Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 80

Thread: The rat race part v - the malaysian rat race

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Oct 2008

    Re: THE SOCIAL CONTRACT - What social contract? — Clive Kessler

    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....

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Oct 2008

    Re: THE SOCIAL CONTRACT - Khoo Kay Kim: 'Those who question Malay rights blind about history'

    In post #3, we said:

    Quote Originally Posted by pywong View Post

    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.

    And Hitler’s Minister of Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels 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.

    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 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
    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
    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.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Oct 2008

    Re: THE RAT RACE PART V - The Original Heroes of Merdeka

    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

    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) 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)

    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)

    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....

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Oct 2008

    Social Contract: Setting the Record Straight

    Quote Originally Posted by pywong View Post
    (A look at Malaysian history beyond race and religion)

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


    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.

    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

    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.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Oct 2008

    RPK: The Real Social Contract 1956 - Memorandum by the Secretary of State for the Colonies

    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.


    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 (, 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....


  6. #66
    Join Date
    Oct 2008

    Memorandum by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Part 2

    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.


  7. #67
    Join Date
    Oct 2008

    ‘Ketuanan Melayu’ was not part of the Merdeka deal part 3

    ‘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.


    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


  8. #68
    Join Date
    Oct 2008

    The agreement on the Malayan Civil Service part 4

    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.


    Raja Petra Kamarudin


  9. #69
    Join Date
    Oct 2008

    The ‘Social Contract’ is signed and sealed on 8th February 1956 part 5

    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


    Raja Petra Kamarudin


  10. #70
    Join Date
    Oct 2008

    The Constitutional Conference was attended by the Alliance government and not Umno part 6

    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.


    Raja Petra Kamarudin


Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast

Visitors found this page by searching for:


a pyramid of the three estates in the french revolution

ishak haji muhammad

British realized  they would fail without the support of the Malay Union.

angkatan pemuda insaf

dr burhanuddin helmi

malaysian rat

colonial society pyramid

pyramid of political in malaya

price of road barriers to buy in selangor

proposal of federation of malaya

reid commission

berita malai

articles of british colonization in malaysia impacttree diagram templatepyramid of races superior englishFEDERAL MALAY STATESdr burhanuddin helmyDIAGRAM CONSTITUTION IN MALAYSIAchinese triadscrown colony diagramhorse racing sector diagramhassan adliatlantic slave trade rank pyramidchinese society pyramid emperor king governor
SEO Blog

Tags for this Thread


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts