Month: August 2012

I wrote this article last year when I saw there was an attempt to skew history, partly for political gains, and partly because of ignorance of our history.  I found it disheartening, too, when people representing the government did not do a good job at explaining who PKMM, or API, or AWAS were in relation to the rise of Malay nationalism, in relation to the struggle this nation from the clutches of the British.  Were they really freedom fighters, or were they fighting for Malaya to be part of something bigger?

———————————————————————————————————————————————–

Very early one morning as I prepared to go to school, I could hear a distant dull explosion, followed a bit later by the rattle of the window panes. It was 1975, 7 years into the Second Emergency. It preceded the assassination of the then Chief Police Officer of Perak, Tan Sri Khoo Chong Kong (November 1975), and in turn was preceded by the assassination of the then Inspector-General of Police, Tan Sri Abdul Rahman Hashim. These events were among the reasons that drove me to serve in the Malaysian Armed Forces and managed to join the later part of the Second Emergency campaign.

The Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) has its roots from the South Seas Communist Party (SSCP), otherwise known as the Nanyang Communist Party, that was headquartered in Singapore. The latter was formed by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in 1922. Since communism was introduced to this region by Dutch radicals, the SSCP’s theater of operations were mainly focused in the Dutch East Indies, infiltrating trades unions and disrupting lives. The SSCP attempted an uprising in 1925 which was crushed by the Dutch East Indies authorities and retreated to Singapore where they grouped up. In 1930, the SSCP was dissolved and the Communist Party of Malaya was born.

We all know what happened during the post-war years preceding the First Malayan Emergency. But let me add a point to make people understand a fact here. In my Twitter profile, I described myself as …not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally. This is to show my political stand (or the virtual absence of it). I have friends on both sides of the political fence. One thing I cannot stand is stupidity and blind loyalty. The left-leaning side (depending on which compass direction you are facing) claims that the Tunku, Tun Abdul Razak, Tun Hussein Onn and Tun Mahathir were not freedom fighters. They have been accused as British lackeys, serving the Colonial government’s interests. I guess I will have to forgive them for their lack of knowledge in history before I bludgeon any of them for their sheer stupidity, but:

Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun Abdul Razak, Tun Hussein Onn and Tun Dr Mahathir all came from the states of Kedah, Pahang and Johor. When were these states under Colonial rule at any time other than during the brief Malayan Union period?

I should bludgeon the right-leaning side as well for not noticing the above for their defence. Shame on you.

The CPM was organised into the Malayan People’s Anti-British Army but changed that to the Malayan People’s Liberation Army (MPLA) with the aim to set-up the People’s Democratic Republic of Malaya (and Singapore). I guess most of us know the connotation of the name, and countries that had inherited the name, such as the People’s Democratic Republic of Korea (aka North Korea).

The MPLA was supported by the CPM’s civilian organisation named Min Yuen. This organisation organised supplies for the MPLA.

The first Malayan General Elections was held in 1955, and Malaya had its first Chief Minister: Tunku Abdul Rahman, whose first act was to bring peace to the nation by declaring partial amnesty to members of the CPM. This partial amnesty was called off 6 months later with only 17 members of the CPM surrendering.

I will also not dwell so much on the details of the First Emergency (1948-1960), but for those not in the know, there was the first National Service registration in the late 1950s after we gained our independence. Some 240,000 registered to combat the communists, or 17 percent of the 1.4 million inhabitants of Malaya then. 20,000 were called up, but only 1500 reported for training. All of them were absorbed into the Federation of Malaya Police Force.

Then, there was a second National Service registration in 1958, but those registered were never called up because by then the members of the CPM realised that the independent Government of the Federation of Malaya, headed by the Tunku and backed by the parties representing the Malays, Chinese and Indians, was not offering any more amnesty and was adamant to obliterate the CPM. This drove the members to surrender by the hundreds, wave after wave, that in the middle of 1958 the CPM, whose MPLA was active only in Perak and South Johor by 1957, had to fall back to the Thai side of the border. Chin Peng and his Central Executive Committee had of course retreated in 1953 when the tide started to turn against the CPM.

In 1960, the Government of the Federation of Malaya declared the Malayan Emergency (First Emergency) over.

I WILL WRITE ABOUT THE CPM IN THE 1960s AND THE SECOND EMERGENCY

We may have left the previous century more than a decade ago, as we have left the pains of the May 13th tragedy 43 years ago; but believe me, the game played by the politicians has not changed much. According to Dato’ Seri J.J Raj Jr, the Opposition parties back in 1969 had touched on issues such as the Malay “special rights”, “Malaysia for Malaysians”, “Equality, Justice, and Equal Opportunities for All”, while an Islamist party put up the slogan “Race, Religion, and Country.”

This all sounds eerily familiar today when people are challenging Article 153 of the Federal Constitution, Dong Zong’s claims, Hudud so on and so forth. All that had been agreed upon by our forefathers so we could all become Malaysian are now being questioned. Racial and religious extremism has reared its head yet again. However, this isn’t the first time since the May 13th tragedy that racial tension has been on a spike. I will come to this later.

