ministers that he supposed Malays would one day wish for the abolition of their Rulers.

Six decades later, that day is still unthinkable.

But from the pre-Merdeka negotiations of the Alliance through to the events of the 1981-2003 era – when the metaphorical Bendahara was not so much ignoring the Sultan’s summons as trying to do the summoning – the Malay Rulers have had to stoically endure many more attempts to curtail their powers. I will examine this in my next column.

Huzir Sulaiman writes for theatre, film, television, and newspapers. Part 1 (http://thestar.com.my/lifestyle/story.asp?file=/2008/4/6/lifefocus/20851393&sec=lifefocus)

Understanding the Karpal Singh sedition trial
THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Wednesday, 16 December 2009 Super Admin

You see, his (Mahathir) whole aim is to upset the constitution and turn this country into a republic. His son was in London talking quite openly amongst the students that his father is going to be the first President of Malaya. I heard his daughter was also talking about it here. Apparently she was caught talking about it at a party not knowing that behind her was one of the Tengkus from Negri Sembilan who overheard it. She said that as soon as the constitution amendment is signed, it is finished, we can become a republic.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Karpal Singh is on trial for allegedly making a seditious statement against the Sultan of Perak during a press conference at his office on 6 February this year. The trial adjourned today and will resume in March next year.

What most Malaysians do not understand is what constitutes sedition when it comes to comments about the Rulers. One Deputy Prime Minister, Tun Ghafar Baba, already clarified this back in the 1980s when he said that criticising the Rulers is allowed as long as you do not ask that the Monarchy be abolished in favour of a Republic of Malaysia. Then it would become seditious.

In fact, according to Abu Bakar, the First Caliph of Islam, even chopping off the heads of the Rulers is allowed, let alone just criticising with mere words. And Abu Bakar was supposed to be one of the four ‘Rightly Guided’ Caliphs, rightly guided by God, that is. And are the Malaysian Rulers above the Rightly Guided Caliphs of Islam?

The greatest critic of the Monarchy is Umno and one-time Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad. It is no secret that Mahathir feels nothing but contempt for the Rulers. Umno knows this. And the Rulers know this as well. But why is it only when the opposition makes comments about the Monarchy -- and mild ones at that too -- it is seditious, but not when Umno or the Prime Minister does the same thing -- and much worse comments on top of that?

To understand the ‘war’ between Unmo and the Rulers that resulted in the Rulers getting dragged through the mud in the 1980s, read the piece below that was published in The Star on 20 April 2008.

*************************************************

The Mahathir years

In the second segment of Ruling the Rulers (the link to part 1 below), an analysis of the challenges faced by the Malay Rulers over the years, Wide Angle examines the post-Merdeka period.

By Huzir Sulaiman, The Star

THE 1960s, although a tumultuous decade for many other reasons, was relatively quiet in terms of intervention by the Malay Rulers in matters of administration and politics.

The relationship between the Sultans and the Alliance Government was still benefiting from the effort both parties had been obliged to make to find common ground in the run-up to their negotiations with the British in 1956.

(Eventually, the Rulers had been persuaded to drop their opposition to the granting of citizenship to non-Malays born in Malaya, a provision insisted on by the British, championed, naturally, by the MIC and MCA, and accepted by Umno only with a certain amount of trauma.)

But the honeymoon period of the new constitutional monarchy couldn’t last forever.

By 1981, when Dr Mahathir Mohamad succeeded Hussein Onn as Prime Minister of Malaysia, the country was in the giddy throes of a surge in royal activism.

The period from 1977 to 1983 saw several Sultans make their presence felt in the political arena to a far greater degree than had been previously seen.

The close of Hussein Onn’s premiership saw conflicts between several Sultans and Mentris Besar erupt into the open.

In 1977, the Sultan of Kelantan attempted to intervene in a crisis caused by the deteriorating relations between PAS and Umno (then in a short-lived alliance).

The Sultan attempted to postpone the dissolution of the State Assembly following a vote of no confidence in the Mentri Besar, in order that a replacement MB could be found from PAS without elections being called.

Unrest followed, which was ample pretext for the Federal Government to declare a State of Emergency in Kelantan. In the subsequent State elections, Umno came to power, a situation that the Sultan had been trying to avoid.

Things were heating up elsewhere, too. In 1977 the Sultan of Perak ostracised his Menteri Besar to the point that he was forced to resign. In 1978, the Sultan of Pahang rejected the Umno nominee for MB and, in 1981, the Sultan of Johor forced his MB to resign after 14 years in office.

We cannot know with any certainty what the new Prime Minister’s attitudes were towards the Malay Rulers when he assumed office in 1981 in the midst of this burgeoning atmosphere of royal assertiveness.

However, in Paradoxes of Mahathirism: An Intellectual Biography of Mahathir Mohamad, Khoo Boo Teik argues that “Mahathir was not necessarily an out and out ‘anti-royalist’. He found heroes in strong modernising sovereigns such as Peter the Great and the Meiji Emperor but his attitude towards the Malay royalty was less admiring.”

Khoo notes that Mahathir’s disdain for the Malay rulers had been expressed in oblique criticism before.

“C.H.E. Det (Mahathir’s pen name in the late 1940s) had cast the 1949 conflict between the Malay royalty and the nascent Umno leadership as a conflict between ‘rulers and rakyats’. Then, C.H.E. Det stood with those who thought that the rulers had either to yield to the wishes of Umno and its supporters or to forfeit the loyalty of the Malays.”

What is almost certain is that Dr Mahathir would have been aware that the independent-minded Sultans of Perak and Johor were the two most likely candidates to become the next Agong in 1984.

Indeed, their Highnesses were shortly to demonstrate their autonomy in ways that led to a measure of public distress.

In 1982, the Sultan of Perak, in his capacity as Head of Religion in his State, looked at the two permissible methods used to calculate the timing of Hari Raya Puasa, and chose the one different from that used in the rest of the country.

That year the fasting month ended a day earlier in Perak, disrupting travel plans and inadvertently making it a rather stressful holiday for the Malay community.

The following year, both the Sultans of Perak and Johor used the alternate method, and their two States celebrated Hari Raya a day earlier than the rest of Malaysia.

Some commentators have suggested that the distress of the “variant Hari Raya” prompted Dr Mahathir’s subsequent desire to concentrate administrative power in the Federal Government.

But R.S. Milne and Diane K. Mauzy, in Malaysian Politics Under Mahathir, citing interviews with Umno ministers, suggest that what became known as the 1983 constitutional crisis “was precipitated by reports, received by Mahathir, that the Sultan of Johor stated at a gathering that when he was elected Agong he would unilaterally declare a state of emergency, and with the aid of the army, throw out all the politicians.”

“Compounding this were stories that the Sultan was close to certain key military men, and that the army chief, General Tan Sri Mohd Zain Hashim, had criticised Mahathir’s approach and had questioned where the army’s loyalty rested.”

Whatever the case may be, on Aug 1, the Government brought the Constitution (Amendment) Bill 1983 before both houses of Parliament, and it was quickly passed.

The bill put forward 22 amendments to the Federal Constitution, including three very significant changes to the position of the Malay Rulers.

First, it removed the need for the Agong to give his Royal Assent to a piece of legislation before it could be gazetted as law. Instead, it stipulated that if the Agong did not give his Assent within 15 days, he was deemed to have done so, and the law could come into effect.

Second, it introduced parallel provisions removing the need for a Sultan to give his Assent to State laws.

Third, it transferred the power to declare an Emergency from the Agong (who was, in any case, supposed to act on the advice of Cabinet in this regard) directly to the Prime Minister, who was not obliged to act on anyone’s advice.

The Prime Minister’s Department had ordered a press blackout on the Constitution (Amendment) Bill 1983 and, so, while the fact of the bill’s passing was mentioned, its significance was downplayed, and the debate – including an impassioned speech in opposition to it by DAP’s Lim Kit Siang – did not appear in local media.

For the following two months, nothing appeared. But a right royal storm was brewing.

Immediately, the liberal intelligentsia opposed the provision that allowed the Prime Minister to unilaterally declare an Emergency.

On Aug 2, 1983, Aliran issued a statement condemning the Bill, claiming the proposed amendment “opens the way to political abuse. For the Prime Minister is, in the ultimate analysis, a political personality very much involved in the conflicts and compromises of party politics. There is no constitutional mechanism for ensuring that he will not use his emergency powers against his political foes from any quarter.”

“It is simply not possible to prevent an ambitious Prime Minister in the future from emerging as a ‘supremo’ after the proclamation of an emergency.”

But, under the strict press blackout, it was not reported.

Meanwhile, unbeknownst to the public, the Agong, under pressure from his fellow Rulers, refused to give his Assent to the Bill.

The Rulers maintained that the Bill contravened Article 38(4) of the Constitution, which states that “No law directly affecting the privileges, position, honours or dignities of the Rulers shall be passed without the consent of the Conference of Rulers.”

The Rulers had also come to understand the full legal implications of removing the need for Royal Assent to legislation. It meant that if Parliament voted to abolish the monarchy, the Rulers would be powerless to stop them.

Tensions continued to build behind the scenes. It was only in October, when Senu Abdul Rahman circulated a letter condemning the amendments, followed by Tunku Abdul Rahman defying the gag order by writing about them in the pages of this newspaper (The Star), that Malaysians woke up to the crisis.

There were also disagreements within Umno -- as Gordon P. Means notes in Malaysian Politics: the Second Generation -- many in the ruling coalition were distressed by the contents of the amendments and the confrontational style of Dr Mahathir towards the Malay Rulers.”

Some establishment figures believed the Prime Minister had far-reaching aims. In a 1988 interview transcribed in K. Das & The Tunku Tapes, Tunku Abdul Rahman and the veteran journalist discuss the constitutional crisis.

If one can look past the bitchy, surat layang (poison pen letter) tone of their stories about Dr Mahathir’s children, one can get a snapshot of the groundswell of suspicion.

Tunku: “You see, the Malays have a cause for adat, resam and so on. Tradition, I have a respect for it but he has none. He dislikes it. You see, his whole aim is to upset the constitution and turn this country into a republic. His son was in London talking quite openly amongst the students that his father is going to be the first President of Malaya.”

Das: “I heard his daughter was also talking about it here. Apparently she was caught talking about it at a party not knowing that behind her was one of the Tengkus from Negri Sembilan who overheard it. She said that as soon as the constitution amendment is signed, it is finished, we can become a republic.”

Against this background of suspicion, the 1983 constitutional crisis spilled out into the open, and the conflict grew even more intense.

In the next instalment of Ruling the Rulers, Wide Angle will look at the propaganda war and the resolution of the crisis. And, the other crises that lay in wait for Dr Mahathir and the Malay Rulers. Malaysiatoday.... (http://www.malaysia-today.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=29087:understanding-the-karpal-singh-sedition-trial&catid=22:the-corridors-of-power&Itemid=100085)

[pywong]

Post #18: [b]THE RAT RACE PART V CH. 3: A RAT’S INTERPRETATION OF MALAYAN HISTORY
Chapter 3.5: 1945 to 1957 How UMNO Sold Out to the British.

1955 Baling Talks between Tengku Abdul Rahman of Malaya, David Marshall, Chief Minister of Singapore, and Chin Peng, Secretary General of the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM): The purpose of the talks were to discuss the cessation of hostilities between the Govt of Malaya and the CPM.

This is a part of history that we have missed out in our series and we need to beef up. Details can be read in Chin Peng's book - My side of history, and in the interview of Said Zahari in the Merdeka Review here. (http://tindakmalaysia.com/tm_forums2008/index.php/topic,1353.new.html#new)

Two points stood out clearly:
1. David Marshall was determined to scuttle the talks.
2. The Tengku had no intention to settle with Chin Peng, using the Baling Talks merely to demonstrate to the British that he could be tough with the Communists and could be trusted to talk over Malaya.

[pywong]

What does Tengku Razaleigh's speech tells us? The people of Malaya, including UMNO, opposed the British when they tried to set up the Malayan Union in 1946. That was a system of a unitary state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_state) with the British Governor ruling the country. Today, UMNO has succeeded where the British failed. Malaysia has become a unitary state with UMNO's President as the de-facto dictator.

if we read George Orwell’s Animal Farm (http://www.george-orwell.org/Animal_Farm/index.html) we learn how a group of animals led by the pigs overthrew their human oppressors. Eventually, the pigs got crazy with power and became the oppressors themselves. This is what has happened to Malaysia. We thought we drove the British colonialists out. Instead we have exchanged a white-skinned colonialist for a brown-skinned one, which is even more corrupt and incompetent than the original.

When Tengku Razaleigh in his otherwise excellent speech below claimed that Malaysia is in need of fundamental reform, he has got it wrong. Malaysia need to kick out the cancer called UMNO so that we can rebuild the nation.


Ku Li: Malaysia is in need of fundamental reform

The speech delivered by Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah at the ISEAS Regional Outlook Forum 2010 at the Shangri-la Hotel, Singapore on January 7, is a good reminder of the many challenges that needs to be addressed by a responsible Malaysian leadership. I have taken the liberty to highlight in bold, the pertinent parts of the speech that resonate with me.

The centre of gravity of global economic activity has been moving eastwards towards Asia for quite some time now. The present global financial crisis has accelerated that process.

Asian economies, led by China, seek to spur domestic demand and increase intra-regional trade. As the global appetite for treasuries and US equities decreases, it is likely that large flows of risk capital will start moving to emerging markets again over the next six months. The main destinations will be India and China, but the countries of Southeast Asia are also set to benefit from these flows of global capital to the extent that they have an economic story to tell. The two top performers are going to be Indonesia and Vietnam. Indonesia, the new “i” in BRIIC, has a market-size, natural resources and liberalisation story while Vietnam has a large and industrious labour force that is skilling upwards rapidly. The Philippines and Thailand, despite political worries, remain relevant for their large domestic markets while Singapore, as the financial hub of the region, benefits from any increase in regional economic activity. This year also sees the full implementation of AFTA and the signing of more regional FTAs. We can be cautiously optimistic about the basis for growth in trade and investment.

I mentioned the major Asean countries but not Malaysia in my list of investment destinations. That is because Malaysia has fallen off the map for much foreign investment. With neither the cost and scale advantages of Vietnam and Indonesia nor the advanced capabilities of Singapore, Malaysia is firmly caught in a middle-income trap and appears to have fallen off the radar screen of foreign investors. It might seem puzzling that this country, sitting at the heart of Southeast Asia, blessed with extraordinary natural, cultural and human capital, and once a beacon in the developing world, has become irrelevant.

I want to discuss how this happened, and reflect on what this story might teach about larger issues of common concern. Other members of Asean might be concerned that a country that was once at the forefront in spearheading regional initiatives is at a crossroads over its own future.

The general election of March 2008 was a watershed in Malaysian politics. The ruling Barisan Nasional coalition lost its accustomed two-thirds majority in the Parliament, and lost five states to the opposition, including the economic backbone states of Selangor, Perak and Penang. Compared to the ebb and flow of power in other parliamentary democracies, you might not find this a remarkable development. Against the backdrop of Malaysia’s political history, however, the entire political landscape had changed overnight. Gone was the invincibility of Umno, the Malay-based party that has dominated Malaysian politics since independence. The political credibility of Umno/BN had been more than just a set of racially-based political parties. Over its decades of ascendancy, history had been re-written, mythology created, and the party abolished and reinvented to reinforce the necessity and inevitability of a government led by Umno.

The formula of communal power-sharing that the Barisan Nasional and its predecessor were built on had started life as a political accommodation, a nation-building compromise, a way-station on the road to a fuller union of our citizens. Fifty years later it had ossified into the appearance of an eternal racial contract, a model replicated at every level of national life. The election results plunged this model, and the regime built upon it, into crisis.

The people are often ahead of their government. They are interested in more things than identity politics. Unable to respond to the reality that the BN formula is broken and the people want more than ethno-religious politics, the ruling party appears to be reacting by digging itself deeper into narrow racial causes with no future in them. This desperate response is self-defeating in a cumulative way. As Umno is rejected by the voters, party members pursue racial issues more stridently. They think this will shore up their “base”. They are mistaken about the nature of that base. As they do so, they become more extreme and out of touch with ordinary voters of every race and religion whose major concerns are not racial or religious identity but matters such as corruption, security, the economy and education.

Umno’s position in the present controversy over the use of the term “Allah” by non-Muslims is an example. In a milestone moment, PAS, the Islamic party, is holding onto the more plural and moderate position while Umno is digging itself into an intolerant hardline position that has no parallel that I know of in the Muslim world. Umno is fanning communal sentiment, and the government it leads is taking up policy lines based on “sensitivities” rather than principle. The issue appears to be more about racial sentiment than religious, let alone constitutional principles.

In a complex multiracial society a party and a government whose primary response to a public issue is sunk in the elastic goo of “sensitivities” rather than founded on principle, drawn from sentiment rather than from the Constitution, is already short of leadership and moral fibre. Public life is about behaving and choosing on principle rather than sentiment. Islam, in particular, demands that our actions be guided by an absolute commitment to justice for all rather than by looking inward at vague “sensitivities” of particular groups, however politically significant. It is about doing what is right rather than protecting arbitrary feelings. If feelings diverge from what is right and just, then it’s time to show some leadership.

“Sensitivities” is the favoured resort of the gutter politician. With it he raises a mob, fans its resentment and helps it discover a growing list of other sensitivities. This is a road to ruin. A nation is made up of citizens bound by a shared conception of justice and not of mobs extracting satisfaction for politicised emotional states.

As a mark of our decline, at some point in our recent history the government itself began to speak the language of sensitivities. In the controversy over whether Christians are allowed to use the term “Allah” the government talks about managing sentiment when it should be talking about what is the right thing to do. This is what government sounds like when a political system and its leadership have come unstuck from the rule of law. It goes from issue to issue, hostage to the brinksmanship of sensitivities. Small matters threaten to erupt into racial conflict. The government of a multiracial society that cannot rise above sentiment is clearly too weak or too self-interested to hold the country together. It has lost credibility and legitimacy. The regime is in crisis.

The deterioration of our political order did not happen overnight or in isolation. It is part of a more general pattern of the decline of democracy and the rule of law in many newer democracies. Many post-colonial societies that began with democratic institutions saw democracy collapse afterwards into dictatorship. I can think of Nigeria, Pakistan and Kenya, for example. What has not been said is that underneath the appearance of continuity, and over two decades, Malaysia has quietly undergone the same process. There has been, beneath the surface, a decisive rupture with the federal, constitutional and democratic system upon which we were founded, and which alone confers legitimacy. What replaced it was an authoritarianism based on personality. Policy was set according to personal whims of the leader, which is to say that in areas such as the economy and foreign affairs, the country was run according to the personal enthusiasms and pet peeves of individual leaders.

Power was consolidated and constitutional government turned back. The result was a recession to authoritarianism and the centralisation of power, abetted by the corruption of the ruling party. The ideology of the ruling party, which had combined Malay nationalism with an overriding national concern, was vulgarised into an easily manipulated politics of group resentment.

Umno started in 1946 as a grassroots-based party that commanded the idealism of my generation. After 1987 it was transformed into a top-down patronage machine. Party membership became a ticket to personal gain. The party attracted opportunists and ne’er do wells while good people stayed away in droves. For any organisation this is a death spiral.

The challenge of Umno and of Malaysia today is not simply reform but restoration, not simply democratisation but re-democratisation. This is because we are not building from scratch but trying to recover from the decline of once-excellent core institutions.

There are regional implications to Malaysia’s crisis. The formation of the Federation of Malaysia in 1963 precipitated a regional conflict to which, in part, the formation of Asean in 1967 was meant to be a solution. Now in a clear sign of the erosion of the rule of law, agreements that structured state-federal relations over matters such as the distribution of the petroleum revenue are casually ignored. Malaysia is a federation of sovereign entities, but one of the consequences of authoritarianism has been that it has come to be run habitually as a unitary state. We have to learn again how to be a federation.

Let me try to draw some conclusions:

Shortcuts in governance may appear to work for awhile, but they wreak long-term havoc on the institutional capability of a nation. Short-term boosts to the economy are difficult to evaluate when 40 per cent of the national budget come from a single source which does not report financial details either to the public or to Parliament.

What is clear is that there is no secure basis for long-term growth without a return to strong institutions, transparency and good government. The challenges of economic development, nation-building and institutional integrity are linked, more so in a complex country like Malaysia.

The success of Asean collaborative measures depends on the core countries taking a lead, and it is in everyone’s interest that these countries have strong democratic institutions and the rule of law. When countries lack good governance and transparency, domestic economies falter, domestic politics goes from crisis to crisis, and the country turns inwards and away from engaging constructively with the real world and with their neighbours.

The economic success of Asean economies up to the Nineties was based in part on the superiority of their institutional frameworks to those of Eastern Europe and South America. In the early days, Malaysia and Singapore played leading roles in Asean. Of late, Malaysia’s role has diminished, while that of Indonesia has grown. It is no accident that this is the result of successful reform and democratisation in Indonesia and the failure so far of any such process in Malaysia. Over the longer term, reform and democratisation must go hand in hand for there to be sustained economic development.

The present Prime Minister has made some helpful gestures towards liberalising the economy and pursuing more multiracial policies. These initiatives, however, must do more than skim the surface of what must be done. Malaysia is in need of fundamental reform. The reforms we need include, at minimum:

a. An overhaul of the party system which rules out racially exclusive parties from facing directly contesting elections. This will inaugurate a new era of post-racial politics.

b. The restoration of the independence of the judiciary and the freedom of the media.

c. An all-out war on corruption, the root of all the evils in nation-building and economic development.

