Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678
Results 71 to 80 of 80

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

  1. #71
    Join Date
    Oct 2008

    The Constitutional Conference also addressed amendments to the Federation Agreement part 7

    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.


    Raja Petra Kamarudin

    [/IMG] Malaysia-today....

  2. #72
    Join Date
    Oct 2008

    Concluding the series on the Constitutional Conference which was the foundation of the ‘Social Contract’ part 8

    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.


    Raja Petra Kamarudin



  3. #73
    Join Date
    Oct 2008

    Federation of Malaya Independence Act 1957 part 9

    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.


    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.


    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”.


    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.


    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....

  4. #74
    Join Date
    Oct 2008

    Why Onn Jaafar really left Umno to form the IMP part 10

    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).


    Raja Petra Kamarudin


  5. #75
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Important lessons of history here on UMNO perfidy:

    Why the Brits needed to beat the CPM

    William Arul
    Sep 4, 11


    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'? by Phillip Deery, Fellow, International Center for Advanced Studies, New York University.

    I will recommend a good read of this article.


  6. #76
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Monday, 05 September 2011 00:50

    Of Tok Janggut and Umno's distortion of history to fool the less educated

    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

  7. #77
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Tuesday, 06 September 2011 08:39

    Historical reconstruction again?

    Written by Malaysia Chronicle , Farish Noor

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	fab9d818a5f5e6099931ae908c1fe2b0_S.jpg 
Views:	27 
Size:	33.1 KB 
ID:	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 194

    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

  8. #78
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Politics: Corruption in BN & PR - A Historical Perspective


  9. #79
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    How the Rat Race System squeeze you.

    EPF reminds members of new minimum savings

    KINIBIZ With days left before the new year, the Employees Provident Fund (EPF) is reminding its members of its new minimum savings benchmark that requires members to have RM196,800 in their EPF accounts by age 55, which will take effect in January 2014.

    Earlier this year, the retirement savings fund revised its basic savings levels to be in line with rising costs of living, increasing life expectancies for Malaysians as well as inflation.

    This is to enable EPF’s “13 million members to have an adequate and healthier level of savings to achieve a sustainable retirement,” EPF general manager for public relations Nik Affendi Jaafar said.

    The revision, benchmarked against the minimum pension for public sector employees and is equivalent to RM820 a month for 20 years from age 55 to 75, is a 64 percent jump from the previous basic saving level of RM120,000 at age 55, which Nik Affendi says may not be enough to support members’ retirement as it is below the poverty line.

    In a statement, EPF said its statistics showed that 71 percent of the fund’s members retire with less than RM50,000 in their EPF account.

    In addition to the revised minimum savings, EPF has also taken other measures in its effort to drive up members’ retirement savings, among which are introducing 13 percent employer’s contribution rates for those earning below RM5,000 a month, full EPF contribution rates for employees aged up to 60 and offering financial advisory services to members beginning next year, via a pilot project in the Klang Valley, before a national roll-out in three years’ time.

    One effect of the revised minimum savings is that members will need to have more money saved in their EPF accounts before they can participate in unit trusts through the EPF Members Investment Scheme.

    “This is to ensure that members have sufficient savings in their EPF account when they retire to finance their basic retirement needs before they can opt for other investment options,” Nik Affendi said.

    In its statement, EPF also advised its members to identify their personal risk factors and investment objective before participating in the scheme, in addition to evaluating whether they are comfortable with the fund manager’s investment style.

    The retirement savings fund also suggests that members seek professional advice before participating in the scheme as its risks and structure are different from that of the EPF.

    Earlier this year KiniBiz ran a four-part series that put EPF in the spotlight, in which EPF chief executive officer Shahril Ridza Redzuan discussed the issue of insufficient savings for retirees.

  10. #80
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Quote Originally Posted by pywong View Post

    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.

    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.
    Shariah, the rulers and citizens: remembering 1963

    Rama Ramanathan trained to be an engineer, retired as a global quality leader and now works to catalyse change in society. He blogs at

    Published: 25 June 2015

    Malaysia is a miracle nation. When the Union Jack came down in 1957 and Malaya became a member of the British Commonwealth, many thought we would soon fail.