In 1969, despite intelligence from the Special Branch, the Prime Minister decided to hold the elections. There was a campaign period of about three weeks after nomination day in April 1969 until polling day on 10th May 1969. A long cooking period brought about an explosive outcome. Racial tension had always been high, with the Opposition parties organising almost weekly demonstrations and strikes to fuel the tension. We see this happening today with several opposition-linked movements disrupting lives in several cities at the same time. On 24th April, 1969, an UMNO man, Encik Kassim bin Omar, was riding his motorcycle when he was stopped by a group of youths who assaulted him so viciously that he succumbed to his injuries. The youth then smeared his face with red paint that was used to write anti-government slogans moments before the assault took place.

On 4th May 1969, Police Constables doing their rounds in the early hours of the morning in Kepong, chanced upon several men who were writing anti-government slogans on the road. When they questioned the youths, they were attacked with iron rods, firewood and stones. The policemen retreated to the nearby market but the youths continued to attack them. One of the policemen opened fire and unfortunately killed one of the youths. As a contrast, the UMNO member was buried without much noise, but the Labour party had other ideas for their fallen member.

The Labour Party then had the youth’s body kept at a funeral parlour in Jalan Sultan. They then applied for a permit to hold a funeral procession. The OCPD of KL had rejected the permit as there was clear and present danger that the situation would turn explosive. However, this decision was overruled by the Home Ministry provided the procession followed the pre-determined routes. The procession attracted thousands including members of the Communist Party of Malaya and its sympathizers and was held on the 9th May, 1969, less than 24 hours before polling day. The procession participants shouted anti-government slogans, and hurled abuses at policemen on duty, calling them “running dogs” and other derogatory terms. When the police refused to engage them, they hurled abuses at the Malay bystanders shouting, “Die, Malays (Malai Si).” They did not keep to their approved routes, but made stops to hurl abuses at other races, harangued them, and even stopped in front of the UMNO building on Jalan Chow Kit.

As we know, the Alliance (UMNO, MCA, MIC) suffered a setback. And most sensitive was the state of Selangor, where DAP won four seats, Gerakan (which was an opposition party then) won four, and an Independent won one; the Opposition had won half of Selangor’s seats. As a result, victory parades were organized on a large scale and without police permit. The mobs became unruly, rowdy, and hooliganism ruled the day in defiance of the rule of law. They went to predominantly Malay areas, particularly Kampung Baru, challenged the Malays and hurled insults at them. Some even went to Dato’ Harun Idris’s house to tell him that he was no longer the Menteri Besar of Selangor. Patience was running thin among the Malays. While Gerakan had apologized for the behaviour of some of its members, supporters of the DAP continued to display, in the words of Dato’ Seri Yuen Yuet Leng, “excessive Chinese chauvinistic” behaviour towards the Malays.

UMNO members demanded to Harun Idris to hold their victory procession as well, as they had not lost the elections. At first, Dato’ Harun was not keen, but after assurance that a police permit would be obtained, he agreed. Selangor UMNO branches were to send participants to Dato’ Harun’s residence by 7pm on 13th May 1969. While they were on their way, racial clashes, for whatever reason, broke out in the Setapak area. The thousands that have thronged Dato’ Harun’s residence just blew up and headed towards Setapak, very unlike the watered-down version I was told shown in ‘Tanda Putera.’

The police did everything to maintain law and order, that even staff from Bukit Aman and recruits from the Police Depot were deployed to assist in maintaining law and order. Curfew took effect and strong personalities prevailed. In Negeri Sembilan, Dato J.J Raj Jr who was the state’s Chief Police Officer quickly went to seek the audience of Tuanku Jaafar, the Yam DiPertuan Besar, and briefed His Majesty on the situation. True to the traditions of a great Ruler, Tuanku Jaafar analysed the proposals from the police, and then gave J.J Raj Jr a clear and simple but firm order:

“Go ahead and maintain law and order at any cost.”

It was His Majesty’s order that saved Negeri Sembilan from a total bloodbath, save for a case or two. Political leaders from both sides of the fence, and elements of secret societies were rounded up and held at the Pudu Jail in Kuala Lumpur. Demands from senior office holders from both sides were totally ignored by the police.

The other strong figure that came (back) at the right time was Tun Dr Ismail. Despite being ill, he returned to the Cabinet as the Home Affairs Minister and declared on national radio and television:

“Democracy is dead. I will not tolerate nonsense from anyone, irrespective of race, religion or colour.”

Tun Dr Ismail was from a rare breed. He was not a vote-catcher,brooked no nonsense from any quarter, and was absolutely impartial and fair-minded. The kind of man that a Home Affairs Minister should be, what more in times when we now see the ugly head of extremism coming back to haunt us all.

To cut a long story short on the 13th May 1969 tragedy, it was an event that shook us all up. Decades of pent-up feelings culminated in an explosion on that day. For whatever reasons it happened, I can only think of two reasons – one, being disrespectful of the agreements made by all races that have been enshrined in the Federal Constitution, and two, continuous provocation by those with political gains to be made at the expense of the uninformed. And this, as I have mentioned above, sounds eerily familiar today.

After that wake-up call in May 1969, Malaysians seem a bit more tolerant towards each other. This gave the police the opportunity to spend more time and effort in combating the second emergency against the communist terrorists that began a year earlier. It was during this emergency that the police was struck twice by the communist terrorists when they assassinated the IGP, Tan Sri Abdul Rahman Hashim on 7th June 1974, and the CPO of Perak, Tan Sri Khoo Chong Khong on 13th November 1975. The National Monument dedicated to the sacrifices of the security forces during the First Emergency was also bombed on the 27th August 1975. You can read more about the Second Emergency in a previous posting of mine.