The greater economic collaboration we aspire to in Asean requires that we pay attention to the internal conditions in each country that make it possible. We need to place the promotion of governance and institutional reform on the Asean agenda. I hope this is a matter you see fit to take up. de minimis. (http://ctchoolaw.blogspot.com/2010/01/ku-li-malaysia-is-in-need-of.html)

[pywong]

Lessons from the past: UMNO will negotiate with you until they secure power over you. After that, whatever is promised is forgotten. This has been repeated over and over. If we don't learn the lessons of the past, we will be condemned to repeat it.

Never negotiate with the Devil.

Remember the Cobbold Commission?

The non-Muslim communities are most insistent that there should be complete religious freedom as to worship, education, and propagation, in the Borneo territories. We recommend the insertion in the State Constitution of a specific provision to this effect.

Article:

III. Report of the Commission of Enquiry, North Borneo and Sarawak, 1962
Also known as the Cobbold Commission

148 (d) Name of the Federation

We encountered some opposition to the name “Malaysia”, particularly from a number of non-Muslim elements of the population in Sarawak. This opposition stems from the same cause as the anxieties about Religion, Language and the Head of Federation, with which we deal elsewhere in this Section. They all reflect the fears held by the non-Malays and non-Muslims that the effect of Malaysia will be to put them in a position inferior to that of the Malays and Muslims. We cannot see, however, that any other name would be appropriate in view of the geographical-historical relevance of the name of Malaysia and its wide current usage. We believe, moreover, that in fact objections to the name would not persist for long. We recommend, however, that the word “Malaysia” should be generally incorporated into the Malay language: at present it is widely translated into Malay as “Melayu Raya”.

(e) Religion

Feeling on this point ran much stronger. There are differences of opinion among the Commission.

http://www.mylivingwall.com/v3/commentary-news-menu-70/7750-remember-the-cobbold-commission

Full article: http://www.digitalibrary.my/dmdocuments/malaysiakini/767_Report%20of%20the%20Commission%20of%20EnquiryN orth%20Borneo%20&%20Sarawak%20&%20IGC%201962.pdf

[pywong]

UMNO has been waging propaganda warfare against the people since British times in 1948. One of the tools of the Ruling Class is the rewriting of history to put them in a favourable light. All Ruling Classes do it. It's a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP), nothing unusual. The problem with UMNO is that they are so addicted to it, they can't help it even when it's obviously not true, especially since we have the internet to help in our search for and dissemination of information. It's like telling the scorpion not to sting. It will sting because it's in their DNA.

Okay, now my version of history
NO HOLDS BARRED

Thursday, 28 January 2010 Super Admin

So, with due respect to Dr Mahathir, it was actually the other way around. Umno was the one that split the Malays. And now Umno grumbles that the opposition is splitting the Malays? And, worse still, Umno split the Malays to serve the British interest and as a British ‘running dog’.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Dr M blames PAS, PKR for dividing Malays

By Shazwan Mustafa Kamal, The Malaysian Insider

........Then the British ‘created’ Umno. And I have also written about this, about ten years or so ago, which was published in Harakah, when I interviewed an ‘old boy’ of MCKK, Datuk Andika, who died a couple of years ago in Kuala Terengganu at the age of 100.

Datuk Andika related how he was encouraged and financed by the British to set up the first Umno branch in the state of Terengganu, which was in Dungun.

The British allowed Umno to campaign for Merdeka the length and breadth of Malaya. But when the KMM people did the same, the British detained them without trial.

In short, the Malays were already united long ago. And they were united against the British. But along came the British who created Umno. And the purpose of creating Umno was to split the Malays and kill KMM........ Malaysiatoday.... (http://www.malaysia-today.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=29888:okay-now-my-version-of-history&catid=20:no-holds-barred&Itemid=100087)

[pywong]

An excellent article that supplements the history recorded in the Rat Race series. 20 pages long but a very good read that will help to fill the gaps in our history.

Summary:
1. The Malay Dilemma is actually the story of financial illiteracy.
2. Our history has been distorted by UMNO to present themselves as the heroes who drove the British out.

Monday, 1 February 2010
An UNCENSORED History of Malaysia: What Our HISTORY TEXT BOOKS did NOT teach us about our EARLY Cultural Relations, MERDEKA, and the TRUE MALAY DILLEMA

NOTE: This Article was written and published on Facebook on the 31st of August 2009, Malaysia’s Independence Day in response to an irresponsible actions caused by UMNO supporters carrying a severed ‘Cow Head’ to incite racial and religious tensions among the Hindu’s in Malaysia. It was this very incident which ‘woke me up’ as a Malay and a Malaysian who was previously politically neutral to fight against UMNO’s racism and racist policies and behaviors. And I have never stopped fighting since…

http://adifferentkindofmalay.blogspot.com/2010/02/uncensored-history-of-malaysia-what-our.html?spref=fb

[pywong]

THE RAT RACE PART V – CH. 3: A REVIEW OF MALAYAN HISTORY
3.1: PRE-INDEPENDENCE (BEFORE 31 AUG 1957) – THE EVENTS

During our younger days, we found history deathly boring. We did not realize then that history was a very powerful tool used by the Ruling Class for indoctrination, manipulation, propaganda, misinformation and spreading of lies.

George Santayana (Spanish-born American Philosopher, Poet and Humanist) said:

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. (http://thinkexist.com/quotation/those_who_do_not_learn_from_history_are_doomed_to/170710.html)

And Hitler’s Minister of Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels (http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/goebmain.htm)said:

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” Repeated Lies. (http://thinkexist.com/quotation/-if_you_tell_a_lie_big_enough_and_keep_repeating/345877.html)

Lesson on immigration to Malaya, Opening-up of Kuala Lumpur, how rubber came to Malaya...

RPK: Beggars, Prostitutes, Secret Societies, Capitalists, Colonialists and Ali Babas
NO HOLDS BARRED

Wednesday, 03 February 2010 Super Admin

Those who seek public office must first be made to sit for a history test. Only when they pass the test should they be allowed to become ministers, political secretaries, press secretaries, etc. This will avoid them making stupid statements like what many of the Umno people are now doing.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Now a new controversy has erupted. And it’s about the statement that the Indians came here as beggars and the Chinese as prostitutes. Actually, if you were to really study Malayan and Malaysian history over the last 500 years or so, you will find that this country’s history is not just about beggars and prostitutes. It is about much more than that.

Malayan history has to be dissected into many periods. And each of these periods saw immigration involving almost all the races in Malaysia, save the Orang Asli (the Original People). In New Zealand, these Orang Asli would be the Maoris and in Australia the Aborigines. Therefore, anyone who is neither a Maori nor an Aborigine is a ‘pendatang’ or immigrant. Malaysia-today. (http://www.malaysia-today.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=30011:beggars-prostitutes-secret-societies-capitalists-colonialists-and-ali-babas-&catid=20:no-holds-barred&Itemid=100087)

[pywong]

Colonial rule (1): British played favourites with the various races

History
Written by Cheah Boon Kheng
Wednesday, 10 February 2010 16:59

Introduction by CPI

“But what began to aggravate and worsen ethnic relations in the early 1930s was a series of ‘pro-Malay’ policies, which the British initiated to help Malays cope with the economic depression and to meet the demands of rising Malay nationalism based on treaty obligations.”

This statement extracted from the article below should lead us to ask whether our leaders are repeating history and why they are not learning from the mistakes of history.

During the period of colonial rule in Malaya, the British favoured themselves and other whites first and foremost, and Malays second in their policies.

As ‘protectors’ of the Malays, the British created various policies that were anti-Chinese. Most non-European residents were either workers or poor. Since the various races were in different sectors and not in direct competition with each other, ethnic conflict was kept under the lid.

As the economic depression intensified, the British rulers found it easier to resort to race-based solutions rather than deal with the real causes and issues.

Today, as the global economy and its fluctuations impact on us, will race-based policies again rise to the fore?

The following essay by Dr Cheah Boon Kheng was published in the book Multiethnic Malaysia – Past, Present and Future under the title ‘Race and Ethnic relations in Colonial Malaya during the 1920s and 1930s’. CPI with permission from the author is carrying it here in two parts.

Dr Cheah is visiting professor at the National University of Singapore. He was previously history professor at USM, and has been visiting professor at the Australian National University and ISEAS. He is also author of several books. Colonial Rule Part 1. (http://english.cpiasia.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1860:colonial-rule-1-british-played-favourites-with-the-various-races-&catid=184:british-colony)

[pywong]

The aspiration of our founding fathers was equality
February 16, 2010

Let’s look at two constitutional provisions to try and appreciate the difference between a constitutional conferment of a right and the ’special position’ provision of Article 153.

Article 10. Freedom of speech, assembly and association.

(1) Subject to Clauses (2), (3) and (4) -

(a) every citizen has the right to freedom of speech and expression;

(b) all citizens have the right to assemble peaceably and without arms;

(c) all citizens have the right to form associations.

Article 11. Freedom of religion.

(1) Every person has the right to profess and practise his religion and, subject to Clause (4), to propagate it.

The constitution does not pussyfoot when it confers rights.

It says it like it is.

No room for guessing.

Article 153. Reservation of quotas in respect of services, permits, etc., for Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak.

(1) It shall be the responsibility of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to safeguard the special position of the Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak and the legitimate interests of other communities in accordance with the provisions of this Article.

(2) Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, but subject to the provisions of Article 40 and of this Article, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall exercise his functions under this Constitution and federal law in such manner as may be necessary to safeguard the special position of the Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak of such proportion as he may deem reasonable of positions in the public service (other than the public service of a State) and of scholarships, exhibitions and other similar educational or training privileges or special facilities given or accorded by the Federal Government and, when any permit or licence for the operation of any trade or business is required by federal law, then, subject to the provisions of that law and this Article, of such permits and licences.

No rights conferred.

Only a duty on the Agong to reserve such proportion as he may deem reasonable of those matters highlighted in green to safeguard that special position.

What if, in the reasonable opinion of the Agong, it is no longer necessary to reserve quotas of those matters highlighted in green for the Malays or the natives of Sabah and Sarawak, and therefore no reservations are made?

Can any of these interested parties sue to compel the making of these reservations?

No.

Why?

Article 153, unlike the other two Articles mentioned earlier, does not confer any enforceable right. harisibrahim. (http://harismibrahim.wordpress.com/2010/02/16/the-aspiration-of-our-founding-fathers-was-equality/)

[pywong]

The guys at the top of the collaborator's Pyramid are worried about losing the gravy train should Pakatan comes to power. So they are pulling all the stops to bring the State MBs and CMS down. Be aware and be focused.

Cops zoom in on Guan Eng

Low Chia Ming, Feb 23, 10

Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng has been told to contact the state police to fix a time and date for his statements to be recorded in relation to six reports against him.

According to the notice issued by the police, the probe is based on reports lodged in Penang - in Sungai Nibong, Kg Baru, Kubang Semang, Seberang Jaya, Sungai Pinang and Kepala Batas.

The notice said the alleged offences comprise four counts of participating in an illegal assembly, one of violating the Sedition Act 1948 and three counts of criminal defamation.

Lim's lawyer, Jagdeep Singh Deo, described the investigations as a form of harassment.

"The police are listing six cases to be investigated. This clearly shows intention to harass the chief minister, but he will cooperate fully with the police," he told a press conference today. Malaysiakini. Subscription required. (http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/124964)

[pywong]

THE RAT RACE PART V – CH. 3: A REVIEW OF MALAYAN HISTORY
3.1: PRE-INDEPENDENCE (BEFORE 31 AUG 1957) – THE EVENTS

John Doe: Historical points on Melaka empire - http://malaysia-today.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=30907:ketuanan-malacca&catid=18:letterssurat&Itemid=100129

To be verified.

Ketuanan Malacca
LETTERS/SURAT

Tuesday, 30 March 2010 admin-s

So, in essence, all of Malaya belonged to Indonesia!!! And they all used Chinese money!! And they were all Hindu!!

By John Doe

A few friends from Malaysia emailed me and expressed surprised that Malacca minted their own coins. Yes they did. Let's see how Ketuanan Malacca held up.

Apparently, the coins were made between 1446-1459. They were minted from tin. Supposedly during the rule of Sultan Muzaffar (4th Sultan). However (for those who read Jawi) the inscriptions read “Al Sultan, Al Adil”, which literally translates to The Sultan, The Just (fair). And since it does not actually bear an inscribed year on it, the actual Sultan who made this could be anyone's guess. I was however going by “popular belief”, when I mentioned that it was the 4th Sultan's currency.

The coins look like this:

[pywong]

THE RAT RACE PART V – THE MALAYSIAN RAT RACE
(A look at Malaysian history beyond race and religion)

Chapter 2: The Social Contract - How We Got It All Wrong!

THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE!

For 50 years both sides of the political spectrum believed they were right, blissfully unaware that they were conned as Rats!

We have to break free from the mental cage of race and religion and learn to look at our situation through the concept of class division and as Malaysians. Until we do, we will never be free. More… (http://charleshector.blogspot.com/2009/06/social-contract-true-or-false-umno.html)

What ‘social contract’ entails
GUEST COLUMNISTS

Thursday, 01 April 2010 admin-s

The term has been hijacked by those who choose to invent their own meaning of the expression.

By Azmi Sharom (The Star)

AH ... the social contract — a theory propounded by the philosopher Hobbes where the citizens of a country agrees to give power to a government in exchange for the guarantee of their own civil liberties and rights.

It is a term meant to dictate a type of governance where the needs of a powerful authority are balanced by the protection of citizens from abuse of that power. In this Hobbesian philosophy we find a weapon against tyranny.

But this is not so in Malaysia. The term “social contract” has been hijacked by those who choose to invent their own meaning of the expression. When “social contract” is used on these shores, it means that Malay political power must always hold sway and a state of perpetual pro-Malay economic policies must remain in place and everyone else must keep quiet as their forefathers had agreed to it.

The founders of this country did not have such racialist aspirations when we obtained our independence in 1957. The provisions in the Constitution which provides for the “special position” of the Malays and the natives of Sabah and Sarawak (note there is no such thing as “Malay rights” in our Constitution), were meant as a stop gap measure but not a permanent crutch.

Tun Dr Ismail likened it to a gold handicap where you give the weaker party a boost until he reaches a point where he can play on equal terms. Indeed the time limit initially set was for the affirmative action to last 20 years.

But hey, don’t take my word for it. Allow me to regale you with some quotes that can be found in the Report of the Federation of Malaya Constitutional Commission “… in an independent Malaya all nationals should be accorded equal rights, privileges and opportunities and there must not be discrimination on grounds of race and creed …”

And the people who said this were not the British and their pompous hats. It was the Alliance which in case you have forgotten who they were, consisted of the Malayan In-dian Congress, the Malayan Chinese Association and the United Malay National Organisation. That’s right our great leaders of Umno hoped and dreamt of a Malaya based on equality. And you can see this aspiration reflected in the Constitution. Article 8 guarantees equality except in situations specifically provided for in the Constitution. In other words, if an affirmative action is not specifically allowed for in the Constitution, it is unlawful.

And there are other provisions as well; like Article 136 which states that all government servants must not be discriminated against based on race and creed. So our non-Malay public servants have a Constitutional protection against poor treatment for example in promotions. I don’t see all these “warriors for the social contract” waving placards demanding impartial treatment to all civil servants. Of course not, it would not do to defend the non-Malays, will it?

By the way, it is not only the politicians who wanted a country where there is racial equality, the rulers, our Sultans themselves said that they “... look forward to a time not too remote when it will become possible to eliminate communalism as a force in the political and economic life of the country”.

But in case you think I am making this up, it’s in the report mentioned above on page 71. Check it out yourself.

So the next time some ex-premier, or multi-millionaire Malay, or racist rhetoric politician, go on and on about the “social contract”, please be informed that this kind of self- serving bigoted behaviour was not part of the dream that is independent Malaya. Our founders did not have such base ideals they wanted better, and so should we. Malaysiatoday.... (http://malaysia-today.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=30950:what-social-contract-entails&catid=17:guest-columnists&Itemid=100130)

[pywong]

THE RAT RACE PART V – THE MALAYSIAN RAT RACE
(A look at Malaysian history beyond race and religion)

Chapter 2: The Social Contract - How We Got It All Wrong!

THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE![/color]

Tuesday April 20 2010

Art Harun describes himself as a non-governmental organism, intent on infecting the conscience.

The *******isation of the ‘Social Contract’ — Part 1
APRIL 20 — In “The Social Contract — correcting the misconceptions”, I have sought to explain what the social contract is all about.

I do not want to repeat what I had written before. However, I wish to revisit several salient points about the social contract.

A social contract is a legal theory or concept. It does not exist in reality. It is a branch of legal, social or even political philosophy. This theory seeks to explain or rationalise why we, human beings, would band together and form a State.

It also seeks to rationalise why we would then agree to surrender our liberty, freedom and the ability to do whatever we like to the State when we, the human beings, were all born free and by our nature do not like to be restricted and constrained.

The philosophers surmised that we do so because we by nature are social creatures. We do so because we want to live together as a society. Furthermore, we do so because the State promises us some benefits. In fact we expect the State to give us the benefits that we want. That is why we surrender or agree to surrender some of our freedom, liberty and free will to the State.

That is why, in theory, we do what we do.

However, it is not a one way or unilateral agreement. There is supposed to be an exchange of promises between us, the people, and the State. For example, we promise not to steal and if we steal we promise to abide by the law which would send us to prison. In return, the State promises to protect our property from being stolen by other people.

That is the social contract as a legal theory.

In reality, that social contract does not exist, in writing or otherwise.

Now, the social contract which is so much talked about in Malaysia is a *******isation of the theory of the social contract. Why do I say so?

It is simple. The theory of social contract postulates an agreement between the people of a State and the State. However the social contract which is so well loved by some people in Malaysia is a supposed agreement between the respective leaders of the three major communities among themselves which happened prior to our independence.

That in itself is the hijacking of the theory of social contract.

Apparently, the three community leaders met to decide the whole future of Malaysia before and after independence. And what they had agreed would bind all of us till kingdom come.

Apparently too, the Malay leader was generous enough to confer citizenship to the non-Malays who were not qualified for citizenship.

The two non-Malay leaders, out of sheer gratitude to the Malays (who were represented by the said Malay leader) for doing so, agreed that the Malays should have “special rights.” These special rights were then spelt out in the Federal Constitution.

This brings the oft-repeated argument that the Malays have sacrificed a lot in agreeing to “grant” citizenships to the non-Malays who were otherwise “not qualified” to gain one. Therefore the non-Malays should respect the Malay’s special “rights”.

Over the years, these special rights were apparently challenged by the non-Malays, and even by some Malays themselves. So, according to some people, this is unacceptable. This is unconstitutional. This constitutes a breach of the so called social contract.

What does history show us about this *******ised version of the social contract?

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr Alan-Lennox Boyd), while debating our Independence Bill reported to the British Parliament:

“There were extreme views on the part of some sections of Malayan* (*I think when he said “Malayan”, he was in fact referring to the Malays) opinion which are opposed to any political advance on the part of the Chinese people in Malaya. There were equally strong views held by some of the Chinese population demanding absolute jus soli citizenship for anybody born in the Federation and the complete abolition of any distinction between the races.

The constitutional Commission had to find a solution which would work and which would find general acceptance, and in our view it has fully succeeded in its task. The present Federation Constitution represents a genuine compromise worked out between differing sectors. The citizenship proposals, I believe, are a triumph of good sense and tolerance, amidst widely conflicting views, and I believe that the balance struck between Malay and Chinese has been found to be a wise balance.

There are solid guarantees of fundamental liberties to meet Chinese fears of discrimination, with reasonable arrangements to safeguard the special position of the Malayans without injustice to other races. I am conscious that these two aspects of the settlement arouse particular interest in the House, and I hope that I may be forgiven if I devote a moment or two to those two most important matters.

Now, a word about the balance achieved between the rights of Malays and Chinese. The special position of the Malays was recognised in the original treaties made by His Majesty in previous years, and Her Majesty Queen Victoria and others with the Malay States. It was reaffirmed when these treaties were revised. It was confirmed in the 1948 Agreement, and reference was expressly made to it in the terms of reference of the Reid Commission.

So the Malay privilege clauses in the articles of the Constitution do not, in the main, introduce any precedent, but give recognition in the Constitution to the existing situation. Most hon. Members will, I think, know something of what these privileges are.

As I said, I believe that a fair balance has been struck between the interests of Malays and Chinese, and I indicated how the special position of Malays enshrined in the new Constitution did not create a precedent because it had been provided for in very many other treaties and arrangements. I was about to say what form these special privileges had taken.

In most States in Malaya, there are extensive Malay reservations of land. Elsewhere in States, there are systems of quota for admissions to the public service, a certain proportion having to be Malays. There are quotas for permits or licences to carry on certain businesses. There is preferential treatment for Malays in the granting of scholarships and bursaries and, generally, in education.

The Reid Commission found very little opposition in any quarter in Malaya to the continuance of the present system for a time, and it made certain recommendations which hon. Members will have read. The Alliance Government—this was accepted by the three parties composing the Alliance—wanted a number of changes, which have been made.

They relate mostly to quotas in the public service, to permits, scholarships, and land reservations. Very generally, the proposal to review the quotas after fifteen years has been dropped. The responsibility of the High Commissioner is transferred to the Head of State, but—and it is a genuine safeguard for other races—the Head of State will act on the advice of the Cabinet, and the Cabinet is bound to be sensitive to the feeling of public opinion at any time.”