    We had one of the oddest constitutions in the commonwealth. We defined “Malays” and granted them a special position.

    We entrenched nine Rulers and at the same time stripped them of powers. We “barred judicial review of some breaches by Parliament of the fundamental rights of citizens” (Shad S Faruqi).

    We were beset by internal and external strife. There was massive poverty. Economic activity was race-based. A communist insurgency was on.

    Many institutions – including the police force – continued to be helmed by the Brits, who also owned vast plantations and most large corporations. Indonesia sought to subjugate us.

    Yet despite predictions of failure, unlike many other nations in the commonwealth, we did not tear up our constitution. We merely made over 650 amendments to it.

    Some amendments were good. For instance, a special court was established to prosecute the Rulers.

    Some amendments were awful. For instance, numerical limits on the sizes of electoral constituencies were removed.

    As a result of this our Election Commission can pretend that one is approximately equal to four. (In the 13th general election, Sabak Bernam had about 37,000 voters while Kapar had about 144,000 voters.)

    Our Constitution has kept us from crashing as a nation over the past 58 years.

    Due to the role given to the Rulers, governing Malaysia requires more internal diplomacy than governing any other nation.

    The modus operandi of Perkasa, Malaysia’s crude Malay superiority group, is to interpret everything they oppose as a threat to the Rulers.

    That is also the modus operandi of the two Malay political parties, Umno and PAS. They compete to present themselves as defenders of the honour of the Rulers.

    Malaysian Indians have caught on: a deliberate decision to adopt the modus operandi of the Malay parties is the only tenable explanation for the police report which 46 “Indian NGOs” made last week against minister Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz for his “we will whack you” rejoinder to the crown prince of Johor when the latter criticised Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak.

    The NGOs wished to be seen as supporters of the prince who may one day rule Johor.

    I’ve been thinking about our constitution because Malaysia’s Islamist party, PAS, is trying to get Parliament to give the state government of Kelantan the right to legislate on matters which are currently the sole prerogative of the federal government.

    Our government has responded to PAS by offering to support Kelantan’s desire if PAS agrees to get into bed with Umno, Malaysia’s Malay-Muslim party.

    Four citizens have responded to our government by filing an injunction in court to prevent the tabling of Kelantan’s desire in Parliament.

    The four citizens have caused the parliamentary tabling of Kelantan’s desire to be put on hold until the court hears and rules on their argument that a fundamental change cannot be proposed without first obtaining the consent of the people.

    The citizens’ injunction reminded me of another injunction, filed 52 years ago.

    In 1963 the state government of Kelantan filed an injunction to stop the federal government from forming the Federation of Malaysia by bringing in Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak as new members.

    The basis of Kelantan’s argument was that fundamental changes were being proposed without first obtaining the consent of Kelantan. (The term “basic structure” was not used at that time.)

    The changes did seem fundamental. The three “new members” would not be equal partners with the prior members.

    Sabah and Sarawak would have disproportionately large representation in Parliament, would have the right to impose domestic immigration controls and would have the right to impose taxes beyond what the prior members had.

    Islam would not have ceremonial pre-eminence in Sabah and Sarawak. (In the interest of brevity I omit Singapore’s privileges.)

    PAS/Kelantan raised the issue before the court as a challenge of state power by the Federal government. One of their five arguments was, “Constitutional convention dictates that consultation with Rulers of individual states was required before substantial changes can be made to the Constitution” (Johan S Sabaruddin).

    The court had to act rapidly, as Kelantan began the action on September 10, 1963, a mere six days before Malaysia day.

    The court ruled against Kelantan. Malaysia was not aborted. The decision was clear. The Rulers need not be consulted. The people were sovereign, through Parliament. The constitution triumphed. The miracle continued.

    The 1963 constitution should be the lens through which we look at the challenges of governing Malaysia, exploitation of patronage and attempts to thwart federalism. – June 25, 2015.

    * This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insider.

Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678

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