Towards the end of 1985, a team of 200 policemen under the orders of the Home Affairs Minister, Musa Hitam, laid siege on several kampung houses occupied by about 400 followers of Ibrahim Mahmud a.k.a Ibrahim Libya, a PAS personality, in Memali, Kedah. This happened when Prime Minister, (then Dato Seri) Dr Mahathir Mohamad was away in China. The police action resulted in 14 villagers and 4 policemen dead. The IGP, (then Tan Sri) Hanif Omar, who was away on study leave in England, had to return home immediately after his final law exams to attend to the matter. As a result, Musa Hitam resigned from his posts of Deputy Prime Minister and Home Affairs Minister.

Racial chauvinism reared its ugly head again in the mid-1980s. Anwar Ibrahim, who was the Minister of Education then, wanted to convert several Chinese vernacular schools into National primary schools. The MCA was taken to task by DAP to ask for the government to repeal Section 21(2) of the education Act, 1961, and to adopt the “No Single Chinese School Closure” policy. The Minister refused to budge. Lim Kit Siang then called the MCA mere “passengers” on the Barisan Nasional ship.

In June 1987, according to Lim Kit Siang, the Deputy Education Minister from MCA, Woon See Chin spoke at an MCA Seminar enumerating certain grievances including certain schools were told to remove display of the crucifix in classrooms; non-Muslim students being coerced to recite phrases or follow certain ceremony which are repugnant to their personal religious beliefs or practices so on and so forth, things that happened during Anwar Ibrahim’s watch as the Education Minister. On 11th October, MCA, DAP and Gerakan joined by Dong Jiao Zhong protested against Anwar’s Ministry’s appointment of 100 non-Chinese senior assistants and principals to Chinese schools.

The UMNO Youth retaliated by organizing a mass rally of 10,000 members at the TPCA Stadium in Kampung Baru. Both UMNO and the Chinese-based organizations respectively called for the resignation of MCA Deputy President (and Labour Minister) Lee Kim Sai and Education Minister Anwar Ibrahim. A mammoth rally was planned in conjunction with UMNO’s 41st anniversary. Despite fears of another racial strife, Deputy Home Affairs Minister Megat Junid, and Deputy Prime Minister Ghafar Baba, assured the public that everything would be okay. The Prime Minister Dr Mahathir was away in Vancouver, Canada attending the Commonwealth Head of Governments Meeting.

The police thought otherwise. The media was already adding fuel to fire. The IGP, Tan Sri Mohammed Hanif Omar, who was in Singapore, flew home for a discussion with his Director of Special Branch, Datuk Rahim Noor, who had kept a close eye on the ugly development. Hanif then summoned his directors and senior officers to Fraser’s Hills for a secret meeting. The conclusion of that meeting was that the mammoth rally should not be allowed. The Directors went through a long list of names of potential trouble-makers and shortlisted 106.

When Dr Mahathir returned to Kuala Lumpur, Hanif immediately briefed on the situation and how bloodbath is imminent. Hanif also impressed upon Dr Mahathir that the responsibility to maintain law and order is the police’s and that Dr Mahathir’s role would only be necessary if those arrested were to be detained for longer periods. On 27th October 1987, with an ostensible reason for the police to precipitate an action, the 106 listed were arrested. Printing licenses were revoked and all rallies, including the planned mammoth UMNO rally. A bloodbath was averted, and just in time, 18 years after the 13th May tragedy.

We all know how touchy some subjects are. When representatives from MCA and MIC met with UMNO to discuss citizenship for the Chinese and Indians, they discussed all matters that are now enshrined in the Federal Constitution. The Rukunegara (National Principles) was born as a result of the 13th May tragedy. The five principles of the Rukunegara call for us, as Malaysians, to believe in God, to be loyal towards the King and Country, the supremacy of the Constitution, the Rule of Law, and Courtesy and Morality. Nowadays, we hardly see any of those principles being upheld by politicians and laymen alike.

We see politicians using God as a front to achieve political ends; we see politicians and laymen ridiculing not just the King but also the Country; we question the Constitution and what had been agreed to by our forefathers; we champion breaking of laws through demonstrations and other acts of defiance; and we no longer show courtesy nor morality towards others. We, Malaysians, have lost our integrity and dignity as the peoples of this nation.

Stop whatever thoughts that we have, take a step back and think about what it was like back then, the struggles our forefathers endured to make us a nation. When we listen, listen fairly and objectively. Do not adopt the herd mentality of believing everything that you hear from friends or read on the Internet without verifying, or at least use the brain God gave you to weigh the logic of things.

Be thankful that we were born into a plural society. God asked us to learn from each other, not hate each other. If we do not attempt to learn from each other, then this nation will have a troubled future.

I ask you my friends, with the National Day and Malaysia Day around the corner, be more tolerant towards one another.

Selamat menghayati erti Kemerdekaan. Selamatkan Malaysia dari pelampau politik dan agama.