Yes, there was indeed a compromise by the various communities. And there was, at the end of the day, “a triumph of good sense and tolerance, amidst widely conflicting views.” Meanwhile, “the balance struck between Malay and Chinese has been found to be a wise balance.”

It should be noted that the special positions of the Malays had always been recognised by the British from day one. These have been specified in various treatises. And there were recognised in the Federation of Malaya Agreement 1948, an agreement which preceded our independence.

All that the Reid Commission did was to continue to give cognisant to those special positions. There were no new position or right added as part of a compromise. To say therefore that citizenships were offered to the non-Malays in exchange of those special positions were not accurate. That is because those positions were already there and recognised from day one.

It is also wrong for anybody to say that the granting of citizenship to the non-Malays was a sacrifice by the Malays of their “natural claim to the land of Malays (“Tanah Melayu”). That could not be farther from the truth.

That arrangement, from historical evidence, was a “compromise” which was achieved after intense negotiations between the major communities and the Reid Commission. Being a compromise, all parties — not the Malays alone — achieved certain demands while letting go some of their demands.

For example, not all non-Malays managed to obtain citizenship. On this, the said Alan Lennox-Boyd explained:

“Under this compromise, anyone who is now a citizen of the Federation or who was born in the Federation and is over 18, or is born there after 31st August next, will have citizenship of the Federation as a right.”

There was a balance achieved between the demands of the non-Malays and the absolute birth rights of the Malays. That is why it was called a compromise.

The citizenship was not a gift by the Malays. Nor was it a total surrender by the non-Malays of their minority rights in exchange for citizenship as screamed about by Perkasa, Dr Ridhuan Tee Abdullah and even Tun Dr Mahathir.

The special “rights” of the Malays was not a concession by the non-Malays. They had always been there in the first place.

The Constitution was drafted to reflect this harmonious co-existence of all the major races in the then Malaya. It spells out all the rights and positions of the various communities who were expected to lead a peaceful and prosperous co-existence. The Constitution was designed to make the yet unborn Malaysia a fair and progressive country.

As stated by Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas (Lincoln MP):

“The test for the Federation will be whether it can become a real nation in other words, whether the Chinese people in Malaya can become full citizens and work with the Malays, the Indians and the Eurasians to make a new nation. I hope that they can.”

Have we, as a nation, passed the test?

It is also not out of place to mention here that in drafting the Constitution, the fathers of our independence were astute enough to consider each community’s services and contributions to this land. This goes towards achieving the balance which I was referring to earlier. In other words, no one community could claim exclusivity towards the country as it was.

Miss Joan Vickers, the Davenport MP noted:

“We should remember, in considering these different races, the part that they play. The Malayans are the indigenous people of the country, but we have to remember that had it not been for the Chinese the country would certainly not have been as prosperous as it is today. They opened up jungle roads and worked in the tin mines, and the prosperity of Malaya owes a great deal to the Chinese.

Furthermore, we had the Indians who, in a rather different way, as a result, in the beginning, of a contract system between the Indian Government and the Government of Malaya, have played their part in the prosperity of the country. In a great many cases they did not make Malaya their home and returned to India at the end of their contract.

We also owe a great deal to the Portuguese Eurasians in Malaya. Theirs is a very old community. They still keep something of their mother tongue, and very strongly to their own Roman Catholic religion. They have proved loyal and faithful civil servants in a great many of the States. Generally speaking, whichever State they have resided in, they have taken a leading part and have always been loyal to either the British resident or adviser, or whoever they have been serving.

Finally, I hope that in due course, the Orang Bukit will be able to be brought into the community, because I believe that through living in the deep jungles they have very remote ties with their own country, and they could be a source of trouble. I should like to pay tribute to them for what they did during the very difficult period when the Chinese guerrillas were in the jungle, when they gave considerable help in tracking the enemy.”

As evident, everyone’s contribution was considered. And it was all done in the name of accommodating, to the fullest of possibility, every community’s demands, rights and positions. Wherever there was a seeming imbalance, a check and balance mechanism was inbuilt within the Constitution in itself.

To state all the mechanism of check and balance in the Constitution would make this article too long. Suffice if I point out that among others, an independent judiciary (which then includes the right to appeal to the Privy Council), was a part of that mechanism. As stated by the MP for Crosby, Mr Graham Page:

“Finally, I would draw attention to an important safeguard to the minorities. That is in the retention of the jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.” TheMalaysiaInsider.... (http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/index.php/opinion/art-harun/60612-the-*******isation-of-the-social-contract--part-1)

(Of course, some time ago, someone had to dismantle the Privy Council appeal process and the whole judiciary too leaving the government to lord all over the Judges!)

[pywong]

The *******isation of the ‘Social Contract’ — Part 1
APRIL 20 — In “The Social Contract — correcting the misconceptions”, I have sought to explain what the social contract is all about.

I do not want to repeat what I had written before. However, I wish to revisit several salient points about the social contract.

A social contract is a legal theory or concept. It does not exist in reality. It is a branch of legal, social or even political philosophy. This theory seeks to explain or rationalise why we, human beings, would band together and form a State.

The *******isation of the ‘Social Contract’ (Part 2)

APRIL 22 — Even at the outset of independence, there were people who raised concerns on the perceived inequality between the Malays and the non-Malays. The question of whether the respective leaders of the communities were truly representing the community was also raised. Graham Page raised that point:

“It appears that the Reid Commission took one single Indian party as speaking for the Indians as a whole, the Malayan Indian Congress, which had sunk its identity in the Alliance Party. I do not think the Malayan Indian Congress spoke for all, or even perhaps a majority, of Indians, certainly not the business, professional and artisan class of Indian, in Malaya. There were many other Malayan Indian associations which gave evidence before the Commission, but the Commission did not seem to take account of their views, or to pay very much attention to them.”

Arthur Creech Jones MP noted:

“It may be, and I believe it to be the case, that there are certain sections of opinion in Malaya who are not altogether happy. The fact that most hon. Members have received representations from the Malayan Party and the Pan-Malayan Federation indicates that, certainly so far as the Settlements are concerned, there is still some anxiety about what is likely to happen when the Constitution becomes effective.”

For the Alliance, an Alliance Committee was formed to negotiate with the Reid Commission. It consisted of Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun Razak, Tun Ismail, Tun HS Lee, Tun Leong Yew Loh, Tun Ong Yoke Lin, Tun Tan Siew Sin, Tun Lim Chong Eu and Tun VT Sambanthan.

Be that as it may, the Constitution was quite a massive achievement in itself as the task of balancing the rights and demands of various communities was not an easy one to fulfil. The fact that the non-Malays had to also compromise and tolerate the demands of the Malays — as opposed to the supposed absolute sacrifice by the Malays alone — was also recognised as Arthur Creech Jones, MP for Wakefield noted:

“A number of Members drew attention to the fact that in the working of this Constitution a great deal of tolerance will be required by the Chinese population, and, possibly, by other minorities, for undoubtedly important concessions are made to the Malays with regard to religion, language, land and the public services; but one can only hope that by the practice of co-operation an answer can be found to any deficiencies or defects in the Constitution as it is now presented to us.”

It is therefore clear that the compromise entailed “sacrifices” on the part of all the major communities as opposed to the Malays alone. Every major community managed to have some of their demands met while some others were sacrificed for the sake of achieving and maintaining a balanced society.

In a nutshell, the special positions of the Malays were seen as inevitable in order to improve the financial, sociological and educational status of the Malays which were lagging far behind the Chinese.

In other words, there had to be inequality to achieve equality. It was said that:

“My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby asked whether we were sure that the special position of the Malay population was not to the detriment of the interests of other racial groups in Malaya. The answer is that during the very careful investigation made by the Reid Commission there appeared to the distinguished members of that Commission to be no evidence that the special position of the Malays was either to the detriment of other communities or was resented by those other communities. In those circumstances, I think that we can assume that the special position of the Malays is not likely to be an irritant in the body politic of the Federation after independence is achieved.

“I believe that, taken as a whole, these long-established immunities and privileges provide the means of ensuring, not inequality between the various races of Malaya, but that those who have had some disadvantages in the past will, as independence comes, have a start which is relatively equal and will achieve the progress, development and prosperity which is already a significant feature of the life of many of the Chinese and Indian communities.” (Cuthbert Alport MP)

Notwithstanding, the balancing of the rights and compromise was achieved mainly through the honourable and gentlemanly conduct of Tunku Abdul Rahman and his group of sensible negotiators, whose contribution was widely recognised historically.

Sir John Barlow acknowledged:

“We can congratulate the Malayas (sic) on having found a great statesman to manage their affairs. Much will depend on him (the Tunku) and his responsibility will be great. But those of us who know him have faith in him and we wish him well. He can rely upon our help. I was very glad when last autumn he went out of his way to indicate that British capital in Malaya would be dealt with justly.”

The Tunku had apparently promised a just Malaya. And one cannot help but wonder what he would do now or how he would feel now, if he were still alive. His honest and sincere deeds have surely been defiled, deconstructed, destroyed and demolished.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies was full of praise for the Tunku when he expressed:

“That is due largely to the prescience and wisdom of my right hon. Friend and also of Tenku (sic) Abdul Rahman, whom I may perhaps presume to call my friend because we were at Cambridge at the same time. As all who know him must agree, he is a wise, humane, just and far-sighted statesman. Malaya is very fortunate indeed to have him at the helm now. I am quite certain we can confidently leave the happiness of all Malayans in the competent hands of Tenku (sic) and his colleagues. They know as well as I know that the Chinese-Malayans and Indian-Malayans can and will contribute enormously to the well-being of their country. Self-interest alone, although there is much more, should ensure that those other races receive fair play and that they are welcomed as partners in the new venture. I would only express the wish that in the near future the Tenku (sic) will feel able to welcome Singapore into the Federation as a twelfth state.”

Finally, everyone took comfort that the Tunku was a dignified gentleman who would rule post-independent Malaya fairly and justly. Furthermore, as and when the need arises, the Constitution could always be changed. The Secretary of State expressed his confidence thus:

“The fact is that under the Constitution as it is proposed, that review can take place at any time on the decision by the Head of State and on the advice of the Chief Minister. This is contrary to the proposals of the Reid Commission, but it is better that in a new Constitution which is experimental there should be as much flexibility as possible, and opportunities, at whatever stage is appropriate, of putting right any difficulties that may emerge in practice.

“Indeed, the Chief Minister (the Tunku), in winding up the debate in the Legislative Assembly yesterday, said that the Constitution is not rigid and that it can be changed when need arises. I am sure that that fact will give to minorities who have natural anxieties and fears at present some reassurance that, if there is any need for alteration, that alteration can take place whenever the necessity appears to arise and is apparent to public opinion in Malaya.”

Interestingly though, the founder of Umno, Datuk Onn Jaafar had foreseen a citizenship issue, even for the Malays themselves. And he spotted the potential problems way back in 1950, a good seven years before the compromise was being negotiated and achieved, when on May 20 and 21, at the Umno General Assembly at Majestic Hotel, KL, he said:

“Due to the fact that at present no such laws (citizenship laws) exist, hundreds of thousands of people descended from Indonesia, who have lived here all their lives, or who have the intention of living the rest of their days in this country, cannot be considered “citizens” of this country. Is this really what the Malay people want? I do not understand this myself.....

“If one were to consider (the matter) as I do, then one (should realise) that because they are currently no (citizenship) laws, international laws should be applied. At present, there are 1.2 million people of Chinese descent, 270,000 of Indian descent, and approximately 45,000 descended from other races, who, by virtue of being born within the Federation of Malaya, may claim to be either British citizens, or the citizens of any one of the Malay Rulers.”

So, was citizenship to the non-Malays a gift by the Malays as asserted by the proponents of the *******ised social contract? It would appear that even the Malays of Indonesian descent were “given” citizenship as well as the non-Malays. International laws had already recognised their citizenship anyway.

Do we hear loud screams by the “original Malays” about having to “sacrifice” their rights by granting citizenship to these non-original Malays of Indonesian descent? And don’t we all know that Malaysia, as a country now, in 2010, is still granting citizenship to some Indonesians?

I would love to hear from Perkasa, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, Dr Ridhuan Tee Abdullah and their ilk about the position of these neo-Malay-citizens.

The issue is this. They were not citizens. But they were, and are still now, granted citizenship. Their neo-citizenship, ipso facto, means they get to enjoy the “special positions” of the original Malays like myself and my forefathers, who are “originals Malay.” So now, original Malays have to share their special positions with these neo-Malay-citizens. Doesn’t that make the special positions of the original Malays less special? Aren’t the special positions of the original Malays being eroded this way?

Be that as it may, did Datuk Onn, the father of Umno cringe and sulk his way to a dark room in the thoughts of the non-Malays were going to be citizens? Did he wear a tengkolok, start unsheathing his keris, kiss it and wave it like a mad man? Did he kick up a storm and whine like a small kid, demanding special positions and rights and the likes?

No. Because he was a true statesman who loved his country as opposed to himself and even his party alone. His answer to that was stated unequivocally on March 24 and 25, 1951 (again at Umno’s General Assembly at the Majestic Hotel). He said:

“That is to say the laws that enable a non-Malay to become a subject of the Ruler of the Malay state. If, for instance, such laws were passed, and if other matters that have become clearly apparent to us were also approved, one of which will be discussed by this Assembly this afternoon or tomorrow, and if the issues were approved (by the proper authorities), it is my view that there should not be any objections to opening the doors of Umno to admit non-Malays.”

That was a response by a true warrior of Tanah Melayu. A true statesman. A visionary.

And what did they do to him?

He was kicked out of Umno because of that proposal of his.

Other statesman have from time to time attempted to implement a fair society as clearly conceptualised by the Tunku and our fathers of independence. Tun Razak, for example, dispelled the notion that the Malays’ special positions are meant to make the Malays supreme. He said:

“Many of you must have heard lately of allegations against the Alliance Government, that we believe in the supremacy of one race over the other and that we have not provided for equal rights to all our citizens. I would like to rebut these allegations because clearly our Constitution does not provide the supremacy of any single race or community. All Malaysians of all races are equal under the Constitution and their rights and privileges are zealously guarded.

“The Constitution, however, provides for the safeguard of the special position of the natives.

“This does not mean supremacy or privilege but rather a special position which requires special attention... it is known to everybody that the natives are economically backward, and therefore, in order to give them a fair chance to compete with other races they are given this special attention in the Constitution or in plain language a handicap. This handicap gives the natives a chance to have a share in the economic and business life of the country.” (“Constitution: Equal Rights to All”, p 304)

Notice that Tun Razak was very precise in his choice of words. He did not use the word “rights” (as is so popularly used nowadays) but the word as used in the Constitution, i.e., “position”. He also was careful to say it was the special position of the “natives” instead of the “Malays.” How more honest and sincere can a Malay leader be?

He also made it a point to emphasise that the ultimate goal was to have a moderate, fair and just Malaysia, where every race plays a part for the greater good of the country. He expressed his wish thus:

“I ask members of Umno to be loyal to the Party, to the aims and objectives and to the top leadership. To all good friends of Umno of other races, I ask them to help Umno because it is the duty of us in Malaysia today to help strengthen the sensible, moderate leadership which alone can lead this country in peace, harmony and unity towards meeting the rising expectations of our people of various races for a better life and a more just society. If this sensible and moderate leadership were to fail, then the country would veer either to the right or the left. If this happens then I am certain that misunderstanding and misfortune await all of us.

“Let us therefore rally to the help of this middle-of-the-road leadership - the right road towards peace, happiness and stability of our people and our beloved country, Malaysia.” (“The Turning Point in the History of This Country”, p 386)

The words “social contract” were unheard of by the common people in Malaysia since 1957 (save probably for students of and graduates in sociology and philosophy). Not until Aug 30, 1986, at least.

This was when Datuk Abdullah Ahmad, the famous MP for Kok Lanas, made his now infamous “Ketuanan Melayu” speech in Singapore. He was perhaps endorsed by the then PM, Dr Mahathir. (Well, at the very least, Dr Mahathir has never ever said that he disapproved of that speech). He said:

“Let us make no mistake — the political system in Malaysia is founded on Malay dominance. That is the premise from which we should start. The Malays must be politically dominant in Malaysia as the Chinese are politically dominant in Singapore.....

“The political system of Malay dominance was born out of a sacrosanct social contract which preceded national independence.....

“There is thus no two ways about it. The NEP must continue to sustain Malay dominance in the political system in line with the contract of 1957....”

He then split hairs:

“Ours is not a system of discrimination but of Malay preservation which foreigners particularly refuse to understand. Ours is a system of Malay political dominance but not, as is often put across, of Malay political domination.”

With that speech, delivered with the obvious tacit approval of the then prime minister, Dr Mahathir, all the honest intentions and sincere efforts of the likes of our father of Independence, the late Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra al-Haj, Datuk Onn Jaafar, Tun Dr Ismail and Tun Razak were immediately undone.

From thence on, the NEP and the special positions of the Malays and the natives were no more there to alleviate the backwardness of the Malays and the natives. The NEP must be continued to “sustain Malay dominance in the political system in line with the contract of 1957.” How time has changed since the heady days of 1957.

Ketuanan Melayu was, on Aug 30, 1986 (one day short of Malaysia’s 29th year of independence), born.

The *******isation of the “social contract” was, on Aug 30, 1986, complete.

The seeds of racial disharmony, racial discontent, racial hatred and racial polarisation were sewn that day. What we are seeing today are the trees and fruits of racial bigotry from the seeds sewn in 1986, watered and fertilised from time to time.

Now, may I ask, who had hijacked the “social contract”?

Acknowledgement:

1. All quotations from the British MPs are taken from the British Parliament Hansard

2. Excerpts of speeches of Datuk Onn Jaafar are taken from “Reflections of Pre-Independence Malaya” by Datuk Mohamed Abid : Pelanduk Publications, 2nd Edition 2004.

3. Excerpts of Datuk Abdullah Ahmad are taken from “Off The Edge”, February 2010. TheMalaysiaInsider.... (http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/index.php/opinion/art-harun/60865-the-*******isation-of-the-social-contract-part-2)

[pywong]

A useful template to study Malaysian history.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Malaysia_Tree_Diagram.png

http://i416.photobucket.com/albums/pp242/tindakmalaysia/politics/MalaysiaTreeDiagram.jpg

[pywong]

THE RAT RACE PART V – THE MALAYSIAN RAT RACE
(A look at Malaysian history beyond race and religion)

Chapter 2: The Social Contract - How We Got It All Wrong!

THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE!

For 50 years both sides of the political spectrum believed they were right, blissfully unaware that they were conned as Rats!

We have to break free from the mental cage of race and religion and learn to look at our situation through the concept of class division and as Malaysians. Until we do, we will never be free.

COMMENT We are being yet again regaled in various media on the issue of Malay special privileges. All this is being done without even an ounce of respect for the truth, the position of the genuine natives that constitute the territories that make up Malaysia, and the legitimate rights of other communities in the federation.

We have, among the latest, one from former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad who has put a new spin on these issues through his comments in various media on the “hijacking of the social contract”.

If there's a social contract, then it is the federal constitution. How could there be something in existence besides the supreme law of the law, and conveniently referred to as the social contract for reasons of political expediency and to suit a self-serving agenda?

A constitution by its very nature, whether written or unwritten, is colour-blind. It could not be any other way and if there are any exceptions anywhere that contradict this colour blindness, they would be restricted, within certain time limits and time-barred.

All university modules in the country for the compulsory Malaysian Studies course rightly refer to the federal constitution as the social contract, and there being no other social contract.

There's no doubt that this sacred document, as the social contract, has been completely hijacked by Umno since it came to power more than 50 years ago when the departing colonial British handed them the country on a silver platter.


That's why Umno continues to flog the dead horse of Malay special privileges in public even in the 21st century as globalisation sweeps the world and threatens to cast it into the dustbins of history.

Umno-Perkasa 'wink wink' ties

To maintain this fiction created by the hijacking, Umno has been shamelessly twisting and turning every issue in Malaysia into a racial and religious issue. Their hidden agenda is to mask the continuing theft by the ruling elite, their fat cats in tow, of the people's sweat from the public treasury. Meanwhile, the great unwashed are kept entertained with sheer hype on Malay special privileges.

These days, in the wake of the political tsunami of March 8, 2008, Umno has outsourced/sub-contracted its racist rant to Perkasa, led by Kelantan MP Ibrahim Ali, and advised by Mahathir. This is an Umno-Perkasa 'wink wink' relationship to maintain its access to the gravy train in perpetuity.

This hijacking of the social contract (the federal constitution) is the main point being hammered home repeatedly by Hindraf since it caught the public in the wake of the Nov 25, 2007 street demonstrations in Kuala Lumpur. But many, like Mahathir, choose not to see the forest for the trees.

An impartial examination of Article 153 of the federation constitution, to be read in conjunction with Articles 160, 152, 40, 8 and 3, will show there is no mention of Malay special privileges, as hyped by Umno and Perkasa, in this sacred document.

Article 152 is the reference to the Malay language as the national and official language of Malaysia.

This is only natural, and as it should be, since this beautiful and easy to learn and use language was the trading language and the language of communication and religion in the islands of southeast Asia some 500 years ago. Even Indonesia ditched Javanese, the most widely spoken language in the archipelago, in favour of Malay. The reason is that Javanese is a difficult language unlike Malay and not understood by the non-Javanese.

The colonial British used Malay as a blanket term, for convenience, for the small population already residing in the riverine stretches of Peninsular Malaysia.