Hate me, but the Malays have always been the recognised natives of the land. I am not fanning racial sentiments, but merely pointing out that historically, the Malay Peninsula has always been the home of the Malays. The Malays then lived without boundaries, and flowed between islands in the Malay Archipelago, even with the conquest of Malacca by the Portuguese who were there to seek revenge against Muslims in 1511, and the subsequent colonization of Malacca by the Dutch in 1641, there was no stop to the flow of Malays between one point to the other. It was the Anglo-Dutch Treaty of 1824, a treaty that split the Malay Peninsula with Sumatra and the rest of the Malay Archipelago.

In my reply to The Mambang on her comment in a previous posting, I pointed out that the Anglo-Dutch Treaty of 1824 did not make the Malay states a colony of Great Britain:

The Anglo-Dutch Treaty of 1824 did not make Britain a colonial power in the Malay States. The Dutch, already weakened by the Napoleonic Wars, had to concede that it could not match the growth of Singapore in the East Indies; therefore sought to abandon their claims to the north part of the Strait of Malacca, in exchange for the British not expanding to the islands south of Singapore. In addition, both nations will regard each other as a “favoured trading nation.” The gist of the Anglo-Dutch Treaty of 1824 were:

i) British subjects would be given trade access with the Maluku Islands,
ii) The Dutch cedes all its establishments on the Indian continent (Dutch India) and any rights asssociated with them,
iii) Britain cedes Fort Malborough in Bencoolen and all its properties on the island of Sumatra and not to make any more treaties with any of its rulers or establish any more offices there,
iv) The Dutch cedes Malacca to Britain, never again to open any office on the Malay peninsula or make treaties with its rulers,
v) Britain withdraws its objections to Dutch occupation of Billiton (Belitung) island,
vi) The Dutch withdraws its objections to the British occupation of Singapore,
vii) Britain agrees not to establish any office on the islands of Karimun, of the islands of Batam, Bintan, Lingin or any other islands south of Singapore, or to make treaties with its rulers.

The British were cunning when it comes to acquiring territories. As in the case of Australia, in order to avoid any problems with the native people, they would declare the land as terra nullius (no-man’s land), and this, to a certain extent was applied to the Malay Peninsula. Although in the Federated Malay States the British were employed by the respective Sultans, it is difficult to ignore the fact that the British were here to reap the benefits of this land without wanting to give much back to the native people, but with a degree of subtlety.

In order to keep the Malays from creating trouble for the British, land reservations were introduced to transform the native Malay population into permanent agriculture peasants. It worked for the British well in 1900 when they introduced the Punjab Alienation of Land Act to control and supervise Punjabs as agricultural tribes. This was done on the basis of protecting and preserving the native people by secluding them from the immigrants who were invited to explore the country. The Malays were asked to grow food for the immigrants. As Sir Frank Athelstane Swettenham once said:

“The longer the Malay is kept away from the influence of civilization, the better it will be for him.”

The British brought in lots of immigrants directly for their benefit. Undeniably, they were the workforce badly needed to develop the country. The Indians were British subjects (India was a Colony, while Malaya was not). They were made to work in the estates, and as British subjects, were given basic necessities such as very basic accommodation and Tamil schools. The first Tamil school was opened in Penang in 1816. As the number of estates grew, so did the number of Tamil schools. By 1905, there were 13 government and Christian missionary Tamil schools, the latter were set up as a mean to proselytizing Christianity.

The Chinese were brought in to work the tin mines. Most were in Malaya to make money to be brought back to their families left back in the Mainland. As they had an allegiance to none, enriching themselves in order to achieve a good life once they return to China was a dream of virtually all the Chinese immigrants. Unlike the Malays, they were self-sufficient and very hard-working.

While the British set up the Pauper Hospital (now the Kuala Lumpur Hospital), the Chinese united and collected amongst them enough to set up the first Chinese hospital, the Tung Shin Hospital, where it still stands now, to treat Chinese miners who refused to seek treatment at the Pauper Hospital when the number of Chinese miners who died at the latter hospital increased drastically. They thought the British were killing them on purpose. As the Chinese came from different parts of China, tribal and gang wars were rampant. The British allowed Opium in in order to control them.

This was the way the British divided and ruled. Eventually, swayed by the profit they were earning from the Malay States that they forgot their promise to the Sultans which was to protect the interest and welfare of the Malays. The bulk of the Malays lived in rural areas and they had very minimal contact with the other races, the Chinese were basically in towns and tin mines, while the Indians were in rubber plantations. The effect to this was that the Malays remained backwards and were told to stay as peasants or tillers of the soil, the Chinese inherited all the tradings in the Malay States and became the richest residents, and the Indians remained as rubber-tappers without proper infrastructure. The Malays, according to Chai Hon-Chan:

“…merely retreated from the tide of commercial activity and material prosperity…whereas the British, Europeans, Chinese and Indians had the lion share of the country’s wealth…”

As a result, the Malays who were given land to cultivate, forced by economic disadvantages, began charging or creating a lien (collateral) over their land to the Chettiars. The Malays, already in a disadvantaged position, cried foul and started the “Malaya for Malays” movement in the late 1800s. EW Birch, the 8th British Resident of Perak, recognized this dire situation and quickly proposed a policy of preserving the Malay land. The only way to him to preserve the Malay race was to “free them from the clutches of those people who now remit to Indian large sums of money, which they bleed from the (Malay) people.”

This later became the Malay Reservation Land Act which spirit is preserved in the Malaysian Federal Constitution. Even Sir Frank Athelstane Swettenham conceded that something had to be done to preserve the Malays. He wrote:

“In the Malay sketches contained in this and a previous volume, I have endeavoured to portray,…the Malay as he is in own country, against his own picturesque and fascinating background…The position he occupies in the body politic is that of the heir to the inheritance. The land is Malaya and he is the Malay. Let the infidel Chinese and evil-smelling Hindu from southern India toil, but of their work let some profit come to him.”

For the same reason the British ignored Tan Cheng Lock’s cry of “Malaya for the Malayans.” In the 1930s, Chinese and Indian leaders addressing the Straits Settlements Legislative Council, appealed for some measures of self-government, and to be considered as Malayan Chinese and Indians having a stake in their country of birth and adoption. In my previous writing, The Road To Merdeka – Persekutuan Tanah China I explained at length how the non-Malay Malayan Democratic Union and the Java-leaning Persatuan Kebangsaan Melayu Malaya, supporting the formation of the Malayan Union, had sought for immediate citizenship for the immigrants and a rule other than by the Malay Rulers respectively. It was at this juncture that the British had first offered Malaya its independence, but was rejected by UMNO fearing that the Malays, being minority in his own country, lacking education and economic backbone, might not survive against the other races soon after independence. The Singapore Institute of Management Malay Cultural and Muslim Society noted that the Malay man was an immigrant in his own country; confronted in his own world which he had little control.

Such was the state of the Malays in the Malay States that Dr Lennox A Mills noted:

“…when the British came, the Malay was a poor man in a poor country; when the British left, he was a poor man in a rich country.”

When the Communists ousted the Kuomintang from China in 1949, many overseas Chinese including those in Malaya and Singapore, did not know where to return to; while others sought for the unification of the Chinese in Malaya, with Communist China, through armed struggle. The more broadminded Chinese associations united to form the Malayan Chinese Association (MCA), and together with UMNO, set aside their differences to work together in the Kuala Lumpur Municipal Elections in 1952. It was also in 1952 that the British gave Malayans their term: we can only discuss independence if the people of Malaya are united.

This happened when the Malayan Indian Congress (MIC), that was previously formed to support the fight for the independence of India from the British, joined the Alliance in 1954. The MIC, under Sardhar Budh Singh, was very critical of the Malayan Union. Together under the Alliance, these parties won the first General Elections in 1955, winning all but one seat. This solid mandate by the people of Malaya, comprising of the Malayan Malays, immigrant Chinese and Indians, paved the way for the road to Merdeka.

The Reid Commission was formed in 1956, its members, Lord William Reid (Britian – Chair), Hakim Abdul Hamid (Pakistan), Sir Ivor Jennings (Britain), Hakim B Malik (India), and Sir William McKell (Australia) were proposed by the Constitutional Conference (comprised of members of Her Majesty’s Government, the four Malay rulers, and representatives of the Malayan government that had won the elections in 1955) and agreed by the Queen of England, and the four Rulers of the Federated Malay States representing the Malay States in Malaya. The Commission’s duty was to draft a proposal of the Constitution of Malaya that would incorporate the concepts of Federalism and Constitutional Monarchy, special position for the Malays, Islam as the religion of the Federation, and Bahasa Melayu as its official language, although the Chinese and Indians had their right to vernacular schools protected.

The Reid Commission was not, as portrayed by some quarters, a party to the discussions between the British and Malayan governments, and the Malay Rulers. Their duty was to draft and make recommendations to the Constitution of Malaya. These recommendations were accepted or rejected in agreement by the Constitution Conference – namely the British Government, the four Malay Rulers, and the Government of Malaya that had the mandate of 98 percent of the Malayan people.

The Malayan (subsequently Malaysian) Federal Constitution became the foundation of this nation, agreed upon by our forefathers who were united in their resolve to build a nation where all three races respect the historical background, rights, and nature of the other races, and to live as one in a country they call their own.

Hence, in my opinion, those who do not accept nor respect the agreement their forefathers had made, and the pain they had to go through, so their offspring could become citizens of this blessed nation, should surrender their citizenship and leave for another land of opportunity of their own choice. And Malays who have forgotten the oppression and degradation of dignity their forefathers faced, in my opinion, should also leave.

In the second part, I will touch on the build-up to the May 13 tragedy, the struggle against the Second Emergency, racial and religious extremism and the continual struggle for Malaysia to become one.

The article below was written on the eve of Malaysia Day, 2011.

It has been a year since the Prime Minister announced the doing-away with the Internal Security Act and the Emergency Ordinances.  It was my hope that the move would have been reciprocated with more mature acts by activists and opposition-linked movements.  The introduction of the Peaceful Assembly Act, 2012 was a good move in regulating both the authorities and assembly-organizers alike, but I don’t think the police were ready in their understanding of the requirements of the said law.  The organizers were just bent on breaking whatever law there is.

Looking back, I don’t know if doing away with the ISA was a good thing.  It was a good move; but being popular does not mean it is always necessarily a good thing.  All it needed was some tweaking to prevent it from being abused to achieve political and/or personal means.