These people were the Kelantanese (Kelantan), Minang (Negeri Sembilan), Yunan (Terengganu), Aceh (Perak), Champa (Perak, Kedah and Kelantan), Mandailing (Perak), Jawa (Johor, Selangor), Bugis (Johor, Selangor), Rawa (Perak), Jambi (Johor, Selangor, Perak), Batak (Selangor, Johor), Banjar (Selangor, Johor), Kurinchi (Selangor) and various other trading trans-migrants from the neighbouring islands who sought refuge in the swamps of Peninsular Malaysia.

Later, during British colonial rule, the term Malay was also extended to other linguistic groups from the neighbouring islands who flocked to Peninsular Malaysia, much in the same way as they do even now.

Universiti Sains Malaysia has done a DNA study, 'Menjejak Melayu' (In Malay gootsteps), conducted by 20 researchers on the Malay population in Peninsular Malaysia.

The study, published in Berita Minggu on July 23, 2006, traced the roots of the Malay language to Cambodia. Here, a Brahmin from India wed a local princess to start the royal line that exists even today and spawned the royal family of Brunei.

The Malay race is one of the enduring myths since the advent of British colonial rule and continued by Umno for self-serving reasons.

Hence, the Malay referred to in the federal constitution is that under the blanket term used by the colonial British authorities. This has been captured by the federal constitution under Article 160.

Constitutional Malays

Malay under this Article means a person who professes the religion of Islam, habitually speaks the Malay language, conforms to Malay customs, and geographically refers to Peninsular Malaysia and Singapore. This is the Article under which people like Mahathir, of Malayalee Muslim origin (Kerala), claim to be constitutional Malays.
Article 40 refers to how the king may exercise his functions.

Article 8 holds that “all persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law”.

Article 3 holds that “Islam is the religion of the Federation, but other religions may be practiced in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation”.

The only reference to the word privilege in the federal constitution is to educational and training privileges in Article 153.

The Article also mentions the special position of Malays and natives and special provision, but not as hyped by Umno and Perkasa for the general public. The Article also includes the legitimate interests of other communities.

The king has the power under Article 153 of the federal constitution to ensure that the Malay community is represented in intakes into state-owned institutions of learning. This is by no means a 'sapu bersih' (clean sweep) clause. Neither does it give the king a carte blanc on training privileges.

Intake into the civil service, the grant of government scholarships and a reasonable share and proportion of the opportunities from the government to do business are three other areas covered by Article 153.

The king has never, however, exercised the above powers. Umno, since independence, has hijacked the king's powers under Article 153 and spun it out of control to embrace every facet of life in Malaysia.

Umno has been able to get away with this hijacking and spin for so long now because of its complete control over the machinery of government propaganda and the mainstream media through the Publishing and Printing Presses Act.

It has also been able to carry out the hijacking and spinning unhindered because the non-Malay elites have been co-opted into the federal government under the fiction that they have a share of the political power, besides some crumbs now and then from the spoils of office.

This hijacking and spin is Umno's and Perkasa's version of the social contract a la the ruling BN.



JOE FERNANDEZ is Malaysiakini's Sabah pointman who feels compelled to put pen to paper when something doesn't quite jell with his 'weltanschauung' (worldview). He readily admits that there's a demon in him at times, urging him on. Malaysiakini. Please support by subscribing as a reader. (http://malaysiakini.com/news/132455)

[pywong]

THE RAT RACE PART V – THE MALAYSIAN RAT RACE CHAPTER 1

**IMPORTANT PRINCIPLE** We are Rats divided by class. Our labels, of race or religion, are irrelevant. Those labels are useful for the Ruling Class to divide us, control us and manipulate us. They apply psychological warfare on our minds to manipulate our emotions, to make us do their bidding, to pit one group of Rats against the other. Part of their strategy is to champion one race or religion and use them against the others. When it comes to rewards, the Ruling Class will keep the bulk, leaving the crumbs for the rest. Such deception can continue indefinitely. It is still ongoing.

RPK is describing the above in another way for the Malays.

1. UMNO needs a bogeyman - The Chinese.
2. UMNO needs the majority natives to be terrorised into believing the Chinese is a threat to their existence.
3. UMNO needs a never-ending solution to "solve" the native's problems - the NEP. The NEP must never be allowed to succeed because that means the Malays will be strong enough to do away with UMNO.
4. UMNO knows that the game is up. They are going all out in the raiding of the Treasury. As it is depleted, things will get worse. They will try to withdraw subsidies, introduce the GST. And finally, as a last resort, they may try the Jewish solution - extermination of the bogeyman.

The concept of slavery

NO HOLDS BARRED
Saturday, 29 May 2010 Super Admin

The Malays and other natives must first break out of the mental slavery that they are in. Only then can they break out of their economic slavery. However, as I see it, the mental and economic slavery of the Malays is too far down the road. I do not see any changes in our lifetime. It may have to get worse before it gets better.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Charting the Malay economic agenda

Some 500 representatives of more than 100 Malay non-governmental organisations met at Putra World Trade Centre today to chart the Malay economic agenda for the New Economic Model (NEM).

The convention themed “Strengthening Bumiputera Economy” is aimed at protecting Malay and Bumiputera interests in the country’s economic development.

Their aim is to ensure that the Malays and Bumiputera will not be left out under the NEM.

NEM, introduced by Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak last month, sought to liberalise the economy and put aside Malay privileges formerly enjoyed under the New Economic Policy (NEP).

NEM also aims to give equal opportunities to all Malaysians and eradicate poverty.

The Malay NGOs is grouped under the umbrella body called the Malay Consultative Council (MCC), and spearheaded by Perkasa, a right-wing Malay pressure group.

MCC wants the government to continue handing out privileges enjoyed by the Malays under the NEP so that they could develop alongside other races.

The MCC will hand over its resolutions to Najib when he closes the convention tonight. -- Free Malaysia Today

*************************************************

In the early days, the bigger and stronger tribes would attack the smaller and weaker tribes and take those still alive as slaves (and leave the dead bodies as food for the dogs and vultures). As time went on and tribes became nations, the bigger and stronger nations would attack the smaller and weaker nations and take its people as slaves.

Of course, once in a while, leaders such as Spartacus, Moses, and so on, came along to lead their people out of slavery. Or people like Abraham Lincoln would emerge to champion an end to slavery.

But the general rule of thumb would be that the strong would always try to enslave the weak and exploit the weak for economic benefits. There were also instances when two groups went to war and the losers in that war would be captured and turned into slaves. Invariably, if they served no economic purpose then they would be exterminated. But if they were useful as slaves then they would be captured alive.

Such are the ways of humankind. It is basically a case of the strong exploiting the weak so that the strong becomes stronger and the weak becomes weaker. And that too is basically what politics is all about. It is a game of the strong taking power so that they can rule over the weak. Maybe the graphics below best explains the relationship between the politicians and the voters.


Eventually, slavery, in the form that we knew, ended. But slavery per se never ended. It just transformed into a more sophisticated form. It transformed into mental and economic slavery. No longer did strong nations attack weaker nations with swords or guns. They attacked weaker nations economically and with ideas and concepts.

The current economic system is a creation of the stronger nations. Today, the weaker nations are slaves of this system and there is no breaking out of the system. Either you play according to the system or you do not play at all. And any country that does not practice a system of government that the stronger nations regard as ‘acceptable’ are punished until they abandon their unacceptable system and adopt the western interpretation of governance.

How many times in our youth back in the 1950 and 1960s did we cheer and whistle when the Cowboys won against the Red Indians (now called ‘Native Americans’; the politically correct term)? Was not John Wayne the hero and our idol and the Apaches the baddies? That was the ‘power’ Hollywood had over us. It did not occur to us then that America belonged to the Red Indians while the Orang Puteh (pale face) were the aggressors and robbers of Red Indian land.

Yes, the white skins decide the system and the rules. The red skins, black skins, yellow skins, brown skins, and whatnot, either comply with the system decided by the white skins or else they are the baddies. White is good. ‘Off-white’ is bad. That is the rule of the game.

The white skins, however, have left the shores of Malaysia. Today, Malaysia is run by the brown, yellow and black skins also known as Barisan Nasional. The British colonialists are no longer masters of our land. The masters of our land are our own people.

When the white skins ruled our land they were the masters (tuan) and we were the slaves. Today, the ruling elite is the master and the rest of us their slaves. That is how it worked for 10,000 years. That is still how it works today. But, today, we do not have a Spartacus or Moses to lead us out of slavery. Today, we have two sets of political parties fighting over who should be the masters of this land.

We might see a change of master if Pakatan Rakyat unseats Barisan Nasional and marches into Putrajaya. But that does not mean we shall see our status as slaves change.

Barisan Nasional need not enslave the Chinese and Indians. Well, they do, actually. They enslave the Chinese and Indians but reducing them to a status of second-class citizens and by placing quotas and restrictions on them. Therefore they are not free to flourish. They can only flourish as far as Barisan Nasional would allow them to.

What is more important is to enslave the natives, like how the Red Indians of America were enslaved on the reservations. And the natives here are the Malays and ‘others’ of Sabah and Sarawak. This group of people will decide who gets to form the federal government because they decide more than two-thirds of the seats in Parliament. So they must be the ones who should be enslaved.

And they are effectively enslaved both economically and mentally. Mentally, they are enslaved through culture and religion. Yes, cultural and religious beliefs are a form of slavery and a very effective form at that. And that is why Malays are being led to believe the wrong things about Islam. They are not taught the true and right form of Islam. To do so would mean you would be freeing the Malay mind.

And the most important form of slavery of all is economic slavery. That is what the powerful nations do to the weaker nations. And that is also what people in power do to those they rule over.

Of course, the people must be constantly reminded that they are poor, backward and left behind. But you have to look for a bogeyman to blame.... (The Chinese). And you offer yourself as the solution although you are actually the cause of the problem.

Today, the Malays, yet again, sat down in an economic convention to discuss their economic future. They have been doing the same for more than 40 years. And they are still doing it until today. But just like over the last 40 or 50 years, no solution will be found. This is because those who walk in the corridors of power do not want to find a solution. They need the natives to remain in poverty. Only when the natives remain as economic slaves can the powers-that-be continue to dominate them.
Just to digress a bit, my late father was involved in the First Bumiputera Economic Congress back in the 1960s, which resulted in the creation of Bank Bumiputera, while my Aunt was involved in RIDA, which later transformed into MARA and saw the creation of ITM and now UITM. So, yes, my family was involved in the ‘Malay struggle’ long before ‘May 13’ and that is why I feel I have earned the moral right to criticise those who walk in the corridors of power.

The Malays and other natives must first break out of the mental slavery that they are in. Only then can they break out of their economic slavery. However, as I see it, the mental and economic slavery of the Malays is too far down the road. I do not see any changes in our lifetime. It may have to get worse before it gets better.

And this is why I worry. There are only two types of changes. One is evolution. The other, revolution. The first takes time while the second can be achieved overnight. But the second can be very destructive in nature.

And there are two routes to achieving change. One is through the ballot and, the other, the bullet. The sad thing is, after people decide that the ballot has failed them, they would resort to the bullet.

And that would be a most tragic thing indeed if it does happen.

Was it not Lim Kit Siang in 1978 who wrote that book called ‘A time bomb in Malaysia’? Malaysiatoday.... (http://.The concept of slavery
NO HOLDS BARRED
Saturday, 29 May 2010 Super Admin
.



The Malays and other natives must first break out of the mental slavery that they are in. Only then can they break out of their economic slavery. However, as I see it, the mental and economic slavery of the Malays is too far down the road. I do not see any changes in our lifetime. It may have to get worse before it gets better.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Charting the Malay economic agenda

Some 500 representatives of more than 100 Malay non-governmental organisations met at Putra World Trade Centre today to chart the Malay economic agenda for the New Economic Model (NEM).

The convention themed “Strengthening Bumiputera Economy” is aimed at protecting Malay and Bumiputera interests in the country’s economic development.

Their aim is to ensure that the Malays and Bumiputera will not be left out under the NEM.

NEM, introduced by Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak last month, sought to liberalise the economy and put aside Malay privileges formerly enjoyed under the New Economic Policy (NEP).

NEM also aims to give equal opportunities to all Malaysians and eradicate poverty.

The Malay NGOs is grouped under the umbrella body called the Malay Consultative Council (MCC), and spearheaded by Perkasa, a right-wing Malay pressure group.

MCC wants the government to continue handing out privileges enjoyed by the Malays under the NEP so that they could develop alongside other races.

The MCC will hand over its resolutions to Najib when he closes the convention tonight. -- Free Malaysia Today

*************************************************

In the early days, the bigger and stronger tribes would attack the smaller and weaker tribes and take those still alive as slaves (and leave the dead bodies as food for the dogs and vultures). As time went on and tribes became nations, the bigger and stronger nations would attack the smaller and weaker nations and take its people as slaves.

Of course, once in a while, leaders such as Spartacus, Moses, and so on, came along to lead their people out of slavery. Or people like Abraham Lincoln would emerge to champion an end to slavery.

But the general rule of thumb would be that the strong would always try to enslave the weak and exploit the weak for economic benefits. There were also instances when two groups went to war and the losers in that war would be captured and turned into slaves. Invariably, if they served no economic purpose then they would be exterminated. But if they were useful as slaves then they would be captured alive.

Such are the ways of humankind. It is basically a case of the strong exploiting the weak so that the strong becomes stronger and the weak becomes weaker. And that too is basically what politics is all about. It is a game of the strong taking power so that they can rule over the weak. Maybe the graphics below best explains the relationship between the politicians and the voters.



Eventually, slavery, in the form that we knew, ended. But slavery per se never ended. It just transformed into a more sophisticated form. It transformed into mental and economic slavery. No longer did strong nations attack weaker nations with swords or guns. They attacked weaker nations economically and with ideas and concepts.

The current economic system is a creation of the stronger nations. Today, the weaker nations are slaves of this system and there is no breaking out of the system. Either you play according to the system or you do not play at all. And any country that does not practice a system of government that the stronger nations regard as ‘acceptable’ are punished until they abandon their unacceptable system and adopt the western interpretation of governance.

How many times in our youth back in the 1950 and 1960s did we cheer and whistle when the Cowboys won against the Red Indians (now called ‘Native Americans’; the politically correct term)? Was not John Wayne the hero and our idol and the Apaches the baddies? That was the ‘power’ Hollywood had over us. It did not occur to us then that America belonged to the Red Indians while the Orang Puteh (pale face) were the aggressors and robbers of Red Indian land.

Yes, the white skins decide the system and the rules. The red skins, black skins, yellow skins, brown skins, and whatnot, either comply with the system decided by the white skins or else they are the baddies. White is good. ‘Off-white’ is bad. That is the rule of the game.

The white skins, however, have left the shores of Malaysia. Today, Malaysia is run by the brown, yellow and black skins also known as Barisan Nasional. The British colonialists are no longer masters of our land. The masters of our land are our own people.

When the white skins ruled our land they were the masters (tuan) and we were the slaves. Today, the ruling elite is the master and the rest of us their slaves. That is how it worked for 10,000 years. That is still how it works today. But, today, we do not have a Spartacus or Moses to lead us out of slavery. Today, we have two sets of political parties fighting over who should be the masters of this land.

We might see a change of master if Pakatan Rakyat unseats Barisan Nasional and marches into Putrajaya. But that does not mean we shall see our status as slaves change.

Barisan Nasional need not enslave the Chinese and Indians. Well, they do, actually. They enslave the Chinese and Indians but reducing them to a status of second-class citizens and by placing quotas and restrictions on them. Therefore they are not free to flourish. They can only flourish as far as Barisan Nasional would allow them to.

What is more important is to enslave the natives, like how the Red Indians of America were enslaved on the reservations. And the natives here are the Malays and ‘others’ of Sabah and Sarawak. This group of people will decide who gets to form the federal government because they decide more than two-thirds of the seats in Parliament. So they must be the ones who should be enslaved.

And they are effectively enslaved both economically and mentally. Mentally, they are enslaved through culture and religion. Yes, cultural and religious beliefs are a form of slavery and a very effective form at that. And that is why Malays are being led to believe the wrong things about Islam. They are not taught the true and right form of Islam. To do so would mean you would be freeing the Malay mind.

And the most important form of slavery of all is economic slavery. That is what the powerful nations do to the weaker nations. And that is also what people in power do to those they rule over.

Of course, the people must be constantly reminded that they are poor, backward and left behind. But you have to look for a bogeyman to blame. And you offer yourself as the solution although you are actually the cause of the problem.

Today, the Malays, yet again, sat down in an economic convention to discuss their economic future. They have been doing the same for more than 40 years. And they are still doing it until today. But just like over the last 40 or 50 years, no solution will be found. This is because those who walk in the corridors of power do not want to find a solution. They need the natives to remain in poverty. Only when the natives remain as economic slaves can the powers-that-be continue to dominate them.

Just to digress a bit, my late father was involved in the First Bumiputera Economic Congress back in the 1960s, which resulted in the creation of Bank Bumiputera, while my Aunt was involved in RIDA, which later transformed into MARA and saw the creation of ITM and now UITM. So, yes, my family was involved in the ‘Malay struggle’ long before ‘May 13’ and that is why I feel I have earned the moral right to criticise those who walk in the corridors of power.

The Malays and other natives must first break out of the mental slavery that they are in. Only then can they break out of their economic slavery. However, as I see it, the mental and economic slavery of the Malays is too far down the road. I do not see any changes in our lifetime. It may have to get worse before it gets better.

And this is why I worry. There are only two types of changes. One is evolution. The other, revolution. The first takes time while the second can be achieved overnight. But the second can be very destructive in nature.

And there are two routes to achieving change. One is through the ballot and, the other, the bullet. The sad thing is, after people decide that the ballot has failed them, they would resort to the bullet.

And that would be a most tragic thing indeed if it does happen.

Was it not Lim Kit Siang in 1978 who wrote that book called ‘A time bomb in Malaysia’?
[URL=http://www.malaysia-today.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=32125:the-concept-of-slavery&catid=20:no-holds-barred&Itemid=100087)

[pywong]

THE RAT RACE PART V – THE MALAYSIAN RAT RACE
(A look at Malaysian history beyond race and religion)

Chapter 2: The Social Contract - How We Got It All Wrong!

THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE!

For 50 years both sides of the political spectrum believed they were right, blissfully unaware that they were conned as Rats!

We have to break free from the mental cage of race and religion and learn to look at our situation through the concept of class division and as Malaysians. Until we do, we will never be free.

Citizenship to the non-Malays
ARCHIVES 2010

Friday, 18 June 2010 admin-s

What about the magnanimity shown by the non-Malays in agreeing to recognise the special position of the Malays in reciprocation to give them a better life? Wasn’t that a magnanimous act on the part of the non-Malays? What if the non-Malays had from the outset refused to concede to the Malay demand on this issue and had remained unyielding till the end. Would the Malays be enjoying the sort of life they are leading without the goodwill of the non-Malays?

By Sivakumar

Citizenship to the non-Malays: Not given at the behest of the Malays
Historical facts should be projected in the right perspective without any bias

I refer to the article entitled, ‘“The Tunku, Merdeka and Malaysia,” by V.Chakaravarthy in Aliran Monthly Vol 30. No 1 where he stated, “Tunku was able to convince the Malays and they showed their magnanimity by granting citizenship to the non – Malays in exchange for the ‘special position’ of the Malays .This was the social contract which was bequeathed to us by our founding fathers’.

Although the article was written in praise of the Tunku, certain aspects of the article, with particular reference to the granting of citizenship to the non-Malays, need to be addressed and put in proper perspective as the above statement is generally the theory propounded by the Malays. At the same time it is also pertinent to reaffirm certain relevant issues regarding the role played by the non–Malays in achieving independence for Malaya.


Distortion

While the non-Malays are without any reservation grateful to the Malays for accommodating them as citizens of this nation but to say that it was by the magnanimity of the Malays that enabled the non-Malay to enjoy citizenship status is, to say the least, an exaggeration and a distortion of a historical fact. Some Malay politicians even keep harping now and then that the granting of citizenship by the Malays was a great favour done to the non-Malays for which the latter should remain indebted to them for
life.

This sentiment is also echoed at the Biro Tata Negara (BTN) courses conducted by the Government where it was alleged that some Malay speakers had blatantly told the non-Malay participants that they should be grateful to the Malays for their magnanimity in granting them citizenship. It looks like even the Government is tacitly reiterating this fact to the non-Malays openly. Such a preposterous statement will not help to foster harmonious relationships between the Malays and non-Malays but will only mar the goodwill that exists between them.

First of all, the Malays do not have the legal authority to grant citizenship to others as the granting of citizenship is governed under the Constitution. It is quite clear that under the Constitution, citizenship may be acquired by a person by (a) operation of law (b) registration (c) naturalization and (d) incorporation of territory.

However, it must be pointed out that prior to the Federation of Malaya Agreement 1948 there was no Federal Citizenship. One was either a citizen of one of the Malay states or a British citizen if residing in the Straits Settlement states of Malacca, Penang or Singapore.

However, by virtue of the Federation of Malaya Agreement 1948, non-Malay residents in Malacca or Penang, who were British citizens, were entitled to acquire Federal citizenship automatically by operation of law. Thus the acquisition of citizenship by the non-Malays by operation of law is a vested right under the Constitution and not something given at the behest of the Malays as claimed by some.

To support my statement, I quote below from the book entitled, “The Constitution of Malaysia “written by Harry E Groves, Head of Department of Law, and Dean Faculty of Law, University of Singapore, which is self-explanatory.

“Malays are subjects if born in the State. Others are subjects if born in the State and one parent was born in the Federation of Malaya. Malacca and Penang, being without Rulers, did not have any State citizenship. Those who came within the terms of the Federation of Malaya Agreement, 1948, recognized operation of law, registration and naturalization as methods of acquiring citizenship of the then Federation of Malaya. In addition to all subjects of rulers having Federation citizenship by operation of law, so did citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies who had certain designated contacts with the Settlements of Malacca or Penang or with the Federation of Malaya.’’