In the New Straits Times dated 30th July 2006, Santha Oorjitham interviewed Mr Reginald Hugh Hickling, who assisted in drafting the Federal Constitution and the Internal Security Act, 1960:

Oorjitham: “Is it time for a review of the ISA? What about article 149 and 150 of the Federal Constitution, which permits infringement of human rights during emergencies, but only when necessary?”

Hickling: “With terrorism around the world, I don’t think it’s a good time.”

Oorjitham: “In 1987, you called for a review of the Constitution. Do you still think it is needed?”

Hickling: “No. It is not a good time. You have worldwide terrorism which acts as an inhibition against changing laws. You really want to tighten up laws rather than to relax them.”

———————————————————————————————————————————

“Sometimes a brave thing like this is necessary” – Tun Mohammed Hanif bin Omar, former Inspector-General of Police, commenting on the Prime Minister’s speech as it was being delivered to the nation.

I heard the Prime Minister’s 54th Merdeka cum Malaysia Day speech – all 33 paragraphs, on the radio. It is addressing the people’s concerns. When he took over the helm as the Prime Minister of Malaysia in April of 2009, he promised that he would study the Internal Security Act, 1960 comprehensively. Tonight, he announced that the Act itself would be abolished. So would the Banishment Act, 1959, Restricted Residence Act, 1933, and the Printing Presses and Publications Act, 1984. Apart from that, Section 27 of the Police Act, 1967 will be reviewed in the spirit of Article 10 of the Malaysian Federal Constitution.

The ISA will be replaced by an anti-terrorism Act that would only deal with subversive elements and elements of terrorism, and it would not be as sweeping as the ISA was.

How do I feel about it?

We will be celebrating our 48th year as Malaysia, and it is about time Malaysians show some degree in maturity and accountability in the way they write, speak and act. It is time for Malaysians to open up instead of having myopic views about things that do not represent their beliefs, be it personal or political. It is all about self-censorship. It is about nation-building, not nation-demolishing. It is telling us all to stop manipulating each other, or lie about things when we know the truth. It is about standing up not for ourselves, but for the longevity of this nation.

For BERSIH and the Police, it would mean that the rakyat have a better chance at exercising their freedom to assemble, of course within the limits of the law. The application for a permit to assemble has to be submitted to the police beforehand with all the prerequisites met. If they are met, the police will have to issue a permit and ensure that whilst the rights to assemble by one party is being upheld, the right to the use of roads by road users, the right to the peaceful conduct of business or life of others are also protected. If there is a dispute, both parties (organisers and the police) will have to fulfill the requirements of the law by going for a judicial review. The court of law has the final say – definitely not the organisers, definitely not the police.

It also means those who prefer to cause alarm through their seditious words will be dealt with other laws such as the Penal Code or the Sedition Act. Gone will be the days when the Prime Minister could order for the arrest of a journo just because she wrote something he personally did not like, or something to that effect. Journos should also be more responsible with what they write – write facts with a clear head and not driven by emotions. Write facts and not fabricate lies for political mileage and so on.

It also means the cry for the abolishment of the ISA and other laws deemed by the people to be oppressive now no longer need to be continued – as it is time for all of us Malaysians to stop whatever it is that we are doing that is tearing us as one people apart and start thinking collectively as one people instead of claiming that this small group of “we” represent the people as a whole. Remember, there is always two sides to a coin.

It also means the Police will now have more work to do in accordance to whatever laws they have left to guide them. But it would also mean that the Inspector-General of Police would have to educate his men that knowledge of the law is not to be taken lightly. How the absence of certain laws will dictate how our society would behave after today remains to be seen, as would the after-effects of this decision by the Prime Minister.

Ponder upon this – soon after the May 1969 tragedy, Malaysians were more cohesive than they are now. If you truly value this land we call our home, defend it together, not against one another. Use this new-found “freedom” to unite.

Selamat Menghayati Erti Kemerdekaan dan Selamat Mendalami Makna Penubuhan Malaysia.

———————————————————————————————————————————————

Reginald Hugh Hickling also once said,

“As a lawyer, I’m all for its review but on whether it should be scrapped, I don’t know. You’ve got a multi-racial society [in Malaysia] in which emotions can run high very quickly.”

And in an interview on the Internal Security Act with Geoff Thompson on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation in 2001 said that he was “sorry to say that, in the light of my own experience, I’m inclined to think you couldn’t really safely get rid of it at the moment.”

A mere five months later, his fears were realised by worldwide terrorist attacks.

I wrote this piece last year when there was an attempt by A Samad Said to twist history by calling Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun Abdul Razak and others whom had fought for the independence of Malaya ‘British Lackeys’ (Barua British), and belittled the efforts by representatives of the Federation of Malaya (including the Chinese and Indian) by saying the independence was handed to them on a silver platter.  That was not the case at all, and efforts to explain the correct version of what happened must be an ongoing one.  Unfortunately, I do not see this being tasked to any Ministry, certainly not the Information Ministry.  It is sad that bloggers like I have to do the job for them.

———————————————————————————————————————————————————–

For someone like A Samad Said to say that the Tunku was merely an independence receiver shows the works of a fiction-writer’s mind (Yahoo! News (from Malaysiakini): Pak Samad – Tunku Merely Independence Receiver)

“To me, Tunku was not an independence fighter. He was a receiver, the person approved by the British to ‘receive’ independence… the British felt that the ‘receiver’ must be a person who can take care of its interests in Malaya.”