Social contract

The so-called Social Contract is a term used by latter day Malay leaders like Dr Mahathir to refer to the reciprocal concessions agreed to by our Malay and non-Malay founding fathers to safeguard the interests of the respective communities, as a sequel to independence. Only our founding fathers would know exactly in what context the concessions or compromises were made as the Constitution only speaks of “safeguarding the special position of the Malays and the legitimate interest of the other communities” - and nothing more.

However, some Malays claim that the Social Contract was a pledge to confer citizenship rights to the non-Malays upon their agreement to recognize the special position of the Malays. It is a pity that our founding fathers are not around today to confirm the true position. Nevertheless, going by the version propounded by some Malays, it would appear that the granting of citizenship to the non-Malays was compromised on a quid pro qua basis and not by the sole decision of the Malays. If so, then what is there for these Malays to insist and state that the Malays were the ones who gave citizenship to the non-Malays and to that extent they were very magnanimous.

What about the magnanimity shown by the non-Malays in agreeing to recognise the special position of the Malays in reciprocation to give them a better life? Wasn’t that a magnanimous act on the part of the non-Malays? What if the non-Malays had from the outset refused to concede to the Malay demand on this issue and had remained unyielding till the end. Would the Malays be enjoying the sort of life they are leading without the goodwill of the non-Malays? So, the question of magnanimity did not rest with the Malays alone but with the non-Malays as well. This fact must be appreciated by the Malays at all times. The majority of Malays of goodwill have no problem recognising this fact.

Furthermore, when the NEP was passed in 1970 after the 13th May 1969 debacle, didn’t the non-Malays unselfishly agree to pass over to the Malays 30% of their business equity in the interest of the Malays, as required by the Government? Wasn’t that a magnanimous act and a great favour done to the Malays by the non-Malays in order to uplift them from their poor economic standing?

Giving citizenship alone is not a bounty, for the non-Malays have reciprocated in no small measure by developing and contributing immensely to the economic progress of this nation, the fruits of which are also enjoyed by the Malays. Hence, it may not be an exaggeration to say that the non-Malays have given more to the Malays than taken from them in the form of just citizenship only. Yet, the non-Malays do not brag or crow about it as it is everyone’s duty to help one another.


Independence

There is also an erroneous perception on the part of some Malays that independence for Malaya was fought by the Malays only. This view is not only unfair to the non-Malays but is without any foundation. Although it must be admitted that the Malays were the ones who initiated the Merdeka movement, they could not, on their own, have succeeded in their mission as the British government was not inclined to grant independence without the participation of the other races namely, the Chinese and Indians. As such the Tunku, as leader of UMNO and the Merdeka movement had to seek the support and co-operation of MCA and MIC respectively to achieve his goal.

These non-Malay political parties gave the Tunku their whole-hearted support in his hour of need. If the Chinese and Indians had dissented they could have left the Tunku in the lurch by telling the British that they were not interested in independence and preferred to remain as British subjects. But the non-Malays, being magnanimous, didn’t do that. Instead, they co-operated with the Tunku to lift the country from the colonial yoke. To pursue their goal, the three political parties namely, UMNO, MCA and MIC formed a coalition, known as the Alliance to ask for independence from Britain and what followed next is all history, with Malaya attaining independence on 31st August 1957 to the jubilation of all the races.

I quote below the relevant passage from Mr. Harry E. Groves's book (pages 12&13) which reveals that the quest for Merdeka was the joint effort of all the races and not that of the Malays alone. To say otherwise is tantamount to ignoring and dismissing the non-Malays and their loyal support to the Tunku in his effort to gain independence for Malaya.

“The sentiment for independence continued to grow during the ‘emergency’ period of Communist warfare. In time it became apparent that independence could only be achieved through some joining of forces of the communal parties; and in 1952 the United Malays National Organization, the Malayan Chinese Association, and the Malayan Indian Congress formed a political coalition, the Alliance, which carried a number of State and Settlement elections. The British Government in 1954 agreed to make a majority
of the seats in the Federal Legislative Council elective rather than appointive as formerly. Of the fifty-two seats to be filled in the first such election in July 1955, fifty-one were won by the Alliance, with voting across racial lines being one of the most striking features of the elections. Discussions were begun in August 1955, between the British Secretary of State, the Rulers and the new Alliance Ministers on the next steps toward self-government.


Reid Commission

It was agreed that a Commission to review the Constitution of the federation should meet in London early in 1956. The Federation of Malaya Constitutional Conference met in London in January and February 1956. Agreement was reached on full self-government and independence within the Commonwealth. A Commonwealth Constitutional Commission was agreed upon to make recommendations for a constitution. Only five members served on this Commission: Lord Reid, a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary as Chairman; Sir Ivor Jennings, Master of Trinity Hall, Cambridge; Sir William McKell, a former Governor-General of Australia; Mr. B. Malik, a former Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court; and Justice Abdul Hamid of the West Pakistan High Court. No Malayans served on this Commission.

The Commission was given five specific terms of reference:
(a) the establishment of a strong central government with some autonomy in the States,
(b) safeguarding the positions and prestige of the Rulers,
(c) providing for a constitutional head of state,
(d) creating a common nationality and
(e) safeguarding the special position of the Malays and the legitimate interests of the other communities.

The Commission met in Malaya in the summer of 1956. It solicited memoranda from organizations and individuals and received 131 such memoranda. It held 81 hearings in support of the memoranda throughout the peninsula. It visited each State and Settlement
conferring with officials, British and Malay, and met informally with other official and private persons

• The Commission went to Rome to prepare its report” ….
• The new constitution came into being with the new nation on August 31 1957, Merdeka Day.

However, notwithstanding the fact that independence was achieved some 53 years ago, it is lamentable that we are still living as Malays, Chinese and Indians and not as one people. It will be noted that an interesting feature of the terms of reference to the Commonwealth Constitutional Commission, as revealed in Mr. Harry E. Groves’s book, at page 13 (see above extract) was the creation of a “common nationality”, following independence. It is regrettable that the Government has failed to achieve this noble objective hitherto. On the other hand the Government has divided the people into Bumiputras and non-Bumiputras to be treated differently contrary to the spirit of the Constitution.

Perhaps the Government prefers to run the nation on ethnic lines as it brings advantages to certain groups of people. This kind of classification certainly does not augur well for the future of the nation as it is bound to create chauvinistic instincts in some people, especially among some Bumiputras, and keep them apart from the others forever.

If the Prime Minister, Dato Seri Najib bin Tun Razak is really sincere about uniting the people under his 1Malaysia concept, then it is high time we dismantle racial borders and treat all as one people.

In conclusion, suffice to say that ours is a wonderful nation where all the races have been living together harmoniously for generations in the spirit of give and take. Hence, let not a few overzealous Malay leaders distort historical facts on the pretext of seeking glory for their race by portraying themselves as the only magnanimous people on earth. What these misguided individuals are doing is using the name of the Malay community to promote their own selfish interests. Thinking people can see through them.

The intention of the writer in writing this article is not to criticize anyone but to stress that historical facts should be projected in
the right perspective without any bias so that our harmony and peace can be preserved for our mutual benefit.

P Sivakumar is an Aliran member and President of the Malaysian Indians Business Association. Malaysia-today.... (http://www.malaysia-today.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=32528:citizenship-to-the-non-malays&catid=18:letterssurat&Itemid=100129)

[pywong]

Don't question social contract, says Najib

Hehhehheh. With depressing regularity, these UMNO-clods will come up with this baby to club the opposition into submission: - http://malaysiakini.com/news/142047.

This argument involves a mental sleight of hand on the definition of the social contract. Once we let that slip through, the rest of the argument is easily won by the UMNO apologists.

UMNO is claiming that the natives of Malaysia granted citizenship to the Chinese and the Indians in exchange for special privileges. We won’t go into the argument about who is the real native of Malaysia.

So, we will not question the Social Contract. Instead, we will revisit it.

First a definition. What is a Social Contract? Here’s what Wikipedia says (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract) –

1. An agreement by the governed on a set of rules by which they are governed.
2. An agreement whereby the people give up sovereignty to a government or other authority in order to receive or maintain social order through the rule of law.

Definition 1 is very simple – that’s the Federal Constitution. Article 153 has been talked to death but there’s not one word about special privileges! Recognition of the special position (meaning economically-weaker position) of the natives, yes. But special privileges – no. But UMNO has turned the argument on its head to justify the NEP. There are enough reasons elsewhere to explain its lack of constitutionally, so we won’t go into it here. (see bottom of this article)

Definition 2: the people gave up some rights in exchange for government maintaining social order.

What are these rights given up by the people? It actually refers to certain obligations undertaken by the people to the government:

A. Obligations of the governed (the people)
• The obligation to pay tax, (even this is disputed by many Americans going back to 1913!)
• The obligation to defend the country during war,
• The obligation to comply with the Constitution and with any amendments to the Laws drafted by the Government.

Let’s examine the performance of the people.
• Have we not paid taxes?
• Has our forefathers defended the nation during war? Did we not fight the Japanese during World War II? Did we not fight to kick the British colonialists out of the country?
• Have we not complied with the Constitution and its more than 650 amendments since 1957?

Clearly, we have kept our part of the bargain.

B. Obligations of the Government (or the Ruling Party running the institution of Government)
• Provide social order through the Rule of Law. Note carefully the words – Rule of Law, not Rule by Law,
• Social services such as healthcare, infrastructure, utilities, education,
• Help the weak and socially-disadvantaged regardless of race or religion,
• Security both internal and external.

Has UMNO/BN honoured the agreement?

• Is the people governed fairly in accordance with the Law? Can we trust our judiciary, the MACC, the Police or for that matter any government institution?
• Are social services provided by the Government at reasonable rates, or have they privatized it out to private operators? This is effectively a hidden form of taxation except it is for the benefit of private operators.
• Is the weak and socially-disadvantaged helped regardless of race? No!
• Is crime and public security a problem in the country? Yes!
• With the way defense equipment are procured and jet engines can fly out of the country under the noses of our armed forces, do we have confidence that our defence is secure? No!

Clearly, the Ruling Party (UMNO/BN) has not kept their part of the Social Contract. In other words, they have lost the mandate to rule. During the next general elections, let’s kick them out and put in a new ruling party.

Refer to posts above for more information: #2, 10, 11, 19, 20, 21, 22, 33, 34, 50, 53, 54, 55, 57, 59

[pywong]

What social contract? — Clive Kessler
September 06, 2010

SEPT 6 — “Najib warns against questioning ‘social contract’,” it is reported.

This claim is plain and simple “historical revisionism”.

To what “social contract” precisely is the PM referring?

In the 1980s a new political idea was created: that of “Ketuanan Melayu”, of Malay ascendancy, supremacy, domination.

Thereafter, especially from 2008 it has been ever more powerfully promoted, generally in association with the suggestion that a “social contract” had been entered into and constitutionally enshrined in the mid-1950s.

How was this manoeuvre executed? With what purpose and consequences?

It was, from 1986, now newly suggested that the notion of “Ketuanan Melayu” had been part of the “Merdeka process and agreements”, and that the nation’s non-Malay citizens had thereby consented to accept, and thereafter ever live subject to, Malay ascendancy and supremacy.

There was perhaps an implicit, but only implicit, “social contract” formed in 1955-1957. If that is how one chooses to denote the core political substance of the Merdeka process, then that implied “contract” was about inter-communal or inter-ethnic power-sharing and the secular nature of the Malaysian state. It was not about notion of “Malay supremacy”. That notion was only subsequently, indeed very much later, confected.

If there was at that time a “social contract”——if that is how some people later may choose to characterize the Merdeka process and agreements——then what they are referring to is merely a retrospectively imputed or implied social contract.

This term was now offered as a new way of denoting, and seeing, that national political legacy and foundation, that core political substance. But, when reached, in their own time, those agreements, that subsequently implied “contract” (to use the new, and newly inflated term) was not about and did not provide for “Ketuanan Melayu” — nor for the supremacy of Islamic shari’ah law as the supreme and uncontestable law of the land either, for that matter, as some creative constitutional revisionists also now like to suggest.

Yet there was no “social contract” as such at the time. People have only inferred and argued subsequently that there was, because there somehow must have been, such a contract at the time of Merdeka — and, driven by retrospective wish-fulfilment, they have then “filled in” what it pleases them to believe, or passionately desire, that its terms must have been. They “read back” the politics of the present, and their preferred political future that they like to imagine for themselves, into the historic past.

Yet nobody talked at the time, in 1955-1957, about there being concluded any such “social contract”. Nobody seriously imagined that any such contract formally enshrining and constitutionally entrenching Malay domination was being entered into by all the people. Nobody suggested that people, or the nation as a whole, had signed up to and agreed to be bound by any such “contract” providing for enduring Malay ethnocracy — for Malay domination in perpetuity and with the unalterable assent over the generations of the dominated.

Subsequently, from the mid-1980s, the idea that there had been an implicit “social contract” was fashioned. It was suggested that the notion of “Ketuanan Melayu” had, by inference, been part of or implied by that contract.

In this way, born only in the 1980s, the new idea of “Ketuanan Melayu” was “read back”, or subsequently “smuggled”, into the Merdeka agreements and process, or into now authoritatively offered but very questionable claims about what those agreements had provided for and “locked in” as the solemn foundations of nationhood . If there was an implicit contract at that time (it was at first subliminally and then explicitly suggested) then universal assent to “Ketuanan Melayu” was and must have been part of it.

This, quite simply and evidently, is historically erroneous. It is sheer revisionism. It is retrospective meddling with national historical truth and the nation’s constitutional foundations.

Never has the need for clear historical study, analysis, accuracy and faithfulness to the facts been greater.

* Clive S. Kessler is Emeritus Professor, Sociology & Anthropology at The University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia TheMalaysiaInsider.... (http://themalaysianinsider.com/breakingviews/article/what-social-contract-clive-kessler)

[pywong]

In post #3, we said:


THE RAT RACE PART V – CH. 3: A REVIEW OF MALAYAN HISTORY
3.1: PRE-INDEPENDENCE (BEFORE 31 AUG 1957) – THE EVENTS

History was a very powerful tool used by the Ruling Class for indoctrination, manipulation, propaganda, misinformation and spreading of lies.

George Santayana (Spanish-born American Philosopher, Poet and Humanist) said:

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. (http://thinkexist.com/quotation/those_who_do_not_learn_from_history_are_doomed_to/170710.html)

And Hitler’s Minister of Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels (http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/goebmain.htm)said:

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” Repeated Lies. (http://thinkexist.com/quotation/-if_you_tell_a_lie_big_enough_and_keep_repeating/345877.html)

Nowadays, we have Minister of Information, often supported by the Minister of Home Affairs. Their jobs are to lie to the public to keep them quiescent. Still, Goebbel’s Principles of Propaganda (http://www.psywarrior.com/Goebbels.html) are constantly referred to by those distinguished people.

We elaborated further in posts #60 & 61. We are now able to interpret and analysis "new" arguments put up by the paid hacks of UMNO, who masquerade as historians.


'Those who question Malay rights blind about history'

Mon, 06 Sep 2010 23:13

KUALA LUMPUR: The people, irrespective of their race, who question Article 153 of the Federal Constitution, which spells out the special rights and privileges of the Malays and Bumiputeras, are blind about history and the constitution, analysts said. Prof Emeritus Khoo Kay Kim said the special position of the Malays was recognised way back since the British era.

Note how "special rights", "privileges", "special position" are used interchangeably in the context of their version of "history". If we don't know our history, we will be fooled into accepting "special rights" as "special position". They are very different. If the architects of our Constitution have wanted to refer to "special rights", they would have stated "special rights" and not "special position". Once the UMNO apologists slip this mental sleight of hand through, the rest of the argument is won.


"When the British came to Malaya, they found that there were already Malay governments in several parts of the peninsula, and the British recognised these governments.

"These governments took care of a large number of people (the Malays). For the British, these people had their special rights. But those who came and lived in Malaya were not subjects of the rulers and therefore, did not enjoy the same rights enjoyed by the Malays," he said.

He said the non-Malays in the peninsula at that time were not citizens or subjects of the king, adding that they only had the opportunity to apply for citizenship when the Federation of Malaya was formed on Feb 1, 1948.

Correct! But the "special rights" were not spelt out. The British were busy suppressing the opposition to their rule among the Malay leftists and the communists. So they were not interested to address this issue just yet. Citizenship was granted to the Chinese and the Indians in a campaign to win the hearts of the Chinese against the communists who were waging a civil insurgency against the British. To save on shipping insurance premiums, the British called it an Emergency and not a civil war, which it really was.


"When the British planned the formation of the Malay Federation as a nation state, it was an extension of what already existed then, and by 1957, the Federal Constitution was formulated, incorporating the prevailing arrangement at that time," he said.

The people, especially those from other races, should therefore respect the rights and privileges of the Malays as enshrined in the constitution because when it was first formulated, the various races had already agreed to what needed to be incorporated in it, he said.

"The special position of the Malays started since a long time ago and based on the system of government that existed then. In the peninsula, nine Malay kingdoms existed since 1895, and continued to exist until today," he said.

The Federal Constitution was formulated based on the recommendations of the Reid Commission. It took effect soon after independence on Aug 31, 1957.

Khoo has conveniently ignored the fact that the Reid Commission (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_Commission)
was set up in 1956 to draft the Malayan Constitution from scratch. Any previous agreements unless specifically incorporated in the Constitution is irrelevant.

The biggest lie is the story of "exchange of citizenship" for the Chinese and Indians for "special rights" for the Malays. The British and UMNO needed the Chinese and Indians to stay. Without them, the country would go bankrupt! If the natives could work according to the British requirements, the Chinese and Indians would not have been brought to Malaya in the first place. They couldn't, hence the massive migration of Chinese and Indians to help the British to open up the country.

This point is not meant to denigrate any community but rather to put the lie to UMNO's preposterous claims all these years that UMNO did a great favour to the Chinese and the Indians by granting them citizenship.

Hello! Britain would not have granted independence to Malaya if the Chinese and Indians did not agree to the terms of the Constitution. In fact, it was the Chinese and the Indians who did UMNO a great favour by agreeing to the British handing power over to UMNO. In return, UMNO bit the hand that helped them. And they have been doing it for more than 50 years.


Article 153 spells out the powers vested upon the Yang di-Pertuan Agong in safeguarding the special position of the Malays and the natives of Sabah and Sarawak, as well as the legitimate interests of other communities.

It also spells out in detail the functions of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong in ensuring quotas for the Malays and Bumiputeras in the public service, scholarships, public education as well as the provisions of permit and business licence.

'King's consent needed'

Khoo said the reason why there were groups questioning the rights and privileges of the Malays was because the society of today was "blind about history".

"They don't understand (the constitution) and are ignorant of what they can or cannot do. There shouldn't be any debate on the constitution because what is important is to follow what has been in use for so long," he said.

He said that if the constitution was to be amended, it would require the agreement of two-thirds of Parliament and should be consented to by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong.

He added that anyone wanting to abolish or amend Article 153 should obtain the agreement of the Malays and Bumiputeras, the agreement of two-thirds of Parliament and the consent of the King.

"If Article 153 is to be amended or abolished, the Malays, as a whole, should first agree to it. If they feel that they are not ready for it, then it cannot be amended," he said.

Next Khoo goes into some irrelevant gibberish about people wanting to amend or abolish Article 153 to throw the Malays into a frenzy. Not one organisation or person has ever raised that subject. What UMNO and her cronies have tried is to throw a smoke-screen whenever anyone questions how they apply the Constitutional provisions and their continued illegal implementation of the NEP.


Last month, the MCA tabled 13 resolutions at the Chinese Economic Congress to strengthen the 10th Malaysia Plan, among them, asking the government to give importance to merit, not quota, to allow opportunities for all to compete in a fair and healthy manner.

The remark was seen by many as indirectly questioning Article 153 and the responsibility of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong in safeguarding the rights and privileges of the Malays.

Perak mufti Harussani Zakaria, during a panel discussion on Malay unity in Ipoh last month, claimed the existence of a new constitution, which would expunge the special rights and privileges of the Malays, as well as provisions on Islam.

Last Tuesday, Lembah Pantai MP Nurul Izzah Anwar, wrote in The Malaysian Insider news portal, that the idea of Malay rights as advocated by the right-wing group Perkasa was "a mere ideological and philosophical construct" which was not rooted in the constitution.

Nurul Izzah also wrote that according to the Reid Commission that drafted the constitution, "Article 153 was intended as temporary preferences to seek racial parity, subject to be reviewed after 15 years by Parliament as to its continued need".

Wrong interpretation

Political analyst Prof Zainal Kling said Nurul Izzah should resign as an MP for making a wrong interpretation and for deceiving the people.

"She is ignorant and confused. She doesn't know that the Reid Report contained only recommendations which have been amended by the White Paper on the Malayan Constitution, published in London," he said.

Zainal also called on the government to look into the statement by Nurul Izzah, saying those who questioned the rights and privileges of the Malays run the risk of violating the Sedition Act 1948.

"The government must scrutinise speeches like this whether they violated the Sedition Act. If it is, then those responsible should be brought to court," he said.

Zainal, who is a professor at the Faculty of Social Science and Humanities of Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris, did not rule out the possibility of moves, championed by non-Malays, to eliminate the Malay rights.