A fiction writer does not need to know facts, all he has to do is to conjure a litany of half-truths or mere fiction to write, and that was what he did during the forum. It also displays his lack of knowledge in the history of the nation.

In my previous “The Road to Merdeka” series, I have written somewhat extensively to bring readers to one structure of thinking, then explain that the independence was obtained through a constitutional struggle that culminated in the end of feudalism, power to govern was handed by the Malay rulers to the people of Malaya, whilst maintaining the institution of the Malay rulers albeit in a constitutional form.

When the Federated and Unfederated Malay States were perfidiously annexed by the British and lumped in with the Crown Colonies of Penang and Melaka via the Malayan Union on 1st April 1946, it was done so using threats and blackmail on the Malay rulers without consulting the people who were the Rulers’ subjects. Malays all over the peninsula protested in January of 1946 when they got to know of the British’s plan. On 1st March 1946, over 40 Malay political and cultural organisations (PAS had not been born yet) met and 41 of these organisations decided to form UMNO, and three days later, under Dato’ Onn Jaafar, UMNO was formed. It was through this galvanisation of the Malays, united against the Malayan Union that caused the very architect of the Malayan Union, Sir Edward Gent, to declare the Malayan Union unworkable given the resistance by the Malays, a little over a month after it was formed.

Let us also recall that among the organisations that supported the formation of the Malayan Union were the Indonesian-leaning, Malay-dominated PKMM, and the Malayan Democratic Union that was dominated by the other races wanting immediate and automatic citizenship through the Malayan Union.

In 1949, the British government announced that it was to grant eventual independence to Malaya, and issued another in 1952 saying that independence will only be given if the various races were united. But UMNO and MCA called the British’s bluff and fielded their candidates for the 1952 Kuala Lumpur Municipal Election on a common ticket. We all know how that went. That paved way for the Alliance when MIC joined forces and the Alliance won the 1955 General Elections resoundingly.

And how did the struggle for independence go soon after? It was not smooth at all. We all know the British created for the Tunku and TH Tan a hell of roadblocks that they had to lobby friends in the British Parliament before the Colonial Office would even see them.

Prior to this, Onn Jaafar had sought to open up UMNO’s membership to ALL Malayans and rename the party as the United Malayans National Organisation, but his call went unheeded by UMNO’s members. We know now whom the British had favoured when they made the second announcement in 1952. He left UMNO in August 1951 and formed the Independence of Malaya Party (IMP), a multiracial party and had probably hoped that Malayans would support it in order to be granted independence from the British, as it would fulfill the . He misjudged the Malayan people’s resolve, and eventually left the party too, to form Parti Negara, a party with restrictions to non-Malays as members, aimed at winning back the support of the Malays. In 1955, Dato Onn and Parti Negara failed to win a single seat.

Old Samad also conveniently dropped a few names like Burhanuddin al-Helmi, Ahmad Boestamam, Mat Kilau. The latter fought against British influence but was not part of the Indonesian-leaning groups the former two were part of. In fact, Burhanuddin was a member of the militant KMM that was bent on overthrowing the British by force so Malaya could become part of Melayu/Indonesia Raya. He also led Kesatuan Rakyat Indonesia Semenanjung (KRIS) right after KMM was banned, and then the PKMM. Boestamam headed the Angkatan Pemuda Insaf (API), the youth front of the PKMM. After the PKMM was banned for being the Communist Party of Malaya’s United Front and soon after he was released from prison, Boestamam set up the Partai Rakyat Malaya (PRM) in November of 1955 which during its formative years was based on the struggles of Sukarno and subscribed to the Pan-Malaya/Indonesia nationalism.

So to whom did Burhanuddin al-Helmi and Boestamam look up to? Sukarno. Was Sukarno a Malayan? The answer is a definite no.

But like I have been saying all along, who are we independent from? The answer is FEUDALISM, the very system that brought the British advisors in. On 31st August 1957 the Malay rulers handed over power to their subjects, and freed them from having to depend on the British. The British had never colonised Malaya de jure save for the Straits Settlements. If the pro-BN say that we were colonised in any way, they are agreeing to the point made by their opposition counterpart that the Tunku, Tun Razak et al were all British lackeys (Barua British) as the respective states’ administration would have come under the purview of the British. Dare they chance that thought?

For Old Samad, I only have one pantun for him:

“Tersipu-sipu meminta barang,
Menggigil-gigil sebab teruja;
Cukuplah awak menipu orang,
Kubur dah panggil, usia dah senja.”

Was Malaysia a British Colony? The answer is NO. This article was originally produced last year during the Merdeka celebration month here but I thought that it is best to share this again with you.
—————————————————————————————————————————

In the Ashburton Guardian, Volume XIV, Issue 3126 dated 10 November 1893, there was a column entitled: A BRIGHTON SCANDAL. BREACH OF PROMISE SUIT AGAINST A SULTAN. It tells of a certain Miss Jenny Mighell suing a Mr Albert Baker for breaching a promise to marry her. Albert Baker was the name assumed by HRH Sultan Sir Abu Bakar ibni Daing Ibrahim, the Sultan of Johor from 1862 to 1895.