"It is like the foreign ideology that prevailed in Singapore back in 1963 and 1964 which aimed at tearing Malaysia apart. The people should oppose the movement as it will only cause friction among them," he said.

He said each citizen should adhere to the law and the Federal Constitution or else, their loyalty to the country could still be questioned.

"They become a citizen because the constitution allows them to, so they have to show respect to the constitution," he said.

He said Article 153 of the constitution was also vital to protect and help the Malays and Bumiputeras, especially those in rural and remote areas.

"Villagers, Orang Asli, Bumiputeras in Sabah and Sarawak who are living in rural or remote areas must be assisted. The government must enforce Article 153 for the well-being of the people," he said.

Certain mechanism

Meanwhile, a social science lecturer from Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM), Prof Ahmad Atory Hussain, said all races in Malaysia should respect the provisions in the constitution.

He said dissatisfactions over the constitution existed even during the fight for independence, but back then, it only involved the minority.

"Right now, the minority has obtained access to blogs and the new media. Unlike previously, they now have the freedom of speech and what seems like a massive protest by many, is actually not the case," he said.

Ahmad Atory said other races should not question the Malay and Bumiputera quotas because only by having such privileges could the Malays compete with other races.

"Without the quota, other races will take all and leave nothing for the Malays. Had we denied others their rights, there would be no Chinese billionaires," he said.

He said the government, as the executor of Malay rights and privileges, should have a certain mechanism to handle those who opposed the provisions stipulated under the constitution.

"The government should have a national programme. The history subject, for example, is important for the future generation to know about the history of independence," he said.

He said the leaders who drafted the constitution back then had not anticipated that in future, some of the provisions would be opposed vehemently by the non-Malays.

"If they had anticipated what was coming, some of the issues could have been fixed, but what's done cannot be undone," he said.- Bernama here (http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/fmt-english/news/general/10023-those-who-question-malay-rights-blind-about-history)

So we have these paid-historians trying to peddle the UMNO propaganda as "truth". Doesn't work anymore, gentlemen. We have seen the enemy and the enemy is "you".

This nation can grow to be more prosperous than Singapore provided the various communities are united and pull their weight together. But first we need to get rid of the cancer eating our society which is called UMNO/BN.

[pywong]

This is a validation of what we had written about the period 1946 to 1957. The dumping of their partners PKMM, marked the early signs of UMNO's modus operandi - always playing out their partners at the 1st opportunity.

The Original Heroes of Merdeka

by Al-Jafree Md Yusop and Syed Zahar

This article is a tribute to all the forgotten freedom fighters who fought for Malaya’s independence from the British oppressors, especially those who were unjustly chastised for their activisms.

How the Fight for Independence Started

http://i416.photobucket.com/albums/pp242/tindakmalaysia/rat%20race%20part%20IIIA/pkmm1ishakmuhammad.jpg Before the Japanese occupation of Malaya and the existence of Umno in the early 1940s, Ishak Haji Mohammed, popularly known as Pak Sako (left), risked being prosecuted for treason (punishable by death) by secretly going to Japan to solicit Japanese help to fight for the independence of his country. Subsequent to this, Dr Burhanuddin Al-Helmy met with Soekarno to plan strategies for both countries’ independence. Though the attempts of both Pak Sako and Dr Burhanuddin failed for various reasons they were what marked the dawn of Malaya’s fight for independence. Additionally, it was the independence of Indonesia on August 17, 1945 which was admired by the Malays in Malaya that inspired them to achieve their own liberation from the British.

Formation of PKMM and Umno

It was not until early 1946 that Malaya’s first independent movement was initiated in the form of a political party called Parti Kebangsaan Melayu Malaya (PKMM). Its founding members were Malays of Indonesian descent, notably Ahmad Boestamam and Musa Ahmad. Whenever and wherever the party members met, they greeted each other with “Merdeka!” It was said in a spirited voice with clenched fist brought to the chest. The party’s first newspaper Suara Rakyat which contents were 100 percent political was published at Hale Street, Ipoh. Before too long, PKMM opened branches all over the country with its headquarters at Batu Road (now Jalan Tuanku Abdul Rahman) Kuala Lumpur. It did not take much convincing or time for Ishak Haji Muhammad (aka Pak Sako) and Dr Burhanuddin Al-Helmy to join PKMM.

The United Malays National Organisation (Umno) was formed six months after the formation of PKMM. The party was established with the sole objective of opposing the proposed Malayan Union which relegated the powers of the Malayan Rulers to the British Residents. Contrary to popular belief, Umno was not an independence movement. As the leaders of Umno were mostly colonial civil servants who had sold their lives and soul to the colonialists, it vehemently opposed independence. Not only were they anti-independence, the word “Merdeka” was also considered taboo to them. Coincidentally, at that time, Umno’s greeting was “Hidup Melayu!”

Another reason Umno opposed independence was that they felt that the Malays were poor and uneducated and, to them, if the Malays were left to themselves, Malaya would end up being a failed state.

The PKMM, on the other hand, thought otherwise. They wanted to gain independence first and only then would there be ample opportunity to educate the Malays as the country was rich in natural resources, and it would not be a failed state. These opposing stances were what had split the two parties and led to enmity.

The Rise of PKMM and the Labour Movement



PKMM became a symbol of solidarity because of its leaders who were committed to the party’s cause. The party’s spirit, along with their branches and bureaus grew like wildfire all across Malaya. Apart from the youth and women’s wings, labour, agriculture and religious bureaus were established. The labour bureau was the most active and most successful political agitator. The presence of PKMM was welcomed and long awaited by the Malayan labour movement and the party’s labour bureau had no trouble in gaining support from the former seeing as the labourers’ living conditions at that time were pitiful.

Incidentally, the Malayan labour movement had affiliated itself with the world labour movement, the World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU), whose headquarters was in Paris, and not with the American-controlled International Labour Organisation (ILO), whose headquarters was in New York. As the French-based WFTU was leftist inclined, the Malayan labour movement’s affiliation to it heightened British suspicion of PKMM.

Between 1946 to1948, the labour movement was so active (except in Kedah, Kelantan and Terengganu) that recurring strikes almost crippled the nation’s rubber and tin industries. The port workers of Singapore also joined in the strikes, incapacitating Malaya’s major port.

Expectedly, the British operative policy of divide and rule was immediately put into action. The British, while pretending to acknowledge the labourers’ plight, declared PKMM as illegal and incarcerated its leaders.

The banning of PKMM only further alleviated the organised strikes and, with that, British economic interests were in jeopardy day by day. The mainstay of the British economy which were the rubber and tin industries, were faced with impending paralysis. With their economic interests threatened, the colonial government sent a loud and clear message to Whitehall to caution them of Malaya’s intention to free itself from the shackles of colonial rule. Whitehall realised soon enough that in the wake of India'and Indonesia attained independence, Malaya’s aspiration could no longer be contained and they had no choice but to grant Malaya its rightful independence sooner or later.

The British Chooses Umno to Negotiate Independence

The British had learnt that independence achieved through war was not the way to go as this would result in the loss of life and property,and, more essentially, leaves a grudge within the beneficiary state. In turn, the outcome would be the less-than-desirable nationalisation of the colonialists’ assets. Since the British realised that they could lose everything they decided to negotiate independence. The only question was who would be the British protégé so that their assets would be fully protected while the expatriates could hold on to their jobs a bit longer.

With PKMM banned and its leaders incarcerated, Umno was the safest bet as the latter was the only organised movement that dominated the political scene then. Umno, of course, was very receptive to the British as most of their leaders were British educated and had embraced British culture and values ever since their school days in Britain or at the Malay College Kuala Kangsar (MCKK). Additionally, they were mostly the sons of the Malay rulers and chieftains who had been close to the British. These people had been moulded to become anglophiles who regards the British as their icons and mentors and viewed them as their saviour.

Umno quickly seized the opportunity provided by the colonialists and took over where the PKMM had left off. From an anti-Malayan Union organisation, it suddenly assumed the role of a force fighting for independence. The British were very comfortable with Umno’s new role, and negotiations for independence took off.

The negotiations that followed were mainly technical and focussed on two major issues: to prepare the country’s constitution and to agree on the date of the declaration of independence. A body was formed, headed by Lord Reid, to look into a constitution and the date of independence was agreed as August 31, 1957. For political exigency, Umno would have to forge an alliance with the ethnic Chinese and Indian political parties, and hence “Perikatan” (Alliance) was formed.

Pending full independence, Malaya was ruled by the Federal Legislative Council consisting of appointed members representing the various races and professions. With independence granted, the British got to retain the entire system and had their assets protected. For Umno and the Alliance, the declaration of independence was a jubilant moment as it was achieved without shedding a drop of blood.

The Lowering of Union Jack and Hoisting of Malayan Flag

“On August 31, 1957, Malaya was re-reborn. As the clock struck midnight, the Union Jack was lowered and the new Malayan flag was hoisted in front of the clock tower opposite the Selangor Padang. The shouts of “Merdeka!” – no less than seven times – reverberated and resounded in the air. The shouts were led by Tuanku Abdul Rahman, who stood on a rostrum surrounded by his Cabinet Ministers, some of whom, I observed, were obviously drunk.” – Dato’ Hishamuddin Yahaya (former MP of Temerloh)

The next morning, the official declaration of independence was held at Stadium Merdeka, attended by all the Malay Rulers, the British High Commissioner and the representatives of the Queen (Duke of Gloucester etc). With that, Malaya established itself as an independent state, a member of the British Commonwealth and member of the United Nations.

Malaysia’s independence was the cumulation of a long and hard struggle, a triumph attained not by the elite class, but by labourers and the downtrodden – who now lay in the graves unknown and forgotten. They were Malays, Indians, Chinese and others who sacrificed their lives and freedom for future generations, yet whose existence we hardly knew. It is these pure nationalists who rightfully deserve to be glorified on August 31 every year and not the so-called patriots who hoisted the Malayan flags at the compound of their mansions and on their luxurious automobiles.

In any case, Winston Churchill’s statement that “History is written by the victors” is dead on; yet the Latin proverb “Fortune (and history for that matter) favours the brave” is far from the truth. Perhaps there is a need for change in what has been written in our history textbooks...
The Most Notable Unsung Heroes of Merdeka

Ahmad Boestamam (30 November, 1920 – 19 January, 1983)
.
Ahmad Boestamam (right) http://i416.photobucket.com/albums/pp242/tindakmalaysia/rat%20race%20part%20IIIA/pkmm2ahmadboestamam.jpg was an activist of the leftist Kesatuan Melayu Muda (KMM) movement. During the Japanese occupation of Malaya, he had briefly served with the Japanese sponsored militia known as the Pembela Tanah Ayer (Defender of the Homeland; PETA) and later helped to organize co-operative communes run by the KMM.

Boestaman had been a young follower of the KMM from the late 1930s in Perak, emerging after the war as the militant youth leader of Angkatan Pemuda Insaf (API) to the older and more moderate Dr Burhanuddin Helmi and Ishak Haji Muhammad of the Malay Nationalist Party (PKMM).

Dr Burhanuddin Al-Helmy (26 November, 1911 – 6 November, 1969)

http://i416.photobucket.com/albums/pp242/tindakmalaysia/rat%20race%20part%20IIIA/pkmm3burhanuddinalhelmi.jpg Dr Burhanuddin Al-Helmy (left) became a Parti Islam Se-Malaya (PAS) member on December 14, 1956 and became party’s president on December 25, 1956. He was approached by some PAS leaders like Haji Hassan Adli and others who guaranteed that the leadership of PAS will be trusted to him. Under the leadership of Dr Burhanuddin, the popularity of the party became famous and it became more widely accepted by the Malays. In 1956 and 1959, the seat of presidency was being contested and Zulkifli whom opposed him in the presidency post. No doubt that Dr Burhanuddin’s personality, appearance and attitude had won the hearts of many PAS members and thus elected him as the new president of PAS.

Ishak Haji Muhammad aka Pak Sako (14 November, 1909 – 7 November, 1991)

.
http://i416.photobucket.com/albums/pp242/tindakmalaysia/rat%20race%20part%20IIIA/pkmm4paksako.jpg Ishak Haji Muhammad or better known as Pak Sako was a prominent writer during the 1930s and 1950s. A hardcore nationalist, his involvement began before independence and continued thereafter. He fought for the idea of the unification of Melayu Raya where Indonesia, Malaysia and Brunei are united in one collective.

The moniker "Pak Sako" came from 'Isako-san', which was the phonetic pronunciation of his name in the Japanese tongue. Ishak's other pseudonyms include "Anwar", "Hantu Raya" (The Great Ghost), "Isako San" and "Pandir Moden" (The Modern-day Pandir).

Pak Sako was the first with the idea to publish the Utusan Melayu (The Malay Post) newspaper and subsequently became the founder of the publication. He left Warta Malaya (Malayan Times) and travelled to Pahang, Kelantan and Terengganu to campaign for the establishment of the Utusan Melayu Press. He worked at the paper under Abdul Rahim Kajai as editor. During the Japanese occupation of Malaya, North Borneo and Sarawak, he became the editor of Berita Malai (Malayan News).

After the Japanese occupation ended in 1945, the leftist Malay activists regrouped to organise various political movements, such as the Malay Nationalist Party (Partai Kebangsaan Melayu Malaya; PKMM) led by Burhanuddin al-Helmy, the Angkatan Pemuda Insaf (Awakened Youth Organization; API) led by Ahmad Boestamam and the Angkatan Wanita Sedar (Cohort of Awakened Women; AWAS) led by Shamsiah Fakeh. Boestamam was part of the PKMM and API delegation that participated in the Pan-Malayan Malay Congress in 1946.

In 1955, Boestamam regrouped his supporters to form Partai Ra’ayat (People’s Party; PR) soon after his release from detention camp by the British colonial government. The new party was inaugurated in November 11, 1955 embracing a nationalistic but leftist philosophy focusing on the poor. PR formed a coalition with the Labour Party of Malaya led by Pak Sako. This became known as the Malayan People’s Socialist Front (Sosialis Rakyat Malaya) or the Socialist Front (SF) and was officially formed on August 26, 1958.

However, with the onset of the Indonesia-Malaysia Confrontation in 1962, opposition to the new federation came to be seen as being pro-Indonesia and anti national. This caused significant rifts among the Opposition parties. Many party leaders were also arrested and incarcerated including Boestamam and Pak Sako under the Internal Security Act (ISA). Malaysiandigest.... (http://malaysiandigest.com/features/42-personality/7898-the-original-heroes-of-merdeka.html)

[pywong]

THE RAT RACE PART V – THE MALAYSIAN RAT RACE
(A look at Malaysian history beyond race and religion)

Chapter 2: The Social Contract - How We Got It All Wrong!

THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE!

For 50 years both sides of the political spectrum believed they were right, blissfully unaware that they were conned as Rats!

We have to break free from the mental cage of race and religion and learn to look at our situation through the concept of class division and as Malaysians. Until we do, we will never be free.

http://i416.photobucket.com/albums/pp242/tindakmalaysia/rat%20race%20part%20IIIA/Merdeka1957tunkuabdulrahman.jpg
Merdeka 1957 tunku abdul rahman

BTW, in that 1957 photo, the real power lies with the white man bedecked in white uniform and white hat. This is a system known as neo-colonialism, whereby the British set up UMNO as the front man, exactly like what they did with the Sultans pre-Merdeka. It only ended in 1966 after the Commonwealth Army left at the end of Confrontation with Indonesia.

Setting the Record Straight
LETTERS/SURAT

Friday, 22 October 2010 Combat

By John Doe

There is no mention of "Hak Melayu" in the Malaysian Constitution.
There is no mention of "Hak Melayu" in Malaysian Law.
"Hak Melayu" is simply a myth.

Not only is "Hak Melayu" a myth, Prof Dr Timothy Barnhard explains in his book "Contesting Malayness" that even the Melayu concept is simply a Myth. Malaysiatoday.... (http://www.malaysia-today.net/mtcolumns/letterssurat/35400-setting-the-record-straight)

[pywong]

Memorandum by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, pages 1 and 2.

RPK: "You want to know about the Social Contract? Okay, let’s study history."

Friday, 22 October 2010 Super Admin

Today, I am going to publish the first two pages of the 33-page document, which is the so-called Social Contract that everyone is talking about. This series of articles shall continue over the next few days until all 33 pages are published.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Teach the young to appreciate history, says Puteri Umno

(Bernama) -- Puteri Umno has called on party leaders as well as Barisan Nasional (BN) leaders to undertake the responsibility to educate the younger generation about the country's history so that they understand their role in the country.

Puteri Umno's human resources bureau chief Fahariyah Md Nordin said appreciation of history was important at a time when certain sections of the younger generation had been voicing out that they had nothing to do with the decisions made by the previous generations.

"The question is, don't they realise that by denying history, they are denying the very history of their existence?" she said when debating the policy speech of the Umno president at the 2010 Umno General Assembly today.

She also called for a better way of promoting history among students such as by utilising tools like the Internet.

History should also be made a compulsory-to-pass subject in school to drive home the point on the importance of learning the country's history, she said.

Fahariyah added that it would be dangerous for the younger generation to be influenced by those who are bent on rejecting the provisions in the Federal Constitution, especially those concerning the rights of the Malays and Bumiputera.

****************************************

A few months ago, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad said that the Social Contract does exist. However, it is not a written Contract. It is a verbal Contract, said Dr Mahathir.

Do you know what lawyers have to say about verbal contracts? A verbal contract is not worth the paper it is written on.

The ongoing Umno General Assembly appears to be about warning the non-Malays as well as the ‘traitor’ Malays to not question the Social Contract, unless they want to see a ‘May 13 Version 2’. Even the Umno running dog, MCA President Chua Soi Lek, has been told to shut up.

Puteri Umno wants the young to be taught ‘the correct version of history’. Well, you know me. I just can't resist being that teacher to educate the young on the correct version of history.

No, I shall not deny history, as what Puteri Umno said. I shall also not distort history, as many Malays accuse me of doing (40% truth and 60% lies, as some would say). Instead, I am going to publish SECRET documents of ‘Her Britannic Majesty’s Government’ -- which have since been declassified and are available from The National Archives in London (so I am not violating Britain’s Official Secrets Act).

Today, I am going to publish the first two pages of the 33-page document, which is the so-called Social Contract that everyone is talking about. This series of articles shall continue over the next few days until all 33 pages are published.

(Many Malaysians are not capable of reading more than four pages of any document or article so I need to give it to them in small doses if I want them to read everything).

After you have read the entire 33-page document you can then decide whether the Social Contract does or does not exist (and whether it is written or verbal). You will also be able to understand what was agreed in that Social Contract that the Malays, Chinese and Indians entered into in 1956, just before Malaya became independent on 31st August 1957.

Remember, this is not what I say. This is what was agreed and reported back in 1956. And this was the basis of the Reid Commission’s report and recommendations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_Commission), which eventually saw the birth of a n ew nation called the Federation of Malaya together with its new written constitution called the Federal Constitution of Malaya.

Oh, and by the way, I am not looking for a PhD, like our good Minister Rais Yatim who earned his PhD for writing a thesis that opposed the Internal Security Act and then ‘changed his mode’ after he got back into the government and was appointed a Minister.Malaysiatoday.... (http://www.malaysia-today.net/mtcolumns/no-holds-barred/35421-you-want-to-know-about-the-social-contract-okay-lets-study-history)

http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/4895/socialcontract1.jpg

http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/278/socialcontract2.jpg

[pywong]

Pages 257, 258, 258A, 259 -

A Constitutional Conference was held in London from 18th January to 6th February 1956 attended by a delegation from the Federation of Malaya, consisting of four representatives of the Malay Rulers, four representatives of the Alliance Party (the Chief Minister of the Federation, Tunku Abdul Rahman, and three Federation Ministers), and also by the British High Commissioner in Malaya and his advisers. This is a report of that conference.

http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/7431/socialcontract3.jpg

http://img838.imageshack.us/img838/2694/socialcontract4.jpg

http://img838.imageshack.us/img838/5443/socialcontract5.jpg

http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/1450/socialcontract6.jpg

[pywong]

‘Ketuanan Melayu’ was not part of the Merdeka deal (part 3 of the series on the Social Contract)
ARCHIVES 2010

Sunday, 24 October 2010 Super Admin

The Constitutional Conference, which was held in London from 18th January to 6th February 1956, was attended by representatives of the Malay Rulers as well as the newly-elected government of Malaya that won 51 of the 52 seats in the elections six months before that. And this government was the Alliance government of Umno, MCA and MIC. This, therefore, demolishes the argument that Umno negotiated Merdeka. It was actually negotiated by a coalition of Umno, MCA and MIC. And this Conference was the basis of Malaya’s new Federal Constitution -- the handiwork of the Chinese and Indians as well.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

There is now an urgent need for people on both, indeed all, sides of this question – and all Malaysians generally – to understand what exactly those agreements now designated as “the social contract” in fact were.

Malaysians need to reach a historically well-founded consensus concerning “the social contract”, what its terms were at the nation’s formative moment and in its founding experience, and what it means today and for the future. The coherence, strength and political sustainability of the nation require no less.

‘Ketuanan Melayu’ not part of the deal

It needs to be widely understood that, whatever they provided and mandated, “Ketuanan Melayu” was not part of what those agreements enshrined. Any suggestion that Malay political domination in perpetuity, continuing Malay “ethnocratic” ascendancy over other Malayans (and now Malaysians), was any part of those foundational agreements now designated as “the social contract” is simply wrong.

Those who argue to the contrary that Ketuanan Melayu is a constitutionally guaranteed “foundational” component of Malaysia’s national sovereignty and international public identity are disingenuous, mischievous, or simply ill-informed.

The attempt to “read back” subsequent notions of Ketuanan Melayu into ideas of “the social contract” and in that way to embed them within newly fashioned but quite dubious views of the constitution is simply an exercise in anachronistic revisionism. It is the duty of serious historians and legal scholars to say so. -- by CLIVE S. KESSLER, Malaysiakini

http://img517.imageshack.us/img517/3381/socialcontract7.jpg

http://img258.imageshack.us/img258/320/socialcontract8.jpg

http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/3739/socialcontract9.jpg

http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/1496/socialcontract10.jpg Malaysia-today.... (http://malaysia-today.net/archives/archives-2010/35445-ketuanan-melayu-was-not-part-of-the-merdeka-deal-part-3-of-the-series-on-the-social-contract)

[pywong]

The agreement on the Malayan Civil Service (part 4 of the series on the Social Contract)

Monday, 25 October 2010 Super Admin

The Constitutional Conference of 1956 between the British government and the Alliance government of Malaya agreed that a Public Service Commission will be set up and that it will be an independent statutory body, free from political interference, as the essential foundation of good government. Five pages of what was agreed is in this report and it does not mention anywhere about racial quotas in the civil service other than they must be ‘suitably qualified’ for the job.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/5971/socialcontract11.jpg

http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/2586/socialcontract12.jpg

http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/9877/socialcontract13.jpg

http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/3835/socialcontract14.jpg

http://img830.imageshack.us/img830/2171/socialcontract15.jpg Malaysia-today.... (http://malaysia-today.net/archives/archives-2010/35468-the-agreement-on-the-malayan-civil-service-part-4-of-the-series-on-the-social-contract)

[pywong]

The ‘Social Contract’ is signed and sealed on 8th February 1956 (part 5 of the series on the Social Contract)

Tuesday, 26 October 2010 Super Admin

The Constitutional Conference agreed that Merdeka be given to Malaya in August 1957 subject to certain constitutional changes, as can be read below. To achieve this and to meet the tight deadline of August 1957, a Constitutional Commission would be set up. And this was the Reid Commission, which came out with the Articles to be included in the new Federal Constitution of Malaya. The signatories to this ‘Social Contract’ of 8th February 1956 were the representative of the Alliance government of Malaya, the representatives of the Malay Rulers, and the representatives of the British government

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/1280/socialcontract16.jpg

http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/2905/socialcontract17.jpg

http://img258.imageshack.us/img258/5372/socialcontract18.jpg

http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/123/socialcontract19.jpg

[pywong]

The Constitutional Conference was attended by the Alliance government and not Umno (part 6 of the series on the Social Contract)

Wednesday, 27 October 2010 Super Admin

Appendix A of the report on the Constitutional Conference held in London from January-February 1956 shows that it was attended by the Alliance government of Malaya and not Umno. Also in attendance were representatives of the British government and the Malay Rulers of Malaya.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/4994/socialcontract20.jpg

http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/8550/socialcontract21.jpg

http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/9808/socialcontract22.jpg

http://img36.imageshack.us/img36/9124/socialcontract23.jpg

http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/5653/socialcontract24.jpg Malaysia-today.... (http://malaysia-today.net/archives/archives-2010/35524-the-constitutional-conference-was-attended-by-the-alliance-government-and-not-umno-part-6-of-the-series-on-the-social-contract)

[pywong]

The Constitutional Conference also addressed amendments to the Federation Agreement (part 7 of the series on the Social Contract)

Thursday, 28 October 2010 Super Admin

The Federation of Malaya Agreement was signed on 21st January 1948 and came into force on 1st February of that same year. A form of common citizenship was created for all who acknowledged Malaya as their permanent home and the object of their undivided loyalty. Within this framework the settlements of Penang and Malacca remained British territory while Singapore became a separate colony under its own Governor.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

[/IMG] Malaysia-today.... (http://malaysia-today.net/archives/archives-2010/35551-the-constitutional-conference-also-addressed-amendments-to-the-federation-agreement-part-7-of-the-series-on-the-social-contract)

[pywong]

Concluding the series on the Constitutional Conference which was the foundation of the ‘Social Contract’ (part 8 of the series on the Social Contract)

Friday, 29 October 2010 Super Admin

The Constitutional Conference of January-February 1956 agreed that a Constitutional Commission would be set to address many issues, one being to "safeguard the position and prestige of the Rulers" plus to "safeguard the special position of the Malays and the legitimate interests of the other (non-Malay) communities". There is no agreement on the Malays being accorded special rights and privileges and it was agreed that the new Federal Constitution of Malaya would be based on what the Constitutional Conference decides.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

DOWNLOAD THE ENTIRE FILE IN PDF FORMAT HERE: http://malaysia-today.net/files/ConstitutionalConference.pdf

Malaysia-today.... (http://malaysia-today.net/archives/archives-2010/35578-concluding-the-series-on-the-constitutional-conference-which-was-the-foundation-of-the-social-contract-part-8-of-the-series-on-the-social-contract)

[pywong]

Federation of Malaya Independence Act 1957 (part 9 of the series on the Social Contract)

Monday, 01 November 2010 Super Admin

After the Constitutional Conference that was held in London from 18th January to 6th February 1956, attended by representatives of the Malay Rulers as well as the newly elected Alliance government of Malaya, a Federation of Malaya Independence Act was passed by the British Parliament in 1957 to spell out the terms of Malaya’s independence. Again, no mention of any special rights and privileges.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Federation of Malaya Independence Act 1957

1957 CHAPTER 60

An Act to make provision for and in connection with the establishment of the Federation of Malaya as an independent sovereign country within the Commonwealth.

Be it enacted by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—

1. Provision for establishment of the Federation as an independent sovereign country.

(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the approval of Parliament is hereby given to the conclusion between Her Majesty and the Rulers of the Malay States of such agreement as appears to Her Majesty to be expedient for the establishment of the Federation of Malaya as an independent sovereign country within the Commonwealth.

(2) Any such agreement as aforesaid may make provision—

(a) for the formation of the Malay States and of the Settlements of Penang and Malacca into a new independent Federation of States under a Federal Constitution specified in the agreement, and for the application to those Settlements, as States of the new Federation, of State Constitutions so specified;

(b) for the termination of Her Majesty's sovereignty and jurisdiction in respect of the said Settlements, and of all other Her power and jurisdiction in and in respect of the Malay States or the Federation as a whole, and the revocation or modification of all or any of the provisions of the Federation of Malaya Agreement, 1948, and of any other agreements in force between Her Majesty and the Rulers of the Malay States.

(3) Any such agreement shall be conditional upon the approval of the new Federal Constitution by enactments of the existing Federal Legislature and of each of the Malay States; and upon such approval being given Her Majesty by Order in Council may direct that the said Federal and State Constitutions shall have the force of law within the said Settlements, and, so far as She has jurisdiction in that behalf, elsewhere within the Federation, and may make such other provision as appears to Her to be necessary for giving effect to the agreement.

(4) Any Order in Council under this section shall be laid before Parliament after being made.

(5) In this Act "the appointed day" means such day as may be specified by Order in Council under this section as the day from which the said Federal Constitution has the force of law as aforesaid.

2. Operation of existing laws.

(1) On and after the appointed day, all existing law to which this section applies shall, until otherwise provided by the authority having power to amend or repeal that law, continue to apply in relation to the Federation or any part thereof, and to persons and things in any way belonging thereto or connected therewith, in all respects as if no such agreement as is referred to in subsection (1) of section one of this Act had been concluded:

Provided that—

(a) the enactments referred to in the First Schedule to this Act shall have effect as from the appointed day subject to the amendments made by that Schedule (being amendments for applying in relation to the Federation certain statutory provisions applicable to Commonwealth countries having fully responsible status within Her Majesty's dominions);

(b) Her Majesty may by Order in Council make such further adaptations in any Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed before the appointed day, or in any instrument having effect under any such Act, as appear to Her necessary or expedient in consequence of the agreement referred to in subsection (1) of section one of this Act;

(c) in relation to the Colonial Development and Welfare Acts, 1940 to 1955, this subsection shall have effect only so far as may be necessary for the making of payments on or after the appointed day in pursuance of schemes in force immediately before that day and in respect of periods falling before that day;

(d) nothing in this section shall be construed as continuing in force any enactment or rule of law limiting or restricting the legislative powers of the Federation or any part thereof.

(2) An Order in Council made under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

(3) An Order in Council made under this section may be varied or revoked by a subsequent Order in Council so made and may, though made after the appointed day, be made so as to have effect from that day.

(4) In this section "existing law" means any Act of Parliament or other enactment or instrument whatsoever, and any rule of law, which is in force on the appointed day or, having been passed or made before the appointed day, comes into force after that day; and the existing law to which this section applies is law which operates as law of, or of any part of, the United Kingdom, Southern Rhodesia, or any colony, protectorate or United Kingdom trust territory except that this section—

(a) does not apply to any law passed by the Federal Legislature of Rhodesia and Nyasaland;

(b) applies to other law of, or of any part of, Southern Rhodesia so far only as concerns law which can be amended neither by a law passed by the Legislature thereof nor by a law passed by the said Federal Legislature; and

(c) applies to other law of, or of any part of, Northern Rhodesia or Nyasaland so far only as concerns law which cannot be amended by a law passed by the said Federal Legislature.

(5) References in subsection (4) of this section to a colony, a protectorate and a United Kingdom trust territory shall be construed as if they were references contained in the British Nationality Act, 1948.

3. Appeals from Supreme Court of Federation.

(1) Her Majesty may by Order in Council confer on the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council such jurisdiction in respect of appeals from the Supreme Court of the Federation as appears to Her to be appropriate for giving effect to any arrangements made after the appointed day between Her Majesty and the Head of the Federation for the reference of such appeals to that Committee.

(2) An Order in Council under this section may determine the classes of cases in which, and the conditions as to leave and otherwise subject to which, any such appeal may be entertained by the said Committee, and the practice and procedure to be followed on any such appeal, and may in particular make such provision with respect to the form of the report or recommendation to be made by the Committee in respect of any such appeal, and the transmission to the Head of the Federation of such reports or recommendations, as appears to Her Majesty to be appropriate having regard to the said arrangements.

(3) Except so far as otherwise provided by Order in Council under this section, and subject to such modifications as may be so provided, the Judicial Committee Act, 1833, shall apply in relation to appeals under this section as it applies in relation to appeals to Her Majesty in Council.

(4) Arrangements made in pursuance of this section may apply to any appeal to Her Majesty in Council, or any application for leave to bring such an appeal, which is pending on the appointed day; but except as aforesaid nothing in this Act shall be construed as continuing in force any right of appeal to Her Majesty in Council from any court in the Federation.

(5) An Order in Council made under this section may be varied or revoked by a subsequent Order in Council so made.

4. Interpretation, repeal and short title.

(1) References in this Act to any other enactment are references thereto as amended or extended by any subsequent enactment.

(2) The enactments described in the Second Schedule to this Act are hereby repealed, as from the appointed day, to the extent specified in the third column of that Schedule.

(3) This Act may be cited as the Federation of Malaya Independence Act, 1957.

FIRST SCHEDULE

Consequential Amendments of Enactments

Nationality and Citizenship

1. Subsection (3) of section one of the British Nationality Act, 1948 (which specifies the Commonwealth countries whose citizens are British subjects or Commonwealth citizens) shall have effect as if for the words "and Ghana" there were substituted the words

“Ghana and the Federation of Malaya”; and the British Protectorates, Protected States and Protected Persons Order in Council, 1949, made in pursuance of sections thirty and thirty-two of that Act, shall have effect as if the references to the Malay States in section eight of that Order and in the Second Schedule thereto were omitted.

Armed forces

2. (1) References in the Army Act, 1955, the Air Force Act, 1955, and the Naval Discipline Act, 1957, to a colony or to territory under Her Majesty's protection shall not include any part of the Federation, and section two hundred and eighteen of the Army Act, 1955, section two hundred and sixteen of the Air Force Act, 1955, and subsection (3) of section one hundred and twenty-seven of the Naval Discipline Act, 1957, shall cease to have effect.

(2) In the definitions of "Commonwealth force" in subsection (1) of section two hundred and twenty-five of the Army Act, 1955, and in subsection (1) of section two hundred and twenty-three of the Air Force Act, 1955, and in the definition of "Commonwealth country" in subsection (1) of section one hundred and thirty-five of the Naval Discipline Act, 1957, for the words "or Ghana" there shall be substituted the words

“Ghana or the Federation of Malaya”.

(3) Until the coming into force of the Naval Discipline Act, 1957, sub-paragraph (2) of this paragraph shall have effect as if for the reference to the definition of "Commonwealth country" in subsection (1) of section one hundred and thirty-five of that Act there were substituted a reference to the definition of

“Commonwealth force” in section eighty-six of the Naval Discipline Act, as amended by the Revision of the Army and Air Force Acts (Transitional Provisions) Act, 1955.

3. Section four of the Visiting Forces (British Commonwealth) Act, 1933 (which deals with attachment and mutual powers of command), and the definition of "visiting force" for the purposes of that Act which is contained in section eight of that Act, shall apply in relation to forces raised in the Federation as they apply in relation to forces raised in Dominions within the meaning of the Statute of Westminster, 1931.

4. (1) In subsection (1) of section one of the Visiting Forces Act, 1952 (which specifies the countries to which that Act applies), for the words "or Ghana" there shall be substituted the words

“Ghana or the Federation of Malaya”; and in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section ten of that Act the expression "colony" shall not include any part of the Federation.

(2) Until express provision with respect to the Federation is made by Order in Council under section eight of the said Act of 1952 (which relates to the application to visiting forces of law relating to home forces), any such Order for the time being in force shall be deemed to apply to visiting forces of the Federation.

Diplomatic immunities

5. In section four hundred and sixty-one of the Income Tax Act, 1952 (which relates to exemption from income tax in the case of certain Commonwealth representatives and their staffs) for the words "or Ghana", in both places where those words occur, there shall be substituted the words

“Ghana or the Federation of Malaya”.

6. In subsection (6) of section one of the Diplomatic Immunities (Commonwealth Countries and Republic of Ireland) Act, 1952, after the word "Ghana" there shall be inserted the words

“the Federation of Malaya”.

Financial

7. As respects goods imported after such date as Her Majesty may by Order in Council appoint, section four of the Import Duties Act, 1932, and section two of the Isle of Man (Customs) Act, 1932 (which relate to imperial preference other than colonial preference) shall apply to the Federation.

8. (1) The Colonial Stock Acts, 1877 to 1948, shall apply in relation to stock of the Federation as they apply in relation to stock of a Dominion within the meaning of the Colonial Stock Act, 1934, but as if in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section one of the said Act of 1934 for any reference to Her Majesty's Government in the Dominion, to the Parliament of the Dominion or to the Royal Assent, there were substituted a reference to the Government or the Legislature of the Federation or to the Assent of the Head of the Federation.

(2) During any period on and after the appointed day during which there is in force as part of the law of the Federation any instrument passed or made before that day which makes provision corresponding to the undertaking required by the said paragraph (a), paragraphs (a) and (b) of the said subsection (1) shall be deemed to have been complied with in the case of the Federation.

Ships and aircraft

9. The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1894 to 1954, shall apply in relation to the Federation as they apply in relation to the Commonwealth countries mentioned in subsection (3) of section one of the British Nationality Act, 1948.

10. Without prejudice to the generality of the last foregoing paragraph—

(a) in subsection (2) of section four hundred and twenty-seven of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, as substituted by section two of the Merchant Shipping (Safety Convention) Act, 1949, for the words

“or Ghana”

there shall be substituted the words

“Ghana or the Federation of Malaya”; and

(b) in the proviso to subsection (2) of section six of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1948, for the words "or Ghana" there shall be substituted the words

“Ghana or the Federation of Malaya”.

11. In the definitions of "Dominion ship or aircraft" contained in subsection (2) of section three of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, and in Regulation one hundred of the Defence (General) Regulations, 1939, the expression " a Dominion " shall include the Federation.

12. The Ships and Aircraft (Transfer Restriction) Act, 1939, shall not apply to any ship by reason only of its being registered in, or licensed under the law of the Federation; and the penal provisions of that Act shall not apply to persons in the Federation (but without prejudice to the operation with respect to any ship to which that Act does apply of the provisions thereof relating to the forfeiture of ships).

13. In the Whaling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1934, the expression "British ship to which this Act applies" shall not include a British ship registered in the Federation.

Copyright

14. The references in section thirty-one of the Copyright Act, 1956, to a colony or to a country outside Her Majesty's dominions in which Her Majesty has jurisdiction shall not include any part of the Federation.

15. If the Copyright Act, 1911, so far as in force in the law of any part of the Federation, is repealed or amended by that law at a time when sub-paragraph (2) or paragraph 39 of the Seventh Schedule to the Copyright Act, 1956 (which applies certain provisions of that Act in relation to countries to which the said Act of 1911 extended) is in force in relation to that part of the Federation, the said sub-paragraph (2) shall thereupon cease to have effect in relation thereto.

[31st July 1957] Status: This is the original version (as it was originally enacted). Malaysia-today.... (http://malaysia-today.net/archives/archives-2010/35644-federation-of-malaya-independence-act-1957-part-9-of-the-series-on-the-social-contract)

[pywong]

Why Onn Jaafar really left Umno to form the IMP (part 10 of the series on the Social Contract)

Tuesday, 02 November 2010 Super Admin

On 21st December 1951, around four years before the Constitutional Conference of January-February 1956, the British government came out with a report on the racial situation in Malaya. The Malay-Chinese population ratio then was 50:50 but because many Chinese were not allowed citizenship this ratio eventually tipped in favour of the Malays. Page four of this report reveals that Umno aimed to embark on a ‘Malaya for the Malays’ policy and that was why Dato Onn Jaafar broke away from Umno to form his Independence of Malaya Party (IMP).

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Malaysia-today.... (http://malaysia-today.net/archives/archives-2010/35666-why-onn-jaafar-really-left-umno-to-form-the-imp-part-10-of-the-series-on-the-social-contract)

[pywong]

Important lessons of history here on UMNO perfidy:


Why the Brits needed to beat the CPM (http://malaysiakini.com/letters/174798)
http://www-cdn.malaysiakini.com/v6/media/mk_50x50.png
William Arul
Sep 4, 11
4:22pm
http://www-cdn.malaysiakini.com/v6/media/inside/fontsize.gif

Share (http://www.malaysiakini.com/letters/174798)
9
After the 2nd World War and with having to rebuild Britain while at the same time deal with the Soviet Union which had its European ambitions, Britain needed dollars - US dollars to buy whatever it was that was needed.

The empire was on the decline and India had had its independence. Its only goose that was laying golden eggs was Malaya!

"From 1948 until 1957, when the back of the communist insurgency was broken, it sank immense resources into the campaign.

By October 1950, it had committed twenty-one infantry regiments, two armoured car regiments and one commando brigade, totalling nearly 50,000 troops.

An official estimate put the overall cost at a staggering £700 million, of which the UK government spent £520 million.

At the end of 1948, it was estimated that the Emergency was costing between M$250,000 - M$300,000 per day.

In one year alone, 1951, the Emergency cost the government £69.8 million. This is especially significant when we consider the state of the British Treasury in the late 1940s. World War II drained the British economy to such an extent that it could scarcely meet existing commitments let alone accept new ones.

Its very economic viability seemed in doubt, especially during the 'dollar gap' crisis of 1947. As one of Attlee's chief advisors wrote in December 1947: "We are a bankrupt nation. It will tax our strength and determination to the utmost during the next years to provide for our necessary imports by exports. Until we succeed we shall only keep alive through the charity of our friends."

The question that therefore arises - and it is a core concern of this paper - is why, at this time of acute financial difficulty and without, in this instance, crucial American support, did the Attlee Labour government commit itself to a costly campaign in a colony whose march to Merdeka seemed imminently realisable?"

With all the chatter focused on communist conspiracies perpetuated by Moscow and instructions being issued out of the Cominform conferences held earlier in 1948 in Calcutta for the CPM to take violent action, the narrative carried through to this day which Umno of course upholds, was an armed conflict orchestrated, somehow, by China rather than Moscow, would have instilled in this country communist rule that would cast God aside, and that of course includes Islam.

That narrative of course sat well with the rulers of the day to provide the moral high-ground to garner the support of the people.

Violence was met with violence and then more violence and even more violence. The CPM were cast as the bad guys. And they were bad.

Indeed I am glad that they lost. But one cannot ignore the fact that they too saw the British as the enemy that needed to be cast out of Malaya so that Malaya would be independent. Of course they saw an independent communist Malaya!

Well, remove the spectre of the violence that they participated in, you cannot really fault their aspirations as one cannot also fault PAS' aspirations for an Islamic state, or for that matter UMNO's take on its Islamic state.

All of that is political posturing and really it is the citizens who should have had the right to determine their own destiny. I suppose the communists assumed too much and so does Umno to this day of course.

But post war Britain had a different reason for issuing the emergency order and taking the battle against the CPM to the level that they did despite their own financial circumstances.

"Besides the desire to crush communism, a desire aggravated by the onset of the Cold War, there was another, less publicly acknowledged reason for massive military commitment at a time of limited resources and fiscal parsimony. It concerned economic exigencies. Once the Japanese were defeated in 1945, Great Britain was determined to return to Malaya even if not to Burma or India.

"This second colonial occupation, this new imperialism, occurred because of Malaya's dollar-earning capacity. As Creech Jones told Cabinet (but not Parliament): During 1947 the total value of the exports of Singapore and the [Malayan] Federation together was £151 million of which dollar exports accounted for £56 million. [Malaya] is by far the most important source of dollars in the colonial empire and it would gravely worsen the whole dollar balance of the Sterling Area if there were serious interference with Malayan exports.