The case set a legal precedence in nations belonging to the Commonwealth of Nations that the ruler of a sovereign state or nation that is a protectorate of the British Empire cannot be tried in a court of law. Johor, in 1885, had signed a treaty of protection with the United Kingdom.

Collectively known as “British Malaya” the Malay states were unlike “British India.” British India started off as a business venture by the East India Company when it established a factory in Bengal in 1612. However, the “company rule” by the East India Company ended with the Government of India Act in 1858 following the Indian rebellion a year earlier. It was ruled directly by the Crown as a Colonial Possession and known thereafter as the Empire of India. The Indian princely states were allowed some measure autonomy in exchange for British suzerainty.

The Malay states comprised of three groups namely the:

1) Federated Malay States: a group of four states – Selangor, Negeri Sembilan, Pahang and Perak, that formed a federation that enjoyed the protection of the British in exchange for an “Advisor;”
2) Unfederated Malay States: Johor, Kelantan, Terengganu and Kedah (and later Perlis after it was independent of Kedah) that did not form a single grouping. Johor signed a treaty of protection with the British in 1885, while the rest became the British Protected States after Bangkok transferred its rights over these states to the British via the Bangkok Treaty of 1909. The Unfederated Malay States lacked common institutions and were not recognised as a single state under International Law.

3) The Straits Settlements – areas along the Malay Peninsula that came under direct British Crown rule (Pulau Pinang, Melaka and Singapore) after being taken over from the East India Company. Initially, the Dindings and Pangkor islands formed part of the Straits Settlements via the Treaty of Pangkor in 1874, but the British gave it up as Pangkor did not serve the British’s economic interest. It was established in 1826 by the East India Company following the Anglo-Dutch Treaty of 1824, but became a Crown Colony on 1st April 1867.

Therefore, the Malay states were never colonies save for Pulau Pinang, Melaka and Singapore that came under direct British rule.

Both the Federated Malay States and the Unfederated Malay States had an “Advisor” appointed who came under the respective Sultan’s or Raja’s payroll to advise on the management of the state’s day-to-day affairs. They were called the “Residents.” They were there in exchange for the protection provided by Britain and do represent an indirect rule by the Crown. While it may be argued that the real rulers were the Advisors, but that is more on a case-to-case basis. Some may be pushy, like Birch who was subsequently murdered for his overwhelming influence in the Perak courts, while some are loyal to their paymaster(s).

One such person was Frank Athelstane Swettenham who first became the Resident of Selangor before convincing the Rulers of Selangor, Pahang, Perak and Negeri Sembilan to form a federation and became the first Resident-General of the Federated Malay States, serving from 1896 to 1901. Swettenham brought about development to the four states and introduced better civil administration. He was one of close to 40 former British Empire officials who were OPPOSED to the Malayan Union on the grounds that the Malayan Union went against the Atlantic Charter (the Atlantic Charter among others stated that there was to be NO territorial aggrandizement after the Second World War). Swettenham, as other Advisors, were on the payroll of the Sultans. There were other British officers who were on the payroll of the Sultans. One example is Major L.Vears, who was the aide-de-camp to Almarhum Sultan Iskandar of Perak.

If you remember the first paragraph, the United Kingdom recognised Sultan Abu Bakar as the reigning sovereign of the country of Johor, a protectorate of the Crown of the United Kingdom, and thus enjoyed the privileges extended to members of royal families. Johor, as other Malay states were at that time, sovereign states, ruled by its own rulers albeit with an appointed Advisor (Johor accepted an Advisor only in 1904). Sultan Abu Bakar and Queen Victoria became lifetime friends; not as a subject, but as real friends who corresponded with each other on a frequent basis.

Another example of “British-Malaya” being a collection of independent states is the donation of the people of Malaya towards the construction of a battleship aptly named “HMS Malaya” during the First World War. Launched in 1915, HMS Malaya served during the Battle of Jutland, and throughout the Second World War before she was sold for scrap in 1948. Her bell can be seen at the East India Club in St James’s Square, London. Among the battleships that served the Royal Navy, only HMS Malaya flew a different ensign: the red-white-black-yellow ensign of the Federated Malay States!

We have now established the fact that the Malay states were never colonised by the British, and that the Residents (Advisors) were appointed and on the payroll of the Malay Sultans. Therefore, those who waged war on the Malayan, and subsequently Malaysian, people are nothing less than traitors to their homeland.

Whether or not the Advisors were the real rulers of the Malay states, we must keep an open mind. Some may have spoken with condescending tone, some may have been more polite. Comments on history are often made by people who are emotionally-scarred, and may be biased as to how they see things, but history cannot be based on emotions – it must be based on facts.

You may now ask, if we were not colonised, then whose flag did we bring down on 31st August 1957, and what are we independent of?

Feudalism!

On 31st August 1957, the Rulers of the Malay States handed over power to the people of the Federation of Malaya through its Chief Minister, thus ending the need to be dependent on the Advisors from the British Empire, turning this land into one with democratic principles with Constitutional Monarchy.

Now that we are independent, perhaps the Department of Museums and Antiquities would like to ask for the bell of HMS Malaya to be brought back to the country that sponsored the ship.