"In 1948 the US imported 727,000 tons of rubber, of which Malaya supplied 371,000. The US imported 158,000 tons of tin of which all but 3000 came from Malaya. In terms of dollars, rubber production exceeded in total value all domestic exports from Great Britain to the United States.

"During 1946-1950, it derived US$700 million income from rubber exports to America. Any interruption of that supply, such as that presented by the insurgency, would seriously impair the British economy. In that year, 1948, Britain was still struggling to maintain the value of its sterling and the 'dollar gap' seemed to be getting wider.

"This financial crisis made earnings from the 'Sterling Area', in which Malaya was the linchpin, all the more crucial. The maintenance and security of British business in Malaya was therefore of central economic importance to the imperial government."

I have always wondered why on earth Australian and New Zealand servicemen would come to Malaya to fight our Communists and die in the process. Now I don't have to wonder why!

Maybe the communists knew something that Umno did not know then.

After all in gaining independence did not the British retain much of the income generating assets of the colonial period post independence? Keeping Singapore, did not they ensure much of Malaya's resources continued to find their markets via Singapore hence giving them a pinch of the pie?

What is the point of independence if we could not also determine the fate of our resources? How come Umno was so generous?

Note: Those paragraphs within inverted commas taken from Malaya, 1948: Britain's 'Asian Cold War'? (http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/icas/PhillipDeery.pdf)) by Phillip Deery, Fellow, International Center for Advanced Studies, New York University.

I will recommend a good read of this article.

[pywong]

Monday, 05 September 2011 00:50

Of Tok Janggut and Umno's distortion of history to fool the less educated (http://malaysia-chronicle.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=18757:bukit-kepong-umnos-cheap-trick-distorting-history-to-fool-the-less-educated&Itemid=2)

Written by Moaz Nair, Malaysia Chronicle


EDITOR'S PICK The media is giving rapt attention to the world of truths and half-truths concerning who among others truly fought for Malaya’s freedom that eventually led to nation’s independence.

This stark perplexity is made even more shadowy when exploited by some disingenuous politicians to confidence trick the people. To the general populace, those who are out there to score brownie points in the game of politics is understandable. Politicians just have to, on purpose, dupe the less informed in our society by making a palatable feast out of a recent statement made by a popular politician on the unsung freedom fighters of Malaya during the Colonial rule.

The attack on that Bukit Kepong police station happened on 23rd February 1950. The policemen (with due respect to those who died in the incident and the bereaved family members) were then serving the British who colonised Malaya (1786-1957). It happened during a protracted hostility between the British and the people of Malaya at that time. The issue of who is the hero and who is the villain in a situation of this nature does not really merit exploitation by the media. In this case, only independent historians are able to take apart the morsel from the casing.

History is more often than not manipulated by politicians to ensemble their false ego. History could always be deviously distorted to favour the serving politicians or the victor and the vanquished would forever be the less heard of.

To some politicians, the art of hoaxing the less educated becomes a mileage in politics. In the same manner history could be conveniently manipulated to this effect to arouse the anger of innocent people. Propitiously though, not all people are that naive to succumb to these dim-witted tricks. When a political entity is struggling in a quicksand to recoup they would have no choice but to resort to dim means to survive by resorting to politics of pretence.

The British ruled by proxies

The fact was that at that period of time in our history the British were astutely ruling Malaya by outsourcing some of their power base to proxies. Unfortunately, the naive locals were resourcefully exploited and poised to work for them. From the ordinary labourers and the security force to the administrators and rulers, most were subjugated to unfalteringly guard British economic ravenousness, their voracious appetite to rule and their continued existence in Malaya.

Regrettably, by putting the locals on the front line to meet their self-seeking goals many innocent and powerless Malayans died in the hands of those who opposed British presence in the country before independence. On the other front, many Malayans working in dire conditions in the plantations and building railways and roads for the British interests died due to diseases and malnutrition. Those damned to this deplorable enslavement were passive Malayans who had no choice but to work for the British to earn a living.

Attacks on British interests were awfully rampant during the colonial days that it came to a point that this bane on them helped pave the way for Malaya’s independence in 1957. It is noteworthy that most attacks on British interests happened before independence where the ordinary people detested the Colonial rule. Nevertheless, despite this apparent abhorrence, there were at the same time many Malayans among the local elites who were rubbing shoulders with the British colonialists for some reasons best known to them.

The perception by most people at that time was that the British were indeed reputable and remarkable people. At their zenith, Britain managed to colonise over two-thirds of the world and brought both untold miseries and, undeniably, some corporeal benefits to the people. This colonisation included Malaya (1774-1957). The British on the whole had no earnest interests in the welfare of the ordinary people of Malaya, which included the poor Malays, Chinese, Indians and the Indigenous.

The people, who included the elites among them, were in truth used as their proxies to safeguard their imperialistic interests. There were many Malayans who were willing to serve the interests of the British without question. And this included many top local administrators who were working hand in glove with the British to undermine the nation.

The impression that came with administrative posts in those days was so grand that it was just irresistible for most people not to succumb to the career inducements created by the British. This made the gullible among the elites more inclined to revere and associate even more with the British. Some of these administrator-cum-politicians stayed on to hold even more important government posts after the country’s independence.

The privileged group

The social and economic woes of the ordinary people – farmers, labourers and low wage earners - were craftily neglected by the British. On the contrary, they - nattily and sneakily - gave some privileges to the elite groups to ensure that their supreme role as chieftain was well cosseted and fortified. This move was widely conceived as a whizz approach by the British to espouse their interests in Malaya.

The British recruited professionals only to take care of their administrative prowess and economic interests. They later built special schools, social clubs and gave recreational, job and educational opportunities for the elites among Malayans so that they could become more submissive to them and in the process succumb to their phony scheme to further harvest the country dry.

Many among the elites, after studying in exclusive local schools, had the privilege to pursue their studies overseas and later returned to work in the civil service under the British. These were English speaking Malayans and many were then regarded as Western Educated Gentlemen (WOG) who lived a life many notches above the ordinary Malayans at that time.

Children of Malay farmers, Indian estate workers and poor Chinese were deprived of this privilege and were not privy to this modus operandi as they were of no strategic value to the British other than to be confined to their designated roles as labourers and low-income employees to serve the British. The British were aloof and stayed in comfortable, well-built houses in exclusive residential enclaves. Out of little choice, most of the ordinary Malayans were actually helping to make enormous wealth for the British. Rubber and tin industries brought richness to the British and many Malayans were employed as police and servicemen to maintain social order and safeguard their business interests.

To the British then, those who went against their rule and interests were treasonous and branded as rebels. Even rulers who were against the British demand to pave the way for them to colonise and impose tax on the people without encumbrances were exiled or banished from the country. Those who associated themselves with the Japanese (1941-45) to denounce British rule were then branded as treacherous and banished. Even some rulers who were against the British tyranny and were suspected of coalescing with the Japanese were not spared.

Some were conveniently replaced after Word War II when the British returned to rule. In fact some among these intractable rulers were even banished or exiled during the 200 years of British colonisation of Malaya. What more with the ordinary people of Malaya who went against British rule. They were branded as perfidious and many were imprisoned, banished or killed.

Tok Janggut and those who defied the British

A case in point was Tok Janggut or Mohd Hassan Munas of Kelantan who was killed (1915) under British order. Embroiled in the new land tax system introduced by the British made it hard for the people to pay the tax. Those who could not or did not pay the tax were imprisoned or fined.

Tok Janggut fought a battle against the British forces. He was later killed in the gruesome battle near Kampung Pupuh. His dead body was hung with legs up on a stretched out wooden pole and paraded throughout Kota Baharu and Pasir Puteh. The body was left in that state for several days in front of the Kelantan Royal Palace. Later it was let to rot on a river bank heavily guarded by local policemen under British authority. Tok Janggut's decomposed body was finally buried in Pasir Pekan, ending the rebellion against British rule in Kelantan. Not surprising, at that time sanguine praises rolled out from the tongue of many loyal British subjects for the punishment meted out to Tok Janggut.

Many other Malayans were rebuked and branded as traitors for their activities against the British. As the ninth ruler of Naning (1802-1849)) Dato’ Abdul Said, a rural village precinct in the vicinity of present-day Alor Gajah, he led the local villagers to defy British plans to impose taxes on the district. With some easy weapons, he audaciously fought British forces in Naning with a rare military ingenuity. His combative spirit and illustrious legacy earned a permanent place in Malacca's history but to the British he was a traitor.

The legendary Malay freedom fighter Mat Kilau revolted against the British in the 1890s. Ishak Haji Muhammed (Pak Sako) (1909-1991)was in the early 1940s considered disloyal when he solicited Japanese help to oust the British in Malaya. Even before the initiation of UMNO, Malayans of all races and ancestry were already arms up against the British. Ahmad Boestaman (1920-1983), Dr Burhanuddin Al-Helmy (1911-1969) and Pak Sako formed the Parti Kebangsaan Melayu Malaya (PKMM) (1946) opposing the proposed Malayan Union which relegated the powers of the Malayan Rulers to the British Residents.

Between 1946 to1948, saw continuous strikes among workers that almost laid up the nation’s rubber and tin industries. The port workers of Singapore also joined in the strikes, debilitating Malaya’s major port much to the detriment of British interests. British economic interests were affected. The bastion of the British economy which were the rubber and tin industries, were faced with imminent collapse. The British then speedily declared PKMM as unlawful and incarcerated its leaders.

The Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) (1930 - 1989) had their own elusive agenda during the British occupation. Historically, however, it cannot be denied that CPM worked with the British against the Japanese who invaded Malaya (1941-1945) during World War II. CPM was more committed to its communist cause – a political ideology that has since bowed to capitalism in most countries. CPM was first involved in pre-war anti colonial struggle against Britain.

During the War, Malayan Peoples Anti-Japanese Army (MPAJA) (1942-1945) – involving Chinese, Malays and Indians - and Britain’s clandestine Force 136 worked in tandem to fight against the Japanese. During this time there were many Malayans tacitly working with the Japanese to evict the British from Malaya. Many who were caught doing so were chastised. CPM and the British army together fought against the Japanese invaders with weapons provided by Britain and Australia.

After the War, Britain acknowledged CPM’s role in defending Malaya against the Japanese. Actually, it was a victory to the British more than it was for CPM, as the recouped Colonial power was back in Malaya to defend her rule over post-war Malaya. CPM and British ties snapped just after the War and Malaysian emergency (1948-1960) erupted. CPM consequently became a threat to British rule and they were immediately branded by the British as communist terrorists. The CPM went on to continuously agitate the British administration.

Cruelty and butchery: CPM killed 2,473 while the Japanese killed 83,000

The fact that the communists killed 2,473 civilians during the Emergency (1948 to 1960) would always be remembered as a very poignant episode in the country’s history. However, we should also not forget that the Japanese killed almost 83,000 people during their four-year rampage in Malaya and Singapore. Thousands more were taken away by force to build the Death Railway (Thailand-Burma Railway) (1942-43) and 90,000 Asians out of over 250,000 labourers perished at the site. Many local lives were also lost when Britain’s proxies killed the many freedom fighters in Malaya whom they branded as traitors. These were among the atrocities caused by those who sought power to rule, those with vested political interests and those who wanted to free their nation. Hopefully, no civilised people of today would condone this cruelty and butchery of the past.

Blinkered politicians would however always see history with a skewed mind for political gains. They harp on trivial issues to demean their political adversaries. Little would they cherish that Malaya achieved independence due to the toil and sweat of all her people – Malays, Chinese, Indians and the Indigenous people. There were fighters who had pride in their dignity and died for the others to live on.

No one party in this nation should thus singularly pledge claim for having unilaterally engaged the British to achieve independence. Those who were engaged in this effort – no matter what their ideological affiliations were at that point of time – should not be ignored in the history of this nation.

The history of this country has to be seen from its true perspectives and not with intent and purpose of distorting the truth, as propped up by some ill-conceived politicians whose only aim is just to remain in power.

- Malaysia Chronicle

[pywong]

Tuesday, 06 September 2011 08:39

Historical reconstruction again?
(http://malaysia-chronicle.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=18849:historical-reconstruction-again?&Itemid=2)
Written by Malaysia Chronicle , Farish Noor



347

And so, for reasons that are both complex and irritating, the past is being dragged into the present yet again; while we Malaysians bury our heads in the sand and neglect the future.

By now most of us will be familiar with yet another controversy-in-a-teacup that has grabbed the headlines: namely the question of whether the events that took place during the attack on the police outpost in Bukit Kepong ought to be remembered as a historic event in the Malayan struggle for independence.





Unfortunately for all parties concerned it seems that the issue has been hijacked by politics and politicians yet again, as is wont to happen in Malaysia on a daily basis almost. More worrying still is how the manifold aspects of this event have been taken up selectively by different parties and actors to further their own arguments, while neglecting to look at the wider context against which the event took place. It is almost impossible to be truly objective when it comes to the writing and reading of history, and perhaps we can do away with that pretense. But for now perhaps some marginal notes on the matter might come in useful to clear the air a bit.

A. Was PAS pro-Communist?

One of the outcomes of this debate has been the resurrection of the old question of whether PAS (The Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party) was pro-Communist at that point in its history. This seems an odd question to ask in the first place, as it seems incongruous for an Islamic party to harbour any real sympathy for Communism, which has always been seen as the bugbear to the Islamist cause.

But it has to be remembered that when the Malayan Islamic party was first formed in November 1951, many of its founder-leaders were anti-colonial nationalists who were keen to see the end of British rule in Malaya. Some of them were former members of the Parti Kebangsaan Melayu Malaya (PKMM) and also the first Islamic party in the country, the Hizbul Muslimin (that was formed, and almost immediately banned, in 1948)

PAS's left-leaning days were at their peak during the presidency of Dr Burhanuddin al-Helmy (1956-1969), who did not hide his opposition to British rule and who refused to negotiate a settlement with the British then. Dr. Burhanuddin was sympathetic to the Malayan Communist Party (MCP), whose anti-British sentiments he shared; but this does not mean he supported Communism as an ideology.

PAS's stand towards the MCP then (in the 1950s and 1960s) was thus a pragmatic one that was based on the same goal of rejecting British colonial rule. However, it has to be noted that PAS was equally wary of Beijing's influence in the region, and there is nothing to suggest that the leaders of PAS would have ever accepted Malaya coming under Communist rule, albeit directly or indirectly, from Beijing.

B. Was the MCP a tool of Communist China?

That the MCP and its guerilla wing were against any and all forms of British colonial rule is simple enough to verify, and their record of anti-colonial struggle is there for anyone to investigate.

The more difficult question to answer however is this: How independent was the MCP, and was it - as the British alleged - working to further China's communist influence in the region then?

The British were somewhat ham-fisted when dealing with the MCP, and it ought to be noted that the invention of the image of the MCP as a 'Chinese threat' was the work of the British colonial propaganda agencies then.

Here, however, a broader perspective on the matter might come in handy. Think of Malaya in the 1950s and envisage the region as a whole, as the Cold War was heating up. In Vietnam, Burma and Indonesia the Communists were gaining strength in numbers; and perhaps the biggest worry to Britain then (as to the departing French and Dutch colonial powers) was the possibility that all of southeast asia might turn Communist.

Remember that this was the time when the region was called 'the Second Front in the war against Communism'; and when the Western bloc was keen to ensure that Indonesia - being the biggest country in the region - would not come under the rule of the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI).

In Indonesia, the PKI grew more and more powerful under the leadership of men like D.N Aidit, and was instrumental in developing the civilian para-military forces that later agitated for the destruction of Malaya during the 'Ganyang Malaya' (Crush Malaya) campaign. It was only after the failed coup of 1965 and the virtual extermination of the PKI between 1966 to 1970 that the Communist threat in Indonesia was contained, and ties between Malaya and Indonesia were normalised.

It was against this background that the fear of the MCP - and the worry that it was backed by China - was articulated and developed in Malaya. While it is true that the MCP was anti-British, there is no evidence to suggest that it claimed the majority support of mainstream Malay-Muslims in the country, despite the presence of Malays in the 10th Regiment.

C. To negotiate or fight?

Perhaps the most contentious issue of all is whether the struggle for independence was really fought and won by the Leftists, Islamists or Nationalists in Malaysia. Here is where contingency steps in and one can only speculate.

The fact is that the security measures that were introduced during the declaration of the First Emergency (1948-1960) meant that almost all the left-leaning parties, trade union movements, workers groups etc had been eliminated or left feeble. Those who stood to gain from this were the conservative nationalists who opted instead to negotiate the terms of Malayan independence, and who negotiated on a number of issues including citizenship for the non-Malays etc.

But no matter how one looks at it, the historical facts are that the left-leaning movements in the country were established long before the conservative-nationalist parties and movements. (The Malayan Anarchist party was founded in 1919, for instance; and the MCP in 1930. By contrast the MCA was only founded in February 1949.)

Of course we can speculate until the cows come home over the question of the many 'what-ifs' had the circumstances of the past were different. What if the MCP was not banned? What if the MCP was successful in its guerilla campaign? What if half the Malay population had supported the leftists, etc etc.

But in the event, as things turned out, the radical left was all but absent in the final stages of negotiation and it was the UMNO-MCA alliance that sorted out the final terms of Britain's withdrawal from Malaya. Lets not be too sanguine about this: Britain did not 'leave' Malaya willingly, but was compelled to do so thanks to the destruction of its colonial economy in the wake of World War II. Its main aim then was to ensure that its capital investments in its former colonies would not be nationalised, as was the case in Indonesia when Sukarno simply confiscated all Dutch capital assets and nationalised them. Unsurprisingly, Britain wanted to ensure that its investments in tin and rubber were not lost in the wake of its withdrawal.

However we are left with several ponderables:

Malaya (then under Tunku Abdul Rahman)negotiated its independence on terms that were mutually beneficial to both sides. The British were not shot to pieces or blown to bits, and despite the loss of lives in the guerilla war the human cost was less than what was paid in Vietnam and Indonesia.

Conversely, in the three countries where the anti-colonial struggle was led by the native armed forces - Indonesia, Vietnam and Burma - the army then came to power and dabbled directly in politics for decades to come. Had a similar war been fought in Malaya, could there have been a situation where a nationalist army would then come to power too, with generals and colonels taking over government as they did in Vietnam, Indonesia and Burma?

Which then brings us to the debate over 'negotiation vs struggle'. Just take a flight to Vietnam or Indonesia and everywhere you will see statues of freedom-fighters, generals, colonels, guerilla leaders etc.

Malaya's first generation of leaders, on the other hand, had almost never fired a shot or stabbed anyone with a bayonet. But is that a bad thing?

While I understand the value of patriotism and valour in the face of adversity; one also has to ask: if and when we are confronted by a departing adversary who wishes to negotiate the terms of withdrawal, should we negotiate or fight?

I am personally bored by all this tostesterone-driven talk of macho deeds of heroism, and frankly hate any sort of violence. Looking to India, we ought to remember that while there were Indian nationalists who were prepared to fight the British militarily (like Subhas Chandra Bose), India's independence was negotiated too - through passive civil disobedience and persistent resistance, rather than guns and grenades. The same could be said of South Africa, where Apartheid was brought to an end by claiming the moral high ground rather than to sink to the same level of guttaral violence like the regime's.

Should the Malayan nationalists have opted for negotiation or struggle then? Now quite honestly I do not see how this question can be answered objectively by anyone (even myself). What we can say, with some certainty, is that in the cases of the countries where local nationalist militias/armies did oppose the departing colonial powers the results have been military intervention, and subsequent military presence in politics. (The Indonesian armed forces during the time of Sukarno and Suharto claimed the right to be political, by virtue of its institutional history and its role in the anti-colonial war.)

What then? Could Malaya/Malaysia have then become a militarised state? We simply do not know, and speculation beyond this is, simply, futile.

At the root of the present impasse in Malaysia seems to be the question of who writes our national history and who interprets/defines it. Perhaps one of the reasons why we keep returning to these debates time and again is the worry that our history has not been as inclusive as it ought to be.

We cannot deny that in the end it was the UMNO/MCA alliance that won the terms of Malaya's first independence in 1957. But we also cannot, and should not, deny the historical role played by other groups including the trade unions movements, the workers movements, the nascent vernacular press, the native intelligentsia, the cultural groups, the Islamists and the Leftists as well.

All of them were part of this collective drama that we call our national history. And our national history has to be precisely that: a National History that mirrors the complexity and diversity of this complex thing called 'Malaysia'.

My lament, as an academic by default, is that objectivity and balance have long since left the stage and gone flying through the window. Yet we should not forget that a lopsided, skewered and biased history is not simply an incorrect or incomplete record of our past; it would also be a broken legacy that sadly will be passed on to the generations to come. And that is not a singular loss to any one of us, but to all.



[Dr Farish A. Noor is a Senior Fellow at the S Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Singapore, and is the author of several books including a two-volume history of PAS, Islam Embedded. He also contributes to Harakahdaily/en through his column]



- Harakahdaily

[pywong]

Politics: Corruption in BN & PR - A Historical Perspective


What happened in 1974? The Federal Govt robbed the states of their oil and gas.

EPISODE 1: How East Malaysia and Terengganu were robbed of their wealth (http://www.malaysia-today.net/mtcolumns/47092-episode-1-how-east-malaysia-and-terengganu-were-robbed-of-their-wealth)

http://www.tindakmalaysia.com/showthread.php/4453-Politics-Corruption-in-BN-PR-A-Historical-Perspective?p=12098#post12098